{"id":"court_sdny_128_3","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":128,"sub_number":3,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-08-18","title":"I.INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK I.INITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"证人声明 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #128 附件（2023-08-18）。前 SDNY 助理检察长/道德顾问 John McEnany 提交声明，回顾其在前助理检察官 Emil Bove 离职后就是否可代理“郭某之女”一项民事案件所涉利益冲突问题提供的咨询意见，证实 Bove 最终按其建议回避了该民事事项。","summary_en":"Declaration — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #128 attachment (filed 2023-08-18). Former SDNY Associate U.S. Attorney and Ethics Advisor John McEnany submits a declaration recounting the conflict-of-interest guidance he gave former AUSA Emil Bove after Bove left the office regarding a potential civil representation of \"Guo's daughter,\" confirming Bove agreed to stay away from that civil matter per his advice.","body_en":"## I.INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nI.INITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-against-\n\nYANPING WANG, alk/ a \"Y v ette,\"\n\nDefendant.\n\n## 51 23 Cr. 118 (AT) DECLARATION\n\nI, John McEnany, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 1746, declare as follows:\n\n1. I joined the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York in 1983. In 1991 I joined the executive staff of the Office as Associate U.S. Attorney, a position <sup>I</sup> maintained until I retired on April 15,2022.\n\n2. Among other duties and responsibilities as Associate U.S. Attorney, I became, in or around 1991, Government Ethics Advisor, a position I maintained until my retirement. As Government Ethics Advisor, one of my responsibilities was to provide training and advice concerning government ethics statutes and regulations, including the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. Paft2635. Subpart F of the Standards addresses conflicts that may arise when a government employee is seeking employment with an entity that is involved in a matter that the government employee is also working on. My training and advice also included the post-employment restrictions contained in 18 U.S.C.5207 and 5 C.F.R. Par-t 2641.\n\n3. In addition, in or around 7994,|became the Professional Responsibility Officer for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office, a position I maintained until my retirement. Among my responsibilities in that position was to provide training and advice concerning standards of professional attorney conduct, including the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility, supplanted in 2009 by the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, 22 N.Y.C.R.R Part 1200, and the New York State Bar Association's Comments thereto. (Postemployment restrictions on former government attorneys are addressed in Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 1.)\n\n4. The Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Justice required, among other things, that attorneys receive annual government ethics training. I gave andlor supervised the provision of this training every year. The conflicts that could arise when seeking other employment, and subsequent post-employment restrictions-both of which derive from criminal statutory provisions-were an element of this training. Because the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York is a high-turnover Office, this was a matter to which I gave particular emphasis. And most parlicularly, since these were somewhat complicated matters that would not usually be of importance to an Assistant U.S. Attorney until that attorney was actually seeking other employment, my training emphasized that the attorney should consult with me at that time. Most attorneys contemplating leaving the Office did so. In addition, I made clear that, after leaving the Office, attorneys should freely call me with any conflict-related questions, and I fielded many such questions during my tenure.\n\n5. In addition, commencing many years before I left the Office, I instituted the practice of setting up an exit meeting with each departing Assistant U.S. Attorney. This covered a case review; ministerial matters, such as record preservation procedures; and a review of postemployment ethical restrictions under both government ethics provisions and the Rules of Professional Conduct. My discussion covered, among other things, the lifetime bar on working on any matter on which the attorney had participated personally and substantially while at the Office; and (when speaking with a departing unit chief that the Office considered unit chiefs as having in\n\n1\n\nfact participated personally and substantially in every matter within the chief s unit: that was their job. I also stressed that the departing attorney could always call me with potential conflict questions. I do not have a specific recollection of an exit meeting with Emil Bove (and cannot check all of my old records to verify) but since we were both conscientious about such matters, and since we did have the post-employment conversation discussed below, I am fairly confident that we did indeed meet. I also have a vague recollection of a discussion with Mr. Bove before he left the Office that he was looking at a law firm in New Jersey, and that, given the nature of the firm's practice, I commented that that firm was unlikely to have any cases with the Office that would raise a conflict question while Mr. Bove was considering joining that firm.\n\n6. I do have a specific recollection that after Mr. Bove left the Office he called me (my notes referenced below indicate that this call was on January 19, 2022) to ask if I saw any issue with him taking on a potential client in a civil matter, given that Mr. Bove had supervised an investigation relating to the client's father when Mr. Bove was in the Office. (I did not note the name of the prospective client other than that she was Guo's daughter.) I recall looking into the facts with attorneys in the Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit and getting back to Mr. Bove with the concern that the civil matter would inevitably lead back into facts relating to the investigation that Mr. Bove had supervised while he was co-Chief of that unit. At my urging, Mr. Bove agreed to stay away from the civil matter.\n\n7. on August 77,2023, AUSA Juliana Murray provided me with a copy of the handwritten notes I made of my first telephone call with Mr. Bove, dated January 19,2OZ2; andl have also reviewed the email string that was previously submitted, ex parte, as Exhibit D to an\n\n3\n\nearlier filing in the instant case. Those records confirm and supplement my recollection of this matter.\n\n8. <sup>I</sup>declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this affidavit is true and correct.\n\nExecuted: New York, New York August 18,2023\n\nJohn M. McEnany\n\nJohn M. McEnany","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 OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n诉\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”\n\n被告。\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT) 声明书\n\n我，John McEnany（约翰·麦肯纳尼），根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746 作出如下声明：\n\n1. 我于 1983 年加入 United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）。1991 年，我作为 Associate U.S. Attorney（联邦副检察官）加入该办公室的执行管理团队，并一直担任该职务，直至 2022 年 4 月 15 日退休。\n\n2. 在担任联邦副检察官的各项职责中，我于 1991 年前后出任 Government Ethics Advisor（政府道德顾问），并一直担任该职务直至退休。作为政府道德顾问，我的职责之一是就政府道德法规提供培训和建议，包括《行政部门雇员道德行为标准》（Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch），5 C.F.R. Part 2635。该标准的 F 分部涉及政府雇员在寻求与其正在处理之事务相关的实体处就职时可能产生的冲突。我的培训和建议还包括 18 U.S.C. § 207 和 5 C.F.R. Part 2641 中规定的离职后限制。\n\n3. 此外，在 1994 年前后，我成为了联邦检察官办公室刑事部的 Professional Responsibility Officer（职业责任官），并一直担任该职务直至退休。在该职位上的职责包括就律师职业行为标准提供培训和建议，包括《纽约州律师职业责任准则》（New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility，2009 年被《纽约州职业行为规则》（New York Rules of Professional Conduct），22 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 1200 及纽约州律师协会的相关评注所取代）。（对前政府律师的离职后限制在《职业行为规则》第 1.11 条中有所规定。）\n\n4. 政府道德办公室（Office of Government Ethics）和司法部（Department of Justice）等部门要求律师每年接受政府道德培训。我每年都提供和/或监督该培训的开展。在寻求其他工作时可能产生的冲突以及随后的离职后限制——两者均源自刑事成文法规定——都是该培训的内容。由于纽约南区联邦检察官办公室人员流动率较高，这是我特别强调的事项。尤为关键的是，由于这些事务较为复杂，通常在某位 Assistant U.S. Attorney（助理联邦检察官）实际寻求其他工作之前不会受到其重视，因此我的培训着重强调该律师届时应当向我咨询。大多数考虑离开本办公室的律师都照做了。此外，我明确表示，在离开办公室后，律师们可以随时就任何与冲突相关的问题致电我，我在任职期间处理了许多此类问题。\n\n5. 此外，从我离开办公室前很多年开始，我就确立了与每位离职的助理联邦检察官举行离职面谈的做法。面谈涵盖案件审查；行政事务（例如记录保存程序）；以及根据政府道德规定和《职业行为规则》对离职后的道德限制进行审查。我的讨论内容包括但不限于：终身禁止参与该律师在办公室任职期间曾亲自且实质性参与过的任何事务；以及（在与离职的部门主管交谈时）办公室认为部门主管实际上亲自且实质性地参与了该主管所在部门内的每一项事务：那是他们的职责所在。我还强调，离职律师可以随时就潜在的冲突问题给我打电话。我对与 Emil Bove（埃米尔·博夫）的离职面谈没有具体记忆（且无法核查我所有的旧记录以进行核实），但鉴于我们两人对此类事项都很认真负责，且鉴于我们确实进行了下文所述的离职后谈话，我相当确信我们确实见过面。我还隐约记得在博夫先生离开办公室前与他的一次讨论，内容是他正在考虑新泽西州的一家律师事务所，并且考虑到该事务所的业务性质，我曾评价说，在博夫先生考虑加入该所期间，该所不太可能在本办公室有任何会引发冲突问题的案件。\n\n6. 我确实明确记得，在博夫先生离开办公室后，他曾致电我（我下文提及的笔记显示此通话发生在 2022 年 1 月 19 日），询问他接手一起民事案件中的潜在客户是否存在任何问题，因为博夫先生在办公室任职期间曾监督过与该客户父亲相关的调查。（除了她是郭的女儿之外，我没有记录该潜在客户的姓名。）我记得曾与恐怖主义和国际麻醉品部门（Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit）的律师一起调查了事实，并向博夫先生回复表示担忧，即该民事事项将不可避免地牵涉回博夫先生担任该部门联席主管期间所监督的调查相关的事实。在我的敦促下，博夫先生同意回避该民事事项。\n\n7. 2023 年 8 月 17 日，助理联邦检察官 Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）向我提供了一份我于 2022 年 1 月 19 日与博夫先生首次通话时所作手写笔记的副本；我也审查了先前单方面（ex parte）作为证据 D（Exhibit D）提交给本案早期案卷的电子邮件链。这些记录证实并补充了我对该事项的记忆。\n\n8. 我声明，若有虚假陈述愿受伪证罪处罚，本宣誓书所载信息均属真实、准确。\n\n签署于：纽约州纽约市 2023 年 8 月 18 日\n\nJohn M. McEnany\n\nJohn M. McEnany","key_entities":["CIPA","Guo","Yanping Wang","Je","Murray"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":944,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-18","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:23:41"}