{"id":"court_sdny_864_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":864,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2026-07-15","title":"Q6T1GUOS 1    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT","summary_zh":"判决听证会官方记录笔录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 23-CR-118 ECF #864（2026-07-15立案）。该文件记录了2026年6月29日由 Analisa Torres 法官主持的量刑听证过程，包括控辩双方出庭情况、对量刑前报告（PSR）的确认与审阅，以及辩方就损失金额计算等事实争议提出举行 Fatico 证据听证会的申请。","summary_en":"Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 23-CR-118 ECF #864 (filed July 15, 2026). Official transcript of the sentencing proceeding held on June 29, 2026 before District Judge Analisa Torres, recording appearances of counsel, discussions regarding the presentence report, and the defense's request for a Fatico evidentiary hearing on factual objections including loss amount calculations.","body_en":"Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n2    ------------------------------x\n\n3    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n4                 v.                                23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n5    MILES GUO,\n\n6                   Defendant.                      Sentencing\n     ------------------------------x\n7                                                   New York, N.Y.\n                                                    June 29, 2026\n8                                                   11:05 a.m.\n\n9    Before:\n\n10                            HON. ANALISA TORRES,\n\n11                                                  District Judge\n\n12                                 APPEARANCES\n\n13   JAY CLAYTON\n          United States Attorney for the\n14        Southern District of New York\n     BY: RYAN B. FINKEL, ESQ.\n15        MICAH F. FERGENSON, ESQ.\n          JULIANA N. MURRAY, ESQ.\n16        JUSTIN HORTON, ESQ.\n          Assistant United States Attorneys\n17\n     SARAFA ZELLAN PLLC\n18        Attorneys for Defendant\n     BY: MELINDA M. SARAFA, ESQ.\n19\n     LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA L. DRATEL, P.C.\n20        Attorneys for Defendant\n     BY: JOSHUA L. DRATEL, ESQ.\n21\n     DOAR RIECK KALEY & MACK\n22        Attorneys for Defendant\n     BY: JOHN F. KALEY, ESQ.\n23\n     ALSO PRESENT:     DAVID NAGUIB, Paralegal Specialist, USAO\n24                     STEPHANIE LIU, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n                       I CHING NG, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n25\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1               THE COURT:    Good morning.     We're here in the matter of\n\n2    United States v. Guo.\n\n3               Counsel, please make your appearances.\n\n4               MR. FINKEL:    Good morning, your Honor.         Ryan Finkel,\n\n5    Juliana Murray, Micah Ferguson, Justin Horton, and David\n\n6    Naguib, who is a paralegal in our office.\n\n7               MS. SARAFA:    Good morning, your Honor.         Melinda\n\n8    Sarafa, John Kaley, and Joshua Dratel for Miles Guo, who is not\n\n9    present.\n\n10              THE COURT:    Please be seated.\n\n11              I'm informed by the Marshals Service that Mr. Guo is\n\n12   delayed by a couple of hours, and so he will be joining us at\n\n13   about 1 p.m., and so we will adjourn until that time.\n\n14              (Recess)\n\n15              (Pages 3-30 SEALED by order of the Court)\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              (4:01 p.m.)\n\n2              THE COURT:     Good afternoon.     This matter is on for\n\n3    sentencing in United States v. Miles Guo.\n\n4              Would you make your appearances, please.\n\n5              MR. FINKEL:     Yes, your Honor.     Ryan Finkel, Juliana\n\n6    Murray, Micah Fergenson, and Justin Horton for the United\n\n7    States.   We're joined at counsel table by David Naguib, who is\n\n8    a paralegal in our office.\n\n9              MS. SARAFA:     Good afternoon, your Honor.         Melinda\n\n10   Sarafa, John Kaley, Joshua Dratel for Miles Guo, who is also\n\n11   present at counsel table.\n\n12             THE COURT:     Please be seated.\n\n13             I'm now addressing this question to the defense.              Who\n\n14   is going to be speaking for Mr. Guo at this time?\n\n15             MS. SARAFA:     Your Honor, we have divided up\n\n16   responsibilities, so different attorneys will speak to\n\n17   different portions of the proceedings.         Mr. Dratel will be\n\n18   addressing the presentence report.        I will be addressing the\n\n19   Court with respect to Mr. Guo and our sentencing presentation.\n\n20             THE COURT:     Mr. Dratel, have you read the presentence\n\n21   report?\n\n22             MR. DRATEL:     Yes, your Honor.\n\n23             THE COURT:     And did you discuss it with Mr. Guo?\n\n24             MR. DRATEL:     Yes.\n\n25             THE COURT:     Was it translated for him?\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1               MR. DRATEL:     Yes.\n\n2               THE COURT:     Mr. Guo, your lawyer has said that he has\n\n3    read the presentence report and that the report was translated\n\n4    for you.    Did you read the presentence report?\n\n5               THE DEFENDANT:     (In English) Yes, your Honor.\n\n6               THE COURT:     Did you discuss it with your attorney?\n\n7               THE DEFENDANT:     (Through the interpreter) Yes.\n\n8               THE COURT:     Has the government reviewed the\n\n9    presentence report?\n\n10              MR. FINKEL:     Yes, your Honor.\n\n11              THE COURT:     Mr. Guo has raised numerous factual\n\n12   objections to the report.\n\n13              \"Fact-finding at sentencing is made by a preponderance\n\n14   of the evidence.\"        See United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580,\n\n15   595 (2d Cir. 1999).\n\n16              Mr. Guo requests an evidentiary hearing, or Fatico\n\n17   hearing, to resolve his factual disputes with the report,\n\n18   particularly with respect to the calculation of the loss\n\n19   amount.\n\n20              A Fatico hearing is a presentence evidentiary hearing\n\n21   during which the parties are permitted to present evidence and\n\n22   arguments on disputed factual matters relevant to sentencing.\n\n23   See United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979).\n\n24              A \"district court is not required, by either the Due\n\n25   Process Clause or the federal Sentencing Guidelines, to hold a\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    full-blown evidentiary hearing in resolving sentencing\n\n2    disputes.\"    United States v. Phillips, 431 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir.\n\n3    2005); and United States v. Litwock, 611 Fed. App'x 12, 16 (2d\n\n4    Cir. 2015).    All that is required is that the defendant have\n\n5    \"some opportunity to rebut the Government's allegations.\"\n\n6    United States v. Slevin, 106 F.3d 1086, 1091 (2d Cir. 1996).\n\n7              I have closely reviewed Mr. Guo's sentencing\n\n8    submissions, which articulate his objections to the presentence\n\n9    report.   I have also carefully reviewed the substantial record\n\n10   in this case, including the evidence presented at the two-month\n\n11   trial.    Having done so, I conclude that I am able to make the\n\n12   factual determinations necessary for sentencing without an\n\n13   evidentiary hearing.\n\n14             I will begin by addressing Mr. Guo's factual disputes\n\n15   unrelated to the loss amount.\n\n16             First, based on my review of the over 230 victim\n\n17   statements submitted by the government, and the trial\n\n18   testimony, Mr. Guo's objection that there are no victims is\n\n19   overruled.\n\n20             Second, I reject Mr. Guo's claim that he did not\n\n21   purport to act on behalf of a \"charitable, educational,\n\n22   religious, or political organization or government agency\" in\n\n23   connection with his crimes.\n\n24             For example, Mr. Guo founded the Rule of Law Society\n\n25   and told people he would use the money to help the Chinese\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    people.   One victim, Jenny Li, testified at trial that she took\n\n2    out a second mortgage on her home to finance Mr. Guo's\n\n3    investments, which started with a $6,000 donation to the Rule\n\n4    of Law Society, made after trusting Mr. Guo's unfulfilled\n\n5    promise that he would donate a hundred million dollars of his\n\n6    own money to the Society first.         (See, for example, Trial\n\n7    Transcript pages 1170 to 1180, and 1211 to 1213.)\n\n8              At trial, the Society's former president and\n\n9    treasurer, Karin Maistrello, testified that despite receiving\n\n10   tens of millions of dollars in donations, the organization did\n\n11   \"nothing\" to help the Chinese people.          (See Trial Transcript\n\n12   pages 423 to 424, 471, and 3317 to 3320; and Government Exhibit\n\n13   WA30, Summary of Donations for 2019-2023.)\n\n14             Trial testimony from witnesses Le Zhou, a victim, and\n\n15   Ya Li, one of Mr. Guo's close associates, also shows that\n\n16   Mr. Guo acted on behalf of a political organization——the \"New\n\n17   Federal State of China\"——by, for example, raising funds through\n\n18   the Farm Loans Program.      (See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n19   pages 221 to 227 and 1376 to 1377.)\n\n20             Third, I overrule Mr. Guo's objection that his\n\n21   fraudulent schemes and money laundering did not involve\n\n22   \"fictitious entities\" or \"shell corporations.\"\n\n23             At sentencing for Mr. Guo's co-conspirator, Yvette\n\n24   Wang, I found, based on the evidence at Mr. Guo's trial, that\n\n25   the two \"created shell companies\" as part of their schemes.\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    (See Wang Sentencing Transcript, page 56, lines 6-7, filed at\n\n2    ECF No. 491.)    I reaffirm that finding today.\n\n3              Fourth, Mr. Guo states that he did not derive more\n\n4    than a million dollars in gross receipts from at least one\n\n5    financial institution.      This objection is overruled.         I\n\n6    conclude that Mr. Guo \"must have profited at least $1 million\"\n\n7    from the offense conduct.      United States v. Constantinescu, 147\n\n8    F.4th 299, 316 (2d Cir. 25).      For example, I find that Mr. Guo\n\n9    and his co-conspirators used G|Club funds that pay personal\n\n10   expenses for Mr. Guo and his family, including the purchase of\n\n11   a multimillion-dollar luxury yacht and mansion.            (See, for\n\n12   example, Trial Transcript pages 1957 to 1959, 3064 to 3065, and\n\n13   3701 to 3703.)\n\n14             Fifth, I overrule Mr. Guo's claim that he did not play\n\n15   an organizing or leadership role in the crimes of conviction.\n\n16   Witnesses testified that Mr. Guo was the \"top boss,\" that he\n\n17   was the spokesperson for the various G entities, and that he\n\n18   would have the final say.      (See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n19   pages 421, 1376, 1941, 1995 to 1996, 2978, 2980, and 3162.)\n\n20             Indeed, the jury convicted Mr. Guo of Count One, which\n\n21   alleged that he was the leader of, and directed, the G\n\n22   Enterprise.\n\n23             Sixth, I find that it is more likely than not that\n\n24   Mr. Guo willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to\n\n25   obstruct or impede justice, in connection with the\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of this case:\n\n2              As one example, trial testimony shows that Mr. Guo was\n\n3    involved in creating a \"blacklist\" of former supporters who\n\n4    criticized him, and Mr. Guo then shared their personally\n\n5    identifiable information online.        (See, for example, Trial\n\n6    Transcript pages 274 to 276 and 1487 to 1491.)            Multiple victim\n\n7    statements refer to the online harassment and intimidation\n\n8    people have experienced for speaking out against Mr. Guo.\n\n9    (See, for example, Statements 3, 4, 106, 113, 175, 190B, 209.)\n\n10             In addition, Mr. Guo——as evidenced by photos retrieved\n\n11   from one of his cellphones and by testimony at trial about\n\n12   statements made during his broadcasts——contributed to and\n\n13   enabled the harassment of the Trustee of his bankruptcy estate.\n\n14   That harassment included protests outside of the Trustee's home\n\n15   and the school where his daughter worked, with graphic signs\n\n16   echoing Mr. Guo's statements on his broadcasts that the Trustee\n\n17   was a \"CCP running dog.\"      (See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n18   pages 252 to 259, 4091, and 4214 to 4218; and Government\n\n19   Exhibits VI 194 and 1B124F.)      Mr. Guo even instructed witnesses\n\n20   to throw out subpoenas from the Trustee.          (See Trial Transcript\n\n21   pages 1498 to 1499.)\n\n22             I, therefore, overrule Mr. Guo's objection.\n\n23             I now address the factual dispute related to the loss\n\n24   amount.\n\n25             The presentence report found a loss amount of more\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    than $550 million.       Mr. Guo argues that there is no loss\n\n2    amount.\n\n3              I will make a few important observations before I\n\n4    proceed with my factual findings.\n\n5              First, based on the top bracket of the guidelines loss\n\n6    table, I only need to find that the loss amount exceeds\n\n7    $550 million to apply the guidelines enhancement calculated by\n\n8    probation.    (See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(P).)\n\n9              Second, assuming all other enhancements apply, because\n\n10   the total offense level I will calculate greatly exceeds the\n\n11   highest total offense level under the guidelines, a loss\n\n12   calculation of only $3.5 million would result in the same\n\n13   applicable guidelines range.      (See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J).)\n\n14             Third, I share several concerns expressed by some of\n\n15   my colleagues that the guidelines place undue weight on the\n\n16   amount of loss involved in the fraud.         See, for example, United\n\n17   States v. Emmenegger, 329 F.Supp.2d 416, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n18   2004); United States v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, 22 Civ. 673,\n\n19   Sentencing Transcript pages 6 to 7.\n\n20             Finally, although factual findings relating to loss\n\n21   must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, the\n\n22   Second Circuit has said that the Court \"need not establish loss\n\n23   with precision but rather 'need only make a reasonable estimate\n\n24   of the loss, given the available information.'\"            United States\n\n25   v. Uddin, 551 F.3d 176, 180 (2d Cir. 2009).\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Guidelines Section 2B1.1(b)(1) defines \"loss\" as the\n\n2    greater of \"actual loss\" and \"intended loss.\"            \"Actual loss\" is\n\n3    defined as the \"reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that\n\n4    resulted from the offenses.\"       \"Intended loss\" is defined as the\n\n5    \"pecuniary harm that the defendant purposely sought to\n\n6    inflict.\"    \"Reasonably foreseeable harm\" is harm \"the defendant\n\n7    knew or, under the circumstances, reasonably should have known,\n\n8    was a potential result of the offense.\"\n\n9              At trial, government expert Paul Hinton estimated that\n\n10   $1.3 billion in individual donations flowed into bank accounts\n\n11   associated with the racketeering enterprise, which the jury's\n\n12   verdict on Count One demonstrates was the result of fraud.\n\n13   See, for example, Trial Transcript pages 4430 to 4332; and\n\n14   Government Exhibit Z26.\n\n15             Mr. Guo disputes the government's loss estimate on\n\n16   several grounds.     He states that \"inflows to the G-Series\n\n17   entities\" do not establish loss because this methodology\n\n18   improperly includes acquitted conduct, fails to account for\n\n19   redemptions, refunds, or double counting, and \"erroneously\n\n20   includes funds from individuals who deny they were defrauded.\"\n\n21             There is no evidence that investors received anything\n\n22   of value before the fraud was uncovered.           The inflows into the\n\n23   various G Enterprise entities are, therefore, a reasonable\n\n24   estimate of the loss amount.       See, for example, United States\n\n25   v. Stitsky, 536 Fed. App'x 98, 110-112 (2d Cir. 2013).\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1               Even if I exclude the $411 million in GTV proceeds\n\n2    from the $1.3 billion figure, which Mr. Guo claims derives from\n\n3    acquitted conduct, the loss estimate would still far exceed\n\n4    $550 million.     See Government Exhibit Z26, page 35; see also\n\n5    Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Anthony Alecci, ¶ 18(c), filed\n\n6    at ECF No. 716-2.\n\n7               I note that this exclusion is conservative because GTV\n\n8    inflows are part of the racketeering conspiracy crime of\n\n9    conviction.    For example, one witness, Le Zhou, testified that\n\n10   to join G|Club, individuals were first required to purchase GTV\n\n11   stock.   See Trial Transcript page 232, and pages 1376 and 4478.\n\n12   In other words, inflows to GTV are connected to the\n\n13   racketeering enterprise as a whole and to other fraudulent\n\n14   schemes.\n\n15              Next, I reject Mr. Guo's claim that the loss amount\n\n16   should be reduced by \"returns\" or various \"credits\" he claims\n\n17   are applicable.\n\n18              As an initial matter, the Second Circuit has held that\n\n19   \"loss in fraud cases includes the amount of property taken,\n\n20   even if all or part has been returned.\"          United States v.\n\n21   Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244, 251 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\n22              Further, based on testimony at trial, and the parties'\n\n23   submissions, I do not find that Mr. Guo's victims received\n\n24   anything of value—–or that Mr. Guo intended to give them\n\n25   something of value—–that would justify discounting the loss\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    amount.   See, for example, testimony of Le Zhou on Trial\n\n2    Transcript pages 409 to 410, testimony of Jenny Li on\n\n3    pages 1211 to 1213, and testimony of Ya Li on pages 1386 to\n\n4    1387.\n\n5              Nor is there evidence that Mr. Guo returned the\n\n6    victims' money before the offense was detected, or that he\n\n7    pledged collateral to the victims.         See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt.\n\n8    3(D)(i) and (ii).\n\n9              Witness testimony from victims Le Zhou and Wei Chen,\n\n10   and written victim statements, show that individuals sought\n\n11   refund but did not receive them, even when Mr. Guo promised\n\n12   they could withdraw their funds at any time.             See, for example,\n\n13   Trial Transcript pages 270 to 272, 4504 to 4505; and Victim\n\n14   Statements 168 and 221.\n\n15             As to potential double counting, Mr. Guo presents only\n\n16   an unsubstantiated statement that G|Club \"accepted\" Himalaya\n\n17   Exchange funds as \"payment methods for G Club membership.\"               He\n\n18   does not offer any evidence establishing this fact, nor does he\n\n19   estimate the percentage of G|Club's inflows potentially\n\n20   attributable to payments made to the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n21             Further, even if I were to entirely exclude the\n\n22   inflows into G|CLUBS due to double counting concerns, inflows\n\n23   into the Farm Loan Program and the Himalaya Exchange alone\n\n24   exceed $550 million and justify my loss calculation.\n\n25             Finally, I do not consider whether a person\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    subjectively regards him- or herself as a \"victim\" in\n\n2    determining \"loss.\"\n\n3              A person's subjective opinion of their victim status\n\n4    does not determine whether Mr. Guo's schemes were fraudulent,\n\n5    and therefore, their subjective opinion does not impact either\n\n6    the \"actual loss\" or \"intended loss\" calculation.\n\n7              I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that\n\n8    Mr. Guo intended to deceive his victims and take their money\n\n9    for personal gain, rather than his promised initiatives, and\n\n10   that it was reasonably foreseeable that his victims would make\n\n11   the payments they made.      Therefore, both the actual loss and\n\n12   the intended loss exceed $550 million.\n\n13             In sum, I reject Mr. Guo's objections and hold that\n\n14   the government's inflow methodology serves as a \"reasonable\n\n15   estimate\" of the loss attributable to his crimes.             Based on the\n\n16   government's estimates of inflows into the various G Enterprise\n\n17   entities, I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, a loss\n\n18   amount of at least $550 million.\n\n19             Mr. Guo's sentencing submission raises over 50\n\n20   additional objections to various paragraphs of the presentence\n\n21   report.   I have carefully reviewed each of these objections and\n\n22   find that they either rehash the same objections already\n\n23   overruled, contradict the jury's verdict, or do not ultimately\n\n24   influence my sentence.\n\n25             Are there any objections to the presentence report\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    regarding factual accuracy, that the defense has not already\n\n2    articulated?\n\n3              MR. DRATEL:     Your Honor, just——and we do obviously\n\n4    reassert those that we did in writing, but we just wanted to\n\n5    add, based on two subsequent developments.\n\n6              One is the Court's denial of the Fatico hearing, which\n\n7    is Docket No. 855, and the order earlier today approving an\n\n8    order of forfeiture, that's 858, and we think that reinforces\n\n9    two factors.    One is that a loss amount cannot be determined\n\n10   based on the current record; and second is that a Fatico\n\n11   hearing is required.      And the reason is, as the Court is not\n\n12   deciding at this time the validity of 853(n) petitions, and we\n\n13   believe——and I know the Court feels differently, but we believe\n\n14   that if someone is not defrauded, it is not part of the corpus\n\n15   of the crime; therefore, it cannot be part of a loss figure.\n\n16   So we have more than a hundred million dollars from——that's\n\n17   just two sets of investors, who represent about 7,000\n\n18   investors——who have taken the position there was no fraud;\n\n19   their money is not part of a fraud.         That would reduce the loss\n\n20   figure in that regard.      And with respect to some of the offsets\n\n21   and the other parts, the trial transcript, the way the Court\n\n22   charged the jury, which is the statute, which is that it\n\n23   doesn't matter whether he had a gain at all, whether he made a\n\n24   dime.   So the jury's verdict doesn't establish anything with\n\n25   respect to loss amount.      And the trial testimony, by our\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    analysis, would limit that loss amount to less than\n\n2    $1.5 million.     And the fact that also the government says, and\n\n3    the Court agrees in the forfeiture order today, that this case\n\n4    is too complicated for restitution, only again reinforces that\n\n5    a loss amount cannot be established on the current record and\n\n6    without a Fatico hearing.\n\n7              And we also think that it should be at a higher burden\n\n8    of proof for the reasons we set forth in our papers.\n\n9              Thank you, your Honor.\n\n10             THE COURT:     The government has no objections to the\n\n11   factual findings in the presentence report, correct?\n\n12             MR. FINKEL:     That's correct, your Honor.\n\n13             THE COURT:     There being no further objections, I adopt\n\n14   the factual recitations in the report.          And it shall be made a\n\n15   part of the record and placed under seal.           If an appeal is\n\n16   taken, counsel on appeal may have access to the sealed report\n\n17   without further application to the Court.\n\n18             Although courts are no longer required to follow the\n\n19   sentencing guidelines, we are still required to consider the\n\n20   applicable guidelines in imposing sentence, and to do so, it is\n\n21   necessary that we accurately calculate the sentencing range.\n\n22             Following a two-month jury trial——\n\n23             MR. DRATEL:     Your Honor, I'm sorry.         I apologize.    I\n\n24   missed one that I think the Court may not have discussed in its\n\n25   digest of the objections, and that's with respect to\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    paragraph 116, the 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) guidelines section that\n\n2    applies to the offense involving sophisticated money\n\n3    laundering, and we specifically objected to that.             So I don't\n\n4    know if the Court covered that in its review.\n\n5              THE COURT:     Yes.   I will be addressing that later on.\n\n6              MR. DRATEL:     Oh, okay.     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n7              THE COURT:     Yes.\n\n8              As I was saying, after a two-month jury trial, the\n\n9    defendant was convicted of nine of twelve counts of the third\n\n10   superseding indictment:\n\n11             Count One:     Racketeering Conspiracy;\n\n12             Count Two:     Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud or Bank\n\n13   Fraud;\n\n14             Count Three:     Money Laundering Conspiracy;\n\n15             Count Four:     Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud;\n\n16             Count Seven:     Wire Fraud, in connection with the Farm\n\n17   Loan Program;\n\n18             Count Eight:     Securities Fraud, in connection with the\n\n19   Farm Loan Program;\n\n20             Count Nine:     Wire Fraud, in connection with G|CLUBS;\n\n21             Count Ten:     Securities Fraud, in connection with\n\n22   G|CLUBS; and\n\n23             Count Eleven:     Wire Fraud, in connection with the\n\n24   Himalaya Exchange.\n\n25             The jury acquitted Mr. Guo of three counts:\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Count Five:     Wire Fraud, in connection with GTV\n\n2    Private Placement;\n\n3              Count Six:     Securities Fraud, in connection with GTV\n\n4    Private Placement; and\n\n5              Count Twelve:     Unlawful Monetary Transaction.\n\n6              The presentence report calculates a total offense\n\n7    level of 55, and in accordance with guidelines Chapter 5\n\n8    Part A, Application Note 2, because the offense level is more\n\n9    than 43, the report treats the total offense level as 43.                The\n\n10   report calculates a criminal history category of I, resulting\n\n11   in a guidelines sentence of life imprisonment.            However, in\n\n12   accordance with guidelines section 5G1.2(b), the guidelines\n\n13   sentence applicable here is constrained by the maximum\n\n14   statutorily authorized length of imprisonment, which the report\n\n15   calculates as 2100 months, or 175 years.           The report calculates\n\n16   a fine range of $50,000 to $5 million.\n\n17             The government calculates the same guidelines range.\n\n18             Mr. Guo disputes the presentence report's guidelines\n\n19   analysis.    I now address each of his objections:\n\n20             First, as discussed earlier in this proceeding,\n\n21   Mr. Guo contends that there is no loss amount.            For the reasons\n\n22   I have already stated, I find sufficient support in the record\n\n23   that the loss amount exceeds $550 million and apply the\n\n24   30-level enhancement under guidelines Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(P).\n\n25             Second, Mr. Guo contends the government has not shown\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    that there are more than five victims.          In light of the over\n\n2    230 victim statements submitted by the government, and the\n\n3    trial record, which reflects the stunning breadth of Mr. Guo's\n\n4    fraudulent schemes, I agree with probation and apply a 2-level\n\n5    enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) because there are\n\n6    at least 10 victims.\n\n7              Third, for the reasons I have already stated, I agree\n\n8    with probation that Mr. Guo acted on behalf of a charitable,\n\n9    educational, religious, or political organization, and apply\n\n10   the 2-level enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(9)(A).\n\n11             Fourth, like probation, I apply a 2-level enhancement\n\n12   under Section 2B1.1(b)(10) because the offense \"involved\n\n13   sophisticated means\"——namely, the use of \"fictitious entities\"\n\n14   and \"corporate shells,\" as well as the invention of a phony\n\n15   cryptocurrency.     See, for example, Trial Transcript pages 3657\n\n16   to 3666; see also pages 2667 to 2668, 2671, and 2673 to 2674.\n\n17             Fifth, I agree with probation and apply a 2-level\n\n18   enhancement under Section 2S.1(b)(3) because Mr. Guo was\n\n19   convicted of money laundering under 18, United States Code,\n\n20   Section 1956, and the offense involved \"sophisticated\n\n21   laundering\"——namely, the use of \"fictitious entities\" and\n\n22   \"corporate shells.\"\n\n23             Sixth, for the reasons I have already stated, I apply\n\n24   a 4-level enhancement under Section 3B1.1 because Mr. Guo was\n\n25   \"an organizer or leader\" of the criminal activity, which\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    involved five or more participants.\n\n2              Seventh, I apply a 2-level obstruction of justice\n\n3    enhancement under Section 3C1.1 because Mr. Guo \"willfully\n\n4    obstructed or impeded . . . the administration of justice with\n\n5    respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the\n\n6    instant offense of conviction.\"         As I discussed earlier, I find\n\n7    by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Guo intimidated\n\n8    potential cooperators or witnesses by creating a \"blacklist\" of\n\n9    his critics and sharing their personally identifiable\n\n10   information with his supporters, who have a pattern of engaging\n\n11   in harassing behavior.      See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n12   pages 1533, lines 12-17.       Separately, I find that Mr. Guo both\n\n13   directly and indirectly contributed to a campaign of harassment\n\n14   to deter the Trustee of his bankruptcy estate from seizing\n\n15   Mr. Guo's property and investigating his finances so that his\n\n16   fraud victims can be repaid.\n\n17             Based on my independent evaluation of the sentencing\n\n18   guidelines, I find that the offense level is 55, which I treat\n\n19   as 43 because that is the maximum possible offense level; the\n\n20   criminal history category is I; and the resulting guidelines\n\n21   recommendation is 2100 months' imprisonment because of the\n\n22   statutory maximum.       I also calculate a fine range of $50,000 to\n\n23   $5 million.\n\n24             Now I will hear from the parties.\n\n25             Does the government wish to be heard with regard to\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    sentencing?\n\n2              MR. FINKEL:     It does, your Honor.       And I also want to\n\n3    note for your Honor that there is at least one victim here who\n\n4    wishes to be heard.\n\n5              THE COURT:     I will allow that individual to come\n\n6    forward later on.\n\n7              MR. FINKEL:     Okay.\n\n8              THE COURT:     Actually, you know something, I think that\n\n9    it would be better to have the victim come forward now.\n\n10             MR. FINKEL:     Okay.\n\n11             THE COURT:     I understand that the government has\n\n12   identified a victim who wishes to make a statement.\n\n13             Before we proceed with victim statements, I want to\n\n14   explain the law that applies to victim statements.              The Crime\n\n15   Victims' Rights Act defines a crime victim as a person directly\n\n16   and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a\n\n17   federal offense.     18, United States Code, Section 3771(e).             In\n\n18   other words, you are only a victim if you have been directly\n\n19   and proximately harmed by Mr. Guo and his crimes.\n\n20             For anyone who wishes to be heard, I'm going to ask\n\n21   you two questions before you start:         (1) What is your name? and\n\n22   (2) Are you a victim of Mr. Guo's offenses?              If you state that\n\n23   you are not a victim of Mr. Guo's crimes, you will not be\n\n24   permitted to speak.      Each individual will have up to\n\n25   two minutes to complete their statement.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              So you may call the individual that you have\n\n2    identified.\n\n3              MR. FINKEL:     Yes, your Honor.      It's Ms. Chen.      If she\n\n4    could please come up.\n\n5              THE COURT:     If she could step to the podium.\n\n6              MR. FINKEL:     While she comes up, your Honor, I may\n\n7    have missed it——apologies——but is your Honor's finding with\n\n8    respect to the base offense level consistent with the\n\n9    recommendation in the PSR of a base offense level of 7?\n\n10             THE COURT:     Yes.\n\n11             MS. CHEN:      My name is Wei Chen.      I'm a victim of Miles\n\n12   Guo's fraud, and I testified in June 2024.\n\n13             I understand only two minutes allowed.            However, I\n\n14   prepared I believe more than two minutes.           I wonder if possible\n\n15   for me to——\n\n16             THE COURT:     I would like you to limit your statement.\n\n17   And so if you could condense it, please.\n\n18             MS. CHEN:      Okay.   I'll be quick.\n\n19             So, your Honor, I appreciate the opportunity.             This\n\n20   fraud destroyed my life and my family.          It did not just take\n\n21   money, it took our sense of security; it took our peace of\n\n22   mind; it took our hope; and it took life from us, the\n\n23   best years of our lives.         It created a constant mental burden\n\n24   that feels like an ongoing suffering.          And this problem has not\n\n25   ended.   We live with it every day, every hour.           It is anxiety,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    regret, guilt towards our family, sleepless nights and constant\n\n2    stress of trying to survive financially after losing years of\n\n3    savings and hard work.      And this harm extends beyond\n\n4    individuals.    It affects families; it affects children, their\n\n5    education, their future; it affects elderly family members,\n\n6    their care and their stability.         Behind every victim is a whole\n\n7    family.    Their life has been deeply damaged and destroyed.\n\n8               Your Honor, one especially harmful part of this fraud\n\n9    is how it unfolded over time.       It was one program after\n\n10   another, where we were repeatedly encouraged to give more and\n\n11   more.   At first, we used our hard-earned savings, but over time\n\n12   we were pushed into debt.       Toward the end of 2021, the fraud\n\n13   introduced new programs with urgency, pressure, and promises of\n\n14   significant returns, pushing us to borrow close to 400,000 at a\n\n15   high interest rate.      We took on the debt because we believed in\n\n16   the false promise that returns would come quickly and allow us\n\n17   to repay the debt.       Instead, those promises were false, and\n\n18   that loan accumulated about 300,000 in interest since December\n\n19   2021.   It continues to grow every day in a way that is\n\n20   overwhelming and deeply stressful.         So for the past ten years,\n\n21   this harm has not been in the past; it follows into the\n\n22   present.    It shapes how we live today and affects our tomorrow.\n\n23              We were once a happy family.        The happiness is gone,\n\n24   and it's hard to regain.\n\n25              What makes it even more painful is that the defendant\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    continues to deny this fraud.       His supporters continue to\n\n2    spread misinformation and continue attacking victims who came\n\n3    forward.    Since I testified, I experienced attacks, and some of\n\n4    those attacks made me fear for my safety.           That added even more\n\n5    weight to the harm.      It would have been easier to stay silent,\n\n6    but I chose to come back and speak here after two years.                 I\n\n7    chose to do what I believe is right, even when it's painful,\n\n8    even when it feels unsafe.       I am here because victims' rights\n\n9    have been delayed and denied for too long.           Even though\n\n10   speaking publicly exposes me to more attacks, I am here to tell\n\n11   the Court and the public the truth about the real harm caused\n\n12   by the fraud, by this fraud itself, caused by the fraud network\n\n13   running it, caused by the sentencing delays, and any future\n\n14   delays until the money is returned to the true victims of the\n\n15   fraud, the true victims that are enduring the harm every day\n\n16   from Miles Guo's criminal conduct.         Sentencing delay has\n\n17   extended the harm, because for my family, the time is not\n\n18   neutral.    Every additional month, every additional day without\n\n19   meaningful financial relief adds more debt from this\n\n20   high-interest borrowing because of this fraud, because of this\n\n21   false promise.     Further delays do not simply postpone relief.\n\n22   It creates additional financial harm that becomes harder and\n\n23   harder to overcome.\n\n24              For years, we the victims waited and waited for\n\n25   so-called investment to deliver the returns we were promised.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    And now we find ourselves waiting again——waiting for justice to\n\n2    be served, waiting for closure, waiting for return of our money\n\n3    that rightfully belongs to us, our hard-earned money.               We need\n\n4    that money to pay off debts, support our children's education,\n\n5    care for our families, and the basic necessities of life.                 The\n\n6    continued waiting is not difficult, it is painful.\n\n7              THE COURT:      Thank you, ma'am.      If you would please\n\n8    bring your statement to a close.         Continue for another\n\n9    30 seconds and please then stop.\n\n10             MS. CHEN:      So it is not just a financial fraud.             It is\n\n11   damaging our health, our stability, our trust, our dignity, our\n\n12   hope, and the future we are trying to build.\n\n13             And next, I want to address restitution.             I understand\n\n14   government position regarding remission, regarding the\n\n15   complexity of the case and number of victims involved.\n\n16   However, victims' loss have been already clearly established\n\n17   through the sworn testimony and of evidence before this Court,\n\n18   including my own.        I respectfully ask the Court to consider\n\n19   ordering restitution at his sentencing today.\n\n20             THE COURT:      All right.     Thank you, ma'am.      I will\n\n21   carefully consider what you have said.\n\n22             MS. CHEN:      Thank you.\n\n23             THE COURT:      Thank you.\n\n24             Are there any other victims, any other individuals who\n\n25   will come up and answer yes when I ask whether they are a\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    victim of Mr. Guo?\n\n2              Please step up.\n\n3              What is your name?\n\n4              SPECTATOR:     Ching Li Bard Jordan (phonetic).\n\n5              THE COURT:     Are you a victim of Mr. Guo's crimes?\n\n6              SPECTATOR:     Yes, ma'am.\n\n7              THE COURT:     Go ahead.\n\n8              SPECTATOR:     We're here today for Miles's sentencing.\n\n9    We're also here to witness America's funeral, that you killed\n\n10   your nation.\n\n11             THE COURT:     All right.     So ma'am, so far I don't hear\n\n12   your saying that you're a victim.        And so if you're ready to\n\n13   state how you have been victimized by Mr. Guo's criminal\n\n14   conduct, you may go forward, but so far, I am not hearing that.\n\n15             SPECTATOR:     We do not hate you, nor——\n\n16             THE COURT:     I'm going to have to bring this to a close\n\n17   because what you're making is a political statement unrelated\n\n18   to his various criminal conduct.\n\n19             Is there any other individual who claims to be a\n\n20   victim of Mr. Guo?\n\n21             And is there any other individual in the overflow who\n\n22   may be a victim of Mr. Guo?\n\n23             All right.     I've heard word that there is no other\n\n24   individual identifying themselves as a victim in the overflow\n\n25   room.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              All righty then.      I will hear from the government.\n\n2              MR. FINKEL:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n3              Miles Guo is not a Democratic activist.             He is a con\n\n4    artist, he is a fraudster, he is a scammer, and a thief.                  And\n\n5    to afford just punishment for his crimes, to promote respect\n\n6    for the law, to deter him specifically and others who may seek\n\n7    to do what he has already done, to protect the public, to\n\n8    protect the many who, sadly, remain under Miles Guo's spell,\n\n9    this Court should impose a sentence of at least——at least——\n\n10   30 years' imprisonment.      And that's because for nearly\n\n11   five years, the defendant preyed on thousands.             He lied to\n\n12   them, he brainwashed many, he attacked and harassed others, and\n\n13   he caused all that pain and suffering, not because he cares\n\n14   about any political cause; he did it because he cares the most\n\n15   of all about himself.\n\n16             This was not a moment of poor judgment or an\n\n17   aberration of an otherwise law-abiding life.             Miles Guo did\n\n18   this to feed his narcissism.       He did it so he can live a life\n\n19   of luxury and excess——a Bugatti; a Lamborghini; a $26 million\n\n20   mansion; a $36,000 mattress——two of them actually; a $50,000\n\n21   fire log holder; a music video, promoting himself, holding a\n\n22   light saber.\n\n23             And Miles Guo sits here today, unapologetic, refusing\n\n24   to accept even a modicum of responsibility.              He's steadfast\n\n25   that all of this wreckage, everything he left in his wake,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    never even happened.      Even worse, he portrays himself as a\n\n2    victim.    But the evidence that this Court saw, that a jury saw,\n\n3    proved that Guo was a perpetrator on a grand scale.               And it's\n\n4    certainly one thing, your Honor, to deny guilt as a defendant\n\n5    in an American courtroom, but it's another entirely to deny\n\n6    reality.    And that's where I'd like to focus my brief remarks,\n\n7    on the reality of the harm that Miles Guo caused, because that\n\n8    should be a primary focus, your Honor, in assessing the\n\n9    seriousness of the offense and deciding what constitutes just\n\n10   punishment.\n\n11              Your Honor referenced the 235 victim statements that\n\n12   have been submitted to you.       They account for the magnitude of\n\n13   the harm.    They discuss the financial burden.           We just heard\n\n14   from Ms. Chen as well.      But it was more than just financial\n\n15   security and money.      There's a reality of enduring anguish.\n\n16              Statement 42:    \"I lost my passion.          My whole body was\n\n17   depressed.    I suffered from severe depression and want to kill\n\n18   myself every day.\"\n\n19              Statement 200:    \"I was overwhelmed with shame, guilt,\n\n20   and despair.    I struggled with recurring suicidal thoughts.             I\n\n21   lost my will to live.\"\n\n22              That is the reality of Miles Guo's harm.\n\n23              And these victims come from across the country and\n\n24   around the world, and they have, generally speaking, a unifying\n\n25   theme.    They were part of the Chinese diaspora, and universally\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    against the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP.            And it's Miles\n\n2    Guo's false statements about fighting the CCP that drew victims\n\n3    to him, and that separates Miles Guo from a garden-variety\n\n4    fraud.\n\n5               Sure, he promised his victims financial gain and\n\n6    riches.    But it was more sinister than that.           He claimed to be\n\n7    part of their family, their brother.         He called them his\n\n8    brothers and his sisters, as someone who could be trusted,\n\n9    claiming to share the same political and moral views as his\n\n10   victims.    So your Honor, in that sense it's an extraordinary\n\n11   affinity fraud that the defendant committed because he targeted\n\n12   a community, and, ironically, or perhaps even purposefully, as\n\n13   Statement 157 summed it up well, \"While loudly proclaiming his\n\n14   goal to defeat the CCP, he actually served their interests, by\n\n15   discrediting the very cause he claimed to support.             By\n\n16   betraying us, the true believers in ending the CCP's tyranny,\n\n17   he tarnished the fight against the CCP itself.            Now whenever\n\n18   someone hears about efforts to oppose the CCP, they may\n\n19   question whether it's just another scam.\"           So in a very real\n\n20   way, rather than fight the CCP as he loves to claim over and\n\n21   over again, he helped their cause.\n\n22              Your Honor, another important point for the Court to\n\n23   consider is his total and utter contempt for United States\n\n24   laws.    As your Honor saw during trial, as the jury saw, the\n\n25   defendant's audaciousness in criminality grew over time.                 He\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    started out, as your Honor recounted before, with the Rule of\n\n2    Law Society and foundation.       It grew into GTV, in which he was\n\n3    investigated and dealt with in a civil regulatory manner.                 So\n\n4    he changed his efforts.      He changed his tactics.          He tried to\n\n5    dress up his fraud by, instead of selling stock, pretending to\n\n6    sell farm loans.     And then that continued in its audaciousness\n\n7    by creating a fake business called G|CLUBS.              And in the summer\n\n8    of 2022, and the fall, when grand jury subpoenas found their\n\n9    way to G|CLUBS and the government seized $630 million, the\n\n10   defendant once again, instead of stopping what he was doing,\n\n11   instead of realizing that he was violating the law, he doubled\n\n12   down and tripled down and quadrupled down, and he launched the\n\n13   810 and the 815, schemes that collected money by claiming to\n\n14   sell more stock, with the express purpose of sending that money\n\n15   abroad, to the Middle East, expressly out of reach of the U.S.\n\n16   government.\n\n17             And that contempt, your Honor, continued today—-today,\n\n18   before you, when the defendant lied, malingering, pretending to\n\n19   be ill, to try to avoid sentencing today.\n\n20             The ever-evolving nature of the defendant's\n\n21   criminality also underscores I think a very important point for\n\n22   this Court: the defendant is and remains a significant danger\n\n23   to society.\n\n24             Victim statements recount, as Ms. Chen just did, how\n\n25   the enterprise continues, developing new meme coins and\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    money-luring opportunities.       The defendant operates like the\n\n2    law does not apply to him, and only incarceration will keep the\n\n3    public safe.    As your Honor mentioned, he has acolytes who are\n\n4    willing to protest in front of an elementary school——an\n\n5    elementary school——because one of the teachers was the daughter\n\n6    of the bankruptcy trustee who was discharging his job to try to\n\n7    obtain money for creditors in accordance with the laws of the\n\n8    United States.\n\n9              The defendant personally told Ya Li to destroy\n\n10   subpoenas; his daughter was told to lie in a deposition.                 The\n\n11   defendant moved a boat outside the jurisdiction of the United\n\n12   States to avoid civil contempt.         He was held in criminal\n\n13   contempt by a judge of New York State Supreme Court.\n\n14             He has no respect for the law, and there is nothing\n\n15   that can assure this Court that once released, he won't\n\n16   continue to prey on the victims he has already victimized, and\n\n17   many others.\n\n18             Now, in their sentencing submission, the defense makes\n\n19   much of defendant's history and characteristics.             And they\n\n20   recount his mythology——the same mythology that the defendant\n\n21   used to lure victims into his schemes; the same mythology he\n\n22   used to build a cult of personality and to brainwash victims.\n\n23   I don't know, and I think no one knows, how much of that\n\n24   history is true, but certainly this defendant has little\n\n25   credibility left to spend here before this Court, so I would\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    submit that instead of evaluating the truth of the defendant's\n\n2    mythology, the truth of his words, or lack thereof, we look at\n\n3    his actions.    His actions speak louder than his words.              And\n\n4    here's what we know:\n\n5              The defendant immigrated to the United States in 2015,\n\n6    thereabouts.    He claimed he needed asylum, that he needed\n\n7    protection, from the United States.          He had access to\n\n8    opportunities that many cannot have access to but wish they\n\n9    could.   He's brilliant.     He is charismatic.           He is smart.     He\n\n10   could have lived a successful, law-abiding life in the United\n\n11   States, but almost immediately, he chose to commit crimes on a\n\n12   grand scale.    And if anything, while here as an asylee, he\n\n13   should have maintained rigid compliance with the laws of the\n\n14   United States, with its rules and regulations.              But instead, he\n\n15   took opportunity after opportunity to engage and engineer a\n\n16   fraud of historic proportions.          Those are the actions that is\n\n17   the history and characteristics that should animate this\n\n18   Court's sentence.\n\n19             Last point, but an important one.           The defendant\n\n20   clearly has his supporters, those who speak online and try to\n\n21   scare victims who have come forward; those who try to scare the\n\n22   truth from coming out; supporters who promise that this is all\n\n23   a charade and one day Miles Guo will return to them to lead\n\n24   them.    And the reality is that they——many of them, at least——\n\n25   are probably victims too.       And the defendant maintains this\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    hold and grip over them; a grip so tight that he can convince\n\n2    them that they aren't victims at all.           And that underscores,\n\n3    your Honor, the danger the defendant poses to the public.                  If\n\n4    released, it is near certainty, if not absolutely certain, that\n\n5    he will pick their pockets again, that he will victimize those\n\n6    supporters again.        Those victims may disclaim their victimhood,\n\n7    they may disclaim that they were defrauded.               What was proven at\n\n8    the trial that you presided over, your Honor, is that the\n\n9    defendant Miles Guo intended to defraud them; he acted with\n\n10   knowledge, he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it\n\n11   for himself, over and over and over again.\n\n12              So it is up to this Court, and your Honor alone, to\n\n13   protect those who are unable to protect themselves, and the\n\n14   government submits that a lengthy sentence, one that\n\n15   incapacitates the defendant from harming others, is necessary\n\n16   here.\n\n17              And so when reflecting on the reality, the reality of\n\n18   what the defendant has done, his course of conduct for\n\n19   five years, all that he built, all the lives he destroyed, it's\n\n20   sort of hard to understand how a person could be responsible\n\n21   for all these significant crimes.         Miles Guo's criminality is\n\n22   massive.    The harm he caused was and remains devastating to\n\n23   thousands.    The obstruction, the flouting of Court's orders,\n\n24   the vengeance on those who stood in his way and their family.\n\n25   Miles Guo did not lead a movement, he led a criminal enterprise\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    that was built on lies he told so he could take other people's\n\n2    money and spend it on himself.          And he strengthened that\n\n3    enterprise through threats and violence and fear.\n\n4              For leading one of the most extraordinary frauds that\n\n5    this country has seen, to protect the public and those who\n\n6    can't protect themselves, a lengthy and substantial sentence of\n\n7    at least——at least——30 years is absolutely necessary in this\n\n8    case.\n\n9              Thank you.\n\n10             THE COURT:     Now I'll hear from the defense.\n\n11             MS. SARAFA:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n12             I think we can all agree that this is no ordinary\n\n13   case.   Miles Guo is no ordinary individual.              The U.S.\n\n14   government, not to mention the Chinese government, has a\n\n15   certain view of him.\n\n16             It's important at this stage of the case to take a\n\n17   deep, full look at who Miles Guo as a person is and how his\n\n18   background relates to why we're here today.\n\n19             Let me acknowledge that Mr. Guo went to trial.                   He\n\n20   maintains his innocence.       He was found not guilty of the\n\n21   government's core fraud allegations concerning the GTV Private\n\n22   Placement, as well as of engaging in an unlawful monetary\n\n23   transaction.    We acknowledge that he was found guilty of other\n\n24   fraud counts related to the Farm Loans, G|CLUBS, and Himalaya\n\n25   Exchange, as well as money laundering and conspiracy-related\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    counts.    We accept that verdict for purposes of sentencing, but\n\n2    it is important to place it in its proper context and\n\n3    understand its limits.\n\n4               Mr. Guo is a human being like every other defendant\n\n5    who has appeared before this Court.         He has a unique personal\n\n6    history that has shaped his fundamental character, motivation,\n\n7    and his orientation to the world.        He was born in China\n\n8    two years into the cultural revolution.          That lasted a full\n\n9    ten years.    And his parents were deemed enemies of the State\n\n10   during that period of time.       As a result, his childhood, one of\n\n11   eight brothers born to his parents, consisted of total\n\n12   immersion in the hardships and abuses that an authoritarian\n\n13   government can and does inflict on its people.            Now millions of\n\n14   Chinese individuals may have had similar experiences during the\n\n15   cultural revolution, but that fact has not diminished the\n\n16   lasting impact that those experiences have on every single one\n\n17   of them.    Mr. Guo's unwavering support for democracy, a more\n\n18   democratic China, and a better life for the people of China, is\n\n19   rooted in his personal experience.\n\n20              He did not receive much of a formal education.                He\n\n21   quit school at about age 15 to work and help support his\n\n22   family.    He married young, still in his teens, and had two\n\n23   children with his wife, to whom he remains married to this day,\n\n24   before he reached age 20.       That's about how old he was in 1989\n\n25   when the Tiananmen protests began in China, and given Mr. Guo's\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    childhood, it's not surprising that he sold his motorcycle,\n\n2    provided the funds to support the protestors of Tiananmen.                For\n\n3    that support, he was visited by police officers, who,\n\n4    tragically, shot his brother, who was trying to protect Mr. Guo\n\n5    when a firearm was drawn.       Both of them were arrested.         His\n\n6    brother died of his wounds.       Mr. Guo served approximately\n\n7    two years in prison.\n\n8              I start here because the government suggests not\n\n9    only——I mean argues strenuously that Mr. Guo is not a genuine\n\n10   political dissident but that he has adopted that persona solely\n\n11   for personal financial gain.       In reality, Mr. Guo came to his\n\n12   lifelong commitment to democracy honestly and through the\n\n13   crucible of extreme trauma.       I don't think we can gloss over\n\n14   the impact of his witnessing his brother shot and killed by the\n\n15   police.   While he was incarcerated, he witnessed at least 50\n\n16   political prisoners being executed.\n\n17             He was physically tortured on multiple occasions not\n\n18   only during his post-Tiananmen incarceration but also after he\n\n19   exposed corruption by a prominent Beijing city official.\n\n20             And to the extent the government maintains that\n\n21   Mr. Guo's personal background is a mythology, I would point to\n\n22   the probation officer's personal observations of the physical\n\n23   scars that Mr. Guo bears to this day as a result of torture.\n\n24   That's referenced in the presentence report.\n\n25             Experiences like the ones Mr. Guo has endured shape a\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    person.   In this case, they solidified his commitment to\n\n2    opposing authoritarian rule, exposing corruption, and\n\n3    supporting a democratic China.          His support of democracy, by\n\n4    the way, also extends to assisting the United States in\n\n5    protecting its own national security and understanding the many\n\n6    ways that China infiltrates this country and attempts to\n\n7    undermine it.\n\n8              In short, Mr. Guo is a legitimate pro-democracy\n\n9    activist and has been since his youth.           Any suggestion to the\n\n10   contrary isn't supported by the facts, not the least of which\n\n11   are the fact that for years Mr. Guo has been the primary target\n\n12   of China's Operation Fox Hunt, and he's had multiple immediate\n\n13   family members as well as employees and supporters arrested and\n\n14   detained for years.\n\n15             It's worth asking why China would go to the lengths it\n\n16   has to silence and repatriate Mr. Guo.           Why is he such a threat\n\n17   to the CCP?    The extent of the CCP's efforts reflect its deep\n\n18   concerns about Mr. Guo's ability to undermine his authority and\n\n19   reveal information it does not want disclosed.             If Mr. Guo's\n\n20   activities were merely the work of a conman or a fraudster and\n\n21   nothing more, the CCP would not be deploying armies of\n\n22   operatives to discredit him through a staggeringly extensive\n\n23   social media campaign.      At some point, in its scope, that\n\n24   social media campaign was second only to the CCP's efforts to\n\n25   discredit the Hong Kong protestors, democracy protestors of\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    2019.   The CCP has spent tens if not hundreds of millions of\n\n2    dollars recruiting U.S. political and business elite to lobby\n\n3    the U.S. government for his repatriation to China.             They've\n\n4    pressured U.S. social media companies to de-platform him,\n\n5    they've interrogated, coerced, arrested, prosecuted, jailed\n\n6    individuals in China for just listening to his broadcast.\n\n7    They've taken advantage of the U.S. legal system and the First\n\n8    Amendment freedoms here to file a false rape complaint against\n\n9    Mr. Guo and then orchestrate demonstrations outside his home,\n\n10   calling him a rapist, and then publicize those demonstrations\n\n11   on social media.\n\n12              We detailed this and more in our sentencing\n\n13   submission, but even the many pages in our sentencing\n\n14   submission that discuss this campaign against him really can't\n\n15   capture the true magnitude of the Chinese government operation\n\n16   against Mr. Guo as well as against those who dare to listen to\n\n17   his broadcast where they can in China, or to engage in any way\n\n18   with any entities associated with him.\n\n19              And these facts are not in dispute.           I mean, the U.S.\n\n20   government itself has brought dozens of criminal prosecutions\n\n21   against individuals who have done the CCP's bidding against\n\n22   Mr. Guo.    We've cited complaint after complaint, document after\n\n23   document drafted by the United States government detailing\n\n24   these efforts.\n\n25              And that brings us to the conduct in this case.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              The jury acquitted Mr. Guo of the GTV Private\n\n2    Placement, convicted on other counts.           We accept the jury's\n\n3    verdict, but we do recognize that that verdict has limits,\n\n4    especially with respect to proven losses and victimization of\n\n5    investors and supporters.       The creation of GTV was a direct\n\n6    response to CCP efforts to silence Mr. Guo, to suppress his\n\n7    speech by pressuring other social media platforms to shut down\n\n8    his accounts.     GTV, in contrast, was free from external\n\n9    pressure, and it became a vibrant and active platform.               That\n\n10   platform was itself part of the efforts to take down the CCP.\n\n11   That platform was a way to get out messages about corruption,\n\n12   expose what actually is taking place in China at the behest of\n\n13   the Chinese government, and those broadcasts are the effort.\n\n14   So it's not accurate to say that this organization did nothing,\n\n15   that his movement did nothing.          That platform was a core part\n\n16   of undertaking the dismantling of the CCP, building a movement.\n\n17             The Himalaya Exchange provided a safe place to store\n\n18   money outside the prying eyes of the CCP.            And that is a\n\n19   service for which there is a tremendous market.              It also\n\n20   provided an opportunity for individuals to make money through\n\n21   creating H Coin on the Himalaya Exchange.            The letters we\n\n22   provided to the Court contain numerous accounts of individuals\n\n23   who profited substantially from their investment in the\n\n24   Himalaya Exchange, and who invested in it for reasons having\n\n25   nothing to do with the alleged misrepresentations of Mr. Guo,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    with respect to the exchange being backed by gold, for\n\n2    instance.\n\n3              G|CLUBS, G Fashion, the Farm Loans, these were all\n\n4    part of building a brand to support the whistleblower movement.\n\n5              The luxury cars.      The government's made much of those\n\n6    cars.   Mr. Guo himself doesn't drive.         There's been no\n\n7    observation of him out and about driving around in those cars.\n\n8    The Bugatti never even left the showroom in Texas.             They were\n\n9    props for videos, to show what could be, what could be achieved\n\n10   for the people of China, to build the brand for the\n\n11   whistleblower movement.\n\n12             The mansion, the Mahwah mansion.          Again, much has been\n\n13   made of that.     There was also testimony at trial that that was\n\n14   intended as a permanent home for the whistleblower movement.\n\n15   Mr. Guo himself lived in Connecticut.          He wasn't living at the\n\n16   mansion in Mahwah.       That's just not accurate.\n\n17             These were not personal luxuries that he was obtaining\n\n18   for himself.    These were part of the brand which resonated\n\n19   strongly with thousands of individuals who see in the movement\n\n20   hope for a freer and a more democratic China.\n\n21             I should also note that Mr. Guo——much has been made of\n\n22   his Brioni suits, the yacht.       A lot of these things were\n\n23   obtained prior to any alleged misconduct in this case.\n\n24   Mr. Guo's family members were legitimate billionaires long\n\n25   before Mr. Guo came to this country, long before the conduct at\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    issue in this case.      The movement was a separate project,\n\n2    independent of personal wealth.         The government narrative about\n\n3    needing the money and creating these entities as a way to\n\n4    obtain money just doesn't make sense.          The government knows\n\n5    well that if Mr. Guo had needed or cared about money, it would\n\n6    have been much easier for him to avail himself of the many\n\n7    opportunities to secure the release of billions of dollars in\n\n8    funds seized by the CCP if only he would agree to stop\n\n9    criticizing it and exposing corruption.          He was unwilling to do\n\n10   that.   He had those opportunities.        At least $10 billion in\n\n11   seized assets.     He could have just said, okay, I'll stop\n\n12   criticizing the CCP.      Those assets would have been unfrozen.\n\n13   But that's not what animates him.        That is not what motivates\n\n14   him.    That is not why we're here.      The simple and indisputable\n\n15   fact that he could have availed himself of those opportunities\n\n16   underscores his genuine commitment to the underlying movement.\n\n17   His fidelity consistently has been to the movement.              Even his\n\n18   original pursuit of wealth back in the early '90s, after being\n\n19   released from prison following Tiananmen, was for that very\n\n20   purpose.    That's the purpose, to achieve that level of wealth\n\n21   and prominence and then be able to exert the kind of influence\n\n22   that one needs to have in order to build a movement that has\n\n23   any hope of taking on a government and a party as powerful as\n\n24   the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n25              There is a——\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              THE COURT:     One moment, please.\n\n2              You may continue.\n\n3              MS. SARAFA:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n4              There's a vast gulf in this case between the loss\n\n5    amount advanced by the government, set forth in the guidelines,\n\n6    and the alleged harm to victims, and the overwhelming number of\n\n7    investors and customers who disclaim victim status.              This goes\n\n8    straight to the nature and circumstances of the offense, the\n\n9    seriousness of the conduct, and we respectfully submit that\n\n10   this is a case where the 3553(a) factors should weigh more\n\n11   heavily than the guidelines.\n\n12             There are literally thousands of investors and\n\n13   customers of the G series entities who affirmatively state that\n\n14   they are not victims of Mr. Guo.        These are not deluded,\n\n15   brainwashed sycophants.      We submitted statements from 1286\n\n16   unique individuals.      We accounted for multiple individuals in\n\n17   our number count and in our statistics, unlike the government,\n\n18   who cites 235 statements but, by our assessment, at least 40 or\n\n19   more are from the same individual.         1286 unique individuals.\n\n20   Of those, 1223 expressly stated that they were not victimized\n\n21   by Mr. Guo.    Most of them did not indicate the size of their\n\n22   investments in the submissions they sent to us, but for those\n\n23   that did, the amount totaled more than $72 million.              108 of\n\n24   them reported being interrogated by the CCP.             35 reported being\n\n25   coerced to make statements such as confessions, guarantees,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    repentance, or acknowledgment of having been defrauded.                   Seven\n\n2    reported being forced to file false complaints with U.S. law\n\n3    enforcement and media.       28 reported being arrested and/or\n\n4    prosecuted by the CCP.       We continue to receive more of these\n\n5    statements daily.        And these are not cookie-cutter\n\n6    presentations.     They're unique, detailed, thoughtful accounts\n\n7    of individual deliberation and due diligence in connection with\n\n8    their investments from individuals from all walks of life, many\n\n9    professionals, even one from a non-Chinese lawyer in Australia,\n\n10   who invested at the suggestion of one of his clients.               These\n\n11   are not robotic recitations from brainwashed masses lacking\n\n12   agency.   And these support——these individuals who provided\n\n13   these statements, they included supporting\n\n14   documents——government-issued IDs, passports, other\n\n15   identification documents.        They included videos, audio,\n\n16   recordings of interrogation by Chinese officials, photos,\n\n17   screenshots of text messaging between them and the officials, a\n\n18   tremendous amount of indicia of credibility, and we've included\n\n19   at least one of those in its entirety in our sentencing\n\n20   submission, but there are hundreds of these.              And apart from\n\n21   those, apart from those statements, there are more than 6,000\n\n22   Himalaya Exchange customers who have submitted 853(n)\n\n23   petitions.    There are more than 300 Hamilton investors who have\n\n24   submitted 853(n) petitions.        Both of those groups, thousands of\n\n25   customers, maintain that they were not victimized by Mr. Guo\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    and that their investments, the money that's been seized, is\n\n2    not the proceeds of fraud.       They're not crime proceeds.             That's\n\n3    their position.     That's thousands and thousands of investors.\n\n4              At trial, there was a discussion about extrapolating\n\n5    from the testimony of Yi Jianhu, one of the defense witnesses\n\n6    who said that he'd been pressured by the Chinese government to\n\n7    make false statements.      And the government strenuously objected\n\n8    to the defense making any inference about such pressure having\n\n9    been exerted on other witnesses in the case.             And the Court\n\n10   said that——the Court granted that request and said it's not\n\n11   proper to extrapolate or speculate because we've only\n\n12   heard——beyond the testimony of the people who testified in this\n\n13   trial.\n\n14             And yet the loss amount that the government talks\n\n15   about and the loss amount calculated in the PSR is speculation.\n\n16   The witnesses at trial testified to no more than 1.5 million in\n\n17   losses.   The individuals in this room, the more than 6,000\n\n18   Himalaya Exchange customers, the nearly 1300 people who sent us\n\n19   letters, they all say, we were not victimized.            We invested for\n\n20   reasons that have nothing to do with the misrepresentations\n\n21   Mr. Guo allegedly made.      And these people, these individuals\n\n22   consistently say that any hardship they suffered is a result of\n\n23   their funds being seized and held by the government.\n\n24             They maintain also that Mr. Guo was up front in his\n\n25   broadcasts about the risk of investment.           These are not\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    victimized, brainwashed people.         They talk about receiving real\n\n2    value for the investments they made.          Not just G|CLUBS, not\n\n3    just actually getting, you know, G Fashion, not just GTV, but\n\n4    Himalaya Exchange.       People made real money with——through the\n\n5    Himalaya Exchange.       That's value.    In fact, many of them are\n\n6    still holders of H Coin, which retained value to this day.                It\n\n7    retained value up until the very day that Mr. Guo was convicted\n\n8    and the platform was shut down.         I believe one of the\n\n9    individuals even said the decision to invest with Mr. Guo was\n\n10   one of the most important and correct of his life.              And that\n\n11   was a consistent refrain.       These individuals say that they've\n\n12   made their own independent decisions about whether to send\n\n13   money to various G series entities.          They weren't victimized or\n\n14   brainwashed by Mr. Guo.\n\n15             The government has, sitting in its coffers, more than\n\n16   $600 million seized.      The GTV entities readily settled the SEC\n\n17   case and disgorged more than $500 million.            That money is all\n\n18   going back to——it has already——most of it has already gone back\n\n19   to investors; in fact, it had even before the trial.\n\n20             The money is not——this is not like a Ponzi scheme,\n\n21   where there's preying on subsequent investors because you have\n\n22   to keep bringing in money to give——to pay out original\n\n23   investors.    The money was all there.        These were operating\n\n24   businesses.    Value was obtained by the people investing in\n\n25   them.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Mr. Guo's pro-democracy, anti-CCP message resonated\n\n2    with people around the globe.       The supporters' statements\n\n3    overflow with hope.      That is inspired by Mr. Guo.         That is\n\n4    meaningful.    That is meaningful.      That in itself is meaningful.\n\n5              We've talked about some of Mr. Guo's assistance to the\n\n6    United States.     We've done our best to provide the Court with\n\n7    that information to the best of our ability, although quite a\n\n8    bit of information is not even available to us.             We've\n\n9    requested it; we have not received it.\n\n10             We've also provided to the Court information about\n\n11   Mr. Guo's physical and mental health, which has deteriorated\n\n12   since he's been at MDC.      The conditions at the MDC are well\n\n13   known to this Court.      That's no surprise.       The conditions in\n\n14   the Bureau of Prisons are not great.         Mr. Guo's physical and\n\n15   mental health most likely will get worse as he continues to\n\n16   spend time in incarceration.       In this district——and those\n\n17   factors are important and considered by courts, taken very\n\n18   seriously.    In this district, less than a quarter of defendants\n\n19   in fraud cases are sentenced within the sentencing guidelines.\n\n20   Most are sentenced substantially below the guidelines.              And\n\n21   that is a recognition, as your Honor has recognized, that\n\n22   particularly in fraud cases, that the guidelines substantially\n\n23   overstate the seriousness of the offense.           The judiciary\n\n24   sentencing information, the JSIN data, for 2021 to 2025, in\n\n25   cases like this, where 2B1.1 is the primary guideline, the\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    offense level is 43 and the criminal history category is I, no\n\n2    prior criminal history, excluding cooperating defendants, the\n\n3    average length of imprisonment in those cases is 167 months.\n\n4    The median is 144 months.       Sam Bankman-Fried was mentioned\n\n5    earlier.    His case involved $8 billion, multiples of what was\n\n6    involved here, and I dare say not thousands of individuals who\n\n7    said they weren't victimized.       He received a sentence of\n\n8    25 years.    The government cited that in its brief.           We submit\n\n9    that a sentence below that is warranted here.            A sentence\n\n10   substantially below the sentencing guidelines is warranted in\n\n11   this case, and substantially below what the government has\n\n12   requested.\n\n13              The fact that so many people have come forward, and in\n\n14   their own words, not in some prefab template letter, have come\n\n15   forward and told this Court their own story of why they\n\n16   invested, their own reliance on the documentation, the white\n\n17   papers, the credit placement memorandum, the loan agreements,\n\n18   they read those documents.       They made their decisions to\n\n19   invest.    They understood the risk.       They told your Honor that\n\n20   in their own words, that is just, and that really distinguishes\n\n21   this case.    That along with the fact that Mr. Guo has been this\n\n22   target of the CCP, which has really been an animating force\n\n23   behind this entire whistleblower movement, and that's the\n\n24   reason the movement resonates so strongly with so many people.\n\n25   It's the reason so many people are here today, because the\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    oppression that they've experienced by the CCP is something\n\n2    that everybody has an interest in moving on from.              And\n\n3    Mr. Guo's message is one of hope and promise for a better\n\n4    future.\n\n5               The individuals who continue to support him are not\n\n6    deluded.    They're very clear-eyed.        They've communicated that\n\n7    to the Court.     And that really goes to the seriousness of the\n\n8    offense and the nature and circumstances——or the nature and\n\n9    circumstances of the offense, which we submit warrants a\n\n10   sentence substantially below the guidelines level and what the\n\n11   government has requested.\n\n12              Thank you, your Honor.\n\n13              THE COURT:    Mr. Guo, would you like to say something?\n\n14              THE DEFENDANT:    Your Honor, I would like to ask the\n\n15   interpreter to speak for me.\n\n16              Initially, I did not plan to speak.            I look at this\n\n17   today, I must say something regarding what just happened in\n\n18   your courtroom.     And also, in the other room, you asked the\n\n19   marshals to testify and recall how I came to this building.\n\n20   They said only one marshal brought me up here.             In fact, there\n\n21   were two marshals who brought me up.          You don't have to trust\n\n22   me.   You can trust the camera.         From 5 a.m. this morning, I\n\n23   fainted and fell on the floor.          And 911 sent me to the\n\n24   hospital.    So there have been people telling them that, don't\n\n25   send me to the hospital, you have to send him to the court.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    After two rounds of injections and the medication I took, the\n\n2    doctors said, you have to stay here, you cannot leave.                You\n\n3    don't have to trust me.       You can just look at the videos in the\n\n4    hospital and you can look that up.\n\n5              So two officers from MDC received a call saying that I\n\n6    must return to MDC.       And I vomited many times on the way back\n\n7    to MDC, and I vomited as well all through the day.                So you\n\n8    don't have to trust me.       You can ask the two officers from MDC.\n\n9              So when I returned to my room in MDC, they asked a\n\n10   doctor to come.     So a doctor came.       I returned to MDC at 10:30\n\n11   and then the doctor came at 10:45, and they asked me, are you\n\n12   still okay?    And I told them that, look at my face, I have\n\n13   face——I have blood on my face and all over my body.                I'm still\n\n14   vomiting blood.     And then that doctor said, I'll come back\n\n15   later to give you a treatment, or maybe I just send you back to\n\n16   your unit.    I said, I would like to go to the court.              You don't\n\n17   have to trust me.        You can look at the videos from the\n\n18   hospital.\n\n19             Around 1:30 p.m. a mysterious woman came——\n\n20             THE COURT:      Mr. Guo, please face me.\n\n21             One moment.      If you would just translate what I just\n\n22   said.\n\n23             THE DEFENDANT:      So that woman in black talked to them,\n\n24   saying that I could bring him to the court.               Okay.   This lady\n\n25   was riding in another car, she was riding another vehicle, and\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    I came with the vehicle with the officers.            So before I left\n\n2    MDC, they cut up my clothing and wiped off the blood from my\n\n3    face so I got changed into this.\n\n4              So that lady, she's not a police officer.             She is\n\n5    someone else, and she was in another car, and when I came here,\n\n6    she was waiting for me downstairs.\n\n7              And then, so when I came here, I said, I have tummy\n\n8    ache, I need to go to the bathroom.          I don't feel well.           They\n\n9    put me into another room.        And this lady and the other officer,\n\n10   they were still around.       You can look at the videos later.\n\n11   Therefore, regarding what the prosecutor said earlier, that's\n\n12   not the truth.     Even for these facts, with these clear facts,\n\n13   he was not telling the truth, and he was playing the role of a\n\n14   doctor, police, and a judge.        In this case, whatever the\n\n15   prosecutor said cannot be the truth.          So when the prosecutor\n\n16   spoke in front of you, your Honor, he mentioned that there was\n\n17   only one officer.        However, he did not mention the other lady.\n\n18   You can ask him who was that lady.\n\n19             And lastly, I would like to tell the judge that, for\n\n20   the things I would like to say, that's included in the\n\n21   submissions from my lawyers.        I believe in the U.S. laws and\n\n22   the judge.    The reason I came to the U.S. is to destroy CCP.                   I\n\n23   lost my family members, and 270 people have been arrested, and\n\n24   I lost billions of dollars.\n\n25             And your Honor, I thank you for everything you did.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    And I will appeal.       Thank you.\n\n2               THE COURT:    Is there any reason why sentence should\n\n3    not be imposed at this time?\n\n4               MS. SARAFA:    Your Honor, subject to our objections\n\n5    about loss not being calculable without a Fatico and other\n\n6    objections that we put on the record, no.           And Mr. Guo's\n\n7    health, as discussed in the other room.\n\n8               MR. FINKEL:    The government believes that sentencing\n\n9    should go forward.       And if I may, with respect, your Honor, I\n\n10   just note for the record that Mr. Guo stood and gesticulated\n\n11   with his arms throughout his colloquy with the Court.              He was\n\n12   cogent and clear in his presentation and seemed alert.              But\n\n13   that, of course, is just from my perspective.\n\n14              THE COURT:    As I have stated, the guidelines range to\n\n15   be used in this case is 2100 months' imprisonment.\n\n16              Under the Supreme Court's decision in Booker and its\n\n17   progeny, the guidelines range is only one factor that I must\n\n18   consider in deciding the appropriate sentence.            As I mentioned\n\n19   earlier, I am also required to consider the other factors set\n\n20   forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a).                  These\n\n21   include:\n\n22              First, the nature and circumstances of the offense and\n\n23   the history and characteristics of the defendant;\n\n24              Second, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect\n\n25   the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    and to provide just punishment for the offense; to afford\n\n2    adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public\n\n3    from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the\n\n4    defendant with needed education or vocational training, medical\n\n5    care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective\n\n6    manner;\n\n7              Third, the kinds of sentences available;\n\n8              Fourth, the guidelines range;\n\n9              Fifth, any pertinent policy statement;\n\n10             Sixth, the need to avoid unwarranted sentence\n\n11   disparities among defendants with similar records who have been\n\n12   found guilty of similar conduct; and\n\n13             Seventh, the need to provide restitution to any\n\n14   victims of the offense.\n\n15             Ultimately, I am required to impose a sentence\n\n16   sufficient, but no greater than necessary, to comply with the\n\n17   purposes of sentencing that I just mentioned.\n\n18             Probation recommends a below-guidelines sentence of\n\n19   240 months' imprisonment on Counts One through Three and Seven\n\n20   through Eleven, to run concurrently with each other, and\n\n21   60 months' imprisonment on Count Four, to run consecutively to\n\n22   the other counts.        The total recommended sentence is\n\n23   300 months' imprisonment.\n\n24             The government recommends a sentence of at least\n\n25   360 months' imprisonment, or 30 years.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Mr. Guo argues for a sentence \"substantially below the\n\n2    applicable guidelines range and the sentencing recommendation\n\n3    in the [presentence report],\" but does not request a specific\n\n4    sentence.\n\n5              I have given substantial thought and attention to the\n\n6    appropriate sentence in this case in light of all the factors\n\n7    set forth in Section 3553(a) and the purposes of sentencing.\n\n8              On July 16, 2024, having heard and seen all the\n\n9    evidence in the case, including the testimony of 34 government\n\n10   witnesses and nine defense witnesses, a jury of 12 people\n\n11   unanimously concluded that Mr. Guo was engaged in a series of\n\n12   fraudulent crimes and conspiracies, including a racketeering\n\n13   conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and conspiracy to\n\n14   commit securities fraud.\n\n15             I must first consider the history and characteristics\n\n16   of the defendant.\n\n17             Mr. Guo, also known by the name Ho Wan Kwok, was born\n\n18   in 1968 in the People's Republic of China.           He was the seventh\n\n19   of eight brothers born to his father, a miner, and his mother,\n\n20   a homemaker.    His birth occurred shortly after the Cultural\n\n21   Revolution that was launched by Mao Zedong, and Mr. Guo's\n\n22   parents were viewed as enemies of the State.             During his\n\n23   childhood, his family lived in poverty, and Mr. Guo witnessed\n\n24   his family suffer from persecution at the hands of the Chinese\n\n25   Communist Party, which I will refer to as the CCP.             He reports\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    that, as a result, both of his parents suffered from\n\n2    significant mental health issues.\n\n3               Mr. Guo states that between May 1989 and April 1991,\n\n4    he served a 22-month prison term in China, after being charged\n\n5    with subversive activities in connection with his support of\n\n6    the demonstration in Tiananmen Square.           He additionally reports\n\n7    being held in an open cell with other political prisoners and\n\n8    witnessing the execution of dozens of inmates.\n\n9               In 1991, Mr. Guo began his career as a real estate\n\n10   developer.    In about 2000, he immigrated to Hong Kong and\n\n11   became a citizen.        Sixteen years later, fearing political\n\n12   arrest, he fled to England, and in 2017, he entered the United\n\n13   States on a tourist visa.        One month prior to the expiration of\n\n14   his visa, Mr. Guo applied for asylum, and his petition remains\n\n15   pending.\n\n16              Between 2016 and 2018, Mr. Guo claims that he was\n\n17   engaged in a public campaign to, in his words, expose the CCP\n\n18   and support democracy in China.\n\n19              I will now turn to the nature and circumstances of the\n\n20   offense, as well as the need for the sentence imposed to\n\n21   reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the\n\n22   law, provide just punishment for the offense, and protect the\n\n23   public from further crimes of Mr. Guo.\n\n24              Much of Mr. Guo's sentencing submission outlines\n\n25   abuses that he claims he suffered at the hands of the CCP.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    Even crediting these claims, I find that none of them excuse\n\n2    his fraudulent conduct.\n\n3              For at least five years, Mr. Guo participated in a\n\n4    conspiracy to defraud over a thousand victims from around the\n\n5    world.   Relying on his online presence and charismatic\n\n6    personality, Mr. Guo, along with his co-conspirators, targeted\n\n7    his followers by promising them outsized financial returns and\n\n8    benefits for investing in various fraudulent businesses and\n\n9    programs.    Mr. Guo and his conspirators told their victims that\n\n10   the money they contributed would be used to support\n\n11   pro-democracy efforts in China.         However, Mr. Guo and his\n\n12   conspirators misappropriated the money to line their pockets,\n\n13   as well as those of Mr. Guo's family——taking the victims' money\n\n14   and using it to further Mr. Guo's extravagant lifestyle.\n\n15             Mr. Guo was known as \"Boss\" and was in control of the\n\n16   G Enterprise entities.      See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n17   pages 1941 and 1677 to 1678.       He was the face of the business\n\n18   and, through his broadcasts, sought investments from his\n\n19   supporters and made promises to them.          Although Ms. Yvette Wang\n\n20   and Mr. William Je also played a significant role in the\n\n21   conspiracy, Mr. Guo was ultimately the boss and had the final\n\n22   say.\n\n23             Mr. Guo's schemes caused his victims great financial\n\n24   and emotional harm:\n\n25             One victim writes:      \"[Mr.] Guo repeatedly fabricated\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    stories in his broadcasts. . .          He convinced us that investing\n\n2    in his projects was the only way to ensure financial safety.\n\n3    Under this fear and persuasion, I sold my property, redeemed\n\n4    all my long-term investments and life insurance, and invested\n\n5    all my funds into his fraudulent ventures.\"               Statement 168.\n\n6              Another writes:      \"I invested over $120,000——my entire\n\n7    savings from years of sacrifice.         I have no job, and I gave all\n\n8    my money to [Mr.] Guo.      Now, I have no idea how I will sustain\n\n9    myself for the rest of my life or how to face my family.\"\n\n10   Statement 158.\n\n11             Another states:      \"My husband and I were cruelly\n\n12   defrauded of more than $1,500,000——our entire life savings.\n\n13   Because of [Mr. Guo] and his accomplices. . ., we fell from a\n\n14   comfortable life into complete poverty.           My husband had to do\n\n15   hard physical labor at low wages [and] borrow money from\n\n16   others. . .    I had to apply for social assistance. . .              Our\n\n17   whole family almost ended up sleeping on the streets.\"\n\n18   Statement 184.\n\n19             As I noted during Ms. Wang's sentencing, the victims\n\n20   have not only experienced financial hardship, but many have\n\n21   lost relationships with loved ones because of their\n\n22   participation in Mr. Guo's scams.         See Wang Sentencing\n\n23   Transcript pages 56-57.      The Court has received letters from\n\n24   people whose partners left them and from parents whose children\n\n25   no longer talk to them.      These victims and others continue to\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    experience depression and severe psychological distress due to\n\n2    Mr. Guo's actions and the actions of his co-conspirators.\n\n3              One victim writes:      \"I trusted [Mr. Guo] and his\n\n4    associates, which led to a deep sense of personal violation and\n\n5    a prolonged period of distress.         The emotional toll of this\n\n6    betrayal has affected my mental well-being and daily life,\n\n7    which caused me a series of unpredictable consequences such as\n\n8    insurance defaults, family discord and quarrels, personal\n\n9    health and psychological breakdown, [and] career interruption.\"\n\n10   Statement 163A.\n\n11             Another writes:      \"The long-term extreme fear, anxiety,\n\n12   and stress caused me to suffer from severe anxiety disorder and\n\n13   I needed medication to sleep.       In two months, I lost more than\n\n14   40 pounds and my hair began to fall out.\"           Statement 188.\n\n15             Another states:      \"Trust within my family has been\n\n16   badly damaged.     My wife frequently argues with me over this\n\n17   failed investment, and has even threatened to divorce me if we\n\n18   can't recover the money.       This has plunged me into a deep state\n\n19   of guilt and suffering.\"       Statement 190B.\n\n20             I have read countless letters in the record expressing\n\n21   similar sentiments.\n\n22             Mr. Guo preyed on those seeking to bring democracy to\n\n23   China——people who hoped deeply that the political system in\n\n24   China would be challenged.       He also preyed on their deep\n\n25   fears——telling them he provided the best way to keep their\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    money safe from China.      As he took advantage of people's deeply\n\n2    held emotions, Mr. Guo single-mindedly dedicated himself to\n\n3    increasing his own wealth.\n\n4              To this day, despite the jury's verdict and the\n\n5    hundreds of victim statements submitted to the Court, Mr. Guo\n\n6    takes no responsibility for his actions and instead insists,\n\n7    incredibly, that his conduct caused no loss and harmed no one.\n\n8    Meanwhile, he has called upon his supporters to harass and\n\n9    intimidate those who dare to speak out against him.              The\n\n10   seriousness of his crime and the need for deterrence, to\n\n11   protect the public, and to promote respect for the law warrant\n\n12   a serious punishment.\n\n13             Despite the gravity of these offenses, there are\n\n14   several considerations that support a below-guidelines\n\n15   sentence.\n\n16             As I said earlier, I recognize that the loss\n\n17   guidelines were not developed by the Sentencing Commission\n\n18   using an empirical approach, and the guidelines placed undue\n\n19   weight on the loss amount.       See, for example, United States v.\n\n20   Adelson, 441 F.Supp.2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).\n\n21             In addition, I must consider the need to avoid\n\n22   unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar\n\n23   records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.\n\n24             As an initial point, I struggle to compare Mr. Guo's\n\n25   case with any other, given the severity of Mr. Guo's crimes,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    his exploitation of a philanthropic purpose, his history of\n\n2    intimidating his critics, and his continued refusal to accept\n\n3    responsibility.\n\n4              With respect to Mr. Guo's co-conspirator, Ms. Wang, on\n\n5    January 6, 2025, I sentenced her to 120 months' imprisonment,\n\n6    the statutory maximum penalty.\n\n7              I note, however, that due to the statutory maximum\n\n8    penalty, the applicable guidelines range in Ms. Wang's case was\n\n9    120 months' imprisonment——roughly only 5 percent of the\n\n10   guidelines range applicable here.         See Wang Sentencing\n\n11   Transcript at page 13, line 3.          And although she played an\n\n12   important role in the fraudulent scheme, she ultimately\n\n13   reported to Mr. Guo, the boss.          See Id. at page 57,\n\n14   lines 19-23.\n\n15             Moreover, Ms. Wang accepted responsibility, as\n\n16   evidenced by her guilty plea.       See Id. at page 58, lines 16 to\n\n17   17.   By contrast, Mr. Guo, to this day, denies responsibility\n\n18   and exhibits no remorse for the harm that he has caused to so\n\n19   many people.\n\n20             Finally, I do consider the length of Mr. Guo's current\n\n21   confinement.    Mr. Guo has spent over three years at the\n\n22   Metropolitan Detention Center.          I recognize that the conditions\n\n23   of confinement there are uniquely difficult, which warrants a\n\n24   shorter sentence than might otherwise be imposed.              See United\n\n25   States v. Chavez, 710 F.Supp.3d 227, 234-35 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              I conclude, for the reasons stated, that a sentence\n\n2    below the guidelines range is warranted.\n\n3              Mr. Guo, please rise for the imposition of sentence.\n\n4              It is the judgment of this Court that with respect to\n\n5    Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and\n\n6    Eleven, you are sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment.              The\n\n7    terms of imprisonment on these nine counts shall be served\n\n8    concurrently to each other.\n\n9              I do not impose a term of supervised release because,\n\n10   pursuant to guidelines Section 5D1.1(c), courts should not\n\n11   impose supervised release in a case in which it is not required\n\n12   by statute and the defendant is likely to be deported after\n\n13   serving his term of imprisonment.\n\n14             I shall not impose a fine because probation does not\n\n15   recommend one, but you must pay the mandatory special\n\n16   assessment of $900, which is due immediately.\n\n17             I shall not order restitution because of the\n\n18   complexity of the case and the number of victims.             I instead\n\n19   grant the government's motion to authorize the United States to\n\n20   compensate victims with finally forfeited assets through a\n\n21   remission process, as restitution would be impractical in this\n\n22   case.   18, United States Code, Section 3663A(c)(3).\n\n23             We'll take a pause at this time.          You may be seated.\n\n24             (Recess)\n\n25             THE COURT:     Please be seated.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Earlier, I stated that Mr. Guo's total term of\n\n2    incarceration is 360 months.       I want to clarify that with\n\n3    respect to Counts One, Three, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and\n\n4    Eleven, I'm imposing 240 months' imprisonment, to run\n\n5    concurrently with each other and the terms of imprisonment on\n\n6    all other counts.\n\n7              With respect to Count Two, I'm imposing a term of\n\n8    360 months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the\n\n9    sentences imposed on all other counts.\n\n10             And with respect to Count Four, I'm imposing a\n\n11   sentence of 60 months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with\n\n12   the sentence imposed on Count Two and to run consecutively with\n\n13   the sentences imposed on all other counts.\n\n14             Mr. Guo, I'm required to remind you that:\n\n15             As a result of committing the offense alleged in Count\n\n16   One of the S3 superseding indictment, you shall forfeit to the\n\n17   United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,\n\n18   Section 1963:\n\n19             Any interest acquired or maintained in violation of\n\n20   Section 1962;\n\n21             Any interest in, security of, claim against, or\n\n22   property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of\n\n23   influence over, any enterprise the defendants and their\n\n24   co-conspirators established, operated, controlled, conducted,\n\n25   or participated in the conduct of, in violation of\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    Section 1962; and\n\n2              Any property constituting, derived from, any proceeds\n\n3    obtained, directly or indirectly, from the racketeering\n\n4    activity charged in Count One.\n\n5              As a result of committing the wire fraud and\n\n6    securities fraud offenses alleged in Counts Two, Four, and\n\n7    Seven through Eleven of the indictment, you shall forfeit to\n\n8    the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,\n\n9    Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code,\n\n10   Section 2461(c), any and all property, real and personal, that\n\n11   constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the\n\n12   commission of said offenses, including but not limited to a sum\n\n13   of money in United States currency representing the amount of\n\n14   proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses.\n\n15             As a result of committing the money laundering offense\n\n16   alleged in Count Three of the indictment, you shall forfeit to\n\n17   the United States, pursuant to 18, United States Code,\n\n18   Section 982(a)(1), any and all property, real and personal,\n\n19   involved in said offenses, or any property traceable to such\n\n20   property, including but not limited to a sum of money in United\n\n21   States currency representing the amount of property involved in\n\n22   said offenses.\n\n23             On August 11, 2025, the Court entered a preliminary\n\n24   order of forfeiture in this case.        Mr. Guo filed numerous\n\n25   objections to that order, which I reviewed carefully.              Earlier\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    today I issued an opinion addressing Mr. Guo's objections.\n\n2              Mr. Guo, you are required to forfeit the property\n\n3    listed in the preliminary order of forfeiture.            You are also\n\n4    required to forfeit the property listed in the supplemental\n\n5    order of forfeiture filed by the government at ECF No. 790.\n\n6    The order of forfeiture includes a money judgment of\n\n7    $889 million against you.\n\n8              I'm aware that numerous third-party petitions have\n\n9    been sent to the Court seeking to assert claims under 21,\n\n10   United States Code, 853(n).       The Court will provide further\n\n11   guidance on the handling of these petitions in due course,\n\n12   given the sentence imposed today and the Court's resolution of\n\n13   Mr. Guo's numerous objections to the Court's forfeiture order.\n\n14             Does the government know of any legal reason why this\n\n15   sentence as stated should not be imposed?\n\n16             MR. FINKEL:     It does not, your Honor.\n\n17             THE COURT:     Does the defense have any objection to the\n\n18   imposition of the sentence as stated?\n\n19             MS. SARAFA:     Just we would reiterate our prior\n\n20   objections, your Honor.\n\n21             THE COURT:     The sentence as stated is imposed.\n\n22             That is the sentence of this Court.            Mr. Guo, you have\n\n23   a right to appeal your conviction and sentence.             The notice of\n\n24   appeal must be filed within 14 days of the judgment of\n\n25   conviction.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              If you are not able to pay the costs of an appeal, you\n\n2    may apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.             If you\n\n3    request, the Clerk of Court will prepare and file a notice of\n\n4    appeal on your behalf.\n\n5              Are there any further applications?\n\n6              MR. FINKEL:     One brief one, your Honor.         On\n\n7    March 17th, the government filed an application for a limited\n\n8    unsealing of the petitions received by the clerk's office.\n\n9    It's at Docket 818.      This will enable the government to compare\n\n10   what the clerk's office has received to what the government has\n\n11   received by individuals seeking to file petitions so that the\n\n12   petition process and forfeiture process with respect to\n\n13   third-party claims can move forward.         I don't know if the Court\n\n14   has had an opportunity to review that or if the Court will\n\n15   order that.    We can certainly provide again the proposed order\n\n16   for that.\n\n17             THE COURT:     Yes.   Is there any objection?\n\n18             MS. SARAFA:     No, your Honor, although with respect to\n\n19   853(n) petitions, I do want to note that in our letter dated\n\n20   February 24, 2026, we sought an order directing the government\n\n21   to produce to defense counsel copies of all the petitions that\n\n22   they've received either pursuant to 853(n) or that could be\n\n23   construed as pursuant to 853(n), and I don't believe there's\n\n24   been a ruling on that.\n\n25             THE COURT:     First, government's application is\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    granted.\n\n2               Mr. Finkel, on the application just made by the\n\n3    defense?\n\n4               MR. FINKEL:     The government objects.        The defendant\n\n5    has no right to that information.         The forfeiture as to the\n\n6    defendant is final.       The defendant has stated previously that\n\n7    he does not assert a personal interest in any of the specific\n\n8    property that is subject to forfeiture.           That is what those\n\n9    petitions are about——the specific property that the defendant\n\n10   himself has no interest in, by order of this Court and by his\n\n11   own admission.     The defendant's request should be denied.\n\n12              THE COURT:     The application of the defense is denied.\n\n13              Are there any further applications?\n\n14              MR. FINKEL:     Not from the government.        Thank you.\n\n15              MS. SARAFA:     Yes, your Honor.      Excuse me, your Honor.\n\n16   We also, in our letter dated June 25, 2026, ECF No. 853, we\n\n17   requested production to the defense of unredacted copies of\n\n18   certain FBI 302s.        We specified the Bates range for the\n\n19   documents that we requested unredacted copies of, and I don't\n\n20   believe there's been a ruling on that request.\n\n21              THE COURT:     Mr. Finkel?\n\n22              MR. FINKEL:     I think there was a ruling on that\n\n23   request.    Your Honor issued several rulings in the last\n\n24   couple of days, and one a few months ago, as well as other\n\n25   rulings regarding discovery.        The government has met its\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    disclosure obligations in this case, as your Honor explicitly\n\n2    held in a decision I think you issued yesterday.             Rule 16 is\n\n3    over, discovery is over, this case before the district court\n\n4    with respect to Mr. Guo is finished.         It should be denied.\n\n5              THE COURT:     The application is denied.\n\n6              MS. SARAFA:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n7              Two other brief matters.       Just to let the Court know,\n\n8    we do intend to make a request to make all of the sealed\n\n9    submissions part of the record for appeal, and I believe we'll\n\n10   do that in writing following today's proceeding.\n\n11             And then finally, with respect to designation, we\n\n12   would ask the Court to recommend in the judgment that Mr. Guo\n\n13   be designated to the BOP facility in Danbury, and if that is\n\n14   not available for any reason, to designate him to Fairton.\n\n15             THE COURT:     Does the government have any objection?\n\n16             MR. FINKEL:     Your Honor, the government takes no\n\n17   position on this, but it is my understanding that it is the\n\n18   BOP's preference that the defendant request a region as opposed\n\n19   to particular facilities, as it's difficult for them to\n\n20   accommodate specific facility requests.\n\n21             MS. SARAFA:     Your Honor, I——in our collective\n\n22   experience, there have been many recommendations to specific\n\n23   facilities, and I believe the BOP will do its best to\n\n24   accommodate the recommendation and designate within the\n\n25   relevant region, should that specific designation be\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    unavailable.\n\n2              THE COURT:     So the application is granted.           I will\n\n3    make that recommendation.\n\n4              Any further applications?\n\n5              MS. SARAFA:     Nothing further from the defense, your\n\n6    Honor.\n\n7              THE COURT:     Very well.     That brings our sentencing\n\n8    hearing to an end.       The matter is adjourned.\n\n9              ALL COUNSEL:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n10                                      o0o\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300","body_zh":"Q6T1GUOS\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\n     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n------------------------------x\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）,\nv.                                23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nMILES GUO（郭文贵）,\nDefendant（被告人）.                      量刑听证\n     ------------------------------x\nNew York, N.Y.\n                                                    2026年6月29日\n上午11:05\n主审法官：\nHON. ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯阁下）,\n地区法院法官\n出庭人员\nJAY CLAYTON（杰伊·克莱顿）\n          United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官）\n     代理人：RYAN B. FINKEL, ESQ.（瑞安·B·芬克尔律师）\nMICAH F. FERGENSON, ESQ.（米卡·F·费尔根森律师）\n          JULIANA N. MURRAY, ESQ.（朱莉安娜·N·默里律师）\nJUSTIN HORTON, ESQ.（贾斯汀·霍顿律师）\n          Assistant United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）\nSARAFA ZELLAN PLLC\n被告人代理律师\n     代理人：MELINDA M. SARAFA, ESQ.（梅琳达·M·萨拉法律师）\nLAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA L. DRATEL, P.C.\n被告人代理律师\n     代理人：JOSHUA L. DRATEL, ESQ.（约书亚·L·德拉特尔律师）\nDOAR RIECK KALEY & MACK\n被告人代理律师\n     代理人：JOHN F. KALEY, ESQ.（约翰·F·凯利律师）\n其他在场人员：DAVID NAGUIB（大卫·纳吉布），USAO（联邦检察官办公室）律师助理专员\nSTEPHANIE LIU（刘斯蒂芬妮），口译员（普通话）\n                       I CHING NG（吴宜静），口译员（普通话）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（南区法院书记记录公司）\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n法庭：早上好。我们在此审理美利坚合众国诉郭文贵案。\n请各位代理律师进行出庭登记。\n芬克尔先生：早上好，法官阁下。瑞安·芬克尔、朱莉安娜·默里、米卡·费尔根森、贾斯汀·霍顿，以及我们办公室的律师助理大卫·纳吉布。\n萨拉法女士：早上好，法官阁下。梅琳达·萨拉法、约翰·凯利和约书亚·德拉特尔代表被告人郭文贵出庭，他目前不在场。\n法庭：请就座。\n法警局通知我，郭先生被耽搁了几个小时，大约在下午1点与我们会合，因此我们休庭至该时间。\n（休庭）\n（第3-30页依法院命令予以封存）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n（下午4:01）\n法庭：下午好。本案现在进行美利坚合众国诉郭文贵案的量刑程序。\n请各位进行出庭登记。\n芬克尔先生：好的，法官阁下。瑞安·芬克尔、朱莉安娜·默里、米卡·费尔根森和贾斯汀·霍顿代表美国政府出庭。在我们律师席就座的还有我们办公室的律师助理大卫·纳吉布。\n萨拉法女士：下午好，法官阁下。梅琳达·萨拉法、约翰·凯利、约书亚·德拉特尔代表郭文贵出庭，他也坐在律师席上。\n法庭：请就座。\n我现在向辩方提出这个问题。此时将由谁代表郭先生发言？\n萨拉法女士：法官阁下，我们进行了职责分工，因此不同的律师将就诉讼程序的不同部分发言。德拉特尔先生将就判决前调查报告进行陈述。我将就郭先生的情况以及我们的量刑陈述向法庭发言。\n法庭：德拉特尔先生，你阅读过判决前调查报告了吗？\n德拉特尔先生：读过了，法官阁下。\n法庭：你是否与郭先生讨论过该报告？\n德拉特尔先生：讨论过。\n法庭：报告是否为他翻译了？\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n德拉特尔先生：是的。\n法庭：郭先生，你的律师说他已经阅读了判决前调查报告，并且该报告已为你进行了翻译。你阅读判决前调查报告了吗？\n被告人：（用英文）读过了，法官阁下。\n法庭：你是否与你的律师讨论过该报告？\n被告人：（通过口译员）是的。\n法庭：政府方是否审阅了判决前调查报告？\n芬克尔先生：审阅了，法官阁下。\n法庭：郭先生对该报告提出了多项事实异议。\n“量刑阶段的事实认定依据优势证据标准做出。”参见 United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 595 (2d Cir. 1999)。\n郭先生申请举行证据听证会，即法蒂科听证会（Fatico hearing），以解决他对报告的事实争议，特别是在涉案损失金额的计算方面。\n法蒂科听证会是一种判决前的证据听证会，在此期间允许各方当事人就与量刑相关的争议事实问题提交证据和论点。参见 United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979)。\n“正当程序条款（Due Process Clause）和联邦《量刑指南》（Sentencing Guidelines）均未要求地区法院在解决量刑争议时必须举行全面的证据听证会。”United States v. Phillips, 431 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2005)；以及 United States v. Litwock, 611 Fed. App'x 12, 16 (2d Cir. 2015)。所要求的仅仅是被告人拥有“反驳政府指控的某种机会”。United States v. Slevin, 106 F.3d 1086, 1091 (2d Cir. 1996)。\n我仔细审阅了郭先生阐述其对判决前调查报告异议的量刑呈件。我也仔细审阅了本案的大量案卷记录，包括在为期两个月的庭审中出示的证据。在完成这些审阅后，我的结论是，无需举行证据听证会，我即可做出量刑所必需的事实认定。\n我将首先处理郭先生与损失金额无关的事实争议。\n第一，根据我对政府提交的230多份受害者陈述以及庭审证言的审阅，郭先生提出的没有受害者的异议被驳回。\n第二，我驳回郭先生关于其在所涉犯罪中未声称代表“慈善、教育、宗教或政治组织或政府机构”行事的说法。\n例如，郭先生创立了法治公会（Rule of Law Society），并告诉公众他将用这些资金来帮助中国人民。\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n一名受害者珍妮·李（Jenny Li）在庭审中作证称，她为了资助郭先生的投资项目办理了房屋二次抵押贷款，而这一投资始于向法治公会捐赠的6,000美元；在此之前，她相信了郭先生未兑现的承诺，即郭先生自己会先向该公会捐款一亿美元。（例如，参见庭审笔录第1170至1180页，以及第1211至1213页。）\n在庭审中，该公会的前总裁兼财务主管卡琳·迈斯特雷洛（Karin Maistrello）作证称，尽管收到了数千万美元的捐款，该组织在帮助中国人民方面却“毫无作为”。（参见庭审笔录第423至424页、471页，以及第3317至3320页；以及政府方物证WA30，2019-2023年捐款汇总。）\n证人乐周（Le Zhou，一名受害者）和雅丽（Ya Li，郭先生的亲密助手之一）的庭审证言也表明，郭先生代表一个政治组织——即“新中国联邦”（New Federal State of China）——行事，例如通过农场贷款计划（Farm Loans Program）募集资金。（例如，参见庭审笔录第221至227页以及第1376至1377页。）\n第三，我驳回郭先生的异议，即其欺诈计划和洗钱行为不涉及“虚构实体”或“空壳公司”。\n在对郭先生的同案共谋者王雁平（Yvette Wang）进行量刑时，基于郭先生庭审中的证据，我认定两人作为其计划的一部分“设立了空壳公司”。\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n（参见王雁平量刑笔录第56页第6-7行，归档于ECF No. 491。）我今天重申这一认定。\n第四，郭先生称，他并未从至少一家金融机构获取超过一百万美元的总收入。该异议被驳回。我认定郭先生从犯罪行为中“必定获利至少100万美元”。United States v. Constantinescu, 147 F.4th 299, 316 (2d Cir. 25)。例如，我认定郭先生及其同谋利用G|Club资金支付郭先生及其家人的个人开支，包括购买价值数百万美元的豪华游艇和豪宅。（例如，参见庭审笔录第1957至1959页、3064至3065页，以及3701至3703页。）\n第五，我驳回郭先生关于其在定罪罪行中未起到组织或领导作用的主张。证人作证称郭先生是“最高老板”，他是各G系实体的代言人，并且拥有最终决定权。（例如，参见庭审笔录第421、1376、1941、1995至1996、2978、2980和3162页。）实际上，陪审团裁定郭先生罪名项一（Count One）成立，该罪名项指控他是G企业（G Enterprise）的领导者并对其实施指挥。\n第六，我认定，郭先生更有可能是在与本案的调查、起诉或量刑相关的过程中，故意阻碍或妨碍、或企图阻碍或妨碍了司法公正：\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n举例而言，庭审证言显示，郭先生参与编制了一份批评他的前支持者的“黑名单”，随后郭先生在网络上公开了他们的个人身份信息。（例如，参见庭审笔录第274至276页以及第1487至1491页。）多份受害者陈述提到了人们因公开发声反对郭先生而遭受的网络骚扰和恐吓。（例如，参见陈述第3、4、106、113、175、190B、209号。）\n此外，从郭先生的一部手机中提取的照片以及庭审中关于其在直播中所作言论的证言均证明，郭先生促成并协助了对其破产财产受托人（Trustee）的骚扰。这种骚扰包括在受托人家外及其女儿工作的学校外进行抗议，并打出带有侮辱性图像的标语，呼应郭先生在直播中称受托人是“中共走狗”的言论。（例如，参见庭审笔录第252至259页、4091页以及第4214至4218页；以及政府方物证VI 194和1B124F。）郭先生甚至指示证人扔掉受托人发出的传票。（参见庭审笔录第1498至1499页。）\n因此，我驳回郭先生的异议。\n我现在处理与损失金额相关的事实争议。\n判决前调查报告认定的损失金额超过\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n5.5亿美元。郭先生辩称不存在损失金额。\n在开始进行事实认定之前，我将做出几点重要的说明。\n第一，根据量刑指南损失金额表的最高档，我只需认定损失金额超过5.5亿美元，即可适用缓刑监督官计算的量刑指南加重调整。（参见 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(P)。）\n第二，假设所有其他加重调整均适用，由于我将计算出的总罪行等级大大超过了指南下的最高总罪行等级，即使损失金额计算仅为350万美元，也将导致相同的适用量刑指南范围。（参见 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J)。）\n第三，我赞同我的部分同僚所表达的若干担忧，即量刑指南对欺诈案件中所涉及的损失金额赋予了过大的权重。例如，参见 United States v. Emmenegger, 329 F.Supp.2d 416, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)；United States v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, 22 Civ. 673，量刑笔录第6至7页。\n最后，尽管与损失相关的事实认定必须依据优势证据标准确立，但第二巡回区法院曾表示，法院“无需精确确定损失，而‘只需根据现有信息对损失做出合理估计’”。United States v. Uddin, 551 F.3d 176, 180 (2d Cir. 2009)。\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记员有限责任公司）\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n《量刑指南》（Guidelines）第 2B1.1(b)(1) 条将“损失”（loss）定义为“实际损失”（actual loss）与“意图造成的损失”（intended loss）中的较大者。“实际损失”定义为“因犯罪行为造成的合理可预见的金钱损害”。“意图造成的损失”定义为“被告人故意企图造成的金钱损害”。“合理可预见之损害”是指“被告人知晓或在当时情况下合理应当知晓是该犯罪潜在结果”的损害。\n\n在审判中，政府方专家 Paul Hinton（保罗·欣顿）估算，有 13 亿美元的个人款项流入了与该敲诈勒索犯罪集团关联的银行账户；陪审团对罪名项一（Count One）的裁决表明，这属于欺诈的结果。参见，例如，《审判记录》（Trial Transcript）第 4430 页至第 4332 页；以及政府方证据 Z26（Government Exhibit Z26）。\n\n郭先生基于若干理由对政府方的损失估算提出异议。他陈述称，“流入 G 系列实体（G-Series entities）的资金”并不能确立损失，因为该计算方法不当地纳入了被判无罪的行为，未能计入赎回、退款或重复计算，并且“错误地计入了否认自己受骗的个人的资金”。\n\n没有证据表明投资者在欺诈行为被揭露之前获得了任何有价值的物品或利益。因此，流入各 G 企业实体（G Enterprise entities）的资金是对损失数额的合理估算。参见，例如，United States v. Stitsky, 536 Fed. App'x 98, 110-112 (2d Cir. 2013)。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n即便我从 13 亿美元的数额中扣除郭先生主张源自被判无罪行为的 4.11 亿美元 GTV 收益，损失估算仍将远超 5.5 亿美元。参见政府方证据 Z26 第 35 页；亦参见在 ECF No. 716-2 处归档的 FBI Special Agent Anthony Alecci（联邦调查局特别探员安东尼·阿莱奇）宣誓书第 18(c) 段。\n\n我注意到，这一扣除是保守的，因为 GTV 的资金流入是被定罪的敲诈勒索共谋罪行的一部分。例如，证人 Le Zhou（周乐）作证称，要加入 G|Club，个人首先必须购买 GTV 股票。参见《审判记录》第 232 页，以及第 1376 页和第 4478 页。换言之，流入 GTV 的资金与作为整体的敲诈勒索犯罪集团以及其他欺诈计划均有关联。\n\n其次，我驳回郭先生关于损失数额应当扣减其主张适用的“回报”（returns）或各项“抵免”（credits）的主张。\n\n首先，第二巡回区法院（Second Circuit）已认定，“欺诈案件中的损失包括被非法占有的财产数额，即使全部或部分财产已被归还”。United States v. Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244, 251 (2d Cir. 2002)。\n\n此外，基于审判中的证词以及各方提交的文件，我并未发现郭先生的受害者获得了任何有价值之物——或者郭先生意图给予他们任何有价值之物——从而证明折减损失\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n数额是正当的。参见，例如，《审判记录》第 409 页至第 410 页周乐的证词、第 1211 页至第 1213 页 Jenny Li（李珍妮）的证词，以及第 1386 页至第 1387 页 Ya Li（李雅）的证词。\n\n亦无证据表明郭先生在犯罪行为被发觉之前归还了受害者的款项，或向受害者提供了抵押担保物。参见 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 附注 3(D)(i) 及 (ii)。\n\n受害者周乐和 Wei Chen（陈巍）的证人证言以及书面受害者陈述显示，即使在郭先生承诺他们可随时提取资金的情况下，个人申请退款却未能收到。参见，例如，《审判记录》第 270 页至第 272 页、第 4504 页至第 4505 页；以及第 168 号和第 221 号受害者陈述。\n\n至于潜在的重复计算，郭先生仅提出了一项未经证实的陈述，称 G|Club “接受”了 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）资金作为“G Club 会员资格的支付方式”。他并未提供任何确立该事实的证据，也未估算 G|Club 的资金流入中可能归因于向 Himalaya Exchange 付款的比例。\n\n此外，即便我出于重复计算的顾虑完全排除流入 G|CLUBS 的资金，仅流入农场贷款项目（Farm Loan Program）和 Himalaya Exchange 的资金就已超过 5.5 亿美元，足以支持我的损失计算。\n\n最后，在确定“损失”时，我并不考虑个人\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n主观上是否将自己视为“受害者”。\n\n个人对其受害者身份的主观意见并不决定郭先生的计划是否属于欺诈，因此，其主观意见对“实际损失”或“意图造成的损失”的计算均无影响。\n\n我依据优势证据标准认定，郭先生意图欺骗其受害者并获取其钱财用于个人牟利，而非用于其承诺的各项倡议，并且他的受害者会进行相应付款是合理可预见的。因此，实际损失和意图造成的损失均超过 5.5 亿美元。\n\n综上所述，我驳回郭先生的异议，并认定政府方的资金流入计算方法可作为归因于其罪行的损失的“合理估算”。基于政府方对流入各 G 企业实体的资金估算，我依据优势证据标准认定损失数额至少为 5.5 亿美元。\n\n郭先生的量刑意见书对判决前调查报告（presentence report）的各个段落提出了 50 多项额外异议。我已仔细审查了其中每一项异议，并认定它们要么是重提已被驳回的相同异议，要么与陪审团的裁决相抵触，要么最终不会影响我的判决。\n\n辩方对判决前调查报告是否存在\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n尚未阐明的关于事实准确性的异议？\n\nDRATEL 律师：法官阁下，只是——我们显然要重申我们书面提出的那些异议，但我们只是想根据两项后续进展进行补充。\n\n其一是法院驳回 Fatico 听证会（Fatico hearing）申请的裁定，即案件表编号 Docket No. 855；以及今天早些时候批准没收命令（order of forfeiture）的裁定，即 858 号，我们认为这强化了两个因素。一是基于目前的记录无法确定损失数额；二是需要进行 Fatico 听证会。原因是，由于法院目前尚未判定 853(n) 申请（853(n) petitions）的有效性，而我们认为——我知道法院持不同看法，但我们认为——如果某人没有受骗，这就不属于犯罪客体的一部分；因此，它不能作为损失数字的一部分。所以我们有来自——这仅仅是两批投资者，代表大约 7,000 名投资者——超过 1 亿美元的款项，他们持有的立场是没有发生欺诈；他们的钱不是欺诈的一部分。这会在该方面减少损失数字。至于某些冲抵和其他部分，《审判记录》以及法院向陪审团作出的指示（即成文法规定），即无论他是否有任何收益、无论他是否赚了一分钱，都无关紧要。因此，陪审团的裁决并未就损失数额确立任何事实。而根据我们的分析，审判证词\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n会将该损失数额限制在 150 万美元以下。而且，政府方同样表示、且法院在今天的没收裁定中也认同本案过于复杂而不宜判处赔偿（restitution）这一事实，再次印证了在目前的记录下且没有 Fatico 听证会的情况下无法确立损失数额。\n\n此外，基于我们在文书中阐述的理由，我们亦认为本案应当适用更高的证明标准。\n\n谢谢法官阁下。\n\n法庭：政府方对判决前调查报告中的事实认定没有异议，对吗？\n\nFINKEL 检察官：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：由于没有进一步的异议，我采纳该报告中的事实陈述。该报告应作为记录的一部分并予以封存。如果提起上诉，上诉律师无需向本法院另行申请即可查阅该封存报告。\n\n虽然法院不再必须强制遵循《量刑指南》，但我们在量刑时仍必须考虑适用的指南，而为了做到这一点，我们有必要准确计算量刑幅度。\n\n在历时两个月的陪审团审判之后——\n\nDRATEL 律师：法官阁下，对不起。我感到抱歉。我遗漏了一项我认为法院在其异议摘要中可能尚未讨论的内容，那是关于\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n第 116 段，即适用于涉及精密复杂洗钱（sophisticated money laundering）罪行的第 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) 条指南款项，我们对此明确提出了异议。所以我不知道法院在其审查中是否涵盖了该项。\n\n法庭：涵盖了。我稍后会对此进行说明。\n\nDRATEL 律师：哦，好的。谢谢法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n正如我刚才所说，在历时两个月的陪审团审判后，被告人被判定犯有第三份替代起诉书（third superseding indictment）十二项罪名中的九项罪名：\n\n罪名项一：敲诈勒索共谋；\n\n罪名项二：共谋实施电信欺诈或银行欺诈；\n\n罪名项三：洗钱共谋；\n\n罪名项四：共谋实施证券欺诈；\n\n罪名项七：电信欺诈，与农场贷款项目相关；\n\n罪名项八：证券欺诈，与农场贷款项目相关；\n\n罪名项九：电信欺诈，与 G|CLUBS 相关；\n\n罪名项十：证券欺诈，与 G|CLUBS 相关；以及\n\n罪名项十一：电信欺诈，与 Himalaya Exchange 相关。\n\n陪审团宣告郭先生在三项罪名上无罪：\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n罪名项五：电信欺诈，与 GTV 私募（GTV Private Placement）相关；\n\n罪名项六：证券欺诈，与 GTV 私募相关；以及\n\n罪名项十二：非法货币交易。\n\n判决前调查报告计算出的总罪行等级（total offense level）为 55，根据《量刑指南》第 5 章 A 部分应用注释 2，由于罪行等级超过 43，该报告将总罪行等级视为 43。该报告计算出的前科犯罪记录类别（criminal history category）为 I，从而得出的指南量刑为终身监禁。然而，根据指南第 5G1.2(b) 条，此处适用的指南量刑受到法定最高授权监禁期限的限制，该报告计算出的该期限为 2100 个月，即 175 年。该报告计算出的罚金幅度为 50,000 美元至 5,000,000 美元。\n\n政府方计算出的指南幅度相同。\n\n郭先生对判决前调查报告的指南分析提出异议。我现在依次回应他的各项异议：\n\n第一，正如本次诉讼程序早先所讨论的，郭先生主张不存在损失数额。基于我已经陈述的理由，我发现记录中有充分的支持证明损失数额超过 5.5 亿美元，并适用指南第 2B1.1(b)(1)(P) 条规定的增加 30 个等级的加重处罚。\n\n第二，郭先生主张政府方尚未证明\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\nQ6T1GUOS\n受害者超过五名。鉴于政府提交的 230 多份受害者陈述，以及反映郭先生欺诈计划惊人广度的庭审记录，我同意缓刑监督官（probation）的意见，并根据第 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) 条适用 2 级加重调整，因为受害者至少有 10 名。\n\n第三，基于我已陈述的理由，我同意缓刑监督官的意见，认定郭先生代表慈善、教育、宗教或政治组织行事，并根据第 2B1.1(b)(9)(A) 条适用 2 级加重调整。\n\n第四，与缓刑监督官一致，我根据第 2B1.1(b)(10) 条适用 2 级加重调整，因为该罪行“涉及复杂手段”——即使用“虚假实体”和“空壳公司”，以及捏造虚假加密货币。参见例如《庭审记录》（Trial Transcript）第 3657 至 3666 页；另见第 2667 至 2668 页、第 2671 页及第 2673 至 2674 页。\n\n第五，我同意缓刑监督官的意见，根据第 2S.1(b)(3) 条适用 2 级加重调整，因为郭先生根据《美国法典》（United States Code）第 18 编第 1956 条被判定犯有洗钱罪，且该罪行涉及“复杂洗钱”——即使用“虚假实体”和“空壳公司”。\n\n第六，基于我已陈述的理由，我根据第 3B1.1 条适用 4 级加重调整，因为郭先生是该项涉及五名或五名以上参与者的犯罪活动的“组织者或领导者”。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n涉及五名或五名以上参与者。\n\n第七，我根据第 3C1.1 条适用 2 级妨碍司法公正加重调整，因为郭先生“在针对本案定罪罪行的调查、起诉或量刑中，故意妨碍或阻碍……司法行政”。正如我之前所论述的，我根据优势证据认定，郭先生通过为其批评者建立“黑名单”并将其个人身份信息分享给具有骚扰行为惯常模式的支持者，从而恐吓潜在的配合者或证人。参见例如《庭审记录》第 1533 页第 12-17 行。此外，我认定郭先生直接和间接地促成了一场骚扰活动，以阻止其破产财产的受托人（Trustee）查封郭先生的财产并调查其财务状况，以便其欺诈受害者能够获得偿付。\n\n根据我对《量刑指南》（sentencing guidelines）的独立评估，我认定罪行等级为 55 级，鉴于 43 级为最高法定等级，我将其按 43 级处理；犯罪前科类别为 I 级；由此得出的量刑指南建议刑期因法定最高刑限制而为 2100 个月监禁。我还计算出 50,000 美元至 500 万美元的罚金范围。\n\n现在我听取双方的意见。\n\n政府方是否希望就\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n量刑发表意见？\n\nFINKEL 先生：是的，法官阁下。我还想向法官阁下说明，现场至少有一名受害者希望陈词。\n\n法庭：我稍后会允许该名人士发言。\n\nFINKEL 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：实际上，你知道吗，我认为现在就让该名受害者上前陈词会更好。\n\nFINKEL 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：据我所知，政府已确定了一名希望陈词的受害者。\n\n在我们进行受害者陈词之前，我想解释适用于受害者陈词的相关法律。《犯罪受害者权利法案》（Crime Victims' Rights Act）将犯罪受害者定义为因联邦罪行的实施而受到直接且必然损害的人。18, United States Code, Section 3771(e)。换言之，只有直接且必然受到郭先生及其罪行损害的人，才属于受害者。\n\n对于任何希望陈词的人，在您开始之前，我将问您两个问题：(1) 您的名字是什么？以及 (2) 您是否是郭先生罪行的受害者？如果您声明自己不是郭先生罪行的受害者，您将不被允许发言。每位陈词时间最多两分钟。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n那么，您可以传唤您确定的那位人士。\n\nFINKEL 先生：好的，法官阁下。是 Chen 女士。请她上前。\n\n法庭：请她走到发言台前。\n\nFINKEL 先生：在她上前的同时，法官阁下，我可能漏掉了——很抱歉——但法官阁下关于基础罪行等级的认定，是否与 PSR（判决前调查报告）中基础罪行等级为 7 级的建议一致？\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nCHEN 女士：我的名字是 Wei Chen（陈薇）。我是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）欺诈案的受害者，我曾于 2024 年 6 月出庭作证。\n\n我知道只允许两分钟。但是，我准备的内容我认为超过了两分钟。我想知道是否可以让我——\n\n法庭：我希望您控制您的发言时间。所以请您简明扼要。\n\nCHEN 女士：好的。我会很快。\n\n法官阁下，感谢给我这个机会。这场欺诈摧毁了我的生活和我的家庭。它不仅掠夺了金钱，还夺走了我们的安全感；夺走了我们的内心安宁；夺走了我们的希望；夺走了我们的生命与人生中最美好的岁月。它造成了一种持续的心灵负担，感觉像是一种无休止的折磨。而且这个问题并没有结束。我们每一天、每一小时都生活在其中。那是焦虑、\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n悔恨、对家人的愧疚、失眠的夜晚，以及在失去多年的积蓄和辛勤劳动成果后试图在经济上维持生存的持续压力。而且这种损害超越了个人层面。它影响到家庭；影响到孩子，他们的教育、他们的未来；影响到年迈的家庭成员，他们的照料和生活的稳定。每一个受害者背后都是一整个家庭。他们的生活受到了极其严重的破坏和毁灭。\n\n法官阁下，这场欺诈特别具有危害性的一个方面是其随时间推移而展开的方式。那是一个接一个的项目，我们一次又一次地被鼓动付出越来越多。起初，我们使用的是自己辛勤赚来的积蓄，但随着时间的推移，我们被逼陷入债务。临近 2021 年底，该欺诈带着紧迫感、施压以及巨额回报的承诺推出了新项目，迫使我们以高利率借贷了近 400,000 美元。我们承担了这笔债务，因为我们相信了回报很快就会到来并能让我们偿还债务的虚假承诺。然而，这些承诺都是虚假的，自 2021 年 12 月以来，那笔贷款已累积了大约 300,000 美元的利息。它每天都在以令人窒息且深感压力的方式持续增长。因此在过去的十年里，这种损害并未成为过去；它延续到了现在。它塑造了我们今天的生活，并影响着我们的明天。\n\n我们曾经是一个幸福的家庭。幸福已经荡然无存，而且很难再找回。\n\n更令人痛苦的是，被告人\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n继续否认这项欺诈。他的支持者继续散布虚假信息，并继续攻击站出来的受害者。自从我作证以来，我遭遇了攻击，其中一些攻击让我对自己的安全感到恐惧。这使得伤害更加沉重。保持沉默本会更容易，但我选择在两年后重新站在这里发言。我选择做我认为正确的事情，即使这很痛苦，即使这感觉不安全。我站在这里是因为受害者的权利被拖延和剥夺得太久了。尽管公开发言会让我面临更多攻击，但我站在这里是为了向法庭和公众陈述由该欺诈所造成的真实损害的真相——由这场欺诈本身造成、由运作它的欺诈网络造成、由量刑拖延造成，以及在资金归还给欺诈的真正受害者之前任何未来的拖延造成的损害，这些真正的受害者每天都在承受着 Miles Guo 的犯罪行为带来的伤害。量刑的拖延延长了损害，因为对于我的家庭而言，时间并非无足轻重。在没有实质性经济救济的情况下，每一个多出来的月份、每一个多出来的日子，都在因这场欺诈、因这一虚假承诺而从这笔高息借贷中产生更多的债务。进一步的拖延不仅仅是推迟救济。它造成了越来越难以克服的额外经济损害。\n\n多年来，我们受害者一直在等待所谓的投资兑现向我们承诺的回报。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n而现在我们发现自己又在等待——等待正义得到伸张，等待事件尘埃落定，等待归还本应属于我们的钱财，我们辛辛苦苦赚来的血汗钱。我们需要那笔钱来偿还债务、支持子女的教育、照顾我们的家庭以及维持生活的基本必需。持续的等待不仅是艰难的，更是痛苦的。\n\n法庭：谢谢您，女士。请您结束发言。再讲 30 秒，然后请停下来。\n\nCHEN 女士：所以这不仅仅是一场经济欺诈。它正在损害我们的健康、我们的生活稳定、我们的信任、我们的尊严、我们的希望，以及我们努力构建的未来。\n\n接下来，我想谈谈赔偿（restitution）。我理解政府在赦免返还（remission）方面的立场，以及关于案件的复杂性和涉及的受害者人数的考虑。然而，通过在法庭面前做出的宣誓作证和证据（包括我本人的在内），受害者的损失已经被清楚确立。我恳请法庭考虑在今天的量刑中下达赔偿命令。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢您，女士。我会认真考虑您所说的话。\n\nCHEN 女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n还有其他受害者，或者任何其他人在我询问他们是否为郭先生的受害者时会走上前来回答“是”的人吗？\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n郭先生的受害者吗？\n\n请上前。\n\n您的名字是什么？\n\n旁听人员：Ching Li Bard Jordan（音译）。\n\n法庭：您是郭先生罪行的受害者吗？\n\n旁听人员：是的，女士。\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\n旁听人员：我们今天来到这里是为了参加 Miles 的量刑。我们也是来这里见证美国的葬礼，是你们杀死了你们的国家。\n\n法庭：好的。女士，到目前为止我没有听到您说您是一名受害者。所以，如果您准备好陈述您是如何受到郭先生犯罪行为的侵害，您可以继续讲，但到目前为止，我并没有听到这些内容。\n\n旁听人员：我们并不恨你，也不——\n\n法庭：我必须制止这段发言了，因为您所发表的是与他各项犯罪行为无关的政治声明。\n\n现场是否还有其他自称是郭先生受害者的人士？\n\n溢流法庭（overflow）里是否还有其他可能是郭先生受害者的人士？\n\n好的。我得到消息，溢流室里没有其他人表明自己是受害者。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\nQ6T1GUOS\n好的。接下来由控方发言。\nMR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：谢谢法官阁下（your Honor）。\nMiles Guo（郭文贵）并不是什么民主活动人士。他是一个骗子，一个诈骗犯，一个欺诈者，一个盗贼。为了对其罪行给予应有的惩罚，为了树立对法律的尊重，为了对他个人以及其他可能企图效仿其行径的人产生特定威慑，为了保护公众，为了保护那些可悲地仍深陷郭文贵蛊惑之中的众多受害者，本法院应当判处至少——至少——30 年监禁。这是因为在近五年的时间里，被告对成千上万的人实施了侵害。他对他们撒谎，对许多人洗脑，对其他人进行攻击和骚扰，而他造成的所有这些痛苦与折磨，并不是因为他关心任何政治事业；他这么做，是因为他最关心的只有他自己。\n\n这绝非一时判断失误，亦非原本遵纪守法生活中的偶发异常。郭文贵做出这些事是为了满足他的自恋。他这么做是为了过上奢靡无度的生活——一辆 Bugatti（布加迪）；一辆 Lamborghini（兰博基尼）；一处价值 2600 万美元的豪宅；一张价值 36,000 美元的床垫——实际上是两张；一个价值 50,000 美元的壁炉柴架；以及一部手持光剑自我宣传的音乐视频。\n\n而郭文贵今天坐在这里，毫无悔意，拒绝承担哪怕一丁点的责任。他顽固地坚称，所有这些废墟，他所留下的一切烂摊子，都根本没有发生过。更糟糕的是，他把自己描绘成受害者。但本法院所见、陪审团所见的证据证明，郭文贵是一个大规模的犯罪实施者。法官阁下，作为美国法庭上的被告，否认有罪固然是一回事，但完全否认现实则是另一回事。这也正是我简短发言想要聚焦的地方，即聚焦于郭文贵所造成伤害的现实，因为法官阁下，在评估罪行的严重程度以及决定何为公正惩罚时，这应当是首要考量的重点。\n\n法官阁下提到了已提交给您的 235 份受害者陈述书。它们说明了所造成损害的巨大规模。它们讲述了经济负担。我们刚才也听取了 Ms. Chen（陈女士）的陈述。但这不仅仅关乎经济保障和金钱。这是一种长期的现实苦难。陈述 42：“我失去了热情。我的整个人都陷入了抑郁。我患有严重的抑郁症，每天都想自杀。”\n\n陈述 200：“我被羞耻、内疚和绝望所压垮。我反复产生自杀的念头。我失去了活下去的意志。”\n\n这就是郭文贵所造成伤害的现实。\n\n这些受害者来自全国各地以及世界各地，大体而言，他们有着一个共同的特征。他们是海外华人社群的一部分，并且普遍反对 Chinese Communist Party, the CCP（中国共产党，CCP）。正是郭文贵关于反对 CCP 的虚假陈述将受害者吸引到了他身边，而这正是郭文贵与普通欺诈行为的区别所在。\n\n诚然，他向受害者许诺了经济利益和财富。但实际情况比这更为险恶。他声称自己是他们家庭的一员，是他们的兄弟。他称他们为兄弟姐妹，以值得信赖的人自居，声称与受害者有着相同的政治和道德观点。因此，法官阁下，从这个意义上说，被告实施的是一种极为恶劣的族群信任欺诈（affinity fraud），因为他专门针对特定群体；而且极具讽刺意味的是，甚至可能是蓄意为之，正如陈述 157 所精辟总结的那样：“在他大声宣称以打倒 CCP 为目标的同时，他实际上却通过抹黑自己声称支持的事业而为他们的利益服务。通过背叛我们这些真正坚信终结 CCP 暴政的人，他玷污了反抗 CCP 本身的事业。如今，每当有人听到反对 CCP 的行动时，他们可能会怀疑这是否又是一场骗局。”因此，在非常现实的层面上，他非但没有像他一次又一次喜欢宣称的那样去反抗 CCP，反而助长了对方的事业。\n\n法官阁下，提请法庭考量的另一个要点是他对 United States（美国）法律全然彻头彻尾的蔑视。正如法官阁下在审理中所见，正如陪审团所见，被告在犯罪方面的胆大妄为随着时间的推移不断升级。正如法官阁下此前所叙述的，他最初以 Rule of Law Society（法治社会）和基金会起步。随后发展为 GTV，并在其中受到调查并以民事监管方式予以处置。于是他改变了做法。他改变了策略。他试图通过假装出售农场贷款而非出售股票来伪装他的诈骗行为。随后，其嚣张气焰继续蔓延，设立了名为 G|CLUBS 的虚假业务。到了 2022 年夏季和秋季，当大陪审团传票送达 G|CLUBS 且政府没收了 6.3 亿美元时，被告再次不仅没有停止其所作所为，没有意识到自己在违法，反而变本加厉、层层加码，并发起了 810 和 815 项目，这些骗局通过声称出售更多股票来筹集资金，其明确目的是将这些资金转移到海外、转移到中东，明确置于美国政府的管辖范围之外。\n\n法官阁下，这种蔑视延续到了今天——就在今天，在您面前，被告撒谎、装病，企图以此逃避今天的量刑宣判。\n\n我认为，被告犯罪行为不断演变的本质也向本法庭突显了一个非常关键的问题：被告过去是、现在也仍然是对社会的重大危险。\n\n受害者陈述书讲述了——正如陈女士刚才所陈述的——该犯罪集团如何继续运作，开发新的模因币（meme coins）和引诱金钱的机会。被告的行事作风宛如法律对他不适用一样，唯有监禁才能确保公众的安全。正如法官阁下所提到的，他的信徒们甚至愿意在一所小学——一所小学——门前抗议，仅仅因为其中一名教师是破产管理人的女儿，而该破产管理人当时正在依法履行职责，试图依据美国法律为债权人追回资金。\n\n被告曾亲自指示 Ya Li（李亚）销毁传票；他的女儿被指示在宣誓证词中作伪证。被告将一艘船只移至美国司法管辖区之外以规避民事藐视法庭制裁。他曾被 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）的一名法官裁定构成刑事藐视法庭罪。\n\n他对法律毫无尊重，没有任何依据能向本法庭保证，一旦获释，他不会继续对他已经侵害过的受害者以及许许多多的其他人实施侵害。\n\n在量刑辩护意见书中，辩方大篇幅强调了被告的历史和个人特征。他们讲述了他的神话——正是被告用来诱骗受害者落入其骗局的同一个神话；正是他用来建立个人崇拜并对受害者进行洗脑的同一个神话。我不知道，而且我认为没有人知道，那段历史究竟有多少是真实的，但毫无疑问，这名被告在本法庭面前已毫无信誉可言，因此我认为，与其去评估被告神话的真实性、其言论的真实与否，我们不如看他的实际行动。事实胜于雄辩。以下是我们已知的事实：\n\n被告大约在 2015 年移民到美国。他声称自己需要来自美国的庇护与保护。他获得了许多人无法获得但梦寐以求的机会。他才华横溢。他极具个人魅力。他很聪明。他本可以在美国过上成功、遵纪守法的生活，但他几乎立刻就选择去实施大规模犯罪。如果说有什么要求的话，作为一名在境内的受庇护者，他本应严格遵守美国的法律及其规章制度。然而相反，他抓住一次又一次的机会，策划并实施了一场具有历史性规模的诈骗。这些行为，才是应当决定本法庭量刑的历史和特征。\n\n最后一点，但也是重要的一点。被告显然拥有其支持者，那些在网上发声并企图恐吓站出来的受害者的人；那些企图恐吓阻挠真相大白的人；那些承诺这一切都是一场假象、有朝一日郭文贵必将回归并领导他们的支持者。而现实是，他们——至少他们中的许多人——可能同样也是受害者。被告对他们保持着这种控制和掌控；这种控制如此紧密，以至于他能让他们相信自己根本不是受害者。法官阁下，这突显了被告对公众构成的危险。如果将其释放，几乎可以肯定、甚至绝对可以肯定，他会再次掏空他们的钱包，再次对那些支持者实施侵害。那些受害者可能会否认自己的受害者身份，可能会否认自己遭受了欺诈。然而在由您主持的庭审中所证实的是，被告郭文贵具有欺诈他们的故意；他是在明知的情况下实施行为，他明知自己的所作所为是错误的，但他为了自己，一次又一次、周而复始地去做了。\n\n因此，唯有本法庭、唯有法官阁下您一人，才能保护那些无法保护自己的人，控方认为，在此有必要判处长期监禁，以剥夺被告继续危害他人的能力。\n\n因此，当反思现实、反思被告的所作所为、其五年的行为轨迹、其建立的一切以及其摧毁的所有生活时，实在很难理解一个人怎能对所有这些重大罪行负责。郭文贵的犯罪规模极其庞大。他所造成的伤害过去是、现在也仍然对成千上万的人造成毁灭性打击。妨碍司法、藐视法庭命令、对阻挡其道路的人及其家人实施报复。郭文贵领导的不是一场运动，他领导的是一个犯罪企业。\n\nQ6T1GUOS\n那是建立在他所说的谎言之上的，这样他就可以拿走别人的钱花在自己身上。而且他通过威胁、暴力和恐惧强化了那个犯罪组织。\n\n为了惩处领导了本国所见过的最非同寻常的欺诈案之一的人，为了保护公众和那些无法保护自己的人，在本案中判处至少——至少——30年的长期且实质性的刑期是绝对必要的。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：现在我听取辩护方的意见。\n\nSARAFA女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n我想我们都能认同这不是一起普通的案件。Miles Guo（郭文贵）不是一个普通人。美国政府，更不用说中国政府，对他都有某种看法。\n\n在案件的这个阶段，深入、全面地审视郭文贵作为一个人的本质，以及他的背景如何与我们今天为何站在这里相关联，是至关重要的。\n\n请允许我承认郭先生接受了审判。他坚称自己无罪。关于政府对GTV Private Placement（GTV私募）的核心欺诈指控，以及从事非法货币交易的罪名，他被判定无罪。我们承认，他被判定犯有与Farm Loans（农场贷款）、G|CLUBS和Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）相关的其他欺诈罪名项，以及洗钱和共谋相关罪名项。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区法院速记公司）\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n罪名项。出于量刑目的，我们接受该裁决，但必须将其置于适当的背景中并理解其局限性。\n\n郭先生和出庭本院的每位其他被告人一样，也是一个凡人。他拥有独特的个人经历，这塑造了他的根本性格、动机以及他对世界的认知取向。他出生在中国文化大革命开始后的第二年。那场运动整整持续了十年。在此期间，他的父母被视作国家敌人。因此，作为他父母所生的八兄弟之一，他的童年完全沉浸在一个威权政府能够且确实强加给其人民的苦难和虐待之中。现在，数以百万计的中国人可能在文化大革命期间有过类似的经历，但这一事实并没有削弱这些经历对他们每一个人所造成的持久影响。郭先生对民主、对一个更加民主的中国以及对中国人民过上更好生活的坚定支持，植根于他的个人经历。\n\n他没有接受过太多的正规教育。他在大约15岁时辍学打工以帮助维持家计。他结婚很早，十几岁就结了婚，在不到20岁时就与他的妻子育有两个孩子，直到今天他与妻子仍保持着婚姻关系。1989年中国爆发天安门抗议活动时，他大约就是这个年纪；鉴于郭先生的童年经历，\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n童年经历，他卖掉了自己的摩托车，提供资金来支持天安门的抗议者，这并不令人意外。因为那次支持，警察找上了门；不幸的是，当有人拔出枪支时，试图保护郭先生的哥哥被警察击中。两人都被逮捕了。他的哥哥因伤势过重死亡。郭先生在狱中服刑了大约两年。\n\n我从这里讲起，是因为政府不仅暗示——我的意思是极力主张郭先生不是真正的政治异见人士，而是纯粹为了个人经济利益才采取这种人设。事实上，郭先生对民主的终身承诺是真诚的，并且是经历了极度创伤的严峻考验而形成的。我认为我们不能忽视他目睹哥哥被警察开枪打死所带来的影响。在被关押期间，他目睹了至少50名政治犯被处决。\n\n他多次遭受肉体折磨，不仅是在天安门事件后被监禁期间，在他揭露一名北京知名市级官员的腐败之后也是如此。\n\n如果在某种程度上政府坚持认为郭先生的个人背景是个神话，我愿意指出假释官亲眼观察到的郭先生因酷刑至今仍留有的身体疤痕。这在量刑前报告中有所提及。\n\n像郭先生所承受的这种经历会塑造一个人的性格。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n人的性格。在本案中，这些经历坚定了反对威权统治、揭露腐败和支持民主中国的承诺。顺便提一句，他对民主的支持还延伸到了协助美国保护自身国家安全，以及了解中国渗透并企图破坏该国的多种方式。\n\n简而言之，郭先生是一名合法的亲民主活动人士，并且自年轻时起就一直是。任何相反的说法都没有事实依据支持，其中最显著的事实是：多年来，郭先生一直是中国“猎狐行动”的主要目标，而且他的多名直系亲属以及员工和支持者已被逮捕并拘留了数年。\n\n值得问一问的是，中国为何要竭尽全力让郭先生噤声并将其遣返？为什么他对CCP（中国共产党）是如此巨大的威胁？CCP所付出的努力程度反映了其对郭先生破坏其权威和披露其不愿公开的信息之能力的深刻担忧。如果郭先生的活动仅仅是一个骗子或诈骗犯的勾当，仅此而已，CCP就不会部署大批特工，通过极其庞大的社交媒体活动来抹黑他。在某一时期，就其规模而言，该社交媒体活动仅次于CCP抹黑2019年香港抗议者、民主抗议者的力度。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n2019年。CCP花费了数千万甚至数亿美元招募美国政界和商界精英，游说美国政府将其遣返回中国。他们向美国社交媒体公司施压以封禁其账号；他们仅仅因为在中国的个人收听其广播，就对其进行审讯、胁迫、逮捕、起诉和监禁。他们利用美国的法律制度和此处的First Amendment（宪法第一修正案）自由，对郭先生提出虚假的强奸指控，随后在他住所外组织示威称其为强奸犯，并在社交媒体上宣传这些示威活动。\n\n我们在量刑意见书中详细说明了这些及更多内容，但即使是我们量刑意见书中讨论针对他的这一行动的诸多篇幅，也确实无法反映中国政府针对郭先生以及针对那些在中国只要能听就敢听其广播、或以任何方式与任何关联实体打交道的人所采取行动的真实规模。\n\n这些事实是无可争议的。我的意思是，美国政府本身就已经对为CCP效力对付郭先生的个人提起了数十起刑事起诉。我们引用了一份又一份由美国政府起草的起诉状和文件，详细记录了这些活动。\n\n这就引出了本案的行为。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n陪审团裁定郭先生在GTV私募方面无罪，但在其他罪名项上定罪。我们接受陪审团的裁决，但我们确实认识到该裁决有其局限性，特别是在已证明的损失以及投资者和支持者受害情况方面。创建GTV是对CCP试图让郭先生噤声、通过向其他社交媒体平台施压关闭其账户来压制其言论的直接回应。相比之下，GTV不受外部压力影响，并成为了一个充满活力且活跃的平台。该平台本身就是击垮CCP的努力的一部分。该平台是一种传达腐败信息、揭露中国在中央政府指使下实际发生情况的途径，而那些广播就是这种努力。因此，说这个组织什么都没做、他的运动什么都没做是不准确的。该平台是致力于瓦解CCP、建立一场运动的核心部分。\n\nHimalaya Exchange提供了一个在CCP窥探视线之外存放资金的安全场所。对于这项服务，市场需求极其巨大。它还通过在Himalaya Exchange上创建H Coin（喜币），为个人提供了赚钱的机会。我们向法庭提供的信件中包含了大量个人的陈述，他们从对Himalaya Exchange的投资中获得了丰厚利润，并且他们进行投资的原因与郭先生所谓的虚假陈述无关，\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n例如关于该交易所由黄金支持的陈述。\n\nG|CLUBS、G Fashion、Farm Loans，这些都是打造支持爆料革命品牌的组成部分。\n\n豪车。政府在那些车上大做文章。郭先生本人不开车。从来没有人看到他开着那些车在外面四处转悠。那辆Bugatti（布加迪）甚至从未离开过德克萨斯州的展厅。它们是用于视频的道具，用以展示未来的可能性、展示能为中国人民取得什么成就，用以打造爆料革命的品牌。\n\n豪宅，Mahwah（马赫瓦）的豪宅。同样，这上面也被大做文章。审判中也有证词表明，那是打算作为爆料革命的永久基地的。郭先生本人住在康涅狄格州。他没有住在马赫瓦的豪宅里。那根本不准确。\n\n这些不是他为自己获取的个人奢侈品。这些是该品牌的一部分，与成千上万在这一运动中看到更自由、更民主的中国之希望的人产生了强烈共鸣。\n\n我还应当指出，郭先生——关于他的Brioni（布里奥尼）西装、游艇，已经谈论了很多。其中很多物品是在本案任何指控的不当行为发生之前获得的。早在郭先生来到这个国家之前，早在本案所涉行为发生之前，郭先生的家庭成员就已经是合法的亿万富翁了。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\nQ6T1GUOS\n本案的争议焦点。该运动是一个独立的项目，独立于个人财富。政府关于需要资金以及建立这些实体作为获取资金途径的说法根本站不住脚。政府心知肚明，如果郭先生需要或在乎钱，他本可以轻易利用诸多机会，只要他同意停止批评中共并停止揭露腐败，就能促使被 CCP（中国共产党）扣押的数十亿美元资金得以解冻。他不愿意那样做。他曾拥有那些机会。至少有 $10 billion 的被扣押资产。他本可以只需说，好吧，我不再批评中共。那些资产就会被解冻。但这并非驱动他的原因。这并非他的动机所在。这并非我们今天站在这里的原因。他本可以利用那些机会这一简单且无可争辩的事实，凸显了他对这场根本性运动的真诚投入。他的忠诚始终在于这场运动。甚至早在90年代初，他在天安门事件后出狱时最初对财富的追求，也正是出于这一目的。那就是其目的：达到那样的财富与声望水平，然后能够发挥出为了建立一场哪怕有一丝希望去对抗像中国共产党这样强大的政府和政党所必需的那种影响力。\n有——\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n法庭：请稍等。\n您可以继续。\nSARAFA 女士：谢谢法官阁下。\n在本案中，政府提出的、在量刑指南中所载明的损失金额与指控的受害者所受损害之间，以及在绝大多数声称自己并非受害者的投资者和客户之间，存在着巨大的鸿沟。这直接关系到犯罪的性质和情况、行为的严重性，我们恭敬地提出，本案属于 3553(a) 条款所列因素的权重应当高于量刑指南的情况。\nG 系列实体的投资者和客户中，有成千上万的人明确声明他们不是郭先生的受害者。这些人不是受蒙蔽、被洗脑的谄媚者。我们提交了来自 1286 名不同个体的陈述书。在我们的计数和统计中，我们对多人重复情况进行了核实扣除，而不像政府那样引用了 235 份陈述，但根据我们的评估，其中至少有 40 份或更多来自同一个人。1286 名不同的个人。其中，1223 人明确表示他们没有被郭先生侵害。他们向我们提交的文件中大部分没有注明其投资规模，但在注明的那些人中，总金额超过了 $72 million。其中有 108 人报告曾遭到中共审讯。35 人报告曾被胁迫作出自白书、保证书、\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n悔过书或承认被骗等陈述。7 人报告曾被迫向美国执法部门和媒体进行虚假控告。28 人报告曾被中共逮捕和/或起诉。我们每天仍在继续收到更多此类陈述书。这些陈述并非千篇一律的模板陈述。它们来自各行各业的人士，许多是专业人士，甚至有一份来自澳大利亚的一名非华裔律师，他是经其客户建议而投资的，这些陈述是关于其与投资相关的独立思考和尽职调查的独特、详细且深思熟虑的记述。这些不是缺乏自主行动能力、被洗脑的群体所作出的机械背诵。这些支持——提供这些陈述的人，他们附上了支持性文件——政府签发的身份证件、护照、其他身份证明文件。他们附上了视频、音频、中国官员的审讯录音、照片、他们与官员之间的短信截图，大量展现可信度的证据，我们在量刑意见书中已全文收录了其中至少一份，但这类的证据有数百份之多。除了那些、除了那些陈述之外，还有超过 6,000 名 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）客户提交了 853(n) 请愿书。有超过 300 名 Hamilton 投资者提交了 853(n) 请愿书。这两个群体、成千上万的客户都坚持认为他们没有被郭先生侵害，\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n并且他们的投资、那些被扣押的资金不是诈骗收益。它们不是犯罪收益。这就是他们的立场。这就是成千上万名投资者的立场。\n在庭审中，曾就辩方证人之一 Yi Jianhu 的证词进行推论展开过讨论，该证人称他曾受到中国政府施压以作出虚假陈述。政府强烈反对辩方就本案其他证人也受到了此类施压作出任何推定。法庭表示——法庭准许了该请求，并表示超出在本案审理中出庭作证人员的证词去进行推论或推测是不恰当的，因为我们只听取了——。\n然而，政府所谈论的损失金额以及在 PSR（判决前调查报告）中计算的损失金额纯属推测。庭审中的证人所作证词证明的损失不超过 1.5 million。这个房间里的人、超过 6,000 名喜马拉雅交易所客户、向我们寄信的近 1300 人，他们都表示：我们没有受害。我们投资的原因与郭先生被指控作出的虚假陈述毫无关系。这些人、这些个人始终表示，他们所遭受的任何困境都是其资金被政府扣押和冻结的结果。\n他们还坚持认为郭先生在其直播中对投资风险是坦诚公布的。这些人不是\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n受害的、被洗脑的人。他们谈到自己所做的投资获得了真实的价值。不仅是 G|CLUBS，不仅是实际获得了 G Fashion，不仅是 GTV，还有喜马拉雅交易所。人们通过喜马拉雅交易所赚到了真金白银。那就是价值。事实上，他们中的许多人至今仍持有 H Coin（喜币），该币种迄今仍保留着价值。直到郭先生被定罪且平台被关闭的那一天，它都一直保有价值。我相信其中一人甚至说过，决定随郭先生投资是他一生中最重要且最正确的决定之一。这是一种普遍一致的反馈。这些个体表示，他们对于是否向各个 G 系列实体汇款做出了自己独立的决定。他们没有被郭先生侵害或洗脑。\n政府的金库中存放着超过 $600 million 被扣押资金。GTV 各实体爽快地与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）达成了案件和解，并缴出了超过 $500 million 的违法所得。这些钱全部要退还给——大部分已经退还给了投资者；事实上，甚至在审判之前就已经退还了。\n这些钱不是——这不像庞氏骗局那样，因为必须不断引入资金来给——赔付最初的投资者而对后续投资者进行盘剥。钱都在那里。这些都是实际运营的业务。投资其中的人获得了价值。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n郭先生所传达的亲民主、反中共的信息在全世界引起了共鸣。支持者们的陈述洋溢着希望。这是受到郭先生的感召。这是富有意义的。这是富有意义的。这本身就富有意义。\n我们已经谈到了郭先生对美国的一些协助。我们已尽最大努力向法庭提供了这些信息，尽管有相当多的信息我们甚至根本无法获取。我们请求获取这些信息；但我们没有收到。\n我们还向法庭提供了关于郭先生身心健康状况的信息，自进入 MDC（大都会拘留中心）以来，他的身心状况已经恶化。法庭对 MDC 的环境非常清楚。这并不意外。联邦监狱局管辖下的环境并不好。随着郭先生继续处于监禁之中，他的身心健康极有可能进一步恶化。在本地区——而这些因素很重要，是法院所考虑并非常认真对待的。在本地区，欺诈案中只有不到四分之一的被告人是在量刑指南范围内被判刑的。大多数人被判处的刑期大幅低于指南。正如法官阁下所认同的，这是对量刑指南（尤其是在欺诈案中）实质上夸大了犯罪严重性的一种认可。司法量刑信息即 JSIN 针对 2021 年至 2025 年的数据显示，在类似本案、以 2B1.1 作为主要量刑指南条款的案件中，\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n罪行等级为 43，犯罪前科类别为 I 类（即无前科），在排除配合调查的被告人后，此类案件的平均监禁刑期为 167 个月。中位数为 144 个月。前面提到了 Sam Bankman-Fried。他的案件涉及 $8 billion，是本案涉及金额的数倍，而且我敢说并没有成千上万的人站出来表示自己没有受害。他被判处了 25 年监禁。政府在量刑意见书中引用了该判例。我们主张本案理应判处低于该刑期的判决。在本案中，大幅低于量刑指南的刑期是合情合理的，并且应当大幅低于政府所要求的刑期。\n有如此之多的人站出来，用他们自己的话语，而不是按照某种预制模板信函，站出来向法庭讲述他们为何投资的亲身经历，讲述他们自己对文件、白皮书、信用私募备忘录、贷款协议的信赖，他们阅读了那些文件。他们做出了投资决定。他们理解其中的风险。他们用自己的话语向法官阁下陈述了这些，这正是、这真正使本案与众不同之处。这与郭先生一直是中共的目标这一事实相叠加，而这正是整场爆料革命背后真正的推动力量，这也是该运动在这么多人中引起如此强烈共鸣的原因。这也是今天有这么多人来到这里的原因，因为\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\nQ6T1GUOS\n他们所遭受的来自 CCP（中国共产党）的压迫，是每个人都希望摆脱并继续前行的。而郭先生传递的信息带来了对更美好未来的希望与承诺。\n\n继续支持他的人并非受了蛊惑。他们头脑非常清醒。他们已经向法庭表达了这一点。这切实关系到罪行的严重性以及罪行的性质和情节——或者说罪行的性质与情节，我们认为这理应获得大幅低于量刑指南水平以及政府所建议的刑期。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：郭先生，您想说些什么吗？\n\n被告人：法官阁下，我想请翻译代我发言。\n\n最初，我并没有打算发言。我看到今天发生的一切，我必须就刚才在您的法庭上发生的事情说几句。另外，在另一个房间里，您让法警作证并回忆我是如何来到这栋大楼的。他们说只有一名法警把我带到这里。事实上，带我上来的是两名法警。您不必相信我。您可以相信监控录像。从今天凌晨 5 点开始，我晕倒在地。随后 911 将我送往医院。然而有人告诉他们，不要送我去医院，你们必须送他去法庭。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n在进行了两轮注射并服用了药物之后，医生说，你必须留在这里，你不能离开。您不必相信我。您只要看医院的监控录像就可以查实。\n\n随后来自 MDC（大都会拘留中心）的两名警官接到电话，说我必须返回 MDC。在返回 MDC 的路上我呕吐了多次，并且我整天都在呕吐。所以您不必相信我。您可以去问那两名来自 MDC 的警官。\n\n所以当我回到 MDC 的房间时，他们请了一位医生过来。于是医生来了。我是 10:30 返回 MDC 的，医生在 10:45 赶到，他们问我，你感觉还好吗？我告诉他们，看看我的脸，我的脸上有——我脸上和全身都是血。我还在吐血。然后那位医生说，我稍后再回来给你治疗，或者我也许就直接送你回监区。我说，我想去法庭。您不必相信我。您可以看医院的监控录像。\n\n大约下午 1:30，来了一名神秘女子——\n\n法庭：郭先生，请面向我。\n稍等一下。请翻译官把我刚才说的话翻译一下。\n\n被告人：于是那名黑衣女子对他们说，我可以带他去法庭。好的。这位女士坐的是另一辆车，她坐的是另一辆机动车，而\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n我是和警官们同乘一辆车过来的。所以在离开 MDC 之前，他们剪烂了我的衣服，擦掉了我脸上的血迹，所以我才换成了这身衣服。\n\n所以那位女士并不是警察。她是其他人，她在另一辆车里，当我来到这里时，她正在楼下等我。\n\n然后，当我来到这里时，我说，我肚子痛，我需要上洗手间。我感觉不舒服。他们把我安排进了另一个房间。而这位女士和另一名警官，他们一直在附近。您稍后可以查看监控录像。因此，关于检察官刚才所说的话，那并不是事实。即使对于这些事实，对于这些确凿的事实，他都没有说实话，他扮演了医生、警察和法官的角色。在本案中，检察官说的任何话都不可能是真话。所以当检察官在您面前发言时，法官阁下，他提到只有一名警官。然而，他没有提及另一位女士。您可以问他那位女士是谁。\n\n最后，我想告诉法官，对于我想说的事情，都已经包含在我律师提交的文件中了。我相信美国的法律和法官。我来美国的原因就是为了消灭 CCP。我失去了我的家人，有 270 人被捕，我也损失了数十亿美元。\n\n法官阁下，感谢您所做的一切。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n而且我会提起上诉。谢谢。\n\n法庭：目前是否有任何理由不予以判决？\n\n萨拉法女士（MS. SARAFA）：法官阁下，除了我们之前提出的关于在没有进行 Fatico 听证的情况下无法计算损失额的异议以及我们记录在案的其他异议之外，没有了。另外还有在另一个房间讨论过的郭先生的健康状况。\n\n芬克尔先生（MR. FINKEL）：政府认为量刑程序应当继续进行。如果允许的话，恕我直言，法官阁下，我只想记录在案：郭先生在与法庭对质交谈的整个过程中都是站立着且手臂带有手势的。他的陈述条理清晰且注意力集中。当然，这只是我个人的观察视角。\n\n法庭：正如我之前所陈述的，本案适用的量刑指南范围为 2100 个月监禁。\n\n根据最高法院在 Booker 案及其后续衍生判例中的裁决，量刑指南范围只是我在决定适当量刑时必须考虑的一个因素。正如我之前提到的，我还必须考虑《美国法典》第 18 编第 3553 条第 (a) 款（18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)）中规定的其他因素。这些因素包括：\n\n第一，罪行的性质和情节，以及被告人的历史和特征；\n\n第二，所判处的刑罚需要体现罪行的严重性、促进对法律的尊重，\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n并为罪行提供公正的惩罚；对犯罪行为起到充分的威慑作用；保护公众免受被告人进一步犯罪的侵害；并以最有效的方式向被告人提供所需的教育或职业培训、医疗护理或其他矫正治疗；\n\n第三，可适用的刑罚种类；\n\n第四，量刑指南范围；\n\n第五，任何相关的政策声明；\n\n第六，避免在犯有类似行为且有类似前科记录的被告人之间产生不合理的量刑差异的需要；以及\n\n第七，向本罪行的任何受害者提供赔偿（restitution）的需要。\n\n归根结底，我必须判处一项充分但不过度的刑罚，以达到我刚才提到的量刑目的。\n\n缓刑监督部门建议判处低于指南的刑罚，即对罪名项（Counts）一至三以及七至十一各判处 240 个月监禁，并期执行（concurrently），对罪名项四判处 60 个月监禁，与其他罪名项连续执行（consecutively）。总建议刑期为 300 个月监禁。\n\n政府建议判处至少 360 个月监禁，即 30 年。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n郭先生主张判处“大幅低于适用的量刑指南范围和[量刑前调查报告]中的量刑建议”的刑罚，但未提出具体的刑期请求。\n\n结合第 3553(a) 条中规定的所有因素以及量刑的目的，我对本案的适当量刑进行了深入的思考与考量。\n\n2024年7月16日，在听取并审阅了本案的所有证据（包括 34 名政府证人和 9 名辩方证人的证词）之后，由 12 人组成的陪审团一致认定，郭先生参与了一系列欺诈性犯罪和共谋，包括敲诈勒索共谋、洗钱共谋以及共谋实施证券欺诈。\n\n我必须首先考虑被告人的历史和特征。\n\n郭先生，亦名 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），于 1968 年出生于中华人民共和国。他在父母所生的八兄弟中排行第七，父亲是一名矿工，母亲是一名家庭主妇。他出生于 Mao Zedong（毛泽东）发动的文化大革命后不久，郭先生的父母被视作国家敌人。在他的童年时期，他的家庭生活贫困，郭先生目睹了他的家庭遭受来自 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，我将其简称为 CCP）的迫害。据他陈述，\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n因此他的父母双方都患有严重的精神健康问题。\n\n郭先生陈述称，在 1989年5月至 1991年4月期间，他在中国服刑 22 个月，此前他因支持 Tiananmen Square（天安门广场）的示威活动而被控颠覆活动罪。他另外陈述称，他曾与其他政治犯一起被关押在开放式牢房中，并目睹了数十名囚犯被处决。\n\n1991年，郭先生开启了他作为房地产开发商的职业生涯。大约在 2000年，他移民到中国香港并成为公民。十六年后，出于对政治逮捕的恐惧，他逃往英国；2017年，他持旅游签证进入美国。在他的签证到期前一个月，郭先生申请了庇护，其申请目前仍在审理中。\n\n在 2016年至 2018年期间，郭先生声称他参与了一场公开运动，用他自己的话来说，即揭露 CCP 并支持中国的民主。\n\n我现在转入罪行的性质和情节，以及所判处的刑罚需要体现罪行的严重性、促进对法律的尊重、为罪行提供公正的惩罚，并保护公众免受郭先生进一步犯罪的侵害。\n\n郭先生的量刑陈述书中有很大一部分概述了他声称自己遭受来自 CCP 虐待的情况。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n即便认定这些说法属实，我也认为其中没有任何一条可以开脱他的欺诈行为。\n\n在至少五年的时间里，郭先生参与了一项诈骗全球一千多名受害者的共谋。依托其网络影响力与个人魅力，郭先生与同案共犯一起，通过承诺投资各种欺诈性企业和项目可获得巨额财务回报和福利，将目标对准了他的追随者。郭先生及其共谋者告诉受害者，他们缴纳的资金将用于支持中国的民主事业。然而，郭先生及其共谋者挪用了这些资金以中饱私囊以及供郭先生的家族使用——攫取受害者的资金并用其维持郭先生挥霍无度的奢靡生活。\n\n郭先生被称为“老板（Boss）”，并且实际控制着 G Enterprise 各实体。参见例如庭审记录第 1941 页及第 1677 至 1678 页。他是该业务的代言人，并通过他的网络直播向支持者募集投资并作出承诺。尽管 Yvette Wang（王雁平）女士和 William Je（余建明）先生在共谋中也扮演了重要角色，但郭先生最终才是幕后主脑并拥有最终决定权。\n\n郭先生的骗局给受害者造成了巨大的经济和精神伤害：\n\n一名受害者写道：“[郭]先生一再编造\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n他在直播中的讲述……他让我们相信，投资他的项目是确保财务安全的唯一途径。在这种恐惧与劝说之下，我变卖了房产，赎回了所有长期投资和人寿保险，将全部资金投入到了他的诈骗企业中。”陈述编号 168。\n\n另一位写道：“我投资了超过 120,000 美元——这是我多年辛勤牺牲攒下的全部积蓄。我没有工作，我把我所有的钱都给了 [Mr.] Guo（郭先生）。现在，我完全不知道余生该如何维持生计，也不知道该如何面对我的家人。”陈述编号 158。\n\n另一位陈述道：“我和丈夫被残忍地诈骗了超过 1,500,000 美元——这是我们一生的全部积蓄。由于 [Mr. Guo] 和他的同伙……我们从舒适的生活跌入了赤贫。我丈夫不得不拿着微薄的工资从事繁重的体力劳动，[并且] 向他人借钱……我不得不申请社会救济……我们全家差点落得露宿街头的下场。”陈述编号 184。\n\n正如我在 Ms. Wang（王女士）量刑时所指出的，受害者不仅经历了经济上的困境，许多人还因为参与 Guo 先生的骗局而失去了与亲人的关系。参见《Wang 量刑庭审记录》第 56-57 页。本法院已收到多封来信，有的伴侣因此离开了他们，有的父母则再也得不到子女的理睬。由于 Guo 先生及其共犯的行为，这些受害者及其他人员持续遭受抑郁和严重的心理痛苦。\n\n一位受害者写道：“我信任了 [Mr. Guo] 及其同伙，这导致我产生了强烈的受侵害感和长期的痛苦。这种背叛带来的情绪折磨影响了我的心理健康和日常生活，给我造成了一系列不可预料的后果，例如保单断缴、家庭不和与争吵、个人健康和心理崩溃，[以及] 职业生涯中断。”陈述编号 163A。\n\n另一位写道：“长期的极度恐惧、焦虑和压力导致我患上严重的焦虑症，需要药物辅助睡眠。在两个月内，我的体重减轻了 40 多磅，头发也开始脱落。”陈述编号 188。\n\n另一位陈述道：“我们家庭内部的信任遭到了严重破坏。我妻子经常因为这次投资失败与我争吵，甚至威胁说如果追不回这笔钱就要和我离婚。这使我陷入了深深的内疚和痛苦之中。”陈述编号 190B。\n\n我已阅读了记录中表达类似情绪的无数信件。\n\nGuo 先生将目标锁定在那些寻求为中国带来民主的人群身上——这些人心底深切希望中国的政治体制受到挑战。他还利用了他们深层的恐惧——告诉他们自己提供了防止资金在中国受损的最佳方式。当他利用人们内心深处的情感时，Guo 先生却一心一意地致力于增加自己的财富。\n\n时至今日，尽管已有陪审团的裁决以及提交给法院的数百份受害者陈述，Guo 先生仍不对自己的行为承担任何责任，反而匪夷所思地坚持认为自己的行为未造成任何损失、未伤害任何人。与此同时，他呼吁支持者去骚扰和恐吓那些敢于公开反对他的人。其罪行的严重性，以及震慑、保护公众和促使人们尊重法律的必要性，均要求给予严厉的惩罚。\n\n尽管这些罪行极其严重，但仍有若干考量支持作出低于量刑指南建议范围的判决。\n\n正如我之前所言，我认识到量刑委员会（Sentencing Commission）在制定损失指南时并未采用经验性方法，且该指南对损失金额给予了过度的权重。例如，参见 United States v. Adelson, 441 F.Supp.2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) [美国联邦诉 Adelson 案，载于《联邦判例汇编增补版二审》第 441 卷第 506、509 页（Southern District of New York（纽约南区），2006 年）]。\n\n此外，我必须考虑避免在具有相似前科且被判犯有类似行为的被告之间产生不合理的刑罚差异。\n\n首先，鉴于 Guo 先生罪行的严重性、他对慈善宗旨的利用、他恐吓批评者的历史，以及他一贯拒绝承担责任的态度，我很难将 Guo 先生的案件与任何其他案件相提并论。\n\n关于 Guo 先生的共犯 Ms. Wang，在 2025 年 1 月 6 日，我判处她 120 个月监禁，即法定最高刑罚。\n\n然而我注意到，由于法定最高刑罚的限制，王女士案件中适用的指南范围为 120 个月监禁——大约仅为本案适用指南范围的 5%。参见《Wang 量刑庭审记录》第 13 页第 3 行。虽然她在诈骗计划中扮演了重要角色，但她最终是向身为老板的 Guo 先生汇报的。参见同上，第 57 页第 19-23 行。\n\n此外，王女士通过认罪答辩承认了责任。参见同上，第 58 页第 16 至 17 行。相比之下，Guo 先生时至今日仍推卸责任，对他给如此多的人造成的伤害未表现出丝毫悔意。\n\n最后，我确实考虑了 Guo 先生目前的羁押期限。Guo 先生已在大都会拘留所（Metropolitan Detention Center）度过了三年多时间。我认识到那里的关押条件格外艰难，这构成判处比原本可能判处的刑期更短刑期的合理理由。参见 United States v. Chavez, 710 F.Supp.3d 227, 234-35 (S.D.N.Y. 2024)。\n\n基于上述理由，我的结论是：判处低于指南范围的刑期是合情合理的。\n\nGuo 先生，请起立听候宣判。\n\n本法院判决如下：就罪名项一、二、三、四、七、八、九、十和十一，判处你 360 个月监禁。这九项罪名的监禁刑期彼此并期执行。\n\n我不附加监督释放期，因为根据指南第 5D1.1(c) 条，在法律未作强制规定且被告在服完监禁刑后极可能被驱逐出境的案件中，法院不应施加监督释放。\n\n我不处以罚金，因为缓刑监督部门不建议处以罚金，但你必须缴纳 900 美元的强制性特别摊派金，该款项应立即结清。\n\n鉴于案件的复杂性和受害者的数量，我将不命令支付赔偿。由于在本案中赔偿并不切实际，我转而批准政府的动议，授权美国政府通过减免程序（remission process）以最终没收的资产对受害者进行补偿。18, United States Code, Section 3663A(c)(3) [《美国法典》第 18 编第 3663A(c)(3) 条]。\n\n我们现在先休庭片刻。你可以就座。\n\n（休庭）\n\n法庭：请就座。\n\n此前，我陈述了郭先生的总监禁期限为 360 个月。我想澄清的是：关于罪名项一、三、七、八、九、十和十一，我判处 240 个月监禁，彼此并期执行，并与所有其他罪名项的监禁刑期并期执行。\n\n关于罪名项二，我判处 360 个月监禁，与所有其他罪名项所判处的刑期并期执行。\n\n关于罪名项四，我判处 60 个月监禁，与罪名项二判处的刑期并期执行，并与所有其他罪名项所判处的刑期连续执行。\n\n郭先生，我必须提醒你：\n\n由于犯下 S3 替代起诉书罪名项一中指控的罪行，根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1963 [《美国法典》第 18 编第 1963 条]，你应向美国没收：\n\n违反第 1962 条所获取或维持的任何权益；\n\n对各被告及其同伙在违反第 1962 条的情况下建立、运营、控制、管理或参与管理之任何企业所拥有的任何权益、证券、债权，或提供某种影响源的任何种类的财产或合同权利；以及\n\n由罪名项一所指控的诈骗敲诈勒索活动中直接或间接获得的任何收益所构成或衍生的任何财产。\n\n由于犯下起诉书罪名项二、四以及七至十一中指控的电信诈骗和证券诈骗罪，根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C) 及 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c) [《美国法典》第 18 编第 981(a)(1)(C) 条及第 28 编第 2461(c) 条]，你应向美国没收构成上述犯罪所得或自可追溯至上述犯罪所得中衍生的任何及所有不动产和动产，包括但不限于代表可追溯至犯下上述罪行之收益金额的以美元计价的款项。\n\n由于犯下起诉书罪名项三中指控的洗钱罪，根据 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) [《美国法典》第 18 编第 982(a)(1) 条]，你应向美国没收涉及上述罪行的任何及所有不动产和动产，或可追溯至此类财产的任何财产，包括但不限于代表涉及上述罪行之财产金额的以美元计价的款项。\n\n2025 年 8 月 11 日，法院在本案中作出了初步没收命令。郭先生对该命令提出了多项异议，我已对此进行了仔细审查。今天早些时候，我发布了一份意见书，回应了郭先生的各项异议。\n\n郭先生，你必须没收初步没收命令中列出的财产。你还必须没收政府在 ECF No. 790 号文件提交的补充没收命令中列出的财产。\n\n没收命令中包含针对你的 8.89 亿美元的金钱判决。\n\n我知道已有大量第三方申请书递交至法院，寻求根据 21, United States Code, 853(n) [《美国法典》第 21 编第 853(n) 条] 主张权利。鉴于今天宣判的刑罚以及法院对郭先生针对法院没收命令提出的多项异议的处理决定，法院将在适当时机就处理这些申请提供进一步的指引。\n\n政府方面是否知悉有任何法律理由表明不应按上述陈述宣判此项刑罚？\n\n芬克尔先生：知悉并无此类理由，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：辩方对按上述陈述宣判刑罚是否有任何异议？\n\n萨拉法女士：法官阁下，我们仅重申我们此前提出的异议。\n\n法庭：按上述陈述正式判处刑罚。\n\n这就是本法院的判决。郭先生，你有权对你的定罪和量刑提出上诉。上诉通知书必须在定罪判决书下达之日起 14 天内提交。\n\nQ6T1GUOS\n如果您无力支付上诉费用，可以申请以穷人身份上诉（in forma pauperis）的许可。如果您提出请求，法院书记官将代您准备并提交上诉通知书。\n还有其他申请吗？\nFINKEL 先生：有一个简短的申请，法官阁下。在 3 月 17 日，政府提出了一项申请，请求对书记官办公室收到的请愿书进行有限解封。位于 Docket 818。这将使政府能够将书记官办公室收到的内容与政府从寻求提交请愿书的个人处收到的内容进行比对，以便推进涉及第三方主张的请愿程序和没收（forfeiture）程序。我不知道法院是否已有机会审阅该申请，或者法院是否会作出该裁定（order）。我们当然可以再次提供为此拟定的裁定草案。\n法庭：好的。有任何异议吗？\nSARAFA 女士：没有，法官阁下，不过关于 853(n) 请愿书，我确实想指出，在我们 2026 年 2 月 24 日的信函中，我们请求下达一项命令（order），指示政府向辩方律师提供他们根据 853(n) 收到或可被解释为根据 853(n) 收到的所有请愿书的副本，而且我认为目前对此尚未作出裁决。\n法庭：首先，政府的申请\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（纽约南区速记公司）\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n获准。\nFinkel 先生，关于辩方刚才提出的申请？\nFINKEL 先生：政府表示反对。被告无权获得该信息。针对被告的没收（forfeiture）是终局的。被告此前曾表示，他对受没收约束的任何特定财产均不主张个人权益。而那些请愿书所涉及的——正是根据本法院的命令（order）以及被告自己的承认，被告本人在其中没有任何权益的特定财产。被告的请求应予驳回。\n法庭：辩方的申请被驳回。\n还有其他申请吗？\nMR. FINKEL：政府没有了。谢谢您。\nMS. SARAFA：有的，法官阁下。抱歉，法官阁下。我们还在 2026 年 6 月 25 日的信函（ECF No. 853）中，请求向辩方提供某些 FBI 302 报告的未删节副本。我们具体说明了我们请求提供未删节副本的文件贝茨编码范围（Bates range），而且我认为该请求尚未作出裁决。\n法庭：Finkel 先生？\nMR. FINKEL：我认为该请求已经有了裁决。法官阁下在过去几天作出了几项裁决，几个月前也作出了一项，以及其他关于证据开示（discovery）的裁决。政府已经履行了其\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n在本案中的披露义务，正如法官阁下在我记得是昨天作出的裁定中所明确认定的那样。Rule 16（第 16 条规则）阶段已结束，证据开示（discovery）已结束，地方法院就郭先生（Mr. Guo）审理的本案已经终结。该请求应予驳回。\n法庭：该申请被驳回。\nMS. SARAFA：谢谢法官阁下。\n还有另外两件简短的事项。只是想提请法庭注意，我们确实打算提出请求，将所有封存的呈交材料列为上诉记录的一部分，我相信我们会在今天的诉讼程序结束后以书面形式提出。\n最后，关于服刑地指定（designation），我们请求法庭在判决书（judgment）中建议将郭先生指定至位于 Danbury（丹伯里）的 BOP（联邦监狱管理局）设施，如果由于任何原因无法安排在该处，则建议将其指定至 Fairton（费尔顿）。\n法庭：政府有任何异议吗？\nMR. FINKEL：法官阁下，政府对此不持立场，但据我了解，BOP 的偏好是被告请求一个区域而非特定设施，因为他们很难迁就特定设施的请求。\nMS. SARAFA：法官阁下，我——根据我们的共同经验，有许多针对特定设施的建议，我相信 BOP 会尽力配合该建议，如果该特定指定\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n无法实现，也会在相关区域内进行指定。\n法庭：因此该申请获准。我会提出该建议。\n还有任何进一步的申请吗？\nMS. SARAFA：辩方没有进一步申请了，法官阁下。\n法庭：很好。我们的量刑听证会到此结束。休庭。\n全体律师：谢谢法官阁下。\no0o\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300","key_entities":["Guo","CCP","Finkel","Miles Guo","Sarafa","GTV","Dratel","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","forfeiture","853(n)","Kaley","CIPA","Horton","Murray","Fergenson","Farm Loan","Chinese Communist Party","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Crime Victim"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":491,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":790,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":853,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":16478,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-07-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-07-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:09:01"}