发言原文
现在这条可以形成非常干净的26-1853问题 The Government’s motion did not trace downstream transfers through commingled accounts such as ACA; it classified accounts based on their connection to alleged G Enterprise members and seizure affidavits. The district court later found that those accounts “contain” qualifying funds, but separately used aggregate project-level gross inflows to set the $889 million personal money judgment. Neither step identifies how untraced funds in mixed-source accounts become Guo-specific proceeds or Count Three property involved. 政府最可能反驳： criminal forfeiture不要求逐美元tracing；fungible funds可以通过间接证据证明；seizure affidavits + GXZ26 + trial record整体足够。 但真正的回应不是要求“每一美元必须有serial number”。 而是： 政府可以合理推断，但必须有方法把混同后的资金归入法定类别。这里Hinton明确不知道具体source，而858没有说明用了什么其他method cure这个问题。 这非常重要