{"id":"court_sdny_110_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":110,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-07-14","title":"SDNY ECF 110","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"USDC SDNY\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DO CUMENT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DOC #: _______ __________\nDATE FILED: 7/14/2023\n-against-\n23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\nYANPING WANG, ORDER\nDefendant.\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\nDefendant, Yanping Wang, appeals the detention order issued by the Honorable Robert\nW. Lehrburger on April 21, 2023 (the “Detention Order”), ECF No. 56. Appeal, ECF No. 81.1\nFor the reasons stated below, the Detention Order is AFFIRMED.\nI. Background\nPursuant to an indictment dated March 29, 2023, Wang is charged with: (1) conspiracy to\ncommit wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering; (2) wire fraud;\n(3) securities fraud; and (4) unlawful monetary transactions. E.g., Superseding Indictment\n¶¶ 1–3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 26–36, 51–52, ECF No. 19. On March 15, 2023, Wang was presented\nbefore the Honorable Katharine H. Parker, and Judge Parker imposed conditions of bail to be\nsatisfied before Wang’s release. Detention Order at 5; ECF Nos. 3, 6. On March 24, 2023,\nWang moved for an order finding that she had met her conditions of release, or, in the\nalternative, modifying some conditions of her release. ECF No. 8; Detention Order at 6–7. The\nGovernment argued that Wang had not fully disclosed her assets and misrepresented her\nemployment status upon arrest, that she posed a serious risk of flight, and that she should be\ndetained pending trial. Detention Order at 7–8; see also ECF Nos. 10, 22. Judge Lehrburger\n1 Wang styles her appeal as a “Motion for an Order Revoking the Magistrate Judge’s Order of Detention and\nAuthorizing Pretrial Release.” ECF No. 81.\n\nheld a hearing on April 4, 2023, and requested additional information from the parties on April\n10, 2023. ECF Nos. 28, 39. After receiving the requested information, Judge Lehrburger issued\nthe Detention Order, finding that Wang had not satisfied her conditions of release, that the\nmodified conditions proposed by Wang would not reasonably assure her presence at future\nproceedings, and that there are no conditions upon which Wang can be released that will\nreasonably assure her presence. Detention Order at 12; see also id. at 12–24.\nBefore the Court is Wang’s June 5, 2023 appeal of the Detention Order, see Appeal,\nwhich has now been fully briefed by the parties, Gov. Opp., ECF No. 89; ECF No. 101.\nII. Legal Standard\nA district court reviews de novo a magistrate judge’s decision to release or detain a\ndefendant. See United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Jones, 566\nF. Supp. 2d 288, 289–90 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). In reviewing such a decision, the district court “may\nrely on the record of the proceedings before the magistrate judge[.]” United States v. Fox, 602 F.\nSupp. 3d 434, 439 (W.D.N.Y. 2022) (citation omitted), aff’d, No. 22-1043, 2022 WL 2564600\n(2d Cir. July 8, 2022).\nUnder the Bail Reform Act, a defendant shall be detained if “no condition or combination\nof conditions will reasonably assure the[ir] appearance . . . as required and the safety of any other\nperson and the community[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). A court must consider: (1) the nature and\ncircumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant;\n(3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (4) the nature and seriousness of danger\nto any person or the community posed by the defendant’s release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The\nGovernment must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents an actual\n2\n\nrisk of flight if released and that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on\nthe defendant that would reasonably assure her presence in court. United States v. Baig, 536 F.\nApp’x 91, 92 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007).\nIII. Analysis\nThe Court concludes that the Government has established by a preponderance of the\nevidence that Wang poses a serious risk of flight if released and that no condition or set of\nconditions can assure her presence at future proceedings. First, the offenses charged are serious\nand, if convicted, Wang faces a lengthy prison sentence of between 24 and 30 years. See ECF\nNo. 10 at 2; Detention Order at 18. Wang argues that the allegations against her are “limited in\nscope and severity” compared to the charges against her co-conspirators, and that she did not\npersonally benefit from the alleged fraud scheme identified in the Superseding Indictment.\nAppeal at 11–12 (emphases omitted), 15. But, she is charged with serving as a “chief of staff”\nfor co-defendant Ho Wan Kwok; holding titles such as “President, Treasurer, and Secretary of\nentities” involved in the purported fraud scheme; and exercising control over fraud proceeds.\nSuperseding Indictment ¶ 8; see also id. ¶¶ 10, 30–32. In other words, the Superseding\nIndictment charges Wang with playing a central role in an international, five-year-long scheme\nof fraud and concealment. Second, the Government has proffered extensive evidence in the form\nof financial records and recorded communications regarding Wang’s role in the scheme. See,\ne.g., Gov. Opp. at 16–27.\nThird, Wang has no significant ties to the United States unconnected to the purported\nfraud scheme. Her family lives in China, and her social connections revolve around her work\nwith the entities implicated in the charged fraud. Appeal at 19–21. Wang also has substantial\n3\n\nconnections abroad, including a co-defendant, Kin Ming Je, who is still at large and believed to\nbe in the United Arab Emirates. Gov. Opp. at 28. The entities involved in the alleged scheme,\nthe finances of which Wang has access to and exercises control over, have accounts and offices\nin various countries. See id. at 28–30; see generally Superseding Indictment. And, Wang has a\nlarge network of supporters who are able and likely to provide assistance to her should she flee.\nAlthough Wang argues that this is “entirely speculative,” Appeal at 16, several people involved\nin “the anti-[Chinese Communist Party] cause to which Wang is devoted” bare minimal personal\nties to her and previously offered to serve as co-signers for her bond, Detention Order at 15; see\nalso id. at 13–14. Her supporters have already offered to help her to the tune of millions of\ndollars. ECF No. 3 (listing bail package conditions). That they would continue to assist her\nwere she to flee is far from speculative.\nWang contends that she is not likely to flee because she did not flee after learning that the\nGovernment began seizing funds from entities associated with her co-defendant, Kwok, or after\nlearning about the grand jury investigation of Kwok. Appeal at 15. However, Wang states that,\nat that time, she understood that “criminal charges may” be filed against her. Id. (emphases in\noriginal omitted; emphasis added). Wang is now in a categorically different position; she is\nfacing decades in prison and has been detained since March 15, 2023. She undoubtedly has\nmore incentive to flee now than she did when the Government began seizing funds from Kwok’s\nbusinesses. Wang also argues that she cannot flee internationally for fear of being repatriated to\nChina. See, e.g., id. at 17–18, 20. The question before the Court is not whether Wang will flee\ninternationally, but whether the Court can be reasonably assured that Wang will appear at future\nproceedings. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The Court need not find that Wang is likely to flee\n4\n\ninternationally in order to find that the Government has established that she is not likely to return\nfor future proceedings. Because the Court finds that Wang is likely to flee within the United\nStates, it shall not address Wang’s arguments that she is unlikely to flee internationally—\nalthough, the Court notes that Wang herself states that she is willing to and has previously\nplanned to travel internationally. See Appeal at 15.\nFourth, Wang has a history of engaging in obstructive behavior. In connection with her\nco-defendant Kwok’s bankruptcy proceeding, Wang obstructed a bankruptcy court order\ndirecting her to transfer the corporate and economic rights of Kwok-associated entities to the\nbankruptcy trustee by instead transferring those rights to another of Kwok’s associates in\nSwitzerland. See ECF Nos. 89-2–89-5. After her arrest in this case, Wang continued directing\nco-conspirators to transfer funds from accounts associated with entities involved in the alleged\nfraud scheme. Gov. Opp. at 37–39. And, during her Pretrial Services interview in connection\nwith this case, she failed to disclose $138,000 in cash. E.g., Detention Order at 21. Wang argues\nthat she believed Pretrial Services only asked whether she had cash on her person at the time of\narrest. Appeal at 28–32. However, notes taken by defense counsel during the interview with\nPretrial Services belie Wang’s argument, because they show that Pretrial Services asked various\nquestions about Wang’s assets, including her checking and savings accounts, business accounts,\nretirement funds, stocks and bonds, real and other property, loans, debt, and expenses. See ECF\nNo. 81-15 at 4. It strains credulity that, when Pretrial Services inquired about the assets Wang\nhad at her disposal, Wang believed that Pretrial Services was asking only whether she had cash\non her person, and that she did not understand that $138,000 in cash would be a relevant\ndisclosure. Given her previous obstruction of a court order, her continuing control over funds\n5\n\nbelonging to entities involved in the alleged fraud scheme in this case, and her failure to disclose\nassets, the Court has no reasonable assurance that Wang will abide by this Court’s orders.\nFor these reasons, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden of showing that\nWang poses a serious risk of flight.\nMoreover, the Court determines that the Government has met its burden to show that no\ncondition or set of conditions would ensure Wang’s return to court. Wang’s proposed bail\npackage is insufficient. She has proposed: (1) “[a] $2 million personal recognizance bond,\nsecured by $1 million in property, one of her bank accounts, and $138,000 in cash”;\n(2) restrictions on withdrawals from her other bank account; (3) “restricted [travel] to the Eastern\nand Southern Districts of New York”; (4) “[s]urrender of all travel documents with no new\napplications”; (5) “[s]trict supervision by [Pretrial Services]”; (6) “[l]ocation monitoring\ntechnology”; (7) “[h]ome confinement with GPS monitoring”; (8) “[n]o contact with co-\ndefendants, witnesses, or purported victims without attorneys present”; and (9) “[h]ome\nmonitoring by a friend who will live with her and will be responsible for reporting any\nviolations.” Appeal at 2–3. The proposed bond is insufficient, as Wang’s assets may be subject\nto forfeiture, Gov. Opp. at 39, 41, and the Government has shown by a preponderance of the\nevidence that Wang has access to undisclosed assets, including bank accounts associated with the\nentities involved in the charged fraud scheme. For the same reason, restrictions on withdrawals\nfrom Wang’s personal account are insufficient to ensure her return to Court. Surrender of travel\ndocuments is inadequate because, as previously noted, Wang need not flee internationally in\norder to avoid returning to court. Location monitoring is inadequate because ankle monitors can\nbe removed and ensure only a reduced head start should a defendant decide to flee. See United\n6\n\nStates v. Freeman, No. 21 Cr. 88 (S.D.N.Y.), Bail Hr’g 5:4-6, Feb. 19, 2021. ECF No. 50\n(“Anyone who knows the technology of electronic monitoring knows that it is far from\nfoolproof.”); United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.\n4, 2000) (stating that electronic monitoring “at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant’s head start”).\nFurther, having a friend of Wang’s be responsible for reporting violations is patently unreliable,\nespecially given that all of Wang’s social connections are with people involved in the charged\nfraud scheme. And, Wang’s past obstructive conduct in this case and in Kwok’s bankruptcy\nproceeding demonstrate that the Court does not have reasonable assurance that Wang will abide\nby any conditions of pretrial release.\nFinally, the Court is not persuaded by Wang’s due process arguments. Appeal at 38–39.\nWang’s continued pretrial detainment will not deny her the ability to meaningfully participate in\nher own defense, the right to the effective assistance of counsel, or a fair trial.\nAccordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Detention Order.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated above, the Detention Order is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is\ndirected to terminate the motion at ECF No. 81.\nSO ORDERED.\nDated: July 14, 2023\nNew York, New York\n7","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2074,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-14","updated_at":"2026-07-06 17:58:07"}