{"id":"court_sdny_834_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":834,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"MEMORANDUM","filed_date":"2026-04-17","title":"Reply Sentencing Memorandum Submitted on Behalf of Miles Guo","summary_zh":"郭文贵方量刑答辩状——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #834（2026-04-17 提交）。由被告辩护律师（John Kaley、Joshua Dratel、Melinda Sarafa）针对政府量刑备忘录（ECF #833）提出回应，主张政府未能确立可靠的损失金额、要求召开 Fatico 听证会核实损失，认为已获无罪裁定的行为不应计入损失计算，并质疑政府所引量刑参照案例及关于妨碍司法、被告财富属性等加重情节论点。","summary_en":"Reply sentencing memorandum on behalf of Miles Guo — in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #834 (filed 2026-04-17). Defense counsel (John Kaley, Joshua Dratel, Melinda Sarafa) respond to the government's sentencing memorandum (ECF #833), arguing the government has not established a reliable loss figure, that a Fatico hearing is required, that acquitted conduct must be excluded from the loss calculation, and disputing the government's proposed sentencing comparables and aggravating-factor arguments including obstruction of justice and the defendant's wealth.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n\n:\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n:\n\n:\n\nv.\n\n:\n\n23-CR-118 (AT)\n\n:\nMILES GUO,\n\n:\n\n:\n\nDefendant.\n\n:\n\n:\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n\nREPLY SENTENCING MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED\nON BEHALF OF MILES GUO\n\nJohn F. Kaley, Esq.\n\nDoar Rieck Kaley & Mack\n\n217 Broadway, Suite 707\n\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nTel: 212-619-373\n\nJoshua L. Dratel\n\nLaw Offices of Dratel & Lewis\n\n29 Broadway, Suite 1412\n\nNew York, New York 10006\n\nTel: 212-732-0707\n\nMelinda Sarafa\n\nSARAFA ZELLAN PLLC\n\n43 West 43rd Street, Suite 370\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nTel: 212-785-7575\n\nAttorneys  for Defendant Miles Guo\n\n---\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nINTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1\n\nI.\nPRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE GOVERNMENT’S RHETORICAL\nSTRATEGIES................................................................................................................2\n\nII.\nTHE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY RELIABLE LOSS\nAMOUNT, AND A FATICO HEARING IS REQUIRED ............................................6\n\nA. The Government’s $1.3 Billion Figure Reflects Transactional Volume,\nNot Actual Loss ........................................................................................................6\n\nB. The Government’s Reliance on Seizure Warrant Affidavits Does Not\nObviate the Need for a Fatico Hearing ...................................................................7\n\nC. The Government’s Position on Restitution Reflects the Challenges\n of Ascertaining Loss ................................................................................................9\n\nIII.\nACQUITTED CONDUCT MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LOSS\nCALCULATION .........................................................................................................10\n\nA. The Government’s Reading of § 1B1.3(c) Would Nullify Amendment 826 ...........10\n\nB. The GTV Private Placement Conduct Does Not “Establish”\nthe Offenses of Conviction .....................................................................................11\n\nIV.\nTHE DISAVOWAL OF VICTIM STATUS BY THOUSANDS OF INVESTORS\nIS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO LOSS ......................................................................12\n\nV.\nTHE MAGNITUDE OF THE LOSS ENHANCEMENT REQUIRES\nHEIGHTENED SCRUTINY .......................................................................................16\n\nVI.\nTHE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING COMPARABLES SUPPORT\nA SENTENCE WELL BELOW 30 YEARS  ..............................................................18\n\nVII.\nTHE GOVERNMENT’S REMAINING ARGUMENTS DO NOT SUPPORT\nA 30-YEAR SENTENCE ............................................................................................20\n\nA. The CCP’s Campaign Against Mr. Guo Is Relevant to Sentencing .......................20\n\nB. The Government’s Claims of Ongoing Criminal Activity Are Unsupported .........22\n\nC. The Government’s Arguments that Mr. Guo Obstructed Justice are\nUnsupported and Unavailing .................................................................................22\n\n---\n\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThe Government asks this Court to impose a sentence of at least 30 years’ imprisonment\n— a sentence that would rank among the longest ever imposed for financial fraud in this District,\nexceeding even the sentences imposed in cases involving losses many times greater than those\nalleged here. The Government’s request rests on a foundation of sand: an unverified, wildly\ninflated loss figure of $1.3 billion that conflates gross transactional volume with actual pecuniary\nharm; a legally untenable attempt to include $411 million in acquitted conduct in the loss\ncalculation; and a systematic refusal to account for redemptions and refunds and for the thousands\nof investors who affirmatively deny they were victimized.\nThis all stems from the Government’s stubborn denial of the undeniable: Miles Guo,\nhaving already amassed a tremendous fortune, began his whistleblowing activities in a deeply\nrepressive political environment long before the conduct at issue in this case, prompting the CCP’s\naggressive and well-documented retaliaton against him. That retaliation, which included, among\nother things, social media attacks, pressure to ban Mr. Guo from major media platforms, and asset\nfreezes, did not deter Mr. Guo from his mission to promote democratic reform in China. Had Mr.\nGuo been motivated solely by wealth, as the Government insists, he could have and would have\naccepted any number of offers by the CCP to cease his whistleblowing activities in exchange for\nthe release of billions of dollars in seized assets (see, e.g., Def. Corr. Mem. at 15, 17). To avoid\nconfronting this fundamental flaw in its theory of prosecution, the Government refuses to\nacknowledge the historical and political context of this case, suggests contrary to all evidence that\nMr. Guo’s wealth may have been illusory (while simultaneously arguing that Mr. Guo used his\nwealth to attract followers), and relentlessly attacks Mr. Guo as a cult leader and con man,\n\n---\n\n2\n\nsounding very much like the CCP itself. Taken together, these contradictions and inconsistencies\nare used by the Government to prop up its case and sidestep the weakness of its arguments.\nThis reply addresses the principal arguments in the Government’s Sentencing\nMemorandum (ECF No. 833) (the “Government Memorandum” or “Gov. Mem.”). As discussed\nbelow, the Government’s arguments regarding the loss amount, acquitted conduct, the standard of\nproof, sentencing comparables, and sentence enhancements are each fundamentally flawed. The\nCourt should reject the Government’s request for a 30-year sentence and impose a sentence\ndramatically below the advisory Guidelines range, consistent with the § 3553(a) factors and the\nsentencing practices in this District.\nI.\nPRELIMINARY\nNOTE\nON\nTHE\nGOVERNMENT’S\nRHETORICAL\nSTRATEGIES\n\nBefore we directly turn to the substantive sentencing arguments, we must take a moment\nto identify and address the rhetorical strategies employed throughout the rather histrionic\nGovernment Memorandum. Legal discourse typically is grounded in fact-based argument\nsupported by binding or persuasive legal authority. In this case, however, the Government\nMemorandum adopts a tenor so extreme that its building blocks must be deconstructed to facilitate\na fair and accurate assessment of the Government’s position.\n\nThe rhetorical strategies used throughout the Government Memorandum include the\nfollowing:\n1.\nEmphasis on emotion rather than fact or reason. The Government\nMemorandum repeatedly references Mr. Guo’s wealth (e.g., Gov. Mem. at 2, 59, 62) and “lavish\nlifestyle” (id. at 10, 12, 71) as suggestive of criminal activity, without regard to when or how\nspecific assets, such as his Sherry-Netherland apartment, Greenwich, CT, residence, or Brioni\nsuits, were acquired. Lines such as “he destroyed the lives of people who believed he could free\n\n---\n\n3\n\nthem from an oppressive Communist regime so he could buy more than $700,000 worth of bespoke\nBrioni suits” (id. at 59) deliberately – and unfairly – obscure the fact that Mr. Guo acquired vast\nwealth and its trappings long before the alleged conduct in this case. In so doing, the Government\nrelieves itself of any accountability for factual precision in favor of rhetorical flourish.\n2.\nFact laundering. The Government repeatedly cites its own version of the offense\nconduct, supplied to the Probation Department in connection with the Presentence Investigation\nReport (“PSR”), as neutral third-party “findings” whose Government origins are effectively\nmasked. By relying on the PSR’s intermediation and bold use of the word “finding” in its\nparentheticals, the Government bolsters its own language with the veneer of independent\nfactfinding. See, e.g., Gov. Mem. at 5, 42, 43, 48.\n3.\nGratuitous repetition. The Government incessantly repeats its key themes (e.g.,\nextraordinary wealth, unrestrained fraud, countless victims, astronomical loss), including casual\nrepetition of disputed facts – such as the scale of the alleged fraud – as if undisputed. For instance,\nthe Government references “thousands” of victims no fewer than 17 times, when only a handful\nof self-professed “victims” testified at trial and thousands of investors affirmatively disclaim\nvictim status. Similarly, while itself unrestrained by factual rigor, the Government speaks of\n“unrestrained fraud that [Guo] perpetrated against thousands, so he could buy himself million-\ndollar chandeliers and surround himself in luxury” (id. at 58), a “gargantuan global fraud that has\ninjured thousands” (id. at 63), “the billion dollars Guo stole from innocent victims through fraud\nafter fraud” (id. at 66), “[Guo]’s truly offensive and blatant fraud” (id. at 67), “this massive fraud”\n(id. at 69), “fraud on a global scale” (id.), “a fraud as massive as Guo’s” (id. at 70), “global, billion-\ndollar fraud schemes” (id.), “the five-year, billion-dollar fraud scheme” (id. at 71), “a years-long\nfraud scheme” (id. at 75), “Guo’s fraud empire all over the world” (id. at 79), “a mass-scale fraud”\n\n---\n\n4\n\n(id. at 82), “a years-long fraud” (id.), and “the complexity, duration, and manipulation brought to\nbear by Miles Guo in his execution of the five-year, $1.3 billion G Enterprise fraud and\nracketeering conspiracy” (id. at 83), to cite just some of the Government’s repeated stylistic\nassertions about the scale of the alleged fraud.\n4.\nReliance on speculation for baseless allegations. In support of its argument for\nspecific deterrence, the Government contends that Mr. Guo “and his enterprise” have “continued\ncriminal activities” throughout Mr. Guo’s three years of incarceration, without citing a single\nspecific crime. Gov. Mem. at 67-68. The Government relies on two sources for these assertions.\nThe first is Mr. Guo’s phone calls from the MDC during the period immediately after his arrest,\nduring which he did nothing more than encourage continuation of ongoing business operations,\nincluding a potential investment in the burgeoning Himalaya Exchange by the United Arab\nEmirates sovereign wealth fund. Any suggestion of criminal activity is purely speculative. The\nsecond is letters from purported victims, who make vague, unfounded, and unproven allegations\nthat Mr. Guo is directing criminal activities while incarcerated. Id.\n5.\nQuoting material out of context to suggest malevolence. In its excruciating\nefforts to saddle Mr. Guo with an enhancement for obstruction of justice, the Government offers\nan ominous video still framing two presenters from the New Federal State of China (“NFSC”) and\nan English subtitle stating “these individuals will all have to bear the consequences[.]” Gov. Mem.\nat 27. The Government states that the reference to “these individuals” refers to the 126 individuals\nwho provided victim impact statements to the Government, and characterizes the video as evidence\nthat “Guo’s enterprise continues to harass and threaten those that oppose it.” What the Government\ndoes not offer, however, is the presenter’s full statement that it is false statements - whether to the\ngovernment or other attorneys – that inevitably lead to legal consequences. This is presented in\n\n---\n\n5\n\nthe video as a caution to all. With respect to any falsehoods in the 126 victim impact statements,\nthe presenter states: “As time goes on, as evidence emerges, these individuals will all have to bear\nthe consequences, the legal consequences they must bear – that is the consequence of lying.” ECF\nNo. 832, Stmt. 206-B.\n6.\nGuilt by association. The NFSC video discussed above is but one of numerous\ninstances in which the Government seeks to discredit Mr. Guo based on the actions or statements\nof his supporters, even without evidence of Mr. Guo’s direction or participation. See, e.g., Gov.\nMem. at 21 (citing actions of William Je and unnamed supporters), 23-25 (citing supporter protests\nagainst the bankruptcy Trustee), 27-28 (citing actions of supporters following Mr. Guo’s arrest).\n\nIn addition to the above, the Government mischaracterizes defense arguments in order to\ndiminish them (e.g., characterizing CCP targeting of Mr. Guo as offered solely for mitigation) (id.\nat 56-57), brushes aside or ignores important facts (e.g., assertions of non-victim status), describes\ninvestors as “brainwashed” to discredit them (id. at 2, 40, 59) and Mr. Guo as a “cult” leader to\ndiscredit him (id. at 1, 50, 53, 58), baselessly refers to Mr. Guo’s personal history as “mythology”\n(id. at 56, 58-59), and frames the CCP’s persecution of Mr. Guo and seizure of his assets solely as\nmotives for criminal conduct, with no recognition whatsoever of these facts as foundational\ncontext for political resistance.\n\nHaving relieved itself of accountability for many of the assertions upon which it relies to\njustify the extraordinary sentence it seeks, and having elected not to seek a special verdict from\nthe jury, the Government usurps the role of factfinder as it proclaims loudly and repeatedly that\nMr. Guo caused a $1.3 billion loss and inflicted harm on thousands of victims. We respectfully\nsubmit that a high degree of rhetorical awareness is warranted when reviewing the Government\nMemorandum.\n\n---\n\n6\n\nII.\nTHE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY RELIABLE LOSS\nAMOUNT, AND A FATICO HEARING IS REQUIRED\nA. The Government’s $1.3 Billion Figure Reflects Transactional Volume,\nNot Actual Loss\n\nThe Government’s loss calculation suffers from a fundamental methodological defect: it\nequates the total amount of money that “flowed into bank accounts associated with the racketeering\nenterprise” (Gov. Mem. at 32) with “loss.” But inflows are not loss, and the jury made no finding\nof such. The Guidelines define “actual loss” as “the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that\nresulted from the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), n. (C)(i). The Government’s own financial\nanalyst, Paul Hinton, testified that his work “was the result of summing up the value of all the\ntransactions in the database” according to “categories that the government gave us.” Tr. 4330. He\nperformed no tracing, no detailed flow-of-fund analysis, and no investor-level accounting of\ndeposits, withdrawals, redemptions, or value received. Tr. 4356, 4430, 4458.\nThe Second Circuit has recognized that where the precise amount of investor loss is\ndifficult to determine, a sentencing court may — and should — use alternative measures rather\nthan defaulting to gross inflows. In United States v. Illarramendi, 642 Fed. Appx. 64 (2d Cir.\n2016), for instance, the court affirmed a sentence where the district court declined to use the\nestimated investor loss of $275 to $380 million and instead relied on the defendant’s gain of over\n$20 million to calculate the Guidelines range, as permitted by U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(B). The\ncourt imposed a sentence of 156 months — effectively a below-Guidelines sentence — which the\nSecond Circuit affirmed. Id. at 65.\nHere, the Government has not even attempted to calculate Mr. Guo’s actual gain from the\nalleged fraud. Instead, it asks the Court to treat every dollar that entered any bank account\nassociated with any entity in the alleged enterprise as “loss” — regardless of whether those funds\nwere returned to investors, used for legitimate business purposes, or moved between accounts (and\n\n---\n\n7\n\nthus counted multiple times). This approach is not a “reasonable estimate” of loss; it is entirely\nspeculative and an abdication of the Government’s burden.\nIn so doing, the Government also ignores entirely the settled case law, in the Second Circuit\nand elsewhere, establishing recognized principles for offsetting loss. These are set forth in Mr.\nGuo’s initial sentencing submission (“Def. Corr. Mem.”) at 63-66, and they are indeed integral to\ncalculating “loss” for Guidelines purposes. See, e.g., United States v. Byors, 586 F.3d 222, 226 (2d\nCir. 2009) (applying Guidelines Application Note 3(D), which “provides that the loss should be\nreduced, or offset, by ‘[t]he money returned, and the fair market value of the property returned and\nthe services rendered, by the defendant . . . to the victim before the offense was detected’”) (quoting\nU.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(D)(i)).\nB. The Government’s Reliance on Seizure Warrant Affidavits Does Not\nObviate the Need for a Fatico Hearing\n\nThe Government argues that because it seized $634 million pursuant to court-authorized\nseizure warrants, the loss amount “plainly exceeds $550 million” and no Fatico hearing is needed.\nGov. Mem. at 35. This argument conflates seizure with loss and ignores the adversarial process.\nSeizure warrant affidavits are ex parte submissions prepared to establish probable cause — a\nstandard far lower than the preponderance of the evidence standard required at sentencing, let alone\nthe enhanced standard that the magnitude of the enhancement warrants here. While the\nGovernment now attempts to rely on the affidavits to support its loss calculation, the Government\nnotably did not offer the supposed tracing analysis contained therein during trial, nor did it offer\nany detail in its sentencing submission. The defense has never had the opportunity to cross-\nexamine the FBI agents who prepared these affidavits, to challenge the tracing methodology, or to\npresent evidence of offsets, redemptions, and non-victim investors. The Court’s prior reliance on\nthese affidavits for purposes of entering a preliminary forfeiture order does not establish the loss\n\n---\n\n8\n\namount for Guidelines purposes, because the seizure warrant proceedings involve different issues\nand legal standards and different procedural protections than are required when determining loss\nfor Guidelines purposes.\nThe seizure warrant affidavits, moreover, confirm the double-counting problem. The FBI\nagent who prepared the affidavits acknowledged that “Investment Scheme Funds” were “layered”\nthrough multiple accounts — transferred from one entity’s account to another, and then another,\nin a manner the agent described as “indicative of money laundering.” ECF No. 716-2 ¶ 55(b). But\nthe same layering that the Government characterizes as evidence of money laundering also means\nthat the same dollars were counted each time they moved. Further, in the purported tracing analyses\nin some of the affidavits in support of the seizure warrants, it is apparent that money from the GTV\nPrivate Placement – of  which Mr. Guo was acquitted – was commingled with other monies, so it\nis not at all clear which money was moved to which account. See id. ¶ 34(c). On this point also,\nthe analyses provided in the affidavits in many instances fail to provide for an account “starting”\npoint. As a result, the source of any money transfers is not at all clear, particularly if there was\nmoney from other sources in the account to begin with or money from other sources were deposited\ninto an account along the way.\nAs an example, as discussed in Mr. Guo’s initial sentencing memorandum , at least $95\nmillion in G Club membership payments were made using HDO or HCN — funds that had already\nbeen counted as Himalaya Exchange inflows. See Def. Corr. Mem. 53-54. The Government has\nnever addressed this double-counting, and its analyst was never asked to parse it. Tr. 4458.\nMoreover, the amount seized is not equivalent to the amount of loss. The Government\nseized funds from accounts held in the names of Hamilton, Himalaya Exchange, G Club, and other\nentities. But many of those funds belonged to investors who affirmatively deny they were\n\n---\n\n9\n\ndefrauded — including the 6,512 Himalaya Exchange customers who have filed § 853(n) petitions\n(ECF Nos. 759, 761) and the 324 Hamilton investors who assert that their funds have “no nexus\nto the conduct charged” (ECF No. 756 at 4). The seizure of their funds does not transform those\nfunds into “loss.” As a result, the Government’s reliance on the seizure affidavits requires\nresolution through a Fatico hearing before it can be considered sufficiently dependable to form the\nbasis for any loss amount.\nDue process requires that Mr. Guo have the opportunity to challenge the Government’s\nloss calculation through an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir.\n1978). The Government’s position – that the Court should simply adopt the Government’s number\nwithout adversarial testing – is inconsistent with the fundamental requirements of fair sentencing\nand does not satisfy Second Circuit or the Guidelines’ standards of reliability.\nC. The Government’s Position on Restitution Reflects the\nChallenges of Ascertaining Loss\n\nThe Government has moved for a finding that restitution is “impracticable” because it\ncannot quantify specific victim losses – including amounts invested in G Series entities and any\nrefunds from those entities or compensation provided through the SEC or other means – with the\nprecision required by the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. ECF No. 785 at 4-5. Yet the\nGovernment simultaneously asks the Court to find, for Guidelines purposes, that the loss exceeds\n$1.3 billion.\nIf the Government cannot quantify victim losses for restitution purposes, it cannot credibly\nclaim to have established a $1.3 billion loss for Guidelines purposes. The Guidelines require a\n“reasonable estimate” of loss “based upon the evidence.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 3(B). An\nestimate that the Government itself concedes it cannot support with victim-specific data is not\nreasonable.\n\n---\n\n10\n\nIII.\nACQUITTED CONDUCT\nMUST\nBE EXCLUDED\nFROM\nTHE\nLOSS\nCALCULATION\nA. The Government’s Reading of § 1B1.3(c) Would Nullify Amendment 826\nThe Government argues that the $411 million it attributes to the GTV Private Placement\nshould be included in the loss calculation under the exception in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c) for acquitted\nconduct that “also establishes, in whole or in part, the instant offense of conviction.” Gov. Mem.\nat 36. The Government’s reading of this exception would swallow the rule.\nUnder the Government’s expansive interpretation, any acquitted conduct that was also\ncharged as part of a broader conspiracy would automatically qualify for the exception – because\nconspiracy counts, by their nature, encompass all alleged objects. If that were the law, then\nAmendment 826 would be a nullity in virtually every multi-count case involving conspiracy\ncharges. The Sentencing Commission could not have intended such a result when it unanimously\nadopted Amendment 826 with the express purpose that, as Commission Chair Judge Carlton W.\nReeves declared, “Not guilty means not guilty[.]” See Sentencing Commission News Release,\n“Commission Votes Unanimously to Pass Package of Reforms Inlcuding Limit on Use of\nAcquitted\nConduct\nin\nSentencing\nGuidelines,”\nApril\n17,\n2024,\navailable\nat\nhttp\nThe Commission’s Application Note 10 to § 1B1.3 does not support the Government’s\nposition. That Note states that “the court is in the best position to determine whether such\noverlapping conduct establishes, in whole or in part, the instant offense of conviction and therefore\nqualifies as relevant conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. n. 10. This is a limiting instruction – it asks\nthe Court to make a particularized, fact-specific determination, not to accept the Government’s\nblanket assertion that everything is connected. The Note’s reference to “overlapping conduct”\ncontemplates situations where the same specific acts underlie both the acquitted charge and the\n\n---\n\n11\n\nconvicted offense, not situations where the acquitted conduct is merely part of the same broader\nscheme.\nB. The GTV Private Placement Conduct Does Not “Establish”\nthe Offenses of Conviction\n\nThe jury’s acquittal on Counts 5 and 6 – the GTV wire fraud and securities fraud counts –\nwas a specific determination that the Government failed to prove those charges beyond a\nreasonable doubt. The GTV Private Placement was a discrete offering that occurred from April to\nJune 2020, involved a separate set of investor funds, and was the subject of a separate SEC\nenforcement action that resulted in a settlement involving payment of more than $539 million in\ndisgorgement, interest, and penalties, along with the return of approximately 92% of investor funds\nthrough a Fair Fund. Tr. 708, 1358, 2377; see also Def. Corr. Mem. Ex. 10 at 8-9.1\nThe Government’s assertion that the GTV Private Placement was “connected with and\nintegral to the other arms of the G Enterprise” (Gov. Mem. at 37) proves too much. Under that\nlogic, every component of a multi-scheme enterprise would “establish” every other component,\nand no acquittal on any individual scheme would have meaning. The exception in § 1B1.3(c)\nrequires that the acquitted conduct itself establish the convicted offense — not merely that it be\npart of the same narrative.\nMoreover, as discussed in Mr. Guo’s intial sentencing submission, the principle established\nin Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1992), counsels that when a jury convicts on a multi-\n\n1 The Government contends that the approximately 8% of GTV Private Placement funds that\ninvestors did not receive back through the SEC Fair Fund is attributable to the $30 million loss\nfrom the $100 million hedge fund investment. Gov. Mem. at 33 n.14. This is absurd. In addition\nto disgorgement of nearly $487 million, the SEC collected more than $52 million in interest and\npenalties alone, the latter far exceeding the $30 million hedge fund investment loss. Per a\nSeptember 18, 2023, order, moreover, the SEC expressly reserved $19,919,250 for taxes and\nadministrative expenses, along with $82,000,000 for a future disbursement. See In re GTV Media\nGroup, Inc. et al., Release No. 98415 (Sept. 18, 2023).\n\n---\n\n12\n\nobject conspiracy but acquits on a substantive count, the jury is presumed to have returned its\nverdict on the objectives for which there was sufficient evidence. Def. Corr. Mem. at 60. The jury’s\nacquittal on the GTV counts precludes any conclusion that the GTV Private Placement served as\na predicate for the RICO or conspiracy convictions. The same is true for money laundering. The\nmoney allegedly laundered must come from “specified unlawful activity.” Here, the GTV Private\nPlacement funds cannot constitute the proceeds allegedly laundered because the jury determined\nthat the GTV Private Placement was not specified unlawful activity.\nAgain, as with other portions of Mr. Guo’s initial sentencing memorandum that the\nGovernment is unable to confront, the Government Memorandum inexplicably ignores Griffin\naltogether.\nIV.\nTHE DISAVOWAL OF VICTIM STATUS BY THOUSANDS OF INVESTORS IS\nDIRECTLY RELEVANT TO LOSS\nThe Government argues that whether an investor “subjectively regards oneself as a ‘victim’\nis irrelevant to the Guidelines calculation” because materiality is an objective standard. Gov. Mem.\nat 38. This mischaracterizes the defense position.\nThe defense argument is not about the subjective materiality of misrepresentations. It is\nabout actual loss – specifically, whether “pecuniary harm . . . resulted from the offense” as to\ninvestors who affirmatively deny they were harmed. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) n. (C)(i). If an investor\nstates that the alleged misrepresentations were not material to their decision to invest – that they\ninvested for reasons unrelated to the representations the Government identifies as fraudulent – then\nno pecuniary harm “resulted from” the offense as to that investor. This is a question of causation,\nnot subjective materiality.\nThe Government attempts to distinguish United States v. Miller, 997 F.2d 1010 (2d Cir.\n1993), cited by the defense, by noting that in Miller the court couched its decision in terms of the\n\n---\n\n13\n\nlack of “property” and/or an “agency” relationship. See Gov. Mem. at 39-40. Yet that wholly\nmischaracterizes the factual context in Miller, which is entirely relevant here in evaluating any\nloss amount.\nIn Miller, which was a case centered on omissions rather than misrepresentations, the\nreason the apartments the defendants obtained surreptitiously – without offering them to their\ninvestor clients – and/or the investors’ deposit money that funded defendants’ purchase of\napartments for themselves did not constitute “property” for mail or wire fraud purposes (and why\nan “agency” relationship was not established), was because of the subjective expectation of the\ninvestors that the government denominated as victims.\nFor example, the Court in Miller pointed out that the investors’ representative “testified\nthat the purchase of the Apartments by [defendants and the cooperating witness] was never\ndisclosed to him; his consent to that purchase was never requested; he never saw a list of the 122\napartments prior to the investigation that resulted in the Indictment; the [investor] Group had ample\nfunds to have acquired the Apartments; and the Group would have been interested in acquiring\nthem had he been apprised of their availability.” 997 F.2d at 1014 (emphasis added).\nThe investors’ representative “also testified, however, that he never asked to invest more\nmoney in the Philip Howard than that expended for the 114 apartments purchased by the Group;\nthere was nothing wrong with [the cooperating witness and one of the defendants] making a\npersonal investment in the Philip Howard apartments; he had no expectation regarding the\npossibility of such a personal investment by [defendants]; and ‘it was very much within Mr.\nMiller's cards to do a deal, and if it wouldn't be with my group, it would be with a European group\nout there.’” Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at 1013 (investors’ representative “testified that the\nsize of [defendants’] fee was immaterial to him”) (emphasis added); Def. Corr. Mem. at at 45-46\n\n---\n\n14\n\n& n.43. Because the purported “victims” disavowed any expectation of an agency relationship that\nwould have precluded the allegedly fraudulent investment, the government’s fraud theory\ncollapsed. 997 F.2d at 1020.\nIn this case, the scale of investor disavowal of victim status is unprecedented. More than\n6,500 Himalaya Exchange customers have filed § 853(n) petitions asserting their funds are not\nfraud proceeds. ECF Nos. 759, 761. Three hundred twenty-four Hamilton investors have filed\npetitions asserting their investments have “no nexus to the conduct charged.” ECF No. 756.\nSeveral investors wrote to the Government disclaiming victim status. See, e.g., USAO_00112534-\nUSAO_00112564. And more than 1,200 individuals have sent letters of support for Mr. Guo to\ndefense counsel, of whom 1,192 expressly disclaim victim status.2\nAs made clear by the 100 representative statements provided in full in the Supporter\nSupplement filed in conjunctin with this memorandum, the investors who have expressly\ndisclaimed victim status are not nameless, faceless victims of brainwashing or manipulation, as\nthe Government self-servingly – and offensively – suggests. See Gov. Mem. at 1, 2, 51, 59, 82, 83.\nTo the contrary, the statements submitted represent individuals from a vast range of personal and\nprofessional backgrounds who offer detailed, thoughtful perspectives on their decisions to invest\nin various G Series entities. The Government has never attempted to quantify the investment\namounts attributable to these non-victim investors, or to exclude those amounts from its loss figure.\nNor has the Government attempted to address the arguments set forth in Mr. Guo’s initial\nsentencing memorandum with respect to this subject.\n\n2 A master list of supporter statements received by defense counsel is included in a sealed\nsupplement (hereinafter “Supporter Supp.”) filed in conjunction with this reply memorandum.\n\n---\n\n15\n\nThe Government’s attempt to dismiss these investors as victims who have been\n“successfully convinced” they are not victims (Gov. Mem. at 40, 68) is both condescending and\ncircular. At best, the Government proved at trial that some investors (the handful who testified)\nwere defrauded. It did not prove – and the jury was never asked to find – that all investors were\ndefrauded, or that the total loss was $1.3 billion. The existence of thousands of investors who deny\nvictimization is powerful evidence that the Government’s aggregate inflow figure vastly overstates\nthe actual loss.\nIndeed, the Government’s refusal to acknowledge the existence, much less the scope, of\npurported “victims” who disclaim that status, provides an additional reason why a Fatico hearing\nis necessary.\n\nThe Government, moreover, wholly ignores its own admonition at trial about extrapolating\nfrom the testimony of a single witness. See Def. Corr. Mem. at 54-55. At trial, the Government\nobjected strenuously to allowing the defense to argue and the jury to infer based on the testimony\nof one defense witness who had been coerced by the CCP to submit false accusations against Mr.\nGuo that it was reasonable to assume that others (possibly even the prosecution victim witnesses)\nhad also been coerced. The Government called this type of inference “speculation” and\n“extrapolation.” Tr. 5568, 5852. The Court agreed and precluded the defense from making such\nan argument. Tr. 5571, 5855.\n\nIn our initial sentencing submission, we maintained that by the same logic and reasoning,\nany losses beyond those testified to by the Government’s victim witnesses are also speculative and\nshould not be allowed. Def. Corr. Mem. at 55. In its 85-page responsive submission, however, the\nGovernment neither addressed this point nor put forward any reason why it should be permitted to\n“speculate” and “extrapolate” for purposes of establishing a loss amount. As the Court stated with\n\n---\n\n16\n\nrespect to an objection made during trial, “What’s good for the goose.” Tr. 1219. There is no reason\nwhy that rationale should not apply now.\n\nThe Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot curtail the defense from arguing a\nbroader inference based on the testimony of its witness while at the same time arguing that the\nGovernment can prove a $1.3 billion loss amount by a preponderance of the evidence based on the\ntestimony of only five alleged victims. If it would be speculation or extrapolation for the defense,\nthen it must likewise be speculation and extrapolation for the Government.\n\nFurther, the Government’s argument rests on the unproven assumption that all investors\nheard all of Mr. Guo’s broadcasts and ignored the Farm Loan documents, the Himalaya Exchange\nwhite papers, and the G Club documents, all of which speak for themselves and were available to\nall investors. Numerous investors – including trial witness Lai Dai and many more who sent\nstatements to defense counsel – have emphasized their reliance on these written materials and their\nexercise of independent judgment.\nV.\nTHE MAGNITUDE OF THE LOSS ENHANCEMENT REQUIRES\nHEIGHTENED SCRUTINY\nThe Government dismisses the doctrine set forth in United States v. Cordoba-Murgas, 233\nF.3d 704 (2d Cir. 2000), as “foreclosed by long-settled precedent” and claims that Cordoba-\nMurgas itself “rejected the use of a higher burden of proof.” Gov. Mem. at 40. This is a misreading\nof the case.\nThe Second Circuit stated in Cordoba-Murgas that “the enhancement of a sentence based\nupon a defendant’s ‘relevant conduct,’ if done without regard to the weight of the evidence proving\nthe relevant conduct, may result in a total term of incarceration which is excessive, inappropriate,\nand unintended under the Sentencing Guidelines.” 233 F.3d at 708.\n\n---\n\n17\n\nThe court authorized downward departures when the appropriate standard of proof was not\nsatisfied, and provided that “under the combination of circumstances that may be present here,\nincluding (i) an enormous upward adjustment (ii) for uncharged conduct (iii) not proved at trial\nand (iv) found by only a preponderance of the evidence, (v) where the court has substantial doubts\nas to the accuracy of the finding, the Court would be authorized to depart downward.” Id. at 708.\nIn this case, the 30-point loss enhancement constitutes an enormous upward adjustment in\nMr. Guo’s offense level, accounting for more than half of the total points. It is based in significant\npart on acquitted conduct (the GTV Private Placement), as well as on conduct that was not proven\nat trial (causing losses to thousands of investors who deny victimization). Again, the jury made no\nfinding as to loss amount and, as demonstrated above, there are substantial grounds to doubt the\naccuracy of the Government’s figure.\nThe Government’s fallback argument – that even a loss of $3.5 million would yield an\noffense level of 43 due to other enhancements (Gov. Mem. at 41) – actually undermines its\nposition. First, the Government has not established even a $3.5 million loss, because certainly that\nwas not proven at trial. 3\nSecond, if the loss amount is truly immaterial to the ultimate Guidelines calculation, then\nthe Government should have no objection to a Fatico hearing to determine the actual loss. The\n\n3 A loss of $3.5 million is not supported by the trial testimony of the Government’s alleged\nvictim witnesses, even if fully credited and accepted. At best, the prosecution’s five witnesses’s\nalleged “losses” (even including the GTV Private Placement investments on which Mr. Guo was\nacquitted) total less than $1.5 million. Further, and not surprisingly, the Government never asked\nits witness Ya Li whether she lost money on her investments in the various G Series ventures. The\nlogical inference from this omission is that Ya Li profited from her investments; had she actually\nlost money and not made money, the Government surely would have been quick to elicit her “loss”\namount during direct examination.\n\n---\n\n18\n\nGovernment’s resistance to a hearing suggests it recognizes that its $1.3 billion figure cannot\nwithstand adversarial scrutiny.\nVI.\nTHE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING COMPARABLES SUPPORT A\nSENTENCE WELL BELOW 30 YEARS\nThe Government’s sentencing comparables are carefully selected to inflate expectations,\nbut they actually demonstrate that a sentence well below 30 years is appropriate.\nWhile specific other cases present facts and postures that render them difficult for\ncomparison (as opposed to the entirety of a data set with a similar profile; see Def. Corr. Mem. at\n92-96), the Government’s reference to United States v. Bankman-Fried, No. 22-CR-673 (LAK)\n(S.D.N.Y Mar. 15, 2024), and the 25-year prison term to which he was sentenced, prove\ninescapably that particular aspects of that case demonstrate that a much lower sentence is\nappropriate herein.\nFor example, while the Government cites Bankman-Fried  as a comparable, the defendant’s\nfraud in that case involved $8 billion in customer funds — more than six times the Government’s\nalleged loss here — and included the misappropriation of customer deposits from a regulated\nexchange. In addition, Bankman-Fried testified falsely at trial (ECF No. 410 at 31-32), and the\nGovernment was required to extradite him to gain personal jurisdiction over him (id. at 18-22)\n(Bankman-Fried also used the Rule of Speciality to eliminate certain counts against him).\nIn addition, Bankman-Fried spent millions of dollars leveraging his financial success into\npolitical influence, attempting to achieve bipartisan corruption through his extensive political\ncontributions. Id. Morover, even with a 25-year sentence, “good time” and other programming\ncredits will result in Bankman-Fried’s release from custody at an age 15 years younger than Mr.\nGuo is right now.\n\n---\n\n19\n\nAccordingly, reference to Bankman-Fried only strengthens Mr. Guo’s positon that his\nsentence should be dramatically shorter than 25 years.\nThe cases the Government conspicuously omits are more instructive. In United States v.\nMoseley, 980 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 2020), the Second Circuit affirmed a 120-month sentence where the\nGuidelines called for life imprisonment based on a $49 million loss. In United States v. Rivernider,\n828 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2016), the Second Circuit affirmed a 144-month sentence – a significant\ndownward variance from a Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months – where the district court found\nthat the loss amount “overstated the seriousness of the offense.”\nIn this District, courts repeatedly have imposed sentences dramatically below the advisory\nGuidelines level in high-loss fraud cases: Adelson (42 months, $260 million loss, Guidelines level\n46, affirmed by the Second Circuit); Gupta (24 months, insider trading, affirmed); Ferguson (one\nto four years, $500 million fraud, Guidelines life); Faibish (63 months, Guidelines life). See Def.\nCorr. Mem. at 72-75. While the amount of loss in those cases does not reach the dollar amount\nthat the Government alleges here, those cases occurred years and even decades ago, when the\nnumbers in those cases were functionally equivalent to those alleged herein.\nThe Sentencing Commission’s own data confirms that the norm in this District is\nsentencing below the Guidelines range. As detailed in Mr. Guo’s sentencing memorandum, only\n23.8% of sentences in SDNY fall within the advisory Guidelines range. Def. Corr. Mem. at 94.\nThe mean sentence for money laundering convictions in SDNY in 2024 was 34 months, not even\nclose to the 360 months the Government suggests is appropriate here. See Def. Corr. Mem. at 95.\nFinally, the Government’s reference to Yvette Wang’s guilty plea (Gov. Mem. at 78) does\nnot bind either Mr. Guo or the Court in making the individualized sentencing determination that\nthe Fifth Amendment guarantees to Mr. Guo. As Courts regularly instruct juries, one defendant’s\n\n---\n\n20\n\ndecision to plead guilty is personal, and should not have any impact on deliberations with respect\nto a defendant at trial. Also, while the Federal Rules of Evidence and certain trial-oriented\nconstitutional protections do not necessarily apply at sentencing, it is noteworthy that in Crawford\nv. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the very practice of introducing a co-defendant’s guilty plea\nto establish a conspiracy and its scope was among the tactics that the Court expressly found\nviolated the Sixth Amendment. Here, reliance on Ms. Wang’s guilty plea – which all persons\nfamiliar with the federal legal system know is the product of a negotiation in which the\nGovernment exercises extraordinary leverage in dictating terms – would violate the Fifth\nAmendment in the sentencing context.\nVII.\nTHE GOVERNMENT’S REMAINING ARGUMENTS DO NOT SUPPORT A 30-\nYEAR SENTENCE\nA. The CCP’s Campaign Against Mr. Guo Is Relevant to Sentencing\nThe Government devotes barely three pages to the CCP’s targeting of Mr. Guo,\nmischaracterizes it as nothing more than a mitigation argument, and dismisses it as “irrelevant.”\nGov. Mem. at 56-58. The Government does not even acknowledge the CCP actions against Mr.\nGuo that its own Department of Justice saw fit to prosecute criminally in the cases of Elliot Broidy,\nPrakazrel Michel, George Higginbotham, Nicki Lum Davis, and the thirty-four defendants in Bai,\nand civilly in the case of Steve Wynn. See Def. Corr. Mem. at 17-22. To do so would mean\nreckoning with the implications of the CCP’s aggression against Mr. Guo, which is directly\nrelevant to sentencing in at least two respects.\nFirst, the CCP’s coercion of investors to file false complaints – testified to at trial by Jianhu\nYi (Tr. 5042-59) and corroborated by the Declaration of Wansheng Cheng (Def. Corr. Mem., Ex.\n3) and other statements discussed in the Supporter Supplement – directly undermines the reliability\n\n---\n\n21\n\nof the Government’s loss figure. If an unknown number of “victim” complaints were fabricated\nby CCP agents, then the Government’s loss calculation is built on a contaminated foundation.\nContrary to the Government’s contention, CCP coercion was directly related to the scope\nof the offense conduct and the loss amount, and reinforces the need to attempt some verification\nof the integrity of the complaints through a Fatico hearing because it appears the Government has\nnot attempted any of the vetting that the peculiar facts in this case require.\nIndeed, of the 225 victim impact statements submitted by the Government with its\nmemorandum, at least 45 appear to be duplicates or supplements submitted by individuals\notherwise represented in the collection, bringing the number of unique “victims” closer to 180 than\n225. This raises questions about both the provenance of the letters and the Government’s\nunquestioning reliance on them.\nThe Government stipulated that the CCP targeted Mr. Guo (DX STIP 1), and the DOJ’s\nown prosecution in United States v. Bai et al. confirmed a massive CCP social media campaign to\ndiscredit Mr. Guo using thousands of fake online personas. Def. Corr. Mem., Ex. 2. The Court\ncannot ignore this context when evaluating the Government’s specious claim that every dollar\ndirected toward a G Series entity represents “loss.”\nSecond, the CCP’s targeting of Mr. Guo is directly relevant to the § 3553(a) factors,\nincluding the “history and characteristics of the defendant” and the “nature and circumstances of\nthe offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The conduct in this case cannot fairly be assessed outside of\nits personal, historical, and political context, all of which are entangled with the CCP’s oppressive\nregime and targeting of Mr. Guo. A lengthy prison term would validate the CCP’s campaign\nagainst Mr. Guo, satisfy the CCP’s goal of silencing Mr. Guo, and embolden further efforts by the\n\n---\n\n22\n\nCCP to eliminate Chinese dissidents from public life — a result that is contrary to the geopolitical\nand national interests of the United States.\nB. The Government’s Claims of Ongoing Criminal Activity Are Unsupported\nThe Government’s assertion that Mr. Guo has “continued criminal activities for the three\nyears that Guo has been incarcerated” (Gov. Mem. at 67) is based entirely on unsworn victim\nstatements repeating hearsay about what NFSC presenters allegedly said on broadcasts. The\nGovernment offers no direct evidence that Mr. Guo personally directed any post-arrest criminal\nactivity from the MDC.\nThe continuation of the NFSC as an organization – which has its own elected leadership\nstructure – is not evidence that Mr. Guo has directed any criminal conduct while detained. Again,\nthe Government’s unsupported allegations regarding this subject demand a Fatico hearing before\nthey can be considered.\nThe Government’s reliance on a March 10, 2026, video (Gov. Mem. at 27) in which an\nNFSC presenter stated that individuals who provided victim statements “will all have to bear the\nconsequences” is not only taken entirely out of context, as discussed in Part I above, but more\nimportantly proves nothing about Mr. Guo’s personal involvement. The Government does not\nallege that Mr. Guo directed this statement, and the statement itself is not evidence of ongoing\ncriminal activity by Mr. Guo.\nC. The Government’s Allegations that Mr. Guo Obstructed Justice are\nUnsupported and Unavailing\n\nThe Government devotes eight pages to arguing that Mr. Guo engaged in a range of\nallegedly obstructive conduct. Gov. Mem. at 20-28. None of the allegations withstands scrutiny.\nFirst, the Government’s attempts to cast the supposed “complexity” of the investment\n“schemes” as inherently obstructive is preposterous. Id. at 20. Likewise, characterizing the\n\n---\n\n23\n\nsupposed “evolution” and “relocation” of various investment opportunities as obstructive is\nentirely speculative and ignores longstanding business relationships that predate the alleged fraud,\nincluding those tied to the UAE.\nSecond, the Government repeatedly and improperly attributes the conduct of others to Mr.\nGuo. This is true with respect to alleged conduct of William Je as well as of supporters of Mr.\nGuo. Id. at 21, 23-24, 27-28. Efforts to cast Mr. Guo as the orchestrator of certain conduct fall\nshort; for instance, the existence on a cell phone belonging to Mr. Guo of a photo identifying\nrelatives of an individual whose home protestors visited is a far cry from an order directing\n“harassment” or “targeting” of such individual or the relatives. Id. at 25-26. The attenuation\nbetween this photo and any supposed obstructive conduct that could be attributed to Mr. Guo\nunderscores the Government’s strained efforts in this regard. In other instances, such as the\nsupposed “threats” issued in the NFSC video discussed in Part I, the Government does not even\nattempt to attribute the (ultimately benign) conduct to Mr. Guo, relying entirely on supposition\nand innuendo. Id. at 27.\nThird, the Government attempts to characterize as “obstruction of justice” for purposes of\nthis case events in wholly unrelated litigation (id. at 22) and other conduct that took place prior to\nMr. Guo’s arrest (id. at 28 n. 11), which cannot constitute obstruction in this proceeding.\nFor these reasons as well as those addressed in Mr. Guo’s intial sentencing submission\n(Def. Corr. Mem. at 81-82), Mr. Guo maintains that any enhancement of his sentence based on\npurported obstruction of justice is unwarranted.\nD. The Government’s Wealth Argument Is Internally Contradictory\nThe Government argues that Mr. Guo’s “purported” billionaire status is an aggravating\nfactor because he used it to lure victims. Gov. Mem. at 71. But this argument is in tension with the\nGovernment’s own theory of the case. If Mr. Guo was already a billionaire – which the\n\n---\n\n---\n\n25\n\n---\n\n---\n\n27\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n           /s/\n\nJohn F. Kaley\nDoar Rieck Kaley & Mack\n\n217 Broadway, Suite 707\n\nNew York, New York 10007\n\nTel: 212-619-3730\n\n           /s/\n\nJoshua L. Dratel\n\nLaw Offices of Dratel & Lewis\n\n29 Broadway, Suite 1412\n\nNew York, New York 10006\n\nTel: 212-732-0707\n\n           /s/\n\nMelinda Sarafa\n\nSARAFA ZELLAN PLLC\n\n43 West 43rd Street, Suite 370\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nTel: 212-785-7575\n\nTo:\nAll Counsel via ECF","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n\n:\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n:\n\n:\n\nv.（诉）\n\n:\n\n23-CR-118 (AT)\n\n:\nMILES GUO（郭文贵）,\n\nDefendant（被告）.\n\n:\n\n:\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n\n代表 MILES GUO（郭文贵）提交的量刑答辩备忘录\n\nJohn F. Kaley, Esq.\n\nDoar Rieck Kaley & Mack\n\n217 Broadway, Suite 707\n\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nTel: 212-619-373\n\nJoshua L. Dratel\n\nLaw Offices of Dratel & Lewis\n\n29 Broadway, Suite 1412\n\nNew York, New York 10006\n\nTel: 212-732-0707\n\nMelinda Sarafa\n\nSARAFA ZELLAN PLLC\n\n43 West 43rd Street, Suite 370\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nTel: 212-785-7575\n\n被告 Miles Guo 的辩护律师\n\n---\n\n目录\n\n引言 ...................................................................................................................................... 1\n\nI.\n关于政府修辞策略的初步说明 ................................................................................................2\n\nII.\n政府未能确立任何可靠的损失金额，且必须举行 FATICO 听证会 ............................................6\n\nA. 政府提出的 13 亿美元数额反映的是交易量，而非实际损失 ........................................................................................................6\n\nB. 政府依赖扣押令宣誓书并不能免除举行 Fatico 听证会的必要性 ...................................................................7\n\nC. 政府在赔偿问题上的立场反映了确定损失的困难性 ................................................................................9\n\nIII.\n判决无罪的行为必须排除在损失计算之外 .........................................................................................10\n\nA. 政府对 § 1B1.3(c) 的解读将使第 826 号修正案无效 ...........10\n\nB. GTV 私募行为并不能“确立”定罪罪名 .....................................................................................11\n\nIV.\n数千名投资者否认受害者身份与损失直接相关 ......................................................................12\n\nV.\n损失加重处罚的幅度需要更严格的审查 .......................................................................................16\n\nVI.\n政府提供的量刑可比案例支持远低于 30 年的刑期 ..............................................................18\n\nVII.\n政府的其余论点不支持 30 年刑期 ............................................................................................20\n\nA. 中共针对郭先生的行动与量刑相关 .......................20\n\nB. 政府关于持续犯罪活动的主张缺乏证据支持 .........22\n\nC. 政府关于郭先生妨碍司法的论点缺乏证据支持且不能成立 .................................................................................22\n\n引言\n\n政府请求本法院判处至少 30 年监禁——这一刑期将位列本地区法院（District）因金融欺诈判处的最长刑期之一，甚至超过了那些涉及损失数倍于本案指控数额的案件所判处的刑期。政府的请求建立在沙滩之上：一个未经核实、极其虚高的 13 亿美元损失数额，该数额将总交易量与实际财产损害混为一谈；一种在法律上站不住脚的企图，试图将 4.11 亿美元判决无罪的行为计入损失计算；以及系统性地拒绝考虑赎回和退款，并拒绝考虑数千名明确否认自己受害的投资者。\n\n这一切都源于政府顽固地否认不可否认的事实：Miles Guo（郭文贵）在早已积聚巨额财富的情况下，早在本案所涉行为发生前很久，就在极具压迫性的政治环境中开始了其揭露内幕的活动，从而引发了 CCP（中国共产党/中共）对其发起的气势汹汹且有据可查的报复。该报复包括社交媒体攻击、施压主要媒体平台封禁郭先生以及资产冻结等，但并未能阻止郭先生在中国推进民主改革的使命。正如政府所坚称的那样，如果郭先生仅仅是受财富驱使，他本可以并且本来就会接受中共提出的多项提议，以停止揭露内幕活动来换取解冻数十亿美元被扣押的资产（参见，例如，Def. Corr. Mem. 第 15、17 页）。为了避免面对其起诉理论中的这一根本缺陷，政府拒绝承认本案的历史和政治背景，与所有证据相悖地暗示郭先生的财富可能是虚幻的（同时又辩称郭先生利用其财富吸引追随者），并无情地攻击郭先生为邪教头目和骗子，\n\n---\n\n听起来与中共本身如出一辙。综合来看，政府利用这些矛盾和不一致之处来支撑其指控，并回避其论点的薄弱之处。\n\n本答辩针对的是《政府量刑备忘录》（ECF No. 833）（即“《政府备忘录》”或“Gov. Mem.”）中的主要论点。如下文所述，政府关于损失金额、判决无罪的行为、证明标准、量刑可比案例以及量刑加重情节的各项论点均存在根本性缺陷。法院应驳回政府判处 30 年刑期的请求，并根据 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 考量因素及本地区法院的量刑实践，判处远低于建议性《量刑指南》（Guidelines）范围的刑期。\n\nI.\n关于政府修辞策略的初步说明\n\n在我们直接转向实体量刑论点之前，我们必须花点时间来识别并指出整篇相当歇斯底里的《政府备忘录》中所采用的修辞策略。法律论述通常立足于有约束力或有说服力的法律渊源所支持的基于事实的论点。然而，在本案中，《政府备忘录》采取了极其极端的基调，以至于必须对其构建基石进行解构，以促进对政府立场的公正和准确评估。\n\n整篇《政府备忘录》中使用的修辞策略包括以下几点：\n\n1. 强调情绪而非事实或理性。《政府备忘录》反复提及郭先生的财富（例如，Gov. Mem. 第 2、59、62 页）和“奢华的生活方式”（同上，第 10、12、71 页），以此暗示犯罪活动，却完全不顾具体资产是何时以及如何获得的，例如他在 Sherry-Netherland 的公寓、康涅狄格州 Greenwich（格林威治）的住所或 Brioni（布里奥尼）西装。诸如“他摧毁了那些相信他能将他们从压迫性共产主义政权中解救出来的人们的生活，以便他能购买价值超过 70 万美元的定制 Brioni 西装”（同上，第 59 页）之类的语句，故意——且不公地——掩盖了郭先生早在本案指控行为发生很久之前就已获得巨额财富及其附属品的事实。政府通过这种方式，免除了自身对事实精确性的任何责任，转而追求修辞上的华丽。\n\n2. 事实清洗。政府反复将其自身对犯罪行为的描述版本——即就《判决前调查报告》（“PSR”）向缓刑局（Probation Department）提供的版本——引用为中立第三方的“认定”，其政府来源被有效掩盖。通过依赖 PSR 的中介作用并在其括号说明中大胆使用“认定”一词，政府用独立事实认定的表象粉饰了自己的言辞。参见，例如，Gov. Mem. 第 5、42、43、48 页。\n\n3. 无端重复。政府不断重复其关键主题（例如，巨额财富、肆无忌惮的欺诈、无数受害者、天文数字般的损失），包括漫不经心地重复有争议的事实——例如指控欺诈的规模——仿佛它们毫无争议一样。例如，政府提及“数千名”受害者的次数不少于 17 次，而庭审中只有极少数自称的“受害者”出庭作证，且数千名投资者明确否认具有受害者身份。同样，尽管政府本身不受事实严谨性的约束，但它却谈及“[郭]对数千人实施的肆无忌惮的欺诈，以便他能给自己购买百万美元的水晶吊灯并让自己置身于奢华之中”（同上，第 58 页）、“伤害了数千人的庞大全球欺诈”（同上，第 63 页）、“郭通过一次又一次的欺诈从无辜受害者手中窃取的十亿美元”（同上，第 66 页）、“[郭]真正令人发指且明目张胆的欺诈”（同上，第 67 页）、“这一大规模欺诈”（同上，第 69 页）、“全球规模的欺诈”（同上）、“如郭这般庞大的欺诈”（同上，第 70 页）、“全球性的十亿美元欺诈计划”（同上）、“为期五年的十亿美元欺诈计划”（同上，第 71 页）、“长达数年的欺诈计划”（同上，第 75 页）、“郭遍布世界各地的欺诈帝国”（同上，第 79 页）、“大规模欺诈”（同上，第 82 页）、“长达数年的欺诈”（同上），以及“Miles Guo 在执行为期五年、涉案 1.3 亿美元的 G Enterprise 欺诈和敲诈勒索阴谋时所施加的复杂性、持续时间和操纵性”（同上，第 83 页），这仅是政府关于指控欺诈规模反复进行文风渲染的部分论断。\n\n4. 依靠推测作出毫无根据的指控。为了支持其关于特别威慑的论点，政府声称郭先生“及其企业”在郭先生被羁押的三年期间“继续从事犯罪活动”，却未列举出一项具体的犯罪。Gov. Mem. 第 67-68 页。政府关于这些断言依赖于两个来源。第一个是郭先生在被捕后不久于 MDC（大都会拘留所）拨打的电话，在此期间他所做的不过是鼓励继续进行正在开展的业务运营，包括阿拉伯联合酋长国主权财富基金对新兴的 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的潜在投资。任何关于犯罪活动的暗示纯属推测。第二个是来自声称的受害者的信件，信中提出了含糊、毫无根据且未经证实的指控，称郭先生在羁押期间指挥犯罪活动。同上。\n\n5. 断章取义以暗示恶意。为了极力给郭先生扣上妨碍司法加重处罚的罪名，政府提供了一张不祥的视频截图，画面中是来自 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）（“NFSC”）的两名主持人，英文字幕显示“这些人将不得不承担后果[。]”Gov. Mem. 第 27 页。政府称提及的“这些人”指的是向政府提供受害者影响陈述的 126 名个人，并将该视频定性为“郭的企业继续骚扰和威胁反对者”的证据。然而，政府没有提供的是主持人的完整表述，即虚假陈述——无论是向政府还是向其他律师作出的——不可避免地会导致法律后果。这呈现在\n\n该视频是对所有人的警告。关于126份受害者影响陈述书中的任何虚假陈述，主讲人表示：“随着时间的推移，随着证据的显现，这些人将不得不承担后果，承担他们必须承担的法律后果——这就是撒谎的后果。”ECF No. 832, Stmt. 206-B。\n\n6. 株连。上述NFSC（新中国联邦）视频只是政府企图基于Guo先生（郭文贵）支持者的行为或言论来败坏其声誉的众多事例之一，哪怕毫无证据证明存在郭先生的指示或参与。参见，例如，Gov. Mem. 第21页（引用William Je【余建明】及未具名支持者的行为）、第23-25页（引用支持者抗议破产Trustee【受托人】的行动）、第27-28页（引用郭先生被捕后支持者的行为）。\n\n除上述内容外，政府还对辩方主张进行曲解以贬低其价值（例如，将针对郭先生的CCP【中国共产党】打压行为定性为仅仅是作为量刑从轻理由提出）（同上，第56-57页）；对重要事实置之不理或予以忽视（例如，主张自身非受害者身份的声明）；将投资者描述为“被洗脑”以败坏其声誉（同上，第2、40、59页），并将郭先生描述为“邪教”头目以抹黑他（同上，第1、50、53、58页）；毫无根据地将郭先生的个人经历称为“神话”（同上，第56、58-59页）；并将中共对郭先生的迫害及其财产的没收纯粹定性为其实施犯罪行为的动机，完全不承认这些事实作为政治反抗的基本背景。\n\n政府免除了自身对其赖以证明其所寻求之严苛量刑合理的诸多主张的举证责任，并且选择不向陪审团寻求特别裁决，却高调且反复宣称郭先生造成了13亿美元的损失并对数千名受害者造成了伤害，从而僭越了事实裁判者的角色。我们谨此提请，在审阅政府的备忘录时，有必要保持高度的修辞防范意识。\n\nII.\n政府并未确立任何可靠的损失金额，必须举行FATICO听证会\n\nA. 政府提出的13亿美元数额反映的是交易量，而非实际损失\n\n政府的损失计算存在根本性的方法缺陷：它将“流入与勒索敲诈企业相关的银行账户”的总资金量（Gov. Mem. 第32页）等同于“损失”。但是流入资金并非损失，陪审团也未就此作出任何认定。量刑指南将“实际损失”定义为“由该犯罪行为导致的合理可预见的经济损害”。U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), n. (C)(i)。政府自己的财务分析师Paul Hinton作证称，他的工作是根据“政府提供给我们的分类”，“对数据库中所有交易的价值进行汇总的结果”。Tr. 4330。他没有进行任何追踪分析，没有进行详细的资金流向分析，也没有在投资者层面上对存款、取款、赎回或收到的价值进行核算。Tr. 4356, 4430, 4458。\n\nSecond Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）已经确认，在投资者损失的确切金额难以确定的情况下，量刑法院可以——并且应当——使用替代衡量标准，而不是直接默认采用总流入金额。例如，在United States v. Illarramendi, 642 Fed. Appx. 64 (2d Cir. 2016)一案中，地区法院拒绝采用估计的2.75亿至3.8亿美元的投资者损失，而是依据U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(B)的允许，依据被告超过2000万美元的获利来计算量刑指南范围，上诉法院对此判决予以维持。法院判处了156个月的监禁——实际上是低于量刑指南的刑罚——第二巡回法院予以维持。同上，第65页。\n\n在本案中，政府甚至没有尝试计算郭先生从指控的欺诈中获得的实际收益。相反，它要求法院将进入指控的企业内任何实体相关的任何银行账户的每一美元都视为“损失”——而不管这些资金是否已退还给投资者、是否用于合法的商业目的，或者是否在各账户之间流转（从而被重复计算）。这种方法不是对损失的“合理估计”；它完全是投机性的，也是政府放弃自身举证责任的表现。\n\n在此过程中，政府还完全忽视了第二巡回法院及其他司法管辖区确立抵消损失公认原则的成熟判例法。这些原则已在郭先生的初始量刑意见书（“Def. Corr. Mem.”）第63-66页中列出，并且对于指南意义上的“损失”计算确实是不可或缺的。参见，例如，United States v. Byors, 586 F.3d 222, 226 (2d Cir. 2009)（适用指南应用附注3(D)，该附注“规定损失应扣除或抵消‘在犯罪行为被发现之前，被告退还给受害者的金钱、退还财产的公允市场价值以及向受害者提供的服务’”）（引用U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. n. 3(D)(i)）。\n\nB. 政府对扣押令宣誓书的依赖并不能免除举行Fatico听证会的必要性\n\n政府辩称，由于其依据法院授权的扣押令扣押了6.34亿美元，因此损失金额“显然超过5.5亿美元”，不需要举行Fatico听证会。Gov. Mem. 第35页。该论点将扣押与损失混为一谈，并忽视了对抗制程序。扣押令宣誓书是为确立相当理由而准备的单方提交通知——这一标准远低于量刑时所要求的优势证据标准，更不用说本案加重处罚幅度所要求适用的更高标准了。虽然政府现在试图依靠这些宣誓书来支持其损失计算，但值得注意的是，政府在审判期间并未提供其中所包含的所谓资金追踪分析，在其量刑意见书中也未提供任何细节。辩方从未有机会对准备这些宣誓书的FBI（联邦调查局）特工进行交叉质询，从未有机会对追踪方法提出质疑，也从未有机会提交关于抵消、赎回和非受害者投资者的证据。法院此前出于作出初步没收命令的目的而依赖这些宣誓书，并不能确立用于量刑指南目的的损失金额，因为扣押令程序涉及的问题、法律标准以及程序保障，均不同于确定量刑指南目的下的损失时所要求的标准。\n\n此外，扣押令宣誓书证实了重复计算的问题。准备宣誓书的FBI特工承认，“投资计划资金”在多个账户之间进行了“分层”——从一个实体的账户转移到另一个实体的账户，然后再转移到另一个账户，特工将这种方式描述为“具有洗钱特征”。ECF No. 716-2 ¶ 55(b)。但是，被政府定性为洗钱证据的同一种分层，也意味着同一笔资金在每次转移时都被重复计算了。此外，在支持扣押令的部分宣誓书所包含的所谓追踪分析中，显而易见的是，来自GTV私募（郭先生在此项上已被判无罪）的资金与其他资金发生了混同，因此根本无法查明哪些资金被转移到了哪个账户。参见同上，¶ 34(c)。在这一点上，宣誓书中提供的分析在许多情况下也未能提供账户的“起始”点。因此，任何资金转移的来源都完全不明确，特别是如果在最初账户中就存在来自其他来源的资金，或者中途有来自其他来源的资金存入账户的情况下更是如此。\n\n例如，正如郭先生初始量刑备忘录中所讨论的，至少9500万美元的G Club会员付款是使用HDO或HCN支付的——这些资金之前已经被计为Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的资金流入。参见Def. Corr. Mem. 53-54。政府从未解决过这种重复计算的问题，其分析师也从未被要求对此进行解析。Tr. 4458。\n\n此外，扣押金额并不等同于损失金额。政府从以Hamilton、Himalaya Exchange、G Club及其他实体名义开立的账户中扣押了资金。但其中许多资金属于明确否认自己受骗的投资者——包括已提交§ 853(n)申请书的6512名Himalaya Exchange客户（ECF Nos. 759, 761）以及坚称其资金“与指控的行为毫无关联”的324名Hamilton投资者（ECF No. 756 第4页）。扣押他们的资金并不能将这些资金转化为“损失”。因此，政府对扣押宣誓书的依赖，必须通过Fatico听证会予以解决，然后才能被视为具有充分的可靠性以构成任何损失金额的基础。\n\n正当程序要求郭先生有机会通过证据听证会来对政府的损失计算提出质疑。参见United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir. 1978)。政府的立场——即法院应在未经对抗性检验的情况下直接采纳政府的数额——与公正量刑的基本要求不符，也不符合第二巡回法院或量刑指南的可靠性标准。\n\nC. 政府在赔偿问题上的立场反映了查明损失的困难\n\n政府已提出动议，要求认定赔偿是“不可行的”，因为其无法以Mandatory Victim Restitution Act（《强制受害者赔偿法》）所要求的精确度来量化具体的受害者损失——包括投资于G系列实体的金额，以及来自这些实体的任何退款或通过SEC（美国证券交易委员会）或其他途径提供的补偿。ECF No. 785 第4-5页。然而，政府同时要求法院出于量刑指南的目的认定损失超过13亿美元。\n\n如果政府无法出于赔偿目的量化受害者损失，它就无法令人信服地声称已确立了用于量刑指南目的的13亿美元损失。量刑指南要求“基于证据”对损失作出“合理估计”。U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 3(B)。一项连政府自身都承认无法用特定受害者数据来支持的估计，是不合理的。\n\nIII.\n被裁定无罪的行为必须排除在损失计算之外\n\nA. 政府对 § 1B1.3(c) 的解读将使第 826 号修正案（Amendment 826）失效\n\n政府辩称，其归因于 GTV Private Placement（GTV 私募）的 4.11 亿美元应根据 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c) 中针对“亦在全部或部分上构成被定罪的本案罪行”的被裁定无罪行为的例外条款，计入损失计算中。政府答辩意见书第 36 页（Gov. Mem. at 36）。政府对该例外的解读将使规则本身名存实亡。\n\n根据政府的扩大化解释，任何作为更广泛共谋一部分被指控的被裁定无罪行为，都将自动符合该例外的适用条件——因为共谋罪名项就其性质而言涵盖了所有被指控的目标。若法律果真如此，那么在几乎所有涉及共谋指控的多罪名项案件中，第 826 号修正案都将沦为一纸空文。量刑委员会（Sentencing Commission）在一致通过第 826 号修正案时绝不可能旨在造成此种结果，委员会通过该修正案的明确目的，正如委员会主席 Carlton W. Reeves（卡尔顿·W·里夫斯）法官所宣告的那样：“无罪即意味着无罪[。]”参见量刑委员会新闻稿，《委员会一致投票通过一揽子改革方案，包括限制在量刑指南中使用被裁定无罪的行为》（Sentencing Commission News Release, “Commission Votes Unanimously to Pass Package of Reforms Inlcuding Limit on Use of Acquitted Conduct in Sentencing Guidelines”），2024年4月17日，可查阅于 http\n\n委员会针对 § 1B1.3 的应用附注 10（Application Note 10）并不支持政府的主张。该附注指出，“法院处于最佳地位来判定此类重叠行为是否全部或部分构成被定罪的本案罪行，并因此符合相关行为的资格。”U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. n. 10。这是一条限制性指示——它要求法院作出具体的、基于特定事实的裁决，而非直接采纳政府关于万物皆互相关联的笼统主张。附注中提及的“重叠行为”所设想的是相同的具体行为既构成被裁定无罪的指控基础，又构成被定罪罪行的基础之情形，而非被裁定无罪的行为仅仅属于同一个更广泛方案一部分的情形。\n\nB. GTV 私募行为并未“构成”被定罪的罪行\n\n陪审团对罪名项 5 和 6——即 GTV 电信欺诈和证券欺诈罪名项——作出的无罪裁决，是一项明确的判定，即政府未能排除合理怀疑证明这些指控。GTV 私募是一项发生于 2020年4月至6月的独立发售，涉及一组单独的投资者资金，并且是另一起独立的 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）执法行动的对象，该行动最终达成和解，其中包括支付超过 5.39 亿美元的非法所得没收、利息和民事罚款，并通过一项 Fair Fund（公平基金）向投资者返还了大约 92% 的资金。庭审记录第 708、1358、2377 页（Tr. 708, 1358, 2377）；另见被告更正后备忘录附件 10 第 8-9 页（Def. Corr. Mem. Ex. 10 at 8-9）。1\n\n政府关于 GTV 私募“与 G Enterprise（G 集团）的其他分支存在关联且不可分割”的主张（Gov. Mem. at 37）言过其实。按照这种逻辑，一个涉及多个方案的企业中的每一个组成部分都将“构成”其他每一个组成部分，针对任何单个方案的无罪裁决都将失去意义。§ 1B1.3(c) 中的例外条款要求被裁定无罪的行为本身构成被定罪的罪行——而不仅仅是属于同一叙事的一部分。\n\n此外，正如在 Mr. Guo（郭先生）最初的量刑呈递文书中所讨论的，Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1992) 案确立的原则表明，当陪审团就一项多目标的共谋罪名作出定罪裁决，但对其中某项实质性罪名项裁定无罪时，应推定陪审团是基于具有充分证据的目标作出了裁决。Def. Corr. Mem. at 60。陪审团对 GTV 罪名项的无罪裁决，排除了得出 GTV 私募构成 RICO（《反犯罪组织侵蚀合法组织法》）或共谋定罪前提行为的任何结论。洗钱罪亦是如此。涉嫌被清洗的资金必须来源于“指定的非法活动”。在本案中，GTV 私募资金不能构成涉嫌被清洗的收益，因为陪审团已经判定 GTV 私募不属于指定的非法活动。\n\n同样，正如对于郭先生最初量刑备忘录中政府无法回应的其他部分一样，政府备忘录莫名其妙地完全无视了 Griffin 案。\n\n1 政府主张投资者未通过 SEC 公平基金收回的大约 8% 的 GTV 私募资金，应归因于 1 亿美元对冲基金投资造成的 3000 万美元损失。Gov. Mem. at 33 n.14。这纯属荒谬。除没收近 4.87 亿美元的非法所得外，SEC 仅利息和罚款就收取了超过 5200 万美元，后者远超 3000 万美元的对冲基金投资损失。此外，根据 2023年9月18日的一项命令，SEC 明确预留了 19,919,250 美元用于税费和行政开支，并预留了 82,000,000 美元用于未来的款项拨付。参见 In re GTV Media Group, Inc. et al., Release No. 98415 (Sept. 18, 2023)。\n\nIV.\n数千名投资者对受害者身份的否认与损失金额直接相关\n\n政府辩称，投资者“主观上是否认为自己是‘受害者’与量刑指南的计算无关”，因为重大性是一项客观标准。Gov. Mem. at 38。这曲解了辩方的立场。\n\n辩方的主张并非关于不实陈述的主观重大性。它关乎的是实际损失——具体而言，对于明确否认自己遭受损害的投资者而言，是否“因该犯罪导致了金钱损害……”。U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) n. (C)(i)。如果一名投资者声明涉嫌的不实陈述对其投资决定并非重大——即他们是出于与政府认定为欺诈性的陈述无关的原因而进行投资——那么对于该投资者而言，就不存在“因”该犯罪而“导致的”金钱损害。这是一个因果关系问题，而非主观重大性问题。\n\n政府试图将辩方引用的 United States v. Miller, 997 F.2d 1010 (2d Cir. 1993) 案进行区分，指出在 Miller 案中法院是以缺乏“财产”和/或“代理”关系为由作出判决的。参见 Gov. Mem. at 39-40。然而，这完全曲解了 Miller 案中的事实背景，而该背景在评估此处的任何损失金额时是完全相关的。\n\n在 Miller 案这一以隐瞒而非不实陈述为核心的案件中，被告秘密获取且未向其投资者客户提供的公寓，和/或用于资助被告为自身购买公寓的投资者定金，之所以不构成邮件或电信欺诈意义上的“财产”（以及为何未建立“代理”关系），是因为被政府指称为受害者的投资者所持有的主观预期。\n\n例如，Miller 案法院指出，投资者的代表“作证称，[被告与合作证人]购买涉案公寓一事从未向其披露；从未征求过他对该项购买的同意；在导致起诉书的调查之前，他从未见过这 122 套公寓的清单；[投资者]集团有充足的资金收购这些公寓；并且如果告知其有可购买的房源，该集团本会有意向予以收购。”997 F.2d at 1014（强调为后加）。\n\n然而，该投资者代表“亦作证称，他从未要求在 Philip Howard 投入超出该集团购买 114 套公寓所支出的更多资金；[合作证人与其中一名被告]对 Philip Howard 公寓进行个人投资并无不妥；他对[被告]进行此类个人投资的可能性没有任何预期；并且‘Miller 先生完全有能力做成一笔交易，如果不是与我的集团，那也会是与当地的一家欧洲集团。’”同上引（强调为后加）；亦见同上第 1013 页（投资者代表“作证称[被告]收费的数额对他而言并不重要”）（强调为后加）；Def. Corr. Mem. at 45-46 & n.43。正因为声称的“受害者”否认了任何本会阻止涉嫌欺诈性投资的代理关系预期，政府的欺诈理论才不攻自破。997 F.2d at 1020。\n\n在本案中，投资者否认受害者身份的规模是前所未有的。超过 6,500 名 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）客户已依据 § 853(n) 提交了请愿书，声明其资金并非欺诈收益。ECF Nos. 759, 761。三百二十四名 Hamilton（汉密尔顿）投资者已提交请愿书，声明其投资“与被指控的行为毫无关联”。ECF No. 756。数名投资者致信政府否认受害者身份。参见，例如 USAO_00112534-USAO_00112564。此外，超过 1,200 人向辩护律师寄送了针对郭先生的支持信，其中 1,192 人明确否认受害者身份。2\n\n正如与本备忘录一并提交的支持者补充材料（Supporter Supplement）中完整提供的 100 份代表性陈述所清楚表明的那样，明确否认受害者身份的投资者并非如政府出于一己私利且具冒犯性地暗示的那样，是遭到洗脑或操纵的无名无姓的受害者。参见 Gov. Mem. at 1, 2, 51, 59, 82, 83。恰恰相反，所提交的陈述代表了来自各行各业和不同专业背景的个人，他们就其投资各 G Series（G 系列）实体的决定提供了详细、深思熟虑的见解。政府从未试图量化归属于这些非受害者投资者的投资金额，也未从其损失数据中排除这些金额。政府亦未试图回应郭先生最初量刑备忘录中就该主题阐述的论点。\n\n2 辩护律师收到的支持者陈述的总清单包含在与本答辩备忘录一并提交的封存补充材料（以下简称“支持者补充材料”）中。\n\n政府企图将这些投资者斥为被“成功说服”自己不是受害者的受害者（Gov. Mem. at 40, 68），这种做法既居高临下又流于循环论证。充其量，政府在庭审中证明了部分投资者（即出庭作证的少数几人）受到了欺诈。它并未证明——陪审团也从未被要求认定——所有投资者均受到了欺诈，亦未证明总损失为 13 亿美元。数千名否认受害事实的投资者的存在，是有力证据表明政府计算的总流入金额极大地夸大了实际损失。\n\n事实上，政府拒绝承认否认该身份的声称“受害者”的存在，更不用说其规模，这为为何有必要举行 Fatico 听证会（Fatico hearing）提供了又一理由。\n\n此外，政府完全无视了其自己在庭审中关于不得依据单一证人证言进行推断的告诫。参见 Def. Corr. Mem. at 54-55。在庭审中，辩方一名证人曾受到中共（CCP）胁迫而对郭先生提出虚假指控，基于该证人的证言，辩方主张且提请陪审团推断有理由认为其他人（甚至可能是控方的受害者证人）同样受到了胁迫；政府对此进行了强烈反对。政府将此类推论称为“推测”和“外推”。Tr. 5568, 5852。法院表示赞同并禁止辩方提出此类辩论意见。Tr. 5571, 5855。\n\n在我们的初步量刑陈述书中，我们坚持认为，根据同样的逻辑和推理，政府方受害者证人证言之外的任何损失也都是推测性的，不应被允许。见《被告修正陈述意见书》（Def. Corr. Mem.）第 55 页。然而，在其长达 85 页的回应陈述中，政府既未探讨此点，也未提出任何理由说明为何应允许其为确定损失金额的目的而进行“推测”和“推断”。正如法院就审理期间提出的一项异议所言，“适用于一方的规则也应适用于另一方（What’s good for the goose）”。见审讯笔录（Tr.）第 1219 页。没有任何理由说明为何该项法理现在不能适用。\n\n政府不能两头占便宜。它不能在限制辩方根据其证人证言主张更广泛推论的同时，又主张政府可以仅凭五名所谓受害者的证言以优势证据标准证明 13 亿美元的损失金额。如果对辩方而言这属于推测或推断，那么对政府而言同样必须属于推测和推断。\n\n此外，政府的主张基于一个未经证实的假设，即所有投资者都收听了郭先生的全部广播，并且忽略了农场贷款（Farm Loan）文件、喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）白皮书以及 G Club 文件，而所有这些文件本身不言自明且向所有投资者公开。众多投资者——包括庭审证人赖岱（Lai Dai）以及更多向辩护律师发送声明的人——均强调他们对这些书面材料的信赖以及他们行使了独立判断。\n\nV. 损失加重处罚的幅度要求更严格的审查\n\n政府将 United States v. Cordoba-Murgas, 233 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 2000) 确立的法理斥为“已被长期确立的先例所排除”，并声称 Cordoba-Murgas 案本身“拒绝采用更高的举证责任”。见《政府陈述意见书》（Gov. Mem.）第 40 页。这是对该案的误读。\n\n第二巡回法院在 Cordoba-Murgas 案中指出，“基于被告的‘相关行为’而加重量刑，如果未考虑证明该相关行为的证据权重，可能会导致量刑指南（Sentencing Guidelines）下过重、不当且非预期的总监禁刑期。”见 233 F.3d 第 708 页。\n\n法院授权在未满足适当证明标准时进行向下偏离量刑，并规定“在可能存在于此的综合情形下，包括 (i) 巨大的向上调整 (ii) 针对未经起诉的行为 (iii) 未在庭审中得到证明以及 (iv) 仅由优势证据标准认定，(v) 且法院对该认定的准确性存在实质性怀疑，法院将被授权向下偏离量刑。”见同上，第 708 页。\n\n在本案中，30 级的损失加重构成了对郭先生罪行等级的巨大向上调整，占总分值的一半以上。它在很大程度上是基于被判无罪的行为（GTV 私募），以及在庭审中未被证明的行为（给否认受害的数千名投资者造成损失）。重申一次，陪审团并未对损失金额作出认定，且正如上文所证明的，存在充分理由怀疑政府数据的准确性。\n\n政府的退步论点——即由于其他加重情节，即使是 350 万美元的损失也会导致 43 级的罪行等级（见《政府陈述意见书》第 41 页）——实际上削弱了其立场。首先，政府甚至没有确立 350 万美元的损失，因为这在庭审中显然未被证明。3\n\n其次，如果损失金额对最终的量刑指南计算确实无关紧要，那么政府就不应对为确定实际损失而举行的 Fatico 听证会提出异议。\n\n3 即便完全予以采信和认可，政府所谓的受害者证人的庭审证言也不支持 350 万美元的损失。充其量，检方五位证人所谓的“损失”（即使包括郭先生被判无罪的 GTV 私募投资）总计也不到 150 万美元。此外，毫不意外的是，政府从未询问其证人李雅（Ya Li）是否在其对各类 G 系列企业的投资中亏损。从这一疏漏中得出的合逻辑推论是李雅从她的投资中获利了；如果她实际上是亏损而非盈利，政府在直接询问时肯定会迅速引导出她的“损失”金额。\n\n政府对举行听证会的抵制表明，它意识到其 13 亿美元的数据经受不住对抗性审查。\n\nVI. 政府的量刑可比案例支持远低于 30 年的刑期\n\n政府的量刑可比案例是经过精心挑选以抬高预期的，但它们实际上表明远低于 30 年的刑期才是适当的。\n\n虽然其他具体案件的事实和诉讼状态使得它们难以进行比较（相比之下，应采用具有相似特征的数据集的整体；见《被告修正陈述意见书》第 92-96 页），但政府引用的 United States v. Bankman-Fried, No. 22-CR-673 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y Mar. 15, 2024) 案及其被判处的 25 年监禁刑期，不可避免地证明了该案的特定方面表明本案适用远低得多的刑期是适当的。\n\n例如，虽然政府将 Bankman-Fried 案作为可比案例引用，但该案被告人的欺诈涉及 80 亿美元的客户资金——是政府在此指控损失的六倍以上——并包括挪用受监管交易所的客户存款。此外，Bankman-Fried 在庭审中作了伪证（见 ECF No. 410 第 31-32 页），并且政府必须通过引渡才能获得对他的对人管辖权（见同上，第 18-22 页）（Bankman-Fried 还利用了专门管辖原则（Rule of Speciality）消除了针对他的某些罪名项）。\n\n此外，Bankman-Fried 花费了数百万美元将其财务成功转化为政治影响力，试图通过其广泛的政治献金来实现跨党派腐败。见同上。此外，即使被判处 25 年刑期，“良好表现减刑”和其他项目积分也将使 Bankman-Fried 在比郭先生目前的年龄小 15 岁时获释出狱。\n\n因此，参考 Bankman-Fried 案只会强化郭先生的立场，即他的刑期应当大幅短于 25 年。\n\n政府显眼地予以忽略的案例更具指导意义。在 United States v. Moseley, 980 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 2020) 中，第二巡回法院维持了一项 120 个月的刑期判决，而该案中量刑指南基于 4900 万美元的损失要求判处终身监禁。在 United States v. Rivernider, 828 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2016) 中，地方法院认定损失金额“夸大了罪行的严重性”，第二巡回法院维持了一项 144 个月的刑期判决——相比 324 至 405 个月的量刑指南范围，这是一次显著的向下偏离。\n\n在本司法区，法院在高损失欺诈案件中反复做出了大幅低于指导性量刑指南等级的判决：Adelson 案（42 个月，2.6 亿美元损失，量刑指南等级 46，经第二巡回法院维持）；Gupta 案（24 个月，内幕交易，经维持）；Ferguson 案（一至四年，5 亿美元欺诈，量刑指南终身监禁）；Faibish 案（63 个月，量刑指南终身监禁）。见《被告修正陈述意见书》第 72-75 页。虽然这些案件中的损失金额未达到政府在此指控的美元金额，但那些案件发生在多年前甚至几十年前，当时那些案件中的数额在实质上等同于本案所指控的数额。\n\n量刑委员会自身的数据证实，在本司法区，低于量刑指南范围进行量刑是常态。正如郭先生量刑陈述书中所详述的，纽约南区（SDNY）只有 23.8% 的判决落在指导性量刑指南范围内。见《被告修正陈述意见书》第 94 页。2024 年纽约南区洗钱定罪的平均刑期为 34 个月，根本无法与政府在此建议的 360 个月相提并论。见《被告修正陈述意见书》第 95 页。\n\n最后，政府对王雁平（Yvette Wang）认罪答辩的援引（见《政府陈述意见书》第 78 页）对于郭先生或法院做出第五修正案所保障给予郭先生的个别化量刑裁定均不具有约束力。正如法院经常向陪审团作出的指示，一名被告人决定认罪是个人行为，不应对有关接受庭审的被告人的评议产生任何影响。此外，虽然《联邦证据规则》和某些针对庭审的宪法保护并不必然适用于量刑程序，但值得注意的是，在 Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) 一案中，正是引入共同被告人的认罪答辩来确立共谋及其范围的做法，被最高法院明确裁定违反了第六修正案。在此，对王女士认罪答辩的信赖——任何熟悉联邦法律体系的人都知道，这是政府在规定条件方面施加极大筹码的谈判产物——在量刑背景下将违反第五修正案。\n\nVII. 政府的其余论点不支持 30 年刑期\n\nA. 中共针对郭先生的行动与量刑相关\n\n政府仅用了不到三页的篇幅来探讨中共针对郭先生的行为，将其错误地定性为仅仅是一项减轻处罚的抗辩，并将其斥为“不相关”。见《政府陈述意见书》第 56-58 页。政府甚至没有承认中共针对郭先生的那些行为，而其自身的司法部在 Elliot Broidy、Prakazrel Michel、George Higginbotham、Nicki Lum Davis 以及 Bai 案中的三十四名被告人案中已认为合适并进行了刑事起诉，并在 Steve Wynn 案中进行了民事起诉。见《被告修正陈述意见书》第 17-22 页。如果承认这一点，就意味着要正视中共对郭先生的侵犯行为所带来的影响，而这至少在两个方面与量刑直接相关。\n\n第一，中共强迫投资者提交虚假控告——易建华（Jianhu Yi）在庭审中对此作证（见审讯笔录第 5042-59 页），并得到了成万胜（Wansheng Cheng）的声明（见《被告修正陈述意见书》附件 3）以及《支持者补充材料》中讨论的其他声明的佐证——直接削弱了可靠性\n\n……政府损失数额的计算。如果有未知数量的“受害者”投诉系由CCP（中国共产党）特工伪造，那么政府的损失计算就是建立在一个受污染的基础之上。与政府的主张相反，CCP（中国共产党）的强迫施压与本案犯罪行为的范围及损失金额直接相关，并进一步强化了通过Fatico hearing（法蒂科听证会）对投诉的真实性进行核实的必要性，因为政府显然根本没有尝试进行本案特殊事实所要求的任何审查。\n\n事实上，在政府随其备忘录提交的225份受害者影响陈述中，至少有45份似乎是由该集合中已有代表的个人提交的重复件或补充件，使得独立的“受害者”人数更接近180人而非225人。这不仅对这些信件的来源提出了质疑，也对政府对这些信件的不假思索的依赖提出了质疑。\n\n政府已承认CCP（中国共产党）针对Guo先生（郭文贵）（DX STIP 1），且DOJ（美国司法部）自身在United States v. Bai et al.（美国诉柏等人案）中的起诉也证实了CCP（中国共产党）曾发起大规模社交媒体行动，利用数千个虚假网络人设来抹黑Guo先生（郭文贵）。Def. Corr. Mem., Ex. 2。法院在评估政府关于流向G系列实体的每一美元都代表“损失”的似是而非的主张时，不能忽视这一背景。\n\n其次，CCP（中国共产党）对Guo先生（郭文贵）的针对性打压与18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)规定的考量因素直接相关，包括“被告人的历史和特征”以及“犯罪的性质和情节”。18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)。如果不结合其个人、历史和政治背景，就无法公正地评估本案中的行为，而所有这些背景都与CCP（中国共产党）的压迫政权及其对Guo先生（郭文贵）的针对性打压纠缠在一起。漫长的刑期将证实CCP（中国共产党）针对Guo先生（郭文贵）的行动是正当的，满足CCP（中国共产党）让Guo先生（郭文贵）噤声的目的，并助长CCP（中国共产党）将中国异见人士从公众生活中清除的进一步企图——这一结果有悖于United States（美国）的地缘政治和国家利益。\n\nB. 政府关于持续犯罪活动的主张毫无依据\n\n政府关于Guo先生（郭文贵）“在被监禁的三年中继续进行犯罪活动”（Gov. Mem. 第67页）的断言，完全基于未经宣誓的受害者陈述，这些陈述重复了关于NFSC（新中国联邦）主持人在广播中所说内容的传闻。政府没有提供任何直接证据证明Guo先生（郭文贵）本人从MDC（大都会拘留中心）指挥了任何被捕后的犯罪活动。\n\nNFSC（新中国联邦）作为一个拥有自身民选领导架构的组织的延续，并不能作为Guo先生（郭文贵）在被羁押期间指挥了任何犯罪行为的证据。同样，政府关于该事项的毫无根据的指控必须经过Fatico hearing（法蒂科听证会）审理后方可予以考虑。\n\n政府对2026年3月10日的一段视频的依赖（Gov. Mem. 第27页）——其中一名NFSC（新中国联邦）主持人称提供受害者陈述的人“都必须承担后果”——不仅如上文第一部分所述完全脱离了上下文，更重要的是根本无法证明Guo先生（郭文贵）有任何个人参与。政府并未指控Guo先生（郭文贵）指使了该言论，且该言论本身也不是Guo先生（郭文贵）持续进行犯罪活动的证据。\n\nC. 政府关于Guo先生（郭文贵）妨碍司法的指控毫无依据且不能成立\n\n政府用了整整八页的篇幅论证Guo先生（郭文贵）从事了一系列据称妨碍司法的行为。Gov. Mem. 第20-28页。这些指控无一经得起推敲。\n\n首先，政府企图将投资“方案”所谓的“复杂性”定性为本质上构成妨碍司法的做法是荒谬的。同上，第20页。同样，将各种投资机会所谓的“演变”和“重新安置”定性为妨碍司法纯属臆测，且忽视了早于涉嫌欺诈之前就已长期存在的商业关系，包括与UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国）相关的商业关系。\n\n其次，政府反复且不当地将他人的行为归咎于Guo先生（郭文贵）。关于William Je（余建明）以及Guo先生（郭文贵）支持者的所谓行为均是如此。同上，第21、23-24、27-28页。企图将Guo先生（郭文贵）描绘成某些行为的策划者的做法站不住脚；例如，在属于Guo先生（郭文贵）的手机中存在一张辨认某位被抗议者造访住所的人士的亲属的照片，这与下达指令对该人士或其亲属进行“骚扰”或“针对性攻击”相去甚远。同上，第25-26页。这张照片与可能归咎于Guo先生（郭文贵）的任何所谓妨碍司法行为之间的微弱联系，凸显了政府在此方面的牵强附会。在其他情况下，例如第一部分中讨论的NFSC（新中国联邦）视频中发出的所谓“威胁”，政府甚至没有试图将这种（归根结底是良性的）行为归咎于Guo先生（郭文贵），而完全依赖于推测和影射。同上，第27页。\n\n第三，政府试图将完全不相关的诉讼中的事件（同上，第22页）以及在Guo先生（郭文贵）被捕之前发生的其他行为（同上，第28页注释11）定性为本案中的“妨碍司法”，这些均不能构成处于本诉讼程序中的妨碍司法。\n\n基于这些理由以及Guo先生（郭文贵）在最初的量刑意见书中所阐述的理由（Def. Corr. Mem. 第81-82页），Guo先生（郭文贵）坚持认为，基于所谓妨碍司法而对其进行任何量刑加重都是没有依据的。\n\nD. 政府关于财富的论点存在内在矛盾\n\n政府主张Guo先生（郭文贵）“据称”的亿万富翁身份属于从重情节，因为他以此诱骗受害者。Gov. Mem. 第71页。但这一论点与政府自身的案件理论相冲突。如果Guo先生（郭文贵）本就是亿万富翁——正如……\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/\n\nJohn F. Kaley\nDoar Rieck Kaley & Mack\n217 Broadway, Suite 707\nNew York, New York 10007\n电话：212-619-3730\n\n/s/\n\nJoshua L. Dratel\nLaw Offices of Dratel & Lewis\n29 Broadway, Suite 1412\nNew York, New York 10006\n电话：212-732-0707\n\n/s/\n\nMelinda Sarafa\nSARAFA ZELLAN PLLC\n43 West 43rd Street, Suite 370\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：212-785-7575\n\n致：\n全体律师（通过 ECF 送达）","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":7670,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-04-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-04-17","updated_at":"2026-09-04 14:42:04"}