{"id":"court_sdny_10_4","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":10,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-03-29","title":"SDNY ECF 10","summary_zh":"保释条件复审记录 —— 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）。Nebbia 听证会就被告提议的保释担保人遭政府驳回而进行；法院督促双方诚实协商或提交正式动议，定期后续庭审日期处理此事。","summary_en":"Bail review hearing transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #10 (March 29, 2023). Nebbia hearing on government's rejection of defendant's proposed bail sureties; court directed parties to work in good faith, scheduled follow-up conference for court's consideration of alternative proposals.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Docket #23-mj-02007\nPlaintiff, :\n-against- :\nYANPING WANG, : New York, New York\nMarch 22, 2023\nDefendant.\n--------------------------------:\nPROCEEDINGS BEFORE\nTHE HONORABLE SARAH NETBURN\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nAPPEARANCES:\nFor Plaintiff: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nBY: JULIANA N. MURRAY, ESQ.\nMICAH F. FERGENSON, ESQ.\n1 St. Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nFor Defendant: LIPMAN LAW, PLLC\nBY: ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ.\n147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor\nNew York, New York 10001\nFor Defendant: CHAUDHRYLAW, PLLC\nBY: PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ.\n147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor\nNew York, New York 10001\nTranscription Service: Marissa Mignano Transcription\nPhone: (631) 813-9335\nE-mail:marissamignano@gmail.com\nProceedings recorded by electronic sound recording;\nTranscript produced by transcription service\n\nINDEX\nE X A M I N A T I O N S\nRe- Re-\nWitness Direct Cross Direct Cross\nNone\nE X H I B I T S\nExhibit Voir\nNumber Description ID In Dire\nNone\n\n1\n2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, this is\n3 matter of United States v. Yanping Wang. Case is\n4 number 23-mj-2007.\n5 Starting with the Government, could you\n6 please state your appearance for the record.\n7 MS. MURRAY: Good morning, Your Honor.\n8 Juliana Murray and Micah Fergenson on behalf of the\n9 United States.\n10 THE COURT: Thank you.\n11 MR. LIPMAN: Good morning, Your Honor.\n12 Alex Lipman of Lipman Law PLLC and my colleague\n13 Priya Chaudhry of ChaudhryLaw PLLC here for the\n14 defendant, Yanping Wang.\n15 THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Wang, can you\n16 sorry -- go ahead.\n17 MS. CHAUDHRY: The defendant is present\n18 seated between us and being assisted by a Mandarin\n19 interpreter.\n20 THE COURT: Thank you.\n21 Ms. Wang, is your interpreter device\n22 working okay?\n23 THE DEFENDANT: Yes. It's okay.\n24 THE COURT: Okay. If at any point you have\n25 difficulty hearing through the interpreter, please\n\n1 let us know. Okay?\n2 THE DEFENDANT: Understood.\n3 THE COURT: All right. So in preparation\n4 for this proceeding, I've reviewed the pretrial\n5 services report that was prepared about two weeks\n6 ago, maybe a week ago, when the defendant was\n7 initially here. And I have the transcript from\n8 March 15th when the defendant was presented before\n9 Judge Parker, which I've reviewed.\n10 I understand that Judge Parker set\n11 conditions for the defendant's release, required\n12 that the conditions be satisfied before she be\n13 released. And I understand that we are here\n14 potentially for a Nebbia hearing. Nobody has\n15 submitted anything else to me, so I don't know\n16 anything else than now what I've shared with you.\n17 MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. So we\n18 received a call last night from defense counsel,\n19 yesterday evening. They provided a number of\n20 potential cosigners. We've received documents for\n21 five of those and interviewed four and had not\n22 gotten to the point where we had two cosigners that\n23 we approved.\n24 So last evening, defense informed us that\n25 they wanted what they referred to as a Nebbia\n\n1 hearing. I understood the defense was going to file\n2 something for the Court overnight, but we just\n3 notified arraignment and arranged for defendant to\n4 be produced. So I will leave it to defense what\n5 they want to cover here today.\n6 THE COURT: Okay. Can I ask you just to\n7 move the microphone --\n8 MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry.\n9 THE COURT: -- directly in front of you.\n10 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, the reason we are\n11 here is because the Government has unreasonably, in\n12 our view, refused to approve the cosigners we\n13 proposed. So, as the Government said, we gave them\n14 more than five names. We gave them something like\n15 nine names, and they interviewed -- they have\n16 documents for five. They interviewed four. They've\n17 rejected all of them.\n18 And the reason we're here is because we are\n19 going to ask Your Honor to either approve the people\n20 we've proposed or change the bail conditions in such\n21 a way that Ms. Wang can satisfy the bail conditions\n22 and be released. So if I may just start before, as\n23 an initial map, right, since Your Honor has reviewed\n24 the pretrial report, Your Honor can see that the\n25 pretrial recommendation is much more -- much less --\n\n1 THE COURT: Let me stop you for one second.\n2 MR. LIPMAN: Yeah.\n3 THE COURT: I'm not really inclined to\n4 overrule my colleague who heard bail arguments and\n5 set a bail condition. So I'm not sure that's what I\n6 want to do, if that's what you're asking me to do.\n7 If you're asking me to consider the reasonableness\n8 of the proposed sureters I understand under the law,\n9 I can do that.\n10 I don't know anything about what that\n11 standard of review is, and I don't have any names or\n12 documents, so I don't know that that's something I\n13 can do from the bench.\n14 MR. LIPMAN: Well, Your Honor, let me set\n15 the stage for this, and maybe that'll help.\n16 THE COURT: Okay.\n17 MR. LIPMAN: Ms. Wang is a political\n18 refugee from China. She is a part of a movement of\n19 people who are opposing the Chinese Communist Party.\n20 And it's a pretty big movement. And because of her\n21 participation in the movement as a very senior\n22 person, she cannot return to China. If she did, she\n23 would be arrested at the airport and probably\n24 executed within days.\n25 So she's here. She lost her family in\n\n1 China. Her husband was required to divorce her.\n2 She has a son she hasn't seen in something like nine\n3 years because she's not allowed to be in contact\n4 with him. Her father died without seeing her. She\n5 can't contact her brother anymore. She used to, but\n6 all of the family members have been arrested at one\n7 point or another and told to cut off all contact\n8 with her. Okay?\n9 So the only people with whom she has\n10 contact are people who are part of this movement or\n11 in some way related to the main defendant in this\n12 case. The Government is well aware of this. When\n13 we actually agreed to the $5 million bond and two\n14 cosigners, when we did that we understood that the\n15 Government understood, and we had a conversation\n16 about it, that the people who would cosign for her\n17 are not going to be family members.\n18 Her only friends are people who are in this\n19 circle, and they're willing to sign for her, and\n20 they think that they have moral suasion over her.\n21 THE COURT: Sorry. She's been living in\n22 the United States since 2017; is that correct?\n23 MR. LIPMAN: She has.\n24 THE COURT: And in those six years, she\n25 hasn't befriended anybody who's not within that\n\n1 movement?\n2 MR. LIPMAN: What she does is she works,\n3 and then she goes home, and then she works. And her\n4 entire life, during this entire time, has been\n5 moving from her apartment to where she works and\n6 back. She actually -- the answer is that her entire\n7 world is people -- people in this -- people in this\n8 community. We did have one person who is a very\n9 well-known individual in the United States who is\n10 not part of that -- is not Chinese, and he\n11 volunteered to post a property worth two and a half\n12 million dollars to secure her bond.\n13 We proposed that if he were -- if he were\n14 to do two and a half million dollars of his\n15 property, and she confessed judgment on her\n16 apartment, that's three and a half million dollars.\n17 They have $130,000 in cash that they seized from her\n18 apartment. And then there is an account with\n19 approximately, I want to say, 4- to 500,000 dollars\n20 in it.\n21 We proposed to put all of that together for\n22 $4 million security for the bond and then so that\n23 they could, you know, approve the people that they\n24 had interviewed, and they refused. So we are at a\n25 point now where they won't approve the people we\n\n1 proposed because they are either not connected to\n2 her or too poor or connected with the main defendant\n3 and that kind of short circumstance. There's\n4 nothing we can do.\n5 THE COURT: Sorry. They rejected the\n6 $2.5 million property from somebody else because\n7 that person was not connected?\n8 MR. LIPMAN: No, not because he was not\n9 connected. He is a very well-known individual, and\n10 he has his own legal problems. He wasn't going to\n11 cosign the bond. He was just going to put up the\n12 property to secure her bond, and they rejected him\n13 because they said that he was a convicted felon,\n14 which, frankly, that's not -- neither here nor\n15 there. There is no requirement that incapacitates\n16 somebody who is convicted felon from securing\n17 somebody else's bond.\n18 THE COURT: And that person was prepared to\n19 basically hand over the deed to the Government?\n20 MR. LIPMAN: Correct, he was prepared to\n21 confess judgment on his property.\n22 Now, we now -- potentially, we might have\n23 other people who might be willing to do something\n24 like that, but the key issue here is this: The\n25 three people that they interviewed -- there are\n\n1 three people they interviewed they have no issues\n2 with, as far as I can tell, just as far as I can\n3 tell. And they won't approve them.\n4 First, they told us that they won't approve\n5 them because they don't have enough assets. Okay?\n6 So then we had subsequent conversations in which\n7 they said, well, the other problem is that they are\n8 too remote from her. They don't have moral suasion\n9 over her. Well, they think that they do, which is\n10 why they're doing this.\n11 And, by the way, Your Honor, even if they\n12 don't have the $5 million to stand behind this bond,\n13 they are financially responsible people. They would\n14 be ruined if the bond -- she defaulted on the bond.\n15 One of them is a lawyer. We offered another lawyer\n16 who is -- who is a -- we gave them the name. They\n17 didn't run it down because they told us straight\n18 away that he won't work.\n19 But we offered an IT professional -- I\n20 think two IT professionals, if memory serves.\n21 THE COURT: Two what professionals?\n22 MR. LIPMAN: IT.\n23 THE COURT: IT.\n24 MR. LIPMAN: We offered -- they interviewed\n25 one of the lawyers. He is not rich now, but he does\n\n1 have his own practice. He is a financially\n2 responsible person, and the bond is secured with a\n3 confession judgment on her apartment. She's going\n4 to be at home with an ankle monitor. She's confined\n5 to her apartment. She can't leave it unless she\n6 comes to visit us.\n7 How do we get out of this?\n8 THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from the\n9 Government. Thank you.\n10 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the Government's\n11 view is that this proceeding is premature. There is\n12 a process for the Government to interview and\n13 evaluate the qualifications of potential cosigners.\n14 As Your Honor noted, a week ago, Judge Parker\n15 imposed conditions, and she agreed with both the\n16 Government and Pretrial that those conditions needed\n17 to be met before Ms. Wang could be released.\n18 One of those conditions was two qualified\n19 cosigners on a $5 million bond. The reason that\n20 we're here today, as I understand, is because the\n21 defense is unhappy with the Government's\n22 determination that various of the names that they\n23 provided are not qualified.\n24 There are a couple of points I want to\n25 make, and I don't want to get into the details of\n\n1 the individual because Your Honor doesn't have the\n2 information in front of you right now. But as an\n3 example, the individual who is willing to pledge the\n4 2.2 million in property, defense never provided us\n5 with the address for the property. So we weren't\n6 able to run it down to find out how much equity was\n7 in the property, what was the mortgage, what was the\n8 source of funds used for the property.\n9 And that prominent individual who they said\n10 owned the property is an individual who is very\n11 involved in the fraud in this case. And this is a\n12 billion-dollar fraud that was spearheaded by an\n13 individual known as Ho Wan Kwok or Miles Guo. The\n14 individual who was going to pledge the property has\n15 been involved in several organizations that are\n16 alleged to be instrumentalities of the fraud. And\n17 Ms. Wang is the chief of staff for Mr. Guo. She\n18 runs all of his companies.\n19 A couple of the individuals, we did advise\n20 defense counsel, we couldn't even in good faith\n21 interview as potential cosigners. One of the\n22 lawyers that Mr. Lipman mentioned is the outside\n23 counsel for three of the different entities that\n24 operated this fraud scheme. His law firm had an\n25 escrow account that held tens of millions of dollars\n\n1 of fraud scheme funds over the course of the charged\n2 conspiracy. That is not a person that we feel\n3 comfortable, even if he has the financial means to\n4 cosign a bond for the defendant.\n5 We have expressed a willingness to work\n6 with defense on potential cosigners, particularly in\n7 light of their claims. Which we understand that\n8 Ms. Wang doesn't have family here, so the moral\n9 suasion angle might be different.\n10 But we can't be in a position where Judge\n11 Parker made a very reasoned judgment on the facts,\n12 and the Government agrees that in light of the\n13 substantial flight risk that Ms. Wang creates, in\n14 light of both her political asylum status, the\n15 strength of the Government's evidence, the amount of\n16 time she's facing, and her global network of Miles\n17 Guo supporters who clearly are willing to put their\n18 necks out and sign a bond, even though some of them\n19 have only met her once or twice or only speak with\n20 her a couple of times.\n21 In light of that substantial flight risk,\n22 we need to be assured that we have qualified\n23 cosigners on this bond. That's all we're doing. It\n24 is a process wherein for every cosigner that we\n25 evaluate, we request information, we request\n\n1 documents, we conduct an interview, we make an\n2 evaluation, and we engage in dialogue. And if we\n3 think that person isn't qualified, we ask for\n4 another name.\n5 In this case, we have been given names in\n6 the abstract without even having their documents.\n7 Defense has pushed us to approve them in the\n8 abstract. With respect to the $2.2 million property\n9 that they proposed would secure the bond, for\n10 example, we received a call. They said they had an\n11 individual, didn't name the individual at first, who\n12 would put up 2.2 million in property. We asked for\n13 the address. They said, \"We'll get it to you. Will\n14 you just agree in principle today?\"\n15 Your Honor, again, we have a process of\n16 going through this, and we are not slow rolling this\n17 by any stretch. We have spent a substantial amount\n18 of time in the last week running down each of the\n19 names and interviewing the people that defense\n20 counsel has brought before us.\n21 If defense is in a position where they want\n22 to argue that the Government's assessment is\n23 unreasonable, then under the statute under 18 U.S.C.\n24 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii), for the Court to approve or\n25 determine the appropriateness of an unapproved\n\n1 surety, the Court needs to have before it all of the\n2 documents and assets and evidence underlying that\n3 surety's financial situation because the standard is\n4 that the Court can, on its own, approve that surety\n5 if such surety has a net worth which has sufficient\n6 unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail\n7 bond.\n8 So we're happy to keep working with\n9 defense. We would like to do that to see if there\n10 are potentially qualified cosigners. But if we get\n11 to a point where defense feels there aren't, the\n12 next step would be for the defense to gather\n13 together the supporting materials for proposed\n14 cosigners, submit them to the Court, and then if the\n15 court makes its own independent evaluation that\n16 those people have $5 million in unencumbered assets\n17 sufficient to support the bond, then I think their\n18 application would appropriately be before the Court.\n19 THE COURT: Thank you.\n20 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, what the\n21 Government just said, essentially, is this: We\n22 interview these people, make a judgment about\n23 whether they're appropriate or not, but the only\n24 questions that they need to actually answer are,\n25 number one, is this a financially responsible\n\n1 person, and, two, do they have moral suasion over\n2 the defendant.\n3 THE COURT: But why wouldn't the assessment\n4 of whether somebody was a financially responsible\n5 person include the responsible part? Meaning if,\n6 for instance, the lawyer that you proposed is, in\n7 the Government's light, at least involved on some\n8 level with the fraud, even if that person has\n9 assets, then that person is not responsible in the\n10 Government's light.\n11 MR. LIPMAN: Well, that person --\n12 THE COURT: And so if you want to make an\n13 application to the Court, that's one thing. But\n14 that's not an unreasonable position for the\n15 Government to take.\n16 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, in that situation,\n17 regardless of what the Government thinks he did or\n18 didn't do, he would be on the hook for $5 million.\n19 And the idea of a financially responsible person is\n20 a little bit of an interesting question. The people\n21 that they refuse to -- they interviewed three\n22 people, one a lawyer, two -- I think they're both IT\n23 professionals. They don't have a problem with those\n24 issues -- with those people.\n25 What they said to us is, these people don't\n\n1 have enough assets. Well, you know what? They\n2 don't have enough assets. But if Ms. Wang were to\n3 default on the bond, they would be in serious\n4 financial troubles. And they understand that.\n5 THE COURT: Right. Unless they fled.\n6 MR. LIPMAN: But there's no -- even they do\n7 not suggest that. They're completely unrelated to\n8 her or to the main defendant. I mean, they are\n9 people who know her and are willing to cosign a bond\n10 for her, but even the Government doesn't claim\n11 there's any issue with them, that they're going to\n12 flee or anything like that. One of them is a lawyer\n13 practicing in Chicago. He's not going anywhere,\n14 Your Honor. He's not making a ton of money, but\n15 he's not going anywhere.\n16 And one of them is an IT professional who's\n17 actually not Chinese, and he's willing to cosign\n18 bond. Again, he's not a rich person, but his\n19 financial life would be ruined if Ms. Wang were to\n20 default on the bond. And he understands that, and\n21 he thinks that he's willing to sign.\n22 And by the way, he spoke with his wife\n23 before he agreed. They both agreed to do so. So\n24 these people making serious, serious commitment,\n25 they all understand what's going on. They are\n\n1 financially responsible. They're not related to the\n2 fraud in any way whatsoever.\n3 THE COURT: And so what relief are you\n4 seeking today?\n5 MR. LIPMAN: What I'm asking the Court to\n6 do is to do one of two things: Either direct them\n7 to accept the three people being interviewed with\n8 whom they didn't have -- about whom they didn't\n9 have -- they didn't have an issue with them other\n10 than they told us that these people were not\n11 sufficiently rich, or alternatively, that you alter\n12 the bail conditions in such a way that we could\n13 actually reasonably meet.\n14 Because if the requirement is that somebody\n15 cosigns a bond over who has moral suasion over\n16 Ms. Wang, all of those people are in Mr. Guo's\n17 orbit, and none of them are going to work. Her best\n18 friend is his daughter. She can't sign. She can\n19 sign for other reasons, maybe, but she can't sign.\n20 We proposed her. They rejected him. They have good\n21 reasons for doing it -- or I don't know if they are\n22 good reasons. They say they have good reasons for\n23 doing it.\n24 But they rejected her best friend's\n25 boyfriend as a cosigner. They rejected another\n\n1 person who works Mr. Guo as a cosigner. We asked\n2 them. There are people who -- she was a senior\n3 person in this organization. She interacted with\n4 several senior people. We asked -- we gave them the\n5 names, we said how about this person, that person.\n6 No, no, no, because they're involved in the fraud or\n7 they're involved in the movement or they're involved\n8 in this, involved in that.\n9 Well, what are we supposed to do? We found\n10 three people they interviewed who are financially\n11 responsible, willing to sign, and did not even --\n12 they don't claim are involved in defrauding anyone.\n13 MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, if I just may\n14 briefly respond to that point. I do want to note I\n15 don't believe there's any issue that's ripe for the\n16 Court at this point procedurally or under the law.\n17 And I don't think that the first prong of relief\n18 that Mr. Lipman suggested is appropriate, for the\n19 Court to force the Government to approve cosigners.\n20 That is not the legal standard.\n21 The three individuals Mr. Lipman just\n22 mentioned, I want to note, while we said we could\n23 get comfortable with them as financially responsible\n24 persons, all three of those individuals are victims\n25 of the fraud. They all invested in various of the\n\n1 different fraudulent arms of this scheme. The fact\n2 that they are willing to sign a bond and they have\n3 potential means to support some portion, by no\n4 stretch, 5 million, but some portion of that bond is\n5 independent of the other prong of the assessment,\n6 which is moral suasion.\n7 If they sign the bond, what influence do\n8 they have over Ms. Wang appearing in future court\n9 appearances to protect the assets and the $5 million\n10 debt that could be imposed on people she and her\n11 coconspirators have already victimized in the course\n12 of this fraud?\n13 We have valid bases to have not accepted\n14 the cosigners who have been presented. We have a\n15 process for reviewing and approving cosigners. And\n16 if there are certain people the defense wants to\n17 bring to the Court's attention, they need to provide\n18 the supporting documentation and make an argument,\n19 and the Court can make an independent investment.\n20 THE COURT: Okay. I think --\n21 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, just very briefly,\n22 these people understand what they're doing. They're\n23 members of a movement of people who are dissidents\n24 and are opposing Chinese Government, communist\n25 party. Ms. Wang is a very well-known person. They\n\n1 know who she is. They understand the allegations.\n2 One of them specifically asked me, before he agreed\n3 to do it, to send him the complaint, which I did.\n4 And he took time to review the complaint before he\n5 gave me permission to contact the Government. Okay?\n6 So they know what they're doing. They\n7 understand that the Government used them as victims.\n8 They are prepared to sign.\n9 THE COURT: Okay. I tend to agree with\n10 Ms. Murray that there is not an issue before the\n11 Court. I'm certainly not going to direct people I\n12 don't even know -- I haven't even had names, much\n13 less any information. I'm not going to direct the\n14 Government to accept these miscellaneous John Does\n15 as sureties. That's not how this works. And I\n16 don't believe sufficient time has elapsed that\n17 justifies revisiting Judge Parker's bail conditions.\n18 What I'd like to do is, first, direct you,\n19 Mr. Lipman. It sounds like you haven't given all\n20 the information to the Government specifically with\n21 respect to this person who has property that they\n22 might post. You know, they need to do their job. I\n23 take Ms. Murray at her word that they are not slow\n24 walking this. They are making every effort to\n25 locate somebody that the Government is comfortable\n\n1 with. But you do need to provide information so\n2 that they can do their job too. So you need to get\n3 that information to the Government as soon as\n4 possible.\n5 I'd like to set a date for an appropriate\n6 motion based on what you are proposing. And I guess\n7 the question, Mr. Lipman, is when do you want that\n8 motion to be filed? I think it does need to be\n9 filed with supporting documents and all of the\n10 information necessary, and I think it'll just be\n11 assigned to the judge who's on duty here. That\n12 judge will need to review the information as well.\n13 So I don't know how long it'll take you to\n14 assemble the paperwork that you would need to\n15 assemble to satisfy the Court that the person that\n16 you're proposing that you allege the Government has\n17 rejected is inadequate and the Court should order\n18 the Government to accept that person.\n19 So I want to give you enough time to make a\n20 motion that's appropriate and supported, but also to\n21 continue working with the Government, because I\n22 don't hear the Government saying they don't see a\n23 way out of this morass. They just need additional\n24 information. And it may be as you began,\n25 Mr. Lipman, you know, there's a million-dollar\n\n1 property. There's a 2.2, 2.5 million dollar\n2 property of somebody else. There's a half a million\n3 dollars in a bank that's frozen. It may be that the\n4 Government can work with you to cobble something\n5 together.\n6 But, for instance, if you have a\n7 $2.5 million house in the Hamptons that has $100,000\n8 in equity in it, and the rest is owned by a bank,\n9 then that's not going to be helpful for your client.\n10 You need to get that information to the Government.\n11 They just have no idea.\n12 MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, just to be clear,\n13 in the case of this famous individual, the\n14 Government says they didn't provide us the\n15 information. They knew who it was, and the question\n16 was not what the property was. The question was\n17 were they going to approve him at all. And they\n18 didn't. They said -- they told us they ran it up\n19 the flag pole, couldn't do it.\n20 It wasn't because the property wasn't\n21 appropriate that they turned it down. It wasn't\n22 because there was not enough equity in it. It was\n23 because they don't like who it is. And the problem\n24 that we have and the reason we are in this courtroom\n25 today, Your Honor, is because their criteria keeps\n\n1 shifting. First, there was an understanding, an\n2 explicit understanding -- I told them right away,\n3 look, there are no sisters. There are no brothers.\n4 There are no aunts. Okay? It's going to be\n5 somebody else.\n6 They said, \"All right; we understand that.\"\n7 So we gave them names. These people are not rich\n8 enough. Okay. Now they're telling you that they\n9 also don't have moral suasion. Well, you knew that\n10 before when I first gave you the names. I feel like\n11 we're not getting anywhere because things are\n12 shifting. And I think what they're doing is they're\n13 deliberately trying to keep her in in order to put\n14 pressure on her so that she becomes their friends,\n15 your Honor. I think that's what's really going on\n16 here.\n17 Friday. We'll file on Friday or tee it up\n18 on Friday?\n19 MS. CHAUDHRY: We'll file on Friday.\n20 MR. LIPMAN: We can file on Friday, Your\n21 Honor.\n22 THE COURT: Okay.\n23 MR. LIPMAN: And, Your Honor, we will\n24 continue working with them, but at a minimum, it\n25 would be helpful to us if the Court could at least\n\n1 admonish them to work with us in good faith.\n2 THE COURT: I'm not going to admonish them\n3 because I don't believe that they are not working\n4 with you in good faith. So I'm happy to have your\n5 application. I hope nothing that's in the\n6 application is information that you haven't provided\n7 to the Government, because what I'm hearing from the\n8 Government, and I don't really need to get into the\n9 sandbox to figure out who's right or who's wrong\n10 here, is that they haven't received all the\n11 information that they need from you. So I hope that\n12 you continue to provide that to them.\n13 I'll direct the Government to expeditiously\n14 respond to the proposals and to make a good faith\n15 assessment of those folks. I'm not going to\n16 admonish you that you haven't done that yet, but\n17 that's certainly your obligation, and I expect you\n18 to do so. So this motion is going to be filed on\n19 Friday.\n20 When would the Government like to file its\n21 opposition?\n22 MR. FERGENSON: Without knowing what this\n23 motion is going to look like, Your Honor, it's a\n24 little difficult to say.\n25 THE COURT: How about if you file it\n\n1 Wednesday, and we set a conference for the following\n2 Friday?\n3 MR. FERGENSON: That seems reasonable, Your\n4 Honor.\n5 THE COURT: Okay. So there's going to be\n6 something filed on Friday, which is March 24th.\n7 There's going to be an opposition filed on\n8 Wednesday, which, if my calculation is right, is\n9 March 29th.\n10 Is that right, Ms. Fletcher?\n11 THE DEPUTY CLERK: That's right.\n12 THE COURT: And then I will work with, I\n13 believe, Judge Lehrburger, who will be hearing this,\n14 for a date for the conference, which will be held on\n15 March 31st.\n16 If between now and March 31st, the parties\n17 are able to work this out, which is my hope, you\n18 should obviously notify the Court as soon as\n19 possible. And I do think the parties can figure out\n20 a way to come up with a resolution here for this\n21 issue. This is not the first time the Government\n22 has faced complications of this sort, so I'm\n23 confident you can figure something out. But\n24 obviously, if you can't, then the Court will see you\n25 the following Friday.\n\n1 All right. Anything further?\n2 MR. FERGENSON: No, thank you, Your Honor.\n3 MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.\n4 MS. CHAUDHRY: Your Honor, did we have a\n5 time for next Friday?\n6 THE COURT: We don't.\n7 MR. LIPMAN: Okay.\n8 THE COURT: We'll set it once -- it's going\n9 to be Judge Lehrburger.\n10 MS. CHAUDHRY: Thank you.\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n\n1 C E R T I F I C A T E\n2\n3 I, Marissa Mignano, certify that the foregoing\n4 transcript of proceedings in the case of\n5 UNITED STATES v. YANPING WANG, Docket #23-mj-02007,\n6 was prepared using digital transcription software and\n7 is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.\n8\n9\n10 Signature ___________________________\n11 Marissa Mignano\n12\n13 Date: March 27, 2023\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）, : 案号 #23-mj-02007\n原告, :\n-针对- :\nYANPING WANG（王雁平）, : 纽约州纽约市\n2023年3月22日\n被告。\n\n审理程序主持法官：\nTHE HONORABLE SARAH NETBURN（萨拉·内特伯恩阁下）\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE（美国联邦治安法官）\n出庭人员：\n代表原告：UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE（美国联邦检察官办公室）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n代理人：JULIANA N. MURRAY, ESQ.（朱莉安娜·N·默里律师）\nMICAH F. FERGENSON, ESQ.（米卡·F·弗根森律师）\n1 St. Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n代表被告：LIPMAN LAW, PLLC（利普曼律师事务所）\n代理人：ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ.（亚历克斯·利普曼律师）\n147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor\nNew York, New York 10001\n代表被告：CHAUDHRYLAW, PLLC（乔杜里律师事务所）\n代理人：PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ.（普里亚·乔杜里律师）\n147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor\nNew York, New York 10001\n速记服务机构：Marissa Mignano Transcription\n电话：(631) 813-9335\n电子邮箱：marissamignano@gmail.com\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录；\n庭审记录由速记服务机构制作\n\n目录\n质 证\n再直接 反复\n证人 直接询问 交叉询问 询问 询问\n无\n证 物\n证物 预先审查\n编号 说明 标记 采纳 质询\n无\n\n2 法庭副书记官：法官阁下，这是\n3 美利坚合众国诉王雁平案（United States v. Yanping Wang）。案件\n4 编号为 23-mj-2007。\n5 先从政府方开始，请\n6 报出您的姓名以记录在案。\n7 默里女士：法官阁下，早上好。\n8 朱莉安娜·默里和米卡·弗根森代表\n9 合众国出庭。\n10 法庭：谢谢。\n11 利普曼先生：法官阁下，早上好。\n12 利普曼律师事务所的亚历克斯·利普曼，以及我的同事\n13 乔杜里律师事务所的普里亚·乔杜里，代表\n14 被告王雁平出庭。\n15 法庭：谢谢。王女士，您能——\n16 抱歉——请讲。\n17 乔杜里女士：被告已到庭，\n18 坐在我们之间，并有一名普通话\n19 译员协助。\n20 法庭：谢谢。\n21 王女士，您的同传翻译设备\n22 运作正常吗？\n23 被告：正常。挺好的。\n24 法庭：好的。如果您在任何时候\n25 听译员翻译有困难，请\n\n1 告诉我们。好吗？\n2 被告：明白。\n3 法庭：好的。为了准备\n4 本次庭审，我查阅了大约两周前、\n5 也可能是大约一周前被告初次到庭时\n6 准备的审前服务报告。我还拿到了3月15日\n7 被告在帕克法官（Judge Parker）面前\n8 过堂时的庭审记录，我也查阅过了。\n9 我了解到帕克法官设定了\n10 被告的释放条件，要求\n11 在满足这些条件后她才能\n12 被释放。而且我了解到我们今天到庭\n13 可能是为了进行内比亚听证会（Nebbia hearing）。没有人\n14 向我提交任何其他材料，所以我除了\n15 刚才跟你们说的这些之外，别的一无所知。\n16 默里女士：是的，法官阁下。我们\n17 昨晚接到了辩护律师的电话，\n18 昨天傍晚。他们提供了几位\n19 潜在的联署保证人。我们收到了其中五位的\n20 材料，并面谈了四位，但尚未\n21 达到有两位经我们批准的\n22 联署保证人的程度。\n23 因此昨晚，辩方通知我们，\n24 他们希望进行他们所谓的内比亚\n\n1 听证会。我原本以为辩方昨夜会向法庭\n2 提交书面材料，但我们只是\n3 通报了提审部门并安排将被告\n4 押解到庭。因此今天在这里要讨论什么，\n5 我交由辩方决定。\n6 法庭：好的。我能请您把麦克风\n7 移到——\n8 利普曼先生：抱歉。\n9 法庭：——正对着您的位置吗。\n10 利普曼先生：法官阁下，我们今天到这里的\n11 原因在于，在我们看来，政府方无理地\n12 拒绝批准我们提议的\n13 联署保证人。正如政府方所说，我们向他们提供了\n14 超过五个名字。我们提供了大概\n15 九个名字，而他们面谈了——他们掌握了其中五位的\n16 材料。他们面谈了四位。他们把所有人都否决了。\n17 我们今天到庭的原因是，我们\n18 准备请求法官阁下要么批准我们提议的\n19 人选，要么修改保释条件，使得\n20 王女士能够满足保释条件\n21 并获得释放。所以如果允许我先做个开场，\n22 作为最初的梳理，既然法官阁下查阅了\n23 审前报告，法官阁下可以看到\n24 审前建议要宽松得多——少得多——\n\n1 法庭：让我打断您一秒钟。\n2 利普曼先生：好的。\n3 法庭：我实在无意去推翻\n4 听取了保释辩论并设定了\n5 保释条件的同行法官的决定。因此如果这就是您要求我做的，\n6 我不确定我是否想这么做。\n7 如果您是要求我依法考量\n8 拟提议保证人的合理性，我知道\n9 我可以这么做。\n10 我完全不了解相关的审查标准是什么，\n11 而且我手头没有任何名单或\n12 文件，所以我不知道这是不是我\n13 能在法官席上当庭裁决的事情。\n14 利普曼先生：好吧，法官阁下，让我为这件事铺垫一下背景，\n15 也许会有所帮助。\n16 法庭：好的。\n17 利普曼先生：王女士是一名来自中国的政治\n18 难民。她是反对中国共产党\n19 的运动群体中的一员。\n20 这是一场相当规模的运动。而且由于她\n21 作为极高级别人员参与该运动，\n22 她无法返回中国。如果回去，她\n23 在机场就会被逮捕，并可能在\n24 数日内被处决。\n25 所以她留在这里。她在中国的\n\n1 家人也失去了。她的丈夫被迫与她离婚。\n2 她有一个大概九年没见过的儿子，\n3 因为她不被允许与他\n4 联系。她的父亲去世时也没能见她一面。她\n5 再也无法联系她的哥哥。她以前曾联系过，但\n6 所有家庭成员都曾先后\n7 被捕，并被勒令断绝与她的\n8 一切联系。对吧？\n9 因此，她唯一能接触到的\n10 人，就是这场运动中的人，或者是\n11 与本案主要被告有某种关联的人。\n12 政府方对此心知肚明。当我们\n13 实际上同意500万美元保释金和两位\n14 联署保证人时，当我们达成该协议时，我们认为\n15 政府方是理解的，而且我们曾就此\n16 进行过沟通，即为她联署的人\n17 不可能是家庭成员。\n18 她唯一的朋友就是这个\n19 圈子里的人，他们愿意为她签字担保，而且\n20 他们认为自己对她具有道义劝服力。\n21 法庭：抱歉。她自2017年起一直居住在\n22 美国，对吗？\n23 利普曼先生：是的。\n24 法庭：在这六年里，她\n25 没有结识任何不属于那个\n\n1 运动圈子的人吗？\n2 利普曼先生：她的生活就是工作，\n3 然后回家，然后再工作。在整个这段时间里，\n4 她的全部生活就是\n5 往返于她的公寓和她工作的地方\n6 之间。她实际上——答案是，她的整个\n7 社交圈全都是——全都是这个——全都是这个\n8 社群里的人。我们确实找到了一位在美国\n9 非常知名的人士，他不属于那个群体——\n10 不是华人，他\n11 自愿拿出价值250万美元的\n12 房产来为她的保释金作担保。\n13 我们提出，如果他——如果他\n14 拿出自己价值250万美元的\n15 房产，加上她就自己的公寓签署认诺判决（confessed judgment），\n16 这就是350万美元。\n17 他们还从她的公寓里扣押了13万美元现金。\n18 另外还有一个账户，里面大概有，\n19 我想说，40万到50万美元。\n20 我们提议把所有这些加在一起，\n21 作为保释金的400万美元担保物，然后\n22 这样他们就可以批准那些他们已经\n23 面谈过的人，但他们拒绝了。所以我们现在处于\n24 这样一种境地：他们不肯批准我们提议的人选，\n25 因为这些人要么与她没有联系，\n\n1 要么太穷，要么与主要被告有关联，\n2 诸如此类的情况。我们已经\n3 无计可施了。\n4 法庭：抱歉。他们拒绝了别人提供的\n5 250万美元房产，就因为\n6 那个人与她没有联系？\n7 利普曼先生：不，不是因为他没有\n8 联系。他是一位非常知名的人士，\n9 他自己也有法律纠纷。他原本不是要\n10 联署保释金。他只是打算拿出\n11 房产来为她的保释金作担保，但他们否决了他，\n12 因为他们说他是一名被定罪的重罪犯（convicted felon），\n13 坦率地说，这根本——无关紧要。\n14 没有任何法律规定会剥夺\n15 被定罪的重罪犯为他人保释金\n16 提供财产担保的资格。\n17 法庭：而那个人已经准备好\n18 基本上把房契移交给政府了？\n19 利普曼先生：没错，他已经准备好\n20 就他的房产签署认诺判决。\n21 现在，我们目前——可能还会有\n22 其他人愿意做类似的事，\n23 但这里的关键问题在于：他们面谈过的\n24 三个人——他们面谈过的三个人\n25 在我看来没有任何问题，据我所知\n\n1 确实如此。但他们就是不予批准。\n2 起初，他们告诉我们不予批准是因为\n3 他们没有足够的资产。对吧？\n4 接着我们在随后的交涉中，他们又说，\n5 另一个问题是他们与她关系太疏远。他们对她\n6 没有道义劝服力。可是，他们自己认为有，\n7 这正是他们愿意这样做的原因。\n8 顺便说一句，法官阁下，即便他们\n9 没有500万美元来为这份保释金托底，\n10 他们也是具有财务责任能力的人。如果保释金——如果她违反保释条件，\n11 他们将倾家荡产。\n12 其中一人是律师。我们还提供了另一位律师，\n13 他是——他是一名——我们给了他们名字。他们\n14 根本没有去调查，因为他们当场\n15 就告诉我们这行不通。\n16 但我们还提供了一名IT专业人士——如果我没记错的话，\n17 应该是两名IT专业人士。\n18 法庭：两名什么专业人士？\n19 利普曼先生：IT。\n20 法庭：IT。\n21 利普曼先生：我们提供了——他们面谈了\n22 其中一位律师。他现在虽然不算富有，但他确实\n23 拥有自己的律所。他是一个在财务上\n24 有责任能力的人，而且这份保释金有她公寓的\n25 认诺判决作为担保。她将佩戴电子脚镣\n\n1 待在家里。她被限制在她的公寓内。\n2 除非是来见我们，否则她不能离开公寓。\n3 我们该如何摆脱这种困境？\n4 法庭：好的。让我听听\n5 政府方的意见。谢谢。\n6 默里女士：法官阁下，政府方的\n7 观点是，本次程序为时尚早。政府方有一套\n8 面谈和评估潜在联署保证人\n9 资格的流程。\n10 正如法官阁下所指出的，一周前，帕克法官\n11 设定了保释条件，并且她同意\n12 政府方和审前服务处的意见，即在王女士能够获释之前，\n13 必须满足这些条件。\n14 其中一项条件是两名合格的\n15 联署人签署一份500万美元的保释保证书。据我理解，\n16 我们今天到庭的原因，是因为\n17 辩方对政府方认定\n18 他们提供的多个人选\n19 不合格的决定感到不满。\n20 我想说明几点，\n21 我不想深入讨论具体细节\n\n该名个人，因为法官阁下（Your Honor）眼前目前并没有这些信息。但举例来说，对于那名愿意以220万美元房产提供担保的个人，辩方从未向我们提供该房产的地址。因此，我们无法进行核实以查明该房产中有多少净值、抵押贷款情况如何，以及用于购买该房产的资金来源是什么。\n\n而且，他们声称拥有该房产的那位显赫人士，正是深度卷入本案欺诈行为的个人。这是一起涉案金额达数十亿美元的欺诈案，由名为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）又名Miles Guo的个人牵头。拟提供房产担保的个人曾参与多家据称是该欺诈行为工具的组织。而Ms. Wang（王女士）是Guo先生（郭先生）的幕僚长。她管理着他的所有公司。\n\n我们确实向辩护律师明确表示，有几名个人我们出于善意甚至根本无法将其作为潜在的共同签署人进行面谈。Mr. Lipman（利普曼先生）提到的一名律师，就是运营该欺诈计划的三家不同实体的外部法律顾问。在被指控的共谋期间，他的律师事务所曾设有一个托管账户，存有数千万美元的欺诈计划资金。即使此人具备为被告共同签署保释保证书的财务能力，我们也不会放心接受这样的人。\n\n我们已表示愿意与辩方就潜在的共同签署人进行合作，特别是考虑到他们的主张。我们理解王女士在这里没有家人，因此道德规劝的角度可能会有所不同。\n\n但我们不能处于这样一种境地：Parker法官（帕克法官）根据事实做出了非常合乎情理的判断，而政府方也认同，鉴于王女士造成的重大潜逃风险，鉴于她的政治庇护身份、政府方证据的充分性、她所面临的刑期，以及她在全球范围内由郭先生支持者组成的网络——这些人显然愿意挺身而出签署保释保证书，尽管他们中有些人仅见过她一两次或只与她交谈过几次。\n\n鉴于这一重大的潜逃风险，我们需要确保这份保证书上有合格的共同签署人。这就是我们所做的一切。这是一个程序：对于我们评估的每一位共同签署人，我们都会要求提供信息，要求提供文件，进行面谈，做出评估，并开展对话。如果我们认为该人不合格，我们就会要求提供另一个名单。\n\n在本案中，辩方在连文件都没有提供的情况下就抽象地给出了姓名。辩方一直催促我们抽象地予以批准。例如，关于他们提议用于担保保释金的220万美元房产，我们接到了一个电话。他们说他们有一个人——起初并未说出该人的姓名——愿提供价值220万美元的房产。我们索要地址。他们说：“我们会提供给你们的。你们今天能不能先在原则上同意？”\n\n法官阁下，再次声明，我们有既定的审查程序，而且我们绝没有在故意拖延。过去一周里，我们花费了大量时间去核实每一个名字，并与辩护律师带到我们面前的人员进行面谈。\n\n如果辩方的立场是要主张政府方的评估不合理，那么根据法规18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)，法院若要批准或裁定未经批准的保证人的适当性，法院面前需要具备作为该保证人财务状况基础的所有文件、资产和证据，因为法定标准是：如果该保证人的净资产具有足以支付保释保证书金额的无负担价值，法院可以依职权自行批准该保证人。\n\n因此，我们乐意继续与辩方合作。我们希望这样做，看看是否有潜在合格的共同签署人。但如果我们到了辩方认为没有合适人选的地步，下一步就应由辩方为拟提议的共同签署人收集支持材料并提交给法院，然后如果法院做出自己的独立评估，认定这些人拥有足以支持该保证书的500万美元无负担资产，那么我认为他们的申请届时向法院提出才是恰当的。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，政府方刚才所说的本质上是这样：我们面谈这些人，判断他们是否合适，但他们真正需要回答的问题只有两个：第一，这是否是一个具有财务责任能力的人；第二，他们是否对被告具有道德规劝力。\n\n法庭：但是，为什么对某人是否是具有财务责任能力的人的评估，不包含“责任”这部分呢？意思是说，例如，如果你们提议的那名律师在政府方看来至少在某种程度上卷入了欺诈，那么即便该人拥有资产，在政府方看来该人也是不可靠的。\n\n利普曼先生：嗯，那个人——\n\n法庭：所以，如果你想向法院提出申请，那是另一回事。但政府方持有这种立场并非不合理。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，在那处境下，无论政府方认为他做了还是没做某事，他都要承担500万美元的责任。而“具有财务责任能力的人”这个概念本身是个颇有意思的问题。他们拒绝——他们面谈了三个人，一名是律师，两名——我认为他们都是IT专业人员。对于这些问题——对于这些人，他们并没有意见。\n\n他们对我们说的是，这些人没有足够的资产。那么，您知道吗？他们确实没有足够的资产。但如果王女士违反保释条件，他们将陷入严重的财务困境。他们明白这一点。\n\n法庭：对。除非他们潜逃了。\n\n利普曼先生：但根本没有——连他们也没有这样暗示。他们与她或与主要被告完全无关。我的意思是，他们是认识她并且愿意为她共同签署保释保证书的人，但就连政府方也没有声称他们存在任何问题、声称他们会潜逃或诸如此类的行为。其中一位是在Chicago（芝加哥）执业的律师。法官阁下，他哪儿也不会去。他赚的钱不算巨款，但他哪儿也不会去。\n\n其中一位是IT专业人员，其实不是华人，他也愿意共同签署保证书。同样，他不是个富人，但如果王女士违反保释条件，他的财务生活将彻底毁掉。他明白这一点，并且他认为自己愿意签署。\n\n顺便说一句，他在同意之前与他的妻子商量过。他们双方都同意这样做。所以这些人在做出极其严肃的承诺，他们都明白正在发生什么。他们具有财务责任能力。他们与欺诈行为绝无任何关联。\n\n法庭：那么你今天寻求何种救济？\n\n利普曼先生：我请求法院做两件事之一：要么指示他们接受接受面谈的那三个人——政府方对他们没有——关于他们没有——除了告诉我们这些人不够富有之外，对他们没有其他意见；或者，另外，请您修改保释条件，使其达到我们实际上能够合理满足的程度。\n\n因为如果要求是对王女士具有道德规劝力的人共同签署保证书，所有这类人都在郭先生的圈子里，而他们没有一个能行。她最好的朋友是他的女儿。她不能签署。也许出于其他原因她可以签署，但她不能签。我们提议了她，他们拒绝了。他们有充分的理由这样做——或者我不知道这是否是充分的理由。他们说他们有充分的理由这样做。\n\n但是他们拒绝了她最好朋友的男友作为共同签署人。他们拒绝了另一名为郭先生工作的人作为共同签署人。我们问过他们。有人——她曾是这个组织的高层人员。她与多名高层人员有过互动。我们询问过——我们向他们提供了姓名，我们问这个人怎么样，那个人怎么样。不行，不行，不行，因为他们卷入了欺诈，或者他们卷入了该运动，或者他们卷入了这件事，卷入了那件事。\n\n那么，我们该怎么办呢？我们找到了他们面谈过的三个人，他们具有财务责任能力，愿意签署，而且甚至连政府方都不声称他们参与了欺诈任何人。\n\nMS. MURRAY（默里女士）：法官阁下，请允许我简要回应这一观点。我确实想指出，我认为在程序上或法律上，目前没有任何问题是已成熟到可由法院裁决的。而且我认为利普曼先生建议的第一项救济——即由法院强迫政府方批准共同签署人——是不恰当的。那不是法定标准。\n\n关于利普曼先生刚才提到的那三名个人，我想指出，虽然我们说过我们可以勉强接受他们作为具有财务责任能力的人，但这三名个人全部都是该欺诈案的受害者。他们都在该计划的各个不同欺诈分支中进行过投资。他们愿意签署保证书，并且可能具备承担其中一部分——绝不可能是500万美元，但能承担其中一部分——保释保证书的能力，这一事实与评估的另一个方面即道德规劝力是各自独立的。\n\n如果他们签署了保释保证书，他们能有什么影响力来确保王女士在未来的出庭中如期到庭，以保护她及其同谋在该欺诈过程中已经侵害过的这些人的资产，并保护可能强加于他们身上的500万美元债务？\n\n我们有正当依据不接受所提交的共同签署人。我们有一套审查和批准共同签署人的程序。如果辩方想提请法院注意某些特定的人，他们需要提供支持性文件并陈述理由，由法院进行独立的评估。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为——\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，就极其简短地说一句，这些人清楚自己在做什么。他们是一个由异见人士组成的运动的成员，他们反对Chinese Government（中国政府）、共产党。王女士是一个非常知名的人。他们\n\n……知道她是谁。他们理解这些指控。其中一人在同意担任之前，明确要求我把起诉书发给他，我也确实发了。他在花时间审查了起诉书之后，才允许我联系政府方。明白吗？所以他们很清楚自己在做什么。他们明白政府方把他们当成了受害者。他们已经准备好签字了。\n\n法庭：好的。我倾向于同意 Murray（默里）女士的意见，即目前法庭面前并不存在争议事项。我当然不会去指示我根本不认识的人——我甚至连名字都不知道，更谈不上任何信息了。我不会指示政府方接受这些形形色色的 John Doe（无名氏）作为担保人。这不是办事的规矩。而且我认为目前经过的时间并不充分，不足以重新审视 Parker（帕克）法官确定的保释条件。我想做的是，首先，指示你，Lipman（利普曼）先生。听起来你并没有把所有信息都提供给政府方，特别是关于这位可能提供财产作保的人士。你要知道，他们需要履行职责。我相信默里女士所言，他们并没有故意拖延。他们正在尽一切努力寻找政府方认可的人选。但你确实需要提供信息，以便他们也能开展工作。因此，你需要尽快将这些信息提供给政府方。\n\n我想根据你们提议的内容，确定一个提出相应动议的日期。我想问题在于，利普曼先生，你希望何时提交该动议？我认为该动议确实需要附带支持性文件和所有必要的信息一并提交，而且我认为这只会被分配给这里的当值法官。该法官同样需要审查这些信息。所以我不知道你需要多长时间来收集这些文书材料，以使法庭确信：你所提议的、且你声称已被政府方拒绝的人选并非不当，法庭应当命令政府方接受该人选。\n\n因此我想给你留出足够的时间，以便提出一份恰当且有证据支持的动议，但同时也请继续与政府方沟通合作，因为我并未听到政府方表示他们看不到走出这一困境的出路。他们只是需要补充信息。可能正如你一开始所说的，利普曼先生，有一处价值百万美元的房产；有别人的一处价值220万至250万美元的房产；银行里还有50万美元被冻结的资金。政府方也许可以同你协商，拼凑出一个方案。\n\n但是，举例来说，如果你在 Hamptons（汉普顿斯）有一套价值250万美元的房屋，其中只有10万美元的净值权益，其余部分都归银行所有，那么这对你的当事人来说是毫无帮助的。你需要把这些信息提供给政府方。他们对此根本一无所知。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，需要澄清的是，就这位知名人士而言，政府方声称没有向我们提供信息。他们知道那是谁，问题不在于房产是什么，问题在于他们是否会批准他。而他们没有批准。他们说——他们告诉我们他们向上级请示了，但行不通。\n\n他们拒绝并非因为该财产不合适，也不是因为其中的净值权益不足，而是因为他们不喜欢这个人选。法官阁下，我们所面临的问题以及我们今天出庭的原因，正是因为他们的标准一直在变。起初达成了共识，一项明确的共识——我马上就告诉了他们，听着，没有姐妹，没有兄弟，没有姑姨，好吗？会是其他人。\n\n他们说：“好吧，我们明白。”于是我们提供了名单。这些人不够富有。好吧。现在他们又告诉你这些人也没有道德说服力。可当我最初把名单给你的时候，你早就知道了。我觉得我们毫无进展，因为情况一直在变。我认为他们这么做是故意想把她关在里面，以便向她施压，好让她成为他们的合作者，法官阁下。我认为这才是真正的症结所在。\n\n周五。我们是在周五提交动议，还是在周五做准备？\n\nChaudhry（乔杜里）女士：我们在周五提交。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，我们可以在周五提交。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n利普曼先生：而且，法官阁下，我们将继续与他们配合，但至少，如果法庭能告诫他们要本着善意与我们配合，对我们会有所帮助。\n\n法庭：我不会告诫他们，因为我不认为他们没有善意与你们配合。因此我很乐意收到你们的申请。我希望申请中的任何内容都不是你们尚未提供给政府方的信息，因为从政府方那里我听到的是——我实在没必要介入纷争去判断谁对谁错——他们尚未从你们那里收到所需的全部信息。因此我希望你们继续向他们提供这些信息。\n\n我将指示政府方迅速对各项提议作出答复，并对这些人选进行善意的评估。我不会告诫说你们尚未做到这一点，但这无疑是你们的义务，我期望你们照此执行。因此，该动议将于周五提交。\n\n政府方希望何时提交反对意见？\n\nFergenson（弗根森）先生：法官阁下，在不知道这份动议的具体内容之前，现在有点难以确定。\n\n法庭：你们周三提交，然后我们将庭审会议定在紧接着的下周五，怎么样？\n\n弗根森先生：这看起来很合理，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么将在周五（即3月24日）提交一份文件；将在周三提交反对意见，如果我没算错的话，是3月29日。\n\n是这样吗，Fletcher（弗莱彻）女士？\n\n法庭副书记官：是的。\n\n法庭：然后我将与负责审理此事的 Lehrburger（莱尔伯格）法官协调确定会议日期，会议将于3月31日举行。\n\n如果在现在到3月31日之间，双方能够协商解决这一问题（这也是我的希望），显然你们应当尽快通知法庭。我确实认为双方能够找到解决这个问题的办法。这并非政府方首次遇到此类复杂情况，因此我相信你们能够想出解决办法。但显然，如果无法解决，法庭将在紧接着的下周五与各位会面。\n\n好的。还有其他事项吗？\n\n弗根森先生：没有了，谢谢法官阁下。\n\n利普曼先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n\n乔杜里女士：法官阁下，我们定好下周五的具体时间了吗？\n\n法庭：还没有。\n\n利普曼先生：好的。\n\n法庭：一旦确定——将由莱尔伯格法官来定。\n\n乔杜里女士：谢谢。\n\n证明书\n\n我，Marissa Mignano（玛丽莎·米尼亚诺），谨证明上述 UNITED STATES v. YANPING WANG（美国 诉 王雁平）案（案号 #23-mj-02007）的庭审记录副本系使用数字转录软件制作，是对庭审过程真实且准确的记录。\n\n签名 ___________________________\nMarissa Mignano（玛丽莎·米尼亚诺）\n\n日期：2023年3月27日","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5645,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-29","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:41:44"}