{"id":"court_ctb_2292_88","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2292,"sub_number":88,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-10-26","title":"Exhibit 88 |","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"### **Exhibit 88**\n\n| | Case 22-50073 888:2392661 9518872872515ERiéred 167862396148:12 Page 2 of | | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | దరి
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT | | | | | | |\n| Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500 | | | | | | | |\n| MOTION INFORMATION STATIBMIBAT | | | | | | | |\n| Docket Number(s): 23-6421 | Caption use short title | | | | | | |\n| Motion for: Relief from the District Court's April 20, 2023 | | | | | | | |\n| Order Denying Release Pending Trial | United States of America,
Appellee | | | | | | |\n| Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:
The undersigned moves for reversal of the District Court's
Order denying the pre-trial release of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok | V.
Ho Wan Kwok, Defendant-
Appellant | | | | | | |\n| MOVING PARTY: Ho Wan Kwok | OPPOSING PARTY: United States of America | | | | | | |\n| V Defendant
Plaintiff | | | | | | | |\n| Appellant/Petitioner
Appellee/Respondent
MOVING ATTORNEY: Stephen R. Cook | Juliana N. Murray; Micah F. Fergenson;
OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Ryan B. Finkel | | | | | | |\n| [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]
Brown Rudnick LLP | U.S. Dept' of Justice; Criminal Division, SDNY | | | | | | |\n| 2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor | One Saint Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007 | | | | | | |\n| (949) 752-7100; scook@brownrudnick.com | (212) 637-6612/ 2314 / 2190;juliana.murray@usdoj.gov;
micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov; Ryan.Finkel@usdoj.gov | | | | | | |\n| Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: Hon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York | | | | | | | |\n| Please check appropriate boxes:
Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):
Y Yes
No (explain):
ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘ | FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has this request for relief been made below?
Yes
No
Has this relief been previously sought in this court?
Yes
No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency: | | | | | | |\n| Opposing counsel's position on motion:
Unopposed √ Opposed Don't Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
Y Yes No Don't Know | | | | | | | |\n| Is oral argument on motion requested?
Yes V No If yes, enter date:
Has argument date of appeal been set? | Y Yes No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted) | | | | | | |\n| Signature of Moving Attorney: | | | | | | | |\n| Date: 5/5/2023 -------
/s/ Stephen R. Cook | Service by: CM/ECF / Other [Attach proof of service] | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 888:2392661 15/88/2873751EEMered 1678623950:48:12 | Page 3 of 98\n\n# Amited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\n\nNo. 23-6421\n\n+ ()+\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nAppellee,\n\n- V .-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nDefendant-Appellant.\n\nON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n# MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER\n\nDENYING PRE-TRIAL RELEASE\n\nStephen R. Cook BROWN RUDNICK LLP 2211 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 752-7100\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga BROWN RUDNICK LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 209-4800 Counsel for Defendant-Appellant\n\nMay 5, 2023\n\n# Case 22-50073 888:235266 · 9188/2007315Effered 107862396148:12 · Page 4 of\n\n## PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nMr. Kwok is not a flight risk. For years, he has been the target of a campaign by the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") to dismantle the pro-democracy movement that he has led, and to force Mr. Kwok's return to the People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") where he will face politically motivated charges and likely execution. The Court need not take Mr. Kwok's word for this. The United States Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") has recounted the elaborate schemes directed at Mr. Kwok-devised and funded by the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\")-in a series of recent criminal prosecutions that read like spy novels.1\n\nFour things make this case unique:\n\n· The CCP has gone to great lengths to secure Mr. Kwok's repatriation to China by any means necessary-by coercion, force, or act of state. The PRC has issued INTERPOL Red Notices to law enforcement worldwide seeking Mr. Kwok's detention pending extradition to China. Mr. Kwok is a fugitive from the PRC and he is being actively pursued.\n\n1 See generally, Exhibit 1, Ho Wan Kwok's Memorandum in Support of Application for Release on Bail Pending Trial filed March 31, 2023, ECF No. 24 (\"Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum\"); Exhibit 2, Ho Wan Kwok's Supplement to Application for Release on Bail Pending Trial filed April 19, 2023, ECF No. 50 (\"Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum\"; Exhibit 10, Complaint and Affidavit in support of Application for an Arrest Warrant, United States v. Jin, Case No. 20-MI-1103 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2023) (\"Ex. 10-Jin Complaint and Affidavit\"); Exhibit 11, Complaint and Affidavit in support of Application for an Arrest Warrant, United States v. Yunpeng, Case No. 23-MJ-0334 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2023) (\"Ex. 11-Yunpeng Complaint and Affidavit').\n\n# Case 22-50073 888:2392661 951887287361EERièred 1678613960:48:12 Page 5 of\n\n- · The CCP's campaign against Mr. Kwok explicitly involves spreading disinformation to discredit Mr. Kwok, and to incite and pressure U.S. law enforcement against him. This has been sworn to in an affidavit executed by a FBI Special Agent. There has been an active disinformation campaign against Mr. Kwok for years, and any evidence proffered in this case is due close scrutiny.\n- · In reviewing Mr. Kwok's Bail Application, the District Court was required to \"ensure the reliability of the evidence by selectively insisting upon the production of the underlying evidence or evidentiary sources where their accuracy is in question.\" United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F. 3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). The District Court failed to do so, and instead accepted without scrutiny the Government's vague, misleading, and incorrect proffers of evidence concerning numerous legal and factual issues that may have been material to the District Court's determination.\n- · The Government contends that Mr. Kwok presents a serious risk of flight, obstruction, and danger of economic harm to the community. Mr. K wok disagrees, but nonetheless proposed a set of bail conditions that reasonably address the Government's concerns, and that are \"extraordinary.\" See United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2007). Various combinations of substantially similar conditions have\n\n2\n\n# Case 22-50073 888:2392661 951837287387381515186126786128148:12 Page 6 of\n\nbeen found sufficient to ameliorate the risks of flight, obstruction, and danger presented by other wealthy defendants facing serious criminal fraud charges. For example, courts in this Circuit released Bernard Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried subject to conditions less restrictive than those proposed by Mr. Kwok-even after Mr. Madoff and Mr. Bankman-Fried violated their initial conditions of release. Neither Mr. Madoff nor Mr. Bankman-Fried would have been in the unenviable position of being a wanted fugitive in both the United States and China were they to abscond, and yet the Government was able to agree to reasonable conditions of release. Comparatively speaking, Mr. Kwok is no flight risk at all.\n\nThe District Court was required to evaluate whether the Government met its burden of proving that (1) Mr. Kwok poses a serious danger of flight, obstruction, or danger to the community, and (2) that no condition or combination of conditions of pre-trial release can reasonably mitigate those risks. See Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75. In making this evaluation, the District Court was required to \"ensure the reliability of the evidence by selectively insisting upon the production of the underlying evidence or evidentiary sources where their accuracy is in question.\" LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 131 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It failed to do so, and instead accepted without scrutiny the Government's vague,\n\n# Case 22-50073 888:235266 · 9188728738751511888 · 1678693956148:12 · Page 7 of\n\nmisleading, and incorrect proffers of evidence to deny Mr. Kwok's Application for Bail. Ensuring the reliability of the evidence proffered by the Government was particularly important here, where the Defendant is the victim of a welldocumented disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting him and subjecting him to criminal prosecution.\n\nThis Court must reverse.\n\n## JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT2\n\nDefendant Ho Wan Kwok appeals from an order entered on April 20, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, by United States District Judge Analisa Torres, detaining the Defendant before trial. [Ex. 8, Order Denying Pretrial Release (\"Order\"), ECF No. 51.] This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Defendant-Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on May 4, 2023. [Exhibit 15, Notice of Appeal filed on May 4, 2023, ECF No. 62.]\n\n## RELEVANT BACKGROUND\n\nMr. Kwok, a persistent and outspoken critic of the CCP, emigrated to the United States in 2015 and applied for political asylum two years later. [Exhibit 1, Ho Wan Kwok's Memorandum in Support of Application for Release on Bail Pending Trial filed March 31, 2023, ECF No. 24 (\"Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum\") at\n\n2 Defendant-Appellant requests oral argument.\n\n### -\n- Case: 23-6421 , 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 7 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 8 of 98\n\np. 7-9]. Mr. Kwok's personal and professional life are detailed in Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Application for Release on Bail Pending Trial, filed in the lower court on March 31, 2023, and will not be repeated at length here. *[Id.* at p. 5-11].\n\n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s perhaps *the* most prominent and globally recognized leader of the anti-CCP and Chinese pro-democracy movement, Mr. Kwok has been subjected to a relentless barrage of threats, harassment, surveillance, and electronic hacking attempts since at least 2017. [Exhibit 2, Ho Wan Kwok's Supplement to Application for Release on Bail Pending Trial filed April 19, 2023, ECF No. 50 (\"Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum\") at p. 2.] These schemes reveal three apparent objectives: to spread malicious misinformation discrediting Mr. Kwok in the United States, China, and abroad; to use the U.S. civil and criminal legal system as a lever to pressure Mr. Kwok's return to China; and to force Mr. Kwok's extradition from the United States.\n\n-\\_`abcdebfbcghija`kl mn olp]q BCBAYWXQRHC r2-K(5/.2-3.-081120.L23XY?QR@2D23HH?K(5/.2-3.-0 81120.L232-+6(%3(18/29.32(-1(%.-8%%,+3T.%%.-3?stuNvwxNPNvyz{ The CCP's objectives are laid bare in in two criminal complaints unsealed just last month in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [ *See* Exhibit 10, Complaint and Affidavit in support of Application for an Arrest Warrant, *United States v. Jin,* Case No. 20-MJ-1103 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2023) (\"Ex. 10-Jin Complaint and Affidavit\"); Exhibit 11, Complaint and Affidavit in support of Application for an Arrest Warrant, *United States v.*\n\n> 5\n\n#### -\n- Case: 23-6421 , 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 8 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 9 of 98\n\n !\" #\\$-% &' (%)\\*+ ,(-.00 )/+ 12345678968:;<<7:6=79>?@AB89CDEDF6EDEG9CDH@I@;992J8DKLEM<<7FD<2J9CD N6E9DJ8O7E9J7F92 · On November 18, 2018, former DOJ attorney George Higginbotham pleaded guilty to conspiracy to make false statements to a bank about the source and purpose of millions of dollars sent from overseas to finance an unregistered lobbying campaign on behalf of foreign interests. [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at p. 10, fn. 11; Ex 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum p. at 2.] One purpose of the lobbying campaign \"was an attempt to persuade high-level U.S. government officials to have [Mr. Kwok], who was residing in the United States on a temporary visa at the time, removed from the\n\n> > 8\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS 228236 059126286726726728222920148.12 Page 12\n\nUnited States and sent back to his country of origin.\" [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at p. 10, fn. 11.]\n\n- · On October 6, 2020, former Republican National Committee chair Elliott Broidy was charged with conspiracy to serve as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, in connection with the 2017-2018 scheme. [Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum at p. 2.] Broidy pleaded guilty on October 20, 2020. [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at p. 10, fn. 10.]\n- · On August 31, 2020, American businesswoman Nickie Lum Davis, pleaded guilty for her role in facilitating the 2017-2018 scheme. [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at p. 10.]\n- · Prakazrel Michel, best known as part of the 90s hip-hop group the Fugees, was convicted on April 26, 2023 on charges related to the unregistered back-channel lobbying campaign aimed, in part, at seeking Mr. Kwok's extradition to China. [U.S. DEP'T OF JUST., U.S. ENTERTAINER CONVICTED OF ENGAGING IN FOREIGN INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN (Apr. 26, 2023) http ] He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. [Id.]\n\n### -\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 12 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 13 of 98\n\nThere can be no doubt that the CCP is intent on securing Mr. Kwok's return to the PRC.\n\n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`a]\\_bccdefgYhci\\_j . /01%21\",\" ,(&\"#&\" \"+-#&%#.\" !PkAHIH@%#\"#69#7!%'#( +#&+!(8#(!\" -+#-1+ < \"'&A,!' +(+,< \"'&A\"#&8%#T6\"'#& +#-/=>?/G @LPkLH@F \"+-#8#( \"#,/A>l/P C\"+6.8% \"#&'8\"(@A>l/k ;'B ,&+#- 5#&+!(8#(R\"(,\"8&\"TA(m%9 #8#(,'\\$8+((&\"6(( \\$ +<,2+#-. / It is also well-documented that the CCP has used civil litigation in the United States as a lever to discredit Mr. Kwok and force his return to China. [Exhibit 3, Transcript of Bail Proceedings held as to Ho Wan Kwok on April 4, 2023 (\"Ex. 3---4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans.\") at 29:03-17.] In July 2000, the Wall Street Journal published an article, \"China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts\" that reports how \"Beijing is turning to lawsuits to pressure expatriates to return home and face corruption charges as an end run around U.S. law.\" [Id.] Mr. Kwok knows this all too well-the civil litigation that ultimately led to his bankruptcy filing was instigated and financed by the CCP. [Id.]\n\n## **SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW**\n\n01%23,B ( +\"6&(#(+%#A!%#(#&+#-(\"(. /01%2B%,,\",+-#+<+!\"#( +,2%< <6+-(\"#&%<&\"#- (%(!%88'#+(T/=>?+\\$+(nA:#+(&;(\"(,3.\" !PkAHIH@ o(( C +< OV(#(+%#A>)WU%/QJK>?/n V(#(+%#.8% \"#&'8KM\"(PR/ p#.\" !@PAHIH@A. /01%2<+6&+,FBB6+!\"(+%#<% 46\",%#C\"+6\\*#&+#- PI Mr. Kwok was arrested and arraigned on March 15, 2023 on an eleven-count indictment charging wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering. [Ex. 4- 3/15/23 Arraignment Trans.; Ex. I-Bail Memorandum at 3; Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment.] That same day, the Government submitted a letter brief seeking Mr. Kwok's pretrial detention, contending that Mr. Kwok poses a significant risk of flight and of danger to the community. [Exhibit 6, United States' March 15, 2023 Letter Brief re: Detention, ECF No. 7 (\"Ex. 6-Detention Memorandum\") at l]. On March 31 , 2023, Mr. Kwok filed his Application for Release on Bail Pending\n\n#### -\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 13 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 14 of 98\n\n !\"#\\$%%!& '()\\*(+ !#,-./'')0\\*('1'1/\\* &'. )2&&34.' )&/.&(3)./!)0 1./!/ ./- )2%(%(.)0 (53.'5 !% &6 0/789:7; + !(?/)4/)'\\*!/2'.(%%(.'()()\\$%!@-ABA@789:15'C >(?/)4/)'D. E%%(.'()'(F(G )HI(6D.(?/)4/)'1 24/''.532/)(\\*.1(I)05Ta %/%()2/ )&/(\\*'1//?2/)&/'1 '<7HI(6%/./)'. ./(3..6(\\*\\*!01' )2 (5.'3&'()- )25T&!/ )2&()?)&)0/?2/)&/'1 '<7HI(6%(./. .6(\\* /&()(4&1 4'('1/&(443)'T- )2&()&!32)0'1 ')(&()2'()(./'(\\* ;; On April 19, 2023, Mr. Kwok submitted to the District Court a letter supplementing his Application for Bail with additional information requested by the District Court and providing new information concerning the recently charged, PRC-directed scheme to discredit Mr. Kwok and incite U.S. law enforcement action against him, detailed on pages 5-8, *supra.* [Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum.] The next day, on April 20, 2020, the District Court issued its opinion denying Mr. Kwok's Application for Bail (referred to herein as the \"Opinion\"), finding that the Government had met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Kwok presents a serious risk of flight and obstruction, and by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok poses a risk of economic harm to the community, and concluding that no condition or set of\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328236 05912628655 PERieled R896723 96048.12 Page 15\n\nconditions would ensure Mr. Kwok's return to court or the safety of the community. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 5-12.]\n\n## STANDARD OF REVIEW\n\nThis Court reviews de novo the District Court's judgment with respect to conclusions of law. See United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 317 (2d Cir. 2004). The factual findings underlying those conclusions are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011). Although this Court's review is deferential, it is guided by a presumption in favor of release and the principle that bail may be denied only in a \"rare case of extreme and unusual circumstances.\" See United States v. Berrios-Berrios, 791 F.2d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 1986). Because the district court's \"determination of the viability of alternatives to detention must be, in every case, a mixed question of fact and law . . . [s]uch questions are subject to flexible appellate review.\" Id.\n\n## ARGUMENT\n\nThe Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq., codifies the Eighth Amendment's guarantee of bail, requiring district courts to order the pre-trial release of the defendant \"unless the judicial officer determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.\" United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)); Sabhnani,\n\n12\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328238 0591262865 PERIERIERA R898625 20:48:12 | Page 16\n\n493 F.3d at 78 (noting that even where a court determines that a defendant poses a flight risk, there remains a statutory presumption in favor of the defendant's release \"unless the government demonstrates that no conditions of release can be imposed to assure the defendant's appearance in court\").\n\nThe trial court's analysis is therefore twofold. First, the court must determine whether the Government has met its burden and established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant \"presents a risk of flight or obstruction of justice.\" United States v. Madoff, 586 F.Supp.2d 240, 247 (2d Cir. 2009). If the court finds that the Government has met this initial burden, the court must then evaluate whether there are reasonable conditions of release that can ameliorate the risk. Id .; see also Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75.\n\nIn determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community, courts evaluate four factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to the community posed by the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); Boustani, 932 F.3d at 81. \"An order of detention based on the safety of other persons and the community must rest on a finding supported by clear and convincing evidence,\" United States v. Stein, No. S1 05 Crim. 0888 (LAK), 2005 WL 8157371, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.\n\n13\n\n# Case 22-500738882328338 05956726262655\"1\"hillieled R89612396148.12 | Page 17\n\n14, 2005), while detention based on the defendant's perceived flight risk must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See Boustani, 932 F.3d at 81; Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75.\n\n# I. The District Court Made an Error of Law Regarding the Effect of Pending Criminal Charges on Mr. Kwok's Ability to Legally Remain in the U.S.\n\nBased on no more than the Government's conclusory arguments, the District Court improperly adjudicated the impact of pending criminal charges on Mr. Kwok's eligibility to remain in the United States. In the Opinion, the District Court found that if Mr. Kwok's asylum \"application is denied, he will no longer be legally present in the United States\" and that \"the charges in this case may be grounds for denial of Defendant's asylum application.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 5.] The District Court repeated this assertion later, opining that \"the charges in this case seriously undermine Defendant's eligibility for asylum.\" [Id. at 7.] The District Court's reasoning here is properly subject to clear error reversal for at least two separate reasons.\n\nFirst, while in some cases, a conviction for a criminal offense that occurred in the United States may have an effect on an asylum application, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)-(B); 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(6), the mere filing of criminal chargeswithout a further evidentiary showing by the Government-does not serve as a statutory bar to a grant of asylum. [See Ex. 6-Detention Memorandum at 2.] The\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS 228236 059126286726726726123 20:48:12 Page 18\n\nDistrict Court's bare assertion that \"the charges in this case may be grounds for denial of Defendant's asylum application\" is a misstatement of law. With only a single inapplicable exception,3 the asylum statute and its associated regulations, in accordance with principles of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, require that the government prove that a defendant is guilty before secondary consequences, such as denial of asylum, become mandatory. But even if Mr. Kwok's application were denied, as set forth below, Mr. Kwok will not necessarily be removed from the United States.\n\nThe initial denial of a pending asylum application does not necessarily terminate an alien's legal right to be present in the United States. Rather, the initial denial of an asylum application is just the first in a series of legal steps whereby an alien may be afforded the opportunity to challenge an asylum determination or deportation order while lawfully remaining in the United States. See, e.g., Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 425 (2009) (noting parties' agreement that the court of appeals considering a petition for review of a removal order may prevent that order from taking effect and therefore block removal while adjudicating the petition). Mr. Kwok raised this issue to the District Court below, citing potential appeals\n\nS See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(6) (providing asylum ineligibility for an alien who \"has been convicted\" of certain crimes or when an asylum officer \"knows or has reason to believe that the alien has engaged ... in acts of battery or extreme cruelty as defined in 8 C.F.R. 204.2(c)(1)\").\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS 228236 059126262626265 Ehilêrea Royal 23 20:48:12 | Page 19\n\nunder the Convention Against Torture (\"CAT\"), which the District Court summarily dismissed as \"speculative\" in a footnote. [See Ex. 8-Opinion at 7, fn. 2. | Importantly, in light of the CCP's serious persecution of Mr. Kwok, both in the PRC and abroad, a successful CAT application is probable. Furthermore, alternative routes and appeals exist that would readily allow for Mr. Kwok to remain in the United States while adjudication of these claims is ongoing. For example, should the Department of Homeland Security-United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (\"DHS-USCIS\") deny Mr. Kwok's asylum application, he would have the ability to appeal the order denying asylum status.\n\nIn any case, it was improper for the District Court to rely upon Mr. Kwok's immigration status as a factor weighing in favor of his pre-trial detention. As the Tenth Circuit noted, \"although Congress established a rebuttable presumption that certain defendants should be detained, it did not include removable aliens on that list.\" See United States v. Ailon-Ailon, 875 F.3d 1334, 1338 (10th Cir. 2017).\n\nMr. Kwok also seeks reversal because of the potential that the District Court's reliance on the Government's misstatement of the law could unjustly affect Mr. Kwok's pending application for asylum. To the extent that the DHS-USCIS is following Mr. Kwok's case, the District Court's Order has the potential to misinform and misdirect that tribunal regarding the proper impact the pending criminal charges may have on Mr. Kwok's application for asylum. Allowing the\n\n16\n\n# Case 22-500738882228236 059562882655118618 1892612396148.12 . Page 20\n\nOrder to stand in its current form risks unjustly prejudicing Mr. Kwok's application.\n\nThe District Court erred as a matter of law and this Court must reverse.\n\n# II. The District Court Committed Reversible Error in Relying Upon the Government's Vague and Misleading Proffer Without Reference to the Substantial Countervailing Evidence Presented by Mr. Kwok\n\nThe law in this Circuit is clear: while \"it would [not] be an abuse of\n\ndiscretion for the district court to permit the government to proceed by proffer alone,\" United States v. Davis, 845 F.2d 412, 415 (2d Cir. 1988), \"[a]n order of detention based on the safety of other persons and the community must rest on a finding supported by clear and convincing evidence.\" United States v. Stein, No. S1 05 Crim. 0888 (LAK), 2005 WL 8157371, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005). The district judge must \"ensure the reliability of the evidence, \"by selectively insisting upon the production of the underlying evidence or evidentiary sources where their accuracy is in question.\"\" LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 131 (quoting United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1147 (2d Cir. 1986)). It is not sufficient for the Government's proffer to simply state in conclusory terms what it hopes to prove, and the District Court was required to look deeper.\n\nThe District Court's obligation to put the Government to its proof was critical here-the DOJ itself has proclaimed Mr. Kwok to be \"Victim-1\" in a campaign by the CCP to spread disinformation to discredit Mr. Kwok and to incite\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328238 05912628655 Ehilêrea R898623 20:48:12 | Page 21\n\nU.S. law enforcement action against him. The District Court clearly erred by accepting the Government's vague and misleading proffer, without reference to the substantial countervailing evidence presented by Mr. Kwok, in connection with the following inaccurate findings of fact material to the District Court's order of detention:\n\n### i. The Passports\n\nThe District Court wholesale adopted the Government's unsupported contention that the \"[d]efendant is able to obtain travel documents with ease,\" (Ex. 8-Opinion at 6) but the Government's own filing fails to provide sufficient or adequate support for this proposition. The District Court correctly notes that law enforcement officials confiscated the passports recovered during a March 15, 2023 search, and Mr. Kwok previously surrendered his passport from the UAE, but nonetheless reaches the flawed conclusion that because Mr. Kwok previously had travel documents \"it is clear that [he] is able to obtain travel documents with ease,\" further stating without any factual support that \"a clever defendant with sufficient resources could figure out a way to leave the country without travel documents.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] Of course, even if that conclusory statement could be credited, it would apply to innumerable defendants, nearly all of whom have been granted bail.\n\n# Case 22-50073 SBS: 328238 059582888850 Enieliele R898623 960.12 - Page 22\n\nImportantly, the Government has not demonstrated that Mr. Kwok currently possesses any travel documents, and the District Court's summary conclusion that Mr. Kwok does possess travel documents is clearly erroneous. The Government has seized Mr. Kwok's Hong Kong passport, and it is currently inaccessible to him. [Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum at 1.] The Government also seized a Vanuatu passport that was expired, and in any event, is no longer accessible to Mr. Kwok. [Id.] Finally, Mr. Kwok submitted the sworn testimony of his immigration counsel attesting that, as part of Mr. Kwok's asylum application process, his UAE citizenship had been renounced and his UAE passport surrendered to officials of that country. [Id. at 2.] The only evidence proffered by the Government and cited by the District Court in support of the contention that Mr. Kwok has (or ever had) any additional travel documents is the purported transcript of an April 4, 2017 media interview, translated from Mandarin to English and filed in connection with nuisance litigation brought against Mr. Kwok by a Chinese conglomerate with ties to the CCP. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] Even, assuming arguendo, that Mr. Kwok had access to travel documents, the problem of Mr. Kwok being a wanted fugitive in both the United States and China would remain-Mr. Kwok simply isn't a flight risk.\n\n### ii. The Yacht\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328238 059126262635 PERieled R892622920148:12 Page 23\n\nThe District Court improperly accepted the Government's proffer that Mr. Kwok has the means to escape because he purportedly \"has access to a yacht.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] As set forth in evidence submitted by the Government to the Court, on March 27 and March 31, 2023, the bankruptcy court ordered that ownership of the \"Lady May,\" and \"Lady May II,\" be transferred to Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Bankruptcy Estate\"). [Ex. 7-Opposition to Bail Memorandum at Exhibit G.] To the extent he ever did, Mr. Kwok clearly has no access to these assets now because they are in the custody of the Trustee.\n\n### iii. The Jet\n\nThe District Court incorrectly relied on the Government's misleading contention that Mr. Kwok has access to a jet. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] This argument is especially misleading. The Government knows that the \"jet\" in question is a Cirrus SF50-a small, single engine aircraft with an average range of 950 miles and a maximum range of 1,275 miles4-located in the United Kingdom. [See Ex. 7-Opposition to Bail Memorandum at 21.] It is implausible to suggest that an aircraft located in the United Kingdom-an aircraft that could not make it halfway across the Atlantic Ocean-could offer Mr. Kwok a means to abscond from New York.\n\n4 http\n\n### -\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 23 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 24 of 98\n\n## 1v. *Mr. Kwok's Family*\n\n !\"#\\$%&'()\\*+,-. /0123456478954:;8<41;401=815>?1>4@3A8B6:AAC:>;D:649:AAC >680151>4:5B9?1>440:4E5FG8H@3I>61>414851?:>>401J>41;K4:413;91 4803;:9B0415@3<5131>6134:>4:?89>44803>61>4148DA1148401J>41; F>B;8?LG01510338>513;13IMNOP Q<>8>:4RS/033>8>31>36:A :3\\* D9B41D58?401J>41;K4:413LE5FG8HG89A;T16948DDD58?U%VW%XW,( YW,-Z![\\\\*\\ZW,(\\$,X[\"E5FG8H@338>3D5114845:1AD58?401J>41;F>B;8?L 401513<5131>4AC>8T:5480?34>BE5FG8H>401J>41;K4:413/013:?1 6:>>84T13:;8DE5FG8H@3GD1:>;;:9B0415G0851]951:94085^:48>48 45:1A8943;18D401J>41;K4:413G0A14015:<3D85:3CA9?:51<1>;>B \\_DE5FG8HG15148DA11L43AH1AC40:401G89A;>11531103GD1:>;;:9B0415 :B:>\\_43>844016:3140:4E5FG8HGAA>115:B:>3110338>D0134:C3>401 The District Court adopted the Government's logically and factually incoherent argument that Mr. Kwok's \"incentive to remain in the United States due to his daughter's presence is tantamount to his incentive to flee to the United Kingdom, where his son resides.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 5.] This is nonsensical-as a fugitive from the United States, Mr. Kwok would be cut off from *both of his children and his wife.* Mr. Kwok's son is free to travel from the United Kingdom; there is presently no bar to him visiting Mr. Kwok in the United States. The same cannot be said of Mr. Kwok's wife and daughter who require authorization to travel outside of the United States while their applications for asylum are pending. If Mr. Kwok were to flee, it is likely that he would never see his wife and daughter again. It is *not* the case that Mr. Kwok will never again see his son if he stays in the United States to defend himself.\n\n## v. *Mr. Kwok's Personal Characteristics*\n\nJ>41;K4:41348;1D1>;0?31AD `a !\"#\\$%&'(b[!(%\\\\*-cW\\*!\\*YV[!,(V,Y( /01=815>?1>4:>;40123456478954T840?:H1?9608DE5FG8H@3 ??B5:48>34:493L03<15611;513895613L:>;03<95<8541;?84148DA11/01 3?8G>40:4013:4:5B148D:D1;15:A65?>:A >134B:48>D85401T14415<:548D:C1:5\\*\\ZdedfghijkklMNOm nopRoqn r55:B>?1>4/5:>3:4qpsptuqpSv1;;>84DA11>w9>1qxqxLG01>I;8?1346 T:>H3T1B:>D511^>B:>;6A83>B:6689>43:3386:41;G40=/yIMNOP The Government and the District Court both make much of Mr. Kwok's immigration status, his perceived resources, and his purported motive to flee. The simple fact is that Mr. Kwok has known that he is a target of a federal criminal investigation for the better part of a year *and did not flee.* [Ex. 4-3/15/23 Arraignment Trans. at 21:19-21]. He did not flee in June 2020, when \"domestic banks began freezing and closing accounts associated with GTV.\" [Ex. 8-\n\n> qp 21\n\n#### -\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 24 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 25 of 98\n\n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pinion at 3.] He did not flee in the wake of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") Order. [Exhibit 9, Order Denying Pretrial Release entered April 20, 2023, ECF No. 51 (\"Ex. 9-SEC Order).] He did not flee in September 2022, when U.S. authorities served seizure warrants on domestic banks, \"seizing approximately \\$355 million from Himalaya Exchange and other entities associated with [Mr. Kwok].\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 4]. He did not flee when \"many of his entities received [grand jury] subpoenas.\" [Ex. 3---4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 18:14-15]. Mr. Kwok did not flee in October 2022, when the Government notified his immigration counsel that he was a target of the grand jury investigation that culminated in the present charges against him.\n\n#!!.\")L\" #\"7(!\\*#,1 !#2(\" )\">12! )()#!#,(/E5%=56%Q ! \"#J%& A(1#(,\"L 7#,(1\"9( !#2(\"L\"+\">+(#!O4%\\(@O4%P-!.-( #]^\\_`abacda 2! # 3()#!4(1)( #,(1\"9(4(1)( 2(1,(,\")!223()\\*!4B(\"41@,()) !#, 7#!2! 2(\"+#,(93+#+(2(++,! (1@2(++,! (124\"9>+(4@H\"4\")\"B>\"71@\" ) 2\"1,#,\"##,(Y!L(4 9( #\"##(9#1#!1 \"1(L)( 2(#,\"#O4%P-!.4(1( #1\" \\*+7,#41.%=56%\\$TTRURUF\\$V\"+'(\"4 7W4\" 1%E#FFXG\\$TKK%&W,11 !#(L)( 2( !\\*\"9\" 1((. 7#!\\*+((@#1(L)( 2(!\\*\"9\" -,!,\"))(2)()#!1#\"B #,( \\*\"2(!\\*#,(249 \"+2,\"47(1#,\"#,(. (--(4(2!9 7\" B)\"B% L% ebcf\\_^ghijklm^]]anop^]i In contrast, the Government alleges that Mr. Kwok's co-defendant, Mr. Je, took advantage of this notice and absconded to the UAE. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 5.] Despite having the same notice available to Mr. Je, Mr. Kwok went *nowhere.* He continued to reside in the same residences he had occupied for years, he did nothing to conceal the multiple cellphones, cellphone scrambler, Faraday bags, and cash that the Government attempts to spin as evidence that Mr. Kwok presents a flight risk. [Ex. 3---4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. At 22:03-11.] This is not evidence of a man seeking to flee; it is evidence of a man who had decided to stay in the face of the criminal charges that he knew were coming any day.\n\n## v1. *Mr. Kwok 's UAE Connections*\n\n 22\n\n# Case 22-500738882228236 05956226265511861612396148:12 | Page 26\n\nThe District Court also appears to credit the Government's contention that Mr. Kwok is likely to flee to the UAE which has no extradition treaty with the United States. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 5-6.] This is absurd. While it is true that the UAE would not be required by treaty to extradite Mr. Kwok to the United States, it would extradite him to China. In addition to an extradition treaty, China and the UAE share extensive financial connections: of all of the Gulf states, the UAE is China's number one beneficiary of foreign investment. [Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 72:03-14.] As Mr. Kwok's counsel explained at the Bail Hearing, the UAE is probably the worst place Mr. Kwok could go, second only to China itself. [Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 72:12-13.]\n\nThe District Court clearly erred in relying upon the Government's vague and misleading proffer without reference to the substantial countervailing evidence Presented by Mr. Kwok. This Court must reverse.\n\n# III. The District Court Clearly Erred in Concluding that Mr. Kwok Presents a Danger to the Community\n\nThe District Court committed reversible error in finding that Mr. Kwok presents a danger to the community. In the Opinion, the District Court concluded that Mr. Kwok presents an economic danger to the community based only on the Government's vague assertion that in March 2022, Mr. Kwok \"encouraged\" recipients of Fair Fund disbursements \"to re-invest their disbursements in the fraud\n\n23\n\n# Case 22-50073 SBSc 228236 05956226365 PERISPA TRABER 23 20:48:12 Page 27\n\nscheme alleged in this case,\" and the allegation that in February 2023, Mr. Kwok announced a new stock offering involving Himalaya Exchange. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12.] This is not evidence, much less evidence that is clear and convincing of Mr. Kwok's serious danger to the community.\n\nA. District Court's Finding That Mr. Kwok Encouraged Recipients of Fair Fund Disbursements to Invest in a Fraud Scheme Charged in this Case\n\nThe Government offered absolutely no detail concerning the reports it claims to have received from Fair Fund disbursement recipients who were allegedly \"encouraged\" by Mr. Kwok to \"re-invest their disbursements in the fraud scheme alleged in this case.\" [Ex. 6-Detention Memorandum at 10.] The Government has not disclosed when, where, or how Mr. Kwok \"encouraged\" these individuals. It has not offered any information as to their number, their credibility, or the specifics of their individual reports. The Government has not specified whether it alleges that Mr. Kwok contacted these individuals personally, or whether they simply happened upon content he posted on social media. Moreover, neither the Government nor the District Court identify which \"fraud scheme alleged in this case\" Mr. Kwok allegedly \"encouraged\" \"victims\" to re-invest in.5\n\n5 Such evidence would be particularly important here, where the DOJ has already acknowledged, under oath, that CCP agents routinely attempt to infiltrate Mr. Kwok's organizations (and those of other dissidents) in order to undermine from within, and to make false complaints to regulators and law enforcement. [Ex. 11-Yunpeng Complaint and Affidavit.]\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328238 05912628655 PERieled R892622920148:12 Page 28\n\nFar from clear and convincing, the Government's own allegations in the Superseding Indictment raise questions as to which \"fraud scheme alleged in this case\" the Government and the District Court could possibly be referring. The Government alleges four fraud schemes in the Superseding Indictment: (1) The GTV Private Placement, (2) The Farm Loan Program, (3) G|CLUBS, and (4) The Himalaya Exchange. [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶¶ 13-23.] The fraud alleged in connection with the GTV Private Placement arises out of the same facts charged in the SEC Order that gave rise to the settlement and the subsequent Fair Fund disbursements, beginning in April 2022. [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶ 13; Ex. 9-SEC Order.] Clearly, this cannot be the fraud scheme the Government and the District Court believe Mr. Kwok \"encouraged\" individuals to re-invest in in April 2022. The Government alleges that the Farm Loan Program began in or around June 2020. [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at | 14.] The Superseding Indictment makes no mention of any conduct related to the Farm Loan Program that post-dates 2020, making it improbable that the District Court could have understood this to be the \"fraud scheme alleged in this case\" for which Mr. K wok solicited investments in April 2022. Similarly, the Superseding Indictment represents that Mr. Kwok fraudulently obtained victim funds through GCLUBS from \"at least in or about October 2020 through at least in or about March 2023,\" but alleges no specific conduct later than August 2021. [Ex. 5-Superseding\n\n# Case 22-50073 SBS: 328338 05956226365 PERISPA 1898623 20:48:12 Page 29\n\nIndictment at ¶¶ 15-16.] No evidence proffered by the Government in its brief or at the Bail Hearing could reasonably have formed the basis for the District Court's understanding that this is the \"fraud scheme alleged in this case.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12.]\n\nThe Government alleges the Himalaya Exchange fraud scheme ran from at least April 2021 through at least March 2023. [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶ 17.] It is possible that the alleged Himalaya Exchange fraud is the scheme for which the District Court believes Mr. Kwok solicited investments in April 2020. It is nonetheless worth noting that the most recent conduct alleged related to the Himalaya Exchange fraud occurred \"[i]n or about April 2022\" when Mr. Kwok's co-defendant \"arranged for the transfer of approximately \\$37 million in Himalaya Exchange funds\" for a \"purported \"loan' to cover the cost of a luxury yacht.\" [Id. at ¶¶ 17-23.] It is far from obvious, however, that this is the \"clear and convincing evidence\" the District Court believes supports its conclusion that Mr. Kwok \"will continue to cause economic harm to the community if released.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12.]\n\n# B. SEC Order\n\nSetting aside the factual infirmities in the District Court's analysis, even if accepted as true, the Government's allegations do not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok presents a serious danger of economic\n\n26\n\n# Case 22-5007388823282999889888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888\n\nharm to the community. The SEC Order indicates that it is the product of settlement negotiations between the SEC and Respondents, and that Respondents consented to the entry of the SEC Order \"[s]olely for the purpose\" of \"proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission, or to which the Commission is a party,\" \"without admitting or denying the findings\" therein. [Ex. 9-SEC Order at 1.] The District Court's reliance upon the SEC Order in its analysis of the alleged danger Mr. Kwok poses to the community is therefore improper.\n\nThe Second Circuit has previously noted that the Federal Rules of Evidence (\"FRE\") prohibit \"a plea of nolo contendere from being later used against the party who so pleaded\" and that such pleas \"have been equated with \"consent decrees.\"\" Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976). Because consent decrees and pleas of nolo contendere are \"not true adjudications on the underlying issues,\" their relevance and use are necessarily limited: \"[A] prior judgment can only be introduced in a later trial for collateral estoppel purposes if the issues sought to be precluded were actually adjudicated in the prior trial.\" Id. at 893-94. In the years after Lipsky was decided, the Second Circuit clarified that because civil consent decrees with administrative agencies are \"the settlement of a civil suit,\" their use \"is governed by Fed. R. Evid. 408\" and that litigants are therefore barred from using that \"evidence of a compromise to prove liability for the claim,\" but that they may be used \"for other purposes\" under FRE 408. United\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328238 05912628655 Ehilêrea R89862920148:12 | Page 31\n\nStates v. Gilbert, 668 F.2d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 1981). Federal Rule of Evidence 408 provides specific examples of how such compromises may be used, including \"proving a witness's bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.\" Fed. R. Evid. 408(b). In all of these examples of other permissible purposes, the consistent thread is that the use must be limited to establishing some ancillary fact ultimately unrelated to any alleged legal liability.\n\nIn the order denying release, however, the District Court explicitly accepted, affirmed, and utilized the unproven allegations of wrongdoing found in the SEC Order. For example, the Order notes that the SEC set up a fund that issued disbursements to \"victims,\" (Ex. 8-Opinion at 12) and that \"[d]espite the SEC's order in September 2021 . . , Defendant has continued to promote fraudulent investment opportunities to his followers and attempted to revictimize those who received disbursements from the SEC fund.\" [Id. (emphasis added).] Using the consent decree in this manner conflicts with the permissible uses provided under FRE 408 and Second Circuit precedent. See, e.g., In re Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig., 828 F.Supp.2d 588, 593-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (striking allegations of a manipulative trading scheme because \"those allegations simply recast the CFTC's findings and are derived wholesale from the CFTC order, and that\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328236 05912628655 PERielier Royan23 910.12 - Page 32\n\nsuch \"allegations are paradigms of the type of pleadings prohibited by Lipsky and its progeny\").\n\nMoreover, while the SEC Order includes an undertaking by Respondents to \"[n]ot participate, directly or indirectly, in any offering of a digital asset security,\" Mr. Kwok is not a party to the SEC Order. [Ex. 9-SEC Order.] The Government alleges in the Superseding Indictment that Mr. Kwok exercised control over GTV's finances but admits that he held \"no formal position or title\" at GTV. [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶ 10]. As for GTV's parent company, Saraca, the Government alleges that \"Relative-1\"-not Mr. Kwok-is the ultimate beneficial owner. [Id. at ¶9.] Further, as explained above, the only \"fraud charged in this case\" for which Mr. Kwok plausibly could have solicited investments in April 2022 relates to the allegations concerning Himalaya Exchange. And, like Mr. Kwok, Himalaya Exchange was not among the Respondents to the SEC Order. [Ex. 9-SEC Order.] There is no precedent in this Circuit for denying bail to a defendant under these circumstances.\n\nIt is unconscionable to deem Mr. Kwok a serious danger to the community such that the presumption of pre-trial release is set aside on the basis of conduct that, at best, reflects a disagreement between Mr. Kwok and the SEC as to the state of the law. This Court must reverse.\n\n# IV. The District Court Committed Reversible Error in Concluding Without Analysis or Explanation That There is No Set of Conditions That Will Reasonably Alleviate Any Risks Presented by Mr. Kwok's Release\n\nThe Government must also prove that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court and the safety of the community. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739. 742 (1987). It is incumbent upon the court to consider all possible alternatives to preventative detention and \"to explain on the record the extent to which it considered any alternatives to incarceration and, if so, on what basis they were rejected.\" Berrios-Berrios, 791 F.2d at 251 (noting that consideration of these factors is important even where the district court has found a defendant poses a risk of flight, because \"many courts have set bail for defendants despite their propensity to flee\").\n\nThe District Court failed to adequately explain on the record the extent to which it considered alternatives to Mr. Kwok's pre-trial detention, and, if applicable, on what basis they were rejected. The District Court also erred in concluding that there is no condition or set of conditions available that will reasonably alleviate any risks posed by Mr. Kwok's pre-trial release. This is reversible error.\n\ni. Appearance Bond and Co-Signers\n\n# Case 22-50073 SBS: 328338 05956226365 PERISPA 1898623 20:48:12 Page 34\n\nMr. Kwok proposed an appearance bond of \\$25 million, to be signed by Mr. Kwok and two financially responsible adults, one of whom is not a family member, \\$5 million of which would be secured by cash deposited with the Court, real estate assets, or a combination of both. [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at 11]. Echoing the Government's objections, the District Court noted that the Government would be \"one in a long line of creditors\" in Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy proceedings if the Government ultimately had to enforce the bond. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12]. This is incorrect. As he has stated in sworn testimony many times, and as the District Court acknowledged in its Opinion, Mr. Kwok has no substantial property of his own. [Id. at 12]. He has proposed an appearance bond of \\$25 million, \\$5 million of which will be secured by a combination of cash deposited with the Court and/or real estate assets. [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at 11].\n\nThe District Court also erred in rejecting Mr. Kwok's proposal to have \"two financially responsible adults, one of whom is not a family member\" sign his appearance bond. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12; Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at 11.] The District Court noted that \"several of Defendant's family members, including his wife and daughter, are referred to in the Superseding Indictment as recipients of fraud proceeds\" and objected to the bond proposal on the grounds that Mr. Kwok had not identified any co-signers that the Government and the District Court find acceptable. [Ex. 8-Opinion at 13.]\n\n# Case 22-500738882328336 05956726262655\"Ehierieda 98988295048.12 | Page 35\n\nMr. Kwok was not required to identify co-signers in his Bail Proposal. It was not his burden to prove that there are conditions of release that would mitigate any risk of flight, obstruction, or danger. The Government bears the burden of proving-by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to risk of flight or obstruction and by clear and convincing evidence with respect to risk of economic danger to the community-the absence of a combination of conditions that would reasonably assure Mr. Kwok's presence in court and the safety of the community. See United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 195 (2d Cir. 1987); Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (\"[A]t times, the government may have thought that this second burden fell on the defendant, or that it had the benefit of a statutory presumption of detention that the defendant was required to rebut . . . Plainly, such a view would be incorrect.\").\n\nThe question before the District Court was not whether Mr. Kwok can satisfy any given condition of release, but rather whether there exists a condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure Mr. K wok's presence in court and the safety of the community. The answer is \"yes.\" Despite the Government's concerns, Mr. Kwok is confident that he can secure his appearance bond with assets not encumbered by his bankruptcy proceedings and not tainted by the Government's fraud allegations, and that he can identify two financially responsible adults not connected to the alleged fraud to co-sign.\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328238 0591262865 PERielia 989882595048.12 Page 36\n\n### Electronic Monitoring and Home Detention with Private Security 11.\n\nThe District Court flatly rejected Mr. Kwok's proposal for home detention subject to 24/7 surveillance because \"it is not as reliable as federal jail.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 13.1 The district court likewise rejected Mr. Kwok's proposal to include location monitoring as a condition of his release, stating that \"GPS monitoring is inadequate, as ankle monitors can be removed and ensure only a reduced head start should a defendant decide to flee.\" [Ex. 8-Opinion at 13.]\n\nSetting aside Mr. Kwok's family wealth, there is no reason to consider him a flight risk; indeed, the facts described in Mr. Kwok's Bail Memorandum demonstrate the exact opposite. [See generally Ex.1-Bail Memorandum.] In effect, the Government's argument boils down to the contention that Mr. Kwok presents a risk of flight because he possesses the means to flee. [Ex. 7-Opposition to Bail Memorandum at 12-13]. And in the Opinion, the District Court opined that \"a clever defendant with sufficient resources could figure out a way to leave the country without travel documents.\" [Ex. 9-SEC Order at 6]. In short, Mr. Kwok is a flight risk simply because he is believed to have the resources to flee.\n\nThis is the precise circumstance in which this Circuit has endorsed the use of home detention with private security. See Boustani, 932 F.3d at 82 (holding that home confinement with private security is appropriate where the defendant's wealth is the reason the defendant is deemed a flight risk). Pre-trial detention is\n\n# Case 22-50073 SBSc 328336 05956226365 PERISPA RBB 2898622 20:48:12 Page 37\n\nintended to serve a regulatory purpose, not a punitive one. See, e.g., United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1038, 1043 (2d Cir. 1993). Courts in this Circuit have released defendants on bail subject to home confinement with private security monitoring in other cases-there is no reason it can't also be done here.\n\n## vii. Restrictions on Technology and Communications\n\nDuring the Bail Hearing, Mr. Kwok's counsel explained that Mr. Kwok's conditions of release can be structured to deal with any concern the Government or the District Court may have about Mr. Kwok contacting victims, setting up new businesses, or perpetrating additional frauds. [Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 31:15-32:03.] Counsel noted that the U.S. Attorney's Office frequently works with defendants to negotiate bail conditions sufficient to alleviate the Government's reasonable concerns, while also preserving the liberty of the defendant awaiting trial. [[d.] Up to this point, however, the Government has been unwilling to even have a conversation with Mr. Kwok's counsel about potential conditions of release. [Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 31:25-32:3]. As both the Government and the District Court know, this is atypical. [See Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 7:6-7 (\"As this Court knows, pretrial services doesn't often recommend detention in a fraud case.\").] The Government routinely negotiates bail conditions-even in cases alleging massive fraud, featuring wealthy defendants, and presenting ongoing concerns about the safety of the community-as demonstrated by that office's\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS: 328238 05912628655 PERielia 9898623 20:48:12 | Page 38\n\nrecent handling of Sam Bankman-Fried's conditions of pre-trial release. [Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 31:17-32:03].\n\nIn December 2022, Samuel Bankman-Fried, charged with a multi-billiondollar securities fraud, was released on a \\$250 million bond and subject to home detention with location monitoring technology and various other financial and physical conditions. [See Exhibit 12, U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, Appearance Bond, filed Dec. 22, 2022, Case No. 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 14.]\n\nWhile bail was initially agreed to between the Government and defense counsel, issues later arose regarding the sufficiency of those conditions for Mr. Bankman-Fried, particularly with respect to his use of the internet, messaging applications, and a Virtual Private Network (\"VPN\"). The Government argued that this conduct raised potential concerns, such as hiding online activities, covertly accessing cryptocurrency exchanges, and transferring data without detection. [See Exhibit 12, U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, Supplement to Government's Motion Regarding Conditions of Release, filed Feb. 13, 2023, Case No. 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 66.] But the court did not revoke Mr. Bankman-Fried's bail; instead, it imposed additional conditions to address these concerns and permitted the parties to work together to devise further ameliorative conditions. [Compare Minute Entry in Connection with Arraignment dated Jan. 3, 2023, U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, 22-cr-673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), (ordering that defendant remain on\n\n# Case 22-500738882228236 059562985611861616868888950148:12 | Page 39\n\nbail and imposing restriction prohibiting him \"from accessing or transferring any FTX or Alameda assets or cryptocurrency, including assets or cryptocurrency purchased with funds from FTX or Alameda\"); with Exhibit 13, U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, Order entered Feb. 14, 2023, Case No. 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 68 (imposing additional condition prohibiting the defendant's use of a VPN).] Recognizing Mr. Bankman-Fried's need to use a computer and VPN to prepare his defense, the Government agreed to an additional bail condition that permitted Mr. Bankman-Fried access to a laptop under the control and supervision of his attorneys, restricted to the approved programs and applications necessary for Mr. Bankman-Fried to assist in his defense. [Exhibit 14, U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, Order entered Mar. 28, 2023, Case No. 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 116.]\n\nIn Mr. Bankman-Fried's case the Government and the court implicitly recognized the critical importance of preserving the defendant's ability to assist in preparing his defense. The Government was willing to work with the defendant's counsel to arrive at a creative solution, using technology to limit the defendant's communications with the outside world to no more and no less than he needed to prepare his defense. Mr. Kwok's needs are no less important. Moreover, unlike Mr. Bankman-Fried, the language barrier between Mr. Kwok and his counsel and the Government's representation that it will soon produce terabytes of data-much of which will be in Mandarin-further restricts Mr. Kwok's ability to assist counsel\n\n# Case 22-50073 CBS23236 059126286726726758188888888886148.12 Page 40\n\nin preparing his defense while he remains incarcerated. The District Court's disparate treatment of Mr. Kwok, and its failure to fully evaluate whether there is any combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the community is reversible error. Moreover, the District Court's conclusory rejection of Mr. Kwok's argument that this combination of circumstances deprives him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel must be reversed.\n\nAssuming arguendo that these contentions rise to the level of a \"serious risk\" that Mr. Kwok \"will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice,\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2), it is unclear how the Government believes Mr. Kwok's detention will ameliorate these purported risks. Pre-trial incarceration would not greatly restrict Mr. Kwok's ability to file legal actions or to have content posted on social media. While the Government has stated unequivocally that it believes Mr. Kwok's proposed bail conditions to be inadequate, it also contends that Mr. K wok \"operates through agents,\" and \"issues directives to his co-conspirators and followers, who then act on his wishes.\" [Ex. 7-Opposition to Bail Memorandum at 15]. And, in any case, Mr. Kwok has already agreed to restrictions on his ability to communicate while on home detention.\n\nThe Government's speculation that Mr. Kwok will engage in future obstructive conduct is just that-speculation. In the event Mr. Kwok is released on bail and is subsequently believed to engage in acts of obstruction, the Government\n\n# Case 22-5007388883282938895958282625511861688618950148112 Page 41 nf 08\n\nwill have the opportunity to seek his detention. From home confinement, Mr. Kwok would have every incentive to avoid that outcome.\n\n# CONCLUSION\n\nThe District Court committed clear error: (1) in finding that the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Kwok poses a serious risk of flight; (2) in finding that the Government established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok poses a serious danger to the community; (3) in failing to adequately explain on the record the extent to which it considered alternatives to Mr. Kwok's pre-trial detention, and, if applicable, on what basis they were rejected; and (4) in concluding that no condition or set of conditions would ensure Mr. Kwok's return to court or the safety of the community. This Court must reverse and remand.\n\n### -\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 41 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 42 of 98\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*Isl Stephen R. Cook*\n\n !\"#\\$%%&\\$'()\"\"\\*+ ,-,./0120345667 8\" 9:45667 ;<=>?@>A5BCCD EEFFG)!9%6:@H)I AHI):+5JKELFE MKNKOPQERPFSS =)%%)T(4;T%\\*)UT Stephen R. Cook BROWN RUDNICK LLP 2211 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 752-7100\n\n;<=>?@>A5BCCD 8I:V)(8W\\$TH >XY6H7+>YFSSZL MEFEOESKRN[SS William R. Baldiga BROWN RUDNICK LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 209-4800\n\n\\]^3-0\\_`]ab0`03cd3/e f110\\_\\_d3/g]hd3BX67 *Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Ho Wan Kwok*\n\nij- Dated: May 5, 2023\n\n# Case 22-50073 SBSc328338 0595622672672672672612896123920148:12 Page 43 of 98\n\n# CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS\n\n- 1. This Motion contains 8,730 words according to the word count feature of Microsoft Word. Concurrently filed with this Motion is a Motion for Leave to File an Oversized Motion.\n- 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. R. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in Times New Roman 14-point type.\n\n/s/ Stephen R. Cook\n\nStephen R. Cook\n\nDated: May 5, 2023\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned certifies that true and correct copies of this Brief for\n\nDefendant-Appellant were served electronically on the parties at the addresses\n\nlisted below on this 5th day of May, 2023.\n\n*Isl Stephen R. Cook*\n\nStephen R. Cook\n\nS\\*;/4+4TFA\\*--4> A/14(UFU)-0)+.5+ O>4+7FU/+Q); VFRF8)64-2W)+253S\\*.2/1) P-/W/+4;8/=/./5+BR8TX '()R/;=/5SFA5;;57\\*/;,/+0 Y+)R4/+2:+,-)`\\*.,5\\_F05= W/14(F3)-0)+.5+`\\*.,5\\_F05= O>4+FU/+Q);a\\*.,5\\_F05= Juliana N. Murray Micah F. F ergenson Ryan B. Finkel U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, SDNY The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 juliana.murray@usdoj.gov micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov Ryan.Finkel@usdoj.gov\n\nCase 22-500738882329338 059567262626551186161 18956125956148:12 Page 45 of 98\n\n# Amited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\n\nNo. 23-6421\n\n+ () +\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nAppellee,\n\n- V .-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al.,\n\nDefendant-Appellant.\n\nON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n# EXHIBITS FOR MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER DENYING PRE-TRIAL RELEASE\n\n#### -\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 45 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 46 of 98\n\n| l{XHIKl'l
! \" | CONTENT~
#\\$%&'%&( |\n|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1
) | Ho Wan K wok's Memorandum in Support of Application for Release
./01234/56789:/;12<=:>2(=??/;@/AB??C>D1@>/2A/;E9C9179 |\n| | on Bail Pending Trial filed March 31, 2023, ECF No. 24.
1
/2F1>CG92<>2H&;>1CA>C9<81;DIJCKL-LJK'#M%/NLON) |\n| 2
| Ho Wan Kwok's Supplement to Application for Release on Bail
./01234/567(=??C9:92@@/B??C>D1@>/2A/;E9C9179/2F1>C |\n| | Pending Trial filed April 19, 2023, ECF No. 50.
G92<>2H&;>1CA>C9 C)PKL-LJK'#M%/NQ-N |\n| 3
| Transcript of Bail Proceedings held as to Ho Wan Kwok on April 4,
&;127D;>?@/AF1>CG;/D99<>2H7I9C<17@/./01234/5/2B?;>COK |\n| | 2023.
L-LJN |\n| 4 | Transcript of Arraignment held as to Ho Wan Kwok on March 15,
&;127D;>?@/AB;;1>H2:92@I9C<17@/./01234/5/281;DI)QK |\n| | 2023.
L-LJN |\n| 5
| Superseding Indictment, ECF No.
19.
(=?9;79<>2HR2<>D@:92@K'#M%/N)PN |\n| 6 | Government's March 15, 2023 Letter Brief re: Detention ECF No. 7.
S/T9;2:92@6781;DI)QKL-LJU9@@9;F;>9A;9VW9@92@>/2'#M%/NXN |\n| 7 | Government's Opposition to Ho Wan Kwok's Memorandum in
S/T9;2:92@67\\$??/7>@>/2@/./01234/56789:/;12<=:>2 |\n| * | Support of Pretrial Release, filed April 3, 2023, ECF No. 26.
(=??/;@/AG;9@;>1CE9C9179KA>C9 CJKL-LJK'#M%/NLYN |\n| 8
+ | Order Denying Pretrial Release entered April 20, 2023, ECF No. 51.
\\$;<9;W92Z>2HG;9@;>1CE9C917992@9;9 CL-KL-LJK'#M%/NQCN |\n| 9 | Securities and Exchange Commission Order Instituting Cease-and
(9D=;>@>9712<'[DI12H9#/::>77>/2\\$;<9;R27@>@=@>2H#9179\\12<\\ |\n| , | Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of
W97>7@G;/D99<>2H7G=;7=12@@/(9D@>/2]B/A@I9(9D=;>@>97BD@/A |\n| | 1933, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-And-Desist Order
)PJJK815>2HM>2<>2H7K12 2H1#9179\\B2<\\W97>7@\\$;<9; |\n| | dated Sept. 13, 2021.
<1@9<(9?@N)JKL-L)N |\n| 10 | Complaint and Affidavit in support of Application for an Arrest
#/:?C1>2@12 <1T>@>27=??/;@/AB??C>D1@>/2A/;12B;;97@ |\n| )- | Warrant, United States v. Jin, Case No. 20-MJ-1103 (E.D.N.Y.).
01;;12@K^_`abcdaeabfghi`_j#179%/NL-\\8k\\))-Jl'NWN%NmNnN |\n| 11 | Complaint and Affidavit in support of Application for an Arrest
#/:?C1>2@12 <1T>@>27=??/;@/AB??C>D1@>/2A/;12B;;97@ |\n| )) | Warrant, United States v. Yunpeng, Case No. 23-MJ-0334 (E.D.N.Y.
01;;12@K^_`abcdaeabfghop_qb_rj#179%/NLJ\\8k\\-JJOl'NWN%NmN |\n| | Apr. 6, 2023).
B?;NYKL-LJnN |\n| 12
)L | U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, Supplement to Government's Motion
sN(Nghte_cfue_vwx`bcj(=??C9:92@@/S/T9;2:92@678/@>/2 |\n\n#### -\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 46 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 47 of 98\n\n| | Regarding Conditions of Release, filed Feb. 13, 2023, Case No. 22-
!
\"#\"##!\\$
#\\$\"%&
' |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 66.
()*'+, %-./00/
|\n| 13 | U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, Order entered Feb. 14, 2023, Case No. 22-
1/2/3/45678956:;<=>7?@\"\"%&
' |\n| | 00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 68.

()*'+, %-./0A/ |\n| 14 | U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, Order entered Mar. 28, 2023, Case No. 22-
1/2/3/45678956:;<=>7?@\"\"B
C
' |\n| | 00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 116.

()*'+, %'
|\n| 15 | Notice of Appeal, dated May 4, 2023
'#DEFF
\\$ \"
\"B
|\n\n-\n- ! \"# Case: 23-6421 , 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 200 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 48 of 98\n\n# **EXHIBIT 7**\n\n### 1416 2009 2012 11 2 interior ed 100 26 26 24 26 Page 49 Case 22-500 31 2300 229 of 98 U.S. Department of Justice\n\n![](_page_48_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York New York 10007\n\nApril 3, 2023\n\nVIA ECF\n\nHon. Analisa Torres Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n## Re: United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" alkla \"Brother Seven,\" alkla \"The Principal,\" S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes in opposition to the memorandum in support of pretrial release submitted 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\" or the \"defendant\"). (\"Def. Mem.\" or \"defendant's Memorandum\") (Dkt. 24.) As detailed in the Government's March 15, 2023 letter seeking detention (\"Gov't. Ltr.\" or the \"Letter\") (Dkt. 7), Kwok is a unique defendant with extensive foreign contacts and tens of millions of dollars in resources that he can leverage to flee the United States. The defendant also poses a significant ongoing danger to the community and his obstructive acts and intimidation present a clear threat to the judicial process.\n\nIndeed, since the Government filed its Letter, the evidence supporting detention has continued to mount. Kwok lied to Pretrial Services in an effort to conceal his wealth and employment. Kwok even violated the rules and regulations at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center (\"MDC\"), where he is currently detained. Moreover, the judicially authorized searches of his co-defendant's condominium and Kwok's multi-million-dollar residences revealed additional evidence of the defendant's significant resources and abilities to flee. The defendant's Memorandum largely ignores these facts, and draws (false) equivalencies with other cases. Kwok's proposed defense bail package is woefully inadequate to address his substantial foreign contacts and the strong incentives and significant resources he has to flee. It does not at all mitigate the pervasive danger Kwok's release presents to the community and to the judicial process. No bail package could.\n\nPretrial Services is correct. There are no conditions, or combination of conditions, that can reasonably assure the Court that the defendant will appear in court and that the public will be safe from harm. The Court should adopt the recommendation of Pretrial Services. Pretrial detention is absolutely appropriate this in this case.\n\n# Case 22-500731.9282222222889741262007201261100202020928929291811216 Page 50\n\nof 98\n\n### L The Pretrial Services Report\n\nOn March 15, 2023, during his Pretrial Services interview, Kwok advised that he has been \"unemployed since the end of 2016.\" He claimed total assets in the \"approximate amount of \\$10,000 . . . that was not liguid cash,\" but comprised of the value of \"two cellphones and clothing\" (emphasis added). Kwok denied owning property or vehicles. He claimed that his Greenwich, Connecticut estate, which he valued at \\$9 million, is owned by his wife, and that his Manhattan penthouse is owned by his son. Kwok estimated his monthly expenses (food, clothes, cellphones and \"bodyguards\") to be \\$100,000, which expenses he represented were paid for by his family. The defendant also stated that he filed for bankruptcy in 2022. Kwok stated that, before he became \"unemployed,\" he worked as a \"grand representative\" for his family businesses, from approximately 2000 through 2014. As Pretrial Services noted in its report, Kwok was unable to \"estimate his income\" for his work as a \"grand representative.\"\n\nRegarding his connections to the United States, Kwok informed Pretrial Services that he had not left the country for the past six years, but said that he had traveled to approximately \"fifty\" different countries between 1991 and 2017. Kwok noted that his wife and daughter live in the United States and emigrated from China, while his son lives in London. No members of Kwok's immediate family are U.S. citizens. Further, Pretrial Services was unable to corroborate the information Kwok provided about his family, because Kwok did not provide the correct phone number for his daughter.\n\nPretrial Services identified nine risk factors evidencing Kwok's risk of nonappearance: possession of a passport, extensive history of foreign travel, family ties outside the United States, his status as a foreign citizen who may be subject to removal, mental health history, use of aliases, multiple reported residences, unemployment, and the presence of unverified assets. Pretrial Services also identified the nature of the charged offenses as a risk factor suggesting danger to the community.\n\nPretrial Services concluded that there are \"no conditions or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant at future proceedings . . . . [and] respectfully recommend[ed] the defendant be detained.\"\n\n### Materials Recovered on March 15, 2023 Pursuant to Search Warrants II.\n\nOn March 15, 2023, the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a series of search warrants at premises, including (i) Kwok's Manhattan Penthouse (where he was arrested); (ii) Kwok's 50,000 square-foot mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey; and (iii) Kwok's sevenbedroom, approximately 12,000 square-foot estate in Greenwich, Connecticut. The FBI also executed a search warrant at the Manhattan condominium of Kwok's co-defendant, Yanping Wang, who was arrested the same day. Among other things, the FBI recovered the following materials:\n\n# Case 22-500731.93862288874186616120120120120120120120161016 Page 51 of 98\n\n- Kwok's Mahwah Mansion:\n\t- o Approximately \\$394,000, €5000, HK\\$188,05, and ¥250 in cash, and approximately 156 gold coins (alongside a receipt, which indicated that the coins were valued at approximately \\$109,555), which were found inside a safe located in a closet that was attached to what appears to be Kwok's dressing room. (Ex. A.) That dressing room stored approximately 30 Brioni custommade suits, each of which bore the hand-stitched words \"Brioni for Miles Kwok\" inside the jackets.\n\t- o A copy of Kwok's expired United Arab Emirates passport. (Ex. B.)\n\t- A cellphone scrambler.2 O\n\t- o 10 computers or laptops; 16 external media storage devices (USB and hard drives); and nine cellphones.\n- · Kwok's Manhattan Penthouse\n\t- Inside Kwok's bedroom, the FBI discovered a cellphone that was concealed underneath Kwok's Duxiana-brand mattress. (Ex. C.)\n\t- o 15 other cellphones, 14 external media storage devices (USB and hard drives), and four computers.\n\t- Gold pins with symbols of the Chinese Communist Party. (Ex. D.)\n- Kwok's Greenwich Estate: 트\n\t- o A 2021 a Lamborghini Aventador, which was purchased with fraud proceeds.\n\t- o Three computers or laptops, five cellphones, and 13 USB drives.\n- · Co-defendant Wang's Condominium:\n\t- o Kwok's expired Republic of Vanuatu Passport and Vanuatu non-citizen identification card, which were kept in Wang's safe. (Ex. E.) Stamps in the passport reflect that Kwok traveled to England in March 2017 using his Vanuatu Passport, and further reflect that Kwok was entitled to remain in\n\n1 HK\\$188,050 is worth approximately \\$23,900.\n\n2 A cellphone scrambler is an external device that attaches to a cellphone. Cellphone scramblers are designed to defeat Government wiretaps and other eavesdropping technologies. Scramblers work by converting voice into non-interpretable analog noises for transmission over the phone network. A receiver on the other end of a call re-converts the analog signals to understandable speech.\n\n### - Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 52 of 98\n\nEngland for six months. Wang's safe also contained Kwok's expired and currently valid Hong Kong passports. The expired Hong Kong passport reflected substantial foreign travel by Kwok. The valid Honk Kong passport reflects travel to England, Scotland, the Bahamas, and Japan in 2016.\n\n- o Approximately \\$138,000 in U.S. currency and additional foreign currency, located in the above-described safe.\n- o Printed documents that reflect bank account balances as of March 13, 2023 (i.e., two days before the defendants' arrests) for various entities that the Government alleges Wang managed and controlled, which are all associated with the charged fraud. Those documents reflect balances of at least approximately \\$34 million.\n\n## III. **The Defendant's Arguments for Release Should be Rejected**\n\n !\"#\\$%&'() \\*+',&+-./01234/+56178&+'911&.(&,1/:/+5&2+(-;20(-&+- :?00(+5,@A&,2-B/+';/+'>&11>/0517C6((3>20(-B/+';/+'>&11>/05 0(.,(:5(-1?D15&+52&,./0(2'+50&A(,D@;&11>/05 0(.,(:5150&A(,5/\\*+',&+-E>&+2+IJKL7 M N>>0/324&5(,@OKPQEJJJ2+R7F7:?00(+:@&+-&--252/+&,./0(2'+:?00(+:@E ,/:&5(-2+56(&D/A(S-(1:02D(-1&.(7 M %02+5(--/:?4(+5156&50(.,(:5D&+=&::/?+5D&,&+:(1&1/.T&0:6KPEIJIPU27(7E 5>0/324&5(,@OP) 42,,2/+7 XXXY Z[\\]\\^\\\\_`a\\_bcdefghi\\\\_bd^jfk\\l\\ad\\m[jhl`n\\k\\o\\pb\\` C6(-(.(+-&+591T(4/0&+-?40(1>/+-15/56(W/A(0+4(+591T&0:6KqEIJIPr(55(0D@ >0/>/12+'&1(5/.:/+-252/+1>?01?&+55/<62:6;0(502&,0(,(&1(>0/>02&5(7C6(-(.(+-&+591T(4/0&+-?4.?056(01((=15/-0&<>&0&,,(,1D(5<((+5621:&1(&+- /56(0.0&?-:&1(1<6(0(>0(502&,-(5(+52/+<&1+/5/0-(0(-7s2+&,,@E56(-(.(+-&+5&55(4>515/0(D?5 56(W/A(0+4(+591-(5&2,(-0(:25&52/+/..&:5/01/?5,2+(-2+251T&0:6KqEIJIPr(55(0-(4/+150&52+' 56&5;/1(1&-&+'(05/56(:/44?+25@E&+-21,2=(,@5//D150?:5t?152:(7N1 (3>,&2+(-D(,/0/>/1(1&D&2,>&:=&'(/.(2'65:/+-252/+1}U2V6/4(-(5(+52/+&5621W0((+<2:6 (15&5(~9&+/56(0?+2-(+52.2(-,/:&52/+&>>0/A(-D@56(/?05EU22V&OIq42,,2/+D/+-1(:?0(- D@Oq42,,2/+:&16&+-5&+@<256&5,(&15/+(,2:(+1(-&+-?&,2.2(-'?&0-E U2AVW%F4/+25/02+'EUAV1?00(+-(0/.50&A(,-/:?4(+51&+-1?00(+-(0/.621<2.(&+--&?'65(091 50&A(,-/:?4(+51EUA2V,2425&52/+/+;0(1(+:(/.:/?+1(,7 56(-(.(+-&+5>0/>/1(156&56(D(0(,(&1(-/+6/4(-(5(+52/+5/6211(A(+S D(-0//4EKIEJJJ1?&0(S.//5W0((+<2:6E/++(:52:?5(15&5(E>2:5?0(-D(,///,E >02A&5(5(++21:/?05E,2A2+'>&A2,2/+E&+-560(((35(0+&,.20(>,&:(1} The defendant's Memorandum responds to the Government's March 15, 2023 Letter by proposing a set of conditions pursuant to which Kwok believes pretrial release would be appropriate. The defendant's Memorandum further seeks to draw parallels between this case and other fraud cases where pretrial detention was not ordered. Finally, the defendant attempts to rebut the Government's detailed recitation of factors outlined in its March 15, 2023 Letter demonstrating that Kwok is a risk of flight, poses a danger to the community, and is likely to obstruct justice. As explained below, the defendant's arguments should be rejected.\n\n## **A. The Defendant's Proposed Bail Package Is Inadequate**\n\nKwok proposes a bail package of eight conditions: (i) home detention at his Greenwich estate or an \"other\" unidentified location approved by the Court; (ii) a \\$25 million bond secured by \\$5 million cash and two unidentified adult cosigners, \"one of whom is not a family member;\" (iii) \"24/7 surveillance by a security company\" with \"at least one licensed and qualified guard;\" (iv) GPS monitoring; (v) surrender of travel documents and surrender of his wife and daughter's travel documents; (vi) limitation on Kwok's ability to enter financial transactions; and (vii) no communications with co-defendants outside the presence of counsel.\n\n*First,* the defendant proposes that he be released on \"home detention\" to his sevenbedroom, 12,000 square-foot Greenwich, Connecticut estate, pictured below, which has a pool, private tennis court, \"living pavilion,\" and three external fireplaces:\n\n# Case 22-500731.7256229987 Hatel Core of the led interest 2016 Page 53 of 98\n\n![](_page_52_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\nThe Greenwich estate was purchased in February 2020 by Greenwich Land, LLC-an entity that has received millions of dollars in fraud proceeds. Specifically, the Government's investigation has revealed that between August 2020 and April 2021, co-defendant Kin Ming Je, a/k/a \"William Je\" (the financial architect of the fraud) transferred approximately \\$34 million of fraud proceeds, primarily raised through the Farm Loan Program (see Indictment ¶ 14), to entities that are 100% owned by Kwok's family members; those transfers included an approximately \\$5 million transfer in October 2020 to Greenwich Land, LLC. 3 To say the least, it would be inappropriate for Kwok to live in the palatial Greenwich estate that he maintained with the proceeds of his fraud as a means of avoiding pretrial detention.\n\nSecond, the defendant's bail proposal does not identify the source of the \\$5 million in cash that he intends to use to secure the proposed \\$25 million bond. That omission is significant, given that the defendant filed for bankruptcy and informed Pretrial Services that he only has assets worth \\$10,000, consisting of \"two cellphones and clothing.\" Given those representations, the fact that the defendant now claims to have access to such a large amount of cash raises questions about the legitimacy of those funds and is further evidence of the defendant's lies to Pretrial about his assets. As noted above, although the defendant told Pretrial Services that he did not have any cash assets he in fact had \\$394,000 in his safe in his Mahwah Mansion. In any event, given Kwok's bankruptcy filing and his extensive subterfuge in hiding his fraud proceeds, any bond amount-\n\n5 Notably, in Kwok's bankruptcy proceeding, the court-appointed Chapter 11 Trustee filed for a declaratory judgment that Greenwich Land is nothing more than another alter ego used by Kwok to conceal his assets. In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al., No. 22-05003 (JAM), Dkt. 1604 (D. Conn. Bankr. Mar. 27, 2023.) In support of the motion, among other things, the Trustee cited an August 2020 email from Greenwich Land's real estate broker stated that the Greenwich estate was \"bought by Miles [Kwok] under Greenwich Land.\" (Id. Ex. 41.)\n\n## Case 22-500731938829292929897412661601261269289988181216 Page 54 of 98\n\nsecured or not-is likely to be based entirely on assets that are encumbered by bankruptcy proceedings, forfeitable as proceeds of his fraud, or both.4 The defendant's bond proposal is therefore meaningless. Kwok pledging money that is not his (or is subject to the Chapter 11 proceedings) does not any provide \"moral suasion\" against his flight. See United States v. Zhang, No. 22-CR-208-4 (CBA), 2022 WL 17420740, at \\*4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2022) (\"Giving up investment property with unclear ownership that may already be in some jeopardy may seem like a small price to avoid life imprisonment\") (citing United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir. 1998) (discussing bond package in terms of its \"ability to exercise moral suasion\" over the defendant \"should he decide to flee\"), aff\" d, 55 F.4th 141 (2d Cir. 2022)).5\n\nThird, the defendant proposes that he be monitored-at all times-by private security. Kwok's argument that pretrial release would be appropriate only if he were always surveilled by armed guards is tantamount to a concession that he must be detained. He is simply arguing that he be detained in his Greenwich estate, rather than in the federal system, where those without access to his level of resources are held. United States v. Banki, 369 Fed. App'x 152, 154 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining private security \"conditions might be best seen not as specific conditions of release, but simply as a less onerous form of detention available only to the wealthy\"). Thus, this Court should be troubled by the defendant's private jail proposal which, \"at best 'elaborately replicate[s] a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills.\"\" United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)).\n\nIn support of his private armed-security proposal, the defendant points to United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007), but that case is distinguishable. (Def. Mem. at 23-24.) In Sabhani, the Government identified conditions it believed would mitigate against a risk of flight, which included armed security. Id. at 65. The Government does not similarly agree here. Moreover, since the 2007 Sabhani decision, the Second Circuit and district courts have cast doubt on the feasibility of private security arrangements.6 Even the defendant concedes that the Court\n\n4 Indeed, recently the federal bankruptcy court has issued a series of orders temporarily restraining and enjoining a series of Kwok-related entities (generally held in the names of is children) from encumbering, transferring, alienating, dissipating, paying over, or assigning any property and/or assets. (Ex. G (collecting orders).)\n\n5 It is also telling that the defendant has not yet identified any proposed co-signers to the Court or the Government. Sureties must have 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) (\"a defendant must [also] show that the proposed sureties exercise moral suasion to ensure the defendant's presence at trial.\").\n\n6 The defendant relies on Sabhani, claiming that case supports the defendant's contention that a defendant may not be subject to pretrial detention \"where the defendant's wealth is the reason the defendant is deemed a flight risk.\" (Def. Mem. at 24.) This argument is a strawman. The Government is not contending that Kwok's wealth is the only reason he is a flight risk of flight the only reason he should be detained. For similar reasons, the defendant's reliance on United States v. Weigand, 492 F.Supp.3d 317, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), should be discounted. Weigand concerned a foreign-national who was initially detained and later released because the primary risk of flight concerned his wealth. Id. at 318. There were no allegations of ongoing\n\n# Case 22-500731.928222222288974126200720126110016 Page 55\n\nof 98\n\nof Appeals is clear that the \"Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to selffunded private jails.\" United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019) (emphasis added); Banki, 369 Fed. App'x at 153-54 (stating the Court was \"troubled\" by the possibility of \"allow[ing] wealthy defendants to buy their way out by constructing a private jail.\"): United States v. Cilins, No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013) (\"it is contrary to underlying principles of detention and release on bail that individuals otherwise ineligible for release should be able to buy their way out by constructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the Government, even if carefully selected\" (quoting Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d 283, 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Bianco, J.) (\"There is nothing in the Bail Reform Act that would suggest that a defendant (or even, hypothetically, a group of defendants with private funding) has a statutory right to replicate or construct a private jail in a home or some other location.\").\n\nIt is reasonable for courts to be reluctant to allow wealthy defendants to finance their own security as an alternative to pretrial detention. That reluctance is also driven by real-world uncertainties, such as whether defendant-funded private security would, as a practical matter, be accountable to the courts, and whether the guards would have the authority to use force to prevent the defendant from escaping, which could expose them to civil liability. See Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 294 (\"The questions about the legal authorization for the private security firm to use force against defendant should he violate the terms of his release, and the questions over whether the guards can or should be armed, underscore the legal and practical uncertainties-indeed, the imperfections-of the private jail-like concept envisioned by defendant, as compared to the more secure option of an actual jail.\"). As the Government argued in its March 15, 2023 Letter, if the defendant's appearance can only be assured through use of round-the-clock armed guards, the defendant belongs in a federal detention center, not released under bail conditions that effectively create a private prison for one in a luxurious Greenwich estate. See United States v. Zarrab, No. 15 CR 867 (RMB), 2016 WL 3681423, at \\*12 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) (\"What more compelling case for an order of detention is there than a case in which only an armed guard and the threat of deadly force is sufficient to assure the defendant's appearance?\" (quotation and citation omitted).)\n\nFourth, as the Government argued in its March 15, 2023 Letter, GPS monitoring is substantially inadequate. The technology is far from foolproof and will do little to prevent Kwok's flight-a sophisticated international traveler with reams of cash, cellphone scramblers, private aircraft, and a network of supporters located across the globe. See United States v. Freeman, 21 Cr. 88 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2021) (ordering detention in \\$2.3 million money laundering case and noting \"electronic monitoring and the like, as indicated previously, those are far from perfect devices for preventing flight\"); see also Gov't Ltr. at 22 (collecting cases).\n\nFifth, this Court should have little faith that the defendant will surrender all of his travel documents and refrain from obtaining new ones. Kwok's access to travel documents is\n\ndanger or obstruction, and Judge Rakoff's October 5, 2020 opinion cited the \"unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic\" as the basis for pretrial release. Id. at 319.\n\nHere, and generally in his Memorandum, the defendant does not identify the source of funds he intends to use to finance 24/7 private security or other aspects of his proposed pretrial detention.\n\n### - Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 56\n\nof 98\n\n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�(G@ D%#?(#F2D:&2A%&@%F%1@#12HD&#DD/(#1?%D&25&2A0D&[5/(2&#(%&)%(02,%DD- \\52#+,I:@&7#(20?/,#(,I 2(5/+,01\\$:&>45\\*&@0@&152&01F5()&\"(%2(0#,&X%(30?%D&#+5/2&A0D&S#1/#2/&5(&J6K&7#DD75(2D-&[51?%#,01\\$ A0D&2(#3%,&@5?/)%12D&F(5)&\"(%2(0#,&X%(30?%D&0D&(%#D51&%15/\\$A&25&5(@%(&7(%2(0#,&@%2%12051:@&02&7/2D 25&,0%I&?,#0)&2A#2&2A%&[5/(2&?#1&2(/D2&2A%&@%F%1@#12&25&#+0@%&+I&?51@02051D&5F&(%,%#D% remarkable. During an interview on April 19, 2017, Kwok claimed that he \"own[s] about 11 passports,\" including \"three passports of some middle-east countries.\" 8 Kwok's statement is corroborated by the copy of the UAE passport that the FBI located in Kwok's Mahwah Mansion (although the actual passport has not been not located), and Kwok' s Republic of Vanuatu passport located in his co-defendant's safe. 9 Although the Vanuatu and UAE passports are expired and other recovered documents suggest Kwok may no longer have Vanuatu citizenship, these materials demonstrate Kwok's ability to acquire travel documents when he needs them. The defense is simply wrong to suggest that Kwok (and his wife and daughter) could not \"logistically manage\" to travel outside the United States based on a court order to surrender travel documents and not obtain new ones. (Def. Mem. 13). Given Kwok's one-time access to up to 11 passports, and the fact that Kwok and his family have historically traveled internationally on various private air- and seacrafts, the defendant's assurances to this Court are meritless. Notably, and particularly troubling, Kwok did not inform Pretrial Services about his Vanuatu or U AE passports. Concealing his travel documents from Pretrial Services is reason enough to order pretrial detention, and it puts to lie any claim that the Court can trust the defendant to abide by conditions of release.\n\nL/(2A%(:&02&0D&152&?(%@0+,%&F5(&2A%&@%F%1D%&25&?512%1@&2A#2&>45\\*&?#1152&2(#3%,&#,,:&@/%&25 A0D&F%#(&5F&(%7#2(0#2051&25&[A01#-&6??5(@01\\$&25&2A%&@%F%1D%HD&)52051:&>45\\*&F,%@&]51\\$&>51\\$&51 ^#1/#(I&,:&;<8\\_:&A#D&1%3%(&(%2/(1%@&@/%&25&2A%&@#1\\$%(&2A#2&A0D&(%2/(101\\$&25&[A01#&45/,@&75D%:@ ?#1152&2(#3%,&012%(1#2051#,,I&@/%&25&F%#(&5F&(%7#2(0#2051&25&[A01#-&P.%F-&O%)-:&=-Q&M/2&>45\\* A#D&2(#3%,%@`abcdaeb`faegghD01?%&A%&F,%@&[A01#G01?,/@01\\$&/D01\\$&A0D&S#1/#2/&7#D&D75(2-&WA%&?,#0) 2A#2&>45\\*&?#1&+%&154A%(%&%T?%72&2A%&J102%@&X2#2%D:&25Ş@&B2A%&,51\\$&(%#?A&5F&2A%&[[\":B&0D 53%(+,541@&?512(#3%1%@&+I&>45\\*HD&%T2%1D03%&2(#3%,&A0D25(I-&P.%F-&O%)-&8Y-Q Further, it is not credible for the defense to contend that Kwok cannot travel at all, due to his fear of repatriation to China. According to the defense's motion, Kwok fled Hong Kong on January 1, 2015, has never returned due to the danger that his returning to China would pose, and cannot travel internationally due to fear of repatriation to China. (Def. Mem., at 7.) But Kwok *has* traveled *internationally* since he fled China-including using his Vanuatu passport. The claim that Kwok can be nowhere except the United States, to avoid \"the long reach of the CCP,\" is overblown and contravened by Kwok's extensive travel history. (Def. Mem. at 13.)\n\ni`jbkl2A%&?51@02051&2A#2&2A%&@%F%1@#12&(%F(#01&F(5)I&F01#1?0#,&2(#1D#?2051D&P402A5/2 7%()0DD051&F(5)&2A%&Z53%(1)%12&5(&2A%&[5/(2Q&0D&A5,,54@&@5%D&152A01\\$&25&01D/,#2%&2A%&7/+,0? F(5)&>45\\*HD&51\\$501\\$&%?515)0?&A#11-&./%&25&A0D&+#1\\*(/72?I:&>45\\*&0D&#,(%#@I&%FF%?203%,I&D/+m%?2 25&2A0D&?51@02051-&]54%3%(:&#D&#&(%30%4&5F&2A%&+#1\\*(/72?I&@5?\\*%2&01@0?#2%D:&>45\\*&A#D&#?2%@ 2A(5/\\$A&52A%(D@&#&1%245(\\*&5F&DA%,,&?5)7#10%D&25&?51?%#,&A0D&#DD%2D@&F01#1?%D-&N1@%%@:&2A% N1@0?2)%12&02D%,F&%D2#+,0DA%D&2A#2&>45\\*&%1\\$#\\$%@&01&F01#1?0#,&2(#1D#?2051D&+I&@0(%?201\\$&52A%(D&25&#?2 51&A0D&+%A#,F-&O5(%53%(:&>45\\*&A#D&@%)51D2(#2%@&#&40,,01\\$1%DD&25&F,5/2@&/1@%()01%&?5/(2 5(@%(D:&7(530@01\\$&,022,%&#DD/(#1?%&2A#2&2A0D&?51@02051&45/,@&A#3%I&0)7#?2&51&A0)-na&dco&pf qea&rsftl&cb#,-:&[A#72%(&NN&[#D%&\\5-&;;G\\_<<=Y&P^6OQ&PM#1\\*(-&.-&[511-&^#1-&NN:&;<;YQ&P.\\*2-&=: KT-&[:&;Y&G;9&P@%2#0,01\\$&012%(F%(%1?%&402A&2A%&[A#72%(&NN&+#1\\*(/72?I&7(5?%%@01\\$D&+I&>45\\*@ A0D&F5,,54%(D&@%D702%&2A%&0DD/#1?%&5F&#&2%)75(#(I&(%D2(#0101\\$&5(@%(&7(5A0+0201\\$&D/?A&#?2051DQ- >45\\*HD&+#1\\*(/72?I&F0,01\\$&4#D:&02D%,F:%)72&25&?0(?/)3%12&#&\\%4&u5(\\*&X2#2%&X/7(%)%&[5/(2 ^/@\\$%HD&5(@%(&D/+m%?201\\$&>45\\*&25&D#1?2051D&F5(&F#0,01\\$&25&F5,,54&2A#2&?5/(2HD&5(@%(D-&X%%&\"6v '&[5)7,#012&KTA0+02&NM:pwx&yez{[5-:|b}{l&~{&yf&qca`l\\5-&\\_Y;'8;<8=:&.\\*2-&\\5-&=&P\\u X/7-&[2-&6/\\$-&Y<:&;<8=Q&PK1\\$,0DA&2(#1D,#2051&5F&67(0,&89:&;<8=&012%(30%4&+%24%%1&>45\\*@&S50?% 5F&6)%(0?#Q- 9&S#1/#2/&0D&#&D)#,,&0D,#1@&1#2051&01&2A%&X5/2A&\"#?0F0?-&N2&A#D&+%%1&7/+,0?,I&(%75(2%@&2A#2&S#1/#2/ 7%()02D&F5(%0\\$1&1#2051#,D&25&#?V/0(%&S#1/#2/&?020U%1DA07&01&%T?A#1\\$%&F5(&013%D2)%12D&01&2A% ?5/12(I-&X%%&B[020U%1DA07&F5(&D#,%&F/\\$0203%D:&75,020?0#1D@&@0D\\$(#?%@&+/D01%DD7%57,%&+/I01\\$ S#1/#2/ 7#DD75(2D:B WA% Z/#(@0#1: @#2%@ ^/,I 8: ;<;8 P#3#0,#+,% #2 *Sixth,* the condition that the defendant refrain from any financial transactions (without permission from the Government or the Court) is hollow and does nothing to insulate the public from Kwok's ongoing economic harm. Due to his bankruptcy, Kwok is already effectively subject to this condition. However, as a review of the bankruptcy docket indicates, Kwok has acted through others and a network of shell companies to conceal his assets and finances. Indeed, the Indictment itself establishes that Kwok engaged in financial transactions by directing others to act on his behalf. Moreover, Kwok has demonstrated a willingness to flout and undermine court orders, providing little assurance that this condition would have any impact on him. *In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al.,* Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023) (Dkt. 7, Ex. C, at 23 -29 (detailing interference with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings by Kwok and his followers despite the issuance of a temporary restraining order prohibiting such actions). Kwok's bankruptcy filing was, itself, an attempt to circumvent a New York State Supreme Court Judge's order subjecting Kwok to sanctions for failing to follow that court's orders. *See* PAX\n\n8 Complaint Exhibit lB, *HNA Grp. Co., Ltd. , v. Guo Wengui,* No. 653281/2017, Dkt. No. 7 (NY Sup. Ct. Aug. 30, 2017) (English translation of April 19, 2017 interview between Kwok and Voice of America).\n\nA227D&444-2A%\\$/#(@0#1-?5)45(,@;<;&,m/,&,\\_?020U%1DA07GF5(GD#,%GF/\\$0203%DG75,020?0#1DG#1@G @0D\\$(#?%@G+/D01%DD7%57,%G+/I01\\$G3#1/#2/G7#DD75(2DQ 9Vanuatu 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 https ://www. the guardian. com/world/2021/j ul/15/ citizenship-for-sale-fugitives-politicians-anddis graced-businesspeople-bu ying-vanuatu-passports)\n\n## Case 22-500731.9282222228897412661612612812812828998899889101616 Page 57 of 98\n\nLawsuit, No. 652077/2017, 2018 BL 236400, Dkt. 716. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022) (order directed Kwok to pay \\$134 million contempt fine). Indeed, the defendant has already violated this proposed condition by lying to Pretrial Services about his assets-during his interview, Kwok did not disclose the nearly \\$400,000 in cash and foreign currency he kept in a safe in his Mahwah Mansion, nor did he disclose other bank accounts he controls through intermediaries. Kwok's long and documented history of undermining the judicial process and his deception during his Pretrial Services interview demonstrate that this condition would have no impact on Kwok.\n\n## B. Detention in this Case is Consistent with Precedent\n\nThe defendant cites to several fraud cases where defendants were subject to pretrial conditions, even though substantial losses were alleged.10 (See, e.g., Def. Mem. at 1-2, 21-22.) The Government does not dispute that there are examples of cases in which defendants charged with serious economic crimes were granted bail. But the cases the defendant relies on are starkly different from the circumstances presented here by (1) Kwok's extensive foreign ties and minimal ties to the United States, and (2) the ongoing danger posed by Kwok's release. Courts in this District regularly order pretrial detention in cases concerning financial crimes where, such as here, the Government demonstrates that no conditions provide reasonable assurance the defendant will appear in court or the community will be safe. All the cases cited by the defense are distinguishable because they involved the Government's consent to pretrial release at the time of arrest. I and\n\n10 Several of the defendant's cited cases are an order of magnitude different in terms of alleged economic harm than the instant case. United States v. Gulkarov, et al., No. 22 Cr. 20, (S.D.N.Y. 2022) concerned a \\$30 million healthcare fraud. See id., Dkt. 1, at 3. The \\$100 million figure Kwok cites pertains to several interrelated cases. See United States v. Akbar, et al., No. 20 Cr. 563, Dkt. 1, at 4 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (\"potential loss to USPS of up to \\$15 million\"); United States v. McFarland, No. 17 Cr. 600 (NRB), Dkt. 20, at 4 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (\"defendant caused losses to at least seventy victim-investors, totaling more than \\$20 million dollars\"). Kwok is charged with defrauding thousands of victims of more than \\$1 billion.\n\n11 The cases cited by Kwok where the Government ultimately sought pretrial remand were United States v. McFarland, United States v. Madoff, and United States v. Belfort. In McFarland, after the Government consented to pretrial release, on June 18, 2018, it sought detention because McFarland was charged with additional crimes while on release. Judge Buchwald granted the Government's motion. (Id., Dkt. 43.) In Madoff, the Government consented to pretrial release on the day of Madoff's arrest. Nearly two weeks later, the Government sought remand, because it learned that Madoff had mailed expensive items to relatives and friends. When seeking remand, the Government conceded that mailing items did not violate \"the specific conditions of bail\" set in Madoff's criminal case. No. 09 Cr. 213, Dkt. 15, at 5 (SDNY Jan. 12, 2009). Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Ellis denied the Government's motion because, inter alia, \"the Parties had agreed that the measures in place were adequate\" to address concerns about flight. Id. at 9. In declining to find a serious risk of obstruction, the court considered only whether Madoff's mailing of assets to others constituted obstruction and whether those acts suggest a serious risk of future obstruction. Id. at 12. As to the potential ongoing danger, the court considered merely whether the \"potential future dissemination of Madoff's assets would rise to the level of an economic hard cognizable under § 3142,\" not whether Madoff would continue to commit further crimes. Id. at 19. The record before this Court is starkly different. Kwok's obstructive efforts extend far beyond mailing some assets to family and friends. He has threatened witnesses, orchestrated harassment\n\n## Case 22-50073: 222022222222222222020202020202020202020202020202020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\ninvolve defendants with substantially more ties to the United States. 12 By contrast, Kwok has continually lived in the United States for just five years (several of which were during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when international travel was limited). For more than four of those five years, Kwok used the United States as the staging ground to run a billion-dollar fraud enterprise. Further, none of the cases Kwok cites concern defendants with the extensive history of harassment and deception that Kwok has exhibited, 13 let alone the ongoing economic harm Kwok seems adamant to continue inflicting, including by relocating his fraud operations and proceeds abroad to the UAE. Nor do those cases concern defendants with foreign ties anywhere close to the extent that Kwok has. As discussed above, Kwok claims to have had access to 11 foreign passports, has substantial foreign assets, has family abroad, has access to planes and seacraft, and is likely to be helped by his co-defendant, William Je, who is himself an international fugitive hiding in the UAE.\n\nNonetheless, there are amples of individuals charged with fraud and other similar crimes that have been detained over the last several years. Many such cases concern economic losses far smaller, and less complex, than Kwok's billion-dollar fraud. For example:\n\n12 See United States v. Bankman-Fried, 22-cr-673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (American citizen born in the United States); United States v. Hwang, 22-cr-240 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (58-year old naturalized American citizen present in the United States since childhood with a family of American citizens located in New Jersey); United States v. Gulkarov, et al., No. 22-cr-20 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (present in the United States for over 20 years with family in the U.S. including young children in the United States); United States v. McFarland, No. 17-cr-600 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (American citizen born in the United States); United States v. Tucker, et al., No. 16-cr-91 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (same); United States v. Madoff, No. 1:09-cr-00213-DC-1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008) (same); United States v. Holmes et al, No. 5:18-cr-00258-EJD-1 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2018) (same); United States v. Causey et al., No. 4:04-cr-00025-2 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2004) (same regarding Jeffrey Skilling); United States v. Belfort, et al., No. 1:98-cr-00859-AMD-1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 1998) (same).\n\n13 For these reasons United States v. Bankman-Fried is not analogous. In Bankman-Fried, during an appearance before Magistrate Judge Gorenstein, the Government consented to pretrial release due to the following factors, none of which are present here: (i) defendant waived extradition and voluntarily returned to the United States; (ii) no history of flight; (iii) family and community ties; (iv) diminished assets frustrating flight ability; and (v) a \"marginal\" concern of ongoing harm to the community because the defendant is no longer associated with FTX. No. 22 Cr. 673, Dkt. 36, at 6-8 (S.D.NY. Jan. 20, 2023) (transcript of initial appearance). Magistrate Judge Gorenstein found that the weight of the evidence favored pretrial detention but permitted pretrial release, given the parties' agreement, the defendant's U.S. citizenship with \"very strong ties to this country in terms of growing up here and having family who currently lives here,\" and his inability to conduct future financial transactions due to his notoriety mitigating harms. Id., at 13-14. Bankman-Fried's later use of a VPN and improper contact with a single witness does not come close to Kwok's obstructive conduct, concealment of assets, and danger presented by Kwok.\n\ncampaigns directed at court-appointed officials, and circumvented court orders. (Gov't Lt. 12-16.) Moreover, here, the Government does not believe-as it did in Madoff-that conditions can be set which can ameliorate the risk of flight or danger. The Belfort docket is unclear as to why the Government ultimately sought detention and the disposition of the request.\n\n# Case 22-50073:28302222222888741126110126111326141812016 Page 59 of 98\n\n- United States v. Celvin Freeman, 21 Cr. 88 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.) (defendant who resided in New Jersey was charged for laundering approximately \\$2.3 million in fraud proceeds for Ghanaian criminal enterprise and detained because of lack of legal status, strong ties to Ghana, attempted flight during arrest, and significant potential jail time). When ordering detention, Judge Rakoff observed, with respect to co-signers: \"We're not relying on his assets; we're relying on the assets of others, and the kind of scheme that he has involved himself in suggests that his regard for other human beings is modest at most. As for electronic monitoring and the like, as indicated previously, those are far from perfect devices for preventing flight.\" (Feb. 19, 2021, Bail Hearing Tr. at 19-20)).\n- · United States v. Fred Asante, 21 Cr. 88 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.) (defendant who resided in Virginia with his family was charged for laundering approximately \\$6.7 million in fraud proceeds for Ghanaian criminal enterprise and detained because of prior drug felony, prior flight to Ghana using a fake passport, access to substantial sums of money, and lack of disclosure to pretrial services).\n- = United States v. Sheng-Wen Cheng, 21 Cr. 261 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.) (defendant who resided in Manhattan was charged with \\$7 million COVID-19 pandemic loan fraud and detained because defendant had no legal status, substantial access to financial means, strong family ties abroad, and crime involved use of stolen identities).\n- United States v. Muge Ma, 20 Cr. 407 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.) (defendant who resided in Manhattan and had legal permanent resident status in the United States was charged with attempted \\$20 million COVID-19 pandemic loan fraud and detained because he was a Chinese national with strong ties abroad, faced substantial prison time, and the crime involved fabricated documents).\n- = United States v. Malhotra, No. 19 Cr. 411 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) (defendant, an Indian-national, charged with defrauding victims out of more than \\$3 million by promising false computer repair services, was detained based on defendant's risk of flight and lack of contacts to the United States).\n- = United States v. Raniere, 18-CR-204 (NGG), 2018 WL 3057702, at \\*7-8 (E.D.N.Y. June 20, 2018) (detaining defendant based upon flight risk where defendant had no declared assets but appeared to have access to enormous resources offered to be guarded by a private security company).\n- = United States v. Ho, No. 18-1641-cr, (Aug. 30, 2018 2d Cir. 2018) (affirming denial of pretrial release where Chinese-national defendant charged with \\$2.5 million bribery scheme).\n- United States v. Zarrab, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), Dkt. 41 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) (denying pretrial release and rejecting proposal of armed guards, \\$50 million PRB secured by \\$10 million cash, and GPS monitoring. Defendant was charged with various crimes related to violations of sanctions laws).\n\n# Case 22-50073: 222022222222222220202020202020202020202020202020200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\nAs with the above defendants, detention is appropriate here in light of Kwok's substantial means and motive to flee, his demonstrated history of obstruction, and the ongoing danger he poses if released.\n\n## C. The Government Has Demonstrated by a Preponderance of the Evidence that Kwok is a Flight Risk\n\nThe defense's attempts to frame Kwok's personal circumstances as reasons why he is unlikely to flee are unavailing and ignores or minimizes key facts. The defense ignores, and therefore does not significantly dispute, the strength of the Government's evidence and the seriousness of the charges in the Indictment. The defense pays little attention to the decades-long potential prison sentence Kwok faces as a result of his crimes and the powerful motive this creates for him to flee the United States, especially since his connections here are tenuous. At most, Kwok claims that the presence of his wife and daughter in the United States incentivizes him to remain. (Def. Mem. 13.) But this overlooks the fact that in 2015 Kwok left his wife and daughter to enter the United States, see Def. Mem. at 7 and 22, and ignores that Kwok's son presently lives in the United Kingdom. Kwok cannot claim on the one hand that his daughter's and wife's presence in the United States incentivizes him to remain and that, on the other hand, his son's presence in a foreign country does exert any pull to leave.\n\nKwok's argument that he will remain in the United States relies on the proposition that he will not travel, at all, because of security concerns due to the threat posed to him and his family by the CCP. (See Def. Mem. at 14 (\"Kwok [has] real and substantial security concerns about the threat posed by the CCP were he to travel abroad.\"), id. at 22 (\"threats that are far more likely to become realities should Mr. Kwok flee the United States\").) This argument does not withstand scrutiny. Kwok claims to have fled China in 2015 because he feared arrest by the CCP. Yet Kwok continued to travel internationally, despite the CCP's attempts to repatriate him. (See Gov't Ltr. at 2.) It may be that Kwok has not traveled internationally since applying for asylum in 2017, since the application precludes it, but Kwok's asylum application is seriously jeopardized in light of the Indictment. With an asylum denial looming, his incentive to remain in the United States completely dissolves. 14\n\nNext, the defense argues that Kwok lacks the financial means to flee. This argument also collapses under closer inspection. If it is true, as the defense claims, that Kwok has the ability to put forth a \\$5 million cash bond, cover the expenses of round-the-clock armed guards, and cover\n\n14 Kwok conclusory suggests that, even if he were convicted, he would be \"eligible\" to remain in the United States pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. (Def. Mem., at 15.) Even if granted that protection, which is not certain, the Convention does not require that those eligible remain in the United States. See Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 432 F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming denial of application for relief under the CAT to prevent return to China). Those protected under CAT may be removed to third-party countries. Mudiangomba v. Holder, 372 F. App'x 161, 164 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming decision removing individual to alternative country). In any event, the theoretical possibility that Kwok, after conviction, and after serving a prison term, might be eligible to remain in the United States hardly suggests he is incentivized to remain now while subject to substantial criminal consequences. Kwok's theoretical CAT protection does not come close to rebutting the factors offered by the Government demonstrating by a preponderance Kwok's extraordinary flight risk.\n\n## Case 22-50073:32980028888754766110120126723222222222222222222222222222222222222222221612216 Page 61 of 98\n\n\\$100,000 of monthly expenses, he has the finances to escape from this country. Indeed, the Government found more than \\$500,000 in United States currency, foreign currency, and gold coins in one of his homes-all assets that he did not disclose to Pretrial Services. His co-defendant Wang had another \\$138,000 in cash in her apartment. And William Je, the financial architect of the fraud, is a fugitive believed to be hiding in the UAE. Je is believed to have access to millions of dollars of fraud proceeds in foreign accounts that can be used to facilitate Kwok's and his family's flight. The bank documents found in Wang's condominium corroborate the presence of other assets. Those documents reflect balances, as of March 13, 2023, of at least approximately \\$34 million held in the names of entities associated with the fraud. Given this backdrop, the defense argument that Kwok's bankruptcy filing means he lacks the finances to flee is simply wrong. (Def. Mem. at 28-29.) If anything, Kwok's bankruptcy further supports his pretrial detention, because it is evidence of the extreme lengths, and judicial gamesmanship, that Kwok undertakes to conceal his wealth.\n\nFurther, as described above, Kwok has stated he held eleven passports. The Government presently possesses his Hong Kong and Republic of Vanuatu passports. Kwok appears to hold a UAE passport that is unaccounted for, and it is not clear what other countries provided Kwok with travel documents. The fact that Kwok has obtained travel documents from at least three countries-and possibly as many as eleven-demonstrates that no court order can prevent Kwok from obtaining additional travel documents for himself and his family members. Kwok is also believed to have a private plane in Europe under the control of his son. As evidenced by the many stamps in his Hong Kong passport, and his admission to pretrial of traveling to more than \"fifty\" countries, Kwok is a deeply experienced international traveler who is comfortable in many locations throughout the world. Zarrab, 2016 WL 3681423, at \\*8 (citing \"lack of ties to the United States; his significant wealth and his substantial resources; his extensive international travel; and his strong ties to foreign countries\" as relevant considerations when ordering pretrial detention). Kwok's support is not limited to his son. As the bankruptcy court decisions have made clear, Kwok has a vast network of supporters willing to harbor and assist him should he request their help. Kwok has access to a deep well of resources-finances, documents, and a global network of supporters. No court-imposed conditions can ameliorate that.\n\nWhile the Government believes there are many locations to which Kwok can flee, the United Arab Emirates is an obvious destination for several reasons. GCLUBS and the Himalaya Exchange have offices and personnel in the UAE. Indeed, earlier this year, two American citizens associated with GCLUBS and other entities used in the fraud obtained visas to work, and stay, in the UAE. If GCLUBS personnel can obtain visas, then certainly Kwok-i.e. \"The Principal\" of the fraud-can do so as well. The defense ignores that Kwok has promoted sending funds to the UAE as a way to avoid the \"long arm jurisdiction of the U.S.\" (Gov't Ltr. at 19.) Thus, Kwok knows the UAE is a relatively safe place for him to hide his assets, his family, and himself. Indeed, as noted, Kwok's co-defendant is believed to be hiding there right now. It is not credible for the defense to summarily claim there \"is not evidence that Kwok would or could flee to the UAE.\" (Def. Mem. at 13-14.)\n\n## D. The Government Has Demonstrated that Kwok is a Danger to the Community and the Judicial Process\n\nThe defendant generally ignores the substantial evidence the Government has put forth demonstrating Kwok's propensity to inflict further economic harm on the community. As\n\n# Case 22-50073: 222022222222222222202020202020202020202020202020202020202000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\n\nof 98\n\ndescribed in the Government's March 15 Letter, the defendant's fraud has escalated over the course of years. Kwok has not stopped despite intervention by the SEC, closing of his accounts, receipt of grand jury subpoenas by entities affiliated with him, seizure of \\$630 million dollars, contempt rulings by a New York Supreme Court judge, and similar findings by a federal bankruptcy judge. (See Gov't Ltr. at 19-20.) The potential for ongoing harm is not theoretical. Just one month before his arrest, Kwok started promoting the \"A10\" offering-a purported investment opportunity that is consistent with the hallmarks of all of Kwok's other fraudulent offerings. (Id. at 10.) This Court can have no reasonable assurances that Kwok will simply stop his fraud efforts because he is ordered to do so, nor that he will not engage in financial transactions if this Court so directs him-particularly where the defendant has demonstrated extraordinary sophistication. 35 The defendant uses dozens of different cellphones and cellphone scramblers; he has relied on an intricate and dense web of shell corporations, middle men, and subterfuge. Kwok's ability to conceal his actions is not speculative. Federal and state court judges have found as much. See e.g., Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at \\*1 (finding by Judge Liman that \"Eastern Profit Corporation,\" nominally held by Kwok's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for Kwok): February 9, 2022 Decision and Order, at 1, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181 (finding Kwok used shell companies to shield his assets); In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), at 10 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023) (Filed at Dkt. 7, Exhibit C) (identifying five organizations and movements which \"serve as business vehicles for [Kwok], and their members are personally loyal to the [Kwok]\").\n\nThe defense does little to contend with the mountain of evidence demonstrating Kwok's risk of obstruction of justice if he were released. Indeed, Kwok already appears to be engaged in such efforts. On March 29, 2023, the Government was advised by MDC staff that Kwok's \"family members have been manipulating the [legal call] system and providing false information to circumvent the legal call system.\" (Ex. F.) On at least two occasions, Kwok communicated with individuals who appear to be family members using the legal call system, which is intended to be used only by inmates and their counsel. One occasion was after Kwok and his family were warned that the legal call system may not be used for social calls. Virtual legal calls are not recorded, whereas calls between an inmate and their family members are generally subject to monitoring. It appears that Kwok circumvented the rules of the MDC in an effort to avoid law enforcement\n\n15 Kwok relies on United States v. Stein in support of the argument that a defendant's past involvement in criminal activity is not itself sufficient to demonstrate an ongoing danger. In Stein, unlike here, the Government did not undertake any \"real effort to suggest that there is a substantial risk that [the defendant] will continue to [commit crimes] if released pending trial.\" No. S1 05 Cr. 888 (LAK), 2005 WL 8157371, at \\*8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005). Here, the Government has shown that, no matter the circumstances, Kwok continues to flout court orders and law enforcement actions and continues to commit fraud. In any event, Stein is a case in which the defendant charged with economic crimes was detained pending trial because, inter alia, the defendant was a flight risk whose financial disclosure was misleading. Id .; see also id. at \\*2 (\"nonviolent witness tampering and obstruction poses a danger to the community and that the risk of such activities, in an appropriate case, would support pretrial detention\" (citing United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 132 (2d Cir. 2000)).\n\n## Case 22-50073:3328002888897416611012012672322222222222222216:1216 Page 63 of 98\n\nmonitoring his activities. As a result, Kwok was temporarily banned from remote attorney visits. 16 If Kwok cannot abide by the rules of the MDC, there is no reasonable assurance that he will follow any conditions of pretrial release.\n\nTellingly, the defense does not meaningfully respond to or refute the many examples of obstruction described in the Government's March 15, 2023 Letter, including: (i) Kwok's use of civil lawsuits to avoid payments to creditors; (ii) Kwok's February 15, 2022 bankruptcy filing to avoid a contempt ruling by a New York State Judge; (iii) the January 2023 findings by a federal bankruptcy judge that Kwok, despite the issuance of a TRO, continued to harass (through intermediaries) a court-appointed bankruptcy Trustee, his law firm Paul Hastings, and the law firm of O'Melveny & Mevers who represents one of Kwok's largest creditors, where those involved in the bankruptcy have received death threats from Kwok's supporters; (iv) Kwok's statements, in a January 23, 2023 video on his Gettr page following the bankruptcy court's preliminary injunction, in which Kwok encouraged his followers to obstruct the bankruptcy court and flood the docket with unsupported claims; (v) Kwok's video presentation in November 2022, explaining to his followers how to avoid subpoenas issued in connection with the bankruptcy17; (vi) Kwok's attacks against Individual-2, branding that person a \"demon\" and CCP spy, thereby subjecting Individual-2 to attacks by Kwok's followers; (vii) threats against victims who have complained about Kwok's fraud; (viii) Kwok's attacks against his critics, including calling for violence against a pastor who criticized Kwok; and (ix) Kwok's mobilization of his followers against a journalist in Canada, which resulted in physical assault of the journalist's friend.\n\nAt most, the defense generalizes these facts and suggests that they do \"not constitute obstruction of justice.\" (Def. Mem. at 18.) The defense is wrong. While Kwok is not presently charged with obstruction-of-justice crimes, that does not mean the Court should excuse Kwok's substantial and dangerous obstructive conduct described in the Government's letters. That conduct includes many instances of Kwok using his power and his followers to interfere and pressure those who have instigated judicial proceedings against him. It includes Kwok's threatening of victims, encouraging witnesses to avoid legal process, encouraging thousands to disrupt bankruptcy proceedings, and mobilizing a pressure campaign that relies on violent threats (and sometimes actual violence) to dissuade others from acting against him. These are definitionally obstructive acts. The defense alternatively asserts that, even if these actions are obstructive, none of them are attributable to Kwok. The defense is again mistaken. Among other things, Kwok is literally on video engaging in obstructive conduct.\n\nFinally, the defendant's contention that his proposed conditions would \"eliminate any risk of obstruction\" is unsupported and unpersuasive. (Def. Mem. at 18.) First, for all the reasons outlined above, this Court can have no reasonable assurance that Kwok will follow its orders (as opposed to the other court orders Kwok has defied). Second, Kwok is called \"The Principal,\" by his co-conspirators for a reason. He operates through agents. Kwok issues directives to his coconspirators and followers, who then act on his wishes while enabling Kwok to disclaim\n\n16 The Government subsequently advised the MDC the identity of Kwok's counsel and will work with the MDC to ensure that remote attorney visits with Kwok's counsel may resume. The Government will also work with the MDC to ensure Kwok has access to case materials and can meaningfully assist in the preparation of his defense.\n\n17 http\n\n# Case 22-50073: 222022222222222222020202020202020202020202020202020200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\ninvolvement. Already, while incarcerated Kwok appears to have evaded the Bureau of Prison's rules. And already, Kwok's associates appear intent on obstructing justice in this case (as they have in others). For example, on March 30, 2023, Kwok's Gettr account posted false accusations about members of the undersigned prosecution team and an attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 18 This post was made in Kwok's name, and on his account; it strains credulity to believe it was not authorized by Kwok himself.\n\nWhile this Court can have no assurance that Kwok would abide by conditions of release, the Court can be reasonably assured that, if Kwok were released, his ability to coordinate a burgeoning campaign to obstruct these proceedings and to intimidate and endanger witnesses as well as Government employees merely performing their jobs. would increase exponentially.\n\n### IV. Conclusion\n\nPretrial Services was right to recommend detention. This Court should order the same. The Government has met its burden and demonstrated there are no conditions or combination of conditions that can satisfy this Court that the defendant will appear in court as required or that the community will be safe.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson Assistants United States Attorney (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\nEnclosures\n\nCopy to: William R. Baldiga, Stephen R. Cook, and Stephen A. Best, counsel for the defendant Stephen Boose, Pretrial Services, Southern District of New York\n\n18 http\n\nCase 22Google 3:23Sock2DBB388PSHMa1100262239Ag48118 19Page 65\n01 19Page 3:23Sock2DBB8887 1198\n\n# Exhibit G\n\n# Casse 22250067332 Deville 222 2017 26 1661 1662 261 11 26 16 16 16 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 of 98\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re: | Chapter 11 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., 1 | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor. | (Jointly Administered) |\n| HK International Funds Investments
(USA) Limited, LLC
Plaintiff
V.
Ho Wan Kwok
Defendant | Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05003 |\n| Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins
Counter-Plaintiff
V.
HK International Funds Investments
(USA) Limited, LLC, and Mei Guo
Counter-Defendants. | |\n\nThe Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# Casse 222500673222000000202020000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\n## ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 7065 EREEZING ASSETS OF COUNTER-DEFENDANTS\n\nWHEREAS, Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\"), is the counterclaim-plaintiff in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"), has moved for a preliminary injunction (the \"Motion\") freezing certain assets of counterclaim-defendants HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) Limited LLC (\"HK USA\") and MEI GUO (\"Ms. Guo\" and, together with HK USA, collectively, the \"Counterclaim-Defendants\"); and\n\nWHEREAS, on the basis of the papers submitted, following a hearing, and upon the consent of the Counterclaim-Defendants, the Trustee has demonstrated an entitlement to the requested preliminary injunction, and all objections to the Motion having been overruled;\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that:\n\n- (a) Counter-Defendants shall not transfer, encumber, move, dispose of, or in any way impair the Lady May until further order of the Court;\n- (b) Counter-Defendants shall not withdraw, transfer, encumber, move, dispose of, or in any way impair the Escrowed Funds2 until further order of the Court;\n- (c) Counter-Defendant Mei Guo shall not transfer, encumber, move, dispose of, or in any way impair her interest(s) in HK USA until further order of the Court; and\n- (d) Counter-Defendants shall identify to the Trustee and to the Court within five days of entry of this Order any other property in which they hold an interest, and Counter-Defendants shall not transfer, encumber, move, dispose of, or in any way impair their interest(s) in such property until further order of the Court.\n\nIt is further ORDERED that:\n\n1. The Motion is GRANTED in all respects.\n\nThe Trustee shall NOT be required to give a bond in connection with the 2. preliminary injunction.\n\n3. The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the terms of this Order.\n\n4. This Order is immediately enforceable.\n\n2 &quot;Escrowed Funds\" means the funds deposited pursuant to that certain Escrow Agreement, dated as of April 28, 2022, by and among HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok, and U.S. Bank National Association.\n\n# Cæsse 222500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\n5. to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 17th day of March, 2023.\n\nJulie A. Manning\nUnited States Bankruptcy Judge\nDistrict of Connecticut\n\n# Casse 222500620222223901241662263281261261261261261239261839181816111212811111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 of 98\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re: | Chapter 11 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.
이 중 하나님의 글 도매 대표 후 모바일 바 오늘 이름에게 된 일본 | (Jointly Administered) |\n| HK International Funds Investments
(USA) Limited, LLC
Plaintiff
V.
Ho Wan Kwok | Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05003
Re: ECF No. 146 |\n| Defendant | |\n| Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins
Counter-Plaintiff
V.
HK International Funds Investments
(USA) Limited, LLC, and Mei Guo
Counter-Defendants. | |\n| | |\n\n## ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT\n\nThe Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# Casse 222 500 2020 222 22 2012 22 22 26 26 26 26 2012 26 26 2012 26 26 2012 2017 2017 2017 20 of 98\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Luc A. Despins, as chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\"') for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to this adversary proceeding under Rules 7001 and 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), for entry of an order granting summary judgment in the Trustee's favor; and this Court having found that the Court has jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. \\$ \\$ 157 and 1334; the relief requested therein is core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and there is no genuine issue as to any material fact entitling the Trustee to summary judgment in his favor on the First Counterclaim; after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, and for the reasons stated on the record during a hearing held on March 27, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. The Debtor is the beneficial owner of, and controls, the yacht the Lady May (as defined below).\n\n3. Effective as of 2:55 p.m. on March 27, 2023, the Lady May (as defined below) is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate (the \"Estate\") pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) to be administered by the Trustee. In particular, the sole owner of the Lady May is:\n\n> Name: Luc A. Despins, as the chapter 11 trustee for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok Address: c/o Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166\n\n1 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined have the meanings set forth in the Motion.\n\n# --\n\n !\"#\\$%\"#&'(')&'\\*+,-'\\*./ 01 23456789:795;4<4;=>?>34F G7H4F6789:79 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 71 of 98\n\n4. The \"Lady May\" refers to the following yacht:\n\nGIHJ4;KL47;7C8M?;>?;7>B?CFOPBCQRSTKU4?;D42?ACKV79H7CW=@7C8= W:XY6NGIHJ4;FSRSQOZP X<>4;=F]U^\\_P Name: Lady May Number, Year and Port of Registration: 39 in 2014, George Town, Cayman Islands IMO/LR Number: 1012359 Official Number: 745195 Signal Letters: ZGDQ9\n\n`1 MI;=I7C>>?SSab\\bVbcZTQd7eK>34V?IC>4;f^4<4C87C>=KBb4bKghWC>4;C7>B?C7@ iIC8=WCj4=>H4C>=da\\ke6BHB>48K66V7C8:4BUI?K=37@@84@Bj4;>346789:79>?>34 2;I=>44BHH48B7>4@9K7C8KH?;4?j4;K=37@@l;?jB847C97C87@@7==B=>7CE4;47=?C7J@9C4E4==7;9 >?dBe4C7J@4>342;I=>44>?;4DB=>4;>34?AC4;=3Bl?<>346789:79BC>34C7H4?<>342;I=>44 d?CJ437@34m=>7>4e7C8dBBe>;7C=B>B?C?l4;7>B?C7C8H7BC>4C7CE4?<>346789:79>?>34m=>7>4 d?CJ437@34m=>7>4eKBCE@I8BCD7=B>;4@7>4=>?l;?EI;BCD7ll;?l;B7>4BC=I;7CE4E?j4;7D434 6789:79b 5. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542(a), the Counter-Defendants, *i.e.,* **HK** International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and Mei Guo, shall deliver the Lady May to the Trustee immediately, and, moreover, shall provide any and all assistance reasonably necessary to (i) enable the Trustee to register the ownership of the Lady May in the name of the Trustee ( on behalf of the Estate) and (ii) transition operation and maintenance of the Lady May to the Estate ( on behalf of the Estate), including as it relates to procuring appropriate insurance coverage for the\n\nn1 2342;I=>44B=7I>3?;Bo48>?>7p47@@7E>B?C=C4E4==7;9?;7ll;?l;B7>4>?4<<4E>I7>4 >3B=X;84;KBCE@I8BCD4;4DB=>;7>B?C=>?;4<@4E>>37>>342;I=>44 d?CJ437@34m=>7>4eB=>34;4DB=>4;48?AC4;?<>346789:79b Lady May. 6. The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary or appropriate to effectuate this Order, including filing all necessary or appropriate registrations to reflect that the Trustee ( on behalf of the Estate) is the registered owner of the Lady May.\n\nq1 mC>;9?<>3B=X;84;B=AB>3?I>l;4rI8BE4>?>342;I=>44lI;=IBCD>34?>34; V?IC>4;E@7BH=BC>34kC=A4;7C8V?IC>4;E@7BH=Il?CC?>BE47C84C>;9?<7=E348I@BCD?;84;J9 7. Entry of this Order is without prejudice to the Trustee pursuing the other Counterclaims in the Answer and Counterclaims upon notice and entry of a scheduling order by the Court.\n\n>34V?I;>b1 23B=X;84;B=4<<4E>Bj4BHH48B7>4@9K7C8C?=>79lI;=I7C>>?NI@4[RsQ?<>34 i484;7@NI@4=?E9M;?E48I;4=37@@J44<<4E>Bj4K7C8>34V?I;>34;4J9A7Bj4=7C9 @BHB>7>B?C==4>3BCNI@4[RsQ?<>34i484;7@NI@4=?E9M;?E48I;4?C>342;I=>44u= 7JB@B>9>?4C3B=rI8DH4C>Il?CB>=4C>;9b 8. This Order is effective immediately, and no stay pursuant to Rule 7062 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure shall be effective, and the Court hereby waives any limitations set forth in Rule 7062 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure on the Trustee's ability to enforce this judgment upon its entry.\n\n3\n\n# Cæsse 222500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\n9.\n\nrelated to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 27th day of March, 2023.\n\nJulie A. Manning\nUnited States Bankruptcy Judge\nDistrict of Connecticut\n\n# Casee 2 & or on s 3 3 San 2 ( 1 2 3 % 2 ( 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 3 % 1 % 3 % 1 % 3 % 1 % 3 % 1 % 3 % % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 of 98\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT\n\n| In re:
HO WAN KWOK, et al., | )
Chapter 11
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)
(Jointly Administered) | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Debtors. | | |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE
FOR THE ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK, | )
Adv. P. No. 23-05005 (JAM) | |\n| Plaintiff | | |\n| V.
GREENWICH LAND, LLC and
HING CHI NGOK, | Re: ECF No. 12 | |\n| Defendant. | | |\n\n## ORDER GRANTING IN PART EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION\n\nUpon consideration of the ex parte motion dated March 27, 2023 (the \"Motion\") filed by Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\"), pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable by Rule 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, for injunctive relief to restrain defendant Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") and Hing Chi Ngok (\"Defendant Ngok\" and, together with Greenwich\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# Case 2 2 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 3 8 2 6 0 6 0 2 6 1 2 6 1 2 6 1 2 6 1 2 6 1 2 6 1 2 6 1 2 6 2 0 2 2 4 2 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 of 98\n\nLand, collectively, the \"Defendants\") from encumbering, transferring, dissipating or otherwise interfering with their property and/or assets, and upon the certification of counsel why notice should not be required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), and upon all other pleadings filed in this adversary proceeding and the related jointly administered Chapter 11 cases of Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\"); it is hereby\n\nORDERED: Sufficient reason has been shown for the issuance of a temporary restraining order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) pending the hearing of the Trustee's Motion for Preliminary Injunction because immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the Trustee before the Defendants can be heard in opposition, and the Trustee has certified in writing that he gave notice to counsel for the Defendants who has appeared on behalf of the Defendants in the Main Case; and it is further\n\nORDERED: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), the Defendants, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons in active concert or participation with the foregoing upon receipt of actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are temporarily restrained and enjoined from encumbering, transferring, alienating, dissipating, paying over or assigning any property and/or assets of the Defendants; and it is further\n\nORDERED: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 65(b), the Defendants, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons in active concert or participation with the foregoing upon receipt of actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, are temporarily restrained and enjoined from directing any of the Defendants' banking institutions to encumber, transfer, alienate, dissipate, pay over or assign any property and/or assets of the Defendants until further order of this Court; and it is further\n\n2\n\n# Casee2235000333000022222-98125600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\nORDERED: The terms and conditions of this Temporary Restraining Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry; and it is further\n\nORDERED: A hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be held on April 11, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. and will continue until concluded; and it is further\n\nORDERED: Pursuant to this Court's discretion to set or waive the amount of any bond\n\nto be posted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, the Trustee need not post a bond; and it is further\n\nORDERED: The Trustee shall serve this Temporary Restraining Order on the Defendants and the Defendants' counsel, who have not yet appeared in this adversary proceeding; and it is further\n\nORDERED: This Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect until further order of the Court and the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding to ensure compliance with this Order and for all other purposes related to this adversary proceeding.\n\nEntered at Bridgeport, Connecticut at 6:34 p.m. on March 28, 2023.\n\nBY THE COURT\n\nJulie A. Manning\nUnited States Bankruptcy Judge\nDistrict of Connecticut\n\n### 05/05/2023\\_DktFntry: Case 2 2 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 of 98\n\n## UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n| In re: | | Chapter 11 |\n|-------------------------------------------|-------------|------------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., 1 | . . | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | (Jointly Administered) |\n| | | |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE, | | |\n| | Plaintiff, | Adv. Proceeding No. 23-05005 |\n| V. | | |\n| GREENWICH LAND, LLC and
HING CHI NGOK, | | Re: ECF No. 11 |\n| | Defendants. | |\n| | | |\n\n## ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S AMENDED APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE PREJUDGMENT REMEDY\n\nWHEREAS, Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\"), is the counterclaim-plaintiff in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"), has made an application for an ex parte prejudgment remedy (the \"Application\") to secure his claims against defendants Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") and Hing Chi Ngok (\"Defendant Ngok\" and, together with Greenwich Land, collectively, the \"Defendants\"); and\n\nWHEREAS, the requirements of section 52-278e(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes having been shown, on the basis of the papers submitted, including but not limited to the supporting\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# Caaoe2235000333000002922-19812600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of 98\n\naffidavit(s), there is probable cause that a judgment in the amount equal to or greater than \\$6.8 million, taking into account any known defenses, counterclaims or set-offs, will be rendered in the matter in favor of the Trustee, and there is a reasonable likelihood that the Defendants (1) have hidden or will hide themselves so that process cannot be served on them or (2) are about to remove themselves or their property from this state or (3) are about to fraudulently dispose of or have fraudulently disposed of any of their property with intent to hinder, delay or defraud their creditors or (4) have fraudulently hidden or withheld money, property or effects which should be liable to the satisfaction of their debts.\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Trustee shall be authorized, to the amount of \\$8,314,200;\n\n(a) To attach sufficient property of the Defendants, as known, including that certain real property commonly known as 373 Taconic Rd, Greenwich, CT 06831, or as may hereafter be identified, or as otherwise discovered by the Trustee, to secure such sum;\n\n(b) To garnish the Defendants' accounts at any financial institution, as known, including without limitation the accounts identified at exhibits 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, and 50 to the Complaint, or as may hereafter be identified, or as otherwise discovered by the Trustee;\n\n(c) To attach any stock, membership, or other equity interests of the Defendants in any entity(ies), as known, including Defendant Ngok's membership interest in Greenwich Land, or as may hereafter be identified, or as otherwise discovered by the Trustee;\n\n(d) To attach any personal property (including but not limited to automobiles, boats, aircraft, art, jewelry, and collectibles) and any currency or negotiable instruments in which the Defendants have any interest, as known, including personal property of the Defendants located at 373 Taconic Rd, Greenwich CT 06831, or as may hereafter be identified, or as otherwise discovered by the Trustee;\n\n(e) To attach property of the Defendants in possession of any third persons, as known or as may hereafter be identified, or as otherwise discovered by the Trustee; and/or\n\n(f) To garnish third persons in possession of other property of the Defendants or owing debts to the Defendants, as known or as may hereafter be identified, or as otherwise discovered by the Trustee.\n\n## It is further ORDERED that:\n\n1. The Trustee shall NOT be required to give a bond in connection with the prejudgment remedy.\n\nN The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the terms of this Order.\n\n### ---- Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 78 of 98\n\n !\"#\"\\$%&%'()\\*+,& -&./ 01 23456789:;<<=>34?7<4@34@8;AB@9@9;C4>6AD4A;4A996934E4F4A?@A9=:3484934 56789:;<<>6A=;?48934>6A9;A7@9;6A6F934G84H7?BC4A984<;4FB8@A94?3484;AI:;93934J78?4A 84C@;A;AB6A934287=94496H7=9;FK934>6A9;A7@9;6A6F=7>3G84H7?BC4A984<;4F:;936798446F=7>384<;4F1 3. The Court will schedule a hearing at a time convenient to the Defendants where the Court will consider the continuation of the prejudgment relief granted herein, with the burden remaining on the Trustee to justify the continuation of such prejudgment relief without relying on the prior issuance of such relief.\n\nL1 23;=56789=3@<<849@;AH78;=?;>9;6A:;9384=G4>996@<4C4A96F93;=M8?481 4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\n> E@94?@9N8;?B4G689I56AA4>9;>7993;=OP93?@K6FQ@8>3IORO01 Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 28th day of March, 2023.\n\nSTUVWXYZ[\\ ]^\\_`ab\\_ cc\\_c defghijjkbljb me\\_mka\n\n#### - Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 79 of 98\n\n### ! !\"! #!\\$! **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
!
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
!\"!
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION
#!\\$! |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ------------------------------------------------------x | %& |\n| In re:
'()*+ | Chapter 11
,-./0*)11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, etal.,
1
2345674879*0.:;< | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)
,.=*63;>>%?@@ABCD5E< |\n| Debtor.
FGHIJ
------------------------------------------------------x | (Jointly Administered)
CD3K(0LM5NOK(K=0*)*N< |\n| HK International Funds Investments
27'(0*)(.0K3(.LPQ(N='(R*=0O*(0=
(USA) Limited, LLC
CST5 %& | %& |\n| Plaintiff
VL.K(0KYY | Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05003
5NR;V)3W**NK(X63;>>%@?@@B |\n| V.
Z[ | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok
234.(7\\3] | |\n| Defendant
^*Y*(N.(0 | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x
Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins
,-./0*)11_)Q=0**UQW5;^*=/K(= | %& |\n| Counter-Plaintiff
,3Q(0*)%VL.K(0KYY
V.
Z[ | |\n| HK International Funds Investments
27'(0*)(.0K3(.LPQ(N='(R*=0O*(0=
(USA) Limited, LLC, and Mei Guo
CST5 | |\n| Counter-Defendants.
,3Q(0*)%^*Y*(N.(0=;
------------------------------------------------------x | |\n\n\\_-\\*^\\*b03)=K(0-\\*=\\*W-./0\\*)11W.=\\*=.)\\*234.(7\\3]C.L=3](3\\(.=`Q34\\*(XQK9EKL\\*=`Q39.(NEKL\\*= 7\\3]9.=\\\\*LL.=(QO\\*)3Q=30-\\*).LK.=\\*=@><.(N`\\*(\\*R\\*)23LNK(X=,3)/3).0K3(;\\_-\\*O.KLK(X.NN)\\*== Y3)0-\\*\\_)Q=0\\*\\*9`\\*(\\*R\\*)23LNK(X=UU,9.(N0-\\*`\\*(\\*R\\*)23LNK(X=,3)/3).0K3(K=V.QL2.=0K(X=UUV9>@@V.)] 5R\\*(Q\\*96\\*\\e3)]96e1@1ffWg@UQW5;^\\*=/K(=9.=\\_)Q=0\\*\\*Y3)0-\\*h=0.0\\*3Y234.(7\\3]C=3L\\*LMY3)/Q)/3=\\*= 3Y(30KW\\*=.(NW3OOQ(KW.0K3(=<; The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# Casse 22250007023 Shivpland 2015/13/2018 12:51 Tarin Scholz 2022 2018 14/8 1 1 alle 2018 2018 20180 of 98\n\n## AMENDMENT TO ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 7065 FREEZING ASSETS OF COUNTER-DEFENDANTS\n\nWHEREAS, Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\"), is the counterclaim-plaintiff in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"), moved for a preliminary injunction (the \"Motion\") freezing certain assets of counterclaim-defendants HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) Limited LLC (\"HK USA\") and MEI GUO (\"Ms. Guo\" and, together with HK USA, collectively, the \"Counterclaim-Defendants\"); and\n\nWHEREAS, on March 17, 2023, the Court entered the Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065 Freezing Assets of Counter-Defendants [Docket No. 142] (the \"Original Order\");\n\nWHEREAS, a status conference was held on March 30, 2023 (the \"Status Conference\") concerning certain developments related to the Original Order;\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons discussed on the record during the Status Conference, including the Counter-Defendants' consent to the relief provided for herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the Original Order remains in full force and effect, except that it is amended to provide as follows:\n\n- 1. Counter-Defendants shall not transfer, encumber, move, dispose of, or in any way impair their interest(s) in any property or assets wherever located, regardless of whether such interest(s) have been disclosed to the Trustee pursuant to paragraph (d) of the Original Order or otherwise;\n- 2. This amendment to the Original Order is immediately enforceable and shall be effective retroactive to the time of entry of the Original Order;\n- 3. The Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the terms of this amendment to the Original Order.\n- 4. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this amendment to the Original Order.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 31st day of March, 2023.\n\nA. Manning States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n### -\n Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 81 of 98\n\n### ! !\"! #!\\$! **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| !\"!
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION
#!\\$! | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| ------------------------------------------------------x | %& | |\n| In re:
'()*+ | Chapter 11
,-./0*)11 | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, etal.,
1
2345674879*0.:;< | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)
,.=*63;>>%?@@ABCD5E< | |\n| Debtor.
FGHIJ
------------------------------------------------------x | (Jointly Administered)
CD3K(0LM5NOK(K=0*)*N< | |\n| HK International Funds Investments
27'(0*)(.0K3(.LPQ(N='(R*=0O*(0=
(USA) Limited, LLC
CST5 %& | %& | |\n| Plaintiff
VL.K(0KYY | Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05003
5NR;V)3W**NK(X63;>>%@?@@B | |\n| V.
Z[ | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok
234.(7\\3] | | |\n| Defendant
^*Y*(N.(0 | | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x
Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins
,-./0*)11_)Q=0**UQW5;^*=/K(= | %& | |\n| Counter-Plaintiff
,3Q(0*)%VL.K(0KYY
V.
Z[ | | |\n| HK International Funds Investments
27'(0*)(.0K3(.LPQ(N='(R*=0O*(0=
(USA) Limited, LLC, and Mei Guo
CST5 | | |\n| Counter-Defendants.
,3Q(0*)%^*Y*(N.(0=; | | |\n\n## **AMENDMENT TO ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTA TE OF HO WAN KWOK FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT**\n\n\\_-\\*^\\*h03)=K(0-\\*=\\*W-./0\\*)11W.=\\*=.)\\*234.(7\\3]C.L=3](3\\(.=`Q34\\*(XQK9EKL\\*=`Q39.(NEKL\\*= 7\\3]9.=\\\\*LL.=(QO\\*)3Q=30-\\*).LK.=\\*=@><.(N`\\*(\\*R\\*)23LNK(X=,3)/3).0K3(;\\_-\\*O.KLK(X.NN)\\*== Y3)0-\\*\\_)Q=0\\*\\*9`\\*(\\*R\\*)23LNK(X=UU,9.(N0-\\*`\\*(\\*R\\*)23LNK(X=,3)/3).0K3(K=V.QL2.=0K(X=UUV9>@@V.)] 5R\\*(Q\\*96\\*\\k3)]96k1@1llWm3UQW5;^\\*=/K(=9.=\\_)Q=0\\*\\*Y3)0-\\*n=0.0\\*3Y234.(7\\3]C=3L\\*LMY3)/Q)/3=\\*= 3Y(30KW\\*=.(NW3OOQ(KW.0K3(=<; The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# Casse 2225 waxes 3 bis on 26 look of 26 look of the interness on 2012 and 14 is alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle alle of 98\n\nThe Court having entered the Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket No. 172] (the \"Original Order\")} on March 27, 2023; and the Court having held a hearing on March 30, 2023, at which hearing, for the reasons stated on the record, counsel to HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC and Mei Guo (the \"Counterclaim-Defendants\") consented to an amendment to the Original Order adding the Lady May II (as defined below) to the relief set forth in the Original Order,2 it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. So The Original Order remains in full force and effect, except that it is amended to add the following.\n\nThe Debtor is the beneficial owner of, and controls, the yacht the Lady May II (as 2. defined below).\n\n3. below) is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate\") pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) to be administered by the Trustee. In particular, the sole owner of the Lady May II is:\n\n> Name: Luc A. Despins, as the chapter 11 trustee for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok Address: c/o Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166\n\n4. The \"Lady May II\" refers to the following yacht:\n\n> Name: Lady May II Number, Year and Port of Registration: 52 in 2015, George Town, Cayman Islands Official Number: 746230 Signal Letters: ZGEW5\n\nAll references in the Original Order to the Lady May shall include the Lady May II. 5.\n\n1 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Order have the meanings set forth in the Original Order.\n\n2 Such consent is limited to adding the Lady May II to the Original Order and does not constitute a waiver of any right the Counterclaim-Defendants may have to appeal the Original Order (as amended by this Order), other than with respect to the addition of the Lady May II to the Original Order.\n\n# Casse 22250007023 Shipping 2017 26 1 126 1 16 1 1 2 6 1 1 4 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 of 98\n\nEntry of this Order is without prejudice to the Trustee pursuing the other 6. Counterclaims in the Answer and Counterclaims upon notice and entry of a scheduling order by the Court.\n\n7. This Order is effective immediately, and no stay pursuant to Rule 7062 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure shall be effective, and the Court hereby waives any limitations set forth in Rule 7062 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure on the Trustee's ability to enforce this judgment upon its entry.\n\n8. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 31st day of March, 2023.\n\nJulie A. Manning\nUnited States Bankruptcy Judge\nDistrict of Connecticut\n\n-\n- ! \"# Case: 23-6421 , 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 236 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 84 of 98\n\n# **EXHIBIT 8**\n\n# Case 22-5007331.2292222222889741266161281269282998891810214 Page 85 of 98\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.\n\n-against-\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT FLECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/20/2023\n\n### 23 Cr. 118-1 (AT)\n\n### ORDER\n\nDefendant.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nOn March 29, 2023, Defendant, Ho Wan Kwok, was indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering, 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) and 78ff, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; international promotional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(A) and 2; international concealment money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) and 2; and unlawful monetary transactions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 19. On March 15, 2023, the Honorable Katharine H. Parker arraigned Defendant on the initial indictment dated March 6, 2023, ECF No. 2, and he was detained on consent, ECF No. 8. On March 31, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for release on bail pending trial. ECF No. 23. On April 4, 2023, the Court arraigned Defendant on the Superseding Indictment and reserved decision on Defendant's bail application. Dkt. Entries 4/4/2023. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion for release pending trial is DENIED.\n\n# Case 22-50073319282928298974166616120126128988998891811214 Page 86 nf 98\n\n### DISCUSSION\n\n### I. Allegations Against Defendant-\n\nDefendant and two co-defendants are charged with defrauding thousands of victims out of over \\$1 billion by using a series of fraudulent businesses and investment opportunities; misappropriating victims' funds by laundering those funds through approximately 500 bank accounts associated with at least eighty entities or individuals in several countries; and improperly using those funds to enrich themselves. Superseding Indictment ¶¶ 1-3. Defendant used the fraud proceeds to purchase extravagant goods and assets for himself and his family, including homes and vehicles. Id. 9 4. Defendant operated this scheme from 2018 through March 2023. Id. ¶ 1.\n\nIn 2017, Defendant attracted a large online following after claiming to advance a movement against the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\"). Id. 9 6(a). In 2018, he founded nonprofit organizations aligned with his purported campaign and amassed more followers. Id. ¶ 6(b). Defendant subsequently advertised fraudulent investment opportunities to his followers. See, e.g., id. 99 14(a), 15.\n\nDuring the relevant time period, Defendant functionally owned and controlled GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\"), a news-focused social media platform, and G Club Operations, LLC (\"G Club\"), a membership organization. Id. He also designed purported cryptocurrencies offered on Himalaya Exchange, a platform that has business relationships with entities functionally owned and controlled by Defendant. Id. ¶ 12.\n\nBetween April and June 2020, Defendant obtained more than \\$400 million from victims through an illegal private stock offering related to GTV. Id. [ 13. Defendant announced and promoted the offering on social media, directly contacted potential investors, and issued written\n\n1 The following facts are taken from the Superseding Indictment.\n\n# Case 22-5007331.2382282988741266 Worled 25.11 Linker on 20128729 264181214 Page 87 of 98\n\nmaterials regarding the offering. Id. Contrary to Defendant's representations to investors, the vast majority of the funds raised were deposited directly into bank accounts in the name of GTV's parent company, which is owned by one of Defendant's family members. Id. ¶¶ 13(e)-(f). Another \\$100 million in raised funds was invested in a high-risk hedge fund for the benefit of the parent company. Id. ¶ 13(h).\n\nIn June 2020, domestic banks began freezing and closing accounts associated with GTV, in part because the accounts had received large wire transfers that referenced an unregistered stock offering. Id. 9 14(a). Defendant then began encouraging victims to invest in \"collectives of informal groups\" known as \"farms\" by promising that those investments would be convertible to stock in GTV, and by misrepresenting GTV's market value. Id. 9 14. Defendant obtained over \\$150 million by doing so. Id. Defendant misappropriated these funds by transferring millions of dollars to family members. Id. ¶ 14(f).\n\nIn October 2020, Defendant began inducing his followers to purchase online memberships in G Club by making false statements about the services included in such memberships. Id. ¶ 15. Defendant also used the membership organization to continue to induce his followers to invest in GTV, and other businesses affiliated with Defendant. Id. ¶ 15(t). The majority of the funds raised through the membership organization were used to pay Defendant's and his family's personal expenses, and purchase high-priced goods and real property, such as Defendant's mansion in New Jersey. Id. ¶[ 16.\n\nIn April 2021, Defendant began promoting to his followers and making false statements about purported cryptocurrencies traded on Himalaya Exchange. Id. ¶¶ 18-20, 22. Defendant obtained over \\$262 million in funds through Himalaya Exchange, \\$37 million of which was used to purchase a luxury yacht in the name of one of Defendant's relatives. Id. ¶¶ 17, 23.\n\n3\n\n### -\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 88 of 98\n\n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n September 20 and 21, 2022, U.S. authorities served seizure warrants on several domestic banks, seizing approximately \\$335 million from Himalaya Exchange and other entities associated with Defendant. *Id.* 31VE098b:;-;Y;cK8R8.0@.d;93.d<300>3.D.6@.67.M.,76,0 /.,7?,G03?6D@<2e.E00>0=.D.6@03.@03?E0?A.E>,7?0?>,@0=60C?DD3.6@>,62DI6@@<3.0=.7.M.,76,0S@ 6//.636,E.6@3.dM6,I>0=.3/.3@>,6,70=.E>11<,?0I;8b:;-;Y; cK8R4\\E]\\8]\\`];\\_=.Y><3016I>37.30=6067.M.,76,02.=.D7C?0=><026?D>,DI?M0=.3.63.,> E>,7?0?>,@0=60C?DD3.6@>,62DI6@@<3.0=.7.M.,76,0S@6//.636,E.6,70=.@6M.0I>M6,I>0=.3/.3@>, 6,70=.E>11<,?0I96M0.3E>,@?7.3?,G0=.M6E0>3@@.0M>30=?,8b:;-;Y;cK8R4\\G];8b:;-;Y; cK8R4\\.]\\8];\\_=.@.M6E0>3@63.f\\8]0=.,60<3.6,7E?3E<1@06,E.@>M0=.>MM.,@.E=63G.79\\4]0=. C.?G=0>M0=..A?7.,E.6G6?,@00=.7.M.,76,09\\K]0=.=?@0>3I6,7E=636E0.3?@0?E@>M0=.7.M.,76,09 ?,ED<7?,GM61?DI0?.@9M?,6,E?6D3.@><3E.@9D.,G0=>M3.@?7.,E.?,0=.E>11<,?0I9E>11<,?0I0?.@96,7 /6@0E>,7<@,.@@>M0=.76,G.30>6,I/.3@>,>30=.E>11<,?0I0=60 C>@.72I0=.7.M.,76,0S@3.D.6@.;8b:;-;Y;cK8R4\\G]; The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 *et seq.,* requires the Court to release a defendant pending trial subject to the least restrictive conditions that will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(l)(B). The Court may order that a defendant be held without bail only if there are no conditions that will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance and the safety of any other person and the community, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(l). Those factors are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including family ties, financial resources, length ofresidence in the community, community ties, and past conduct; 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).\n\n\\_>@30/3.03?6D7.0.,0?>,90=.X>A.3,1.,01<@0.@062D?@=2I6/3./>,7.36,E.>M0=. .A?7.,E.0=600=.7.M.,76,0/3.@.,0@6@.3?><@3?@F>MMD?G=0+QS>2@03,>Me<@0?E.98b:;-;Y; cK8R4\\M]\\4]9ghijklmjnjkopqrsikltnhubKW[;47Rb9RZ\\v7Y?3;8Zbb]9>32IED.636,7E>,A?,E?,G .A?7.,E.0=600=.7.M.,76,0/>@.@676,G.30>6,>0=.3/.3@>,>30=.E>11<,?0I98b:;-;Y; To support pretrial detention, the Government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents a serious risk of flight or obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); *United States v. Friedman,* 837 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1988), or by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to another person or the community, 18 U.S.C.\n\n### -\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 89 of 98\n\n ! \" ##\\$%&'()\\*+,-./012'3 456789:;98;<=:>?@ABC@DEF@E>GHDDI@JI>JKLDM@EN>?@E>?@OBLD>FLJ>M@>@DFIE@P?@>?@D>?@D@HD@ D@HJBEHKQ@GBEMI>IBEJB:D@Q@HJ@>?H>GHEK@J@>>B@EJLD@>?@M@:@EMHE>RJHSS@HDHEG@HEM>?@JH:@>TB: HETB>?@DS@DJBEBD>?@GBFFLEI>T<6UV [IJ\\ A. Flight Risk\n\n]?@OBLD>:IEMJ>?H>>?@ABC@DEF@E>?HJJ?BPEKTHSD@SBEM@DHEG@B:>?@@CIM@EG@>?H> ^@:@EMHE>SD@J@E>JHJ@DIBLJDIJ\\B::QIZ?>< The Court finds that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant presents a serious risk of flight.\n\nYIDJ>N^@:@EMHE>?HJQIFI>@MGBEE@G>IBEJ>B>?@VEI>@MW>H>@J<\\_@?HJHS@EMIEZHSSQIGH>IBE :BDHJTQLFNHEMI:?IJHSSQIGH>IBEIJM@EI@MN?@PIQQEBQBEZ@DK@Q@ZHQQTSD@J@E>IE>?@VEI>@MW>H>@J< W@@^@:<`@FaN6bNcOYde<87NABC<`@F8NcOYde?IJGHJ@FHTK@ ZDBLEMJ:BDM@EIHQB:^@:@EMHE>RJHJTQLFHSSQIGH>IBE6bNABC<`@F8< ^@:@EMHE>RJPI:@HEMMHLZ?>@DD@JIM@IE>?@VEI>@MW>H>@JHEMHQJB?HC@S@EMIEZHSSQIGH>IBEJ:BD HJTQLF<^@:<`@F65<^@:@EMHE>?HJHJBEP?BD@JIM@JIE>?@VEI>@MgIEZMBF 86?BLZ?^@:@EMHE>GQHIFJ>?H>?@PBLQMEB>Q@HC@K@?IEMh>PBB:>?@FBJ>IFSBD>HE>S@BSQ@IE ?IJQI:@NhP?BGHEEB>Q@HC@>?@VEI>@MW>H>@JML@>B>?@IDS@EMIEZHSSQIGH>IBEJ:@DHJTQLFN^@:<`@F< H>65N^@:@EMHE>>BQMiD@>DIHQW@DCIG@J>?H>?@?HJhIDD@ZLQHDhGBE>HG>PI>??IJG?IQMD@ENiD@>DIHQ W@DCIG@J[@SBD>H>5<]?@OBLD>GBEGQLM@JN>?@D@:BD@N>?H>^@:@EMHE>RJIEG@E>IC@>BD@FHIEIE>?@ VEI>@MW>H>@JML@>B?IJMHLZ?>@DRJSD@J@EG@IJ>HE>HFBLE>>B?IJIEG@E>IC@>B:Q@@>B>?@VEI>@M gIEZMBFNP?@D@?IJJBED@JIM@JSD@CIBLJQTQ@:>?IJ:HFIQTF@FK@DJNIEGQLMIEZ?IJ PI:@HEMMHLZ?>@DNIE\\_BEZgBEZP?@E?@:Q@M>B>?@VEI>@MW>H>@Jf< First, Defendant has limited connections to the United States. He has a pending application for asylum, and if his application is denied, he will no longer be legally present in the United States. *See* Def. Mem. at 9, 15, ECF No. 24; Gov. Mem. at 2, ECF No. 7. The charges in this case may be grounds for denial of Defendant's asylum application. *See* Def. Mem. at 15; Gov. Mem. at 2. Defendant's wife and daughter reside in the United States and also have pending applications for asylum. Def. Mem. at 13. Defendant has a son who resides in the United Kingdom. Gov. Mem. at 21. Although Defendant claims that he would not leave behind \"two of the most important people in his life,\" who cannot leave the United States due to their pending applications for asylum, Def. Mem. at 13, Defendant told Pretrial Services that he has \"irregular\" contact with his children, Pretrial Services Report at 3. The Court concludes, therefore, that Defendant's incentive to remain in the United States due to his daughter's presence is tantamount to his incentive to flee to the United Kingdom, where his son resides. And, Defendant previously left his family members, including his wife and daughter, in Hong Kong when he fled to the United States. *See* Def. Mem. at 7.\n\nW@GBEMN^@:@EMHE>?HJJLKJ>HE>IHQGBEE@G>IBEJHEMD@JBLDG@JHKDBHMNIEGQLMIEZ?IJJ@EHEMH GBjM@:@EMHE>P?BD@JIM@JIE>?@VEI>@MgIEZMBFNKL>IJGLDD@E>QTK@QI@C@M>BK@H:LZI>IC@IE>?@ VEI>@MXDHKcFIDH>@J86NABC<[@SQTH>6oNcOYdB<8pNXSD<7N8o85]D r 5\n\n# Case 22-50073319282989974126200714166161209261202014610214 Page 90 of 98\n\nDefendant's businesses have bank accounts in various countries, including the United Arab Emirates, and two of Defendant's businesses have offices and personnel in the United Arab Emirates. Gov. Reply at 13. Defendant has an extensive network of devoted followers around the world. Gov. Mem. 5, 12, 15-16, 20-21, 23; see also In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al., No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023) (\"Bankruptcy Opinion\"), ECF No. 7-3 (finding that Defendant's followers are \"personally loyal\" to him and have referred to him as a \"spiritual leader\").\n\nThird, Defendant has the means and know-how to flee. In a search of Defendant's residences pursuant to a warrant on March 15, 2023 (the \"March 15 Search\"), law enforcement officers recovered two passports, including a Hong Kong passport which is still valid, and copies of a passport from the United Arab Emirates. Gov. Reply at 4, 8; ECF No. 26-2; ECF No. 26-5; Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 21:6-9, 25:4-14; 32:19-33:14. Defendant previously claimed during an interview on April 19, 2017, that he had eleven passports. Complaint Exhibit 1B, HNA Grp. Co., Ltd., v. Guo Wengui, No. 653281/2017, Dkt. No. 7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 30, 2017) (English translation of April 19, 2017, interview between Defendant and Voice of America). Although law enforcement officials have confiscated the passports recovered during the March 15 Search, and Defendant previously surrendered his passport from the United Arab Emirates, see Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 32:19-33:14, it is clear that Defendant is able to obtain travel documents with ease. Moreover, a clever defendant with sufficient resources could figure out a way to leave the country without travel documents. See, e.g., Rupert Neate, Ghosn 'Hid in Musical Instrument Case' During Escape from Japan, GUARDIAN (Dec. 31, 2019), http Defendant has access to a yacht and a jet owned by his family members that were allegedly purchased with fraud proceeds derived from the charged scheme. Gov.\n\n# Case 22-5007331.229222222288974126600281252112012012012012012012014 Page 91 of 98\n\nMem. at 5, 21; Superseding Indictment ¶ 4, 14(f)(ii). And, the Government need not show that Defendant is likely to flee internationally, but only that Defendant is not likely to return to court.\n\nFourth, Defendant has much incentive to flee. He is facing a maximum sentence of more than 100 years' imprisonment, Gov. Mem. at 21, and the evidence against him is strong. He may also face deportation proceedings. Defendant argues that he would not risk leaving the United States for fear of persecution by the CCP. Def. Mem. at 13-14. But, Defendant engaged in extensive international travel after leaving China in 2015, prior to filing his application for asylum in the United States. Def. Mem. at 7, 9, 14; Gov. Reply at 3-4. In other words, it is more likely than not that the pendency of Defendant's asylum application prevented him from traveling internationally between 2017 and the present, rather than his fear of persecution. See TRAVEL DOCUMENTS, uscis.gov/green-card/greencard-processes-and-procedures/travel-documents (stating that individuals with a pending application for asylum must apply for and receive particular travel documents before leaving the United States, or else the application is deemed abandoned). And, the charges in this case seriously undermine Defendant's eligibility for asylum.2\n\nTherefore, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing that Defendant poses a serious risk of flight.\n\nB. Obstruction of Justice\n\nThe Court also finds that the Government has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant poses a serious risk of obstruction. See United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (considering whether a defendant posed a serious risk of obstruction in the future);\n\n2 Defendant insists that he would still be eligible to remain in the United States pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, Def. Mem. at 15, but the success of such a future application is speculative, and, in any case, Defendant may still be removed to a third country other than China even if he is granted relief based on the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(b)(2).\n\n### -\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 92 of 98\n\n ! \" #\\$%&'()% \\*+,-./0-1-.2340-.,+56789:;<=>?@8;AAABC;;V7W>IRUHOSX>SO?7WRYZ[7W\\]IUHIMS[S\\]H\\IS\\^H^S]?\\7\\_RI>WVI?OS\\_SUHO?7>\\_ZU?]?\\^ *United States v. Stein,* No. Sl 05 Crim. 0888, 2005 WL 8157371 , at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2005) (same).\n\nU?RHRRSIRH\\][H?Y?\\^I77\\_SZV7W>I7>]S>R8T\\`S\\_>WH>ZaBC;CCBbWRI?VScH>>ZTRI>H^S>S\\IS>S]H\\ 7>]S>7[V?O?YV7\\IS@XIH^H?\\RIMS[S\\]H\\I[7>HO7?]?\\^H\\]]SVS?O?\\^U?RV>S]?I7>R\\_ZU?]?\\^ RW\\_RIH\\I?HYXS>R7\\HYHRRSIRd?IUV7>X7>HI?7\\RBI>WRIS]V7\\[?]H\\IRBH\\][H@?YZ@S@\\_S>R8e1f4ghh4g2,1 ijjkl-m+,-nom+/E8p834qrkstku1+.-1h456T8vI7>]S>RQ8 L?|]HZRH[IS>\\_S?\\^7>]S>S]\\_ZbWRI?VSTRI>H^S>I7XHZIUS}W]^@S\\I7dS]I7IUSXYH?\\I?[[?\\e1.,~. ghh,1+f.g2,1ijjkl-m+,-nom+/5MS[S\\]H\\I[?YS][7>\\_H\\x>WXIVZ8e1f4ghh4g2,1ijjkl-m+,-nom+/ E8p8O8qrkstku1+.-1h45678v?\\^IUS\\_H\\x>WXIVZX>7VSS]?\\^BcH\\x>WXIVZbW]^SbWY?S8H\\\\?\\^?RRWS]HIS@X7>H>Z >SRI>H?\\?\\^7>]S>7\\67OS@\\_S>CGBC;CCB>SRI>H?\\?\\^MS[S\\]H\\I[>7@X7RI?\\^[HYRSH\\]UH>HRR?\\^ @HIS>?HYRH\\_7WIXS7XYSHRR7V?HIS]d?IUIUSpHV?[?VYY?H\\VSR?HTXX7>IW\\?IZ`W\\]BIUS?>V7W\\RSYBH\\] IUS?>>SYHI?OSRBXW\\_Y?RU?\\^7\\Y?\\SIUSU7@SH]]>SRRSRH\\]XS>R7\\HY?\\[7>@HI?7\\7[IU7RS?\\]?O?]WHYRB S\\V7W>H^?\\^B?\\V?I?\\^BRW^^SRI?\\^B7>[?\\H\\V?\\^X>7ISRIRHIIUSU7@SR=>7[[?VSR7[IU7RS?\\]?O?]WHYRB H\\]?\\IS>[S>?\\^d?IUIUS?\\IS^>?IZ7[IUSXS\\]?\\^\\_H\\x>WXIVZX>7VSS]?\\^R8cH\\x>WXIVZTX?\\?7\\HI<8 US7>]S>HYR7>SW?>S]MS[S\\]H\\II7IHxS]7d\\S|?RI?\\^R7V?HY@S]?HXSRIRIUHIXW\\_Y?RUS]IUSU7@S H]]>SRRSRH\\]XS>R7\\HY?\\[7>@HI?7\\7[IU7RS?\\]?O?]WHYRB7>S\\V7W>H^S]B?\\V?IS]B7>RW^^SRIS]X>7ISRIR HIIUS?>U7@SR7>7[[?VSR8]8HI3 It appears that the name associated with this account has since been changed, on some date after April 4, 2023, from \"Miles Guo,\" one of Defendant's aliases, see Superseding Indictment, to \"NFSC Today\" (@NFSC\\_today).\n\n# Case 22-50073:3220022222228887547661812012012322222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 nf 98\n\nDefendant continues to engage in obstructive behavior. On March 30, 2023, after Defendant was detained in this case, a message posted on one of Defendant's social media accounts accused the prosecutors in this case of \"represent|ing] the CCP kleptocrats.\" See Miles Guo (@MilesGuo), GETTR (Mar. 30, 2023), http (last accessed Apr. 11, 2023). The Government also alleges that victims of Defendant's fraud scheme have reported that, when they sought reimbursement or complained about fraudulent practices, Defendant branded them \"CCP spies\" on social media to incite his followers to harass them, or threatened to post on social media that members of the victims' families who were residing in China were associated with Defendant's anti-CCP movement, which would place those family members at risk of Chinese government retaliation. Gov. Mem. at 15. And, Defendant falsely represented to Pretrial Services that he had a total of \\$10,000 in assets, including two phones and his clothing. Pretrial Services Report at 3. But, the March 15 Search recovered substantial assets that Defendant had not disclosed: over \\$500,000 in cash in various currencies in a safe in Defendant's dressing room, thirty Brioni custom-made suits with \"Brioni for Miles Kwok\"4 stitched into the jackets, seventeen computers, forty-three external media storage devices, and thirty cellphones. Gov. Reply at 3.5\n\nMoreover, Defendant is technologically sophisticated and likely to delete, encrypt, or transfer electronic evidence and fraud proceeds if released. He has previously used burner phones to conceal communications with co-conspirators. Gov. Mem. at 20; Bankruptcy Opinion at 11. He has used Faraday bags to block the passage of radio frequency emissions and prevent electronic devices from electronic surveillance, as well as cellphone scramblers. Gov. Mem. at 20; Apr. 4, 2023 Tr.\n\n4 &quot;Miles Kwok\" is one of Defendant's aliases. See Superseding Indictment.\n\n5 Defendant claims that the cash does not belong to him, despite the fact that most of it was found in his dressing room. Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. at 27:22-28:3, 35:2-8. However, Defendant admits that he owns the cellphones and other devices found in his residences. Id. at 23:20-24. He did not disclose these to Pretrial Services, and the value of these devices and the clothing found in one of his residences far exceeds \\$10,000.\n\n# Case 22-50073:28802222222288974166161201267232241812014 Page 95 nf 98\n\n23:20-24:2. He has previously advised his followers via live web broadcast to use services provided by one of his businesses, Himalaya Reserve, which is involved in the alleged fraud scheme in this case, see, e.g., Superseding Indictment ¶ 17, in order to secure money \"against the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States,\" The U.S. Is Planning to Sanction Singapore; Himalaya Wallet Is the Only Secure Option, G NEWS (Feb. 21, 2023), gnews.org/article/949854 (last accessed Apr. 17, 2023). And, one of Defendant's co-conspirators, who is still a fugitive, was indicted for attempting to move fraud proceeds outside the jurisdiction of the United States after the Government began seizing funds from the businesses involved in the alleged fraud scheme. Superseding Indictment 99 24, 53-54.\n\nDefendant's history of obstructive behavior in prior cases and his conduct in this matter establish that he is likely to continue this pattern if released.6\n\nC. Danger to the Community\n\nThe Court further finds that the Government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant poses a risk of economic harm to the community. See United States v. Gulkarov, No. 22 Cr. 20, 2022 WL 205252, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2022) (considering the risk of economic harm to the community); Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 253 (same); United States v. Persaud, No. 05 Cr. 368, 2007 WL 1074906, at \\*1-3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2007) (same).\n\nOn September 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the \"SEC\") filed a cease-and-desist order against GTV and its parent company with respect to the unregistered private stock offering described in the Superseding Indictment. See In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc.,\n\n6 On March 29, 2023, Metropolitan Detention Center (\"MDC\") staff notified the Government that Defendant's family members had been improperly accessing a telephone line known as the \"legal call system,\" which is intended to be used only by defendants and their counsel. Gov. Reply at 14. Defendant claims that this was a mistake, and the result of language barriers and miscommunication. Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 31:4-20. But, the MDC staff stated that multiple family members \"manipulat[ed]\" the system and \"provid[ed] false information to circumvent the legal call system.\" ECF No. 26-6. This behavior fits Defendant's pattern of obstructive behavior; nonetheless, the Court need not rely on this incident to support its finding that Defendant has engaged and will continue to engage in obstructive behavior if released.\n\n# Case 22-50073:3229288888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 nf 98\n\net al. Admin. Proc. File No. 3-20537. U.S. SEC. & EXCH. COMM'N (Jan. 19, 2023).\n\nhttp The SEC ordered disgorgement of funds collected through the improper stock offering and established a fund to reimburse those who purchased stock. Id. In April 2022, when the fund began issuing disbursements, id., victims began reporting to the Government that Defendant encouraged them to reinvest their disbursements in the fraud scheme alleged in this case. Gov. Mem. at 10. And, in February 2023, Defendant announced a new stock offering to his followers that involves Himalaya Exchange, one of the entities involved in the fraud scheme charged in the Superseding Indictment. Gov. Mem. at 10.\n\nDespite the SEC's order in September 2021 and the seizure of funds from Defendant's businesses in September 2022, Defendant has continued to promote fraudulent investment opportunities to his followers and attempted to revictimize those who received disbursements from the SEC fund. The Court finds that this conduct constitutes clear and convincing evidence that Defendant will not abide by court orders and will continue to cause economic harm to the community if released.\n\nD. Conditions that Would Ensure Defendant's Appearance and the Safety of Others\n\nThe Court finds that no condition or set of conditions would ensure Defendant's return to court or the safety of the community. Defendant's proposed bail package is insufficient. Defendant has proposed a bond of \\$25 million, \\$5 million of which is to be secured by cash or real estate. As noted, Defendant has filed for bankruptcy and claims to have assets worth only \\$10,000. In attempting to enforce the bond against Defendant, the Government would be one in a long line of creditors. Defendant has also proposed that the bond be signed by two adults, one of whom is not a family member. But, several of Defendant's family members, including his wife and daughter, are\n\n12\n\n# Case 22-50073:3228268888548767686101286123022022022322222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 of 98\n\nreferred to in the Superseding Indictment as recipients of fraud proceeds. See, e.g., Superseding Indictment ¶ 4, 9; Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 8:11-18. Moreover, Defendant has not identified any co-signers, let alone co-signers unrelated to the alleged fraud, with a net worth of sufficient unencumbered value to pay the bond, who have sufficient ties to the United States such that the Government would have a meaningful ability to enforce the bond against those individuals, and who would have moral suasion over Defendant\n\nDefendant has also proposed location monitoring. GPS monitoring is inadequate, as ankle monitors can be removed and ensure only a reduced head start should a defendant decide to flee. See United States v. Freeman, No. 21 Cr. 88, ECF No. 50 at 5:4-6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2021) (\"Anyone who knows the technology of electronic monitoring knows that it is far from foolproof.\"); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at \\*1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (stating that electronic monitoring \"at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant's head start\"). The Court also rejects Defendant's proposal regarding the use of private security because it is not as reliable as a federal jail.\n\nFurther, Defendant's past obstructive conduct in civil litigation, in his bankruptcy proceeding, and in this case, as well as his actions following the SEC order and the seizure of funds, demonstrate that the Court does not have reasonable assurance that Defendant will abide by any conditions of pretrial release.\n\nFinally, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant's due process arguments. Def. Mem. at 2-4. Defendant's continued pretrial detainment will not deny him the ability to meaningfully participate in his own defense, the right to the effective assistance of counsel, or a fair trial.\n\n13\n\n# -\n ! -\n\" # \\$%&\\$'()\\*%& +,-./010-021,31450603723.819,.:,36,--0;0210,3<2:;=037:3>.-:2;:15?@A?5BC/0 D;0-E,6D,F-.:17:-0G.07.,.0-9:32.0./09,.:,312.?D+@,1BH237IJK Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 98 of 98\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor these reasons, Defendant's motion for release on bail pending trial is DENIED. The\n\nClerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 7 and 23.\n\nLMMNONO SO ORDERED.\n\n52.07PQ=-:;IR4IRIJ @0ST,-E4@0ST,-E Q@QXAYQCZ[[?Y UVW Dated: April 20, 2023 New York, New York\n\n\\3:.07Y.2.015:1.-:G.]F7>0 ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge","body_zh":"附件88\n\nCase 22-50073 888:2392661 9518872872515ERiéred 167862396148:12 第 2 页，共\n\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院（UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT）\n瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼（Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse） 40 Foley Square, NY 10007 电话：212-857-8500\n\n动议信息陈述\n\n案卷编号：23-6421　案名使用简称\n\n动议事项：请求免除地区法院于 April 20, 2023 作出的驳回审前释放命令　美利坚合众国（United States of America），\n\n被上诉人\n\n请在下文准确、完整地陈述所请求的救济：\n\n下列签名人请求撤销地区法院驳回被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）审前释放的命令　诉\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），被告—\n\n上诉人\n\n动议方：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）　对方当事人：美利坚合众国（United States of America）\n\n√ 被告\n\n原告\n\n上诉人／申请人\n\n被上诉人／被申请人\n\n动议方律师：Stephen R. Cook（史蒂芬·R·库克）　Juliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）；Micah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗格森）；\n\n对方律师：Ryan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\n\n[律师姓名，以及律师事务所、地址、电话号码和电子邮件]\n\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）　美国司法部（U.S. Dept' of Justice）；刑事司，纽约南区（Criminal Division, SDNY）\n\n2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor　One Saint Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007\n\n(949) 752-7100；scook@brownrudnick.com　(212) 637-6612/ 2314 / 2190；juliana.murray@usdoj.gov；\n\nmicah.fergenson@usdoj.gov；Ryan.Finkel@usdoj.gov\n\n被上诉法院—法官／机构：Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）阁下，美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York）\n\n请勾选适当方框：\n\n动议方是否已通知对方律师（当地规则 27.1 要求）：\n\nY 是\n\n否（说明）：\n\n对于紧急动议、请求中止执行的动议以及上诉期间请求禁令的动议：\n\n该项救济请求是否已在下级法院提出？\n\n是\n\n否\n\n该项救济是否曾在本法院请求过？\n\n是\n\n否\n\n请求的答复日期及紧急情况说明：\n\n对方律师对动议的立场：\n\n无异议 √ 有异议 不知悉\n\n对方律师是否拟提交答复：\n\nY 是 否 不知悉\n\n是否请求就动议进行口头辩论？\n\n是 √ 否 如是，请填写日期：\n\n是否已确定上诉案件的辩论日期？　Y 是 否（口头辩论请求不一定获准）\n\n动议方律师签名：\n\n日期：5/5/2023 -------\n\n/s/ Stephen R. Cook（史蒂芬·R·库克）　送达方式：CM/ECF / 其他［附送达证明］\n\nCase 22-50073 888:2392661 15/88/2873751EEMered 1678623950:48:12　第 3 页，共 98 页\n\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院（United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit）\n\n编号 23-6421\n\n美利坚合众国（UNITED STATES OF AMERICA），\n\n被上诉人，\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n被告—上诉人。\n\n就美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK）的上诉\n\n请求免除驳回审前释放命令的动议\n\nStephen R. Cook（史蒂芬·R·库克） BROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所） 2211 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 752-7100\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·鲍尔迪加） BROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所） Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 209-4800 被告—上诉人代理律师\n\nMay 5, 2023\n\nCase 22-50073 888:235266 · 9188/2007315Effered 107862396148:12 · 第 4 页，共\n\n初步陈述\n\nKwok 先生不存在潜逃风险。多年来，他一直是中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party，“CCP”）为瓦解其所领导的亲民主运动，并迫使 Kwok 先生返回中华人民共和国（People's Republic of China，“PRC”）而开展的一场行动的目标；在中华人民共和国，他将面临出于政治动机的指控，并很可能被处决。本院无需仅凭 Kwok 先生的一面之词。美国司法部（United States Department of Justice，“DOJ”）在近期一系列如同间谍小说般的刑事起诉中，叙述了针对 Kwok 先生、由中国共产党策划和资助的复杂阴谋。1\n\n有四点使本案具有独特性：\n\n· 中国共产党为以一切必要手段——通过胁迫、武力或国家行为——确保 Kwok 先生被遣返中国，已不遗余力。中华人民共和国已向全球执法机关发布国际刑警组织红色通报（INTERPOL Red Notices），请求在引渡 Kwok 先生至中国前将其拘留。Kwok 先生是中华人民共和国的逃犯，且正被积极追捕。\n\n1 一般参见，附件 1，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）支持审前保释释放申请的备忘录，提交于 March 31, 2023，ECF No. 24（“附件 1—保释备忘录”）；附件 2，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）审前保释释放申请补充文件，提交于 April 19, 2023，ECF No. 50（“附件 2—保释备忘录补充文件”）；附件 10，支持申请逮捕令的控诉书及宣誓书，United States v. Jin，Case No. 20-MI-1103 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2023)（“附件 10—Jin 控诉书及宣誓书”）；附件 11，支持申请逮捕令的控诉书及宣誓书，United States v. Yunpeng，Case No. 23-MJ-0334 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2023)（“附件 11—Yunpeng 控诉书及宣誓书”）。\n\nCase 22-50073 888:2392661 951887287361EERièred 1678613960:48:12 第 5 页，共\n\n· 中国共产党针对 Kwok 先生的行动明确包括散布虚假信息，以诋毁 Kwok 先生，并煽动和施压美国执法机关对付他。一名联邦调查局特别探员（FBI Special Agent）在其签署的宣誓书中已对此作证。针对 Kwok 先生的虚假信息行动已持续多年，本案中提出的任何证据均应受到严格审查。\n\n· 地区法院在审查 Kwok 先生的保释申请时，必须“通过在其准确性受到质疑时选择性地坚持要求出示基础证据或证据来源，确保该证据的可靠性。”United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F. 3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000)。地区法院未能如此行事，反而未经审查即接受政府就众多可能对地区法院裁决具有实质影响的法律和事实问题所作含糊不清、具有误导性且不正确的证据陈述。\n\n· 政府主张 Kwok 先生存在严重的潜逃、妨碍司法以及对社区造成经济损害的危险。Kwok 先生不同意该主张，但仍提出一组合理回应政府关切且“非常规”的保释条件。参见 United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2007)。实质相似条件的各种组合已经\n\nCase 22-50073 888:2392661 951837287387381515186126786128148:12 第 6 页，共\n\n被认定足以减轻其他面临严重刑事欺诈指控的富裕被告所造成的潜逃、妨碍司法及危险风险。例如，本巡回区的法院曾在对 Bernard Madoff（伯纳德·麦道夫）和 Sam Bankman-Fried（萨姆·班克曼-弗里德）施加比 Kwok 先生所提条件更宽松的条件后予以释放——即使在 Madoff 先生和 Bankman-Fried 先生违反其最初获释条件之后亦然。若 Madoff 先生和 Bankman-Fried 先生潜逃，他们不会同时成为美国和中国通缉的逃犯，然而政府仍能同意合理的释放条件。相较之下，Kwok 先生根本不存在潜逃风险。\n\n地区法院必须评估政府是否已履行其举证责任，证明：(1) Kwok 先生构成严重的潜逃、妨碍司法或对社区造成危险的风险；以及 (2) 不存在任何审前释放条件或条件组合能够合理减轻该等风险。参见 Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75。作出该项评估时，地区法院必须“通过在其准确性受到质疑时选择性地坚持要求出示基础证据或证据来源，确保该证据的可靠性。”LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 131（省略内部引号及引证）。地区法院未能如此行事，反而未经审查即接受政府含糊不清、\n\nCase 22-50073 888:235266 · 9188728738751511888 · 1678693956148:12 · 第 7 页，共\n\n具有误导性且不正确的证据陈述，从而驳回 Kwok 先生的保释申请。在本案中，确保政府所提出证据的可靠性尤为重要，因为被告是一场旨在诋毁他并使其遭受刑事起诉的、有充分文件记录的虚假信息行动的受害者。\n\n本院必须撤销该裁定。\n\n管辖权陈述2\n\n被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）就美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）美国联邦地区法官 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）于 April 20, 2023 作出的审前羁押被告的命令提起上诉。［附件 8，驳回审前释放命令（“命令”），ECF No. 51。］本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1291 和 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) 具有管辖权。被告—上诉人于 May 4, 2023 及时提交上诉通知。［附件 15，May 4, 2023 提交的上诉通知，ECF No. 62。］\n\n相关背景\n\nKwok 先生是中国共产党的持续且直言不讳的批评者，于 2015 年移居美国，并于两年后申请政治庇护。［附件 1，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）支持审前保释释放申请的备忘录，提交于 March 31, 2023，ECF No. 24（“附件 1—保释备忘录”），第 7-9 页。］Kwok 先生的个人和职业生活已在被告于 March 31, 2023 向下级法院提交的支持审前保释释放申请备忘录中详述，此处不再赘述。［同上，第 5-11 页。］\n\n2 被告—上诉人请求口头辩论。\n\nCase: 23-6421，05/05/2023，DktEntry: 6.1，第 7 页，共 446 页 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 8 页，共 98 页\n\n作为反中国共产党及中国亲民主运动中可能最具知名度且获得全球认可的领导人，Kwok 先生自至少 2017 年以来一直遭受持续不断的威胁、骚扰、监视和电子入侵企图。［附件 2，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）审前保释释放申请补充文件，提交于 April 19, 2023，ECF No. 50（“附件 2—保释备忘录补充文件”），第 2 页。］这些阴谋显示出三个明显目标：在美国、中国及国外散布恶意虚假信息以诋毁 Kwok 先生；利用美国民事和刑事法律制度作为施压工具，迫使 Kwok 先生返回中国；以及强迫将 Kwok 先生从美国引渡。\n\n中国共产党的目标在上月刚于美国纽约东区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York）公开的两份刑事控诉书中暴露无遗。［参见附件 10，支持申请逮捕令的控诉书及宣誓书，United States v. Jin，Case No. 20-MJ-1103 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2023)（“附件 10—Jin 控诉书及宣誓书”）；附件 11，支持申请逮捕令的控诉书及宣誓书，United States v.\n\nYunpeng，Case No. 23-MJ-0334 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2023)（“Ex. 11-Yunpeng Complaint and Affidavit”）。在这些案件中，U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York（纽约东区联邦检察官办公室）已指控40名被告犯有与PRC（中华人民共和国）为压制和骚扰居住在美国的中国国民而实施的复杂计划有关的多项罪行。【Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum，第2-3页。】Kwok先生被指定为该计划中的“Victim-1”。起诉状及宣誓书详细说明，PRC特工如何创建和使用虚假社交媒体账户，以骚扰和恐吓居住在境外的中国异议人士，以及如何策划在一家美国电信公司的平台上压制这些异议人士的言论自由。【概见Ex. 10-Jin Complaint and Affidavit，第1-2页；Ex. 11-Yunpeng Complaint and Affidavit。】\n\nCCP（中国共产党）针对Kwok先生的攻击远不止于社交媒体宣传，还包括试图煽动并施压美国执法机关对其采取行动，包括对其进行刑事起诉和／或强制将其引渡至中国。【Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum，第3页。】由一名FBI（美国联邦调查局）特别探员签署的Yunpeng Complaint and Affidavit，以令人震惊的细节说明，Kwok先生一直是CCP除直接暗杀以外几乎所有可设想攻击形式的受害者。【同上。】如Yunpeng Complaint and Affidavit所示，DOJ（美国司法部）知悉CCP意图诋毁Kwok先生并煽动美国执法机关对其采取行动的虚假信息运动：\n\n· CCP的Ministry of Public Security（MPS）（公安部）“除其他人外，例行监控居住在美国的中国政治异议人士……MPS经常利用PRC境内及世界各地的合作联系人，对境外政治异议人士施加影响、威胁和胁迫。事实上，据我所知，PRC政府曾威胁和胁迫居住在美国的中国政治异议人士，以图使其噤声。”【同上。（原文强调。）】\n\n· FBI宣誓书中称为“the Group（该小组）”的MPS内部特别工作组，“试图削弱”居住在美国及其他地方的这些CCP批评者的“可信度”。【同上。（原文强调。）】\n\n· 该小组被明确赋予创建和发布针对并诽谤Kwok先生的互联网内容的任务；Kwok先生是“该小组骚扰计划的主要目标”。【同上。（原文强调。）】\n\n· CCP特工受命“呼吁美国执法机关迅速对Victim-1采取行动。”【同上。（原文强调。）】\n\n· “自Victim-1逃离PRC以来，PRC政府一直寻求将其送回PRC受审，并采取了多种方法促成对Victim-1的抓捕或逮捕。”【同上。（原文强调。）】\n\n但这只是PRC特工因参与旨在促成将Kwok先生引渡至中国的计划而受到的一系列令人震惊的刑事起诉中的最新一起；在那里，他几乎肯定会被处决。【Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum，第9页。】案卷显示，一批政治活动人士、游说者，甚至一名DOJ高级官员渗透至美国政府最高层，并就CCP策划的、旨在迫使Kwok先生于2017-2018年被引渡至PRC的计划收取数百万美元非法款项：\n\n· 2018年11月18日，前DOJ律师George Higginbotham（乔治·希金博瑟姆）就共谋向银行作出虚假陈述一罪认罪答辩；该虚假陈述涉及从海外汇来、用于资助代表外国利益进行的未登记游说活动的数百万美元款项的来源和用途。【Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum，第10页，脚注11；Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum，第2页。】该游说活动的一个目的“是试图说服美国政府高级官员，将当时持临时签证居住在美国的[Kwok先生]驱逐出美国，并送回其原籍国。”【Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum，第10页，脚注11。】\n\n· 2020年10月6日，前Republican National Committee（共和党全国委员会）主席Elliott Broidy（艾略特·布罗伊迪）因与该2017-2018年计划有关而被控共谋担任外国委托人的未登记代理人。【Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum，第2页。】Broidy于2020年10月20日认罪答辩。【Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum，第10页，脚注10。】\n\n· 2020年8月31日，美国女商人Nickie Lum Davis（妮基·卢姆·戴维斯）就其为促成该2017-2018年计划所发挥的作用认罪答辩。【Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum，第10页。】\n\n· Prakazrel Michel（普拉卡兹雷尔·米歇尔）以作为20世纪90年代嘻哈团体Fugees（难民合唱团）成员而最为人所知；其于2023年4月26日被判犯有与未登记的秘密渠道游说活动有关的罪名，该游说活动部分旨在寻求将Kwok先生引渡至中国。【U.S. DEP'T OF JUST., U.S. ENTERTAINER CONVICTED OF ENGAGING IN FOREIGN INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN (Apr. 26, 2023) http】他面临最高20年监禁的刑罚。【同上。】\n\n毫无疑问，CCP意图促成Kwok先生返回PRC。\n\n同样有充分文献记载的是，CCP曾将美国民事诉讼作为诋毁Kwok先生并迫使其返回中国的手段。【Exhibit 3，就Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于April 4, 2023举行的保释程序庭审记录（“Ex. 3---4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans.”），第29:03-17页。】2000年7月，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）发表了一篇题为“China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts（中国追捕逃犯的新工具：美国法院）”的文章，报道称，“北京正转向通过诉讼向侨居海外者施压，要求其回国面对腐败指控，以此绕过美国法律。”【同上。】Kwok先生对此深有体会——最终导致其申请破产的民事诉讼，是由CCP发起并资助的。【同上。】\n\n下级法院程序概要\n\nKwok先生于2023年3月15日被捕并被提审，所涉十一项罪名项的起诉书指控其犯有电信诈骗、证券欺诈和洗钱罪。【Ex. 4- 3/15/23 Arraignment Trans.；Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum，第3页；Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment。】同日，政府提交来函式书面意见，寻求对Kwok先生实施审前羁押，主张Kwok先生存在重大潜逃风险及对社区构成重大危险。【Exhibit 6，美国于March 15, 2023提交的有关羁押的来函式书面意见，ECF No. 7（“Ex. 6-Detention Memorandum”），第1页。】2023年3月31日，Kwok先生提交其审前保释申请（“Application for Bail”），陈述支持释放他的事实和情形，并提出一套严格的保释方案。【Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum。】政府于2023年4月3日提交反对意见。【Exhibit 7-Government's Opposition to Ho Wan Kwok's Memorandum in Support of Pretrial Release，提交于April 3, 2023，ECF No. 26（“Ex. 7-Opposition to Bail Memorandum”）。】2023年4月4日，District Court（地区法院）就大陪审团于2023年3月29日作出的替代起诉书对Kwok先生进行提审，并保留对Kwok先生保释申请的裁决（“Bail Hearing”）。【Ex. 3---4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans.】\n\n2023年4月19日，Kwok先生向地区法院提交一封信函，以地区法院所要求的补充资料完善其保释申请，并提供有关最近被起诉的、由PRC指使的诋毁Kwok先生并煽动美国执法机关对其采取行动之计划的新资料；该计划详述于上文第5-8页。【Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum。】次日，即2020年4月20日，地区法院发布意见，驳回Kwok先生的保释申请（下称“Opinion”），认定政府已达到其举证责任，以证据优势证明Kwok先生存在严重的潜逃和妨碍风险，并以明确且令人信服的证据证明Kwok先生对社区构成经济损害风险；并得出结论认为，没有任何条件或一组条件能够确保Kwok先生返庭或社区安全。【Ex. 8-Opinion，第5-12页。】\n\n审查标准\n\n本院对地区法院就法律结论所作的判决进行重新审查。参见 United States v. Abuhamra（美国诉阿布哈姆拉案）, 389 F.3d 309, 317 (2d Cir. 2004)。作为该等结论依据的事实认定，按明显错误标准审查。参见 United States v. English（美国诉英格利希案）, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011)。尽管本院的审查具有尊重性，但其受有利于释放的推定以及保释仅可在“极端且异常情形的罕见案件”中被拒绝这一原则指引。参见 United States v. Berrios-Berrios（美国诉贝里奥斯-贝里奥斯案）, 791 F.2d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 1986)。由于地区法院对“拘留替代方案可行性的认定，在每一案件中均必然属于事实与法律的混合问题……[此]类问题应接受灵活的上诉审查。”同上。\n\n论证\n\n《保释改革法》，18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.，将《第八修正案》关于保释的保障编纂成法，要求地区法院命令被告审前释放，“除非司法官员认定，该等释放不能合理确保该人按要求出庭，或者将危及任何其他人或社会的安全。”United States v. Boustani（美国诉布斯塔尼案）, 932 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019)（引述 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)）；Sabhnani（萨卜纳尼案）,\n\n案件 22-50073 CBS: 328238 0591262865 PERIERIERA R898625 20:48:12　第 16 页\n\n493 F.3d at 78（指出，即使法院认定被告存在逃跑风险，法律仍推定应释放被告，“除非政府证明不存在任何释放条件能够确保被告出庭”）。\n\n因此，审判法院的分析分为两个步骤。第一，法院必须确定政府是否已履行其举证责任，并以优势证据证明被告“存在逃跑或妨碍司法公正的风险”。United States v. Madoff（美国诉麦道夫案）, 586 F.Supp.2d 240, 247 (2d Cir. 2009)。如法院认定政府已履行该初步举证责任，法院继而必须评估是否存在可减轻该风险的合理释放条件。同上；另见 Sabhnani（萨卜纳尼案）, 493 F.3d at 75。\n\n在确定是否存在能够合理确保被告出庭及社会安全的释放条件时，法院评估四项因素：(1) 被指控罪行的性质和情节；(2) 不利于被告的证据分量；(3) 被告的经历和特征；以及 (4) 被告对社会构成的危险的性质和严重程度。参见 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)；Boustani（布斯塔尼案）, 932 F.3d at 81。“基于其他人及社会安全作出的拘留命令，必须以有明确且令人信服证据支持的认定为基础，”United States v. Stein（美国诉斯坦案）, No. S1 05 Crim. 0888 (LAK), 2005 WL 8157371, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.\n\n案件 22-500738882328338 05956726262655\"1\"hillieled R89612396148.12　第 17 页\n\n14, 2005)，而基于对被告逃跑风险的认定作出的拘留，则必须以优势证据支持。参见 Boustani（布斯塔尼案）, 932 F.3d at 81；Sabhnani（萨卜纳尼案）, 493 F.3d at 75。\n\nI. 地区法院就未决刑事指控对郭先生在美国合法居留能力的影响作出了法律错误\n\n仅依据政府的结论性论点，地区法院不当地裁断了未决刑事指控对 Kwok（郭文贵）先生留在美国资格的影响。在该意见书中，地区法院认定，如果郭先生的庇护“申请被拒绝，他将不再合法居留于美国”，并且“本案中的指控可能构成拒绝被告庇护申请的理由”。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 5.] 地区法院随后重申了这一断言，认为“本案中的指控严重损害被告获得庇护的资格”。[Id. at 7.] 地区法院在此的推理至少基于两个独立理由，应因明显错误而被撤销。\n\n第一，尽管在某些案件中，对发生在美国境内的刑事犯罪作出的定罪可能影响庇护申请，参见 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)-(B)；8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(6)，但仅提出刑事指控——而政府未作进一步证据证明——并不构成准予庇护的法定障碍。[See Ex. 6-Detention Memorandum at 2.] 地区法院仅仅断言“本案中的指控可能构成拒绝被告庇护申请的理由”，属于对法律的错误陈述。除一项不适用的例外外，3庇护法及其相关条例依照《第五修正案》和《第十四修正案》正当程序原则，要求政府在拒绝庇护等附带后果成为强制性后果之前，证明被告有罪。但是，即使郭先生的申请被拒绝，如下文所述，郭先生也不必然会被遣离美国。\n\n案件 22-50073 CBS 228236 059126286726726726123 20:48:12 第 18 页\n\n对未决庇护申请的初次拒绝，并不必然终止外国人在美国合法居留的权利。相反，对庇护申请的初次拒绝，只是外国人在合法居留美国期间获给予机会对庇护认定或驱逐令提出挑战的一系列法律步骤中的第一步。参见，例如，Nken v. Holder（恩肯诉霍尔德案）, 556 U.S. 418, 425 (2009)（指出，当事人一致同意，审理移除令复审申请的上诉法院可以阻止该命令生效，因而可在裁决该申请期间阻止移除）。郭先生已在下级地区法院提出该问题，并援引根据《禁止酷刑公约》（“CAT”）可能提出的上诉；地区法院在脚注中以“推测性”为由草率驳回该主张。[See Ex. 8-Opinion at 7, fn. 2.] 重要的是，鉴于 CCP（中国共产党）在 PRC（中华人民共和国）境内和境外对郭先生实施的严重迫害，成功的 CAT 申请很有可能。此外，还存在替代途径和上诉程序，可轻易允许郭先生在对这些请求的裁决进行期间留在美国。例如，如 Department of Homeland Security-United States Citizenship and Immigration Service（国土安全部—美国公民及移民服务局）（“DHS-USCIS”）拒绝郭先生的庇护申请，他将有能力对拒绝庇护身份的命令提出上诉。\n\n3 参见 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(6)（规定，对于“已被定罪”犯有某些罪行的外国人，或者庇护官员“知道或有理由相信该外国人已实施……8 C.F.R. 204.2(c)(1) 所界定的殴打或极端残酷行为”的情形，该外国人不具备庇护资格）。\n\n案件 22-50073 CBS 228236 059126262626265 Ehilêrea Royal 23 20:48:12　第 19 页\n\n无论如何，地区法院将郭先生的移民身份作为支持其审前拘留的因素加以依赖，均属不当。正如 Tenth Circuit（第十巡回上诉法院）所指出：“尽管国会建立了一项可反驳的推定，即某些被告应被拘留，但其并未将可被移除的外国人列入该清单。”参见 United States v. Ailon-Ailon（美国诉艾隆-艾隆案）, 875 F.3d 1334, 1338 (10th Cir. 2017)。\n\n郭先生还请求撤销，因为地区法院依赖政府对法律的错误陈述，可能不公正地影响郭先生未决的庇护申请。如 DHS-USCIS 正在关注郭先生的案件，地区法院的命令可能就未决刑事指控可能对郭先生庇护申请产生的适当影响，误导并错误引导该裁判机构。允许该命令以其现有形式继续有效，可能会不公正地损害郭先生的申请。\n\n案件 22-500738882228236 059562882655118618 1892612396148.12 . 第 20 页\n\n地区法院在法律上存在错误，本院必须撤销。\n\nII. 地区法院依赖政府含糊且误导性的陈述，未考量郭先生提出的大量相反证据，构成可撤销的错误\n\n本巡回区的法律明确：尽管“允许政府仅以陈述方式进行举证，[并]不构成地区法院滥用自由裁量权”，United States v. Davis（美国诉戴维斯案）, 845 F.2d 412, 415 (2d Cir. 1988)，“基于其他人及社会安全作出的拘留命令，必须以有明确且令人信服证据支持的认定为基础。”United States v. Stein（美国诉斯坦案）, No. S1 05 Crim. 0888 (LAK), 2005 WL 8157371, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005)。地区法官必须“确保证据的可靠性”，即“在其准确性受到质疑时，有选择地坚持要求提交基础证据或证据来源。”LaFontaine（拉方丹案）, 210 F.3d at 131（引述 United States v. Martir（美国诉马蒂尔案）, 782 F.2d 1141, 1147 (2d Cir. 1986)）。政府的陈述仅以结论性措辞说明其希望证明的事项并不足够，地区法院必须作更深入审查。\n\n地区法院要求政府举证的义务在此至关重要——DOJ（美国司法部）本身已将郭先生称为中国共产党为诋毁郭先生并煽动美国执法机关对其采取行动而开展的虚假信息活动中的“受害人-1”。地区法院在与其拘留命令有关的下列不准确事实认定中，接受了政府含糊且误导性的陈述，却未提及郭先生提出的大量相反证据，构成明显错误：\n\n案件 22-50073 CBS: 328238 05912628655 Ehilêrea R898623 20:48:12　第 21 页\n\ni. 护照\n\n地区法院全盘采纳了政府毫无依据的主张，即“[被]告能够轻易取得旅行证件”，(Ex. 8-Opinion at 6)，但政府自身提交的文件未能为该主张提供充分或适当的支持。地区法院正确指出，执法人员没收了在 2023 年 3 月 15 日搜查中查获的护照，且郭先生此前已交出其来自 UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国）的护照，但仍得出存在缺陷的结论：由于郭先生此前持有旅行证件，“显然[他]能够轻易取得旅行证件”；法院还在毫无事实支持的情况下进一步称，“一名拥有足够资源的聪明被告可以想出在没有旅行证件的情况下离境的办法。”[Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] 当然，即使该结论性陈述能够被采信，其也将适用于无数被告，而其中几乎所有人均已获准保释。\n\n案件 22-50073 SBS: 328238 059582888850 Enieliele R898623 960.12 - 第 22 页\n\n重要的是，政府并未证明郭文贵先生（Ho Wan Kwok）目前持有任何旅行证件，而地区法院关于郭文贵先生确实持有旅行证件的概括性结论显然错误。政府已扣押郭文贵先生的香港护照，该护照目前无法由其取得。[Ex. 2-Supplement to Bail Memorandum at 1.] 政府还扣押了一本已过期的瓦努阿图护照，而且无论如何，该护照现已无法由郭文贵先生取得。[Id.] 最后，郭文贵先生提交了其移民律师的宣誓证言，证明作为郭文贵先生申请庇护程序的一部分，其阿联酋国籍已被放弃，其阿联酋护照已交还该国官员。[Id. at 2.] 政府所提出且地区法院据以支持郭文贵先生拥有（或曾拥有）任何额外旅行证件这一主张的唯一证据，是一份据称为2017年4月4日媒体采访的文字记录；该记录由普通话译为英语，并是在一家与中国共产党（CCP）有关联的中国企业集团对郭文贵先生提起的骚扰性诉讼中提交的。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] 即使假定郭文贵先生能够取得旅行证件，其同时在美国和中国被通缉逃犯的处境仍然存在——郭文贵先生根本不构成逃跑风险。\n\nii. 游艇\nCase 22-50073 CBS: 328238 059126262635 PERieled R892622920148:12 Page 23\n\n地区法院不当地接受了政府的主张，即郭文贵先生据称“能够取得一艘游艇”，因而具有逃离的手段。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] 如政府向法院提交的证据所述，破产法院于2023年3月27日和3月31日命令将“Lady May”和“Lady May II”的所有权转让给Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产（“破产财产”）的第11章受托人（“受托人”）。[Ex. 7-Opposition to Bail Memorandum at Exhibit G.] 即使郭文贵先生曾经能够取得这些资产，他目前显然也无法取得，因为这些资产由受托人保管。\n\niii. 喷气机\n\n地区法院错误地依赖了政府具有误导性的主张，即郭文贵先生能够取得一架喷气机。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 6.] 该论点尤其具有误导性。政府知道，所称的“喷气机”是一架位于英国的Cirrus SF50——一架小型单引擎飞机，平均航程为950英里，最大航程为1,275英里4。[See Ex. 7-Opposition to Bail Memorandum at 21.] 认为一架位于英国、甚至无法飞越大西洋一半距离的飞机能够为郭文贵先生提供从纽约潜逃的手段，是不可信的。\n\n4 http\n-\n- Case: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1 , Page 23 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 24 of 98\n\niv. 郭文贵先生的家人\n\n地区法院采纳了政府在逻辑和事实层面均不连贯的论点，即郭文贵先生“因其女儿在美国而留在美国的动机，等同于其因儿子居住在英国而逃往英国的动机”。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 5.] 这毫无道理——作为美国的逃犯，郭文贵先生将与其两个子女及其妻子断绝联系。郭文贵先生的儿子可以自由从英国出行；目前没有任何障碍阻止其赴美国探望郭文贵先生。郭文贵先生的妻子和女儿则不同；在其庇护申请待决期间，她们需要获得许可才能离开美国旅行。如果郭文贵先生逃跑，他很可能将再也见不到其妻子和女儿。若郭文贵先生留在美国为自己辩护，并非意味着他将再也见不到其儿子。\n\nv. 郭文贵先生的个人特征\n\n政府和地区法院均着重强调郭文贵先生的移民身份、其被认为拥有的资源以及其据称逃跑的动机。简单的事实是，郭文贵先生在近一年的大部分时间里一直知道自己是联邦刑事调查的目标，但并未逃跑。[Ex. 4-3/15/23 Arraignment Trans. at 21:19-21]. 2020年6月，“国内银行开始冻结和关闭与GTV有关联的账户”时，他没有逃跑。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 3.] 在美国证券交易委员会（U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission，“SEC”）作出命令后，他没有逃跑。[Exhibit 9, Order Denying Pretrial Release entered April 20, 2023, ECF No. 51 (\"Ex. 9-SEC Order).] 2022年9月，美国当局向国内银行送达扣押令，“从喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）及其他与[郭文贵先生]有关联的实体扣押约\\$355 million”时，他没有逃跑。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 4]. 当“其许多实体收到[大陪审团]传票”时，他没有逃跑。[Ex. 3---4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 18:14-15]. 2022年10月，政府通知其移民律师，他是最终导致本案对其提出指控的大陪审团调查目标时，郭文贵先生没有逃跑。\n\n相比之下，政府称郭文贵先生的共同被告Je先生利用该通知逃往阿联酋。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 5.] 尽管Je先生和郭文贵先生均可获得同样的通知，郭文贵先生并未前往任何地方。他继续居住在其已居住多年的同一住所；对于政府试图包装为郭文贵先生构成逃跑风险证据的多部手机、手机干扰器、法拉第袋和现金，他未采取任何隐匿措施。[Ex. 3---4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. At 22:03-11.] 这不是一个试图逃跑之人的证据；这是一个已决定面对其知道随时会到来的刑事指控之人的证据。\n\nvi. 郭文贵先生与阿联酋的联系\n\nCase 22-500738882228236 05956226265511861612396148:12　Page 26\n\n地区法院似乎还采信了政府的主张，即郭文贵先生可能逃往与美国没有引渡条约的阿拉伯联合酋长国（UAE）。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 5-6.] 这荒谬至极。尽管阿联酋确实不会因条约而被要求将郭文贵先生引渡至美国，但它会将其引渡至中国。除引渡条约外，中国和阿联酋还拥有广泛的金融联系：在所有海湾国家中，阿联酋是中国外国投资的第一大受益国。[Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 72:03-14.] 正如郭文贵先生的律师在保释听证会上所解释的，阿联酋可能是郭文贵先生所能前往的最糟糕地点，仅次于中国本身。[Ex. 3-4/4/23 Bail Hearing Trans. at 72:12-13.]\n\n地区法院在未参考郭文贵先生提出的大量相反证据的情况下，依赖政府模糊且具有误导性的主张，显然构成错误。本院必须撤销该裁定。\n\nIII. 地区法院认定郭文贵先生对社区构成危险时显然出错\n\n地区法院认定郭文贵先生对社区构成危险，构成可撤销的错误。在该意见中，地区法院仅基于政府含糊地声称，2022年3月，郭文贵先生“鼓励”公平基金（Fair Fund）分配款项的接收人“将其分配款重新投资于本案所指控的欺诈计划”，以及声称2023年2月郭文贵先生宣布了一项涉及喜马拉雅交易所的新股票发行，即得出郭文贵先生对社区构成经济危险的结论。[Ex. 8-Opinion at 12.] 这并非证据，更遑论能够清楚且令人信服地证明郭文贵先生对社区构成严重危险的证据。\n\nCase 22-50073 SBSc 228236 05956226365 PERISPA TRABER 23 20:48:12 Page 27\n\nA. 地区法院关于郭文贵先生鼓励公平基金分配款接收人投资于本案所指控欺诈计划的认定\n\n政府对于其声称从公平基金分配款接收人处收到的报告，没有提供任何细节；据称这些接收人受到郭文贵先生“鼓励”，以“将其分配款重新投资于本案所指控的欺诈计划”。[Ex. 6-Detention Memorandum at 10.] 政府未披露郭文贵先生何时、何地或如何“鼓励”这些人。政府未提供关于这些人的人数、可信度或其各自报告具体内容的任何信息。政府未具体说明其是否主张郭文贵先生亲自联系这些人，或者这些人仅仅偶然看到其在社交媒体上发布的内容。此外，政府和地区法院均未说明，郭文贵先生据称“鼓励”“受害人”重新投资于哪一项“本案所指控的欺诈计划”。5\n\n5 在此处，此类证据尤其重要，因为美国司法部（DOJ）已经在宣誓后承认，中国共产党特工经常试图渗透郭文贵先生的组织（以及其他异见人士的组织），以便从内部加以破坏，并向监管机构和执法部门提出虚假投诉。[Ex. 11-Yunpeng Complaint and Affidavit.]\n\nCase 22-50073 CBS: 328238 05912628655 PERieled R892622920148:12 Page 28\n\n远谈不上清楚且令人信服的是，Government（政府）在Superseding Indictment（补充起诉书）中自行提出的指控，令人对政府和District Court（地区法院）究竟可能指的是本案所称的哪一“欺诈计划”产生疑问。政府在补充起诉书中指称了四项欺诈计划：(1) The GTV Private Placement（GTV 私募发行），(2) The Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划），(3) G|CLUBS（G|CLUBS），以及(4) The Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）。[Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶¶ 13-23.] 与GTV私募发行有关的被指称欺诈，源于SEC Order（美国证券交易委员会命令）中所指控的同一事实；该命令导致了和解以及自2022年4月开始的后续Fair Fund（公平基金）分配。 [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶ 13; Ex. 9-SEC Order.] 显然，这不可能是政府和地区法院认为Mr. Kwok（郭文贵先生）于2022年4月“鼓励”个人再次投资的那项欺诈计划。政府指称，农场贷款计划始于约2020年6月。 [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶ 14.] 补充起诉书未提及与农场贷款计划有关的任何发生于2020年之后的行为，因此地区法院不大可能将其理解为郭先生于2022年4月为之招揽投资的“本案所称欺诈计划”。同样，补充起诉书称，郭先生通过GCLUBS以欺诈方式取得受害人资金的期间为“至少自约2020年10月起至至少约2023年3月止”，但并未指称任何晚于2021年8月的具体行为。 [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶¶ 15-16.] 政府在其书面陈述中或在保释听证会上提出的任何证据，均不可能合理地构成地区法院认定该项计划即为“本案所称欺诈计划”的依据。 [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12.]\n\n政府指称，喜马拉雅交易所欺诈计划至少自2021年4月起持续至至少2023年3月。 [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶ 17.] 地区法院认为郭先生于2020年4月为之招揽投资的计划，可能是被指称的喜马拉雅交易所欺诈计划。尽管如此，值得注意的是，就喜马拉雅交易所欺诈所指称的最新行为发生于“[i]n or about April 2022”，当时郭先生的共同被告“安排转移约$37 million的喜马拉雅交易所资金”，用于一笔“名义上的‘贷款’，以支付一艘豪华游艇的费用”。 [Id. at ¶¶ 17-23.] 然而，这显然并非地区法院认为足以支持其结论——即若获释，郭先生“将继续对社区造成经济损害”——的“清楚且令人信服的证据”。 [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12.]\n\nB. SEC Order（美国证券交易委员会命令）\n\n撇开地区法院分析中的事实缺陷不谈，即使将政府的指控视为真实，该等指控也不足以以清楚且令人信服的证据证明郭先生对社区构成严重的经济危险。SEC命令表明，该命令是SEC与Respondents（被申请人）之间和解谈判的产物，且被申请人同意作出SEC命令，仅“为”由Commission（委员会）提起或代表委员会提起、或委员会作为当事方的“程序”之目的，并且“不承认亦不否认”其中所载认定。 [Ex. 9-SEC Order at 1.] 因此，地区法院在分析郭先生对社区构成的被指称危险时依赖SEC命令，属不当之举。\n\nSecond Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）此前指出，Federal Rules of Evidence（联邦证据规则，以下简称“FRE”）禁止“嗣后将不抗辩答辩用于对抗作出该答辩的一方”，且此类答辩“已被等同于‘同意判决’”。Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976). 由于同意判决和不抗辩答辩“并非对基础争议问题作出的真正裁判”，其相关性和使用必然受到限制：“[A] prior judgment can only be introduced in a later trial for collateral estoppel purposes if the issues sought to be precluded were actually adjudicated in the prior trial.” Id. at 893-94. 在Lipsky作出裁决后的数年间，第二巡回上诉法院进一步明确，由于与行政机构达成的民事同意判决属于“民事诉讼的和解”，其使用“受Fed. R. Evid. 408规制”，因此诉讼当事人不得使用该等“和解证据来证明就该请求承担责任”，但可根据FRE 408将其用于“其他目的”。United States v. Gilbert, 668 F.2d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 1981). Federal Rule of Evidence 408（联邦证据规则第408条）列举了该等和解可被使用的具体示例，包括“证明证人的偏见或歧视、否定不当延误的主张，或证明妨碍刑事调查或起诉的行为”。Fed. R. Evid. 408(b). 在所有这些其他允许目的的示例中，一贯的主线是，该等使用必须限于证明某项最终与任何被指称法律责任无关的附随事实。\n\n然而，在驳回释放请求的命令中，地区法院明确接受、确认并运用了SEC命令中载明的未经证明的不当行为指控。例如，该命令指出，SEC设立了一项向“受害人”发放分配款的基金，(Ex. 8-Opinion at 12)，并指出，“[d]espite the SEC's order in September 2021 . . , Defendant has continued to promote fraudulent investment opportunities to his followers and attempted to revictimize those who received disbursements from the SEC fund.” [Id. (emphasis added).] 以此种方式使用同意判决，与FRE 408及第二巡回上诉法院判例所允许的用途相冲突。See, e.g., In re Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litig., 828 F.Supp.2d 588, 593-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)（删除有关操纵性交易计划的指控，理由是“those allegations simply recast the CFTC's findings and are derived wholesale from the CFTC order, and that such ‘allegations are paradigms of the type of pleadings prohibited by Lipsky and its progeny’”）。\n\n此外，尽管SEC命令载有被申请人承诺“[n]ot participate, directly or indirectly, in any offering of a digital asset security”，郭先生并非SEC命令的一方当事人。 [Ex. 9-SEC Order.] 政府在补充起诉书中指称，郭先生对GTV（GTV公司）的财务行使控制权，但承认其在GTV并无“正式职务或头衔”。 [Ex. 5-Superseding Indictment at ¶ 10]. 至于GTV的母公司Saraca（萨拉卡公司），政府指称“Relative-1（亲属-1）”——而非郭先生——是最终受益所有人。 [Id. at ¶9.] 此外，如上所述，郭先生可能于2022年4月为之招揽投资的唯一“本案所控欺诈”涉及有关喜马拉雅交易所的指控。并且，与郭先生一样，喜马拉雅交易所也不在SEC命令的被申请人之列。 [Ex. 9-SEC Order.] 本巡回区没有判例支持在此种情形下拒绝向被告准予保释。\n\n基于充其量仅反映郭先生与SEC就法律状态存在分歧的行为，即认定郭先生对社区构成严重危险，从而排除审前释放推定，是令人无法接受的。本院必须撤销。\n\nIV. 地区法院在未作分析或说明的情况下认定不存在能够合理减轻郭先生获释所带来任何风险的一组条件，构成可撤销错误\n\n政府还必须证明，无法对被告施加任何条件或条件组合，以合理确保其出庭并确保社区安全。United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739. 742 (1987). 法院有责任审查预防性羁押的所有可能替代方案，并“在记录中说明其考虑替代监禁措施的程度，以及如有考虑，该等措施被拒绝的依据”。Berrios-Berrios, 791 F.2d at 251（指出，即使地区法院认定被告具有逃跑风险，考虑这些因素仍然重要，因为“many courts have set bail for defendants despite their propensity to flee”）。\n\n地区法院未能在记录中充分说明其考虑郭先生审前羁押替代方案的程度，以及如适用，该等方案被拒绝的依据。地区法院还错误地认定，不存在任何可用的条件或条件组合能够合理减轻郭先生审前释放所造成的任何风险。这构成可撤销错误。\n\ni. 出庭保证金及共同签署人\n\n郭先生提出一项$25 million的出庭保证金，由郭先生和两名具有经济偿付能力的成年人签署，其中一人并非家庭成员；其中$5 million将由向法院存入的现金、不动产资产，或两者的组合提供担保。 [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at 11]. 地区法院呼应政府的异议，指出，如果政府最终必须执行该保证金，政府在郭先生的破产程序中将只是“众多债权人中的一个”。 [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12]. 这并不正确。正如郭先生已多次在宣誓证词中陈述，并如地区法院在其Opinion（意见书）中确认的那样，郭先生本人并无大量财产。 [Id. at 12]. 他提出一项$25 million的出庭保证金，其中$5 million将由向法院存入的现金和／或不动产资产的组合提供担保。 [Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at 11].\n\n地区法院驳回郭先生由“两名具有经济偿付能力的成年人，其中一人并非家庭成员”签署其出庭保证金的提议，也属错误。 [Ex. 8-Opinion at 12; Ex. 1-Bail Memorandum at 11.] 地区法院指出，“被告的数名家庭成员，包括其妻子和女儿，在补充起诉书中被称为欺诈所得的接收人”，并以郭先生尚未确定政府和地区法院认为可接受的任何共同签署人为由，反对该保证金提议。 [Ex. 8-Opinion at 13.]\n\n郭先生无须在其Bail Proposal（保释方案）中确定共同签署人。证明存在能够减轻任何逃跑、妨碍司法或危险风险的释放条件，并非其举证责任。政府负有举证责任：对于逃跑或妨碍司法风险，须以优势证据证明；对于对社区造成经济危险的风险，须以清楚且令人信服的证据证明；即不存在能够合理确保郭先生出庭及社区安全的条件组合。See United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 195 (2d Cir. 1987); Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (“[A]t times, the government may have thought that this second burden fell on the defendant, or that it had the benefit of a statutory presumption of detention that the defendant was required to rebut . . . Plainly, such a view would be incorrect.”).\n\n地区法院面临的问题并非郭文贵先生能否满足任何一项特定的释放条件，而是是否存在某项条件或条件组合，能够合理确保郭文贵先生出庭以及社区安全。答案是“是”。尽管政府有所担忧，郭文贵先生确信，他能够以未受其破产程序负担且未受政府欺诈指控污染的资产为其出庭保释担保提供担保，并且能够确定两名与所称欺诈无关、具有经济责任能力的成年人共同签署。\n\n电子监控及配备私人安保的居家拘禁 11.\n\n地区法院断然驳回了郭文贵先生接受全天候监控的居家拘禁提议，理由是“其可靠性不如联邦监狱”。[证据8—意见书，第13页。] 地区法院同样驳回了郭文贵先生将位置监控纳入其释放条件的提议，并称“GPS监控不足以解决问题，因为脚踝监控器可以被拆除，并且在被告决定逃跑时，仅能确保其获得较少的先机”。[证据8—意见书，第13页。]\n\n撇开郭文贵先生家族财富不谈，并无理由认为他存在逃跑风险；事实上，郭文贵先生保释备忘录中所述事实恰恰证明了相反情况。[总体参见证据1—保释备忘录。] 实际上，政府的论点归结为：郭文贵先生因具备逃跑的手段而存在逃跑风险。[证据7—保释备忘录反对意见，第12-13页。] 而且，在意见书中，地区法院认为，“一名拥有足够资源的聪明被告可以想出无需旅行证件离开该国的方法”。[证据9—SEC命令，第6页。] 简言之，郭文贵先生仅因被认为拥有逃跑所需资源，即被视为具有逃跑风险。\n\n这正是本巡回区认可采用配备私人安保的居家拘禁的情形。参见 Boustani（布斯塔尼案）, 932 F.3d at 82（裁定当被告的财富是其被认定存在逃跑风险的原因时，配备私人安保的居家拘禁是适当的）。审前羁押旨在服务于监管目的，而非惩罚目的。参见，例如，United States v. Millan（美国诉米兰案）, 4 F.3d 1038, 1043 (2d Cir. 1993)。本巡回区法院在其他案件中曾准许被告在配备私人安保监控的居家拘禁条件下获得保释——没有理由不能在本案中同样如此。\n\nvii. 对技术及通信的限制\n\n在保释听证会上，郭文贵先生的律师解释称，可以构建郭文贵先生的释放条件，以应对政府或地区法院对郭文贵先生联系受害人、设立新企业或实施更多欺诈行为可能产生的任何担忧。[证据3—4/4/23保释听证会记录，第31:15-32:03页。] 律师指出，美国联邦检察官办公室经常与被告合作协商保释条件，既足以消除政府的合理担忧，又能维护等待审判的被告的人身自由。[[同上。] 然而，迄今为止，政府甚至不愿就潜在释放条件与郭文贵先生的律师进行讨论。[证据3—4/4/23保释听证会记录，第31:25-32:3页。] 如政府和地区法院均知，这并不寻常。[参见证据3—4/4/23保释听证会记录，第7:6-7页（“如本院所知，审前服务部门在欺诈案件中并不经常建议羁押。”）。] 政府例行协商保释条件——即使在涉及大规模欺诈指控、被告富有且持续存在社区安全担忧的案件中也是如此——该办公室近期对 Sam Bankman-Fried（萨姆·班克曼-弗里德）的审前释放条件的处理即证明了这一点。[证据3—4/4/23保释听证会记录，第31:17-32:03页。]\n\n2022年12月，被控实施数十亿美元证券欺诈的 Samuel Bankman-Fried（萨缪尔·班克曼-弗里德）获准以 \\$250 million 保释，并接受配备位置监控技术的居家拘禁以及其他各项财务和人身条件的约束。[参见证据12，U.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），出庭保释担保书，提交于 Dec. 22, 2022，案号 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)，ECF No. 14。]\n\n尽管保释最初由政府与辩护律师商定，但后来就班克曼-弗里德先生的条件是否充分出现了问题，尤其涉及其使用互联网、即时通信应用程序和虚拟专用网络（“VPN”）的情况。政府认为，该行为引发了潜在担忧，例如隐瞒线上活动、秘密访问加密货币交易所以及不被察觉地传输数据。[参见证据12，U.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），政府关于释放条件动议的补充文件，提交于 Feb. 13, 2023，案号 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)，ECF No. 66。] 但法院并未撤销班克曼-弗里德先生的保释；相反，法院施加了额外条件以解决这些担忧，并允许双方共同制定进一步的改善性条件。[比较：与 2023年1月3日提审相关的庭审记录，U.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），22-cr-673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)（命令被告维持保释，并施加限制，禁止其“访问或转移任何 FTX 或 Alameda 资产或加密货币，包括以来自 FTX 或 Alameda 的资金购买的资产或加密货币”）；以及证据13，U.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），命令录入于 Feb. 14, 2023，案号 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)，ECF No. 68（施加禁止被告使用 VPN 的额外条件）。] 认识到班克曼-弗里德先生为准备辩护而需要使用计算机和 VPN，政府同意增加一项保释条件，允许班克曼-弗里德先生使用由其律师控制和监督的笔记本电脑，该电脑仅限使用班克曼-弗里德先生协助其辩护所必需的获批程序和应用程序。[证据14，U.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），命令录入于 Mar. 28, 2023，案号 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)，ECF No. 116。]\n\n在班克曼-弗里德先生案件中，政府和法院默示承认维护被告协助准备其辩护能力的至关重要性。政府愿意与被告律师合作，达成一项创造性解决方案，利用技术将被告与外部世界的通信限制在其准备辩护所需、不多也不少的范围内。郭文贵先生的需求同样重要。此外，与班克曼-弗里德先生不同，郭文贵先生与其律师之间存在语言障碍，且政府表示将很快提供数 TB 数据——其中大部分将为普通话内容——这些因素进一步限制了郭文贵先生在仍被羁押期间协助律师准备其辩护的能力。地区法院对郭文贵先生的差别对待，以及未全面评估是否存在任何条件组合能够合理确保社区安全，构成可撤销错误。此外，地区法院结论性地驳回郭文贵先生关于该等情形组合剥夺其《第六修正案》律师协助权的论点，亦必须予以撤销。\n\n即使为论证起见假定这些主张上升至郭文贵先生“将妨碍或企图妨碍司法”的“严重风险”程度，18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)，也不清楚政府认为羁押郭文贵先生将如何减轻这些所谓风险。审前监禁不会大幅限制郭文贵先生提起法律诉讼或使内容发布于社交媒体的能力。尽管政府明确表示其认为郭文贵先生提出的保释条件不足，但其同时主张郭文贵先生“通过代理人运作”，并且“向其共谋者和追随者发出指令，而后者依其意愿行事”。[证据7—保释备忘录反对意见，第15页。] 而且，无论如何，郭文贵先生已经同意在居家拘禁期间接受其通信能力方面的限制。\n\n政府推测郭文贵先生将来会实施妨碍司法行为，这仅仅是推测。倘若郭文贵先生获准保释，且随后被认为实施了妨碍司法行为，政府将有机会寻求对其羁押。在居家拘禁状态下，郭文贵先生将有充分动机避免该结果。\n\n结论\n\n地区法院犯有明显错误：(1) 认定政府已以优势证据证明郭文贵先生构成严重逃跑风险；(2) 认定政府已以明确且令人信服的证据证明郭文贵先生对社区构成严重危险；(3) 未在记录中充分说明其在何种程度上考虑了郭文贵先生审前羁押的替代方案，以及如适用，该等替代方案被驳回的依据；以及 (4) 得出不存在任何条件或条件组合能够确保郭文贵先生返回法院或社区安全的结论。本院必须撤销并发回重审。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Stephen R. Cook（史蒂芬·R·库克）\n\nStephen R. Cook（史蒂芬·R·库克）\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n2211 Michelson Drive\nIrvine, CA 92612\n(949) 752-7100\n\nWilliam R. Baldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 209-4800\n\n被告-上诉人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的律师\n\n日期：May 5, 2023\n\n关于字数限制、字体要求及字体样式要求的合规证明\n\n1. 根据 Microsoft Word 的字数统计功能，本动议共计 8,730 字。与本动议同时提交的是一份准许提交超长动议的动议。\n\n2. 本简报符合 Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) 的字体要求以及 Fed. R. App. R. 32(a)(6) 的字体样式要求，因为本简报使用 Microsoft Word 以 Times New Roman 14-point 字号的按比例间距字体编写。\n\n/s/ Stephen R. Cook\n\nStephen R. Cook\n\n日期：May 5, 2023\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人证明，本被告-上诉人简报的真实、准确副本已于 2023年5月5日以电子方式送达下列地址所列各方。\n\n/s/ Stephen R. Cook\n\nStephen R. Cook\n\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗格森）\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nU.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, SDNY（美国司法部刑事司，纽约南区）\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\njuliana.murray@usdoj.gov\nmicah.fergenson@usdoj.gov\nRyan.Finkel@usdoj.gov\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\nNo. 23-6421\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n被上诉人，\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n被告-上诉人。\n\n就美国纽约南区联邦地区法院作出的拒绝审前释放裁定提起上诉\n\n请求免除拒绝审前释放裁定的动议之证据附件\n\nCase: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1, Page 45 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 46 of 98\n\n附件\n\n目录\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）支持审判前保释释放申请的备忘录，2023年3月31日提交，ECF No. 24。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）审判前保释释放申请补充文件，2023年4月19日提交，ECF No. 50。\n\n就Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于2023年4月4日举行的保释程序记录。\n\n就Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于2023年3月15日举行的传讯程序记录。\n\n替代起诉书，ECF No. 19。\n\n政府关于羁押的2023年3月15日书面陈述，ECF No. 7。\n\n政府对Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）支持审前释放备忘录的反对意见，2023年4月3日提交，ECF No. 26。\n\n拒绝审前释放的裁定，2023年4月20日录入，ECF No. 51。\n\n美国证券交易委员会（Securities and Exchange Commission）根据1933年《证券法》（Securities Act of 1933）第8A节启动停止及终止程序、作出认定并作出停止及终止命令的裁定，日期为2021年9月13日。\n\n支持申请逮捕令的刑事起诉书及宣誓书，United States v. Jin（美国诉金案），Case No. 20-MJ-1103 (E.D.N.Y.)。\n\n支持申请逮捕令的刑事起诉书及宣誓书，United States v. Yunpeng（美国诉云鹏案），Case No. 23-MJ-0334 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2023)。\n\nU.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），政府关于释放条件动议的补充文件，2023年2月13日提交，Case No. 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 66。\n\nU.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），裁定于2023年2月14日录入，Case No. 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 68。\n\nU.S. v. Bankman-Fried（美国诉班克曼-弗里德案），裁定于2023年3月28日录入，Case No. 22-00673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), ECF No. 116。\n\n上诉通知书，日期为2023年5月4日。\n\nCase: 23-6421, 05/05/2023, DktEntry: 6.1, Page 200 of 446 Case 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 48 of 98\n\n附件7\n\n美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）\n\n美国检察官办公室，纽约南区（United States Attorney Southern District of New York）\n\nSilvio J. Mollo大楼\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n2023年4月3日\n\n通过ECF提交\n\n尊敬的Analisa Torres（阿娜丽萨·托雷斯）法官\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉联邦法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n事由：United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（美国诉郭文贵案），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的Torres法官：\n\n政府致函反对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”或“被告人”）提交的支持审前释放的备忘录。（“被告备忘录”或“被告人的备忘录”）（Dkt. 24。）如政府于2023年3月15日提交的请求羁押的信函（“政府信函”或“该信函”）（Dkt. 7）所详述，Kwok是一名特殊的被告人，拥有广泛的外国联系和数千万美元的资源，可利用这些资源逃离美国。被告人还对社区构成持续的重大危险，其妨害行为和恐吓行为对司法程序构成明显威胁。\n\n事实上，自政府提交该信函以来，支持羁押的证据持续增加。Kwok向审前服务机构（Pretrial Services）撒谎，试图隐瞒其财富和就业情况。Kwok甚至违反了其目前被羁押的布鲁克林大都会拘留中心（Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center，MDC）的规章制度。此外，经司法授权对其共同被告人的公寓及Kwok价值数百万美元的住所进行搜查后，发现了更多关于被告人拥有大量资源及逃跑能力的证据。被告人的备忘录在很大程度上无视这些事实，并将其与其他案件作出（错误的）类比。Kwok拟议的辩方保释方案，远不足以应对其广泛的外国联系，以及其逃跑的强烈动机和大量资源。该方案完全不能减轻Kwok获释对社区和司法程序造成的普遍危险。任何保释方案都不能。\n\n审前服务机构的判断是正确的。不存在任何条件或条件组合，能够合理地向法院保证被告人将出庭，并保证公众免受伤害。法院应采纳审前服务机构的建议。本案绝对适宜审前羁押。\n\nI. 审前服务机构报告\n\n2023年3月15日，在审前服务机构面谈期间，Kwok表示其“自2016年底以来一直失业”。他称其资产总额“大约为$10,000 . . .，且不是流动现金”，而是由“两部手机和衣物”的价值构成（强调系后加）。Kwok否认拥有不动产或车辆。他称其位于康涅狄格州格林尼治（Greenwich, Connecticut）的庄园，估值为$9 million，归其妻子所有，其位于曼哈顿的顶层公寓归其儿子所有。Kwok估计其每月开支（食物、衣物、手机和“保镖”）为$100,000，并表示该等开支由其家人支付。被告人还称其于2022年申请破产。Kwok称，在其“失业”之前，他自约2000年至2014年担任其家族企业的“总代表”。正如审前服务机构在其报告中指出，Kwok无法“估算其收入”，即其作为“总代表”工作所得的收入。\n\n关于其与美国的联系，Kwok告知审前服务机构，他在过去六年未离开美国，但称其于1991年至2017年间曾前往约“五十个”不同国家。Kwok指出，其妻子和女儿居住在美国，且从中国移民而来，而其儿子居住在伦敦。Kwok的直系亲属中无人是美国公民。此外，审前服务机构无法核实Kwok提供的有关其家人的信息，因为Kwok未提供其女儿的正确电话号码。\n\n审前服务机构确认了九项表明Kwok存在不到庭风险的风险因素：持有护照、具有广泛的境外旅行历史、在美国境外具有家庭联系、其作为可能被遣返的外国公民的身份、精神健康病史、使用别名、多处申报住所、失业，以及存在未经核实的资产。审前服务机构还认定，被控罪行的性质是表明对社区存在危险的风险因素。\n\n审前服务机构的结论是，“不存在任何条件或条件组合，能够合理保证被告人将在未来程序中出庭……[并且]谨建议羁押被告人。”\n\nII. 根据搜查令于2023年3月15日查获的材料\n\n2023年3月15日，联邦调查局（Federal Bureau of Investigation，FBI）在包括以下地点在内的场所执行了一系列搜查令：(i) Kwok位于曼哈顿的顶层公寓（其在此被捕）；(ii) Kwok位于新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah, New Jersey）的50,000平方英尺豪宅；以及(iii) Kwok位于康涅狄格州格林尼治的七卧室、约12,000平方英尺庄园。FBI还在Kwok共同被告人Yanping Wang（王燕平）位于曼哈顿的公寓执行了搜查令，王于同日被捕。除其他物品外，FBI查获了以下材料：\n\nKwok的马瓦豪宅：\n\n约$394,000、€5000、HK$188,05和¥250现金，以及约156枚金币（连同一张收据，该收据显示这些金币的价值约为$109,555）；上述物品在一个保险箱内被发现，该保险箱位于连接至似乎是Kwok更衣室的壁橱中。（Ex. A。）该更衣室存放约30套Brioni（布里奥尼）定制西装，每件西装上衣内均手工缝有“Brioni for Miles Kwok”字样。\n\nKwok已过期的阿拉伯联合酋长国（United Arab Emirates）护照副本。（Ex. B。）\n\n一台手机加扰器。2\n\n10台计算机或笔记本电脑；16个外部媒体存储设备（USB和硬盘）；以及九部手机。\n\nKwok的曼哈顿顶层公寓：\n\n在Kwok的卧室内，FBI发现一部藏在Kwok的Duxiana品牌床垫下的手机。（Ex. C。）\n\n另外15部手机、14个外部媒体存储设备（USB和硬盘），以及四台计算机。\n\n带有中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party）标志的金质徽章。（Ex. D。）\n\nKwok的格林尼治庄园：\n\n一辆2021年款Lamborghini Aventador（兰博基尼Aventador），该车使用诈骗所得购得。\n\n三台计算机或笔记本电脑、五部手机和13个USB驱动器。\n\n共同被告人Wang的公寓：\n\nKwok已过期的瓦努阿图共和国（Republic of Vanuatu）护照和瓦努阿图非公民身份证，该等物品存放于Wang的保险箱内。（Ex. E。）护照上的印章反映，Kwok于2017年3月使用其瓦努阿图护照前往英国，并进一步反映Kwok有权在英国停留六个月。Wang的保险箱还存有Kwok已过期和目前有效的香港护照。已过期的香港护照反映Kwok有大量境外旅行经历。有效的香港护照反映其于2016年前往英国、苏格兰、巴哈马和日本。\n\n约$138,000美元现金及其他外币，存放于上述保险箱内。\n\n印制文件显示，截至2023年3月13日（即被告人被捕前两日），政府指称由Wang管理和控制、且均与被控诈骗有关的多个实体的银行账户余额。该等文件显示余额至少约为$34 million。\n\n1 HK$188,050约值$23,900。\n\n2 手机加扰器是一种连接到手机的外部设备。手机加扰器旨在规避政府窃听及其他监听技术。加扰器通过将语音转换为不可识别的模拟噪声，以便经电话网络传输而发挥作用。通话另一端的接收器会将模拟信号重新转换为可理解的语音。\n\nIII. 应驳回被告人提出的释放理由\n\n被告人的备忘录针对政府2023年3月15日的信函作出回应，提出了一组条件，郭文贵认为据此准予审前释放是适当的。被告人的备忘录还试图在本案与其他未下令审前羁押的欺诈案件之间进行类比。最后，被告人试图反驳政府在其2023年3月15日信函中详细列举的因素，该等因素表明郭文贵存在逃跑风险、对社区构成危险，并且很可能妨害司法公正。如下文所述，被告人的论点应予驳回。\n\nA. 被告人提出的保释方案不足\n\n郭文贵提出了一项包含八项条件的保释方案：（i）在其位于格林尼治的庄园或经法院批准的其他未确定地点居家拘禁；（ii）以$5 million现金及两名身份未披露的成年共同签署人担保的$25 million保证金，其中“一人并非家庭成员”；（iii）由保安公司实施“24/7监控”，并配备“至少一名持有执照且合格的警卫”；（iv）GPS监控；（v）交出旅行证件，并交出其妻子和女儿的旅行证件；（vi）限制郭文贵进行金融交易的能力；以及（vii）在律师不在场的情况下不得与共同被告人通信。\n\n首先，被告人提出，应将其释放至其位于康涅狄格州格林尼治、如下图所示的七卧室、12,000平方英尺庄园实行“居家拘禁”。该庄园设有游泳池、私人网球场、“生活亭”及三个室外壁炉：\n\n案号 22-500731.7256229987 Hatel Core of the led interest 2016 第53页，共98页\n\n该格林尼治庄园于2020年2月由Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）购得，该实体已收取数百万美元的欺诈所得。具体而言，政府调查显示，在2020年8月至2021年4月期间，共同被告人Kin Ming Je（又名“William Je”，该欺诈行为的金融策划者）将约$34 million的欺诈所得，主要是通过Farm Loan Program（见起诉书 ¶ 14）筹集的，转移给由郭文贵家庭成员100%拥有的实体；该等转移包括于2020年10月向Greenwich Land, LLC转移约$5 million。3 至少可以说，让郭文贵居住在其以欺诈所得维持的豪华格林尼治庄园内，以此避免审前羁押，是不适当的。\n\n5 值得注意的是，在郭文贵的破产程序中，法院指定的Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）申请作出确认判决，称Greenwich Land不过是郭文贵用于隐匿其资产的另一个替身实体。In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al., No. 22-05003 (JAM), Dkt. 1604 (D. Conn. Bankr. Mar. 27, 2023.) 为支持该动议，除其他事项外，受托人援引了Greenwich Land房地产经纪人在2020年8月发出的一封电子邮件，其中称该格林尼治庄园系“由Miles [Kwok]通过Greenwich Land购买”。(Id. Ex. 41.)\n\n案号 22-500731938829292929897412661601261269289988181216 第54页，共98页\n\n其次，被告人的保释提议未说明其拟用于担保所提议$25 million保证金的$5 million现金来源。鉴于被告人已申请破产，并告知Pretrial Services（审前服务部门）其仅有价值$10,000的资产，包括“两部手机和衣物”，该遗漏具有重大意义。鉴于该等陈述，被告人现称其可取得如此巨额现金的事实，对该等资金的合法性提出疑问，并进一步证明被告人就其资产向审前服务部门作出的陈述不实。如上所述，尽管被告人告诉审前服务部门其没有任何现金资产，但其实际上在其Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）的保险柜中存有$394,000。无论如何，鉴于郭文贵提交的破产申请及其为隐匿欺诈所得所实施的大量掩饰行为，任何保证金金额——无论是否有担保——很可能完全基于受破产程序负担的资产、可作为其欺诈所得予以没收的资产，或两者兼有。4 因此，被告人的保证金提议毫无意义。郭文贵质押并非其所有的资金（或受第11章程序约束的资金），并不能对其逃跑形成任何“道德约束”。See United States v. Zhang, No. 22-CR-208-4 (CBA), 2022 WL 17420740, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2022)（“放弃一项所有权不明、且可能已面临某种风险的投资性房产，与避免终身监禁相比，似乎代价很小”）（援引United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir. 1998)（就保证金方案对被告人“倘若决定逃跑”时“施加道德约束的能力”进行讨论），aff'd, 55 F.4th 141 (2d Cir. 2022)).5\n\n4 事实上，最近联邦破产法院已发布一系列命令，暂时限制并禁止一系列与郭文贵有关的实体（通常登记在其子女名下）对任何财产和/或资产设置负担、转让、让与、耗散、交付或出让。(Ex. G（汇集命令）.)\n\n5 同样值得注意的是，被告人迄今尚未向法院或政府确认任何拟议共同签署人。保证人必须具有“足以支付保释保证书金额的、未受负担价值的净资产”。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)（“被告人还必须证明，拟议保证人对确保被告人出庭受审具有道德约束力。”）。\n\n第三，被告人提出，应由私人保安随时对其进行监控。郭文贵主张，只有在其始终受到武装警卫监视的情况下，审前释放才适当，这无异于承认其必须被羁押。他只是主张，应将其羁押在其格林尼治庄园内，而非羁押在联邦系统中；无力获得其所拥有程度资源的人士则被羁押于该系统中。United States v. Banki, 369 Fed. App'x 152, 154 (2d Cir. 2010)（说明私人保安“条件最好不要被视为具体的释放条件，而应被视为仅向富人提供的一种限制较少的羁押形式”）。因此，本院应对被告人提出的私人监狱方案感到忧虑；该方案“充其量只是‘精心复制了一个羁押设施，却没有该设施所带来的安全保障信心’”。United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993)（引自United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)（驳回私人监狱提议））。\n\n为支持其私人武装保安提议，被告人援引United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007)，但该案可予区分。(Def. Mem. at 23-24.) 在Sabhani案中，政府确定了其认为将减轻逃跑风险的条件，其中包括武装保安。Id. at 65. 政府在本案中并未作出同样同意。此外，自2007年Sabhani判决以来，Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）和地区法院已对私人保安安排的可行性提出质疑。6 即使被告人也承认，上诉法院明确指出：“Bail Reform Act（保释改革法）不允许建立一种双层保释制度，在该制度下，经济能力较弱的被告人在审判前被羁押，而富有的被告人则被释放至自费设立的私人监狱。”United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019)（强调系原文所加）；Banki, 369 Fed. App'x at 153-54（称法院对“允许富有被告人通过建造私人监狱来买得脱身”的可能性感到“忧虑”）；United States v. Cilins, No. 13 Cr. 315 (WHP), 2013 WL 3802012, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013)（“否则不具备获释资格的个人能够通过建造私人监狱、由未经政府培训或最终不向政府负责的保安人员看守而买得脱身，即使这些保安经过谨慎挑选，也违反了羁押和保释释放的基本原则”）（引自Borodin v. Ashcroft, 136 F. Supp. 2d 125, 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)）；United States v. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d 283, 292 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Bianco, J.)（“保释改革法中没有任何内容表明，被告人（或者即使是假设由一组拥有私人资金的被告人）享有在住宅或其他地点复制或建造私人监狱的法定权利。”）。\n\n法院对允许富有被告人为其自身安保提供资金，以此作为审前羁押的替代方案持谨慎态度，是合理的。这种谨慎态度还源于现实世界中的不确定性，例如，由被告出资的私人安保在实际操作中是否会对法院负责，以及警卫是否有权使用武力阻止被告逃跑，而这可能使其承担民事责任。参见 Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 294（“关于私人安保公司在被告违反释放条件时使用武力对付被告的法律授权问题，以及警卫能否或是否应当配备武器的问题，突显出被告所设想的类似私人监狱概念在法律和实践方面的不确定性——事实上，是其不完善性——与实际监狱这一更为安全的选择相比尤甚。”）。正如政府在其 March 15, 2023 Letter 中所主张的，如果只能通过全天候持枪警卫来确保被告出庭，则被告应当被羁押于联邦拘留中心，而非在事实上为一人在豪华的 Greenwich（格林尼治）庄园中建造私人监狱的保释条件下获释。参见 United States v. Zarrab, No. 15 CR 867 (RMB), 2016 WL 3681423, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)（“还有什么案件比这样一种案件更有力地支持作出羁押命令：只有持枪警卫和致命武力的威胁足以确保被告出庭？”（引文和援引略）。）\n\n第四，正如政府在其 March 15, 2023 Letter 中所主张的，GPS 监控严重不足。该技术绝非万无一失，对于防止 Kwok（郭文贵）逃离作用甚微——他是一名老练的国际旅行者，拥有大量现金、手机信号干扰器、私人飞机，以及遍布全球的支持者网络。参见 United States v. Freeman, 21 Cr. 88 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2021)（在一宗 $2.3 million 洗钱案件中命令羁押，并指出“电子监控及类似措施，如先前所述，远非防止逃跑的完美手段”）；另参见 Gov't Ltr. at 22（汇集案例）。\n\n第五，本院不应轻信被告会交出其所有旅行证件并避免取得新的旅行证件。Kwok 获得旅行证件的能力非同寻常。在 April 19, 2017 的一次访谈中，Kwok 声称其“拥有约 11 本护照”，其中包括“某些中东国家的三本护照”。8 Kwok 的陈述得到 FBI 在 Kwok 位于 Mahwah（马瓦）的大宅中发现的阿联酋护照副本的佐证（尽管实际护照尚未找到），以及在其共同被告的保险箱中发现的 Kwok 的瓦努阿图共和国护照的佐证。9 尽管瓦努阿图和阿联酋护照均已过期，且其他找回的文件表明 Kwok 可能已不再拥有瓦努阿图国籍，这些材料证明了 Kwok 在需要时取得旅行证件的能力。辩方声称 Kwok（及其妻子和女儿）无法根据法院要求交出旅行证件且不得取得新证件的命令，在“后勤上设法”离开美国，这一说法显然错误。（Def. Mem. 13）。鉴于 Kwok 曾一度可取得多达 11 本护照，并且 Kwok 及其家人历来乘坐各种私人航空器和船只进行国际旅行，被告向本院作出的保证毫无价值。值得注意且尤其令人担忧的是，Kwok 未向 Pretrial Services（审前服务机构）披露其瓦努阿图或阿联酋护照。向审前服务机构隐瞒其旅行证件，已足以成为命令审前羁押的理由，并足以驳斥任何关于法院可以信任被告遵守释放条件的主张。\n\n此外，辩方声称 Kwok 因害怕被遣返中国而根本无法旅行，这一说法不可信。根据辩方的动议，Kwok 于 January 1, 2015 逃离 Hong Kong（香港），因返回中国将带来的危险而从未返回，且因害怕被遣返中国而无法进行国际旅行。（Def. Mem., at 7.）但是，Kwok 在逃离中国后曾进行国际旅行——包括使用其瓦努阿图护照。声称 Kwok 为避开“CCP（中国共产党）的长臂”，除美国外无处可去，乃是夸大其词，且与 Kwok 广泛的旅行记录相矛盾。（Def. Mem. at 13.）\n\n第六，要求被告不得进行任何金融交易（未经政府或法院许可）的条件徒有其表，且无法使公众免受 Kwok 持续造成的经济损害。由于其破产，Kwok 实际上已经受该条件约束。然而，对破产案卷的审查表明，Kwok 曾通过他人及空壳公司网络隐匿其资产和财务状况。事实上，起诉书本身确立了 Kwok 通过指示他人代表其行事而进行金融交易。此外，Kwok 已表现出藐视和破坏法院命令的意愿，几乎无法保证该条件会对其产生任何影响。In re: Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023) (Dkt. 7, Ex. C, at 23 -29（详述 Kwok 及其追随者尽管已发布禁止此类行为的临时限制令，仍干扰 Chapter 11 破产程序）。Kwok 提交破产申请本身就是试图规避 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）法官因 Kwok 未遵守该法院命令而对其实施制裁的命令。参见 PAX Lawsuit, No. 652077/2017, 2018 BL 236400, Dkt. 716. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022)（命令 Kwok 支付 $134 million 藐视法庭罚款）。事实上，被告已经违反了这一拟议条件：他在审前服务机构访谈中就其资产撒谎——Kwok 未披露其存放在 Mahwah 大宅保险箱中的近 $400,000 现金和外币，也未披露其通过中间人控制的其他银行账户。Kwok 长期且有记录可查地破坏司法程序，以及其在审前服务机构访谈中的欺骗行为，表明该条件不会对 Kwok 产生任何影响。\n\n8 Complaint Exhibit 1B, HNA Grp. Co., Ltd.（海航集团有限公司）v. Guo Wengui（郭文贵）, No. 653281/2017, Dkt. No. 7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 30, 2017)（Kwok 与 Voice of America（美国之音）之间 April 19, 2017 访谈的英文译文）。\n\n9 瓦努阿图是南太平洋的一个小岛国。据公开报道，瓦努阿图允许外国国民以在该国投资为交换取得瓦努阿图国籍。参见“Citizenship for sale: fugitives, politicians and disgraced businesspeople buying Vanuatu passports,” The Guardian（《卫报》）, dated July 14, 2021（available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/citizenship-for-sale-fugitives-politicians-and-disgraced-businesspeople-buying-vanuatu-passports）。\n\nB. 本案中的羁押与先例一致\n\n被告援引了数起欺诈案件，在这些案件中，尽管被指称存在重大损失，被告仍受到审前条件约束。10（参见，例如，被告备忘录第1-2页、第21-22页。）政府并不否认，存在被控严重经济犯罪的被告获准保释的案件实例。但是，被告所依赖的案件与本案情形存在显著差异，具体表现为：(1) Kwok（郭文贵）广泛的外国联系及其与美国的有限联系；以及(2) Kwok获释所持续造成的危险。本辖区法院在涉及金融犯罪的案件中经常下令审前羁押；如同本案，在政府证明不存在任何条件能够合理保证被告出庭或保障社区安全时，法院即会作出该等命令。辩方所引的所有案件均可区分，因为政府在逮捕时同意审前释放，且所涉被告人与美国的联系显著更多。12\n\n10 被告所援引的若干案件，在被指称的经济损害数额方面与本案相差一个数量级。United States（美国） v. Gulkarov等人（古尔卡罗夫等人）, No. 22 Cr. 20, (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区） 2022) 涉及一宗 $30 million 的医疗保健欺诈案。参见同案，Dkt. 1，第3页。Kwok援引的 $100 million 数额涉及数个相互关联的案件。参见 United States v. Akbar等人（阿克巴尔等人）, No. 20 Cr. 563, Dkt. 1，第4页 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)（“对 USPS 的潜在损失最高可达 $15 million”）；United States v. McFarland（麦克法兰）, No. 17 Cr. 600 (NRB), Dkt. 20，第4页 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)（“被告致使至少七十名受害投资者遭受损失，总额超过 $20 million dollars”）。Kwok被控诈骗数千名受害人，金额超过 $1 billion。\n\n11 Kwok所援引而政府最终寻求审前还押的案件包括 United States v. McFarland、United States v. Madoff（麦道夫）以及 United States v. Belfort（贝尔福特）。在 McFarland案中，政府在同意审前释放后，于 June 18, 2018 因 McFarland在获释期间被控犯有其他罪行而寻求羁押。Buchwald法官（布赫瓦尔德）准许了政府的动议。（同案，Dkt. 43。）在 Madoff案中，政府在 Madoff被捕当日同意审前释放。近两周后，政府因得知 Madoff已向亲属和朋友邮寄昂贵物品而寻求还押。在寻求还押时，政府承认邮寄物品并未违反 Madoff刑事案件中设定的“具体保释条件”。No. 09 Cr. 213, Dkt. 15，第5页 (SDNY Jan. 12, 2009)。最终，Ellis治安法官（埃利斯）驳回了政府的动议，理由包括“当事双方已同意，现有措施足以”解决潜逃担忧。同上，第9页。在拒绝认定存在严重妨碍司法风险时，法院仅审查了Madoff向他人邮寄资产是否构成妨碍司法，以及这些行为是否表明未来存在严重的妨碍司法风险。同上，第12页。对于潜在的持续危险，法院仅审查了“未来可能对Madoff资产的处置是否会达到根据 § 3142 可认定的经济损害程度”，而非Madoff是否会继续实施其他犯罪。同上，第19页。本院面前的记录存在显著差异。Kwok的妨碍行为远不止向家人和朋友邮寄一些资产。他曾威胁证人、策划针对法院指定官员的骚扰行动，并规避法院命令。（政府函件第12-16页。）此外，在本案中，政府并不认为——如其在 Madoff案中所认为的那样——可以设定足以减轻潜逃风险或危险的条件。Belfort案卷宗未明确说明政府最终为何寻求羁押，亦未明确该请求的处理结果。\n\n案件 22-50073：第58页，共98页\n\n相比之下，Kwok仅持续在美国居住了五年（其中数年正值 COVID-19 pandemic 高峰期，当时国际旅行受到限制）。在该五年期间的四年多时间里，Kwok将美国作为运营其价值十亿美元欺诈企业的基地。此外，Kwok所援引的任何案件均不涉及具有Kwok所表现出的广泛骚扰和欺骗历史的被告，13 更不用说Kwok似乎坚决要继续造成的持续经济损害，包括通过将其欺诈活动和所得转移至阿联酋。该等案件也不涉及与外国联系的广泛程度接近Kwok的被告。如上所述，Kwok声称曾可使用11本外国护照，拥有大量外国资产，家人在国外，可使用飞机和船舶，并且很可能获得其共同被告 William Je（叶简明）的帮助；William Je本人是在阿联酋藏匿的国际逃犯。\n\n尽管如此，在过去数年中，仍有一些被控欺诈及其他类似罪行的个人被羁押。许多此类案件所涉经济损失远小于Kwok的十亿美元欺诈案，且复杂程度也更低。例如：\n\n12 参见 United States v. Bankman-Fried（班克曼-弗里德）, 22-cr-673 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)（出生于美国的美国公民）；United States v. Hwang（黄）, 22-cr-240 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)（58岁的归化美国公民，自幼在美国生活，其美国公民家庭成员居住于新泽西州）；United States v. Gulkarov等人, No. 22-cr-20 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)（在美国居住超过20年，家人在美国，包括在美国的年幼子女）；United States v. McFarland, No. 17-cr-600 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)（出生于美国的美国公民）；United States v. Tucker等人（塔克等人）, No. 16-cr-91 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)（同上）；United States v. Madoff, No. 1:09-cr-00213-DC-1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2008)（同上）；United States v. Holmes等人（霍姆斯等人）, No. 5:18-cr-00258-EJD-1 (N.D. Cal.（加州北区） June 15, 2018)（同上）；United States v. Causey等人（考西等人）, No. 4:04-cr-00025-2 (S.D. Tex.（得州南区） Feb. 19, 2004)（就 Jeffrey Skilling（杰弗里·斯基林）而言同上）；United States v. Belfort等人, No. 1:98-cr-00859-AMD-1 (E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区） Sept. 4, 1998)（同上）。\n\n13 基于这些理由，United States v. Bankman-Fried并不具有可比性。在 Bankman-Fried案中，政府在 Gorenstein治安法官（戈伦斯坦）面前出庭时，基于以下因素同意审前释放；这些因素在本案中均不存在：(i) 被告放弃引渡并自愿返回美国；(ii) 无潜逃历史；(iii) 与家庭及社区存在联系；(iv) 资产减少，妨碍其潜逃能力；以及(v) 由于被告已不再与 FTX 有关联，对社区持续损害的担忧仅属“边缘性”。No. 22 Cr. 673, Dkt. 36，第6-8页 (S.D.NY. Jan. 20, 2023)（首次出庭听证笔录）。Gorenstein治安法官认定证据的分量有利于审前羁押，但鉴于双方同意、被告具有美国国籍且“在此成长并且目前有家人居住在此，因而与本国具有极强联系”，以及其因知名度而无法进行未来金融交易从而减轻损害，仍准许审前释放。同上，第13-14页。Bankman-Fried后来使用 VPN 以及与一名证人进行不当接触的行为，远不能与Kwok的妨碍行为、隐匿资产以及Kwok所造成的危险相提并论。\n\n案件 22-50073：第59页，共98页\n\nUnited States v. Celvin Freeman（塞尔文·弗里曼）, 21 Cr. 88 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.)（居住在新泽西州的被告被控为加纳犯罪企业洗钱约 $2.3 million 的欺诈所得；因其缺乏合法身份、与加纳联系紧密、在逮捕期间试图逃跑以及可能面临重大监禁刑期而被羁押）。在下令羁押时，Rakoff法官（拉科夫）就共同签署人指出：“我们并不依赖于他的资产；我们依赖的是他人的资产，而他所参与的这类计划表明，他对其他人的尊重充其量是有限的。至于电子监控等措施，如先前所述，它们远非防止潜逃的完美手段。”（Feb. 19, 2021, Bail Hearing Tr. 第19-20页）。\n\nUnited States v. Fred Asante（弗雷德·阿桑特）, 21 Cr. 88 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.)（与家人居住在弗吉尼亚州的被告被控为加纳犯罪企业洗钱约 $6.7 million 的欺诈所得；因其先前的毒品重罪、曾使用假护照逃往加纳、可取得大量资金，以及未向审前服务部门披露信息而被羁押）。\n\nUnited States v. Sheng-Wen Cheng（郑盛文）, 21 Cr. 261 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.)（居住在曼哈顿的被告被控实施 $7 million 的 COVID-19 pandemic 贷款欺诈；因被告没有合法身份、可取得大量资金、与海外家庭联系紧密，以及犯罪涉及使用被盗身份而被羁押）。\n\nUnited States v. Muge Ma（马慕格）, 20 Cr. 407 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.)（居住在曼哈顿且在美国具有合法永久居民身份的被告被控企图实施 $20 million 的 COVID-19 pandemic 贷款欺诈；因其为与海外联系紧密的中国籍人士、面临重大监禁刑期，以及犯罪涉及伪造文件而被羁押）。\n\nUnited States v. Malhotra（马尔霍特拉）, No. 19 Cr. 411 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020)（印度籍被告被控以虚假承诺提供电脑维修服务的方式诈骗受害人超过 $3 million；基于被告的潜逃风险及其与美国缺乏联系而被羁押）。\n\nUnited States v. Raniere（拉尼尔）, 18-CR-204 (NGG), 2018 WL 3057702, at *7-8 (E.D.N.Y. June 20, 2018)（基于潜逃风险羁押被告；该被告没有申报资产，但似乎可取得庞大资源，并提出由私人保安公司看守）。\n\nUnited States v. Ho（何）, No. 18-1641-cr, (Aug. 30, 2018 2d Cir. 2018)（维持拒绝审前释放的裁定；中国籍被告被控参与 $2.5 million 的贿赂计划）。\n\nUnited States v. Zarrab（扎拉布）, No. 15 Cr. 867 (RMB), Dkt. 41 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)（拒绝审前释放，并驳回由武装警卫、以 $10 million 现金担保的 $50 million PRB 以及 GPS 监控组成的方案。被告被控犯有与违反制裁法相关的多项罪行）。\n\n案件 22-50073：第60页，共98页\n\n如同上述被告，鉴于Kwok拥有大量资金和潜逃动机、其已表明的妨碍司法历史，以及其获释后所造成的持续危险，本案中羁押是适当的。\n\nC. 政府已根据优势证据证明Kwok具有潜逃风险\n\n辩方试图将Kwok（郭文贵）的个人情况描绘为其不太可能逃亡的理由，但此种尝试并无说服力，且忽视或淡化了关键事实。辩方忽视了政府证据的力度以及起诉书中指控的严重性，因而并未对此提出实质性争议。辩方甚少关注Kwok因其犯罪行为可能面临长达数十年的监禁刑期，以及这为其逃离美国所造成的强烈动机，尤其是因为他在美国的联系并不稳固。Kwok至多声称，其妻子和女儿在美国这一事实激励其留在美国。（Def. Mem. 13。）但这忽略了Kwok于2015年离开其妻子和女儿进入美国这一事实，见Def. Mem. at 7 and 22，且忽略了Kwok的儿子目前居住在United Kingdom（英国）。Kwok不能一方面声称其女儿和妻子在美国促使其留在美国，另一方面又声称其儿子在外国的存在不会对其离开产生任何吸引力。\n\nKwok关于其将留在美国的主张，依赖于以下命题：由于CCP（中国共产党）对其及其家人构成威胁所引发的安全顾虑，他根本不会出行。（See Def. Mem. at 14 (\"Kwok [has] real and substantial security concerns about the threat posed by the CCP were he to travel abroad.\"), id. at 22 (\"threats that are far more likely to become realities should Mr. Kwok flee the United States\").）该主张经不起审查。Kwok声称其于2015年逃离中国，是因为害怕被CCP逮捕。然而，尽管CCP试图将其遣返，Kwok仍继续进行国际旅行。（See Gov't Ltr. at 2。）自其于2017年申请庇护以来，他或许未曾进行国际旅行，因为该申请排除了此种行为，但鉴于起诉书，其庇护申请已受到严重危及。随着庇护申请被拒迫在眉睫，他留在美国的动机将完全消失。14\n\n14 Kwok仅作结论性主张称，即使其被定罪，其仍将依据Convention Against Torture（《禁止酷刑公约》）“有资格”留在美国。（Def. Mem., at 15。）即使其获得该项保护——而此事并不确定——该公约也并不要求有资格者留在美国。See Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 432 F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 2005)（维持驳回依据CAT提出的、旨在防止被送返中国的救济申请）。受CAT保护者可被遣送至第三国。Mudiangomba v. Holder, 372 F. App'x 161, 164 (2d Cir. 2010)（维持将个人遣送至替代国家的决定）。无论如何，Kwok在被定罪并服刑后可能有资格留在美国的理论可能性，几乎不能表明其目前在面临重大刑事后果时有动机留在美国。Kwok在理论上的CAT保护远不足以反驳政府以优势证据证明其具有极高逃亡风险的因素。\n\n案件 22-50073:32980028888754766110120126723222222222222222222222222222222222222222221612216 第 61 页，共 98 页\n\n接下来，辩方主张Kwok不具备逃亡所需的经济能力。该主张在更仔细审查后同样不能成立。如果如辩方所称，Kwok有能力提供\\$5 million现金保释金，承担全天候武装警卫的费用，并承担\\$100,000的每月开支，那么他便拥有逃离本国的资金。事实上，政府在其一处住所发现了超过\\$500,000的美国货币、外币和金币——这些均为其未向Pretrial Services（审前服务处）披露的资产。其共同被告Wang（王）在其公寓中另有\\$138,000现金。William Je（叶晓峰）是该欺诈活动的财务策划人，也是一名据信藏匿于UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国）的逃犯。据信Je可动用存放于外国账户中的数百万美元欺诈所得，用以协助Kwok及其家人逃亡。在Wang的公寓中发现的银行文件佐证了其他资产的存在。该等文件显示，截至March 13, 2023，与该欺诈活动有关联的实体名下持有的余额至少约为\\$34 million。鉴于此背景，辩方关于Kwok提交破产申请意味着其缺乏逃亡资金的主张显然错误。（Def. Mem. at 28-29。）恰恰相反，Kwok的破产申请进一步支持对其进行审前羁押，因为这证明Kwok为隐匿其财富所采取的极端手段及其在司法程序中的策略性操作。\n\n此外，如上所述，Kwok曾表示其持有十一本护照。政府目前持有其Hong Kong（香港）和Republic of Vanuatu（瓦努阿图共和国）护照。Kwok似乎持有一本下落不明的UAE护照，且不清楚还有哪些国家向Kwok提供了旅行证件。Kwok从至少三个国家——且可能多达十一个国家——取得旅行证件这一事实表明，任何法院命令均无法阻止Kwok为其本人及其家人取得额外旅行证件。据信Kwok还在欧洲拥有一架由其儿子控制的私人飞机。正如其香港护照中的众多印章以及其向审前机构承认曾前往超过“五十”个国家所表明的，Kwok是一名经验极其丰富的国际旅行者，能够适应世界各地的众多地点。Zarrab, 2016 WL 3681423, at *8（将“与美国缺乏联系；其巨额财富和充足资源；其广泛的国际旅行；以及其与外国的密切联系”列为裁定审前羁押时的相关考量因素）。Kwok可获得的支持并不限于其儿子。正如破产法院的裁决已明确指出的那样，Kwok拥有庞大的支持者网络，倘若其请求协助，他们愿意为其提供藏身之处并予以帮助。Kwok能够动用深厚的资源——资金、证件以及全球支持者网络。任何法院施加的条件均无法缓解这一情况。\n\n尽管政府认为Kwok可逃往许多地点，但United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）因多项原因而是一个显而易见的目的地。GCLUBS和Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）在UAE设有办事处和人员。事实上，今年早些时候，两名与GCLUBS及其他用于实施该欺诈活动的实体有关联的美国公民获得了在UAE工作和居留的签证。如果GCLUBS人员能够获得签证，那么Kwok——即该欺诈活动的“The Principal”（主事人）——当然也能够获得。辩方忽略了Kwok曾宣传将资金汇往UAE，作为规避“long arm jurisdiction of the U.S.”的一种方式。（Gov't Ltr. at 19。）因此，Kwok知道UAE是其藏匿资产、家人及其本人的相对安全地点。事实上，如前所述，据信Kwok的共同被告目前正藏匿于该地。辩方草率主张“没有证据表明Kwok会或能够逃往UAE”并不可信。（Def. Mem. at 13-14。）\n\nD. 政府已证明Kwok对社区及司法程序构成危险\n\n被告总体上忽视了政府提出的大量证据，该等证据表明Kwok倾向于对社区造成进一步经济损害。\n\n案件 22-50073: 222022222222222222202020202020202020202020202020202020202000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\n\n共 98 页\n\n如政府March 15 Letter所述，被告的欺诈行为历经多年不断升级。尽管SEC（美国证券交易委员会）介入、其账户被关闭、与其有关联的实体收到大陪审团传票、\\$630 million dollars被扣押、New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）法官作出藐视法庭裁定，以及联邦破产法官作出类似认定，Kwok仍未停止。（See Gov't Ltr. at 19-20。）持续造成损害的可能性并非理论上的。就在其被捕前一个月，Kwok开始推销“A10”发行项目——一项所谓的投资机会，其与Kwok所有其他欺诈性发行项目的特征相一致。（Id. at 10。）本法院无法获得任何合理保证，认为Kwok会仅因被命令停止而停止其欺诈行为，也无法获得合理保证，认为若本法院如此命令，其不会从事金融交易——尤其是在被告已表现出非同寻常的复杂性手段的情况下。15 被告使用数十部不同的手机和手机信号干扰器；其依赖于由空壳公司、中间人和掩饰手段构成的错综复杂而密集的网络。Kwok隐匿其行为的能力并非臆测。联邦和州法院法官均已作出此种认定。See e.g., Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at *1（Liman（利曼）法官认定，名义上由Kwok女儿持有的“Eastern Profit Corporation”实质上是Kwok的“空壳公司”）；February 9, 2022 Decision and Order, at 1, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181（认定Kwok使用空壳公司保护其资产）；In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), at 10 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023) (Filed at Dkt. 7, Exhibit C)（确认五个组织和运动，“作为[Kwok]的商业载体，其成员对[Kwok]个人忠诚”）。\n\n辩方几乎未对大量表明Kwok如获释将有妨碍司法公正风险的证据作出回应。事实上，Kwok似乎已在从事此类行为。On March 29, 2023，政府获MDC（大都会拘留中心）工作人员告知，Kwok的“家属一直在操纵[法律通话]系统，并提供虚假信息以规避法律通话系统”。（Ex. F。）Kwok至少曾两次利用仅供在押人员及其律师使用的法律通话系统，与似为其家属的人员通信。其中一次发生在Kwok及其家人被警告不得将法律通话系统用于私人通话之后。远程法律通话不会被录音，而在押人员与其家属之间的通话通常会受到监控。Kwok似乎规避了MDC的规则，以避免执法部门监控其活动。\n\n15 Kwok援引United States v. Stein以支持如下主张：被告过去参与犯罪活动本身不足以证明其持续构成危险。与本案不同，在Stein案中，政府未作出任何“真正努力表明，若[被告]在审判前获释，其将继续[犯罪]存在实质风险”。No. S1 05 Cr. 888 (LAK), 2005 WL 8157371, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2005)。本案中，政府已表明，无论情形如何，Kwok持续藐视法院命令和执法行动，并持续实施欺诈。无论如何，Stein案中被控经济犯罪的被告被审前羁押，其中一个原因是该被告存在逃亡风险，其财务披露具有误导性。Id.; see also id. at *2（“非暴力的证人篡改和妨碍行为会对社区构成危险，并且在适当案件中，该等活动的风险将支持审前羁押”）（citing United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 132 (2d Cir. 2000)）。\n\n案件 22-50073:3328002888897416611012012672322222222222222216:1216 第 63 页，共 98 页\n\n因此，Kwok被暂时禁止进行远程律师会见。16 如果Kwok不能遵守MDC的规则，则没有合理保证其会遵守任何审前释放条件。\n\n值得注意的是，辩方并未对政府2023年3月15日函中所述的众多妨害司法的事例作出实质性回应或反驳，其中包括：(i) Kwok（郭文贵）利用民事诉讼规避向债权人付款；(ii) Kwok 于2022年2月15日申请破产，以规避纽约州法官作出的藐视法庭裁定；(iii) 2023年1月，一名联邦破产法官认定，尽管已签发临时限制令（TRO），Kwok 仍持续（通过中间人）骚扰法院指定的破产受托人、其所在律师事务所 Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所），以及代表 Kwok 最大债权人之一的 O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所）；参与破产程序的人员已收到 Kwok 支持者发出的死亡威胁；(iv) 在破产法院发布初步禁令后，Kwok 于2023年1月23日在其 Gettr 页面发布的视频中，鼓励其追随者妨碍破产法院并以无依据的主张淹没案卷；(v) Kwok 于2022年11月制作的视频演示，向其追随者讲解如何规避就该破产案发出的传票17；(vi) Kwok 对 Individual-2 的攻击，将该人士称为“恶魔”和中国共产党间谍，从而使 Individual-2 遭受 Kwok 追随者的攻击；(vii) 对投诉 Kwok 欺诈行为的受害人的威胁；(viii) Kwok 对其批评者的攻击，包括呼吁对一名批评 Kwok 的牧师实施暴力；以及 (ix) Kwok 动员其追随者针对加拿大一名记者，导致该记者的朋友遭到人身袭击。\n\n辩方至多只是笼统概述这些事实，并称其“并不构成妨害司法”。（辩方备忘录第18页。）辩方是错误的。尽管 Kwok 目前未被指控犯有妨害司法罪，但这并不意味着法院应当宽恕政府函件中所述 Kwok 实施的大量且危险的妨害行为。该等行为包括多起 Kwok 利用其权力及其追随者干预并施压于对其提起司法程序的人员的情形。其包括 Kwok 威胁受害人、鼓励证人规避法律程序、鼓励数千人扰乱破产程序，以及发动一场依赖暴力威胁（有时还包括实际暴力）的施压行动，以阻止他人对其采取行动。这些行为在定义上即属妨害行为。辩方另行主张，即使这些行为具有妨害性质，也没有一项可归责于 Kwok。辩方再次错误。除其他事项外，Kwok 本人确实在视频中实施妨害行为。\n\n最后，被告关于其拟议条件将“消除任何妨害风险”的主张，既无依据，也无说服力。（辩方备忘录第18页。）第一，基于上述所有理由，本法院无法合理确保 Kwok 将遵守其命令（而非 Kwok 所违抗的其他法院命令）。第二，Kwok 被其共谋者称为“The Principal（首脑）”并非没有理由。他通过代理人行事。Kwok 向其共谋者和追随者发出指令，后者随后按照其意愿行事，同时使 Kwok 得以否认\n\n16 政府随后已向 MDC 告知 Kwok 律师的身份，并将与 MDC 合作，以确保能够恢复 Kwok 律师与 Kwok 之间的远程律师会见。政府还将与 MDC 合作，以确保 Kwok 能够获得案件材料，并能够在准备其辩护时提供有意义的协助。\n\n17 http\n案件 22-50073：第 98 页，共 98 页\n\n参与。Kwok 在被羁押期间似乎已规避监狱局的规则。而且，Kwok 的关联人员似乎已有意在本案中妨害司法（如同他们在其他案件中所做的那样）。例如，2023年3月30日，Kwok 的 Gettr 账户发布了针对下述检方团队成员以及一名美国证券交易委员会律师的虚假指控。18 该帖文以 Kwok 的名义发布，并发布于其账户；若认为该帖文并非由 Kwok 本人授权，则难以令人置信。\n\n尽管本法院无法确保 Kwok 会遵守释放条件，但法院可以合理确保，若 Kwok 获释，其协调一场日益扩大的行动以妨害本程序，并恐吓和危及证人以及仅是在履行职责的政府雇员的能力，将呈指数级增长。\nIV. 结论\n\n审前服务机构正确地建议予以羁押。本法院应作出同样命令。政府已履行其举证责任，并证明不存在任何条件或条件组合能够使本法院确信被告将按要求出庭，或者社区将是安全的。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉斯）\n美国联邦检察官\n\n签署：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔） Juliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里） Micah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗格森）\n助理美国联邦检察官\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190\n\n附件\n\n副本送达：William R. Baldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）、Stephen R. Cook（斯蒂芬·R·库克）和 Stephen A. Best（斯蒂芬·A·贝斯特），被告代理律师；Stephen Boose（斯蒂芬·布斯），审前服务机构，Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n18 http\n\n案件 3:23-cv-00239，第 65 页\n附件 G\n案件 22-50073，第 98 页，共 98 页\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：　Chapter 11（第11章）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　（合并管理）\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）\n原告\n诉\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n被告　对抗程序编号 22-05003\nChapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins（第11章受托人卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n反诉原告\n诉\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭梅）\n反诉被告。\n\n本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及许多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n根据《联邦破产程序规则》7065条准予第11章受托人关于冻结反诉被告资产的初步禁令动议的命令\n\n鉴于，Luc A. Despins 以第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，作为上述标题对抗程序（“对抗程序”）中的反诉原告，已提出一项初步禁令动议（“该动议”），请求冻结反诉被告 HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) Limited LLC（“HK USA”）及 MEI GUO（“Guo 女士”，与 HK USA 合称为“反诉被告”）的某些资产；并且\n\n鉴于，根据已提交的文件、经举行听证并经反诉被告同意，受托人已证明其有权获得所请求的初步禁令，且针对该动议提出的所有异议均已被驳回；\n\n因此，现命令如下：\n\n(a) 在法院另行命令之前，反诉被告不得转让、设定负担、移动、处置或以任何方式减损 Lady May；\n\n(b) 在法院另行命令之前，反诉被告不得提取、转让、设定负担、移动、处置或以任何方式减损托管资金2；\n\n(c) 在法院另行命令之前，反诉被告 Mei Guo 不得转让、设定负担、移动、处置或以任何方式减损其在 HK USA 中的权益；以及\n\n(d) 反诉被告应在本命令作出后五日内，向受托人及法院披露其享有权益的任何其他财产；在法院另行命令之前，反诉被告不得转让、设定负担、移动、处置或以任何方式减损其在该等财产中的权益。\n\n兹进一步命令：\n\n1. 该动议在各方面均获准。\n\n2. 受托人无需就该初步禁令提供担保。\n\n3. 授权受托人采取实施本命令条款所必需的一切行动。\n\n4. 本命令立即可执行。\n\n2 “托管资金”系指根据日期为2022年4月28日的《托管协议》存入的资金；该协议由 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC、在 Ho Wan Kwok 第11章案件中指定的无担保债权人官方委员会及 U.S. Bank National Association（美国合众银行全国协会）共同订立。\n\n5. 关于本命令的实施、解释和执行。\n\n本命令作于康涅狄格州布里奇波特，2023年3月17日。\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n美国联邦破产法官\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区）\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于：　Chapter 11（第11章）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n（合并管理）\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）\n原告\n诉\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）　对抗程序编号 22-05003\n关于：ECF 编号 146\n被告\nChapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins（第11章受托人卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n反诉原告\n诉\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭梅）\n反诉被告。\n\n准予 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产第11章受托人部分简易判决动议的命令\n\n本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及许多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n经卢克·A·德斯平斯（Luc A. Despins）作为霍万奎（Ho Wan Kwok，郭文贵）破产财产（以下简称“债务人”）的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）提出的动议（以下简称“本动议”），根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第56条（经《联邦破产程序规则》第7001条和第7056条（以下简称“破产规则”）适用于本对抗程序），请求作出裁定，准许受托人胜诉的简易判决；且本院已认定，本院根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334对审理本动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；其中请求的救济根据28 U.S.C. § 157(b)属于核心程序；根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本院为适当审理地；在具体情形下已就本动议发出适当且充分的通知；且看来无需发出其他或进一步通知；且不存在任何重大事实的真实争议，受托人有权就第一项反诉请求获得对其有利的简易判决；经适当审议且理由充分，并基于2023年3月27日举行的听证会记录中陈述的理由，现特此命令：\n\n1. 准许本动议，如本命令所载。\n\n2. 债务人系游艇“Lady May”号（定义如下）的受益所有人，并对其享有控制权。\n\n3. 自2023年3月27日下午2时55分起，“Lady May”号（定义如下）根据11 U.S.C. § 541(a)成为债务人第11章破产财产（以下简称“破产财产”），由受托人管理。具体而言，“Lady May”号的唯一所有人为：\n\n名称：卢克·A·德斯平斯，作为霍万奎破产财产的第11章受托人\n地址：转交 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166\n\n1 文中使用但未另行定义的大写术语，具有本动议中规定的含义。\n\n4. “Lady May”号系指下列游艇：\n\n名称：Lady May\n登记编号、年份和登记港：39 in 2014, George Town, Cayman Islands\nIMO/LR 编号：1012359\n正式编号：745195\n信号字母：ZGDQ9\n\n5. 根据11 U.S.C. § 542(a)，反诉被告，即 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC）和梅国（Mei Guo），应立即将“Lady May”号交付给受托人，并且还应提供一切合理必要的协助，以便：(i) 使受托人能够以受托人（代表破产财产）的名义登记“Lady May”号的所有权；以及 (ii) 将“Lady May”号的运营和维护移交给破产财产（代表破产财产），包括与为“Lady May”号取得适当保险保障有关的事项。\n\n6. 受托人获授权采取一切必要或适当的行动以实施本命令，包括提交一切必要或适当的登记文件，以反映受托人（代表破产财产）为“Lady May”号的登记所有人。\n\n7. 本命令的作出不影响受托人在法院通知并作出排期命令后，就答辩及反诉中的其他反诉请求继续追诉的权利。\n\n8. 本命令立即生效，根据《联邦破产程序规则》第7062条作出的任何中止均不生效；本院特此豁免《联邦破产程序规则》第7062条中对受托人在本判决作出后执行本判决之能力所规定的任何限制。\n\n9. 本院保留管辖权，以审理和裁决因本命令的实施、解释和执行而产生或与之相关的所有事项。\n\n于2023年3月27日作于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n朱莉·A·曼宁（Julie A. Manning）\n美国破产法院法官\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n\n关于：\n霍万奎（HO WAN KWOK，郭文贵）等人，）\n第11章\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n（联合管理）\n\n债务人。\n\n卢克·A·德斯平斯（LUC A. DESPINS），作为霍万奎破产财产的第11章受托人，）\n对抗程序案号：23-05005 (JAM)\n原告\n诉\n格林尼治土地有限责任公司（GREENWICH LAND, LLC）及\n鄂庆治（HING CHI NGOK），　关于：ECF No. 12\n被告。\n\n部分准许单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令\n\n经审议卢克·A·德斯平斯以其第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份于2023年3月27日提出的单方动议（以下简称“本动议”），该动议依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65条（经《联邦破产程序规则》第7065条适用），请求禁令救济，以禁止被告 Greenwich Land, LLC（以下简称“Greenwich Land”）及 Hing Chi Ngok（以下简称“被告Ngok”，与 Greenwich Land 合称“被告”）对其财产和/或资产设定负担、转让、耗散或以其他方式进行干扰；并根据律师就为何无需依《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65(b)条发出通知所作的证明；并审议本对抗程序以及霍万奎等人联合管理的相关第11章案件，案号22-50073（以下简称“主案件”）中提交的所有其他诉状；现特此命令：\n\n命令：已有充分理由表明，在就受托人的初步禁令动议举行听证前，应根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65(b)条签发临时限制令，因为在被告有机会提出异议前，受托人将遭受即时且不可弥补的损害、损失或伤害，且受托人已书面证明，其已向代表被告出庭参加主案件的被告律师发出通知；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65(b)条，被告，以及根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65(d)(2)条，其高级职员、代理人、雇员、员工和律师，以及通过直接送达或其他方式实际获悉本命令后，与前述人员积极共同行动或参与的其他人，均被暂时限制并禁止对被告的任何财产和/或资产设定负担、转让、让与、耗散、支付或让渡；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65(b)条，被告，以及根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65(d)(2)条，其高级职员、代理人、雇员、员工和律师，以及通过直接送达或其他方式实际获悉本命令后，与前述人员积极共同行动或参与的其他人，均被暂时限制并禁止指示任何被告的银行机构对被告的任何财产和/或资产设定负担、转让、让与、耗散、支付或让渡，直至本院另有命令；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：本临时限制令的条款和条件自其登记时立即生效并可执行；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：将于2023年4月11日下午3时举行就初步禁令动议的听证会，并持续至审结；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：根据本院酌情确定或豁免依《联邦民事诉讼规则》第65条应提供的任何保证金数额的权限，受托人无需提供保证金；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：受托人应向被告及其律师送达本临时限制令，该等律师尚未在本对抗程序中出庭；并进一步命令：\n\n命令：本临时限制令持续有效，直至法院另有命令；本院保留对本对抗程序的管辖权，以确保遵守本命令，并处理与本对抗程序有关的所有其他事项。\n\n于2023年3月28日下午6时34分登记于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n\n奉法院命令\n\n朱莉·A·曼宁\n美国破产法院法官\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：　第11章\n\n霍万奎（HO WAN KWOK，郭文贵）等人，1　. .　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　（联合管理）\n\n卢克·A·德斯平斯（LUC A. DESPINS），第11章\n受托人，\n原告，　对抗程序案号：23-05005\n诉\n格林尼治土地有限责任公司（GREENWICH LAND, LLC）及\n鄂庆治（HING CHI NGOK），　关于：ECF No. 11\n被告。\n\n准许第11章受托人经修订单方判决前救济申请的命令\n\n鉴于，卢克·A·德斯平斯以其第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，系上述标题所示对抗程序（以下简称“对抗程序”）中的反诉原告，已提出单方判决前救济申请（以下简称“申请”），以担保其针对被告 Greenwich Land, LLC（以下简称“Greenwich Land”）及 Hing Chi Ngok（以下简称“被告Ngok”，与 Greenwich Land 合称“被告”）的请求；以及\n\n鉴于，根据所提交的文件，包括但不限于支持性文件，已表明符合《康涅狄格州普通法规》第52-278e(a)条的要求。\n\n1 在这些第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯），作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n根据宣誓书，有合理依据认为，在考虑任何已知抗辩、反诉或抵销后，本案将作出金额等于或高于 $6.8 million、对受托人有利的判决；且有合理可能性认为，被告（1）已经或将会隐藏其本人，以致无法向其送达程序文件；或（2）即将离开本州，或将其财产移离本州；或（3）即将以欺诈方式处分，或已经以欺诈方式处分其任何财产，意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈其债权人；或（4）已经以欺诈方式隐藏或扣留本应可用于清偿其债务的金钱、财产或动产。\n\n因此，现命令，授权受托人最高就 $8,314,200 采取下列措施：\n\n(a) 查封已知属于被告的足以担保该金额的财产，包括通常称为 373 Taconic Rd, Greenwich, CT 06831 的不动产，或此后可能被确认的财产，或受托人以其他方式发现的财产；\n\n(b) 扣押被告在任何金融机构的已知账户，包括但不限于起诉状附件 42、43、44、45、49 和 50 中确认的账户，或此后可能被确认的账户，或受托人以其他方式发现的账户；\n\n(c) 查封被告在任何实体中的任何股票、成员资格权益或其他股权权益，包括被告 Ngok 在 Greenwich Land 中的成员资格权益，或此后可能被确认的权益，或受托人以其他方式发现的权益；\n\n(d) 查封被告享有任何权益的任何动产（包括但不限于汽车、船舶、航空器、艺术品、珠宝和收藏品）以及任何货币或可流通票据，包括位于 373 Taconic Rd, Greenwich CT 06831 的被告动产，或此后可能被确认的财产，或受托人以其他方式发现的财产；\n\n(e) 查封由任何第三人占有的被告财产，该等财产为已知财产、此后可能被确认的财产，或受托人以其他方式发现的财产；和/或\n\n(f) 扣押占有被告其他财产或对被告负有债务的第三人，该等第三人为已知第三人、此后可能被确认的第三人，或受托人以其他方式发现的第三人。\n\n进一步命令：\n\n1. 受托人无需就判决前救济提供保证金。\n\n2. 授权受托人采取实施本裁定条款所必需的一切行动。\n\n3. 法院将在被告方便的时间安排听证会，届时法院将审议本裁定授予的判决前救济是否继续有效；受托人仍负有证明该判决前救济应继续有效的责任，且不得依赖此前已作出该救济这一事实。\n\n4. 本院保留对因执行、解释和实施本裁定而产生或与之相关的一切事项的管辖权。\n\n于康涅狄格州布里奇波特，March 28, 2023。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 79 of 98\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n债务人。\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（联合管理）\n\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限责任公司）\n\n原告\n\nAdv. Proceeding No. 22-05003\n\n诉\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n被告\n\nChapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins（第11章受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯）\n\n反诉原告\n\n诉\n\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭美）\n\n反诉被告。\n\n根据 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065 准许第11章受托人为冻结反诉被告资产而提出的初步禁令动议之裁定的修正案\n\n鉴于，Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）以第11章受托人身份（下称“受托人”）作为上述对抗程序（下称“对抗程序”）中的反诉原告，提出动议（下称“动议”），请求发布初步禁令以冻结反诉被告 HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) Limited LLC（HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS（USA）有限责任公司，下称“HK USA”）和 MEI GUO（郭美，下称“郭女士”，并与 HK USA 合称“反诉被告”）的某些资产；以及\n\n鉴于，法院于 March 17, 2023 作出《根据 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7065 准许第11章受托人为冻结反诉被告资产而提出的初步禁令动议之裁定》[Docket No. 142]（下称“原裁定”）；\n\n鉴于，于 March 30, 2023 举行了有关原裁定相关若干进展的情况会议（下称“情况会议”）；\n\n因此，基于情况会议期间记录中讨论的理由，包括反诉被告同意本裁定所规定的救济，现命令，原裁定继续具有完全效力和作用，但修正如下：\n\n1. 无论反诉被告对位于任何地点的任何财产或资产享有的权益是否已依据原裁定第 (d) 段或以其他方式向受托人披露，反诉被告不得转让、设定负担、移动、处分或以任何方式减损该等权益；\n\n2. 对原裁定的本修正案可立即执行，并自原裁定作出之时起追溯生效；\n\n3. 授权受托人采取实施对原裁定本修正案条款所必需的一切行动；\n\n4. 本院保留对因执行、解释和实施对原裁定本修正案而产生或与之相关的一切事项的管辖权。\n\n于康涅狄格州布里奇波特，March 31, 2023。\n\nA. Manning\n美国破产法院法官\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2292-88 Filed 10/26/23 Entered 10/26/23 20:46:12 Page 81 of 98\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n债务人。\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（联合管理）\n\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限责任公司）\n\n原告\n\nAdv. Proceeding No. 22-05003\n\n诉\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n被告\n\nChapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins（第11章受托人吕克·A·德斯平斯）\n\n反诉原告\n\n诉\n\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK International Funds Investments（USA）有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭美）\n\n反诉被告。\n\n准许 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产第11章受托人提出的部分简易判决动议之裁定的修正案\n\n法院已于 March 27, 2023 作出准许 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产第11章受托人提出的部分简易判决动议的命令 [Docket No. 172]（以下简称“原命令”）；且法院已于 March 30, 2023 举行听证会，在该听证会上，基于庭审记录中陈述的理由，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭梅）（以下简称“反诉被告”）的律师同意对原命令作出修正，将 Lady May II（定义如下）加入原命令规定的救济措施中，²现特此命令：\n\n1. 原命令继续完全有效，但经修正增加以下内容。\n\n2. 债务人为游艇 Lady May II（定义如下）的受益所有人，并对该游艇实施控制。\n\n3. Lady May II（定义如下）根据 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) 属于债务人的第11章破产财产，应由受托人管理。具体而言，Lady May II 的唯一所有人为：\n\n姓名：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产的第11章受托人\n地址：c/o Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166\n\n4. “Lady May II”系指以下游艇：\n\n名称：Lady May II\n登记号码、年份及港口：52 in 2015, George Town, Cayman Islands\n官方号码：746230\n信号字母：ZGEW5\n\n5. 原命令中对 Lady May 的所有提及均应包括 Lady May II。\n\n¹本命令中使用但未另行定义的首字母大写术语，具有原命令中规定的含义。\n\n²该同意仅限于将 Lady May II 加入原命令，并不构成放弃反诉被告就原命令（经本命令修正）提出上诉的任何权利，但就将 Lady May II 加入原命令一事而言除外。\n\n案件 22250007023 航运 2017 26 1 126 1 16 1 1 2 6 1 1 4 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 of 98\n\n6. 本命令的作出不影响受托人在法院通知并作出排期命令后，就答辩及反诉中的其他反诉请求继续主张权利。\n\n7. 本命令立即生效；根据《联邦破产程序规则》第7062条作出的任何暂停均不生效；法院特此豁免《联邦破产程序规则》第7062条对受托人在本判决作出后执行该判决之能力所规定的任何限制。\n\n8. 对于因实施、解释和执行本命令而产生或与之有关的一切事项，本法院保留管辖权。\n\n于 2023 年 March 31 日在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Bridgeport（布里奇波特）签署。\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n美国破产法官\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区）\n\n-\n- ! \"# 案件：23-6421，05/05/2023，案卷条目：6.1，第236页，共446页；案件 22-50073，文书 2292-88，于 10/26/23 提交，于 10/26/23 20:46:12 登记，第84页，共98页\n附件 8\n案件 22-5007331.2292222222889741266161281269282998891810214，第85页，共98页\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n-诉-\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院文书电子提交\n文书编号：\n提交日期：4/20/2023\n23 Cr. 118-1 (AT)\n命令\n\n被告。\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n于 March 29, 2023，被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）被大陪审团以如下罪名起诉：违反 18 U.S.C. § 371 的共谋实施电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈及洗钱；违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 的电信欺诈；违反 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff、17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 以及 18 U.S.C. § 2 的证券欺诈；违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(A) and 2 的国际促成性洗钱；违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) and 2 的国际隐匿性洗钱；以及违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2 的非法货币交易。修正起诉书，ECF No. 19。于 March 15, 2023，Katharine H. Parker（凯瑟琳·H·帕克）法官就日期为 March 6, 2023 的最初起诉书对被告进行传讯，ECF No. 2；被告经同意被羁押，ECF No. 8。于 March 31, 2023，被告提出审判前保释释放动议。ECF No. 23。于 April 4, 2023，法院就修正起诉书对被告进行传讯，并保留对被告保释申请的裁决。Dkt. Entries 4/4/2023。基于下述理由，被告的审判前释放动议予以驳回。\n\n案件 22-50073319282928298974166616120126128988998891811214，第86页，共98页\n讨论\nI. 对被告的指控\n\n被告及两名共同被告被控通过一系列欺诈性企业及投资机会，骗取数千名受害人超过 $1 billion；通过与数个国家至少八十个实体或个人有关联的约500个银行账户洗白该等资金，从而侵占受害人的资金；并不当使用该等资金使其自身获利。修正起诉书 ¶¶ 1-3。被告将欺诈所得用于为其本人及家人购买奢侈商品和资产，包括房屋及车辆。Id. ¶ 4。被告自 2018 年至 March 2023 期间经营该计划。Id. ¶ 1。\n\n于 2017 年，被告声称推动一项反对 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）（“CCP”）的运动，从而吸引了大量网络追随者。Id. ¶ 6(a)。于 2018 年，他设立了与其所称运动一致的非营利组织，并聚集了更多追随者。Id. ¶ 6(b)。随后，被告向其追随者宣传欺诈性投资机会。参见，例如，id. ¶¶ 14(a), 15。\n\n在相关期间内，被告实际拥有并控制 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）（“GTV”），即一个以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台，以及 G Club Operations, LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司）（“G Club”），即一个会员组织。Id. 他还设计了在 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）上提供的所谓加密货币；该平台与由被告实际拥有和控制的实体存在业务关系。Id. ¶ 12。\n\n在 April 至 June 2020 期间，被告通过与 GTV 有关的非法私募股票发行，从受害人处获得超过 $400 million。Id. ¶ 13。被告在社交媒体上宣布并推广该发行，直接联系潜在投资者，并发布有关该发行的书面材料。Id. 与被告向投资者所作陈述相反，所筹集资金中的绝大部分被直接存入以 GTV 母公司名义开立的银行账户，而该母公司由被告的一名家庭成员所有。Id. ¶¶ 13(e)-(f)。另有 $100 million 的筹集资金被投资于一只高风险对冲基金，以使该母公司受益。Id. ¶ 13(h)。\n\n于 June 2020，国内银行开始冻结并关闭与 GTV 有关的账户，部分原因是这些账户收到过提及未注册股票发行的大额电汇。Id. ¶ 14(a)。随后，被告开始鼓励受害人投资于被称为“farms（农场）”的“非正式团体集合体”，承诺该等投资可转换为 GTV 股票，并虚假陈述 GTV 的市场价值。Id. ¶ 14。被告藉此获得超过 $150 million。Id. 被告通过向家庭成员转移数百万美元，侵占了该等资金。Id. ¶ 14(f)。\n\n于 October 2020，被告就该等会员资格所包含的服务作出虚假陈述，从而开始诱使其追随者购买 G Club 的在线会员资格。Id. ¶ 15。被告还利用该会员组织继续诱使其追随者投资于 GTV 及其他与被告有关联的企业。Id. ¶ 15(t)。通过该会员组织筹集的大部分资金被用于支付被告及其家人的个人费用，以及购买高价商品和不动产，例如被告位于 New Jersey（新泽西州）的豪宅。Id. ¶ 16。\n\n于 April 2021，被告开始向其追随者推广并就 Himalaya Exchange 上交易的所谓加密货币作出虚假陈述。Id. ¶¶ 18-20, 22。被告通过 Himalaya Exchange 获得超过 $262 million 的资金，其中 $37 million 被用于以被告一名亲属的名义购买一艘豪华游艇。Id. ¶¶ 17, 23。\n\n-\n案件 22-50073，文书 2292-88，于 10/26/23 提交，于 10/26/23 20:46:12 登记，第88页，共98页\n\n[此处原文为无法可靠复原的 OCR 乱码。] 于 September 20 and 21, 2022，美国当局向数家国内银行送达扣押令，从 Himalaya Exchange 及与被告有关联的其他实体扣押约 $335 million。Id. ¶ 24。随后，被告的一名共同共谋者试图将与 Himalaya Exchange 有关联的国内银行账户中的 $46 million 转移至 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）的一个银行账户。Id. 于 October 16, 2022，美国当局又从 Himalaya Exchange 和 G Club 扣押 $274 million。Id. ¶ 25。扣押后，Himalaya Exchange 继续虚假陈述其所谓加密货币的价值。Id. ¶ 25(b)。\n\nII. 法律标准\n\n[此处原文为无法可靠复原的 OCR 乱码。]《保释改革法》，18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq.，要求法院在审判前按照能够合理确保被告按要求出庭以及任何其他人和社区安全的最不严格条件，释放被告。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)。仅在考虑 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) 规定的因素后，不存在能够合理确保被告出庭以及任何其他人和社区安全的条件时，法院方可命令无保释羁押被告。18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)。该等因素为：(1) 被控罪行的性质和情节；(2) 对被告不利证据的分量；(3) 被告的经历和特征，包括家庭联系、财务资源、在社区居住的时间长短、社区联系及既往行为；以及 (4) 被告获释将对任何人或社区造成的危险之性质和严重程度。18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)。\n\n为支持审前羁押，政府必须以优势证据证明被告存在严重潜逃或妨害司法的风险，18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1988)；或者以清楚且令人信服的证据证明被告对他人或社区构成危险，18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)。若政府完成其举证责任，法院则必须确定是否能够设定合理的释放条件，以确保被告出庭以及任何其他人或社区的安全。18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(l)。\n\nIII. 分析\n\nA. 潜逃风险\n\n法院认定，政府已以优势证据证明被告存在严重潜逃风险。\n\n首先，被告与美国的联系有限。他有一份尚待处理的庇护申请；如其申请被拒，他将不再合法居留于美国。See Def. Mem. at 9, 15, ECF No. 24; Gov. Mem. at 2, ECF No. 7。本案指控可能构成拒绝被告庇护申请的理由。See Def. Mem. at 15; Gov. Mem. at 2。被告的妻子和女儿居住在美国，也有尚待处理的庇护申请。Def. Mem. at 13。被告有一名居住在英国的儿子。Gov. Mem. at 21。尽管被告声称，他不会抛下其“生命中最重要的两个人”，而她们因尚待处理的庇护申请无法离开美国，Def. Mem. at 13，但被告向审前服务部门表示，他与子女的联系“并不规律”，Pretrial Services Report at 3。因此，法院认定，被告因其女儿在美国而留在美国的动机，与其为前往其儿子居住的英国而潜逃的动机相当。而且，被告此前逃往美国时，曾将包括其妻子和女儿在内的家人留在香港。See Def. Mem. at 7。\n\n其次，被告在境外拥有广泛的联系和资源，包括其居住在英国的儿子，以及一名共同被告；该共同被告目前据信是身在阿拉伯联合酋长国的逃犯。Gov. Mem. at 21; Gov. Reply at 10, ECF No. 26; Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 7:18-20。\n\n被告的企业在多个国家设有银行账户，包括阿拉伯联合酋长国；被告的两家企业在阿拉伯联合酋长国设有办公室和人员。Gov. Reply at 13。被告在世界各地拥有庞大的忠实追随者网络。Gov. Mem. 5, 12, 15-16, 20-21, 23; see also In re: Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, et al., No. 22-50073 (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023)（“Bankruptcy Opinion”）, ECF No. 7-3（认定被告的追随者“对其个人忠诚”，并称其为“精神领袖”）。\n\n第三，被告具备潜逃的手段和相关知识。在执法人员于 March 15, 2023 根据搜查令对被告住所进行搜查（“March 15 Search”）时，执法人员查获两本护照，其中包括一本仍然有效的香港护照，以及一本阿拉伯联合酋长国护照的副本。Gov. Reply at 4, 8; ECF No. 26-2; ECF No. 26-5; Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 21:6-9, 25:4-14; 32:19-33:14。被告此前在 April 19, 2017 的一次采访中声称，他拥有十一本护照。Complaint Exhibit 1B, HNA Grp. Co., Ltd.（海航集团有限公司）v. Guo Wengui（郭文贵）, No. 653281/2017, Dkt. No. 7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 30, 2017)（被告与 Voice of America（美国之音）于 April 19, 2017 进行采访的英文译文）。尽管执法人员已没收在 March 15 Search 中查获的护照，且被告此前已交出其阿拉伯联合酋长国护照，see Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 32:19-33:14，但显然被告能够轻易取得旅行证件。此外，一名拥有充足资源的狡猾被告可能会设法在没有旅行证件的情况下离境。See, e.g., Rupert Neate（鲁珀特·尼特）, Ghosn “Hid in Musical Instrument Case” During Escape from Japan, GUARDIAN（《卫报》）(Dec. 31, 2019), http。被告可使用其家人拥有的一艘游艇和一架喷气式飞机，据称该等资产系以源自被控方案的欺诈所得购得。Gov. Mem. at 5, 21; Superseding Indictment ¶ 4, 14(f)(ii)。而且，政府无需证明被告很可能进行国际潜逃，而只需证明被告不大可能返回法院。\n\n第四，被告具有强烈的潜逃动机。他面临最高超过100年监禁的刑罚，Gov. Mem. at 21，且针对他的证据有力。他还可能面临驱逐出境程序。被告主张，由于害怕受到 CCP（中国共产党）迫害，他不会冒险离开美国。Def. Mem. at 13-14。但是，在其于美国提交庇护申请之前，被告于 2015 年离开中国后曾进行广泛的国际旅行。Def. Mem. at 7, 9, 14; Gov. Reply at 3-4。换言之，被告的庇护申请处于待决状态，更有可能是其在 2017 年至今未进行国际旅行的原因，而非其对迫害的恐惧。See TRAVEL DOCUMENTS（旅行证件）, uscis.gov/green-card/greencard-processes-and-procedures/travel-documents（说明庇护申请尚待处理的个人在离开美国前必须申请并取得特定旅行证件，否则该申请将被视为放弃）。而且，本案指控严重削弱了被告获得庇护的资格。2\n\n因此，法院认定，政府已完成其证明被告存在严重潜逃风险的举证责任。\n\nB. 妨害司法\n\n法院还认定，政府已以优势证据证明被告存在严重妨害司法的风险。See United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240, 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)（考量被告未来是否存在严重妨害司法风险）；United States v. Stein, No. Sl 05 Crim. 0888, 2005 WL 8157371, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2005)（同上）。\n\n2 被告坚持认为，依据 Convention Against Torture（《禁止酷刑公约》），其仍有资格留在美国，Def. Mem. at 15，但该等未来申请能否成功尚属推测；而且，无论如何，即使被告基于 Convention Against Torture 获得救济，其仍可能被遣送至中国以外的第三国，8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(b)(2)。\n\n其他法院此前曾认定，被告通过隐匿资产及未遵守法院命令实施妨害行为。于 February 9, 2022，Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官因被告通过公司、受信赖的亲信和家庭成员隐匿大量个人资产，以规避并欺骗其债权人，而对被告作出民事藐视法庭命令。Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al., No. 652077/2017, Dkt. 1181 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022); id. at 10（认定被告“明知且故意违反”法院命令）。在 Ostrager 法官命令被告向 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 的原告支付判决所欠款项六日后，被告申请破产。Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al., No. 652077/2017, Dkt. 1190 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 15, 2022); In Re Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22-50073, ECF No. 1 (D. Conn.).\n\n在破产程序中，破产法官 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）于 November 23, 2022 发布临时限制令，限制被告发布有关与 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）、其律师及其亲属有关人员的虚假和骚扰性材料；在网上公布这些人员的住址和个人信息；鼓励、煽动、建议或资助在这些人员住所或办公室举行抗议；以及干扰尚待审理的破产程序的完整性。破产案意见书第5页。该命令还要求被告删除已发布的社交媒体帖子，该等帖子公布了这些人员的住址和个人信息，或者鼓励、煽动或建议在其住所或办公室举行抗议。同上，第5-6页。\n\nCase 22-50073 Page 93 of 98\n\n于 January 11, 2023，Manning 法官认定：\n\n（1）被告使用一次性手机与其各项企业的成员通信，其中包括与其破产程序有关的通信。同上，第11页。\n\n（2）被告指示其在破产受托人住所外抗议的追随者规避送达法律文书。同上，第23页。\n\n（3）被告在一次互联网直播中告诉其追随者：“为了对付这个流氓〔受托人〕，我们有我们的流氓手段。几天后你们就会看到他会发生什么事。灾难，我可以告诉你们。它们将遭受灾难！”同上。\n\n（4）被告发布视频和社交媒体帖子，鼓励其追随者在受托人及其律师的住所和办公室举行的抗议中“坚持下去”，并称受托人及其律师为中国共产党（CCP）的“帮凶”或“比……更糟”。同上，第23-25页。\n\n（5）被告，或他人依被告指示，因公开发布和解会议文件而违反保密协议。同上，第29页。\n\n（6）被告公开鼓励并支持的抗议活动导致针对受托人的威胁、针对受托人及其律师的虚假指控，包括其与中国共产党有关联的指控，以及对未参与破产程序人员的骚扰，包括受托人的家人和同事。同上，第25、27、29-31页。\n\n（7）抗议和骚扰延误了破产程序，并因抗议者的行为导致债权人害怕提出债权申报。同上，第33页。\n\nManning 法官发布初步禁令，禁止被告及与其共同行动者继续威胁和骚扰原告及相关员工，以及受托人、其家人和其律师。同上，第60页。在 Manning 法官命令发布两天后，被告在其一个社交媒体账户上发布消息，鼓励追随者在其破产程序中提出债权申报。见 Miles Guo（郭文贵） (@MilesGuo), GETTR (Jan. 13, 2023), http post/p24ybdca10b (last accessed Apr. 11, 2023).3 被告随后发布视频，鼓励其追随者提出债权申报，以抬高受托人律师的律师费。政府备忘录第15页。\n\n3 看来，该账户关联的名称在 April 4, 2023 之后的某一日期，已从被告的别名之一“Miles Guo（郭文贵）”变更为“NFSC Today” (@NFSC_today)，见修正起诉书。\n\nCase 22-50073 Page 94 of 98\n\n被告继续从事妨碍性行为。于 March 30, 2023，在被告因本案被羁押后，其一个社交媒体账户发布的消息指控本案检察官“代表中国共产党的盗贼统治者”。见 Miles Guo（郭文贵） (@MilesGuo), GETTR (Mar. 30, 2023), http (last accessed Apr. 11, 2023)。政府还指称，被告欺诈计划的受害人报告称，当他们寻求退款或投诉欺诈做法时，被告在社交媒体上给他们贴上“中国共产党间谍”的标签，以煽动其追随者骚扰他们，或者威胁要在社交媒体上发布居住在中国的受害人家庭成员与被告反中国共产党运动有关联的信息，这将使该等家庭成员面临中国政府报复的风险。政府备忘录第15页。此外，被告向审前服务部门虚假陈述，其资产总额为 \\$10,000，包括两部手机和其衣物。审前服务报告第3页。但是，March 15 搜查查获了被告未披露的大量资产：被告更衣室保险箱内以多种货币计的超过 \\$500,000 现金、三十套 Brioni（布里奥尼）定制西装，其夹克上绣有“Brioni for Miles Kwok”4、十七台电脑、四十三个外部媒体存储设备和三十部手机。政府回复第3页。5\n\n此外，被告精通技术，如获释，可能删除、加密或转移电子证据和欺诈所得。他此前曾使用一次性手机，以隐瞒与共同犯罪人的通信。政府备忘录第20页；破产案意见书第11页。他曾使用法拉第袋阻断射频信号传输并防止电子设备受到电子监控，以及使用手机信号干扰器。政府备忘录第20页；Apr. 4, 2023 Tr.\n\n4 “Miles Kwok（郭文贵）”是被告的别名之一。见修正起诉书。\n\n5 尽管大部分现金是在被告的更衣室内发现的，被告主张该现金不属于其。Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. at 27:22-28:3, 35:2-8。然而，被告承认其拥有在其住所发现的手机和其他设备。同上，第23:20-24页。他未向审前服务部门披露这些物品，并且这些设备以及在其一处住所发现的衣物价值远超 \\$10,000。\n\nCase 22-50073 Page 95 of 98\n\n23:20-24:2。他此前曾通过网络直播建议其追随者使用其企业之一 Himalaya Reserve（喜马拉雅储备）提供的服务；该企业涉及本案所指称的欺诈计划，见例如修正起诉书第17段，以便使资金“免受美国的长臂管辖权管辖”，The U.S. Is Planning to Sanction Singapore; Himalaya Wallet Is the Only Secure Option, G NEWS (Feb. 21, 2023), gnews.org/article/949854 (last accessed Apr. 17, 2023)。此外，在政府开始从涉及所指称欺诈计划的企业扣押资金后，被告的一名仍然在逃的共同犯罪人因试图将欺诈所得转移至美国管辖范围之外而被起诉。修正起诉书第24、53-54段。\n\n被告在先前案件中的妨碍性行为历史，以及其在本案中的行为，证明如获释，其很可能继续这一模式。6\n\nC. 对社区的危险\n\n法院进一步认定，政府已通过明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告对社区构成经济损害风险。见 United States v. Gulkarov, No. 22 Cr. 20, 2022 WL 205252, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2022)（考虑对社区造成经济损害的风险）；Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d at 253（同）；United States v. Persaud, No. 05 Cr. 368, 2007 WL 1074906, at *1-3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2007)（同）。\n\n于 September 13, 2021，美国证券交易委员会（U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission，以下简称“SEC”）就修正起诉书所述的未注册私人股票发行，对 GTV（GTV）及其母公司提交了停止并终止令。见 In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc.,\n\n6 于 March 29, 2023，大都会拘留中心（Metropolitan Detention Center，以下简称“MDC”）工作人员通知政府，被告的家庭成员不当使用了一条称为“法律通话系统”的电话线路，该线路仅供被告及其律师使用。政府回复第14页。被告主张，这是一个错误，是语言障碍和沟通失误所致。Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 31:4-20。但是，MDC 工作人员表示，多名家庭成员“操纵”该系统，并“提供虚假信息以规避法律通话系统”。ECF No. 26-6。该行为符合被告一贯的妨碍性行为模式；不过，法院无须依赖该事件，即可支持其认定：被告已经从事并且如获释将继续从事妨碍性行为。\n\nCase 22-50073 Page 96 of 98\n\net al. Admin. Proc. File No. 3-20537. U.S. SEC. & EXCH. COMM'N (Jan. 19, 2023)。\n\nhttp SEC 命令追缴通过不当股票发行所募集的资金，并设立基金以赔偿购买股票者。同上。于 April 2022，当该基金开始发放款项时，同上，受害人开始向政府报告，被告鼓励他们将发放款项再投资于本案所指称的欺诈计划。政府备忘录第10页。此外，于 February 2023，被告向其追随者宣布了一项新的股票发行，该发行涉及 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），即修正起诉书所控欺诈计划涉及的实体之一。政府备忘录第10页。\n\n尽管 SEC 于 September 2021 发布了命令，并于 September 2022 从被告企业扣押了资金，被告仍继续向其追随者推销欺诈性投资机会，并试图再次侵害从 SEC 基金获得发放款项者。法院认定，该行为构成明确且令人信服的证据，证明如获释，被告不会遵守法院命令，并将继续对社区造成经济损害。\n\nD. 确保被告出庭及他人安全的条件\n\n法院认定，没有任何条件或一组条件能够确保被告返回法院或社区安全。被告提出的保释方案不足。被告提出 \\$25 million 的保证金，其中 \\$5 million 以现金或不动产作担保。如前所述，被告已申请破产，并主张其资产仅值 \\$10,000。在政府试图向被告执行该保证金时，政府将只是众多债权人中的一个。被告还提议由两名成年人签署该保证金，其中一人并非家庭成员。但是，被告的多名家庭成员，包括其妻子和女儿，\n\nCase 22-50073 Page 97 of 98\n\n在修正起诉书中被列为欺诈所得的接受人。见例如修正起诉书第4、9段；Apr. 4, 2023 Tr. 8:11-18。此外，被告尚未确定任何共同签署人，更不用说与所指称欺诈无关、具有足以支付该保证金的充分无负担净值、与美国具有充分联系以使政府能够对该等个人切实执行该保证金，并且能够对被告施加道德劝导力的共同签署人。\n\n被告还提出了地点监控。GPS 监控并不充分，因为脚踝监控器可以被移除，且若被告决定逃跑，最多只能缩短其抢先逃离的时间。参见 United States v. Freeman（美国诉弗里曼案）, No. 21 Cr. 88, ECF No. 50 at 5:4-6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2021)（“任何了解电子监控技术的人都知道，它远非万无一失。”）；United States v. Zarger（美国诉扎格尔案）, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at \\*1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000)（称电子监控“充其量……限制逃跑被告抢先逃离的时间”）。法院亦驳回被告关于使用私人安保的提议，因为其可靠性不及联邦监狱。\n\n此外，被告在民事诉讼、其破产程序以及本案中既往的妨碍行为，以及其在 SEC 命令和资金被扣押后的行为，表明法院无法合理确保被告会遵守任何审前释放条件。\n\n最后，法院不接受被告的正当程序论点。Def. Mem. at 2-4。对被告的持续审前羁押不会剥夺其有意义地参与自身辩护、获得有效律师协助或接受公正审判的能力。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2292-88 提交于 10/26/23 登记于 10/26/23 20:46:12 第 98 页，共 98 页\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，被告关于在审判前保释释放的动议予以驳回。\n\n法院书记员应终止 ECF Nos. 7 and 23 中的动议。\n\n特此命令。\n\n日期：April 20, 2023\nNew York, New York\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","CCP","Despins","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","GTV","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings","CIPA","GETTR","Torres","Analisa Torres","Murray","Finkel","Fergenson","Farm Loan","Chinese Communist Party","William Je","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","Saraca"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":6,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":7,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":8,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":11,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":12,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":15,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":19,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":20,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":23,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":24,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":26,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":36,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":41,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":43,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":51,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":62,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":66,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":68,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":116,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":146,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1181,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1190,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1604,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28745,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-10-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-10-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:41:46"}