type
status
date
slug
summary
tags
category
icon
password
Picking up from where we left off, yesterday we covered the prosecutor’s reading of the indictment against Guo Wengui (郭文贵) in court. Following that, it was the defense’s turn to present their argument. Guo Wengui’s legal team consisted of four lawyers: one public defender, two attorneys from a small law firm, and one from a mid-sized firm. The public defender was appointed by the U.S. government, as per the principles of the American criminal justice system, which ensures that all defendants have the right to legal representation, regardless of their financial status. Those unable to afford a lawyer can apply for a public defender provided by the government.
The fact that Guo Wengui had to rely on a public defender, along with attorneys from smaller firms rather than high-profile legal representation, suggests that he was already in financial distress when he appeared in court. If he had substantial financial resources, he would likely have hired a more prestigious law firm instead of relying on government-appointed counsel.
During the early stages of the trial, the public defender led Guo Wengui’s defense with a strategy based on three main points:
- Guo’s Wealth Should Not Be a Bias – The lawyer argued that while Guo owned yachts, private jets, and luxury homes, this lifestyle was not relevant to the case. He had always been wealthy, even in China, and the jury should not be prejudiced against him based on his financial status.
- Guo as an Anti-CCP Hero – The defense portrayed Guo as a political dissident who fled China due to persecution by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, 中共). They argued that all of his business ventures were established with the sole purpose of opposing the CCP, which has allegedly been trying to extradite him.
- Shifting Blame to Others – The defense attempted to dissociate Guo from the fraudulent activities, shifting the blame to other individuals, including Yanping Wang (王雁平), who had already reached a plea deal with the U.S. government, and CFO Jianming Yu (余建明), who had fled and remained at large.
Key Testimonies and Legal Cross-Examinations
After both sides presented their opening arguments, the trial moved into the most crucial phase—witness testimonies and cross-examinations. In the American legal system, jurors must base their judgments solely on evidence and testimonies presented in court, and they are strictly prohibited from accessing external information related to the case. In some high-profile cases, jurors may even be sequestered in hotels to prevent exposure to media reports.
Although Guo Wengui had the right to testify in his own defense, he chose not to. This was likely a strategic move, as taking the stand would have required him to swear an oath to tell the truth and face direct questioning from prosecutors. Any false statements could have led to additional charges of perjury or contempt of court. To avoid this risk, Guo remained silent throughout the trial.
Over the 35-day trial, the prosecution called 35 witnesses, while the defense only presented nine. The prosecution’s witnesses were particularly effective in revealing the fraudulent nature of Guo’s operations. Among them, four testimonies stood out as critical to the case.
Key Witness 1: Mr. Zhou (“Coffee Wenle,” 咖啡闻乐)
Mr. Zhou was initially a staunch anti-CCP supporter who joined Guo’s “Whistleblower Movement” (爆料革命) after being influenced by Guo’s rhetoric. He volunteered for Guo’s operations, assisting in video editing and live streaming. Later, he invested in GTV and the "Guo Club" (郭俱乐部).
Zhou described how Guo used "scarcity marketing" to attract investors, requiring a minimum investment of $100,000 for GTV. Since Zhou only had $30,000, he pooled funds with another investor to meet the threshold. Later, he invested an additional $70,000 in the Guo Club. However, when he tried to withdraw his funds, he was stonewalled and eventually told he could only be reimbursed in “Xi Coins” (喜币), Guo’s self-issued cryptocurrency, despite not even having an account on Himalaya Exchange (喜马拉雅交易所). Ultimately, in December 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seized Guo’s assets and partially refunded Zhou’s losses. His testimony provided the jury with a detailed roadmap of Guo’s fraudulent activities.
Key Witness 2: "Mulan" (木兰)
Mulan was a cooperating witness (污点证人) who had worked as an accountant for Guo’s organization, giving her access to crucial financial records. She confirmed that Guo was the final decision-maker on all refund requests. Moreover, she revealed that the refund policy was politically motivated—those who publicly criticized the “New Federal State of China” (新中国联邦) were denied refunds.
Additionally, she challenged the defense’s portrayal of Guo as a persecuted dissident, stating:
"Even if Guo Wengui was targeted by the CCP, that does not justify defrauding others."
Her testimony dismantled the argument that Guo’s legal troubles were purely politically motivated.
Key Witness 3: Khalid
Khalid, a former Citibank executive, was hired by Guo at an annual salary of $350,000—$150,000 more than his previous position. However, he soon noticed major financial irregularities and began secretly recording internal meetings.
In one such recording, Guo was heard discussing a plan to transfer $100 million overseas and then funnel it back into GTV for personal use. When Guo’s assistant Yanping Wang (王雁平) expressed concerns about regulatory scrutiny, Guo reacted angrily, hurling insults at her in a mixture of English and Henan dialect. Khalid also recorded evidence of Guo explicitly instructing funds to be laundered through offshore tax havens.
The recordings were a devastating blow to Guo’s defense, directly linking him to financial misconduct.
Key Witness 4: Jesse Brown
As the CEO of Himalaya Exchange (喜马拉雅交易所), Jesse Brown revealed that “Xi Coin” (喜币) was never a real cryptocurrency. Instead, it functioned like in-game currency, controlled entirely by Guo’s internal systems rather than a blockchain.
Brown described how Guo used artificial price inflation—initially selling Xi Coin at $0.10, then rapidly pushing its price up to $20 within weeks through fake transactions. However, when investors tried to cash out, they were locked into the system and denied withdrawals. Furthermore, Guo siphoned $37 million from Himalaya Exchange to purchase a yacht for his daughter.
This testimony further cemented the case that Guo was running a fraudulent financial scheme rather than a legitimate investment platform.
Verdict and Sentencing
On July 16, the jury reached its verdict. Out of 12 charges, 9 were found guilty, including racketeering (集团敲诈勒索), fraud (欺诈), and money laundering (洗钱). The racketeering charge was particularly severe, as it classified Guo’s operations as akin to organized crime (黑社会).
With the verdict reached, the court announced that Guo’s final sentencing will take place on November 19. While Guo retains the right to appeal, the likelihood of overturning the ruling is minimal, as appeals in the U.S. legal system focus on procedural errors rather than re-evaluating evidence.
Based on the gravity of the charges, I personally predict that Guo could receive a sentence of around 50 years, effectively ensuring he spends the rest of his life in prison.
To Sum Up
Guo Wengui’s case demonstrates how financial scams thrive on three key psychological factors:
- Information Isolation – Guo’s followers consumed only his controlled content, creating an information bubble.
- Ideological Bias – Many investors supported Guo’s anti-CCP stance, blinding them to red flags.
- Greed – The promise of massive returns kept victims hooked, despite clear warning signs.
As the fallout from Guo’s downfall continues, his case serves as a stark reminder: when someone offers you emotional validation instead of verifiable truth, always ask—what do they stand to gain?
- 作者:Xlens
- 链接:https://www.xlens.online/article/195decdd-9dc2-80b4-9e30-db3e7c015ef8
- 声明:本文采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议，转载请注明出处。