{"id":"q21ebe02becce208ebcd6","batch_id":"batch-000148","seq":178,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T09:48:18.076Z","text":"对，你这次把问题说得更精确了。你质疑的不是“刑事案引用了破产法院的正式判决”，而是政府把 Luc 在破产案里的“主张、查封、追回、alter-ego诉讼、债权人登记”等尚未最终裁判的程序行为，经过证人、图表、措辞和叙事包装后，呈现成一种仿佛已经经过司法确认的事实背景。\n\n这个方向在法律上可以研究，而且比“破产法院没判，所以刑事案绝对不能提”更准确。\n\n关键点在这里：\n\nLuc 可以主张、可以起诉、可以申请临时救济；但这些行为本身不等于事实已经成立。\n\n比如：\n\n* Luc 起诉某公司是郭的 alter ego，不等于该公司已经被法院认定是郭的 alter ego；\n* Luc 起诉追回 fraudulent transfer，不等于被追的钱已经被法院认定是郭的财产或 fraudulent transfer；\n* 某投资者提交 proof of claim，不等于其已经被确认是郭个人债权人或刑事 fraud victim；\n* Luc 临时控制、冻结、追回某项资产，不等于 ownership 已经最终裁判。\n\n而你现在真正要查的是：\n\n政府有没有把这些“尚在争议中的程序主张”转化成陪审团所理解的“客观事实”。\n\n这在证据法上要分三种情况。\n\n第一种，政府只是拿 Luc 或其他证人的第一手事实来证明事实本身。比如 Luc 亲眼看到某房产是谁住、某文件谁签、某账户记录显示谁转钱。如果有 personal knowledge、证据本身可采，这不因为来源于破产调查就自动不能用。\n\n第二种，政府拿 Luc 的法律结论或诉讼主张证明结论本身。比如：\n\n“Luc起诉这家公司是alter ego，所以它就是郭的alter ego。”\n\n这就有明显问题，因为“起诉了”只是 allegation，不是 proof。","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":"qb09eb08c17705511ca9b","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q21ebe02becce208ebcd6","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb09eb08c17705511ca9b","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000148","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000148","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_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q21ebe02becce208ebcd6","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q21ebe02becce208ebcd6/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q21ebe02becce208ebcd6","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"qb592f0cec285a8201865","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T09:43:04.972Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb592f0cec285a8201865"},{"id":"qb09eb08c17705511ca9b","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-20T09:46:16.379Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb09eb08c17705511ca9b"},{"id":"q360137eef4f01472955f","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T09:48:11.403Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q360137eef4f01472955f"},{"id":"q5f0824fe3d3c538e84ee","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T09:48:43.120Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5f0824fe3d3c538e84ee"},{"id":"qc853f17ec318f6e7e45a","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-20T09:50:32.154Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc853f17ec318f6e7e45a"},{"id":"q45f074ede24618f91eba","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T09:50:53.620Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q45f074ede24618f91eba"}],"parent_message":{"id":"qb09eb08c17705511ca9b","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-20T09:46:16.379Z","text":"刑事案这边，不是引用破产案结论，而是把luc的主张和操作，包装成了破产法院的结论进行呈现。我一直强调，所谓的追回欺诈转移的前提不成立，这些叙事不能用证人证词，证据的方式呈现给陪审团，用来作为其它刑事程序的证据。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb09eb08c17705511ca9b"}}