郭文贵刑事案 · EXHIBIT · ECF #33

元数据

当事人: 郭文贵 (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo / Ho Wan Kwok)
法院: SDNY
案号: 23-cr-00118
ECF #: 33
类型: EXHIBIT
立案日: 2023-04-06

原始法庭文件为英文，下方为英文全文。

全文

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: : Docket #23cr118/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 23m2007 Plaintiff, : - against - : WANG, YANPING, : April 4, 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. One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 For Defendant: LIPMAN LAW PLLC BY: ALEX LIPMAN, ESQ. 45 West 29th Street, Suite 303 New York, New York 10001 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 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; Transcript produced by transcription service.

| | | | | | 2 | |-------------------------|-------------|-------|---------------|--------------|-------| | INDEX | | | | | | | E X A M I N A T I O N S | | | | | | | Witness | Direct | Cross | Re- Direct | Re- Cross | Court | | None | | | | | | | E X H I B I T S | | | | | | | Exhibit Number | Description | ID | In | Voir Dire | | | None | | | | | |

|----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 4 | | 2 | respect to the financial suretors that the Government | | 3 | says are not sufficient to meet the obligation under the | | 4 | conditions set by Judge Parker that two financially | | 5 | responsible people be able to sign on to the bond. | | 6 | And this is really defendant's application in | | 7 | that they raised this concern, and so I'll hear from | | 8 | defense counsel first. But why don't you also let me | | 9 | know if there's been any developments during the last | | 10 | week that make any difference and/or whether anything | | 11 | that happened before Judge Torres influences what | | 12 | happens here. | | 13 | MS. MURRAY: Just briefly, Your Honor, I just | | 14 | wanted to confirm that this is being recorded, this | | 15 | proceeding, because I don't see a court reporter. So | | 16 | just for the record. | | 17 | THE COURT: It is being recorded | | 18 | electronically. | | 19 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you. | | 20 | MR. LIPMAN: May I begin, Your Honor? | | 21 | THE COURT: Yes, please. | | 22 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, in our view, from the | | 23 | beginning, the Government never actually established by | | 24 | preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a | | 25 | flight risk. And I want to go -- we actually agreed to |

# 1 PROCEEDING 5

the bond conditions, but we agreed to the bond conditions based on conversation that we had with the Government that in which the Government made certain representations about what was found in Ms. Wang's apartment. And so we were told that, we didn't have a lot of time to discuss things with our client, but we thought, all right, it seems reasonable, and then we agreed that we were going to propose names of two co- signers for the bond and, frankly, didn't think that this was going to be an issue.

Then the Government made certain statements on the record, and as we started having trouble having them approve the people we proposed, we at some point asked them for support for some of the things that they said were the reasons that our client is a flight risk. And so then they eventually provided it to us, and what we found is basically one of three things. The Government either made statements that are half true, and so we need to actually fill in the blanks and realize that what they said isn't really right. They have made statements that are contradicted by the evidence that they gathered in Ms. Wang's apartment, and then they made statements for which they're just conjectures. They're not actually supported by any evidence. So let

|----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 6 | | 2 | me back up and start at the beginning. | | 3 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 4 | MR. LIPMAN: So Ms. Wang and her co-defendant, | | 5 | Mr. Kwok, knew that the Government was looking at them | | 6 | for a very long time, so much so that in September, and | | 7 | according to the indictment, in September and October of | | 8 | last year the Government seized a bunch of assets, | | 9 | according to the indictment it's something like on the | | 10 | order of \$700 million, and the Government seized those | | 11 | assets. It was a civil seizure, but it referenced, as | | 12 | specified (indiscernible). Right? So \$700 million | | 13 | seized, I'm not sure that I can say for the Court that | | 14 | my client understood the full scale of what was seized, | | 15 | but she certainly understood that the Justice Department | | 16 | has seized a bunch of money, right. | | 17 | And then there was an SEC settlement for the | | 18 | GTV case which is the one that's relevant to her, and | | 19 | GTV paid back something in the order of I want to say | | 20 | \$500 million, which incidentally they didn't pay after | | 21 | the – they first paid the money and then the SEC issued | | 22 | a settlement order. So it's in the reverse order from | | 23 | the Government says happened. Okay? So she knew, she | | 24 | knew that the Government was looking at her and that she | | 25 | was potentially in severe legal jeopardy. |

### 1 PROCEEDING 7

Despite that, she didn't go anywhere, but there's more. The Government says she had the passport from, a Chinese passport that she could've traveled on, right, and that she, and she's an asylum applicant, and because she's an asylum applicant, they say this is one of the factors to consider in her not having ties to the United States is somehow she count against her.

Well, because she's an asylum applicant and she doesn't want to lose her asylum application, she did want to go travel, and she applied to the United States government for a furlough so that if she traveled, her asylum application would not get denied. So the Government, and that happened, she received permission to travel between December and January of last year, so December '22 to January I want to say 27, I'm probably wrong on the exact date, but something from mid-December to the third week of January --

THE COURT: And when was the seizure of the money that you referred to?

MR. LIPMAN: September and October according to the indictment. I think it's September 18 and October, was it is, 24, 26.

So she put the government on notice that she was going to go travel despite all of this going on.

1 PROCEEDING 8 She did not travel during that window. It expired. It expired for reasons that have nothing to do with anything other than she had a particular trip that she had in mind to make, she couldn't get, it didn't work out logistically. She then applied for another application, and I believe that was, according to her immigration counsel, that was on February 8, 2023. So a month before she was arrested.

So the idea that she is a flight risk is, given all of that, is a little far-fetched, but there is a reason for it, and the reason is this. Ms. Wang is in different times would be called a revolutionary. She has put herself, her family, everything she's done at risk because she is opposing the communist party of China, and whatever it is that they say in the indictment, there is no dispute, none whatsoever, that she has put herself in jeopardy. Her son is in China, her husband, the man, the one and only boyfriend she's ever had, they're not allowed to have any communication with her --

THE COURT: Right, but as I understand the Government, I don't know if they've pivoted or whether they always asserted this, but their concern is with fleeing to other jurisdictions, be it the United Arab

1 PROCEEDING 9 Emirates where supposedly Mr. Je, a co-conspirator, is or Vanuatu where she has an expired passport application or wherever.

MR. LIPMAN: So, Your Honor, let me take Vanuatu first because that's easiest. Okay? Together with the passport that's expired, they also found two documents both for her and Mr. Kwok in her apartment saying that she's renouncing Vanuatu citizenship. So that's not an issue. The other thing is she got the passport for Vanuatu I believe in 2016, if I have that correctly, that was before she came to the United States. China and Vanuatu have since become good friends, and it's a different situation now, and I don't think it would be safe for her to go there.

As far as going to United Arab Emirates, the United Arab Emirates does not, from what we heard this morning from the Government in Mr. Kwok's hearing, United Arab Emirates does not extradite its citizens to the United States. It does have an extradition treaty with China. She's not a citizen of United Arab Emirates, nobody's suggesting that she is. She's not, she doesn't have a passport from there. The only passport that she had that was still live, they have possession of that passport. They found it in her

|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 10 | | 2 | apartment. So no, she cannot go somewhere else. | | 3 | Now let's talk about whether she -- | | 4 | THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, I want to stop | | 5 | you there, just on the issue of the extradition with | | 6 | United, with the UAE. What I heard you say was that | | 7 | they don't have an extradition agreement with respect to | | 8 | citizens of the UAE, and then I thought I heard you say | | 9 | that they have an extradition treaty with China which, | | 10 | of course, she's not going to go back to, and this isn't | | 11 | a proceeding in China. What is their status with | | 12 | respect to extradition of a citizen of a third-party | | 13 | country, if you will, and extraditing to the United | | 14 | States? I'm sure the Government can tell me but I'm | | 15 | wondering if you have an understanding. | | 16 | MR. LIPMAN: As far as I know, there is no | | 17 | extradition treaty with the United States, but it's an | | 18 | irrelevant issue rather because, first of all, she can't | | 19 | get there. Okay? And, second, she's not concerned | | 20 | about being extradited to the United States; she's | | 21 | concerned about being extradited to China -- | | 22 | THE COURT: I understand. | | 23 | MR. LIPMAN: -- where she's going to get | | 24 | arrested and shot. I mean there's a difference. You | | 25 | know, as bad as the MDC is, it's not exactly a Chinese |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 11 | | 2 | prison. | | 3 | THE COURT: But is your point if she shows up | | 4 | at the UAE, she's going to get exported or extradited to | | 5 | China automatically? | | 6 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, I don't know about | | 7 | automatically, but she certainly is in great danger of | | 8 | that happening. That's absolutely true. And, look, in | | 9 | the hearing that we had earlier this morning, the | | 10 | Government actually, it was discussed, all the efforts | | 11 | that the Chinese government has undertaken to get Mr. | | 12 | Kwok back to China, including bribing American | | 13 | officials, there's a case going on now, a criminal trial | | 14 | I believe is going on right now in D.C. in which several | | 15 | government officials who've been bribed by China in | | 16 | order to facilitate Mr. Kwok's deportation from the | | 17 | United States to China. | | 18 | Well, the Government, this woman, according to | | 19 | the Government, is Mr. Kwok's chief of staff, whatever | | 20 | that means. Well, I don't think that they seriously | | 21 | will dispute that she is in danger. So -- | | 22 | THE COURT: I'm sorry, that she's what? | | 23 | MR. LIPMAN: In danger. | | 24 | THE COURT: In danger. | | 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Meaning I don't think they |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 12 | | 2 | seriously dispute that if she went to China, got into | | 3 | China or that China wants her. | | 4 | THE COURT: Right. | | 5 | MR. LIPMAN: There can't be a serious dispute | | 6 | about that. So now let's talk about what would happen | | 7 | if she were in the United States. Basic reason, basic | | 8 | reason, she is Mr. Kwok's, according to the Government, | | 9 | chief of staff. She's very recognizable. Right? She's | | 10 | recognizable in the community of people who are here. | | 11 | This is a community of thousands of people in the United | | 12 | States. So the Government says, oh, they will hide her. | | 13 | Well, first of all, that's, forgive me, but that's just | | 14 | an improper inference. To think that thousands of | | 15 | people who are on the U.S. soil will secret a fugitive, | | 16 | is it because they're Chinese, is it because they speak | | 17 | Mandarin -- | | 18 | THE COURT: No, because they're, because they | | 19 | potentially were victims of the fraud. | | 20 | MR. LIPMAN: Except for this. If they are | | 21 | victims of the fraud, they know what's going on, they're | | 22 | adults, and so they could at any time become persuaded | | 23 | that, in fact, she should be returned to the United | | 24 | States government if she is a fugitive. | | 25 | But there's more to this, and the more is this, | | | | | 1 | PROCEEDING 13 | | 2 | if the Chinese – we know from what I've read in the | | 3 | paper, that the Chinese communist party has parking | | 4 | Chinese communist officials from their police in their | | 5 | United States consulate in New York. For a second can | | 6 | we think that they're not keeping tabs on her? And that | | 7 | if she showed up anywhere in any community where people | | 8 | speak Mandarin as their primary language that she would | | 9 | be spotted? For a second can anybody conceive that the | | 10 | Chinese communist party wouldn't find her and identify | | 11 | her and tell the government exactly where she is? | | 12 | Now let's take the alternative. Let's assume | | 13 | for a second that she decided to hide herself in, I | | 14 | don't know, Utah among white people. She speaks English | | 15 | with a heavy accent, and her first language in Mandarin. | | 16 | Would she not stick out like a sore thumb? The idea | | 17 | that this woman can hide is blatantly absurd. It's | | 18 | absurd. And the idea that she could rely on people to | | 19 | hide her in the United States. So where are we? She | | 20 | can't leave and she can't hide. That's not flight risk. | | 21 | But there's more. And the more is this. The | | 22 | Government said, and this is why we actually thought we | | 23 | were okay with the bail package that they proposed. | | 24 | They said we found stuff in her apartment that tells you | | | |

25 |that she's a flight risk. What is it? We found twelve

They were found on the counter in the kitchen, three of them. They were plugged in in plain view. There was a phone that was on the side of the table,

|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 16 | | 2 | THE COURT: Sure. | | 3 | MR. LIPMAN: On page 7 of 9. | | 4 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 5 | MR. LIPMAN: Do you see where it says 56 -- | | 6 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 7 | MR. LIPMAN: -- white phone, 57, white phone -- | | 8 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 9 | MR. LIPMAN: -- 58, white phone -- | | 10 | THE COURT: In bag in closet. | | 11 | MR. LIPMAN: In bag in closet. Not in a box | | 12 | pretending like it's new. It's in a bag in closet. I | | 13 | have a picture of the closet. I'm happy to show the | | 14 | Court the bag that it was in. There is, in fact, in | | 15 | that picture one white box for an iPhone in that | | 16 | picture. One box. And according to this none of these | | 17 | phones came out of that bag, that box. But even if one | | 18 | did, that's one. | | 19 | Now, also on this page you see, Your Honor, | | 20 | where it says Mac book number 55 in between clothes? | | 21 | THE COURT: Uh huh. | | 22 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay, so one of the things that | | 23 | they said is, oh, look, she's hiding stuff in between, | | 24 | in her closet. She's secreted a laptop in between her | | 25 | clothes. So a couple of things about that. Number one, | | 1 | PROCEEDING 17 | | 2 | as the Government well knows, Ms. Wang is not unfamiliar | | 3 | with what happens when the FBI raids somebody. They | | 4 | raided Mr. Kwok previously. She knows what happens when | | 5 | that happens. Okay? So the idea that she could hide | | 6 | that she could hide a laptop in between her sweaters is | | 7 | absurd. | | 8 | But there's more now, Your Honor. Here is the | | 9 | – if I may – which is this? | | 10 | ATTORNEY: 46. | | 11 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. | | 12 | THE COURT: You may, and just, I want to | | 13 | confirm something. Are we looking at evidence and | | 14 | material that was not available before the hearing | | 15 | before Judge Parker? | | 16 | MR. LIPMAN: This was not available to us | | 17 | before – we got this – so here's what happened. We | | 18 | asked them some of these questions about the phone, | | 19 | right, we asked those questions I think it was on the | | 20 | 29th. Do you have our letter? But essentially, Your | | 21 | Honor, we got these the night before we saw you. | | 22 | THE COURT: Okay, so that was well after Judge | | 23 | Parker's ruling. | | 24 | MR. LIPMAN: If I may approach, Your Honor. | | 25 | THE COURT: Yes. |

### 1 PROCEEDING 18

MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, this is the FBI schematic of the apartment that Ms. Wang lives in. By the way, it's 740 square feet. This is a woman who apparently defrauded people up to, for something like a billion dollars. Anyway, so on this page, Your Honor, I call the Court's attention on what is in the apartment and what is not. There is a bed in the bedroom, and there's a side table. There is a couch in the livingroom, and there's something in front of the couch, it's actually a (indiscernible). There is nothing else in this apartment. There's no wardrobe, there's no chest of drawers, there's no desk, there's nothing. So where does she keep her stuff? In the closets. All of her stuff is in the closets. Her old phones were in the closet. Right? There's nothing nefarious about putting stuff in the closet when you don't have any furniture. So then, so then they say, okay, we found money in her apartment. We found money, we found \$138,000. Ms. Murray said in recent bills, she thought they were recent bills. Okay. So then we thought, all right, can

we see the pictures of the money? Why did we ask for pictures of the money? Because we had reason to think that a bunch of that money was in red envelopes which apparently in Chinese culture it is common on holidays

|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------- | 1 | PROCEEDING 19 | 2 | like Chinese New Year to give people gifts of money, and | 3 | they found red envelopes. And so I wanted to see where | 4 | the money is, what it looks like, and how old it is. | 5 | Right? | 6 | So asked for the pictures. That's actually, | 7 | truth be told, that's the thing that kind of prompted | 8 | this conversation to begin with. (indiscernible) the | 9 | money. Okay? | 10 | So what did we find? (pause) May I approach, | 11 | Your Honor? | 12 | THE COURT: Yes, you may. | 13 | (pause in proceeding) | 14 | MR. LIPMAN: This, Your Honor, is the pouch in | 15 | which the money was found. Now, the Government says in | 16 | a letter to you, Your Honor, in their latest letter, | 17 | they said conveniently in a bag for easy retrieval. | 18 | Really? Okay, let's look at it. It's a bank bag. This | 19 | is what money comes from when you get money from the | 20 | bank. What else do we see here? We see that there are | 21 | a bunch of this is in red envelopes. Now there's other | 22 | cash in here, and, in fact, there's another picture. | 23 | THE COURT: Look, you don't need to go in this | 24 | much detail on the cash. And, you know, I agree with | 25 | you, I don't find the fact that it's in a bag | 1 | PROCEEDING 20 | 2 | particularly persuasive that means someone's necessarily | 3 | going to run because it's in a bag. It's organized. | 4 | But one thing maybe you can tell me is, and I realize | 5 | this is shifting time a bit, but I thought that in their | 6 | filing that, their last filing that prompted putting | 7 | this over, that they had indicated and represented that | 8 | Ms. Wang did not disclose this \$138,000 to | 9 | I was under the impression this had already been seized | 10 | a couple of weeks before. | 11 | MR. LIPMAN: No, it was seized on the day of | 12 | her arrest, okay, and the question that she was asked, | 13 | the relevant question was did you have any money cash on | 14 | you when you were arrested. She was arrested at 6:15 | 15 | a.m., she was in her pajamas. The truthful answer to | 16 | that question is no. We checked out notes, we don't see | 17 | any other questions that would have elicited a different | 18 | answer. So did she disclose it voluntarily? No. I | 19 | don't know that she was asked about it. | 20 | THE COURT: Okay. | 21 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay? | 22 | THE COURT: I get it. | 23 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, even if she had | 24 | been asked about it, there were a dozen FBI agents in | 25 | her apartment ripping it up. Okay, I mean she was, she ------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Pretrial, but | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 21 | | 2 | was beyond stressed. She's sitting and talking, in a | | 3 | situation that she's never encountered, she's being | | 4 | asked these questions. Is it crazy that, you know, the | | 5 | question is have you, do you have any cash on you, and | | 6 | she says - did you have any cash on you when you | | 7 | arrested and the answer is no and she doesn't say | | 8 | anything else? I mean really? | | 9 | All right. Now, by the way, before - because | | 10 | they're going to bring up another picture for you, Your | | 11 | Honor, and I don't want to be accused of giving you | | 12 | something less than the full picture. And the full | | 13 | picture is that when they made another picture of the | | 14 | money - I apologize, Your Honor. I've gotten so | | 15 | excited, I lost the other picture of the money. Here it | | 16 | is. May I approach? | | 17 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 18 | (pause in proceeding) | | 19 | MR. LIPMAN: This is the picture that makes it | | 20 | look as if more of this money is more recent because you | | 21 | can see there are some old bills, some new bills. | | 22 | However, with that said, as I told the Government, | | 23 | there's a good explanation for why some of that money is | | 24 | recent. Okay? And the explanation, and I told the | | 25 | Government this, is that she had some pounds that she | | 1 | PROCEEDING 22 | | 2 | brought over from, with her herself at some point in her | | 3 | previous travels, and that those pounds, you know, | | 4 | however they got to her, but those pounds needed to be | | 5 | replaced because apparently when the Queen died, they're | | 6 | exchanging their money for money that looks, that has a | | 7 | picture of the King. Okay, so over time she had that | | 8 | replaced, so there's got to be something like \$30,000, | | 9 | \$40,000 in there that's recent that has to do with that. | | 10 | I asked to see the bills yesterday when it was | | 11 | too late for me to go do it, they said you can come see | | 12 | it. I'll see them at some point. But my point though, | | 13 | Your Honor, the idea that this is money secreted so that | | 14 | she can get out of Dodge, no, no, that doesn't make any | | 15 | sense. | | 16 | THE COURT: No, but it is suggestive that she | | 17 | has access to significant funds even if that particular | | 18 | one wasn't what she was intending to use. | | 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Let's address that. Okay? The | | 20 | Government says she didn't disclose all of the bank | | 21 | accounts over which she had control. I had a specific | | 22 | conversation with the Government in which I said if | | 23 | you're asking about accounts for which she can actually | | 24 | transact, meaning no third people, right, in other | | 25 | words, but my bank account, I can go and do stuff. My | | 1 | PROCEEDING 23 | | 2 | firm's bank account, not necessarily. Well, in my case | | 3 | yes, but, you know, if you work for a firm, you may be | | 4 | able to direct somebody to do whatever, that's firm | | 5 | business, but you can't take it and put it in your | | 6 | pocket. Okay? So what I said to the Government is we | | 7 | are aware of two accounts, right, that are hers. We're | | 8 | aware of another business account where she could have, | | 9 | she could transact. We gave them the account and the | | 10 | number. Right? We're not aware of any other accounts. | | 11 | That is not, we did not hide from the Government that | | 12 | she owns this BBI entity. That's not - the question was | | 13 | -- | | 14 | THE COURT: I understand, that's, of the list | | 15 | of four things, three of them were business entities, | | 16 | two of them weren't even hers directly. What about the | | 17 | Himalayan cryptocurrency? | | 18 | MR. LIPMAN: Good question. So I've been | | 19 | trying to figure out what happened with the Himalayan | | 20 | thing, and there are two things about that. Number one, | | 21 | the document that they're referring to, remember how I | | 22 | said there are some things where there's evidence, there | | 23 | are some things that are half-truths, there are some | | 24 | things that are contradicted, and then there are some | | 25 | things were it's just a leap? Right? | | 1 | PROCEEDING 24 | | 2 | So what are they looking at? They're looking | | 3 | at a schedule that says allocation, okay, allocation. | | 4 | They're not looking at an account at H Coin. They're | | 5 | not looking - they're looking at an allocation. I've | | 6 | been trying to figure out what happened to that | | 7 | allocation. The best I can ascertain is that she has no | | 8 | idea what happened. I'm not saying that something | | 9 | didn't happen with it. I'm saying that she has no idea. | | 10 | Okay? | | 11 | THE COURT: But which is -- | | 12 | (interposing) | | 13 | MR. LIPMAN: But there's more -- | | 14 | THE COURT: The current value of that, right, | | 15 | at least the Government says is something like \$13 | | 16 | million. I'm sure it was less than, well, maybe who | | 17 | knows given the market. But you would think that | | 18 | someone - I'm going to assume it was a significant | | 19 | amount of cyber currently at the time in that to her it | | 20 | was significant, and you would think one would keep | | 21 | track of that significant amount. | | 22 | MR. LIPMAN: If one thought that it was theirs, | | 23 | then one would. But, Your Honor, here's - so the | | 24 | Government seized hundreds of millions of dollars, | | 25 | including from the Himalayan exchange. The Government |

|-----------------------|-------------|----------------|---------------| |-----------------------|-------------|----------------|---------------|

| 1 | PROCEEDING 25 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | is alleging that it's all a fraud. Out of one side of | | 3 | their mouth they say it's worthless, and people can't | | 4 | actually turn it into cash. The SEC said, in its | | 5 | complaint the SEC says people tried to turn it into cash | | 6 | but couldn't. Well, is it or isn't it? Because if it | | 7 | is, then maybe it's worth \$13 million, though we don't | | 8 | know how to access it. But if it isn't, if their | | 9 | allegations are correct, then I don't know what the | | 10 | mechanism is for turning this into cash. Okay? | | 11 | So this is all to say that the presumption is | | 12 | that she would be released or released pursuant to | | 13 | conditions that are least restrictive to assure her -- | | 14 | THE COURT: Right, but are we arguing anew? I | | 15 | mean this comes back to the question, Judge Parker | | 16 | implemented or ordered conditions. The crux of the | | 17 | problem is that one of her conditions is not being | | 18 | fulfilled because the Government has taken the position | | 19 | that none of the persons offered to be financially | | 20 | responsible are going to be sufficient suretors either | | 21 | because they don't exercise moral suasion, because they | | 22 | aren't financially responsible, or they are a victim or | | 23 | a participant in the alleged fraud. And there's a | | 24 | question of, okay, what happens if they keep on not | | 25 | accepting these people. So I just want to be careful |

|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 27 | | 2 | that were taken. I was looking to see if I can find a | | 3 | photograph or a log of a document hidden in the | | 4 | cushions. That doesn't exist. You know what else | | 5 | doesn't exist? They said in their – this is a | | 6 | representation to a court, they said we found a phone | | 7 | hidden between mattresses in her bedroom. I want to see | | 8 | this picture. I want to find it on the log of pictures | | 9 | that are taken. Where is it? It doesn't exist. Or at | | 10 | least it hasn't been given to us. | | 11 | Now, there is a picture like that that was | | 12 | taken at Mr. Kwok's search, and – thank you. | | 13 | (pause in proceeding) | | 14 | MR. LIPMAN: May I approach, Your Honor? | | 15 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 16 | MR. LIPMAN: So that's a picture of a phone | | 17 | hidden between mattresses. But it's not from her | | 18 | apartment. And I have yet to see the one from her | | 19 | apartment. | | 20 | One other thing, they said she has stuff in | | 21 | her, in the pouch for easy retrieval, right, the money | | 22 | was in the pouch for easy retrieval. Everything was in | | 23 | a pouch for easy retrieval. You know what else was in | | 24 | the pouch for easy retrieval? I think every credit card | | 25 | she's ever had. I mean a bunch of old expired credit |

| PROCEEDING 28 | | | 1 | | | 2 | cards, easy retrieval. It doesn't make sense. | | 3 | Now let me, Your Honor, let me just now switch | | 4 | over to the other piece of this which is the proposed | | 5 | co-signers, the Government's refusal to approve any, and | | 6 | what this is about. And I want to start with something | | 7 | that I actually did not plan on doing because it only | | 8 | happened in the courtroom this morning. You see these | | 9 | people here, many of these people here are here to | | 10 | support her. | | 11 | She got emotional in the courtroom and started | | 12 | crying because she realized that all these people are | | 13 | here to support her, and let me explain what that means. | | 14 | The Government probably doesn't know this, but surely it | | 15 | is actually unlawful for the Government to disclose that | | 16 | somebody's an asylum applicant. There's a regulation | | 17 | that says that. I didn't know. I found out recently. | | 18 | I'm sure they don't know. I'm sure they didn't do it | | 19 | deliberately. | | 20 | But the reason is obvious. Right? If you have | | 21 | somebody coming from a country, you identify them as | | 22 | somebody who's seeking asylum somewhere else, that | | 23 | immediately puts them in danger. All of these people | | 24 | simply by coming here, do you think there's no one here | | 25 | from the Chinese communist party in this room right now |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 29 | | 2 | monitoring this? All these people simply by coming up | | 3 | and standing up for her have exposed themselves, their | | 4 | families -- | | 5 | THE COURT: I don't think anyone questions | | 6 | perhaps their intent. The question does the -- | | 7 | MR. LIPMAN: Does she care about them? | | 8 | THE COURT: -- does the defendant care enough | | 9 | about these people that she's going to be concerned | | 10 | enough about whatever monetary means they're putting on | | 11 | the line versus taking flight, and one would paint the | | 12 | picture, if you're the Government, saying she's alleged | | 13 | to have committed fraud, you've got strong evidence. So | | 14 | why would she care about the people she defrauded? | | 15 | MR. LIPMAN: Fair amount, Your Honor, I was | | 16 | about to address it. | | 17 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 18 | MR. LIPMAN: There are different ways to think | | 19 | about moral suasion. Right? I think we all agree that | | 20 | a brother can sign for a brother, and the first brother | | 21 | is not going to care. They're relatives, they're | | 22 | brothers, but they're not going to care. It's also true | | 23 | that people can connect in some way, they could be | | 24 | strangers, but they connected, right, and so somebody | | 25 | can have moral suasion over somebody else who actually |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 30 | | 2 | they don't have all that much interaction. They just | | 3 | love each other. Right? | | 4 | But there's another kind, and the other kind is | | 5 | this, if you are a member of a certain kind of community | | 6 | and you're – and this community is important to you, | | 7 | it's important to you what happens to the members of | | 8 | this community. Now, the Government's going to say, oh, | | 9 | my God, a billion dollars, these people are victims. | | 10 | Well, they're here, they don't think they're victims, | | 11 | but that's another story. Okay? | | 12 | But here's the thing, look at the indictment, | | 13 | Your Honor. Mr. Kwok is alleged to have bought himself | | 14 | a Lamborghini. I would love one. Okay? But does she | | 15 | have one? No. He apparently is living in a mansion and | | 16 | has other mansions and boats and this and that and the | | 17 | other thing. Where in the indictment is there an | | 18 | allegation that any of this money went to her? The | | 19 | closest they've come is this allocation of the coin | | 20 | allocation. Right? And we don't know what happened to | | 21 | that. Okay. | | 22 | So the question you have to ask yourself is why | | 23 | is she doing this? Why does she leave her family, her | | 24 | son, her one true love, right, and moved to a foreign | | 25 | country where she is basically exposing herself as a |

1 PROCEEDING 31 revolutionary, why did she do this? Okay. There's an answer, but that she's trying to enrich herself is not the answer. So then the question is would she, given what the Government has alleged about her, not about her co-defendants, but about her, because what happens to the co-defendants is relevant but what matters really is what happens to her.

And also the question, given the allegations that the Government has made, right, is she the kind of person who will stick one of these people with a \$5 million debt? And the answer to that is obviously no, she lives in a 740 square foot apartment without furniture, away from her family with whom she cannot have anymore contact. It's just beyond belief that we have given them eight people, grownups, right, they don't like all of them, that's fine. They say we didn't get enough documents with respect to certain people. Really? Somebody's willing to put up a \$3 billion house, what other documents do you want? We couldn't post that house unless we were able to prove to them that that house existed and belongs to the person who's posting it. Right? That person is an adult who understands what's going on and thinks that she, that that person has moral suasion over her and thinks that

|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 32 | | 2 | she's not – there are three people, the co-signers who | | 3 | are in this room today. | | 4 | So where does the Government, forgive me, Your | | 5 | Honor, but where does the Government get off making | | 6 | those judgments for these people? | | 7 | THE COURT: Well, that's part of what, I mean | | 8 | they get to form that judgment, and if you don't agree | | 9 | with it, that's why we're here, but they, the Government | | 10 | needs to be assured or feel assured that the financial | | 11 | security that's being posted is sufficient to reasonably | | 12 | assure that the defendant will not flee, and there is a | | 13 | valid concern I think in theory that if you have folks | | 14 | that are allegedly victims of a fraud that's being | | 15 | committed, that the fraudster or alleged fraudster may | | 16 | not be so incented as one might normally be, | | 17 | theoretically. | | 18 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, one cannot paint | | 19 | everything with a broad brush. | | 20 | THE COURT: I agree. | | 21 | MR. LIPMAN: One really needs to look at the | | 22 | particular circumstances, and the particular | | 23 | circumstances is that the Government is not alleging | | 24 | that she stole money. It's just that simple. They're | | 25 | alleging that the other two stole money. They're not – |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 34 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | Government cannot approve cosigners who belong to one of | | 3 | these two groups because as a category they | | 4 | (indiscernible), then, Your Honor, you have the | | 5 | authority to change this, and, in fact, as the Court is | | 6 | well aware, one of the provisions in here is that you | | 7 | cannot have a financial condition that makes it -- | | 8 | THE COURT: "The judicial officer may not | | 9 | impose a financial condition that results in the | | 10 | pretrial detention of the person." 18 U.S.C. | | 11 | 3142(c)(2). And yet the Government seems to have found | | 12 | cases that say that in the context of the statute, that | | 13 | does not trump but rather what trumps is whether the | | 14 | conditions will reasonably assure the presence of the | | 15 | defendant at future proceedings. And even a case you | | 16 | rely on, U.S. v. Panaronda , says that too, and they said | | 17 | the ultimate question is the Court should consider | | 18 | whether that particular financial condition is a | | 19 | necessary part of the bail conditions to provide | | 20 | reasonable assurance of the defendant's appearance. I | | 21 | mean that's really what we have to decide. | | 22 | MR. LIPMAN: And, Your Honor, that case, I'm | | 23 | going to mispronounce names so I apologize -- | | 24 | THE COURT: Panaronda. | | 25 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay, what happened in that case |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 35 | | 2 | is Judge Sweet, we'll change the conditions. I mean and | | 3 | he said, look, there's \$250,000 bail here, this person | | 4 | is never going to either meet it or get anybody who is | | 5 | good for \$250,000. I'm going to reduce it to something | | 6 | that people can meet and still satisfy the conditions. | | 7 | We proposed, just so that we're clear, in | | 8 | addition to posting, you know, property to secure the | | 9 | bond that would be more than enough, right, because, you | | 10 | know, it says two. There are three people who together | | 11 | have more property than \$5 million. They can post it | | 12 | all. They're prepared to do it. But separately. She | | 13 | has access, as far as I know, and the Government doesn't | | 14 | actually know anything different, she personally only | | 15 | has access at this point to two accounts that belong to | | 16 | her and that she has value in her apartment, we already | | 17 | posted that. So her apartment, one of her accounts | | 18 | completely -- | | 19 | THE COURT: With \$400,000. | | 20 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, I'm not sure exactly. | | 21 | THE COURT: Well, that was the one that you | | 22 | offered up -- | | 23 | MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, yeah. And then the second | | 24 | one monitor it. I mean we're happy to have - in other | | 25 | words, she -- |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 36 | | 2 | THE COURT: I get it. | | 3 | MR. LIPMAN: -- would have no money -- | | 4 | THE COURT: Right. | | 5 | MR. LIPMAN: Now, the Government says, well, | | 6 | you know, supporters, this and that, they can – that's | | 7 | true in every case. Your Honor, I'm going to sit down | | 8 | because I've been going on, you've indulged me and I | | 9 | appreciate that. But, Your Honor, there's no reason why | | 10 | this woman should spend another night in prison. | | 11 | There's no reason. She's not a flight risk. She has | | 12 | already put up her apartment. We're happy to have the | | 13 | three co-signers that are here are happy to go down and | | 14 | sign the bond today. We can post the – in fact, I will | | 15 | take personal responsibility for the two accounts. | | 16 | Thank you. My much wiser co-counsel reminded me that | | 17 | what these people have on the hook is not \$5 million. | | 18 | It's their lives and their families' lives because of | | 19 | what they're proposing to do for Ms. Wang. | | 20 | If that is not an indication that they think | | 21 | they have moral suasion -- | | 22 | THE COURT: That's not, it's not, I don't | | 23 | question their thought process on it. And I just want | | 24 | to confirm something. In terms of what you did propose | | 25 | in terms of possibly modifying the conditions is you | | 1 | PROCEEDING 37 | | 2 | wanted the Court to approve two of the eight that you | | 3 | had offered. You have three here now. You were going | | 4 | to, in addition to the security for the apartment, you | | 5 | were going to put up the \$400,000 account and the | | 6 | \$130,000 cash that was seized. You were going to put | | 7 | additional security through others that you now say I | | 8 | think that you could get to an amount in total of \$5 | | 9 | million. Do I have that right? | | 10 | MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, we could. I mean we have | | 11 | three people willing to post their property, and one of | | 12 | those houses is I think \$3 million, one is 1.7 if I | | 13 | remember correctly, but yes. | | 14 | THE COURT: And then you proposed also that the | | 15 | Government monitor and approve any expenditures from the | | 16 | \$500,000 account. | | 17 | MR. LIPMAN: I'd rather Pretrial did it and not | | 18 | the U.S. Attorney's Office, but yes. | | 19 | THE COURT: Yeah, again, one of the driving | | 20 | concerns here is – I'm just looking for where this was | | 21 | said, that, and this is from U.S. v. Melville I think. | | 22 | "Bail is not for the purpose of providing funds to the | | 23 | Government to seek the defendant should he go | | 24 | underground or flee the jurisdiction. Bail is intended | | 25 | as a catalyst to aid the appearance of the defendant |

|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 39 | | 2 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 3 | MR. LIPMAN: Okay. So I already said that she | | 4 | is a revolutionary. She believes in the cause. If she | | 5 | didn't believe in the cause, if she didn't believe in | | 6 | these people – thank you. | | 7 | THE COURT: The two are not mutually exclusive, | | 8 | fraud and belief in a cause. | | 9 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, Your Honor, that's true, | | 10 | but, again, you have to look at the individual and what | | 11 | is it that they did -- | | 12 | THE COURT: Of course. | | 13 | MR. LIPMAN: And so -- | | 14 | THE COURT: I agree. | | 15 | MR. LIPMAN: -- they call each other, so I've | | 16 | talked to a bunch of people -- | | 17 | THE COURT: I think I get enough. | | 18 | MR. LIPMAN: You get it. And they call each | | 19 | other – just before I sit down, they call each other | | 20 | brother and sister, okay, and I've talked to a bunch of | | 21 | them, and I mean all I can say is that they're willing | | 22 | to risk everything, and she has not done anything to | | 23 | indicate that she would do, she would jeopardize them | | 24 | at, jeopardize them personally for her own, for her own | | 25 | personal gain. |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 40 | | 2 | THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. | | 3 | MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 4 | THE COURT: All right, I will hear from the | | 5 | Government. | | 6 | MS. MURRAY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just one | | 7 | brief point that Mr. Lipman just raised. With respect | | 8 | to the defendant's personal gain, the Government would | | 9 | note that the defendant's living in a \$1.1 million | | 10 | apartment. The defendant has nearly a million dollars - | | 11 | - | | 12 | THE COURT: One might consider that poor in the | | 13 | middle of New York, but, you know, nonetheless. | | 14 | MS. MURRAY: Has nearly a million dollars in | | 15 | cash and her bank accounts, the two that were disclosed, | | 16 | and I'll get to that point. We have evidence that she | | 17 | was allocated \$7 million approximately of what was a | | 18 | cryptocurrency or a purported cryptocurrency at the time | | 19 | of the initial coin offering at a lower valuation. So | | 20 | that would be worth substantially more now. And she had | | 21 | over approximately \$138,000 of cash in her safe. | | 22 | But I would like to reset with respect today's | | 23 | proceedings. | | 24 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 25 | MS. MURRAY: At the very outset, Your Honor | | 1 | PROCEEDING 41 | | 2 | asked about the status of the bail proceedings, and no, | | 3 | there have no further discussions between the defense | | 4 | and the Government regarding proposed suretors. The | | 5 | Government has not received any documentation additional | | 6 | to the documents that the defense submitted in | | 7 | connection with their motion that support the various | | 8 | purported financial situation of the suretors that they | | 9 | proposed even though they were on notice from the | | 10 | Government's submission that we believe the | | 11 | documentation to be incomplete or inadequate to make an | | 12 | accurate determination or assessment. The Government | | 13 | has not successfully reached the eighth co-signer that | | 14 | the defense had proposed and, therefore, has been unable | | 15 | to interview that person. So that's where we are today. | | 16 | Now, there are really three questions for the | | 17 | Court today. First, with respect to the defendant's | | 18 | motion, whether the Court should direct that the | | 19 | defendant has satisfied the conditions of her bond, the | | 20 | conditions that Judge Parker imposed when she was | | 21 | initially presented on March 15, several hours after her | | 22 | arrest. The answer is clearly no. | | 23 | The second question is whether the Court should | | 24 | modify the conditions of that bond that Judge Parker | | 25 | imposed to remove the co-signers requirement, which is |

1 PROCEEDING 42 one of the first modification requests the defense is asking for, or potentially in connection with or an alternative various different modifications, be it posting additional property or cash in support of the bond, adding co-signers, aggregating co-signers. Again, with respect to modification, the answer is plainly no, the Court should not do that.

And, finally, the third question, which was raised in the Government's submission last Friday, whether the defendant should be detained pending trial because there are no conditions or set of conditions that will reasonably assure her presence at future court proceedings. And, Your Honor, the answer to that is yes.

So I'll take each of those points in turn.

First, with respect to the proposed co-signers, the defense submitted documentation and names and information about those co-signers to the Court. That is because they are not approved by the Government. So under the statute the basis for the Court to approve unapproved co-signers is to evaluate documentation, information about those co-signers, and then determine whether they have a net worth with sufficient unencumbered value to pay the full amount of the bond,

1 PROCEEDING 43 here \$5 million. And I'm not going to go over each of the individuals, Your Honor, because we laid this out in great detail in our initial submission. We went through each of the seven proposed co-signers that the defense has presented to the Court here with documentation, again, setting aside the eighth whom we were not able to interview.

For each of those seven, based on the documents that the defense is providing to Your Honor for your consideration of whether those individuals meet the standard of the statute, first of all, Your Honor, none of them has appropriate moral suasion over the defendant. And, again, we laid this out but I would like to make that point a bit more finely because it's extremely important where here the defense is saying that these individuals exercise moral suasion.

And, Your Honor, is correct, it's not a question of whether the proposed co-signers believe that they have influence or moral suasion over the defendant. It's a question of how the defendant feels, and while we can't put ourself in our head or in her heart, what we can do is we can look at the evidence that's in front of us.

These seven proposed co-signers for Your

1 PROCEEDING 44 Honor's consideration, some of them have never met Ms. Wang, never spoken with her. A handful of them have met her at events, generally speaking. Most do not know where she works. Most do not know where she lives. They don't talk to her frequently. They don't appear to have a personal relationship.

Interestingly, and I'll get to this point, one of the individuals actually believes that Ms. Wang works at Gettir, which is one of the alleged entities involved in the fraud and a potential instrumentality. And believes that because that individual met Ms. Wang in connection with interviewing for a position at Gettir. I'll talk about why that's relevant. Another individual believes that she works at a company called HCHK Properties. Again, one of these shell companies that's used in the course of this billion dollar fraud.

And these proposed co-signers whom defense argues exercise moral suasion, they don't know the defendant well enough to even have personal relationship with her, and, therefore, we have no comfort that Ms. Wang would in any way be dissuaded by their signing a bond from fleeing, from leaving them responsible for paying the amount of the bond.

THE COURT: Well, even if they don't have what

|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 45 | | 2 | we think of as a traditional personal relationship or | | 3 | family relationship or a deep friend relationship, why | | 4 | can't they be bonded over a cause? | | 5 | MS. MURRAY: They could be bonded over a cause, | | 6 | Your Honor. In this particular situation, and this is | | 7 | why the Government's argument about these individuals | | 8 | being potential victims of the fraud or apparent victims | | 9 | of the fraud is important, this fraud has been largely | | 10 | perpetuated targeting that community. It is a fraud | | 11 | that has focused on preying on and mobilizing people who | | 12 | support Mr. Kwok's and Ms. Wang's and Mr. Je's movement | | 13 | against the CCP. Those are the exact individuals who | | 14 | have been identified and targeted to send hundreds of | | 15 | millions dollars, over a billion dollars, of money to | | 16 | line Mr. Kwok's pockets, Mr. Je's pockets, their | | 17 | families, to reinvest in the companies that are the | | 18 | instrumentalities of the fraud, companies that Ms. Wang | | 19 | manages and works for, some on paper and some functional | | 20 | control. | | 21 | So there's no comfort that the Government can | | 22 | derive from the argument that because an individual is a | | 23 | member of the allegedly community that Ms. Wang has | | 24 | supporters, that that will influence Ms. Wang to not |

flee.

# 1 PROCEEDING 46

And, Your Honor, I just note, moral suasion factors vary, but some of the considerations include the strength of ties between the defendant and the proposed suretor. Again, here, with respect to all of the proposed suretors in front of this Court which the defendant provided to Your Honor, that factor doesn't exist.

Also, the defendant's roots in the community, we understand from defense counsel that Ms. Wang essentially works and then works within this community, but I would just note during the second attempt at this bail hearing for Ms. Wang Judge Netburn did note that Ms. Wang has lived in the country for seven years and is representing that she knows no one, no one who could potentially come forward as a co-signer who either isn't a potential victim within this community or a potential subject or co-conspirator of the fraud.

And then also the regularity of contact. And here, again, we don't have regular contact between these proposed suretors and Ms. Wang.

Now, turning to the second factor in evaluating the proposed suretors that are before the Court is financial responsibility. And, again, here, I don't want to belabor the point because we have gone through

1 PROCEEDING 47 each of the proposed suretors, but these individuals do not have sufficient assets of an unencumbered value to support the full amount of the bond. That is the statutory framework that we're working within at this point where conditions have been imposed, where the Government has unapproved suretors, and the defense has now moved to bring them before the Court -- THE COURT: Well, why I am hearing at least from the defense that with an entire package and the supposed three FRP's who are here, suretors, that they do have \$5 million. Let me just verify something, counsel for the defense, are you saying that that is unencumbered, 5 million? MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, we have three people who have unencumbered – well -- THE COURT: Net unencumbered. MR. LIPMAN: Thank you. Yes, net I think adds up to – let's put it this way, together with the million dollars that she has definitely, I know that one is \$3 million. I'm sorry, I'm spacing on one of them, but I'm pretty sure that those three cover \$5 million. But that they do including the -- THE COURT: Right, she's got the million, she's also got the 400, she's got the 138. So we're good for

|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 49 | | 2 | deal with that. But I understand. | | 3 | MS. MURRAY: Sure. Yeah, and I understand, | | 4 | Your Honor. So then I guess I'll move to the second | | 5 | question which is whether the Court should modify the | | 6 | conditions of the defendant's bond, either to remove the | | 7 | co-signer to alter in and adjust the bond so that | | 8 | there's more cash or property securing the bond. As I | | 9 | said, the answer is plainly no to that as well. | | 10 | And I just want to make a few points about the | | 11 | representations that counsel has made -- | | 12 | THE COURT: Before you do, let's assume for the | | 13 | moment there are no financially responsible people in | | 14 | your view because they don't know her personally except | | 15 | for having maybe met her a couple of times, they're not | | 16 | family, and the only thing they have in common is this | | 17 | cause. If I am to assess whether that particular | | 18 | condition is necessary to reasonably assure the presence | | 19 | of the defendant at future proceedings as opposed to | | 20 | some other combination of provisions, putting aside, of | | 21 | course, all the provisions that are already in place, | | 22 | the home detention, electronic monitoring, etc., why | | 23 | can't I then or why shouldn't I then consider other | | 24 | things that are being offered insufficient to take that | | 25 | place? Why does it have to be two financially |

1 PROCEEDING 50 responsible people as opposed to, you know, another combination of what's being offered?

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor can consider modifying the conditions of the bond certainly if you determine that there is a set of conditions that would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at future court proceedings.

THE COURT: And to be clear, I'm not saying what I have in mind is anything less than what Judge Parker would think, and I'm not pretending to put myself in her shoes. But I could imagine that given that the Government and the defendant came to essentially an agreement on most of the terms of a package, that Judge Parker no doubt was assuming at the point that there would be two financially responsible people. And if she was presented with an argument that said, well, the Government's willing to agree to this, but we don't have anybody we're going to approve, she might take a different tact. She might not, she might say, you know what, it's the Government's prerogative, the Government offered this package, they can't satisfy it, t's not going to do it, then I'm going to detain. So I'm not saying it should necessarily come

out differently, but I think it's a little too pat in

|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 51 | | 2 | some respects – well, again, why that condition as | | 3 | opposed to what else is being offered? | | 4 | MS. MURRAY: Well, there are actually multiple | | 5 | conditions, and, Your Honor, the reason is that when the | | 6 | Government discussed a proposed bail package on consent | | 7 | with defense, it was hours after the defendant was | | 8 | arrested on March 15. The Government had not had the | | 9 | opportunity to go through the evidence that was then | | 10 | being collected from the defendant's apartment in | | 11 | connection with the FBI's premises search. And, | | 12 | frankly, the Government was not yet aware that the | | 13 | defendant was going to lie to this Court, to Pretrial | | 14 | Services -- | | 15 | THE COURT: I don't understand what the lies | | 16 | are. I have to say I didn't, you know, in your letter | | 17 | you accuse the defendant of dissembling on this. The | | 18 | only one that grabbed me as a possible dissembling would | | 19 | be the cryptocurrency. But it's certainly plausible | | 20 | that you could have a cryptocurrency that was allocated | | 21 | in 2016 I think the date was and, you know, it may have | | 22 | never materialized into anything. It certainly | | 23 | suggests, you know, where did that go, can't someone | | 24 | tell us, but right now she's saying she has no control | | 25 | over access to it because she doesn't even know where it |

| PROCEEDING 52 | | | 1 | | | 2 | is or what it is. | | 3 | MS. MURRAY: So a few points there, Your Honor. | | 4 | First, the defendant during her Pretrial Services | | 5 | interview indicated she's been unemployed since | | 6 | September of 2022. Now, documents that the Government | | 7 | reviewed late last week that had been seized from her | | 8 | apartment and additional evidence that the Government | | 9 | has, and, as you know, we can proceed by proffer in | | 10 | detention hearings -- | | 11 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 12 | MS. MURRAY: This is not a mini trial. But the | | 13 | Government's evidence is that the defendant was, in | | 14 | fact, continuing to work in connection with her named | | 15 | position with family offices of Mr. Kwok's family money | | 16 | and also with some of the other entities that I | | 17 | mentioned that are instrumentalities of the fraud up | | 18 | until effectively the date that she was arrested. We | | 19 | have seen documents that lay out the financial position | | 20 | of various of the different entities that are associated | | 21 | with the fraud. Those include Gettir which is, as I | | 22 | mentioned, one of the proposed suretors believes Ms. | | 23 | Wang formally works for. They include HCHK Property | | 24 | which another of the suretors believes Ms. Wang formally | | 25 | works for, and the Government's evidence shows Ms. Wang, |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 53 | | 2 | in fact, is the 99.999 percent shareholder of HCHK | | 3 | through her BBI entity. | | 4 | They include G Clubs which is one of the arms | | 5 | of the fraud that is outlined and alleged in the | | 6 | Government's indictment. They include the Rule of Law | | 7 | Society and the Rule of Law Foundation which are | | 8 | charities, purported charities that Mr. Kwok and others | | 9 | founded in 2018 that laid the groundwork and the basis | | 10 | for collecting all these monies through the different | | 11 | arms of the fraud. | | 12 | And, Your Honor, these are printouts of | | 13 | balances of accounts, accounts raised through present | | 14 | which, as reflected in the documents, was variously | | 15 | February 2023 or March 13 of 2023, two days before the | | 16 | defendant was arrested. | | 17 | THE COURT: But those are corporate funds, | | 18 | right, but you're using it for the point about | | 19 | employment. | | 20 | MS. MURRAY: I'm using it for the point about | | 21 | employment, Your Honor, and also effective control. Mr. | | 22 | Lipman indicated he doesn't know what the Government | | 23 | means when it uses the general phrase chief of staff. | | 24 | What the Government is alleging by so characterizing Ms. | | 25 | Wang is that she manages and controls these various | | 1 | PROCEEDING 54 | | 2 | entities. Now, like Mr. Kwok, she doesn't have her name | | 3 | on each of the different companies that she is involved | | 4 | with, but the Government has no question in light of the | | 5 | evidence both found in Ms. Wang's apartment, the fact | | 6 | that people associate Ms. Wang formally with these | | 7 | companies because they interviewed with her for jobs at | | 8 | some of these companies or they had contracts with her | | 9 | in connection with their work with some of the | | 10 | companies. | | 11 | Ms. Wang runs the show with respect to these | | 12 | instrumentalities. She has done so up until the day of | | 13 | her arrest contrary to what she told Pretrial Services. | | 14 | And the Government would allege that part of the reason | | 15 | that she lied to Pretrial Services was to disclaim | | 16 | association with the various different instrumentalities | | 17 | of the fraud. To say that she took herself out of the | | 18 | fraudulent entities, notably, Your Honor, right around | | 19 | the time that the Government started to seize \$630 | | 20 | million in fraud proceeds. | | 21 | So in the Government's view, at the time of the | | 22 | initial presentment and bail argument, we were not aware | | 23 | that we were going to find concrete evidence in the | | 24 | defendant's apartment that, in our view, proves what the |

Government already alleged and believed to be true from

its investigation which is Ms. Wang has continued working for these companies up until the time of her arrest. So that is one point, Your Honor. It's a change in circumstances. The Government has a change in circumstances from where it was at the time of the initial presentment.

Now, with respect to accounts, the allocation of H coin or one of the purported cryptocurrencies that is traded on the Himalaya exchange, again, another arm of the fraud, the allocation document was found in Ms. Wang's apartment with various other documents that seem to support the fraud. Your Honor is correct, defense is correct, there's no way for the Government to prove that Ms. Wang holds that money, and, in fact, the Government's allegation is that it's not cryptocurrency, but we're not alleging it's valueless. We're alleging that certain people have it and the people who are quickest to redeem can basically have an exit scam and get out with their money.

I would note while, again, we don't have access to an account that Ms. Wang has where the money is held, Your Honor correctly identified approximately \$7 million worth of a cryptocurrency asset would be something you would want to keep track of. The allocation indicates

1 PROCEEDING 57 included the requirement that the defendant disclose assets or accounts that she controls in her name or that are in companies that she controls or is affiliated with and, broadly speaking, cryptocurrency and other real property.

The Government has found evidence, again, dated as recently as a few days before the defendant's arrest from her apartment, as I said, that show bank account information, account information, Ms. Wang signing off on payroll for some of the instrumentalities that she doesn't control, but that the Government certainly alleges that she manages and works for in her role as Mr. Kwok's chief of staff. So to the Government that indicates effective control over those finances.

Even setting that aside though, Your Honor, Mr. Lipman mentioned that there were credit cards and other items in the safe. The Government had indicated that there was cash in one of the pouches, another pouch with certain items that appeared to be and are ready to take at the ready.

THE COURT: You mentioned a safe. Was there a safe? MS. MURRAY: There was a safe. Yes. So the

bag with the cash and another bag that had credit cards

|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 58 | | 2 | and other items, including the passports, those were all | | 3 | concealed in a safe in defendant's apartment. | | 4 | The credit cards notable that were taken from | | 5 | one of those pouches in the safe, looking at the front | | 6 | cover of those credit cards which were photographed and | | 7 | we provided to defense counsel last week, there are | | 8 | numerous cards that indicate accounts that are not yet | | 9 | expired in the defendant's name that the defendant did | | 10 | not disclose to the Government or to Pretrial Services. | | 11 | And at this point, we have no way of determining what | | 12 | assets are in those accounts, how the defendant | | 13 | continues to control those accounts, but it's, again, | | 14 | another layer, Your Honor, where we cannot derive | | 15 | comfort that the defendant is being truthful with | | 16 | Pretrial Services, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, or | | 17 | with the Court. | | 1 | PROCEEDING 59 | | 2 | was arrested. The next which expires next year. There | | 3 | is a Citibank personal account in the defendant's own | | 4 | name which doesn't expire for another year. There's a | | 5 | DBS Treasures account at a Singapore Bank, and the | | 6 | Government explicitly asked about foreign accounts as | | 7 | well. That card doesn't expire until January of 2025, | | 8 | again, in the defendant's name. And, finally, a China | | 9 | Bank of Communications account, it's a Chinese bank. | | 10 | That account, the card indicates it expires September of | | 11 | 2023, also in the defendant's name. | | 12 | It's another example, Your Honor, of | | 13 | indications to the Government that the defendant has | | 14 | access to accounts, assets, funds that she could use in | | 15 | order to flee. And if they are funds that we needed to | | 16 | rely on the defendant to disclose to satisfy another | | 17 | condition of the bond that was imposed. Separate and | | 18 | apart from the question of co-signer, she was obligated | | 19 | under the conditions imposed to disclose her assets, her | | 20 | accounts, her cryptocurrency, her property to the | | 21 | Government and to Pretrial Services. | | 22 | She represented through counsel that she had | | 23 | done that simply by disclosing two personal accounts, | | 24 | one at Morgan Stanley Bank, one at TD Bank, and then | | 25 | this account that was associated with one of the |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 60 | | 2 | companies. She did not disclose in the Government's | | 3 | view by any stretch the corpus of money that she has | | 4 | access to. | | 5 | These are examples of new circumstances that | | 6 | gives the Government grave concerns. Grave concerns | | 7 | about the defendant's incentives to flee, about her | | 8 | ability to flee, about the fact that we cannot trust | | 9 | representations that the defendant is making. And, Your | | 10 | Honor, in those situations where we have so many red | | 11 | flags and so many concerns that the Government would not | | 12 | necessarily have identified if we hadn't found this new | | 13 | information. We simply do not have any assurances that | | 14 | there are any conditions or set of conditions that will | | 15 | assure the defendant's appearance at future court | | 16 | appearances. | | 17 | So that goes to the third prong, Your Honor. | | 18 | It's the fact that the Government is now coming to the | | 19 | Court saying we agreed on these proposed bail conditions | | 20 | at the time of her arrest based on what we knew then. | | 21 | The world has changed since then, and it has only gotten | | 22 | more concerning for the Government which already had a | | 23 | significant concern about the defendant's risk of flight | | 24 | but believed that there may be certain conditions that | | 25 | could assure her appearance. We no longer feel that |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 61 | | 2 | way. We do not believe there are conditions or a set of | | 3 | conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance. | | 4 | THE COURT: One clarification. In regards to – | | 5 | you referred to, I think you referred to, I don't know | | 6 | if you were referring to the allegations of the | | 7 | indictment or something else, but you referred to Mr. | | 8 | Kwok and Mr. Je as being the ones who were sort of | | 9 | lining their pocket and getting rich. Are you in | | 10 | agreement with defense counsel that the indictment | | 11 | doesn't make allegations that the defendant here herself | | 12 | was lining her pockets so to speak? | | 13 | MS. MURRAY: I guess to answer Your Honor's | | 14 | question, the indictment does make allegations that the | | 15 | defendant herself was personally responsible for a | | 16 | hundred million dollar misappropriation of fraud | | 17 | proceeds -- | | 18 | THE COURT: I understand. | | 19 | MS. MURRAY: But that's to the point of | | 20 | misappropriation. Now, with respect to the indictment | | 21 | which is a charging document that contains some | | 22 | allegations, we haven't specifically outlined personal | | 23 | money that the defendant herself misappropriated, but, | | 24 | again, we don't believe that that is in any way germane | | 25 | to her risk of flight and her access to money here and |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 62 | | 2 | to a network. | | 3 | And another point that I would like to note is | | 4 | with respect to travel documents and passports. Mr. | | 5 | Lipman said that the defendant had been seeking | | 6 | permission to travel at the end of last year or | | 7 | beginning of this year, and she was going to go I | | 8 | believe to the U.K. Travel internationally. | | 9 | The Government recovered a Vanuatu passport and | | 10 | a Hong Kong passport from her safe. The Vanuatu | | 11 | passport was expired, and we did see evidence which we | | 12 | disclosed that that passport had been kind of not | | 13 | revoked but that the defendant had removed her request | | 14 | from the passport. But she has the ability to obtain | | 15 | travel documents as does her co-defendant Miles Kwok who | | 16 | allegedly has had 11 passports at various points. | | 17 | THE COURT: Well, she's not Miles Kwok. | | 18 | MS. MURRAY: I understand -- | | 19 | THE COURT: I understand she could be part of a | | 20 | network where things like that can be made available is | | 21 | what you're suggesting I think. | | 22 | MS. MURRAY: That's exactly right, Your Honor, | | 23 | it's exactly right that she can both be part of the | | 24 | network where things can be made available and she is | | 25 | the one who is tasked with holding onto those travel |

And at a very high level, to talk through those accounts, there is a Citibank account for one of the Kwok family entities that the defendant controlled that was active through last month when she was arrested. So it was active at the time. There were two personal Bank of America debit cards, different account numbers, both in the defendant's name, in her name, personal accounts. One which expired last month but, again, active when she

1 PROCEEDING 63 documents both for herself and Mr. Kwok. She is a trusted person who is entrusted with the responsibility of having those travel documents --

THE COURT: What do you make of the defense's points that the defendant certainly would've been aware in September or October of 2022 about the seizure of phones and that something was afoot and then there was the dealings with the SEC, together with the fact that, again, as defense has represented, that she applied for a furlough to be able to travel despite her asylum aps. Aren't those, if true, sort of indicative of someone who's not going to run?

MS. MURRAY: Not necessarily, Your Honor, and I would also note that while, you know, there may be a question of whether those are at odds, and I'm happy to address that in a moment, I would also note that the defendant's willingness and, in fact, desire to travel to the U.K. even though she has these serious concerns, the CCP's persecution of repatriation, indicates that those concerns are not so grave that she's not willing to travel internationally.

But I don't know the circumstances of the defendant's requested furlough. I don't know what the purpose was of her going on that trip. I will say that

|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 64 | | 2 | there's no reason – if we're speaking in hypotheticals | | 3 | in this instance, there's similarly no reason to believe | | 4 | that she didn't request furlough to go to the United | | 5 | Kingdom without any intention of returning after she was | | 6 | aware the funds had been seized. And, again, I'm | | 7 | speaking in hypotheticals only because we were asked a | | 8 | question by the Court, but I think you can draw various | | 9 | different conclusions from these facts. And at bottom, | | 10 | her seeking to travel to the U.K., her willingness to | | 11 | travel internationally, doesn't cut against the fact | | 12 | that she poses a significant risk of flight. | | 13 | And I'd also note, it's a risk of flight non | | 14 | appearance at future court appearances. We don't need | | 15 | to establish that she's going to go to a foreign | | 16 | jurisdiction -- | | 17 | THE COURT: No. | | 18 | MS. MURRAY: She could flee from the city, she | | 19 | could flee from the several block radius. She could cut | | 20 | her bracelet. And it could be that her vast network of | | 21 | supporters enable and harbor her. We don't know the | | 22 | circumstances, but the bottom fundamental point is the | | 23 | defendant poses a significant risk of flight. The | | 24 | Government sees no condition or set of conditions in | | 25 | light of the strength of the evidence, the seriousness |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 65 | | 2 | of the charges here, the defendant's personal | | 3 | circumstances, her access to substantial assets, foreign | | 4 | connections including her co-defendant William Je who is | | 5 | alleged to be in the UAE as a fugitive of where he has | | 6 | charges, her network of supporters, and the new | | 7 | information that we have found in the last two weeks, | | 8 | indicating that the defendant has not been forthcoming | | 9 | with the Court, Pretrial, or the Government. We simply | | 10 | don't believe there are any conditions that can ensure | | 11 | her appearance at future court proceedings. | | 12 | THE COURT: All right. I assume you want to | | 13 | respond some. | | 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Oh, yes, Your Honor. Thank you. | | 15 | THE COURT: Just let me say to my 3:30, sorry, | | 16 | that we're going to be running late. Just sit tight, | | 17 | and we'll eventually get there. Go ahead. | | 18 | MR. LIPMAN: I'll do this as quickly as I can, | | 19 | Your Honor. So I want to start with the following. | | 20 | Everything I said about what they misrepresented in | | 21 | their conversations with the Court and submissions | | 22 | apparently is true because none of it did they take | | 23 | issue with. So all of that stuff about finding, you | | 24 | know, a phone between mattresses, phones secreted in |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 66 | | 2 | the cushions, none of that apparently happened. It is, | | 3 | it was represented to the Court. | | 4 | So now we get to the point of trust. They said | | 5 | trust. You can't trust this defendant. Really? But | | 6 | you can trust this Government? Let's just see, let's | | 7 | just parse through what Ms. Murray just said. She said | | 8 | that she found photographs of cards, some of those | | 9 | showed that the card is not yet expired. How do we go | | 10 | from there to, oh, and there's an account that goes with | | 11 | it? What evidence does she have? None. None | | 12 | whatsoever. | | 13 | What she knows - by the way, Your Honor, I have | | 14 | never, the words Great Britain never left my mouth. | | 15 | Okay? That means that they knew that she was about to | | 16 | travel. Why didn't they arrest her? If they thought | | 17 | that she was going to get out of Dodge and they were | | 18 | concerned that she was a flight risk, well, when they | | 19 | found out that she applied, well, arrest her. What, | | 20 | they didn't have a border watching her? Really? | | 21 | Because the Department of Justice has changed that much | | 22 | since I was there? I don't think so. | | 23 | So now let's get to her employment. Once | | 24 | again, what was the question that was asked? Are you | | 25 | currently employed? No. No. If the question were |

whatever it that they were, a document hiding in between

| 1 | PROCEEDING 69 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | companies? When? To whom? And I had a specific | | 3 | conversation with the Government when they say, well, | | 4 | Ms. Murray says, she says that, broadly speaking, the | | 5 | question could be that broadly construed or narrowly | | 6 | construed. Well, first of all, nobody's taken my | | 7 | client's Fifth Amendment (indiscernible), not that I | | 8 | have heard, and when she was asked the question, she | | 9 | gave an answer, the answer was truthful. If they wanted | | 10 | to know more, they should've asked. And I specifically | | 11 | had a conversation with the Government, and I said | | 12 | excluding anything that she may have control over by | | 13 | virtue of corporate ownership or whatever, these are the | | 14 | accounts. | | 15 | She's not a flight risk, Your Honor. There's a |

question that I keep asking myself is this. Why? Why is the Government misrepresenting evidence? Why is the Government stretching stuff, stretching stuff? Even if they believe that, you know, there's more to this. Even – I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm reminded that on her employment question, we actually invoked, she invoked her Fifth Amendment right. Okay? Thank you. Even – I lost my train of thought. I apologize. I think I was responding to this idea that

she controls stuff. There's no – we never hid that.

|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 70 | | 2 | The only question is is she a flight risk? What is it | | 3 | about her that makes you think that she's not going to | | 4 | show up? She will show up, Your Honor. She's got | | 5 | nowhere to go. Nowhere. And the Government keeps - | | 6 | this is where I was, thank you. | | 7 | Why are they stretching it? Why? What is the | | 8 | reason? I mean, really, does she look dangerous? What | | 9 | is it -- | | 10 | THE COURT: They're not moving on | | 11 | dangerousness. | | 12 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry, no -- | | 13 | THE COURT: They're not moving on danger. | | 14 | MR. LIPMAN: There is a reason why they're | | 15 | doing it. They want her to cook. They want her to get | | 16 | a flavor of the MDC because she was the chief of staff, | | 17 | Your Honor, and that is not okay. That is immoral. And | | 18 | when the Government obtains that result by, among other | | 19 | things, misrepresenting, saying that she's a flight risk | | 20 | on the basis of things that they cannot support, that | | 21 | contradict the evidence that's collected, that is - is | | 22 | anybody other than me think that it's a little bit | | 23 | peculiar or ironic that the Government is alleging that | | 24 | she violated certain antifraud provisions that make it | | 25 | unlawful to make a statement that in light of all |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 71 | | 2 | circumstances is materially misleading and yet this is | | 3 | what the Government is doing? Why? | | 4 | Your Honor, this woman needs to be released. | | 5 | She's not a flight risk. She's not going anywhere. | | 6 | She's going to have an ankle bracelet, she'll have GPS | | 7 | monitoring. We can have all of her money tied up so | | 8 | that she can't breathe without Pretrial or somebody | | 9 | giving her approval. | | 10 | And one last thing, if she's not released, her | | 11 | defense is going to be severely prejudiced. | | 12 | THE COURT: It's true for anybody who doesn't | | 13 | get released. | | 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Except, except when that person | | 15 | also has Mandarin as her first language, when the | | 16 | Government asks for a disk to put 2 terabytes of data on | | 17 | it. This is not a case that's going to be resolved | | 18 | quickly, and it is a case in which it's going to be very | | 19 | important to have your client's assistance. | | 20 | THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Ms. Murray, do | | 21 | you want to have the last word here? | | 22 | MS. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor, briefly. I want | | 23 | to start by saying there is nothing that the Government | | 24 | has misrepresented to the Court. The Government has not | | 25 | reached on facts. The Government has provided evidence |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 72 | | 2 | substantiated information that it has presented to this | | 3 | Court and to the defense. With respect to the credit | | 4 | cards Mr. Lipman mentioned, it's not a photo of the | | 5 | cards. It's a photo of the cards that we have before | | 6 | the Court and the defense today. They were the physical | | 7 | cards. But we resent the claim that we are in any way | | 8 | acting other than -- | | 9 | THE COURT: I know -- | | 10 | MS. MURRAY: --fully forthcoming and in good | | 11 | faith. | | 12 | THE COURT: -- I have no doubt you're operating | | 13 | in good faith. But he did point out some things that | | 14 | were discrepancies it seemed between what was | | 15 | represented in terms of where certain pieces of evidence | | 16 | were found in her apartment versus what was inventoried | | 17 | and how it was inventoried. Can you speak to that? | | 18 | MS. MURRAY: Sure, Your Honor. There aren't | | 19 | discrepancies. What Mr. Lipman has done is he's pointed | | 20 | to an evidence log that has a column where there are | | 21 | certain notations made when the FBI is collecting | | 22 | evidence that indicates where the item was recovered. | | 23 | Typically, it indicates the room by letter based on the | | 24 | map that Mr. Lipman provided to the Court and a brief | | 25 | description. It does not indicate in a detailed |

1 PROCEEDING 73 narrative where each and every item that is taken as evidence was recovered from, what condition it was in, how it was found.

So with respect the laptop between clothes, that is consistent with the Government's representations to Judge Parker at the initial presentment that the laptop was found between sweaters in the closet. It doesn't say specifically what items of clothing --

THE COURT: No.

MS. MURRAY: -- or where, but it's consistent. With respect to the iPhones that the Government had indicated had been in boxes, yes, in a bag in the closet, and you can see those are the items that Mr. Lipman pointed Your Honor to in the 50's on the evidence log. And you'll note that nearly each of them has the same PIN code or passcode. So those are items that at first the FBI thought might not have any content, and then the FBI had technicians on site during the search warrant, they plugged them in, and they determined they had content. There are no misrepresentations.

Mr. Lipman is now, again, Your Honor, essentially trying to hold a trial on the merits of the Government's case here at a point of a detention hearing by, first of all, requesting information from the

|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 74 | | 2 | Government which we happily provided and would have so | | 3 | provided in the course of discovery in this case as | | 4 | well, and then trying to hold it against the Government | | 5 | by claiming that because there isn't a photo of each | | 6 | stage of every step of the process that evidence was | | 7 | collected, then the Government can't be trusted. It is | | 8 | simply not true, and it's disrespectful, Your Honor. | | 9 | With respect to a couple of other points, I | | 10 | would just like to note the defendant lied. She lied | | 11 | about the cash in her apartment. I have now heard the | | 12 | defense during the course of this argument split hairs | | 13 | on several topics, and that is another example of what | | 14 | gives the Government pause. | | 15 | THE COURT: Well, how do we know - it is | | 16 | important what was asked. Do you have any money on you? | | 17 | Do you have any money in your apartment? There's a | | 18 | difference. | | 1 | PROCEEDING 75 | | 2 | Government is not part of Pretrial Services interview | | 3 | with the defendant. She was assisted by a Mandarin | | 4 | speaking interpreter during that interview. The | | 5 | Government is also aware from its investigation that Ms. | | 6 | Wang is quite fluent in English. We know that from | | 7 | various different pieces of evidence we've collected, | | 8 | including statements that she's made and her voice | | 9 | during conversations. She doesn't appear to have an | | 10 | issue understanding. | | 11 | But with respect to the questions that were | | 12 | asked, again, I don't know, I was not there. The | | 13 | defendant is very much so splitting hairs on several | | 14 | topics. I will note that the Pretrial Services report | | 15 | indicates that the defendant was asked about assets, | | 16 | assets, not specific accounts that she is the sole | | 17 | signatory on, not specific accounts that are active that | | 18 | she has control over and log-in information to. We're | | 19 | not splitting hairs. Pretrial Services asked about | | 20 | assets, and she did not disclose \$138,000 worth of cash | | 21 | that was sitting in a safe in her apartment. | | 22 | With respect to her employment, the defense | | 23 | just indicated that she had invoked – the Pretrial | | 24 | Services report with respect to employment history | | 25 | indicates that the defendant advised she has been |

MS. MURRAY: I understand, Your Honor, and the Government obviously is not privy --

THE COURT: And particularly for someone of a different language and culture, it might be all the more important that there's nuance to what's asked. I don't know what was asked.

MS. MURRAY: Sure, and nor do we because the

unemployed since September 2022. Now, with respect to the source of additional money that she has since then or that she is living on, the defendant declined to answer, and that is her right. But she did provide this statement in response to Pretrial Services report, she's been unemployed since September of 2022.

Now, Mr. Lipman says that the defendant has been volunteering in various organizations that she previously might have worked in a more formal employment capacity. I just want to go back briefly to the personal gain point that Your Honor has asked about. Yes, I understand \$1.1 million might not be an expensive apartment in Manhattan, but it's a \$1.1 million apartment purchased in cash. The defendant has nearly another million dollars in her accounts. The defendant was up until her purported decision to terminate her employment and start volunteering was earning a salary of approximately \$250,000 from the Kwok entities that she worked for formally, in a formal capacity. That is personal gain in the Government's view.

It is also inconsistent with now the claims that September 2022, right when the Government started seizing funds, the defendant stopped working in a formal capacity. She can't be held responsible for any of

1 PROCEEDING 76

|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | PROCEEDING 77 | | 2 | these bank accounts that she's signing off on payroll | | 3 | for, that she has access to the funds for. | | 4 | Your Honor, at bottom the defendant is a risk | | 5 | of flight. There are no conditions that can reasonably | | 6 | assure her appearance. She has lied. The Government | | 7 | has not misrepresented itself to the Court. And we have | | 8 | no comfort that we can believe that she will make | | 9 | accurate representations to the Court, that we will have | | 10 | the ability to monitor her in any meaningful way that | | 11 | would assure her appearance at future court proceedings. | | 12 | THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lipman, I see you, | | 13 | do you want to respond? Go ahead. | | 14 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, answering the question | | 15 | that's posed truthfully is a complete answer. It's not | | 16 | splitting hairs -- | | 17 | THE COURT: Look, the bottom line is we don't | | 18 | know really what was asked and how it was asked -- | | 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Well, we were there. | | 20 | THE COURT: Fine, but I'm saying we don't have | | 21 | a record -- | | 22 | MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, there is no | | 23 | record, and there is no proof of these things that the | | 24 | Government says -- | | 25 | THE COURT: I -- |

| 1 | PROCEEDING 78 | | 2 | MR. LIPMAN: -- which is what -- | | 3 | (interposing) | | 4 | THE COURT: I didn't say which way it cuts. | | 5 | MR. LIPMAN: No, but, Your Honor, they said we | | 6 | found a credit card. Well, that means she didn't | | 7 | disclose an account. No, you found a credit card. | | 8 | Okay? We found a statement that said that whatever, | | 9 | that she was allocated some coin. Yes, that's what you | | 10 | found, that's what you have. You don't have anything | | 11 | else. So to tell me that she needs to be detained and | | 12 | she cannot be trusted because they found something that | | 13 | they don't fully understand, I'm sorry, but that's a | | 14 | bridge too far. | | 15 | And, yeah, a bunch of her accounts, by the way, | | 16 | as the Government knows, were closed, and the | | 17 | Government's investigation kind of followed that. So | | 18 | like the Citi accounts, for example, were closed. Other | | 19 | accounts at other banks were closed recently, they were | | 20 | closed. And the other thing, Your Honor, when they say | | 21 | she controls this or she controls that or whatever, | | 22 | okay, she worked somewhere, she no longer works there, | | 23 | she doesn't draw a salary. What she does with her time | | 24 | is her business. It's not cutting – it's not lying to | | 25 | anybody, it's not any of that. Okay? |

PROCEEDING

1 PROCEEDING 79 And the Government essentially conceded – no, not essentially. The Government conceded the key point that this was not, her participating, according to their indictment, was not for the benefit for her personal monetary gain. It was for some other reason. And the apartment was bought before any of the allegations with other money. She did make money, but she didn't spend it. I already described to the Court how she lived. And so the key question is why does she do this and, if she did it, did she do it to benefit herself, and if not, then is that sufficient reason to think that she's now going to hurt these people because she did not put any money that came out of their pockets and put it into hers. There's no reason to believe that having not done that, being around all this money and not putting any of it in your pocket. For all of these years she didn't do that. So what is going to make her do it now? And the answer is that this is a revolutionary movement, okay, these people are her brothers and sisters. They together want to see the CCP overthrown. And so she's not going to put them in financial jeopardy that she dedicated her life, her life to this cause.

THE COURT: All right.

# 1 PROCEEDING 80

MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, just a final point. I want to be clear the Government made no concession on that point in any stretch, and a key question is whether she poses a risk of flight, that is the question.

THE COURT: All right, look, one thing that I've been asked to do is to determine if the, or at least order that some of the financial suretors that have been offered are sufficient to meet the requirements and conditions that were issued by Judge Parker, and the defense has indicated here they have three for which they believe that there's sufficient property that can be offered as security along with the enhanced package, if you will, of funds that were offered on behalf of the defendant.

I don't have it in front of me information about those three FRP's in terms of the property that's being offered. That is part of what I need to consider. I realize I am also being asked by the Government for detention anew in light of new material. But it's incumbent upon me to review whatever material the defendant is going to provide to substantiate it's offered financial suretors.

So I want a package of whatever it is that you must or that you think is enough. If there is

| 1 | PROCEEDING 81 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | documentation you haven't provided the Government | | 3 | already on others that you can provide, including the | | 4 | so-called eighth or others, provide it. And part of | | 5 | what I'm going to do is assess that material. It | | 6 | doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to find obviously | | 7 | that that is sufficient and that the conditions have | | 8 | been met, but it is one of the things I am going to | | 9 | consider in addition to considering whether a different | | 10 | set of conditions should be imposed or whether the | | 11 | defendant should be detained. | | 12 | So she's going to continue to be detained | | 13 | pursuant to Judge Parker's order of all conditions being | | 14 | satisfied before she's released pending the submission | | 15 | of this additional information and my review of it which | | 16 | I will try to do as quickly as possible. | | 17 | Let me ask Mr. Lipman, when can you get that | | 18 | material to me and the Government? | | 19 | MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, I will start working | | 20 | on it as soon as I leave this courtroom. I would ask | | 21 | for 24 hours. | | 22 | THE COURT: Well, sure. | | 23 | MR. LIPMAN: Oh yes, yes. Yes. That's a good | | 24 | point. Your Honor has a lot of personal information, | | 25 | rather than redacting it and filing it in various ways - |

|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----| | 1 | PROCEEDING 85 | | | 2 | is our position that if there's sufficient proof that | | | 3 | the person proposing to cosign actually owns this real | | | 4 | estate and the real estate has the value that they say | | | 5 | it does, that's really all that the Government needs. | | | 6 | In other words, right, because whether they make money | | | 7 | or not -- | | | 8 | THE COURT: I don't know what the Government | | | 9 | needs, but you need to assure the Court -- | | | 10 | MR. LIPMAN: I'm sorry? | | | 11 | THE COURT: You need to assure the Court at the | | | 12 | very least. I don't know exactly what that is you will | | | 13 | give to me. Certainly, it'll be important to know who | | | 14 | is the owner, whether there are any other ownership | | | 15 | interests, what are the liens, what are the mortgages, | | | 16 | etc. So I think you have an idea. | | | 17 | It's not going to necessarily take away from | | | 18 | whether someone is an alleged victim or has one of the | | | 19 | other faults, but at least I want a more complete | | | 20 | picture, and it's part of my obligation to make that | | | 21 | assessment. And I don't want to make a sweeping | | | 22 | statement at the moment that just because anyone is an | | | 23 | alleged victim and is not a family tie in some way, that | | | 24 | necessarily makes them inadequate. But that's why I | | | 25 | need to see it individually. | |

|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | 87 | | 2 | C E R 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 of New York, United States of | | 7 | America versus Wang, Docket #23cr118/23m2007, was | | 8 | prepared using PC-based transcription software and is a | | 9 | true and accurate record of the proceedings. | | 10 | | | 11 | | | 12 | Signature_______________________________ | | 13 | Carole Ludwig | | 14 | Date: April 5, 2023 | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |