{"id":"court_sdny_294_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":294,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"CIPA 保护令 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #294（2024年4月18日签发）。法官 Analisa Torres 经多轮不公开（in camera）审查及此前一系列单方（ex parte）裁定后，批准政府依《涉密信息程序法》（CIPA）第4条提出的保护令申请，认定相关涉密材料对辩方非属 Brady 判例或 Rule 16 项下须开示的实质性、有益证据，准许政府以删除或以摘要/替代陈述方式不予开示，相关 CIPA 提交材料予以封存。","summary_en":"CIPA protective order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #294 (filed April 18, 2024). After extensive in camera review and a series of prior ex parte rulings, Judge Analisa Torres grants the government's motion under Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act, finding the classified materials at issue are not material or helpful to the defense under Brady or Rule 16, and authorizing the government to withhold them from discovery via deletions or substitute summaries, with the government's CIPA submissions sealed.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-against-\n\nHO WAN KWOK and YANPING WANG,\n\nDefendants.\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ DATE FILED: 04/18/2024\n\n# 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n## **ORDER**\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nOn January 3, 2024, a Manhattan grand jury returned a second superseding indictment charging Defendants, Ho Wan Kwok and Yanping Wang, with twelve counts of wire fraud, securities fraud, and unlawful monetary transactions, as well as conspiring to commit racketeering offenses, wire and bank fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud. ECF No. 215. The Government moves *ex parte*, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) and Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (\"CIPA\"), for a protective order authorizing it to withhold certain classified materials from discovery. After extensive *in camera* review of the materials, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion.\n\n### **LEGAL STANDARD**\n\n\"CIPA establishes procedures for handling classified information in criminal cases.\" *United States v. Aref*, 533 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2008). CIPA is \"meant to protect and restrict the discovery of classified information in a way that does not impair the defendant's right to a fair trial.\" *United States v. Stewart*, 590 F.3d 93, 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Section 4 of CIPA establishes procedures for discovery of classified information and provides:\n\nThe court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such\n\nauthorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. If the court enters an order granting relief following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.\n\n18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4. To decide a Government motion pursuant to Section 4, the Court engages in a multi-part inquiry. *Aref*, 533 F.3d at 80; *see, e.g.*, *United States v. Schulte*, No. 17 Cr. 548, 2019 WL 3764662, at \\*2–3 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019).\n\nFirst, the Court must determine whether the materials are discoverable under Rule 16, which requires the Government to provide the defense with evidence that is \"material to preparing the defense, [is] intended to be used by the government in its case-in-chief at trial, or [was] obtained from or belong[s] to the defendant.\" *United States v. Hernandez*, No. 15 Cr. 379, 2023 WL 8804958, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2023) (citation and quotation marks omitted); *accord* Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E).\n\nSecond, if the materials are discoverable, the Court must then decide if the state-secrets privilege applies. The privilege applies where \"(1) there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged, and (2) the privilege is lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.\" *Hernandez*, 2023 WL 8804958, at \\*3 (cleaned up) (citing *Aref*, 533 F.3d at 80).\n\nThird, if the state-secrets privilege applies, the Court must determine if it is superseded by \"the criminal defendant's right to present a meaningful defense.\" *Aref*, 533 F.3d at 79. This occurs when the information \"is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause.\" *Id.* (quoting *Roviaro v. United States*, 353 U.S. 53, 60–61 (1957)). To be \"helpful or material to the defense, evidence need not rise to the level that would trigger the Government's obligation under [*Brady*] to disclose exculpatory information.\" *Id.* at 80.\n\n\"Information that, even though not exculpatory, could still serve either to counter the [G]overnment's case, for example by discrediting a prosecution witness, or to bolster a defendant's arguments, for example by serving as a prior consistent statement corroborating a defense the accused may raise,\" can be material. *United States v. El-Hanafi*, No. 10 Cr. 162, 2012 WL 603649, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012). The Court \"considers not only the logical relationship between the information and the issues in the case, but also the importance of the information in light of the evidence as a whole.\" *In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa*, 552 F.3d 93, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Information that has only \"theoretical relevance\" or that is \"irrelevant, cumulative, or corroborative\" need not be disclosed. *United States v. Chi Ping Ho*, No. 17 Cr. 779, 2018 WL 6082514, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2018) (citations omitted); *accord United States v. Abu-Jihaad*, 630 F.3d 102, 142 (2d Cir. 2010); *United States v. Liu*, No. 19 Cr. 804, 2021 WL 3374535, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2021). \"Whether evidence is 'helpful' or 'material to the defense' is [] within the district court's discretion.\" *Aref*, 533 F.3d at 80.\n\nFourth, if the information is helpful or material to the defense, the Court must then balance the \"public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense.\" *United States v. Mostafa*, 992 F. Supp. 2d 335, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting *Roviaro*, 353 U.S. at 62). The evidence \"need not necessarily be produced in its original form.\" *Hernandez*, 2023 WL 8804958, at \\*3. The Court may authorize the Government to \"substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove.\" 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4. In evaluating substitutions, courts consider whether the substitutions provide the defendant \"with substantially the same ability to make their defenses as would disclosure of the specific classified information.\" *Schulte*, 2019 WL 3764662, at \\*5.\n\n3\n\nAlthough *ex parte* hearings are generally disfavored, \"[b]oth CIPA section 4 and Rule 16(d)(1) authorize *ex parte* submissions.\" *Aref*, 533 F.3d at 81 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1); 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4). As the Second Circuit has explained, where the Government seeks to withhold classified information from a defendant, \"an adversary hearing with defense knowledge would defeat the very purpose of the discovery rules.\" *Id*. Here, \"because of the national security interests involved and the highly sensitive nature of the material at issue in this case,\" the Court concluded that *ex parte* proceedings were appropriate. *El-Hanafi*, 2012 WL 603649, at \\*2.\n\n#### **DISCUSSION**\n\nThe Court has carefully reviewed, *in camera*, the Government's CIPA motion and exhibits, filed on December 22, 2023; its four supplemental submissions, filed on February 5, March 21, April 8, and April 15, 2024; and the declarations of the relevant U.S. government officials.<sup>1</sup> As an initial matter, the Court finds that the declarations submitted by the government officials properly lodge the state-secrets privilege: they \"satisfactorily identify specific facts that (a) render the materials here at issue classified and (b) support the conclusion that disclosure of those materials would pose a risk to national security.\" *Abu-Jihaad*, 630 F.3d at 141. Many of the materials identified for deletion in the CIPA motion are not discoverable under *Brady v. Maryland*, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. These materials are also neither material nor helpful to the defense; accordingly, they are properly withheld from discovery.\n\nBy *ex parte* order dated February 21, 2024, the Court identified a subset of the materials described in pages 60 to 71, 113 to 117, and 127 to 129 of the CIPA motion—as \"relevant and helpful\" to the defense and directed the Government to file a supplemental brief.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Court recognizes that its discussion of the Government's submissions and the underlying materials is \"necessarily circumspect,\" *Abu-Jihaad*, 630 F.3d at 130, and \"will not be illuminating to the Defendants or to the public,\" *El-Hanafi*, 2012 WL 603649, at \\*4.\n\nBy *ex parte* order dated April 2, 2024, the Court approved the Government's proposed redactions to forty-five documents, finding that the redactions omitted information that did not affect Defendants' ability to present their defenses. The Court also approved the Government's proposed substitutions for another subset of materials, holding that the substitutions would provide Defendants with substantially the same ability to present their defenses. And, to address the Court's outstanding concerns about eight remaining classified documents, the Court ordered the Government to appear at an *ex parte* conference on April 9, 2024. After hearing argument on each document, the Court granted the Government's request to delete five of the eight classified documents—determining that they were cumulative of unclassified discovery—and directed the Government to propose substitutions as to the remaining three. *See generally* CIPA Hearing Tr.\n\nBy *ex parte* order dated April 17, 2024, the Court approved the Government's proposed substitutions, finding that they provided Defendants with substantially the same ability to assert their defenses, and granted the Government's request to delete from discovery the remainder of the classified documents identified in its CIPA motion and supplements.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nAccordingly, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion for a protective order. The Government is authorized to withhold the classified materials identified with particularity in its motion. The Government shall produce to defense counsel the proposed substitutions described herein and in the Court's *ex parte* orders. The Government's CIPA submissions are hereby sealed, and shall remain preserved in the custody of the Classified Information Security Officer, in accordance with established court security procedures, until further order of this Court.\n\n#### SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 18, 2024 New York, New York\n\nO.S.","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）,\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 YANPING WANG（王雁平）,\n\n被告。\n\nUSDC SDNY 电子归档文件 DOC #: _________________ 归档日期：04/18/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n裁定\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n2024年1月3日，曼哈顿大陪审团作出第二份附随起诉书（superseding indictment），指控被告郭文贵和王雁平犯有十二项电汇欺诈、证券欺诈和非法货币交易罪名，以及串谋实施勒索敲诈犯罪、电汇和银行欺诈、洗钱和证券欺诈。ECF No. 215。政府依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 16(d)(1) 条及《机密信息程序法》（Classified Information Procedures Act，简称“CIPA”）第4条，单方面（ex parte）提出动议，请求作出保护令以授权其在证据开示中扣留特定机密材料。在对相关材料进行广泛的内室审查（in camera review）后，本院准许（GRANTS）政府的动议。\n\n法律标准\n\n“CIPA 确立了刑事案件中处理机密信息的程序。” United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2008)。CIPA “旨在以不损害被告获得公正审判之权利的方式，保护并限制机密信息的证据开示。” United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 130 (2d Cir. 2009)（引文省略）。CIPA 第4条确立了机密信息的证据开示程序，并规定：\n\n法院经充分证明后，可授权美国从根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》通过证据开示向被告提供的文件中删除特定的机密信息项，或以该等信息的摘要替代此类机密文件，或以承认该机密信息倾向于证明之相关事实的陈述作为替代。法院可允许美国以仅供法院审查的书面陈述形式提出该等\n\n授权请求。若法院在经过该等单方面证明后作出准予救济的裁定，美国陈述的全文应予封存并保存在法院记录中，以便在上诉时供上诉法院查阅。\n\n18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4。为了裁决政府依据第4条提出的动议，本院进行多环节审查。Aref, 533 F.3d at 80；参见如 United States v. Schulte, No. 17 Cr. 548, 2019 WL 3764662, at *2–3 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019)。\n\n第一，本院必须确定这些材料根据第16条是否属于可开示范围，该条要求政府向辩方提供“对准备辩护具有实质重要性、[且]政府拟在庭审的主要举证阶段中使用、或[曾]从被告处获得或属于被告”的证据。United States v. Hernandez, No. 15 Cr. 379, 2023 WL 8804958, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2023)（引文及引号省略）；一致意见参见 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)。\n\n第二，若材料属于可开示范围，本院随后必须裁定国家秘密特权（state-secrets privilege）是否适用。在以下情况下特权适用：“(1) 存在合理危险表明强制披露证据将暴露基于国家安全利益不应泄露的事项，且 (2) 该特权由控制该事项的部门首长在该官员进行实际个人审酌后提出。” Hernandez, 2023 WL 8804958, at *3 (cleaned up)（引用 Aref, 533 F.3d at 80）。\n\n第三，若国家秘密特权适用，本院必须确定其是否被“刑事被告提出有意义抗辩的权利”所取代。Aref, 533 F.3d at 79。当该信息“对被告人的辩护具有相关性且有帮助，或对于案件的公正裁决至关重要”时，即发生此类取代。Id.（引用 Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60–61 (1957)）。要达到对辩护“有帮助或具有实质重要性，证据无需达到触发政府在 [Brady] 项下披露开脱罪责信息之义务的程度。” Id. at 80。\n\n“即使并非开脱罪责的信息，若仍可用于反驳政府的主张（例如通过质疑控方证人的可信度），或用于支持被告的论点（例如作为佐证被告可能提出之抗辩的事前一致陈述），该信息亦可具有实质重要性。” United States v. El-Hanafi, No. 10 Cr. 162, 2012 WL 603649, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012)。本院“不仅考虑该信息与本案争议焦点之间的逻辑关联，还结合全部证据考虑该信息的重要性。” In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 125 (2d Cir. 2008)（引文省略）。仅具有“理论相关性”或属于“不相关、累赘或佐证性”的信息无需披露。United States v. Chi Ping Ho, No. 17 Cr. 779, 2018 WL 6082514, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2018)（引文省略）；一致意见参见 United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 142 (2d Cir. 2010)；United States v. Liu, No. 19 Cr. 804, 2021 WL 3374535, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2021)。“证据是否‘有帮助’或‘对辩护具有实质重要性’属于地区法院的自由裁量范围。” Aref, 533 F.3d at 80。\n\n第四，若该信息对辩护有帮助或具有实质重要性，本院随后必须在“保护信息流通的公共利益与个人准备其辩护的权利”之间进行权衡。United States v. Mostafa, 992 F. Supp. 2d 335, 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)（引用 Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62）。证据“不一定必须以其原始形式出示。” Hernandez, 2023 WL 8804958, at *3。法院可授权政府“以该等信息的摘要替代此类机密文件，或以承认该机密信息倾向于证明之相关事实的陈述作为替代。” 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4。在评估替代方案时，法院考虑替代方案是否向被告提供“与披露具体机密信息基本相同的进行辩护的能力。” Schulte, 2019 WL 3764662, at *5。\n尽管单方面听证通常不受青睐，但“CIPA 第4条和第 16(d)(1) 条均授权单方面提交材料。” Aref, 533 F.3d at 81（引用 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1)；18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4）。正如第二巡回法院所解释的那样，在政府寻求向被告隐瞒机密信息的情况下，“在辩方知情的情况下进行对抗性听证将破坏证据开示规则本身的根本目的。” Id。在本案中，“鉴于所涉及的国家安全利益以及本案争议材料的高度敏感性质，”本院认定单方面程序是适当的。El-Hanafi, 2012 WL 603649, at *2。\n\n讨论\n\n本院已在内室中审慎审查了政府于2023年12月22日提交的 CIPA 动议及附件；其分别于2024年2月5日、3月21日、4月8日和4月15日提交的四份补充材料；以及相关美国政府官员的声明。1 作为初步事项，本院认定政府官员提交的声明已正当地提出了国家秘密特权：它们“令人满意地指明了具体事实，该等事实 (a) 使得本案争议材料具有机密性质，且 (b) 支持了披露这些材料将对国家安全构成风险的结论。” Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d at 141。CIPA 动议中指明予以删除的许多材料根据 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 及其后续判例或《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条并不属于可开示范围。这些材料对辩方也既无实质重要性也无帮助；因此，在证据开示中将其扣留是正当的。\n\n通过日期为2024年2月21日的单方面裁定，本院将 CIPA 动议第60至71页、第113至117页以及第127至129页中所述材料的一部分认定为对辩护“相关且有帮助”，并指示政府提交补充辩词。\n\n1 本院认识到，其对政府提交材料和基础材料的讨论“必然是谨慎克制的”，Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d at 130，并且“不会对被告或公众起到启发说明的作用”，El-Hanafi, 2012 WL 603649, at *4。\n\n通过日期为2024年4月2日的单方面裁定，本院批准了政府对四十五份文件拟进行的涂黑隐匿处理，认定该等涂黑处理所省略的信息不会影响被告提出辩护的能力。本院还批准了政府对另一部分材料拟采用的替代方案，认定该等替代方案将为被告提供基本相同的提出辩护的能力。此外，为解决本院对剩余八份机密文件的未决关切，本院命令政府出席2024年4月9日的单方面会议。在听取针对每份文件的辩论后，本院准许了政府删除八份机密文件中五份的请求——判定其与非机密证据开示内容重复——并指示政府就剩余三份文件提出替代方案。参见 CIPA 听证记录全文。\n\n通过日期为2024年4月17日的单方面裁定，本院批准了政府拟定的替代方案，认定其向被告提供了基本相同的提出辩护的能力，并准许了政府关于从证据开示中删除其 CIPA 动议及补充材料中所指明的其余机密文件的请求。\n\n结论\n\n因此，本院准许（GRANTS）政府关于保护令的动议。授权政府扣留其动议中明确具体指明的机密材料。政府应向辩护律师提供本裁定及本院各项单方面裁定中所述的拟定替代方案。政府的 CIPA 提交材料特此封存，并应按照既定的法庭安保程序由机密信息安全官妥善保管，直至本院另有命令。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年4月18日 纽约州纽约市\n\nO.S.","key_entities":["CIPA","Classified Information","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Brady","Torres","Analisa Torres"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1634,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:38"}