{"id":"court_sdny_382_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":382,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":null,"title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) U.S. Department of Justice","summary_zh":"声明书（共谋人及代理人陈述）—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #382（2024年6月28日提交）。检方请求法院根据《联邦证据规则》801(d)(2)采纳被告及其多名代理人与共谋人（包括 Xia Qidong、Sara Wei、David Dai、Zhang Yongbing）的陈述为真实言词证据，以支持控方案情。","summary_en":"Declaration (Co-Conspirator and Agent Statements) — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #382 (filed June 28, 2024). The Government requests that the Court admit statements by the defendant and identified agents and co-conspirators, including Xia Qidong, Sara Wei, David Dai, and Zhang Yongbing, for their truth under Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2).","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n# **U.S. Department of Justice**\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278*\n\nJune 28, 2024\n\n# **VIA ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n# **Re:** *United States v. Guo***, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government respectfully writes to provide the Court with a list of out-of-court statements elicited at trial that are admissible for their truth as co-conspirator or agent statements. *See* Exhibit A (appendix of applicable statements). The out-of-court declarants for the statements set forth in Exhibit A are discussed in turn below, with citations to the trial record establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the declarants were co-conspirators or otherwise agents of the defendant.[1](#page-0-0)\n\n# **I. The Court Should Admit Certain Co-Conspirator and Agent Statements for Their Truth**\n\n# A. Applicable Law\n\nStatements by a criminal defendant—speaking for himself or through his agents—are not hearsay and are admissible for their truth. *See* Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2); *see also, e.g.*, *United States v. Olweiss*, 138 F.2d 798, 800 (2d Cir. 1943) (noting that the co-conspirator statements are based on \"the general principle of agency that the acts of any agent, within the scope of his authority, are competent against his principal\").\n\nTo be admissible for their truth, a co-conspirator's statement must be made \"during and in furtherance of the conspiracy,\" Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), and a general agent's statement must be \"on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed,\" Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). To admit co-conspirator statements for their truth, the Government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that \"a conspiracy existed, that the defendant and declarant were members, and that the statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.\" *United States v. Tracy*, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing *United States v. Geaney*, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)); *see also, e.g.*, *United States v. Vilar*, 729 F.3d 62, 86-87 (2d Cir. 2013) (same standard for agent's statements). When corroborated by some other\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> This application does not address statements in exhibits that were admitted into evidence without objection.\n\nevidence, the defendant's and his co-conspirators' and other agents' statements may themselves be used to support a *Geaney* finding. *See generally Bourjaily v. United States*, 483 U.S. 171, 175- 76 (1987); *United States v. Farhane*, 634 F.3d 127, 161 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirming a *Geaney* finding as \"amply supported by the recorded statements of both defendants\").\n\nBecause these rules are \"grounded in agency theory,\" *United States v. Saneaux*, 365 F. Supp. 2d 493, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the court should also admit \"statements by an agent of a coconspirator,\" *Miltland Raleigh-Durham v. Myers*, 807 F. Supp. 1025, 1054 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (Motley, J.), or by \"an agent of the conspiracy,\" *United States v. Rogers*, 118 F.3d 466, 478 (6th Cir. 1997). Corporations can be conspirators, *see, e.g.*, *United States v. Weintraub*, 27 F. App'x 54, 55-56 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order) (affirming convictions of individual and corporate coconspirators), and corporations commit crimes through the acts of their human agents, *see United States v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.*, 882 F.2d 656, 660 (2d Cir. 1989). Moreover, an agent's statement is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) even if \"it is questionable whether the conversation was held during the course of and in furtherance of a conspiracy as required by Rule 801(d)(2)(E).\" *United States v. Pilarinos*, 864 F.2d 253, 256-57 (2d Cir. 1988).\n\n#### B. Out-of-Court Declarants\n\nSix weeks of witness testimony and admitted exhibits (many without objection) collectively provide more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that \"a conspiracy existed, that the defendant and the declarant[s] were members, and that the [co-conspirators'] statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.\" *Tracy*, 12 F.3d at 1199 (citing *Geaney*, 417 F.2d at 1120); Fed. R. Evid. 104. The trial record also amply supports a finding that Miles Guo and his co-conspirators acted through agents who spoke on the conspiracy's behalf. *See Pilarinos*, 864 F.2d at 256-57 (affirming admissibility of statements by agent who did not join conspiracy).\n\nMost of Guo's and his co-conspirators' statements that have come in at trial were offered for purposes other than establishing their truth: as evidence of lies to Guo's victims, as commands to his agents, or as words that had a particular effect on listeners.<sup>2</sup> But other statements by the G\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> *See, e.g.*, GX 3401 and Tr. 3677-79 (Jesse Brown, acting as CEO of the Himalaya Exchange and reporting to co-conspirator William Je, lying about the Exchange and its products in an interview broadcast on GTV); *United States v. Pedroza*, 750 F.2d 187, 203 (2d Cir. 1984) (noting that \"[t]he testimony was not hearsay since it plainly was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted\" but \"[r]ather, the statement was offered for its patent falsity\"). Other statements were questions or commands—categorically not hearsay—by Guo through his agents. *E.g.*, Tr. 1213:23-1214:9 (testimony that Guo's agent, Guobin, ordered an investor removed from a Discord group—\"kick it out\"—after the investor asked Guo for a refund on a live broadcast); Tr. 479:18-22 (testimony that a paralegal at the Rule of Law Society—an organization controlled by Guo, *see* Tr. 475:13- 19—asked a director if her vote against a Guo directive had been a typo). *See United States v. Coplan*, 703 F.3d 46, 84 (2d Cir. 2012) (\"[A]s a matter of law, questions are not 'assertions' within the meaning of Rule 801\"); *United States v. Bellomo*, 176 F.3d 580, 586 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"Statements offered as evidence of commands . . . rather than for the truth of the matter asserted therein, are not hearsay.\"). Still other statements—for example, words from \"media websites created and controlled by the defendant\"—were \"admissible as nonhearsay to show their effect on the viewer.\" Tr. 349-50 (citing Dkt. 361 (Government's motion) and *SEC v. AT&T, Inc.*, 626 F.\n\nEnterprise conspirators—incriminating admissions, public and private—are offered for their truth. For the reasons below, the Court should make *Geaney* findings and admit these statements into evidence.\n\n# **1. Guo's Inner Circle Co-Conspirators**\n\nMiles Guo's RICO conspiracy was led by a core group of co-conspirators who directed the flow of funds, commanded agents of the various business entities, and enacted the long-term plans of the conspiracy:\n\n- **Yvette Wang** pleaded guilty to conspiring with Guo. On May 28, the Court ruled that the Government \"may ask questions that elicit statements from [Yvette] Wang\" in light of her guilty plea. Tr. 436:2-437:22. Separate from her guilty plea, the trial record sufficiently demonstrates that Wang was Guo's co-conspirator and agent. Indeed, Wang even referred to Guo as \"the Principal.\" *See, e.g.*, Tr. 425:25-426:4, 1918:3-7. Wang exercised control over nearly every entity in the Guo Enterprise and served as Guo's \"right hand.\" Tr. 433:21-25; *see also* Tr. 42 (\"Ms. Wang was the head of operations. She ran the day-to-day of each business.\" (defendant's opening statement)). Wang hired Guo's aides who also acted on her and Guo's behalf (and who referred to Guo as \"Principal\" or \"Boss\"). *See, e.g.*, Tr. 425:3- 427:2. For example, Wang hired Haitham Khaled from Citibank to create the Crane entity to obscure and extend the G|CLUBS fraud, Tr. 1915:20-1916:9, and hired Jesse Brown to run a cryptocurrency project that evolved from G-Dollar and G-Coin to H-Dollar and H-Coin, Tr. 3638:3-3639:10. Wang also exercised control over the movement of funds and directed the misappropriation of investor funds. As an Executive Director of GTV and the signatory on Saraca's bank accounts, Wang executed the \\$100 million transfer to Hayman Capital of misappropriated GTV investor funds—a transfer used to benefit the Guo family. *See* GXZ1. Wang coordinated matters related to the Farms, including coordinating Farm \"loan\" payments with Ya Li, a Farm leader who testified at trial. *See, e.g.*, Tr. 1389. Wang exercised control over G Clubs and directed its personnel to transfer funds and buy assets. Tr. 2976:8 (G Clubs's CEO, Limarie Reyes, reported to Yvette). Wang exercised control over the family offices that used victim money to pay for the Guo family's extravagant lifestyle. Tr. 433-434.\n- **William Je** was Guo's principal money launderer. Tr. 458:18-22 (describing Je as the \"finance person\" and \"the person who would handle the investments and financing for Boss\"); Tr. 42 (\"William Je was the finance guy. He's a well-regarded investment banker who had managed the fortune not just of the Guo family fund\" (defendant's opening statement)). Along with Yvette Wang, Je facilitated the misappropriation of \\$100 million of GTV investor funds. *See* Tr. 762-63.\n\nSupp. 3d 703, 737 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)); *see also, e.g.*, Tr. 186-190 (admitting statements by Steve Bannon during Rule of Law launch with limiting instruction that they were \"not being offered by the government for the truth of what is stated in the video\"); Tr. 2656-2659 (admitting testimony by Sam Roberts about information given to him by Himalaya Exchange agents for its effect on Roberts).\n\nAdditionally, Je managed ACA Capital, which was used to launder and misappropriate victim funds, including Farm \"loan\" funds. Je also owned and exercised control over the Hamilton and Himalaya Exchange entities, which were also used to launder and misappropriate victim funds for Guo's benefit. For example, Je received over \\$46 million of G|CLUBS investor funds from Crane, and then laundered those funds for the purchase and renovation of a mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey for Guo and his family. Je was also instrumental in the Himalaya Exchange's transfer of \\$37 million in fraud proceeds to Guo through the subterfuge of a loan made in connection with Guo's yacht. *See* GXMER138, Tr. 2792:22-2793:19 (testimony about \"the \\$37 million wire\" being \"a loan that William and Himalaya made to Miles Guo\"). Je oversaw and executed large transfers of fraud proceeds on an ambitious scale, going so far as to attempt to purchase a bank for the benefit of the G Enterprise. In communications with that bank's former chief executive, Je stated that \"Miles Guo was his best friend, that Miles Guo trusted him more than any individual in the world, and that they were very close.\" Tr. 2792:12-18.\n\n- **Mileson Guo**—also known as Qiang Guo, the defendant's son—enriched himself with G Enterprise fraud proceeds and participated in the conspiracy's operations. Mileson was the owner of multiple family office entities, including Saraca, the entity used to misappropriate \\$100 million of GTV investor funds for the Hayman Capital investment. Mileson was also the owner of family office entities, such as Lamp Capital, that received and spent Farm loan program fraud proceeds. Mileson used G|CLUBS investor money to buy himself a \\$4 million Ferrari. *See generally* GXZ 21. The Government offered Haitham Khaled's recordings in which Mileson, Guo, and other co-conspirators direct the movements of fraud proceeds through G|CLUBS, Crane, and other G Enterprise entities. *See* GX411-T at 14-15 (Guo tells Mileson, regarding Crane's money, \"strictly speaking, it's not completely legal\"); *id.* at 16 (Mileson: \"Dad, by saying the same, what I meant is if we were challenged, they would have the jurisdiction\"); GX412A at 4 (Mileson: \"I am the settlor of the foundation\" that owns G|CLUBS); GX413A-T at 4 (when asked by Crane and G|CLUBS agent Khaled \"where is the money going?,\" Mileson responds, \"anywhere out of the U.S.\").\n- **Haoran He** served as the paper owner of numerous entities at the heart of the G Enterprise, including G|CLUBS. *See* Tr. 1983; GXBR460. In that capacity, he directed G|CLUBS's figurehead CEO, Limarie Reyes Molinares, to receive and launder fraud proceeds using purported loan agreements. *See* Tr. 2990; GXGC515 (documents with He's name reflecting \\$15 million and \\$20 million transfers from G|CLUBS to the Himalaya Exchange). He was also the nominal owner of entities controlled in fact by Mileson Guo and Miles Guo. *See, e.g.*, Tr. 3379 (Fiesta Property Developments, used to receive G|CLUBS money to pay for Mileson's Ferrari); Tr. 1425 (Ya Li's testimony identifying He as the director of Freedom Media Ventures, \"a new GTV company\").\n\n# **2. Agents of the Guo Family Office**\n\nGuo's so-called \"family office\" was made up of employees who acted as Guo's agents. As relevant to this application:\n\n> • **Max Krasner** \"was an employee of Golden Spring and he worked in accounting,\" where he \"handled lots of payments\" for Guo and Wang. Tr. 448. Among other transactions, Krasner facilitated the use of G|CLUBS investor money to buy the Lamborghini that was found in Guo's Greenwich garage. *See* Tr. 136 (testimony that Krasner was \"probably one of the agents – that helped in regards with negotiating with [a Dallas Lamborghini employee]\" for the purchase of \"the Aventador SVJ Roadster\"); Tr. 3066-67 (Krasner email to G|CLUBS's figurehead CEO that \"Looks like the team is staying with the red Lambo. We need to finalize all paperwork\"). In addition to executing transactions for the G Enterprise, Krasner served as a paper owner or director of G Enterprise entities. *See, e.g.*, Tr. 3081 (Hudson Diamond); Tr. 4069 (Krasner executed paperwork in connection with Saraca's investment of \\$100 million in misappropriated GTV investor funds in a hedge fund). Indeed Krasner was the \"president\" of GTV and was paid by Saraca Media Group for this role.\n\n# **3. G|CLUBS Employees**\n\nThe operations of G|CLUBS were controlled by Guo's conspirators, principally Wang and He. The G|CLUBS entities themselves are also corporate co-conspirators; the entities themselves took actions and were used to further the goals of the criminal enterprise charged. G|CLUBS' employees are agents of the conspiracy that Guo led, and certain statements elicited at trial are admissible for their truth as a result.\n\n- **Limarie Reyes** was the figurehead CEO of G|CLUBS. In that capacity she received directions from Wang and He primarily to sign and facilitate \"loan\" agreements. (E.g. Tr. 2975-76.) Such agreements directed the expenditure of G|CLUBS member payments (i.e. victim money) to purchase luxury items for Guo and his family as well as send cash to Mileson Guo and Je (who further distributed it to the Guo family).\n- **Alex Hadjicharalambous** was G|CLUBS's controller, \"and he was in charge of accounting, specifically the reconciliation of member IDs with the money that comes in.\" Tr. 2045. Hadjicharalambous communicated with banks on behalf of G|CLUBS, *see, e.g.*, Tr. 2602-04. His work extended to other G Enterprise entities: for example, a document found at Wang's apartment identified Hadjicharalambous as the operator of Freedom Media Ventures's account at the Himalaya Exchange. *See* GXWA96; Tr. 3323-24.\n- **Ana Izquierdo** was an in-house lawyer for G|CLUBS. Izquierdo took instruction from Wang, *see* Tr. 3020, and helped facilitate transfers of fraud proceeds from G|CLUBS to other G Enterprise entities, *see, e.g.*, Tr. 3067 (email to Krasner about documents needed before G|CLUBS's figurehead CEO \"can send them and the wire can go out\"). Izquierdo also worked, at Wang's direction, to facilitate the\n\npurchase of \"assets\" including the red Lamborghini found in Guo's garage and the Liberty Yacht that Guo used. *E.g.*, GXGC317; GXGC318.\n\n#### **4. The Himalaya Exchange and Hamilton Employees**\n\nAs explained above, the operations of the Himalaya Exchange were controlled by Guo and William Je. Former Himalaya Exchange CEO Jesse Brown testified that Guo drove the timing of the Himalaya Exchange launch and that Guo selected the new CEO of the Himalaya Exchange. Tr. 3674:4-9 (Guo drove timing of launch); 3705:3-14 (Brown's replacement as CEO told him that \"Miles Guo placed him there\"). The Himalaya Exchange entities—including the Hamilton entities that were also owned and managed by Je and shared overlapping personnel with the Exchange, *see, e.g.*, GXHN-33 (establishing that Hamilton Investment Management was entity controlled by Je); 1962:13-15 (Khaled describing Je worked for Hamilton). Himalaya Exchange and Hamilton are themselves corporate co-conspirators, having taken actions in furtherance of the crimes charged. Their employees are agents of the conspiracy that Guo led, and certain statements elicited at trial are admissible for their truth as a result.\n\n- **Marios Mamzeris** was the COO of the Himalaya Exchange and an employee of Hamilton. *See* GXBR 212 (email from Mamzeris to BitGo about the Exchange's lack of \"crypto capabilities\" in March 2023). *See* Tr. 2675, 2679, 3733; GXBR 212 (email from Mamzeris to BitGo about the Exchange's lack of \"crypto capabilities\" in March 2023).\n- **Priya Patel** was the primary point of contact at the Exchange for BitGo, *see* Tr. 2661-63, a vendor hired to provide wallet services that the Exchange never used, *see* Tr. 2680. In that capacity, Patel lied to BitGo—*see, e.g.*, Tr. 2662 (Patel told BitGo that Guo had \"no financial connection\" to the Exchange\")—and the Exchange's former CEO testified he believed she lied to a meeting of its employees by claiming ignorance of GTV's cryptocurrency-related settlement with the SEC, *see* Tr. 3691-93.\n- **David Fallon** was a senior executive of Hamilton. *See, e.g.*, Tr. 2523:17-19 (recounting that Fallon and Je are authorized users of Hamilton Opportunity Fund Bank Account); 2859:1-2 (Collins describing Fallon as \"head trader\" of Hamilton); 3060:8-11 (Reyes testimony describing Fallon as \"part of the Himalaya Exchange team\").\n\n#### **5. Agents of Taurus Fund**\n\nThe Mahwah Mansion was purchased using investor funds originally received by Crane, a shell company created by trial witness Haitham Khaled. Title to the Mahwah Mansion was held by Taurus Fund LLC, a shell company, and corporate co-conspirator. Real estate attorney, Amy Buck, testified that Taurus Fund was her client as a formal matter, and that the property was owned as a practical matter by a family (namely, the Guo family). Buck represented Taurus Fund in the purchase of the property and then paid \\$18 million of expenses on behalf of Taurus Fund. Buck interacted with several agents of Taurus Fund and the Guo family: Aaron Mitchell and his wife and law partner, Dara Lawall; Scott Barnett; Gladys Chow; Sean Jing; and Ilona Musial. *See* Tr. 3897. The Court overruled a defense objection and permitted Buck to testify to her communications with these individuals. *See* Tr. 3878-79.\n\n- **Dara Lawall** and her husband Mitchell were attorneys representing the Guo family as a client. Lawall referred the family to Buck for the Mahwah Mansion purchase, and thereafter Buck interacted primarily with Mitchell. Tr. 3875-76 (\"[Lawall] told [Buck] the clients [*i.e.* the Guo family] were like family to her and they were very important to them. And she also wanted to inquire about my ability to do a accelerated transaction. It was a quick cash transaction\"), 3880-81.\n- **Aaron Mitchell** was Guo's attorney. *E.g.*, Tr. 1505. Mitchell was the attorney for Taurus Fund and gave Buck directions on who was authorized to approve payment of expenses. Tr. 3881. Mitchell was also a GTV director, served as counsel to G|CLUBS and affiliated the transfer of victim proceeds to purchase the Mahwah Mansion.\n- **Scott Barnett** was Guo's head of security, Tr. 3562; GX 233, and a manager of Taurus Fund, Tr. 3890.\n- **Gladys Chow** was Guo's personal assistant, *see* GXPRO466, and an agent of Taurus Fund, Tr. 3899.\n- **Sean Jing** was another agent of Taurus Fund authorized to approve expenses. Tr. 3898-99.\n\n#### **6. Farms**\n\nThe trial record makes clear that Guo controlled the Farms—the \"supporters group around the world\" that \"Miles Guo established around April/May 2020.\" Tr. 1373:5-9. Guo's own words establish his control over the Farms. For example, in a July 22, 2020 video, Guo listed out the leaders of the various Farms and gave them instructions. *See* GXC40-V (\"The leaders of all farms need to do all they can to protect those who contact them. Anybody who does not respond or not fulfill their responsibilities will be dismissed. The contact information of all Himalayan farms will be posted on Getter. Mulan will post shortly.\"). In addition to \"Mulan,\" Guo referenced other farm leaders in that video**,** including: \"Brother Changdao\" (i.e., Xia Qidong), \"Sara\" (i.e., Sara Wei), and \"David in U.K.\" (i.e., David Dai). The individual \"Mulan\" that Guo referenced was Ya Li, a trial witness. Li testified that \"controlled the Alliance\" of Farms around the world. *See* Tr. 1317:9- 10, 1475:9-18 (Ya Li's testimony that Guo \"controlled the [Himalaya Farm] Alliance\" and \"controlled investments related to the Farms\"); Tr. 2378:20-2379:7 (Minran Wu's testimony that Guo said \"in his video\" that he chose all Farm leaders and gave them instructions). Indeed, Guo's control over his so-called \"movement\" was emphasized in the defense's opening statement: \"What the government is asking you to do is to conclude that Mr. Guo defrauded essentially himself because he is the movement, and the movement him.\" Tr. 48:4-6.\n\nBecause Guo directly controlled the Farms, the Farm leaders were agents of Guo, and certain statements by Farm leaders included in Exhibit A are admissible for their truth.\n\n- **Xia Qidong**, also known as Long Island David, Long Island Brother, Changdao, and Changdao Brother, was \"the leader of the MOS Farm\" and \"Miles Guo chose him.\" Tr. 2378:20-24. Xia ultimately ascended to \"Himalaya Alliance secretary,\" Tr. 1373:19-25, a position from which he has carried out Guo's conspiracy by attempting to obstruct justice after Guo's arrest and detention. *See, e.g.*, Tr. 1501:14-24 (Ya Li's testimony that, \"after Guo's arrest,\" \"Chang Dao said: Next week, FBI is going to arrest us; you need to delete all the information.\").\n- **Sara Wei** led the Phoenix Farm, Tr. 2500:18-21, and solicited and facilitated GTV investments through Voice of Guo as Guo's agent, Tr. 204:6-205:5.\n- **David Dai** was the leader of the UK Farm, Tr. 245:9-12, in which capacity he directed Le Zhou to create a shell company and open bank accounts to collect purported H-Coin investments from Guo's followers, Tr. 247:8-249:13.\n- **Zhang Yongbing** \"was the legal group leader in the MOS Farm\" before he \"ascended to the Himalaya Alliance and then to the Iron Blood Group.\" Tr. 2403:10-15. Among other acts that Zhang committed as Guo's agent and in furtherance of Guo's conspiracy, Zhang instructed Ya Li to sue Guo's bankruptcy trustee, Tr. 1522:11-12, directed her to sign a false affidavit to obstruct Guo's bankruptcy proceedings, Tr. 1523:8-11, and threatened her on Guo's behalf when Ya Li refused, Tr. 1523:17-19 (testimony that Zhang took directions from Guo), 1529:24-1530:5 (Zhang's threat to Li). Zhang was also awarded a Lamborghini by G|CLUBS. Tr. 3033. Zhang further used his assistant as his agent in furtherance of the conspiracy. Tr. 2404-2413.\n\n#### **II. Conclusion**\n\nThe evidence adduced in the Government's case-in-chief showed that the defendant operated a global racketeering and fraud conspiracy through his own words—broadcast to his followers, investors, and victims—and through the words and acts of his many co-conspirators and other agents. The defendant's own words, and those of his agents, are not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Accordingly, the Court should make a *Geaney* finding admitting certain of the defendant's and his agents' statements for their truth.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\n Micah F. Fergenson Ryan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","body_zh":"U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官）\n\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278（纽约州纽约市联邦广场26号雅各布·K·贾维茨联邦大楼37层，邮编10278）\n\nJune 28, 2024\n\nVIA ECF（通过电子案件卷宗系统递交）\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312（纽约州纽约市珍珠街500号丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院，纽约南区联邦地区法院，联邦地区法官阿娜丽莎·托雷斯阁下，邮编10007-1312）\n\nRe: United States v. Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)（事由：美国诉郭案，案号 S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)）\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府方谨以此函向法庭提交一份在庭审中引述的庭外陈述清单，该等陈述作为共谋者或代理人的陈述，可就其实质真实性采纳为证据。参见证据 A（适用陈述附录）。证据 A 中列出的陈述的庭外陈述者在下文依次论述，并附有庭审记录引述，以优势证据证明陈述者系被告人的共谋者或代理人。第1条脚注：本申请不涉及已在无异议情况下被采纳为证据的证物中的陈述。\n\nI. 法庭应当就某些共谋者和代理人陈述的实质真实性予以采纳\n\nA. 适用法律\n\n刑事被告人的陈述——无论是其本人所作还是通过其代理人所作——均非传闻证据，且可就其实质真实性采纳为证据。参见 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)；另见例如 United States v. Olweiss, 138 F.2d 798, 800 (2d Cir. 1943)（指出共谋者陈述基于“代理的一般原则，即任何代理人在其权限范围内的行为，均对其本人具有拘束力并可作为对其不利的证据”）。\n\n若要就其实质真实性被采纳，共谋者的陈述必须是在“共谋期间且为推进共谋而作出的”，Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)；而一般代理人的陈述必须是“在该代理关系存续期间就属于该关系范围内的事项所作出的”，Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)。若要以实质真实性采纳共谋者陈述，政府方必须以优势证据证明“存在共谋，被告人与陈述者为共谋成员，且陈述系在共谋过程中为推进共谋而作出”。United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993)（援引 United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)）；另见例如 United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 86-87 (2d Cir. 2013)（代理人陈述适用相同标准）。在有其他某些证据佐证的情况下，被告人及其共谋者和其他代理人的陈述本身即可用于支持 Geaney 认定。参见通论 Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-76 (1987)；United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 161 (2d Cir. 2011)（维持 Geaney 认定，认为其“得到了两名被告人录音陈述的充分支持”）。\n\n鉴于这些规则“植根于代理理论”，United States v. Saneaux, 365 F. Supp. 2d 493, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)，法庭还应采纳“共谋者之代理人的陈述”，Miltland Raleigh-Durham v. Myers, 807 F. Supp. 1025, 1054 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)（Motley 法官），或“共谋实体的代理人”的陈述，United States v. Rogers, 118 F.3d 466, 478 (6th Cir. 1997)。公司可以构成共谋者，参见例如 United States v. Weintraub, 27 F. App'x 54, 55-56 (2d Cir. 2001)（简要命令）（维持对个人及公司共谋者的定罪），且公司通过其自然人代理人的行为实施犯罪，参见 United States v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 882 F.2d 656, 660 (2d Cir. 1989)。此外，根据 Rule 801(d)(2)(D)，即使“该对话是否如 Rule 801(d)(2)(E) 所要求的那样是在共谋过程中且为推进共谋而进行尚存疑问”，代理人的陈述亦可采纳。United States v. Pilarinos, 864 F.2d 253, 256-57 (2d Cir. 1988)。\n\nB. 庭外陈述者\n\n六周以来的证人证言和已采纳证物（许多是在未提出异议的情况下采纳的）共同提供了充实的证据，足以证明“存在共谋，被告人与陈述者为共谋成员，且共谋者的陈述系在共谋过程中为推进共谋而作出”。Tracy, 12 F.3d at 1199（援引 Geaney, 417 F.2d at 1120）；Fed. R. Evid. 104。庭审记录亦充分支持关于 Miles Guo（郭文贵）及其共谋者通过代表该共谋集团发声的代理人行事的认定。参见 Pilarinos, 864 F.2d at 256-57（维持对未加入共谋的代理人所作陈述的可采性）。\n\n庭审中引入的郭文贵及其共谋者的大多数陈述，其提交目的并非为了确立其实质真实性，而是：作为向郭文贵的受害者撒谎的证据、作为向其代理人下达指令的证据，或是作为对听众产生特定影响的话语。第2条脚注：参见例如 GX 3401 及庭审记录第 3677-79 页（Jesse Brown 担任 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）首席执行官并向共谋者 William Je（余建明）汇报，在 GTV 播出的采访中就该交易所及其产品撒谎）；United States v. Pedroza, 750 F.2d 187, 203 (2d Cir. 1984)（指出“该证言并非传闻，因为其显然不是为了证明所主张事项的实质真实性而提供”，而“相反，提供该陈述是为了证明其显而易见的虚假性”）。其他陈述系郭文贵通过其代理人提出的问题或下达的命令——明确不属于传闻。例如，庭审记录第 1213:23-1214:9 页（证言显示，在一名投资者于直播中向郭文贵要求退款后，郭文贵的代理人 Guobin 下令将该投资者移出 Discord 群组——“kick it out”）；庭审记录第 479:18-22 页（证言显示，Rule of Law Society（法治社会）——由郭文贵控制的机构，参见庭审记录第 475:13-19 页——的一名律师助理询问一位董事，其针对郭文贵指令投出的反对票是否属于笔误）。参见 United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, 84 (2d Cir. 2012)（“作为法律问题，提问不属于 Rule 801 含义内的‘主张’”）；United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 586 (2d Cir. 1999)（“作为命令证据提交的陈述……而非为了证明其中所主张事项的实质真实性，不属于传闻。”）。还有其他陈述——例如来自“被告人创建并控制的媒体网站”的言论——“可作为非传闻证据予以采纳，以展示其对观看者的影响”。庭审记录第 349-50 页（援引案卷第 361 号文件（政府方动议）及 SEC v. AT&T, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 3d 703, 737 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)）；另见例如庭审记录第 186-190 页（在附有限制性指示的情况下采纳 Steve Bannon 在法治社会启动仪式期间的陈述，指示说明政府方“并非为了证明视频中所陈述内容的实质真实性而提交”）；庭审记录第 2656-2659 页（采纳 Sam Roberts 就喜马拉雅交易所代理人向其提供的信息所作的证言，以展示其对 Roberts 的影响）。但 G 企业共谋者的其他陈述——包括公开和私下的有罪自认——则是为了证明其实质真实性而提交的。基于下述理由，法庭应当作出 Geaney 认定，并将这些陈述采纳为证据。\n\n1. 郭文贵核心圈共谋者\n\n郭文贵的 RICO（《诈贷与贪腐组织操纵法案》）共谋集团由一个核心共谋者群体领导，该群体指挥资金流动、号令各商业实体的代理人，并执行该共谋集团的长期计划：\n\nYvette Wang（王雁平）已承认犯有与郭文贵共谋的罪行。5月28日，鉴于王雁平已认罪答辩，法庭裁定政府方“可以提出引出王雁平陈述的问题”。庭审记录第 436:2-437:22 页。除其认罪答辩之外，庭审记录已充分证明王雁平是郭文贵的共谋者和代理人。事实上，王雁平甚至称郭文贵为“校董（Principal）”。参见例如庭审记录第 425:25-426:4、1918:3-7 页。王雁平对郭氏企业中的几乎每一个实体均行使控制权，并担任郭文贵的“右手（得力助手）”。庭审记录第 433:21-25 页；另见庭审记录第 42 页（“王女士是运营主管。她负责各项业务的日常运作。”（被告人开庭陈述））。王雁平雇用了郭文贵的多名助理，这些助理亦代表她和郭文贵行事（并称郭文贵为“校董”或“老板”）。参见例如庭审记录第 425:3-427:2 页。例如，王雁平从花旗银行雇用了 Haitham Khaled 来创建 Crane 实体，以掩盖并延续 G|CLUBS 欺诈，庭审记录第 1915:20-1916:9 页；并雇用了 Jesse Brown 来运营一个从 G-Dollar 和 G-Coin 演变为 H-Dollar 和 H-Coin 的加密货币项目，庭审记录第 3638:3-3639:10 页。王雁平还控制资金流动并指挥对投资者资金的挪用。作为 GTV 的执行董事及 Saraca 银行账户的签字人，王雁平执行了向 Hayman Capital 转移1亿美元被挪用 GTV 投资者资金的操作——该笔转账用于使郭氏家族获益。参见 GXZ1。王雁平协调与农场相关的事务，包括与在庭审中作证的农场负责人 Ya Li（李亚）协调农场“贷款”还款事宜。参见例如庭审记录第 1389 页。王雁平对 G Clubs 行使控制权，并指示其人员转移资金和购买资产。庭审记录第 2976:8 页（G Clubs 首席执行官 Limarie Reyes 向王雁平汇报）。王雁平对利用受害者资金支付郭氏家族奢华生活开销的家族办公室行使控制权。庭审记录第 433-434 页。\n\nWilliam Je（余建明）是郭文贵的主要洗钱者。庭审记录第 458:18-22 页（将余建明描述为“财务人员”以及“为老板处理投资和融资的人”）；庭审记录第 42 页（“余建明是主管财务的人。他是一位受人尊敬的投资银行家，不仅管理郭氏家族基金的财富”（被告人开庭陈述））。余建明与王雁平一同促成了对1亿美元 GTV 投资者资金的挪用。参见庭审记录第 762-63 页。此外，余建明管理 ACA Capital，该机构被用于洗钱和挪用受害者资金，包括农场“贷款”资金。余建明还拥有并控制 Hamilton 和喜马拉雅交易所实体，这些实体同样被用于洗钱和挪用受害者资金以使郭文贵获益。例如，余建明从 Crane 接收了超过4600万美元的 G|CLUBS 投资者资金，随后清洗该笔资金用于在新泽西州莫瓦为郭文贵及其家族购买并翻修一处豪宅。余建明还在喜马拉雅交易所通过一笔与郭文贵游艇相关的虚假借款向郭文贵转移3700万美元欺诈所得的过程中发挥了关键作用。参见 GXMER138，庭审记录第 2792:22-2793:19 页（关于“3700万美元电汇”是“余建明和喜马拉雅向郭文贵提供的贷款”的证言）。余建明以极大的规模监督并执行了欺诈所得的巨额转移，甚至企图为 G 企业的利益收购一家银行。在与该银行前首席执行官的联络中，余建明表示“郭文贵是他最好的朋友，郭文贵信任他胜过世界上任何人，且两人关系极其密切”。庭审记录第 2792:12-18 页。\n\n- Mileson Guo（郭强，又名 Qiang Guo，被告之子）利用 G Enterprise（G系列企业）的欺诈所得谋取私利，并参与了该共谋的运作。Mileson 是多个家族办公室实体的所有者，包括用于挪用 1 亿美元 GTV 投资者资金进行 Hayman Capital 投资的实体 Saraca。Mileson 也是接收并花费农场贷款项目欺诈所得的家族办公室实体（如 Lamp Capital）的所有者。Mileson 使用 G|CLUBS 投资者的资金为自己购买了一辆价值 400 万美元的法拉利。参见 GXZ 21 综述。政府出示了 Haitham Khaled 的录音，在录音中，Mileson、Guo（郭文贵）以及其他共谋者指挥欺诈所得通过 G|CLUBS、Crane 和其他 G系列企业实体的转移流动。参见 GX411-T 第 14-15 页（Guo 就 Crane 的资金告诉 Mileson，“严格来说，这不完全合法”）；同上第 16 页（Mileson：“爸，我刚才那么说，意思是如果有人质疑我们，他们会有管辖权”）；GX412A 第 4 页（Mileson：“我是拥有 G|CLUBS 的信托基金的设立人”）；GX413A-T 第 4 页（当被 Crane 和 G|CLUBS 的代理人 Khaled 问及“钱要去哪里？”时，Mileson 回答：“美国境外的任何地方”）。\n\n- Haoran He（何浩然）担任 G系列企业核心的众多实体（包括 G|CLUBS）的账面所有者。参见审讯记录第 1983 页（Tr. 1983）；GXBR460。以该身份，他指示 G|CLUBS 的傀儡首席执行官 Limarie Reyes Molinares 利用所谓的借款协议接收并洗钱欺诈所得。参见 Tr. 2990；GXGC515（带有何浩然签名的文件，反映出从 G|CLUBS 向 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）转移的 1500 万美元和 2000 万美元款项）。他还是由 Mileson Guo 和 Miles Guo 实际控制的实体的名义所有者。例如参见 Tr. 3379（Fiesta Property Developments，用于接收 G|CLUBS 资金以支付 Mileson 的法拉利）；Tr. 1425（Ya Li（李亚）的证词，指认何浩然为“一家新的 GTV 公司”Freedom Media Ventures 的董事）。\n\n2. 郭氏家族办公室的代理人\n\n郭文贵所谓的“家族办公室”由担任郭文贵代理人的雇员组成。就本申请而言：\n\n• Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳）“是 Golden Spring 的一名雇员，从事会计工作”，他在那里为郭文贵和 Wang（王雁平）“处理了大量付款”。Tr. 448。在其他交易中，Krasner 促成了使用 G|CLUBS 投资者资金购买在郭文贵位于格林威治的车库中发现的兰博基尼。参见 Tr. 136（证词证明 Krasner “大概是帮助与 [达拉斯兰博基尼员工] 就购买‘Aventador SVJ Roadster’进行谈判的代理人之一”）；Tr. 3066-67（Krasner 发给 G|CLUBS 傀儡首席执行官的电子邮件，称“看来团队还是选红色兰博基尼。我们需要敲定所有文书工作”）。除了为 G系列企业执行交易外，Krasner 还担任 G系列企业实体的账面所有者或董事。例如参见 Tr. 3081（Hudson Diamond）；Tr. 4069（Krasner 签署了与 Saraca 将挪用的 1 亿美元 GTV 投资者资金投资于一家对冲基金相关的文书）。事实上，Krasner 是 GTV 的“总裁”，并由 Saraca Media Group 为此职务支付报酬。\n\n3. G|CLUBS 雇员\n\nG|CLUBS 的运作由郭文贵的共谋者（主要是王雁平和何浩然）控制。G|CLUBS 实体本身也是法人共谋者；这些实体自身采取了行动，并被用于推进所指控的犯罪企业的目的。G|CLUBS 的雇员是郭文贵领导的共谋的代理人，因此在审判中引出的某些陈述因其真实性而具有可采性。\n\n- Limarie Reyes（利玛丽·雷耶斯）是 G|CLUBS 的傀儡首席执行官。以该身份，她主要接受王雁平和何浩然的指示来签署并促成“借款”协议。（例如 Tr. 2975-76。）此类协议指示支取 G|CLUBS 会员付款（即受害者资金）为郭文贵及其家人购买奢侈品，并向 Mileson Guo 和 Je（余建明，William Je）汇送现金（后者进一步将其分发给郭氏家族）。\n\n- Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）是 G|CLUBS 的财务主管，“负责会计工作，具体是对账会员 ID 与进账款项。”Tr. 2045。Hadjicharalambous 代表 G|CLUBS 与银行进行沟通，例如参见 Tr. 2602-04。他的工作还扩展到其他 G系列企业实体：例如，在王雁平公寓中发现的一份文件指认 Hadjicharalambous 为 Freedom Media Ventures 在喜马拉雅交易所账户的操作人。参见 GXWA96；Tr. 3323-24。\n\n- Ana Izquierdo（安娜·伊斯基耶多）是 G|CLUBS 的法务律师。Izquierdo 听从王雁平的指示，参见 Tr. 3020，并协助促成欺诈所得从 G|CLUBS 向其他 G系列企业实体的转移，例如参见 Tr. 3067（给 Krasner 的电子邮件，内容涉及在 G|CLUBS 傀儡首席执行官“发送这些文件且电汇可以发出”之前所需的文件）。Izquierdo 还在王雁平的指示下工作，以促成\n\n购买包括在郭文贵车库中发现的红色兰博基尼以及郭文贵使用的自由号游艇（Liberty Yacht）在内的“资产”。例如，GXGC317；GXGC318。\n\n4. 喜马拉雅交易所和 Hamilton 雇员\n\n如上文所述，喜马拉雅交易所的运作由郭文贵和 William Je 控制。喜马拉雅交易所前首席执行官 Jesse Brown 作证称，郭文贵推动了喜马拉雅交易所上线的时间安排，且郭文贵选定了喜马拉雅交易所的新任首席执行官。Tr. 3674:4-9（郭文贵推动了上线时间）；3705:3-14（接替 Brown 担任首席执行官的人告诉他“是郭文贵把他安插在那里的”）。喜马拉雅交易所实体——包括同样由 Je 拥有和管理且与交易所存在人员重叠的 Hamilton 实体，例如参见 GXHN-33（证明 Hamilton Investment Management 是由 Je 控制的实体）；1962:13-15（Khaled 描述 Je 为 Hamilton 工作）。喜马拉雅交易所和 Hamilton 本身就是法人共谋者，它们采取了推进所指控罪行的行动。它们的雇员是郭文贵领导的共谋的代理人，因此在审判中引出的某些陈述因其真实性而具有可采性。\n\n- Marios Mamzeris（马里奥斯·马姆泽里斯）是喜马拉雅交易所的首席运营官，也是 Hamilton 的雇员。参见 GXBR 212（Mamzeris 于 2023 年 3 月发送给 BitGo 的关于交易所缺乏“加密能力”的电子邮件）。参见 Tr. 2675, 2679, 3733；GXBR 212（Mamzeris 于 2023 年 3 月发给 BitGo 关于交易所缺乏“加密能力”的电子邮件）。\n\n- Priya Patel（普里亚·帕特尔）是交易所与 BitGo 之间的主要联络人，参见 Tr. 2661-63，BitGo 是一家被聘请提供钱包服务但交易所从未实际使用过的供应商，参见 Tr. 2680。以该身份，Patel 对 BitGo 撒了谎——例如参见 Tr. 2662（Patel 告诉 BitGo 郭文贵与交易所“没有任何财务关联”）——且该交易所前首席执行官作证称，他认为 Patel 在一次员工会议上撒了谎，声称不知道 GTV 与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）达成的与加密货币相关的和解协议，参见 Tr. 3691-93。\n\n- David Fallon（大卫·法伦）是 Hamilton 的高级管理人员。例如参见 Tr. 2523:17-19（叙述 Fallon 和 Je 是 Hamilton Opportunity Fund 银行账户的授权使用人）；2859:1-2（Collins 将 Fallon 描述为 Hamilton 的“首席交易员”）；3060:8-11（Reyes 的证词将 Fallon 描述为“喜马拉雅交易所团队的一部分”）。\n\n5. Taurus Fund 的代理人\n\nMahwah 豪宅是用最初由 Crane（由审判证人 Haitham Khaled 设立的空壳公司）接收的投资者资金购买的。Mahwah 豪宅的产权由作为空壳公司兼法人共谋者的 Taurus Fund LLC 持有。房地产律师 Amy Buck 作证称，形式上 Taurus Fund 是她的客户，而实质上该物业归一个家族（即郭氏家族）所有。Buck 代表 Taurus Fund 参与了该物业的购买，随后代表 Taurus Fund 支付了 1800 万美元的费用。Buck 与 Taurus Fund 及郭氏家族的数名代理人进行了互动：Aaron Mitchell 及其妻子兼律师合伙人 Dara Lawall；Scott Barnett；Gladys Chow；Sean Jing；以及 Ilona Musial。参见 Tr. 3897。法院驳回了辩方的异议，允许 Buck 就其与这些人员的沟通作证。参见 Tr. 3878-79。\n\n- Dara Lawall（达拉·拉瓦尔）及其丈夫 Mitchell 是代表郭氏家族这一客户的律师。Lawall 将该家族引荐给 Buck 进行 Mahwah 豪宅的购买，此后 Buck 主要与 Mitchell 进行互动。Tr. 3875-76（“[Lawall] 告诉 [Buck]，客户 [即郭氏家族] 对她来说就像家人一样，对他们非常重要。她还想询问我进行加急交易的能力。那是一笔快速的现金交易”），3880-81。\n\n- Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）是郭文贵的律师。例如，Tr. 1505。Mitchell 是 Taurus Fund 的律师，并就谁有权批准支付费用向 Buck 发出指示。Tr. 3881。Mitchell 还是 GTV 的董事，担任 G|CLUBS 的法律顾问，并协助转移受害者资金以购买 Mahwah 豪宅。\n\n- Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）是郭文贵的安保主管，Tr. 3562；GX 233，也是 Taurus Fund 的经理，Tr. 3890。\n\n- Gladys Chow（周格拉迪斯）是郭文贵的私人助理，参见 GXPRO466，也是 Taurus Fund 的代理人，Tr. 3899。\n\n- Sean Jing（井肖恩）是 Taurus Fund 获授权批准费用的另一名代理人。Tr. 3898-99。\n\n6. 农场\n\n审判记录清楚地表明，郭文贵控制着农场——即“郭文贵在 2020 年 4 月/5 月左右建立”的“遍布全球的支持者群体”。Tr. 1373:5-9。郭文贵自己的话证实了他对农场的控制。例如，在 2020 年 7 月 22 日的一段视频中，郭文贵列出了各个农场的负责人并向他们发出指示。参见 GXC40-V（“所有农场的负责人都要全力以赴保护联系他们的人。任何不予回复或不履行职责的人都将被免职。所有喜马拉雅农场的联系方式都将发布在 Getter 上。木兰很快就会发布。”）。除“木兰”外，郭文贵在该视频中还提及了其他农场负责人，包括：“长岛哥”（即 Xia Qidong（夏奇东））、“Sara”（即 Sara Wei（魏丽红））以及“英国的大卫”（即 David Dai（戴大卫））。郭文贵所指的“木兰”是审判证人 Ya Li。Li 作证称，郭文贵“控制了遍布全球的农场联盟”。参见 Tr. 1317:9-10，1475:9-18（Ya Li 的证词证明郭文贵“控制了 [喜马拉雅农场] 联盟”并“控制了与农场相关的投资”）；Tr. 2378:20-2379:7（Minran Wu（吴敏然）的证词证明郭文贵“在他的视频中”表示他挑选了所有农场负责人并向他们发出指示）。事实上，辩方的开庭陈词也强调了郭文贵对他所谓的“运动”的控制：“政府要求你们认定的是，郭先生在实质上诈骗了他自己，因为他就是这场运动，而这场运动就是他。”Tr. 48:4-6。\n\n由于郭文贵直接控制农场，农场负责人即为郭文贵的代理人，因此附录 A（Exhibit A）中包含的农场负责人的某些陈述因其真实性而具有可采性。\n\n- Xia Qidong（夏启东），又名 Long Island David（长岛伟哥）、Long Island Brother、Changdao（长岛）及 Changdao Brother，曾是「MOS Farm（新中国联邦农场/摩西农场）的负责人」，且「Miles Guo（郭文贵）挑选了他」。Tr. 2378:20-24。夏最终升任「Himalaya Alliance secretary（喜马拉雅联盟秘书）」，Tr. 1373:19-25，他在该职位上通过在郭被捕及羁押后企图妨碍司法公正来执行郭的共谋。参见，例如，Tr. 1501:14-24（Ya Li（李亚）的证词称，「在郭被捕后」，「长岛说：下周，FBI 要来抓我们了；你需要删除所有信息。」）。\n\n- Sara Wei（魏丽红/Sara）领导了 Phoenix Farm（凤凰农场），Tr. 2500:18-21，并作为郭的代理人通过 Voice of Guo（文贵之声）招揽并促成 GTV 投资，Tr. 204:6-205:5。\n\n- David Dai（戴大卫）是 UK Farm（英国农场）的负责人，Tr. 245:9-12，在此身份下，他指示 Le Zhou（周乐）设立一家空壳公司并开设银行账户，以向郭的追随者收取所谓的 H-Coin（喜币）投资款，Tr. 247:8-249:13。\n\n- Zhang Yongbing（张永兵）在「升入喜马拉雅联盟随后又进入 Iron Blood Group（铁血组）」之前，「曾是 MOS Farm 的法律组组长」。Tr. 2403:10-15。在张作为郭的代理人并为推进郭的共谋而实施的其他行为中，张指示李亚起诉郭的破产受托人，Tr. 1522:11-12，指示她签署虚假宣誓书以阻碍郭的破产程序，Tr. 1523:8-11，并在李亚拒绝时代郭对其进行威胁，Tr. 1523:17-19（关于张听从郭指示的证词），1529:24-1530:5（张对李的威胁）。张还获得了 G|CLUBS 奖励的一辆兰博基尼。Tr. 3033。张还进一步利用其助手作为其代理人以推进共谋。Tr. 2404-2413。\n\nII. 结论\n\n政府在控方直接举证阶段提出的证据表明，被告通过自己的言论——向其追随者、投资者和受害者广播——以及通过其众多共谋者和其他代理人的言行，实施了一起全球性的敲诈勒索与欺诈共谋。被告本人的言论及其代理人的言论不属于传闻证据。Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)。因此，法院应当作出 Geaney 裁定，采纳被告及其代理人的某些陈述以证实其真实性。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nMicah F. Fergenson\nRyan B. Finkel\nJustin Horton\nJuliana N. Murray\nAssistant United States Attorneys（联邦助理检察官）\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","GTV","Miles Guo","CIPA","William Je","Saraca","Torres","G Clubs","Himalaya Alliance","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","Farm Loan","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":361,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3837,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:35:31"}