{"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. Discussions focused on two main threads: the organization of the Alliance system regarding victim and property claims, and forfeiture jurisprudence in the Guo and Wang cases. Participants debated whether rapid pool growth, templates, and third-party workflows formed an orchestrated pipeline, with others demanding strict reliance on authorization pages and case-by-case evidence. Sustained disagreements persisted over 21 U.S.C. § 853, § 853(n), Dkt. 858, Dkt. 859, asset nexus, conspiracy boundaries, and double-recovery credits.","guide_en":[{"title":"User Pool Surge and Authorization Portals","description":"roy*** analyzes the rapid expansion of registered users and questions the actual authorization terms agreed to upon submission.","message_ids":["qb20d41f588506831a182","q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qb20d41f588506831a182","summary_en":"roy*** observes that client numbers grew from 3,345 to over 5,000 and eventually over 6,000, arguing this reflects platform batch-referrals and aggregated representation rather than traditional individual client retainers."},{"message_id":"q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","summary_en":"roy*** contends that the missing submission webpage terms are critical to verify whether clients explicitly authorized legal representation, data sharing with HEX, or crime-victim status."}]},{"title":"Dispute Over HID Submission Terms","description":"roy*** examines whether client consent terms and customer service channels demonstrate an orchestrated representation pipeline.","message_ids":["q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","q24db45972af617201515","q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","summary_en":"roy*** emphasizes the need to inspect the original webpage to ascertain whether users consented to CVRA provisions, § 853(n), restitution, or victim declarations."},{"message_id":"q24db45972af617201515","summary_en":"roy*** argues that HEX actively channeled investors to Geyer using mass emails, dedicated websites, and around-the-clock customer support while noting initial outreach funding remains unproven in public records."},{"message_id":"q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab","summary_en":"roy*** diagrams the multi-party authentication structure involving HEX, Candey, and Mazars to demonstrate Geyer's initial client base relied on exchange infrastructure."}]},{"title":"Role and Pipeline Positioning of HEX","description":"roy*** evaluates public evidence regarding HEX's active assistance versus unsubstantiated claims regarding initial retainers and website creation.","message_ids":["q24db45972af617201515","q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab","q6d1303eb828586dde7f5"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q24db45972af617201515","summary_en":"roy*** notes court filings substantiate HEX's active promotion of Geyer, though public proof is still lacking regarding who originally hired him or financed the website."},{"message_id":"q0a391fc6c9a33db798ab","summary_en":"roy*** asserts that Geyer's client verification mechanism was deeply interconnected with HEX's underlying database rather than assembled through independent advertising."},{"message_id":"q6d1303eb828586dde7f5","summary_en":"roy*** describes a structural shift from Geyer's initial property recovery model preserving client anonymity in ECF 198 to participation in government remission requiring victim verification."}]},{"title":"Three-Tier Timeline and Layered Claimant Identities","description":"roy*** traces the evolution of legal filings from an independent attorney narrative to overlapping victim and property claimant roles.","message_ids":["q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","qa5ee87dd53f12388c0db","qbe1e40c63622b3e291fb"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q09ba4c58ff9248e26e5d","summary_en":"roy*** outlines the progression from 2023 claims of independent representation to 2025 multi-track proceedings involving § 853(n), CVRA, restitution, and remission."},{"message_id":"qa5ee87dd53f12388c0db","summary_en":"roy*** notes that ECF 478 filed on Nov 25, 2024, explicitly introduced Crime Victims' Rights Act standards alongside existing third-party property recovery claims."},{"message_id":"qbe1e40c63622b3e291fb","summary_en":"roy*** argues that Alliance guidance maintained dual tracks in Mar 2025, asserting third-party ownership via Geyer while simultaneously directing members toward victim remission."}]},{"title":"Controversy Over Parallel Owner and Victim Status","description":"roy*** scrutinizes tutorial materials that instructed claimants to declare property ownership in one stage and victimhood in another.","message_ids":["q967fc82a9f19b0b23c88","q3a50ee5326e902801b91","qd89875e0ef516455eca4"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q967fc82a9f19b0b23c88","summary_en":"roy*** details how Alliance tutorials instructed members to file ancillary petitions as owners before advising them to claim financial loss as offense victims in remission filings."},{"message_id":"q3a50ee5326e902801b91","summary_en":"roy*** recounts that Geyer managed aggregated exchange property claims while the Alliance Committee coordinated personal remission submissions under victim classifications."},{"message_id":"qd89875e0ef516455eca4","summary_en":"roy*** highlights the tension in advising claimants to select owner status initially and subsequently directing them to file as victims."}]},{"title":"Dual-Track Strategy and Procedural Risks","description":"Participants discuss the distribution of standardized claim templates and the potential ramifications of coordinated victim declarations.","message_ids":["qf4ab7915ea6855b7f8b7","q9b96104de0860964f923","qeb1c401923f6255f0c26"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qf4ab7915ea6855b7f8b7","summary_en":"roy*** identifies Alliance materials circulated on Mar 27, 2025, that guided members through both remission and ancillary petitions under § 853(n)."},{"message_id":"q9b96104de0860964f923","summary_en":"roy*** cites ECF 838 and ECF 740, where individual petitioners informed the court they used standardized Alliance templates to recover funds without admitting fraud victimization."},{"message_id":"qeb1c401923f6255f0c26","summary_en":"reb*** contends that judicial rulings on whether protests constituted obstruction by defendants or by the Alliance could materially impact jury findings on RICO conspiracy."}]},{"title":"Evidence Discrepancies: GXZ26 Versus Transaction Tracing","description":"roy*** questions whether summary exhibits adequately reflected underlying bank complexities and deduplication ledgers.","message_ids":["q60a749013c3fc560f616","q2f83c10399cd16baade0","q60a749013c3fc560f616"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q60a749013c3fc560f616","summary_en":"roy*** questions whether Government Exhibit GXZ26 accounted for pooled accounts and correspondent banking structures disclosed in Dkt. 716-4 before supporting forfeiture findings in Dkt. 858."},{"message_id":"q2f83c10399cd16baade0","summary_en":"roy*** explains that defense filings in Dkt. 826-1 argued gross bank inflow aggregations failed to reflect distinct economic transactions deduplicated in farm ledgers."},{"message_id":"q60a749013c3fc560f616","summary_en":"roy*** notes that the court in Dkt. 858 relied on summary inflows from GXZ26 to determine that specific accounts contained criminal proceeds."}]},{"title":"Legal Disagreements Over Trial Jury Instructions","description":"Participants analyze whether jury instructions permitted prejudicial evidentiary spillover across disparate entities in the alleged RICO conspiracy.","message_ids":["qd65c4351415e4ed892fc","q9f9abdd85f55dfe49693","qb379676f69e3355f7b50"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qd65c4351415e4ed892fc","summary_en":"roy*** evaluates the appellate viability of challenging the denial of a multiple-conspiracies jury instruction regarding whether separate schemes were conflated into a single enterprise."},{"message_id":"q9f9abdd85f55dfe49693","summary_en":"roy*** argues that acquittal on Counts 5 and 6 demonstrates the jury could differentiate schemes, which complicates claims of prejudicial evidentiary spillover."},{"message_id":"qb379676f69e3355f7b50","summary_en":"joh*** claims that unindicted co-conspirators face legal vulnerability if the overarching enterprise is disaggregated into distinct entities on appeal."}]},{"title":"Refinement of the Forfeiture Framework","description":"roy*** clarifies the legal distinction between money judgment recalculations and supplemental orders identifying specific forfeit property.","message_ids":["qb5ecac4e5a5df53cabe5","q247a7ba7cee3334d8db8","q6bbed20cefd2cc5310b9"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qb5ecac4e5a5df53cabe5","summary_en":"roy*** clarifies that Dkt. 858 reduced the money judgment to approximately $889 million, whereas Dkt. 859 served as a supplemental order adding specific property."},{"message_id":"q247a7ba7cee3334d8db8","summary_en":"roy*** observes that Dkt. 859 added five specific asset groups based on Counts 1, 2, 4, and 7 through 11 or Count 3, without relying on acquitted GTV Counts 5 and 6."},{"message_id":"q6bbed20cefd2cc5310b9","summary_en":"roy*** explains the multi-stage forfeiture procedure where third parties assert ownership under § 853(n) before final forfeiture orders credit specific assets against the money judgment."}]},{"title":"Allocation of Liability Between Wang and Guo","description":"Participants debate the legal and mathematical relationships between Wang's $1.4 billion forfeiture and Guo's $889 million judgment.","message_ids":["q8f4608739c6476b1f011","q921e353541e98d52da88","qe79eb4fa49ae63919563"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q8f4608739c6476b1f011","summary_en":"joh*** questions whether third parties could be implicated to absorb liability for GTV proceeds."},{"message_id":"q921e353541e98d52da88","summary_en":"roy*** argues that if SEC disgorgement resolved $411 million in GTV funds, Wang's outstanding criminal forfeiture balance should reflect appropriate credits to avoid double recovery."},{"message_id":"qe79eb4fa49ae63919563","summary_en":"roy*** clarifies that Dkt. 691 consolidated third-party ancillary proceedings rather than merging Wang's and Guo's separate money judgments into a single sum."}]},{"title":"Unresolved Accounting in the Enforcement Phase","description":"roy*** highlights outstanding questions regarding credits for substitute assets and overlapping recoveries across SEC and criminal proceedings.","message_ids":["qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","qdf063b1d43c2a7412c0c","q680a42e07a6989ba5237"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qb2e4a47279fb2be05cc8","summary_en":"roy*** contends that Dkt. 488 permits the government to pursue Wang's substitute assets under § 853(p), but notes joint liability with Guo is strictly tied to Guo's money judgment."},{"message_id":"qdf063b1d43c2a7412c0c","summary_en":"roy*** notes that over 100 third parties asserted claims in Dkt. 691, raising questions about whether Wang's order should receive credit for GTV funds resolved through SEC disgorgement."},{"message_id":"q680a42e07a6989ba5237","summary_en":"roy*** suggests examining Dkt. 329 and Dkt. 488 alongside subsequent orders to determine whether Wang's forfeiture judgment underwent formal accounting adjustments."}]}],"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":"这里汇集爆料革命参与者围绕郭文贵案的持续讨论，包括长期深度参与者及自述投入真金白银的投资者。他们分享亲历过程、资金投入与后续遭遇，并结合案卷展开追问、核对和观点交锋。这些来自事件内部的经验与细节，为理解事件经过和投资者处境提供了外部报道之外的重要视角。请结合具体发言判断其经历与依据，引用时保留发言者、时间和上下文。","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"}