{"id":"court_sdny_473_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":473,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":null,"title":"4 Page 1 of 4 ","summary_zh":"律师函——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #473。系被告 Yanping Wang（Yvette Wang）代理律师 Brendan F. Quigley（Baker Botts 律所）于2024年11月7日致法官 Analisa Torres 的信函，就检方量刑意见书中的多处表述提出更正与反驳，包括：与另案被告 Dilkinska 量刑的可比性、Wang 与 Himalaya Exchange 前 CEO Jesse Brown 之间的任用关系、Wang 是否从涉案行为中实质获益，以及检方关于 Wang「跟踪」「针对」他人的表述，并主张中共安全部门此前对 Wang 的针对性行动应作为量刑从轻情节予以考量。","summary_en":"Attorney letter in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #473. Sent by Brendan F. Quigley of Baker Botts, counsel for co-defendant Yanping Wang (Yvette Wang), to Judge Analisa Torres on November 7, 2024, responding to the government's sentencing submission. The letter disputes several of the government's characterizations — including comparisons to co-defendant Dilkinska's sentence, a claim that Wang \"hired\" former Himalaya Exchange CEO Jesse Brown, whether Wang materially benefited from the offense, and allegations that she \"targeted\" or \"stalked\" others — and argues that undisputed prior targeting of Wang by CCP security services should be considered a mitigating factor at sentencing.","body_en":"4 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498\n\nTEL +1 212.408.2500 FAX +1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\nAUSTIN BRUSSELS DALLAS DUBAI HOUSTON LONDON\n\nNEW YORK PALO ALTO RIYADH SAN FRANCISCO SINGAPORE WASHINGTON\n\nNovember 7, 2024\n\nBrendan F. Quigley TEL: 2124082520 FAX: 2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\n## Re: *United States v. Yanping Wang*, 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe represent Yvette Wang in this matter. We write in brief response to the government's October 11, 2024 sentencing submission.1 Ms. Wang accepts responsibility for her offense conduct, recognizes the seriousness of that offense, and stands by the plea agreement she signed and the stipulated Guidelines calculation therein. That said, a number of statements in the government's submission warrant correction and/or clarification.\n\n**The Government's Claim that Ms. Dilkinska Acted \"Entirely At the Direction of Others\" Is Misleading.** In her sentencing submission, Ms. Wang cited the recent sentencing in *United States v. Dilkinska* as an example of a similarly situated defendant, convicted of similar conduct as Ms. Wang, who received a sentence of 48 months from Judge Ramos. In an effort to distinguish the *Dilkinska* case, the government now claims that \"Dilkinska's role . . . was to work entirely at the direction of . . . others.\" Gov't Submission at 27.\n\nThat would be news to Ms. Dilkinska and Judge Ramos, given that the government (represented by one of the prosecutors in this case) required Ms. Dilkinska to accept a three-point enhancement \"because [she] was a manager or supervisor,\" the same enhancement as Ms. Wang agreed to. Gov't Sentencing Submission, *United States v. Dilkinska*, 17 Cr. 630 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 640 at 4. In short, as set forth more fully in Ms. Wang's initial sentencing submission, Ms. Dilkinska, a licensed attorney who played managerial role as an \"'integral member'\" of a larger fraud than Ms. Wang, was sentenced to 48 months, and a similar sentence here is appropriate to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants convicted of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).2\n\n1 The government's submission has not been filed on ECF.\n\n2 *See* Wang Sentencing Submission at 16-18 (quoting Gov't *Dilkinska* Sentencing Submission at 4). Parenthetically, Ms. Dilkinska's post-sentencing designation also reinforces Ms. Wang's arguments that\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 2 - November 7, 2024\n\n-2-\n\nNovember 7, 2024\n\n\n\n**The Government's Assertions That Ms. Wang \"Hired\" Mr. Brown Are Contradicted By the His Sworn Testimony**. The government's submission also misleadingly claims that Ms. Wang \"hired\" Jesse Brown. *See* Gov't Submission at 5. To the contrary, Mr. Brown was clear at trial that William Je \"appointed\" him as \"CEO of Himalaya Exchange\" and his \"boss\" was \"William Je.\" Guo Trial Tr. 3634-35. Ms. Wang participated only in an \"initial interview\" with Mr. Brown, and according to Mr. Brown, did not \"kn[o]w a lot about blockchain or crypto.\" Go Trial Tr. 3721.\n\n**Ms. Wang Did Not Significantly Benefit from the Offense Beyond Having a Job.** Ms. Wang's sentencing submission argued that Ms. Wang did not significantly benefit from the offense beyond the income from her job, a job which pre-dated the start of the conspiracy. *See* ECF No. 469 at 12-14.\n\nThe government's submission claims that Ms. Wang \"did significantly benefit from her crimes,\" Gov't Submission at 1, and that Wang is \"factually incorrect\" to argue otherwise. In doing so, the government relies largely on the purported allocation to Ms. Wang of the purportedly worthless Himalaya Exchange cryptocurrency. Gov't Submission at 18-20. But try as the government might—speculating that Ms. Wang was \"destined to collect\" liquid funds from the Himalaya Exchange;3 3 \"could have cashed out in the form of fiat\"4; was \"set to receive\" these funds in cash and would have \"most likely cash[ed] out\"5 ; and \"would certainly have followed [the]\n\n4 Gov't Submission at 24.\n\n5 Gov't Submission at 19\n\nher period of incarceration will be more punitive and dangerous than a similarly situated U.S. citizen. *See* Wang Sentencing Submission at 27-28. Unlike many white-collar defendants who are assigned to \"camps\" with other inmates convicted of non-violent offenses, *see id.*, Ms. Dilkinska, a foreign national, was designated to FCI Hazelton, a medium-security facility, *see* BOP Inmate Locator, *available at http (last visited Nov. 6, 2024), nicknamed \"Misery Mountain\" and perhaps best known as the facility where the notorious Boston mobster Whitey Bulger was murdered while serving his sentence. *See* Danielle Ivory, *After Whitey Bulger Killing, Warden of 'Misery Mountain' Faces Removal*, The N.Y. Times, Nov. 30, 2018.\n\n3 Gov't Submission at 2.\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 3 - November 7, 2024\n\n-3-\n\nNovember 7, 2024\n\npath\" allegedly taken by Miles Guo and her fugitive co-defendant William Je,6—the reality is that Ms. Wang received no monetary benefit from her purported cryptocurrency allocation.7\n\nThe government also asserts that \"approximately \\$34 million in victim funds were maintained in bank accounts held in the name of entities under Wang's management or control\" and that Wang had approximately \\$138,000 in cash in her apartment at the time of her arrest. Gov't Submission at 19. As to the \\$34 million amount, there is no evidence Ms. Wang personally received or misappropriated *any* of this money. As to the \\$138,000, there is no evidence that these were funds received from victims or investors.8\n\n**Ms. Wang Did Not \"Target[]\" or \"Stalk[]\" Anyone**. The government also strangely seeks to minimize the stalking Ms. Wang experienced (which continued through her guilty plea in this case) by claiming \"Wang . . . inflicted largely similar harm in G|Enterprise's targeting, stalking and protesting against the Bankruptcy trustee and his family . . . .\" Gov't Submission at 26. But Ms. Wang engaged in no such \"targeting, stalking, and protesting\" of anyone, much less the yearslong, highly personal attacks she has suffered from *both* the individual who stalked her (and continued to do so through her guilty plea) and the Chinese security services.9\n\n**The Government's Statements Regarding the Rule of Law Charities.** The government also asserts that, according to Karin Mastriello's trial testimony, \"Wang directed a scheme to\n\n6 *Id.*\n\n7 Relatedly the government's uncited assertion that Ms. Wang \"helped set up the Himalaya Exchange,\" Gov't Submission at 16, appears largely based on the fact that she conducted a screening interview of the Exchange's eventual CEO, a fact Ms. Wang does not deny. *See supra*.\n\n8 The government also quotes Probation's description of the losses in this case as being \"'astronomical'\" and \"extraordinary.'\" Gov't Submission at 10. Without minimizing the seriousness of the offense though, it bears noting that significant funds, well into the high nine figures at least, have already been recovered by the government and the SEC and will presumably be, or have been, soon returned to investors. To be sure, this was due to the government's identification and seizure of relevant funds, but it puts the \"loss\" here into context and distinguishes this case from a more \"typical\" fraud case where the co-conspirators dissipated most or all the funds received.\n\n9 Further, certainly one can reasonably take issue with the protestors' judgment, wisdom, and taste in directing their protests against members of the Bankruptcy trustee's family. That said, \"protests\" against the actions of the Trustee are a core First Amendment activity, and the protestors apparently complied with directions of the police in carrying out their protest activities. Trial Tr. 4247. More broadly, any suggestion that one cannot take issue with the trustee's actions or theories would be news to the over 300 members of the New York Council of Defense Lawyers, which has sought to file an amicus brief opposing what it calls an \"unprecedented clawback action\" by the Trustee and the Trustee's \"novel theory of recovery.\" Motion to File Amicus Brief of New York Council of Defense Lawyers, *In re Ho Wan Kwok*, 24-05188, (Bankr. D. Conn. June 13, 2024), ECF No.15; *see also* Reply in Support of Motion to File Amicus Brief, *In re Ho Wan Kwok*, 24-05188, (Bankr. D. Conn. August 2, 2024), ECF No. 27\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 4 - November 7, 2024\n\n-4-\n\nNovember 7, 2024\n\ntransfer funds from various Guo business accounts to the Rule of Law organizations' accounts in order to create the false appearance of more and larger donations.\" Gov't Submission at 3. Mastriello's actual testimony on this point was far more benign than the government suggests. She testified that she was asked to transfer money from Guo family accounts—Golden Spring and Saraca—to Rule of Law, and she did not know where Golden Spring or Saraca had received that money from. Guo Trial Tr. 473-74.\n\n# **Chinese Security Services' Targeting**. Ms. Wang's sentencing submission\n\n. In response, the government sets up a strawman by baselessly claiming Ms. Wang is asking the Court to \"sanction a bizarre vigilante system of justice.\" Gov't Submission at 25. Ms. Wang is suggesting no such thing. To the contrary, Ms. Wang is asking the Court to take into account that undisputed targeting and the well-documented effects it had on her—including \"constant fear\"; \"chronic trauma\"; \"distrust[] of security services and law enforcement\"; \"increasing[] dependen[ce] on, and loyal[ty] to, her employer\"; and \"cloud[ing] her judgment\"10—circumstances that are certainly relevant and that the Court *must* take into account as it assesses the \"history and characteristics of the defendant\" under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).\n\nAt a more granular level, the government seeks to have things both ways, giving the back of the hand to the CCP's (again undisputed) targeting of Ms. Wang but then citing Ms. Wang's possession of an expired Vanuatu passport and numerous electronic devices as evidence of her guilt,11 when in reality she possessed those items as a result of the CCP's undisputed targeting and hacking of her.\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\nWe thank the Court for its consideration on these issues.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Brendan F. Quigley* Brendan F. Quigley\n\n10 Wang Sentencing Submission at 1.\n\n11 Gov't Submission at 7.","body_zh":"4 第 1 页，共 4 页\n\n30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10112-4498\n\n电话 +1 212.408.2500 传真 +1 212.408.2501 BakerBotts.com\n\n奥斯汀 布鲁塞尔 达拉斯 迪拜 休斯敦 伦敦\n\n纽约 帕洛阿尔托 利雅得 旧金山 新加坡 华盛顿\n\n2024年11月7日\n\nBrendan F. Quigley 电话：2124082520 传真：2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯） 美国联邦地区法官 Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院） 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n关于：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王雁平案），23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n我们在本案中代表 Yvette Wang（王雁平）。我们特此致信，简要回应政府于 2024年10月11日 提交的量刑意见书。1 王女士对自己的犯罪行为承担责任，认识到该罪行的严重性，并坚持遵守其签署的认罪协议以及其中约定的量刑指南计算。尽管如此，政府意见书中的若干陈述仍需更正和/或澄清。\n\n政府声称 Dilkinska（迪尔金斯卡）女士“完全按他人指示行事”具有误导性。 在其量刑意见书中，王女士引用了 United States v. Dilkinska（美国诉迪尔金斯卡案）中最近的量刑，将其作为一个处境相似的被告人范例——该被告人与王女士所犯罪行类似，被 Ramos（拉莫斯）法官判处 48 个月监禁。为了区分 Dilkinska 一案，政府现在声称“Dilkinska 的角色……完全是在……他人的指示下工作。”政府意见书第 27 页。\n\n这对 Dilkinska 女士和拉莫斯法官来说完全是新闻，因为政府（由本案的一名检察官代表）曾要求 Dilkinska 女士接受三级的加重情节调整，“因为[她]是一名管理人员或监督人员”，这与王女士同意的加重情节相同。政府量刑意见书，United States v. Dilkinska，17 Cr. 630 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.)，ECF No. 640 第 4 页。简而言之，正如王女士最初的量刑意见书中所详述的那样，Dilkinska 女士作为一名执业律师，在比王女士涉及的规模更大的欺诈案中扮演了“‘不可或缺的成员’”这一管理角色，被判处 48 个月监禁；在此判处类似刑罚是适当的，以避免在犯有类似行为的被告人之间产生不合理的量刑差异。18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)。2\n\n1 政府的意见书尚未在 ECF 系统上提交。\n\n2 参见王女士量刑意见书第 16-18 页（引用政府在 Dilkinska 案中的量刑意见书第 4 页）。顺便提一句，Dilkinska 女士判决后的服刑机构指定也进一步支持了王女士的主张，即\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 2 - 2024年11月7日\n\n-2-\n\n2024年11月7日\n\n政府关于王女士“雇用”了 Brown（布朗）先生的主张与他的宣誓证词相矛盾。 政府的意见书还误导性地声称王女士“雇用”了 Jesse Brown（杰西·布朗）。参见政府意见书第 5 页。相反，布朗先生在审理中明确表示，是 William Je（余建明）“任命”他为“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）首席执行官”，且他的“老板”是“William Je”。郭案审判记录第 3634-35 页。王女士仅参与了对布朗先生的“初步面试”，且据布朗先生称，她并“不太懂区块链或加密货币”。郭案审判记录第 3721 页。\n\n除了持有一份工作之外，王女士并未从犯罪中显著获益。 王女士的量刑意见书指出，除了来自工作的收入外，王女士并未从犯罪中显著获益，而这份工作早在共谋开始之前就已经存在。参见 ECF No. 469 第 12-14 页。\n\n政府的意见书声称王女士“确实从其犯罪行为中显著获益”，政府意见书第 1 页，并称王女士提出相反主张是“与事实不符的”。在做出这一论述时，政府主要依据据称为王女士分配的据称毫无价值的喜马拉雅交易所加密货币。政府意见书第 18-20 页。但无论政府如何煞费苦心——推测王女士“注定会收取”来自喜马拉雅交易所的流动资金；3 “本可以以法定货币形式套现”4；“势必将收到”这些现金形式的资金且“极有可能已经套现”5；并且“肯定会追随”据称由 Miles Guo（郭文贵/郭浩云）及其在逃同案被告人 William Je 所走的路线6——但现实是，王女士从其据称分配到的加密货币中没有获得任何金钱利益。7\n\n4 政府意见书第 24 页。\n\n5 政府意见书第 19 页。\n\n她的监禁期将比处境类似的美国公民更具惩罚性且更危险。参见王女士量刑意见书第 27-28 页。与许多被分配到与其他非暴力犯罪服刑人员同住的“低戒备营地”的白领被告人不同（参见同前），Dilkinska 女士作为一名外国国民，被指定关押在 FCI Hazelton（黑泽尔顿联邦教导所），这是一个中度戒备设施（参见联邦监狱管理局在押人员定位系统，网址为 http，最后访问日期为 2024年11月6日），该设施被称为“痛苦之山”，并且可能最著名的是臭名昭著的波士顿黑帮头目 Whitey Bulger（怀蒂·巴尔杰）在服刑期间被杀害的场所。参见 Danielle Ivory（丹妮尔·艾沃里），《怀蒂·巴尔杰遇害后，“痛苦之山”监狱长面临解职》，The N.Y. Times（纽约时报），2018年11月30日。\n\n3 政府意见书第 2 页。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 3 - 2024年11月7日\n\n-3-\n\n2024年11月7日\n\n，现实情况是王女士未从其据称分配到的加密货币中获得任何金钱利益。7\n\n政府还主张“在以王女士管理或控制的实体名义开设的银行账户中，持有约 3400 万美元的受害者资金”，并且在逮捕王女士时，其公寓内有约 138,000 美元的现金。政府意见书第 19 页。关于 3400 万美元的金额，没有任何证据表明王女士个人收到或侵吞了这笔钱中的任何一分。关于 138,000 美元，没有任何证据表明这些资金是来自受害者或投资者的资金。8\n\n王女士没有“针对”或“跟踪”任何人。 政府还奇怪地试图淡化王女士所遭受的跟踪行为（这种行为一直持续到她在本案中认罪），声称“王女士……在 G|Enterprise（G企业）针对、跟踪破产受托人及其家人并向其抗议的过程中，造成了极其相似的伤害……”。政府意见书第 26 页。但王女士从未对任何人进行过此类“针对、跟踪和抗议”，更不用说她遭受来自跟踪她的个人（且一直持续到她认罪）以及中国安全部门双方长达数年的极度人身攻击。9\n\n政府关于法治慈善机构的陈述。 政府还主张，根据 Karin Mastriello（卡琳·马斯特里洛）的审判证词，“王女士指挥了一项计划，\n\n6 同上。\n\n7 与此相关的是，政府未引证依据即声称王女士“协助建立了喜马拉雅交易所”（政府意见书第 16 页），这似乎主要基于她对该交易所后来的首席执行官进行了筛选面试这一事实，王女士并不否认这一事实。参见上文。\n\n8 政府还引用了缓刑监督局将本案中的损失描述为“‘天文数字’”和“‘非同寻常’”的说法。政府意见书第 10 页。然而，在不削弱罪行严重性的前提下，值得注意的是，政府和 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）已经追回了巨额资金，至少高达数亿美元之多，并且推测将很快、或已经归还给投资者。诚然，这是由于政府对相关资金的识别和扣押，但这将此处的“损失”置于了具体背景中，并将本案与更“典型”的欺诈案区分开来，在典型的欺诈案中，同谋者挥霍了收到的绝大部分或全部资金。\n\n9 此外，人们当然可以合理地对示威者将抗议直接针对破产受托人家属的判断力、明智程度和格调提出异议。尽管如此，针对受托人行为的“抗议”是一项核心的第一修正案活动，且示威者在进行抗议活动时显然遵守了警方的指示。审判记录第 4247 页。更广泛地说，任何认为不能对受托人的行为或理论提出异议的观点，对于 New York Council of Defense Lawyers（纽约辩护律师委员会）的 300 多名成员来说都是新闻，该委员会已寻求提交法庭之友意见书，反对受托人所谓的“史无前例的追回诉讼”和受托人的“新颖追回理论”。纽约辩护律师委员会提交法庭之友意见书的动议，In re Ho Wan Kwok（关于郭文贵案），24-05188，(Bankr. D. Conn. 2024年6月13日)，ECF No. 15；亦见支持提交法庭之友意见书动议的答辩状，In re Ho Wan Kwok，24-05188，(Bankr. D. Conn. 2024年8月2日)，ECF No. 27。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 4 - 2024年11月7日\n\n-4-\n\n2024年11月7日\n\n将资金从郭氏各业务账户转入法治机构的账户，以制造出捐款更多、数额更大的假象。”政府意见书第 3 页。Mastriello 就这一点的实际证词远比政府所暗示的要温和得多。她作证说，她被要求将资金从郭氏家族账户——Golden Spring（金泉）和 Saraca（萨拉卡）——转移至 Rule of Law（法治基金/法治社会组织），并且她不知道金泉或萨拉卡从何处收到了这笔钱。郭案审判记录第 473-74 页。\n\n中国安全部门的针对行为。 王女士的量刑意见书\n\n。作为回应，政府立起了一个稻草人，毫无根据地声称王女士是在请求法院“认可一种荒唐的私刑正义体系”。政府意见书第 25 页。王女士绝无此意。相反，王女士是请求法院考虑这无可争议的针对行为及其对她造成的有据可查的影响——包括“持续的恐惧”；“长期创伤”；“对安全部门和执法部门的不信任”；“越来越依赖其雇主并对其忠诚”；以及“蒙蔽了她的判断力”10——这些情况无疑是相关的，且法院在根据 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) 评估“被告人的历史和特征”时必须予以考虑。\n\n在更具体的层面上，政府企图兼得鱼与熊掌，一方面对中共（再次无可争议地）针对王女士的行为不屑一顾，另一方面却又将王女士持有一本过期的瓦努阿图护照以及大量电子设备作为证明其有罪的证据，11而实际上，她持有这些物品正是中共对其无可争议的针对和黑客攻击的结果。\n\n***\n\n我们感谢法院对这些问题的考虑。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Brendan F. Quigley Brendan F. Quigley\n\n10 王女士量刑意见书第 1 页。\n\n11 政府意见书第 7 页。","key_entities":["Guo","Torres","Je","Analisa Torres","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","William Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Saraca","CCP","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":15,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":469,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":640,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1661,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:39:19"}