郭文贵刑事案 · EXHIBIT · ECF #31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007 Plaintiff, : - against - : WANG, YANPING, : March 31, 2023 New York, New York Defendant. : ------------------------------------ : BAIL HEARING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BY: JULIANA MURRAY, ESQ. RYAN FINKEL, ESQ. MICAH FERGENSON, ESQ. One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 For Defendant: CHAUDHRY LAW PLLC BY: PRIYA CHAUDHRY, ESQ. 147 West 25th Street New York, New York 10001 INTERPRETER PRESENT Transcription Service: Carole Ludwig, *Transcription Services* 155 East Fourth Street, #3C New York, New York 10009 Phone: (212) 420-0771 Email: [Transcription420@aol.com](mailto:Transcription420@aol.com) Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service.

| INDEX | | | | | | |-------------------------|-------------|-------|---------------|--------------|--------------| | E X A M I N A T I O N S | | | | | | | Witness | Direct | Cross | Re-<br>Direct | Re-<br>Cross | Court | | None | | | | | | | E X H I B I T S | | | | | | | Exhibit<br>Number | Description | | ID | In | Voir<br>Dire |

None

1

1 3 THE CLERK: We're here in the matter for a bail hearing, U.S.A. v. Yanping Wang, 23m2007. Parties, please state your name for the record starting with the Government. MS. JULIANA MURRAY: Good morning, Your Honor, Juliana Murray, Ryan Finkel, and Micah Fergenson on behalf of the United States. We're joined by (inaudible). THE COURT: Good morning. MS. PRIYA CHAUDHRY: Good morning, Your Honor, Priya Chaudhry from Chaudhry Law along with Alice Lipton of Lipton Law PLLC for Ms. Yanping Wang who is present seated all the way to my right (inaudible). THE COURT: Thank you, good morning. Good morning, Ms. Wang. Can you hear and understand everything the interpreter is saying? MS. WANG: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So, yes, this is scheduled for a bail hearing this morning in further follow-up to previous proceedings before Judge Parker and then Judge Netburn. And I understand though that the defense has an application in regard to whether they are ready to proceed today? MS. CHAUDHRY: Yes, Your Honor, if I can

1 4 (inaudible). We are requesting that this hearing be adjourned and (inaudible) in front of Judge Torres (inaudible). First, for context, Ms. Wang was arrested on March 15, 2023, which is 16 days ago. At the time of her arrest, the Government (inaudible) and obtained all of the documents that they (inaudible). Since that time we have asked the Government for a (inaudible) obtained; they did not provide it to us. We asked them previously for photos of what they received, and only last night did they provide them, and to be fair, we did ask for them yesterday because in their response to our motion that started referencing evidence that we had never seen.

So the Government has had all of the information that it today provided the Court and on its own surreply to our reply without getting permission they provided (inaudible). And we have had constant contact with the Government since Ms. Wang was arrested, more than in most cases, as we have been trying to satisfy the (inaudible). Ms. Lipton has had nearly daily contact with the Government discussing the issues, trying to comply (inaudible), trying to come up with a different package. Never before did the Government tell us that this is what they have or that this was doing to be what they asked for.

And now 30 minutes before this hearing in their surreply they ambush us with this information that we have not had a chance to discuss with our client, and barely in the back we got to show her what it is they're saying. And in addition to (inaudible) that we had no chance to procure or obtain, they're now asking for a detention which is, first of all, not an appropriate thing in a reply memo, it's a separate motion. And, two, this Court no longer has original jurisdiction over a request for detention. This is now a district court case. So it is not appropriate for them to bring in front of this court which is supposed to, according to Judge Torres, just discuss our bail application. Now they have made in their reply a new application (inaudible) surreply for detention without any conditions.

It would be, Your Honor, ineffective of us to proceed today given what the Government has done. We have not had an adequate opportunity to discuss this with our client and to (inaudible) to research any of the issues they have brought up here or investigate them independently. There are now evidentiary issues that (inaudible). The Government has made some allegations

1 6 of what the relationships are between documents they found and Ms. Wang. They have made representations about items they had found in her possession that they have not provided to us yet. And as the Court knows, typically the Government would need to put some sort of evidence forth, whether it would be in an affidavit from an agent or something like that, and we would have a chance to examine that and reply. We can't do any of that.

And for all of those reasons we are unable to proceed today, and we would ask that this Court adjourn this hearing and send it back to Judge Torres so that we can adequately address all these issues. I believe you already have us here (inaudible) Judge Torres set for Tuesday, April 5. And that's when we'd like this hearing to be adjourned to (inaudible).

THE COURT: Now, did Judge Torres previously refer the application that you have made to this Court? MS. CHAUDHRY: Our application she did refer to this Court, but the Government in their surreply for the first time brought in all these allegations and evidence has now made a new application for detention. Judge Torres did not have the opportunity to look at that (inaudible) to this Court. So our view is that now

1 7 there are two different issues. One was our bail hearing which we separately are unprepared to address because they did not provide this to us, and, in fact, in their original reply they did not provide it, which would have given us the opportunity to go to the (inaudible) with an interpreter and Ms. Wang and go through these things and be ready for today. That's one. And then separately they have now made a new application which Judge Torres has not referred to this Court which is for a detention hearing.

THE COURT: I mean it's all one and the same, right? You've had turns for bail and release, and the question arose as to whether those conditions have been met, whether the Government is being unreasonable in determining whether those conditions have been met, and what the consequences should be which might include the Court finding that the suretors are appropriate or not and/or potential modification which I believe the defendant asked for. And as I saw in the surreply this morning, the Government, as I saw it, was, yes, putting some new evidence before the Court and suggesting that if the Court were so inclined to release, that the conditions would have to be modified for that. I mean I'll view this as all one and the same.

1 8 However, I do think that there may be some concern about your opportunity to be able to sufficiently respond to what was submitted this morning. So let me ask Ms. Murray if she can respond to that. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. We agree with Your Honor that all these matters (inaudible) and that is exactly what Judge Torres (inaudible). Yesterday morning we laid out the procedural history of this matter including that the initial bail hearing had been held by Judge Parker on March 15. The defendant then asked for a hearing in front of Judge Netburn the next week which was determined to be not ripe (inaudible) presented to the Court. (inaudible) at the defendant's request (inaudible) defense to file a motion last Friday, (inaudible) file our response on Wednesday, (inaudible) hearing to proceed today. And Judge Torres was aware of all of that when she referred, generally speaking, the bail hearing to this Court. So we do believe that all (inaudible). The

defendant has made a motion, the Government has responded, it's been fully briefed. To the extent the Government submitted a supplemental opposition today, that contains new information that we only learned yesterday, and we're putting it before the Court

1 9 (inaudible), but there's no reason for the Court to defer a decision on the motion which the defendant chose to bring before this Court (inaudible).

THE COURT: Ms. Chaudhry.

MS. CHAUDHRY: And, Your Honor, Ms. Murray did not address why (inaudible) for 15 days and she knew this yesterday, and she didn't even give us a heads up and why she waited to let us know after she filed it on the docket. That is just not appropriate. There's no way we could have been prepared. It seems clearly designed to make it so that we either (inaudible) situation of proceeding ineffectively (inaudible) or we're required now to ask for more time.

THE COURT: Well, look, I do think it's only fair for the defense to be able to have some time to respond, particularly since this did arise out of the defendant's application. And the defendant is currently being detained on the proviso that she has to meet all conditions before she is released. There's that restriction and provision that is at issue. So since the defendant is currently being detained and it is her application to have the Court either agree that the qualifications of the suretors are sufficient or to modify the provisions, I will put this over.

1 10 I do think it's highly inefficient to continue having this go from duty judge to duty judge. I would be happy to keep it, and now that I am familiar with it and to have you back for a hearing next week. Ms. Murray, what do you think of that? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor, we agree, and to the extent that the defense would like to proceed in front of Judge Torres, we think it would be appropriate (inaudible). THE COURT: Do you have a position on that, Ms. Chaudhry? And let me be clear, I'm not – this would not be to the exclusion of your raising with Judge Torres if you want her to consider it. (pause in proceeding) MS. CHAUDHRY: Your Honor, when would you be able to schedule (inaudible)? THE COURT: Well, I assume you want it for after seeing Judge Torres. And is Judge Torres being seen on Tuesday? MS. CHAUDHRY: (inaudible) THE COURT: Okay. (pause in proceeding) THE COURT: I could see her afterwards. So I could see you after you see Judge Torres on Tuesday. If

1 11 she's made a decision that she wants to deal with it, then we don't need to have a hearing. And if she still wants me to consider it, we can have a hearing after you have seen her. All right, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: (inaudible) THE COURT: All right, so we – no? Yeah, when you have any estimate of when you would be out of Judge Torres' courtroom, I don't know what it is you'll necessarily be going over with her, why don't I set it down for – you said it was 11:30 with -- MS. MURRAY: It's 11:30, Your Honor. It's an initial pretrial conference for Ms. Wang and her coconspirators (inaudible), and then we'll (inaudible). THE COURT: Ah. Okay, why don't we set it down for 1:30. If you're ready earlier, let me know. If it's going to run late, just try to get in touch with my deputy and we'll take care of it. All right? Thank you, we're adjourned on this matter. (Whereupon the matter is adjourned.)

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--| | 1 | 12 | | | 2 | C<br>E<br>R<br>T I F I C A T E | | | 3 | | | | 4 | I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing | | | 5 | transcript of proceedings in the United States District | | | 6 | Court, Southern District<br>of New York,<br>United States of | | | 7 | America versus Wang,<br>Docket #23cr118/23m2007,<br>was | | | 8 | prepared using PC-based<br>transcription software<br>and is a | | | 9 | true and accurate record of the proceedings. | | | 10 | | | | 11 | | | | 12 | Signature_______________________________ | | | 13 | Carole Ludwig | | | 14 | Date:<br>April<br>3,<br>2023 | | | 15 | | | | 16 | | | | 17 | | | | 18 | | | | 19 | | | | 20 | | | | 21 | | | | 22 | | | | 23 | | | | 24 | | | | 25 | | | | | | |