{"id":"court_sdny_305_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":305,"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":"法院命令 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #305（2024年4月24日签发）。针对政府请求排除郭文贵拟传唤的四名专家证人（分别涉加密货币、中国/中共事务、资金流向会计分析、GTV 估值），法官 Analisa Torres 认定郭方现有 Rule 16 专家披露内容不充分，但认为直接排除证言过于严厉，遂责令郭方于4月29日前补充披露，政府依 Rule 702 请求排除专家证言的动议相应暂缓裁决。","summary_en":"Order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #305 (filed April 24, 2024). On the government's motion to exclude Kwok's four proposed expert witnesses (covering cryptocurrency, China/CCP affairs, accounting analysis of fund flows, and GTV valuation), Judge Analisa Torres finds Kwok's Rule 16 expert disclosures insufficient but deems outright exclusion too harsh a remedy; she orders Kwok to supplement his disclosures by April 29, 2024, and holds the government's Rule 702 exclusion motion in abeyance pending that submission.","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\n# USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ DATE FILED: 04/24/2024\n\n## 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n#### **ORDER**\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nThe Government moves to exclude all four of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok's proposed experts, contending that Kwok has failed to provide the notice required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and that the experts' testimony is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Gov. Mem., ECF No. 272. For the reasons stated below, Kwok is directed to supplement his expert disclosures by **April 29, 2024**, and the Court shall hold decision on the Government's Rule 702 motion in abeyance pending Kwok's supplemental submission.\n\n### **LEGAL STANDARD**\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 requires the Government and defendant to make certain disclosures related to expert testimony that they seek to present at trial. The Rule, which previously required only a \"written summary\" of the expert's opinion, was amended in 2022 to require more specificity \"to facilitate trial preparation, allowing the parties a fair opportunity to prepare to cross-examine expert witnesses and secure opposing expert testimony if needed.\" Rule 16, Notes of Advisory Committee on 2022 Amendment. Now, Rule 16(a)(1)(G)(iii) and (b)(1)(C)(iii) require parties to disclose, for each expert witness, \"a complete statement of all opinions that the [party] will elicit from the witness in the [party]'s case-in-chief . . . [and] the\n\nbases and reasons for them.”<sup>1</sup> “[A] statement of an opinion’s bases and reasons cannot merely be 'the *ipse dixit* of the expert' from experience.\" *United States v. Mrabet*, No. 23 Cr. 69, 2023 WL 8179685, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023) (quoting *Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner*, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)). \"An expert opinion requires some explanation as to how the expert came to his conclusion and what methodologies or evidence substantiate that conclusion.\" *Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.*, 451 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2006). \"The district court has broad discretion to determine what remedial action, if any, is appropriate.\" *United States v. Daskal*, No. 21 Cr. 110, 2023 WL 9424080, at \\*17 (E.D.N.Y. July 12, 2023) (quoting *United States v. Miller*, 116 F.3d 641, 681 (2d Cir. 1997)).\n\nFederal Rule of Evidence 702 \"governs the admissibility of expert and other scientific or technical expert testimony.\" *Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.*, 303 F.3d 256, 265 (2d Cir. 2002). It provides:\n\nA witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.\n\nUnder Rule 702, the district court has a \"gatekeeping role\" to \"ensur[e] that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.\" *Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.*, 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). The *Daubert* inquiry is \"fluid,\" and the Court \"must focus on the principles and methodology employed by the expert, without regard to\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Government must also disclose all opinions that it will elicit during \"its rebuttal to counter\" the defendant's expert testimony. *See* Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G)(i). Both parties must disclose the proposed expert's qualifications, publications authored in the last ten years, and all cases in the past four years in which the witness has testified. *Id.* R. 16(a)(1)(G)(iii), (b)(1)(C)(iii).\n\nthe conclusions the expert has reached or the district court's belief as to the correctness of those conclusions.\" *Amorgianos*, 303 F.3d at 266. The Court \"should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the case at hand.\" *Id.* at 267. Factors set forth by the Supreme Court in *Daubert* include whether a theory can be and has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community, a technique's known or potential rate of error, and the existence of standards controlling a technique's operation. *Id.* at 266. (citing *Daubert*, 509 U.S. at 593–94). The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 are met. *United States v. Williams*, 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007).\n\n#### **DISCUSSION**\n\nOn April 1, 2024, Kwok noticed his intention to call four expert witnesses:\n\n- Related to cryptocurrency: Maggie Sklar, *see* Sklar Notice, ECF No. 272-1;\n- Related to the People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") and Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"): Paul Doran, *see* Doran Notice, ECF No. 272-2;\n- Related to an accounting analysis of Kwok's use of funds: Thomas Bishop, *see* Bishop Notice, ECF No. 272-3; and\n- Related to a valuation analysis of GTV Media Group, Inc.: Raymond Dragon, *see* Dragon Notice, ECF No. 272-4.\n\nThe Government contends that Kwok's Rule 16 notices are insufficient. The Court agrees.\n\nFor the most part, Kwok's notices \"[m]erely identify[] the general topics about which the expert will testify,\" rather than \"the expert's actual opinions\"—a level of detail insufficient even before the recent amendment to Rule 16. *United States v. Kaufman*, No. 19 Cr. 504, 2021 WL 4084523, at \\*19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2021) (quoting *United States v. Valle*, No. 12 Cr. 847, 2013 WL 440687, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013)). For example, Kwok says that Sklar \"may opine on\" such topics as \"what a cryptocurrency is,\" \"the characteristics of [H Dollar] and [H Coin] as cryptocurrencies,\" \"typical practices given the lack of comprehensive regulation of cryptocurrency exchanges,\" and \"what stablecoins are.\" *See* Sklar Notice at 2–3. But, Kwok does not indicate Sklar's actual opinions on these topics. By contrast, in *United States v. Hwang*, No. 22 Cr. 240 (S.D.N.Y.), where the Government noticed an expert to testify about \"background terms and concepts\" related to stock manipulation, the Government's notice included the expert's definitions of those terms and concepts. *See* ECF No. 289-4 at 2–3 (\"A 'stock' is a specific type of investment signifying ownership in a corporation, and represents a claim on the corporation’s assets and earnings.”)<sup>2</sup>.\n\nSimilar deficiencies affect Kwok's notices for Doran, Bishop, and Dragon. *See* Doran Notice at 2 (proposing to testify about \"the nature of corruption in the PRC government\" and \"the suffering endured by the victims of the CCP and Western governments' difficulty in countering Operation Fox Hunt\"); Bishop Notice at 2 (proposing to \"provide an overview of forensic accounting practices, and the process typically used to evaluate the banking transactions of target entities\"); Dragon Notice at 2 (seeking to \"testify regarding the GTV private placement transaction\" and \"provide an overview of valuation practices\").\n\nThe few opinions that are offered lack \"the bases and reasons\" for those opinions. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(iii). For example, according to Kwok, Bishop \"will discuss his analysis\" of certain bank accounts at issue in the indictment, and will testify that the money from the accounts was \"used to pay both [p]ersonal [e]xpenses and [p]olitical [m]ovement [e]xpenses.\" Bishop Notice at 2. But, he does not explain Bishop's accounting methodology. Similarly,\n\n<sup>2</sup> Indeed, although Kwok contends that the Government's expert disclosures in recent cases are similarly circumspect, even a cursory review reveals that those disclosures contain substantially more information, such as the proposed experts' conclusions. *See* Kwok Opp. at 3–4, ECF No. 288 (citing ECF Nos. 289-3 to -5).\n\nDragon seeks to testify that \"a valuation for GTV of \\$2 billion dollars was reasonable based upon information available in 2020,\" Dragon Notice at 3, and Sklar seeks to testify that \"transacting in cryptocurrency is acceptable when both parties agree to the usage of cryptocurrency in the transaction,\" Sklar Notice at 3. Kwok provides no \"explanation as to how the expert[s] came to [their] conclusion[s] and what methodologies or evidence substantiate [those] conclusion[s].\" *Riegel*, 451 F.3d at 127. This not only dooms Kwok's notices under Rule 16, but also fails to provide the Court with enough information to conduct a \"rigorous examination\" of the experts' methodology, as required by its gatekeeping function under *Daubert*. *Amorgianos*, 303 F.3d at 267.\n\n\"If a defendant fails to provide disclosures in accordance with Rule 16(b)(1)(C), the district court may exclude the expert's testimony at trial.\" *Valle*, 2013 WL 440687, at \\*5. But, the purpose of the Rule 16 expert notice is \"to facilitate trial preparation.\" Rule 16, Notes of Advisory Committee on 2022 Amendment. With more than three weeks until trial, the Court finds exclusion too harsh a remedy. *See* Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2) (permitting the Court to issue, in response to a Rule 16 violation, an \"order that is just under the circumstances\"); *Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am.*, No. 16 Civ. 7907, 2019 WL 1055527, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019) (\"[T]he rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule.\"). Courts regularly require parties to supplement their Rule 16 disclosures when they are insufficient. *See Kaufman*, 2021 WL 4084523, at \\*18; *Valle*, 2013 WL 440687, at \\*6.\n\nAccordingly, by **April 29, 2024**, Kwok shall supplement his expert disclosures to provide a \"complete statement of all opinions\" and \"the bases and reasons for them.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(iii). Kwok shall provide the supplemented notices to the Government and to the\n\n5\n\nCourt. By **May 3, 2024**, the Government may file any supplement to its Rule 702 motion. By\n\n**May 6, 2024**, Kwok may respond.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 24, 2024 New York, New York\n\nSignature","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）以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），\n\n被告。\n\nUSDC SDNY 电子归档文件 文档编号：__________________ 归档日期：04/24/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n裁定\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n政府提出动议，请求排除被告 Ho Wan Kwok 拟传唤的全部四名专家证人，主张郭未能提供《Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure（联邦刑事诉讼规则）》第 16 条所要求的通知，且根据《Federal Rules of Evidence（联邦证据规则）》第 702 条，这些专家的证言不具可采性。参见政府备忘录，ECF No. 272。基于下文所述理由，责令郭于 2024年4月29日 之前对其专家披露进行补充，在本院收到郭的补充提交材料之前，暂不对政府依据第 702 条提出的动议作出裁决。\n\n法定标准\n\n《Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure》第 16 条要求政府和被告就其拟在庭审中出示的专家证言作出特定披露。该规则此前仅要求提供专家意见的“书面摘要”，后于 2022 年进行了修订以要求提供更具体的内容，“以便于庭审准备，使各方当事人获得公平的机会准备对专家证人进行交叉询问，并在必要时获得反方专家证言”。第 16 条，2022 年修正案顾问委员会注释。目前，第 16 条第 (a)(1)(G)(iii) 款和第 (b)(1)(C)(iii) 款要求各方当事人就每位专家证人披露“[当事方]将在其案情直接陈述中要求该证人发表的所有意见的完整陈述……[以及]其依据和理由”。1 意见的“依据和理由的陈述不能仅仅是专家凭经验的‘主观武断之辞’（ipse dixit）”。United States v. Mrabet, No. 23 Cr. 69, 2023 WL 8179685, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023)（援引 Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)）。“专家意见需要对专家是如何得出其结论的，以及有哪些方法或证据支持该结论作出一定解释。”Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 451 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2006)。“地区法院在决定采取何种补救措施（如有）方面享有广泛的自由裁量权。”United States v. Daskal, No. 21 Cr. 110, 2023 WL 9424080, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. July 12, 2023)（援引 United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 681 (2d Cir. 1997)）。\n\n《Federal Rules of Evidence》第 702 条“管辖专家以及其他科学或技术专家证言的可采性”。Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 265 (2d Cir. 2002)。该条规定：\n\n因具备知识、技能、经验、培训或教育而具备专家资格的证人，可以在主张方（proponent）向法院证明以下各项成立的可能性大于不成立时，以意见或其他形式作证：(a) 该专家的科学、技术或其他专业知识将有助于事实裁判者理解证据或确定争议事实；(b) 证言基于充分的事实或数据；(c) 证言是可靠原理和方法的产物；以及 (d) 专家的意见反映了将这些原理和方法可靠地应用于本案事实。\n\n根据第 702 条，地区法院承担“守门人角色”，以“确保专家的证言既建立在可靠的基础之上，又与当前的任务相关”。Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993)。Daubert 审查是“灵活的”，法院“必须侧重于专家所采用的原理和方法，而不考虑\n\n1 政府还必须披露其在“旨在反驳”被告专家证言的“反驳阶段”中将要求发表的所有意见。参见 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G)(i)。双方当事人均必须披露拟传唤专家的资历、过去十年内发表的出版物，以及该证人在过去四年内出庭作证的所有案件。同上，第 16(a)(1)(G)(iii)、(b)(1)(C)(iii) 款。\n\n专家已得出的结论，亦不考虑地区法院对这些结论正确与否的看法”。Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266。法院“应当对专家所依据的事实、专家据此得出意见的方法，以及专家如何将这些事实和方法应用于本案进行严格审查”。同上，第 267 页。最高法院在 Daubert 案中列出的考量因素包括：某种理论能否被检验以及是否已经过检验；是否经过同行评审和发表；是否在相关科学界获得了普遍接受；某种技术的已知或潜在错误率；以及控制该技术运作的标准是否存在。同上，第 266 页（援引 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94）。专家证言的主张方承担以优势证据证明其符合第 702 条可采性要求的举证责任。United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007)。\n\n讨论\n\n2024年4月1日，郭通知其拟传唤四名专家证人的意图：\n\n- 涉及加密货币领域：Maggie Sklar（玛吉·斯克拉尔），参见 Sklar Notice，ECF No. 272-1；\n- 涉及 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，简称“PRC”）及 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，简称“CCP”）：Paul Doran（保罗·多兰），参见 Doran Notice，ECF No. 272-2；\n- 涉及对郭资金使用的会计分析：Thomas Bishop（托马斯·毕晓普），参见 Bishop Notice，ECF No. 272-3；以及\n- 涉及对 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团股份有限公司）的估值分析：Raymond Dragon（雷蒙德·德拉贡），参见 Dragon Notice，ECF No. 272-4。\n\n政府主张郭依据第 16 条提交的通知是不充分的。本院对此表示赞同。\n\n在很大程度上，郭的通知“仅指明了专家将要作证的大致主题”，而非“专家的实际意见”——这种详细程度甚至在第 16 条近期修正之前都是不够充分的。United States v. Kaufman, No. 19 Cr. 504, 2021 WL 4084523, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2021)（援引 United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847, 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013)）。例如，郭称斯克拉尔“可能会就以下主题发表意见”，例如“什么是加密货币”、“[喜美元/H-Dollar]和[喜币/H-Coin]作为加密货币的特征”、“鉴于缺乏对加密货币交易所的全面监管而存在的典型做法”，以及“什么是稳定币”。参见 Sklar Notice 第 2–3 页。但是，郭并未指明斯克拉尔在这些主题上的实际意见。相比之下，在 United States v. Hwang, No. 22 Cr. 240 (S.D.N.Y.) 一案中，政府通知将由一名专家就与操纵股票相关的“背景术语和概念”作证，政府的通知中包含了该专家对这些术语和概念的定义。参见 ECF No. 289-4 第 2–3 页（“‘股票’是一种特定类型的投资，代表对公司的所有权，并代表对公司资产和收益的索偿权。”）2。\n\n类似的缺陷也存在于郭关于多兰、毕晓普和德拉贡的通知中。参见 Doran Notice 第 2 页（提议就“中国政府腐败的性质”以及“中共受害者所遭受的苦难和西方政府在应对‘猎狐行动’方面的困难”作证）；Bishop Notice 第 2 页（提议“提供法务会计实践的概述，以及通常用于评估目标实体银行交易的流程”）；Dragon Notice 第 2 页（旨在“就 GTV 的私募交易作证”并“提供估值实践的概述”）。\n\n通知中提出的少数意见缺乏这些意见的“依据和理由”。Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(iii)。例如，根据郭的说法，毕晓普“将讨论其对”起诉书中涉及的某些银行账户的“分析”，并将作证称这些账户中的款项“被用于支付个人支出和政治运动支出”。Bishop Notice 第 2 页。但是，他并未解释毕晓普的会计方法。同样，\n\n2 事实上，尽管郭主张政府在近期案件中的专家披露同样持保留态度，但即便只是粗略审阅也会发现，那些披露包含了多得多的信息，例如拟传唤专家的结论。参见郭的反对意见书第 3–4 页，ECF No. 288（援引 ECF Nos. 289-3 至 -5）。\n\n德拉贡旨在作证称“根据 2020 年可获得的信息，GTV 20 亿美元的估值是合理的”，Dragon Notice 第 3 页；而斯克拉尔旨在作证称“当交易双方均同意在交易中使用加密货币时，以加密货币进行交易是可以接受的”，Sklar Notice 第 3 页。郭没有提供任何“关于专家是如何得出[其]结论的，以及有哪些方法或证据支持[这些]结论的解释”。Riegel, 451 F.3d at 127。这不仅导致郭依据第 16 条提交的通知注定无法成立，而且未能向本院提供足够的信息以对专家的方法进行“严格审查”，而这是本院依据 Daubert 履行其守门人职责所要求的。Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 267。\n\n“如果被告未能按照第 16(b)(1)(C) 条的规定进行披露，地区法院可以在庭审中排除该专家的证言。”Valle, 2013 WL 440687, at *5。但是，第 16 条专家通知的目的是“为了便于庭审准备”。第 16 条，2022 年修正案顾问委员会注释。鉴于距离开庭还有三周多的时间，本院认为排除证言是过于严厉的补救措施。参见 Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)（允许法院针对违反第 16 条的行为发布“在具体情况下公正合理的命令”）；Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., No. 16 Civ. 7907, 2019 WL 1055527, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019)（“[拒]绝采纳专家证言是例外而非普遍规则。”）。在第 16 条披露不充分时，法院通常会要求当事方对其进行补充。参见 Kaufman, 2021 WL 4084523, at *18；Valle, 2013 WL 440687, at *6。\n\n因此，截至 2024年4月29日，郭应补充其专家披露，以提供“所有意见的完整陈述”以及“其依据和理由”。Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(iii)。郭应向政府和本院提供补充后的通知。截至 2024年5月3日，政府可以就其依据第 702 条提出的动议提交任何补充材料。截至\n\n2024年5月6日，郭可以作出回应。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年4月24日 纽约州纽约市\n\n签名","key_entities":["Kwok","GTV","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","CCP","Yanping Wang","Torres","Analisa Torres","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":272,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":288,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":289,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1667,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:23"}