MUBEITECH

beg*** 发言

发言时间:2026-06-13 21:09:49

这里汇集爆料革命参与者围绕郭文贵案的持续讨论,包括长期深度参与者及自述投入真金白银的投资者。他们分享亲历过程、资金投入与后续遭遇,并结合案卷展开追问、核对和观点交锋。这些来自事件内部的经验与细节,为理解事件经过和投资者处境提供了外部报道之外的重要视角。请结合具体发言判断其经历与依据,引用时保留发言者、时间和上下文。

MarkdownJSON在批次中查看位置↗TG↗FB
发言原文
When structuring your motions or objections, you can cite these major federal precedents to demonstrate that the government cannot satisfy the alter-ego test with mere operational control: 1. William Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1991) This is the foundational Second Circuit case governing alter-ego and veil-piercing claims. The Rule: The court explicitly ruled that to pierce the corporate veil under an alter-ego theory, the claiming party must prove that the owner exercised "complete domination" over the entity. Application: Domination means the corporation had "no separate mind, will or existence of its own." If other third parties (like Wei Lihong or separate farm managers) were independently moving millions of dollars out of the corporate account or controlling physical assets for public broadcasting, the entity maintained a functional existence outside of the Defendant's "complete domination." 2. First National City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba (BANCEC), 462 U.S. 611 (1983) The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the exact threshold of control required to treat separate corporate entities as a single monolith