{"id":"court_sdny_312_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":312,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":null,"title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) United States Attorney Southern District of New York","summary_zh":"政府信函（翻译人员利益冲突） —— 美国诉 Miles Guo 等案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #312（2024 年 4 月 29 日）。美国律师办公室致函法院，指出被告长期个人翻译作为法庭翻译出庭但未披露与被告的现存关系，请求法院禁止该翻译参与案件进一步诉讼程序。","summary_en":"Government Letter on Interpreter Conflict of Interest —— United States v. Miles Guo, et al., SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #312 (April 29, 2024). The USAO notifies the court that defendants' longtime personal interpreter appeared as a court interpreter without disclosing undisclosed conflicts of interest and requests the court to bar that interpreter from participating in any further proceedings in the case.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n## Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT U.S. Department of Justice\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York\n\nThe Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278\n\nApril 29, 2024\n\n# VIA EMAIL & UNDER SEAL\n\nHon. Analisa Torres Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n# Re: United States v. Miles Guo et al., S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes respectfully to advise the Court that the defendants' longtime personal interpreter appeared as one of two Court interpreters at\n\nThe Government respectfully requests that the Court prohibit that interpreter from participating in any further proceedings in this case given apparent undisclosed conflict of interest.\n\n![](_page_0_Figure_12.jpeg)\n\n| the Government was aware that someone named                                                     |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| appeared in Guo's MDC contact records. Additionally,                                            |\n| Guo's prior counsel included _____________________'s name on a list                             |\n| of individuals, including several interpreters and attorneys, whose communications should be    |\n| screened by a filter team. As explained more fully below, the Government did not confirm until  |\n| after<br>that the are a see a<br>who appeared as a Court interpreter at                         |\n| was also the defendants' longtime personal interpreter. Similarly, the Government has no        |\n| reason to believe that the defendants' current counsel of record were aware of<br>and and s     |\n| preexisting relationships with the defendants at the time of<br>, S                             |\n| appearances for the defendants in civil cases predate the engagement of current counsel in this |\n| matter.                                                                                         |\n\n### 's Long Service as the Defendants' Personal Interpreter II.\n\nThe Government has now confirmed that the defendants and at least one G Enterprise entity for interpreter services at various points over the course of the last seven have paid years, as detailed below.\n\n's Role in Guo's Bankruptcy Proceedings A.\n\nMost recently, served as Guo's and Wang's personal interpreter in depositions in the course of the pending bankruptcy proceedings, playing a substantive role in a disputed issue that arose from one of those depositions. 2 See Exhibit B, Transcript of April 6, 2022 Continued 341 Meeting of Creditors, In re Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22 Bk. 50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.); see also, e.g., id.\n\nIndeed, in translated for Guo in the course of the where Guo gave sworn testimony (the \"Guo 341 Testimony\"), participating alongside an official interpreter. In the course of the Guo 341 Testimony, contest the official interpreter's translations. See Ex. B, Guo 341 Testimony, at 21-22, 40, 66-67, 84-85, 113-14. At one point, to leave the proceeding. See id. at 21-23 (\"Maybe we should have to interpret. I'm going to excuse myself.\").\n\nSeveral months after the Guo 341 Testimony, Guo argued that the transcript of the Guo 341 Testimony had been mistranslated, and that he had not admitted to owning two disputed entities-as the official interpreter had indicated. See In re Kwok, Dkt. 1026 at 11 (Bankr. D. Conn. Oct. 26, 2022). On that basis, Guo refused to comply with a bankruptcy court order to produce documents relating to the entities-and the Trustee moved to hold him in contempt. See id., Dkt. 913. Guo's bankruptcy counsel indicated that Guo's the Guo 341 Testimony was mistranslated and that Guo had not admitted to owning the disputed entities. See id., Dkt. 1026 at 11 (\"At any hearing on the Motion, the Debtor will put on testimony from an interpreter as to the many material deficiencies in the 'official' translation of the 341 meeting.\"). The bankruptcy court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on that issue, and was deposed in advance of the scheduled hearing. See Exhibit A. Transcript of In the course\n\n| of deposition, |  |  |  | testified that for first began working for Guo \"between 2016 to |  |\n|----------------|--|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n\n2 In addition to Guo's bankruptcy case, appeared as the defendants' personal or \"check\" interpreter in depositions, hearings, and trials in at least the following cases:\n\n; and 's name does not appear in the transcript of the Guo 341 Testimony; as the \"Private Interpreter.\" As described below. Guo's bankruptcy proceedings and testified about == participation as Guo's private interpreter at his 341 Testimony. See\n\n2017,\" id. 77:15-21, that was hired by \"his office\" and by \"Ms. Wang,\" id. 80:4-81:2, and that was typically paid for work by Golden Spring, id. 81:11-83:7, one of the G Enterprise entities. See S3 Indictment 9 3(a). Guo's bankruptcy counsel ultimately withdrew the argument 's testimony, and was never called as a witness in the bankruptcy that implicated matter. See November 17, 2022 Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion, In re Kwok, Dkt. 1110 at 2 (noting that Guo \"does not contest\" the Court's finding that Guo owned and controlled the disputed entities).\n\n### 's Listing as a \"Friend\" of Guo's on His MDC Contacts List B.\n\n's relationship with Guo continued after the defendants' March 15, 2023 arrests in this case. On April 27, 2023, Guo's then-counsel in this matter identified others, as having served an interpreter for Miles Guo and his daughter, Mei Guo, from approximately 2019 to the present, on a list of persons who could be party to potentially privileged communications.4 Moreover, is detained at the MDC. is listed among Guo's phone and mail contacts at the MDC as a \"friend\" under the name \" but with the same phone number the Court's Interpreters Office in connection with employment. See Exhibit C (BOP Inmate Center Report) at 2, 4; Exhibit D ( email and resume provided to SDNY Court Interpreters Office).\n\n#### Application to the Court's Interpreters Office C.\n\nFollowing the the Government contacted the Court's Interpreters Office and was provided with the resume submitted to the Court Interpreters (the Resume\"). The between with any of the cases in which appeared on the record as their interpreter-including two cases in this District. and . See Exhibit D. The Government also learned from the Court's Interpreters Office that first applied for contract work with the Court's Internreters Office on or abou 's first contract assignment following application was in or about\n\nThe Government later served a grand jury subpoena seeking additional records-including to determine if case-and was informed by the Clerk of Court that such records could only be provided pursuant to a court ordered subpoena. The Government defers to the Court as to whether it wishes to issue a court subpoena for additional relevant records, or to inquire directly with the Clerk of Court for\n\n<sup>4</sup> Defendants' current counsel of record had not yet been engaged at the point 's name was provided to the Government and were not copied on this April 27, 2023 email to the Government from Guo's then-counsel.\n\nadditional information about 's service—including any additional appearances may have made in this case.<sup>5</sup>\n\n## **III. Conclusion**\n\nThe foregoing history, in combination with 's appearance at\n\n without any disclosure of longstanding and potentially ongoing relationship with the defendants, requires the Court to bar participation at any remaining proceedings in this case. *See* ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, *Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court Interpreters in the Federal Courts* at 1, http (\"Interpreters shall disclose any real or perceived conflict of interest, including any prior involvement with the case, parties, witnesses or attorneys, and shall not serve in any matter in which they have a conflict of interest.\").\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\n Ryan B. Finkel / Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson / Justin Horton Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276\n\ncc: Counsel of record (by email)\n\n<sup>5</sup> For this reason, and in deference to the Court, the Government has filed this letter under seal. The Government does not object to filing this letter on the docket.","body_zh":"案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT 美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）\n\n美国联邦检察官 纽约南区（Southern District of New York）\n\nThe Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278\n\n2024年4月29日\n\n通过电子邮件并封存提交\n\nHon. Analisa Torres Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Miles Guo et al., S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n政府谨此致信提请法庭注意，被告长期的个人口译员作为两名法庭口译员之一出现在\n\n鉴于存在明显的未披露利益冲突，政府谨请求法庭禁止该口译员参与本案的任何后续审理程序。\n\n政府知悉名为 的人员出现在郭的 MDC（大都会拘留所）联络记录中。此外，郭的前任律师将 的名字列入了一份由审查小组（filter team）筛查其通信的人员名单中，该名单包含多名口译员及律师。如下文更详细所述，政府直到 之后才确认，作为法庭口译员出现在 的 也是被告长期的个人口译员。同样，政府没有理由认为被告目前的记录律师在 时知悉 与被告之间预先存在的关系， 在民事案件中代表被告出庭早于本案现任律师受聘的时间。\n\n二、 作为被告个人口译员的长期服务\n\n政府现已确认，在过去七年中的不同时期，被告及至少一家 G Enterprise（G 系列企业）实体曾为 口译服务支付费用，详见下文。\n\nA. 在郭的破产程序中的角色\n\n最近， 在未决破产程序的取证会中担任郭和王（Wang）的个人口译员，并在其中一场取证会所引发的争议问题中发挥了实质性作用。2 参见附件 B，2022年4月6日债权人会议继续进行之笔录，In re Ho Wan Kwok, No. 22 Bk. 50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.)；另见，例如，同上。\n\n事实上，在 中， 在郭作宣誓证言（下称“郭 341 证言”）期间为郭翻译，与一名官方口译员共同参与。在郭 341 证言进行过程中， 对官方口译员的翻译提出质疑。参见附件 B，郭 341 证言，第 21-22、40、66-67、84-85、113-14 页。在某一时刻， 离开了程序。参见同上第 21-23 页（“也许我们应该让 翻译。我先退席了。”）。\n\n在郭 341 证言作出数月后，郭主张郭 341 证言的笔录存在误译，且他并未如官方口译员所表示的那样承认拥有两家争议实体。参见 In re Kwok, Dkt. 1026 第 11 页 (Bankr. D. Conn. Oct. 26, 2022)。以此为由，郭拒绝遵守破产法院要求提供与这些实体相关文件的命令——受托人随即提出动议，要求裁定其藐视法庭。参见同上，Dkt. 913。郭的破产律师表示，郭 341 证言存在误译，郭并未承认拥有争议实体。参见同上，Dkt. 1026 第 11 页（“在就该动议举行的任何听证会上，债务人将提出口译员的证言，以证明 341 会议的‘官方’翻译存在诸多实质性缺陷。”）。破产法院就该问题安排了一次证据听证会，并在预定听证会前对 进行了取证。参见附件 A， 取证笔录。在取证过程中，\n\n证称， 最初为郭工作是在“2016年至2017年之间”，同上 77:15-21， 是由“他的办公室”及“王女士”雇用的，同上 80:4-81:2，且 的工作报酬通常由 G Enterprise 实体之一的 Golden Spring 支付，同上 81:11-83:7。参见 S3 起诉书第 3(a) 款。郭的破产律师最终撤回了涉及 证词的主张，且 从未在破产案件中被传唤作证。参见2022年11月17日关于受托人藐视法庭动议部分解决的命令，In re Kwok, Dkt. 1110 第 2 页（指出郭对法院认定郭拥有并控制争议实体“不持异议”）。\n\n2 除郭的破产案外， 还作为被告的个人口译员或“核对”口译员出席了至少以下案件的取证会、听证会和庭审：；且 的名字未出现在郭 341 证言的笔录中； 作为“私人译员”出现。如下所述。 郭的破产程序，并就 作为郭的私人译员参与其 341 证言的情况作证。参见\n\nB. 在郭的 MDC 联络人名单中被列为“朋友”\n\n在被告于2023年3月15日因本案被捕后， 与郭的关系仍在继续。2023年4月27日，郭在本案的时任律师在一份可能属于特权通信方的人员名单中指认了 等人自约2019年至今担任 Miles Guo（郭文贵）及其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）的口译员。4 此外， 被拘留在 MDC。 在 MDC 被列为郭的电话和邮件联络人中的“朋友”，化名为“”，但所留电话号码与 向法庭口译员办公室（Court's Interpreters Office）申请雇佣时提供的电话号码相同。参见附件 C（联邦监狱局囚犯中心报告）第 2、4 页；附件 D（ 向纽约南区法庭口译员办公室提供的电子邮件和简历）。\n\nC. 向法庭口译员办公室提出的申请\n\n在 之后，政府联系了法庭口译员办公室，并收到了 提交给法庭口译员的简历（下称“简历”）。 在 与 出庭担任其记录口译员的任何案件——包括本地区的两起案件 以及 ——之间。参见附件 D。政府还从法庭口译员办公室获悉， 于 或约 首次向法庭口译员办公室申请合同工， 申请后的首次合同派案是在 或约 。\n\n政府随后送达了一份大陪审团传票，以调取更多记录——包括确定 是否 案件——并被法院书记官告知，此类记录只能根据法院命令的传票提供。政府听凭法庭决定是签发法院传票以获取更多相关记录，还是直接向法院书记官询问有关\n\n4 在向政府提供 名字时，被告目前的记录律师尚未受聘，且郭的时任律师于2023年4月27日发送给政府的这封电子邮件未抄送给他们。\n\n服务情况的更多信息——包括 可能在本案中作出的任何其他出庭情况。5\n\n三、 结论\n\n上述历史背景，加上 出席 却完全未披露与被告长期存在且可能仍在持续的关系，要求法庭必须禁止 参与本案剩余的任何程序。参见 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS（美国法院行政办公室），Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court Interpreters in the Federal Courts（联邦法院合同法庭口译员履职与职业责任标准）第 1 页，http（“口译员应披露任何实际或潜在的利益冲突，包括先前与案件、当事人、证人或律师的任何牵涉，且不得在存在利益冲突的任何事项中提供服务。”）。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS 美国联邦检察官\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel / Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson / Justin Horton 助理联邦检察官 (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276\n\n抄送：记录律师（通过电子邮件）\n\n5 出于这一原因，并出于对法庭的尊重，政府已将本函封存提交。政府不反对将本函录入案件卷宗。","key_entities":["Guo","CIPA","Kwok","Miles Guo","Torres","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":913,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":1026,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":1110,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1299,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:26:02"}