{"id":"court_sdny_89_1","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":89,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2023-06-20","title":"EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"保释听证会记录 —— 美国诉 Yanping Wang，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #89（2023-06-20 提交）。Magistrate Judge Lehrburger 于 2023 年 4 月 4 日主持的保释听证会，被告要求修改保释条件并质疑政府关于逃离风险的论证，法官核准被告申请。","summary_en":"Bail Hearing Transcript — United States v. Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #89 (filed June 20, 2023). Magistrate Judge Lehrburger's bail hearing on April 4, 2023, addressing defendant's motion to modify bond conditions; defendant contests government's flight risk allegations; court grants defendant's application.","body_en":"# **EXHIBIT A**\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007 Plaintiff, : - against - : WANG, YANPING, : April 4, 2023 New York, New York Defendant. : ------------------------------------ : BAIL HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BY: JULIANA MURRAY, ESQ. RYAN FINKEL, ESQ. One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 For Defendant: LIPMAN LAW PLLC BY: ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ. 45 West 29th Street, Suite 303 New York, New York 10001 CHAUDHRY LAW PLLC BY: PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ. 147 West 25th Street New York, New York 10001 INTERPRETER PRESENT Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, *Transcription Services* 155 East Fourth Street, #3C New York, New York 10009 Phone: (212) 420-0771 Email: Transcription420@aol.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n| | | | | | 2 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| INDEX | | | | | |\n| E X A M I N A T I O N S | | | | | |\n| Witness | Direct | Cross | Re-
Direct | Re-
Cross | Court |\n| None | | | | | |\n| E X H I B I T S | | | | | |\n| Exhibit
Number | Description | | ID | In | Voir
Dire |\n| None | | | | | |\n\n1\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
4 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | respect to the financial suretors that the Government |\n| 3 | says are not sufficient to meet the obligation under the |\n| 4 | conditions set by Judge Parker that two financially |\n| 5 | responsible people be able to sign on to the bond. |\n| 6 | And this is really defendant's application in |\n| 7 | that they raised this concern, and so I'll hear from |\n| 8 | defense counsel first. But why don't you also let me |\n| 9 | know if there's been any developments during the last |\n| 10 | week that make any difference and/or whether anything |\n| 11 | that happened before Judge Torres influences what |\n| 12 | happens here. |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: Just briefly, Your Honor, I just |\n| 14 | wanted to confirm that this is being recorded, this |\n| 15 | proceeding, because I don't see a court reporter. So |\n| 16 | just for the record. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: It is being recorded |\n| 18 | electronically. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN: May I begin, Your Honor? |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Yes, please. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, in our view, from the |\n| 23 | beginning, the Government never actually established by |\n| 24 | preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a |\n| 25 | flight risk. And I want to go -- we actually agreed to |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 5 |\n| 2 | the bond conditions, but we agreed to the bond |\n| 3 | conditions based on conversation that we had with the |\n| 4 | Government that in which the Government made certain |\n| 5 | representations about what was found in Ms. Wang's |\n| 6 | apartment. And so we were told that, we didn't have a |\n| 7 | lot of time to discuss things with our client, but we |\n| 8 | thought, all right, it seems reasonable, and then we |\n| 9 | agreed that we were going to propose names of two co- |\n| 10 | signers for the bond and, frankly, didn't think that |\n| 11 | this was going to be an issue. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 6 |\n| 2 | me back up and start at the beginning. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. LIPMAN: So Ms. Wang and her co-defendant, |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok, knew that the Government was looking at them |\n| 6 | for a very long time, so much so that in September, and |\n| 7 | according to the indictment, in September and October of |\n| 8 | last year the Government seized a bunch of assets, |\n| 9 | according to the indictment it's something like on the |\n| 10 | order of \\$700 million, and the Government seized those |\n| 11 | assets. It was a civil seizure, but it referenced, as |\n| 12 | specified (indiscernible). Right? So \\$700 million |\n| 13 | seized, I'm not sure that I can say for the Court that |\n| 14 | my client understood the full scale of what was seized, |\n| 15 | but she certainly understood that the Justice Department |\n| 16 | has seized a bunch of money, right. |\n| 17 | And then there was an SEC settlement for the |\n| 18 | GTV case which is the one that's relevant to her, and |\n| 19 | GTV paid back something in the order of I want to say |\n| 20 | \\$500 million, which incidentally they didn't pay after |\n| 21 | the - they first paid the money and then the SEC issued |\n| 22 | a settlement order. So it's in the reverse order from |\n| 23 | the Government says happened. Okay? So she knew, she |\n| 24 | knew that the Government was looking at her and that she |\n| 25 | was potentially in severe legal jeopardy. |\n\n Then the Government made certain statements on the record, and as we started having trouble having them approve the people we proposed, we at some point asked them for support for some of the things that they said were the reasons that our client is a flight risk. And so then they eventually provided it to us, and what we found is basically one of three things. The Government either made statements that are half true, and so we need to actually fill in the blanks and realize that what they said isn't really right. They have made statements that are contradicted by the evidence that they gathered in Ms. Wang's apartment, and then they made statements for which they're just conjectures. They're not actually supported by any evidence. So let\n\n### 1 PROCEEDING 7\n\n Despite that, she didn't go anywhere, but there's more. The Government says she had the passport from, a Chinese passport that she could've traveled on, right, and that she, and she's an asylum applicant, and because she's an asylum applicant, they say this is one of the factors to consider in her not having ties to the United States is somehow she count against her.\n\n Well, because she's an asylum applicant and she doesn't want to lose her asylum application, she did want to go travel, and she applied to the United States government for a furlough so that if she traveled, her asylum application would not get denied. So the Government, and that happened, she received permission to travel between December and January of last year, so December '22 to January I want to say 27, I'm probably wrong on the exact date, but something from mid-December to the third week of January --\n\n THE COURT: And when was the seizure of the money that you referred to?\n\n MR. LIPMAN: September and October according to the indictment. I think it's September 18 and October, was it is, 24, 26.\n\n So she put the government on notice that she was going to go travel despite all of this going on.\n\n7\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 8 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | She did not travel during that window. It expired. It |\n| 3 | expired for reasons that have nothing to do with |\n| 4 | anything other than she had a particular trip that she |\n| 5 | had in mind to make, she couldn't get, it didn't work |\n| 6 | out logistically. She then applied for another |\n| 7 | application, and I believe that was, according to her |\n| 8 | immigration counsel, that was on February 8, 2023. So a |\n| 9 | month before she was arrested. |\n| 10 | So the idea that she is a flight risk is, given |\n| 11 | all of that, is a little far-fetched, but there is a |\n\n reason for it, and the reason is this. Ms. Wang is in different times would be called a revolutionary. She has put herself, her family, everything she's done at risk because she is opposing the communist party of China, and whatever it is that they say in the indictment, there is no dispute, none whatsoever, that she has put herself in jeopardy. Her son is in China, her husband, the man, the one and only boyfriend she's ever had, they're not allowed to have any communication with her --\n\n THE COURT: Right, but as I understand the Government, I don't know if they've pivoted or whether they always asserted this, but their concern is with fleeing to other jurisdictions, be it the United Arab\n\n1 PROCEEDING 9 Emirates where supposedly Mr. Je, a co-conspirator, is or Vanuatu where she has an expired passport application or wherever.\n\n MR. LIPMAN: So, Your Honor, let me take Vanuatu first because that's easiest. Okay? Together with the passport that's expired, they also found two documents both for her and Mr. Kwok in her apartment saying that she's renouncing Vanuatu citizenship. So that's not an issue. The other thing is she got the passport for Vanuatu I believe in 2016, if I have that correctly, that was before she came to the United States. China and Vanuatu have since become good friends, and it's a different situation now, and I don't think it would be safe for her to go there.\n\n As far as going to United Arab Emirates, the United Arab Emirates does not, from what we heard this morning from the Government in Mr. Kwok's hearing, United Arab Emirates does not extradite its citizens to the United States. It does have an extradition treaty with China. She's not a citizen of United Arab Emirates, nobody's suggesting that she is. She's not, she doesn't have a passport from there. The only passport that she had that was still live, they have possession of that passport. They found it in her\n\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 10 |\n| 2 | apartment. So no, she cannot go somewhere else. |\n| 3 | Now let's talk about whether she -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, I want to stop |\n| 5 | you there, just on the issue of the extradition with |\n| 6 | United, with the UAE. What I heard you say was that |\n| 7 | they don't have an extradition agreement with respect to |\n| 8 | citizens of the UAE, and then I thought I heard you say |\n| 9 | that they have an extradition treaty with China which, |\n| 10 | of course, she's not going to go back to, and this isn't |\n| 11 | a proceeding in China. What is their status with |\n| 12 | respect to extradition of a citizen of a third-party |\n| 13 | country, if you will, and extraditing to the United |\n| 14 | States? I'm sure the Government can tell me but I'm |\n| 15 | wondering if you have an understanding. |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: As far as I know, there is no |\n| 17 | extradition treaty with the United States, but it's an |\n| 18 | irrelevant issue rather because, first of all, she can't |\n| 19 | get there. Okay? And, second, she's not concerned |\n| 20 | about being extradited to the United States; she's |\n| 21 | concerned about being extradited to China -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I understand. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: -- where she's going to get |\n| 24 | arrested and shot. I mean there's a difference. You |\n| 25 | know, as bad as the MDC is, it's not exactly a Chinese |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 11 |\n| 2 | prison. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: But is your point if she shows up |\n| 4 | at the UAE, she's going to get exported or extradited to |\n| 5 | China automatically? |\n| 6 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, I don't know about |\n| 7 | automatically, but she certainly is in great danger of |\n| 8 | that happening. That's absolutely true. And, look, in |\n| 9 | the hearing that we had earlier this morning, the |\n| 10 | Government actually, it was discussed, all the efforts |\n| 11 | that the Chinese government has undertaken to get Mr. |\n| 12 | Kwok back to China, including bribing American |\n| 13 | officials, there's a case going on now, a criminal trial |\n| 14 | I believe is going on right now in D.C. in which several |\n| 15 | government officials who've been bribed by China in |\n| 16 | order to facilitate Mr. Kwok's deportation from the |\n| 17 | United States to China. |\n| 18 | Well, the Government, this woman, according to |\n| 19 | the Government, is Mr. Kwok's chief of staff, whatever |\n| 20 | that means. Well, I don't think that they seriously |\n| 21 | will dispute that she is in danger. So -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I'm sorry, that she's what? |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: In danger. |\n| 24 | THE COURT: In danger. |\n| 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Meaning I don't think they |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 12 |\n| 2 | seriously dispute that if she went to China, got into |\n| 3 | China or that China wants her. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Right. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN: There can't be a serious dispute |\n| 6 | about that. So now let's talk about what would happen |\n| 7 | if she were in the United States. Basic reason, basic |\n| 8 | reason, she is Mr. Kwok's, according to the Government, |\n| 9 | chief of staff. She's very recognizable. Right? She's |\n| 10 | recognizable in the community of people who are here. |\n| 11 | This is a community of thousands of people in the United |\n| 12 | States. So the Government says, oh, they will hide her. |\n| 13 | Well, first of all, that's, forgive me, but that's just |\n| 14 | an improper inference. To think that thousands of |\n| 15 | people who are on the U.S. soil will secret a fugitive, |\n| 16 | is it because they're Chinese, is it because they speak |\n| 17 | Mandarin -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT: No, because they're, because they |\n| 19 | potentially were victims of the fraud. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN: Except for this. If they are |\n| 21 | victims of the fraud, they know what's going on, they're |\n| 22 | adults, and so they could at any time become persuaded |\n| 23 | that, in fact, she should be returned to the United |\n| 24 | States government if she is a fugitive. |\n| 25 | But there's more to this, and the more is this, |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 13 |\n| 2 | if the Chinese - we know from what I've read in the |\n| 3 | paper, that the Chinese communist party has parking |\n| 4 | Chinese communist officials from their police in their |\n| 5 | United States consulate in New York. For a second can |\n| 6 | we think that they're not keeping tabs on her? And that |\n| 7 | if she showed up anywhere in any community where people |\n| 8 | speak Mandarin as their primary language that she would |\n| 9 | be spotted? For a second can anybody conceive that the |\n| 10 | Chinese communist party wouldn't find her and identify |\n| 11 | her and tell the government exactly where she is? |\n| 12 | Now let's take the alternative. Let's assume |\n| 13 | for a second that she decided to hide herself in, I |\n| 14 | don't know, Utah among white people. She speaks English |\n| 15 | with a heavy accent, and her first language in Mandarin. |\n| 16 | Would she not stick out like a sore thumb? The idea |\n| 17 | that this woman can hide is blatantly absurd. It's |\n| 18 | absurd. And the idea that she could rely on people to |\n| 19 | hide her in the United States. So where are we? She |\n| 20 | can't leave and she can't hide. That's not flight risk. |\n| 21 | But there's more. And the more is this. The |\n| 22 | Government said, and this is why we actually thought we |\n| 23 | were okay with the bail package that they proposed. |\n| 24 | They said we found stuff in her apartment that tells you |\n| 25 | that she's a flight risk. What is it? We found twelve |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 14 |\n| 2 | phones. Of these twelve phones, six of them were |\n| 3 | secreted in boxes that were, that looked like brand new |\n| 4 | boxes of iPhones and these were used – this is a |\n| 5 | representation from the Government of the United States |\n| 6 | to a court in the United States. So we said, all right, |\n| 7 | let's look at the pictures. Send us the pictures. |\n| 8 | Well. May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 9 | THE COURT: You may. |\n| 10 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: This is the evidence log, Your |\n| 12 | Honor, that was of collected items from her apartment. |\n| 13 | This is what we got from the Government. Okay? |\n| 14 | THE COURT: Uh huh. |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm going to assume that |\n| 16 | everything on here is true and correct because it came |\n| 17 | from the Government. If it's not, they should tell Your |\n| 18 | Honor. Here's a list of phones and where they were |\n| 19 | found. On the first page. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. |\n| 20 | These are all iPhones, and they were all found on the |\n| 21 | kitchen table. Now, Your Honor, if the Court would like |\n| 22 | to see, I have pictures of them. |\n| 23 | They were found on the counter in the kitchen, |\n| 24 | three of them. They were plugged in in plain view. |\n| 25 | There was a phone that was on the side of the table, |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 17 | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 2 | as the Government well knows, Ms. Wang is not unfamiliar | |\n| 3 | with what happens when the FBI raids somebody. They | |\n| 4 | raided Mr. Kwok previously. She knows what happens when | |\n| 5 | that happens. Okay? So the idea that she could think | |\n| 6 | that she could hide a laptop in between her sweaters is | |\n| 7 | absurd. | |\n| 8 | But there's more now, Your Honor. Here is the | |\n| 9 | - if I may - which is this? | |\n| 10 | ATTORNEY: 46. | |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. | |\n| 12 | THE COURT: You may, and just, I want to | |\n| 13 | confirm something. Are we looking at evidence and | |\n| 14 | material that was not available before the hearing | |\n| 15 | before Judge Parker? | |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: This was not available to us | |\n| 17 | before - we got this - so here's what happened. We | |\n| 18 | asked them some of these questions about the phone, | |\n| 19 | right, we asked those questions I think it was on the | |\n| 20 | 29th. Do you have our letter? But essentially, Your | |\n| 21 | Honor, we got these the night before we saw you. | |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Okay, so that was well after Judge | |\n| 23 | Parker's ruling. | |\n| 24 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. | |\n| 25 | THE COURT: Yes. | |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING | 18 |\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, this is the FBI | |\n| 3 | schematic of the apartment that Ms. Wang lives in. By | |\n| 4 | the way, it's 740 square feet. This is a woman who | |\n| 5 | apparently defrauded people up to, for something like a | |\n| 6 | billion dollars. Anyway, so on this page, Your Honor, I | |\n| 7 | call the Court's attention on what is in the apartment | |\n| 8 | and what is not. There is a bed in the bedroom, and | |\n| 9 | there's a side table. There is a couch in the | |\n| 10 | livingroom, and there's something in front of the couch, | |\n| 11 | it's actually a (indiscernible). There is nothing else | |\n| 12 | in this apartment. There's no wardrobe, there's no | |\n| 13 | chest of drawers, there's no desk, there's nothing. So | |\n| 14 | where does she keep her stuff? In the closets. All of | |\n| 15 | her stuff is in the closets. Her old phones were in the | |\n| 16 | closet. Right? There's nothing nefarious about putting | |\n| 17 | stuff in the closet when you don't have any furniture. | |\n| 18 | So then, so then they say, okay, we found money | |\n| 19 | in her apartment. We found money, we found \\$138,000. | |\n| 20 | Ms. Murray said in recent bills, she thought they were | |\n| 21 | recent bills. Okay. So then we thought, all right, can | |\n| 22 | we see the pictures of the money? Why did we ask for | |\n| 23 | pictures of the money? Because we had reason to think | |\n\n that a bunch of that money was in red envelopes which apparently in Chinese culture it is common on holidays\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 20 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | particularly persuasive that means someone's necessarily |\n| 3 | going to run because it's in a bag. It's organized. |\n| 4 | But one thing maybe you can tell me is, and I realize |\n| 5 | this is shifting time a bit, but I thought that in their |\n| 6 | filing that, their last filing that prompted putting |\n| 7 | this over, that they had indicated and represented that |\n| 8 | Ms. Wang did not disclose this \\$138,000 to Pretrial, but |\n| 9 | I was under the impression this had already been seized |\n| 10 | a couple of weeks before. |\n| 11 | MR. LIPMAN: No, it was seized on the day of |\n| 12 | her arrest, okay, and the question that she was asked, |\n| 13 | the relevant question was did you have any money cash on |\n| 14 | you when you were arrested. She was arrested at 6:15 |\n| 15 | a.m., she was in her pajamas. The truthful answer to |\n| 16 | that question is no. We checked out notes, we don't see |\n| 17 | any other questions that would have elicited a different |\n| 18 | answer. So did she disclose it voluntarily? No. I |\n| 19 | don't know that she was asked about it. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay? |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I get it. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, even if she had |\n| 24 | been asked about it, there were a dozen FBI agents in |\n| 25 | her apartment ripping it up. Okay, I mean she was, she |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 21 |\n| 2 | was beyond stressed. She's sitting and talking, in a |\n| 3 | situation that she's never encountered, she's being |\n| 4 | asked these questions. Is it crazy that, you know, the |\n| 5 | question is have you, do you have any cash on you, and |\n| 6 | she says - did you have any cash on you when you |\n| 7 | arrested and the answer is no and she doesn't say |\n| 8 | anything else? I mean really? |\n| 9 | All right. Now, by the way, before - because |\n| 10 | they're going to bring up another picture for you, Your |\n| 11 | Honor, and I don't want to be accused of giving you |\n| 12 | something less than the full picture. And the full |\n| 13 | picture is that when they made another picture of the |\n| 14 | money - I apologize, Your Honor. I've gotten so |\n| 15 | excited, I lost the other picture of the money. Here it |\n| 16 | is. May I approach? |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 18 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: This is the picture that makes it |\n| 20 | look as if more of this money is more recent because you |\n| 21 | can see there are some old bills, some new bills. |\n| 22 | However, with that said, as I told the Government, |\n| 23 | there's a good explanation for why some of that money is |\n| 24 | recent. Okay? And the explanation, and I told the |\n| 25 | Government this, is that she had some pounds that she |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 22 |\n| 2 | brought over from, with her herself at some point in her |\n| 3 | previous travels, and that those pounds, you know, |\n| 4 | however they got to her, but those pounds needed to be |\n| 5 | replaced because apparently when the Queen died, they're |\n| 6 | exchanging their money for money that looks, that has a |\n| 7 | picture of the King. Okay, so over time she had that |\n| 8 | replaced, so there's got to be something like \\$30,000, |\n| 9 | \\$40,000 in there that's recent that has to do with that. |\n| 10 | I asked to see the bills yesterday when it was |\n| 11 | too late for me to go do it, they said you can come see |\n| 12 | it. I'll see them at some point. But my point though, |\n| 13 | Your Honor, the idea that this is money secreted so that |\n| 14 | she can get out of Dodge, no, no, that doesn't make any |\n| 15 | sense. |\n| 16 | THE COURT: No, but it is suggestive that she |\n| 17 | has access to significant funds even if that particular |\n| 18 | one wasn't what she was intending to use. |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Let's address that. Okay? The |\n| 20 | Government says she didn't disclose all of the bank |\n| 21 | accounts over which she had control. I had a specific |\n| 22 | conversation with the Government in which I said if |\n| 23 | you're asking about accounts for which she can actually |\n| 24 | transact, meaning no third people, right, in other |\n| 25 | words, but my bank account, I can go and do stuff. My |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 23 |\n| 2 | firm's bank account, not necessarily. Well, in my case |\n| 3 | yes, but, you know, if you work for a firm, you may be |\n| 4 | able to direct somebody to do whatever, that's firm |\n| 5 | business, but you can't take it and put it in your |\n| 6 | pocket. Okay? So what I said to the Government is we |\n| 7 | are aware of two accounts, right, that are hers. We're |\n| 8 | aware of another business account where she could have, |\n| 9 | she could transact. We gave them the account and the |\n| 10 | number. Right? We're not aware of any other accounts. |\n| 11 | That is not, we did not hide from the Government that |\n| 12 | she owns this BBI entity. That's not - the question was |\n| 13 | -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: I understand, that's, of the list |\n| 15 | of four things, three of them were business entities, |\n| 16 | two of them weren't even hers directly. What about the |\n| 17 | Himalayan cryptocurrency? |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: Good question. So I've been |\n| 19 | trying to figure out what happened with the Himalayan |\n| 20 | thing, and there are two things about that. Number one, |\n| 21 | the document that they're referring to, remember how I |\n| 22 | said there are some things where there's evidence, there |\n| 23 | are some things that are half-truths, there are some |\n| 24 | things that are contradicted, and then there are some |\n| 25 | things were it's just a leap? Right? |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 24 |\n| 2 | So what are they looking at? They're looking |\n| 3 | at a schedule that says allocation, okay, allocation. |\n| 4 | They're not looking at an account at H Coin. They're |\n| 5 | not looking - they're looking at an allocation. I've |\n| 6 | been trying to figure out what happened to that |\n| 7 | allocation. The best I can ascertain is that she has no |\n| 8 | idea what happened. I'm not saying that something |\n| 9 | didn't happen with it. I'm saying that she has no idea. |\n| 10 | Okay? |\n| 11 | THE COURT: But which is -- |\n| 12 | (interposing) |\n| 13 | MR. LIPMAN: But there's more -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: The current value of that, right, |\n| 15 | at least the Government says is something like \\$13 |\n| 16 | million. I'm sure it was less than, well, maybe who |\n| 17 | knows given the market. But you would think that |\n| 18 | someone - I'm going to assume it was a significant |\n| 19 | amount of cyber currently at the time in that to her it |\n| 20 | was significant, and you would think one would keep |\n| 21 | track of that significant amount. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: If one thought that it was theirs, |\n| 23 | then one would. But, Your Honor, here's - so the |\n| 24 | Government seized hundreds of millions of dollars, |\n| 25 | including from the Himalayan exchange. The Government |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 25 |\n| 2 | is alleging that it's all a fraud. Out of one side of |\n| 3 | their mouth they say it's worthless, and people can't |\n| 4 | actually turn it into cash. The SEC said, in its |\n| 5 | complaint the SEC says people tried to turn it into cash |\n| 6 | but couldn't. Well, is it or isn't it? Because if it |\n| 7 | is, then maybe it's worth \\$13 million, though we don't |\n| 8 | know how to access it. But if it isn't, if their |\n| 9 | allegations are correct, then I don't know what the |\n| 10 | mechanism is for turning this into cash. Okay? |\n| 11 | So this is all to say that the presumption is |\n| 12 | that she would be released or released pursuant to |\n| 13 | conditions that are least restrictive to assure her -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT: Right, but are we arguing anew? I |\n| 15 | mean this comes back to the question, Judge Parker |\n| 16 | implemented or ordered conditions. The crux of the |\n| 17 | problem is that one of her conditions is not being |\n| 18 | fulfilled because the Government has taken the position |\n| 19 | that none of the persons offered to be financially |\n| 20 | responsible are going to be sufficient suretors either |\n| 21 | because they don't exercise moral suasion, because they |\n| 22 | aren't financially responsible, or they are a victim or |\n| 23 | a participant in the alleged fraud. And there's a |\n| 24 | question of, okay, what happens if they keep on not |\n| 25 | accepting these people. So I just want to be careful |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
27 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | that were taken. I was looking to see if I can find a |\n| 3 | photograph or a log of a document hidden in the |\n| 4 | cushions. That doesn't exist. You know what else |\n| 5 | doesn't exist? They said in their - this is a |\n| 6 | representation to a court, they said we found a phone |\n| 7 | hidden between mattresses in her bedroom. I want to see |\n| 8 | this picture. I want to find it on the log of pictures |\n| 9 | that are taken. Where is it? It doesn't exist. Or at |\n| 10 | least it hasn't been given to us. |\n| 11 | Now, there is a picture like that that was |\n| 12 | taken at Mr. Kwok's search, and - thank you. |\n| 13 | (pause in proceeding) |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 16 | MR. LIPMAN: So that's a picture of a phone |\n| 17 | hidden between mattresses. But it's not from her |\n| 18 | apartment. And I have yet to see the one from her |\n| 19 | apartment. |\n| 20 | One other thing, they said she has stuff in |\n| 21 | her, in the pouch for easy retrieval, right, the money |\n| 22 | was in the pouch for easy retrieval. Everything was in |\n| 23 | a pouch for easy retrieval. You know what else was in |\n| 24 | the pouch for easy retrieval? I think every credit card |\n| 25 | she's ever had. I mean a bunch of old expired credit |\n\n| | PROCEEDING 28 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | cards, easy retrieval. It doesn't make sense. |\n| 3 | Now let me, Your Honor, let me just now switch |\n| 4 | over to the other piece of this which is the proposed |\n| 5 | co-signers, the Government's refusal to approve any, and |\n| 6 | what this is about. And I want to start with something |\n| 7 | that I actually did not plan on doing because it only |\n| 8 | happened in the courtroom this morning. You see these |\n| 9 | people here, many of these people here are here to |\n| 10 | support her. |\n| 11 | She got emotional in the courtroom and started |\n| 12 | crying because she realized that all these people are |\n| 13 | here to support her, and let me explain what that means. |\n| 14 | The Government probably doesn't know this, but surely it |\n| 15 | is actually unlawful for the Government to disclose that |\n| 16 | somebody's an asylum applicant. There's a regulation |\n| 17 | that says that. I didn't know. I found out recently. |\n| 18 | I'm sure they don't know. I'm sure they didn't do it |\n| 19 | deliberately. |\n| 20 | But the reason is obvious. Right? If you have |\n| 21 | somebody coming from a country, you identify them as |\n| 22 | somebody who's seeking asylum somewhere else, that |\n| 23 | immediately puts them in danger. All of these people |\n| 24 | simply by coming here, do you think there's no one here |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 29 |\n| 2 | monitoring this? All these people simply by coming up |\n| 3 | and standing up for her have exposed themselves, their |\n| 4 | families -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT: I don't think anyone questions |\n| 6 | perhaps their intent. The question does the -- |\n| 7 | MR. LIPMAN: Does she care about them? |\n| 8 | THE COURT: -- does the defendant care enough |\n| 9 | about these people that she's going to be concerned |\n| 10 | enough about whatever monetary means they're putting on |\n| 11 | the line versus taking flight, and one would paint the |\n| 12 | picture, if you're the Government, saying she's alleged |\n| 13 | to have committed fraud, you've got strong evidence. So |\n| 14 | why would she care about the people she defrauded? |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN: Fair amount, Your Honor, I was |\n| 16 | about to address it. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: There are different ways to think |\n| 19 | about moral suasion. Right? I think we all agree that |\n| 20 | a brother can sign for a brother, and the first brother |\n| 21 | is not going to care. They're relatives, they're |\n| 22 | brothers, but they're not going to care. It's also true |\n| 23 | that people can connect in some way, they could be |\n| 24 | strangers, but they connected, right, and so somebody |\n| 25 | can have moral suasion over somebody else who actually |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 30 |\n| 2 | they don't have all that much interaction. They just |\n| 3 | love each other. Right? |\n| 4 | But there's another kind, and the other kind is |\n| 5 | this, if you are a member of a certain kind of community |\n| 6 | and you're - and this community is important to you, |\n| 7 | it's important to you what happens to the members of |\n| 8 | this community. Now, the Government's going to say, oh, |\n| 9 | my God, a billion dollars, these people are victims. |\n| 10 | Well, they're here, they don't think they're victims, |\n| 11 | but that's another story. Okay? |\n| 12 | But here's the thing, look at the indictment, |\n| 13 | Your Honor. Mr. Kwok is alleged to have bought himself |\n| 14 | a Lamborghini. I would love one. Okay? But does she |\n| 15 | have one? No. He apparently is living in a mansion and |\n| 16 | has other mansions and boats and this and that and the |\n| 17 | other thing. Where in the indictment is there an |\n| 18 | allegation that any of this money went to her? The |\n| 19 | closest they've come is this allocation of the coin |\n| 20 | allocation. Right? And we don't know what happened to |\n| 21 | that. Okay. |\n| 22 | So the question you have to ask yourself is why |\n| 23 | is she doing this? Why does she leave her family, her |\n| 24 | son, her one true love, right, and moved to a foreign |\n| 25 | country where she is basically exposing herself as a |\n\nfrom the Chinese communist party in this room right now\n\n1 PROCEEDING 31 revolutionary, why did she do this? Okay. There's an answer, but that she's trying to enrich herself is not the answer. So then the question is would she, given what the Government has alleged about her, not about her co-defendants, but about her, because what happens to the co-defendants is relevant but what matters really is what happens to her.\n\n And also the question, given the allegations that the Government has made, right, is she the kind of person who will stick one of these people with a \\$5 million debt? And the answer to that is obviously no, she lives in a 740 square foot apartment without furniture, away from her family with whom she cannot have anymore contact. It's just beyond belief that we have given them eight people, grownups, right, they don't like all of them, that's fine. They say we didn't get enough documents with respect to certain people. Really? Somebody's willing to put up a \\$3 billion house, what other documents do you want? We couldn't post that house unless we were able to prove to them that that house existed and belongs to the person who's posting it. Right? That person is an adult who understands what's going on and thinks that she, that that person has moral suasion over her and thinks that\n\n31\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
32 |\n| 2 | she's
not
–
there
are
three
people,
the
co-signers
who |\n| 3 | are
in
this
room
today. |\n| 4 | So
where
does
the
Government,
forgive
me,
Your |\n| 5 | Honor,
but
where
does
the
Government
get
off
making |\n| 6 | those
judgments
for
these
people? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well,
that's
part
of
what,
I
mean |\n| 8 | they
get
to
form
that
judgment,
and
if
you
don't
agree |\n| 9 | with
it,
that's
why
we're
here,
but
they,
the
Government |\n| 10 | needs
to
be
assured
or
feel
assured
that
the
financial |\n| 11 | security
that's
being
posted
is
sufficient
to
reasonably |\n| 12 | assure
that
the
defendant
will
not
flee,
and
there
is
a |\n| 13 | valid
concern
I
think
in
theory
that
if
you
have
folks |\n| 14 | that
are
allegedly
victims
of
a
fraud
that's
being |\n| 15 | committed,
that
the
fraudster
or
alleged
fraudster
may |\n| 16 | not
be
so
incented
as
one
might
normally
be, |\n| 17 | theoretically. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
Your Honor,
one
cannot
paint |\n| 19 | everything
with
a
broad
brush. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I
agree. |\n| 21 | MR. LIPMAN:
One
really
needs
to
look
at
the |\n| 22 | particular
circumstances,
and
the
particular |\n| 23 | circumstances
is
that
the
Government
is
not
alleging |\n| 24 | that
she
stole
money.
It's
just
that
simple.
They're |\n| 25 | alleging
that
the
other
two
stole
money.
They're
not
– |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 34 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Government cannot approve cosigners who belong to one of |\n| 3 | these two groups because as a category they |\n| 4 | (indiscernible), then, Your Honor, you have the |\n| 5 | authority to change this, and, in fact, as the Court is |\n| 6 | well aware, one of the provisions in here is that you |\n| 7 | cannot have a financial condition that makes it -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: \"The judicial officer may not |\n| 9 | impose a financial condition that results in the |\n| 10 | pretrial detention of the person.\" 18 U.S.C. |\n| 11 | 3142(c)(2). And yet the Government seems to have found |\n| 12 | cases that say that in the context of the statute, that |\n| 13 | does not trump but rather what trumps is whether the |\n| 14 | conditions will reasonably assure the presence of the |\n| 15 | defendant at future proceedings. And even a case you |\n| 16 | rely on, U.S. v. Panaronda , says that too, and they said |\n| 17 | the ultimate question is the Court should consider |\n| 18 | whether that particular financial condition is a |\n| 19 | necessary part of the bail conditions to provide |\n| 20 | reasonable assurance of the defendant's appearance. I |\n| 21 | mean that's really what we have to decide. |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: And, Your Honor, that case, I'm |\n| 23 | going to mispronounce names so I apologize -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Panaronda. |\n| 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay, what happened in that case |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
35 |\n| 2 | is
Judge
Sweet,
we'll
change
the
conditions.
I
mean
and |\n| 3 | he
said,
look,
there's
\\$250,000
bail
here,
this
person |\n| 4 | is
never
going
to
either
meet
it
or
get
anybody
who
is |\n| 5 | good
for
\\$250,000.
I'm
going
to
reduce
it
to
something |\n| 6 | that
people
can
meet
and
still
satisfy
the
conditions. |\n| 7 | We
proposed,
just
so
that
we're
clear,
in |\n| 8 | addition
to
posting,
you know,
property
to
secure
the |\n| 9 | bond
that
would
be
more
than
enough,
right,
because,
you |\n| 10 | know,
it
says
two.
There
are
three
people
who
together |\n| 11 | have
more
property
than
\\$5
million.
They
can
post
it |\n| 12 | all.
They're
prepared
to
do
it.
But
separately.
She |\n| 13 | has
access,
as
far
as
I
know,
and
the
Government
doesn't |\n| 14 | actually
know
anything
different,
she
personally
only |\n| 15 | has
access
at
this
point
to
two
accounts
that
belong
to |\n| 16 | her
and
that
she
has
value
in
her
apartment,
we
already |\n| 17 | posted
that.
So
her
apartment,
one
of
her
accounts |\n| 18 | completely
-- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
With
\\$400,000. |\n| 20 | MR. LIPMAN:
Well,
I'm
not
sure
exactly. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well,
that
was
the
one
that
you |\n| 22 | offered
up
-- |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN:
Yeah,
yeah.
And
then
the
second |\n| 24 | one
monitor
it.
I
mean
we're
happy
to
have
-
in other |\n| 25 | words,
she
-- |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
36 |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I
get
it. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
would
have
no
money
-- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN:
Now,
the
Government
says,
well, |\n| 6 | you know,
supporters,
this
and
that,
they
can
–
that's |\n| 7 | true
in
every
case.
Your Honor,
I'm
going
to
sit
down |\n| 8 | because
I've
been
going
on,
you've
indulged
me
and
I |\n| 9 | appreciate
that.
But,
Your Honor,
there's
no
reason
why |\n| 10 | this
woman
should
spend
another
night
in
prison. |\n| 11 | There's
no
reason.
She's
not
a
flight
risk.
She
has |\n| 12 | already
put
up
her
apartment.
We're
happy
to
have
the |\n| 13 | three
co-signers
that
are
here
are
happy
to
go
down
and |\n| 14 | sign
the
bond
today.
We
can
post
the
–
in fact,
I
will |\n| 15 | take
personal
responsibility
for
the
two
accounts. |\n| 16 | Thank you.
My
much
wiser
co-counsel
reminded
me
that |\n| 17 | what
these
people
have
on
the
hook
is
not
\\$5
million. |\n| 18 | It's
their
lives
and
their
families'
lives
because
of |\n| 19 | what
they're
proposing
to
do
for
Ms.
Wang. |\n| 20 | If
that
is
not
an
indication
that
they
think |\n| 21 | they
have
moral
suasion
-- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
That's
not,
it's not,
I
don't |\n| 23 | question
their
thought
process
on
it.
And
I
just
want |\n| 24 | to
confirm
something.
In
terms
of
what
you
did
propose |\n| 25 | in
terms
of
possibly
modifying
the
conditions
is
you |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 37 |\n| 2 | wanted the Court to approve two of the eight that you |\n| 3 | had offered. You have three here now. You were going |\n| 4 | to, in addition to the security for the apartment, you |\n| 5 | were going to put up the \\$400,000 account and the |\n| 6 | \\$130,000 cash that was seized. You were going to put |\n| 7 | additional security through others that you now say I |\n| 8 | think that you could get to an amount in total of \\$5 |\n| 9 | million. Do I have that right? |\n| 10 | MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, we could. I mean we have |\n| 11 | three people willing to post their property, and one of |\n| 12 | those houses is I think \\$3 million, one is 1.7 if I |\n| 13 | remember correctly, but yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT: And then you proposed also that the |\n| 15 | Government monitor and approve any expenditures from the |\n| 16 | \\$500,000 account. |\n| 17 | MR. LIPMAN: I'd rather Pretrial did it and not |\n| 18 | the U.S. Attorney's Office, but yes. |\n| 19 | THE COURT: Yeah, again, one of the driving |\n| 20 | concerns here is - I'm just looking for where this was |\n| 21 | said, that, and this is from U.S. v. Melville I think. |\n| 22 | \"Bail is not for the purpose of providing funds to the |\n| 23 | Government to seek the defendant should he go |\n| 24 | underground or flee the jurisdiction. Bail is intended |\n| 25 | as a catalyst to aid the appearance of the defendant |\n\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
39 |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN:
Okay.
So
I
already
said
that
she |\n| 4 | is
a
revolutionary.
She
believes
in
the
cause.
If
she |\n| 5 | didn't
believe
in
the
cause,
if
she
didn't
believe
in |\n| 6 | these
people
–
thank you. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
The
two
are
not
mutually
exclusive, |\n| 8 | fraud
and
belief
in
a
cause. |\n| 9 | MR. LIPMAN:
Well,
Your Honor,
that's
true, |\n| 10 | but,
again,
you
have
to
look
at
the
individual
and
what |\n| 11 | is
it
that
they
did
-- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Of course. |\n| 13 | MR. LIPMAN:
And
so
-- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I
agree. |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
they
call
each
other,
so
I've |\n| 16 | talked
to
a
bunch
of
people
-- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I
think
I
get
enough. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN:
You
get
it.
And
they
call
each |\n| 19 | other
–
just
before
I
sit
down,
they
call
each
other |\n| 20 | brother
and
sister,
okay,
and
I've
talked
to
a
bunch
of |\n| 21 | them,
and
I
mean
all
I
can
say
is
that
they're
willing |\n| 22 | to
risk
everything,
and
she
has
not
done
anything
to |\n| 23 | indicate
that
she
would
do,
she
would
jeopardize
them |\n| 24 | at,
jeopardize
them
personally
for
her
own,
for
her
own |\n| 25 | personal
gain. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
40 |\n| 2 | THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: All right, I will hear from the |\n| 5 | Government. |\n| 6 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just one |\n| 7 | brief point that Mr. Lipman just raised. With respect |\n| 8 | to the defendant's personal gain, the Government would |\n| 9 | note that the defendant's living in a \\$1.1 million |\n| 10 | apartment. The defendant has nearly a million dollars - |\n| 11 | - |\n| 12 | THE COURT: One might consider that poor in the |\n| 13 | middle of New York, but, you know, nonetheless. |\n| 14 | MS. MURRAY: Has nearly a million dollars in |\n| 15 | cash and her bank accounts, the two that were disclosed, |\n| 16 | and I'll get to that point. We have evidence that she |\n| 17 | was allocated \\$7 million approximately of what was a |\n| 18 | cryptocurrency or a purported cryptocurrency at the time |\n| 19 | of the initial coin offering at a lower valuation. So |\n| 20 | that would be worth substantially more now. And she had |\n| 21 | over approximately \\$138,000 of cash in her safe. |\n| 22 | But I would like to reset with respect today's |\n| 23 | proceedings. |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Okay. |\n| 25 | MS. MURRAY: At the very outset, Your Honor |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 41 |\n| 2 | asked about the status of the bail proceedings, and no, |\n| 3 | there have no further discussions between the defense |\n| 4 | and the Government regarding proposed suretors. The |\n| 5 | Government has not received any documentation additional |\n| 6 | to the documents that the defense submitted in |\n| 7 | connection with their motion that support the various |\n| 8 | purported financial situation of the suretors that they |\n| 9 | proposed even though they were on notice from the |\n| 10 | Government's submission that we believe the |\n| 11 | documentation to be incomplete or inadequate to make an |\n| 12 | accurate determination or assessment. The Government |\n| 13 | has not successfully reached the eighth co-signer that |\n| 14 | the defense had proposed and, therefore, has been unable |\n| 15 | to interview that person. So that's where we are today. |\n| 16 | Now, there are really three questions for the |\n| 17 | Court today. First, with respect to the defendant's |\n| 18 | motion, whether the Court should direct that the |\n| 19 | defendant has satisfied the conditions of her bond, the |\n| 20 | conditions that Judge Parker imposed when she was |\n| 21 | initially presented on March 15, several hours after her |\n| 22 | arrest. The answer is clearly no. |\n| 23 | The second question is whether the Court should |\n| 24 | modify the conditions of that bond that Judge Parker |\n| 25 | imposed to remove the co-signers requirement, which is |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 42 |\n| 2 | one of the first modification requests the defense is |\n| 3 | asking for, or potentially in connection with or an |\n| 4 | alternative various different modifications, be it |\n| 5 | posting additional property or cash in support of the |\n| 6 | bond, adding co-signers, aggregating co-signers. Again, |\n| 7 | with respect to modification, the answer is plainly no, |\n| 8 | the Court should not do that. |\n| 9 | And, finally, the third question, which was |\n| 10 | raised in the Government's submission last Friday, |\n| 11 | whether the defendant should be detained pending trial |\n| 12 | because there are no conditions or set of conditions |\n| 13 | that will reasonably assure her presence at future court |\n| 14 | proceedings. And, Your Honor, the answer to that is |\n| 15 | yes. |\n| 16 | So I'll take each of those points in turn. |\n| 17 | First, with respect to the proposed co-signers, |\n| 18 | the defense submitted documentation and names and |\n| 19 | information about those co-signers to the Court. That |\n| 20 | is because they are not approved by the Government. So |\n| 21 | under the statute the basis for the Court to approve |\n| 22 | unapproved co-signers is to evaluate documentation, |\n| 23 | information about those co-signers, and then determine |\n| 24 | whether they have a net worth with sufficient |\n| 25 | unencumbered value to pay the full amount of the bond. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 43 |\n| 2 | here \\$5 million. And I'm not going to go over each of |\n| 3 | the individuals, Your Honor, because we laid this out in |\n| 4 | great detail in our initial submission. We went through |\n| 5 | each of the seven proposed co-signers that the defense |\n| 6 | has presented to the Court here with documentation, |\n| 7 | again, setting aside the eighth whom we were not able to |\n| 8 | interview. |\n| 9 | For each of those seven, based on the documents |\n| 10 | that the defense is providing to Your Honor for your |\n| 11 | consideration of whether those individuals meet the |\n| 12 | standard of the statute, first of all, Your Honor, none |\n| 13 | of them has appropriate moral suasion over the |\n| 14 | defendant. And, again, we laid this out but I would |\n| 15 | like to make that point a bit more finely because it's |\n| 16 | extremely important where here the defense is saying |\n| 17 | that these individuals exercise moral suasion. |\n| 18 | And, Your Honor, is correct, it's not a |\n| 19 | question of whether the proposed co-signers believe that |\n| 20 | they have influence or moral suasion over the defendant. |\n| 21 | It's a question of how the defendant feels, and while we |\n| 22 | can't put ourself in our head or in her heart, what we |\n\n can do is we can look at the evidence that's in front of us.\n\nThese seven proposed co-signers for Your\n\n1 PROCEEDING 44 Honor's consideration, some of them have never met Ms. Wang, never spoken with her. A handful of them have met her at events, generally speaking. Most do not know where she works. Most do not know where she lives. They don't talk to her frequently. They don't appear to have a personal relationship.\n\n Interestingly, and I'll get to this point, one of the individuals actually believes that Ms. Wang works at Gettir, which is one of the alleged entities involved in the fraud and a potential instrumentality. And believes that because that individual met Ms. Wang in connection with interviewing for a position at Gettir. I'll talk about why that's relevant. Another individual believes that she works at a company called HCHK Properties. Again, one of these shell companies that's used in the course of this billion dollar fraud.\n\n And these proposed co-signers whom defense argues exercise moral suasion, they don't know the defendant well enough to even have personal relationship with her, and, therefore, we have no comfort that Ms. Wang would in any way be dissuaded by their signing a bond from fleeing, from leaving them responsible for paying the amount of the bond.\n\nTHE COURT: Well, even if they don't have what\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 45 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | we think of as a traditional personal relationship or |\n| 3 | family relationship or a deep friend relationship, why |\n| 4 | can't they be bonded over a cause? |\n| 5 | MS. MURRAY: They could be bonded over a cause, |\n| 6 | Your Honor. In this particular situation, and this is |\n| 7 | why the Government's argument about these individuals |\n| 8 | being potential victims of the fraud or apparent victims |\n| 9 | of the fraud is important, this fraud has been largely |\n| 10 | perpetuated targeting that community. It is a fraud |\n| 11 | that has focused on preying on and mobilizing people who |\n| 12 | support Mr. Kwok's and Ms. Wang's and Mr. Je's movement |\n| 13 | against the CCP. Those are the exact individuals who |\n| 14 | have been identified and targeted to send hundreds of |\n| 15 | millions dollars, over a billion dollars, of money to |\n| 16 | line Mr. Kwok's pockets, Mr. Je's pockets, their |\n| 17 | families, to reinvest in the companies that are the |\n| 18 | instrumentalities of the fraud, companies that Ms. Wang |\n| 19 | manages and works for, some on paper and some functional |\n| 20 | control. |\n| 21 | So there's no comfort that the Government can |\n| 22 | derive from the argument that because an individual is a |\n| 23 | member of the allegedly community that Ms. Wang has |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 46 |\n| 2 | And, Your Honor, I just note, moral suasion |\n| 3 | factors vary, but some of the considerations include the |\n| 4 | strength of ties between the defendant and the proposed |\n| 5 | suretor. Again, here, with respect to all of the |\n| 6 | proposed suretors in front of this Court which the |\n| 7 | defendant provided to Your Honor, that factor doesn't |\n| 8 | exist. |\n| 9 | Also, the defendant's roots in the community, |\n| 10 | we understand from defense counsel that Ms. Wang |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 47 |\n| 2 | each of the proposed suretors, but these individuals do |\n| 3 | not have sufficient assets of an unencumbered value to |\n| 4 | support the full amount of the bond. That is the |\n| 5 | statutory framework that we're working within at this |\n| 6 | point where conditions have been imposed, where the |\n| 7 | Government has unapproved suretors, and the defense has |\n| 8 | now moved to bring them before the Court -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT: Well, why I am hearing at least |\n| 10 | from the defense that with an entire package and the |\n| 11 | supposed three FRP's who are here, suretors, that they |\n| 12 | do have \\$5 million. Let me just verify something, |\n| 13 | counsel for the defense, are you saying that that is |\n| 14 | unencumbered, 5 million? |\n| 15 | MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, we have three people who |\n| 16 | have unencumbered -- well -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Net unencumbered. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: Thank you. Yes, net I think adds |\n| 19 | up to -- let's put it this way, together with the million |\n| 20 | dollars that she has definitely, I know that one is \\$3 |\n| 21 | million. I'm sorry, I'm spacing on one of them, but I'm |\n| 22 | pretty sure that those three cover \\$5 million. But that |\n| 23 | they do including the -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Right, she's got the million, she's |\n| 25 | also got the 400, she's got the 138. So we're good for |\n\n supporters, that that will influence Ms. Wang to not flee.\n\n essentially works and then works within this community, but I would just note during the second attempt at this bail hearing for Ms. Wang Judge Netburn did note that Ms. Wang has lived in the country for seven years and is representing that she knows no one, no one who could potentially come forward as a co-signer who either isn't a potential victim within this community or a potential subject or co-conspirator of the fraud.\n\n And then also the regularity of contact. And here, again, we don't have regular contact between these proposed suretors and Ms. Wang.\n\n Now, turning to the second factor in evaluating the proposed suretors that are before the Court is financial responsibility. And, again, here, I don't want to belabor the point because we have gone through\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 49 |\n| 2 | deal with that. But I understand. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY: Sure. Yeah, and I understand, |\n| 4 | Your Honor. So then I guess I'll move to the second |\n| 5 | question which is whether the Court should modify the |\n| 6 | conditions of the defendant's bond, either to remove the |\n| 7 | co-signer to alter in and adjust the bond so that |\n| 8 | there's more cash or property securing the bond. As I |\n| 9 | said, the answer is plainly no to that as well. |\n| 10 | And I just want to make a few points about the |\n| 11 | representations that counsel has made -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Before you do, let's assume for the |\n| 13 | moment there are no financially responsible people in |\n| 14 | your view because they don't know her personally except |\n| 15 | for having maybe met her a couple of times, they're not |\n| 16 | family, and the only thing they have in common is this |\n| 17 | cause. If I am to assess whether that particular |\n| 18 | condition is necessary to reasonably assure the presence |\n| 19 | of the defendant at future proceedings as opposed to |\n| 20 | some other combination of provisions, putting aside, of |\n| 21 | course, all the provisions that are already in place, |\n| 22 | the home detention, electronic monitoring, etc., why |\n| 23 | can't I then or why shouldn't I then consider other |\n| 24 | things that are being offered insufficient to take that |\n| 25 | place? Why does it have to be two financially |\n\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| PROCEEDING 51 | |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | some respects - well, again, why that condition as |\n| 3 | opposed to what else is being offered? |\n| 4 | MS. MURRAY: Well, there are actually multiple |\n| 5 | conditions, and, Your Honor, the reason is that when the |\n| 6 | Government discussed a proposed bail package on consent |\n| 7 | with defense, it was hours after the defendant was |\n| 8 | arrested on March 15. The Government had not had the |\n| 9 | opportunity to go through the evidence that was then |\n| 10 | being collected from the defendant's apartment in |\n| 11 | connection with the FBI's premises search. And, |\n| 12 | frankly, the Government was not yet aware that the |\n| 13 | defendant was going to lie to this Court, to Pretrial |\n| 14 | Services -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT: I don't understand what the lies |\n| 16 | are. I have to say I didn't, you know, in your letter |\n| 17 | you accuse the defendant of dissembling on this. The |\n| 18 | only one that grabbed me as a possible dissembling would |\n| 19 | be the cryptocurrency. But it's certainly plausible |\n| 20 | that you could have a cryptocurrency that was allocated |\n| 21 | in 2016 I think the date was and, you know, it may have |\n| 22 | never materialized into anything. It certainly |\n| 23 | suggests, you know, where did that go, can't someone |\n| 24 | tell us, but right now she's saying she has no control |\n| 25 | over access to it because she doesn't even know where it |\n\n| | PROCEEDING 52 |\n| 1 | is or what it is. |\n| 2 | |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY: So a few points there, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | First, the defendant during her Pretrial Services |\n| 5 | interview indicated she's been unemployed since |\n| 6 | September of 2022. Now, documents that the Government |\n| 7 | reviewed late last week that had been seized from her |\n| 8 | apartment and additional evidence that the Government |\n| 9 | has, and, as you know, we can proceed by proffer in |\n| 10 | detention hearings -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 12 | MS. MURRAY: This is not a mini trial. But the |\n| 13 | Government's evidence is that the defendant was, in |\n| 14 | fact, continuing to work in connection with her named |\n| 15 | position with family offices of Mr. Kwok's family money |\n| 16 | and also with some of the other entities that I |\n| 17 | mentioned that are instrumentalities of the fraud up |\n| 18 | until effectively the date that she was arrested. We |\n| 19 | have seen documents that lay out the financial position |\n| 20 | of various of the different entities that are associated |\n| 21 | with the fraud. Those include Gettir which is, as I |\n| 22 | mentioned, one of the proposed suretors believes Ms. |\n| 23 | Wang formally works for. They include HCHK Property |\n| 24 | which another of the suretors believes Ms. Wang formally |\n| 25 | works for, and the Government's evidence shows Ms. Wang, |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 53 |\n| 2 | in fact, is the 99.999 percent shareholder of HCHK |\n| 3 | through her BBI entity. |\n| 4 | They include G Clubs which is one of the arms |\n| 5 | of the fraud that is outlined and alleged in the |\n| 6 | Government's indictment. They include the Rule of Law |\n| 7 | Society and the Rule of Law Foundation which are |\n| 8 | charities, purported charities that Mr. Kwok and others |\n| 9 | founded in 2018 that laid the groundwork and the basis |\n| 10 | for collecting all these monies through the different |\n| 11 | arms of the fraud. |\n| 12 | And, Your Honor, these are printouts of |\n| 13 | balances of accounts, accounts raised through present |\n| 14 | which, as reflected in the documents, was variously |\n| 15 | February 2023 or March 13 of 2023, two days before the |\n| 16 | defendant was arrested. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: But those are corporate funds, |\n| 18 | right, but you're using it for the point about |\n| 19 | employment. |\n| 20 | MS. MURRAY: I'm using it for the point about |\n| 21 | employment, Your Honor, and also effective control. Mr. |\n| 22 | Lipman indicated he doesn't know what the Government |\n| 23 | means when it uses the general phrase chief of staff. |\n| 24 | What the Government is alleging by so characterizing Ms. |\n| 25 | Wang is that she manages and controls these various |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 54 |\n| 2 | entities. Now, like Mr. Kwok, she doesn't have her name |\n| 3 | on each of the different companies that she is involved |\n| 4 | with, but the Government has no question in light of the |\n| 5 | evidence both found in Ms. Wang's apartment, the fact |\n| 6 | that people associate Ms. Wang formally with these |\n| 7 | companies because they interviewed with her for jobs at |\n| 8 | some of these companies or they had contracts with her |\n| 9 | in connection with their work with some of the |\n| 10 | companies. |\n| 11 | Ms. Wang runs the show with respect to these |\n| 12 | instrumentalities. She has done so up until the day of |\n| 13 | her arrest contrary to what she told Pretrial Services. |\n| 14 | And the Government would allege that part of the reason |\n| 15 | that she lied to Pretrial Services was to disclaim |\n| 16 | association with the various different instrumentalities |\n| 17 | of the fraud. To say that she took herself out of the |\n| 18 | fraudulent entities, notably, Your Honor, right around |\n| 19 | the time that the Government started to seize \\$630 |\n| 20 | million in fraud proceeds. |\n| 21 | So in the Government's view, at the time of the |\n| 22 | initial presentment and bail argument, we were not aware |\n| 23 | that we were going to find concrete evidence in the |\n| 24 | defendant's apartment that, in our view, proves what the |\n| 25 | Government already alleged and believed to be true from |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 55 its investigation which is Ms. Wang has continued working for these companies up until the time of her arrest. So that is one point, Your Honor. It's a change in circumstances. The Government has a change in circumstances from where it was at the time of the initial presentment.\n\n Now, with respect to accounts, the allocation of H coin or one of the purported cryptocurrencies that is traded on the Himalaya exchange, again, another arm of the fraud, the allocation document was found in Ms. Wang's apartment with various other documents that seem to support the fraud. Your Honor is correct, defense is correct, there's no way for the Government to prove that Ms. Wang holds that money, and, in fact, the Government's allegation is that it's not cryptocurrency, but we're not alleging it's valueless. We're alleging that certain people have it and the people who are quickest to redeem can basically have an exit scam and get out with their money.\n\n I would note while, again, we don't have access to an account that Ms. Wang has where the money is held, Your Honor correctly identified approximately \\$7 million worth of a cryptocurrency asset would be something you would want to keep track of. The allocation indicates\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 56 |\n| 2 | Yanping Wang, and then it has the allocation, it's in |\n| 3 | her name. |\n| 4 | I would note that some of the other individuals |\n| 5 | or entities who are allocated HCN in the document that |\n| 6 | the Government has include Ms. Wang's co-conspirator, |\n| 7 | William Je. It says Sue Ming Je and family, that's one |\n| 8 | of his family members. It includes Mr. Kwok's son, it |\n| 9 | includes friends of Mr. Kwok's son, all named by their |\n| 10 | names. Ms. Wang is also named by her name. Allocated 7 |\n| 11 | million. |\n| 12 | Now, I don't know if she forgot or she just |\n| 13 | didn't think it was relevant to disclose to Pretrial |\n| 14 | Services, but this is a newly discovered fact the |\n| 15 | Government found in the course of reviewing evidence |\n| 16 | that was taken from Ms. Wang's apartment that gives us |\n| 17 | serious pause, and it's something that's different from |\n| 18 | when the Government first agreed to the conditions of |\n| 19 | the proposed bond with defense counsel. |\n| 20 | Another point I would like to note, with |\n| 21 | respect to the accounts to which the defendant has |\n| 22 | access, I understand that the way that the condition is |\n| 23 | worded it could be read narrowly or broadly. In the |\n| 24 | Government's view it certainly imposes an obligation on |\n| 25 | the defendant to be forthcoming. And the condition |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 57 included the requirement that the defendant disclose assets or accounts that she controls in her name or that are in companies that she controls or is affiliated with and, broadly speaking, cryptocurrency and other real property.\n\n The Government has found evidence, again, dated as recently as a few days before the defendant's arrest from her apartment, as I said, that show bank account information, account information, Ms. Wang signing off on payroll for some of the instrumentalities that she doesn't control, but that the Government certainly alleges that she manages and works for in her role as Mr. Kwok's chief of staff. So to the Government that indicates effective control over those finances.\n\n Even setting that aside though, Your Honor, Mr. Lipman mentioned that there were credit cards and other items in the safe. The Government had indicated that there was cash in one of the pouches, another pouch with certain items that appeared to be and are ready to take at the ready.\n\n THE COURT: You mentioned a safe. Was there a safe? MS. MURRAY: There was a safe. Yes. So the\n\nbag with the cash and another bag that had credit cards\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 58 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | and other items, including the passports, those were all |\n| 3 | concealed in a safe in defendant's apartment. |\n| 4 | The credit cards notable that were taken from |\n| 5 | one of those pouches in the safe, looking at the front |\n| 6 | cover of those credit cards which were photographed and |\n| 7 | we provided to defense counsel last week, there are |\n| 8 | numerous cards that indicate accounts that are not yet |\n| 9 | expired in the defendant's name that the defendant did |\n| 10 | not disclose to the Government or to Pretrial Services. |\n| 11 | And at this point, we have no way of determining what |\n| 12 | assets are in those accounts, how the defendant |\n| 13 | continues to control those accounts, but it's, again, |\n| 14 | another layer, Your Honor, where we cannot derive |\n| 15 | comfort that the defendant is being truthful with |\n| 16 | Pretrial Services, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, or |\n| 17 | with the Court. |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 59 |\n| 2 | was arrested. The next which expires next year. There |\n| 3 | is a Citibank personal account in the defendant's own |\n| 4 | name which doesn't expire for another year. There's a |\n| 5 | DBS Treasures account at a Singapore Bank, and the |\n| 6 | Government explicitly asked about foreign accounts as |\n| 7 | well. That card doesn't expire until January of 2025, |\n| 8 | again, in the defendant's name. And, finally, a China |\n| 9 | Bank of Communications account, it's a Chinese bank. |\n| 10 | That account, the card indicates it expires September of |\n| 11 | 2023, also in the defendant's name. |\n| 12 | It's another example, Your Honor, of |\n| 13 | indications to the Government that the defendant has |\n| 14 | access to accounts, assets, funds that she could use in |\n| 15 | order to flee. And if they are funds that we needed to |\n| 16 | rely on the defendant to disclose to satisfy another |\n| 17 | condition of the bond that was imposed. Separate and |\n| 18 | apart from the question of co-signer, she was obligated |\n| 19 | under the conditions imposed to disclose her assets, her |\n| 20 | accounts, her cryptocurrency, her property to the |\n| 21 | Government and to Pretrial Services. |\n| 22 | She represented through counsel that she had |\n| 23 | done that simply by disclosing two personal accounts, |\n| 24 | one at Morgan Stanley Bank, one at TD Bank, and then |\n| 25 | this account that was associated with one of the |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
60 |\n| 2 | companies.
She
did
not
disclose
in
the
Government's |\n| 3 | view
by
any
stretch
the
corpus
of
money
that
she
has |\n| 4 | access
to. |\n| 5 | These
are
examples
of
new
circumstances
that |\n| 6 | gives
the
Government
grave
concerns.
Grave
concerns |\n| 7 | about
the
defendant's
incentives
to
flee,
about
her |\n| 8 | ability
to
flee,
about
the
fact
that
we
cannot
trust |\n| 9 | representations
that
the
defendant
is
making.
And,
Your |\n| 10 | Honor,
in
those
situations
where
we
have
so
many
red |\n| 11 | flags
and
so
many
concerns
that
the
Government
would
not |\n| 12 | necessarily
have
identified
if
we
hadn't
found
this
new |\n| 13 | information.
We
simply
do
not
have
any
assurances
that |\n| 14 | there
are
any
conditions
or
set
of
conditions
that
will |\n| 15 | assure
the
defendant's
appearance
at
future
court |\n| 16 | appearances. |\n| 17 | So
that
goes
to
the
third
prong,
Your Honor. |\n| 18 | It's
the
fact
that
the
Government
is
now
coming
to
the |\n| 19 | Court
saying
we
agreed
on
these
proposed
bail
conditions |\n| 20 | at
the
time
of
her
arrest
based
on
what
we
knew then. |\n| 21 | The
world
has
changed
since
then,
and
it
has
only
gotten |\n| 22 | more
concerning
for the
Government
which
already
had
a |\n| 23 | significant
concern
about
the
defendant's
risk
of
flight |\n| 24 | but
believed
that
there
may
be
certain
conditions
that |\n| 25 | could
assure her
appearance.
We
no
longer
feel
that |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 61 |\n| 2 | way. We do not believe there are conditions or a set of |\n| 3 | conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: One clarification. In regards to – |\n| 5 | you referred to, I think you referred to, I don't know |\n| 6 | if you were referring to the allegations of the |\n| 7 | indictment or something else, but you referred to Mr. |\n| 8 | Kwok and Mr. Je as being the ones who were sort of |\n| 9 | lining their pocket and getting rich. Are you in |\n| 10 | agreement with defense counsel that the indictment |\n| 11 | doesn't make allegations that the defendant here herself |\n| 12 | was lining her pockets so to speak? |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: I guess to answer Your Honor's |\n| 14 | question, the indictment does make allegations that the |\n| 15 | defendant herself was personally responsible for a |\n| 16 | hundred million dollar misappropriation of fraud |\n| 17 | proceeds -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT: I understand. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY: But that's to the point of |\n| 20 | misappropriation. Now, with respect to the indictment |\n| 21 | which is a charging document that contains some |\n| 22 | allegations, we haven't specifically outlined personal |\n| 23 | money that the defendant herself misappropriated, but, |\n| 24 | again, we don't believe that that is in any way germane |\n| 25 | to her risk of flight and her access to money here and |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 62 |\n| 2 | to a network. |\n| 3 | And another point that I would like to note is |\n| 4 | with respect to travel documents and passports. Mr. |\n| 5 | Lipman said that the defendant had been seeking |\n| 6 | permission to travel at the end of last year or |\n| 7 | beginning of this year, and she was going to go I |\n| 8 | believe to the U.K. Travel internationally. |\n| 9 | The Government recovered a Vanuatu passport and |\n| 10 | a Hong Kong passport from her safe. The Vanuatu |\n| 11 | passport was expired, and we did see evidence which we |\n| 12 | disclosed that that passport had been kind of not |\n| 13 | revoked but that the defendant had removed her request |\n| 14 | from the passport. But she has the ability to obtain |\n| 15 | travel documents as does her co-defendant Miles Kwok who |\n| 16 | allegedly has had 11 passports at various points. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Well, she's not Miles Kwok. |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: I understand -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT: I understand she could be part of a |\n| 20 | network where things like that can be made available is |\n| 21 | what you're suggesting I think. |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY: That's exactly right, Your Honor, |\n| 23 | it's exactly right that she can both be part of the |\n| 24 | network where things can be made available and she is |\n| 25 | the one who is tasked with holding onto those travel |\n\n And at a very high level, to talk through those accounts, there is a Citibank account for one of the Kwok family entities that the defendant controlled that was active through last month when she was arrested. So it was active at the time. There were two personal Bank of America debit cards, different account numbers, both in the defendant's name, in her name, personal accounts. One which expired last month but, again, active when she\n\n1 PROCEEDING 63 documents both for herself and Mr. Kwok. She is a trusted person who is entrusted with the responsibility of having those travel documents -- THE COURT: What do you make of the defense's points that the defendant certainly would've been aware in September or October of 2022 about the seizure of phones and that something was afoot and then there was the dealings with the SEC, together with the fact that, again, as defense has represented, that she applied for a furlough to be able to travel despite her asylum aps. Aren't those, if true, sort of indicative of someone who's not going to run? MS. MURRAY: Not necessarily, Your Honor, and I would also note that while, you know, there may be a question of whether those are at odds, and I'm happy to address that in a moment, I would also note that the defendant's willingness and, in fact, desire to travel to the U.K. even though she has these serious concerns, the CCP's persecution of repatriation, indicates that those concerns are not so grave that she's not willing to travel internationally. But I don't know the circumstances of the defendant's requested furlough. I don't know what the purpose was of her going on that trip. I will say that\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 64 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | there's no reason - if we're speaking in hypotheticals |\n| 3 | in this instance, there's similarly no reason to believe |\n| 4 | that she didn't request furlough to go to the United |\n| 5 | Kingdom without any intention of returning after she was |\n| 6 | aware the funds had been seized. And, again, I'm |\n| 7 | speaking in hypotheticals only because we were asked a |\n| 8 | question by the Court, but I think you can draw various |\n| 9 | different conclusions from these facts. And at bottom, |\n| 10 | her seeking to travel to the U.K., her willingness to |\n| 11 | travel internationally, doesn't cut against the fact |\n| 12 | that she poses a significant risk of flight. |\n| 13 | And I'd also note, it's a risk of flight non- |\n| 14 | appearance at future court appearances. We don't need |\n| 15 | to establish that she's going to go to a foreign |\n| 16 | jurisdiction -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT: No. |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: She could flee from the city, she |\n| 19 | could flee from the several block radius. She could cut |\n| 20 | her bracelet. And it could be that her vast network of |\n| 21 | supporters enable and harbor her. We don't know the |\n| 22 | circumstances, but the bottom fundamental point is the |\n| 23 | defendant poses a significant risk of flight. The |\n| 24 | Government sees no condition or set of conditions in |\n| 25 | light of the strength of the evidence, the seriousness |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 65 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | of the charges here, the defendant's personal |\n| 3 | circumstances, her access to substantial assets, foreign |\n| 4 | connections including her co-defendant William Je who is |\n| 5 | alleged to be in the UAE as a fugitive of where he has |\n| 6 | charges, her network of supporters, and the new |\n| 7 | information that we have found in the last two weeks, |\n| 8 | indicating that the defendant has not been forthcoming |\n| 9 | with the Court, Pretrial, or the Government. We simply |\n| 10 | don't believe there are any conditions that can ensure |\n| 11 | her appearance at future court proceedings. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: All right. I assume you want to |\n| 13 | respond some. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Oh, yes, Your Honor. Thank you. |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Just let me say to my 3:30, sorry, |\n| 16 | that we're going to be running late. Just sit tight, |\n| 17 | and we'll eventually get there. Go ahead. |\n| 18 | MR. LIPMAN: I'll do this as quickly as I can, |\n| 19 | Your Honor. So I want to start with the following. |\n| 20 | Everything I said about what they misrepresented in |\n| 21 | their conversations with the Court and submissions |\n| 22 | apparently is true because none of it did they take |\n| 23 | issue with. So all of that stuff about finding, you |\n| 24 | know, a phone between mattresses, phones secreted in |\n| 25 | whatever it that they were, a document hiding in between |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 66 |\n| 2 | the cushions, none of that apparently happened. It is, |\n| 3 | it was represented to the Court. |\n| 4 | So now we get to the point of trust. They said |\n| 5 | trust. You can't trust this defendant. Really? But |\n| 6 | you can trust this Government? Let's just see, let's |\n| 7 | just parse through what Ms. Murray just said. She said |\n| 8 | that she found photographs of cards, some of those |\n| 9 | showed that the card is not yet expired. How do we go |\n| 10 | from there to, oh, and there's an account that goes with |\n| 11 | it? What evidence does she have? None. None |\n| 12 | whatsoever. |\n| 13 | What she knows - by the way, Your Honor, I have |\n| 14 | never, the words Great Britain never left my mouth. |\n| 15 | Okay? That means that they knew that she was about to |\n| 16 | travel. Why didn't they arrest her? If they thought |\n| 17 | that she was going to get out of Dodge and they were |\n| 18 | concerned that she was a flight risk, well, when they |\n| 19 | found out that she applied, well, arrest her. What, |\n| 20 | they didn't have a border watching her? Really? |\n| 21 | Because the Department of Justice has changed that much |\n| 22 | since I was there? I don't think so. |\n| 23 | So now let's get to her employment. Once |\n| 24 | again, what was the question that was asked? Are you |\n| 25 | currently employed? No. No. If the question were |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 69 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | companies? When? To whom? And I had a specific |\n| 3 | conversation with the Government when they say, well, |\n| 4 | Ms. Murray says, she says that, broadly speaking, the |\n| 5 | question could be that broadly construed or narrowly |\n| 6 | construed. Well, first of all, nobody's taken my |\n| 7 | client's Fifth Amendment (indiscernible), not that I |\n| 8 | have heard, and when she was asked the question, she |\n| 9 | gave an answer, the answer was truthful. If they wanted |\n| 10 | to know more, they should've asked. And I specifically |\n| 11 | had a conversation with the Government, and I said |\n| 12 | excluding anything that she may have control over by |\n| 13 | virtue of corporate ownership or whatever, these are the |\n| 14 | accounts. |\n| 15 | She's not a flight risk, Your Honor. There's a |\n| 16 | question that I keep asking myself is this. Why? Why |\n| 17 | is the Government misrepresenting evidence? Why is the |\n| 18 | Government stretching stuff, stretching stuff? Even if |\n| 19 | they believe that, you know, there's more to this. Even |\n| 20 | – I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm reminded that on her |\n| 21 | employment question, we actually invoked, she invoked |\n| 22 | her Fifth Amendment right. Okay? Thank you. |\n| 23 | Even – I lost my train of thought. I |\n| 24 | apologize. I think I was responding to this idea that |\n\n25 she controls stuff. There's no - we never hid that.\n\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 71 |\n| 2 | circumstances is materially misleading and yet this is |\n| 3 | what the Government is doing? Why? |\n| 4 | Your Honor, this woman needs to be released. |\n| 5 | She's not a flight risk. She's not going anywhere. |\n| 6 | She's going to have an ankle bracelet, she'll have GPS |\n| 7 | monitoring. We can have all of her money tied up so |\n| 8 | that she can't breathe without Pretrial or somebody |\n| 9 | giving her approval. |\n| 10 | And one last thing, if she's not released, her |\n| 11 | defense is going to be severely prejudiced. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: It's true for anybody who doesn't |\n| 13 | get released. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Except, except when that person |\n| 15 | also has Mandarin as her first language, when the |\n| 16 | Government asks for a disk to put 2 terabytes of data on |\n| 17 | it. This is not a case that's going to be resolved |\n| 18 | quickly, and it is a case in which it's going to be very |\n| 19 | important to have your client's assistance. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Ms. Murray, do |\n| 21 | you want to have the last word here? |\n| 22 | MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor, briefly. I want |\n| 23 | to start by saying there is nothing that the Government |\n| 24 | has misrepresented to the Court. The Government has not |\n| 25 | reached on facts. The Government has provided evidence |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 72 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | substantiated information that it has presented to this |\n| 3 | Court and to the defense. With respect to the credit |\n| 4 | cards Mr. Lipman mentioned, it's not a photo of the |\n| 5 | cards. It's a photo of the cards that we have before |\n| 6 | the Court and the defense today. They were the physical |\n| 7 | cards. But we resent the claim that we are in any way |\n| 8 | acting other than -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT: I know -- |\n| 10 | MS. MURRAY: --fully forthcoming and in good |\n| 11 | faith. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: -- I have no doubt you're operating |\n| 13 | in good faith. But he did point out some things that |\n| 14 | were discrepancies it seemed between what was |\n| 15 | represented in terms of where certain pieces of evidence |\n| 16 | were found in her apartment versus what was inventoried |\n| 17 | and how it was inventoried. Can you speak to that? |\n| 18 | MS. MURRAY: Sure, Your Honor. There aren't |\n| 19 | discrepancies. What Mr. Lipman has done is he's pointed |\n| 20 | to an evidence log that has a column where there are |\n| 21 | certain notations made when the FBI is collecting |\n| 22 | evidence that indicates where the item was recovered. |\n| 23 | Typically, it indicates the room by letter based on the |\n| 24 | map that Mr. Lipman provided to the Court and a brief |\n| 25 | description. It does not indicate in a detailed |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
73 |\n| 2 | narrative where each and every item that is taken as |\n| 3 | evidence was recovered from, what condition it was in, |\n| 4 | how it was found. |\n| 5 | So with respect the laptop between clothes, |\n| 6 | that is consistent with the Government's representations |\n| 7 | to Judge Parker at the initial presentment that the |\n| 8 | laptop was found between sweaters in the closet. It |\n| 9 | doesn't say specifically what items of clothing -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT: No. |\n| 11 | MS. MURRAY: -- or where, but it's consistent. |\n| 12 | With respect to the iPhones that the Government had |\n| 13 | indicated had been in boxes, yes, in a bag in the |\n| 14 | closet, and you can see those are the items that Mr. |\n| 15 | Lipman pointed Your Honor to in the 50's on the evidence |\n| 16 | log. And you'll note that nearly each of them has the |\n| 17 | same PIN code or passcode. So those are items that at |\n| 18 | first the FBI thought might not have any content, and |\n| 19 | then the FBI had technicians on site during the search |\n| 20 | warrant, they plugged them in, and they determined they |\n| 21 | had content. There are no misrepresentations. |\n| 22 | Mr. Lipman is now, again, Your Honor, |\n| 23 | essentially trying to hold a trial on the merits of the |\n| 24 | Government's case here at a point of a detention hearing |\n| 25 | by, first of all, requesting information from the |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 74 |\n| 2 | Government which we happily provided and would have so |\n| 3 | provided in the course of discovery in this case as |\n| 4 | well, and then trying to hold it against the Government |\n| 5 | by claiming that because there isn't a photo of each |\n| 6 | stage of every step of the process that evidence was |\n| 7 | collected, then the Government can't be trusted. It is |\n| 8 | simply not true, and it's disrespectful, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | With respect to a couple of other points, I |\n| 10 | would just like to note the defendant lied. She lied |\n| 11 | about the cash in her apartment. I have now heard the |\n| 12 | defense during the course of this argument split hairs |\n| 13 | on several topics, and that is another example of what |\n| 14 | gives the Government pause. |\n| 15 | THE COURT: Well, how do we know - it is |\n| 16 | important what was asked. Do you have any money on you? |\n| 17 | Do you have any money in your apartment? There's a |\n| 18 | difference. |\n| 19 | MS. MURRAY: I understand, Your Honor, and the |\n| 20 | Government obviously is not privy -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT: And particularly for someone of a |\n| 22 | different language and culture, it might be all the more |\n| 23 | important that there's nuance to what's asked. I don't |\n| 24 | know what was asked. |\n| 25 | MS. MURRAY: Sure, and nor do we because the |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 75 |\n| 2 | Government is not part of Pretrial Services interview |\n| 3 | with the defendant. She was assisted by a Mandarin |\n| 4 | speaking interpreter during that interview. The |\n| 5 | Government is also aware from its investigation that Ms. |\n| 6 | Wang is quite fluent in English. We know that from |\n| 7 | various different pieces of evidence we've collected, |\n| 8 | including statements that she's made and her voice |\n| 9 | during conversations. She doesn't appear to have an |\n| 10 | issue understanding. |\n| 11 | But with respect to the questions that were |\n| 12 | asked, again, I don't know, I was not there. The |\n| 13 | defendant is very much so splitting hairs on several |\n| 14 | topics. I will note that the Pretrial Services report |\n| 15 | indicates that the defendant was asked about assets, |\n| 16 | assets, not specific accounts that she is the sole |\n| 17 | signatory on, not specific accounts that are active that |\n| 18 | she has control over and log-in information to. We're |\n| 19 | not splitting hairs. Pretrial Services asked about |\n| 20 | assets, and she did not disclose \\$138,000 worth of cash |\n| 21 | that was sitting in a safe in her apartment. |\n| 22 | With respect to her employment, the defense |\n| 23 | just indicated that she had invoked – the Pretrial |\n| 24 | Services report with respect to employment history |\n| 25 | indicates that the defendant advised she has been |\n\n1 PROCEEDING 76 unemployed since September 2022. Now, with respect to the source of additional money that she has since then or that she is living on, the defendant declined to answer, and that is her right. But she did provide this statement in response to Pretrial Services report, she's been unemployed since September of 2022.\n\n Now, Mr. Lipman says that the defendant has been volunteering in various organizations that she previously might have worked in a more formal employment capacity. I just want to go back briefly to the personal gain point that Your Honor has asked about. Yes, I understand \\$1.1 million might not be an expensive apartment in Manhattan, but it's a \\$1.1 million apartment purchased in cash. The defendant has nearly another million dollars in her accounts. The defendant was up until her purported decision to terminate her employment and start volunteering was earning a salary of approximately \\$250,000 from the Kwok entities that she worked for formally, in a formal capacity. That is personal gain in the Government's view.\n\n It is also inconsistent with now the claims that September 2022, right when the Government started seizing funds, the defendant stopped working in a formal capacity. She can't be held responsible for any of\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 77 |\n| 2 | these bank accounts that she's signing off on payroll |\n| 3 | for, that she has access to the funds for. |\n| 4 | Your Honor, at bottom the defendant is a risk |\n| 5 | of flight. There are no conditions that can reasonably |\n| 6 | assure her appearance. She has lied. The Government |\n| 7 | has not misrepresented itself to the Court. And we have |\n| 8 | no comfort that we can believe that she will make |\n| 9 | accurate representations to the Court, that we will have |\n| 10 | the ability to monitor her in any meaningful way that |\n| 11 | would assure her appearance at future court proceedings. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lipman, I see you, |\n| 13 | do you want to respond? Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, answering the question |\n| 15 | that's posed truthfully is a complete answer. It's not |\n| 16 | splitting hairs -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Look, the bottom line is we don't |\n| 18 | know really what was asked and how it was asked -- |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, we were there. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Fine, but I'm saying we don't have |\n| 21 | a record -- |\n| 22 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, there is no |\n| 23 | record, and there is no proof of these things that the |\n| 24 | Government says -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT: I -- |\n\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
78 | | | |\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN:
--
which
is
what
-- | | | |\n| 3 | (interposing) | | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I
didn't
say
which
way
it
cuts. | | | |\n| 5 | MR. LIPMAN:
No,
but,
Your Honor,
they
said
we | | | |\n| 6 | found
a
credit
card.
Well,
that
means
she
didn't | | | |\n| 7 | disclose
an
account.
No,
you
found
a
credit
card. | | | |\n| 8 | Okay?
We
found
a
statement
that
said
that
whatever, | | | |\n| 9 | that
she
was
allocated
some
coin.
Yes,
that's
what
you | | | |\n| 10 | found,
that's
what
you
have.
You
don't
have
anything | | | |\n| 11 | else.
So
to
tell
me
that
she
needs
to
be
detained
and | | | |\n| 12 | she
cannot
be
trusted
because
they
found
something
that | | | |\n| 13 | they
don't
fully
understand,
I'm
sorry,
but
that's
a | | | |\n| 14 | bridge
too
far. | | | |\n| 15 | And,
yeah,
a
bunch
of
her
accounts,
by the way, | | | |\n| 16 | as
the
Government
knows,
were
closed,
and the | | | |\n| 17 | Government's
investigation
kind
of
followed
that.
So | | | |\n| 18 | like
the
Citi
accounts,
for example,
were
closed.
Other | | | |\n| 19 | accounts
at
other
banks
were
closed
recently,
they
were | | | |\n| 20 | closed.
And
the
other
thing,
Your Honor,
when
they
say | | | |\n| 21 | she
controls
this
or
she
controls
that
or
whatever, | | | |\n| 22 | okay,
she
worked
somewhere,
she
no
longer
works
there, | | | |\n| 23 | she
doesn't
draw
a
salary.
What
she
does
with
her
time | | | |\n| 24 | is
her
business.
It's
not
cutting
–
it's
not
lying
to | | | |\n| 25 | anybody,
it's
not
any
of
that.
Okay? | | | |\n\n## 1 PROCEEDING 79\n\n And the Government essentially conceded – no, not essentially. The Government conceded the key point that this was not, her participating, according to their indictment, was not for the benefit for her personal monetary gain. It was for some other reason. And the apartment was bought before any of the allegations with other money. She did make money, but she didn't spend it. I already described to the Court how she lived. And so the key question is why does she do this and, if she did it, did she do it to benefit herself, and if not, then is that sufficient reason to think that she's now going to hurt these people because she did not put any money that came out of their pockets and put it into hers. There's no reason to believe that having not done that, being around all this money and not putting any of it in your pocket. For all of these years she didn't do that. So what is going to make her do it now? And the answer is that this is a revolutionary movement, okay, these people are her brothers and sisters. They together want to see the CCP overthrown. And so she's\n\n not going to put them in financial jeopardy that she dedicated her life, her life to this cause.\n\nTHE COURT: All right.\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 80 |\n| 2 | MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, just a final point. I |\n| 3 | want to be clear the Government made no concession on |\n| 4 | that point in any stretch, and a key question is whether |\n| 5 | she poses a risk of flight, that is the question. |\n| 6 | THE COURT: All right, look, one thing that |\n| 7 | I've been asked to do is to determine if the, or at |\n| 8 | least order that some of the financial suretors that |\n| 9 | have been offered are sufficient to meet the |\n| 10 | requirements and conditions that were issued by Judge |\n| 11 | Parker, and the defense has indicated here they have |\n| 12 | three for which they believe that there's sufficient |\n| 13 | property that can be offered as security along with the |\n| 14 | enhanced package, if you will, of funds that were |\n| 15 | offered on behalf of the defendant. |\n| 16 | I don't have it in front of me information |\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 81 |\n| 2 | documentation you haven't provided the Government |\n| 3 | already on others that you can provide, including the |\n| 4 | so-called eighth or others, provide it. And part of |\n| 5 | what I'm going to do is assess that material. It |\n| 6 | doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to find obviously |\n| 7 | that that is sufficient and that the conditions have |\n| 8 | been met, but it is one of the things I am going to |\n| 9 | consider in addition to considering whether a different |\n| 10 | set of conditions should be imposed or whether the |\n| 11 | defendant should be detained. |\n| 12 | So she's going to continue to be detained |\n| 13 | pursuant to Judge Parker's order of all conditions being |\n| 14 | satisfied before she's released pending the submission |\n| 15 | of this additional information and my review of it which |\n| 16 | I will try to do as quickly as possible. |\n| 17 | Let me ask Mr. Lipman, when can you get that |\n| 18 | material to me and the Government? |\n| 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, I will start working |\n| 20 | on it as soon as I leave this courtroom. I would ask |\n| 21 | for 24 hours. |\n| 22 | THE COURT: Well, sure. |\n| 23 | MR. LIPMAN: Oh yes, yes. Yes. That's a good |\n| 24 | point. Your Honor has a lot of personal information, |\n| 25 | rather than redacting it and filing it in various ways - |\n\n about those three FRP's in terms of the property that's being offered. That is part of what I need to consider. I realize I am also being asked by the Government for detention anew in light of new material. But it's incumbent upon me to review whatever material the defendant is going to provide to substantiate it's offered financial suretors.\n\n So I want a package of whatever it is that you must or that you think is enough. If there is\n\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | PROCEEDING
82 | | | | |\n| 2 | - | | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
You
can
file
it
under
seal. | | | | |\n| 4 | MR. LIPMAN:
Okay.
All right. | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And
you'll
provide
it
to
the | | | | |\n| 6 | Government
obviously
in
unredacted
form. | | | | |\n| 7 | MR. LIPMAN:
Of course.
You
know
what,
Your | | | | |\n| 8 | Honor,
I
said
24
hours
-- | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Give
yourself
more
time. | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. LIPMAN:
Yeah. | | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
It's
your
call
sort
of
because
your | | | | |\n| 12 | client
is
going
to
remain
detained.
So
you
obviously
-- | | | | |\n| 13 | MR. LIPMAN:
I
understand.
But
how
about
this, | | | | |\n| 14 | we
will
provide
it
no
later
than
48
hours
from
now,
but | | | | |\n| 15 | we
will
attempt
to
provide
it
as
soon
as
humanly | | | | |\n| 16 | possible. | | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right,
I
mean
it's | | | | |\n| 18 | important
I
think
also
if
you
need
a
little
more
time, | | | | |\n| 19 | to
be
able
to
put
together
something
stronger
that
might | | | | |\n| 20 | assure
the
Government.
Grant
it
that
they're
saying | | | | |\n| 21 | there
are
changed
conditions
and
they
want
detention. | | | | |\n| 22 | But
anything
you
can
do
to
make
stronger
the
financial | | | | |\n| 23 | suretor
application
would
be
helpful
to
me
in
being
able | | | | |\n| 24 | to
review
and
its
significance.
Okay? | | | | |\n| 25 | MR. LIPMAN:
Thank you,
Your Honor. | | | | |\n\n|-----------------------|---------------|----------------|---------------|\n|-----------------------|---------------|----------------|---------------|\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 85 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | is our position that if there's sufficient proof that |\n| 3 | the person proposing to cosign actually owns this real |\n| 4 | estate and the real estate has the value that they say |\n| 5 | it does, that's really all that the Government needs. |\n| 6 | In other words, right, because whether they make money |\n| 7 | or not -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: I don't know what the Government |\n| 9 | needs, but you need to assure the Court -- |\n| 10 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry? |\n| 11 | THE COURT: You need to assure the Court at the |\n| 12 | very least. I don't know exactly what that is you will |\n| 13 | give to me. Certainly, it'll be important to know who |\n| 14 | is the owner, whether there are any other ownership |\n| 15 | interests, what are the liens, what are the mortgages, |\n| 16 | etc. So I think you have an idea. |\n| 17 | It's not going to necessarily take away from |\n| 18 | whether someone is an alleged victim or has one of the |\n| 19 | other faults, but at least I want a more complete |\n| 20 | picture, and it's part of my obligation to make that |\n| 21 | assessment. And I don't want to make a sweeping |\n| 22 | statement at the moment that just because anyone is an |\n| 23 | alleged victim and is not a family tie in some way, that |\n| 24 | necessarily makes them inadequate. But that's why I |\n| 25 | need to see it individually. |\n\n| 1 | PROCEEDING 86 |\n| 2 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay. |\n| 3 | MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, with respect to the |\n| 4 | response date, assuming that the defense submits |\n| 5 | something on Thursday, that would make the Government's |\n| 6 | response due on Easter Sunday. We would respectfully |\n| 7 | ask -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT: Monday. |\n| 9 | MS. MURRAY: -- that we get until Monday. |\n| 10 | Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Yes, of course. Okay, all right, |\n| 12 | we are adjourned. Thank you. |\n| 13 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | (Whereupon the matter is adjourned.) |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n\n| | 87 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | C E R T I F I C A T E |\n| 3 | |\n| 4 | I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing |\n| 5 | transcript of proceedings in the United States District |\n| 6 | Court, Southern District of New York, United States of |\n| 7 | America versus Wang, Docket #23cr118/23m2007, was |\n| 8 | prepared using PC-based transcription software and is a |\n| 9 | true and accurate record of the proceedings. |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | Signature _________________________ Carole Ludwig _________________________ |\n| 13 | Carole Ludwig |\n| 14 | Date: April 5, 2023 |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |","body_zh":"附件 A\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n关于：\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n原告，\n- 诉 -\nWANG, YANPING（王雁平），\n被告。\n案号：Docket #23cr118/23m2007\n2023年4月4日\nNew York, New York（纽约州纽约市）\n\n保释听证会诉讼程序\n主审法官：ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER（罗伯特·W·勒伯格），UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE（美国联邦治安法官）\n\n出庭人员：\n代表原告：\nUNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE（美国联邦检察官办公室）\n代理人：\nJULIANA MURRAY, ESQ.（朱莉安娜·默里，律师）\nRYAN FINKEL, ESQ.（瑞安·芬克尔，律师）\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n\n代表被告：\nLIPMAN LAW PLLC（利普曼律师事务所）\n代理人：\nALEX LIPMAN, ESQ.（亚历克斯·利普曼，律师）\n45 West 29th Street, Suite 303\nNew York, New York 10001\n\nCHAUDHRY LAW PLLC（乔杜里律师事务所）\n代理人：\nPRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ.（普里亚·乔杜里，律师）\n147 West 25th Street\nNew York, New York 10001\n\n法庭翻译在场\n\n速记服务机构：\nCarole Ludwig, Transcription Services（卡罗尔·路德维希速记服务社）\n155 East Fourth Street, #3C\nNew York, New York 10009\n电话：(212) 420-0771\n电子邮箱：Transcription420@aol.com\n\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录；文字记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\n目录\n证人询问\n证人 直接询问 反向询问 再次直接询问 再次反向询问 法庭询问\n无\n证物\n证物编号 描述 识别 采纳 资格审查\n无\n\n诉讼程序\n关于政府认为不足以履行 Parker（帕克）法官所设定条件的财务保证人义务的问题，该条件要求有两名具有财务责任能力的人能够在保释金上签字。由于是被告方提出了这一关切，因此这实际上是被告方的申请，所以我将先听取辩护律师的意见。不过，你们能否也告诉我过去一周内是否有任何影响实质的新进展，以及/或者在 Torres（托雷斯）法官面前发生的任何事情是否会影响这里的情况。\n\nMURRAY（默里）女士：法官阁下，简短说一句，我只是想确认一下程序是否正在录音，因为我没有看到法庭速记员。只是为了记录在案。\n\n法庭：正在进行电子录音。\n\nMURRAY（默里）女士：谢谢您。\n\nLIPMAN（利普曼）先生：法官阁下，我可以开始了吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请讲。\n\nLIPMAN（利普曼）先生：法官阁下，在我们看来，从一开始，政府就从未以优势证据实际证明被告存在潜逃风险。我想回顾一下——我们实际上同意了保释条件，但我们同意保释条件是基于我们与政府的谈话，在谈话中政府就王女士公寓内发现的物品作出了某些陈述。所以我们被告知了那些情况，我们当时没有很多时间和我们的委托人讨论事情，但我们当时想，好吧，这看起来是合理的，随后我们同意我们将提出两名保释金联署人的名字，坦率地说，当时并不认为这会成为一个问题。\n\n让我倒回去从头说起。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN（利普曼）先生：王女士和她的同案被告 Kwok（郭文贵）先生很早就知道政府在调查他们，时间非常长，以至于在去年9月，而且根据起诉书，在去年9月和10月政府扣押了一大批资产，根据起诉书大约在7亿美元左右的量级，政府扣押了那些资产。那是一次民事扣押，但正如所指明的（听不清），它有所提及。对吧？所以扣押了7亿美元，我不能替法庭断言我的委托人了解被扣押资产的全部规模，但她肯定知道司法部已经扣押了一大笔钱，对吧。\n\n然后还有 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）关于 GTV 案件的和解，这个案子是与她相关的，GTV 偿还了我想说大约在5亿美元左右的款项，顺便说一句，他们并不是在和解命令之后才付款的——他们是先付了钱，然后 SEC 才发布了和解命令。所以这与政府所说的发生顺序正好相反。对吧？所以她知道，她知道政府在调查她，而且她可能面临严重的法律危机。\n\n随后政府在记录中作出了某些陈述，而随着我们在让他们批准我们提议的人选方面开始遇到困难，我们在某一时刻要求他们提供支持材料，证明他们所说的认定我们委托人存在潜逃风险的部分理由。后来他们最终向我们提供了这些材料，而我们发现的基本上是以下三种情况之一：政府要么作出了只有一半属实的陈述，因此我们需要实际填补空白并认识到他们所说的并不完全正确；他们作出了与他们在王女士公寓里搜集到的证据相矛盾的陈述；再者他们作出的陈述完全只是推测。它们实际上没有任何证据支持。所以让——\n\n诉讼程序 7\n\n尽管如此，她哪儿也没去，但还不止于此。政府说她持有一本来自……一本她本可以用来旅行的中国护照，对吧，并且她是一名庇护申请人，而正因为她是一名庇护申请人，他们说这是考虑她在没有美国联系方面的一个因素，这不知怎的就成了对她不利的因素。\n\n好吧，因为她是一名庇护申请人，而且她不想失去她的庇护申请资格，她确实想出国旅行，于是她向美国政府申请了请假许可，这样如果她出行，她的庇护申请就不会被拒绝。所以政府，而且事情确实发生了，她获得了在去年12月至1月之间出行的许可，也就是22年12月到我想说是1月27日，具体日期我可能说得不准，但大概是从12月中旬到1月的第三周——\n\n法庭：你提到的扣押款项是在什么时候？\n\nLIPMAN（利普曼）先生：根据起诉书是在9月和10月。我认为是9月18日和10月，是24日还是26日来着。\n\n所以尽管发生了所有这一切，她还是通知了政府她打算出国旅行。\n\n诉讼程序 8\n\n她在那个窗口期内没有出行。许可过期了。许可过期与其他任何事情都无关，纯粹是因为她原本计划进行一次特定的旅行，她无法成行，在后勤安排上未能成行。随后她又递交了另一份申请，根据她的移民律师的说法，我认为那是在2023年2月8日。也就是在她被捕前一个月。\n\n因此，综合所有这些情况来看，认为她有潜逃风险的说法是有点牵强的，但这背后是有原因的，原因就在于：王女士在不同的时代会被称为革命者。她将自己、她的家庭以及她所做的一切都置于险境，因为她在反对中国共产党，无论他们在起诉书中怎么说，毫无争议、完全没有任何争议的是，她确实将自己置于了险境。她的儿子在中国，她的丈夫，那个男人，她唯一有过的男友，他们都不被允许与她有任何联络——\n\n法庭：对，但根据我的理解，我不知道政府是转变了主张还是他们一直这么坚持，他们的担忧是她逃往其他司法管辖区，不管是阿拉伯联合酋长国\n\n诉讼程序 9\n据说同谋 Je（余建明）先生就在那里，还是瓦努阿图，她在那里有一份过期的护照申请，或者是其他任何地方。\n\nLIPMAN（利普曼）先生：法官阁下，让我先说瓦努阿图，因为这个最简单。好吗？连同那本过期的护照一起，他们还在她的公寓里找到了两份针对她和郭先生的文件，声明她正在放弃瓦努阿图国籍。所以那不是个问题。另一件事是，如果我没记错的话，我认为她是在2016年拿到瓦努阿图护照的，那是在她来美国之前。中国和瓦努阿图自那以后已经成为友好国家，现在情况不同了，我认为她去那里并不安全。\n\n至于前往United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国），根据我们今天上午在Mr. Kwok（郭先生）的听证会上从Government（政府方）那里听到的情况，阿拉伯联合酋长国不会将其公民引渡至United States（美国）。该国确实与China（中国）签订了引渡条约。她不是阿拉伯联合酋长国的公民，也没人暗示过她是。她不是，她也没有那里的护照。她唯一持有的、仍在有效期的护照，已经被他们扣押了。那本护照是他们在她的公寓里搜出来的。所以，不，她无法前往其他地方。\n\n现在我们来谈谈她是否——\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：等等，等等，等等，我想就引渡的问题在这里打断你一下，关于与阿联酋之间引渡的问题。我刚才听你说的是，他们对于阿联酋公民没有引渡协议，然后我好像又听你说，他们与中国签订了引渡条约，而她当然不会回中国去，且这也不是在中国的诉讼程序。那么，他们对于向美国引渡所谓第三国公民的情况，其法律地位是怎样的？我相信政府方能告诉我，但我想知道你是否有所了解。\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼先生）：据我所知，该国与美国之间没有引渡条约，但这是一个无关紧要的问题，因为首先，她根本去不了那里。明白吗？其次，她担心的并不是被引渡到美国；她担心的是被引渡到中国——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n利普曼先生：——到了那里她就会被逮捕并被枪毙。我的意思是这两者是有区别的。您知道的，尽管MDC（大都会拘留中心）再糟糕，它也绝非一所中国的监狱。\n\n法庭：但你的意思是，如果她出现在阿联酋，她就会被自动驱逐或引渡到中国？\n\n利普曼先生：嗯，我不知道是否会自动发生，但她肯定面临着极大的发生该情况的危险。这绝对是事实。而且，您看，在我们今天早些时候举行的听证会上，政府方实际上……各方讨论了中国政府为将郭先生弄回中国所做出的一切努力，包括贿赂美国官员，目前就有一个案件正在进行，据我所知目前在D.C.（华盛顿特区）正进行一场刑事审判，其中涉及数名被中国贿赂的政府官员，目的是协助将郭先生从美国遣返至中国。\n\n那么，政府方……据政府方称，这名女子是郭先生的幕僚长，不管那意味着什么。好吧，我认为他们不会严肃地反驳她身处危险之中这一事实。所以——\n\n法庭：不好意思，反驳她怎么了？\n\n利普曼先生：身处危险之中。\n\n法庭：身处危险之中。\n\n利普曼先生：意思是，我认为他们不会严肃地反驳如果她去了中国、进入了中国境内，或者中国想要抓她这一点。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n利普曼先生：关于这一点不可能存在严肃的争议。那么现在我们来谈谈如果她留在美国会发生什么。基本原因在于，基本原因在于，根据政府方的说法，她是郭先生的幕僚长。她的辨识度非常高。对吧？她在身处这里的群体中辨识度很高。这是在美国的一个由数千人组成的群体。所以政府方说，噢，他们会把她藏起来。好吧，首先，请原谅我这么说，这完全是不当的推论。认为身处美国本土的数千人会去窝藏一名逃犯，难道就因为他们是中国人，难道就因为他们讲Mandarin（普通话）——\n\n法庭：不，因为他们是……因为他们可能是诈骗案的受害者。\n\n利普曼先生：但问题就在这里。如果他们是诈骗案的受害者，他们知道发生了什么，他们是成年人，因此如果她是一名逃犯，他们随时都可能被说服，认为事实上应当将她交还给美国政府。\n\n但还不止于此，更关键的是，如果我们从报纸上读到的内容属实——我们知道Chinese communist party（中国共产党）在纽约的中国驻美国领事馆里派驻了来自其警方的中国共产党官员。我们难道能有一秒钟认为他们没有在监视她吗？难道能认为如果她出现在任何以普通话为主要语言的社区里，她不会被认出来吗？难道有任何人能有一秒钟设想中国共产党不会找到她、确认她的身份并准确地告诉政府她在哪里吗？\n\n现在我们来看另一种情况。让我们假设一秒钟，假设她决定把自已藏在，比如说，Utah（犹他州）的白人圈子里。她讲英语带着浓重的口音，而且她的第一语言是普通话。她难道不会显得极其扎眼、格格不入吗？认为这名女子能够藏匿起来的想法是极其荒谬的。这很荒谬。还有认为她可以依靠别人把她藏在美国的想法也是如此。那么我们现在的结论是什么？她既走不了，也藏不住。这不构成潜逃风险。\n\n但还不止这些。更进一步的情况是：政府方声称——这正是我们起初认为接受他们提议的保释方案没有问题的原因——他们说我们在她的公寓里搜到了表明她有潜逃风险的物品。是什么呢？我们搜到了十二部手机。在这十二部手机中，有六部被藏在盒子里，那些盒子看起来像是全新的iPhone（苹果手机）包装盒，而这些都是用过的——这是United States Government（美国政府）向美国法庭做出的陈述。于是我们说，行，让我们看看照片。把照片发给我们。\n\n好吧。法官阁下，我可以走近前呈递材料吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n（庭审暂停）\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，这是从她公寓搜集物品的证据登记清单。这是我们从政府方那里收到的。对吧？\n\n法庭：嗯哼。\n\n利普曼先生：我姑且假定上面记录的一切都是真实准确的，因为这是来自政府方的材料。如果不是，他们应该告知法官阁下。这是一份手机及其被发现位置的清单。在第一页上。编号 1、2、3、4、5、6、7。这些都是苹果手机，它们全部都是在厨房餐桌上被发现的。现在，法官阁下，如果法庭想看的话，我有它们的照片。\n\n有三部是在厨房的操作台面上发现的。它们插着充电线，处于显而易见的位置。还有一部手机放在桌子旁边，\n\n正如政府方所深知的，Ms. Wang（王女士）对于FBI（联邦调查局）搜查某人时的情形并不陌生。他们此前搜查过郭先生。她知道发生那种情况时会是怎样。明白吗？因此，认为她会以为自己能把一台笔记本电脑藏在毛衣堆里的想法是荒谬的。\n\n但法官阁下，现在还有更多情况。这是——如果允许我呈递的话——这是哪一份？\n\nATTORNEY（律师）：第46号。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，我可以走近前呈递吗？\n\n法庭：可以，另外我只想确认一件事。我们现在看的是不是在Parker（帕克法官）主持听证会之前尚无法获得的证据和材料？\n\n利普曼先生：这在我们之前是无法获得的——我们拿到这个——事情是这样的。我们就手机的事情向他们询问了其中一些问题，对吧，我们提出那些问题我记得是在29日。您有我们的信函吗？但基本上，法官阁下，我们在见您前一天晚上才拿到这些。\n\n法庭：好的，这么说那是在帕克法官做出裁决很久之后了。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，我可以走近前呈递吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，这是联邦调查局绘制的王女士所居住公寓的平面示意图。顺便提一下，面积是740平方英尺。这是一个据称诈骗他人高达近十亿美元的女人。不管怎样，法官阁下，在这一页上，我请法庭注意公寓里有什么以及没有什么。卧室里有一张床，还有一个床头柜。客厅里有一张沙发，沙发前面摆着一件东西，实际上是一个（听不清）。这间公寓里就再没有别的任何东西了。没有衣柜，没有五斗柜，没有书桌，什么都没有。那么她把东西存放在哪里呢？在壁橱里。她所有的东西都在壁橱里。她的旧手机也在壁橱里。对吧？在没有任何家具的情况下把东西放在壁橱里，这没有任何不正当之处。\n\n然后，随后他们又说，好吧，我们在她的公寓里搜到了现金。我们搜到了现金，搜到了138,000美元。Ms. Murray（默里女士）说是近期的钞票，她认为是近期的钞票。好吧。于是我们想，行，我们能看看那些钱的照片吗？我们为什么要索要那些钱的照片？因为我们有理由认为\n\n其中很大一部分钱装在红包里，显然在中国文化中，逢年过节这是很常见的，\n\n特别有说服力，能证明有人因为钱装在袋子里就一定会逃跑。这是整理归拢过的。但是有一件事也许你能告诉我，我知道这把时间往前推了一点，但我原本以为在他们的书状中，就是那份促使把本案延期的最近书状中，他们曾指出并陈述说 Wang（王）女士没有向审前服务处（Pretrial）披露这笔 $138,000，可我的印象是这笔钱在几周前就已经被扣押了。\n\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼律师）：不，是在她被捕当天被扣押的，好吗，当时问她的问题、那个相关的问题是：你被捕时身上有任何现金吗？她是在早上 6:15 被捕的，当时她穿着睡衣。对那个问题的如实回答是没有。我们核对过记录，没看到有任何其他能问出不同答案的问题。那么她是主动披露的吗？没有。我都不知道有没有人问过她这事。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：好的。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：好吗？\n\nTHE COURT：我明白了。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：但是，法官阁下，就算有人问过她这事，当时有十几名 FBI（联邦调查局）特工在她公寓里到处翻搜。好吧，我是说她当时、她极度紧张。她坐着说话，身处一个她从未经历过的境地，被问到这些问题。难道很不可思议吗，你想想，问题是你有——你身上有现金吗，而她说——你被捕时身上有现金吗，回答是没有，而且她没有说别的任何话？我是说真的至于吗？\n\n好吧。现在，顺便说一句，在——因为他们要为您出示另一张照片，法官阁下，我不想被指责为没有向您呈现完整的全貌。而完整的全貌是，当他们给这些钱拍了另一张照片时——我道歉，法官阁下。我刚才太激动了，把钱的另一张照片弄丢了。在这里。我可以走近法官席吗？\n\nTHE COURT：可以。\n\n（庭审暂停）\n\nMR. LIPMAN：就是这张照片，它让这些钱看起来好像有更多是较近期获得的，因为您可以看到有些是旧钞，有些是新钞。然而，话虽如此，正如我告诉政府方的，关于为什么其中有些钱是近期的，有一个合理解释。好吗？而这个解释——我也这样告诉了政府方——就是她手头有一些英镑，是她在之前的某次旅行中自己带过来的，而那些英镑，不管它们是怎么到她手里的，但那些英镑需要被兑换掉，因为显然女王去世后，他们要把钱兑换成印有国王头像的样式的钱。好的，所以随着时间的推移，她把那些钱兑换了，所以这里面肯定有大概 $30,000、$40,000 是近期的，与此有关。\n\n我昨天要求查看这些钞票，当时时间太晚我已经去不了了，他们说你可以过来看。我会在某个时间去看它们的。但我真正的要点是，法官阁下，认为这是为了逃跑而藏匿的资金这一说法，不，不，这根本说不通。\n\nTHE COURT：是不对，但这确实表明她能够获取大笔资金，即便那一特定款项并不是她打算使用的。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：我们来谈谈这点。好吗？政府方说她没有披露她控制的所有银行账户。我曾与政府方进行过一次具体的谈话，我在谈话中说，如果你问的是她实际可以进行交易的账户，也就是没有第三方参与的，对吧，换句话说，像我的银行账户，我可以去操作。我们律所的银行账户，就不一定了。好吧，就我而言是可以，但是，如果你在一家律所工作，你也许可以指示某人去做某事，那是律所的业务，但你不能把钱拿走装进自己的口袋。对吧？所以我对政府方说的是，我们知道有两个账户，对吧，是属于她的。我们还知道另一个公司账户，她可以在那里进行交易。我们把那个账户和账号都给了他们。对吧？我们不知道还有任何其他账户。那并不是——我们没有向政府方隐瞒她拥有这个 BBI 实体的事实。那不是——当时的问题是——\n\nTHE COURT：我明白，那是，在四项清单中，其中三项是商业实体，其中两项甚至都不直接属于她。那 Himalayan（喜马拉雅）加密货币呢？\n\nMR. LIPMAN：问得好。所以我一直试图弄清楚喜马拉雅那个到底是怎么回事，关于那件事有两点。第一，他们提到的文件——还记得我说过有些事情是有证据的，有些事情是半真半假的，有些事情是自相矛盾的，还有些事情纯粹是凭空推论吗？对吧？\n\n那么他们看的是什么？他们看的是一份写着分配（allocation）的明细表，好的，分配。他们看的不是 H Coin（喜币）的账户。他们看的不是——他们看的是一份分配。我一直试图弄清楚那份分配后来怎么样了。我能查明的最好情况就是，她根本不知道发生了什么。我并不是说它没有发生过变动。我是说她根本不知情。好吗？\n\nTHE COURT：但那就是——\n\n（打断发言）\n\nMR. LIPMAN：但还有更多——\n\nTHE COURT：那个的当前价值，对吧，至少政府方说是大约 $13 million。我相信当时肯定比这少，好吧，考虑到市场行情也许谁知道呢。但你会认为某人——我姑且假定当时那是一大笔网络虚拟货币，对她来说是数额巨大的，你会认为一个人会去追踪那笔巨额资产。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：如果一个人认为那是属于他们自己的，那确实会去追踪。但是，法官阁下，情况是这样的——政府方扣押了数亿美元，包括从 Himalayan exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）扣押的。政府方声称这一切都是欺诈。他们一方面说这毫无价值，人们根本无法将其变现。SEC（美国证券交易委员会）在其诉状中说，人们试图将其变现但未能成功。那么，它到底值不值钱？因为如果它值钱，那么也许它值 $13 million，尽管我们不知道如何去提取它。但如果它不值钱，如果他们的指控属实，那我不知道有什么机制可以把这个变成现金。好吗？\n\n所以说这一切都是为了说明，法律推定应当是对其予以释放，或者依照确保其出庭的最少限制性条件予以释放——\n\nTHE COURT：没错，但我们是在重新辩论吗？我的意思是这又回到了那个问题，Parker（帕克）法官执行或裁定了条件。问题的核心在于她的保释条件之一未能履行，因为政府方采取的立场是，所有被提供作为经济担保责任人的人选都无法成为充分的担保人（suretors），原因要么是他们无法施加道德劝说，要么是他们不具备经济承担能力，要么是因为他们是涉嫌欺诈行为的受害者或参与者。现在的问题是，好吧，如果他们一直不接受这些人选，该怎么办。所以我只是想谨慎一点\n\n拍摄的照片。我当时在找找看能不能找到一份藏在坐垫里的文件的照片或记录清单。那根本不存在。您知道还有什么不存在吗？他们在他们的——这是向法庭作出的陈述，他们说我们在她卧室的床垫之间发现了一部藏起来的手机。我想看看这张照片。我想在拍摄的照片记录清单上找到它。它在哪儿？根本不存在。或者至少根本没有提供给我们。\n\n现在，确实有一张那样的照片，是在搜查 Kwok（郭）先生处拍摄的，而且——谢谢。\n\n（庭审暂停）\n\nMR. LIPMAN：法官阁下，我可以走近吗？\n\nTHE COURT：可以。\n\nMR. LIPMAN：所以那是一张藏在床垫之间的手机照片。但那不是从她的公寓拍的。而我至今还没看到从她公寓拍的那张。\n\n还有一件事，他们说她把东西放在她的收纳袋里以便于随时取用，对吧，钱装在收纳袋里便于随时取用。所有的东西都装在收纳袋里便于随时取用。您知道收纳袋里还有什么便于随时取用的东西吗？我想是她曾经拥有的每一张信用卡。我是说一堆早已过期的旧信用卡\n\n卡，容易取回。这根本说不通。法官阁下，现在请允许我转到此事的另一部分，即提议的共同签署人、政府方面拒绝批准任何人的情况，以及这究竟是怎么一回事。我想先从一件我实际上原本没打算提的事情说起，因为这是今天早上才在法庭里发生的。您看这里的这些人，这里的许多人都是来支持她的。\n\n她在法庭里情绪激动并开始哭泣，因为她意识到所有这些人都是来支持她的，请允许我解释这意味着什么。政府可能不知道这一点，但实际上政府披露某人是庇护申请人，这肯定是违法的。有一项法规是这样规定的。我之前也不知道。我是最近才发现的。我相信他们不知道。我相信他们不是故意这样做的。\n\n但原因显而易见。对吧？如果你有一个来自某个国家的人，你指认他们是在其他地方寻求庇护的人，这会立刻让他们处于危险之中。所有这些人仅仅通过来到这里，难道您认为此时此刻在这个法庭里没有来自中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party）的人在进行监控吗？所有这些人仅仅通过走上前来并挺身为她作保，就已经将他们自己、他们的家人暴露在……\n\n法庭：我认为或许没人质疑他们的意图。问题在于……\n\nLIPMAN 先生（利普曼先生）：她是否在乎他们？\n\n法庭：……被告是否足够在乎这些人，以至于她会足够顾及他们拿出来押上的任何金钱手段，而不是选择潜逃。而且如果站在政府的角度，可以描绘这样一幅景象，称指控她犯有欺诈罪，控方掌握着强有力的证据。那么她为什么会在乎被她诈骗的人呢？\n\nLIPMAN 先生：很合理，法官阁下，我正准备谈到这一点。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLIPMAN 先生：对于道德约束力（moral suasion）有不同的理解方式。对吧？我想我们都认同，哥哥可以为弟弟签字，而前一个哥哥可能根本不在乎。他们是亲属，他们是兄弟，但他们根本不会在乎。同样这也是事实：人与人之间可以以某种方式产生联结，他们可能是陌生人，但他们之间有了联结，对吧，因此某人可以对另一个实际上并没有那么多互动的人产生道德约束力。他们只是互相关爱。对吧？\n\n但还有另一种情况，另一种情况是这样的：如果你是某一类社群的成员，并且你——这个社群对你很重要，那么这个社群的成员遭遇了什么对你来说就很重要。现在，政府会说，天哪，10 亿美元，这些人都是受害者。好吧，他们就在这里，他们并不认为自己是受害者，但那是另一回事了。对吧？\n\n但关键在于，看一看起诉书（indictment），法官阁下。Kwok 先生（郭先生）被指控给自己买了一辆兰博基尼（Lamborghini）。我也想要一辆。对吧？但是她有吗？没有。他显然住在一座豪宅里，并且拥有其他豪宅、游艇等等诸如此类的一堆东西。起诉书中有哪一处指控说这些钱有任何一分到了她手里？他们最接近的指控也就是关于代币分配的这个分配方案。对吧？而我们根本不知道那笔代币究竟发生了什么。好吧。\n\n所以你必须问问自己，她为什么要这么做？她为什么要离开她的家人、她的儿子、她唯一挚爱的人，对吧，然后移居到一个外国，在那里她基本上是将自己暴露为一名革命者，她为什么要这么做？好的。有一个答案，但她试图让自己发财绝不是那个答案。因此接下来的问题是，鉴于政府对她所作的指控——不是针对她的共同被告，而是针对她，因为共同被告的情况虽有相关性，但真正重要的是发生在她身上的情况——她是否会这么做。\n\n并且还有一个问题，鉴于政府提出的指控，对吧，她难道会是那种把 500 万美元债务甩给这些人中任何一个的人吗？答案显然是否定的，她住在一个没有家具的 740 平方英尺的公寓里，远离她的家人，且无法再与他们联系。我们向他们提供了八个人，都是成年人，对吧，他们并不喜欢所有人，这没关系。他们说关于某些人我们没有提供足够的文件。真的吗？有人愿意拿出一栋价值 30 亿美元的房产，你们还想要什么文件？我们根本不可能提供该房产作保，除非我们能够向他们证明该房产确实存在且属于提供该房产作保的人。对吧？那个人是一个明白事理的成年人，并且认为她——认为那个人对她具有道德约束力，并且认为\n\n诉讼程序\n\n她不是——有三个人，今天在这间法庭里的三位共同签署人。所以，请原谅我，法官阁下（Your Honor），政府凭什么替这些人做那些判断？\n\n法官：嗯，这也是部分原因，我的意思是他们有权形成该判断，如果您不同意，那就是我们今天在这里开庭的原因；但是他们，政府需要得到确信或感到确信，所提供的财务担保足以合理确保被告不会潜逃；我认为理论上存在一种合理的担忧，即如果有些人据称是被实施的欺诈行为的受害者，那么欺诈者或被指控的欺诈者可能不会像通常情况下那样受到约束，从理论上讲。\n\n利普曼律师（MR. LIPMAN）：法官阁下，不能一概而论。\n\n法官：我同意。\n\n利普曼律师：确实需要审查具体情况，而具体情况是，政府并未指控她偷了钱。事情就是这么简单。他们指控的是另外两个人偷了钱。他们没有——\n\n诉讼程序 34\n\n政府不能仅仅因为共同签署人属于这两类群体之一，就按类别予以否定（听不清），那么，法官阁下，您有权对此进行变更；事实上，正如法庭所熟知的那样，这里的条款之一是不能设定使之成为——的财务条件。\n\n法官：“司法官员不得设定导致该人被审前羁押的财务条件。”18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(2)。然而政府似乎找到了相关判例，表明在该法规语境下，这一条并非压倒一切，相反，更具决定性的是这些条件能否合理确保被告在未来的诉讼程序中出庭。甚至您所依赖的判例，U.S. v. Panaronda 案，也表达了这一点，他们表示最终的问题是法庭应当考量该特定财务条件是否属于保释条件中为合理确保被告出庭所必需的一部分。我的意思是这才是我们真正必须裁决的事项。\n\n利普曼律师：而且，法官阁下，在那个案件中——我可能会念错名字，先向您致歉——\n\n法官：Panaronda。\n\n利普曼律师：好的，那个案件中发生的情况是斯威特法官（Judge Sweet）变更了条件。我是说，他说，看，这里有 \\$250,000 的保释金，这个人永远无法凑齐，也找不到任何有能力承担 \\$250,000 的人。我要把它降低到人们能够达到且仍能满足条件的数额。我们提议的，为了明确起见，除了提供房产作为保释保证金（bond）的担保——这已经绰绰有余了，对吧，因为规定写着两人。这里有三个人，他们名下的房产总值超过 \\$5,000,000。他们可以全部提供。他们准备好这么做了。但除此之外。就我所知，她能支配的，而且政府实际上也不知道有任何其他情况，她本人目前只能支配属于她的两个账户，并且她在其公寓中拥有净值，我们已经提供了该担保。所以她的公寓，她的其中一个账户全部——\n\n法官：有 \\$400,000 的那个。\n\n利普曼律师：嗯，我不太确定确切数额。\n\n法官：嗯，那就是您提议拿出来的那个。\n\n利普曼律师：对，对。然后对第二个账户进行监控。我的意思是，我们很乐意——换句话说，她——\n\n诉讼程序\n\n法官：我明白了。\n\n利普曼律师：——将身无分文。\n\n法官：对。\n\n利普曼律师：现在，政府说，嗯，你们知道的，支持者，这啊那的，他们可以——每个案件中都是这样。法官阁下，我准备坐下了，因为我已经讲了很久，您对我十分宽容，我很感激。但是，法官阁下，没有任何理由让这位女士在监狱里多呆哪怕一个晚上。没有任何理由。她没有潜逃风险。她已经抵押了她的公寓。我们很乐意让今天到场的这三位共同签署人现在就去楼下签署保释保证金。我们可以提供——事实上，我愿意对这两个账户承担个人责任。谢谢。我那明智得多的联席律师提醒我，这些人拿出来作保的不是 \\$5,000,000。那是他们的身家性命和家庭的生活，就因为他们提议为王女士（Ms. Wang）所做的一切。如果这还不能表明他们认为自己具有道德规劝力——\n\n法官：那不是，那不是，我并不质疑他们对此的思维过程。我只是想确认一些事情。关于您所提议的可能修改条件的方案，是您希望法庭批准您所提供的八人中的两人。您现在这里有三个人。除了公寓的担保外，您打算提供那个 \\$400,000 的账户以及被扣押的 \\$130,000 现金。您还打算通过其他人提供额外担保，您现在说我认为总额可以达到 \\$5,000,000。我理解得对吗？\n\n利普曼律师：对，我们可以。我的意思是，我们有三个人愿意提供他们的房产，其中一套房子我认为价值 \\$3,000,000，另一套如果我没记错的话是 170 万，但是是的。\n\n法官：然后您还提议由政府监控并批准从那个 \\$500,000 账户中支出的任何款项。\n\n利普曼律师：我更希望由审前服务机构（Pretrial）来做，而不是联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office），但确实如此。\n\n法官：是的，同样，这里的主要关切之一是——我正在找这句话出自哪里，这好像出自 U.S. v. Melville 案。“保释的目的并非向政府提供资金以便在被告潜入地下或逃离司法管辖区时进行追捕。保释旨在作为一种促成机制以协助确保被告出庭——”\n\n诉讼程序\n\n法官：好的。\n\n利普曼律师：好的。所以我已经说过，她是一个具有革命信念的人。她信仰这项事业。如果她不信仰这项事业，如果她不相信这些人——谢谢。\n\n法官：这两者并非互斥，欺诈与对某项事业的信仰。\n\n利普曼律师：嗯，法官阁下，确实如此，但是，再次强调，您必须考察具体个人以及他们究竟做了什么——\n\n法官：当然。\n\n利普曼律师：所以——\n\n法官：我同意。\n\n利普曼律师：——他们互称，我和很多人谈过——\n\n法官：我想我已经了解得够多了。\n\n利普曼律师：您明白了。他们互相称呼——就在我坐下之前，他们互称兄弟姐妹，好的，我和他们中的很多人谈过，我的意思是我所能说的就是他们愿意冒一切风险，而她没有做出任何行为表明她会为了她自己的、为了她自己的个人利益而将他们置于险境，将他们个人置于险境。\n\n诉讼程序\n\n法官：明白。谢谢。\n\n利普曼律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的，我来听听政府方面的意见。\n\n默里检察官（MS. MURRAY）：谢谢您，法官阁下。关于利普曼律师刚刚提到的内容，只有简短的一点。关于被告的个人利益，政府指出被告居住在一套价值 \\$1,100,000 的公寓里。被告拥有近一百万美元——\n\n法官：在纽约市中心，有人可能认为这算穷的，但是，无论如何。\n\n默里检察官：在其现金及银行账户（即已披露的两个账户）中拥有近一百万美元，我稍后会谈到这一点。我们有证据表明，在首次代币发行（initial coin offering）时，按较低估值计算，她被分配了大约价值 \\$7,000,000 的加密货币或所谓的加密货币。因此，现在其价值会大幅增加。并且她的保险箱里有大约超过 \\$138,000 的现金。\n\n不过我想就今天的诉讼程序重新陈述一下重点。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n默里检察官：在一开始，法官阁下询问了保释诉讼程序的进展状态，答案是没有，辩方与政府之间没有就拟议的担保人（suretors）展开进一步的讨论。辩方在动议中提交了支持其拟议担保人各种所谓财务状况的文件，除此之外，政府没有收到任何补充文件，尽管政府在提交的材料中已经提醒他们，我们认为这些文件不完整或不足以做出准确的判定或评估。政府未能成功联系到辩方提议的第八位共同签署人，因此无法对该人进行面谈。这就是我们今天所处的情况。\n\n现在，今天法庭面前实际上有三个问题。第一，关于被告的动议，即法庭是否应当裁定被告已经满足了其保释保证金的条件，即帕克法官（Judge Parker）在 3 月 15 日被告被捕数小时后初次过堂时所设定的条件。答案显然是否定的。\n\n第二个问题是法庭是否应当修改帕克法官设定的该保释保证金条件，以取消共同签署人的要求——这是辩方请求的首要修改诉求之一——或者可能结合、或选择性地进行各种不同的修改，无论是提供额外的房产或现金以支持保释保证金、增加共同签署人，还是合并计算共同签署人的资产。同样，关于修改条件，答案显然是否定的，法庭不应这样做。\n\n最后，第三个问题，也是在政府上周五提交的文件中提出的，即鉴于没有任何条件或一组条件能够合理确保被告在未来的法庭诉讼程序中出庭，被告是否应当在审前予以羁押。法官阁下，对此的回答是肯定的。\n\n因此我将依次阐述这些要点。\n\n首先，关于拟议的共同签署人，辩方向法庭提交了有关这些共同签署人的文件、姓名和信息。这是因为他们未获得政府的批准。因此，根据法规，法庭批准未经认可的共同签署人的依据是评估有关这些共同签署人的文件和信息，然后确定他们的净资产是否具有足以支付全额保释保证金的无权利负担价值——本案中为 \\$5,000,000。法官阁下，我不会逐一审查每个人，因为我们在最初提交的文件中已经详细阐述了这一点。\n\n我们逐一核查了辩方在此向法庭提交了相关文件的七位拟议共同签署人，再次说明，这还不算我们未能进行访谈的第八位。对于这七位中的每一位，基于辩方提供给法官阁下以供您考量这些人是否符合法定标准的文件，首先，法官阁下，他们当中没有一个人对被告具有适当的道德约束力。再次，我们已经阐明了这一点，但我想把这一点阐述得更细致一些，因为在辩方声称这些人能够施加道德约束力的情况下，这一点极其重要。而且，法官阁下是正确的，问题不在于拟议共同签署人是否认为他们对被告具有影响力或道德约束力。问题在于被告自己的感受，虽然我们无法探知其头脑或内心所想，但我们所能够\n\n能做的就是审视摆在我们面前的证据。\n\n供法官阁下考量的这七名拟议共同签署人中，有些人从未见过 Ms. Wang（王雁平女士），也从未与她说过话。总体而言，他们中只有少数人在某些活动上见过她。大多数人不知道她在哪里工作。大多数人不知道她住在哪里。他们与她并不经常交谈。他们之间似乎没有任何私人关系。\n\n有意思的是——我稍后会谈到这一点——其中一人实际上认为王女士在 Gettir 工作，而 Gettir 正是涉嫌参与诈骗的实体之一，也是潜在的犯罪工具。该人之所以这么认为，是因为此人曾因在 Gettir 应聘职位而与王女士见过面。我稍后会说明这为何具有相关性。另一个人则认为她在一家名为 HCHK Properties 的公司工作。同样，这也是在这起数十亿美元诈骗过程中使用的空壳公司之一。\n\n而辩方主张能够施加道德约束力的这些拟议共同签署人，对被告的了解甚至不足以与她建立私人关系，因此，我们完全无法确信，由他们签署保释金保证书就能以任何方式劝阻王女士潜逃、不至于弃他们于不顾而让他们承担支付保释金额的责任。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：好吧，即使他们之间没有我们通常认为的传统私人关系、亲属关系或深厚的朋友关系，难道他们就不能因共同的事业理念而联系在一起吗？\nMS. MURRAY（默里检察官）：法官阁下，他们确实可能因共同的事业理念而联系在一起。但在这种特定情况下——这也是为什么政府关于这些人是诈骗的潜在受害者或表面受害者的论点非常重要——这起诈骗很大程度上就是针对该群体实施的。这是一起专门针对并动员支持 Mr. Kwok（Ho Wan Kwok，郭文贵先生）、王女士以及 Mr. Je（余建明先生）反抗 CCP（中国共产党）运动的人士进行掠夺的诈骗。正是这些人被锁定并被作为目标，汇出了数亿美元、超过 10 亿美元的资金，用来充塞郭先生、余先生及其家人的腰包，并重新投资于作为诈骗工具的公司，即王女士管理并为之工作的公司，其中一些是纸面上的，一些则是实际控制。\n因此，政府根本无法从“因为某人是王女士拥有支持者的这一所谓群体的成员”这一论据中获得任何确信，即认为这会影响王女士使其不至于潜逃。\n而且，法官阁下，我只想指出，道德约束力因素各不相同，但其中一些考量因素包括被告与拟议担保人之间关系的紧密程度。同样，在此，对于被告向法官阁下提供的、本法庭面前的所有拟议担保人而言，这一因素根本不存在。\n此外，关于被告在社区中的根基，我们从辩护律师处了解到王女士……\n拟议担保人中的每一位，但这些人的无产权负担资产价值不足以支持保释金的全部金额。这就是我们目前适用的法定框架，在已设定条件、政府未予批准担保人、而辩方现已提出动议将其呈交法庭的情况下——\n法庭：好吧，为什么我至少从辩方那里听到的是，连同整套方案以及到场的所谓三位 FRP（Financially Responsible Person，具财务担保能力人士）担保人，他们确实拥有 500 万美元。请让我核实一下，辩护律师，你是说那是无产权负担的 500 万美元吗？\nMR. LIPMAN（利普曼律师）：是的，我们有三个人拥有无产权负担的——嗯——\n法庭：净无产权负担资产。\n利普曼律师：谢谢。是的，我认为净额加起来——这么说吧，加上她确定拥有的 100 万美元，我知道其中一个是 300 万美元。抱歉，我想不起其中一个的具体数字了，但我敢肯定这三个人能覆盖 500 万美元。但他们确实拥有，包括——\n法庭：对，她有 100 万，她还有 40 万，她还有 13.8 万。所以我们足够……\n\n……支持者，从而会影响王女士使其不至于潜逃。\n\n……基本上在该群体内工作并运作，但我只想指出，在王女士的第二次保释听证会期间，Judge Netburn（内特伯恩法官）确实指出，王女士已在该国居住了七年，却声称自己不认识任何人，没有任何可能站出来作为共同签署人的人不是该群体内的潜在受害者，也不是该诈骗案的潜在调查对象或共谋者。\n\n再者就是接触的经常性。在此，在这些拟议担保人与王女士之间，我们同样看不到经常性的接触。\n\n现在转向评估呈交法庭的拟议担保人的第二个因素：财务责任能力。在此，我同样不想赘述，因为我们已经审视过了……\n……处理那个问题。但我明白。\n默里检察官：好的。是的，我明白，法官阁下。那么我想我将转到第二个问题，即法庭是否应修改被告保释金保证书的条件，无论是取消共同签署人，还是变更并调整保释金，以提供更多的现金或财产作为保释金的担保。正如我所说，对此的答案显然也是否定的。\n我只想就辩护律师所作的陈述说明几点——\n法庭：在你说明之前，让我们暂时假定，在你看来没有具备财务责任能力的人，因为除了可能见过她几次之外，他们与她没有私人关系，他们不是家人，他们唯一的共同点就是这个事业理念。如果我要评估该项特定条件对于合理确保被告在未来的诉讼程序中出庭是否属必要，抑或可以采用其他条款组合——当然，撇开所有已经落实的条款不谈，即居家监禁、电子监控等——为什么我不能或为什么我不应该考虑所提供的其他不足以替代该条件的措施？为什么必须是两名具备财务……\n\n……某些方面——好吧，再说一次，为什么是那项条件，而不是所提供的其他替代方案？\n默里检察官：嗯，实际上有多项条件，法官阁下，原因在于，当政府在 3 月 15 日被告被捕后数小时与辩方商讨经同意的拟议保释方案时，政府当时还没有机会仔细审查 FBI（联邦调查局）对被告公寓进行搜查时收集到的证据。坦率地说，政府当时尚未意识到被告会对本法庭、对 Pretrial Services（审前服务处）撒谎——\n法庭：我不明白谎言是什么。我必须说我并不——你知道，在你的信函中，你指控被告在此事上进行掩饰。唯一让我觉得可能是掩饰的就只有加密货币。但完全存在这种可能，即你可能拥有在 2016 年（我认为是这个日期）分配的加密货币，并且你知道，它可能从未转化为任何实际价值。这确实让人产生疑问，比如那笔资产去哪儿了，难道没人能告诉我们吗，但现在她说她无法控制或访问它，因为她甚至不知道它在哪里或它究竟是什么。\n\n默里检察官：法官阁下，关于这一点有几点要说明。首先，被告在接受审前服务处访谈时表示，她自 2022 年 9 月以来一直处于失业状态。然而，政府上周晚些时候审查的从其公寓扣押的文件以及政府掌握的其他证据——如您所知，在羁押听证会上我们可以通过书面证明要点的方式进行陈述——\n法庭：是的。\n默里检察官：这不是一场小型审判。但政府的证据表明，事实上，直到她被捕之日，被告一直在继续从事与其在郭先生家族资金的家族办公室中的指定职位相关的工作，并继续为我提到的作为诈骗工具的其他一些实体工作。我们看到了列出与该诈骗案相关的各个不同实体的财务状况的文件。其中包括 Gettir，正如我所提到的，拟议担保人之一认为王女士正式为该公司工作。其中包括 HCHK Property，另一位担保人也认为王女士正式为该公司工作，而政府的证据显示，王女士实际上通过其 BBI 实体拥有 HCHK 99.999% 的股份。\n其中包括 G Clubs，这是政府起诉书中列明并指控的诈骗分支机构之一。其中包括 Rule of Law Society（法治公会）和 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金），这些是郭先生等人于 2018 年创立的慈善机构、所谓慈善机构，它们为通过该诈骗案的不同分支机构筹集所有这些资金奠定了基础和依据。\n而且，法官阁下，这些是账户余额的打印件，是截至目前的筹集账户，正如文件所反映的，时间分别是 2023 年 2 月或 2023 年 3 月 13 日，即被告被捕前两天。\n法庭：但那些是公司资金，对吧，但你是将其用于证明就业这一论点。\n默里检察官：法官阁下，我将其用于证明就业这一论点，同时也用于证明实际控制。利普曼先生表示，他不知道政府使用幕僚长这一概括性称谓是什么意思。政府通过这样定性王女士所要指控的是，她管理并控制着这些不同的实体。现在，就像郭先生一样，她参与的每家不同公司上并不都有她的名字，但鉴于在王女士公寓中发现的证据，鉴于人们在形式上将王女士与这些公司联系在一起——因为他们曾为了在其中一些公司谋职而接受王女士的面试，或者他们在为其中一些公司工作时与王女士签有合同——政府对此毫无疑问。\n王女士掌控着这些犯罪工具的运作。与她对审前服务处所言相反，她一直这样做直到被捕之日。政府指控，她对审前服务处撒谎的部分原因是为了否认与该诈骗案的各个不同犯罪工具存在关联。声称自己脱离了这些涉诈实体，值得注意的是，法官阁下，这恰好发生在政府开始扣押 6.3 亿美元诈骗收益的前后。\n因此在政府看来，在初次提讯和保释辩论时，我们并未意识到我们会在被告的公寓中找到确凿的证据，在我们看来，这些证据证实了政府根据其调查已经指控并认定为属实的情况，即王女士直到被捕之时一直继续为这些公司工作。所以这是其中一点，法官阁下。这是情况发生了变化。与初次提讯时相比，政府所掌握的情况发生了变化。\n\n现在谈到账户，喜币（H coin）——或者说在喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）交易的据称加密货币之一，再次说明，这又是诈骗的另一个分支——的分配文件是在Wang（王女士）的公寓里发现的，同时还有看似支持该欺诈行为的各种其他文件。法官阁下说得对，辩方说得也对，政府无法证明王女士实际持有这笔钱，而且事实上，政府的主张是它根本不是加密货币，但我们并不是主张它毫无价值。我们的主张是，某些人拥有它，而那些最先赎回的人基本上可以进行卷款潜逃（exit scam）并带着他们的资金脱身。\n\n我想指出的是，虽然我们同样无法进入王女士持有该资金的账户，但法官阁下正确指出，价值约 $7 million 的加密货币资产是应当密切追踪的。分配情况显示为Yanping Wang（王雁平），然后标有分配份额，是用她的名字登记的。我想指出的是，在政府掌握的文件中，分配了喜币（HCN）的其他个人或实体还包括王女士的同谋William Je（余建明）。文件中写着Sue Ming Je及其家人，那是他的一位家庭成员。还包括Kwok（郭先生）的儿子，包括郭先生儿子的朋友，全都具名列出。王女士也具名列出，被分配了 7 million。现在，我不知道是她忘记了，还是仅仅认为没有必要向审前服务处（Pretrial Services）披露，但这是政府在审查从王女士公寓查获的证据过程中新发现的事实，这让我们深感疑虑，并且这与政府最初同辩方律师商定拟议保释条件时的情况截然不同。我想指出的另一具要点是，关于被告人有权访问的账户，我理解该条件的措辞方式可以作狭义或广义的理解。在政府看来，这无疑给被告人施加了坦诚说明的义务。而该条件包含了一项要求，即被告人必须披露由其控制、以其名义开设的，或在其控制或关联公司名下的资产或账户，且广义而言，包括加密货币及其他不动产。\n\n政府发现的证据（同样是近至被告人被捕前几天自其公寓查获的，如前所述）显示了银行账户信息、账户信息，以及王女士为某些其并不控制但政府明确指控其以郭先生幕僚长身份进行管理和工作的运作机构签署工资单。因此对政府而言，这表明其对这些财务拥有实际控制权。\n\n不过，即使撇开这一点不谈，法官阁下，Lipman（利普曼先生）提到了保险柜里有信用卡和其他物品。政府曾指出，其中一个袋子里装有现金，另一个袋子里装有某些看似随时可用、随手可取的物品。\n\n法庭：你提到了保险柜。有一个保险柜吗？Murray（默里女士）：有一个保险柜。是的。装有现金的袋子和装有信用卡及其他物品（包括护照）的另一个袋子，全部藏在被告人公寓的一个保险柜里。值得注意的是，从保险柜里的其中一个袋子中取出的信用卡，查看这些信用卡的正面（这些卡片已被拍照并于上周提供给了辩方律师），有许多卡片显示以被告人姓名开立且尚未过期的账户，而被告人并未向政府或审前服务处披露这些账户。目前，我们无法查明这些账户中有哪些资产、被告人如何继续控制这些账户，但法官阁下，这再次构成了另一层问题，使我们无法确信被告人对审前服务处、联邦检察官办公室（U.S. Attorney's Office）或法庭保持了坦诚。\n\n从非常宏观的层面来逐一说明这些账户：有一个属于郭氏家族实体之一的Citibank（花旗银行）账户，由被告人控制，并且直到她上个月被捕时仍处于活跃状态。因此当时它是活跃的。有两张Bank of America（美国银行）的个人借记卡，账号不同，均以被告人姓名开立，是以她的名义开设的个人账户。其中一张上个月到期，但同样在她被捕时是活跃的。下一张将于明年到期。有一个以被告人自己名义开立的花旗银行个人账户，还有一年才到期。有一个在新加坡银行开立的DBS Treasures（星展丰盛理财）账户，而且政府当时也明确询问了境外账户的情况。该卡要到 2025 年 1 月才到期，同样是以被告人的名义。最后是一个China Bank of Communications（中国交通银行）账户，这是一家中国银行。该账户的卡片显示于 2023 年 9 月到期，同样是以被告人的名义。法官阁下，这是向政府表明被告人有权使用可用于逃匿的账户、资产和资金的又一个例证。如果这些资金是我们需要依赖被告人披露以满足所施加的另一项保释条件的——撇开保证人（co-signer）的问题不谈——她根据所施加的条件有义务向政府和审前服务处披露其资产、账户、加密货币及其财产。她通过律师表示自己已经履行了该义务，仅仅披露了两个个人账户，一个在Morgan Stanley Bank（摩根士丹利银行），一个在TD Bank（道明银行），以及与其中一家公司关联的这个账户。在政府看来，她根本没有披露其有权使用的资金总额。\n\n这些都是构成新情况的例证，引起了政府的严重关切。对被告人潜逃动机的严重关切，对其逃匿能力的严重关切，以及我们无法相信被告人所作陈述这一事实。而且，法官阁下，在这些情况下，我们发现了如此多的危险信号（red flags）和如此多的顾虑，如果不是我们发现了这些新信息，政府未必能识别出来。我们完全无法确信存在任何条件或一组条件能够确保被告人今后出庭。\n\n所以这就涉及到了第三项要件，法官阁下。事实是，政府现在向法庭说明，我们在她被捕时基于当时所知的情况同意了这些拟议的保释条件。从那时起情况已经发生了变化，对政府来说事情只会变得更加令人担忧——政府本来就对被告人的逃匿风险存有重大顾虑，但此前曾认为或许存在某些条件可以确保其出庭。我们现在不再这么认为了。我们不认为存在能够合理确保其出庭的条件或一组条件。\n\n法庭：作一点澄清。关于——你提到了，我想你提到了，我不知道你是指起诉书（indictment）中的指控还是别的什么，但你提到郭先生和余先生是那种中饱私囊、大发横财的人。你是否认同辩方律师所说的，起诉书并未指控本案被告人本人中饱私囊，可以这么说吗？\n\n默里女士：我想回答法官阁下的问题，起诉书确实指控被告人本人对挪用 100 million dollar 诈骗所得负有个人责任——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n默里女士：但那是关于挪用公款的指控。现在，关于起诉书——作为一份包含若干指控的控告文书——我们尚未具体列出被告人本人挪用的个人资金，但是，我们再次认为，这绝不影响她在此处的逃匿风险以及她获取资金和接触网络的机会。我想指出的另一具要点是关于旅行证件和护照。利普曼先生说，被告人曾在去年年底或今年年初寻求出境许可，据我所知她打算去英国，进行跨国旅行。政府从她的保险柜中起获了一本瓦努阿图护照和一本香港护照。瓦努阿图护照已过期，而且我们确实看到了已披露的证据，显示该护照并非被撤销，而是被告人撤回了针对该护照的申请。但她具备获取旅行证件的能力，正如她的共同被告人Miles Kwok（郭文贵）一样，据指控郭文贵在不同时期曾拥有过 11 本护照。\n\n法庭：嗯，她不是郭文贵。\n\n默里女士：我明白——\n\n法庭：我明白，我想你的意思是说，她可能是某个能够提供此类物品的网络的一部分。\n\n默里女士：完全正确，法官阁下，正是如此，她既可以是能够提供此类物品的网络的一部分，而且她也是被指派负责保管这些旅行证件的人。\n\n……为她自己和 Mr. Kwok（郭文贵先生）保管文件。她是一个备受信任的人，被委以保管这些旅行证件的职责——\n\n法庭：你如何看待辩方的观点，即被告在2022年9月或10月扣押手机以及发生某些事态时肯定就已经知情，随后又有与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的交涉，再加上辩方再次陈述的事实，即尽管她有庇护申请，她仍申请了临时离境许可（furlough）以便能够旅行。如果属实，这些难道不有点表明她是一个不会潜逃的人吗？\n\nMURRAY 女士：不一定，法官阁下，我还想指出，虽然大家知道，关于这些是否存在矛盾可能存有疑问，我很乐意稍后对此进行说明，但我还想指出，被告即使有这些严重担忧，即中共遣返迫害的担忧，她仍愿意并且实际上渴望前往英国，这表明那些担忧并没有严重到让她不愿意进行跨国旅行的程度。但我不知道被告申请临时离境许可的具体情况。我不知道她去那一趟的目的是什么。我要说的是，\n\n在这种情况中——如果我们以假设的方式来说，同样没有理由认为，在她知晓资金已被扣押之后，她没有抱着去了英国就再也不打算回来的意图去申请临时离境许可。而且，我再次说明，我只是因为法庭提出了问题才以假设的方式发言，但我认为你可以从这些事实中得出各种不同的结论。归根结底，她试图前往英国、她愿意进行跨国旅行，并没有削弱她具有重大潜逃风险这一事实。\n\n而且我还想指出，这是潜逃、在未来的法庭出庭期日不到庭的风险。我们不需要证明她会去往外国司法管辖区——\n\n法庭：不需要。\n\nMURRAY 女士：她可能从本市潜逃，她可能从几个街区的范围内逃离。她可能会剪断她的电子脚镣。而且可能是她庞大的支持者网络在为她提供协助并予以窝藏。我们不知道具体情况，但根本底线是被告具有重大的潜逃风险。鉴于证据的有力程度、此处指控的严重性、被告的个人情况、她接触巨额资产的途径、包括她被指控作为逃犯身处阿联酋（UAE，阿拉伯联合酋长国）且在该处面临指控的同案被告 William Je（余建明）在内的海外关系、她的支持者网络，以及我们在过去两周内发现的新信息——表明被告对法庭、审前服务部门（Pretrial）或政府一直不坦诚——政府认为没有任何条件或一组条件能够确保她在未来的法庭诉讼程序中出庭。我们根本不相信存在任何能够确保她在未来的法庭诉讼程序中出庭的条件。\n\n法庭：好的。我想你想要做一些回应。\n\nLIPMAN 先生：噢，是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：请容我对预约3点30分的人说一句，抱歉，我们时间要延后了。请耐心稍候，我们最终会处理到的。请继续。\n\nLIPMAN 先生：法官阁下，我会尽快进行。我想从以下几点开始。关于他们在与法庭的交谈以及提交的文件中作出的失实陈述，我所说的一切显然都是属实的，因为他们对其中任何一点都没有提出异议。所以所有那些关于在床垫之间找到手机、把手机藏在不管是什么地方、在靠垫之间藏文件的事情，显然统统都没有发生过。这是、这曾是向法庭陈述过的内容。\n\n那么现在我们谈到了信任的问题。他们说信任。你不能信任这名被告。真的吗？但是你可以信任本届政府？让我们来看看，让我们仔细剖析一下 Murray 女士刚才说的话。她说她找到了卡片的照片，其中一些显示该卡片尚未过期。我们怎么能从这一点推导到，噢，并且还有一个与之关联的账户？她有什么证据？毫无证据。完全没有任何证据。\n\n她所知道的——顺便说一句，法官阁下，我从来没有，“大不列颠”这几个字从来没有从我嘴里说出来过。对吧？这意味着他们早就知道她打算旅行。他们为什么不逮捕她？如果他们认为她打算溜之大吉，并且他们担心她有潜逃风险，那么，当他们发现她提出申请时，那就逮捕她啊。怎么，他们没有边境监控看着她吗？真的吗？难道司法部（Department of Justice）自从我离开那里之后就发生了那么大的变化？我不这么认为。\n\n那么现在让我们谈谈她的就业情况。再一次，当时被问到的问题是什么？你目前受雇吗？没有。没有。如果问题是\n\n公司？何时？对谁？而且我曾与政府进行过明确的对话，当时他们说，好吧，Murray 女士说，她说从广义上讲，这个问题既可以做广义解释，也可以做狭义解释。好吧，首先，没有人剥夺我当事人的《第五修正案》（Fifth Amendment）（听不清）权利，据我所知没有，当她被问到那个问题时，她给出了回答，那个回答是真实的。如果他们想知道更多，他们本来就应该发问。而且我特别与政府进行过对话，我说排除了她可能凭借公司所有权或无论什么方式拥有控制权的任何资产之后，这些就是相关的账户。\n\n她不是一个具有潜逃风险的人，法官阁下。有一个我一直在问自己的问题是这样的。为什么？为什么政府要对证据作出失实陈述？为什么政府要夸大事实、夸大事实？即使他们认为，大家都知道，这背后还有更多隐情。即使——对不起，对不起，有人提醒我，关于她的就业问题，我们实际上援引了、她援引了她的《第五修正案》权利。好的？谢谢。\n\n即使——我思路断了。我很抱歉。我想我当时是在回应这样一种观点，即\n\n她掌控一些事务。没有——我们从来没有隐瞒过这一点。在这种情况下产生重大误导，而这正是政府（the Government）在做的事情？为什么？法官阁下，这名女性需要被释放。她没有潜逃风险。她哪里也不会去。她会佩戴电子脚镣，接受 GPS 监控。我们可以把她的所有资金冻结，以至于没有审前服务处（Pretrial Services）或有关人员的批准，她连喘口气都不行。最后一点，如果不释放她，她的辩护将会受到严重损害。\n\n法庭：这对任何未被释放的人来说都是事实。\n\n利普曼先生（MR. LIPMAN）：除非，除非当事人的母语是普通话，而政府要求提供一个磁盘来存入 2 TB 的数据。这不是一个能很快解决的案件，而且在这个案件中，获得委托人的协助将是非常重要的。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢你。默里女士（MS. MURRAY），你最后想说几句吗？\n\n默里女士：是的，法官阁下，简短说几句。我首先想说的是，政府没有对法庭作出任何失实陈述。政府没有捏造事实。政府向本法庭和辩方提供的是有证据支持的信息。关于利普曼先生提到的信用卡，这不是信用卡的翻拍照。这是我们今天向法庭和辩方展示的卡片照片。它们是实物卡。但我们对声称我们在任何方面表现得非——\n\n法庭：我知道——\n\n默里女士：——非充分坦诚和非出于善意的说法表示愤慨。\n\n法庭：——我毫不怀疑你们是在出于善意行事。但他确实指出了一些似乎存在出入的地方，即关于在她的公寓中某些证据被发现的位置的陈述，与被清点记录的情况以及清点方式之间的出入。你能就此说明一下吗？\n\n默里女士：当然可以，法官阁下。并不存在出入。利普曼先生所做的是指出了一份证据记录单，该记录单上有一栏是在联邦调查局（FBI，Federal Bureau of Investigation）收集证据时做出的某些标注，标明了物品起获的位置。通常情况下，它根据利普曼先生向法庭提供的示意图用字母标明房间，并附有简要描述。它并没有以详细的叙述方式说明作为证据提取的每一件物品具体是从哪里起获的、处于何种状态、是如何被发现的。\n\n因此，关于夹在衣服之间的笔记本电脑，这与政府在初次出庭（initial presentment）时向帕克法官（Judge Parker）作出的陈述是一致的，即笔记本电脑是在壁橱里的毛衣之间被发现的。它没有具体说明是哪种衣物——\n\n法庭：没有。\n\n默里女士：——或在何处，但这是一致的。关于政府曾指出装在盒子里的 iPhone，是的，是在壁橱里的一个袋子里，您可以看到这些正是利普曼先生在证据记录单上向法官阁下指出的编号在 50 多号的物品。您会注意到它们几乎每一部都有相同的 PIN 码或密码。因此，这些物品起初 FBI 认为可能没有任何内容，随后 FBI 在执行搜查令期间有技术人员在现场，他们接入设备并确定其中含有内容。不存在任何失实陈述。\n\n利普曼先生现在，再次，法官阁下，本质上是试图在羁押听证会（detention hearing）这个节点对政府案件的实质事实进行审理，他首先向政府索取信息——我们欣然提供了这些信息，并且在案件的证据开示（discovery）过程中本来也会这样提供——然后试图以此对抗政府，声称因为没有收集证据过程的每一步骤、每一阶段的照片，政府就不可信。这根本不是事实，而且这是不尊重的，法官阁下。\n\n关于其他几点，我只想指出被告撒了谎。关于公寓里的现金，她撒了谎。在这次辩论过程中，我已经听到辩方在好几个话题上吹毛求疵，这是令政府产生疑虑的又一个例证。\n\n法庭：那么，我们怎么知道——当时问了什么很重要。是你身上有钱吗？还是你的公寓里有钱？这是有区别的。\n\n默里女士：我明白，法官阁下，而政府显然并不知情——\n\n法庭：特别是对于具有不同语言和文化背景的人，所问问题的细微差别可能尤为重要。我不知道问了什么。\n\n默里女士：当然，我们也不知道，因为政府没有参与审前服务处对被告的询问。在询问过程中，有一名普通话翻译协助她。政府通过调查还获悉，王女士（Ms. Wang）英语相当流利。我们从收集到的多份不同证据中得知了这一点，包括她发表的言论以及对话中的声音。她似乎在理解上没有问题。\n\n但关于所提的问题，我再次说明，我不知道，我当时不在场。被告确实在好几个话题上吹毛求疵。我要指出的是，审前服务处报告显示，被告被问及资产情况，是资产，而不是她作为唯一签署人的特定账户，也不是处于活跃状态、由她控制并拥有登录信息的特定账户。我们没有吹毛求疵。审前服务处问的是资产，而她没有披露存放在她公寓保险箱内的价值 138,000 美元的现金。\n\n关于她的就业情况，辩方刚才指出她曾援引——审前服务处报告关于就业经历的部分显示，被告告知她自 2022 年 9 月起一直处于失业状态。现在，关于自那以后她拥有的或赖以生活的额外资金来源，被告拒绝回答，这是她的权利。但她确实针对审前服务处报告作出了这一陈述，即她自 2022 年 9 月起一直失业。\n\n现在，利普曼先生说被告一直在她以前可能以更正式的雇佣身份工作过的各个组织中做志愿者。我只想简短地回到法官阁下问到的个人收益这一点。是的，我理解 110 万美元在曼哈顿可能不算昂贵的公寓，但这是一套用现金购买的 110 万美元的公寓。被告账户中还有近 100 万美元。被告在她声称决定终止雇佣关系并开始做志愿者之前，从她曾正式、以正式身份工作过的 Kwok（郭）旗下实体获取约 250,000 美元的薪资。在政府看来，这就是个人收益。\n\n这与现在的说法也不一致，即在 2022 年 9 月政府刚开始扣押资金时，被告就停止了以正式身份工作。她不能对这些她正在签字发放工资、她有权使用资金的银行账户免除任何责任。\n\n法官阁下，归根结底，被告存在潜逃风险。没有任何条件能够合理保证她出庭。她撒了谎。政府没有向法庭作失实陈述。我们无法确信她会向法庭作出准确陈述，也无法确信我们有能力以任何有意义的、能够保证她在未来法庭诉讼程序中出庭的方式对她进行监控。\n\n法庭：谢谢你。利普曼先生，我看到你了，你想回应吗？请讲。\n\n利普曼先生：法官阁下，如实回答所提出的问题就是一个完整的回答。这不是吹毛求疵——\n\n法庭：听着，底线是我们确实不知道究竟问了什么以及是怎么问的——\n\n利普曼先生：好吧，我们在场。\n\n法庭：好吧，但我是说我们没有记录——\n\n利普曼先生：但是，法官阁下，根本没有记录，也没有政府所说的这些事情的证据——\n\n法庭：我——\n\n利普曼先生：——这就是\n（插话）\n\n法庭：我没有说这对哪一方有利。\n\n利普曼先生：不，但是，法官阁下，他们说我们找到了一张信用卡。好吧，那意味着她没有披露一个账户。不，你们只是找到了一张信用卡。对吧？我们找到了一份对账单，上面写着诸如此类的内容，说她被分配了一些币。是的，那就是你们找到的，那就是你们所拥有的。你们没有其他任何东西了。因此，因为他们发现了一些他们未能完全理解的东西，就告诉我她需要被羁押并且她不可信任，对不起，这未免太过分了。\n\n而且，是的，顺便说一下，正如政府所知，她的一批账户已经被关闭了，政府的调查在某种程度上也跟进了这一点。例如花旗银行（Citi）的账户就被关闭了。其他银行的其他账户最近也被关闭了，它们被关闭了。另外一件事，法官阁下，当他们说她控制这个或她控制那个或诸如此类的话时，好吧，她曾在某个地方工作，她现在不再在那里工作了，她不领取薪水。她如何利用自己的时间是她自己的事。这并没有越界——这并没有对任何人撒谎，完全不是那回事。对吧？\n\n而且政府实质上已经承认——不，不是实质上。政府已经承认了关键的一点，即根据他们的起诉书，她的参与并非为了谋取个人金钱收益。而是出于其他原因。而且该公寓是在任何指控发生之前用其他资金购买的。她确实赚过钱，但她没有挥霍。我已经向法庭描述了她的生活方式。所以关键问题是她为什么要这么做，如果她做了，她是为自己谋利而做的吗？如果不是，那么这是否足以成为认为她现在会伤害这些人的理由，因为她没有把任何从他们口袋里拿出来的钱放进自己的口袋。没有理由相信，在没有做过这种事、身处所有这些资金周围却从未将分文占为己有的情况下，在所有这些年里她都没有那样做过。那么现在又有什么会促使她这么做呢？答案是这是一场革命运动，明白吗，这些人是她的兄弟姐妹。他们共同希望看到中共（CCP，Chinese Communist Party）被推翻。因此她绝不会让他们陷入财务险境，她为这项事业奉献了自己的一生，她的一生。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n诉讼记录 80\n默里检察官（Ms. Murray）：法官阁下（Your Honor），我就提最后一点。我想明确的是，政府方在这一点上绝未做出任何让步，关键问题在于她是否存在潜逃风险，这才是问题所在。\n法庭：好的，听我说，我被要求做的一件事是确定所提供的一些财务担保人（financial suretors）是否足以满足帕克法官（Judge Parker）发布的各项要求和条件，或者至少就此作出裁定；辩方在此已表明他们有三位担保人，辩方认为有足够的财产可以作为担保，连同代表被告提供的充实资金方案（如果可以这样称呼的话）。\n我手头目前没有关于\n\n诉讼记录 81\n那三位财务责任人（FRP's）所提供财产情况的信息材料。这是我需要考虑的一部分内容。我知道，鉴于新材料，政府方也要求重新对被告予以羁押。但我有责任审查被告将要提供的用以证实其所提议财务担保人的任何材料。\n\n所以我需要一份完整的材料包，包含你们必须提供或你们认为足够的任何材料。如果还有\n\n诉讼记录\n你们尚未向政府方提供、但能够提供的关于其他人的证明文件，包括所谓的第八位或其他担保人，请一并提供。我将要做的部分工作就是评估这些材料。这并不意味着我必然会认定这些材料显然充分且条件已经满足，但这将是我要考虑的事情之一，此外我还要考虑是否应施加一组不同的条件，或者是否应对被告予以羁押。\n因此，在提交这批补充信息以及我完成审查之前，她将依据帕克法官要求在释放前满足所有条件的裁定继续被羁押；我会尽快完成审查。\n让我问一下利普曼律师（Mr. Lipman），你什么时候能把那些材料提交给我和政府方？\n利普曼律师：法官阁下，我一离开法庭就会着手准备。我请求给予24小时。\n法庭：嗯，当然可以。\n利普曼律师：噢，是的，是的。是的。这很有道理。法官阁下手头有大量的个人信息，与其进行遮蔽处理并在不同途径提交——\n\n法庭：你们可以申请盖印保密（under seal）提交。\n利普曼律师：好的。明白了。\n法庭：当然，你们向政府方提供的必须是未经遮蔽的版本。\n利普曼律师：那是当然。法官阁下，您知道吗，我刚才说……小时\n法庭：多给自己一点时间。\n利普曼律师：好的。\n法庭：这某种程度上取决于你，因为你的当事人将继续被羁押。所以你显然\n利普曼律师：我明白。但这样如何，我们将在距现在不晚于……小时内提供，但我们会尽一切人力所能尽快提供。\n法庭：好的。行吧，我的意思是，如果你需要多一点时间来准备一份更强有力、可能让政府方放心的材料，我认为这也很重要。诚然，他们主张情况发生了变化并且要求羁押。但是，你为加强财务担保人申请所能做的任何事情，都将有助于我进行审查并评估其重要性。好吗？\n利普曼律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n诉讼记录 85\n我们的立场是，如果有充分证据表明提议签署人确实拥有该不动产，且该不动产具有他们所声称的价值，那实际上就是政府方所需的一切。换句话说，对吧，因为无论他们是否赚钱——\n法庭：我不知道政府方需要什么，但你至少需要向法庭证明——\n利普曼律师：您说什么？\n法庭：你至少需要向法庭做出保证。我不知道你具体会提交给我什么。当然，了解谁是所有人、是否存在任何其他所有权权益、有哪些留置权、有哪些抵押贷款等，这些肯定是很重要的。所以我想你心里有数。\n这并不一定会消除某人是否为指控受害人或是否存在其他缺陷的问题，但至少我需要一个更全面的情况，进行该项评估是我职责的一部分。我现在不想一概而论地认为，只要任何人是指控受害人且在某种程度上没有亲属关系，就必然导致其不合格。但这就是为什么我需要逐一审查。\n\n诉讼记录 86\n利普曼律师：好的。\n默里检察官：法官阁下，关于答辩日期，假设辩方在周四提交材料，那么政府方的答辩截止日期将是复活节周日。我们谨请求——\n法庭：周一。\n默里检察官：——允许我们延至周一。谢谢。\n法庭：可以，当然可以。好的，那就这样，现在休庭。谢谢大家。\n默里检察官：谢谢。\n利普曼律师：谢谢法官阁下。\n（随之休庭。）\n\n证明书\n\n我，卡罗尔·路德维希（Carole Ludwig），特此证明：上述在United States District Court, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的United States of America versus Wang（美利坚合众国诉王案），案号Docket #23cr118/23m2007之诉讼记录，系使用基于个人计算机的转录软件制作，为该诉讼程序的真实且准确的记录。\n\n签名 _________________________ Carole Ludwig _________________________\nCarole Ludwig\n日期：2023年4月5日","key_entities":["Murray","Kwok","Je","Yanping Wang","Himalaya","Finkel","HCHK","CCP","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA","William Je","Torres","GTV","G Clubs","Himalaya Exchange"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":19719,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:30:18"}