{"id":"court_sdny_56_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":56,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-04-21","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","summary_zh":"裁定书（Decision and Order）——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok 案关联被告王艳萍（Yanping Wang，别名Yvette）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #56（2023年4月21日签发）。治安法官 Robert W. Lehrburger 就王艳萍要求确认其已符合既定保释条件、或改判修改保释条件的动议作出裁定，认定政府已证明王艳萍存在潜逃风险、且未如实披露资产，裁定其继续被羁押。","summary_en":"Decision and Order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, related defendant Yanping Wang a/k/a \"Yvette,\" SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #56 (issued 2023-04-21). Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger rules on Wang's motion to confirm compliance with, or modify, her previously imposed pretrial release conditions, finding the government met its burden to show Wang poses a serious flight risk and was not forthcoming about her assets, and orders her continued detention.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n-against-\n\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"YVETTE\",\n\nDefendant.\n\n4/21/2023\n\nS1 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n\n# **DECISION and ORDER**\n\nThis matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Yanping \"Yvette\" Wang (\"Defendant\" or \"Wang\") for an order directing that she has complied with the conditions previously imposed to obtain pre-trial release or, alternatively, modifying those conditions. In opposition, the Government asks that Wang be detained because she has not complied with the conditions of release, lied about assets that she either owns or controls, and poses a serious risk of flight. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Wang poses a serious risk of flight, that no conditions can reasonably assure her attendance at future proceedings in this case, and that Wang should continue to be detained.\n\n# **Background**\n\n# **A. The Charges And Wang's Co-Conspirators**\n\nOn March 10, 2023, a sealed complaint issued charging Wang with (1) conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud; (2) wire fraud; (3) securities fraud; and (4) unlawful monetary transaction (the \"Complaint\"). (Dkt. 1.) Essentially, Wang is alleged to have played a key role in a scheme to defraud thousands of investors, spearheaded by co-conspirators, Miles Kwok and William Je.<sup>1</sup> (*See generally* Complaint; 23-CR-118-1\n\n<sup>1</sup> Both Kwok and Je are also known by other names; for simplicity, the Court uses the name\n\nDkt. 19 (superseding indictment).) Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Wang participated in offering an unregistered private placement of securities and then misappropriating and transferring those funds, including one transfer in the amount of \\$100,000,000, to a high-risk hedge fund for the ultimate benefit of a close family relative of one of Wang's co-conspirators (i.e., Kwok). (Complaint ¶ 9.a.) More generally, the Government contends, Wang managed the day-to-day operations of numerous entities, including shell companies, that Kwok controlled and used to operate the scheme. (*See*  Complaint ¶ 10.e.) In that role, Wang had access to, and signatory authority over, bank accounts allegedly used to obtain and launder fraud proceeds in the hundreds of millions of dollars. (*See* Complaint ¶¶ 11-13.) If found guilty, the Government estimates under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, Wang will face 292 to 365 months in prison. (Dkt. 10 at 2.2) Wang was arrested on a warrant on March 15, 2023. Prior to being arrested, Wang was aware that the Government was investigating her but did not flee. (March 15 Tr. at 17.3)\n\nA separate indictment was unsealed on March 15, 2023, charging Kwok and Je (the \"Indictment\"). (23-CR-118-1 Dkt. 2.) The Indictment charges Kwok and Je with defrauding victims of more than \\$1 billion, allowing Kwok and Je to profit substantially from the alleged fraud and using investor for purchasing personal luxury items and services, such as a \\$26.5 million mansion and a \\$37 million yacht. (Indictment ¶¶ 1, 4.) A\n\nfor each that appears to be most generally used. Kwok and Je are identified anonymously as co-conspirators in the complaint against Wong.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Dkt. 10 is the Government's letter dated March 29, 2023 opposing the instant motion.\n\n<sup>3</sup> \"March 15 Tr.\" refers to the March 15, 2023 transcript of the presentment proceedings before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. That Wang was aware she was being investigated was a representation by defense counsel; the Government did not challenge that assertion.\n\nsuperseding indictment issued on March 29, 2023, adding Wang as a defendant (\"SS Indictment\"). (23-CR-118-1 Dkt. 19.) Kwok has been charged and arrested and has been detained. (23-CR-118-1 Dkt. 51) Je, the alleged \"financial architect and key money launderer\" of the scheme (Indictment ¶ 7), is at large, lives in the United Kingdom, and, the Government believes, is currently hiding in the United Arab Emirates. (Dkt. 10 at 2.) Kwok, and by extension his co-conspirators, are believed to have many devoted followers in the United States and throughout the world. (*See* SS Indictment ¶¶ 2, 6.)\n\n#### **B. Wang's Characteristics And History**\n\nWang is a Chinese citizen. She emigrated from China in 2017 and filed an application for political asylum from the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"). Wang considers herself a revolutionary against the CCP. Wang's family remains in China, as does her ten-year old son, who resides with his father. Since emigrating, however, Wang has not returned to China and is incentivized not to do so given her expectation that she would be arrested, detained, and possibly executed if she returned to China. Wang has no family in the United States and no friends she can identify. Her sole focus has been her involvement with Kwok, the Kwok businesses, and the purported anti-CCP cause. (*See* March 22 Tr. at 7-8.4)\n\n## **C. Wang's Known Financial Assets**\n\nWang lives alone in a condominium, which she purchased for a little more than one million dollars, without any mortgage. (*See* March 15 Tr. at 18.) She disclosed two personal bank accounts, one containing about \\$400,000, and the other about \\$500,000. (*See* Dkt. 9 at 5.) In searching her residence, the FBI found a safe. Among other items,\n\n<sup>4</sup> \"March 22 Tr.\" refers to the transcript of proceedings before Magistrate Judge Netburn on March 22, 2023.\n\nthe safe held a handbag containing \\$138,000 in U.S. currency, along with some relatively small amounts of British, Hong Kong, and Chinese currency. (Dkt. 10 at 2.)\n\n# **D. Other Items Found During Search of Wang's Residence**\n\nWang's safe also included expired passports for both Wang and Kwok from China and Vanuatu, a small island nation in the South Pacific. Elsewhere in Wang's residence, the FBI recovered approximately 12 cellphones, two computers, and more than 25 USB flashdrives. Some cellphones were out in the open; some were in a bag. The Government asserts that one cellphone was found between the mattresses of defendant's bed, and that a laptop computer was found between sweaters on a shelf in Wang's closet. (Dkt. 10 at 2-3.) The inventory log of items seized from Wang's apartment identifies the room and general location from which each item was seized. None of the entries refer to a phone having been found between mattresses, although there is an entry for an iPad found \"on bed.\" There is, however, an entry for a laptop computer found \"in between clothes.\"5 (April 4 Tr. Ex. 1 at items 55 and 65.<sup>6</sup>)\n\n#### **E. The First Bail Hearing**\n\nWang was presented before the Honorable Katharine H. Parker on March 15, 2023, where the Government and Wang agreed to terms of a bail package, except for two items. Specifically, the agreed-upon terms included: (1) a \\$5 million personal recognizance bond to be co-signed by two financially responsible persons approved by the Government; (2) security for the bond in the amount of \\$1 million in real property and/or cash; (3) GPS\n\n<sup>5</sup> On April 17, 2023, the Government filed a letter stating that it had reinterviewed the relevant FBI agent, who said she does not recall any cellphone or documents found under Wang's mattress, but does recall finding the laptop between sweaters in a closet. (Dkt. 47.)\n\n<sup>6</sup> \"April 4 Tr.\" refers to the transcript of proceedings before this Court on April 4, 2023.\n\nlocation monitoring;7 (4) restriction on travel to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; (5) the surrender of any travel documents and no new applications; (6) disclosure of any assets over which Wang has possession, custody, or control, including any joint or business accounts and any cash, cryptocurrency, or digital assets; (7) that Wang not open any new bank accounts or lines of credit without approval from Pretrial Services; (8) that Wang have no contact with Kwok, Je, or any alleged victims or witnesses outside the presence of counsel; and (9) any other conditions recommended by Pretrial Services. (March 15 Tr. at 7-8.)\n\nThe two disputed terms were the Government's demands that (1) Wang be subject to home detention; and (2) all conditions be satisfied before Wang's release. (*Id.* at 8.) The Government sought those terms based on the risk that Wang would flee and not appear at future proceedings; the Government did not assert that Wang presented a danger to the community.\n\nAfter listening to argument, Judge Parker imposed all the agreed-upon conditions, as well as the Government's demands that Wang be subject to home detention and that all conditions be met before Wang's release.8 (*Id.* at 22-23.) Judge Parker found that the terms imposed \"are the least restrictive I believe are necessary to achieve\" Wang's return to court and the safety of the community. (*Id.* at 22.) Toward the end of the proceeding,\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Government characterized one of the two disputed items as whether Wang would be subject to home detention, reinforced by GPS monitoring. Wang, however, agreed to GPS monitoring; the only disputed aspect was whether she would also be subject to home detention. (*Compare* March 15 Tr. at 8 *with id.* at 16-17 (The Court: \"So you don't object to an ankle bracelet, you object to home detention?\" Defense counsel: \"Correct.\")).\n\n<sup>8</sup> Both the Government's requests and the Court's ruling were consistent with the recommendation of Pretrial Services, which included, among other conditions, that Wang be detained until all conditions are satisfied.\n\nJudge Parker commented, \"Ms. Wang, I assume you're going to be able to meet these conditions at some point\" and then issued warnings about the consequences if Wang were to violate the terms of her release. (*Id.* at 24-25.)\n\n# **F. The Government's Rejection Of Wang's Co-Signers And Sureties**\n\nWang continues to be detained. That is because the Government has not approved any of the individuals Wang put forward as financially responsible persons to co-sign the \\$5 million bond.\n\nSince the bail proceeding before Judge Parker, Wang has identified eight persons who are ready and willing to sign the bond, and, in four instances, tender property as further security. From the Government's perspective, each of the individuals identified by Wang are inadequate for three reasons: (1) they have insufficient finances; (2) they do not have any relationship with Wang and therefore hold no moral suasion over her; and (3) they are, according to the Government, either apparent victims of the fraud charged or otherwise involved in the fraudulent scheme.9 (*See generally* Dkt. 10 at 6-10.)\n\n# **G. The Instant Motion**\n\nWang contends that the Government's rejection of all her tendered co-signers and is arbitrary. Accordingly, Wang has moved for a Court order either finding that Wang has satisfied the conditions of release, or, alternatively, modifying the conditions of release that\n\n<sup>9</sup> The proposed sureties who are allegedly victims of the scheme charged are Yongbing Zhang (\"Zhang\"), Yue Zhou (\"Zhou\"), Chris Canada (\"Canada\"), Ping Liu (\"Liu\"), Yan \"Michelle\" Lou (\"Lou\"), and Qiang \"Frank\" Feng (\"Feng\"). The proposed co-signers who allegedly were involved in the fraudulent scheme are Chunguang \"Hank\" Han (\"Han\") and Defeng \"Wayne\" Cao (\"Cao\"). Han and Cao were the first two individuals Wang proposed as financially responsible persons. Wang also identified Mei Guo – Wang's purported best friend and Kwok's adult daughter – as someone who could sign on to the bond and exercise moral suasion over Wang. According to the Government, however, Guo is an alleged coconspirator and received millions of dollars in fraud proceeds. (Dkt. 10 at 6-10.)\n\neliminates the requirement for two financially responsible persons but adds additional financial protection from Wang. Specifically, Wang has offered to secure the bond not only with her condominium residence, but also her \\$400,000 bank account and the \\$138,000 seized from the residence. Additionally, Wang proposes that she not be able to withdraw any funds from her other bank account, containing \\$500,000, without approval by Pretrial Services. Wang has not offered the \\$500,000 account as security, because she intends to use those funds for personal expenses and legal fees for her defense.\n\nThis Court first held a hearing on Wang's motion on March 31, 2023.10 At that time, however, the Government came forward with what it characterized as new information warranting Wang's detention.11 According to the Government, Wang had not fully disclosed her assets; had not fully disclosed the corporate entities and accounts over which she has control; and had misrepresented that she was not employed at the time of\n\n<sup>10</sup> Wang initially made her application on March 22, 2023 before the Honorable Sarah Netburn, who was the duty Magistrate Judge that week. Judge Netburn determined that the motion was premature and that additional information needed to be submitted. Accordingly, she scheduled a hearing for the following week, which is when I was on duty. The Government characterizes the application to Judge Netburn as a motion for reconsideration of Judge Parker's ruling. (Dkt. 10 at 18.) The Court does not agree. Wang applied for an order determining that her conditions of release had been met, and, failing that, a modification of the terms. For similar reasons, the Court does not agree with the Government's characterization of the application made to me as a second motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 10 at 1); the hearing before me was simply the hearing that would have taken place before Judge Netburn but for being premature. In any event, the Government's argument overlooks the Act's provision that the Court \"may at any time amend the order [of release] to impose additional or different conditions of release.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3).\n\n<sup>11</sup> In correspondence first bringing the new information to the Court's attention, the Government seemed to be of two minds about the appropriate course of action. The Government opened its letter contending that the additional information \"could justify more restrictive bail conditions\" and ended the letter stating that Wang \"should be detained pending trial.\" (*Compare* Dkt. 22 at 1 *with id.* at 2.) At the April 4, 2023 hearing and in subsequent correspondence, however, the Government maintained that Wang should be detained.\n\nher arrest. Specifically, the Government asserted that documents only recently reviewed show that: (1) as of November 1, 2021, Wang had been allocated approximately \\$6,999,800 worth of Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\"), which, in current dollars would be worth more than \\$13 million; (2) Wang personally owned a company registered in the British Virgins Islands and had applied for an account for that company at a bank located in St. Lucia; (3) as of March 13, 2023, two days before Wang's arrest, bank accounts for various companies allegedly managed and controlled by Wang had balances totaling tens of millions of dollars; and (4) Wang had just recently signed and dated a document reflecting February 2023 payroll for employees of various Kwok-controlled entities managed by Wang. (Dkt. 22 at 2.) The Government also noted that at the time of her initial interview by Pretrial Services, Wang did not disclose the \\$138,000 cash kept in her safe. (*Id.*)\n\nThe Government argues that Wang's failure to disclose material information about her assets and employment demonstrates that she cannot be trusted to comply with the conditions of release and that the information itself further supports the availability of financial means for her to flee. Additionally, the Government points to documentation dated from January 2023 demonstrating Wang's intent to travel abroad to the United Kingdom and the British Virgin Islands. (Dkt. 42, Ex. G.)\n\nConfronted with the new information relied upon by the Government, Wang requested, and the Court granted, an adjournment of the hearing to the following week. The hearing went forward on April 4, 2023. The parties argued at length, each proffering evidence of the facts consistent with the above account. Several individuals (apparently those Wang had already identified as proposed co-signers) appeared at the hearing in support of Wang and were willing to sign the bond. Three of those individuals were prepared to offer their own real property to secure the bond in an amount that, collectively\n\nwith the assets posted by Wang, met the bond's full value of \\$5 million. (April 4 Tr. at 35- 37.)\n\nAt that time, however, defense counsel did not have in hand material information about the properties, including who actually owned them and to what extent they were encumbered. The Court therefore adjourned the hearing and requested defense counsel to provide that information to both the Court and the Government for review. On April 6, 2023, defense counsel provided that information. (Dkt. 37.) The material submitted indicates that there are four properties offered as security, each of which is a home owned by four different individuals. (*Id.* Ex. E.) Each of those individuals has been interviewed by the Government and determined inadequate at least because they did not possess moral suasion over Wang and were alleged victims of the fraudulent scheme. The value of their properties, based on internet real estate estimates, collectively total more than eight million dollars. None are encumbered.\n\nOn April 10, 2023, the Court issued an order seeking more information from the Government, including documentation to which the Government cited demonstrating Wang's failure to fully disclose assets and other matters. (Dkt. 39.) On April 12, 2023, the Government submitted that information, along with its response to Wang's April 7, 2023 filing. (Dkt. 42.) The Government followed up with a letter of clarification on April 14, 2023. (Dkt. 43.) That same day, Wang filed a response to the Government's most recent submissions. (Dkt. 44.)\n\nThe Court must now determine if the conditions of Wang's release have been met, whether the conditions should be modified, or, as the Government contends, whether, in light of changed circumstances, there no longer are any conditions that can reasonably assure Wang's appearance at future proceedings.\n\n## **Legal Standards**\n\nThe Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq (the \"Act\"), prescribes the statutory standards for determining whether a criminal defendant should be detained or released pending trial. Pursuant to the Act, the Court \"shall order the pretrial release of [a defendant] on personal recognizance, or upon execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the court . . . , unless the judicial officer determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). Release may be denied only if, after a hearing, \"the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1); *see U.S. v. Baig*, 536 F. App'x 91, 92 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting the Act). With respect to risk of flight, \"the Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, if released, presents an actual risk of flight, and that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court.\"12 *Baig*, 536 F. App'x at 92 (quoting *U.S. v. Sabhani*, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks removed).\n\nThe Act identifies four factors for the Court to consider in \"determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community\": (1) the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant, (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, and (4) the nature and\n\n<sup>12</sup> Although not relevant here, a finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. *United States v. Ferranti*, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995).\n\nseriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); *Baig*, 536 F. App'x at 92 (quoting the four factors).\n\nIf the Court finds that detention is not warranted, it must set conditions that are \"the least restrictive\" to reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B); *see also* U.S. Const. amend. VIII. (\"Excessive bail shall not be required\"). The Court \"may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2). However, in considering what conditions to impose, the Court may \"conduct an inquiry into the source of the property to be designated for potential forfeiture or offered as collateral to secure a bond, and shall decline to accept the designation, or the use as collateral, of property that, because of its source, will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4).\n\nBail conditions are not set in stone. The Court thus \"may at any time amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of release.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3). When considering an application to modify a defendant's bail conditions, the Court considers \"the statutory standards applicable to the setting of bail.\" *United States v. Zuccaro*, 645 F.2d 104, 106 (2d Cir. 1981). \"Courts have found that the authorization to amend a release order in Section 3142(c) is based on the possibility that a changed situation or new information may warrant altered release conditions.\" *United States v. Dzhamgarova*, No. 21-CR-58, 2021 WL 3113036, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); *accord United States v. Bankman Fried*, No. 22- CR-673, 2023 WL 1490417, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2023). \"Accordingly, '[c]onditions of bail should properly be modified if a substantial change in circumstances as they existed at the time bail was fixed is clearly shown.'\" *Id.* (quoting *United States v. Falcetti*, No. 02 CR 140, 2002 WL 31921179, at \\*1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2002)).\n\n### **Discussion**\n\nThe Court first addresses whether the conditions of release previously imposed on Wang have been satisfied and finds that they have not. The Court also finds that the modified conditions proposed by Wang will not reasonably assure Wang's presence at future proceedings. The Court then assesses whether under all the circumstances, including information learned since Wang's first bail hearing, there are conditions upon which Wang can be released that will reasonably assure her presence at future proceedings. Because the answer to that question is no, the Court orders that Wang continue to be detained.\n\n### **A. Conditions Of Wang's Release Have Not Been Met**\n\nThe conditions of Wang's release initially set by Judge Parker have not been met because Wang has not provided two financially responsible persons to co-sign the bonds that are acceptable to the Government. As noted above, the Government rejected all eight individuals identified by Wang because none of them have a relationship with Wang that would provide the necessary moral suasion; they did not have sufficient net worth to be financially responsible; and each of them was either a victim of or participant in the alleged fraud. The Government did not act arbitrarily in rejecting the proposed co-signers.\n\nThe primary point of contention is that of moral suasion. The Act requires cosigners to be \"solvent,\" and to \"have a net worth which shall have sufficient unencumbered value to pay the amount of the bail bond.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii). “In addition to the requirement of financial responsibility,\" however, \"a defendant must show that the proposed suretors exercise moral suasion to ensure the defendant's presence at trial.\" *U.S. v. Batista*, 163 F. Supp.2d 222, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The rationale for moral suasion and what it means has been articulated as follows:\n\n> [T]he Court is entitled to have a moral as well as a financial assurance . . . of the defendant's appearance in Court when required . . . . [T]he function of bail is not to purchase freedom for the defendant but to provide assurance of his reappearance after release on bail. . . . The bail is not for the purpose of providing funds to the government to seek the defendant should he go underground or flee the jurisdiction. Bail is intended as a catalyst to aid the appearance of the defendant when wanted.\n\n*U.S. v. Melville*, 309 F. Supp. 824, 826-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); *accord Batista*, 163 F. Supp. at 224 (favorably quoting *Melville*). Factors relevant to considering whether a proposed co-signer has moral suasion \"vary from case to case, but may include the strength of the tie between the suretor and defendant (i.e., family or close friend, close or estranged), the defendant's roots in the community, and the regularity of contact between suretor and defendant.\" *Batista*, 163 F. Supp. at 224 (*citing U.S. v. Julio Rodriguez*, No. 84-CR-841, 1984 WL 1380, \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 1984); *Melville*, 309 F. Supp. at 828; and 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)).\n\nThe Government is correct that none of the individuals put forward by Wang as cosigners have any meaningful relationship with Wang that would incentivize Wang not to flee. Rather, they reported, variously, that they do not even know Wang (Liu), do not know where she works or lives (Cao, Lou, Feng), only met Wang a handful or fewer times at some unspecified event (Cao, Feng, Lou, Zhang, Zhou), or merely follow Wang on social media (Feng). Some have seen or spoken with her a few times but not often (Canada, Lou, Zhang). One purports to have spoken with Wang several times while being interviewed by Wang for a job at a company for which Wang does not, according to the Government, hold any formal position (Canada). (Dkt. 10 at 6-14.)\n\nWhile each of those individuals may be fully committed to Wang, none of them have\n\na relationship of any kind with Wang to provide a \"catalyst to aid\" Wang's appearance in the future. *Melville*, 309 F. Supp. at 827. Moreover, six of the individuals tendered are believed by the Government to be investors in the fraud of which Wang is accused. It is unlikely that Wang would be concerned with forestalling loss of security by the very people she is alleged to have defrauded. Just as dubious is the proposition that individuals alleged to have been involved in the fraud (Cao and Han) would hold moral suasion and qualify as financially \"responsible\" persons.\n\nWang argues that each individual co-signer is not required to have both sufficient financial net worth and moral suasion, so long as the co-signers as a group collectively have both requirements. In other words, Wang posits, it would be sufficient if one or more co-signers had the requisite financial resources while one or more other co-signers had moral suasion. There appears to be some disagreement about whether each co-signer must be both of sufficient financial means and also have moral suasion or whether the requirement can be satisfied with a mix of suretors who do not each have both those attributes.13 *See Batista*, 163 F. Supp. at 226 (recognizing that \"[s]ome courts have required that each proposed suretor meet both financial and moral suasion requirements,\"\n\n<sup>13</sup> As support for the proposition that each surety must have both sufficient assets and moral suasion, the Government cites to *Baig*, 536 F. App'x at 93. In *Baig*, the Court affirmed detention where properties offered to secure bail were not owned by defendant's \"close family members,\" and others were located out of state. The Court followed that finding with a cite to *U.S. v. Martinez*, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir 1998) and described it as \"noting that sureties are assessed for 'their ability to exercise moral suasion' over the defendant, 'should he decide to flee.'\" The quoted language from *Martinez* is to a description of what the government did, not a statement of legal principle. *See Martinez*, 151 F.3d at 71 (\"The government then interviewed the sureties individually to assess their financial qualifications and their ability to exercise moral suasion over Martinez. . . . After interviewing each surety individually, the government found all five sureties qualified, and all five sureties signed the bond.\"). That said, *Baig* appears to implicitly endorse the importance of reviewing sureties for moral suasion.\n\nbut requiring only \"at least one\" of three cosigners who \"exerts moral suasion over the defendant\"). Regardless of the answer to that question, Wang has not tendered sufficient co-signers, even if all eight are considered together. That is because, as explained above, *none* are in a position, or have a relationship, likely to cause Wang any material reservation about forfeiting any funds or property pledged by the co-signer.14\n\nWang also contends that the putative co-signers do hold moral suasion over Wang because they support the anti-CCP cause to which she is devoted. But, again, that connection may demonstrate the proposed co-signers devotion to Wang; it does not suggest that Wang would have any serious reservation about causing them financial loss to purchase her freedom. As noted above, Wang is alleged to have defrauded these very individuals. They may be loyal to her, but the reverse is by no means apparent. As the Government aptly notes, the deep devotion shown by the prospective co-signers potentially makes them less responsible in that they would be more likely to help Wang to flee or go underground. *See Melville*, 309 F. Supp. at 827 (\"Certainly a source identified as a means to facilitate or one sympathetic to escape would be illegitimate – indeed, such sources would tend to assure against defendant's reappearance.\").\n\nFinally, Wang argues that detaining her under these circumstances – because she has no friends or family in the United States, and the Government will not accept alleged\n\n<sup>14</sup> The fact that none of Wang's tendered co-signers possess the requisite moral suasion distinguishes the instant case from the out-of-circuit case relied on by Wang. *See U.S. v. Hammond*, 204 F. Supp.2d 1157 (E.D. Wis. 2002) (stating that \"not everyone posting property or money needs to have strong personal ties to the defendant, so long as there are adequate assurances of financial responsibility on the part of those putting up money and moral suasion over the defendant by one or more of those individuals\"). Despite some similarities, *Hammond* also is materially distinguishable because, among other reasons, unlike Wang, the defendant there had \"strong family ties and few personal resources.\" *Id.* at 1166.\n\nvictims of the fraud charged as co-signers – would violate the Act's directive that the Court \"may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2). There is some appeal to that argument. Insisting on financially responsible persons to sign on to a bond for which there are no suitable candidates could be construed as a \"financial condition\" resulting in detention. Courts have addressed this issue, however, and concluded otherwise. *U.S. v. Penaranda*, No. 00-CR-1251, 2001 WL 125621, \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2001).\n\nAs explained in *Penaranda*, those courts that have considered the issue \"have concluded that in light of the statutory scheme of which § 3142(c) is part, as well as the legislative history of the Bail Reform Act, this provision cannot mean that a defendant without means to meet the financial conditions of his bail must therefore be released.\" *Id*. (citing as examples *U.S. v. Mantecon-Zayas*, 942 F.2d 548, 549-50 (1st Cir. 1991); *U.S. v. McConnell*, 842 F.2d 105, 108 (5th Cir. 1988); and *U.S. v. Gotay*, 609 F. Supp. 156, 157 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)); *see also U.S. v. Stanton*, 91-CR-889, 1992 WL 27130, \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (following *Gotay* and acknowledging it had been cited favorably in two circuits). Rather, \"where a defendant cannot meet the financial conditions of his bail, then the court should consider whether that particular financial condition is a necessary part of the bail conditions to provide reasonable assurance of the defendant's appearance, and set forth written findings of fact and legal conclusions regarding the issue.\" *Penaranda*, 2001 WL at \\*2 (citing *Mantecon-Zayas*, 949 F.2d at 550 and *McConnell*, 842 F.2d at 110).\n\nIn the context of the conditions agreed to by the parties and imposed by Judge Parker, the Court finds that co-signing of the bond by two financially responsible persons is a necessary component. After all, Judge Parker determined that the combined set of conditions was the \"least restrictive\" set of terms that would reasonably assure Wang's presence at future proceedings. This Court finds no reason to question that conclusion.\n\n#### **B. The Modified Conditions Proposed By Wang Are Not Sufficient**\n\nAs an alternative to the Court determining that the existing conditions of release have been met, Wang requests that the Court consider modifying the terms of release to remove the requirement for two financially responsible persons to co-sign the bond. In place of that condition, Wang has offered to augment the security pledged in support of the \\$5 million bond to include not only her \\$1 million apartment but also the approximate \\$400,000 held in one of her personal bank accounts, and the \\$138,000 found in her safe, with the remainder to be secured by properties offered from four of the proposed cosigners. But those terms suffer from the same flaw as set forth above. \\$3.5 million of the bond would be secured by the property of persons who hold no moral suasion over Wang. The additional security offered may put the Government in a better position of being able to recoup the totality of the bond in the event Wang were to abscond, but it does nothing to materially change the absence of any suretor who has sufficient moral suasion over Wang to incentivize her not to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds the modified terms proposed insufficient to replace the condition for two financially responsible persons, and, as explained next, that there are no conditions that can be set to reasonably assure Wang's presence at future proceedings.\n\n#### **C. Detention Is Warranted**\n\nThe Government initially agreed that conditions could be set to reasonably assure that Wang would not flee. In light of information learned since then, however, the Government asserts that there are no such conditions and that Wang should be detained. The Court agrees.\n\nAll the factors that pointed to risk of flight that existed before continue to exist. The\n\ncharges alleged are of fraud on a mass scale and for which Wang played a significant role, even if she did not mastermind it, as Kwok and Je are alleged to have done. The crimes charged do not give rise to a presumption that there are no suitable conditions for setting bail, but the potential sentence faced by Wang under the Sentencing Guidelines, as estimated by the Government, is between approximately 24 and 30 years – a lengthy sentence that could cause most anyone to consider alternative courses of action. According to the Government, the evidence of Wang's involvement in at least some aspects of the alleged criminal conduct is strong in that there are bank records, some with her signature, showing that she authorized various monetary transfers, including a single transfer of \\$100 million, and that she had reason to know the funds were being used for an improper purpose. Both the nature and circumstances of the charges and the weight of the evidence thus counsel against release.\n\nWang's history and characteristics overwhelmingly demonstrate a serious risk of flight. Wang has no family or friends in the U.S. She has no ties to the community. She denies being currently employed, and her previous employment was with the companies through which the alleged fraud operated. She lives alone. She is not a U.S. citizen. Although she has applied for asylum in the U.S. and has no incentive to return to China where she apparently is considered an enemy of the CCP, there presumably are other countries where she could seek haven. And if her asylum application is denied, she will no longer be legally present in the U.S. Wang has supporters across the globe, and if, like the proposed co-signers, they are so loyal as to risk being liable for millions of dollars without knowing her well, they could be a potential source of support and harbor for Wang if she were to flee. One of Wang's alleged co-conspirators – Je – remains at large and could be of aid to Wang.\n\nThere also are strong indicia that Wang has considerable financial means at her disposal given the myriad accounts over which she has authority and her having kept on hand \\$138,000 in cash. Wang also initially offered only her apartment as security, not her personal bank accounts holding between them approximately \\$900,000. To be sure, Wang's access to known funds have been substantially reduced inasmuch as Wang has since pledged the \\$138,000 and one of her personal bank accounts as security and is amenable to Pretrial Services approval for any withdrawals. The Court has no reasonable assurance, however, that there are not other substantial funds to which Wang has access, particularly, as explained further below, Wang denied having any cash in her apartment.\n\nOn the other hand, Wang has no prior criminal record and no prior history of failure to appear, although the former explains the latter thus diminishing its significance. Wang reports no history of drug or alcohol abuse and no physical or mental health issues. Such factors \"augur in favor of setting bail.\" *U.S. v. Hollender*, 162 F. Supp.2d 261, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). But those few factors pale in comparison to the many weighty factors demonstrating a serious risk of flight.\n\nFinally, although there is no indication that Wang poses a physical danger to any person or community if released, she potentially could harm people if she were to reengage in fraudulent activity. *See U.S. v. Gulkarov*, No. 22-CR-20, 2022 WL 205252, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2022) (considering the risk of economic harm to the community); *U.S. v. Madoff*, 586 F. Supp.2d 240, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (same).\n\nInformation learned since Wang's initial bail hearing only heightens the Court's concern. First, the fact that Wang has not been able to identify financially responsible persons with moral suasion is itself a substantial change in circumstances since conditions were set by Judge Parker. Indeed, Judge Parker \"assume[d]\" Wang would be able to\n\nmeet the conditions set by the court. (March 15 Tr. at 24.) That assumption, however, has not been borne out.\n\nSecond, Wang has not been forthcoming in fully disclosing her assets. Documentation seized from Wang's residence, including as recently as November 2021, indicates that Wang was allocated and listed as a distributee of Himalayan Coin cryptocurrency redemption rights worth millions of dollars.<sup>15</sup> (Dkt. 42 at 2 and Exs. A, B.) At the April 4 hearing Wang's counsel asserted that Wang had no recollection of those cryptocurrency interests. As the Court noted at the time, however, it would be odd for someone not to at least be cognizant of the status of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency interests allotted to them. The Court recognizes that the documentation submitted is not proof that Wang actually received or currently owns any cryptocurrency. But the documentation certainly gives the Court concern that there may be unaccounted-for assets to which Wang could have access, notwithstanding limitations on Wang's current ability to effectuate as yet unexercised redemption rights.<sup>16</sup> (Dkt. 44 at 4.)\n\n<sup>15</sup> Himalayan Coin (\"HCN\"), and its \"stable coin\" counterpart, the Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\"), are digital currencies affiliated with the Himalaya Exchange, which the Government alleges was founded by Je and promoted by Kwok and used by them as one of the vehicles through which the fraudulent scheme operated. (*See* Dkt. 42 at 2; SS Indictment ¶¶ 12, 17.) The Government alleges that HCN and HDO are not actual cryptocurrencies but rather merely \"credits\" for redemption. (SS Indictment ¶ 22.)\n\n<sup>16</sup> According to defense counsel, \"as the government is undoubtedly well aware, the Himalayan Exchange has notified its customers that it is unable to redeem HDO for [US dollars] except in \\$5,000.00 increments and only once a month.\" (Dkt. 44 at 4 and Ex. A.) Also of note, the Government has already seized hundreds of millions of dollars of Himalaya Exchange's cash reserves. (SS Indictment ¶ 25(c).) The Indictment also implicitly recognizes current limitations on the Defendants' ability to monetize currently unredeemed HCN rights. (*See* SS Indictment ¶ 24(a) (alleging that Je \"attempted\" to effectuate a redemption of approximately \\$46 million of his own HCN rights but not alleging that he succeeded in doing so).)\n\nPutting aside what Wang did or did not recall about the cryptocurrency rights apparently allocated to her, she did not disclose to Pretrial Services the \\$138,000 cash that was seized from her residence. As set forth by the Government, the following exchange took place \"in sum and substance\" between the Pretrial Services Officer and Wang when she was interviewed on March 15, 2023, the day of her arrest:\n\n- Q: At the time of your arrest, or within your residence, or on your person, did you have any cash to your name?\n- A: No.\n- --- Q: Are there any business accounts under your name or that you oversee, or any additional cash anywhere else? A: No.\n\n(Dkt. 42 at 5.) As the \\$138,000 found in her residence demonstrates, Wang answered the questions about her assets untruthfully. That much of that cash may, as defense counsel urged, be money held to be given as gifts is beside the point.\n\nDefense counsel disputes that the exchange recounted took place and contends that Pretrial Services merely asked Wang what cash she had \"on her\" at the time of the arrest. (Dkt. 44 at 7.) Defense counsel further notes that there was no recording of the interview, and that the questioning took place through a Mandarin interpreter. True. But it makes no sense that Pretrial Services, in seeking to learn what assets Wang has, would have asked only about cash \"on her,\" or that Wang, in answering such questions, would have believed the question to be so limited. Defense counsel counters that it would make no sense for Wang to lie about cash held in her apartment, given that she knew that there were agents searching there. (*Id*. at 8.) To the contrary, Wang may well have thought the agents would not be permitted or able to access her safe.17\n\n<sup>17</sup> The Government points to additional documentation found in Wang's apartment allegedly\n\nAs indicia that Wang does not pose a risk of flight, her attorney proffered that Wang knew she was being investigated as much as a year ago yet did not flee. He also noted that when Wang was considering going abroad – to the United Kingdom and the British Virgin Islands purportedly for business purposes – she applied to the immigration authorities for \"parole\" from the requirement that asylum applicants not leave the country. Far from surreptitiously traveling, Wang notified government authorities of her plans.\n\nThe Court agrees that staying put while known to be under investigation can be indicative of someone who is not likely to flee (although merely being under investigation and actually being charged are quite different). Here, however, Wang applied to leave the country and not stay put. Her being transparent with the immigration authorities allowed her to preserve her asylum application rights, which, in the event that she was not ultimately indicted, she would likely want to pursue. But that provides no comfort that Wang actually\n\ndemonstrating her dissembling and access to assets. The Court does not find that conclusion persuasive with respect to the additional documents. Two of those documents relate to an application for a bank account in the name of a British Virgin Islands company owned by Wang and for which she is designated the beneficial owner. (Dkt. 42, Exs. C, D.) The Government has not proffered anything indicating that the account actually was approved and opened. Other documents reflect transactions and balances for six bank accounts held in the name of various Kwok-related companies, including ones that Wang \"effectively controls, as the 99.9999% shareholder.\" (Dkt. 42 at 3 and Ex. E.) On April 14, 2023, however, the Government advised the Court that three accounts for which Wang \"appeared to be the controlling manager\" were \"in fact closed.\" (Dkt. 43.) Another document shows that as recently as March 2023 Wang signed off on payroll expenses for various Kwok-controlled entities. (Dkt. 42, Ex. F.) The Government contends that the document shows that Wang was employed at the time of her arrest despite denying being employed to Pretrial Services. The Government implicitly concludes that by signing off on payroll expenses for others, Wang necessarily did so in an employed capacity. That is not an unreasonable inference. Defense counsel has asserted that Wang was merely a \"volunteer\" and \"authorized representative\" at the time. That seems a bit dubious given Wang's central role in the fraudulent scheme's financial transactions and her having no other source of employment. And, as the Government notes, Wang has a motive not to admit employment with Kwok-related companies given the charges against her. Nonetheless, the Court does not conclude that Wang necessarily lied when she denied being employed at the time of her arrest.\n\nplanned to return. If charged while abroad, Wang would have had no motivation to return and every incentive to remain abroad. Indeed, as the Government asserts, Wang's statement of intended travel abroad shows that \"she is willing to travel internationally, which undermines the defense's general claim that international travel would be unthinkable because of the defendant's concerns regarding the Chinese Communist Party.\" (Dkt. 42 at 4.)\n\nIn short, the Government has shown that Wang actually poses a serious risk of flight and had the incentive and access to means to flee. Conditions of home detention and electronic monitoring often can be enough, when combined with a secured bond signed by financially responsible persons and other standard pretrial release conditions. The Government previously agreed that such conditions were sufficient for Wang's release. Since then, however, circumstances have changed. Despite Judge Parker's expectation that Wang would be able to find qualified co-signers, Wang has not been able to do so, instead tendering persons with no relationship to her and alleged to be either victims of or participants in the fraudulent scheme alleged. Moreover, Wang has not been fully forthcoming about her assets. The Court cannot have any confidence that Wang will abide by the terms of release or that she would not remove her electronic monitoring equipment.\n\nFor all of the above reasons, the Court finds that the Government has met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance at future proceedings.\n\n#### **Conclusion**\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Wang has not satisfied the conditions of pre-trial release previously imposed; that information learned since Wang's initial bail determination constitutes changed circumstances; and that there are no\n\nconditions that can be reasonably assure Wang's attendance at future proceedings, and that Wang should be, and hereby is ordered, detained.\n\n**SO ORDERED:**\n\n[Signature]\\n***\\_****\\_*\n\nROBERT W. LEHRBURGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\nDated: April 21, 2023 New York, New York","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n-诉-\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“YVETTE”，\n\n被告。\n\n4/21/2023\n\nS1 23 Cr. 118-3 (AT)\n判决与裁定\n\n本案系因被告 Yanping \"Yvette\" Wang（王雁平）（“被告”或“Wang”）提出动议，请求法院作出命令，认定其已遵守此前为获得审前释放而设定的条件，或作为备选方案，修改该等条件。对此，政府方提出异议，要求继续羁押 Wang，理由是她未能遵守释放条件，就其拥有或控制的资产作虚假陈述，且存在严重的潜逃风险。基于下述理由，本法院认定 Wang 存在严重的潜逃风险，没有任何条件能合理确保其出席本案未来的诉讼程序，Wang 应予继续羁押。\n\n背景\n\nA. 指控与 Wang 的共谋人\n\n2023年3月10日，一份封存的起诉状签发，指控 Wang 犯有：(1) 共谋实施电汇欺诈和证券欺诈；(2) 电汇欺诈；(3) 证券欺诈；以及 (4) 非法金钱交易（即《起诉状》）。(Dkt. 1。) 简而言之，Wang 被指控在由共谋人 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）和 William Je（余建明）牵头、旨在欺诈数千名投资者的计划中发挥了关键作用。1（详见《起诉状》；23-CR-118-1\n\n1 Kwok 和 Je 均有其他化名；为简便起见，本法院使用\n\nDkt. 19（替代起诉书）。）具体而言，《起诉状》指控 Wang 参与向不特定对象发售未注册的私募证券，并随后挪用及转账该等资金，其中包括向一家高风险对冲基金转账 100,000,000 美元，该笔资金最终用于使 Wang 的一名共谋人（即 Kwok）的直系亲属受益。（《起诉状》第 9.a 段。）更普遍而言，政府方主张，Wang 负责管理 Kwok 所控制并用于运作该欺诈计划的众多实体（包括空壳公司）的日常运营。（见《起诉状》第 10.e 段。）在该职务中，Wang 有权访问并有权签署据称用于获取和洗钱数亿美元欺诈所得的银行账户。（见《起诉状》第 11-13 段。）政府方估计，如果罪名成立，依据适用的《量刑指南》，Wang 将面临 292 至 365 个月的监禁。(Dkt. 10 第 2 页。2) Wang 于 2023年3月15日根据逮捕令被捕。在被捕之前，Wang 已知晓政府正在对她进行调查，但并未潜逃。(3月15日庭审记录第 17 页。3)\n\n2023年3月15日，一份针对 Kwok 和 Je 的独立起诉书解封（即《起诉书》）。(23-CR-118-1 Dkt. 2。) 该《起诉书》指控 Kwok 和 Je 欺诈受害者超过 10 亿美元，使 Kwok 和 Je 从指控的欺诈行为中获取巨额利润，并利用投资者资金购买个人奢侈品和服务，例如价值 2,650 万美元的豪宅和价值 3,700 万美元的游艇。（《起诉书》第 1、4 段。）一份\n\n各自最常用的名字。Kwok 和 Je 在针对 Wong 的起诉状中被匿名列为共谋人。\n\n2 Dkt. 10 系政府方于 2023年3月29日提交的反对本动议的信函。\n\n3 “3月15日庭审记录”指在治安法官 Katharine H. Parker 面前进行的初次过堂程序记录。Wang 知晓自己正在接受调查是辩护律师的陈述；政府方对此陈述未提出异议。\n\n替代起诉书于 2023年3月29日签发，将 Wang 追加为被告（即《替代起诉书》）。(23-CR-118-1 Dkt. 19。) Kwok 已被指控并被逮捕，目前处于羁押状态。(23-CR-118-1 Dkt. 51) Je 被指控为该欺诈计划的“财务设计师和核心洗钱者”（《起诉书》第 7 段），目前在逃，居住在英国，且政府方认为其目前藏匿于阿拉伯联合酋长国。(Dkt. 10 第 2 页。) Kwok 以及进而其共谋人，被认为在美国乃至全球拥有众多狂热追随者。（见《替代起诉书》第 2、6 段。）\n\nB. Wang 的个人特征与履历\n\nWang 为中国公民。她于 2017 年从中国移居海外，并提交了针对 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，简称“CCP”）的政治庇护申请。Wang 视自己为反 CCP 的革命者。Wang 的家人仍在中国，其十岁的儿子也与父亲一同居住在中国。然而，自移居海外以来，Wang 从未返回中国，且鉴于她预期回国后将被逮捕、羁押并可能被处决，她有理由不返回中国。Wang 在美国没有家人，也无法指出任何朋友。她的全部精力都放在参与 Kwok 及其企业以及所谓反 CCP 事业上。（见3月22日庭审记录第 7-8 页。4）\n\nC. Wang 的已知金融资产\n\nWang 独自居住在一处共有公寓内，该房产系她以略高于一百万美元的价格全款购入，无任何抵押贷款。（见3月15日庭审记录第 18 页。）她披露了两个个人银行账户，一个存有约 400,000 美元，另一个存有约 500,000 美元。（见 Dkt. 9 第 5 页。）在搜查其住所时，FBI（美国联邦调查局）发现了一个保险箱。除其他物品外，\n\n4 “3月22日庭审记录”指 2023年3月22日在治安法官 Netburn 面前进行的诉讼程序记录。\n\n该保险箱内装有一个手提包，里面有 138,000 美元现金，以及相对少量的英镑、港币和人民币现金。(Dkt. 10 第 2 页。)\n\nD. 搜查 Wang 住所期间发现的其他物品\n\nWang 的保险箱内还包括 Wang 和 Kwok 来自中国以及 Vanuatu（瓦努阿图，南太平洋的一个岛国）的过期护照。在 Wang 住所的其他地方，FBI 查获了约 12 部手机、两台电脑和超过 25 个 USB 闪存盘。部分手机放在显眼处，部分则放在包里。政府方主张，在被告床垫之间发现了一部手机，并在 Wang 衣柜隔板上的毛衣之间发现了一台笔记本电脑。(Dkt. 10 第 2-3 页。) 从 Wang 公寓扣押的物品清单标明了每件物品被扣押的房间和大致位置。清单条目中没有任何一项提及在床垫之间发现手机，但有一项记录显示在“床上”发现了一台 iPad。不过，确实有一项记录显示在“衣服之间”发现了一台笔记本电脑。5 (4月4日庭审记录证物 1 第 55 项和第 65 项。6)\n\nE. 第一次保释听证会\n\nWang 于 2023年3月15日在法官 Katharine H. Parker 面前初次过堂，当时政府方与 Wang 就保释方案的条款达成了协议，但有两项条款除外。具体而言，商定的条款包括：(1) 一份 5,000,000 美元的个人保释保证金，由政府方批准的两名具有财务责任能力的人士共同签署；(2) 以价值 1,000,000 美元的不动产和/或现金作为保释金的担保；(3) GPS\n\n5 2023年4月17日，政府方提交了一封信函，说明已再次询问相关 FBI 特工，该特工表示不记得在 Wang 的床垫下发现任何手机或文件，但确实记得在衣柜的毛衣之间发现了笔记本电脑。(Dkt. 47。)\n\n6 “4月4日庭审记录”指本法院于 2023年4月4日进行的诉讼程序记录。\n\n位置监控；7 (4) 出行限制在纽约南区和东区；(5) 上交所有旅行证件且不得提出新的申请；(6) 披露 Wang 占有、保管或控制的任何资产，包括任何联名账户或商业账户，以及任何现金、加密货币或数字资产；(7) 未经 Pretrial Services（审前服务处）批准，Wang 不得开立任何新的银行账户或信用额度；(8) 在无律师在场的情况下，Wang 不得接触 Kwok、Je 或任何指控的受害者或证人；以及 (9) 审前服务处建议的任何其他条件。(3月15日庭审记录第 7-8 页。)\n\n存在争议的两项条款是政府方的要求：(1) Wang 须接受居家监禁；以及 (2) 在释放 Wang 之前必须满足所有条件。（同上，第 8 页。）政府方提出这些条款的理由是 Wang 存在潜逃且不出席未来诉讼程序的风险；政府方并未主张 Wang 对社区构成危险。\n\n在听取辩论后，Parker 法官核准了所有商定的条件，以及政府方提出的 Wang 须接受居家监禁和在释放 Wang 前必须满足所有条件的要求。8（同上，第 22-23 页。）Parker 法官认定，所设定的条款“是我认为为确保” Wang 回庭应诉及社区安全所“必需的限制性最小的措施”。（同上，第 22 页。）在庭审接近尾声时，\n\n7 政府方将两项争议条款之一描述为 Wang 是否应接受由 GPS 监控强化的居家监禁。然而，Wang 同意接受 GPS 监控；唯一有争议的方面是她是否还须接受居家监禁。（对比 3月15日庭审记录第 8 页与同记录第 16-17 页（法院：“所以你不反对佩戴脚踝监控环，你反对的是居家监禁？”辩护律师：“是的。”））。\n\n8 政府方的请求和法院的裁定均符合审前服务处的建议，该建议包含（除其他条件外）羁押 Wang 直至满足所有条件。\n\nParker 法官评论道：“Wang 女士，我认为你最终能够满足这些条件”，并随后就 Wang 违反释放条件的后果发出了警告。（同上，第 24-25 页。）\n\nF. 政府方拒绝 Wang 提出的共同签署人及保证人\n\nWang 目前继续处于羁押状态。这是因为政府方未批准 Wang 提出的任何作为共同签署 5,000,000 美元保证金的具有财务责任能力的人士。\n\n自 Parker 法官主持保释程序以来，Wang 已经确定了八名愿意签署保证金的人士，并在其中四起情况中提供房产作为进一步担保。从政府方的角度来看，Wang 确定的每一个人选均不合格，原因有三：(1) 其财务状况不足；(2) 他们与 Wang 没有任何关系，因此对她没有道德说服力；以及 (3) 根据政府方的说法，他们要么是指控欺诈行为的明显受害者，要么参与了该欺诈计划。9（详见 Dkt. 10 第 6-10 页。）\n\nG. 本动议\n\nWang 主张政府方拒绝其提供的所有共同签署人是武断专横的。因此，Wang 提起动议，请求法院作出命令，认定 Wang 已满足释放条件，或者作为备选方案，修改释放条件。\n\n9 据称是指控计划受害者的拟定保证人为 Yongbing Zhang（“Zhang”）、Yue Zhou（“Zhou”）、Chris Canada（“Canada”）、Ping Liu（“Liu”）、Yan \"Michelle\" Lou（“Lou”）和 Qiang \"Frank\" Feng（“Feng”）。据称参与该欺诈计划的拟定共同签署人为 Chunguang \"Hank\" Han（“Han”）和 Defeng \"Wayne\" Cao（“Cao”）。Han 和 Cao 是 Wang 最初提议的两名具有财务责任能力的人士。Wang 还指定了 Mei Guo（郭美）——据称是 Wang 最好的朋友，也是 Kwok 的成年女儿——作为可以在保证金上签字并对 Wang 行使道德说服力的人。然而，根据政府方的说法，Guo 是被指控的共谋人，并收受了数百万美元的欺诈所得。(Dkt. 10 第 6-10 页。)\n\n取消了由两名具备经济责任能力的人提供担保的要求，但增加了来自Wang（王）的额外财产保障。具体而言，王提出不仅以其公寓住所，还以其400,000美元的银行账户以及从其住所扣押的138,000美元来为保释金提供担保。此外，王提议，未经审前服务处（Pretrial Services）批准，她不得从其存有500,000美元的另一银行账户中提取任何资金。王并未提议将该500,000美元的账户作为担保，因为她打算将这些资金用于个人开支及其辩护律师费。\n\n本法院于2023年3月31日首次就王的动议举行了听证会。10然而，当时政府提出了据其称足以对王实施羁押的新信息。11根据政府的说法，王未充分披露其资产；未充分披露其控制的公司实体和账户；并且不实陈述其在被捕时\n\n10 王最初于2023年3月22日向Honorable Sarah Netburn（萨拉·内特本法官阁下）提出申请，内特本法官是当周的值班治安法官（Magistrate Judge）。内特本法官认定该动议为时尚早，尚需提交补充信息。因此，她将听证会排定在随后一周举行，届时由我值班。政府将向内特本法官提出的申请定性为对Parker（帕克）法官裁决的重新审议动议。（Dkt. 10 第18页。）本法院不予认同。王申请作出一项裁定，以确认其释放条件已得到满足，若未满足，则变更保释条款。基于类似理由，本法院不认同政府将向我提出的申请定性为第二次重新审议动议（Dkt. 10 第1页）；在我面前举行的听证会，只是若非因过早提出本应在内特本法官面前举行的听证会。无论如何，政府的主张忽视了《法案》关于法院「可随时修改［释放］裁定以施加额外或不同的释放条件」的规定。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3)。\n\n11 在首次将新信息提请法院注意的往来信函中，政府对于应当采取何种恰当措施似乎犹豫不决。政府在信函开头主张额外信息「可以成为施加更严格保释条件的合理依据」，而在信函结尾则主张王「在审判前应予羁押」。（对比 Dkt. 22 第1页 与 同上 第2页。）然而，在2023年4月4日的听证会及后续信函中，政府均坚持主张应对王予以羁押。\n\n并未受雇。具体而言，政府坚称，近期才经审阅的文件显示：(1) 截至2021年11月1日，王已获分配价值约6,999,800美元的Himalaya Coin（喜币，简称「HCN」），按当前美元价值计算超过13,000,000美元；(2) 王个人拥有一家在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册的公司，并已为该公司在位于St. Lucia（圣卢西亚）的一家银行申请了账户；(3) 截至2023年3月13日（即王被捕前两天），据称由王管理和控制的各家公司的银行账户余额总计达数千万美元；以及 (4) 王近期刚签署并注明日期了一份文件，该文件反映了由王管理的各Kwok（郭）控制实体旗下员工2023年2月的工资册。（Dkt. 22 第2页。）政府还指出，在接受审前服务处初步面谈时，王并未披露存放在其保险箱内的138,000美元现金。（同上。）\n\n政府主张，王未能披露有关其资产和就业的重要信息，表明无法信任其会遵守释放条件，且这些信息本身进一步证明其具备潜逃的经济能力。此外，政府指出日期为2023年1月的文件证明了王意图前往United Kingdom（英国）和英属维尔京群岛。（Dkt. 42，证物 G。）\n\n面对政府所依据的新信息，王请求休会并将听证会延期至下周，法院准许了该请求。听证会于2023年4月4日继续进行。双方进行了充分辩论，各自出示了与上述陈述一致的事实证据。数名人员（显然是王此前已确认为拟定共同签署人的人士）出席了听证会以支持王，并表示愿意签署保释保证书。其中三人准备提供他们自己的不动产为保释金作担保，其数额合计\n\n与王提交的资产相加，达到了5,000,000美元的保释金全额。（4月4日庭审记录第35-37页。）\n\n然而，当时辩护律师手中并无关于这些房产的重要信息，包括其实际所有人是谁以及其抵押负担程度如何。因此，法院宣布休会，并要求辩护律师向法院和政府提供该信息以供审阅。2023年4月6日，辩护律师提供了该信息。（Dkt. 37。）所提交的材料显示，作为担保提供的房产共有四处，每处房产均为四名不同个人拥有的住宅。（同上，证物 E。）政府已对其中每名个人进行了面谈，并认定他们不合格，至少因为他们对王不具备道德劝导力，且据称他们是涉案欺诈计划的受害者。根据互联网房地产估值，他们的房产价值合计超过八百万美元。均无抵押负担。\n\n2023年4月10日，法院发布命令，要求政府提供更多信息，包括政府所引用的证明王未充分披露资产及其他事项的文件。（Dkt. 39。）2023年4月12日，政府提交了该信息，以及对王2023年4月7日提交文件的回应。（Dkt. 42。）政府随后于2023年4月14日提交了一份澄清信。（Dkt. 43。）同日，王就政府最新提交的材料提交了回应。（Dkt. 44。）\n\n法院现必须确定王获释的条件是否已得到满足、是否应修改这些条件，或者如政府所主张的，鉴于情况发生变化，是否已不再存在任何能够合理保证王在今后诉讼程序中出庭的条件。\n\n法律标准\n\n1984年《Bail Reform Act》（《保释改革法》），18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq（下称「《法案》」），规定了判定刑事被告人在审判前应予羁押还是释放的法定标准。依据《法案》，法院「应当命令在被告人签署个人保结后，或在签署由法院指定金额的无担保出庭保证书后，对［被告人］实施审前释放……除非司法官员判定该等释放将无法合理保证该人按要求出庭，或将危及任何其他人或社区的安全。」18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)。只有在听证会后，「司法官员认定没有任何条件或条件组合能够合理保证该人按要求出庭以及任何其他人及社区的安全」时，方可拒绝释放。18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)；参见 U.S. v. Baig, 536 F. App'x 91, 92 (2d Cir. 2013)（援引《法案》）。关于潜逃风险，「政府必须以优势证据证明，被告人一旦获释将构成实际的潜逃风险，并且无法对被告人施加任何能够合理保证其出庭的条件或条件组合。」12 Baig, 536 F. App'x at 92（援引 U.S. v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)）（去除内部引号）。\n\n《法案》明确了法院在「确定是否存在能够合理保证该人按要求出庭以及任何其他人及社区安全的释放条件」时应考量的四项因素：(1) 被控罪名的性质和情节，(2) 针对被告人的证据分量，(3) 被告人的历史和特征，以及 (4) 被告人获释对任何其他人或\n\n12 尽管与本案无关，但对危险性的认定必须有清楚且具说服力的证据支持。United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995)。\n\n社区造成的危险性质和严重程度。18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)；Baig, 536 F. App'x at 92（援引该四项因素）。\n\n若法院认定无需羁押，则必须设定「限制最少」的条件，以合理保证被告人按要求出庭及社区安全。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)；亦见 U.S. Const. amend. VIII.（「不得要求过多的保释金」）。法院「不得施加导致对该人实施审前羁押的财产条件。」18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2)。然而，在考虑施加何种条件时，法院可以「对指定用于潜在没收或作为保证书抵押品提供的财产来源进行调查，并应拒绝接受由于其来源而无法合理保证该人按要求出庭的财产指定或用作抵押品。」18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4)。\n\n保释条件并非一成不变。因此，法院「可随时修改裁定以施加额外或不同的释放条件。」18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3)。在审理变更被告人保释条件的申请时，法院会考量「适用于设定保释的法定标准。」United States v. Zuccaro, 645 F.2d 104, 106 (2d Cir. 1981)。「法院认定，第3142(c)条中修改释放裁定的授权是基于以下可能性，即情况变化或新信息可能使得变更释放条件成为必要。」United States v. Dzhamgarova, No. 21-CR-58, 2021 WL 3113036, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2021)（去除内部引号和引文）；一致意见见 United States v. Bankman Fried, No. 22-CR-673, 2023 WL 1490417, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2023)。「因此，『如果清楚表明确定保释时存在的情况发生了实质性变化，则应适当修改保释条件。』」同上（援引 United States v. Falcetti, No. 02 CR 140, 2002 WL 31921179, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2002)）。\n\n讨论\n\n法院首先处理此前对王施加的释放条件是否已得到满足的问题，并认定尚未满足。法院亦认定，王提议的修改后条件无法合理保证王在今后的诉讼程序中出庭。随后，法院评估在所有情况下（包括自王首次保释听证会以来获知的信息），是否存在可以对王予以释放并能合理保证其在今后诉讼程序中出庭的条件。因该问题的答案为否定，法院裁定对王继续予以羁押。\n\nA. 王的释放条件尚未得到满足\n\nParker（帕克）法官最初设定的Wang（王）的释放条件尚未得到满足，因为王未能提供两名获政府认可的具有财务责任能力的人共同签署保释保证书。如上所述，政府拒绝了王提出的全部八名人员，因为他们中没有人与王存在能够提供必要道德约束力（moral suasion）的关系；他们没有足够的净资产来承担财务责任；并且他们每个人要么是指控欺诈案的受害者，要么是其中的参与者。政府拒绝拟议的共同签署人并非出于专断。\n\n主要的争议点在于道德约束力。《法案》要求共同签署人必须具有“清偿能力”，并且“拥有具有足够无负担价值以支付保释金金额的净资产”。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(xii)。然而，“除了财务责任的要求之外”，“被告必须证明拟议的担保人具有道德约束力，以确保被告按时出庭审判。”U.S. v. Batista, 163 F. Supp.2d 222, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)（纽约南区联邦地区法院2001年）。道德约束力的法理依据及其含义已阐述如下：\n\n法院有权在被告按要求出庭方面获得道德和财务上的双重保证……保释的功能不是为被告购买自由，而是为保证其在保释获释后重新出庭提供保障……保释的目的不是在被告潜入地下或潜逃出司法管辖区时为政府提供追捕被告的资金。保释旨在作为促使被告在被传唤时出庭的催化剂。\n\nU.S. v. Melville, 309 F. Supp. 824, 826-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)（纽约南区联邦地区法院1970年）；亦见 Batista, 163 F. Supp. at 224（赞同性引用 Melville 案）。与考虑拟议共同签署人是否具有道德约束力相关的因素“因案而异，但可能包括担保人与被告之间纽带的紧密程度（即亲属或密友、亲密或疏远）、被告在社区的根基，以及担保人与被告之间联系的经常性。”Batista, 163 F. Supp. at 224（引用 U.S. v. Julio Rodriguez, No. 84-CR-841, 1984 WL 1380, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 1984)；Melville, 309 F. Supp. at 828；以及 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)）。\n\n政府的看法是正确的，即王提出的作为共同签署人的任何个人均与王没有任何有实质意义的关系能够促使王不逃跑。相反，他们各自陈述称，他们甚至不认识王（Liu/刘），不知道她在哪里工作或居住（Cao/曹、Lou/楼、Feng/冯），仅在某些未明确的活动中见过王寥寥数次或更少（Cao、Feng、Lou、Zhang/张、Zhou/周），或者仅仅在社交媒体上关注王（Feng）。有些人和她见过面或交谈过几次但并不频繁（Canada/加拿大、Lou、Zhang）。有一人声称在王就一家公司的工作对其进行面试时与王交谈过几次，而据政府称，王在该公司并未担任任何正式职务（Canada）。（Dkt. 10 at 6-14。）\n\n虽然这些人中的每一位都可能全心全意支持王，但他们中没有一个人与王存在\n\n任何可以在未来提供促使王出庭之“催化剂”的关系。Melville, 309 F. Supp. at 827。此外，政府认为提供的八名个人中有六名是王被指控的欺诈案中的投资者。王不太可能会去顾虑避免让那些据指控被她欺诈的人遭受担保物损失。同样令人怀疑的是，被指控参与该欺诈案的个人（Cao和Han/韩）会具有道德约束力并符合财务上有“责任能力”的人的资格。\n\n王辩称，并不要求每个单独的共同签署人同时具备足够的财务净资产和道德约束力，只要共同签署人作为一个整体共同满足这两项要求即可。换言之，王主张，如果有一名或多名共同签署人具备必要的财务资源，同时另一名或多名其他共同签署人具有道德约束力，这就足够了。关于每个共同签署人是否必须既具备足够的财务手段又具有道德约束力，还是可以通过一组各自并不完全具备这两项属性的担保人来满足该要求，似乎存在一些分歧。13 参见 Batista, 163 F. Supp. at 226（承认“一些法院要求每个拟议的担保人都必须同时满足财务和道德约束力的要求”，\n\n13 为支持每个担保人必须同时具备足够资产和道德约束力的主张，政府引用了 Baig, 536 F. App'x at 93。在 Baig 案中，法院确认了羁押裁定，因为提供用于担保保释的财产并非由被告的“近亲属”所有，且其他财产位于州外。法院在该认定之后引用了 U.S. v. Martinez, 151 F.3d 68, 71 (2d Cir 1998)（联邦第二巡回上诉法院1998年），并将其描述为“指出对担保人的评估是针对‘在被告决定逃跑时对其施加道德约束力的能力’”。Martinez 案中被引用的文字是对政府所做行为的描述，而非法律原则的陈述。参见 Martinez, 151 F.3d at 71（“随后，政府对担保人进行了单独面谈，以评估他们的财务资格以及他们对马丁内斯施加道德约束力的能力……在对每位担保人单独面谈后，政府认定所有五位担保人均符合资格，且所有五位担保人都签署了保证书。”）。尽管如此，Baig 案似乎默示认可了审查担保人道德约束力的重要性。\n\n但只要求三名共同签署人中“至少有一人”“对被告施加道德约束力”）。无论该问题的答案如何，即便将全部八人合在一起考虑，王也未提供足够的共同签署人。这是因为，如上所述，没有任何人所处的地位或与王具有的关系，有可能使王在共同签署人质押的任何资金或财产被没收时产生任何实质性的顾虑。14\n\n王还主张，假定的共同签署人确实对王具有道德约束力，因为他们支持她所致力于的反中共（anti-CCP）事业。但是，再次强调，这种关联可能表明拟议的共同签署人对王的忠诚；但这并不表明王会为了购买自己的自由而对造成他们经济损失有任何严重的顾虑。如上所述，据指控王欺诈了正是这批人。他们可能对她忠诚，但反过来却绝非显而易见。正如政府恰当指出的那样，潜在的共同签署人所表现出的极度忠诚可能会使他们更缺乏责任能力，因为他们更有可能帮助王逃跑或潜入地下。参见 Melville, 309 F. Supp. at 827（“当然，被确定为协助逃跑手段或同情逃跑的来源将是不合法的——实际上，此类来源往往会成为反对被告重新出庭的保证。”）。\n\n最后，王辩称，在这些情况下羁押她——因为她在美国没有亲友，且政府不接受指控\n\n14 王提供的共同签署人均不具备必要的道德约束力这一事实，将本案与王所依赖的巡回区外先例区别开来。参见 U.S. v. Hammond, 204 F. Supp.2d 1157 (E.D. Wis. 2002)（威斯康星东区联邦地区法院2002年）（指出“提供财产或金钱的人并非每个人都需要与被告有密切的人际关系，只要出资人有充分的财务责任保证，并且这些人中的一个或多个人对被告具有道德约束力即可”）。尽管存在某些相似之处，Hammond 案在实质上亦有区别，除其他原因外，因为与王不同，该案中的被告具有“牢固的家庭关系且个人资源匮乏”。同上，第 1166 页。\n\n欺诈案的涉案受害者作为共同签署人——将违反《法案》关于法院“不得施加导致该人受到审前羁押的财务条件”的指令。18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2)。这种论点具有一定的吸引力。坚持要求由具有财务责任能力的人签署保证书，而在没有合适人选的情况下，可能被解释为导致羁押的“财务条件”。然而，法院已经审理了这一问题并得出了相反的结论。U.S. v. Penaranda, No. 00-CR-1251, 2001 WL 125621, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2001)。\n\n正如 Penaranda 案中所阐释的，审理过该问题的各法院“已经得出结论，鉴于 § 3142(c) 所属的法定体系以及《保释改革法》（Bail Reform Act）的立法历史，该条款不能意味着没有能力满足其保释财务条件的被告必须因此予以释放。”同上。（引用的先例包括 U.S. v. Mantecon-Zayas, 942 F.2d 548, 549-50 (1st Cir. 1991)（联邦第一巡回上诉法院1991年）；U.S. v. McConnell, 842 F.2d 105, 108 (5th Cir. 1988)（联邦第五巡回上诉法院1988年）；以及 U.S. v. Gotay, 609 F. Supp. 156, 157 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)）；亦见 U.S. v. Stanton, 91-CR-889, 1992 WL 27130, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992)（遵循 Gotay 案并确认其已在两个巡回区被赞同性引用）。相反，“当被告无法满足其保释的财务条件时，法院应考虑该特定财务条件是否为提供合理保证被告出庭所必需的保释条件组成部分，并就该问题作出书面的事实认定和法律结论。”Penaranda, 2001 WL at *2（引用 Mantecon-Zayas, 949 F.2d at 550 及 McConnell, 842 F.2d at 110）。\n\n在双方同意并由帕克法官施加的各项条件的背景下，本院认定由两名具有财务责任能力的人共同签署保证书是一个必要的组成部分。毕竟，帕克法官判定该组综合条件是能够合理保证王在未来诉讼程序中出庭的“限制性最小”的一套条款。本院认为没有理由质疑该结论。\n\nB. 王提议的修改后条件不充分\n\n作为请求法院认定现有释放条件已得到满足的替代方案，王请求法院考虑修改释放条款，以取消对两名具有财务责任能力的人共同签署保证书的要求。为替代该条件，王提出增加为支持 500 万美元保证书而质押的担保物，不仅包括她价值 100 万美元的公寓，还包括存放在其个人银行账户之一中的约 400,000 美元，以及在她保险柜中查获的 138,000 美元，其余部分由拟议的四名共同签署人提供的财产担保。但这些条款存在上述相同的缺陷。保证书中 350 万美元的金额将由对王没有道德约束力的人的财产担保。所提供的额外担保物可能会使政府在王潜逃的情况下处于能够追回全部保释金的更有利地位，但它丝毫没有实质性改变缺乏任何对王具有足够道德约束力以促使她不潜逃的担保人的现状。因此，本院认定所提议的修改后条款不足以替代由两名具有财务责任能力的人签署的条件，并且正如接下来所解释的，不存在任何可以设定的条件能够合理保证王在未来的诉讼程序中出庭。\n\nC. 羁押是有正当理由的\n\n政府最初同意可以设定条件以合理保证王不会逃跑。然而，鉴于自那时起获悉的信息，政府主张不存在此类条件，王应予以羁押。本院表示认同。\n\n此前存在的表明逃跑风险的所有因素继续存在。\n\n指控的罪名属于大规模欺诈，Wang（王）在其中扮演了重要角色，即使她并非策划者（据指控 Kwok（郭文贵）与 Je（余建明）才是策划者）。所指控的罪行并未产生不存在适合设定保释条件的法律推定，但根据《量刑指南》，政府估算王面临的潜在刑期大约在 24 至 30 年之间——如此漫长的刑期足以令几乎任何人考虑采取其他行动方案。根据政府的主张，证明王至少参与了涉嫌犯罪行为某些方面的证据十分有力，因为有银行记录（部分带有其签名）显示她批准了多笔资金转账，其中包括一笔 1 亿美元的单笔转账，且她有理由知晓这些资金被用于不当目的。因此，指控的性质与情节以及证据的充分性均不利于准予释放。\n\n王的历史和个人特征压倒性地表明存在严重的潜逃风险。王在美国没有家人或朋友。她与当地社区毫无联系。她否认目前受雇，而她此前的工作单位正是涉嫌欺诈运作所通过的公司。她独居。她不是美国公民。虽然她已在美国申请庇护，且没有动力返回显然将她视为 CCP（中国共产党）敌人的中国，但推测她可以前往其他国家寻求避难。如果她的庇护申请被拒，她将不再合法滞留美国。王在世界各地拥有支持者，如果他们像拟定的共同签署人那样忠诚，以至于在并不十分了解她的情况下冒着承担数百万美元法律责任的风险，那么一旦王潜逃，他们可能会成为王的潜在支持与藏匿来源。王的一名涉嫌共犯——余——仍然在逃，并可能向王提供协助。\n\n鉴于王有权支配的大量账户以及她手头持有的 138,000 美元现金，亦有强有力的迹象表明王拥有可供其支配的巨额资金。王最初也仅提出以其公寓作为担保，而非其名下合计持有约 900,000 美元的个人银行账户。诚然，王获取已知资金的途径已大幅减少，因为王此后已将该 138,000 美元以及她的一个个人银行账户质押作为担保，并同意任何取款均须经审前服务部门批准。然而，法院无法合理确信王没有途径获取其他大额资金，特别是，如下文进一步阐述的，王曾否认其公寓内藏有任何现金。\n\n另一方面，王没有犯罪前科，亦无未到庭的历史记录，尽管前者解释了后者从而削弱了其重要性。王报告没有药物或酒精滥用史，也没有身体或心理健康问题。此类因素“预示着有利于设定保释”。见 U.S. v. Hollender, 162 F. Supp.2d 261, 267 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院） 2001)。但与表明存在严重潜逃风险的众多重大因素相比，这少数几个因素显得微不足道。\n\n最后，虽然没有迹象表明王一旦获释会对任何人或社区构成人身危险，但如果她重新从事欺诈活动，则可能会对他人造成损害。参见 U.S. v. Gulkarov, No. 22-CR-20, 2022 WL 205252, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2022年1月24日)（考虑对社区造成经济损害的风险）；U.S. v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp.2d 240, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)（同上）。\n\n自王的首次保释听证会以来所获知的信息进一步加剧了法院的担忧。首先，王一直未能确定具有道德感召力且具备财务责任能力的人士，这一事实本身就是自 Parker（帕克）法官设定条件以来情势的实质性变化。事实上，帕克法官曾“假定”王能够满足法院设定的条件。（3月15日庭审笔录第 24 页。）然而，这一假定并未得到证实。\n\n其次，王在全面披露其资产方面并不坦诚。从王住所查获的截至 2021年11月 的最新文件显示，王被分配并被列为价值数百万美元的 Himalayan Coin（喜马拉雅币）加密货币赎回权的受分配人。15（ECF 编号 Dkt. 42 第 2 页及附件 A、B。）在 4月4日 的听证会上，王的主辩律师声称王对这些加密货币权益毫无记忆。然而正如法院当时所指出的，一个人对自己名下所分配的数百万美元加密货币权益的状况甚至毫无知觉，未免有悖常理。法院承认，提交的文件并非王实际收到或目前拥有任何加密货币的证据。但这些文件无疑使法院感到担忧，即王可能拥有未入账资产的支配途径，尽管王目前行使尚未行使的赎回权的能力受到限制。16（Dkt. 44 第 4 页。）\n\n15 Himalayan Coin（“HCN”）及其“稳定币”对应物 Himalaya Dollar（“HDO”，喜马拉雅美元）是隶属于 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的数字货币。政府指控该交易所由余创立，并由郭推广，且被他们用作运作欺诈计划的工具之一。（参见 Dkt. 42 第 2 页；替代起诉书第 12、17 段。）政府指控 HCN 和 HDO 并非真正的加密货币，而仅为用于赎回的“积分”。（替代起诉书第 22 段。）\n\n16 据辩护律师称，“正如政府无疑十分清楚的那样，喜马拉雅交易所已通知其客户，除每次 5,000.00 美元的递增额度且每月仅限一次外，无法将 HDO 赎回为［美元］。”（Dkt. 44 第 4 页及附件 A。）同样值得注意的是，政府已经查封了喜马拉雅交易所数亿美元的现金储备。（替代起诉书第 25(c) 段。）起诉书亦默示承认被告目前变现尚未赎回的 HCN 权益的能力受到限制。（参见替代起诉书第 24(a) 段（指控余“试图”就其自身约 4,600 万美元的 HCN 权益进行赎回，但并未指控其已成功赎回）。）\n\n撇开王对显然分配给她的加密货币权益记得或不记得什么不谈，她并未向审前服务部门披露从其住所查获的 138,000 美元现金。正如政府所阐述的，在王被捕当日即 2023年3月15日 接受审前服务官员面谈时，“大意”进行了以下问答：\n\n- 问：在你被捕时、在你的住所内或你本人身上，你名下是否有任何现金？\n- 答：没有。\n- 问：是否有属于你名下或由你监管的任何商业账户，或在其他任何地方有任何额外现金？\n- 答：没有。\n\n（Dkt. 42 第 5 页。）正如在其住所发现的 138,000 美元所表明的，王在回答有关其资产的问题时作了不真实的陈述。正如辩护律师所坚称的，即便其中大部分现金可能是保留用于赠送礼物的款项，这也与本案核心问题无关。\n\n辩护律师对所述问答是否发生提出异议，并主张审前服务部门仅询问了王在被捕时“身上”带有何种现金。（Dkt. 44 第 7 页。）辩护律师进一步指出，面谈并未录音，且提问是通过一名普通话翻译进行的。确是如此。但审前服务部门为了解王拥有何种资产而仅询问其“身上”的现金，或者王在回答此类问题时会认为该问题仅限于此，都是不合常理的。辩护律师反驳称，鉴于王明知有特工在其公寓搜查，王没有理由就存放于其公寓内的现金撒谎。（同上，第 8 页。）相反，王完全可能认为特工不会获准或无法进入她的保险箱。17\n\n17 政府指出了在王公寓中发现的据称显示其隐瞒真相及获取资产途径的其他文件。法院认为就这些额外文件而言该结论并不令人信服。其中两份文件涉及以一家由王拥有并被指定为受益所有人且位于英属维尔京群岛的公司名义申请银行账户。（Dkt. 42，附件 C、D。）政府并未提出任何证据表明该账户实际已获批准并开设。其他文件反映了以多家与郭相关的公司名义开设的六个银行账户的交易和余额，其中包括王“作为持股 99.9999% 的股东进行有效控制”的公司。（Dkt. 42 第 3 页及附件 E。）然而，在 2023年4月14日，政府通知法院，王“似乎作为控制管理人”的三个账户“实际上已关闭”。（Dkt. 43。）另一份文件显示，迟至 2023年3月，王仍签署批准了由郭控制的各实体的薪酬支出。（Dkt. 42，附件 F。）政府主张该文件显示王在被捕时处于受雇状态，尽管她向审前服务部门否认受雇。政府默示得出结论，王通过为他人签署批准薪酬支出，必然是以雇员身份行事。这并非不合理的推论。辩护律师声称王当时仅仅是“志愿者”和“授权代表”。鉴于王在该欺诈计划的财务交易中的核心角色且没有其他就业来源，这显得有些可疑。而且，正如政府指出的，鉴于针对她的指控，王有动机不承认受雇于郭的相关公司。尽管如此，法院并未得出结论认为王在被捕时否认受雇必然是在撒谎。\n\n作为证明王不构成潜逃风险的迹象，其律师提出王早在一年以前就知道自己正在接受调查，但并未潜逃。他还指出，当王考虑出国——据称因业务目的前往英国和英属维尔京群岛——时，她向移民局申请了免除庇护申请人不得离境要求的“提前假释”（parole）。王绝非秘密出境，而是将其计划通知了政府机关。\n\n法院认同，明知处于调查之中而留在原地可以表明某人不太可能潜逃（尽管仅仅接受调查与实际被起诉截然不同）。然而，在本案中，王申请出境而非留在原地。她对移民当局保持透明使她得以保留其庇护申请权利，在最终未被起诉的情况下，她很可能会继续寻求该权利。但这并不能保证王实际计划返回。如果王在境外期间被起诉，她将没有任何动机返回，而完全有动力留在境外。事实上，正如政府所主张的，王关于拟赴境外旅行的陈述表明“她愿意进行国际旅行，这削弱了辩方关于由于被告对中国共产党的顾虑而不可能进行国际旅行的总体主张”。（Dkt. 42 第 4 页。）\n\n简而言之，政府已证明 Wang（王）确实存在严重的逃跑风险，并且具有逃跑的动机和获取逃跑手段的途径。居家拘禁和电子监控的条件，在与由具备财务责任能力之人签署的担保保证金以及其他标准审前释放条件相结合时，通常是充分的。政府此前曾同意此类条件足以批准王予以释放。然而，自那时起，情况发生了变化。尽管 Parker 法官（帕克法官）预期王能够找到合格的共同签署人，但王未能做到，反而提供了与她毫无关系且据称是所指控欺诈计划的受害者或参与者的人员。此外，王并未完全如实交代其资产情况。本法院无法确信王会遵守释放条款，或确信其不会拆除其电子监控设备。\n\n基于上述所有理由，本法院认定政府已完成其举证责任，以优势证据证明：没有任何条件或条件组合能够合理保证被告在未来的诉讼程序中出庭。\n\n结论\n\n基于前述理由，本法院认定：王未能满足此前设定的审前释放条件；自王最初作出保释裁定以来所获知的信息构成了情势变更；没有任何条件能够合理保证王在未来的诉讼程序中出庭；并且王应当被、且特此命令予以羁押。\n\n特此裁定：\n\n[签名]\n\nROBERT W. LEHRBURGER（罗伯特·W·勒伯格）\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE（美国联邦治安法官）\n\n日期：April 21, 2023（2023年4月21日）\nNew York, New York（纽约州纽约市）","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Himalaya","CCP","CIPA","Guo","Himalaya Exchange","Chinese Communist Party","Yanping Wang","William Je","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":9,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":10,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":19,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":37,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":39,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":42,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":43,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":44,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":47,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":51,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":7792,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-21","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:07:20"}