{"id":"q57c686e1a5d54f5bd673","batch_id":"batch-000153","seq":150,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T10:41:15.261Z","text":"继续查以后，有一个很关键的新结果：目前公开记录反而显示，你说的“813.6万美元追回款”和Luc追的254万美元，暂时不能当成同一笔钱。\n\n最重要的新材料来自Luc自己的费用记录。24-05263里针对 Mountains of Spices Inc. 的追索，Luc内部明确写的是：他追的那些转款来自 Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.。 也就是说，Luc目前针对Mountains of Spices Inc.的这条avoidance线，底层来源是 ROL Foundation III → Mountains of Spices Inc.，而不是亚利桑那案里已经明确的 Maywind → G-Service/Aeon → Mountains of Spices LLC 退款链。\n\n而亚利桑那法院对那 8,136,288.58美元 的来源写得非常清楚：\n\nG-Service退回 3,508,872美元；\nAeon退回 4,630,416.58美元；\n两笔都来自Sara/Maywind此前转出去的Maywind资金；\n因此法院认为本质是 Maywind transfers的退款/追回。\n\n所以目前看到的是两条不同链：\n\n链A：亚利桑那案\n\nMOS LLC → Maywind\n→ G-Service / Aeon\n→ MOS LLC追回约 813.6万美元\n\n而Luc现在公开可确认的：\n\n链B：破产24-05263\n\nRule of Law Foundation III\n→ Mountains of Spices Inc.\n→ Luc要求追回相关转款。\n\n而且24-05263确实把 Mountains of Spices Inc. 和G Club Holdco、G Club Three等多个被告放在同一个avoidance complaint里。\n\n所以现在不能说：Luc是在抢MOS从Sara那里追回的800万。\n\n至少目前公开记录还没有把这两笔钱连起来。\n\n但是，你第二个想法里有一半是非常有价值的：\n\n813.6万确实发生了“法律身份转换”\n\n最初MOS在亚利桑那案里的说法是：\n\n我把钱交给Maywind，是让它转给预定借款人并还本付息；Sara/Maywind却把钱挪走了。\n\n后来法院认定G-Service和Aeon把这些Maywind转走的钱退还给MOS LLC，所以它变成：\n\n民事诉讼追回款 / refund。\n\n因此通俗说：\n\n原来有争议的Farm/贷款资金，在民事判决和退款以后，MOS取得了一个新的、独立的民事产权基础。\n\n这一点成立。\n\n但我还是不建议叫“洗白”，因为“洗白”容易让人理解成：\n\n原来的资金历史从此消失了。\n\n实际上没有。\n\n更准确的说法是：\n\n资金的法律请求权发生了重构。\n\n从：\n\n投资/贷款资金\n\n变成：\n\n被挪走资金的民事追回款。\n\n亚利桑那法院甚至明确说，这813.6万就是对原Maywind transfers的退款，因此Sara不能再被要求重复赔偿。\n\n这对刑事案其实有一个很有意思的问题\n\n假设原来某个Farm投资人的钱：\n\n投资人 → MOS/Farm → Maywind\n\n后来发生：\n\nMaywind → G-Service/Aeon\n→ 法院诉讼\n→ 钱退给MOS LLC。\n\n那么到了刑事案计算“受害者损失”时，就必须问：\n\n这笔原始投资损失有没有因为后来退款而减少？\n\n不能一边：\n\n民事法院承认MOS已经把钱追回来了，\n\n另一边刑事计算仍把原来的全部本金作为没有追回的损失。\n\n这个问题对loss/restitution/victim amount可能比对定罪更直接。\n\n而且亚利桑那法院的态度很明确：\n\nMOS已经追回超过原判决金额，所以不能double recovery。","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q57c686e1a5d54f5bd673","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000153","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000153","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/q57c686e1a5d54f5bd673","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q57c686e1a5d54f5bd673/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q57c686e1a5d54f5bd673","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q9e2fb2c875c1fe947ced","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-27T10:37:21.747Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9e2fb2c875c1fe947ced"},{"id":"q5f391d4e412346ad34da","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T10:39:55.565Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5f391d4e412346ad34da"},{"id":"qd64ab33cf1bc474d2d73","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T10:39:58.548Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd64ab33cf1bc474d2d73"},{"id":"qc4a9576b6ba3e9732d48","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T10:41:17.689Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc4a9576b6ba3e9732d48"},{"id":"q9ed11a3fd23f0057f4fa","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T10:42:48.676Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9ed11a3fd23f0057f4fa"},{"id":"q9578f1248094130a2964","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-27T10:42:55.217Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9578f1248094130a2964"}],"parent_message":null}