{"id":"court_ctb_2032_48","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2032,"sub_number":48,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-07-25","title":"Exhibit 48 ","summary_zh":"证据附件（检方反对保释信函） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2032-48（2023-07-25立案）。该附件为纽约南区联邦检察官办公室于 2023 年 3 月 29 日在刑事案件 23 Mag. 2007 中提交的信函，反对王雁平（Yanping Wang / Yvette）关于保释条件的动议；信函指控其作为郭文贵幕僚长参与涉及 GTV、农场贷款、G|CLUBS 和喜马拉雅交易所等逾 10 亿美元诈骗案，并在其曼哈顿住所查获逾 13.8 万美元等现金，认为其面临最高 55 年刑期且潜逃风险极高。","summary_en":"Evidentiary Exhibit (Government Opposition Letter) — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / Ho Wan Kwok), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2032-48 (filed 2023-07-25). This exhibit contains the U.S. Attorney's Office for SDNY's March 29, 2023 letter opposing Yanping Wang's bail compliance motion in criminal case 23 Mag. 2007, detailing her alleged key role as Kwok's chief of staff in a fraud scheme exceeding $1 billion involving GTV, Farm Loan, G|CLUBS, and Himalaya Exchange, and arguing she presented a serious flight risk given her $138,000+ seized bulk cash and statutory exposure of up to 55 years.","body_en":"### **Exhibit 48**\n\n\n\n**U.S. Department of Justice**\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007*\n\nMarch 29, 2023\n\n**VIA ECF & Email**\n\nHon. Robert W. Lehrburger Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n### **Re:** *United States v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"* **23 Mag. 2007 (UA)**\n\nDear Judge Lehrburger:\n\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the motion (\"Mot.\") and memorandum of law filed on March 24, 2023 by Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette\" (\"Wang\" or the \"defendant\") in support of her motion for an order directing that she has complied with the terms of her bail conditions (\"Mem.\") (Dkts. 8, 9). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion, which amounts to a second motion for reconsideration, should be denied.\n\n### **I. Overview**\n\nThe defendant is charged with playing a key role in a sprawling and complex fraud spearheaded by Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal\" (\"Kwok\") and his and Wang's co-conspirator, King Ming Je, a/k/a \"William Je\" (\"Je\") that defrauded thousands of victims to invest more than \\$1 billion into Kwok's extensive, sophisticated, interrelated fraudulent offerings through material misrepresentations. The fraud relied on at least four interrelated parts: the GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, G Club Operations, LLC (\"G|CLUBS\"), and the Himalaya Exchange. Kwok, Je, Wang, and their co-conspirators then laundered their fraud proceeds and misappropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud proceeds for Kwok's and others' personal use. As described in charging documents and during prior court appearances in this case, the defendant effectively served as the chief of staff for Kwok and managed the day-today operations of the various entities that Kwok controlled and used to operate the fraud scheme. In that role, the defendant had access to, and signatory authority over, bank accounts that were used to obtain and launder fraud proceeds.\n\nThe defendant presents a serious risk of flight based on her lack of ties to the United States, the nature of the charges, her key role in this serious offense conduct, her substantial financial resources, the significant sentence that she faces, the strong evidence of her guilt, her ties to foreign jurisdictions, and her relationship with co-conspirator and international money launderer William Je, who remains at large. The defendant is a Chinese citizen who emigrated from China to the United States in approximately 2017, filing an application seeking political asylum from the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"), which remains pending. As a general matter, if an asylee is charged with serious criminal conduct while in the United States, the criminal charges can serve as a bar to a grant of asylum. The defendant has no family in the United States. (Mem. at 1.) Not only are the defendant's connections in the United States limited, but she also has substantial connections and resources abroad. She has held passports from various foreign jurisdictions and is the sole director of foreign entities used to facilitate the fraud, including at least one company registered in the British Virgin Islands. Her co-defendant, Je, lives in the United Kingdom and is presently believed to be hiding in the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\"). The defendant also has access to and the support of an extensive network of Kwok's loyal followers dispersed throughout the world. The defendant's only son lives in China, and she has not seen him since she immigrated to the United States.\n\nThe defendant also has the financial means to flee. As described in greater detail below, the defendant has more than \\$1 million in cash in her personal bank accounts and had more than \\$130,000 in bulk cash in a safe in her apartment at the time of her arrest. The defendant also likely has access to assets secreted by co-conspirators abroad, including Je, who personally received millions from the fraud and is a fugitive. Moreover, the defendant has an extremely powerful incentive to flee. The defendant is facing charges that, in total, carry a statutory maximum sentence of approximately 55 years in prison. A conservative estimate of her applicable Sentencing Guidelines range reflects an exposure of approximately 292 to 365 months in prison. Given the substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt and the expected length of her potential sentence, any individual would be highly incentivized to flee; with the defendant's lack of ties to the United States, her ties abroad (including to Je, who is aware of the charges against him and yet remains at large), and the prospect of likely deportation after serving her sentence, the incentives to flee are even greater.\n\n### **II. Procedural History**\n\n### **A. Criminal Charges Against the Defendant**\n\nOn March 10, 2023, the Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein signed a sealed complaint (the \"Complaint\") charging the defendant with conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. The Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n### **B. The Defendant's Arrest**\n\nThe defendant was arrested on March 15, 2023 at her Manhattan apartment. That same day, the FBI conducted a judicially authorized search of Wang's apartment. During that search, the FBI recovered bulk U.S. and foreign currency from inside a safe; specifically, more than approximately \\$138,000 in U.S. currency, approximately £3,000, approximately 1180 Hong Kong dollars, and approximately 600 Chinese Yuan. Additional items inside the safe included expired foreign passports for both the defendant and Kwok from Vanuatu1 and China. (Ex. C at 8:24-\n\n1 Vanuatu is a small island nation in the South Pacific. It has been publicly reported that Vanuatu permits foreign nationals to acquire Vanuatu citizenship in exchange for investments in the country. *See* \"Citizenship for sale: fugitives, politicians and disgraced businesspeople buying Vanuatu passports,\" The Guardian, dated July 14, 2021 (available at\n\n14:10). The FBI also recovered approximately 12 cellphones, two computers, and more than 25 USB flashdrives from the defendant's apartment. Many of the cellphones had been concealed inside original iPhone packaging, in an apparent attempt to conceal that they, in fact, contained data. Other electronics similarly were concealed; for example, a cellphone was found between the mattresses of the defendant's bed and a laptop was tucked between sweaters in the defendant's closet.\n\n### **C. Criminal Charges Against Kwok and Je**\n\nAn indictment (the \"Indictment\") charging Kwok and Je was unsealed on March 15, 2023. *United States v. Kwok et al.*, 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 2). The Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Kwok was arrested in Manhattan on March 15, 2023, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (\"FBI\") conducted judicially authorized searches of three of his residences—his Manhattan penthouse apartment, his Greenwich, Connecticut residence, and his Mahwah, New Jersey mansion. During those searches, the FBI recovered approximately 30 cellphones, approximately 25 computers, and dozens of hard drives and flash drives. One of the cellphones that was recovered from Kwok's Manhattan apartment was located between the mattresses in Kwok's bedroom (*i.e.*, concealed in the same manner as one of the defendant's cellphones had been, in her apartment). The FBI also recovered luxury furniture and goods that had been purchased with fraud proceeds. During the search of a safe located in the Mahwah mansion, the FBI recovered bulk U.S. and foreign currency; specifically, more than approximately \\$394,000 in U.S. currency, approximately €5,000, approximately 188,050 in Hong Kong dollars, and approximately 250 Chinese Yuan. The FBI also recovered evidence of Kwok's foreign travel documents from the Mahwah mansion, including a current Hong Kong passport and a copy of an expired UAE passport. The Government is seeking Kwok's pretrial detention and filed a detention letter in support of its position on March 15, 2023. *See* 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7) (\"Kwok Detention Ltr.\").\n\nThat same day, U.K. law enforcement attempted to arrest Je in London and executed a judicially authorized search of Je's London residence. During the search, law enforcement recovered, among other items, cellphones, bulk cash in various currencies, and two cryptocurrency hardware wallets. While Je remains at large, he is believed to be in the UAE. Kwok and Je have significant ties to the UAE—they moved substantial proceeds of the fraud scheme into and through at least one of Je's UAE bank accounts, which received at least approximately \\$128 million in fraud proceeds that was subsequently misappropriated to Kwok, Je, and their family members or wired to Kwok- and Je-controlled entities. *See* Kwok Detention Ltr. at 9-10. For example, in January 2021, Kwok and Je arranged for the transfer of approximately \\$11 million in fraud proceeds from Je's UAE bank account to a bank account held in the name of one of the Kwok family office entities, which is purportedly owned by a close relative of Kwok. The defendant was the authorized signatory on the particular family office bank account that received the \\$11 million in fraud funds, which was misappropriated for personal lifestyle expenses (*e.g.*, flight crew services on a private jet, luxury automobiles, and yacht expenses). Moreover, as described in greater detail in the Kwok detention letter, Kwok recently undertook efforts to move the Himalaya Exchange's operations, and its money, to the UAE so it will be beyond the \"long arm jurisdiction of the U.S.\" *See* Kwok Detention Ltr. at 19. Indeed, between in or about January and March 2023, at least two individuals who work for the Kwok-controlled entity HCHK Technologies, Inc. spent\n\nhttp).\n\nmore than approximately six weeks in the UAE, apparently to assist in moving Kwok's and Je's operations abroad. As of at least on or about May 23, 2022, the defendant was the 99.9999% shareholder of both HCHK Technologies, Inc. and HCHK Property Management, Inc. through a BVI-registered shell company called Holy City Hong Kong Venture Ltd.2\n\n### **D. The Defendant's Presentment and Bail Hearing**\n\nThe defendant was presented before the Honorable Katharine H. Parker on March 15, 2023. The transcript of that proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit C. During that proceeding, the Government presented the agreed-upon terms of a proposed bail package for Judge Parker's consideration, which included, among other conditions, a \\$5 million personal recognizance bond to be co-signed by two financial responsible persons approved by the Government and secured by \\$1 million in real property and/or cash. (Ex. C at 6-7.) The Government then noted the following proposed conditions that were in dispute: (a) the defendant's release to home detention, reinforced by GPS location monitoring, and (b) the defendant's release from detention only upon satisfaction of all bail conditions. (Ex. C at 8:5-10). The Pretrial Services report recommended conditions of release consistent in all meaningful respects with the Government's proposed conditions, including home detention reinforced with electronic monitoring, that a bond be both secured in part and cosigned by two financially responsible persons, and that the defendant remain detained pending satisfaction of all conditions.\n\nJudge Parker heard arguments from the Government and from the defendant's counsel on the two issues in dispute. Regarding its basis for seeking home detention, the Government emphasized the defendant's significant risk of flight based on, among other things, the large dollar amount associated with the billion-dollar fraud scheme (including, in particular, the \\$100 million wire transfer of fraudulent proceeds that the defendant had sole authorization to conduct); the defendant's access to significant assets; the defendant's control of more than a dozen shell entities used to perpetrate the fraud; the defendant's lack of legal status in the United States; the defendant's access to an extensive worldwide network of Kwok followers and supporters who could facilitate the defendant's flight; the defendant's lack of ties to the United States; the strength of the Government's evidence against the defendant; and evidence that had been recovered from the defendant's apartment during the FBI's search earlier that day.\n\nDefense counsel argued that, based on the defendant's personal background and the circumstances of her seeking political asylum in the United States, the defendant posed essentially no risk of flight to China or \"anywhere China can get their hands on her again.\" (Ex. C at 14:17- 16:10). Defense counsel further argued that releasing the defendant on her own signature \"is easy to do without the Court really worrying that they will never see her again.\" (Ex. C at 16:23-24). Judge Parker asked whether defense counsel had identified financial suretors; defense counsel advised that it had \"offered some people not yet acceptable\" but noted that the Government had \"agreed to have a dialogue with\" defense counsel regarding the evaluation of potential co-signers. 17:21-18:2.)\n\n2 The defendant is listed as the sole director of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd., and she signed various HCHK corporate documents, including shareholder resolutions, in that capacity on behalf of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.\n\nIn response, the Government emphasized the defendant's connections to jurisdictions other than China, including the British Virgin Islands and the UAE, and the amount of bulk cash that was recovered from the defendant's apartment. (Ex. C at 18:15-19:21). The Government also confirmed that it would work with defense counsel regarding the approval process for potential co-signers, but noted for Judge Parker that the two co-signers defense counsel had proposed to the Government prior to the proceeding were individuals whom the Government alleged to be involved with the defendant in the charged fraud. (Ex. C at 20:15-21:3). Defense counsel then replied, in brief, that the defendant \"ended up with a lot of cash in her safe\" because \"nearly a dozen normal banks\" closed the defendant's accounts in the wake of banking issues arising from the GTV private placement civil enforcement action, and that the Government's suggestion that the defendant may have access to additional cash was speculative. (Ex. C at 21:5-22:4).\n\nFollowing argument, Judge Parker ruled for the Government and determined that the defendant should not be released until all conditions were met. Specifically, Judge Parker stated that the following conditions were \"the least restrictive I believe are necessary to\" assure the defendant's return to court and the safety of the community:\n\nMs. Wang will be released subject to meeting all of the conditions. In other words, she's going to be detained until all of the following conditions are met: \\$5 million bond co-signed by two financially responsible persons approved by the government, and it will be secured by \\$1 million in cash or property. Travel restricted to the Southern District, Eastern District of New York. Surender all travel documents and make no new applications. Pretrial supervision as directed by Pretrial Services. Home detention enforced by location monitoring technology as directed by Pretrial Services. Defendant will disclose all assets to Pretrial Services and the U.S. Attorney's Office, including any accounts in her name or controlled by her or by companies in which she has an interest,3 any cryptocurrency, any cash and any other property. Ms. Wang shall have no contact with Mr. Kwok or Mr. Je or other co-conspirators outside the presence of counsel. She shall have no contact with any alleged victims or witnesses outside presence of counsel. She shall reside at the residence at 188 East 64th Street and may not relocate absent permission from Pretrial Services. Defendant shall not open any new bank accounts, lines of credit or loans without prior approval of Pretrial Services.\n\n(Ex. C at 22:6-23:16.)\n\n### **E. Discussions with Defense Counsel (March 15, 2023 – March 21, 2023)**\n\nAs described above, in magistrate court prior to the defendant's presentment on March 15, 2023, defense counsel proffered the Government the names of two potential co-signers—\n\n3 The defendant has disclosed three bank accounts to the U.S. Attorney's Office and Pretrial Services; specifically, she provided an estimate of the balances in her two personal bank accounts (although she has not provided account numbers or detailed account balances), and the account number for a bank account in the name of one of the Kwok family offices that employed the defendant. The defendant has not disclosed any bank accounts associated any other companies that she controls or in which she has an interest, including Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. *See supra* at 4 n.2.\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n### Financial Responsibility Assessment\n\n- o During interview with the Government, he reported having an annual salary of approximately \\$700,000. However, 2021 tax return reflects a gross income of approximately \\$63,583. (Def. Ex. G-4).\n- o reported having approximately \\$70,000 in his bank accounts, but he provided account statements that reflect a balance of only approximately \\$13,000. (Def. Ex. G-3).\n\n### Status as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\n\n- o invested approximately \\$100,000 into GTV in 2020.\n- o invested approximately \\$50,000 into G|CLUBS in March 2021.\n- o invested approximately \\$12,000 in the Himalaya Exchange.wired money into a Himalaya Clearing FV Bank account (which the Government subsequently seized), including approximately \\$2,000 in July 2021 and \\$10,000 in October 2021.\n- **:** Insufficient moral suasion; not a financially responsible person; incomplete documentation; personal investment in the fraud scheme.\n\n## Insufficient Moral Suasion\n\n- o reported having first met the defendant at an \"event\" in June 2021.\n- o stated that he has seen the defendant approximately once or twice per month since mid-2022.\n- o reported that the defendant works at HCHK Technologies.4\n- o When asked where the defendant lives, replied, in sum and substance, \"New York City not sure where.\"\n\n# Financial Responsibility Assessment\n\no reported having approximately \\$1.08 million in assets (in the form of properties and cash) and an annual income of approximately \\$150,000 per year. However, did not provide documentation sufficient to corroborate those purported assets (*e.g.*, most recent tax return; account statements or information for a second bank account; details regarding two purported properties).\n\n### Status as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\n\n- o invested approximately \\$520,000 in GTV in May 2020.\n- o invested approximately \\$20,000 in G|CLUBS in November 2020.\n- o invested approximately \\$60,000 in the Himalaya Exchange in March 2022.\n\n4 As described above, the defendant is the 99.9999% shareholder of that company. *See supra* at 4 n.2. However, the defendant does not appear to hold any formal position at HCHK Technologies.\n\n122\n\n• **:** Insufficient moral suasion; not a financially responsible person; personal investment in the fraud scheme.\n\nInsufficient Moral Suasion\n\n- o reported having met the defendant when he \"nearly started working with\" the defendant at a company called Gettr.5\n- o reported having spoken with the defendant approximately 4-5 times during the Gettr interview process.\n- o reported that the defendant works at Gettr. However, the defendant does not hold any formal position at Gettr.\n- o reported that he speaks to the defendant approximately two to three times a year.\n\nFinancial Responsibility Assessment\n\n- o During interview with the Government, he reported having an annual salary of approximately \\$159,000, which was generally corroborated by provided documents. (Def. Ex. A-3, A-4).\n- o has approximately \\$2,768 in two bank accounts. (Def. Ex. A-3).\n- o annual rent is approximately \\$36,851. (Def. Ex. A-5).\n- o reported having approximately \\$11,000 in credit card debt.\n\nStatus as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\n\n- o and his wife invested \\$34,000 into GTV in May 2020.\n- o also reported that he and his wife invested in the Himalaya Exchange.\n\nThe Government informed defense counsel that it could not approve , or , for the reasons stated above.\n\nOn March 21, 2023, defense counsel called the Government to propose further modifications of the bond conditions that Judge Parker had imposed. During that call, defense counsel said a person (\"Individual-1\") may be able to post \\$2.2 million in equity in an unidentified property to further secure the bond. Only after the Government asked the identity of that person did defense counsel provide Individual-1's name. When the Government advised that it would need to interview Individual-1, defense counsel replied that Individual-1 was not a proposed cosigner, and therefore no interview was required. The Government stated that it would consider the\n\n5 As described in the Kwok Detention Letter, GETTR USA, Inc. (\"Gettr\") is a social media company that Kwok controls through a series of shell companies. *See* 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7 at 10). Gettr and the HCHK entities described herein operate out of the same office location in New York, New York.\n\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n-\n\nconference, the Government provided Judge Netburn with the transcript of the presentment and bail argument before Judge Parker (*i.e.*, Ex. C), and Pretrial Services furnished its report. Defense counsel did not file any motions or other submissions in advance of that conference. At the outset, defense counsel informed Judge Netburn that it was asking Judge Netburn \"to either [ap]prove the people we've proposed [as co-signers] or change the bail conditions in such a way that Ms. Wang can satisfy the bail conditions and be released.\" (Ex. D at 5:10-22). Judge Netburn then stated:\n\nI'm not really inclined to overrule my colleague [Judge Parker] who heard bail arguments and set a bail condition. So I'm not sure that's what I want to do, if that's what you're asking me to do. If you're asking me to consider the reasonableness of the proposed sureters I understand under the law, I can do that. I don't know anything about what that standard of review is, and I don't have any names or documents, so I don't know that that's something I can do from the bench.\n\n### (Ex. D at 6:3-13).\n\nDefense counsel then proceeded to proffer information about the defendant's background, including that \"the only people with whom [the defendant] has contact are people who are part of this [anti-CCP] movement or in some way related to the main defendant in this case. The Government is well aware of this. When we actually agreed to the \\$5 million bond and two cosigners, when we did that we understood that the Government understood . . . that the people who would cosign for her are not going to be her family members.\" (Ex. D at 7:9-20). Judge Netburn confirmed that the defendant had been living in the United States since 2017 and confirmed that defense counsel was representing that, \"in those six years,\" the defendant had not \"befriended anybody who's not within that movement.\" (Ex. D at 7:21-8:1). During the ensuing colloquy, defense counsel referenced the various proposed bail modifications that it had discussed with the Government. (Ex. D at 8:2-11:7).\n\nThe Government responded that the conference was premature, noted that Judge Parker had agreed with both Pretrial Services and the Government that all conditions—including the approval of two co-signers—needed to be met before the defendant could be released, and explained that the Government follows a process to evaluate potential co-signers' qualifications. (Ex. D at 11:10-23). Regarding defense counsel's proposed bail modifications, the Government noted that it had not received basic information from defense counsel (such as, for example, the address of Individual-1's property) sufficient to conduct the basic due diligence required to seriously consider those proposals. (Ex. D at 11:24-12:18). The Government summarized its efforts to evaluate the proposed co-signers and its rationale for concluding that those individuals were not qualified. (Ex. D at 12:19-14:20). The Government then outlined the legal standard for a court to consider the appropriateness of an unapproved surety under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii), which requires a court to assess the surety's financial situation to determine\n\ntwo (unnamed) individuals who were members of Kwok's anti-CCP movement who, although they did not know the defendant, were willing to post property with approximately \\$3 million in collectively equity. Defense counsel did not provide the individuals' names or any details regarding the purported properties, but nonetheless asked the Government to agree in the abstract to the proposal. The Government advised that it could not do so.\n\n-\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\n-\n-\n-\n-\n-\n\no During her interview with the Government, reported that she has approximately \\$1.6 million in equity (and no debt) in her residence. did not provide any documentation corroborating the value of that property or her ownership of the property.\n\n### Status as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\n\n- o invested approximately \\$100,000 into GTV in 2020.\n- o invested approximately \\$50,000 into G|CLUBS in October 2020.\n- **:** Insufficient moral suasion; not a financially responsible person (insufficient documentation); personal investment in the fraud scheme.\n\n### Insufficient Moral Suasion\n\n- o relationship with the defendant is limited to his following her on social media.\n- o reported that he met the defendant at an \"event\" two years ago. However, reported that he has not spoken with the defendant directly.\n- o does not know where the defendant works or lives.\n\nFinancial Responsibility Assessment\n\n- o has approximately \\$27,325 a joint bank account. (Def. Ex. D-3).\n- o joint tax returns reflect taxable income of approximately \\$217,604 in 2021, which consists primarily of capital gains. (Def. Ex. D-4).\n- o During his interview with the Government, reported that he owns two rental properties worth approximately \\$500,000 each. did not provide documentation regarding those properties.\n- o During his interview with the Government, reported that he purchased his primary residence for approximately \\$1.9 million. Defense counsel provided a screenshot from Zillow.com reflecting the estimated home value of the property as purported corroboration of equity in the home, but no additional documentation. (Def. Ex. D-6).\n\nStatus as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\n\n- o invested approximately \\$290,000 into GDollar (relating to GTV).\n- o invested approximately \\$100,000 into G|CLUBS.\n\nOn March 24, 2023, the Government informed defense counsel that it was unable to approve , and as co-signers for the reasons explained above.\n\n### **H. The Defendant's Instant Motion**\n\nOn March 24, 2023, the defendant filed the Motion, which was fashioned as a motion \"For an Order Directing Defendant Has Complied with the Terms of her Bail Conditions.\" Mot. The defendant also filed a memorandum of law in support of that motion, which attached documentation for , and as exhibits. *See* Dkts. 8, 9. The defendant argues that the Government's \"refusal to approve [the defendant's] bond cosigners has been arbitrary.\" (Mem. at 1). The defendant claims that each of her proffered sureties\n\n\"is eminently qualified to serve\" as a co-signer on the \\$5 million personal recognizance bond that Judge Parker imposed as a condition of the defendant's release. (Mem. at 6).\n\nThe defendant moves this Court either to approve two of the defendant's proposed cosigners (without identifying which two) or, alternatively, to modify the bail conditions \"such that [the defendant's] inability to secure co-signers . . . does not prevent her release.\" Mem. at 3. Specifically, assuming the Court does not find that the proffered co-signers satisfy the requirements of financial responsibility and/or moral suasion, the defendant asks this Court to set aside Judge Parker's bail finding and \"eliminat[e] the use of co-signers altogether.\" Mem. at 10.\n\n### **III. Discussion**\n\n### **A. Legal Standard**\n\nUnder the Bail Reform Act, a defendant shall be detained pending trial if \"no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Court must consider a number of factors when deciding an application for bail, including: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, (2) the weight of the evidence, (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The Government bears the burden of proof as to risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence, and as to danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); *United States v. Sabhnani*, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007).\n\nWhere the Court determines that pretrial release is appropriate, the Court should release the defendant subject to the least restrictive condition or combination of conditions, \"which may include the condition that the person include the condition that the person . . . execute a bail bond with \"solvent\" sureties, with a \"net worth which shall have sufficient unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail bond\"). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii); *see United States v. Batista*, 163 F. Supp. 2d 222, 225-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Regarding a determination regarding whether a proposed suretor is \"financially responsible,\" courts have reasoned that \"the relevant standard is 'the ability to pay the amount specified in the bond if [the defendant] fails to appear at trial.'\" *Batista*, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 224 (quoting *United States v. Gotay*, 609 F. Supp. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). \"In addition to the requirement of financial responsibility, a defendant must show that the proposed suretors exercise moral suasion to ensure the defendant's presence at trial.\" *Batista*, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 224.\n\n The Second Circuit has noted that \"sureties are assessed for 'their ability to exercise moral suasion' over the defendant, 'should he decide to flee.'\" *United States v. Baig*, 536 F. App'x 91, 93 (2d Cir. 2013) (describing and quoting *United States v. Martinez*, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1998)) (emphasis added); *see also Christoffel v. United States*, 196 F.2d 560, 565 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (noting that \"the reliability\" of a co-signer is relevant \"where he [is] promis[ing] to pay in the event of non-appearance of the defendant\" and collecting cases).\n\nEven where the least restrictive set of conditions are imposed as conditions of bail, it is \"not unique\" for a defendant to be unable to meet those conditions and therefore to remain detained pending trial. *United States v. Stanton*, No. 91-CR-889-CSH, 1992 WL 27130, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992). In *Stanton*, the Honorable Charles S. Haight noted that defendants confronted with\n\npretrial detention resulting from an inability to satisfy bail conditions \"have invoked § 3142(c)(2), which provides: 'The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.'\" *Id.* The *Stanton* Court cited its prior analysis of § 3142(c)(2) in *Gotay*, where it viewed that provision \"in the context of the Bail Reform Act and its legislative history and concluded that if a defendant cannot meet economic conditions of release reasonably necessary to assure his appearance, he must remain in pre-trial detention.\" *Id.* (citing *Gotay*, 609 F. Supp. at 156).\n\nA party seeking reconsideration faces a high burden.8 \"Reconsideration of a previous order by the court is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources. A motion for reconsideration may not be used to advance . . . facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used as a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.\" *Jackson v. Goord*, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). Under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(f), a detention hearing \"[m]ay be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\" \"A court may properly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information presented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk or danger to the community.\" *United States v. Petrov*, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015), *aff'd*, 604 F. App'x 66 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing *United States v. Hare*, 873 F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1989)).\n\n### **B. Discussion**\n\n### 1) The Government's Decision to Reject Proposed Co-Signers Was Not Arbitrary\n\nThe Government's determination that none of the eight proposed co-signers is qualified is both reasonable and supported by the record. The defendant's proposed suretors are neither financially responsible nor able to exercise moral suasion over the defendant. The Government's individualized assessments also appropriately considered whether any of the proposed co-signers was either a co-conspirator of the defendant and/or an apparent victim of Kwok's, Je's, and the defendant's fraud.\n\n*First,* none of the eight proposed co-signers exerts moral suasion over the defendant sufficient to \"reasonably assure\" her presence at future court appearances, even if her non-\n\n8 There is no specific rule providing for the reconsideration of a ruling on a criminal matter. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. James*, No. 02 CR 0778, 2007 WL 914242, at \\*3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007). However, \"[w]here the Rules of Criminal Procedure do not speak specifically to a matter, a court conducting a criminal case is permitted to draw from and mirror a practice that is sanctioned by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\" *Id.* (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In that regard, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57(b), which is entitled \"Procedure When There Is No Controlling Law,\" provides in part that \"[a] judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, these rules, and the local rules of the district.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b). \"Thus, when deciding motions for reconsideration in criminal matters, courts in this district have resolved such motions according to the same principles that apply in the civil context.\" *Id.* (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\nappearance were to cause a second, financially responsible co-signer to owe the full amount of the bond. As described above, most of the proposed co-signers barely know the defendant, only recently met her, and have sporadic (if any) communications with her. Without sufficient moral suasion, the defendant is unlikely to be concerned that her flight would saddle individuals (with whom she does not have relationships) with debt.\n\n*Second*, all of the defendant's proposed co-signers are involved in the very conduct with which the defendant has been charged, either as subjects of the Government's investigation or as apparent victims of the fraud. Either status renders these individuals unqualified to serve as cosigners who will exert moral suasion over the defendant. To the extent the co-signers are members of the criminal conspiracy, their interests lie just as easily in facilitating the defendant's flight and, given the staggering amount of funds collected involved in this international criminal conspiracy, even losses in the millions could be reimbursed. To the extent the proposed co-signers are victims of the fraud, their status as co-signers provides no assurance whatsoever that the defendant would be dissuaded from flight out of concern for their financial welfare. After all, the defendant is charged with defrauding this very same class of victims\n\n*Third*, even if they had sufficient moral suasion over the defendant, the proposed suretors are not financially responsible. *See, e.g.*, *Batista*, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 225-26 (holding that the Government's decision to reject two proffered suretors was not arbitrary where the individuals reported low income and, in addition, were unable to provide credible documentation that they owned assets they claimed to own). For example, failed to provide the Government with nearly all categories of requested documentation, including proof of address, proof of citizenship or lawful residency, most recent bank statements, and most recent paystubs; and the financial documentation did provide (specifically, his recent taxes) is insufficiently detailed to corroborate or confirm the source of his reported income. Here, where each of the eight proffered sureties is \"other than an approved surety,\" the sureties (or the defendant, on their behalf) is required to \"provide the court with information regarding the value of the assets and liabilities of the surety . . . and the nature and extent of encumbrances against the surety's property\" so the Court can determine whether such surety has \"a net worth which shall have sufficient *unencumbered* value to pay the amount of the bail bond.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii) (emphasis added). The defendant has not provided adequate documentation or information to the Court for it to make such an independent determination. However, even based on the documentation that was provided to this Court, none of the proposed suretors qualifies as a \"financially responsible person,\" because none has \"the ability to pay the [\\$5 million] bond if [the defendant] fails to appear at trial.\" *Gotay*, 609 F. Supp. at 156.\n\n### 2) Reconsideration of the Defendant's Bail Conditions is Unwarranted\n\nAs described above, a party seeking reconsideration of a prior court order faces a high burden. The law is clear that a motion of reconsideration may not be used to relitigate issues already decided by the Court. *Jackson*, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 313. Yet that is precisely what the defendant is asking this Court to do: overrule Judge Parker's well-reasoned determination that the bail conditions the court imposed—including both the requirement of two approved co-signers and the defendant's continued detention until all conditions are satisfied—are the *least* restrictive conditions that can reasonably assure the defendant's presence at future court appearances. (Ex. C at 22:6-23:16.) The defendant goes even further, summarily rejecting Judge Parker's ruling by asserting, in a footnote, that the defendant's bail package would be sufficient to serve the ends of\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3142 even without the requirement of *any* co-signers—a requirement Judge Parker specifically ruled on after hearing argument from both parties. (Mem. at 11, n.3).\n\nThe instant motion is not the defendant's first attempt to seek reconsideration of the bail conditions Judge Parker imposed. The defendant fails to acknowledge that she already attempted an improper motion for reconsideration of Judge Parker's bail determination, before Judge Netburn. During the conference on March 22, 2023, as here, defense counsel asked Judge Netburn to \"change the bail conditions in such a way that Ms. Wang can satisfy the bail conditions and be released.\" (Ex. D at 5:10-22). Yet defense counsel pointed to no information that was not known to the defendant (*i.e.*, the movant) at the time of the initial bail argument before Judge Parker that may have material bearing on an evaluation of conditions of bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).\n\nTo the contrary, in the Government's view, new information that has come to light since the defendant's initial bail hearing that arguably may have justified *more* restrictive bail conditions. First, the Government did not previously know that the defendant apparently has no acquaintances (or even unacquainted financially responsible persons) to put forth as qualified cosigners. Second, since the defendant's initial appearance, the Government has learned that Je remains at large and is likely in the UAE, where he and Kwok have access to substantial resources and fraud proceeds and are believed to be establishing the new operational and financial base of their fraudulent operations. Je is the financier of the fraud scheme and an international fugitive with access to substantial funds and the ability to facilitate and fund Kwok's or the defendant's flight. Finally, as described above, various of the proffered co-signers understand the defendant to work for Gettr and/or HCHK Technologies—Kwok- and Je-controlled companies that are funded, in part, using fraud proceeds—despite the defendant disclaiming any formal affiliation or employment with those entities. That new fact further underscores not only the complexity of Kwok's shell game, but also the defendant's instrumental role as Kwok's trusted chief of staff who is tasked with managing operations at even those entities with which she has no formal affiliation.\n\n### **IV. Conclusion**\n\nAs described herein, the defendant poses an extraordinary risk of flight. During the defendant's initial presentment and bail hearing, Judge Parker carefully considered the recommendation of Pretrial Services and the arguments by the parties regarding what conditions of release, if any, could reasonably assure the defendant's future court appearances or the safety of the community. Judge Parker then made a ruling that the set of bail conditions currently imposed were the least restrictive and further ruled that the defendant needed to satisfy all those conditions before release. The defendant, having failed to do so, now attempts a second end-run around judicial process by asking this Court to approve unquestionably unqualified co-signers or, in the alternative, overrule bail-related decisions by both Judge Parker and Judge Netburn. The defendant has failed to provide any evidence to support her claim that the Government's evaluation of the proposed co-signers is arbitrary or unreasonable, and has presented no evidence sufficient\n\nto warrant the \"extraordinary\" remedy of reconsideration of a bail determination. Accordingly, the defendant's motion should be denied.\n\nVery truly yours,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy:\n\n Juliana N. Murray Ryan B. Finkel Micah F. Fergenson Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\nEnclosures\n\nCc: Alex Lipman, Esq. (by ECF and Email) Priya Choudhry, Esq. (by ECF and Email)\n\n| Approved: | ________________________________________
Ryan Finkel / Juliana Murray / Micah Fergenson
Assistant United States Attorneys | | |\n|---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Before: | THE HONORABLE GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of New York | | 23 MAG 2007 |\n| - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | X | |\n| YANPING WANG, | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-
v. -
a/k/a \"Yvette,\"
Defendant. | :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: | SEALED COMPLAINT
Violations of
18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, 1957 and 2;
15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff; and
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5
COUNTY OF OFFENSE:
NEW YORK |\n| - | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | X | |\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss.:\n\nSpecial Agent Nicholas DiMarino, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (\"FBI\"), and charges as follows:\n\n### **COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Securities Fraud)**\n\n1. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, (1) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; and (2) securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff, and Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5.\n\n2. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, and others known and unknown, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, would and did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, to wit, WANG conspired with others to obtain victims' money through the use of materially false information and misrepresentations transmitted over interstate wires, in connection with the unregistered offering of common stock of GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") via a private placement (the \"GTV Private Placement).\n\n3. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and (c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, WANG conspired with others to fraudulently induce investors to participate in the GTV Private Placement by providing materially false and misleading information and representations in connection with purported shares of GTV's common stock.\n\n4. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its illegal objects, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt act, among others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:\n\na. On or about June 5, 2020, WANG, while located in the Southern District of New York, authorized a wire transfer of \\$100 million of fraud proceeds to a particular hedge fund.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n### **COUNT TWO (Wire Fraud)**\n\n5. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, WANG conducted the GTV Private Placement to sell GTV stock and fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT THREE (Securities Fraud)**\n\n6. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and (c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, WANG conducted the GTV Private Placement to sell GTV stock and fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n### **COUNT FOUR (Unlawful Monetary Transaction)**\n\n7. On or about June 5, 2020, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, within the United States, knowingly engaged and attempted to engage in a monetary transaction, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(f)(1), in criminally derived property of a value greater than \\$10,000 that was derived from specified unlawful activity, to wit, WANG, while located in the Southern District of New York, authorized a wire transfer of \\$100 million of fraud proceeds to a particular hedge fund.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.)\n\nThe bases for my knowledge and for the foregoing charges are, in part, as follows:\n\n8. I am a Special Agent with the FBI and I have been personally involved in the investigation of this matter. This affidavit is based upon my personal participation in the investigation of this matter, and my conversations with law enforcement officers, law enforcement employees, and witnesses, as well as a review of documents. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course of my investigation. Where the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated.\n\n### Overview\n\n9. Based on my involvement in this investigation, my review of documents, conversations with witnesses, and other law enforcement officers, I have learned the following, in substance and in part:\n\na. Between in or about April 2020 and in or about June 2020, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained approximately \\$452 million in victim funds through an illegal private stock offering related to GTV. WANG was an Executive Director of GTV and was one of the key individuals responsible for transferring the money raised from the GTV Private Placement. Rather than investing the funds raised through the GTV Private Placement as the defendant, and others, had promised to victim-investors, WANG, and others known and unknown, misappropriated approximately \\$100,000,000 into a high-risk hedge fund for the ultimate benefit of a close family relative of one of WANG's co-conspirators. WANG well knew that funds from the GTV Private Placement could not be used to invest in a high-risk hedge fund. Indeed, when WANG sought to open a bank account comprised of funds raised from the GTV Private Placement, WANG stated to a bank, in part, that such \"funds of GTV Media Group [ ] are strickly [sic] for operational purposes and acquisitions.\"\n\n### The GTV Private Placement\n\n10. Based on my review of documents, videos, conversations with witnesses, and other law enforcement officers, I have learned the following, in substance and in part:\n\na. On or about April 21, 2020, a co-conspirator not named herein (\"CC-1\")[1](#page-27-0) posted, and caused to be posted, a video on social media (the \"Video\") announcing the unregistered offering of GTV common stock via a private placement (the \"GTV Private Placement\"). CC-1 has a substantial online following, and the Video was viewed by thousands of individuals.\n\nb. Based on my review of the Video, I have learned that, in the Video, CC-1 described, in substance and in part, the investment terms for the GTV Private Placement and directed people to contact CC-1, via a mobile messaging application, with any questions about the GTV Private Placement. The Video and GTV Private Placement materials—including the written \"Confidential Information Memorandum\" (the \"PPM\"), Subscription Agreement, and Investment Procedure Guidelines—were transmitted to thousands of potential investors, including those in the Southern District of New York, via mobile messaging applications, social media, and text messages.\n\nc. Based on my review of the PPM, I have learned that the PPM promoted GTV as the \"first ever platform which will combine the power of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-art technology, big data, artificial intelligence, block-chain technology and\n\n1 CC-1 has been charged in eleven counts in an Indictment filed in this District with conspiring to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering; and committing wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering in connection with, among other conduct, the GTV Private Placement discussed herein.\n\nreal-time interactive communication.\" The PPM also contained the following representations, in substance and in part, among others:\n\ni. The GTV Private Placement was for investors who were \"interested in evaluating an opportunity to invest capital into GTV\";\n\nii. GTV planned to use the proceeds raised from the GTV Private Placement \"to expand and strengthen the business;\" and\n\niii. The PPM included a chart itemizing the \"contemplated use of proceeds\" raised from the GTV Private Placement:\n\n| Description | Percentage of Proceeds |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|\n| Acquisition of companies to strengthen and grow
GTV | Approximate 70% |\n| Upgrade of GTV technology and security | Approximate 10% |\n| Marketing | Approximate 8% |\n| Working capital | Approximate 7% |\n| Other | Approximate 5% |\n| Total | 100% |\n\nd. The PPM identified three \"Executive Directors\" of GTV. The first Executive Director identified was \"Yvette Y. Wang\"— *i.e.*, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant. The PPM described WANG as \"experienced in management, financial investment and merger and acquisition\" and \"instrumental in building Saraca's media business.\" [2](#page-27-0) Elsewhere in the PPM, WANG was described as \"key personnel\" for GTV. The PPM further stated, in part, that GTV's \"success depends in part upon the continued services of [its] key executive officers, including Yvette Wang\" and two other particular individuals, including another coconspirator not named herein (\"CC-2\").\n\ne. Based on conversations with witnesses who previously worked for CC-1, I have learned, in substance and in part, that WANG has had a close personal relationship with CC-1. In particular, WANG has worked for CC-1 and CC-1's family for several years, since at least in or about 2018. Indeed, based on documents I have reviewed, I have learned that WANG is the President, Treasurer, and Secretary of an entity that manages CC-1's purportedly vast personal wealth.\n\n2 \"Saraca\" refers to \"Saraca Media Group,\" which is identified in the PPM as GTV's parent company.\n\n### WANG Received and Transferred Fraud Proceeds\n\n11. Based on my review of videos and documents, including bank records and subpoena returns, my conversations with witnesses and other law enforcement officers, opensource research on the Internet, and my participation in this investigation, I have learned the following, in substance and in part:\n\na. On or about July 24, 2018, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, opened a particular bank account in the name of Saraca (\"Account-5601\"). Account opening documents for Account-5601, which I have reviewed, identify WANG as \"Acting Secretary\" for Saraca. On or about May 21, 2020, WANG signed an additional business signature card for Account-5601, in which WANG identified herself as \"President\" of Saraca. As of at least that date, Account-5601 was held in the name of \"Saraca Media Group DBA Himalaya Dollar.\" There are no other authorized signatories on Account-5601.\n\nb. On or about July 24, 2018, WANG opened another particular bank account in the name of \"Saraca Media Group Inc.\" (\"Account-2038\"). Account opening documents for Account-2038 identity WANG as \"Acting Secretary\" for Saraca. On or about May 21, 2020, WANG signed an additional business signature card for Account-2038 and identified herself as \"President.\" As of at least that date, Account-2038 was held in the name of \"Saraca Media Group DBA Himalaya Dollar.\" On or about June 3, 2020, WANG signed an additional business signature card for Account-2038 and, again, identified herself as \"President\" of Saraca. There are no other authorized signatories on Account-2038.[3](#page-27-0)\n\nc. Both Account-5601 and Account-2038 are held by a particular bank, which is headquartered int Manhattan (\"Bank-1\").\n\nd. Between on or about April 20, 2020, and on or about June 2, 2020, approximately \\$452 million worth of GTV common stock was purportedly sold to more than 5,500 investors located in the United States, including in the Southern District of New York, and abroad. Investors participated in the GTV Private Placement based, in part, on the belief that their money would be invested into GTV to develop and grow that business, as the PPM promised.\n\ne. In or about April 2020, Account-5601 received approximately 291 deposits and transfers totaling approximately \\$32,543,000. Most of these deposits and transfers were investments made by individuals seeking to participate in the GTV Private Placement. The transfers appear to be from individuals located throughout the world, and many deposits and transfers bear reference or memo information referring to the GTV Private Placement. For example, memo lines state, among other things, in substance and in part: \"Gtv Investment,\" \"Stock Subscription,\" \"Investment,\" \"G- Tv Common Stock Subscription,\" \"InvestmeNt [sic],\" \"Investment To G- Tv [sic],\" and \"Gtv Stockpurchase.\" On or about April 30, 2020, the balance of Account-5601 was approximately \\$32,474,000.\n\nf. In or about May 2020, Account-5601 received approximately 2,450 deposits and transfers totaling approximately \\$291,899,000. Most of these deposits and transfers\n\n3 Based on bank records, CC-2 appears to have an online banking account with access to Account-5601 and Account-2038.\n\nwere investments made by individuals seeking to participate in the GTV Private Placement. Like the prior month's deposits and transfers, the transfers in or about May 2020 appear to be from individuals located throughout the world, and many bear reference or memo information referring to the GTV Private Placement. For example, memo lines state, among other things, in substance and in part: \"Capital Injection Infusion,\" \"To Inves Stment [sic],\" \"Private Placement Investment,\" \"Gtv Media Investment,\" \"Gtv Inv,\" and \"Additional Stock Purchase.\" On or about May 29, 2020, the balance of Account-5601 was approximately \\$313,213,000.\n\n### The Misappropriation\n\n12. Based on my review of documents, conversations with witnesses, and other law enforcement officers, I have learned the following, in substance and in part:\n\na. On or about June 3, 2020, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, signed a \"Subscription Agreement\" in her capacity as \"President\" of Saraca. Pursuant to the Subscription Agreement, Saraca agreed to invest \\$100,000,000 into a high-risk hedge fund (\"Fund-1\"). In the Subscription Agreement, WANG identified Account-5601 as the bank account from which Saraca's capital contribution would be wired. WANG further identified herself as the only \"Authorized Signatory\" of Account-5601. In or about the morning of June 3, 2020, an employee of the Fund-1 investment manager confirmed receipt of the signed subscription documents.\n\nb. Also, on or about June 3, 2020, \\$100,000,000 was transferred from Account-5601 to Account-2038. Prior to the transfer, the balance of Account-2038 was \\$0. Based on bank records, this \\$100,000,000 transfer was conducted online by the user \"yvettewang2018,\" which is WANG's Bank-1 online banking user ID. While authorizing that transfer, WANG was logged into WANG's Bank-1 online account from an IP address that geolocates to Manhattan.\n\nc. On or about June 5, 2020, WANG authorized a \\$100,000,000 wire transfer from Account-2038[4](#page-27-0) to a bank account associated with Fund-1. This \\$100,000,000 transfer to a Fund-1 bank account consisted of proceeds from investors in the GTV Private Placement. As described above, the PPM did not contemplate using investor funds to invest into a high-risk hedge fund. The PPM also did not contemplate using investor funds for the benefit of companies other than GTV, including Saraca, whose ultimate beneficial owner is a close relative of CC-1.\n\n### WANG Transfers Additional Fraud Proceeds to Other Bank Accounts\n\n13. Based on my review of documents and videos, my conversations with witnesses and other law enforcement officers, and my participation in this investigation, I have learned the following, in substance and in part:\n\na. On or about May 20, 2020, YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, and CC-2 opened an account in the name of GTV (\"Account-6691\"). Account-6691 was opened at a particular FDIC-insured bank (\"Bank-2\"). WANG and CC-2 were the only\n\n4 Although the Subscription Agreement identified Account-5601 as the source of the capital contribution, the transfer originated from Account-2038.\n\nauthorized signatories for Account-6691. In account opening documents, WANG was identified as \"Director\" of GTV. The account opening documents further stated that the intended balance of Account-6691 would be between \\$25,000 to \\$50,000.\n\nb. On or about June 3, 2020, Account-5601 transferred \\$200,000,000 to Account-6691. The reference line for this transfer read, in part, \"Gtv Private Placement.\" Just prior to this transfer Account-6691's balance was \\$0.\n\nc. On or about June 9, 2020, Account-2038 transferred \\$38,000,000 to Account-6691. That \\$38,000,000 was made up of investor funds from the GTV Private Placement first sent to Account-5601 and another particular Bank-1 account, which were then transferred, from on or about June 3, 2020 through on or about June 9, 2020, to Account-2038. Thus, as of on or about June 10, 2020, the full \\$237,999,970[5](#page-27-0) in Account-6691 was compromised of proceeds from the GTV Private Placement.\n\nd. On or about June 9, 2020, approximately \\$30,906 was wired from Account-5601 to a bank account in the name of \"Yanping Wang.\" The reference line for this wire transfer stated, in part, \"Director Fee.\"\n\ne. Starting in or about June 2020, domestic banks that held accounts used to process the funds raised through the GTV Private Placement began to freeze and close GTVassociated bank accounts (including bank accounts held in the name of Saraca) because, among other reasons, the accounts had received dozens of large incoming wire transfers, some of which referenced the unregistered GTV Private Placement. Banks closings were also due to concerns about money movements to and from GTV-associated and Saraca-associated accounts, which raised questions about the propriety of the incoming transfers.\n\nf. On or about July 10, 2020, Bank-2 closed Account-6691 and provided the account holders, including WANG, one check in the amount of \\$137,999,970 (\"Check-1\") and a second check in the amount of \\$100,000,000 (\"Check-2\").\n\ng. In or about July 2020, WANG and others known and unknown attempted to open a bank account in the name of GTV at a particular bank (\"Bank-3\"). In connection with that attempt, on or about July 20, 2020, WANG signed an \"Enhanced Diligence Request\" which contained information about the purpose for which the Bank-3 account would be used. WANG signed the \"Enhanced Diligence Request\" in her capacity as \"Director\" of GTV.\n\nh. In the \"Enhanced Diligence Request,\" WANG stated, in substance and in part, that the initial deposit into the account would \"be approximately \\$138 million that was raised from private placement in the form of a cashiers check.\" According to WANG, \"Saraca Media Group was the recipient of [GTV] Private Placement funds on behalf of GTV (guided by [law firm] in [Bank-1]. Saraca Media Group transferred the funds to GTV ([Bank-2]).\" WANG further stated, in substance and in part, that \"[t]he funds in the account are funds of GTV Media Group and are strickly [sic] for operational purposes and acquisitions.\" Accordingly, WANG well knew that the funds raised from the GTV Private Placement could not be invested in a high-risk hedge fund held for the benefit of CC-1's close relative.\n\n5 Bank-3 debited \\$30 from Account-6691 for the two incoming wire transfers.\n\nWHEREFORE, I respectfully request that a warrant be issued for the arrest of YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, and that she be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, as the case may be.\n\n> \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ /s/ Nicholas DiMarino (sworn telephonically)\n\nNicholas DiMarino Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation\n\nSworn to me through the transmission of this Complaint by reliable electronic means (telephone), this \\_\\_\\_ day of March, 2023. 10\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nTHE HONORABLE GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York\n\n# **ORIGINAL**\n\n### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nV.\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\"\n\nKINMINGJE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"\n\nDefendants.\n\n### **SEALED INDICTMENT**\n\n23 Cr.\n\n., ~ ~ **..i -Lu**\n\n### **COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, Securities Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Money Laundering)**\n\nThe Grand Jury charges:\n\n### **Overview**\n\n1. From at least in or about 2018 through at least in or about March 2023, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, conspired to defraud thousands of victims of more than approximately \\$1 billion, including victims located in the Southern District of New York. KWOK, JE, and their co-conspirators operated through a series of complex fraudulent and fictitious businesses and investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated entities, which allowed the defendants and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and misappropriate victim funds.\n\n2. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, took advantage of KWOK's prolific online presence and hundreds of thousands of online followers to solicit investments in various entities and programs by promising outsized financial returns and other benefits. The entities and programs used in the scheme included those known as GTV, GICLUBS, GIMUSIC, GIFashion, and the Himalaya Exchange, among others. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK and JE well knew, the entities were instrumentalities that KWOK and JE created and used to perpetrate their fraud and exploit KWOK's followers. The scheme allowed KWOK and JE to enrich themselves, their family members, and their co-conspirators, and to fund KWOK's extravagant lifestyle.\n\n3. As part of the scheme, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, laundered hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud proceeds. To conceal the illegal source of the funds, **KWOK** and JE transferred, and directed the transfer of, money into and through more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of at least 80 different entities or individuals. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds were transferred, either directly or indirectly, to bank accounts in the United States, Bahamas, and United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\"), among other places, and held in the name of companies owned or otherwise controlled by JE.\n\n4. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, used more than approximately \\$300 million of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds for their and their families' benefit. For example, KWOK used fraudulently-obtained victim money\n\nto purchase, fund, or finance a \\$26.5 million purchase of an approximately 50,000-square-foot mansion in New Jersey for KWOK and his family; luxury vehicles, including an approximately \\$3.5 million Ferrari for one of KWOK's close family members (\"Relative-I \"); an approximately \\$37 million luxury yacht that was used by KWOK and his family and purchased in the name of one ofKWOK's close family members (\"Relative-2\"); a piano valued at approximately \\$140,000; an approximately \\$36,000 mattress; and a \\$100 million investment in a high-risk hedge fund for the ultimate benefit of Relative-I, among other things. For his part, , among other things, JE transferred at least \\$10 million of the fraud proceeds into his and his spouse's personal bank accounts.\n\n5. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, operated the scheme for years, and continued to do so at least through the date of this Indictment. They did so, among other things, by continually adapting the scheme's means and methods to evade the enforcement of investor-protection, anti-money laundering, and bankruptcy laws in the United States, and by retaliating against individual victims who complained or demanded the return of invested funds.\n\n### **Relevant Persons and Entities**\n\n6. At all relevant times, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, was the leader of, and directed, the scheme.\n\na. KWOK is an exiled Chinese businessman who fled to the United States in or about 2015 and purchased a penthouse apartment at a New York City hotel for approximately \\$67.5 million. Starting at least in or about 2017, KWOK, who then purported to be a billionaire,\n\n..\n\ngarnered a substantial online following. KWOK granted numerous media interviews and posted on social media, claiming to advance a movement against the Chinese Communist Party.\n\nb. In or about 2018, KWOK founded two purported nonprofit organizations, namely, the Rule of Law Foundation and the Rule of Law Society. The Rule of Law Society's website lists KWOK as its \"founder, a promot[e]r, and a spokesperson.\" Both organizations feature photographs of KWOK on their websites. KWOK used the nonprofit organizations to amass followers who were aligned with his purported campaign against the Chinese Communist Party and who were also inclined to believe KWOK's statements regarding investment and moneymaking opportunities. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK well knew, he and others provided false and materially misleading information to promote these \"opportunities\" and to defraud KWOK's followers and other victims.\n\n7. At all relevant times, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, was a dual citizen of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom who principally resided in the United Kingdom, while traveling to the United States and elsewhere. JE owned and operated numerous companies and investment vehicles central to the scheme and served as its financial architect and key money launderer.\n\n8. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\") was a corporation based in New York, New York. Relative-I was its ultimate beneficial owner.\n\n9. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") was a purported news-focused social media platform based in New York, New York. GTV was functionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, although KWOK held no formal position or title at GTV. KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant,\n\nlikewise held no formal position or title at GTV, but in fact exercised control over its finances. Saraca was the parent company of GTV.\n\n10. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, G Club Operations, LLC (\"G[CLUBS\") was a purported membership organization based in Puerto Rico and in New York, New York. G[CLUBS was functionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, although KWOK held no formal position or title at G[CLUBS. KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, likewise held no formal position or title at G[CLUBS, but in fact exercised control over its finances.\n\n11. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, the \"Himalaya Exchange\" was a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" that KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, founded and operated through various entities he owned, which were based abroad. Entities functionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, such as G[CLUBS and G[Fashion, had purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange. KWOK promoted the Himalaya Exchange and claimed to be the designer of its purported cryptocurrency, although KWOK held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n### **The Fraud**\n\n### *The GTV Private Placement*\n\n12. Between in or about April 2020 and in or about June 2020, HOW AN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and\n\nunknown, fraudulently obtained more than \\$400 million in victim funds through an illegal private stock offering related to GTV (the \"GTV Private Placement\").\n\na. On or about April 21, 2020, KWOK posted, and caused to be posted, a video on social media announcing the unregistered offering of GTV common stock via a private placement. In that video, KWOK described, in substance and in part, the investment terms for the GTV Private Placement, and directed people to contact him, via a mobile messaging application, with any questions about the GTV Private Placement. The video and GTV Private Placement materials-including the written \"Confidential Information Memorandum\" (the \"PPM\"), Subscription Agreement, and Investment Procedure Guidelines-were transmitted to thousands of potential investors, including those in the Southern District of New York, via mobile messaging applications, social media, and text messages.\n\nb. The PPM promoted GTV as the \"first ever platform which will combine the power of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-art technology, big data, artificial intelligence, block-chain technology and real-time interactive communication.\"\n\nc. According to the PPM' s metadata, JE was the \"author\" of the PPM. The PPM disclosed the terms of the GTV Private Placement and identified KWOK as GTV's \"Sponsor and Adviser.\" According to the PPM, among other GTV materials, neither KWOK nor JE held any formal management position with GTV.\n\nd. The PPM also contained the following representations, in substance and in part, among others:\n\n1. The GTV Private Placement was for investors who were \"interested in evaluating an opportunity to invest capital into GTV;\"\n\n11. GTV planned to use the proceeds raised from the GTV Private\n\nPlacement \"to expand and strengthen the business;\" and\n\niii. The PPM included a chart itemizing the \"contemplated use of proceeds\" raised from the GTV Private Placement:\n\n| Acquisition of companies to strengthen and grow
GTV | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|\n| Upgrade of GTV technology and security | Approximate 10% |\n| Marketing | Approximate 8% |\n| Working capital | Approximate 7% |\n| Other | Approximate 5% |\n| Total | 100% |\n\ne. Between on or about April 20, 2020 and on or about June 2, 2020, approximately \\$452 million worth ofGTV common stock was purportedly sold to more than 5,500 investors located in the United States, including in the Southern District of New York, and abroad. Investors participated in the GTV Private Placement based, in part, on the belief that their money would be invested into GTV to develop and grow that business, as the PPM promised.\n\nf. The vast majority of the proceeds derived from investors in the GTV Private Placement were not used to develop and grow the GTV business, but instead were deposited directly into bank accounts held in the name of Saraca, GTV's parent company, which is beneficially owned by Relative-I.\n\ng. The GTV Private Placement was not made pursuant to a registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\"). Rather, the offering\n\nwas purportedly made pursuant to SEC regulations that permit the sale of unregistered securities subject to limitations on the type of investors to whom the securities are offered and the manner in which their investments may be solicited. To evade these limitations, however, KWOK, and others under his control, used at least one intermediary entity to purchase GTV stock on behalf of pools of investors who did not qualify to participate in the GTV Private Placement.\n\nh. In or about early June 2020, and only days after the GTV Private Placement closed, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, misappropriated approximately \\$100 million raised from investors in the GTV Private Placement and directed that those funds be placed with a high-risk hedge fund (\"Fund-1 \") for the benefit of Saraca and its ultimate beneficial owner, Relative-I. This transaction was contrary to the PPM's representations to prospective GTV investors about how investments in GTV would be used. Indeed, the \\$100 million investment into Fund-1 was not made for the benefit of GTV, but rather for the benefit of Saraca. The victims who supplied the \\$100 million invested into Fund-1 did not own any shares of Saraca. Ultimately, the investment into Fund-1 lost approximately \\$30 million in value.\n\ni. After directing \\$100 million of GTV victim funds into Fund-1 , HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, continued to promote GTV using false and misleading representations.\n\n### *The Farm Loan Program*\n\n13. Beginning in or about June 2020-the same month that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\n\nPrincipal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators misappropriated money from the GTV Private Placement for the benefit of Saraca and Relative-I-KWOK, JE, and their co-conspirators fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$150 million in victim funds through the \"Himalaya Farm Alliance.\" The Himalaya Farm Alliance, which KWOK organized and promoted, was a collective of informal groups ( each known as a \"Farm\") located in various cities around the world. KWOK, JE, and others working on their behalf and at their direction, obtained these funds by making further misrepresentations to the investors in the GTV Private Placement and fraudulently soliciting further investments, this time in the form of \"loans\" to a Farm, and promising that such loans would be convertible into GTV common stock at a conversion rate of one share per dollar loaned (the \"Farm Loan Program\").\n\na. Starting in or about June 2020, domestic banks that held accounts used to process the funds raised through the GTV Private Placement began to freeze and close GTVassociated bank accounts because, among other reasons, the accounts had received dozens oflarge incoming wire transfers, some of which referenced an unregistered stock offering.\n\nb. These bank account closures frustrated the ability of KWOK, JE, and their co-conspirators to collect proceeds from victims seeking to invest in GTV.\n\nc. On or about July 22, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK promoted the Farm Loan Program. According to KWOK and those working on his behalf, individuals seeking to invest (or reinvest) in GTV could participate in the Farm Loan Program.\n\nd. After launching the Farm Loan Program, KWOK continued to promote GTV and to falsely represent the value of GTV. For example, on or about August 2, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK falsely stated, in substance and part, \"How much is\n\nGTV? . . . a market value of2 billion US dollars.\" 1In truth and in fact, and as KWOK well knew, GTV's market value was far less because, among other things, GTV was a new business that generated no revenue.\n\ne. Thousands of victims \"loaned\" money to the Farms by sending money to bank accounts controlled by the Farms (and not GTV). According to the \"Loan Agreements,\" which the Farms frequently did not countersign, these funds were to be used for a Farm's \"general working capital purposes.\"\n\nf. **KWOK** and JE misappropriated funds that were raised through the Farm Loan Program. For example:\n\ni. Approximately \\$20 million was transferred to Relative-! , approximately \\$950,000 of which was used to pay for flight crew services on a private jet;\n\nii. Approximately \\$5 million was transferred to an entity owned by KWOK's spouse;\n\niii. Approximately \\$2.3 million was used to cover maintenance expenses associated with an approximately 145-foot luxury yacht worth approximately \\$37 million, nominally owned by Relative-2 and used by KWOK; and\n\niv. Approximately \\$10 million was transferred to personal bank accounts in the name of JE and/or JE's spouse.\n\n### GICLUBS\n\n14. While making misrepresentations regarding the Farm Loan Program, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known\n\n1All statements attributed herein to **KWOK** have been translated from Mandarin to English, unless otherwise noted.\n\nand unknown, fraudulently induced KWOK's followers to transfer additional funds to a purported online membership club called GICLUBS. From at least in or about October 2020 through at least in or about March 2023, KWOK, JE, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$250 million in victim funds through GICLUBS.\n\na. Starting at least on or about June 20, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, **KWOK** promoted and encouraged individuals to purchase what **KWOK** referred to as a \"G Club ... membership card.\"\n\nb. Formally launched in or about October 2020, GICLUBS claimed, on its website, to be \"an exclusive, high-end membership program offering a full spectrum of services\" and \"a gateway to carefully curated world-class products, services and experiences.\"\n\nc. To join GICLUBS, a member was required to make a one-time payment to purchase a \"membership,\" in addition to an annual membership fee. The cost of the membership varied based on the membership tier selected by the prospective member: Tier 5 Membership cost \\$50,000; Tier 4 Membership cost \\$40,000; Tier 3 Membership cost \\$30,000; Tier 2 Membership cost \\$20,000; and Tier 1 Membership cost \\$10,000.\n\nd. On or about July 5, 2021, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK stated, in substance and in part, that there were \"25,000 [GICLUBS] member[s] ... \\$100 million dollars, the cash [in] the bank account. Then we have the 111 million ... [who] want to join.\" By contrast, GICLUBS internal documents reflected approximately 5,900 active members as of in or about August 2021.\n\ne. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK and JE well knew, GICLUBS provided nothing close to \"a full spectrum of services\" and \"experiences\" to its members. Despite collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in purported membership fees, GI CLUBS maintained a relatively\n\nsmall number of employees and provided its members few to no discernable membership benefits. Indeed, GICLUBS did not even make good on prizes it offered members for participating in contests. On or about February 14, 2021 , GICLUBS held a webcast and sweepstakes during which members were promised luxury prizes. On at least one occasion, instead of providing a BMW to a member who purportedly won a sweepstakes, GI CLUBS claimed to the member that the member had requested that the value of the BMW be applied toward an upgrade from a Tier 1 GI CLUBS Membership to a Tier 4 GICLUBS Membership and partially credited toward annual membership fees for the next three years. As of on or about March 8, 2021-months after GICLUBS launched and began to collect \"membership\" fees-GICLUBS did not have a business plan or a board of directors.\n\nf. KWOK and JE also used GICLUBS as a mechanism to continue fraudulent private placement offerings. KWOK, and others known and unknown, told KWOK's online followers that their purchase of GICLUBS memberships would entitle them to stock in KWOKaffiliated entities, such as GTV and GIFashion.\n\ni. In a conversation regarding GICLUBS membership funds on or about May 4, 2021 , JE stated, in substance and in part, that \"first of all, [prospective members] are buying the GICLUBS membership, but they are expecting they would probably receive some shares, you know, on, on, on the future GTV, I think this is their expectation.\"\n\nii. On or about July 30, 2021 , KWOK stated in a video distributed via social media, in substance and in part, \"Some of the comrades in arms asked, '[w]ill I still get a free stock offer when I buy a GICLUBS membership?' 100%. Because I said that I have to promise that anyone who buys G-Club membership before September 17 must be allotted shares, which is\n\nexactly the same. Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use your money to buy G-Club before September 17, G-Club and the stock shares. You'll get both.\"\n\ng. KWOK, JE, and others known and unknown, asked investors to purchase multiple memberships in GICLUBS, enabling KWOK and JE to increase the amount of money solicited. In this regard, the GICLUBS website stated, in substance and in part, that members with multiple memberships would \"receive additional benefits\" when, in truth and in fact, and as KWOK and JE well knew, multiple memberships did not provide members with additional benefits.\n\n15. All told, investors purchased hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of GICLUBS memberships. However, most of this money did not fund the business of GICLUBS. Rather, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, misappropriated a substantial portion of the funds victims had paid GICLUBS for \"memberships,\" using, among other things, a complex web of entities and bank accounts to do so. For example:\n\na. GICLUBS funds, which had been funneled through bank accounts in other entities' names, were used to pay personal expenses for KWOK and his family, including luxury purchases of an approximately \\$2.6 million yacht and luxury automobiles that together cost more than \\$5 million.\n\nb. In or about November 2021 , JE directed approximately \\$26.5 million of GICLUBS funds, which had been funneled through bank accounts in other entities' names, toward the purchase ofKWOK's 50,000 square foot New Jersey mansion.\n\nc. JE directed the transfer of an additional \\$13 million of GICLUBS membership payments to an escrow account. The funds were subsequently used to pay for extravagant renovations to KWOK's New Jersey mansion, including to a wing for Relative-I and to a wing for Relative-2, and to purchase various furniture and decorative items including, among other items, Chinese and Persian rugs worth approximately \\$978,000, a \\$62,000 television, and a \\$53,000 fireplace log cradle holder.\n\nd. On or about August 5, 2021, JE directed the transfer of approximately \\$1.1 million consisting of GI CLUBS membership payments into a bank account that JE controlled.\n\ne. GI CLUBS used membership fees to purchase luxury automobiles, including a custom-built Bugatti sports car for approximately \\$4.4 million. While the car's signed purchase agreement listed GICLUBS as the customer, the initial specifications documentation for the custom-built car named Relative-I as the customer. Relative-I had no official position with GICLUBS.\n\n### *The Himalaya Exchange*\n\n16. From at least in or about April 2021 through at least in or about March 2023, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$262 million in victim funds through the Himalaya Exchange, a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" accessible on the internet. The Himalaya Exchange included a purported stablecoin called the Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\" or \"H Dollar\") and a trading coin called Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\" or \"H Coin\"). The Himalaya Exchange claimed that the \"stablecoin\" was a digital asset with a fixed 1-to-\\$1 value\n\nbacked by reserves, and that the \"trading coin\" was a cryptocurrency with valuation based on supply and demand. JE was the founder and Chairman of the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n17. In videos distributed via social media, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, trumpeted the prospects and valuation of the Himalaya Exchange and both HCN and HDO, which he publicly described as cryptocurrencies. For example, in a video posted on the Internet on or about October 20, 2021, KWOK falsely stated the following, among other things, and in substance and in part:\n\na. \"I am talking about your H Coins, 'Brother Seven' *[i.e.,* KWOK] designed it .... [l]t has the attribute of currency, why? It has 20% gold. Awesome[.] [I]t was born as currency on the first day, so it has value and it is linked to gold ... clear gold directly. No matter how much it raises, 20% will tum into gold.\"\n\nb. \"If the H Coin is worthless, [the issuer of H coin] can sell all 20% of the gold, exchange it to you, and become your money. Or take all the value of 20% gold and ask everyone to unify it and make it yours.\"\n\nc. \"If anyone loses money, I can say that I will compensate 100%. I give you 100%. Whoever loses money, I will bear it.\"\n\nd. \"I can sell the H Coin in the market in one minute and get it back to my H Dollar, and back to your fiat money unit. ... [A]nd you can buy anything immediately.\"\n\n18. The initial coin offering of HCN and HDO occurred on or about November 1, 2021. HCN began trading at 10 cents and, within approximately two weeks, the Himalaya Exchange website claimed that each HCN purportedly was worth approximately 27 HDO *(i.e.,* \\$27), which represented a 26,900% increase in value. That is, approximately two weeks after the initial coin\n\noffering, the Himalaya Exchange website indicated that HCN purportedly had an approximately \\$27 billion valuation.\n\n19. At the time of the Himalaya Exchange launch, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, marketed HCN to his online followers and others. For example, on or about November 1, 2021-the day of the initial coin offering-KWOK released an official music video for an original song called \"HCoin To the Moon\" via social media. The phrase \"to the moon\" is popularly associated with cryptocurrencies and implies a sharp increase in value. The music video depicted **KWOK** in various luxurious locations and depicted imagery of gold and wealth.\n\n20. At times, including following the Himalaya Exchange launch, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, misleadingly marketed the Himalaya Exchange. For example, in or about June 2022, JE attempted to create the impression that a €3,561, 127 purchase of a Ferrari (the \"Ferrari\") from a particular auction house was completed with HDO. JE stated, in substance and in part, that he was \"extremely pleased that [a] buyer decided to purchase [a] world-class car using HDO.\" Contrary to JE' s claim, the Ferrari was not purchased using HDO. In truth and in fact, and as JE well knew, a Himalaya Exchange employee sent the auction house an international bank wire to cover the cost of the Ferrari, while also processing a corresponding \"transaction\" on the Himalaya Exchange to create the false appearance that the purchase had taken place using HDO. JE's statement was also misleading in that, among other things, the unidentified \"buyer\" of the Ferrari was, in fact, Relative-I.\n\n21. Contrary to representations of HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, HCN and HDO could not be\n\ntraded anywhere other than (purportedly) on the Himalaya Exchange. Moreover, unlike cryptocurrencies, HCN could not be traded for, or converted into, other currencies. HCN purportedly could be traded for only HDO (and only on the Himalaya Exchange), and HDO purportedly only could be converted to or from fiat currency (and only on the Himalaya Exchange).\n\na. Indeed, the HDO and HCN Whitepapers, available on the Himalaya Exchange website, provided in fine print that, contrary to KWOK's representations, HCN and HDO were not cryptocurrencies. Rather, according to the HCN Whitepaper, the \"operation of the Himalaya Exchange and associated applications and infrastructure will be facilitated through the use of 'Credits.\"' Those credits (i) could \"only be used on the Himalaya Exchange or within the Himalaya Ecosystem,\" and (ii) did \"not carry any right to require their exchange for fiat currency or crypto-assets.\" Moreover, while Himalaya Exchange members could request to exchange their \"HDO\" credits for an equivalent payment in U.S. dollars, the HDO Whitepaper stated that the Himalaya Exchange had the \"discretion\" to deny any such request.\n\n22. In or about April 2022, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, arranged for the transfer of approximately \\$37 million in Himalaya Exchange funds from a Himalaya Exchange bank account to a particular escrow account. The \\$3 7 million was structured as a purported \"loan\" to cover the cost of a luxury yacht that **KWOK** had previously purchased and used, which yacht was then-owned by an entity held in the name of Relative-2.\n\n### *Government Seizure of Fraud Proceeds*\n\n23. On or about September 20, 2022 and September 21, 2022, U.S. authorities served judicially-authorized seizure warrants on several domestic banks, and subsequently seized\n\napproximately \\$335 million of proceeds from bank accounts held in the names of Himalaya Exchange entities and other entities associated with HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants. Following the September 2022 judicially authorized seizures, JE attempted to transfer approximately \\$46 million from domestic bank accounts associated with the Himalaya Exchange, which had not yet been seized by the United States, to a bank account in the UAE that JE controlled.\n\na. Within approximately two days of the first judicially authorized seizures of Himalaya Exchange-related funds, on or about September 22, 2022, JE contacted the management of a domestic bank that held Himalaya Exchange bank accounts. JE sought to implement a wire transfer, which he and a Himalaya Exchange executive claimed to the domestic bank was needed to effectuate a \"redemption\" from HDO to U.S. dollars for an unnamed \"VIP\" *(i.e.,* very important client of the Himalaya Exchange).\n\nb. In subsequent communications with the domestic bank, JE revealed that the VIP was, in fact, JE himself. JE provided the domestic bank with documents reflecting two purported HCN sales by JE on or about September 22, 2022-totaling 46 million HDO, which JE was attempting to \"convert\" into \\$46 million. JE twice emphasized to the domestic bank's management, in substance and in part, that the \\$46 million transfer needed to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\"\n\n24. On or about October 16, 2022, pursuant to a judicially authorized warrant, U.S. authorities seized an additional approximately \\$274 million of proceeds from several Himalaya Exchange and GICLUBS accounts at the domestic bank from which JE requested the \\$46 million transfer.\n\na. As a result of the judicially authorized September and October 2022 seizures, U.S. authorities seized more than approximately \\$609 million of fraud proceeds, including approximately \\$278 million from bank accounts held in the names of the Himalaya Exchange entities, including accounts that purported to hold its HDO cash reserves.\n\nb. Following the seizures, the Himalaya Exchange website continued to represent that HDO was backed by a \"Reserve consisting of USD and cash-equivalent assets\" when, in truth and in fact, it was not.\n\nc. Despite the seizure of the Himalaya Exchange's cash reserves, the purported price ofHCN had not suddenly and sharply declined through the date of this Indictment.\n\n### **STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS**\n\n25. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, (1) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; (2) securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff, and Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5; (3) bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344; (4) international promotional money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A); and (5) international concealment money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i).\n\n26. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\"\n\nand KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, would and did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, to wit, KWOK and JE agreed to obtain victims' money by causing materially false information and misrepresentations to be transmitted over interstate wires, in connection with the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, GICLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n27. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE agreed to fraudulently induce investors to participate in the GTV Private\n\nPlacement, the Farm Loan Program, and GICLUBS by providing materially false and misleading information and representations in connection with purported shares of GTV common stock and purported companies affiliated with GTV.\n\n28. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, knowingly would and did execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 20, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, and other property owned by, and under the custody and control of, such a financial institution, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344, to wit, KWOK and JE agreed to participate in a scheme to mislead U.S. financial institutions through false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and documents, in connection with the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, GICLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange, in order to obtain money of, or under the custody and control of, at least one financial institution.\n\n29. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on specified unlawful activity, to wit, the\n\noffenses alleged in Counts Two through Eight of this Indictment in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956( a)(2)(A)(i).\n\n30. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempted to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, knowing that the monetary instrument and funds involved in the transportation, transmission, and transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and knowing that such transportation, transmission, and transfer is designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit, the offenses alleged in Counts Two through Eight of this Indictment, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i).\n\n### Overt Acts\n\n31. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its illegal objects, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:\n\na. On or about April 21, 2020, **KWOK** posted, and caused to be posted, a video on social media announcing the unregistered offering of GTV stock via the GTV Private Placement.\n\nb. On or about June 5, 2020, a co-conspirator not named herein (\"CC-1 \"), while located in the Southern District of New York, authorized a wire transfer of \\$100 million from Saraca to Fund-1 .\n\nc. On or about July 22, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK promoted the Farm Loan Program.\n\nd. On or about August 2, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK stated, in substance and part, \"How much is GTV? ... a market value of 2 billion US dollars.\"\n\ne. On or about May 28, 2021 , JE transferred approximately \\$13 million from a bank account in the UAE that JE controlled to a bank account held by an entity (owned by Relative-2) at a particular bank in New York, New York.\n\nf. On or about July 30, 2021 , in a video distributed via social media, KWOK stated, in substance and in part, \"Some of the comrades in arms asked, ' [ w ]ill I still get a free stock offer when I buy a G-Clubs membership?' 100%. Because I said that I have to promise that [to] anyone who buys G-Clubs membership before September 17 [they] must be allotted shares, which is exactly the same. Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use your money to buy G-Clubs before September 17, G-Clubs and the stock shares. You'll get both.\"\n\ng. On or about August 5, 2021 , JE directed the transfer of approximately \\$1.1 million consisting of funds victims had sent to G[CLUBS in exchange for \"memberships\" to a bank account that JE controlled.\n\nh. On or about October 20, 2021 , in a video distributed via social media, KWOK stated, in substance and in part, that KWOK \"designed\" HCN, that \" [n]o matter how much it raises, 20% will tum into gold,\" and that \" [i]f anyone loses money\" on HCN, \"I can say that I will compensate 100%.\"\n\n1. On or about September 22, 2022, JE texted a U.S. bank's management, in substance and in part, that a \\$46 million transfer to a JE-controlled bank account in the UAE needed to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\"\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n### **COUNT TWO (Wire Fraud - GTV Private Placement)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n32. The allegations contained m paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n33. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOW AN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted the GTV Private Placement to sell GTV stock and fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT THREE (Securities Fraud - GTV Private Placement)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n34. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n35. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021 , in the Southern District ofNew York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted the GTV Private Placement to sell GTV stock and obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n### **COUNT FOUR (Wire Fraud - Farm Loan Program)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n•\n\n36. The allegations contained m paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n37. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOW AN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted the Farm Loan Program to fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT FIVE (Securities Fraud - Farm Loan Program)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n38. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n..\n\n39. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, HOW AN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted the Farm Loan Program to obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, including regarding, among other things, the value of GTV, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-5 ; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n### **COUNT SIX (Wire Fraud - GICLUBS)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n40. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n41. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, **KWOK** and JE promoted and marketed GICLUBS to fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT SEVEN (Securities Fraud - GjCLUBS)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n42. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n43. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021 , in the Southern District ofNew York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a\n\nsecurity registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.lOb-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE promoted and marketed GICLUBS to obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, including regarding, among other things, the value of GTV, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n> (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240. lOb-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n### **COUNT EIGHT (Wire Fraud - The Himalaya Exchange)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n44. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n45. From at least in or about April 2021 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings,\n\nsigns, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, **KWOK** and JE operated the Himalaya Exchange to fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT NINE (International Promotional Money Laundering)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n46. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n47. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on specified unlawful activity, to wit, **KWOK** and JE directed and made international transfers of funds into, out of, and through the United States, with the intent to promote the fraud offenses in Counts Two through Eight of the Indictment.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956( a)(2)(A) and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT TEN (International Concealment Money Laundering)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n48. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n49. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, knowing that the monetary instrument and funds involved in the transportation, transmission, and transfer represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and knowing that such transportation, transmission, and transfer was designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, namely, the fraud offenses alleged in Counts Two through Eight of this Indictment, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted international financial transactions into, and out of, and through the United States involving fraud proceeds, including, among other transactions, transactions involving bank accounts held in the names of entities nominally owned by other individuals and by entities not overtly associated with the defendants, in order to conceal the ownership, control, and/or receipt of the proceeds of the fraud and the illegal nature and source of such proceeds.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956( a)(2)(B)(i) and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT ELEVEN (Unlawful Monetary Transactions)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n*1/f*\n\n50. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n51. On or about June 5, 2020, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, within the United States, knowingly engaged and attempted to engage in a monetary transaction, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(f)(l), in criminally derived property of a value greater than \\$10,000 that was derived from specified unlawful activity, to wit, KWOK and JE made, and directed others to make, a wire transfer of approximately \\$100 million derived from the offenses charged in Counts Two and Three to Fund-1.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT TWELVE (Obstruction of Justice)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n52. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n53. From at least on or about September 20, 2022 through the date of the filing of this Indictment, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, corruptly obstructed, influenced, and impeded an official proceeding and attempted so to do, to wit, JE attempted to transfer money to the UAE, beyond the jurisdiction of the United States, to impede and interfere with a federal grand jury investigation in the Southern\n\nDistrict ofNew York of the offenses alleged in Counts One through Eleven of this Indictment, and proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning the seizure and forfeiture of criminally derived proceeds.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2) and 2.)\n\n### **FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS**\n\n54. As a result of committing the offenses alleged in Counts One through Eight of this Indictment, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses and, and the following specific property:\n\na. \\$64,826.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037713 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nb. \\$75,000,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037705 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nc. \\$467,343.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037754 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\n•\n\nd. \\$89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\ne. \\$1 ,683,077.40 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042762 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nf. \\$85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\ng. \\$48,230,709.62 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090030288 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Investment Management\" Ltd., seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nh. \\$1 ,800,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037739 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\ni. \\$85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nj. \\$4,643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000590 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\n.. (\n\nk. \\$14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000254 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\nI. \\$11,538,579.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBil O 103-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"G Club International Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\nm. \\$9,451,170.54 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\nn. \\$2,823,642.39 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10137-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of\"Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\no. \\$249,000,115.46 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10138-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\np. \\$283,965.11 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10139-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\nq. \\$1,085,623.67 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBil O 171-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\n... ◄\n\n> r. \\$43,782.71 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBil0l 72-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"G Fashion International Limited,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\n> s. \\$161,809.47 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBil 0 183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\n> t. \\$2,745,377.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 9878904409 at Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. held in the name of \"GETTR USA, Inc.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\n> u. \\$9,899,659.19 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 157525208185 at US Bank held in the name of \"G Fashion,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\n> v. All that lot or parcel of land, together with its buildings, appurtenances, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements, located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430, Parcel No.3300021-03-00001-02 and described as Lot Number: 1.02 Block: 21.03 District: 33 City, Municipality, Township: MAHWAH TWP\n\n> w. A Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number VF9SW3V3XNM795047;\n\n> x. A Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roads, bearing Vehicle Identification Number ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393;\n\n> y. A Rolls Royce Phantom EWB, bearing Vehicle Identification Number SCA TT8C08MU206445;\n\n*J*\n\nz. A 46m 2014 Feadship superyacht \"Lady May\" (ex Como), bearing IMO Number 112359, MMSI Number 319059500, and Callsign ZGDQ9;\n\naa. A Besendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539 piano with custom bench, purchased for approximately \\$140,938.69;\n\nbb. A Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon Bed with Nightstands, Ebony Veneer, Brass, Velvet, purchased for approximately \\$31,413.71;\n\ncc. A Hastens 2000T md mattress, purchased for approximately \\$36,590.00;\n\ndd. A Hastens 2000T sf mattress, purchased for approximately \\$36,210.00;\n\nee. A Wembe watch storage box, purchased for approximately \\$59,392.91;\n\nff. A Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98\" QLED Smart TV - **8K,** purchased for approximately \\$62,787.54;\n\ngg. A Louis XV Style French Ormolu-Mounted Mahogany Commode by Joseph Emmanuel Zweiner;\n\nhh. A \"K'ang Hsi\" extension table in etched and patinated pewter and bronze with hand-painted enamel colors by Philip & Kelvin La Verne, purchased for approximately \\$180,000.00; and\n\nii. A \"Punto '83\" table in stainless steel with mesh tabletop with adjustable height and adjustable petals by Gabriella Crespi, Italy 1982, purchased for approximately \\$180,000.00.\n\n(a) through (ii), collectively, the \"Specific Property.\"\n\n55. As a result of committing the money laundering offenses alleged in Counts One, Nine, Ten and Eleven of this Indictment, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE,\n\na/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(l), any and all property, real and personal, involved in said offense, or any property traceable to such property, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of property involved in said offense and the Specific Property.\n\n### **Substitute Assets Provision**\n\n56. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n- e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty;\n\nit is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21 , United States Code, Section 853(p) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property.\n\n> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981 and 982; Title 21 , United States Code, Section 853 ; and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.)\n\nFORE ~ N\n\n3/ *i.R(c2vEJ3*\n\n~~\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\n>\" ,t c .\\-~ t ~-\\.t~ v *N:kc* s '-\"' \\ **p-,r-** e~ ..\\ **v.1** '\" r re;..,;'\\,..\\- 3 8 fVL *(9...*\n\n'5 s~ *A-* USM *'T* G--ore/\\-S ft, /I\n\n| 1 | THE DEPUTY CLERK: Calling Case |\n|------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | 23-MG-2007, U.S. versus Yanping Wang. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | Juliana Murray, Ryan Finkel and Micah Fergenson on |\n| 5 | behalf of the United States. |\n| 6 | THE COURT: Good afternoon. |\n| 7 | THE DEPUTY CLERK: And counsel for |\n| 8 | Ms. Yang, can you -- Ms. Wang, can you state your |\n| 9 | appearance for the record. |\n| 1 0 | MS. CHAUDHRY: Good afternoon, |\n| 11 | Your Honor. Priya Chaudhry of ChaudhryLaw, along |\n| 12 | with Alex Lipman of Lipman PLLC. We are |\n| 13 | representing Yvette Wang, who is present, seated |\n| 1 4 | between us, and being assisted by a Mandarin |\n| 15 | interpreter. |\n| 1 6 | THE COURT: Good afternoon. |\n| 1 7 | MR. LIPMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT: Good afternoon, Ms. Wang. |\n| 19 - | I'm Judge Parker. Can you clearly hear the |\n| 20 | interpreter? |\n| 21 | THE DEFENDANT :
Yes. |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Okay. Great. |\n| 23 | You've been arrested based on charges |\n| 2 4 | filed against you in a complaint. The purpose of |\n| 25 | the proceeding today is to inform you of certain |\n| | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631 334 1445 |\n\n| । | rights that you have, inform you of the charges |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | against you, consider whether counsel should be |\n| 3 | appointed for you, and decide under what conditions, |\n| 4 | if any, you shall be released pending trial. |\n| 5 | Can I please have the date and time of |\n| 6 | arrest. |\n| 7 | MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. The |\n| ರಿ | defendant was arrested this morning at approximately |\n| 9 | 6:00
a.m. |\n| 10 | THE COURT: I'm now going to explain |\n| 11 | certain constitutional rights that you have. |\n| 12 | You have the right to remain silent. |\n| 13 | You're not required to make any statements. Even if |\n| 1 4 | you've already made statements to the authorities, |\n| 15 | you're not required to make any further statements. |\n| 1 6 | Any statements you do make can be used against you. |\n| 17 | You have the right to be released with or |\n| 18 | without conditions imposed pending trial, unless I |\n| 19 | find that there are no conditions that would |\n| 20 | reasonably assure your presence at future court |\n| 21 | appearances and the safety of the community. If you |\n| 22 | are not a U.S. citizen, you have the right to |\n| 23 | request that a government attorney or a |\n| 2 4 | law-enforcement official notify a consular officer |\n| 25 | from your country of origin that you've been |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | arrested. And in some cases, a treaty or other |\n|-----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | agreement may require the U.S. government to give |\n| 3 | that notice, whether you request it or not. |\n| 4 | You have the right to be represented by |\n| 5 | an attorney during all court proceedings, including |\n| റ | this one, and during all questioning by the |\n| 7 | authorities. You have the right to hire your own |\n| ರಿ | attorney, but if you cannot afford one, the Court |\n| 9 | will appoint one to represent you. |\n| 1 0 | Do you understand your rights as I've |\n| 11 | just explained them? |\n| 12 | THE DEFENDANT: I understand. |\n| 13 | THE COURT: Okay. Now, I understand |\n| 14 | you've retained counsel, so there's no -- is that |\n| 15 | correct? I don't have any financial affidavit. |\n| 1 6 | THE DEFENDANT: That's correct. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Yes, right. Okay. |\n| 18 | So now I'm going to review the charges in |\n| 19 | the complaint. The complaint charges you with |\n| 20 | conspiring with others to commit wire fraud and |\n| 21 | securities fraud in violation of Title 18 of the |\n| 22 | United States Code § 371. |\n| 23 | Count II charges you with committing wire |\n| 24 | fraud in violation of Title 18 of the United States |\n| 2 5 | Code § 1343 and § 2. |\n| | |\n\n| T | Count III charges you with committing |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | securities fraud in violation of Title 15 of the |\n| 3 | United States Code §§ 78j(b) and 78ff, as well as |\n| 4 | Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations |\n| 5 | § 240.10(b) (5) and Title 18 of the United States |\n| റ | Code
2. |\n| 7 | Count IV charges you with engaging in an |\n| 8 | unlawful monetary transaction in violation of |\n| 9 | Title 18 of the United States Code §§ 2 and 1957. |\n| 1 0 | And these charges all relate to your |\n| 11 | involvement with GTV and a private placement in |\n| 12 | connection with GTV, and transfer of money |\n| 13 | associated with that. |\n| 1 4 | Counsel, have you reviewed the complaint |\n| 15 | with your client with the aid of a Mandarin |\n| 1 6 | interpreter? |\n| 17 | MS. CHAUDHRY: Your Honor, we have. |\n| 18 | THE COURT: And does she waive its public |\n| 19 | reading? |\n| 20 | MS. CHAUDHRY: She does. |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Wang, do you |\n| 22 | understand what you're being charged with? |\n| 23 | THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand. |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Okay. Now, in addition to |\n| 25 | the rights that I've already told you about, you |\n| | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631 334 1445 |\n\n| 1 | have the right to a preliminary hearing at which the |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | government will have the burden of showing that |\n| 3 | there is probable cause to believe that the crime |\n| 4 | for which you're being charged has been committed |\n| 5 | and that you're the person who committed it. At the |\n| റ | hearing, you and your counsel would be entitled to |\n| 7 | cross examine any witnesses and introduce evidence. |\n| 8 | |\n| | If you're held in custody, you have the |\n| 9 | right to a preliminary hearing within 14 days. If |\n| 1 0 | you're not in custody, you have the right to a |\n| 11 | preliminary hearing in 21 days. But a preliminary |\n| 12 | hearing will not be held if you are indicted by a |\n| 13 | grand jury before the date of a preliminary hearing. |\n| 14 | I'll set the date for a preliminary hearing in a |\n| 15 | moment. |\n| 1 6 | What is the qovernment's position as to |\n| 17 | bail, detention or release? |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: Just, first, one note for |\n| 19 | the record, Your Honor, the defendant is a citizen |\n| 2 0 | of China, and consular notification was made this |\n| 21 | morning of her arrest. |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Okay. That's noted for the |\n| 23 | Thank you.
record. |\n| 2 4 | MS. MURRAY: The government has spoken |\n| 25 | with defense counsel, and we have a largely |\n| | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631.334.1445 |\n\n| । | agreed-upon bail package. There are two key |\n|-----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | differences. So I'm happy to address the |\n| 3 | differences first, if Your Honor would like, and |\n| 4 | then we can talk through the conditions, or I can |\n| 5 | take it in the inverse order. |\n| б | THE COURT: Let's start with what you do |\n| 7 | agree with, and then you can tell me what you don't |\n| ರಿ | agree with. |\n| 9 | MS. MURRAY: The government would agree |\n| 1 0 | to a personal recognizance bond of \\$5 million |\n| 11 | co-signed by two financially responsible persons |\n| 12 | approved by the government and secured by \\$1 million |\n| 13 | in real property and/or cash; an agreement on travel |\n| 1 4 | restriction to the Southern and Eastern Districts of |\n| 15 | New York; the surrender of any travel documents, and |\n| 1 6 | that the defendant make no new applications for any |\n| 17 | travel documents; that the defendant disclose all |\n| 18 | assets to Pretrial Services and the U.S. Attorney's |\n| 19 | Office, including any assets over which she has |\n| 20 | possession, custody or control; and to include any |\n| 21 | joint or business accounts and any cash, |\n| 22 | cryptocurrency or digital assets; that the defendant |\n| 23 | not open any new bank accounts or lines of credit |\n| 2 4 | without approval of Pretrial Services; that the |\n| 25 | defendant have no contact with Ho Wan Kwok, also |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | known as Miles Guo or Kin Ming Je, J-E, also known |\n|-----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | as William Je, or any alleged victims or witnesses |\n| 3 | outside the presence of counsel; and any other |\n| 4 | conditions recommended by Pretrial Services. |\n| 5 | And then, Your Honor, the two points that |\n| റ | the parties are not in agreement on -- first, the |\n| 7 | government would seek home detention, reinforced by |\n| റ്റ | GPS location monitoring, and the government would |\n| ರಿ | seek that the defendant be detained until all |\n| 1 0 | conditions are met. |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Okay. Now, am I correct that |\n| 12 | the crimes for which Ms. Wang is charged are not |\n| 13 | ones that carry a presumption of detention? |\n| 1 4 | MS. MURRAY: That is correct, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT: And under the Bail Reform |\n| 16 | Act, I'm required to release the defendant on the |\n| 17 | least restrictive means necessary to reasonably |\n| 18 | assure the defendant's return to court and the |\n| 19 | safety of the community. |\n| 20 | So I'd like to understand first why you |\n| 21 | believe that home detention with GPS is the least |\n| 22 | restrictive means necessary to achieve those |\n| 23 | purposes. |\n| 2 4 | MS. MURRAY: Sure. So with respect to |\n| 25 | this defendant's risk of flight, the government |\n| | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631.334.1445 |\n\n| 1 | certainly thinks there's more than a preponderance |\n|-----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | of the evidence that the defendant poses a |\n| 3 | significant risk of flight. The defendant -- even |\n| 4 | though these are not charges that carry presumption |\n| 5 | of detention, the defendant is charged with crimes |\n| റ | that carry a very large dollar amount. She's |\n| 7 | charged with a \\$100 million wire transfer. That's a |\n| ರಿ | sole transfer of money that the government alleges |\n| 9 | is fraud proceeds over which she had sole authority |\n| 1 0 | to authorize that wire transfer in addition to the |\n| 11 | securities fraud and the wire fraud conspiracy. |\n| 12 | The defendant has access to significant |\n| 13 | assets. Some of those are known to the government. |\n| 1 4 | Some of them, frankly, may not be known to the |\n| 1 5 | government because the defendant and others that she |\n| 16 | has conspired with operate through the use of |\n| 17 | extremely sophisticated and complicated shell |\n| 18 | companies. |\n| 1 9 | So as a few examples for Your Honor, the |\n| 20 | detendant's apartment was purchased in the name of |\n| 21 | an LLC that she fully owns. I'm not suggesting that |\n| 22 | there's anything questionable about that |\n| 23 | necessarily, but I'm using it as an example of one |\n| 2 4 | of more than a dozen entities that we are aware that |\n| 25 | the defendant either has or had control over, |\n\n| 1 | including financial control. And some of those |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 2 | entities, whether the defendant is the primary |\n| 3 | shareholder of the entities or has access |\n| ਪੋ | necessarily to the bank accounts, the defendant |\n| 5 | certainly has decisive control at least in the |\n| 6 | corporate documentation over those companies. |\n| 7 | The defendant also is not a resident of |\n| 8 | the United States. There's a pending application |\n| 9 | for asylum, but the universe within which the |\n| 1 0 | defendant and Miles Guo and William Je and others |\n| 11 | operate is an extensive network that is bolstered by |\n| 12 | hundreds of thousands of online followers throughout |\n| 13 | the globe, so it's not limited to the New York area. |\n| 1 4 | We are aware that there are people who |\n| 15 | support Mr. Guo and Ms. Wang and their comrades, as |\n| | |\n| 1 6 | they call them, throughout, as I mentioned, this |\n| 17 | global network known as the Himalaya Farm Alliance, |\n| 18 | and so we have serious reason to believe that there |\n| 19 | are people in other jurisdictions who would be |\n| 20 | supportive to Ms. Wang were she to flee and that she |\n| 21 | has significant assets to be able to flee. |\n| 22 | And then I would also note, with respect |\n| 23 | to risk of flight, the strength of the government's |\n| 24 | evidence in this case. The Court has before it a |\n| 25 | complaint, but just to represent to the Court, the |\n\n| 1 | that seemed to be new, several Hermes wallets, a |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | large Hermes bag. And then additional electronics |\n| 3 | that we don't yet know what they contain, but |\n| 4 | multiple terabyte hard drives, multiple flash |\n| 5 | drives. And then also within the space was |\n| റ | contained a pouch that had seven to eight SIM cards. |\n| 7 | In light of those circumstances and the |\n| 8 | defendant's deep connection with numerous shell |\n| 9 | entities, for lack of ties to the community in the |\n| 1 0 | sense of any status within the U.S., her extensive |\n| 11 | connections to a network of very supportive |\n| 12 | followers throughout the country and the world. And |\n| 13 | then also the defendant's role in the charged |\n| 1 4 | offenses. She was a signatory, as I mentioned, of |\n| 15 | numerous accounts, not just the account from which |\n| 16 | the \\$100 million was transferred, but the head of |\n| 17 | the various entities that make up the Kwok or Guo |\n| 18 | family offices. She had control over those |\n| 19 | entities. She had authority. She was essentially |\n| 20 | the chief of staff to Miles Guo or Miles Kwok. |\n| 21 | She ran the operations. At certain |\n| 22 | points when he was operating various of his |\n| 23 | controlled companies out of a townhouse on the Upper |\n| 2 4 | East Side, right near Ms. Wang's apartment, there |\n| 25 | were several different purported businesses working |\n| | |\n\n| । | out of the same townhouse, and Ms. Wanq was the |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | command center. It didn't matter which business. |\n| 3 | If someone was asking for approval for a wire, |\n| 4 | approval for a business decision, they would go to |\n| 5 | her. So she was the one who was tasked with being |\n| റ | the primary right-hand person for this billion |\n| 7 | dollar fraud. |\n| 8 | Those are the reasons the government |\n| 9 | thinks that home detention with GPS monitoring is |\n| 10 | appropriate. And we also believe that it's |\n| 11 | important for the conditions to be met and for the |\n| 12 | government to get comfort that the conditions are |\n| 13 | met, including the financial bond and the co-signers |\n| 1 4 | before the defendant is released. |\n| 1 5 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. |\n| 1 6 | I'll hear from defense counsel next. |\n| 17 | MS. CHAUDHRY: Thank you, Your Honor. I |\n| 18 | think the government missed a very big point in |\n| 19 | their risk of flight argument, which is that |\n| 20 | Ms. Wang is unique. She's not just a citizen of |\n| 21 | China that is in the U.S., she is a political |\n| 22 | refugee. The idea that she would flee to China |\n| 23 | whatever she's looking at in terms of the |\n| 2 4 | government's proof in the government's case, what |\n| 25 | she is looking at if she were to go back to China |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | ever in this lifetime is much worse, which is why |\n|-------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | she's seeking political asylum. Going to China is |\n| က | not an option for her. So there is no risk of |\n| 4 | flight to China in this lifetime for Ms. Wang. |\n| 5 | That s
one. |\n| 6 | Two, these passports that were found are |\n| 7 | old and expired passports. And as the government |\n| റ്റ | conceded, Ms. Wang was the chief of staff to Miles |\n| 9 | Kwok, so having her an his expired passport is not |\n| 1 0 | out of the ordinary, since she's also handling their |\n| 11 | immigration asylum application. |\n| 12 | In addition, while the government says |\n| 13 | that she does have followers, this case, especially |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok's case, is going to get so much publicity |\n| 15 | that it would be very unusual for Interpol to not |\n| 16 | notice that one of the three very high-profile |\n| 17 | defendants in this case has crossed a border. She |\n| 18 | doesn't have any travel documents anymore. |\n| । ਰੇ | And when we talk about ties to the |\n| 20 | community, Ms. Wang left China in April of 2015 and |\n| 21 | has never gone back, ever. Not even to see her |\n| 22 | father before he died, not to see her own child, who |\n| 23 | she cannot return to see. She has been in New York, |\n| 24 | and, in fact, in Manhattan since 2017. And like |\n| 25 | many New Yorkers, she doesn't drive. She has lived |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | in this apartment that she owns since 2020. And |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | before that, she rented an apartment in the same |\n| 3 | building. Pretrial Services has called the building |\n| 4 | and confirmed that she does, in fact, live there. |\n| 5 | And she does have her asylum application |\n| റ | in. The interviews are done. So she is actively |\n| 7 | seeking to not only let the U.S. government know |\n| 8 | she's here, but to let her stay. This is not |\n| 9 | someone who is risking going anywhere where China |\n| 1 0 | can get their hands on her again. |\n| 11 | GPS monitoring for Ms. Wang would assure |\n| 12 | the government and the Court that we know where she |\n| 13 | is. It is used for defendants all over this |\n| 14 | country. It is incredibly effective. I have had |\n| 15 | clients who face charges in this district who have |\n| 16 | lived all over the country, and they have faced |\n| 17 | similar charges, and that was enough to keep them -- |\n| 18 | to -- sorry -- to secure their return to court. |\n| 19 | That's something that, I think, Pretrial is able -- |\n| 20 | hopefully, able to do today before she leaves. |\n| 21 | We are happy to agree to the rest of it, |\n| 22 | but that is asking -- letting her out today, we |\n| 23 | think is easy to do without the Court really |\n| 2 4 | worrying that they will never see her again. And |\n| 25 | the government's request for home confinement, we |\n\n| । | think is also unnecessary, given the effectiveness |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | of the GPS location monitoring. |\n| 3 | With the travel restrictions of the |\n| 4 | Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, that |\n| 5 | should keep us all aware of Ms. Wang's whereabouts. |\n| റ | And, in addition, she has no intention of going |\n| 7 | anywhere. She has known that the government has |\n| ರಿ | been investigating her, and the SEC has been |\n| 9 | investigating for quite a while, and she has not |\n| 10 | fled. And she has no intention of fleeing. So for |\n| 11 | that reason, we would agree to all of that with |\n| 12 | those two requests for a change, and we would ask to |\n| 13 | have ten days to get the rest of the conditions met, |\n| 1 4 | but to release Ms. Wang on her signature today. |\n| 1 5 | THE COURT: So you don't object to an |\n| 16 | ankle bracelet, you object to home detention? |\n| 17 | MS. CHAUDHRY:
Correct. |\n| 18 | THE COURT: And Ms. Wang being held until |\n| 19 | the conditions are met. |\n| 20 | MS. CHAUDHRY: That's right. |\n| 21 | THE COURT: And do you have financial |\n| 22 | suretors? |\n| 23 | MS. CHAUDHRY: We are working on them. |\n| 24 | The government has agreed to have a dialogue with us |\n| 25 | in the next day or two to find people that they -- |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| । | we offered some people not yet acceptable. We will |\n|-----------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | find people that are acceptable. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: What's the value of |\n| ਰੋ | Ms. Wang's apartment, if anybody -- do you -- does |\n| 5 | any -- either side know? |\n| 6 | MS. CHAUDHRY: It was purchased for just |\n| 7 | over \\$1 million. It has no mortgage. And that was |\n| 8 | in 2020. It is in a desirable building on the Upper |\n| 9 | East Side, so I assume it's worth at least that |\n| 1 0 | right now. |\n| 1 T | THE COURT: Does the government have any |\n| 12 | comments in response? |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | Just briefly, a few points. |\n| 1 5 | One, with respect to Ms. Chaudhry's point |\n| 1 ହ | about Ms. Wang not looking to go to China anytime |\n| 17 | soon because of the danger that it poses in light of |\n| 18 | her status as a political asylee applicant here, I |\n| ਹੈ। ਹਵਾਲੇ | would just note there are other places that Ms. Wang |\n| 20 | could go to. At least one of her entities is a BVI |\n| ਨ I | registered entity. There are connections in this |\n| 22 | case and with respect to bank account and money and |\n| റ്റ് 3 | entities that Ms. Wang had access to, to the UAE, |\n| ਨ ਜੋ | including very recent activity in Dubai and the UAE |\n| 25 | as recently as a couple of days ago, by people who |\n| | |\n\n| - | are involved in these entities and in this fraud |\n|------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | scheme . |\n| 3 | So the expired passports in the safe, one |\n| 4 | doesn't need a passport to flee somewhere and then |\n| 5 | seek asylum in that location. So we would note that |\n| റ | we think that there is a siqnificant risk of flight, |\n| 7 | and Ms. Wang's relationship with China does not |\n| ರಿ | mitigate that, particularly in light of her ties to |\n| 9 | other jurisdictions, including other jurisdictions |\n| 1 0 | that do not readily, or even at all, extradite to |\n| 11 | the United States. |\n| 12 | Another couple of points. \\$130,000 in |\n| 13 | cash, that seems like an emergency flight fund. |\n| 1 4 | That is a lot of cash to be having on hand and |\n| 15 | indicates to us that, even setting aside the bank |\n| 16 | accounts that she has control over and access to and |\n| 17 | the entities that she has control and access to, she |\n| 18 | has been storing cash for some reason in a safe in |\n| 19 | her apartment. That gives us grave concerns about |\n| 20 | potential motivation to flee and also ability to |\n| 21 | flee on a moment's notice. |\n| 22 | With respect to the location monitoring, |\n| 23 | the GPS bracelet versus home detention reinforced by |\n| ਨ ਕੋ | GPS monitoring, I understand Ms. Chaudhry's point, |\n| 25 | but a bracelet is relatively easy to cut.
- |\n| | |\n| | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631.334.1445 |\n\n| 1 | understand that most people, you know, kind of, |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | comply with the conditions. Our concern here, where |\n| 3 | we have somebody who had all of that cash just |\n| 4 | within her apartment is there could be other |\n| 5 | locations she has access to where she has assets |\n| 6 | stored away to help her flee. She could cut the |\n| 7 | bracelet. It's another reason, Your Honor, why it |\n| ರಿ | is so important for us to firm up the conditions of |\n| 9 | the bond that the parties do agree on, including the |\n| 1 0 | financial conditions, before Ms. Wang is released so |\n| 11 | that we have some comfort that we have a sense of |\n| 12 | what would actually be put up in this case as a |\n| 1 3 | bond, and we would have a sense of what controls we |\n| 1 4 | would have in place if Ms. Wanq were to flee. |\n| 15 | And, finally, with respect to the |\n| 1 6 | co-signers that the defense counsel has proposed to |\n| 17 | us, we are more than happy to work with the defense |\n| 18 | counsel to find co-signers who would be satisfactory |\n| 19 | to the government. I would note that the two names |\n| 20 | that were floated today are two people that the |\n| 01 | orrormant in ] not sagont in light of thoir |\n\n| 1 | financially responsible persons that she presents |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | today are two people who have been alleged had |\n| 3 | involvement in the fraud. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Okay. Anything further? |\n| 5 | MS. CHAUDHRY: Yes, Your Honor, just on |\n| റ | the \\$138,000 in cash. It is a fact, and I think |\n| 7 | it's publically known since the GTV cases have |\n| ರಿ | gotten some notoriety, that lots of groups, whether |\n| 9 | they're countries or companies, have taken political |\n| 1 0 | stances in this, including various banks that have |\n| 11 | closed Ms. Wang's bank accounts down, which is why |\n| 12 | she ended up with a lot of cash in her safe. She |\n| 13 | has gone through nearly a dozen normal banks, |\n| 1 4 | whether it is Bank of America or Santander or -- |\n| 15 | they just close her accounts down and make her come |\n| 1 6 | get her money. So that is one of the reasons that |\n| 17 | she keeps cash on hand. |\n| 18 | And the second thing is the government's |\n| 19 | entirely speculative claim that there could be other |\n| 20 | places where she has cash where she could go are |\n| 21 | just that, they're just speculation. They have been |\n| 22 | investigating this for a long time. They haven't |\n| 23 | given the Court a particular place where they think |\n| 2 4 | that there's cash. I mean, either they think this |\n| 25 | is somebody who has followers in the world who could |\n\n| । | detention enforced by location monitoring technology |\n|-------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | as directed by Pretrial Services. Defendant will |\n| 3 | disclose all assets to Pretrial Services and the |\n| 4 | U.S. Attorney's Office, including any accounts in |\n| 5 | her name or controlled by her or by companies in |\n| റ | which she has an interest, any cryptocurrency, any |\n| 7 | cash and any other property. |\n| 8 | Ms. Wang shall have no contact with |\n| 9 | Mr. Kwok or Mr. Je or other co-conspirators outside |\n| 1 0 | presence of counsel. She shall have no contact with |\n| 11 | any alleged victims or witnesses outside presence of |\n| 12 | counsel. She shall reside at the residence at |\n| 13 | 188 East 64th Street and may not relocate absent |\n| 14 | permission from Pretrial Services. Defendant shall |\n| 15 | not open any new bank accounts, lines of credit or |\n| 16 | loans without prior approval of Pretrial Services. |\n| 17 | Now, is there anything further from the |\n| 18 | government? |\n| । ਰੇ | MS. MURRAY: If I may just clarify one |\n| 20 | condition, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes . |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY: With respect to the home |\n| 23 | detention being reinforced by location monitoring, |\n| 24 | we would ask that it be reinforced by GPS location |\n| 25 | monitoring so that it -- I understand that location |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | monitoring advises when the defendant leaves or |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | returns. We would like to know where she goes when |\n| 3 | she leaves as well. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Yeah, I'm going to -- I will |\n| 5 | also order the GPS, but location monitoring also can |\n| റ | include standalone monitoring in the home -- at the |\n| 7 | home if Pretrial Services deems that to be |\n| റ്റ | appropriate, and so I'm including that within the |\n| ರಿ | bail conditions. |\n| 1 0 | MS. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you, Your |\n| 11 | Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Okay. Now, Ms. Wang, I |\n| 13 | assume you're going to be able to meet these |\n| 14 | conditions at some point, and once you do and when |\n| 15 | you are released, I need to warn you that failing to |\n| 1 6 | appear in court as required can have serious |\n| 17 | consequences . |\n| 18 | If you violate any of the terms of your |\n| 19 | release, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. |\n| 20 | You and anyone who signs a bond will each be |\n| 21 | responsible for paying its full amount. You may be |\n| 22 | charged with a separate crime of bail jumping, which |\n| 23 | can mean additional jail time and a fine. |\n| 24 | In addition, if you commit any new |\n| 25 | offense while you're released, in addition to the |\n| | |\n| | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631.334.1445 |\n\n| 1 | sentence prescribed for that offense, you'll be |\n|------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment of |\n| 3 | not more than ten years if it's a felony, and not |\n| 4 | more than one year if it's a misdemeanor. And this |\n| 5 | term of imprisonment would be served after any other |\n| റ | sentence of imprisonment is completed. |\n| 7 | And while you're awaiting trial, I also |\n| ರಿ | must warn you not to have any contact with or engage |\n| 9 | in any intimidation of potential or designated |\n| 1 0 | witnesses or jurors, not to engage in any |\n| 11 | intimidation of any court officer, and not to engage |\n| 1 2 | in any conduct that would obstruct any investigation |\n| 13 | by law enforcement. |\n| 1 4 | What date shall I set for a preliminary |\n| 1 5 | hearing? |\n| 1 6 | Defense counsel, do you want to waive to |\n| 17 | the 30th day for a preliminary hearing? You want |\n| 18 | the 14th day? |\n| 1 ਰੇ | CHAUDHRY :
14th.
MS . |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Okay. Preliminary hearing is |\n| 21 | set for March 29. |\n| 22 | Anything further from the government? |\n| 23 | MS. MURRAY: No, Your Honor. Thank you. |\n| 2 4 | THE COURT: Anything further from defense |\n| 25 | counsel? |\n| | |\n| | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631 334 1445 |\n\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n|---------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|----------------|-------------------------------------------|---------|\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n| 1 | let us know.
Okay? |\n|-----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE DEFENDANT: Understood. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: All right. So in preparation |\n| 4 | for this proceeding, I've reviewed the pretrial |\n| 5 | services report that was prepared about two weeks |\n| റ | ago, maybe a week ago, when the defendant was |\n| 7 | initially here. And I have the transcript from |\n| റ്റ | March 15th when the defendant was presented before |\n| 9 | Judge Parker, which I've reviewed. |\n| 1 0 | I understand that Judge Parker set |\n| 11 | conditions for the defendant's release, required |\n| 12 | that the conditions be satisfied before she be |\n| 13 | released. And I understand that we are here |\n| 14 | potentially for a Nebbia hearing. Nobody has |\n| 1 5 | submitted anything else to me, so I don't know |\n| 1 6 | anything else than now what I've shared with you. |\n| 17 | MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. So we |\n| 18 | received a call last night from defense counsel, |\n| 19 | yesterday evening. They provided a number of |\n| 20 | potential cosigners. We've received documents for |\n| 21 | five of those and interviewed four and had not |\n| 22 | gotten to the point where we had two cosigners that |\n| 23 | we approved. |\n| 2 4 | So last evening, defense informed us that |\n| 25 | they wanted what they referred to as a Nebbia |\n| | |\n\n| । | hearing. I understood the defense was going to file |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | something for the Court overnight, but we just |\n| ന | notified arraignment and arranged for defendant to |\n| বা | be produced. So I will leave it to defense what |\n| 5 | they want to cover here today. |\n| റ | THE COURT: Okay. Can I ask you just to |\n| 7 | move the microphone -- |\n| 8 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry. |\n| 9 | THE COURT: -- directly in front of you. |\n| 1 0 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, the reason we are |\n| 11 | here is because the Government has unreasonably, in |\n| 12 | our view, refused to approve the cosigners we |\n| 13 | proposed. So, as the Government said, we gave them |\n| 14 | more than five names. We gave them something like |\n| 15 | nine names, and they interviewed -- they have |\n| 16 | documents for five. They interviewed four. They've |\n| 17 | rejected all of them. |\n| 18 | And the reason we're here is because we are |\n| 19 | going to ask Your Honor to either approve the people |\n| 20 | we've proposed or change the bail conditions in such |\n| 21 | a way that Ms. Wang can satisfy the bail conditions |\n| 22 | and be released. So if I may just start before, as |\n| 23 | an initial map, right, since Your Honor has reviewed |\n| 2 4 | the pretrial report, Your Honor can see that the |\n\n| 1 | THE COURT: Let me stop you for one second. |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR.
LIPMAN :
Yeah. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: I'm not really inclined to |\n| 4 | overrule my colleague who heard bail arguments and |\n| 5 | set a bail condition. So I'm not sure that's what I |\n| 6 | want to do, if that's what you're asking me to do. |\n| 7 | If you're asking me to consider the reasonableness |\n| 8 | of the proposed sureters I understand under the law, |\n| 9 | I can do that. |\n| 10 | I don't know anything about what that |\n| 11 | standard of review is, and I don't have any names or |\n| 12 | documents, so I don't know that that's something I |\n| 13 | can do from the bench. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, Your Honor, let me set |\n| 15 | the stage for this, and maybe that Il help. |\n| 1 6 | THE COURT:
Okay . |\n| 17 | MR. LIPMAN: Ms. Wang is a political |\n| 18 | refugee from China. She is a part of a movement of |\n| 1 9 | people who are opposing the Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 20 | And it's a pretty big movement. And because of her |\n| 21 | participation in the movement as a very senior |\n| 22 | person, she cannot return to China. If she did, she |\n| 23 | would be arrested at the airport and probably |\n| 24 | executed within days. |\n| 25 | So she's here. She lost her family in |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | movement? |\n|------|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN: What she does is she works, |\n| ന | and then she goes home, and then she works. And her |\n| বা | entire life, during this entire time, has been |\n| 5 | moving from her apartment to where she works and |\n| റ | back. She actually -- the answer is that her entire |\n| 7 | world is people -- people in this -- people in this |\n| യ | community. We did have one person who is a very |\n| 9 | well-known individual in the United States who is |\n| 10 | not part of that -- is not Chinese, and he |\n| 11 | volunteered to post a property worth two and a half |\n| 12 | million dollars to secure her bond. |\n| 13 | We proposed that if he were -- if he were |\n| 14 | to do two and a half million dollars of his |\n| 15 | property, and she confessed judgment on her |\n| 16 | apartment, that's three and a half million dollars. |\n| 17 | They have \\$130,000 in cash that they seized from her |\n| 18 | apartment. And then there is an account with |\n| ി റി | approximately, I want to say, 4- to 500,000 dollars |\n| 2 0 | in it. |\n| 2 T | We proposed to put all of that together for |\n| 22 | \\$4 million security for the bond and then so that |\n| 23 | they could, you know, approve the people that they |\n| 2 4 | had interviewed, and they refused. So we are at a |\n| | |\n\n| । | three people they interviewed they have no issues |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | with, as far as I can tell, just as far as I can |\n| 3 | tell. And they won't approve them. |\n| 4 | First, they told us that they won't approve |\n| 5 | them because they don't have enough assets. Okay? |\n| റ | So then we had subsequent conversations in which |\n| 7 | they said, well, the other problem is that they are |\n| ರಿ | too remote from her. They don't have moral suasion |\n| 9 | over her. Well, they think that they do, which is |\n| 10 | why they're doing this. |\n| 11 | And, by the way, Your Honor, even if they |\n| 12 | don't have the \\$5 million to stand behind this bond, |\n| 13 | they are financially responsible people. They would |\n| 14 | be ruined if the bond -- she defaulted on the bond. |\n| 15 | One of them is a lawyer. We offered another lawyer |\n| 16 | who is -- who is a -- we gave them the name. They |\n| 17 | didn't run it down because they told us straight |\n| 18 | away that he won't work. |\n| । ਰੇ | But we offered an IT professional -- I |\n| 20 | think two IT professionals, if memory serves. |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Two what professionals? |\n| 22 | MR .
LIPMAN :
IT. |\n| 23 | THE
COURT :
IT. |\n| 24 | MR. LIPMAN: We offered -- they interviewed |\n| 25 | one of the lawyers. He is not rich now, but he does |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | of fraud scheme funds over the course of the charged |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | conspiracy. That is not a person that we feel |\n| 3 | comfortable, even if he has the financial means to |\n| 4 | cosign a bond for the defendant. |\n| 5 | We have expressed a willingness to work |\n| റ | with defense on potential cosigners, particularly in |\n| 7 | light of their claims. Which we understand that |\n| 8 | Ms. Wang doesn't have family here, so the moral |\n| ರಿ | suasion angle might be different. |\n| 1 0 | But we can't be in a position where Judge |\n| 11 | Parker made a very reasoned judgment on the facts, |\n| 12 | and the Government agrees that in light of the |\n| 13 | substantial flight risk that Ms. Wang creates, in |\n| 14 | light of both her political asylum status, the |\n| 15 | strength of the Government's evidence, the amount of |\n| 16 | time she's facing, and her global network of Miles |\n| 17 | Guo supporters who clearly are willing to put their |\n| 18 | necks out and sign a bond, even though some of them |\n| 이 영 | have only met her once or twice or only speak with |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | person, and, two, do they have moral suasion over |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the defendant. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: But why wouldn't the assessment |\n| 4 | of whether somebody was a financially responsible |\n| 5 | person include the responsible part? Meaning if, |\n| റ | for instance, the lawyer that you proposed is, in |\n| 7 | the Government's light, at least involved on some |\n| 00 | level with the fraud, even if that person has |\n| 9 | assets, then that person is not responsible in the |\n| 1 0 | Government's light. |\n| 1 1 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, that person -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT: And so if you want to make an |\n| । ਤ | application to the Court, that's one thing. But |\n| 1 4 | that's not an unreasonable position for the |\n| 1 5 | Government to take. |\n| 1 6 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, in that situation, |\n| 17 | regardless of what the Government thinks he did or |\n| 18 | didn't do, he would be on the hook for \\$5 million. |\n| 19 | And the idea of a financially responsible person is |\n| 20 | a little bit of an interesting question. The people |\n| 21 | that they refuse to -- they interviewed three |\n| 22 | people, one a lawyer, two -- I think they're both IT |\n| 23 | professionals. They don't have a problem with those |\n| 24 | issues -- with those people. |\n| 25 | What they said to us is, these people don't |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | have enough assets. Well, you know what? They |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | don't have enough assets. But if Ms. Wanq were to |\n| 3 | default on the bond, they would be in serious |\n| 4 | financial troubles. And they understand that. |\n| 5 | THE COURT: Right. Unless they fled. |\n| 6 | MR. LIPMAN: But there's no -- even they do |\n| 7 | not suggest that. They're completely unrelated to |\n| ರಿ | her or to the main defendant. I mean, they are |\n| 9 | people who know her and are willing to cosign a bond |\n| 10 | for her, but even the Government doesn't claim |\n| 11 | there's any issue with them, that they're going to |\n| 12 | flee or anything like that. One of them is a lawyer |\n| 13 | practicing in Chicago. He's not going anywhere, |\n| 1 4 | Your Honor. He's not making a ton of money, but |\n| 15 | he's not going anywhere. |\n| 16 | And one of them is an IT professional who's |\n| 17 | actually not Chinese, and he's willing to cosign |\n| 18 | bond. Aqain, he's not a rich person, but his |\n| 19 | financial life would be ruined if Ms. Wang were to |\n| 20 | default on the bond. And he understands that, and |\n| 21 | he thinks that he's willing to sign. |\n| 22 | And by the way, he spoke with his wife |\n| 23 | before he agreed. They both agreed to do so. So |\n| 24 | these people making serious, serious commitment, |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | person who works Mr. Guo as a cosigner. We asked |\n|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | them. There are people who -- she was a senior |\n| 3 | person in this organization. She interacted with |\n| 4 | several senior people. We asked -- we gave them the |\n| 5 | names, we said how about this person, that person. |\n| 6 | No, no, no, because they're involved in the fraud or |\n| 7 | they're involved in the movement or they're involved |\n| 8 | in this, involved in that. |\n| 9 | Well, what are we supposed to do? We found |\n| 1 0 | three people they interviewed who are financially |\n| 11 | responsible, willing to sign, and did not even -- |\n| 12 | they don't claim are involved in defrauding anyone. |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I just may |\n| 1 4 | briefly respond to that point. I do want to note I |\n| 15 | don't believe there's any issue that's ripe for the |\n| 1 6 | Court at this point procedurally or under the law. |\n| 17 | And I don't think that the first prong of relief |\n| 18 | that Mr. Lipman suggested is appropriate, for the |\n| 이 영 | Court to force the Government to approve cosigners. |\n| 2 0 | That is not the legal standard. |\n| 21 | The three individuals Mr. Lipman just |\n| 22 | mentioned, I want to note, while we said we could |\n| റ 3 | get comfortable with them as financially responsible |\n| 24 | persons, all three of those individuals are victims |\n| い C | o 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |\n\n| 1 | know who she is. They understand the allegations. |\n|------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | One of them specifically asked me, before he agreed |\n| 3 | to do it, to send him the complaint, which I did. |\n| 4 | And he took time to review the complaint before he |\n| 5 | gave me permission to contact the Government. Okay? |\n| 6 | So they know what they're doing. They |\n| 7 | understand that the Government used them as victims. |\n| 8 | They are prepared to sign. |\n| 9 | THE COURT: Okay. I tend to agree with |\n| 1 0 | Ms. Murray that there is not an issue before the |\n| 11 | Court. I'm certainly not going to direct people I |\n| 12 | don't even know -- I haven't even had names, much |\n| 13 | less any information. I'm not qoing to direct the |\n| 14 | Government to accept these miscellaneous John Does |\n| 15 | as sureties. That's not how this works. And I |\n| 1 6 | don't believe sufficient time has elapsed that |\n| 17 | justifies revisiting Judge Parker's bail conditions. |\n| 18 | What I'd like to do is, first, direct you, |\n| の 日本 | Mr. Lipman. It sounds like you haven't given all |\n| 20 | the information to the Government specifically with |\n| 21 | respect to this person who has property that they |\n| 22 | might post. You know, they need to do their job. I |\n| 23 | take Ms. Murray at her word that they are not slow |\n| 2 4 | walking this. They are making every effort to |\n| 25 | locate somebody that the Government is comfortable |\n\n| । | shifting. First, there was an understanding, an |\n|-------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | explicit understanding -- I told them right away, |\n| 3 | look, there are no sisters. There are no brothers. |\n| 4 | There are no aunts. Okay? It's going to be |\n| 5 | somebody else. |\n| 6 | They said, \"All right; we understand that.\" |\n| 7 | So we gave them names. These people are not rich |\n| 8 | enough. Okay. Now they're telling you that they |\n| 9 | also don't have moral suasion. Well, you knew that |\n| 1 0 | before when I first gave you the names. I feel like |\n| 11 | we're not getting anywhere because things are |\n| 12 | shifting. And I think what they're doing is they're |\n| 13 | deliberately trying to keep her in in order to put |\n| 14 | pressure on her so that she becomes their friends, |\n| 15 | your Honor. I think that's what's really going on |\n| 16 | here. |\n| 17 | Friday. We'll file on Friday or tee it up |\n| 18 | on Friday? |\n| । ਰੇ | MS. CHAUDHRY: We'll file on Friday. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN: We can file on Friday, Your |\n| 21 | Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay . |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: And, Your Honor, we will |\n| 24 | continue working with them, but at a minimum, it |\n| 25 - | would be helpful to us if the Court could at least |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | admonish them to work with us in good faith. |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT: I'm not going to admonish them |\n| 3 | because I don't believe that they are not working |\n| 4 | with you in good faith. So I'm happy to have your |\n| 5 | application. I hope nothing that's in the |\n| റ | application is information that you haven't provided |\n| 7 | to the Government, because what I'm hearing from the |\n| ರಿ | Government, and I don't really need to get into the |\n| 9 | sandbox to figure out who's right or who's wrong |\n| 1 0 | here, is that they haven't received all the |\n| 1 1 | information that they need from you. So I hope that |\n| 12 | you continue to provide that to them. |\n| 13 | I'll direct the Government to expeditiously |\n| 14 | respond to the proposals and to make a good faith |\n| 15 | assessment of those folks. I'm not going to |\n| 16 | admonish you that you haven't done that yet, but |\n| 17 | that's certainly your obligation, and I expect you |\n| 18 | to do so. So this motion is qoing to be filed on |\n| 19 | Friday. |\n| 20 | When would the Government like to file its |\n| 21 | opposition? |\n| 22 | MR. FERGENSON: Without knowing what this |\n| 23 | motion is going to look like, Your Honor, it's a |\n| 2 4 | little difficult to say. |\n| 25 | THE COURT: How about if you file it |\n| | |\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |","body_zh":"附件48\n\n美国司法部\n\n美国检察官办公室 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nSilvio J. Mollo大楼，Saint Andrew's Plaza 1号，New York, New York 10007\n\nMarch 29, 2023\n\n通过ECF及电子邮件\n\nHon. Robert W. Lehrburger（罗伯特·W·莱尔伯格法官）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang（王艳萍），又名“Yvette”，23 Mag. 2007 (UA)\n\n尊敬的莱尔伯格法官：\n\n政府谨提交本函，反对Yanping Wang（王艳萍），又名“Yvette”（“Wang”或“被告人”）于March 24, 2023提交的动议（“Mot.”）及支持其请求作出命令、确认其已遵守保释条件的动议的法律备忘录（“Mem.”）（Dkts. 8, 9）。基于下述理由，被告人的动议实质上构成第二次复议动议，应予驳回。\n\n一、概述\n\n被告人被控在由Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”（“Kwok”），以及Kwok和Wang的同谋King Ming Je（金明·杰），又名“William Je”（“Je”）主导的一项规模庞大且复杂的欺诈活动中发挥关键作用；该活动通过重大虚假陈述，欺骗数千名受害人向Kwok广泛、复杂且相互关联的欺诈性发行项目投资逾$1 billion。该欺诈活动至少依赖于四个相互关联的部分：GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV Media Group, Inc.）的私募发行（“GTV”）、Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）、G Club Operations, LLC（G Club Operations, LLC，简称“G|CLUBS”）以及Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）。随后，Kwok、Je、Wang及其同谋对其欺诈所得进行洗钱，并侵占数亿美元的欺诈所得供Kwok及他人个人使用。如本案起诉文件及先前庭审出庭中所述，被告人实际上担任Kwok的办公厅主任，并管理Kwok控制并用于实施该欺诈计划的各实体的日常运营。在该职务中，被告人可接触并拥有对用于获取和洗白欺诈所得的银行账户的签字权限。\n\n鉴于被告人与美国缺乏联系、指控的性质、其在该严重犯罪行为中所发挥的关键作用、其大量金融资源、其面临的重大刑罚、证明其有罪的有力证据、其与外国司法辖区的联系，以及其与仍然在逃的同谋及国际洗钱者William Je的关系，被告人存在严重逃跑风险。被告人系中国公民，于约2017年从中国移居美国，并提交了寻求免受Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，简称“CCP”）迫害的政治庇护申请，该申请仍在审理中。一般而言，如受庇护者在美国期间被控严重犯罪行为，该刑事指控可构成准予庇护的障碍。被告人在美国没有家人。（Mem. at 1.）被告人在美国的联系不仅有限，而且在国外亦拥有广泛联系和资源。她曾持有多个外国司法辖区签发的护照，并且是用于协助实施欺诈的外国实体的唯一董事，其中包括至少一家在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册的公司。其共同被告人Je居住于United Kingdom（英国），目前据信藏匿于United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国，简称“UAE”）。被告人还可获得并得到遍布世界各地的大量Kwok忠实追随者网络的支持。被告人的唯一儿子居住在中国，自其移居美国后，她一直未曾见过儿子。\n\n被告人亦具备逃跑的经济能力。如以下更详述，被告人的个人银行账户中有逾$1 million现金，且在其被捕时，其公寓保险箱内有逾$130,000大额现金。被告人还很可能可获得同谋藏匿于国外的资产，包括Je的资产；Je个人从该欺诈活动中收取数百万美元，且系逃犯。此外，被告人具有极其强烈的逃跑动机。被告人面临的各项指控合计法定最高刑约为55年监禁。对其适用的Sentencing Guidelines（量刑指南）区间作保守估计，显示其可能面临约292至365个月监禁。鉴于证明被告人有罪的大量证据及其预期可能刑期的长度，任何个人均会受到高度激励而逃跑；被告人与美国缺乏联系、其在国外的联系（包括与Je的联系，后者知悉对其提出的指控但仍然在逃），以及其服刑后很可能被驱逐出境的前景，均使其逃跑动机更为强烈。\n\n二、程序经过\n\nA. 对被告人的刑事指控\n\nMarch 10, 2023，Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein（加布里埃尔·W·戈伦斯坦法官）签署了一份密封刑事控诉书（“Complaint”），指控被告人共谋实施电信和证券欺诈，违反18 U.S.C. § 371；电信欺诈，违反18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2；证券欺诈，违反15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff、17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5及18 U.S.C. § 2；以及洗钱，违反18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2。Complaint作为附件A随函附上。\n\nB. 被告人的逮捕\n\n被告人于March 15, 2023在其Manhattan（曼哈顿）公寓被捕。同日，FBI对Wang的公寓进行了经司法授权的搜查。搜查期间，FBI从一只保险箱内查获大额美国及外国货币；具体而言，逾约$138,000美元货币、约£3,000、约1180港元及约600元人民币。保险箱内的其他物品包括被告人和Kwok分别由Vanuatu（瓦努阿图）1及中国签发的已过期外国护照。（Ex. C at 8:24-14:10。）FBI还从被告人公寓内查获约12部手机、两台电脑及逾25个USB闪存盘。许多手机被藏在原装iPhone包装盒内，显然意图掩盖其实际上存有数据的事实。其他电子设备也以类似方式被藏匿；例如，一部手机在被告人床铺的两张床垫之间被发现，一台笔记本电脑则被塞在被告人衣柜内的毛衣之间。\n\n1 瓦努阿图是南太平洋的一个小岛国家。据公开报道，瓦努阿图允许外国国民以在该国投资为交换取得瓦努阿图公民身份。参见“The Guardian”于July 14, 2021刊发的“Citizenship for sale: fugitives, politicians and disgraced businesspeople buying Vanuatu passports”（可见于http）。\n\nFBI还从被告人公寓内查获约12部手机、两台电脑及逾25个USB闪存盘。许多手机被藏在原装iPhone包装盒内，显然意图掩盖其实际上存有数据的事实。其他电子设备也以类似方式被藏匿；例如，一部手机在被告人床铺的两张床垫之间被发现，一台笔记本电脑则被塞在被告人衣柜内的毛衣之间。\n\nC. 对Kwok和Je的刑事指控\n\n一份指控Kwok和Je的起诉书（“Indictment”）于March 15, 2023被解封。United States v. Kwok et al., 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 2)。Indictment作为附件B随函附上。Kwok于March 15, 2023在曼哈顿被捕，Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局，简称“FBI”）对其三处住所进行了经司法授权的搜查——其曼哈顿顶层公寓、其位于Greenwich, Connecticut（康涅狄格州格林尼治）的住所，以及其位于Mahwah, New Jersey（新泽西州马瓦）的豪宅。在搜查期间，FBI查获约30部手机、约25台电脑，以及数十个硬盘和闪存盘。从Kwok曼哈顿公寓查获的一部手机位于Kwok卧室的两张床垫之间（即以与被告人一部手机在其公寓内被藏匿时相同的方式藏匿）。FBI还查获了用欺诈所得购买的豪华家具和物品。在搜查位于马瓦豪宅的一只保险箱时，FBI查获大额美国及外国货币；具体而言，逾约$394,000美元货币、约€5,000、约188,050港元及约250元人民币。FBI还从马瓦豪宅查获了Kwok外国旅行证件的证据，包括一本有效的香港护照及一份已过期的UAE护照副本。政府正请求对Kwok进行审前羁押，并于March 15, 2023提交了一份羁押函以支持其立场。参见23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7)（“Kwok Detention Ltr.”）。\n\n同日，United Kingdom（英国）执法部门试图在London（伦敦）逮捕Je，并对Je位于伦敦的住所执行了经司法授权的搜查。搜查期间，执法部门除其他物品外，查获了手机、各种货币的大额现金及两个加密货币硬件钱包。Je仍然在逃，但据信位于UAE。Kwok和Je与UAE有重大联系——他们将该欺诈计划的大量所得转入并经由Je至少一个UAE银行账户流转；该账户至少收到约$128 million欺诈所得，随后被侵占给Kwok、Je及其家庭成员，或电汇至由Kwok和Je控制的实体。参见Kwok Detention Ltr. at 9-10。例如，于January 2021，Kwok和Je安排将约$11 million欺诈所得从Je的UAE银行账户转入以Kwok家族办公室实体之一名义持有的银行账户，该实体据称由Kwok的一名近亲拥有。被告人是收取该$11 million欺诈资金的特定家族办公室银行账户的授权签字人，该等资金被侵占用于个人生活开支（例如私人飞机上的机组人员服务、豪华汽车及游艇开支）。此外，如Kwok羁押函中更详述，Kwok最近采取措施将Himalaya Exchange的业务及其资金转移至UAE，以使其置于“the long arm jurisdiction of the U.S.”之外。参见Kwok Detention Ltr. at 19。事实上，在约January至March 2023期间，至少两名为Kwok控制的实体HCHK Technologies, Inc.工作的人员在UAE停留了逾约六周，显然是为协助将Kwok和Je的业务转移至国外。截至至少约May 23, 2022，被告人通过一家名为Holy City Hong Kong Venture Ltd.2的在BVI注册的空壳公司，持有HCHK Technologies, Inc.和HCHK Property Management, Inc.各99.9999%的股份。\n\nD. 被告人的提讯和保释听证\n\n被告人于March 15, 2023在Honorable Katharine H. Parker（凯瑟琳·H·帕克法官）面前被提讯。该程序的庭审记录作为附件C随函附上。在该程序中，政府向帕克法官提交了一套拟议保释方案中经同意的条款供其考虑，其中包括但不限于一项由两名经政府批准、经济上有偿付能力的人共同签署，并以$1 million不动产和/或现金作担保的$5 million个人具结保释保证书。（Ex. C at 6-7。）政府随后指出，下列拟议条件存在争议：(a) 被告人获释后实行居家拘禁，并以GPS定位监控加强；以及(b) 被告人仅在满足全部保释条件后方可获释。（Ex. C at 8:5-10。）Pretrial Services（审前服务部门）报告建议的释放条件在所有实质性方面均与政府提出的条件一致，包括以电子监控加强的居家拘禁、保证书须部分提供担保并由两名经济上有偿付能力的人共同签署，以及被告人在满足全部条件前继续被羁押。\n\n帕克法官（Judge Parker）听取了政府和被告辩护律师就两项争议问题提出的论点。关于其寻求居家拘禁的依据，政府强调，被告存在重大潜逃风险，理由包括但不限于：与该项数十亿美元欺诈计划有关的巨额金额（尤其是被告拥有唯一授权可进行的 $100 million 欺诈所得电汇）；被告可获得大量资产；被告控制十余个用于实施欺诈的空壳实体；被告在美国缺乏合法身份；被告可利用遍布全球、可能协助其潜逃的 Kwok（郭文贵）追随者和支持者网络；被告与美国缺乏联系；政府针对被告的证据有力；以及联邦调查局（FBI）于当日早些时候搜查被告公寓时所发现的证据。\n\n辩护律师主张，鉴于被告的个人背景以及其在美国寻求政治庇护的情形，被告基本不存在潜逃至中国或“任何中国能够再次控制她的地方”的风险。(Ex. C at 14:17- 16:10). 辩护律师进一步主张，仅凭被告本人的签字予以释放“很容易做到，法院无需真正担心将永远见不到她。”(Ex. C at 16:23-24). 帕克法官询问辩护律师是否已确定财务保证人；辩护律师表示其已“提出一些尚不能接受的人选”，但指出政府已“同意与”辩护律师就评估潜在共同签署人一事“进行对话”。17:21-18:2.)\n\n2 被告被列为 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. 的唯一董事，并以该身份代表 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. 签署了包括股东决议在内的各种 HCHK 公司文件。\n\n作为回应，政府强调被告与中国以外司法管辖区的联系，包括英属维尔京群岛和阿拉伯联合酋长国（UAE），以及从被告公寓中查获的大量现金。(Ex. C at 18:15-19:21). 政府还确认将与辩护律师就潜在共同签署人的批准程序开展合作，但向帕克法官指出，辩护律师在该程序之前向政府提出的两名共同签署人，是政府指称与被告共同参与被控欺诈的人员。(Ex. C at 20:15-21:3). 随后，辩护律师简要回应称，被告“最终在其保险柜中存有大量现金”，是因为在 GTV 私募民事执法行动引发的银行业务问题后，“近十家正常银行”关闭了被告的账户；政府关于被告可能可获得额外现金的说法属于推测。(Ex. C at 21:5-22:4).\n\n听取辩论后，帕克法官作出有利于政府的裁定，并认定在满足全部条件之前不应释放被告。具体而言，帕克法官表示，下列条件是其认为为确保被告返回法庭及社区安全所必需的“限制最少”的条件：\n\nWang 女士（王女士）将在满足全部条件的前提下获释。换言之，在满足以下全部条件之前，她将被拘押：由经政府批准的两名具有财务责任能力的人共同签署的 $5 million 保释保证金，并以 $1 million 现金或财产作担保。出行限制在 Southern District（纽约南区）、Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）范围内。交出所有旅行证件，且不得提出新的申请。依照审前服务部门（Pretrial Services）的指示接受审前监督。依照审前服务部门的指示，使用位置监控技术执行居家拘禁。被告须向审前服务部门和美国检察官办公室披露全部资产，包括以其名义持有、由其控制，或由其持有权益的公司控制的任何账户，3 任何加密货币、任何现金以及任何其他财产。Wang 女士不得在律师在场以外与 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）、Je 先生（Je）或其他共谋人接触。除律师在场外，她不得与任何被指称的受害人或证人接触。她应居住于 188 East 64th Street 的住所，未经审前服务部门许可不得迁居。未经审前服务部门事先批准，被告不得开设任何新的银行账户、信用额度或贷款。\n\n(Ex. C at 22:6-23:16.)\nE. 与辩护律师的讨论（March 15, 2023 – March 21, 2023）\n\n如上所述，在 March 15, 2023 被告出庭接受指控陈述之前的治安法官法庭程序中，辩护律师向政府提出了两名潜在共同签署人的姓名——\n\n3 被告已向美国检察官办公室和审前服务部门披露三个银行账户；具体而言，她提供了其两个个人银行账户余额的估计数（尽管她尚未提供账号或详细账户余额），以及一个以雇佣被告的一家 Kwok 家族办公室名义开立的银行账户的账号。被告尚未披露与其控制或持有权益的任何其他公司有关的任何银行账户，包括 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.。见上文第 4 页注 2。\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n- o 在接受政府访谈时，其称年薪约为 $700,000。然而，其 2021 年纳税申报表显示总收入约为 $63,583。(Def. Ex. G-4)。\n- o 其称其银行账户中约有 $70,000，但其提供的账户对账单显示余额仅约为 $13,000。(Def. Ex. G-3)。\n欺诈计划表面受害人身份\n\n- o 其于 2020 年向 GTV 投资约 $100,000。\n- o 其于 March 2021 年向 G|CLUBS 投资约 $50,000。\n- o 其向 Himalaya Exchange 投资约 $12,000。其向一个 Himalaya Clearing FV Bank 账户电汇资金（政府随后扣押了该账户），包括于 July 2021 约 $2,000 以及于 October 2021 $10,000。\n- ：道德约束力不足；不属于具有财务责任能力的人；文件不完整；个人投资于该欺诈计划。\n道德约束力不足\n\n- o 其称其于 June 2021 在一次“活动”中首次见到被告。\n- o 其称自 2022 年中期以来，其每月约见到被告一至两次。\n- o 其称被告在 HCHK Technologies 工作。4\n- o 被问及被告居住何处时，其概括而言回答：“纽约市，不确定具体在哪里。”\n财务责任能力评估\n\no 其称拥有约 $1.08 million 的资产（包括房产和现金），年收入约为 $150,000。然而，其未提供足以佐证该等声称资产的文件（例如最新纳税申报表；第二个银行账户的账户对账单或资料；两处声称房产的详细资料）。\n欺诈计划表面受害人身份\n\n- o 其于 May 2020 向 GTV 投资约 $520,000。\n- o 其于 November 2020 向 G|CLUBS 投资约 $20,000。\n- o 其于 March 2022 向 Himalaya Exchange 投资约 $60,000。\n\n4 如上所述，被告是该公司 99.9999% 的股东。见上文第 4 页注 2。然而，被告似乎未在 HCHK Technologies 担任任何正式职务。\n\n• ：道德约束力不足；不属于具有财务责任能力的人；个人投资于该欺诈计划。\n\n道德约束力不足\n\n- o 其称，其在一家名为 Gettr 的公司“差一点开始与”被告共事时认识被告。5\n- o 其称，在 Gettr 面试过程中，其与被告交谈约 4-5 次。\n- o 其称被告在 Gettr 工作。然而，被告未在 Gettr 担任任何正式职务。\n- o 其称，其每年约与被告交谈两至三次。\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n- o 在接受政府访谈时，其称年薪约为 $159,000，所提供文件总体上证实了该说法。(Def. Ex. A-3, A-4)。\n- o 其在两个银行账户中约有 $2,768。(Def. Ex. A-3)。\n- o 其年租金约为 $36,851。(Def. Ex. A-5)。\n- o 其称拥有约 $11,000 的信用卡债务。\n\n欺诈计划表面受害人身份\n\n- o 其及其妻子于 May 2020 向 GTV 投资 $34,000。\n- o 其还称其及其妻子投资于 Himalaya Exchange。\n\n政府告知辩护律师，基于上述理由，其无法批准 ，或 。\n\nOn March 21, 2023，辩护律师致电政府，提议进一步修改帕克法官所施加的保释条件。在该通电话中，辩护律师称，一名人士（“Individual-1”）可能能够以一处未指明房产中的 $2.2 million 权益进一步担保该保释保证金。仅在政府询问该人士身份后，辩护律师才提供 Individual-1 的姓名。政府告知其需要访谈 Individual-1 时，辩护律师回复称，Individual-1 并非拟议共同签署人，因此无需访谈。政府表示其将考虑该\n\n5 如 Kwok 拘押函中所述，GETTR USA, Inc.（“Gettr”）是一家由 Kwok 通过一系列空壳公司控制的社交媒体公司。见 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7 at 10)。Gettr 和本文所述 HCHK 实体在 New York, New York 的同一办公地点运营。\n\n在该会议中，政府向 Netburn 法官（Judge Netburn）提供了帕克法官面前出庭接受指控陈述及保释辩论的庭审记录（即 Ex. C），审前服务部门提供了其报告。辩护律师未在该会议前提交任何动议或其他材料。会议开始时，辩护律师告知 Netburn 法官，其请求 Netburn 法官“要么批准我们提出的人员［作为共同签署人］，要么以使 Wang 女士能够满足保释条件并获释的方式改变保释条件。”(Ex. D at 5:10-22). 随后，Netburn 法官表示：\n\n“我确实不倾向于推翻听取了保释辩论并设定保释条件的我的同事［帕克法官］。因此，如果你请求我这样做，我不确定这是我想做的事。如果你请求我考虑拟议保证人的合理性，我理解根据法律，我可以这样做。我不知道该审查标准是什么，而且我没有任何姓名或文件，所以我不知道我是否能在庭上这样做。”\n(Ex. D at 6:3-13).\n\n辩护律师随后开始陈述有关被告背景的资料，包括：“［被告］仅与属于这一［反中共］运动的人士，或者以某种方式与本案主要被告有关的人士接触。政府对此非常清楚。当我们实际同意 $5 million 保释保证金和两名共同签署人时，我们理解政府也明白……将为她共同签署的人不会是她的家庭成员。”(Ex. D at 7:9-20). Netburn 法官确认被告自 2017 年起一直居住在美国，并确认辩护律师主张，在“这六年中”，被告未曾“与该运动以外的任何人交朋友”。(Ex. D at 7:21-8:1). 在随后的法庭问答中，辩护律师提及其与政府讨论过的各种拟议保释修改方案。(Ex. D at 8:2-11:7).\n\n政府回应称，该次会议为时过早，并指出，Parker法官（帕克法官）已与审前服务机构（Pretrial Services）及政府一致认为，在被告获释前，必须满足所有条件——包括获得两名共同签署人的批准；政府还解释称，其遵循一套程序评估潜在共同签署人的资格。（证据D，第11:10-23页）。就辩护律师提出的保释修改方案，政府指出，其尚未从辩护律师处收到足以开展认真考虑该等方案所需基本尽职调查的基本信息（例如，Individual-1（个人-1）房产的地址）。（证据D，第11:24-12:18页）。政府概述了其评估拟议共同签署人的工作，以及其认定该等人士不具资格的理由。（证据D，第12:19-14:20页）。随后，政府概述了法院根据18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)审议未经批准保证人适格性的法律标准；该条要求法院评估保证人的财务状况，以确定\n\n两名（未具名）人士系Kwok（郭文贵）反中国共产党运动的成员；尽管他们不认识被告，但愿意提供合计约有$3 million权益的财产。辩护律师未提供该等人士的姓名或有关所称房产的任何详情，却仍要求政府在抽象意义上同意该提议。政府表示其无法如此行事。\n\n• 在其与政府的访谈中，报告称其在其住所中拥有约$1.6 million权益（且无债务）。未提供任何文件佐证该房产的价值或其对该房产的所有权。\n\n欺诈计划表面受害人的身份\n\n• 于2020年向GTV投资约$100,000。\n\n• 于2020年10月向G|CLUBS投资约$50,000。\n\n• ：道德约束力不足；并非具备财务责任能力的人士（文件不足）；对该欺诈计划有个人投资。\n\n道德约束力不足\n\n• 与被告的关系仅限于被告在社交媒体上关注她。\n\n• 报告称其两年前在一次“活动”中见过被告。然而，报告称其未曾与被告直接交谈。\n\n• 不知道被告在哪里工作或居住。\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n• 在一个联名银行账户中约有$27,325。（被告证据D-3）。\n\n• 联名纳税申报表反映其2021年的应税收入约为$217,604，主要由资本利得构成。（被告证据D-4）。\n\n• 在其与政府的访谈中，报告称其拥有两处出租房产，每处价值约$500,000。未提供有关该等房产的文件。\n\n• 在其与政府的访谈中，报告称其以约$1.9 million购得其主要住所。辩护律师提供了一张来自Zillow.com的截图，反映该房产的估计房屋价值，作为对该房屋权益的所谓佐证，但未提供其他文件。（被告证据D-6）。\n\n欺诈计划表面受害人的身份\n\n• 向GDollar（与GTV有关）投资约$290,000。\n\n• 向G|CLUBS投资约$100,000。\n\n2023年3月24日，政府告知辩护律师，基于上述理由，其无法批准和作为共同签署人。\n\nH. 被告的本次动议\n\n2023年3月24日，被告提交了该动议，其形式为一项要求“作出命令，指示被告已遵守其保释条件条款”的动议。动议。被告还提交了一份支持该动议的法律备忘录，其中附有和的文件作为证据。见案卷编号8、9。被告主张，政府“拒绝批准[被告]的保释保证共同签署人系任意作出”。（备忘录，第1页）。被告称，其提出的每名保证人\n\n“完全具备资格”担任Parker法官作为被告获释条件所施加的$5 million具结保证书的共同签署人。（备忘录，第6页）。\n\n被告请求本院批准被告提出的两名共同签署人（但未指明是哪两名），或者，作为替代方案，修改保释条件，“使得[被告]无法获得共同签署人……不会阻碍其获释。”备忘录，第3页。具体而言，假定本院认定所提出的共同签署人未满足财务责任能力和/或道德约束力的要求，被告请求本院撤销Parker法官的保释认定，并“完全取消共同签署人的使用”。备忘录，第10页。\n\nIII. 讨论\n\nA. 法律标准\n\n根据《保释改革法》（Bail Reform Act），如“没有任何条件或条件组合能够合理确保该人按要求出庭以及任何其他人和社区的安全”，则被告应在审判前被羁押。18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)。法院在裁定保释申请时必须考虑若干因素，包括：(1) 被控罪行的性质和情节，(2) 证据的分量，(3) 被告的经历和特征，以及(4) 被告获释将对任何人或社区造成的危险的性质和严重程度。18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)。政府对逃跑风险承担优势证据标准下的举证责任，对社区危险则承担清楚且令人信服证据标准下的举证责任。18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)；United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)。\n\n法院认定审前释放适当时，应在限制最少的条件或条件组合下释放被告，“其中可包括要求该人……与‘有偿付能力的’保证人签署保释保证书，且该等保证人的‘净资产应具有足够的无负担价值以支付保释保证书金额’的条件”。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)；见United States v. Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d 222, 225-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)。关于拟议保证人是否“具备财务责任能力”的认定，法院认为，“相关标准是‘如[被告]未在审判时出庭，其支付保证书所列金额的能力’。”Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 224（引自United States v. Gotay, 609 F. Supp. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)）。“除财务责任能力要求外，被告还必须证明拟议保证人能够施加道德约束力，以确保被告在审判时到场。”Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 224。\n\n第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）指出，保证人须就“其在被告‘决定逃跑时’对其施加道德约束力的能力”接受评估。United States v. Baig, 536 F. App'x 91, 93 (2d Cir. 2013)（描述并引用United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1998)）（强调为原文所加）；另见Christoffel v. United States, 196 F.2d 560, 565 (D.C. Cir. 1951)（指出共同签署人的“可靠性”与其“承诺在被告未出庭时付款”的情形有关，并汇集相关判例）。\n\n即使已将限制最少的一组条件作为保释条件施加，被告无法满足该等条件并因此在审判前继续被羁押，也“并不罕见”。United States v. Stanton, No. 91-CR-889-CSH, 1992 WL 27130, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992)。在Stanton案中，Charles S. Haight法官阁下指出，因无法满足保释条件而面临\n\n审前羁押的被告“援引了§ 3142(c)(2)，该条规定：‘司法官员不得施加导致该人审前羁押的财务条件。’”同上。Stanton法院援引其在Gotay案中对§ 3142(c)(2)的先前分析；该法院在《保释改革法》及其立法历史的背景下审视该条款，并得出结论：如被告无法满足为合理确保其出庭所必需的经济性释放条件，其必须继续处于审前羁押状态。同上（引自Gotay, 609 F. Supp. at 156）。\n\n寻求重新考虑的一方承担很高的负担。8“法院对先前命令的重新考虑，是一项非常救济，应为终局性及节约稀缺司法资源之利益而谨慎适用。重新考虑动议不得用于提出……先前未向法院提出的事实、争点或论点，也不得被用作重新争讼法院已经裁定之争点的工具。”Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)（略去内部引文）。根据《美国法典》第18编第3142(f)条，如“司法官员认定存在在听证时申请人未知、且对是否存在能够合理确保该人按要求出庭以及任何其他人和社区安全的释放条件这一问题具有实质影响的信息”，则羁押听证“可被重新开启……”。“如所提出的新信息对逃跑风险或社区危险这一问题不具实质性，法院可以适当驳回重新开启羁押听证的尝试。”United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015), aff'd, 604 F. App'x 66 (2d Cir. 2015)（引自United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1989)）。\n\nB. 讨论\n\n1) 政府拒绝拟议共同签署人的决定并非任意\n\n政府认定八名拟议共同签署人中无人具备资格，既合理，亦有记录支持。被告提出的保证人既不具备财务责任能力，也无法对被告施加道德约束力。政府的个别评估还适当地考虑了任何拟议共同签署人是否为被告的共谋者和/或Kwok、Je及被告所涉欺诈的表面受害人。\n\n首先，八名拟议共同签署人中没有一人对被告施加足以“合理确保”其在未来法庭出庭时到场的道德约束力，即使其未\n\n8 对刑事事项裁定的重新考虑，并无明确规则予以规定。见，例如，United States v. James, No. 02 CR 0778, 2007 WL 914242, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007)。然而，“如《刑事诉讼规则》未就某一事项作出具体规定，审理刑事案件的法院可以借鉴并仿照《联邦民事诉讼规则》认可的做法。”同上（略去引文及内部引号）。就此而言，题为“在无法律控制时的程序”的《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第57(b)条部分规定，“法官可依照联邦法律、本规则及本地区地方法规，以任何方式规范诉讼实践。”Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b)。“因此，在裁定刑事事项中的重新考虑动议时，本地区法院依照适用于民事背景的相同原则处理该等动议。”同上（略去引文及内部引号）。\n\n出庭将使第二名具备财务责任能力的共同签署人承担保证书全额债务。如上所述，大多数拟议共同签署人几乎不认识被告，仅在近期认识她，且与其沟通零星（如有）。在缺乏足够道德约束力的情况下，被告不太可能担心其逃跑会使与其并无关系的人承担债务。\n\n第二，被告人拟议的所有共同签署担保人均涉及被告人被指控的相关行为，其身份要么是政府调查的对象，要么是明显的欺诈受害人。无论哪种身份，均使这些人不具备担任能够对被告人施加道德劝导的共同签署担保人的资格。就共同签署担保人系犯罪共谋成员而言，其利益同样可能在于促成被告人逃亡；鉴于该国际犯罪共谋所募集资金数额惊人，即使发生数百万美元的损失，也可能获得补偿。就拟议共同签署担保人系欺诈受害人而言，其共同签署担保人的身份完全不能保证被告人会因顾及其经济福祉而放弃逃亡。毕竟，被告人被控欺诈的正是这一类受害人\n\n第三，即使他们对被告人具有足够的道德劝导力，拟议保证人亦不具备财务责任能力。参见，例如，Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 225-26（裁定政府拒绝两名拟议保证人的决定并非武断，因为该等人员报告的收入较低，且无法提供可信文件证明其拥有所声称拥有的资产）。例如，某人未向政府提供几乎所有类别的所要求文件，包括住址证明、公民身份或合法居留证明、最近的银行对账单及最近的工资单；而其确实提供的财务文件（具体而言，即其近期税务文件）细节不足，无法佐证或确认其报告收入的来源。在此，八名拟议保证人中的每一人均为“非经批准的保证人”，保证人（或被告人代表其）均须“向法院提供有关保证人资产和负债价值……以及保证人财产所负担保权益的性质和范围的信息”，以便法院确定该保证人是否具有“足够的未设负担价值的净值，以支付保释保证金的金额”。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)（强调系原文所加）。被告人未向本院提供充分的文件或信息，以使本院作出该等独立判断。然而，即使仅依据向本院提交的文件，拟议保证人中亦无人符合“具有财务责任能力之人”的资格，因为无人“有能力在[被告人]未按时出庭受审时支付[$5 million]保证金”。Gotay, 609 F. Supp. at 156。\n\n2）不应重新考虑被告人的保释条件\n\n如上所述，寻求重新考虑先前法院命令的一方负有很高的举证负担。法律明确规定，重新考虑动议不得用于重新审理法院已经裁决的问题。Jackson, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 313。然而，这恰恰是被告人要求本院所做之事：推翻Parker法官（帕克法官）理由充分的认定，即法院施加的保释条件——包括须有两名经批准的共同签署担保人以及被告人在满足所有条件前继续被羁押——是能够合理确保被告人于未来出庭的限制最少的条件。（Ex. C at 22:6-23:16。）被告人甚至更进一步，在脚注中断然否定Parker法官的裁定，主张即使没有任何共同签署担保人的要求，被告人的保释方案也足以实现\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3142的目的——该要求系Parker法官在听取双方辩论后作出的明确裁定。（Mem. at 11, n.3）。\n\n本动议并非被告人首次试图寻求重新考虑Parker法官所施加的保释条件。被告人未承认，她此前已在Netburn法官（内特本法官）面前，就Parker法官的保释裁定提出过一次不当的重新考虑动议。在2023年3月22日的庭审会议上，如同本案，辩护律师请求Netburn法官“以使Wang女士能够满足保释条件并获释的方式变更保释条件”。（Ex. D at 5:10-22）。然而，辩护律师未指出任何在Parker法官首次就保释进行辩论时被告人（即动议人）尚不知悉、且可能对评估保释条件具有实质影响的信息。18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)。\n\n相反，政府认为，自被告人首次保释听证会以来披露的新信息，可能反而足以证明应施加更严格的保释条件。第一，政府此前并不知悉，被告人显然没有任何熟人（甚至没有不相识但具有财务责任能力之人）可作为合格的共同签署担保人提出。第二，自被告人首次出庭以来，政府得知Je（杰）仍然在逃，并且很可能在阿联酋；其与Kwok（郭文贵）在该地可获取大量资源和欺诈所得，并被认为正在建立其欺诈活动新的运营及财务基地。Je是该欺诈计划的资金提供者，也是可获取大量资金、能够促成和资助Kwok或被告人逃亡的国际逃犯。最后，如上所述，多名拟议共同签署担保人认为被告人为Gettr（Gettr）和/或HCHK Technologies（HCHK Technologies）工作——该等由Kwok和Je控制的公司，部分使用欺诈所得资金——尽管被告人否认与该等实体存在任何正式关联或雇佣关系。该新事实进一步凸显的不仅是Kwok掩人耳目的复杂手法，也包括被告人作为Kwok受信任的幕僚长所发挥的关键作用；她受命管理甚至与其不存在任何正式关联的实体的运营。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n如本文所述，被告人构成极高的逃亡风险。在被告人首次提审及保释听证会上，Parker法官审慎考虑了审前服务部门的建议，以及双方当事人关于何种释放条件（如有）能够合理确保被告人未来出庭或社区安全的论证。随后，Parker法官裁定，当前施加的一组保释条件是限制最少的条件，并进一步裁定被告人须在获释前满足所有该等条件。被告人未能做到这一点，如今却通过请求本院批准明显不合格的共同签署担保人，或作为替代方案推翻Parker法官和Netburn法官二人所作的保释相关决定，第二次试图规避司法程序。被告人未提供任何证据支持其关于政府对拟议共同签署担保人的评估具有武断性或不合理性的主张，也未提出足以\n\n支持采取重新考虑保释裁定这一“非常”救济措施的证据。因此，应驳回被告人的动议。\n\n谨启，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉斯）\n联邦检察官\n\n签署人：\n\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里） Ryan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔） Micah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗格森）\n助理联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\n附件\n\n抄送：Alex Lipman, Esq.（亚历克斯·利普曼律师）（通过 ECF 和电子邮件） Priya Choudhry, Esq.（普里娅·乔德里律师）（通过 ECF 和电子邮件）\n\n批准：________________________________________\nRyan Finkel / Juliana Murray / Micah Fergenson\n助理联邦检察官\n\n审理法官：尊敬的 GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN（加布里埃尔·W·戈伦斯坦）\n联邦治安法官\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区） 23 MAG 2007\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X\nYANPING WANG（王雁平）， UNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n-\n诉\n又名“Yvette”，\n被告人。 ：\n\n： 密封刑事控告书\n违反\n18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, 1957 and 2；\n15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff；以及\n17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5\n犯罪发生县：\nNEW YORK（纽约）\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X\n\n纽约南区，ss.：\n\nSpecial Agent Nicholas DiMarino（特别探员尼古拉斯·迪马里诺）经正式宣誓后，陈述并称其为Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局）（“FBI”）的特别探员，并指控如下：\n\n罪名项一（共谋实施电信欺诈和证券欺诈）\n\n1. 自至少约2018年起至至少约2023年3月止，在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，即被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，故意且明知地联合、共谋、结盟并相互约定实施危害美利坚合众国的犯罪，即：(1) 违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343的电信欺诈；以及(2) 违反Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff, and Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5的证券欺诈。\n\n2. 该共谋的一部分及其目的在于，YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，明知已设计并意图设计欺诈计划和手段，并通过虚假及欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺获取金钱及财产，将会并且确已为执行该等计划和手段之目的，通过州际及外国商业中的电信、无线电和电视通信，传送并促使传送文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343；具体而言，WANG与他人共谋，通过在州际电信线路上传送的具有重要虚假内容的信息和失实陈述，就以私募方式（“GTV Private Placement”）非注册发行GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV）的普通股一事，获取受害人的资金。\n\n3. 该共谋的另一部分及其目的在于，YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，故意且明知地，直接或间接地，利用州际商业和邮政的方式及手段，以及全国证券交易所的设施，就在全国证券交易所注册的证券及任何未如此注册的证券的买卖，使用和采用操纵性及欺骗性的装置和手段，违反Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，即：(a) 使用欺诈性的装置、计划和手段；(b) 作出对重要事实的不真实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使已作出的陈述在作出时的情形下不具误导性所必需的重要事实；以及(c) 从事已经及将会对他人构成欺诈和欺骗的行为、做法和业务过程；具体而言，WANG与他人共谋，通过就GTV普通股所谓股份提供具有重要虚假和误导性的信息及陈述，欺诈性地诱使投资者参与GTV Private Placement。\n\n4. 为推进该共谋并实现其非法目的，YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，在Southern District of New York及其他地区实施了下列公开行为及其他行为：\n\na. 约于2020年6月5日，WANG在Southern District of New York境内时，授权将$100 million的欺诈所得电汇至某一对冲基金。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n罪名项二（电信欺诈）\n\n5. 至少自约2020年4月起至至少约2021年3月止，在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告人YANPING WANG（王燕平），又名“Yvette”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和诡计，并为通过虚假及欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺取得金钱及财产，而为实施该等计划和诡计之目的，通过州际及国际商业中的有线电、无线电和电视通信传送并促使传送文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，具体而言，WANG实施GTV Private Placement（GTV私募配售），出售GTV股票，并通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处欺诈性取得金钱；该计划通过往返于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n（Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2。）\n第三项罪名（证券欺诈）\n\n6. 至少自约2020年4月起至至少约2021年3月止，在纽约南区及其他地区，被告人YANPING WANG（王燕平），又名“Yvette”，故意且明知地，直接或间接地，通过州际商业和邮政的方式及工具，以及全国性证券交易所的设施，就在全国性证券交易所登记的证券以及任何未作该等登记的证券的买卖，使用和采用操纵性及欺骗性的手段和诡计，违反Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，其方式为：(a) 使用欺诈性的手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出对重要事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使已作出的陈述在作出时所处情形下不致产生误导所必需的重要事实；以及(c) 从事构成并将构成对他人的欺诈和蒙骗的行为、做法和业务过程，具体而言，WANG实施GTV私募配售，出售GTV股票，并通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处欺诈性取得金钱；该计划通过往返于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n（Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2。）\n第四项罪名（非法货币交易）\n\n7. 于2020年6月5日前后，被告人YANPING WANG（王燕平），又名“Yvette”，在美国境内的纽约南区及其他地区，明知地从事并企图从事Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(f)(1)所定义的货币交易，该交易涉及价值超过\\$10,000、来源于特定非法活动的犯罪所得财产，具体而言，WANG在位于纽约南区期间，授权将\\$100 million欺诈所得电汇至某一特定对冲基金。\n\n（Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2。）\n\n本人知悉上述情况及提出前述指控的依据，部分如下：\n\n8. 本人系FBI（美国联邦调查局）特别探员，并亲自参与了对此案的调查。本宣誓书基于本人亲自参与对此案的调查、本人同执法人员、执法雇员及证人的谈话，以及对文件的审阅。由于本宣誓书仅为确立合理根据这一有限目的而提交，其未包括本人在调查过程中获悉的全部事实。除非另有说明，本文所述他人的行为、陈述和谈话均为实质内容及部分内容的陈述。\n概述\n\n9. 基于本人参与本调查、审阅文件、与证人及其他执法人员的谈话，本人获悉以下情况，其实质内容及部分内容如下：\n\na. 在约2020年4月至约2020年6月期间，被告人YANPING WANG（王燕平），又名“Yvette”，与其他已知及未知人员，通过与GTV有关的非法私人股票发行，欺诈性取得约\\$452 million受害人资金。WANG是GTV的执行董事，并且是负责转移通过GTV私募配售筹集资金的关键人员之一。WANG及其他已知和未知人员并未如其向受害投资者承诺的那样，将通过GTV私募配售筹集的资金投资于GTV，而是将约\\$100,000,000挪用于一只高风险对冲基金，最终使WANG的一名共同共谋者的近亲属受益。WANG明知GTV私募配售所得资金不得用于投资高风险对冲基金。事实上，当WANG寻求开立一个由GTV私募配售筹集资金构成的银行账户时，WANG曾向一家银行部分表示，该等“GTV Media Group（GTV媒体集团）的资金[ ]严格地[sic]仅用于运营用途和收购。”\nGTV私募配售\n\n10. 基于本人对文件、视频的审阅、与证人及其他执法人员的谈话，本人获悉以下情况，其实质内容及部分内容如下：\n\na. 于2020年4月21日前后，一名本文未具名的共同共谋者（“CC-1”）[1]在社交媒体上发布并促使发布了一段视频（“该视频”），宣布通过私募配售方式进行未经登记的GTV普通股发行（“GTV私募配售”）。CC-1拥有大量网络追随者，该视频被数千人观看。\n\nb. 基于本人对该视频的审阅，本人获悉，在该视频中，CC-1实质上及部分地说明了GTV私募配售的投资条款，并指示人们如对GTV私募配售有任何疑问，可通过移动通信应用程序联系CC-1。该视频及GTV私募配售材料——包括书面“Confidential Information Memorandum（保密信息备忘录）”（“PPM”）、认购协议及投资程序指引——通过移动通信应用程序、社交媒体和短信，传送给数千名潜在投资者，包括位于纽约南区的潜在投资者。\n\nc. 基于本人对PPM的审阅，本人获悉，PPM将GTV宣传为“首个将公民新闻和社交新闻的力量与最先进技术、大数据、人工智能、区块链技术以及实时互动通信相结合的平台。”PPM还作出了如下实质性及部分性陈述，其中包括：\n\ni. GTV私募配售面向“有兴趣评估向GTV投资资本机会”的投资者；\n\nii. GTV计划将GTV私募配售筹集的收益“用于扩展和加强业务”；以及\n\niii. PPM载有一张图表，逐项列明GTV私募配售筹集收益的“拟议用途”：\n\n说明 收益百分比\n\n收购公司以加强和发展GTV 约70%\n升级GTV技术和安全保障 约10%\n营销 约8%\n营运资本 约7%\n其他 约5%\n合计 100%\n\nd. PPM列明了GTV的三名“执行董事”。列明的第一名执行董事为“Yvette Y. Wang”——即被告人YANPING WANG（王燕平），又名“Yvette”。PPM将WANG描述为“在管理、金融投资及兼并收购方面经验丰富”，并且“对建立Saraca（萨拉卡）的媒体业务发挥了重要作用”。[2] PPM其他部分将WANG描述为GTV的“关键人员”。PPM还部分载明，GTV的“成功部分取决于[其]关键高管人员持续提供服务，包括Yvette Wang”以及另外两名特定人员，其中包括另一名本文未具名的共同共谋者（“CC-2”）。\n\ne. 基于本人同先前为CC-1工作的证人的谈话，本人获悉，WANG与CC-1一直保持密切的私人关系。具体而言，自至少约2018年起，WANG已为CC-1及CC-1的家人工作数年。事实上，基于本人审阅的文件，本人获悉，WANG担任某一实体的总裁、司库和秘书，该实体管理CC-1据称数额巨大的个人财富。\n\n1 CC-1在本辖区提交的一份起诉书中被指控十一项罪名，包括共谋实施电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱；以及就包括本文所述GTV私募配售在内的行为实施电信欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱。\n\n2 “Saraca”系指“Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）”，该公司在PPM中被列为GTV的母公司。\nWANG收取并转移欺诈所得\n\n11. 基于本人对视频和文件（包括银行记录及传票回复）的审阅、本人同证人及其他执法人员的谈话、对互联网的公开来源研究，以及本人参与本调查，本人获悉以下情况，其实质内容及部分内容如下：\n\na. 于2018年7月24日前后，被告人YANPING WANG（王燕平），又名“Yvette”，以Saraca名义开立了某一特定银行账户（“Account-5601”）。本人审阅的Account-5601开户文件将WANG列为Saraca的“代理秘书”。于2020年5月21日前后，WANG签署了Account-5601的附加企业签字卡，并在其中将自己列为Saraca的“总裁”。截至至少该日，Account-5601以“Saraca Media Group DBA Himalaya Dollar”名义持有。Account-5601不存在其他获授权签字人。\n\nb. 于2018年7月24日前后，WANG以“Saraca Media Group Inc.”名义开立了另一特定银行账户（“Account-2038”）。Account-2038的开户文件将WANG列为Saraca的“代理秘书”。于2020年5月21日前后，WANG签署了Account-2038的附加企业签字卡，并将自己列为“总裁”。截至至少该日，Account-2038以“Saraca Media Group DBA Himalaya Dollar”名义持有。于2020年6月3日前后，WANG签署了Account-2038的附加企业签字卡，并再次将自己列为Saraca的“总裁”。Account-2038不存在其他获授权签字人。[3]\n\nc. Account-5601和Account-2038均由某一特定银行持有，该银行总部位于曼哈顿（“Bank-1”）。\n\nd. 在2020年4月20日前后至2020年6月2日前后期间，据称向位于美国（包括纽约南区）及海外的逾5,500名投资者出售了价值约\\$452 million的GTV普通股。投资者参与GTV私募配售，部分基于相信其资金将按PPM所承诺的方式投资于GTV，以发展和壮大该业务。\n\ne. 于约2020年4月，Account-5601收到了约291笔存款和转账，总额约为\\$32,543,000。其中大部分存款和转账是寻求参与GTV私募配售的个人所作投资。这些转账似乎来自世界各地的个人，许多存款和转账的参考信息或附言信息提及GTV私募配售。例如，附言栏中实质上及部分地载明如下内容：“Gtv Investment”、“Stock Subscription”、“Investment”、“G- Tv Common Stock Subscription”、“InvestmeNt [sic]”、“Investment To G- Tv [sic]”和“Gtv Stockpurchase”。于2020年4月30日前后，Account-5601的余额约为\\$32,474,000。\n\nf. 在或约于 2020 年 5 月，Account-5601 收到约 2,450 笔存款和转账，合计约 \\$291,899,000。其中大部分存款和转账为寻求参与 GTV（环球电视）私募配售的个人所作的投资。与前一个月的存款和转账一样，在或约于 2020 年 5 月的转账似乎来自世界各地的个人，且许多转账的参考信息或备注信息提及 GTV 私募配售。例如，备注栏中载明的内容包括但不限于如下实质性及部分内容：“资本注入”、“用于投 资 [原文如此]”、“私募配售投资”、“GTV 媒体投资”、“GTV 投资”以及“追加股票购买”。在或约于 2020 年 5 月 29 日，Account-5601 的余额约为 \\$313,213,000。\n\n3 根据银行记录，CC-2 似乎拥有一个可访问 Account-5601 和 Account-2038 的网上银行账户。\n\n挪用\n\n12. 根据我对文件的审阅、与证人的交谈以及与其他执法人员的交谈，我获悉以下情况，包括但不限于如下实质性及部分内容：\n\na. 在或约于 2020 年 6 月 3 日，被告 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，以 Saraca（萨拉卡）“总裁”的身份签署了一份“认购协议”。根据该认购协议，Saraca 同意向一家高风险对冲基金（“Fund-1（基金-1）”）投资 \\$100,000,000。在该认购协议中，WANG 指定 Account-5601 为 Saraca 的出资将从中电汇的银行账户。WANG 进一步将自己指定为 Account-5601 的唯一“授权签字人”。在或约于 2020 年 6 月 3 日上午，Fund-1 投资管理人的一名员工确认收到已签署的认购文件。\n\nb. 同样，在或约于 2020 年 6 月 3 日，\\$100,000,000 从 Account-5601 转入 Account-2038。转账前，Account-2038 的余额为 \\$0。根据银行记录，该笔 \\$100,000,000 转账由用户“yvettewang2018”在线完成，该用户是 WANG 的 Bank-1 网上银行用户 ID。在授权该笔转账时，WANG 从一个地理定位显示位于曼哈顿的 IP 地址登录了 WANG 的 Bank-1 网上账户。\n\nc. 在或约于 2020 年 6 月 5 日，WANG 授权从 Account-2038[4] 向与 Fund-1 关联的一个银行账户电汇 \\$100,000,000。该笔向 Fund-1 银行账户转入的 \\$100,000,000，由 GTV 私募配售投资者资金的所得构成。如上所述，PPM 并未设想将投资者资金用于投资高风险对冲基金。PPM 也未设想将投资者资金用于使 GTV 以外的公司受益，包括 Saraca；Saraca 的最终实益拥有人是 CC-1 的近亲属。\n\n4 尽管认购协议将 Account-5601 指定为出资来源，但该笔转账实际起自 Account-2038。\n\nWANG 将额外欺诈所得转移至其他银行账户\n\n13. 根据我对文件和视频的审阅、我与证人及其他执法人员的交谈，以及我参与本调查的情况，我获悉以下情况，包括但不限于如下实质性及部分内容：\n\na. 在或约于 2020 年 5 月 20 日，被告 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，和 CC-2 以 GTV 的名义开设了一个账户（“Account-6691”）。Account-6691 在一家受 FDIC 保险保障的特定银行（“Bank-2”）开设。WANG 和 CC-2 是 Account-6691 的仅有授权签字人。在开户文件中，WANG 被列为 GTV 的“董事”。开户文件还载明，Account-6691 的预期余额将在 \\$25,000 至 \\$50,000 之间。\n\nb. 在或约于 2020 年 6 月 3 日，Account-5601 向 Account-6691 转入 \\$200,000,000。该笔转账的参考栏部分内容为“GTV 私募配售”。紧接该笔转账之前，Account-6691 的余额为 \\$0。\n\nc. 在或约于 2020 年 6 月 9 日，Account-2038 向 Account-6691 转入 \\$38,000,000。该 \\$38,000,000 由 GTV 私募配售的投资者资金构成，该等资金最初被转入 Account-5601 和另一个特定的 Bank-1 账户，之后于在或约于 2020 年 6 月 3 日至在或约于 2020 年 6 月 9 日期间转入 Account-2038。因此，截至在或约于 2020 年 6 月 10 日，Account-6691 中全部 \\$237,999,970[5] 均由 GTV 私募配售所得构成。\n\nd. 在或约于 2020 年 6 月 9 日，约 \\$30,906 从 Account-5601 电汇至一个以“Yanping Wang”名义开设的银行账户。该笔电汇的参考栏部分内容为“董事费”。\n\ne. 自在或约于 2020 年 6 月起，持有用于处理通过 GTV 私募配售筹集资金的账户的美国境内银行，开始冻结和关闭与 GTV 关联的银行账户（包括以 Saraca 名义持有的银行账户），原因包括但不限于：该等账户收到数十笔大额入账电汇，其中一些提及未经注册的 GTV 私募配售。银行关闭账户也是由于对进出与 GTV 关联及与 Saraca 关联账户的资金流动存在担忧，该等资金流动引发了对入账转账适当性的质疑。\n\nf. 在或约于 2020 年 7 月 10 日，Bank-2 关闭了 Account-6691，并向包括 WANG 在内的账户持有人提供了一张金额为 \\$137,999,970 的支票（“Check-1”）以及第二张金额为 \\$100,000,000 的支票（“Check-2”）。\n\ng. 在或约于 2020 年 7 月，WANG 及其他身份已知和未知之人试图在一家特定银行（“Bank-3”）以 GTV 名义开设银行账户。就该尝试而言，在或约于 2020 年 7 月 20 日，WANG 签署了一份“强化尽职调查请求”，其中包含有关 Bank-3 账户用途的信息。WANG 以 GTV“董事”的身份签署了该“强化尽职调查请求”。\n\nh. 在该“强化尽职调查请求”中，WANG 陈述的实质性及部分内容为，账户中的初始存款将“为约 \\$138 million，该款项以银行本票形式通过私募配售筹集”。据 WANG 称，“Saraca Media Group 代表 GTV 接收了 [GTV] 私募配售资金（由 [Bank-1] 的 [law firm] 指导）。Saraca Media Group 将资金转给了 GTV（[Bank-2]）。”WANG 进一步陈述的实质性及部分内容为，“[该]账户中的资金为 GTV Media Group 的资金，并且严格地[原文如此]仅用于运营目的和收购。”因此，WANG 明知，通过 GTV 私募配售筹集的资金不得投资于为 CC-1 的近亲属最终利益而持有的高风险对冲基金。\n\n5 Bank-3 就两笔入账电汇从 Account-6691 扣除了 \\$30。\n\n因此，本人谨请求签发逮捕被告 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”的逮捕令，并视情况将其逮捕、羁押或准予保释。\n\n________________________________________ /s/ Nicholas DiMarino（经电话宣誓）\n\nNicholas DiMarino（尼古拉斯·迪马里诺） 联邦调查局特别探员\n\n本人通过可靠电子方式（电话）传送本刑事控诉书，已于 2023 年 3 月 ___ 日向本人宣誓。10\n\n________________________________________\n\n尊敬的 GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN（加布里埃尔·W·戈伦斯坦） 美国联邦治安法官 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n原件\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院） SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，\n\nKIN MING JE（籍明杰），又名“William Je”，\n\n被告。\n\n密封起诉书\n\n23 Cr.\n\n第一项罪名（共谋实施电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈及洗钱）\n\n大陪审团指控如下：\n\n概述\n\n1. 自至少在或约于 2018 年起至至少在或约于 2023 年 3 月，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，即各被告，以及其他身份已知和未知之人，共谋诈骗数千名受害人超过约 \\$1 billion，其中包括位于纽约南区的受害人。KWOK、JE 及其共谋者通过一系列复杂的欺诈性和虚构性企业及投资机会运作，该等企业及投资机会连接数十个相互关联的实体，使被告及其共谋者得以招揽、清洗和挪用受害人资金。\n\n2. HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，即各被告及其共谋者，利用 KWOK 广泛的网络影响力及数十万名网络追随者，通过承诺超额财务回报及其他利益，招揽对各类实体和项目的投资。该计划中使用的实体和项目包括被称为 GTV、GICLUBS、GIMUSIC、GIFashion 和 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）等实体和项目。事实上，并且如 KWOK 和 JE 明知，该等实体是 KWOK 和 JE 创建并用于实施其欺诈及剥削 KWOK 追随者的工具。该计划使 KWOK 和 JE 得以使其自身、其家属及其共谋者获利，并为 KWOK 奢侈的生活方式提供资金。\n\n3. 作为该计划的一部分，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，即各被告及其共谋者，清洗了数亿美元的欺诈所得。为掩盖资金的非法来源，KWOK 和 JE 将资金转入并经由以至少 80 个不同实体或个人名义持有的超过约 500 个账户转移，并指使他人如此转移。该欺诈计划数亿美元的所得，直接或间接转入美国、巴哈马和阿拉伯联合酋长国（“UAE”）等地的银行账户，并以 JE 所拥有或以其他方式控制的公司名义持有。\n\n4. HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，即各被告，使用了该欺诈计划超过约 \\$300 million 的所得，以供其本人及其家属受益。例如，KWOK 使用欺诈取得的受害人资金，购买、出资或融资购买了位于新泽西州的一栋约 50,000 平方英尺豪宅，购买价为 \\$26.5 million，供 KWOK 及其家属使用；豪华车辆，包括一辆为 KWOK 的一名近亲属（“Relative-I”）购置、价值约 \\$3.5 million 的法拉利；一艘价值约 \\$37 million 的豪华游艇，供 KWOK 及其家属使用，并以 KWOK 的一名近亲属（“Relative-2”）的名义购置；一架价值约 \\$140,000 的钢琴；一张价值约 \\$36,000 的床垫；以及为 Relative-I 的最终利益而对一家高风险对冲基金投资 \\$100 million；以及其他项目。就 JE 而言，除其他事项外，JE 将至少 \\$10 million 的欺诈所得转入其本人及其配偶的个人银行账户。\n\n5. HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，即各被告及其共谋者，多年来一直运作该计划，并至少持续运作至本起诉书日期。他们如此行事的方式包括不断调整该计划的手段和方法，以规避美国投资者保护、反洗钱及破产法律的执行，并对提出投诉或要求返还投资资金的个人受害人进行报复。\n\n相关人员及实体\n\n6. 在所有相关时期，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，是该计划的领导者并对其进行指挥。\n\na. KWOK 是一名流亡的中国商人，于约 2015 年逃往美国，并以约 $67.5 million 购得纽约市一家酒店的一套顶层公寓。至少自约 2017 年起，当时自称为亿万富翁的 KWOK，\n\n获得了大量线上追随者。KWOK 接受了多次媒体采访，并在社交媒体上发帖，声称推动一项反对中国共产党的运动。\n\nb. 于约 2018 年，KWOK 创立了两个所谓的非营利组织，即 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）和 Rule of Law Society（法治协会）。法治协会的网站将 KWOK 列为其“创始人、推动者和发言人”。两个组织的网站均刊有 KWOK 的照片。KWOK 利用这些非营利组织聚集追随者，这些追随者与其所谓反对中国共产党的运动立场一致，也倾向于相信 KWOK 关于投资和赚钱机会的陈述。实际上，正如 KWOK 明知，他及他人提供虚假且具有重大误导性的信息，以推销这些“机会”，并诈骗 KWOK 的追随者及其他受害人。\n\n7. 在所有相关时期，被告 KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名“William Je”，是香港和英国的双重公民，主要居住在英国，并往来于美国及其他地区。JE 拥有并经营多家作为该计划核心的公司和投资工具，并担任该计划的金融架构师及主要洗钱者。\n\n8. 在与本起诉书相关的某些时期，Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca 媒体集团公司，以下简称“Saraca”）是一家总部位于纽约州纽约市的公司。Relative-I（亲属一）是其最终受益所有人。\n\n9. 在与本起诉书相关的某些时期，GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司，以下简称“GTV”）是一个总部位于纽约州纽约市的所谓以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台。尽管 KWOK 未在 GTV 担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，GTV 在实质上由被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”所有和控制。被告 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，同样未在 GTV 担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，但实际上对其财务行使控制权。Saraca 是 GTV 的母公司。\n\n10. 在与本起诉书相关的某些时期，G Club Operations, LLC（G[CLUBS）是一个总部位于波多黎各及纽约州纽约市的所谓会员组织。尽管 KWOK 未在 G[CLUBS 担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，G[CLUBS 在实质上由被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”所有和控制。被告 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，同样未在 G[CLUBS 担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，但实际上对其财务行使控制权。\n\n11. 在与本起诉书相关的某些时期，“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”是一个所谓的加密货币“生态系统”，被告 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，通过其拥有的、位于境外的各类实体创立并运营该生态系统。由被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”在实质上所有和控制的实体，例如 G[CLUBS 和 G[Fashion，与 Himalaya Exchange 存在所谓业务关系。KWOK 推广 Himalaya Exchange，并声称是其所谓加密货币的设计者，尽管 KWOK 未在 Himalaya Exchange 担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔。\n\n欺诈\n\nGTV 私募配售\n\n12. 于约 2020 年 4 月至约 2020 年 6 月期间，被告 HOW AN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，和已知及未知的其他人，通过与 GTV 有关的非法非公开股票发行（“GTV 私募配售”），以欺诈手段获得超过 $400 million 的受害人资金。\n\na. 于约 2020 年 4 月 21 日，KWOK 在社交媒体上发布并促使他人发布一段视频，宣布通过私募配售方式进行未经登记的 GTV 普通股发行。在该视频中，KWOK 实质上且部分地说明了 GTV 私募配售的投资条款，并指示人们如对 GTV 私募配售有任何问题，可通过移动通讯应用程序联系其本人。该视频以及 GTV 私募配售材料——包括书面的“Confidential Information Memorandum”（“PPM”）、认购协议和投资程序指引——通过移动通讯应用程序、社交媒体和短信传送给数千名潜在投资者，其中包括纽约南区的潜在投资者。\n\nb. PPM 将 GTV 推广为“首个将公民新闻和社交新闻的力量与最先进技术、大数据、人工智能、区块链技术及实时互动通信相结合的平台”。\n\nc. 根据 PPM 的元数据，JE 是 PPM 的“作者”。PPM 披露了 GTV 私募配售的条款，并将 KWOK 列为 GTV 的“发起人和顾问”。根据 PPM 及其他 GTV 材料，KWOK 和 JE 均未在 GTV 担任任何正式管理职务。\n\nd. PPM 还作出了包括以下内容在内的实质性且部分陈述：\n\n1. GTV 私募配售面向“有意评估向 GTV 投入资本的机会”的投资者；\n\n11. GTV 计划将 GTV 私募配售募集所得“用于扩展和加强业务”；以及\n\niii. PPM 包含一张图表，逐项列明 GTV 私募配售募集所得的“拟议用途”：\n\n收购公司以加强和发展\nGTV\n\n升级 GTV 技术和安全性 约 10%\n营销 约 8%\n营运资金 约 7%\n其他 约 5%\n合计 100%\n\ne. 于约 2020 年 4 月 20 日至约 2020 年 6 月 2 日期间，价值约 $452 million 的 GTV 普通股据称被出售给位于美国（包括纽约南区）及境外的 5,500 多名投资者。投资者参与 GTV 私募配售，部分基于以下信念：如 PPM 所承诺，其资金将被投资于 GTV，以发展和壮大该业务。\n\nf. 来自 GTV 私募配售投资者的绝大部分募集所得，并未用于发展和壮大 GTV 业务，而是直接存入以 Saraca 名义持有的银行账户；Saraca 是 GTV 的母公司，由 Relative-I 实益拥有。\n\ng. GTV 私募配售并非依据向 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，以下简称“SEC”）提交的登记声明进行。相反，该发行据称是依据 SEC 规定进行，该等规定允许在对证券发售对象类型及招揽其投资的方式有所限制的前提下出售未经登记的证券。然而，为规避这些限制，KWOK 及受其控制的其他人使用至少一个中介实体，代表不具备参与 GTV 私募配售资格的投资者群体购买 GTV 股票。\n\nh. 于约 2020 年 6 月初，即 GTV 私募配售结束仅数日后，被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，和其共谋者，挪用了 GTV 私募配售从投资者处筹集的约 $100 million，并指示将该等资金存入一家高风险对冲基金（“Fund-1”），以使 Saraca 及其最终受益所有人 Relative-I 获益。该交易与 PPM 就 GTV 投资将如何使用而向潜在 GTV 投资者作出的陈述相悖。事实上，对 Fund-1 的 $100 million 投资并非为 GTV 的利益作出，而是为 Saraca 的利益作出。提供被投资于 Fund-1 的该 $100 million 的受害人并不拥有 Saraca 的任何股份。最终，对 Fund-1 的投资损失了约 $30 million 的价值。\n\ni. 在将 $100 million 的 GTV 受害人资金转入 Fund-1 后，被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，继续使用虚假和误导性陈述推广 GTV。\n\n农场贷款计划\n\n13. 自约 2020 年 6 月起——即被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，和其共谋者为使 Saraca 和 Relative-I 获益而从 GTV 私募配售中挪用资金的同一个月——KWOK、JE 及其共谋者通过“Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）”以欺诈手段获得超过约 $150 million 的受害人资金。由 KWOK 组织和推广的 Himalaya Farm Alliance，是由位于世界各地不同城市的非正式团体（每个称为一个“Farm”）组成的集合体。KWOK、JE 及代表他们并按其指示行事的其他人，通过进一步向 GTV 私募配售投资者作出虚假陈述，并以欺诈手段招揽进一步投资，获得了这些资金；该等投资此次以向 Farm 提供“贷款”的形式进行，并承诺该等贷款可按每出借 $1 折算为一股 GTV 普通股的转换比率转换为 GTV 普通股（“农场贷款计划”）。\n\na. 自约 2020 年 6 月起，持有用于处理通过 GTV 私募配售筹集资金的账户的美国境内银行开始冻结和关闭与 GTV 相关的银行账户，原因包括这些账户收到数十笔大额汇入电汇，其中一些提及未经登记的股票发行。\n\nb. 这些银行账户的关闭妨碍了 KWOK、JE 及其共谋者收取寻求投资 GTV 的受害人的募集所得。\n\nc. 于约 2020 年 7 月 22 日，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 推广农场贷款计划。根据 KWOK 及代表其行事者的说法，寻求投资或再投资于 GTV 的个人可以参与农场贷款计划。\n\nd. 在推出农场贷款计划后，KWOK 继续推广 GTV，并继续虚假陈述 GTV 的价值。例如，于约 2020 年 8 月 2 日，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 实质上且部分地虚假声称：“GTV 值多少钱？……市值为 2 billion US dollars。”实际上，正如 KWOK 明知，GTV 的市值远低于此，因为除其他原因外，GTV 是一家没有产生任何收入的新企业。\n\ne. 数千名受害人通过向由 Farms（而非 GTV）控制的银行账户汇款，向 Farms“出借”资金。根据 Farms 经常未予会签的“Loan Agreements（贷款协议）”，这些资金应当用于 Farm 的“一般营运资金用途”。\n\nf. KWOK 和 JE 挪用了通过农场贷款计划筹集的资金。例如：\n\ni. 约 $20 million 被转给 Relative-I，其中约 $950,000 被用于支付一架私人飞机的机组人员服务费用；\n\nii. 约 $5 million 被转给由 KWOK 配偶拥有的实体；\n\niii. 约 $2.3 million 被用于支付一艘长约 145 英尺、价值约 $37 million、名义上由 Relative-2（亲属二）拥有并由 KWOK 使用的豪华游艇的维护费用；\n\niv. 约 $10 million 被转入以 JE 和/或 JE 的配偶名义开立的个人银行账户。\n\nGICLUBS\n\n14. 在就 Farm Loan Program 作出虚假陈述的同时，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫庆明），又名 “William Je”，被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，欺诈性地诱使郭的追随者向一个名为 GICLUBS 的所谓在线会员俱乐部转入额外资金。自至少约 2020 年 10 月起至至少约 2023 年 3 月止，郭、闫以及其他已知和未知人员通过 GICLUBS 欺诈性地获取了超过约 $250 million 的受害人资金。\n\n1除非另有说明，本起诉书中归属于郭的所有陈述均已由普通话译为英文。\n\na. 自至少约 2020 年 6 月 20 日起，郭在通过社交媒体发布的一段视频中推介并鼓励个人购买郭称为 “G Club……会员卡” 的产品。\n\nb. GICLUBS 于约 2020 年 10 月正式推出，其网站声称其为“提供全方位服务的专属高端会员计划”，以及“通向经精心甄选的世界级产品、服务和体验的门户”。\n\nc. 加入 GICLUBS 时，会员除须支付年度会费外，还须一次性付款购买“会员资格”。会员资格的费用因潜在会员所选择的会员等级而异：第 5 级会员资格费用为 $50,000；第 4 级会员资格费用为 $40,000；第 3 级会员资格费用为 $30,000；第 2 级会员资格费用为 $20,000；第 1 级会员资格费用为 $10,000。\n\nd. 约于 2021 年 7 月 5 日，郭在通过社交媒体发布的一段视频中实质上并部分地称，已有“25,000 名 [GICLUBS] 会员……$100 million dollars，现金[存于]银行账户。然后我们还有 111 million……[人]想加入。”相比之下，GICLUBS 的内部文件反映，截至约 2021 年 8 月，其活跃会员约为 5,900 人。\n\ne. 事实上，如郭和闫明知，GICLUBS 向其会员提供的服务和“体验”远远称不上“全方位服务”。尽管收取了数亿美元的所谓会员费，GI CLUBS 维持的雇员人数相对较少，且向其会员提供的会员福利极少或根本没有可辨识的会员福利。事实上，GICLUBS 甚至未兑现其向参与竞赛的会员提供的奖品。约于 2021 年 2 月 14 日，GICLUBS 举办了一场网络直播和抽奖活动，期间向会员承诺提供豪华奖品。至少有一次，GI CLUBS 没有向据称赢得抽奖的会员提供一辆 BMW，而是向该会员声称，该会员曾要求将该 BMW 的价值用于将其第 1 级 GI CLUBS 会员资格升级为第 4 级 GICLUBS 会员资格，并部分抵扣其后连续三年的年度会费。截至约 2021 年 3 月 8 日——即 GICLUBS 推出并开始收取“会员”费用数月后——GICLUBS 尚无商业计划或董事会。\n\nf. 郭和闫还将 GICLUBS 用作继续进行欺诈性私募发行的机制。郭及其他已知和未知人员告诉郭的在线追随者，购买 GICLUBS 会员资格将使其有权获得郭关联实体的股票，例如 GTV 和 GIFashion。\n\ni. 约于 2021 年 5 月 4 日，在一次有关 GICLUBS 会员资金的谈话中，闫实质上并部分地称：“首先，[潜在会员]是在购买 GICLUBS 会员资格，但他们预期自己可能会获得一些股份，您知道的，在、在、在未来的 GTV，我认为这是他们的预期。”\n\nii. 约于 2021 年 7 月 30 日，郭在通过社交媒体发布的一段视频中实质上并部分地称：“一些战友问，‘我购买 GICLUBS 会员资格时，仍会得到免费股票发行吗？’100%。因为我说过，我必须承诺，任何在 9 月 17 日之前购买 G-Club 会员资格的人都必须获配股份，这完全一样。因为我们说过，任何人都可以选择在 9 月 17 日之前用你们的钱购买 G-Club、G-Club 和股票。你们会同时得到两者。”\n\ng. 郭、闫以及其他已知和未知人员要求投资者购买 GICLUBS 的多个会员资格，使郭和闫能够增加所募集的资金数额。就此而言，GICLUBS 网站实质上并部分地称，拥有多个会员资格的会员将“获得额外福利”，而事实上，如郭和闫明知，多个会员资格并不向会员提供额外福利。\n\n15. 总计，投资者购买了价值数亿美元的 GICLUBS 会员资格。然而，这些资金中的大部分并未用于资助 GICLUBS 的业务。相反，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫庆明），又名 “William Je”，被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，挪用了受害人为“会员资格”向 GICLUBS 支付的资金中的很大一部分，其中包括通过一个复杂的实体和银行账户网络实施该等行为。例如：\n\na. 经由以其他实体名义开立的银行账户转移的 GICLUBS 资金，被用于支付郭及其家人的个人开支，包括购买一艘约 $2.6 million 的豪华游艇，以及合计花费超过 $5 million 的豪华汽车。\n\nb. 约于 2021 年 11 月，闫指示将约 $26.5 million 的 GICLUBS 资金——该等资金已通过以其他实体名义开立的银行账户转移——用于购买郭位于 New Jersey（新泽西州）、面积为 50,000 平方英尺的豪宅。\n\nc. 闫指示将额外 $13 million 的 GICLUBS 会员付款转入一个托管账户。该等资金随后被用于支付对郭位于新泽西州的豪宅进行的奢华翻修，包括为亲属-1（Relative-I）设置的一个侧翼和为亲属-2（Relative-2）设置的一个侧翼，以及购买各种家具和装饰物品，其中包括价值约 $978,000 的中国和波斯地毯、一台 $62,000 的电视以及一个 $53,000 的壁炉柴架。\n\nd. 约于 2021 年 8 月 5 日，闫指示将由 GI CLUBS 会员付款构成的约 $1.1 million 转入其控制的一个银行账户。\n\ne. GI CLUBS 使用会员费购买豪华汽车，包括一辆约 $4.4 million 的定制 Bugatti 跑车。虽然该车已签署的购买协议将 GICLUBS 列为客户，但该定制汽车的初始规格文件将亲属-1 列为客户。亲属-1 在 GICLUBS 没有任何正式职位。\n\nHimalaya Exchange\n\n16. 自至少约 2021 年 4 月起至至少约 2023 年 3 月止，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫庆明），又名 “William Je”，被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，通过 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）这一可在互联网上访问的所谓加密货币“生态系统”，欺诈性地获取了超过约 $262 million 的受害人资金。Himalaya Exchange 包括一种名为 Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元，简称 “HDO” 或 “H Dollar”）的所谓稳定币，以及一种名为 Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币，简称 “HCN” 或 “H Coin”）的交易币。Himalaya Exchange 声称，该“稳定币”是一种由储备金支持、价值固定为 1 比 $1 的数字资产，而该“交易币”是一种估值基于供需关系的加密货币。闫是 Himalaya Exchange 的创始人兼董事长。\n\n17. 在通过社交媒体发布的视频中，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，被告人，吹捧 Himalaya Exchange 以及 HCN 和 HDO 两者的前景和估值；他公开将二者称为加密货币。例如，在约于 2021 年 10 月 20 日发布于互联网的一段视频中，郭除其他事项外，实质上并部分地作出以下虚假陈述：\n\na. “我说的是你们的 H Coins，‘Brother Seven’[即郭]设计了它……它具备货币的属性，为什么？它有 20% 的黄金。太棒了[。]它第一天诞生时就是货币，所以它有价值，并且与黄金挂钩……直接清算黄金。无论它涨多少，20% 都会变成黄金。”\n\nb. “如果 H Coin 毫无价值，[H coin 的发行人]可以卖掉全部 20% 的黄金，兑换给你，变成你的钱。或者拿出全部 20% 黄金的价值，请大家统一起来，使之成为你们的。”\n\nc. “如果有人亏钱，我可以说我将赔偿 100%。我给你们 100%。谁亏钱，我承担。”\n\nd. “我可以在一分钟内在市场上卖出 H Coin，然后将其换回我的 H Dollar，再换回你们的法定货币单位。……[而]你们可以立即购买任何东西。”\n\n18. HCN 和 HDO 的首次代币发行约于 2021 年 11 月 1 日进行。HCN 开始交易时的价格为 10 cents，并且在约两周内，Himalaya Exchange 网站声称每枚 HCN 据称价值约 27 HDO（即 $27），这代表价值上涨 26,900%。也就是说，在首次代币发行约两周后，Himalaya Exchange 网站显示 HCN 据称具有约 $27 billion 的估值。\n\n19. 在 Himalaya Exchange 推出时，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，被告人，向其在线追随者及其他人推销 HCN。例如，约于 2021 年 11 月 1 日——即首次代币发行当日——郭通过社交媒体发布了一首名为 “HCoin To the Moon” 的原创歌曲的官方音乐视频。“to the moon”一语通常与加密货币相关联，暗示价值将大幅上涨。该音乐视频描绘了郭身处多个奢华地点，并展示了黄金和财富的图像。\n\n20. KIN MING JE（闫庆明），又名 “William Je”，被告人，曾在包括 Himalaya Exchange 推出后在内的若干时候，以误导性的方式推销 Himalaya Exchange。例如，约于 2022 年 6 月，闫试图造成如下印象：从某一特定拍卖行购买一辆价值 €3,561,127 的 Ferrari（法拉利，以下简称“该法拉利”）是通过 HDO 完成的。闫实质上并部分地称，他“极为高兴[一名]买家决定使用 HDO 购买[一辆]世界级汽车”。与闫的说法相反，该法拉利并非使用 HDO 购买。事实上，如闫明知，Himalaya Exchange 的一名雇员向该拍卖行发送了国际银行电汇以支付该法拉利的费用，同时还在 Himalaya Exchange 上处理了一笔相应的“交易”，以制造该购买是使用 HDO 进行的虚假表象。闫的陈述还具有误导性，因为除其他事项外，该法拉利身份不明的“买家”实际上是亲属-1。\n\n21. 与 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫庆明），又名 “William Je”，被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员的陈述相反，HCN 和 HDO 不能在 Himalaya Exchange 以外的任何地方交易（据称只能在 Himalaya Exchange 上交易）。此外，与加密货币不同，HCN 不能交易为或转换为其他货币。HCN 据称只能交易为 HDO（且只能在 Himalaya Exchange 上），而 HDO 据称只能兑换为或从法定货币兑换而来（且只能在 Himalaya Exchange 上）。\n\na. 事实上，Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）网站上提供的HDO和HCN白皮书以小号字体规定，与KWOK的陈述相反，HCN和HDO并非加密货币。相反，根据HCN白皮书，“Himalaya Exchange及相关应用程序和基础设施的运营将通过使用‘Credits’来促进。”该等积分（i）“只能在Himalaya Exchange或Himalaya Ecosystem（喜马拉雅生态系统）内使用”；且（ii）“不附带任何要求将其兑换为法定货币或加密资产的权利。”此外，尽管Himalaya Exchange成员可以请求将其“HDO”积分兑换为等值美元付款，HDO白皮书称，Himalaya Exchange有“酌处权”拒绝任何此类请求。\n\n22. 约于2022年4月，被告HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE（闫明），又名“William Je”，安排将约$37 million Himalaya Exchange资金从一个Himalaya Exchange银行账户转入一个特定的托管账户。该$37 million被构造为一笔名义上的“贷款”，用于支付KWOK此前购买并使用的一艘豪华游艇的费用；该游艇当时由以Relative-2名义持有的一个实体拥有。\n\n政府扣押欺诈所得\n\n23. 约于2022年9月20日和2022年9月21日，美国当局向数家境内银行送达经司法授权的扣押令状，随后扣押了约$335 million所得款项，该等款项来自以Himalaya Exchange实体及与被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”相关的其他实体名义持有的银行账户。2022年9月经司法授权的扣押之后，JE试图将约$46 million从与Himalaya Exchange相关、尚未被美国扣押的境内银行账户转移至JE控制的一个阿联酋银行账户。\n\na. 在首次经司法授权扣押与Himalaya Exchange相关资金后约两天内，即约于2022年9月22日，JE联系了持有Himalaya Exchange银行账户的一家境内银行的管理层。JE寻求办理一笔电汇，他和一名Himalaya Exchange高管向该境内银行称，该电汇是为一名未具名“VIP”（即Himalaya Exchange的非常重要客户）将HDO“赎回”为美元所必需的。\n\nb. 在随后与该境内银行的沟通中，JE透露，该VIP实际上是JE本人。JE向该境内银行提供了文件，显示JE于约2022年9月22日进行了两笔名义上的HCN出售，合计46 million HDO，JE正试图将其“转换”为$46 million。JE两次向该境内银行管理层强调，实质上且部分地表示，$46 million的转账必须在“今天完成，否则毫无意义”。\n\n24. 约于2022年10月16日，根据经司法授权的令状，美国当局从JE请求转出$46 million的该境内银行内数个Himalaya Exchange和GICLUBS账户中，额外扣押了约$274 million所得款项。\n\na. 由于2022年9月和10月经司法授权的扣押，美国当局扣押了超过约$609 million的欺诈所得，其中包括约$278 million，来自以Himalaya Exchange实体名义持有的银行账户，包括声称持有其HDO现金储备的账户。\n\nb. 扣押后，Himalaya Exchange网站仍继续表示，HDO由“由美元和现金等价资产构成的储备”支持，而事实上并非如此。\n\nc. 尽管Himalaya Exchange的现金储备遭到扣押，截至本起诉书日期，HCN的名义价格并未突然大幅下跌。\n\n法定指控\n\n25. 自至少约2018年起至至少约2023年3月止（包括该期间），在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地方，被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，故意且明知地共同结合、共谋、结伙并相互约定实施危害美国的犯罪，即：（1）电信欺诈，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343；（2）证券欺诈，违反Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff，以及Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5；（3）银行欺诈，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344；（4）国际促进型洗钱，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A)；以及（5）国际隐匿型洗钱，违反Title 18, United States Code Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)。\n\n26. 该共谋的组成部分和目的之一是，被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，明知地设计并意图设计一项诈骗计划和手段，以及通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺获取金钱和财产，并将且确实通过州际和国际商业中的有线电、无线电和电视通信传输，以及促使传输文字、标志、信号、图片和声音，以执行该等计划和手段，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343；即，KWOK和JE同意通过促使与GTV Private Placement（GTV私募配售）、Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）、GICLUBS和Himalaya Exchange有关的重大虚假信息和不实陈述经州际有线通信传输，从而获取受害人的钱款。\n\n27. 该共谋的另一组成部分和目的是，被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，故意且明知地、直接和间接地，通过使用州际商业和邮政的方式及工具，以及全国性证券交易所的设施，就在全国性证券交易所注册的证券以及未如此注册的任何证券的购买和出售，使用和采用操纵性及欺骗性装置和手段，违反Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，其方式为：（a）使用诈骗装置、计划和手段；（b）作出对重要事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使已作陈述在作出时所处情形下不具有误导性所必需的重要事实；以及（c）从事已经并将会对他人构成欺诈和欺骗的行为、做法和业务过程；即，KWOK和JE同意通过就名义上的GTV普通股股份以及名义上与GTV关联的公司提供重大虚假和误导性信息及陈述，欺诈性地诱使投资者参与GTV Private Placement、Farm Loan Program和GICLUBS。\n\n28. 该共谋的另一组成部分和目的是，被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，明知地实施并试图实施一项计划和手段，以欺骗Title 18, United States Code, Section 20所定义的金融机构，并通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺，获取由该金融机构拥有以及处于该金融机构保管和控制之下的金钱、资金、信贷、资产、证券和其他财产，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344；即，KWOK和JE同意参与一项计划，通过与GTV Private Placement、Farm Loan Program、GICLUBS和Himalaya Exchange有关的虚假和欺诈性借口、陈述及文件误导美国金融机构，以获取至少一家金融机构的金钱或处于至少一家金融机构保管和控制之下的金钱。\n\n29. 该共谋的另一组成部分和目的是，被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，将且确实运输、传送和转移，并试图运输、传送和转移货币工具和资金，从美国境内某地至并经由美国境外某地，以及从并经由美国境外某地至美国境内某地，意图促进特定非法活动的进行；即，本起诉书第二至第八项罪名所指控的犯罪，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A)(i)。\n\n30. 该共谋的另一组成部分和目的是，被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，将且确实运输、传送和转移，并试图运输、传送和转移货币工具和资金，从美国境内某地至并经由美国境外某地，以及从并经由美国境外某地至美国境内某地，明知该等运输、传送和转移所涉货币工具和资金代表某种形式非法活动的所得，并明知该等运输、传送和转移的全部或部分目的在于隐瞒和掩饰特定非法活动所得的性质、地点、来源、所有权和控制权；即，本起诉书第二至第八项罪名所指控的犯罪，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)。\n\n公开行为\n\n31. 为推进该共谋并实现其非法目的，被告HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，在Southern District of New York及其他地方实施了包括下列行为在内的公开行为：\n\na. 约于2020年4月21日，KWOK在社交媒体上发布并促使发布一段视频，宣布通过GTV Private Placement进行未注册的GTV股票发行。\n\nb. 约于2020年6月5日，一名未在本案中列名的共谋者（“CC-1”）在Southern District of New York期间，授权将$100 million从Saraca转账至Fund-1。\n\nc. 约于2020年7月22日，KWOK在通过社交媒体发布的一段视频中推介Farm Loan Program。\n\nd. 约于2020年8月2日，KWOK在通过社交媒体发布的一段视频中，实质上且部分地表示：“GTV值多少钱？……市值为2 billion US dollars。”\n\ne. 约于2021年5月28日，JE将约$13 million从JE控制的一个阿联酋银行账户转入一个实体（由Relative-2拥有）在纽约州纽约市某一特定银行持有的银行账户。\n\nf. 在前后约 July 30, 2021，KWOK 在通过社交媒体传播的一段视频中实质上并部分地称：“一些战友问，‘我购买 G-Clubs 会员资格后，仍然会获得免费股票要约吗？’100%。因为我说过，我必须承诺，凡在 September 17 之前购买 G-Clubs 会员资格的人，都必须获配股份，这完全一样。因为我们说过，任何人都可以选择是否在 September 17 之前用你的钱购买 G-Clubs、G-Clubs 和股票。你将两者都得到。”\n\ng. 在前后约 August 5, 2021，JE 指示将受害人以换取“会员资格”而汇给 GCLUBS 的资金中约 \\$1.1 million 转入一个由 JE 控制的银行账户。\n\nh. 在前后约 October 20, 2021，KWOK 在通过社交媒体传播的一段视频中实质上并部分地称，KWOK“设计了”HCN，“无论其筹集多少，20% 都会变成黄金”，并且“如果任何人在 HCN 上亏钱”，“我可以说，我将赔偿 100%。”\n\ni. 在前后约 September 22, 2022，JE 向一家美国银行的管理层发送短信，实质上并部分地称，向一个由 JE 控制的位于 UAE 的银行账户转入 \\$46 million 必须在“今天完成，否则毫无意义。”\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n第二项罪名（电信诈骗——GTV（GTV媒体集团）私募发行）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n32. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次提出，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n33. 自至少约 April 2020 起至至少约 March 2021 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名 “William Je”，明知已设计并意图设计一项诈骗计划和诡计，以及通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺获取金钱和财产，为实施该计划和诡计之目的，通过州际及外国商业中的有线、无线电和电视通信，传输并使他人传输了文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，即，KWOK 和 JE 实施 GTV 私募发行，以出售 GTV 股票，并通过虚假陈述和失实表述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；该计划通过进出纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第三项罪名（证券欺诈——GTV 私募发行）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n34. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次提出，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n35. 自至少约 April 2020 起至至少约 March 2021 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名 “William Je”，故意且明知地，直接及间接地，通过使用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，以及全国证券交易所的设施，就在全国证券交易所登记的证券及任何未作此类登记的证券的买卖，使用并采用操纵性和欺骗性的手段和诡计，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 采用诈骗性手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出关于重大事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使在作出该陈述时的情形下该陈述不具误导性所必需陈述的重大事实；以及 (c) 从事已构成并将构成对他人实施诈骗和欺骗的行为、做法和业务过程，即，KWOK 和 JE 实施 GTV 私募发行，以出售 GTV 股票，并通过虚假陈述和失实表述从受害人处获取金钱；该计划通过进出纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n第四项罪名（电信诈骗——Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划））\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n36. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次提出，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n37. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名 “William Je”，明知已设计并意图设计一项诈骗计划和诡计，以及通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺获取金钱和财产，为实施该计划和诡计之目的，通过州际及外国商业中的有线、无线电和电视通信，传输并使他人传输了文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，即，KWOK 和 JE 实施 Farm Loan Program，以通过虚假陈述和失实表述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；该计划通过进出纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第五项罪名（证券欺诈——Farm Loan Program）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n38. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次提出，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n39. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名 “William Je”，故意且明知地，直接及间接地，通过使用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，以及全国证券交易所的设施，就在全国证券交易所登记的证券及任何未作此类登记的证券的买卖，使用并采用操纵性和欺骗性的手段和诡计，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 采用诈骗性手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出关于重大事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使在作出该陈述时的情形下该陈述不具误导性所必需陈述的重大事实；以及 (c) 从事已构成并将构成对他人实施诈骗和欺骗的行为、做法和业务过程，即，KWOK 和 JE 实施 Farm Loan Program，以通过虚假陈述和失实表述从受害人处获取金钱，包括但不限于有关 GTV 价值的陈述；该计划通过进出纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n第六项罪名（电信诈骗——GCLUBS）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n40. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次提出，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n41. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名 “William Je”，明知已设计并意图设计一项诈骗计划和诡计，以及通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺获取金钱和财产，为实施该计划和诡计之目的，通过州际及外国商业中的有线、无线电和电视通信，传输并使他人传输了文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，即，KWOK 和 JE 推广并营销 GCLUBS，以通过虚假陈述和失实表述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；该计划通过进出纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第七项罪名（证券欺诈——GCLUBS）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n42. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次提出，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n43. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2021 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名 “William Je”，故意且明知地，直接及间接地，通过使用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，以及全国证券交易所的设施，就在全国证券交易所登记的证券及任何未作此类登记的证券的买卖，使用并采用操纵性和欺骗性的手段和诡计，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 采用诈骗性手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出关于重大事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使在作出该陈述时的情形下该陈述不具误导性所必需陈述的重大事实；以及 (c) 从事已构成并将构成对他人实施诈骗和欺骗的行为、做法和业务过程，即，KWOK 和 JE 推广并营销 GCLUBS，以通过虚假陈述和失实表述从受害人处获取金钱，包括但不限于有关 GTV 价值的陈述；该计划通过进出纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n第八项罪名（电信诈骗——The Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所））\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n44. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次提出，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n45. 自至少约 April 2021 起至至少约 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名 “William Je”，明知已设计并意图设计一项诈骗计划和诡计，以及通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺获取金钱和财产，为实施该计划和诡计之目的，通过州际及外国商业中的有线、无线电和电视通信，传输并使他人传输了文字、\n\n标志、信号、图像和声音，以实施该等计划和手段，即，KWOK 和 JE 经营 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），通过虚假陈述和不实表示欺诈性地从受害人处获取资金；该计划通过往来于 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得以推进。\n\n（《美国法典》第18编，第1343条和第2条。）\n第九项罪名（国际促进型洗钱）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n46. 本起诉书第1至24段所载指控在此重复援引并重新主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n47. 自至少约2018年起至至少约2023年3月止，包括该期间，在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名“William Je”，为促进特定非法活动的实施，曾将、传送和转移，并企图将、传送和转移货币工具和资金，自美国境内某地转至并经由美国境外某地，以及自并经由美国境外某地转至美国境内某地，即，KWOK 和 JE 指示并进行了进出美国及经由美国的国际资金转移，意图促进本起诉书第二至第八项罪名所涉欺诈犯罪。\n\n（《美国法典》第18编，第1956(a)(2)(A)条和第2条。）\n第十项罪名（国际隐匿型洗钱）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n48. 本起诉书第1至24段所载指控在此重复援引并重新主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n49. 自至少约2018年起至至少约2023年3月止，包括该期间，在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名“William Je”，明知运输、传送和转移所涉货币工具和资金代表某种形式非法活动的所得，且明知该等运输、传送和转移被全部或部分设计用于隐瞒和掩饰特定非法活动所得的性质、所在地、来源、所有权和控制权，曾将、传送和转移，并企图将、传送和转移货币工具和资金，自美国境内某地转至并经由美国境外某地，以及自并经由美国境外某地转至美国境内某地；该特定非法活动即本起诉书第二至第八项罪名所指控的欺诈犯罪。即，KWOK 和 JE 进行了涉及欺诈所得的进出美国及经由美国的国际金融交易，其中包括但不限于涉及以名义上由其他个人拥有的实体及与被告无明显关联的实体名义持有的银行账户的交易，以隐瞒欺诈所得的所有权、控制权和／或收取情况，以及该等所得的非法性质和来源。\n\n（《美国法典》第18编，第1956(a)(2)(B)(i)条和第2条。）\n第十一项罪名（非法货币交易）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n50. 本起诉书第1至24段所载指控在此重复援引并重新主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n51. 于2020年6月5日前后，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名“William Je”，在美国境内，明知而从事并企图从事《美国法典》第18编第1957(f)(1)条所定义的货币交易，所涉犯罪所得财产价值超过 \\$10,000，且源自特定非法活动；即，KWOK 和 JE 将源自第二和第三项罪名所控犯罪的约 \\$100 million 通过电汇转至 Fund-1（基金1），并指示他人作出该笔电汇。\n\n（《美国法典》第18编，第1957条和第2条。）\n第十二项罪名（妨害司法）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n52. 本起诉书第1至24段所载指控在此重复援引并重新主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n53. 自至少2022年9月20日前后起至本起诉书提交之日止，在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名“William Je”，腐败地妨碍、影响和阻碍一项正式程序，并企图如此行事；即，JE 企图将资金转移至阿拉伯联合酋长国，置于美国管辖权之外，以妨碍和干扰纽约南区联邦大陪审团对本起诉书第一至第十一项罪名所指控犯罪的调查，以及 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）就扣押和没收犯罪所得进行的程序。\n\n（《美国法典》第18编，第1512(c)(2)条和第2条。）\n没收指控\n\n54. 因实施本起诉书第一至第八项罪名所指控的犯罪，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明），又名“William Je”，应依据《美国法典》第18编第981(a)(1)(C)条及《美国法典》第28编第2461(c)条，向美国没收任何及全部构成或源自可追溯至实施前述犯罪的所得的不动产和动产，包括但不限于以美元计价、代表可追溯至实施前述犯罪的所得金额的一笔款项，以及以下特定财产：\n\na. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090037713中的 \\$64,826.87 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nb. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090037705中的 \\$75,000,000.00 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nc. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090037754中的 \\$467,343.00 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nd. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090042770中的 \\$89,992,861.75 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\ne. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090042762中的 \\$1,683,077.40 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nf. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090042853中的 \\$85,899,889.20 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\ng. 原存于以“Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090030288中的 \\$48,230,709.62 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nh. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090037739中的 \\$1,800,000.00 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\ni. 原存于以“Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）”名义在 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）开立的账户号码5090042853中的 \\$85,899,889.20 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nj. 原存于以“Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）”名义在 FV Bank（FV银行）开立的账户号码7801000590中的 \\$4,643,744.70 美元，政府于2022年9月20日前后予以扣押；\n\nk. 原存于以“Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）”名义在 FV Bank（FV银行）开立的账户号码7801000254中的 \\$14,599,257.25 美元，政府于2022年9月20日前后予以扣押；\n\nl. 原存于以“G Club International Ltd.（G俱乐部国际有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10103-0000中的 \\$11,538,579.87 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\nm. 原存于以“Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10133-0000中的 \\$9,451,170.54 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\nn. 原存于以“Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10137-0000中的 \\$2,823,642.39 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\no. 原存于以“Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10138-0000中的 \\$249,000,115.46 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\np. 原存于以“Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10139-0000中的 \\$283,965.11 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\nq. 原存于以“Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10171-0000中的 \\$1,085,623.67 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\nr. 原存于以“G Fashion International Limited（G时尚国际有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10172-0000中的 \\$43,782.71 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\ns. 原存于以“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.（喜马拉雅货币清算有限公司）”名义在 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）开立的账户号码MBI10183-0000中的 \\$161,809.47 美元，政府于2022年10月16日前后予以扣押；\n\nt. 原存于以“GETTR USA, Inc.（GETTR美国公司）”名义在 Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.（制造商与交易商信托公司）开立的账户号码9878904409中的 \\$2,745,377.75 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nu. 原存于以“G Fashion（G时尚）”名义在 US Bank（美国银行）开立的账户号码157525208185中的 \\$9,899,659.19 美元，政府于2022年9月18日前后予以扣押；\n\nv. 位于675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 的全部该宗或地块，以及其建筑物、附属物、改良物、固定装置、附着物和地役权；地块编号为3300021-03-00001-02，并描述为：地块号：1.02；街区：21.03；区：33；城市、市政当局、镇区：MAHWAH TWP；\n\nw. 一辆 Bugatti Chiron Super Sport（布加迪 Chiron Super Sport），车辆识别号码为VF9SW3V3XNM795047；\n\nx. 一辆 Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roadster（兰博基尼 Aventador SVJ Roadster），车辆识别号码为ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393；\n\ny. 一辆 Rolls Royce Phantom EWB（劳斯莱斯 Phantom EWB），车辆识别号码为SCATT8C08MU206445；\n\nz. 一艘2014年制造、46米长的 Feadship（斐帝星）超级游艇“Lady May”（原名 Como），IMO编号为112359，MMSI编号为319059500，呼号为ZGDQ9；\n\naa. 一架 Besendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539 钢琴，配有定制琴凳，购置价格约为 \\$140,938.69；\n\nbb. 一张 Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon Bed with Nightstands, Ebony Veneer, Brass, Velvet（Railis Design 冰岛当代海神床，配床头柜、乌木饰面、黄铜和天鹅绒），购置价格约为 \\$31,413.71；\n\ncc. 一张 Hastens 2000T md 床垫，购置价格约为 $36,590.00；\n\ndd. 一张 Hastens 2000T sf 床垫，购置价格约为 $36,210.00；\n\nee. 一个 Wembe 手表收纳盒，购置价格约为 $59,392.91；\n\nff. 一台 Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98\" QLED Smart TV - 8K，购置价格约为 $62,787.54；\n\ngg. 一件由 Joseph Emmanuel Zweiner（约瑟夫·伊曼纽尔·茨维纳）制作的路易十五风格法国镀金铜饰桃花心木五斗橱；\n\nhh. 一张由 Philip & Kelvin La Verne（菲利普和凯尔文·拉韦恩）制作的“K'ang Hsi”延伸桌，以蚀刻并做旧的白镴和青铜制成，配有手绘珐琅色彩，购置价格约为 $180,000.00；以及\n\nii. 一张由 Gabriella Crespi（加布里埃拉·克雷斯皮）于 1982 年在意大利制作的“Punto '83”桌，以不锈钢制成，配有网格桌面、可调节高度和可调节花瓣，购置价格约为 $180,000.00。\n\n(a) 至 (ii)，合称“特定财产”。\n\n55. 因实施本起诉书第一、九、十及十一罪名项所指控的洗钱罪行，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo”，又名“ Miles Kwok”，又名“ Guo Wengui”，又名“ Brother Seven”，又名“ The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（叶金明），\n\n又名“William Je”，应根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(l)，向美国没收所有参与该罪行的不动产和动产，或可追溯至该等财产的任何财产，包括但不限于一笔以美元计价、相当于参与该罪行的财产价值的款项，以及特定财产。\n\n代替资产条款\n\n56. 如因被告的任何作为或不作为，上述任何应没收财产：\n\na. 经尽职查找后仍无法定位；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给或存放于第三人处；\n\nc. 已被置于法院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他财产混同，且无法在不造成困难的情况下予以分割；\n\n则美国拟根据 Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) 和 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c )，寻求没收被告价值不超过上述应没收财产价值的任何其他财产。\n\n（Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981 and 982；Title 21, United States Code, Section 853；以及 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461。）\n\n陪审团领班\n\n3/ i.R(c2vEJ3\n\n~~\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n美国联邦检察官\n\n>\" ,t c .\\-~ t ~-\\.t~ v N:kc s '-\"' \\ p-,r- e~ ..\\ v.1 '\" r re;..,;'\\,..\\- 3 8 fVL (9...\n\n'5 s~ A- USM 'T G--ore/\\-S ft, /I\n\n书记员副手：现传唤案件 23-MG-2007，美国诉 Yanping Wang（王艳萍）。\n\nMURRAY 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）、Ryan Finkel（莱恩·芬克尔）和 Micah Fergenson（迈卡·弗格森）代表美国出庭。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n书记员副手：王女士的律师，请——王女士，您能否为记录说明您的出庭身份。\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是 ChaudhryLaw（乔德里律师事务所）的 Priya Chaudhry（普里娅·乔德里），与 Lipman PLLC（利普曼 PLLC）的 Alex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）共同出庭。我们代理 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王），她已到庭，坐在我们之间，并由一名普通话口译员协助。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLIPMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好，王女士。我是 Parker 法官（帕克法官）。您能清楚听到口译员吗？\n\n被告人：能。\n\n法庭：好的，很好。您因一份刑事起诉状中对您提出的指控而被逮捕。今天程序的目的，是告知您享有的若干权利，告知您所受指控，考虑是否应为您指定律师，并决定在审判前您应在何种条件下获释（如有）。\n\nAMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE（AMM 速记服务）- 631 334 1445\n\n请告知逮捕的日期和时间。\n\nMURRAY 女士：好的，法官阁下。被告人于今天上午约 6:00 a.m. 被逮捕。\n\n法庭：现在我将向您说明您享有的若干宪法权利。您有权保持沉默。您无须作出任何陈述。即使您已经向有关机关作出陈述，您也无须再作任何陈述。您所作的任何陈述均可被用于对您不利。\n\n您有权在审判前获释，无论是否附加条件，除非我认定不存在任何条件能够合理保证您将在日后出庭，并保证社区安全。如果您不是美国公民，您有权要求政府律师或执法人员通知您原籍国的领事官员您已被逮捕。在某些情况下，条约或其他协议可能要求美国政府作出该通知，无论您是否提出请求。\n\n您有权在所有法庭程序中，包括本次程序，以及在有关机关进行的一切询问中，由律师代理。您有权自行聘请律师；但如您无力聘请，法院将为您指定律师代理。\n\n您是否理解我刚才向您说明的权利？\n\n被告人：我理解。\n\n法庭：好的。现在，我了解到您已经聘请了律师，因此无需——这是否正确？我这里没有任何财务宣誓书。\n\n被告人：正确。\n\n法庭：是的，没错。好的。现在我将审阅起诉状中的指控。起诉状指控您违反 Title 18 of the United States Code § 371，与他人共谋实施电信欺诈及证券欺诈。\n\n第二罪名项指控您违反 Title 18 of the United States Code § 1343 and § 2，实施电信欺诈。\n\n第三罪名项指控您违反 Title 15 of the United States Code §§ 78j(b) and 78ff、Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 240.10(b) (5) 以及 Title 18 of the United States Code § 2，实施证券欺诈。\n\n第四罪名项指控您违反 Title 18 of the United States Code §§ 2 and 1957，从事非法货币交易。\n\n所有这些指控均涉及您参与 GTV，以及与 GTV 有关的私募配售和相关资金转移。\n\n律师，您是否在普通话口译员协助下，已与您的当事人审阅起诉状？\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：法官阁下，我们已审阅。\n\n法庭：她是否放弃公开宣读？\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：她放弃。\n\n法庭：好的。王女士，您是否理解您被指控的事项？\n\n被告人：是，我理解。\n\n法庭：好的。除我已经告知您的权利外，您还有权举行初步听证会，届时政府负有举证责任，证明有合理根据相信您被指控的犯罪已经发生，并且您就是实施该犯罪的人。在该听证会上，您和您的律师有权对任何证人进行交叉询问，并提交证据。\n\nAMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE（AMM 速记服务）- 631 334 1445\n\n如您被羁押，您有权在 14 天内举行初步听证会。如您未被羁押，您有权在 21 天内举行初步听证会。但是，如大陪审团在初步听证会日期之前对您作出起诉书，则不会举行初步听证会。我稍后将确定初步听证会的日期。\n\n政府对于保释、羁押或释放的立场是什么？\n\nMURRAY 女士：首先，为记录起见，法官阁下，被告人是中国公民，今晨已就其被逮捕一事作出领事通知。\n\n法庭：好的。该事项已记入记录。谢谢。\n\nMURRAY 女士：政府已与辩护律师沟通，我们对保释方案大体达成一致。有两项关键分歧。因此，如法官阁下愿意，我可以先说明分歧，然后我们再讨论各项条件；或者，我也可以按相反顺序进行。\n\nAMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE（AMM 速记服务）- 631.334.1445\n\n法庭：先从你们达成一致的事项开始，然后你可以说明你们不同意的事项。\n\nMURRAY 女士：政府同意采取一项 $5 million 的具结保释保证书，由两名经政府批准且具备经济能力的人共同签署，并以 $1 million 的不动产和/或现金作担保；同意将旅行限制在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）和 Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）；交出任何旅行证件，且被告人不得申请任何新的旅行证件；被告人向审前服务机构和美国联邦检察官办公室披露全部资产，包括其拥有占有、保管或控制权的任何资产，并包括任何共同账户或商业账户以及任何现金、加密货币或数字资产；未经审前服务机构批准，被告人不得开设任何新的银行账户或信用额度；被告人不得在律师在场以外与 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名 Miles Guo，或 Kin Ming Je（叶金明），J-E，又名 William Je，或任何被指称的受害人或证人接触；以及审前服务机构建议的任何其他条件。\n\n法官阁下，双方未达成一致的两点是：第一，政府寻求居家拘禁，并以 GPS 定位监控加强；第二，政府寻求在全部条件得到满足之前羁押被告人。\n\n法庭：好的。现在，我的理解是否正确：王女士所受指控的罪行并非附带羁押推定的罪行？\n\nMURRAY 女士：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：并且根据《保释改革法》，我必须以为合理保证被告人返庭及社区安全所必需的限制最少的方式释放被告人。\n\n因此，我首先希望了解，为什么你认为采用 GPS 的居家拘禁，是实现这些目的所必需的限制最少方式。\n\nMURRAY 女士：当然。就该被告人的潜逃风险而言，政府当然认为，证据优势远超过表明被告人构成重大潜逃风险的程度。被告人——尽管这些指控并非附带羁押推定的指控——被指控的罪行涉及非常巨额的款项。她被指控涉及一笔 $100 million 的电汇。这是政府指称为欺诈所得的一笔单独资金转移；除证券欺诈和电信欺诈共谋外，她还拥有批准该笔电汇的唯一权限。\n\nAMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE（AMM 速记服务）- 631.334.1445\n\n被告人可获得大量资产。其中一些为政府所知。坦率地说，其中一些可能并不为政府所知，因为被告人及其与之共谋的其他人通过极其复杂和精密的空壳公司运作。\n\n举几个例子供法官阁下参考，被告人的公寓以一家由她全资拥有的有限责任公司的名义购置。我并非认为这必然存在任何可疑之处，但我以此说明：据我们所知，被告人目前或曾经控制过十多家实体，其中包括财务控制权。而其中一些\n\n这些实体，无论被告是该等实体的主要股东，还是必然能够接触其银行账户，被告至少在公司文件层面对这些公司具有决定性控制权。被告也不是美国居民。其庇护申请尚在待决，但被告、Miles Guo（郭文贵）、William Je（闫建明）及其他人活动的范围，是一个由遍布全球数十万在线追随者支持的广泛网络，因此并不限于纽约地区。\n\n我们知道，在我所提及的名为 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）的全球网络中，有人支持郭先生、Wang 女士（王女士）及其所谓的同志。因此，我们有充分理由相信，如 Wang 女士逃离，其他司法辖区会有人支持她，且她拥有足以逃离的大量资产。\n\n此外，关于逃跑风险，我还要指出本案政府证据的力度。本院面前虽有一份刑事控告书，但仅向本院说明，\n\n那些看起来是新的，还有数个 Hermes（爱马仕）钱包、一个大型 Hermes 手袋。另有我们尚不知其包含何物的其他电子设备，包括多个 TB 硬盘、多个闪存驱动器。此外，该处还有一个装有七至八张 SIM 卡的小袋。\n\n鉴于这些情形、被告与众多空壳实体的深厚联系、其因在美国不具任何身份而与社区缺乏联系、其与遍布全国及全世界、极为支持她的追随者网络的广泛联系，以及被告在被控罪行中的角色。如我所述，她是众多账户的签字人，不仅是转出 $100 million 的账户的签字人，还是构成郭氏家族办公室的各实体的负责人。她控制这些实体。她拥有权限。她实质上是 Miles Guo 或 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的幕僚长。\n\n她负责运营工作。在某些时期，他在上东区、紧邻 Wang 女士公寓的一栋联排别墅内经营其控制的多家公司，当时有数家不同的名义企业在同一栋联排别墅内办公，而 Wang 女士是指挥中心。不论是哪一家企业，如有人请求批准电汇或批准商业决策，都会去找她。因此，她受命担任这起十亿美元欺诈案的主要得力助手。\n\n这就是政府认为配备 GPS 监控的居家拘禁适当的理由。我们也认为，在被告获释前，必须满足相关条件，并使政府确信这些条件已获满足，包括财产保释金和共同签署担保人。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。接下来我听取辩护律师的意见。\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我认为，政府在其关于逃跑风险的论证中忽略了一个非常重要的要点，即 Wang 女士情况特殊。她不只是身在美国的一名中国公民，她是一名政治难民。无论政府在本案中的证据对她意味着什么，她如果回到中国，在此生任何时候将面对的情况都要糟糕得多，这正是她寻求政治庇护的原因。前往中国不是她的选择。因此，Wang 女士在此生不存在逃往中国的风险。这是第一点。\n\n第二，这些被发现的护照都是旧的、已过期的护照。正如政府所承认，Wang 女士是 Miles Kwok 的幕僚长，因此她持有自己和他的过期护照并不反常，因为她也在处理他们的移民庇护申请。\n\n此外，尽管政府称她确有追随者，但本案，尤其是 Kwok 先生的案件，将获得如此多的公众关注，以至于国际刑警组织不注意到本案三名极具知名度的被告之一越过边境，将会非常不寻常。她已不再持有任何旅行证件。\n\n谈到与社区的联系，Wang 女士于 April of 2015 离开中国，此后从未回去过。甚至没有在其父亲去世前回去见他，也没有回去见她自己的孩子，她无法回去见那个孩子。她自 2017 起一直在纽约，实际上一直在曼哈顿。与许多纽约人一样，她不开车。她自 2020 起一直居住在这套她拥有的公寓中。\n\n在此之前，她在同一栋楼内租住一套公寓。Pretrial Services（审前服务处）已致电该楼，并确认她确实住在那里。\n\n她的庇护申请也已经提交。面谈已经完成。因此，她正积极寻求不仅让美国政府知道她在这里，也让其允许她留在这里。她不会冒险前往中国能够再次控制她的任何地方。\n\n对 Wang 女士实施 GPS 监控，将使政府和本院确信我们知道她在哪里。这种措施适用于全国各地的被告，效果极其显著。我曾代理在本区面临指控、居住在全国各地的客户，他们也面临类似指控，而这足以确保他们返回法庭。审前服务处应能——希望今天在她离开前能——做到这一点。\n\n我们很乐意同意其余条件，但我们认为，允许她今天离开很容易做到，无需本院真正担心再也见不到她。政府关于居家禁足的请求，\n\n鉴于 GPS 定位监控的有效性，我们认为也是不必要的。\n\n加上纽约南区和东区的旅行限制，这应能使我们所有人都了解 Wang 女士的行踪。此外，她无意前往任何地方。她早已知道政府一直在调查她，SEC（美国证券交易委员会）也已调查她相当一段时间，但她并未逃离。她也无意逃离。因此，基于该理由，我们愿意在提出这两项变更请求的前提下同意所有这些条件，并请求给予十天时间满足其余条件，但今天凭 Wang 女士的签字将其释放。\n\n法官：所以，你们不反对电子脚环，反对的是居家拘禁？\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：正确。\n\n法官：以及在条件满足前继续羁押 Wang 女士。\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：正是如此。\n\n法官：你们有经济担保人吗？\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：我们正在办理。政府已同意在接下来一两天内与我们沟通，以寻找他们——我们提出的一些人尚未被接受。我们会找到可接受的人。\n\n法官：Wang 女士公寓的价值是多少？如果有人——你们——任何一方知道吗？\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：购买价略高于 $1 million。没有抵押贷款。那是在 2020。它位于上东区一栋理想的楼宇内，所以我认为目前至少值这个价。\n\n法官：政府有任何回应意见吗？\n\nMURRAY 女士：有的。谢谢，法官阁下。简要说几点。\n\n第一，关于 Chaudhry 女士提出的观点，即鉴于 Wang 女士在此作为政治庇护申请人的身份及其所面临的危险，她近期不会前往中国，我只想指出，Wang 女士还可以去其他地方。她至少有一个实体是在 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）注册的实体。本案中，以及就 Wang 女士可接触的银行账户、资金和实体而言，均与 UAE（阿联酋）存在联系，包括就在数日前，参与这些实体和该欺诈计划的人在 Dubai（迪拜）和 UAE 的最新活动。\n\n因此，保险箱内的过期护照并不意味着什么；一个人逃往某地后再在该地寻求庇护，并不需要护照。因此，我们认为存在重大逃跑风险，而 Wang 女士与中国的关系并不能减轻该风险，尤其考虑到她与其他司法辖区的联系，包括那些不轻易、甚至完全不向美国引渡的司法辖区。\n\n还有几点。$130,000 现金，看起来像是一笔紧急逃离资金。持有如此大量的现金，向我们表明，即使撇开她控制和可接触的银行账户以及她控制和可接触的实体不谈，她出于某种原因一直将现金存放在其公寓的保险箱中。这使我们对其潜在逃离动机，以及随时逃离的能力，深感担忧。\n\n关于位置监控，即 GPS 脚环与由 GPS 监控强化的居家拘禁之间的比较，我理解 Chaudhry 女士的观点，但脚环相对容易剪断。\n\nAMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE（AMM 速记服务） - 631.334.1445\n\n我理解，大多数人都会在某种程度上遵守条件。我们在这里的担忧是，某人的公寓内就有那么多现金，她可能还可以接触其他藏有资产、能够帮助她逃离的地点。她可以剪断脚环。法官阁下，这也是为何在 Wang 女士获释前，我们必须落实双方同意的保释条件，包括经济条件，如此我们才能对本案实际将作为保释担保提交的内容有所了解，也才能知道如 Wang 女士逃离，我们将采取何种控制措施。\n\n最后，关于辩护律师向我们提出的共同签署担保人，我们非常乐意与辩护律师合作，寻找政府可以接受的共同签署担保人。我想指出，今天提出的两名经济责任担保人，是两名被指称参与该欺诈活动的人。\n\n今天有两人被指称参与了该欺诈行为。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士（乔德里）：是的，法官阁下，仅就那 $138,000 现金而言。这是事实，而且我认为自 GTV 案件受到了一些关注以来，这已为公众所知：许多团体，无论是国家还是公司，都对此采取了政治立场，包括关闭了 Wang女士（王女士）银行账户的多家银行，这就是她最终在保险柜中存有大量现金的原因。她已经经历过近十二家普通银行，无论是 Bank of America（美国银行）还是 Santander（桑坦德银行）或——它们只是关闭她的账户，并要求她去取走自己的钱。因此，这是她持有现金的原因之一。\n\n第二点是，政府完全推测性地声称她可能在其他地方存有现金、可前往该处，这些都只是推测。他们已对此调查很长时间。他们没有向法庭指出任何一个他们认为存有现金的具体地点。我的意思是，要么他们认为此人是在世界各地有追随者、能够——\n\n按照审前服务处的指示，以位置监控技术执行居家拘禁。被告人须向审前服务处及美国联邦检察官办公室披露全部资产，包括以其名义持有、由其控制，或由其拥有权益的公司控制的任何账户、任何加密货币、任何现金及任何其他财产。\n\nWang女士不得在律师在场以外与 Kwok先生（郭文贵）、Je先生（杰）或其他共谋者接触。她不得在律师在场以外与任何被指称的受害人或证人接触。她须居住于 188 East 64th Street，未经审前服务处许可不得迁居。被告人未经审前服务处事先批准，不得开设任何新的银行账户、信用额度或贷款。\n\n现在，政府还有其他事项吗？\n\nMURRAY女士（默里）：法官阁下，如可，我只想澄清一项条件。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nMURRAY女士：关于以位置监控加强居家拘禁一事，我们请求以 GPS 位置监控予以加强，以便——我理解位置监控会在被告人离开或返回时通知。\n\n位置监控会在被告人离开或返回时通知。\n\n我们也希望知道她离开后前往何处。\n\n法庭：是的，我将会——我也会下令实施 GPS，但位置监控也可以包括在住所内——即在住所内——进行独立监控，如审前服务处认为适当；因此，我将其纳入保释条件。\n\nMURRAY女士：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。现在，Wang女士，我假定你终将能够满足这些条件；一旦你满足条件并获释，我需要警告你，未按要求出庭可能会产生严重后果。\n\n如果你违反任何释放条件，将签发逮捕令逮捕你。你及任何签署保释保证书的人均将各自负责支付其全额。你可能被控以单独的逃避保释罪，这可能意味着额外的监禁刑和罚金。\n\n此外，如果你在获释期间实施任何新的犯罪，除该犯罪规定的刑罚外——\n\nAMM 速记服务 - 631.334.1445\n\n除该犯罪规定的刑罚外，如属重罪，你将被判处不超过十年的额外监禁刑；如属轻罪，则不超过一年。该监禁刑将在任何其他监禁刑执行完毕后执行。\n\n在你候审期间，我还必须警告你，不得与潜在或指定的证人或陪审员接触，亦不得对其进行任何恐吓；不得恐吓任何法庭工作人员；不得从事任何会妨碍执法部门调查的行为。\n\n我应将初步听证会定在哪一天？\n\n辩护律师，你们是否希望将初步听证会放弃至第 30 天？你们希望在第 14 天举行吗？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士：第 14 天。\n\n法庭：好的。初步听证会定于 March 29。\n\n政府还有其他事项吗？\n\nMURRAY女士：没有，法官阁下。谢谢您。\n\n法庭：辩护律师还有其他事项吗？\n\nAMM 速记服务 - 631 334 1445\n\n请通知我们。好吗？\n\n被告人：明白。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，为准备本程序，我已审阅约两周前——也许是一周前——在被告人最初到庭时编制的审前服务报告。我也有 March 15th 被告人在 Parker法官（帕克）面前出庭时的庭审记录，我已审阅该记录。\n\n我理解 Parker法官为被告人设定了释放条件，要求在她获释前满足这些条件。我理解我们可能是为 Nebbia hearing（内比亚听证会）而到庭。没有人向我提交其他材料，因此，除我现在已与各位分享的内容外，我不知道其他任何情况。\n\nMURRAY女士：是的，法官阁下。我们昨晚，即昨日傍晚，接到辩护律师的电话。他们提供了若干潜在共同签署人。我们已收到其中五人的文件，并面谈了四人，但尚未达到我们批准两名共同签署人的程度。\n\n因此，昨晚辩方通知我们，他们希望举行他们所称的 Nebbia hearing。我理解辩方原计划连夜向法庭提交某些材料，但我们刚刚通知了传讯部门，并安排将被告人带到庭。所以，他们今天希望在此涉及哪些事项，我交由辩方决定。\n\n法庭：好的。我能否请你把麦克风——\n\nLIPMAN先生（利普曼）：抱歉。\n\n法庭：——直接移到你面前。\n\nLIPMAN先生：法官阁下，我们到庭的原因是，政府在我们看来不合理地拒绝批准我们提出的共同签署人。因此，正如政府所说，我们向他们提供了超过五个名字。我们提供了大约九个名字；他们持有五人的文件。他们面谈了四人。他们拒绝了所有人。\n\n我们到庭的原因是，我们将请求法官阁下要么批准我们提出的人员，要么以使 Wang女士能够满足保释条件并获释的方式变更保释条件。因此，如果允许我在开始前先作一个初步概述，既然法官阁下已审阅审前报告，法官阁下可以看到——\n\n法庭：让我先打断你一下。\n\nLIPMAN先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我并不倾向于推翻已经听取保释辩论并设定保释条件的同事。因此，如果这正是你要求我做的事，我不确定我是否愿意这样做。如果你请求我审议所提保证人的合理性，我理解依法我可以这样做。\n\n我对该审查标准一无所知，而且我没有任何姓名或文件，因此我不知道这是否是我能在法官席上处理的事项。\n\nLIPMAN先生：那么，法官阁下，请允许我说明一下背景，也许这会有所帮助。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN先生：Wang女士是一名来自中国的政治难民。她是一个反对 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）的人员运动的一部分。这是一个相当庞大的运动。由于她作为该运动中非常高级的人士参与其中，她无法返回中国。如果她返回中国，她会在机场被逮捕，并可能在数日内被处决。\n\n因此她在这里。她在——中失去了家人。\n\n该运动？\n\nLIPMAN先生：她所做的是工作，然后回家，然后再工作。在这整个期间，她的全部生活一直都是从她的公寓前往其工作地点，再返回。事实上——答案是，她的整个世界都是人——这个——这个社区中的人。我们确有一人，他是在美国非常知名的人士，不属于该——不是中国人；他自愿提供价值 two and a half million dollars 的房产，以担保她的保释保证书。\n\n我们提议，如果他提供其价值 two and a half million dollars 的房产，而她就其公寓承认判决，那就是 three and a half million dollars。政府从她的公寓中扣押了 $130,000 现金。另有一个账户，其中约有——我想说——4- to 500,000 dollars。\n\n我们提议将所有这些合并为该保释保证书提供 $4 million 的担保，然后使他们能够——你知道——批准他们已面谈的人员，但他们拒绝了。因此，我们处于——\n\n就我所能判断，他们面谈的三人没有任何问题，就我所能判断。他们却不批准这些人。\n\n起初，他们告诉我们，他们不会批准这些人，因为他们没有足够资产。好吗？\n\n随后我们进行了进一步交谈，他们说，嗯，另一个问题是，这些人与她的关系太疏远。他们对她没有道德约束力。嗯，他们认为自己有，这就是他们这样做的原因。\n\n顺便说一下，法官阁下，即使他们没有 $5 million 来为这份保证书提供担保，他们也是有财务责任的人。如果保证书——她违反了保释保证书——他们将会破产。其中一人是一名律师。我们还提供了另一名律师，他是——他是一名——我们向他们提供了名字。他们没有进一步核实，因为他们立即告诉我们他不合适。\n\n但我们提供了一名 IT 专业人士——如果我没记错，是两名 IT 专业人士。\n\n法庭：两名什么专业人士？\n\nLIPMAN先生：IT。\n\n法庭：IT。\n\nLIPMAN先生：我们提供了——他们面谈了其中一名律师。他目前并不富有，但他确实——\n\n在被控共谋期间的欺诈计划资金。\n\n这不是我们感到可以放心让其为被告人共同签署保释保证书的人，即使他有经济能力这样做。\n\n鉴于辩方的主张，我们已表示愿意与辩方就潜在共同签署人进行合作。我们理解 Wang女士在此没有家人，因此道德约束力这一角度可能有所不同。\n\n但是，我们不能处于这样一种境地：Parker法官已根据事实作出非常周详的判断，而政府同意，鉴于 Wang女士所带来的重大逃跑风险，鉴于她的政治庇护身份、政府证据的力度、她面临的刑期，以及她遍布全球的 Miles Guo（郭文贵）支持者网络——他们显然愿意冒风险签署保释保证书，尽管其中一些人只见过她一两次，或者只与她交谈过——\n\n人，第一，他们是否对其有道德约束力，第二，他们是否对她有道德约束力。\n\n被告人。\n\n法庭：但为什么对于某人是否在财务上负有责任的评估，不应当包括“负责任”这一部分？也就是说，例如，如果你所提议的律师，在政府看来至少在某种程度上参与了该欺诈，即使该人拥有资产，那么该人在政府看来也并非负责任的人。\n\nLIPMAN先生（利普曼）：嗯，那个人——\n\n法庭：因此，如果你希望向法庭提出申请，那是一回事。但这并非政府所采取的不合理立场。\n\nLIPMAN先生：法官阁下，在那种情况下，无论政府认为他做过什么或没有做过什么，他都会承担 $5 million 的责任。而财务上负有责任之人的概念，确实是一个颇有意思的问题。他们拒绝接受的那些人——他们面谈了三人，一名是律师，另外两名——我认为二人都是 IT 专业人士。他们对那些问题——对那些人并无异议。他们对我们说的是，这些人没有足够的资产。\n\n他们没有足够的资产。但您知道吗？他们确实没有足够的资产。但是，如果 Wang女士（王女士）违反保释担保，他们将陷入严重的财务困境。而他们明白这一点。\n\n法庭：对，除非他们逃跑。\n\nLIPMAN先生：但并没有——即使是政府也未作此种主张。他们与她或主被告完全无关。我的意思是，他们是认识她并愿意为她共同签署保释担保的人，但即使政府也没有声称他们存在任何问题，例如他们会逃跑或诸如此类的情况。\n\n其中一人是在 Chicago 执业的律师。他不会去任何地方，法官阁下。他赚的钱并不很多，但他不会去任何地方。\n\n其中一人是一名 IT 专业人士，实际上并非华人，但他愿意共同签署保释担保。再者，他不是富人，但如果 Wang女士违反保释担保，他的财务生活将被毁掉。他明白这一点，并且认为自己愿意签字。\n\n而且，顺便说一句，他在同意之前与其妻子谈过。他们两人都同意这样做。因此，这些人作出了极其严肃的承诺；没有一名为 Guo先生（郭先生）工作的人担任共同担保人。我们询问过他们。有些人——她曾是该组织的高级人员。她曾与数名高级人员互动。我们问过——我们给了他们姓名，我们说这个人怎么样，那个人怎么样。不，不，不，因为他们参与了欺诈，或者参与了该运动，或者参与了这个，参与了那个。那么我们该怎么办？我们找到了他们面谈过的三人，他们在财务上负有责任，愿意签字，而且他们甚至并未——政府并未声称他们参与欺诈任何人。\n\nMURRAY女士（默里）：法官阁下，如果可以，我想就该点作简短回应。我确实想指出，我认为目前在程序上或法律上均不存在已成熟、可由法庭裁决的问题。我也不认为 Lipman先生所建议的第一项救济适当，即由法庭强制政府批准共同签署人。那并非法律标准。\n\nLipman先生刚才提到的三人，我想指出，尽管我们表示可以接受他们在财务上属于负责任之人，但这三人都是受害人。\n\n他们知道她是谁。他们理解相关指控。其中一人在同意这样做之前，特意要求我把刑事起诉书发给他，我也这样做了。他花时间审阅了起诉书，之后才允许我联系政府。好吗？因此，他们知道自己在做什么。他们明白政府将他们作为受害人使用。他们准备签字。\n\n法庭：好的。我倾向于同意 Murray女士的意见，即目前并无问题提交法庭审理。我当然不会指示我根本不认识的人——我甚至连姓名都没有，更不用说任何资料——我不会指示政府接受这些杂七杂八的匿名人士作为担保人。这并非运作方式。我也不认为已经过去了足够的时间，足以证明有理由重新审议 Parker法官（帕克）的保释条件。首先，我希望做的是指示你，Lipman先生。听起来，就此拥有可能用于提供担保的财产之人而言，你尚未向政府提供全部信息。你知道，他们需要履行其职责。我相信 Murray女士所言，他们并未拖延此事。他们正在尽一切努力寻找政府能够接受的人选。\n\n在不断改变。首先，存在一种理解，一种明确的理解——我立刻告诉他们，听着，没有姐妹。没有兄弟。没有姨妈。好吗？将会是其他人。他们说：“好，我们明白。”于是我们给了他们姓名。这些人不够富有。好。现在他们告诉你，这些人也没有道义影响力。可是，当我第一次给你们这些姓名时，你们此前就知道这一点。我觉得我们毫无进展，因为情况在不断改变。我认为他们正在故意把她关在里面，以向她施压，让她成为他们的朋友，法官阁下。我认为这里真正发生的就是这个。\n\n周五。我们将在周五提交，还是在周五提出？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士（乔德里）：我们将在周五提交。\n\nLIPMAN先生：我们可以在周五提交，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN先生：而且，法官阁下，我们将继续与他们合作，但至少，如果法庭能够至少告诫他们善意地与我们合作，这将对我们有所帮助。\n\n法庭：我不会告诫他们，因为我不认为他们没有在善意地与你们合作。因此，我很愿意接受你们的申请。我希望申请中没有任何你们尚未向政府提供的信息，因为我从政府那里听到的是——而且我确实无须卷入其中以判断这里谁对谁错——他们尚未从你们那里收到所需的全部信息。因此，我希望你们继续向他们提供这些信息。我将指示政府迅速回应这些提议，并对这些人作出善意评估。我不会告诫你们说你们迄今没有这样做，但这当然是你们的义务，我期望你们这样做。因此，这项动议将在周五提交。\n\n政府希望何时提交其反对意见？\n\nFERGENSON先生（弗格森）：在不知道该动议将呈现何种形式的情况下，法官阁下，这一点很难说。\n\n法庭：如果你们提交它，如何？","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","GTV","Guo","Himalaya","CIPA","Himalaya Exchange","Miles Guo","William Je","Kin Ming Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Saraca","Murray","Yanping Wang","Farm Loan","GETTR","HCHK","Fergenson","Chinese Communist Party","Finkel","CCP","forfeiture","853(p)","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":7,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":10,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":31727,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:39:39"}