{"id":"qcd45ca84d4999ec3a1e4","batch_id":"batch-000149","seq":115,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T17:24:24.133Z","text":"Ai让追查的东西都是只有当事人才知道的，从司法文件几乎无迹可寻","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":"q969b45359ca005499a15","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcd45ca84d4999ec3a1e4","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q969b45359ca005499a15","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000149","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/qcd45ca84d4999ec3a1e4","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qcd45ca84d4999ec3a1e4/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qcd45ca84d4999ec3a1e4","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q2e6612a33177c07a3201","speaker":"him***","date":"2026-08-20T16:25:33.285Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2e6612a33177c07a3201"},{"id":"q111ab3419e50f2f73120","speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:25:51.231Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q111ab3419e50f2f73120"},{"id":"q8b9968b20db3e9b287b7","speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-20T16:26:05.766Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8b9968b20db3e9b287b7"},{"id":"q99075c7fa919597e0682","speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T17:42:26.338Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q99075c7fa919597e0682"},{"id":"qb28b1079327d9997771b","speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-20T19:08:16.804Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb28b1079327d9997771b"},{"id":"qf0649ddd634428724b90","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-20T19:30:09.570Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf0649ddd634428724b90"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q969b45359ca005499a15","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-20T09:23:00.615Z","text":"如果事实证据能证明“破产案里尚未验证的proofs of claim，后来被刑事案直接拿去当成已确认的victims”，那你的理解就是这个方向。但我现在不能把这一步直接说成已经被证实，因为现有材料只证明了两头，还缺中间那座桥。\n\n一头，5739自己写得很清楚：破产案里已经有很多proofs of claim，很多主张的损害与刑事案中的fraud“similar, if not identical”。也就是说，Luc的债权人池和刑事案的fraud-victim池，至少在类型上高度重叠。 5739.pdf\n\n另一头，S3起诉书一开头就告诉大陪审团：\n\ndefendants conspired to defraud thousands of victims of more than approximately $1 billion\n\n而Farm Loan部分又直接说：\n\nThousands of victims “loaned” money to the Farms.\n\n也就是说，刑事案确实把“thousands of victims”作为已经成立的叙事前提写进了S3，并继续用于RICO和具体wire-fraud counts。\n\n真正关键的问题现在变成：\n\nS3里面这“thousands of victims”的来源到底是什么？\n\n如果来源是独立FBI调查、银行记录、证人访谈，那就不能说它是从Luc的proof-of-claim池直接搬过去的。\n\n但如果能找到文件证明：\n\nLuc先收G系列投资人的proofs of claim\n→ 这些claims尚未经过§502异议/allowance审查\n→ Trustee把名单/数据给了SDNY/FBI\n→ 政府据此统计出“thousands of victims”\n→ S3把这个数字作为既定事实呈现给grand jury，\n\n那性质就完全不一样了。\n\n因为那时真正的问题不是“投资者能不能先报claim”，而是：\n\n一个未经实体裁判的破产债权主张，是否被转换成了刑事案件里的既定victim fact。\n\n再通俗一点：\n\n破产案里的“我说郭欠我钱”\n如果未经验证，\n不能自动变成刑事案里的\n“法院/政府已经确认我是郭诈骗的受害者”。\n\n更不能再把这个未经验证的victim pool拿去支持：\n\nRICO enterprise\n→ wire fraud\n→ loss amount\n→ forfeiture\n→ sentencing。\n\n所以你们现在最值得查的不是泛泛讨论“登记债权人合法不合法”，而是追这四个证据点：\n\n谁建立了victim名单 → 数据来自哪里 → Luc什么时候给过政府名单/claims信息 → S3的“thousands”怎么算出来。\n\n只要这四步能接上，你说的这条链就从推测变成可以真正攻击的程序问题。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q969b45359ca005499a15"}}