{"id":"court_sdny_45_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":45,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2023-04-17","title":"|    | Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT<br>Document 45<br>Filed 04/17/23<br>Page 1 of 38<br>N44QkowC","summary_zh":"法庭审查听证记录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok 和 Yanping Wang 案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #45（2023-04-17 提交）。2023年4月4日，美国地区法院 SDNY 法官 Analisa Torres 主持的审查会议。政府检控方陈述被告逃亡风险、威胁公众安全及可能妨碍司法程序的理由；法院保留裁决，表示将出具书面决定。","summary_en":"Court Review Hearing Transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok and Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #45 (filed April 17, 2023). Proceedings held April 4, 2023 before U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres. Government presents arguments regarding defendants' flight risk, threat to public safety, and potential for obstruction of justice; court reserves decision and indicates written ruling will be issued.","body_en":"|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n|    |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 1  | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<br>SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK                                                                                                                |  |  |\n| 2  | ------------------------------x<br>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                                                                  |  |  |\n| 3  | v.<br>23 CR 118 (AT)<br>Arraignment/Bail                                                                                                                                     |  |  |\n| 4  | HO WAN KWOK<br>YANPING WANG                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |\n| 5  | Defendants                                                                                                                                                                   |  |  |\n| 6  | ------------------------------x<br>New York, N.Y.                                                                                                                            |  |  |\n| 7  | April 4, 2023<br>11:30 a.m.                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |\n| 8  |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 9  | Before:<br>HON. ANALISA TORRES                                                                                                                                               |  |  |\n| 10 | District Judge                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |\n| 11 | APPEARANCES                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |\n| 12 | DAMIAN WILLIAMS<br>United States Attorney for the<br>Southern District of New York<br>RYAN B. FINKEL<br>JULIE MURRAY<br>MICAH FERGENSON<br>Assistant United States Attorneys |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 13 |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 14 |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 15 | BROWN RUDNICK LLP                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |\n| 16 | Attorneys for Defendant Kwok<br>STEPHEN COOK                                                                                                                                 |  |  |\n| 17 | WILLIAM BALDIGA                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 18 | LIPMAN LAW PLLC                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 19 | Attorney for Defendant Wang<br>ALEX LIPMAN                                                                                                                                   |  |  |\n| 20 | CHAUDHRY LAW PLLC                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |\n| 21 | Attorney for Defendant Wang<br>PRIYA CHAUDHRY                                                                                                                                |  |  |\n| 22 | ALSO PRESENT:<br>KARINA CHIN VILLEFORT, PTS (SDNY)                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 23 | GEOFFREY MEARNS, Paralegal Specialist (USAO)<br>BRENDA CHEN, Interpreter (Mandarin)                                                                                          |  |  |\n| 24 |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 25 |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n\n2\n\n| 1 |\n|---|\n| 2 |\n| 3 |\n| 4 |\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n(In open court)\n\nTHE COURT: Good morning.\n\nWe are here in the matter of the United States v. Ho Wan Kwok and Yanping Wang.\n\nWould you make your appearances, please.\n\nMR. FINKEL: Good morning, your Honor. Ryan Finkel Julie Murray and Micah Fergenson for the United States. We're joined today at counsel table by Geoffrey Mearns, who is a paralegal in our office.\n\nMR. COOK: Stephen Cook and William Baldiga on behalf of Mr. Kwok, who is present in custody and being assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.\n\nMR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, Alex Lipman of Lipman Law Firm PLLC, and at counsel table also Priya Chaudhry of the Chaudhry Law Firm PLLC for defendant Yanping. Ms. Wang is here, she is present, and she is being assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. 13 14 15 16 17\n\n18\n\n24\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: Please be seated.\n\nI would like the interpreter to identify herself, please. 19 20\n\nTHE INTERPRETER: Good morning, your Honor. My name is Brenda Chen. I'm a certified court Mandarin interpreter. THE COURT: Please swear in the defendants. 21 22 23\n\n(Defendants sworn)\n\nTHE COURT: Please be seated.\n\n3\n\nMr. Kwok and Ms. Wang, I'm going to ask some questions. Wait for me to call your name, and then you may answer. Do you understand what the interpreter is saying? Mr. Kwok? DEFENDANT KWOK: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Wang? DEFENDANT WANG: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Do you understand that you're now under oath, and that if you answer any of my questions falsely, you may be prosecuted for perjury based on any false answers? Mr. Kwok? DEFENDANT KWOK: Yes. THE COURT: Ms. Wang? DEFENDANT WANG: Yes. THE COURT: I understand that I must first arraign both defendants, correct? MR. FINKEL: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Do you each have a copy of superseding indictment? Mr. Kwok? DEFENDANT KWOK: Yes. THE COURT: And Ms. Wang? DEFENDANT WANG: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Has the document been translated for you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5\n\nof this year. Judge Lehrburger will hear Ms. Wang's bail application today at 2:00 p.m.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nMr. Kwok has been detained since March 15, the date of his arrest. He was arraigned on the preceding indictment before the Honorable Katharine H. Parker and detained on consent without prejudice to a future bail application.\n\nPursuant to 18 United States Code, Section 3142(e), the question I must resolve is whether there is a condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\n\nTo make this bail determination, I must undertake a two-step inquiry. First, I must determine whether the government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Kwok presents a serious risk of flight or obstruction of justice. 18 United States Code, Section 3142(f)(2). United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1988). If the government carries this initial burden, I must then determine whether there are reasonable conditions of release that can be set or whether detention is appropriate. To support detention based on danger, the government's proof must be clear and convincing. 18 United States Code, Section 3142(f)(2).\n\nThe factors that I must consider in making my determination are set forth in 18 United States Code, Section 3142(g). They include the nature and circumstances of the\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\noffense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of United States Code, Section 1591, a federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive or destructive device; the weight of the evidence against the defendant; the history and characteristics of the defendant, including his or her physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, record concerning appearance at court proceedings and whether at the time of the current offense or arrest the defendant was on probation, on parole or other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal or completion of a sentence for an offense under federal, state and/or local law; and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by defendant's release.\n\nI have carefully considered all of these factors and the parties' written submissions.\n\nDoes the government wish to be heard?\n\nMR. FINKEL: Yes, your Honor.\n\nYour Honor, there are many aspects of this case, as the Court may be familiar with the indictment, that are extraordinary. This is a billion dollar fraud case, in which Mr. Kwok preyed on thousands of individuals to line his own pockets with extraordinary luxurious items. But the issue 21 22 23 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\ntoday, your Honor, isn't extraordinary. It's actually quite straightforward. A simple application of the factors that the government has outlined in its letters to the legal framework that the Court just went through makes clear that detention is appropriate is in this case.\n\nAs this Court knows, pretrial services doesn't often recommend detention in a fraud case, but they've recommended it here, and for good reason. This court should adopt that recommendation.\n\nI want to start first with the risk of flight. As the Court mentioned, the government's obligation is to demonstrate just by a preponderance that there is a risk of flight with respect to the defendant. So what we have here again, pretty straightforward: An exceptionally wealthy, exceptionally well-connected, exceptionally sophisticated, deeply experienced world traveler, who is 54 and has barely spent five continuous years in this country. He has at least three, and as many as eleven, different passports. He has a co-defendant who's currently fugitive who's in the UAE right now, or believed to be. The defendant has access to private aircraft and a compelling, exceptionally compelling, motive to flee, your Honor.\n\nAs a result of the charges in this case, the defendant faces decades in prison. The evidence is incredibly strong. It's not even really disputed by the defense in their briefing. 23 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nThe indictment itself describes it in detail. At the end of the day, your Honor, simply following the money that the defendant collected, following the money into the pockets of his wife, his children, and himself demonstrates his involvement in this epic fraud.\n\nSo, again, given the incentive structure, why would the defendant stay? It's simple rational thinking. Why would he subject himself to the court process, to potentially decades in prison, followed by likely deportation, if he can take advantage of an alternative, the alternative of flight.\n\nSo the defense claims in its briefing that he essentially is incentivized to remain for two primary reasons: The first is that his wife and his daughter are here in the United States, but his wife and his daughter have been here even less time than he has been, and they have an incentive to flee as well. They're referred to in the indictment; they were recipients of the fraud money; and they can leave the country just as easily as the defendant can.\n\nAnd, in any event, the defendant has a son in the United Kingdom, in a foreign country. He certainly would be incentivized to spend time with his son, to be with his son in the same way the defense claims he is incentivized to stay to be with his wife and daughter.\n\nDefendants, your Honor, in this courthouse flee with far less global reach than Kwok has. People are willing to 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nrearrange their lives who have been here for decades to avoid prison. Kwok doesn't even have any meaningful ties in this country that make such a rearrangement impossible or even difficult. He's been here, according to the defense, continually since approximately 2017. That's it. And according to the indictment, he's been involved in this conspiracy since 2018, which means his ties to the United States, your Honor, are about laying the groundwork for and committing a billion dollar fraud.\n\nThat brings us to the second reason the defense says he's incentivized to stay. They claim he cannot travel anywhere because of fear of being repatriated to China. But that argument doesn't withstand scrutiny either, as we've outlined, your Honor. According to the defense, the defendant fled China in 2015 to escape China. If he was concerned about the Chinese trying to capture him or repatriate him at that time, according to the defense, he wouldn't travel internationally; yet, he did. Even the defense concedes he traveled from 2015 to 2017. His passports make that clear. So he traveled. He wasn't afraid to travel internationally. He wouldn't be afraid to travel internationally now.\n\nThen we turn to does the defendant have the ability to flee? This too, your Honor, is fairly straightforward. Kwok has means; he has sophistication; and he has connections, which all make his ability to flee, like I said, straightforward.\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nI mentioned the passports. But that's not all he has. As the government outlined, your Honor, he had \\$394,000 in cash - cash that he didn't tell pretrial services about - in his safe in his mansion in New Jersey. He had another hundred thousand worth of gold coins, foreign currency; and his co-defendant had more than a hundred thousand dollars in a safe in her condo.\n\nThere was also a document in his co-defendant's apartment demonstrating that Kwok has access to \\$34 million in bank accounts. And, your Honor, I can tell the Court that the government has worked quite hard in tracing the fraud proceeds in this case, and we've traced it not just throughout the United States, but we've tried to trace it internationally. And what we've seen is money flowing to Switzerland, to the UAE -- which I'm going to talk more about -- to England, and possibly even Kazakhstan. Yet, the defendant claims that he - let me take a step back for a second.\n\nSo does the defendant have the financial means to flee? Absolutely. And it's impossible for this Court to have any reasonable assurance of where that bottom is, where his money is, particularly because he lied to pretrial services about the \\$394 plus thousand that he had in his mansion.\n\nSo let's turn to know-how. Does the defendant have the know-how, the sophistication to flee. Again, simple, straightforward. Yes, he does. This is a man who has 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\ncellphone scramblers, Faraday bags, burner phones, obfuscates his funds, uses shell companies, uses intermediaries, and, as I mentioned, has at least three and possibly as many as eleven passports. He's a deeply experienced world traveler, who admitted to pretrial services to traveling to over 50 different countries. That's exceptional. He certainly has a sophistication and know-how to flee.\n\nThen the question becomes does he actually have anywhere to go? And the answer to that, your Honor, again simple, straightforward. Yes, he clearly does. He has a UAE passport somewhere. We don't know where it is. We have a copy of it. But what that UAE passport shows is that he's likely a citizen of that country because when you hold a passport that indicates citizenship for a particular country -- and we checked with the office of international affairs, DOJ's OIA office on this -- the UAE does not extradite citizens.\n\nAnd, of course, your Honor, his co-defendant is in the UAE right now, or at least we believe him to be. There are operations for G Clubs, which is an arm of his fraud in the UAE. There are operations for the Himalaya Exchange in the UAE, another arm of his fraud. There were two personnel, two employees of G Club who spent months in the UAE and were able to obtain visas in the UAE. The defendant can go to the UAE. He would be safe, effectively safe from the reach of the government there, and he knows that because he's made\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nstatements about that.\n\nSo has the government established by a preponderance that the defendant is a risk of flight? Yes. And there really shouldn't be much of a serious dispute about that. So then the question becomes what conditions -- are there conditions that the Court can impose to reasonably assure that there will not than a flight? There aren't any.\n\nSo let's start with what the defense has put forth. They put forth a \\$25 million bond secured by \\$5 million cash. Now, if we take a step back for a moment, what is the purpose really of a bond? The purpose of the bond, your Honor, is to change the incentive structure because the defense is incentivized to flee, he's incentivized to get away from possible prison, right? So the thinking of a bond is if he flees, he loses money. So that's supposed to flip the incentive. But it doesn't here. It can't here.\n\nAnd why is that? Because, as the defendant said in his pretrial services report, he claims not to have any money, and whatever money he does have is subject to the bankruptcy proceedings, which is to say all of his money is either forfeitable or encumbered by bankruptcy, so there is no money he could put up that will provide any moral suasion for him to remain.\n\nAnd this, your Honor, it's also important to keep this in mind. The defendant has an uncanny ability to convince 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\nvictims to depart with hundreds of millions of dollars. In just weeks, he raised \\$400 plus million from thousands of victims. So if he were to lose \\$5 million, which is really all he's offering, \\$5 million cash, what cost for him? Really none. He can earn it again.\n\nAnd that should raise another question. Where is this \\$5 million coming from? If he told pretrial services that his net worth is \\$10,000 comprised of the value of his clothing and two cellphones, where is this \\$5 million? \\$5 million that he hasn't told the bankruptcy trustee about. So there's no money. There's no PRB that could be offered here that flips the incentive for the defendant to remain.\n\nWhat about cosigners? Your Honor, given the allegations in this case, the defendant's fraud is, quite frankly, sociopathic. He has taken money from thousands. Victims have cried in interviews that we have held with them explaining how their lives have been forever altered and damaged by the money that he has used to purchase Lamborghinis and Bugattis and \\$30,000 mattresses. He's not going to care if by leaving this country to avoid prison he saddles a couple of people, who he hasn't even named, with a \\$25 million judgment.\n\nSo, the defense, I would argue, your Honor, tacitly concedes all of this. They say that the PRB cosigners are really insufficient and so what they offer instead is or on top is this proposal of armed security. Now, the mere fact that\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\nthis is proposed, I submit, this Court should swiftly reject it. Second Circuit, we pointed this out, disapproves of these two-tiered approaches to American justice where the rich get to provide their own private security; in this case, in a defendant's palatial Connecticut estate, where as those without access to his means are subject to the federal system. That's not fair. That's not right. And this Court shouldn't endorse it.\n\nBut even putting that aside, even putting what the Second Circuit said aside -- and we don't think this Court should -- these security arrangements don't work. They don't work because of incentives. Security personnel are, at least according to the defense, will be answerable to the Court and government. But it doesn't really work that way because they're going to be paid by him. They're going to paid by the defendant, and security is going to be incentivized to continue to get paid. And security is going to be incentivized not to tell the Court when the defendant does something he shouldn't do because it might risk him being remanded; it might risk security being unable to continue getting paid by the defendant. Security does not work. And if it is true, as the defense claims, that the only way for the Court to be reasonably assured that the defendant won't flee is for him to be surveilled 24 hours a day, seven days a week by an armed guard, there's a proper place for that. And that's the MDC. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nBut there's something else, your Honor, even putting aside those conditions. Ultimately, when a Court permits pretrial release, it's about trust. It's about trust that a defendant will appear in court as required. It's about trust that a defendant will not endanger the community, which I'll talk about. There is no reason for this Court to trust the defendant, simply based on what has happened since he was arrested. He lied about money that he had in his safe, nearly \\$500,000 of it. He didn't disclose his travel documents. He circumvented the rules of the MDC, as we've explained in our papers. There's no reason for this Court to trust him just on those records. And I'm not even talking about what has happened in other cases, which I'll turn to.\n\nIn fact, let's talk about obstruction. At least three different judges, in both federal and state court, have found, in effect, that the defendant obstructs justice. Judge Ostrager, New York State Supreme Court, said, I'm quoting, \"The defendant's efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidantes and family members,\" which is to say, your Honor, a judge found he moves money around to hide it from the judicial process.\n\nJudge Ostrager is not alone. Judge Manning, a Bankruptcy Judge in the District of Connecticut, found similar actions that Kwok has taken. And even worse, Judge Manning 23 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nfound the defendant fomented unrest, threatened a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee, resulting in death threats, resulting in harassment. And this is on video. This is what the defendant said on video about that bankruptcy trustee.\n\nOn November 21, 2022, according to the bankruptcy judge's findings, \"To deal with this rogue\" -- I'm quoting, rogue being the trustee -- \"we have our rogue's ways. In a few days you will see what would happen to him. Calamities, I can tell you guys. They will suffer calamities!\"\n\nOn top of that, he encouraged his followers to flood the bankruptcy docket with false claims, to tie up the bankruptcy, to cause the trustee to expend additional resources to cause problems. We talked in our papers about how he's threatened victims, victims in this case; how he's threatened them by saying he would post associations between him and the victim, victims who have family in China, and thereby him posting publicly that he was associated with those victims would threaten the victims' families who happen to be in China.\n\nThis is all definitional obstruction. It's not theoretical. It's not speculative. It's not even isolated. It's continuous. It's ongoing. It spans multiple years, multiple courts, multiple judges, and the defendant is exceptional in his willingness to continue to do this unabated.\n\nSo has the government demonstrated that there's a risk of obstruction if he's released? Yes, we certainly have.\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nSo, step two, what conditions can be imposed to prevent obstruction? The answer is there are none. There aren't any. Pretty much all this Court could do is ask the defendant not to obstruct. But we know that doesn't work. Because that was tried in the bankruptcy court in Connecticut. That was tried in the New York State Supreme Court. He doesn't follow court orders. To the defendant, a court's order isn't worth the paper that it's printed on. His low regard for the judicial process and respect for due process is remarkable. And it shows that there are no conditions that can change that because if there were, it would have already happened. So again, this is straightforward. He should be detained.\n\nLet's turn to danger. The defendant's willingness to defraud for years thousands upon thousands of individuals is quite something. He's not stopped despite the many offramps that have been the flag, the red flags he's seen, the intervention of the SEC, the government's seizure of \\$630 million, his embroilment in various litigations, the fact that entities of his received grand jury subpoenas, the fact that he knew the government was on his tail, he kept going.\n\nAnd in February 2023, just essentially weeks before his arrest, he announced a new offering, the A10 offering. That's what he called it. And he claimed that this offering was a way for investors to invest 5 percent -- to purchase 5 percent of the Himalaya Exchange and 5 percent of a social\n\n18\n\nmedia company called Gettr. And like the other investments that the defendant has proclaimed and promoted, this too had all the hallmarks of fraud. He claimed it was guaranteed and that they would get their money back and everyone would make all this great money.\n\nBut the difference about the A10 offering, your Honor, this I think speaks to obstruction and also risk of flight, the of point of it was that the money was going to be sent to the UAE, away from -- and using Kwok's words -- the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States.\n\nSo is he a continuing danger to the community? Absolutely, because he hasn't stopped. He hasn't stopped after the SEC intervened in the GTV Private Placement, after his bank accounts were closed, after many of his entities received subpoenas, and after the government executed \\$630 million of bank account seizures.\n\nIndeed, your Honor, the money that the SEC was able to intervene and save from being defrauded with respect to GTV Private Placement, it's now being distributed. It's in the process of being distributed to the victims through a fair fund distribution. And what the defendant has done is encouraged his victims to reinvest that money in other fraudulent vehicles, which is to say he keeps going. He keeps going. So what conditions could the Court impose that would\n\nstop all of this? The defense basically offers one. The\n\ndefense offers the condition of if he wants to engage in a financial transaction, he must get either the government's or the Court's approval. But this condition is meaningless. It's meaningless because he lies to pretrial services. He circumvents court orders. It's something that can't possibly work because the defendant can't be trusted.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nBut more than that, your Honor, as I've explained and as our papers made clear, he works through intermediaries and shell corporations. He has the ability to conduct fraud without himself, at least on paper, signing a financial transaction. He can work through others. And that's how this whole fraud worked, which is all to say, your Honor, there are no conditions that can prevent the deep, ongoing danger that the defendant presents to this community.\n\nYour Honor, given all of this, the defendant's incentive structure, he is highly incentivized to flee, his deep resources, his connections, his network of supporters who will harbor him, his documented unwillingness to follow court orders, his threats against court-appointed officials, including some of the people at this table, his sophistication, his multitude of travel documents, his access to cash, his willingness to lie to pretrial, his willingness to circumvent rules in the MDC, his concealment of funds, there are no conditions, your Honor. There are none that can reasonably assure the Court that he won't flee; that the community will be\n\nsafe; and he will not obstruct these proceedings.\n\nPretrial services is correct: The Court should follow their recommendation and detain the defendant pending trial.\n\nTHE COURT: I'll hear from counsel for Mr. Kwok.\n\nMR. COOK: Good morning, your Honor. Stephen Cook on behalf of Mr. Kwok.\n\nJust as an initial matter, your Honor, we've seen no evidence that Mr. Kwok threatened anyone at the table, at the prosecution table. I would certainly be interested in seeing that because I'm aware of none of that. He's been in custody since March 15, and we've seen no evidence of any threats being issued to any members of the prosecution team or anyone else, for that matter.\n\nLet me just address the very first question that Mr. Finkel stated: Why would he stay? There are many reasons why Mr. Kwok would stay, and there are even more reasons why he would never leave. I want to go through each of the arguments made by the government, but I want to address first this idea that the UAE is this ideal place for Mr. Kwok to abscond to.\n\nAnd the government begins by saying that he has three passports. The government knows that's not true. As they state in their own paperwork, this passport to the country of Vanuatu expired years ago, and it's in their possession in any case.\n\nThe UAE passport that they don't have, but they claim\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\nthat he has, was returned to the UAE government years ago. He renounced his citizenship to the UAE years ago, and received a letter from the UAE government, which I can present to the Court and the prosecution. I would have filed this, but we just learned of this issue yesterday in government's filing.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nApril 11, 2018, he renounces his citizenship, and the UAE confirmed that renunciation. That passport was returned by his immigration counsel to a representative of the UAW government. So he has no UAE passport. He has no passport to Vanuatu. He has no citizenship with that nation. The third passport they reference is one to Hong Kong, the very nation that he fled from, and that passport is in the government's possession. So of the three passports they claim are available for him to use, there are zero, none. And I don't think there can be any dispute about that.\n\nNow, Mr. Finkel says quote that \"Mr. Kwok knew the government was on his tail.\" And that's absolutely correct. Hundreds of millions of dollars seized, grand jury subpoenas issued, SEC subpoenas issued; Mr. Kwok has known that he is a target of a federal criminal investigation for the better of a year. And despite his alleged sophistication, despite being essentially a criminal mastermind, an escape artist, what did he do with that knowledge? With all of the resources they claim he has, with the passports he says -- they say he has access to, with all the supporters worldwide, what did Mr. Kwok\n\ndo in the face of that knowledge that the government was on his tail?\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\nHe did nothing. He didn't leave. He went nowhere. He continued to reside in the same residences he had been in for years. All of the evidence that they identify that was found during the search that they point to as evidence of his being a risk of flight: The multiple cellphones, the cellphone scrambler, Faraday bags, cash. If he was this criminal mastermind, knowing the government is on his tail, he left all of those materials in the worst possible place, the place the government knew that he resided.\n\nMr. Kwok was not unfamiliar with an FBI search. Years ago the FBI had searched the Sherry-Netherland residence where he was arrested. He knows how thorough they are. He knows what's involved and how many agents show up. Yet, despite that knowledge and despite the government being on his tail, he did nothing to hide computer equipment or cellphones, with the exception of putting one under his mattress, as if that was going to remain unfound by the FBI. This was not evidence of a man seeking to flee. It was evidence of a man who had decided to stay in the face of the accusations that he knew were coming any day.\n\nWhy didn't he leave? Well, first of all, there's a Red Notice against him issued by China. We laid out in great detail in our papers why he fled China, why he can never go 23 24 25\n\nback to China, and why they want him, and the enormous efforts the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party in particular, have taken to try and get him back in their clutches.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nThis is documented. You read about it, and it sounds like it comes from a spy novel. And then you start looking at the sources and you realize this all really happened. High-level DOJ officials being bribed to get our government to extradite him to China. There's a trial going on in Washington D.C. right now in which an individual failed to register as a Chinese foreign agent, who was lobbying our government illegally to get this man extradited back to China. Four agents of the Chinese intelligent service accosted Mr. Kwok in his home, threatened him, and tried to get him to return to China. They were arrested by the FBI, and because of interjurisdictional squabbles between the State Department and DOJ, they were not arrested, and they were allowed to return to China. But the Chinese Communist Party's interest in my client is well documented, well-known and indisputable.\n\nThat's why you have cellphone scramblers. The Chinese government hacks at every opportunity every electronic device that Mr. Kwok has. As soon as it's hacked, he replaces it with another one, over and over and over again. That's why you have so many phones and so many computers. That's why there's a cellphone scrambler which was recommended to him by the\n\nsecurity service that he hired to help him prevent this hacking. The Faraday bags designed to prevent hacking. Not by the U.S. government. They weren't hidden from the FBI. But to minimize or help reduce the risk that they would be hacked by the Chinese Communist Party, as has been done over and over and over again.\n\nOne of the things we didn't mention in our papers, but we recently discovered was that back in 2019 and 2020 Twitter, the social media platform, took down over 200,000 fake accounts all created by the Chinese Communist Party to spew Chinese propaganda. And that propaganda fell into four categories. This is all spelled out by in a report generated by Stanford University. Those four categories, not surprising, were Taiwan, the pro democracy movement in Hong Kong, and the second most prevalent topic, of Chinese propaganda, was Mr. Kwok personally individually documented in the Stanford report.\n\nThe level of attention that Mr. Kwok generates from the Chinese Communist Party is undeniable and extreme. So he has gone through extreme efforts to protect his ability to broadcast his message to his followers with minimal or reduced obstruction from the Chinese Communist Party. That's why you see all of these elements that you would typically find from a spy novel, for example, present in his apartment. Not because he's hiding it from the U.S. Government. He's trying to protect his ability to get his message out to the millions of\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n25\n\nsafety were he to leave the United States to a level that hadn't been seen before.\n\nSo he -- for example, his family had planned a couple of years ago a vacation to Hawaii. He was advised not to even take that vacation because if there was a mechanical problem with the plane, it could land at a foreign country, and he could run into problems. He faces almost certain death if he is repatriated to China. He will do nothing to jeopardize that, even if it means spending time in a U.S. prison.\n\nThe government claims that, well, his asylum application could be revoked if he's convicted. That may be true. That's years down the road. That's a hypothetical. The consequences if he were to leave are a certainty. He would also have opportunity to seek asylum or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Yes, that could mean deportation to a third country, but far preferable to living life on the run with a Red Notice from the Chinese superpower and another Red Notice from the American superpower, there's literally nowhere left in the world for him to reasonably go under those circumstances. He cannot flee. There is nowhere he can go where he would be safe. He is here. Whether he wants to or not, he is here, and he has been here for the past six years, and that is evidence alone of his desire to remain even in the face of the government's investigation.\n\nThe foreign passports we've talked about, your Honor,\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n25\n\nand none of them have been used, in any case, for at least six years.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nWe talked about the UAE. In addition to the renunciation of that citizenship, Mr. Finkel mentions that there is no extradition treaty between the United States and UAE were Mr. Kwok to flee there. That's true. However, the UAE does have an extradition treaty with China. China and the UAE have extensive connections. In fact, the UAE is China's number one beneficiary of foreign investment of all the states in the Gulf. The relationship between the UAE and China is well-documented and public. The extradition treaty is public as well. That is probably the worst place he would go, second to China itself. So UAE is out. It was never an option, even were he to want to leave this country.\n\nThe currency found during the execution of the search warrants, the hundreds of thousands of dollars. First of all, the three residences that were searched: The Sherry-Netherland penthouse, the Greenwich estate, and the property in Mahwah, none of those properties are owned by Mr. Kwok. They're owned by other entities or other family members, not him. They are used by many family members, dozens of employees of many different companies, not just Mr. Kwok. None of that money was his. He didn't have access to the safes, and in at least two of those cases didn't even know those safes existed. They weren't in his bedroom. One of them belonged to his wife, and\n\nhe didn't know the combination. So he didn't lie to pretrial services. He didn't even know the money was there. That's the reality.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\nAnd so the assumptions that are being made by the government, as they've made assumptions in all these other areas are skewed entirely in a way to portray Mr. Kwok in the worst possible light. The reality is the money wasn't his. He had no reason to disclose something he didn't know existed.\n\nConcerning the cellphones and the scrambling device and Faraday bags, I mentioned that, your Honor. These are recommendations made by his security staff who made every effort to try and minimize the hacking that took place. And to give you another example of just what he and anyone associated with Mr. Kwok experienced from China.\n\nA law firm that was retained to assist him with his immigration asylum paperwork was hacked. Confidential information stolen from the law firm and publicly disseminated. Another law firm that was retained in connection with bankruptcy proceedings was hosting a conference call with 30 or 40 people from all over the world, including the U.S. trustee. On the day of that meeting, immediately prior to, that law firm's entire security system electronically was hacked and shut down. The elevator system was shut down causing a delay in the meeting. It never happened before and hasn't happened since. These sorts of hacking efforts and attempts follow him 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nwherever he goes simply because of who he is and the message that he espouses.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\nConcerning the civil lawsuits and the bankruptcy litigation and Mr. Kwok's alleged disregard for the law, first of all, it's important to keep in mind that much of the civil litigation, including the civil litigation that ultimately led to the bankruptcy filing was prompted by the CCP itself. That is not just a conspiracy theory. That is a documented fact. In fact, the Wall Street Journal in July of 2020 wrote an article, \"China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: America Courts. Beijing is turning to lawsuits to pressure expatriates to return home and face corruption charges as an end run around U.S. law.\" Their efforts to use the court system to leverage and exert pressure against people they don't like is documented and well-known and something that Mr. Kwok knows of firsthand. So Mr. Kwok has aggressively defended himself in all of that litigation and in the bankruptcy proceedings.\n\nNow, concerning the source of the \\$5 million security for the bond. We never in our papers suggested Mr. Kwok would or even could himself put umm \\$5 million. However, what we proposed was that there would be two financially responsible adults who would sign onto that bond, and that the source of that money would be vetted with the government so they could assure themselves that the source had nothing to do with the fraud in this case, and that the two financially responsible 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nadults, one of whom would not be a family member, they could also vet to assure not only that they are not purported victims, but that they had moral suasion over the defendant.\n\nThe government also claims that Mr. Kwok -- they allude to this in their paperwork -- that he fails to follow Bureau of Prisons' procedure in connection with some family members who wanted to make phone calls with Mr. Kwok, and they used the legal pathway for legal calls instead of family calls. We looked into that, your Honor, and, in fact, our ability to communicate with our client via telephone was shut down because of that. We found out what happened. It was a mistake. We wrote to the Bureau of Prisons explaining exactly what happened. In fact, the person who did this even wrote in the application for calls \"this is for family calls.\" It was a language issue and miscommunication on their part that we corrected. It hasn't happened again and won't happen again, and our legal calls have been reinstated. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything Mr. Kwok did or even knew about at this time, so it would be completely unfair to hold that against him.\n\nWe also proposed this round-the-clock 24/7 security. It's interesting Mr. Finkel says it's not fair and not right when this exact procedure is something the government has signed off on in other cases, but apparently in this case it's not fair and not right. Look, we don't think it's necessary.\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n24\n\n25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\nWe don't think he is leaving. We don't think he would ever leave this country. However, we offered that as additional assurance and security that he would in fact remain here and can be monitored by professionals, and we said armed security not because we need them to be armed, but because armed security happened to be current or former law enforcement adding a level of professionalism. And we can arrange that engagement in any way the Court deems acceptable so that they report directly to the marshals, to the FBI or to the Court, and not to us. We can fashion that engagement in whatever way works. The government has done this before and done it in an acceptable fashion. There's no reason why it can't work in this case as well as an additional layer of protection against flight.\n\nConcerning his purported efforts to contact victims or set up new businesses or perpetrate additional frauds, that can be dealt with as well. The Southern District has dealt with something in the SBF, Sam Bankman-Fried, case where they restricted his access to any electronic communications to a single laptop that is restricted to allowing the defendant access to the discovery so they could review it and to communicate with lawyers, and nobody else. If that is the government's legitimate concern that he is going to continue to communicate with the world and perpetrate frauds, we're amenable to that condition. There are conditions to satisfy 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\neach of these concerns, and we can fashion them. To date the government has simply been unwilling to even have a conversation with us about it, but it's not impossible.\n\nFinally, your Honor, I just want to note for the record and for your Honor that the courtroom is full of many of Mr. Kwok's supporters, many of whom have traveled from San Francisco, North Carolina, around the country to be here in support. These are the purported victims? No, they're actually his supporters. They are here because they care about him. They care about his message and his mission in connection with bringing democracy to China.\n\nYour Honor we remain open willing to employ any reasonable condition as the Court may deem necessary to secure Mr. Kwok's release. We think what we've proposed is acceptable and sufficient. We will certainly entertain anything further, and we're happy to work with the government if they're willing to tailor or contour our proposal to work out any of the legitimate issues that they might have\n\nTHE COURT: I want to go back to the passports. You're saying that your client wrote to the government of the United Arab Emirates declaring that he had renounced citizenship. Is that correct?\n\nMR. COOK: Your Honor, I have the letter. If I could approach, I'm happy to provide the Court a copy.\n\nTHE COURT: You may. Thank you. I assume you don't\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n25\n\nhave a certified version of this.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\nMR. COOK: This is all I could get on such short notice, your Honor. I would note the picture of the passport submitted in the government's letter yesterday has redacted the passport number which is contained in this letter, so I have no way to confirm that the numbers match up, but I presume that they do. In any case, I can represent to the Court that the passport itself was hand-delivered to UAE, I believe it was the consulate, by Mr. Kwok's immigration counsel.\n\nTHE COURT: You're relying on your client's word on that issue? 10 11\n\nMR. COOK: I'm relying on the word of my client's lawyer, his immigration counsel, on that issue. I can get a declaration from him to that effect, your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: And the Vanuatu passport?\n\nMS. McKINNEY: The Vanuatu passport, you can see in the picture submitted by the court, expired, and the government noted in its letter that it had other evidence, which it didn't talk about, suggesting that that citizenship had been renounced. I haven't seen any of that yet, but I know that to be the case from my consultations with his immigration counsel. THE COURT: I'll allow rebuttal by the government. MR. FINKEL: Thank you, your Honor. If I can, your Honor, I'd like to start with the passport issue. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nFirst, the defendant has proclaimed to have eleven passports, not just three. What I would also ask is, your Honor, how many defendants within a period of three or four years were able to obtain citizenship in three different countries and was on a pathway, or so he claims, to citizenship in a fourth, which is to say, your Honor, the defendant obtained citizenship in Vanuatu, obtained UAE citizenship, has a Hong Kong citizenship, and was trying to obtain citizenship here. He knows how to get travel documents. He was able to do it at least two other times, while he was on the run, according to the defense. So can he do it again? Of course he can.\n\nAnd, your Honor, I just want to be clear about something else. Our burden is not to show that he will flee internationally or go to a place where he can't be extradited. The question is whether he will return to Court as required. People flee within the United States, as your Honor knows. And, your Honor, the defendant, as defense counsel has not disputed, has a broad network of people who are sympathetic to him, who, according to their social media posts, believe that all of this is a political charge, which is to say they're motivated to help him. And it's not. Those are meritless claims, of course. This is a fraud crime that is substantiated by a significant amount of evidence which we have outlined in our papers.\n\nYour Honor, the defendant has been hiding. To respond\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n25\n\n1\n\nto defense counsel's arguments: He hides behind his family, by keeping entities and properties not in his name. He hides apparently by saying that the \\$394,000, just to be clear, was in a safe that was attached to a dressing room in which his 31 suits that have his name hand-stitched into them were there. It is simply not credible, it is not credible for him to be unaware of \\$394,000 in United States currency that he didn't disclose to pretrial services.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nYour Honor, it's a big planet, and it's a big country. There are places for him to go that would be beyond the reach of China; that are beyond the reach of the United States. But the Court doesn't need to find that. The question is whether there's a risk of flight, the risk that he won't appear in court, and the government has certainly met that burden.\n\nYour Honor, the fact that defense counsel concedes that the \\$5 million they're offering to put up is not from the defendant means it has no moral suasion on him at all. There is no reason for him not to leave because he wouldn't be concerned about giving up money that wasn't even his to begin with. Your Honor, if this money was clean and unencumbered by both the fraud and the bankruptcy, I would have expected the defense to explain where it's from. I would have expected the defense to explain who their cosigners could be, who would have the unencumbered assets to support a \\$25 million bond for the defendant and also moral suasion over him.\n\nYour Honor, with respect to armed security, the only other case I'm aware of that happened in this district where it was approved was before Judge Broderick. It was over Southern District's objection. And in that case there were a host of problems that occurred because the incentive structure doesn't work. Armed security took the defendant out to dinner. Armed security ate with the defendant, which is not really a good idea if, you know, an armed security guard eats something and then falls asleep and the defendant can flee. Armed security didn't report violations. It doesn't work. And, fundamentally -- and the Second Circuit has been crystal clear about this - fundamentally, it is wrong.\n\nWhat I haven't heard also from the defense, your Honor, is how their conditions can satisfy the very real concerns about the danger to the community and the danger to this judicial process. There are no conditions that satisfy that.\n\nAnd, your Honor, as we've outlined, and as I've explained earlier, this has been documented by three judges. Three judges have found the defendant to essentially be obstructing, including an extensive opinion that we attached for your Honor to our March 15 submission, in which the bankruptcy judge makes clear that the defendant is causing his supporters to flood the docket or threatened with calamities the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee. None of the conditions 24 25\n\n> SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\nproposed by the defense, none of them, none, can stop that.\n\nYour Honor, the defendant has incredible means and know-how, as the defense concedes. He apparently has access to friends who are willing to front \\$5 million -- \\$5 million in cash. He can go where he wants. He has a network of people who will harbor him. He has international travel -- deep international travel experience, the ability to obtain travel documents from multiple different countries, apparently citizenship in multiple different countries. He has places to go. He has people who will help him. He has a reason to flee. And the asylum application, your Honor, the mere charges in this case threaten that. It's true. The asylum application is still pending, but the mere charges in this case threaten the asylum application.\n\nThe point is, your Honor, on flight, he's motivated to flee. He has the means and know-how to do it, and there is no condition that can stop that.\n\nOn danger, he continues to endanger the public, and that hasn't stopped, and there are no conditions that can stop that. 18 19 20\n\nAnd on obstruction, your Honor, as three other courts have made clear, the defendant continues to obstruct the judicial process. He will obstruct it in this criminal case too.\n\nThere are no conditions, none, there are no conditions\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | N44QkowC                                                          |\n| 1  | that can stop that.                                               |\n| 2  | At the end of the day, this is very straightforward.              |\n| 3  | This is very simple, we submit to the Court, the defendant        |\n| 4  | should be detained because he's a risk of flight, he presents a   |\n| 5  | danger, and he will obstruct.                                     |\n| 6  | THE COURT: All right. I'm going to reserve decision.              |\n| 7  | I'll issue a written decision. The matter is                      |\n| 8  | adjourned.                                                        |\n| 9  | (Adjourned)                                                       |\n| 10 |                                                                   |\n| 11 |                                                                   |\n| 12 |                                                                   |\n| 13 |                                                                   |\n| 14 |                                                                   |\n| 15 |                                                                   |\n| 16 |                                                                   |\n| 17 |                                                                   |\n| 18 |                                                                   |\n| 19 |                                                                   |\n| 20 |                                                                   |\n| 21 |                                                                   |\n| 22 |                                                                   |\n| 23 |                                                                   |\n| 24 |                                                                   |\n| 25 |                                                                   |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n------------------------------x\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\nv.\n23 CR 118 (AT)\n提审/保释\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\nYANPING WANG（王雁平）\n被告\n------------------------------x\n纽约州纽约市\n2023年4月4日\n上午11:30\n\n审判长：\nHON. ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\n地区法院法官\n出庭人员\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n纽约南区联邦检察官\nRYAN B. FINKEL（莱恩·B·芬克尔）\nJULIE MURRAY（朱莉·默里）\nMICAH FERGENSON（米卡·弗根森）\n联邦助理检察官\n\nBROWN RUDNICK LLP（布朗鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n被告郭文贵的代理律师\nSTEPHEN COOK（斯蒂芬·库克）\nWILLIAM BALDIGA（威廉·巴尔迪加）\nLIPMAN LAW PLLC（利普曼律师事务所）\n被告王雁平的代理律师\nALEX LIPMAN（亚历克斯·利普曼）\nCHAUDHRY LAW PLLC（乔杜里律师事务所）\n被告王雁平的代理律师\nPRIYA CHAUDHRY（普里亚·乔杜里）\n其他在场人员：\nKARINA CHIN VILLEFORT（卡琳娜·钦·维勒福特），PTS（纽约南区审前服务处）\nGEOFFREY MEARNS（杰弗里·米恩斯），USAO（联邦检察官办公室）律师助理专员\nBRENDA CHEN（陈布伦达），译员（普通话）\n\n---\n\n（公开开庭）\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n我们今天在此审理美利坚合众国诉郭文贵及王雁平一案。\n\n请各位出庭人员报到。\n\n芬克尔先生：法官阁下，早上好。莱恩·芬克尔、朱莉·默里和米卡·弗根森代表合众国出庭。今天在律师席与我们一同出庭的还有杰弗里·米恩斯，他是我们办公室的律师助理。\n\n库克先生：斯蒂芬·库克和威廉·巴尔迪加代表郭先生出庭，郭先生被羁押在场，并由一名普通话译员协助。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，利普曼律师事务所的亚历克斯·利普曼，在律师席上的还有乔杜里律师事务所的普里亚·乔杜里，代表被告雁平。王女士在场，她已出庭，并由一名普通话译员协助。\n\n法庭：请就座。\n\n请译员表明身份。\n\n译员：法官阁下，早上好。我叫陈布伦达。我是法庭认证的普通话译员。法庭：请对被告进行宣誓。\n\n（被告宣誓）\n\n法庭：请就座。\n郭先生和王女士，我将问几个问题。等我叫到你们的名字后，你们再回答。你们听得懂译员所翻译的话吗？郭先生？被告郭：听得懂，法官阁下。法庭：王女士？被告王：是的，我听得懂。法庭：你们明白你们现在是在宣誓状态下，如果对我的任何问题作虚假回答，你们可能会因任何虚假回答而被以伪证罪起诉吗？郭先生？被告郭：明白。法庭：王女士？被告王：明白。法庭：据我所知，我必须先对两名被告进行提审，对吗？芬克尔先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：你们各位都拿到一份替代起诉书的副本了吗？郭先生？被告郭：拿到了。法庭：王女士呢？被告王：拿到了，法官阁下。法庭：该文件已经为你们翻译过了吗？\n今年。勒伯格法官（Judge Lehrburger）将于今天下午2:00审理王女士的保释申请。\n郭先生自3月15日被捕之日起一直被羁押。他在凯瑟琳·H·帕克法官阁下（Honorable Katharine H. Parker）面前就前一份起诉书接受了提审，并在同意羁押的情况下被羁押，且不损害日后提出保释申请的权利。\n\n根据《美国法典》第18卷第3142(e)条，我必须解决的问题是，是否存在一项或一组条件，能够合理保证被告按要求出庭以及任何其他人及社区的安全。\n\n为了作出这项保释决定，我必须进行两步审查。首先，我必须确定政府是否已通过优势证据证明郭先生存在严重的逃跑或妨碍司法风险。《美国法典》第18卷第3142(f)(2)条；合众国诉弗里德曼案（United States v. Friedman），837 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1988)。如果政府承担了这一初步举证责任，我随后必须确定是否可以设定合理的释放条件，或者羁押是否适当。为了支持基于危险性的羁押，政府的证明必须达到清楚且有说服力的程度。《美国法典》第18卷第3142(f)(2)条。\n\n我在作出决定时必须考量的因素载于《美国法典》第18卷第3142(g)条。这些因素包括被指控罪行的性质和情况，包括该罪行是否属于暴力犯罪、违反《美国法典》第18卷第1591条的罪行、联邦恐怖主义犯罪，或者是否涉及未成年受害者或管制物质、枪支、爆炸物或破坏性装置；针对被告的证据权重；被告的历史和特征，包括其身心状况、家庭联系、就业情况、财务资源、在社区居住的时间、社区联系、过往行为、与毒品或酗酒相关的历史、犯罪前科、有关在法庭诉讼中出庭的记录，以及在实施当前罪行或被捕时，被告是否处于缓刑、假释或因联邦、州和/或地方法律规定的罪行而在审判、量刑、上诉或服刑期满前处于其他释放状态；以及释放被告会对任何其他人或社区造成的危险的性质和严重性。\n\n我已仔细考量了所有这些因素以及双方当事人的书面意见书。\n\n政府方是否希望发表意见？\n\n芬克尔先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官阁下，正如法庭可能已经了解起诉书那样，本案有许多方面是非同寻常的。这是一起涉案金额达十亿美元的欺诈案，郭先生在其中掠夺了数千人，用极其奢华的物品来中饱私囊。但今天的问题，法官阁下，并不非同寻常。它实际上相当直截了当。只要将政府在信函中概述的各项因素套用到法庭刚才梳理的法律框架中，就可以清楚地看出在本案中予以羁押是适当的。\n\n正如本法庭所知，审前服务处通常不会在欺诈案中建议羁押，但他们在本案中提出了羁押建议，而且理由充分。本法庭应当采纳该建议。\n\n我想首先从逃跑风险谈起。正如法庭所提到的，政府的责任仅仅是通过优势证据证明被告存在逃跑风险。因此，我们在此面对的情况同样相当明确：一名极其富有、人脉极广、极其精明老练、经验极其丰富的环球旅行者，现年54岁，在这个国家连续居住的时间加起来几乎不满五年。他拥有至少三本、多达十一本不同的护照。他有一名同案被告目前在逃，现在正在阿联酋（UAE），或者据信在阿联酋。被告可以使用私人飞机，并且有着极强、极其强烈的逃跑动机，法官阁下。\n\n由于本案的指控，被告面临数十年的监禁。证据极其确凿。辩方在他们的书面意见中甚至并未真正提出异议。\n\n起诉书本身对此进行了详细描述。归根结底，法官阁下，只要追踪被告所募集的资金，追踪那些流入其妻子、子女以及他自己腰包的资金，就能证明他参与了这起史诗级的欺诈案。\n\n因此，再次强调，鉴于这种激励机制，被告为什么会留下来？这是简单的理性思考。如果他可以利用另一种选择——逃跑的选择，他为什么要把自己置于法庭诉讼程序之中，置于可能面临数十年监禁、随后可能被驱逐出境的境地呢？\n\n因此，辩方在其意见书中声称，他基本上出于两个主要原因有留下来的动机：首先是他的妻子和女儿都在美国，但是他的妻子和女儿在这里的时间甚至比他还要短，而且她们同样有逃跑的动机。她们在起诉书中被提及；她们是欺诈资金的接收者；她们离开这个国家就和被告一样容易。\n\n而且，无论如何，被告在英国，在一个外国，还有一个儿子。他当然有动机去陪伴他的儿子，去和他的儿子在一起，正如辩方声称他有动机留下来陪伴他的妻子和女儿一样。\n\n法官阁下，在这座法院里逃跑的被告人，其全球影响力远不如郭文贵。那些在这里生活了几十年的人为了避免坐牢都愿意彻底重构自己的生活。郭文贵在这个国家甚至没有任何有意义的联系会使这种重构变得不可能甚至困难。根据辩方的说法，他自大约2017年起一直连续在这里。仅此而已。而且根据起诉书，他自2018年起就参与了这一共谋，这意味着，法官阁下，他与美国的联系只是为了策划并实施一起十亿美元的欺诈案。\n\n这就引出了辩方所说的他有动机留下来的第二个原因。他们声称由于害怕被遣返回中国，他无法前往任何地方。但正如我们所概述的那样，法官阁下，这种论点同样经不起推敲。根据辩方的说法，被告于2015年逃离中国以躲避中国。如果他当时担心中国方面试图抓捕他或遣返他，根据辩方的说法，他是不会进行跨国旅行的；然而，他确实旅行了。就连辩方也承认他在2015年至2017年期间进行过旅行。他的护照清楚地证明了这一点。所以他旅行了。他并不害怕进行跨国旅行。他现在也不会害怕进行跨国旅行。\n\n接下来我们看被告是否有能力逃跑？法官阁下，这也相当直截了当。郭文贵有财力；他有手腕；他有人脉，正如我所说，这一切都使他的逃跑能力变得毋庸置疑。\n\n我提到了护照。但他拥有的还不止这些。法官阁下，正如政府方所概述的，他在新泽西州豪宅的保险柜里藏有 $394,000 现金——这笔现金他并未向审前服务机构报告。他还有价值 10 万美元的金币和外币；而他的同案被告在她公寓的保险柜里藏有超过 10 万美元。\n\n在他同案被告的公寓里还发现了一份文件，证明 Kwok（郭文贵）可以使用银行账户中的 $34,000,000。而且，法官阁下，我可以告诉法庭，政府方在本案中追查诈骗所得方面付出了极大的努力，我们不仅在全美范围内追查，还尝试进行跨国追查。我们看到资金流向了瑞士、阿联酋（UAE，阿拉伯联合酋长国）——稍后我会详细阐述——以及英国，甚至可能流向了哈萨克斯坦。然而，被告却声称他——请允许我先退一步说。\n\n那么被告是否有潜逃的经济能力？绝对有。而且本法庭根本无法合理确信他的底细在哪里、他的钱在哪里，尤其是因为他向审前服务机构隐瞒了藏在豪宅中的 39.4 万余美元。\n\n那么我们来看看手段。被告是否具备潜逃的技能和老练程度？同样，答案很简单直接。是的，他具备。这个人拥有手机信号干扰器、法拉第屏蔽袋、一次性手机（burner phones），隐匿资金，使用空壳公司，使用中间人，而且正如我提到的，他至少拥有三本、可能多达十一本护照。他是一个经验极其丰富、周游世界的人，他向审前服务机构承认曾前往 50 多个不同国家。这非同寻常。他当然具备潜逃的精明与手段。\n\n接下来的问题是，他到底有没有地方可去？法官阁下，对此的回答同样简单直接。是的，他显然有。他在某个地方有一本阿联酋护照。我们不知道它在哪里。我们有它的复印件。但这本阿联酋护照显示他很可能是该国公民，因为持有某国护照即表明拥有该国国籍——关于这一点，我们向司法部国际事务办公室（DOJ OIA）核实过——阿联酋不引渡本国公民。\n\n当然，法官阁下，他的同案被告目前就在阿联酋，或者至少我们认为他在那里。G Clubs 在阿联酋有业务运营，这是他实施诈骗的一个分支。Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）在阿联酋也有业务运营，这是他诈骗的另一个分支。G Club 有两名人员、两名员工在阿联酋待了数月并成功获得了阿联酋签证。被告完全可以去阿联酋。他在那里会很安全，实际上脱离了政府的管辖范围，而且他知道这一点，因为他曾就此发表过言论。\n\n那么，政府方是否已以优势证据证明被告存在潜逃风险？是的。关于这一点确实不应有太多实质性争议。那么接下来的问题是，有哪些条件——法庭能否施加某些条件，以合理保证不发生潜逃？根本没有任何条件可以做到。\n\n那么我们先看看辩方提出了什么。他们提出由 $5,000,000 现金作保的 $25,000,000 保释金（bond）。现在，如果我们退一步看，保释金的真正目的是什么？法官阁下，保释金的目的是改变激励机制，因为辩方有潜逃的动机，他有逃避潜在牢狱之灾的动机，对吧？因此，保释金的逻辑在于，如果他潜逃，他就会损失金钱。这本应扭转其动机。但在这里行不通。在这里根本不可能起作用。\n\n为什么呢？因为正如被告在审前服务报告中所说，他声称自己身无分文，而他所拥有的任何资金都要受破产程序的约束，也就是说，他所有的钱要么属于应予没收（forfeitable）财产，要么已被破产程序冻结，因此他拿不出任何能够对他产生道义劝告力以促使其留下的资金。\n\n而且这一点，法官阁下，牢记这一点也很重要。被告有一种不可思议的能力，能够说服受害者拿出数以亿计的美元。在短短几周内，他就从成千上万名受害者那里筹集了 4 亿多美元。因此，如果他损失 $5,000,000——这其实就是他所提供的全部，500 万美元现金——对他来说有什么代价呢？几乎没有任何代价。他可以再赚回来。\n\n这应该引发另一个问题。这 $5,000,000 是从哪里来的？如果他告诉审前服务机构他的净资产只有 $10,000，由他的衣物和两部手机的价值构成，那么这 $5,000,000 是从哪里来的？这笔 500 万美元是他没有向破产受托人报告的。所以根本没有资金。这里根本无法提供任何能够扭转被告动机以促使其留下的个人保释保证书（PRB）。\n\n那么共同签署人呢？法官阁下，鉴于本案中的指控，被告的诈骗行为坦率地说是反社会的。他剥夺了成千上万人的钱财。在我们对受害者的询问中，他们痛哭流涕，控诉他们的生活如何被彻底改变和毁掉，而他却用这些钱购买了兰博基尼、布加迪和价值 $30,000 的床垫。他不会在乎通过逃离本国躲避牢狱之灾，是否会让几个他甚至连名字都没提的人背负 $25,000,000 的判决书债务。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我认为辩方实际上默认了所有这些。他们表示个人保释保证书共同签署人确实不够充分，因此他们作为替代或额外提出的是配备武装安保的方案。现在，我认为，仅仅是提出这一方案，本法庭就应当予以断然拒绝。正如我们指出的那样，Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）不赞同这种让美国司法沦为两重标准的做法，即富人可以自己提供私人安保——在本案中，是在被告位于康涅狄格州的豪华庄园里——而那些无法获取其财力的人则必须受制于联邦体系。这不公平。这是不对的。本法庭不应支持这一点。\n\n但即便抛开这一点不谈，即便抛开第二巡回上诉法院的意见不谈——我们认为本法庭不应将其抛开——这些安保安排也根本行不通。由于利益驱动问题，它们无法奏效。至少按照辩方的说法，安保人员将对法庭和政府负责。但实际运作并非如此，因为他们是由他支付报酬的。他们将由被告支付报酬，安保人员的利益动机在于继续获得报酬。安保人员会有隐瞒法庭的利益动机，当被告做出不该做的事情时不去报告，因为这可能导致被告被还押（remanded）；这可能会使安保人员面临无法继续从被告处获得报酬的风险。安保根本行不通。如果真如辩方所称，法庭能够合理确信被告不会潜逃的唯一途径，是由一名武装警卫对他进行每周 7 天、每天 24 小时的监控，那么有一个专门适用的地方。那就是 MDC（大都会拘留中心）。\n\n但是还有其他问题，法官阁下，即便抛开那些条件不谈。归根结底，当法庭准予审前释放时，核心在于信任。在于相信被告会按要求出庭。在于相信被告不会危害社区，这一点我稍后会讲。仅仅根据被告被捕以来发生的事情，本法庭就没有任何理由信任他。他对他保险柜里的钱撒了谎，那是将近 $500,000。他没有如实申报他的旅行证件。正如我们在书面文书中所解释的，他规避了 MDC 的规则。仅仅根据这些记录，本法庭就没有任何理由信任他。我甚至还没有谈及在其他案件中发生的事情，接下来我将转入这一部分。\n\n事实上，我们来谈谈妨碍司法（obstruction）。在联邦法院和州法院，至少有三位不同的法官在实质上认定被告妨碍司法。New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的 Ostrager 法官表示，我引用原话：“被告试图通过将大量个人资产存放在一系列公司、受信赖的亲信和家庭成员名下，来逃避并欺骗其债权人”，也就是说，法官阁下，有一位法官认定他通过转移资金来向司法程序隐匿财产。\n\nOstrager 法官并非唯一一位。District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）的破产法官 Manning 法官也认定了 Kwok 采取的类似行为。更恶劣的是，Manning 法官认定被告煽动动乱，威胁法庭指定的破产受托人，导致其收到死亡威胁并遭受骚扰。而且这些都有录像为证。这就是被告在录像中关于该破产受托人所说的话。\n\n根据破产法官的认定，2022 年 11 月 21 日，“对付这个流氓”——我引用原话，流氓指的就是破产受托人——“我们有流氓的办法。过几天你们就会看到他会有什么下场。灾难，我可以告诉你们。他们将遭受灾难！”\n\n除此之外，他还鼓励追随者向破产案卷大量提交虚假索赔，以阻碍破产程序，致使受托人耗费额外资源制造麻烦。我们在文书中提到过他是如何威胁受害者、威胁本案中的受害者的；他是如何通过声称要公开受害者与他之间的关联来威胁他们，这些受害者在中国有家人，因此他公开宣称与这些受害者有关联，就会危及身在中国的受害者家属。\n\n这些在定义上全部属于妨碍司法。这不是理论上的。这不是推测性的。这甚至不是孤立的。这是持续不断的。这是正在进行的。这跨越了多个年份、多个法院、多位法官，而被告在持续不减地进行此类行为的意愿上非同寻常。\n\n那么政府方是否证明了如果将他释放存在妨碍司法的风险？是的，我们当然证明了。\n\n那么第二步，可以施加什么条件来防止妨碍司法？答案是没有。根本没有任何条件。本法庭基本上唯一能做的就是要求被告不要妨碍司法。但我们知道那根本没用。因为那已经在康涅狄格州的破产法院试过了。那已经在纽约州最高法院试过了。他根本不遵守法院命令。对被告而言，法院的命令连印它的纸都不值。他对司法程序的蔑视和对正当程序的缺乏尊重令人瞩目。这表明没有任何条件可以改变这一点，因为如果有，早就已经起效了。所以，同样地，这很明确。他应当被羁押（detained）。\n\n我们再来看看危险性。被告多年来欺诈成千上万名个人的意愿相当惊人。尽管出现过许多本该作为警示的转折点、他所见到的危险信号、SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的介入、政府没收的 $630,000,000、他卷入的各项诉讼、他的实体收到大陪审团传票的事实，以及他明知政府正在追查他的事实，他却从未停手，依然一意孤行。\n\n到了 2023 年 2 月，实际上就在他被捕前几周，他宣布了一项新的发行项目，即 A10 发行项目。他就是这么称呼它的。他声称该发行项目是投资者投资 5%——购买 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）5% 股权以及一家名为 Gettr（盖特）的社交媒体公司 5% 股权的一种途径。正如被告宣扬和推广的其他投资项目一样，这同样具备欺诈的所有特征。他声称这是有保底的，他们能拿回本金，而且每个人都能赚大钱。\n\n但法官阁下，关于 A10 发行项目的不同之处在于——我认为这体现了妨碍司法以及潜逃风险——它的关键在于资金将被转移至 UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国），用 Kwok（郭文贵）的话说，脱离美国的“长臂管辖权”。\n\n那么，他是否会对社区构成持续的危险？绝对会，因为他从未收手。在 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）介入 GTV Private Placement（GTV 私募项目）后，在他的银行账户被关闭后，在他的许多实体收到传票后，以及在政府执行了 6.3 亿美元的银行账户扣押之后，他都没有收手。\n\n确实，法官阁下，SEC 介入并从 GTV 私募项目中挽救回免遭诈骗的资金，目前正在进行分配。目前正在通过公平基金分配程序将其分配给受害者。而被告所做的是鼓励其受害者将这笔钱重新投资到其他欺诈载体中，也就是说，他依然在继续。他一直在继续。那么，法院能施加何种保释条件来制止这一切？辩方基本上只提出了一条。辩方提出的条件是：如果他想进行金融交易，必须获得政府或法院的批准。但这一条件毫无意义。它毫无意义，因为他对审前服务机构撒谎。他规避法庭命令。这一举措根本不可能奏效，因为被告根本不值得信任。\n\n但不仅如此，法官阁下，正如我所解释的以及我们的文书所阐明的，他是通过中间人和空壳公司来运作的。他有能力在自己不出面——至少在字面上不签署金融交易的情况下——实施欺诈。他可以通过其他人来运作。而这正是整个欺诈的运作模式，所有这一切都是为了说明，法官阁下，没有任何保释条件能够阻止被告对该社区构成的深重且持续的危险。\n\n法官阁下，鉴于所有这些情况：被告的动机结构——他有极大的潜逃动机、他的深厚资源、他的人脉关系、愿意庇护他的支持者网络、他屡次拒不遵守法庭命令的记录、他对法院指定官员（包括本桌席上的某些人员）的威胁、他的老练圆滑、他持有的大量旅行证件、他获取现金的渠道、他对审前机构撒谎的意愿、他在 MDC（大都会拘留中心）规避规则的意愿、他对资金的隐匿——没有任何保释条件，法官阁下。没有任何条件能够使法院合理确信他不会潜逃；社区将是安全的；并且他不会妨碍这些诉讼程序。\n\n审前服务机构的意见是正确的：法院应当采纳其建议，在审判前羁押被告。\n\n法庭：听取郭先生律师的意见。\n\n库克先生：早上好，法官阁下。Stephen Cook（斯蒂芬·库克）代表郭先生发言。\n\n首先，法官阁下，我们没有看到任何证据表明郭先生威胁了检方桌席上的任何人。如果有的话，我当然非常有兴趣看一看，因为我对这方面的情况一无所知。他自 3 月 15 日起一直处于羁押状态，我们没有看到任何证据表明他对检方团队的任何成员或任何其他人发出过任何威胁。\n\n请允许我回应一下芬克尔先生提出的第一个问题：他为什么要留下来？郭先生有很多理由留下来，更有无数理由绝不离开。我想逐一回应政府提出的各项论点，但我首先想回应关于 UAE 是郭先生潜逃的理想之所这一说法。\n\n政府首先声称他持有三本护照。政府明知这并非属实。正如他们自己在文书中所陈述的，那本 Vanuatu（瓦努阿图）国家的护照在多年前就已经过期，而且无论如何目前都在他们手中。\n\n他们没有拿到、但声称他持有的那本阿联酋护照，在多年前就已归还给阿联酋政府。他在多年前就放弃了阿联酋国籍，并收到了阿联酋政府的一封信函，我可以向法院和检方出示该信函。我本应将其归档提交，但我们昨天才在政府的文书中得知这一问题。\n\n2018 年 4 月 11 日，他放弃了该国籍，阿联酋确认了该放弃声明。那本护照已由他的移民律师归还给阿联酋政府的代表。因此他没有阿联酋护照。他没有瓦努阿图护照。他在该国没有公民身份。他们提到的第三本护照是 Hong Kong（香港）护照，即他所逃离的那个地区，而那本护照就在政府手中。因此，在他们声称可供他使用的三本护照中，实际数量为零，一本都没有。我认为这一点是毫无争议的。\n\n现在，芬克尔先生引述称“郭先生知道政府在盯梢他”。这完全属实。数亿美元被扣押，大陪审团传票已发出，SEC 传票已发出；大半年以来，郭先生一直清楚自己是一起联邦刑事调查的目标。尽管他被指称老练圆滑，尽管他被指称基本上是个犯罪主谋、逃脱大师，但在知晓这些情况后他做了什么？凭借他们声称他所拥有的一切资源，凭借他说——他们声称他可以获取的护照，凭借全世界所有的支持者，郭先生在得知政府在盯梢他之后究竟做了什么？\n\n他什么也没做。他没有离开。他哪里都没去。他继续居住在自己住了多年的同一处住所中。他们指出的在搜查过程中发现的、并被他们用作其存在潜逃风险证据的所有物品：多部手机、手机信号干扰器、法拉第屏蔽袋、现金。如果他真是这样一个犯罪主谋，在明知政府在盯梢他的情况下，他把所有这些物品都留在了最糟糕的地方，即政府明知他所居住的地方。\n\n郭先生对 FBI（联邦调查局）的搜查并不陌生。几年前，FBI 就曾搜查过他被捕时所在的 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨尼德兰）住所。他知道他们搜查得多彻底。他知道这涉及什么，知道会有多少探员到场。然而，尽管知晓这些情况，尽管政府一直在盯梢他，他没有采取任何行动去藏匿电脑设备或手机，除了把一部手机放在床垫下面——就好像那部手机不会被 FBI 发现一样。这根本不是一个人试图潜逃的证据。这是一个在面临他明知随时会降临的指控时，依然决定留下来的人的证据。\n\n他为什么没有离开？首先，中国对他发布了 Red Notice（红色通缉令）。我们在文书中极其详尽地阐述了他为何逃离中国、为何他绝不可能返回中国、为何他们要抓他，以及中国政府、尤其是中国共产党为了试图将他重新抓回其控制之中所付出的巨大努力。\n\n这是有据可查的。读到这些内容时，听起来就像出自一部间谍小说。但随后你开始查阅来源，你就会意识到这一切都真实发生过。DOJ（美国司法部）高级官员被收买，以促使我国政府将他引渡回中国。目前在 Washington D.C.（华盛顿哥伦比亚特区）正在进行一场审判，其中一人未登记为中国外国代理人，非法游说我国政府将此人引渡回中国。四名中国情报机关的人员曾来到郭先生家中当面纠缠他、威胁他，并试图让他返回中国。他们曾被 FBI 逮捕，但由于 State Department（美国国务院）与司法部之间的管辖权争议，他们未被正式羁押，并被允许返回中国。然而，中国共产党对我当事人的关注是有据可查、众所周知且无可争议的。\n\n这就是为什么会有手机信号干扰器。中国政府抓住一切机会黑入郭先生拥有的每一台电子设备。一旦被黑，他就换一台新的，一次又一次又一次地更换。这就是为什么会有这么多手机和这么多电脑。这就是为什么会有一个手机信号干扰器，那是他雇来帮助防止此类黑客攻击的安全服务公司向他推荐的。法拉第屏蔽袋是用来防止黑客攻击的。不是防美国政府。它们并没有瞒着 FBI 藏匿。而是为了将它们被中国共产党黑入的风险降到最低或帮助减少这一风险，正如一次又一次又一次发生过的那样。\n\n我们在文书中未曾提及、但最近发现的一件事是：早在 2019 年和 2020 年，Twitter（推特）这个社交媒体平台关闭了 20 多万个虚假账户，全部是由中国共产党建立用来散布中国政治宣传的。这些宣传分为四类。这在 Stanford University（斯坦福大学）生成的一份报告中已全部阐明。这四类毫不意外地是台湾、香港的民主运动，而中国政治宣传中第二普遍的主题就是郭先生个人，这在斯坦福的报告中有单独记录。\n\n郭先生引发中国共产党关注的程度是不可否认且极端的。因此，他付出了极大的努力来保护自己向追随者广播讯息的能力，尽量减少或降低来自中国共产党的阻碍。这就是为什么您会看到通常只会在间谍小说中出现的所有这些元素存在于他的公寓中。不是因为他在向美国政府隐瞒。他是在努力保护自己向数百万人传达讯息的能力。\n\n如果他离开美国，其安全风险将上升到前所未有的程度。\n\n因此他——例如，他的家人几年前曾计划去 Hawaii（夏威夷）度假。他得到的建议是连那次度假都不要去，因为如果飞机发生机械故障，可能会降落在外国，他就可能陷入麻烦。如果他被遣返回中国，他面临的将几乎是必死无疑。他绝不会做任何危及这一处境的事，即便这意味着要在美国监狱里度过时光。\n\n政府声称，如果他被定罪，他的庇护申请可能会被撤销。这也许属实。但那是很多年之后的事了。那只是一种假设。而如果他离开，其后果则是必然的。他同样有机会根据 Convention Against Torture（《禁止酷刑公约》）寻求庇护或保护。是的，这可能意味着被递解出境至第三国，但相比于背负着来自中国这个超级大国的红色通缉令以及来自美国这个超级大国的另一份红色通缉令过着逃亡生活，在那种情况下，世界上根本没有任何地方可供他合乎常理地前往。他无法潜逃。世界上没有任何地方是他可以安全前往的。他就在这里。无论他愿意与否，他都在这里，而且过去六年来他一直在这里，仅凭这一点就证明了即便面对政府的调查，他仍希望留下来。\n\n法官阁下，我们讨论过的外国护照，\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n而且在任何情况下，其中没有一本在至少六年内被使用过。\n我们谈到了UAE（阿联酋）。除了放弃该国国籍之外，Finkel（芬克尔）先生提到，如果Kwok（郭）先生逃往那里，United States（美国）与阿联酋之间没有引渡条约。确实如此。然而，阿联酋与China（中国）确实订有引渡条约。中国与阿联酋有着广泛的联系。事实上，在海湾地区的所有国家中，阿联酋是中国对外投资的第一大受益国。阿联酋与中国之间的关系是有据可查且公开的。引渡条约同样是公开的。那可能是他会去的除中国本土以外最糟糕的地方。因此排除阿联酋。即使他想离开这个国家，那也绝不是一个选择。\n\n在执行搜查令期间发现的现金，那几十万美元。首先，被搜查的三处住所：Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰酒店）顶层公寓、Greenwich（格林威治）庄园以及位于Mahwah（马赫瓦）的房产，这些房产均非郭先生所有。它们由其他实体或其他家族成员所有，不是他。使用这些房产的有许多家族成员，以及许多不同公司的数十名雇员，而不仅仅是郭先生。那些钱都不是他的。他没有保险箱的使用权，而且在其中至少两处房产中，他甚至根本不知道那些保险箱的存在。它们不在他的卧室里。其中一个属于他的妻子，并且\n\n他不知道密码。所以他并没有对审前服务处说谎。他甚至根本不知道那些钱在那里。这就是事实。\n因此，政府所作出的推测——正如他们在所有这些其他方面所作出的推测一样——完全被扭曲，以便以尽可能最坏的形象来描绘郭先生。事实是那笔钱不是他的。他没有理由去披露一件他根本不知道存在的事物。\n\n关于手机、扰频设备和Faraday bags（法拉第防辐射袋），法官阁下，我已经提过了。这些都是他的安保人员提出的建议，安保人员尽了一切努力试图尽量减少发生的黑客攻击。再给您举一个例子，说明他和任何与郭先生有关联的人所经历的来自中国的攻击。\n\n一家受聘协助他办理移民庇护文件的律师事务所遭到了黑客攻击。机密信息从该律所被盗并被公开发布。另一家在破产程序中受聘的律师事务所当时正与来自世界各地的三四十人（包括U.S. trustee（美国联邦受托人））举行电话会议。就在那次会议的当天，在会议开始前夕，该律所的整个电子安保系统遭黑客入侵并瘫痪。电梯系统停运，导致会议延误。这种事以前从未发生过，自那以后也未曾发生过。此类黑客入侵的图谋和企图一直跟随着他，\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n无论他走到哪里，仅仅是因为他的身份以及他所拥护的主张。\n关于民事诉讼、破产诉讼以及郭先生被指控的对法律的蔑视，首先，必须牢记的是，许多民事诉讼（包括最终导致申请破产的民事诉讼）是由CCP（中国共产党）本身挑起的。这不仅仅是一种阴谋论。这是一个有据可查的事实。事实上，Wall Street Journal（《华尔街日报》）在2020年7月撰写了一篇题为《中国追捕逃犯的新工具：美国法院。北京正求助于诉讼来施压移居国外者回国面临腐败指控，以规避美国法律》的文章。他们企图利用法院系统对他们不喜欢的人施加杠杆和压力的做法是有据可查且众所周知的，也是郭先生亲身体会到的。因此，郭先生在所有这些诉讼和破产程序中都积极地进行了自我辩护。\n\n现在，关于保释金的5,000,000美元担保金来源。我们在文书中从未暗示郭先生本人会或者甚至能够自己拿出呃5,000,000美元。然而，我们的提议是由两名具备经济责任能力的成年人在该保释保证书上签字，并且该笔资金的来源将接受政府的审查，以使他们确信该来源与本案的欺诈行为没有任何关系，而且那两名具备经济责任能力的\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n成年人（其中一人非家族成员），他们也可以进行审查，以不仅确保他们不是声称的受害者，而且他们对被告人具有道德说服力。\n\n政府还声称郭先生——他们在文书中影射这一点——声称他在某些想要与郭先生通电话的家族成员方面未遵守Bureau of Prisons（联邦监狱管理局）的规程，且他们使用了法律通话的法定渠道而非家属通话渠道。法官阁下，我们对此进行了调查，事实上，我们通过电话与当事人沟通的能力因此被切断了。我们查明了事情的经过。这是一次疏忽。我们致信联邦监狱管理局，准确解释了当时发生的情况。事实上，办理此事的人甚至在通话申请中写明了“此项为家属通话”。这是他们方面的语言问题和沟通误解，我们已经予以纠正。这种情况没有再次发生，也不会再次发生，我们的法律通话也已经恢复。这与郭先生在此时所做的或甚至所知晓的任何事情绝对没有任何关系，因此将其归咎于他是完全不公平的。\n\n我们还提出了全天候24/7安保的方案。有趣的是，芬克尔先生说这不公平且不合理，而完全相同的这一规程正是政府在其他案件中签字同意过的，但显然在本案中却成了不公平且不合理。听着，我们并不认为这是必要的。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n我们不认为他会离开。我们不认为他会离开这个国家。但是，我们提供该方案是作为额外的保证和安全措施，确保他确实会留在这里并且可以由专业人员进行监控，而且我们提出武装安保并不是因为我们需要他们携带武器，而是因为武装安保人员恰好是现任或前任执法人员，增加了一层专业性。我们可以按照法院认为可接受的任何方式安排聘用事宜，以便他们直接向法警署、FBI（联邦调查局）或法院汇报，而不是向我们汇报。我们可以用任何可行的方式来设计该聘用安排。政府以前曾这样做过，并且是以可接受的方式进行的。没有任何理由说明这种方式在本案中不能作为防止潜逃的额外保护层发挥作用。\n\n关于他声称的企图联系受害者、设立新业务或实施额外欺诈的行为，这同样可以得到解决。Southern District of New York（纽约南区）在SBF，Sam Bankman-Fried（萨姆·班克曼-弗里德）一案中曾处理过类似情况，在该案中他们将他对任何电子通信的使用限制在单台笔记本电脑上，该电脑仅限于允许被告人查阅证据开示材料以便其进行审阅，以及与律师沟通，而不得与任何其他人沟通。如果政府的合切担忧是他将继续与外界沟通并实施欺诈，我们愿意接受该条件。有相应的条件可以满足\n\n这些关切中的每一项，我们能够制定这些条件。迄今为止，政府根本不愿意就此与我们进行对话，但这并非不可能。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我只想为了记录在案以及向法官阁下指出，法庭内挤满了郭先生的众多支持者，他们中有许多人是从San Francisco（旧金山）、North Carolina（北卡罗来纳州）以及全国各地赶来在此表示支持。这些人是所谓的受害者吗？不，他们实际上是他的支持者。他们来到这里是因为他们关心他。他们关心他的主张以及他关于为中国带来民主的使命。\n\n法官阁下，我们对于采纳法院可能认为确保郭先生获得释放所必需的任何合理条件依然持开放和自愿的态度。我们认为我们提出的方案是可接受且充分的。我们当然愿意考虑任何进一步的措施，并且如果政府愿意调整或细化我们的方案以解决他们可能存在的任何合理问题，我们乐意与政府进行合作。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：我想回到护照的问题上。你是说你的当事人致信United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）政府声明他已放弃国籍。是这样吗？\n\nMR. COOK（库克先生）：法官阁下，我有这封信。如果我可以走上前，我很乐意向法庭提供一份副本。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：可以。谢谢。我假设你没有\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n这份文件的认证版本。\nMR. COOK（库克先生）：法官阁下，在如此仓促的时间里我只能拿到这些。我想指出，政府昨天提交的信函中的护照照片隐去了护照号码，而该号码包含在这封信中，所以我无法确认号码是否一致，但我推测是一致的。无论如何，我可以向法庭陈述，护照本身已由郭先生的移民律师亲手递交给了阿联酋，我相信是领事馆。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：关于这个问题你是依赖你当事人的说法？\n\nMR. COOK（库克先生）：关于这个问题我是依赖我的当事人的律师，即他的移民律师的说法。法官阁下，我可以从他那里获取一份具有该效力的声明。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：那么Vanuatu（瓦努阿图）护照呢？\n\nMS. McKINNEY（麦金尼女士）：瓦努阿图护照，您可以从法庭提交的照片中看到，已经过期，而且政府在其信函中指出它拥有其他未曾讨论的证据，表明该国籍已被放弃。我目前尚未看到任何此类证据，但我从与他的移民律师的咨询中知晓确是如此。\nTHE COURT（法庭）：我准许政府进行反驳。\nMR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：谢谢您，法官阁下。如果可以的话，法官阁下，我想从护照问题开始。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\n首先，被告人声称拥有十一本护照，而不仅仅是三本。法官阁下，我还想问的是，有多少被告人能够在三到四年的时间里获得三个不同国家的国籍，并且按照他所称，正在通往获得第四个国家国籍的途径上，也就是说，法官阁下，被告人获得了瓦努阿图国籍，获得了阿联酋国籍，拥有Hong Kong（香港）身份，并且一直试图在这里获得国籍。他知道如何获取旅行证件。他至少在另外两次做到过这一点，根据辩方的说法，当时他正处于逃亡之中。那么他能再次做到吗？他当然能。\n\n而且，法官阁下，关于另一件事我只想明确说明。我们的举证责任不是去证明他将进行跨国潜逃或逃往一个无法被引渡的地方。问题在于他是否会按要求回到法庭。正如法官阁下所知，人们会在美国境内潜逃。而且，法官阁下，正如辩护律师所不争执的那样，被告人拥有一个同情他的庞大人员网络，根据他们在社交媒体上的发帖，他们认为这一切都是政治指控，也就是说他们有动机帮助他。但事实并非如此。当然，这些都是毫无根据的主张。这是一起由我们在文书中概述的大量证据所证实的欺诈犯罪。\n\n法官阁下，被告人一直在躲藏。为了回应\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n回应辩方律师的论点：他躲在家人背后，将实体和财产置于非他本人的名下。他显然在躲避，声称这 394,000 美元——需要澄清的是——放在一个连接更衣室的保险箱里，而更衣室里放着 31 套手工缝有他姓名的西装。这根本不可信，他声称自己不知道有 394,000 美元的美国货币、且未向审前服务部门披露，这是不可信的。\n法官阁下，地球很大，这个国家也很大。有他可以去的地方，既在中国的管辖范围之外，也在美国的管辖范围之外。但法院无需认定这一点。问题在于是否存在逃跑风险、即他不按时出庭的风险，而政府方无疑已经完成了这一举证责任。\n\n法官阁下，辩方律师承认他们提议提供的 500 万美元并非来自被告本人，这一事实意味着这笔钱对他没有任何道德约束力。他没有任何理由不离开，因为他根本不会在乎放弃一笔从一开始就不属于他的钱。法官阁下，如果这笔钱是干净的，且未受欺诈案和破产案的双重牵连，我本以为辩方会解释其来源。我本以为辩方会解释他们的共同签署人可能是谁，谁能拥有无权利负担的资产来为被告支持 2500 万美元的保释金，同时对他具有道德约束力。\n\n法官阁下，关于武装安保人员，据我所知本区唯一获得批准的另一起案件是在 Broderick（布罗德里克）法官审理时。那是在 Southern District（纽约南区）提出异议的情况下批准的。在那起案件中，由于激励机制不起作用，出现了一连串问题。武装安保人员带被告出去吃晚餐。武装安保人员和被告一起进餐，如果您知道的话，这真不是个好主意，万一武装安保人员吃了东西然后睡着了，被告就可以逃跑。武装安保人员没有报告违规行为。这根本行不通。而且，从根本上说——Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）对此已经说得一清二楚——从根本上讲，这是错误的。\n\n法官阁下，我同样没有从辩方那里听到的是，他们的条件如何能够消除对社区危险以及对本司法程序危险的极为现实的担忧。没有任何条件能够满足这一点。\n\n而且，法官阁下，正如我们所概述的，以及我此前所解释的，已有三位法官对此作了记录。三位法官认定被告实质上在进行妨碍，包括我们在 3 月 15 日提交的文件中为您附上的详尽意见书，其中破产法官明确指出，被告正指使其支持者用大量材料冲击案卷记录，或者以灾难性后果威胁法院指定的破产管理人。辩方提出的任何条件，\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n没有任何一项，没有任何一项能够阻止这种情况。\n\n法官阁下，正如辩方所承认的，被告拥有惊人的财力和手段。他显然能够接触到愿意垫付 500 万美元——500 万美元现金——的朋友。他想去哪里就去哪里。他拥有一个愿意庇护他的人际网络。他拥有国际旅行——深厚的国际旅行经验，有能力从多个不同国家获取旅行证件，显然还拥有多个不同国家的公民身份。他有地方可去。他有人会帮助他。他有逃跑的动机。至于庇护申请，法官阁下，本案中的指控本身就对其构成了威胁。确实如此。庇护申请仍在审理中，但本案中的指控本身就威胁到了该庇护申请。\n\n关键在于，法官阁下，在逃跑方面，他有逃跑的动机。他有实施逃跑的手段和能力，没有任何条件能够阻止这一点。\n\n在危险性方面，他持续对公众构成危险，而且这种情况并未停止，没有任何条件能够阻止这一点。\n\n而在妨碍司法方面，法官阁下，正如其他三个法院所明确指出的，被告在持续妨碍司法程序。他在这起刑事案件中也同样会进行妨碍。\n\n没有任何条件，没有任何一项，没有任何条件\n能够阻止这一点。\n归根结底，这非常直接明确。\n这非常简单，我们向法院提议，应当将被告予以羁押，因为他存在逃跑风险，他构成了危险，并且他会实施妨碍。\n法院：好的。我将暂缓作出决定。我将出具一份书面决定。休庭。\n（休庭）","key_entities":["Kwok","Finkel","Je","Chinese Communist Party","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Fergenson","Murray","Himalaya","GTV","Himalaya Exchange","Torres","Analisa Torres","G Clubs","GETTR","CCP"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":9186,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-17","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:09:59"}