{"id":"court_sdny_263_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":263,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k","summary_zh":"陪审团阅问 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）及 Yanping Wang 案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #263。法院就两被告人涉及电汇欺诈、证券欺诈、洗钱与 RICO 企业犯罪等指控向陪审团团员进行联合阅问，以确保获得公正与无偏见的陪审团。","summary_en":"Jury Voir Dire — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Guo, Guo Wengui) and Yanping Wang, 1:23-cr-00118, SDNY, ECF #263. Joint examination of prospective jurors regarding charges against defendants concerning wire fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, and RICO enterprise violations to ensure fair and impartial jury selection.","body_en":"## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" a/k/a \"Boss,\" andYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" a/k/a \"Y,\"Defendants.\n\n## **S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\n# **JOINT PROPOSED EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS**\n\n## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nv.\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" a/k/a \"Boss,\" and\n\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" a/k/a \"Y,\"\n\nDefendants.\n\n**S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nThe parties respectfully request that the Court include the following in its examination of prospective jurors pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Proposed text highlighted in blue is proposed solely by the Government and is objected to by the defendants. Proposed text highlighted in yellow is proposed solely by the defendants and is objected to by the Government.\n\nThe Court is requested to pursue more detailed questioning if a particular juror's answer reveals that further inquiry is appropriate and, in such an instance, to conclude with an inquiry whether the particular fact or circumstance would influence the juror in favor of or against either the Government or the defendant, or otherwise affect the juror's ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case.\n\n## **Introduction**\n\nWe are about to select from among you the jurors who will sit in this case. Both sides are\n\nentitled to know something about the people who sit as jurors. The law provides this procedure to ensure that both the Government and the defendants receive the fairest possible trial. For this reason, I am going to ask you certain questions. They are not meant to pry unnecessarily into your personal life, but to elicit the basic information necessary to permit the parties and the Court to make an informed choice of jurors for the case. If your answer to one of my questions concerns private information, please let me know and we can discuss it out of the hearing of the other potential jurors.\n\n#### **The Charges**\n\n1. Before I begin, let me tell you a little bit about the case. This is a criminal case. The defendants on trial, Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" a/k/a \"Boss\" (whom I will refer to as \"Guo\"), and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" a/k/a \"Y\" (whom I will refer to as \"Wang\"), have been charged with violating certain provisions of the criminal laws of the United States. The charges against the defendants are contained in an Indictment that was returned by a Grand Jury. The Indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the charges that the Government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\n2. The Indictment charges Mr. Kwok with twelve counts, and Ms. Wang with eleven counts. The charges arise from Mr. Kwok's and Ms. Wang's alleged participation in a group of businesses and fundraising connected to those businesses.\n\n3. Count One charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang conspired—that is, agreed—to conduct the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. This charge alleges that Guo and Wang agreed to operate an organization referred to in the Indictment as the Kwok Enterprise including through various acts of wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. The counts that follow Count One focus on certain of those acts and\n\nconspiracies to commit them. Count Two charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang conspired again, that is, agreed—to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Count Three charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang conspired to commit money laundering. Count Four charges that Mr. Kwok and Wang conspired to commit securities fraud and to make false statements to a financial institution. Count Five charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang committed wire fraud in connection with a stock offering for a business known as GTV. Count Six charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang committed securities fraud in connection with that GTV stock offering. Count Seven charges that Mr. Kwok and Wang committed wire fraud in connection with a loan program related to GTV stock. Count Eight charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang committed securities fraud in connection with a loan program related to GTV stock. Count Nine charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang committed wire fraud in connection with a company known as G|CLUBS. Count Ten charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang committed securities fraud in connection with a stock offering made through G|CLUBS. Count Eleven charges that Mr. Kwok committed wire fraud in connection with a company known as the Himalaya Exchange. Count Twelve charges that Mr. Kwok and Ms. Wang engaged in a monetary transaction of \\$100 million that was derived from a crime.\n\n4. Each defendant denies the charges, each defendant has entered a plea of not guilty, and each defendant is presumed to be innocent. The government bears the burden of proving each of the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\n5. Do any of you believe you have personal knowledge of the charges contained in the Indictment as I have described them? Have you heard anything about this case, in the newspaper, on the radio, on the internet, on television, in podcasts, from word of mouth or from any other sources? [*If answer is \"Yes,\" the Court is respectfully asked to inquire about the extent and basis of knowledge, and whether that knowledge would affect impartiality.*]\n\n#### **General Questions**\n\n6. The trial is expected to last up to 8 weeks. Do you have any commitments that would interfere with your serving as a juror at a trial that is expected to last that long?\n\n7. Do you have a problem with your hearing or vision that would prevent you from giving attention to all of the evidence at this trial?\n\n8. Do you have any difficulty in understanding or reading English? Do you speak languages other than English? Which languages?\n\n9. Do you have any other medical problems that might interfere with your service as a juror in this case?\n\n#### **The Parties**\n\n10. As I noted before, the defendants in this case are Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a who also goes by \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" and Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette.\" [*Please ask the defendants to rise when they are identified.*] Does any juror know, or has any juror had any dealings, directly, or indirectly, with Mr. Kwok? With Ms. Wang?\n\n11. To your knowledge, do any of your relatives, friends, or associates know Mr. Kwok? Ms. Wang?\n\n12. Mr. Kwok is represented today by [*defense team to provide names that they would like on the record*]. Ms. Wang is represented today by [*defense team to provide names that they would like on the record*]. Do any of you know, or have you had any dealings with, [*defense team to provide names that they would like on the record*] or any individuals in their office?\n\n13. The United States is represented in this case, as in all cases, by the United States Attorney for this District, who is Damian Williams. Appearing on his behalf in this case will be Assistant United States Attorneys Micah Fergenson, Ryan Finkel, Justin Horton, and Juliana Murray. They will be assisted by paralegals Michael Gartland, Isabel Loftus, and Geoffrey Mearns. Do you know Mr. Williams or any of the members of the Government's trial team in this case? Does any juror know, or has any juror had any dealings, directly or indirectly, with any of them, or with any other member of the staff of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York?\n\n#### **Other Persons and Entities**\n\n14. During the trial, the Government will present evidence in the form of witness testimony. The parties expects that the following people may be witnesses or may be mentioned in testimony or exhibits:\n\n## [*To be provided prior to trial*]\n\n15. Do any of you know any of the people I have just named? Have you had any dealings, directly or indirectly, with any of them? To your knowledge, have any of your relatives, friends, or associates had any dealings with them?\n\n16. During the trial, the parties expect that the following businesses or entities may be mentioned in testimony or exhibits:\n\n#### [*To be provided prior to trial*]\n\n17. Do any of you know any of the entities that I have just named? Have you had any dealings, directly or indirectly, with any of them? To your knowledge, have any of your relatives, friends, or associates had any dealings with them?\n\n18. Events in this case took place at:\n\n## [*To be provided prior to trial*]\n\n19. Are you familiar with any of those locations?\n\n20. The witnesses in this case may include one or more of what is known as an accomplice or a cooperating witness—a person who has admitted to participating in crimes related to the Indictment as well as other crimes. It is the law in federal courts that the testimony of an accomplice may be enough, in itself, for conviction, if the jury believes that the testimony establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there anything about the fact that cooperating witnesses may testify in this case that would make you unable to render a fair and impartial verdict?\n\n#### **Relationship with Government**\n\n21. Does any of you know, or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or indirect—with any member of the staff of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York? The FBI? The Securities and Exchange Commission or \"SEC\"? Department of Homeland Security?\n\n22. Have you, any member of your family, or any close friend ever been employed by any law enforcement agency—federal, state, or local? Would your dealings with this person prevent you from rendering a fair and impartial verdict here?\n\n23. Has any juror, either through any experience he or she has had or anything he or she has seen or read, developed any bias, prejudice, or other feelings for or against the United States Attorney's Office? For or against the FBI? For or against any other law enforcement agency?\n\n24. Have you, or has any member of your family, either as an individual, or in the course of business, ever been a party to any legal action or dispute with the United States, or with any of the officers, departments, agencies, or employees of the United States I have mentioned? Have any of you had any legal, financial, or other interest in any such legal action or dispute, or its outcome?\n\n#### **Prior Jury Service**\n\n25. Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in\n\nthe federal, state, or county courts? [*If answer is \"Yes,\" the Court is respectfully asked to explain that the burden of proof in the grand jury – probable cause – is different from the burden of proof at trial – beyond a reasonable doubt*]\n\n26. Have you ever served as a juror in either the state or federal courts?\n\n- (a) If so, when and in what court did you serve? What type of case?\n- (b) Without revealing the verdict, did the jury reach a verdict?\n\n(c) Was there anything about that experience that would impact your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\n\n#### **Experience as a Witness, Defendant, or Crime Victim**\n\n27. Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been involved in or appeared as a witness or complainant in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury, or by a Congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency? Have you, or any of those close to you, ever been questioned in any matter by a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency?\n\n28. Have you ever been a witness or a complainant in any federal or state prosecution?\n\n29. Are you, or is any member of your family, now under subpoena or, to your knowledge, about to be subpoenaed in any criminal or civil case?\n\n30. Have you, or has any member of your family, any associate, or any close friend, ever been charged with a crime or threatened to be charged with a crime?\n\n31. Have you, or have any of your relatives, associates, or close friends, ever been the subject of any investigation or accusation by any federal or state grand jury, or by any Congressional committee?\n\n32. Have you, or any of your close friends or relatives, ever been a victim of a crime? [*As to any prospective juror who answers affirmatively, the Court is respectfully requested to inquire, at the bench or in the robing room, into the circumstances of each crime.*]\n\n33. Have you, or any of your close friends or relatives, ever been stopped or questioned by any member of the FBI, or any other law enforcement agency? [*As to any prospective juror who answers affirmatively, the Court is respectfully requested to inquire, at the bench or in the robing room, into the circumstances of each incident and that prospective juror's reaction to how he or she was treated by law enforcement*.]\n\n#### **Case-Specific Questions**\n\n34. As I mentioned, during the trial, you will hear evidence concerning an alleged racketeering conspiracy involving wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. Does the fact that the charges in this case involve racketeering, wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering affect your ability to render a fair verdict?\n\n35. You will hear evidence in this case about what the Government alleges were acts to deceive victims, including as part of investment scams where high returns were promised, with no risk in connection with certain business opportunities. Do you have any experience or familiarity with these kinds of schemes?\n\n36. Have you ever invested in a business where you lost money?\n\n37. Have you (or anyone close to you) been involved in any proceedings involving the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC?\n\n38. Have you (or anyone close to you) ever filed for bankruptcy, or been involved in a bankruptcy proceeding?\n\n39. Do you (or anyone close to you) have any strong views about the Chinese\n\ngovernment or the Chinese Communist Party?\n\n40. Have you (or anyone close to you) been involved in any movements to thwart activities of the Chinese Communist Party?\n\n41. You may hear testimony about or from former senior members of the Trump administration, including Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro. Is there anything about the Trump administration, or anyone who worked for that administration or President Trump that would prevent you from being fair? Do you have any strong views about former advisors to President Donald Trump, including Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro?\n\n- 42. Do you have any bias against extremely wealthy people?\n- 43. Do you have any strong views about cryptocurrency?\n- 44. Have you ever purchased any cryptocurrency?\n\n45. Do any of you feel that you have strong policy views on the crimes charged in the Indictment that would make it difficult for you to follow my instructions on the law and to base your verdict solely on the evidence in this case?\n\n46. Have you formed an opinion that the actions charged in the Indictment, as I have described them to you, should not be crimes, or should not be prosecuted federally?\n\n47. Have you been involved—as a defendant, victim, witness, or in any other way—in any prosecution for fraud or money laundering?\n\n48. The defendants are charged with acting with others in committing the alleged crimes. Some of those other individuals are not on trial in this case. You may not draw any inference, favorable or unfavorable, toward the Government or the defendants from that fact. You also may not speculate as to the reason why other persons are not on trial at this time. Would any of you have any difficulty following this instruction or have difficulty rendering a fair and\n\nimpartial verdict for this reason?\n\n## **Law Enforcement Witnesses**\n\n49. The Government witnesses in this case will include agents and analysts from the FBI. Would any of you be more likely to believe a witness merely because he or she is a law enforcement officer? Would any of you be less likely to believe a witness merely because he or she is a law enforcement officer?\n\n50. Have you ever had an unpleasant experience with any law enforcement officer? [*Affirmative responses should be handled at sidebar so as not to influence or affect other jurors in venire.*]\n\n## **Evidence**\n\n51. Some of the evidence admitted at trial may come from searches performed by law enforcement officers. I instruct you that those searches were legal and that the evidence obtained from those searches is admissible in this case. Do any of you have strong feelings about searches conducted by law enforcement officers or the use of evidence obtained from searches that would interfere with your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?\n\n52. You may hear evidence in the form of recordings, text messages, or other evidence, recovered from an individual's cellular phone. The use of a search warrant or a user's consent to gather such evidence is lawful. I will instruct you that such searches were lawfully conducted in this case. Do you have any feelings about the use of such evidence that would make it difficult for you to render a fair and impartial verdict?\n\n53. You may hear evidence in the form of phone call recordings made by witnesses sometimes without the knowledge and consent of the individuals they recorded. I will instruct you that, the use of such recordings as evidence is lawful. Do you have any feelings about the use of such evidence that would make it difficult for you to render a fair and impartial verdict?\n\n54. You may hear evidence in the form of physical evidence or photographs that were obtained pursuant to searches of vehicles or residences by law enforcement. Iwill instruct you that such searches were lawfully conducted. Do you have any feelings about evidence obtained during a search conducted by a law enforcement officer that would make it difficult for you to render a fair and impartial verdict? Would you be more likely to discount such evidence merely because it was obtained during a search conducted by a law enforcement officer? Would you have any bias for or against the Government because of testimony obtained in this manner? Can each of you agree to consider such evidence obtained by law enforcement fairly and impartially?\n\n55. Does anyone have any expectations about the types of evidence that the Government should or will present in this criminal trial, or in a criminal trial more generally?\n\n56. Would any of you be unable to follow the Court's instructions that the Government is not required to use any particular technique in order to investigate evidence of a crime?\n\n#### **Function of the Court and Jury**\n\n57. The function of the jury is to decide questions of fact. You are the sole judge of the facts and nothing that the Court or the lawyers say or do may encroach in any way on your role as the exclusive fact-finder. When it comes to the law, however, you are to take your instructions from the Court, and you are bound by those instructions. You may not substitute your own notions of what the law is, or what you think it should be. In other words, when I give you instructions about the law at the close of this trial, you are required to accept the law as stated and apply it to determine whether or not the defendant you are considering is guilty as charged in the Indictment. With this in mind, is there any juror who feels that for any reason he or she is not either willing or able to apply the law as stated by the Court?\n\n58. Under the law, a defendant Mr. Kwok is presumed to be innocent and cannot be found guilty of the crime charged in a particular count of the Indictment unless a jury, after having heard all of the evidence in the case, unanimously decides that the evidence proves the defendant's Mr. Kwok's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to that particular count. Would you have difficulty accepting and applying this rule of law?\n\n59. Similarly, under the law, Ms. Wang is presumed to be innocent and cannot be found guilty of the crime charged in a particular count of the Indictment unless a jury, after having heard all of the evidence in the case, unanimously decides that the evidence separately proves Ms. Wang's with respect to that particular count. Would you have difficulty accepting and applying this rule of law?\n\n60. Will each of you accept the proposition that the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and that the possible punishment must not enter into your deliberations as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty?\n\n61. Will each of you accept the proposition of law that sympathy or empathy your personal feelings or beliefs must not enter into the deliberations of the jurors as to guilt or innocence of the defendant, and that only the evidence produced here in Court may be used by you to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant?\n\n62. It may not be a particularly pleasant duty to find another individual guilty of committing a crime. Is there any juror who feels that even if the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they might not be able to render a guilty verdict for reasons unrelated to the law and the evidence?\n\n63. Do any of you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you unable to render a guilty verdict for reasons unrelated to the law and the evidence?\n\n#### **Other Biases**\n\n64. In these questions, I have tried to direct your attention to possible reasons why you might not be able to sit as a fair and impartial juror. Apart from any prior question, does any juror have the slightest doubt in his or her mind, for any reason whatsoever, that he or she will be able to serve conscientiously, fairly, and impartially in this case, and to render a true and just verdict without fear, favor, sympathy, bias, or prejudice—and according to the law, as it will be explained to you? For example, do negative views of any particular nationalities, ethnicities, political ideologies, or any other groups or ideas that could impact your ability to be fair?\n\n## **Juror's Background & Affiliations**\n\n65. Please provide the following background information:\n\n(a) Where were you born?\n\n- (b) How old are you?\n- (c) What is the county and general section or community of your\n\n## residence?\n\n- (d) Do you rent or own your home?\n- (e) Who else lives in your home with you, if anyone?\n- (f) Do you have any children? If so, what are their ages and what do\n\nthey do?\n\n- (g) How long have you lived at your present address? [*If less than five years, please inquire as to prior residence.*]\n\t- (h) What is the highest level of schooling you have completed?\n\t- (i) What is your occupation?\n\t- (j) What is your current employment status? [*If retired, please inquire*\n\n*as to former occupation.*]\n\n- (k) What are your position and responsibilities at your job?\n- (l) How long have you been employed in your current job? [*If present*\n\n*employment is for less than five years, please inquire as to prior employment.*]\n\n(m) Have you ever been let go from a job?\n\n(n) [*If married or has domestic partner*]: What is your spouse's or\n\npartner's profession, business, or occupation? [*If spouse is retired, please inquire as to occupation before retirement.*]\n\n(o) What newspapers, magazines or websites do you read and how\n\noften?\n\n- (p) What television programs do you regularly watch?\n- (q) To what associations, organizations, or clubs do you belong?\n- (r) What do you like to do in your spare time?\n\n#### **Requested Instructions Following Impaneling of the Jury**\n\n66. From this point until the time when you retire to deliberate your verdict, it is your duty not to discuss this case, and not to remain in the presence of other persons who may be discussing this case. The rule about not discussing the case with others includes discussions even with members of your own family and your friends. If your friends or family ask you about the trial, you may simply tell them that you are a juror in a criminal case and that the judge has instructed you not to discuss it.\n\n67. If at any time during the course of this trial, any person attempts to talk to you or to communicate with you about this case, either in or out of the courthouse, you should tell that person that you cannot discuss the case and immediately report such an attempt to me through my deputy clerk. In this regard, let me explain to you that the attorneys and the defendants are not supposed to talk to jurors, not even to offer a friendly greeting. So if you happen to see any of them outside this courtroom, they will, and should, ignore you. Please do not take offense. They will be acting properly by doing so.\n\n68. There may be some press coverage of this case. Please do not read or watch anything in newspapers, television, or on the Internet that relates to the case or any of its participants in any way. This means no Google searches, or looking anything up on the Internet regarding the case or anyone involved in it. The only evidence that you are to consider in this case will be admitted by me in this courtroom. Anything you see outside of this courtroom is not evidence and should not be considered by you. Further, my instruction that you cannot discuss the case also applies to instant messages, chats, texts, emails, and social media, including Facebook, Twitter (or X), Instagram, Snapchat, blogs, etc. Do not discuss the case at all, and do not write or post anything about the case at all.\n\nDated: New York, New York April 9, 2024\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy:\n\n Micah F. Fergenson Ryan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana Murray Assistant United States Attorneys\n\n HO WAN KWOK Defendant\n\nBy:\n\n [names] Attorneys for Ho Wan Kwok\n\n YANPING WANG Defendant\n\nBy:\n\n[names]\n\nAttorneys for Yanping Wang","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）诉 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”、“校长”、“Boss”，以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”、“Y”，被告。\n\nS2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n双方联合拟定的候任陪审员询问问题\n\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n\n美利坚合众国\n\n诉\n\n郭文贵，又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”、“校长”、“Boss”，及\n\n王雁平，又名“Yvette”、“Y”，\n\n被告。\n\nS2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n根据 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）第 24(a) 条，双方谨提请法院在对候任陪审员的询问中纳入以下内容。以蓝色高亮显示的拟议文本仅由政府方提出且遭被告方反对。以黄色高亮显示的拟议文本仅由被告方提出且遭政府方反对。\n\n提请法院在某一特定陪审员的回答表明有必要作进一步调查时进行更详细的询问，并在此情况下，最后询问该特定事实或情况是否会影响该陪审员偏向或反对政府方或被告方，或以其他方式影响该陪审员在本案中担任公正客观陪审员的能力。\n\n引言\n\n我们即将从你们当中选出在本案中出庭审理的陪审员。双方均有权了解担任陪审员的人员的某些情况。法律规定此程序是为了确保政府方和被告方均获得尽可能公正的审判。因此，我将向大家提出某些问题。这些问题并非意在不必要地打探你们的个人生活，而是为了获取必要的基本信息，以便当事各方和法院能够为本案作出知情的陪审员选择。如果你们对我提出的某一问题的回答涉及隐私信息，请告知我，我们可以在其他潜在陪审员听不到的地方进行讨论。\n\n指控\n\n1. 在我开始之前，让我向大家简要介绍一下本案情况。这是一起刑事案件。受审的被告郭文贵，又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”、“校长”、“Boss”（我将称其为“郭”），以及王雁平，又名“Yvette”、“Y”（我将称其为“王”），被指控违反了美国刑法的若干规定。对被告的指控载于大陪审团作出的起诉书中。起诉书不是证据。它仅载有政府方须排除合理怀疑予以证明的指控。\n\n2. 起诉书指控郭先生涉嫌十二项罪名项，指控王女士涉嫌十一项罪名项。这些指控源于郭先生和王女士涉嫌参与一组企业以及与这些企业相关的筹款活动。\n\n3. 第一项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士共谋——即达成协议——通过一系列敲诈勒索活动开展某企业的事务。该指控声称郭和王同意经营一个在起诉书中被称为 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）的组织，包括通过各种电信诈骗、证券欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱行为。第一项罪名项之后的各罪名项侧重于其中某些行为以及实施这些行为的共谋。第二项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士再次共谋——即达成协议——实施电信诈骗和银行欺诈。第三项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士共谋洗钱。第四项罪名项指控郭先生和王共谋实施证券欺诈以及向金融机构作虚假陈述。第五项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士就一家名为 GTV 的企业的股票发行实施了电信诈骗。第六项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士就该 GTV 股票发行实施了证券欺诈。第七项罪名项指控郭先生和王就与 GTV 股票相关的贷款计划实施了电信诈骗。第八项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士就与 GTV 股票相关的贷款计划实施了证券欺诈。第九项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士就一家名为 G|CLUBS 的公司实施了电信诈骗。第十项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士就通过 G|CLUBS 进行的股票发行实施了证券欺诈。第十一项罪名项指控郭先生就一家名为 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的公司实施了电信诈骗。第十二项罪名项指控郭先生和王女士进行了源自犯罪的 $100 million 货币交易。\n\n4. 每名被告均否认指控，每名被告均已作无罪认罪答辩，且每名被告均被推定无罪。政府方承担排除合理怀疑证明每名被告有罪的举证责任。\n\n5. 你们中是否有人认为自己对我所描述的起诉书中所载指控有亲身了解？你们是否在报纸、广播、互联网、电视、播客、口耳相传或任何其他来源听到过有关本案的任何情况？［*若回答为“是”，谨提请法院询问其了解的程度和依据，以及该了解是否会影响其公正性。*］\n\n常规问题\n\n6. 审判预计将长达 8 周。你们是否有任何事务会妨碍你们在预计持续如此之久的审判中担任陪审员？\n\n7. 你们是否有听力或视力方面的问题，会妨碍你们关注本审判中的所有证据？\n\n8. 你们在理解或阅读英语方面是否有任何困难？除英语外，你们是否还会说其他语言？哪些语言？\n\n9. 你们是否有任何其他可能妨碍你们在本案中履行陪审员职责的健康问题？\n\n当事方\n\n10. 正如我此前指出的，本案的被告为郭文贵，又名“Miles Guo”，亦使用“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，以及王雁平，又名“Yvette”。［*在确认被告身份时，请让被告起立。*］是否有任何陪审员认识郭先生，或曾与郭先生有直接或间接的往来？与王女士是否有往来？\n\n11. 据你们所知，你们的亲属、朋友或同事中是否有人认识郭先生？王女士？\n\n12. 郭先生今天由［*辩方团队提供希望记入笔录的姓名*］代表。王女士今天由［*辩方团队提供希望记入笔录的姓名*］代表。你们中是否有人认识［*辩方团队提供希望记入笔录的姓名*］或其律所中的任何人员，或曾与他们有任何往来？\n\n13. 与所有案件一样，美利坚合众国在本案中由本区 United States Attorney（联邦检察官）Damian Williams（达米安·威廉姆斯）代表。代表其出庭本案的将是 Assistant United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）Micah Fergenson（迈卡·弗根森）、Ryan Finkel（瑞安·芬克尔）、Justin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）和 Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）。协助他们的律师助理包括 Michael Gartland（迈克尔·加特兰）、Isabel Loftus（伊莎贝尔·洛夫特斯）和 Geoffrey Mearns（杰弗里·米恩斯）。你们是否认识威廉姆斯先生或本案政府方审判团队的任何成员？是否有任何陪审员认识他们中的任何人，或与他们中的任何人，或与 United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）的任何其他工作人员有直接或间接的往来？\n\n其他人员与实体\n\n14. 在审判期间，政府方将以证人证言的形式出示证据。双方预计以下人员可能出庭作证或可能在证言或证据物中被提及：\n\n［*将在审判前提供*］\n\n15. 你们中是否有人认识我刚才提到的任何人？你们是否曾与他们中的任何人有直接或间接的往来？据你们所知，你们的亲属、朋友或同事是否曾与他们有任何往来？\n\n16. 在审判期间，双方预计以下企业或实体可能在证言或证据物中被提及：\n\n［*将在审判前提供*］\n\n17. 你们中是否有人了解我刚才提到的任何实体？你们是否曾与其中任何实体有直接或间接的往来？据你们所知，你们的亲属、朋友或同事是否曾与它们有任何往来？\n\n18. 本案中的事件发生于：\n\n［*将在审判前提供*］\n\n19. 你们是否熟悉上述任何地点？\n\n20. 本案的证人可能包括一名或多名所谓的同谋或合作证人——即承认参与了与起诉书相关的犯罪以及其他犯罪的人。联邦法院的法律规定，如果陪审团确信同谋的证言排除了合理怀疑确立了有罪，那么该证言本身就足以定罪。对于合作证人可能在本案中出庭作证这一事实，是否有任何情况会使你们无法作出公正客观的裁决？\n\n与政府方的关系\n\n21. 你们中是否有人认识纽约南区联邦检察官办公室的任何工作人员，或与其有任何直接或间接的职业、业务或社交联系？FBI（联邦调查局）？Securities and Exchange Commission（证券交易委员会）或“SEC”？Department of Homeland Security（国土安全部）？\n\n22. 你们、你们的任何家庭成员或任何密友是否曾受雇于任何执法机构——无论是联邦、州还是地方执法机构？你们与该人的交往是否会妨碍你们在此作出公正客观的裁决？\n\n23. 是否有任何陪审员通过其自身经历或所见所读，对联邦检察官办公室产生了任何支持或反对的偏见、成见或其他情绪？对联邦调查局支持或反对？对任何其他执法机构支持或反对？\n\n24. 你们或你们的任何家庭成员，无论是作为个人还是在经营活动中，是否曾作为诉讼当事人与美利坚合众国，或与我所提及的美利坚合众国的任何官员、部门、机构或雇员发生过任何法律诉讼或争议？你们中是否有人在任何此类法律诉讼或争议或其结果中拥有任何法律、财务或其他利益？\n\n既往陪审经历\n\n25. 你们是否曾在任何时候担任过大陪审团成员，无论是在联邦、州还是县法院？［*若回答为“是”，谨提请法院解释，大陪审团的举证标准——相当理由——不同于审判时的举证标准——排除合理怀疑*］\n\n26. 你们是否曾在州或联邦法院担任过陪审员？\n\n(a) 如果有，你们是在何时以及在哪家法院任职？是什么类型的案件？\n(b) 在不透露裁决结果的情况下，陪审团是否作出了裁决？\n\n(c) 那段经历中是否有任何情况会影响你们在本案中担任公正客观陪审员的能力？\n\n作为证人、被告或犯罪被害人的经历\n\n27. 你们或你们的任何亲属或密友，是否曾参与或作为证人或控告人出庭于联邦或州大陪审团的任何调查，或国会或州立法委员会、许可主管机关或政府机构的任何调查？你们或与你们关系亲近的任何人，是否曾就任何事项接受过联邦、州或地方执法机构的讯问？\n\n28. 你们是否曾在任何联邦或州的起诉案件中担任过证人或控告人？\n\n29. 你们或你们的任何家庭成员目前是否收到传票，或者据你们所知，是否即将在任何刑事或民事案件中收到传票？\n\n30. 您、您的任何家庭成员、任何商业伙伴或任何密友，是否曾被指控犯罪或曾受到过被指控犯罪的威胁？\n\n31. 您，或者您的任何亲属、商业伙伴或密友，是否曾成为任何联邦或州大陪审团、或任何国会委员会的任何调查或指控的对象？\n\n32. 您，或者您的任何密友或亲属，是否曾是犯罪行为的受害者？[对于任何作出肯定回答的候任陪审员，谨请法庭在法官席前或更衣室私下询问每起犯罪的具体情况。]\n\n33. 您，或者您的任何密友或亲属，是否曾被 FBI（联邦调查局）或任何其他执法机构的任何人员拦截或讯问？[对于任何作出肯定回答的候任陪审员，谨请法庭在法官席前或更衣室私下询问每次事件的具体情况，以及该候任陪审员对执法人员对待其方式的反应。]\n\n针对本案的具体问题\n\n34. 正如我所提到的，在审理期间，您将听到有关一项涉嫌涉及电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱的敲诈勒索阴谋的证据。本案的指控涉及敲诈勒索、电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱这一事实，是否会影响您作出公正裁决的能力？\n\n35. 您将在本案中听到关于政府所指控的欺骗受害者行为的证据，包括作为某些商业机会中承诺高回报、零风险的投资骗局的一部分。您对这类骗局是否有任何经历或了解？\n\n36. 您是否曾投资过让您亏损的生意？\n\n37. 您（或与您关系密切的任何人）是否曾卷入涉及 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，即 SEC）的任何程序？\n\n38. 您（或与您关系密切的任何人）是否曾申请破产，或卷入过破产程序？\n\n39. 您（或与您关系密切的任何人）对中国政府或中国共产党是否有任何强烈的看法？\n\n40. 您（或与您关系密切的任何人）是否曾参与过任何旨在挫败中国共产党活动的运动？\n\n41. 您可能会听到关于特朗普政府前高官或来自他们的证词，其中包括 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）或 Peter Navarro（彼得·纳瓦罗）。关于特朗普政府，或曾为该政府或特朗普总统工作过的任何人，是否有任何情况会妨碍您保持公正？您对 Donald Trump（唐纳德·特朗普）总统的前顾问（包括 Steve Bannon 或 Peter Navarro）是否有任何强烈的看法？\n\n- 42. 您对极度富有的人是否有任何偏见？\n- 43. 您对加密货币是否有任何强烈的看法？\n- 44. 您是否曾购买过任何加密货币？\n\n45. 你们中是否有任何人觉得自己对起诉书中所指控的罪名持有强烈的政策观点，以至于难以遵循我对法律的指示并完全根据本案的证据作出裁决？\n\n46. 您是否已经形成了一种看法，认为起诉书中所指控的、正如我向你们描述的行为不应构成犯罪，或不应在联邦层面被起诉？\n\n47. 您是否曾作为被告、受害者、证人或以任何其他方式，卷入过任何关于欺诈或洗钱的刑事起诉？\n\n48. 被告被指控与他人共同实施了涉嫌的犯罪行为。其中一些其他人员在本案中并未受审。您不得由此事实对政府或被告作出任何有利或不利的推论。您也不得推测为何其他人目前没有受审的原因。你们中是否有任何人在遵循本指示方面存在困难，或因该原因而在作出公正且不偏不倚的裁决方面存在困难？\n\n执法人员证人\n\n49. 本案中的政府证人将包括来自 FBI 的特工和分析师。你们中是否有任何人仅仅因为某位证人是执法人员就更倾向于相信其证言？你们中是否有任何人仅仅因为某位证人是执法人员就更不倾向于相信其证言？\n\n50. 您是否曾与任何执法人员有过不愉快的经历？[肯定回答应在法官席旁处理，以免影响或波及候审陪审团中的其他陪审员。]\n\n证据\n\n51. 庭审中采信的部分证据可能来自于执法人员执行的搜查。我指示你们，这些搜查是合法的，从这些搜查中获得的证据在本案中具有可采性。你们中是否有任何人对执法人员进行的搜查或对使用搜查获得的证据持有强烈的情绪，以至于会妨碍您在本案中保持公正和不偏不倚的能力？\n\n52. 您可能会听到从个人手机中提取的录音、短信或其他形式的证据。通过搜查令或用户同意来收集此类证据是合法的。我将指示你们，本案中的此类搜查是合法进行的。您对使用此类证据是否有任何情绪，以至于使您难以作出公正且不偏不倚的裁决？\n\n53. 您可能会听到证人所录制的电话录音形式的证据，有时这些录音是在被录音人员不知情且未同意的情况下进行的。我将指示你们，使用此类录音作为证据是合法的。您对使用此类证据是否有任何情绪，以至于使您难以作出公正且不偏不倚的裁决？\n\n54. 您可能会听到执法人员根据对车辆或住所的搜查而获得的实物证据或照片形式的证据。我将指示你们，此类搜查是合法进行的。您对执法人员在搜查过程中获得的证据是否有任何情绪，以至于使您难以作出公正且不偏不倚的裁决？您是否会仅仅因为此类证据是在执法人员进行的搜查中获得的，就更倾向于对其大打折扣？您是否会因为以此种方式获得的证言而对政府持有任何偏见或袒护？你们每个人是否都能同意公正且不偏不倚地考虑执法部门获得的此类证据？\n\n55. 是否有任何人对政府在本起刑事审判中、或更广泛的刑事审判中应当或将会出示的证据类型抱有任何预期？\n\n56. 你们中是否有任何人无法遵循法庭的指示，即政府在调查犯罪证据时无需使用任何特定的侦查手段？\n\n法庭和陪审团的职责\n\n57. 陪审团的职责是裁决事实问题。你们是事实的唯一裁判者，法庭或律师所说或所做的任何事情都不得以任何方式侵犯你们作为排他性事实认定者的角色。然而，在涉及法律问题时，你们必须接受法庭的指示，并且你们受到这些指示的约束。你们不得以自己对法律是什么或你们认为法律应当是什么的概念取而代之。换句话说，当我在本案庭审结束时就法律向你们作出指示时，你们必须接受所陈述的法律，并适用该法律来判定你们正在审议的被告是否犯有起诉书中所指控的罪名。考虑到这一点，是否有任何陪审员觉得出于任何原因其既不愿意也无法适用法庭所陈述的法律？\n\n58. 根据法律规定，被告 Kwok（郭）先生被推定无罪；除非陪审团在听取本案全部证据后一致裁定证据在排除合理怀疑的情况下证明了被告 Kwok 先生就该特定罪名项有罪，否则不得判定其犯有起诉书特定罪名项中所指控的罪行。您在接受和适用这条法律规则方面是否存在困难？\n\n59. 同样，根据法律规定，Wang（王）女士被推定无罪；除非陪审团在听取本案全部证据后一致裁定证据分别证明了 Wang 女士就该特定罪名项有罪，否则不得判定其犯有起诉书特定罪名项中所指控的罪行。您在接受和适用这条法律规则方面是否存在困难？\n\n60. 你们每个人是否都接受以下主张：量刑问题完全由法庭自行决定，可能适用的刑罚绝不能进入你们关于被告有罪或无罪的评议中？\n\n61. 你们每个人是否都接受以下法律主张：同情、同理心、你们的个人感情或信念绝不能进入陪审员关于被告有罪或无罪的评议中，只有在此法庭上出示的证据才可被你们用于判定被告有罪或无罪？\n\n62. 认定他人犯有罪行可能不是一项特别令人愉快的职责。是否有任何陪审员觉得，即使证据在排除合理怀疑的情况下确立了被告有罪，他们也可能出于与法律和证据无关的原因而无法作出有罪裁决？\n\n63. 你们中是否有任何人持有任何宗教、哲学或其他信念，会使你们出于与法律和证据无关的原因而无法作出有罪裁决？\n\n其他偏见\n\n64. 在这些问题中，我试图引导你们注意可能导致你们无法担任公正且不偏不倚的陪审员的各种可能原因。除了之前的任何问题之外，是否有任何陪审员在心中出于任何原因抱有哪怕一丝一毫的怀疑，怀疑自己是否能够在本案中尽职、公正且不偏不倚地履职，并在毫无恐惧、偏袒、同情、偏见或成见的情况下——并依据将向你们解释的法律——作出真实而公正的裁决？例如，对任何特定国籍、族裔、政治意识形态或任何其他可能影响您保持公正能力的群体或观念是否持有负面看法？\n\n陪审员背景及隶属关系\n\n65. 请提供以下背景信息：\n\n(a) 您出生在哪里？\n\n- (b) 您的年龄多大？\n- (c) 您住所所在的县以及大致区域或社区是什么？\n\n住所？\n\n- (d) 您的住房是租用还是自有？\n- (e) 如果有的话，您家中还有谁与您同住？\n- (f) 您有子女吗？如果有，他们的年龄多大，从事什么职业？\n\n- (g) 您在现地址居住了多久？[如果少于五年，请询问先前的居住地。]\n\t- (h) 您已完成的最高学历是什么？\n\t- (i) 您的职业是什么？\n\t- (j) 您目前的就业状况如何？[如果已退休，请询问退休前的职业。]\n- (k) 您在工作中的职务和职责是什么？\n- (l) 您在目前的工作中受雇了多久？[如果目前的雇佣时间少于五年，请询问先前的雇佣情况。]\n\n(m) 您是否曾被用人单位解雇？\n\n(n) [如果已婚或有同居伴侣]：您配偶或伴侣的专业、业务或职业是什么？[如果配偶已退休，请询问退休前的职业。]\n\n(o) 您阅读哪些报纸、杂志或网站，阅读频率如何？\n\n- (p) 您经常观看哪些电视节目？\n- (q) 您属于哪些协会、组织或俱乐部？\n- (r) 您在业余时间喜欢做什么？\n\n陪审团选出后请求作出的指示\n\n66. 从此刻起，直至你们退庭商议裁决之时，你们有责任不讨论本案，且不得停留在可能有人正在讨论本案的场合。关于不得与他人讨论本案的规定，甚至包括与你们自己的家人和朋友讨论。如果你们的朋友或家人向你们询问审判情况，你们只需告诉他们，你们是一起刑事案件的陪审员，法官已指示你们不得讨论此案。\n\n67. 在本次审判过程中的任何时候，如果有任何人在法院内或法院外试图就本案与你们交谈或交流，你们应当告知该人你们不能讨论本案，并立即通过我的副法警向我报告此种企图。就此而言，请容我向你们说明，律师和被告均不得与陪审员交谈，甚至不得作友善问候。因此，如果你们碰巧在法庭外见到他们中的任何人，他们将会、也应当不予理睬。请勿见怪。他们这样做是在依规行事。\n\n68. 本案可能会有一些新闻媒体报道。请不要在报纸、电视或互联网上阅读或观看任何以任何方式与本案或其任何参与者相关的内容。这意味着不得进行 Google（谷歌）搜索，也不得在互联网上查阅任何关于本案或任何涉案人员的内容。你们在本案中唯一需要考虑的证据，将是由我在本法庭上准许采纳的证据。你们在本法庭之外看到的任何事物均非证据，你们均不应予以考虑。此外，我关于你们不得讨论本案的指示，同样适用于即时消息、聊天、短信、电子邮件以及社交媒体，包括 Facebook（脸书）、Twitter（推特，或 X）、Instagram、Snapchat、博客等。绝不要讨论本案，也绝不要撰写或发布任何关于本案的内容。\n\n日期：New York, New York（纽约州纽约市） 2024年4月9日\n\n谨此呈递，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：\n\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗根森）\nRyan B. Finkel（莱恩·B·芬克尔）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJuliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理美国联邦检察官）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n被告\n\n签署人：\n\n[姓名]\n郭文贵的辩护律师\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平）\n被告\n\n签署人：\n\n[姓名]\n\n王雁平的辩护律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","CIPA","Miles Guo","GTV","Je","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","Chinese Communist Party","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Crime Victim"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4473,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:36:50"}