Guo Wengui/Miles Guo Must Be Granted Bail After Court Shows Undeniable Bias
(Note: This is a sponsored post from NewNoah. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Gateway Pundit)
by Matt Palumbo
After initially being denied bail, anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dissident Guo Wengui (also known as Miles Guo) had another shot at being granted it at a hearing on Tuesday, May 30, but once again it was unjustly denied, adding yet more evidence that the system is rigged against him.
Guo was arrested on March 15, 2023, and has been held without bail ever since, which is unprecedented in New York, the state he was arrested in. Countless high-profile individuals who faced allegations of fraud far larger than Guo were let out without bail, including Bernie Madoff, who ran a $50 billion Ponzi scheme, Jordan Belfort, who caused $200 million in losses and is better known as the “Wolf of Wall Street,” and Theranos fraudster Elizabeth Holmes.
Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, a Biden-appointee who previously worked at CCP-linked Paul Weiss law firm, urged the judge presiding over Guo’s case to deny Guo bail. This is despite Williams making no such demand when he announced charges against Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced founder of FTX cryptocurrency exchange, who is accused of causing up to $8 billion in fraud losses was released on a $250 million personal recognizance bond with two initially anonymous signers.
The Court has clearly decided against giving Guo bail before he was even able to argue for it. The Court concluded that Guo should be detained because he hadn’t satisfied some of his proposed conditions before the District Court had determined whether or not those proposed conditions would even be sufficient in the first place.
Guo had offered an astronomical $25 million bond as collateral, which would be signed by him and two other “financially responsible adults,” one of whom is not a family member. The judge didn’t find that the $25 million was an insufficient bond, which would’ve been laughable, but instead decided that there was “no possible person or asset could meet the proposed bond specifications,” which is simply their opinion. This also violates standard procedure – defendants are usually allowed to submit a proposed method of meeting a particular bail condition after the court determines that the condition is
Source: The Gateway Pundit
