{"id":"court_sdny_44_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":44,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"LIPMAN LAW PLLC April 14, 2023","summary_zh":"辩护律师致法庭信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）关联案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #44。被告 Yanping Wang（\"Yvette\"）代理律师 Lipman Law PLLC 回应检方就保释听证会问题的答复，质疑检方关于其持有 HCN 的证据不足，主张 Wang 无逃跑风险，请求法院批准其保释联署人或取消联署人要求。","summary_en":"Defense counsel's letter to the court — in a case related to United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #44. Counsel for co-defendant Yanping Wang (\"Yvette\"), Lipman Law PLLC, responds to the government's answers on bail-hearing questions, disputing the sufficiency of evidence that Wang held HCN, arguing she is not a flight risk, and asking the court to approve proposed bail co-signers or eliminate that requirement.","body_en":"LIPMAN LAW PLLC\n\nApril 14, 2023\n\n*Via* **ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger United States Magistrate Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007-1312\n\n> *Re: United States v. Yanping Wang*, 23-CR-118-AT Response to the Government's Answers to the Court's Bail Hearing Questions\n\nDear Judge Lehrburger:\n\nAlong with ChaudhryLaw PLLC, and on behalf of Yanping Wang, we submit this letter in response to the government's April 12, 2023, letter (the \"Letter\") responding to the Court's April 10, 2023, Order regarding the bail hearing held on April 4, 2023 (the \"Order\"). In its Order, the Court asked the government to provide certain documents and to lay a foundation to support the inferences it makes in support of its factual assertions. The government has failed to do this because it cannot.\n\nRather than provide requested documents and straightforward answers to the follow-up questions posed by the Court in its Order, the government introduces new evidence and reargues the same points it had already made in prior written submissions and orally in court. For the reasons stated in our prior written submissions and oral argument, which we will not attempt to reproduce here, Ms. Wang is not a flight risk. We will, therefore, limit ourselves to addressing the government's points and answering the Court's questions.\n\nPreviously, the government argued for the bail package that is in place. This constitutes an admission that there is a set of conditions that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at trial. But now, based on claims of \"changed circumstances,\" the government argues that no conditions exist that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at trial. As the discussion below makes clear, nothing in the government's latest submission—including none of the purported new evidence—constitutes a material change from what the government knew when it agreed that bail was appropriate; indeed, much of the government's purported new evidence is neither new nor evidence and could not support the government's factual assertions in any event. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to approve two or more of Ms. Wang's proffered co-signers or eliminate this requirement altogether.\n\n## **1. Documents related to HCN.**\n\nThe government asserts that \"[c]ontrary to the representations to the Court and to the Government, Exhibit A (\"GXA\") demonstrates that the defendant holds a significant amount [sic] of 'HCN.'\" (Letter at 2). This is a misrepresentation of what the relevant exhibits show. GXA is a schedule that the government calls, \"HCN Allocation at USD0.1.\" What counsel\n\n#### HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER APRIL 14, 2023 2 of 8\n\nactually told the Court was that GXA showed only an allocation of HCN; it did not show what happened with that allocation: \"They're looking at a schedule that says allocation, okay, allocation. They're not looking at an account at H Coin.\" (April 4, 2023, Bail Hearing Tr. at 24:2–5). Counsel then informed the Court that, based on our inquiry, which included reaching out to people with relevant knowledge, we were unable to ascertain what happened with that allocation, i.e., we do not know whether the HCN that were allocated were ever exercised and turned into Himalayan Coin or Himalayan Dollar: \"I've been trying to figure out what happened to that allocation. The best I can ascertain is that [Ms. Wang] has no idea what happened. I'm not saying that something didn't happen with it. I'm saying that she has no idea.\" (*Id.* at 24:5– 9).\n\nRather than simply admitting that it, too, does not know and providing GXA as the Court ordered, the government now proffers an additional, new document, Exhibit B (\"GXB\"), which was not referenced in its March 31, 2023, submission, and, likewise, does not support the government's factual assertion. GXB is no different than GXA in that it is hearsay and not at all clear on its face. The government claims—without any supporting evidence or testimony from a person with knowledge—that GXB shows that a certain number of HCN were \"minted\" and that GXB reflects a distribution of HCN to various people and entities, including to \"Yvette.\" (Letter at 2). A close examination of GXB shows no support for this claim.\n\nThere is nothing on the face of GXB that confirms either the date on which it was created or whether it reflects an *anticipated* distribution or one that has already taken place.1 In fact, GXB seems to contemplate that a distribution of HCN would be accompanied by payments in U.S. dollars to reflect the acquisition of the distributed HCN; it appears to show a total sum of all such payments. In other words, as the government well knows and does not dispute, the allocation of HCN was to be effectuated by a payment by the recipient of the allocation—much the same as a purchase of an option by an employee to whom the option is granted. The government has offered no proof—not even an allegation—that Ms. Wang personally had paid \\$700,000.00 for the HCN purportedly allocated and \"distributed\" to her. The government will not find any such evidence. As we said to the Court at the last hearing, after making inquiries, we do not know what happened with this allocation, and neither does the government. (April 4, 2023, Bail Hearing Tr. at 24:2–5). In fact, the government already admitted that it cannot prove\n\n<sup>1</sup> GXB also contains untranslated Chinese writing as well as hand-written cross-outs of certain numbers, including the number matching the name \"Yvette,\" and no explanation as to why those numbers are crossed out.\n\n#### HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER APRIL 14, 2023 3 of 8\n\nthat Ms. Wang holds the assets it claims are hers. (*See id.* at 55:8–56:3).2 All the government has are two hearsay documents that are not at all clear on their face, that are undated, that contain untranslated Chinese writing, and for which there is no context or explanation.\n\nBut the government's claims about HCN are also highly misleading: contrary to the government's claims, one cannot convert HCN holdings into cash except in limited amounts wholly insufficient to fund an escape. And the government knows this. The value the government assigns to 700 HCN is entirely theoretical. The government correctly asserts that \"on April 12, 2023, HCN was purportedly trading at 19.34 HDO [HDollars].\" (Letter at 2). This means that the value of HCN listed on the Himalayan Exchange represents what bidders are willing to pay in HDollars (\"HDO\"), not in U.S dollars, or any other fiat currency. The government follows this true assertion with a sleight of hand by claiming next that \"Stated otherwise, 1 HCN equals approximately \\$19.34.\" (*Id.*). That would be true if 1 HDO were actually convertible into 1 U.S. dollar, but, as the government well knows, it is not. Indeed, according to the government and to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, investors who have attempted to convert their HDO into dollars were unable to do so, and the fraud allegations relating to the Himalayan Exchange (both in the Indictment and in the SEC Complaint) include allegations that, contrary to defendants' representations, HDO were *not* convertible into USD and could *not* be used to purchase goods and services. (*See* Indictment; SEC Complaint (No. 23-CV-02200, March 15, 2023, ECF No. 1 ¶ 128)).\n\n2 Consider the following admission by the government:\n\n*Your Honor is correct, defense is correct, there's no way for the Government to prove that Ms. Wang holds that money*, and, in fact, *the Government's allegation is that it's not cryptocurrency*, but we're not alleging it's valueless. We're alleging that certain people have it and the people who are quickest to redeem can basically have an exit scam and get out with their money. I would note while, again, we don't have access to an account that Ms. Wang has where the money is held, Your Honor correctly identified approximately \\$7 million worth of a cryptocurrency asset would be something you would want to keep track of. The allocation indicates Yanping Wang, and then it has the allocation, it's in her name.\n\n(April 4, 2023, Bail Hearing Tr. at 55:8–56:3 (emphasis added)).\n\nIn other words, the government claims that Ms. Wang lied, but it also admits that it does not know what the truth is, i.e., it has no basis for determining whether any statement by Ms. Wang comports with the truth. Note also, that it is too late for the \"exit scam\" supposition offered by the government. As discussed elsewhere here, the Himalayan Exchange has been deprived of its reserves and has set limitations on redemptions. Note, too, in the same paragraph, the government first claims that these assets are not cryptocurrency and then takes Ms. Wang to task for not reporting it as cryptocurrency.\n\n#### HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER APRIL 14, 2023 4 of 8\n\nIn any event, one reason HDO cannot be converted into U.S. dollars now is that the government seized from the Himalayan Exchange much, if not all, of the cash that would be the reserve Himalayan Exchange could use to allow HDO holders to redeem HDO for USD. (*See* Indictment at ¶ 25(b) (\"Following the seizures, the Himalayan Exchange website continued to represent that HDO was backed by a 'Reserve consisting of USD and cash-equivalent assert' when, in truth, it was not.\")). And, as the government is undoubtedly well aware, the Himalayan Exchange has notified its customers that it is unable to redeem HDO for USD except in \\$5,000.00 increments and only once a month. (*See* Defendant's Exhibit A attached hereto).3 In sum, even if Ms. Wang held 700,000 HCN now, contrary to the government's representations, she could not fund her escape, and it is not worth, in the real world, anything like \\$13,537,613.20 that the government falsely claims it is worth. (*See* Letter at 2–3).\n\n# **2. Documents related to the BVI entity.**\n\nThe government has repeatedly and falsely but, nonetheless, boldly asserted that Ms. Wang has failed to disclose any bank accounts held in the name of a BVI entity, Holy City Hong Kong Ventures. (*Id.* at 2). In support of that assertion, the government offers two documents: (a) an account application form that is undated and bears no marking indicating that it was either sent to, handed to, or received by anyone; and (b) a board of directors' resolution that has nothing whatsoever to do with opening or maintaining any bank account.\n\nIn fact, as is the case with the HCN, the government admits it does not know what the truth is, to wit: \"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.\" (*Id.* at 3 (emphasis added)). As to the bank for which it claims to possess an application proving the existence of a bank account—and the only document the Court asked about—the government admits that it *will be* seeking this information:\n\n> The Court requested additional information relating to the St. Lucia bank account application that the Government identified in its March 32, 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*\n\n<sup>3</sup> The government's mention of William Je is similarly misleading and, in any event, wholly irrelevant. The government references in its indictment allegations that after the government had seized hundreds of millions in assets, \"including accounts that purported to hold [Himalayan Exchange] cash reserves,\" (Indictment ¶ 25(a)), Mr. Je *attempted* to redeem \\$46 million. The operative verb there is \"attempted\"; it is clear from the Indictment that Mr. Je did not succeed. It is also irrelevant to consideration of bail for Ms. Wang what Mr. Je may or may not have done with any HCN he had held; the government does not claim that Ms. Wang had any claim to any of Mr. Je's resources.\n\nHON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER APRIL 14, 2023 5 of 8\n\n> *(b) if so, whether that account contained assets at the time of the defendant's arrest.*\n\n(*Id.* at 5 (emphasis added)).\n\nIn other words, having asserted that Ms. Wang should be deprived of her liberty and denied bail in part because she purportedly \"lied\" about the existence of a bank account in St. Lucia, the government now admits—only because it was asked a direct question by the Court—that it has no idea whatsoever whether any such account even exists.4 In doing so, the government has failed to impeach Ms. Wang's credibility and has instead called into question its own.\n\n### **3. Documents related to accounts of affiliated entities and payroll documents.**\n\nAs the government knows full well, ownership of an account by an entity one controls or does work for does not by itself translate into one's ability to transact in that account or to take money out of any such account. For example, one of the owners of a private business may review and approve expenditures from a bank account that is administered by the company's chief financial officer or controller. Unless that owner's name is on the account as an authorized user, the bank will not—cannot—take direction from that owner to transact in the account.\n\nThe government admits that it conferred with defense counsel about accounts for three entities that Ms. Wang controlled. (*Id.* at 6). But it is misleading for the government to assert that Ms. Wang improperly failed to disclose any accounts related to these entities. As we understand it, and as the government seems to concede, Ms. Wang does not have the ability to administer any of these accounts, and she cannot write checks or make withdrawals. At Ms. Wang's direction, counsel attempted to ascertain what, if any, corporate accounts existed in which Ms. Wang was able to transact directly, meaning accounts on which she is personally listed as an account manager, such that she could write checks or make withdrawals. Counsel were able to identify one such account and obtained and provided the account number for that account to the government. If there are other such accounts, counsel was unaware of them after inquiring.\n\n<sup>4</sup> This, as the Court is aware, is not the only misrepresentation the government made to support its efforts to deny Ms. Wang bail and thereby deprive her of her liberty. Among other things, the government repeatedly—both orally and in writing—misrepresented the results of the search of Ms. Wang's apartment by claiming that (1) certain iPhones were found secreted in boxes to make them look new when they were not, (ECF No. 10 at 3; March 15, 2023, Presentment Tr. at 12:5–15; April 4, 2023, Bail Hearing Tr. at 73:12–16); (2) that a phone was found in between Ms. Wang's mattresses, (ECF No. 10 at 3); and (3) that documents were found hidden in the cushions of Ms. Wang's couch or between her mattress and box spring, (March 15, 2023, Presentment Tr. at 12:19–21). There are no evidence log entries (which include agents' descriptions of where evidence was found), no photo log entries, and no photographs from the search that support these assertions. (*See* Defendant's Exhibits B and C attached hereto).\n\n#### HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER APRIL 14, 2023 6 of 8\n\nFurther, in conversations with the government, counsel made clear that the account information being provided related only to accounts Ms. Wang could administer personally, having acknowledged that there are corporate accounts that belong to entities Ms. Wang may own or control. This was an explicit conversation in the courtroom on the fifth floor of 500 Pearl Street and the purpose, as counsel understood it, was to identify accounts that Ms. Wang could access and use personally. With this as backdrop, there is no basis for the government's assertion that Ms. Wang has \"control over, and access to, millions of dollars\" or that she lied about any such accounts or withheld information about them. (*Id.* at 4). As for payroll documents, again, evidence that Ms. Wang reviewed and signed off on payroll is not evidence that she is able to take money out of those accounts for herself.5\n\n## **4. The statement for purpose of travel.**\n\nThe Court did not ask for this document or any information about Ms. Wang's proposed travel. Yet the government offers this document for two reasons. One is that the government asserts that the statement shows that Ms. Wang was employed at the relevant time. The document shows no such thing. It is possible to be an authorized representative for two companies in litigation and to do that without compensation and without being an employee of those companies (or of any other person or company). Ms. Wang was asked by Pretrial Services whether she was employed. She said she was not because that was the truth; her employment ended last year, and she stopped being compensated then. Whether the government likes it or not, Ms. Wang is free to spend her time as she wishes, including by working for free or volunteering. Working for free or volunteering is not the same as being employed in that word's common English meaning.6\n\n6 For the same reasons, if what Ms. Wang wants to do with her free time is review and sign off on payroll, she is free to do so and, in the absence of some arrangement that incudes compensation, she is not \"employed.\" As well, the idea that, post-indictment, Ms. Wang is trying to distance herself from the activities that are described in the Indictment by claiming that she is no longer employed makes no sense because she was aware that she signed off on the payroll and also aware that the documents with her sign-off were at her home (indeed, in her purse, according to the government) when her home was searched.\n\n<sup>5</sup> Also misleadingly, the government claims that failure to disclose accounts in which Ms. Wang could not transact but which belonged to entities she owned or did work for is a failure to disclose accounts over which she had \"control.\" For the reasons stated above, at the time of discussion with counsel, the government appeared to have been content to be informed about only the accounts which Ms. Wang administered personally. Regardless, in the context of a bail application, the most natural understanding of the word \"control\" is the ability to withdraw funds personally so as to finance an escape or a life as a fugitive. Any ambiguity in the meaning of the word \"control\" cannot be held against Ms. Wang, and her understanding of the word in a narrower sense is both justified and reasonable. It is not a lie or a violation of bail conditions to answer truthfully based on one's reasonable understanding of a word, especially when that understanding was shared by one's counsel based on interactions with the government.\n\n#### HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER APRIL 14, 2023 7 of 8\n\nThe second reason the government offered this document is to reargue the flight risk point. We will simply reiterate what we already said and what is very much self-evident: Ms. Wang knew since the fall of last year that the government was investigating and that it seized hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only did she not flee, but she gave notice to the government that she wanted to travel without needing to do so. Put differently, consistent with her desire to maintain her U.S. asylum application and inconsistent with an intent to flee, she sought the U.S. government's permission to travel and, when her first proposed travel plan did not pan out, she applied again. As for the risk of being deported to China, Ms. Wang asked to travel to the United Kingdom and to the British Virgin Islands; she did not ask to travel to places with a high risk of being deported to China.7\n\n## **5. Ms. Wang's pretrial interview.**\n\nThe government presents what looks like a transcript of a pretrial interview conducted on the day of Ms. Wang's arrest. The government was not there, and there is no official recording (video, audio, or stenographic). Hence, what the government has created is more like an imagined dramatic reenactment and should be weighed as such. Needless to say, there is no such transcript, and the government offers no exhibits to support the precise language that it presents as a recorded dialogue. The presentation of this purported transcript also fails to mention that Ms. Wang's interview was conducted with the aid of an interpreter, meaning what the government presents as the precise question posed to Ms. Wang is not necessarily what Ms. Wang was actually asked. As anyone who has had to face this issue, language translation is often imprecise, and that is especially true with Mandarin.\n\nSeparately, counsel for Ms. Wang *were* present for the interview and took notes. Both counsel remember that the questions were certainly not asked in the way that the government claims they were: (a) \"At the time of your arrest, or within your residence, or on your person, did you have any cash to your name?\" or (b) \"Are there any business accounts under your name or that you oversee, or any additional cash anywhere else?\" In fact, counsel do not recall any questions whatsoever about cash in Ms. Wong's residence nor questions about additional cash anywhere else. Instead, counsels' notes—both sets taken contemporaneously, simultaneously, and out of sight of each other—are consistent with a different relevant question, i.e., in substance, \"Did you have any cash on you when you were arrested?\" One counsel's notes contain the following: \"No cash on her when arrested.\" The second has a note stating: \"No cash on person.\" This is what counsel remember and their recollection is consistent with their notes.\n\nFinally, the cash found in Ms. Wang's apartment was not hidden in the floorboards or in the refrigerator. It was in the safe—together with passports and other things that are normally found in safes—and government agents had no difficulty locating the safe and accessing its contents. Ms. Wang saw the agents begin the search of her apartment. The idea that Ms. Wang\n\n<sup>7</sup> The government's assertion that Ms. Wang has a motive to flee because she would be returned to China after serving her sentence is contradicted by this country's participation in the Geneva Convention, as the government either knows or should know.\n\n#### HON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER APRIL 14, 2023 8 of 8\n\nwould lie about cash stored in her safe at home in the hope that a search by nine agents would not result in the discovery of her safe makes no sense whatsoever.\n\n### **6. Submission relating to co-signers.**\n\nHere, again, rather than limit itself to what the Court asked, the government took an opportunity to reargue. We will abstain, except to say the following: even individuals who do not know the defendant personally may serve as co-signers as long as at least one co-signer has moral suasion over the defendant. *See United States v. Batista*, 163 F. Supp. 222, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (\"[I]t may not always be possible to find individuals with sufficient assets to post who also may exert moral suasion over a defendant. A person with moral suasion over the defendant will be able to influence him to appear in court regardless of whether the money at stake is put up by a third party. Therefore, a defendant who presents some individuals with moral suasion and others who are financially responsible may satisfy the requirements of bail.\"); *United States v. Hammond*, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1166 (E.D. Wisc. 2002) (citing *Batista*, the court found that although several of the bail \"posters [did] not personally know defendant, . . . this [was] not an adequate reason to deny release.\"). The government's efforts to eliminate all the co-signers is, therefore, contrary to law.8 In any event, for the reasons we presented at the hearing, as a member of the anti-CCP movement, this potential co-signer does have moral suasion over Ms. Wang, even if they are not personally acquainted. In addition to that potential co-signer who is willing to post property to secure the bond, we have presented the Court with several others who know Ms. Wang.\n\nFor all of the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in Ms. Wang's prior written and oral submissions and arguments, Ms. Wang respectfully requests that this Court grant her Motion for an Order Directing She Has Complied with the Terms of Her Bail Conditions and to rule that the government's refusal to approve her bond co-signers has been arbitrary; or alternatively, to grant her request to amend her bail conditions to eliminate the requirement that she obtain two financially responsible persons to co-sign her bond.\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\nBest regards,\n\n**Lipman Law PLLC**\n\n[Signature]\n\nAlex Lipman\n\n<sup>8</sup> In light of the government's multiple misstatements and material omissions described above all made for the purpose of detaining Ms. Wang without bail—the court should be highly skeptical of the government's representation that it has legitimate concerns about the qualifications of Ms. Wang's co-signers and has rejected them for that reason.","body_zh":"LIPMAN LAW PLLC（利普曼律师事务所）\n\n2023年4月14日\n\n通过 ECF\n\n尊敬的 Robert W. Lehrburger（罗伯特·W·勒伯格）美国联邦治安法官\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, New York 10007-1312\n\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王雁平案），23-CR-118-AT，对政府就法院保释听证会问题所作回答的回复\n\n尊敬的 Lehrburger 法官：\n\n本所与 ChaudhryLaw PLLC（乔德里律师事务所）共同代表 Yanping Wang（王雁平），特提交本信函，以回应政府于2023年4月12日提交的信函（以下简称“该信函”），该信函旨在回应法院于2023年4月10日就2023年4月4日举行的保释听证会所作出的命令（以下简称“该命令”）。法院在其命令中要求政府提供某些文件，并为其支持其事实主张所作的推论奠定事实基础。政府未能做到这一点，因为其根本无法做到。\n\n政府并未按要求提供文件，也没有对法院在命令中提出的后续问题给出直截了当的回答，而是提出了新的证据，并重新争辩其此前在书面陈述和法庭口头辩论中已经提出过的相同观点。基于我们在先前的书面陈述和口头辩论中陈述的理由（我们在此不再赘述），王女士不存在潜逃风险。因此，我们将仅针对政府的观点进行回应并回答法院的问题。\n\n此前，政府曾主张实施现行的保释方案。这构成了一种自认，即存在一套能够合理确保被告在审判时出庭的保释条件。但现在，基于“情况发生变化”的主张，政府辩称不存在任何能够合理确保被告在审判时出庭的条件。正如以下讨论所明确的那样，政府最新提交的文件中没有任何内容——包括其所谓的新证据——构成对政府此前同意保释为适当时已知情况的实质性改变；事实上，政府所谓的许多新证据既非新证据，也根本算不上证据，在任何情况下都无法支持政府的事实主张。基于这些理由，我们谨请法院批准王女士提供的两名或多名共同签署人，或者完全取消该项要求。\n\n1. 与 HCN 相关的文档。\n\n政府声称，“与向法院和政府所作的陈述相反，附件 A（“GXA”）表明被告持有大量的‘HCN’。”（信函第2页）。这是对相关物证所显示内容的曲解。GXA 是一份被政府称为“按0.1美元分配 HCN”的明细表。辩护律师\n\nHON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER 2023年4月14日 第2页，共8页\n\n向法院实际陈述的是，GXA 仅显示了 HCN 的分配情况；它并没有显示该分配之后的后续情况：“他们看的是一份写着分配的明细表，好的，分配。他们看的不是 H Coin 的账户。”（2023年4月4日保释听证会记录第24:2–5行）。随后，辩护律师告知法院，根据我们的调查（包括联系相关知情人士），我们无法查明该分配的后续情况，即我们不知道所分配的 HCN 是否曾被行权并转换为喜马拉雅币或喜马拉雅美元：“我一直在试图查明该分配的后续情况。我所能确定的最好结果是，[王女士]对此一无所知。我并不是说它没有发生任何变动。我是说她毫不知情。”（同上，第24:5–9行）。\n\n政府现在并未如实承认自己同样不知情并按法院命令提供 GXA，而是提出了一份额外的、新的文件，即附件 B（“GXB”），该文件在其2023年3月31日的文件中未被提及，且同样无法支持政府的事实主张。GXB 与 GXA 并无二致，均属于传闻证据，且从字面上看根本不明确。政府在没有任何支持性证据或知情人士证词的情况下声称，GXB 显示特定数量的 HCN 已被“铸造”，并且 GXB 反映了向包括“Yvette”在内的各个人员和实体的 HCN 分配情况。（信函第2页）。对 GXB 的仔细审查表明，这一主张毫无根据。\n\nGXB 表面没有任何内容可以确认其创建日期，也无法确认其反映的是预期的分配还是已经发生的分配。1 事实上，GXB 似乎设想 HCN 的分配将伴随以美元付款，以反映所分配 HCN 的获取；它似乎显示了所有此类付款的总和。换言之，正如政府深知且不予争辩的那样，HCN 的分配本应通过分配接收人付款来实现——这与员工购买被授予的期权非常相似。政府没有提供任何证据——甚至没有提出任何指控——证明王女士个人曾为据称分配并“发放”给她的 HCN 支付了 $700,000.00。政府也绝不可能找到任何此类证据。正如我们在上次听证会上向法院所陈述的那样，在进行了调查之后，我们不知道这笔分配发生了什么，政府也不知道。（2023年4月4日保释听证会记录第24:2–5行）。事实上，政府已经承认它无法证明\n\n1 GXB 还包含未翻译的中文文字，以及对某些数字的手写划除，包括与名字“Yvette”对应的数字，且没有关于为何划除这些数字的解释。\n\nHON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER 2023年4月14日 第3页，共8页\n\n王女士持有其声称属于王女士的资产。（见同上，第55:8–56:3行）。2 政府所拥有的只是两份传闻文件，它们在字面上根本不明确，未注明日期，包含未翻译的中文文字，且没有任何背景或解释。\n\n但是，政府关于 HCN 的主张也具有高度误导性：与政府的主张相反，人们无法将持有的 HCN 兑换为现金，除非是完全不足以资助逃跑的有限金额。政府对此心知肚明。政府赋予 700 HCN 的价值纯粹是理论上的。政府正确地指出，“2023年4月12日，据称 HCN 的交易价格为 19.34 HDO [HDollars]。”（信函第2页）。这意味着在 Himalayan Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）上列出的 HCN 价值代表了竞价者愿意以喜马拉雅美元（“HDO”）支付的价格，而不是以美元或任何其他法定货币支付的价格。政府在陈述了这一真实事实之后玩弄了手法，接着声称“换言之，1 HCN 约等于 $19.34。”（同上）。如果 1 HDO 确实可以兑换为 1 美元，那确实如此，但正如政府深知的那样，事实并非如此。确实，根据政府和 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，SEC）的说法，试图将 HDO 兑换为美元的投资者均未能成功兑换，且与喜马拉雅交易所相关的欺诈指控（无论是在起诉书中还是在 SEC 起诉状中）均包含以下指控：与被告的陈述相反，HDO 不能兑换为美元，也不能用于购买商品和服务。（见起诉书；SEC 起诉状（案号 23-CV-02200，2023年3月15日，ECF No. 1 第128段））。\n\n2 请审阅政府的以下自认：\n\n法官阁下是正确的，辩方是正确的，政府无法证明王女士持有该笔资金，事实上，政府的主张是它不是加密货币，但我们并不是主张它毫无价值。我们的主张是某些人拥有它，而最快赎回的人基本上可以实施跑路骗局并带着钱离开。我想指出的是，虽然我们再次无法访问王女士持有资金的账户，但法官阁下准确指出，价值约 700 万美元的加密货币资产是人们想要追踪的东西。该分配表明是 Yanping Wang，然后上面有分配额，是以她的名字命名的。\n\n（2023年4月4日保释听证会记录第55:8–56:3行（强调为后加））。\n\n换言之，政府声称王女士撒了谎，但它也承认自己不知道真相是什么，即它没有依据来判断王女士的任何陈述是否符合事实。还需注意，政府提出的“跑路骗局”假设现在为时已晚。正如文书其他部分所讨论的，喜马拉雅交易所的储备已被剥夺，并对赎回设定了限制。还请注意，在同一段落中，政府首先声称这些资产不是加密货币，随后又因王女士未将其作为加密货币进行申报而对其予以指责。\n\nHON. ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER 2023年4月14日 第4页，共8页\n\n无论如何，HDO 目前无法兑换为美元的一个原因是，政府从喜马拉雅交易所扣押了大部分（即使不是全部）现金储备，而喜马拉雅交易所本可以用这些现金储备允许 HDO 持有者将 HDO 赎回为美元。（见起诉书第25(b)段（“扣押之后，喜马拉雅交易所网站继续声明 HDO 由‘由美元和现金等价物资产组成的储备’支持，而事实上并非如此。”））。而且，正如政府毫无疑问深知的那样，喜马拉雅交易所已通知其客户，除了每次 $5,000.00 且每月仅限一次外，无法将 HDO 赎回为美元。（见随附的被告附件 A）。3 总之，即使王女士现在持有 700,000 HCN，与政府的陈述相反，她也无法以此资助其逃跑，而且在现实世界中，其价值绝不像政府虚假声称的价值 $13,537,613.20 那样。（见信函第2–3页）。\n\n2. 与 BVI 实体相关的文档。\n\n政府一再虚假却大胆地声称，王女士未披露以一家 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）实体 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures（圣城香港创投有限公司）名义持有的任何银行账户。（同上，第2页）。为了支持该主张，政府提供了两份文件：(a) 一份未注明日期且没有任何表明已发送给、递交给或被任何人接收的标记的账户申请表；以及 (b) 一份与开设或维护任何银行账户完全无关的董事会决议。\n\n事实上，正如 HCN 的情况一样，政府承认自己不知道真相是什么，即：“如下文部分所述，政府仍在寻求调取记录（包括从外国司法管辖区），以试图确定王是否以 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Ltd. 的名义开设了任何银行账户。”（同上，第3页（强调为后加））。至于政府声称拥有证明银行账户存在的申请表的银行——也是法院唯一询问过的文件——政府承认其将寻求这一信息：\n\n法院要求提供与政府在其2023年3月32日[原文如此]提交的文件中指出的圣卢西亚银行账户申请相关的额外信息。见 Dkt. 39 第1页；Dkt. 36 第2页；另见 Ex. D。政府将通过《刑事司法协助条约》向该外国银行寻求调取记录，但目前尚无法确定 (a) 该账户是否已开设，或\n\n脚注3：政府提及 William Je（余建明）同样具有误导性，且无论如何都完全无关。政府在其起诉书中提及指控称，在政府查封数亿美元资产（“包括据称存放[Himalayan Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）]现金储备的账户”）（起诉书第 25(a) 段）之后，Je 先生曾“企图”赎回 4600 万美元。此处的关键动词是“企图”；从起诉书中可以清楚看出，Je 先生并未成功。Je 先生对其可能持有的任何 HCN 进行过或未进行过何种处置，这与考虑给予 Wang 女士（王雁平）保释同样无关；政府并未声称 Wang 女士对 Je 先生的任何资源拥有任何主张权。\n\n法官 ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER（罗伯特·W·勒伯格） 2023年4月14日 第 5 页，共 8 页\n\n> (b) 若是，该账户在被告被捕时是否含有资产。\n\n（同前引，第 5 页（后加下划线强调））。\n\n换言之，政府此前声称应剥夺 Wang 女士的人身自由并拒绝其保释，部分原因是她据称就圣卢西亚某银行账户的存在“撒了谎”，而现在政府仅因受到法院的直接询问才承认——其根本不知道是否存在任何此类账户。4 如此一来，政府不仅未能弹劾 Wang 女士的可信度，反而使其自身的可信度受到了质疑。\n\n3. 与关联实体账户及薪资文件相关的文书。\n\n正如政府完全知悉的那样，某人所控制或为其工作的实体对某账户的所有权，其本身并不等同于该人有能力在该账户中进行交易或从任何此类账户中提取资金。例如，某私营企业的合伙人之一可能会审查并批准某银行账户的支出，而该账户是由公司的首席财务官或财务总监管理的。除非该所有人的姓名作为授权用户出现在账户上，否则银行不会——也不能——听从该所有人的指示在账户中进行交易。\n\n政府承认，其曾就 Wang 女士控制的三家实体的账户与辩护律师进行过磋商。（同前引，第 6 页）。但政府断言 Wang 女士不当未披露与这些实体相关的任何账户，这是具有误导性的。据我们了解，且正如政府似乎承认的那样，Wang 女士并不具备管理这些账户中任何一个的能力，她既不能开具支票，也不能提取资金。在 Wang 女士的指示下，律师曾试图查明是否存在任何 Wang 女士能够直接进行交易的公司账户，即她个人被列为账户管理人、从而能够开具支票或提取资金的账户。律师得以查明了一个此类账户，并获取并将该账户的账号提供给了政府。如果还存在其他此类账户，律师在询问后对此并不知情。\n\n脚注4：正如法院所知，这并非政府为支持其拒绝 Wang 女士保释并借此剥夺其人身自由而做出的唯一失实陈述。除其他事项外，政府多次——无论以口头还是书面形式——对搜查 Wang 女士公寓的结果进行失实陈述，声称：(1) 某些 iPhone 被发现隐匿在包装盒中以使其看起来像新的一样，而事实并非如此（ECF No. 10 第 3 页；2023年3月15日首次过堂笔录第 12:5–15 行；2023年4月4日保释听证会笔录第 73:12–16 行）；(2) 在 Wang 女士的床垫之间发现了一部手机（ECF No. 10 第 3 页）；以及 (3) 发现文件藏在 Wang 女士沙发的靠垫中或其床垫与床箱之间（2023年3月15日首次过堂笔录第 12:19–21 行）。没有任何证据登记记录（其中包括执法人员对发现证据位置的描述）、没有照片登记记录，也没有来自搜查的照片能够支持这些断言。（参见随附的被告证物 B 和 C）。\n\n法官 ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER 2023年4月14日 第 6 页，共 8 页\n\n此外，在与政府的交谈中，律师明确表示，所提供的账户信息仅涉及 Wang 女士能够亲自管理的账户，同时承认存在属于 Wang 女士可能拥有或控制的实体的公司账户。这是在 500 Pearl Street（珍珠街500号）五楼法庭内进行的明确交谈，且正如律师所理解的，其目的是为了查明 Wang 女士可以亲自访问和使用的账户。在此背景下，政府声称 Wang 女士“控制并有权访问数百万美元”，或者声称她就任何此类账户撒谎或隐瞒了相关信息，是毫无根据的。（同前引，第 4 页）。至于薪资文件，同样地，证明 Wang 女士审查并签署薪资表的证据，并不能证明她能够从这些账户中提取资金归个人所有。5\n\n4. 出行目的声明。\n\n法院并未要求提供该文件或有关 Wang 女士拟定出行的任何信息。然而，政府出于两个原因提供了该文件。其一是政府声称该声明表明 Wang 女士在相关时间内处于受雇状态。该文件并没有显示此类情况。一个人完全可以在诉讼中担任两家公司的授权代表，并且在没有报酬且并非这些公司（或任何其他个人或公司）的雇员的情况下从事该工作。审前服务处曾询问 Wang 女士是否受雇。她说没有，因为那是实情；她的受雇状态已于去年终止，且她当时就停止领取报酬了。不论政府是否接受，Wang 女士都有权按照自己的意愿支配自己的时间，包括无偿工作或做义工。在英语的通常含义中，无偿工作或做义工并不等同于处于受雇状态。6\n\n脚注6：出于同样的原因，如果 Wang 女士想用空闲时间做的是审查并签署薪资表，她完全有自由这样做；并且在没有任何包含报酬的安排的情况下，她并不属于“受雇”。同样，起诉后 Wang 女士试图通过声称自己不再受雇来撇清自己与起诉书中所描述活动的关系，这种想法是毫无道理的，因为她清楚自己签署了薪资表，并且也知道在其住所被搜查时，带有其签字的文件就在家中（事实上，据政府称是在她的手提包里）。\n\n脚注5：同样具有误导性的是，政府声称未披露 Wang 女士无法进行交易但属于其拥有或为其工作之实体的账户，属于未披露其拥有“控制权”的账户。基于上述原因，在与律师讨论时，政府似乎满足于仅获知由 Wang 女士亲自管理的账户。无论如何，在保释申请的语境下，“控制权”一词最自然的理解是亲自提取资金以资助逃跑或逃犯生活的能力。“控制权”一词含义上的任何歧义都不能归咎于 Wang 女士，且她对该词在更狭义层面上的理解既合情又合理。根据一个人对某个词语的合理解释如实回答，并不构成撒谎或违反保释条件，尤其是当其律师基于与政府的互动也持有相同理解时更是如此。\n\n法官 ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER 2023年4月14日 第 7 页，共 8 页\n\n政府提供该文件的第二个原因是为了重新辩论潜逃风险这一论点。我们将仅重申我们已经阐明且显而易见的观点：Wang 女士自去年秋季起就知道政府正在进行调查并且查封了数亿美元。她不仅没有潜逃，反而在无需通知的情况下向政府发出了她希望出行的通知。换句话说，为了保持其美国庇护申请的有效性，同时与潜逃意图完全相悖，她寻求了美国政府的出行许可；当她的第一份拟定出行计划未能成行时，她再次提出了申请。至于被引渡回中国大陆的风险，Wang 女士申请前往的是英国和英属维尔京群岛；她并未申请前往具有高风险被引渡回中国大陆的地方。7\n\n5. Wang 女士的审前询问。\n\n政府提交了一份看似是在 Wang 女士被捕当日进行的审前询问的笔录。当时政府人员并不在场，且没有任何官方记录（视频、音频或速记记录）。因此，政府所制作的内容更像是一种想象出的戏剧性情景重现，应按此性质予以权衡。毋庸置疑，根本不存在此类笔录，且政府未提供任何证物来支持其作为录音对话呈现的准确字句。这份据称的笔录在呈现时也未提及对 Wang 女士的询问是在翻译人员协助下进行的，这意味着政府呈现为向 Wang 女士提出的确切问题，并不一定就是实际询问 Wang 女士的内容。任何曾面对过这一问题的人都知道，语言翻译往往是不精确的，在涉及普通话时尤其如此。\n\n另外，Wang 女士的辩护律师当时确实在场参加了询问并做了笔记。两位律师都记得，当时提出的问题绝不是像政府所声称的那样：(a)“在您被捕时，或在您的住所内，或在您身上，您名下是否有任何现金？”或 (b)“您名下或由您监管的业务账户中是否有任何资金，或者在其他任何地方是否有任何额外现金？”事实上，律师完全不记得有任何关于 Wang 女士住所内现金的问题，也不记得关于其他任何地方额外现金的问题。相反，律师的笔记——两份笔记均是在互不知情的情况下于当时同步记录的——与另一个相关的实质性问题一致，即：“您被捕时身上是否带有现金？”其中一位律师的笔记包含以下内容：“被捕时身上无现金。”第二位律师的笔记注明：“身上无现金。”这就是律师所回忆的内容，且他们的回忆与笔记相符。\n\n最后，在 Wang 女士公寓中发现的现金并没有藏在地板下或冰箱里。它放在保险箱中——与护照以及通常存放在保险箱中的其他物品放在一起——并且政府执法人员毫不费力地找到了保险箱并获取了其中的物品。Wang 女士目睹了执法人员开始搜查她的公寓。那种认为 Wang 女士\n\n脚注7：正如政府所知或理应知晓的那样，政府声称 Wang 女士有逃跑动机是因为其服刑后将被遣返回中国大陆，这一断言与本国加入《日内瓦公约》的事实相抵触。\n\n法官 ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER 2023年4月14日 第 8 页，共 8 页\n\n会为了指望九名执法人员的搜查不会发现其保险箱而就存放在家中保险箱内的现金撒谎的说法，完全是不合逻辑的。\n\n6. 与共同签署人相关的意见陈述。\n\n在此案中，政府方同样没有局限于法院所要求的范围，而是借机重新进行争辩。除说明以下几点外，本方将不作赘述：只要至少有一名共同签署人对被告具有道义约束力（moral suasion），即便是与被告并无个人私交的个人也可以担任共同签署人。参见 United States v. Batista（美国诉巴蒂斯塔案），163 F. Supp. 222, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)（「……并不总能找到既拥有足够资产提供担保、又对被告具有道义约束力的个人。对被告具有道义约束力的人能够促使其出庭，无论涉案资金是否由第三方提供。因此，被告若能提出部分具有道义约束力的个人以及其他具备财务担责能力的个人，即可满足保释要求。」）；United States v. Hammond（美国诉哈蒙德案），204 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1166 (E.D. Wisc. 2002)（援引 Batista 案，法院认定尽管数名保释「提供人并不认识被告，……但这并非拒绝释放的充分理由。」）。因此，政府方企图排除所有共同签署人的做法是违法的。8 无论如何，基于本方在听证会上阐述的理由，作为反中共运动的一员，该潜在共同签署人即便与 Ms. Wang（王女士）没有个人私交，对其确实具有道义约束力。除该名愿意提供财产以担保保释金的潜在共同签署人外，本方还向法院提出了其他数名认识王女士的人选。\n\n基于上述所有理由以及王女士此前书面和口头陈述及辩论中所述的理由，王女士谨请本法院准许其要求作出裁定确认其已遵守保释条件条款的动议，并裁定政府方拒绝批准其保释金共同签署人的行为具有任意性；或者，作为备选方案，准许其修改保释条件的请求，取消要求其寻找两名具备财务担责能力的个人共同签署保释金的规定。\n\n* * *\n\n此致，\n\nLipman Law PLLC\n\n[签名]\n\nAlex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）\n\n8 鉴于上述政府方为了在不予保释的情况下羁押王女士而作出的多处虚假陈述和重大遗漏，法院应当高度怀疑政府方所谓其对王女士共同签署人的资质存有合理关切并以此为由予以拒绝的陈述。","key_entities":["Himalaya","Je","Yanping Wang","CIPA","William Je","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":10,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":36,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":39,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":4203,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:35:55"}