{"id":"batch-000151","number":151,"revision":3,"date_start":"2026-08-24T20:11:31.327Z","date_end":"2026-08-25T10:28:22.299Z","total_messages":230,"summary_en":"Community discussion, batch 151 (Aug 24, 2026 – Aug 25, 2026), 230 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Across Aug 24–25, 2026, participants debate two themes: whether HEX-Himalaya onboarding and HID consent indicate an organized referral chain, and whether forfeiture treatment in the Guo/Wang filings is coherent. They contest how far evidence supports active recruitment versus verifiable authorization, and whether claims can shift between third-party rights and victim remedies without double counting. Key references cited include ECF 212, 229, 478, 469, 488, 720, 858, 859, GXZ26, and 716-4. Community statements, not court findings.","guide_en":[{"title":"User-pool surge and authorization entry point: whether growth from 3,345 to 5,000+ to 6,000+ indicates real authorized onboarding","description":"roy*** claims the membership jump from 3,345 to 5,000+ and then to 6,000+ suggests a structured batch funnel, but contends the decisive proof is what the HID submit interface actually authorized. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qb20d41f588506831a182","q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qb20d41f588506831a182","summary_en":"roy*** claims the early rise from 3,345 users to over 5,000, and then over 6,000, supports a platform-driven flow sequence from HEX traffic to HID registration and Geyer verification rather than one-to-one client intake. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","summary_en":"roy*** argues the HID click point is critical because only that page can confirm what the user actually consented to, including engagement, scope, authorization, privacy, and criminal-remedy terms. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"HID submission dispute: whether terms include scope authorization, privacy and victim labels","description":"roy*** argues that HID evidence is incomplete without the actual submission page, contending that allegations of organized direction are only reliable if the terms clearly show authorization scope and Geyer-sharing terms. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","q24db45972af617201515","q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","summary_en":"roy*** argues the key missing document is the real terms at submit time, and disputes relying on later explanations instead of written consent text showing representation, data sharing, or victim/remission language. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q24db45972af617201515","summary_en":"roy*** claims HEX likely selected and promoted Geyer, sent repeated broadcasts, supplied HIDs and a dedicated site, and channelled members through consent and registration as part of an apparent referral chain, while conceding some specifics remain unproven. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab","summary_en":"roy*** argues the practical architecture was HEX-led: customer introduction, HID collection, HEX database involvement, Candey oversight, Mazars validation, and submission to the court, which he presents as more than a simple client-to-lawyer link. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"HEX role and chain allegations: active recommendation and assistance versus unresolved payment or origin proof","description":"roy*** claims HEX not only identified Geyer but also coordinated customer education and support, and contends the unresolved issue is proving who first contacted, paid, or built the legal-operational infrastructure. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q24db45972af617201515","q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab","q6d1303eb828586dde7f5"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q24db45972af617201515","summary_en":"roy*** contends HEX’s own actions—selection, mass messaging, HID support, and routing—looked organized, while he still disputes that public filings identify who first negotiated with Geyer or funded site and operations. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab","summary_en":"roy*** argues this system was linked to HEX infrastructure through a chain from customer introduction to HID collection and backend checks, suggesting the client pool did not originate from random individual outreach by Geyer alone. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q6d1303eb828586dde7f5","summary_en":"roy*** claims early filings portrayed return-of-funds as relief from government seizure with minimal identity disclosure, while later restitution/remission systems required identifying victim status and loss, creating a structural transition in approach. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Three-layer timeline and identity overlap: independent-lawyer narrative, government skepticism, then CVRA/restitution framework","description":"roy*** argues the line of documents shifts from a 2023 independent-lawyer framing toward 2024 government suspicion and then 2024 Nov onward CVRA plus victim-related positioning, while disputing that this proves a single fixed identity narrative. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","qa5ee87dd53f12388c0db","qbe1e40c63622b3e291fb"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","summary_en":"roy*** argues the chronology moved from early independent-lawyer claims and seizure-return framing to later government-filed filings such as ECF 212 and ECF 229 where authorization and role boundaries remain disputed. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qa5ee87dd53f12388c0db","summary_en":"roy*** says by Nov 25, 2024, ECF 478, Geyer’s filings started importing CVRA concepts and broader victim framing for 5,280+ HEX depositors while keeping the loss discussion tied to government seizure impacts. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qbe1e40c63622b3e291fb","summary_en":"roy*** contends this evolution, plus later materials, shows identity overlap rather than a full replacement, with customer positions presented as owner, CVRA victim, restitution claimant, and remission claimant in tension. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Owner-to-Victim overlap dispute: parallel claims in ancillary and remission guidance","description":"roy*** claims the circulated FAQ sequence presents a two-step pattern—owner filings first, then required victim-style remission steps—and contends this creates an explicit identity layering that remains debated. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q967fc82a9f19b0b23c88","q3a50ee5326e902801b91","qd89875e0ef516455eca4"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q967fc82a9f19b0b23c88","summary_en":"roy*** claims materials instruct users to file ancillary petitions selecting Owner, then also file remission and victim-identity tutorials with loss statements, creating a sequential path from property claim to criminal-offense victim framing. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q3a50ee5326e902801b91","summary_en":"roy*** argues that Geyer handled the ownership-claim stream while the alliance pushed a broader individual remission path, then merged both into a first-then-second-stage strategy presented as standard for members. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qd89875e0ef516455eca4","summary_en":"roy*** disputes the coherence of the two-stage model because the same materials urge Owner-based ancillary steps and then victim-based remission, and he treats this contradiction as the core Owner-to-Victim conversion issue. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Dual-track strategy and risk: templates for ancillary petitions and remission are shown as coordinated, but effects on claims remain contested","description":"roy*** and another participant claim both ancillary and remission workflows were actively promoted together; they dispute whether this was a coordinated template campaign or merely optional member guidance under changing legal strategy. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qf4ab7915ea6855b7f8b7","q9b96104de0860964f923","qeb1c401923f6255f0c26"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qf4ab7915ea6855b7f8b7","summary_en":"roy*** says the Mar 27, 2025 screenshot is important because it circulated both Petition for Remission and Ancillary Petition materials, while disputing whether both were intended as synchronized templates. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q9b96104de0860964f923","summary_en":"roy*** claims later filings like ECF 838 and ECF 740 show investors using standardized templates from Himalaya guidance, including victim petitions and loss statements, though some later attempted to withdraw those filings as not matching their legal self-understanding. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qeb1c401923f6255f0c26","summary_en":"reb*** contends that if protest-orchestrating conduct were treated as judicial obstruction, it could alter the RICO conspiracy framing, which would affect whether members perceive all coordinated actors as jointly implicated. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Evidence metric conflict: GXZ26 aggregation versus transaction-level tracing and source attribution","description":"roy*** claims GXZ26 may rely on aggregated flow summaries, while he contests whether it fully includes caveats from 716-4, and argues that Tony-table granularity is needed to avoid double-counting pooled funds. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q60a749013c3fc560f616","q2f83c10399cd16baade0","q60a749013c3fc560f616"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q60a749013c3fc560f616","summary_en":"roy*** says GXZ26 is used as central support though prior 716-4 already disclosed pooled accounts and traceability structure, and he disputes whether GXZ26 presented a selective simplification before Torres’s forfeiture findings. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q2f83c10399cd16baade0","summary_en":"roy*** argues 826-1 reportedly shows the $517m loss claim as gross inflow aggregation rather than deduplicated economics, while Tony Farm Ledger-style data is presented as transaction-level identity that could test whether funds were repeatedly counted. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q60a749013c3fc560f616","summary_en":"roy*** repeats that if GXZ26 omitted known context from 716-4, the evidentiary leap from pooled banking flow to universal fraud-proceeds conclusions may be overbroad and a central contested issue. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"RICO and jury-instruction controversy: multiple conspiracies, spillover, and attribution scope","description":"roy*** claims the trial record shows a dispute over whether prosecutors over-combined projects and actors into one enterprise, while contesting whether jury instructions sufficiently blocked prejudicial spillover against Guo. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qd65c4351415e4ed892fc","q9f9abdd85f55dfe49693","qb379676f69e3355f7b50"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qd65c4351415e4ed892fc","summary_en":"roy*** claims defense sought a multiple-conspiracies instruction and the court denied it, while also rejecting automatic coconspirator attribution, and he disputes whether the final charge protected against mixing separate schemes into one RICO finding. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q9f9abdd85f55dfe49693","summary_en":"roy*** argues the central appellate question is whether government evidence showed one unified Guo-directed conspiracy or multiple independent schemes, while noting acquittals on some GTV counts are used by each side to argue spillover risk and its limits. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qb379676f69e3355f7b50","summary_en":"joh*** claims a broad non-indicted co-conspirator structure is vulnerable on appeal and speculates that separate entities like Farm Loan, HEX, G Club, and GTV could be disentangled, which he links to motive for retaliation claims. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Forfeiture mechanics: 858 and 859 are different instruments, and disputes center on count-based nexus","description":"roy*** contends Dkt. 858 and Dkt. 859 are legally distinct, with 858 recalibrating the money judgment amount and 859 adding five additional specific-property groups tied to counts, which he says should be contested only through property-level nexus. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qb5ecac4e5a5df53cabe5","q247a7ba7cee3334d8db8","q6bbed20cefd2cc5310b9"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qb5ecac4e5a5df53cabe5","summary_en":"roy*** claims 859 is a Supplemental Preliminary Order of Forfeiture adding specific property, not a reset of Guo’s money judgment, while 858 is the document that reduced that judgment figure to about $889 million. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q247a7ba7cee3334d8db8","summary_en":"roy*** summarizes 859 as adding five account/group entries with mixed amounts and notes it relies on counts 1,2,4,7–11 and count 3 laundering property, disputing claims that it absorbs GTV counts 5/6. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q6bbed20cefd2cc5310b9","summary_en":"roy*** contends 859 preserves §853(n) rights flow, meaning claimed accounts must still be tested for defendant-only interests before final forfeiture crediting, and disputes reading the 859 additions as automatic full ownership of all account balances. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Wang and Guo forfeiture split: overlap of 14B and 13B figures is mathematically and legally disputed","description":"roy*** and joh*** dispute the arithmetic and legal linkage between Wang’s $1.4 billion and Guo’s $1.3 then $889 million figures, with roy*** contending overlap does not permit simple addition and joh*** only speculates about potential alternative bearers. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q8f4608739c6476b1f011","q921e353541e98d52da88","qe79eb4fa49ae63919563"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q8f4608739c6476b1f011","summary_en":"joh*** speculates that a third party such as Kyle Bass could be brought in over GTV exposure, which roy*** elsewhere treats as conjectural and not directly evidenced in the shared filings. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q921e353541e98d52da88","summary_en":"roy*** argues the core dispute is what portion of Wang’s $1.4B includes GTV funds, and whether recovered $411M from SEC disgorgement should reduce an outstanding amount under joint forfeiture recovery rules. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qe79eb4fa49ae63919563","summary_en":"roy*** claims ECF 691 does not support a direct arithmetic merger of Wang’s and Guo’s figures; it says joint-and-several concerns must be limited to overlapping scope, so double-collapsing both totals is a contested premise. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Execution-stage accounting: whether specific property and substitute-asset rules require credits across proceedings","description":"roy*** claims Wang’s and Guo’s judgments likely need direct accounting, and he disputes automatic synchronization, including whether §853(p), substitute assets, and third-party disputes alter the outstanding amount. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","qdf063b1d43c2a7412c0c","q680a42e07a6989ba5237"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","summary_en":"roy*** claims Wang’s order appears to include both her own count-one-type liability and count-two laundering exposure linked jointly to Guo, but he disputes the assumption that any Guo reduction automatically and proportionally reduces Wang’s full headline amount. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qdf063b1d43c2a7412c0c","summary_en":"roy*** argues Guo’s 858 reduction to $889 million does not by itself force Wang’s adjustment and instead frames a credit question tied to whether the same property has already been satisfied elsewhere, including SEC proceedings. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q680a42e07a6989ba5237","summary_en":"roy*** says checking Wang’s Dkt.329 and Dkt.488 against later final/amended orders is necessary to test whether credits or reductions were actually applied to prevent double satisfaction. Community statements, not court findings."}]}],"summary":"讨论的核心先后分为两条主线：其一是联盟体系与受害者/财产申诉的组织化程度。群内有人认为用户池快速增长、教程模板和第三方流程（推荐、注册、同意、核验、提交）构成连续链条；也有人要求严格回到授权界面、具体文书与逐案证据，尤其对HEX与Geyer角色、victim/owner身份切换未达共识。其二是郭案与王案的没收法理。围绕§853、§853(n)、specific property、858/859及金额核算出现持续分歧：程序顺序、资金与犯罪指控的nexus、RICO/洗钱共谋边界、以及是否应credit以避免重复追缴，均未定论，且伴随部分情绪化猜测和未核验的政治化叙事。","guide":[{"title":"用户池激增与授权入口：讨论聚焦3345到5000+再到6000+的增长是否对应真实授权界面，但被强调需先核验授权与条款截图","message_ids":["qb20d41f588506831a182","q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d"]},{"title":"HID提交条款争论：是否包含范围授权、隐私共享、HEX与Geyer协作及victim声明，是否足以认定组织化路径","message_ids":["q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","q24db45972af617201515","q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab"]},{"title":"HEX角色与链路定位：有观点支持其提供主动推荐和24/7协助，也有观点否认其“首接触、付款、建站”有公开证据支撑","message_ids":["q24db45972af617201515","q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab","q6d1303eb828586dde7f5"]},{"title":"三层时间线与身份叠加：讨论逐步形成“独立律师叙事—政府质疑关系—§853(n)+CVRA+restitution”脉络，且同群体身份并存","message_ids":["q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","qa5ee87dd53f12388c0db","qbe1e40c63622b3e291fb"]},{"title":"Owner与Victim并行争议：教材/教程一方面主张Owner先行，另一方面又指向Victim，是否属于统一指引还是身份自行替换被持续质疑","message_ids":["q967fc82a9f19b0b23c88","q3a50ee5326e902801b91","qd89875e0ef516455eca4"]},{"title":"双轨策略与风险：ancillary petition与remission并行推进，后来又出现“个人自愿、联盟不组织”的口径分歧，模板适用与逐案判断仍未清","message_ids":["qf4ab7915ea6855b7f8b7","q9b96104de0860964f923","qeb1c401923f6255f0c26"]},{"title":"证据口径冲突：关于GXZ26与逐笔追踪，部分讨论认为按账户汇总过于间接，需核对基金转入、账户来源与是否逐笔对应个案","message_ids":["q60a749013c3fc560f616","q2f83c10399cd16baade0","q60a749013c3fc560f616"]},{"title":"审判法理分歧升温：RICO/jury instruction是否成功绑定多项目为统一共谋、是否存在证据跨项目污染，成为第二轮转折点","message_ids":["qd65c4351415e4ed892fc","q9f9abdd85f55dfe49693","qb379676f69e3355f7b50"]},{"title":"没收框架逐步细化：明确858与859含义差异、specific property先行、第三方需依§853(n)证明权益，是否允许同步重算金额受争议","message_ids":["qb5ecac4e5a5df53cabe5","q247a7ba7cee3334d8db8","q6bbed20cefd2cc5310b9"]},{"title":"王与郭责任切分争议：关于8.89亿、14亿及共同连带责任的数学化处理被认为缺法定支撑，金额口径与抵扣条件分歧明显","message_ids":["q8f4608739c6476b1f011","q921e353541e98d52da88","qe79eb4fa49ae63919563"]},{"title":"执行阶段仍有核验待清：是否应对Specific Property、§853(p)及代偿资产给出credit，避免与SEC或其他程序回收形成重复追缴","message_ids":["qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","qdf063b1d43c2a7412c0c","q680a42e07a6989ba5237"]}],"closed":true,"is_finalized":true,"updated_at":"2026-09-06T19:36:43.093Z","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_batch","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151/pages/2","base_batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-batches/batch-000151?page=2","page":2,"page_size":200,"total_pages":2,"has_more":false,"next_url":null,"prev_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-batches/batch-000151","messages":[{"id":"q4742576abb72517d4859","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":201,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:17:22.190Z","text":"但859里王雁平确实出现了，而且位置非常精确\n\n这一点Robert和Qodty前面的讨论需要精细化。\n\n859说Additional Specific Property有两种基础：\n\n(i) 郭本人取得的Counts 1、2、4、7–11犯罪所得；\n\n以及：\n\n(ii) Count 3 money laundering涉及的property及其traceable property，在王雁平的forfeiture money judgment范围内，郭与王承担joint and several liability。\n\n所以王的作用确实存在。\n\n但是不是：\n\n“王认了GTV，所以拿王来替郭背GTV。”\n\n859原文不是这么写。\n\n它写的是：\n\n王与郭在Count 3 money-laundering property这一部分发生joint-and-several forfeiture关系。\n\n这两个完全不同。\n\n⸻\n\n859还有一句对第三方特别重要\n\n第7段明确说：\n\n只有等所有third-party interests adjudicated以后，法院才会针对Additional Specific Property进入Final Order of Forfeiture。\n\n而且：\n\n最终真正没收给美国的Specific Property，才用于冲抵Money Judgment。\n\n这正好证明Robert强调的三个层次确实必须分开：\n\nMoney Judgment\n\n≈ 郭个人应承担的没收金额。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4742576abb72517d4859","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q6bbed20cefd2cc5310b9","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":202,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:17:59.646Z","text":"Preliminary Forfeiture of Specific Property\n\n政府先主张具体资产可没收。\n\n↓\n\n§853(n) Ancillary Proceedings\n\n第三方出来证明：\n\n这钱/资产其实有我的right/title/interest。\n\n↓\n\nFinal Order of Forfeiture\n\n第三方产权处理完以后，剩下真正属于被告并依法可没收的部分才最终归美国。\n\n↓\n\nCredit against Money Judgment\n\n最终没收的Specific Property再去冲抵8.89亿美元。\n\n所以“859写进去”绝对不等于“美国已经最终拥有全部这些钱”。\n\n859第4–7段自己就明确保留了§853(n)。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个非常重要的细节\n\n859第1段写的是：\n\n“all of the Defendant’s right, title, and interest in the Additional Specific Property”\n\n被没收。\n\n它不是说：\n\n整个账户里的所有钱，无论是谁的，都已经最终属于美国。\n\n这就是为什么后面必须有§853(n)。\n\n如果一个账户有第三方合法产权，理论上第三方就是来证明：\n\n这一部分不是Defendant’s right, title and interest。\n\n这个措辞对你们现在一直研究的第三方产权非常重要。\n\n⸻\n\n所以现在我们可以把整个结构画得很清楚\n\n720（2025/8/11）\n\n原Preliminary Order：\n\n~$1.3B money judgment\n\n* 原Specific Property。\n\n↓\n\n858（2026/6/29）\n\n重新处理money judgment：\n\n减掉约$411m GTV → ~$889m。\n\n↓\n\n859（2026/6/30）\n\n不是重新增加郭的money judgment。\n\n而是：\n\n追加5组Additional Specific Property\n\n依据：\n\nCounts 1、2、4、7–11\n\n* Count 3 laundering。\n\n↓\n\n第三方：\n\n§853(n)\n\n↓\n\n最后：\n\nFinal Order of Forfeiture\n\n↓\n\n真正归美国的Specific Property：\n\n冲抵$889m Money Judgment。\n\n这一次Robert指出的核心区别，我认为应该接受。\n\n但同样需要纠正群里另一种容易走偏的说法：\n\n859不是“为了8.89亿不够，所以随便抓几个账户来填”。\n\n859仍然要求这些Additional Specific Property本身具有法定没收基础——郭本人取得的有罪counts proceeds，或者Count 3涉及/可追溯的laundering property。\n\n这恰恰是以后可以攻击859的地方：不是争“总数够不够”，而是逐个账户问政府有没有证明这个nexus。\n\n而你刚上传的859原件已经让我们确认一个非常重要的事实：\n\n859没有把郭已经无罪的GTV Counts 5/6作为新增Specific Property的没收基础。\n\n所以以后再讨论“王认罪是不是替郭把GTV塞回859”，我们就可以直接拿859原文说：至少这份命令表面上不是这么干的。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6bbed20cefd2cc5310b9","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q4a64cb2ed73860b096e7","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":203,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T09:22:41.968Z","text":"王的money judgement 13亿\n郭一开始也是这个数\n这就是G集团涉案的整体金额","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4a64cb2ed73860b096e7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"qc1c42e2f2874f9c15938","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":204,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T09:24:38.187Z","text":"GTV的4亿被拿走，郭的money judgement 8.9亿","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc1c42e2f2874f9c15938","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q7c0690efb7ff5b4b001a","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":205,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-25T09:25:10.947Z","text":"王是14亿，在691里，政府说王的没收和郭的没收合并处理，然后720里，就变成了13亿，少的那一亿，为何要去掉，对应投资项目的哪一部分，我没有看到有交待。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q4a64cb2ed73860b096e7","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7c0690efb7ff5b4b001a","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4a64cb2ed73860b096e7","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q0cd8abdead6987d469fa","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":206,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T09:26:45.185Z","text":"王案的没收forfeiture程序，是被暂停了的，具体文件记不得，大致意思是，要等郭案量刑后，再决定\n是不是，郭量刑以后，对王案的money judgement，也应该发公告进行修正？\n[删节：隐私信息]","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0cd8abdead6987d469fa","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q7d6279833e84dd8727e6","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":207,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T09:28:37.306Z","text":"G集团的money judegment 14\nforfeiture 13\n差额的，应该就是几个污点证人，不起诉协议，覆盖的\n也就是说，这几个人，闷了快1亿","edited":false,"reply_to":"q7c0690efb7ff5b4b001a","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7d6279833e84dd8727e6","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7c0690efb7ff5b4b001a","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q35beea45d1f463a00126","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":208,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:36:47.645Z","text":"这次你把 691和720原件一起给出来，非常有价值。我逐页核过以后，截图里Robert和Qodty其实各抓到了一部分，但有一个地方必须纠正：691并没有说“王是14亿、郭后来从14亿变13亿”。\n\n691真正说的是另一件非常重要的事。\n\n691：政府主动要求暂停王的第三方没收程序，等郭的没收令\n\n2025年4月15日，政府告诉Torres：王雁平的 Dkt.329 Wang Forfeiture Order 已经产生了大量第三方产权申请——当时至少约 102份petitions。\n\n政府然后明确要求：\n\n暂停这些petitions的处理，直到法院对郭进入preliminary forfeiture order。\n\n理由也写得非常清楚：\n\n政府准备把这些 Subject Properties 也放进郭的preliminary forfeiture order；\n\nTrustee也声称对这些资产有interest；\n\n等郭的没收令出来以后，把所有第三方产权争议放到一个ancillary proceeding里统一解决，避免同一资产出现两套互相冲突的裁判。\n\n所以Qodty说：\n\n“王案的forfeiture程序被暂停，要等郭案量刑后再决定。”\n\n方向基本对。\n\n更精确是：\n\n不是整个王案没收被暂停，而是王Dkt.329以后已经提交的第三方§853(n) petitions被政府请求stay，等郭的preliminary forfeiture order出来以后统一处理。\n\n这非常重要。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q35beea45d1f463a00126","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"qe79eb4fa49ae63919563","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":209,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:37:18.003Z","text":"720：郭当时的Money Judgment确实是13亿美元\n\n2025年8月11日720写得非常明确：\n\nGovernment asserts $1,300,000,000\n\n由两部分组成：\n\n① 郭本人取得的Counts 1、2、4、7–11 proceeds；\n\n加上：\n\n② Count 3 money laundering涉及的property，郭与王在王的forfeiture money judgment范围内承担joint and several liability。\n\n然后Torres正式进入：\n\napproximately $1.3 billion Money Judgment\n\n所以这里可以确定：\n\n720 = 郭约13亿美元Money Judgment。\n\n而且720同时列了一大批 Specific Property。\n\n⸻\n\n但截图里Robert说“王是14亿，在691里政府说王和郭合并处理，所以720变成13亿”——691并不支持这个因果关系\n\n这是我认为现在最需要纠正他的地方。\n\n691说的“合并处理”，指的是：\n\n同一批Subject Properties的第三方产权petitions统一放进一个ancillary proceeding处理。\n\n它不是说：\n\n把王的money judgment + 郭的money judgment合并成一个共同总额。\n\n这两个概念完全不同。\n\n所以不能从691推出：\n\n“王14亿 → 与郭合并 → 郭720变13亿。”\n\n691没有这么说。\n\n⸻\n\n那王的“14亿”和郭的“13亿”究竟是什么关系？\n\n这个反而值得继续深挖。\n\n720自己的语言已经给出了一部分答案：\n\n郭的13亿里包含：\n\nCount 3 property involved in money laundering，\n\n并且：\n\n郭与王jointly and severally liable，但仅限于王自己的forfeiture money judgment范围。\n\n所以王的forfeiture judgment和郭的13亿确实存在重叠责任，尤其Count 3。\n\n但是：\n\n重叠责任 ≠ 两个人的金额简单相加。\n\n也不是：\n\n王14亿 + 郭13亿 = 政府可以收27亿。\n\n政府对同一犯罪财产不能靠两个被告重复recover两遍。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe79eb4fa49ae63919563","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q6b7bf2e5ee0832861e45","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":210,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-25T09:37:31.675Z","text":"应该不能这样说，金钱判决是多少，就对应着必须要没收这么多，只是看谁来背的问题，目前，就是看到郭背了8.89亿，王背了多少不知道，反正政府实际从它那里拿到手几百万，且王已经被量刑，所以就是王应该不会再去背gtv。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q7d6279833e84dd8727e6","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6b7bf2e5ee0832861e45","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7d6279833e84dd8727e6","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"qdf063b1d43c2a7412c0c","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":211,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:37:48.028Z","text":"Qodty真正问的第二个问题更有意思\n\n他说：\n\n郭后来量刑以后，王的money judgment是不是也应该公告修正？\n\n不能仅仅因为郭从13亿后来降到8.89亿，就自动要求王的money judgment同步降。\n\n因为两人的forfeiture judgment法律基础并不完全相同。\n\n郭后来858减掉约$411m GTV，核心是针对郭自己的money judgment重新计算。\n\n王是通过自己的guilty plea / consent forfeiture进入另一套judgment。\n\n所以必须检查：\n\n王自己的forfeiture order究竟把GTV $411m放在哪一部分；\n\n她的money judgment到底是多少；\n\n哪些是Count 3 joint liability；\n\n哪些是她自己单独承担；\n\n858对郭作出的GTV deduction是否触发王那边任何credit/setoff。\n\n不能仅凭郭858就说王必须自动修改。\n\n⸻\n\n但这里有一个非常值得深挖的新问题\n\n如果王的所谓14亿中包含：\n\nGTV $411m\n\n而SEC已经通过disgorgement处理这$411m；\n\n同时858又因为这个理由明确给郭扣掉$411m；\n\n那么：\n\n王的forfeiture judgment有没有也对同一$411m给予credit？\n\n这才是截图里真正值得问的问题。\n\n因为问题不再是：\n\n“郭无罪，所以王也要减。”\n\n而是：\n\n美国政府能不能在SEC已经取得/处理同一GTV $411m以后，又让Wang的criminal forfeiture money judgment继续完整包含同一笔$411m而没有credit？\n\n这涉及的是：\n\ndouble recovery / credit / satisfaction of forfeiture judgment\n\n而不是郭的acquittal直接约束王。\n\n这条我认为非常值得继续挖。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个691里非常重要、与你们第三方维权直接相关的事实\n\n691明确告诉Torres：\n\n截至2025年4月，至少102个第三方已经对王Forfeiture Order里的大部分Subject Properties提出产权claim。\n\n而且Trustee也告诉政府：\n\n他也claim an interest in the Subject Properties。\n\n所以早在2025年4月，政府就完全知道：\n\n这些Specific Property存在大规模第三方ownership disputes。\n\n然后政府自己要求：\n\n先别判第三方；\n\n等郭的POF出来；\n\n再统一处理。\n\n这对我们现在5739 Global Settlement那条线其实非常重要。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdf063b1d43c2a7412c0c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"qa0d12cf7149b008aed4c","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":212,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:38:09.066Z","text":"因为它证明政府自己曾经告诉Torres：\n\n为什么必须统一ancillary proceeding？\n\n因为要避免同一资产的第三方产权出现inconsistent rulings。\n\n而现在5739又在Government和Trustee之间重新划分：\n\nForfeiture Assets / Estate Assets。\n\n这两段程序语言放在一起，很值得比较。\n\n⸻\n\n所以现在我给截图里的讨论做一个最终校准：\n\nRobert正确：\n720郭Money Judgment = 约$1.3b。\n\nQodty正确：\n王的第三方forfeiture petitions确实被要求等待郭的POF以后统一处理。\n\nRobert需要修正：\n691所谓“合并处理”不是把王和郭的money judgment合并，而是把同一批Specific Property的第三方产权争议合并到一个ancillary proceeding。\n\n现在最值得追的新问题：\n\n如果Wang的money judgment确实包含GTV $411m，而SEC已经实际取得/处理这部分资金，858又因此给Guo减掉$411m，那么Wang judgment有没有获得相应credit？如果没有，政府如何避免对同一GTV corpus重复计算/重复满足forfeiture judgment？\n\n这条比“王14亿为什么郭变13亿”更精准。\n\n而且你刚上传的691和720已经把“政府主动延迟第三方产权裁判，等待郭的POF统一处理”这个事实彻底钉死了。这个以后研究5739和第三方产权时，我认为会很有用。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa0d12cf7149b008aed4c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q2c6d2d62a6f026267470","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":213,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:40:31.631Z","text":"Qodty这个问题，答案是：不一定，而且从691本身看，不能推出“郭量刑以后，法院必须重新公告并修正王的money judgment”。\n\n691暂停的其实不是王雁平已经生效的 money judgment本身，而是王的没收令出来以后，第三方针对那些 Specific Property（列明具体财产） 提交的约102份§853(n)产权申请。政府明确要求等郭的preliminary forfeiture order出来，再把同一批争议资产放进一个ancillary proceeding统一处理；Torres最后批准的也是“Resolution of the third-party petitions … is STAYED”，不是“Wang’s forfeiture money judgment is stayed”。\n\n所以程序结构其实是：\n\n王的money judgment / preliminary forfeiture order已经存在\n\n↓\n\n第三方对王名下Specific Property提出产权申请\n\n↓\n\n691暂停这些第三方申请\n\n↓\n\n等郭的POF出来\n\n↓\n\n同一批Specific Property的第三方产权统一审理。\n\n政府自己解释得很清楚：这么做是为了避免同一资产在王案和郭案两个ancillary proceedings里产生互相冲突的产权裁定。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.691.0.pdf\n\n因此，郭后来量刑、郭的money judgment从约13亿调整到8.89亿，并不会自动触发“王的money judgment也必须按照同样比例修改”。 两个人的刑事责任、认罪/判决基础和没收依据并不完全相同。\n\n720也进一步证明这一点。郭的13亿美元当时包含两部分：一部分是郭本人从Counts 1、2、4、7–11取得的proceeds；另一部分是Count 3 laundering property，其中郭与王在王自己的forfeiture money judgment范围内承担joint and several liability。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.720.0.pdf\n\n所以两人的money judgment存在部分重叠，但不是“王14亿就是郭13亿的母数，因此郭后来减少，王必须同步减少”。\n\n不过，Qodty真正提出了一个很好的后续问题：\n\n如果王的money judgment中确实包含某笔后来已经由SEC取得、或者已经通过郭858获得credit的同一财产，那么王的judgment在“satisfaction / credit”层面是否也应该相应记账？\n\n这和“重新判一个新的money judgment”是两回事。\n\n例如如果同一笔$411m GTV corpus已经通过SEC disgorgement真正被政府取得并用于投资人Fair Fund，那么理论上应该研究：\n\n美国政府有没有在王的forfeiture judgment中对已经实际recover的同一财产给予credit，避免同一笔财产被重复满足两次。\n\n如果需要调整，通常更可能表现为：\n\ncredit / satisfaction / amended forfeiture order\n\n而不是重新向公众发布一次整个money judgment。\n\n还有一个程序细节：互联网公告主要是为了Specific Property上的第三方产权。 720要求政府发布notice，并要求任何第三方针对Specific Property提交§853(n) petition；它不是让第三方挑战郭的money judgment金额。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.720.0.pdf\n\n所以我会直接回复Qodty：\n\n691暂停的是王案Specific Property的第三方产权程序，不是王的money judgment。因此郭量刑后，王的money judgment不会因为郭后来从13亿调整到8.89亿而自动重新公告或同步修改。真正应该查的是：王的money judgment里如果包含与郭、SEC已经实际追回的同一笔财产，政府有没有依法给王的judgment记credit，避免double recovery。这个才是值得核王329/488以及后续final forfeiture记录的问题。\n\n而且720第9段还明确保留法院根据Rule 32.2“amend it as necessary”的管辖权，所以必要时是可以修改没收命令的，但“可以修改”不等于“郭一改，王就必须自动重发公告”。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.720.0.pdf","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2c6d2d62a6f026267470","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q680a42e07a6989ba5237","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":214,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:44:05.900Z","text":"我认为下一步最值得直接把王的Dkt.329、488以及之后有没有Final Order / amended order拿出来，对照她的money judgment到底有没有发生credit或调整。这样就能把Qodty这个问题彻底答死。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q680a42e07a6989ba5237","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q5d789aaac8aab1fee93e","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":215,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:44:29.277Z","text":"王的329和488你们有吗","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5d789aaac8aab1fee93e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q91da7aa4ae96b18bf060","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":216,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-25T09:45:47.210Z","text":"329是认罪后量刑前的同意没收令，不知道具体用什么名称准确，它是一个由王，政府，法院签字的一个协定这类东西，488内容几乎完全一样，是对王量刑后，对329再进行了一次确认。这个协定里，王同意对政府没收14亿不提出挑战，同时愿意就14亿金钱判决于郭和于承担连带责任。用词不一定准确，大意是这样。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q91da7aa4ae96b18bf060","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q0ebd9e982effac2e9252","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":217,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:49:30.804Z","text":"488","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0ebd9e982effac2e9252","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q450a6c2a31873ad12c3c","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":218,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T09:52:06.291Z","text":"收到。你上传的是 Dkt. 329 和 Dkt. 489。这两份PDF看起来是扫描件，系统目前只能读出页码，正文没有解析出来，所以我现在不会假装已经从原件里读到了“王的money judgment到底多少、后来有没有credit”。\n\n不过，结合刚才已经能完整读取的 691 + 720，Qodty那个问题有一部分已经可以确定：\n\n691暂停的绝对不是王的money judgment。 法院原话是：\n\n“Resolution of the third-party petitions … is STAYED pending entry of a preliminary forfeiture order as to Defendant Miles Guo.”\n\n也就是暂停王Dkt.329之后的第三方产权petitions，等待郭的POF，然后统一做ancillary proceeding。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.691.0.pdf\n\n政府还明确解释，目的是把王、郭涉及的同一批Subject Properties放到一个第三方产权程序里处理，避免两个ancillary proceedings产生冲突裁定。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.691.0.pdf\n\n因此：\n\n“郭后来8.89亿，所以王的money judgment必须重新公告”——从691推不出来。\n\n但现在真正值得用你刚上传的329和489查的是另一个问题：\n\n王自己的money judgment到底是多少、由哪些犯罪所得组成；Dkt.489有没有把329变成final/amended order；SEC已经处理的GTV $411m有没有在王的judgment中得到credit或satisfaction。\n\n如果329/489证明王那边仍然完整保留包含GTV的金额，而政府又已经实际通过SEC取得了同一GTV corpus，那么Qodty的问题就会升级成一个更好的问题：\n\n不是“王为什么没有重新公告”，而是“同一GTV财产已经通过SEC recovery以后，王的criminal forfeiture judgment是否应当获得相应credit，从而防止政府对同一财产double recovery？”\n\n这个问题比“公告没有重新发”重要得多。\n\n而且720已经明确告诉我们，郭与王之间只有Count 3那部分是按王的forfeiture money judgment范围承担joint-and-several liability；郭自己的13亿还包括他个人取得的其他有罪counts proceeds。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.720.0.pdf\n\n所以王的金额和郭的金额从来就不能简单同步加减。\n\n你这两份329/489我会按这个目标继续核：王的money judgment → GTV是否包含 → specific property → 后续final/amendment → 有没有credit。 只要把这一链钉死，就能准确回答Qodty，而不是再靠“14亿、13亿、8.89亿”几个数字猜关系。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q450a6c2a31873ad12c3c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q189a32e543889b3999d7","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":219,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-25T09:52:25.183Z","text":"如果合并处理的仅仅是民事附属程序合并。那王自己同意就14亿与郭和于承担连带责任，也就是还有5.11亿要找人来背，不然王跟空气承担连带责任，或者那5.11会被去掉。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q189a32e543889b3999d7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q1936430ae9066b18b5d4","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":220,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-25T09:56:55.440Z","text":"去掉4.11亿有解释，那另外去掉的一个亿，就这么稀里糊涂的，大家都当看不见？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1936430ae9066b18b5d4","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"qe269fd963bd6b68089cd","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":221,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T09:57:39.097Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 488","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe269fd963bd6b68089cd","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q8f4608739c6476b1f011","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":222,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T10:03:14.022Z","text":"难不成把Kyle Bass捞进来，背GTV\n南区怕没这个胆","edited":false,"reply_to":"q189a32e543889b3999d7","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8f4608739c6476b1f011","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q189a32e543889b3999d7","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q7b76f8cb00bbbd3fb08d","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":223,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-25T10:03:36.051Z","text":"副手同意没收14亿，也同意就这么多于其它被告共同承担责任，结果boss那里就少了一亿，那王艳平同意得也太草率了，宁愿多，不愿少，真它🐴是一名坚定的共产党员。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7b76f8cb00bbbd3fb08d","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"qc4302b3eb2a4ebcac5ba","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":224,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T10:04:37.765Z","text":"她同意多少，照着后续原本流程，破产案luc债权人，300骨干，就能拿多少\n对青藤来说，这不是英雄，这是啥","edited":false,"reply_to":"q7b76f8cb00bbbd3fb08d","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc4302b3eb2a4ebcac5ba","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7b76f8cb00bbbd3fb08d","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":225,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:06:21.301Z","text":"所以现在可以给Robert一个非常准确的回复：\n\n你说“连带责任不能跟空气承担”这个问题值得研究，但488原文不支持14亿减郭8.89亿等于5.11亿必须另找人背。王的14亿由两部分组成：她本人取得的Count One proceeds，以及Count Two laundering property；只有后者才与郭joint and several，而且限定为“to the extent a forfeiture money judgment is entered against Guo”。王自己的独立责任即使没有郭，也仍然存在，而且488第11项明确允许政府用王自己的substitute assets追未清偿余额。真正值得研究的是：858把郭从13亿降到8.89亿以后，488中与郭挂钩的joint-and-several部分是否应同步缩小，以及王14亿中Count One和Count Two各自到底是多少。\n\n现在最关键的缺口已经非常明确了：找到政府或王的plea/sentencing材料里对这14亿美元的分项计算。\n\n只要找到：\n\nCount One = X\nCount Two = Y\n\n我们就能真正算出Robert所谓“剩余5.11亿”的理论到底有没有任何数学和法律基础。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q5bb322e3c851374ef832","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":226,"speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-25T10:14:30.430Z","text":"不要总是假设政府和法院是对的，可能这就是它们太草率，然后被陪审团的gtv无罪给弄得圆起来很困难。既然郭是boss，理论上，不找其它boss，那王都量刑了，对其个人的金钱判决和资产没收在程序上已经在量刑前作出，我们没去仔细翻这部分记录而已，但比较确定的是没有说要对王没收那5.11，所以那5..11亿要么再抓一个boss 来背，要么整个犯罪集团的金钱犯罪责任就得减去这5.11亿。","edited":false,"reply_to":"qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5bb322e3c851374ef832","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q923c193abe2d14c90fb5","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":227,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T10:19:25.058Z","text":"意思就是，G集团的money judegment，随着郭的量刑，是不是要从14亿变成8.9亿","edited":false,"reply_to":"q5bb322e3c851374ef832","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q923c193abe2d14c90fb5","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5bb322e3c851374ef832","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q8edeb757f7f68895bf4d","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":228,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T10:23:34.557Z","text":"既然郭是大boss，虽然之前二boss王，认了14亿，现在是不是要修正","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8edeb757f7f68895bf4d","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q7f8fffeb6f4358b5387e","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":229,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:27:50.886Z","text":"我继续往下挖以后，现在出现了一个比“5.11亿找谁背”更硬的新点：王雁平自己的量刑材料，其实已经在2024年就主动攻击过“14亿美元”这个数字的可靠性。\n\n王的 2024年10月4日 sentencing submission（Dkt.469） 明确写：她认罪时同意的是“approximately $1.4 billion”的criminal forfeiture，但在她认罪之后，政府自己的trial expert根据GX Z-26只统计出约$1.3 billion进入GTV、Farm Loans、G Clubs和Himalaya Exchange。 换句话说，王自己的律师在量刑前就已经指出：14亿与政府后来庭审证据的13亿存在约1亿美元差额。 \n\n这个非常重要，因为它证明Robert说的“政府前面可能算得草率，后来数字越来越难圆”不是纯猜测。至少王自己的律师早就正式指出：\n\nPlea forfeiture ≈ $1.4B\nGovernment trial evidence ≈ $1.3B\n\n而不是到了郭858以后我们才发现数字不同。\n\n然后郭这里又发生第二次变化。858明确记载，政府原来把$1.3B描述为G Enterprise几个项目收到的资金，包括 Farm、GTV、G Clubs、HEX；Torres后来接受郭的异议，从$1.3B里再扣掉 $411M GTV，最终变成 $889M。\n\n所以现在真正形成的是一条三级数字坍缩链：\n\n王认罪：约$1.4B\n↓\n政府庭审证据：约$1.3B\n↓\n郭858：$889M\n\n这三个数字现在必须逐层解释。\n\n第一处约1亿美元差额，已经有人正式质疑过\n\n这点以前我们没有抓住。\n\n王的律师不是说“14亿和13亿差不多，无所谓”，而是拿这个差异去支持她的量刑立场。\n\n所以现在应该追：\n\n14亿最初到底怎样算出来？\n\n有没有某个项目后来从GX Z-26删除？\n\n有没有重复计算？\n\n有没有包含未进入郭trial proof的资金？\n\n有没有把gross inflows、transfers、laundering property和victim losses混在一起？\n\n这约1亿不能凭空消失。\n\n第二次$411M下降则比较清楚：GTV\n\n858给出的解释明确很多：\n\n政府的$1.3B包括GTV，而郭GTV实体Counts 5/6无罪；同时GTV entities已经向SEC disgorge约$411M。因此Torres最终从郭的$1.3B money judgment中扣掉$411M，剩$889M。\n\n所以Robert有一点现在确实更值得重视：\n\n如果王的$1.4B也是按照整个G Enterprise/GTV等项目构建，而郭这里后来因为GTV发生重大调整，那么王的$1.4B为什么始终保持不动？\n\n但答案仍然不能直接写成：\n\n“因为还剩5.11亿，所以必须抓另一个boss。”\n\n因为王488已经告诉我们，她自己有独立的Count One proceeds liability。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7f8fffeb6f4358b5387e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"},{"id":"q921e353541e98d52da88","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":230,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:28:22.299Z","text":"真正的问题是：\n\n王的$1.4B里究竟有多少GTV？\n\n如果其中真的包含完整的$411M GTV，那就出现一个非常具体的问题：\n\n为什么SEC已经disgorge这$411M以后，郭得到credit，而王的outstanding money judgment表面上仍然是$1.4B？\n\n这不是郭的无罪自动保护王，而是同一财产被政府实际回收后，是否应当credit against another forfeiture judgment的问题。\n\n而且王的488反而让这个问题更尖锐\n\n你刚发的488第13–14页明确规定：\n\n最终没收的Specific Property要用于满足王的Money Judgment；\n\n并且政府可以根据§853(p)继续追王的substitute assets，直到她的uncollected amount得到满足。\n\n这里的关键词是：\n\nuncollected amount\n\n也就是说，王14亿并不是一个政府永远可以不管已经追回多少而保持不变的“口号数字”。执行过程中必然应该存在：\n\n原Money Judgment\n− 已经实际用于satisfaction的财产\n= outstanding/uncollected balance\n\n因此，如果SEC GTV disgorgement在法律上属于可以credit给王的同一犯罪财产，那么她的outstanding balance理论上就应该反映出来。\n\n这才是最值得查的地方。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个我现在认为特别值得Robert继续追的点：\n\nDOJ在2025年1月王量刑以后仍然公开宣布：\n\nWang “agreed to pay forfeiture in the amount of $1.4 billion.”\n\n而到了2026年郭量刑后，DOJ公开宣布郭：\n\nordered to forfeit $889 million。\n\n所以至少在政府对外口径上：\n\nWang = $1.4B\n\nGuo = $889M\n\n至今看不出政府公开把王的数字同步修正。\n\n这不自动证明违法，但已经足以让我们问一个非常具体的问题：\n\n政府现在认为Wang未清偿的forfeiture money judgment余额到底是多少？\n\n不是问历史上“329/488写了多少”，而是问：\n\n今天还欠多少？已经credit多少？\n\n如果答案仍然是完整14亿，那么政府必须解释：\n\n* 已经列入王488里的数亿美元Specific Property为什么没有减少outstanding balance；\n* GTV/SEC disgorgement是否credit；\n* Guo与Wang joint-and-several部分已经收回的财产如何避免double satisfaction；\n* $1.4B与GX Z-26 $1.3B最初那约$100M discrepancy是什么。\n\n所以这条线现在升级了\n\n我不会再把主要精力放在“找另一个boss”。\n\n真正可能对26-1853更有价值的是：\n\n政府的forfeiture accounting从王认罪开始就可能没有形成一套公开、自洽、逐项可核验的金额体系。\n\n而且这个问题不是现在才有人提出。\n\n王自己的律师在2024年就已经把1.4B vs 1.3B写进量刑材料。 \n\n然后：\n\n郭720采用1.3B；\n\n858又把它降到889M；\n\n王的14B却表面保持原样。\n\n这就值得继续沿着 Dkt.469 → plea agreement → GX Z-26 → Dkt.488 → Dkt.716 → Dkt.858 做一次真正的forfeiture accounting audit。\n\n我目前认为，下一处最可能挖到硬东西的是 Dkt.469里王律师对14亿的完整论证。如果她律师已经把“14亿怎么来的、为什么过高、政府trial expert为什么只有13亿”写得很具体，那会直接告诉我们最初那约1亿美元到底哪里出了问题。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q921e353541e98d52da88","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151"}],"prev_batch_id":"batch-000150","next_batch_id":"batch-000152"}