---
type: court_doc
id: "court_sdny_89_1"
court: "SDNY"
case_no: "23-cr-00118"
doc_number: 89
doc_type: "EXHIBIT"
filed_date: "2023-06-20"
lang: "en"
machine_translated: false
url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_sdny_89_1"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_sdny_89_1"
---
# Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — criminal case · EXHIBIT · ECF #89-1

**Bail Hearing Transcript — United States v. Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #89 (filed June 20, 2023). Magistrate Judge Lehrburger's bail hearing on April 4, 2023, addressing defendant's motion to modify bond conditions; defendant contests government's flight risk allegations; court grants defendant's application.**


EXHIBIT A

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
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
2　the bond conditions, but we agreed to the bond
3　conditions based on conversation that we had with the
4　Government that in which the Government made certain
5　representations about what was found in Ms. Wang's
6　apartment. And so we were told that, we didn't have a
7　lot of time to discuss things with our client, but we
8　thought, all right, it seems reasonable, and then we
9　agreed that we were going to propose names of two co-
10　signers for the bond and, frankly, didn't think that
11　this was going to be an issue.

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.

 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 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

2　She did not travel during that window. It expired. It
3　expired for reasons that have nothing to do with
4　anything other than she had a particular trip that she
5　had in mind to make, she couldn't get, it didn't work
6　out logistically. She then applied for another
7　application, and I believe that was, according to her
8　immigration counsel, that was on February 8, 2023. So a
9　month before she was arrested.
10　So the idea that she is a flight risk is, given
11　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 10
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 13
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
1　PROCEEDING 14
2　phones. Of these twelve phones, six of them were
3　secreted in boxes that were, that looked like brand new
4　boxes of iPhones and these were used – this is a
5　representation from the Government of the United States
6　to a court in the United States. So we said, all right,
7　let's look at the pictures. Send us the pictures.
8　Well. May I approach, Your Honor?
9　THE COURT: You may.
10　(pause in proceeding)
11　MR. LIPMAN: This is the evidence log, Your
12　Honor, that was of collected items from her apartment.
13　This is what we got from the Government. Okay?
14　THE COURT: Uh huh.
15　MR. LIPMAN: I'm going to assume that
16　everything on here is true and correct because it came
17　from the Government. If it's not, they should tell Your
18　Honor. Here's a list of phones and where they were
19　found. On the first page. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
20　These are all iPhones, and they were all found on the
21　kitchen table. Now, Your Honor, if the Court would like
22　to see, I have pictures of them.
23　They were found on the counter in the kitchen,
24　three of them. They were plugged in in plain view.
25　There was a phone that was on the side of the table,

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 think
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
2　MR. LIPMAN: Your Honor, this is the FBI
3　schematic of the apartment that Ms. Wang lives in. By
4　the way, it's 740 square feet. This is a woman who
5　apparently defrauded people up to, for something like a
6　billion dollars. Anyway, so on this page, Your Honor, I
7　call the Court's attention on what is in the apartment
8　and what is not. There is a bed in the bedroom, and
9　there's a side table. There is a couch in the
10　livingroom, and there's something in front of the couch,
11　it's actually a (indiscernible). There is nothing else
12　in this apartment. There's no wardrobe, there's no
13　chest of drawers, there's no desk, there's nothing. So
14　where does she keep her stuff? In the closets. All of
15　her stuff is in the closets. Her old phones were in the
16　closet. Right? There's nothing nefarious about putting
17　stuff in the closet when you don't have any furniture.
18　So then, so then they say, okay, we found money
19　in her apartment. We found money, we found \$138,000.
20　Ms. Murray said in recent bills, she thought they were
21　recent bills. Okay. So then we thought, all right, can
22　we see the pictures of the money? Why did we ask for
23　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 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
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

1　PROCEEDING 29
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 30
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

from the Chinese communist party in this room right now

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 37
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
2　one of the first modification requests the defense is
3　asking for, or potentially in connection with or an
4　alternative various different modifications, be it
5　posting additional property or cash in support of the
6　bond, adding co-signers, aggregating co-signers. Again,
7　with respect to modification, the answer is plainly no,
8　the Court should not do that.
9　And, finally, the third question, which was
10　raised in the Government's submission last Friday,
11　whether the defendant should be detained pending trial
12　because there are no conditions or set of conditions
13　that will reasonably assure her presence at future court
14　proceedings. And, Your Honor, the answer to that is
15　yes.
16　So I'll take each of those points in turn.
17　First, with respect to the proposed co-signers,
18　the defense submitted documentation and names and
19　information about those co-signers to the Court. That
20　is because they are not approved by the Government. So
21　under the statute the basis for the Court to approve
22　unapproved co-signers is to evaluate documentation,
23　information about those co-signers, and then determine
24　whether they have a net worth with sufficient
25　unencumbered value to pay the full amount of the bond.

1　PROCEEDING 43
2　here \$5 million. And I'm not going to go over each of
3　the individuals, Your Honor, because we laid this out in
4　great detail in our initial submission. We went through
5　each of the seven proposed co-signers that the defense
6　has presented to the Court here with documentation,
7　again, setting aside the eighth whom we were not able to
8　interview.
9　For each of those seven, based on the documents
10　that the defense is providing to Your Honor for your
11　consideration of whether those individuals meet the
12　standard of the statute, first of all, Your Honor, none
13　of them has appropriate moral suasion over the
14　defendant. And, again, we laid this out but I would
15　like to make that point a bit more finely because it's
16　extremely important where here the defense is saying
17　that these individuals exercise moral suasion.
18　And, Your Honor, is correct, it's not a
19　question of whether the proposed co-signers believe that
20　they have influence or moral suasion over the defendant.
21　It's a question of how the defendant feels, and while we
22　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
1　PROCEEDING 46
2　And, Your Honor, I just note, moral suasion
3　factors vary, but some of the considerations include the
4　strength of ties between the defendant and the proposed
5　suretor. Again, here, with respect to all of the
6　proposed suretors in front of this Court which the
7　defendant provided to Your Honor, that factor doesn't
8　exist.
9　Also, the defendant's roots in the community,
10　we understand from defense counsel that Ms. Wang
1　PROCEEDING 47
2　each of the proposed suretors, but these individuals do
3　not have sufficient assets of an unencumbered value to
4　support the full amount of the bond. That is the
5　statutory framework that we're working within at this
6　point where conditions have been imposed, where the
7　Government has unapproved suretors, and the defense has
8　now moved to bring them before the Court --
9　THE COURT: Well, why I am hearing at least
10　from the defense that with an entire package and the
11　supposed three FRP's who are here, suretors, that they
12　do have \$5 million. Let me just verify something,
13　counsel for the defense, are you saying that that is
14　unencumbered, 5 million?
15　MR. LIPMAN: Yeah, we have three people who
16　have unencumbered -- well --
17　THE COURT: Net unencumbered.
18　MR. LIPMAN: Thank you. Yes, net I think adds
19　up to -- let's put it this way, together with the million
20　dollars that she has definitely, I know that one is \$3
21　million. I'm sorry, I'm spacing on one of them, but I'm
22　pretty sure that those three cover \$5 million. But that
23　they do including the --
24　THE COURT: Right, she's got the million, she's
25　also got the 400, she's got the 138. So we're good for

 supporters, that that will influence Ms. Wang to not flee.

 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 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

PROCEEDING 51

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 2016 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
1　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 53
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 2018 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 2023 or March 13 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
25　Government already alleged and believed to be true from

1 PROCEEDING 55 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 56
2　Yanping Wang, and then it has the allocation, it's in
3　her name.
4　I would note that some of the other individuals
5　or entities who are allocated HCN in the document that
6　the Government has include Ms. Wang's co-conspirator,
7　William Je. It says Sue Ming Je and family, that's one
8　of his family members. It includes Mr. Kwok's son, it
9　includes friends of Mr. Kwok's son, all named by their
10　names. Ms. Wang is also named by her name. Allocated 7
11　million.
12　Now, I don't know if she forgot or she just
13　didn't think it was relevant to disclose to Pretrial
14　Services, but this is a newly discovered fact the
15　Government found in the course of reviewing evidence
16　that was taken from Ms. Wang's apartment that gives us
17　serious pause, and it's something that's different from
18　when the Government first agreed to the conditions of
19　the proposed bond with defense counsel.
20　Another point I would like to note, with
21　respect to the accounts to which the defendant has
22　access, I understand that the way that the condition is
23　worded it could be read narrowly or broadly. In the
24　Government's view it certainly imposes an obligation on
25　the defendant to be forthcoming. And the condition

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 61
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 62
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 11 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 64

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
25　whatever it that they were, a document hiding in between

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

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
16　question that I keep asking myself is this. Why? Why
17　is the Government misrepresenting evidence? Why is the
18　Government stretching stuff, stretching stuff? Even if
19　they believe that, you know, there's more to this. Even
20　– I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm reminded that on her
21　employment question, we actually invoked, she invoked
22　her Fifth Amendment right. Okay? Thank you.
23　Even – I lost my train of thought. I
24　apologize. I think I was responding to this idea that

25 she controls stuff. There's no - we never hid that.

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

2　narrative where each and every item that is taken as
3　evidence was recovered from, what condition it was in,
4　how it was found.
5　So with respect the laptop between clothes,
6　that is consistent with the Government's representations
7　to Judge Parker at the initial presentment that the
8　laptop was found between sweaters in the closet. It
9　doesn't say specifically what items of clothing --
10　THE COURT: No.
11　MS. MURRAY: -- or where, but it's consistent.
12　With respect to the iPhones that the Government had
13　indicated had been in boxes, yes, in a bag in the
14　closet, and you can see those are the items that Mr.
15　Lipman pointed Your Honor to in the 50's on the evidence
16　log. And you'll note that nearly each of them has the
17　same PIN code or passcode. So those are items that at
18　first the FBI thought might not have any content, and
19　then the FBI had technicians on site during the search
20　warrant, they plugged them in, and they determined they
21　had content. There are no misrepresentations.
22　Mr. Lipman is now, again, Your Honor,
23　essentially trying to hold a trial on the merits of the
24　Government's case here at a point of a detention hearing
25　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.
19　MS. MURRAY: I understand, Your Honor, and the
20　Government obviously is not privy --
21　THE COURT: And particularly for someone of a
22　different language and culture, it might be all the more
23　important that there's nuance to what's asked. I don't
24　know what was asked.
25　MS. MURRAY: Sure, and nor do we because the
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

1 PROCEEDING 76 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 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?
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
2　MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, just a final point. I
3　want to be clear the Government made no concession on
4　that point in any stretch, and a key question is whether
5　she poses a risk of flight, that is the question.
6　THE COURT: All right, look, one thing that
7　I've been asked to do is to determine if the, or at
8　least order that some of the financial suretors that
9　have been offered are sufficient to meet the
10　requirements and conditions that were issued by Judge
11　Parker, and the defense has indicated here they have
12　three for which they believe that there's sufficient
13　property that can be offered as security along with the
14　enhanced package, if you will, of funds that were
15　offered on behalf of the defendant.
16　I don't have it in front of me information
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 -

 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

2　-
3　THE COURT:
You
can
file
it
under
seal.
4　MR. LIPMAN:
Okay.
All right.
5　THE COURT:
And
you'll
provide
it
to
the
6　Government
obviously
in
unredacted
form.
7　MR. LIPMAN:
Of course.
You
know
what,
Your
8　Honor,
I
said

hours

9　THE COURT:
Give
yourself
more
time.
10　MR. LIPMAN:
Yeah.
11　THE COURT:
It's
your
call
sort
of
because
your
12　client
is
going
to
remain
detained.
So
you
obviously

13　MR. LIPMAN:
I
understand.
But
how
about
this,
14　we
will
provide
it
no
later
than

hours
from
now,
but
15　we
will
attempt
to
provide
it
as
soon
as
humanly
16　possible.
17　THE COURT:
Okay.
All right,
I
mean
it's
18　important
I
think
also
if
you
need
a
little
more
time,
19　to
be
able
to
put
together
something
stronger
that
might
20　assure
the
Government.
Grant
it
that
they're
saying
21　there
are
changed
conditions
and
they
want
detention.
22　But
anything
you
can
do
to
make
stronger
the
financial
23　suretor
application
would
be
helpful
to
me
in
being
able
24　to
review
and
its
significance.
Okay?
25　MR. LIPMAN:
Thank you,
Your Honor.

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.

1　PROCEEDING 86
2　MR. LIPMAN: Okay.
3　MS. MURRAY: Your Honor, with respect to the
4　response date, assuming that the defense submits
5　something on Thursday, that would make the Government's
6　response due on Easter Sunday. We would respectfully
7　ask --
8　THE COURT: Monday.
9　MS. MURRAY: -- that we get until Monday.
10　Thank you.
11　THE COURT: Yes, of course. Okay, all right,
12　we are adjourned. Thank you.
13　MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
14　MR. LIPMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
15　(Whereupon the matter is adjourned.)

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 _________________________ Carole Ludwig _________________________
13　Carole Ludwig
14　Date: April 5, 2023