{"id":"court_sdny_9_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":9,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-03-24","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"被告方法律备忘录——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案关联被告王雅平（Yanping Wang）案由，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #9（2023-03-24 立案）。王雅平代理律师（Priya Chaudhry、Alex Lipman）提交动议状，主张政府对其保释保证人（co-signer）人选的拒绝属恣意妄为，请求法院裁定王雅平已符合保释条件，或修改保释条件、取消须由保证人联署的要求；文中王雅平自称是因反对中国共产党而流亡美国、正申请政治庇护的异见人士。","summary_en":"Defendant's memorandum of law — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), relating to co-defendant Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #9 (filed 2023-03-24). Counsel for Yanping Wang (Priya Chaudhry and Alex Lipman) argue that the government has arbitrarily rejected her proposed bail bond co-signers, and move for an order finding she has complied with her bail conditions or, alternatively, amending those conditions to eliminate the co-signer requirement; the filing describes Wang as a political dissident opposed to the Chinese Communist Party who is seeking asylum in the United States.","body_en":"## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nv.\n\nCase No. 23-MJ-2007\n\nYANPING WANG,\n\nDefendant.\n\n# **DEFENDANT YANPING WANG'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING SHE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS OF HER BAIL CONDITIONS**\n\nPriya Chaudhry CHAUDHRYLAW PLLC 147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (212) 785-5550 Email: priya@chaudhrylaw.com\n\nAlex Lipman LIPMAN LAW PLLC 147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (212) 401-0070 Email: alexlipman@limpanpllc.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Yanping Wang*\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n|     |              | TABLE OF AUTHORITIES<br>ii                                                                                       |\n|-----|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|     | INTRODUCTION | 1                                                                                                                |\n| I.  | FACTUAL      | AND<br>PROCEDURAL<br>BACKGROUND<br>3                                                                             |\n| II. |              | ARGUMENT<br>6                                                                                                    |\n|     | A.           | Ms.<br>Wang's Proffered Co-Signers Satisfy the Relevant Legal Standard7                                          |\n|     | B.           | Alternatively, This Court Should Amend Ms.<br>Wang's Bail Conditions to<br>Eliminate Co-Signers Altogether<br>10 |\n|     |              | CONCLUSION12                                                                                                     |\n\n| <i>United States v. Batista,</i><br>163 F. Supp. 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)                                 | 7       |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| <i>United States v. Gotay,</i><br>609 F. Supp. 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)                                   | 7       |\n| <i>United States v. Hammond,</i><br>204 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (E.D. Wisc. 2002)                           | 7, 8, 9 |\n| <i>United States v. Penaranda,</i><br>No. 00-CR-1251 (RWS), 2001 WL 125621, (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2001) | 10      |\n| <i>United States v. Weigand,</i><br>492 F. Supp. 3d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)                              | 11      |\n\n| 15 U.S.C. § 78ff       | 3         |\n|------------------------|-----------|\n| 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)     | 3         |\n| 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5  | 3         |\n| 18 U.S.C. § 1343       | 3         |\n| 18 U.S.C. § 1957       | 3         |\n| 18 U.S.C. § 2          | 3         |\n| 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2) | 6, 10, 11 |\n| 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) | 10, 11    |\n| 18 U.S.C. § 371        | 3         |\n\nDefendant Yanping Wang, by and through her attorneys, hereby submits this\n\nMemorandum of Law in Support of Her Motion for an Order Directing She Has Complied with the Terms of Her Bail Conditions and to rule that the government's refusal to approve her bond co-signers has been arbitrary. In the alternative, Ms. Wang moves this Court to amend her bail conditions to eliminate the requirement that she obtain two financially responsible persons to cosign her bond.\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\nMs. Wang is a political refugee from China because she is a prominent dissident who publicly opposes the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"). She is a dedicated and well-known member of a political movement whose aim is the overthrow of communist party rule in China. Because she is a political refugee from an oppressive regime, she cannot go back to China; if she did, she would be arrested at the border, detained, and likely shot for her political activism. She is applying for political asylum in the United States. Were she to leave the United States while her asylum application is pending, she would forfeit her asylum application and expose herself to being extradited to China.\n\nBecause she is a political refugee, Ms. Wang has no close family in the United States, and her family in China has cut off all contact with her. For example, after multiple arrests because he had maintained contact with her after she fled China, Ms. Wang's husband—who, before their marriage, was her first and only boyfriend—divorced her and cut off all contact. Her only child lives with his father in China, and Ms. Wang has had no contact with her son in nine years; he is just eleven years old. For the same reasons, Ms. Wang has also had to refrain from contact with her only sibling. And when Ms. Wang's father in China was dying of cancer, she was unable to go back to help him or to bury him when he died.\n\nConsequently, Ms. Wang's relational connections in the United States are limited to two groups: (1) the people close with Miles Kwok (the leader of the dissident movement, whom the government views as Ms. Wang's co-conspirator)—who are her only U.S. \"family\"; and (2) other members of her anti-CCP political movement. The government will not approve any co-signers who belong to either of these groups, effectively denying Ms. Wang bail.\n\nSpecifically, despite an offer of at least eight people willing to co-sign Ms. Wang's \\$5,000,000.00 bond, the government refuses to approve two co-signers—regardless of their financial condition—because it claims either (1) that people who are close to her (meaning those who have moral suasion over her) cannot co-sign the bond because they are also close to Mr. Kwok (and thus viewed with suspicion by the government); and (2) that other willing cosigners are not close enough to her to have moral suasion over her and/or, in the government's view, are the victims of her alleged crimes.\n\nTo be clear, Ms. Wang's bond conditions do not specify who can and cannot serve as a co-signer. Those who are close to Mr. Kwok and whom the government rejected have not been charged with any crimes, and each of them would be on the hook for \\$5,000,000.00 if Ms. Wang were to abscond. In other words, they have moral suasion over her, and they would be severely financially hurt were she to default. This is all that is required of a co-signer. Nevertheless, the government has categorically excluded these people from serving as sureties, in most cases without even asking for their financial information.\n\nAs for the second group, each of the people the government interviewed was willing and able to sign Ms. Wang's bond and each understands exactly what she and Mr. Kwok are accused of doing. Nonetheless, they are willing not only to co-sign the bond, but in the case of three of them, they are willing to post their own property as security. Despite the charges against\n\nMs. Wang, these proposed co-signers think they have moral suasion over her and that she will not default. The government thinks it knows better. In any event, there is also no requirement that all sureties have moral suasion over a defendant or **even know the defendant**. As discussed below, even one co-signer who has moral suasion over a defendant is sufficient; the second can be anyone. In short, the government has put Ms. Wang in an impossible situation, effectively denying her bail without legal support for its position.\n\nMs. Wang has met her bail conditions: she offered at least one person who is a close friend whom she would not want to saddle with a \\$5,000,000.00 debt, and she offered at least one other co-signer willing to co-sign and post millions of dollars in security for her bond.\n\nThis Court should approve two of her proposed co-signers or, alternatively, modify her bail conditions such that her inability to secure co-signers for a \\$5,000,000.00 bond does not prevent her release.\n\n## **I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND**\n\nMs. Wang is charged by Complaint with (1) conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343; 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; (2) wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; (3) securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff; 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and (4) unlawful monetary transaction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. (ECF No. 1 at 1).\n\nOn March 10, 2023, a warrant was issued for Ms. Wang's arrest and she was subsequently arrested on March 15, 2023. That same day, at her initial appearance, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker set bail at \\$5,000,000.00 and required Ms. Wang's bail secured by \\$1,000,000.00 in cash or property and co-signed by two financially responsible people. (ECF No. 3). Additionally, the court ordered Ms. Wang to surrender her travel documents and to make\n\nno new applications for same; to disclose all financial accounts over which Ms. Wang exercises control; pretrial supervision as directed by Pretrial Services (\"PTS\"); home detention; location monitoring technology as directed by PTS; and GPS tracking. (*Id.*). Finally, Judge Parker ordered Ms. Wang detained until the bail conditions were met. (*Id.*).\n\nOn March 20, 2023, Ms. Wang executed an Affidavit for Judgment by Confession with New York Supreme Court, New York County, securing the bond with \\$1,000,000.00 against her residence.\n\nBeginning March 15, 2023, to secure her release, Ms. Wang put forward qualified individuals to serve as sureties in satisfaction of her bail conditions, all of whom have been arbitrarily rejected by the government. In total, from March 15, 2023, to March 23, 2023 (the date of this filing), Ms. Wang has offered no fewer than eight people who satisfy the legal requirements to serve as co-signers of her bond:\n\n- **Mr. Chris Canada**. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating his qualifications to serve as a co-signer; 1\n- **Mr. Chunguang Han**. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating his qualifications to serve as a co-signer;\n- **Mr. Defeng Cao**. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating his qualifications to serve as a co-signer;\n- **Mr. Frank Qiang Feng**. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating his qualifications to serve as a co-signer;\n- **Ms. Jian Ping Liu**. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating her qualifications to serve as a co-signer;\n\n<sup>1</sup> All of these documents were provided to the government in connection with its approval process.\n\n- **Ms. Yan (Michelle) Lou**. <sup>2</sup> Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating her qualifications to serve as a co-signer;\n- **Mr. Yongbing Zhang**. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating his qualifications to serve as a co-signer; and\n- **Ms. Yue Zhou**. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and accurate copy of documents demonstrating his qualifications to serve as a co-signer.\n\nAs ordered by the court, Ms. Wang disclosed all her financial information to the government, revealing that her entire financial landscape is comprised of the apartment she lives in (worth over \\$1,000,000.00), two bank accounts (with balances of \\$400,000 and \\$500,000), and \\$130,000 in cash she kept in her apartment (seized by the government at the time of Ms. Wang's arrest). Furthermore, during defense counsel's interactions with the government regarding the government's review of Ms. Wang's potential co-signers, her counsel offered to post additional security in the form of the bank account which contains approximately \\$400,000.00. Counsel also offered to pledge \\$130,000.00 in cash that the government recovered from Ms. Wang's apartment during the search it conducted the day of her arrest. Although counsel could not pledge the only other bank account Ms. Wang owns—because she needs to pay living expenses and fund her defense—counsel offered to allow the government to monitor and pre-approve any spending from the account. The government rejected this proposal, too; it insists on only approving co-signers of its liking, meaning it wants to keep Ms. Wang remanded by making it impossible to meet her bail conditions.\n\nIndeed, the government has rejected all proposals to secure the bond. For example, the government refused a proposal that would have had Ms. Wang's \\$5,000,000.00 bond secured by\n\n<sup>2</sup> Mr. Feng, Ms. Liu, and Ms. Lou have each agreed to secure the bond with unencumbered real estate, and despite their willingness and ability to secure the bond, the government rejected them as co-signers.\n\napproximately \\$4,000,000.00 in cash and real estate. Specifically, counsel proposed securing the bond with: \\$2,500,000.00 in real estate owned by Ms. Wang's friend and supporter who is a well-known public figure; Ms. Wang's apartment, valued at over \\$1,000,000.00; and \\$530,000.00 in cash along with two co-signers. Despite receiving a proposal of collateral four times what the bail conditions require, the government rejected the proposal before it even received any information on the property the public figure offered to post because it has a negative view of the public figure.\n\nThus, although each of Ms. Wang's proffered sureties is eminently qualified to serve, the government—without legal authority—has refused to accept any of them, resulting in Ms. Wang being detained (effectively) without bail.\n\n## **II. ARGUMENT**\n\nDespite the government's protestations to the contrary, Ms. Wang has satisfied the standard for co-signers under the law. Unless this Court intervenes and approves two of Ms. Wang's co-signers over the government's objection, Ms. Wang will be functionally held without bail in express violation of the Bail Reform Act.\n\nNot only has the government's co-signer blockade kept Ms. Wang from fulfilling her bail conditions, but the government has also put this Court in a position to tacitly violate 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2), which provides that \"[t]he judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.\" Here, the government's unjustifiable refusal to approve even one of Ms. Wang's co-signers has resulted in her inability to post her bond because she does not have sufficient assets to secure the bond herself.\n\n## **A. Ms. Wang's Proffered Co-Signers Satisfy the Relevant Legal Standard**\n\nThe law is clear. Only one of Ms. Wang's co-signers must possess sufficient \"moral suasion to ensure the defendant's presence at trial.\" *United States v. Batista*, 163 F. Supp. 222, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting *United States v. Gotay*, 609 F. Supp. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The other must be financially responsible but does not even need to know her. *United States v. Hammond*, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1166 (E.D. Wisc. 2002). Furthermore, Ms. Wang's cosigners' alleged affiliation with Mr. Kwok does not preclude them from serving as co-signers. *Id.* at 1167. Here, all of Ms. Wang's co-signers satisfy at least one of the two necessary conditions to serve as her bond sureties.\n\nIn *Batista*, the defendant applied to the court for an order directing that he had complied with the bail conditions imposed by the magistrate judge. 163 F. Supp. at 223. Specifically, he asked the court to approve his three proffered co-signers and to rule that the government's refusal to approve them had been arbitrary. *Id.* As is the case with Ms. Wang, the government there opposed on the grounds that none of the proposed sureties had both the wherewithal to satisfy the bond as well as moral suasion over the defendant. *Id.*\n\nThe court rejected the government's approach. The three sureties proposed in *Batista* were the defendant's sister, her boyfriend, and the defendant's childhood friend (all of whom lived in Puerto Rico while the defendant lived in New York). *Id.* at 225. The court found that only the defendant's sister's boyfriend financially qualified. *Id.* However, because the boyfriend represented to the government that he had \"'no relationship' with [the defendant] and ha[d] neither seen nor spoken to him since [the defendant] moved to New York from Puerto Rico several years [prior],\" the court held that the boyfriend did not have moral suasion over the\n\ndefendant. *Id.* at 226. Nevertheless, the court approved the boyfriend as a bond-signer on the grounds that\n\n> it may not always be possible to find individuals with sufficient assets to post who also may exert moral suasion over a defendant. A person with moral suasion over the defendant will be able to influence him to appear in court regardless of whether the money at stake is put up by a third party. Therefore, a defendant who presents some individuals with moral suasion and others who are financially responsible may satisfy the requirements of bail.\n\n*Id.*\n\nIn *Hammond*, the defendant, a member of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club (the \"Outlaws\")\n\nwas \"charged, along with five other members . . . with racketeering and drug-related offenses.\"\n\n*Id.* at 1159. The judge ordered the defendant released \"if \\$150,000 bail was posted and other\n\nconditions met.\" *Id.* The \"[d]efendant subsequently moved to modify the bail\" conditions and\n\n\"proposed that [it] be reduced to \\$135,000 and that security be posted by [eight]\n\nindividuals . . . .\" *Id.* at 1159–60.\n\nThe government argued that the defendant was a flight risk because he was a\n\nmember of an enterprise with chapters across this country, Europe, and Australia; that defendant possessed lists of Outlaws chapters and phone numbers at the time of his arrest; that members are expected to harbor fugitive brothers; that fundraisers have been held for defendant; that defendant faces a lengthy prison term; and that other defendants in this and the previous Outlaws prosecution have absconded.\n\n*Id.* at 1165.\n\nThe court found this argument unavailing: \"The mere opportunity to flee is not enough to justify detention. Section 3142 does not seek ironclad guarantees, and the requirement that the conditions of release 'reasonably assure' a defendant's appearance cannot be read to **require**\n\nguarantees against flight.\" *Id.* at 1166 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\n\nAs to the co-signers' ties to the defendant, the government argued the co-signers \"lack[ed] substantial ties to the defendant,\" which divested them of sufficient moral suasion to reasonably assure the defendant's appearance. *Id.* The court rejected this argument as well. Citing *Batista*, the court found that although several of the bail \"posters [did] **not personally know defendant, . . . this [was] not an adequate reason to deny release**.\" *Id.* (emphasis added). \"[N]ot everyone posting property or money needs to have strong personal ties to the defendant, so long as there are adequate assurances of financial responsibility on the part of those putting up money and moral suasion over the defendant by **one** or more of those individuals.\" *Id.* (emphasis added). The court found that the defendant presented sufficient evidence that he had \"strong personal ties\" to two of the eight co-signers, and thus they \"exercise[d] sufficient 'moral suasion' to reasonably assure defendant's appearance.\" *Id.*\n\nAs to the six remaining co-signers, the court noted that each of them was \"closely questioned on their motives and were advised of the consequences\" and \"appear[ed] to be entering into [the] matter with their eyes open.\" *Id.* at 1167. Moreover, the magistrate judge \"ordered a list of additional conditions to assure defendant's appearance.\" *Id.*\n\nHere, the two-prong requirement of financial responsibility and moral suasion has been met by the set of co-signers Ms. Wang has proffered. One or more of the proposed co-signers are her friends and have moral suasion over her. Others have the financial resources to post collateral to secure her bond. All her proposed co-signers are financially responsible, even if some of them are not wealthy. In fact, those who are less wealthy are at higher risk of financial ruin should Ms. Wang violate her terms of release. Thus, Ms. Wang has complied with the\n\nCourt's bond conditions and proffered co-signers who are financially responsible and provide moral suasion.\n\nAccordingly, this Court should approve two of Ms. Wang's eight proposed co-signers and execute an order directing that Ms. Wang has complied with her bail conditions.\n\n## **B. Alternatively, This Court Should Amend Ms. Wang's Bail Conditions to Eliminate Co-Signers Altogether**\n\nIn the event the Court does not find that Ms. Wang's proffered co-signers in the aggregate satisfy the two-fold requirement of financial responsibility and moral suasion, the Court should amend Ms. Wang's bail conditions by eliminating the use of co-signers altogether. Failing to do so imposes a financial condition on Ms. Wang that results in her pretrial detention in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2).\n\nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2), \"[t]he judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention\" of a defendant. Further, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) provides that \"[t]he judicial officer may at any time amend the [bail] order to impose additional or different conditions of release.\"\n\nIn *United States v. Penaranda*, the defendant argued, *inter alia*, that under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2), \"a person who is eligible for bail cannot be kept incarcerated because he fails to meet a financial condition of that bail.\" No. 00-CR-1251 (RWS), 2001 WL 125621, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2001). He objected that he was being kept in custody because he was \"a poor man,\" contrary to principles of fundamental fairness. *Id.* at \\*3. Judge Sweet found that in the situation \"where a defendant cannot meet the financial conditions of his bail, . . . the court should consider whether that particular financial condition is a necessary part of the bail conditions to provide reasonable assurance of the defendant's appearance . . . .\" *Id.* at \\*2.\n\nAs a result, the court modified the defendant's bond requirement from \"a \\$250,000 personal recognizance bond co-signed by his wife, three of his sons, and two other financially responsible persons\" to \"a \\$100,000 personal recognizance bond, co-signed by [his] wife and three sons, with \\$25,000 in cash or a cash equivalent as security.\" *Id.* at \\*1, \\*3. The court also allowed for the possibility that if the defendant found \"two financially responsible persons to cosign the bond, their co-signing [could] be substituted for the \\$25,000 cash/cash equivalent requirement.\" *Id.* at \\*3.\n\nHere, although Ms. Wang is not a defendant of limited means, the upshot of the government systematically divesting her of any co-signer to secure her bond is that she is now unable to comply with the financial conditions of release. As discussed above, she has offered the government security totaling over \\$1,500,000.00. Her apartment, the cash the government seized, and her two bank accounts is all she has. She has agreed also to have one of her accounts monitored and offered to subject any disbursements to government review and control. She has nothing else to offer financially. Thus, by disapproving all her co-signers, the government's action has turned Judge Parker's legal order into one violative of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2)—the order now foists a financial condition upon Ms. Wang that results in her pretrial detention.\n\nAs such, this Court should exercise its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) and amend Ms. Wang's bail conditions to omit co-signers altogether.3\n\n<sup>3</sup> If the Court is concerned that such an amendment would fail to reasonably assure Ms. Wang's presence at trial, it need look only to the other bail conditions: she has put up her own residence as collateral; she will be subject to home detention; she will not be in possession of her travel documents; and she will be subject to pretrial supervision and monitored by the government using GPS location monitoring technology. Ms. Wang's bail package—even amended to eliminate the use of co-signers—is sufficiently comprehensive \"to reasonably assure [her] presence at trial.\" *United States v. Weigand*, 492 F. Supp. 3d 317, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Therefore, this Court is \"statutorily obligated to grant [Ms. Wang's] motion.\" *Id.* at 318–19.\n\n# **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons described herein, Ms. Wang respectfully requests that this Court grant her\n\nMotion for an Order Directing She Has Complied with the Terms of Her Bail Conditions and to\n\nrule that the government's refusal to approve her bond co-signers has been arbitrary; or,\n\nalternatively, to grant her request to amend her bail conditions to eliminate the requirement that\n\nshe obtain two financially responsible persons to co-sign her bond.\n\nDated: New York, New York March 24, 2023\n\nChaudhryLaw PLLC\n\nBy: */s/ Priya Chaudhry* Priya Chaudhry\n\n> 147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (212) 785-5550 Email: priya@chaudhrylaw.com\n\nAlex Lipman, Esq. Lipman Law PLLC 147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (212) 401-0070 Email: alexlipman@limpanpllc.com\n\n*Attorneys for Defendant Yanping Wang*","body_zh":"United States District Court Southern District of New York（美国联邦纽约南区地方法院）\n\nUnited States of America（美利坚合众国）\n\n诉\n\n案号：23-MJ-2007\n\nYanping Wang（王雁平）\n\n被告。\n\n被告王雁平支持其请求裁定其已遵守保释条件条款的动议的法律备忘录\n\nPriya Chaudhry，Chaudhrylaw PLLC，147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001，电话：(212) 785-5550，电子邮箱：priya@chaudhrylaw.com\n\nAlex Lipman，Lipman Law PLLC，147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001，电话：(212) 401-0070，电子邮箱：alexlipman@limpanpllc.com\n\n被告王雁平之代理律师\n\n目录\n\n权威判例与法条目录 ii\n导言 1\nI. 事实及程序背景 3\nII. 辩论理由 6\nA. 王女士提议的共同签署人符合相关法定标准 7\nB. 或者，本法院应修改王女士的保释条件以彻底取消共同签署人要求 10\n结论 12\n\nUnited States v. Batista, 163 F. Supp. 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 7\nUnited States v. Gotay, 609 F. Supp. 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) 7\nUnited States v. Hammond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (E.D. Wisc. 2002) 7, 8, 9\nUnited States v. Penaranda, No. 00-CR-1251 (RWS), 2001 WL 125621, (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2001) 10\nUnited States v. Weigand, 492 F. Supp. 3d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 11\n\n15 U.S.C. § 78ff 3\n15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) 3\n17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 3\n18 U.S.C. § 1343 3\n18 U.S.C. § 1957 3\n18 U.S.C. § 2 3\n18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2) 6, 10, 11\n18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) 10, 11\n18 U.S.C. § 371 3\n\n被告王雁平特此由其代理律师提交本份支持其请求裁定其已遵守保释条件条款之动议的法律备忘录，并请求裁定政府拒绝批准其保释保函共同签署人的行为系任意武断的。或者，王女士请求本法院修改其保释条件，以取消要求其获得两名具备经济责任能力的人士共同签署其保函的规定。\n\n导言\n\n王女士是一名来自中国的政治难民，因为她是一名公开反对中国共产党（CCP）的知名异见人士。她是一个致力于推翻中国共产党统治的政治运动的忠实且知名成员。因为她是一个逃离压迫政权的政治难民，她无法回到中国；如果回去，她将在边境被捕、拘留，并很可能因其政治活动而被枪决。她目前正在美国申请政治庇护。如果她在庇护申请待决期间离开美国，她将丧失庇护申请资格，并使自己面临被引渡至中国的风险。\n\n由于她是政治难民，王女士在美国没有近亲，而她在中国的家人已与她切断了一切联系。例如，由于在王女士逃离中国后与她保持联系而多次被捕之后，王女士的丈夫——在他们结婚前曾是她最初也是唯一的男友——与她离婚并切断了一切联系。她唯一的孩子在中国与父亲生活，王女士已有九年未与儿子联系；他现在才十一岁。出于同样的原因，王女士也不得不避免与其唯一的同胞手足联系。而当王女士在中国的父亲因癌症临终时，她无法回去照顾他，在他去世时也无法回去安葬他。\n\n因此，王女士在美国的人际关系仅限于两类人群：(1) 与 Miles Kwok（郭文贵，该异见运动的领导人，政府将其视为王女士的同谋）关系密切的人——他们是她在美唯一的“家人”；以及 (2) 其反共政治运动的其他成员。政府不批准属于这两类人群中的任何共同签署人，这实际上剥夺了王女士获得保释的权利。\n\n具体而言，尽管已提出至少八人愿意共同签署王女士 $5,000,000.00 的保函，但政府拒绝批准两名共同签署人——无论他们的经济状况如何——因为政府声称要么 (1) 与她关系密切的人（即对她具有道德约束力的人）不能共同签署保函，因为他们也与郭先生关系密切（因而受到政府怀疑）；要么 (2) 其他愿意共同签署的人与她的关系不够密切，无法对她产生道德约束力，并且/或者在政府看来是其指控罪行的受害者。\n\n需要明确的是，王女士的保函条件并未指明谁可以或不可以担任共同签署人。那些与郭先生关系密切且被政府拒绝的人并未受到任何犯罪指控，如果王女士潜逃，他们每人都将承担 $5,000,000.00 的责任。换言之，他们对她具有道德约束力，且在她违约时将承受严重的经济损失。这便是对共同签署人的全部要求。然而，政府却一概排除这些人担任保证人，在多数情况下甚至根本未索取他们的财务信息。\n\n至于第二类人群，政府面谈的每一个人都有意愿且有能力签署王女士的保函，并且每一个人都清楚了解她与郭先生被指控的行为。即便如此，他们不仅愿意共同签署保函，而且其中有三人还愿意提供自己的财产作为担保。尽管存在针对王女士的指控，这些拟任共同签署人认为他们对她具有道德约束力且她不会违约。政府却自以为更清楚。无论如何，法律也并未要求所有保证人都对被告具有道德约束力，甚至不要求认识被告。如下文所述，哪怕仅有一名对被告具有道德约束力的共同签署人便已足够；第二名可以是任何人。简而言之，政府将王女士置于不可能的境地，在缺乏法律依据的情况下实质上剥夺了她的保释权利。\n\n王女士已满足其保释条件：她提供了至少一名密友，她绝不希望让其背负 $5,000,000.00 的债务；并且她提供了至少另一名愿意共同签署并为她的保函提供数百万美元财产担保的共同签署人。\n\n本法院应当批准她提议的两名共同签署人，或者，修改其保释条件，使其无法为 $5,000,000.00 保函落实共同签署人的情况不致阻碍其获释。\n\nI. 事实及程序背景\n\n王女士在刑事起诉书中被指控犯有：(1) 共谋实施电汇欺诈和证券欺诈，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 371、1343；15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) 和 78ff；以及 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5；(2) 电汇欺诈，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 和 2；(3) 证券欺诈，违反 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) 和 78ff；17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5；以及 18 U.S.C. § 2；以及 (4) 非法货币交易，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 和 2。（ECF No. 1 第 1 页）。\n\n2023年3月10日，法院签发了针对王女士的逮捕令，她随后于 2023年3月15日被捕。同日，在首次出庭时，联邦治安法官 Katharine H. Parker 确定保释金为 $5,000,000.00，并要求王女士的保释由 $1,000,000.00 的现金或财产作担保，且由两名具备经济责任能力的人士共同签署。（ECF No. 3）。此外，法院命令王女士交出其旅行证件且不得申请新的旅行证件；披露王女士控制的所有财务账户；接受审前服务处（PTS）指示的审前监督；居家拘禁；接受审前服务处指示的位置监控技术监管；以及 GPS 追踪。（同上）。最后，Parker 法官命令将王女士羁押，直至满足保释条件。（同上）。\n\n2023年3月20日，王女士向 New York Supreme Court, New York County（纽约州最高法院纽约县分院）签署了《自认判决宣誓书》，以其住所设定 $1,000,000.00 的担保。\n\n自 2023年3月15日起，为获得释放，王女士提出了符合资格的个人担任保证人以满足其保释条件，但所有这些人都被政府任意武断地拒绝了。总计自 2023年3月15日至 2023年3月23日（本文件提交之日），王女士已提出不少于八名符合担任其保函共同签署人之法定要求的人士：\n\n- Chris Canada 先生。随附于此的证据 A 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本；1\n- Chunguang Han（韩春光）先生。随附于此的证据 B 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本；\n- Defeng Cao（曹德丰）先生。随附于此的证据 C 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本；\n- Frank Qiang Feng（冯强）先生。随附于此的证据 D 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本；\n- Jian Ping Liu（刘建平）女士。随附于此的证据 E 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本；\n\n1 所有这些文件均已就政府的审批程序向政府提供。\n\n- Yan (Michelle) Lou（娄艳/米歇尔）女士。2 随附于此的证据 F 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本；\n- Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）先生。随附于此的证据 G 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本；以及\n- Yue Zhou（周悦）女士。随附于此的证据 H 是证明其具备担任共同签署人资格的文件真实准确的副本。\n\n按照法院命令，Wang女士（王女士）向政府披露了其全部财务信息，表明她的全部财产状况包括：她居住的公寓（价值超过 $1,000,000.00）、两个银行账户（余额分别为 $400,000 和 $500,000），以及放在其公寓内的 $130,000 现金（在王女士被捕时已被政府扣押）。此外，在辩护律师就政府对王女士拟定联签人的审查与政府进行沟通期间，其律师主动提议以包含约 $400,000.00 的银行账户形式追加担保。律师还提议将政府在王女士被捕当天搜查其公寓时收缴的 $130,000.00 现金予以质押。尽管律师无法将王女士拥有的另一个唯一银行账户予以质押——因为她需要支付生活费用并为其辩护提供资金——但律师提议允许政府监督并预先批准该账户的任何支出。政府同样拒绝了这一提议；政府坚持只批准其满意的联签人，这意味着政府试图通过使王女士无法满足保释条件来将其继续羁押。\n\n事实上，政府拒绝了所有为保释金提供担保的提议。例如，政府拒绝了一项拟使王女士的 $5,000,000.00 保释金获得如下担保的提议：\n\n[脚注2] Feng先生（冯先生）、Liu女士（刘女士）和Lou女士（楼女士）均已同意用无产权负担的不动产为保释金提供担保，尽管他们有意愿且有能力为保释金提供担保，但政府仍拒绝接受他们作为联签人。\n\n约 $4,000,000.00 的现金和不动产。具体而言，律师提议通过以下方式为保释金提供担保：王女士身为知名公众人物的朋友及支持者拥有的价值 $2,500,000.00 的不动产；王女士估值超过 $1,000,000.00 的公寓；以及 $530,000.00 的现金加上两名联签人。尽管收到了相当于保释条件要求四倍的抵押品提议，政府甚至在该公众人物提议提供的不动产信息尚未送达之前就拒绝了该提议，因为政府对该公众人物持负面看法。\n\n因此，尽管王女士提供的每一位保证人均完全符合资格，政府却在缺乏法律依据的情况下拒绝接受其中任何一人，导致王女士（实质上）被无保羁押。\n\nII. 论证理由\n\n尽管政府提出了相反的异议，王女士已满足法律上对联签人的标准。除非本法院介入并在不顾政府反对的情况下批准王女士的两名联签人，否则王女士在实质上将处于无保羁押状态，这明确违反了《保释改革法案》（Bail Reform Act）。\n\n政府对联签人的封锁不仅阻碍了王女士履行其保释条件，而且政府还将本法院置于默认违反 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2) 的境地；该条款规定「司法官员不得施加导致该人审前羁押的财产性条件」。在本案中，政府无理拒绝批准哪怕一名王女士的联签人，导致其无法缴纳保释金，因为她自身没有足够的资产来担保该保释金。\n\nA. 王女士提供的联签人符合相关法律标准\n\n法律是明确的。王女士的联签人中只需有一人具备足够的「道德规劝力以确保被告出庭接受审判」。United States v. Batista，163 F. Supp. 222, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)（援引 United States v. Gotay，609 F. Supp. 156, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)）。另一人必须具备财务履约能力，甚至无需认识她。United States v. Hammond，204 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1166 (E.D. Wisc. 2002)。此外，王女士的联签人据称与 Kwok先生（郭先生）存在的关联，并不妨碍他们担任联签人。同上，第 1167 页。在本案中，王女士的所有联签人均满足担任其保释保证人所需的两项必要条件中的至少一项。\n\n在 Batista 案中，被告向法院提出申请，请求裁定其已遵守了治安法官施加的保释条件。163 F. Supp.，第 223 页。具体而言，他请求法院批准其提供的三名联签人，并裁定政府拒绝批准这些人的行为属于专断。同上。与王女士的情况一样，该案中的政府提出反对，理由是拟定的保证人中没有一人同时具备满足保释金要求的财力以及对被告的道德规劝力。同上。\n\n法院驳回了政府的做法。Batista 案中提议的三名保证人是被告的姐姐、姐姐的男友以及被告的儿时好友（他们均居住在波多黎各，而被告居住在纽约）。同上，第 225 页。法院认定只有被告姐姐的男友在财务上符合资格。同上。然而，由于该男友向政府表示他「与[被告]『毫无关系』，且自[被告]数年前从波多黎各搬到纽约以来，既未见过他也未与他交谈过」，法院认定该男友对\n\n被告不具有道德规劝力。同上，第 226 页。尽管如此，法院仍批准该男友作为保释金联签人，理由是\n\n可能并非总能找到既拥有足够资产以供提供担保、又能对被告施加道德规劝力的个人。对被告具有道德规劝力的人将能够影响其出庭受审，无论涉及的款项是否由第三方提供。因此，被告若能提供若干具备道德规劝力的个人以及其他具备财务履约能力的个人，即可满足保释的要求。\n\n同上。\n\n在 Hammond 案中，被告是 Outlaws Motorcycle Club（法外之徒摩托车俱乐部，即「Outlaws」）的成员，\n\n被「指控与其他五名成员……共同犯下敲诈勒索及涉毒品犯罪」。\n\n同上，第 1159 页。法官命令「若缴纳 $150,000 保释金并满足其他条件」，则释放被告。同上。「被告随后提出动议请求变更保释」条件，\n\n并「提议将[保释金]减至 $135,000，且担保物由[八]名个人……提供」。同上，第 1159–60 页。\n\n政府辩称被告有潜逃风险，因为他是\n\n一个在全美、欧洲及澳大利亚均设有分会的组织的成员；被告在被捕时持有 Outlaws 各分会的名单和电话号码；该组织期望成员窝藏潜逃的兄弟；曾为被告举办筹款活动；被告面临漫长的刑期；以及本案及此前 Outlaws 起诉案中的其他被告已经潜逃。\n\n同上，第 1165 页。\n\n法院认定该论点不能成立：「仅有潜逃机会不足以支持羁押。第 3142 条并不要求万无一失的保证，且释放条件『合理确保』被告出庭的要求，不能被解读为必须提供防止潜逃的绝对保证。」同上，第 1166 页（强调为原文所加）（内部引号及引文省略）。\n\n关于联签人与被告的关系，政府辩称联签人「与被告缺乏实质性联系」，这使得他们丧失了合理确保被告出庭所需的足够道德规劝力。同上。法院同样驳回了这一论点。法院援引 Batista 案认定，尽管数名保释「提供者并不认识被告本人，……但这并非拒绝释放的充分理由」。同上（强调为原文所加）。「并非每个提供财产或金钱的人都需要与被告有牢固的个人关系，只要出资方有充分的财务履约保证，且这些人中的一人或多人对被告具有道德规劝力即可。」同上（强调为原文所加）。法院认定，被告提供了充分的证据表明他与八名联签人中的两人有「牢固的个人关系」，因此他们「行使了足够的『道德规劝力』以合理确保被告出庭」。同上。\n\n至于其余六名联签人，法院指出他们每个人都「就其动机接受了严密询问并被告知了后果」，并且「似乎是在知情且清醒的情况下参与[该]事项的」。同上，第 1167 页。此外，治安法官「命令了一系列附加条件以确保被告出庭」。同上。\n\n在本案中，王女士提供的一组联签人已经满足了财务履约能力和道德规劝力这两方面的要求。拟定的联签人中有一人或多人是她的朋友并对她具有道德规劝力。其他人则拥有提供抵押品以担保其保释金的财务资源。她拟定的所有联签人均具备财务履约能力，即使其中部分人并不富有。事实上，经济条件较差的人如果遇到王女士违反释放条件的情况，面临财务破产的风险更高。因此，王女士已经遵守了\n\n法院的保释金条件，并提供了具备财务履约能力且能提供道德规劝力的联签人。\n\n据此，本法院应批准王女士提议的八名联签人中的两名，并签署命令裁定王女士已遵守其保释条件。\n\nB. 或者，本法院应修改王女士的保释条件以彻底取消联签人要求\n\n如果法院认定王女士提供的联签人总体上未能满足财务履约能力与道德规劝力的双重要求，法院应修改王女士的保释条件，彻底取消联签人的使用。若不这样做，则是对王女士施加了导致其审前羁押的财产性条件，违反了 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2)。\n\n根据 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2)，「司法官员不得施加导致」被告「审前羁押的财产性条件」。此外，18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) 规定「司法官员可随时修改[保释]命令以施加附加或不同的释放条件」。\n\n在 United States v. Penaranda 案中，被告辩称（除其他事项外），根据 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2)，「符合保释资格的人不能仅仅因为未能满足该保释的财产性条件而被继续监禁」。案号 00-CR-1251 (RWS)，2001 WL 125621，第 *2 页 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2001)。他提出异议，认为自己仅仅因为是「穷人」而被继续关押，这有违基本公平原则。同上，第 *3 页。Sweet法官认定，在「被告无法满足其保释的财产性条件的情况下，……法院应考虑该特定财产性条件是否属于为合理确保被告出庭所必需的保释条件……」。同上，第 *2 页。\n\n因此，法院将被告的保释金要求从「由其妻子、三个儿子及另外两名具备财务履约能力的人联签的 $250,000 个人具结保释金」，变更为「由[其]妻子和三个儿子联签、并以 $25,000 现金或现金等价物作为担保的 $100,000 个人具结保释金」。同上，第 *1、*3 页。法院还允许了另一种可能性，即如果被告找到「两名具备财务履约能力的人联签保释金，他们的联签[可以]替代 $25,000 现金/现金等价物的要求」。同上，第 *3 页。\n\n在本案中，尽管Wang（王）女士并非经济困难的被告人，但政府系统性地剥夺其任何保释金共同签署人的做法，最终导致她目前无法满足释放的财务条件。如上文所述，她已向政府提供了总额超过 $1,500,000.00 的担保。她的公寓、被政府扣押的现金以及她的两个银行账户就是她的全部财产。她还同意对其名下的一个账户进行监控，并主动提出让任何支出都接受政府的审查和控制。在财务方面，她已无其他财产可以提供。因此，政府通过否决其所有共同签署人的行为，使得Parker（帕克）法官的合法命令转变为违反 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2) 的命令——该命令目前强加给王女士一项导致其被审前羁押的财务条件。\n\n因此，本法院应当行使 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3) 项下的自由裁量权，修改王女士的保释条件以彻底免除共同签署人的要求。3\n\n3 如果法院担心此项修改无法合理确保王女士在审判时出庭，只需考量其他保释条件：她已将自己的住宅作为抵押物；她将接受居家羁押；她将不持有自己的旅行证件；并且她将接受审前监督并由政府使用 GPS 定位监控技术进行监控。王女士的整套保释方案——即便经修改免除使用共同签署人的要求——也已足够全面，“以合理确保[其]在审判时出庭”。United States v. Weigand（美国诉韦甘德案），492 F. Supp. 3d 317, 318 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)。因此，本法院“依法有义务批准[王女士的]动议”。同上，第 318–19 页。\n\n结论\n\n基于本文所述之理由，王女士谨请本法院批准其\n\n要求作出指示其已遵守保释条件条款之裁定的动议，并\n\n裁定政府拒绝批准其保释金共同签署人的行为具有任意性；或者，\n\n作为备选，批准其关于修改保释条件的请求，以取消要求其\n\n寻找两名具备经济能力的合格人士共同签署保释金的规定。\n\n日期：纽约州纽约市 2023年3月24日\n\nChaudhryLaw PLLC（乔德里律师事务所）\n\n签署人：/s/ Priya Chaudhry（普里亚·乔德里） Priya Chaudhry\n\n147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001 电话：(212) 785-5550 电子邮箱：priya@chaudhrylaw.com\n\nAlex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）律师 Lipman Law PLLC（利普曼律师事务所） 147 W. 25th Street, 12th Floor New York, New York 10001 电话：(212) 401-0070 电子邮箱：alexlipman@limpanpllc.com\n\n被告人 Yanping Wang（王雁平）的代理律师","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Yanping Wang","CCP","RICO","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":3,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3923,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-03-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-03-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:35:51"}