{"id":"court_sdny_31_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":31,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-04-06","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007","summary_zh":"庭审记录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #31（2023 年 3 月 31 日）。被告 Yanping Wang（绰号\"Yvette\"）的保释听证会庭审记录，被告律师以获得证据材料不足为由申请延期听证，政府主张被告构成逃跑风险。","summary_en":"Bail Hearing Transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #31 (March 31, 2023). Transcript of bail hearing for defendant Yanping Wang (a/k/a \"Yvette\"), in which defense counsel requests adjournment citing insufficient time to review Government materials, and the Government argues defendant poses flight risk.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nIn re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007 Plaintiff, : - against - : WANG, YANPING, : March 31, 2023 New York, New York Defendant. : ------------------------------------ : BAIL HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BY: JULIANA MURRAY, ESQ. RYAN FINKEL, ESQ. MICAH FERGENSON, ESQ. One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 For Defendant: CHAUDHRY LAW PLLC BY: PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ. 147 West 25th Street New York, New York 10001 INTERPRETER PRESENT Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, *Transcription Services* 155 East Fourth Street, #3C New York, New York 10009 Phone: (212) 420-0771 Email: [Transcription420@aol.com](mailto:Transcription420@aol.com) Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n| INDEX | | | | | |\n|-------------------------|-------------|-------|---------------|--------------|--------------|\n| E X A M I N A T I O N S | | | | | |\n| Witness | Direct | Cross | Re-
Direct | Re-
Cross | Court |\n| None | | | | | |\n| E X H I B I T S | | | | | |\n| Exhibit
Number | Description | | ID | In | Voir
Dire |\n\nNone\n\n1\n\n1 3 THE CLERK: We're here in the matter for a bail hearing, U.S.A. v. Yanping Wang, 23m2007. Parties, please state your name for the record starting with the Government. MS. JULIANA MURRAY: Good morning, Your Honor, Juliana Murray, Ryan Finkel, and Micah Fergenson on behalf of the United States. We're joined by (inaudible). THE COURT: Good morning. MS. PRIYA CHAUDHRY: Good morning, Your Honor, Priya Chaudhry from Chaudhry Law along with Alice Lipton of Lipton Law PLLC for Ms. Yanping Wang who is present seated all the way to my right (inaudible). THE COURT: Thank you, good morning. Good morning, Ms. Wang. Can you hear and understand everything the interpreter is saying? MS. WANG: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So, yes, this is scheduled for a bail hearing this morning in further follow-up to previous proceedings before Judge Parker and then Judge Netburn. And I understand though that the defense has an application in regard to whether they are ready to proceed today? MS. CHAUDHRY: Yes, Your Honor, if I can\n\n1 4 (inaudible). We are requesting that this hearing be adjourned and (inaudible) in front of Judge Torres (inaudible). First, for context, Ms. Wang was arrested on March 15, 2023, which is 16 days ago. At the time of her arrest, the Government (inaudible) and obtained all of the documents that they (inaudible). Since that time we have asked the Government for a (inaudible) obtained; they did not provide it to us. We asked them previously for photos of what they received, and only last night did they provide them, and to be fair, we did ask for them yesterday because in their response to our motion that started referencing evidence that we had never seen.\n\n So the Government has had all of the information that it today provided the Court and on its own surreply to our reply without getting permission they provided (inaudible). And we have had constant contact with the Government since Ms. Wang was arrested, more than in most cases, as we have been trying to satisfy the (inaudible). Ms. Lipton has had nearly daily contact with the Government discussing the issues, trying to comply (inaudible), trying to come up with a different package. Never before did the Government tell us that this is what they have or that this was doing to be what they asked for.\n\n And now 30 minutes before this hearing in their surreply they ambush us with this information that we have not had a chance to discuss with our client, and barely in the back we got to show her what it is they're saying. And in addition to (inaudible) that we had no chance to procure or obtain, they're now asking for a detention which is, first of all, not an appropriate thing in a reply memo, it's a separate motion. And, two, this Court no longer has original jurisdiction over a request for detention. This is now a district court case. So it is not appropriate for them to bring in front of this court which is supposed to, according to Judge Torres, just discuss our bail application. Now they have made in their reply a new application (inaudible) surreply for detention without any conditions.\n\n It would be, Your Honor, ineffective of us to proceed today given what the Government has done. We have not had an adequate opportunity to discuss this with our client and to (inaudible) to research any of the issues they have brought up here or investigate them independently. There are now evidentiary issues that (inaudible). The Government has made some allegations\n\n1 6 of what the relationships are between documents they found and Ms. Wang. They have made representations about items they had found in her possession that they have not provided to us yet. And as the Court knows, typically the Government would need to put some sort of evidence forth, whether it would be in an affidavit from an agent or something like that, and we would have a chance to examine that and reply. We can't do any of that.\n\n And for all of those reasons we are unable to proceed today, and we would ask that this Court adjourn this hearing and send it back to Judge Torres so that we can adequately address all these issues. I believe you already have us here (inaudible) Judge Torres set for Tuesday, April 5. And that's when we'd like this hearing to be adjourned to (inaudible).\n\n THE COURT: Now, did Judge Torres previously refer the application that you have made to this Court? MS. CHAUDHRY: Our application she did refer to this Court, but the Government in their surreply for the first time brought in all these allegations and evidence has now made a new application for detention. Judge Torres did not have the opportunity to look at that (inaudible) to this Court. So our view is that now\n\n1 7 there are two different issues. One was our bail hearing which we separately are unprepared to address because they did not provide this to us, and, in fact, in their original reply they did not provide it, which would have given us the opportunity to go to the (inaudible) with an interpreter and Ms. Wang and go through these things and be ready for today. That's one. And then separately they have now made a new application which Judge Torres has not referred to this Court which is for a detention hearing.\n\n THE COURT: I mean it's all one and the same, right? You've had turns for bail and release, and the question arose as to whether those conditions have been met, whether the Government is being unreasonable in determining whether those conditions have been met, and what the consequences should be which might include the Court finding that the suretors are appropriate or not and/or potential modification which I believe the defendant asked for. And as I saw in the surreply this morning, the Government, as I saw it, was, yes, putting some new evidence before the Court and suggesting that if the Court were so inclined to release, that the conditions would have to be modified for that. I mean I'll view this as all one and the same.\n\n1 8 However, I do think that there may be some concern about your opportunity to be able to sufficiently respond to what was submitted this morning. So let me ask Ms. Murray if she can respond to that. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. We agree with Your Honor that all these matters (inaudible) and that is exactly what Judge Torres (inaudible). Yesterday morning we laid out the procedural history of this matter including that the initial bail hearing had been held by Judge Parker on March 15. The defendant then asked for a hearing in front of Judge Netburn the next week which was determined to be not ripe (inaudible) presented to the Court. (inaudible) at the defendant's request (inaudible) defense to file a motion last Friday, (inaudible) file our response on Wednesday, (inaudible) hearing to proceed today. And Judge Torres was aware of all of that when she referred, generally speaking, the bail hearing to this Court. So we do believe that all (inaudible). The\n\n defendant has made a motion, the Government has responded, it's been fully briefed. To the extent the Government submitted a supplemental opposition today, that contains new information that we only learned yesterday, and we're putting it before the Court\n\n1 9 (inaudible), but there's no reason for the Court to defer a decision on the motion which the defendant chose to bring before this Court (inaudible).\n\nTHE COURT: Ms. Chaudhry.\n\n MS. CHAUDHRY: And, Your Honor, Ms. Murray did not address why (inaudible) for 15 days and she knew this yesterday, and she didn't even give us a heads up and why she waited to let us know after she filed it on the docket. That is just not appropriate. There's no way we could have been prepared. It seems clearly designed to make it so that we either (inaudible) situation of proceeding ineffectively (inaudible) or we're required now to ask for more time.\n\n THE COURT: Well, look, I do think it's only fair for the defense to be able to have some time to respond, particularly since this did arise out of the defendant's application. And the defendant is currently being detained on the proviso that she has to meet all conditions before she is released. There's that restriction and provision that is at issue. So since the defendant is currently being detained and it is her application to have the Court either agree that the qualifications of the suretors are sufficient or to modify the provisions, I will put this over.\n\n1 10 I do think it's highly inefficient to continue having this go from duty judge to duty judge. I would be happy to keep it, and now that I am familiar with it and to have you back for a hearing next week. Ms. Murray, what do you think of that? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor, we agree, and to the extent that the defense would like to proceed in front of Judge Torres, we think it would be appropriate (inaudible). THE COURT: Do you have a position on that, Ms. Chaudhry? And let me be clear, I'm not – this would not be to the exclusion of your raising with Judge Torres if you want her to consider it. (pause in proceeding) MS. CHAUDHRY: Your Honor, when would you be able to schedule (inaudible)? THE COURT: Well, I assume you want it for after seeing Judge Torres. And is Judge Torres being seen on Tuesday? MS. CHAUDHRY: (inaudible) THE COURT: Okay. (pause in proceeding) THE COURT: I could see her afterwards. So I could see you after you see Judge Torres on Tuesday. If\n\n1 11 she's made a decision that she wants to deal with it, then we don't need to have a hearing. And if she still wants me to consider it, we can have a hearing after you have seen her. All right, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: (inaudible) THE COURT: All right, so we – no? Yeah, when you have any estimate of when you would be out of Judge Torres' courtroom, I don't know what it is you'll necessarily be going over with her, why don't I set it down for – you said it was 11:30 with -- MS. MURRAY: It's 11:30, Your Honor. It's an initial pretrial conference for Ms. Wang and her coconspirators (inaudible), and then we'll (inaudible). THE COURT: Ah. Okay, why don't we set it down for 1:30. If you're ready earlier, let me know. If it's going to run late, just try to get in touch with my deputy and we'll take care of it. All right? Thank you, we're adjourned on this matter. (Whereupon the matter is adjourned.)\n\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | 12 | |\n| 2 | C
E
R
T I F I C A T E | |\n| 3 | | |\n| 4 | I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing | |\n| 5 | transcript of proceedings in the United States District | |\n| 6 | Court, Southern District
of New York,
United States of | |\n| 7 | America versus Wang,
Docket #23cr118/23m2007,
was | |\n| 8 | prepared using PC-based
transcription software
and is a | |\n| 9 | true and accurate record of the proceedings. | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | Signature_______________________________ | |\n| 13 | Carole Ludwig | |\n| 14 | Date:
April
3,
2023 | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | | |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\n关于：卷宗号 #23cr118/ 23m2007\n原告：UNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n诉\n被告：WANG, YANPING（王艳萍）\n2023年3月31日 纽约州纽约市\n\n保释听证程序\n主审：UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE（美国联邦治安法官）ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER（罗伯特·W·莱尔伯格）阁下\n\n出庭人员：\n原告方代表：\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE（联邦检察官办公室）\n代理律师：\nJULIANA MURRAY, ESQ.（朱莉安娜·默里律师）\nRYAN FINKEL, ESQ.（瑞安·芬克尔律师）\nMICAH FERGENSON, ESQ.（米卡·弗根森律师）\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n被告方代表：\nCHAUDHRY LAW PLLC\n代理律师：\nPRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ.（普里亚·乔杜里律师）\n147 West 25th Street\nNew York, New York 10001\n\n传译员在场\n转录服务：Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services\n155 East Fourth Street, #3C\nNew York, New York 10009\n电话：(212) 420-0771\n电子邮箱：Transcription420@aol.com\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录；文字记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\n索引\n询问\n证人 主询问 反询问 再主询问 再反询问 法庭询问\n无\n物证\n物证编号 描述 标号 采纳 预先质证\n无\n\n法庭书记官：我们在此就美利坚合众国诉王艳萍案（案号 23m2007）的保释听证事项开庭。请双方为记录说明姓名，由政府方开始。\n默里女士：法官阁下早上好，朱莉安娜·默里、瑞安·芬克尔以及米卡·弗根森代表合众国出庭。（听不清）也与我们一同出席。\n法庭：早上好。\n乔杜里女士：法官阁下早上好，来自 Chaudhry Law 的普里亚·乔杜里，以及来自 Lipton Law PLLC 的 Alice Lipton（爱丽丝·利普顿）代表王艳萍女士出庭，她本人就坐在我的最右侧（听不清）。\n法庭：谢谢，早上好。早上好，王女士。你能听清并理解传译员所说的所有内容吗？\n王女士：能。\n法庭：好的。那么，是的，今天早上的日程是安排进行保释听证，作为此前在 Parker（帕克）法官以及之后的 Netburn（内特本）法官主持下的诉讼程序的进一步跟进。但我理解辩方提出了一项申请，关乎他们今天是否准备好继续进行？\n乔杜里女士：是的，法官阁下，如果我可以\n\n（听不清）。我们请求休庭延期本听证并在 Torres（托雷斯）法官面前（听不清）。首先，交代一下背景，王女士于 2023年3月15日 被捕，也就是 16 天前。在她被捕时，政府方（听不清）并获取了他们（听不清）的所有文件。自那时起，我们已向政府方索要所获取的（听不清）；他们没有向我们提供。我们此前曾向他们索要他们所收到物品的照片，他们直到昨晚才提供，客观地说，我们昨天确实索要过，因为在他们对我们动议的答复中，开始提及我们从未见过的证据。\n\n因此，政府方早就掌握了今天向法庭提供的所有信息，而且在未获得许可的情况下，在针对我们答复的二次答辩状中，他们提供了（听不清）。自王女士被捕以来，我们一直与政府方保持着联系，联系频率超过大多数案件，因为我们一直在努力满足（听不清）。利普顿女士几乎每天都与政府方联系讨论这些问题，试图配合（听不清），试图提出一个不同的方案。在此之前，政府方从未告诉过我们这就是他们所掌握的内容，或者说这将是他们所要求的内容。\n\n而现在，就在本次听证前 30 分钟，他们在二次答辩状中用这些信息突袭我们，我们根本没有机会与我们的当事人讨论这些信息，刚才在后方我们才勉强能向她展示他们所说的是什么。而且除了我们没有机会调取或获取的（听不清）之外，他们现在还要求羁押，首先，这在答复备忘录中是不恰当的，这属于单独的动议。其次，本法庭对羁押请求不再具有初审管辖权。这现在属于地区法院的案件。因此，他们把这个事项提交到本法庭是不恰当的，按照托雷斯法官的意思，本法庭应当仅仅讨论我们的保释申请。现在，他们在答复中提出了一项新的申请（听不清）在二次答辩中要求无条件羁押。\n\n法官阁下，鉴于政府方的所作所为，我们今天继续进行将构成无效辩护。我们没有充分的机会与我们的当事人讨论此事，也没有（听不清）研究他们在此提出的任何问题或对此进行独立调查。现在出现了一些证据问题（听不清）。政府方提出了一些指控，\n\n涉及他们发现的文件与王女士之间的关系。他们就据称在她持有下发现的物品作出了陈述，但尚未将这些物品提供给我们。正如法庭所知，通常政府方需要提出某种证据，无论是来自执法人员的宣誓证词还是类似材料，而我们将有机会审查该证据并予以答复。这些我们现在都无法做到。\n\n基于所有这些理由，我们今天无法继续进行，我们请求本法庭宣布本听证休庭延期，并将其送回给托雷斯法官，以便我们能够充分应对所有这些问题。我认为您这里已经将我们的（听不清）排在托雷斯法官定于 4月5日 星期二的日程中。而那正是我们希望本听证延期至的时间（听不清）。\n\n法庭：那么，托雷斯法官此前是否将你们向该法庭提出的申请移送给了本法庭？\n乔杜里女士：我们的申请她确实移送给了本法庭，但政府方在其二次答辩状中首次提出了所有这些指控和证据，现已提出了一项新的羁押申请。托雷斯法官当时没有机会查看该（听不清）移交给本法庭的内容。因此我们的看法是，现在\n\n存在两个不同的问题。一个是我们的保释听证，我们单独对此毫无准备，因为他们没有向我们提供这些材料，事实上，在他们最初的答复中他们就没有提供，而提供这些本可以让我们有机会与传译员和王女士一起前往（听不清），梳理这些事项并为今天做好准备。这是其一。再者，他们现在单独提出了一项托雷斯法官并未移交给本法庭的新申请，即进行羁押听证的申请。\n\n法庭：我的意思是，这其实都是同一件事，对吧？你们已经多次就保释和释放提出请求，问题在于这些条件是否已经满足，政府方在判断这些条件是否已满足时是否不合理，以及应当产生什么后果，其中可能包括法庭认定保证人是否适当，以及/或者被告所请求的潜在条件变更。正如我今天早上在二次答辩状中看到的，在我看来，政府方确实向法庭提交了一些新证据，并提出如果法庭倾向于释放，则必须为此修改条件。我的意思是，我认为这都是同一件事。\n\n然而，我确实认为，对于你们是否有机会对今天早上提交的材料作出充分答复，可能确实存在一些顾虑。所以让我问一下默里女士是否能对此作出回应。\n默里女士：是的，法官阁下。我们同意法官阁下的看法，即所有这些事项（听不清），而这正是托雷斯法官（听不清）的。昨天早上我们陈述了本案的程序历史，包括帕克法官已于 3月15日 举行了首次保释听证。随后被告要求下一周在内特本法官面前举行听证，但被认定尚未成熟（听不清）提交给法庭。（听不清）应被告的请求（听不清）辩方于上周五提交动议，（听不清）我们在周三提交答复，（听不清）听证于今天进行。托雷斯法官在总体上将保释听证移送至本法庭时，对所有这些情况都是知情的。因此我们确信所有（听不清）。\n\n被告提出了动议，政府方已作出答复，双方已提交了全部书面意见。至于政府方今天提交的补充反对意见，其中包含我们昨天才获悉的新信息，我们正将其提交给法庭\n\n（听不清），但法庭没有理由推迟就被告选择向本法庭提出的动议作出裁决（听不清）。\n\n法庭：乔杜里女士。\n\n乔杜里女士：而且，法官阁下，默里女士没有解释为什么（听不清）长达 15 天并且她昨天就知道了此事，却甚至没有提前通知我们，以及为什么她等到在案卷上提交之后才通知我们。这完全是不恰当的。我们绝不可能做好准备。这显然是为了让我们要么陷入（听不清）提供无效辩护的境地（听不清），要么被迫在现在要求更多时间。\n\n法庭：好了，听我说，我确实认为给辩方一些时间作出答复才是公平的，特别是考虑到这确实是由被告的申请引起的。而且被告目前仍被羁押，限制条件是她必须在获释前满足所有条件。争议的焦点正是该限制和规定。因此，由于被告目前处于羁押状态，且她的申请是要求法庭要么认同保证人的资格充分，要么修改相关规定，我将推迟审理此事。\n\n我确实认为继续让这个案子在值班法官之间转来转去是极其低效的。如果能由我继续处理，我很乐意，既然现在我已经熟悉了案情，下周让你们回来参加听证。默里女士，你对此怎么看？\n默里女士：是的，法官阁下，我们同意，如果辩方希望在托雷斯法官面前进行，我们认为也是恰当的（听不清）。\n法庭：你对此有何立场，乔杜里女士？我要说明白，我不是——这并不排斥如果你希望托雷斯法官考虑此事而向她提出。\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n乔杜里女士：法官阁下，您什么时候能够安排（听不清）？\n法庭：嗯，我推测你们希望安排在见托雷斯法官之后。托雷斯法官是定在星期二会见吗？\n乔杜里女士：（听不清）\n法庭：好的。\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n法庭：我可以在她之后见。所以我可以在你们星期二见完托雷斯法官之后见你们。如果\n\n她已经作出决定表示她想处理此事，那么我们就不需要举行听证了。如果她仍然希望我来考虑此事，我们可以在你们见完她之后举行听证。可以吗，默里女士？\n默里女士：（听不清）\n法庭：好的，那么我们——不行吗？好的，当你们能够预估何时能离开托雷斯法官的法庭时，我不知道你们具体需要和她讨论什么，不如我把时间定在——你说过和她是在 11:30——\n默里女士：是 11:30，法官阁下。这是王女士及其共同阴谋犯的首次审前会议（听不清），之后我们将（听不清）。\n法庭：啊。好的，那我们定在 1:30 吧。如果你们提前准备好了，请通知我。如果会议要拖延，尽量联系我的副书记官，我们会处理好的。好吗？谢谢大家，本案听证休庭。\n（本案于此时休庭。）\n\n证明书\n\n我，Carole Ludwig，证明上述在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院审理的合众国诉王案（卷宗号 #23cr118/23m2007）的诉讼程序记录，系使用基于个人计算机的转录软件制作，是对该诉讼程序真实且准确的记录。\n\n签名：_______________________________\nCarole Ludwig\n日期：2023年4月3日","key_entities":["Torres","Murray","Yanping Wang","Fergenson","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2214,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:39:43"}