{"id":"court_ctb_3067_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3067,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":"2024-04-01","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1 | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n\n# **NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE REGARDING UPDATE WITH RESPECT TO DEBTOR'S CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nLuc A. Despins, as chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby provides notice that, on March 31, 2024, the United States filed a letter response (the \"Response\") in the criminal case [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Case\") pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"SDNY Court\") in response to defendant Yanping Wang's letter motion regarding Rule 16 discovery.2 A copy of the Response is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.\n\nIn particular, the Trustee wishes to highlight two sections on page 11 of the Response related to obstructive conduct of defendant Wang (as well as Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, and yet another individual the United States describes as a \"co-conspirator\"). The Trustee has\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 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\n2 In her letter motion, defendant Wang requested that the SDNY Court (1) set a deadline of April 10, 2024 for the United States to complete Rule 16 discovery, (2) issue orders regarding delivery of discovery to the Metropolitan Detention Center, and (3) order that victim-provided communications with the defendants and victim provided photographs not be designated Attorneys' Eyes Only.\n\nhighlighted in yellow these two sections on **Exhibit A** hereto; however, to be clear, these sections were not so highlighted in the version of the Response filed by the United States with the SDNY Court.\n\n#### Dated: April 1, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1 | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on April 1, 2024, the foregoing Notice was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: April 1, 2024 By: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\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 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# **Exhibit A**\n\n**Response**\n\n\n\n#### **U.S. Department of Justice**\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278*\n\nMarch 31, 2024\n\n# **VIA ECF AND EMAIL**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n# **Re:** *United States v. Kwok, et al.***, S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government respectfully writes in response to defendant Yanping Wang's letter motion regarding Rule 16 discovery (*see* Dkt. 253) and to request that the Court set a mutual pretrial disclosure schedule in advance of the trial beginning May 20, 2024. In her motion, Wang requests that the Court (1) set a deadline of April 10, 2024 for the Government to complete Rule 16 discovery, (2) issue orders regarding delivery of discovery to the Metropolitan Detention Center (\"MDC\"), and (3) order that victim-provided communications with the defendants and victimprovided photographs not be designated Attorneys' Eyes Only (\"AEO\").\n\nThis letter addresses Wang's requests and the broader issues they raise, which are as follows: *First*, the Court should order a comprehensive and *mutual* pretrial disclosure schedule, including for Rule 16 discovery. *Second*, the Court should permit the use of tailored AEO procedures to protect victim witnesses in this matter, prevent the obstruction of justice, and preserve the integrity of this criminal trial. *Third*, there is no need for the Court to order the Government to provide hard drives to the MDC, as the Government has already been doing so upon the defendants' request.\n\n# **I. Pretrial Disclosure Schedule**\n\nThe Court should set a comprehensive and *mutual* pretrial disclosure schedule in advance of the May 20 trial. In particular, and for the reasons explained below, the Court should set the following schedule1 :\n\n1 The Court has already set the following pretrial dates. Motions *in limine* and joint requests to charge, proposed voir dire, and a proposed verdict form are due April 9, 2024. Oppositions to *in limine* motions are due April 16, 2024. In addition, the Court has scheduled a suppression hearing for April 9, 2024, and a final pretrial conference for May 14, 2024.\n\n- By April 1, both parties provide expert disclosures (excluding Mandarin language experts, to allow the parties an opportunity to attempt to reach stipulations on translations). 2\n- By April 10, the Government completes production of Rule 16 discovery in its possession, with materials that would identify victim-witnesses designated AEO, as described in Section II, *infra*.\n- By April 20, the defendants provide notice of any advice-of-counsel, reliance on counsel, or presence of counsel defense, if any.\n- By April 22, the defendants complete production of Rule 16 discovery in their possession.\n- By April 30, the Government discloses exhibits, with a limited set of exhibits that would identify victim-witnesses designated AEO, as described in Section II, *infra*.\n- By May 6, the Government provides 3500 material and its witness list, with victimwitness identities remaining AEO (as described in Section II, *infra*).3\n- By May 10, the defendants disclose defense exhibits and defense witness lists.\n- By May 13, the defendants provide Rule 26.2 materials for their witnesses.\n\nA proposed order with the foregoing dates is attached as Exhibit A.\n\nAs background, the Government has been attempting to reach agreement on a mutual pretrial disclosure schedule with the defendants. To the Government's understanding, the parties have agreed on at least certain matters. First, the parties agreed, with respect to the joint requests to charge, voir dire, and verdict form, that the Government would provide its proposed filings by March 27, 2024 (which the Government has done), and the defendants would provide their responses to the Government by April 3, 2024, so the parties can file a joint submission by the April 9, 2024 deadline. The parties also agreed to a mutual disclosure of expert witnesses by April 1, 2024 (except Mandarin language translators). However, the parties have been unable to reach agreement on the remaining deadlines, and thus the Government respectfully requests that the Court enter an order setting the above deadlines. The defendants, in particular, have resisted setting deadlines for (a) production of the defendants' Rule 16 discovery, despite the defendants'\n\n2 During meet-and-confers concerning the pretrial disclosure schedule, the parties agreed to an April 1 expert disclosure date and the exemption of language translators from that notice so that the parties can attempt to reach agreement concerning language translations. On March 27, 2024 the Government requested written confirmation of that agreement, which the defendants have not yet provided.\n\n3 The Government remains amenable to discussing earlier § 3500 disclosure with defense counsel. *See* Dkt. 243 at 8 (\"[t]he Government is under no obligation . . . to produce prior statements of its witnesses until after each has testified on direct examination.\" (citation omitted)).\n\nreciprocal discovery obligations pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure no later than April 20.\n\nRule 16 entitles the Government to reciprocal discovery. Rule 16(b) provides, in relevant part, that if a criminal defendant requests disclosure from the Government under Rule 16(a)(1), the defendant must also permit the Government to inspect any document or record that the defendant \"intends to use . . . in the defendant's case-in-chief at trial.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A).\n\nAt the time of the Government's first discovery production on May 5, 2023, which was the day after the protective order was entered, the Government requested, in writing, reciprocal disclosures from the defendants pursuant to Rule 16(b). The Government has not received even a single file of reciprocal Rule 16 materials from the defendants—despite the fact that the defendants have stated their intention to put on a defense case lasting up two weeks, and despite the fact that the defendants have apparently issued numerous subpoenas of their own to third parties. While the Government has learned from some third parties that the defendants have issued subpoenas, the scope of the materials produced in response to the defendants' subpoenas—and, more broadly, the scope of the potential Rule 16 material in the possession of the defendants in general—is unknown to the Government It may be that the defendants are in possession of a considerable volume of material that they are withholding, despite the Government having repeatedly requested such materials over the past eleven months.\n\nWhen a defendant \"avail[s] himself of the strategy to obtain discovery of the government, he must comply with the requirement for reciprocal discovery.\" *United States v. Ryan*, 448 F. Supp. 810, 810-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), *aff'd*, 594 F.2d 853, 811 (2d Cir.); *see* Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 Advisory Committee Note—1974 Amend. (\"The majority of the Advisory Committee is of the view that . . . the giving a broader right of discovery to the defense is dependent upon giving also a broader right of discovery to the prosecution.\").\n\nCourts in this District and elsewhere routinely require defendants to produce Rule 16(b) materials before defendants have made decisions about the scope of any defense case, let alone whether a particular piece of evidence will be offered at trial. Although \"[a] defendant would always like more information about the government's case before revealing anything about his or her own,\" Rule 16 \"conditions a defendant's disclosure obligations on the government's having made certain specified disclosures, not on the government's laying open its entire case or the defendant's satisfaction.\" *United States v. Rajaratnam*, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011). Indeed, in ordering pre-trial disclosure of defense Rule 16 materials, this Court has previously made clear that, while defendants may \"delay the decision as to whether or not to testify until the end of the presentation of the Government's case, 'the trial strategy determination is not so protected.'\" *United States v. Shea*, No. 20 Cr. 412 (AT), Doc. 206, at 1 (quoting *United States v. Ryan*, 448 F. Supp. 810, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), *aff'd*, 594 F.2d 853, 811 (2d Cir. 1978)); *see also, e.g.*, *United States v. Ortega*, No. 22 Cr. 91 (RA), Doc. 93, at 2 (\"Should Defendant fail to produce material subject to his disclosure obligations under Rule 16, he will be precluded from using such evidence during his case-in-chief.\"); *United States v. Avenatti*, No. 19 Cr. 374 (JMF), Dkt. No. 213 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2022) (requiring defense production under Rule 16 to begin approximately two weeks before trial, over the defendant's objection); *United States v. Maxwell*, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Dkt. No. 297 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021) (setting a defense Rule 16 deadline of three weeks before trial, over the defendant's objection);\n\n*United States v. Jasper*, No. 00 Cr. 825 (PKL), 2003 WL 223212, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2003) (explaining that \"[a]llowing [the] defendant to defer the provision of such discovery until a final determination regarding whether or not [to] put an expert witness on the stand would seem to frustrate\" the goal of allowing the government a fair opportunity to prepare); *see generally United States v. Weiss*, 930 F.2d 185, 199 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming preclusion of evidence defendant had failed to produce and explaining that permitting defendant to use documents the prosecution had not timely seen \"would have given the defense an unfair advantage\").5\n\nAccordingly, in light of well-settled law, the defendants' collection of Rule 16 material through the use of their own subpoenas, and the defendants' stated intention to put on a lengthy defense case, the Court should order the defendants to produce Rule 16(b) material approximately four weeks in advance of trial, *i.e.*, by April 22.\n\n5 This reciprocal obligation applies to defense exhibits as well. Consistent with Rule 16(b), courts in this District regularly require disclosure of defense exhibits in advance of trial, including over a defendant's objection. *See, e.g.*, *Ortega*, No. 22 Cr. 91 (RA), Doc. 93 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023) (approximately one week before trial); *United States v. Shah*, No. 19 Cr. 833 (SHS), Doc. 583, at 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2022) (11 days before trial over objection); *United States v. Melzer*, No. 20 Cr. 314 (GHW), Doc. 131 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2022) (11 days before trial over objection); *United States v. Liu*, No. 19 Cr. 804 (VEC), Doc. 177 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2022) (12 days before trial over objection); *United States v. Gillier*, No. 11 Cr. 409 (PAE), Doc. 75 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2022) (approximately three weeks before trial); *United States v. Avenatti*, No. 19 Cr. 374 (JMF), Doc. 213 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2022) (approximately two weeks before trial over objection); *United States v. Maxwell*, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Doc. 297 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021) (three weeks before trial over objection); *United States v. Shea*, No. 20 Cr. 412 (AT), Doc. 206 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2022) (14 days before trial over objection); *United States v. Brennerman*, No. 17 Cr. 337 (RJS), Doc. 24 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017) (18 days before trial); *United States v. Percoco*, No. 16 Cr. 776 (VEC), Doc. 396 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017) (more than a month before trial over objection); *United States v. Grant*, No. 16 Cr. 468 (GHW), Doc. 283 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2018) (three weeks before trial); *United States v. Calk*, No. 19 Cr. 366 (LGS), Doc. 180 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2021) (six weeks before trial); *id.* Doc. 262, at 341 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29, 2021) (mid-trial order to defense to produce any unmarked exhibits for cross-examination at least one business day in advance of testimony); *United States v. Madonna*, No. 17 Cr. 89 (CS), Doc. 655 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2019) (approximately one month before trial); *United States v. Stewart*, No. 15 Cr. 287 (LTS), Minute Entry (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2016) (18 days before trial); *United States v. Ulbricht*, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), Doc. 93 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2014) (approximately one month before trial). The disclosure deadline should apply to any exhibits the defense intends to introduce at trial—including on cross examination for non-impeachment purposes. \"The term 'case-in-chief' has been interpreted to encompass 'all nonimpeachment exhibits they intend to use in their defense at trial, whether the exhibits will be introduced through a government witness or a witness called by a defendant.'\" *Melzer*, No. 20 Cr. 314 (GHW), Doc. 150, at 13 (quoting *United States v. Napout*, No. 15 Cr. 252 (PKC), 2017 WL 6375729, at \\*7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017)). \"Nearly every court to consider the issue has concluded the same.\" *United States v. Crowder*, 325 F. Supp. 3d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2018) (collecting cases).\n\n#### **B. Notice of Advice-of-Counsel Defense**\n\nThe Government respectfully requests that the Court order the defendants to provide notice of any advice-of-counsel defense they may seek to offer at trial. In December 2023, the Government sent a letter to the defense requesting that the defendants provide such notice. Despite meeting and conferring, and attempting to reach a comprise on this issue, the defendants have thus far declined to provide any notice, or even to provide a date by which they will do so. The Government therefore requests that the Court order disclosure by April 20, which is one month before trial. The Court's order should require the defendants to provide (a) written notice of the contours—including identifying specific attorneys involved, the advice those attorneys provided, and any discovery concerning the foregoing that the defendants will rely upon at trial—of any advice-of-counsel defense or good faith defense based on the involvement of attorneys that Kwok and/or Wang will raise at trial, and (b) all documents (including attorney-client and attorney work product documents) that support or might impeach or undermine any such defense.\n\n### 1. Applicable Law\n\n\"In a fraud case . . . the advice-of-counsel defense is not an affirmative defense that defeats liability even if the jury accepts the government's allegations as true,\" but rather \"is evidence that, if believed, can raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors about whether the government has proved the required element of the offense that the defendant had an 'unlawful intent.'\" *United States v. Scully*, 877 F.3d 464, 476 (2d Cir. 2017). \"That said, defendants are entitled to an adviceof-counsel instruction only if there are sufficient facts in the record to support the defense.\" *Scully*, 877 F.3d at 476 (citing *United States v. Evangelista*, 122 F.3d 112, 117 (2d Cir. 1997)). Specifically, \"[t]here must be evidence such that a reasonable juror could find that the defendant 'honestly and in good faith sought the advice of counsel,' 'fully and honestly laid all the facts before his counsel,' and 'in good faith and honestly followed counsel's advice.'\" *Id*. (quoting *United States v. Colasuonno*, 697 F.3d 164, 181 (2d Cir. 2012)).\n\nThus, where a defendant seeks to admit evidence of the involvement of attorneys, whether as a formal advice of counsel defense, or to show good faith, he must provide the Government with sufficient notice and disclosures ahead of trial. *See*, *e.g.*, *United States v. Schulte*, No. 17 Cr. 548 (PAC), 2020 WL 133620, at \\*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020) (requiring advanced advice of counsel disclosure); *United States v. Scali*, No. 16 Cr. 466 (NSR), 2018 WL 461441, at \\*8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018) (defendant should have made pertinent disclosures in advance of trial); *United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill*, 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 711 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (requiring notification to the Government of advice-of-counsel defense sufficiently before pre-trial conference to permit litigation over disputes).\n\nSuch notice and discovery are necessary because by invoking an advice of counsel and/or good faith defense that relies upon the involvement of counsel, the defendant typically impliedly waives associated attorney-client and/or work product privileges. *United States v. Bilzerian*, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991). Pretrial notice is therefore necessary to conduct discovery into potentially privileged areas, obviating the need for considerable delay during trial. A defendant's \"conversations with counsel regarding the legality of his schemes\" are \"directly relevant in determining the extent of his knowledge and, as a result, his intent.\" *Id*. Because conversations with counsel can reveal an absence of good faith or advice of counsel, \"the attorney-client privilege cannot at once be used as a shield and a sword.\" *Id*. In other words, to assess whether a defendant\n\ntruly acted in good faith, it becomes necessary to understand his communications with his attorney: did he fully and honestly lay out all the facts; did the attorney provide him information that would leave him to believe he was not acting lawfully; did he in good faith and honestly follow counsels' advice? For that reason, once a defendant raises a good faith or advice of counsel defense, \"any communications or evidence defendants intend to use to establish the defense are subject to disclosure\" as is \"otherwise-privileged communications that defendants do not intend to use at trial, but that are relevant to proving or undermining the advice-of-counsel defense.\" *United States v. Crowder*, 325 F. Supp. 3d 131, 138 (D.D.C. 2018). Further complicating and necessitating early resolution, where the attorney-client privilege is likely controlled by a corporation, the Court may need to resolve whether the defendant can rely on evidence that is protected by a company's privilege. *See United States v. Milton*, 626 F. Supp. 3d 694, 702-03 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (denying the defendant's constitutional claim that \"privileged communications become discoverable simply because a defendant wishes to use those communications in his defense\").\n\n#### 2. Discussion\n\nThe Court should order the defendants to provide adequate advice-of-counsel notice in advance of trial to ensure an efficient trial free from delays, avoid unfair prejudice to the Government, to allow appropriate pretrial discovery of relevant attorneys, and to permit the Court to resolve any attendant disputes between the parties. *See, e.g.*, *Schulte*, 2020 WL 133620, at \\*6 (requiring disclosure concerning advice of counsel 19 days before trial); *Scali*, 2018 WL 461441, at \\*8 (ordering notice and related discovery two weeks ahead of trial where defendant had already notice his intention to rely on the defense); *Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill*, 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 711 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (ordering notice three weeks ahead of trial). Sufficiently advanced notice is particularly important in this case, where Kwok has claimed to be represented by, or to have had privileged communications with, at least *39* different law firms (some with numerous individual attorneys) or individuals (including Kwok's co-defendant Yanping Wang, in her capacity as a translator), and Wang has claimed to have been represented by, or to have had privileged communications with, at least *26* different law firms (some likewise with multiple individual attorneys). *See* Ex. B (list of Kwok's attorneys provided on April 27, 2023, by his counsel for the purpose of privilege screens on seized electronic devices), Ex. C (list of Wang's attorneys provided on May 31, 2023, by her former counsel for the same purpose). The simple fact that the defendants may seek to rely on the advice of dozens of attorneys, from dozens of different law firms, makes this case unusual, and one that is susceptible to inefficiencies and delay absent reasonable notice. Indeed, the parties may have legal disputes about discovery connected to any legal advice, and the extent to which the defendants waived privilege, among other things. It may take time for the Court to resolve those issues. Sufficient advance notice of any defense that depends upon legal advice or the presence of lawyersis therefore required, lest the trial be prolonged beyond its current six-to-eight-week estimate—inconveniencing jurors and wasting judicial resources. Accordingly, the Court should order the defendants to provide notice of any advice-of-counsel defense and to produce any accompanying documents, and to do so no later than April 20 (*i.e.*, one month before trial), to account for the large number of attorneys and law firms at issue.\n\n### **II. Procedures to Protect Victim Witnesses**\n\nLike the Court, the Government owes duties to victims of crimes. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1), (a)(8) & (b)(1) (providing, under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, that the court \"shall ensure that [] crime victim[s] [are] afforded\" their rights, including the right \"to be treated with\n\nfairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.\"). Chief among the Government's responsibilities is ensuring the safety of victims who seek redress from federal authorities and provide evidence and testimony regarding how they were harmed. And the Government, like the Court, also must ensure that criminal defendants are prevented from obstructing justice by intimidating or threatening potential witnesses, particularly witnesses who are crime victims and have already been victimized by defendants. *Cf. United States v. Blackshear*, 313 F. App'x 338, 343 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (affirming decision to empanel anonymous jury where defendant had \"consistently attempted to obstruct justice,\" including by \"intimidating witnesses,\" even where \"none of [defendant's] prior incidents involved jurors\").\n\nIn this case, the obligation to prevent schemes to obstruct justice by threatening, harassing, and intimidating potential victim witnesses—to scare them from testifying—is particularly acute in light of the defendants' past obstructive conduct and their continuation of criminal conduct even while detained, as explained below. Accordingly, and for the reasons explained in further detail below, the Court should order the following procedures, which are incorporated into the proposed order attached as Exhibit A, to protect potential victim-witnesses:\n\n- Rule 16: Pursuant to the Protective Order the Government will continue to designate \"Attorneys' Eyes Only,\" materials that would identify potential victims.\n- Exhibits: The Government will provide its proposed trial exhibits to defendants on April 30, with only a limited set of exhibits that would *identify* victim-witnesses designated AEO. The AEO designation will be lifted four days prior to the introduction of any so-designated exhibit at trial.\n- 3500: The Government will provide such material by May 6, with victim-witness identities and associated 3500 materials designated AEO. The AEO designation will be lifted four days prior to the testimony of any victim-witness. 6\n\n# **A. The Defendants' Obstructive Conduct**\n\n1. Kwok\n\nThis Court has already found by clear and convincing evidence that Kwok \"will not abide by court orders.\" Dkt. 51 at 12. That finding aligns with those of other courts that likewise \"have previously found that [Kwok] engaged in obstructive behavior . . . and fail[ed] to obey court orders.\" Dkt. 51 at 8, 12. Along with defying court orders, Kwok has a history of harassment, threats, and violence directed at his critics and victims that is of paramount concern in considering the protection of victims who will testify at trial. Even before he was detained, Kwok had a practice of relying on his agents—including his followers and individuals who work at entities he controls—to subject those critics and victims to harassment. This Court has previously recounted\n\n6 While the Government has no obligation to produce § 3500 material in advance of trial, as is common, it will do so here sufficiently in advance of trial to ensure an efficient trial. *See United States v. Coppa*, 267 F.3d 132, 145 (2d Cir. 2001) (The \"Jencks Act prohibits a District Court from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements.\").\n\nmany instances in which Kwok engaged in such obstructive behavior. *See* Dkt. 51 at 9. By way of example:\n\n- In November 2020, an anti-CCP activist (\"Activist-1\") filed suit against Kwok, alleging that Kwok has led a campaign of harassment and threats against him. Kwok called for actual violence and encouraged hundreds of thousands of followers to protest outside Activist-1's home, offering tens of thousands of dollars in cash and securities for anyone who succeeded in \"getting rid of\" Activist-1. On November 25, 2020, two of the protesters physically assaulted one of Activist-1's friends by repeatedly kicking the friend in the head and neck as he lay on the pavement outside Activist-1's home. As has been publicly reported, the friend suffered a facial fracture and swollen-shut eyes, and lost a tooth.7\n- One particular individual who worked with Kwok in connection with the GTV Private Placement (before cutting ties with Kwok) expressed on social media that Kwok misled and defrauded his followers. Kwok responded by publicly branding that person as a \"Demon\" and a CCP spy. A Kwok-controlled Farm subsequently sued that person, who now lives in fear and in hiding as a result of Kwok's public threats. In particular, and as Kwok well knew, branding that person as a CCP spy has had the effect of turning Kwok's thousands of followers against that person subjecting them to harassment, lawsuits, and threats of violence.\n- Kwok has also threatened victims who have sought reimbursements or complained about his fraud. Several victims have informed the Government that, after complaining to Kwok about their investments in his offerings, he branded them CCP spies, sometimes in social media or video posts, placing them directly in the crosshairs of Kwok's followers.\n- Many victims that the Government has interviewed remain deeply afraid of Kwok. They are reasonably scared that if Kwok learns they are communicating with the Government, he will brand them CCP spies and mobilize his army of followers against them. One victim who spoke with the Government preemptively moved residences due to such fears.\n\nIn addition to threatening his critics and his victims, Kwok has a long and well-documented history of obstructing justice in other ways, as this Court has already recognized. *See* Dkt. 216 at 9 (\"Witness tampering is but one flavor of obstruction, and the Government presents unrebutted evidence that Kwok has engaged in many others.\"); *id.* at 8 (\"[Kwok's] promises to 'not undertake such actions again,' standing alone, do not assuage the Court's concerns that Kwok is likely to continue his pattern of obstruction if released\"). By way of example:\n\n• The bankruptcy court appointed a trustee (the \"Trustee\") to manage Kwok's financial affairs and to obtain assets for disbursement to Kwok's creditors. Displeased with the Trustee's actions, Kwok mobilized his supporters to harass the Trustee. For example,\n\n7 *See* http\n\nas described below, Kwok fomented protests and anger directed toward the bankruptcy trustee, which obstructed the bankruptcy process. On November 23, 2022, to thwart the harassment, the Trustee sought—and was granted—a temporary restraining order. But that did not deter Kwok from further obstructive actions.\n\n- \"On November 20, 2022, the @NFSCSpeaks account posted a statement identifying the Chapter 11 Trustee's daughters and stating their father is aiding and abetting the CCP. The post also contained photographs of the Chapter 11 Trustee and his daughters and identified where they work. The @Miles account reposted this @NFSCSpeaks post on its Gettr page.\" (*In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al.,* Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023)*.* at 22 (citations omitted).)\n- \"On November 20, 2022, protests occurred directly in front of the Chapter 11 Trustee's home. The protesters held signs that were, for the most part, targeted directly at the Chapter 11 Trustee.\" *Id.* at 23.\n- In a video posted on social media, while protesting outside Paul Hastings, an individual associated with Kwok's entities stated \"[t]o everyone at Paul Hastings . . . Millions of People that have been persecuted by the CCP with curse you, will curse your family, curse every single person in your life because there is blood on your hands\" and \"the people of the New Federal State of China, 500 million of us . . . we stand against Paul Hastings, and we stand against O'Melveny. 8 There is no going back, there is no recourse. You have committed a crime, and now you're going to suffer the consequences of your actions.\" *Id.* at 24-25.\n- \"On November 25, 2022, the Chapter 11 Trustee received a series of emails at his work email from [an] unknown ProtonMail [an encrypted email service] email address with consecutive subject lines, 'I wish' and 'i kill.' The 'I wish' email had the body text 'hhhhhhhhhahahahaha.' The 'i kill' email had no body text.\" *Id.* at 25.\n- On November 26, 2022, an unknown caller left a voicemail for the Trustee stating \"you are CCP's running dog. You need to go to Hell. You just did something so ridiculous and your end is so close. F-U-C-K.\" *Id.* at 27.\n- Two days after a preliminary injunction was issued that ordered Kwok to stop further interference with the bankruptcy proceedings, on January 11, 2023, on his Gettr page, Kwok encouraged his followers to flood the bankruptcy docket with claims (regardless of their merit). By so doing, Kwok sought to force the Trustee to incur unnecessary\n\n8 O'Melveny represents an entity that has sued Kwok, which entity is also one of Kwok's creditors.\n\ncosts and expense as well as obstruct the proceedings.9 On January 23, 2023, Kwok posted a video on Gettr in which he encouraged more of the same, and revealed that the purpose of the filings was to obstruct the bankruptcy court and cause unnecessary expenses for the Trustee. Kwok stated, \"All of you go to the bankruptcy court . . . Let the attorney's fees of trustee accumulate to 1 trillion if possible. . . . Think about it, \\$1,860 an hour as the attorney's fees. How much attorney fees is it after you all registered? How good is that!\"\n\nIn short, Kwok used *his followers* and the entities he controls (through his followers, among others) to harass and obstruct the bankruptcy proceedings.\n\nKwok's harassment of others has extended to this case as well. Kwok-controlled social media accounts, including his Gettr account, branded two of the undersigned AUSAs in this case as CCP-aligned operatives.10\n\n2. Wang\n\nWhile perhaps less prolific and well-documented, Wang has engaged in obstructive conduct in connection with court proceedings. For example, the Government has recovered chats from Wang's devices relating to the suborning of perjury. In particular, in a series of Signal voice messages sent to Kwok's daughter, Wang coached Kwok's daughter on how to claim to attorneys, falsely, that Kwok's yacht belonged to her—a perjurious claim that Kwok's daughter later repeated under oath in court proceedings. *See* Exs. D-G (translations of Signal messages between Wang and Kwok's daughter that were recovered from one of Wang's devices). Equally disturbing, as evidenced in recorded conversations with individuals within the Kwok Enterprise, Wang—while in custody, following her arrest in this case—used her prior counsel to ferry her request to retrieve bank checks consisting of millions of dollars of G|CLUBS funds, *i.e.*, fraud proceeds, that were in a postal box in New York City. On top of misusing attorneys, this conduct reflects how Wang and Kwok use others to accomplish improper ends and to continue to operate their racketeering enterprise, even while inside the MDC.\n\nFinally, the Government expects the evidence at trial will show that, while detained and while their calls are recorded by the MDC, the defendants have been having attorney meetings with a co-conspirator who is a licensed attorney—not any criminal counsel of record—and using that attorney to ferry messages between the defendants and the Kwok Enterprise.11\n\n9 *See* http (last accessed March 14, 2023) (\"Greetings, esteemed comrades. Paul Hastings Law Firm is launching a campaign to register creditors! If there are comrades who are not strong-willed, feeling their own investments and past investments, have no sense of security and need to be a debtor, and if you think it is a better choice, you must contact Paul Hastings Law Firm to register in the Bankruptcy Court of Connecticut as soon as possible, and maybe you can become a billionaire.\")\n\n10 *See* http\n\n11 Notably, this same attorney's associate emailed the Government directly and requested a copy of all its discovery.\n\n#### **B. Continued and Tailored AEO Protections Are Appropriate**\n\nAs one measure to ensure the safety and availability of its witnesses and preserve the integrity of this criminal trial, while balancing these interests with the defense's right to prepare a defense, the Government has generally designated the significant volume of victim-provided Rule 16 discovery in this case as AEO. The Protective Order in this case, which was entered without any objection, provides:\n\nCertain of the Government's disclosure material, referred to herein as \"Attorneys' Eyes Only Material,\" contains highly confidential and highly sensitive material that affects the privacy, confidentiality, and/or safety interests of individuals or entities, such that its disclosure could cause substantial harm and/or pose safety concerns to individuals or entities, including but not limited to: information related to victims subject to harassment . . . .\n\nDkt. 63 ¶ 4. Given the defendants' obstructive conduct, and their continuation of the scheme from prison, the Government's AEO designations are appropriate. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that the defendants defrauded and manipulated *thousands* of different individualsfor a period ofseveral years, the Government recognizes that victim-provided materials are not insignificant. Accordingly, the Government is willing to make accommodations to the defense and designate a substantial volume of such materials \"Highly Confidential,\" so long as those accommodations will not jeopardize the integrity of these proceedings, victim safety, or the ability of victim witnesses to testify without harassment, intimidation, or threats.\n\nBy that measure, Wang's request that all \"communications (whether written or recorded) involving the defendants\" and all photographs of the defendants be deemed \"Highly Confidential\" falls short. Dkt. 253 at 3. Wang misunderstands the sensitivity of the victim-provided materials: it is not their content that is highly sensitive, but their potential to *identify* the individuals who have provided the materials to the Government. Communications and photographs may do exactly that. Granting Wang's blanket request would identify certain victim-witnesses to the defendants nearly two months before trial and lead to an extended campaign of harassment, intimidation, and threats against those victim-witnesses. These are not idle concerns. Just as this Court is familiar with the defendants' egregious track record of obstructive conduct, so too are the defendants' victims. Nearly every victim the Government has spoken with has expressed his or her genuine fears of the defendants' harassment and retaliation. *Cf. United States v. Kandic*, No. 17 Cr. 449 (NGG), 2021 WL 5505832, at \\*4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2021) (\"Reasonable jurors, when assessing the allegations that Defendant used social media to promote ISIS, could fear that their identities could be disclosed online, exposing them to threats from individuals who are not directly associated with Defendant.\"). Accordingly, Wang's requests must be denied in order to protect victims and preserve the integrity of the forthcoming trial.\n\nFurther, because these same concerns are presented by disclosure to the defendants of victim-identifying Government exhibits and 3500 material, it is appropriate for the Government to designate AEO the exhibits and 3500 material that would identify victim witnesses until four days prior to that victim-witness's testimony. These types of procedures have been employed in criminal cases in this District to protect witnesses and prevent obstruction. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. Jones*, 21 Cr. 505 (ER), Dkt. 50 (3500 protective order including AEO designation, which was used for cooperating witnesses and civilian witnesses until a date closer to trial); *United States v.* *Bilal*, 19 Cr. 565 (JPO), Dkt. 52 (same); *United States v. Garcia*, 21 Cr. 412 (JSR), Dkt. 101 (certain 3500 material AEO until one week prior to trial). While this case does not involve drug trafficking, it is a racketeering case involving defendants who have gone to great lengths to intimidate, harass, and threaten—and at times physically harm—those who speak out against them. And the defendants maintain many devoted followers who have attempted to obstruct justice in past proceedings and will likely seek to do so again in this case, where their leader faces the potential of conviction and a lengthy jail sentence. That is, the defendants and their associates have obstructed justice and threatened others when they faced merely *civil* consequences. Here, the defendants face *criminal* consequences, and these higher stakes manifestly increase the likelihood of obstructive conduct as the trial date approaches.\n\n# **III. MDC Discovery**\n\nFinally, Wang requests that the Court \"order the government to hand-deliver all recent productions and any subsequent productions to the appropriate officials at MDC Brooklyn for prompt delivery to the defendants.\" (Dkt. 253 at 2). No such order is necessary. The Government has been accommodating the defense's requests to delivery discovery to the MDC, as the record in this case makes clear, and will continue to do so in the lead up to trial.\n\nWang was arrested on March 15, 2023 and ordered detained pending trial. Several rounds of motions for reconsideration followed; this Court affirmed Wang's pretrial detention on April 21, 2023, finding that Wang poses a serious risk of flight and that no conditions can reasonably assure her attendance at future court proceedings. Dkt. 56. This Court also ordered co-defendant Ho Wan Kwok detained pending trial, in light of his dangerousness to the community, risk of flight, and risk of obstruction, on April 20, 2023. Dkt. 51. During a pretrial conference on June 9, 2023, the Court orally granted defendants' motion requesting access to laptops at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center to facilitate their review of discovery and other case materials. That same day, the Government contacted legal staff at Brooklyn MDC to advise them of the Court's order and to determine how to make arrangements to deliver laptops to the defendants. The Court entered the parties' joint proposed laptop order on June 13, 2023. Dkt. 86.\n\nOn or about July 14, 2023, Wang's then-counsel sent a laptop (the \"Wang Laptop\") to the Government to be loaded with discovery materials designated as Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order (*i.e.*, materials Wang was authorized to maintain at Brooklyn MDC). On July 22, 2023, Emil Bove filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Wang in this matter, indicating that he intended to substitute in as Wang's counsel; the next day, the Government informed the Court that it intended to move to disqualify Bove, and subsequently filed a motion for disqualification. On August 11, 2023, while that disqualification motion was pending, Bove contacted the Government regarding the status of the Wang Laptop and confirmed that Bove and his firm would not access discovery or discuss discovery with Wang pending resolution of the disqualification motion. Later that day, the Government informed Bove that it was loading the Wang Laptop with discovery materials and would deliver the Wang Laptop to Brooklyn MDC.\n\nOn August 20, 2023, the Government confirmed that the Wang Laptop (which had been loaded with certain Confidential discovery materials) had been delivered to Wang at Brooklyn MDC. The Government advised Bove that it required a 10 TB hard drive for additional Confidential materials that were too large to be loaded onto the Wang Laptop, and gave Bove the specifications for an MDC-compatible hard drive on September 7, 2023. Bove provided a hard\n\ndrive to the Government, which the Government loaded with the additional Confidential discovery materials and delivered to the MDC in October 2023. Bove withdrew as Wang's counsel on October 27, 2023. Brendan Quigley, Wang's current counsel, filed a notice of appearance on November 6, 2023.\n\n During a call on February 20, 2024, Quigley asked the Government to send Wang the Confidential discovery that the Government had produced since in or about October 2023.12 On February 23, 2024, the Government provided counsel with Brooklyn MDC's specifications for inmate hard drives. The Government received a hard drive from Quigley on February 27, 2024 and, in the ensuing days, loaded that drive with the requested discovery materials. On March 10, 2024, the Government advised Quigley that the drive would be delivered to Wang at the Brooklyn MDC the next day. On March 11, 2024, the Government arranged for hand-delivery of the drive to Brooklyn MDC and received a receipt confirming delivery, which was signed by a Brooklyn MDC staff member and dated March 11, 2024.\n\nOn Saturday, March 23, 2024, Quigley emailed the Government (copying in MDC Legal) to advise that the drive apparently had not yet been delivered to Wang. This was the first time the Government had learned that the drive delivered to Brooklyn MDC on March 11, 2024 had not been received by Wang. The Government responded to Quigley in just over an hour and the same day emailed MDC Legal staff to inquire into the status of the drive. On March 25, 2024, MDC Legal advised that they had no record of having received the drive. The Government provided a copy of the delivery receipt (which, as set forth above, reflected that a Brooklyn MDC staff member had signed to confirm receipt of the drive on March 11, 2024). Later, on March 25, 2024, MDC Legal staff advised the Government that it was unable to locate the drive, and requested that the Government send a replacement drive. The next day, on March 26, 2024, the Government downloaded the discovery to a new drive (aside from cellphone extractions, which were too large to copy to the drive) and arranged for hand-delivery of the new drive to Brooklyn MDC on March 27, 2024. MDC Legal staff confirmed that the new drive arrived at Brooklyn MDC on March 27, 2024 (*i.e.*, the day *before* Wang filed her motion), and provided a letter that Wang signed on March 28, 2024, confirming receipt of the drive, and further confirming that she was able to access the contents of the new drive. In summary, every time defense counsel asked the undersigned to assist in delivering discovery to the defendants, the Government has promptly responded and assisted.\n\nAccordingly, there is no need for the Court to order the Government to provide discovery to the MDC, as it has already been doing so and will continue to do so, and Wang's motion should be denied.\n\n12 The Government made approximately five discovery productions to Wang's and Kwok's counsel between December 2023 and February 2024.\n\n#### **IV. Conclusion**\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, the Court should order the mutual pretrial disclosure schedule, attached as Exhibit A; and permit the use of tailored procedures to protect victim witnesses in this matter.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\n Micah F. Fergenson Ryan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nv.\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" a/k/a \"Boss,\" and\n\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" a/k/a \"Y,\"\n\nDefendants.\n\n# **[Proposed] Pretrial Scheduling Order**\n\nS2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nWHEREAS trial in this matter is set to begin on May 20, 2024;\n\nThe Court ORDERS as follows:\n\n1. **Expert Notice:** The parties shall exchange expert notices, except for translation and experts that rebut the opposing party's previously notified expert, on or before **April 1, 2024**. [1](#page-20-0)\n\n2. **Notice of Certain Defenses**: The defendants shall notify the Government of their intention, if any, to rely on an advice-of-counsel, reliance on counsel, presence of counsel, or other involvement of counsel as a defense to the charges, if any, by **April 20, 2024**. Such notice shall identify the attorney(s) relied upon, the specific advice provided, and any discovery supporting such a defense that the defendants intend to rely on at trial.\n\n1 The parties shall work in good faith to reach an agreement regarding language translations.\n\n3. **Rule 16 Discovery Materials**: The Government shall complete production of Rule 16 discovery in its possession by **April 10, 2024**. The defendants shall complete production of Rule 16 discovery in their possession by **April 22, 2024**. Rule 16 materials acquired after those dates shall be produced on a rolling basis.\n\n4. **Government Trial Exhibits:** The Government shall provide defendants' counsel exhibits that the Government reasonably expects to seek to introduce during its case-in-chief by **April 30, 2024**. These exhibits will be subject to good-faith revisions as the Government continues to prepare its case for trial, including in response to the defendants' list of intended exhibits and witnesses.\n\n5. **Government § 3500 Material and Witness List**: The Government shall provide the defendants' counsel § 3500 material, and its witness list by **May 6, 2024**. Section 3500 material generated after that date shall be provided to defendants' counsel on a rolling basis. The witness list will be subject to good-faith revisions including in response to the defendants' list of intended exhibits and witnesses.\n\n6. **Defendants' Trial Exhibits**: The defendants shall provide the Government the exhibits that the defendants reasonably expect to seek to introduce during their case-in-chief by **May 10, 2024**. These exhibits will be subject to limited good-faith revisions as the defense continues to prepare its case for trial.\n\n7. **Defense Witness List:** The defendants shall provide their lists of witnesses whom the defendants reasonably expect to call in their case-in-chief by **May 10, 2024**. The witness list will be subject to limited good-faith revisions.\n\n8. **Defense 26.2 Material:** The defendants shall provide Rule 26.2 materials for their witnesses by **May 13, 2024**. Rule 26.2 material generated after that date shall be provided to the Government on a rolling basis.\n\n9. **Protection of Victims from Harassment**: The Government may produce § 3500 material and exhibits that would reveal the identity of any victims as \"Attorney's Eyes Only\" pursuant to the Protective Order (Dkt. 51). No later than four days before a victim whose § 3500 material is marked \"Attorney's Eyes Only\" testifies, the Government shall designate such material \"Highly Confidential.\" No later than four days before an exhibit that is marked \"Attorney's Eyes Only\" is offered for admission at trial, the Government shall designate such an exhibit as \"Highly Confidential.\"\n\nSO ORDERED:\n\nDated: New York, New York April \\_\\_, 2024\n\n> THE HON. ANALISA TORRES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **EXHIBIT B**\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain | Persons/Entities Represented
and Time Periods for Each |\n|------------------------|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | | Representation. |\n| | | William Baldiga | | Client: Miles Kwok |\n| | | Stephen Cook | | |\n| | | Stephen Best | | Approx.: 2/22-7/22, |\n| | | Sunni Beville | | 3/23 - present |\n| | | Tiffany Lietz | | |\n| | | Tristan Axelrod | | |\n| | | Kenneth Aulet | | |\n| | | Andrew Carty | | |\n| | 7 Times Square | Jeffrey Jonas | | |\n| Brown Rudnick LLP | New York, NY
10036 | Bennett Silverberg | @brownrudnick.com | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | Robert Stark | | |\n| | | Honieh Udenka | | |\n| | | Natasha Ertzbishoff | | |\n| | | William Franzese | | |\n| | | Alessandra Maldonado | | |\n| | | E. Patrick Gilman | | |\n| | | Ashley Smith | | |\n| | | Eileen Citron | | |\n| Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | 55 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ
07960 | Aaron Mitchel | @lmesq.com | Miles Kwok, Yanping
Wang, Hing Chi Ngok, Mei
Guo, Guo Qiang, GTV
Media Group. Inc., Saraca
Media Group, Inc., GSNY,
Hamilton Investment, G
Clubs
Approx. 2018 - present |\n| The Casper Firm, LLC | 400 E. | | | |\n| | Pratt
Street | | | Client: Miles Kwok |\n| | Suite 903 | Ari Casper | @casperfirm.com | Approx: 2019 - present |\n| | Baltimore, MD | | | |\n| | 21202
7th Floor, | | | |\n| Harcus Parker
Ltd. | Melbourne | | | Client: Miles Kwok, Ace |\n| | House 44-46 | Damon Parker | @harcusparker.co.uk | Decade, Dawn State |\n| | Aldwych
London, WC2B 4LL | | | |\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain | Persons/Entities Represented
and Time Periods for Each
Representation. |\n|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | | Approx. 2019 - present |\n| Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | 655 Third
Avenue
22nd
Floor
New York, NY
10017 | Guy Petrillo
Joshua Klein | @pkbllp.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx: 2018 - present |\n| Clayman Rosenberg Kirshner &
Linder LLP | 305 Madison
Avenue
Suite 650
New York, New
York 10165 | Isabelle Kirshner | @clayro.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx: 2020 - present |\n| Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC | 6116 Executive
Boulevard
Suite 425
Bethesda, MD 20852 | Jeffrey Gavenman | @schulmanbh.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx: 2020 - present |\n| Baker Hostetler LLP | 45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY
10111-0100 | John Siegal | @bakerlaw.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx: 2020 - present |\n| Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer
LLP | 360
Lexington
Avenue New
York, NY
10017 | Mark Zauderer | @ganfershore.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx: 2021 - present |\n| Matthew Hoyle | One Essex Court
Temple, London,
EC4Y 9AR DX 430 | Matthew Hoyle | mhoyle@oeclaw.co.uk | Client: Miles Kwok, Ace
Decade, Dawn State
Approx. 2020 - present |\n| The Francis Firm PLLC | 33 W 60th
Street
Floor 2
New York, NY
10069 | Melissa Francis | melissaf@gsnyus.com | Client : Miles Kwok,
Approx.: 2020 - present |\n| Forbes
Hare | Qwomar Building
PO Box 4649, Road
Town Tortola
VG1110
British Virgin
Islands | Robert Nader | @forbeshare.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx: 2019 - present |\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain | Persons/Entities Represented |\n|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | | and Time Periods for Each
Representation. |\n| | One Essex Court | | | Client: Miles Kwok, Ace |\n| Sa'ad Hossain Q.C. | Temple, London, | Sa'ad Hossain Q.C. | shossain@oeclaw.co.u | Decade, Dawn State |\n| | EC4Y 9AR DX 430 | | k | Approx. 2020 - present |\n| | Rue de Law | | | Client: Miles Kwok, Ace |\n| Lalive SA | Mairie 35 | Sandrine Giroud | @lalive.law.com | Decade, Dawn State |\n| | 1207 Geneva
Switzerland | | | Approx. 2020 - present |\n| | One Essex Court | | | Client: Miles Kwok, Ace |\n| Sebastian Isaac | Temple, London, | Sebastian Isaac | sisaac@oeclaw.co.uk | Decade, Dawn State |\n| | EC4Y 9AR. DX 430 | | | Approx. 2020 - present |\n| | 601 Brickell | | | Client: Miles Kwok, |\n| VX Cerda & Associates | Key Drive | | @vcerdalaw.com | Yanping Wang, Hing Chi
Ngok, Mei Guo, Guo Qiang |\n| | Suite 700 | Victor Cerda | | |\n| | Miami, FL 33131 | | | Approx.: 2018 - present |\n| | 223 West Jackson
Boulevard | | | Client: Miles Kwok and |\n| Law Offices of Yongbing Zhang | Suite 1012 | Yongbing Zhang | @ybzlaw.com | Yanping Wang |\n| | Chicago, IL 60606 | | | 3/23 - present |\n| | | Stephen Kindseth | | Client: Miles Kwok, HKI,
Mei Guo |\n| Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. | 10 Middle Street
Bridgeport, CT
06604 | Aaron Romney | @zeislaw.com | |\n| | | Eric Henzy | | Approx.: 2021 - present |\n| | | James Moriarty | | |\n| | 3000 Two Logan
Square | | | Client: Bravo Luck |\n| | Eighteenth and Arch | | | Approx.: 2019 - present |\n| Troutman Pepper | Streets | Francis Lawall | @troutman.com | |\n| | Philadelphia, PA
19103 | | | |\n| | 105 Eisenhower | Lee Vartan | | Client: HKI, Mei Guo |\n| Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi | Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068 | Melissa Wernick | @csglaw.com | Approx.: 2020 - present |\n| | 45 West 29th Street | | | Client: Yanping Wang |\n| Lipman Law PLLC | Suite 303
New York, NY | Alex Lipman | @lipmanllc.com | Approx.: 2020 - present |\n| | 10001 | | | |\n| | 147 West 25th Street, | | | Client: Yanping Wang |\n| Chaudhry Law PLLC | 12th Fl
New York, NY | Priya Chaudhry | @chaudhrylaw.com | Approx.: 3/23 - present |\n| | 10001 | | | |\n| | 485 Lexington
Avenue | | | Client: Lamp Capital |\n| Phillips Nizer LLP | New York, NY | Matthew Levine | @phillipsnizer.com | Approx.: 2021 - present |\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain | Persons/Entities Represented
and Time Periods for Each |\n|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | | Representation. |\n| | 10017 | | | |\n| Wachen LLC | 11605 Montague
Court
Potomac, MD 20854 | David Wachen | @wachenlaw.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx.: 11/22 - present |\n| Law Offices of Jeffrey Hellman,
LLC | 195 Church Street,
10th Fl.
New Haven, CT
06510 | Jeffrey Hellman | @jeffhellmanlaw.co
m | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx.: 11/22 - present |\n| Arethusa Forsyth | | | arethusaf@protonmail.
com | Client: GSNY
Approx.: 2022 |\n| HodgsonRuss LLP | 605 Third Avenue
Suite 2300
New York City, NY
10158 | Mark A. Harmon
Jillian Searles | @hodgsonruss.com Client: Miles Kwok | Approx.: 2018 - present |\n| Boies Schiller Flexner | 55 Hudson Yards
20th Floor
New York, NY
10001 | David Boies
Josh Schiller | @bsfllp.com | Client: Miles Kwok, Ace
Decade, Dawn State
Approx.: 2015 - 2018 |\n| Williams & Connolly LLP | 680 Maine Avenue
SW
Washington, DC
20024 | | @wc.com | Clients; Miles Kwok,
Guo Qiang,
Approx. 2015 - 2017 |\n| Paul Weiss | 1285 Avenue of the
Americas
New York, NY
10019-6064 | | @paulweiss.com | Clients; Miles Kwok,
Guo Qiang
Approx. 2015 - 2017 |\n| Clark Hill | 830 Third Avenue
Suite 200
New York, NY
10022 | | @clarkhill.com | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx. 2017 |\n| Montbrial advocates | Thibault de
Montbrial | | Unknown | Client: Miles Kwok
Approx.: 2019 - present |\n| Daniel Podhaskie | | Daniel Podhaskie | danielp@gsnyus.co
m | Client: Miles Kwok,
GSNY
Approx.: 2019 - 2021 |\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain | Persons/Entities Represented
and Time Periods for Each |\n|---------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Paul Hastings | 200 Park Avenue
New York, NY
10166 | Brad Bondi | @paulhastings.com | Representation.
Clients: GTV Media
Group, Inc., Miles Kwok
Approx.: 2020 - 2021 |\n| Spears & Imes LLP | 767 Third Avenue
New York, NY
10017 | David Spears | @spearsimes.com | Clients: GTV Media
Group, Inc.
Approx. 2020 |\n| Morvillo Abramowitz Grand
Iason & Anello, P.C. | 565 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY
10017 | Jeremy Temkin | jtemkin@maglaw.co
m | Clients: Saraca Media
Group Inc., GTV Media
Group, Inc.
Approx. 2020 - 2022 |\n| Una Wilkinson | 68-18 Juno Street
Forest Hills, New
York 11375 | Interpreter | unamanyee@gmail.c
om | Translator: Miles Kwok,
Mei Guo
Approx.: 2019 - present |\n| Yanping Wang | | Interpreter | Officework2020@pr
otonmail.com | Translator: Miles Kwok,
Mei Guo, Hing Chi Ngok
Approx. 2015 – present
(U.S.) |\n| Hei Lok (Gladys) Chow | | Interpreter | gladyschowus@gma
il.com | Translator: Miles Kwok,
Hing Chi Ngok
Approx.: 2019 - present |\n\n65009234 v1-WorkSiteUS-039463/0001\n\n# **EXHIBIT C**\n\n### **List of attorneys who may have had privileged communications with Ms. Wang**\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain |\n|-------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------|\n| | | William
R.
Baldiga | |\n| | | 508-922-8272 | |\n| | | Stephen R. Cook | |\n| | | (no
communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Stephen A. Best | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Sunni P. Beville | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Tiffany B. Lietz | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Tristan Axelrod | |\n| | | (no
communication w/ | |\n| | 7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036 | Yvette via cell phone)
Kenneth Aulet | @brownrudnick.com |\n| Brown Rudnick LLP | | | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Andrew M. Carty | |\n| | | (no communication w/
Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Jeffrey L. Jonas | |\n| | | 617-593-5033 | |\n| | | Bennett S. Silverberg | |\n| | | 917-538-2798 | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Robert J. Stark
(no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Honieh Udenka | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | | |\n\n*United States v. Yanping Wang,* 23-CR-118 (AT)\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain |\n|--------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------|\n| | | Natasha M. Ertzbischoff | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | | |\n| | | William Franzese
III | |\n| | | (no
communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Alessandra Maldonado | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | E. Patrick Gilman | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Ashley E. Smith | |\n| | | (no
communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Eileen Hren Citron | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Priya Chaudhry | |\n| | | 917-952-8266 | |\n| | | Seth Zuckerman | |\n| Chaudhry Law PLLC | 147 West 25th Street, 12th Fl | 516-286-9018 | @chaudhrylaw.com |\n| | New York, NY 10001 | | |\n| | | Robert Glenn | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | Damon Parker | |\n| | | +44 (0)7919 605191 | |\n| | 7th
Floor,
Melbourne | | |\n| Harcus
Parker
Ltd. | House 44-46 Aldwych | Jenny
Morrissey
+44 (0)7919 138666 | @harcusparker.co.uk |\n| | London,
WC2B
4LL | | |\n| | | Edward Argles | |\n| | | +44 (0)7577 063492 | |\n| | | Sandrine
Giroud | |\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | Rue
de
Law
Mairie | | |\n| LALIVE SA | 35 1207 Geneva | Matthias Scherer | @lalive.law |\n| | Switzerland | (no communication w/ | |\n| | | Yvette via cell phone) | |\n| | | | |\n| | | Dominik Elmiger | |\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain |\n|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|\n| | | (no communication w/ | |\n| Law Offices of Yongbing
Zhang | 223 West Jackson
Boulevard
Suite 1012
Chicago, IL 60606 | Yvette via cell phone)
Yongbing Zhang
312-493-7158
708-553-9734
312-860-0268 | @ybzlaw.com |\n| Lawall
&
Mitchell,
LLC | 55
Madison
Avenue
Morristown,
NJ
07960 | Aaron
A. Mitchell
914-760-8963
917-689-8505 | @lmesq.com |\n| Lipman Law PLLC | West 25th Street, 12th Fl
147
New York, NY 10001 | Alex Lipman
917-757-9850 | @lipmanpllc.com |\n| One Essex Court | One
Essex
Court
Temple,
London,
EC4Y
9AR DX 430 | Sa'ad
Hossain
Q.C.
(no communication w/
Yvette via cell phone)
Matthew Hoyle
(no communication w/
Yvette via cell phone)
Sebastian Isaac
(no communication w/
Yvette via cell phone) | @oeclaw.co.uk |\n| Petrillo
Klein
&
Boxer
LLP | 655
Third
Avenue 22nd
Floor
New
York,
NY
10017 | Guy
Petrillo
646-385-1479
Joshua Klein
646-596-4589 | @pkbllp.com |\n| Phillips Nizer LLP | 485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017 | Matthew L. Levine
(no communication w/
Yvette via cell phone) | @phillipsnizer.com
@ekljlaw.com |\n| Schulman
Bhattacharya,
LLC | 6116
Executive
Boulevard
Suite
425
Bethesda,
MD
20852 | Jeffrey
S.
Gavenman
703-314-8799 | @schulmanbh.com |\n| The
Francis
Firm
PLLC | 60th Street
33
W
Floor 2
New
York,
NY
10069 | Melissa
Francis
917-207-1285
917-244-8807
917-209-9230
917-239-8333
646-799-4832
301-785-9100 | @gsnyus.com |\n| The Warren Law Group | 519 8th Avenue, 25th Floor,
New York, NY 10018 | Daniel Podhaskie
917-941-9698 | @warren.law |\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain |\n|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| VX
Cerda
&
Associates | 601
Brickell
Key
Drive Suite 700
Miami,
FL
33131 | Victor
Cerda
202-747-4950 | @vcerdalaw.com
@fronteralawfirm.com |\n| Wedlake Bell LLP | 71 Queen Victoria Street
London
EC4V 4AY | James Latham
+44 (0)7884 311084
Kate Herbert
Gemma Williams
+44 (0)2073 953052 | @wedlakebell.com |\n| Wilberforce Chambers | 8 New Square, Lincoln's
Inn, London, WC2A 3QP | Daniel Lewis
(no communication w/
Yvette via cell phone) | @wilberforce.co.uk |\n| Yankwitt, LLP | 140 Grand Street, Suite 705
White Plains, NY 10601 | Daniel S. Alter
(212) 580-6355 | @yankwittlaw.com |\n| Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. | 10 Middle Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604 | All attorneys
(no communication w/
Yvette via cell phone) | @zeislaw.com |\n| Gold Leaf Consulting Ltd. | P.O. Box 3140
Road Town, Tortola
British Virgin Islands | Julia Shamini Chase
758-725-5055
284-346-5056
332-260-9742
Gizelle Macaraeg
(no communication
w/
Yvette
via cell phone)
Nailah Frett
(no communication
w/
Yvette
via cell phone)
Cherise Archibald
284-541-8644
Nadia Harrigan
284-541-9894 | @goldleafbvi.com
@tetonoffices.com
@tetonbvi.com |\n| Slaughter Law Group | 4881 Topanga Canyon
Blvd., Suite 238
Woodland Hills, CA 91364 | Lesa Slaughter
347-291-7534
(Regular text and phone)
718-909-3816
(Regular text, phone and
WhatsApp)
646-352-3725
(Regular text and phone) | @slaughterlawgroup.com |\n| Wildes & Weinberg, P.C. | 515 Madison Avenue, 6th
Floor
New York, NY 10022 | Michael Wildes
347-203-6355
Tudor Neagu | @wildeslaw.com |\n| Hodgson Russ LLP | 605 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10158 | Valerie E. Stevens
716-408-7692 | @hodgsonruss.com |\n\n| Law Firm | Address | Lawyers | Domain |\n|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| Collas Crill | 125 Main Street
P.O. Box 144
Road Town, Tortola
British Virgin Islands | David Harby
T: +1 284 852 6327
M: +1 284 541 7011
Dave Marshall
T: +1 284 852 6317
M: +1 284 541 2456
Fay O'Halloran
T: +1 284 852 6302
M: +1 284 542 8373
Anneka Williams
(no mobile
communications)
Margaret Sweeney (no
mobile communications) | @collascrill.com |\n| Swiss Independent
Practitioners
FP Legal | | Ignacio Guaia
+41 79 437 1516
+41 79 853 6575
Brandon Sean
+41 79 234 4939
Alexander Fitzner
+41 77 458 2478 | @teton.ch
@gmx.ch
@teton.ch
@fplegal.services |\n| Savio Law | 3 Dale Court
Hazlet, NJ 07730 | Nick Savio
732-673-9011 | @saviolaw.com |\n\n# **EXHIBIT D**\n\n| CASE NAME: | United States
v
Kwok | |\n|-----------------|---------------------------------|--|\n| EXHIBIT NUMBER: | Voice_Message_1_20_22_8_41_PM_1 | |\n| DATE: | 1/20/2022 | |\n| TIME: | 8:41
PM | |\n| DURATION: | 00:00:17 | |\n| ANGUAGE(S): | Chinese, English | |\n| PARTICIPANTS: | YW:
Yvette Wang | |\n\nABBREVIATIONS: [U/I] – Unintelligible [PH] – Phonetic Spelling [Brackets] – Transcriber Notes [UKN] – Unknown Speaker // – Voices Overlap *Italics* – Spoken in English\n\n| NAME | ENGLISH TRANSLATION | ORIGINAL LANGUAGE |\n|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | [Start of Recording] | [Start of Recording] |\n| YW | To talk to these attorneys, even if to
your own attorney, is
still very tricky.
Hahaha.
He/she insists on
hearing
some words
directly from the mouth of
a
party. In fact, he/she
already
knew it
and
he/she has
even worked
in
this
direction
already,
but he/she
still insists
on
hearing
it directly from your mouth.
Therefore, to talk to these attorneys,
even if to
your own attorneys,
is still
rather tricky. Um. | 就跟这帮律师去对话,即使自己的
律师也是很
的,哈哈哈。他/
tricky
她有些话非要从当事人嘴里直接听
到。其实他/她早就都知道,他/她甚
至已经在这个方向上去工作了,但
他/她非要从你嘴里直接听到这才
行。所以说跟这帮律师,即使自己
的律师对话也是比较
的。嗯。
tricky |\n| | [End of Recording] | [End of Recording] |\n\n# **EXHIBIT E**\n\n| CASE NAME: | United States
v
Kwok | |\n|-----------------|-------------------------------|--|\n| EXHIBIT NUMBER: | Voice_Message_1_20_22_8_41_PM | |\n| DATE: | 1/20/2022 | |\n| TIME: | 8:41
PM | |\n| DURATION: | 00:00:29 | |\n| ANGUAGE(S): | Chinese, English | |\n| PARTICIPANTS: | YW:
Yvette Wang | |\n\nABBREVIATIONS: [U/I] – Unintelligible [PH] – Phonetic Spelling [Brackets] – Transcriber Notes [UKN] – Unknown Speaker // – Voices Overlap *Italics* – Spoken in English\n\n| NAME | ENGLISH TRANSLATION | ORIGINAL LANGUAGE |\n|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | [Start of Recording] | [Start of Recording] |\n| YW | You tell him/her
whether you're willing
to…
you tell him/her…
he/she asks if
you're willing to testify, your tone should
be
that
this is your boat, right? This is
your boat. What you have heard now is,
hey, this is your boat. What is going
on?
How come now the boat belongs to my
Dad? And now my Dad is going
to jail
because of it, it's said that he's going to
jail. What is going on? You should
start
from this tone, this is your
belonging.
You start from this perspective
and tell
him/her
why you are going to testify,
isn't that Right? And then, you…
you…
you're not saying
that you could help,
but saying
that this is your property
and
you must
claim your rights, your tone
should start from the perspective of the
owner. Um. | 你告诉他/她你愿不愿意去…你告诉
他/她…他/她问你愿不愿意去
testify, 你的语气就是这就是你的
船,对吧?这就是你的船。你现在
听到的就是说,哎,这就是你的船。
这是怎么回事儿呀?这船怎么就弄
成这是我爸的了?
现在我爸还因为
这就要坐牢,据说是要坐牢。这是
怎么回事儿?你就从这个语气出
发,这就是你的东西。你从这个角
度出发你告诉他/她你为什么要
testify, 对不对?然后你…你…你不
是说是能够帮到忙,而是说这是你
的资产,你就要主张这个权利,
语气
要从这个主人的角度出发。嗯。 |\n| | [End of Recording] | [End of Recording] |\n\n# **EXHIBIT F**\n\n| CASE NAME: | United States v Kwok | |\n|-----------------|--------------------------------|--|\n| EXHIBIT NUMBER: | Voice_Message_1_20_22,_8_46_PM | |\n| DATE: | 01/20/2022 | |\n| TIME: | 8:46
PM | |\n| DURATION: | 00:01:11 | |\n| ANGUAGE(S): | Chinese, English | |\n| PARTICIPANTS: | YW:
Yvette Wang | |\n\nABBREVIATIONS: [U/I] – Unintelligible [PH] – Phonetic Spelling [Brackets] – Transcriber Notes [UKN] – Unknown Speaker // – Voices Overlap *Italics* – Spoken in English\n\n| NAME | ENGLISH TRANSLATION | ORIGINAL LANGUAGE |\n|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | [Start of Recording] | [Start of Recording] |\n| YW | Fine, fine, you can come to me at any
time, you can come to me at any time.
Overall,
even with your own lawyer,
our own lawyer
afterward, our dialogue
is just pretending that this
homework in
the background has not been done, as
the tone always means that, well, you
are one of the managers and
representatives of the entire family's
assets, eh, and then, the management
and representation of family assets in
the entire China and Europe, ah, and
Asia are different
from those in the
West.
It's equivalent to you being one
of the family representatives, the
assets you hold are your assets, they
are the assets that the family has
authorized you to hold. This is your
boat, right?
And then after that, that is,
regarding to your ship, um, that means
that you are not saying you are
insisting,but
saying if you can
show
up to
help, and saying that this is your
asset, you have to be responsible for
the family, you have to be responsible
for your own assets and go out
to
claim this right. You heard that
someone distorted and
said that
this
boat
belonged to your father, and
since your father got into trouble
because of this matter, this matter is
completely intolerable to you, this is
why you have to come forward to
testify. This is the basic keynote
and
tone behind it, yes. Regarding this
boat, it was your brother who paid for
the boat, so,
this is between you and
your brother, it was your brother who
went to pay
for the boat. Both you and
your brother are, eh, representatives | 好的,好的,你随时找我,你随时
找我。整个总体以后即使是跟你自
己的律师,咱们自己的律师,我们
的对话也是,就是假装这些背后的
功课都没有做过,就是语气始终就
是说,呃,你就是家族的整个,就
是资产的管理人和代表人之一,
呃,然后的话,整个中国和欧洲的
这个,啊,和亚洲的这个家族资产
的管理和代表这是和,这是和他们
西方是不同的。相当于就是你是家
族代表之一,你持有资产的就是你
的资产,就是家族授权你持有的这
个资产。这是你的船,对吧?然后
完了的话,就是啊,你的船的话,
嗯那就是说,
你现在不是说你是非
要,
就说是,
看出来能不能帮忙,而
是说这是你的资产,你要对家族负
责,你要对你自己的资产负责出来
去主张这个权利。你听说有人把这
个船歪曲成说是你爸爸的,并因为
你爸爸因为这事还因为,就是说,
陷入麻烦啦,这事完全不能,你不
能容忍,这是为什么你要出来作
证,这个就是背后的基调和语调,
对。这个船,当时买这个船付钱的
是你哥哥嘛,所以说这个的话是你
和你哥哥之间,你哥哥去,去那个
付钱买这个船的,你和你哥哥两个
都是家族资产的,呃,代表嘛。就
是这么一个情况。 |\n\n| NAME | ENGLISH TRANSLATION | ORIGINAL LANGUAGE |\n|------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------|\n| | of the family assets. That's the
situation. | |\n| | [End of Recording] | [End of Recording] |\n\n# **EXHIBIT G**\n\n| CASE NAME: | United States
v
Kwok |\n|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| EXHIBIT NUMBER: | Voice_Message_1_20_22,_8_48_PM |\n| DATE: | 1/20/2022 |\n| TIME: | 8:48
PM |\n| DURATION: | 00:01:01 |\n| ANGUAGE(S): | Chinese, English |\n| PARTICIPANTS: | YW:
Yvette Wang |\n| ABBREVIATIONS: | [U/I] –
Unintelligible
[PH] –
Phonetic Spelling
[Brackets] –
Transcriber Notes
[UKN] –
Unknown Speaker
// –
Voices Overlap
Italics –
Spoken in English |\n\n| NAME | ENGLISH TRANSLATION | ORIGINAL LANGUAGE |\n|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | [Start of Recording] | [Start of Recording] |\n| YW | That is why Victor wants to talk to you,
because he wants to go over the whole
years of
'18 and '17 with you. Our entire
conversations
are just about
when we
made that application, about your story,
just making
sure that this can be
matched, don't have
Qiang to have
difference. At the same time, he also
wants to remind you, that is, to
emphasize about the
period of time
being persecuted, then emphasize
to
you
about, about the safety's
this… and
then the hidden dangers of this
safety
being threatened. Yes, must emphasize
these, yes, I am fucking being
threatened and in jail so what, right,
similar to this
kind, and then there
must
be this huge potential safety hazard. In
view of this, therefore you asked
not to
appear before, and now even if
appearing, the
face cannot be shown,
those are the two points, let's emphasize
them first. Yes, the attorney
insists
that it
must be mentioned from your mouth,
that's why.
In fact, we have prepped with
them many times for
these stories
behind, and they all know how to deal
with it. It is just because due to their
so-called bullshit professional ethics, he
must hear it from the client's mouth,
that
is the reason. That is why the so-called
bullshit is
that Aaron can't
participate in
the prep
of your
deposition
either, only
your lawyer Li
can. Anyway, that's how it
works. Yes, you should rest first,
feel
free to contact me anytime tomorrow,
feel free to contact me anytime. | 这就是为啥Victor要找你对话,因为
他想跟你过一下,整个就是18,17
年,咱们整个就是说那个做那个申
请的时候,就是你关于你的故事,
就是确保这个是能对应上的,不要
有强[PH]有出入,同时以后他也想
提醒你,就是强调关于被迫害的这
一段,然后强调你关于关于安全的
这个被…被那个被安全的这个威胁
的这个隐患,对,一定要强调这些,
对,就是I am
fucking being
对
threatened and in jail so what
吧,类似于这种的,然后的话就是
肯定就是有巨大的这个安全的隐
患,鉴于如此,所以说你才会要求
就是之前不出现,然后现在的话就
是即使出现也不能露脸,就是这两
个点呢,先去给它强调住。对,律
师他一定要从你嘴里提到,就是为
啥。其实背后这些故事其实我们都
跟他们Prep好多次,他们也都知道
他们该怎么去处理。只是。迫于他
们所谓的这些狗屁的职业道德,他
一定要从当事人嘴里听到,就是这
个原因。就是为什么所谓的狗屁的
是Aron也不能参加你的deposition
的Prep,只有你的律师Li才行。总
之就是这一套吧。对,你先休息啊,
明天随时找我,随时找我。 |\n| | [End of Recording] | [End of Recording] |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分部\n\n------------------------------------------------------ x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1 ：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n：\n： （合并管理）\n\n第11章受托人关于债务人在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院未决刑事诉讼最新情况的通知\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）作为 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）的第11章受托人（“受托人”），特此通知：2024年3月31日，美国政府在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（the “SDNY Court”）审理的刑事案件[案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT]（“刑事案件”）中，就被告 Yanping Wang（王艳萍）关于《规则》第16条证据开示的书面动议提交了一封答复函（“答复”）。2 本通知附有该答复副本，作为附件A。\n\n特别是，受托人希望强调答复第11页中有关被告 Wang（以及债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）和另一名被美国政府称为“共谋者”的个人）妨碍司法行为的两个部分。受托人已在本通知所附附件A中以黄色标出该两个部分；但为明确起见，美国政府向纽约南区联邦地区法院提交的答复版本中并未作此类标示。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（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（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅供通知和通信之用）。\n\n2 在其书面动议中，被告 Wang 请求纽约南区联邦地区法院：(1) 将美国政府完成《规则》第16条证据开示的截止日期定为2024年4月10日；(2) 就向 Metropolitan Detention Center（大都会拘留中心）交付证据开示材料发布命令；以及 (3) 命令不得将受害人提供的与被告之间的通信以及受害人提供的照片指定为“仅限律师阅览”。\n\n日期：2024年4月1日 LUC A. DESPINS，第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨）（获准临时出庭） Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616） Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的代理律师\n\n美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分部\n\n------------------------------------------------------ x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1 ：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n：\n： （合并管理）\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，前述通知已于2024年4月1日以电子方式提交。根据法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统的运行，或依电子提交通知所示通过邮寄方式向无法接受电子提交的任何人士，已通过电子邮件向上述第11章案件的所有当事人发送本次提交的通知。当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n日期：2024年4月1日 签署人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨）（获准临时出庭） Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的代理律师\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（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（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 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，转 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅供通知和通信之用）。\n\n附件A\n\n答复\n\n美国司法部\n\n美国检察官 纽约南区\n\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building（雅各布·K·贾维茨联邦大楼） 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278\n\n2024年3月31日\n通过 ECF 和电子邮件\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官 美国地区法官 纽约南区 Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼） 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n事由：United States v. Kwok, et al., S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n美国政府谨就被告 Yanping Wang 关于《规则》第16条证据开示的书面动议（见 Dkt. 253）作出答复，并请求法院在2024年5月20日开始审判前制定相互的审前披露时间表。在其动议中，Wang 请求法院：(1) 将美国政府完成《规则》第16条证据开示的截止日期定为2024年4月10日；(2) 就向 Metropolitan Detention Center（“MDC”）交付证据开示材料发布命令；以及 (3) 命令不得将受害人提供的与被告之间的通信以及受害人提供的照片指定为“仅限律师阅览”（“AEO”）。\n\n本函处理 Wang 的请求及其提出的更广泛问题，具体如下：第一，法院应当命令制定全面且相互的审前披露时间表，包括《规则》第16条证据开示。第二，法院应当允许采用量身定制的 AEO 程序，以保护本案受害人证人、防止妨碍司法并维护本次刑事审判的完整性。第三，法院无需命令美国政府向 MDC 提供硬盘，因为美国政府已应被告请求如此办理。\nI. 审前披露时间表\n\n法院应在5月20日审判前制定全面且相互的审前披露时间表。具体而言，并基于下文说明的理由，法院应制定下列时间表1：\n\n1 法院已确定下列审前日期。审前排除证据动议、共同陪审团指示请求、拟议的陪审员预先询问，以及拟议的裁决表须于2024年4月9日提交。对审前排除证据动议的异议须于2024年4月16日提交。此外，法院已将压制证据听证会定于2024年4月9日，并将最终审前会议定于2024年5月14日。\n\n- 截至4月1日，双方均提供专家披露材料（不包括普通话语言专家，以便双方有机会尝试就翻译达成约定）。2\n- 截至4月10日，美国政府完成其持有的《规则》第16条证据开示材料的提供；可能识别受害人证人的材料应按下文第II节所述指定为 AEO。\n- 截至4月20日，被告提供关于任何律师建议抗辩、依赖律师抗辩或律师在场抗辩的通知，如有。\n- 截至4月22日，被告完成其持有的《规则》第16条证据开示材料的提供。\n- 截至4月30日，美国政府披露证物；可能识别受害人证人的有限一组证物应按下文第II节所述指定为 AEO。\n- 截至5月6日，美国政府提供 3500 材料及其证人名单；受害人证人的身份仍维持 AEO 指定（如下文第II节所述）。3\n- 截至5月10日，被告披露辩方证物及辩方证人名单。\n- 截至5月13日，被告提供其证人的《规则》26.2材料。\n\n载有上述日期的拟议命令附于本函，作为附件A。\n\n作为背景，美国政府一直尝试与被告就相互的审前披露时间表达成协议。根据美国政府的理解，双方至少已就某些事项达成一致。第一，就共同陪审团指示请求、陪审员预先询问和裁决表而言，双方同意美国政府应于2024年3月27日前提供其拟提交文件（美国政府已如此办理），被告应于2024年4月3日前向美国政府提供答复，以便双方可于2024年4月9日截止日期前提交联合文件。双方还同意于2024年4月1日前相互披露专家证人（普通话翻译人员除外）。但是，双方未能就其余截止日期达成一致，因此美国政府谨请法院作出命令，确定上述截止日期。尤其是，被告反对为下列事项设定截止日期：(a) 提供被告的《规则》第16条证据开示材料，尽管被告依《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16(b)条负有相互证据开示义务；该义务的截止日期不得晚于4月20日。\n\n2 在就审前披露时间表进行协商会议期间，双方同意将专家披露日期定为4月1日，并将语言翻译人员排除在该通知之外，以便双方可以尝试就语言翻译达成协议。2024年3月27日，美国政府请求对该协议作出书面确认，但被告迄今尚未提供。\n\n3 美国政府仍愿意与辩护律师讨论提前披露 § 3500 材料。见 Dkt. 243 第8页（“美国政府没有义务……在其每名证人完成直接询问作证之前提供其先前陈述。”（引文略））。\n\n《规则》第16条赋予美国政府获得相互证据开示的权利。《规则》第16(b)条的相关规定为：如果刑事被告根据《规则》第16(a)(1)条请求美国政府披露材料，则该被告还必须允许美国政府检查该被告“意图……在审判中被告方本案主张阶段使用”的任何文件或记录。Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)。\n\n在美国政府于2023年5月5日首次提供证据开示材料时，即保护令作出后的次日，美国政府已书面请求被告依《规则》第16(b)条提供相互披露材料。美国政府尚未从被告收到哪怕一个文件的相互《规则》第16条材料——尽管被告表示其拟提出持续长达两周的辩方案件，且尽管被告显然已自行向第三方发出大量传票。尽管美国政府从某些第三方得知被告已发出传票，但针对被告传票所提交材料的范围——以及更广泛而言，被告一般持有的潜在《规则》第16条材料的范围——美国政府并不知悉。被告可能持有大量材料，却一直予以扣留，尽管美国政府在过去十一个月中多次请求提供该等材料。\n\n当被告“利用取得政府证据开示的策略时，其必须遵守相互证据开示的要求。”United States v. Ryan, 448 F. Supp. 810, 810-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd, 594 F.2d 853, 811 (2d Cir.)；见 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 Advisory Committee Note—1974 Amend.（“咨询委员会多数成员认为……赋予辩方更广泛的证据开示权，取决于同时赋予控方更广泛的证据开示权。”）。\n\n本地区及其他地区的法院通常要求被告人在就任何辩方案件的范围作出决定之前提供 Rule 16(b) 材料，更遑论是否将在审判中提出某一特定证据。尽管“[a] defendant would always like more information about the government's case before revealing anything about his or her own（被告在披露其自身任何事项之前，总是希望获得有关政府案件的更多信息）”，Rule 16“将被告的披露义务以政府已作出某些特定披露为条件，而非以政府公开其整个案件或被告满意为条件。”United States v. Rajaratnam（美国诉拉贾拉特南案）, No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011)。事实上，本院此前在命令审前披露辩方 Rule 16 材料时已明确指出，尽管被告可以“delay the decision as to whether or not to testify until the end of the presentation of the Government's case（将是否作证的决定推迟至政府举证结束时），‘the trial strategy determination is not so protected（审判策略决定并不受如此保护）’。”United States v. Shea（美国诉谢伊案）, No. 20 Cr. 412 (AT), Doc. 206, at 1 (quoting United States v. Ryan（美国诉瑞安案）, 448 F. Supp. 810, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd, 594 F.2d 853, 811 (2d Cir. 1978)); 另见，例如，United States v. Ortega（美国诉奥尔特加案）, No. 22 Cr. 91 (RA), Doc. 93, at 2 (“被告如未能提供其依 Rule 16 负有披露义务的材料，将被禁止在其本案举证中使用该等证据。”); United States v. Avenatti（美国诉阿韦纳蒂案）, No. 19 Cr. 374 (JMF), Dkt. No. 213 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2022)（驳回被告异议，要求辩方依 Rule 16 在审判前约两周开始提供材料）; United States v. Maxwell（美国诉麦克斯韦案）, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Dkt. No. 297 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021)（驳回被告异议，将辩方 Rule 16 的截止日期定为审判前三周）；\n\nUnited States v. Jasper（美国诉贾斯珀案）, No. 00 Cr. 825 (PKL), 2003 WL 223212, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2003)（解释称，允许“[the] defendant（该被告）”将提供此类证据开示推迟至就是否“[to] put an expert witness on the stand（让专家证人出庭）”作出最终决定之时，“would seem to frustrate（似乎将挫败）”使政府获得公平准备机会这一目标）; 一般参见 United States v. Weiss（美国诉魏斯案）, 930 F.2d 185, 199 (2d Cir. 1991)（维持排除被告未提供的证据，并解释称，允许被告使用控方未及时见到的文件“would have given the defense an unfair advantage（将给予辩方不公平的优势）”）。5\n\n因此，鉴于既定的法律、被告通过使用其自身传票收集 Rule 16 材料，以及被告表示意图提出冗长的辩方案件，本院应命令被告在审判前约四周提供 Rule 16(b) 材料，即于 April 22 前提供。\n\n5 该互惠义务同样适用于辩方证物。根据 Rule 16(b)，本地区法院经常要求在审判前披露辩方证物，包括在被告提出异议的情况下。参见，例如，Ortega, No. 22 Cr. 91 (RA), Doc. 93 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2023)（审判前约一周）; United States v. Shah（美国诉沙阿案）, No. 19 Cr. 833 (SHS), Doc. 583, at 7-8 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2022)（驳回异议，审判前 11 天）; United States v. Melzer（美国诉梅尔泽案）, No. 20 Cr. 314 (GHW), Doc. 131 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2022)（驳回异议，审判前 11 天）; United States v. Liu（美国诉刘案）, No. 19 Cr. 804 (VEC), Doc. 177 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2022)（驳回异议，审判前 12 天）; United States v. Gillier（美国诉吉利耶案）, No. 11 Cr. 409 (PAE), Doc. 75 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2022)（审判前约三周）; United States v. Avenatti, No. 19 Cr. 374 (JMF), Doc. 213 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2022)（驳回异议，审判前约两周）; United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Doc. 297 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021)（驳回异议，审判前三周）; United States v. Shea, No. 20 Cr. 412 (AT), Doc. 206 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2022)（驳回异议，审判前 14 天）; United States v. Brennerman（美国诉布伦纳曼案）, No. 17 Cr. 337 (RJS), Doc. 24 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017)（审判前 18 天）; United States v. Percoco（美国诉珀科科案）, No. 16 Cr. 776 (VEC), Doc. 396 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2017)（驳回异议，审判前一个多月）; United States v. Grant（美国诉格兰特案）, No. 16 Cr. 468 (GHW), Doc. 283 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2018)（审判前三周）; United States v. Calk（美国诉卡尔克案）, No. 19 Cr. 366 (LGS), Doc. 180 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2021)（审判前六周）; id. Doc. 262, at 341 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29, 2021)（审判期间命令辩方至少在证人作证前一个营业日提供任何未标记、拟用于交叉询问的证物）; United States v. Madonna（美国诉麦当娜案）, No. 17 Cr. 89 (CS), Doc. 655 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2019)（审判前约一个月）; United States v. Stewart（美国诉斯图尔特案）, No. 15 Cr. 287 (LTS), Minute Entry (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2016)（审判前 18 天）; United States v. Ulbricht（美国诉乌尔布里希特案）, No. 14 Cr. 68 (KBF), Doc. 93 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2014)（审判前约一个月）。披露截止日期应适用于辩方拟在审判中提出的任何证物——包括为非弹劾目的而在交叉询问中提出的证物。“‘case-in-chief（本案举证）’一词被解释为涵盖‘他们拟在审判中用于辩护的所有非弹劾性证物，无论该等证物是通过政府证人还是被告传唤的证人提出。’”Melzer, No. 20 Cr. 314 (GHW), Doc. 150, at 13 (quoting United States v. Napout（美国诉纳普特案）, No. 15 Cr. 252 (PKC), 2017 WL 6375729, at \\*7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017))。“几乎每个审议过该问题的法院均得出了相同结论。”United States v. Crowder（美国诉克劳德案）, 325 F. Supp. 3d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2018)（汇集案例）。\n\nB. 律师意见抗辩的通知\n\n政府谨请求本院命令被告就其可能寻求在审判中提出的任何律师意见抗辩提供通知。于 December 2023，政府向辩方发函，请求被告提供该等通知。尽管双方进行了会谈协商，并试图就此问题达成妥协，但迄今被告拒绝提供任何通知，甚至拒绝提供其将于何时提供通知的日期。因此，政府请求本院命令于 April 20 前作出披露，即审判前一个月。本院的命令应要求被告提供：(a) 关于 Kwok（郭文贵）和/或 Wang（王雁平）将在审判中提出的任何律师意见抗辩，或基于律师参与的善意抗辩的范围的书面通知——包括指明所涉具体律师、该等律师提供的意见，以及被告将在审判中依赖的与前述事项有关的任何证据开示材料；以及 (b) 支持或可能弹劾或削弱任何该等抗辩的所有文件（包括律师—客户文件及律师工作成果文件）。\n\n1. 适用法律\n\n“在欺诈案件中……律师意见抗辩并非一种即使陪审团接受政府指控为真亦能免除责任的积极抗辩”，而是“如果被采信，能够使陪审员对政府是否已证明犯罪所要求的、被告具有‘unlawful intent（非法意图）’这一要件产生合理怀疑的证据。”United States v. Scully（美国诉斯卡利案）, 877 F.3d 464, 476 (2d Cir. 2017)。“不过，只有在案卷中存在足以支持该抗辩的充分事实时，被告才有权获得律师意见抗辩指示。”Scully, 877 F.3d at 476 (citing United States v. Evangelista（美国诉埃万杰利斯塔案）, 122 F.3d 112, 117 (2d Cir. 1997))。具体而言，“必须存在使理性陪审员能够认定被告‘honestly and in good faith sought the advice of counsel（诚实且善意地寻求律师意见）’、‘fully and honestly laid all the facts before his counsel（向其律师充分且诚实地陈述所有事实）’，并且‘in good faith and honestly followed counsel's advice（善意且诚实地遵循律师意见）’的证据。”Id. (quoting United States v. Colasuonno（美国诉科拉苏翁诺案）, 697 F.3d 164, 181 (2d Cir. 2012))。\n\n因此，被告如寻求采纳有关律师参与的证据，无论是作为正式的律师意见抗辩，还是为证明善意，均必须在审判前向政府提供充分的通知及披露。参见，例如，United States v. Schulte（美国诉舒尔特案）, No. 17 Cr. 548 (PAC), 2020 WL 133620, at \\*6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020)（要求预先披露律师意见）; United States v. Scali（美国诉斯卡利案）, No. 16 Cr. 466 (NSR), 2018 WL 461441, at \\*8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)（被告本应在审判前作出相关披露）; United States v. Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill（美国诉鲁宾/钱伯斯、邓希尔案）, 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 711 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)（要求在审前会议之前充分提前通知政府律师意见抗辩，以便就争议进行诉讼）。\n\n该等通知和证据开示是必要的，因为被告提出依赖律师参与的律师意见和/或善意抗辩，通常即默示放弃相关的律师—客户特权和/或工作成果特权。United States v. Bilzerian（美国诉比尔泽里安案）, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991)。因此，有必要作出审前通知，以便就可能受特权保护的领域进行证据开示，从而避免审判期间出现重大延误。被告与律师就其方案合法性进行的“conversations with counsel regarding the legality of his schemes（与律师就其方案合法性进行的谈话）”与确定其知情程度以及因此确定其意图“directly relevant（直接相关）”。Id. 因为与律师的谈话可能揭示缺乏善意或缺乏律师意见，“律师—客户特权不得同时被用作盾牌和利剑。”Id. 换言之，为评估被告是否真正出于善意行事，有必要了解其与律师的沟通：他是否充分且诚实地陈述了所有事实；律师是否向其提供了使其认为自己并非依法行事的信息；他是否善意且诚实地遵循了律师的意见？因此，一旦被告提出善意或律师意见抗辩，“any communications or evidence defendants intend to use to establish the defense are subject to disclosure（被告拟用于确立该抗辩的任何沟通或证据均须披露）”，以及“otherwise-privileged communications that defendants do not intend to use at trial, but that are relevant to proving or undermining the advice-of-counsel defense（被告无意在审判中使用、但与证明或削弱律师意见抗辩相关的其他受特权保护的沟通）”。United States v. Crowder, 325 F. Supp. 3d 131, 138 (D.D.C. 2018)。进一步增加复杂性并使及早解决成为必要的是，当律师—客户特权很可能由公司控制时，本院可能需要解决被告是否能够依赖受公司特权保护的证据。参见 United States v. Milton（美国诉米尔顿案）, 626 F. Supp. 3d 694, 702-03 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)（驳回被告提出的宪法主张，即“privileged communications become discoverable simply because a defendant wishes to use those communications in his defense（仅因被告希望在其辩护中使用特权沟通，该等沟通即变为可供证据开示）”）。\n\n2. 讨论\n\n法院应当命令被告人在审判前充分提前提供律师意见抗辩通知，以确保审判高效进行、不发生延误，避免对政府造成不公平的不利影响，允许就相关律师进行适当的审前证据开示，并使法院能够解决双方之间任何随之产生的争议。参见，例如，Schulte, 2020 WL 133620, at *6（要求在审判前19天披露有关律师意见的事项）；Scali, 2018 WL 461441, at *8（被告已通知其拟依赖该抗辩的情况下，命令在审判前两周提供通知及进行相关证据开示）；Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill, 828 F. Supp. 2d 698, 711 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)（命令在审判前三周提供通知）。在本案中，充分提前通知尤为重要，因为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）声称至少由39家不同律师事务所（其中一些有众多个人律师）或个人（包括作为翻译的郭文贵共同被告Yanping Wang（王雁平））代理过，或曾与其进行过享有特权保护的沟通；而王雁平声称至少由26家不同律师事务所（其中一些同样有多名个人律师）代理过，或曾与其进行过享有特权保护的沟通。见Ex. B（郭文贵律师名单，由其律师于April 27, 2023为在被扣押电子设备上设置特权筛查之目的提供），Ex. C（王雁平律师名单，由其前任律师于May 31, 2023为同一目的提供）。被告可能寻求依赖来自数十家不同律师事务所的数十名律师所提供的意见这一简单事实，使本案不同寻常；如未给予合理通知，本案容易出现低效和延误。事实上，双方可能就与任何法律意见相关的证据开示，以及被告在何种范围内放弃了特权等问题产生法律争议。法院解决这些问题可能需要时间。因此，任何依赖法律意见或律师在场的抗辩均须获得充分提前通知，以免审判超出目前预计的六至八周期限，从而给陪审员带来不便并浪费司法资源。据此，法院应当命令被告至迟于April 20（即审判前一个月）通知任何律师意见抗辩并提交任何随附文件，以顾及所涉律师和律师事务所数量众多的情况。\n\nII. 保护受害人证人的程序\n\n与法院一样，政府也对犯罪受害人负有职责。见18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(1), (a)(8) & (b)(1)（根据Crime Victims' Rights Act（犯罪受害人权利法），规定法院“应确保[]犯罪受害人[]被赋予”其权利，包括“受到公平对待，并尊重受害人的尊严和隐私。”）。政府最重要的职责之一，是确保向联邦主管机关寻求救济并就其受害方式提供证据和证言的受害人的安全。并且，政府与法院一样，也必须确保通过恐吓或威胁潜在证人，特别是作为犯罪受害人且已受被告侵害的证人，防止刑事被告妨害司法公正。参见United States v. Blackshear, 313 F. App'x 338, 343 (2d Cir. 2008)（简易命令）（即使“[被告]此前的事件均未涉及陪审员”，仍维持匿名陪审团的组成决定，因被告“持续试图妨害司法公正”，包括“恐吓证人”）。\n\n在本案中，鉴于被告过去的妨害行为以及如下文所述其即使在被羁押期间仍持续犯罪行为，防止其通过威胁、骚扰和恐吓潜在受害人证人以吓阻其作证的计划的义务尤为迫切。据此，并基于下文进一步详述的理由，法院应当命令采取以下程序——该等程序已纳入作为Exhibit A随附的拟议命令——以保护潜在受害人证人：\n\n— Rule 16：依照保护令，政府将继续将会识别潜在受害人的材料标记为“Attorneys' Eyes Only”。\n\n— Exhibits：政府将于April 30向被告提供其拟在审判中出示的证物，其中仅有限一组会识别受害人证人的证物被标记为AEO。任何如此标记的证物在审判中引入前四天，AEO标记将被解除。\n\n— 3500：政府将于May 6提供此类材料，其中受害人证人身份及相关3500材料将被标记为AEO。任何受害人证人作证前四天，AEO标记将被解除。6\n\nA. 被告的妨害行为\n\n1. 郭文贵\n\n本院已根据清楚且令人信服的证据认定，郭文贵“不会遵守法院命令。”Dkt. 51 at 12。该认定与其他法院的认定一致，后者同样“此前认定[郭文贵]从事妨害行为……且未能遵守法院命令。”Dkt. 51 at 8, 12。除藐视法院命令外，郭文贵还具有针对其批评者和受害人的骚扰、威胁和暴力历史，这对于考虑保护将在审判中作证的受害人至关重要。甚至在其被羁押之前，郭文贵就惯于依赖其代理人——包括其追随者及在其控制实体工作的个人——对该等批评者和受害人实施骚扰。本院此前已叙述\n\n6 尽管政府没有义务在审判前提供§ 3500材料，但如同惯例，政府将在本案中于审判前充分提前提供该等材料，以确保审判高效进行。见United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 145 (2d Cir. 2001)（“Jencks Act禁止地区法院命令在审判前披露证人陈述。”）。\n\n郭文贵从事此类妨害行为的诸多事例。见Dkt. 51 at 9。例如：\n\n— 在November 2020，一名反中共活动人士（“Activist-1”）起诉郭文贵，指称郭文贵对其发动了骚扰和威胁行动。郭文贵呼吁实施实际暴力，并鼓励数十万追随者到Activist-1住所外抗议，为任何成功“除掉”Activist-1的人提供数万美元现金及证券。于November 25, 2020，两名抗议者在Activist-1住所外的人行道上，趁Activist-1的一名朋友躺在地面时反复踢踹其头部和颈部，对其实施人身攻击。据公开报道，该朋友面部骨折、双眼肿胀至无法睁开，并失去一颗牙齿。7\n\n— 一名曾就GTV Private Placement（GTV私募配售）与郭文贵合作的特定个人（后与郭文贵断绝关系）在社交媒体上表示，郭文贵误导并诈骗其追随者。郭文贵回应称，公开给该人贴上“Demon（恶魔）”和中共间谍的标签。随后，一个由郭文贵控制的Farm（农场）起诉该人；由于郭文贵的公开威胁，该人目前因恐惧而隐匿生活。尤其是，如郭文贵十分清楚的那样，给该人贴上中共间谍的标签，已产生使郭文贵数千名追随者转而针对该人的效果，使该人遭受骚扰、诉讼和暴力威胁。\n\n— 郭文贵还威胁过寻求退款或投诉其欺诈行为的受害人。多名受害人告知政府，在就其对郭文贵所提供项目的投资向郭文贵投诉后，郭文贵给他们贴上中共间谍的标签，有时是在社交媒体或视频帖文中，从而将他们直接置于郭文贵追随者的攻击目标之下。\n\n— 政府访谈过的许多受害人仍然深深惧怕郭文贵。他们有合理理由担心，如郭文贵得知他们正在与政府沟通，他会给他们贴上中共间谍的标签，并动员其追随者大军对付他们。一名曾与政府交谈的受害人因该等恐惧而预先搬离住所。\n\n除威胁其批评者和受害人外，郭文贵还具有长期且有充分记录的以其他方式妨害司法公正的历史，正如本院已经确认的那样。见Dkt. 216 at 9（“篡改证人只是妨害行为的一种形式，政府提出的无可反驳证据表明，郭文贵还从事过许多其他妨害行为。”）；id. at 8（“[郭文贵]单凭其‘不再采取此类行动’的承诺，无法消除法院对于若获释郭文贵很可能继续其妨害模式的担忧”）。例如：\n\n— 破产法院指定一名受托人（“Trustee（受托人）”）管理郭文贵的财务事务，并取得资产以分配给郭文贵的债权人。郭文贵对受托人的行为不满，遂动员其支持者骚扰受托人。例如，\n\n7 见 http\n\n如下所述，郭文贵煽动针对破产受托人的抗议和愤怒，妨碍了破产程序。于November 23, 2022，为挫败该等骚扰，受托人申请并获准临时限制令。但这并未阻止郭文贵进一步实施妨害行为。\n\n— “于November 20, 2022，@NFSCSpeaks账户发布一则声明，识别出Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）的女儿，并称其父亲正在协助和教唆中共。该帖文还含有第11章受托人及其女儿的照片，并指明她们的工作地点。@Miles账户在其Gettr页面上转发了该@NFSCSpeaks帖文。”(In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2023). at 22 (citations omitted).)\n\n— “于November 20, 2022，抗议活动直接在第11章受托人住所前发生。抗议者举着的标语大多直接针对第11章受托人。”Id. at 23。\n\n— 在一段发布于社交媒体的视频中，一名与郭文贵实体有关联的个人在Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）外抗议时称：“[对]Paul Hastings的每一个人……数百万曾受中共迫害的人会诅咒你，会诅咒你的家人，诅咒你生命中的每一个人，因为你们手上沾有鲜血”；并称：“New Federal State of China（新中国联邦国）的人民，我们5亿人……我们反对Paul Hastings，也反对O'Melveny（欧麦律师事务所）。8 没有回头路，也没有补救办法。你们犯下了罪行，现在将承受你们行为的后果。”Id. at 24-25。\n\n— “于November 25, 2022，第11章受托人在其工作电子邮箱收到一系列来自[一个]未知ProtonMail[加密电子邮件服务]电子邮箱地址的电子邮件，其连续主题分别为‘I wish’和‘i kill’。‘I wish’电子邮件的正文为‘hhhhhhhhhahahahaha.’。‘i kill’电子邮件没有正文。”Id. at 25。\n\n— 于November 26, 2022，一名未知来电者向受托人留下语音邮件称：“你是中共的走狗。你需要下地狱。你刚刚做了一件如此荒谬的事，你的末日已经很近了。F-U-C-K。”Id. at 27。\n\n— 在发出命令郭文贵停止进一步干预破产程序的初步禁令两天后，于January 11, 2023，郭文贵在其Gettr页面上鼓励其追随者向破产案卷大量提交债权申报（无论是否有依据）。郭文贵借此试图迫使受托人产生不必要的\n\n8 O'Melveny代理一家起诉郭文贵的实体，该实体也是郭文贵的债权人。\n\n费用和开支，并妨碍破产程序。9 2023年1月23日，Kwok（郭文贵）在 Gettr 上发布了一段视频，鼓励进行更多同样的行为，并揭示这些提交材料的目的是妨碍破产法院，并为受托人造成不必要的开支。Kwok 表示：“你们所有人都去破产法院……尽可能让受托人的律师费累积到 1 trillion。……想想看，律师费是每小时 $1,860。你们都登记后，律师费会有多少？那该有多好！”\n\n简言之，Kwok 利用其追随者及其控制的实体（包括通过其追随者控制的实体）骚扰并妨碍破产程序。\n\nKwok 对他人的骚扰也延伸至本案。由 Kwok 控制的社交媒体账户，包括其 Gettr 账户，将本案两名签署本文件的美国助理检察官贴上与中共结盟的行动人员的标签。10\n\n2. Wang（王雁萍）\n\n尽管其行为可能较少且记录较不充分，Wang 仍曾实施与法院程序有关的妨碍行为。例如，政府方已从 Wang 的设备中恢复与教唆作伪证有关的聊天记录。具体而言，在发送给 Kwok 女儿的一系列 Signal（信号）语音消息中，Wang 指导 Kwok 的女儿如何向律师虚假声称 Kwok 的游艇属于她——Kwok 的女儿后来在法院程序中宣誓后重复了这一伪证性说法。见附件 D-G（从 Wang 的一台设备中恢复的 Wang 与 Kwok 女儿之间 Signal 消息的译文）。同样令人不安的是，正如与 Kwok Enterprise（Kwok 企业集团）内部人员的录音谈话所证明的那样，Wang 在本案被捕后被羁押期间，利用其先前的律师传递其请求，以取回存放在纽约市一个邮政信箱中的银行支票，该等支票包括数百万美元的 G|CLUBS 资金，即欺诈所得。除滥用律师外，该行为还反映出 Wang 和 Kwok 如何利用他人实现不当目的，并在身处 MDC（大都会拘留中心）期间继续经营其敲诈勒索企业。\n\n最后，政府方预计审判中的证据将表明，被告人在被羁押期间，且其通话由 MDC 录音期间，一直与一名共谋者举行律师会见；该共谋者是一名持证律师，但并非任何登记在案的刑事辩护律师。被告人一直利用该律师在被告人与 Kwok 企业集团之间传递消息。11\n\n9 见 http（最后访问于 March 14, 2023）：“向尊敬的同志们致意。Paul Hastings Law Firm（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）正在发起一项登记债权人的活动！如果有意志不够坚定的同志，想到自己的投资和过去的投资，没有安全感并且需要成为债务人，并且如果你认为这是更好的选择，你必须尽快联系 Paul Hastings Law Firm，在 Connecticut 破产法院登记，也许你可以成为亿万富翁。”\n\n10 见 http\n\n11 值得注意的是，该同一律师的一名助理直接向政府方发送电子邮件，并请求获得其全部证据开示材料的副本。\n\nB. 持续且有针对性的 AEO 保护措施是适当的\n\n作为确保其证人安全及可获得性，并维护本刑事审判完整性的一项措施，同时将这些利益与辩方准备辩护的权利相平衡，政府方通常将本案中由被害人提供的大量《规则》第16条证据开示材料指定为 AEO（仅供律师阅览）。本案的保密令未经任何异议即获作出，其中规定：\n\n政府方的某些披露材料，下称“仅供律师阅览材料（Attorneys' Eyes Only Material）”，包含高度保密和高度敏感的材料，涉及个人或实体的隐私、保密和/或安全利益，以致披露该等材料可能对个人或实体造成重大损害和/或引发安全顾虑，包括但不限于：与遭受骚扰的被害人有关的信息……。\n\nDkt. 63 ¶ 4。鉴于被告人的妨碍行为及其在狱中继续实施该计划，政府方的 AEO 指定是适当的。然而，鉴于被告人在数年期间内欺诈并操纵了数千名不同个人，政府方认识到被害人提供的材料并非无关紧要。因此，只要该等便利措施不会危及本程序的完整性、被害人安全，或被害人证人在不受骚扰、恐吓或威胁的情况下作证的能力，政府方愿意为辩方提供便利，并将大量此类材料指定为“高度保密”。\n\n按此标准，Wang 要求将所有“涉及被告人的通信（无论书面或录音）”以及所有被告人的照片视为“高度保密”的请求并不充分。Dkt. 253 at 3。Wang 误解了被害人提供材料的敏感性：高度敏感的并非其内容，而是其可能识别出向政府方提供材料的个人。通信和照片完全可能产生该等识别作用。准许 Wang 的一概请求，将在审判前近两个月向被告人识别出某些被害人证人，并导致针对该等被害人证人的长期骚扰、恐吓和威胁活动。这些并非无端的担忧。正如本院熟悉被告人恶劣的妨碍行为记录一样，被告人的被害人亦然。政府方交谈过的几乎每一名被害人都表达了其对被告人骚扰和报复的真实恐惧。参见 United States v. Kandic, No. 17 Cr. 449 (NGG), 2021 WL 5505832, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2021)（“合理的陪审员在评估被告使用社交媒体宣传 ISIS 的指控时，可能会担心其身份会在网上被披露，从而使其面临并非与被告直接有关联的个人所发出的威胁。”）。因此，为保护被害人并维护即将进行的审判的完整性，必须驳回 Wang 的请求。\n\n此外，由于向被告人披露可识别被害人的政府方证物和 3500 材料同样会引发这些担忧，政府方将会识别被害人证人的证物和 3500 材料指定为 AEO，直至该被害人证人作证前四日，是适当的。本区刑事案件曾采用此类程序，以保护证人并防止妨碍。见，例如，United States v. Jones, 21 Cr. 505 (ER), Dkt. 50（包括 AEO 指定的 3500 保密令，该指定适用于合作证人和普通证人，直至更接近审判的日期）；United States v. Bilal, 19 Cr. 565 (JPO), Dkt. 52（同）；United States v. Garcia, 21 Cr. 412 (JSR), Dkt. 101（某些 3500 材料在审判前一周前为 AEO）。尽管本案不涉及贩毒，但这是一宗涉及被告人竭尽全力恐吓、骚扰和威胁——并且有时对——发声反对他们的人造成身体伤害的敲诈勒索案件。而且，被告人拥有许多忠实追随者，他们曾试图在过去的程序中妨碍司法，并很可能会在本案中再次试图这样做；在本案中，他们的领导人面临被定罪及长期监禁的可能性。也就是说，被告人及其关联人在仅面临民事后果时便已妨碍司法并威胁他人。在此，被告人面临刑事后果，而这些更高的利害关系显然增加了随着审判日期临近而发生妨碍行为的可能性。\n\nIII. MDC 证据开示\n\n最后，Wang 请求本院“命令政府方将所有近期提交的材料及任何后续提交的材料亲手交付给 MDC Brooklyn（布鲁克林 MDC）的适当官员，以便及时交付给被告人。”（Dkt. 253 at 2）。无需作出此类命令。如本案记录所清楚表明，政府方一直在迁就辩方将证据开示材料交付至 MDC 的请求，并将在审判前继续如此。\n\nWang 于 March 15, 2023 被捕，并被命令羁押候审。随后提出数轮复议动议；本院于 April 21, 2023 维持 Wang 的审前羁押，认定 Wang 构成严重逃跑风险，且没有任何条件能够合理确保其出席未来的法院程序。Dkt. 56。本院还于 April 20, 2023 命令共同被告 Ho Wan Kwok 羁押候审，理由是其对社区具有危险性、存在逃跑风险及妨碍风险。Dkt. 51。在 June 9, 2023 的一次审前会议期间，本院当庭准许被告人请求在 Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center（布鲁克林大都会拘留中心）使用笔记本电脑，以便利其审阅证据开示材料及其他案件材料的动议。同日，政府方联系 Brooklyn MDC 的法律工作人员，告知其本院的命令，并确定如何安排将笔记本电脑交付给被告人。本院于 June 13, 2023 作出双方共同提出的笔记本电脑命令。Dkt. 86。\n\n约于 July 14, 2023，Wang 当时的律师向政府方寄送了一台笔记本电脑（“Wang 笔记本电脑”），以载入依保密令指定为保密的证据开示材料（即 Wang 获授权在 Brooklyn MDC 保管的材料）。July 22, 2023，Emil Bove（埃米尔·博韦）在本案中代表 Wang 提交出庭代理通知，表明其拟接任 Wang 的律师；翌日，政府方通知本院其拟提出取消 Bove 资格的动议，随后提交了取消资格动议。August 11, 2023，在该取消资格动议待决期间，Bove 就 Wang 笔记本电脑的状态联系政府方，并确认在取消资格动议得到解决之前，Bove 及其律师事务所不会查阅证据开示材料或与 Wang 讨论证据开示材料。当日稍后，政府方告知 Bove，其正在向 Wang 笔记本电脑载入证据开示材料，并将把该笔记本电脑交付至 Brooklyn MDC。\n\nAugust 20, 2023，政府方确认 Wang 笔记本电脑（其中已载入某些保密证据开示材料）已在 Brooklyn MDC 交付给 Wang。政府方告知 Bove，其需要一个 10 TB 硬盘来存储因体积过大而无法载入 Wang 笔记本电脑的额外保密材料，并于 September 7, 2023 向 Bove 提供与 MDC 兼容的硬盘规格。Bove 向政府方提供了一块硬盘，政府方将额外保密证据开示材料载入该硬盘，并于 October 2023 将其交付至 MDC。Bove 于 October 27, 2023 辞去 Wang 律师职务。Brendan Quigley（布伦丹·奎格利）作为 Wang 的现任律师，于 November 6, 2023 提交出庭代理通知。\n\n在 February 20, 2024 的一次通话中，Quigley 请求政府方向 Wang 发送政府方自约 October 2023 以来制作的保密证据开示材料。12 February 23, 2024，政府方向律师提供了 Brooklyn MDC 关于在押人员硬盘的规格。政府方于 February 27, 2024 从 Quigley 收到一块硬盘，并在随后数日内将所请求的证据开示材料载入该硬盘。March 10, 2024，政府方告知 Quigley，该硬盘将于翌日交付给位于 Brooklyn MDC 的 Wang。March 11, 2024，政府方安排将该硬盘亲手交付至 Brooklyn MDC，并收到确认交付的收据；该收据由一名 Brooklyn MDC 工作人员签署，日期为 March 11, 2024。\n\n2024年3月23日，星期六，Quigley（奎格利）向政府（抄送MDC Legal（MDC法律部门））发送电子邮件，告知该硬盘显然尚未交付给Wang（王雁平）。这是政府首次得知，于2024年3月11日交付至Brooklyn MDC（布鲁克林MDC）的硬盘尚未由王雁平收到。政府在一小时多一点后回复了奎格利，并于同日向MDC法律部门工作人员发送电子邮件，询问该硬盘的状态。2024年3月25日，MDC法律部门告知，其没有收到该硬盘的记录。政府提供了交付收据副本（如上所述，该收据显示Brooklyn MDC的一名工作人员已签字确认于2024年3月11日收到该硬盘）。2024年3月25日稍后，MDC法律部门工作人员告知政府，其无法找到该硬盘，并要求政府寄送替代硬盘。次日，即2024年3月26日，政府将证据开示材料下载至一块新的硬盘（手机提取数据除外，因其体积过大，无法复制至该硬盘），并安排于2024年3月27日将该新硬盘专人送达Brooklyn MDC。MDC法律部门工作人员确认，该新硬盘于2024年3月27日到达Brooklyn MDC（即王雁平提交其动议的前一天），并提供了一封由王雁平于2024年3月28日签署的信函，确认其收到该硬盘，并进一步确认其能够访问该新硬盘的内容。总而言之，每当辩护律师请求以下签署人协助向被告人交付证据开示材料时，政府均迅速作出回应并提供协助。\n\n因此，法院无需命令政府向MDC提供证据开示材料，因为政府已经在这样做，并将继续这样做，且王雁平的动议应予驳回。\n\n12 政府于2023年12月至2024年2月期间，向王雁平和郭文贵的律师进行了约五次证据开示材料提供。\nIV. 结论\n\n基于上述理由，法院应命令采用作为附件A附上的相互审前披露时间表；并准许使用专门制定的程序，以保护本案中的受害人证人。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯） 美国联邦检察官\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F.·弗格森）\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B.·芬克尔）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N.·默里）\n助理美国联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\n附件A\n美国联邦地区法院\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，又名“Boss”，以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，又名“Y”，\n\n被告人。\n\n[拟议]审前排期命令\n\nS2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n鉴于本案审判定于2024年5月20日开始；\n\n法院命令如下：\n\n1. 专家通知：各方应于2024年4月1日或之前交换专家通知，但翻译人员以及反驳对方先前已通知专家的专家除外。[1]\n\n2. 特定抗辩通知：如被告人拟以律师意见、依赖律师、律师在场或律师的其他参与作为对指控的抗辩（如有），应于2024年4月20日前通知政府。该通知应指明所依赖的律师、所提供的具体意见，以及被告人拟在审判中依赖以支持该抗辩的任何证据开示材料。\n\n1 各方应本着诚信就语言翻译达成协议。\n\n3. Rule 16证据开示材料：政府应于2024年4月10日前完成提供其持有的Rule 16证据开示材料。被告人应于2024年4月22日前完成提供其持有的Rule 16证据开示材料。在该等日期之后取得的Rule 16材料，应持续分批提供。\n\n4. 政府审判证物：政府应于2024年4月30日前向被告人律师提供政府合理预期将在其主案陈述中寻求引入的证物。随着政府继续为审判准备案件，包括为回应被告人拟使用证物及证人名单，该等证物将可基于诚信进行修改。\n\n5. 政府§ 3500材料及证人名单：政府应于2024年5月6日前向被告人律师提供§ 3500材料及其证人名单。在该日期之后形成的Section 3500材料，应持续分批向被告人律师提供。证人名单将可基于诚信进行修改，包括为回应被告人拟使用证物及证人名单。\n\n6. 被告人审判证物：被告人应于2024年5月10日前向政府提供被告人合理预期将在其主案陈述中寻求引入的证物。随着辩方继续为审判准备案件，该等证物将可进行有限的、基于诚信的修改。\n\n7. 辩方证人名单：被告人应于2024年5月10日前提供其合理预期将在其主案陈述中传唤的证人名单。该证人名单将可进行有限的、基于诚信的修改。\n\n8. 辩方26.2材料：被告人应于2024年5月13日前提供其证人的Rule 26.2材料。在该日期之后形成的Rule 26.2材料，应持续分批向政府提供。\n\n9. 保护受害人免受骚扰：政府可依照保护令（Dkt. 51），将会披露任何受害人身份的§ 3500材料和证物标注为“Attorney's Eyes Only”。不迟于其§ 3500材料被标注为“Attorney's Eyes Only”的受害人作证前四日，政府应将该等材料指定为“Highly Confidential”。不迟于标注为“Attorney's Eyes Only”的证物在审判中被申请准许作为证据前四日，政府应将该证物指定为“Highly Confidential”。\n\n特此命令：\n\n日期：New York, New York，2024年4月__日\n\n尊敬的ANALISA TORRES（阿纳丽萨·托雷斯）\n美国联邦地区法官\n\n附件B\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名 所代理的个人/实体\n及各项代理的期间\n\n代理。\n\nWilliam Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加） 客户：Miles Kwok\nStephen Cook（斯蒂芬·库克）\nStephen Best（斯蒂芬·贝斯特） 约：2/22-7/22，\nSunni Beville（桑尼·贝维尔） 3/23 - 至今\nTiffany Lietz（蒂芙尼·利茨）\nTristan Axelrod（特里斯坦·阿克塞尔罗德）\nKenneth Aulet（肯尼斯·奥莱特）\nAndrew Carty（安德鲁·卡蒂）\n7 Times Square Jeffrey Jonas（杰弗里·乔纳斯）\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所） New York, NY\n10036 Bennett Silverberg（本内特·西尔弗伯格） @brownrudnick.com\n\nRobert Stark（罗伯特·斯塔克）\nHonieh Udenka（霍涅·乌登卡）\nNatasha Ertzbishoff（娜塔莎·厄茨比绍夫）\nWilliam Franzese（威廉·弗朗西斯）\nAlessandra Maldonado（亚历山德拉·马尔多纳多）\nE. Patrick Gilman（E.帕特里克·吉尔曼）\nAshley Smith（阿什莉·史密斯）\nEileen Citron（艾琳·西特龙）\nLawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司） 55 Madison Avenue\nMorristown, NJ\n07960 Aaron Mitchel（亚伦·米切尔） @lmesq.com Miles Kwok，Yanping\nWang，Hing Chi Ngok，Mei\nGuo，Guo Qiang，GTV\nMedia Group. Inc.，Saraca\nMedia Group, Inc.，GSNY，\nHamilton Investment，G\nClubs\n约2018年 - 至今\nThe Casper Firm, LLC（卡斯珀律师事务所有限责任公司） 400 E.\nPratt\nStreet 客户：Miles Kwok\nSuite 903 Ari Casper（阿里·卡斯珀） @casperfirm.com 约：2019年 - 至今\nBaltimore, MD\n\n7th Floor，\nHarcus Parker\nLtd.（哈克斯·帕克有限公司） Melbourne 客户：Miles Kwok，Ace\nHouse 44-46 Damon Parker（达蒙·帕克） @harcusparker.co.uk Decade，Dawn State\nAldwych\nLondon, WC2B 4LL\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名 所代理的个人/实体\n及各项代理的期间\n代理。\n\n约2019年 - 至今\nPetrillo Klein & Boxer LLP（佩特里洛·克莱因与博克瑟律师事务所） 655 Third\nAvenue\n22nd\nFloor\nNew York, NY\n10017 Guy Petrillo（盖伊·佩特里洛）\nJoshua Klein（乔舒亚·克莱因） @pkbllp.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：2018年 - 至今\nClayman Rosenberg Kirshner &\nLinder LLP（克莱曼·罗森伯格·柯什纳与林德律师事务所） 305 Madison\nAvenue\nSuite 650\nNew York, New\nYork 10165 Isabelle Kirshner（伊莎贝尔·柯什纳） @clayro.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：2020年 - 至今\nSchulman Bhattacharya, LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司） 6116 Executive\nBoulevard\nSuite 425\nBethesda, MD 20852 Jeffrey Gavenman（杰弗里·加文曼） @schulmanbh.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：2020年 - 至今\nBaker Hostetler LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所） 45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, NY\n10111-0100 John Siegal（约翰·西格尔） @bakerlaw.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：2020年 - 至今\nGanfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer\nLLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹与扎德勒律师事务所） 360\nLexington\nAvenue New\nYork, NY\n10017 Mark Zauderer（马克·扎德勒） @ganfershore.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：2021年 - 至今\nMatthew Hoyle（马修·霍伊尔） One Essex Court\nTemple, London,\nEC4Y 9AR DX 430 Matthew Hoyle（马修·霍伊尔） mhoyle@oeclaw.co.uk 客户：Miles Kwok，Ace\nDecade，Dawn State\n约2020年 - 至今\nThe Francis Firm PLLC（弗朗西斯律师事务所） 33 W 60th\nStreet\nFloor 2\nNew York, NY\n10069 Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯） melissaf@gsnyus.com 客户：Miles Kwok，\n约：2020年 - 至今\nForbes\nHare（福布斯·黑尔） Qwomar Building\nPO Box 4649, Road\nTown Tortola\nVG1110\nBritish Virgin\nIslands Robert Nader（罗伯特·纳德） @forbeshare.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：2019年 - 至今\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名 所代理的个人/实体\n\n及各项代理的期间\n代理。\nOne Essex Court 客户：Miles Kwok，Ace\nSa'ad Hossain Q.C.（萨阿德·侯赛因御用大律师） Temple, London, Sa'ad Hossain Q.C.（萨阿德·侯赛因御用大律师） shossain@oeclaw.co.u Decade，Dawn State\nEC4Y 9AR DX 430 k 约2020年 - 至今\nRue de Law 客户：Miles Kwok，Ace\nLalive SA（拉利夫股份公司） Mairie 35 Sandrine Giroud（桑德琳·吉鲁） @lalive.law.com Decade，Dawn State\n1207 Geneva\nSwitzerland 约2020年 - 至今\nOne Essex Court 客户：Miles Kwok，Ace\nSebastian Isaac（塞巴斯蒂安·艾萨克） Temple, London, Sebastian Isaac（塞巴斯蒂安·艾萨克） sisaac@oeclaw.co.uk Decade，Dawn State\nEC4Y 9AR. DX 430 约2020年 - 至今\n601 Brickell 客户：Miles Kwok，\nVX Cerda & Associates（VX塞尔达律师事务所） Key Drive @vcerdalaw.com Yanping Wang，Hing Chi\nNgok，Mei Guo，Guo Qiang\nSuite 700 Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）\nMiami, FL 33131 约：2018年 - 至今\n223 West Jackson\nBoulevard 客户：Miles Kwok及\nLaw Offices of Yongbing Zhang（张永兵律师事务所） Suite 1012 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵） @ybzlaw.com Yanping Wang\nChicago, IL 60606 3/23 - 至今\nStephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思） 客户：Miles Kwok，HKI，\nMei Guo\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司） 10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT\n06604 Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼） @zeislaw.com\nEric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐） 约：2021年 - 至今\nJames Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）\n3000 Two Logan\nSquare 客户：Bravo Luck\nEighteenth and Arch 约：2019年 - 至今\nTroutman Pepper（特劳特曼·佩珀律师事务所） Streets Francis Lawall（弗朗西斯·劳沃尔） @troutman.com\nPhiladelphia, PA\n\n105 Eisenhower Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦） 客户：HKI，Mei Guo\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi（基耶萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所） Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068 Melissa Wernick（梅丽莎·韦尼克） @csglaw.com 约：2020年 - 至今\n45 West 29th Street 客户：Yanping Wang\nLipman Law PLLC（利普曼律师事务所） Suite 303\nNew York, NY Alex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼） @lipmanllc.com 约：2020年 - 至今\n\n147 West 25th Street， 客户：Yanping Wang\nChaudhry Law PLLC（乔杜里律师事务所） 12th Fl\nNew York, NY Priya Chaudhry（普里娅·乔杜里） @chaudhrylaw.com 约：3/23 - 至今\n\n485 Lexington\nAvenue 客户：Lamp Capital\nPhillips Nizer LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽律师事务所） New York, NY Matthew Levine（马修·莱文） @phillipsnizer.com 约：2021年 - 至今\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名 所代理的个人/实体\n及各项代理的期间\n\n代理。\n\nWachen LLC（瓦琴有限责任公司） 11605 Montague\nCourt\nPotomac, MD 20854 David Wachen（大卫·瓦琴） @wachenlaw.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：11/22 - 至今\nLaw Offices of Jeffrey Hellman,\nLLC（杰弗里·赫尔曼律师事务所有限责任公司） 195 Church Street，\n10th Fl.\nNew Haven, CT\n06510 Jeffrey Hellman（杰弗里·赫尔曼） @jeffhellmanlaw.co\nm 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：11/22 - 至今\nArethusa Forsyth（阿瑞苏莎·福赛思） arethusaf@protonmail.\ncom 客户：GSNY\n约：2022年\nHodgsonRuss LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所） 605 Third Avenue\nSuite 2300\nNew York City, NY\n10158 Mark A. Harmon（马克·A.·哈蒙）\nJillian Searles（吉莉安·西尔斯） @hodgsonruss.com 客户：Miles Kwok 约：2018年 - 至今\nBoies Schiller Flexner（博伊斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳律师事务所） 55 Hudson Yards\n20th Floor\nNew York, NY\n10001 David Boies（大卫·博伊斯）\nJosh Schiller（乔什·席勒） @bsfllp.com 客户：Miles Kwok，Ace\nDecade，Dawn State\n约：2015年 - 2018年\nWilliams & Connolly LLP（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所） 680 Maine Avenue\nSW\nWashington, DC\n20024 @wc.com 客户；Miles Kwok，\nGuo Qiang，\n约2015年 - 2017年\nPaul Weiss（保罗·魏斯） 1285 Avenue of the\nAmericas\nNew York, NY\n10019-6064 @paulweiss.com 客户；Miles Kwok，\nGuo Qiang\n约2015年 - 2017年\nClark Hill（克拉克·希尔） 830 Third Avenue\nSuite 200\nNew York, NY\n10022 @clarkhill.com 客户：Miles Kwok\n约2017年\nMontbrial advocates（蒙布里亚尔律师事务所） Thibault de\nMontbrial（蒂博·德·蒙布里亚尔） 未知 客户：Miles Kwok\n约：2019年 - 至今\nDaniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基） Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基） danielp@gsnyus.co\nm 客户：Miles Kwok，\nGSNY\n约：2019年 - 2021年\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名 所代理的个人/实体\n及各项代理的期间\n\nPaul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY\n10166 Brad Bondi（布拉德·邦迪） @paulhastings.com 代理事项。\n客户：GTV Media\nGroup, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）、Miles Kwok（郭文贵）\n约：2020 - 2021\n\nSpears & Imes LLP（斯皮尔斯与艾姆斯律师事务所） 767 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY\n10017 David Spears（大卫·斯皮尔斯） @spearsimes.com 客户：GTV Media\nGroup, Inc.\n约：2020\n\nMorvillo Abramowitz Grand\nIason & Anello, P.C.（莫维洛·阿布拉莫维茨·格兰德·伊森与阿内洛律师事务所） 565 Fifth Avenue\nNew York, NY\n10017 Jeremy Temkin（杰里米·滕金） jtemkin@maglaw.co\nm 客户：Saraca Media\nGroup Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）、GTV Media\nGroup, Inc.\n约：2020 - 2022\n\nUna Wilkinson（尤娜·威尔金森） 68-18 Juno Street\nForest Hills, New\nYork 11375 口译员 unamanyee@gmail.c\nom 笔译员：Miles Kwok、\nMei Guo（郭美）\n约：2019 - 至今\n\nYanping Wang（王雁平） 口译员 Officework2020@pr\notonmail.com 笔译员：Miles Kwok、\nMei Guo、Hing Chi Ngok（吴庆智）\n约：2015 – 至今\n（美国）\n\nHei Lok (Gladys) Chow（周希乐〔格拉迪斯〕） 口译员 gladyschowus@gma\nil.com 笔译员：Miles Kwok、\nHing Chi Ngok\n约：2019 - 至今\n\n65009234 v1-WorkSiteUS-039463/0001\n\n附件 C\n\n可能与王女士有过特权通信的律师名单\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名\n\nWilliam\nR.\nBaldiga（威廉·R·巴尔迪加）\n508-922-8272\n\nStephen R. Cook（斯蒂芬·R·库克）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette Wang（伊薇特·王）通信）\n\nStephen A. Best（斯蒂芬·A·贝斯特）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nSunni P. Beville（桑尼·P·贝维尔）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nTiffany B. Lietz（蒂芙尼·B·利茨）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nTristan Axelrod（特里斯坦·阿克塞尔罗德）\n（未\n通过手机与\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036 Yvette通信）\n\nKenneth Aulet（肯尼斯·奥莱特） @brownrudnick.com\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nAndrew M. Carty（安德鲁·M·卡蒂）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nJeffrey L. Jonas（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯）\n617-593-5033\n\nBennett S. Silverberg（贝内特·S·西尔弗伯格）\n917-538-2798\n\nRobert J. Stark（罗伯特·J·斯塔克）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nHonieh Udenka（霍涅·乌登卡）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nUnited States（美国） v. Yanping Wang（王雁平）, 23-CR-118 (AT)\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名\n\nNatasha M. Ertzbischoff（娜塔莎·M·厄茨比绍夫）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nWilliam Franzese\nIII（威廉·弗朗泽斯三世）\n（未\n通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nAlessandra Maldonado（亚历山德拉·马尔多纳多）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nE. Patrick Gilman（E·帕特里克·吉尔曼）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nAshley E. Smith（阿什莉·E·史密斯）\n（未\n通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nEileen Hren Citron（艾琳·赫伦·西特龙）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nPriya Chaudhry（普里娅·乔杜里）\n917-952-8266\n\nSeth Zuckerman（塞思·祖克曼）\nChaudhry Law PLLC（乔杜里律师事务所） 147 West 25th Street, 12th Fl 516-286-9018 @chaudhrylaw.com\nNew York, NY 10001\n\nRobert Glenn（罗伯特·格伦）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nDamon Parker（达蒙·帕克）\n+44 (0)7919 605191\n\n7th\nFloor,\nMelbourne\nHarcus\nParker\nLtd.（哈卡斯·帕克有限公司） House 44-46 Aldwych Jenny\nMorrissey（珍妮·莫里西）\n+44 (0)7919 138666 @harcusparker.co.uk\nLondon,\nWC2B\n4LL\n\nEdward Argles（爱德华·阿格尔斯）\n+44 (0)7577 063492\n\nSandrine\nGiroud（桑德琳·吉鲁）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nRue\nde\nLaw\nMairie\nLALIVE SA（拉利夫律师事务所） 35 1207 Geneva Matthias Scherer（马蒂亚斯·谢勒） @lalive.law\nSwitzerland （未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nDominik Elmiger（多米尼克·埃尔米格）\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名\n\n（未通过手机与\nLaw Offices of Yongbing\nZhang（张永兵律师事务所） 223 West Jackson\nBoulevard\nSuite 1012\nChicago, IL 60606 Yvette通信）\n\nYongbing Zhang（张永兵）\n312-493-7158\n708-553-9734\n312-860-0268 @ybzlaw.com\n\nLawall\n&\nMitchell,\nLLC（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所） 55\nMadison\nAvenue\nMorristown,\nNJ\n07960 Aaron\nA. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）\n914-760-8963\n917-689-8505 @lmesq.com\n\nLipman Law PLLC（利普曼律师事务所） West 25th Street, 12th Fl\n\nNew York, NY 10001 Alex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）\n917-757-9850 @lipmanpllc.com\n\nOne Essex Court（埃塞克斯一号律师事务所） One\nEssex\nCourt\nTemple,\nLondon,\nEC4Y\n9AR DX 430 Sa'ad\nHossain\nQ.C.（萨阿德·侯赛因御用大律师）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nMatthew Hoyle（马修·霍伊尔）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信）\n\nSebastian Isaac（塞巴斯蒂安·艾萨克）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信） @oeclaw.co.uk\n\nPetrillo\nKlein\n&\nBoxer\nLLP（佩特里洛、克莱因与博克瑟律师事务所） 655\nThird\nAvenue 22nd\nFloor\nNew\nYork,\nNY\n10017 Guy\nPetrillo（盖伊·佩特里洛）\n646-385-1479\n\nJoshua Klein（乔舒亚·克莱因）\n646-596-4589 @pkbllp.com\n\nPhillips Nizer LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽律师事务所） 485 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017 Matthew L. Levine（马修·L·莱文）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信） @phillipsnizer.com\n\n@ekljlaw.com\n\nSchulman\nBhattacharya,\nLLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚律师事务所） 6116\nExecutive\nBoulevard\nSuite\n\nBethesda,\nMD\n20852 Jeffrey\nS.\nGavenman（杰弗里·S·加文曼）\n703-314-8799 @schulmanbh.com\n\nThe\nFrancis\nFirm\nPLLC（弗朗西斯律师事务所） 60th Street\n\nW\nFloor 2\nNew\nYork,\nNY\n10069 Melissa\nFrancis（梅利莎·弗朗西斯）\n917-207-1285\n917-244-8807\n917-209-9230\n917-239-8333\n646-799-4832\n301-785-9100 @gsnyus.com\n\nThe Warren Law Group（沃伦律师集团） 519 8th Avenue, 25th Floor,\nNew York, NY 10018 Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波达斯基）\n917-941-9698 @warren.law\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名\n\nVX\nCerda\n&\nAssociates（VX·塞尔达律师事务所） 601\nBrickell\nKey\nDrive Suite 700\nMiami,\nFL\n33131 Victor\nCerda（维克托·塞尔达）\n202-747-4950 @vcerdalaw.com\n@fronteralawfirm.com\n\nWedlake Bell LLP（韦德莱克·贝尔律师事务所） 71 Queen Victoria Street\nLondon\nEC4V 4AY James Latham（詹姆斯·莱瑟姆）\n+44 (0)7884 311084\n\nKate Herbert（凯特·赫伯特）\n\nGemma Williams（杰玛·威廉姆斯）\n+44 (0)2073 953052 @wedlakebell.com\n\nWilberforce Chambers（威尔伯福斯律师公所） 8 New Square, Lincoln's\nInn, London, WC2A 3QP Daniel Lewis（丹尼尔·刘易斯）\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信） @wilberforce.co.uk\n\nYankwitt, LLP（扬克维特律师事务所） 140 Grand Street, Suite 705\nWhite Plains, NY 10601 Daniel S. Alter（丹尼尔·S·奥尔特）\n(212) 580-6355 @yankwittlaw.com\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所） 10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT 06604 全体律师\n（未通过手机与\nYvette通信） @zeislaw.com\n\nGold Leaf Consulting Ltd.（金叶咨询有限公司） P.O. Box 3140\nRoad Town, Tortola\nBritish Virgin Islands Julia Shamini Chase（朱莉娅·沙米尼·蔡斯）\n758-725-5055\n284-346-5056\n332-260-9742\n\nGizelle Macaraeg（吉泽尔·马卡拉埃格）\n（未通过\n手机与\nYvette\n通信）\n\nNailah Frett（奈拉·弗雷特）\n（未通过\n手机与\nYvette\n通信）\n\nCherise Archibald（谢丽斯·阿奇博尔德）\n284-541-8644\n\nNadia Harrigan（纳迪娅·哈里根）\n284-541-9894 @goldleafbvi.com\n@tetonoffices.com\n@tetonbvi.com\n\nSlaughter Law Group（斯劳特律师集团） 4881 Topanga Canyon\nBlvd., Suite 238\nWoodland Hills, CA 91364 Lesa Slaughter（莱萨·斯劳特）\n347-291-7534\n（普通短信和电话）\n718-909-3816\n（普通短信、电话和\nWhatsApp）\n646-352-3725\n（普通短信和电话） @slaughterlawgroup.com\n\nWildes & Weinberg, P.C.（怀尔兹与温伯格律师事务所） 515 Madison Avenue, 6th\nFloor\nNew York, NY 10022 Michael Wildes（迈克尔·怀尔兹）\n347-203-6355\n\nTudor Neagu（都铎·内亚古） @wildeslaw.com\n\nHodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所） 605 3rd Avenue\nNew York, NY 10158 Valerie E. Stevens（瓦莱丽·E·史蒂文斯）\n716-408-7692 @hodgsonruss.com\n\n律师事务所 地址 律师 域名\n\nCollas Crill（科拉斯·克里尔律师事务所） 125 Main Street\nP.O. Box 144\nRoad Town, Tortola\nBritish Virgin Islands David Harby（大卫·哈比）\nT: +1 284 852 6327\nM: +1 284 541 7011\n\nDave Marshall（戴夫·马歇尔）\nT: +1 284 852 6317\nM: +1 284 541 2456\n\nFay O'Halloran（费伊·奥哈洛伦）\nT: +1 284 852 6302\nM: +1 284 542 8373\n\nAnneka Williams（安妮卡·威廉姆斯）\n（无移动通信）\n\nMargaret Sweeney（玛格丽特·斯威尼）（无\n移动通信） @collascrill.com\n\nSwiss Independent\nPractitioners\nFP Legal（瑞士独立执业律师FP Legal） Ignacio Guaia（伊格纳西奥·瓜亚）\n+41 79 437 1516\n+41 79 853 6575\n\nBrandon Sean（布兰登·肖恩）\n+41 79 234 4939\n\nAlexander Fitzner（亚历山大·菲茨纳）\n+41 77 458 2478 @teton.ch\n@gmx.ch\n@teton.ch\n@fplegal.services\n\nSavio Law（萨维奥律师事务所） 3 Dale Court\nHazlet, NJ 07730 Nick Savio（尼克·萨维奥）\n732-673-9011 @saviolaw.com\n\n附件 D\n\n案件名称： United States（美国）\nv\nKwok（郭文贵）\n\n附件编号： Voice_Message_1_20_22_8_41_PM_1\n\n日期： 1/20/2022\n\n时间： 8:41\nPM\n\n时长： 00:00:17\n\n语言： 中文、英文\n\n参与者： YW：\nYvette Wang\n\n缩略语： [U/I] – 无法辨识 [PH] – 按发音拼写 [方括号] – 听录员注释 [UKN] – 身份不明的发言人 // – 声音重叠 斜体 – 以英语说出\n\n姓名 英文译文 原语言\n\n[录音开始] [录音开始]\n\nYW 与这些律师交谈，即使是与你自己的律师交谈，也仍然非常棘手。哈哈哈。他／她坚持要直接从当事人口中听到某些话。事实上，他／她早已知道，而且甚至已经朝这个方向开展工作，但他／她仍坚持要直接从你口中听到。因此，与这些律师交谈，即使是与你自己的律师交谈，也仍然相当棘手。嗯。 就跟这帮律师去对话，即使自己的\n律师也是很\ntricky 的，哈哈哈。他／\n她有些话非要从当事人嘴里直接听\n到。其实他／她早就都知道，他／她甚\n至已经在这个方向上去工作了，但\n他／她非要从你嘴里直接听到这才\n行。所以说跟这帮律师，即使自己\n的律师对话也是比较\ntricky 的。嗯。\n\n[录音结束] [录音结束]\n\n附件 E\n\n案件名称： United States\nv\nKwok\n\n附件编号： Voice_Message_1_20_22_8_41_PM\n\n日期： 1/20/2022\n\n时间： 8:41\nPM\n\n时长： 00:00:29\n\n语言： 中文、英文\n\n参与者： YW：\nYvette Wang\n\n缩略语： [U/I] – 无法辨识 [PH] – 按发音拼写 [方括号] – 听录员注释 [UKN] – 身份不明的发言人 // – 声音重叠 斜体 – 以英语说出\n\n姓名 英文译文 原语言\n\n[录音开始] [录音开始]\n\nYW 你告诉他／她你是否愿意去……你告诉他／她……他／她问你是否愿意作证时，你的语气应当是：这是你的船，对吧？这是你的船。你现在听到的是，嘿，这是你的船。这是怎么回事？这艘船怎么现在成了我爸爸的？现在又说我爸爸要因此坐牢。这是怎么回事？你应当从这种语气开始，这属于你。你从这个角度出发，告诉他／她你为什么要作证，不是吗？然后，你……你……你不是说你能够帮忙，而是说这是你的财产，你必须主张你的权利；你的语气应当从所有人的角度出发。嗯。 你告诉他／她你愿不愿意去……你告诉\n他／她……他／她问你愿不愿意去\ntestify，你的语气就是这就是你的\n船，对吧？这就是你的船。你现在\n听到的就是说，哎，这就是你的船。\n这是怎么回事儿呀？这船怎么就弄\n成这是我爸的了？\n现在我爸还因为\n这就要坐牢，据说是要坐牢。这是\n怎么回事儿？你就从这个语气出\n发，这就是你的东西。你从这个角\n度出发你告诉他／她你为什么要\ntestify，对不对？然后你……你……你不\n是说是能够帮到忙，而是说这是你\n的资产，你就要主张这个权利，语气\n要从这个主人的角度出发。嗯。\n\n[录音结束] [录音结束]\n\n附件 F\n\n案件名称： United States v Kwok\n\n附件编号： Voice_Message_1_20_22,_8_46_PM\n\n日期： 01/20/2022\n\n时间： 8:46\nPM\n\n时长： 00:01:11\n\n语言： 中文、英文\n\n参与者： YW：\nYvette Wang\n\n缩略语： [U/I] – 无法辨识 [PH] – 按发音拼写 [方括号] – 听录员注释 [UKN] – 身份不明的发言人 // – 声音重叠 斜体 – 以英语说出\n\n姓名 英文译文 原语言\n\n[录音开始] [录音开始]\n\nYW 好的，好的，你随时可以来找我，你随时可以来找我。总体而言，即使以后与自己的律师、与我们自己的律师交谈，我们的对话也只是装作这些幕后功课并没有做过；语气始终是，嗯，你是整个家族资产的管理人和代表人之一，然后，中国、欧洲和亚洲的家族资产管理和代表方式不同于西方。相当于你是家族代表人之一；你持有的资产就是你的资产，即家族授权你持有的资产。这是你的船，对吧？\n\n然后，关于你的船，嗯，这意味着你不是说你在坚持什么，而是说如果你能出面帮忙，并说这是你的资产，你必须对家族负责，你必须对自己的资产负责，并出去主张这项权利。你听说有人歪曲地说这艘船属于你父亲，而你父亲又因为这件事陷入麻烦，这件事对你而言完全无法容忍；这就是你必须出面作证的原因。这是其背后的基本基调和语气，是的。关于这艘船，当时是你哥哥为船付款，因此，这是你和你哥哥之间的事；是你哥哥去为船付款。你和你哥哥都是家族资产的代表人。这就是情况。 好的，好的，你随时找我，你随时\n找我。整个总体以后即使是跟你自\n己的律师，咱们自己的律师，我们\n的对话也是，就是假装这些背后的\n功课都没有做过，就是语气始终就\n是说，呃，你就是家族的整个，就\n是资产的管理人和代表人之一，\n呃，然后的话，整个中国和欧洲的\n这个，啊，和亚洲的这个家族资产\n的管理和代表这是和，这是和他们\n西方是不同的。相当于就是你是家\n族代表之一，你持有资产的就是你\n的资产，就是家族授权你持有的这\n个资产。这是你的船，对吧？然后\n完了的话，就是啊，你的船的话，\n嗯那就是说，你现在不是说你是非\n要，就说是，看出来能不能帮忙，而\n是说这是你的资产，你要对家族负\n责，你要对你自己的资产负责出来\n去主张这个权利。你听说有人把这\n个船歪曲成说是你爸爸的，并因为\n你爸爸因为这事还因为，就是说，\n陷入麻烦啦，这事完全不能，你不\n能容忍，这是为什么你要出来作\n证，这个就是背后的基调和语调，\n对。这个船，当时买这个船付钱的\n是你哥哥嘛，所以说这个的话是你\n和你哥哥之间，你哥哥去，去那个\n付钱买这个船的，你和你哥哥两个\n都是家族资产的，呃，代表嘛。就\n是这么一个情况。\n\n姓名 英文译文 原语言\n\n[录音结束] [录音结束]\n\n附件 G\n\n案件名称： United States\nv\nKwok\n\n附件编号： Voice_Message_1_20_22,_8_48_PM\n\n日期： 1/20/2022\n\n时间： 8:48\nPM\n\n时长： 00:01:01\n\n语言： 中文、英文\n\n参与者： YW：\nYvette Wang\n\n缩略语： [U/I] –\n无法辨识\n[PH] –\n按发音拼写\n[方括号] –\n听录员注释\n[UKN] –\n身份不明的发言人\n// –\n声音重叠\n斜体 –\n以英语说出\n\n姓名 英文译文 原语言\n\n【录音开始】 【录音开始】\n\nYW 这就是为什么 Victor（维克托）想和你谈谈，因为他想和你一起梳理整个 '18 和 '17 年。我们全部的谈话都只是关于我们何时提出那项申请，关于你的经历，只是为了确保这些能够相互对应，不要与 Qiang（强，音译）有出入。同时，他还想提醒你，也就是说，强调你受到迫害的那段时间，然后向你强调，强调这种安全受到威胁的……以及其中存在的隐患。是的，必须强调这些，是的，我他妈的正受到威胁并且在监狱里，那又怎样，对吧，类似于这种，然后必须有这种巨大的潜在安全隐患。鉴于此，因此你此前要求不出面，而现在即使出面，也不能露脸，这就是两点，我们先强调这两点。是的，律师坚持必须由你亲口提到，这就是原因。事实上，对于背后的这些经历，我们已经与他们预先准备过很多次，他们都知道该如何处理。只是因为他们所谓狗屁的职业道德，他必须亲自从当事人口中听到，这就是原因。这就是为什么所谓狗屁的是，Aaron（阿伦）也不能参与准备你的证言录取，只有你的律师 Li（李）可以。无论如何，事情就是这样。是的，你应该先休息，明天随时联系我，随时联系我。\n\n【录音结束】 【录音结束】","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Paul Hastings","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","CCP","GETTR","CIPA","GTV","Despins","Miles Guo","Torres","Crime Victim","Gavenman","Analisa Torres","Saraca","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","Jencks"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":24,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":51,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":52,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":56,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":63,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":75,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":86,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":93,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":101,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":150,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":177,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":180,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":206,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":213,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":216,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":243,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":253,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":255,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":262,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":283,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":297,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":396,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":583,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":655,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":11975,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-04-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-04-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:00:44"}