{"id":"court_sdny_33_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":33,"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 #33（2023 年 4 月 4 日）。被告 Yanping Wang 保释听证会的继续庭审记录，重点讨论保释条件下经济担保人的合格性，被告律师对政府关于逃跑风险的指控进行答辩。","summary_en":"Bail Hearing Transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #33 (April 4, 2023). Transcript of continuation bail hearing for defendant Yanping Wang, focusing on the adequacy of financial sureties for bail conditions, with defense counsel challenging Government's flight risk arguments.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007 Plaintiff, : - against - : WANG, YANPING, : April 4, 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. One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 For Defendant: LIPMAN LAW PLLC BY: ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ. 45 West 29th Street, Suite 303 New York, New York 10001 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 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n| | | | | | 2 |\n|-------------------------|-------------|-------|---------------|--------------|-------|\n| INDEX | | | | | |\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| None | | | | | |\n\n1\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 4 |\n| 2 | respect to the financial suretors that the Government |\n| 3 | says are not sufficient to meet the obligation under the |\n| 4 | conditions set by Judge Parker that two financially |\n| 5 | responsible people be able to sign on to the bond. |\n| 6 | And this is really defendant's application in |\n| 7 | that they raised this concern, and so I'll hear from |\n| 8 | defense counsel first. But why don't you also let me |\n| 9 | know if there's been any developments during the last |\n| 10 | week that make any difference and/or whether anything |\n| 11 | that happened before Judge Torres influences what |\n| 12 | happens here. |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: Just briefly, Your Honor, I just |\n| 14 | wanted to confirm that this is being recorded, this |\n| 15 | proceeding, because I don't see a court reporter. So |\n| 16 | just for the record. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: It is being recorded |\n| 18 | electronically. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN: May I begin, Your Honor? |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Yes, please. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, in our view, from the |\n| 23 | beginning, the Government never actually established by |\n| 24 | preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a |\n| 25 | flight risk. And I want to go -- we actually agreed to |\n\n# 1 PROCEEDING 5\n\n the bond conditions, but we agreed to the bond conditions based on conversation that we had with the Government that in which the Government made certain representations about what was found in Ms. Wang's apartment. And so we were told that, we didn't have a lot of time to discuss things with our client, but we thought, all right, it seems reasonable, and then we agreed that we were going to propose names of two co- signers for the bond and, frankly, didn't think that this was going to be an issue.\n\n Then the Government made certain statements on the record, and as we started having trouble having them approve the people we proposed, we at some point asked them for support for some of the things that they said were the reasons that our client is a flight risk. And so then they eventually provided it to us, and what we found is basically one of three things. The Government either made statements that are half true, and so we need to actually fill in the blanks and realize that what they said isn't really right. They have made statements that are contradicted by the evidence that they gathered in Ms. Wang's apartment, and then they made statements for which they're just conjectures. They're not actually supported by any evidence. So let\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 6 |\n| 2 | me back up and start at the beginning. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. LIPMAN: So Ms. Wang and her co-defendant, |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok, knew that the Government was looking at them |\n| 6 | for a very long time, so much so that in September, and |\n| 7 | according to the indictment, in September and October of |\n| 8 | last year the Government seized a bunch of assets, |\n| 9 | according to the indictment it's something like on the |\n| 10 | order of \\$700 million, and the Government seized those |\n| 11 | assets. It was a civil seizure, but it referenced, as |\n| 12 | specified (indiscernible). Right? So \\$700 million |\n| 13 | seized, I'm not sure that I can say for the Court that |\n| 14 | my client understood the full scale of what was seized, |\n| 15 | but she certainly understood that the Justice Department |\n| 16 | has seized a bunch of money, right. |\n| 17 | And then there was an SEC settlement for the |\n| 18 | GTV case which is the one that's relevant to her, and |\n| 19 | GTV paid back something in the order of I want to say |\n| 20 | \\$500 million, which incidentally they didn't pay after |\n| 21 | the – they first paid the money and then the SEC issued |\n| 22 | a settlement order. So it's in the reverse order from |\n| 23 | the Government says happened. Okay? So she knew, she |\n| 24 | knew that the Government was looking at her and that she |\n| 25 | was potentially in severe legal jeopardy. |\n\n### 1 PROCEEDING 7\n\n Despite that, she didn't go anywhere, but there's more. The Government says she had the passport from, a Chinese passport that she could've traveled on, right, and that she, and she's an asylum applicant, and because she's an asylum applicant, they say this is one of the factors to consider in her not having ties to the United States is somehow she count against her.\n\n Well, because she's an asylum applicant and she doesn't want to lose her asylum application, she did want to go travel, and she applied to the United States government for a furlough so that if she traveled, her asylum application would not get denied. So the Government, and that happened, she received permission to travel between December and January of last year, so December '22 to January I want to say 27, I'm probably wrong on the exact date, but something from mid-December to the third week of January --\n\n THE COURT: And when was the seizure of the money that you referred to?\n\n MR. LIPMAN: September and October according to the indictment. I think it's September 18 and October, was it is, 24, 26.\n\n So she put the government on notice that she was going to go travel despite all of this going on.\n\n7\n\n1 PROCEEDING 8 She did not travel during that window. It expired. It expired for reasons that have nothing to do with anything other than she had a particular trip that she had in mind to make, she couldn't get, it didn't work out logistically. She then applied for another application, and I believe that was, according to her immigration counsel, that was on February 8, 2023. So a month before she was arrested.\n\n So the idea that she is a flight risk is, given all of that, is a little far-fetched, but there is a reason for it, and the reason is this. Ms. Wang is in different times would be called a revolutionary. She has put herself, her family, everything she's done at risk because she is opposing the communist party of China, and whatever it is that they say in the indictment, there is no dispute, none whatsoever, that she has put herself in jeopardy. Her son is in China, her husband, the man, the one and only boyfriend she's ever had, they're not allowed to have any communication with her --\n\n THE COURT: Right, but as I understand the Government, I don't know if they've pivoted or whether they always asserted this, but their concern is with fleeing to other jurisdictions, be it the United Arab\n\n1 PROCEEDING 9 Emirates where supposedly Mr. Je, a co-conspirator, is or Vanuatu where she has an expired passport application or wherever.\n\n MR. LIPMAN: So, Your Honor, let me take Vanuatu first because that's easiest. Okay? Together with the passport that's expired, they also found two documents both for her and Mr. Kwok in her apartment saying that she's renouncing Vanuatu citizenship. So that's not an issue. The other thing is she got the passport for Vanuatu I believe in 2016, if I have that correctly, that was before she came to the United States. China and Vanuatu have since become good friends, and it's a different situation now, and I don't think it would be safe for her to go there.\n\n As far as going to United Arab Emirates, the United Arab Emirates does not, from what we heard this morning from the Government in Mr. Kwok's hearing, United Arab Emirates does not extradite its citizens to the United States. It does have an extradition treaty with China. She's not a citizen of United Arab Emirates, nobody's suggesting that she is. She's not, she doesn't have a passport from there. The only passport that she had that was still live, they have possession of that passport. They found it in her\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
10 |\n| 2 | apartment.
So
no,
she
cannot
go
somewhere
else. |\n| 3 | Now
let's
talk
about
whether
she
-- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Wait,
wait,
wait,
I
want
to
stop |\n| 5 | you
there,
just
on
the
issue
of
the
extradition
with |\n| 6 | United,
with the
UAE.
What
I
heard
you
say
was
that |\n| 7 | they
don't
have
an
extradition
agreement
with
respect
to |\n| 8 | citizens
of
the
UAE,
and
then
I
thought
I
heard
you
say |\n| 9 | that
they
have
an
extradition
treaty
with
China
which, |\n| 10 | of course,
she's
not
going
to
go
back
to,
and
this
isn't |\n| 11 | a
proceeding
in
China.
What
is
their
status
with |\n| 12 | respect
to
extradition
of
a
citizen
of
a
third-party |\n| 13 | country,
if
you
will,
and
extraditing
to
the
United |\n| 14 | States?
I'm
sure
the
Government
can
tell
me
but
I'm |\n| 15 | wondering
if
you
have
an
understanding. |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN:
As
far
as
I
know,
there
is
no |\n| 17 | extradition
treaty
with
the
United States,
but
it's
an |\n| 18 | irrelevant
issue
rather
because,
first of all,
she
can't |\n| 19 | get
there.
Okay?
And,
second,
she's
not
concerned |\n| 20 | about
being
extradited
to
the
United States;
she's |\n| 21 | concerned
about
being
extradited
to
China
-- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I
understand. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
where
she's
going
to
get |\n| 24 | arrested
and
shot.
I
mean
there's
a
difference.
You |\n| 25 | know,
as
bad
as
the
MDC
is,
it's
not
exactly
a
Chinese |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 11 |\n| 2 | prison. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: But is your point if she shows up |\n| 4 | at the UAE, she's going to get exported or extradited to |\n| 5 | China automatically? |\n| 6 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, I don't know about |\n| 7 | automatically, but she certainly is in great danger of |\n| 8 | that happening. That's absolutely true. And, look, in |\n| 9 | the hearing that we had earlier this morning, the |\n| 10 | Government actually, it was discussed, all the efforts |\n| 11 | that the Chinese government has undertaken to get Mr. |\n| 12 | Kwok back to China, including bribing American |\n| 13 | officials, there's a case going on now, a criminal trial |\n| 14 | I believe is going on right now in D.C. in which several |\n| 15 | government officials who've been bribed by China in |\n| 16 | order to facilitate Mr. Kwok's deportation from the |\n| 17 | United States to China. |\n| 18 | Well, the Government, this woman, according to |\n| 19 | the Government, is Mr. Kwok's chief of staff, whatever |\n| 20 | that means. Well, I don't think that they seriously |\n| 21 | will dispute that she is in danger. So -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I'm sorry, that she's what? |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: In danger. |\n| 24 | THE COURT: In danger. |\n| 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Meaning I don't think they |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 12 |\n| 2 | seriously dispute that if she went to China, got into |\n| 3 | China or that China wants her. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Right. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN: There can't be a serious dispute |\n| 6 | about that. So now let's talk about what would happen |\n| 7 | if she were in the United States. Basic reason, basic |\n| 8 | reason, she is Mr. Kwok's, according to the Government, |\n| 9 | chief of staff. She's very recognizable. Right? She's |\n| 10 | recognizable in the community of people who are here. |\n| 11 | This is a community of thousands of people in the United |\n| 12 | States. So the Government says, oh, they will hide her. |\n| 13 | Well, first of all, that's, forgive me, but that's just |\n| 14 | an improper inference. To think that thousands of |\n| 15 | people who are on the U.S. soil will secret a fugitive, |\n| 16 | is it because they're Chinese, is it because they speak |\n| 17 | Mandarin -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT: No, because they're, because they |\n| 19 | potentially were victims of the fraud. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN: Except for this. If they are |\n| 21 | victims of the fraud, they know what's going on, they're |\n| 22 | adults, and so they could at any time become persuaded |\n| 23 | that, in fact, she should be returned to the United |\n| 24 | States government if she is a fugitive. |\n| 25 | But there's more to this, and the more is this, |\n| | |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
13 |\n| 2 | if
the
Chinese
–
we
know
from
what
I've
read
in
the |\n| 3 | paper,
that
the
Chinese
communist
party
has
parking |\n| 4 | Chinese
communist
officials
from
their
police
in
their |\n| 5 | United States
consulate
in
New York.
For
a
second
can |\n| 6 | we
think
that
they're
not
keeping
tabs
on
her?
And
that |\n| 7 | if
she
showed
up
anywhere
in
any
community
where
people |\n| 8 | speak
Mandarin
as
their
primary
language
that
she
would |\n| 9 | be
spotted?
For
a
second
can
anybody
conceive
that
the |\n| 10 | Chinese
communist
party
wouldn't
find
her
and identify |\n| 11 | her
and
tell
the
government
exactly
where
she
is? |\n| 12 | Now
let's
take
the
alternative.
Let's
assume |\n| 13 | for
a
second
that
she
decided
to
hide
herself
in,
I |\n| 14 | don't
know,
Utah
among
white
people.
She
speaks
English |\n| 15 | with
a
heavy
accent,
and
her
first
language
in
Mandarin. |\n| 16 | Would
she
not
stick
out
like
a
sore
thumb?
The
idea |\n| 17 | that
this
woman
can
hide
is
blatantly
absurd.
It's |\n| 18 | absurd.
And
the
idea
that
she
could
rely
on
people
to |\n| 19 | hide
her
in
the
United States.
So
where
are
we?
She |\n| 20 | can't
leave
and
she
can't
hide.
That's
not
flight
risk. |\n| 21 | But
there's
more.
And
the
more
is
this.
The |\n| 22 | Government
said,
and
this
is
why
we
actually
thought
we |\n| 23 | were
okay
with
the
bail
package
that
they
proposed. |\n| 24 | They
said
we
found
stuff
in
her
apartment
that
tells
you |\n| | |\n\n25 |that she's a flight risk. What is it? We found twelve\n\n They were found on the counter in the kitchen, three of them. They were plugged in in plain view. There was a phone that was on the side of the table,\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
16 |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN:
On
page
7
of
9. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN:
Do
you
see
where
it
says
56
-- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 7 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
white
phone,
57,
white
phone
-- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 9 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
58,
white
phone
-- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
In
bag
in
closet. |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN:
In
bag in closet.
Not
in
a
box |\n| 12 | pretending
like
it's
new.
It's
in
a
bag
in
closet.
I |\n| 13 | have
a
picture
of
the
closet.
I'm
happy
to
show
the |\n| 14 | Court
the
bag
that
it
was
in.
There
is,
in fact,
in |\n| 15 | that
picture
one
white
box
for
an
iPhone
in
that |\n| 16 | picture.
One
box.
And
according
to
this
none
of
these |\n| 17 | phones
came
out
of
that
bag,
that
box.
But
even
if
one |\n| 18 | did,
that's
one. |\n| 19 | Now,
also
on
this
page
you
see,
Your Honor, |\n| 20 | where
it
says
Mac
book
number
55
in
between
clothes? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Uh
huh. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN:
Okay,
so
one
of
the
things
that |\n| 23 | they
said
is,
oh,
look,
she's
hiding
stuff
in
between, |\n| 24 | in
her
closet.
She's
secreted
a
laptop
in
between
her |\n| 25 | clothes.
So
a
couple
of
things
about
that.
Number
one, |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 17 |\n| 2 | as the Government well knows, Ms. Wang is not unfamiliar |\n| 3 | with what happens when the FBI raids somebody. They |\n| 4 | raided Mr. Kwok previously. She knows what happens when |\n| 5 | that happens. Okay? So the idea that she could hide |\n| 6 | that she could hide a laptop in between her sweaters is |\n| 7 | absurd. |\n| 8 | But there's more now, Your Honor. Here is the |\n| 9 | – if I may – which is this? |\n| 10 | ATTORNEY: 46. |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: You may, and just, I want to |\n| 13 | confirm something. Are we looking at evidence and |\n| 14 | material that was not available before the hearing |\n| 15 | before Judge Parker? |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: This was not available to us |\n| 17 | before – we got this – so here's what happened. We |\n| 18 | asked them some of these questions about the phone, |\n| 19 | right, we asked those questions I think it was on the |\n| 20 | 29th. Do you have our letter? But essentially, Your |\n| 21 | Honor, we got these the night before we saw you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Okay, so that was well after Judge |\n| 23 | Parker's ruling. |\n| 24 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n\n### 1 PROCEEDING 18\n\n MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, this is the FBI schematic of the apartment that Ms. Wang lives in. By the way, it's 740 square feet. This is a woman who apparently defrauded people up to, for something like a billion dollars. Anyway, so on this page, Your Honor, I call the Court's attention on what is in the apartment and what is not. There is a bed in the bedroom, and there's a side table. There is a couch in the livingroom, and there's something in front of the couch, it's actually a (indiscernible). There is nothing else in this apartment. There's no wardrobe, there's no chest of drawers, there's no desk, there's nothing. So where does she keep her stuff? In the closets. All of her stuff is in the closets. Her old phones were in the closet. Right? There's nothing nefarious about putting stuff in the closet when you don't have any furniture. So then, so then they say, okay, we found money in her apartment. We found money, we found \\$138,000. Ms. Murray said in recent bills, she thought they were recent bills. Okay. So then we thought, all right, can\n\n we see the pictures of the money? Why did we ask for pictures of the money? Because we had reason to think that a bunch of that money was in red envelopes which apparently in Chinese culture it is common on holidays\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 19 |\n| 2 | like Chinese New Year to give people gifts of money, and |\n| 3 | they found red envelopes. And so I wanted to see where |\n| 4 | the money is, what it looks like, and how old it is. |\n| 5 | Right? |\n| 6 | So asked for the pictures. That's actually, |\n| 7 | truth be told, that's the thing that kind of prompted |\n| 8 | this conversation to begin with. (indiscernible) the |\n| 9 | money. Okay? |\n| 10 | So what did we find? (pause) May I approach, |\n| 11 | Your Honor? |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Yes, you may. |\n| 13 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: This, Your Honor, is the pouch in |\n| 15 | which the money was found. Now, the Government says in |\n| 16 | a letter to you, Your Honor, in their latest letter, |\n| 17 | they said conveniently in a bag for easy retrieval. |\n| 18 | Really? Okay, let's look at it. It's a bank bag. This |\n| 19 | is what money comes from when you get money from the |\n| 20 | bank. What else do we see here? We see that there are |\n| 21 | a bunch of this is in red envelopes. Now there's other |\n| 22 | cash in here, and, in fact, there's another picture. |\n| 23 | THE COURT: Look, you don't need to go in this |\n| 24 | much detail on the cash. And, you know, I agree with |\n| 25 | you, I don't find the fact that it's in a bag |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 20 |\n| 2 | particularly persuasive that means someone's necessarily |\n| 3 | going to run because it's in a bag. It's organized. |\n| 4 | But one thing maybe you can tell me is, and I realize |\n| 5 | this is shifting time a bit, but I thought that in their |\n| 6 | filing that, their last filing that prompted putting |\n| 7 | this over, that they had indicated and represented that |\n| 8 | Ms. Wang did not disclose this \\$138,000 to Pretrial, but |\n| 9 | I was under the impression this had already been seized |\n| 10 | a couple of weeks before. |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: No, it was seized on the day of |\n| 12 | her arrest, okay, and the question that she was asked, |\n| 13 | the relevant question was did you have any money cash on |\n| 14 | you when you were arrested. She was arrested at 6:15 |\n| 15 | a.m., she was in her pajamas. The truthful answer to |\n| 16 | that question is no. We checked out notes, we don't see |\n| 17 | any other questions that would have elicited a different |\n| 18 | answer. So did she disclose it voluntarily? No. I |\n| 19 | don't know that she was asked about it. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay? |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I get it. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, even if she had |\n| 24 | been asked about it, there were a dozen FBI agents in |\n| 25 | her apartment ripping it up. Okay, I mean she was, she |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 21 |\n| 2 | was beyond stressed. She's sitting and talking, in a |\n| 3 | situation that she's never encountered, she's being |\n| 4 | asked these questions. Is it crazy that, you know, the |\n| 5 | question is have you, do you have any cash on you, and |\n| 6 | she says - did you have any cash on you when you |\n| 7 | arrested and the answer is no and she doesn't say |\n| 8 | anything else? I mean really? |\n| 9 | All right. Now, by the way, before - because |\n| 10 | they're going to bring up another picture for you, Your |\n| 11 | Honor, and I don't want to be accused of giving you |\n| 12 | something less than the full picture. And the full |\n| 13 | picture is that when they made another picture of the |\n| 14 | money - I apologize, Your Honor. I've gotten so |\n| 15 | excited, I lost the other picture of the money. Here it |\n| 16 | is. May I approach? |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 18 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: This is the picture that makes it |\n| 20 | look as if more of this money is more recent because you |\n| 21 | can see there are some old bills, some new bills. |\n| 22 | However, with that said, as I told the Government, |\n| 23 | there's a good explanation for why some of that money is |\n| 24 | recent. Okay? And the explanation, and I told the |\n| 25 | Government this, is that she had some pounds that she |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 22 |\n| 2 | brought over from, with her herself at some point in her |\n| 3 | previous travels, and that those pounds, you know, |\n| 4 | however they got to her, but those pounds needed to be |\n| 5 | replaced because apparently when the Queen died, they're |\n| 6 | exchanging their money for money that looks, that has a |\n| 7 | picture of the King. Okay, so over time she had that |\n| 8 | replaced, so there's got to be something like \\$30,000, |\n| 9 | \\$40,000 in there that's recent that has to do with that. |\n| 10 | I asked to see the bills yesterday when it was |\n| 11 | too late for me to go do it, they said you can come see |\n| 12 | it. I'll see them at some point. But my point though, |\n| 13 | Your Honor, the idea that this is money secreted so that |\n| 14 | she can get out of Dodge, no, no, that doesn't make any |\n| 15 | sense. |\n| 16 | THE COURT: No, but it is suggestive that she |\n| 17 | has access to significant funds even if that particular |\n| 18 | one wasn't what she was intending to use. |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Let's address that. Okay? The |\n| 20 | Government says she didn't disclose all of the bank |\n| 21 | accounts over which she had control. I had a specific |\n| 22 | conversation with the Government in which I said if |\n| 23 | you're asking about accounts for which she can actually |\n| 24 | transact, meaning no third people, right, in other |\n| 25 | words, but my bank account, I can go and do stuff. My |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 23 |\n| 2 | firm's bank account, not necessarily. Well, in my case |\n| 3 | yes, but, you know, if you work for a firm, you may be |\n| 4 | able to direct somebody to do whatever, that's firm |\n| 5 | business, but you can't take it and put it in your |\n| 6 | pocket. Okay? So what I said to the Government is we |\n| 7 | are aware of two accounts, right, that are hers. We're |\n| 8 | aware of another business account where she could have, |\n| 9 | she could transact. We gave them the account and the |\n| 10 | number. Right? We're not aware of any other accounts. |\n| 11 | That is not, we did not hide from the Government that |\n| 12 | she owns this BBI entity. That's not - the question was |\n| 13 | -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: I understand, that's, of the list |\n| 15 | of four things, three of them were business entities, |\n| 16 | two of them weren't even hers directly. What about the |\n| 17 | Himalayan cryptocurrency? |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: Good question. So I've been |\n| 19 | trying to figure out what happened with the Himalayan |\n| 20 | thing, and there are two things about that. Number one, |\n| 21 | the document that they're referring to, remember how I |\n| 22 | said there are some things where there's evidence, there |\n| 23 | are some things that are half-truths, there are some |\n| 24 | things that are contradicted, and then there are some |\n| 25 | things were it's just a leap? Right? |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 24 |\n| 2 | So what are they looking at? They're looking |\n| 3 | at a schedule that says allocation, okay, allocation. |\n| 4 | They're not looking at an account at H Coin. They're |\n| 5 | not looking - they're looking at an allocation. I've |\n| 6 | been trying to figure out what happened to that |\n| 7 | allocation. The best I can ascertain is that she has no |\n| 8 | idea what happened. I'm not saying that something |\n| 9 | didn't happen with it. I'm saying that she has no idea. |\n| 10 | Okay? |\n| 11 | THE COURT: But which is -- |\n| 12 | (interposing) |\n| 13 | MR. LIPMAN: But there's more -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: The current value of that, right, |\n| 15 | at least the Government says is something like \\$13 |\n| 16 | million. I'm sure it was less than, well, maybe who |\n| 17 | knows given the market. But you would think that |\n| 18 | someone - I'm going to assume it was a significant |\n| 19 | amount of cyber currently at the time in that to her it |\n| 20 | was significant, and you would think one would keep |\n| 21 | track of that significant amount. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: If one thought that it was theirs, |\n| 23 | then one would. But, Your Honor, here's - so the |\n| 24 | Government seized hundreds of millions of dollars, |\n| 25 | including from the Himalayan exchange. The Government |\n\n|-----------------------|-------------|----------------|---------------|\n|-----------------------|-------------|----------------|---------------|\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 25 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | is alleging that it's all a fraud. Out of one side of |\n| 3 | their mouth they say it's worthless, and people can't |\n| 4 | actually turn it into cash. The SEC said, in its |\n| 5 | complaint the SEC says people tried to turn it into cash |\n| 6 | but couldn't. Well, is it or isn't it? Because if it |\n| 7 | is, then maybe it's worth \\$13 million, though we don't |\n| 8 | know how to access it. But if it isn't, if their |\n| 9 | allegations are correct, then I don't know what the |\n| 10 | mechanism is for turning this into cash. Okay? |\n| 11 | So this is all to say that the presumption is |\n| 12 | that she would be released or released pursuant to |\n| 13 | conditions that are least restrictive to assure her -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: Right, but are we arguing anew? I |\n| 15 | mean this comes back to the question, Judge Parker |\n| 16 | implemented or ordered conditions. The crux of the |\n| 17 | problem is that one of her conditions is not being |\n| 18 | fulfilled because the Government has taken the position |\n| 19 | that none of the persons offered to be financially |\n| 20 | responsible are going to be sufficient suretors either |\n| 21 | because they don't exercise moral suasion, because they |\n| 22 | aren't financially responsible, or they are a victim or |\n| 23 | a participant in the alleged fraud. And there's a |\n| 24 | question of, okay, what happens if they keep on not |\n| 25 | accepting these people. So I just want to be careful |\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 27 |\n| 2 | that were taken. I was looking to see if I can find a |\n| 3 | photograph or a log of a document hidden in the |\n| 4 | cushions. That doesn't exist. You know what else |\n| 5 | doesn't exist? They said in their – this is a |\n| 6 | representation to a court, they said we found a phone |\n| 7 | hidden between mattresses in her bedroom. I want to see |\n| 8 | this picture. I want to find it on the log of pictures |\n| 9 | that are taken. Where is it? It doesn't exist. Or at |\n| 10 | least it hasn't been given to us. |\n| 11 | Now, there is a picture like that that was |\n| 12 | taken at Mr. Kwok's search, and – thank you. |\n| 13 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: So that's a picture of a phone |\n| 17 | hidden between mattresses. But it's not from her |\n| 18 | apartment. And I have yet to see the one from her |\n| 19 | apartment. |\n| 20 | One other thing, they said she has stuff in |\n| 21 | her, in the pouch for easy retrieval, right, the money |\n| 22 | was in the pouch for easy retrieval. Everything was in |\n| 23 | a pouch for easy retrieval. You know what else was in |\n| 24 | the pouch for easy retrieval? I think every credit card |\n| 25 | she's ever had. I mean a bunch of old expired credit |\n\n| PROCEEDING 28 | |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | cards, easy retrieval. It doesn't make sense. |\n| 3 | Now let me, Your Honor, let me just now switch |\n| 4 | over to the other piece of this which is the proposed |\n| 5 | co-signers, the Government's refusal to approve any, and |\n| 6 | what this is about. And I want to start with something |\n| 7 | that I actually did not plan on doing because it only |\n| 8 | happened in the courtroom this morning. You see these |\n| 9 | people here, many of these people here are here to |\n| 10 | support her. |\n| 11 | She got emotional in the courtroom and started |\n| 12 | crying because she realized that all these people are |\n| 13 | here to support her, and let me explain what that means. |\n| 14 | The Government probably doesn't know this, but surely it |\n| 15 | is actually unlawful for the Government to disclose that |\n| 16 | somebody's an asylum applicant. There's a regulation |\n| 17 | that says that. I didn't know. I found out recently. |\n| 18 | I'm sure they don't know. I'm sure they didn't do it |\n| 19 | deliberately. |\n| 20 | But the reason is obvious. Right? If you have |\n| 21 | somebody coming from a country, you identify them as |\n| 22 | somebody who's seeking asylum somewhere else, that |\n| 23 | immediately puts them in danger. All of these people |\n| 24 | simply by coming here, do you think there's no one here |\n| 25 | from the Chinese communist party in this room right now |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
29 |\n| 2 | monitoring
this?
All
these
people
simply
by
coming
up |\n| 3 | and
standing
up
for
her
have
exposed
themselves,
their |\n| 4 | families
-- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I
don't think
anyone
questions |\n| 6 | perhaps
their
intent.
The
question
does
the
-- |\n| 7 | MR. LIPMAN:
Does
she
care
about
them? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
--
does
the
defendant
care
enough |\n| 9 | about
these
people
that
she's
going
to
be
concerned |\n| 10 | enough
about
whatever
monetary
means
they're
putting
on |\n| 11 | the
line
versus
taking
flight,
and
one
would
paint
the |\n| 12 | picture,
if
you're
the
Government,
saying
she's
alleged |\n| 13 | to
have
committed
fraud,
you've
got
strong
evidence.
So |\n| 14 | why
would
she
care
about
the
people
she
defrauded? |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN:
Fair amount,
Your Honor,
I
was |\n| 16 | about
to
address
it. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
There
are
different
ways
to
think |\n| 19 | about
moral
suasion.
Right?
I
think
we
all
agree
that |\n| 20 | a
brother
can
sign
for
a
brother,
and
the
first
brother |\n| 21 | is
not
going
to
care.
They're
relatives,
they're |\n| 22 | brothers,
but
they're
not
going
to
care.
It's
also
true |\n| 23 | that
people
can
connect
in
some
way,
they
could
be |\n| 24 | strangers,
but
they
connected,
right,
and
so
somebody |\n| 25 | can
have
moral
suasion
over
somebody
else
who
actually |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
30 |\n| 2 | they
don't
have
all
that
much
interaction.
They
just |\n| 3 | love
each
other.
Right? |\n| 4 | But
there's
another
kind,
and
the other
kind
is |\n| 5 | this,
if
you
are
a
member
of
a
certain
kind
of
community |\n| 6 | and
you're
–
and
this
community
is
important
to
you, |\n| 7 | it's
important
to
you
what
happens
to
the
members
of |\n| 8 | this
community.
Now,
the
Government's
going
to
say,
oh, |\n| 9 | my
God,
a
billion
dollars,
these
people
are
victims. |\n| 10 | Well,
they're
here,
they
don't
think
they're
victims, |\n| 11 | but
that's
another
story.
Okay? |\n| 12 | But
here's
the
thing,
look
at
the
indictment, |\n| 13 | Your Honor.
Mr.
Kwok
is
alleged
to
have
bought
himself |\n| 14 | a
Lamborghini.
I
would
love
one.
Okay?
But
does
she |\n| 15 | have
one?
No.
He
apparently
is
living
in
a
mansion
and |\n| 16 | has
other
mansions
and
boats
and
this
and
that
and
the |\n| 17 | other
thing.
Where
in
the
indictment
is
there
an |\n| 18 | allegation
that
any
of
this
money
went
to
her?
The |\n| 19 | closest
they've
come
is
this
allocation
of
the
coin |\n| 20 | allocation.
Right?
And
we
don't
know
what
happened
to |\n| 21 | that.
Okay. |\n| 22 | So
the
question
you
have
to
ask
yourself
is
why |\n| 23 | is
she
doing
this?
Why
does
she
leave
her
family,
her |\n| 24 | son,
her
one
true
love,
right,
and
moved
to
a
foreign |\n| 25 | country
where
she
is
basically exposing
herself
as
a |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 31 revolutionary, why did she do this? Okay. There's an answer, but that she's trying to enrich herself is not the answer. So then the question is would she, given what the Government has alleged about her, not about her co-defendants, but about her, because what happens to the co-defendants is relevant but what matters really is what happens to her.\n\n And also the question, given the allegations that the Government has made, right, is she the kind of person who will stick one of these people with a \\$5 million debt? And the answer to that is obviously no, she lives in a 740 square foot apartment without furniture, away from her family with whom she cannot have anymore contact. It's just beyond belief that we have given them eight people, grownups, right, they don't like all of them, that's fine. They say we didn't get enough documents with respect to certain people. Really? Somebody's willing to put up a \\$3 billion house, what other documents do you want? We couldn't post that house unless we were able to prove to them that that house existed and belongs to the person who's posting it. Right? That person is an adult who understands what's going on and thinks that she, that that person has moral suasion over her and thinks that\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
32 |\n| 2 | she's
not
–
there
are
three
people,
the
co-signers
who |\n| 3 | are
in
this
room
today. |\n| 4 | So
where
does
the
Government,
forgive
me,
Your |\n| 5 | Honor,
but
where
does
the
Government
get
off
making |\n| 6 | those
judgments
for
these
people? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well,
that's
part
of
what,
I
mean |\n| 8 | they
get
to
form
that
judgment,
and
if
you
don't
agree |\n| 9 | with
it,
that's
why
we're
here,
but
they,
the
Government |\n| 10 | needs
to
be
assured
or
feel
assured
that
the
financial |\n| 11 | security
that's
being
posted
is
sufficient
to
reasonably |\n| 12 | assure
that
the
defendant
will
not
flee,
and
there
is
a |\n| 13 | valid
concern
I
think
in
theory
that
if
you
have
folks |\n| 14 | that
are
allegedly
victims
of
a
fraud
that's
being |\n| 15 | committed,
that
the
fraudster
or
alleged
fraudster
may |\n| 16 | not
be
so
incented
as
one
might
normally
be, |\n| 17 | theoretically. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
Your Honor,
one
cannot
paint |\n| 19 | everything
with
a
broad
brush. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I
agree. |\n| 21 | MR. LIPMAN:
One
really
needs
to
look
at
the |\n| 22 | particular
circumstances,
and
the
particular |\n| 23 | circumstances
is
that
the
Government
is
not
alleging |\n| 24 | that
she
stole
money.
It's
just
that
simple.
They're |\n| 25 | alleging
that
the
other
two
stole
money.
They're
not
– |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 34 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Government cannot approve cosigners who belong to one of |\n| 3 | these two groups because as a category they |\n| 4 | (indiscernible), then, Your Honor, you have the |\n| 5 | authority to change this, and, in fact, as the Court is |\n| 6 | well aware, one of the provisions in here is that you |\n| 7 | cannot have a financial condition that makes it -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: \"The judicial officer may not |\n| 9 | impose a financial condition that results in the |\n| 10 | pretrial detention of the person.\" 18 U.S.C. |\n| 11 | 3142(c)(2). And yet the Government seems to have found |\n| 12 | cases that say that in the context of the statute, that |\n| 13 | does not trump but rather what trumps is whether the |\n| 14 | conditions will reasonably assure the presence of the |\n| 15 | defendant at future proceedings. And even a case you |\n| 16 | rely on, U.S. v. Panaronda , says that too, and they said |\n| 17 | the ultimate question is the Court should consider |\n| 18 | whether that particular financial condition is a |\n| 19 | necessary part of the bail conditions to provide |\n| 20 | reasonable assurance of the defendant's appearance. I |\n| 21 | mean that's really what we have to decide. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: And, Your Honor, that case, I'm |\n| 23 | going to mispronounce names so I apologize -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Panaronda. |\n| 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay, what happened in that case |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
35 |\n| 2 | is Judge Sweet, we'll change the conditions. I mean and |\n| 3 | he said, look, there's \\$250,000 bail here, this person |\n| 4 | is never going to either meet it or get anybody who is |\n| 5 | good for \\$250,000. I'm going to reduce it to something |\n| 6 | that people can meet and still satisfy the conditions. |\n| 7 | We proposed, just so that we're clear, in |\n| 8 | addition to posting, you know, property to secure the |\n| 9 | bond that would be more than enough, right, because, you |\n| 10 | know, it says two. There are three people who together |\n| 11 | have more property than \\$5 million. They can post it |\n| 12 | all. They're prepared to do it. But separately. She |\n| 13 | has access, as far as I know, and the Government doesn't |\n| 14 | actually know anything different, she personally only |\n| 15 | has access at this point to two accounts that belong to |\n| 16 | her and that she has value in her apartment, we already |\n| 17 | posted that. So her apartment, one of her accounts |\n| 18 | completely -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT: With \\$400,000. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, I'm not sure exactly. |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Well, that was the one that you |\n| 22 | offered up -- |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, yeah. And then the second |\n| 24 | one monitor it. I mean we're happy to have - in other |\n| 25 | words, she -- |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
36 |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I
get
it. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
would
have
no
money
-- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN:
Now,
the
Government
says,
well, |\n| 6 | you know,
supporters,
this
and
that,
they
can
–
that's |\n| 7 | true
in
every
case.
Your Honor,
I'm
going
to
sit
down |\n| 8 | because
I've
been
going
on,
you've
indulged
me
and
I |\n| 9 | appreciate
that.
But,
Your Honor,
there's
no
reason
why |\n| 10 | this
woman
should
spend
another
night
in
prison. |\n| 11 | There's
no
reason.
She's
not
a
flight
risk.
She
has |\n| 12 | already
put
up
her
apartment.
We're
happy
to
have
the |\n| 13 | three
co-signers
that
are
here
are
happy
to
go
down
and |\n| 14 | sign
the
bond
today.
We
can
post
the
–
in fact,
I
will |\n| 15 | take
personal
responsibility
for
the
two
accounts. |\n| 16 | Thank you.
My
much
wiser
co-counsel
reminded
me
that |\n| 17 | what
these
people
have
on
the
hook
is
not
\\$5
million. |\n| 18 | It's
their
lives
and
their
families'
lives
because
of |\n| 19 | what
they're
proposing
to
do
for
Ms.
Wang. |\n| 20 | If
that
is
not
an
indication
that
they
think |\n| 21 | they
have
moral
suasion
-- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
That's
not,
it's not,
I
don't |\n| 23 | question
their
thought
process
on
it.
And
I
just
want |\n| 24 | to
confirm
something.
In
terms
of
what
you
did
propose |\n| 25 | in
terms
of
possibly
modifying
the
conditions
is
you |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
37 |\n| 2 | wanted
the
Court
to
approve
two
of
the
eight
that
you |\n| 3 | had
offered.
You
have
three
here
now.
You
were
going |\n| 4 | to,
in addition
to
the
security
for
the
apartment,
you |\n| 5 | were
going
to
put
up
the
\\$400,000
account
and
the |\n| 6 | \\$130,000
cash
that
was
seized.
You
were
going
to
put |\n| 7 | additional
security
through
others
that
you
now
say
I |\n| 8 | think
that
you
could
get
to
an
amount
in
total
of
\\$5 |\n| 9 | million.
Do
I
have
that
right? |\n| 10 | MR. LIPMAN:
Yeah,
we
could.
I
mean
we
have |\n| 11 | three
people
willing
to
post
their
property,
and
one
of |\n| 12 | those
houses
is
I
think
\\$3
million,
one
is
1.7
if
I |\n| 13 | remember
correctly,
but
yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
And
then
you
proposed
also
that
the |\n| 15 | Government
monitor
and
approve
any
expenditures
from
the |\n| 16 | \\$500,000
account. |\n| 17 | MR. LIPMAN:
I'd
rather
Pretrial
did
it
and
not |\n| 18 | the
U.S.
Attorney's
Office,
but
yes. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yeah,
again,
one
of
the
driving |\n| 20 | concerns
here
is
–
I'm
just
looking
for
where
this
was |\n| 21 | said,
that,
and
this
is
from
U.S.
v.
Melville
I
think. |\n| 22 | \"Bail
is
not
for
the
purpose
of
providing
funds
to
the |\n| 23 | Government
to
seek
the
defendant
should
he
go |\n| 24 | underground
or
flee
the
jurisdiction.
Bail
is
intended |\n| 25 | as
a
catalyst
to
aid
the
appearance
of
the
defendant |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
39 |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN:
Okay.
So
I
already
said
that
she |\n| 4 | is
a
revolutionary.
She
believes
in
the
cause.
If
she |\n| 5 | didn't
believe
in
the
cause,
if
she
didn't
believe
in |\n| 6 | these
people
–
thank you. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
The
two
are
not
mutually
exclusive, |\n| 8 | fraud
and
belief
in
a
cause. |\n| 9 | MR. LIPMAN:
Well,
Your Honor,
that's
true, |\n| 10 | but,
again,
you
have
to
look
at
the
individual
and
what |\n| 11 | is
it
that
they
did
-- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Of course. |\n| 13 | MR. LIPMAN:
And
so
-- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I
agree. |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
they
call
each
other,
so
I've |\n| 16 | talked
to
a
bunch
of
people
-- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I
think
I
get
enough. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
You
get
it.
And
they
call
each |\n| 19 | other
–
just
before
I
sit
down,
they
call
each
other |\n| 20 | brother
and
sister,
okay,
and
I've
talked
to
a
bunch
of |\n| 21 | them,
and
I
mean
all
I
can
say
is
that
they're
willing |\n| 22 | to
risk
everything,
and
she
has
not
done
anything
to |\n| 23 | indicate
that
she
would
do,
she
would
jeopardize
them |\n| 24 | at,
jeopardize
them
personally
for
her
own,
for
her
own |\n| 25 | personal
gain. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
40 |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Understood.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN:
Thank you,
Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right,
I
will
hear
from
the |\n| 5 | Government. |\n| 6 | MS. MURRAY:
Thank you,
Your Honor.
Just
one |\n| 7 | brief
point
that
Mr.
Lipman
just
raised.
With
respect |\n| 8 | to
the
defendant's
personal
gain,
the
Government
would |\n| 9 | note
that
the
defendant's
living
in
a
\\$1.1
million |\n| 10 | apartment.
The
defendant
has
nearly
a
million
dollars
- |\n| 11 | - |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
One
might
consider
that
poor
in
the |\n| 13 | middle
of
New York,
but,
you know,
nonetheless. |\n| 14 | MS. MURRAY:
Has
nearly
a
million
dollars
in |\n| 15 | cash
and
her
bank
accounts,
the
two
that
were
disclosed, |\n| 16 | and
I'll
get
to
that
point.
We
have
evidence
that
she |\n| 17 | was
allocated
\\$7
million
approximately
of
what
was
a |\n| 18 | cryptocurrency
or
a
purported
cryptocurrency
at
the
time |\n| 19 | of
the
initial
coin
offering
at
a
lower
valuation.
So |\n| 20 | that
would
be
worth
substantially
more
now.
And
she
had |\n| 21 | over
approximately
\\$138,000
of
cash
in
her
safe. |\n| 22 | But
I
would
like
to
reset
with
respect
today's |\n| 23 | proceedings. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 25 | MS. MURRAY:
At
the
very
outset,
Your Honor |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 41 |\n| 2 | asked about the status of the bail proceedings, and no, |\n| 3 | there have no further discussions between the defense |\n| 4 | and the Government regarding proposed suretors. The |\n| 5 | Government has not received any documentation additional |\n| 6 | to the documents that the defense submitted in |\n| 7 | connection with their motion that support the various |\n| 8 | purported financial situation of the suretors that they |\n| 9 | proposed even though they were on notice from the |\n| 10 | Government's submission that we believe the |\n| 11 | documentation to be incomplete or inadequate to make an |\n| 12 | accurate determination or assessment. The Government |\n| 13 | has not successfully reached the eighth co-signer that |\n| 14 | the defense had proposed and, therefore, has been unable |\n| 15 | to interview that person. So that's where we are today. |\n| 16 | Now, there are really three questions for the |\n| 17 | Court today. First, with respect to the defendant's |\n| 18 | motion, whether the Court should direct that the |\n| 19 | defendant has satisfied the conditions of her bond, the |\n| 20 | conditions that Judge Parker imposed when she was |\n| 21 | initially presented on March 15, several hours after her |\n| 22 | arrest. The answer is clearly no. |\n| 23 | The second question is whether the Court should |\n| 24 | modify the conditions of that bond that Judge Parker |\n| 25 | imposed to remove the co-signers requirement, which is |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 42 one of the first modification requests the defense is asking for, or potentially in connection with or an alternative various different modifications, be it posting additional property or cash in support of the bond, adding co-signers, aggregating co-signers. Again, with respect to modification, the answer is plainly no, the Court should not do that.\n\n And, finally, the third question, which was raised in the Government's submission last Friday, whether the defendant should be detained pending trial because there are no conditions or set of conditions that will reasonably assure her presence at future court proceedings. And, Your Honor, the answer to that is yes.\n\nSo I'll take each of those points in turn.\n\n First, with respect to the proposed co-signers, the defense submitted documentation and names and information about those co-signers to the Court. That is because they are not approved by the Government. So under the statute the basis for the Court to approve unapproved co-signers is to evaluate documentation, information about those co-signers, and then determine whether they have a net worth with sufficient unencumbered value to pay the full amount of the bond,\n\n1 PROCEEDING 43 here \\$5 million. And I'm not going to go over each of the individuals, Your Honor, because we laid this out in great detail in our initial submission. We went through each of the seven proposed co-signers that the defense has presented to the Court here with documentation, again, setting aside the eighth whom we were not able to interview.\n\n For each of those seven, based on the documents that the defense is providing to Your Honor for your consideration of whether those individuals meet the standard of the statute, first of all, Your Honor, none of them has appropriate moral suasion over the defendant. And, again, we laid this out but I would like to make that point a bit more finely because it's extremely important where here the defense is saying that these individuals exercise moral suasion.\n\n And, Your Honor, is correct, it's not a question of whether the proposed co-signers believe that they have influence or moral suasion over the defendant. It's a question of how the defendant feels, and while we can't put ourself in our head or in her heart, what we can do is we can look at the evidence that's in front of us.\n\nThese seven proposed co-signers for Your\n\n1 PROCEEDING 44 Honor's consideration, some of them have never met Ms. Wang, never spoken with her. A handful of them have met her at events, generally speaking. Most do not know where she works. Most do not know where she lives. They don't talk to her frequently. They don't appear to have a personal relationship.\n\n Interestingly, and I'll get to this point, one of the individuals actually believes that Ms. Wang works at Gettir, which is one of the alleged entities involved in the fraud and a potential instrumentality. And believes that because that individual met Ms. Wang in connection with interviewing for a position at Gettir. I'll talk about why that's relevant. Another individual believes that she works at a company called HCHK Properties. Again, one of these shell companies that's used in the course of this billion dollar fraud.\n\n And these proposed co-signers whom defense argues exercise moral suasion, they don't know the defendant well enough to even have personal relationship with her, and, therefore, we have no comfort that Ms. Wang would in any way be dissuaded by their signing a bond from fleeing, from leaving them responsible for paying the amount of the bond.\n\nTHE COURT: Well, even if they don't have what\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 45 |\n| 2 | we think of as a traditional personal relationship or |\n| 3 | family relationship or a deep friend relationship, why |\n| 4 | can't they be bonded over a cause? |\n| 5 | MS. MURRAY: They could be bonded over a cause, |\n| 6 | Your Honor. In this particular situation, and this is |\n| 7 | why the Government's argument about these individuals |\n| 8 | being potential victims of the fraud or apparent victims |\n| 9 | of the fraud is important, this fraud has been largely |\n| 10 | perpetuated targeting that community. It is a fraud |\n| 11 | that has focused on preying on and mobilizing people who |\n| 12 | support Mr. Kwok's and Ms. Wang's and Mr. Je's movement |\n| 13 | against the CCP. Those are the exact individuals who |\n| 14 | have been identified and targeted to send hundreds of |\n| 15 | millions dollars, over a billion dollars, of money to |\n| 16 | line Mr. Kwok's pockets, Mr. Je's pockets, their |\n| 17 | families, to reinvest in the companies that are the |\n| 18 | instrumentalities of the fraud, companies that Ms. Wang |\n| 19 | manages and works for, some on paper and some functional |\n| 20 | control. |\n| 21 | So there's no comfort that the Government can |\n| 22 | derive from the argument that because an individual is a |\n| 23 | member of the allegedly community that Ms. Wang has |\n| 24 | supporters, that that will influence Ms. Wang to not |\n\nflee.\n\n# 1 PROCEEDING 46\n\n And, Your Honor, I just note, moral suasion factors vary, but some of the considerations include the strength of ties between the defendant and the proposed suretor. Again, here, with respect to all of the proposed suretors in front of this Court which the defendant provided to Your Honor, that factor doesn't exist.\n\n Also, the defendant's roots in the community, we understand from defense counsel that Ms. Wang essentially works and then works within this community, but I would just note during the second attempt at this bail hearing for Ms. Wang Judge Netburn did note that Ms. Wang has lived in the country for seven years and is representing that she knows no one, no one who could potentially come forward as a co-signer who either isn't a potential victim within this community or a potential subject or co-conspirator of the fraud.\n\n And then also the regularity of contact. And here, again, we don't have regular contact between these proposed suretors and Ms. Wang.\n\n Now, turning to the second factor in evaluating the proposed suretors that are before the Court is financial responsibility. And, again, here, I don't want to belabor the point because we have gone through\n\n1 PROCEEDING 47 each of the proposed suretors, but these individuals do not have sufficient assets of an unencumbered value to support the full amount of the bond. That is the statutory framework that we're working within at this point where conditions have been imposed, where the Government has unapproved suretors, and the defense has now moved to bring them before the Court -- THE COURT: Well, why I am hearing at least from the defense that with an entire package and the supposed three FRP's who are here, suretors, that they do have \\$5 million. Let me just verify something, counsel for the defense, are you saying that that is unencumbered, 5 million? MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, we have three people who have unencumbered – well -- THE COURT: Net unencumbered. MR. LIPMAN: Thank you. Yes, net I think adds up to – let's put it this way, together with the million dollars that she has definitely, I know that one is \\$3 million. I'm sorry, I'm spacing on one of them, but I'm pretty sure that those three cover \\$5 million. But that they do including the -- THE COURT: Right, she's got the million, she's also got the 400, she's got the 138. So we're good for\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 49 |\n| 2 | deal with that. But I understand. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY: Sure. Yeah, and I understand, |\n| 4 | Your Honor. So then I guess I'll move to the second |\n| 5 | question which is whether the Court should modify the |\n| 6 | conditions of the defendant's bond, either to remove the |\n| 7 | co-signer to alter in and adjust the bond so that |\n| 8 | there's more cash or property securing the bond. As I |\n| 9 | said, the answer is plainly no to that as well. |\n| 10 | And I just want to make a few points about the |\n| 11 | representations that counsel has made -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Before you do, let's assume for the |\n| 13 | moment there are no financially responsible people in |\n| 14 | your view because they don't know her personally except |\n| 15 | for having maybe met her a couple of times, they're not |\n| 16 | family, and the only thing they have in common is this |\n| 17 | cause. If I am to assess whether that particular |\n| 18 | condition is necessary to reasonably assure the presence |\n| 19 | of the defendant at future proceedings as opposed to |\n| 20 | some other combination of provisions, putting aside, of |\n| 21 | course, all the provisions that are already in place, |\n| 22 | the home detention, electronic monitoring, etc., why |\n| 23 | can't I then or why shouldn't I then consider other |\n| 24 | things that are being offered insufficient to take that |\n| 25 | place? Why does it have to be two financially |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 50 responsible people as opposed to, you know, another combination of what's being offered?\n\n MS. MURRAY: Your Honor can consider modifying the conditions of the bond certainly if you determine that there is a set of conditions that would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future court proceedings.\n\n THE COURT: And to be clear, I'm not saying what I have in mind is anything less than what Judge Parker would think, and I'm not pretending to put myself in her shoes. But I could imagine that given that the Government and the defendant came to essentially an agreement on most of the terms of a package, that Judge Parker no doubt was assuming at the point that there would be two financially responsible people. And if she was presented with an argument that said, well, the Government's willing to agree to this, but we don't have anybody we're going to approve, she might take a different tact. She might not, she might say, you know what, it's the Government's prerogative, the Government offered this package, they can't satisfy it, t's not going to do it, then I'm going to detain. So I'm not saying it should necessarily come\n\nout differently, but I think it's a little too pat in\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
51 |\n| 2 | some
respects
–
well,
again,
why
that
condition
as |\n| 3 | opposed
to
what
else
is
being
offered? |\n| 4 | MS. MURRAY:
Well, there
are actually
multiple |\n| 5 | conditions,
and,
Your Honor,
the
reason
is
that
when
the |\n| 6 | Government
discussed
a
proposed
bail
package
on
consent |\n| 7 | with
defense,
it
was
hours
after
the
defendant
was |\n| 8 | arrested
on
March
15.
The
Government
had
not
had
the |\n| 9 | opportunity
to
go
through
the
evidence
that
was
then |\n| 10 | being
collected
from
the
defendant's
apartment
in |\n| 11 | connection
with
the
FBI's
premises
search.
And, |\n| 12 | frankly,
the
Government
was
not
yet
aware
that
the |\n| 13 | defendant
was
going
to
lie
to
this
Court,
to
Pretrial |\n| 14 | Services
-- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I
don't
understand
what
the
lies |\n| 16 | are.
I
have
to
say
I
didn't,
you know,
in
your
letter |\n| 17 | you
accuse
the
defendant
of
dissembling
on
this.
The |\n| 18 | only
one
that
grabbed
me
as
a
possible
dissembling
would |\n| 19 | be
the
cryptocurrency.
But
it's
certainly
plausible |\n| 20 | that
you
could
have
a
cryptocurrency
that
was
allocated |\n| 21 | in
2016
I
think
the
date
was
and,
you know,
it
may
have |\n| 22 | never
materialized
into
anything.
It
certainly |\n| 23 | suggests,
you know,
where
did
that
go,
can't
someone |\n| 24 | tell
us,
but
right
now
she's
saying
she
has
no
control |\n| 25 | over
access
to
it
because
she
doesn't
even
know
where
it |\n\n| PROCEEDING 52 | |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | is or what it is. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY: So a few points there, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | First, the defendant during her Pretrial Services |\n| 5 | interview indicated she's been unemployed since |\n| 6 | September of 2022. Now, documents that the Government |\n| 7 | reviewed late last week that had been seized from her |\n| 8 | apartment and additional evidence that the Government |\n| 9 | has, and, as you know, we can proceed by proffer in |\n| 10 | detention hearings -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 12 | MS. MURRAY: This is not a mini trial. But the |\n| 13 | Government's evidence is that the defendant was, in |\n| 14 | fact, continuing to work in connection with her named |\n| 15 | position with family offices of Mr. Kwok's family money |\n| 16 | and also with some of the other entities that I |\n| 17 | mentioned that are instrumentalities of the fraud up |\n| 18 | until effectively the date that she was arrested. We |\n| 19 | have seen documents that lay out the financial position |\n| 20 | of various of the different entities that are associated |\n| 21 | with the fraud. Those include Gettir which is, as I |\n| 22 | mentioned, one of the proposed suretors believes Ms. |\n| 23 | Wang formally works for. They include HCHK Property |\n| 24 | which another of the suretors believes Ms. Wang formally |\n| 25 | works for, and the Government's evidence shows Ms. Wang, |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
53 |\n| 2 | in fact,
is
the
99.999
percent
shareholder
of
HCHK |\n| 3 | through
her
BBI
entity. |\n| 4 | They
include
G
Clubs
which
is
one
of
the
arms |\n| 5 | of
the
fraud
that
is
outlined
and
alleged
in
the |\n| 6 | Government's
indictment.
They
include
the
Rule
of
Law |\n| 7 | Society
and
the
Rule
of
Law
Foundation
which
are |\n| 8 | charities,
purported
charities
that
Mr.
Kwok
and
others |\n| 9 | founded
in
2018
that
laid
the
groundwork
and
the
basis |\n| 10 | for
collecting
all
these
monies
through
the
different |\n| 11 | arms
of
the
fraud. |\n| 12 | And,
Your Honor,
these
are
printouts
of |\n| 13 | balances
of
accounts,
accounts
raised
through
present |\n| 14 | which,
as
reflected
in
the
documents,
was
variously |\n| 15 | February
2023
or
March
13
of
2023,
two
days
before
the |\n| 16 | defendant
was
arrested. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
But those are corporate
funds, |\n| 18 | right,
but
you're
using
it
for
the
point
about |\n| 19 | employment. |\n| 20 | MS. MURRAY:
I'm
using
it
for
the
point
about |\n| 21 | employment,
Your Honor,
and
also
effective
control.
Mr. |\n| 22 | Lipman
indicated
he
doesn't
know
what
the
Government |\n| 23 | means when it uses
the general
phrase
chief
of
staff. |\n| 24 | What
the
Government
is
alleging
by
so
characterizing
Ms. |\n| 25 | Wang
is
that
she
manages
and
controls
these
various |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 54 |\n| 2 | entities. Now, like Mr. Kwok, she doesn't have her name |\n| 3 | on each of the different companies that she is involved |\n| 4 | with, but the Government has no question in light of the |\n| 5 | evidence both found in Ms. Wang's apartment, the fact |\n| 6 | that people associate Ms. Wang formally with these |\n| 7 | companies because they interviewed with her for jobs at |\n| 8 | some of these companies or they had contracts with her |\n| 9 | in connection with their work with some of the |\n| 10 | companies. |\n| 11 | Ms. Wang runs the show with respect to these |\n| 12 | instrumentalities. She has done so up until the day of |\n| 13 | her arrest contrary to what she told Pretrial Services. |\n| 14 | And the Government would allege that part of the reason |\n| 15 | that she lied to Pretrial Services was to disclaim |\n| 16 | association with the various different instrumentalities |\n| 17 | of the fraud. To say that she took herself out of the |\n| 18 | fraudulent entities, notably, Your Honor, right around |\n| 19 | the time that the Government started to seize \\$630 |\n| 20 | million in fraud proceeds. |\n| 21 | So in the Government's view, at the time of the |\n| 22 | initial presentment and bail argument, we were not aware |\n| 23 | that we were going to find concrete evidence in the |\n| 24 | defendant's apartment that, in our view, proves what the |\n\nGovernment already alleged and believed to be true from\n\n its investigation which is Ms. Wang has continued working for these companies up until the time of her arrest. So that is one point, Your Honor. It's a change in circumstances. The Government has a change in circumstances from where it was at the time of the initial presentment.\n\n Now, with respect to accounts, the allocation of H coin or one of the purported cryptocurrencies that is traded on the Himalaya exchange, again, another arm of the fraud, the allocation document was found in Ms. Wang's apartment with various other documents that seem to support the fraud. Your Honor is correct, defense is correct, there's no way for the Government to prove that Ms. Wang holds that money, and, in fact, the Government's allegation is that it's not cryptocurrency, but we're not alleging it's valueless. We're alleging that certain people have it and the people who are quickest to redeem can basically have an exit scam and get out with their money.\n\n I would note while, again, we don't have access to an account that Ms. Wang has where the money is held, Your Honor correctly identified approximately \\$7 million worth of a cryptocurrency asset would be something you would want to keep track of. The allocation indicates\n\n1 PROCEEDING 57 included the requirement that the defendant disclose assets or accounts that she controls in her name or that are in companies that she controls or is affiliated with and, broadly speaking, cryptocurrency and other real property.\n\n The Government has found evidence, again, dated as recently as a few days before the defendant's arrest from her apartment, as I said, that show bank account information, account information, Ms. Wang signing off on payroll for some of the instrumentalities that she doesn't control, but that the Government certainly alleges that she manages and works for in her role as Mr. Kwok's chief of staff. So to the Government that indicates effective control over those finances.\n\n Even setting that aside though, Your Honor, Mr. Lipman mentioned that there were credit cards and other items in the safe. The Government had indicated that there was cash in one of the pouches, another pouch with certain items that appeared to be and are ready to take at the ready.\n\n THE COURT: You mentioned a safe. Was there a safe? MS. MURRAY: There was a safe. Yes. So the\n\nbag with the cash and another bag that had credit cards\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 58 |\n| 2 | and other items, including the passports, those were all |\n| 3 | concealed in a safe in defendant's apartment. |\n| 4 | The credit cards notable that were taken from |\n| 5 | one of those pouches in the safe, looking at the front |\n| 6 | cover of those credit cards which were photographed and |\n| 7 | we provided to defense counsel last week, there are |\n| 8 | numerous cards that indicate accounts that are not yet |\n| 9 | expired in the defendant's name that the defendant did |\n| 10 | not disclose to the Government or to Pretrial Services. |\n| 11 | And at this point, we have no way of determining what |\n| 12 | assets are in those accounts, how the defendant |\n| 13 | continues to control those accounts, but it's, again, |\n| 14 | another layer, Your Honor, where we cannot derive |\n| 15 | comfort that the defendant is being truthful with |\n| 16 | Pretrial Services, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, or |\n| 17 | with the Court. |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 59 |\n| 2 | was arrested. The next which expires next year. There |\n| 3 | is a Citibank personal account in the defendant's own |\n| 4 | name which doesn't expire for another year. There's a |\n| 5 | DBS Treasures account at a Singapore Bank, and the |\n| 6 | Government explicitly asked about foreign accounts as |\n| 7 | well. That card doesn't expire until January of 2025, |\n| 8 | again, in the defendant's name. And, finally, a China |\n| 9 | Bank of Communications account, it's a Chinese bank. |\n| 10 | That account, the card indicates it expires September of |\n| 11 | 2023, also in the defendant's name. |\n| 12 | It's another example, Your Honor, of |\n| 13 | indications to the Government that the defendant has |\n| 14 | access to accounts, assets, funds that she could use in |\n| 15 | order to flee. And if they are funds that we needed to |\n| 16 | rely on the defendant to disclose to satisfy another |\n| 17 | condition of the bond that was imposed. Separate and |\n| 18 | apart from the question of co-signer, she was obligated |\n| 19 | under the conditions imposed to disclose her assets, her |\n| 20 | accounts, her cryptocurrency, her property to the |\n| 21 | Government and to Pretrial Services. |\n| 22 | She represented through counsel that she had |\n| 23 | done that simply by disclosing two personal accounts, |\n| 24 | one at Morgan Stanley Bank, one at TD Bank, and then |\n| 25 | this account that was associated with one of the |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
60 |\n| 2 | companies.
She
did
not
disclose
in
the
Government's |\n| 3 | view
by
any
stretch
the
corpus
of
money
that
she
has |\n| 4 | access
to. |\n| 5 | These
are
examples
of
new
circumstances
that |\n| 6 | gives
the
Government
grave
concerns.
Grave
concerns |\n| 7 | about
the
defendant's
incentives
to
flee,
about
her |\n| 8 | ability
to
flee,
about
the
fact
that
we
cannot
trust |\n| 9 | representations
that
the
defendant
is
making.
And,
Your |\n| 10 | Honor,
in
those
situations
where
we
have
so
many
red |\n| 11 | flags
and
so
many
concerns
that
the
Government
would
not |\n| 12 | necessarily
have
identified
if
we
hadn't
found
this
new |\n| 13 | information.
We
simply
do
not
have
any
assurances
that |\n| 14 | there
are
any
conditions
or
set
of
conditions
that
will |\n| 15 | assure
the
defendant's
appearance
at
future
court |\n| 16 | appearances. |\n| 17 | So
that
goes
to
the
third
prong,
Your Honor. |\n| 18 | It's
the
fact
that
the
Government
is
now
coming
to
the |\n| 19 | Court
saying
we
agreed
on
these
proposed
bail
conditions |\n| 20 | at
the
time
of
her
arrest
based
on
what
we
knew then. |\n| 21 | The
world
has
changed
since
then,
and
it
has
only
gotten |\n| 22 | more
concerning
for the
Government
which
already
had
a |\n| 23 | significant
concern
about
the
defendant's
risk
of
flight |\n| 24 | but
believed
that
there
may
be
certain
conditions
that |\n| 25 | could
assure her
appearance.
We
no
longer
feel
that |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
61 |\n| 2 | way.
We
do
not
believe
there
are
conditions
or
a
set
of |\n| 3 | conditions
that
can
reasonably
assure
her
appearance. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
One
clarification.
In
regards
to
– |\n| 5 | you
referred
to,
I
think
you
referred
to,
I
don't
know |\n| 6 | if
you
were
referring
to
the
allegations
of
the |\n| 7 | indictment
or
something
else,
but
you
referred
to
Mr. |\n| 8 | Kwok
and
Mr.
Je
as
being
the
ones
who
were
sort
of |\n| 9 | lining
their
pocket
and
getting
rich.
Are
you
in |\n| 10 | agreement
with
defense
counsel
that
the
indictment |\n| 11 | doesn't
make
allegations
that
the
defendant
here
herself |\n| 12 | was
lining
her
pockets
so
to
speak? |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY:
I
guess
to
answer
Your Honor's |\n| 14 | question,
the
indictment
does
make
allegations
that
the |\n| 15 | defendant
herself
was
personally
responsible
for
a |\n| 16 | hundred
million
dollar
misappropriation
of
fraud |\n| 17 | proceeds
-- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I
understand. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY:
But
that's
to
the
point
of |\n| 20 | misappropriation.
Now,
with
respect
to
the
indictment |\n| 21 | which
is
a
charging
document
that
contains
some |\n| 22 | allegations,
we
haven't
specifically
outlined
personal |\n| 23 | money
that
the
defendant
herself
misappropriated,
but, |\n| 24 | again,
we
don't
believe
that
that
is
in
any
way
germane |\n| 25 | to
her
risk
of
flight
and
her
access
to
money
here
and |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
62 |\n| 2 | to
a
network. |\n| 3 | And
another
point
that
I
would
like
to
note
is |\n| 4 | with
respect
to
travel
documents
and
passports.
Mr. |\n| 5 | Lipman
said
that
the defendant
had been seeking |\n| 6 | permission to
travel
at
the
end
of
last
year
or |\n| 7 | beginning
of
this
year,
and
she
was going
to
go
I |\n| 8 | believe
to the
U.K.
Travel
internationally. |\n| 9 | The Government
recovered
a
Vanuatu
passport
and |\n| 10 | a Hong Kong
passport
from
her
safe.
The Vanuatu |\n| 11 | passport
was
expired,
and
we
did
see
evidence
which
we |\n| 12 | disclosed
that
that
passport
had
been
kind
of
not |\n| 13 | revoked
but
that
the
defendant
had
removed
her
request |\n| 14 | from
the
passport.
But she
has
the
ability
to
obtain |\n| 15 | travel
documents
as
does
her
co-defendant
Miles
Kwok
who |\n| 16 | allegedly
has
had
11
passports
at
various
points. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Well,
she's
not Miles Kwok. |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY:
I understand
-- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I understand
she could
be part
of a |\n| 20 | network where
things like
that
can be
made
available
is |\n| 21 | what
you're
suggesting
I
think. |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY:
That's
exactly
right,
Your Honor, |\n| 23 | it's exactly right that
she can
both be part
of
the |\n| 24 | network
where
things
can
be
made
available
and
she
is |\n| 25 | the
one
who
is
tasked
with
holding
onto
those
travel |\n\n And at a very high level, to talk through those accounts, there is a Citibank account for one of the Kwok family entities that the defendant controlled that was active through last month when she was arrested. So it was active at the time. There were two personal Bank of America debit cards, different account numbers, both in the defendant's name, in her name, personal accounts. One which expired last month but, again, active when she\n\n1 PROCEEDING 63 documents both for herself and Mr. Kwok. She is a trusted person who is entrusted with the responsibility of having those travel documents --\n\n THE COURT: What do you make of the defense's points that the defendant certainly would've been aware in September or October of 2022 about the seizure of phones and that something was afoot and then there was the dealings with the SEC, together with the fact that, again, as defense has represented, that she applied for a furlough to be able to travel despite her asylum aps. Aren't those, if true, sort of indicative of someone who's not going to run?\n\n MS. MURRAY: Not necessarily, Your Honor, and I would also note that while, you know, there may be a question of whether those are at odds, and I'm happy to address that in a moment, I would also note that the defendant's willingness and, in fact, desire to travel to the U.K. even though she has these serious concerns, the CCP's persecution of repatriation, indicates that those concerns are not so grave that she's not willing to travel internationally.\n\n But I don't know the circumstances of the defendant's requested furlough. I don't know what the purpose was of her going on that trip. I will say that\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
64 |\n| 2 | there's
no
reason
–
if
we're
speaking
in
hypotheticals |\n| 3 | in
this
instance,
there's
similarly
no
reason
to
believe |\n| 4 | that
she
didn't
request
furlough
to
go
to
the
United |\n| 5 | Kingdom
without
any
intention
of
returning
after
she
was |\n| 6 | aware
the
funds
had
been
seized.
And,
again,
I'm |\n| 7 | speaking
in
hypotheticals
only
because
we
were
asked
a |\n| 8 | question
by the
Court,
but
I
think
you
can
draw
various |\n| 9 | different
conclusions
from
these
facts.
And
at
bottom, |\n| 10 | her
seeking
to
travel
to
the
U.K.,
her
willingness
to |\n| 11 | travel
internationally,
doesn't
cut
against
the
fact |\n| 12 | that
she
poses
a
significant
risk
of
flight. |\n| 13 | And
I'd
also
note,
it's
a
risk
of
flight
non |\n| 14 | appearance
at
future
court
appearances.
We
don't
need |\n| 15 | to
establish
that
she's
going
to
go
to
a
foreign |\n| 16 | jurisdiction
-- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
No. |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY:
She
could
flee
from
the
city,
she |\n| 19 | could
flee
from
the
several
block
radius.
She
could
cut |\n| 20 | her
bracelet.
And
it
could
be
that
her
vast
network
of |\n| 21 | supporters
enable
and
harbor
her.
We
don't
know
the |\n| 22 | circumstances,
but
the
bottom
fundamental
point
is
the |\n| 23 | defendant
poses
a
significant
risk
of
flight.
The |\n| 24 | Government
sees
no
condition
or
set
of
conditions
in |\n| 25 | light
of
the
strength
of
the
evidence,
the
seriousness |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 65 |\n| 2 | of the charges here, the defendant's personal |\n| 3 | circumstances, her access to substantial assets, foreign |\n| 4 | connections including her co-defendant William Je who is |\n| 5 | alleged to be in the UAE as a fugitive of where he has |\n| 6 | charges, her network of supporters, and the new |\n| 7 | information that we have found in the last two weeks, |\n| 8 | indicating that the defendant has not been forthcoming |\n| 9 | with the Court, Pretrial, or the Government. We simply |\n| 10 | don't believe there are any conditions that can ensure |\n| 11 | her appearance at future court proceedings. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: All right. I assume you want to |\n| 13 | respond some. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Oh, yes, Your Honor. Thank you. |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Just let me say to my 3:30, sorry, |\n| 16 | that we're going to be running late. Just sit tight, |\n| 17 | and we'll eventually get there. Go ahead. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: I'll do this as quickly as I can, |\n| 19 | Your Honor. So I want to start with the following. |\n| 20 | Everything I said about what they misrepresented in |\n| 21 | their conversations with the Court and submissions |\n| 22 | apparently is true because none of it did they take |\n| 23 | issue with. So all of that stuff about finding, you |\n| 24 | know, a phone between mattresses, phones secreted in |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 66 |\n| 2 | the cushions, none of that apparently happened. It is, |\n| 3 | it was represented to the Court. |\n| 4 | So now we get to the point of trust. They said |\n| 5 | trust. You can't trust this defendant. Really? But |\n| 6 | you can trust this Government? Let's just see, let's |\n| 7 | just parse through what Ms. Murray just said. She said |\n| 8 | that she found photographs of cards, some of those |\n| 9 | showed that the card is not yet expired. How do we go |\n| 10 | from there to, oh, and there's an account that goes with |\n| 11 | it? What evidence does she have? None. None |\n| 12 | whatsoever. |\n| 13 | What she knows - by the way, Your Honor, I have |\n| 14 | never, the words Great Britain never left my mouth. |\n| 15 | Okay? That means that they knew that she was about to |\n| 16 | travel. Why didn't they arrest her? If they thought |\n| 17 | that she was going to get out of Dodge and they were |\n| 18 | concerned that she was a flight risk, well, when they |\n| 19 | found out that she applied, well, arrest her. What, |\n| 20 | they didn't have a border watching her? Really? |\n| 21 | Because the Department of Justice has changed that much |\n| 22 | since I was there? I don't think so. |\n| 23 | So now let's get to her employment. Once |\n| 24 | again, what was the question that was asked? Are you |\n| 25 | currently employed? No. No. If the question were |\n\nwhatever it that they were, a document hiding in between\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 69 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | companies? When? To whom? And I had a specific |\n| 3 | conversation with the Government when they say, well, |\n| 4 | Ms. Murray says, she says that, broadly speaking, the |\n| 5 | question could be that broadly construed or narrowly |\n| 6 | construed. Well, first of all, nobody's taken my |\n| 7 | client's Fifth Amendment (indiscernible), not that I |\n| 8 | have heard, and when she was asked the question, she |\n| 9 | gave an answer, the answer was truthful. If they wanted |\n| 10 | to know more, they should've asked. And I specifically |\n| 11 | had a conversation with the Government, and I said |\n| 12 | excluding anything that she may have control over by |\n| 13 | virtue of corporate ownership or whatever, these are the |\n| 14 | accounts. |\n| 15 | She's not a flight risk, Your Honor. There's a |\n\n question that I keep asking myself is this. Why? Why is the Government misrepresenting evidence? Why is the Government stretching stuff, stretching stuff? Even if they believe that, you know, there's more to this. Even – I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm reminded that on her employment question, we actually invoked, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right. Okay? Thank you. Even – I lost my train of thought. I apologize. I think I was responding to this idea that\n\nshe controls stuff. There's no – we never hid that.\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
70 |\n| 2 | The only question is is she a flight risk? What is it |\n| 3 | about her that makes you think that she's not going to |\n| 4 | show up? She will show up, Your Honor. She's got |\n| 5 | nowhere to go. Nowhere. And the Government keeps - |\n| 6 | this is where I was, thank you. |\n| 7 | Why are they stretching it? Why? What is the |\n| 8 | reason? I mean, really, does she look dangerous? What |\n| 9 | is it -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT: They're not moving on |\n| 11 | dangerousness. |\n| 12 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry, no -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT: They're not moving on danger. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: There is a reason why they're |\n| 15 | doing it. They want her to cook. They want her to get |\n| 16 | a flavor of the MDC because she was the chief of staff, |\n| 17 | Your Honor, and that is not okay. That is immoral. And |\n| 18 | when the Government obtains that result by, among other |\n| 19 | things, misrepresenting, saying that she's a flight risk |\n| 20 | on the basis of things that they cannot support, that |\n| 21 | contradict the evidence that's collected, that is - is |\n| 22 | anybody other than me think that it's a little bit |\n| 23 | peculiar or ironic that the Government is alleging that |\n| 24 | she violated certain antifraud provisions that make it |\n| 25 | unlawful to make a statement that in light of all |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 71 |\n| 2 | circumstances is materially misleading and yet this is |\n| 3 | what the Government is doing? Why? |\n| 4 | Your Honor, this woman needs to be released. |\n| 5 | She's not a flight risk. She's not going anywhere. |\n| 6 | She's going to have an ankle bracelet, she'll have GPS |\n| 7 | monitoring. We can have all of her money tied up so |\n| 8 | that she can't breathe without Pretrial or somebody |\n| 9 | giving her approval. |\n| 10 | And one last thing, if she's not released, her |\n| 11 | defense is going to be severely prejudiced. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: It's true for anybody who doesn't |\n| 13 | get released. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Except, except when that person |\n| 15 | also has Mandarin as her first language, when the |\n| 16 | Government asks for a disk to put 2 terabytes of data on |\n| 17 | it. This is not a case that's going to be resolved |\n| 18 | quickly, and it is a case in which it's going to be very |\n| 19 | important to have your client's assistance. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Ms. Murray, do |\n| 21 | you want to have the last word here? |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor, briefly. I want |\n| 23 | to start by saying there is nothing that the Government |\n| 24 | has misrepresented to the Court. The Government has not |\n| 25 | reached on facts. The Government has provided evidence |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 72 |\n| 2 | substantiated information that it has presented to this |\n| 3 | Court and to the defense. With respect to the credit |\n| 4 | cards Mr. Lipman mentioned, it's not a photo of the |\n| 5 | cards. It's a photo of the cards that we have before |\n| 6 | the Court and the defense today. They were the physical |\n| 7 | cards. But we resent the claim that we are in any way |\n| 8 | acting other than -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT: I know -- |\n| 10 | MS. MURRAY: --fully forthcoming and in good |\n| 11 | faith. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: -- I have no doubt you're operating |\n| 13 | in good faith. But he did point out some things that |\n| 14 | were discrepancies it seemed between what was |\n| 15 | represented in terms of where certain pieces of evidence |\n| 16 | were found in her apartment versus what was inventoried |\n| 17 | and how it was inventoried. Can you speak to that? |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: Sure, Your Honor. There aren't |\n| 19 | discrepancies. What Mr. Lipman has done is he's pointed |\n| 20 | to an evidence log that has a column where there are |\n| 21 | certain notations made when the FBI is collecting |\n| 22 | evidence that indicates where the item was recovered. |\n| 23 | Typically, it indicates the room by letter based on the |\n| 24 | map that Mr. Lipman provided to the Court and a brief |\n| 25 | description. It does not indicate in a detailed |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 73 narrative where each and every item that is taken as evidence was recovered from, what condition it was in, how it was found.\n\n So with respect the laptop between clothes, that is consistent with the Government's representations to Judge Parker at the initial presentment that the laptop was found between sweaters in the closet. It doesn't say specifically what items of clothing --\n\nTHE COURT: No.\n\n MS. MURRAY: -- or where, but it's consistent. With respect to the iPhones that the Government had indicated had been in boxes, yes, in a bag in the closet, and you can see those are the items that Mr. Lipman pointed Your Honor to in the 50's on the evidence log. And you'll note that nearly each of them has the same PIN code or passcode. So those are items that at first the FBI thought might not have any content, and then the FBI had technicians on site during the search warrant, they plugged them in, and they determined they had content. There are no misrepresentations.\n\n Mr. Lipman is now, again, Your Honor, essentially trying to hold a trial on the merits of the Government's case here at a point of a detention hearing by, first of all, requesting information from the\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 74 |\n| 2 | Government which we happily provided and would have so |\n| 3 | provided in the course of discovery in this case as |\n| 4 | well, and then trying to hold it against the Government |\n| 5 | by claiming that because there isn't a photo of each |\n| 6 | stage of every step of the process that evidence was |\n| 7 | collected, then the Government can't be trusted. It is |\n| 8 | simply not true, and it's disrespectful, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | With respect to a couple of other points, I |\n| 10 | would just like to note the defendant lied. She lied |\n| 11 | about the cash in her apartment. I have now heard the |\n| 12 | defense during the course of this argument split hairs |\n| 13 | on several topics, and that is another example of what |\n| 14 | gives the Government pause. |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Well, how do we know - it is |\n| 16 | important what was asked. Do you have any money on you? |\n| 17 | Do you have any money in your apartment? There's a |\n| 18 | difference. |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 75 |\n| 2 | Government is not part of Pretrial Services interview |\n| 3 | with the defendant. She was assisted by a Mandarin |\n| 4 | speaking interpreter during that interview. The |\n| 5 | Government is also aware from its investigation that Ms. |\n| 6 | Wang is quite fluent in English. We know that from |\n| 7 | various different pieces of evidence we've collected, |\n| 8 | including statements that she's made and her voice |\n| 9 | during conversations. She doesn't appear to have an |\n| 10 | issue understanding. |\n| 11 | But with respect to the questions that were |\n| 12 | asked, again, I don't know, I was not there. The |\n| 13 | defendant is very much so splitting hairs on several |\n| 14 | topics. I will note that the Pretrial Services report |\n| 15 | indicates that the defendant was asked about assets, |\n| 16 | assets, not specific accounts that she is the sole |\n| 17 | signatory on, not specific accounts that are active that |\n| 18 | she has control over and log-in information to. We're |\n| 19 | not splitting hairs. Pretrial Services asked about |\n| 20 | assets, and she did not disclose \\$138,000 worth of cash |\n| 21 | that was sitting in a safe in her apartment. |\n| 22 | With respect to her employment, the defense |\n| 23 | just indicated that she had invoked – the Pretrial |\n| 24 | Services report with respect to employment history |\n| 25 | indicates that the defendant advised she has been |\n\n MS. MURRAY: I understand, Your Honor, and the Government obviously is not privy --\n\n THE COURT: And particularly for someone of a different language and culture, it might be all the more important that there's nuance to what's asked. I don't know what was asked.\n\nMS. MURRAY: Sure, and nor do we because the\n\n unemployed since September 2022. Now, with respect to the source of additional money that she has since then or that she is living on, the defendant declined to answer, and that is her right. But she did provide this statement in response to Pretrial Services report, she's been unemployed since September of 2022.\n\n Now, Mr. Lipman says that the defendant has been volunteering in various organizations that she previously might have worked in a more formal employment capacity. I just want to go back briefly to the personal gain point that Your Honor has asked about. Yes, I understand \\$1.1 million might not be an expensive apartment in Manhattan, but it's a \\$1.1 million apartment purchased in cash. The defendant has nearly another million dollars in her accounts. The defendant was up until her purported decision to terminate her employment and start volunteering was earning a salary of approximately \\$250,000 from the Kwok entities that she worked for formally, in a formal capacity. That is personal gain in the Government's view.\n\n It is also inconsistent with now the claims that September 2022, right when the Government started seizing funds, the defendant stopped working in a formal capacity. She can't be held responsible for any of\n\n1 PROCEEDING 76\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 77 |\n| 2 | these bank accounts that she's signing off on payroll |\n| 3 | for, that she has access to the funds for. |\n| 4 | Your Honor, at bottom the defendant is a risk |\n| 5 | of flight. There are no conditions that can reasonably |\n| 6 | assure her appearance. She has lied. The Government |\n| 7 | has not misrepresented itself to the Court. And we have |\n| 8 | no comfort that we can believe that she will make |\n| 9 | accurate representations to the Court, that we will have |\n| 10 | the ability to monitor her in any meaningful way that |\n| 11 | would assure her appearance at future court proceedings. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lipman, I see you, |\n| 13 | do you want to respond? Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, answering the question |\n| 15 | that's posed truthfully is a complete answer. It's not |\n| 16 | splitting hairs -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Look, the bottom line is we don't |\n| 18 | know really what was asked and how it was asked -- |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, we were there. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Fine, but I'm saying we don't have |\n| 21 | a record -- |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, there is no |\n| 23 | record, and there is no proof of these things that the |\n| 24 | Government says -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT: I -- |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
78 |\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
which
is
what
-- |\n| 3 | (interposing) |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I
didn't
say
which
way
it
cuts. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN:
No,
but,
Your Honor,
they
said
we |\n| 6 | found
a
credit
card.
Well,
that
means
she
didn't |\n| 7 | disclose
an
account.
No,
you
found
a
credit
card. |\n| 8 | Okay?
We
found
a
statement
that
said
that
whatever, |\n| 9 | that
she
was
allocated
some
coin.
Yes,
that's
what
you |\n| 10 | found,
that's
what
you
have.
You
don't
have
anything |\n| 11 | else.
So
to
tell
me
that
she
needs
to
be
detained
and |\n| 12 | she
cannot
be
trusted
because
they
found
something
that |\n| 13 | they
don't
fully
understand,
I'm
sorry,
but
that's
a |\n| 14 | bridge
too
far. |\n| 15 | And,
yeah,
a
bunch
of
her
accounts,
by the way, |\n| 16 | as
the
Government
knows,
were
closed,
and the |\n| 17 | Government's
investigation
kind
of
followed
that.
So |\n| 18 | like
the
Citi
accounts,
for example,
were
closed.
Other |\n| 19 | accounts
at
other
banks
were
closed
recently,
they
were |\n| 20 | closed.
And
the
other
thing,
Your Honor,
when
they
say |\n| 21 | she
controls
this
or
she
controls
that
or
whatever, |\n| 22 | okay,
she
worked
somewhere,
she
no
longer
works
there, |\n| 23 | she
doesn't
draw
a
salary.
What
she
does
with
her
time |\n| 24 | is
her
business.
It's
not
cutting
–
it's
not
lying
to |\n| 25 | anybody,
it's
not
any
of
that.
Okay? |\n\nPROCEEDING\n\n1 PROCEEDING 79 And the Government essentially conceded – no, not essentially. The Government conceded the key point that this was not, her participating, according to their indictment, was not for the benefit for her personal monetary gain. It was for some other reason. And the apartment was bought before any of the allegations with other money. She did make money, but she didn't spend it. I already described to the Court how she lived. And so the key question is why does she do this and, if she did it, did she do it to benefit herself, and if not, then is that sufficient reason to think that she's now going to hurt these people because she did not put any money that came out of their pockets and put it into hers. There's no reason to believe that having not done that, being around all this money and not putting any of it in your pocket. For all of these years she didn't do that. So what is going to make her do it now? And the answer is that this is a revolutionary movement, okay, these people are her brothers and sisters. They together want to see the CCP overthrown. And so she's not going to put them in financial jeopardy that she dedicated her life, her life to this cause.\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\n# 1 PROCEEDING 80\n\n MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, just a final point. I want to be clear the Government made no concession on that point in any stretch, and a key question is whether she poses a risk of flight, that is the question.\n\n THE COURT: All right, look, one thing that I've been asked to do is to determine if the, or at least order that some of the financial suretors that have been offered are sufficient to meet the requirements and conditions that were issued by Judge Parker, and the defense has indicated here they have three for which they believe that there's sufficient property that can be offered as security along with the enhanced package, if you will, of funds that were offered on behalf of the defendant.\n\n I don't have it in front of me information about those three FRP's in terms of the property that's being offered. That is part of what I need to consider. I realize I am also being asked by the Government for detention anew in light of new material. But it's incumbent upon me to review whatever material the defendant is going to provide to substantiate it's offered financial suretors.\n\n So I want a package of whatever it is that you must or that you think is enough. If there is\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 81 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | documentation you haven't provided the Government |\n| 3 | already on others that you can provide, including the |\n| 4 | so-called eighth or others, provide it. And part of |\n| 5 | what I'm going to do is assess that material. It |\n| 6 | doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to find obviously |\n| 7 | that that is sufficient and that the conditions have |\n| 8 | been met, but it is one of the things I am going to |\n| 9 | consider in addition to considering whether a different |\n| 10 | set of conditions should be imposed or whether the |\n| 11 | defendant should be detained. |\n| 12 | So she's going to continue to be detained |\n| 13 | pursuant to Judge Parker's order of all conditions being |\n| 14 | satisfied before she's released pending the submission |\n| 15 | of this additional information and my review of it which |\n| 16 | I will try to do as quickly as possible. |\n| 17 | Let me ask Mr. Lipman, when can you get that |\n| 18 | material to me and the Government? |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, I will start working |\n| 20 | on it as soon as I leave this courtroom. I would ask |\n| 21 | for 24 hours. |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Well, sure. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: Oh yes, yes. Yes. That's a good |\n| 24 | point. Your Honor has a lot of personal information, |\n| 25 | rather than redacting it and filing it in various ways - |\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 85 | |\n| 2 | is our position that if there's sufficient proof that | |\n| 3 | the person proposing to cosign actually owns this real | |\n| 4 | estate and the real estate has the value that they say | |\n| 5 | it does, that's really all that the Government needs. | |\n| 6 | In other words, right, because whether they make money | |\n| 7 | or not -- | |\n| 8 | THE COURT: I don't know what the Government | |\n| 9 | needs, but you need to assure the Court -- | |\n| 10 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry? | |\n| 11 | THE COURT: You need to assure the Court at the | |\n| 12 | very least. I don't know exactly what that is you will | |\n| 13 | give to me. Certainly, it'll be important to know who | |\n| 14 | is the owner, whether there are any other ownership | |\n| 15 | interests, what are the liens, what are the mortgages, | |\n| 16 | etc. So I think you have an idea. | |\n| 17 | It's not going to necessarily take away from | |\n| 18 | whether someone is an alleged victim or has one of the | |\n| 19 | other faults, but at least I want a more complete | |\n| 20 | picture, and it's part of my obligation to make that | |\n| 21 | assessment. And I don't want to make a sweeping | |\n| 22 | statement at the moment that just because anyone is an | |\n| 23 | alleged victim and is not a family tie in some way, that | |\n| 24 | necessarily makes them inadequate. But that's why I | |\n| 25 | need to see it individually. | |\n\n| | PROCEEDING | 86 |\n| MR. LIPMAN: Okay. | | |\n| MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, with respect to the | | |\n| response date, assuming that the defense submits | | |\n| something on Thursday, that would make the Government's | | |\n| response due on Easter Sunday. We would respectfully | | |\n| ask -- | | |\n| THE COURT: Monday. | | |\n| MS. MURRAY: -- that we get until Monday. | | |\n| Thank you. | | |\n| THE COURT: Yes, of course. Okay, all right, | | |\n| we are adjourned. Thank you. | | |\n| MS. MURRAY: Thank you. | | |\n| MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. | | |\n| (Whereupon the matter is adjourned.) | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 87 |\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
5,
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案由：\n案号：Docket #23cr118/ 23m2007\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n原告，\n- 诉 -\nWANG, YANPING（王雁平），\n被告。\n2023年4月4日 纽约州纽约市\n\n保释听证会庭审程序\n审理法官：HONORABLE ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE（美国联邦助理法官罗伯特·W·勒伯格阁下）\n出庭人员：\n代表原告：\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE（美国联邦检察官办公室）\n代理人：\nJULIANA MURRAY, ESQ.（朱莉安娜·默里律师）\nRYAN FINKEL, ESQ.（瑞安·芬克尔律师）\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n代表被告：\nLIPMAN LAW PLLC（利普曼律师事务所）\n代理人：\nALEX LIPMAN, ESQ.（亚历克斯·利普曼律师）\n45 West 29th Street, Suite 303\nNew York, New York 10001\nCHAUDHRY LAW PLLC（乔杜里律师事务所）\n代理人：\nPRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ.（普里亚·乔杜里律师）\n147 West 25th Street\nNew York, New York 10001\n法庭翻译在场\n速记转录服务：\nCarole 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庭审程序通过电子录音记录；录音文本由速记转录服务出具。\n\n目录\n证人询问\n证人 直接询问 交叉询问 重新直接询问 重新交叉询问 法庭询问\n无\n物证\n物证编号 说明 标本 采纳 预先审查\n无\n\n庭审记录第4页\n关于财务担保人，政府称其不足以履行Parker（帕克）法官所设定的保释条件下的义务，即须有两名具有财务责任能力的人能够在保释保证书上签字。这实质上是被告方的申请，因为是他们提出了这一疑虑，因此我先听取辩方律师的陈述。不过，你们也请告诉我，过去一周内是否有任何产生影响的新进展，以及在Torres（托雷斯）法官面前发生的任何事情是否会影响到这里的处理。\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，简短说一句，我只是想确认一下本程序正在录音，因为我没有看到法庭速记员。谨此记录在案。\n\n法庭：正在进行电子录音。\n\n默里女士：谢谢您。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，我可以开始了吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请讲。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，在我们看来，从一开始，政府就从未以优势证据实际证明被告存在潜逃风险。我想说明的是——我们实际上同意了\n\n庭审记录第5页\n保释条件，但我们同意这些保释条件是基于我们与政府进行的交谈，在交谈中政府就王女士公寓内发现的物品作出了某些陈述。当时我们被告知了这些情况，我们没有太多时间与我们的委托人讨论，但我们当时想，好吧，这看起来是合理的，随后我们同意我们将提出保释保证书的两名共同签署人名单，坦率地说，当时并不认为这会成为一个问题。\n\n随后，政府在记录中作出了某些陈述，而随着我们在让他们批准我们提议的人选方面开始遇到困难，我们在某一时刻要求他们就其声称我们委托人存在潜逃风险的部分理由提供依据支持。于是他们最终向我们提供了这些依据，而我们发现的情况基本上属于以下三种之一。要么是政府作出了半真半假的陈述，以至于我们需要去核实细节并意识到他们所说的并不属实。要么是他们作出的陈述与他们在王女士公寓中搜集的证据相矛盾，要么是他们作出的陈述纯属臆测。这些陈述实际上没有任何证据支持。因此，让我\n\n庭审记录第6页\n倒回去从头说起。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n利普曼先生：王女士及其同案被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生在很长一段时间内都知道政府在调查他们，以至于在去年9月，根据起诉书，在去年的9月和10月，政府扣押了一大批资产，根据起诉书，金额大约在7亿美元左右，政府扣押了这些资产。这是一次民事扣押，但正如所具体说明的那样（听不清）。对吧？所以扣押了7亿美元，我不敢向法庭断言我的委托人完全理解了被扣押资产的全部规模，但她显然知道司法部扣押了一大笔钱，对吧。\n\n随后，SEC（美国证券交易委员会）对GTV案件达成了和解，该案是与她相关的案件，GTV退还了大约我想说是5亿美元的款项，顺便说一句，他们并不是在和解命令下达之后才支付的——他们是先付了钱，然后SEC才出具了和解裁定。所以这与政府所说的发生顺序正好相反。对吧？所以她知情，她知道政府在调查她，并且她可能面临严重的法律危机。\n\n庭审记录第7页\n尽管如此，她并未离开任何地方，但还不止于此。政府称她持有一本护照，一本她本可以用于出行的中国护照，对吧，并且她是庇护申请人，而正因为她是庇护申请人，他们说这是考量她在美缺乏联系的因素之一，不知怎么地这就成了对她不利的因素。\n\n然而，正因为她是庇护申请人且不想失去其庇护申请，她确实想要出行，于是她向美国政府申请了准假出行许可，以便在她出行时其庇护申请不会被拒绝。于是政府——事情就是这样发生的，她获得了在去年12月至1月期间出行的许可，也就是2022年12月至我想说是1月27日，具体日期我可能记不准，但大致是从12月中旬到1月的第三周——\n\n法庭：你提到的扣押资金是在什么时候？\n\n利普曼先生：根据起诉书是在9月和10月。我认为是9月18日和10月，好像是24日还是26日。\n\n因此，尽管这一切都在发生，她依然向政府通报了她将要出行的计划。\n\n庭审记录第8页\n她在那个窗口期内并没有出行。该许可过期了。它过期所依据的原因与任何其他事情无关，完全是因为她当时有一项具体的出行计划，但由于后勤安排未能成行。随后她又提交了另一份申请，根据她的移民律师的说法，我相信那是在2023年2月8日。也就是在她被捕前一个月。\n\n因此，鉴于所有这一切，认为她存在潜逃风险的想法是有些牵强的，但这背后是有原因的，原因就在于此。王女士在不同的时代会被称为革命者。她置自身、家人以及她所做的一切于险境，因为她反对中国共产党，不论起诉书中怎么说，毫无争议的是，她确实将自己置于了危险之中。她的儿子在中国，她的丈夫，那个男人，她唯一交往过的男友，他们都不被允许与她进行任何沟通——\n\n法庭：对，但我对政府立场的理解是，我不知道他们是改变了主张还是自始至终都在坚持这一点，但他们的关切在于潜逃至其他司法管辖区，无论是据称同谋Je（余建明）先生所在的United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）\n\n庭审记录第9页\n还是她持有一本已过期的护照申请的Vanuatu（瓦努阿图），抑或其他地方。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，请允许我先说明瓦努阿图的情况，因为这最容易解释。好吗？连同那本已过期的护照，他们还在她的公寓里发现了两份分别属于她和郭先生的文件，声明她正在放弃瓦努阿图国籍。所以这不成问题。另一件事是，如果我没记错的话，我相信她是在2016年取得的瓦努阿图护照，那是在她来到美国之前。自那以后，中国与瓦努阿图建立了良好关系，现在的局势已经不同了，我认为她去那里并不安全。\n\n关于前往United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国），根据我们今天上午在Kwok先生（郭文贵）的听证会上从政府方听到的情况，阿拉伯联合酋长国不会将其公民引渡至美国。该国确实与中国签有引渡条约。她不是阿拉伯联合酋长国的公民，也没人说她是。她不是，她也没有那里的护照。她唯一持有的、且仍在有效期内的护照，政府方目前持有该护照。他们是在她的公寓里找到的。所以不，她无法前往其他地方。现在我们来谈谈她是否——\n\n法庭：等等，等等，等等，就阿联酋的引渡问题，我想在此打断你一下。我刚才听到你说的是，他们对于阿联酋公民没有引渡协议，然后我好像又听到你说他们与中国签有引渡条约，而她当然不会回中国去，并且这也不是在中国进行的诉讼程序。那么，就引渡第三方国家的公民（姑且这么说）并引渡至美国而言，他们的现状是怎样的？我相信政府方能告诉我，但我很想知道你是否有所了解。\n\nLIPMAN先生：据我所知，该国与美国之间没有引渡条约，但这其实是一个无关紧要的问题，因为首先，她根本去不了那里。明白吗？其次，她担心的并不是被引渡到美国；她担心的是被引渡到中国——\n\n法庭：我理解。\n\nLIPMAN先生：——到了那里她会被逮捕并枪决。我的意思是这有本质区别。您知道，即便MDC（大都会拘留中心）再糟糕，它也绝不是中国的监狱。\n\n法庭：但你的意思是，如果她出现在阿联酋，她就会被自动驱逐出境或引渡到中国吗？\n\nLIPMAN先生：嗯，我不知道会不会是自动的，但她肯定面临发生那种情况的极大危险。这绝对是真的。而且，您看，在我们今天上午早些时候进行的听证会上，政府方实际上……当时讨论了中国政府为了把Kwok先生弄回中国所采取的一切努力，包括贿赂美国官员。目前正在进行一起案件，据我所知目前在华盛顿特区正在进行一场刑事审判，其中涉及多名被中国贿赂的政府官员，目的是促成将Kwok先生从美国驱逐出境至中国。\n\n嗯，政府方……据政府方称，这名女子是Kwok先生的幕僚长，不管那意味着什么。好吧，我认为他们不会严肃地争议她处于危险之中这一事实。所以——\n\n法庭：抱歉，你说她处于什么？\n\nLIPMAN先生：处于危险之中。\n\n法庭：处于危险之中。\n\nLIPMAN先生：意思是，我认为他们不会严肃地争议如果她去了中国、进入中国，或者中国想要抓住她。\n\n法庭：对。\n\nLIPMAN先生：对此不可能存在严肃的争议。那么现在让我们来谈谈如果她留在美国会发生什么。基本原因——基本原因在于，据政府方称，她是Kwok先生的幕僚长。她的辨识度非常高。对吧？她在身处此地的群体中是非常容易被认出来的。这是在美国成千上万人的群体。于是政府方说，噢，他们会把她藏起来。嗯，首先，请原谅我直言，但这根本就是不当的推论。认为在美国本土上的成千上万人会窝藏一名逃犯，难道就因为他们是中国人，就因为他们讲普通话——\n\n法庭：不，是因为他们、因为他们有可能都是这起欺诈案的受害者。\n\nLIPMAN先生：除了一点：如果他们是欺诈案的受害者，他们清楚正在发生什么，他们是成年人，因此如果她是一名逃犯，他们随时都可能被说服，认为实际上应该把她移交给美国政府。\n\n但还不止于此，更进一步的是：如果中国——据我从报纸上读到的内容，我们知道中国共产党在他们驻纽约的美国领事馆里派驻了来自其警方的中共官员。难道我们哪怕有一秒钟会认为他们没有在监视她吗？难道会认为如果她出现在任何以普通话为主要语言的社区里，她不会被认出来吗？难道有任何人会设想中国共产党哪怕有一秒钟不会找到她、确认她的身份并准确地告诉政府她在哪里吗？\n\n现在我们来看另一种假设。让我们假设一下，她决定把自己藏在——我不知道——犹他州的白人当中。她讲英语带着浓重的口音，而她的第一语言是普通话。难道她不会像鹤立鸡群一样格外显眼吗？认为这个女人能够藏匿起来的想法是极其荒谬的。这太荒谬了。还有认为她可以依靠别人在美国把她藏起来的想法也是如此。那么我们的结论是什么？她既无法离开，也无法藏匿。这根本不构成潜逃风险。\n\n但还不止于此。更进一步的是：政府方声称——这也是为什么我们实际上认为他们提议的保释方案是可以接受的原因——他们声称我们在她的公寓里发现了表明她具有潜逃风险的物品。是什么呢？我们发现了12部……它们是在厨房的台面上被发现的，其中有3部。它们插着充电，就在显眼的地方。桌子旁边还有一部电话——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN先生：在第9页的……\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN先生：您看到上面写着……的地方了吗？\n\n法庭：看到了。\n\nLIPMAN先生：——白色手机，57号，白色手机——\n\n法庭：看到了。\n\nLIPMAN先生：——58号，白色手机——\n\n法庭：在壁橱的包里。\n\nLIPMAN先生：在壁橱的包里。并不是装在盒子里假装是全新的。它是在壁橱的包里。我有一张壁橱的照片。我很乐意向法庭出示装它的那个包。事实上，在那张照片里确实有一个iPhone（苹果手机）的白盒子。一个盒子。而根据这份记录，这些手机没有一部是来自那个包、那个盒子的。但就算有一部是，那也只有一部。\n\n现在，在这一页上您也可以看到，法官阁下，在写着MacBook（苹果笔记本电脑）编号……夹在衣服之间的地方？\n\n法庭：嗯哼。\n\nLIPMAN先生：好的，所以他们说的其中一件事是，噢，看哪，她把东西藏在衣服之间、藏在她的壁橱里。她把一台笔记本电脑藏在了她的衣服之间。那么关于这一点有几件事要说明。第一，正如政府方心知肚明的，Wang女士（王雁平）对FBI（联邦调查局）搜查某人时的情形并不陌生。他们之前搜查过Kwok先生。她知道发生那种情况时会怎样。明白吗？所以，认为她会把、认为她会把一台笔记本电脑藏在她的毛衣之间的想法是荒谬的。\n\n但法官阁下，现在还有更多情况。这是——如果允许我呈上的话——这是哪一份？\n\n律师：第46号。\n\nLIPMAN先生：法官阁下，请求走到法官席前。\n\n法庭：可以，只是，我想确认一件事。我们现在看的是在Parker法官（帕克法官）面前举行听证会之前无法获得的证据和材料吗？\n\nLIPMAN先生：这是我们在那之前无法获得的——我们拿到了这个——事情是这样的。我们向他们询问了其中一些关于手机的问题，对吧，我们问了那些问题，我想是在29号。您有我们的信函吗？但实质上，法官阁下，我们是在见您前一天晚上才拿到这些的。\n\n法庭：好的，所以那是在Parker法官作出裁定很久之后了。\n\nLIPMAN先生：法官阁下，请求走到法官席前。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLIPMAN先生：法官阁下，这是FBI对Wang女士所住公寓绘制的示意图。顺便提一句，面积是740平方英尺。这是一个据称诈骗了他人高达大约10亿美元的女人。总之，法官阁下，在这一页上，我提请法庭注意公寓里有什么以及没有什么。卧室里有一张床，还有一张床头柜。客厅里有一张沙发，沙发前面有件东西，实际上是一个（听不清）。这间公寓里再没有别的东西了。没有衣柜，没有抽屉柜，没有书桌，什么都没有。那么她把东西放在哪里呢？放在壁橱里。她所有的东西都在壁橱里。她的旧手机都在壁橱里。对吧？当你没有任何家具时，把东西放在壁橱里没有任何不正当之处。接着，接着他们说，好吧，我们在她的公寓里发现了钱。我们发现了钱，我们发现了$138,000。Murray女士说都是新钞，她认为是新钞。好的。于是我们想，好吧，能不能——\n\n……我们看钱的照片了吗？我们为什么要看钱的照片？因为我们有理由认为其中很多钱都是装在红包里的，显然在中华文化中，逢年过节像中国农历新年给别人送钱作为礼物是很常见的，而且他们确实找到了红包。因此我想看看钱在哪里、长什么样，以及有多旧。对吧？\n\n所以我索要了照片。说实话，这其实也就是最初引发这场谈话的原因。（听不清）钱。可以吗？\n\n那么我们发现了什么？（暂停）法官阁下（Your Honor），我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请上前。\n\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n\nLIPMAN 律师：法官阁下，这就是找到那些钱的袋子。现在，政府方在给您的一封信中，法官阁下，在他们最新的一封信中，他们说是为了便于取用而特意装在袋子里。真的吗？好，我们来看看。这是一个银行袋。这是从银行取钱时用来装钱的袋子。我们在这里还能看到什么？我们看到其中有一堆是装在红包里的。现在这里面还有其他现金，事实上，还有另一张照片。\n\n法庭：听着，你不需要在现金上讲这么多细节。而且，你知道，我同意你的看法，我不认为仅仅因为钱装在袋子里就特别具有说服力，能说明某人必然因为钱装在袋子里就会逃跑。它只是被整理好而已。但是有件事也许你可以告诉我，我知道这把时间往前推了一点，但我原本以为在他们的书面意见中，在他们导致本案延期审理的最后一份书面意见中，他们曾指出并陈述说 Wang 女士没有向审前服务处（Pretrial Services）披露这 $138,000，但我之前的印象是这笔钱在几周前就已经被扣押了。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：不，它是在她被捕当天被扣押的，好的，而她被问到的问题，相关的问题是你在被捕时身上有任何现金吗。她是在早上 6:15 被捕的，当时她还穿着睡衣。对那个问题的真实回答是没有。我们核对过笔录，我们没看到有任何其他能引出不同回答的问题。那么她是自愿披露的吗？不是。我不知道当时是否有人问过她关于这笔钱的事。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：对吧？\n\n法庭：我明白了。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：但是，法官阁下，即使当时有人问过她，当时有十几名 FBI（联邦调查局）特工在她的公寓里翻箱倒柜。好吧，我的意思是她当时，她的压力简直大到了极点。她坐在那里说话，身处一个她从未经历过的境地，被问到这些问题。难道很离谱吗，你知道，问题是你有，你身上有现金吗，而她说——你在被捕时身上有现金吗，回答是没有，而且她没有说别的？我是说这真的说不过去吗？\n\n好的。现在，顺便说一句，在此之前——因为他们会为您呈上另一张照片，法官阁下，我不想被指责没有向您展示全貌。而全貌就是，当他们拍摄另一张钱的照片时——我很抱歉，法官阁下。我太激动了，把另一张钱的照片弄丢了。在这里。我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n\nLIPMAN 律师：就是这张照片，它看起来似乎表明这笔钱中较多部分是较近期的，因为您可以看到有些旧钞，有些新钞。然而，话虽如此，正如我告诉政府方的那样，关于为什么其中一部分钱是近期的，有一个合理解释。对吧？而这个解释——我也把这个告诉了政府方——就是她有一些英镑，是她在以往旅行的某个时候自己带过来的，而那些英镑，你知道，无论它们是怎么到她手里的，但那些英镑需要被兑换，因为显然女王去世后，他们要把货币换成看起来有、印有国王画像的货币。好的，所以随着时间的推移，她兑换了那些钱，所以里面肯定有大约 $30,000、$40,000 是近期的，是与此有关的。\n\n我昨天要求查看那些钞票，但当时对我来说去查看已经太晚了，他们说你可以过来看。我会在某个时候去看的。但我的观点是，法官阁下，认为这是为了逃跑而藏匿的资金的说法，不，不，这根本说不通。\n\n法庭：不，但这确实表明她可以使用巨额资金，即使那一特定资金并不是她打算使用的。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：我们来谈谈这一点。好的？政府方说她没有披露由她控制的所有银行账户。我曾与政府方进行过一次具体的谈话，在谈话中我说，如果您们问的是她实际可以进行交易的账户，意思是没有第三方，对吧，换句话说，像我个人的银行账户，我可以去办理业务。而我律所的银行账户，则不一定。好吧，在我个人的情况下是可以的，但是，你知道，如果你在一家律所工作，你也许可以指示某人去做某事，那是律所的业务，但你不能把钱拿走放进自己的口袋里。对吧？所以我对政府方说的是，我们知道有两个账户，对吧，是属于她的。我们还知道另一个企业账户，在那里她可以、她可以进行交易。我们向他们提供了该账户和账号。对吧？我们不知道有任何其他账户。这并不是，我们并没有向政府隐瞒她拥有 BBI 这个实体的事实。那不是——问题是——\n\n法庭：我理解，在列出的四项中，有三项是商业实体，其中两项甚至都不直接属于她。那么 Himalayan（喜马拉雅）加密货币是怎么回事？\n\nLIPMAN 律师：问得好。所以我一直试图查明喜马拉雅那件事到底是怎么回事，关于那件事有两点。第一，他们所指的文件——还记得我之前说过，有些事情是有证据的，有些事情是半真半假的，有些事情是相互矛盾的，还有些事情纯粹是凭空推断吗？对吧？\n\n那么他们看的是什么？他们看的是一份写着分配（allocation）的明细表，好的，分配。他们看的不是 H Coin（喜币）的账户。他们看的不是——他们看的是一份分配。我一直试图搞清楚那份分配究竟怎么样了。我能查到的最好结果是，她根本不知道发生了什么。我并不是说它没有发生变动。我说的是她根本不知情。对吧？\n\n法庭：但那是——\n\n（插话）\n\nLIPMAN 律师：但还有更多——\n\n法庭：那笔资产目前的价值，对吧，至少政府方说是在 $13,000,000 左右。我相信之前没有这么多，好吧，考虑到市场行情谁也说不准。但是你会认为某人——我姑且假定当时那是一笔数额巨大的网络加密货币，对她来说数额巨大，你会认为一个人会去掌握那笔巨额资金的动向。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：如果一个人认为那是属于自己的，那么这个人就会去掌握。但是，法官阁下，情况是这样的——政府扣押了数亿美元，包括从 Himalayan exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）扣押的资金。政府指控这全是一场欺诈。他们一边说这毫无价值，人们根本无法将其变现。SEC（美国证券交易委员会）在起诉书中表示，人们试图将其变现却做不到。好吧，它到底值不值钱？因为如果它值钱，那么也许它价值 $13,000,000，尽管我们不知道如何获取它。但如果它不值钱，如果他们的指控是正确的，那我不知道将其变现的机制是什么。对吧？\n\n因此，说了这么多，就是为了说明假定应当是对其予以释放，或者根据足以确保她的限制程度最低的条件予以释放——\n\n法庭：对，但我们是在重新辩论吗？我的意思是这又回到了问题本身，Parker 法官已经实施或命令了保释条件。问题的核心在于，她的保释条件之一未能履行，因为政府方所持的立场是，所有被提议承担财务责任的人都不能作为充分的保证人，原因要么是他们不具备道德说服力，要么是他们在财务上不负责任，要么他们是被指控欺诈的受害者或参与者。现在的问题是，好吧，如果他们一直不接受这些人该怎么办。所以我只是想谨慎对待……\n\n……所拍摄的照片。我当时在看能不能找到藏在垫子里的文件的照片或记录。那根本不存在。您知道还有什么不存在吗？他们在他们的——这是向法庭作出的陈述，他们说我们在她卧室的床垫之间发现了一部藏起来的手机。我想看这张照片。我想在已拍摄照片的记录清单上找到它。它在哪里？它根本不存在。或者至少根本没有提供给我们。\n\n现在，确实有一张那样的照片，是在搜查 Kwok 先生（郭先生）处时拍摄的，而且——谢谢。\n\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n\nLIPMAN 律师：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：那就是一张手机藏在床垫之间的照片。但那不是从她的公寓拍的。而我至今还没有看到从她公寓拍的那张。\n\n还有一件事，他们说她把东西放在她的、放在袋子里是为了便于取用，对吧，钱放在袋子里是为了便于取用。所有东西放在袋子里都是为了便于取用。您知道袋子里还有什么便于取用的东西吗？我想是她曾经拥有过的每一张信用卡。我的意思是，一堆旧的过期信用卡……\n\n卡片，容易检索。这说不通。\n法官阁下，现在请允许我转到此事的另一部分，即提议的共同签署人、政府拒绝批准任何人的问题，以及这究竟是怎么一回事。我想从一件我其实原本没打算提及的事情开始，因为这只是今天早上在法庭里才发生的。您看到这里的这些人，在场的许多人都是来支持她的。\n\n她在法庭上情绪激动并开始哭泣，因为她意识到所有这些人都是来这里支持她的，请允许我解释这意味着什么。政府可能不知道这一点，但政府披露某人是庇护申请人，这实际上肯定是违法的。有一项规章就是这么规定的。我以前不知道。我最近才发现。我相信他们不知道。我相信他们不是故意这样做的。\n\n但原因显而易见。对吧？如果你有一个来自某个国家的人，你把他们识别为正在其他地方寻求庇护的人，这会立刻让他们陷入危险。所有这些人仅仅通过来到这里——你以为现在这个房间里没有来自 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）的人在监视这一切吗？所有这些人仅仅通过出面并为她挺身而出，就已经暴露了他们自己、他们的家庭——\n\n法庭：我认为也许没有人质疑他们的意图。问题是……\n\nLIPMAN 先生：她是否在乎他们？\n\n法庭：——被告是否足够在乎这些人，以至于她会足够担心他们所承担的任何金钱风险，而不是选择潜逃；如果站在政府的角度来描绘这幅图景，政府会说指控她犯有欺诈罪，而且证据确凿。那么她为什么会在乎被她欺骗的人呢？\n\nLIPMAN 先生：讲得相当有道理，法官阁下，我正准备谈到这一点。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN 先生：思考道义约束力有不同的方式。对吧？我想我们都认同，哥哥可以为弟弟签署，而哥哥根本不会在乎。他们是亲戚，他们是兄弟，但他们不会在乎。同样真实的是，人们可以通过某种方式建立联系，他们可能是陌生人，但他们建立了联系，对吧，所以一个人可以对另一个人产生道义约束力，而实际上他们之间并没有那么多的互动。他们只是彼此关爱。对吧？\n\n但还有另一种情况，另一种情况是这样的：如果你是某一类社群的成员，并且你——并且这个社群对你很重要，那么这个社群的成员遭遇了什么，对你来说就很重要。现在，政府会说，天哪，十亿美元，这些人都是受害者。好吧，他们就在这里，他们并不认为自己是受害者，但那是另一回事了。好的？\n\n但问题在于，法官阁下，请看一下 indictment（起诉书）。Kwok 先生（郭先生）被指控给自己买了一辆兰博基尼。我也很想有一辆。对吧？但她有吗？没有。他显然住在一处豪宅里，还有其他豪宅、游艇等等诸如此类。起诉书里哪里有指控说这些钱有任何一笔流向了她？他们最接近的说法也就是所谓的代币分配。对吧？而我们根本不知道那笔分配后来怎么了。好的。\n\n所以你必须扪心自问的问题是，她为什么要这么做？她为什么要离开她的家庭、她的儿子、她的挚爱，对吧，然后移居到一个外国，在那里她基本上是将自己暴露为一名革命者，她为什么要这么做？好的。有一个答案，但说她试图通过此举谋取个人利益绝不是答案。因此，接下来的问题是，考虑到政府对她的指控——不是对她同案被告的指控，而是对她的指控，因为同案被告的情况虽有相关性，但真正重要的发生在她身上的事情——她是否会潜逃。\n\n而且还有一个问题，考虑到政府（Government）所作的指控，对吧，她是那种会让这些人中的任何一个背负 500 万美元债务的人吗？答案显然是否定的，她住在一个 740 平方英尺没有家具的公寓里，远离她无法再有任何联系的家人。简直令人难以置信的是，我们向他们提供了八个人，都是成年人，对吧，他们并不是对所有人都满意，这没关系。他们说我们针对某些人没有提供足够的文件。真的吗？有人愿意拿出一栋价值 30 亿美元的房子，你们还想要什么其他文件？我们如果不向他们证明那栋房子存在且属于提供该房产的人，我们就无法提供该房产作为担保。对吧？那个人是一个了解目前情况的成年人，并且认为她、认为那个人对她具有道德说服力，并且认为她不是——今天在这个房间里有三个人，也就是共同签署人。那么政府，请原谅我，法官阁下（Your Honor），但政府凭什么为这些人做出这些判断呢？\n\n法庭：嗯，这就是部分问题所在，我的意思是他们有权形成该判断，如果您不同意，这也是我们今天在此开庭的原因，但是他们，也就是政府需要确信，或者感到确信，所提供的财务担保足以合理保证被告不会逃跑，而且我认为在理论上存在一个合理的担忧，即如果您面对的是涉嫌正在被实施的欺诈行为的受害者，那么欺诈者或涉嫌的欺诈者在理论上可能不会像通常情况那样受到约束。\n\n利普曼律师（MR. LIPMAN）：法官阁下，不能一概而论。\n\n法庭：我同意。\n\n利普曼律师：人们确实需要看具体情况，而具体情况是政府并没有指控她偷钱。事情就是这么简单。他们指控的是另外两个人偷了钱。他们并没有——\n\n政府不能批准属于这两个群体之一的共同签署人，因为作为一个类别，他们（听不清），那么，法官阁下，您有权对此进行变更，而且事实上，正如法庭所熟知的，这里的条款之一是不能设定导致以下情况的财务条件——\n\n法庭：“司法官员不得施加导致对该人进行审前拘留的财务条件。” 18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(2)。然而政府似乎找到了相关判例，称在该法规的语境下，该条款并不起决定性作用，起决定性作用的在于这些条件是否能合理保证被告在未来的诉讼程序中出庭。甚至连您所依据的一个判例，U.S. v. Panaronda，也是这么说的，判决称最终的问题是法庭应当考量该特定财务条件是否是保释条件中合理保证被告出庭的必要组成部分。我的意思是这确实是我们必须决定的问题。\n\n利普曼律师：而且，法官阁下，那个案子，我可能会念错名字，所以我先致歉——\n\n法庭：Panaronda。\n\n利普曼律师：好的，那个案子中发生的情况是斯威特法官（Judge Sweet），我们会变更这些条件。我的意思是他说了，听着，这里有 250,000 美元的保释金，这个人要么永远无法满足，要么找不到任何有能力承担 250,000 美元的人。我打算将其降低到人们能够满足且仍能符合条件的水平。为了明确起见，我们提议，除了提供房产来担保保释金（这将绰绰有余，对吧，因为上面写着两处）之外，有三个人名下的房产总额超过 500 万美元。他们可以全部拿出来作为担保。他们准备这么做。但另外，据我所知，并且政府实际上也没有其他不同的了解，她个人目前只能动用属于她的两个账户，并且她的公寓具有价值，我们已经提供了那处房产作为担保。所以她的公寓，她的其中一个账户完全——\n\n法庭：存有 400,000 美元。\n\n利普曼律师：嗯，我不太确定具体数额。\n\n法庭：嗯，那是您之前提议的那个——\n\n利普曼律师：是的，是的。然后对第二个账户进行监控。我的意思是我们在换句话说——她——\n\n法庭：我明白了。\n\n利普曼律师：——将没有任何钱。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n利普曼律师：现在，政府说，好吧，支持者，这个那个的，他们可以——在每个案子里都是如此。法官阁下，我要坐下了，因为我已经说了很久了，感谢您的包容。但是，法官阁下，没有任何理由让这个女人在监狱里再待一晚。没有任何理由。她没有逃跑风险。她已经拿出了她的公寓。我们很乐意让在场的三位共同签署人今天就下去签署保释书。我们可以提供——事实上，我将对这两个账户承担个人责任。谢谢。我那位更有智慧的联席律师提醒我，这些人押上的不是 500 万美元。而是他们的生活以及他们家人的生活，因为他们提议为王女士（Ms. Wang）所做的一切。如果这还不能表明他们认为自己具有道德说服力——\n\n法庭：那不是，那不是，我不质疑他们在这方面的思考过程。我只是想确认一件事。就您在可能修改条件方面提出的建议而言，是您希望法庭批准您所提供的八个人中的两个人。您现在这里有三个人。除了公寓作为担保外，您还打算提供那个 400,000 美元的账户以及被扣押的 130,000 美元现金。您打算通过其他人提供额外的担保，您现在说我认为总额可以达到 500 万美元。我理解得对吗？\n\n利普曼律师：是的，我们可以。我的意思是我们有三个人愿意提供他们的房产作为担保，其中一栋房子我认为价值 300 万美元，另一栋如果我没记错的话是 170 万美元，但是的。\n\n法庭：然后您还提议由政府监控并批准从那个 500,000 美元的账户中支出的任何款项。\n\n利普曼律师：我更希望由审前服务机构（Pretrial）来做，而不是联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office），但是的。\n\n法庭：是的，重申一下，这里的主要担忧之一是——我正在找这句话是在哪里说的，即，我认为这是出自 U.S. v. Melville。“保释的目的不是向政府提供资金以便在被告转入地下或逃离司法管辖区时进行追捕。保释旨在作为促进被告出庭的催化剂——”\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n利普曼律师：好的。所以我已经说过她是一个革命者。她坚信这项事业。如果她不相信这项事业，如果她不相信这些人——谢谢。\n\n法庭：欺诈和坚信一项事业，这两者并不是相互排斥的。\n\n利普曼律师：嗯，法官阁下，确实如此，但是，再次强调，您必须看个人以及他们具体做了什么——\n\n法庭：那是当然。\n\n利普曼律师：所以——\n\n法庭：我同意。\n\n利普曼律师：——他们互称，我和很多人谈过——\n\n法庭：我想我了解得够多了。\n\n利普曼律师：您明白了。他们互称——就在我坐下之前，他们互称兄弟姐妹，好的，我和他们中的很多人谈过，我的意思是我所能说的就是他们愿意冒一切风险，而且她没有做出任何行为表明她会为了她自己的、为了她自己的个人利益而危害他们、在个人层面危害他们。\n\n法庭：明白了。谢谢。\n\n利普曼律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，下面由政府发言。\n\n默里检察官（MS. MURRAY）：谢谢您，法官阁下。针对利普曼先生刚才提出的观点，仅作简短的一点说明。关于被告的个人利益，政府要指出的是，被告居住在一套价值 110 万美元的公寓里。被告拥有近 100 万美元——\n\n法庭：在纽约（New York）市中心，有人可能会认为这算贫穷，但是，您知道的，尽管如此。\n\n默里检察官：在其现金及银行账户中拥有近 100 万美元，即被披露的那两个账户，我稍后会讲到这一点。我们有证据表明，在首次代币发行（initial coin offering）时以较低的估值向她分配了大约 700 万美元的加密货币或所谓的加密货币。因此，现在的价值会大幅增加。并且她的保险箱里有大约超过 138,000 美元的现金。但是我想就今天的庭审程序重新梳理一下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n默里检察官：在最一开始，法官阁下询问了保释程序的现状，回答是没有，辩方与政府之间关于提议的担保人未再进行进一步讨论。除了辩方随动议提交的用以支持其提议的担保人各项所谓财务状况的文件之外，政府没有收到任何补充文件，尽管辩方已经从政府的意见书中得知，我们认为这些文件不完整或不足以做出准确的判定或评估。政府未能成功联系到辩方提议的第八位共同签署人，因此无法对该人进行面谈。这就是我们今天所处的现状。现在，今天摆在法庭面前的实际上有三个问题。\n\n首先，关于被告的动议，即法院是否应指示被告已满足其保释金条件，即Parker法官（Judge Parker）在她于3月15日被捕数小时后初次出庭时所设定的条件。答案显然是否定的。第二个问题是，法院是否应修改Parker法官所设定的该保释金条件，以取消共同签署人的要求，即\n\n辩方提出的首批变更请求之一，或者可能与各种不同变更相关或作为其替代方案，无论是追加提供担保财产或现金以支持保释金、增加共同签署人，还是合并共同签署人。同样，关于变更保释条件，答案显然是否定的，法庭不应批准该请求。\n\n最后，第三个问题，也就是政府在上周五提交的意见书中提出的问题：鉴于没有任何条件或一组条件能够合理确保被告今后出席法庭审理程序，是否应当在审前对其实施羁押。法官阁下，对此问题的答案是肯定的。\n\n因此，我将依次阐述上述各个要点。\n\n首先，关于提议的共同签署人，辩方已向法庭提交了有关这些共同签署人的文件、姓名和信息。这是因为他们未获得政府的认可。因此，根据法定条文，法庭批准未经认可的共同签署人的依据是评估有关这些共同签署人的文件和信息，进而判定他们是否拥有足够的无权利负担净资产价值来支付全额保释金，\n\n即此处的500万美元。法官阁下，我不打算对每个人逐一赘述，因为我们在最初提交的材料中已经进行了极其详细的阐述。辩方在此向法庭提交了附有证明文件的七名拟议共同签署人，我们已逐一进行了审查，同样，第八名因我们未能进行访谈而暂且不计。\n\n关于这七名人员中的每一位，根据辩方向法官阁下提供以供审酌其是否符合法定标准的材料：首先，法官阁下，他们中没有任何一人对被告具有适当的道德约束力。同样，我们此前已对此进行过阐述，但我希望能够更为详尽地说明这一点，因为在辩方声称这些人具有道德约束力的情况下，这一点至关重要。\n\n而且，法官阁下，确实如此，问题并不在于提议的共同签署人是否自认为对被告具有影响力或道德约束力。问题在于被告作何感想，虽然我们无法探知她的内心想法或感受，但我们能做的是审视摆在我们面前的证据。\n\n供法官阁下审酌的这七名提议共同签署人中，有些人从未见过Wang（王女士），从未与她说过话。总体而言，其中少数几个人在活动中见过她。大多数人不知道她在哪里工作。大多数人不知道她住在哪里。他们不经常与她交谈。他们之间似乎并不存在个人关系。\n\n有趣的是，我稍后会谈到这一点，其中一人实际上认为王女士在Gettir工作，而Gettir是涉嫌参与欺诈的实体之一，也是潜在的犯罪工具。该人之所以这样认为，是因为曾因面试Gettir的职位而与王女士见过面。我稍后会说明为何这一点具有关联性。另一个人则认为她在一家名为HCHK Properties的公司工作。这同样是这起数十亿美元欺诈案过程中所使用的空壳公司之一。\n\n而辩方主张具有道德约束力的这些提议共同签署人，他们对被告的了解甚至不足以与她建立起个人关系；因此，我们无法确信，由他们签署保释金能够以任何方式劝阻王女士潜逃，从而使他们承担支付保释金金额的责任。\n\n法庭：嗯，即便他们之间不存在我们所认为的传统个人关系、家庭关系或深厚的友谊关系，他们为什么不能因为共同的理念而联系在一起呢？\n默里检察官：法官阁下，他们确实可能因共同理念联系在一起。但在本案这种特定情况下——这也是为何政府关于这些人系欺诈案潜在受害者或表面受害者的主张十分重要的原因——该欺诈行为在很大程度上是针对该群体实施的。这是一起专门掠夺和动员支持Kwok（郭先生）、王女士和Je（余先生）反CCP（中国共产党）运动人士的欺诈行为。正是这些人被锁定为目标，被诱导汇出数亿美元、超过十亿美元的资金，以中饱郭先生、余先生及其家族的私囊，并对作为欺诈工具的公司进行再投资，而王女士管理着这些公司并在其中任职，部分属于书面任职，部分具有实际控制权。\n因此，政府无法从“某人属于据称支持王女士的群体成员因而会影响王女士使其不致潜逃”这一论点中获得任何合理确信。\n\n而且，法官阁下，我只想指出，道德约束力的考量因素各不相同，但其中的考量点包括被告与提议担保人之间联系的紧密程度。同样，在本案中，针对呈交至本法庭、由被告向法官阁下提供的所有提议担保人而言，该项考量因素均不存在。\n\n此外，关于被告在社区中的扎根程度，我们从辩护律师处了解到，王女士基本上是在该群体内部工作和生活，但我只想指出，在针对王女士保释听证的第二次尝试期间，Netburn（内特伯恩法官）确实指出，王女士已在该国居住了七年，却声称自己不认识任何人，没有任何人能够作为共同签署人站出来且既非该群体内的潜在受害者，又非该欺诈案的潜在调查对象或共谋者。\n\n再者就是接触的经常性。在此，这些提议的担保人与王女士之间同样不存在经常性的接触。\n\n现在，转向评估呈交至法庭的提议担保人的第二个因素，即财务责任能力。同样，在这一点上，我不想过多赘述，因为我们已经逐一审查了\n\n每位提议的担保人，但这些人的无权利负担资产并不足以担保全额保释金。这就是我们目前所处的法定框架，在此框架下已施加了保释条件，政府对担保人不予认可，而辩方现已提出动议将他们提交至法庭——\n法庭：嗯，为什么我至少从辩方那里听到的是，连同整个保释方案以及在场的三名所谓的财务责任人即担保人，他们确实拥有500万美元。辩护律师，让我核实一件事，您是说那500万是无权利负担的吗？\n利普曼律师：是的，我们有三个人拥有无权利负担的——嗯——\n法庭：净无权利负担。\n利普曼律师：谢谢。是的，我认为净额加起来——这么说吧，加上她确定拥有的100万美元，我知道其中一人有300万美元。抱歉，我想不起其中一个人的具体情况了，但我敢肯定这三个人能覆盖500万美元。但他们确实包括——\n法庭：对，她有100万，她还有40万，还有13.8万。所以我们足以\n\n应对那一部分。但我明白。\n默里检察官：好的。是的，我明白，法官阁下。那么我想我接下来转向第二个问题，即法庭是否应当变更被告的保释条件，无论是取消共同签署人，还是对保释进行调整以提供更多现金或财产来担保保释金。正如我所说，对此问题的答案同样显然是否定的。\n我只想针对辩护律师所作的陈述说明几点——\n法庭：在您说明之前，让我们暂时假定在您看来并不存在具备财务责任能力的人，因为他们除了可能见过她几次之外与她并无私交，他们不是亲属，唯一的共同点就是这一理念。如果我要评估该项特定条件对于合理确保被告未来出席诉讼程序而言是否确属必要，还是可以采用其他条款组合——当然，暂且撇开已经实施的所有措施不谈，如居家监禁、电子监控等——那么我为何不能或为何不应考虑以辩方提出的其他被认为不足以替代该条件的方案来取而代之？为什么必须是两名具备财务\n\n责任能力的人，而不是采用辩方所提供的其他条件组合呢？\n\n默里检察官：法官阁下当然可以考虑变更保释条件，前提是您认定存在一组能够合理确保被告未来出席法庭审理程序的条件。\n\n法庭：明确地说，我并不是说我所考虑的会低于Parker（帕克法官）的想法，我也没打算自居于她的立场。但我可以想象，鉴于政府和被告基本上就保释方案的大部分条款达成了一致，帕克法官当时无疑是假定会有两名具备财务责任能力的人。如果向她提出的论点是：政府愿意同意这一方案，但我们没有任何打算认可的人选，她可能会采取不同的策略。她也可能不会，她可能会说：你知道吗，这是政府的特权，政府提供了这个方案，他们无法满足条件，既然无法满足，那我就要下令羁押。所以我不是说结果必然会有所\n\n不同，但我认为在某些方面这显得有点太草率了——嗯，再说一遍，为什么必须是那个条件，而不是采用所提供的其他替代方案？\n默里检察官：嗯，实际上有多项条件，法官阁下，原因在于，当政府与辩方在协商一致的基础上讨论拟议的保释方案时，那是在被告于3月15日被捕后仅仅几个小时。政府当时尚未有机会审查随后在配合FBI（联邦调查局）搜查住所过程中从被告公寓提取的证据。而且，坦率地说，政府当时还不知道被告会向本法庭、向审前服务机构说谎——\n法庭：我不明白所谓谎言指的是什么。我必须说我并没有，你知道，在你的信函中，你指责被告在此事上有所隐瞒。唯一让我觉得可能存在隐瞒的是加密货币。但这完全合乎常理，即你可能拥有一笔在——我认为那是当时的日期——分配的加密货币，而你知道，它可能从未变现为任何实际资产。这固然引发了疑问，即那笔资产去哪儿了，难道没人能告诉我们吗；但目前她说她无法控制并访问该资产，因为她甚至不知道它在哪里。\n\n是什么或它具体是什么。\n\nMURRAY 女士：法官阁下，关于这一点有几点说明。首先，被告在接受审前服务处（Pretrial Services）访谈时表示，她自 2022 年 9 月起一直处于失业状态。然而，政府上周晚些时候审查了从她公寓中扣押的文件以及政府掌握的其他证据，并且如您所知，在羁押听证会中我们可以通过出示证明材料的方式进行——\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nMURRAY 女士：这不是一次小型审判。但政府的证据显示，被告实际上一直持续基于她在郭先生（Mr. Kwok，郭文贵）家族资金家族办公室中的职务以及我之前提到的其他一些作为欺诈工具的实体开展工作，直到她被捕当日。我们见到了列出与该欺诈相关的各类不同实体财务状况的文件。这些实体包括 Gettir，如我所提及，拟定的担保人之一认为王女士（Ms. Wang）正式为其工作。它们还包括 HCHK Property，另一位担保人认为王女士正式为其工作，而政府的证据显示，王女士实际上通过她的 BBI 实体拥有 HCHK 99.999% 的股份。它们包括 G Clubs（G俱乐部），这是政府起诉书中所概述和指控的欺诈分支机构之一。它们包括法治社会（Rule of Law Society）和法治基金（Rule of Law Foundation），这些是郭先生等人创立的慈善机构、所谓的慈善机构，为通过欺诈的不同分支机构募集所有这些资金奠定了基础。而且，法官阁下，这些是截至近期的账户余额打印件，正如文件所反映的，这些打印件的日期分别为 2023 年 2 月或 3 月，即被告被捕前两天。\n\n法庭：但那些是公司资金，对吧，不过你是用这一点来说明受雇情况。\n\nMURRAY 女士：法官阁下，我是用它来说明受雇情况，以及实际控制权。Lipman 先生表示他不知道政府使用“幕僚长”（chief of staff）这一通用表述是什么意思。政府通过这样定性王女士所指控的是，她管理和控制着这些不同的实体。如今，就像郭先生一样，她并未在与她有关的每家不同公司上署名，但鉴于在王女士公寓中发现的证据，以及人们在正式层面上将王女士与这些公司联系在一起的事实——因为他们曾为了在其中一些公司的工作与她进行过面试，或者他们在与其中一些公司的工作往来中与她签署过合同——政府对此毫无疑问。\n\n王女士是这些工具实体的实际掌舵人。与她向审前服务处陈述的相反，她直到被捕当天都一直在这么做。政府要指控的是，她向审前服务处撒谎的部分原因是为了否认与该欺诈的各类不同工具实体存在关联。声称自己脱离了这些欺诈实体，值得注意的是，法官阁下，这恰好发生在政府开始扣押 6.3 亿美元欺诈所得前后。\n\n因此在政府看来，在最初的首次出庭（initial presentment）和保释辩论时，我们并未意识到会在被告的公寓中发现确凿的证据，在我们看来，这些证据证实了政府在调查中早已指控并确信的事实，即王女士直到被捕时一直持续为这些公司工作。所以这是其中一点，法官阁下。这是情况发生了变化。政府所掌握的情况相比于最初首次出庭时发生了变化。\n\n现在，关于账户方面，喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya exchange，该欺诈的又一分支）交易的 H 币（H coin）或其中一种所谓加密货币的分配情况，其分配文件以及其他多份看似支持该欺诈的文件是在王女士的公寓中发现的。法官阁下是正确的，辩方也是正确的，政府无法证明王女士持有该笔资金，事实上，政府的指控是它根本不是加密货币，但我们并不是指控它毫无价值。我们指控的是某些人拥有它，而赎回最快的人基本上可以实施跑路骗局（exit scam）并卷款脱身。\n\n我想指出的是，虽然我们同样无法查阅王女士持有该资金的账户，但法官阁下正确地指出，价值约 700 万美元的加密货币资产是您希望追踪掌握的资产。该分配表明\n\n包括要求被告披露由其控制的以其个人名义开立的，或存在于其控制或关联的公司名下的资产或账户，广义上讲，包括加密货币和其他不动产。\n\n正如我所说，政府再次从被告的公寓中发现了距被告被捕前仅数天的最新证据，这些证据显示了银行账户信息、账户信息，以及王女士为她并不控制但政府明确指控由其作为郭先生的幕僚长进行管理和工作的一些工具实体签署批准工资单。因此对政府而言，这表明对这些财务具有实际控制权。\n\n不过即使撇开这点不谈，法官阁下，Lipman 先生提到保险箱里有信用卡和其他物品。政府曾指出其中一个袋子里有现金，另一个袋子里有某些看似且已处于随时可取走状态的物品。\n\n法庭：你提到了保险箱。那里有保险箱吗？MURRAY 女士：有一个保险箱。是的。所以\n\n装有现金的袋子和另一个装有信用卡以及其他物品（包括护照）的袋子，这些都藏在被告公寓的保险箱里。\n\n从保险箱里的其中一个袋子里取出的信用卡值得注意，查看那些信用卡的正面（上周我们已拍照并提供给辩护律师），有许多卡片显示在被告名下且尚未过期的账户，而被告并未向政府或审前服务处（Pretrial Services）披露这些账户。\n\n在这一点上，我们无法确定这些账户里有哪些资产、被告如何继续控制这些账户，但法官阁下，这又是另一层问题，让我们无法确信被告对审前服务处、对联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）或对法庭讲了真话。\n\n从总体层面来梳理这些账户：有一个属于郭氏家族实体之一的花旗银行（Citibank）账户，由被告控制，该账户直到上个月她被捕时一直处于活跃状态。所以当时是活跃的。还有两张美国银行（Bank of America）个人借记卡，不同的账号，都在被告名下，以她的名义开立的个人账户。其中一张上个月过期，但同样在她被捕时是活跃的。下一张将于明年过期。还有一个以被告本人名义开立的花旗银行个人账户，该账户还有一年才过期。有一个在新加坡银行的星展丰盛理财（DBS Treasures）账户，政府此前也明确询问过外国账户的情况。该卡直到2025年1月才过期，同样在被告名下。最后，还有一个交通银行（Bank of Communications）账户，是一家中国银行。对于该账户，卡片显示于2023年9月过期，同样在被告名下。\n\n法官阁下，这是向政府表明被告有渠道接触到可用于潜逃的账户、资产和资金的又一个例证。如果这些资金需要我们依赖被告主动披露才能满足所设定的保释保证书（bond）的另一项条件的话。除共同签署人（co-signer）的问题之外，她根据所设定的条件有义务向政府和审前服务处披露其资产、账户、加密货币及其财产。\n\n她通过律师陈述称，她仅仅通过披露两个个人账户（一个在摩根士丹利银行（Morgan Stanley Bank），一个在道明银行（TD Bank））以及与其中一家公司关联的这个账户就完成了这项义务。\n\n在政府看来，她根本没有披露她能够接触到的资金总额。\n\n这些新情况的例子引发了政府的严重关切。严重关切被告的潜逃动机、关切她的潜逃能力、关切我们无法信任被告所作陈述这一事实。而且，法官阁下，在这些情况下，我们发现了如此多的危险信号和如此多的关切，如果我们没有发现这些新信息，政府未必能察觉到。我们根本无法确信存在任何条件或一组条件能够保证被告在未来的出庭中如期到庭。\n\n因此，法官阁下，这关乎第三项要点。\n\n事实就是，政府现在来到法庭表示，我们在她被捕时根据当时所掌握的情况同意了这些提议的保释条件。\n\n自那时起情况发生了变化，并且对政府来说只会越来越令人担忧，政府此前已经对被告的潜逃风险存有重大关切，但原以为可能存在某些能够确保其出庭的条件。我们现在不再这么认为了。\n\n我们不认为存在能够合理确保其出庭的条件或一组条件。\n\n法庭：有一点需要澄清。关于——你提到了，我想你提到了，我不知道你是指起诉书中的指控还是别的什么，但你提到 Kwok（郭）先生和 Je（余建明）先生是那种中饱私囊、发家致富的人。你是否同意辩护律师的说法，即本案起诉书并未指控这里的被告本人中饱私囊？\n\nMURRAY 女士：我想回答法官阁下的问题，起诉书确实指控被告本人对一亿美元的欺诈收益侵吞负有个人责任。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nMURRAY 女士：但那是关于侵吞的部分。现在，关于起诉书（这是一份包含若干指控的起诉文书），我们尚未具体列出被告本人侵吞的个人资金，但是，我们再次认为，这绝不关乎她的潜逃风险以及她在这里和向网络获取资金的渠道。\n\n我想指出的另一端是关于旅行证件和护照。Lipman 先生表示，被告在去年底或今年初一直在寻求旅行许可，并且她打算去，我相信是去英国，进行国际旅行。\n\n政府从她的保险箱中查获了一本瓦努阿图护照和一本香港护照。瓦努阿图护照已过期，而且我们确实看到了已披露的证据，显示该护照并非被吊销，而是被告撤回了对该护照的申请。但她有能力获取旅行证件，正如她的同案被告 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）一样，据指控他在不同时期拥有多本护照。\n\n法庭：嗯，她不是 Miles Kwok。\n\nMURRAY 女士：我明白。\n\n法庭：我想你暗示的是，我明白她可能属于一个可以提供这类物品的网络。\n\nMURRAY 女士：完全正确，法官阁下，完全正确，她既可以是这个能够提供这类物品的网络的一部分，而且她也是负责保管这些为她自己和郭先生准备的旅行证件的人。她是一个深受信任的人，被托付了保管这些旅行证件的责任——\n\n法庭：对于辩方的观点，你怎么看：被告在2022年9月或10月肯定知道手机被扣押、有事要发生，随后又与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）打交道，再加上辩方所陈述的事实，即尽管有庇护申请，她仍申请了准假以便能够旅行。如果属实，这些难道不恰恰表明她是一个不会逃跑的人吗？\n\nMURRAY 女士：不一定，法官阁下，我还想指出，虽然大家可能会质疑这二者之间是否存在矛盾（我很乐意稍后对此进行说明），但我还要指出，尽管被告对中共（CCP）遣返迫害存有这些严重担忧，但她仍愿意甚至渴望前往英国，这表明那些担忧并没有严重到让她不愿进行国际旅行的程度。\n\n但我不知道被告请求准假离开的具体情况。我不知道她进行那次旅行的目的是什么。我要说的是——如果我们在此情况下讨论假设情形的话——同样没有理由相信，她在获悉资金已被扣押后，请求准假前往 United Kingdom（英国）时没有任何不归还的意图。再次说明，我只是在讨论假设情形，因为法庭向我们提出了问题，但我认为你可以从这些事实中得出各种不同的结论。归根结底，她寻求前往英国、她愿意进行国际旅行，并不能否定她构成重大潜逃风险这一事实。我还想指出，潜逃风险是指在未来的法庭出庭中不到庭的风险。我们无需证明她将前往某个外国司法管辖区——\n\n法庭：不对。\n\nMS. MURRAY（默里女士）：她可以逃离本市，她可以逃出几个街区的范围。她可以剪断她的脚环。而且可能是她庞大的支持者网络在为她提供协助和包庇。我们不知道具体情况，但根本底线是被告构成重大潜逃风险。鉴于证据的有力性、本案指控的严重性、被告的个人情况、她获取大量资产的途径、包括被指控作为逃犯在阿联酋面临指控的共同被告 William Je（余建明）在内的境外联系、她的支持者网络，以及我们在过去两周内发现的新信息（表明被告一直未向法庭、Pretrial（审前服务处）或政府如实陈述），政府认为没有任何保释条件或保释条件组合能够确保她在未来的法庭诉讼程序中到庭。\n\n法庭：好的。我想你希望做些回应。\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼先生）：哦，是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：我先跟预约在 3:30 的人说一声，抱歉，我们要拖延一会儿了。请耐心稍候，我们很快就会处理到。请继续。\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼先生）：法官阁下，我会尽快说完。我想先从以下几点开始。我在他们与法庭的沟通及提交的文件中指出的所有不实陈述显然都是属实的，因为他们对此没有提出任何异议。所以关于在床垫之间找到手机、把手机藏在靠垫里的那些说法，显然都没有发生过。事实就是，他们是这样向法庭陈述的。\n\n那么现在我们谈谈信任问题。他们提到了信任。说不能信任这位被告。真的吗？但你们就能信任本案的政府？我们来看看，让我们逐一分析默里女士刚才所说的内容。她说她发现了卡片的照片，其中一些照片显示卡片尚未过期。我们怎么能从这一点推导到——噢，还有与之关联的账户？她有什么证据？毫无证据。完全没有证据。\n\n她所知道的——顺便说一句，法官阁下，我从未、大不列颠这几个字从未从我嘴里说过。明白吗？这意味着他们早就知道她打算出行。那他们为什么不逮捕她？如果他们认为她要逃之夭夭，并且担心她有潜逃风险，那么当他们发现她提出申请时，那就逮捕她啊。怎么，难道他们没有边境监控来盯着她吗？真的吗？难道司法部自我离开后就变了这么多？我不这么认为。\n\n现在我们再来看看她的受雇情况。再次强调，当时提的问题是什么？你目前受雇吗？没有。没有。如果问题是\n\n不管他们说的是什么，隐藏在各公司之间的一份文件？什么时候？对谁？我与政府有过具体对话，当他们说，嗯，默里女士说，她说，广义上讲，这个问题既可以做广义解释，也可以做狭义解释。嗯，首先，没有人剥夺我当事人的 Fifth Amendment（第五修正案）（听不清），至少我没听过，当她被问到这个问题时，她给出了回答，该回答是真实的。如果他们想了解更多，他们本应该去问。而且我特别与政府沟通过，我说排除她凭借公司所有权或无论什么可能控制的任何东西，账户就是这些。\n\n她没有潜逃风险，法官阁下。我一直在问自己的一个问题就是这个。为什么？为什么政府要歪曲证据？为什么政府要夸大其词、小题大做？即使他们认为，你知道，事情没那么简单。即使——抱歉，抱歉，有人提醒我，关于她的受雇问题，我们实际上主张了、她主张了她的第五修正案权利。明白吗？谢谢。即使——我思路断了。我很抱歉。我想我刚才是在回应关于\n\n她控制着某些资产的这种说法。没有——我们从未隐瞒过这一点。唯一的问题是她是否有潜逃风险？关于她有什么情况会让你们认为她不会到庭？她会到庭的，法官阁下。她无处可去。无处可去。而政府一直在——我刚才就是说到这里，谢谢。\n\n他们为什么要夸大事实？为什么？原因是什么？我是说，真的，她看起来有危险性吗？到底是什么——\n\n法庭：他们并未以具有危险性为由提出动议。\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼先生）：对不起，没有——\n\n法庭：他们没有以危险为由提出动议。\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼先生）：他们这样做是有原因的。他们想折磨她。他们想让她尝尝 MDC（大都会拘留中心）的滋味，因为她曾是幕僚长，法官阁下，而这是不可接受的。这是不道德的。当政府通过包括歪曲事实、以他们无法支持且与收集到的证据相矛盾的事由声称她有潜逃风险等手段来达到这一目的时，那简直是——除了我之外，还有没有人觉得政府指控她违反了某些反欺诈条款（该条款规定在综合所有情况下作出具有重大误导性的陈述属于违法），而这恰恰就是政府自己正在做的事情，这难道不有点奇怪或具有讽刺意味吗？为什么？\n\n法官阁下，必须释放这名女性。她没有潜逃风险。她哪里也不会去。她会佩戴脚踝监控器，她会有 GPS 监控。我们可以把她所有的资金都封存起来，以至于没有审前服务处或某人的批准她连呼吸都不能。\n\n还有最后一件事，如果她不被释放，她的辩护将受到严重损害。\n\n法庭：对任何未获释放的人来说都是如此。\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼先生）：除非，除非当事人的第一语言还是普通话，而政府却要求提供一个硬盘来拷贝 2 TB 的数据。这不是一个能够迅速解决的案件，而且在这个案件中，获得当事人的协助将非常重要。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢。默里女士，你还想作最后发言吗？\n\nMS. MURRAY（默里女士）：是的，法官阁下，简短说几句。我首先要说的是，政府向法庭陈述的内容没有任何不实之处。政府没有牵强附会事实。政府向本法庭和辩方提供的信息都是有证据支持的。关于利普曼先生提到的信用卡，那不仅仅是卡片的照片。那是我们今天向法庭和辩方出示的卡片照片。它们是实物卡片。但我们坚决反对关于我们在任何方面未做到——\n\n法庭：我知道——\n\nMS. MURRAY（默里女士）：——充分如实披露和出于善意的指责。\n\n法庭：——我毫不怀疑你们是在出于善意行事。但他确实指出了一些似乎存在差异的地方，即在关于在她公寓的何处发现某些证据的陈述，与物品清单上的记录以及如何记录之间存在出入。你能就此说明一下吗？\n\nMS. MURRAY（默里女士）：当然，法官阁下。这里不存在出入。利普曼先生所做的是，他指向了一份证据登记表，上面有一列是 FBI（联邦调查局）在收集证据时所做的特定标注，用以表明物品是在何处提取的。通常情况下，它根据利普曼先生向法庭提供的平面图用字母指明房间，并附有简要描述。它并没有用详细叙述表明作为证据提取的每一件物品具体是在何处提取的、处于何种状态、是如何被发现的。\n\n因此，关于夹在衣物中的笔记本电脑，这与政府在初次提审时向 Judge Parker（帕克法官）所作的陈述是一致的，即笔记本电脑是在壁橱里的毛衣之间发现的。它没有具体说明是哪几件衣服——\n\n法庭：没有。\n\nMS. MURRAY（默里女士）：——或在什么具体位置，但这是一致的。关于政府曾指出装在盒子里的 iPhone，是的，它们装在壁橱里的一个袋子里，你可以看到这些就是利普曼先生向法官阁下指出的证据登记表上编号在 50 多号的那些物品。你们会注意到，它们几乎都具有相同的 PIN 码或密码。因此，这些物品起初联邦调查局认为可能没有任何内容，随后联邦调查局在执行搜查令期间派技术人员到现场，将它们插上电源，并确定它们包含内容。不存在任何虚假陈述。\n\n法官阁下，利普曼先生（Mr. Lipman）现在实际上又是在试图借拘留听证会之机，就政府方指控的实体问题进行庭审。他首先向政府方索要信息，而我们很乐意提供这些信息，并且在本案的证据开示过程中本来也会提供这些信息；随后他又试图以此对抗政府方，声称由于在收集证据过程中并非每一步骤的每个阶段都有照片记录，政府方就不可信。法官阁下，这根本不是事实，而且这是不尊重的。关于另外几点，我只想指出被告撒了谎。她在其公寓内存放现金一事上撒了谎。在刚才的辩论过程中，我已经听到辩方在好几个问题上吹毛求疵，这是另一个让政府方感到迟疑的例子。\n\n法庭：那么，我们怎么知道——问了什么问题是很重要的。“你身上有钱吗？”“你公寓里有钱吗？”这两者是有区别的。\n\n默里女士（Ms. Murray）：我明白，法官阁下，政府方显然并不知情——\n\n法庭：特别是对于具有不同语言和文化背景的人来说，所问问题的细微差别可能更为重要。我不知道当时问了什么。\n\n默里女士：当然，我们也不知道，因为政府方并未参与审前服务处（Pretrial Services）对被告的访谈。在该访谈期间，她是由一名普通话口译员协助的。政府方通过调查还了解到，王女士（Ms. Wang）的英语相当流利。我们从收集到的各项不同证据中得知了这一点，包括她所作的陈述以及她在对话中的声音。她似乎在理解上没有任何问题。关于当时所提的问题，我再次说明，我不知道，我当时不在场。被告在好几个问题上确实是在吹毛求疵。我要指出的是，审前服务处的报告表明，被告被问及的是资产——是资产，而不是她作为唯一签署人的特定账户，也不是由她控制并掌握登录信息的活跃特定账户。我们并没有吹毛求疵。审前服务处问的是资产，而她没有披露存放在其公寓保险箱内的价值$138,000的现金。关于她的就业情况，辩方刚才指出她援引了——关于就业经历的审前服务处报告表明，被告告知自2022年9月以来她一直处于失业状态。至于她自那时起拥有的额外资金来源或赖以生活的资金来源，被告拒绝回答，这是她的权利。但她在回复审前服务处报告时确实作出了这一陈述：她自2022年9月以来一直处于失业状态。\n\n现在，利普曼先生称被告一直在多家组织做义工，而她此前可能在这些组织以更正式的雇佣身份工作过。我只想简要回到法官阁下询问的个人获利问题上。是的，我理解110万美元在曼哈顿可能算不上昂贵的公寓，但这是一套用现金购买的110万美元公寓。被告在其账户中还有近100万美元。被告在据称决定离职并开始做义工之前，从她正式任职的郭氏（Kwok）实体领取约$250,000的薪水。在政府方看来，这就是个人获利。\n\n这也与现在的说法不一致，即2022年9月——恰好在政府方开始查封扣押资金时——被告停止了正式工作。对于她签字批准发放工资、能够动用资金的这些银行账户，她不能不承担任何责任。\n\n法官阁下，归根结底，被告存在逃逸风险。没有任何条件能够合理保证她出庭。她撒了谎。政府方没有向法庭作不实陈述。我们无法放心相信她会向法庭作出准确陈述，也无法确信我们有能力以任何有意义的方式对她进行监控以确保她在未来的法庭程序中出庭。\n\n法庭：谢谢。利普曼先生，我看到你了，你想回应吗？请讲。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，如实回答所提出的问题就是一个完整的回答。这不是吹毛求疵——\n\n法庭：听着，底线是我们确实不知道究竟问了什么以及是怎么问的——\n\n利普曼先生：嗯，我们当时在场。\n\n法庭：行，但我说的是我们没有记录——\n\n利普曼先生：但是，法官阁下，没有记录，而且政府方所说的这些事情没有任何证据——\n\n法庭：我——\n\n利普曼先生：——这就是……\n\n（插话）\n\n法庭：我没说这对哪一方有利。\n\n利普曼先生：不，但是，法官阁下，他们说我们找到了一张信用卡。好吧，那意味着她没有披露一个账户。不，你们只是找到了一张信用卡。对吧？我们找到了一份对账单，上面写着诸如此类，分配给了她一些代币。是的，那是你们找到的，那是你们掌握的。你们没有其他任何东西。所以，仅仅因为他们找到了一些他们没有完全理解的东西，就告诉我她需要被拘留并且她不可信，对不起，这未免太过分了。顺便说一句，正如政府方所知，她的很多账户都已关闭，政府方的调查也证实了这一点。比如花旗银行（Citi）的账户就关闭了。其他银行的其他账户最近也关闭了，它们都被关闭了。另外一件事，法官阁下，当他们说她控制这个或控制那个或诸如此类时，好吧，她在某个地方工作过，她现在不再在那里工作了，她不领薪水。她如何支配自己的时间是她自己的事。这并没有克扣——这没有对任何人撒谎，完全没有这回事。明白吗？\n\n而且政府方实质上承认了——不，不是实质上。政府方承认了关键的一点，即根据他们的起诉书，她的参与并非为了谋取个人金钱利益。而是出于其他原因。而且那套公寓是在指控涉及的任何事情发生之前用其他资金购买的。她确实赚了钱，但她没有花掉。我已经向法庭描述了她的生活方式。因此，关键问题在于她为什么要这么做；如果她这么做了，她这样做是为了谋求自身利益吗？如果不是，那是否有充分理由认为她现在会伤害这些人，因为她没有从他们的腰包里拿走任何钱装进自己的腰包。没有任何理由相信，在没有做过这种事的情况下，置身于所有这些金钱周围却没有将分文装入自己的腰包。这么多年来她都没有那样做。那么现在又有什么能促使她去做呢？答案是这是一场革命运动，明白吗，这些人是她的兄弟姐妹。他们共同希望看到中国共产党（CCP）被推翻。因此，她不会让他们陷入财务危机，她将自己的一生、她的生命都奉献给了这项事业。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，最后补充一点。我想明确表示，政府方在任何层面上都没有在那一点上作出任何让步，关键问题在于她是否存在逃逸风险，这才是问题所在。\n\n法庭：好的，听着，要求我做的一件事是确定所提供的某些财务担保人是否足以满足帕克法官（Judge Parker）发布的各项要求和条件，或者至少就此作出裁定，辩方在此指出他们有三位担保人，他们认为有充足的财产可以作为担保，并附带代表被告提供的增加的资金方案。\n\n就所提供的财产而言，我手头没有关于这三位财务担保人（FRP）的信息。这是我需要考虑的一部分内容。我意识到，鉴于新材料，政府方还要求重新对其进行拘留。但我有责任审查被告将提供的任何材料，以证实其所提供的财务担保人。\n\n所以，我需要一份包含您必须提交或您认为足够的所有材料的文件包。如果您有尚未向政府方提供、但可以提供的关于其他保证人的文件材料，包括所谓的第八人或其他人员的材料，请予以提供。我将要做的部分工作就是评估该材料。这并不意味着我显然必然会认定这些材料已足够并且条件已得到满足，但这是我将要考虑的事项之一，此外我还要考虑是否应施加一套不同的保释条件，或者是否应将该被告人予以羁押。\n\n因此，在她提交此项补充信息且经我审查之前（我将尽量尽快进行审查），根据Parker（帕克）法官关于在获释前必须满足所有条件的命令，她将被继续羁押。\n\n我想问一下Lipman（利普曼）先生，您何时能将该材料提交给我和政府方？\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，我一离开本法庭就立即着手处理。我请求给予24小时的时间。\n\n法庭：嗯，当然可以。\n\n利普曼先生：噢，是的，是的。是的。提得很好。法官阁下掌握有许多个人信息，与其对这些信息进行涂黑隐匿并以各种方式归档——我们的立场是，如果有充分证据表明拟共同签署担保的人确实拥有该处不动产，且该不动产具有他们所称的价值，那实际上就是政府方所需要的全部内容。换句话说，对吧，因为无论他们是否赚钱——\n\n法庭：我不知道政府方需要什么，但您至少需要向法庭作出保证——\n\n利普曼先生：您说什么？\n\n法庭：您至少需要向法庭作出保证。我不知道您究竟会向我提交什么具体内容。当然，了解谁是所有人、是否存在任何其他所有权权益、有哪些留置权、有哪些抵押权等等，这些都很重要。所以我想您心里有数了。\n\n这并不必然会排除某人是否为指控所称的受害者或是否存在其他缺陷之一，但至少我想要一个更全面的全貌，作出该项评估也是我的职责之一。我现在不想作出一概而论的陈述，仅仅因为任何人是指控所称的受害者且在某种程度上没有亲属关系，就必然使他们不合格。但这就是为什么我需要逐案个别审查的原因。\n\n利普曼先生：好的。\n\nMurray（默里）女士：法官阁下，关于答辩答复日期，假设辩方在周四提交材料，那么政府方的答辩截止日期将是复活节周日。我们谨请求——\n\n法庭：周一。\n\n默里女士：——给予我们截至周一的时间。谢谢。\n\n法庭：是的，当然可以。好的，行了，我们休庭。谢谢。\n\n默里女士：谢谢。\n\n利普曼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（至此，本案庭审休庭。）\n\n证明书\n\n我，Carole Ludwig（卡罗尔·路德维希），特此证明，上述在United States District Court, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的United States of America（美利坚合众国）诉Wang（王）案（案号：Docket #23cr118/23m2007）的庭审记录副本，系使用基于个人计算机的转录软件制作，且为庭审过程真实且准确的记录。\n\n签名：_______________________________\nCarole Ludwig（卡罗尔·路德维希）\n日期：2023年4月5日","key_entities":["Murray","Kwok","Je","Yanping Wang","Himalaya","Finkel","HCHK","CCP","CIPA","William Je","Torres","GTV","Himalaya Exchange","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":17309,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:32:29"}