{"id":"court_sdny_310_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":310,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"SUBPOENA","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"法庭裁决（律师-委托人特权争议） —— 美国诉 Miles Guo 及 Yvette Wang 案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #310（2024 年 4 月 29 日裁决）。法官 Analisa Torres 就\"证人 1\"关于 GTV 私募融资法律风险的证言是否受律师-委托人特权保护作出裁决，要求被告在 5 月 1 日前向法院声明是否主张建议-律师抗辩。","summary_en":"Order on Attorney-Client Privilege —— United States v. Miles Guo, et al., SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #310 (April 29, 2024). Judge Analisa Torres rules on whether \"Witness-1\"'s testimony regarding legal risks in the GTV Private Placement is protected by attorney-client privilege and requires defendants to advise the court by May 1, 2024 whether they will invoke the advice-of-counsel defense.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-against-\n\nMILES GUO and YVETTE WANG,\n\nDefendants.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nThe Government moves in limine to admit the testimony of \"Witness-1\"1 about conversations he had with Defendants, Miles Guo and Yvette Wang, \"regarding the GTV Private Placement and, in particular, legal risks associated with pooling non-accredited investors' funds.\" Gov. Mem. at 31 (\"Government Motion 7\"), ECF No. 273. The Government contends that the testimony is not protected by the attorney-client privilege because (1) Witness-1 \"was acting in a business, and not a legal, capacity\" at GTV; (2) \"GTV is no longer a going concern,\" so any corporate attorney-client privilege has since terminated; and (3) Witness-1 did not \"have an [individual] attorney-client relationship with [Guo], Wang, or [codefendant Kin Ming Je] relating to the subject matter of GTV.\" Id. at 31-32.\n\nIn his opposition brief, Guo asserts that he had a personal attorney-client relationship with Witness-1 that covered the GTV Private Placement and that Witness-1 provided \"legal advice regarding the GTV Private Placement directly to\" Defendants. Guo Opp. at 25, 29, 32, ECF No. 287: see Barkan Decl. Ex. B\n\n; Barkan Decl. Ex. C\n\n); Wang Opp. at 27-28,\n\nECF No. 291.\n\n\"The attorney-client privilege protects communications (1) between a client and his or her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.\" United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011). \"[T]he privilege is triggered only by a client's request for legal, as contrasted with business, advice.\" In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1037 (2d Cir. 1984). \"An attorney may not waive the privilege without his client's consent.\" In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987). If a defendant asserts an advice-of-counsel defense, however, he is \"deemed to have waived his privilege with respect to the advice that he received.\" In re Grand Jury Proc., 219 F.3d 175, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2000).\n\nin his opposition brief. Guo Opp. at 25, ECF No. 287. 1 Guo identifies Witness-1 as\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT FLECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 04/29/2024\n\n## 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nORDER\n\n<sup>2</sup> A grand jury returned a third superseding indictment (\"S3\") in this matter on April 24, 2024. S3, ECF No. 307. S3 identifies Defendants as \"Miles Guo\" and \"Yvette Wang,\" the names by which they are primarily known, instead of \"Ho Wan Kwok\" and \"Y anping Wang.\" Id .; see ECF No. 308. This order refers to Defendants by those names.\n\nGuo's submission raises the possibility that Witness-1's proposed testimony involves communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, if Defendants invoke the advice-of-counsel defense as to Witness-1's GTV-related advice, the issue may be moot.\n\nAccordingly:\n\n- 1. By **May 1, 2024**, Defendants shall advise the Court and the Government whether they intend to invoke the advice-of-counsel defense as to Witness-1 only.<sup>3</sup>\n- 2. If Defendants choose not to invoke the defense, by **May 7, 2024**, the Government shall file a supplemental brief addressing the arguments raised in Guo's and Wang's opposition briefs.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: April 29, 2024 New York, New York\n\n[Signature] ***\\_***\\_\n\n<sup>3</sup> Defendants' May 10, 2024 deadline to notice the advice-of-counsel defense for all other attorneys, and to disclose the relevant documents, otherwise stands. ECF No. 275 at 1.","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\nMILES GUO（郭文贵）及 YVETTE WANG（王雁平），\n\n被告。\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n政府提出事前排除动议（motion in limine），请求采纳「Witness-1（证人1）」1 关于其与被告郭文贵及王雁平之间「就 GTV 私募配售，特别是与汇集非受信投资者资金相关的法律风险」所进行交谈的证言。政府备忘录第 31 页（「政府动议 7」），ECF No. 273。政府主张，该证言不受律师-当事人保密特权的保护，因为 (1) 证人1在 GTV 是「以商业身份而非法律身份行事」；(2)「GTV 已不再是一家持续经营的企业」，因此任何公司的律师-当事人保密特权此后均已终止；以及 (3) 证人1与郭、王或同案被告 Kin Ming Je（余建明）之间并未「就 GTV 的标的事项存在[个人]律师-当事人关系」。同上，第 31-32 页。\n\n在其反对意见陈述书中，郭声称他与证人1之间存在涵盖 GTV 私募配售的个人律师-当事人关系，且证人1「直接向被告提供了有关 GTV 私募配售的法律咨询意见」。郭反对书第 25、29、32 页，ECF No. 287；参见 Barkan 声明附件 B；Barkan 声明附件 C；王反对书第 27-28 页，ECF No. 291。\n\n「律师-当事人保密特权保护 (1) 当事人与其律师之间 (2) 旨在且实际上保持机密的 (3) 出于获取或提供法律咨询意见之目的的交流。」United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011)。「唯有当事人请求法律咨询（而非商业建议）时，该特权方被触发。」In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Sept. 15, 1983, 731 F.2d 1032, 1037 (2d Cir. 1984)。「未经当事人同意，律师不得放弃该特权。」In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987)。然而，若被告主张依从法律意见抗辩（advice-of-counsel defense），则其被「视为已就其收到的意见放弃了其保密特权」。In re Grand Jury Proc., 219 F.3d 175, 182-83 (2d Cir. 2000)。\n\n1 郭在其反对意见陈述书中指明证人1为……。郭反对书第 25 页，ECF No. 287。\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 04/29/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n裁定\n\n2 大陪审团于 2024年4月24日 就本案作出了第三次替代起诉书（「S3」）。S3, ECF No. 307。S3 将被告指明为「Miles Guo（郭文贵）」和「Yvette Wang（王雁平）」，即他们主要为人所知的名字，而非「Ho Wan Kwok」和「Yanping Wang」。同上；参见 ECF No. 308。本裁定以这些名称指代各被告。\n\n郭提交的材料提出了证人1拟提供的证言涉及受律师-当事人保密特权保护的交流的可能性。然而，若被告就证人1涉及 GTV 的咨询意见主张依从法律意见抗辩，该争议可能归于无实际意义。\n\n据此：\n\n1. 截至 2024年5月1日，被告应告知法院及政府，其是否打算仅就证人1主张依从法律意见抗辩。3\n2. 若被告选择不主张该抗辩，截至 2024年5月7日，政府应提交补充陈述书，回应郭及王的反对意见陈述书中所提出的论点。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年4月29日 纽约州纽约市\n\n[签名]\n\n3 被告就所有其他律师发出依从法律意见抗辩通知并披露相关文件的 2024年5月10日 截止日期在其他方面依然有效。ECF No. 275 第 1 页。","key_entities":["Guo","GTV","Miles Guo","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Kin Ming Je","Torres","Analisa Torres"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":273,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":275,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":287,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":291,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":307,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":308,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":569,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:22:06"}