{"id":"q8bd630772f72fccbbdfd","batch_id":"batch-000128","seq":308,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-06-29T19:58:23.073Z","text":"Guo没有agree\n他是破产状态，对资产，没有处置权发言权","edited":false,"reply_to":"qb5943351a4d061726288","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8bd630772f72fccbbdfd","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb5943351a4d061726288","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000128","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000128","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/q8bd630772f72fccbbdfd","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8bd630772f72fccbbdfd/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q8bd630772f72fccbbdfd","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"qc00eaa31d6b4748960a5","speaker":"spr***","date":"2026-06-29T19:47:15.126Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc00eaa31d6b4748960a5"},{"id":"q2dfe34069288ffa640f8","speaker":"may***","date":"2026-06-29T19:47:48.888Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2dfe34069288ffa640f8"},{"id":"qb5943351a4d061726288","speaker":"spr***","date":"2026-06-29T19:56:11.560Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb5943351a4d061726288"},{"id":"q8f35ebf8f4fb3d5bd584","speaker":"spr***","date":"2026-06-29T19:59:38.121Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8f35ebf8f4fb3d5bd584"},{"id":"qd2d7399d7553edd9cc34","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-06-29T20:00:10.000Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd2d7399d7553edd9cc34"},{"id":"q4fd8643b8af9d304cf34","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-06-29T20:00:35.944Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4fd8643b8af9d304cf34"}],"parent_message":{"id":"qb5943351a4d061726288","speaker":"spr***","date":"2026-06-29T19:56:11.560Z","text":"6. 我认为858最大的法律漏洞其实不是853(n)\n\n我反而认为真正值得研究的是：\n\n法院在第16-17页关于Restitution只有短短几句话：\n\nGovernment requests...\n\nGuo agrees...\n\nCourt agrees...\n\ntherefore restitution impracticable.\n\n整段只有几行。\n\n没有讨论：\n\n是否有受害人提出反对；\n是否收到CVRA动议；\n是否考虑过受害人的意见；\n为什么Remission一定比MVRA更能保护受害人。\n\n如果像你之前所说，确有受害人在量刑前依法提交了CVRA相关动议，而法院既未在docket反映，也未在这份17页裁定中回应，那么这一点可能成为程序争议的焦点。法院不能仅因政府申请、被告同意，就自动认定所有受害人的程序性权利已经得到满足；如果存在未处理的CVRA主张，上诉法院可能会关注法院是否真正履行了保障受害人法定权利的义务。                                  因此，这份858最值得深入研究的，不仅是853(n)将在量刑后继续进行，更是法院在作出“不判Restitution、改用Remission”的决定时，对CVRA程序问题的处理是否充分。这两者是不同的问题，而后者如果有未处理的受害人动议作为事实基础，可能比单纯争论853(n)的先后顺序更具有法律意义。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb5943351a4d061726288"}}