{"id":"court_sdny_388_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":388,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-07-01","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"证据裁定（共谋人庭外陈述可采性）——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #388（2024年7月1日立案）。主审法官 Analisa Torres 就政府依据《联邦证据规则》801(d)(2)(E)申请将若干共谋人的庭外陈述作为实质证据采纳一事作出裁定，认定检方已以优势证据标准证明相关共谋关系存在、郭文贵及陈述人均为共谋成员，且该等陈述系在共谋进行过程中为推进共谋目的而作出，故除个别脚注列明的例外情形外，裁定附件 A 所列共谋人陈述可予采纳。","summary_en":"Evidentiary order on admissibility of coconspirator statements — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 388 (filed July 1, 2024). Presiding Judge Analisa Torres ruled on the government's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) to admit certain out-of-court statements of alleged coconspirators for their truth, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed, that Guo and the declarants were members, and that the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy — and accordingly admitted the coconspirator statements listed in Exhibit A, subject to exceptions noted in a footnote.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-against-\n\nMILES GUO,\n\nDefendant.\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ DATE FILED: 07/01/2024\n\n# 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n# **ORDER**\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nThe Government moves to admit certain statements of alleged coconspirators of Defendant, Miles Guo, for their truth pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). Gov Mem., ECF No. 382; *see* Ex. A, ECF No. 382-1 (list of statements); Guo Opp., ECF No. 383; Gov. Reply, ECF No. 384. As the Court explained in its ruling on the Government's first motion *in limine*, the Court may admit coconspirator statements during trial \"'on a conditional basis, subject to the later submission of the necessary evidence' to establish that the coconspirator exception is applicable.\" ECF No. 319 at 4 (quoting *United States v. Tracy*, 12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993)). Specifically, the Government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that \"a conspiracy existed, that the [D]efendant and [the] declarant[s] were members, and that the statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy\" (the \"*Geaney* prerequisites\"). *Tracy*, 12 F.3d at 1199 (citing *United States v. Geaney*, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)). This order addresses whether the Government has made the requisite showing.<sup>1</sup> Because the Court finds that it has, the coconspirator statements identified in Exhibit A are admitted.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Although the Circuit has \"never required a district court to make particularized rulings or conduct separable analyses with respect to each coconspirator, much less each coconspirator statement,\" the Court does so here in an abundance of caution. *United States v. Coplan*, 703 F.3d 46, 83 (2d Cir. 2012).\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\nThe Government alleges that, from 2018 to March 2023, Guo operated a scheme to defraud thousands of investors of more than \\$1 billion, laundering the proceeds through foreign and domestic entities, and misappropriating the funds for his own use. S3 ¶ 1, ECF No. 307. The indictment states that Guo and his coconspirators \"took advantage of [his] prolific online presence and hundreds of thousands of online followers to solicit investments in various entities and programs by promising outsized financial returns and other benefits.\" *Id.* ¶ 2. In fact, it alleges, these entities were \"instrumentalities that Guo [] created and used to perpetuate [his] fraud, . . . exploit [his] followers,\" and \"strengthen the G Enterprise\"—the collection of \"interrelated and overlapping entities\" that Guo used to carry out his schemes. *Id.* ¶¶ 2, 3(a).\n\nAs relevant here, Count One of the indictment charges Guo with Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (\"RICO\") Act conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d), predicated on acts indictable under several federal statutes.<sup>2</sup> *Id*. ¶¶ 1–26. Count Two charges Guo with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. *Id.* ¶¶ 27–30. Count Three alleges that Guo conspired to launder the proceeds of the GTV Private Placement, Farm Loan Program, G|CLUBS, and Himalaya Exchange schemes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). *Id*. ¶¶ 31–35. And, Count Four charges him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud and to provide false statements to a financial institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. *Id*. ¶¶ 36–40.\n\nOver the past five weeks of testimony, the Government has put forth substantial evidence of these conspiracies. For example, the Government has offered testimony from multiple victims\n\n<sup>2</sup> Namely, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (financial institution fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (laundering of monetary instruments); 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity); and 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5 (securities fraud). S3 ¶ 24.\n\nwho, at Guo's urging, invested in GTV, bought G|CLUBS memberships, invested in the Farm Loans, and bought Himalaya Exchange tokens. *See, e.g.*, Tr. at 1318:4–1538:8 (testimony of Ya Li); *id.* at 2373:22–2431:8, 2502:1–2506:4 (testimony of Minran Wu); *id.* at 4463:10–4509:23 (testimony of Wei Chen). The Government has traced the use of these victim funds to show that they were used to purchase a Ferrari, a Bugatti, and the Crocker-Darlington Mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey, among other things, and to invest in a high-risk hedge fund. *E.g.*, *id.* at 938:1– 954:17 (testimony of Kimberly Espinoza); *id.* at 3436:12–3459:9 (testimony of Jocelyn Reyes); *id.* at 1789:3–1814:9 (testimony of Lonny Souza); *id.* at 3873:19–3934:17 (testimony of Amy Buck). The Government has also demonstrated that members of the conspiracies took steps to hide Guo's involvement in and control over the bank accounts that held the funds. *Id.* at 1989:15–1999:7, 2070:2–25, 2071:3–9 (testimony of Haitham Khaled); *see id.* at 1317:2–10, 1338:13–16, 1409:15–1410:5, 1513:1–19 (testimony of Ya Li regarding Guo's control over the funds).\n\n### **LEGAL STANDARD**\n\n**\"**Federal Rule of Evidence 801 provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is both offered against a party and is 'made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.'\" *United States v. Coplan*, 703 F.3d 46, 82 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)). To admit hearsay testimony under the Rule, the Court must find \"(a) that there was a conspiracy, (b) that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and (c) that the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.\" *United States v. Alameh*, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). \"These are preliminary facts for the district court to determine under a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard.\" *Id.* (citing *Bourjaily v. United States*, 483 U.S. 171, 175–76 (1987)). The\n\n3\n\ntrial court \"must view the evidence as a whole, rather than consider the individual pieces in isolation,\" *United States v. Cicale*, 691 F.2d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 1982) (citing *Geaney*, 417 F.2d at 1121), and must consider \"the contents of the alleged coconspirator's statement itself.\" *United States v. Swinton*, No. 23-6118, 2024 WL 1564487, at \\*2 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2024) (cleaned up). \"There must, however, also 'be some independent corroborating evidence of the defendant's participation in the conspiracy.'\" *Id.* (quoting *United States v. Gigante*, 166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 1999)).\n\nThe first and second requirements—the existence of a conspiracy involving the declarant and the defendant—are met where \"the evidence is sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged coconspirators entered into a joint enterprise with consciousness of its general nature and extent.\" *United States v. James*, 712 F.3d 79, 106 (2d Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The Circuit has noted that \"once a conspiracy has been proved to exist, the evidence needed to link [a] defendant with it (for purposes of a *Geaney* finding) need not be overwhelming.\" *Cicale*, 691 F.2d at 103 (cleaned up). Rather, \"all that is required to meet the *Geaney* threshold is 'a showing of a likelihood of an illicit association between the declarant and the defendant.'\" *Id.* (quoting *United States v. Alvarez-Porras*, 643 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1981)). There is no requirement that the person to whom the statement is made also be a member of the conspiracy. *James*, 712 F.3d at 106. Nor is there a requirement that the coconspirator declarant be identified by name. *United States v. Boothe*, 994 F.2d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1993).\n\nThird, a statement is \"in furtherance of\" a conspiracy if it is \"designed to promote or facilitate achievement of the goals of that conspiracy.\" *United States v. Rivera*, 22 F.3d 430, 436 (2d Cir. 1994). The furtherance can be overt: for example, if the statement \"prompt[s] the listener to respond in a way that facilitates the carrying out of criminal activity.\" *United States v.*\n\n4\n\n*Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.*, 871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Or it may be subtler: for example, a statement can further a conspiracy by \"providing information or reassurance to a coconspirator, seeking assistance from a coconspirator, or by communicating with a person who is not a member of the conspiracy in a way that is designed to help the coconspirators to achieve the conspiracy's goals.\" *Rivera*, 22 F.3d at 436. A statement may also be in furtherance if \"it informs a conspirator of the identity and activities of coconspirators, or if it informs a coconspirator as to the progress or status of the conspiracy.\" *United States v. Davis*, 687 F. App'x 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2017) (cleaned up) (citing *United States v. Rastelli*, 870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989), and *United States v. Desena*, 260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001)).\n\n### **DISCUSSION**\n\nAs a preliminary matter, the scope of this order is limited to whether the Government has \"succeed[ed] in persuading the [C]ourt that the conditionally admitted *coconspirator* statements were made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy of which both the declarant and the defendant were members.\" *Tracy*, 12 F.3d at 1199 (emphasis added). The *Geaney* protocol is not an opportunity for the parties to relitigate other hearsay objections that were resolved on the record during trial, including whether certain declarants were agents of the Defendant. *See* Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). To the extent that the Government's motion and Guo's objections are addressed to other hearsay exclusions and exceptions, they are not properly raised at this time.<sup>3</sup>\n\n<sup>3</sup> Accordingly, the Court does not address statements that it has already admitted under non-Rule 801(d)(2)(E) theories of admissibility; specifically, statements by David Fallon, Dara Lawall, Aaron Mitchell, Scott Barnett, Gladys Chow, Sean Jing, Ilona Musial, Kevin [Last Name Unknown], Max Krasner, and an unnamed Himalaya Exchange employee. *See* Ex. A; Gov. Mem. at 5–7; Gov. Reply at 3–4 n.3. Many of these statements were introduced without objection. *E.g.*, Tr. at 3078:16–17 (email from Krasner regarding Lamborghini); *id.* at 3682:6– 23 (statement from Fallon regarding Hummingbot). Others were admitted under the agency exception. *E.g.*, *id.* at 3876:13-17, 3877:3–3880:1 (statement from Lawall and sidebar permitting testimony); *id*. at 3562:1–11, 3890:12– 25 (introducing evidence that Barnett was the head of security for Guo and his family and sent invoices on their behalf); *id*. at 2929:2–2930:11, 2936:10–24, 4285:6–22 (introducing evidence over defense objection based on Chow's agency relationship with Guo).\n\nThe Government moves to admit the statements identified in Exhibit A for their truth pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E).\n\n### I. Yvette Wang\n\nThe Government identifies six statements by Yvette Wang that it seeks to admit for their truth. Ex. A at 2–3. Guo does \"not challenge the [G]overnment's position with respect to [] Wang\" in light of her guilty plea to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. Guo Opp. at 10; *see* ECF No. 325; Dkt. Entry 05/03/2024. The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that these conspiracies existed, that Wang and Guo were members, and that the statements identified by the Government were in furtherance of the conspiracies. Wang's statements are, therefore, admitted.\n\n### II. William Je\n\nNext, the Government seeks to admit certain statements by William Je, an indicted coconspirator and the \"head or chief investment officer of [Guo's] family office.\" Gov. Mem. at 3–4; Tr. at 763:1–10. The Government established by at least a preponderance of the evidence that Je was chiefly responsible for laundering the proceeds of the charged fraud schemes, implicating him as a coconspirator. To take just a few examples, Steele Schottenheimer, a Hayman Capital employee, testified that Je facilitated the \\$100 million investment in Hayman that underlies the money laundering conspiracy charge. *E.g.*, Tr. at 761:2–762:25. Jesse Brown, the nominal chief executive officer of the Himalaya Exchange, explained that Je—his boss directed him to make a \\$37 million loan of Exchange funds for \"a yacht . . . for Miles Guo's daughter.\" *Id.* at 3633:17–3635:1, 3642:18–24; 3701:22–3704:9; *see also id.* at 2769:1–5 (testimony of Bo Collins that Je was \"in charge of the Himalaya Exchange\"). And, Haitham Khaled testified that Guo, Wang, and Je all pressured him to move money from Crane into\n\nG|CLUBS. *Id.* at 2238:1–20. The record is replete with evidence of Je's involvement in the charged conspiracies, amounting to more than a mere \"commercial and social relationship.\" Guo Opp. at 10.\n\nThe Court further finds that the Je statements identified in Exhibit A—which concern the Himalaya Exchange yacht loan, the G|CLUBS funds held by Crane, and a lawsuit related to the Farm Loan Program—were made in furtherance of the relevant conspiracies. The statements are, therefore, admitted.\n\n### III. Mileson Guo\n\nThird, the Government seeks to admit several statements of Guo's son, Qiang \"Mileson\" Guo. Mileson's role within the alleged conspiracies was multifaceted. For example, Mileson directed the transfer of fraud proceeds and strategized how to launder the proceeds outside the United States. *See* GX411-T at 14–15 (conversation between Mileson, Guo, Khaled, and Ana Izquierdo regarding disposition of G|CLUBS membership dues); GX413A-T at 4 (Mileson telling Khaled that G|CLUBS funds should go \"[a]nywhere out of U.S.\"). He served as the owner of Lamp Capital, which received and spent money obtained from the Farm Loan Program. Tr. at 1958:7–24, 2544:5–9, 4731:190–4733:17; GXZ26 at 8. And, Schottenheimer testified that Mileson was the purported ultimate beneficial owner of Saraca Media Group, the entity that made the \\$100 million Hayman Capital investment. Tr. at 808:17–809:16. The Court finds that the Government has met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Mileson was a member of several of the charged conspiracies. The Court further finds that statements identified by the Government—which address the disposition of funds held by Crane—were in furtherance of the conspiracies. *E.g.*, GX413A-T at 4. Accordingly, the Court finds that\n\nMileson's statements fall within the coconspirator hearsay exclusion and shall be admitted for their truth.\n\n### IV. Farm Leaders\n\nThe Government further seeks to admit statements of several leaders of the Himalaya Farm Alliance: David Dai, Xia Qidong, Sara Wei, and Zhang Yongbing.\n\nThere is sufficient evidence to find that each of these individuals were members of the conspiracies related to the Farms. Dai was the leader of the Farm based in the United Kingdom. Tr. at 384:24–25. Xia served as the leader of the Mountain of Spices (\"MOS\") Farm and as the Alliance secretary. *Id*. at 1373:19–1347:8, 1387:10–18. Wei led the Phoenix Farm. *Id*. at 2500:18–19. And, Zhang was the \"legal group leader\" of the Mountain of Spices Farm and a member of the Iron Blood Group.<sup>4</sup> *Id*. at 2403:3–15.<sup>5</sup>\n\nGuo selected each of these individuals to lead their respective Farms and in turn, they carried out his instructions in managing the Alliance. Tr. at 406:15–17, 2500:20–23. In their roles, the Farm leaders furthered the alleged G Enterprise conspiracies. Dai, for example, directed Le Zhou to open bank accounts to collect H Coin investments and instructed him \"where to send the money.\" *Id*. at 263:9–266:9. Xia helped to execute Farm Loan and H Coin agreements with investors and directed Ya Li to delete incriminating content after Guo's arrest. *Id*. at 1501:14-24, 2395:1–2397:20, 2421:1–19. Wei facilitated investments in the GTV Private Placement through Voice of Guo. *Id*. at 204:6-205:5. And, Zhang directed Ya Li to sign a false\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Iron Blood group consisted of the \"core,\" \"highest level\" leaders of the Himalaya Alliance. Tr. at 1316:21– 1317:10, 2403:24–2404: 1. Group members managed the Alliance, were selected by Guo, and followed his directives. *Id*. at 1316:21–1317:10, 1374:9–1375:23.\n\n<sup>5</sup> Although Guo notes that Zhang is an attorney, Guo Opp. at 10, the Second Circuit has stated that there are no \"special procedures to be followed, or balancings to be performed as a prerequisite to the evidentiary use of a defendant's counsel's out-of-court statements.\" *United States v. Arrington*, 867 F.2d 122, 128 (2d Cir. 1989).\n\naffidavit and sue the trustee as part of Guo's bankruptcy proceedings, and threatened her when she refused to do so. *Id*. at 1522:7–1523:19.\n\nBased on this evidence as well as other documents and testimony introduced at trial, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden on the *Geaney* prerequisites as to the Farm leaders' statements identified in Exhibit A.\n\n### V. Alex Hadjicharalambous\n\nThe Government seeks to admit a statement of Alex Hadjicharalambous, who was \"in charge of accounting [for G|CLUBS], specifically the reconciliation of member IDs with the money that comes in.\" Tr. at 2045:10–12. The Government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Hadjicharalambous was a member of the G|CLUBS conspiracy with Guo. Hadjicharalambous was \"an employee in the townhouse.\" *Id.* at 2038:1–2; *see id.* at 1926:7–15, 1935:9–17 (noting that multiple companies linked to Guo had offices in the townhouse). He helped G|CLUBS open bank accounts at the Bank of Princeton and Morgan Stanley, *id.* 2564:1– 13, 2598:2–8, 3371:23–3372:8, and facilitated wire transfers on behalf of G|CLUBS, *id.* at 2071:21–2073:9; *see* GXC502. Specifically, he told Morgan Stanley that a series of wire transfers from G|CLUBS to Fiesta Properties Development, Ltd., was an internal loan for a real estate investment. Tr. at 3374:19–3379:6; *see id.* at 3382:11–3383:19, 3390:2–21. However, the money was actually used to purchase a Ferrari for Mileson. *Id.* at 3458:11–3459:9. Hadjicharalambous worked with Khaled to create responses to bank inquiries \"in order not to jeopardize the relationship and account status,\" *id.* at 1985:8–18, specifically masking Guo's involvement in G|CLUBS, *see id.* at 1999:4–7. And, he participated in phone calls with Guo, Mileson, Khaled, and Wang, in which the participants—including Guo—attempted to figure out how to keep the money that investors had sent to G|CLUBS. *Id.* at 2038:1–2039:3.\n\n9\n\nThe Government seeks to offer Hadjicharalambous' statement to Government witness Bo Collins, the chief executive officer of Mercantile Bank. In a conversation with Hadjicharalambous, Collins requested that G|CLUBS invest in Yieldesta, \"an investment vehicle that [Mercantile Bank] launched that was based on algorithmic trading.\" *Id.* at 2764:13–16. Hadjicharalambous told Collins that, for G|CLUBS to invest, \"a group that he called the management needed to come to a decision on it.\" *Id.* at 2765:18–21. Because Mercantile Bank was concerned about Guo's association with G|CLUBS, Hadjicharalambous' opaque statement about \"the management\" needing to approve the Yieldesta investment furthered the conspiracy's goals by signaling the need to get internal approval for the investment without specifying who actually made decisions on behalf of G|CLUBS. *Id.* at 2761:8–2762:12; *id.* at 2765:12–23; *see Rivera*, 22 F.3d at 436. G|CLUBS ultimately invested \\$3 million in Yieldesta. Tr. at 2764:19– 23. Accordingly, the Government has demonstrated that Hadjicharalambous' statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons explained above, the Court finds that—with the exception of the statements identified in footnote 3, *supra*—the statements identified in Exhibit A were made by coconspirators of Guo during and in furtherance of the charged conspiracies. They are, therefore, admissible for their truth pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: July 1, 2024 New York, New York","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n美利坚合众国，\n\n诉\n\nMILES GUO（郭文贵），\n\n被告。\n\nUSDC SDNY 电子归档文件 文件编号：__________________ 归档日期：07/01/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n裁定\n\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n政府依据《联邦证据规则》第 801(d)(2)(E) 条提出动议，要求出于实质真实性目的采纳被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）被指控之共谋者的某些陈述。政府备忘录，ECF No. 382；见附件 A，ECF No. 382-1（陈述清单）；郭反对意见，ECF No. 383；政府回复，ECF No. 384。正如本法院在对政府第一项预先排除动议（motion in limine）的裁定中所解释的，本法院可以在审判期间采纳共谋者陈述，“‘以附条件的方式，视后续是否提交确立共谋者例外适用的必要证据而定’”。ECF No. 319，第 4 页（援引 United States v. Tracy，12 F.3d 1186, 1199 (2d Cir. 1993)）。具体而言，政府必须以优势证据证明“存在共谋，被告和陈述者均为共谋成员，且这些陈述是在共谋过程中并为推进共谋而作出的”（即“Geaney 前提条件”）。Tracy，12 F.3d，第 1199 页（援引 United States v. Geaney，417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir. 1969)）。本裁定涉及政府是否已经作出了必要的证明。1 由于本法院认定政府已经作出该证明，故附件 A 中指明的共谋者陈述予以采纳。\n\n1 尽管巡回法院“从未要求地区法院对每一位共谋者、更不用说对每一项共谋者陈述作出个别化裁定或进行分别分析”，但出于格外谨慎，本法院在此予以分别处理。United States v. Coplan，703 F.3d 46, 83 (2d Cir. 2012)。\n\n背景\n\n政府指控，自 2018 年至 2023 年 3 月，郭策划并实施了一项诈骗数千名投资者逾 10 亿美元的骗局，通过境内外实体清洗收益，并将资金挪作个人使用。S3 ¶ 1，ECF No. 307。起诉书指出，郭及其共谋者“利用其大量的网络存在以及数十万网络追随者，通过承诺极高财务回报及其他利益，招揽对各类实体和项目的投资”。同上，¶ 2。事实上，指控称这些实体是“郭所创建并用于维续其欺诈行为、……剥削其追随者”以及“壮大 G Enterprise（G系列企业）”的“工具”——即郭用于执行其骗局的“相互关联且重叠的实体”集合。同上，¶¶ 2, 3(a)。\n\n与本案相关的是，起诉书第一项罪名指控郭犯有《受诈骗影响和腐败组织法》（“RICO”）共谋罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 和 (d)，该罪名以数项联邦法律下可起诉的行为为前提。2 同上，¶¶ 1–26。第二项罪名指控郭犯有共谋实施电汇欺诈和银行欺诈罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 1349。同上，¶¶ 27–30。第三项罪名指控郭共谋清洗来自 GTV 私募、农场贷款项目（Farm Loan Program）、G|CLUBS 以及喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）骗局的收益，违反 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)。同上，¶¶ 31–35。第四项罪名指控其共谋实施证券欺诈以及向金融机构提供虚假陈述，违反 18 U.S.C. § 371。同上，¶¶ 36–40。\n\n在过去五周的证人证言中，政府提出了支持这些共谋的大量证据。例如，政府提供了多名受害者的证言，\n\n2 即 18 U.S.C. § 1343（电汇欺诈）；18 U.S.C. § 1344（金融机构欺诈）；18 U.S.C. § 1956（货币工具洗钱）；18 U.S.C. § 1957（从特定非法活动衍生财产的货币交易）；以及 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) 和 78ff，及 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b–5（证券欺诈）。S3 ¶ 24。\n\n他们在郭的催促下，投资了 GTV、购买了 G|CLUBS 会员资格、投资了农场贷款，并购买了喜马拉雅交易所代币。参见，例如，庭审记录（Tr.）第 1318:4–1538:8 页（Ya Li（李亚）的证言）；同上，第 2373:22–2431:8、2502:1–2506:4 页（Minran Wu（吴敏然）的证言）；同上，第 4463:10–4509:23 页（Wei Chen（陈巍）的证言）。政府追踪了这些受害者资金的去向，证明它们被用于购买一辆法拉利、一辆布加迪以及位于新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah）的克罗克-达灵顿庄园（Crocker-Darlington Mansion）等物品，并用于投资一只高风险对冲基金。例如，同上，第 938:1–954:17 页（Kimberly Espinoza（金伯利·埃斯皮诺萨）的证言）；同上，第 3436:12–3459:9 页（Jocelyn Reyes（乔斯林·雷耶斯）的证言）；同上，第 1789:3–1814:9 页（Lonny Souza（朗尼·苏扎）的证言）；同上，第 3873:19–3934:17 页（Amy Buck（艾米·巴克）的证言）。政府还证明了共谋成员采取措施隐瞒郭对持有这些资金的银行账户的参与和控制。同上，第 1989:15–1999:7、2070:2–25、2071:3–9 页（Haitham Khaled（海瑟姆·哈立德）的证言）；见同上，第 1317:2–10、1338:13–16、1409:15–1410:5、1513:1–19 页（Ya Li 关于郭对资金控制的证言）。\n\n法律标准\n\n“《联邦证据规则》第 801 条规定，如果一项陈述既是针对一方当事人提出，又是‘由该当事人的共谋者在共谋过程中并为推进共谋而作出的’，则该陈述不属于传闻。”United States v. Coplan，703 F.3d 46, 82 (2d Cir. 2012)（援引 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)）。依据该规则采纳传闻证言，本法院必须认定“(a) 存在共谋，(b) 其成员包括陈述者以及被针对提出该陈述的当事人，且 (c) 该陈述是在共谋过程中并为推进共谋而作出的。”United States v. Alameh，341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003)（引文省略）。“这些是地区法院应按‘优势证据’标准裁定的初步事实。”同上（援引 Bourjaily v. United States，483 U.S. 171, 175–76 (1987)）。初审法院“必须将证据视为一个整体，而不是孤立地考虑单个证据”，United States v. Cicale，691 F.2d 95, 103 (2d Cir. 1982)（援引 Geaney，417 F.2d，第 1121 页），并且必须考虑“被指控共谋者陈述本身的内容”。United States v. Swinton，No. 23-6118, 2024 WL 1564487，第 *2 页 (2d Cir. Apr. 11, 2024)（清理格式）。“然而，还‘必须存在某些独立的佐证证据以证明被告参与了共谋’。”同上（援引 United States v. Gigante，166 F.3d 75, 82 (2d Cir. 1999)）。\n\n第一项和第二项要求——即存在涉及陈述者和被告的共谋——在“证据足以按优势证据标准确立被指控的共谋者在知晓其总体性质和范围的情况下加入了共同事业”时即告满足。United States v. James，712 F.3d 79, 106 (2d Cir. 2013)（清理格式）。巡回法院指出，“一旦证明共谋存在，将某位被告与其联系起来所需的证据（就 Geaney 认定而言）无须达到压倒性的程度。”Cicale，691 F.2d，第 103 页（清理格式）。相反，“达到 Geaney 门槛所要求的仅仅是‘表明陈述者与被告之间存在非法关联的可能性’。”同上（援引 United States v. Alvarez-Porras，643 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1981)）。并不要求陈述的对象也必须是共谋成员。James，712 F.3d，第 106 页。也不要求指明共谋陈述者的姓名。United States v. Boothe，994 F.2d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 1993)。\n\n第三，如果一项陈述“旨在促进或便利实现该共谋的目标”，则该陈述属于“为推进”共谋。United States v. Rivera，22 F.3d 430, 436 (2d Cir. 1994)。推进可以是公开明示的：例如，如果该陈述“促使听者以有利于开展犯罪活动的方式作出反应”。United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp.，871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989)（引文省略）。或者它也可以更加隐晦：例如，陈述可以通过“向共谋者提供信息或宽慰、寻求共谋者的协助，或者以旨在帮助共谋者实现共谋目标的方式与非共谋成员进行沟通”来推进共谋。Rivera，22 F.3d，第 436 页。如果一项陈述“告知某一共谋者其他共谋者的身份和活动，或者告知共谋者关于共谋的进展或状态”，该陈述也属于推进共谋。United States v. Davis，687 F. App'x 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2017)（清理格式）（援引 United States v. Rastelli，870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989)，以及 United States v. Desena，260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001)）。\n\n讨论\n\n作为先决事项，本裁定的范围仅限于政府是否“成功说服法院附条件采纳的共谋者陈述是在陈述者和被告均为成员的共谋过程中并为推进该共谋而作出的”。Tracy，12 F.3d，第 1199 页（强调为原文所加）。Geaney 规程并非供当事人重新辩论审判期间已在庭审记录中解决的其他传闻异议的机会，包括某些陈述者是否为被告的代理人。见 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D)。在政府的动议和郭的异议涉及其他传闻排除和例外规定的范围内，它们在此时提出是不恰当的。3\n\n3 因此，本法院不对其已根据非第 801(d)(2)(E) 条可采性理论采纳的陈述进行处理；具体而言，即 David Fallon（大卫·法伦）、Dara Lawall（达拉·拉沃尔）、Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）、Gladys Chow（周秀梅）、Sean Jing（肖恩·景）、Ilona Musial（伊洛娜·穆夏尔）、Kevin [姓氏未知]、Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳）以及喜马拉雅交易所一名未具名员工的陈述。见附件 A；政府备忘录，第 5–7 页；政府回复，第 3–4 页脚注 3。其中许多陈述是在未经异议的情况下引入的。例如，庭审记录第 3078:16–17 页（来自 Krasner 关于兰博基尼的电子邮件）；同上，第 3682:6–23 页（来自 Fallon 关于 Hummingbot 的陈述）。其他陈述则是根据代理人例外予以采纳的。例如，同上，第 3876:13-17、3877:3–3880:1 页（来自 Lawall 的陈述及准许作证的法官席私下交谈）；同上，第 3562:1–11、3890:12–25 页（引入证据证明 Barnett 是郭及其家人的安保主管并代表他们发送发票）；同上，第 2929:2–2930:11、2936:10–24、4285:6–22 页（基于 Chow 与郭的代理关系在辩方提出异议的情况下引入证据）。\n\n政府依据第 801(d)(2)(E) 条提出动议，要求出于其实质真实性采纳附件 A 中指明的陈述。\n\n一、Yvette Wang（王雁平）\n\n政府指明了 Yvette Wang（王雁平）的六项陈述，要求出于其实质真实性予以采纳。附件 A，第 2–3 页。鉴于 Wang 已就共谋实施电汇欺诈和洗钱认罪，郭“对政府关于 Wang 的立场不提出异议”。郭反对意见，第 10 页；见 ECF No. 325；法院诉讼记录条目 05/03/2024。本法院根据优势证据认定，这些共谋确实存在，Wang 和郭为共谋成员，且政府指明的陈述是为了推进这些共谋。因此，Wang 的陈述予以采纳。\n\n二、William Je（余建明）\n\n其次，政府申请采信 William Je（余建明）的若干陈述；余建明是被起诉的共谋人，也是“[郭氏]家族办公室的负责人或首席投资官”。Gov. Mem. at 3–4；Tr. at 763:1–10。政府至少以优势证据证明了余建明主要负责清洗被指控的欺诈计划的收益，从而证实了他作为共谋人的身份。仅举数例：Hayman Capital（海曼资本）员工 Steele Schottenheimer 作证称，余建明促成了对海曼资本的 $100 million 投资，而该投资正是洗钱共谋指控的基础。E.g.，Tr. at 761:2–762:25。Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）名义上的首席执行官 Jesse Brown 解释称，余建明——即其上司——指示他从交易所资金中发放一笔 $37 million 的贷款，用于“为郭文贵（Miles Guo）的女儿……购买一艘游艇”。Id. at 3633:17–3635:1, 3642:18–24；3701:22–3704:9；另见 id. at 2769:1–5（Bo Collins 作证称余建明“负责管理喜马拉雅交易所”）。并且，Haitham Khaled 作证称，郭文贵、Wang 以及余建明均向其施压，要求其将资金从 Crane 转移至 G|CLUBS。Id. at 2238:1–20。记录中充斥着余建明参与被指控共谋的证据，这绝非仅仅是“商业和社会关系”。Guo Opp. at 10。\n\n法院进一步认定，附件 A（Exhibit A）中所列的余建明陈述——涉及喜马拉雅交易所游艇贷款、Crane 持有的 G|CLUBS 资金，以及与农场贷款计划（Farm Loan Program）相关的诉讼——均是在推进相关共谋的过程中作出的。因此，准予采信这些陈述。\n\nIII. 郭强（Mileson Guo）\n\n第三，政府申请采信郭文贵的儿子郭强（Qiang \"Mileson\" Guo）的数项陈述。郭强在涉嫌的共谋中所扮演的角色是多方面的。例如，郭强指挥转移欺诈收益，并策划如何在美国境外清洗这些收益。见 GX411-T at 14–15（郭强、郭文贵、Khaled 与 Ana Izquierdo 之间关于处置 G|CLUBS 会员费的对话）；GX413A-T at 4（郭强告知 Khaled，G|CLUBS 资金应流向“美国境外的任何地方”）。他担任 Lamp Capital 的所有人，该公司接收并支出了从农场贷款计划中获取的资金。Tr. at 1958:7–24, 2544:5–9, 4731:190–4733:17；GXZ26 at 8。此外，Schottenheimer 作证称，郭强是 Saraca Media Group 的声称最终实益拥有人，而该实体正是向海曼资本进行 $100 million 投资的主体。Tr. at 808:17–809:16。法院认定，政府已承担起举证责任，以优势证据证明郭强是被指控的数个共谋的成员。法院进一步认定，政府所指出的陈述——涉及 Crane 持有资金的处置——均是在推进共谋的过程中作出的。E.g.，GX413A-T at 4。因此，法院认定，郭强的陈述属于共谋人传闻证据排除规则的适用范围，应作为实体证据采信以证实其真实性。\n\nIV. 农场领导人\n\n政府进一步申请采信 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）多位领导人的陈述：David Dai、夏奇东（Xia Qidong）、Sara Wei 以及张勇兵（Zhang Yongbing）。\n\n有充分证据足以认定上述每个人都是与农场相关共谋的成员。Dai 是英国农场的负责人。Tr. at 384:24–25。夏奇东担任香草山（\"MOS\"）农场的负责人以及联盟秘书长。Id. at 1373:19–1347:8, 1387:10–18。Wei 领导凤凰城农场。Id. at 2500:18–19。并且，张勇兵是香草山农场的“法务组组长”，也是铁血组成员。4 Id. at 2403:3–15。5\n\n郭文贵挑选了上述每个人来领导他们各自的农场，而他们反过来执行郭文贵管理联盟的指示。Tr. at 406:15–17, 2500:20–23。在各自的岗位上，农场领导人推进了涉嫌的 G 系列犯罪集团（G Enterprise）共谋。例如，Dai 指示 Le Zhou 开立银行账户以收取喜币（H Coin）投资，并指示其“将钱汇往何处”。Id. at 263:9–266:9。夏奇东协助与投资者签订农场贷款和喜币协议，并在郭文贵被捕后指示 Ya Li 删除罪证内容。Id. at 1501:14-24, 2395:1–2397:20, 2421:1–19。Wei 通过 Voice of Guo（文贵之声）促成了对 GTV 私募（GTV Private Placement）的投资。Id. at 204:6-205:5。并且，张勇兵指示 Ya Li 签署一份虚假宣誓书，并在郭文贵的破产程序中起诉受托人，且在 Ya Li 拒绝执行时对其进行威胁。Id. at 1522:7–1523:19。\n\n脚注4：铁血组由喜马拉雅联盟的“核心”、“最高级别”领导人组成。Tr. at 1316:21– 1317:10, 2403:24–2404: 1。该组成员负责管理联盟，由郭文贵挑选，并听从其指令。Id. at 1316:21–1317:10, 1374:9–1375:23。\n\n脚注5：尽管郭文贵指出张勇兵是一名律师，Guo Opp. at 10，但第二巡回法院已明确表示，“将被告辩护律师的庭外陈述作为证据使用，无需遵循任何特殊程序或进行利益权衡作为先决条件”。United States v. Arrington, 867 F.2d 122, 128 (2d Cir. 1989)。\n\n基于此项证据以及在审判中引入的其他文件和证词，法院认定，对于附件 A 中指出的农场领导人陈述，政府已满足 Geaney 案确立的先决条件。\n\nV. Alex Hadjicharalambous\n\n政府申请采信 Alex Hadjicharalambous 的一项陈述，此人“负责 [G|CLUBS 的] 会计工作，特别是将进账款项与会员 ID 进行核对”。Tr. at 2045:10–12。政府已以优势证据证明 Hadjicharalambous 是与郭文贵共同参与 G|CLUBS 共谋的成员。Hadjicharalambous 是“联排别墅内的一名员工”。Id. at 2038:1–2；见 id. at 1926:7–15, 1935:9–17（指出与郭文贵相关的多家公司在联排别墅内设有办公室）。他协助 G|CLUBS 在普林斯顿银行（Bank of Princeton）和摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）开立银行账户，id. 2564:1–13, 2598:2–8, 3371:23–3372:8，并代表 G|CLUBS 促成了电汇，id. at 2071:21–2073:9；见 GXC502。具体而言，他告知摩根士丹利，从 G|CLUBS 向 Fiesta Properties Development, Ltd. 进行的一系列电汇是用于房地产投资的内部贷款。Tr. at 3374:19–3379:6；见 id. at 3382:11–3383:19, 3390:2–21。然而，这笔钱实际上被用于为郭强购买一辆法拉利。Id. at 3458:11–3459:9。Hadjicharalambous 与 Khaled 合作起草对银行询问的回复，“以免损害双方关系和账户状态”，id. at 1985:8–18，特别是掩盖郭文贵在 G|CLUBS 中的参与情况，见 id. at 1999:4–7。并且，他与郭文贵、郭强、Khaled 和 Wang 一同参与了电话会议，在会上包括郭文贵在内的参会人员试图想出如何留住投资者汇给 G|CLUBS 的款项。Id. at 2038:1–2039:3。\n\n政府申请向政府方证人、Mercantile Bank（商业银行）首席执行官 Bo Collins 举证 Hadjicharalambous 的陈述。在与 Hadjicharalambous 的交谈中，Collins 要求 G|CLUBS 投资于 Yieldesta，即“由 [商业银行] 发起的基于算法交易的投资工具”。Id. at 2764:13–16。Hadjicharalambous 告诉 Collins，G|CLUBS 若要投资，“一个被他称为管理层的团体需要就此作出决定”。Id. at 2765:18–21。由于商业银行对郭文贵与 G|CLUBS 的关联存有疑虑，Hadjicharalambous 关于 Yieldesta 投资需要“管理层”批准的不透明表述，通过示意该投资需要获得内部批准而未指明究竟是谁代表 G|CLUBS 作出决策，从而推进了共谋的目标。Id. at 2761:8–2762:12；id. at 2765:12–23；见 Rivera, 22 F.3d at 436。G|CLUBS 最终向 Yieldesta 投资了 $3 million。Tr. at 2764:19–23。因此，政府已证明 Hadjicharalambous 的陈述是在推进共谋的过程中作出的。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述原因，法院认定——除上文脚注 3 中指明的陈述外——附件 A 中指明的陈述均系郭文贵的共谋人在被指控的共谋过程中且为推进该等共谋而作出的。因此，根据《联邦证据规则》第 801(d)(2)(E) 条（Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)），该等陈述可作为实体证据采信以证实其真实性。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年7月1日 纽约州纽约市","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","GTV","CIPA","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Saraca","Himalaya Alliance","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":307,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":319,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":325,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":382,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":383,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":384,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3112,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-01 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-01","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:33:02"}