{"id":"court_sdny_313_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":313,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-05-01","title":"U.S. Department of Justice** Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 313 Filed 05/01/24 Page 1 of 7","summary_zh":"检方致法官的信函式动议答复 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #313（2024-05-01 立案）。检方就共同被告王芸（Yvette Wang）此前提出的、要求推迟审前证据披露时间表的信函动议提出反对，主张其提交的审判证据（涵盖银行账户记录、Mahwah 豪宅装修发票，以及 G|CLUBS、Saraca Media、Gettr 等关联企业记录）规模与本案所涉多年期、多实体、多被害人 RICO 共谋指控的复杂程度相称，要求法院维持原定披露时间表。","summary_en":"Government letter-motion response — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #313 (filed 2024-05-01). The government opposes co-defendant Yvette Wang's earlier letter motion seeking to postpone the pretrial exhibit-disclosure schedule, arguing that its trial-exhibit production — covering bank account records, invoices for the Mahwah mansion's furnishings, and records from affiliated entities including G|CLUBS, Saraca Media, and Gettr — is proportionate to the multi-year, multi-entity RICO conspiracy charged against numerous victims, and asks the court to keep the existing disclosure schedule.","body_en":"Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278*\n\nMay 1, 2024\n\n# **VIA ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n## **Re:** *United States v. Guo, et al.***, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes in response to defendant Yvette Wang's April 28, 2024 letter motion, which seeks to reconsider the Court's pretrial scheduling order. Wang's motion should be denied.\n\n# A. The Government's Trial Exhibits\n\nPursuant to the Court's pretrial scheduling order, on April 22, 2024, the Government produced trial exhibits. In total, the Government produced approximately 14,800 exhibits, which represents a small portion of the materials that the Government produced in Rule 16 discovery. Wang's assertion that the Government's exhibit production was a \"document dump\" is a mischaracterization that ignores the realities of this matter. The Government's trial exhibit production is appropriate for a case of this scale. Guo and Wang perpetrated a complicated fraud, which spanned more than five years, and has given rise to a thirteen-count indictment that charges the defendants with participating in a vast RICO conspiracy comprised of various interlocking frauds, which collectively defrauded more than 1,000 victims out of more than \\$1 billion. To execute their crimes, Guo and Wang established, or used, at least 43 separate entities and relied upon dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals. (Ind. ¶ 1 (\"[GUO], JE, WANG, and their co-conspirators operated the G Enterprise through a series of complex fraudulent and fictitious businesses and investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated entities, which allowed the defendants and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and misappropriate victim funds\").) Naturally, for the Government to meet its burden of proof on a crime of this scope, a voluminous number of exhibits is to be expected.\n\nTo facilitate the defendants' review, the Government's exhibits were produced in an organized fashion. The exhibits are separated into folders, and each folder clearly identifies for the defense the provenance of the materials in that folder. For example, exhibits from cellphones are named with the FBI evidence ID number that has been used to identify devices since the beginning of this case. Many of the exhibits have other identifiers in their file names, including, often, the Bates number assigned by the Government, or the Bates number assigned by the party that produced the materials to the Government. Finally, the Government will provide the defense an exhibit list later this week, and the Government is, as always, available to answer questions for the defense about its exhibits.\n\n### *1. The Volume of the Government's Trial Exhibits*\n\nDespite Wang's complaints, there is nothing remarkable about the number of exhibits the Government produced—the overwhelming majority of which have been in the defendants' possession for many months.[1](#page-1-0) And while the Government did produce approximately 14,800 exhibits, Wang's motion omits additional context crucial to understanding the appropriateness of the Government's production. To begin, approximately 4,200 exhibits—approximately 30% of the overall exhibits—are bank records from the \"more than approximately 500 [bank] accounts held in the names of at least 80 different entities or individuals, including entities that are part of the G Enterprise.\" (Ind. ¶ 4.) This includes bank statements, opening bank documentation, and wire transfer information. These exhibits are necessary to demonstrate the defendants' use of victim funds—specifically how money was sent from the victims then through an intricate, and intentionally complex, series of transfers into the defendants' and their co-conspirators' pockets. It was not the Government that decided to use more than 500 bank accounts and dozens of entities to carry out this fraud. That decision was made by the defendants and their co-conspirators. Proving this flow of victim funds—the use of fraud proceeds to purchase luxury items—is an important component of the Government's evidence at trial. Moreover, the Government intends to introduce these voluminous bank records in an efficient manner at trial: through summary exhibits that succinctly explain these records for the jury. However, to do so, the Government necessarily must mark the underlying bank records as trial exhibits.\n\nAnother approximately 2,400 of the marked exhibits are invoices, emails, and records documenting the exorbitant furnishings Guo selected for his family's Mahwah Mansion. The defendants have suggested that the Mahwah Mansion was a secret \"facility\" purchased to fight the Chinese communist party. The Government intends to show that the millions of dollars' worth of gratuitous furnishings, most of which Guo personally selected—including, for example, \\$300,000 worth of fine rugs—are plainly inconsistent with that purpose and, instead, show that the defendant misappropriated victim funds for his personal benefit. (*See* GXSB616.) The Government does not expect to separately display or discuss each of these invoices at trial and may introduce them through a summary witness, but doing so requires each of the underlying records to be introduced. The foregoing categories of bank records and records related to Mahwah, constitute nearly half of the Government's exhibit production.\n\nThe Government has also marked hundreds of exhibits from the various businesses that make up the G Enterprise, including a total of approximately 1,900 exhibits from G|CLUBS, Saraca Media (the parent of GTV), Gettr (Guo's social media company), and various \"Farms\" (collectives run by Guo, which collected victim money). These exhibits include purported \"loan\" agreements, documentation evidencing transfers of fraudulent proceeds, and communications involving, or made at the direction of, Guo and Wang. Again, it was not the Government's decision to enact a fraud on a grand scale that relied on the operation of multiple businesses, with\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> By contrast, and as further explained below, the defendants have not produced a single document pursuant to their Rule 16 obligations, even though the defendants predict a two-week defense case.\n\ndifferent employees and documentation. But, given that Guo and Wang decided to do so, the Government must prove the existence of the scheme, and the fraud carried out, at trial.\n\nApproximately 1,000 exhibits comprise data extracted from cellphones, USB drives, and laptops. But that count overstates the volume of material in this category. For example, a single chat thread may contain dozens of exhibits, because the chat participants send each other photographs (each a separately marked exhibit) and voice messages (each separately marked). Further, may of the phone extractions are accompanied by language translations, which create a need for a further exhibit, essentially creating a double count. Hundreds of other exhibits are derived from various \"businesses\" that the G Enterprise interacted with when spending the fraud proceeds, including luxury car dealerships, a hedge fund, a recruiting agency, and a payroll provider. Finally, hundreds of other exhibits include, appropriately, videos and statements of Miles Guo lying to victims to induce them to provide money. Again, each time a recording or statement is in Mandarin, a second exhibit is needed for a translation.\n\nWhile the Government will not seek to publish every marked exhibit at trial—as to several categories of exhibits, the Government intends to summarize and consolidate them in the form of summary charts, both to assist the jury in comprehending the information and for the sake of efficiency—the Government's exhibit production is a good faith assessment of the exhibits that it intends to introduce at trial. To the extent the Government narrows its exhibits, it will inform the defense. Given the complexities of the defendants' fraud enterprise, the Government's exhibit production is appropriate, and it cannot be arbitrarily limited simply because Wang requests as much. *See United States v. Menendez, et al.*, No. S4 23. Cr. 490 (SHS), Dkt. 366 (S.D.N.Y. April 30, 2024) (denying defense motion that sought to require the Government to narrow its 38,000 item exhibit list and characterizing that defense motion as \"needless motion practice\" in light of the work among the parties). The Government has the burden of proof, and it must meet that burden at trial. In any event, the defense teams have a month to review the Government's exhibits before this trial begins, the vast majority of which were previously produced in Rule 16 discovery and have been in the defendants' possession for many months.\n\n### *2. Wang's Complaints About Specific Exhibits*\n\nWang's other individual complaints should be rejected.\n\n*First*, Wang complains that 20 exhibit stickers were included in the production. This was inadvertent and is hardly prejudicial to Wang.\n\n*Second*, Wang complains the Government intends to introduce 357 photographs of the Mahwah Mansion. It is true that there are approximately 357 photographs of the Mahwah mansion that are marked as exhibits, but that is not surprising. The Mahwah Mansion is huge—nearly 50,000 square feet. Further, the Government intends to prove both what was recovered from the Mahwah Mansion at the time of the defendants' arrests and what was *not* in the Mahwah Mansion at the time of the FBI's search—namely, signs and materials suggesting it was a G|CLUBS/NFSC base. Rather, the Government contends that those G|CLUBS/NFSC materials appeared *after* Guo was arrested, so that he and his co-conspirators could reverse engineer a reason why G|CLUBS funds were used to purchase the Mansion. In order for the Government to prove a negative, many photographs are required.\n\n*Third*, Wang complains that the Government marked 717 farm loan agreements and avers that was improper. It was not. The 717 farm loan agreements, which were produced in Rule 16 months ago and represent an exemplar of the volume of Farm Loan Program funds that flowed through a single Farm, demonstrate the magnitude of the RICO enterprise, explain how certain bank accounts were funded with fraud proceeds, and are evidence that the defendants used victim money for personal expenditures. Further, none of those loan agreements were ever countersigned, which is a fact relevant to intent, as it demonstrates that the defendants were interested in obtaining victim funds and not entering into a legitimate agreement to provide stock. Moreover, the Government expects to introduce the farm loan agreements in support of the introduction of a summary exhibit to promote trial efficiency.\n\n*Fourth*, Wang points to an empty folder, which was named \"Brioni.\" This folder is empty because, at the time the Government produced trial exhibits, it had not yet received documents from Brioni. The folder was included to give the defendants notice that the Government intends to introduce some exhibits produced by Brioni once it receives and reviews the company's production.\n\n*Fifth*, Wang points to a letter from the Government to the court, claiming it is \"plainly not admissible.\" However, that letter was not intended to be produced as an independent exhibit; rather it is attached to an email sent by an HCHK employee to the CFO of Gettr. That is, one G Enterprise entity sent an email to another G Enterprise entity attaching a letter that was about Wang, despite the fact that Wang has claimed to occupy no formal role in either entity. The content of the attachment, the letter, is not the focus of the exhibit.[2](#page-3-0)\n\n*Sixth*, GXAS 138 is an email from an entity engaged by the Himalaya Exchange to the Government, providing a particular cryptocurrency address, which that entity retained as a business record about the Himalaya Exchange. The Government's expert, Professor Shams, analyzed that cryptocurrency address.[3](#page-3-1)\n\n*Seventh*, GX243 is an email chain between the CEO of G|CLUBS and a Bugatti dealership. That email chain was forwarded to the Government and one of its paralegals—the portion of the email involving an AUSA and the paralegal will be redacted for trial, but the rest of the exhibit is plainly admissible—the email chain involves an agent of the defendants seeking to expend fraud proceeds to buy a Bugatti for Guo's son.\n\n*Eighth*, GX237 is an FBI 302 containing co-conspirator statements—specifically, statements made by co-conspirator who spoke to an undercover FBI agent, as that co-conspirator sought to obtain a Bugatti purchased with fraud proceeds, after this case was unsealed. The Government will introduce those statements through a witness (the FBI undercover officer) and marked this 302 to provide the defendants notice of its intent to do so.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> The Government is, of course, available to discuss the admissibility of this attached letter with counsel and to further assess whether the Government will introduce the exhibit at trial before any evidentiary objection need be brought to the Court's attention.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> The Government does not object to redacting portions of this email, in particular the portions reflecting that it was sent to the Government.\n\n*Ninth*, GX301-325, which Wang contends \"raise potential hearsay issues,\" are text messages from the \"GTV Investment Committee\" directing victims how to send money so they can invest in the GTV Private Placement. That is, these are co-conspirator and agent statements directly relevant to the charged fraud. Their admissibility is plain.\n\nAccordingly, Wang's complaints should be rejected.\n\n## B. Recent Government Rule 16 Productions\n\nThe Government's Rule 16 obligations are ongoing, and when the Government obtains, or locates in its possession, Rule 16 materials, it is required to produce them. The Government has met its obligations in this case and continues to do so, including with respect to materials that the Government recently obtained in connection with its ongoing investigation, as well as a set of materials which were inadvertently not previously produced.[4](#page-4-0)\n\nIn the course of preparing exhibits and re-reviewing its case file, the Government learned that photographs taken of Guo's Greenwich estate had not previously been produced. Upon learning this fact, the Government immediately produced those photographs to the defense, which included approximately 1,600 photographs—a volume of images that can be reviewed in a few hours. From that set of 1,600 photographs, the Government marked only approximately 80 photographs as trial exhibits. Those 80 trial exhibits include photographs of a Lamborghini that was found in Guo's garage, which Lamborghini was purchased with fraud proceeds. The Court should not exclude those 80 photographs from trial, especially where these 80 exhibits impose a *de minimis* burden on the defense: there are weeks until trial begins, and the defense has known about the Greenwich search and the seizure of the Lamborghini for approximately one year.\n\nIt is common in every case, and particularly before trial, for the Government to run several checks (and re-checks) of its case file to confirm all materials requiring production have been provided to the defense. In connection with that work, the Government expects to produce to the defense a small production of approximately 30 files today, which includes some photographs and chain of custody documents, among other things. If any additional materials that have not yet been produced are located, the Government will produce them expeditiously, as it is required to do so.\n\n# C. Wang's Request to Reconsider the Pretrial Schedule Should be Rejected\n\nIn her letter, Wang seeks to adjourn disclosure of defense Rule 16 material to just seven days before trial, and defense exhibits to just three days before trial. Wang's request that the Court reconsider its pretrial scheduling order should be rejected. *See* Dkt. 250 (\"Reconsideration of a court's previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources.\" (quoting *United States v. Baldeo*, No. 13\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> Wang also complains that the Government provided \"300 non-searchable pdf pages\" in response to the Court's order requiring the Government to produce materials involving targeting of Guo. These pdf pages are FBI reports from a separate investigation, and the Government has no intention of introducing those materials—which were obtained from the FBI shortly before they were produced—at trial. Additionally, as defense counsel is no doubt aware, the 300 pages can be readily made text-searchable using common document processing tools; indeed, as a courtesy, the Government already re-produced those materials in a text searchable format on Monday morning.\n\nCr. 125, 2015 WL 252414, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015), *aff'd*, 615 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).)\n\nGiven that Wang's complaints about the Government's exhibits are without merit, her request for an adjournment should not be granted. But, more to the point, permitting the defendants to further delay disclosure of Rule 16 materials and defense exhibits would only serve to delay the orderly proceedings of trial. Upon receipt of reciprocal discovery, the Government will need to review the materials and may choose to take investigative steps of its own to, among other things, evaluate the authenticity or completeness of those materials and locate relevant rebuttal evidence. The Government also must review those materials to make determinations as to whether to make any objections on admissibility grounds, and the Court will, in turn, need time to resolve such objections.\n\nDisclosure in accord with the schedule previously entered by the Court is particularly appropriate because, unlike the Government, the defense has not produced a single document in Rule 16 discovery—the Government has no idea what discovery the defendants possess. *See United States v. Rajaratnam*, No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at \\*5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011) (\"A defendant would always like more information about the government's case before revealing anything about his or her own, but Rule 16 conditions a defendant's disclosure obligations on the government's having made certain specified disclosures, not on the government's laying open its entire case or the defendant's satisfaction.\") Given that the defendants have predicted a two-week defense case, the volume of defense discovery may be considerable.\n\nIn any event, the Government's trial exhibits are not a surprise—they are consistent with the Government's charging theories that were spelled out in a lengthy speaking indictment, briefing, and other documents. Because the defendants have known the Government's theory of the case for more than a year, and have been in possession of Rule 16 materials for nearly as long, what exhibits, or witnesses, the defense intends to introduce is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the Government's exhibit production. Even if it were so impacted, for the reasons described above, the defense is equipped to review the Government's exhibits and, given the specific complaints in Wang's letter, has ably done so.\n\nWang's request for an adjournment of the defendants' disclosure dates appears tethered less to any real need for an additional period to review the Government's exhibits than to a desire to continue to withhold defense Rule 16 and to provide the Government just three days to review\n\ndefense exhibits before trial. This request would serve only to delay the orderly and efficient presentation of evidence at trial and should be denied.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\n Micah F. Fergenson Ryan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","body_zh":"Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, New York 10278\n\n2024年5月1日\n\n经由 ECF\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的安娜丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法院法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n案由：United States v. Guo, et al.（美国诉郭案等），S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府特此致信，对被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）于2024年4月28日提交的旨在重新审议法院审前日程安排裁定的书面动议作出回应。王雁平的动议应予驳回。\n\nA. 政府的庭审证据\n\n根据法院的审前日程安排裁定，政府于2024年4月22日出示了庭审证据。政府总共出示了约14,800件证据，这仅占政府在《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16条（Rule 16）证据开示中出示的材料的一小部分。王雁平声称政府出示证据是“文档倾倒”，这种定性是错误的，罔顾了本案的实际情况。政府出示的庭审证据数量与本案的规模是相称的。郭文贵和王雁平实施了一起跨度超过五年的复杂诈骗，由此引发了一份包含13项罪名项的起诉书，指控各被告人参与了一个庞大的 RICO（《反犯罪组织侵蚀合法组织法》）共谋，该共谋由各项环环相扣的诈骗组成，总共诈骗了1,000多名受害者超过10亿美元。为了实施其犯罪，郭文贵和王雁平建立或使用了至少43个独立实体，并依赖数十乃至数百名个人。（参见起诉书第1段（“[郭]、JE、王雁平及其共谋者通过一系列复杂的欺诈性和虚构性业务及投资机会来运营 G Enterprise（G系列企业），这些机会将数十个相互关联的实体串联起来，使各被告人及其共谋者得以诱揽、洗钱和侵吞受害者资金”）。）自然而然地，政府要在此等规模的犯罪中承担举证责任，证据数量庞大是在预料之中的。\n\n为便于被告方审阅，政府出示的证据是以有条理的方式编排的。证据按文件夹分别存放，每个文件夹都向辩方明确标示了该文件夹内材料的来源。例如，提取自手机的证据均以自本案开始以来用于识别设备的 FBI（联邦调查局）证据编号命名。许多证据在其文件名中还含有其他标识符，通常包括政府分配的贝茨编号（Bates number），或向政府提供材料的当事方所分配的贝茨编号。最后，政府将于本周晚些时候向辩方提供一份证据清单，且政府一如既往地随时准备回答辩方有关其证据的问题。\n\n1. 政府庭审证据的数量\n\n尽管王雁平有所抱怨，但政府出示的证据数量并无任何异常之处——其中绝大多数证据已在被告方手中掌握了数月之久。[1] 虽然政府确实出示了约14,800件证据，但王雁平的动议忽略了对于理解政府出示证据之合理性至关重要的补充背景。首先，约4,200件证据（约占全部证据的30%）是来自“以至少80个不同实体或个人名义开立的500多个[银行]账户，其中包括属于 G Enterprise 的实体”的银行记录。（起诉书第4段。）这包括银行对账单、开户文件以及电汇信息。这些证据对于证明被告人对受害者资金的使用是必不可少的——具体而言，即资金如何从受害者处汇出，然后通过一系列错综复杂、故意设计的转账流入被告人及其共谋者的腰包。决定使用500多个银行账户和数十个实体来实施这起诈骗的并非政府。该决定是被告人及其共谋者做出的。证明受害者资金的这一流向——即使用诈骗收益购买奢侈品——是政府在庭审中举证的重要组成部分。此外，政府打算在庭审中以高效的方式出示这些庞大的银行记录：通过向陪审团简明扼要解释这些记录的总结性证据来出示。然而，要做到这一点，政府必然必须将基础银行记录标为庭审证据。\n\n另有大约2,400件已标记的证据是发票、电子邮件以及记录郭文贵为其家族的 Mahwah Mansion（马沃豪宅）挑选昂贵陈设的记录。被告方曾暗示，马沃豪宅是一处为打击中国共产党而购买的机密“设施”。政府打算证明，价值数百万美元的不必要陈设（其中大部分由郭文贵亲自挑选，例如包括价值300,000美元的精品地毯）显然与该目的不符，相反表明被告人为了个人利益侵吞受害者资金。（参见 GXSB616。）政府并不指望在庭审中单独展示或讨论这些发票中的每一张，并可能通过总结性证人引入它们，但这样做需要将每一份基础记录作为证据引入。上述类别的银行记录以及与马沃相关的记录，占了政府出示证据总量的近一半。\n\n政府还标记了来自构成 G Enterprise 的各个业务实体的数百件证据，其中包括来自 G|CLUBS、Saraca Media（GTV 的母公司）、Gettr（郭文贵的社交媒体公司）以及各个“农场”（由郭文贵运营、负责募集受害者资金的集资机构）的共计约1,900件证据。这些证据包括所谓的“借款”协议、证明诈骗收益转移的文件，以及涉及郭文贵和王雁平或在其指示下进行的通信。重申一遍，决定依托多个业务实体的运营来实施大规模诈骗，并涉及——\n\n[1] 与此形成对比的是，且如下文进一步说明的，尽管被告方预计进行为期两周的辩护案情陈述，但被告人根据其第16条义务尚未出示任何一份文件。\n\n——不同的员工和文件的，并不是政府。但是，既然郭文贵和王雁平决定这样做，政府就必须在庭审中证明该计划的存在以及所实施的诈骗。\n\n大约1,000件证据包含从手机、U盘和笔记本电脑中提取的数据。但这一数字夸大了该类别材料的实际体量。例如，单次聊天记录可能就包含数十件证据，因为聊天参与者彼此发送照片（每张照片均单独标记为一件证据）和语音留言（每条均单独标记）。此外，许多手机提取数据都附有语言翻译件，这就需要额外标记一件证据，实质上造成了重复计算。另外数百件证据源自 G Enterprise 在挥霍诈骗收益时与之发生业务往来的各类“商家”，包括豪车车行、一家对冲基金、一家招聘机构和一家薪酬外包服务商。最后，还有数百件证据恰如其分地包含了郭文贵（Miles Guo）向受害者说谎以诱骗其出资的视频和言论。同样，每次录音或言论为普通话时，都需要第二件证据作为翻译件。\n\n虽然政府不会寻求在庭审中公布每一件已标记的证据——针对若干类别的证据，政府打算以汇总图表的形式对其进行总结和合并，这既是为了协助陪审团理解信息，也是为了提高效率——但政府出示的证据是基于善意评估其打算在庭审中引入的证据。在政府缩减其证据范围的情况下，政府将通知辩方。鉴于被告人诈骗犯罪实体的复杂性，政府出示的证据是恰当的，绝不能仅仅因为王雁平提出要求就对其进行任意限制。参见 United States v. Menendez, et al.（美国诉梅嫩德斯等案），No. S4 23. Cr. 490 (SHS)，诉讼记录表编号 366（纽约南区联邦地区法院2024年4月30日）（鉴于双方当事人之间的工作进展，驳回了辩方要求政府缩减其包含38,000项证据清单的动议，并将该辩方动议定性为“不必要的动议程序”）。政府承担举证责任，且必须在庭审中完成该举证责任。无论如何，在本案庭审开始前，辩护律师团队整整有一个月的时间来审阅政府的证据，而这些证据绝大部分此前已在第16条证据开示中出示，并已在被告方手中掌握了数月之久。\n\n2. 王雁平对具体证据的抱怨\n\n王雁平提出的其他个别抱怨均应予以驳回。\n\n第一，王雁平抱怨出示的材料中包含了20个证据标签贴纸。这是无心之失，且很难说对王雁平造成了损害。\n\n第二，王雁平抱怨政府打算引入357张马沃豪宅的照片。诚然，确实有大约357张马沃豪宅的照片被标记为证据，但这并不足为奇。马沃豪宅规模庞大——占地近50,000平方英尺。此外，政府打算证明在被告人被捕时从马沃豪宅中查获了什么，以及在 FBI 搜查时马沃豪宅中“没有”什么——即暗示其为 G|CLUBS/NFSC（新中国联邦）基地的标识和材料。相反，政府主张这些 G|CLUBS/NFSC 材料是在郭文贵被捕“之后”才出现的，以便他和他的共谋者能够倒推捏造一个使用 G|CLUBS 资金购买该豪宅的理由。为了让政府证明这一否定性事实，必须提供大量的照片。\n\n第三，王雁平抱怨政府标记了717份农场借款协议，并声称这是不当的。这并非不当。这717份农场借款协议早在数月前的第16条开示中就已出示，是流经单个农场的“农场借款计划”资金规模的典型范例；它们证明了该 RICO 犯罪实体的规模，解释了特定银行账户如何注入诈骗收益，并且是被告人将受害者资金用于个人开支的证据。此外，这些借款协议均未被联署签署，这一事实与犯罪故意相关，因为它表明被告人关注的是获取受害者资金，而不是订立提供股票的合法协议。而且，政府预计将引入这些农场借款协议以支持引入总结性证据，从而提高庭审效率。\n\n第四，王雁平指出了一个名为“Brioni”的空文件夹。该文件夹为空是因为在政府出示庭审证据时，尚未收到来自 Brioni（布里奥尼）的文件。包含该文件夹是为了向被告方发出通知，告知一旦政府收到并审阅了该公司的出示材料，即打算引入由 Brioni 出示的部分证据。\n\n第五，王雁平指出了政府致法院的一封信函，声称其“显然不可采信”。然而，该信函本就无意作为独立证据出示；相反，它是附在一名 HCHK 员工发送给 Gettr 首席财务官的电子邮件中的附件。也就是说，一个 G Enterprise 实体向另一个 G Enterprise 实体发送了一封附有关于王雁平信函的电子邮件，尽管王雁平声称在两个实体中均未担任正式职务。该附件即信函的内容，并非该证据的关注重点。[2]\n\n第六，政府证物（GXAS）138 是一封由 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）聘用的实体发给政府的电子邮件，其中提供了一个特定的加密货币地址，该实体将该地址作为有关喜马拉雅交易所的业务记录予以留存。政府的专家 Shams 教授对该加密货币地址进行了分析。脚注 3\n\n第七，政府证物（GX）243 是 G|CLUBS 首席执行官与一家布加迪车行之间的电子邮件往来记录。该邮件往来记录被转发给了政府及其一名律师助理——邮件中涉及助理联邦检察官（AUSA）和律师助理的部分将在庭审中隐去，但该证物的其余部分显然具有可采性——该邮件往来记录涉及被告的一名代理人试图使用欺诈所得为郭的儿子购买一辆布加迪跑车。\n\n第八，政府证物（GX）237 是一份包含共谋者陈述的联邦调查局（FBI）302 报告——具体而言，是在本案解封后，一名共谋者在试图获取用欺诈所得购买的布加迪跑车时对一名 FBI 卧底探员所作的陈述。政府将通过一名证人（该 FBI 卧底人员）出示这些陈述，并对该份 302 报告进行了标记，以向被告发出其拟如此行事的通知。\n\n脚注 2：当然，在需要将任何证据可采性异议提交法院注意之前，政府随时可以与辩方律师讨论本附信的可采性，并进一步评估政府是否会在庭审中出示该证物。\n\n脚注 3：政府不反对隐去该电子邮件的部分内容，特别是反映其系发给政府的部分。\n\n第九，政府证物（GX）301-325（王主张其“引发了潜在的传闻证据问题”）是来自“GTV 投资委员会”的手机短信，用于指导受害者如何汇款以便投资 GTV 鸣笛私募。换言之，这些是与所指控的欺诈直接相关的共谋者和代理人陈述。其可采性显而易见。\n\n因此，王的申诉应予驳回。\n\nB. 政府近期依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 16 条进行的证据开示出示\n\n政府依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 16 条承担的义务是持续性的，当政府获取或在其占有范围内找到第 16 条规定的材料时，政府必须予以出示。政府在本案中已履行了其义务并将继续履行，包括关于政府近期在其持续调查中获取的材料，以及一组此前因疏忽未曾出示的材料。脚注 4\n\n在准备证物和重新审查案件卷宗的过程中，政府获悉此前未曾出示拍摄郭的格林威治庄园的照片。获悉此情况后，政府立即向辩方出示了这些照片，其中包含约 1600 张照片——这一数量的图片可在数小时内审查完毕。在这一组 1600 张照片中，政府仅标记了约 80 张照片作为庭审证物。这 80 件庭审证物包括在郭的车库中发现的一辆兰博基尼跑车的照片，该兰博基尼系使用欺诈所得购买。法院不应在庭审中排除这 80 张照片，特别是在这 80 件证物给辩方带来的负担微不足道（de minimis）的情况下：距离庭审开始还有数周时间，且辩方知晓格林威治搜查以及扣押兰博基尼一事已有约一年之久。\n\n在每起案件中，特别是在开庭前，政府对其案件卷宗进行数次核查（及再核查）以确认所有需要出示的材料均已提供给辩方，这是常见做法。结合该项工作，政府预计今天将向辩方进行一次包含约 30 个小文件的小规模证据出示，除其他内容外，其中包括部分照片和证据保管链文件。若发现任何尚未出示的补充材料，政府将迅速予以出示，因其有义务如此行事。\n\nC. 王关于重新考虑审前日程安排的请求应予驳回\n\n王在其信函中，企图将辩方依据第 16 条披露材料的日期推迟至开庭前仅七天，并将辩方证物披露推迟至开庭前仅三天。王请求法院重新考虑其审前日程安排裁定的请求应予驳回。见 Dkt. 250（“法院对先前裁定的重新考虑是一项非同寻常的救济措施，出于终局性利益以及节约稀缺司法资源的考量，应审慎使用。”（援引 United States v. Baldeo, No. 13\n\n脚注 4：王还抱怨政府针对法院要求政府出示涉及针对郭的材料的裁定，提供了“300 页不可检索的 pdf 页面”。这些 pdf 页面是来自另一项单独调查的 FBI 报告，政府无意在庭审中出示这些材料——这些材料是在出示前不久才从 FBI 获取的。此外，辩方律师想必清楚，使用常用的文档处理工具可以很容易地使这 300 页文档实现文本可检索；事实上，作为一种融通，政府已于周一上午以可文本检索的格式重新出示了这些材料。\n\nCr. 125, 2015 WL 252414, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015), aff'd, 615 F. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2015)（内部引用及标点省略）））。\n\n鉴于王对政府证物的申诉毫无根据，其延期请求不应得到批准。但更重要的是，允许被告进一步推迟披露第 16 条材料和辩方证物，只会拖延庭审的有序进行。在收到对等证据开示后，政府将需要审查这些材料，并可能选择采取自身的调查步骤，除其他事项外，以评估这些材料的真实性或完整性，并查找相关的反驳证据。政府还必须审查这些材料，以确定是否基于可采性理由提出任何异议，而法院继而也将需要时间来解决此类异议。\n\n按照法院此前作出的日程安排进行披露尤为恰当，因为与政府不同，辩方在第 16 条证据开示中连一份文件都未曾出示——政府根本不知道被告掌握了哪些证据开示材料。见 United States v. Rajaratnam, No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011)（“被告总是希望在透露自己的案件情况之前了解更多关于政府案件的信息，但第 16 条将自身披露义务的前提条件设定为政府已进行了某些特定披露，而非政府公开其全部案件或让被告感到满意。”）鉴于被告预计辩方举证阶段将持续两周，辩方证据开示材料的体量可能相当庞大。\n\n无论如何，政府的庭审证物绝非突袭——它们与政府在一份冗长详尽的起诉书、辩论书状及其他文件中阐明的控诉理论相一致。由于被告了解政府对本案的指控理论已超过一年，且占有第 16 条材料的时间也几乎同样长久，辩方拟出示何种证物或证人不太可能受到政府证物出示的重大影响。即使确实受到此类影响，基于上述理由，辩方完全有能力审查政府的证物，并且鉴于王在信中提出的具体申诉，辩方也已很好地做到了这一点。\n\n王要求推迟被告披露日期的请求，似乎并不取决于额外审查政府证物期限的任何实际需要，而是出于继续扣留辩方第 16 条材料、并在庭审前仅给政府三天时间审查\n\n辩方证物的意图。该请求只会阻碍庭审中有序且高效的证据出示，理应予以驳回。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS 联邦检察官\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nMicah F. Fergenson\nRyan B. Finkel\nJustin Horton\nJuliana N. Murray\n助理联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Farm Loan","GTV","Torres","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","RICO","CIPA","Miles Guo","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","HCHK","Saraca","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":250,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":366,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3122,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-05-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-05-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:33:10"}