{"id":"court_sdny_10_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":10,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-03-29","title":"SDNY ECF 10","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"U.S. Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew’s Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nMarch 29, 2023\nVIA ECF & Email\nHon. Robert W. Lehrburger\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan\nUnited States Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\nRe: United States v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a “Yvette,” 23 Mag. 2007 (UA)\nDear Judge Lehrburger:\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the motion (“Mot.”) and\nmemorandum of law filed on March 24, 2023 by Yanping Wang, a/k/a “Yvette” (“Wang” or the\n“defendant”) in support of her motion for an order directing that she has complied with the terms\nof her bail conditions (“Mem.”) (Dkts. 8, 9). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s\nmotion, which amounts to a second motion for reconsideration, should be denied.\nI. Overview\nThe defendant is charged with playing a key role in a sprawling and complex fraud\nspearheaded by Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a “Miles Guo,” a/k/a “Miles Kwok,” a/k/a “Guo Wengui,”\na/k/a “Brother Seven,” a/k/a “The Principal” (“Kwok”) and his and Wang’s co-conspirator, King\nMing Je, a/k/a “William Je” (“Je”) that defrauded thousands of victims to invest more than $1\nbillion into Kwok’s extensive, sophisticated, interrelated fraudulent offerings through material\nmisrepresentations. The fraud relied on at least four interrelated parts: the GTV Media Group,\nInc. (“GTV”) Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, G Club Operations, LLC (“G|CLUBS”),\nand the Himalaya Exchange. Kwok, Je, Wang, and their co-conspirators then laundered their fraud\nproceeds and misappropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud proceeds for Kwok’s and\nothers’ personal use. As described in charging documents and during prior court appearances in\nthis case, the defendant effectively served as the chief of staff for Kwok and managed the day-to-\nday operations of the various entities that Kwok controlled and used to operate the fraud scheme.\nIn that role, the defendant had access to, and signatory authority over, bank accounts that were\nused to obtain and launder fraud proceeds.\nThe defendant presents a serious risk of flight based on her lack of ties to the United States,\nthe nature of the charges, her key role in this serious offense conduct, her substantial financial\nresources, the significant sentence that she faces, the strong evidence of her guilt, her ties to foreign\njurisdictions, and her relationship with co-conspirator and international money launderer William\nJe, who remains at large. The defendant is a Chinese citizen who emigrated from China to the\nUnited States in approximately 2017, filing an application seeking political asylum from the\nChinese Communist Party (“CCP”), which remains pending. As a general matter, if an asylee is\ncharged with serious criminal conduct while in the United States, the criminal charges can serve\n\nas a bar to a grant of asylum. The defendant has no family in the United States. (Mem. at 1.) Not\nonly are the defendant’s connections in the United States limited, but she also has substantial\nconnections and resources abroad. She has held passports from various foreign jurisdictions and\nis the sole director of foreign entities used to facilitate the fraud, including at least one company\nregistered in the British Virgin Islands. Her co-defendant, Je, lives in the United Kingdom and is\npresently believed to be hiding in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). The defendant also has\naccess to and the support of an extensive network of Kwok’s loyal followers dispersed throughout\nthe world. The defendant’s only son lives in China, and she has not seen him since she immigrated\nto the United States.\nThe defendant also has the financial means to flee. As described in greater detail below,\nthe defendant has more than $1 million in cash in her personal bank accounts and had more than\n$130,000 in bulk cash in a safe in her apartment at the time of her arrest. The defendant also likely\nhas access to assets secreted by co-conspirators abroad, including Je, who personally received\nmillions from the fraud and is a fugitive. Moreover, the defendant has an extremely powerful\nincentive to flee. The defendant is facing charges that, in total, carry a statutory maximum sentence\nof approximately 55 years in prison. A conservative estimate of her applicable Sentencing\nGuidelines range reflects an exposure of approximately 292 to 365 months in prison. Given the\nsubstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the expected length of her potential sentence, any\nindividual would be highly incentivized to flee; with the defendant’s lack of ties to the United\nStates, her ties abroad (including to Je, who is aware of the charges against him and yet remains at\nlarge), and the prospect of likely deportation after serving her sentence, the incentives to flee are\neven greater.\nII. Procedural History\nA. Criminal Charges Against the Defendant\nOn March 10, 2023, the Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein signed a sealed complaint (the\n“Complaint”) charging the defendant with conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, in\nviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; securities fraud,\nin violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and money\nlaundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. The Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit\nA.\nB. The Defendant’s Arrest\nThe defendant was arrested on March 15, 2023 at her Manhattan apartment. That same\nday, the FBI conducted a judicially authorized search of Wang’s apartment. During that search,\nthe FBI recovered bulk U.S. and foreign currency from inside a safe; specifically, more than\napproximately $138,000 in U.S. currency, approximately £3,000, approximately 1180 Hong Kong\ndollars, and approximately 600 Chinese Yuan. Additional items inside the safe included expired\nforeign passports for both the defendant and Kwok from Vanuatu1 and China. (Ex. C at 8:24-\n1 Vanuatu is a small island nation in the South Pacific. It has been publicly reported that Vanuatu\npermits foreign nationals to acquire Vanuatu citizenship in exchange for investments in the\ncountry. See “Citizenship for sale: fugitives, politicians and disgraced businesspeople buying\nVanuatu passports,” The Guardian, dated July 14, 2021 (available at\n\n14:10). The FBI also recovered approximately 12 cellphones, two computers, and more than 25\nUSB flashdrives from the defendant’s apartment. Many of the cellphones had been concealed\ninside original iPhone packaging, in an apparent attempt to conceal that they, in fact, contained\ndata. Other electronics similarly were concealed; for example, a cellphone was found between the\nmattresses of the defendant’s bed and a laptop was tucked between sweaters in the defendant’s\ncloset.\nC. Criminal Charges Against Kwok and Je\nAn indictment (the “Indictment”) charging Kwok and Je was unsealed on March 15, 2023.\nUnited States v. Kwok et al., 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 2). The Indictment is attached hereto as Exhibit\nB. Kwok was arrested in Manhattan on March 15, 2023, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation\n(“FBI”) conducted judicially authorized searches of three of his residences—his Manhattan\npenthouse apartment, his Greenwich, Connecticut residence, and his Mahwah, New Jersey\nmansion. During those searches, the FBI recovered approximately 30 cellphones, approximately\n25 computers, and dozens of hard drives and flash drives. One of the cellphones that was recovered\nfrom Kwok’s Manhattan apartment was located between the mattresses in Kwok’s bedroom (i.e.,\nconcealed in the same manner as one of the defendant’s cellphones had been, in her apartment).\nThe FBI also recovered luxury furniture and goods that had been purchased with fraud proceeds.\nDuring the search of a safe located in the Mahwah mansion, the FBI recovered bulk U.S. and\nforeign currency; specifically, more than approximately $394,000 in U.S. currency, approximately\n€5,000, approximately 188,050 in Hong Kong dollars, and approximately 250 Chinese Yuan. The\nFBI also recovered evidence of Kwok’s foreign travel documents from the Mahwah mansion,\nincluding a current Hong Kong passport and a copy of an expired UAE passport. The Government\nis seeking Kwok’s pretrial detention and filed a detention letter in support of its position on March\n15, 2023. See 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7) (“Kwok Detention Ltr.”).\nThat same day, U.K. law enforcement attempted to arrest Je in London and executed a\njudicially authorized search of Je’s London residence. During the search, law enforcement\nrecovered, among other items, cellphones, bulk cash in various currencies, and two cryptocurrency\nhardware wallets. While Je remains at large, he is believed to be in the UAE. Kwok and Je have\nsignificant ties to the UAE—they moved substantial proceeds of the fraud scheme into and through\nat least one of Je’s UAE bank accounts, which received at least approximately $128 million in\nfraud proceeds that was subsequently misappropriated to Kwok, Je, and their family members or\nwired to Kwok- and Je-controlled entities. See Kwok Detention Ltr. at 9-10. For example, in\nJanuary 2021, Kwok and Je arranged for the transfer of approximately $11 million in fraud\nproceeds from Je’s UAE bank account to a bank account held in the name of one of the Kwok\nfamily office entities, which is purportedly owned by a close relative of Kwok. The defendant was\nthe authorized signatory on the particular family office bank account that received the $11 million\nin fraud funds, which was misappropriated for personal lifestyle expenses (e.g., flight crew\nservices on a private jet, luxury automobiles, and yacht expenses). Moreover, as described in\ngreater detail in the Kwok detention letter, Kwok recently undertook efforts to move the Himalaya\nExchange’s operations, and its money, to the UAE so it will be beyond the “long arm jurisdiction\nof the U.S.” See Kwok Detention Ltr. at 19. Indeed, between in or about January and March 2023,\nat least two individuals who work for the Kwok-controlled entity HCHK Technologies, Inc. spent\nhttp\ndisgraced-businesspeople-buying-vanuatu-passports).\n\nmore than approximately six weeks in the UAE, apparently to assist in moving Kwok’s and Je’s\noperations abroad. As of at least on or about May 23, 2022, the defendant was the 99.9999%\nshareholder of both HCHK Technologies, Inc. and HCHK Property Management, Inc. through a\nBVI-registered shell company called Holy City Hong Kong Venture Ltd.2\nD. The Defendant’s Presentment and Bail Hearing\nThe defendant was presented before the Honorable Katharine H. Parker on March 15, 2023.\nThe transcript of that proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit C. During that proceeding, the\nGovernment presented the agreed-upon terms of a proposed bail package for Judge Parker’s\nconsideration, which included, among other conditions, a $5 million personal recognizance bond\nto be co-signed by two financial responsible persons approved by the Government and secured by\n$1 million in real property and/or cash. (Ex. C at 6-7.) The Government then noted the following\nproposed conditions that were in dispute: (a) the defendant’s release to home detention, reinforced\nby GPS location monitoring, and (b) the defendant’s release from detention only upon satisfaction\nof all bail conditions. (Ex. C at 8:5-10). The Pretrial Services report recommended conditions of\nrelease consistent in all meaningful respects with the Government’s proposed conditions, including\nhome detention reinforced with electronic monitoring, that a bond be both secured in part and co-\nsigned by two financially responsible persons, and that the defendant remain detained pending\nsatisfaction of all conditions.\nJudge Parker heard arguments from the Government and from the defendant’s counsel on\nthe two issues in dispute. Regarding its basis for seeking home detention, the Government\nemphasized the defendant’s significant risk of flight based on, among other things, the large dollar\namount associated with the billion-dollar fraud scheme (including, in particular, the $100 million\nwire transfer of fraudulent proceeds that the defendant had sole authorization to conduct); the\ndefendant’s access to significant assets; the defendant’s control of more than a dozen shell entities\nused to perpetrate the fraud; the defendant’s lack of legal status in the United States; the\ndefendant’s access to an extensive worldwide network of Kwok followers and supporters who\ncould facilitate the defendant’s flight; the defendant’s lack of ties to the United States; the strength\nof the Government’s evidence against the defendant; and evidence that had been recovered from\nthe defendant’s apartment during the FBI’s search earlier that day.\nDefense counsel argued that, based on the defendant’s personal background and the\ncircumstances of her seeking political asylum in the United States, the defendant posed essentially\nno risk of flight to China or “anywhere China can get their hands on her again.” (Ex. C at 14:17-\n16:10). Defense counsel further argued that releasing the defendant on her own signature “is easy\nto do without the Court really worrying that they will never see her again.” (Ex. C at 16:23-24).\nJudge Parker asked whether defense counsel had identified financial suretors; defense counsel\nadvised that it had “offered some people not yet acceptable” but noted that the Government had\n“agreed to have a dialogue with” defense counsel regarding the evaluation of potential co-signers.\n17:21-18:2.)\n2 The defendant is listed as the sole director of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd., and she signed\nvarious HCHK corporate documents, including shareholder resolutions, in that capacity on behalf\nof Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.\n\nIn response, the Government emphasized the defendant’s connections to jurisdictions other\nthan China, including the British Virgin Islands and the UAE, and the amount of bulk cash that\nwas recovered from the defendant’s apartment. (Ex. C at 18:15-19:21). The Government also\nconfirmed that it would work with defense counsel regarding the approval process for potential\nco-signers, but noted for Judge Parker that the two co-signers defense counsel had proposed to the\nGovernment prior to the proceeding were individuals whom the Government alleged to be\ninvolved with the defendant in the charged fraud. (Ex. C at 20:15-21:3). Defense counsel then\nreplied, in brief, that the defendant “ended up with a lot of cash in her safe” because “nearly a\ndozen normal banks” closed the defendant’s accounts in the wake of banking issues arising from\nthe GTV private placement civil enforcement action, and that the Government’s suggestion that\nthe defendant may have access to additional cash was speculative. (Ex. C at 21:5-22:4).\nFollowing argument, Judge Parker ruled for the Government and determined that the\ndefendant should not be released until all conditions were met. Specifically, Judge Parker stated\nthat the following conditions were “the least restrictive I believe are necessary to” assure the\ndefendant’s return to court and the safety of the community:\nMs. Wang will be released subject to meeting all of the conditions. In other words,\nshe’s going to be detained until all of the following conditions are met: $5 million\nbond co-signed by two financially responsible persons approved by the\ngovernment, and it will be secured by $1 million in cash or property. Travel\nrestricted to the Southern District, Eastern District of New York. Surender all travel\ndocuments and make no new applications. Pretrial supervision as directed by\nPretrial Services. Home detention enforced by location monitoring technology as\ndirected by Pretrial Services. Defendant will disclose all assets to Pretrial Services\nand the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including any accounts in her name or controlled\nby her or by companies in which she has an interest,3 any cryptocurrency, any cash\nand any other property. Ms. Wang shall have no contact with Mr. Kwok or Mr. Je\nor other co-conspirators outside the presence of counsel. She shall have no contact\nwith any alleged victims or witnesses outside presence of counsel. She shall reside\nat the residence at 188 East 64th Street and may not relocate absent permission from\nPretrial Services. Defendant shall not open any new bank accounts, lines of credit\nor loans without prior approval of Pretrial Services.\n(Ex. C at 22:6-23:16.)\nE. Discussions with Defense Counsel (March 15, 2023 – March 21, 2023)\nAs described above, in magistrate court prior to the defendant’s presentment on March 15,\n2023, defense counsel proffered the Government the names of two potential co-signers—\n3 The defendant has disclosed three bank accounts to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Pretrial\nServices; specifically, she provided an estimate of the balances in her two personal bank accounts\n(although she has not provided account numbers or detailed account balances), and the account\nnumber for a bank account in the name of one of the Kwok family offices that employed the\ndefendant. The defendant has not disclosed any bank accounts associated any other companies\nthat she controls or in which she has an interest, including Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.\nSee supra at 4 n.2.\n\nFinancial Responsibility Assessment\nDuring interview with the Government, he reported having an\no\nannual salary of approximately $700,000. However, 2021 tax\nreturn reflects a gross income of approximately $63,583. (Def. Ex. G-4).\nreported having approximately $70,000 in his bank accounts, but he\no\nprovided account statements that reflect a balance of only approximately\n$13,000. (Def. Ex. G-3).\nStatus as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\ninvested approximately $100,000 into GTV in 2020.\no\ninvested approximately $50,000 into G|CLUBS in March 2021.\no\ninvested approximately $12,000 in the Himalaya Exchange.wired\no\nmoney into a Himalaya Clearing FV Bank account (which the Government\nsubsequently seized), including approximately $2,000 in July 2021 and\n$10,000 in October 2021.\n• : Insufficient moral suasion; not a financially responsible person;\nincomplete documentation; personal investment in the fraud scheme.\nInsufficient Moral Suasion\nreported having first met the defendant at an “event” in June 2021.\no\nstated that he has seen the defendant approximately once or twice per\no\nmonth since mid-2022.\nreported that the defendant works at HCHK Technologies.4\no\nWhen asked where the defendant lives, replied, in sum and substance,\no\n“New York City not sure where.”\nFinancial Responsibility Assessment\nreported having approximately $1.08 million in assets (in the form of\no\nproperties and cash) and an annual income of approximately $150,000 per\nyear. However, did not provide documentation sufficient to\ncorroborate those purported assets (e.g., most recent tax return; account\nstatements or information for a second bank account; details regarding two\npurported properties).\nStatus as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\ninvested approximately $520,000 in GTV in May 2020.\no\ninvested approximately $20,000 in G|CLUBS in November 2020.\no\ninvested approximately $60,000 in the Himalaya Exchange in March\no\n2022.\n4 As described above, the defendant is the 99.9999% shareholder of that company. See supra at 4\nn.2. However, the defendant does not appear to hold any formal position at HCHK Technologies.\n\n• : Insufficient moral suasion; not a financially responsible person;\npersonal investment in the fraud scheme.\nInsufficient Moral Suasion\nreported having met the defendant when he “nearly started working\no\nwith” the defendant at a company called Gettr.5\nreported having spoken with the defendant approximately 4-5 times\no\nduring the Gettr interview process.\nreported that the defendant works at Gettr. However, the defendant\no\ndoes not hold any formal position at Gettr.\nreported that he speaks to the defendant approximately two to three\no\ntimes a year.\nFinancial Responsibility Assessment\nDuring interview with the Government, he reported having an\no\nannual salary of approximately $159,000, which was generally corroborated\nby provided documents. (Def. Ex. A-3, A-4).\nhas approximately $2,768 in two bank accounts. (Def. Ex. A-3).\no\nannual rent is approximately $36,851. (Def. Ex. A-5).\no\nreported having approximately $11,000 in credit card debt.\no\nStatus as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\nand his wife invested $34,000 into GTV in May 2020.\no\nalso reported that he and his wife invested in the Himalaya\no\nExchange.\nThe Government informed defense counsel that it could not approve , or , for\nthe reasons stated above.\nOn March 21, 2023, defense counsel called the Government to propose further\nmodifications of the bond conditions that Judge Parker had imposed. During that call, defense\ncounsel said a person (“Individual-1”) may be able to post $2.2 million in equity in an unidentified\nproperty to further secure the bond. Only after the Government asked the identity of that person\ndid defense counsel provide Individual-1’s name. When the Government advised that it would\nneed to interview Individual-1, defense counsel replied that Individual-1 was not a proposed co-\nsigner, and therefore no interview was required. The Government stated that it would consider the\n5 As described in the Kwok Detention Letter, GETTR USA, Inc. (“Gettr”) is a social media\ncompany that Kwok controls through a series of shell companies. See 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7 at\n10). Gettr and the HCHK entities described herein operate out of the same office location in New\nYork, New York.\n\nconference, the Government provided Judge Netburn with the transcript of the presentment and\nbail argument before Judge Parker (i.e., Ex. C), and Pretrial Services furnished its report. Defense\ncounsel did not file any motions or other submissions in advance of that conference. At the outset,\ndefense counsel informed Judge Netburn that it was asking Judge Netburn “to either [ap]prove the\npeople we’ve proposed [as co-signers] or change the bail conditions in such a way that Ms. Wang\ncan satisfy the bail conditions and be released.” (Ex. D at 5:10-22). Judge Netburn then stated:\nI’m not really inclined to overrule my colleague [Judge Parker] who heard bail\narguments and set a bail condition. So I’m not sure that’s what I want to do, if\nthat’s what you’re asking me to do. If you’re asking me to consider the\nreasonableness of the proposed sureters I understand under the law, I can do that. I\ndon’t know anything about what that standard of review is, and I don’t have any\nnames or documents, so I don’t know that that’s something I can do from the bench.\n(Ex. D at 6:3-13).\nDefense counsel then proceeded to proffer information about the defendant’s background,\nincluding that “the only people with whom [the defendant] has contact are people who are part of\nthis [anti-CCP] movement or in some way related to the main defendant in this case. The\nGovernment is well aware of this. When we actually agreed to the $5 million bond and two\ncosigners, when we did that we understood that the Government understood . . . that the people\nwho would cosign for her are not going to be her family members.” (Ex. D at 7:9-20). Judge\nNetburn confirmed that the defendant had been living in the United States since 2017 and\nconfirmed that defense counsel was representing that, “in those six years,” the defendant had not\n“befriended anybody who’s not within that movement.” (Ex. D at 7:21-8:1). During the ensuing\ncolloquy, defense counsel referenced the various proposed bail modifications that it had discussed\nwith the Government. (Ex. D at 8:2-11:7).\nThe Government responded that the conference was premature, noted that Judge Parker\nhad agreed with both Pretrial Services and the Government that all conditions—including the\napproval of two co-signers—needed to be met before the defendant could be released, and\nexplained that the Government follows a process to evaluate potential co-signers’ qualifications.\n(Ex. D at 11:10-23). Regarding defense counsel’s proposed bail modifications, the Government\nnoted that it had not received basic information from defense counsel (such as, for example, the\naddress of Individual-1’s property) sufficient to conduct the basic due diligence required to\nseriously consider those proposals. (Ex. D at 11:24-12:18). The Government summarized its\nefforts to evaluate the proposed co-signers and its rationale for concluding that those individuals\nwere not qualified. (Ex. D at 12:19-14:20). The Government then outlined the legal standard for\na court to consider the appropriateness of an unapproved surety under 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii), which requires a court to assess the surety’s financial situation to determine\ntwo (unnamed) individuals who were members of Kwok’s anti-CCP movement who, although\nthey did not know the defendant, were willing to post property with approximately $3 million in\ncollectively equity. Defense counsel did not provide the individuals’ names or any details\nregarding the purported properties, but nonetheless asked the Government to agree in the abstract\nto the proposal. The Government advised that it could not do so.\n\nDuring her interview with the Government, reported that she has\no\napproximately $1.6 million in equity (and no debt) in her residence.\ndid not provide any documentation corroborating the value of that property\nor her ownership of the property.\nStatus as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\ninvested approximately $100,000 into GTV in 2020.\no\ninvested approximately $50,000 into G|CLUBS in October 2020.\no\n• : Insufficient moral suasion; not a financially responsible\nperson (insufficient documentation); personal investment in the fraud scheme.\nInsufficient Moral Suasion\nrelationship with the defendant is limited to his following her on\no\nsocial media.\nreported that he met the defendant at an “event” two years ago.\no\nHowever, reported that he has not spoken with the defendant directly.\ndoes not know where the defendant works or lives.\no\nFinancial Responsibility Assessment\nhas approximately $27,325 a joint bank account. (Def. Ex. D-3).\no\njoint tax returns reflect taxable income of approximately $217,604\no\nin 2021, which consists primarily of capital gains. (Def. Ex. D-4).\nDuring his interview with the Government, reported that he owns two\no\nrental properties worth approximately $500,000 each. did not provide\ndocumentation regarding those properties.\nDuring his interview with the Government, reported that he purchased\no\nhis primary residence for approximately $1.9 million. Defense counsel\nprovided a screenshot from Zillow.com reflecting the estimated home value\nof the property as purported corroboration of equity in the home, but\nno additional documentation. (Def. Ex. D-6).\nStatus as an Apparent Victim of the Fraud Scheme\ninvested approximately $290,000 into GDollar (relating to GTV).\no\ninvested approximately $100,000 into G|CLUBS.\no\nOn March 24, 2023, the Government informed defense counsel that it was unable to approve\n, and as co-signers for the reasons explained above.\nH. The Defendant’s Instant Motion\nOn March 24, 2023, the defendant filed the Motion, which was fashioned as a motion “For\nan Order Directing Defendant Has Complied with the Terms of her Bail Conditions.” Mot. The\ndefendant also filed a memorandum of law in support of that motion, which attached\ndocumentation for , and as exhibits. See Dkts. 8,\n9. The defendant argues that the Government’s “refusal to approve [the defendant’s] bond co-\nsigners has been arbitrary.” (Mem. at 1). The defendant claims that each of her proffered sureties\n\n“is eminently qualified to serve” as a co-signer on the $5 million personal recognizance bond that\nJudge Parker imposed as a condition of the defendant’s release. (Mem. at 6).\nThe defendant moves this Court either to approve two of the defendant’s proposed co-\nsigners (without identifying which two) or, alternatively, to modify the bail conditions “such that\n[the defendant’s] inability to secure co-signers . . . does not prevent her release.” Mem. at 3.\nSpecifically, assuming the Court does not find that the proffered co-signers satisfy the\nrequirements of financial responsibility and/or moral suasion, the defendant asks this Court to set\naside Judge Parker’s bail finding and “eliminat[e] the use of co-signers altogether.” Mem. at 10.\nIII. Discussion\nA. Legal Standard\nUnder the Bail Reform Act, a defendant shall be detained pending trial if “no condition or\ncombination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the\nsafety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Court must consider\na number of factors when deciding an application for bail, including: (1) the nature and\ncircumstances of the offenses charged, (2) the weight of the evidence, (3) the history and\ncharacteristics of the defendant, and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or\nthe community that would be posed by the defendant's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The\nGovernment bears the burden of proof as to risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence, and\nas to danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f); United\nStates v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007).\nWhere the Court determines that pretrial release is appropriate, the Court should release\nthe defendant subject to the least restrictive condition or combination of conditions, “which may\ninclude the condition that the person include the condition that the person . . . execute a bail bond\nwith “solvent” sureties, with a “net worth which shall have sufficient unencumbered value to pay\nthe amount of the bail bond”). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii); see United States v. Batista, 163 F.\nSupp. 2d 222, 225-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Regarding a determination regarding whether a proposed\nsuretor is “financially responsible,” courts have reasoned that “the relevant standard is ‘the ability\nto pay the amount specified in the bond if [the defendant] fails to appear at trial.’” Batista, 163 F.\nSupp. 2d at 224 (quoting United States v. Gotay, 609 F. Supp. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). “In\naddition to the requirement of financial responsibility, a defendant must show that the proposed\nsuretors exercise moral suasion to ensure the defendant’s presence at trial.” Batista, 163 F. Supp.\n2d at 224.\nThe Second Circuit has noted that “sureties are assessed for ‘their ability to\nexercise moral suasion’ over the defendant, ‘should he decide to flee.’” United States v. Baig, 536\nF. App’x 91, 93 (2d Cir. 2013) (describing and quoting United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 68, 71\n(2d Cir.1998)) (emphasis added); see also Christoffel v. United States, 196 F.2d 560, 565 (D.C.\nCir. 1951) (noting that “the reliability” of a co-signer is relevant “where he [is] promis[ing] to pay\nin the event of non-appearance of the defendant” and collecting cases).\nEven where the least restrictive set of conditions are imposed as conditions of bail, it is\n“not unique” for a defendant to be unable to meet those conditions and therefore to remain detained\npending trial. United States v. Stanton, No. 91-CR-889-CSH, 1992 WL 27130, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.\nFeb. 4, 1992). In Stanton, the Honorable Charles S. Haight noted that defendants confronted with\n\npretrial detention resulting from an inability to satisfy bail conditions “have invoked § 3142(c)(2),\nwhich provides: ‘The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pre-\ntrial detention of the person.’” Id. The Stanton Court cited its prior analysis of § 3142(c)(2) in\nGotay, where it viewed that provision “in the context of the Bail Reform Act and its legislative\nhistory and concluded that if a defendant cannot meet economic conditions of release reasonably\nnecessary to assure his appearance, he must remain in pre-trial detention.” Id. (citing Gotay, 609\nF. Supp. at 156).\nA party seeking reconsideration faces a high burden.8 “Reconsideration of a previous order\nby the court is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and\nconservation of scarce judicial resources. A motion for reconsideration may not be used to\nadvance . . . facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to the Court, nor may it be used\nas a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided by the Court.” Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp.\n2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). Under Title 18, United States Code,\nSection 3142(f), a detention hearing “[m]ay be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that\ninformation exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a\nmaterial bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure\nthe appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.”\n“A court may properly reject an attempt to reopen a detention hearing where the new information\npresented is immaterial to the issue of flight risk or danger to the community.” United States v.\nPetrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015), aff’d, 604 F.\nApp’x 66 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1989)).\nB. Discussion\n1) The Government’s Decision to Reject Proposed Co-Signers Was Not Arbitrary\nThe Government’s determination that none of the eight proposed co-signers is qualified is\nboth reasonable and supported by the record. The defendant’s proposed suretors are neither\nfinancially responsible nor able to exercise moral suasion over the defendant. The Government’s\nindividualized assessments also appropriately considered whether any of the proposed co-signers\nwas either a co-conspirator of the defendant and/or an apparent victim of Kwok’s, Je’s, and the\ndefendant’s fraud.\nFirst, none of the eight proposed co-signers exerts moral suasion over the defendant\nsufficient to “reasonably assure” her presence at future court appearances, even if her non-\n8 There is no specific rule providing for the reconsideration of a ruling on a criminal matter. See,\ne.g., United States v. James, No. 02 CR 0778, 2007 WL 914242, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007).\nHowever, “[w]here the Rules of Criminal Procedure do not speak specifically to a matter, a court\nconducting a criminal case is permitted to draw from and mirror a practice that is sanctioned by\nthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In that\nregard, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57(b), which is entitled “Procedure When There Is No\nControlling Law,” provides in part that “[a] judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent\nwith federal law, these rules, and the local rules of the district.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b). “Thus,\nwhen deciding motions for reconsideration in criminal matters, courts in this district have resolved\nsuch motions according to the same principles that apply in the civil context.” Id. (citations and\ninternal quotation marks omitted).\n\nappearance were to cause a second, financially responsible co-signer to owe the full amount of the\nbond. As described above, most of the proposed co-signers barely know the defendant, only\nrecently met her, and have sporadic (if any) communications with her. Without sufficient moral\nsuasion, the defendant is unlikely to be concerned that her flight would saddle individuals (with\nwhom she does not have relationships) with debt.\nSecond, all of the defendant’s proposed co-signers are involved in the very conduct with\nwhich the defendant has been charged, either as subjects of the Government’s investigation or as\napparent victims of the fraud. Either status renders these individuals unqualified to serve as co-\nsigners who will exert moral suasion over the defendant. To the extent the co-signers are members\nof the criminal conspiracy, their interests lie just as easily in facilitating the defendant’s flight and,\ngiven the staggering amount of funds collected involved in this international criminal conspiracy,\neven losses in the millions could be reimbursed. To the extent the proposed co-signers are victims\nof the fraud, their status as co-signers provides no assurance whatsoever that the defendant would\nbe dissuaded from flight out of concern for their financial welfare. After all, the defendant is\ncharged with defrauding this very same class of victims\nThird, even if they had sufficient moral suasion over the defendant, the proposed suretors\nare not financially responsible. See, e.g., Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 225-26 (holding that the\nGovernment’s decision to reject two proffered suretors was not arbitrary where the individuals\nreported low income and, in addition, were unable to provide credible documentation that they\nowned assets they claimed to own). For example, failed to provide the Government with\nnearly all categories of requested documentation, including proof of address, proof of citizenship\nor lawful residency, most recent bank statements, and most recent paystubs; and the financial\ndocumentation did provide (specifically, his recent taxes) is insufficiently detailed to\ncorroborate or confirm the source of his reported income. Here, where each of the eight proffered\nsureties is “other than an approved surety,” the sureties (or the defendant, on their behalf) is\nrequired to “provide the court with information regarding the value of the assets and liabilities of\nthe surety . . . and the nature and extent of encumbrances against the surety’s property” so the\nCourt can determine whether such surety has “a net worth which shall have sufficient\nunencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail bond.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)\n(emphasis added). The defendant has not provided adequate documentation or information to the\nCourt for it to make such an independent determination. However, even based on the\ndocumentation that was provided to this Court, none of the proposed suretors qualifies as a\n“financially responsible person,” because none has “the ability to pay the [$5 million] bond if [the\ndefendant] fails to appear at trial.” Gotay, 609 F. Supp. at 156.\n2) Reconsideration of the Defendant’s Bail Conditions is Unwarranted\nAs described above, a party seeking reconsideration of a prior court order faces a high\nburden. The law is clear that a motion of reconsideration may not be used to relitigate issues\nalready decided by the Court. Jackson, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 313. Yet that is precisely what the\ndefendant is asking this Court to do: overrule Judge Parker’s well-reasoned determination that the\nbail conditions the court imposed—including both the requirement of two approved co-signers and\nthe defendant’s continued detention until all conditions are satisfied—are the least restrictive\nconditions that can reasonably assure the defendant’s presence at future court appearances. (Ex.\nC at 22:6-23:16.) The defendant goes even further, summarily rejecting Judge Parker’s ruling by\nasserting, in a footnote, that the defendant’s bail package would be sufficient to serve the ends of\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3142 even without the requirement of any co-signers—a requirement Judge Parker\nspecifically ruled on after hearing argument from both parties. (Mem. at 11, n.3).\nThe instant motion is not the defendant’s first attempt to seek reconsideration of the bail\nconditions Judge Parker imposed. The defendant fails to acknowledge that she already attempted\nan improper motion for reconsideration of Judge Parker’s bail determination, before Judge\nNetburn. During the conference on March 22, 2023, as here, defense counsel asked Judge Netburn\nto “change the bail conditions in such a way that Ms. Wang can satisfy the bail conditions and be\nreleased.” (Ex. D at 5:10-22). Yet defense counsel pointed to no information that was not known\nto the defendant (i.e., the movant) at the time of the initial bail argument before Judge Parker that\nmay have material bearing on an evaluation of conditions of bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).\nTo the contrary, in the Government’s view, new information that has come to light since\nthe defendant’s initial bail hearing that arguably may have justified more restrictive bail\nconditions. First, the Government did not previously know that the defendant apparently has no\nacquaintances (or even unacquainted financially responsible persons) to put forth as qualified co-\nsigners. Second, since the defendant’s initial appearance, the Government has learned that Je\nremains at large and is likely in the UAE, where he and Kwok have access to substantial resources\nand fraud proceeds and are believed to be establishing the new operational and financial base of\ntheir fraudulent operations. Je is the financier of the fraud scheme and an international fugitive\nwith access to substantial funds and the ability to facilitate and fund Kwok’s or the defendant’s\nflight. Finally, as described above, various of the proffered co-signers understand the defendant\nto work for Gettr and/or HCHK Technologies—Kwok- and Je-controlled companies that are\nfunded, in part, using fraud proceeds—despite the defendant disclaiming any formal affiliation or\nemployment with those entities. That new fact further underscores not only the complexity of\nKwok’s shell game, but also the defendant’s instrumental role as Kwok’s trusted chief of staff who\nis tasked with managing operations at even those entities with which she has no formal affiliation.\nIV. Conclusion\nAs described herein, the defendant poses an extraordinary risk of flight. During the\ndefendant’s initial presentment and bail hearing, Judge Parker carefully considered the\nrecommendation of Pretrial Services and the arguments by the parties regarding what conditions\nof release, if any, could reasonably assure the defendant’s future court appearances or the safety\nof the community. Judge Parker then made a ruling that the set of bail conditions currently\nimposed were the least restrictive and further ruled that the defendant needed to satisfy all those\nconditions before release. The defendant, having failed to do so, now attempts a second end-run\naround judicial process by asking this Court to approve unquestionably unqualified co-signers or,\nin the alternative, overrule bail-related decisions by both Judge Parker and Judge Netburn. The\ndefendant has failed to provide any evidence to support her claim that the Government’s evaluation\nof the proposed co-signers is arbitrary or unreasonable, and has presented no evidence sufficient\n\nto warrant the “extraordinary” remedy of reconsideration of a bail determination. Accordingly,\nthe defendant’s motion should be denied.\nVery truly yours,\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\nBy:\nJuliana N. Murray\nRyan B. Finkel\nMicah F. Fergenson\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n(212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\nEnclosures\nCc: Alex Lipman, Esq. (by ECF and Email)\nPriya Choudhry, Esq. (by ECF and Email)","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6752,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-29","updated_at":"2026-07-06 17:58:05"}