{"id":"court_sdny_57_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":57,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-04-26","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007","summary_zh":"保释听证会记录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #57（2023-04-26 提交）。2023年4月4日，美国地区法院 SDNY 法官 Robert W. Lehrburger 主持被告 Yanping Wang 的保释听证。讨论保释条件中财务担保人的资格要求，辩护方质证政府关于逃亡风险的证据。","summary_en":"Bail Hearing Transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #57 (filed April 26, 2023). Bail hearing held April 4, 2023 before U.S. District Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Discussion of qualifications for financial sureties under bail conditions, with defense counsel cross-examining government's evidence regarding flight risk.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007 Plaintiff, : - against - : WANG, YANPING, : April 4, 2023 New York, New York Defendant. : ------------------------------------ : BAIL HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BY: JULIANA MURRAY, ESQ. RYAN FINKEL, ESQ. One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 For Defendant: LIPMAN LAW PLLC BY: ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ. 45 West 29th Street, Suite 303 New York, New York 10001 CHAUDHRY LAW PLLC BY: PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ. 147 West 25th Street New York, New York 10001 INTERPRETER PRESENT Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, *Transcription Services* 155 East Fourth Street, #3C New York, New York 10009 Phone: (212) 420-0771 Email: Transcription420@aol.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n| | | | | | 2 |\n|-------------------------|-------------|-------|---------------|--------------|--------------|\n| INDEX | | | | | |\n| E X A M I N A T I O N S | | | | | |\n| Witness | Direct | Cross | Re-
Direct | Re-
Cross | Court |\n| None | | | | | |\n| E X H I B I T S | | | | | |\n| Exhibit
Number | Description | | ID | In | Voir
Dire |\n| None | | | | | |\n\n1\n\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 4 |\n| 2 | respect to the financial suretors that the Government |\n| 3 | says are not sufficient to meet the obligation under the |\n| 4 | conditions set by Judge Parker that two financially |\n| 5 | responsible people be able to sign on to the bond. |\n| 6 | And this is really defendant's application in |\n| 7 | that they raised this concern, and so I'll hear from |\n| 8 | defense counsel first. But why don't you also let me |\n| 9 | know if there's been any developments during the last |\n| 10 | week that make any difference and/or whether anything |\n| 11 | that happened before Judge Torres influences what |\n| 12 | happens here. |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: Just briefly, Your Honor, I just |\n| 14 | wanted to confirm that this is being recorded, this |\n| 15 | proceeding, because I don't see a court reporter. So |\n| 16 | just for the record. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: It is being recorded |\n| 18 | electronically. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN: May I begin, Your Honor? |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Yes, please. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, in our view, from the |\n| 23 | beginning, the Government never actually established by |\n| 24 | preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a |\n| 25 | flight risk. And I want to go -- we actually agreed to |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 5\n\n the bond conditions, but we agreed to the bond conditions based on conversation that we had with the Government that in which the Government made certain representations about what was found in Ms. Wang's apartment. And so we were told that, we didn't have a lot of time to discuss things with our client, but we thought, all right, it seems reasonable, and then we agreed that we were going to propose names of two co- signers for the bond and, frankly, didn't think that this was going to be an issue.\n\n Then the Government made certain statements on the record, and as we started having trouble having them approve the people we proposed, we at some point asked them for support for some of the things that they said were the reasons that our client is a flight risk. And so then they eventually provided it to us, and what we found is basically one of three things. The Government either made statements that are half true, and so we need to actually fill in the blanks and realize that what they said isn't really right. They have made statements that are contradicted by the evidence that they gathered in Ms. Wang's apartment, and then they made statements for which they're just conjectures. They're not actually supported by any evidence. So let\n\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 6 |\n| 2 | me back up and start at the beginning. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. LIPMAN: So Ms. Wang and her co-defendant, |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok, knew that the Government was looking at them |\n| 6 | for a very long time, so much so that in September, and |\n| 7 | according to the indictment, in September and October of |\n| 8 | last year the Government seized a bunch of assets, |\n| 9 | according to the indictment it's something like on the |\n| 10 | order of \\$700 million, and the Government seized those |\n| 11 | assets. It was a civil seizure, but it referenced, as |\n| 12 | specified (indiscernible). Right? So \\$700 million |\n| 13 | seized, I'm not sure that I can say for the Court that |\n| 14 | my client understood the full scale of what was seized, |\n| 15 | but she certainly understood that the Justice Department |\n| 16 | has seized a bunch of money, right. |\n| 17 | And then there was an SEC settlement for the |\n| 18 | GTV case which is the one that's relevant to her, and |\n| 19 | GTV paid back something in the order of I want to say |\n| 20 | \\$500 million, which incidentally they didn't pay after |\n| 21 | the - they first paid the money and then the SEC issued |\n| 22 | a settlement order. So it's in the reverse order from |\n| 23 | the Government says happened. Okay? So she knew, she |\n| 24 | knew that the Government was looking at her and that she |\n| 25 | was potentially in severe legal jeopardy. |\n\n## 1 PROCEEDING 7\n\n Despite that, she didn't go anywhere, but there's more. The Government says she had the passport from, a Chinese passport that she could've traveled on, right, and that she, and she's an asylum applicant, and because she's an asylum applicant, they say this is one of the factors to consider in her not having ties to the United States is somehow she count against her.\n\n Well, because she's an asylum applicant and she doesn't want to lose her asylum application, she did want to go travel, and she applied to the United States government for a furlough so that if she traveled, her asylum application would not get denied. So the Government, and that happened, she received permission to travel between December and January of last year, so December '22 to January I want to say 27, I'm probably wrong on the exact date, but something from mid-December to the third week of January --\n\n THE COURT: And when was the seizure of the money that you referred to?\n\n MR. LIPMAN: September and October according to the indictment. I think it's September 18 and October, was it is, 24, 26.\n\n So she put the government on notice that she was going to go travel despite all of this going on.\n\n7\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING | 8 |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------|------|\n| 2 | She did not travel during that window. It expired. | It |\n| 3 | expired for reasons that have nothing to do with | |\n| 4 | anything other than she had a particular trip that | she |\n| 5 | had in mind to make, she couldn't get, it didn't work | |\n| 6 | out logistically. She then applied for another | |\n| 7 | application, and I believe that was, according to her | |\n| 8 | immigration counsel, that was on February 8, 2023. | So a |\n| 9 | month before she was arrested. | |\n\n So the idea that she is a flight risk is, given all of that, is a little far-fetched, but there is a reason for it, and the reason is this. Ms. Wang is in different times would be called a revolutionary. She has put herself, her family, everything she's done at risk because she is opposing the communist party of China, and whatever it is that they say in the indictment, there is no dispute, none whatsoever, that she has put herself in jeopardy. Her son is in China, her husband, the man, the one and only boyfriend she's ever had, they're not allowed to have any communication with her --\n\n THE COURT: Right, but as I understand the Government, I don't know if they've pivoted or whether they always asserted this, but their concern is with fleeing to other jurisdictions, be it the United Arab\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT Documen\n\n1 PROCEEDING 9 Emirates where supposedly Mr. Je, a co-conspirator, is or Vanuatu where she has an expired passport application or wherever.\n\n MR. LIPMAN: So, Your Honor, let me take Vanuatu first because that's easiest. Okay? Together with the passport that's expired, they also found two documents both for her and Mr. Kwok in her apartment saying that she's renouncing Vanuatu citizenship. So that's not an issue. The other thing is she got the passport for Vanuatu I believe in 2016, if I have that correctly, that was before she came to the United States. China and Vanuatu have since become good friends, and it's a different situation now, and I don't think it would be safe for her to go there.\n\n As far as going to United Arab Emirates, the United Arab Emirates does not, from what we heard this morning from the Government in Mr. Kwok's hearing, United Arab Emirates does not extradite its citizens to the United States. It does have an extradition treaty with China. She's not a citizen of United Arab Emirates, nobody's suggesting that she is. She's not, she doesn't have a passport from there. The only passport that she had that was still live, they have possession of that passport. They found it in her\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| PROCEEDING 10 | |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | apartment. So no, she cannot go somewhere else. |\n| 3 | Now let's talk about whether she -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, I want to stop |\n| 5 | you there, just on the issue of the extradition with |\n| 6 | United, with the UAE. What I heard you say was that |\n| 7 | they don't have an extradition agreement with respect to |\n| 8 | citizens of the UAE, and then I thought I heard you say |\n| 9 | that they have an extradition treaty with China which, |\n| 10 | of course, she's not going to go back to, and this isn't |\n| 11 | a proceeding in China. What is their status with |\n| 12 | respect to extradition of a citizen of a third-party |\n| 13 | country, if you will, and extraditing to the United |\n| 14 | States? I'm sure the Government can tell me but I'm |\n| 15 | wondering if you have an understanding. |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: As far as I know, there is no |\n| 17 | extradition treaty with the United States, but it's an |\n| 18 | irrelevant issue rather because, first of all, she can't |\n| 19 | get there. Okay? And, second, she's not concerned |\n| 20 | about being extradited to the United States; she's |\n| 21 | concerned about being extradited to China -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I understand. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: -- where she's going to get |\n| 24 | arrested and shot. I mean there's a difference. You |\n| 25 | know, as bad as the MDC is, it's not exactly a Chinese |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 11 |\n| 2 | prison. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: But is your point if she shows up |\n| 4 | at the UAE, she's going to get exported or extradited to |\n| 5 | China automatically? |\n| 6 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, I don't know about |\n| 7 | automatically, but she certainly is in great danger of |\n| 8 | that happening. That's absolutely true. And, look, in |\n| 9 | the hearing that we had earlier this morning, the |\n| 10 | Government actually, it was discussed, all the efforts |\n| 11 | that the Chinese government has undertaken to get Mr. |\n| 12 | Kwok back to China, including bribing American |\n| 13 | officials, there's a case going on now, a criminal trial |\n| 14 | I believe is going on right now in D.C. in which several |\n| 15 | government officials who've been bribed by China in |\n| 16 | order to facilitate Mr. Kwok's deportation from the |\n| 17 | United States to China. |\n| 18 | Well, the Government, this woman, according to |\n| 19 | the Government, is Mr. Kwok's chief of staff, whatever |\n| 20 | that means. Well, I don't think that they seriously |\n| 21 | will dispute that she is in danger. So -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I'm sorry, that she's what? |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: In danger. |\n| 24 | THE COURT: In danger. |\n| 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Meaning I don't think they |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
12 |\n| 2 | seriously
dispute
that
if
she
went
to
China,
got
into |\n| 3 | China
or
that
China
wants
her. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN:
There
can't
be
a
serious
dispute |\n| 6 | about
that.
So
now
let's
talk
about
what
would
happen |\n| 7 | if
she
were
in
the
United States.
Basic
reason,
basic |\n| 8 | reason,
she
is
Mr.
Kwok's,
according
to
the
Government, |\n| 9 | chief
of
staff.
She's
very
recognizable.
Right?
She's |\n| 10 | recognizable
in
the
community
of
people
who
are
here. |\n| 11 | This
is
a
community
of
thousands
of
people
in
the
United |\n| 12 | States.
So
the
Government
says,
oh,
they
will
hide
her. |\n| 13 | Well,
first of all,
that's,
forgive
me,
but
that's
just |\n| 14 | an
improper
inference.
To
think
that
thousands
of |\n| 15 | people
who
are
on
the
U.S.
soil
will
secret
a
fugitive, |\n| 16 | is
it
because
they're
Chinese,
is
it
because
they
speak |\n| 17 | Mandarin
-- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
No,
because
they're,
because
they |\n| 19 | potentially
were
victims
of
the
fraud. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN:
Except
for
this.
If
they
are |\n| 21 | victims
of
the
fraud,
they
know
what's
going
on,
they're |\n| 22 | adults,
and
so
they
could
at
any
time
become
persuaded |\n| 23 | that,
in fact,
she
should
be
returned
to
the
United |\n| 24 | States
government
if
she
is
a
fugitive. |\n| 25 | But
there's
more
to
this,
and
the
more
is
this, |\n| | |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 13 |\n| 2 | if the Chinese - we know from what I've read in the |\n| 3 | paper, that the Chinese communist party has parking |\n| 4 | Chinese communist officials from their police in their |\n| 5 | United States consulate in New York. For a second can |\n| 6 | we think that they're not keeping tabs on her? And that |\n| 7 | if she showed up anywhere in any community where people |\n| 8 | speak Mandarin as their primary language that she would |\n| 9 | be spotted? For a second can anybody conceive that the |\n| 10 | Chinese communist party wouldn't find her and identify |\n| 11 | her and tell the government exactly where she is? |\n| 12 | Now let's take the alternative. Let's assume |\n| 13 | for a second that she decided to hide herself in, I |\n| 14 | don't know, Utah among white people. She speaks English |\n| 15 | with a heavy accent, and her first language in Mandarin. |\n| 16 | Would she not stick out like a sore thumb? The idea |\n| 17 | that this woman can hide is blatantly absurd. It's |\n| 18 | absurd. And the idea that she could rely on people to |\n| 19 | hide her in the United States. So where are we? She |\n| 20 | can't leave and she can't hide. That's not flight risk. |\n| 21 | But there's more. And the more is this. The |\n| 22 | Government said, and this is why we actually thought we |\n| 23 | were okay with the bail package that they proposed. |\n\n They said we found stuff in her apartment that tells you that she's a flight risk. What is it? We found twelve\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
16 |\n| 2 | THE COURT: Sure. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN: On page 7 of 9. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN: Do you see where it says 56 -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 7 | MR. LIPMAN: -- white phone, 57, white phone -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 9 | MR. LIPMAN: -- 58, white phone -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT: In bag in closet. |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: In bag in closet. Not in a box |\n| 12 | pretending like it's new. It's in a bag in closet. I |\n| 13 | have a picture of the closet. I'm happy to show the |\n| 14 | Court the bag that it was in. There is, in fact, in |\n| 15 | that picture one white box for an iPhone in that |\n| 16 | picture. One box. And according to this none of these |\n| 17 | phones came out of that bag, that box. But even if one |\n| 18 | did, that's one. |\n| 19 | Now, also on this page you see, Your Honor, |\n| 20 | where it says Mac book number 55 in between clothes? |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Uh huh. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay, so one of the things that |\n| 23 | they said is, oh, look, she's hiding stuff in between, |\n| 24 | in her closet. She's secreted a laptop in between her |\n| 25 | clothes. So a couple of things about that. Number one, |\n| | PROCEEDING 17 |\n| 2 | as the Government well knows, Ms. Wang is not unfamiliar |\n| 3 | with what happens when the FBI raids somebody. They |\n| 4 | raided Mr. Kwok previously. She knows what happens when |\n| 5 | that happens. Okay? So the idea that she could think |\n| 6 | that she could hide a laptop in between her sweaters is |\n| 7 | absurd. |\n| 8 | But there's more now, Your Honor. Here is the |\n| 9 | - if I may - which is this? |\n| 10 | ATTORNEY: 46. |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: You may, and just, I want to |\n| 13 | confirm something. Are we looking at evidence and |\n| 14 | material that was not available before the hearing |\n| 15 | before Judge Parker? |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: This was not available to us |\n| 17 | before - we got this - so here's what happened. We |\n| 18 | asked them some of these questions about the phone, |\n| 19 | right, we asked those questions I think it was on the |\n| 20 | 29th. Do you have our letter? But essentially, Your |\n| 21 | Honor, we got these the night before we saw you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Okay, so that was well after Judge |\n| 23 | Parker's ruling. |\n| 24 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
18 |\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN:
Your Honor,
this
is
the
FBI |\n| 3 | schematic
of
the
apartment
that
Ms.
Wang
lives
in.
By |\n| 4 | the way,
it's
740
square
feet.
This
is
a
woman
who |\n| 5 | apparently
defrauded
people
up
to,
for something
like
a |\n| 6 | billion
dollars.
Anyway,
so
on
this
page,
Your Honor,
I |\n| 7 | call
the
Court's
attention
on
what
is
in
the
apartment |\n| 8 | and
what
is
not.
There
is
a
bed
in
the
bedroom,
and |\n| 9 | there's
a
side
table.
There
is
a
couch
in
the |\n| 10 | livingroom,
and
there's
something
in
front
of
the
couch, |\n| 11 | it's
actually
a
(indiscernible).
There
is
nothing
else |\n| 12 | in
this
apartment.
There's
no
wardrobe,
there's
no |\n| 13 | chest
of
drawers,
there's
no
desk,
there's
nothing.
So |\n| 14 | where
does
she
keep
her
stuff?
In
the
closets.
All
of |\n| 15 | her
stuff
is
in
the
closets.
Her
old
phones
were
in
the |\n| 16 | closet.
Right?
There's
nothing
nefarious
about
putting |\n| 17 | stuff
in
the
closet
when
you
don't
have
any
furniture. |\n| 18 | So
then,
so
then
they
say,
okay,
we
found
money |\n| 19 | in
her
apartment.
We
found
money,
we
found
\\$138,000. |\n| 20 | Ms.
Murray
said
in
recent
bills,
she
thought
they
were |\n| 21 | recent
bills.
Okay.
So
then
we
thought,
all right,
can |\n| 22 | we
see
the
pictures
of
the
money?
Why
did
we
ask
for |\n| 23 | pictures
of
the
money?
Because
we
had
reason
to
think |\n| 24 | that
a
bunch
of
that
money
was
in
red
envelopes
which |\n| 25 | apparently
in
Chinese
culture
it
is
common
on
holidays |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 19 |\n| 2 | like Chinese New Year to give people gifts of money, and |\n| 3 | they found red envelopes. And so I wanted to see where |\n| 4 | the money is, what it looks like, and how old it is. |\n| 5 | Right? |\n| 6 | So asked for the pictures. That's actually, |\n| 7 | truth be told, that's the thing that kind of prompted |\n| 8 | this conversation to begin with. (indiscernible) the |\n| 9 | money. Okay? |\n| 10 | So what did we find? (pause) May I approach, |\n| 11 | Your Honor? |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Yes, you may. |\n| 13 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: This, Your Honor, is the pouch in |\n| 15 | which the money was found. Now, the Government says in |\n| 16 | a letter to you, Your Honor, in their latest letter, |\n| 17 | they said conveniently in a bag for easy retrieval. |\n| 18 | Really? Okay, let's look at it. It's a bank bag. This |\n| 19 | is what money comes from when you get money from the |\n| 20 | bank. What else do we see here? We see that there are |\n| 21 | a bunch of this is in red envelopes. Now there's other |\n| 22 | cash in here, and, in fact, there's another picture. |\n| 23 | THE COURT: Look, you don't need to go in this |\n| 24 | much detail on the cash. And, you know, I agree with |\n| 25 | you. I don't find the fact that it's in a bag |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 20 |\n| 2 | particularly persuasive that means someone's necessarily |\n| 3 | going to run because it's in a bag. It's organized. |\n| 4 | But one thing maybe you can tell me is, and I realize |\n| 5 | this is shifting time a bit, but I thought that in their |\n| 6 | filing that, their last filing that prompted putting |\n| 7 | this over, that they had indicated and represented that |\n| 8 | Ms. Wang did not disclose this \\$138,000 to Pretrial, but |\n| 9 | I was under the impression this had already been seized |\n| 10 | a couple of weeks before. |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: No, it was seized on the day of |\n| 12 | her arrest, okay, and the question that she was asked, |\n| 13 | the relevant question was did you have any money cash on |\n| 14 | you when you were arrested. She was arrested at 6:15 |\n| 15 | a.m., she was in her pajamas. The truthful answer to |\n| 16 | that question is no. We checked out notes, we don't see |\n| 17 | any other questions that would have elicited a different |\n| 18 | answer. So did she disclose it voluntarily? No. I |\n| 19 | don't know that she was asked about it. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay? |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I get it. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, even if she had |\n| 24 | been asked about it, there were a dozen FBI agents in |\n| 25 | her apartment ripping it up. Okay, I mean she was, she |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 21 |\n| 2 | was beyond stressed. She's sitting and talking, in a |\n| 3 | situation that she's never encountered, she's being |\n| 4 | asked these questions. Is it crazy that, you know, the |\n| 5 | question is have you, do you have any cash on you, and |\n| 6 | she says – did you have any cash on you when you |\n| 7 | arrested and the answer is no and she doesn't say |\n| 8 | anything else? I mean really? |\n| 9 | All right. Now, by the way, before – because |\n| 10 | they're going to bring up another picture for you, Your |\n| 11 | Honor, and I don't want to be accused of giving you |\n| 12 | something less than the full picture. And the full |\n| 13 | picture is that when they made another picture of the |\n| 14 | money – I apologize, Your Honor. I've gotten so |\n| 15 | excited, I lost the other picture of the money. Here it |\n| 16 | is. May I approach? |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 18 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: This is the picture that makes it |\n| 20 | look as if more of this money is more recent because you |\n| 21 | can see there are some old bills, some new bills. |\n| 22 | However, with that said, as I told the Government, |\n| 23 | there's a good explanation for why some of that money is |\n| 24 | recent. Okay? And the explanation, and I told the |\n| 25 | Government this, is that she had some pounds that she |\n| | PROCEEDING 22 |\n| 2 | brought over from, with her herself at some point in her |\n| 3 | previous travels, and that those pounds, you know, |\n| 4 | however they got to her, but those pounds needed to be |\n| 5 | replaced because apparently when the Queen died, they're |\n| 6 | exchanging their money for money that looks, that has a |\n| 7 | picture of the King. Okay, so over time she had that |\n| 8 | replaced, so there's got to be something like \\$30,000, |\n| 9 | \\$40,000 in there that's recent that has to do with that. |\n| 10 | I asked to see the bills yesterday when it was |\n| 11 | too late for me to go do it, they said you can come see |\n| 12 | it. I'll see them at some point. But my point though, |\n| 13 | Your Honor, the idea that this is money secreted so that |\n| 14 | she can get out of Dodge, no, no, that doesn't make any |\n| 15 | sense. |\n| 16 | THE COURT: No, but it is suggestive that she |\n| 17 | has access to significant funds even if that particular |\n| 18 | one wasn't what she was intending to use. |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Let's address that. Okay? The |\n| 20 | Government says she didn't disclose all of the bank |\n| 21 | accounts over which she had control. I had a specific |\n| 22 | conversation with the Government in which I said if |\n| 23 | you're asking about accounts for which she can actually |\n| 24 | transact, meaning no third people, right, in other |\n| 25 | words, but my bank account. I can go and do stuff. My |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
23 |\n| 2 | firm's
bank
account,
not
necessarily.
Well,
in
my
case |\n| 3 | yes,
but,
you know,
if
you
work
for
a
firm,
you
may
be |\n| 4 | able
to
direct
somebody
to
do
whatever,
that's
firm |\n| 5 | business,
but
you
can't
take
it
and
put
it
in
your |\n| 6 | pocket.
Okay?
So
what
I
said
to
the
Government
is
we |\n| 7 | are
aware
of
two
accounts,
right,
that
are
hers.
We're |\n| 8 | aware
of
another
business
account
where
she
could
have, |\n| 9 | she
could
transact.
We
gave
them
the
account
and
the |\n| 10 | number.
Right?
We're
not
aware
of
any
other
accounts. |\n| 11 | That
is
not,
we
did
not
hide
from
the
Government
that |\n| 12 | she
owns
this
BBI
entity.
That's
not
–
the
question
was |\n| 13 | -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I
understand,
that's,
of
the
list |\n| 15 | of
four
things,
three
of
them
were
business
entities, |\n| 16 | two
of
them
weren't
even
hers
directly.
What
about
the |\n| 17 | Himalayan
cryptocurrency? |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
Good
question.
So
I've
been |\n| 19 | trying
to
figure
out
what
happened
with
the
Himalayan |\n| 20 | thing,
and
there
are
two
things
about
that.
Number
one, |\n| 21 | the
document
that
they're
referring
to,
remember
how
I |\n| 22 | said
there
are
some
things
where
there's
evidence,
there |\n| 23 | are
some
things
that
are
half-truths,
there
are
some |\n| 24 | things
that
are
contradicted,
and
then
there
are
some |\n| 25 | things
were
it's
just
a
leap?
Right? |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 24 |\n| 2 | So what are they looking at? They're looking |\n| 3 | at a schedule that says allocation, okay, allocation. |\n| 4 | They're not looking at an account at H Coin. They're |\n| 5 | not looking - they're looking at an allocation. I've |\n| 6 | been trying to figure out what happened to that |\n| 7 | allocation. The best I can ascertain is that she has no |\n| 8 | idea what happened. I'm not saying that something |\n| 9 | didn't happen with it. I'm saying that she has no idea. |\n| 10 | Okay? |\n| 11 | THE COURT: But which is -- |\n| 12 | (interposing) |\n| 13 | MR. LIPMAN: But there's more -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: The current value of that, right, |\n| 15 | at least the Government says is something like \\$13 |\n| 16 | million. I'm sure it was less than, well, maybe who |\n| 17 | knows given the market. But you would think that |\n| 18 | someone - I'm going to assume it was a significant |\n| 19 | amount of cyber currently at the time in that to her it |\n| 20 | was significant, and you would think one would keep |\n| 21 | track of that significant amount. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: If one thought that it was theirs, |\n| 23 | then one would. But, Your Honor, here's - so the |\n| 24 | Government seized hundreds of millions of dollars, |\n| 25 | including from the Himalayan exchange. The Government |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 25 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | is alleging that it's all a fraud. Out of one side of |\n| 3 | their mouth they say it's worthless, and people can't |\n| 4 | actually turn it into cash. The SEC said, in its |\n| 5 | complaint the SEC says people tried to turn it into cash |\n| 6 | but couldn't. Well, is it or isn't it? Because if it |\n| 7 | is, then maybe it's worth \\$13 million, though we don't |\n| 8 | know how to access it. But if it isn't, if their |\n| 9 | allegations are correct, then I don't know what the |\n| 10 | mechanism is for turning this into cash. Okay? |\n| 11 | So this is all to say that the presumption is |\n| 12 | that she would be released or released pursuant to |\n| 13 | conditions that are least restrictive to assure her -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: Right, but are we arguing anew? I |\n| 15 | mean this comes back to the question, Judge Parker |\n| 16 | implemented or ordered conditions. The crux of the |\n| 17 | problem is that one of her conditions is not being |\n| 18 | fulfilled because the Government has taken the position |\n| 19 | that none of the persons offered to be financially |\n| 20 | responsible are going to be sufficient suretors either |\n| 21 | because they don't exercise moral suasion, because they |\n| 22 | aren't financially responsible, or they are a victim or |\n| 23 | a participant in the alleged fraud. And there's a |\n| 24 | question of, okay, what happens if they keep on not |\n| 25 | accepting those people. So I just want to be careful |\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 27 |\n| 2 | that were taken. I was looking to see if I can find a |\n| 3 | photograph or a log of a document hidden in the |\n| 4 | cushions. That doesn't exist. You know what else |\n| 5 | doesn't exist? They said in their – this is a |\n| 6 | representation to a court, they said we found a phone |\n| 7 | hidden between mattresses in her bedroom. I want to see |\n| 8 | this picture. I want to find it on the log of pictures |\n| 9 | that are taken. Where is it? It doesn't exist. Or at |\n| 10 | least it hasn't been given to us. |\n| 11 | Now, there is a picture like that that was |\n| 12 | taken at Mr. Kwok's search, and – thank you. |\n| 13 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: So that's a picture of a phone |\n| 17 | hidden between mattresses. But it's not from her |\n| 18 | apartment. And I have yet to see the one from her |\n| 19 | apartment. |\n| 20 | One other thing, they said she has stuff in |\n| 21 | her, in the pouch for easy retrieval, right, the money |\n| 22 | was in the pouch for easy retrieval. Everything was in |\n| 23 | a pouch for easy retrieval. You know what else was in |\n| 24 | the pouch for easy retrieval? I think every credit card |\n| 25 | she's ever had. I mean a bunch of old expired credit |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
28 |\n| 2 | cards,
easy
retrieval.
It
doesn't
make
sense. |\n| 3 | Now
let
me,
Your Honor,
let
me
just
now
switch |\n| 4 | over
to
the
other
piece of
this
which
is
the
proposed |\n| 5 | co-signers,
the
Government's
refusal
to
approve
any,
and |\n| 6 | what
this
is
about.
And
I
want
to
start
with
something |\n| 7 | that
I
actually
did
not
plan
on
doing
because
it
only |\n| 8 | happened
in
the
courtroom
this
morning.
You
see
these |\n| 9 | people
here,
many
of
these
people
here
are
here
to |\n| 10 | support
her. |\n| 11 | She
got
emotional
in
the
courtroom
and
started |\n| 12 | crying
because
she
realized
that
all
these
people
are |\n| 13 | here
to
support
her,
and
let
me
explain
what
that
means. |\n| 14 | The
Government
probably
doesn't
know
this,
but
surely
it |\n| 15 | is
actually
unlawful
for
the
Government
to
disclose
that |\n| 16 | somebody's
an
asylum
applicant.
There's
a
regulation |\n| 17 | that
says
that.
I
didn't
know.
I
found
out
recently. |\n| 18 | I'm
sure
they
don't
know.
I'm
sure
they
didn't
do
it |\n| 19 | deliberately. |\n| 20 | But
the
reason
is
obvious.
Right?
If
you
have |\n| 21 | somebody
coming
from
a
country,
you
identify
them
as |\n| 22 | somebody
who's
seeking
asylum
somewhere
else,
that |\n| 23 | immediately
puts
them
in
danger.
All
of
these
people |\n| 24 | simply
by
coming
here,
do
you
think
there's
no
one
here |\n| 25 | from
the
Chinese
communist
party
in
this
room
right
now |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 29 |\n| 2 | monitoring this? All these people simply by coming up |\n| 3 | and standing up for her have exposed themselves, their |\n| 4 | families -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT: I don't think anyone questions |\n| 6 | perhaps their intent. The question does the -- |\n| 7 | MR. LIPMAN: Does she care about them? |\n| 8 | THE COURT: -- does the defendant care enough |\n| 9 | about these people that she's going to be concerned |\n| 10 | enough about whatever monetary means they're putting on |\n| 11 | the line versus taking flight, and one would paint the |\n| 12 | picture, if you're the Government, saying she's alleged |\n| 13 | to have committed fraud, you've got strong evidence. So |\n| 14 | why would she care about the people she defrauded? |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN: Fair amount, Your Honor, I was |\n| 16 | about to address it. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: There are different ways to think |\n| 19 | about moral suasion. Right? I think we all agree that |\n| 20 | a brother can sign for a brother, and the first brother |\n| 21 | is not going to care. They're relatives, they're |\n| 22 | brothers, but they're not going to care. It's also true |\n| 23 | that people can connect in some way, they could be |\n| 24 | strangers, but they connected, right, and so somebody |\n| 25 | can have moral suasion over somebody else who actually |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 30 |\n| 2 | they don't have all that much interaction. They just |\n| 3 | love each other. Right? |\n| 4 | But there's another kind, and the other kind is |\n| 5 | this, if you are a member of a certain kind of community |\n| 6 | and you're - and this community is important to you, |\n| 7 | it's important to you what happens to the members of |\n| 8 | this community. Now, the Government's going to say, oh, |\n| 9 | my God, a billion dollars, these people are victims. |\n| 10 | Well, they're here, they don't think they're victims, |\n| 11 | but that's another story. Okay? |\n| 12 | But here's the thing, look at the indictment, |\n| 13 | Your Honor. Mr. Kwok is alleged to have bought himself |\n| 14 | a Lamborghini. I would love one. Okay? But does she |\n| 15 | have one? No. He apparently is living in a mansion and |\n| 16 | has other mansions and boats and this and that and the |\n| 17 | other thing. Where in the indictment is there an |\n| 18 | allegation that any of this money went to her? The |\n| 19 | closest they've come is this allocation of the coin |\n| 20 | allocation. Right? And we don't know what happened to |\n| 21 | that. Okay. |\n| 22 | So the question you have to ask yourself is why |\n| 23 | is she doing this? Why does she leave her family, her |\n| 24 | son, her one true love, right, and moved to a foreign |\n| 25 | country where she is basically exposing herself as a |\n\n revolutionary, why did she do this? Okay. There's an answer, but that she's trying to enrich herself is not the answer. So then the question is would she, given what the Government has alleged about her, not about her co-defendants, but about her, because what happens to the co-defendants is relevant but what matters really is what happens to her.\n\n And also the question, given the allegations that the Government has made, right, is she the kind of person who will stick one of these people with a \\$5 million debt? And the answer to that is obviously no, she lives in a 740 square foot apartment without furniture, away from her family with whom she cannot have anymore contact. It's just beyond belief that we have given them eight people, grownups, right, they don't like all of them, that's fine. They say we didn't get enough documents with respect to certain people. Really? Somebody's willing to put up a \\$3 billion house, what other documents do you want? We couldn't post that house unless we were able to prove to them that that house existed and belongs to the person who's posting it. Right? That person is an adult who understands what's going on and thinks that she, that that person has moral suasion over her and thinks that\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
32 |\n| 2 | she's
not
–
there
are
three
people,
the
co-signers
who |\n| 3 | are
in
this
room
today. |\n| 4 | So
where
does
the
Government,
forgive
me,
Your |\n| 5 | Honor,
but
where
does
the
Government
get
off
making |\n| 6 | those
judgments
for
these
people? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well,
that's
part
of
what,
I
mean |\n| 8 | they
get
to
form
that
judgment,
and
if
you
don't
agree |\n| 9 | with
it,
that's
why
we're
here,
but
they,
the
Government |\n| 10 | needs
to
be
assured
or
feel
assured
that
the
financial |\n| 11 | security
that's
being
posted
is
sufficient
to
reasonably |\n| 12 | assure
that
the
defendant
will
not
flee,
and
there
is
a |\n| 13 | valid
concern
I
think
in
theory
that
if
you
have
folks |\n| 14 | that
are
allegedly
victims
of
a
fraud
that's
being |\n| 15 | committed,
that
the
fraudster
or
alleged
fraudster
may |\n| 16 | not
be
so
incented
as
one
might
normally
be, |\n| 17 | theoretically. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
Your Honor,
one
cannot
paint |\n| 19 | everything
with
a
broad
brush. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I
agree. |\n| 21 | MR. LIPMAN:
One
really
needs
to
look
at
the |\n| 22 | particular
circumstances,
and
the
particular |\n| 23 | circumstances
is
that
the
Government
is
not
alleging |\n| 24 | that
she
stole
money.
It's
just
that
simple.
They're |\n| 25 | alleging
that
the
other
two
stole
money.
They're
not
– |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 34 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Government cannot approve cosigners who belong to one of |\n| 3 | these two groups because as a category they |\n| 4 | (indiscernible), then, Your Honor, you have the |\n| 5 | authority to change this, and, in fact, as the Court is |\n| 6 | well aware, one of the provisions in here is that you |\n| 7 | cannot have a financial condition that makes it -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: \"The judicial officer may not |\n| 9 | impose a financial condition that results in the |\n| 10 | pretrial detention of the person.\" 18 U.S.C. |\n| 11 | 3142(c)(2). And yet the Government seems to have found |\n| 12 | cases that say that in the context of the statute, that |\n| 13 | does not trump but rather what trumps is whether the |\n| 14 | conditions will reasonably assure the presence of the |\n| 15 | defendant at future proceedings. And even a case you |\n| 16 | rely on, U.S. v. Panaronda , says that too, and they said |\n| 17 | the ultimate question is the Court should consider |\n| 18 | whether that particular financial condition is a |\n| 19 | necessary part of the bail conditions to provide |\n| 20 | reasonable assurance of the defendant's appearance. I |\n| 21 | mean that's really what we have to decide. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: And, Your Honor, that case, I'm |\n| 23 | going to mispronounce names so I apologize -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Panaronda. |\n| 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay, what happened in that case |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
35 |\n| 2 | is
Judge
Sweet,
we'll
change
the
conditions.
I
mean
and |\n| 3 | he
said,
look,
there's
\\$250,000
bail
here,
this
person |\n| 4 | is
never
going
to
either
meet
it
or
get
anybody
who
is |\n| 5 | good
for
\\$250,000.
I'm
going
to
reduce
it
to
something |\n| 6 | that
people
can
meet
and
still
satisfy
the
conditions. |\n| 7 | We
proposed,
just
so
that
we're
clear,
in |\n| 8 | addition
to
posting,
you know,
property
to
secure
the |\n| 9 | bond
that
would
be
more
than
enough,
right,
because,
you |\n| 10 | know,
it
says
two.
There
are
three
people
who
together |\n| 11 | have
more
property
than
\\$5
million.
They
can
post
it |\n| 12 | all.
They're
prepared
to
do
it.
But
separately.
She |\n| 13 | has
access,
as
far
as
I
know,
and
the
Government
doesn't |\n| 14 | actually
know
anything
different,
she
personally
only |\n| 15 | has
access
at
this
point
to
two
accounts
that
belong
to |\n| 16 | her
and
that
she
has
value
in
her
apartment,
we
already |\n| 17 | posted
that.
So
her
apartment,
one
of
her
accounts |\n| 18 | completely
-- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
With
\\$400,000. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN:
Well,
I'm
not
sure
exactly. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well,
that
was
the
one
that
you |\n| 22 | offered
up
-- |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN:
Yeah,
yeah.
And
then
the
second |\n| 24 | one
monitor
it.
I
mean
we're
happy
to
have
–
in other |\n| 25 | words,
she
-- |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
36 |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I
get
it. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
would
have
no
money
-- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN:
Now,
the
Government
says,
well, |\n| 6 | you know,
supporters,
this
and
that,
they
can
–
that's |\n| 7 | true
in
every
case.
Your Honor,
I'm
going
to
sit
down |\n| 8 | because
I've
been
going
on,
you've
indulged
me
and
I |\n| 9 | appreciate
that.
But,
Your Honor,
there's
no
reason
why |\n| 10 | this
woman
should
spend
another
night
in
prison. |\n| 11 | There's
no
reason.
She's
not
a
flight
risk.
She
has |\n| 12 | already
put
up
her
apartment.
We're
happy
to
have
the |\n| 13 | three
co-signers
that
are
here
are
happy
to
go
down
and |\n| 14 | sign
the
bond
today.
We
can
post
the
–
in fact,
I
will |\n| 15 | take
personal
responsibility
for
the
two
accounts. |\n| 16 | Thank you.
My
much
wiser
co-counsel
reminded
me
that |\n| 17 | what
these
people
have
on
the
hook
is
not
\\$5
million. |\n| 18 | It's
their
lives
and
their
families'
lives
because
of |\n| 19 | what
they're
proposing
to
do
for
Ms.
Wang. |\n| 20 | If
that
is
not
an
indication
that
they
think |\n| 21 | they
have
moral
suasion
-- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
That's
not,
it's not,
I
don't |\n| 23 | question
their
thought
process
on
it.
And
I
just
want |\n| 24 | to
confirm
something.
In
terms
of
what
you
did
propose |\n| 25 | in
terms
of
possibly
modifying
the
conditions
is
you |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
37 |\n| 2 | wanted
the
Court
to
approve
two
of
the
eight
that
you |\n| 3 | had
offered.
You
have
three
here
now.
You
were
going |\n| 4 | to,
in addition
to
the
security
for
the
apartment,
you |\n| 5 | were
going
to
put
up
the
\\$400,000
account
and
the |\n| 6 | \\$130,000
cash
that
was
seized.
You
were
going
to
put |\n| 7 | additional
security
through
others
that
you
now
say
I |\n| 8 | think
that
you
could
get
to
an
amount
in
total
of
\\$5 |\n| 9 | million.
Do
I
have
that
right? |\n| 10 | MR. LIPMAN:
Yeah,
we
could.
I
mean
we
have |\n| 11 | three
people
willing
to
post
their
property,
and
one
of |\n| 12 | those
houses
is
I
think
\\$3
million,
one
is
1.7
if
I |\n| 13 | remember
correctly,
but
yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
And
then
you
proposed
also
that
the |\n| 15 | Government
monitor
and
approve
any
expenditures
from
the |\n| 16 | \\$500,000
account. |\n| 17 | MR. LIPMAN:
I'd
rather
Pretrial
did
it
and
not |\n| 18 | the
U.S.
Attorney's
Office,
but
yes. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yeah,
again,
one
of
the
driving |\n| 20 | concerns
here
is
–
I'm
just
looking
for
where
this
was |\n| 21 | said,
that,
and
this
is
from
U.S.
v.
Melville
I
think. |\n| 22 | \"Bail
is
not
for
the
purpose
of
providing
funds
to
the |\n| 23 | Government
to
seek
the
defendant
should
he
go |\n| 24 | underground
or
flee
the
jurisdiction.
Bail
is
intended |\n| 25 | as
a
catalyst
to
aid
the
appearance
of
the
defendant |\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| PROCEEDING 39 | |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay. So I already said that she |\n| 4 | is a revolutionary. She believes in the cause. If she |\n| 5 | didn't believe in the cause, if she didn't believe in |\n| 6 | these people – thank you. |\n| 7 | THE COURT: The two are not mutually exclusive, |\n| 8 | fraud and belief in a cause. |\n| 9 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, Your Honor, that's true, |\n| 10 | but, again, you have to look at the individual and what |\n| 11 | is it that they did -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Of course. |\n| 13 | MR. LIPMAN: And so -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: I agree. |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN: -- they call each other, so I've |\n| 16 | talked to a bunch of people -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT: I think I get enough. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: You get it. And they call each |\n| 19 | other – just before I sit down, they call each other |\n| 20 | brother and sister, okay, and I've talked to a bunch of |\n| 21 | them, and I mean all I can say is that they're willing |\n| 22 | to risk everything, and she has not done anything to |\n| 23 | indicate that she would do, she would jeopardize them |\n| 24 | at, jeopardize them personally for her own, for her own |\n| 25 | personal gain. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
40 |\n| 2 | THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: All right, I will hear from the |\n| 5 | Government. |\n| 6 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just one |\n| 7 | brief point that Mr. Lipman just raised. With respect |\n| 8 | to the defendant's personal gain, the Government would |\n| 9 | note that the defendant's living in a \\$1.1 million |\n| 10 | apartment. The defendant has nearly a million dollars - |\n| 11 | - |\n| 12 | THE COURT: One might consider that poor in the |\n| 13 | middle of New York, but, you know, nonetheless. |\n| 14 | MS. MURRAY: Has nearly a million dollars in |\n| 15 | cash and her bank accounts, the two that were disclosed, |\n| 16 | and I'll get to that point. We have evidence that she |\n| 17 | was allocated \\$7 million approximately of what was a |\n| 18 | cryptocurrency or a purported cryptocurrency at the time |\n| 19 | of the initial coin offering at a lower valuation. So |\n| 20 | that would be worth substantially more now. And she had |\n| 21 | over approximately \\$138,000 of cash in her safe. |\n| 22 | But I would like to reset with respect today's |\n| 23 | proceedings. |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 25 | MS. MURRAY: At the very outset, Your Honor |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 41 |\n| 2 | asked about the status of the bail proceedings, and no, |\n| 3 | there have no further discussions between the defense |\n| 4 | and the Government regarding proposed suretors. The |\n| 5 | Government has not received any documentation additional |\n| 6 | to the documents that the defense submitted in |\n| 7 | connection with their motion that support the various |\n| 8 | purported financial situation of the suretors that they |\n| 9 | proposed even though they were on notice from the |\n| 10 | Government's submission that we believe the |\n| 11 | documentation to be incomplete or inadequate to make an |\n| 12 | accurate determination or assessment. The Government |\n| 13 | has not successfully reached the eighth co-signer that |\n| 14 | the defense had proposed and, therefore, has been unable |\n| 15 | to interview that person. So that's where we are today. |\n| 16 | Now, there are really three questions for the |\n| 17 | Court today. First, with respect to the defendant's |\n| 18 | motion, whether the Court should direct that the |\n| 19 | defendant has satisfied the conditions of her bond, the |\n| 20 | conditions that Judge Parker imposed when she was |\n| 21 | initially presented on March 15, several hours after her |\n| 22 | arrest. The answer is clearly no. |\n| 23 | The second question is whether the Court should |\n| 24 | modify the conditions of that bond that Judge Parker |\n| 25 | imposed to remove the co-signers requirement, which is |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 42 one of the first modification requests the defense is asking for, or potentially in connection with or an alternative various different modifications, be it posting additional property or cash in support of the bond, adding co-signers, aggregating co-signers. Again, with respect to modification, the answer is plainly no, the Court should not do that.\n\n And, finally, the third question, which was raised in the Government's submission last Friday, whether the defendant should be detained pending trial because there are no conditions or set of conditions that will reasonably assure her presence at future court proceedings. And, Your Honor, the answer to that is yes.\n\nSo I'll take each of those points in turn.\n\n First, with respect to the proposed co-signers, the defense submitted documentation and names and information about those co-signers to the Court. That is because they are not approved by the Government. So under the statute the basis for the Court to approve unapproved co-signers is to evaluate documentation, information about those co-signers, and then determine whether they have a net worth with sufficient unencumbered value to pay the full amount of the bond,\n\n1 PROCEEDING 43 here \\$5 million. And I'm not going to go over each of the individuals, Your Honor, because we laid this out in great detail in our initial submission. We went through each of the seven proposed co-signers that the defense has presented to the Court here with documentation, again, setting aside the eighth whom we were not able to interview.\n\n For each of those seven, based on the documents that the defense is providing to Your Honor for your consideration of whether those individuals meet the standard of the statute, first of all, Your Honor, none of them has appropriate moral suasion over the defendant. And, again, we laid this out but I would like to make that point a bit more finely because it's extremely important where here the defense is saying that these individuals exercise moral suasion.\n\n And, Your Honor, is correct, it's not a question of whether the proposed co-signers believe that they have influence or moral suasion over the defendant. It's a question of how the defendant feels, and while we can't put ourself in our head or in her heart, what we can do is we can look at the evidence that's in front of us.\n\nThese seven proposed co-signers for Your\n\n1 PROCEEDING 44 Honor's consideration, some of them have never met Ms. Wang, never spoken with her. A handful of them have met her at events, generally speaking. Most do not know where she works. Most do not know where she lives. They don't talk to her frequently. They don't appear to have a personal relationship.\n\n Interestingly, and I'll get to this point, one of the individuals actually believes that Ms. Wang works at Gettir, which is one of the alleged entities involved in the fraud and a potential instrumentality. And believes that because that individual met Ms. Wang in connection with interviewing for a position at Gettir. I'll talk about why that's relevant. Another individual believes that she works at a company called HCHK Properties. Again, one of these shell companies that's used in the course of this billion dollar fraud.\n\n And these proposed co-signers whom defense argues exercise moral suasion, they don't know the defendant well enough to even have personal relationship with her, and, therefore, we have no comfort that Ms. Wang would in any way be dissuaded by their signing a bond from fleeing, from leaving them responsible for paying the amount of the bond.\n\nTHE COURT: Well, even if they don't have what\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
45 |\n| 2 | we
think
of
as
a
traditional
personal
relationship
or |\n| 3 | family
relationship
or
a
deep
friend
relationship,
why |\n| 4 | can't
they
be
bonded
over
a
cause? |\n| 5 | MS. MURRAY:
They
could
be
bonded
over
a
cause, |\n| 6 | Your Honor.
In
this
particular
situation,
and
this
is |\n| 7 | why
the
Government's
argument
about
these
individuals |\n| 8 | being
potential
victims
of
the
fraud
or
apparent
victims |\n| 9 | of
the
fraud
is
important,
this
fraud
has
been
largely |\n| 10 | perpetuated
targeting
that
community.
It
is
a
fraud |\n| 11 | that
has
focused
on
preying
on
and
mobilizing
people
who |\n| 12 | support
Mr.
Kwok's
and
Ms.
Wang's
and
Mr.
Je's
movement |\n| 13 | against
the
CCP.
Those
are
the
exact
individuals
who |\n| 14 | have
been
identified
and
targeted
to
send
hundreds
of |\n| 15 | millions
dollars,
over
a
billion
dollars,
of
money
to |\n| 16 | line
Mr.
Kwok's
pockets,
Mr.
Je's
pockets,
their |\n| 17 | families,
to
reinvest
in
the
companies
that
are
the |\n| 18 | instrumentalities
of
the
fraud,
companies
that
Ms.
Wang |\n| 19 | manages
and
works
for,
some
on
paper
and
some
functional |\n| 20 | control. |\n| 21 | So
there's
no
comfort
that
the
Government
can |\n| 22 | derive
from
the
argument
that
because
an
individual
is
a |\n| 23 | member
of
the
allegedly
community
that
Ms.
Wang
has |\n| 24 | supporters,
that
that
will
influence
Ms.
Wang
to
not |\n\nflee.\n\n# 1 PROCEEDING 46\n\n And, Your Honor, I just note, moral suasion factors vary, but some of the considerations include the strength of ties between the defendant and the proposed suretor. Again, here, with respect to all of the proposed suretors in front of this Court which the defendant provided to Your Honor, that factor doesn't exist.\n\n Also, the defendant's roots in the community, we understand from defense counsel that Ms. Wang essentially works and then works within this community, but I would just note during the second attempt at this bail hearing for Ms. Wang Judge Netburn did note that Ms. Wang has lived in the country for seven years and is representing that she knows no one, no one who could potentially come forward as a co-signer who either isn't a potential victim within this community or a potential subject or co-conspirator of the fraud.\n\n And then also the regularity of contact. And here, again, we don't have regular contact between these proposed suretors and Ms. Wang.\n\n Now, turning to the second factor in evaluating the proposed suretors that are before the Court is financial responsibility. And, again, here, I don't want to belabor the point because we have gone through\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
47 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | each
of
the
proposed
suretors,
but
these
individuals
do |\n| 3 | not
have
sufficient
assets
of
an
unencumbered
value
to |\n| 4 | support
the
full
amount
of
the
bond.
That
is
the |\n| 5 | statutory
framework
that
we're
working
within
at
this |\n| 6 | point
where
conditions
have
been
imposed,
where
the |\n| 7 | Government
has
unapproved
suretors,
and
the
defense
has |\n| 8 | now
moved
to
bring
them
before
the
Court
-- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well,
why
I
am
hearing
at
least |\n| 10 | from
the
defense
that
with
an
entire
package
and
the |\n| 11 | supposed
three
FRP's
who
are
here,
suretors,
that
they |\n| 12 | do
have
\\$5
million.
Let
me
just
verify
something, |\n| 13 | counsel
for
the
defense,
are
you
saying
that
that
is |\n| 14 | unencumbered,
5
million? |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN:
Yeah,
we
have
three
people
who |\n| 16 | have
unencumbered
–
well
-- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Net
unencumbered. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
Thank you.
Yes,
net
I
think
adds |\n| 19 | up
to
–
let's
put
it
this
way,
together
with
the
million |\n| 20 | dollars
that
she
has
definitely,
I
know
that
one
is
\\$3 |\n| 21 | million.
I'm
sorry,
I'm
spacing
on
one
of
them,
but
I'm |\n| 22 | pretty
sure
that
those
three
cover
\\$5
million.
But
that |\n| 23 | they
do
including
the
-- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Right,
she's
got
the
million,
she's |\n| 25 | also
got
the
400,
she's
got
the
138.
So
we're
good
for |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
49 |\n| 2 | deal
with
that.
But
I
understand. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY:
Sure.
Yeah,
and
I
understand, |\n| 4 | Your Honor.
So
then
I
guess
I'll
move
to
the
second |\n| 5 | question
which
is
whether
the
Court
should
modify
the |\n| 6 | conditions
of
the
defendant's
bond,
either
to
remove
the |\n| 7 | co-signer
to
alter
in
and
adjust
the
bond
so
that |\n| 8 | there's
more
cash
or
property
securing
the
bond.
As
I |\n| 9 | said,
the
answer
is
plainly
no
to
that
as
well. |\n| 10 | And
I
just
want
to
make
a
few
points
about
the |\n| 11 | representations
that
counsel
has
made
-- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Before
you
do,
let's
assume
for the |\n| 13 | moment
there
are
no
financially
responsible
people
in |\n| 14 | your
view
because
they
don't
know
her
personally
except |\n| 15 | for
having
maybe
met
her
a
couple
of
times,
they're
not |\n| 16 | family,
and
the
only
thing
they
have
in
common
is
this |\n| 17 | cause.
If
I
am to
assess
whether
that
particular |\n| 18 | condition is
necessary
to
reasonably
assure
the
presence |\n| 19 | of
the
defendant
at
future
proceedings
as
opposed
to |\n| 20 | some
other
combination
of provisions, putting
aside,
of |\n| 21 | course,
all
the
provisions
that
are
already
in
place, |\n| 22 | the
home
detention,
electronic
monitoring,
etc.,
why |\n| 23 | can't
I
then
or
why
shouldn't
I
then
consider
other |\n| 24 | things
that
are
being
offered
insufficient
to
take
that |\n| 25 | place?
Why
does
it
have
to
be
two
financially |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 50 responsible people as opposed to, you know, another combination of what's being offered?\n\n MS. MURRAY: Your Honor can consider modifying the conditions of the bond certainly if you determine that there is a set of conditions that would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future court proceedings.\n\n THE COURT: And to be clear, I'm not saying what I have in mind is anything less than what Judge Parker would think, and I'm not pretending to put myself in her shoes. But I could imagine that given that the Government and the defendant came to essentially an agreement on most of the terms of a package, that Judge Parker no doubt was assuming at the point that there would be two financially responsible people. And if she was presented with an argument that said, well, the Government's willing to agree to this, but we don't have anybody we're going to approve, she might take a different tact. She might not, she might say, you know what, it's the Government's prerogative, the Government offered this package, they can't satisfy it, t's not going to do it, then I'm going to detain. So I'm not saying it should necessarily come\n\nout differently, but I think it's a little too pat in\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
51 |\n| 2 | some
respects
–
well,
again,
why
that
condition
as |\n| 3 | opposed
to
what
else
is
being
offered? |\n| 4 | MS. MURRAY:
Well, there
are actually
multiple |\n| 5 | conditions,
and,
Your Honor,
the
reason
is
that
when
the |\n| 6 | Government
discussed
a
proposed
bail
package
on
consent |\n| 7 | with
defense,
it
was
hours
after
the
defendant
was |\n| 8 | arrested
on
March
15.
The
Government
had
not
had
the |\n| 9 | opportunity
to
go
through
the
evidence
that
was
then |\n| 10 | being
collected
from
the
defendant's
apartment
in |\n| 11 | connection
with
the
FBI's
premises
search.
And, |\n| 12 | frankly,
the
Government
was
not
yet
aware
that
the |\n| 13 | defendant
was
going
to
lie
to
this
Court,
to
Pretrial |\n| 14 | Services
-- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I
don't
understand
what
the
lies |\n| 16 | are.
I
have
to
say
I
didn't,
you know,
in
your
letter |\n| 17 | you
accuse
the
defendant
of
dissembling
on
this.
The |\n| 18 | only
one
that
grabbed
me
as
a
possible
dissembling
would |\n| 19 | be
the
cryptocurrency.
But
it's
certainly
plausible |\n| 20 | that
you
could
have
a
cryptocurrency
that
was
allocated |\n| 21 | in
2016
I
think
the
date
was
and,
you know,
it
may
have |\n| 22 | never
materialized
into
anything.
It
certainly |\n| 23 | suggests,
you know,
where
did
that
go,
can't
someone |\n| 24 | tell
us,
but
right
now
she's
saying
she
has
no
control |\n| 25 | over
access
to
it
because
she
doesn't
even
know
where
it |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
52 |\n| 2 | is
or
what
it
is. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY:
So
a few
points
there,
Your Honor. |\n| 4 | First,
the
defendant
during
her
Pretrial Services |\n| 5 | interview
indicated
she's
been
unemployed
since |\n| 6 | September
of
2022.
Now,
documents
that
the
Government |\n| 7 | reviewed
late
last
week
that
had
been
seized
from
her |\n| 8 | apartment
and
additional
evidence
that
the
Government |\n| 9 | has,
and,
as
you
know,
we
can
proceed
by
proffer
in |\n| 10 | detention
hearings
-- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 12 | MS. MURRAY:
This
is
not
a
mini
trial.
But
the |\n| 13 | Government's
evidence
is
that
the
defendant
was,
in |\n| 14 | fact,
continuing
to
work
in
connection
with
her
named |\n| 15 | position
with
family
offices
of
Mr.
Kwok's
family
money |\n| 16 | and
also
with
some
of
the
other
entities
that
I |\n| 17 | mentioned
that
are
instrumentalities
of
the
fraud
up |\n| 18 | until
effectively
the
date
that
she
was
arrested.
We |\n| 19 | have
seen
documents
that
lay
out
the
financial
position |\n| 20 | of
various
of
the
different
entities
that
are
associated |\n| 21 | with
the
fraud.
Those
include
Gettir
which
is,
as
I |\n| 22 | mentioned,
one
of
the
proposed
suretors
believes
Ms. |\n| 23 | Wang
formally
works
for.
They
include
HCHK
Property |\n| 24 | which
another
of
the
suretors
believes
Ms.
Wang
formally |\n| 25 | works
for,
and
the
Government's
evidence
shows
Ms.
Wang, |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
53 |\n| 2 | in fact,
is
the
99.999
percent
shareholder
of
HCHK |\n| 3 | through
her
BBI
entity. |\n| 4 | They
include
G
Clubs
which
is
one
of
the
arms |\n| 5 | of
the
fraud
that
is
outlined
and
alleged
in
the |\n| 6 | Government's
indictment.
They
include
the
Rule
of
Law |\n| 7 | Society
and
the
Rule
of
Law
Foundation
which
are |\n| 8 | charities,
purported
charities
that
Mr.
Kwok
and
others |\n| 9 | founded
in
2018
that
laid
the
groundwork
and
the
basis |\n| 10 | for
collecting
all
these
monies
through
the
different |\n| 11 | arms
of
the
fraud. |\n| 12 | And,
Your Honor,
these
are
printouts
of |\n| 13 | balances
of
accounts,
accounts
raised
through
present |\n| 14 | which,
as
reflected
in
the
documents,
was
variously |\n| 15 | February
2023
or
March
13
of
2023,
two
days
before
the |\n| 16 | defendant
was
arrested. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
But those are corporate
funds, |\n| 18 | right,
but
you're
using
it
for
the
point
about |\n| 19 | employment. |\n| 20 | MS. MURRAY:
I'm
using
it
for
the
point
about |\n| 21 | employment,
Your Honor,
and
also
effective
control.
Mr. |\n| 22 | Lipman
indicated
he
doesn't
know
what
the
Government |\n| 23 | means when it uses
the general
phrase
chief
of
staff. |\n| 24 | What
the
Government
is
alleging
by
so
characterizing
Ms. |\n| 25 | Wang
is
that
she
manages
and
controls
these
various |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 54 |\n| 2 | entities. Now, like Mr. Kwok, she doesn't have her name |\n| 3 | on each of the different companies that she is involved |\n| 4 | with, but the Government has no question in light of the |\n| 5 | evidence both found in Ms. Wang's apartment, the fact |\n| 6 | that people associate Ms. Wang formally with these |\n| 7 | companies because they interviewed with her for jobs at |\n| 8 | some of these companies or they had contracts with her |\n| 9 | in connection with their work with some of the |\n| 10 | companies. |\n| 11 | Ms. Wang runs the show with respect to these |\n| 12 | instrumentalities. She has done so up until the day of |\n| 13 | her arrest contrary to what she told Pretrial Services. |\n| 14 | And the Government would allege that part of the reason |\n| 15 | that she lied to Pretrial Services was to disclaim |\n| 16 | association with the various different instrumentalities |\n| 17 | of the fraud. To say that she took herself out of the |\n| 18 | fraudulent entities, notably, Your Honor, right around |\n| 19 | the time that the Government started to seize \\$630 |\n| 20 | million in fraud proceeds. |\n| 21 | So in the Government's view, at the time of the |\n| 22 | initial presentment and bail argument, we were not aware |\n| 23 | that we were going to find concrete evidence in the |\n| 24 | defendant's apartment that, in our view, proves what the |\n\nGovernment already alleged and believed to be true from\n\n1 PROCEEDING 55\n\n its investigation which is Ms. Wang has continued working for these companies up until the time of her arrest. So that is one point, Your Honor. It's a change in circumstances. The Government has a change in circumstances from where it was at the time of the initial presentment.\n\n Now, with respect to accounts, the allocation of H coin or one of the purported cryptocurrencies that is traded on the Himalaya exchange, again, another arm of the fraud, the allocation document was found in Ms. Wang's apartment with various other documents that seem to support the fraud. Your Honor is correct, defense is correct, there's no way for the Government to prove that Ms. Wang holds that money, and, in fact, the Government's allegation is that it's not cryptocurrency, but we're not alleging it's valueless. We're alleging that certain people have it and the people who are quickest to redeem can basically have an exit scam and get out with their money.\n\n I would note while, again, we don't have access to an account that Ms. Wang has where the money is held, Your Honor correctly identified approximately \\$7 million worth of a cryptocurrency asset would be something you would want to keep track of. The allocation indicates\n\n1 PROCEEDING 57 included the requirement that the defendant disclose assets or accounts that she controls in her name or that are in companies that she controls or is affiliated with and, broadly speaking, cryptocurrency and other real property.\n\n The Government has found evidence, again, dated as recently as a few days before the defendant's arrest from her apartment, as I said, that show bank account information, account information, Ms. Wang signing off on payroll for some of the instrumentalities that she doesn't control, but that the Government certainly alleges that she manages and works for in her role as Mr. Kwok's chief of staff. So to the Government that indicates effective control over those finances.\n\n Even setting that aside though, Your Honor, Mr. Lipman mentioned that there were credit cards and other items in the safe. The Government had indicated that there was cash in one of the pouches, another pouch with certain items that appeared to be and are ready to take at the ready.\n\n THE COURT: You mentioned a safe. Was there a safe? MS. MURRAY: There was a safe. Yes. So the\n\nbag with the cash and another bag that had credit cards\n\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 58 |\n| 2 | and other items, including the passports, those were all |\n| 3 | concealed in a safe in defendant's apartment. |\n| 4 | The credit cards notable that were taken from |\n| 5 | one of those pouches in the safe, looking at the front |\n| 6 | cover of those credit cards which were photographed and |\n| 7 | we provided to defense counsel last week, there are |\n| 8 | numerous cards that indicate accounts that are not yet |\n| 9 | expired in the defendant's name that the defendant did |\n| 10 | not disclose to the Government or to Pretrial Services. |\n| 11 | And at this point, we have no way of determining what |\n| 12 | assets are in those accounts, how the defendant |\n| 13 | continues to control those accounts, but it's, again, |\n| 14 | another layer, Your Honor, where we cannot derive |\n| 15 | comfort that the defendant is being truthful with |\n| 16 | Pretrial Services, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, or |\n| 17 | with the Court. |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 59 |\n| 2 | was arrested. The next which expires next year. There |\n| 3 | is a Citibank personal account in the defendant's own |\n| 4 | name which doesn't expire for another year. There's a |\n| 5 | DBS Treasures account at a Singapore Bank, and the |\n| 6 | Government explicitly asked about foreign accounts as |\n| 7 | well. That card doesn't expire until January of 2025, |\n| 8 | again, in the defendant's name. And, finally, a China |\n| 9 | Bank of Communications account, it's a Chinese bank. |\n| 10 | That account, the card indicates it expires September of |\n| 11 | 2023, also in the defendant's name. |\n| 12 | It's another example, Your Honor, of |\n| 13 | indications to the Government that the defendant has |\n| 14 | access to accounts, assets, funds that she could use in |\n| 15 | order to flee. And if they are funds that we needed to |\n| 16 | rely on the defendant to disclose to satisfy another |\n| 17 | condition of the bond that was imposed. Separate and |\n| 18 | apart from the question of co-signer, she was obligated |\n| 19 | under the conditions imposed to disclose her assets, her |\n| 20 | accounts, her cryptocurrency, her property to the |\n| 21 | Government and to Pretrial Services. |\n| 22 | She represented through counsel that she had |\n| 23 | done that simply by disclosing two personal accounts, |\n| 24 | one at Morgan Stanley Bank, one at TD Bank, and then |\n| 25 | this account that was associated with one of the |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
60 |\n| 2 | companies.
She
did
not
disclose
in
the
Government's |\n| 3 | view
by
any
stretch
the
corpus
of
money
that
she
has |\n| 4 | access
to. |\n| 5 | These
are
examples
of
new
circumstances
that |\n| 6 | gives
the
Government
grave
concerns.
Grave
concerns |\n| 7 | about
the
defendant's
incentives
to
flee,
about
her |\n| 8 | ability
to
flee,
about
the
fact
that
we
cannot
trust |\n| 9 | representations
that
the
defendant
is
making.
And,
Your |\n| 10 | Honor,
in
those
situations
where
we
have
so
many
red |\n| 11 | flags
and
so
many
concerns
that
the
Government
would
not |\n| 12 | necessarily
have
identified
if
we
hadn't
found
this
new |\n| 13 | information.
We
simply
do
not
have
any
assurances
that |\n| 14 | there
are
any
conditions
or
set
of
conditions
that
will |\n| 15 | assure
the
defendant's
appearance
at
future
court |\n| 16 | appearances. |\n| 17 | So
that
goes
to
the
third
prong,
Your Honor. |\n| 18 | It's
the
fact
that
the
Government
is
now
coming
to
the |\n| 19 | Court
saying
we
agreed
on
these
proposed
bail
conditions |\n| 20 | at
the
time
of
her
arrest
based
on
what
we
knew then. |\n| 21 | The
world
has
changed
since
then,
and
it
has
only
gotten |\n| 22 | more
concerning
for the
Government
which
already
had
a |\n| 23 | significant
concern
about
the
defendant's
risk
of
flight |\n| 24 | but
believed
that
there
may
be
certain
conditions
that |\n| 25 | could
assure her
appearance.
We
no
longer
feel
that |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 61 |\n| 2 | way. We do not believe there are conditions or a set of |\n| 3 | conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: One clarification. In regards to -- |\n| 5 | you referred to, I think you referred to, I don't know |\n| 6 | if you were referring to the allegations of the |\n| 7 | indictment or something else, but you referred to Mr. |\n| 8 | Kwok and Mr. Je as being the ones who were sort of |\n| 9 | lining their pocket and getting rich. Are you in |\n| 10 | agreement with defense counsel that the indictment |\n| 11 | doesn't make allegations that the defendant here herself |\n| 12 | was lining her pockets so to speak? |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: I guess to answer Your Honor's |\n| 14 | question, the indictment does make allegations that the |\n| 15 | defendant herself was personally responsible for a |\n| 16 | hundred million dollar misappropriation of fraud |\n| 17 | proceeds -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT: I understand. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY: But that's to the point of |\n| 20 | misappropriation. Now, with respect to the indictment |\n| 21 | which is a charging document that contains some |\n| 22 | allegations, we haven't specifically outlined personal |\n| 23 | money that the defendant herself misappropriated, but, |\n| 24 | again, we don't believe that that is in any way germane |\n| 25 | to her risk of flight and her access to money here and |\n\n| PROCEEDING | |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | to a network. |\n| 3 | And another point that I would like to note is |\n| 4 | with respect to travel documents and passports. Mr. |\n| 5 | Lipman said that the defendant had been seeking |\n| 6 | permission to travel at the end of last year or |\n| 7 | beginning of this year, and she was going to go I |\n| 8 | believe to the U.K. Travel internationally. |\n| 9 | The Government recovered a Vanuatu passport and |\n| 10 | a Hong Kong passport from her safe. The Vanuatu |\n| 11 | passport was expired, and we did see evidence which we |\n| 12 | disclosed that that passport had been kind of not |\n| 13 | revoked but that the defendant had removed her request |\n| 14 | from the passport. But she has the ability to obtain |\n| 15 | travel documents as does her co-defendant Miles Kwok who |\n| 16 | allegedly has had 11 passports at various points. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Well, she's not Miles Kwok. |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: I understand -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT: I understand she could be part of a |\n| 20 | network where things like that can be made available is |\n| 21 | what you're suggesting I think. |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY: That's exactly right, Your Honor, |\n| 23 | it's exactly right that she can both be part of the |\n| 24 | network where things can be made available and she is |\n| 25 | the one who is tasked with holding onto those travel |\n\n And at a very high level, to talk through those accounts, there is a Citibank account for one of the Kwok family entities that the defendant controlled that was active through last month when she was arrested. So it was active at the time. There were two personal Bank of America debit cards, different account numbers, both in the defendant's name, in her name, personal accounts. One which expired last month but, again, active when she\n\n1 PROCEEDING 63 documents both for herself and Mr. Kwok. She is a trusted person who is entrusted with the responsibility of having those travel documents --\n\n THE COURT: What do you make of the defense's points that the defendant certainly would've been aware in September or October of 2022 about the seizure of phones and that something was afoot and then there was the dealings with the SEC, together with the fact that, again, as defense has represented, that she applied for a furlough to be able to travel despite her asylum aps. Aren't those, if true, sort of indicative of someone who's not going to run?\n\n MS. MURRAY: Not necessarily, Your Honor, and I would also note that while, you know, there may be a question of whether those are at odds, and I'm happy to address that in a moment, I would also note that the defendant's willingness and, in fact, desire to travel to the U.K. even though she has these serious concerns, the CCP's persecution of repatriation, indicates that those concerns are not so grave that she's not willing to travel internationally.\n\n But I don't know the circumstances of the defendant's requested furlough. I don't know what the purpose was of her going on that trip. I will say that\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 64 |\n| 2 | there's no reason - if we're speaking in hypotheticals |\n| 3 | in this instance, there's similarly no reason to believe |\n| 4 | that she didn't request furlough to go to the United |\n| 5 | Kingdom without any intention of returning after she was |\n| 6 | aware the funds had been seized. And, again, I'm |\n| 7 | speaking in hypotheticals only because we were asked a |\n| 8 | question by the Court, but I think you can draw various |\n| 9 | different conclusions from these facts. And at bottom, |\n| 10 | her seeking to travel to the U.K., her willingness to |\n| 11 | travel internationally, doesn't cut against the fact |\n| 12 | that she poses a significant risk of flight. |\n| 13 | And I'd also note, it's a risk of flight non- |\n| 14 | appearance at future court appearances. We don't need |\n| 15 | to establish that she's going to go to a foreign |\n| 16 | jurisdiction -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT: No. |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: She could flee from the city, she |\n| 19 | could flee from the several block radius. She could cut |\n| 20 | her bracelet. And it could be that her vast network of |\n| 21 | supporters enable and harbor her. We don't know the |\n| 22 | circumstances, but the bottom fundamental point is the |\n| 23 | defendant poses a significant risk of flight. The |\n| 24 | Government sees no condition or set of conditions in |\n| 25 | light of the strength of the evidence, the seriousness |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 65 |\n| 2 | of the charges here, the defendant's personal |\n| 3 | circumstances, her access to substantial assets, foreign |\n| 4 | connections including her co-defendant William Je who is |\n| 5 | alleged to be in the UAE as a fugitive of where he has |\n| 6 | charges, her network of supporters, and the new |\n| 7 | information that we have found in the last two weeks, |\n| 8 | indicating that the defendant has not been forthcoming |\n| 9 | with the Court, Pretrial, or the Government. We simply |\n| 10 | don't believe there are any conditions that can ensure |\n| 11 | her appearance at future court proceedings. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
66 |\n| 2 | the
cushions,
none
of
that
apparently
happened.
It
is, |\n| 3 | it
was
represented
to
the
Court. |\n| 4 | So
now
we
get
to
the
point
of
trust.
They
said |\n| 5 | trust.
You
can't
trust
this
defendant.
Really?
But |\n| 6 | you
can
trust
this
Government?
Let's
just
see,
let's |\n| 7 | just
parse
through
what
Ms.
Murray
just
said.
She
said |\n| 8 | that
she
found
photographs
of
cards,
some
of
those |\n| 9 | showed
that
the
card
is
not
yet
expired.
How
do
we
go |\n| 10 | from
there
to,
oh,
and
there's
an
account
that
goes
with |\n| 11 | it?
What
evidence
does
she
have?
None.
None |\n| 12 | whatsoever. |\n| 13 | What
she
knows
–
by the way,
Your Honor,
I
have |\n| 14 | never,
the
words
Great
Britain
never
left
my
mouth. |\n| 15 | Okay?
That
means
that
they
knew
that
she
was
about
to |\n| 16 | travel.
Why
didn't
they
arrest
her?
If
they
thought |\n| 17 | that
she
was
going
to
get
out
of
Dodge
and
they
were |\n| 18 | concerned
that
she
was
a
flight
risk,
well,
when
they |\n| 19 | found
out
that
she
applied,
well,
arrest
her.
What, |\n| 20 | they
didn't
have
a
border
watching
her?
Really? |\n| 21 | Because
the
Department
of
Justice
has
changed
that
much |\n| 22 | since
I
was
there?
I
don't
think
so. |\n| 23 | So
now
let's
get
to
her
employment.
Once |\n| 24 | again,
what
was
the
question
that
was
asked?
Are
you |\n| 25 | currently
employed?
No.
No.
If
the
question
were |\n\n THE COURT: All right. I assume you want to respond some.\n\n MR. LIPMAN: Oh, yes, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Just let me say to my 3:30, sorry, that we're going to be running late. Just sit tight, and we'll eventually get there. Go ahead.\n\n MR. LIPMAN: I'll do this as quickly as I can, Your Honor. So I want to start with the following. Everything I said about what they misrepresented in their conversations with the Court and submissions apparently is true because none of it did they take issue with. So all of that stuff about finding, you know, a phone between mattresses, phones secreted in whatever it that they were, a document hiding in between\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 69 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | companies? When? To whom? And I had a specific |\n| 3 | conversation with the Government when they say, well, |\n| 4 | Ms. Murray says, she says that, broadly speaking, the |\n| 5 | question could be that broadly construed or narrowly |\n| 6 | construed. Well, first of all, nobody's taken my |\n| 7 | client's Fifth Amendment (indiscernible), not that I |\n| 8 | have heard, and when she was asked the question, she |\n| 9 | gave an answer, the answer was truthful. If they wanted |\n| 10 | to know more, they should've asked. And I specifically |\n| 11 | had a conversation with the Government, and I said |\n| 12 | excluding anything that she may have control over by |\n| 13 | virtue of corporate ownership or whatever, these are the |\n| 14 | accounts. |\n| 15 | She's not a flight risk. Your Honor. There's a |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 70 |\n| 2 | The only question is is she a flight risk? What is it |\n| 3 | about her that makes you think that she's not going to |\n| 4 | show up? She will show up, Your Honor. She's got |\n| 5 | nowhere to go. Nowhere. And the Government keeps - |\n| 6 | this is where I was, thank you. |\n| 7 | Why are they stretching it? Why? What is the |\n| 8 | reason? I mean, really, does she look dangerous? What |\n| 9 | is it -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT: They're not moving on |\n| 11 | dangerousness. |\n| 12 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry, no -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT: They're not moving on danger. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: There is a reason why they're |\n| 15 | doing it. They want her to cook. They want her to get |\n| 16 | a flavor of the MDC because she was the chief of staff, |\n| 17 | Your Honor, and that is not okay. That is immoral. And |\n| 18 | when the Government obtains that result by, among other |\n| 19 | things, misrepresenting, saying that she's a flight risk |\n| 20 | on the basis of things that they cannot support, that |\n| 21 | contradict the evidence that's collected, that is - is |\n| 22 | anybody other than me think that it's a little bit |\n| 23 | peculiar or ironic that the Government is alleging that |\n| 24 | she violated certain antifraud provisions that make it |\n| 25 | unlawful to make a statement that in light of all |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
71 |\n| 2 | circumstances
is
materially
misleading
and
yet
this
is |\n| 3 | what
the
Government
is
doing?
Why? |\n| 4 | Your Honor,
this
woman
needs
to
be
released. |\n| 5 | She's
not
a
flight
risk.
She's
not
going
anywhere. |\n| 6 | She's
going
to
have
an
ankle
bracelet,
she'll
have
GPS |\n| 7 | monitoring.
We
can
have
all
of
her
money
tied
up
so |\n| 8 | that
she
can't
breathe
without
Pretrial
or
somebody |\n| 9 | giving
her
approval. |\n| 10 | And
one
last
thing,
if
she's
not
released,
her |\n| 11 | defense
is
going
to
be
severely
prejudiced. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
It's
true
for
anybody
who
doesn't |\n| 13 | get
released. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN:
Except,
except
when
that
person |\n| 15 | also
has
Mandarin
as
her
first
language,
when
the |\n| 16 | Government
asks
for
a
disk
to
put
2
terabytes
of
data
on |\n| 17 | it.
This
is
not
a
case
that's
going
to
be
resolved |\n| 18 | quickly,
and
it
is
a
case
in
which
it's
going
to
be
very |\n| 19 | important
to
have
your
client's
assistance. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay,
thank you.
Ms.
Murray,
do |\n| 21 | you
want
to
have
the
last
word
here? |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY:
Yes,
Your Honor,
briefly.
I
want |\n| 23 | to
start
by
saying
there
is
nothing
that
the
Government |\n| 24 | has
misrepresented
to
the
Court.
The
Government
has
not |\n| 25 | reached
on
facts.
The
Government
has
provided
evidence |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 72 |\n| 2 | substantiated information that it has presented to this |\n| 3 | Court and to the defense. With respect to the credit |\n| 4 | cards Mr. Lipman mentioned, it's not a photo of the |\n| 5 | cards. It's a photo of the cards that we have before |\n| 6 | the Court and the defense today. They were the physical |\n| 7 | cards. But we resent the claim that we are in any way |\n| 8 | acting other than -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT: I know -- |\n| 10 | MS. MURRAY: --fully forthcoming and in good |\n| 11 | faith. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: -- I have no doubt you're operating |\n| 13 | in good faith. But he did point out some things that |\n| 14 | were discrepancies it seemed between what was |\n| 15 | represented in terms of where certain pieces of evidence |\n| 16 | were found in her apartment versus what was inventoried |\n| 17 | and how it was inventoried. Can you speak to that? |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: Sure, Your Honor. There aren't |\n| 19 | discrepancies. What Mr. Lipman has done is he's pointed |\n| 20 | to an evidence log that has a column where there are |\n| 21 | certain notations made when the FBI is collecting |\n| 22 | evidence that indicates where the item was recovered. |\n| 23 | Typically, it indicates the room by letter based on the |\n| 24 | map that Mr. Lipman provided to the Court and a brief |\n| 25 | description. It does not indicate in a detailed |\n\n question that I keep asking myself is this. Why? Why is the Government misrepresenting evidence? Why is the Government stretching stuff, stretching stuff? Even if they believe that, you know, there's more to this. Even – I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm reminded that on her employment question, we actually invoked, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right. Okay? Thank you. Even – I lost my train of thought. I apologize. I think I was responding to this idea that\n\nshe controls stuff. There's no – we never hid that.\n\n evidence was recovered from, what condition it was in, how it was found.\n\n So with respect the laptop between clothes, that is consistent with the Government's representations to Judge Parker at the initial presentment that the laptop was found between sweaters in the closet. It doesn't say specifically what items of clothing --\n\nTHE COURT: No.\n\n MS. MURRAY: -- or where, but it's consistent. With respect to the iPhones that the Government had indicated had been in boxes, yes, in a bag in the closet, and you can see those are the items that Mr. Lipman pointed Your Honor to in the 50's on the evidence log. And you'll note that nearly each of them has the same PIN code or passcode. So those are items that at first the FBI thought might not have any content, and then the FBI had technicians on site during the search warrant, they plugged them in, and they determined they had content. There are no misrepresentations.\n\n Mr. Lipman is now, again, Your Honor, essentially trying to hold a trial on the merits of the Government's case here at a point of a detention hearing by, first of all, requesting information from the\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 74 |\n| 2 | Government which we happily provided and would have so |\n| 3 | provided in the course of discovery in this case as |\n| 4 | well, and then trying to hold it against the Government |\n| 5 | by claiming that because there isn't a photo of each |\n| 6 | stage of every step of the process that evidence was |\n| 7 | collected, then the Government can't be trusted. It is |\n| 8 | simply not true, and it's disrespectful, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | With respect to a couple of other points, I |\n| 10 | would just like to note the defendant lied. She lied |\n| 11 | about the cash in her apartment. I have now heard the |\n| 12 | defense during the course of this argument split hairs |\n| 13 | on several topics, and that is another example of what |\n| 14 | gives the Government pause. |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Well, how do we know – it is |\n| 16 | important what was asked. Do you have any money on you? |\n| 17 | Do you have any money in your apartment? There's a |\n| 18 | difference. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY: I understand, Your Honor, and the |\n| 20 | Government obviously is not privy -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT: And particularly for someone of a |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 75 |\n| 2 | Government is not part of Pretrial Services interview |\n| 3 | with the defendant. She was assisted by a Mandarin |\n| 4 | speaking interpreter during that interview. The |\n| 5 | Government is also aware from its investigation that Ms. |\n| 6 | Wang is quite fluent in English. We know that from |\n| 7 | various different pieces of evidence we've collected, |\n| 8 | including statements that she's made and her voice |\n| 9 | during conversations. She doesn't appear to have an |\n| 10 | issue understanding. |\n| 11 | But with respect to the questions that were |\n| 12 | asked, again, I don't know, I was not there. The |\n| 13 | defendant is very much so splitting hairs on several |\n| 14 | topics. I will note that the Pretrial Services report |\n| 15 | indicates that the defendant was asked about assets, |\n| 16 | assets, not specific accounts that she is the sole |\n| 17 | signatory on, not specific accounts that are active that |\n| 18 | she has control over and log-in information to. We're |\n| 19 | not splitting hairs. Pretrial Services asked about |\n| 20 | assets, and she did not disclose \\$138,000 worth of cash |\n| 21 | that was sitting in a safe in her apartment. |\n| 22 | With respect to her employment, the defense |\n| 23 | just indicated that she had invoked - the Pretrial |\n| 24 | Services report with respect to employment history |\n| 25 | indicates that the defendant advised she has been |\n\n different language and culture, it might be all the more important that there's nuance to what's asked. I don't know what was asked.\n\nMS. MURRAY: Sure, and nor do we because the\n\n1 PROCEEDING 76\n\n unemployed since September 2022. Now, with respect to the source of additional money that she has since then or that she is living on, the defendant declined to answer, and that is her right. But she did provide this statement in response to Pretrial Services report, she's been unemployed since September of 2022.\n\n Now, Mr. Lipman says that the defendant has been volunteering in various organizations that she previously might have worked in a more formal employment capacity. I just want to go back briefly to the personal gain point that Your Honor has asked about. Yes, I understand \\$1.1 million might not be an expensive apartment in Manhattan, but it's a \\$1.1 million apartment purchased in cash. The defendant has nearly another million dollars in her accounts. The defendant was up until her purported decision to terminate her employment and start volunteering was earning a salary of approximately \\$250,000 from the Kwok entities that she worked for formally, in a formal capacity. That is personal gain in the Government's view.\n\n It is also inconsistent with now the claims that September 2022, right when the Government started seizing funds, the defendant stopped working in a formal capacity. She can't be held responsible for any of\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 77 |\n| 2 | these bank accounts that she's signing off on payroll |\n| 3 | for, that she has access to the funds for. |\n| 4 | Your Honor, at bottom the defendant is a risk |\n| 5 | of flight. There are no conditions that can reasonably |\n| 6 | assure her appearance. She has lied. The Government |\n| 7 | has not misrepresented itself to the Court. And we have |\n| 8 | no comfort that we can believe that she will make |\n| 9 | accurate representations to the Court, that we will have |\n| 10 | the ability to monitor her in any meaningful way that |\n| 11 | would assure her appearance at future court proceedings. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lipman, I see you, |\n| 13 | do you want to respond? Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, answering the question |\n| 15 | that's posed truthfully is a complete answer. It's not |\n| 16 | splitting hairs -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Look, the bottom line is we don't |\n| 18 | know really what was asked and how it was asked -- |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, we were there. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Fine, but I'm saying we don't have |\n| 21 | a record -- |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, there is no |\n| 23 | record, and there is no proof of these things that the |\n| 24 | Government says -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT: I -- |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 78 |\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN: -- which is what -- |\n| 3 | (interposing) |\n| 4 | THE COURT: I didn't say which way it cuts. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN: No, but, Your Honor, they said we |\n| 6 | found a credit card. Well, that means she didn't |\n| 7 | disclose an account. No, you found a credit card. |\n| 8 | Okay? We found a statement that said that whatever, |\n| 9 | that she was allocated some coin. Yes, that's what you |\n| 10 | found, that's what you have. You don't have anything |\n| 11 | else. So to tell me that she needs to be detained and |\n| 12 | she cannot be trusted because they found something that |\n| 13 | they don't fully understand, I'm sorry, but that's a |\n| 14 | bridge too far. |\n| 15 | And, yeah, a bunch of her accounts, by the way, |\n| 16 | as the Government knows, were closed, and the |\n| 17 | Government's investigation kind of followed that. So |\n| 18 | like the Citi accounts, for example, were closed. Other |\n| 19 | accounts at other banks were closed recently, they were |\n| 20 | closed. And the other thing, Your Honor, when they say |\n| 21 | she controls this or she controls that or whatever, |\n| 22 | okay, she worked somewhere, she no longer works there, |\n| 23 | she doesn't draw a salary. What she does with her time |\n| 24 | is her business. It's not cutting - it's not lying to |\n| 25 | anybody, it's not any of that. Okay? |\n\nPROCEEDING\n\n1 PROCEEDING 79 And the Government essentially conceded – no, not essentially. The Government conceded the key point that this was not, her participating, according to their indictment, was not for the benefit for her personal monetary gain. It was for some other reason. And the apartment was bought before any of the allegations with other money. She did make money, but she didn't spend it. I already described to the Court how she lived. And so the key question is why does she do this and, if she did it, did she do it to benefit herself, and if not, then is that sufficient reason to think that she's now going to hurt these people because she did not put any money that came out of their pockets and put it into hers. There's no reason to believe that having not done that, being around all this money and not putting any of it in your pocket. For all of these years she didn't do that. So what is going to make her do it now? And the answer is that this is a revolutionary movement, okay, these people are her brothers and sisters. They together want to see the CCP overthrown. And so she's not going to put them in financial jeopardy that she dedicated her life, her life to this cause.\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\nPROCEEDING\n\n80 ∪\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 80 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, just a final point. I |\n| 3 | want to be clear the Government made no concession on |\n| 4 | that point in any stretch, and a key question is whether |\n| 5 | she poses a risk of flight, that is the question. |\n| 6 | THE COURT: All right, look, one thing that |\n| 7 | I've been asked to do is to determine if the, or at |\n| 8 | least order that some of the financial suretors that |\n| 9 | have been offered are sufficient to meet the |\n| 10 | requirements and conditions that were issued by Judge |\n| 11 | Parker, and the defense has indicated here they have |\n| 12 | three for which they believe that there's sufficient |\n| 13 | property that can be offered as security along with the |\n| 14 | enhanced package, if you will, of funds that were |\n| 15 | offered on behalf of the defendant. |\n| 16 | I don't have it in front of me information |\n| 17 | about those three FRP's in terms of the property that's |\n| 18 | being offered. That is part of what I need to consider. |\n| 19 | I realize I am also being asked by the Government for |\n| 20 | detention anew in light of new material. But it's |\n| 21 | incumbent upon me to review whatever material the |\n| 22 | defendant is going to provide to substantiate it's |\n| 23 | offered financial suretors. |\n| 24 | So I want a package of whatever it is that you |\n| 25 | must or that you think is enough. If there is |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 81 |\n| 2 | documentation you haven't provided the Government |\n| 3 | already on others that you can provide, including the |\n| 4 | so-called eighth or others, provide it. And part of |\n| 5 | what I'm going to do is assess that material. It |\n| 6 | doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to find obviously |\n| 7 | that that is sufficient and that the conditions have |\n| 8 | been met, but it is one of the things I am going to |\n| 9 | consider in addition to considering whether a different |\n| 10 | set of conditions should be imposed or whether the |\n| 11 | defendant should be detained. |\n| 12 | So she's going to continue to be detained |\n| 13 | pursuant to Judge Parker's order of all conditions being |\n| 14 | satisfied before she's released pending the submission |\n| 15 | of this additional information and my review of it which |\n| 16 | I will try to do as quickly as possible. |\n| 17 | Let me ask Mr. Lipman, when can you get that |\n| 18 | material to me and the Government? |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, I will start working |\n| 20 | on it as soon as I leave this courtroom. I would ask |\n| 21 | for 24 hours. |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Well, sure. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: Oh yes, yes. Yes. That's a good |\n| 24 | point. Your Honor has a lot of personal information, |\n\nrather than redacting it and filing it in various ways -\n\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 85 |\n| 2 | is our position that if there's sufficient proof that |\n| 3 | the person proposing to cosign actually owns this real |\n| 4 | estate and the real estate has the value that they say |\n| 5 | it does, that's really all that the Government needs. |\n| 6 | In other words, right, because whether they make money |\n| 7 | or not -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: I don't know what the Government |\n| 9 | needs, but you need to assure the Court -- |\n| 10 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry? |\n| 11 | THE COURT: You need to assure the Court at the |\n| 12 | very least. I don't know exactly what that is you will |\n| 13 | give to me. Certainly, it'll be important to know who |\n| 14 | is the owner, whether there are any other ownership |\n| 15 | interests, what are the liens, what are the mortgages, |\n| 16 | etc. So I think you have an idea. |\n| 17 | It's not going to necessarily take away from |\n| 18 | whether someone is an alleged victim or has one of the |\n| 19 | other faults, but at least I want a more complete |\n| 20 | picture, and it's part of my obligation to make that |\n| 21 | assessment. And I don't want to make a sweeping |\n| 22 | statement at the moment that just because anyone is an |\n| 23 | alleged victim and is not a family tie in some way, that |\n| 24 | necessarily makes them inadequate. But that's why I |\n| 25 | need to see it individually. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 86 |\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, with respect to the |\n| 4 | response date, assuming that the defense submits |\n| 5 | something on Thursday, that would make the Government's |\n| 6 | response due on Easter Sunday. We would respectfully |\n| 7 | ask -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: Monday. |\n| 9 | MS. MURRAY: -- that we get until Monday. |\n| 10 | Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Yes, of course. Okay, all right, |\n| 12 | we are adjourned. Thank you. |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | (Whereupon the matter is adjourned.) |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 87 |\n| 2 | C
E
R
T I F I C A T E |\n| 3 | |\n| 4 | I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing |\n| 5 | transcript of proceedings in the United States District |\n| 6 | Court, Southern District
of New York,
United States of |\n| 7 | America versus Wang,
Docket #23cr118/23m2007,
was |\n| 8 | prepared using PC-based
transcription software
and is a |\n| 9 | true and accurate record of the proceedings. |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | Signature_______________________________ |\n| 13 | Carole Ludwig |\n| 14 | Date:
April
5,
2023 |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n事由：\n案号：Docket #23cr118/ 23m2007\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n原告，\n- 诉 -\nWANG, YANPING（王雁平），\n被告。\n2023年4月4日 纽约州纽约市\n\n保释听证程序\n主审法官：ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER（罗伯特·W·勒伯格）美国联邦治安法官\n出庭人员：\n代表原告：\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE（美国联邦检察官办公室）\n代理人：JULIANA MURRAY, ESQ.（朱莉安娜·默里律师）\nRYAN FINKEL, ESQ.（瑞恩·芬克尔律师）\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n代表被告：\nLIPMAN LAW PLLC（利普曼律师事务所）\n代理人：ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ.（亚历克斯·利普曼律师）\n45 West 29th Street, Suite 303\nNew York, New York 10001\nCHAUDHRY LAW PLLC（乔杜里律师事务所）\n代理人：PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ.（普里亚·乔杜里律师）\n147 West 25th Street\nNew York, New York 10001\n翻译员在场\n转录服务机构：Carole Ludwig, Transcription Services\n155 East Fourth Street, #3C\nNew York, New York 10009\n电话：(212) 420-0771\n电子邮箱：Transcription420@aol.com\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录；庭审笔录由转录服务机构制作。\n\n目录\n证人询问\n证人 主询问 反询问 再主询问 | 再反询问 | 法庭询问\n无\n物证\n物证编号 | 说明 | 标识 | 采纳 | 预先审查\n无\n\n1 诉讼程序 4\n2 关于财务保证人方面，政府\n3 称其不足以履行Parker（帕克）法官\n4 所设定的保释条件下的义务，即必须有两名具备\n5 财务责任能力的人能够在保释金上签字。\n6 这实际上是被告方的申请，\n7 因为是他们提出了这一关切，所以我会先听取\n8 辩护律师的意见。不过你们也可以告诉我，\n9 在过去一周里是否发生了任何\n10 会产生影响的进展，以及/或者在\n11 Torres（托雷斯）法官面前发生的任何事情是否会影响\n12 这里的审理。\n13 默里女士：法官阁下，请允许我简短说明，我只是\n14 想确认一下本次程序是否正在录音，\n15 因为我没看到法庭速记员。所以\n16 只是为了记录在案。\n17 法庭：正在进行\n18 电子录音。\n19 默里女士：谢谢。\n20 利普曼先生：法官阁下，我可以开始了吗？\n21 法庭：可以，请开始。\n22 利普曼先生：法官阁下，在我们看来，从\n23 一开始，政府实际上就从未以\n24 优势证据证明被告存在潜逃风险。我想谈谈——我们实际上同意了\n\n1 诉讼程序 5\n\n 保释条件，但我们同意保释条件是基于我们与政府的谈话，在谈话中政府就王女士公寓里搜出的物品作出了某些陈述。当时我们被告知了这些情况，我们没有太多时间与我们的当事人讨论，但我们当时想，好吧，这看起来合情合理，然后我们同意提出两位保释金联署人的名字，坦率地说，当时并不认为这会成为一个问题。\n\n 随后，政府在庭审记录中发表了某些陈述，随着我们在让他们批准我们提议的人选方面开始遇到困难，我们在某一时刻要求他们提供支持材料，以证明他们所说的认定我方当事人存在潜逃风险的某些理由。后来他们最终把材料提供给了我们，而我们发现的情况基本上属于以下三种之一：政府要么作出了半真半假的陈述，以至于我们需要去补充完整事实，并意识到他们所说的并不完全属实；要么他们作出了与他们在王女士公寓中搜集的证据相矛盾的陈述；要么他们作出的陈述纯属推测，实际上没有任何证据支持。所以让\n1 诉讼程序 6\n2 我退回去从头开始说起。\n3 法庭：好的。\n4 利普曼先生：王女士和她的同案被告\n5 Kwok（郭）先生很早就知道政府在调查他们，\n6 调查了很长时间，以至于在去年9月，而且\n7 根据起诉书，在去年的9月和10月，\n8 政府查封了一批资产，\n9 根据起诉书，数额大约在\n10 7亿美元左右，政府查封了这些\n11 资产。这是一次民事查封，但它提到了，如\n12 具体所述（听不清）。对吧？查封了7亿美元，\n13 我不敢向法庭断言\n14 我的当事人完全理解了被查封资产的全部规模，\n15 但她当然知道司法部\n16 查封了一大笔钱，对吧。\n17 接着，关于GTV案达成了SEC（美国证券交易委员会）和解协议，\n18 这个案件是与她相关的，\n19 GTV退还了大约我想说是\n20 5亿美元左右的款项，顺便提一句，他们并不是在——\n21 之后付款的，他们是先支付了款项，然后SEC才发布了\n22 和解裁定。所以这与政府所说的情况顺序正好相反。\n23 明白吗？所以她知情，她知道\n24 政府在调查她，而且她\n25 潜在地面临严重的法律风险。\n1 诉讼程序 7\n\n 尽管如此，她哪儿也没去，但还不止于此。政府称她持有来自——一本可以用来出行的中国护照，对吧，而且她，她是一名庇护申请人，正因为她是一名庇护申请人，他们称这是考虑她在美缺乏联系的因素之一，在某种程度上这成了对她不利的理由。\n\n 那么，正因为她是一名庇护申请人，且她不想失去她的庇护申请，她确实曾想外出旅行，并且她向美国政府申请了一份准假许可，以便在她旅行时其庇护申请不会被拒。于是政府——事情是这样的，她获得了在去年12月至1月期间旅行的许可，也就是2022年12月至我想说是1月27日，具体日期我也许记不准了，但大约是12月中旬至1月第三周期间——\n\n 法庭：你提到的资金查封是在什么时候？\n\n 利普曼先生：根据起诉书是在9月和10月。我认为是9月18日以及10月，是24日还是26日来着。\n\n 所以，尽管发生了这一切，她还是向政府报备了她将要外出旅行。\n\n1 诉讼程序 8\n2 她在那段窗口期内并未成行。该许可失效了。其\n3 失效的原因完全与其他任何事情无关，\n4 只是因为她原本打算进行的一次特定行程\n5 无法成行，在行程安排上没能办成。随后她提交了另一份\n6 申请，据她的移民律师称，\n7 我相信那是在\n8 2023年2月8日。也就是在她被捕的\n9 一个月前。\n\n 因此，鉴于所有这些情况，认为她存在潜逃风险的说法是有些牵强的，但这背后是有原因的，原因就在于：王女士在不同的时代会被称为革命者。她置自身、家人以及所做的一切于险境，因为她在反对中国共产党，不论起诉书中怎么说，毫无争议、完全不可否认的是，她让自己陷入了险境。她的儿子在中国，她的丈夫，也就是那个男人，她唯一有过的男友，他们被禁止与她进行任何沟通——\n\n 法庭：对，但我对政府立场的理解是，我不知道他们是中途改变了主张还是一直如此主张，但他们的关切在于她潜逃至其他司法管辖区，无论是United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT Documen\n\n1 诉讼程序 9 ——据称共犯Je（余建明）先生就在那里，还是Vanuatu（瓦努阿图）——她在那里有一份已过期的护照申请，或者是其他任何地方。\n\n 利普曼先生：法官阁下，请允许我先谈谈瓦努阿图，因为那是最简单明了的。好吗？连同那份已过期的护照一起，他们在她的公寓里还发现了针对她和郭先生的两份文件，声明她正在放弃瓦努阿图国籍。所以这根本不是问题。另一件事是，如果我没记错的话，我相信她是在2016年拿到瓦努阿图护照的，那是在她来到美国之前。自那以后中国和瓦努阿图成为了友好国家，现在的局势已经不同了，我认为她去那里并不安全。\n\n 至于前往阿拉伯联合酋长国，根据我们今天上午在郭先生的听证会上从政府那里听到的情况，阿拉伯联合酋长国并不将其公民引渡至美国。它与中国确实签有引渡条约。她不是阿拉伯联合酋长国的公民，也没有人暗示她是。她不是，她也没有那里的护照。她所拥有的唯一一本依然有效的护照，他们已经扣押在手。他们是在她的\n诉讼程序 10\n\n公寓。所以不行，她无法去别的地方。现在我们来谈谈她是否——\n\n法庭：等等，等等，等等，我想在这儿打断你一下，就关于与阿联酋引渡的问题。我听到你说的是，他们对阿联酋公民没有引渡协议，然后我想我听到你说他们与中国有引渡条约，当然，她是不会回中国去的，而且这也不是在中国的诉讼程序。那么，如果在第三国公民引渡并引渡至美国的问题上，他们的现状是怎样的？我相信政府方能告诉我，但我想知道你是否了解情况。\n\n利普曼律师（MR. LIPMAN）：据我所知，与美国之间并没有引渡条约，但这其实是个无关紧要的问题，因为首先，她根本去不了那里。明白吗？其次，她担心的不是被引渡到美国；她担心的是被引渡到中国——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n利普曼律师：——在被引渡去中国后，她会被逮捕并枪毙。我是说这有本质区别。你知道，尽管 MDC（大都会拘留中心）再糟糕，它也绝不是中国的监狱。\n\n诉讼程序 11\n\n法庭：但你的观点是，如果她出现在阿联酋，她就会被自动驱逐出境或引渡到中国吗？\n\n利普曼律师：嗯，我不知道是否会自动发生，但她无疑面临着发生这种情况的巨大危险。这完全属实。而且，你看，在我们今天早些时候举行的听证会上，政府方实际上——当时讨论了中国政府为将 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）弄回中国所做出的一切努力，包括贿赂美国官员，目前有一起案件正在审理中，据我所知，华盛顿特区目前正在进行一场刑事审判，其中涉及多名被中国贿赂的政府官员，目的是协助将郭先生从美国驱逐出境至中国。\n\n那么，政府——据政府称，这名女子是郭先生的幕僚长，不管这个头衔意味着什么。嗯，我认为他们不会认真质疑她正处于危险之中。所以——\n\n法庭：对不起，她说她怎么了？\n\n利普曼律师：处于危险之中。\n\n法庭：处于危险之中。\n\n利普曼律师：意思是说，我认为他们不会认真争辩说，如果她去了中国、进入了中国，或者中国想要抓住她。\n\n诉讼程序\n\n法庭：对。\n\n利普曼律师：关于这一点不可能有实质性的争议。那么现在我们来谈谈如果她留在美国会发生什么。基本原因，基本原因在于，据政府称，她是郭先生的幕僚长。她辨识度极高。对吧？她在当地的华人群体中极易被认出。这是一个在美国拥有成千上万人的群体。所以政府说，噢，他们会把她藏起来。嗯，首先，请原谅我，但这纯粹是不当的推断。认为身处美国本土的成千上万的人会去窝藏一名逃犯，难道仅仅因为他们是中国人，难道因为他们说普通话\n\n法庭：不，因为他们——因为他们可能是诈骗案的受害者。\n\n利普曼律师：但除了这一点之外。如果他们是诈骗案的受害者，他们知道发生了什么，他们是成年人，因此如果她是逃犯，他们随时都可能确信事实上应该将她交给美国政府。\n\n但还不止于此，更关键的是，\n\n诉讼程序 13\n\n如果中国——据我们在报纸上所读到的内容可知，中国共产党已将其警方人员等中共官员安置在驻纽约的中国领事馆中。难道我们会认为他们没有在暗中监视她哪怕一秒钟吗？难道她在任何以普通话为主要语言的社区露面不会被认出来吗？有谁能想象哪怕一秒钟，中国共产党会找不到她、辨认不出她，并向政府准确报告她的藏身之处吗？\n\n现在我们来看另一种情况。假设她决定把自己藏在，比方说，犹他州的白人群体中。她说英语带有浓重口音，而她的第一语言是普通话。难道她不会显得格外扎眼吗？认为这个女人能够藏起来的想法简直荒谬绝伦。这太荒谬了。还有认为她可以依靠别人把她藏在美国的想法。那么我们回过头来看：她既离不开，也藏不住。这不构成潜逃风险。\n\n但还不止于此。更关键的是。政府说——这也是为什么我们实际上认为他们提出的保释方案我们是可以接受的。\n\n他们说我们在她公寓里发现了表明她有潜逃风险的物品。是什么呢？我们发现了十二\n\n诉讼程序\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\n利普曼律师：在第 7 页（共 9 页）。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n利普曼律师：您看到写着 56 号的地方了吗——\n\n法庭：看到了。\n\n利普曼律师：——白色手机，57号，白色手机——\n\n法庭：看到了。\n\n利普曼律师：——58号，白色手机——\n\n法庭：在壁橱的包里。\n\n利普曼律师：在壁橱的包里。并不是装在盒子里假装是全新的。它就在壁橱的包里。我有壁橱的照片。我很乐意向法庭出示装有这些东西的包。事实上，在那张照片里，确实有一个 iPhone 的白色盒子。一个盒子。而根据这份记录，这些手机都不是从那个包里、那个盒子里拿出来的。但即便其中有一部是，那也只有一部。\n\n现在，在这一页上，法官阁下，您还看到标有夹在衣服中间的 55 号 Mac book 吗？\n\n法庭：嗯哼。\n\n利普曼律师：好的，所以他们说的其中一点是，噢，看哪，她把东西藏在衣服中间、藏在壁橱里。她把一台笔记本电脑藏在了衣服中间。对此有几点说明。第一点，正如政府所深知的，Wang 女士（王雁平）对于联邦调查局（FBI）搜查某人时的情形并不陌生。他们此前搜查过郭先生。她清楚发生这种情况时会怎样。明白吗？所以认为她会觉得把笔记本电脑藏在毛衣之间就能瞒得过去的想法是极其荒唐的。\n\n但法官阁下，还不止于此。这是——如果允许的话——这是哪一份？\n\n律师：46 号。\n\n利普曼律师：法官阁下，请求走到法官席前。\n\n法庭：可以，只是我想确认一件事。我们现在查看的证据和材料，是在帕克法官（Judge Parker）举行听证会之前无法获取的吗？\n\n利普曼律师：这在我们之前是无法获取的——我们拿到了这个——事情是这样的。我们向他们询问了其中一些关于手机的问题，对吧，我们是在 29 日提出的这些问题。您有我们的信函吗？但实质上，法官阁下，我们是在见您前一天晚上才拿到这些材料的。\n\n法庭：好的，所以那是在帕克法官作出裁决很久之后了。\n\n利普曼律师：法官阁下，请求走到法官席前。\n\n法庭：准许。\n\n诉讼程序\n\n利普曼律师：法官阁下，这是 FBI 制作的王女士所居住公寓的示意图。顺便提一句，这是\n\n平方英尺。这是一个涉嫌诈骗他人高达约10亿美元的女性。总之，法官阁下（Your Honor），在这一页上，我提请法庭注意这间公寓里有什么，以及没有什么。卧室里有一张床和一个床头柜。客厅里有一张沙发，沙发前面有件东西，实际上是一个（听不清）。这间公寓里再没有别的东西了。没有衣柜，没有抽屉柜，没有书桌，什么都没有。那么她把东西放在哪里？放在壁橱里。她所有的东西都在壁橱里。她的旧手机也在壁橱里。对吧？当你没有任何家具时，把东西放在壁橱里没有任何可疑之处。\n\n然后，他们接着说，好吧，我们在她的公寓里找到了钱。我们找到了钱，找到了 $138,000。Ms. Murray（默里女士）说都是新钞，她认为那是新钞。好吧。于是我们就想，行吧，我们能看看这些钱的照片吗？我们为什么要看这些钱的照片？因为我们有理由认为其中很多钱是装在红封里的，显然在中国文化中，在农历新年等节日给人们送现金红包是很常见的，而他们确实找到了红封。所以我原想看看这些钱在哪里、长什么样、有多旧。对吧？所以我要求看照片。说实话，这其实就是最初引发这场对话的原因。（听不清）钱款。好吗？\n\n那么我们发现了什么？（暂停）法官阁下，我可以走上前吗？\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：可以，请上前。\n\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼律师）：法官阁下，这就是找到钱款的袋子。现在，政府（Government）在给您的一封信中，在他们最新的信函中称，为了方便取用而特意装在袋子里。真的吗？好，我们来看看。这是一个银行袋。这是从银行取钱时用来装钱的袋子。我们在这里还能看到什么？我们看到很多钱都在红封里。这里面还有其他现金，事实上，还有另一张照片。\n\n法庭：听着，你不需要在现金上讲这么多细节。而且，你知道，我同意你的看法。我不认为装在袋子里就特别能说明问题，不代表因为装在袋子里某人就必然要逃跑。这只是整理得很整齐。但也许你可以告诉我一件事，我知道这在时间线上有点跳跃，但我记得在他们的文件中，也就是导致延期审理的上一份文件中，他们曾指出并陈述称 Ms. Wang（王女士）没有向 Pretrial（审前服务处）披露这笔 $138,000，但我之前的印象是这笔钱在几周前就已经被扣押了。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：不，是在她被捕当天扣押的，好的，而当时问她的问题，相关的提问是你在被捕时身上有没有现金。她是在早上 6:15 被捕的，当时穿着睡衣。对那个问题的如实回答就是没有。我们核对过记录，我们没有看到任何其他可能引出不同回答的提问。那么她是否自愿披露了？没有。我都不知道是否有人问过她这个问题。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：好吗？\n\n法庭：我明白了。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：但是，法官阁下，即便有人问过她，当时也有十几名 FBI（联邦调查局）探员在她的公寓里翻箱倒柜。好吧，我是说她当时承受着极大的压力。她坐着说话，身处一种从未遇到过的境地，被问到这些问题。难道很离谱吗，你知道，问题是你有，你身上有现金吗，而她说——你在被捕时身上有现金吗，回答是没有，而且她没有多说别的？我是说这真的很离谱吗？\n\n好的。现在，顺便说一句，在此之前——因为他们要为您呈上另一张照片，法官阁下，我不想被指责向您隐瞒了完整的情况。而完整的情况是，当他们拍下这些钱的另一张照片时——我很抱歉，法官阁下。我太激动了，把那张钱的照片弄丢了。在这里。我可以走上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n\nMR. LIPMAN：这张照片看起来好像有更多的钱是较新的钞票，因为您可以看到有些是旧钞，有些是新钞。然而，话虽如此，正如我告诉政府的那样，为什么其中一些钱是新钞是有合理解释的。好吗？这个解释，而且我已经告诉过政府了，就是她在以往旅行的某个时候随身带回了一些英镑，而那些英镑，你知道，无论它们是怎么来的，但那些英镑需要更换，因为显然女王去世后，他们正在把货币换成印有国王头像的新币。好的，所以随着时间的推移，她兑换了那些钱，所以里面肯定有大约 $30,000、$40,000 是与此相关的新钞。\n\n我昨天要求看这些钞票，但当时时间太晚我无法前去，他们说你可以来看。我会在某个时候去看的。但我的要点是，法官阁下，说这是为了逃跑而藏匿的资金，不，不，这根本说不通。\n\n法庭：是不合理，但这确实表明她可以获得大量资金，即使那一笔并不是她打算使用的。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：我们来谈谈这点。好吗？政府称她没有披露她控制的所有银行账户。我与政府进行过一次具体的谈话，在谈话中我说，如果你们问的是她实际可以进行交易的账户，也就是说没有第三方参与，对吧，换句话说，就像我自己的银行账户。我可以去办理各种业务。而我们律所的银行账户，则不一定。好吧，在我这种情况下是的，但是，你知道，如果你在一家律所工作，你也许可以指示某人做任何事，那是律所的业务，但你不能把钱拿走装进自己的口袋。好吗？所以我对政府说的是，我们知道有两个账户，对吧，是属于她的。我们还知道另一个她可以、她能够进行交易的企业账户。我们向他们提供了该账户和账号。对吧？我们不知道有任何其他账户。那并不是，我们并没有向政府隐瞒她拥有这个 BBI 实体。那并不是——当时的问题是——\n\n法庭：我明白，在列出的四项内容中，其中三项是商业实体，其中两项甚至不直接属于她。那 Himalayan（喜马拉雅）加密货币呢？\n\nMR. LIPMAN：问得好。所以我一直在试图弄清楚 Himalayan 那件事是怎么回事，关于这一点有两件事。第一，他们提到的文件，还记得我之前说过有些事情是有证据的，有些事情是半真半假的，有些事情是相互矛盾的，还有些事情纯粹是凭空推断吗？对吧？\n\n那么他们在看什么？他们在看一份写着配额（allocation）的明细表，好的，是配额。他们看的不是 H Coin（喜币）的账户。他们看的不是——他们看的是一份配额。我一直在试图弄清楚那笔配额发生了什么。据我所能查明的情况，她完全不知道发生了什么。我并不是说它没有发生过任何变动。我是说她完全不知情。好吗？\n\n法庭：但这——\n（打断）\n\nMR. LIPMAN：但这还有更多——\n\n法庭：至少政府说那笔资产目前的价值大约是 $13,000,000。我相信当时可能比这少，好吧，考虑到市场行情谁也说不准。但你会认为某人——我姑且假定当时那是相当大的一笔加密货币，对她来说数额巨大，而且你会认为人们通常会密切留意这样一笔巨额财产。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：如果有人认为那是属于自己的，那么确实会去留意。但是，法官阁下，情况是这样的——政府查封了数亿美元，包括从 Himalayan exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）查封的款项。政府指控这全是一场骗局。他们一方面声称这毫无价值，人们根本无法将其变现。SEC（美国证券交易委员会）在起诉书中表示人们曾尝试将其变现但未能成功。那么，它到底值不值钱？因为如果值钱，那么它可能价值 $13,000,000，尽管我们不知道如何提取。但如果它不值钱，如果他们的指控属实，那么我就不知道有什么机制能把这变成现金了。好吗？\n\n所以这一切都是为了说明，法律推定是应当对她予以释放，或者按照最少限制性条件予以释放，以确保她——\n\n法庭：对，但我们是在重新辩论吗？我的意思是这又回到了那个问题，Judge Parker（帕克法官）已经设定并命令了保释条件。问题的核心在于她的保释条件之一未能满足，因为政府坚持认为拟提供财务担保的人都不能成为合格的担保人，原因要么是他们不具备道德约束力，要么是他们没有财务偿付能力，要么是他们本身就是涉嫌诈骗案的受害者或参与者。现在的问题是，好吧，如果他们一直不接受那些人，会发生什么。所以我只是想谨慎对待\n\n那些拍摄的照片。我当时想看看能否找到一份藏在沙发垫里的文件的照片或记录清单。那根本不存在。您知道还有什么不存在吗？他们在他们的——这是向法庭作出的陈述，他们说我们在她卧室的床垫之间找到了一部藏起来的手机。我想看看这张照片。我想在拍摄的照片记录清单上找到它。它在哪里？根本不存在。或者至少根本没有提供给我们。\n\n现在，确实有一张那样的照片，是在搜查 Mr. Kwok（郭先生）处所时拍摄的，而且——谢谢。\n\n（诉讼程序暂停）\n\nMR. LIPMAN：法官阁下，我可以走上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：那确实是一张手机藏在床垫之间的照片。但那不是来自她的公寓。而我至今还没见到过来自她公寓的照片。\n\n还有一件事，他们说她把东西放在她的袋子里以便于取用，对吧，说钱放在袋子里是为了方便取用。所有的东西放在袋子里都是为了方便取用。您知道袋子里还有什么被指称是为了方便取用吗？我觉得是她曾经拥有过的每一张信用卡。我是说一堆过期的旧信用卡，方便取用。这根本说不通。\n\n现在让我，法官阁下，现在请允许我转到此事的另一部分，即拟议的共同签署人、政府拒绝批准任何人和这究竟是怎么回事。我想从一件我原本没打算提的事情开始，因为这件事情今天早上才在法庭上发生。\n\n您看到这里的这些人，这里的许多人都是来支持她的。她在法庭上情绪激动并开始哭泣，因为她意识到所有这些人都是来支持她的，请允许我解释这意味着什么。政府（Government）可能不知道这一点，但披露某人是庇护申请人实际上肯定是非法的。有规章就是这么规定的。我以前不知道。我是最近才发现的。我确信他们不知道。我确信他们不是故意这么做的。但原因显而易见。对吧？如果你有一个来自某个国家的人，你将他们认定为在别处寻求庇护的人，这会立即让他们陷入危险之中。所有这些人仅仅通过来到这里——你以为此时此刻在这个房间里没有来自中国共产党（Chinese communist party）的人在监控这一切吗？所有这些人仅仅通过站出来为她发声，就已经暴露了他们自己、他们的家人——\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：我认为大概没有人质疑他们的意图。问题在于——\n\n利普曼先生（MR. LIPMAN）：她是否在乎他们？\n\n法庭：——被告是否足够在乎这些人，以至于她会足够顾虑他们所押上的任何金钱手段，而不是选择潜逃；如果站在政府的角度，可以描绘这样一幅画面，称指控她犯有欺诈罪，且掌握着强有力的证据。那么她为什么要关心被她欺诈的人呢？\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下（Your Honor），很有道理，我正准备谈到这一点。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n利普曼先生：看待道德约束力（moral suasion）有不同的方式。对吧？我想我们都同意，哥哥可以为弟弟签字作保，而哥哥可能根本不在乎。他们是亲戚，他们是兄弟，但他们根本不会在乎。同样也是事实的是，人们可以以某种方式产生联结，他们可能是陌生人，但他们之间产生了联结，对吧，因此一个人可以对另一个人产生道德约束力，而实际上他们并没有那么多交集。他们只是彼此关爱。对吧？\n\n但还有另一种情况，另一种情况是这样的，如果你是某种社群的成员，并且你——这个社群对你很重要，那么这个社群的成员遭遇了什么对你来说就很重要。现在，政府会说，天哪，十亿美元，这些人都是受害者。好吧，他们就在这里，他们并不认为自己是受害者，但那是另一回事了。好的？\n\n但问题在于，法官阁下，请看看起诉书（indictment）。郭先生（Mr. Kwok，郭文贵）被指控给自己买了一辆兰博基尼（Lamborghini）。我也想要一辆。对吧？但她有吗？没有。他显然住在豪宅里，并且拥有其他豪宅、游艇等等诸如此类的一切。起诉书中哪里有指控称这些钱中有任何一分流向了她？他们最接近的指控也就是代币分配（coin allocation）中的这项配额。对吧？而我们根本不知道那笔配额后来怎么样了。好的。\n\n所以你必须问自己的问题是，她为什么要这么做？她为什么要离开她的家人、她的儿子、她唯一挚爱的人，对吧，然后移居到一个外国，在那里她基本上是将自己暴露为一个\n\n革命性的，她为什么要这么做？好吧。是有个答案，但她企图让自己发财并不是答案。那么问题就是，鉴于政府对她——不是对她的共同被告，而是对她——的指控，她是否会潜逃，因为共同被告发生什么是有关系的，但真正重要的是她会发生什么。\n\n而且问题还在于，鉴于政府提出的这些指控，对吧，她会是那种把 500 万美元债务转嫁给这些人之一的人吗？答案显然是否定的，她住在一套 740 平方英尺且没有家具的公寓里，远离她无法再联系的家人。我们向他们提供了八个人，都是成年人，对吧，他们并非喜欢所有人，这没关系。他们说关于某些人我们没有提供足够的档。真的吗？有人愿意拿出一处价值 30 亿美元（注：或为 300 万美元口误）的房产，你们还想要什么档？除非我们能够向他们证明该房产确实存在且属于提供该房产的人，否则我们根本无法提供该房产作保。对吧？那个人是个成年人，明白正在发生的事情，并且认为她——认为那个人对她有道德劝说力，并认为她不会——有三个人，今天在这间法庭里的共同签署人。所以，请原谅我，法官大人，但政府凭什么替这些人做那些判断？\n\n法庭：嗯，那也是部分原因，我的意思是他们有权形成那种判断，如果您不同意，这就是我们今天在这里的原因，但是他们，政府需要得到确信或感到确信，所提供的财务担保足以合理保证被告不会逃跑，而且我认为在理论上存在一种合理的担忧，即如果有些人在指控中是一场正在实施的诈骗案的受害者，那么在理论上，该诈骗犯或指控的诈骗犯可能不会像人们通常认为的那样受到约束。\n\n利普曼先生（MR. LIPMAN）：法官大人，不能一概而论。\n\n法庭：我同意。\n\n利普曼先生：确实需要看具体情况，而具体情况就是政府并未指控她偷了钱。事情就是这么简单。他们指控的是另外两人偷了钱。他们并没有——\n\n利普曼先生：如果政府不能批准属于这两个群体之一的共同签署人，因为作为一个类别他们（听不清），那么，法官大人，您有权对此进行变更，事实上，正如法庭所深知的，此处的条款之一就是不得设定导致……的财务条件——\n\n法庭：“司法官员不得设定导致该人审前羁押的财务条件。” 18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(2)。然而，政府似乎找到了相关判例，称在法条语境下，该条款并不优先，优先的应当是这些条件能否合理保证被告出席未来的诉讼程序。甚至连您所依赖的判例 U.S. v. Panaronda 也是这么说的，判例中称最终的问题是法庭应当考量该特定财务条件是否属于保释条件的必要组成部分，以合理保证被告到庭。我的意思是这才是我们真正必须裁决的问题。\n\n利普曼先生：而且，法官大人，那个判例，我可能会把名字念错，所以先道个歉——\n\n法庭：Panaronda。\n\n利普曼先生：好吧，在该案中发生的情况是斯威特法官（Judge Sweet），我们会变更条件。我的意思是他说了，听着，这里有 25 万美元保释金，这个人永远无法达到这个要求，也找不到任何能够承担 25 万美元的人。我将把它降低到一个人们能够承受且仍能满足条件的金额。为了明确起见，我们提议，除了提供房产来担保保释金——这已经绰绰有余了，对吧，因为，您知道，上面写着两个人。有三个人拥有的房产加起来超过 500 万美元。他们可以全部拿来作保。他们准备这么做。但除此之外。就我所知，而且政府实际上也不知道任何其他情况，在目前阶段她个人只能使用属于她的两个账户，并且她的公寓具有价值，我们已经提供了那处房产作保。因此她的公寓，她的其中一个账户完全——\n\n法庭：里面有 40 万美元。\n\n利普曼先生：嗯，我不太确定具体数额。\n\n法庭：嗯，那是您之前提出来的。\n\n利普曼先生：对，对。然后第二个账户进行监控。我的意思是我们很乐意——换句话说，她——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n利普曼先生：——就没有任何钱了。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n利普曼先生：现在，政府说，好吧，您知道，支持者、这个那个的，他们可以——在每个案子里都是如此。法官大人，我要坐下了，因为我已经说了很久了，感谢您的包容。但是，法官大人，没有任何理由让这位女士在监狱里再多待一晚。毫无理由。她没有逃跑风险。她已经拿出了她的公寓。我们很乐意让在场的三位共同签署人今天就下去签署保释保证书。我们可以提供——事实上，我个人将对这两个账户承担责任。谢谢。我那明智得多的共同辩护律师提醒我，这些人押上的不仅仅是 500 万美元。由于他们提议为王女士（Ms. Wang）所做的事，他们押上的是自己的生命和家庭的生命。如果这还不能表明他们认为自己具有道德劝说力——\n\n法庭：那不是，那并不是，我并不质疑他们在这件事上的思维过程。我只是想确认一些事情。就您在可能修改保释条件方面提出的提议而言，是您希望法庭批准您提供的八人中的两人。您现在这里有三个人。除了公寓的担保之外，您还打算提供 40 万美元的账户以及被扣押的 13 万美元现金。您打算通过其他人提供额外担保，您现在认为总额可以达到 500 万美元。我理解得对吗？\n\n利普曼先生：是的，我们可以。我的意思是我们有三个人愿意提供他们的房产，其中一套房子我认为价值 300 万美元，如果我没记错的话一套是 170 万美元，但是是的。\n\n法庭：然后您还提议由政府对 50 万美元账户的任何支出进行监控和批准。\n\n利普曼先生：我更希望由审前服务机构（Pretrial）而不是联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）来进行，但是是的。\n\n法庭：对，同样，这里的主要关切之一是——我只是在找这句话出自哪里，这应该是出自 U.S. v. Melville，我认为。“保释的目的并非向政府提供资金以便在被告潜逃或逃离管辖区时进行搜捕。保释旨在作为一种促成手段，以协助被告到庭……”\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN 律师（利普曼律师）：好的。所以我刚才已经说过，她是一位革命者。她坚信这项事业。如果她不相信这项事业，如果她不相信这些人——谢谢。\n\n法庭：这两者并不相互排斥，欺诈与对某项事业的信仰。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：嗯，法官阁下，确实如此，但是，话说回来，您必须看个人以及他们具体做了什么——\n\n法庭：那是自然。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：所以——\n\n法庭：我同意。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：——他们互称，我和许多人谈过——\n\n法庭：我想我了解得够多了。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：您明白了。他们互称——就在我坐下之前，他们互称兄弟姐妹，好的，我和他们中的许多人谈过，我的意思是我能说的就是他们愿意冒一切风险，而她没有做出任何表明她会为了她自己的个人利益而置他们于不顾、置他们人身于险境的事情。\n\n诉讼程序\n\n法庭：明白了。谢谢。\n\nLIPMAN 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，我来听听控方的意见。\n\nMURRAY 检察官（默里检察官）：谢谢，法官阁下。仅就 Lipman 律师刚才提到的简短一点作回应。关于被告的个人利益，控方要指出的是，被告住在一套价值 $1.1 million 的公寓里。被告拥有近一百万美元——\n\n法庭：在纽约市中心，可能有人会觉得这算穷的，但你知道，尽管如此。\n\nMURRAY 检察官：拥有近一百万美元的现金及银行存款，这是已披露的两个账户，我稍后会讲到这点。我们有证据表明，在首次代币发行时，按较低估值，她被分配了约 $7 million 的加密货币或所谓的加密货币。因此现在其价值会大幅增加。而且她的保险柜里有大约超过 $138,000 的现金。\n\n不过我想就今天的诉讼程序重新理清一下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nMURRAY 检察官：在一开始，法官阁下询问了保释程序的进展，答案是没有，辩方与控方之间就拟议的担保人未作进一步讨论。除了辩方随其动议提交的文件之外，控方未收到任何额外文件来支持他们所拟议担保人的各项声称的财务状况，尽管控方此前提交的文件已通知辩方，我们认为这些文件不完整或不足以做出准确的判定或评估。控方未能成功联系到辩方拟议的第八名联署人，因此无法对该人进行面谈。这就是我们目前的进展情况。\n\n现在，今天摆在法庭面前的实际上有三个问题。第一，关于被告的动议，法庭是否应指令被告已满足其保释金条件，即 Parker 法官（帕克法官）在她于 3月15日 被捕数小时后初次过堂时所设定的条件。答案显然是否定的。\n\n第二个问题是，法庭是否应修改 Parker 法官设定的保释金条件以取消联署人要求（这是辩方请求的首要修改诉求之一），或者可能结合或作为替代方案的各种不同修改，无论是提供额外的财产或现金以支持保释金、增加联署人，还是汇总联署人。同样，关于修改，答案显而易见是否定的，法庭不应这样做。\n\n最后，第三个问题（这是控方在上周五提交的文件中提出的），即鉴于没有任何条件或一套条件能够合理确保被告在未来的庭审程序中出庭，是否应在审判前羁押被告。法官阁下，对此的回答是肯定的。\n\n因此，我将依次阐述这些要点。\n\n首先，关于拟议的联署人，辩方向法庭提交了有关这些联署人的文件、姓名和信息。这是因为他们未获得控方的批准。因此，根据法规，法庭批准未经批准的联署人的依据是评估有关这些联署人的文件和信息，然后确定他们是否拥有足够无产权负担价值的净资产来支付全额保释金，此处为 $5 million。法官阁下，我不会逐一审查每个人，因为我们在最初提交的文件中已经非常详细地列明了这一点。我们逐一审查了辩方向法庭提交并附有文件的七名拟议联署人，同样，未包括我们无法面谈的第八名。\n\n对于这七个人中的每一个人，根据辩方向法官阁下提供以供您考量这些人是否符合法规标准的文件，首先，法官阁下，他们中没有任何人对被告具有适当的道德约束力。而且，我们再次阐明了这一点，但我想把这点阐述得更精细一些，因为在辩方声称这些人具有道德约束力的情况下，这一点极其重要。\n\n而且，法官阁下是正确的，问题不在于拟议的联署人是否认为他们对被告具有影响力或道德约束力。问题在于被告作何感想，虽然我们无法探知她的内心或心思，但我们能做的是审视摆在我们面前的证据。\n\n供法官阁下考量的这七名拟议联署人中，有些人从未见过 Wang 女士（王女士），从未与她交谈过。少数几个人一般而言只是在活动中见过她。大多数人不知道她在哪里工作。大多数人不知道她住在哪里。他们不经常与她交谈。他们之间似乎没有个人私交关系。\n\n有趣的是，我稍后会讲到这一点，其中一人实际上认为 Wang 女士在 Gettir 工作，而 Gettir 是涉嫌参与该欺诈案的实体之一，也是潜在的作案工具。该人之所以这样认为，是因为其在面试 Gettir 的职位时见过 Wang 女士。我稍后会谈谈这为何相关。另一个人则认为她在一家名为 HCHK Properties 的公司工作。同样，这也是在这起数十亿美元欺诈案过程中使用的空壳公司之一。\n\n而辩方主张具有道德约束力的这些拟议联署人，他们对被告的了解甚至不足以与她建立个人私交关系，因此，我们无法确信 Wang 女士会因为他们签署保释保证书而在任何程度上打消逃匿、让他们承担支付保释金额责任的念头。\n\n法庭：那么，即使他们没有我们所认为的传统个人关系或家庭关系或深厚的朋友关系，他们为什么不能因为一项共同的事业而联系在一起呢？\n\nMURRAY 检察官：他们可以因为一项事业而联系在一起，法官阁下。但在这种特殊情况下（这也是控方关于这些人是欺诈的潜在受害者或明显受害者的论点之所以重要的原因），这种欺诈主要是针对该群体实施的。这是一种专注于掠夺和动员支持 Kwok 先生（郭先生）、Wang 女士和 Je 先生（余先生）反对 CCP（中国共产党）运动的人士的欺诈。正是这些人被确认并被作为目标，让他们交出数亿美元、超过十亿美元的资金，以填满 Kwok 先生的腰包、Je 先生的腰包以及他们的家族，并重新投资于作为欺诈工具的公司，即 Wang 女士管理和供职的公司，其中一些是纸面控制，一些是实际控制。\n\n因此，控方无法从“因为某人是据称拥有 Wang 女士支持者的群体的成员，就会影响 Wang 女士不潜逃”这一论点中获得任何保证。\n\n诉讼程序 46\n\n而且，法官阁下，我只想指出，道德约束力因素各不相同，但其中一些考量因素包括被告与拟议担保人之间关系的紧密程度。同样，在这里，对于呈现在本法庭面前、被告提供给法官阁下的所有拟议担保人而言，这一因素并不存在。\n\n此外，还有被告在社区中的根基，我们从辩护律师处了解到，Wang 女士基本上只在这一群体内部工作并活动，但我只想指出，在 Wang 女士的第二次保释听证尝试中，Netburn 法官（内特本法官）确实指出，Wang 女士已在该国生活了七年，却声称自己不认识任何人，没有任何人能够可能挺身而出担任联署人且既不是该群体内部的潜在受害者，也不是该欺诈案的潜在调查对象或共犯。\n\n还有接触的规律性。在此，同样，在这些拟议担保人与 Wang 女士之间，我们并未看到定期的接触。\n\n现在，转向评估法庭面前拟议担保人的第二个因素，即财务清偿能力。同样，在这里，我不想过分赘述，因为我们已经逐一审查了拟议的担保人，但这些人并没有足够无产权负担价值的资产来支持保释金的全额。这就是我们在此节点所依据的法定框架，即在已设定条件、控方未批准担保人、且辩方现已提出动议将其提交法庭审理的情况下。\n\n法庭：那么，为什么我至少从辩方那里听到的是，通过一整套方案以及到场的三位所谓的 FRP（经批准的第三方担保人）担保人，他们确实拥有 $5 million。辩护律师，请允许我核实一件事，您是说那是无产权负担的吗？\n\n一百万？\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼律师）：是的，我们有三个人拥有无产权负担的——嗯\n\nTHE COURT（法官）：净无产权负担资产。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：谢谢您。是的，我认为净额加起来——这么说吧，加上她确定拥有的一百万美元，我知道其中一份是300万美元。抱歉，我一下子想不起其中一份了，但我非常确定这三个人涵盖了500万美元。但他们确实涵盖，包括——\n\nTHE COURT：对，她有一百万，她还有40万，她还有13.8万。所以我们完全可以解决这个问题。但我理解。\n\nMS. MURRAY（默里检察官）：好的。是的，我理解，法官阁下。那么我想我将转到第二个问题，即法院是否应该修改被告的保释保证书条件，无论是取消联保人，还是变更并调整保释保证书以提供更多的现金或财产来担保保释。正如我所说，对此的回答显然也是否定的。我只想就辩护律师所作的陈述说明几点——\n\nTHE COURT：在您说明之前，让我们先假设目前在您看来没有经济责任能力人，因为他们除了可能见过她一两次之外与她并不熟识，他们不是亲属，他们唯一的共同点就是这项事业。如果我要评估该特定条件对于合理确保被告出席未来的诉讼程序而言是否属必要，相比于其他规定的组合——当然，撇开所有已经到位的规定，即居家监禁、电子监控等不谈——那我为什么不能或者为什么不应该考虑所提供的其他不足以替代该条件的措施？为什么必须是两名经济责任能力人，而不是所提供的其他方案的某种组合？\n\nMS. MURRAY：法官阁下当然可以考虑修改保释保证书的条件，前提是您认定存在一套能够合理确保被告出席未来法庭审理程序的条件。\n\nTHE COURT：需要澄清的是，我并不是说我所考虑的会比 Parker 法官（帕克法官）考虑的少，我也并非假装设身处地处于她的立场。但我可以想象，鉴于政府方与被告就一揽子保释方案的大部分条款基本达成了一致，帕克法官当时无疑推定届时会有两名经济责任能力人。如果当时有人向她提出辩解称，好吧，政府方愿意同意这一点，但我们没有任何会批准的人选，她可能会采取不同的策略。她也可能不会，她可能会说，你知道吗，这是政府方的特权，政府方提出了这一方案，他们无法满足，无法达成，那我就要予以羁押。因此我并不是说结果必然会有所不同，但我认为在某些方面这未免有些过于牵强——好吧，再次回到这个问题，为什么偏偏要是那个条件，而不是所提供的其他条件？\n\nMS. MURRAY：嗯，实际上有多项条件，法官阁下，原因是当政府方在3月15日被告被捕后数小时与辩方商讨经同意的拟议保释方案时，政府方当时尚未有机会审查随后在配合 FBI（联邦调查局）住所搜查过程中从被告公寓搜集到的证据。而且，坦率地说，政府方当时还未意识到被告会对本法院、对 Pretrial Services（审前服务处）说谎——\n\nTHE COURT：我不明白谎言是什么。我必须说我并没有，你知道，在您的信函中，您指控被告在此事上有所掩饰。唯一让我觉得可能是掩饰的就是加密货币。但这完全是合情合理的，你可能拥有一笔在——我认为日期是——分配的加密货币，而且，你知道，它可能从未变现为任何实际财产。这当然会让人产生疑问，比如它去哪儿了，难道没人能告诉我们吗，但目前她说她无法控制其访问权限，因为她甚至不知道它在哪里或它是什么。\n\nMS. MURRAY：关于这点有几点说明，法官阁下。首先，被告在接受审前服务处访谈期间表示她自2022年9月起便处于失业状态。然而，政府方在上周晚些时候审查的从其公寓扣押的文件以及政府方掌握的补充证据——正如您所知，在羁押听证会中我们可以通过预先陈述案情的方式进行——\n\nTHE COURT：是的。\n\nMS. MURRAY：这不是微型庭审。但政府方的证据表明，事实上，被告直到她被捕之日实际上一直在继续工作，与其在 Kwok 先生（郭先生）家族资金的家族办公室中的指定职务相关，并与我提到的作为欺诈工具的其他一些实体相关。我们看到了列明与欺诈相关的各个不同实体的财务状况的文件。其中包括 Gettir，正如我提到的，拟议担保人之一认为 Wang 女士（王女士）正式受雇于该公司。其中包括 HCHK Property，另一位担保人也认为王女士正式受雇于该公司，而政府方的证据显示，事实上，王女士通过其 BBI 实体持有 HCHK 99.999% 的股份。\n\n这些实体还包括 G Clubs，它是政府方起诉书中所概述和指控的欺诈分支机构之一。它们还包括 Rule of Law Society（法治社会）和 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），这些是郭先生等人在某年创立的慈善机构、所谓的慈善机构，它们为通过欺诈的不同分支机构募集所有这些资金奠定了基础和依据。\n\n而且，法官阁下，这些是账户余额的打印件，是截至目前筹集资金的账户余额，正如文件中所反映的，时间各不相同，分别为2023年2月或3月，即被告被捕前两天。\n\nTHE COURT：但那些是公司资金，对吧，不过您是用这点来说明就业问题。\n\nMS. MURRAY：法官阁下，我用这点来说明就业问题，同时也说明实际控制权。利普曼先生表示他不知道政府方使用幕僚长这一通用称谓是什么意思。政府方通过这样定性王女士所指控的是，她管理并控制着这些不同的实体。\n\n现在，就像郭先生一样，在她参与的每一家不同公司中并没有都署上她的名字，但鉴于在王女士公寓中发现的证据，以及人们将王女士与这些公司正式联系在一起的事实——因为他们曾为了其中一些公司的工作与她面试，或者在与其中一些公司的工作关联中与她签订了合同——政府方对此毫无疑问。\n\n王女士对这些作为犯罪工具的实体发号施令。与她告诉审前服务处的内容相反，直到她被捕当天她一直都是这么做的。政府方指控她对审前服务处说谎的部分原因是为了撇清与该欺诈行为各个不同工具实体的关联。声称自己脱离了欺诈性实体，值得注意的是，法官阁下，这恰好发生在政府方开始没收6.3亿美元欺诈收益的时期前后。\n\n因此在政府方看来，在最初提出指控及保释辩论时，我们并没有意识到我们会在被告的公寓中找到确凿的证据，在我们看来，这些证据证实了政府方根据其调查所指控并确信的事实，即王女士直到被捕之时一直持续为这些公司工作。所以这是其中一点，法官阁下。这是情况发生了变更。政府方目前所处的情况与最初提出指控时相比发生了变更。\n\n现在，关于账户方面，关于 H coin 或在喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya exchange）交易的所谓加密货币之一的分配——同样是该欺诈行为的另一个分支机构——分配文件是在王女士的公寓中连同似乎支持欺诈行为的各种其他文件一起被发现的。法官阁下说得对，辩方说得对，政府方无法证明王女士持有该笔资金，事实上，政府方的指控是它根本不是加密货币，但我们并不是指控它毫无价值。我们指控的是某些人持有它，而那些最快赎回的人基本上可以实施跑路骗局并卷款潜逃。\n\n我想指出的是，虽然我们同样无法访问王女士名下持有该资金的账户，但法官阁下正确地指出，价值约700万美元的加密货币资产必定是人们想要掌握追踪的资产。该分配表明——\n\n包括要求被告披露由其控制、在其名下、或属于其控制或关联公司的资产或账户，且广义上包括加密货币及其他不动产。\n\n政府方再次从被告公寓中发现了证据，其日期最近为被告被捕前几天，正如我所说，这些证据显示了银行账户信息、账户信息，王女士为她并不控制的一些工具实体签署批准工资单，但政府方坚决指控她以作为郭先生幕僚长的身份管理这些实体并为其工作。因此对政府方而言，这表明其对这些财务拥有实际控制权。\n\n法官阁下，即便撇开这一点不谈，利普曼律师（Mr. Lipman）提到保险箱里有信用卡和其他物品。政府方曾指出，其中一个袋子里装有现金，另一个袋子里装有某些看似随时可用且确实随时可取走的物品。\n\n法庭：你提到了保险箱。那里有一个保险箱吗？默里检察官（Ms. Murray）：是的，有一个保险箱。所以装有现金的袋子以及另一个装有信用卡和其他物品（包括护照）的袋子，全部藏在被告公寓的一个保险箱里。值得注意的是，从保险箱里的其中一个袋子中取出的信用卡，查看这些信用卡的正面（这些卡片已被拍照，且我们上周已提供给辩护律师），有许多卡片显示被告名下有尚未过期的账户，而被告此前并未向政府方或审前服务处（Pretrial Services）披露这些账户。目前，我们无法确定这些账户中存在哪些资产、被告如何继续控制这些账户，但法官阁下，这再次构成了另一层问题，让我们无法确信被告在对审前服务处、联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）或法庭如实陈述。从非常概括的层面来逐一说明这些账户：有一个属于郭氏家族实体之一的花旗银行（Citibank）账户，由被告控制，且截至上个月被告被捕时一直处于活跃状态，因此在当时该账户是活跃的；有两张美国银行（Bank of America）的个人借记卡，账号不同，均在被告名下、属于其名下的个人账户，其中一张于上个月到期，但再次强调，在她被捕时是活跃的；下一张将于明年到期；有一个被告本人名下的花旗银行个人账户，还有一年才到期；有一个新加坡星展银行（DBS Bank）的星展丰盛理财（DBS Treasures）账户，而且政府方此前也明确询问过海外账户的情况，该卡直到2025年1月才到期，同样在被告名下；最后，还有一个交通银行（Bank of Communications）账户，是一家中国银行，该账户卡片显示于2023年9月到期，同样在被告名下。法官阁下，这是向政府方表明被告有渠道获取可用于潜逃的账户、资产和资金的又一例证。如果这些资金需要我们依赖被告主动披露才能满足所设定的保释保证书（bond）的另一项条件——且撇开共同签署人（co-signer）的问题不谈——根据所设定的条件，她有义务向政府方和审前服务处披露其资产、账户、加密货币及其财产。她通过律师表示自己已经履行了该义务，仅仅披露了两个个人账户（一个在摩根士丹利银行（Morgan Stanley Bank），一个在道明银行（TD Bank）），以及与其中一家公司关联的这个账户。在政府方看来，她绝没有完整披露其有权使用的资金总额（corpus of money）。这些都是让政府方深感关切的新情况的例证。我们对被告潜逃的动机、其潜逃的能力，以及我们无法相信被告所作陈述这一事实深感关切。而且，法官阁下，在出现如此多的警示信号（red flags）和诸多关切的情况下（如果我们没有发现这些新信息，政府方不一定会察觉到这些情况），我们根本无法确信存在任何一项条件或一套条件能够确保被告在未来的庭审中出庭。因此，法官阁下，这涉及到了第三项要件。事实是，政府方现在向法庭表明：我们在她被捕时，基于当时所掌握的情况同意了这些拟议的保释条件。自那时以来，情况已经发生改变，并且对政府方而言只是变得更加令人担忧；政府方此前本就对被告的潜逃风险（risk of flight）抱有重大关切，但当时认为或许某些条件能够确保其出庭。我们现在不再这么认为了。我们不认为存在能够合理确保其出庭的条件或一套条件。\n\n法庭：澄清一点。关于——你提到了，我认为你提到了，我不知道你指的是起诉书（indictment）中的指控还是其他内容，但你提到郭先生（Mr. Kwok）和余先生（William Je / 余建明）是那种中饱私囊、大肆敛财的人。你是否认同辩护律师的说法，即本案起诉书并未指控这里的被告本人在所谓的“中饱私囊”？\n\n默里检察官：我想回答法官阁下的提问，起诉书确实指控被告本人应对挪用一亿美元欺诈收益直接负责——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n默里检察官：但那是关于挪用公款/财产（misappropriation）的要点。现在，关于起诉书（一份包含若干指控的指控文书），我们尚未具体列出被告本人挪用的个人资金，但是，我们再次认为，这绝不影响她在此处的潜逃风险以及她获取资金和联系网络的渠道。我想指出的另一点是关于旅行证件和护照。利普曼律师称，被告在去年年底或今年年初一直在寻求旅行许可，据我所知她打算去英国进行国际旅行。政府方从她的保险箱中查获了一本瓦努阿图（Vanuatu）护照和一本香港（Hong Kong）护照。瓦努阿图护照已过期，而且我们确实看到了证据（我们已披露该证据）表明该护照虽然算不上被吊销，但被告已撤回了针对该护照的申请。但她拥有获取旅行证件的能力，正如其同案被告迈尔斯·郭（Miles Kwok / 郭文贵）一样，据称郭在不同时期曾拥有11本护照。\n\n法庭：嗯，她不是迈尔斯·郭。\n\n默里检察官：我明白——\n\n法庭：我明白，我想你是在暗示她可能属于某个可以提供此类物品的网络的一部分。\n\n默里检察官：完全正确，法官阁下，完全正确，她既可能是这个能提供此类物品的网络的一部分，同时她也是被指派为自己和郭先生保管这些旅行证件的人。她是一个备受信任的人，被托付了保管这些旅行证件的责任——\n\n法庭：对于辩方的观点，你怎么看？即被告在2022年9月或10月扣押手机时肯定就已经察觉到有异常情况发生，随后又与美国证券交易委员会（SEC）进行了交涉，加之辩方所陈述的事实，即尽管她有庇护申请（asylum applications），她仍申请了出境休假许可（furlough）以便能够旅行。如果这些属实，难道不表明她是那种不会逃跑的人吗？\n\n默里检察官：不一定，法官阁下，而且我还要指出，虽然这里可能存在这些事实是否自相矛盾的疑问（我很乐意稍后就此进行说明），但我还要指出，尽管被告对所谓的中共迫害和引渡回国怀有如此严重的担忧，她仍愿意并且实际上渴望前往英国，这表明这些担忧并没有严重到让她不愿进行国际旅行的程度。\n\n但我并不了解被告申请休假许可的具体情况。我不知道她那次行程的目的是什么。我要说的是，如果我们在这个问题上作假设性推论，同样没有理由认为她不是在得知资金被扣押后，申请前往英国的休假许可而根本无意返回。再次说明，我之所以作假设性推论，仅仅是因为法庭提出了这个问题，但我认为你可以从这些事实中得出各种不同的结论。归根结底，她寻求前往英国、她愿意进行国际旅行，并不能削弱她具有重大潜逃风险这一事实。\n\n我还要指出，潜逃风险是指在未来的法庭开庭中不出庭。我们不需要证明她一定会逃往境外司法管辖区——\n\n法庭：不需要。\n\n默里检察官：她可以逃离本市，她可以逃离几个街区的范围。她可以剪断她的电子监控脚镯。而且可能是她庞大的支持者网络在为她提供协助并窝藏她。我们不知道具体情况会怎样，但最根本的核心是，被告具有重大的潜逃风险。鉴于证据的有力程度、本案罪名指控的严重性、被告的个人情况、她接触巨额资产的渠道、海外关联（包括其同案被告余建明（William Je），据指控他是一名逃犯，目前身处其面临指控的阿联酋（UAE））、她的支持者网络，以及我们在过去两周内发现的新信息（表明被告一直未向法庭、审前服务处或政府方如实陈述），政府方认为没有任何条件或一套条件能够确保她在未来的法庭诉讼程序中出庭。\n\n法庭：好的。我想你希望作出一些回应。\n\n利普曼律师：噢，是的，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：请允许我对3点30分案件的当事人说一句，抱歉，我们时间要推迟了。请大家耐心稍候，我们很快就会处理到。请继续。\n\n利普曼律师：坐垫之类的事情显然都没有发生。事实是，这已经向法庭作了陈述。现在我们谈到了信任的问题。他们说信任。你不能信任这名被告。真的吗？但你可以信任这个政府方？让我们来看看，让我们仔细剖析一下默里检察官刚才说的话。她说她找到了卡片的照片，其中一些显示卡片尚未过期。我们怎么能从这一点直接推导到“噢，还有与之关联的账户存在”？她有什么证据？没有。完全没有任何证据。她所知道的是——顺便提一句，法官阁下，我从未说过“大不列颠”这几个字。对吧？这意味着他们知道她当时准备去旅行。那他们为什么不逮捕她呢？如果他们认为她准备逃之夭夭（get out of Dodge），并且他们担心她有潜逃风险，那么，当他们发现她提出申请时，好吧，那就逮捕她啊。怎么，难道他们没有在边境监视她吗？真的吗？难道司法部（Department of Justice）自从我离开那里之后已经发生了如此翻天覆地的变化吗？我不这么认为。现在让我们谈谈她的就业情况。再一次，当时被问到的问题是什么？“你目前有工作吗？”“没有。”“没有。”如果问题是——\n\n利普曼律师（MR. LIPMAN）：法官阁下（Your Honor），我会尽快说完。我想先从以下几点开始。关于他们在与法庭的交谈以及提交的文件中所作的不实陈述，我所说的一切显然都是事实，因为他们没有对其中任何一点提出异议。所以所有关于发现，你知道的，床垫之间的手机，藏在不管是什么里面的手机，藏在两家公司之间的文件？什么时候？对谁？我和政府方（the Government）进行过一次具体的谈话，他们当时说，嗯，默里女士（Ms. Murray）说，她说从广义上讲，这个问题既可以被宽泛地理解，也可以被狭义地理解。好吧，首先，没有人剥夺我当事人的第五修正案（Fifth Amendment）权利（听不清），据我所知没有，而且当她被问及该问题时，她给出了回答，回答是真实的。如果他们想了解更多，他们本应该去问。我特意与政府方进行了交谈，我说排除掉她凭借公司所有权或类似关系可能控制的任何东西，这些就是全部账户。\n\n她没有潜逃风险。法官阁下。有一个——唯一的问题是她是否有潜逃风险？她身上有什么让你们觉得她不会出庭？她会出庭的，法官阁下。她无处可去。无处可去。而政府方一直在——我刚才说到这儿了，谢谢。他们为什么要无限夸大？为什么？原因是什么？我是说，说真的，她看起来危险吗？这到底——\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：他们并没有以具有危险性为由提出动议。\n\n利普曼律师：对不起，没有——\n\n法庭：他们没有以危险为由提出动议。\n\n利普曼律师：他们这么做是有原因的。他们想让她受折磨。他们想让她尝尝大都会拘留所（Metropolitan Detention Center，MDC）的滋味，法官阁下，因为她曾是幕僚长，这不可接受。这是不道德的。而当政府方通过诸如作不实陈述等手段来达到这一目的，在没有任何依据、甚至与已收集的证据相矛盾的情况下声称她有潜逃风险时，这——难道除了我以外，就没人觉得政府指控她违反了某些反欺诈条款（该条款规定，在结合所有情况下作出具有实质性误导的陈述属于违法行为），而政府自己却正在干着这种事，这有点奇怪或者具有讽刺意味吗？为什么？\n\n法官阁下，这名女士需要被释放。她没有潜逃风险。她哪儿也不会去。她会佩戴脚踝监控环，会接受 GPS 监控。我们可以把她所有的资金都冻结起来，以至于没有审前服务处（Pretrial Services）或某个人的批准，她连气都喘不过来。\n\n还有最后一件事，如果不予释放，她的辩护将会受到严重损害。\n\n法庭：对于任何未获释放的人来说都是如此。\n\n利普曼律师：除了一种情况，除了当这个人的母语也是普通话，而政府方却要求提供一个硬盘来往里面存入数 TB 的数据时。这不是一起会很快解决的案件，而且在这起案件中，获得当事人的协助将是非常重要的。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢你。默里女士，你想作最后陈述吗？\n\n默里检察官（MS. MURRAY）：是的，法官阁下，简短说几句。我首先想说的是，政府方没有向法庭作任何不实陈述。政府方没有夸大事实。政府方所呈现给本法庭以及辩方的信息，都是提供了有证据支持的信息。关于利普曼先生提到的信用卡，那不是卡的照片。那是我们今天呈交给法庭和辩方的卡的照片。它们是实体卡。但我们对有关我们有任何未做到——\n\n法庭：我知道——\n\n默里检察官：——完全坦诚和出于善意的指控表示愤慨。\n\n法庭：——我毫不怀疑你们是出于善意行事的。但他确实指出了一些似乎存在差异的地方，即在她的公寓中某些证据被发现的位置方面所作的陈述，与物品清单记录以及清单的记录方式之间存在差异。你能就此说明一下吗？\n\n默里检察官：当然可以，法官阁下。不存在差异。利普曼先生所做的是，他指着一份证据登记表，上面有一列，是联邦调查局（Federal Bureau of Investigation，FBI）在收集证据时所作的某些标记，用以说明物品是在何处起获的。通常，它根据利普曼先生向法庭提供的平面图，用字母标明房间，并附有简短描述。它并没有详细说明证据起获的具体位置、处于何种状态、是如何被发现的。\n\n我一直问自己的问题是：为什么？为什么政府方要歪曲证据？为什么政府方要夸大其词，夸大事实？即使他们认为，你知道，这背后还有更多隐情。即使——抱歉，对不起，有人提醒我，关于她的工作情况问题，我们实际上主张了，是她主张了她的第五修正案权利。好吗？谢谢。即使——我思路断了。我道歉。我想我刚才是在回应关于她控制这些东西的说法。根本没有——我们从未隐瞒过这一点。\n\n因此，关于夹在衣服里的笔记本电脑，这与政府方在首次过堂时向帕克法官（Judge Parker）所作的陈述是一致的，即笔记本电脑是在衣柜里的毛衣之间发现的。它没有具体说明是哪几件衣服——\n\n法庭：没有。\n\n默里检察官：——或者具体在哪里，但这是吻合的。关于政府方曾指出放在盒子里的 iPhone 手机，是的，是在衣柜里的一个袋子里，你可以看到这些正是利普曼先生向法官阁下指出的证据登记表上 50 多号的那些物品。你会注意到它们几乎每一部都有相同的 PIN 码或密码。所以这些是 FBI 最初认为可能没有任何内容的物品，随后在执行搜查令期间，FBI 有技术人员在现场，他们插上设备，确定了里面是有内容的。没有任何不实陈述。\n\n利普曼先生现在，法官阁下，又在本质上试图在羁押听证会这个节点，就政府起诉案件的实体是非问题进行审理，首先是向政府索要信息，我们很乐意提供这些信息，而且在本案的证据开示过程中本来也会提供；接着他又试图以此对抗政府，声称因为没有在收集证据的每个过程的每个阶段都拍照，政府就不可信。这根本不是事实，而且这是不尊重的，法官阁下。\n\n关于其他几个要点，我只想指出被告撒了谎。她就她公寓里的现金撒了谎。在这次辩论过程中，我已经听到辩方在好几个话题上吹毛求疵，这是令政府方感到顾虑的又一个例证。\n\n法庭：好吧，我们怎么知道——当时是怎么问的这很重要。是问你身上有钱吗？还是问你公寓里有钱吗？这是有区别的。\n\n默里检察官：我明白，法官阁下，而政府方显然并不知情——\n\n法庭：特别是对于具有不同语言和文化背景的人来说，所提问题的细微差别可能尤为重要。我不知道当时是怎么问的。\n\n默里检察官：确实，我们也不知道，因为政府方并未参与审前服务处对被告的访谈。在那次访谈中，有一名普通话翻译为她提供协助。政府方通过调查也了解到，王女士（Ms. Wang）的英语相当流利。我们是从收集到的各种不同证据中得知这一点的，包括她作出的陈述以及她在交谈中的声音。她似乎在理解上没有任何问题。\n\n但关于当时所问的问题，我再说一次，我不知道，我当时不在场。被告在好几个话题上都极其吹毛求疵。我要指出的是，审前服务报告显示，被告被问及的是资产（assets），资产，而不是她作为唯一签署人的具体账户，也不是处于活跃状态、由她控制并拥有登录信息的具体账户。我们没有吹毛求疵。审前服务处询问的是资产，而她没有披露存放在她公寓保险箱里的价值 $138,000 的现金。\n\n关于她的工作情况，辩方刚才表示她主张了——审前服务报告关于就业经历的部分显示，被告告知其自 2022 年 9 月起一直处于失业状态。至于自那之后她拥有的额外资金来源或她赖以生活的资金来源，被告拒绝回答，这是她的权利。但她确实在回应审前服务报告时作出了这一陈述，即她自 2022 年 9 月起一直失业。\n\n现在，利普曼先生说被告一直在各个机构做志愿者，而她此前可能在这些机构中以更正式的雇佣身份工作过。我只想简短地回到法官阁下所询问的个人获利这一点上。是的，我理解 110 万美元在曼哈顿可能算不上昂贵的公寓，但这是一套用现金购买的价值 110 万美元的公寓。被告的账户中还有近 100 万美元。被告直到她声称决定终止雇佣关系并开始做志愿者之前，从郭氏实体（Kwok entities）领取约 $250,000 的薪水，她是正式地以正式身份为这些实体工作的。在政府方看来，这就是个人获利。\n\n这与现在声称的被告在2022年9月（正好是政府开始扣押资金之时）停止以正式身份工作的主张也是不一致的。她不能对她签署工资单、拥有资金使用权的任何这些银行账户不承担责任。法官阁下，归根结底，被告存在潜逃风险。没有任何保释条件能够合理确保其出庭。她撒了谎。政府并未向法庭作虚假陈述。我们无法放心相信她会向法庭作出准确陈述，也无法确信我们将有能力以任何有意义的方式对她进行监控，从而确保她在未来的法庭诉讼程序中出庭。\n\n法官：谢谢。Lipman（利普曼）先生，我看到你了，你想回应吗？请讲。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，如实回答所提出的问题就是一个完整的回答。这不是在吹毛求疵——\n\n法官：听着，底线是我们其实并不知道当时问了什么以及是怎么问的——\n\n利普曼先生：嗯，我们当时在场。\n\n法官：好，但我是说我们没有记录——\n\n利普曼先生：但是，法官阁下，没有记录，而且政府所说的这些事情没有任何证据——\n\n法官：我——\n\n利普曼先生：——这就是——\n\n（插话）\n\n法官：我并没说这对哪一方有利。\n\n利普曼先生：不，但是，法官阁下，他们说我们找到了一张信用卡。好吧，那意味着她没有申报账户。不，你们只是找到了一张信用卡。明白吗？我们找到了一份对账单，上面写着不管是什么，说她被分配了一些币。是的，那是你们找到的，那是你们掌握的。你们没有其他任何东西。所以，仅仅因为他们找到了一些自己并不完全理解的东西，就告诉我她需要被羁押、她不可被信任，对不起，这未免太过分了。\n\n而且，顺便说一下，正如政府所知，她的许多账户都已被注销，政府的调查在某种程度上也跟进了这一点。比如 Citi（花旗银行）的账户就被注销了。其他银行的账户最近也被注销了，确实被注销了。还有另一件事，法官阁下，当他们说她控制这个或控制那个之类的，好吧，她曾在某个地方工作过，她现在不再在那里工作了，她不领薪水。她如何支配自己的时间是她自己的事。这不是在规避——这不是在对任何人撒谎，完全不是那回事。明白吗？\n\n而且政府基本上承认了——不，不是基本上。政府承认了关键的一点，即根据他们的 indictment（起诉书），她的参与并不是为了她个人的金钱利益。而是为了其他某种原因。而且那套公寓是在指控发生前用其他资金购买的。她确实赚了钱，但她没有花。我已经向法庭描述过她的生活方式。因此，关键问题在于她为什么这样做，如果她确实做了，她是为了自己获利而做的吗？如果不是，那么这是否足以成为认为她现在会伤害这些人的理由？因为她没有把出自他们腰包的任何钱放进自己的腰包。没有理由相信，在没有那样做、身处所有这些金钱周围却没有把分文放进自己腰包之后，这么多年来她都没那样做，现在又有什么会促使她这样做呢？答案是这是一场革命运动，明白吗，这些人是她的兄弟姐妹。他们一起想要看到 CCP（中国共产党）被推翻。因此，她不会让自己为之奉献一生、奉献终生事业的这些人陷入财务危机。\n\n法官：好的。\n\nMurray（默里）女士：法官阁下，最后补充一点。我想明确的是，无论如何政府在这一点上都没有做出任何让步，关键问题在于她是否存在潜逃风险，这才是问题所在。\n\n法官：好的，听着，要求我做的一件事是确定，或者至少裁定所提供的某些财务担保人是否足以满足 Parker（帕克）法官开出的要求和条件，辩方在此表示他们认为有三位担保人拥有足够的财产可作为担保物，连同代表被告提供的强化资金方案（姑且这么称呼）。\n\n我面前没有关于这三名 FRP（经济责任人）所提供财产方面的信息。这是我需要考虑的一部分。我明白，鉴于新材料，政府也再次要求重新羁押。但我有责任审查被告将要提供的任何材料，以证实其所提供的财务担保人。\n\n因此，我需要一套你们必须提供的或你们认为足够的完整材料。如果有关于其他人的文件，包括所谓的第八位或其他人的材料，是你们之前尚未向政府提供但现在可以提供的，请提交出来。我将要做的工作之一就是评估这些材料。这并不意味着我显然一定会认定这些材料是充分的以及保释条件已经满足，但这确实是我将要考虑的事项之一，此外我还要考虑是否应施加一套不同的保释条件，或者是否应当羁押被告。\n\n因此，在提交这批补充信息以及我完成审查（我会尽快进行审查）之前，根据帕克法官关于在获释前必须满足所有条件的 order（命令），她将继续被羁押。\n\n让我问一下利普曼先生，你什么时候能把这些材料提交给我和政府？\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，我一离开这个法庭就开始着手处理。我请求给予24小时。\n\n法官：嗯，当然可以。\n\n利普曼先生：哦是的，是的。是的。这是一个好提议。法官阁下掌握着许多个人信息，与其涂黑并以各种方式提交——我们的立场是，如果有充分的证据证明拟共同签署担保的人确实拥有该处不动产，且该不动产具有他们所声称的价值，那实际上就是政府所需要的全部。换句话说，对吧，因为无论他们是否赚钱——\n\n法官：我不知道政府需要什么，但你至少需要向法庭确保——\n\n利普曼先生：您说什么？\n\n法官：你至少需要向法庭确保。我并不确切知道你将提交给我什么。当然，了解谁是所有权人、是否存在任何其他所有权权益、有哪些留置权、有哪些抵押贷款等，这将非常重要。所以我想你心里有数。\n\n这并不一定会消除某人是否是被指控的受害者或具有其他缺陷之一的问题，但至少我希望获得更全面的情况，这也是我做出该评估的职责所在。我现在不想发表一概而论的声明，即仅仅因为某人是被指控的受害者且在某种程度上没有亲属关系，就必然使他们不合格。但这就是为什么我需要逐一审查。\n\n利普曼先生：好的。\n\n默里女士：法官阁下，关于回复的日期，假设辩方在周四提交材料，那么政府的回复截止日期就将是复活节周日。我们恳请——\n\n法官：周一。\n\n默里女士：——允许我们延至周一。谢谢。\n\n法官：是的，当然可以。好的，那就这样，休庭。谢谢。\n\n默里女士：谢谢。\n\n利普曼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（诉讼程序至此休庭。）\n\n证明书\n\n我，Carole Ludwig（卡罗尔·路德维希），特此证明，前述在 United States District Court, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的 United States of America（美利坚合众国）诉 Wang（王），案号 23cr118/23m2007 的诉讼程序记录，系使用基于个人计算机的转录软件编制，是该诉讼程序的真实且准确的记录。\n\n签名：Carole Ludwig\n日期：April 5, 2023","key_entities":["Murray","Kwok","Je","Yanping Wang","Himalaya","Finkel","HCHK","CCP","CIPA","William Je","Torres","GTV","Chinese Communist Party","Himalaya Exchange"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":17396,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-04-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-04-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:32:44"}