{"id":"court_ctb_3767_7","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3767,"sub_number":7,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-11-01","title":"EXHIBIT 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"证据附件（法院裁定）—— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #3767-7（2024-11-01立案）。该附件为纽约南区联邦地区法院法官 Analisa Torres 于 2024 年 7 月 1 日在刑事案（23 Cr. 118）中作出的裁定，认定检方已满足 Geaney 举证标准，准许依据《联邦证据规则》第 801(d)(2)(E) 条将共谋者的陈述作为实质证据采纳。","summary_en":"Exhibit (Court Order) — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #3767-7 (filed 2024-11-01). This exhibit contains the July 1, 2024 order by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in SDNY criminal case 23 Cr. 118, granting the government's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) to admit designated co-conspirator statements against Miles Guo after finding the government satisfied the Geaney evidentiary standard during trial.","body_en":"# **EXHIBIT 7**\n\n# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-against-\n\nMILES GUO,\n\nDefendant.\n\n# USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ DATE FILED: 07/01/2024\n\n## 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n## **ORDER**\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nThe Government moves to admit certain statements of alleged coconspirators of Defendant, Miles Guo, for their truth pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Gov Mem., ECF No. 382; *see* Ex. A, ECF No. 382-1 (list of statements); Guo Opp., ECF No. 383; Gov. Reply, ECF No. 384. As the Court explained in its ruling on the Government's first motion *in limine*, the Court may admit coconspirator statements during trial \"'on a conditional basis, subject to the later submission of the necessary evidence' to establish that the coconspirator exception is applicable.\" ECF No. 319 at 4 (quoting *United States v. Tracy*, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993)). Specifically, the Government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that \"a conspiracy existed, that the [D]efendant and [the] declarant[s] were members, and that the statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy\" (the \"*Geaney* prerequisites\"). *Tracy*, 12 F.3d at 1199 (citing *United States v. Geaney*, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)). This order addresses whether the Government has made the requisite showing.<sup>1</sup> Because the Court finds that it has, the coconspirator statements identified in Exhibit A are admitted.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Although the Circuit has \"never required a district court to make particularized rulings or conduct separable analyses with respect to each coconspirator, much less each coconspirator statement,\" the Court does so here in an abundance of caution. *United States v. Coplan*, 703 F.3d 46, 83 (2d Cir. 2012).\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\nThe Government alleges that, from 2018 to March 2023, Guo operated a scheme to defraud thousands of investors of more than \\$1 billion, laundering the proceeds through foreign and domestic entities, and misappropriating the funds for his own use. S3 ¶ 1, ECF No. 307. The indictment states that Guo and his coconspirators \"took advantage of [his] prolific online presence and hundreds of thousands of online followers to solicit investments in various entities and programs by promising outsized financial returns and other benefits.\" *Id.* ¶ 2. In fact, it alleges, these entities were \"instrumentalities that Guo [] created and used to perpetuate [his] fraud, . . . exploit [his] followers,\" and \"strengthen the G Enterprise\"—the collection of \"interrelated and overlapping entities\" that Guo used to carry out his schemes. *Id.* ¶¶ 2, 3(a).\n\nAs relevant here, Count One of the indictment charges Guo with Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (\"RICO\") Act conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d), predicated on acts indictable under several federal statutes.<sup>2</sup> *Id*. ¶¶ 1–26. Count Two charges Guo with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. *Id.* ¶¶ 27–30. Count Three alleges that Guo conspired to launder the proceeds of the GTV Private Placement, Farm Loan Program, G|CLUBS, and Himalaya Exchange schemes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). *Id*. ¶¶ 31–35. And, Count Four charges him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and to provide false statements to a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. *Id*. ¶¶ 36–40.\n\nOver the past five weeks of testimony, the Government has put forth substantial evidence of these conspiracies. For example, the Government has offered testimony from multiple victims\n\n<sup>2</sup> Namely, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (financial institution fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (laundering of monetary instruments); 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity); and 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5 (securities fraud). S3 ¶ 24.\n\nwho, at Guo's urging, invested in GTV, bought G|CLUBS memberships, invested in the Farm Loans, and bought Himalaya Exchange tokens. *See, e.g.*, Tr. at 1318:4–1538:8 (testimony of Ya Li); *id.* at 2373:22–2431:8, 2502:1–2506:4 (testimony of Minran Wu); *id.* at 4463:10–4509:23 (testimony of Wei Chen). The Government has traced the use of these victim funds to show that they were used to purchase a Ferrari, a Bugatti, and the Crocker-Darlington Mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey, among other things, and to invest in a high-risk hedge fund. *E.g.*, *id.* at 938:1– 954:17 (testimony of Kimberly Espinoza); *id.* at 3436:12–3459:9 (testimony of Jocelyn Reyes); *id.* at 1789:3–1814:9 (testimony of Lonny Souza); *id.* at 3873:19–3934:17 (testimony of Amy Buck). The Government has also demonstrated that members of the conspiracies took steps to hide Guo's involvement in and control over the bank accounts that held the funds. *Id.* at 1989:15–1999:7, 2070:2–25, 2071:3–9 (testimony of Haitham Khaled); *see id.* at 1317:2–10, 1338:13–16, 1409:15–1410:5, 1513:1–19 (testimony of Ya Li regarding Guo's control over the funds).\n\n### **LEGAL STANDARD**\n\n**\"**Federal Rule of Evidence 801 provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is both offered against a party and is 'made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.'\" *United States v. Coplan*, 703 F.3d 46, 82 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)). To admit hearsay testimony under the Rule, the Court must find \"(a) that there was a conspiracy, (b) that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and (c) that the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.\" *United States v. Alameh*, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). \"These are preliminary facts for the district court to determine under a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard.\" *Id.* (citing *Bourjaily v. United States*, 483 U.S. 171, 175–76 (1987)). The\n\ntrial court \"must view the evidence as a whole, rather than consider the individual pieces in isolation,\" *United States v. Cicale*, 691 F.2d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 1982) (citing *Geaney*, 417 F.2d at 1121), and must consider \"the contents of the alleged coconspirator's statement itself.\" *United States v. Swinton*, No. 23-6118, 2024 WL 1564487, at \\*2 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2024) (cleaned up). \"There must, however, also 'be some independent corroborating evidence of the defendant's participation in the conspiracy.'\" *Id.* (quoting *United States v. Gigante*, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 1999)).\n\nThe first and second requirements—the existence of a conspiracy involving the declarant and the defendant—are met where \"the evidence is sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged coconspirators entered into a joint enterprise with consciousness of its general nature and extent.\" *United States v. James*, 712 F.3d 79, 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The Circuit has noted that \"once a conspiracy has been proved to exist, the evidence needed to link [a] defendant with it (for purposes of a *Geaney* finding) need not be overwhelming.\" *Cicale*, 691 F.2d at 103 (cleaned up). Rather, \"all that is required to meet the *Geaney* threshold is 'a showing of a likelihood of an illicit association between the declarant and the defendant.'\" *Id.* (quoting *United States v. Alvarez-Porras*, 643 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1981)). There is no requirement that the person to whom the statement is made also be a member of the conspiracy. *James*, 712 F.3d at 106. Nor is there a requirement that the coconspirator declarant be identified by name. *United States v. Boothe*, 994 F.2d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1993).\n\nThird, a statement is \"in furtherance of\" a conspiracy if it is \"designed to promote or facilitate achievement of the goals of that conspiracy.\" *United States v. Rivera*, 22 F.3d 430, 436 (2d Cir. 1994). The furtherance can be overt: for example, if the statement \"prompt[s] the listener to respond in a way that facilitates the carrying out of criminal activity.\" *United States v.*\n\n4\n\n*Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.*, 871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Or it may be subtler: for example, a statement can further a conspiracy by \"providing information or reassurance to a coconspirator, seeking assistance from a coconspirator, or by communicating with a person who is not a member of the conspiracy in a way that is designed to help the coconspirators to achieve the conspiracy's goals.\" *Rivera*, 22 F.3d at 436. A statement may also be in furtherance if \"it informs a conspirator of the identity and activities of coconspirators, or if it informs a coconspirator as to the progress or status of the conspiracy.\" *United States v. Davis*, 687 F. App'x 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2017) (cleaned up) (citing *United States v. Rastelli*, 870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989), and *United States v. Desena*, 260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001)).\n\n## **DISCUSSION**\n\nAs a preliminary matter, the scope of this order is limited to whether the Government has \"succeed[ed] in persuading the [C]ourt that the conditionally admitted *coconspirator* statements were made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy of which both the declarant and the defendant were members.\" *Tracy*, 12 F.3d at 1199 (emphasis added). The *Geaney* protocol is not an opportunity for the parties to relitigate other hearsay objections that were resolved on the record during trial, including whether certain declarants were agents of the Defendant. *See* Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). To the extent that the Government's motion and Guo's objections are addressed to other hearsay exclusions and exceptions, they are not properly raised at this time.<sup>3</sup>\n\n<sup>3</sup> Accordingly, the Court does not address statements that it has already admitted under non-Rule 801(d)(2)(E) theories of admissibility; specifically, statements by David Fallon, Dara Lawall, Aaron Mitchell, Scott Barnett, Gladys Chow, Sean Jing, Ilona Musial, Kevin [Last Name Unknown], Max Krasner, and an unnamed Himalaya Exchange employee. *See* Ex. A; Gov. Mem. at 5–7; Gov. Reply at 3–4 n.3. Many of these statements were introduced without objection. *E.g.*, Tr. at 3078:16–17 (email from Krasner regarding Lamborghini); *id.* at 3682:6– 23 (statement from Fallon regarding Hummingbot). Others were admitted under the agency exception. *E.g.*, *id.* at 3876:13-17, 3877:3–3880:1 (statement from Lawall and sidebar permitting testimony); *id*. at 3562:1–11, 3890:12– 25 (introducing evidence that Barnett was the head of security for Guo and his family and sent invoices on their behalf); *id*. at 2929:2–2930:11, 2936:10–24, 4285:6–22 (introducing evidence over defense objection based on Chow's agency relationship with Guo).\n\nThe Government moves to admit the statements identified in Exhibit A for their truth pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E).\n\n## I. Yvette Wang\n\nThe Government identifies six statements by Yvette Wang that it seeks to admit for their truth. Ex. A at 2–3. Guo does \"not challenge the [G]overnment's position with respect to [] Wang\" in light of her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. Guo Opp. at 10; *see* ECF No. 325; Dkt. Entry 05/03/2024. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that these conspiracies existed, that Wang and Guo were members, and that the statements identified by the Government were in furtherance of the conspiracies. Wang's statements are, therefore, admitted.\n\n### II. William Je\n\nNext, the Government seeks to admit certain statements by William Je, an indicted coconspirator and the \"head or chief investment officer of [Guo's] family office.\" Gov. Mem. at 3–4; Tr. at 763:1–10. The Government established by at least a preponderance of the evidence that Je was chiefly responsible for laundering the proceeds of the charged fraud schemes, implicating him as a coconspirator. To take just a few examples, Steele Schottenheimer, a Hayman Capital employee, testified that Je facilitated the \\$100 million investment in Hayman that underlies the money laundering conspiracy charge. *E.g.*, Tr. at 761:2–762:25. Jesse Brown, the nominal chief executive officer of the Himalaya Exchange, explained that Je—his boss directed him to make a \\$37 million loan of Exchange funds for \"a yacht . . . for Miles Guo's daughter.\" *Id.* at 3633:17–3635:1, 3642:18–24; 3701:22–3704:9; *see also id.* at 2769:1–5 (testimony of Bo Collins that Je was \"in charge of the Himalaya Exchange\"). And, Haitham Khaled testified that Guo, Wang, and Je all pressured him to move money from Crane into\n\n6\n\nG|CLUBS. *Id.* at 2238:1–20. The record is replete with evidence of Je's involvement in the charged conspiracies, amounting to more than a mere \"commercial and social relationship.\" Guo Opp. at 10.\n\nThe Court further finds that the Je statements identified in Exhibit A—which concern the Himalaya Exchange yacht loan, the G|CLUBS funds held by Crane, and a lawsuit related to the Farm Loan Program—were made in furtherance of the relevant conspiracies. The statements are, therefore, admitted.\n\n### III. Mileson Guo\n\nThird, the Government seeks to admit several statements of Guo's son, Qiang \"Mileson\" Guo. Mileson's role within the alleged conspiracies was multifaceted. For example, Mileson directed the transfer of fraud proceeds and strategized how to launder the proceeds outside the United States. *See* GX411-T at 14–15 (conversation between Mileson, Guo, Khaled, and Ana Izquierdo regarding disposition of G|CLUBS membership dues); GX413A-T at 4 (Mileson telling Khaled that G|CLUBS funds should go \"[a]nywhere out of U.S.\"). He served as the owner of Lamp Capital, which received and spent money obtained from the Farm Loan Program. Tr. at 1958:7–24, 2544:5–9, 4731:190–4733:17; GXZ26 at 8. And, Schottenheimer testified that Mileson was the purported ultimate beneficial owner of Saraca Media Group, the entity that made the \\$100 million Hayman Capital investment. Tr. at 808:17–809:16. The Court finds that the Government has met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Mileson was a member of several of the charged conspiracies. The Court further finds that statements identified by the Government—which address the disposition of funds held by Crane—were in furtherance of the conspiracies. *E.g.*, GX413A-T at 4. Accordingly, the Court finds that\n\nMileson's statements fall within the coconspirator hearsay exclusion and shall be admitted for their truth.\n\n# IV. Farm Leaders\n\nThe Government further seeks to admit statements of several leaders of the Himalaya Farm Alliance: David Dai, Xia Qidong, Sara Wei, and Zhang Yongbing.\n\nThere is sufficient evidence to find that each of these individuals were members of the conspiracies related to the Farms. Dai was the leader of the Farm based in the United Kingdom. Tr. at 384:24–25. Xia served as the leader of the Mountain of Spices (\"MOS\") Farm and as the Alliance secretary. *Id*. at 1373:19–1347:8, 1387:10–18. Wei led the Phoenix Farm. *Id*. at 2500:18–19. And, Zhang was the \"legal group leader\" of the Mountain of Spices Farm and a member of the Iron Blood Group.<sup>4</sup> *Id*. at 2403:3–15.<sup>5</sup>\n\nGuo selected each of these individuals to lead their respective Farms and in turn, they carried out his instructions in managing the Alliance. Tr. at 406:15–17, 2500:20–23. In their roles, the Farm leaders furthered the alleged G Enterprise conspiracies. Dai, for example, directed Le Zhou to open bank accounts to collect H Coin investments and instructed him \"where to send the money.\" *Id*. at 263:9–266:9. Xia helped to execute Farm Loan and H Coin agreements with investors and directed Ya Li to delete incriminating content after Guo's arrest. *Id*. at 1501:14-24, 2395:1–2397:20, 2421:1–19. Wei facilitated investments in the GTV Private Placement through Voice of Guo. *Id*. at 204:6-205:5. And, Zhang directed Ya Li to sign a false\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Iron Blood group consisted of the \"core,\" \"highest level\" leaders of the Himalaya Alliance. Tr. at 1316:21– 1317:10, 2403:24–2404: 1. Group members managed the Alliance, were selected by Guo, and followed his directives. *Id*. at 1316:21–1317:10, 1374:9–1375:23.\n\n<sup>5</sup> Although Guo notes that Zhang is an attorney, Guo Opp. at 10, the Second Circuit has stated that there are no \"special procedures to be followed, or balancings to be performed as a prerequisite to the evidentiary use of a defendant's counsel's out-of-court statements.\" *United States v. Arrington*, 867 F.2d 122, 128 (2d Cir. 1989).\n\naffidavit and sue the trustee as part of Guo's bankruptcy proceedings, and threatened her when she refused to do so. *Id*. at 1522:7–1523:19.\n\nBased on this evidence as well as other documents and testimony introduced at trial, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden on the *Geaney* prerequisites as to the Farm leaders' statements identified in Exhibit A.\n\n### V. Alex Hadjicharalambous\n\nThe Government seeks to admit a statement of Alex Hadjicharalambous, who was \"in charge of accounting [for G|CLUBS], specifically the reconciliation of member IDs with the money that comes in.\" Tr. at 2045:10–12. The Government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Hadjicharalambous was a member of the G|CLUBS conspiracy with Guo. Hadjicharalambous was \"an employee in the townhouse.\" *Id.* at 2038:1–2; *see id.* at 1926:7–15, 1935:9–17 (noting that multiple companies linked to Guo had offices in the townhouse). He helped G|CLUBS open bank accounts at the Bank of Princeton and Morgan Stanley, *id.* 2564:1– 13, 2598:2–8, 3371:23–3372:8, and facilitated wire transfers on behalf of G|CLUBS, *id.* at 2071:21–2073:9; *see* GXC502. Specifically, he told Morgan Stanley that a series of wire transfers from G|CLUBS to Fiesta Properties Development, Ltd., was an internal loan for a real estate investment. Tr. at 3374:19–3379:6; *see id.* at 3382:11–3383:19, 3390:2–21. However, the money was actually used to purchase a Ferrari for Mileson. *Id.* at 3458:11–3459:9. Hadjicharalambous worked with Khaled to create responses to bank inquiries \"in order not to jeopardize the relationship and account status,\" *id.* at 1985:8–18, specifically masking Guo's involvement in G|CLUBS, *see id.* at 1999:4–7. And, he participated in phone calls with Guo, Mileson, Khaled, and Wang, in which the participants—including Guo—attempted to figure out how to keep the money that investors had sent to G|CLUBS. *Id.* at 2038:1–2039:3.\n\n9\n\nThe Government seeks to offer Hadjicharalambous' statement to Government witness Bo Collins, the chief executive officer of Mercantile Bank. In a conversation with Hadjicharalambous, Collins requested that G|CLUBS invest in Yieldesta, \"an investment vehicle that [Mercantile Bank] launched that was based on algorithmic trading.\" *Id.* at 2764:13–16. Hadjicharalambous told Collins that, for G|CLUBS to invest, \"a group that he called the management needed to come to a decision on it.\" *Id.* at 2765:18–21. Because Mercantile Bank was concerned about Guo's association with G|CLUBS, Hadjicharalambous' opaque statement about \"the management\" needing to approve the Yieldesta investment furthered the conspiracy's goals by signaling the need to get internal approval for the investment without specifying who actually made decisions on behalf of G|CLUBS. *Id.* at 2761:8–2762:12; *id.* at 2765:12–23; *see Rivera*, 22 F.3d at 436. G|CLUBS ultimately invested \\$3 million in Yieldesta. Tr. at 2764:19– 23. Accordingly, the Government has demonstrated that Hadjicharalambous' statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons explained above, the Court finds that—with the exception of the statements identified in footnote 3, *supra*—the statements identified in Exhibit A were made by coconspirators of Guo during and in furtherance of the charged conspiracies. They are, therefore, admissible for their truth pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: July 1, 2024 New York, New York","body_zh":"证物 7\n美国联邦地区法院 纽约南区（UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK）\n美利坚合众国（UNITED STATES OF AMERICA），\n\n诉\n\n郭文贵（MILES GUO），\n\n被告。\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院 电子归档文件 文件编号：__________________ 归档日期：07/01/2024\n案号：23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n裁定\n\n地区法官 ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）：\n\n政府方依据《联邦证据规则》（Federal Rule of Evidence）第 801(d)(2)(E) 条提请动议，要求采纳被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）被指控之共谋者的若干陈述以证明其陈述内容的真实性。参见政府方备忘录（Gov Mem.），ECF No. 382；另见附件 A（Ex. A），ECF No. 382-1（陈述清单）；郭文贵方反对意见（Guo Opp.），ECF No. 383；政府方回复（Gov. Reply），ECF No. 384。正如本院在针对政府方第一项预先排除动议（motion in limine）的裁定中所阐明，在庭审期间，法院可“以有条件的方式采纳共谋者陈述，但前提是后续须提交必要证据”以确立共谋者例外条款适用。ECF No. 319 第 4 页（援引 United States v. Tracy，12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993)）。具体而言，政府方必须以优势证据（preponderance of the evidence）证明“存在共谋，被告及陈述者均为共谋成员，且陈述系在共谋过程中及为推进共谋而作出”（即“Geaney 先决条件”）。Tracy，12 F.3d at 1199（援引 United States v. Geaney，417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)）。本裁定针对政府方是否已作出必要证明进行审理。1 因本院认定其已作出该等证明，故附件 A 中所列之共谋者陈述予以采纳。\n\n1 尽管第二巡回上诉法院“从未要求地区法院就每一位共谋者、更不用说就每一项共谋者陈述作出个别化裁定或进行单独分析”，但出于审慎起见，本院在此予以单独分析。United States v. Coplan，703 F.3d 46, 83 (2d Cir. 2012)。\n\n背景\n\n政府方指控，自 2018 年至 2023 年 3 月，郭文贵运作了一项骗局，诈骗数千名投资者逾 10 亿美元，并通过境内外实体洗钱，将资金挪作个人自用。S3 第 1 段，ECF No. 307。起诉书指出，郭文贵及其共谋者“利用其频繁的网络曝光度和数十万网络关注者，通过承诺高额财务回报和其他利益，招揽对各类实体和项目的投资”。同上，第 2 段。起诉书指控称，事实上，这些实体是“郭文贵为持续实施其诈骗……剥削其追随者”并“壮大 G 系企业（G Enterprise）”而创建和使用的工具——该企业即郭文贵用于实施其骗局的“相互关联和重叠的实体”集合体。同上，第 2、3(a) 段。\n\n与本案相关的是，起诉书罪名项一指控郭文贵犯有《诈骗勒索及腐败组织法》（Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 即“RICO”）共谋罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 及 (d)，其前提行为依据多部联邦法规可受起诉。2 同上，第 1–26 段。罪名项二指控郭文贵犯有共谋实施电汇诈骗及银行诈骗罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 1349。同上，第 27–30 段。罪名项三指控郭文贵共谋对 GTV 私募（GTV Private Placement）、农场贷款项目（Farm Loan Program）、G|CLUBS 以及喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）骗局的收益进行洗钱，违反 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)。同上，第 31–35 段。罪名项四指控其犯有共谋实施证券诈骗及向金融机构提供虚假陈述罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 371。同上，第 36–40 段。\n\n在过去五周的证人证言中，政府方已就这些共谋提供了实质性证据。例如，政府方提供了多名受害者的证言，\n\n2 即：18 U.S.C. § 1343（电汇诈骗）；18 U.S.C. § 1344（金融机构诈骗）；18 U.S.C. § 1956（货币工具洗钱）；18 U.S.C. § 1957（从特定非法活动衍生之财产中进行货币交易）；以及 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) 和 78ff 与 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5（证券诈骗）。S3 第 24 段。\n\n这些受害者在郭文贵的敦促下投资了 GTV、购买了 G|CLUBS 会员资格、投资了农场贷款并购买了喜马拉雅交易所代币。参见例如：庭审记录（Tr.）第 1318:4–1538:8（Ya Li 的证言）；同上，第 2373:22–2431:8、2502:1–2506:4（Minran Wu 的证言）；同上，第 4463:10–4509:23（Wei Chen 的证言）。政府方对这些受害者资金的去向进行了追踪，表明这些资金除其他用途外，被用于购买了一辆法拉利（Ferrari）、一辆布加迪（Bugatti）以及位于新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah）的克罗克-达灵顿庄园（Crocker-Darlington Mansion），并用于投资一家高风险对冲基金。例如：同上，第 938:1–954:17（Kimberly Espinoza 的证言）；同上，第 3436:12–3459:9（Jocelyn Reyes 的证言）；同上，第 1789:3–1814:9（Lonny Souza 的证言）；同上，第 3873:19–3934:17（Amy Buck 的证言）。政府方还证明，共谋成员采取了多项措施隐瞒郭文贵对持有该等资金之银行账户的参与和控制。同上，第 1989:15–1999:7、2070:2–25、2071:3–9（Haitham Khaled 的证言）；另见同上，第 1317:2–10、1338:13–16、1409:15–1410:5、1513:1–19（Ya Li 关于郭文贵对资金控制的证言）。\n\n法律标准\n\n“《联邦证据规则》第 801 条规定，如果一项陈述既是针对某一方当事人提出，又是‘由该当事人的共谋者在共谋期间且为推进共谋而作出的’，则该陈述不属于传闻。”United States v. Coplan，703 F.3d 46, 82 (2d Cir. 2012)（援引 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)）。依据该规则采纳传闻证言，法院必须认定“(a) 存在共谋；(b) 其成员包括陈述者以及被提出该陈述所针对的当事人；且 (c) 该陈述是在共谋过程中且为推进共谋而作出的。”United States v. Alameh，341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003)（引文省略）。“这些属于由地区法院依据‘优势证据’标准裁定的先决事实。”同上（援引 Bourjaily v. United States，483 U.S. 171, 175–76 (1987)）。\n\n审判法院“必须从整体上看待证据，而非孤立地考量单个证据”，United States v. Cicale，691 F.2d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 1982)（援引 Geaney，417 F.2d at 1121），并且必须考量“被指控之共谋者陈述本身的内容”。United States v. Swinton，No. 23-6118, 2024 WL 1564487, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2024)（文意已清理）。“然而，还必须‘存在证明被告参与共谋的某些独立确证证据’。”同上（援引 United States v. Gigante，166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 1999)）。\n\n第一项和第二项要件——即存在涉及陈述者和被告的共谋——在“证据足以按优势证据标准确立被指控的共谋者在知悉其普遍性质和范围的情况下加入了一项共同事业”时即告满足。United States v. James，712 F.3d 79, 106 (2d Cir. 2013)（文意已清理）。上诉法院指出，“一旦共谋被证明存在，将某被告与其联系起来（就 Geaney 认定而言）所需的证据无需达到压倒性程度”。Cicale，691 F.2d at 103（文意已清理）。相反，“达到 Geaney 门槛所要求的全部条件仅为‘表明陈述者与被告之间可能存在非法关联’”。同上（援引 United States v. Alvarez-Porras，643 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1981)）。法律并不要求受领陈述之人也必须是共谋成员。James，712 F.3d at 106。亦不要求共谋陈述者必须具名确定。United States v. Boothe，994 F.2d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1993)。\n\n第三，如果一项陈述“旨在促进或有助于实现该共谋的目标”，则该陈述属于“为推进”共谋。United States v. Rivera，22 F.3d 430, 436 (2d Cir. 1994)。推进可以是显性的：例如，若该陈述“促使听者作出有助于实施犯罪活动的反应”。United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.，871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989)（引文省略）。推进也可以更为隐蔽：例如，一项陈述可通过“向共谋者提供信息或宽慰、寻求共谋者的协助，或者通过旨在帮助共谋者实现共谋目标的方式与非共谋成员的人士进行沟通”来推进共谋。Rivera，22 F.3d at 436。此外，如果一项陈述“向共谋者告知其他共谋者的身份和活动，或者向共谋者告知共谋的进展或状态”，该陈述亦可构成推进共谋。United States v. Davis，687 F. App'x 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2017)（文意已清理）（援引 United States v. Rastelli，870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989) 及 United States v. Desena，260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001)）。\n\n讨论\n\n作为先决事项，本裁定的范围仅限于政府方是否“成功说服法院：被有条件采纳的共谋者陈述，系在陈述者与被告二人均为成员的共谋过程中且为推进该共谋而作出的”。Tracy，12 F.3d at 1199（强调为原文所加）。Geaney 审查程序并非供当事人重新争议庭审期间已在记录中解决的其他传闻异议的机会，包括特定陈述者是否为被告代理人的问题。参见 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)。在政府方的动议及郭文贵的异议涉及其他传闻排除规定和例外条款的范围内，该等意见目前提出并不适格。3\n\n3 因此，本院不讨论此前已根据第 801(d)(2)(E) 条以外的可采性理论予以采纳的陈述；具体包括 David Fallon、Dara Lawall、Aaron Mitchell、Scott Barnett、Gladys Chow、Sean Jing、Ilona Musial、Kevin [姓氏不详]、Max Krasner 以及一名未具名的喜马拉雅交易所雇员的陈述。参见附件 A；政府方备忘录第 5–7 页；政府方回复第 3–4 页脚注 3。其中许多陈述是在未提出异议的情况下引入的。例如：庭审记录第 3078:16–17（Krasner 关于兰博基尼的电子邮件）；同上，第 3682:6–23（Fallon 关于 Hummingbot 的陈述）。其他陈述则是根据代理人例外（agency exception）予以采纳的。例如：同上，第 3876:13-17、3877:3–3880:1（Lawall 的陈述及准许作证的庭外法官席谈话）；同上，第 3562:1–11、3890:12–25（引入证据证明 Barnett 系郭文贵及其家族的安保主管，并代表他们发送发票）；同上，第 2929:2–2930:11、2936:10–24、4285:6–22（在辩方提出异议的情况下，基于 Chow 与郭文贵的代理关系引入证据）。\n\n政府方提请动议，要求依据第 801(d)(2)(E) 条采纳附件 A 中所列陈述以证明其真实性。\n\nI. Yvette Wang（王雁平）\n\n政府方指出了 Yvette Wang（王雁平）作出的六项陈述，提请予以采纳以证明其真实性。附件 A 第 2–3 页。鉴于王雁平已就共谋实施电汇诈骗及洗钱认罪答辩，郭文贵“对政府方就王雁平所持的立场不持异议”。郭文贵方反对意见第 10 页；参见 ECF No. 325；案卷索引记录 05/03/2024。本院以优势证据认定该等共谋存在，王雁平与郭文贵均为成员，且政府方所列陈述系为推进该等共谋而作出。因此，王雁平的陈述予以采纳。\n\nII. William Je（余建明）\n\n其次，政府方请求采纳 William Je（余建明）的若干陈述，此人系已被起诉的共谋人，也是「［Guo（郭文贵）］家族办公室的主管或首席投资官」。政府备忘录第 3–4 页；庭审笔录第 763:1–10 行。政府方至少以优势证据证明，余建明主要负责洗钱指控欺诈计划所得收益，从而证实其共谋人身份。仅举数例：Hayman Capital（海曼资本）雇员 Steele Schottenheimer 作证称，余建明促成了对海曼资本的 $100 million（1亿美元）投资，而这正是洗钱共谋指控的基础。例如，庭审笔录第 761:2–762:25 行。Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的名义首席执行官 Jesse Brown 解释称，其上司余建明指示他将交易所资金划出 $37 million（3700万美元）贷款用于「为郭文贵之女……购置游艇」。同上，第 3633:17–3635:1 行、第 3642:18–24 行、第 3701:22–3704:9 行；亦见同上第 2769:1–5 行（Bo Collins 证言证明余建明「掌管喜马拉雅交易所」）。此外，Haitham Khaled 作证称，郭文贵、Wang（王雁平）和余建明均向其施压，要求将资金从 Crane 转移至 G|CLUBS。同上，第 2238:1–20 行。案卷记录充斥着余建明参与被指控共谋的证据，已远非单纯的「商业及社交关系」。郭文贵反对意见书第 10 页。\n\n本法院进一步认定，证据附件 A 中列明的余建明陈述——涉及喜马拉雅交易所游艇贷款、Crane 持有的 G|CLUBS 资金以及与农场贷款计划（Farm Loan Program）相关的诉讼——均系为推进相关共谋而作出。因此，上述陈述予以采纳。\n\nIII. Mileson Guo（郭强）\n\n第三，政府方请求采纳郭文贵之子 Qiang \"Mileson\" Guo（郭强）的多项陈述。郭强在被指控的共谋中扮演了多重角色。例如，郭强指挥转移欺诈收益，并谋划如何在美国境外进行洗钱。参见 GX411-T 第 14–15 页（郭强、郭文贵、Khaled 与 Ana Izquierdo 之间关于处置 G|CLUBS 会员费的对话）；GX413A-T 第 4 页（郭强告知 Khaled，G|CLUBS 资金应流向「美国境外的任何地方」）。他担任 Lamp Capital 的所有人，该公司接收并支出了从农场贷款计划中获取的资金。庭审笔录第 1958:7–24 行、第 2544:5–9 行、第 4731:190–4733:17 行；GXZ26 第 8 页。此外，Schottenheimer 作证称，郭强是 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡传媒集团）所谓的最终实益所有人，而该实体正是作出对海曼资本 $100 million（1亿美元）投资的主体。庭审笔录第 808:17–809:16 行。本法院认定，政府方已完成其证明责任，以优势证据证明郭强系被指控的数项共谋的成员。本法院进一步认定，政府方指明的各项陈述——涉及对 Crane 所持资金的处置——均系为推进共谋而作出。例如，GX413A-T 第 4 页。据此，本法院认定郭强的陈述符合共谋人传闻证据排除例外，应作为实质证据予以采纳。\n\nIV. 农场主（Farm Leaders）\n\n政府方进一步请求采纳 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）数名主要成员的陈述：David Dai（戴大卫）、Xia Qidong（夏启东）、Sara Wei（魏丽红/Sara 巍）以及 Zhang Yongbing（张永兵）。\n\n有充分证据认定上述每名个人均系与各农场相关的共谋的成员。戴大卫系英国农场的负责人。庭审笔录第 384:24–25 行。夏启东担任香草山（Mountain of Spices，简称 \"MOS\"）农场负责人及联盟秘书。同上，第 1373:19–1347:8 行、第 1387:10–18 行。魏丽红掌管凤凰城农场。同上，第 2500:18–19 行。张永兵系香草山农场的「法治组负责人」及铁血组（Iron Blood Group）成员。4 同上，第 2403:3–15 行。5\n\n郭文贵选定上述每名个人掌管各自的农场，而他们反过来执行郭文贵管理联盟的指示。庭审笔录第 406:15–17 行、第 2500:20–23 行。在各自的岗位上，这些农场负责人推进了被指控的 G 系列实体（G Enterprise）共谋。例如，戴大卫指示 Le Zhou 开立银行账户以归集喜币（H Coin）投资款，并指示其「把钱汇往何处」。同上，第 263:9–266:9 行。夏启东协助与投资者签署农场贷款及喜币协议，并在郭文贵被捕后指示 Ya Li 删除罪证内容。同上，第 1501:14–24 行、第 2395:1–2397:20 行、第 2421:1–19 行。魏丽红通过郭文贵之声（Voice of Guo）促成了对 GTV 私募（GTV Private Placement）的投资。同上，第 204:6–205:5 行。张永兵则指示 Ya Li 签署虚假宣誓书并在郭文贵的破产程序中起诉受托人，且在其拒绝配合时对其进行威胁。同上，第 1522:7–1523:19 行。\n\n4 铁血组成员由喜马拉雅联盟的「核心」、「最高级别」负责人组成。庭审笔录第 1316:21–1317:10 行、第 2403:24–2404:1 行。该组成员负责管理联盟，由郭文贵亲自选拔，并遵从其指示。同上，第 1316:21–1317:10 行、第 1374:9–1375:23 行。\n\n5 尽管郭文贵指出张永兵系律师，郭文贵反对意见书第 10 页，但第二巡回法院曾阐明，将被告代理律师的庭外陈述用作证据「并不存在任何须予遵循的特殊程序，亦无须预先进行利益权衡」。United States v. Arrington, 867 F.2d 122, 128 (2d Cir. 1989)。\n\n基于该等证据以及庭审中出示的其他文件与证言，本法院认定，针对证据附件 A 中所列明的农场负责人的陈述，政府方已满足 Geaney 判例所确立的前提条件。\n\nV. Alex Hadjicharalambous\n\n政府方请求采纳 Alex Hadjicharalambous 的陈述，此人「负责［G|CLUBS 的］会计核算，特别是会员 ID 与进账款项的核对」。庭审笔录第 2045:10–12 行。政府方已以优势证据证明 Hadjicharalambous 系与郭文贵共同参与 G|CLUBS 共谋的成员。Hadjicharalambous 系「联排别墅中的一名雇员」。同上，第 2038:1–2 行；参见同上第 1926:7–15 行、第 1935:9–17 行（指出与郭文贵有关联的数家公司在联排别墅内设有办公室）。他协助 G|CLUBS 在普林斯顿银行（Bank of Princeton）和摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）开立银行账户，同上第 2564:1–13 行、第 2598:2–8 行、第 3371:23–3372:8 行，并代表 G|CLUBS 促成电汇，同上第 2071:21–2073:9 行；参见 GXC502。具体而言，他告知摩根士丹利，从 G|CLUBS 汇往 Fiesta Properties Development, Ltd. 的一系列电汇款项系用于房地产投资的内部贷款。庭审笔录第 3374:19–3379:6 行；参见同上第 3382:11–3383:19 行、第 3390:2–21 行。然而，该笔款项实际上用于为郭强购置了一辆法拉利跑车。同上，第 3458:11–3459:9 行。Hadjicharalambous 与 Khaled 共同起草对银行质询的答复，「以防危及与银行的业务关系及账户状态」，同上第 1985:8–18 行，具体掩盖了郭文贵在 G|CLUBS 中的参与，参见同上第 1999:4–7 行。此外，他还参与了与郭文贵、郭强、Khaled 及王雁平的电话会议，参会人员——包括郭文贵——在会上试图商讨如何留存投资者汇入 G|CLUBS 的资金。同上，第 2038:1–2039:3 行。\n\n政府方请求采纳 Hadjicharalambous 对政府方证人、Mercantile Bank（商业银行）首席执行官 Bo Collins 作出的陈述。在与 Hadjicharalambous 的交谈中，Collins 请求 G|CLUBS 投资于 Yieldesta，即「［商业银行］推出的基于算法交易的投资工具」。同上，第 2764:13–16 行。Hadjicharalambous 告知 Collins，G|CLUBS 若要投资，「一个被其称为管理层的群体需要对此作出决定」。同上，第 2765:18–21 行。鉴于商业银行对郭文贵与 G|CLUBS 之间的关联存有顾虑，Hadjicharalambous 关于需要「管理层」批准 Yieldesta 投资的含糊陈述，在未具体说明究竟由谁实际代表 G|CLUBS 作出决定的情况下表明需要就投资获得内部审批，从而推进了共谋的目标。同上，第 2761:8–2762:12 行；同上第 2765:12–23 行；参见 Rivera, 22 F.3d at 436。G|CLUBS 最终向 Yieldesta 投资了 $3 million（300万美元）。庭审笔录第 2764:19–23 行。据此，政府方已证明 Hadjicharalambous 的陈述系为推进共谋而作出。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，本法院认定——除前述脚注 3 中列明的陈述外——证据附件 A 中列明的陈述均系郭文贵的共谋人在被指控共谋存续期间且为推进共谋而作出。因此，根据《联邦证据规则》（Fed. R. Evid.）第 801(d)(2)(E) 条，该等陈述作为其实质真实性证据具有可采性。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年7月1日 纽约州纽约市","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","GTV","CIPA","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Saraca","Himalaya Alliance","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":307,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":319,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":325,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":382,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":383,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":384,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":388,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3117,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-11-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-11-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:34:38"}