{"id":"court_sdny_124_1","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":124,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-08-07","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES,","summary_zh":"宣誓声明 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #124（2023年8月7日）。被告人 Yanping Wang 的律师 Emil Bove 的宣誓声明，描述其在 SDNY 任职期间的职务、对政府先前调查事项的实际参与程度（称未实质参与）、离职后的职业变化，以及接受本案代理前进行的伦理冲突评估过程。","summary_en":"Declaration — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #124 (August 7, 2023). Sworn declaration by attorney Emil Bove describing his prior positions and responsibilities as an AUSA in the SDNY, his level of actual involvement in a prior government investigation matter (asserting lack of substantial participation), his transition to private practice, and the conflict-of-interest review he conducted before accepting representation of defendant Yanping Wang.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nUNITED STATES,\n\nv.\n\n **DECLARATION**\n\nNo. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nYANPING WANG,\n\nDefendant.\n\nI, EMIL BOVE, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, declare as follows:\n\n1. I have been a member in good standing of the bar of the State of New York since June 2009. I have been a member in good standing of the bar of this Court since October 2010.\n\n2. I served as an Assistant United States Attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York between approximately October 1, 2012 and approximately December 20, 2021.\n\n3. On September 19, 2019, I was named one of two Co-Chiefs of the Office's Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit (\"TIN\"), which the Office now refers to as NSIN. The Office also named a second Co-Chief of TIN on the same day.\n\n4. At the time of the announcement, I was spending substantially all of my time preparing for a trial in *United States v. Hernandez*, No. 15 Cr. 379 (S.D.N.Y.). I was effectively absent from TIN in light of my focus on trial preparation, and remained absent during the *Hernandez* trial. The *Hernandez* trial concluded on October 18, 2019.\n\n5. I played no role, as a supervisor or otherwise, in the FBI's relationship with Ho Wan Kwok, which, according to the prosecutors, the TIN investigation at issue (the \"TIN Matter\"). (*See* Gov't Mem. at 3).\n\n1\n\n6. I do not recall accessing any case file associated with the TIN Matter, classified or otherwise.\n\n7. The prosecutors' brief refers to a search warrant that line AUSAs drafted in the TIN Matter beginning in \"late September 2019.\" (Gov't Mem. at 3). I did not review, edit, or authorize that warrant because of my role in the Hernandez trial. I do not recall ever seeing the warrant materials.\n\n| 8.         | [REDACTED]                    |            |\n|------------|-------------------------------|------------|\n| [REDACTED] |                               |            |\n| [REDACTED] | <i>(See Gov't Mem. at 4).</i> | [REDACTED] |\n| [REDACTED] |                               |            |\n\n9. Following the Hernandez trial, although I was generally aware that the FBI was reviewing the contents of materials it had seized in connection with the TIN Matter, I do not recall discussing the specific contents of any particular seized item, and I have no recollection of any other investigative steps being taken in the TIN Matter.\n\n10. In approximately March 2020, most AUSAs at the Office, including myself, began to work remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These circumstances greatly restricted my ability to have regular or standardized case-related communications with TIN AUSAs. One of the AUSAs assigned to the TIN Matter transferred to a different unit, which further limited my interactions with that AUSA, but I do not recall when the transfer occurred.\n\n11. [Content obscured]\n\nIt seems plausible to me that I discussed the TIN Matter\n\nwith one or both of the line AUSAs, but I do not recall the substance of those conversations, which suggests to me that they were sporadic and limited.\n\n12. The prosecutors' brief describes three emails, which are dated October 31, 2019, July 1, 2020, and July 8, 2020. (Gov't Mem. at 5-7; *id.* Exs. A, B, C). The prosecutors have not shared these documents with me, and I do not recall these communications.\n\n13. The prosecutors' brief states that, at an undisclosed point in time during my government service, one of my Co-Chiefs \"became conflicted from aspects of the TIN Matter.\" (Gov't Mem. at 7). I do not understand the reference to \"aspects\" of the TIN Matter, and I do not recall such a conflict being communicated to me during my service.\n\n14. In early January 2022, I joined Chiesa Shahinian Giantomasi PC (\"CSG Law\"). When I started to work at the firm, I was asked to help represent Mei Guo in connection with an existing matter at the firm that predated my arrival by at least approximately one year. The sinceretired Associate United States Attorney asked me not to participate in the representation. Without sufficient information to evaluate any potential conflict myself, and because the Sixth Amendment did not apply in that matter, I did what I was asked.\n\n15. In approximately June 2023, I was asked to participate in the representation of Ms. Wang in these proceedings. In response to the request, I reviewed public filings in this case. Prior to accepting the engagement, I also reviewed relevant ethics rules, consulted CSG Law's general\n\n3\n\ncounsel and other colleagues, and discussed the potential conflicts with Ms. Wang without\n\ndisclosing confidential government information.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing information is true and correct.\n\nDated: New York, New York August 7, 2023 Respectfully submitted,\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Emil Bove Emil Bove Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC 11 Times Square, 34th Floor New York, NY 10036 (212) 324 7265 ebove@csglaw.com\n\n *Attorney for Yanping Wang*\n\nCc: Counsel of Record (Via Email)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUNITED STATES（美国），\n\n诉\n\nDECLARATION（声明书）\n\n案号：No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），\n\n被告。\n\n本人 EMIL BOVE（埃米尔·博夫），依据 Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746，声明如下：\n\n1. 自 2009 年 6 月起，本人一直是 State of New York（纽约州）律师公会信誉良好的执业律师。自 2010 年 10 月起，本人一直是本法院律师公会信誉良好的执业律师。\n\n2. 大约在 2012 年 10 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 20 日期间，本人在 U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）担任 Assistant United States Attorney（联邦助理检察官）。\n\n3. 2019 年 9 月 19 日，本人被任命为该办公室 Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit（恐怖主义与国际麻醉品科，简称“TIN”，该办公室现称其为 NSIN）的两位联合主管之一。该办公室亦于同日任命了 TIN 的第二位联合主管。\n\n4. 在宣布该任命时，本人几乎将全部时间用于准备 United States v. Hernandez, No. 15 Cr. 379 (S.D.N.Y.) 一案的庭审。鉴于本人专注于庭审准备，本人实际上并未参与 TIN 的工作，并在 Hernandez 案庭审期间始终未参与。Hernandez 案庭审于 2019 年 10 月 18 日结束。\n\n5. 本人无论作为主管还是其他身份，均未在 FBI（联邦调查局）与 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的关系中发挥任何作用，据检察官称，该关系涉及本案所涉的 TIN 调查（即“TIN 事项”）。（见 Gov't Mem. 第 3 页）。\n\n6. 本人不记得曾查阅过与 TIN 事项相关的任何案件卷宗，无论机密卷宗与否。\n\n7. 检察官的主张书提及一线联邦助理检察官自“2019 年 9 月下旬”起在 TIN 事项中起草的一份搜查令。（Gov't Mem. 第 3 页）。由于本人在 Hernandez 案庭审中的职责，本人并未审阅、编辑或批准该搜查令。本人不记得曾见过该搜查令的相关材料。\n\n8. [已遮盖]（见 Gov't Mem. 第 4 页）。[已遮盖]\n\n9. 在 Hernandez 案庭审之后，尽管本人大体知晓联邦调查局正在审查其就 TIN 事项所扣押材料的内容，但本人不记得曾讨论过任何特定扣押物品的具体内容，且本人对 TIN 事项中采取的任何其他调查步骤均无任何记忆。\n\n10. 大约在 2020 年 3 月，由于 COVID-19 疫情，包括本人在内的办公室大多数联邦助理检察官开始远程办公。这些情况极大限制了本人与 TIN 联邦助理检察官进行常规或规范的涉案沟通的能力。指派负责 TIN 事项的一名联邦助理检察官调往了其他部门，这进一步限制了本人与该联邦助理检察官的互动，但本人不记得调动发生的时间。\n\n11. [内容已隐去]\n\n本人似乎有可能曾与一名或两名一线联邦助理检察官讨论过 TIN 事项，但本人不记得这些交谈的实质内容，这向本人表明交谈是偶发且有限的。\n\n12. 检察官的主张书描述了日期分别为 2019 年 10 月 31 日、2020 年 7 月 1 日和 2020 年 7 月 8 日的三封电子邮件。（Gov't Mem. 第 5-7 页；同上，证据 A、B、C）。检察官尚未与本人分享这些文件，本人对这些通信亦无记忆。\n\n13. 检察官的主张书指出，在本人任公职期间的某个未公开的时间点，本人的其中一位联合主管“在 TIN 事项的某些方面存在利益冲突”。（Gov't Mem. 第 7 页）。本人不理解所指的 TIN 事项的“某些方面”为何意，且本人不记得在任职期间曾有人向本人告知过此类冲突。\n\n14. 2022 年 1 月上旬，本人加入了 Chiesa Shahinian Giantomasi PC（简称“CSG Law”律所）。当本人开始在该律所工作时，本人被要求就该律所一项早于本人入职至少约一年的既有事项协助代理 Mei Guo（郭美）。该名现已退休的 Associate United States Attorney 要求本人不要参与该代理工作。由于本人没有充分的信息自行评估任何潜在的利益冲突，且由于第六修正案（Sixth Amendment）在该事项中并不适用，本人照其要求行事。\n\n15. 大约在 2023 年 6 月，本人被要求在这些诉讼程序中参与代理 Wang 女士。针对该请求，本人查阅了本案的公开案卷记录。在接受委托之前，本人还审阅了相关职业道德守则，咨询了 CSG Law 的总法律顾问及其他同事，并在未披露政府保密信息的情况下与 Wang 女士讨论了潜在的利益冲突。\n\n本人在受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，据本人所知，前述信息真实、准确无误。\n\n日期：纽约州纽约市（New York, New York），2023 年 8 月 7 日\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Emil Bove\nEmil Bove\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC\n11 Times Square, 34th Floor\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 324 7265\nebove@csglaw.com\n\nYanping Wang 的辩护律师\n\n抄送：记录在案的律师（通过电子邮件）","key_entities":["Yanping Wang","CIPA","Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":828,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-07","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:23:28"}