{"id":"qc635b055cd82019d118c","batch_id":"batch-000152","seq":12,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:50:34.312Z","text":"Robert一直说的“王跟空气承担连带责任”，现在可以换成一个真正有法律力量的问题\n\n不是：\n\n“必须抓第二个boss。”\n\n而是：\n\nWhat precise portion of Wang’s $1.4B and Guo’s $889M judgments represents the same money-laundering property for which both defendants are jointly and severally liable?\n\n因为王488写：\n\n与Guo共同承担的范围取决于Guo最终被进入多少forfeiture judgment；\n\n郭720又反过来把与Wang共同承担的部分嵌进自己的总数。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.720.0.pdf\n\n如果不量化共同部分，就很难判断：\n\n谁已经付了多少；\n同一property有没有重复satisfaction；\n郭从13亿降到8.89亿以后，王那边共同责任范围缩了多少；\nspecific property被没收以后应该同时给谁记credit。\n\n这已经不再只是群里的数学问题。\n\n⸻\n\n更重要：Dkt.469自己暴露了“gross inflow ≠ personally obtained”\n\n王律师写得非常直白：\n\nJe-controlled companies净流入约$550M；\nGuo family offices/family约$100M；\nWang薪资只是low- to mid-hundreds of thousands。\n\n无论你是否接受王律师的量刑立场，这些数字至少说明：\n\n政府自己的GXZ26可以按recipient/control entity区分钱最后流向谁。\n\n那就自然产生一个问题：\n\n如果王自己明显没有“personally obtained”13亿，为什么488第一项允许把某一大块定义成她personally obtained proceeds，而没有公开分项数字？\n\n同样：\n\n郭家办公室收到约1亿 ≠ 郭本人只能取得1亿，\n\n因为“indirectly obtained/control”还可能扩大范围。\n\n但政府仍然需要证明那条桥。\n\n不能单靠“郭是Boss”自动把Je公司收到的5.5亿变成郭personally obtained。\n\n这恰好和我们前面 RICO/agency/control 那条线汇合了：\n\norganizational control ≠ automatically personally obtained proceeds。\n\n这可能是没收阶段非常值得二巡审查的一处。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个对GTV特别重要的新校准。\n\n469明确说：\n\n很多GTV inflows后来已经付给SEC；\n另有约 $150M GTV inflows来自Saraca出售自己已有的GTV shares。\n\n这再次说明：\n\nGXZ26的“inflow”只是资金流量类别，并不天然等于fraud proceeds。\n\n那么858从13亿里减411m后剩889m，下一步仍然应该问：\n\n889m中的Farm/G Club/HEX gross inflows是否也全部等于郭personally obtained proceeds？\n\n或者：\n\n其中多少实际上只能通过Count 3“property involved in laundering”来维持？\n\n这就是为什么 GXZ26 / Hinton no tracing / ACA commingling 和 858 money judgment 已经完全合流了。\n\n⸻\n\n所以这一轮我会把对26-1853最有价值的新问题压成这一句：\n\nThe forfeiture orders aggregate into a single money judgment two legally distinct categories—proceeds personally obtained by Guo and property involved in money laundering—without separately quantifying either category, even though Second Circuit law requires a defendant-specific acquisition basis for proceeds forfeiture and the joint-and-several laundering component has a different statutory basis.","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc635b055cd82019d118c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000152","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/qc635b055cd82019d118c","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc635b055cd82019d118c/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qc635b055cd82019d118c","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"qecf9db2881a0ac29af62","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:46:40.904Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qecf9db2881a0ac29af62"},{"id":"qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:48:59.353Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf89b9bd4ae622cbde710"},{"id":"q01aee57f5e613a922809","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:49:23.166Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q01aee57f5e613a922809"},{"id":"qd9a817f9d0e908d6d16a","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:50:47.975Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd9a817f9d0e908d6d16a"},{"id":"q7d79720c1f3a8dd1668d","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:52:11.161Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7d79720c1f3a8dd1668d"},{"id":"q83e6d7dbb2bb95c510bc","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-25T10:52:28.228Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q83e6d7dbb2bb95c510bc"}],"parent_message":null}