{"id":"batch-000152","number":152,"revision":3,"date_start":"2026-08-25T10:29:52.487Z","date_end":"2026-08-27T05:15:22.081Z","total_messages":281,"summary_en":"Community discussion, batch 152 (Aug 25, 2026 – Aug 27, 2026), 281 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. The thread disputes the base for forfeiture in Wang and Guo, tracking a 1.4 billion plea against a 1.3 billion trial accounting and later 889 million after the 411 million SEC-related adjustment, while questioning how much is personally obtained, laundering property, and uncollected balance. Participants cite Rule 32.2 and harmless-error concerns, and contest the effects of Dkt.469, Dkts. 488/720/858, bankruptcy Dkts 5739/5777/5747/5769, and alter-ego litigation in Adv. Proc. 24-5249, Taurus/Mahwah, and 26-1853. Community statements, not court findings.","guide_en":[{"title":"Plea-and-audit mismatch drives questions over the 1.4B shortfall","description":"roy*** and other participants argue that Wang’s plea forfeiture and trial accounting figures are not directly interchangeable, because GTV, recovered funds, and split recipient streams may distort who is ultimately exposed to criminal money judgment. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q3cb14f23a83c10123656","q759c29e49f2dbda2c024","qecf9db2881a0ac29af62"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q3cb14f23a83c10123656","summary_en":"roy*** contends Dkt.469 suggests Wang’s 1.4 billion consent figure, government-trial accounting of about 1.3 billion, and entity-level recipient data (about 550 million to Je-controlled companies and 100 million to Guo family-related entities) do not settle whether remaining liability corresponds to money actually obtained, while GTV also contains SEC repayment and Saraca share-sale flows. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q759c29e49f2dbda2c024","summary_en":"roy*** argues that the next-step accounting task is to separate personal proceeds, laundering property, and recovered credits (including SEC disgorgement) rather than debate who is the next target, and identifies GX Z-26 and specific trial transcript pages as key cross-checks. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qecf9db2881a0ac29af62","summary_en":"roy*** argues the dispute should be reframed as requiring an audited breakdown of Wang’s 1.4B and Guo’s 889M compositions, including cross-crediting and overlap, instead of assuming a residual 5.11B gap must be assigned to another defendant without quantified components. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"The 1.3B to 8.89M path is not treated as a simple split allocation","description":"Members contend that moving from 1.3 billion to 889 million did not resolve how much is Guo-personal proceeds versus laundering-related exposure, because the orders still do not quantify a joint-and-several overlap basis. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q509e388c34aca351ea2b","qa06ca3ff3be113d82820","qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q509e388c34aca351ea2b","summary_en":"roy*** argues 858 identifies a 889 million base for Farm Loans, G Clubs, and HEX but leaves unallocated the portions that are personally obtained and that are Count Three laundering property, while the judgments cross-reference each other without stating the overlap numerically. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qa06ca3ff3be113d82820","summary_en":"roy*** asserts execution questions remain open on avoiding duplicate payment for the same laundering corpus, reducing joint-and-several balances when one judgment changes, and assigning credit for specific property seizures, while also stressing that 858’s adjustment for SEC GTV recovery did not equal a GTV innocence ruling. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","summary_en":"roy*** claims appellate authorities (including Tanner and Elias) make it necessary to distinguish what each defendant actually obtained, so collapsing total numbers while mixing legal categories creates the core challenge for person-attributed and laundering-based forfeiture findings. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Whether GTV measurement includes SEC disgorgement and Saraca share-sale proceeds","description":"roy*** and others dispute that all GTV-related inflows are equivalent to directly obtained criminal proceeds, and claim GTV may include returned funds and transaction-specific components that should be handled separately in credits. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q3cb14f23a83c10123656","q509e388c34aca351ea2b","qecf9db2881a0ac29af62"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q3cb14f23a83c10123656","summary_en":"roy*** notes that Dkt.469 and related trial materials indicate major GTV inflows were later paid to SEC and that roughly 150 million came from Saraca’s sale of existing shares, so GTV totals do not map cleanly to Wang’s personal acquisition narrative. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q509e388c34aca351ea2b","summary_en":"roy*** says 858’s reduction from 13 billion to 889 million relied on an SEC-related GTV adjustment but still left unresolved how much of the remaining amount was personal fraud proceeds versus laundering property for each defendant. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qecf9db2881a0ac29af62","summary_en":"roy*** argues both Wang’s 1.4B and Guo’s 889M aggregate figures likely embed personal-proceeds and laundering elements, and that SEC-recovered GTV-related amounts should be reflected in cross-credit logic before accepting final responsibility allocations. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Core legal split: proceeds personally obtained versus laundering-related property","description":"Participants argue that personal proceeds under forfeiture and money-laundering property are distinct standards, so a single aggregate amount for Wang and Guo is challenged unless the judgments are split by theory and evidentiary basis. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","q01aee57f5e613a922809","qf8753f0b936ce5f890ff"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","summary_en":"roy*** argues Wang’s 14B/Guo’s related numbers mix enterprise-wide inflows with statutory components, and says this is especially disputed because Count One requires personal-proceeds analysis while Count Three may involve property involved in laundering. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q01aee57f5e613a922809","summary_en":"roy*** explains that personal-proceeds findings require proof Guo obtained, controlled, or disposed of the money, while Count Three under 18 U.S.C. §982(a)(1) focuses on money-laundering-related property, making unified arithmetic difficult to review when these standards differ. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qf8753f0b936ce5f890ff","summary_en":"roy*** argues that gross inflows are only an evidentiary measure and the record must connect those totals to how much satisfies personal-proceeds and money-laundering predicates, otherwise double counting risks and harmless-error review objections remain open. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Execution focus shifts to uncollected balances and credit allocation on substitute assets","description":"Members contend enforcement disputes center on whether recovered amounts and remaining balances are tracked with substitution logic, since judgments can remain dynamic after seizures, credits, or reductions. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q80217b502cc97428e5d7","qa06ca3ff3be113d82820","qc80b2df7d7f62c2f7e17"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q80217b502cc97428e5d7","summary_en":"roy*** argues the practical issue is how Wang’s 1.4B, trial 1.3B accounting, and Guo’s 889M outcomes relate to actual collected versus uncollected balances and whether substitute-asset enforcement can be recalibrated with proper credits. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qa06ca3ff3be113d82820","summary_en":"roy*** claims enforcement must prevent duplicate recovery on one laundering corpus, ensure co-defendant reductions flow through joint-and-several scopes, and confirm which specific-property seizures apply to which defendant. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qc80b2df7d7f62c2f7e17","summary_en":"roy*** translates Robert’s concern into a legal question: when joint-and-several laundering property is reduced for one defendant or specific property is recovered, he says the other defendant’s outstanding amount should be adjusted by a defined method. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Rule 32.2 and harmless error arguments against undisaggregated amounts","description":"roy*** and others argue that undisclosed allocation between personally obtained proceeds and laundering property can make appellate review under Rule 32.2 and harmless-error analysis too indeterminate to uphold a single money-judgment sum. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","q509e388c34aca351ea2b","q01aee57f5e613a922809"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","summary_en":"roy*** argues that if an aggregate includes both personal-proceeds and laundering components, Rule 32.2 scrutiny becomes difficult because each part is governed differently, so harmless-error arguments may not stand without allocation. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q509e388c34aca351ea2b","summary_en":"roy*** says the court order shows gross inflows and joint-and-several overlap language without a separate laundering-component count, creating a disputed bridge problem for appellate review. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q01aee57f5e613a922809","summary_en":"roy*** contends that without separating what is personal proceeds from laundering-involved property, courts and appellants cannot easily test which component would control any identified error’s effect on the final amount. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Bankruptcy and forfeiture-order boundaries: 5739/5777/5782 are not substantive merits rulings","description":"The community argues that bankruptcy documents 5739, 5777, and related filings are being treated as process signals, not as automatic merits adjudications on criminal ownership or final forfeiture amounts. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q60a83c8faf683378c719","qa128403d2feffda32534","q22948ffc88549928697b"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q60a83c8faf683378c719","summary_en":"roy*** reports that Dkt.5777 added carve-out paragraphs and preserved, under SDNY 23-cr-118, a possible future right of Ho Wan Kwok to seek reduction of forfeiture valuation from surviving estate value, indicating a rights-preservation posture rather than direct merits change. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qa128403d2feffda32534","summary_en":"roy*** argues 5777 confirms settlement approval does not erase third-party rights or forfeiture-credit arguments in the criminal case, while clarifying the order should not be interpreted as deciding all §853(n) or §1963(l) property claims on the merits. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q22948ffc88549928697b","summary_en":"roy*** says the current framing still bundles gross inflows, personally obtained proceeds, and property involved in laundering into one 889 million figure without clearly showing the legal and arithmetic bridge between them. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Dkt and evidence paths are used to verify GTV Fair Fund refunds and freeze outcomes","description":"Participants ask for source-checking rather than conclusions, requesting dockets and filings to validate whether GTV refund and freeze funds are moving through the Fair Fund channels as claimed. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q9b5c1c1c1d1550a441a3","q6029ec730c2f947d6884","q94aeae2977e8a11a96b0"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q9b5c1c1c1d1550a441a3","summary_en":"ntp*** asks whether the source of the GTV refund stream and the Fair Fund origin has been verified, indicating uncertainty about how returns are being routed. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q6029ec730c2f947d6884","summary_en":"roy*** questions whether refunds are actually imminent, requesting confirmation before assuming distributions are about to be made. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q94aeae2977e8a11a96b0","summary_en":"roy*** suggests confirming the refund and freeze-trace details with Alliance directly before treating reported payment expectations as settled. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"G Club and ACA alter-ego argument centers on continuity of control and entity separation","description":"roy*** and others dispute that G Club/ACA alter-ego status is finally decided, and argue that control and ownership assumptions should remain tied to specific rulings from Adv. Proc. 24-5249 and related objections. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q1d184d281d76f611d414","q9b6b0ed934d791ebd16b","qf380e9e79e2952c90fb8"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q1d184d281d76f611d414","summary_en":"roy*** argues Taurus/Mahwah findings and G Club/ACA claims remain procedurally distinct and that, as of now, alter-ego allegations against G Club/ACA in Adv. Proc. 24-5249 are still contested and not finally adjudicated. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q9b6b0ed934d791ebd16b","summary_en":"kir*** asks if Dkt.5747 acknowledged alter-ego, highlighting disagreement over whether claim filing status should be treated as endorsement of any ownership framework. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qf380e9e79e2952c90fb8","summary_en":"roy*** says 5747 and 5769 preserve defenses and do not make a final alter-ego determination; he contends they only prevent 5739 from pre-determining G Club-related rights claims and defenses. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Victim framework clashes: CVRA, fraud, and national-security narratives in rights claims","description":"Participants claim the victim status narrative is disputed, with CVRA framing, fraud allegations, and national-security themes overlapping in ways that may undercut a stable claimant baseline. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qa1378c9957c2643761e9","q499590f6c31ebf9ea3c5","q6ea5542bf825750ab219"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qa1378c9957c2643761e9","summary_en":"reb*** requests analysis of the issue, signaling a request to reassess whether the victim-based framing in related claims is legally coherent. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q499590f6c31ebf9ea3c5","summary_en":"kir*** claims the government is adopting inconsistent victim rhetoric, describing it as self-undermining, and disputes reliance on a single victim narrative. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q6ea5542bf825750ab219","summary_en":"kir*** argues that once the competing narratives are framed as a “pseudo proposition,” the victim framing is not stable enough for item-by-item tracing as a default baseline. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Identity and representation are being verified before drawing conclusions on agency and claims","description":"Members argue that authority mapping around Geyer, G Club counsel, and related filings should be evidence-based, since representation has shifted across firms and entities and must be traced before drawing conclusions about agency or ownership control. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qfeaedf1099e9b1161ef3","qf71caa6d425cc3869ad5","q5957821ce436f4015b5b"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qfeaedf1099e9b1161ef3","summary_en":"sar*** summarizes a timeline in which Bradford L. Geyer moved from independent third-party representation to stronger entanglement with Remission/Victim processes, citing multiple docket points such as ECF 526-1, 740, 184, 186, 223, 478, 493, 506, 612, 676, 508, 709, and 734. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qf71caa6d425cc3869ad5","summary_en":"kir*** asks to verify who represented whom, reflecting a dispute that representation identity should be checked by client and entity mapping rather than assumed. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q5957821ce436f4015b5b","summary_en":"roy*** reports multiple attorneys and firms representing different G Club-related entities over time, including transfer-authorization and privilege questions, and argues this fragmentation requires a verified chain of instruction before inferring who controlled filings or assets. Community statements, not court findings."}]}],"summary":"讨论核心聚焦没收金额口径与责任归属。围绕王律师认罪书与审计数据，成员反复追问“1.4亿缺口”与13亿、8.89亿减减逻辑的对应关系，分歧在于是否应把共同责任与个人可得收益、洗钱涉财产彻底分离。另一路聚焦GTV范围：含SEC追缴、出售股份回款是否可算进个人犯罪所得。二巡法理又引入Tanner/Elias、Honeycutt延展及Rule32.2争议，认为混合金额直接类推会影响harmless error判断。程序层面并行讨论5739、5777、5782等破产与强制令文件能否触及产权归属，及第三方权利、未收款与替代资产的执行分配；另有G Club/ACA alter-ego、控制权时间窗与受害人/债权人身份是否混同的问题持续未决。","guide":[{"title":"认罪书与审计口径不一致引发“1.4亿缺口”质询","message_ids":["q3cb14f23a83c10123656","q759c29e49f2dbda2c024","qecf9db2881a0ac29af62"]},{"title":"13亿到8.89亿的变动未被视为简单分账问题","message_ids":["q509e388c34aca351ea2b","qa06ca3ff3be113d82820","qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710"]},{"title":"GTV口径是否含SEC追缴与股份处置回款","message_ids":["q3cb14f23a83c10123656","q509e388c34aca351ea2b","qecf9db2881a0ac29af62"]},{"title":"核心法理分歧：proceeds需个人实际取得 vs money laundering财产涉案","message_ids":["qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","q01aee57f5e613a922809","qf8753f0b936ce5f890ff"]},{"title":"执行阶段重点转到uncollected amount与替代资产的credits分配","message_ids":["q80217b502cc97428e5d7","qa06ca3ff3be113d82820","qc80b2df7d7f62c2f7e17"]},{"title":"规则衔接争点：Rule 32.2与harmless error下金额混合后难判损害","message_ids":["qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","q509e388c34aca351ea2b","q01aee57f5e613a922809"]},{"title":"破产程序与没收命令的边界：5739/5777/5782并不等于实体裁决","message_ids":["q60a83c8faf683378c719","qa128403d2feffda32534","q22948ffc88549928697b"]},{"title":"Dkt与证据路径被用于核验GTV公平基金退款与冻结去向","message_ids":["q9b5c1c1c1d1550a441a3","q6029ec730c2f947d6884","q94aeae2977e8a11a96b0"]},{"title":"G Club与ACA alter-ego争论集中于控制连续性与实体独立性","message_ids":["q1d184d281d76f611d414","q9b6b0ed934d791ebd16b","qf380e9e79e2952c90fb8"]},{"title":"受害人身份框架冲突：CVRA、诈骗与国安叙事交织影响权利主张","message_ids":["qa1378c9957c2643761e9","q499590f6c31ebf9ea3c5","q6ea5542bf825750ab219"]},{"title":"身份与代理关系持续被核验，成员强调“核查诉讼链”而非先行定罪结论","message_ids":["qfeaedf1099e9b1161ef3","qf71caa6d425cc3869ad5","q5957821ce436f4015b5b"]}],"closed":true,"is_finalized":true,"updated_at":"2026-09-06T19:36:45.646Z","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-000152/pages/2","base_batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-batches/batch-000152?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-000152","messages":[{"id":"q83793c2c234b473934d8","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":201,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T02:53:41.270Z","text":"检方 luc 两届联盟，都是往没收forfeiture上去套","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q83793c2c234b473934d8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q884b5475b232524a8ecb","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":202,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T02:54:14.978Z","text":"CVRA上去，就是搅局","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q884b5475b232524a8ecb","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q9cabd05a1cda96ada1d9","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":203,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-27T02:54:22.732Z","text":"👇 Gclub在破产法庭反对luc分钱的文件 [删节：成员身份]，主要是说gclub的钱和郭没有任何关系。 有gclub的战友，你们看着办吧。","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9cabd05a1cda96ada1d9","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q22948ffc88549928697b","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":204,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T02:55:32.321Z","text":"法院把gross inflows、personally obtained proceeds和money-laundering property involved三个不同概念压缩成了同一个$889m，却没有清楚展示从第一个概念跨越到后两个法定标准的事实和计算桥梁。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q22948ffc88549928697b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qf8753f0b936ce5f890ff","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":205,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T02:57:39.850Z","text":"还有一个我刚刚重新看到、非常重要的小细节。\nTorres在858脚注里明确知道郭方曾提出过项目之间可能double-count的问题，例如HEX资金可能后来被拿去买G Club会员；但是法院说郭没有拿出证据证明实际发生，而且这一点没有在forfeiture objections阶段正确提出，因此没有继续处理。Docket Alarm\n这意味着目前至少存在两种完全不同的“double counting”问题：\n第一种：项目内部资金流重复计算。\n比如一笔钱：\n投资者 → HEX → 再购买G Club。\n如果GXZ26把HEX inflow算一次，又把G Club inflow再算一次，那么经济上同一笔本金可能被算了两遍。\n第二种：法律理论重叠。\n同一100万美元既是fraud proceeds，又是laundering involved property。\n第二种本身未必错误，因为最终money judgment可以只算一次。\n但第一种如果真的存在，就是金额计算错误。\n这两个绝不能混。\n现在我觉得我们可以把889m审计分成“四张账”\n账一：项目收入账\nFarm Loan gross inflow = ?\nG Clubs gross inflow = ?\nHEX gross inflow = ?\n合计 = 889m？\n这是GXZ26最擅长证明的。\n账二：个人取得账\n每个项目中：\nGuo directly obtained = ?\nGuo indirectly obtained / controlled = ?\n其他实体/第三方独立取得 = ?\n然后才能得到：\nTotal personally obtained = ?\n账三：洗钱交易账\n每个项目中：\n进入Count Three laundering transaction的金额 = ?\n仅属于原始募资、没有进入洗钱交易的金额 = ?\ntraceable involved property = ?\n然后得到：\nTotal §982(a)(1) amount = ?\n账四：重叠账\nA = personally obtained proceeds\nB = laundering involved property\n最后算：\nA only\nB only\nA∩B\nNeither\n最终money judgment原则上不能因为A∩B被算两次而膨胀。\n我现在甚至觉得有一个比我们之前更准确的上诉问题可以这样概括：\nThe district court identified approximately $889 million in gross cash inflows, but gross inflows are an evidentiary measure, not themselves a statutory forfeiture category. The court was still required to connect that aggregate figure to the distinct statutory predicates governing personally obtained proceeds and property involved in money laundering.\n\n中文就是：\n“889m gross inflows只是一个证据统计口径，不是法定没收类别。法院仍然必须说明，这个统计数字如何满足‘郭个人取得的收益’或者‘洗钱涉案财产’这两套不同的法定标准。”\n\n这句话我认为现在已经非常接近真正能拿去打二巡的核心问题。\n而且还有一个对郭有利的新变化：Elias是2025年10月8日二巡判的，而858是2026年6月29日。 也就是说，Torres作出858时，Elias已经是二巡约束性先例；但858讨论Honeycutt时引用的是Rajaratnam等旧材料，我在858正文里没有找到她讨论 Elias。这点非常值得专门核查，因为如果郭的objection已经把personal acquisition问题保留下来，那么这就不只是“后来法律变化”，而可能是地院没有正面应用当时已经生效的控制性二巡先例。Docket Alarm\n这条我建议我们下一步重点打。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf8753f0b936ce5f890ff","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q97ea2c4d690f545de767","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":206,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-27T02:58:00.327Z","text":"Gclub在破产法庭反对luc分钱的文件主要是说gclub的钱和郭没有任何关系。 想保护gclub的钱的，不想被luc分钱的，破产庭和刑事庭都可以找律师或者自诉。[删节：成员身份]","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q97ea2c4d690f545de767","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q3ea7e2f89dc68010f6ba","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":207,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T02:58:23.283Z","text":"［用户 him***］ 你麻痹，又是要钱\n前提是没收，你舍不得没收，对吧","edited":true,"reply_to":"q97ea2c4d690f545de767","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3ea7e2f89dc68010f6ba","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q97ea2c4d690f545de767","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qbff6e5f6429b8e335251","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":208,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T03:00:47.892Z","text":"几个项目投资资金重叠，检方想一刀切，都算涉案资金\n然后以投资结构混乱，受害人多，数千\n这样才有理由没收forfeiture","edited":false,"reply_to":"qf8753f0b936ce5f890ff","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbff6e5f6429b8e335251","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf8753f0b936ce5f890ff","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q6bac4af37d91dd842745","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":209,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T03:03:06.594Z","text":"帐如果弄清楚了，像GTV那样的，那么就是直接赔偿testitution，从哪来，回哪里","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6bac4af37d91dd842745","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q314f6c807b89e7ed0220","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":210,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T03:03:38.417Z","text":"［用户 him***］ 如水是不是很重要，你担心她被抓？","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q314f6c807b89e7ed0220","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q04e6bafd8fcca7dc9ef6","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":211,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-27T03:22:35.278Z","text":"https://x.com/Haier918/status/2092814956718600273","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q04e6bafd8fcca7dc9ef6","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qdf917b5af0980f13dda3","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":212,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T03:24:58.558Z","text":"［用户 kir***］ 我明白了，Gclub会员，大多数都有喜交所HID，填了授权邮件","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdf917b5af0980f13dda3","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q858a8a937017ce313b13","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":213,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T03:25:19.227Z","text":"可能不知道，自己已经被盖尔代表了","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q858a8a937017ce313b13","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q7dc36205ddcfbf43a896","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":214,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T03:27:11.739Z","text":"盖尔代理的范围，法庭文件里，不止喜交所，这些用户的Gclub farm loan流水，都在盖尔的覆盖范围","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7dc36205ddcfbf43a896","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qaf0876921f36531a99fc","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":215,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T03:58:42.929Z","text":"这个律师据说是长岛请的？","edited":false,"reply_to":"qdf917b5af0980f13dda3","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qaf0876921f36531a99fc","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdf917b5af0980f13dda3","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qd6d2986fefb5c8dff533","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":216,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:00:41.395Z","text":"不清楚，但是群发授权邮件给用户，是长岛那时候的事","edited":false,"reply_to":"qaf0876921f36531a99fc","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd6d2986fefb5c8dff533","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qaf0876921f36531a99fc","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qd8cb6299be1d4789b9e6","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":217,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:01:44.463Z","text":"然后各个农场开始推广，长岛当然知道","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd8cb6299be1d4789b9e6","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q17a6c4d94312c17925fe","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":218,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:05:45.431Z","text":"破产案这一次律师的行动 我到现在还看不出有什么大损害 甚至有利于郭","edited":false,"reply_to":"qd6d2986fefb5c8dff533","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q17a6c4d94312c17925fe","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd6d2986fefb5c8dff533","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q194fbd0a1ccb1e7acb37","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":219,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:06:14.636Z","text":"这帮人什么时候做有利于郭的事情","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q194fbd0a1ccb1e7acb37","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q5af7a7f17552a5e59709","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":220,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:06:52.308Z","text":"说明 要么我们没看清门道","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5af7a7f17552a5e59709","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qef36900976e1bd022d70","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":221,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:07:03.459Z","text":"要么他们用这次作为引子 在给下一次憋大招做准备","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qef36900976e1bd022d70","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qe167708a9b62eccba171","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":222,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:07:50.360Z","text":"检方和luc要合伙卖人","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe167708a9b62eccba171","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q536622169d496e6e1fa1","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":223,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:08:21.263Z","text":"luc不强求弄整个G系列","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q536622169d496e6e1fa1","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qd50f1ac12d196826b857","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":224,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:08:45.036Z","text":"300骨干郁闷了，自己破产案被luc追钱，又不能用债权人的身份，碰G系列","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd50f1ac12d196826b857","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qec1da2ab0db9ca0e1501","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":225,"speaker":"lon***","date":"2026-08-27T04:09:59.207Z","text":"Gclub这个根本不用参与，法院审理查明了，不犯法，他Luc想怎么收让他收去，看他有没有这个能力","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qec1da2ab0db9ca0e1501","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q1a0b72b4dc218a392b34","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":226,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:10:30.352Z","text":"Tony可以去破产案露个脸","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1a0b72b4dc218a392b34","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q74e1d63f481cff673771","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":227,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:10:38.348Z","text":"提醒一下曼宁法官","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q74e1d63f481cff673771","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qbfdb09767a1d2b4cd65c","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":228,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-27T04:13:01.086Z","text":"LUC作受托人原本就不合適，普橫律所與老郭有利益衝突。普橫在香港、上海都有律所，在中共的黨企賺了很多錢⋯⋯","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbfdb09767a1d2b4cd65c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qcab6e7c1b650754f690e","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":229,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:15:02.364Z","text":"有两项新的实质性进展，而且比上一轮的 Dkt.5782 更直接关系到 5739、G Club、第三方产权和26-1853的外围record。最重要的新结论是：8月25日听证以后，5739并没有被法院当场最终批准。 Epiq 的22-50073公开docket目前已经继续更新；法院最新calendar也显示8月26日至28日没有安排新的5739听证，说明案件现在进入的是补充书面briefing阶段。\n\nDkt.5784 — 2026年8月26日，Hearing Held，针对Dkt.5739。 这条minute/docket entry把8月25日听证后的程序状态第一次写得比较清楚：部分异议已经与Trustee解决；其中一项异议因律师未出庭、没有继续主张而被overruled；但 Dkts.5746、5747、5751、5752 的异议方实际进行了argument。Manning允许这些仍在坚持的异议方在 2026年8月28日下午5点前提交不超过10页的补充材料，Trustee可以在 9月9日下午5点前提交统一回复，之后法院再决定是否需要进一步听证。换句话说，5777 Third Revised Proposed Order目前仍然不是最终signed order，5739还活着、还没有落槌。 \n\n紧接着出现了 Dkt.5786 — 2026年8月26日，Motion to Extend Time to File Supplement to Preliminary Objection。这一份尤其值得盯，因为提出方包括 FFP (BVI) Limited、G Club Operations LLC、Ogier、Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 和 Weddle Law PLLC。他们要求把补充异议期限改成：收到8月25日听证正式transcript之后5天。这说明G Club/Pillsbury这一组没有在听证后退出，而是在主动要求先取得庭审原话，再完善书面record。\n\n这对 26-1853 的真正意义，不是“5739已经证明刑事没收错误”。还没有到那一步。更准确地说，Government–Trustee settlement的资产划分现在仍受到持续的第三方挑战，而且法院没有用8月25日听证一次性清掉这些挑战。 如果G Club等人的补充异议进一步把 Dkt.858的$889m money judgment、specific forfeitable assets、§853(n)/Rule 32.2、estate assets与forfeiture assets重叠明确放进去，那么会形成一套比5739原motion和5769 reply更加清楚的司法record。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcab6e7c1b650754f690e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q756caa7c21667980cdf1","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":230,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-27T04:15:08.421Z","text":"你说得这么轻松是因为你没有gclub吧。那些买了gclub会员的，不会希望钱被luc拿走分给杨澜他们吧。","edited":false,"reply_to":"qec1da2ab0db9ca0e1501","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q756caa7c21667980cdf1","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qec1da2ab0db9ca0e1501","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q2c0e53ef4b8368ddbf3d","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":231,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:15:16.139Z","text":"而且G Club要求等transcript这一点很有战略价值。假如8月25日庭上Government、Trustee或Manning法官对“谁拥有资产”“5739是否裁决第三方产权”“什么资产仍属于forfeitable asset”“郭是否可能获得forfeiture credit”等问题说了重要的话，正式transcript会比双方事后概括庭审内容更有价值。但也必须注意：这些2026年8月的破产材料并不会自动变成26-1853 direct appeal的一审record；它们更可能用于说明后续程序状态、支持司法注意或帮助新上诉律师发现原刑事record里应该攻击的位置，而不是直接拿破产庭的新事实补一审证据缺口。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2c0e53ef4b8368ddbf3d","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qa5e66ddcda8430f7f501","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":232,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:15:43.240Z","text":"https://dm.epiq11.com/case/kwoktrustee/dockets","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa5e66ddcda8430f7f501","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qab9d7a904916a1c4001d","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":233,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:15:47.684Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 有没有可能是这样 用债权人可以拿刑事案钱 一开始就是 [删节：隐私信息] 的主子画的大饼","edited":true,"reply_to":"qd50f1ac12d196826b857","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qab9d7a904916a1c4001d","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd50f1ac12d196826b857","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q7b6f3db84eac9666139f","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":234,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:16:25.505Z","text":"根本就不可能的","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7b6f3db84eac9666139f","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qccf023961617d2d990d5","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":235,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:17:15.730Z","text":"Qmay直播说了，破产案从刑事案拿钱","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qccf023961617d2d990d5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q97f63acb8aafecbeaa26","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":236,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:18:00.315Z","text":"luc现在撤了，300骨干傻眼","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q97f63acb8aafecbeaa26","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qbaabb90e71cd7bc4ee6e","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":237,"speaker":"mia***","date":"2026-08-27T04:18:23.256Z","text":"钱不是投资者的吗，怎么都变成郭的了","edited":false,"reply_to":"qccf023961617d2d990d5","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbaabb90e71cd7bc4ee6e","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qccf023961617d2d990d5","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q6fcbca05f7d93fc8154c","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":238,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:25:57.204Z","text":"alter  ego啊\n集团涉案金额，都算到被告头上","edited":false,"reply_to":"qbaabb90e71cd7bc4ee6e","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6fcbca05f7d93fc8154c","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbaabb90e71cd7bc4ee6e","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q796ee27ea9dad832f1b6","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":239,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:28:44.594Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 安小东，你麻痹，刑事案gclub还没有捋清楚，破产案就忙着分钱？","edited":true,"reply_to":"q756caa7c21667980cdf1","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q796ee27ea9dad832f1b6","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q756caa7c21667980cdf1","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q55bc292712f3e1a51ce4","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":240,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-27T04:30:38.941Z","text":"買了Gclubs的，是不是都可以去Luc那登記分錢🤭","edited":false,"reply_to":"q796ee27ea9dad832f1b6","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q55bc292712f3e1a51ce4","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q796ee27ea9dad832f1b6","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q13f42f56c358f321d18a","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":241,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-27T04:31:40.968Z","text":"之前在luc哪儿登记债权人的，不都被733打成虚假登记了吗","edited":false,"reply_to":"q55bc292712f3e1a51ce4","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q13f42f56c358f321d18a","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q55bc292712f3e1a51ce4","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q20c63c16db49ec48ef6c","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":242,"speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-27T04:31:59.171Z","text":"现在还有人敢去登记虚假债权人吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q20c63c16db49ec48ef6c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q3f48c874e4f9b73d2f5f","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":243,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:33:42.173Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 别闹了，没收没了，luc白忙活","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3f48c874e4f9b73d2f5f","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qafd38ca3bd24a4d90f25","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":244,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:34:25.684Z","text":"300骨干忙了那么多年，骨头汤都喝不到一口，最后还要被luc追债","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qafd38ca3bd24a4d90f25","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q99f7756ee53cd6be5e5e","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":245,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:41:30.801Z","text":"Gclub就是一俱乐部，缴的会费在ACA capital，是余管理\nluc诉Gclub是郭的alter ego，要拿走Gclub的钱\n你去问luc要钱，前提不就是承认上诉的alter ego成立？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q55bc292712f3e1a51ce4","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q99f7756ee53cd6be5e5e","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q55bc292712f3e1a51ce4","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q2d739337ad71526d7e30","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":246,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:42:43.820Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 安小东这样回答你，是憋着坏\n这和是不是虚假登记，无关","edited":true,"reply_to":"q13f42f56c358f321d18a","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2d739337ad71526d7e30","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q13f42f56c358f321d18a","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q33d50e24fa5a8bf762e2","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":247,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:44:45.965Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 最初在luc登记债权人的，大多数是300骨干，那时候，就是为以后刑事案alter ego做准备的\n随后刑事案立案，3版起诉书直接称呼是郭集团，涉案资金，通过alter ego，可以算到郭头上，这样破产案luc，就可以进刑事案，接触到G系列投资","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q33d50e24fa5a8bf762e2","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q3dd0e152bf3e323ae3cd","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":248,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:46:01.478Z","text":"所以你的直觉我会这样压成一句最准确的话：\n\n普通G Club会员向Luc提出“保护性债权”并不自动承认alter ego；但如果领取或主张分配的法律基础明确建立在“G Club/ACA资产就是郭的alter-ego estate property”之上，而没有保留独立产权/第三方权利，那么确实会产生严重的立场冲突，并可能被Luc或政府用来反驳其以后否认alter ego的主张。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q99f7756ee53cd6be5e5e","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3dd0e152bf3e323ae3cd","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q99f7756ee53cd6be5e5e","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qb5d946a76e5990dd4b4f","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":249,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T04:47:05.919Z","text":"［用户 roy***］  那看看最近那个破产案文件是否否认了alter ego","edited":true,"reply_to":"q3dd0e152bf3e323ae3cd","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb5d946a76e5990dd4b4f","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3dd0e152bf3e323ae3cd","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q7675171500a2406918f5","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":250,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:47:05.932Z","text":"对，你抓到的是一个很重要的“身份/立场张力”，但法律上要说得稍微精确一点：\n\n去向 Luc/Trustee 申报“我要拿 G Club 里的钱”，不一定等于法律上承认“郭的 alter ego 理论最终成立”；但如果你是按照 Trustee 的分配框架，以“郭的破产债权人/受害者”身份去拿那笔钱，那么在实践上，你确实是在利用一个以 estate control / alter-ego recovery 为前提的体系。\n\nLuc 在 24-ap-5249 里起诉的理论非常明确：他不是简单说“G Club欠郭钱”，而是主张 G Club International、G Club Operations以及ACA Capital等一批实体只是郭的 façade/alter egos，它们的business和assets实质上就是郭的business/assets。Manning在2025年4月23日拒绝G Club一方的motion to dismiss时，也是按这个pleading来看的。\n\n这点和你说的结构是对得上的：G Club会员交的钱并不是直接进郭个人账户；ACA Capital本身还是Luc alter-ego诉讼中的被告。 也就是说，Luc之所以能够主张去碰这些公司/账户的钱，本身依赖的是：\n\nG Club/ACA等不是一个真正独立于郭的第三方财产体系，而是郭控制、受益或实际拥有的alter-ego体系，因此其资产能够进入郭的bankruptcy estate。\n\n而G Club现在恰恰一直在反对这一点。2026年1月8日Dooley处理的上诉就是 ACA Capital Group Ltd. et al. v. Luc Despins，其中明确包括 G Club International和G Club Operations；他们试图立即上诉Manning拒绝驳回Luc alter-ego action的裁定，但Dooley因为interlocutory posture拒绝给予leave to appeal。也就是说，24-ap-5249的alter-ego merits目前并没有因为那次上诉被最终判定为成立；案件还在走。\n\n所以这里要特别区分两种完全不同的话。\n\n如果一个G Club会员说：\n\n“这是我交给G Club的membership money，我认为它从来不是郭的财产，也不应该成为郭的bankruptcy estate；我只是要求返还我对这笔特定财产拥有的权利。”\n\n这不等于承认alter ego。事实上，这种立场甚至可能正面冲突Luc的理论：你是在说“钱属于G Club/会员/第三方，而不是郭的estate”。\n\n但如果一个人说：\n\n“Luc已经把G Club的钱追回郭的bankruptcy estate了，我作为郭的creditor，请从estate给我分一份。”\n\n这就产生你说的那个问题。\n\n它不一定构成严格意义上的 judicial admission / estoppel，因为proof of claim、remission claim、settlement distribution有时可以作alternative or protective claims，法律允许一个人说：\n\n“我主要认为钱根本不是estate property；但如果法院最终认定它属于estate，我保留作为creditor参与分配的权利。”\n\n这种写法可以避免自动放弃产权主张。\n\n真正危险的是没有保留这一层。\n\n假如一个G Club投资人完全接受Luc的框架：\n\nG Club money → 郭alter ego资产 → 郭estate property → 我只是普通无担保债权人 → 请Luc分给我。\n\n那么之后再回来说：\n\n“G Club本来就是独立俱乐部，会员费不是郭的钱，Luc没有权把它纳入estate。”\n\n政府和Trustee当然会拿前面的claim来攻击后面的立场一致性。未必达到judicial estoppel门槛，但至少会形成很难看的 party admission / inconsistent position / standing / equitable argument。\n\n而这里还有一个非常重要的事实支持你的观察：Luc的诉讼并不是已经“赢了G Club alter ego”。截至我们现在核到的公开record，Manning只是拒绝了G Club的motion to dismiss。那意味着Luc的allegations在pleading stage足以继续，并不等于法院经过trial或summary judgment已经最终裁定：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7675171500a2406918f5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q46f5ce04f7dae2045362","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":251,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:47:17.335Z","text":"G Club就是郭的alter ego。\n\nDooley在2026年1月8日拒绝的也是interlocutory appeal leave，同样没有判alter-ego merits。\n\n所以这反而给我们正在做的26-1853/5739证据链增加了一个很值得核的点：\n\nLuc现在有没有在5739或其他distribution/remission框架中，把“尚在争议中的G Club/ACA alter-ego property”当成已经确定属于estate或者已经可以和政府分配的资产？\n\n这和你刚才的问题其实是一条线。\n\n如果答案是有，那么就会出现一个很尖锐的程序问题：\n\n24-ap-5249里Luc还在请求法院判G Club/ACA是alter egos；另一方面，他是否已经在其他程序里基于同一个尚未最终判决的产权前提，安排资产归属、settlement或债权人领取？\n\n这个比单纯说“去找Luc拿钱就是认罪”要严谨，也要强得多。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q46f5ce04f7dae2045362","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q1d184d281d76f611d414","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":252,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:47:53.880Z","text":"我核下来，最近那份破产案相关文件并没有否认 G Club/ACA 的 alter ego 理论。恰恰相反，目前公开记录显示：G Club/ACA 的 alter ego 争议仍然活着，但还没有最终实体判决。\n\n最容易混淆的是两组案子：\n\n第一组是 Taurus / Mahwah。2026年8月20日 Dooley 的新判决，明确 affirm 了 Manning 的summary judgment，认定 Taurus Fund 是郭的 alter ego，Mahwah等资产属于estate。这个判决不是G Club案，但它对Luc的总体alter-ego路线是明显有利的，不是否定。\n\n第二组才是你说的 G Club / ACA Capital，也就是 Adv. Proc. 24-5249。Luc在那里明确起诉 ACA Capital Group、G Club International、G Club Operations 等实体，主张它们是郭的alter ego和/或郭实际beneficially owned的实体，要求把相应资产交给estate。2025年4月23日，Manning只是认定Luc的起诉已经plausibly alleged G Club的alter ego/beneficial ownership，因此拒绝G Club的motion to dismiss。\n\n随后G Club和ACA等去District Court要求立即上诉。Dooley在2026年1月8日拒绝的是interlocutory appeal，不是判Luc赢了alter ego。 所以截至这一步，正确状态仍然是：\n\nLuc说G Club/ACA是郭的alter ego。\nG Club/ACA否认。\nManning允许Luc继续打这个案子。\n但目前我没有查到法院已经最终判“G Club/ACA就是郭的alter ego”。\n\nDooley那份1月8日判决甚至很清楚地记录：G Club defendants的motion to dismiss就是在攻击Luc根据Puerto Rico law提出的alter ego、以及根据English law提出的beneficial ownership；Bankruptcy Court只是认为这些 allegations 足够“plausible”，不是经过证据审判后的最终事实认定。\n\n而且Luc自己2026年3月的案件presentation仍然把G Club、Himalaya Exchange、Hamilton等列为**“Pending Alter Ego Actions”**，并说这些案件正在继续走程序。这一点反而很关键：连Trustee自己的公开材料都没有把G Club alter ego写成已经最终裁判成立。\n\n所以，你前面提出的那个逻辑问题现在更尖锐了：\n\n如果Luc现在让G Club会员来estate体系里“申报钱、从Luc这里拿钱”，到底依据什么产权前提？\n\n如果只是说：\n\n“你可以先保护性提交claim，如果最终G Club/ACA被判属于estate，再参与分配。”\n\n那法律上还能解释，不等于会员已经承认alter ego。\n\n但如果实际框架是：\n\nG Club的钱已经属于郭的estate → Luc控制这些钱 → G Club会员作为郭的creditor来找Luc领取，\n\n那就确实值得追问，因为24-5249本身的G Club/ACA alter-ego merits还没有最终判完。\n\n也就是说，现在不能说：\n\n“最近文件否认了alter ego。”\n\n更准确的是：\n\n最近文件没有否认G Club alter ego，但也没有最终确认G Club alter ego成立；这一核心产权问题仍在24-5249里争议。与此同时，Luc是否已经在5739或其他分配机制中按类似alter-ego成立后的结果来安排G Club相关资产，这才是目前真正值得深挖的矛盾。\n\n还有一点对你这个问题很重要：8月20日那份新判决只把Taurus/Mahwah的alter ego判死了，不能把它偷换成“所以G Club/ACA也已经是郭alter ego”。 两个adversary proceeding不同、被告不同、证据也不同。\n\n下一刀应该直接去看 5739、5777以及G Club在5751/5752或后续supplement里到底怎么描述ACA/G Club资金所有权。如果G Club自己在最近异议里明确说这些钱不是estate property，或者Luc在5739里承认24-5249产权尚未裁定，那就能把你现在发现的这个矛盾固定到原始record里。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1d184d281d76f611d414","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q67bd77d7aca2b7da819e","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":253,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T04:48:00.028Z","text":"［用户 roy***］ 这段能不能加进去，分析下？","edited":true,"reply_to":"q33d50e24fa5a8bf762e2","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q67bd77d7aca2b7da819e","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q33d50e24fa5a8bf762e2","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q09d4af2c93762254edb3","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":254,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:49:21.365Z","text":"你这个第1条，现在可以作为一条“可检验的整体理论”继续往下挖，但目前还不能把“最初登记债权就是为了以后刑事案alter ego”写成已经证实的事实。 我刚核到的时间线，确实出现了几个非常值得你注意的衔接点。\n\n最早一层是：Luc 2022年7月8日被任命为Chapter 11 Trustee；到2022年12月，他已经主动推动建立大规模proof-of-claim机制，而且特别要求允许个人债权人匿名/保密申报。 Dkt.1191明确说，Luc担心个人债权人因为害怕郭及其关联组织“retaliation”而不敢申报，因此要求允许不公开姓名和联系方式。随后法院设定的主要bar date是 2023年2月17日。\n\n这说明一个客观事实：\n\n在刑事案23-cr-118公开立案以前，破产案已经开始建立一个相当系统的“个人债权人/潜在受害者”数据库。\n\n而刑事案公开时间是在 2023年3月15日郭被捕；3月29日政府提交S1 superseding indictment，把郭、William Je和Yvette Wang放进同一个大约10亿美元fraud conspiracy框架。\n\n所以时间顺序确实是：\n\nLuc建立claims体系 → 大量个人claim进入破产record → 数周后刑事案公开立案。\n\n这一点成立。\n\n但“300骨干”这个具体数字，我目前没有找到可靠原始记录证明最初那300个claimants就是所谓300骨干成员。我查到的“approximately 300”主要出现在后来2024年以后Luc提起的约300个fraudulent-transfer adversary proceedings，不是最初债权人人数。\n\n所以这一块以后要特别注意，不能把两个“300”混在一起。真正要证明你的理论，应该去拿2023年2月17日bar date前后的完整claims register，然后逐个识别：\n\n谁是GTV/Farm/G Club/Himalaya投资人；\n谁本来只是普通商业债权人；\n谁后来又成为刑事案victim/remission claimant；\n谁与联盟组织有关系。\n\n如果出现高度重合，那才是真正有力。\n\n第二层，你说“随后刑事案把相关组织归成郭控制的集团，再把钱算到郭身上”，这个方向确实和后来的政府理论有相当大重合，但这里也要区分RICO enterprise和民事意义上的alter ego。\n\n刑事案并不是简单应用破产法上的alter-ego doctrine，说：\n\n“公司是郭的alter ego，所以公司所有犯罪金额自动都是郭的。”\n\n刑事政府的结构更接近：\n\n郭领导一个enterprise / conspiracy → Farm、G Club、HEX等实体和人员被纳入enterprise活动 → 郭benefitted from / exercised control → 项目所得被归到racketeering/fraud/money-laundering体系。\n\n这也是为什么我们之前发现Dkt.858最值得攻击的地方，恰恰不是“完全没有control evidence”，而是：\n\n从enterprise/control evidence跳到三个项目全部gross inflows = 郭个人$889m forfeiture liability，中间是否缺少statutory bridge。\n\n所以“alter ego”在破产案和刑事案里虽然形成了事实上的互相强化，但它们不是完全相同的法律测试。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q09d4af2c93762254edb3","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qadb18d8f1fe545340f2e","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":255,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T04:49:28.230Z","text":"不过你后半句话——“这样Luc就可以进入刑事案，接触G系列投资”——现在确实有一个非常重要的新支撑。\n\n2025年4月23日Manning处理Luc针对 G Club Operations、G Club International、ACA Capital等的案件时，法院直接记录了双方争议：\n\nG Club方面说Luc实际上是在拿：\n\nG Club自己的conversion claims，以及郭刑事案受害者的fraud claims\n\n来包装成所谓general creditor alter-ego claim。\n\n而Luc则说，他追的是所有债权人共有的general alter-ego claim。Manning最终在motion-to-dismiss阶段接受了Luc的standing理论，没有把complaint改写成“G Club投资人自己的诈骗索赔”。\n\n这段特别重要。\n\n因为它说明你现在怀疑的那个“接口”并不是我们凭空想出来的——G Club被告自己已经正式向破产法院提出过：Luc的alter-ego诉讼实质上是不是在占用G Club和刑事诈骗受害者的particularized claims？\n\n法院当时没有接受这个characterization，但这个争议已经正式进入record。\n\n所以你现在这个理论，我会分成三个强度：\n\nA：已经能证明。\n2022年底Luc先建立了个人creditor claim体系；2023年3月刑事案随后公开；以后Luc又通过alter-ego litigation追到G Club/ACA/Himalaya等非债务人实体。\nB：有明显结构性支持，但仍需继续证明。\n破产案“alter ego/general creditor”理论和刑事案“enterprise/control/fraud proceeds”理论后来确实高度重叠，并且使Trustee能够围绕G Club、ACA、HEX等资产主张权利。\nC：目前不能直接下结论。\n“2022年让300骨干登记债权，从第一天就是为以后刑事案alter ego和受害者框架预先布局。”\n这是intent/coordination theory，目前还缺内部邮件、DOJ-Truste communications、claimant recruitment instructions或者异常时间线证据。\n\n真正有突破性的证据不会是再找一句“Luc说郭控制G Club”，而是找到下面这种东西：\n\n2022年刑案尚未公开以前，Luc/Paul Hastings已经在内部或对claimants使用G Club、Farm、HEX、victim、DOJ、forfeiture、remission之类的语言；\n\n或者：\n\nDOJ在正式起诉以前已经从Trustee取得claims register、claimant identities或G系列投资资料；\n\n再或者：\n\n后来trial里的某些victim名单/金额实际上可以追溯到2022–23年破产claim submissions，而政府没有独立验证。\n\n那才可能把你现在的“事后看起来衔接得很顺”升级成真正的pre-coordination / tainted evidence pipeline问题。\n\n而且还有一个你这条理论里非常值得继续追的矛盾：Luc一方面说G Club/ACA是郭的alter ego，所以其资产应归estate；另一方面，G Club被告已经明确主张这些其实是G Club及刑事受害者自己的particularized claims。 Manning目前只是允许Luc继续诉，并没有最终判G Club alter ego成立。\n\n所以真正的尖锐问题可以压成一句：\n\n在G Club alter-ego merits尚未最终裁判之前，破产creditor身份、刑事victim身份和G Club member/property claimant身份，是不是被逐渐合并成了一个由Trustee/DOJ共同控制的“受害者—债权人”池？如果是，这种身份转换后来是否反过来成为RICO、loss、forfeiture和remission的证据基础？\n\n这一刀，我认为比直接说“他们早就设计好了”更容易在26-1853里站住。\n\n你刚才写了“2.”，看起来第二条还没发完整。你继续把第2条发出来，我会沿着同一条时间线接着拆。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qadb18d8f1fe545340f2e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q64264836e64e3f34b9cf","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":256,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T05:00:07.193Z","text":"ACA capital一直没有动，manager是余建民，这和gclub公司是鲜明的对比","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q64264836e64e3f34b9cf","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q9b6b0ed934d791ebd16b","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":257,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:01:07.664Z","text":"［用户 roy***］ 你问问5747 有没有承认alter ego框架","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9b6b0ed934d791ebd16b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q089ef1aaa8bc67ebb0b8","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":258,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:01:15.762Z","text":"对，这个区别非常值得抓住。如果你说的事实能被原始记录坐实——ACA Capital 的账户一直存在、manager 一直是余建民，管理关系和账户控制没有像 G Club 公司那样被重新包装或频繁变化——那它确实会对 Luc 的“一揽子 alter ego”理论形成一个很具体的压力点。\n\n我刚核到的法院文件至少确认了一件事：Luc 在 24-ap-5249 里并不是只告 G Club，而是把 ACA Capital、G Club International、G Club Operations、Hamilton、HEX 一批实体一起放进同一个大的 alter-ego / beneficial ownership诉讼里，主张这些实体及其资产应进入郭的estate。Manning 2025年4月23日只是拒绝了这些被告的motion to dismiss；Dooley 2026年1月8日又只是拒绝interlocutory appeal。也就是说，ACA Capital和G Club目前都只是“被Luc指控为alter ego”，并没有因为这两份裁定就最终判定成立。\n\n而且到 2025年9月8日 的后续破产文件里，法院文件仍然把 G Club International、G Club Operations、HEX几家公司、ACA Capital、Hamilton等称为 Specified Alter Ego Defendants，允许相关被告继续争议Trustee的alter-ego claims。这再次说明，截至那时这些还是待裁的claims，而不是已确认事实。\n\n你指出的“鲜明对比”真正有价值的地方，是 alter ego不能只靠名字放在同一张组织图里就成立。通常必须看实际控制事实，例如谁是director/manager、谁签银行指令、谁能调钱、公司有没有独立账簿、独立决策、正常公司手续、资本结构，以及郭是否把公司当个人钱包使用。\n\n所以如果ACA Capital的真实记录是：\n\n余建民长期是manager → ACA账户长期保持原有结构 → G Club会员费进入ACA托管/管理 → 郭本人没有账户签字权或直接提款权 → ACA有独立公司治理和管理行为，\n\n那么这就会直接攻击Luc最重要的一座桥：\n\n“郭影响G Club” ≠ “郭本人拥有ACA” ≠ “ACA所有账户资金都是郭的财产”。\n\n这里尤其不能把 G Club公司 和 ACA Capital混成一个东西。\n\nLuc需要分别证明：\n\nG Club是谁控制的；ACA是谁控制的；为什么G Club把资金放在ACA，就导致ACA成为郭的alter ego；以及为什么ACA账户中具体某笔资金可以成为郭estate property。\n\n如果中间缺一环，就会出现你说的那个问题。\n\n而且这和刑事案资金流的意义更大。因为如果GXZ26或者政府后来把ACA账户的某些gross inflows直接算进G Club/郭体系，而底层事实却显示ACA同时是一个由独立manager控制、可能还处理其他资金的实体，那么就必须重新问：\n\n进入ACA账户的钱，到底证明“G Club收到会员费”，还是进一步证明“郭本人obtained/controlled这些钱”？\n\n这是完全不同的命题。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q64264836e64e3f34b9cf","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q089ef1aaa8bc67ebb0b8","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q64264836e64e3f34b9cf","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qcff0649cb444694d967b","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":259,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:01:24.899Z","text":"不过我现在还没有找到可靠公开原始文件能够确认你说的**“ACA manager一直是余建民”**这一点。公开判决目前只把ACA列成被告，没有在我刚核到的部分里明确写manager身份。因此这一点暂时应该标成：\n\n事实假设：待原始公司记录/银行文件确认。\n\n一旦能找到 ACA incorporation records、annual returns、manager/director resolution、bank mandate、signature card或ACA账户开户资料，这条线就会非常有价值。\n\n如果最终证明：\n\nG Club的管理层、运营主体、合同和宣传可能和郭有高度关联；但真正持有钱的ACA Capital长期由余建民独立管理，而且公司治理、账户控制没有随着郭发生变化，\n\n那就不能再简单用：\n\n“G Club是郭控制的，所以ACA里的钱也是郭的。”\n\n这会成为一个非常具体的 entity-by-entity alter-ego failure，而不是抽象说“Luc理论不对”。\n\n现在最值得继续核的其实就是三样：ACA Capital公司注册/管理文件、ACA银行账户签字权限、以及Luc amended complaint里针对ACA单独列出的alter-ego事实。 把这三样放一起，就能判断Luc对ACA到底有多少独立证据，还是主要靠“它和G Club有资金关系”来连坐。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcff0649cb444694d967b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qe94d30d5115aaae42aa8","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":260,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:02:42.230Z","text":"我核了 Dkt.5747 本身在 Luc 的 Dkt.5769 回复里被引用的具体内容，结论很明确：\n\n5747 没有承认“G Club 是郭的 alter ego”。相反，它实际上是在抵抗 Luc 试图通过5739把 G Club相关claims/资产提前归进 Kwok estate 的框架。\n\n最关键的一句出现在 Luc 对5747的概括。5769写道，G Club反对5739，是因为该和解把一部分资产定义成 Estate Assets，而5747认为这种划分实际上是在：\n\n把针对G Club defendants的claims认定为 “property of Kwok’s Estate”，而不是刑事forfeiture体系下的财产。\n\nLuc自己就是这样引用5747第3页的。\n\n这非常重要，因为如果5747是在承认：\n\n“G Club就是郭alter ego，所以G Club的钱本来就属于郭estate”\n\n它根本没有必要攻击5739把这些claims归为 Estate Assets。\n\n恰恰相反，5747的逻辑是：\n\n你不能通过一个Trustee—Government settlement，先把产权分类做掉。\n\n而且5747还提出另一个更强的管辖权观点：涉及G Club资产的ownership以及criminal forfeiture关系，应由处理刑事案的District Court处理。Luc在5769里引用5747说，它认为这些法律判断是Congress“exclusively”交给刑事案District Court的。\n\n所以5747实际上在说：\n\n5739不能成为一个变相的产权裁判。\n\n这和“承认alter ego”方向正好相反。\n\n更重要的是，Luc在5769后来不得不加了一段新的保护语言。Dkt.5769明确说，因为包括 G Club Objection（5747） 在内的几个异议担心5739会影响正在进行的adversary proceedings，Luc修改了proposed order，强调：\n\nsettlement不会限制、消灭或影响这些被告在alter-ego等案件中的defenses和affirmative defenses。\n\nLuc还明确写：\n\n“All defendants will have their day in court.”\n\n也就是说，Luc自己在处理5747以后实际上承认：\n\n5739不能被解释为已经判定G Club alter ego成立。\n\n这一点和我们前面核到的24-5249程序状态完全吻合。\n\nLuc在24-5249真正请求法院判的是：\n\nG Club Operations “at all times” was an alter ego of the Debtor；\nG Club Operations持有的全部资产属于郭或者郭的bankruptcy estate；\n并要求全部turnover给Trustee。\n\n这只是Luc的诉讼请求。\n\n5747没有接受这个请求。\n\n反而可以把现在的程序状态压成一句非常清楚的话：\n\nLuc在24-5249说：“G Club是郭的alter ego，钱归estate。”\nG Club在5747说：“你不能通过5739先把这些claims/资产归类成Kwok Estate property。”\nLuc在5769回应：“5739不会影响你们在alter-ego adversary里的defenses，你们以后还可以继续打。”\n\n所以，5747不是承认alter ego，而是在明确保留并保护“不承认alter ego”的权利。\n\n这里还有一个非常值得你注意的新点，正好连到你前面问的“去Luc那里拿钱是不是等于承认alter ego”。\n\nLuc的5769自己写得很小心：\n\nsettlement “says nothing about the treatment of victim or creditor claims”；\n\n而且他说Trustee并不会像receiver一样管理刑事案里的victim资金。\n\n这句话其实很有价值。\n\n因为它等于Luc自己在5739阶段区分了三件事：\n\nEstate ownership claims ≠ victim claims ≠ creditor claims。\n\n所以一个G Club会员如果只是保护性申报债权，Luc以后很难简单说：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe94d30d5115aaae42aa8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qf380e9e79e2952c90fb8","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":261,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:02:44.957Z","text":"“你登记过claim，所以你已经承认G Club是郭alter ego。”\n\n因为连Luc自己的5769都说5739并不决定victim/creditor claims，而且alter-ego defenses仍然保留。\n\n反过来，这也意味着你前面提出的那个问题变得更尖锐：\n\n如果Luc以后真要让G Club会员通过estate领取G Club/ACA的钱，他必须说明：领取依据到底是普通creditor claim，还是因为法院已经认定G Club/ACA为郭alter ego？\n\n截至5747/5769这一阶段，后者还没有最终成立。\n\n所以5747对我们目前这条线是有利的新证据，但要准确使用。不能说“5747法院否定了alter ego”——5747只是G Club一方的异议，不是法院判决。\n\n最准确的说法是：\n\n5747明确拒绝让5739预先把G Club相关claims/资产当成Kwok Estate property，并保留G Club在alter-ego adversary中的全部产权和抗辩；Luc随后在5769修改proposed order，明确承认5739不会限制这些defenses。因此，截至5747/5769，G Club alter ego仍然是待裁争议，而不是已成立事实。\n\n我认为这个点非常重要，尤其是以后如果有人说 “5739已经把G Club归Luc了”，5747 + 5769可以直接反驳。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf380e9e79e2952c90fb8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qf71caa6d425cc3869ad5","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":262,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:04:49.998Z","text":"查查这个律师代理的人都是谁","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf71caa6d425cc3869ad5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q5d03dd9e3ffcbbb003a7","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":263,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:06:13.622Z","text":"这个律师是谁请的？","edited":false,"reply_to":"qe72015f2e34fdadb6839","reply_status":"not_public","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5d03dd9e3ffcbbb003a7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复内容暂不可用","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q15b825f6a38e09242fda","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":264,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:06:16.569Z","text":"查一下","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q15b825f6a38e09242fda","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qe5ead5668a0cf4ab5b38","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":265,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:06:25.151Z","text":"他代理的人是什么人","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe5ead5668a0cf4ab5b38","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q5957821ce436f4015b5b","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":266,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:06:52.129Z","text":"我先把目前能坐实的部分告诉你：G Club 这条线不是只有一个律师，也不是一直由同一组律师代理。 这点可能正是你要查“铁树开花—律师—G Club—谁实际管理”的关键。\n\n公开法院记录显示，至少从2023年的破产争议开始，G Club Operations LLC 的律师包括 Connecticut 本地律师 Jeffrey M. Sklarz、Kellianne Baranowsky（Green & Sklarz），以及 Carolina A. Fornos（Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman）。法院文件直接把他们列为“Attorneys for G Club Operations LLC”。\n\n但到了纽约的 Dong v. GTV Media Group 案，G Club Operations LLC 又由 Weddle Law PLLC / Brian M. Witthuhn 代理，针对要求G Club提供资料的subpoena进行抗争。纽约上诉法院2024年1月30日的公开判决明确记录了这一点。\n\n这就意味着，接下来不能简单问“G Club的律师是谁”，而要查成一张关系图：\n\n谁聘请了律师 → 谁给律师指令 → 律师代表哪一个G Club实体 → 谁支付律师费 → 谁拥有client privilege → 谁能决定诉讼和解。\n\n这个问题其实已经在破产案里留下了痕迹。2025年3月11日Dooley处理G Club文件争议时，案件核心之一就是谁拥有G Club文件的attorney-client privilege、该privilege有没有被waive。最终那次上诉因为属于interlocutory order而被dismiss，并没有把实际管理权问题彻底解决。\n\n你第三点“G Club是谁管的”现在反而出现一个特别值得深挖的矛盾。\n\n2026年8月20日Dooley最新Mahwah判决写得非常具体：法院把G Club描述成提供concierge services的实体；Crane Advisory Group负责接收G Club所谓member payments。然后在2021年11月28日前后，Lawall & Mitchell作为G Club counsel，将 $46,549,275 的G Club escrow funds转给Hamilton。\n\n但是判决同时用了一个非常值得注意的表述：\n\n这笔转账是在没有G Club“nominal management”授权的情况下完成的。\n\n“nominal management”这两个字非常关键。\n\n因为法院没有简单写：\n\n“G Club management决定转钱。”\n\n而是说郭提出要求、发生arbitration，然后律师事务所把钱转出去，并非由G Club名义管理层授权。\n\n这实际上提出了三个不同的“控制”：\n\n公司名义管理者是谁？\n\n律师听谁的指令？\n\n钱实际上是谁能够调走？\n\n这三个问题不能自动画等号。\n\n而且有一个反证也必须看到：Dooley的判决同时认定Crane Advisory是一个由郭控制的实体，并根据那条资金链把Mahwah购买和G Club资金联系起来。 所以政府/Luc会说：\n\n“名义manager是谁不重要，真正重要的是谁事实上能让4600多万美元被转走。”\n\n这会是他们最强的回答。\n\n但你现在指出的 ACA Capital 就可能让事情复杂起来。如果G Club Operations的公司运营是一套人，ACA Capital实际持钱又是余建民管理的另一套公司治理，那么必须拆开：\n\nG Club Operations的manager/director是谁；\nG Club International是谁管；\nACA Capital是谁管；\nCrane Advisory是谁管；\nLawall & Mitchell是谁聘请；\n谁有ACA账户signatory authority；\n谁能下wire instruction。\n\n这六件事如果不是同一个答案，那么“郭控制G Club → 因此ACA里的全部会员费就是郭的钱”中间确实存在很大的证明空间。\n\n至于你第一点说的 “铁树开花”，我刚刚专门用“铁树开花 + 郭文贵 / G Club / lawyer”等组合检索，目前公开法院搜索没有把这个网名可靠对应到一个真实姓名。所以我现在不会猜是谁。\n\n如果“铁树开花”是你们圈内某个人的网名，我们真正应该做的是先找到这个网名对应的法院真实姓名或claimant姓名，然后反查他的律师。只有这样才能回答你第二点最关键的问题：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5957821ce436f4015b5b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q0d7d4c92748012397c0e","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":267,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:06:54.198Z","text":"同一个律师除了代理“铁树开花”，还代理了哪些郭案投资人/债权人，然后又什么时候开始代理G Club？\n\n如果最后出现：\n\n同一律师 → 先代理一批早期债权人/联盟人员 → 后来又代理G Club或G Club相关实体 → 同时参与5739 / alter-ego争议，\n\n那就值得认真查 conflict、共同委托、谁真正控制诉讼、信息流向。\n\n目前我已经确认 Weddle、Pillsbury、Green & Sklarz 都出现在G Club不同阶段的代理记录里；下一步真正值得查的是5747签字页到底是哪位律师，以及这个律师在22-50073完整docket里还代表过哪些个人/实体。这个会比只看律所官网有价值得多。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0d7d4c92748012397c0e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qda2c0ace874a3f4e5b57","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":268,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:07:44.252Z","text":"gclub operation 是谁","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qda2c0ace874a3f4e5b57","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q053c43da79ee5e2d59e6","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":269,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:07:52.425Z","text":"一定不是余","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q053c43da79ee5e2d59e6","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q613467deec3733abd215","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":270,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:08:15.846Z","text":"继续查以后，这里出来了一个很有价值的结构性发现：5747背后的这组人，不是简单的“G Club公司自己反对Luc”，而是G Club + 它过去和现在的多组专业顾问一起反对5739。\n\n5747的完整标题已经能确认，提出异议的不是只有G Club Operations和G Club International，而是：\n\nG Club Operations LLC、G Club International Limited、Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP、FFP (BVI) Limited、Ogier、Weddle Law PLLC。\n\n而这份5747是由 Green & Sklarz LLC 送达/提交的。这个组合后来在5753里被其他被告明确引用出来。\n\n这非常值得注意，因为这些名字过去承担的角色并不一样。\n\nGreen & Sklarz 很早就是G Club自己的破产律师。2024年的法院记录明确列 Jeffrey Sklarz、Kellianne Baranowsky + Pillsbury的Carolina Fornos 为 G Club Operations 的律师。\n\nWeddle Law 则至少在纽约 Dong v. GTV Media Group 里代表过 G Club Operations，替G Club抗争要求它交出与GTV募集有关资料的subpoena。纽约第一部门2024年1月30日判决明确写的是 Weddle Law PLLC / Brian Witthuhn for G-Club Operations LLC。\n\n而现在到了5747，Pillsbury和Weddle已经不只是“G Club律师”，它们自己也是5747的objectors。\n\n这意味着Luc对它们很可能已经提出了独立的avoidance/turnover或相关claims，所以律师自身也开始保护自己的法律利益。5747因此不能简单理解成：\n\n“律师替G Club说话。”\n\n更准确是：\n\nG Club及一批曾参与其公司、法律、信托/管理架构的专业机构，现在作为共同利益方一起反对5739。\n\n这也是为什么5747特别强调不能让5739预先决定那些仍在adversary proceedings中的产权和defenses。\n\n更重要的是，你问的第三点：\n\n到底是谁管G Club？\n\n现在原始记录已经能把它拆成三个时期，而不是一个答案。\n\n第一阶段：2020—2023年，名义CEO是Limarie Reyes，但她自己说她不是最终控制人\n\nReyes在刑事trial里说：\n\n她2020年12月加入G Club；\n\n2021年2月左右成为interim CEO；\n\n2021年夏天正式成为CEO。\n\n但是政府直接问她：\n\n作为CEO，你是不是对G Club拥有最终decision-making authority？\n\n她回答：\n\nNo.\n\n又问：\n\n你是不是in charge of G Club？\n\n她再次回答：\n\nNo.\n\n然后问她向谁report，她回答：\n\n她向“ultimate beneficial owner, Mr. He”汇报。\n\n这里的 Mr. He 必须继续锁定具体是谁，不能凭名字猜。但这已经说明：\n\nReyes虽然是CEO，却在庭上明确否认自己拥有最终控制权。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q613467deec3733abd215","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q74ec82aa66b2d77de51a","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":271,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:08:24.348Z","text":"第二层：银行账户控制人也不是单独一个人\n\n政府在trial展示的Morgan Stanley G Club Operations账户资料显示，账户联系人包括：\n\nAlex Hadjicharalambous、Limarie Reyes Molinaris、Haoran He。\n\n其中：\n\nAlex Hadjicharalambous 被银行列为 authorized individual；\nReyes被列为 authorized individual + key controller。\n\n而另一份trial证据又显示：\n\n2021年11月的一份G Club Operations → G Club International贷款协议，\n\nG Club Operations的签字人是Limarie Reyes；\nG Club International的签字人是Haoran He。\n\n这说明至少当时真实的公司操作链，很可能是：\n\nReyes负责G Club Operations；\nHaoran He在G Club International层面拥有签字/管理角色；\nAlex也拥有账户权限。\n\n所以“G Club是谁管”绝不是一句“郭管的”就够了。\n\n必须继续区分：\n\n公司CEO → 银行账户controller → International实体signatory → UBO → 实际资金指令人。\n\n这些是五种不同法律事实。\n\n第三阶段出现了一个非常大的变化：2023年6月1日以后，G Club换成独立管理人FFP\n\n这个已经是G Club自己的法院文件承认的事实。\n\n2023年11月的Dkt.2331说得非常清楚：\n\nAndrew Childe是G Club Operations independent manager 的director；\n\n而这个independent manager是 2023年6月1日以后才进入，目的是填补一个 “management void”。\n\n后来刑事案的第三方petition说得更直接：\n\nFFP (BVI) Ltd. 在约2023年6月1日被聘为 G Club Operations 的 independent manager；Andrew Childe是负责这个engagement的FFP director。\n\n而Andrew Childe自己还宣誓说：\n\nFFP自约2023年6月1日起担任G Club independent manager；\n\n并且：\n\n他有权代表G Club聘请Jeffrey Sklarz / Green & Sklarz处理刑事案里的第三方产权petition。\n\n这就解释了为什么5747里FFP本身也直接站出来当objector。\n\n所以今天5747这组人的结构实际上非常清楚：\n\nG Club Operations / International\n↓\n2023年6月以后 independent manager = FFP (BVI)\n↓\nAndrew Childe代表FFP负责G Club\n↓\nGreen & Sklarz长期作为诉讼律师\n↓\nPillsbury、Weddle、Ogier等又是过去参与G Club法律/公司事务的专业机构\n↓\n5747这些人现在共同反对Luc通过5739影响仍未裁决的权利。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q74ec82aa66b2d77de51a","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q99983c4d8bf2fd7ba1ce","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":272,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:08:33.279Z","text":"而这产生了一个对alter ego非常有意思的问题。\n\nLuc要证明的是类似：\n\nG Club实际上一直是郭的alter ego。\n\n可是G Club自己的record显示，至少从2023年6月1日起：\n\n原来的管理出现“management void”，然后独立fiduciary FFP接管管理。\n\n所以不能简单说：\n\n“2021年如果郭实际控制过某些资金，因此2023、2024、2025、2026年G Club仍然当然是郭的alter ego。”\n\nLuc如果要求持续性的alter-ego relief，理论上必须处理这个明显的control break：\n\n2023年6月FFP接管后，郭还能不能撤换manager？还能不能签银行？还能不能下wire instruction？还能不能指挥律师？还能不能处分G Club资产？\n\n如果答案变成不能，那么至少会产生：\n\n过去可能存在的事实控制 ≠ 后来持续存在的alter ego。\n\n这可能是24-5249里一个比抽象争论更具体的事实问题。\n\n当然Luc最强的反驳也很明显：\n\nFFP是郭被捕以后才在2023年6月进入。alter ego诉讼追的是此前形成的资产、claims和历史控制，所以后来聘一个independent manager不能洗掉历史alter-ego status。\n\n这个反驳有力量。\n\n所以真正应该问的不是：\n\n“有FFP，所以alter ego一定不成立。”\n\n而是：\n\nLuc到底要求法院判哪个时间段的alter ego？\n\n如果complaint请求：\n\nG Club “at all times” 是郭的alter ego，\n\n那么2023年6月以后FFP独立接管就必须解释。\n\n这一刀值得直接去查24-5249 complaint的Prayer for Relief和每一个“at all times”“dominated and controlled”的 allegation。\n\n还有一个对你前面说的 ACA Capital 特别重要的区别。\n\n目前这些我核到的文件，能清楚证明：\n\nG Club Operations → Reyes / Haoran He / Alex → 后来FFP/Andrew Childe。\n\n但是我还没有看到同样的原始证据说：\n\nACA Capital也由这套人管理。\n\n这正是为什么ACA不能因为“里面存了G Club会员费”就被自动和G Club Operations揉成一个entity。\n\n现在最值得继续追的是：\n\nACA Capital的manager/director、bank signatory、beneficial owner和账户授权文件到底是谁。\n\n如果最终真的出现你前面说的：\n\nG Club公司管理层经过明显变化，甚至2023年换成独立FFP；但ACA Capital一直保持余建民自己的manager/control结构，\n\n那这个对照就非常漂亮：\n\n同一笔所谓“G Club money”，公司层和持款实体层实际上是两套治理体系。\n\n这样攻击Luc就不是：\n\n“G Club不是alter ego。”\n\n而是更具体：\n\n即使你能够证明郭曾影响G Club Operations，你依据什么把这种控制跨实体传递到ACA Capital，再把ACA账户里的钱认成郭的estate property？\n\n这会是一个真正的 entity-by-entity / account-by-account 证明缺口。\n\n至于你说的 “铁树开花”，这一轮我仍然没有找到可靠法院文件把这个网名和真实姓名对应起来，所以我不准备乱猜。但现在5747律师链已经锁得比较清楚了；如果能把“铁树开花”真实姓名对应出来，我们就可以立即反查他/她是不是也由Green & Sklarz、Pillsbury、Weddle或同一批律师代理。\n\n而我现在认为，“5747共同异议人为什么恰好是G Club + FFP + Pillsbury + Ogier + Weddle” 本身已经值得单独深挖。它很可能能够反向还原：G Club的公司治理、独立管理、境外结构和法律文件到底分别掌握在谁手里。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q99983c4d8bf2fd7ba1ce","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q060e524fd30665e6c001","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":273,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T05:08:54.588Z","text":"是不是郭的家人，开始和余，要划清界限了","edited":false,"reply_to":"qda2c0ace874a3f4e5b57","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q060e524fd30665e6c001","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qda2c0ace874a3f4e5b57","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q320f457112e53242def4","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":274,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:09:21.426Z","text":"G Club最终实益拥有人是Haoran He","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q320f457112e53242def4","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q83996fc3ab1abb20112f","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":275,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:09:30.773Z","text":"2023年6月1日起由FFP (BVI)作为独立管理人管理。 同一份petition还明确主张，被扣押的G Club资产来自会员缴费，并称G Club是这些资产的proper owner、目的是最终返还会员","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q83996fc3ab1abb20112f","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q56723d5113aee6c03746","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":276,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:09:41.808Z","text":"所以至少从公开record上，G Club有一条很清楚的治理链：\n\nHaoran He / Jovial Century ownership → 原管理层 → 2023年6月 management void → FFP独立接管。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q56723d5113aee6c03746","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qfaea135f92a0fca0a9d3","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":277,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:10:19.817Z","text":"还有一个值得特别注意的新材料，是Luc自己2024年3月的行为。\n\nLuc在 Dkt.2975 / 23-cr-118 Dkt.246 中主动请求把 24-5249 Omnibus Alter Ego Action 暂停，等郭的刑事审判结束。文件明确把24-5249和他的Civil RICO Action一起称为与刑事案密切相关的诉讼。\n\n刑事审判结束以后，Luc在 2024年7月18日 又立即提交notice恢复这些诉讼。\n\n这个时间顺序很值得记下来：\n\n2/15/2024 Luc起诉ACA/G Club等alter ego\n→ 3/4/2024 Luc主动要求暂停，等待23-cr-118 trial\n→ 7/16/2024郭被定罪\n→ 7/18/2024 Luc立即恢复24-5249。\n\n这不能证明“Luc和政府共谋”，但它至少证明一个客观事实：\n\nLuc自己认为刑事案产生的证据和结果与他的alter-ego诉讼高度相关，并且选择等待刑事trial结束后继续推进。\n\n后来Luc的文件甚至直接引用刑事trial testimony作为破产alter-ego案件事实材料。例如2024年12月的Dkt.3926引用刑事审判证据说，William Je曾试图把约 $46 million Himalaya Exchange funds转到 ACA Capital在Abu Dhabi的账户。\n\n这一点尤其值得你注意。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfaea135f92a0fca0a9d3","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q48b17bd03e07ca915349","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":278,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:10:45.201Z","text":"因为它说明ACA并不只是“G Club会员费放钱的账户”。\n\n至少Luc自己的后期理论还把ACA账户和：\n\nHimalaya Exchange funds → William Je → ACA Abu Dhabi account\n\n联系起来。\n\n所以ACA可能在Luc的理论里扮演的是一种跨项目资金承接实体，而不仅仅是G Club escrow/holding company。\n\n这反而使你一直要求查的事情更重要：\n\nACA到底是谁实际控制？\n\n如果ACA真正的manager、UBO、bank signatory和G Club完全不同，那么Luc必须解释：\n\n为什么G Club money进入ACA证明郭控制ACA？\n\n以及：\n\n为什么HEX资金曾准备进入ACA，又证明ACA本身是郭的alter ego，而不是一个被不同客户/实体使用的独立金融或持款平台？\n\n这正好和我们正在查的 716-4 pooled/intermediary account问题产生连接。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q48b17bd03e07ca915349","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q7fd4ace1fa67f704246a","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":279,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:11:22.590Z","text":"所以现在最值得拿到的原始材料其实已经非常明确：24-5249 Amended Complaint第271–276段（ACA专属claim）+ ACA ownership exhibit + trial里所有提到ACA Capital的证词和GXZ26条目。\n\n这三样放在一起，就能真正回答：\n\nLuc到底有什么ACA-specific evidence，而政府刑事案是不是把这个独立实体过度简化成“郭的钱袋子”","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7fd4ace1fa67f704246a","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"q829091850e42d35f9c27","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":280,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-27T05:14:36.935Z","text":"［用户 roy***］  何浩然和郭强有什么关系","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q829091850e42d35f9c27","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"},{"id":"qe99c9e5c704c6f017352","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":281,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T05:15:22.081Z","text":"目前公开案卷里，何浩然（Haoran He）和郭强（Qiang Guo / Mileson Guo）的关系，不像“父子、兄弟”这种已经明确的亲属关系，而更像是非常紧密的公司/受托结构关系。\n\n最关键的材料在政府2024年4月9日的 Dkt.273。里面引用了一段2021年5月6日录音：郭强自己说，他在G Club里“严格法律上”没有所有权，但又说自己实际上有某种权利，因为他是最终持有G Club实体的荷兰基金会的 settlor（委托人）；而 何浩然是名义上的UBO（最终实益拥有人）。郭强还说，根据荷兰法律，他对该基金会“有某种话语权”，只是没有行使。\n\n所以至少政府掌握的这套结构是：\n\n郭强 → 荷兰基金会的settlor / 委托人\n→ 基金会最终持有G Club体系\n→ 何浩然被列为UBO / 名义最终所有人。\n\n这就不是两个完全无关的人。\n\n而且同一次录音里，政府还引用郭文贵对郭强说的大意是：资金先转到BVI的G Clubs International，然后**“何先生会下达指令”**再把钱转去Hamilton。\n\n这说明至少在政府的案件理论里，何浩然承担的角色很像：\n\n法律/公司文件上的UBO或指令人之一，\n\n而郭强则处在：\n\n基金会设立人、与父亲讨论资金安排、对整个结构具有某种实际影响的位置。\n\n还有一份Luc的破产材料更直接。Dkt.3926说，Luc除了依赖原来的alter-ego complaint，还引用刑事trial证词称：\n\n何浩然与郭文贵的儿子有特别联系；\nYa Li证称何浩然是郭的“family”的一部分；\nFreedom Media Ventures名义上由何浩然所有，但她认为实际上由郭控制；\nHaitham Khaled还根据与郭强的谈话，对何浩然的名义UBO角色形成了理解。\n\n但是这里必须非常小心：\n\n“part of the family”并不能自动证明何浩然是郭文贵的血缘亲属。 这可能是“像家人一样的核心圈子”、姻亲、长期亲信，或者真正亲属；目前我没有看到可靠原始文件明确写：\n\n“Haoran He is Qiang Guo’s cousin / brother-in-law / nephew …”\n\n所以不能凭这个就断定具体亲属关系。\n\n真正值得注意的是法律结构上的关系已经相当明确：\n\n郭强承认自己是上层基金会的settlor；何浩然是G Club体系名义UBO。\n\n这对我们正在查的alter ego问题很重要，因为它实际上让Luc/政府有两种完全不同的解释。\n\n政府/Luc会说：\n\n何浩然只是名义UBO，真正影响上层结构的是郭家，所以G Club并不真正独立。\n\n但G Club一方可以反问：\n\nsettlor身份到底给郭强什么法律权力？\n\n他能不能撤换何浩然？\n\n能不能更换foundation board？\n\n能不能直接命令银行转账？\n\n能不能分配资产给自己？\n\n还是他只是最初设立基金会、此后没有实际控制权？\n\n这才是关键。\n\n因为**“我是settlor” ≠ 自动等于“我拥有基金会资产”。**\n\n特别是如果这是荷兰的 STAK / stichting 一类结构，settlor、board、UBO、certificate holder、beneficiary这些身份的法律权利可能完全不同。政府如果把“郭强是settlor + 何浩然是UBO”直接压缩成“所以郭家拥有G Club”，中间仍然需要公司法和基金会文件来搭桥。\n\n而且刑事政府在closing里确实把何浩然直接当成郭能够指挥的人来讲。2024年7月11日rebuttal里，检方对jury说，郭指示Yvette和William让 Haoran He——G Club的UBO——把约1亿美元G Club/Farm资金转出去，并以此证明郭实际控制G Club。\n\n所以现在非常值得把三样原始文件放到一起：\n\n荷兰基金会章程/成立文件 + 郭强的settlor权利 + 何浩然作为UBO的实际权利。\n\n如果文件最终显示郭强只是settlor，但没有撤换、分配、银行或管理权，那么政府closing里把“郭能让何浩然下指令”升级成“郭控制G Club”的逻辑，就值得进一步审查。\n\n反过来，如果基金会文件给郭强非常强的保留权，比如能撤换董事、决定受益人或处分资产，那会明显加强政府的alter-ego/control理论。这个材料会是很好的真伪测试点。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe99c9e5c704c6f017352","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152"}],"prev_batch_id":"batch-000151","next_batch_id":"batch-000153"}