{"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":"检方信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #10（2023年3月29日提交）。联邦检察官办公室就同案被告 Yanping Wang（别名\"Yvette\"，被控曾任郭文贵\"幕僚长\"）请求法院认定其已满足保释条件、或另行核准保释联署人的动议提出反对，主张被告在美缺乏稳定牵绊、可支配境外资源且面临重罪指控，构成重大潜逃风险，请求法院驳回该动议。","summary_en":"Government letter — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 10 (filed March 29, 2023). The U.S. Attorney's Office opposes a motion by co-defendant Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette\" (described as Kwok's former chief of staff), asking the court to find she has complied with her bail conditions or to approve alternative bail co-signers; the government argues she poses a serious flight risk given her limited U.S. ties, access to resources abroad, and the seriousness of the charges, and asks that the motion be denied.","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":"U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官办公室）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew’s Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n2023年3月29日\n通过 ECF 与电子邮件送达\nHon. Robert W. Lehrburger（罗伯特·W·勒伯格法官阁下）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉联邦法院）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n案由：United States v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a “Yvette”，案号 23 Mag. 2007 (UA)\n尊敬的勒伯格法官：\n\n政府谨此提交本信函，以反对 Yanping Wang（王雁平），又名“Yvette”（下称“王”或“被告”）于2023年3月24日提交的动议（“Mot.”）及支持其请求下达认定其已遵守保释条件裁定之动议的法律备忘录（“Mem.”）（案卷号 Dkts. 8, 9）。基于下文所述理由，被告的动议实质上构成了第二次重新审议动议，应当予以驳回。\n\nI. 概述\n\n被告被指控在由 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“七哥”，又名“校长”（下称“郭”）及其与王的共谋者 King Ming Je（余建明），又名“William Je”（下称“余”）所主导的一起庞大而复杂的欺诈案中扮演关键角色；该欺诈案通过重大失实陈述，诱骗数千名受害者向郭庞大、复杂且相互关联的欺诈性投资项目中投资了超过10亿美元。该欺诈案依赖于至少四个相互关联的部分：GTV Media Group, Inc.（“GTV”）私募项目、农场贷款项目、G Club Operations, LLC（“G|CLUBS”）以及 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）。郭、余、王及其共谋者随后洗钱其欺诈所得，并挪用了数亿美元的欺诈所得供郭及他人个人挥霍。如指控文件及本案此前出庭记录所述，被告实际上担任郭的幕僚长，负责郭用以运作该欺诈方案所控制的各个实体的日常运营。在这一职位上，被告有权访问并有权签署用于获取和清洗欺诈所得的银行账户。\n\n基于被告缺乏与美国的联系、指控的性质、其在此项严重犯罪行为中的关键角色、其巨额的财务资源、其面临的重大刑罚、证明其有罪的有力证据、其与外国司法管辖区的联系，以及其与目前仍在逃的共谋者兼跨国洗钱犯 William Je（余建明）的关系，被告存在严重的潜逃风险。被告为中国公民，于约2017年从中国移民至美国，并提出针对 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，“中共”）的政治庇护申请，该申请目前仍在审理中。一般而言，如果庇护申请人在美国境内被指控犯有严重刑事罪行，该刑事指控可构成不予批准庇护的障碍。\n\n被告在美国没有家人。（Mem. 第1页。）被告不仅在境内的联系有限，而且在境外拥有大量的人脉和资源。她曾持有来自多个外国司法管辖区的护照，并且是用以协助实施欺诈的外国实体的唯一董事，其中包括至少一家在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册的公司。她的同案被告余居住在英国，目前据信藏匿于 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国，“阿联酋”）。被告还可以接触并获得散布在世界各地的郭的忠实追随者庞大网络的支持。被告唯一的儿子居住在中国，自她移民美国以来就未曾见过他。\n\n被告还具备潜逃的经济能力。如下文更详细所述，被告个人银行账户中拥有超过100万美元的现金，且在其被捕时，其公寓的保险箱内藏有超过130,000美元的大额现金。被告还很可能能够动用境外共谋者隐匿的资产，其中包括从欺诈中个人获利数百万美元且目前在逃的余。此外，被告有着极其强烈的潜逃动机。被告面临的各项指控加在一起，法定的最高刑期总计约为55年监禁。对其适用的《量刑指南》范围的保守估计显示，其面临大约292至365个月的监禁。鉴于证明被告有罪的实质性证据以及其潜在刑期的预期长度，任何人都将有极高的动机去潜逃；加上被告与美国缺乏联系、其与境外的联系（包括与已知晓针对自己的指控但仍在逃的余的联系），以及服刑后极可能被驱逐出境的前景，其潜逃的动机更加强烈。\n\nII. 诉讼历史\n\nA. 针对被告的刑事指控\n\n2023年3月10日，Gabriel W. Gorenstein（加布里埃尔·W·戈伦斯坦法官阁下）签署了一份未解封的起诉状（下称“起诉状”），指控被告犯有共谋电信欺诈和证券欺诈罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 371；电信欺诈罪，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 和 2；证券欺诈罪，违反 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff、17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 和 18 U.S.C. § 2；以及洗钱罪，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 和 2。起诉状作为附件 A 随附于本函。\n\nB. 被告的被捕\n\n被告于2023年3月15日在其曼哈顿公寓被捕。同一天，FBI（联邦调查局）对王的公寓进行了司法授权的搜查。在搜查过程中，FBI 从一个保险箱内起获了大额美元和外币现金；具体而言，有超过约138,000美元的现金、约3,000英镑、约1180港元以及约600元人民币。保险箱内的其他物品包括被告和郭来自 Vanuatu（瓦努阿图）1 和中国的过期外国护照。（Ex. C 8:24-14:10）。FBI 还从被告的公寓中查获了约12部手机、两台电脑和25个以上的 USB 闪存盘。许多手机被藏匿在 iPhone 原包装盒内，显然企图隐瞒其中实际存有数据的事实。其他电子设备同样被藏匿；例如，在被告床铺的床垫之间发现了一部手机，在被告衣柜的毛衣之间塞进了一台笔记本电脑。\n\n脚注1：瓦努阿图是南太平洋的一个岛国。据公开报道，瓦努阿图允许外国公民通过在该国投资获取瓦努阿图国籍。参见《卫报》（The Guardian）2021年7月14日发表的《出售国籍：逃犯、政客和身败名裂的商人购买瓦努阿图护照》（Citizenship for sale: fugitives, politicians and disgraced businesspeople buying Vanuatu passports）（可查阅 http://.../disgraced-businesspeople-buying-vanuatu-passports）。\n\nC. 针对郭和余的刑事指控\n\n针对郭和余的一份起诉书（下称“起诉书”）于2023年3月15日解封。United States v. Kwok et al.，案号 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 2)。起诉书作为附件 B 随附于本函。郭于2023年3月15日在曼哈顿被捕，Federal Bureau of Investigation（联邦调查局，“FBI”）对其三处住所——其曼哈顿顶层公寓、其位于康涅狄格州格林威治的住所及其位于新泽西州马瓦的豪宅——执行了司法授权的搜查。在这些搜查中，FBI 起获了约30部手机、约25台电脑以及数十个硬盘和闪存盘。从郭的曼哈顿公寓中起获的一部手机位于郭卧室的床垫之间（即以与被告在其公寓中藏匿其手机之一完全相同的方式被藏匿）。FBI 还起获了用欺诈所得购买的豪华家具和奢侈品。在搜查位于马瓦豪宅的保险箱时，FBI 起获了大额美元和外币现金；具体而言，有超过约394,000美元的现金、约5,000欧元、约188,050港元以及约250元人民币。FBI 还从马瓦豪宅中起获了郭的外国旅行证件证据，包括一本有效的香港护照和一份过期的阿联酋护照复印件。政府正请求对郭予以审前拘押，并于2023年3月15日提交了支持其立场的拘押信函。参见 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7)（“郭拘押信函”）。\n\n同一天，英国执法部门试图在伦敦逮捕余，并对余在伦敦的住所执行了司法授权的搜查。在搜查过程中，执法部门查获了包括手机、多种货币的大额现金以及两个加密货币硬件钱包等在内的物品。虽然余仍在逃，但据信他在阿联酋。郭和余与阿联酋有重大联系——他们将欺诈方案的大量所得转移至并通过余在阿联酋的至少一个银行账户，该账户接收了至少约1.28亿美元的欺诈所得，这些款项随后被挪用给郭、余及其家族成员，或汇至郭和余控制的实体。参见《郭拘押信函》第9-10页。例如，在2021年1月，郭和余安排将约1100万美元的欺诈所得从余的阿联酋银行账户转至以郭氏家族办公室实体之一名义开设的银行账户，该实体据称由郭的一名近亲所有。被告是接收这笔1100万美元欺诈资金的该特定家族办公室银行账户的授权签署人，这笔资金被挪用于个人生活方式开支（例如私人飞机机组人员服务、豪车及游艇开支）。此外，正如郭拘押信函中更详细所述，郭最近采取行动将喜马拉雅交易所的运营及其资金转移至阿联酋，使其脱离“美国的长臂管辖”。参见《郭拘押信函》第19页。事实上，在约2023年1月至3月之间，受郭控制的实体 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 工作的至少两名人员曾前往……\n\n在UAE（阿联酋）停留超过约六周，显然是为了协助将Kwok（郭文贵）和Je（余建明）的业务转移至海外。截至至少2022年5月23日左右，被告通过一家在BVI（英属维尔京群岛）注册、名为Holy City Hong Kong Venture Ltd.（圣城香港创投有限公司）的空壳公司，持有HCHK Technologies, Inc.与HCHK Property Management, Inc.两家公司99.9999%的股份。2\n\nD. 被告的过堂与保释听证会\n\n被告于2023年3月15日在Katharine H. Parker（凯瑟琳·H·帕克）法官席前过堂。该次庭审的诉讼记录作为证物C（Exhibit C）附于本文件之后。在庭审期间，Government（政府方）向Parker法官提交了一份提议的保释方案中双方达成一致的条件以供考虑，其中包括由政府批准的两名具有财务责任能力的人员共同签署的500万美元个人具结保释金，并以100万美元的不动产和/或现金作为担保等条件。（Ex. C at 6-7.）政府方随后指出了以下存在争议的提议条件：(a) 将被告释放并实行居家监禁，配合GPS定位监控予以强化；以及 (b) 仅在满足所有保释条件后，方可将被告从羁押中释放。（Ex. C at 8:5-10）。Pretrial Services（审前服务处）的报告所建议的释放条件在所有实质方面均与政府方提议的条件一致，包括以电子监控强化的居家监禁、保释金须有部分担保并由两名具有财务责任能力的人员共同签署，以及在满足所有条件之前被告仍应维持羁押状态。\n\nParker法官就两项争议问题听取了政府方与被告辩护律师的辩论。关于申请居家监禁的依据，政府方强调了被告具有重大潜逃风险，其依据除其他因素外包括：与这起数十亿美元诈骗案相关的巨额资金（特别是被告拥有独家授权进行的1亿美元诈骗收益电汇）；被告可获取重大资产；被告控制了用于实施诈骗的十余家空壳实体；被告在美国缺乏合法身份；被告能够利用郭文贵遍布全球的庞大追随者和支持者网络协助其潜逃；被告缺乏与美国的联系；政府方指控被告的证据确凿有力；以及联邦调查局（FBI）当天早些时候在搜查被告公寓时查获的证据。\n\n辩护律师辩称，基于被告的个人背景以及其在美国申请政治庇护的情况，被告基本上不存在潜逃至中国或“任何中国能够再次对其施加控制的地方”的风险。（Ex. C at 14:17-16:10）。辩护律师进一步辩称，让被告凭其自身签署即予以释放“很容易做到，法院无需真正担心再也见不到她。”（Ex. C at 16:23-24）。Parker法官询问辩护律师是否已确定财务担保人；辩护律师告知其已“提供了一些尚不可接受的人选”，但指出政府方已“同意就评估潜在的共同签署人与辩护律师开展对话”。（Ex. C at 17:21-18:2.）\n\n2 被告被登记为Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.的唯一董事，且她以该身份代表Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.签署了多份HCHK的公司文件，包括股东决议。\n\n作为回应，政府方强调了被告与中国以外其他司法管辖区的联系，包括英属维尔京群岛和阿联酋，以及从被告公寓查获的大量散装现金。（Ex. C at 18:15-19:21）。政府方还确认将就潜在共同签署人的审批程序与辩护律师合作，但向Parker法官指出，辩护律师在庭审前提议给政府方的两名共同签署人，正是政府方指控与被告一同卷入受控诈骗案的个人。（Ex. C at 20:15-21:3）。辩护律师随后简要回复称，被告“保险柜里最终留有大量现金”，是因为在GTV私募民事执法行动引发银行问题后，“近十几家正规银行”关闭了被告的账户，且政府方关于被告可能拥有额外现金的推测纯属主观臆测。（Ex. C at 21:5-22:4）。\n\n辩论结束后，Parker法官作出了有利于政府方的裁定，并认定在所有条件满足之前不得释放被告。具体而言，Parker法官指出，以下条件是其认为确保被告到庭应诉及社区安全所必需的“限制最少的条件”：\n\n王女士（Ms. Wang）将在满足所有条件的前提下获释。换言之，她将被羁押，直至满足以下全部条件：由政府批准的两名具有财务责任能力的人员共同签署的500万美元保释金，并以100万美元的现金或财产作为担保。旅行范围限制在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）和Eastern District of New York（纽约东区）。上缴所有旅行证件且不得提出新的申请。按照审前服务处的指示接受审前监管。按照审前服务处的指示，通过定位监控技术执行居家监禁。被告须向审前服务处及U.S. Attorney’s Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）披露所有资产，包括以其名义开设的、或由其控制的、或由其享有权益的公司所控制的任何账户3、任何加密货币、任何现金以及任何其他财产。在没有律师在场的情况下，王女士不得与郭先生或余先生或其他共谋者有任何接触。在没有律师在场的情况下，她不得与任何被指控的受害者或证人有任何接触。她应居住在East 64th Street 188号的住所，未经审前服务处许可不得迁移。未经审前服务处事先批准，被告不得开设任何新的银行账户、信用额度或贷款。\n\n（Ex. C at 22:6-23:16.）\n\nE. 与辩护律师的沟通（2023年3月15日 – 2023年3月21日）\n\n如上所述，在2023年3月15日被告过堂前的治安法庭上，辩护律师向政府方提供了两名潜在共同签署人的姓名——\n\n3 被告已向美国联邦检察官办公室和审前服务处披露了三个银行账户；具体而言，她提供了其两个个人银行账户的预估余额（尽管她未提供账号或详细的账户余额），以及以雇用被告的郭氏家族办公室之一的名义开设的银行账户的账号。被告未披露与其控制或享有权益的任何其他公司（包括Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.）相关的任何银行账户。见上文第4页注2。\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n在接受政府方面谈时，其自述年薪约为$700,000。然而，其2021年纳税申报表显示的各项收入总额（gross income）约为$63,583。（Def. Ex. G-4）。\n\n其自述银行账户内有约$70,000，但他提供的账户对账单显示余额仅约$13,000。（Def. Ex. G-3）。\n\n作为该诈骗案表观受害者的身份\n\n于2020年向GTV投资了约$100,000。\n\n于2021年3月向G|CLUBS投资了约$50,000。\n\n于Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）投资了约$12,000。其向Himalaya Clearing（喜马拉雅清算）的FV Bank账户电汇了款项（政府方随后扣押了该账户），包括2021年7月的约$2,000及2021年10月的$10,000。\n\n• [姓名未披露]：道义约束力不足；非具有财务责任能力的人员；文件不完整；在诈骗案中有个人投资。\n\n道义约束力不足\n\n自述于2021年6月的一场“活动”中首次结识被告。\n\n称自2022年年中以来，每月与被告会面约一至两次。\n\n自述被告在HCHK Technologies工作。4\n\n在被问及被告居住何处时，其答复的大意为“纽约市 不确定具体在哪里”。\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n自述拥有约108万美元的资产（以不动产和现金形式）以及约$150,000的年收入。然而，其未能提供足以证实上述声称资产的文件（例如：最近期的纳税申报表；第二个银行账户的对账单或账户信息；关于两处声称房产的详细信息）。\n\n作为该诈骗案表观受害者的身份\n\n于2020年5月向GTV投资了约$520,000。\n\n于2020年11月向G|CLUBS投资了约$20,000。\n\n于2022年3月向喜马拉雅交易所投资了约$60,000。\n\n4 如上所述，被告是该公司99.9999%的股东。见上文第4页注2。然而，被告似乎并未在HCHK Technologies担任任何正式职务。\n\n• [姓名未披露]：道义约束力不足；非具有财务责任能力的人员；在诈骗案中有个人投资。\n\n道义约束力不足\n\n自述在一家名为Gettr的公司“差一点开始与被告共事”时结识了被告。5\n\n自述在Gettr面试过程中与被告交谈过约4至5次。\n\n自述被告在Gettr工作。然而，被告并未在Gettr担任任何正式职务。\n\n自述其每年与被告交谈约两至三次。\n\n财务责任能力评估\n\n在接受政府方面谈时，其自述年薪约为$159,000，这与其提供的文件基本吻合。（Def. Ex. A-3, A-4）。\n\n其在两个银行账户中存有约$2,768。（Def. Ex. A-3）。\n\n其年租金约为$36,851。（Def. Ex. A-5）。\n\n自述负有约$11,000的信用卡债务。\n\n作为该诈骗案表观受害者的身份\n\n其与妻子于2020年5月向GTV投资了$34,000。\n\n其还报告称其与妻子向喜马拉雅交易所进行了投资。\n\n基于上述理由，政府方告知辩护律师其无法批准[第一位人选]、[第二位人选]或[第三位人选]。\n\n2023年3月21日，辩护律师致电政府方，提议对Parker法官所设定的保释条件作进一步修改。在通话中，辩护律师称有一名人员（“Individual-1（个人-1）”）可能能够以一处未指明房产中220万美元的权益提供担保，以进一步为保释金提供担保。直至政府方询问该人员身份后，辩护律师才提供了个人-1的姓名。当政府方表示需要面谈个人-1时，辩护律师回复称个人-1并非提议的共同签署人，因此无需进行面谈。政府方表示将考虑该\n\n5 如《郭氏羁押信函》（Kwok Detention Letter）中所述，GETTR USA, Inc.（“Gettr”）是一家社交媒体公司，郭文贵通过一系列空壳公司对其进行控制。见 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (Dkt. 7 at 10)。Gettr与本文件所述的HCHK实体在纽约州纽约市的同一办公地点开展运营。\n\n在本次会议中，Government（政府方）向 Judge Netburn（内特伯恩法官）提供了在 Judge Parker（帕克法官）面前进行的初次过堂与保释抗辩的庭审笔录（即附件 C），且 Pretrial Services（审前服务处）提交了其报告。辩护律师在本次会议前未提交任何动议或其他材料。在开场时，辩护律师告知内特伯恩法官，其请求内特伯恩法官“要么批准我们提议的[共同签署人]人选，要么变更保释条件，使王女士（Ms. Wang）能够满足保释条件并获释”。（Ex. D，第 5 页第 10-22 行）。内特伯恩法官随后表示：\n我其实并不倾向于推翻我同事[帕克法官]的决定，他听取了保释抗辩并设定了保释条件。因此，如果这就是你要求我做的事情，我不确定自己是否想这么做。如果你是要求我依法考量拟议保证人的合理性，我理解我可以这么做。但我对该审查标准一无所知，手中也没有任何名单或文件，所以我不知道这是不是我能在法庭席上直接做出的决定。\n（Ex. D，第 6 页第 3-13 行）。\n\n辩护律师随后继续就该被告人的背景提供信息，包括“与[该被告人]有联系的人仅限于属于该[反中共]运动的人，或以某种方式与本案主要被告人有关联的人。政府方对此心知肚明。当我们实际同意 500 万美元的保释金和两名共同签署人时，我们在那样做的时候理解政府方也明白……为她共同签署保释金的人不会是她的家庭成员。”（Ex. D，第 7 页第 9-20 行）。内特伯恩法官确认该被告人自 2017 年起就一直居住在美国，并确认辩护律师是在陈述“在那六年里”，该被告人没有“与任何不属于该运动的人结交朋友”。（Ex. D，第 7 页第 21 行至第 8 页第 1 行）。在随后的法庭对话中，辩护律师提及了其曾与政府方讨论过的各项保释变更提议。（Ex. D，第 8 页第 2 行至第 11 页第 7 行）。\n\n政府方回应称本次会议为时尚早，指出帕克法官此前已同意审前服务处和政府方的意见，即在被告人获释前必须满足所有条件——包括批准两名共同签署人，并解释称政府方遵循一套程序来评估潜在共同签署人的资格。（Ex. D，第 11 页第 10-23 行）。关于辩护律师提议的保释变更，政府方指出其尚未从辩护律师处收到足以开展认真考量这些提议所需的基础尽职调查的基本信息（例如 Individual-1（个人-1）的房产地址）。（Ex. D，第 11 页第 24 行至第 12 页第 18 行）。政府方概述了其评估拟议共同签署人所做的努力，以及其得出这些人不合格结论的理由。（Ex. D，第 12 页第 19 行至第 14 页第 20 行）。政府方随后概述了法院依据 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii) 考量未获批准的保证人是否适当的法律标准，该条款要求法院评估保证人的财务状况以确定郭氏反中共运动的两名（未具名）成员，他们虽然不认识该被告人，但愿意提供总计约 300 万美元净值的房产。辩护律师并未提供这些个人的姓名或有关所谓房产的任何细节，但仍要求政府方抽象地同意该提议。政府方告知其无法这样做。\n\n在接受政府方面谈时，报告称其在其住所中拥有约 160 万美元的净值（且无债务）。未提供任何证实该房产价值或其房产所有权的文件。\n\n作为该欺诈计划表观受害者的身份\n于 2020 年向 GTV 投资了约 100,000 美元。\n于 2020 年 10 月向 G|CLUBS 投资了约 50,000 美元。\n\n• ：道德说服力不足；并非财务上负责任的人（文件不足）；个人参与了该欺诈计划的投资。\n\n道德说服力不足\n与该被告人的关系仅限于他在社交媒体上关注她。\n报告称他于两年前在一次“活动”中见过该被告人。然而，报告称他未直接与该被告人交谈过。\n不知道该被告人在何处工作或居住。\n\n财务责任评估\n拥有约 27,325 美元的联名银行账户。（Def. Ex. D-3）。\n的联名纳税申报表显示 2021 年的应税收入约为 217,604 美元，主要由资本利得构成。（Def. Ex. D-4）。\n在接受政府方面谈时，报告称他拥有两处各价值约 500,000 美元的出租房产。未提供有关这些房产的文件。\n在接受政府方面谈时，报告称他以约 190 万美元购买了他的主要住所。辩护律师提供了一份来自 Zillow.com 的屏幕截图，该截图显示了该房产的预估房屋价值，以作为对房屋净值的所谓证实，但未提供额外文件。（Def. Ex. D-6）。\n\n作为该欺诈计划表观受害者的身份\n向 GDollar（与 GTV 相关）投资了约 290,000 美元。\n向 G|CLUBS 投资了约 100,000 美元。\n\n2023 年 3 月 24 日，政府方基于上述原因通知辩护律师，其无法批准 、 及 作为共同签署人。\n\nH. 被告人的当期动议\n2023 年 3 月 24 日，被告人提交了该动议，其形式为一项“关于作出命令裁定被告人已遵守其保释条件条款的动议”。Mot.。被告人还提交了一份支持该动议的法律辩护备忘录，其中附有关于 、 及 的文件作为附件。见 Dkts. 8, 9。被告人主张，政府方“拒绝批准[被告人的]保释金共同签署人是任意武断的”。（Mem. 第 1 页）。被告人声称，其提出的每一位保证人\n\n“均完全有资格担任”帕克法官作为被告人获释条件所施加的 500 万美元个人无担保保释金的共同签署人。（Mem. 第 6 页）。\n\n被告人提请本法院要么批准被告人拟议的两名共同签署人（未指明是哪两名），要么作为备选方案，修改保释条件，“以使[被告人]无法获得共同签署人的情况……不致阻碍其获释”。Mem. 第 3 页。具体而言，假设法院不认定所提出的共同签署人满足财务责任和/或道德说服力的要求，被告人请求本法院撤销帕克法官的保释认定并“完全取消使用共同签署人”。Mem. 第 10 页。\n\nIII. 讨论\nA. 法律标准\n根据《保释改革法》（Bail Reform Act），如果“没有任何条件或条件组合能够合理保证该人按要求出庭以及任何其他人及社区的安全”，则被告人在审判前应予以羁押。18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)。法院在裁决保释申请时必须考量诸多因素，包括：(1) 被控罪行的性质和情节，(2) 证据的证明力，(3) 被告人的历史和特征，以及 (4) 被告人获释将对任何人或社区构成的危险的性质和严重性。18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)。政府方对潜逃风险承担优势证据标准的举证责任，对社区危险性承担清晰且有说服力证据标准的举证责任。18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)；United States v. Sabhnani（美国诉萨布纳尼案），493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)。\n\n在法院认定审前释放适当的情况下，法院应在施加限制最少的条件或条件组合下释放被告人，“其中可包括该人……与‘具有偿付能力的’保证人共同签署保释金的条件，该保证人具有‘足以支付保释金额的无权利负担价值的净资产’”。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)；参见 United States v. Batista（美国诉巴蒂斯塔案），163 F. Supp. 2d 222, 225-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)（Southern District of New York（纽约南区））。关于判定拟议保证人是否属于“财务上负责任的人”，法院认定“相关标准是‘在该被告人未能按期出庭受审时，支付保释金中指定金额的能力’”。Batista，163 F. Supp. 2d 第 224 页（援引 United States v. Gotay（美国诉戈泰案），609 F. Supp. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)）。“除财务责任的要求外，被告人还必须证明拟议保证人能施加道德说服力，以确保被告人在审判时出庭。”Batista，163 F. Supp. 2d 第 224 页。\n\nSecond Circuit（第二巡回法院）指出，“对保证人的评估取决于‘在被告人决定潜逃时，保证人对其施加道德说服力的能力’”。United States v. Baig（美国诉贝格案），536 F. App’x 91, 93 (2d Cir. 2013)（阐述并援引 United States v. Martinez（美国诉马丁内斯案），151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir.1998)）（强调为后加）；另见 Christoffel v. United States（克里斯托弗尔诉美国案），196 F.2d 560, 565 (D.C. Cir. 1951)（指出“共同签署人的可靠性”在“其承诺在被告人不出庭时代为支付的情况下”具有相关性，并汇总了判例）。\n\n即使施加了限制最少的一套条件作为保释条件，被告人无法满足这些条件并因此在审判前继续被羁押的情况也是“屡见不鲜的”。United States v. Stanton（美国诉斯坦顿案），No. 91-CR-889-CSH, 1992 WL 27130, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992)。在 Stanton 案中，Charles S. Haight（查尔斯·S·海特）法官阁下指出，面临\n\n因无法满足保释条件而导致的审前羁押「援引了第 3142(c)(2) 条，该条规定：『司法官员不得强加导致对该人进行审前羁押的财务条件。』」同上。Stanton 法院引用了其先前在 Gotay 案中对第 3142(c)(2) 条的分析，在该案中，法院「在《Bail Reform Act（保释改革法）》及其立法历史的背景下」审视了该规定，「并得出结论认为，如果被告无法满足为合理确保其出庭所必需的经济释放条件，其必须继续处于审前羁押中。」同上（引用 Gotay, 609 F. Supp. at 156）。\n\n寻求重新审议的一方承担着高度的举证责任。8「法院对先前命令的重新审议是一项非同寻常的补救措施，出于终局性以及节约稀缺司法资源的考虑，应当谨慎使用。重新审议动议不得用于提出……此前未向法院呈递的事实、问题或论点，也不得用作重新对法院已裁决的问题进行诉讼的工具。」Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)（引文省略）。根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(f)（《美国法典》第 18 编第 3142(f) 条），如果司法官员认定「存在动议人在听证时不知情、且对是否存在能够合理确保该人按要求出庭以及任何其他人与社会的安全的释放条件这一问题具有重大影响的信息」，则羁押听证「[可]予重新开启……」。「在提出的新信息与逃跑风险或对社会的危险性问题无关的情况下，法院可以正当地拒绝重新开启羁押听证的企图。」United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015), aff’d, 604 F. App’x 66 (2d Cir. 2015)（引用 United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1989)）。\n\nB. 讨论\n\n1) 政府拒绝拟议共同签署人的决定并非专断\n\n政府关于八名拟议共同签署人均不合格的认定既合情理，又有记录支持。被告拟议的保证人既不具备经济责任能力，也无法对被告施加道德规劝力。政府的个别化评估还妥当地考量了任何拟议的共同签署人是否为被告的共谋者，以及/或者是否为 Kwok（郭文贵）、Je（余建明）及被告诈骗行为的明显受害者。\n\n首先，八名拟议共同签署人中没有任何人对被告具有足够的道德规劝力，以「合理确保」其在未来的法庭出庭，即使她的缺席会导致第二名具有经济责任能力的共同签署人承担全部保释金债务。如上所述，大多数拟议的共同签署人几乎不认识被告，只是最近才结识她，并且与她仅有零星（若有）的交流。在缺乏足够道德规劝力的情况下，被告不太可能会担心自己的逃跑会让（与自己并无交情的）个人背负债务。\n\n8 并无具体规则规定对刑事事项的裁定进行重新审议。参见例如 United States v. James, No. 02 CR 0778, 2007 WL 914242, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2007)。然而，「在《Rules of Criminal Procedure（刑事诉讼规则）》未对某事项作出具体规定之处，审理刑事案件的法院获准借鉴并仿效《Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）》所认可的做法。」同上（引文及内部引号省略）。就此而言，标题为「无准据法时的程序」的 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57(b)（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 57(b) 条）部分规定：「[法]官可以以符合联邦法律、本规则及本地区本地规则的任何方式规范实践做法。」Fed. R. Crim. P. 57(b)。「因此，在裁决刑事事项中的重新审议动议时，本地区的法院已按照适用于民事背景的相同原则解决了此类动议。」同上（引文及内部引号省略）。\n\n其次，所有被告拟议的共同签署人都卷入了被告被指控的同一行为中，他们要么是政府调查的对象，要么是该诈骗行为的明显受害者。无论哪种身份，都使这些人没有资格担任能够对被告施加道德规劝力的共同签署人。在共同签署人属于犯罪共谋成员的范围内，他们的利益同样容易在于协助被告逃跑，且鉴于这起国际犯罪共谋所涉及的募集资金数额惊人，哪怕数以百万计的损失也可以得到偿付。在拟议共同签署人属于诈骗受害者的范围内，其作为共同签署人的身份完全不能保证被告会出于对其财务福祉的顾虑而放弃逃跑。毕竟，被告被指控诈骗的正是这一类受害者。\n\n第三，即使他们对被告具有足够的道德规劝力，拟议的保证人也不具备经济责任能力。参见例如 Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d at 225-26（裁定政府拒绝两名提出的保证人的决定并非专断，因为这些人申报的收入较低，此外无法提供可靠的文件证明他们拥有其声称拥有的资产）。例如，未能向政府提供几乎所有类别的被索取文件，包括地址证明、公民身份或合法居留证明、最近的银行对账单以及最近的工资单；并且确实提供的财务文件（具体为其近期的税务文件）不够详尽，无法印证或确认其申报收入的来源。在本案中，鉴于提出的八名保证人每位均属于「经批准的保证人以外的人员」，保证人（或被告代其）被要求「向法院提供有关保证人资产和负债价值的信息……以及针对保证人财产的产权负担的性质和程度」，以便法院能够确定该保证人是否具有「具有足够无产权负担价值的净资产来支付保释金额」。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)（强调为后加）。被告尚未向法院提供充分的文件或信息以供其作出此类独立认定。然而，即使基于已向本法院提供的文件，拟议的保证人中也没有任何人符合「具备经济责任能力的人」的资格，因为没有人在「[被告]未能在审判中出庭时[具备]支付[500 万美元]保释金的能力」。Gotay, 609 F. Supp. at 156。\n\n2) 对被告的保释条件进行重新审议是没有根据的\n\n如上所述，寻求对先前法院命令进行重新审议的一方承担着高度的举证责任。法律明确规定，重新审议动议不得用于重新对法院已裁决的问题进行诉讼。Jackson, 664 F. Supp. 2d at 313。然而，这恰恰是被告要求本法院所做的事情：推翻 Parker 法官论证充分的认定，即法院施加的保释条件——包括两名经批准的共同签署人的要求以及在所有条件满足前继续羁押被告——是能够合理确保被告在未来法庭出庭的限制最少的条件。（Ex. C at 22:6-23:16。）被告甚至走得更远，在脚注中坚称，即使没有任何共同签署人的要求，被告的保释方案也足以达到 18 U.S.C. § 3142 的目的，从而断然拒绝了 Parker 法官的裁定——而这一要求是 Parker 法官在听取双方辩论后特别作出的裁定。（Mem. at 11, n.3）。\n\n本动议并不是被告首次企图对 Parker 法官施加的保释条件寻求重新审议。被告未能承认，她此前已经在 Netburn 法官面前尝试过针对 Parker 法官保释认定提出不当的重新审议动议。在 2023 年 3 月 22 日的会议期间，正如在此处一样，辩护律师请求 Netburn 法官「以 Wang 女士能够满足保释条件并获释的方式变更保释条件」。（Ex. D at 5:10-22）。然而，辩护律师并未指出在 Parker 法官面前进行初步保释辩论时被告（即动议人）不知情且可能对保释条件的评估具有重大影响的任何信息。18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)。\n\n相反，在政府看来，自被告初步保释听证以来揭露的新信息可以说本可证明施加更为严格的保释条件是合理的。首先，政府此前并不知道被告显然没有任何熟人（甚至没有任何不相识的具备经济责任能力的人）可以作为合格的共同签署人提出。其次，自被告首次出庭以来，政府获悉 Je 仍然在逃，且很可能在 UAE（阿联酋），在那里他和 Kwok 可以获取大量资源和诈骗收益，据信他们正在建立其诈骗运作的新业务和财务基地。Je 是该诈骗计划的出资人，也是一名能够获取巨额资金并有能力协助和资助 Kwok 或被告逃跑的国际逃犯。最后，如上所述，尽管被告否认与 Gettr 以及/或者 HCHK Technologies——由 Kwok 和 Je 控制、部分使用诈骗收益资助的公司——存在任何正式关联或雇佣关系，多名提出的共同签署人仍认为被告为这些公司工作。这一新事实不仅进一步凸显了 Kwok 障眼法骗局的复杂性，也凸显了被告作为 Kwok 值得信赖的幕僚长所起的关键作用，即使在与其没有正式关联的实体中，她也负责管理运作。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n如本文所述，被告具有极高的逃跑风险。在被告的初次移送和保释听证期间，Parker 法官仔细考虑了 Pretrial Services（审前服务处）的建议以及双方关于何种释放条件（若有）能够合理确保被告未来的法庭出庭或社会安全的辩论。Parker 法官随后作出裁定，认定当前施加的一套保释条件是限制最少的条件，并进一步裁定被告在获释前需要满足所有这些条件。被告未能做到这一点，现在企图通过请求本法院批准毫无疑问不合格的共同签署人，或者退一步讲，推翻 Parker 法官和 Netburn 法官作出的与保释相关的裁定，以对司法程序进行第二次规避。被告未能提供任何证据支持其关于政府对拟议共同签署人的评估系专断或不合理的声称，并且没有提出充分的证据以证明采取对保释认定进行重新审议这一「非同寻常」的补救措施是正当的。因此，被告的动议应予驳回。\n\n谨启，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：\nJuliana N. Murray\nRyan B. Finkel\nMicah F. Fergenson\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理美国联邦检察官）\n(212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\n附件\n抄送：Alex Lipman, Esq.（通过 ECF 及电子邮件）\nPriya Choudhry, Esq.（通过 ECF 及电子邮件）","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6752,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-29","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:05:26"}