{"id":"court_sdny_42_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":42,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-04-10","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) U.S. Department of Justice","summary_zh":"检方信函（回应法院命令，附卷宗附件）——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok 案关联被告王艳萍（Yanping Wang，别名Yvette）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #42（2023年4月10日提交）。三位联邦助理检察官（Murray、Finkel、Fergenson）回应法院命令，反对王艳萍关于修改保释条件、接受其提出的连带担保人的动议，并提交从其住所查扣或拍摄的文件（含喜马拉雅币HCN分配记录、银行账户资料、工资签署文件及旅行申报表）作为佐证，主张这些材料显示王艳萍在向审前服务机构及法院申报资产、就业情况时未如实陈述，请求法院继续羁押被告。","summary_en":"Government letter responding to a court order, submitting exhibits — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, related defendant Yanping Wang a/k/a \"Yvette,\" SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #42 (filed 2023-04-10). Assistant U.S. Attorneys Murray, Finkel, and Fergenson oppose Wang's motion to modify her bail conditions or accept her proposed co-signers, submitting documents seized from or photographed at her residence — including Himalaya Coin (HCN) allocation records, bank account materials, a payroll document, and a travel statement — which the government argues show Wang was not truthful with Pretrial Services and the Court about her assets and employment, and asks that she remain detained pending trial.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nU.S. Department of Justice\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\nApril 12, 2023\n\nVIA ECF and Email\n\nHon. Robert W. Lehrburger Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n# Re: United States v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Lehrburger:\n\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order, dated April 10, 2023 (Dkt. 39), and in opposition to the pending motion (\"Mot.\") by Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette\" (\"Wang\" or the \"defendant\") seeking an order directing the Government to accept the defendant's proposed cosigners or modification of the terms of her bail conditions. (Dkts. 9, 37). As previously argued, and for the additional reasons set forth below, the defendant's motions should be denied, and the defendant should be detained pending trial.\n\n# I. Response to the Court's April 10, 2023 Order\n\n#### 1) Documents\n\nThe Government is submitting under seal as exhibits the following documents, some of which were referenced in the Government's letter in opposition dated March 31, 2023 (Dkt. 22), and most of which were either seized from, or photographed during, the execution of the premises search warrant at the defendant's apartment on March 15, 2023, as indicated in the table below:\n\n| Exhibit | Description                                                               | Source                                    |\n|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|\n| A       | HCN Allocation at USD0.1                                                  | Seized from the defendant's apartment     |\n| B       | Himalaya Coin Distribution Table at launch on 1 November 2021             | Seized from the defendant's apartment     |\n| C       | Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. Resolution of Director                  | Photographed at the defendant's apartment |\n| D       | Bank Questionnaire for New Accounts – Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.   | Photographed at the defendant's apartment |\n| E       | Documents reflecting \\$55,593,292.60 in six bank accounts as of 3/13/2023 | Photographed at the defendant's apartment |\n\n| Exhibit | Description                                                                                                                                                                          | Source                                           |\n|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| F       | Document reflecting the defendant's<br>signature on \"February Payroll\" for<br>entities including G Music, G Fashion,<br>GCLUBS, and Rule of Law Foundation,<br>dated as of 3/16/2023 | Photographed at the defendant's<br>apartment     |\n| G       | The defendant's Statement of Purpose of<br>Travel, submitted to the Department of<br>Homeland Security on January 11, 2023                                                           | Obtained in connection with the<br>investigation |\n\nThe Government sets forth below how these materials establish that the defendant lied to Pretrial Services and did not fully disclose her financial holdings to the Government and the Court, as required by the conditions of release that Judge Parker imposed. The defendant's lack of candor further demonstrates that she should be detained pending trial.\n\n#### a) Exhibits A & B: The Defendant's HCN Holdings\n\nContrary to representations to the Court and to the Government, Exhibit A demonstrates that the defendant holds a significant amount of \"HCN.\" The Indictment alleges that the fraud operated through, among other vehicles, the Himalaya Exchange-a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem.\" See S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) at ¶ 12, 17-23. As described in the Indictment, the initial coin offering of the purported trading coin, Himalaya Coin (or HCN) and the purported stablecoin, Himalaya Dollar (or HDO), occurred on or about November 1, 2021. Id. at ¶ 19. At the time of the initial coin offering, HCN reportedly began \"trading\" at 10 cents per HCN. Approximately two weeks after the initial coin offering, the then-CEO of the Himalaya Exchange publicly announced that 1 billion HCN had been issued; according to pricing data on the Himalaya Exchange website, at that two-week mark, each HCN purportedly was worth approximately 27 HDO (i.e., \\$27), which represented a 26,900% increase in valuation. Id.\n\nA document entitled \"HCN Allocation at USD0.1\" that was recovered from the defendant's apartment reflects that 6,999,800 HCN was allocated to \"Yanping Wang,\" i.e., the defendant, at the initial coin offering price. Ex. A. The chart reflects a total of 1 billion in allocated HCN-that is, the number of HCN that reportedly was \"issued\" on November 1, 2021. Notably, the majority of HCN was allocated to other arms of the fraud, including G|CLUBS and various Himalaya Farm \"investors.\" Ex. A (emphasis added).\n\nLaw enforcement also recovered a document entitled \"Himalaya Coin Distribution Table at launch on 1 November 2021\" from the defendant's apartment. Ex. B. The Distribution Table is annotated with Mandarin writing in red ink and reflects that 100 million HCN were allegedly \"minted.\" Id. Exhibit B further reflects the distribution of certain of the \"HCN (in US dollar terms),\" including 700,000 to \"Yvette\" (i.e., the defendant) (which is consistent with the defendant being issued 6,999,800 HCN worth \\$.10 per HCN), as well as 1,000,000 to \"William\" (i.e., codefendant William Je).\n\nAccording to the Himalaya Exchange website, as of approximately 12:13 p.m. on April 12, 2023, HCN was purportedly trading at 19.34 HDO. Stated otherwise, 1 HCN equals approximately \\$19.34. Thus, the defendant's apparent 700,000 HCN holdings are worth approximately \\$13,537,613.20. Wang's failure to disclose her ownership of HCN as an asset was a lie to Pretrial Services, the Government, and the Court. These holdings also represent assets that the defendant could draw upon to assist in her flight,<sup>1</sup> as the assets are likely accessible to others located abroad, including Je (*i.e.*, the founder of the Himalaya Exchange and the signatory on bank accounts that received Himalaya Exchange-related investments), who can assist the defendant.\n\n## b) *Exhibits C & D: The Defendant's BVI Entity*\n\nPhotographs of a document entitled \"Resolution of Director Consented to in Writing Of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. Company No. 2063047\" reflect the following, among other things: Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. was registered in the British Virgin Islands on or about May 13, 2021; the defendant (\"Yanping Wang\") was appointed as its sole director; and the defendant signed the Resolution of Director on or about May 13, 2021 in her capacity as the entity's sole director. Ex. C.\n\nPhotographs of a bank account application for a corporate account in the name of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. at a particular bank in Saint Lucia reflect, among other things, that \"Yvette Wang\" is the point of contact for the account application; an estimated 21-40 monthly transactions were expected in the account, totaling approximately \\$2-3 million per month; that the defendant \"Yanping Wang\" isthe beneficial owner of the account;<sup>2</sup> and that the defendant's source of wealth is \"employment.\" Ex. D. As described in part below, the Government is still seeking records (including from foreign jurisdictions) to try to determine whether Wang opened any bank accounts in the name of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.\n\n#### c) *Exhibits E: Evidence of Funds in Affiliated Entities' Accounts*\n\nPhotographs of annotated documents located inside a folder *in the defendant's purse* at her apartment appear to reflect, in substance and in part, certain transactions and balances for six bank accounts held in the names of HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property Management (entities that the defendant effectively controls, as the 99.9999% shareholder), GFNY, Inc. (*i.e.*, GFashion), and GF Italy (*i.e.*, GFashion Italy) as of on or about March 13, 2023 (*i.e.*, two days before the defendant's arrest). Ex. E. The combined balance of the six accounts is approximately \\$55,593,292.60. Wang's failure to disclose these accounts was plainly a violation of Judge Parker's order, and further demonstrates the defendant has access to substantial assets to assist her flight. Indeed, these six accounts held approximately \\$55 million just days before the defendant's arrest.\n\n#### d) *Exhibit F: February 2023 Payroll Document*\n\nA photograph of another document located inside the folder *in the defendant's purse* at her apartment appears to reflect, in sum and in substance, that *the defendant* signed payroll expenses associated with various Kwok-controlled entities—including G Music, GF (*i.e.*, GFashion), GC\n\n<sup>1</sup> As alleged in the Indictment, following the Government's seizure of certain fraud proceeds, Je attempted to effectuate a \"redemption\" of approximately \\$46 million of his own HCN holdings. *See* S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) at ¶ 24.\n\n<sup>2</sup> The defendant's email account listed on this bank account application is an account hosted @protonmail.com. Proton Mail is an encrypted email service hosted in Switzerland.\n\n(*i.e.*, G|CLUBS), ROLF (*i.e.*, Rule of Law Foundation), and OTC (*i.e.*, Orbit Technology Corporation, which provides customer service support for G|CLUBS)—for February 2023. Ex. F. The document further indicates how certain payroll expenses were to be allocated among affiliated entities, including HCHK. The defendant's signature on the payroll document is dated March 16, 2023 (*i.e.*, forward dated for the day after the defendant was arrested). This document belies the defendant's claim to Pretrial Services that she has been unemployed since September 2022.\n\n#### e) *Exhibit G: The Defendant's Statement of Purpose of Travel*\n\nOn January 11, 2023, the defendant submitted a Statement of Purpose of Travel to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in connection with her request for an application for advance parole. Ex. G. The Statement of Purpose of Travel reflects that the defendant sought permission to make \"multiple trips\" to the United Kingdom (in her role as \"the *authorized representative* for two companies that have litigation seeking \\$500M USD in damages\" in the UK) and to the British Virgin Islands (relating to additional litigation pending in the BVIs \"that may impact the companies [she] serves as an *authorized representative*\"). Ex. G (emphasis added). The defendant signed and attested to the truthfulness of the Statement of Purpose of Travel. This document demonstrates both that Wang was employed when she claimed otherwise to Pretrial Services, and further demonstrates that she is willing to travel internationally, which undermines the defense's general claim that international travel would be unthinkable because of the defendant's concerns regarding the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\nTaking these documents together, they make plain several salient facts. *First*, the defendant lied to Pretrial Services and the Court about her employment status, in an apparent effort to distance herself from the fraud-affiliated entities. Specifically, during her Pretrial Services interview on March 15, 2023, the defendant stated that she has been unemployed since September 2022. *See* 4/4/23 Tr. at 52. However, in her sworn statement to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in January 2023, the defendant held herself out as the authorized representative for two companies. Ex. G. Moreover, when the Government advised the Court of the company-related documents that were recovered from the defendant's apartment, some of which were dated March 13, 2023, defense counsel represented that the defendant \"continued to do certain kind of work, but she did not get paid. She was volunteering.\" *Id.* at 67. This \"volunteer\" explanation of the defendant's lie is simply implausible, particularly when viewed in combination with the other evidence that the defendant received benefits—such as her HCN stake—and had control over tens of millions of dollars in company assets. The simplest explanation is the only plausible one: the defendant lied to Pretrial Services to minimize her role and active involvement in the crime and to conceal assets from the Government. *Second*, the defendant willfully concealed assets from Pretrial Services and already has violated Judge Parker's order to disclose all accounts over which she has direct or constructive control. This is apparent from the documents described above, some dated just two days before her arrest, which make clear that the defendant has control over, and access to, millions of dollars. The defendant has demonstrated that she is willing to lie to the Court and to Pretrial Services for her own self-serving purposes. The Court therefore can derive no comfort that any bond conditions, which (necessarily) rely on the defendant's own representations, will assure the defendant's appearance at future court proceedings or mitigate the significant risk of flight.\n\n*Third*, the defendant's willingness and desire to travel internationally—anticipating \"multiple trips\" to the UK and the BVIs throughout 2023—significantly undermines defense counsel's argument that the defendant poses no flight risk because she \"is not someone who is risking going anywhere where China can get their hands on her again.\" 3/15/23 Tr. at 16. The defendant was willing to travel internationally as recently as January 2023, and the Government contends that she would attempt to do so again if she were released.\n\n## 2) Information Regarding the Saint Lucia Bank Account Application\n\nThe Court requested additional information relating to the St. Lucia bank account application that the Government identified in its March 31, 2023 submission. *See* Dkt. 39 at 1; Dkt. 36 at 2; *see also* Ex. D. The Government will be seeking records from this foreign bank through a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, but has not yet been able to determine (a) whether the account was opened, or (b) if so, whether that account contained assets at the time of the defendant's arrest.\n\n# 3) Details Regarding the Defendant's Pretrial Services Interview\n\nThe Court requested additional detail regarding the defendant's March 15, 2023 Pretrial Services interview including, specifically, what Pretrial Services asked the defendant to disclose regarding her assets. (Dkt. 39). On April 10 and 11, 2023, the Government conferred with the Pretrial Services Officer who interviewed the defendant on March 15, 2023. The Pretrial Services Officer advised that she asked the defendant the following questions, and the defendant gave the following answers, in sum and substance:\n\n- Q: At the time of your arrest, *or within your residence*, or on your person, did you have any cash to your name? (emphasis added)\n- A: No.\n- Q: Do you have any savings or checking accounts under your name or under your businesses?\n- A: [The defendant disclosed two<sup>3</sup> personal accounts, one at Bank-1 and another at Bank-2, which are reflected in the Pretrial Services Report.]\n- Q: Are there any business accounts under your name or that you oversee, *or any additional cash anywhere else*?\n- A: No.\n- Q: Are there any stocks, bonds, or retirement accounts that you have?\n\n<sup>3</sup> The Government learned today from Bank-1 that the defendant, in fact, holds two accounts at Bank-1—a savings account with a current balance of \\$540,139.15, and a checking account with a current balance of \\$13,382.29. The Government is awaiting information from Bank-2 about the defendant's account(s) there. Also today, a Bank-3 representative informed the Government that the defendant appears to be the controlling manager of three business checking accounts at Bank-3, and that those Bank-3 accounts hold funds. The Government will supplement this filing with additional information about the Bank-3 accounts, including the names of the businesses in which they are held and the amount of funds in the accounts, when it receives that further information from Bank-3.\n\n#### A: No.\n\nContrary to defense counsel's recollection, *see* 4/4/23 Tr. at 20, Pretrial Services did not only ask the extremely narrow question whether the defendant had any money or cash \"on her\" when she was arrested. As reflected above, the questions that Pretrial Services posed to the defendant during her interview were broad and—without question—should have elicited the defendant's disclosure of the more than \\$138,000 in cash that was in the safe in her apartment when she was arrested. Yet the defendant twice lied to Pretrial Services and concealed assets.\n\n### 4) Details Regarding the Defendant's Subsequent Disclosure of Assets\n\nThe Court inquired into the date(s) of any subsequent interviews of the defendant by Pretrial Services and/or the Government in which the defendant was asked to disclose any additional assets. Pretrial Services has not conducted any further interviews with the defendant, and the Government has not spoken with the defendant. However, to determine whether the defendant had satisfied the bond condition requiring her to \"disclose all assets to Pretrial Services and the U.S. Attorney's Office, including any assets over which she has possession, custody or control; and to include any joint or business accounts and any cash, cryptocurrency or digital assets,\" *see* Dkt. 10 Ex. C, 3/15/23 Tr. at 7, the Government conferred with defense counsel between March 17-19, 2023. The Government specifically identified three entities that the defendant had not previously disclosed that the Government had information suggesting that the defendant controlled. One such entity identified was Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd., which is the same entity referred to in Exhibit C. Defense counsel indicated that the defendant did not have bank accounts in the name of, or associated with, any of those companies or any other companies, and further advised that the defendant is not a signatory or authorized user of any of the HCHK bank accounts.\n\nThe documents found in the defendant's apartment, which include evidence that the defendant possessed detailed records of multiple bank accounts and that the defendant signed off on various payroll expenses, *see* Exs. E and F, reflect that the defendant had \"control\" over the assets in those accounts. She therefore was obligated to disclose them to satisfy that condition of her bond, and her failure to do so amounts to an attempt to subvert the bail conditions that Judge Parker imposed.\n\n# **II. Response to the Defendant's April 6, 2023 Submission**\n\nFor the reasons previously stated and set forth herein, the defendant's motion should be denied, and the Court should order the defendant detained pending trial.\n\n*First*, none of the defendant's proposed suretors has a relationship that in any way suggests that they exercise moral suasion over the defendant. *See United States v. Batista*, 163 F. Supp. 2d 222, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (\"Appropriate factors to consider when weighing whether a proposed suretor exercises moral suasion vary from case to case, but may include the strength of the tie between the suretor and defendant\"). As outlined in the Government's March 29, 2023 opposition, the Government interviewed the four individuals the defendant has offered as suretors—\n\n. None of these individuals\n\nhas a sufficient personal relationship with the defendant where the loss of their proffered property\n\n“might be expected to exert some ‘moral suasion’ over” the defendant to honor her bond. <sup>4</sup> *United States v. Martinez*, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir. 1998).\n\ndoes not know the defendant at all. has never spoken with the defendant; at most, he met the defendant at an \"event,\" but clarified that his relationship with the defendant primarily consists of his following her on social media. met the defendant at an event in June 2021 and claims to have \"seen\" her once or twice a month since June 2021. understands that Wang works for HCHK Technologies.<sup>5</sup> met the defendant at “events” but does not appear to have any relationship with her; for example, does not know basic personal information about the defendant, including where she lives or works. Because these proposed suretors have little (or absolutely no) relationship with the defendant, they do not provide any motivation for Wang to remain in the United States, given that her exposure in this case strongly incentivizes her not to appear in court as required.\n\n*Second*, not only do the proposed suretors lack a sufficient personal relationship with the defendant, but they all appear to be victims of the charged fraud—that is, Wang and Kwok have *already* defrauded them. Accordingly, they do not exercise any moral suasion for Wang to remain. The proposed suretors have collectively invested at least approximately \\$1.36 million into the fraud scheme through the Rule of Law organizations, GTV, G|CLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange. They were all induced to send money to Kwok-affiliated accounts, some of which the defendant directly controlled, based on false representations about how their money would be used. Their willingness now to provide even more money to the defendant, in the form of property as collateral for her \\$5 million personal recognizance bond, does nothing to assure the Court that the potential loss of their property will disincentivize the defendant from fleeing.<sup>6</sup> The defendant already stole these individuals' money once—there can be no reasonable assurance that a judgment being issued against them will incentivize Wang to appear in court as required.\n\n*Third*, even if a \\$5 million bond were fully secured with the cash and/or property the defendant has presented to the Court, such condition would not provide reasonable assurance that the defendant will appear at future court proceedings. As this Court noted during the April 4, 2023 conference, quoting *United States v. Melville*, 309 F. Supp. 824, 826-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), \"[b]ail is not for the purpose of providing funds to the Government to seek the defendant should he go\n\n<sup>4</sup> The defendant's April 6, 2023 filing provides supporting documentation about ( husband), who co-owns the property that has been proposed as collateral for the bond with her husband, . *See* Dkt. 37, Def. Ex. B. The defense has not provided the Government with contact information for , so the Government has no information about relationship (if any) with the defendant.\n\n<sup>5</sup> As described above, Wang has effectively tried to disclaim any association with the entities. She denied working anywhere at the time of her arrest (although she was employed by HCHK), and she denied having control over any assets related to those entities, when she plainly had access to (or effective control over the assets in) HCHK accounts. HCHK Technologies—a Kwokcontrolled company that the defendant effectively owns through her BVI-registered shell company—sent employees to the UAE earlier this year to establish bank accounts that, as Kwok claimed, would be beyond the \"long-arm jurisdiction\" of the United States.\n\n<sup>6</sup> The Government has not yet interviewed the suretors as victims of the crimes charged in the Indictment or asked them questions of substance about their investments.\n\nunderground or flee the jurisdiction. Bail is intended as a catalyst to aid the appearance of the defendant when warranted.\" (4/4/23 Tr. at 37-38). A secured \\$5 million bond, here, would simply represent the amount of money the defendant is willing to pay to flee. Indeed, while the Government has seized approximately \\$630 million in fraud proceeds to date, a substantial amount of proceeds from the charged fraud scheme—which is ongoing—remain unrecovered. For example, documents recovered from the defendant's apartment at the time of her arrest on March 15, 2023 reflect balances in six bank accounts held in the name of various fraud-related entities (*i.e.*, HCHK Technologies, HCHK Property, and G Fashion) totaling approximately \\$55.5 million as of March 13, 2023. *See* Ex. E. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the defendant is in a position to compensate any suretor who sustains a loss as a result of her flight—if it is even necessary for her to recompensate them. *United States v. Shelikhov*, 468 Fed. Appx. 54, 56, 2012 WL 899260 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of pretrial release and noting \"in light of the vast unrecovered proceeds from the charged fraud scheme, the district court could reasonably have concluded that Shelikhov was in a position to compensate any suretors who sustained a loss as a result of his flight\"). This risk is particularly pronounced here given that the defendant did not inform Pretrial Services about the cash in her apartment or her \"cryptocurrency\" assets, nor has she been forthright about the accounts under her control or even whether she is employed. Thus, there exists funding to finance the defendant's flight.\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\nAs described in prior briefing and during the conference on April 4, 2023, the defendant poses an extraordinary risk of flight. This serious risk of flight arises from the defendant's lack of ties to the United States, the nature of the charges, her key role in this serious offense conduct, her substantial financial resources, the significant sentence that she faces, the strong evidence of her guilt, her ties to foreign jurisdictions, and her relationship with co-conspirator and international money launderer William Je, who remains at large. The defendant has access to and the financial support of an extensive network of Kwok's loyal followers dispersed throughout the world—as evidenced by the willingness of people who have never even met her to post property as security for a bond. The defendant also has a powerful incentive to flee, given the sentence she faces and the likelihood of her deportation following criminal proceedings.\n\nFor all these reasons, the defendant's motion should be denied. The Government has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant presents a serious risk of flight if not detained, and that there are no conditions of release can reasonably assure the defendant's\n\npresence at future court proceedings. Accordingly, this Court should order the defendant detained pending trial.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: Julian Wu\n\n Juliana N. Murray Ryan B. Finkel Micah F. Fergenson Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\nCc: Alex Lipman, Esq. (by ECF and Email) Priya Choudhry, Esq. (by ECF and Email)","body_zh":"U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York（联邦检察官 纽约南区）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\nApril 12, 2023\n\nVIA ECF and Email\n\nHon. Robert W. Lehrburger（罗伯特·W·勒伯格法官） Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\nRe: United States v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Lehrburger 法官：\n\n政府谨提交本函，以回应法院于 2023年4月10日 作出的命令（Dkt. 39），并反对 Yanping Wang（王雁平，又名“Yvette”，以下简称“Wang”或“被告”）目前未决的动议（“Mot.”）——该动议请求法院责令政府接受被告提议的联保人，或修改其保释条件条款。（Dkts. 9, 37）。正如先前所主张的，以及基于下文阐述的额外理由，被告的动议应予驳回，且被告在审前应予以羁押。\n\nI. 对法院 2023年4月10日 命令的回应\n1) 文件\n\n政府现将下列文件作为证据密封提交，其中部分文件在政府 2023年3月31日 的反对函（Dkt. 22）中有所提及，绝大部分系于 2023年3月15日 在被告住所执行处所搜查令期间扣押或拍摄，如下文列表中所示：\n\n证据 描述 来源\nA HCN Allocation at USD0.1（按0.1美元分配的HCN） 扣押自被告住所\nB Himalaya Coin Distribution Table at launch on 1 November 2021（2021年11月1日发行时喜马拉雅币分配表） 扣押自被告住所\nC Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. Resolution of Director（圣城香港创投有限公司董事决议） 拍摄于被告住所\nD Bank Questionnaire for New Accounts – Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.（新开账户银行调查问卷——圣城香港创投有限公司） 拍摄于被告住所\nE Documents reflecting $55,593,292.60 in six bank accounts as of 3/13/2023（反映截至2023年3月13日六个银行账户中存有55,593,292.60美元的文件） 拍摄于被告住所\nF Document reflecting the defendant's signature on \"February Payroll\" for entities including G Music, G Fashion, GCLUBS, and Rule of Law Foundation, dated as of 3/16/2023（反映被告在包括G Music、G Fashion、GCLUBS和Rule of Law Foundation［法治基金］在内的实体的“二月份工资册”上签字的文件，签署日期为2023年3月16日） 拍摄于被告住所\nG The defendant's Statement of Purpose of Travel, submitted to the Department of Homeland Security on January 11, 2023（被告于2023年1月11日向Department of Homeland Security［国土安全部］提交的旅行目的声明） 于调查相关工作中取得\n\n政府在下文阐述这些材料如何证明被告对 Pretrial Services（审前服务处）说了谎，并且未按 Parker 法官施加的释放条件的要求，向政府和法院全面披露其财务资产。被告缺乏坦诚进一步表明其在审前应予以羁押。\n\na) 证据 A 与 B：被告持有的 HCN\n\n与向法院和政府所作的陈述相反，证据 A 证明被告持有大量的“HCN”。起诉书指控该欺诈行为是通过 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所，一个所谓的加密货币“生态系统”）等工具运作的。见 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) 第 12、17-23 段。正如起诉书中所述，所谓的交易币 Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币，或称 HCN）和所谓的稳定币 Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅美元，或称 HDO）的首次代币发行发生于 2021年11月1日 左右。同上，第 19 段。在首次代币发行时，据称 HCN 开始以每枚 10 美分的价格进行“交易”。首次代币发行大约两周后，喜马拉雅交易所时任首席执行官公开宣布已发行 10 亿枚 HCN；根据喜马拉雅交易所网站上的定价数据，在那两周节点，每枚 HCN 据称价值约 27 枚 HDO（即 $27 美元），估值增长了 26,900%。同上。\n\n从被告住所查获的一份题为“HCN Allocation at USD0.1”（按0.1美元分配的HCN）的文件反映出，有 6,999,800 枚 HCN 按首次代币发行价格分配给了“Yanping Wang”（即被告）。证据 A。该图表反映分配的 HCN 总量为 10 亿枚——即据称于 2021年11月1日 “发行”的 HCN 数量。值得注意的是，绝大多数 HCN 被分配给了该欺诈行为的其他分支机构，包括 G|CLUBS 和各个 Himalaya Farm（喜马拉雅农场）的“投资者”。证据 A（后加强调）。\n\n执法部门还从被告住所查获了一份题为“Himalaya Coin Distribution Table at launch on 1 November 2021”（2021年11月1日发行时喜马拉雅币分配表）的文件。证据 B。该分配表带有红墨水书写的中文批注，反映据称“铸造”了 1 亿枚 HCN。同上。证据 B 进一步反映了某些“HCN（以美元计）”的分配情况，包括分配给“Yvette”（即被告）的 700,000（这与向被告发行价值为每枚 $0.10 美元的 6,999,800 枚 HCN 相吻合），以及分配给“William”（即共同被告 William Je［余建明］）的 1,000,000。\n\n根据喜马拉雅交易所网站，截至 2023年4月12日 中午约 12:13，HCN 的交易价格据称为 19.34 HDO。换言之，1 枚 HCN 约等于 $19.34 美元。因此，被告名下显见的 700,000 枚 HCN 持仓价值约为 $13,537,613.20 美元。Wang 未披露其拥有的 HCN 资产，是对审前服务处、政府和法院的谎言。这些持仓还代表了被告可用于协助其潜逃的资产1，因为这些资产很可能可供身处国外的其他人取用，包括能够协助被告的 Je（即喜马拉雅交易所的创始人，以及接收喜马拉雅交易所相关投资款项的银行账户的签字人）。\n\nb) 证据 C 与 D：被告的英属维尔京群岛实体\n\n一份题为“Resolution of Director Consented to in Writing Of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. Company No. 2063047”（圣城香港创投有限公司董事书面同意决议，公司编号 2063047）的文件的照片反映了以下内容等：Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.（圣城香港创投有限公司）于 2021年5月13日 左右在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册成立；被告（“Yanping Wang”）被任命为其唯一董事；被告于 2021年5月13日 左右以该实体唯一董事的身份签署了《董事决议》。证据 C。\n\n在 Saint Lucia（圣卢西亚）某银行以 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. 名义申请开设公司账户的申请表照片反映了以下内容等：“Yvette Wang”为该开户申请的联络人；预计该账户每月交易约为 21 至 40 笔，每月总额约为 200 万至 300 万美元；被告“Yanping Wang”是该账户的实益拥有人2；被告的财富来源为“就业受雇”。证据 D。如下文部分所述，政府仍在调取记录（包括来自外国司法管辖区的记录），以试图确定 Wang 是否以 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. 的名义开设过任何银行账户。\n\nc) 证据 E：关联实体账户中存在资金的证据\n\n在被告住所其手提包内的一个文件夹中发现的带批注文件的照片，在实质上和部分上似乎反映了截至 2023年3月13日 左右（即被告被捕前两天），以 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property Management（被告作为持有 99.9999% 股份的股东而实际控制的实体）、GFNY, Inc.（即 GFashion）以及 GF Italy（即 GFashion Italy）名义持有的六个银行账户的某些交易和余额。证据 E。这六个账户的合计余额约为 $55,593,292.60 美元。Wang 未披露这些账户，显然违反了 Parker 法官的命令，并进一步证明被告可以获取巨额资产以协助其潜逃。事实上，就在被告被捕前几天，这六个账户中还存有约 5500 万美元。\n\nd) 证据 F：2023年2月的工资册文件\n\n在被告住所其手提包内的文件夹中发现的另一份文件的照片，总体及实质上似乎反映出被告签署了与 Kwok（郭文贵）控制的各个实体相关的 2023年2月 工资支出——这些实体包括 G Music、GF（即 GFashion）、GC（即 G|CLUBS）、ROLF（即 Rule of Law Foundation［法治基金］）以及 OTC（即 Orbit Technology Corporation，为 G|CLUBS 提供客户服务支持）。证据 F。该文件进一步指明了某些工资支出应如何在包括 HCHK 在内的各关联实体之间进行分摊。被告在该工资文件上的签名日期为 2023年3月16日（即把日期延后签署为被告被捕后的次日）。该文件戳穿了被告向审前服务处声称的自 2022年9月 以来一直处于失业状态的说辞。\n\n1 正如起诉书所指控的，在政府扣押了某些欺诈收益后，Je 企图对其自身持有的价值约 4600 万美元的 HCN 进行“赎回”。见 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) 第 24 段。\n\n2 该银行开户申请表上列出的被告电子邮件账户为 @protonmail.com 托管的账户。Proton Mail 是设立在瑞士的加密电子邮件服务。\n\ne) 证据 G：被告的旅行目的声明\n\n2023年1月11日，被告在申请 advance parole（提前离境许可）的相关程序中，向美国国土安全部提交了一份《旅行目的声明》。证据 G。《旅行目的声明》反映出，被告申请获准前往 United Kingdom（英国）（以其作为“在英国索赔 5 亿美元损害赔偿的两家公司的授权代表”的身份）以及英属维尔京群岛（涉及在英属维尔京群岛未决的其他诉讼，“该诉讼可能对其担任授权代表的公司产生影响”）进行“多次旅行”。证据 G（后加强调）。被告签署了该《旅行目的声明》并证明其真实性。该文件既证明了 Wang 在向审前服务处声称失业时实际上处于受雇状态，又进一步证明了她有意进行国际旅行，从而削弱了辩方关于被告因顾忌中国共产党而绝不可能进行国际旅行的总体主张。\n\n* * *\n\n综合这些文件来看，它们清楚地表明了几个显著的事实。第一，被告就其就业状况向审前服务处（Pretrial Services）和法院撒谎，其显而易见的目的是为了与涉嫌欺诈的实体撇清关系。具体而言，在2023年3月15日接受审前服务处面谈期间，被告声称自己自2022年9月起就一直处于失业状态。参见 4/4/23 Tr. at 52。然而，在她于2023年1月向美国国土安全部（U.S. Department of Homeland Security）提交的宣誓陈述书中，被告自称是两家公司的授权代表。Ex. G。此外，当政府向法院通报从被告公寓中起获的公司相关文件（其中一些文件的日期为2023年3月13日）时，辩护律师辩称被告“继续从事某种工作，但她没有获得报酬。她是在做志愿者。”Id. at 67。被告谎言的这一“志愿者”解释根本站不住脚，特别是结合其他证据来看更是如此——该证据表明被告获得了利益（例如她在 HCN 的股份），并控制着数千万美元的公司资产。最简单的解释才是唯一合理的解释：被告对审前服务处撒谎是为了淡化自己在犯罪中的角色和积极参与程度，并向政府隐瞒资产。第二，被告故意对审前服务处隐瞒资产，并且已经违反了 Parker 法官关于披露其拥有直接或推定控制权的所有账户的裁定。从上述文件中可以清楚地看出这一点，其中一些文件的日期就在她被捕前两天，这些文件明确表明被告控制并可使用数百万美元。被告已经表明，为了自身的利益，她甘愿对法院和审前服务处撒谎。因此，法院无法确信任何（必然）依赖被告自身陈述的保释条件能够确保被告在未来的法庭诉讼程序中出庭，或降低其巨大的潜逃风险。\n\n第三，被告进行国际旅行的意愿和欲望——预计在2023年全年“多次前往”英国（UK）和英属维尔京群岛（BVIs）——极大地削弱了辩护律师关于被告不构成潜逃风险的主张，该主张称被告“不是那种会冒着风险去任何中国能再次对其下手的地方的人”。3/15/23 Tr. at 16。就在2023年1月，被告还愿意进行国际旅行，政府主张，如果她被释放，她将企图再次这样做。\n\n2) 关于圣卢西亚银行账户申请的信息\n\n法院要求提供有关政府在其2023年3月31日提交的文件中指出的圣卢西亚（St. Lucia）银行账户申请的补充信息。参见 Dkt. 39 at 1；Dkt. 36 at 2；另见 Ex. D。政府将通过《司法协助条约》（Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty）向该外国银行调取记录，但目前尚未能确定：(a) 该账户是否已开设，或 (b) 如果已开设，在被告被捕时该账户内是否存有资产。\n\n3) 关于被告审前服务处面谈的详细情况\n\n法院要求提供有关被告2023年3月15日审前服务处面谈的更多细节，特别是审前服务处要求被告就其资产披露了哪些内容。(Dkt. 39)。2023年4月10日和11日，政府与在2023年3月15日面谈被告的审前服务官员进行了沟通。该审前服务官员告知，她向被告提出了以下问题，被告给出了以下大意回答：\n\n- 问：在你被捕时，或者在你的住所内，抑或在你的身上，你名下是否有任何现金？（强调为后加）\n- 答：没有。\n- 问：你名下或你的企业名下是否有任何储蓄或支票账户？\n- 答：[被告披露了两个3个人账户，一个在 Bank-1，另一个在 Bank-2，这已反映在《审前服务报告》（Pretrial Services Report）中。]\n- 问：是否有任何在你名下或由你监管的企业账户，或者在其他任何地方是否有任何额外现金？\n- 答：没有。\n- 问：你是否拥有任何股票、债券或退休账户？\n\n3 政府今天从 Bank-1 获悉，被告事实上在 Bank-1 拥有两个账户——一个当前余额为 $540,139.15 的储蓄账户，以及一个当前余额为 $13,382.29 的支票账户。政府正在等待 Bank-2 提供有关被告在该行账户的信息。同样在今天，Bank-3 的一名代表通知政府，被告似乎是 Bank-3 处三个企业支票账户的控制管理人，并且这些 Bank-3 账户中存有资金。当政府从 Bank-3 获得进一步信息时，将为本份呈递文件补充有关 Bank-3 账户的额外信息，包括开设这些账户的企业名称以及账户中的资金数额。\n答：没有。\n\n与辩护律师的回忆相反，参见 4/4/23 Tr. at 20，审前服务处并不仅仅提出了极为狭隘的问题，即被告在被捕时“身上”是否有任何金钱或现金。如上所述，审前服务处在面谈期间向被告提出的问题是宽泛的，并且——毫无疑问——本应引出被告披露其被捕时位于其公寓保险柜内的 138,000 多美元现金。然而，被告两次对审前服务处撒谎并隐瞒资产。\n\n4) 关于被告随后披露资产的详细情况\n\n法院询问了审前服务处和/或政府随后对被告进行面谈的日期，在该面谈中被告被要求披露任何额外资产。审前服务处未再对被告进行任何进一步面谈，政府也未与被告谈话。然而，为了确定被告是否满足了保释条件，该条件要求她“向审前服务处和联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）披露所有资产，包括她占有、保管或控制的任何资产；并包括任何联名账户或企业账户以及任何现金、加密货币或数字资产”，参见 Dkt. 10 Ex. C, 3/15/23 Tr. at 7，政府在2023年3月17日至19日期间与辩护律师进行了沟通。政府具体指出了三家被告此前未曾披露的实体，政府掌握的信息显示被告控制着这些实体。其中一家被指出的实体是 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd.，即证物 C（Exhibit C）中提及的同一实体。辩护律师表示，被告没有任何以这些公司或任何其他公司名义开设的或与之相关的银行账户，并进一步告知被告不是任何 HCHK 银行账户的签字人或授权使用者。\n\n在被告公寓中发现的文件表明被告对这些账户中的资产拥有“控制权”，其中包括被告持有多个银行账户的详细记录以及被告签字核准各项薪资支出的证据，参见 Exs. E and F。因此，她有义务披露这些账户以满足其保释条件，而她未能做到这一点构成了企图破坏 Parker 法官所施加的保释条件。\n\nII. 对被告2023年4月6日提交文件的回应\n\n基于前述及在此阐述的理由，被告的动议应当被驳回，法院应命令在审前将被告羁押。\n\n第一，被告拟提议的保证人中，没有人的关系在任何程度上表明他们对被告施加了道德约束力。参见 United States v. Batista, 163 F. Supp. 2d 222, 224 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区）2001)（“在衡量拟提议的保证人是否施加道德约束力时所考虑的适当因素因案而异，但可能包括保证人与被告之间关系的紧密程度”）。正如政府在2023年3月29日的反对意见中所概述的那样，政府面谈了被告提议作为保证人的四名个人——\n\n。这些个人中没有一个\n\n与被告具有充分的个人关系，以至于他们失去所提供的财产\n\n“可被预期对被告施加某种‘道德约束力’”，以使其遵守保释保证。4 United States v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir. 1998)。\n\n根本不认识被告。从未与被告说过话；最多也就是他在一次“活动”中见过被告，但他明确说明他与被告的关系主要由在社交媒体上关注她构成。于2021年6月在一次活动中结识被告，并声称自2021年6月起每月与她“见上”一到两次。了解 Wang（王）为 HCHK Technologies5 工作。在“活动”中见过被告，但似乎与她没有任何关系；例如，不知道关于被告的基本个人信息，包括她的居住地或工作地。由于这些拟提议的保证人与被告几乎没有（或绝对没有）任何关系，鉴于王在本案中所面临的罪责风险强烈促使其不按要求出庭，他们无法提供任何促使她留在美国的动机。\n\n第二，拟提议的保证人不仅与被告缺乏充分的个人关系，而且他们似乎都是被指控欺诈行为的受害者——也就是说，王和 Kwok（郭文贵）已经欺诈过他们。因此，他们对王的留美不具备任何道德约束力。拟提议的保证人通过法治机构（Rule of Law organizations）、GTV、G|CLUBS 和喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）共同向欺诈计划投资了至少约 $136 万美元。基于对其资金将如何使用的虚假陈述，他们都被诱导向郭关联账户汇款，其中一些账户由被告直接控制。他们现在愿意向被告提供更多的资金，以财产形式作为其 $500 万美元个人担保保释金的抵押品，但这根本无法向法院保证其财产的潜在损失会打消被告潜逃的念头。6 被告已经偷窃过这些个人的钱财一次——没有任何合理的确信表明，针对他们下达判决会促使王按要求出庭。\n\n第三，即使 500 万美元的保释金完全由被告向法院提供的现金和/或财产足额担保，这样的条件也无法为被告将在未来的法庭诉讼程序中出庭提供合理保证。正如本法院在2023年4月4日的会议期间所指出的那样，援引 United States v. Melville, 309 F. Supp. 824, 826-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)，“保释金的目的不是为了向政府提供资金，以便在被告潜逃时去抓捕他\n\n4 被告2023年4月6日提交的文件提供了有关 （ 的丈夫）的支持性文件，其与丈夫 共同拥有被提议作为保释抵押品的财产。参见 Dkt. 37, Def. Ex. B。辩方未向政府提供 的联系信息，因此政府没有任何关于 与被告关系（如有）的信息。\n\n5 如上所述，Wang（王）实际上试图否认与这些实体有任何关联。她在被捕时否认在任何地方工作（尽管她受雇于 HCHK），并且否认对与这些实体相关的任何资产拥有控制权，而她显然可以访问 HCHK 账户（或对其资产拥有实际控制权）。HCHK Technologies（一家由 Kwok（郭）控制、且被告通过其在 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）注册的空壳公司实际拥有的公司）今年早些时候派员工前往 UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国）开设银行账户，正如郭所声称的那样，这些账户将超出美国的“长臂管辖权”范围。\n\n6 政府尚未就起诉书中所指控罪行的受害者身份对担保人进行询问，也未就其投资向他们提出实质性问题。\n\n潜逃或逃离管辖区。保释旨在充当一种促使被告在需要时出庭的催化剂。”（2023年4月4日庭审记录第 37-38 页）。在此，500万美元的有担保保释金仅代表被告愿意为潜逃支付的金钱数额。事实上，虽然政府迄今已扣押了大约6.3亿美元的欺诈所得，但被指控的欺诈计划（该计划仍在进行中）中仍有大量所得尚未追回。例如，2023年3月15日被告被捕时从其公寓中查获的文件显示，截至2023年3月13日，以各个与欺诈相关的实体（即 HCHK Technologies、HCHK Property 和 G Fashion）名义持有的六个银行账户中的余额总计约为5550万美元。见证物 E。因此，可以合理地得出结论，被告有能力赔偿任何因其潜逃而遭受损失的担保人——如果她甚至有必要向他们作出再补偿的话。United States v. Shelikhov，468 Fed. Appx. 54, 56, 2012 WL 899260 (2d Cir. 2012)（确认驳回审前释放，并指出“鉴于被指控的欺诈计划中存在大量未追回的收益，地区法院可以合理地得出结论，Shelikhov 有能力赔偿任何因其潜逃而遭受损失的担保人”）。鉴于被告并未向审前服务部门通报其公寓内的现金或其“加密货币”资产，也没有如实交代其控制下的账户，甚至没有如实交代其是否受雇，这种风险在此尤为突出。因此，存在为被告潜逃提供资金支持的资金来源。\n\n* * *\n\n正如在先前的简报和2023年4月4日的会议期间所述，被告存在极高的潜逃风险。这种严重的潜逃风险源于被告与美国缺乏联系、指控的性质、她在此次严重犯罪行为中的关键作用、其庞大的财务资源、她所面临的重大刑罚、针对其有罪的有力证据、她与外国司法管辖区的联系，以及她与仍在逃的共谋者兼国际洗钱者 William Je（余建明）的关系。被告可以获取并得到分散在世界各地的郭的忠实追随者所构成的庞大网络的支持——从未与她谋面的人愿意提供财产作为保释金担保就证明了这一点。鉴于被告面临的刑期以及刑事诉讼程序后可能被驱逐出境，她也有强烈的潜逃动机。\n\n基于所有这些理由，被告的动议应予驳回。政府已通过优势证据证明，如果不予羁押，被告将构成严重的潜逃风险，并且没有任何释放条件能够合理确保被告\n\n出席未来的法庭诉讼程序。因此，本法院应裁定在审判前对被告予以羁押。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\n美国联邦检察官\n\n签署人：Julian Wu\n\nJuliana N. Murray\nRyan B. Finkel\nMicah F. Fergenson\n助理美国联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\n抄送：\nAlex Lipman, Esq.（通过 ECF 和电子邮件）\nPriya Choudhry, Esq.（通过 ECF 和电子邮件）","key_entities":["Himalaya","HCHK","Himalaya Exchange","Kwok","Yanping Wang","Je","William Je","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","GTV","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":10,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":36,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":37,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":39,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":4102,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:41:30"}