{"id":"court_ctb_2292_26","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2292,"sub_number":26,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-10-26","title":"Exhibit 26 ![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)","summary_zh":"证据附件（检方保释反对信） —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2292-26（2023-10-26立案）。该文件为证据附件，收录了美国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）中反对共同被告人王雁平（Yanping Wang / Yvette）保释的信函，陈述了涉及 GTV、G|CLUBS 和喜马拉雅交易所等涉案超 10 亿美元诈骗指控，并以其持有大量现金（搜出逾 13.8 万美元等现金）及严重潜逃风险为由主张驳回保释动议。","summary_en":"Exhibit (government bail opposition letter) —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2292-26 (filed 2023-10-26). This document is an evidentiary exhibit containing the U.S. Attorney's Office letter (dated March 29, 2023) opposing bail compliance/release for co-defendant Yanping Wang (Yvette) in criminal case 23 Mag. 2007, detailing the alleged $1+ billion fraud scheme involving GTV, G|CLUBS, and Himalaya Exchange, and citing Wang's severe flight risk and cash holdings (e.g. over $138,000 in bulk cash seized).","body_en":"### **Exhibit 26**\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)\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 Vanuatu<sup>1</sup> and China. (Ex. C at 8:24-\n\n<sup>1</sup> 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.<sup>2</sup>\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\n<sup>2</sup> 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,<sup>3</sup> 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\n<sup>3</sup> 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.<sup>4</sup>\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\n<sup>4</sup> 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\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.<sup>5</sup>\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\n<sup>5</sup> 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\nof 122\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.<sup>8</sup> \"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\n<sup>8</sup> 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\n| Approved:                        | ________________________________________<br>Ryan Finkel / Juliana Murray / Micah Fergenson<br>Assistant United States Attorneys |                                                |                                                                                                                                                                        |\n|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Before:                          | THE HONORABLE GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN<br>United States Magistrate Judge<br>Southern District of New York                          |                                                | 23 MAG 2007                                                                                                                                                            |\n| -                                | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                                                                 | X                                              |                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| YANPING WANG,<br>a/k/a \"Yvette,\" | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA<br>-<br>v. -<br>Defendant.                                                                             | :<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>: | SEALED COMPLAINT<br>Violations of<br>18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, 1957 and 2;<br>15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff; and<br>17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5<br>COUNTY OF OFFENSE:<br>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\n<sup>1</sup> 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<br>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\n<sup>2</sup> \"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\n<sup>3</sup> 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\n<sup>4</sup> 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\n<span id=\"page-27-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> 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<br>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.\" <sup>1</sup>In 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\n<sup>1</sup>All 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, signs, 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 ~ <sup>N</sup>\n\n3/ *i.R(c2vEJ3*\n\n~~\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\n>\" ,t c .\\-~ t <sup>~</sup>-\\.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| 14   | between us, and being assisted by a Mandarin       |\n| 1 5  | 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 :<br>Yes.                            |\n| 22   | THE COURT:<br>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 : () ()<br>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| の 日 | 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| 8   | 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| 25  | 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<br>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   | 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 government'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| 20  | 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.<br>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| 6   | THE COURT:  Let's start with what you do              |\n| 7   | agree with, and then you can tell me what you don't   |\n| 8   | 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| 1 5 | 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| 8   | GPS location monitoring, and the government would   |\n| 9   | seek that the defendant be detained until all       |\n| 10  | 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| 1 5 | 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| 2 5 | this defendant's risk of flight, the government     |\n|     | AMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631.334.1445            |\n\n| certainly thinks there's more than a preponderance    |\n|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| of the evidence that the defendant poses a            |\n| significant risk of flight.  The defendant -- even    |\n| though these are not charges that carry presumption   |\n| of detention, the defendant is charged with crimes    |\n| that carry a very large dollar amount.  She's         |\n| charged with a \\$100 million wire transfer.  That's a |\n| sole transfer of money that the government alleges    |\n| is fraud proceeds over which she had sole authority   |\n| to authorize that wire transfer in addition to the    |\n| securities fraud and the wire fraud conspiracy.       |\n|                                                       |\n| The defendant has access to significant               |\n| assets.  Some of those are known to the government.   |\n| Some of them, frankly, may not be known to the        |\n| government because the defendant and others that she  |\n| has conspired with operate through the use of         |\n| extremely sophisticated and complicated shell         |\n| companies.                                            |\n| So as a few examples for Your Honor, the              |\n| detendant's apartment was purchased in the name of    |\n| an LLC that she fully owns.  I'm not suqqesting that  |\n| there's anything questionable about that              |\n| necessarily, but I'm using it as an example of one    |\n| of more than a dozen entities that we are aware that  |\n| the defendant either has or had control over,         |\n|                                                       |\n\n| ।   | including financial control.  And some of those      |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2   | entities, whether the defendant is the primary       |\n| 3   | shareholder of the entities or has access            |\n| 4   | 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| 16  | 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| 이 영 | 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\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| ।  ਪੈ | offenses.  She was a signatory, as I mentioned, of   |\n| 15    | numerous accounts, not just the account from which   |\n| 1 6   | 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| ।   | 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| ന                                                                                                                                                                             | not an option for her.  So there is no risk of       |\n| ਰੋ                                                                                                                                                                            | flight to China in this lifetime for Ms. Wang.       |\n| 5                                                                                                                                                                             | That 's<br>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| 10                                                                                                                                                                            | 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| 1 9                                                                                                                                                                           | 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| ನ್ನಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯನ್ನು ನಾಯಕಿಯಿಂದ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸಾ | 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| ।   | 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| 6   | 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| 10  | 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| 1 4 | 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| 2 1 | 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:<br>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| ସଂ ପ | 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 significant 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| 2 4 | GPS monitoring, I understand Ms. Chaudhry's point,   |\n| 25  | but a bracelet is relatively easy to cut.<br>」       |\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| 8   | 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| 13  | bond, and we would have a sense of what controls we                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 14  | would have in place if Ms. Wang were to flee.                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 1 5 | And, finally, with respect to the                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| 16  | 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| 1 0 | T ============================================================================================================================================================================<br>= 0 . 0 . 05 @ = = 0 . 10 10 30 . 0 . 0 . = |\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| ರಿ     | Mr. Kwok or Mr. Je or other co-conspirators outside  |\n| 1 0    | presence of counsel.  She shall have no contact with |\n| 1 T    | 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| 1 4    | permission from Pretrial Services.  Defendant shall  |\n| 15     | not open any new bank accounts, lines of credit or   |\n| 1 6    | loans without prior approval of Pretrial Services.   |\n| 17     | Now, is there anything further from the              |\n| 18     | government?                                          |\n| 1 9    | MS. MURRAY:  If I may just clarify one               |\n| 20     | condition, Your Honor.                               |\n| 2 T    | THE COURT:<br>Yes .                                  |\n| 22     | MS. MURRAY:  With respect to the home                |\n| റ്റ് 3 | detention being reinforced by location monitoring,   |\n| 2 4    | we would ask that it be reinforced by GPS location   |\n| 2 5    | 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| 9   | bail conditions.                                     |\n| 10  | 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| 2 4 | 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 :<br>14th.<br>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|               |                                      |                                           |                                             |              |         |\n\n| 1   | let us know.<br>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| 1 4 | 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| 2 0 | 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| က    | notified arraignment and arranged for defendant to   |\n| ਰੋ   | be produced.  So I will leave it to defense what     |\n| 5    | they want to cover here today.                       |\n| 6    | THE COURT:  Okay.  Can I ask you just to             |\n| 7    | move the microphone --                               |\n| 8    | MR. LIPMAN:<br>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| 1 বঁ | 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| 이 영화 | going to ask Your Honor to either approve the people |\n| 2 0  | 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|      |                                                      |\n\n| 1    | THE COURT:  Let me stop you for one second.          |\n|------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2    | MR. LIPMAN:<br>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| റ    | 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| റ്റ  | of the proposed sureters I understand under the law, |\n| 9    | I can do that.                                       |\n| 1 0  | 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| 1 4  | MR. LIPMAN:  Well, Your Honor, let me set            |\n| 1 5  | the stage for this, and maybe that Il help.          |\n| 16   | THE COURT:<br>Okay .                                 |\n| 17   | MR. LIPMAN:  Ms. Wang is a political                 |\n| 18   | refugee from China.  She is a part of a movement of  |\n| । ਰੇ | 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| 3                        | and then she goes home, and then she works.  And her  |\n| 4                        | 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| 8                        | 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| 1 3                      | 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| 19                       | approximately, I want to say, 4- to 500,000 dollars   |\n| 20                       | in it.                                                |\n| 21                       | 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| ನ್ನಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಿದರು. ನಾರ್ | had interviewed, and they refused.  So we are at a    |\n| 25                       | point now where they won't approve the people we      |\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| ന       | tell.  And they won't approve them.                   |\n| ਰੋ      | First, they told us that they won't approve           |\n| ഹ       | them because they don't have enough assets.  Okay?    |\n| 6       | So then we had subsequent conversations in which      |\n| 7       | they said, well, the other problem is that they are   |\n| യ       | too remote from her.  They don't have moral suasion   |\n| 9       | over her.  Well, they think that they do, which is    |\n| L O     | why they're doing this.                               |\n| l 1     | 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| ।       | be ruined if the bond -- she defaulted on the bond.   |\n| 15      | One of them is a lawyer.  We offered another lawyer   |\n| 1 6     | 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| 1 9     | But we offered an IT professional -- I                |\n| 2 O     | think two IT professionals, if memory serves.         |\n| 2 T     | THE COURT:  Two what professionals?                   |\n| 22      | MR .<br>LIPMAN :<br>IT.                               |\n| 23      | THE<br>IT .<br>COURT :                                |\n| 2 4     | MR. LIPMAN:  We offered -- they interviewed           |\n| ഗ്രാമ്പ | one of the lawyers.  He is not rich now, but he does  |\n|         |                                                       |\n\n| ।   | 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| বা  | of whether somebody was a financially responsible    |\n| 5   | person include the responsible part?  Meaning if,    |\n| 6   | for instance, the lawyer that you proposed is, in    |\n| 7   | the Government's light, at least involved on some    |\n| 8   | level with the fraud, even if that person has        |\n| 9   | assets, then that person is not responsible in the   |\n| 10  | 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| 16  | 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| 2 4 | 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. Wang were to   |\n| ന    | 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| 8    | 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 qoing 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 বঁ | Your Honor.  He's not making a ton of money, but     |\n| 15   | he's not going anywhere.                             |\n| 1 6  | And one of them is an IT professional who's          |\n| 17   | actually not Chinese, and he's willing to cosign     |\n| 18   | bond.  Again, 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\n| ।   | 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| റ   | 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| ರಾ  | 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 ব | 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 ୧ | 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| 20  | 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| ನ ಕ | persons, all three of those individuals are victims  |\n| りに  |                                                      |\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| । ਤ | less any information.  I'm not going 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| 16  | 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| 19  | 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| 24  | walking this.  They are making every effort to       |\n| りよ  | comphady that the Covernment 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| ರಿ   | enough.  Okay.  Now they're telling you that they    |\n| 9    | also don't have moral suasion.  Well, you knew that  |\n| 10   | 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| 1 4  | pressure on her so that she becomes their friends,   |\n| 15   | your Honor.  I think that's what's really going on   |\n| 1 6  | here.                                                |\n| 17   | Friday.  We'll file on Friday or tee it up           |\n| 18   | on Friday?                                           |\n| 1 9  | MS. CHAUDHRY:  We'll file on Friday.                 |\n| 20   | MR. LIPMAN:  We can file on Friday, Your             |\n| 21   | Honor.                                               |\n| 22   | THE COURT:<br>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| 11  | 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 going 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|                                                                                                                                                                      | of 122 |  |\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":"证据附件 26\n\nU.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza 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） Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼） 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n关于：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王燕萍），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（王燕萍），又名“Yvette”（“Wang”或“被告人”）于 March 24, 2023 提交的动议（“Mot.”）及支持其要求作出裁定、确认其已遵守保释条件之动议的法律备忘录（“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 的共同共谋者 King Ming Je（谢科），又名“William Je”（“Je”）主导的一项规模庞大且复杂的欺诈中发挥关键作用；该欺诈通过重大虚假陈述，诱骗数千名受害人向 Kwok 广泛、复杂且相互关联的欺诈性发行项目投资逾 \\$1 billion。该欺诈至少依赖四个相互关联的部分：GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司，以下简称“GTV”）私募配售、Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）、G Club Operations, LLC（G|CLUBS），以及 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）。随后，Kwok、Je、Wang 及其共同共谋者洗白其欺诈所得，并将数亿美元的欺诈所得挪作 Kwok 及他人个人用途。如起诉文件及本案先前庭审中所述，被告人实际上担任 Kwok 的幕僚长，并负责管理 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取得和洗白欺诈所得的银行账户的签字授权。\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的关键作用、其雄厚的财力、其面临的重大刑期、证明其有罪的有力证据、其与外国司法管辖区的联系，以及其与仍然在逃的共同共谋者兼国际洗钱者 William Je 的关系，被告人具有严重逃亡风险。被告人是中国公民，大约于 2017 年从中国移居美国，并提交了寻求获得政治庇护、以躲避 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，以下简称“CCP”）的申请，该申请仍在审理中。一般而言，如庇护申请人在美国期间被控严重犯罪行为，该刑事指控可构成批准庇护的障碍。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，其在国外亦拥有广泛联系和资源。她曾持有多个外国司法管辖区的护照，并担任用于协助实施该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 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，以下简称“UAE”）。被告人还能够获得并得到分散于世界各地的 Kwok 忠实追随者组成的广泛网络的支持。被告人唯一的儿子居住在中国，自其移居美国后，她一直未曾见过他。\n\n被告人亦具备逃离的经济能力。如后文更详细所述，被告人在其个人银行账户中持有逾 \\$1 million 现金，且在被捕时其公寓保险箱中存有逾 \\$130,000 大额现金。被告人还很可能可获得由国外共同共谋者藏匿的资产，其中包括 Je；Je 个人从该欺诈中获得数百万美元，且目前为逃犯。此外，被告人具有极强的逃亡动机。被告人面临的指控合计法定最高刑约为 55 年监禁。对其适用的量刑指南区间作出保守估计，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可能刑期的预计长度，任何人都会有强烈动机逃离；加之被告人与美国缺乏联系、其在国外的联系（包括与 Je 的联系；Je 知悉其所受指控却仍然在逃），以及其服刑后很可能被驱逐出境的前景，其逃亡动机更为强烈。\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：违反 18 U.S.C. § 371 的电信欺诈及证券欺诈共谋罪；违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 的电信欺诈罪；违反 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff、17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 及 18 U.S.C. § 2 的证券欺诈罪；以及违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2 的洗钱罪。Complaint 随附于本函，作为证据附件 A。\n\nB. 被告人被捕\n\n被告人于 March 15, 2023 在其 Manhattan（曼哈顿）公寓被捕。同日，Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局，以下简称“FBI”）对 Wang 的公寓进行了经司法授权的搜查。搜查中，FBI 从一个保险箱内查获大额美国及外国货币；具体而言，包括逾 \\$138,000 美元货币、约 £3,000、约 1180 港元，以及约 600 人民币。保险箱内其他物品包括被告人和 Kwok 分别持有的、来自 Vanuatu（瓦努阿图）1 和中国的过期外国护照。（Ex. C at 8:24-14:10。）FBI 还从被告人公寓内查获约 12 部手机、两台电脑和逾 25 个 USB 闪存盘。许多手机被藏在原装 iPhone 包装盒内，显然意图掩藏这些手机事实上载有数据。其他电子设备也以类似方式被藏匿；例如，在被告人床铺的两张床垫之间发现一部手机，而一台笔记本电脑则塞在被告人衣橱内的毛衣之间。\n\n1 Vanuatu 是南太平洋的一个小岛国。据公开报道，Vanuatu 允许外国公民以在该国投资为交换条件取得 Vanuatu 国籍。见《The Guardian（卫报）》，“Citizenship for sale: fugitives, politicians and disgraced businesspeople buying Vanuatu passports”，日期为 July 14, 2021（可查阅于 http）。\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 解封。United States v. Kwok et al., 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 2)。Indictment 随附于本函，作为证据附件 B。Kwok 于 March 15, 2023 在曼哈顿被捕，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 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林威治）住所，以及其 New Jersey（新泽西州）Mahwah（莫瓦）豪宅。搜查中，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 的曼哈顿公寓中查获的一部手机位于 Kwok 卧室的两张床垫之间（即以与被告人公寓中一部手机相同的方式藏匿）。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 Mahwah 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，包括逾 \\$394,000 美元货币、约 €5,000、约 188,050 港元，以及约 250 人民币。FBI 还从 Mahwah 豪宅查获 Kwok 的外国旅行证件证据，包括一本现行香港护照和一本过期 UAE 护照的复印件。政府正寻求对 Kwok 的审前羁押，并于 March 15, 2023 提交了一封支持其立场的羁押函。见 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7)（“Kwok Detention Ltr.”）。\n\n同日，U.K.（英国）执法部门试图在 London（伦敦）逮捕 Je，并对 Je 的伦敦住所执行了经司法授权的搜查。搜查中，执法部门除其他物品外，还查获了手机、多种货币的大额现金，以及两个加密货币硬件钱包。尽管 Je 仍然在逃，但据信其身处 UAE。Kwok 和 Je 与 UAE 具有重大联系——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；该账户收到至少约 \\$128 million 的欺诈所得，随后被挪作 Kwok、Je 及其家属的用途，或电汇至由 Kwok 和 Je 控制的实体。见 Kwok Detention Ltr. at 9-10。例如，January 2021，Kwok 和 Je 安排将约 \\$11 million 欺诈所得从 Je 的 UAE 银行账户转至以 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。被告人是接收该 \\$11 million 欺诈资金的特定家族办公室银行账户的授权签字人，该等资金被挪用于个人生活方式开支（例如私人飞机机组服务、豪华汽车及游艇费用）。此外，如 Kwok 羁押函中更详细所述，Kwok 最近采取行动，意图将 Himalaya Exchange 的业务及其资金转移至 UAE，以使其超出“U.S. 的长臂管辖权”。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，被告人通过一家在 BVI 注册、名为 Holy City Hong Kong Venture Ltd.2 的空壳公司，持有 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 和 HCHK Property Management, Inc. 两家公司各 99.9999% 的股份。\n\nD. 被告人的初次提讯及保释听证\n\n被告人于 March 15, 2023 被带至 Honorable Katharine H. Parker（凯瑟琳·H·帕克法官）面前初次提讯。该程序的庭审记录随附于本函，作为证据附件 C。在该程序中，政府向 Parker 法官提交了一项经双方同意的拟议保释方案条款，供其审议；其中包括的条件有：\\$5 million 的个人具结保释保证书，由经政府批准的两名具备财务偿付能力的人共同签署，并以 \\$1 million 不动产和/或现金作担保。（Ex. C at 6-7。）政府随后指出，下列拟议条件仍有争议：(a) 允许被告人在居家拘禁下获释，并以 GPS 位置监控予以强化；以及 (b) 仅在满足所有保释条件后才允许被告人从羁押中获释。（Ex. C at 8:5-10。）Pretrial Services（审前服务机构）报告建议的释放条件，在所有重要方面均与政府提出的拟议条件一致，包括以电子监控强化的居家拘禁、保证金须部分提供担保且由两名具备财务偿付能力的人共同签署，以及在满足所有条件之前被告人应继续被羁押。\n\n帕克法官（Judge Parker）就两项争议问题听取了政府和被告辩护律师的陈述。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，依据包括但不限于：与该十亿美元欺诈计划相关的巨额金额（尤其是被告拥有唯一授权进行的$100 million欺诈所得电汇）；被告可支配大量资产；被告控制了十余个用于实施欺诈的空壳实体；被告在美国不具有合法身份；被告可接触到由郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）的追随者和支持者组成的广泛全球网络，该网络可协助被告潜逃；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获取的证据。\n\n辩护律师主张，鉴于被告的个人背景及其在美国寻求政治庇护的情形，被告潜逃至中国或“任何中国能够再次掌控她的地方”的风险实质上不存在。（证据C，第14:17-16:10页。）辩护律师进一步主张，准许被告凭其本人签字获释“很容易做到，而无需法院真正担心以后再也见不到她。”（证据C，第16:23-24页。）帕克法官询问辩护律师是否已确定财务保证人；辩护律师答复称，其已“提出一些尚未获接受的人选”，但指出政府已“同意与”辩护律师“进行对话”，讨论对潜在共同签署人的评估。17:21-18:2。）\n\n2 被告被列为Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.（圣城香港创投有限公司）的唯一董事，并以该身份代表Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.签署了多份HCHK公司文件，包括股东决议。\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联酋，以及从被告公寓查获的大量现金。（证据C，第18:15-19:21页。）政府还确认，其将与辩护律师共同处理潜在共同签署人的审批程序，但向帕克法官指出，辩护律师在该程序前向政府提出的两名共同签署人，是政府指称参与被控欺诈并与被告有关联的人员。（证据C，第20:15-21:3页。）辩护律师随后简要答复称，被告“最终在她的保险柜中存有大量现金”，是因为在因GTV私募民事执法行动引发的银行问题之后，“近十二家正常银行”关闭了被告的账户；政府所称被告可能可获得额外现金的说法纯属推测。（证据C，第21:5-22:4页。）\n\n在听取陈述后，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得释放被告。具体而言，帕克法官表示，以下条件是其认为为确保被告返回法庭及社区安全所“必要的限制最少的”条件：\n\n王女士将在满足所有条件的前提下获释。换言之，在满足下列全部条件之前，她将被拘禁：$5 million保释金，由经政府批准的两名具有财务责任能力的人共同签署，并以$1 million现金或财产作担保。旅行范围限于Southern District（纽约南区）和Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）。交出所有旅行证件，且不得提出新的申请。按Pretrial Services（审前服务部门）的指示接受审前监督。按审前服务部门的指示，通过位置监控技术执行居家拘禁。被告须向审前服务部门和U.S. Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）披露所有资产，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，3任何加密货币、任何现金及任何其他财产。王女士不得在律师不在场的情况下与郭先生、谢先生或其他共谋者接触。她不得在律师不在场的情况下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搬迁。未经审前服务部门事先批准，被告不得开立任何新的银行账户、信贷额度或贷款。\n\n（证据C，第22:6-23:16页。）\nE. 与辩护律师的讨论（March 15, 2023 – March 21, 2023）\n\n如上所述，在被告于March 15, 2023首次出庭陈述之前的治安法官法庭上，辩护律师向政府提出了两名潜在共同签署人的姓名——\n\n3 被告已向美国联邦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算数额（尽管她尚未提供账户号码或详细账户余额），以及雇用被告的一家郭氏家族办公室名下银行账户的账户号码。被告未披露与其控制或拥有权益的任何其他公司有关联的任何银行账户，包括Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.。参见上文第4页注2。\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n○ 在接受政府访谈时，其称年薪约为$700,000。然而，其2021年报税表显示总收入约为$63,583。（被告证据G-4。）\n\n○ 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。（被告证据G-3。）\n\n作为该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March 2021年向G|CLUBS投资约$50,000。\n\n○ 向Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）投资约$12,000。其向一个Himalaya Clearing FV Bank（喜马拉雅清算FV银行）账户电汇资金（该账户随后被政府扣押），包括于July 2021约$2,000及于October 2021 $10,000。\n\n○ ：道义约束力不足；并非具有财务责任能力的人；文件不完整；对该欺诈计划有个人投资。\n\n道义约束力不足\n\n○ 其称于June 2021在一次“活动”上首次见到被告。\n\n○ 其称自2022年年中以来，每月约见过被告一至两次。\n\n○ 其称被告在HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）工作。4\n\n○ 当被问及被告居住地点时，其概括答复称：“纽约市，不确定具体在哪里。”\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n○ 其称拥有约$1.08 million资产（包括房地产和现金），年收入约为每年$150,000。然而，其未提供足以佐证该等所称资产的文件（例如最新报税表；第二个银行账户的对账单或信息；两处所称房产的详细资料）。\n\n作为该欺诈计划表面受害人的身份\n\n○ 于May 2020向GTV投资约$520,000。\n\n○ 于November 2020向G|CLUBS投资约$20,000。\n\n○ 于March 2022向Himalaya Exchange投资约$60,000。\n\n4 如上所述，被告为该公司的99.9999%股东。参见上文第4页注2。然而，被告似乎并未在HCHK Technologies担任任何正式职务。\n\n○ ：道义约束力不足；并非具有财务责任能力的人；对该欺诈计划有个人投资。\n\n道义约束力不足\n\n○ 其称，其在一家名为Gettr的公司“几乎开始与”被告共事时认识被告。5\n\n○ 其称，在Gettr面试过程中，约与被告交谈过4至5次。\n\n○ 其称被告在Gettr工作。然而，被告并未在Gettr担任任何正式职务。\n\n○ 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○ 在接受政府访谈时，其称年薪约为$159,000，所提供文件大体予以佐证。（被告证据A-3、A-4。）\n\n○ 其在两个银行账户中约有$2,768。（被告证据A-3。）\n\n○ 其年度租金约为$36,851。（被告证据A-5。）\n\n○ 其称约有$11,000信用卡债务。\n\n作为该欺诈计划表面受害人的身份\n\n○ 其与其妻子于May 2020向GTV投资$34,000。\n\n○ 其还称，其与其妻子投资了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\n于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。通话中，辩护律师称，一名人士（“Individual-1”）可能能够以一处未明确房产中$2.2 million的权益进一步担保保释金。直至政府询问该人士的身份后，辩护律师才提供Individual-1的姓名。当政府告知其需要面谈Individual-1时，辩护律师答复称，Individual-1并非拟议共同签署人，因此无需面谈。政府表示其将考虑该项\n\n5 如郭文贵拘禁函中所述，GETTR USA, Inc.（“Gettr”）是一家由郭文贵通过一系列空壳公司控制的社交媒体公司。参见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共122页中的\n\n会议中，政府向内特本法官（Judge Netburn）提供了帕克法官主持的首次出庭陈述及保释辩论的庭审记录（即证据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，辩护律师告知内特本法官，其请求内特本法官“要么批准我们提出的人员［作为共同签署人］，要么以使王女士能够满足保释条件并获释的方式修改保释条件。”（证据D，第5:10-22页。）内特本法官随后表示：\n\n我并不倾向于推翻已听取保释辩论并设定保释条件的我的同事［帕克法官］。所以，如果你要求我这样做，我不确定这是否是我想做的事。如果你要求我考虑所提保证人的合理性，我理解依法可以这样做。我不了解该审查标准是什么，也没有任何姓名或文件，因此我不知道是否能够在庭上作出该项处理。\n（证据D，第6:3-13页。）\n\n辩护律师随后开始提出有关被告背景的信息，包括“［被告］仅与属于该［反中共］运动的人，或者以某种方式与本案主要被告有关的人保持联系。政府对此十分清楚。我们实际同意$5 million保释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。”（证据D，第7:9-20页。）内特本法官确认被告自2017年起一直居住在美国，并确认辩护律师表示，“在这六年中”，被告没有“与该运动以外的任何人交朋友。”（证据D，第7:21-8:1页。）在随后进行的问答中，辩护律师提及其已与政府讨论过的各种拟议保释修改。（证据D，第8:2-11:7页。）\n\n政府回应称，该会议为时过早，指出 Parker 法官认同审前服务机构和政府双方的意见，即在被告获释前，所有条件——包括两名共同签署人的批准——均须得到满足，并解释政府遵循一套程序以评估潜在共同签署人的资格。（证据附件 D，第 11:10-23 页。）关于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的基本尽职调查的基本信息（例如，Individual-1 的房产地址）。（证据附件 D，第 11:24-12:18 页。）政府概述了其评估拟议共同签署人所作的努力，以及其认定该等人士不具资格的理由。（证据附件 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) 审议未经批准的保证人是否适当时所适用的法律标准，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）人士是 Kwok（郭文贵）反中国共产党运动的成员；尽管他们并不认识被告，但愿意提供合计净值约为 \\$3 million 的房产作为担保。辩护律师未提供该等人士的姓名或有关所称房产的任何细节，但仍要求政府在抽象层面同意该方案。政府告知其无法这样做。\n\n○ 在其接受政府访谈期间，其报告称其住宅中约有 \\$1.6 million 的净值（且无债务）。其未提供任何文件，以佐证该房产的价值或其对该房产的所有权。\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；并非财务上负责任的人士（文件不足）；对该欺诈计划有个人投资。\n道德约束力不足\n\n○ 其与被告的关系仅限于被告在社交媒体上关注其。\n\n○ 其报告称，其于两年前在一场“活动”中见过被告。然而，其报告称，其并未与被告直接交谈过。\n\n○ 其不知道被告的工作地点或住所。\n\n财务责任评估\n\n○ 其在一个联名银行账户中约有 \\$27,325。（被告证据附件 D-3。）\n\n○ 其联名报税表显示，2021 年应税收入约为 \\$217,604，主要由资本利得构成。（被告证据附件 D-4。）\n\n○ 在其接受政府访谈期间，其报告称其拥有两处出租房产，每处价值约 \\$500,000。其未提供有关该等房产的文件。\n\n○ 在其接受政府访谈期间，其报告称其以约 \\$1.9 million 购置其主要住所。辩护律师提供了一张 Zillow.com 截图，其中显示该房产的估计房屋价值，意图作为该住宅净值的佐证，但未提供其他文件。（被告证据附件 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“请求作出命令，确认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，其中将 和 的文件作为附件。见案卷条目 8、9。被告主张，政府“拒绝批准[被告的]保证金共同签署人具有任意性。”（备忘录第 1 页。）被告称，她提出的每一名保证人\n\n“均完全有资格担任” Parker 法官作为被告获释条件所设定的 \\$5 million 个人具结保证金的共同签署人。（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，“以使[被告]无法取得共同签署人……不会阻止其获释。”备忘录第 3 页。具体而言，假设本院认定所提出的共同签署人不满足财务责任和/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. 论述\nA. 法律标准\n\n根据《保释改革法》，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)。法院在决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的举证责任，对社区危险承担清楚且令人信服的证据标准的举证责任。18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)；United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)。\n\n如本院认定审前释放适当，本院应在限制性最小的条件或条件组合下释放被告，“其中可包括要求该人……与具有偿付能力的保证人签署保释保证书，且该等保证人的‘净资产应具有足以支付保释保证书金额的充分未设负担价值’。”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“财务上负责任”的认定，法院认为，“相关标准是‘如[被告]未在审判时出庭，其支付保证书规定金额的能力。’”Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 224（引自 United States v. Gotay, 609 F. Supp. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)）。“除财务责任的要求外，被告还必须证明，拟议保证人具有确保被告在审判时出庭的道德约束力。”Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 224。\n\n第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）指出，保证人的评估包括其“在被告‘决定逃跑时’对被告施加道德约束力的能力。”United States v. Baig, 536 F. App'x 91, 93 (2d Cir. 2013)（说明并引述 United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1998)）（强调系原文所加）；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”在其“承诺在被告未出庭时付款”的情况下具有相关性，并汇集相关案例）。\n\n即使已将限制性最小的一组条件作为保释条件施加，被告无法满足该等条件、因而在审判前继续被羁押也“并非罕见”。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 法官指出，因无法满足保释条件而面临审前羁押的被告“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，其在《保释改革法》及其立法历史的背景下审视该条，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，应为终局性和节约稀缺司法资源的利益而谨慎采用。重新考虑动议不得用于提出……此前未向法院提出的事实、争议或论点，也不得作为重新争讼法院已经裁决的问题的工具。”Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)（省略内部引文）。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动议方未知的信息，且该信息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重大影响”，羁押听证“[可]重新开启……”。“如所提出的新信息对于逃跑风险或社区危险问题不具有重大性，法院可以适当地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. 论述\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均不具资格，既合理，也有案卷记录支持。被告提出的保证人既不具财务责任，也无能力对被告施加道德约束力。政府作出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同共谋者和/或 Kwok（郭文贵）、Je（闫丽梦）以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均未对被告施加足以“合理确保”其在未来庭审出庭的道德约束力，即使其未出庭\n\n8 没有专门规则规定对刑事事项裁定进行重新考虑。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》未对某事项作出具体规定，审理刑事案件的法院可以借鉴并仿照《联邦民事诉讼规则》所认可的做法。”同上（省略引文及内部引号）。就此而言，题为“无控制性法律时的程序”的《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 57(b) 条部分规定：“法官可以以符合联邦法律、本规则和本地区地方法规的任何方式规范诉讼实践。”Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b)。“因此，在裁决刑事事项中的重新考虑动议时，本地区法院一直依照适用于民事背景的相同原则处理该等动议。”同上（省略引文及内部引号）。\n\n将导致第二名具有财务责任的共同签署人承担保证金的全额债务。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，并且与她的沟通零星（如有）。由于缺乏足够的道德约束力，被告不太可能担心其逃跑会使与其没有关系的人士背负债务。\n\n第二，被告人拟议的所有共同签署人，要么作为政府调查对象，要么作为该诈骗案的表面受害人，均牵涉被告人被控实施的行为。无论是哪种身份，均使这些人不具备担任可对被告人施加道德劝导的共同签署人的资格。若共同签署人是犯罪共谋的成员，其利益同样可能在于协助被告人逃亡；鉴于该国际犯罪共谋所筹集资金数额惊人，即便损失数百万美元，也可能得到补偿。若拟议共同签署人是诈骗受害人，其作为共同签署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，被告人被控诈骗的正是同一类别的受害人。\n\n第三，即便拟议担保人对被告人具有足够的道德劝导力，其在经济上亦不具备承担责任的能力。参见，例如，Batista（巴蒂斯塔案）, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 225-26（认定政府拒绝两名所提担保人的决定并非武断，因该等人士申报收入较低，且未能提供可信文件证明其拥有所声称拥有的资产）。例如，其未向政府提供几乎所有类别的要求文件，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；而其所提供的财务文件（具体而言，其近期税务文件）细节不足，无法佐证或确认其申报收入的来源。在此，八名所提担保人中的每一人均属“非经认可的担保人”，担保人（或被告人代表其）均须“向法院提供有关担保人资产及负债价值的信息……以及对担保人财产所设负担的性质和范围”，以便法院确定该担保人是否具有“足以支付保释保证金额的不受负担的净资产价值”。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)（强调部分已添加）。被告人未向法院提供足够的文件或信息，使其能够作出该等独立认定。然而，即使根据已向本法院提供的文件，拟议担保人中亦无一人符合“经济上有承担责任能力之人”的资格，因为无一人“具有在[被告人]未出庭受审时支付[$5 million]保释保证金的能力”。Gotay（戈泰案）, 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面临很高的举证负担。法律明确规定，重新考虑动议不得用于重新诉讼法院已经裁定的问题。Jackson（杰克逊案）, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 313。然而，这恰恰是被告人要求本法院所做之事：推翻Parker法官（帕克法官）经过充分论证的认定，即法院施加的保释条件——包括要求两名经认可的共同签署人以及在所有条件均获满足前继续羁押被告人——是能够合理确保被告人出席未来庭审的限制最少的条件。（附件C，第22:6-23:16页。）被告人更进一步，在脚注中概括性地否定Parker法官的裁定，声称即使不要求任何共同签署人，其保释方案也足以实现\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3142的目的——而Parker法官在听取双方辩论后已就该要求作出明确裁定。（备忘录，第11页，注3）。\n\n本动议并非被告人首次试图寻求重新考虑Parker法官施加的保释条件。被告人未承认，她此前已在Netburn法官（内特本法官）面前试图就Parker法官的保释裁定提出不当的重新考虑动议。在2023年3月22日的会议期间，如同本案中一样，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。”（附件D，第5:10-22页）。然而，辩护律师没有指出任何在Parker法官面前进行最初保释辩论时不为被告人（即动议提出人）所知、且可能对评估保释条件具有重大影响的信息。18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)。\n\n相反，政府认为，自被告人最初保释听证会以来所披露的新信息，可能足以支持施加更为严格的保释条件。第一，政府此前不知道，被告人显然没有熟人（甚至没有不相识但经济上有承担责任能力之人）可提出作为合格的共同签署人。第二，自被告人首次出庭以来，政府已获悉Je（杰）仍然在逃，并且很可能身在UAE（阿联酋）；其与Kwok（郭文贵）在那里可获得大量资源及诈骗所得，并被认为正在建立其诈骗活动新的运营和财务基地。Je是该诈骗计划的资助人，也是可获得大量资金并有能力协助和资助Kwok或被告人逃亡的国际逃犯。最后，如上所述，多名所提共同签署人理解被告人为Gettr（盖特尔）和/或HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）工作——这两家公司由Kwok和Je控制，且部分使用诈骗所得资金——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，不仅Kwok的障眼法错综复杂，也凸显被告人作为Kwok所信任的办公厅主任所发挥的关键作用；她受托管理甚至包括那些她与之不存在正式关联的实体在内的运营事务。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n如本文所述，被告人构成极高的逃亡风险。在被告人最初提讯及保释听证会期间，Parker法官仔细考虑了Pretrial Services（审前服务机构）的建议，以及双方关于何种释放条件（如有）能够合理确保被告人未来出庭或社区安全的辩论。随后，Parker法官裁定，目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，如今通过请求本法院认可显然不合格的共同签署人，或作为替代请求，推翻Parker法官和Netburn法官所作的保释相关决定，第二次试图绕过司法程序。被告人未能提供任何证据支持其关于政府对拟议共同签署人的评估具有武断性或不合理性的主张，亦未提出足以\n\n支持重新考虑保释裁定这一“非常”救济的任何证据。因此，应驳回被告人的动议。\n\n谨致，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉斯）\n美国联邦检察官\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助理美国联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\n附件\n\n核准：　________________________________________\nRyan Finkel（瑞安·芬克尔）/ Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）/ Micah Fergenson（迈卡·弗格森）\n助理美国联邦检察官\n\n审理法官：　THE HONORABLE GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN（尊敬的加布里埃尔·W·戈伦斯坦法官）\n美国联邦治安法官\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）　23 MAG 2007\n-　- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -　X\nYANPING WANG（王艳萍），\n又名“Yvette”　美利坚合众国\n-\n诉\n被告人。　：\n\n：　密封刑事控诉书\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犯罪发生地县：\n纽约\n-　- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -　X\n\n纽约南区，兹证明：\n\n特别探员Nicholas DiMarino（尼古拉斯·迪马里诺）经依法宣誓后陈述并称，其系Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局，“FBI”）特别探员，并提出如下指控：\n\n第一项罪名（共谋实施电信诈骗和证券诈骗）\n\n1. 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，YANPING WANG（王艳萍），又名“Yvette”，即被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，故意且明知地结合、共谋、结伙并相互达成协议，实施危害美国的犯罪，即：(1) 违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343的电信诈骗；以及(2) 违反Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff和Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5的证券诈骗。\n\n2. 该共谋的一部分内容及目标是，YANPING WANG（王艳萍），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一项诈骗计划和手段，并通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺取得金钱和财产，将会且确实通过州际及国际商业中的电报、无线电和电视通信传输，并促使传输文字、标识、信号、图像及声音，以执行该等计划和手段，违反Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343，即，WANG与他人共谋，通过在州际电信线路上传输的重大虚假信息和不实陈述，结合以私募方式进行的GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司，“GTV”）普通股未注册发行（“GTV Private Placement”），取得受害人的资金。\n\n3. 该共谋的进一步内容及目标是，YANPING WANG（王艳萍），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，通过使用州际商业和邮件的方式及工具，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和任何未如此注册证券的买卖，使用并实施操纵性和欺骗性的装置及伎俩，违反Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 使用诈骗装置、计划和手段；(b) 作出对重大事实的不真实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使已作出的陈述在其作出时的情形下不具误导性所必需陈述的重大事实；以及(c) 从事已经并将会对他人构成诈骗和欺骗的行为、做法和业务过程，即，WANG与他人共谋，通过就所谓GTV普通股提供重大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标，YANPING WANG（王艳萍），又名“Yvette”，即被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，在纽约南区及其他地区实施了以下公开行为及其他行为：\n\na. 约于2020年6月5日，WANG在纽约南区期间，授权向某一特定对冲基金电汇$100 million诈骗所得。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n第二项罪名（电信诈骗）\n\n5. 自至少约在2020年4月起至至少约在2021年3月止（包括该期间），在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告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，却为实施该等计划和手段之目的，通过州际和对外贸易中的有线电、无线电和电视通信，传输并促使传输文字、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表述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；该计划通过往返于Southern District of New York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. 自至少约在2020年4月起至至少约在2021年3月止（包括该期间），在Southern District of New York及其他地区，被告YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，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，以及全国性证券交易所的设施，就在全国性证券交易所登记的证券及任何未如此登记的证券的买卖，使用并实施操纵性和欺骗性的装置及手段，违反Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，具体方式为：(a) 使用欺诈装置、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出的陈述在作出时所处情形下不具有误导性而必需陈述的重要事实；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；具体而言，WANG实施GTV Private Placement，出售GTV股票，并通过虚假陈述和不实表述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；该计划通过往返于Southern District of New York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；以及Title 18, United States Code, Section 2。）\n第四项罪名（非法货币交易）\n\n7. 约在2020年6月5日，被告YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，在美国境内Southern District of New York及其他地区，明知地从事并企图从事Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(f)(1)所界定的货币交易，该交易涉及价值超过$10,000、源自特定非法活动的犯罪所得财产；具体而言，WANG在Southern District of New York期间，授权向某一特定对冲基金电汇$100 million欺诈所得款项。\n\n（Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2。）\n\n本人所知事实及上述指控的依据，部分如下：\n\n8. 本人系FBI（联邦调查局）特别探员，并亲自参与了本案调查。本宣誓书基于本人亲自参与本案调查、本人同执法官员、执法雇员和证人的交谈，以及对文件的审阅。鉴于本宣誓书仅为确立合理根据之有限目的而提交，故未包含本人在调查过程中获悉的全部事实。除另有说明外，本文所述其他人的行为、陈述和谈话，均为实质性且部分的陈述。\n概述\n\n9. 根据本人参与本案调查、审阅文件、与证人及其他执法官员的交谈，本人获悉以下事实，其内容为实质性且部分的陈述：\n\na. 在约2020年4月至约2020年6月期间，被告YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，以及其他已知和未知人员，通过与GTV有关的非法私募股票发行，欺诈性获得约$452 million受害人资金。WANG系GTV执行董事，并且是负责转移通过GTV Private Placement募集资金的关键人员之一。WANG及其他已知和未知人员并未如被告及其他人向受害投资者承诺的那样，将通过GTV Private Placement募集的资金投资于GTV，而是将约$100,000,000挪用于某高风险对冲基金，最终使WANG的一名共谋者的近亲属受益。WANG明知GTV Private Placement募集资金不得用于投资高风险对冲基金。事实上，当WANG试图开立一个由GTV Private Placement募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 [ ]资金严格地[sic]仅用于运营目的和收购。”\nGTV Private Placement\n\n10. 根据本人对文件、视频的审阅，以及同证人和其他执法官员的交谈，本人获悉以下事实，其内容为实质性且部分的陈述：\n\na. 约在2020年4月21日，本文未具名的一名共谋者（“CC-1”）[1]在社交媒体上发布并促使发布一段视频（“该视频”），宣布通过私募配售方式对GTV普通股进行未登记发行（“GTV Private Placement”）。CC-1拥有大量网络追随者，该视频被数千人观看。\n\nb. 根据本人对该视频的审阅，本人获悉，在该视频中，CC-1对GTV Private Placement的投资条款作出了实质性且部分的说明，并指示人们通过移动消息应用程序联系CC-1，就GTV Private Placement提出任何问题。该视频和GTV Private Placement材料——包括书面“Confidential Information Memorandum”（“PPM”）、Subscription Agreement和Investment Procedure Guidelines——通过移动消息应用程序、社交媒体和短信传送给数千名潜在投资者，包括位于Southern District of New York的潜在投资者。\n\nc. 根据本人对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、区块链技术及实时互动通信相结合的平台。”PPM还包含以下陈述，其中包括以下实质性且部分的内容：\n\n1 CC-1已在本地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 Private Placement在内的行为，实施电信欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱。\n\ni. GTV Private Placement面向“有意评估向GTV投资资本机会”的投资者；\n\nii. GTV计划将通过GTV Private Placement募集的所得款项“用于扩展和加强业务”；以及\n\niii. PPM载有一份图表，逐项列明通过GTV Private Placement募集资金的“拟议用途”：\n\n说明　所得款项百分比\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\nd. PPM确认GTV有三名“Executive Directors（执行董事）”。所确认的第一名执行董事为“Yvette Y. Wang”——即被告YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”。PPM称WANG“在管理、金融投资和兼并收购方面经验丰富”，并且“在建立Saraca媒体业务方面发挥了重要作用。”[2] PPM其他部分将WANG描述为GTV的“关键人员”。PPM进一步部分说明，GTV的“成功部分取决于[其]关键执行官员持续提供服务，包括Yvette Wang”以及另外两名特定人员，其中包括本文未具名的另一名共谋者（“CC-2”）。\n\ne. 根据本人同先前为CC-1工作过的证人的交谈，本人获悉，WANG与CC-1保持密切私人关系，其内容为实质性且部分的陈述。具体而言，自至少约在2018年起，WANG已为CC-1及CC-1的家人工作数年。事实上，根据本人审阅的文件，本人获悉，WANG系管理CC-1据称巨额个人财富的某一实体的总裁、财务主管和秘书。\n\n2 “Saraca”指“Saraca Media Group”，PPM将其确定为GTV的母公司。\nWANG收取并转移欺诈所得款项\n\n11. 根据本人对视频和文件的审阅，包括银行记录和传票回复；本人同证人和其他执法官员的交谈；在互联网上进行的公开来源研究；以及本人参与本案调查，本人获悉以下事实，其内容为实质性且部分的陈述：\n\na. 约在2018年7月24日，被告YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，以Saraca名义开立某一特定银行账户（“Account-5601”）。本人审阅的Account-5601开户文件将WANG确定为Saraca的“代理秘书”。约在2020年5月21日，WANG签署了Account-5601的附加企业签字卡，其中WANG自称为Saraca的“总裁”。自至少该日起，Account-5601以“Saraca Media Group DBA Himalaya Dollar”的名义持有。Account-5601不存在其他获授权签字人。\n\nb. 约在2018年7月24日，WANG以“Saraca Media Group Inc.”名义开立另一特定银行账户（“Account-2038”）。Account-2038的开户文件将WANG确定为Saraca的“代理秘书”。约在2020年5月21日，WANG签署了Account-2038的附加企业签字卡，并自称为“总裁”。自至少该日起，Account-2038以“Saraca Media Group DBA Himalaya Dollar”的名义持有。约在2020年6月3日，WANG签署了Account-2038的附加企业签字卡，并再次自称为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5,500多名位于美国境内（包括Southern District of New York）及境外的投资者。投资者参与GTV Private Placement，部分基于其相信其资金将如PPM所承诺的那样被投资于GTV，以发展和壮大该业务。\n\ne. 约在2020年4月，Account-5601收到约291笔存款和转账，合计约$32,543,000。其中大部分存款和转账，是寻求参与GTV Private Placement的个人所作的投资。该等转账似乎来自世界各地的个人，且许多存款和转账载有提及GTV Private Placement的参考或备注信息。例如，备注栏中除其他内容外，实质性且部分记载为：“Gtv Investment”、“Stock Subscription”、“Investment”、“G- Tv Common Stock Subscription”、“InvestmeNt [sic]”、“Investment To G- Tv [sic]”和“Gtv Stockpurchase”。约在2020年4月30日，Account-5601的余额约为$32,474,000。\n\nf. 2020年5月前后，Account-5601收到约2,450笔存款和转账，总额约为\\$291,899,000。其中大部分存款和转账系寻求参与GTV Private Placement的个人所作的投资。与前一个月的存款和转账类似，2020年5月前后的转账似乎来自世界各地的个人，且其中许多载有提及GTV Private Placement的附言或备注信息。例如，附言栏中实质上和部分地载明：“Capital Injection Infusion”、“To Inves Stment [原文如此]”、“Private Placement Investment”、“Gtv Media Investment”、“Gtv Inv”以及“Additional Stock Purchase”等。2020年5月29日前后，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资金挪用\n\n12. 根据我对文件的审阅、与证人的谈话以及与其他执法人员的交流，我获悉如下情况，实质上和部分地如下：\n\na. 2020年6月3日前后，被告YANPING WANG（王燕萍），又名“Yvette”，以Saraca总裁的身份签署了一份“认购协议”（“Subscription Agreement”）。根据该认购协议，Saraca同意向一家高风险对冲基金（“Fund-1”）投资\\$100,000,000。在认购协议中，WANG将Account-5601列为Saraca出资额将从其汇出的银行账户。WANG还将其本人列为Account-5601唯一的“授权签字人”。2020年6月3日上午前后，Fund-1投资管理人的一名雇员确认已收到已签署的认购文件。\n\nb. 同样在2020年6月3日前后，\\$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”在线进行，该用户为WANG在Bank-1的网上银行用户ID。在授权该笔转账时，WANG通过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. 2020年6月5日前后，WANG授权将\\$100,000,000从Account-2038[4]电汇至与Fund-1关联的银行账户。该笔向Fund-1银行账户转入的\\$100,000,000，系GTV Private Placement投资者资金的收益。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惠及GTV以外公司的用途，包括Saraca；Saraca的最终实益拥有人为CC-1的近亲属。\n\nWANG将额外欺诈收益转入其他银行账户\n\n13. 根据我对文件和视频的审阅、与证人及其他执法人员的谈话，以及我参与本调查的情况，我获悉如下情况，实质上和部分地如下：\n\na. 2020年5月20日前后，被告YANPING WANG（王燕萍），又名“Yvette”，与CC-2以GTV名义开立了一个账户（“Account-6691”）。Account-6691开立于一家特定的FDIC承保银行（“Bank-2”）。WANG和CC-2是Account-6691仅有的授权签字人。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\n4 尽管认购协议将Account-5601列为出资额的来源，但该转账实际源自Account-2038。\n\nb. 2020年6月3日前后，Account-5601向Account-6691转入\\$200,000,000。该笔转账的参考栏部分载明：“Gtv Private Placement”。紧接该笔转账之前，Account-6691的余额为\\$0。\n\nc. 2020年6月9日前后，Account-2038向Account-6691转入\\$38,000,000。该\\$38,000,000由GTV Private Placement的投资者资金构成，该等资金先被汇入Account-5601和Bank-1的另一特定账户，随后于2020年6月3日前后至2020年6月9日前后转入Account-2038。因此，截至2020年6月10日前后，Account-6691中的全部\\$237,999,970[5]均由GTV Private Placement的收益构成。\n\nd. 2020年6月9日前后，约\\$30,906从Account-5601电汇至以“Yanping Wang”名义开立的银行账户。该笔电汇的参考栏部分载明：“Director Fee”。\n\ne. 自2020年6月前后起，持有用于处理通过GTV Private Placement筹集资金的账户的美国境内银行，开始冻结并关闭与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：这些账户收到数十笔大额入账电汇，其中部分提及未经注册的GTV Private Placement。银行关闭账户还源于对GTV关联账户和Saraca关联账户之间资金往来的担忧，该等往来使人对入账转账的适当性产生疑问。\n\nf. 2020年7月10日前后，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”）和第二张金额为\\$100,000,000的支票（“Check-2”）。\n\ng. 2020年7月前后，WANG以及其他身份已知和未知人员试图在一家特定银行（“Bank-3”）以GTV名义开立银行账户。就该项尝试而言，2020年7月20日前后，WANG签署了一份“强化尽职调查请求”（“Enhanced Diligence Request”），其中载有关于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“强化尽职调查请求”中，WANG实质上和部分地陈述，该账户的初始存款将“为约\\$138 million，该款项以银行本票形式从私募中筹集”。据WANG称，“Saraca Media Group代表GTV接收了[GTV] Private Placement资金（由[Bank-1]的[律师事务所]指导）。Saraca Media Group将该等资金转给GTV（[Bank-2]）。”WANG还实质上和部分地陈述，“账户中的资金系GTV Media Group的资金，且严格[原文如此]仅用于运营目的和收购。”因此，WANG明知，从GTV Private Placement筹集的资金不得投资于为CC-1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扣收\\$30。\n\n因此，我谨请求签发逮捕被告YANPING WANG（王燕萍），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（通过电话宣誓）\n\nNicholas DiMarino\n联邦调查局特别探员\n\n本刑事起诉书于2023年3月___日通过可靠电子方式（电话）传送后，向本人宣誓。10\n\n____________________________________\n\n尊敬的GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN\n美国联邦治安法官\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n原件\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN 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（叶钧明），又名“William Je”，\n\n被告。\n\n密封起诉书\n\n23 Cr.\n., ~ ~ ..i -Lu\n第一罪名项（共谋实施电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱）\n\n大陪审团指控：\n\n概述\n\n1. 至少自2018年前后起至至少2023年3月前后，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（叶钧明），又名“William Je”，即被告人与其他身份已知和未知人员，共谋诈骗数千名受害人约超过\\$1 billion，其中包括位于Southern District of New York（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开展活动，该等企业和投资机会连接数十个相互关联的实体，使被告人与其共谋者得以招揽、洗白并挪用受害人资金。\n\n2. 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（叶钧明），又名“William Je”，即被告人及其共谋者，利用KWOK广泛的网络影响力及数十万名在线追随者，通过承诺异常高额的财务回报及其他利益，招揽对各实体和项目的投资。该计划中使用的实体和项目包括被称为GTV、GICLUBS、GIMUSIC、GIFashion及Himalaya Exchange的实体和项目等。事实上，并如KWOK和JE明知，该等实体是KWOK和JE创设并用于实施其欺诈、利用KWOK追随者的工具。该计划使KWOK和JE得以使其本人、其家庭成员及其共谋者获益，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（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（叶钧明），又名“William Je”，即被告人及其共谋者，洗白了数亿美元的欺诈收益。为掩饰资金的非法来源，KWOK和JE将资金转入并通过以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的约超过500个账户，且指示他人进行此类转账。该欺诈计划数亿美元的收益被直接或间接转入位于美国、巴哈马和阿拉伯联合酋长国（“UAE”）等地、以JE拥有或以其他方式控制的公司名义持有的银行账户。\n\n4. 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（叶钧明），又名“William Je”，即被告人，使用该欺诈计划约超过\\$300 million的收益供其本人及其家人受益。例如，KWOK使用通过欺诈获得的受害人资金购买、资助或融资，用于为KWOK及其家人购买位于新泽西州、面积约50,000平方英尺的一座豪宅，该购买价格为\\$26.5 million；购买豪华车辆，包括为KWOK的一名近亲属（“Relative-I”）购买的一辆约\\$3.5 million的法拉利；购买一艘约\\$37 million的豪华游艇，该游艇由KWOK及其家人使用，并以KWOK一名近亲属（“Relative-2”）的名义购买；购买一架价值约\\$140,000的钢琴；购买一张约\\$36,000的床垫；以及向一只高风险对冲基金投资\\$100 million，最终使Relative-I受益等。就JE而言，除其他事项外，JE至少将\\$10 million的欺诈收益转入其本人及其配偶的个人银行账户。\n\n5. 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（叶钧明），又名“William Je”，即被告人及其共谋者，多年来一直实施该计划，并至少持续至本起诉书之日。他们这样做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，并对投诉或要求返还投资资金的个别受害人进行报复。\n\n相关人员和实体\n\n6. 在所有相关期间，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”，系该计划的领导者并指挥该计划。\n\na. KWOK 是一名流亡的中国商人，于2015年前后逃往美国，并以约 $67.5 million 购买了纽约市一家酒店的一套顶层公寓。至少自2017年前后起，当时自称为亿万富翁的 KWOK 获得了大量网络追随者。KWOK 接受了大量媒体采访，并在社交媒体上发帖，声称推动一场反对中国共产党的运动。\n\nb. 于2018年前后，KWOK 创立了两个自称为非营利组织的机构，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了与其所声称的反对中国共产党的运动立场一致的追随者，且这些追随者也倾向于相信 KWOK 关于投资和赚钱机会的陈述。事实上，如 KWOK 明知，他和其他人提供虚假且具有重大误导性的信息，以推销这些“机会”并欺诈 KWOK 的追随者及其他受害人。\n\n7. 在所有相关期间，被告 KIN MING JE（金明杰），又名“William Je”，系香港及英国的双重公民，主要居住于英国，同时前往美国及其他地区旅行。JE 拥有并经营多家作为该计划核心的公司和投资工具，并担任该计划的财务架构师及主要洗钱者。\n\n8. 在与本起诉书有关的某些期间，Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司，以下简称“Saraca”）是一家总部位于纽约州纽约市的公司。Relative-I 是其最终受益所有人。\n\n9. 在与本起诉书有关的某些期间，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、自称以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台。虽然 KWOK 在 GTV 未担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，但被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，实际拥有并控制 GTV。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，但实际上控制其财务。Saraca 是 GTV 的母公司。\n\n10. 在与本起诉书有关的某些期间，G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司，以下简称“G|CLUBS”）是一个总部位于波多黎各及纽约州纽约市的自称会员组织。虽然 KWOK 在 G|CLUBS 未担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，但被告 HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，实际拥有并控制 G|CLUBS。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，但实际上控制其财务。\n\n11. 在与本起诉书有关的某些期间，“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”是一个自称的加密货币“生态系统”，被告 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，通过其拥有的、设于境外的多个实体创立并经营该生态系统。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”，实际拥有并控制的实体，例如 G|CLUBS 和 G|Fashion，与喜马拉雅交易所有自称的业务关系。KWOK 推广喜马拉雅交易所，并声称是其自称加密货币的设计者，尽管 KWOK 在喜马拉雅交易所未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. 在2020年4月前后至2020年6月前后期间，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”，以及被告 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，连同其他已知和未知人员，通过与 GTV 有关的非法私募股票发行（以下简称“GTV 私募配售”），以欺诈手段获取了超过 $400 million 的受害人资金。\n\na. 于2020年4月21日前后，KWOK 在社交媒体上发布并指使他人发布一段视频，宣布通过私募配售方式非注册发行 GTV 普通股。在该视频中，KWOK 实质上并部分说明了 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他。该视频及 GTV 私募配售材料——包括书面《保密信息备忘录》（以下简称“PPM”）、认购协议和投资程序指南——通过移动通信应用程序、社交媒体和短信发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 推介为“首个将公民新闻和社交新闻的力量与最先进的技术、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 确定为 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陈述，实质上并部分如下：\n\n1. GTV 私募配售面向“有兴趣评估向 GTV 投入资本机会”的投资者；\n\nii. GTV 计划将通过 GTV 私募配售募集的所得款项“用于扩大和加强业务”；以及\n\niii. PPM 包含一张图表，逐项列明 GTV 私募配售所募集款项的“拟议用途”：\n\n收购公司以强化和发展\nGTV\n\n升级 GTV 技术和安全　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. 在2020年4月20日前后至2020年6月2日前后期间，价值约 $452 million 的 GTV 普通股据称售予位于美国（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，部分基于如下信念：如 PPM 所承诺，其资金将投资于 GTV，以发展和壮大该业务。\n\nf. GTV 私募配售从投资者获得的绝大部分所得款项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，其受益所有人为 Relative-I。\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”）提交的注册说明书进行。相反，该发行据称依据 SEC 规章进行；该等规章允许在对证券发行对象的投资者类型及招揽其投资的方式施加限制的前提下出售未注册证券。然而，为规避这些限制，KWOK 及受其控制的其他人至少利用一个中介实体，代表不符合参与 GTV 私募配售资格的投资者集合购买 GTV 股票。\n\nh. 于2020年6月初前后，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”，以及被告 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，及其共谋者，侵占了从 GTV 私募配售投资者处募集的约 $100 million，并指示将该等资金存入一家高风险对冲基金（以下简称“Fund-1”），以使 Saraca 及其最终受益所有人 Relative-I 获益。该交易违反了 PPM 就 GTV 投资将如何使用而向潜在 GTV 投资者作出的陈述。事实上，对 Fund-1 的 $100 million 投资并非为 GTV 的利益而作出，而是为 Saraca 的利益而作出。提供了投资于 Fund-1 的 $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 受害人资金指向 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”，继续利用虚假和误导性陈述推广 GTV。\n\n农场贷款计划\n\n13. 自2020年6月前后开始——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”，以及被告 KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，及其共谋者为 Saraca 和 Relative-I 的利益侵占 GTV 私募配售资金的同一个月——KWOK、JE 及其共谋者通过“Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）”以欺诈手段获取了超过约 $150 million 的受害人资金。由 KWOK 组织并推广的喜马拉雅农场联盟，是由位于世界各地多个城市的非正式团体组成的集合体（每一团体称为一个“Farm”）。KWOK、JE 以及代表其行事并在其指示下行事的其他人，通过进一步向 GTV 私募配售的投资者作出虚假陈述，并以欺诈手段招揽进一步投资，从而获取该等资金；该等投资此次采取向某一 Farm 提供“贷款”的形式，并承诺该等贷款可按每借出 $1 转换为一股 GTV 普通股的转换比例转换为 GTV 普通股（以下简称“农场贷款计划”）。\n\na. 自2020年6月前后起，持有用于处理通过 GTV 私募配售募集资金的账户的境内银行，开始冻结并关闭与 GTV 有关的银行账户，原因包括该等账户收到了数十笔大额入账电汇，其中部分电汇提及未注册股票发行。\n\nb. 这些银行账户关闭，妨碍了 KWOK、JE 及其共谋者从寻求投资 GTV 的受害人处收取所得款项的能力。\n\nc. 于2020年7月22日前后，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（或再次投资）GTV 的个人可以参与农场贷款计划。\n\nd. 在启动农场贷款计划后，KWOK 继续推广 GTV，并继续虚假陈述 GTV 的价值。例如，于2020年8月2日前后，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 实质上并部分虚假称：“GTV 值多少钱？……市值为 2 billion US dollars。”事实上，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各 Farm（而非 GTV）控制的银行账户汇款，向各 Farm “出借”资金。根据各 Farm 经常未予副署的《贷款协议》，该等资金应当用于某一 Farm 的“一般营运资金用途”。\n\nf. KWOK 和 JE 侵占了通过农场贷款计划募集的资金。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 的配偶拥有的一个实体；\n\niii. 约 $2.3 million 被用于支付一艘约145英尺、价值约 $37 million、名义上由 Relative-2 所有并由 KWOK 使用的豪华游艇相关的维护费用；\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. 在就农场贷款计划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（金明杰），又名“William Je”，该等被告人及其他已知和未知人员，以欺诈手段诱使 KWOK 的追随者向一家名为 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，KWOK、JE 及其他已知和未知人员通过 GICLUBS 以欺诈手段取得了超过约 \\$250 million 的受害人资金。\n\n1除非另有说明，本文归属于 KWOK 的所有陈述均已由普通话译为英语。\n\na. 自至少约 2020 年 6 月 20 日起，KWOK 在通过社交媒体传播的一段视频中宣传并鼓励个人购买其所称的“G Club……会员卡”。\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”，并且是“通往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，会员除支付年度会员费外，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. 于约 2021 年 7 月 5 日，KWOK 在通过社交媒体传播的一段视频中实质上及部分地表示，有“25,000 名[GICLUBS]会员……\\$100 million dollars，银行账户中的现金。然后我们有 111 million……[人]想加入。”与此相反，截至约 2021 年 8 月，GICLUBS 的内部文件显示其约有 5,900 名活跃会员。\n\ne. 事实上，且如 KWOK 和 JE 明知，GICLUBS 向其会员提供的服务和“体验”远未达到“全方位服务”的程度。尽管收取了数亿美元的所谓会员费，GICLUBS 维持的雇员人数相对较少，并且向其会员提供的可辨识会员福利极少或没有。事实上，GICLUBS 甚至未兑现其向参与竞赛的会员提供的奖品。于约 2021 年 2 月 14 日，GICLUBS 举行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，GICLUBS 未向据称赢得抽奖活动的一名会员提供一辆 BMW，而是向该会员声称，该会员已要求将该 BMW 的价值用于将其第 1 级 GICLUBS 会员资格升级为第 4 级 GICLUBS 会员资格，并部分抵扣其后三年的年度会员费。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. KWOK 和 JE 还利用 GICLUBS 作为继续进行欺诈性私募发行的机制。KWOK 及其他已知和未知人员向 KWOK 的在线追随者称，购买 GICLUBS 会员资格将使其有权获得 KWOK 关联实体的股票，例如 GTV 和 GIFashion。\n\ni. 于约 2021 年 5 月 4 日，在一次关于 GICLUBS 会员资金的谈话中，JE 实质上及部分地表示：“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在未来的 GTV 获得一些股份，你知道，我想这就是他们的预期。”\n\nii. 于约 2021 年 7 月 30 日，KWOK 在通过社交媒体传播的一段视频中实质上及部分地表示：“一些战友问，‘我购买 GICLUBS 会员资格时，是否仍会获得免费股票配售？’100%。因为我说过，我必须承诺，任何人在 9 月 17 日之前购买 G-Club 会员资格的，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 日之前用你的钱购买 G-Club、G-Club 和股票股份。你将两者兼得。”\n\ng. KWOK、JE 及其他已知和未知人员要求投资者购买多份 GICLUBS 会员资格，从而使 KWOK 和 JE 能够增加所募集的金额。在这方面，GICLUBS 网站实质上及部分地称，持有多份会员资格的会员将“获得额外福利”，但事实上，且如 KWOK 和 JE 明知，多份会员资格并未向会员提供额外福利。\n\n15. 总计而言，投资者购买了价值数亿美元的 GICLUBS 会员资格。然而，其中大部分资金并未用于资助 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（金明杰），又名“William Je”，该等被告人及其他已知和未知人员，侵占了受害人为购买“会员资格”而支付给 GICLUBS 的资金中的很大一部分，并使用了包括复杂的实体和银行账户网络在内的手段实施该行为。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 KWOK 及其家人的个人开支，包括购置一艘价值约 \\$2.6 million 的豪华游艇，以及总计价值超过 \\$5 million 的豪华汽车。\n\nb. 于约 2021 年 11 月，JE 指示将约 \\$26.5 million 的 GICLUBS 资金——该等资金经由以其他实体名义开立的银行账户转移——用于购买 KWOK 位于 New Jersey（新泽西州）的 50,000 平方英尺豪宅。\n\nc. JE 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 KWOK 位于 New Jersey 的豪宅的奢华翻修费用，包括供 Relative-I 使用的一翼和供 Relative-2 使用的一翼，并用于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 的壁炉柴薪托架。\n\nd. 于约 2021 年 8 月 5 日，JE 指示将约 \\$1.1 million 的 GICLUBS 会员付款转入一个由 JE 控制的银行账户。\n\ne. GICLUBS 使用会员费购买豪华汽车，包括一辆价值约 \\$4.4 million 的定制 Bugatti（布加迪）跑车。尽管该车辆已签署的购买协议将 GICLUBS 列为客户，该定制车辆的初始规格文件却将 Relative-I 列为客户。Relative-I 在 GICLUBS 未担任任何正式职务。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所\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（金明杰），又名“William Je”，该等被告人及其他已知和未知人员，通过喜马拉雅交易所——一种可通过互联网访问的所谓加密货币“生态系统”——以欺诈手段取得了超过约 \\$262 million 的受害人资金。喜马拉雅交易所包括一种名为喜马拉雅元（“HDO”或“H Dollar”）的所谓稳定币，以及一种名为喜马拉雅币（“HCN”或“H Coin”）的交易币。喜马拉雅交易所声称，该“稳定币”是一种由储备支持、具有固定 1 比 \\$1 价值的数字资产，该“交易币”则是一种估值基于供求关系的加密货币。JE 是喜马拉雅交易所的创始人兼董事长。\n\n17. 在通过社交媒体传播的视频中，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，大肆宣传喜马拉雅交易所及 HCN 和 HDO 两者的前景和估值，并公开将其描述为加密货币。例如，在于约 2021 年 10 月 20 日发布于互联网的一段视频中，KWOK 除其他事项外，实质上及部分地作出以下虚假陈述：\n\na. “我说的是你们的 H Coin，‘Brother Seven’[即 KWOK]设计的它……它具有货币的属性，为什么？它有 20% 黄金。太棒了[。][它]第一天出生就是货币，所以它有价值，并且与黄金挂钩……直接的纯金。无论它涨多少，20% 都会变成黄金。”\n\nb. “如果 H Coin 没有价值，[H Coin 的发行人]可以卖掉全部 20% 的黄金，兑换给你，成为你的钱。或者拿出 20% 黄金的全部价值，让大家统一起来，把它变成你的。”\n\nc. “如果任何人亏钱，我可以说我将 100% 赔偿。我给你 100%。谁亏钱，我来承担。”\n\nd. “我可以在一分钟内在市场上卖出 H Coin，并将其换回我的 H Dollar，再换回你们的法定货币单位。……[而且]你可以立即购买任何东西。”\n\n18. HCN 和 HDO 的首次代币发行于约 2021 年 11 月 1 日进行。HCN 开始交易时价格为 10 cents，并且在约两周内，喜马拉雅交易所网站声称每一 HCN 据称价值约 27 HDO（即 \\$27），这代表价值增长 26,900%。即，在首次代币发行约两周后，喜马拉雅交易所网站显示 HCN 据称估值约为 \\$27 billion。\n\n19. 在喜马拉雅交易所推出时，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，于约 2021 年 11 月 1 日——即首次代币发行之日——KWOK 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，并暗示价值急剧上涨。该音乐视频描绘了 KWOK 身处各种奢华地点，并展示了黄金和财富的图像。\n\n20. KIN MING JE（金明杰），又名“William Je”，被告人，有时误导性地推销喜马拉雅交易所，包括在喜马拉雅交易所推出之后。例如，于约 2022 年 6 月，JE 试图制造这样的印象：一辆 Ferrari（法拉利）（“Ferrari”）以 €3,561,127 从某一拍卖行购得的交易，是使用 HDO 完成的。JE 实质上及部分地表示，他“非常高兴[一名]买家决定使用 HDO 购买[一辆]世界级汽车。”与 JE 的说法相反，该 Ferrari 并非使用 HDO 购买。事实上，且如 JE 明知，一名喜马拉雅交易所雇员向该拍卖行发送国际银行电汇以支付该 Ferrari 的费用，同时还在喜马拉雅交易所处理了一笔相应的“交易”，从而制造该购买使用 HDO 完成的虚假表象。JE 的陈述还具有误导性，原因包括该 Ferrari 身份未明的“买家”实际上是 Relative-I。\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（金明杰），又名“William Je”，该等被告人及其他已知和未知人员的陈述相反，HCN 和 HDO 无法在喜马拉雅交易所以外的任何地方交易（据称如此）。此外，与加密货币不同，HCN 无法交易为或兑换成其他货币。HCN 据称仅可交易为 HDO（且仅可在喜马拉雅交易所交易），而 HDO 据称仅可兑换成或以法定货币兑换（且仅可在喜马拉雅交易所兑换）。\n\na. 事实上，喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）网站上提供的 HDO 白皮书（HDO Whitepaper）和 HCN 白皮书（HCN Whitepaper）以细小字体说明，与 KWOK（郭文贵）的陈述相反，HCN 和 HDO 并非加密货币。相反，根据 HCN 白皮书，“喜马拉雅交易所及相关应用程序和基础设施的运营将通过使用‘积分（Credits）’予以便利。”该等积分（i）“只能在喜马拉雅交易所或喜马拉雅生态系统内使用”，且（ii）“不附带要求将其兑换为法定货币或加密资产的任何权利”。此外，虽然喜马拉雅交易所会员可以请求将其“HDO”积分兑换为等值美元付款，但 HDO 白皮书称，喜马拉雅交易所拥有拒绝任何该等请求的“酌情决定权”。\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 喜马拉雅交易所资金从一个喜马拉雅交易所银行账户转入一个特定托管账户。该 $37 million 被安排为一笔名义上的“贷款”，以支付 KWOK 先前购买并使用的一艘豪华游艇的费用；该游艇当时由登记在 Relative-2（亲属-2）名下的实体所有。\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，美国当局向数家美国国内银行送达了经司法授权的扣押令，随后从登记在喜马拉雅交易所实体及与被告 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”相关的其他实体名下的银行账户中，扣押了约 $335 million 的所得款项。在 2022 年 9 月经司法授权的扣押之后，JE 试图将约 $46 million 从与喜马拉雅交易所相关、尚未被美国扣押的美国国内银行账户，转入 JE 控制的阿联酋（UAE）银行账户。\n\na. 在首次经司法授权扣押与喜马拉雅交易所相关的资金后约两日内，即约于 2022 年 9 月 22 日，JE 联系了一家持有喜马拉雅交易所银行账户的美国国内银行的管理层。JE 试图实施一笔电汇；他和一名喜马拉雅交易所高管向该美国国内银行声称，该电汇是为一名未具名“VIP”（即喜马拉雅交易所的一名重要客户）将 HDO“赎回”成美元所必需的。\n\nb. 在随后与该美国国内银行的沟通中，JE 透露该 VIP 实际上就是 JE 本人。JE 向该美国国内银行提供了反映 JE 于约 2022 年 9 月 22 日进行的两笔名义上 HCN 销售的文件，合计 46 million HDO，JE 正试图将其“转换”为 $46 million。JE 两次向该美国国内银行的管理层实质上且部分地强调，$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 曾请求转出 $46 million 的该美国国内银行内数个喜马拉雅交易所和 GICLUBS 账户中，额外扣押了约 $274 million 的所得款项。\n\na. 由于经司法授权的 2022 年 9 月和 10 月扣押，美国当局扣押了超过约 $609 million 的欺诈所得，其中包括从登记在喜马拉雅交易所实体名下的银行账户中扣押的约 $278 million，包括声称持有其 HDO 现金储备的账户。\n\nb. 扣押之后，喜马拉雅交易所网站仍继续称 HDO 由“由美元和现金等价资产构成的储备金”支持，而实际上并非如此。\n\nc. 尽管喜马拉雅交易所的现金储备被扣押，截至本起诉书之日，HCN 的名义价格并未突然且大幅下跌。\n\n法定指控\n\n25. 自至少约于 2018 年起至至少约于 2023 年 3 月止（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，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，故意且明知地共同联合、共谋、结社并彼此达成协议，以实施针对美国的罪行，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, and 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）国际隐瞒型洗钱，违反 Title 18, United States Code Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)。\n\n26. 该共谋的一部分和目的在于，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，明知已设计并意图设计欺诈计划和计谋，以及通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺取得金钱和财产，将会并且确实通过州际和对外贸易中的有线、无线电和电视通讯传输和促使传输文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，以执行该等计划和计谋，违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343，即，KWOK 和 JE 同意通过促使经由州际有线通讯传输重大虚假信息和虚假陈述，取得受害人的金钱，该等行为涉及 GTV 私募配售（GTV Private Placement）、农场贷款计划（Farm Loan Program）、GICLUBS 和喜马拉雅交易所。\n\n27. 该共谋的进一步一部分和目的在于，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件的方式及工具，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任何未如此注册的证券的买卖，使用和采用操纵性和欺骗性的手段及计谋，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：（a）采用欺诈手段、计划和计谋；（b）作出关于重大事实的不真实陈述，以及遗漏陈述为使所作陈述在作出时的情形下不具有误导性所必需的重大事实；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 同意通过就所谓 GTV 普通股股份以及所谓与 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 私募配售、农场贷款计划和 GICLUBS。\n\n28. 该共谋的进一步一部分和目的在于，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，明知地实施和试图实施一项计划和计谋，以欺诈 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，取得由该金融机构拥有及处于其保管和控制之下的金钱、资金、信贷、资产、证券及其他财产，违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344，即，KWOK 和 JE 同意参与一项计划，就 GTV 私募配售、农场贷款计划、GICLUBS 和喜马拉雅交易所，通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述和文件误导美国金融机构，以取得至少一家金融机构的或处于至少一家金融机构保管和控制之下的金钱。\n\n29. 该共谋的进一步一部分和目的在于，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，将会并且确实运输、传输和转移，以及试图运输、传输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实施，即本起诉书第二罪名项至第八罪名项所指控、违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A)(i) 的罪行。\n\n30. 该共谋的进一步一部分和目的在于，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，将会并且确实运输、传输和转移，以及试图运输、传输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，明知该运输、传输和转移所涉及的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、传输和转移意在全部或部分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，即本起诉书第二罪名项至第八罪名项所指控、违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) 的罪行。\n\n外显行为\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，在纽约南区及其他地区实施了包括下列在内的外显行为：\n\na. 约于 2020 年 4 月 21 日，KWOK 在社交媒体上发布并促使发布了一段视频，宣布通过 GTV 私募配售进行未注册的 GTV 股票发售。\n\nb. 约于 2020 年 6 月 5 日，本文件中未具名的一名共谋者（“CC-1”）在纽约南区时，授权将 $100 million 从 Saraca 电汇至 Fund-1。\n\nc. 约于 2020 年 7 月 22 日，KWOK 在通过社交媒体传播的一段视频中推广农场贷款计划。\n\nd. 约于 2020 年 8 月 2 日，KWOK 在通过社交媒体传播的一段视频中实质上且部分地称：“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由 Relative-2 所有的实体在纽约州纽约市某特定银行持有的银行账户。\n\nf. 约于 July 30, 2021，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK（郭文贵）实质上且部分地表示：“一些战友问，‘我购买 G-Clubs 会员资格时，是否仍会获得免费股票配售？’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，任何人都可以选择在 September 17 之前用你的钱购买 G-Clubs、G-Clubs 会员资格和股票。你将两者兼得。”\n\ng. 约于 August 5, 2021，JE 指示将约 $1.1 million 转入其控制的一个银行账户；该款项由受害人支付给 GCLUBS 以换取“会员资格”。\n\nh. 约于 October 20, 2021，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 实质上且部分地表示，KWOK“设计了”HCN，且“不论其筹集多少资金，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. 约于 September 22, 2022，JE 向一家美国银行的管理层发送短信，实质上且部分地表示，向 JE 控制的位于 UAE 的银行账户转入 $46 million 必须在“今天完成，否则便毫无意义”。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n罪名项二（电信欺诈——GTV 私募配售）\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主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n33. 自至少约 April 2020 起至至少约 March 2021 止（含首尾两端），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，又名 “William Je”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和诡计，并通过虚假及欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺获取金钱及财产，为实施该计划和诡计，而通过州际及对外商业中的有线电、无线电和电视通信传输并促使传输文字、标识、信号、图像和声音；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 开展 GTV 私募配售，以出售 GTV 股票，并通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；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到推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n罪名项三（证券欺诈——GTV 私募配售）\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主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n35. 自至少约 April 2020 起至至少约 March 2021 止（含首尾两端），在纽约南区及其他地区，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”，故意且明知，直接或间接地，利用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，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及任何未如此注册的证券的买卖，使用和运用操纵性及欺骗性的手段和计策，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 使用欺诈性手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出对重要事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使所作陈述在作出时所处情形下不具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；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 开展 GTV 私募配售，以出售 GTV 股票并通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处获取金钱；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到推进。\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罪名项四（电信欺诈——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主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n37. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2023 止（含首尾两端），在纽约南区及其他地区，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”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和诡计，并通过虚假及欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺获取金钱及财产，为实施该计划和诡计，而通过州际及对外商业中的有线电、无线电和电视通信传输并促使传输文字、标识、信号、图像和声音；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 开展农场贷款计划，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；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到推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n罪名项五（证券欺诈——农场贷款计划）\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主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n39. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2023 止（含首尾两端），在纽约南区及其他地区，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”，故意且明知，直接或间接地，利用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，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及任何未如此注册的证券的买卖，使用和运用操纵性及欺骗性的手段和计策，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 使用欺诈性手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出对重要事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使所作陈述在作出时所处情形下不具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；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 开展农场贷款计划，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处获取金钱，包括但不限于有关 GTV 价值的陈述；该计划通过往返于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\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罪名项六（电信欺诈——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主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n41. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2023 止（含首尾两端），在纽约南区及其他地区，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”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和诡计，并通过虚假及欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺获取金钱及财产，为实施该计划和诡计，而通过州际及对外商业中的有线电、无线电和电视通信传输并促使传输文字、标识、信号、图像和声音；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 推广和营销 GCLUBS，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；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到推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n罪名项七（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主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n43. 自至少约 June 2020 起至至少约 March 2021 止（含首尾两端），在纽约南区及其他地区，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”，故意且明知，直接或间接地，利用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，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及任何未如此注册的证券的买卖，使用和运用操纵性及欺骗性的手段和计策，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 使用欺诈性手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出对重要事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使所作陈述在作出时所处情形下不具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；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 推广和营销 GCLUBS，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处获取金钱，包括但不限于有关 GTV 价值的陈述；该计划通过往返于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\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罪名项八（电信欺诈——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主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n45. 自至少约于 2021年4月起至至少约于 2023年3月止（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手段，并以虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺获取金钱和财产，为实施该计划和手段之目的，通过州际及对外贸易中的有线、电台和电视通信，传送并促使传送文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，即 KWOK 和 JE 经营 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），通过虚假陈述和失实陈述从受害人处欺诈性获取金钱；该计划通过向纽约南区及其他地区发出和自该等地区发出的电子通信及资金转移得以推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第九项罪名（国际促进性洗钱）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n46. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n47. 自至少约于 2018年起至至少约于 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”，为促进实施特定非法活动，曾将货币工具和资金从美国境内某地运送、传送和转移至美国境外某地及经由美国境外某地，并曾试图如此运送、传送和转移；亦曾将货币工具和资金从美国境外某地及经由美国境外某地运送、传送和转移至美国境内某地，并曾试图如此运送、传送和转移，即 KWOK 和 JE 指示并进行资金向美国境内、美国境外及经由美国的国际转移，意图促进本起诉书第二至第八项罪名中的欺诈犯罪。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(A) and 2.)\n\n第十项罪名（国际隐匿性洗钱）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n48. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n49. 自至少约于 2018年起至至少约于 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”，曾将货币工具和资金从美国境内某地运送、传送和转移至美国境外某地及经由美国境外某地，并曾试图如此运送、传送和转移；亦曾将货币工具和资金从美国境外某地及经由美国境外某地运送、传送和转移至美国境内某地，并曾试图如此运送、传送和转移，明知所涉运送、传送和转移中的货币工具和资金代表某种形式非法活动的收益，且明知该等运送、传送和转移全部或部分旨在隐瞒和掩饰特定非法活动收益的性质、所在地、来源、所有权和控制权，即本起诉书第二至第八项罪名中指称的欺诈犯罪；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 进行了涉及欺诈收益的、进入美国、离开美国及经由美国的国际金融交易，包括但不限于涉及以其他个人名义及以与被告没有明显关联的实体名义持有的银行账户的交易，以隐瞒欺诈收益的所有权、控制权和／或收取情况，以及该等收益的非法性质和来源。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) and 2.)\n\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 段所载指控在此重述并再次指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n51. 约于 2020年6月5日，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，明知而从事并试图从事 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 且源于特定非法活动的犯罪所得财产；具体而言，KWOK 和 JE 作出并指示他人作出一笔约 $100 million 的电汇，将源于第二项和第三项罪名所指控犯罪的款项转入 Fund-1（基金-1）。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.)\n\n第十二项罪名（妨碍司法）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n52. 本起诉书第 1 至 24 段所载指控在此重述并再次指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n53. 自至少约于 2022年9月20日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、影响和阻挠一项正式程序，并试图如此行事；具体而言，JE 试图将资金转移至阿拉伯联合酋长国，转移至美国管辖范围之外，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收益进行的程序。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2) and 2.)\n\n没收指控\n\n54. 由于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”，应依照 Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) 和 Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c)，没收归美国所有任何及全部构成或源于可追溯至实施上述犯罪所得收益的动产和不动产，包括但不限于一笔以美元计、相当于可追溯至实施上述犯罪所得收益金额的款项，以及以下特定财产：\n\na. 原存于 Silvergate Bank（Silvergate银行）账户号码 5090037713、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC）” 名义持有的 $64,826.87 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nb. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090037705、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC” 名义持有的 $75,000,000.00 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nc. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090037754、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC” 名义持有的 $467,343.00 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nd. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090042770、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC” 名义持有的 $89,992,861.75 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\ne. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090042762、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC” 名义持有的 $1,683,077.40 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nf. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090042853、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC（Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC）” 名义持有的 $85,899,889.20 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\ng. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090030288、以 “Hamilton Investment Management” Ltd.（Hamilton Investment Management有限公司）名义持有的 $48,230,709.62 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nh. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090037739、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC” 名义持有的 $1,800,000.00 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\ni. 原存于 Silvergate Bank 账户号码 5090042853、以 “Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC” 名义持有的 $85,899,889.20 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nj. 原存于 FV Bank（FV银行）账户号码 7801000590、以 “Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.”（Himalaya International Reserves有限公司）名义持有的 $4,643,744.70 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月20日扣押；\n\nk. 原存于 FV Bank 账户号码 7801000254、以 “Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.”（Himalaya International Clearing有限公司）名义持有的 $14,599,257.25 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月20日扣押；\n\nl. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International（Mercantile国际银行）账户号码 MBI10103-0000、以 “G Club International Ltd.”（G Club International有限公司）名义持有的 $11,538,579.87 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\nm. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International 账户号码 MBI10133-0000、以 “Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.”（Himalaya International Clearing有限公司）名义持有的 $9,451,170.54 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\nn. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International 账户号码 MBI10137-0000、以 “Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.”（Hamilton Capital Holding有限公司）名义持有的 $2,823,642.39 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\no. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International 账户号码 MBI10138-0000、以 “Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.”（Himalaya International Reserves有限公司）名义持有的 $249,000,115.46 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\np. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International 账户号码 MBI10139-0000、以 “Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.”（Himalaya International Financial Group有限公司）名义持有的 $283,965.11 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\nq. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International 账户号码 MBI10171-0000、以 “Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.”（Hamilton Investment Management有限公司）名义持有的 $1,085,623.67 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\nr. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International 账户号码 MBI10172-0000、以 “G Fashion International Limited”（G Fashion International有限公司）名义持有的 $43,782.71 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\ns. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International 账户号码 MBI10183-0000、以 “Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.”（Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty有限公司）名义持有的 $161,809.47 美元，由政府于约 2022年10月16日扣押；\n\nt. 原存于 Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.（Manufacturers & Traders Trust公司）账户号码 9878904409、以 “GETTR USA, Inc.”（GETTR USA公司）名义持有的 $2,745,377.75 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nu. 原存于 US Bank（美国银行）账户号码 157525208185、以 “G Fashion（G Fashion）” 名义持有的 $9,899,659.19 美元，由政府于约 2022年9月18日扣押；\n\nv. 位于 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430 的全部该宗或该幅土地，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 No.3300021-03-00001-02，并描述为：地块编号：1.02；街区：21.03；区：33；城市、市政区、镇区：MAHWAH TWP\n\nw. 一辆布加迪 Chiron Super Sport，车辆识别号码为 VF9SW3V3XNM795047；\n\nx. 一辆兰博基尼 Aventador SVJ Roads，车辆识别号码为 ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393；\n\ny. 一辆劳斯莱斯 Phantom EWB，车辆识别号码为 SCA TT8C08MU206445；\n\nz. 一艘46米长、2014年建造的 Feadship 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，配定制琴凳，购入价约为 $140,938.69；\n\nbb. 一张 Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon 床，配床头柜、乌木饰面、黄铜和天鹅绒，购入价约为 $31,413.71；\n\ncc. 一张 Hastens 2000T md 床垫，购入价约为 $36,590.00；\n\ndd. 一张 Hastens 2000T sf 床垫，购入价约为 $36,210.00；\n\nee. 一个 Wembe 手表收纳盒，购入价约为 $59,392.91；\n\nff. 一台 Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98\" QLED Smart TV - 8K，购入价约为 $62,787.54；\n\ngg. 一件由 Joseph Emmanuel Zweiner 制作的路易十五风格法国镀金铜饰桃花心木五斗柜；\n\nhh. 一张由 Philip & Kelvin La Verne 制作的“K'ang Hsi”延伸桌，采用蚀刻及铜绿处理的锡镴和青铜，并配手绘珐琅彩，购入价约为 $180,000.00；以及\n\nii. 一张由 Gabriella Crespi 制作的“Punto '83”桌，意大利，1982年，以不锈钢制成，配网状桌面、高度可调及花瓣可调，购入价约为 $180,000.00。\n\n(a)至(ii)项，统称为“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犯罪，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（耿文杰），\n\n又名“William Je”，作为被告人，应依照 Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1)，向美国没收所有涉入所述犯罪的任何及全部不动产和动产，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、代表涉入所述犯罪财产数额的款项，以及特定财产。\n\n替代资产条款\n\n56. 如上述任何可没收财产因被告人的任何作为或不作为而：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法找到；\n\nb. 已被转让、出售给或存放于第三人；\n\nc. 已被置于本院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他难以分割的财产混同；\n\n美国拟依照 Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) 及 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，寻求没收被告人任何其他价值相当于上述可没收财产的财产。\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陪审团首席陪审员\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n美国联邦检察官\n\n书记员助理：现在开庭审理案号 23-MG-2007，美国诉 Yanping Wang（王燕平）案。\n\nMURRAY 女士：下午好，法官阁下。代表美国出庭的是 Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）、Ryan Finkel（瑞安·芬克尔）和 Micah Fergenson（迈卡·弗格森）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n书记员助理：Wang 女士的律师，请您——Wang 女士，请您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 的 Priya Chaudhry（普里娅·乔德里），与 Lipman PLLC 的 Alex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）共同出庭。我们代理 Yvette Wang（王悦），其本人在场，坐在我们中间，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，Wang 女士。我是 Parker 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。\n\n您因一份控诉书中对您提出的指控而被逮捕。今天程序的目的，是告知您享有的某些权利，告知您所受指控，考虑是否应为您指定律师，以及决定在审判前您应在何种条件下获释，如有条件的话。\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某些宪法权利。\n\n您有权保持沉默。\n\n您无需作出任何陈述。即使您已经向有关当局作出陈述，您也无需再作出任何陈述。\n\n您作出的任何陈述均可被用来对您不利。\n\n您有权在审判前无条件或附条件获释，除非我认定不存在任何能够合理确保您在今后出庭以及保障社区安全的条件。如果您不是美国公民，您有权要求一名政府律师或执法官员通知您原籍国的一名领事官员您已被逮捕。在某些情形下，无论您是否提出要求，条约或其他协议可能要求美国政府作出该通知。\n\n您有权在所有法院程序中，包括本次程序，以及在当局对您进行的一切讯问中，由律师代理。您有权聘请自己的律师；但如您无力聘请律师，本院将为您指定一名律师代理您。\n\n您是否理解我刚刚向您说明的权利？\n\n被告人：我理解。\n\n法庭：好的。现在，我了解到您已聘请律师，因此无需——这是否正确？我没有收到任何财务宣誓书。\n\n被告人：是的。\n\n法庭：是，对。好的。\n\n现在我将审查控诉书中的指控。控诉书指控您与他人共谋实施电信欺诈和证券欺诈，违反 Title 18 of the United States Code § 371。\n\n第二罪名项指控您实施电信欺诈，违反 Title 18 of the United States Code § 1343 and § 2。\n\n第三罪名项指控您实施证券欺诈，违反 Title 15 of the United States Code §§ 78j(b) and 78ff，以及 Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 240.10(b)(5) and Title 18 of the United States Code § 2。\n\n第四罪名项指控您从事非法货币交易，违反 Title 18 of the United States Code §§ 2 and 1957。\n\n上述所有指控均涉及您参与 GTV，以及与 GTV 有关的私募配售和相关资金转移。\n\n律师，您是否已在普通话口译员协助下与您的当事人审阅控诉书？\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：她是否放弃公开宣读该控诉书？\n\nCHAUDHRY 女士：她放弃。\n\n法庭：好的。Wang 女士，您是否理解对您提出的指控？\n\n被告人：是的，我理解。\n\n法庭：好的。除我已经告知您的权利外，您还有权获得初步听证，届时政府负有举证责任，证明有合理理由相信您被指控的犯罪已经发生，并且您是实施该犯罪的人。在听证中，您及您的律师有权交叉询问任何证人并提出证据。\n\n如您被羁押，您有权在14日内获得初步听证。如您未被羁押，您有权在21日内获得初步听证。但如大陪审团在初步听证日期之前对您作出起诉书，则不会举行初步听证。我稍后将确定初步听证日期。\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。已记入记录。谢谢。\n\nMURRAY 女士：政府已与辩护律师沟通，我们已就一套大体达成一致的保释条件达成协议。有两项关键分歧。如法官阁下愿意，我可以先说明分歧，然后再讨论条件；或者我也可以按相反顺序说明。\n\n法庭：先从你们达成一致的事项开始，然后再说明你们未达成一致的事项。\n\nMURRAY 女士：政府同意以 $5 million 的个人具结保证金释放，由两名经政府批准、具有经济偿付能力的人共同签署，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 Districts of New York（纽约东区）；交出任何旅行证件，并且被告人不得申请任何新的旅行证件；被告人须向 Pretrial Services（审前服务机构）和 U.S. Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）披露其全部资产，包括其占有、保管或控制的任何资产，并包括任何联名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贷额度；除在律师在场的情况下外，被告人不得与 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），亦称 Miles Guo，或 Kin Ming Je（耿文杰），J-E，亦称 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此外，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 位置监控加强；第二，政府寻求在所有条件均获满足之前继续羁押被告人。\n\n法庭：好的。现在，我的理解是否正确：对 Wang 女士提出指控的犯罪，并不属于具有羁押推定的犯罪？\n\nMURRAY 女士：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：并且根据《保释改革法》，我必须以合理确保被告人返庭及社区安全所必需的限制最少方式释放被告人。\n\n因此，我首先希望了解，您为何认为配备 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。关于该被告人的潜逃风险，政府当然认为，有超过优势证据证明该被告人构成重大潜逃风险。被告人——尽管这些并非具有羁押推定的指控——被指控的犯罪涉及数额极大的资金。她被指控涉及一笔 $100 million 的电汇。这是政府指称的一笔单独资金转移，为欺诈所得，而她对批准该笔电汇拥有唯一授权权力，此外还涉及证券欺诈和电信欺诈共谋。\n\n被告人可动用重大资产。其中一部分为政府所知。坦率地说，其中一些可能不为政府所知，因为被告人及其共谋者通过极其精密复杂的空壳公司开展活动。\n\n举几个例子供法官阁下参考：被告人的公寓是以一家她全资拥有的 LLC（有限责任公司）的名义购买的。我并不是说这必然有什么可疑之处，但我以此为例，说明我们知道被告人目前或曾经控制的十多个实体中的一个，包括财务控制。这些实体中的一些，无论被告人是该等实体的主要股东，还是必然能够进入其银行账户，被告人至少在这些公司的公司文件方面拥有决定性控制权。\n\n被告人也不是美国居民。她有一项待决的庇护申请，但被告人、Miles Guo（郭文贵）、William Je（威廉·Je）及其他人活动的范围，是一个由全球数十万网络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，在如我所述被称为 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）的全球网络中，有人支持 Guo先生和 Wang女士及其所谓的同志；因此，我们有充分理由相信，其他司法管辖区有人会在 Wang女士逃亡时支持她，而且她拥有可用于逃亡的重大资产。\n\n此外，就逃亡风险而言，我还要指出政府在本案中证据的力度。法院面前有一份控诉书，但仅向法院说明：有若干看似全新的 Hermes（爱马仕）钱包和一个大型爱马仕包。\n\n此外，还有我们尚不知道其中包含何物的电子设备，但有多个 TB 硬盘、多个闪存盘。该处还存有一个内装七至八张 SIM 卡的小袋。\n\n鉴于这些情况，以及被告人与众多空壳实体的深度联系、她在美国没有任何身份意义上的社区联系、她与遍及全国和世界各地的大量支持者网络的广泛联系，以及被告人在被控犯罪中的作用。正如我所提到的，她是众多账户的签字人，不仅包括从中转出 $100 million 的账户，而且还是构成 Kwok 或 Guo 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。在某些时期，他在 Upper East Side（上东区）一栋联排别墅内运营其控制的多家公司，该别墅就在 Wang女士公寓附近；有数家不同的所谓企业在同一栋联排别墅内办公，而 Wang女士是指挥中枢。无论是哪一家企业都一样。若有人寻求批准电汇，或批准某项商业决定，他们都会去找她。因此，她是这项数十亿美元欺诈的主要得力助手。\n\n这些就是政府认为居家拘禁并配备 GPS 监控适当的原因。我们还认为，在被告人获释前，必须满足相关条件，并让政府确信条件已获满足，包括财务担保和共同签署担保人。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n接下来我将听取辩护律师的陈述。\n\nCHAUDHRY女士（乔德里女士）：谢谢，法官阁下。我认为政府在其关于逃亡风险的论点中遗漏了一个非常重要的点，即 Wang女士是独特的。她不仅是一名身在美国的中国公民，她还是一名政治难民。无论她就政府在本案中提出的证据将面临什么，若她此生回到中国，她将面临的处境要糟糕得多，这正是她寻求政治庇护的原因。前往中国对她而言不是一个选项。因此，Wang女士此生不存在逃往中国的风险。这是第一点。\n\n第二，在保险箱中发现的这些护照是旧的、已过期的护照。而且，正如政府所承认的，Wang女士是 Miles Kwok 的幕僚长，因此她持有其已过期的护照并不反常，因为她也在处理他们的移民庇护申请。\n\n此外，虽然政府称她确有追随者，但本案，特别是 Kwok先生的案件，将会获得如此多的公众关注，以至于国际刑事警察组织不注意到本案三名高度引人注目的被告人之一越过边境，将是非常不寻常的。她已不再拥有任何旅行证件。\n\n谈到社区联系，Wang女士于 2015 年 4 月离开中国，此后从未回去过。甚至在她父亲去世前也没有回去看望他，也没有回去看望她自己的孩子，而她无法回去看望该孩子。她自 2017 年起一直在纽约，事实上一直在曼哈顿。和许多纽约人一样，她不开车。她自 2020 年起一直居住在她拥有的这套公寓中。\n\n在此之前，她在同一栋楼内租住一套公寓。审前服务机构已致电该楼，并确认她确实住在那里。\n\n她也已提交庇护申请。面谈已经完成。因此，她正在积极寻求不仅让美国政府知道她在这里，也让美国政府允许她留下。她不是会冒险去任何中国能够再次控制她的地方的人。\n\n对 Wang女士进行 GPS 监控将向政府和法院保证，我们知道她在哪里。这种监控用于全国各地的被告人。它极其有效。我曾有客户在本地区面临指控，他们居住在全国各地，也面临类似指控，而这已足以让他们——让他们——抱歉——确保他们返回法庭。\n\n我认为，这是审前服务机构能够——希望能够在她离开前今天完成的事情。\n\n我们乐意同意其余条件，但我们认为，今天让她获释很容易做到，无需法院真正担心再也见不到她。而且，我们认为政府要求居家限制也没有必要，鉴于 GPS 定位监控的有效性。\n\n在纽约南区和东区的旅行限制下，我们都应能知晓 Wang女士的下落。此外，她无意前往任何地方。她知道政府一直在调查她，SEC（美国证券交易委员会）也已调查了一段时间，但她没有逃亡。她也无意逃亡。因此，基于该理由，我们会同意所有这些条件，但提出这两项变更请求；我们请求有十天时间满足其余条件，但今天凭 Wang女士本人签字将其释放。\n\n法庭：那么，你不反对电子脚环，你反对居家拘禁？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士：正确。\n\n法庭：并且反对在条件满足前继续羁押 Wang女士。\n\nCHAUDHRY女士：正是如此。\n\n法庭：你们有财务担保人吗？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士：我们正在安排。政府已同意在未来一两天内与我们沟通，以寻找他们——我们提出了一些尚不可接受的人选。我们会找到可接受的人选。\n\n法庭：Wang女士的公寓价值是多少？如果有人——你们——任何一方是否知道？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士：购买价格略高于 $1 million。没有抵押贷款。那是在 2020 年。它位于 Upper East Side 一栋理想的建筑内，因此我假定它目前至少值这么多。\n\n法庭：政府有何回应意见？\n\nMURRAY女士（默里女士）：有，谢谢，法官阁下。简要说几点。\n\n第一，关于 Chaudhry女士所说的 Wang女士因其在此申请政治庇护者的身份所面临的危险，而近期不会前往中国这一点，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。在本案中，以及就 Wang女士可进入的银行账户、资金和实体而言，存在与 UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国）的联系，包括就在数天前，参与这些实体及该欺诈计划的人员在 Dubai（迪拜）和 UAE 的非常近期活动。\n\n因此，保险箱中的过期护照，一个人不需要护照也可以逃往某个地方，然后在该地寻求庇护。因此，我们指出，我们认为存在重大逃亡风险，而 Wang女士与中国的关系并不能减轻该风险，尤其鉴于她与其他司法管辖区的联系，包括不轻易、甚至根本不向美国引渡的其他司法管辖区。\n\n还有几点。$130,000 现金，这看起来像一笔紧急逃亡资金。手头持有如此大量现金，向我们表明，即使撇开她控制和可进入的银行账户，以及她控制和可进入的实体不谈，她出于某种原因一直将现金存放在其公寓的保险箱中。这令我们对其潜在逃亡动机以及随时逃亡的能力深感担忧。\n\n关于定位监控，即 GPS 脚环与由 GPS 监控强化的居家拘禁，我理解 Chaudhry女士的观点，但脚环相对容易剪断。\n\nAMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE - 631.334.1445\n\n我理解大多数人通常会遵守条件。我们在此的担忧是，某人在其公寓内拥有所有这些现金，可能还有她可进入的其他地点，那里存放着可帮助其逃亡的资产。她可以剪断脚环。这也是为什么，法官阁下，在 Wang女士获释前，我们必须落实双方同意的保释担保条件，包括财务条件，如此重要，以便我们能够确信，知道本案实际将提供什么作为保释担保，并且若 Wang女士逃亡，我们会知道将采取何种控制措施。\n\n最后，就辩护律师向我们提出的共同签署担保人而言，我们非常乐意与辩护律师合作，寻找符合要求的共同签署担保人，即她提出的、在财务上负责的人士。\n\n今天有两人被指称曾参与该欺诈案。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士（乔德里女士）：是的，法官阁下，仅就 $138,000 现金而言。事实上，我认为由于 GTV 案件已获得一些关注，公众已经知晓，不少团体，无论是国家还是公司，均已在此事上采取政治立场，其中包括关闭 Wang女士（王女士）银行账户的多家银行，这也是她最终在保险箱中存放大量现金的原因。她已使用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）或其他银行——它们只是关闭她的账户，并要求她取走资金。因此，这是她持有现金的原因之一。\n\n第二，政府完全推测性地声称，她可能在其他存有现金、可供她前往的地点有现金，这仅仅是推测而已。他们已对此调查很长时间。他们并未向法庭指出其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拥有追随者、能够——\n\n由定位监控技术执行的居家拘禁\n\n依审前服务机构（Pretrial Services）指示执行。被告人应向审前服务机构及美国联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）披露所有资产，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（郭先生）、Je先生或其他共同谋划人接触。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。她应居住于 188 East 64th Street 的住所，未经审前服务机构许可不得迁居。未经审前服务机构事先批准，被告人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（默里女士）：法官阁下，如可，我仅想澄清一项条件。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nMURRAY女士：关于以定位监控加强居家拘禁，我们请求以 GPS 定位监控加以加强，以便——我理解定位监控\n\n监控会在被告人离开或\n\n返回时发出通知。我们也希望知道她离开时前往何处。\n\n法庭：是的，我将——我也会命令使用 GPS，但如果审前服务机构认为适当，定位监控亦可包括在家中——即住所内——进行独立监控，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，我假定你终将在某个时候满足这些条件；一旦满足且获释后，我需要警告你，未按要求出庭可能会产生严重后果。\n\n如你违反任何释放条件，将签发逮捕令逮捕你。你以及任何签署保证书的人，均须各自负责支付保证书的全部金额。你可能被控另一项保释逃避罪，这可能意味着额外监禁刑和罚金。\n\n此外，如你在获释期间实施任何新的罪行，除该罪行规定的刑罚外，你还将——\n\nAMM TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE（AMM速记服务） - 631.334.1445\n\n如属重罪，被判处不超过十年的额外监禁刑；如属轻罪，被判处不超过一年的额外监禁刑。该监禁刑期将在任何其他监禁刑期执行完毕后执行。\n\n在候审期间，我还必须警告你，不得与潜在或指定的证人或陪审员接触，亦不得对其实施任何恐吓；不得对任何法院工作人员实施任何恐吓；不得实施任何妨碍执法部门调查的行为。\n\n我应将初步听证会定于何日？\n\n辩护律师，你们是否愿意放弃初步听证会的第 30 日期限？你们要第 14 日吗？\n\nCHAUDHRY女士：第 14 日。\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 TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE（AMM速记服务） - 631 334 1445\n\n请告知我们。好吗？\n\n被告人：明白。\n\n法庭：好的。为准备本次程序，我已审阅大约两周前、也可能是一周前，即被告人首次到庭时编制的审前服务报告。我还持有 March 15 被告人在 Parker法官（帕克法官）面前出庭时的庭审记录，并已审阅。\n\n我理解 Parker法官为被告人设定了释放条件，并要求在其获释前满足该等条件。我也理解，我们今天可能是为进行 Nebbia 听证会而到庭。没有人向我提交其他材料，因此除我刚才与你们分享的内容外，我不了解其他情况。\n\nMURRAY女士：是的，法官阁下。因此，我们昨晚，即昨日下午，接到辩护律师来电。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，并已面谈四人，但尚未达到我们批准两名共同签署人的阶段。\n\n因此，昨晚辩方告知我们，他们希望进行其所称的 Nebbia 听证会。我理解辩方原计划连夜向法庭提交某些材料，但我们刚刚通知了提审部门，并安排将被告人带来。因此，今天他们希望涵盖什么内容，我交由辩方决定。\n\n法庭：好的。能否请你把麦克风——\n\nLIPMAN先生（利普曼先生）：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，依我们看法，政府不合理地拒绝批准我们提出的共同签署人。因此，如政府所述，我们向他们提供了五个以上姓名，大约是九个姓名；他们持有五人的文件，面谈了四人，并拒绝了所有人。\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选，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，如允许我先作初步说明，鉴于法官阁下已审阅——\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听取保释辩论并设定保释条件的同事法官。因此，如果你要求我这样做，我不确定我愿意这样做。如果你要求我依法律审查所提担保人的合理性，我理解我可以这样做。\n\n我不知道该审查标准是什么，也没有任何姓名或文件，因此我不知道自己是否能够在法官席上处理此事。\n\nLIPMAN先生：法官阁下，请允许我说明一下背景，这或许会有帮助。\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。她是反对中国共产党的一个运动的一部分。该运动规模相当大。由于她作为该运动中非常资深成员的参与，她无法返回中国。如果返回，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。她失去了她的家人于——\n\n该运动？\n\nLIPMAN先生：她所做的是工作，然后回家，再然后工作。在这整个期间，她的全部生活一直是在她的公寓与工作地点之间往返。她实际上——答案是，她的整个世界都是人们——这个——这个社群中的人们。我们确有一人，是美国一名非常知名的人士，他不属于该群体——不是中国人——并自愿以价值 two and a half million dollars 的房产为她的保证书提供担保。\n\n我们提议，如他以其房产中的 two and a half million dollars 提供担保，而她就其公寓承认判决，这就是 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，我想说，其中约有 400,000 至 500,000 dollars。\n\n我们提议将所有这些合并为保证书的 $4 million 担保，然后由政府批准他们已面谈的人选，但他们拒绝了。因此，我们现在处于这样一个境地：他们不批准我们——\n\n就我所知，他们对已面谈的三人没有任何异议，就我所知。他们不批准这些人。\n\n首先，他们告诉我们，不批准这些人是因为他们没有足够资产。好的？于是我们随后进行了交谈，他们说，另一个问题是他们与她关系过远。他们对她没有道德约束力。但他们认为自己有，这就是他们这么做的原因。\n\n顺便说一下，法官阁下，即使他们没有 $5 million 来支持该保证书，他们也是经济上负责任的人。如果保证书——如果她未履行保证书义务，他们将破产。其中一人是律师。我们还提出另一名律师，他是——他是——我们提供了其姓名。他们没有进一步调查，因为他们立即告诉我们他不合适。\n\n但我们提出了一名 IT 专业人员——如我记忆无误，我想是两名 IT 专业人员。\n\n法庭：哪两种专业人员？\n\nLIPMAN先生：IT。\n\n法庭：IT。\n\nLIPMAN先生：我们提出——他们面谈了其中一名律师。他现在不富有，但他确实——\n\n人，其次，他们是否对被告人具有道德约束力。\n\n法庭：但为何对某人是否为经济上负责任之人的评估，不应包括“负责任”这一部分？也就是说，例如，如果你提出的律师，依政府看来，至少在某种程度上参与了该欺诈案，那么即使该人拥有资产，依政府看来，该人也不是负责任的人。\n\nLIPMAN先生：嗯，该人——\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，无论政府认为他做了或没做什么，他都要对 $5 million 承担责任。而经济上负责任之人的概念是一个颇有意思的问题。他们拒绝的那些人——他们面谈了三人，其中一人为律师，两人——我认为两人均为 IT 专业人员。他们对这些问题——对这些人没有异议。\n\n他们对我们所说的是，这些人没有足够资产。嗯，你知道吗？他们\n\n2　没有足够的资产。但如果王女士（Ms. Wang）不履行保释保证，他们将陷入严重的财务困境。而且他们明白这一点。\n5　法庭：对。除非他们逃跑。\n6　利普曼先生（Mr. Lipman）：但没有——他们甚至没有这样主张。他们与她或主要被告完全没有关系。我的意思是，他们是认识她并愿意为她共同签署保释保证的人，但就连政府也没有声称他们存在任何问题，即他们会逃跑或诸如此类。其一是一名在芝加哥执业的律师。他不会去任何地方，法官阁下。他赚的钱并不多，但他不会去任何地方。\n16　其中一人是一名信息技术专业人士，实际上并非华人，并且愿意共同签署保释保证。再说一次，他不是富人，但如果王女士不履行保释保证，他的财务生活将被毁掉。而且他明白这一点，并且\n\n一名为郭先生（Mr. Guo）工作的人作为共同签署人。我们问过他们。有些人——她曾是该组织的高级人员。她与若干高级人员有过接触。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。\n不，不，不，因为他们参与了欺诈，或者他们参与了该运动，或者他们参与了这个、参与了那个。\n那么，我们该怎么办？我们找到了他们面谈过的三个人，他们在财务上有责任能力、愿意签署，而且甚至——他们并未声称这些人参与欺骗任何人。\n默里女士（Ms. Murray）：法官阁下，如果我可以就该点作简短回应。我确实想指出，我认为目前在程序上或法律上均不存在可由法庭审理的问题。而且我不认为利普曼先生提出的第一项救济适当，即由法庭强迫政府批准共同签署人。这不是法律标准。\n利普曼先生刚才提到的三人，我想指出，尽管我们表示可以认可他们在财务上具有责任能力，但这三人均为受害人。\n\n他们知道她是谁。他们了解相关指控。\n其中一人明确要求我在他同意这样做之前把起诉状发送给他，我照做了。他花时间审阅了起诉状，然后才允许我联系政府。好吗？\n所以他们知道自己在做什么。他们明白政府将他们作为受害人。他们准备签署。\n法庭：好的。我倾向于同意默里女士的意见，即法庭面前不存在争议。我当然不会指示我根本不认识的人——我甚至还没有得到姓名，更不用说任何信息。我不会指示政府接受这些来历不明的无名氏作为保证人。事情不是这样运作的。而且我不认为已经过去了足以证明重新审查帕克法官（Judge Parker）保释条件正当的时间。\n我想做的是，首先指示您，利普曼先生。听起来，就这名拥有他们可能用来提供担保的财产的人而言，您尚未向政府提供全部具体信息。您知道，他们需要做自己的工作。我相信默里女士所言，即他们并未拖延此事。他们正在尽一切努力\n\n改变。首先，曾有一种理解，一种明确的理解——我一开始就告诉他们，听着，没有姐妹。没有兄弟。没有姨母。好吗？将会是其他人。\n他们说：“好；我们明白。”\n所以我们给了他们姓名。这些人不够富有。好吗。现在他们告诉您，他们也没有道德约束力。那么，当我第一次给您这些姓名时，您就已经知道这一点。我觉得我们毫无进展，因为情况在变化。我认为他们正在故意让她继续被关押，以便向她施压，让她成为他们的朋友，法官阁下。我认为这才是这里真正发生的事情。\n星期五。我们将在星期五提交，还是在星期五提出？\n乔德里女士（Ms. Chaudhry）：我们将在星期五提交。\n利普曼先生：我们可以在星期五提交，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。\n利普曼先生：而且，法官阁下，我们将继续与他们合作，但至少，如果法庭至少能够\n\n告诫他们与我们善意合作，这将对我们有帮助。\n法庭：我不会告诫他们，因为我不认为他们没有与你们善意合作。因此，我乐于收到你们的申请。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——而且我确实不需要深入探究来弄清这里谁对谁错——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。\n我将指示政府迅速回应这些提议，并对那些人作出善意评估。我不会告诫你们尚未这样做，但这当然是你们的义务，我期待你们这样做。因此，该动议将于星期五提交。\n政府希望何时提交其反对意见？\n弗格森先生（Mr. Fergenson）：在不知道该动议将会是什么样子的情况下，法官阁下，这有点难说。\n法庭：如果你们提交它，怎么样\n\n共122页","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":31148,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-10-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-10-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:37:12"}