{"id":"q8ebec6bf365a517ddf47","batch_id":"batch-000151","seq":111,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T04:34:18.318Z","text":"对，群友这个纠正基本是对的。我前面那句把 Guo本人GTV Counts 5/6的无罪 和 Yvette Wang自己的plea 放得太近，容易让人误解成“GTV这个scheme已经被陪审团认定不存在fraud”。这需要纠正。\n\n郭本人2024年7月16日的verdict确实是：\n\nCount 5 — GTV wire fraud：Not Guilty\nCount 6 — GTV securities fraud：Not Guilty\n\n同时郭在Counts 1、2、3、4、7、8、9、10、11被判有罪。这个结果在后来的政府二巡材料里也明确列出来了。\n\n但 Yvette Wang（王雁平） 是另一回事。她在郭开庭以前已经plead guilty，而且她认的是：\n\nconspiracy to commit wire fraud + conspiracy to commit money laundering\n\n并不是陪审团对她作出的GTV实体wire-fraud verdict。后来文件也明确记录她是根据plea agreement认了这两个conspiracy counts。\n\n所以这里一定要分开三个命题：\n\n郭的GTV实体罪无罪，不等于陪审团裁定“GTV完全没有fraud”。\n\nWang认罪，也不等于陪审团已经裁定“郭实施了GTV wire fraud”。\n\n郭Counts 1–4有罪，意味着jury仍然可能把部分GTV相关行为放进更大的conspiracy/RICO框架里考虑——具体允许考虑到什么程度，要看final charge和verdict form。\n\n这反而把我刚才说的 “acquittal vs later use” 问题变得更精确、更值得研究：\n\n陪审团明确拒绝认定郭本人犯Count 5 GTV wire fraud和Count 6 GTV securities fraud以后，政府和法院后来究竟在多大程度上继续把GTV资金整体当作郭的fraud proceeds、racketeering proceeds或laundering property？\n\n这里不能简单说“因为Counts 5/6无罪，所以以后GTV一分钱都不能考虑”。尤其在当时联邦量刑/没收框架下，acquitted conduct的法律处理本身比较复杂。\n\n但是有一个更尖锐的问题：\n\n如果后来政府说“jury verdict已经证明GXZ26里的这些资金是fraud proceeds”，这种概括能不能覆盖GXZ26里的GTV部分？\n\n这就必须非常小心。\n\n因为jury恰恰在郭本人两个GTV substantive counts上说Not Guilty。\n\n所以以后凡是看到政府或Torres写类似：\n\n“the jury determined these funds were proceeds of fraud”\n\n我们都应该马上拆：\n\n哪些funds？哪个scheme？哪个count？\n\n不能允许把：\n\nFarm/G Club/HEX有罪\n＋ Counts 1–4 conspiracy有罪\n\n笼统转换成：\n\nGXZ26里所有GTV + Farm + G Club + HEX gross inflows全部已经被jury逐项认定为fraud proceeds。\n\n这可能就是一个新的verdict-overbreadth / characterization审查点。\n\n所以群友这次提醒得很好。我把前面的表述正式修正为：\n\n郭本人GTV Counts 5、6被陪审团判无罪；Wang此前另行认了wire-fraud conspiracy和money-laundering conspiracy。二者不能混同。真正需要深挖的是，政府后来有没有利用Wang的plea、Counts 1–4的general conspiracy verdict或GXZ26，把陪审团没有在郭GTV实体罪上作出的认定重新扩大成“GTV资金已经被jury认定为fraud proceeds”。\n\n这个我会继续往下查。 如果真找到政府/858用了这种跨越，我认为会比单纯说“GTV无罪”有价值得多。","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":"q5ae3dc5069115a249c28","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8ebec6bf365a517ddf47","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5ae3dc5069115a249c28","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000151","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/q8ebec6bf365a517ddf47","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8ebec6bf365a517ddf47/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/q8ebec6bf365a517ddf47","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"qb2d88bd6472adf9ec982","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T04:24:17.609Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb2d88bd6472adf9ec982"},{"id":"q5ae3dc5069115a249c28","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T04:32:06.660Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5ae3dc5069115a249c28"},{"id":"q3bdae1850dac4b6711e1","speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-25T04:33:16.461Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3bdae1850dac4b6711e1"},{"id":"q168f5da4d219846f2c51","speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-25T04:39:39.155Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q168f5da4d219846f2c51"},{"id":"qe1c5474d6b46536a18d1","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T04:41:23.246Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe1c5474d6b46536a18d1"},{"id":"q88f2e0f93136514e52f0","speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-25T04:43:02.610Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q88f2e0f93136514e52f0"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q5ae3dc5069115a249c28","speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-25T04:32:06.660Z","text":"这段的意思，不知道是不是AI弄错了，对郭的jury里，GTV实体没有wire fraud，不过王案里，她对GTV违规转账，是plea guilty，而这个是跳过了陪审团程序的","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5ae3dc5069115a249c28"}}