---
canonical_url: "https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbce22dbc0708d16b4620"
batch_url: "https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000153"
content_type: discussion_message
speaker: "roy***"
date: "2026-08-27T07:38:06.636Z"
---

# roy*** 发言 (2026-08-27)

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。

批次：[查看所在归档批次](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000153)
时间：2026-08-27T07:38:06.636Z

## 发言正文

> 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