Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — criminal case · EXHIBIT · ECF #33

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 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.

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

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

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.

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

2 apartment.

else.

4 THE COURT:

UAE.

China.

14 States?

understanding. 16 MR. LIPMAN:

there. Okay?

United States;

22 THE COURT:

understand. 23 MR. LIPMAN:

shot.

difference.

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?

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

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

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,

New York.

her?

spotted?

is?

alternative.

people.

Mandarin.

thumb?

absurd.

18 absurd.

United States.

we?

hide.

risk.

more.

this.

proposed.

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,

2 THE COURT: Sure. 3 MR. LIPMAN:

9. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 MR. LIPMAN:

6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. LIPMAN:

8 THE COURT: Yes. 9 MR. LIPMAN:

10 THE COURT:

closet. 11 MR. LIPMAN:

bag in closet.

new.

closet.

closet.

in.

16 picture.

box.

box.

one.

clothes? 21 THE COURT:

huh. 22 MR. LIPMAN:

closet.

25 clothes.

that.

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.

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

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.

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

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 Pretrial, but 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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

this?

5 THE COURT:

intent.

7 MR. LIPMAN:

them? 8 THE COURT:

evidence.

defrauded? 15 MR. LIPMAN:

it. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 MR. LIPMAN:

suasion. Right?

care.

care.

interaction.

other. Right?

community.

victims.

story. Okay?

13 Your Honor. Mr.

Lamborghini.

one. Okay?

one? No.

thing.

her?

20 allocation. Right?

21 that. Okay.

this?

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

today.

people? 7 THE COURT:

17 theoretically. 18 MR. LIPMAN:

brush. 20 THE COURT:

agree. 21 MR. LIPMAN:

money.

simple.

money.

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

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

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

23 MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, yeah. And then the second 24 one monitor it. I mean we're happy to have - in other

2 THE COURT:

it. 3 MR. LIPMAN:

4 THE COURT: Right. 5 MR. LIPMAN:

case.

that.

prison.

reason.

risk.

apartment.

today.

accounts. 16 Thank you.

million.

Ms. Wang.

22 THE COURT:

it.

something.

offered.

now.

seized.

9 million.

right? 10 MR. LIPMAN:

could.

yes. 14 THE COURT:

account. 17 MR. LIPMAN:

U.S.

yes. 19 THE COURT:

U.S. v.

think.

jurisdiction.

2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. LIPMAN: Okay.

revolutionary.

cause.

thank you. 7 THE COURT:

cause. 9 MR. LIPMAN:

12 THE COURT: Of course. 13 MR. LIPMAN:

14 THE COURT:

agree. 15 MR. LIPMAN:

17 THE COURT:

enough. 18 MR. LIPMAN:

it.

gain.

2 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. 3 MR. LIPMAN:

Your Honor. 4 THE COURT:

5 Government. 6 MS. MURRAY:

Your Honor.

Mr.

raised.

10 apartment.

12 THE COURT:

nonetheless. 14 MS. MURRAY:

point.

valuation.

now.

safe.

23 proceedings. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MS. MURRAY:

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.

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

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.

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

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

offered? 4 MS. MURRAY:

15.

search.

15 THE COURT:

16 are.

this.

cryptocurrency.

anything.

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

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,

entity.

indictment.

Mr.

fraud.

arrested. 17 THE COURT:

19 employment. 20 MS. MURRAY:

control. Mr.

staff.

Ms.

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

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.

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.

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

2 companies.

to.

concerns.

making.

13 information.

16 appearances.

Your Honor.

knew then.

appearance.

2 way.

appearance. 4 THE COURT:

clarification.

Mr.

Mr.

rich.

speak? 13 MS. MURRAY:

18 THE COURT:

understand. 19 MS. MURRAY:

20 misappropriation.

network.

passports. Mr.

U.K.

internationally.

safe.

passport.

points. 17 THE COURT:

not Miles Kwok. 18 MS. MURRAY:

19 THE COURT:

think. 22 MS. MURRAY:

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

seized.

facts.

flight.

appearances.

17 THE COURT: No. 18 MS. MURRAY:

radius.

bracelet.

her.

flight.

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

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

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.

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

11 dangerousness.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

22 MR. LIPMAN: But, Your Honor, there is no 23 record, and there is no proof of these things that the

2 MR. LIPMAN:

4 THE COURT:

cuts. 5 MR. LIPMAN:

card.

account.

card. 8 Okay?

coin.

have.

11 else.

far.

that.

closed.

20 closed.

salary.

business.

that. Okay?

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.

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

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 -

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

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.

MR. LIPMAN: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, with respect to the response date, assuming that the defense submits something on Thursday, that would make the Government's response due on Easter Sunday. We would respectfully

THE COURT: Monday. MS. MURRAY: -- that we get until Monday. Thank you. THE COURT: Yes, of course. Okay, all right, we are adjourned. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

4 I, Carole Ludwig, certify that the foregoing 5 transcript of proceedings in the United States District

9 true and accurate record of the proceedings.

12 Signature_______________________________

14 Date: