{"id":"court_sdny_484_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":484,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":null,"title":"cument 484 6/24 Page 1","summary_zh":"被告律师回应被害人陈述 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #484（2024年12月16日）。被告 Yanping Wang 接受电汇欺诈和洗钱罪责，但对被害人信件中的虚假指控提出异议，包括持续犯罪、直接招募投资者及骚扰指控等。","summary_en":"Defense Response to Victim Statements —— United States v. Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #484 (December 16, 2024). Defense counsel for co-defendant Yanping Wang acknowledges responsibility for wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies while contesting false allegations in victim impact statements regarding ongoing criminal conduct and direct investor solicitation.","body_en":"cument 484\n\n6/24 Page 1\n\n![](_page_0_Picture_3.jpeg)\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\nDecember 16, 2024\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\nBrendan F. Quigley TEL: 2124082520 FAX: 2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\nRe: *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 November 22 and December 11, 2024 submissions and the letters filed therewith.\n\nMs. Wang fully accepts responsibility for the wire-fraud and money-laundering conspiracies to which she pled guilty and sincerely regrets the harm caused to victims of these offenses. That, however, does not require Ms. Wang or counsel to sit idly by while false accusations are levied at her, or to accept the government's apparent position that she should be held responsible for speech by other individuals on social media in recent weeks or months.\n\nFirst, the letters' allegations of acts of \"bullying and harassment\"<sup>1</sup> by defendants' supposed \"followers\"<sup>2</sup> <sup>2</sup> and \"Guo's gang members,\"<sup>3</sup> are irrelevant to the application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors at Ms. Wang's sentencing.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Statement 133.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Statement 127.\n\n<sup>3</sup> Statements 129 and 130. Statements 129 and 130 appear to be the same email, albeit signed by two purportedly different individuals seven minutes apart. Relatedly, while the government's November 11 cover letter repeatedly states that \"126\" victims submitted statements and purports to provide a breakdown of alleged losses, numerous statements appear to be from the same individuals and/or to be included multiple times, resulting in double-counting. *Compare, e.g.*, Statements 50 *and* 52 (same author); 10 *and* 70 (same author; continuation of same email chain); 62, 67, *and* 83 (same author); 17 *and* 72 (same author); 75 *and* 80 (same author; continuation of same email chain); 6 and 84 (same author; continuation of the same email chain); 15 *and* 86 (same author and content); 1 and 113 (same author); 20 and 133 (same author). Others have nearly identical content even though, in at least some cases, they are purportedly authored by different individuals. *Compare, e.g.*, Statements 95 *and* 124 (extremely similar content, including identical investment amounts); 101 *and* 102; 93 *and* 122 (nearly identical content; including identical investment amounts); 109 *and* 110 (nearly identical content, including identical investment amounts). Other letters, despite purporting to be from different individuals, use nearly identical, unique phraseology to make allegations. *See, e.g.*, Statements 6 and 10 (falsely contending that \"Although Yvette Wang has pleaded\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 2 - December 16, 2024\n\n $-2-$\nDecember 16, 2024\n\nFor one, government has already (albeit begrudgingly) acknowledged that at least one of these allegations (Statement 127) is at best unfounded or at worst a knowingly false statement to the Court intended to influence the sentencing proceedings. Yet, for reasons that are unclear, the government chose to submit it again to the Court on December 11.\n\nIn any event, none of these allegations concern Ms. Wang personally. None are plausibly in furtherance of any conspiracy to which she pled guilty. And in sentencing Ms. Wang, the Court is sentencing an individual, not the \"Guo Enterprise\"<sup>4</sup> or Mr. Guo's followers generally.<sup>5</sup> To the extent the government credits any of the allegations of recent harassment and believes they cross the line into \"true threats,\"<sup>6</sup> the proper course of action to investigate the individuals responsible, not to make Ms. Wang a sacrificial lamb.\n\nSecond, numerous letters raise false and baseless allegations against Ms. Wang.\n\nPerhaps most significantly, certain victims falsely accuse Ms. Wang of continuing to engage in criminal conduct in recent months and through the present. For example, the author of Statement 133, apparently the same individual who authored Statement 20, falsely claims that Ms. Wang \"continue[s] to engage in coordinated criminal actions\" and \"continues to orchestrate criminal activities externally to this day.\" Other statements are to similar—and false—effect. *See, e.g.*, Statements 35; 46; 85; 105 (alleging Ms. Wang continues \"every day to remotely command the accomplices\"); 111; 120. Ms. Wang has not engaged in any such conduct, and surely, if there was any independent evidence of such conduct, the Court would have heard about it from the government by now.\n\nTwo other letters, Statements 6 and 10, claim—in strangely identical language—that Ms. Wang \"contacted me many times as Guo's secretary and gained my trust.\" This is false. Ms. Wang denies these allegations, and she did not directly solicit any investors in connection with GTV, G Clubs, Farm Loans, or Himalaya Exchange. Other letters strangely claim that Ms. Wang was\n\nguilty, she still uses her lawyer to delay sentencing\"); *compare also* Statement 39 (contending that \"Guo Wengui claims that his goal is to promote China to become a country of rule of law, democracy, and freedom. This grand vision deeply attracted me . . . .\" *with* Statements 66, 99, 98, 101, 102, 107, 123, 125, and 126 (all containing nearly identical phraseology)).\n\n<sup>4</sup> Indeed, the government agreed to dismiss S3 Indictment against Ms. Wang, which contains the RICO count, under the terms of the plea agreement.\n\n<sup>5</sup> *See generally* Transcript, *United States v. Crupi*, No. 10 Cr. 228 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2014) ECF. No 1478 at 80 (Judge Swain emphasizing, in sentencing a defendant convicted after trial of participating for decades in the \"world's most extensive Ponzi scheme,\" to *72 months*, \"I am sentencing a single individual,\" not the institution that perpetrated the scheme or other co-conspirators).\n\n<sup>6</sup> *See generally, e.g.*, *Watts v. United States*, 394 U.S. 705, 707 *(*1969) (distinguishing between \"true threats\" and First Amendment protected activity; directing entry of judgment of acquittal in case involving threats against the President of the United States).\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres - 3 - December 16, 2024\n\n $-3-$\nDecember 16, 2024\n\n.\n\ntrained by the Chinese military<sup>7</sup> and is a really a communist agent, arguments that are at odds with\n\nTo the extent these materials are at all relevant under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to Ms. Wang's sentencing, they provide further evidence of the harassment and false rumors followed Ms. Wang since she arrived in the United States in 2017, which is relevant to Ms. Wang's state of mind at the time of the offense conduct and help explain her dependence on, and loyalty to, her employer during that time. *See also* Wang Sentencing Submission at 6-9; Wang 11/7/24 Ltr. to the Court at 4.\n\nFinally certain of the letters appear to come from individuals who were not victim-investors and whose status as statutory victims is (at best) unclear. For example, Statement 134 was submitted on behalf of an entity that, based on trial testimony, retained \\$5 million of investor funds (far more than Ms. Wang, who did not materially benefit from the offense), while bankrolling a racecar sponsorship. See Guo Trial Tr. 2887:10-11, 2888:20-2889:17, 2890:16-23. Further, despite Statement 134's references to Ms. Wang, while under oath at trial this individual repeatedly testified, across multiple days, he had no recollection of dealings with Ms. Wang. Trial Tr. 2764:24-2765:1; 2860:20-21.\n\n\\*\\*\\*\n\nWe thank the Court for its consideration of these issues.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n*/s/ Brendan F. Quigley* Brendan F. Quigley\n\n<sup>7</sup> Statement 62, 109, 110.","body_zh":"文件 484\n\n2024年12月16日 第 1 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12月16日\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）United States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）Southern District of New York（纽约南区）500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\nBrendan F. Quigley（布伦丹·F·奎格利）电话：2124082520 传真：2122592520 brendan.quigley@bakerbotts.com\n\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国 诉 王雁平案），案号 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）。我们谨以此信简要回应政府于2024年11月22日和12月11日提交的文件及随附提交的信函。\n\n王女士完全承担其认罪答辩所涉及的电信欺诈和洗钱共谋罪责，并对这些犯罪行为给受害者造成的伤害深表遗憾。然而，这并不要求王女士或其辩护律师在面对针对她的虚假指控时坐视不理，也不意味着要接受政府显而易见的主张——即认为她应当对其他个人近几周或近几个月在社交媒体上的言论承担责任。\n\n第一，信函中所指控的由被告所谓的“追随者”[注2]和“郭的团伙成员”[注3]所实施的“霸凌与骚扰”[注1]行为，与王女士量刑时适用 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 考量因素毫无关联。\n\n[注1] 陈述 133。\n\n[注2] 陈述 127。\n\n[注3] 陈述 129 和 130。陈述 129 和 130 似乎是同一封电子邮件，尽管由两名据称不同的人员相隔七分钟分别签署。与此相关的是，尽管政府在11月11日的附信中多次称有“126”名受害者提交了陈述并试图提供指控损失的明细，但许多陈述似乎来自同一个人，且/或被多次计入，导致了重复计算。例如，对比陈述 50 与 52（同一作者）；10 与 70（同一作者；同一邮件链的延续）；62、67 与 83（同一作者）；17 与 72（同一作者）；75 与 80（同一作者；同一邮件链的延续）；6 与 84（同一作者；同一邮件链的延续）；15 与 86（同一作者且内容相同）；1 与 113（同一作者）；20 与 133（同一作者）。其他陈述的内容几乎完全相同，即使在至少某些情况下，它们据称是由不同的人所写。例如，对比陈述 95 与 124（内容极度相似，包括完全相同的投资金额）；101 与 102；93 与 122（内容几乎完全相同，包括完全相同的投资金额）；109 与 110（内容几乎完全相同，包括完全相同的投资金额）。其他信函尽管声称来自不同的人，却使用几乎完全相同且独特的措辞提出指控。参见，例如，陈述 6 和 10（虚假声称“尽管王雁平已经认罪答辩，她仍然利用律师拖延量刑”）；另对比陈述 39（声称“郭文贵声称他的目标是推动中国成为一个法治、民主和自由的国家。这一宏伟愿景深深吸引了我……”）与陈述 66、99、98、101、102、107、123、125 和 126（均包含几乎完全相同的措辞）。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 第 2 页 - 2024年12月16日\n\n-2-\n2024年12月16日\n\n首先，政府已经（尽管有些勉强地）承认，这些指控中至少有一项（陈述 127）充其量毫无根据，或者最坏情况下属于故意向法庭作出的旨在影响量刑程序的虚假陈述。然而，出于不明原因，政府仍选择在12月11日再次将其提交给法庭。\n\n无论如何，这些指控均与王女士个人无关。没有任何一项指控合理地属于推进她已认罪答辩的任何共谋行为。并且法庭在对王女士进行量刑时，是在对一个人进行量刑，而不是对整个“Guo Enterprise（郭氏企业）”[注4]或广义上的郭先生追随者进行量刑。[注5]如果政府认可近期骚扰指控中的任何内容，并认为它们构成了“真正的威胁”[注6]，那么恰当的做法是去调查相关责任人，而不是将王女士作为替罪羊。\n\n第二，多封信函对王女士提出了虚假且毫无根据的指控。\n\n或许最重要的是，某些受害者虚假指控王女士在最近几个月直至目前仍在继续从事犯罪行为。例如，陈述 133 的作者（显然与撰写陈述 20 的是同一人）虚假地声称王女士“继续从事协同犯罪行动”并“至今仍在外部策划犯罪活动”。其他陈述也有类似且虚假的内容。参见，例如，陈述 35；46；85；105（指控王女士继续“每天远程指挥同伙”）；111；120。王女士从未从事过任何此类行为，而且显而易见的是，如果存在任何关于此类行为的独立证据，法庭现在肯定早已从政府那里听到了。\n\n另外两封信函，陈述 6 和 10，以奇怪且完全相同的语言声称王女士“作为郭的秘书多次与我联系并赢得了我的信任”。这是不真实的。王女士否认这些指控，并且她并未就 GTV、G Clubs、Farm Loans（农场贷款）或 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）直接招揽任何投资者。其他信函还奇怪地声称王女士曾\n\n[注4] 事实上，根据认罪协议的条款，政府已同意撤销针对王女士的 S3 起诉书，该起诉书包含 RICO（反勒索与受贿组织法）罪名项。\n\n[注5] 一般参见审讯笔录，United States v. Crupi，案号 10 Cr. 228 (LTS)（纽约南区 2014年12月15日）ECF 第 1478 号第 80 页（Swain 法官在对一名经审判被定罪、参与了数十年“世界上波及最广的庞氏骗局”的被告判处 72 个月监禁时强调：“我是在对单个个人进行量刑”，而不是实施该骗局的机构或其他共谋者）。\n\n[注6] 一般参见，例如，Watts v. United States，394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969)（区分“真正的威胁”与受第一修正案保护的活动；在涉及针对美国总统的威胁的案件中指令作出宣告无罪的判决书）。\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres 法官 - 第 3 页 - 2024年12月16日\n\n-3-\n2024年12月16日\n\n受过中国军方训练[注7]且是一名真正的共产党员特工，这些言论与事实相悖。\n\n如果这些材料在 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 规定下与王女士的量刑有任何关联，它们进一步证明了自2017年王女士抵达美国以来一直伴随她的骚扰和虚假谣言，这与王女士在发生犯罪行为时的精神状态相关，并有助于解释她当时对其雇主的依赖和忠诚。另参见王女士量刑提交文件第 6-9 页；王女士2024年11月7日致法庭信函第 4 页。\n\n最后，某些信函似乎来自并非受害者投资人的个人，其作为法定受害者的身份（充其量）是不明确的。例如，陈述 134 是代表一个实体提交的，根据审判证词，该实体截留了 $5 million（500万美元）的投资者资金（远多于并未从犯罪中获得实质性利益的王女士），同时资助了一项赛车赞助活动。参见郭案审判笔录 2887:10-11, 2888:20-2889:17, 2890:16-23。此外，尽管陈述 134 提及了王女士，但该人在审判中宣誓作证时在多天内一再作证称，他不记得与王女士有过交往。审判笔录 2764:24-2765:1; 2860:20-21。\n\n***\n\n我们感谢法庭对这些问题的考虑。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/签名/ Brendan F. Quigley\nBrendan F. Quigley\n\n[注7] 陈述 62, 109, 110。","key_entities":["Guo","Torres","Analisa Torres","Yanping Wang","Himalaya","GTV","G Clubs","Himalaya Exchange","Farm Loan","RICO","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1218,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:25:42"}