{"id":"court_sdny_153_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":153,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) EMIL BOVE**  Emil.Bove@blanchelaw.com (212) 716-1250","summary_zh":"动议书（Motion） —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #153（2023 年 10 月 5 日）。被告诉讼代理人 Emil Bove 代表被告 Yanping Wang 提出，请求搁置相关破产诉讼程序，理由是破产受信人的行动威胁了刑事案件程序的完整性，特别涉及律师-当事人特权、共同利益安排保护及被告的第五修正案权利。","summary_en":"Motion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Guo Wengui, a/k/a Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #153 (October 5, 2023). Defense counsel Emil Bove on behalf of defendant Yanping Wang requests a stay of related bankruptcy proceedings, arguing that the bankruptcy Trustee's actions threaten the integrity of the criminal case and endanger attorney-client privilege, common-interest arrangements, and defendants' Fifth Amendment rights.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n**EMIL BOVE**  Emil.Bove@blanchelaw.com (212) 716-1250\n\nOctober 5, 2023\n\nVia ECF Honorable Analisa Torres U.S. District Judge Southern District of New York\n\n## **Re: United States v. Yanping Wang, et al., No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe write on behalf of Yanping Wang in further support of defendants' August 30, 2023 motion to stay proceedings in *In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.*, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bank. D. Conn.) and related bankruptcy proceedings. (*See* Dkt. Nos. 129-31, 135).1\n\nThe defendants seek a relatively brief stay of the bankruptcy proceedings during the buildup to their April 2024 trial date. Beginning with the frivolous claim that the Court lacks authority to protect the integrity of these proceedings, the Trustee's flawed opposition illustrates the ongoing threat that he poses to the defendants' rights. And while the Trustee apparently questions whether the constitutional concerns are \"genuine,\" the Court can rest assured that Ms. Wang is quite sincere in her position that fundamental fairness in this criminal case is paramount in light of the severe penalties the defendants face. (Dkt. No. 145 at 15 n.23).\n\nThe threat is particularly acute with respect to Ms. Wang because she was not—and is not currently—in a position to object to the Trustee's baseless allegations and overreach in the bankruptcy proceedings. (*See* Dkt. No. 145 at 34 (Trustee arguing that Ms. Wang \"is *not* a debtor in the Bankruptcy Case, nor a defendant in any of the pending adversary proceedings in the Bankruptcy Cases\")). That said, despite her non-party status, the unwarranted threat to Ms. Wang is continuing in nature.\n\nWith respect to the attorney-client privilege, the Trustee has reserved the right to invade communications that implicate Ms. Wang's common-interest arrangements with other counsel. (*See id.* at 24 n.33). The prosecutors have also left open the possibility that they may at some point seek to obtain those communications for use in this case. (*See* Dkt. No. 148 at 2 (prosecutors arguing that they do not \"presently\" intend to collect privileged communications from Trustee)). The bankruptcy court's recent approval of the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena to attorney Victor Cerda looms large in this regard because, as noted previously, Ms. Wang and her attorneys have participated in common-interest communications with Mr. Cerda. (*See* Dkt. No. 135 at 2-3).\n\n<sup>1</sup> Ms. Wang joins the arguments set forth in the October 5, 2023 reply submissions by co-defendant Ho Wan Kwok. Ms. Wang also joins Mr. Kwok's September 20, 2023 motion to compel the prosecutors to produce communications with the Trustee and the SEC. (*See* Dkt. Nos. 141-43).\n\nOctober 5, 2023 Page 2\n\nWith respect to the Fifth Amendment, the Trustee threatens that he \"intends to bring an action against Ms. Wang\" for an alleged civil violation of the bankruptcy stay. (*Id.* at 20 n.28). In that event, Ms. Wang will be faced \"with the dilemma of making potential incriminating admissions during discovery\" in the Trustee's lawsuit due to the pending charges in this case, or \"asserting [her] Fifth Amendment right, on the basis of which the civil jury can draw an adverse inference\" in favor of the Trustee. *SEC v. Javice*, 2023 WL 4073797, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (cleaned up).\n\nRather than acknowledging the risks that the Trustee is creating to their case, the prosecutors endeavor to defend the decision to join forces with him—including in a \"Settlement Agreement\" in which they agreed to permit the Trustee to deplete funds relating to the Mahwah Facility that they previously alleged was subject to forfeiture. (Superseding Indictment ¶ 55(v)). The prosecutors' decision to \"use [their] evidence\" by sharing it with the Trustee may have been permissible under the Protective Order. (Dkt. No. 148 at 3 n.2). But it also has significant implications, and will require additional fact finding, in connection with anticipated defense motions regarding the scope of the prosecution team and due process violations resulting from their extensive coordination.\n\nGiven this context, the prosecutors' assertion that they \"presently take[] no position\" on the motion serves as additional evidence of collaboration rather than a considered view offered by officers of the court responsible for the administration of justice. (Dkt. No. 148 at 1). In the related SEC case, the prosecutors argued that a stay was appropriate for the following reasons:\n\n- \"The weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment.\"\n- \"A stay will prevent Kwok (who is a defendant in the Criminal Case) from having to choose between asserting his Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery and thereby being prejudiced in the SEC Civil Action or asserting those rights and thereby being prejudiced in the Criminal Case.\"\n- \"Considerations of judicial economy also weigh in favor of granting a stay. Issues common to both cases can be resolved in the Criminal Case, thereby simplifying and streamlining the SEC Civil Action.\"\n- \"The Government and the public have an important interest in ensuring that civil discovery is not used to circumvent the restrictions that pertain to criminal discovery. Courts recognize this as an important factor that weighs in favor of a stay of parallel civil proceedings.\"\n\nDkt. No. 42 at 4-5 (cleaned up), *SEC v. Kwok, et al.*, No. 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2023). It is difficult to understand how those reasons apply any differently here.\n\nOctober 5, 2023 Page 3\n\nIn short, Ms. Wang has no other recourse, and the All Writs Act provides the Court with ample power to ensure a just outcome. Staying the bankruptcy proceedings would be a prudent and appropriate use of that authority so that the defendants' trial can proceed in a fair manner.\n\nRespectfully Submitted,\n\n*/s/ Emil Bove*  Emil Bove Blanche Law PLLC\n\nAlex Lipman Lipman Law PLLC\n\n*Attorneys for Yanping Wang*\n\nCc: Counsel of Record (Via ECF)","body_zh":"EMIL BOVE（埃米尔·博夫） Emil.Bove@blanchelaw.com (212) 716-1250\n\n2023年10月5日\n\n通过 ECF 呈交\nHonorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）\nU.S. District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang, et al.（美国诉王雁平等人案），案号 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n我们谨代表 Yanping Wang（王雁平）致信，进一步支持各被告于2023年8月30日提出的动议，即请求中止 In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.（关于郭文贵等人的破产案件，案号 22-50073 (JAM)，康涅狄格区破产法院）及相关破产程序。（参见 Dkt. Nos. 129-31, 135）1\n\n被告方请求在2024年4月的审判日期临近的准备期间，相对短暂地中止破产程序。破产受托人的反对意见存在明显缺陷，首先便提出了本法院缺乏保护本案程序完整性之权力的轻率主张，这表明了他对被告权利构成的持续威胁。虽然受托人显然在质疑宪法层面的关切是否“真实”，但鉴于被告面临严厉的刑罚，本法院完全可以确信，王女士在坚持本刑事案件中的基本公平至关重要这一立场上是非常真诚的。（Dkt. No. 145 第15页脚注23）。\n\n这种威胁对于王女士而言尤为严峻，因为她过去不能——目前也无法——在破产程序中对受托人的毫无根据的指控和越权行为提出异议。（参见 Dkt. No. 145 第34页（受托人辩称王女士“并非破产案件中的债务人，亦非破产案件中任何待决对抗性诉讼的被告”）。话虽如此，尽管她具有非当事人地位，但对王女士的不当威胁在本质上仍在持续。\n\n在律师与委托人保密特权方面，受托人保留了侵入涉及王女士与其他辩护律师共同利益约定的沟通记录的权利。（参见同上第24页脚注33）。检察官也留有可能在某一时刻寻求获取这些沟通记录以用于本案的余地。（参见 Dkt. No. 148 第2页（检察官辩称他们“目前”无意从受托人处收集享有特权的沟通记录））。破产法院最近批准了受托人向 Victor Cerda（维克多·塞尔达）律师发出的 Rule 2004 传票，这在这一方面显得尤为严重，因为如前所述，王女士及其律师曾与塞尔达先生参与了基于共同利益的沟通。（参见 Dkt. No. 135 第2-3页）。\n\n1 王女士完全赞同共同被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于2023年10月5日提交的回复意见中所阐述的论点。王女士亦赞同郭先生于2023年9月20日提出的强制作出动议，即要求检察官出示其与受托人及 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的沟通记录。（参见 Dkt. Nos. 141-43）。\n\n2023年10月5日 第2页\n\n在 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）权利方面，受托人威胁称其“打算对王女士提起诉讼”，指控其民事违反破产自动中止规定。（同上第20页脚注28）。在那种情况下，由于本案中待决的刑事指控，王女士将面临“在受托人诉讼的证据开示过程中作出潜在自证其罪的自认”或者“主张其第五修正案权利，而民事陪审团可据此做出对其不利的推断”以有利于受托人的两难境地。SEC v. Javice, 2023 WL 4073797, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)（引文格式已清理）。\n\n检察官并未承认受托人给他们的案件带来的风险，而是竭力为与其联手的决定辩护——包括在一份“和解协议”中，他们同意允许受托人动用与 Mahwah 设施相关的资金，而他们此前曾指控该设施应予没收。（替代起诉书第55(v)段）。检察官通过与受托人共享证据来“使用其证据”的决定在保护令下可能是被允许的。（Dkt. No. 148 第3页脚注2）。但这同时也具有重大影响，并将需要针对辩方预期的动议开展额外的事实调查，这些动议涉及检方团队的范围以及因其广泛协调而导致的正当程序受损问题。\n\n鉴于这一背景，检察官声称他们对该动议“目前不持立场”，这进一步证明了双方的协作，而不是负责司法公正的法庭官员所提供的深思熟虑的观点。（Dkt. No. 148 第1页）。在相关的 SEC 案件中，检察官曾基于以下理由主张中止审理是适当的：\n\n- “本巡回法院的权威判例表明，当刑事调查已经成熟并形成起诉书时，法院将中止民事诉讼程序。”\n- “中止审理将防止郭先生（本刑事案件的被告）不得不在民事证据开示期间主张其第五修正案权利从而在 SEC 民事诉讼中受到不利影响，或者行使这些权利从而在刑事案件中受到不利影响之间做出选择。”\n- “司法经济性的考量亦倾向于支持准予中止。两案共有的问题可以在刑事案件中得到解决，从而简化并精简 SEC 民事诉讼。”\n- “政府和公众在确保民事证据开示不被用于规避刑事证据开示的相关限制方面具有重要利益。法院认为这是支持中止平行民事诉讼程序的重要考量因素。”\n\nDkt. No. 42 第4-5页（引文格式已清理），SEC v. Kwok, et al.，案号 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2023年4月28日)。很难理解为什么这些理由在此处会有不同的适用。\n\n2023年10月5日 第3页\n\n简而言之，王女士别无其他救济途径，而《全令状法案》（All Writs Act）赋予了本法院充分的权力来确保公正的结果。中止破产程序将是对该权力的审慎且适当的行使，以便被告的审判能够以公正的方式进行。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Emil Bove\nEmil Bove\nBlanche Law PLLC\n\nAlex Lipman\nLipman Law PLLC\n\nYanping Wang 之代理律师\n\n抄送：在案记录律师（通过 ECF）","key_entities":["Kwok","Yanping Wang","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Torres","CIPA","Analisa Torres","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":42,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":135,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":145,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":148,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":972,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:23:52"}