{"id":"court_sdny_683_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":683,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"SCHULMANBHATTACHARYA 6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 425, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852 240.356.8551","summary_zh":"封存动议律师信 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok / Yanping Wang（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #683。律师事务所 Schulman Bhattacharya（Jeffrey S. Gavenman 具名）代表多名个人及实体第三方申请人致函法官 Analisa Torres，就其针对法院此前没收令提出的一系列异议申请，请求法院批准对申请人姓名及财务信息予以封存/隐名处理，理由包括担忧因投资反对中共组织的身份曝光而遭报复，以及保护个人财务隐私。","summary_en":"Letter motion to seal — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok / Yanping Wang (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #683. The law firm Schulman Bhattacharya (signed by Jeffrey S. Gavenman), on behalf of numerous individual and entity third-party petitioners who filed objections to the court's prior forfeiture order, asks Judge Analisa Torres to approve sealing/redacting petitioners' names and financial information, citing fear of reprisal tied to their identities as investors in an organization opposed to the Chinese Communist Party, along with financial privacy concerns.","body_en":"SCHULMANBHATTACHARYA\n\n6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 425, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852 240.356.8551\n\n**JEFFREY S. GAVENMAN direct dial** 240.356.8553 **email** jgavenman@schulmanbh.com\n\nApril 8, 2025\n\n## **VIA ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007\n\n## *Re: U.S. v. Wang, U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York*, *Case No. 23-cr-00118 (AT)*\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe write respectfully on behalf of a group of individual investor petitioners (the \"Individual Petitioners\") (*see* ECF Nos. 529-552; 558; 560-567; 570-573; 575; 577-581; 583-594; 598-611; 613-615; 619-642; 645; 647; 649-650; 656-657; 659-661; 664-665; 667-670; 677) and a group of entity petitioners (the \"Entity Petitioners\") (*see* ECF Nos. 672-674) (collectively, these ECF Nos. are the \"Petitions,\" and the Individual Petitioners and the Entity Petitioners are \"Petitioners\") in the above-referenced case seeking to challenge the January 7, 2025 Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (the \"Forfeiture Order\") against Defendant Wang. ECF No. 488. When filing the Petitions, Petitioners redacted key personal, financial, and confidential information from the Petitions. Petitioners file this motion to respectfully request that the Court grant this motion to seal, to allow Petitioners to maintain such redactions on the publiclyfiled versions of the Petitions, so as to protect their legitimate confidentiality interests in, *inter alia*, their identities and personal financial information.\n\nIn considering whether documents should be filed under seal, the court must: (1) determine if the documents have a presumption of public access, (2) determine the weight of the presumption of that access, and (3) then balance competing considerations against such access. *Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga*, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The court should take into account whether the subject matter is \"traditionally considered private.\" *United States v. Amodeo*, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995). While there is a \"presumption\" of public access to judicial documents for the purposes of dispositive motions, (*see Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP*, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016)), that presumption \"can be overcome if countervailing factors warrant confidentiality.\" *Lugosh* at 120.\n\nIn the instant case, the Petitioners are seeking the Court's approval for minimal redactions to the Petitions; indeed, only their respective names are redacted (as well as anonymized on the docket) in the Petition itself. The exhibits to the Petitions are redacted as well, as they consist of extensive personal, financial, and confidential information. Notably, as the exhibits confirm the wire information and information regarding private investment decisions, they should not be considered\n\nPage | 2\n\njudicial documents that enjoy the presumption of public access. *Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Telegram Grp. Inc*., No. 19-CV-9439 (PKC), 2020 WL 3264264, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2020) (finding that the public's right to access is \"outweighed by non-parties' interests in privacy and the protection of proprietary business information.\" In approving redactions of certain information concerning individuals' participation in an investment opportunity, the Court specifically noted that \"[p]rotecting such private financial dealings is a recognized and protectable privacy interest\").\n\nFurthermore, even if they did enjoy such a presumption, certainly, the countervailing factors warrant confidentiality for the exhibits, as well as for the Petitioner's name. As a threshold matter, Petitioners fear the consequences of what is likely to occur in the event that their identities are made public and it is revealed that they invested money in an organization with a stated purpose of fighting against the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\"). It has been well-publicized (including in the context of this case) that the CCP has a history of retaliating against individuals that they deem to be dissidents.1,2 It is important to note that Petitioners have never been accused of engaging in any wrongdoing whatsoever and did not choose to be involved in this case. Instead, as demonstrated in the Petitions, Petitioners were forced to take action because the United States Government improperly took possession of Petitioners' property in violation of the relevant legal standards. In these circumstances, Petitioners' well-founded fear of potential reprisals from the CCP justifies allowing them to redact their identities from the Petitions. *See J.M.H. v. Freden*, No. 24-CV-875(LJV), 2025 WL 81919, at \\*4 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2025) (\"the potential harm of disclosing J.M.H.'s identity—including the fact that it could cause her to be subject to persecution and harassment—outweighs the public's interest in disclosure under both the common law and First Amendment standards\").\n\nMoreover, additional redactions are warranted because the Petitions, in setting forth the facts required to challenge the Forfeiture Order, reveal personal financial information about the Petitioners that they do not wish to be made public. Specifically, the Petitions contain information about the Petitioners' bank accounts, their financial transactions and their financial resources. This information is unquestionably personal in nature and the type of information in which the Petitioners have a strong privacy interest. *City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Ablyazov*, No. 15-CV-5345 (AJN), 2021 WL 1177737, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021) (granting motion to seal and explaining that \"[t]hese documents also consist largely of Mr. Monstrey's private financial information in which he has significant privacy interests\"). Moreover, for the same fear of reprisals identified above, Petitioners are concerned that the public dissemination of information concerning their financial transactions and resources would provide additional means for the CCP or other related parties to punish Petitioners for their activity as it pertains to this case.\n\nFinally, the remaining redactions to the exhibits, including the Entity Petitioners' exhibits, contain confidential business and financial information which, if disclosed, may harm the Entity\n\n<sup>1</sup> http (last visited April 8, 2025).\n\n<sup>2</sup> http (last visited April 8, 2025).\n\nPage | 3\n\nPetitioners' competitive position, negatively impact their privacy interests, or contravene an obligation of confidentiality to a third person. *See Fairstein v. Netflix, Inc.,* No. 20-CV-8042 (PKC), 2023 WL 6164293, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2023) (granting request to seal \"proprietary and confidential materials about business operations\").\n\nBased on the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully request that their motion to seal be granted in its entirety.\n\nRespectfully,\n\n /s/ Jeffrey S. Gavenman Jeffrey S. Gavenman","body_zh":"SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA\n\n6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 425, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852 240.356.8551\n\nJEFFREY S. GAVENMAN 直拨电话 240.356.8553 电子邮箱 jgavenman@schulmanbh.com\n\n2025年4月8日\n\n通过 ECF\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nUnited States District Court Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n关于：U.S. v. Wang（美国诉王案），U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York，Case No. 23-cr-00118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n我们谨代表上述案件中的一组个人投资者请愿人（下称“个人请愿人”）（参见 ECF Nos. 529-552；558；560-567；570-573；575；577-581；583-594；598-611；613-615；619-642；645；647；649-650；656-657；659-661；664-665；667-670；677）和一组实体请愿人（下称“实体请愿人”）（参见 ECF Nos. 672-674）（统称为这些 ECF 编号的“请愿书”，个人请愿人和实体请愿人统称为“请愿人”）致信，旨在质疑针对被告王于 2025年1月7日 作出的关于特定财产/金钱判决的同意初步没收令（下称“没收令”）。ECF No. 488。在提交请愿书时，请愿人涂黑隐去了请愿书中的关键个人、财务及保密信息。请愿人提交本动议，恭请法院批准本封存动议，允许请愿人在公开提交的请愿书版本中维持此类涂黑隐去，以保护其在身份和个人财务信息等方面的合法保密利益。\n\n在考虑文件是否应当封存提交时，法院必须：(1) 确定这些文件是否享有公众查阅的推定，(2) 确定该查阅推定的权重，以及 (3) 权衡反对该查阅的竞争性考量因素。Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)。法院应考虑标的事项是否属于“传统上被视为隐私”的内容。United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)。虽然出于处分性动议之目的，对司法文件存在公众查阅的“推定”（参见 Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016)），但该推定“在存在需要保密的抗衡因素时可以被推翻”。Lugosh 第 120 页。\n\n在本案中，请愿人请求法院批准对请愿书进行极小幅度的涂黑隐去；事实上，在请愿书本身中仅涂黑隐去了其各自的姓名（并在案件卷宗中作匿名化处理）。请愿书的附件也作了涂黑隐去，因为其中包含大量的个人、财务和保密信息。值得注意的是，由于附件证实了电汇信息以及有关私人投资决策的信息，它们不应被视为享有公众查阅推定的司法文件。Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Telegram Grp. Inc., No. 19-CV-9439 (PKC), 2020 WL 3264264, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2020)（认定公众的查阅权“被非当事方的隐私利益以及对专有商业信息的保护所压倒”。在批准涂黑隐去有关个人参与投资机会的某些信息时，法院特别指出，“[保]护此类私人财务往来是一项公认且受保护的隐私利益”）。\n\n第 | 2 页\n\n此外，即便它们确实享有此类推定，抗衡因素也必然支持对附件以及请愿人姓名予以保密。作为首要问题，请愿人担心一旦其身份被公之于众，且被披露其曾向一个以反抗 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，下称“中共”）为明确宗旨的组织投资金钱，可能会产生严重后果。众所周知（包括在本案背景下），中共素有报复其认定为异见人士的历史。1,2 必须指出的是，请愿人从未被指控从事任何不当行为，也并非自愿卷入本案。相反，正如请愿书中所表明的，请愿人是被迫采取行动，因为美国政府违反相关法律标准不当占有了请愿人的财产。在这些情况下，请愿人对可能遭受中共报复的合理恐惧，证明了允许其在请愿书中涂黑隐去其身份的正当性。参见 J.M.H. v. Freden, No. 24-CV-875(LJV), 2025 WL 81919, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2025)（“披露 J.M.H. 身份的潜在危害——包括可能导致其遭受迫害和骚扰的事实——在普通法和第一修正案标准下均超过了公众在披露方面的利益”）。\n\n再者，进一步的涂黑隐去是有正当理由的，因为请愿书在阐述质疑没收令所必需的事实时，揭示了请愿人不希望被公之于众的个人财务信息。具体而言，请愿书包含有关请愿人银行账户、财务交易及其财务资源的信息。这些信息无疑具有个人属性，属于请愿人享有强烈隐私利益的信息类型。City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Ablyazov, No. 15-CV-5345 (AJN), 2021 WL 1177737, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021)（批准封存动议并解释称，“[这]些文件在很大程度上也由蒙斯特里先生拥有重大利益的私人财务信息构成”）。此外，出于上述同样的对报复的恐惧，请愿人担心公开传播有关其财务交易和资源的信息，将为中共或其他相关方惩罚请愿人与本案相关的活动提供额外手段。\n\n最后，对附件（包括实体请愿人的附件）的其余涂黑隐去部分包含商业秘密及财务保密信息，若予披露，可能会损害实体\n\n1 http（最后访问于 2025年4月8日）。\n\n2 http（最后访问于 2025年4月8日）。\n\n第 | 3 页\n\n请愿人的竞争地位、对其隐私利益产生负面影响，或违反向第三方承担的保密义务。参见 Fairstein v. Netflix, Inc., No. 20-CV-8042 (PKC), 2023 WL 6164293, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2023)（批准对“关于商业运营的专有及保密材料”的封存请求）。\n\n基于前述理由，请愿人谨请求法院全案批准其封存动议。\n\n此致，\n\n/s/ Jeffrey S. Gavenman\nJeffrey S. Gavenman","key_entities":["Je","Gavenman","CCP","forfeiture","Torres","Analisa Torres","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1008,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:24:38"}