{"id":"court_sdny_314_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":314,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":null,"title":"The Jacob K. Javits reuerus Dumuning 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278","summary_zh":"法院裁决（翻译人员禁止令） —— 美国诉 Miles Guo 等案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #314（2024 年 5 月 1 日裁决）。法院裁定禁止被告长期个人翻译参与案件任何进一步诉讼程序，并指示法庭翻译办公室不再向本案分配该翻译人员。","summary_en":"Court Order on Interpreter Disqualification —— United States v. Miles Guo, et al., SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #314 (May 1, 2024). The court orders that defendants' longtime personal interpreter is prohibited from participating in any further proceedings and directs the Court Interpreters Office not to assign that interpreter to any future proceedings in this matter.","body_en":"The Jacob K. Javits reuerus Dumuning 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_9.jpeg)\n\n1 [REDACTED], the Government was aware that someone named [REDACTED] appeared in Guo's MDC contact records. Additionally, [REDACTED] Guo's prior counsel included [REDACTED]'s name on a list of individuals, including several interpreters and attorneys, whose communications should be screened by a filter team. As explained more fully below, the Government did not confirm until after [REDACTED] that the [REDACTED] who appeared as a Court interpreter at [REDACTED] was also the defendants' longtime personal interpreter. Similarly, the Government has no reason to believe that the defendants' current counsel of record were aware of [REDACTED]'s preexisting relationships with the defendants at the time of [REDACTED]; indeed, [REDACTED]'s appearances for the defendants in civil cases predate the engagement of current counsel in this matter.\n\n# II. Long Service as the Defendants' Personal Interpreter\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\nof deposition, testified that first began working for Guo \"between 2016 to\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\n\n's first contract assignment following\n\napplication 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\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel / Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson / Justin Horton Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276\n\nGRANTED. The Court shall instruct the Court Interpreters Office not to assign the interpreter in question to any future proceedings in this matter.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: May 1, 2024 New York, New York\n\nQJ","body_zh":"The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278\n\n2024年4月29日\n\n通过电子邮件并予以封存\n\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国联邦法院）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Miles Guo et al.（美国 诉 郭文贵等案），S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府谨此致信通知法院，被告的长期私人口译员在[已涂黑]作为两名法庭口译员之一出庭。\n\n鉴于存在明显的、未披露的利益冲突，政府谨提请法院禁止该口译员参与本案今后的任何诉讼程序。\n\n[图片内容：_page_0_Figure_9.jpeg]\n\n1 [已涂黑]，政府获悉一位名为[已涂黑]的人员出现在郭的大都会拘留中心（MDC）联络人记录中。此外，[已涂黑]郭的前任律师将[已涂黑]的姓名列入了一份人员名单中（其中包含数名口译员及律师），其通信应由过滤小组进行筛查。正如文下更为详尽的解释，政府直到[已涂黑]之后才确认，在[已涂黑]出庭担任法庭口译员的[已涂黑]，同时也是被告的长期私人口译员。同样，政府没有理由认为被告现任的记录在案律师在[已涂黑]当时知悉[已涂黑]与被告之间既有的关系；事实上，[已涂黑]在民事案件中代表被告出庭的时间早于现任律师在本案中的受聘时间。\n\nII. 长期担任被告私人口译员的情况\n\n政府现已确认，在过去七年间的不同时间节点，被告及至少一家 G Enterprise（G 集团）实体曾为[已涂黑]的口译服务支付费用，详见下文。\n\nA. [已涂黑]在郭的破产程序中的角色\n\n最近，[已涂黑]在待决破产程序的宣誓录供（deposition）中担任郭和王（Wang）的私人口译员，并在由其中一次宣誓录供引发的争议问题中发挥了实质性作用。2 参见证据 B（Exhibit B），2022年4月6日债权人第341条继续会议记录（Transcript of April 6, 2022 Continued 341 Meeting of Creditors），In re Ho Wan Kwok（关于霍宛郭破产案），No. 22 Bk. 50073 (JAM)（康涅狄格区破产法院 [Bankr. D. Conn.]）；另见，例如，同上。\n\n事实上，在[已涂黑]中，[已涂黑]在郭提供宣誓证词（“郭341证词”）的过程中为郭进行翻译，与一名官方口译员共同参与。在郭341证词进行期间，[已涂黑]对官方口译员的翻译提出异议。参见证据 B，郭341证词，第21-22、40、66-67、84-85、113-14页。在某一时刻，[已涂黑]离开诉讼程序。参见同上，第21-23页（“也许我们应该让[已涂黑]来翻译。我要回避了。”）。\n\n在郭341证词作出数月后，郭主张郭341证词的笔录存在误译，且他并未承认拥有两家争议实体——正如官方口译员所表示的那样。参见 In re Kwok，诉讼日程表第1026号文件（Dkt. 1026）第11页（康涅狄格区破产法院，2022年10月26日）。基于此，郭拒绝服从破产法院关于出示与这些实体相关文件的裁定——且受托人提出动议要求判定其藐视法庭。参见同上，Dkt. 913。郭的破产律师表示，郭341证词被误译，且郭并未承认拥有这些争议实体。参见同上，Dkt. 1026 第11页（“在关于该动议的任何听证会上，债务人将由口译员就341会议‘官方’翻译中的诸多实质性缺陷作证。”）。破产法院就该问题安排了一次证据听证会，而在预定的听证会之前，[已涂黑]接受了宣誓录供。参见证据 A（Exhibit A），[已涂黑]宣誓录供笔录。在[已涂黑]宣誓录供过程中，\n\n[已涂黑]作证称其最早开始为郭工作是在“2016年至\n\n2 除郭的破产案件外，[已涂黑]至少在以下案件的宣誓录供、听证会和庭审中担任被告的私人或“复核”口译员：\n\n；且[已涂黑]的名字并未出现在郭341证词的笔录中；作为“私人翻译”。如下所述，郭的破产程序，并就[已涂黑]作为郭的私人口译员在其341证词中的参与情况作证。参见\n\n2017年之间”，同上，77:15-21，其是由“他的办公室”及“王女士”聘用的，同上，80:4-81:2，且其工作的报酬通常由 Golden Spring（金泉）支付，同上，81:11-83:7，该公司为 G 集团实体之一。参见 S3 起诉书第 3(a) 款。郭的破产律师最终撤回了牵涉[已涂黑]证词的主张，且[已涂黑]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裁定（November 17, 2022 Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion），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\nB. [已涂黑]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日于本案中被捕后，[已涂黑]与郭的关系仍在继续。2023年4月27日，郭在本案中的时任律师在一份可能属于享有特权通信的人员名单中，指认[已涂黑]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，[已涂黑]在郭被羁押于 MDC 期间[已涂黑]。在郭于 MDC 的电话和邮件联络人中，[已涂黑]在姓名“[已涂黑]”下被列为“朋友”，但使用的电话号码与[已涂黑]就受聘事宜向法院口译员办公室提供的电话号码相同。参见证据 C（联邦监狱管理局在押人员中心报告 [BOP Inmate Center Report]）第2、4页；证据 D（向纽约南区联邦地区法院 [SDNY] 法院口译员办公室提供的电子邮件和简历）。\n\nC. [已涂黑]向法院口译员办公室提交的申请\n\n在[已涂黑]之后，政府联系了法院口译员办公室，并获得了提交给法院口译员的简历（“简历”）。在[已涂黑]与[已涂黑]之间，其未列出任何[已涂黑]在记录中曾作为其口译员出庭的案件——包括在本司法管辖区的两起案件。及[已涂黑]。参见证据 D。政府亦从法院口译员办公室获悉，[已涂黑]于大约[已涂黑]首次向法院口译员办公室申请合同工作。\n\n在[已涂黑]申请之后，其首个合同任务是在大约[已涂黑]。\n\n政府随后送达了大陪审团传票以调取额外记录——包括确定[已涂黑]是否曾参与本案——并被法院书记官告知，此类记录只能根据法院命令签发的传票提供。政府听凭法院决定是否希望就额外的相关记录签发法院传票，或直接向法院书记官询问关于[已涂黑]履职的\n\n4 在向政府提供[已涂黑]姓名时，被告现任的记录在案律师尚未受聘，且未抄送郭时任律师于2023年4月27日发送给政府的该封电子邮件。\n\n额外信息——包括[已涂黑]在本案中可能参与的任何其他出庭。5\n\nIII. 结论\n\n前述历史情况，连同[已涂黑]在[已涂黑]出庭且未披露其与被告长期存在且可能仍在持续的关系，要求法院禁止其参与本案其余的任何诉讼程序。参见 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS（美国法院行政管理局），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存在的或可能被觉察的利益冲突，包括先前与本案、各方当事人、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履职。”）。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel / Juliana N. Murray\nMicah F. Fergenson / Justin Horton\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理美国联邦检察官）\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276\n\n准予。法院应指示法院口译员办公室不得将涉案口译员指派参与本事项今后的任何诉讼程序。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年5月1日\nNew York, New York（纽约州纽约市）\n\nQJ","key_entities":["Guo","CIPA","Kwok","Miles Guo","Torres","Ho Wan Kwok","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":1254,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:25:38"}