{"id":"court_sdny_491_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":491,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"JUDGMENT","filed_date":"2025-01-14","title":"1 P16QwanS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF A","summary_zh":"量刑听证记录节选——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #491（2025年1月14日立案）。记录显示主审法官 Analisa Torres 就联合被告 Yanping Wang（英文别名 \"Yvette\"）对量刑前调查报告（PSR）提出的多项异议逐条裁定，多数驳回，仅就其中涉及 Himalaya dollar 分配的一处措辞（将\"entitled\"改为\"allocated\"）予以支持；同时确认双方已提交经同意修正的没收令，要求该被告就与其罪行相关的资产予以没收，并将赔偿金（restitution）数额的最终裁定另行延后处理。","summary_en":"Sentencing-hearing transcript excerpt — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 491 (filed January 14, 2025). The transcript shows presiding Judge Analisa Torres ruling item-by-item on co-defendant Yanping Wang's (a/k/a \"Yvette\") numerous objections to the Presentence Investigation Report — mostly overruled, with one sustained to correct wording from \"entitled\" to \"allocated\" regarding her allocation of Himalaya dollars — while confirming the parties' amended consent order of forfeiture requiring her to forfeit assets tied to her offenses, with final determination of restitution deferred to a later date.","body_en":"signed it, and passed it up to your clerk for your Honor's consideration. 18 19\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: There are no other submissions from defense, your Honor, and we've signed that amended preliminary forfeiture referenced by Ms. Murray. 20 21 22\n\nTHE COURT: Mr. Quigley, have you read the presentence report? 23 24\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: I have, your Honor.\n\n25\n\nThe trial record is replete with testimony that Ms. Wang instructed subordinates to create business entities whose only purpose was to provide financial cover for her and her co-conspirators' crimes. Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 1 2 3 4 5\n\nSecond, Ms. Wang objects to the portion of paragraph 12 of the report that states that she \"solicited\" investments by promising large financial returns and other benefits. 6 7 8\n\nAs a member of the conspiracy, Ms. Wang is responsible for the actions of her co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. Furthermore, testimony from Haitham Khaled demonstrates Ms. Wang oversaw his efforts to market the entity. [Trial transcript page 2304, line 24 to page 2305, line 16.] Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nThird, Ms. Wang objects to the report's contention in paragraph 14 that she \"was entitled\" to millions of dollars' worth of Himalaya dollar, a purported cryptocurrency funded by victim money. 15 16 17 18\n\nMs. Wang argues that although she was not entitled to the Himalaya dollar, she was \"allocated\" the purported currency as stated in paragraph 22 of the report. 19 20 21\n\nI agree with Ms. Wang. Probation is directed to delete the word \"entitled\" in paragraph 14 and substitute the word \"allocated\" in its place. The objection is therefore sustained. 22 23 24 25\n\nFourth, Ms. Wang objects to paragraph 21 of the report, which states that although she held no formal position at G/CLUBS, she exercised control over G/CLUBS' day-to-day operations and ensured that Miles Guo's instructions were implemented. 1 2 3 4 5\n\nAccording to Ms. Wang, Haoran He exercised control over G/CLUBS and was senior to Ms. Wang. Ms. Wang also notes that although G/CLUBS operated out of Puerto Rico, Ms. Wang was based in New York. 6 7 8 9\n\nThe government maintains that paragraph 21 is accurate, and that, at best, Haoran He and Ms. Wang had equivalent roles. 10 11 12\n\nTrial testimony from Haitham Khaled and Limarie Reyes establishes that Ms. Wang exercised significant control over G/CLUBS' day-to-day operation and was not subordinate to Mr. He. [See, for example, trial transcript page 2305, lines 13 to 16; page 2314, lines 16 to 24; page 2324, lines 6 to 12; page 2357, lines 1 to 12; page 2975, line 25 to page 2976, line 10; page 2990, lines 13 to 22; and page 2993, line 1 to page 2995, line 9.] Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nFifth, Ms. Wang objects to the portion of paragraph 22 of the report that states that she \"worked to transfer fraud proceeds to the Himilaya Exchange,\" arguing that there is no evidence to support this allegation. 21 22 23 24\n\n25\n\nTrial testimony established that Haitham Khaled was\n\nLimarie Reyes was also instructed to purchase Himalaya dollars from the Exchange on behalf of G/CLUBS. [Trial transcript page 3060, line 14 to page 3061, line 16.] 5 6 7\n\nBoth of these witnesses regularly spoke with and took instructions from Ms. Wang, often with regard to transfers between various bank accounts. Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 8 9 10 11\n\nSixth, Ms. Wang objects to the portion of paragraph 30 of the report that states that she and her co-conspirators fraudulently obtained more than \\$150 million in victim funds through the Himalaya Farm Alliance. 12 13 14 15\n\nThe government contends that Ms. Wang was an \"essential member of the conspiracy\" and is responsible for all its activities. 16 17 18\n\nFurthermore, trial testimony from Ya Li describes Ms. Wang as coordinating transfers between Farm money and other Guo-related bank accounts. [Trial transcript page 1388, line 20 to page 1389, line 16.] The objection is therefore overruled. 19 20 21 22 23\n\nSeventh, Ms. Wang objects to paragraph 34 of the report, which states that she and her co-conspirators induced 24 25\n\ntranscript page 2304, line 24 to page 2305, line 16, and page 3017, lines 14 to 21.] Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 14 15 16\n\nEighth, Ms. Wang objects to the portion of paragraph 36 of the report that states that G/CLUBS provided members with \"no discernible membership benefits.\" 17 18 19\n\nIn whole, the sentence states that G/CLUBS provided members with \"few to no discernible membership benefits.\" 20 21\n\nTrial testimony from Haitham Khaled and Limarie Reyes supports the fact that although G/CLUBS members received very little in exchange for their membership fees, they were at times provided material benefits, such as discounts at 22 23 24 25\n\nNinth, Ms. Wang objects to page 37 of the report which explains that she and her co-conspirators used G/CLUBS to make fraudulent stock offerings. Specifically, the co-conspirators told Guo's followers that buying G/CLUBS memberships would entitle them to stock in other Guo-affiliated entities, like GTV and G Fashion. 7 8 9 10 11 12\n\nTrial testimony supports the fact that G/CLUB members were promised stakes in GTV that they ultimately did not receive. [See, for example, trial transcript page 204 lines 6 to 13; page 208, line 25 to page 210, line 9; page 1016, lines 15 to 21; and page 2049, lines 7 to 18.] Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nTenth, Ms. Wang objects to paragraph 38 of the report to the extent it suggests that Ms. Wang personally solicited G/CLUBS members and investors. 19 20 21\n\nParagraph 38 does not suggest that Ms. Wang made personal solicitations. It states that Wang and her co-conspirators \"asked investors to purchase multiple memberships in G/CLUBS, enabling Guo, Je, and Wang to increase 22 23 24 25\n\nthe amount of money solicited.\" 1\n\nTestimony from Haitham Khaled shows that Ms. Wang oversaw his efforts to market the entity, and testimony from Limarie Reyes shows that Ms. Wang was involved in efforts to allow G/CLUBS members to purchase multiple memberships. [Trial transcript page 2304, line 24 to page 2305, line 16; and page 3017, lines 14 to 15.] 2 3 4 5 6 7\n\nFurthermore, as a member of the conspiracy, Ms. Wang is responsible for the actions of her co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, the report is correct when it states that Ms. Wang and her co-conspirators asked investors to purchase multiple memberships. Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 8 9 10 11 12 13\n\nEleventh, Ms. Wang objects to paragraph 46 of the report which states that she and her co-conspirators concealed Guo's funds by moving them regularly, disguising them as \"loans\" or \"investments\" and installing figurehead executives at the entities involved in these transactions. 14 15 16 17 18\n\nAt trial Limarie Reyes and Jesse Brown, the CEO of G/CLUBS and the Himilaya Exchange, respectively, testified that they lacked control over the businesses they supposedly ran and received instruction from Ms. Wang and Mr. Je. [Trial transcript page 3017, loins 10 to 21; page 3064, lines 8 to 12; page 3641, line 15; and page 3645, line 24 to page 3646, line 4.] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nTrial testimony from Haitham Khaled, Ya Li and Karin Maistrello also established that Ms. Wang was regularly involved in moving money between various accounts related to Guo's businesses. [Trial transcript at page 473, line 16 to page 474, line 15; page 1388, line 1 to page 1389, line 16; page 1915, lines 3 to 12; page 1942, lines 2 to 15; page 1944, line 13 to page 1945, line 3; and page 1949, line 14 to page 1951, line 24.] Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n\nTwelfth, Ms. Wang objects to paragraph 57 of the report which describes a payment made to a bank account under her name labeled as a \"director fee.\" Ms. Wang appears to argue that the paragraph implies that the payment was somehow wrongful, either because she was not a director of GTV or because other directors did not receive similar fees. 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nMs. Wang is correct that she served as an executive director of GTV [Report paragraph 20.] However, paragraph 57 does not imply otherwise, and the government points out that Kyle Bass, a director named in the GTV private placement materials, was not paid a director's fee. Accordingly, the objection is overruled. 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nThirteenth, Ms. Wang objects to paragraph 119 of the report which states that it appears as if she has the ability to pay a fine through the liquidation of assets. 21 22 23\n\nMs. Wang claims that because she is jointly and severally liable for forfeiture in the amount of \\$1.4 billion, 24 25\n\nThis billion dollar fraud would have been impossible, impossible without Ms. Wang. As Ms. Shroff said during her opening statement in the Miles Guo trial, Guo \"had a vision. Had an idea. What he did not quite have is the infrastructure.\" 20 21 22 23 24\n\nAnd that essential component, the incredibly\n\n25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\nShe was the puppet master. She was pulling all of the strings. She hired figurehead executives, but she still controlled all of the details of the RICO enterprise. She controlled the bank accounts. She controlled the corporate structure. She directed Haitham Khaled to create Crane for the appearance of independence. She directed him to set up fake office addresses to make it seem like these were distinct entities, but in reality, everything was under her control and she was executing this in connection with Mr. Guo and Mr. Je. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12\n\nHer daily planners over these five years reflect that she spent every single day tirelessly making this fraud possible. She spent her entire days meeting with employees associated with all of the companies in the RICO enterprise, from the Rule of Law, to GTV, to G/CLUBS, to HCHK, which is the umbrella organization that they set up after the SEC and the government were on to parts of their fraud, to Gettr, to the Himilaya Exchange, and to subsequent arms of the fraud, like @A10. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nShe also spent her time trying to obstruct the bankruptcy proceedings and working to help in that effort, including by having Miles Guo's daughter lie to the bankruptcy court. She was meticulous in the details of continuing the 22 23 24 25\n\nThe offense conduct here is horrific. The Court heard it during the Miles Guo trial, and it's been outlined extensively in the parties' submissions and in the PSR. The Court also has the benefit of the victim statements here: The victim statements during trial testimony of the victims who testified, and, as the Court said, more than 150 people who submitted letters to the Court. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12\n\nIn the government's letter dated November 24, 2024, we outlined and summarized some of the categories of harm that were caused by Ms. Wang. They include financial harm, personal hardship, threats to actual safety, and then the broader harm of undermining the pro-democracy movement. 13 14 15 16 17\n\nIt is true that Miles Guo and William Je most benefited financially from the fraud and misappropriation of the fraud proceeds, but Ms. Wang knew the money was going to Guo and to Je. She controlled the courts. We have recordings of her directing personnel to move money to those accounts. She knew that the money was not being used for the purpose that it was being told victim investors it would be used for. It was not being used to fight the CCP. It was used for mansions. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\nMs. Wang is not a shrinking violet. Witnesses have told us and the Court she was demanding. She was exacting. She could be brutal. The Court recalls during trial the recording that Mr. Khaled introduced at the end of the meeting where Ms. Wang, who was pushing back against Miles Guo, threw remote control at a TV. She was angry not because she was trying to do something legal or the right thing. She was angry that she was getting pushback on her role, her role of making sure that the money transfer appeared legitimate. She well knew that it wasn't. She knew that her job was to make sure that everything seemed above board because that's the job that she did for five years. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nThe government did take her relatively lower financial profits into account in the plea that we offered, and that Ms. Wang accepted, which capped her exposure at 120 months, the statutory maximum. But the fact that she earned less than Miles Guo and William Je cannot be a substantial mitigating factor here, particularly where she is responsible for the actions not only of her co-conspirators but of herself. And, again, this fraud would have been impossible without Ms. Wang. The Court should also consider her obstructive 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nbehavior as a significant aggravating factor here. As I 25\n\nWith respect to specific deterrence, her ongoing involvement for five years cuts against her claim that her dependence on and loyalty to Miles Guo \"clouded her judgment.\" As I said, there were multiple offramps for Ms. Wang over the course of years. After the SEC entered into the consent agreement regarding the GTV private placement, which Ms. Wang signed, she could have stopped. Instead, they developed the Farm Loan Program, and they raised money through the Farm Loan Program. Then G/CLUBS got layered onto it. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nWhen the government was onto the corporate structure, they created their umbrella entity HCHK. Ms. Wang was a 24 25\n\nFinally, even after she was arrested in this case, even after she knew what the government's charges were against her, what our allegations were against Mr. Guo and Mr. Je, she continued her criminal efforts from jail. She was involved in directing G/CLUBS' members to try to secure checks valued at \\$7 million worth of victim investor funds from a mailbox that was in Manhattan. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13\n\nIn her submission with respect to this particular obstructive behavior, Ms. Wang says she would have been \"more self-interested and prudent to have stepped back\" from the @G entity operation after her arrest. It would not have been more prudent to have done so; it would have been non-criminal. Yet again, even after her arrest, after five years of her extensive involvement, she did not do the right thing. She continued to perpetuate the fraud. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nMs. Wang is very credentialed. She is bright. She is capable. That is not a mitigating factor; it's an aggravating one. She was capable of coming here and becoming a productive member of society. The United States welcomed her when she was 22 23 24 25\n\nAnd she still hasn't taken full responsibility for her actions. She does not appear to express remorse for the victims here, the victims that she actively defrauded; that she and Miles Guo and William Je targeted. She is unhappy to be in this position. She says she is sorry for what she has done, but nowhere in the submissions that Ms. Wang has given in connection with this sentencing does she truly acknowledge the scope of harm that is reflected in just a handful of those 150 plus victim statements. She destroyed people's lives. This continues to have reverberating effects on the victims. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nThe government strongly recommends that the Court impose the statutory maximum sentence here of 120 months. It's necessary because of the seriousness of the offense conduct. It's necessary to promote just respect for the law of someone who continued to violate the law, knowing full well that the SEC and the government were investigating this action; who continued to violate the law even after she was arrested and 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nHer involvement in this offense, as we said in our sentencing submission, came in the series -- came in the midst of deep personal crises, and, frankly, extraordinary personal crises. And it's not disputed that at the time this conspiracy began, she was being actively targeted by the Chinese security services; that she was repeatedly hacked; that highly sensitive personal information of hers was put up on the internet where it remains, including by an individual who submitted a victim statement in this case, statement 146; that she was cut off from her family. These facts are highly unique to Ms. Wang, and they are, frankly, I think, extraordinary. I think it's fair to say that being targeted by a state security service and regularly hacked is not a common occurrence for a defendant being sentenced in this district, or anywhere for that matter. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14\n\nTHE COURT: Nor is this a common crime.\n\n15\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: That's fair, your Honor. But pointing to those facts and considering those facts is not seeking to endorse some bizarre vigilante system of justice, is what the government called it in their sentencing submission, but they're critical to her state of mind at the time of the offense. 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nTHE COURT: Are you saying that the guidelines reflect a bizarre vigilante system? 22 23\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: No. That was the phrase the government used in their sentencing submission to describe our arguments 24 25\n\nIt's designed to mess around with people's minds and people's heads. 18 19\n\nAs Dr. Atkin Source Smith noted in her report that, and we submitted with our sentencing submission, Ms. Wang was left in constant fear and was suffering chronic trauma consistent with this regular harassment, and consistent fear for her safety and that of her family's. 20 21 22 23 24\n\n25\n\nSo it was in that context that Ms. Wang latched onto\n\nMs. Murray talked about offramps. Ms. Wang didn't have an offramp. She couldn't go back to China. She had no status in the United States. Her asylum application was being run through her employer and his attorney. 5 6 7 8\n\nTHE COURT: So this was her only option.\n\n9\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: I think she didn't have many other options, your Honor, no. She couldn't go back to China. She didn't have any legal status here. She was cut off from her family. I think -- there weren't many offramps to her. I disagree with that. I think that context is important. And it's critical context for understanding why she was involved in an offense, from which indisputably she gained very little and has already paid for it significantly, and which she deeply regrets. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nAnd I disagree with Ms. Murray that she hasn't shown regret or remorse. That's in her sentencing letter. It's reflected in Dr. Atkin Source Smith's report. And you'll hear from Ms. Wang in a few minutes about the regrets she feels about this. She deeply regrets the pain caused to people who gave money to Mr. Guo and his organizations. She's happy that -- and credit where credit is due -- the government has 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nthis before, but this is not someone who was living a high life as a result of the fraud. 13 14\n\nTHE COURT: Didn't she live in the Upper East Side in the Sixties? 15 16\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: She did live in an apartment, your Honor. That money and the government -- that money -- that apartment was not paid for with fraud proceeds. In fact, the government initially listed in their indictment in the S3 that that apartment was paid for with fraud proceeds. After we filed a bill of particulars or after your Honor granted in part a bill of particulars asking for wire transfers, they showed she received that money before the GTV offering, before any of the fraudulent conduct. It was not paid for with fraud 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nI think in considering what weight to attribute to some of those letters, the Court should and can consider that some of those allegations in there are unsupported. They also say very little by and large about Ms. Wang. They talk a lot more about Mr. Guo, considering their relative roles in the conspiracy. 11 12 13 14 15 16\n\nTHE COURT: I don't understand the prosecution to be alleging that she continued illegal conduct while in prison. Am I correct? 17 18 19\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, we are alleging that she did in April of 2023. Mr. Quigley is correct. We have recordings with HCHK employees who were doing business on behalf of G/CLUBS where they said that -- first hinted at somebody had directed hem to reach out to a G/CLUBS employee to secure the checks. And then in subsequent recorded conversation said that 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nMr. Quigley is correct, we're not alleging anything after that event, but that is a post incarceratory criminal event. 5 6 7\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: Your Honor, that was -- look, we don't object to the obstruction enhancement. We consent to it. I think we would dispute some of the characterizations of the inferences that can be drawn from those recordings. That said, this was a subject that was litigated before I represented Ms. Wang in connection with her bail application. We don't - the Court may find it's on that. We are not intending to re-litigate it here. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nI think the point for us is in considering what weight to put to the victim letters that actually speak about Ms. Wang. Many of the victim letters don't really say anything about her at all. In considering what weight to attach to the ones that actually speak about her, several of them do say she has continued and continues to run the conspiracy from prison. And my point is there is no evidence of that. That is false, and in suggesting she is doing that up to the present time. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nTHE COURT: So let me make clear that I would not consider false allegations, allegations that are not being made 24 25\n\nMS. MURRAY: Again, your Honor, I would just say there were pretrial resolution discussions that well predated the plea offer. That was the first written formalized plea offer after discussions with Mr. Quigley, but there had been broader discussions about a pretrial resolution. 4 5 6 7 8\n\n9\n\nTHE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Quigley.\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: So I think where does that leave us, your Honor? I think you have a defendant who indisputably participated in this offense in the midst of a deep personal crisis, in the context of being targeted by a foreign security service, who took in less than one-tenth of one percent of what the government claims is the loss amount in this case; who has already faced a significant period of incarceration in MDC. She has been at MDC for 22 months. I don't need to belabor the conditions at MDC over the last 22 months. That's a significant amount of time in and of itself. It is, frankly, a long time for a defendant who didn't go to trial to spend on pretrial detention, presentence detention, who will to face - and I am not going to continue to belabor this point because we set it out in our sentencing submission, but who will continue to face conditions that are more punitive than a similarly situated U.S. citizen. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nShe will not be assigned to a camp, unlike many white collar criminals. She will almost certainly face an additional period of incarceration in ICE detention, whether or not she gets an asylum application that is granted after this. And even in a best case scenario where she is not deported back to China where she would face further imprisonment, and potentially worse, she will have financial penalties that will follow her around for rest of her life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n\nI mentioned that the government, again, to its credit, has seized over a billion dollars in this case. That will go towards that \\$1.4 billion money judgment. It's also true though that to the extent there is a shortfall, that shortfall will, as a practical matter, fall on Ms. Wang. Mr. Je is never coming back to the United States. Mr. Guo is bankrupt and unlikely to pay that. Even if there is a \\$10 million shortfall -- and I don't disagree with your Honor that a hundred thousand dollars a year is not a small salary by any means, but being liable for a \\$10, \\$15, \\$20 million judgment for the rest of your life is a significant financial penalty with any salary. So She will continue to face penalties both incarceratory and financial for the rest of her life. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nAnd this is not someone, I submit, for whom a 120-month sentence is necessary under the circumstances, particularly when you consider the final 3553(a) factor. I would like to talk about 3553(a)(6), which is the need to avoid 22 23 24 25\n\nMs. Wang is not Elizabeth Holmes, and I think even the government in their sentencing submission recognized that. She is not -- 120 months will be longer than the sentence that Judge Swain imposed on Joann Crupi, who was essentially Bernard Madoff's chief-of-staff. She got seven years. Again, she went to trial, and personally benefited from her decades-long participation in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, which was the largest Ponzi scheme in history. In fact, while the investors here may get -- hopefully will get paid back and made whole fairly soon, the government issued a press release last week, 16 years after Mr. Madoff's arrest that they had issued a final distribution to the Madoff investors. As serious as this crime is, this is nowhere near the Bernie Madoff scheme. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nTHE COURT: So in the Holmes scheme and the Madoff scheme, were investors told that money would go toward the 24 25\n\n## promotion of democracy? 1\n\n6\n\n25\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: No. They were told it would go toward good health in the Holmes case; that it would go towards a revolutionary blood testing kit that people could use to determine whether they had cancer or HIV or be pregnant. 2 3 4 5\n\nTHE COURT: Go ahead.\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: I think this case is a akin to, as we say in our sentencing submission, akin to the OneCoin prosecution. That was a fraud that took in over \\$4 billion more than the fraud here. Ms. Murray began her statement today by describing Ms. Wang's importance and significance to the fraud. The attorney who was sentenced in that case, the attorney for Ms. Dilkinska was described by the government - similarly described by the government in its sentencing submission as \"an integral member that of fraud.\" She pled to essentially an identical plea agreement earlier this year to Ms. Wang: Two 371s, a wire fraud, and a money laundering count capping her statutory exposure to ten years. The guidelines range -- otherwise applicable guidelines range would have been 43 life prisonment. Ms. Dilkinska pled to an obstruction of enhancement, and Judge Ramos sentenced her to 48 months. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nTHE COURT: Is that a case where the defendant or co-conspirator was portrayed as a heroic figure pursuing justice for millions of other people? 22 23 24\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: I don't know about that, your Honor, but\n\nMS. MURRAY: If I may briefly respond to that point, your Honor? 5 6\n\nI was one of the prosecutors on the OneCoin case and also a prosecutor of Ms. Dilkinska. I would say there are very many differences between these two defendants. Mr. Quigley is correct that's what the government's sentencing submission said, Ms. Dilkinska was a lawyer, but in that fraud scheme, it is correct it was marketed as a cryptocurrency. It was marketed as a way for people to make money, to make investments. There was no democracy and no political angle associated with it. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nIt was also a different scheme in the sense that it was structured as a multilevel marketing scheme, so some of the people who were involved and were investors were actually conspirators. They weren't the same degree of vulnerable victims to any degree that we have here. Some of them were. Some of them believed they were buying into a cryptocurrency. But a lot of people who were involved in the OneCoin scheme were involved knowing that what they were doing was making money in kind of mini-Ponzi scheme. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\n25\n\nThe other distinction that I would make that I think\n\nAnd then, finally, again, just really emphasizing the distinction here of the nature of the victims who were being targeted by this broad conspiracy and the absolute gulf between what they were being told their money was going to be used for and what it was in fact used for. 10 11 12 13 14\n\nTHE COURT: My understanding is that there are many Chinese people, both in China and elsewhere who have passionate feelings against the Chinese government and who support a change, who support democracy, and who were inspired by the messaging of Mr. Guo, and that that was a significant reason that they turned over their money to this fraud scheme. And it's just an entirely different way of persuading people to turn over their money because they had such deep hopes that the political system in China, which is repressive, that that system would be challenged and possibly changed. It's very different from having the motivation of doubling your dollar or 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\na safe investment. 1\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: **I hear your Honor. I understand what you're saying. But I also think, you know, certainly with GTV, certainly with the Himilaya Exchange, which was a crypto investment, people were looking -- there's nothing wrong with that, but people were looking to not only contribute to the Chinese anti-Communist movement, they were also looking to make money. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it's that different. I would just say in terms of Ms. Dilkinska's, role the bare reality is, you know, she was required to plead to the exact same three-point leadership enhancement that Ms. Wang was required to.** 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12\n\nMS. MURRAY: I just want to state the government's objection to the phrase \"required to plead to.\" 13 14\n\nMR. QUIGLEY: Sorry. Pursuant to a plea agreement that was signed by the government, she pled to a -- the stipulated guideline range in that case pursuant to a plea agreement extended by the government included the exact same three-point leadership enhancement that Ms. Wang got. And the government's sentencing submission alleged that Ms. Dilkinska \"created and managed shell companies that were used to hold properties in another co-conspirator's name, open bank accounts, launder proceeds from the scheme.\" Very similar conduct to what Ms. Wang is accused of doing here. And I think a 48-month sentence in that case and a 120-month sentence in 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nSo I just want -- well, I think one last point, victim letters, your Honor. Again, I think this has already been covered, but I don't think Ms. Wang should be held responsible for kind of the recent infighting among members of Mr. Guo's movement. There is a lot of back-and-forth, especially in the more recent victim letters about people, you know, retaliating against people, things like that. Ms. Wang wasn't involved in any of that. She hasn't been involved in any of that. Frankly, she finds attacks on people's families as was set out in the government's verbal attacks and rumor-mongering about salacious details of their personal life, she is, frankly, offended by that, having been for years a target of similar rumors about herself. I'm not sure your Honor was going to consider that at all, but it's a point that I noted. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20\n\nTHE COURT: So let me make clear that I am basing my sentencing decision on the evidence that was presented at trial. I listened very carefully to witness testimony. I am also basing it on what I have learned from the probation report, and, of course, applying the guidelines and other laws 21 22 23 24 25\n\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1                                                                  | that apply to sentencing.                                      |\n| 2                                                                  | Go ahead.                                                      |\n| 3                                                                  | MR. QUIGLEY: Thank you, your Honor.                            |\n| 4                                                                  | So, again, for all these reasons, I think the                  |\n| 5                                                                  | defendant, who did not substantially personally benefit from   |\n| 6                                                                  | the scheme, became involved in the scheme and in a highly      |\n| 7                                                                  | unique and extraordinary system of personal crises which were  |\n| 8                                                                  | designed to cloud her judgment intentionally. So we think a    |\n| 9                                                                  | sentence of approximately 48 months similar to what            |\n| 10                                                                 | Ms. Dilkinska got is sufficient but not greater than necessary |\n| 11                                                                 | to serve the legitimate purposes of sentencing.                |\n| 12                                                                 | THE COURT: Ms. Wang, would you like to say something?          |\n| 13                                                                 | THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor (English). Yes, your            |\n| 14                                                                 | Honor.                                                         |\n| 15                                                                 | THE COURT: One moment, please. I do understand that            |\n| 16                                                                 | there are victims who are interested in making statements. Is  |\n| 17                                                                 | that correct?                                                  |\n| 18                                                                 | MS. MURRAY: I am not certain that we have confirmed            |\n| 19                                                                 | their attendance, but our understanding was there was at least |\n| 20                                                                 | one victim who intended to come, so I guess the government     |\n| 21                                                                 | would ask.                                                     |\n| 22                                                                 | THE COURT: Is there someone here who is a victim who           |\n| 23                                                                 | would like to speak?                                           |\n| 24                                                                 | MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, the name we had was Forest             |\n| 25                                                                 | Zhou. I see Ava Chen is raising her hand. She is not who the   |\n\nTHE COURT: So sir, I want to explain to you the law that applies to victims' statements. 7 8\n\nThe Crime Victims Act defines a crime victim as a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of federal offense. 18 United States Code, Section 3771(e). The requirement that the victim be directly and proximately harmed encompasses the traditional but for and proximate cause analyses. *In Re Rendon Galvis*, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir. 2009). 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nThe necessary inquiry is a fact specific one. A person is directly harmed by the commission of a federal offense where that offense is a but for cause of the harm *Morris v. Nielsen*, 374 F.Supp.3d. 239, 252 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). A person is proximately harmed when the harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the criminal conduct. 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nIs it your position, sir, that you were directly harmed by Ms. Wang's criminal conduct? 22 23\n\nMR. ZHOU: No. 24\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: Is it your position that there was --\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT: What is your name?                                      |\n| 2  | MS. CHIN: My legal is Legia (ph) but people refer to               |\n| 3  | me as Ava. Thank you.                                              |\n| 4  | THE COURT: Do you consider yourself to have been                   |\n| 5  | directly harmed by Ms. Wang's criminal conduct?                    |\n| 6  | MS. CHIN: Yes. Based on what I heard, you talked to                |\n| 7  | Forest Zhou, I will be different. So my answer is yes, and I       |\n| 8  | provided my investment, I invested \\$200,000 in GTV and also       |\n| 9  | G/CLUBS, and still my fund is withheld, and I have been            |\n| 10 | suffering financial consequences because those money are taken     |\n| 11 | away from me.                                                      |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Do you believe that this loss of money was              |\n| 13 | a foreseeable consequence of Ms. Wang's criminal conduct?          |\n| 14 | MS. CHIN: Because she pled guilty, so I would say                  |\n| 15 | yes.                                                               |\n| 16 | THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.                                    |\n| 17 | MS. CHIN: I want to just outline as a victim I want                |\n| 18 | to share with you -- and I really want in opening to say thank     |\n| 19 | you because the reason why as a victim I have a platform to say    |\n| 20 | this is because I have to thank the American people because I'm    |\n| 21 | Canadian. Again, I have to thank the justice system and the        |\n| 22 | Honorable Judge, you, today to give me the opportunity.            |\n| 23 | I want to highlight three points today that I would                |\n| 24 | speak directly why you need to consider lessening the sentence,    |\n| 25 | the 120 months that the prosecutor just asked in support before    |\n\nyou consider lessening.\n\n1\n\nThree points I'm going to make is, first of all, Wang's contribution to the United States. And the second is her suffering and the true suffering evidenced by court documents found the CCP spies. And the last one I'm going to talk about personal touch because I worked with Ms. Wang briefly. I will tell you what I learned in terms of her character as a person at the ending. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8\n\nSo the first point, the contribution to American society, and I wanted to refer you to the Rule of Law Foundation. And Ms. Wang is a member of the Rule of Law foundation, and if you recall when the breakout of the pandemic happened in 2020, when the City of New York was under lockdown, and the Rule of Law Foundation basically acquired a large amount of personal protection equipment, PPE, including N95 masks and also other Airgel products and a lot of those things was basically arranged personally by Yvette Wang, and what we refer to as Himalaya Embassy and risk of her own health, she basically moved all the -- the goods and shipping them to hospitals of New York City and donating them to the NYPD police officers. And all of those things can be checked. These are the true. And there are court documents reflecting what I just say, what I just shared her. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nAnd not only on that, she also managed to mail out to the dissident community, because we talked a lot about 24 25\n\nIf you recall, there is a lot of public reporting about it. The Chinese Communist Party not only, you know, created in the Wuhan lab which by the final report of the COVID-19 special committee, the house committee that just released the report, but also the CCP vacuumed out all the personal protection equipment in the world, okay, so they can using that as bargaining chips with the United States, with the world's government to say, hey, you have to listen to me because I now hold all the PPE. I'm the king. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nSo in that backdrop, Rule of law is the only foundation which Yvette Wang is a member of, and personally put at risk, and go taking care of all of those boxes and boxes and boxes of millions of masks and just spread it over to not only New York City residents but also to the dissident community. So that's contribution number one I want to highlight for you, your Honor. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nThe number two point is suffering. And I want to refer you to legal cases that Mr. Wang brought against a number of -- we refer fake, phony pro-democracy activists. And one of 23 24 25\n\nIn that legal document I discovered she was a victim, a constant victim by, not only hacking, harassment, stalking and also threatening for people taking her life basically. And that's not according to me; that's according to the court. Because of that legal case, the judge -- I forgot her name, but the judge made a ruling to put a protection order on Wang against those phony pro-democracy activists. One of them is Xiong Xianmin, and there is an actual protection order. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13\n\nBut I wanted to refer to the documents basically in this trial, in this docket in this criminal fraud trial, document number 89, that document, there's 25 pages evidence of who the person I just referred to Xiong Xianmin has been attacking Miles Guo and particularly Yvette Wang. So the evidence is all there. This started actually around 2017, prior to the protection order was issued against that Xiong Xianmin, the fake pro-democracy activist. I encourage you to check that. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22\n\nBut not that -- not only they included in that evidence, that 25 pages contains his online cyber-bullying against Wang from 2017 July, all the way to 2018 December. But 23 24 25\n\nSo as the trial, as the investigation going on, as Wang has been detained, this person, along with another group of fake pro-democracy activists has been harassing, threatening and smearing and defaming Wang Yanping. She so suffered greatly. Not only as the defense counsel mentioned, she was isolated. You read her letters addressed to you, your Honor. She can't -- she has an only child, but she would not be able to basically raise -- raise him, and she cannot -- she has today, she cannot see her father and mother who now already passed on. So she suffered greatly. Why? Because she started joining the movement, and she followed Miles Guo like I did. Many of my brothers and sisters here sitting together, we don't challenge the fact she pleaded guilty. We respect the law. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\n\nBut I wanted to say that leading to my personal -- my last point is how do I see Wang? And I see her, the perception I have, the impression I have about Wang didn't change. I worked with her very briefly, probably three months back in 2022, only three months. But I saw her as a warm-hearted, as a feisty fighter against the Chinese Communist party. You said it. The CCP is very repressive. No doubt about it. But CCP 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nTHE COURT: So I am very familiar with the depth of repression of the Chinese government. 4 5\n\nMS. CHIN: Thank you. The reason why I wanted to say is the personal touch is not because I worked with her, I know who she is, she is reliable, she's trustworthy, she's tough, and feisty. And that didn't change a bit for this case. Although she pledded (sic) guilty to the two charge, but I want the one thing I want pointed out, the reason I truly appreciate her is because I'm not talking about the details about this case, this fraud case, but I'm talking about the importance and the significance of having a social media news platform like GTV. The reason why I brought these documents today is because I want to leave with you, Judge, if you wanted to, but I want read one sentence out of it and just show you the CCP has already controlled every Chinese language media in the United States. And this is basically said not by me, by the House Committee of Oversight and Accountability Committee that released a report on October 24, 2024. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nTHE COURT: So I understand that your position is that you admire Ms. Wang and you admire GTV. Is there anything further? 22 23 24\n\n25\n\nTHE DEFENDANT: I just want to say that -- yes, I do.\n\nBut I want top say the most important thing for me is I find my brothers and sisters in a safe place. I'm no longer alone because I'm scared because CCP is powerful. But finding the sisters and brothers in G/CLUB make me brave. That's why I can stand here and I say that I love her. This will not change a bit. And I will say the brothers and sisters sitting there would agree with me. This is what the value of G/CLUBS and she has suffered enough. MDC. We all know what MDC looks like. I just read the news this year September, the other judges had basically eliminated the sentence for the people who was committed, and he said if he is going to be serving an of sentence in MDC, then he is free solely wanted you to -- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17\n\n18\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\nMS. CHIN: -- have consideration for lessening the sentence because she has done so much for Chinese people, and she has made so much contribution to U.S. citizens. And I want you to consider that, and please from us. And I wanted to share all the documents. I want to thank you for the prosecutors who timely working on this case. 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\nTHE COURT: Time out. Thank you. You may step back.\n\nto battle and survive with constant hacking and attacks, to prevail with millions of users and subscribers. But, unfortunately, because of me, my poor judgment and wrong decision under my personal crisis, very painfully, your Honor, I had be seeing GTV struggle and eventually get shut down. 16 17 18 19 20\n\npro-democracy and anti-Chinese Communist party outlet. Me\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n25\n\npersonally, I'd be saying this media outlet start from nothing,\n\nzero, to create its first cult to overcome numerous obstacles,\n\nI fully understand and appreciate the GTV investors, their faith and G/CLUBS members, their passion for this cause, I have befailed (ph) them. That hurt me the most. And I am so sorry for that. 21 22 23 24\n\nI do share the same disappointment to view this whole\n\nSecond, your Honor, I feel I have to say this here. It's a very straightforward personal clarification. For years and years I've been accused by government after government, even including in the bail litigation of this case, saying I abandoned my child. I betray my family. I want your Honor and my family and entire world to hear me here loud and clear. I never abandoned my son. I never betrayed my family. I never did that. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16\n\nMy son is turning to 12 this year. He has been taken away from mother for ten years. My father's dying wish is to pray his only daughter is safe and alive. The rest of my family have been arrested, interrogated under close surveillance, living in fear until this very second. I have paid an extremely high price with my family together, your Honor. I will never give up loving them and fighting for them. In last ten years, your Honor, I am no hero. I am just a common, regular woman. I am a working woman. I have 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nAgain, as I said, your Honor, I really appreciate you just said here, there are so many Chinese people are inspired and fighting for democracy. What I want to say is that this is a personal sorry for me that these ten years is not my choice, your Honor. I stuck in this for ten years. I never live in a comfortable, happy life. But even only by myself at the end I'm fighting for my family. I'm going to do that because they're my family. I will fight for them until my last breath. I will never give up. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17\n\nIn the end, your Honor, I have been at MDC for 21 months and 21 days. Besides always trying to make best use of my time here -- there by reading, learning, helping other fellow inmates, working in the unit as a volunteer constantly. The most often things I be doing is to reflect my actions and reckon what happened before. There is no excuse, there is no any personal life allowed me to break the law. I understand. I learned my very heavy lesson. I respect it a hundred 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nSeventh, the need to provide restitution any victims of the offense. 3 4\n\nUltimately, I'm required to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing that I just mentioned. 5 6 7\n\nI have given substantial thought and attention to the appropriate sentence in this case. 8 9\n\nProbation recommends a guideline sentence of 120 months or 60 months for each offense to run consecutively. The government also advocates for a sentence of 120 months. Ms. Wang seeks a below-guideline sentence of less than 48 months. 10 11 12 13 14\n\nFor a period of approximately five years, Ms. Wang knowingly participated in a conspiracy with Miles Guo and William Je to defraud thousands of victims out of more than one billion dollars. Relying on Guo's massive online presence, the conspirators targeted his followers by promising them outsized financial returns and benefits for investing in various fraudulent businesses and programs. Many of the victims were led to believe that the money they gave Guo and his conspirators would further pro-democracy efforts in China. In fact, Ms. Wang and others deliberately misappropriated the money to line the pockets of Guo, his family, and the other 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nThe conspirators knew that what they did was wrong, and they went to great lengths to conceal their illicit activities. At Guo and Wang's direction, the conspirators created shell companies and stored and moved their victims' money across hundreds of bank accounts held in various names. 3 4 5 6 7\n\nGuo, Je, and Wang caused their victims immense harms. The Court has received dozens of letters and emails from around the world recounting how victims continue to suffer from the devastating losses they faced at the hands of the conspirators. Some of the victims believed that their money would go toward initiatives designed to promote democracy in China. Others invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hopes of improving their finances and were shocked when they ultimately lost their homes and retirement savings. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16\n\nThe victims have not just experienced financial hardship. Many have lost relationships with loved ones because of their participation in the scam. The Court has received letters from people whose partners left them and from parents whose children no longer talk to them because they fell prey to Guo, Je, and Wang. These victims and others continue to experience depression and severe psychological distress due to the actions of the co-conspirators in this case. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\n25\n\n1\n\n2\n\nAlthough Ms. Wang was not the senior-most leader of\n\nFor her participation in the scheme, Ms. Wang was purportedly paid a yearly salary of between \\$231,900 and \\$313,961, although these figures likely underestimate the extent to which she benefited personally from the massive fraud. 14 15 16 17 18\n\nA few mitigating factors are present: Ms. Wang benefited far less from the conspiracy than did Miles Guo or William Je. In addition, trial evidence suggests that Ms. Wang sometimes disagreed with Mr. Guo, but Mr. Guo had the final say. 19 20 21 22 23\n\nI also take into account the length and conditions of Ms. Wang's pretrial detention. Ms. Wang has spent 24 25\n\nI similarly account for the prison conditions Ms. Wang will face post-sentencing. As a Chinese national, she is not eligible at placement at a minimum-security camp where many nonviolent offenders serve their sentences. These prison camps, despite their name, are often considered safer and more desirable than higher-security correctional institutions. In addition, after serving her sentence, Ms. Wang will likely be transferred to ICE custody. If she is ultimately required to return to China due to her immigration status, she may face detention there. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15\n\nFinally, I account for the fact that Ms. Wang has taken responsibility for her actions as reflected by her guilty plea and her statement here today. If there is ever a day in a person's life when she is entitled to be judged on the basis of the entirety of her background and contributions, it is at sentencing, and Section 3553(a), in directing the Court to consider the history and characteristics of the offender, is consistent with that. The sentence I will impose today will consider the totality of Ms. Wang's conduct. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24\n\n25\n\nI conclude, for all the reasons stated, that a\n\nIt is recommended that you be supervised by your district of residence. 10 11\n\nThese special conditions of supervised release I just described are reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. Ms. Wang is not a U.S. citizen. The payment of restitution and forfeiture compliance are mandatory. The offense involved a massive fraud involving complex financial transactions and fictitious entities, and these conditions will assist probation in protecting the community from further crimes of the defendant and ensure that the defendant complies with her restitution obligations. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21\n\nNow, I understand that the order of restitution has been handed up to the Court, is that correct? 22 23\n\nMS. MURRAY: Your Honor, we've handed up the consent order of forfeiture. With respect to restitution pursuant to 24 25\n\nTHE COURT: So determination of restitution is deferred for a maximum of 90 days after sentencing and in accordance with 18 United States Code, Section 3664(d)(5). 13 14 15\n\nI'm required to remind you, Ms. Wang, you must forfeit to the United States pursuant to 18 United States Code, Section 981(a)(1) And 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c) all property that constituted or was derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of the offenses, including a sum of money equal to approximately \\$1.4 billion in U.S. currency and the specific assets listed in the amended consent order of forfeiture, which I shall sign. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23\n\nDoes either attorney know of any of legal reason why this sentence should not be imposed as stated? 24 25\n\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Obviously, you're extremely intelligent and capable. Many of       |\n| 2  | the other individuals that are incarcerated along with you have    |\n| 3  | not had the advantage of a higher education and can greatly        |\n| 4  | benefit from your assistance, and so I ask that you dedicate       |\n| 5  | yourself to offering that.                                         |\n| 6  | THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. That is what I have                |\n| 7  | been doing along the way.                                          |\n| 8  | THE COURT: All right. That brings our hearing to a                 |\n| 9  | close.                                                             |\n| 10 | The matter is adjourned.                                           |\n| 11 | (Adjourned)                                                        |\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":"签署了该文件，并已呈递给法庭书记官，供法官阁下审阅。\n\nQUIGLEY 律师：辩方没有其他呈递材料了，法官阁下，我们已经签署了 Murray（默里）女士提到的那份修订后的初步没收命令。\n\n法庭：Quigley 律师，你阅读过判决前调查报告了吗？\n\nQUIGLEY 律师：我看过了，法官阁下。\n审判记录中充斥着的大量证言表明，Wang（王）女士指示下属设立商业实体，其唯一目的就是为她本人及同谋者的犯罪行为提供资金掩护。因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第二，Wang 女士对报告第 12 段中陈述其通过承诺巨额财务回报及其他利益来“招徕”投资的部分提出异议。\n\n作为共谋的一员，Wang 女士应对其同谋者为推进共谋而实施的行为承担责任。此外，来自 Haitham Khaled（海瑟姆·哈立德）的证言表明，Wang 女士监督了他对该实体的营销工作。[见庭审记录第 2304 页第 24 行至第 2305 页第 16 行。] 因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第三，Wang 女士对报告第 14 段中的主张提出异议，该段称其“有权获得”价值数百万美元的 Himalaya dollar（喜马拉雅币/喜币），这是一种由受害者资金支持的所谓加密货币。\n\nWang 女士辩称，尽管她无权获得喜币，但正如报告第 22 段所陈述的那样，她被“分配”了这种所谓的货币。\n\n我同意 Wang 女士的意见。现指示缓刑监督部门删除第 14 段中的“有权获得”（entitled）一词，并替换为“分配”（allocated）一词。因此，该项异议成立。\n\n第四，Wang 女士对报告第 21 段提出异议，该段陈述称，尽管她在 G/CLUBS 未担任正式职务，但她对 G/CLUBS 的日常运营行使控制权，并确保 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的指示得到执行。\n\n据 Wang 女士称，Haoran He（何浩然）对 G/CLUBS 行使控制权，且职位高于 Wang 女士。Wang 女士还指出，尽管 G/CLUBS 在 Puerto Rico（波多黎各）运营，但 Wang 女士常驻 New York（纽约）。\n\n政府方坚持认为第 21 段内容准确，且充其量 Haoran He 和 Wang 女士承担着同等的角色。\n\n来自 Haitham Khaled 和 Limarie Reyes（利玛丽·雷耶斯）的庭审证言证实，Wang 女士对 G/CLUBS 的日常运营行使了重大控制权，并非 Mr. He（何先生）的下属。[例如，参见庭审记录第 2305 页第 13 至 16 行；第 2314 页第 16 至 24 行；第 2324 页第 6 至 12 行；第 2357 页第 1 至 12 行；第 2975 页第 25 行至第 2976 页第 10 行；第 2990 页第 13 至 22 行；以及第 2993 页第 1 行至第 2995 页第 9 行。] 因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第五，Wang 女士对报告第 22 段中陈述其“致力于将诈骗所得转移至 Himilaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”的部分提出异议，辩称没有证据支持这一指控。\n庭审证言证实 Haitham Khaled 被\n\nLimarie Reyes 也被指示代表 G/CLUBS 从该交易所购买喜币。[见庭审记录第 3060 页第 14 行至第 3061 页第 16 行。]\n\n这两位证人都经常与 Wang 女士交谈并听取其指示，且通常涉及各个银行账户之间的转账。因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第六，Wang 女士对报告第 30 段中陈述其与同谋者通过 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）欺诈性获取超过 $150 million 受害者资金的部分提出异议。\n\n政府方主张，Wang 女士是该“共谋的关键成员”，并对该共谋的所有活动负责。\n\n此外，来自 Ya Li（李亚）的庭审证言描述了 Wang 女士协调农场资金与其他与 Guo 相关的银行账户之间的转账情况。[见庭审记录第 1388 页第 20 行至第 1389 页第 16 行。] 因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第七，Wang 女士对报告第 34 段提出异议，该段陈述称她与其同谋者诱使\n\n庭审记录第 2304 页第 24 行至第 2305 页第 16 行，以及第 3017 页第 14 至 21 行。] 因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第八，Wang 女士对报告第 36 段中陈述 G/CLUBS 为会员提供“无明显会员福利”的部分提出异议。\n\n整句话陈述的是，G/CLUBS 为会员提供“极少甚至无明显会员福利”。\n\n来自 Haitham Khaled 和 Limarie Reyes 的庭审证言支持这一事实，即尽管 G/CLUBS 会员在支付会员费后几乎没有得到什么回报，但他们有时确实获得了实质性福利，例如在……的折扣\n\n第九，Wang 女士对报告第 37 页提出异议，该处解释了她及其同谋者利用 G/CLUBS 进行欺诈性股票发售。具体而言，同谋者告诉 Guo 的追随者，购买 G/CLUBS 会员资格将使他们有权获得其他与 Guo 关联实体（如 GTV 和 G Fashion）的股票。\n\n庭审证言支持这一事实，即 G/CLUBS 会员被许诺获得 GTV 的股份，但最终并未收到。[例如，参见庭审记录第 204 页第 6 至 13 行；第 208 页第 25 行至第 210 页第 9 行；第 1016 页第 15 至 21 行；以及第 2049 页第 7 至 18 行。] 因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第十，Wang 女士对报告第 38 段提出异议，其程度仅限于该段暗示了 Wang 女士曾亲自招徕 G/CLUBS 会员和投资者。\n\n第 38 段并未暗示 Wang 女士进行了亲自招徕。该段陈述称，Wang 及其同谋者“要求投资者购买多份 G/CLUBS 会员资格，从而使 Guo、Je（余建明）和 Wang 能够增加\n\n所招徕的资金金额。”\n\n来自 Haitham Khaled 的证言表明，Wang 女士监督了他对该实体的营销工作；来自 Limarie Reyes 的证言表明，Wang 女士参与了允许 G/CLUBS 会员购买多份会员资格的工作。[见庭审记录第 2304 页第 24 行至第 2305 页第 16 行；以及第 3017 页第 14 至 15 行。]\n\n此外，作为共谋的一员，Wang 女士应对其同谋者为推进共谋而实施的行为承担责任。因此，报告陈述 Wang 女士及其同谋者要求投资者购买多份会员资格是正确的。因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第十一，Wang 女士对报告第 46 段提出异议，该段陈述称她及其同谋者通过经常转移 Guo 的资金、将其伪装成“贷款”或“投资”，并在参与这些交易的实体中安插傀儡高管来隐匿资金。\n\n在庭审中，G/CLUBS 和 Himilaya Exchange 各自的首席执行官 Limarie Reyes 和 Jesse Brown（杰西·布朗）作证称，他们对自己理应经营的业务缺乏控制权，并接受来自 Wang 女士和 Mr. Je（余先生）的指示。[见庭审记录第 3017 页第 10 至 21 行；第 3064 页第 8 至 12 行；第 3641 页第 15 行；以及第 3645 页第 24 行至第 3646 页第 4 行。]\n\n来自 Haitham Khaled、Ya Li 和 Karin Maistrello（卡琳·麦斯特雷洛）的庭审证言也证实，Wang 女士经常参与在与 Guo 的企业相关的各个账户之间转移资金。[见庭审记录第 473 页第 16 行至第 474 页第 15 行；第 1388 页第 1 行至第 1389 页第 16 行；第 1915 页第 3 至 12 行；第 1942 页第 2 至 15 行；第 1944 页第 13 行至第 1945 页第 3 行；以及第 1949 页第 14 行至第 1951 页第 24 行。] 因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第十二，Wang 女士对报告第 57 段提出异议，该段描述了一笔存入其名下银行账户、被标注为“董事费”的款项。Wang 女士似乎在辩称，该段暗示了这笔付款在某种程度上是不当的，这要么是因为她不是 GTV 的董事，要么是因为其他董事没有收到类似的费用。\n\nWang 女士担任 GTV 执行董事的说法是正确的[见报告第 20 段。] 然而，第 57 段并无相反的暗示，且政府方指出，在 GTV 私募材料中被列为董事的 Kyle Bass（凯尔·巴斯）并未获得董事费。因此，该项异议被驳回。\n\n第十三，Wang 女士对报告第 119 段提出异议，该段陈述称她似乎有能力通过资产清算来支付罚金。\n\nWang 女士声称，由于她须就 $1.4 billion 的没收承担连带责任，\n\n若没有 Wang 女士，这场数十亿美元的诈骗是根本不可能、绝对不可能发生的。正如 Shroff（克里斯蒂·罗夫）女士在 Miles Guo 案庭审开庭陈述中所说的那样，Guo“有愿景，有想法。他所欠缺的正是基础设施。”\n\n而那个必不可少的组成部分，那个令人难以置信的\n她是幕后操纵者。所有的提线都在她手里。她雇佣了傀儡高管，但她仍然控制着 RICO（《反勒索与受贿组织法》）犯罪集团的所有细节。她控制着银行账户。她控制着公司架构。她指示 Haitham Khaled 创立 Crane（克兰）以营造独立的假象。她指示他设立虚假的办公地址，让这些实体看起来各不相同，但实际上一切都在她的控制之下，并且她是与 Mr. Guo 和 Mr. Je 联手执行这一切的。\n\n过去这五年来她的日程记事本反映出，她每一天都在不知疲倦地让这场诈骗得以运作。她整天都在与 RICO 犯罪集团旗下所有公司相关的员工会面，从 Rule of Law（法治基金/法治社会），到 GTV，到 G/CLUBS，到 HCHK（这是他们在 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）和政府察觉其部分诈骗行为后设立的伞状母机构），再到 Gettr（盖特），到 Himilaya Exchange，以及随后的诈骗分支，如 @A10。\n\n她还花时间试图阻挠破产程序并为此提供协助，包括指使 Miles Guo 的女儿向破产法院作伪证。在持续推进……的细节方面，她极为缜密。\n\n此案的犯罪行为极其恶劣。法庭在 Miles Guo 案审理期间已经听取了相关情况，各方的呈递材料以及 PSR（判决前调查报告）中也对此作了广泛概述。法庭在这里还参阅了受害者的陈述：出庭作证的受害者在庭审证言中的受害者陈述，以及正如法庭所言，向法庭递交信件的 150 多名人员。\n\n在政府方日期为 2024 年 11 月 24 日的信函中，我们列出并总结了 Wang 女士所造成的部分损害类别。这些损害包括经济损害、个人困境、对人身安全的实际威胁，以及破坏民主运动的更广泛损害。\n\nMiles Guo（郭文贵）和 William Je（余建明）确实从欺诈以及挪用欺诈收益中获得了最大的经济利益，但王女士（Ms. Wang）明知资金正流向郭和余。她掌控着这些渠道。我们有录音显示她指示工作人员将资金转入那些账户。她明知这些资金并未用于向受害投资者所告知的用途。资金并未用于抗击 CCP（中国共产党）。它被用于购买豪宅。\n\n王女士并不是个胆怯软弱的人。证人向我们以及法庭陈述过，她要求苛刻。她一丝不苟。她甚至可能非常残酷。法庭会记得在审判期间 Khaled 先生出示的一份录音，在一次会议结束时，王女士因顶撞郭文贵而把遥控器砸向了电视机。她发怒并不是因为她试图做合法的或正确的事。她发怒是因为有人质疑或阻挠她的角色——确保资金转移看起来合法的角色。她非常清楚这并不合法。她知道自己的工作就是确保一切表面上合规合法，因为这就是她做了五年的工作。\n\n政府在向王女士提出的、且王女士已接受的认罪答辩协议中，确实考虑到了她相对较低的经济获利，该协议将她的最高刑期限制在法定最高刑 120 个月。但她比郭文贵和余建明挣得少这一事实，在此不能构成重大的减轻情节，尤其是在她不仅要对共谋者的行为负责，还要对自己本人的行为负责的情况下。而且，再次强调，如果没有王女士，这起欺诈是不可能实现的。法庭还应将她的妨碍司法\n\n行为视为一个重大的加重情节。正如我\n\n就特殊威慑而言，她长达五年的持续参与推翻了她关于对郭文贵的依赖和忠诚“蒙蔽了她的判断力”的说法。正如我所言，多年来王女士曾有多次抽身退出的机会。在 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）就 GTV 私募达成同意协议（王女士签署了该协议）之后，她本可以停手。相反，他们开发了农场贷款项目（Farm Loan Program），并通过该项目筹集资金。随后 G/CLUBS 又被叠加了进去。\n\n当政府察觉到该企业架构时，他们创建了其伞形实体 HCHK。王女士是\n\n最后，甚至在她因本案被捕之后，在她明知政府对她的指控、以及我们对郭先生和余先生的指控之后，她仍在狱中继续从事犯罪活动。她参与指示 G/CLUBS 的成员试图从曼哈顿的一个邮箱中获取价值 700 万美元受害投资者资金的支票。\n\n在她就该特定妨碍司法行为提交的意见书中，王女士表示，在被捕后“退后一步”、脱离 @G 实体的运作本来会是“更符合自身利益且更明智的”。这样做不仅是更明智的；这样做本会是不违法的。然而，甚至在她被捕后，在她广泛参与了五年之后，她依然没有做正确的事。她继续将欺诈进行下去。\n\n王女士资历很高。她很聪明。她很有能力。这不是减轻情节；而是加重情节。她本有能力来到这里并成为对社会有贡献的成员。美国在她……时欢迎了她\n\n而且她至今仍未对自己的行为承担全部责任。她似乎并未对这里的受害者表达悔意，那些被她积极诈骗的受害者；那些她、郭文贵和余建明所针对的目标。她对处于现在的境地感到不快。她说她对自己所做的事感到抱歉，但在王女士就本次量刑提交的所有材料中，她从未真正承认在那 150 多份受害者陈述中哪怕仅少数几份所反映出的损害程度。她毁掉了人们的生活。这继续对受害者产生深远的影响。\n\n政府强烈建议法庭判处本案法定最高刑期 120 个月。鉴于犯罪行为的严重性，这是必要的。对于一个明知 SEC 和政府正在对该行为进行调查却仍继续违法、甚至在被捕后仍继续违法的人，为了促使其树立对法律的正当尊重，这也是必要的。\n\n正如我们在量刑意见书中所述，她参与这起犯罪，发生在这一系列——发生在一场深重的个人危机之中，坦率地讲，是极其非同寻常的个人危机。而且无可争议的是，在这起共谋开始时，她正成为中国安全部门积极针对的目标；她屡次遭到黑客攻击；她高度敏感的个人信息被发布在互联网上，至今仍留在网上，包括在本案中提交了第 146 号受害者陈述的一名个人所发布的；她与家人断绝了联系。这些事实对王女士来说是高度独特的，而且坦率地说，我认为是非常特殊的。我认为可以公允地说，对于在辖区或任何地方接受量刑的被告人而言，成为国家安全部门的目标并经常遭到黑客攻击并不是常见的遭遇。\n\n法庭：这也不是一起普通的犯罪。\nQUIGLEY 先生：法官阁下，说得对。但是指出并考虑这些事实，并不是要认可某种离奇的义警私刑司法体系（这是政府在量刑意见书中对它的称呼），而是因为这些事实对于她在犯罪时的心理状态至关重要。\n\n法庭：你是说量刑指南反映了一种离奇的义警私刑体系？\n\nQUIGLEY 先生：不。那是政府在量刑意见书中用来描述我们论点的措辞\n\n其目的就是扰乱人们的心智和头脑。\n\n正如 Atkin Source Smith 博士在她与我们量刑意见书一并提交的报告中所指出的，王女士一直处于持续的恐惧之中，遭受着与这种经常性骚扰相符的慢性创伤，以及对其自身和家人安全的持续恐惧。\n正是在这种背景下，王女士依附于\n\nMurray 女士谈到了抽身退出的机会。王女士当时没有抽身退出的机会。她回不去中国。她在合众国没有合法身份。她的庇护申请是由她的雇主及其律师在经办。\n\n法庭：所以这是她唯一的选择。\nQUIGLEY 先生：我认为她当时没有很多其他选择，法官阁下，是的。她回不去中国。她在这里没有任何合法身份。她与家人断绝了联系。我认为——她当时没有多少退路。我不同意那一点。我认为那一背景很重要。这是理解她为何参与这起犯罪的关键背景，无可争议的是，她从中获利极少，并且已经为此付出了惨重代价，对此她深感后悔。\n\n而且我不同意 Murray 女士关于她没有表现出后悔或悔意的说法。这写在她的量刑信中。这反映在 Atkin Source Smith 博士的报告中。几分钟后您也会听王女士陈述她对此感到的后悔。对于给那些向郭先生及其组织交钱的人所造成的痛苦，她深感后悔。她很高兴——并且实事求是地说——政府已经\n\n此前这一点，但这并不是一个因欺诈而过着奢华生活的人。\n\n法庭：她不是在六十年代街区的上东区住过吗？\n\nQUIGLEY 先生：法官阁下，她确实住过一套公寓。那笔钱以及政府——那笔钱——那套公寓不是用欺诈收益支付的。事实上，政府最初在 S3 替代起诉书中列明那套公寓是用欺诈收益支付的。在我们提交了要求提供电汇明细的特定事项说明书动议，或者在法官阁下部分批准了该特定事项说明书之后，明细显示她在 GTV 发售之前、在任何欺诈行为发生之前就收到了那笔钱。那不是用欺诈……支付的\n\n我认为在考虑赋予其中某些信件多大分量时，法庭应该而且可以考虑其中的一些指控是没有依据的。总体而言，它们关于王女士的内容也说得很少。考虑到他们在共谋中的相对角色，它们谈论得更多的是郭先生。\n\n法庭：我不认为控方指控她在服刑期间继续从事非法行为。我说得对吗？\n\nMURRAY 女士：法官阁下，我们指控她在 2023 年 4 月确实这么做了。Quigley 先生说得对。我们掌握了代表 G/CLUBS 开展业务的 HCHK 员工的录音，其中他们表示——起初暗示有人指示他们联系一名 G/CLUBS 员工以获取支票。随后在接下来的录音对话中表示\n\nQuigley 先生说得对，我们没有指控该事件之后的任何事情，但那是一起关押入狱后的犯罪事件。\n\nQUIGLEY 先生：法官阁下，那是——听着，我们对妨碍司法的量刑加重条款没有异议。我们同意适用。我认为我们会对从这些录音中可能得出的推论定性提出异议。尽管如此，这是在我代表王女士处理其保释申请之前就已经过诉讼审理的问题。我们不——法庭可能会就此作出认定。我们无意在此重新进行辩论。\n\n我认为对我们来说，关键在于考虑给予那些真正提及王女士的受害者信件多大的分量。许多受害者信件根本没有谈及她。在考虑给予那些确实提及她的信件多大分量时，其中有几封确实声称她曾经并且继续在狱中掌控共谋运作。而我的观点是，没有任何证据证明这一点。声称她一直在这样做直到现在的说法是不真实的。\n\n法庭：那么让我明确一点，我不会考虑不实的指控，即那些未被提出的指控\n\nMURRAY 女士：法官阁下，我再次重申，早在认罪答辩协议提出之前很久就进行过审前解决的磋商。在与 Quigley 先生磋商之后，那是第一份书面形式化的认罪答辩协议，但此前曾就审前解决进行过更广泛的磋商。\n法庭：请继续，Quigley 先生。\n\nQUIGLEY 先生：那么我认为这让我们面临怎样的情况，法官阁下？我认为您面前有一名被告人，无可争议的是，她在深重的个人危机之中、在被外国安全部门针对的背景下参与了这起犯罪，而她所获取的利益不到政府声称的本案涉案损失金额的千分之一；她已经在 MDC（大都会拘留中心）面临了相当长一段时间的监禁。她已经在 MDC 被羁押了 22 个月。我无需再赘述过去 22 个月里 MDC 的恶劣条件。这本身就是一段很长的时间。坦率地说，对于一名未进入审判程序的被告人而言，在审前羁押、判决前羁押中度过这么长时间是少见的，她将面临——我不会继续就这一点多说，因为我们已经在量刑意见书中阐明了，但她将继续面临比处境相似的美国公民更为惩罚性的关押条件。\n\n与许多白领犯罪分子不同，她不会被分配到低戒备级别监狱营地。在此之后，无论她的庇护申请是否获得批准，她几乎肯定都会面临在 ICE（美国移民及海关执法局）拘留所的一段额外羁押期。即便在最理想的情况下，即她没有被驱逐回中国——如果被遣返，她将面临进一步监禁甚至更糟糕的境遇——她也将面临终身伴随的经济处罚。\n\n我提到过，政府在此案中已查封超过 10 亿美元，这同样值得肯定。这笔款项将用于执行那笔 14 亿美元的金钱判决书。但同样不可否认的是，在出现资金缺口的范围内，从实际操作层面来看，该缺口将落在 Wang（王女士）身上。Je（余建明先生）永远不会再回美国。Guo（郭文贵先生）已经破产，不大可能支付该款项。即便存在 1000 万美元的缺口——我完全赞同法官阁下的看法，即年薪十万美元绝不是一笔小数目——但对于任何薪资水平的人来说，终身背负一笔 1000 万、1500 万或 2000 万美元的判决债务，都是一项极其沉重的经济惩罚。因此，她在余生中将继续面临监禁与经济上的双重惩罚。\n\n因此，我认为，在当前情况下，对她而言并无必要判处 120 个月的刑期，特别是当您考量 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 项下的最后一项因素时。我想谈谈 3553(a)(6)，即避免不合理量刑差异的需要——\n\n王女士不是 Elizabeth Holmes（伊丽莎白·霍姆斯），我认为就连政府在其量刑意见书中也承认了这一点。她并非——120 个月的刑期将长于 Swain（斯温法官）对 Joann Crupi（乔安·克鲁皮）所判处的刑期，后者实质上是 Bernard Madoff（伯纳德·麦道夫）的幕僚长。她被判处七年徒刑。同样，她经过了陪审团审判，并从长达数十年的麦道夫庞氏骗局中个人获益，而那是历史上规模最大的庞氏骗局。事实上，尽管本案的投资者可能——希望能够——很快获得偿付并得到全额补偿，但政府在麦道夫被捕 16 年后的上周才发布了一份新闻稿，宣布已向麦道夫案的投资者完成了最后一笔分配款项。尽管本案罪行十分严重，但也绝无法与 Bernie Madoff（伯尼·麦道夫）的骗局相提并论。\n\n法庭：那么在霍姆斯骗局和麦道夫骗局中，投资者是否曾被告知资金将用于促进民主？\n\nQuigley（奎格利先生）：没有。在霍姆斯的案件中，他们被告知资金将用于促进健康；用于一种革命性的血液检测工具盒，人们可以用它来检测自己是否患有癌症、HIV 或是否怀孕。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\n奎格利先生：我认为本案与 OneCoin（维卡币）起诉案相似，正如我们在量刑意见书中所述。那起欺诈案吸纳的资金比本案的欺诈多出 40 多亿美元。Murray（默里女士）今天在开场陈述中描述了王女士在欺诈案中的重要性和显著地位。在维卡币案件中被判刑的律师，即 Dilkinska（迪尔金斯卡女士）的律师，被政府——同样被政府在量刑意见书中描述为“该欺诈案的核心成员”。她在今年早些时候达成了与王女士基本完全一致的认罪协议：两项 18 U.S.C. § 371 共谋罪名项、一项电信欺诈罪名项和一项洗钱罪名项，将其法定最高刑期限制在十年。量刑指南范围——原本适用的量刑指南范围本应为 43 级终身监禁。迪尔金斯卡女士认罪答辩接受了妨碍司法加重情节，Ramos（拉莫斯法官）判处她 48 个月监禁。\n\n法庭：在该案中，被告人或共犯是否被塑造成一位为数百万其他人伸张正义的英雄人物？\n\n奎格利先生：法官阁下，这一点我并不清楚，但是——\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，我可以简要回应一下这一点吗？\n\n我是维卡币案件的公诉检察官之一，也是起诉迪尔金斯卡女士的检察官。我想说，这两名被告人之间存在着非常多的差异。奎格利先生说的没错，政府的量刑意见书确实是这样陈述的，迪尔金斯卡女士是一名律师，但是在那个欺诈骗局中，确实，它被包装成一种加密货币进行推销。它是作为一种让人们赚钱、进行投资的方式来推销的。它不涉及任何民主或政治诉求。\n\n那同样是一个不同性质的骗局，因为它是按多层次传销模式构建的，因此一些参与其中并进行投资的人实际上也是共犯。他们并不像我们这里的受害者那样属于脆弱受害者。他们中有些人确实是受害者，有些人确实相信自己是在购买加密货币。但在维卡币骗局中，很多参与者是在明知自己在类似小型庞氏骗局中捞钱的情况下参与其中的。\n\n我想指出的另一个区别是——\n\n最后，再次重点强调本案中被这个广泛共谋所针对的受害人群体的本质特征，以及他们被告知的资金用途与资金实际用途之间的天壤之别。\n\n法庭：我的理解是，在中国国内以及其他地方，有许多中国人对中国政府持有强烈的反感情绪，支持变革，支持民主，并受到了郭先生言论的感召，而这是他们将资金交给这个诈骗计划的一个重要原因。这完全是一种截然不同的劝诱人们交出金钱的方式，因为他们抱有如此深切的希望，期望中国那套压制性的政治体制能受到挑战并可能发生改变。这与单纯为了让资金翻倍或寻求安全投资的动机有着天壤之别。\n\n奎格利先生：我明白法官阁下的意思，我理解您所说的。但我也认为，显然在 GTV 的项目中，以及在 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）这个加密货币投资项目中，人们所寻求的——这本身并没有错，但人们不仅希望为中国的反共运动做出贡献，他们也同样希望赚钱。我再次重申，这并没有错，但我认为这并没有那么大的差异。我只想说，就迪尔金斯卡女士的作用而言，赤裸裸的现实是，她被要求认罪答辩所接受的三级领导角色加重情节，与王女士被要求接受的完全一样。\n\n默里女士：我只想就“被要求认罪答辩”这一表述表明政府的异议。\n\n奎格利先生：抱歉。根据政府签署的认罪协议，她做出了认罪答辩——在该案中依据政府提供的认罪协议所约定的指南范围，包含了与王女士完全相同的首要分子三分加重。而且政府的量刑意见书指控迪尔金斯卡女士“设立并管理空壳公司，用于以另一名共犯的名义持有财产、开设银行账户、清洗来自该计划的收益”。这与王女士在此被指控的行为极其相似。我认为，在该案中判处 48 个月监禁，而在此处判处 120 个月监禁——\n\n所以我想——好吧，我认为最后一点是受害者来信，法官阁下。同样，我认为这一点之前已经被提及，但我认为王女士不应当为近期郭先生运动成员之间的内讧承担责任。尤其是在最近的受害者来信中，存在大量互相攻讦的内容，涉及人们互相报复等等。王女士没有参与其中任何事情。她过去没有、现在也没有参与其中任何事情。坦率地说，正如政府在口头陈述中列出的那样，对于针对人们家庭的攻击，以及散布关于个人生活隐私细节的谣言，她坦率地对此感到冒犯，因为多年来她自己也一直是类似谣言的受害者。我不确定法官阁下是否会考虑这些内容，但这是我注意到的一点。\n\n法庭：那么请容我阐明，我的量刑裁决是基于审判中出示的证据做出的。我非常仔细地听取了证人证言。我的裁决同样基于我从判决前缓刑报告中了解到的情况，并且当然也适用了量刑指南以及其他适用于量刑的法律。请继续。\n\n奎格利先生：谢谢法官阁下。因此，综合所有这些理由，我认为被告人并没有从该计划中获得实质性的个人利益，她卷入该计划是因为处于一套极其特殊和不同寻常的个人危机体系之中，而这些危机旨在故意蒙蔽她的判断力。因此我们认为，类似于迪尔金斯卡女士所获得的约 48 个月的刑期，足以实现量刑的法定目的，且未超过必要限度。\n\n法庭：王女士，您有什么想说的吗？\n\n被告人：是的，法官阁下（英文）。是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：请稍等。我知道有受害者有意发表陈述。是这样吗？\n\n默里女士：我不确定我们是否确认了他们的出席，但据我们了解，至少有一位受害者打算前来，因此政府想核实一下。\n\n法庭：现场是否有受害者愿意发言？\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，我们掌握的名字是 Forest Zhou（周森）。我看到 Ava Chen 正在举手。她不是我们要找的人——\n\n法庭：那么这位先生，我想向您解释适用于受害者陈述的法律规定。\n\n《犯罪被害人权利法》将犯罪被害人定义为因实施联邦罪行而受到直接和近因损害的人。见《美国法典》第 18 编第 3771(e) 条。要求受害者受到直接和近因损害的规定，涵盖了传统的“若无则不”因果关系和近因分析。见 In Re Rendon Galvis 案，564 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir. 2009)。\n\n必要的审查是基于具体事实的。当某一联邦罪行是造成损害的“若无则不”原因时，某人即因该罪行的实施而受到直接损害，见 Morris v. Nielsen 案，374 F.Supp.3d. 239, 252 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)。当损害是犯罪行为合理可预见的结果时，某人即受到近因损害。\n\n先生，您的主张是您受到了王女士犯罪行为的直接损害吗？\n\n周先生：第24号。\n法庭：你的立场是是否存在——\n1 法庭：你叫什么名字？\n2 钦女士：我的法定名字是Legia（音），但大家叫我\n3 Ava。谢谢。\n4 法庭：你是否认为自己\n5 直接受到了王女士犯罪行为的伤害？\n6 钦女士：是的。根据我听到的，你与\n7 Forest Zhou（周林）谈过，我会有所不同。所以我的回答是肯定的，而且我\n8 提供了我的投资，我在GTV投资了$200,000，并且还\n9 投资了G/CLUBS，而我的资金至今仍被扣留，并且我一直\n10 承受着财务后果，因为那些钱被从我这里拿\n11 走了。\n12 法庭：你是否认为这笔钱财损失是\n13 王女士犯罪行为的可预见后果？\n14 钦女士：因为她认罪了，所以我会说\n15 是的。\n16 法庭：好的。请继续。\n17 钦女士：作为受害者，我只想概述一下，我想\n18 与你分享——而且在开场时我真的很想说声谢谢\n19 你，因为作为受害者，我之所以有平台来说\n20 这些话，是因为我必须感谢美国人民，因为我是\n21 加拿大人。同样，我必须感谢司法系统以及\n22 尊敬的法官，您，今天给予了我这个机会。\n23 今天我想强调三点，我将\n24 直接陈述为什么您需要考虑减轻刑期，\n25 也就是检察官刚才在您考虑减轻之前请求支持的120个月。\n\n我要讲的三点是：首先，王对美国的贡献；第二是她的苦难，由法院文件中发现的中共间谍所证明的真正苦难；最后一点我要谈谈个人接触，因为我和王女士短暂共事过。最后我会告诉您，就她作为一个人的品格而言，我了解到了什么。\n\n那么第一点，对美国社会的贡献，我想向您提及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）。王女士是法治基金会的成员，如果您还记得2020年疫情爆发时，当时纽约市处于封锁状态，法治基金会基本上采购了大量的个人防护装备（PPE），包括N95口罩以及其他气凝胶产品，其中很多事情基本上是由Yvette Wang（王雁平）亲自安排的，也就是我们所称的新马拉雅大使馆，冒着她自己的健康风险，她基本上搬运了所有物资并将其运送到纽约市的医院，并捐赠给NYPD（纽约市警察局）的警官。所有这些事情都是可以核实的。这些都是事实。并且有法院文件反映了我刚才所说的、我刚才分享的内容。\n\n不仅如此，她还设法邮寄给了异见人士群体，因为我们谈论了很多关于\n\n如果您还记得，对此有很多公开报道。中国共产党不仅在武汉实验室制造了它——这是根据刚发布报告的众议院COVID-19特别委员会的最终报告得出的结论——而且中共还搜刮了全世界所有的个人防护装备，这样他们就可以以此作为与美国、与世界各国政府谈判的筹码，说：嘿，你们必须听我的，因为我现在掌握了所有的PPE。我是王者。\n\n因此在那个背景下，法治基金会是Yvette Wang所属的唯一基金会，她亲自冒着风险，去处理一箱又一箱数以百万计的口罩，并将它们分发给不仅是纽约市的居民，还有异见人士群体。因此，法官阁下，这是我想为您强调的第一点贡献。\n\n第二点是苦难。我想向您提及王女士对一些我们称之为假民运人士提起的法律诉讼。其中一名\n\n在那份法律文件中，我发现她是一名受害者，不仅遭受黑客攻击、骚扰、跟踪，还遭受人们要取她性命的威胁，是一名长期的受害者。这并不是我说的；这是法庭说的。正因为那起法律案件，法官——我忘了她的名字，但法官作出了一项裁定，对王发布了一项针对那些假民运人士的保护令。其中一人是Xiong Xianmin（熊宪民），并且有一份实际的保护令。\n\n但我想提及这起审判中的文件，基本上就在这起刑事欺诈审判的案卷中，第89号文件，在那份文件中，有25页的证据表明我刚才提到的那个人熊宪民一直在攻击Miles Guo（郭文贵），特别是Yvette Wang。所以证据都在那里。这实际上始于2017年左右，在针对那个假民运人士熊宪民发布保护令之前。我鼓励您去查核。\n\n但不仅如此——不仅包含在该证据中，那25页还包含了他从2017年7月一直到2018年12月对王的在线网络欺凌。但是\n\n因此，随着审判和调查的进行，随着王被拘留，这个人连同另一群假民运人士一直在骚扰、威胁、抹黑和诽谤王雁平。她因此遭受了极大的痛苦。不仅正如辩护律师所提到的，她被孤立了。法官阁下，您读过她写给您的信件。她不能——她只有一个独生子，但她基本上无法抚养——抚养他，并且她无法——如今她无法见到已经过世的父亲和母亲。所以她承受了巨大的痛苦。为什么？因为她开始加入这场运动，并且像我一样追随郭文贵。坐在这里的许多兄弟姐妹聚在一起，我们并不质疑她认罪的事实。我们尊重法律。\n\n但我想说的是，这引出了我的个人——我的最后一点，即我如何看待王？在我看来，我对王的看法、我对她的印象没有改变。我和她短暂共事过，大概是在2022年，只有三个月。但我看到她是一个热心肠的人，一个对抗中国共产党的顽强斗士。您说得对。中共是非常压迫性的。毫无疑问。但中共\n\n法庭：所以我对中国政府的压迫程度非常熟悉。\n\n钦女士：谢谢。我之所以想说个人接触，并不是因为我和她一起工作过，我知道她是谁，她是可靠的，她是值得信赖的，她是坚强且顽强的。对于这起案件，这一点丝毫没有改变。尽管她对这两项罪名认罪（原文如此）了，但我想指出的一点是，我之所以真正感激她，是因为我不是在谈论这起案件、这起欺诈案件的细节，而是在谈论拥有像GTV这样的社交媒体新闻平台的重要性和意义。我今天带这些文件的原因是因为我想留给您，法官，如果您需要的话，但我想从里面读一句话，只是向您展示中共已经控制了美国的每一个中文媒体。这基本上不是我说的，而是众议院监督与问责委员会在2024年10月24日发布的报告中所陈述的。\n\n法庭：所以我明白你的立场是你钦佩王女士，你也钦佩GTV。还有别的要说的吗？\n被告：我只想说——是的，我有。\n\n但我想说对我来说最重要的事情是，我在一个安全的地方找到了我的兄弟姐妹。我不再感到孤独，因为我很害怕，因为中共很强大。但在G/CLUBS中找到姐妹和兄弟让我变得勇敢。这就是为什么我能站在这里，并说我爱她。这一点丝毫不会改变。而且我会说坐在那里的兄弟姐妹都会同意我的看法。这就是G/CLUBS的价值，而且她已经受了足够的苦。MDC（大都会拘留中心）。我们都知道MDC是什么样子。我刚看了今年9月的新闻，其他法官基本上免除了犯罪者的刑罚，他说如果他要在MDC服刑，那么他就可以直接获释，只是希望您——\n法庭：谢谢你。\n\n钦女士：——能够考虑减轻刑期，因为她为中国人民做了这么多，并且她为美国公民做出了如此多的贡献。我希望您能考虑这一点，请接受我们的请求。我想分享所有的文件。我想感谢及时处理此案的检察官们。\n\n法庭：时间到。谢谢你。你可以退下了。\n\n在不断的黑客攻击和袭击中战斗并生存下来，拥有数以百万计的用户和订阅者并取得成功。但是，不幸的是，由于我的原因，在我的个人危机中做出的糟糕判断和错误决定，非常痛苦地，法官阁下，我不得不看着GTV苦苦挣扎并最终关闭。\n\n支持民主和反中国共产党的媒体。我个人来说，我一直在说这个媒体从一无所有开始，\n\n零起步，建立起它的第一批信徒，克服了无数障碍，\n\n我完全理解并感激GTV的投资者们，他们的信念，以及G/CLUBS的成员们，他们对这项事业的热情，我辜负了（音）他们。这让我最为心痛。我为此深感抱歉。\n\n我对看待这整件事确实怀有同样的失望\n\n第二，法官阁下，我觉得我必须在这里说出来。这是一个非常坦率的个人澄清。多年来，我一直被一个又一个政府指控，甚至包括在审理本案的保释过程中，说我遗弃了我的孩子。我背叛了我的家庭。我希望法官阁下、我的家人和全世界能在这里大声且清楚地听到我说的话。我从未遗弃过我的儿子。我从未背叛过我的家庭。我从未做过那样的事。\n\n我的儿子今年就要满12岁了。他离开母亲已经十年了。我父亲临终的愿望是祈祷他唯一的女儿平安活着。我其余的家人已经被捕、被审讯，处于严密监控之下，直到这一秒都生活在恐惧中。法官阁下，我和我的家人一起付出了极其惨重的代价。我绝不会放弃爱他们，为他们而奋斗。法官阁下，在过去的十年里，我不是英雄。我只是一个普通的普通女人。我是一个职场女性。我有\n\n再次，正如我所说的，法官阁下，我非常感激您刚才在这里所说的，有这么多的中国人民受到启发并为民主而奋斗。我想说的是，这是一件我个人的憾事，这十年并不是我的选择，法官阁下。我被困在这里面十年了。我从未过过舒适、快乐的生活。但即使最终只有我一个人，我也在为我的家庭而战。我将继续这样做，因为他们是我的家人。我将为他们战斗到我的最后一口气。我绝不会放弃。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我已经在MDC待了21个月零21天。除了始终尽量充分利用我在那里的时间——通过阅读、学习、帮助其他狱友、作为志愿者一直在监区工作之外。我最经常做的事情就是反思我的行为并正视过去发生的事情。没有任何借口，没有任何个人生活可以允许我触犯法律。我明白了。我吸取了非常沉重的教训。我百分之百地尊重它\n\n第七，向本罪行的任何受害者提供赔偿的必要性。\n\n归根结底，我被要求判处足以、但不大于符合我刚才所提及的量刑目的所必需的刑罚。\n\n对于本案中适切的判决，我已给予了充分的考虑和关注。\n\n缓刑监督部门建议判处量刑指南规定的 120 个月刑期，即每个罪名项处以 60 个月刑期且连续执行。政府方同样主张判处 120 个月刑期。Wang（王）女士则请求在量刑指南以下判处少于 48 个月的刑期。\n\n在大约五年的时间里，Wang（王）女士明知故犯地参与了与 Miles Guo（郭文贵）和 William Je（余建明）共同进行的串谋，从数千名受害者手中骗取了超过 10 亿美元。利用郭文贵巨大的网络影响力，共谋者通过承诺投资各种虚假企业和项目即可获得超额财务回报和收益，将他的追随者作为目标。许多受害者被诱导并相信他们交给郭文贵及其共谋者的资金将用于推进中国的民主进程。事实上，王女士和其他人蓄意挪用了这些资金，以自肥郭文贵、其家人以及其他\n\n共谋者清楚地知道自己的所作所为是错误的，并竭力掩盖其非法活动。在郭文贵和王女士的指使下，共谋者设立了空壳公司，并在以各种名义持有的数百个银行账户之间存储和转移受害者的资金。\n\n郭文贵、余建明和王女士给受害者造成了巨大的伤害。本法院收到了来自世界各地的数十封信件和电子邮件，讲述了受害者如何因在共谋者手中遭受的惨重损失而持续受苦。部分受害者此前相信自己的资金将用于旨在促进中国民主的行动项目。其他人则投入了数万甚至数十万美元，希望能改善个人财务状况，却在最终失去住房和退休储蓄时感到震惊万分。\n\n受害者经历的不仅仅是经济上的拮据。许多人因参与该骗局而与挚爱之人断绝了关系。本法院收到了因沦为郭文贵、余建明和王女士骗局的牺牲品而导致伴侣离开他们的人以及子女不再与他们交流的父母寄来的信件。由于本案共同谋划者的行径，这些受害者及其他人至今仍在经历抑郁和严重的心理创伤。\n尽管王女士不是最高层级的领导者\n\n因参与该犯罪计划，据称王女士每年获得 231,900 美元至 313,961 美元之间的薪资，尽管这些数字很可能低估了她个人从这一巨额欺诈中获益的程度。\n\n存在少数几项从轻情节：王女士从该串谋中获得的利益远少于 Miles Guo（郭文贵）或 William Je（余建明）。此外，庭审证据表明，王女士有时与郭先生意见相左，但郭先生拥有最终决定权。\n\n我还考虑了王女士审前羁押的期限和条件。王女士已经度过了\n\n我同样考虑了王女士在判决后将面临的监狱条件。作为一名中国公民，她没有资格被安置在许多非暴力犯罪服刑人员所在的最低安全级别劳教营。这些劳教营尽管名称如此，但通常被认为比更高安全级别的惩教机构更安全、更理想。此外，在服刑期满后，王女士很可能会被移交给 ICE（美国移民及其海关执法局）羁押。如果她因移民身份最终被要求遣返回中国，她可能会在那里遭到关押。\n\n最后，我考虑到王女士已通过其认罪答辩以及今天在此发表的陈述对自己的行为承担了责任。如果一个人的一生中有一刻有权根据其全部背景和贡献来接受评判，那就是在量刑之时，而 Section 3553(a)（《美国法典》第 18 编第 3553 条 (a) 款）指示法院考虑犯罪者的个人历史和特质，这与该原则是一致的。我今天作出的判决将考量王女士行为的整体情况。\n基于陈述的所有理由，我得出结论认为\n\n建议由您的居住地司法管辖区对您实施监督。\n\n我刚才描述的这些监督释放特殊条件，与犯罪的性质及情形以及被告人的历史和特质合理相关。王女士不是美国公民。支付赔偿金和遵从没收规定属于强制性要求。本案罪行涉及包含复杂金融交易和虚构实体的巨额欺诈，这些条件将协助缓刑监督部门保护社区免受被告人进一步犯罪的侵害，并确保被告人履行其赔偿义务。\n\n现在，据我了解，赔偿命令已呈递至本法院，是这样吗？\n\nMURRAY（默里）女士：法官阁下，我们呈递了经双方同意的没收裁定。关于依据……的赔偿\n\n法庭：因此，依据 18 United States Code, Section 3664(d)(5)（《美国法典》第 18 编第 3664 条 (d) 款第 (5) 项），赔偿的确定工作最多延期至判决后 90 天。\n\n王女士，根据要求我必须提醒您，您必须依据 18 United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)（《美国法典》第 18 编第 981 条 (a) 款第 (1) 项）以及 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c)（《美国法典》第 28 编第 2461 条 (c) 款），向美国没收构成或源自可追溯至实施该犯罪所得的所有财产，包括约等值于 14 亿美元的美元货币，以及我将签署的经修订的同意没收裁定中所列明的具体资产。\n\n双方律师是否知晓有任何法律理由使得本判决不应按所述方式予以执行？\n\n显然，您非常聪明且有能力。与您关押在一起的许多其他人并没有接受过高等教育的优势，他们可以从您的帮助中极大获益，因此我希望您能致力于提供此类帮助。\n被告人：是的，法官阁下。这一直是我一路走来在做的事情。\n法庭：好的。我们的听证会到此结束。\n本案休庭。\n（休庭）","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Murray","Miles Guo","GTV","CCP","forfeiture","William Je","Himalaya","CIPA","HCHK","Finkel","Chinese Communist Party","RICO","Wang Yanping","Horton","Fergenson","Farm Loan","Crime Victim","Torres","Analisa Torres","Shroff","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":9637,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-01-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-01-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:09:37"}