---
type: court_doc
id: "court_sdny_33_0"
court: "SDNY"
case_no: "23-cr-00118"
doc_number: 33
doc_type: "EXHIBIT"
filed_date: "2023-04-06"
lang: "en"
machine_translated: false
url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_sdny_33_0"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_sdny_33_0"
---
# Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — criminal case · EXHIBIT · ECF #33

**Bail Hearing Transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #33 (April 4, 2023). Transcript of continuation bail hearing for defendant Yanping Wang, focusing on the adequacy of financial sureties for bail conditions, with defense counsel challenging Government's flight risk arguments.**


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.
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

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

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

2　THE COURT:
Sure.
3　MR. LIPMAN:
On

of
9.
4　THE COURT:
Okay.
5　MR. LIPMAN:
Do
you
see
where
it
says
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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or
March

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

PROCEEDING　86
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
ask --
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.
(Whereupon the matter is adjourned.)

1　87
2　C
E
R
T I F I C A T E

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.

12　Signature_______________________________
13　Carole Ludwig
14　Date:
April
5,