{"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":"裁定（维持羁押令）—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #110（2023-07-14 立案）。主审法官 Analisa Torres 就被告 Yanping Wang（王雁萍）对治安法官羁押令提出的上诉作出裁定，以其存在潜逃风险、现有保释条件不足以保障其到庭为由，维持原羁押裁定。","summary_en":"Order (affirming pretrial detention) — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #110 (filed 2023-07-14). District Judge Analisa Torres rules on co-defendant Yanping Wang's appeal of the magistrate judge's detention order, affirming detention on the grounds that Wang poses a serious flight risk and that no proposed bail conditions would reasonably assure her appearance at future proceedings.","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":"USDC SDNY（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院） 文件\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区） 电子归档\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）， 文件编号：_______ __________\n归档日期：7/14/2023\n-诉-\n23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\nYANPING WANG（王雁平）， 裁定\n被告。\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n被告Yanping Wang（王雁平）对Robert W. Lehrburger（罗伯特·W·勒伯格）法官于2023年4月21日作出的羁押裁定（下称“《羁押裁定》”）（ECF No. 56）提出上诉。上诉见 ECF No. 81。1 基于下述理由，该《羁押裁定》予以维持。\n\nI. 背景\n\n根据一份日期为2023年3月29日的起诉书，王被指控犯有：(1) 共谋实施电汇欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈以及洗钱；(2) 电汇欺诈；(3) 证券欺诈；以及 (4) 非法货币交易。例如参见《替代起诉书》¶¶ 1–3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 26–36, 51–52, ECF No. 19。2023年3月15日，王被带至Katharine H. Parker（凯瑟琳·H·帕克）法官面前接受过堂，帕克法官设定了王在获释前须满足的保释条件。《羁押裁定》第5页；ECF Nos. 3, 6。2023年3月24日，王提出动议，请求法院裁定其已满足释放条件，或者作为备选方案，修改其释放的部分条件。ECF No. 8；《羁押裁定》第6–7页。政府方辩称，王在被捕时未充分披露其资产并虚假陈述了其就业状况，其具有严重的潜逃风险，应当在审判前予以羁押。《羁押裁定》第7–8页；亦见 ECF Nos. 10, 22。勒伯格法官\n\n1 王将其上诉定名为“请求撤销治安法官羁押裁定并准予审前释放的动议”。ECF No. 81。\n\n于2023年4月4日举行了听证会，并于2023年4月10日要求各方当事人提供补充信息。ECF Nos. 28, 39。在收到所要求的信息后，Lehrburger（莱尔伯格）法官发布了《Detention Order（羁押裁定）》，认定Wang（王）未满足其释放条件，王提出的修改后条件无法合理保证其出席未来的诉讼程序，且没有任何条件可以在释放王的同时合理保证其出庭。Detention Order 第12页；另见同上，第12–24页。\n\n本法院现审理王于2023年6月5日针对《羁押裁定》提起的上诉，见 Appeal，各方当事人现已提交完整的辩论书状，Gov. Opp., ECF No. 89；ECF No. 101。\n\nII. 法律标准\n\n地区法院对治安法官作出的释放或羁押被告人的决定进行全面审查（de novo）。参见 United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985)；United States v. Jones, 566 F. Supp. 2d 288, 289–90 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)。在审查该等决定时，地区法院“可依据治安法官主持之诉讼程序的记录[。]”United States v. Fox, 602 F. Supp. 3d 434, 439 (W.D.N.Y. 2022)（引文省略），aff’d, No. 22-1043, 2022 WL 2564600 (2d Cir. July 8, 2022)。\n\n根据《Bail Reform Act（保释改革法）》，如果“没有任何条件或条件组合能够合理保证其按要求出庭……以及任何其他人与社区的安全[，]”则应对被告人予以羁押。18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)。法院必须考虑：(1) 被控罪行的性质与情节；(2) 针对被告人的证据确凿程度；(3) 被告人的历史与个人特征；以及 (4) 释放被告人对任何人或社区构成的危险的性质与严重程度。18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)。政府必须以优势证据证明，被告人一旦被释放将构成实际的潜逃风险，并且无法对被告人施加任何足以合理保证其出庭的条件或条件组合。United States v. Baig, 536 F. App’x 91, 92 (2d Cir. 2013)；United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)。\n\nIII. 分析\n\n本法院得出结论认为，政府已以优势证据证明，王一旦被释放将构成严重的潜逃风险，且没有任何条件或条件组合能够保证其出席未来的诉讼程序。首先，被控罪行性质严重，且若被定罪，王面临24至30年的漫长监禁刑期。参见 ECF No. 10 第2页；Detention Order 第18页。王辩称，与其同案共谋人所受指控相比，对其指控“在范围和严重性上有限”，且其并未从《Superseding Indictment（替代起诉书）》指明的涉嫌欺诈计划中个人获益。Appeal 第11–12页（强调略去），第15页。然而，她被指控担任同案被告人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的“幕僚长”；在卷入涉嫌欺诈计划的“实体中担任总裁、财务主管和秘书等职务”；并对欺诈收益行使控制权。Superseding Indictment ¶ 8；另见同上，¶¶ 10, 30–32。换言之，《替代起诉书》指控王在跨国且历时五年的欺诈与隐匿计划中发挥了核心作用。其次，政府已就王在该计划中所扮演的角色提供了大量财务记录和通话录音形式的证据。参见，例如，Gov. Opp. 第16–27页。\n\n第三，除与涉嫌欺诈计划相关的联系外，王在美国没有重大的实质联系。她的家人居住在中国，其社会人际关系均围绕着她与被指控欺诈所涉实体的业务往来。Appeal 第19–21页。王在境外亦拥有大量的实质联系，包括一名仍在逃且据信位于 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）的同案被告人 Kin Ming Je（余建明）。Gov. Opp. 第28页。涉案实体（王有权接触并控制其财务）在多国设有账户和办事处。参见同上，第28–30页；并通见 Superseding Indictment。此外，王拥有庞大的支持者网络，如果她潜逃，这些支持者有能力且很可能会向其提供协助。尽管王辩称这“完全是推测性的”，Appeal 第16页，但数名参与“王所投身的反[中国共产党]事业”的人员与她本人的私人联系极少，此前却提出愿意担任其保释金的联保签署人，Detention Order 第15页；另见同上，第13–14页。她的支持者此前已提出为其提供高达数百万美元的资助。ECF No. 3（列出保释方案条件）。如果她潜逃，他们将继续向其提供协助，这一点绝非臆测。\n\n王主张其不太可能潜逃，因为在获悉政府开始扣押与其同案被告人郭关联实体的资金后，或者在获悉大陪审团对郭展开调查后，她并未潜逃。Appeal 第15页。然而，王陈述称，当时她知悉“可能会对其”提起刑事指控。同上（原文字体强调略去；本院添加强调）。王如今所处的处境已截然不同；她面临数十年的监禁，并自2023年3月15日起一直被羁押。与政府刚开始扣押郭的企业资金时相比，她如今无疑具有更大的潜逃动机。王还辩称，由于担心被遣返回中国，她不可能潜逃至境外。参见，例如，同上，第17–18、20页。本法院所面临的问题并非王是否会潜逃至境外，而是法院能否合理确信王将出席未来的诉讼程序。18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)。法院无需认定王很可能潜逃至境外，即可认定政府已证明其不太可能归案出席未来的诉讼程序。由于本法院认定王很可能在美国境内潜逃，故不予审理王关于其不太可能潜逃至境外的论点——尽管本法院注意到王本人陈述称其愿意且此前曾计划前往境外旅行。参见 Appeal 第15页。\n\n第四，王具有从事妨碍司法行为的历史记录。在与其同案被告人郭的破产程序相关联的事务中，破产法院曾发布裁定命令其将郭关联实体的公司及经济权利转让给破产受托人，王妨碍了该裁定的执行，而是将该等权利转让给了郭在 Switzerland（瑞士）的另一名同伙。参见 ECF Nos. 89-2–89-5。在本案被捕后，王继续指示同谋人从卷入涉嫌欺诈计划的实体相关账户中转移资金。Gov. Opp. 第37–39页。而且，在就本案接受审前服务处（Pretrial Services）访谈期间，她未申报138,000美元现金。例如，Detention Order 第21页。王辩称，她当时以为审前服务处仅询问其在被捕时身上是否携带现金。Appeal 第28–32页。然而，辩护律师在审前服务处访谈期间所做的记录推翻了王的说法，因为记录显示，审前服务处曾就王的资产提出了各种问题，包括其支票和储蓄账户、商业账户、退休金、股票和债券、不动产及其他财产、贷款、债务以及开支。参见 ECF No. 81-15 第4页。当审前服务处询问王可支配的资产时，王竟认为审前服务处仅是在询问其身上是否带有现金，且认为138,000美元现金并非需要披露的相关事项，此种辩解难以令人置信。鉴于其以往妨碍法院裁定的行为、其对本案涉嫌欺诈计划所涉实体名下资金的持续控制，以及其隐瞒资产的行为，本法院无法合理确信王会遵守本法院的命令。\n\n基于上述理由，本法院认定政府已完成其举证责任，证明王存在严重的潜逃风险。\n\n此外，本法院认定政府已完成其举证责任，证明没有任何条件或条件组合能够保证王归案出庭。王提议的保释方案是不充分的。她提议：(1) “一份200万美元的个人具结保释金，以100万美元的房产、她的一个银行账户以及138,000美元现金提供担保”；(2) 限制从其另一个银行账户提款；(3) “限制[旅行]至 Eastern and Southern Districts of New York（纽约东区和南区）”；(4) “上缴所有旅行证件且不申请新证件”；(5) “接受[审前服务处]的严格监督”；(6) “位置监控技术”；(7) “配备 GPS 监控的居家监禁”；(8) “在无律师在场的情况下，不得接触同案被告人、证人或所谓的受害者”；以及 (9) “由一位与其同住的朋友进行居家监控，并负责报告任何违规行为。”Appeal 第2–3页。提议的保释金并不充分，因为王的资产可能面临没收，Gov. Opp. 第39、41页，且政府已以优势证据证明，王可以获取未披露的资产，包括与被控欺诈计划所涉实体关联的银行账户。出于同样的原因，限制从王个人账户提款不足以保证其归案出庭。上缴旅行证件是不充分的，因为如前所述，王无需潜逃出境即可规避出庭。位置监控是不充分的，因为脚踝监控器可以被拆除，并且在被告人决定潜逃时仅能稍微削减其起逃优势。参见 United States v. Freeman, No. 21 Cr. 88 (S.D.N.Y.), Bail Hr’g 5:4-6, Feb. 19, 2021. ECF No. 50（“任何了解电子监控技术的人都知道，它绝非万无一失。”）；United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000)（指出电子监控“充其量……限制了潜逃被告人的起逃优势”）。再者，由王的一位朋友负责报告违规行为显然是不可靠的，尤其是考虑到王的所有社会人际关系均是与卷入被控欺诈计划的人员相关。并且，王在本案以及郭的破产程序中过去的妨碍行为表明，本法院无法合理确信王会遵守任何审前释放条件。\n\n最后，本法院未被王的正当程序抗辩说服。Appeal 第38–39页。继续对王予以审前羁押不会剥夺其实质参与自身辩护的能力、获得律师有效协助的权利或获得公正审判的权利。\n\n据此，本法院维持（AFFIRMS）《羁押裁定》。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，《羁押裁定》予以维持（AFFIRMED）。法院书记官长受命终结位于 ECF No. 81 的动议。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2023年7月14日\n纽约州纽约市","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2074,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:28:22"}