{"id":"q2e74cbeac2598f8bf00e","batch_id":"batch-000148","seq":74,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T03:41:40.687Z","text":"你群友这个结论里，“必须证明资金完全没有混同，否则一定过不了无害错误测试”，我觉得说得太绝对了。二巡的判例并不是这么定的。\n\n真正要分成两个问题：\n\n第一，混同本身不等于政府自动赢，也不等于辩方自动输。 二巡在 Banco Cafetero 明确承认：犯罪所得和合法资金即使进入同一个账户发生 commingling，仍然可能被追踪和没收；关键是政府能不能证明 tainted funds 和最终财产之间存在 traceable connection。\n\n第二，“家族基金流入这个混合实体的钱，大于这个实体后来流给家人的钱”，这个事实是有用的，但它不是自动等于“家人收到的全是干净钱”。原因很简单：钱是 fungible 的，一旦进入同一账户/实体，不能只靠“合法钱数量更大”就当然指定哪一笔支出来自合法部分。法院通常会看具体 tracing 方法、账户余额变化、资金进出时间、是否存在最低余额等。Banco Cafetero 就讨论过 lowest intermediate balance 等追踪方法。\n\n这里 Daugerdas 特别适合你们这个问题。\n\n在 United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2016)，被告就主张：律所账户里有合法收入和犯罪收入混在一起，政府没有逐笔证明付给他的具体钱来自犯罪所得。但二巡最终维持 forfeiture，原因不是“混同无所谓”，而是地区法院有证据认定那个实际支付池里的全部收入都是犯罪行为产生的，所以政府满足了 nexus。\n\n后来他妻子的第三方案件 Daugerdas, 892 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 2018) 又从反方向说明：如果能具体提出犯罪所得在上游已经与合法资金不可逆地混同，那确实可能影响政府把后续账户直接当“犯罪所得”没收；二巡甚至允许她修改petition去具体补充 commingling facts。\n\n所以你群友描述的情形，我会这样判断：","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":"q8c301294cb557053231d","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2e74cbeac2598f8bf00e","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8c301294cb557053231d","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/q2e74cbeac2598f8bf00e","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2e74cbeac2598f8bf00e/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q2e74cbeac2598f8bf00e","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q52ebb10c6765ce587a61","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T03:39:51.031Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q52ebb10c6765ce587a61"},{"id":"q9fa6e842efc1722f8920","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T03:39:56.624Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9fa6e842efc1722f8920"},{"id":"qdd4fbf536cde86316b10","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-20T03:41:39.071Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdd4fbf536cde86316b10"},{"id":"q7f03d5c3945ef3d9d716","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T03:41:58.454Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7f03d5c3945ef3d9d716"},{"id":"q2f95efdc7cd959524d16","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T03:42:14.834Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2f95efdc7cd959524d16"},{"id":"qb07685cdd9d3ed79ec65","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T03:46:22.130Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb07685cdd9d3ed79ec65"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q8c301294cb557053231d","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-08-20T03:39:15.276Z","text":"您问一下AI，如果被告在上诉中不能证明他的家族基金的资金跟投资者资金没有混同，只能证明家族基金流入某个混有投资者资金的实体的钱，大于从这个实体流入到家人的钱，以此来证明投资者资金没有用于家人，过不过得了无害测试。我跟ai们讨论出来的结论是过不了，必须证明资金完全没有混同。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8c301294cb557053231d"}}