{"id":"court_2cir_26-1626_dkt_1","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-1626_dkt_1","summary_zh":"职务执行令（mandamus）申请——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案第二巡回上诉法院26-1626号 ECF #1（2026年6月12日立案,信函署期6月9日）。申请人“Anna”以第三方pro se身份,依据21 U.S.C. §853(n)、联邦刑事诉讼规则32.2(c)/49.1及全令状法（All Writs Act）请求二巡下令SDNY一审法院将其此前提交、屡遭拒绝登记的《传唤Luc Despins及喜马拉雅联盟/农场关键人员动议（主张853(n)权利）》（2026年5月22日提交）正式入卷并就实体问题作出裁决。申请人自称为G系列合法投资人,质疑检方“受害人/共谋人”二分归类框架及破产受托人Luc Despins未经完整举证的“另我”（alter ego）认定并据此没收其资金,并指控“凤凰农场”CEO 魏立宏向中国当局传输投资人信息、导致证人受胁迫作证。","summary_en":"Petition for a writ of mandamus — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), Second Circuit No. 26-1626, ECF #1 (docketed June 12, 2026; cover letter dated June 9, 2026). Pro se third-party petitioner \"Anna\" invokes 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) and 49.1, and the All Writs Act, asking the Second Circuit to order the SDNY district court to docket her repeatedly-rejected \"Motion to Subpoena Luc Despins and Key Himalaya Alliance & Farm Personnel\" (filed May 22, 2026) and rule on its merits. She claims to be a bona fide G-Series investor entitled to an ancillary forfeiture proceeding, disputes the government's victim/co-conspirator classification framework and Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins's unadjudicated \"alter ego\" theory used to seize the funds, and alleges that Phoenix Farm CEO Wei Lihong transmitted investor records to PRC authorities, coercing witness testimony.","body_en":"Case: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 1 of 61\nredar-kct\nDate: June 9\", 2026\nFrom:\nAddress:\nTelephone:\nEmail:\nTo: Clerk of Court\nUnited States Court of Appeals\n2ND Circuit\n40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\nRe: Petition for Writ of Mandamus\nPetitioner: Anna\nCase: United States v. Kwok, et al.1 :23-CR-0011 S(AT)\nDear Clerk of the 2\"' Circuit Court,\nEnclosed please find a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed by Ann~ a Pro Se Petitioner in\nUnited States v. Kwok, et al 1 :23-CR-0011 S(AT), under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 49.1, and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a).\nEnclosed are:\nAFFIDAVIT FOR PERMISSION IN FORMA PAUPERIS\nPetition for Writ of Mandamus\nExhibit A-\"Motion to Subpoena Luc Despins and Key Himalaya Alliance & Farm Personnel; Evidentiary\nHearing, & Asserting 853(n) Rights, Privacy and Declaration\", filed with SDNY District Court on 5/22/2026\nExhibit B - Proofs that the 5/22/26 Motion was sent to the SDNY District Court\nExhibit C - Proof of email request to the District Court for Docketing, dated 5/29/2026\nExhibit D -Proof of email request to the District Court for Docketing, dated 6/2/2026\nExhibit E -Proof of email request \"Motion to Compel Docketing\" to the District Court, dated 6/5/2026\nRespectfully submitted,\n.....\nAnna\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 2 of 61\nCourt of Appea\\s ,\nFor The Second C1rcuI1\nTffi m\\\nJE <C JE TI VIE\nUnited States Court of Appeals1_& JUN 1 2 2026 ill}\nfor the Second Circuit\nBY: - - - \"\"\"' - - - -\nIn Re:Anna 3,ct Party in United States v. Kwok, et al. 1 :23-cr-00118-1 (AT),\nPetitioner.\nPETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS RELATING TO THE SDNY DISTRICT COURT\nSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTION\nThis Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus pursuant to the All-Writs Act, 28\nU.S.C. § 1651 (a), because the underlying action is \"within its appellate jurisdiction\".\nSTANDARD FOR MANDAMUS\nTo qualify for mandamus relief, a petitioner must demonstrate:\n1. A \"clear and indisputable\" right to the issuance of the writ;\n2. That the administrative or judicial officer has a non-discretionary, ministerial duty to\nact; and\n3. That the petitioner has no other adequate alternative means to attain the desired\nrelief.\nSee In re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987); Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of\nColumbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004).\nSTATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT\nPetitioner is a third party who had filed a \"Motion to Subpoena Luc Despins and Key\nHimalaya Alliance & Farm Personnel; Evidentiary Hearing, & Asserting 853(n) Rights,\nPrivacy and Declaration\" with the District Court, but the District Court suppresses\nPetitioner's legitimate claims and refuses to docket it after Petitioner's multiple requests.\nPetitioner has nowhere to go but r~spectfully ask this Court issues a writ directing the\nDistrict Court to enter Petitioner's Petition onto the docket and address the underlying\nstatutory issues on the merits.\nSTATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND ISSUES\nFacts:\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 3 of 61\n1) Petitioner is a bona fide, innocent investor who has lawfully invested__..\nlife savings in the G-series. These funds are currently seized by, or subject to the\nconstructive custody of, the DOJ, the SEC, Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins of Paul\nHastings LLP, or key leaders within the Himalaya Alliance and farms; critically, none\nof these assets were retained by, or remain in the custody of, Defendant Kwok.\nAccordingly, Petitioner is legally entitled to initiate ancillary proceedings over the\nsubject property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) to vindicate her cognizable legal interest.\n2) On May 22nd 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion with the District Court by US mail and\n,\nemail. Afterward, despite Petitioner's repeated requests to the District Court for\ndocketing, the Motion was suppressed and excluded from the public record without\nany stated legal justification, as demonstrated by the correspondence attached\nhereto in Exhibit.\nIssues:\n1) The prosecution's designated victims explicitly testified on the record that they\nsuffered no cognizable harm or financial injury attributable to the Defendant -The\nprosecution's victim classification framework (SDNY Doc. 511) reflects a\nsystemic collapse of basic forfeiture principles. The prosecution improperly\nconstructs a closed legal universe where an investor is designated as either a victim\nor a co-conspirator, leaving no procedural mechanism for an 853(n) claimant.\nPetitioner categorically rejects this flawed taxonomy; the Government cannot\nbypass the mandatory ancillary proceeding required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) by\nimposing an extra-statutory label on innocent third parties.\nThe Government's victim narrative is fundamentally undermined by the affected\nparties themselves. Pursuant to Doc. 834, the ostensible 'victims', 1254 of them,\nhave formally declared that their financial injuries do not stem from the actions of\nthe Defendant, but are instead the direct result of the Government's disruptive civil\ntakings and illegal possessory seizures.\n2) The prosecution's alleged \"fraud proceeds\" are actually the legitimate funds of the\nG-series investors -The prosecution's unilateral characterization of the G-Series\ninvestments as 'fraud proceeds' (Doc 716-4) represents an impermissible\nexpansion of federal forfeiture authority. Under established Second Circuit\nprecedent, the Government cannot simply declare an entire pool of legitimate third\nparty capital to be the fruit of a criminal enterprise. Petitioner maintains that this\nclassification is legally untenable and structurally invalid under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n).\nPage 2of 5\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 4 of 61\n3) The Government's asset seizure rests entirely upon a legally unproven and\nuncontested 'alter ego' theory that bypassed the mandatory requirements of a\nformal evldentiary adjudication -The Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee, Luc\nDespins, summarily applied an 'alter ego' designation to the entire complex of G\nSeries investment vehicles without ever satisfying the strict evidentiary burdens or\nsecuring the formal adjudication required by law. Compounding this error, the\nprosecution adopted the Trustee Luc's unadjudicated alter ego theory within the\ncontext of this criminal proceeding. This unauthorized coordination effectively\nallowed the Trustee and the Government to rob Petitioner's~\nlegitimate life savings, achieving a permanent deprivation of third-party property\nrights completely unmoored from standard procedural due process. Because this\nasset seizure rests entirely upon an un-litigated alter ego assumption rather than\nconcrete, individualized tracing, the retention of these funds violates fundamental\ntenets of federal forfeiture and bankruptcy law.\n4) The prosecution systematically insulated the Defendant's alleged co-conspirators\nfrom liability, offering immunity in exchange for testimony targeting the Defendant -\nThe anomalous procedural history of this case underscores a manifest injustice that\nundermines the integrity of the judicial process. The prosecutors obtained a\nconviction by immunizing the very individuals who currently possess in excess of\n$100 million of un-seized investor capital (Doc 834), while simultaneously seeking\nto block innocent third-party investors from asserting ancillary claims under 21\nU.S.C. § 853(n). This unusual enforcement posture, shielding possessory, non\nindicted actors while systematically denying a forum to innocent claimants calls\ninto question the structural legitimacy of the prosecution's framework and\nhighlights a systemic failure to safeguard the true victims of the underlying\nenterprise.\n5) An unadjudicated conflict of law wherein the subject asset pool is burdened by\ntwo mutually exclusive designations (Case No. 26-361 )-The District Court has left a\ncritical threshold issue entirely unaddressed, permitting a 'dual-definition' paradox\nto persist over the same asset pool. While the Communist PRC government\ncategorizes the G-Series capital as an illegal political fund targeting state security,\nthe prosecution had summarily branded it as 'fraud proceeds.' Byfailingto hold an\nancillary proceeding to adjudicate this geopolitical and legal conflict, the District\nCourt has abdicated its duty to determine the true legal status of Petitioner's\n~ nl ife savings.\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 5 of 61\n6) Witness duress & evidence tainting -An ancillary proceeding should be conducted\nto address a major structural defect in the prosecution's case: the systemic tainting\nof witness evidence via foreign state interference. The unauthorized transmission of\ninvestor records to the CCP by Phoenix Farm CEO Wei Li hong initiated a wave of\npolitical persecution against domestic investors. Under established due process\nprinciples, a conviction or forfeiture cannot rest upon the testimony of individuals\ninside mainland China who may have been coerced under threat of state violence to\nfalsely characterize their G-Series investments as fraud. Petitioner is entitled to an\nevidentiary hearing to probe this pervasive witness duress and to ascertain the true\nregulatory allegiance of the immunized farm leaderships.\nREASON WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE\nThe All-Writs Act empowers this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the District\nCourt to docket all relevant documents to all parties, including 3,d party Pro Se petitioners\nunder 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). This Court should issue a writ of mandamus because Petitioner\nhas a clear and indisputable right to the writ. No other alternative remedies are available to\nPetitioner. Mandamus is the only avenue by which Petitioners can obtain relief.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court issue a Writ of\nMandamus directing the District Court to:\n1. Immediately file and enter Petitioner's Motion onto the official docket;\n2. Authorize and issue subpoenas for the appearance and testimony of relevant, vital\npersonnel; and\n3. Convene a formal ancillary evidentiary hearing as explicitly mandated by 21 U.S.C. §\n853(n) to adjudicate Petitioner's cognizable legal interest in the ~ f\nseized G-Series investment capital.\nPetitioner further requests that this Court review the extraordinary procedural irregularities,\nexercise its supervisory authority to correct a clear abuse of discretion by the District\nCourt, and safeguard the systemic integrity of the federal judicial process by restoring\nPetitioner's fundamental right to procedural due process.\nPRIVACY\nPetitioner respectfully requests to file this petition in redacted public form with personal &\nfinancial data redacted. A redacted set of the documents is provided.\n'\n1\nDate: June 9\", 2026\n\nA-\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 6 of 61\n1 Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n2\n3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n4 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT ~O~F__!:!N~E~W_.,.,.,.u.... _____\n5\n6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Motion to Subpoena Luc Despins and\nKey Himalaya Alliance & Farm\n7 Plaintiff, Personnel; Evidentiary Hearing, &\nAsserting 853{n} Rights, Privacy and\n8 Declaration, By~ (Anna).\n9\nv.\n10\n11 HO WAN KWOK (A/K/A MILES GUO, MILES\n12 KWOK, WENGUI GUO AND BROTHER SEVEN),\n13\nYvette Wang,\n14\nDefendants.\n15\n16\nFacts\n17 My name is Anna, a G-series investor, appearing prose to tell the Court my\npersonal experience and facts surrounding my investments relevant to this\n18\ncase.\n19\n1) My background - I am a retired.- a mother, and a Christian who\n20 lives in communist China all my life. I have watched the CCP falsify\nthe Bible, ban its sale, and demand that the Chinese people worship the\n21\nCommunist Party. They tell us that while our parents are dear, the CCP\n22\nmust be 1dearest of all.' Having lived through this spiritual and\n23 intellectual suppression, I am committed to speaking the truth about\nthe regime1s attempt to replace God with the Communist Party.\n24\n2) The taking down the CCP movement - My involvement in the taking down\n25\nthe CCP movement is rooted in my lifelong experience as a victim of\n26 state-sponsored religious and political persecution. Since 2017, I have\nbeen a supporter of Mr. Guo, viewing his movement as a necessary\n27\nvehicle for exposing the CCP's human rights abuses. On June 4, 2020, I\n28\nparticipated in the establishment of the New Federal State of China, an\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 7 of 61\n1 organization dedicated to the peaceful transition of China toward a\ndemocratic, CCP-free future.\n2\nI categorically reject the DOJ prosecutors1 characterization of this\n3\norganization as a 1cult. 1 Such labels are not only inflammatory but are\n4 factually untethered from the reality of the CCP's documented\natrocities, such as forced live organ harvesting on the Chinese\n5\nchildren. I assert my First Amendment rights to freedom of association\n6\nand religious expression, maintaining that my support for Mr. Guo is a\n7 matter of profound personal and spiritual conviction. To dismiss\nthousands of global investors and activists as 'cult members', the\n8\nGovernment is to ignore the legitimate grievances of a population\n9\nseeking liberation from a totalitarian regime.\n10 3) My investment in G-series -The investments I made were part of a\nstructured, global effort to support a free China. Mr. Guo designed and\n11\npromoted an ecosystem of independent entities: GTV(VOG), Himalya\n12\nAlliance, Himalaya Farms, G-Club, G-Fashion, Himalaya Exchange, and\n13 Himalaya Reserve. Each entity was legally established under its own\njurisdiction and managed by its own operational team. My commitment to\n14\nsupport free China this cause was tangible: over a nearly three-year\n15\nperiod from May 2020 to February 2023, I executed 15 separate wire\n16 transfers totaling$ from my hard-earned savings, Using\nlegitimate banking channels and necessary intermediaries, I directed\n17\nthese funds to entities such as VOG, Korean En-Dian Farm, New Zealand\n18\nFarm, G-Club, and Himalaya Exchange. I also donated to the Rule of Law\n19 Foundation. Those capitals were investments in a movement and in\ncorporate structures that I believed in; it was never an 'unlawful\n20\nproceed1 for the Defendant to exploit or comingled personal funds of\n21\nthe Defendant,\n22\nChallenge to the Government's Unlawful Actions Against My G-series Investment\n23\n1) Communist China's transnational Financial Censorship on the G-series\n24\ninvestors - The pain, anxiety, and suffering I have endured because of\n25 my choice to invest in the G-Series is a direct result of the CCP's\ntotalitarian grip on global finance. The Chinese Government\n26\ncriminalized any investment into the G-Series. I knew with absolute\n27\ncertainty that if I disclosed the true purpose of my wire transfers to\n28 the banks, the transactions would be terminated immediately and I would\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 8 of 61\n1 face severe state repercussions, This hostile environment forced me to\nrely on alternative pathways to secure my investments.\n2\n3 In one heartbreaking instance, in 2021, I asked a friend\n4 surnamed ... to use his business account to route approximately ......\nUSO for me through his to ... Because\n5\nof this single act of assistance, the bank froze his entire corporate\n6\naccount for the reasons of \"money laundering\" and \"threatening national\n7 security\". He fought this injustice fiercely, pursuing both a lawsuit\nand an appeal, but he lost both. The Chinese Government fined him and\n8\nthreatened to jail him too. Witnessing the financial ruin of a friend\n9\nwho simply tried to help me escape financial censorship has caused me\n10 immense psychological trauma. My use of intermediaries was never an\nattempt to mislead any financial institutions; it was the only viable\n11\nsurvival mechanism available to an. oppressed citizen trying to move my\n12\ncapital to freedom.\n13\nIn the context of Second Circuit Case No. 26-361, Tony's grievance\n14\nreveals a profound flaw in the DOJ. prosecutors' narrative. The District\n15\nCourt has yet to answer a vital question: How can the identical pool of\n16 money be treated by the PRC authorities as an illegal, 'anti-Chinese\ngovernment' fund that threatens national security, while the U.S.\n17\nGovernment insists it is nothing more than 1fraud proceeds1?\n18\nThis dual classification is a logical impossibility. If the money was\n19 deployed by independent citizens as a financial shield against an\noppressive regime resulting in domestic freeze orders and police\n20\ninterrogations in China, it represents legitimate, hard-earned capital\n21\nrisked for freedom. The Government cannot adopt the asset-pool\n22 dimensions manufactured by the CCP's financial blockade without\nimplicitly validating that regime1s suppression of its own citizens,\n23\n24\nBy failing to address this contradiction, the record remains silent on\n25 a critical distinction. The funds injected into the G-Series by\nindependent investors were sent with clear, anti-totalitarian political\n26\nintent. To treat these politically motivated capital contributions as a\n27\nstandard, unified fraud scheme is to ignore the documented reality that\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 9 of 61\n1 these assets are viewed by a foreign adversary as weaponized dissent,\nnot criminal booty.\n2\n3\n2) The DOJ's reliance on the affidavit of FBI Special Agent AnthonY Alecci\n4 (SONY Doc. 716-4) is legally insufficient to justify the sweeping\n•\nforfeiture of G-Series assets. Agent Alecci cites 18 U.S.C. § 981 and§\n5\n1956 to characterize these funds as 'proceeds1 of wire and bank fraud.\n6\nHowever, this characterization fails as a matter of law.\n7 My capital contributions were made with bona fide intent and originated\nfrom legitimate, post-tax earnings. Under the Second Circuit's 'merger\n8\ndoctrine, 1 the Government cannot classify the mere movement of funds\n9\nbetween accounts as 'money laundering' unless it first proves those\n10 funds were already the proceeds of a completed crime. Here, the\nGovernment has failed to establish a nexus between the alleged fraud\n11\nand my specific assets. Furthermore, the Government's theory of fraud\n12\nis contradicted by the 1victims1 themselves; as noted in Document 834,\n13 the vast majority of investors expressly reject the Government's claim\nthat they were defrauded, asserting instead their status as lawful\n14\nproperty owners under§ 853(n}.\n15\n16 Agent Alecci's investigation (SDNY Doc. 716-4) relies on a logical\nfallacy: that the frequency of transactions automatically equates to\n17\nthe concealment of proceeds under 18 U.S.C, § 1956(a) (1) (B) (ii. In\n18\nreality, my investments were never 'fraud proceeds' to begin with. They\n19 were legitimate investmentS intended for the G-Series ecosystem,\nForfeiture requires the Government to prove a criminal 1taint1 by a\n20\npreponderance of the evidence. Forfeit assets before adjudication\n21\nbefore thousands of investors who overwhelmingly disclaim 'victim1\n22 status {SONY Doc 843), the Government has committed a civil taking\nwithout the required proof of a crime. Moving money between legally\n23\nformed entities is a standard business practice, not a specified\n24\nunlawful activity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 or 1344.\n25\nThe Government's Victim Identification and Classification Crisis\n26\nFrom the standpoint of a G-series investor who rejects victim status, who\n27\nrefuses to proceed under the CVRA, and instead seeks recognition of\n28 independent third-party property interests under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), the\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 10 of 61\n1 Government's current victim framework is not merely inconsistent; it is\nstructurally unsound and procedurally dangerous.\n2\n1) Selective Gatekeeping of Victim Status\n3\nIn SONY Doc 511, the Government adopted an extraordinarily broad\n4 definition of the purported victim population. It stated that \"one group\nrecognizes the fraud for what it is and believes the defendants\n5\ndeliberately deceived them,\" while \"the other group does not believe they\n6\nwere defrauded (either because they are complicit in the conspiracy, or\n7 they have been misled by it). Many now believe the government wrongfully\nseized their money.\" Under that formulation, the Government's victim\n8\ntheory is broad enough to sweep in not only self-identified victims, but\n9\nalso investors who reject the label of victim and believe the Government\n10 has wrongfully taken their funds. Yet when those same or similarly\nsituated investors appear in court in a procedurally adverse posture, the\n11\nGovernment's framework shifts. After the district court adjourned\n12\nsentencing from April 27, 2026 to June 29, 2026, the Government filed\n13 oppositions to 4 of the Emergency Stay Applications at the Second Circuit:\nRyan Bai (No. 25-2726), Tony (No. 26-361), Chunk Chyi (No. 26-77), and\n14\nCarolyn Sun (No. 26-441). As reflected in Chunk Chyi's response filing in\n15\nSecond Circuit No. 26-77 (0kt. 18), even after he affirmatively invoked\n16 the CVRA and identified concrete financial loss, the Government\nnevertheless sought to characterize him as a mere \"supporter,u rather than\n17\nas a victim entitled to meaningful consideration. Chunk correctly\n18\nidentified the resulting distortion: victim recognition appears to\n19 function less as an equally available statutory protection and more as an\nadvantage effectively reserved to those with representation, procedural\n20\nleverage, or institutional acceptance. This disparity is particularly\n21\nstark, as noted on Pages 3-4 of the filing, where Chunk observed that\n22 certain represented HEX claimants reportedly deny being \"victims,\" but the\nGovernment treats them as \"victims\" in sentencing the Defendant. By\n23\ncontrast, Pro Se petitioners who affirmatively assert loss and invoke the\n24\nCVRA are met with arguments by the Government that their victim status is\n25 insufficient or that their losses should not be counted. The inconsistency\nbecomes even more pronounced in light of the record cited on Page 8.\n26\nThere, Chunk references the defense counsel's submission in SONY Document\n27\n843, reporting that counsel had received 1,254 \"supporter statements.11\n28 Under the Government1s own formulation in Document 511, such individuals\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 11 of 61\n1 would appear to fall within the category of persons who do not believe\nthey were defrauded yet whose funds are nevertheless counted within the\n2\nbroader victim framework. Yet, rather than being treated as victims by the\n3\nGovernment, these individuals were effectively represented through defense\n4 counsel.\n5\nTaken together, the records support a troubling inference: in practice,\n6\nthe Government's recognition of \"victim\" status appears to operate in a\n7 manner that privileges sophisticated representation. Those with counsel,\ninstitutional alignment, or procedural leverage may have their positions\n8\nincorporated into the Government's sentencing narrative, but for the Pro\n9\nSe individuals, the Government labels them whatever the Government sees\n10 fit, sometimes totally against those Pro Se individuals' will. This is not\na neutral application of a statutory framework. It is a structurally\n11\nselective system that conditions access to victim status, and the rights\n12\nflowing from it, on litigation posture rather than legal entitlement.\n13\n2) Selective Gatekeeping of Exit from Victim Status\n14\nThe contradiction becomes even more revealing in the Government's\n15\nopposition to the Emergency Stay Applications filed by the 4 Pro Se\n16 petitioners in the Second Circuit. There, despite the breadth of its own\nDocument 511 definition, the Government effectively treated those 4\n17\npetitioners as supporters of Mr. Guo rather than as persons falling within\n18\nthe broader victim framework it had previously asserted. I myself reject\n19 victim status, refuse to proceed under the CVRA, and identify instead as a\nG-series investor and supporter of Mr. Guo. From that standpoint, the\n20\nGovernment's treatment of those· 4 Pro Se petitioners as \"supporters\" is a\n21\ndeeply troubling. It suggests that the only practical way to escape the\n22 Government's default victim classification and to assert an independent\nposition is to confront the Government directly in court, and to do so\n23\nwith unusual procedural sophistication and persistence.\n24\n25 That is a profound defect in the Government's framework. If only a tiny\nnumber of exceptionally capable litigants, such as Ryan, Chunk, Tony,\n26\nCarolyn and similarly situated petitioners can force the Government to\n27\nstop treating them as passive \"victims\" and instead acknowledge them as\n28 procedurally independent actors, then the Government's classification\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 12 of 61\n1 system is not functioning as a neutral legal framework at all. It is\nfunctioning as a selective gatekeeping device. In practice, it leaves\n2\nordinary G-series investors trapped inside a broad victim label when that\n3\nlabel benefits the Government's loss and sentencing narrative, yet denies\n4 them any realistic path to independent recognition unless they possess\nextraordinary litigation ability. That is not a stable victim framework.\n5\nIt is a procedurally distorted structure that risks depriving ordinary\n6 investors of due process, meaningful access to§ 853(n), and equal\n7 treatment under the law.\n8\nWhat the record reflects is not merely inconsistency of the Government's\n9\nconduct, but the absence of a stable and administrable rule governing\n10 victim classification. A framework that expands to include certain\nindividuals as \"victims\" to support the Government's loss attribution, yet\n11\ncontracts to exclude those same individuals when they attempt to assert\n12\nindependent procedural rights. It proves that the Government operates\n13 without a discernible limiting principle. In practice and in reality, it\nforecloses any predictable or accessible pathway for similarly situated\n14\ninvestors to assert their rights under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), and thereby\n15\nraises serious concerns not only of fairness, but of the framework's legal\n16 viability.\n17\nConstructive Fraud on the Courts: The Manufacture of an Utterly Fictitious\n18\n\"Alter Ego\" Pool and the Poisoning of the Trial Record\n19 The DOJ prosecutors and Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins have engaged in a\npattern of material omissions that amounts to a constructive fraud on the\n20\ncourts. By systematically withholding the fact that a substantial portion of\n21\nthe seized funds comprised untainted, legitimate capital from independent\n22 investors and asserting instead the absolute falsehood that 100% of the\ncorporate assets were \"criminal proceeds11 the Government and Trustee Luc\n23 ,\nengineered a procedurally deficient record to serve a predetermined\n24\nnarrative.\n25 This orchestrated omission produced three devastating legal consequences:\n1) The Artificial Manufacturing of the \"Alter Ego11 Pool\n26\nThe Trustee and the Government bypassed mandatory tracing requirements to\n27\nfabricate a sweeping, all-inclusive \"alter ego\" theory. By failing to\n28 disclose the presence of$ in bona fide capital from me and\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 13 of 61\n1 hundreds of millions from similarly situated investors, the Government and\nTrustee Luc induced the bankruptcy court and the District Court to enter an\n2\noverly broad forfeiture pool. They effectively transformed distinct corporate\n3\nentities with separate fiduciary duties into a monolith, seizing innocent\n4 third-party property under the guise of recovering criminal proceeds.\n2) Structural Deprivation of Procedural Due Process\n5\nBy presenting an artificially clean narrative of total corporate fraud, the\n6\nGovernment and Trustee Luc effectively suppressed the statutory rights of\n7 third parties under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) before the trial even began. They\npresented the District Court with a curated, unchallenged record, ensuring\n8\nthat any subsequent ancillary proceeding would be treated as an\n9\nadministrative afterthought rather than a mandatory, adversarial adjudication\n10 of superior legal title.\n3) The Contamination and Pollution of the Jury's Fact-Finding Mandate\n11\nThis mischaracterization extended directly into the criminal trial,\n12\nfundamentally infecting the trial record. By introducing high-volume bank\n13 accounts as unified 11fraud accounts\" while deliberately concealing the\nmassive infusions of untainted investor capital, the Government presented a\n14\ndistorted financial landscape. This material distortion polluted the minds of\n15\nthe jury, creating an illusion of total criminality that stripped the\n16 Defendant of a fair trial and starved the jury of the context required to\naccurately evaluate criminal intent.\n17\n18\nA court-appointed Trustee and federal prosecutors owe an absolute duty of\n19 candor to the judiciary. When they actively ignore the distinct, clean origin\nof investor funds to artificially inflate a forfeiture pool, they do not\n20\nmerely commit an error; they perpetrate a constructive fraud that undermines\n21\nthe integrity of the entire judicial system. This Court must intervene to\n22 halt the finalization of this manufactured record.\n23\n24\nMotion to Subpoena and to Conduct Evidentiary Hearing on Luc Despina of Paul\n25 Hastings LLP and Key Himalaya Alliance and Farms Leadership Personnel\nI respectfully move this Court for an Order issuing subpoenas to Luc Despins\n26\n(Chapter 11 Trustee, Paul Hastings LLP), and key leadership personnel of the\n27\nHimalaya Alliance and Farms, including Wei Lihong, Zhang Yongbing, Ha-En,\n28 Cosmos, Guo Shuai, Xia Qidong, William Je and Wang Xuebing. I further request\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 14 of 61\n1 an evidentiary hearing to investigate the potential compromise of investor\ndata and the resulting transnational repression faced by the G-series\n2\ninvestors.\n3\n4 1) Wei Lihong (aka Sarah Wei, MIM~), formerly Arizona Phoenix Farm CEO,\nin charge of the VOG investment.\n5\nBasis for her Subpoena: I assert that Wei Lihong acted as a fiduciary\n6\nfor my investment of$ USD wired to VOG/GTV in . This\n~\n7 investment required the disclosure of my highly sensitive personal\nidentifiable information (PII).\n8\na) Evidence of compromise and transnational repression:\n9\nState interrogation - Following the transfer of funds and PII to Wei\n10 Lihong, I was subjected to three separate interrogations by the\nMinistry of State Security (MSS) of the People's Republic of China\n11\n(PRC) and local police,\n12\nb) Unauthorized disclosure of my data: During these sessions, PRC\n13 officials explicitly stated that my denial of investment was futile\nbecause Wei Lihong had provided a list of \"anti-government\" GTV/VOG\n14\ninvestors and my name was on it.\n15\nc) Ongoing Harassment: As a direct result of this betrayal, I remain\n16 under state surveillance, facing restricted movement and reporting\nto local police during travel.\n17\nA subpoena is required to determine:\n18\n• Whether investors who were betrayed by Wei were systematically coerced\n19\nby the CCP into falsely reporting to the FBI that they were \"defrauded\"\n20 by the Defendant.\n• Whether the written victim statements currently relied upon by the\n21\nDepartment of Justice {Doc. 833) to calculate sentencing and forfeiture\n22\nguidelines were procured under extreme duress by a foreign totalitarian\n23 regime seeking to sabotage the G-Series ecosystem\nA subpoena compelling the testimony of Wei is critical to safeguarding the\n24\nintegrity of these judicial proceedings. Wei's testimony is strictly\n25\nnecessary to uncover a severe breach of investor data that directly impacts\n26 the credibility of the Government's criminal case and the forfeiture pool.\nAnother question is whether Wei is a CCP agent at the beginning but disguised\n27\nas an anti-CCP fighter? How many of the Himalaya Alliance and Farm key\n28\nleaders are CCP agents under cover?\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 15 of 61\n1 A critical issue impacting the integrity of these proceedings is the\npotential role of covert foreign actors operating under the direction of the\n2\nPeople's Republic of China (PRC). An evidentiary hearing is necessary to\n3\ninvestigate whether key figures within the G-Series leadership specifically\n4 Wei and other prominent leaders within the Himalaya Alliance and Farm acted\nas unregistered agents of a foreign power, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 951\n5\nand the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), 22 U.S,C, § 611 et seq,\n6\n7 It is a matter of record before U.S. federal courts and intelligence agencies\nthat the Chinese Communist Party routinely utilizes 11controlled opposition\"\n8\nand deep-cover operators to infiltrate overseas dissident groups, capture\n9\nproprietary data, and manipulate domestic legal processes. The sudden,\n10 unauthorized data breach of the corporate 11investor list\" to PRC security\norgans raises a profound question of law and fact: Did Sarah Wei operate from\n11\nthe inception of these programs as a disguised asset of the PRC state\n12\napparatus designed to sabotage the movement from within?\n13\nThe potential exposure of multiple undercover CCP operatives within the\n14\nleadership structure of the Himalaya Alliance directly threatens the validity\n15\nof the underlying criminal and forfeiture record. If key organizational\n16 figures were hidden foreign state assets, their cooperation agreements with\nthe Department of Justice, their management of corporate assets, and their\n17\ninteractions with the FBI cannot be deemed reliable.\n18\nTheir operational objective would be perfectly aligned with the geopolitical\n19 goals of the PRC: to engineer a collapse of the G-Series ecosystem, secure\nthe freezing and forfeiture of dissident capital, and manipulate U.S.\n20\njudicial resources to finalize an international financial blockade against\n21\npolitical opponents.\n22\nThe Court cannot permit a forfeiture pool to be finalized when there remains\n23\na substantial, unexamined risk that the corporate leadership who controlled\n24\nthe underlying funds were covertly executing the directives of a hostile\n25 foreign government. Discovery and cross-examination are strictly required to\nunmask the true affiliations of those key actors and protect the integrity of\n26\nthe United States judiciary from foreign state subversion.\n27\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 16 of 61\n1\n2) Luc Despins of Paul Hastings LLP, Chapter 11 Trustee for the Estate of\n2 Ho Wan Kwok (Mr. Guo)\nBasis for Subpoena: As the court-appointed Trustee, Luc Despins has gained\n3\ncontrol over vast amounts of G-series investors' investment including my\n4\nollars wired to G-Club. Trustee Luc has a fiduciary duty to the\n5 Court to accurately report the nature of the estate's assets. However, the\ndesignation of my G-Club fund as the Defendant's personal property is a\n6\nmaterial misrepresentation of the corporate reality:\n7\na) Absence of Factual Nexus: I made bona fide capital contribution of\n8\nto G-Club, a legally incorporated entity with its own distinct\n9 operational parameters.\n10 b) The \"Alter Ego\" Misdirection: Trustee Luc maintained that G-Club was\nmerely an \"alter ego\" of the Defendant to justify his swallowing third\n11\nparty capital into the bankruptcy pool. This sweeping conclusion was\n12\npresented to the bankruptcy court and to the criminal court without an\n13 individualized tracing analysis of my legitimate funds.\n14 c) Constructive Fraud on the Court: By failing to disclose to the Court\nthat a substantial portion of the seized funds consisted of untainted,\n15\nlegitimate capital from independent investors and by claiming instead\n16\nthat 100% of the assets were \"criminal proceeds11, Trustee Luc and the\n17 DOJ prosecutors have engineered a procedurally deficient record, and\nmanufactured Mr. Guo's alter ego asset pool for forfeiture, and\n18\npolluted the mind of juries in the criminal case.\n19\nTrustee Luc has cost the estate millions of dollars in administrative fees,\n20\nyet he has failed to provide a transparent, line-item accounting that\n21 distinguishes between the Defendant's personal assets and my investment.\n22 Proceeding to a final order without allowing me to cross-examine Trustee Luc\nregarding the tracking of my ---investment violates basic tenets of\n23\nprocedural due process.\n24\n3) Zhang Yongbing (~~9'), an immigration attorney of Illinoi, who was\n25\nretained to represent my interest regarding the return of my$\n26 VOG investment. He was designated by the Government as the Defendant's\n\"co-conspirator\" (Document 388). After the Defendant's arrest, Zhang\n27\nappeared on many of the Himalaya Alliance live broadcasts. Allegedly,\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 17 of 61\n1 attorney Zhang represents numerous Chinese political asylum seekers who\nalso invested in the G-series, Allegedly, Zhang played a key role in\n2\nscreening witnesses for Mr. Guo's legal defense and allegedly, Zhang\n3\nprevented some key witnesses who could exonerated Mr. Guo to testify on\n4 Mr. Guo's behalf, claimant like Tony in Second Circuit Case #26-361,\nallegedly,\n5\n6\nReason for subpoena: A material discrepancy exists regarding the return and\n7 custody of my VOG asset. It is a matter of record that numerous similarly\nsituated investors who filed independent claims have already successfully\n8\nrecovered their capital. However, my fund remains unreturned and unaccounted\n9\nfor. A subpoena is necessary to compel a formal accounting from counsel to\n10 determine the current legal status, location, and custody of my\nasset.\n11\nI respectfully direct this Court's attention to an egregious procedural and\n12\nconstitutional defect that invalidates the integrity of the underlying trial\n13 record. As set forth in Document 388, Attorney Zhang Yongbing was explicitly\ndesignated by prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Defendant.\n14\nDespite this formal designation, the Department of Justice failed to prevent\n15\nthis exact \"co-conspirator\" from participating in and screening the\n16 Defendant's potential legal defense witnesses.\nThis alarming contradiction introduces two fatal legal errors into the\n17\nrecord:\n18\na) Structural Infiltration of the Defense Camp and Incurable Conflict of\n19 Interest\nUnder the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant is entitled to\n20\nconflict-free counsel and a private, uncompromised defense strategy. By\n21\nallowing an individual whom the Government officially considers a\n22 criminal co-conspirator {Attorney Zhang) to act as a gatekeeper for the\nDefendant's trial witnesses, the defense camp was structurally\n23\ninfiltrated.\n24\nZhang possessed an absolute, irreconcilable conflict of interest: as a\n25 named co-conspirator seeking to avoid his own indictment, his primary\nincentive was to protect himself and cooperate with the prosecution's\n26\nnarrative-not to assist in developing a robust defense or locating\n27\nuntainted investor capital.\n28 b) Prosecutorial Exploitation of Witness Screening\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 18 of 61\n1 The Government cannot have it both ways. Prosecutors cannot brand an\nattorney as a criminal co-conspirator in official court filings to\n2\ndestroy their credibility, while simultaneously allowing that attorney\n3\nto control, vet, and filter the witnesses available to the defense.\n4 This arrangement effectively gave the prosecution a proxy inside the\ndefense infrastructure, allowing an insulated co-conspirator to\n5\nsuppress or discourage critical testimony from independent investors\n6\nwho could have proven that the G-Series funds were legitimate and\n7 untainted.\n8\nThe deployment of an unindicted co-conspirator to oversee or influence\n9\nthe screening of defense witnesses represents a profound subversion of\n10 the adversarial process. It suggests an orchestrated effort to control\nthe narrative, sanitize the trial record, and deny the Defendant a fair\n11\ntrial. A full evidentiary inquiry into the scope of Attorney Zhang1s\n12\ninterference with the defense witness pool is necessary.\n13\n14\n41 Ha-En <~*JI<:!/') and Cosmos(~~~), both were former Korean En-Dian Farm\n15\nCEOs; William Je of ACA Capital; Xia Qidong (aka Longisland brother,\n16\nChangdao, ][;ltJR), former Himalaya Alliance Chairman, Mountain Spice Farm\n17\nCEO; Guo Shuai ($ililji • 1,l:;l,1VJ,'llf, Chaogen Xiaoge), Himalaya Alliance leader\n18\nI\n19 On 2020, I wired $ dollars to the Korean En-Dian Farm Loan\nProgram. Ha-En said that CEO Cosmos who was sent by the Himalaya Alliance\n20\ntook the money. But on ~2022, Guo Suai (Chaogen Xiaoge), an Alliance\n21\nleader made a public announcement alleging that team Cosmos had committed\n22 fraud and he was suing team Cosmos.\n23\nReason for subpoena:\n24\na) In Government Document 273, the DOJ prosecutors asserted that ACA Capital\n25 received $130 million in Farm Loan capital. ACA Capital is a distinct\ncorporate entity with no legal, financial, or familial ties to the Defendant,\n26\nthe Defendant's family, or his family trust.\n27\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 19 of 61\n1 b) In Document 804, the Defendant stated that a number of independent\nHimalaya Alliance CEOs and others hold custody and possession of\n2\napproximately $100 million in capital including the Farm Loan fund.\n3\n4 A subpoena is required to compel these individuals to testify under oath and\nproduce financial records clarifying the true custody and ownership of the\n5\nFarm Loan assets. I seek to expose a fundamental flaw in the prosecution's\n6\nlogic:\n7\n• The Tracing Failure: If $130 million of the Farm Loan capital is held\n8\nby ACA Capital and or separate executives {Himalaya Alliance CEOs) and\n9 or others, the Government cannot meet its statutory burden to prove\nthat these funds represent the Defendant's criminal proceed.\n10\n11 • The Manufactured \"RICO Enterprise\": By blindly pinning the independent\nfinancial actions of ACA Capital and the Alliance CEOs onto the\n12\nDefendant, the DOJ prosecutors have manufactured a fictitious RICO\n13\nasset pool. They have converted independent, third-party corporate\n14 capital including my own contributions into a centralized \"criminal\nenterprise\" without performing the mandatory line-item tracing required\n15\nby Second Circuit case United States v. Banco Cafetero Panama, 797 F.2d\n16\n1154 (2d Cir. 1986).\n17\nThe Court cannot allow the Government to seize an entire corporate ecosystem\n18 under a RICO forfeiture order when the record proves the Defendant lacked\nownership and control over $100 million dollars of the funds in question.\n19\nSubpoenas must be issued to ACA Capital and the Himalaya Alliance leadership\n20\nto compel a transparent accounting and halt this unconstitutional inflation\n21 of the forfeiture pool.\n22\n23 5) Wang Xuebing (or Wang Xuebin, 3'.<g/Jjq, CEO of the New Zealand Farm and\nHimalaya Alliance Chairman\n24\nThe testimony of Wang Xuebing is vital to resolving a core dispute of fact in\n25\nthis forfeiture proceeding: whether the G-Series Farm Loan funds were the\n26 \"alter ego\" of the Defendant or whether they were entirely controlled,\nmanipulated, and withheld by independent regional operators.\n27\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 20 of 61\n1 My specific transactional history provides prima facie evidence of\nindependent third-party management and potential self-dealing:\n2\na) The Capital Contributions: Between 2020, and\n3\n2022, I executed a series of wire transfers totaling\n4\ndirectly to the New Zealand Farm Loan program.\n5\nb) Procedural Irregularities: At the direction of Mr. Wang's direct\n6\nsubordinate {Wen Xiao), I was instructed to execute a blank Farm Loan\n7 contract, specifically was told to omit the date and the dollar amount,\nleaving only my signature (attached hereto as Exhibit). This highly\n8\nirregular procedure ensured the contract was never properly executed or\n9\ncounter-signed by Wang Xuebing, leaving my fund entirely exposed.\n10\nc) Post-Arrest Unilateral Modification: The Defendant was arrested on\n11 March 15, 2023. Months later, ontll■■■■, 2023, while the Defendant\nwas in federal custody and completely unable to attend any corporate\n12\nentities events, Wang Xuebing executed a unilateral contract extension\n13\n(attached hereto as Exhibit), arbitrarily extending the Farm Loan\n14 maturity term by an additional two years without my consent or\nknowledge.\n15\n16 The Government's forfeiture case relies on the theory that the Defendant\nmaintained unfettered dominion and control over all incoming investors'\n17\nfunds. Mr. Wang's actions completely refute this:\n18\n• Independent Dominion: The fact that Wang Xuebing could unilaterally\n19\nalter financial contracts and retain of my capital after\n20 the Defendant1s arrest conclusively proves that the Defendant did not\npossess or control these funds.\n21\n22 • Investigating Potential Conversion: I have a right under Fed. R. Crim.\nP. 32.2(c) to discover the current location and custody of my asset.\n23\nMr. Wang1s deceptive practices strongly indicate an intent by local\n24\nleadership to convert the Farm Loan program capital to their own\n25 personal use, entirely independent of any alleged conspiracy by the\nDefendant.\n26\nThe Government cannot legally forfeit my as property of the\n27\nDefendant when an independent operator in New Zealand is actively altering\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 21 of 61\n1 contracts and withholding the funds. A subpoena is strictly necessary to\ncompel Wang Xuebing to account for the precise location of my capital and to\n2\nexpose the fatal defects in the Government's \"alter ego\" forfeiture\n3\nnarrative.\n4\n5 In conclusion, the current evidentiary record in this case is fundamentally\nflawed because it relies on the unvetted narratives of individuals who have a\n6\nprofound financial and legal interest in concealing the truth. As established\n7\nin Document 388, individuals such as William Je, Xia Qidong, Wei Lihong\n8 (Sarah Wei), and Attorney Zhang Yongbing are designated co-conspirators of\nthe Defendant.\n9\n10 Upon information and belief, Xia, Wei, and Zhang have entered into non\nprosecution, cooperation, or immunity agreements with the DOJ. In exchange\n11\nfor accusing the Defendant of wrongdoing and su~porting the Government1s\n12\nnarrative, these individuals have been insulated from indictment.\n13\nThe structural defect in the Government's forfeiture and criminal narrative\n14 rests on three critical realities:\n15 a) The Insulated Parties are the True Custodians of the Assets\n16\nWhile the Government ha~ systematically pinned 100% of the financial\n17 liability on the Defendant under an overbroad \"alter ego\" theory, the\ndocumentary evidence demonstrates that it is these unindicted co-conspirators\n18\nwho exercised autonomous control over, and actively withheld my capital,\n19\nincluding the$- VOG investment handled by Sarah .Wei and later by Zhang\n20 Yongbing.\n21 b) Weaponized Coercion and Witness Bias\n22\nBy granting immunity to the very operational leaders who managed the day-to\n23 day transactions of the G-Series entities, the Government has incentivized\nthese actors to mischaracterize legitimate third-party capital contributions\n24\nas \"fraud proceeds, 11 This arrangement allowed these co-conspirators to\n25\ndeflect criminal culpability while simultaneously shielding themselves from\n26 accounting for the missing investor funds.\n27 c) The Absolute Necessity for a Rule 32.2(c) Ancillary Hearing\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 22 of 61\n1 My right to due process cannot be bypassed by an administrative agreement\nbetween prosecutors and self-interested co-conspirators. To determine the\n2\ntrue \"taint11 and ultimate disposition of the seized property, these\n3\nindividuals must be formally summoned to court. I have a statutory right to\n4 subject these witnesses to rigorous cross-examination at a mandatory\nevidentiary hearing to uncover the location of her missing property and\n5\nexpose the manufactured nature of the forfeiture pool.\n6\n7\nFor the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request this Court to vacate the\n8\npremature forfeiture determinations and remand this matter with instructions\n9\nto issue the requested subpoenas and immediately convene a full ancillary\n10 proceeding.\n11\n12 Preyor For Relief\n13\nWHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court enter an Order granting the\n14 following relief:\n1. Recognition of Statutory Title: Formally recognize my standing and\n15\nproperty rights as a superior·, bona fide owner under 21 U.S. C. § 853 (n)\n16\nregarding all documented capital contributions made to the G-Series\n17 entities;\n2. Issuance of Subpoenas: Issue subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum\n18\npursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, compelling the\n19\nappearance and production of records from the following material\n20 witnesses:\no Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee (Paul Hastings LLP)\n21\no Wei Lihong (Sarah Wei), former CEO of Arizona Phoenix Farm\n22\no Attorney Zhang Yongbing, legal representative for investor claims\n23 o Wang Xuebing, CEO of the New Zealand\no Guo Shuai, Ha-En, and Cosmos leadership personnel\n24\no William Je, ACA Capital;\n25\n3. Conduct Evidentiary Hearing: Convene a full ancillary evidentiary\n26 hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c} to\naccurately determine the true, traceable dimensions of the forfeiture\n27\nasset pool; and\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 23 of 61\n1 4. Additional Equitable Relief: Grant such other and further relief as\nthis Court deems just, proper, and necessary to protect Petitioner's\n2\nprocedural due process rights and prevent a constructive fraud upon the\n3\nCourt.\n4\nPrivacy/ Sealing Request Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1\n5\nI respectfully request to file this motion in redacted public form (redacting\n6\nname, address, email, phone, financial data and sealing my ID information\n7 such as name, address, DOB, ID# etc.).\n8\nDeclaration\n9\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to\n10 the best of my knowledge and belief.\n11\nRespectfully submitted,\n12\nDated, May 21, 2026\n13\nAnn~\n14\n15\nCertificate of Service\n16 I certify on May 21, 2026, submitted this filing to:\nThe Court's Pro Se Intake for docketing\n17\nvia email ProSe@nysd, uscourts. gov\n18\nand\n19 via US Mail:\nClerk of Court\n20\nUnited States District Court\n21\nSouthern District of New York\n22 500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n23\n24\nUS Attorney's Office SONY:\n25 • ryan.finkel@usdoj.gov (Ryan Finkel, Assistant US Attorney)\n26 • justin.horton@usdoj.gov\n• micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov\n27\n28\nDefense counsel:\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 24 of 61\n1 • msarafa@sarafalaw.com\n2 • jdratel@dratellewis.com\n• jkaley@doarlaw.com\n3\n4\nAttachments/Exhibits: Personal ID, Investment Proofs and Evidences\n5\nRespectfully submitted,\n6\n7\nSignature~\n8 Print: Name Anna\nAddress:\n9\nTelephone:r:i,\n.10\nEmail: _._\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 25 of 61\nLIST OF THE ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS\n1) MYID\n2) SUMMARY OF MY INVESTMENT\n3) PROOF OF MY INVESTMENT -19 PAGES\n4) -FROZEN FRIEND BANK\n5) AGREEMENT WITH ATTORNEY ZHANG YONG BING TO GEl ftj 1/OG REFUND\n6) KOREA EN-DIAN FARM MATTERS\n7) NEW ZEALAND FARM LOAN MATTERS\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnntrtryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 2266 ooff 6611\n. . ... .. .. .\n..\ntT hh ee M Pi en oi ps lt er 'y\ns\nof\nRe\nF po ur be li oig ncn d, se o l f mf ia li C it h ts i an ra\ny\nforeign cornit\nc # XE MI FI\n-PEOPLE'S\nREPUBLIC OF CHINA\nCHŇ\nEPASSPORT ..\nPE / CHINESE\n公安部出入境管理局\nMP'S Bit & Entry Administration\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 27 of 61\n-\n,~\nOATE !!_OM MY ~q)l)ff! TO ACCOUNT tl'WAOUGH JJW PAATY/MIOOl.E MA/I!) AMOUN< ~USO\n=\n~ AGFtlOJLTUAAl SAN( CF 0-!INA; S(L,f, ACCf, \\l.t1:<LS~AI! - =\n......jj ijiji>'l AGRlCULTUAAL !lAN)( OF 0,1NA, SE:U:, A; W'El~FARGO, -\nTOTAi. VOG/R£P'IU.S£NT£0 eY ATTORNEY ZHANG YONGBING -\n- STANOAAOO·iA$T(R$.<l.Nl(.s(lf,ACCT NONGl'!YUPSANJ(, - USO ,.oot,,(. . :-,,,. . , ....... ~\nTOlAl TO KOREAN £N DIAN FAAM I.O.v! HA-EN/COSMOS - s\n-\n' s ......, O 0,i 1lN NA A C COO NN Ss 'In R! WU Ccr l\"t IO ON N e 8A ,AN N.! lC (;. -S sf n.l. FF ;, A ACC CT Cii T9 .I -I - • \" ,u\" A\" N' RRA A.T nT: ~@I Ll. 77 ,- .,;v,~ :i........• ..::,. . .. .. ... .. . . <. .: ¢;; .1., .. '1,i\n' lii 1~ COJ\\ISTRUC!10N f.,>,NK. s.flF; Al::CT ... '\"\"\" RA.TT: f! 1·7 --~.,~.,..,~,...,~,.,.\n' :NA, CONSTRucr10N BANI(; SELF', ACCT~ YUAN RATE@l:7\na 11'<A.CONS'TiUJCTION BANIC;SE:lf;~. .. - ,UAN AAT'£ql:1 -~•--<OJ.N~~\n• AGRICUtTlJAAI. 6ANKOJ OllNA;SEtl';ACCT-- ,UL, RATI:@ 1.:?. _l;l.........:,,...,wu:.,..•-.;,\n,UAN s -\n-\n\" _411_111 _1_11 !' 'O'IINA C.ONSTRUCTlON BAN.K,.S£U', ,UAN\nll 0-11\"-A CONSTRV<TlON BA.Nltstlf;.ACCT ,UAN\n,N CONVEl'ITTO T.- ,UAN «:,. ... -.==..,,i.=,\n-\n\" ,,,,,,_. O'llNA CONSTRUC'. {J. Q l,18,AN' ,,.,,,o \"\"'\" f,O,uO~.:,~)U\n..,\n\" ....... .llGRlC..lTlJAALSANKOl'CHlN~_Sl:LF.~ ,UAN\n\" -._...._-. ~_JNACO_IIISTR VCTION BANl(;.Sf '\"\"'\n,UL, ~acma,o:==\nTOTAi. TO GOJJB '\"\"' $\n\" U'lB/2023 AGJ.llCVLTU~L 13AN(OF O!INA \"\"' -V5QT',. .- -:. ...\nTOT~ TO H-001.1.AA,.hJSf:DTO BIJ'nt<QU,j_-':_l.10_~~ .!_UCM\nGRANO TOTAL FOR All INVESTMENT\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnntrtryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 2288 ooff 6611\n汇款详情\n账 户\n款\n你子账户 美元肌汇\n0.00美元(手续费)\n0.00美元(电报费)\n国际支出金额 小美元\n汇款状态 受理成功\n收款方名称\n收款账户\nSWIFT/BIC\n收款银行名称 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 29 of 61\nNAMIC\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 29 of 61\nULTURAL BANK OF CHINA\n交易类型:汇出非款\n受理终端:\n发光案号\n客户姓名气\n交易结果:交易成功\n出证金额\n成交汇率\n收款方姓名:THING RET\n汇款金额:\n汇头巾神:美元\n费用承担方式:共同承担\n于续费:\n邮电费\n附言:\n受理日期/时间\n行 股份 有\n限\n公\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnntrtryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 3300 ooff 6611\n不易所需的短信验证码为\n转入账户居民 收款,\n产的金额 USD。切勿\n将验证码告知他人!请警惕电信\n作骗,切勿向陌生人转账汇款。\n● EMUI已防止第三方应用服避读取和使用\n上证码:超级游离世人,\n自制验证码\n尊敬的客户,您\n本次海外电汇申请(序列号\n已提交\n处理。\n2分钟\n尊敬的客户,您\n本次海外电汇交易(序列号\n“已成\n功。\n2分钟前\n的\n您尾号\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 31 of 61\n-\nBH 1E K9aA\nA\nMN r c- &\nc\nT\nom rC oeu\nu\nnrs\nsn\nt c oo tu cm ts Ne it or uo\nn\nm mN Pe ba er e\nr\nMm r ia : oe i cl hing Address: 「 I人 ndi活 vid期 ual账 Ac户 cou交\nnt\nT易 ran明 sac细 tion D\n交易白期\nPosting Date Transaction Date 收 支 出 I入ncome/\nExpense\nAmount\nBalance\nTransaction\nName\n2020\n2020\n利点\n支\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 31 of 61\n出\n转账\nEND\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 32 of 61\nYMA (TWEN)\n将702, 721, 373韩币, 칠억이백칠십이만일천상백칠십상원\n韩币交予联盟委托收款人:\n1. 營團(溫暖姐姐)\n2. 成先钠(西朝鮮)\n3. 王環皓(至時时刻)\n地点: 서울시 도림동216-2.\n查验并交付完成\n2021.04.05\n委托人签字 付款人签字 收款人签字 사\n1.성선 명\n1.\n2 张丽\n2\n3.主張皓\n•\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 32 of 61\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 33 of 61\n交易账户 建设银行\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言 跨行转出\n对方账户\n记账日\n账户余额\ntt:\n,'\"<'\nJ=Y\n~;<)\nJ<)\n~~<)\nJl(\n*\nm}8\nm}8\nm}8\ntJ\n1=>\n}l\n%\nII=>\n9}\nlII\n*\n%\n~\n~\n*\n,-\n}I\nr-o~\n}l\n}A'l!\nI.!!!.\n1l=l\n~. ~ ~HD\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 33 of 61\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 34 of 61\n跨行转出\n交易账户\n交易时间\n跨行转出\n交易地点/附言\n对方账户\n记账日\n一 -\n,~,\nr¢)\n~<)\n~~<)\n.it:\nJ7(\n~\n~\n~\ntr::;\n]:~\n=\nK,o\ns\n9}\n4\n~\n]JI\n~\n~\n}t\nj!!!,\nrG~\n}I\n~ ~ tllD\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 34 of 61\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 35 of 61\n跨行转出\n¥ 00\n交易账户\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言 跨行转出\n对方账户\n记账日\n账户余额\n1::=:>\n~<)\nt¢>\nt~<)\n+J\n.'( .', .': L'\nuIJ,~,r,<\n- '1\n'\n·,.r.,\nD1)s\nD1)s\ntr::~\nt:?:>\n1l\n~\n-·~}:.'V \"''\"·\n.$\nM\nJ:S;\nJD\n>'*\n~\n,!':!\n,-\n}1'\nrD~\n}1'\n});iJ\nJEJ\nIJ;::::>\n'\n~ rllD\n•\n0 0\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 35 of 61\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 36 of 61\n跨行转出\n交易账户\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言 跨行转出\n对方账户\n记账日\nI\n-1¢}\nJ<)\n~)<)\n.it::\nIJ\"\"\\ Jl[\ntJ2\n~\n~\n~\n=\n3;\nm\n~\n+:::L\n~\n,r:,r\nrL\nrD?\n}1\n~\n~ !:s: ~ ~IID\n- IJ\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 36 of 61\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 37 of 61\n交易类型 向他行账户转站\n交易渠道 手机银行\n转账金额\n大写金额\n凭证号\n收款方\n户名\n账号\n收款银行\n付款方\n-\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 37 of 61\n- -\n-\n户名 电子回单\n专用章\n账号\n\n\\/\n,\nh\n.\n~\n~ ~J\n'\n~ ->\n~ }I\n..\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 38 of 61\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 39 of 61\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 39 of 61\n务凭证\nMÍMỘTVỊ\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 40 of 61\n跨行转出\n¥\n交易账户 建设银行\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言\n对方账户\n记账日\n...\n'/(''\n.\n,.\n:,\n.\n.. ,.-,,,.,•,\n, ...\n.,;,'\n·'\n..\n. ,I\n,I;<}\n-I)<)\n~)<)\nit:\n'\n~\n~\n~\n~\n=\n,·\n..\n~\n4\n~\n~_,fP\nJJI\n}\n,-\n}I\nJ!!J\nrD~\n}I\n\"\n~ ~1m\nI ,\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 40 of 61\n\n'\n'\n~ •\nI\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 41 of 61\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnnttrryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 4422 ooff 6611\n交易时间\n交易类型 问他行账户转账\n交易渠道\n手机银行\n转账金额\n大写金额\n凭证号\n收款万\n户名\n账号\n收款银行\n付款方\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnntrtryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 4433 ooff 6611\n通知收款人\n付款人\n收款人\n收款账户\n收款银行\n交易时间\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 44 of 61\n跨行转出\n交易账户\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言\n对方账户\n记账日\nr¢>\nr¢)\n~~<)\n~\nu''r\"\nt\nt]\nr\"\nti:::\na\na\n~\n~\n~\n~\n'\nl:p\ns\nm\n>t\n.\n~\n,\n-4\n~\n~\n(\n'\nJBJ\nrD~\nrL\n}~~ j,:\n'\n,'\n)''•\n~ tllll\nJ\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 44 of 61\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 45 of 61\n1 一 2 す 1 一 一 -\n付款人\n付款账户\n收款人\n收款账户\n收款银行\n转账金额\n-\n- 一\n川\n红\n色\n_..._\n..\n•,,_I\n4\n. .~\n· .\n.•~\n·~\n.\n:li/1\n..\n~i\n~i\n'\n~·\n·~\n·~\n~·\n->\n->\n~\n.~\n.~,\n......\n~\n'\n}1\n}1\nII-'\n~\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 45 of 61\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnntrtryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 4466 ooff 6611\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 47 of 61\nTHE\nJ上 UA海 NGU商 AI業 CO儲 MME蓄 RC銀 IA行\nL\n&國 SA際 VIN金 GS融 DA業 RK,務 LT分 D Q行 UU DRANCIL\nCURRENT ACCOUNT WITHIDRAW SLIP AND APPLICATION FOR OUTWARD ELSINITAN\nDate\nft It - 1/\\Ve dechart that I/we am are not a local individual, corporate body of govemment In\nnt ofitince and\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 47 of 61\nE\nS E\nchar\nhorized to debit miyfour AIC No.2710800 EX\nB\na\nn\nk\n'\ns\nC\no\np\ny\n會國士全小限度,段便會日自上門休产主で\n一\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnntrtryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 4488 ooff 6611\n今天美元 率是\nF+匯款手線\n今天人民币\n十共需要:\n款项最慢后天会到,您到时确\n认一下。\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 49 of 61\nall\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 49 of 61\n中国移动 つ\n目前二审,主要是针对刑期和\n罚款金额两个部分,金额问题\n不大,最主要刑期减轻是关键\n\nCCaassee:: 2266--11662266,, 0066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnnttrryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 5500 ooff 6611\n-\nPrivileged and Confidential\nService Agreement\nClient), agree to sign the legal service agreement with Law Offices of Yongbing\nZhang (ZYB & Associates LLC, or \"The Firm\") for asset distribution from the\nFair Fund administrator. The Firm will provide the roll\n2.\nfiling claim form with supporting documents on my behalf with GTV Media Group Fair Fund\nb. bying to secure the distribution of my proportional investment fund for GTV media group from\nOTV Fair Fund (\"the Fair Fued\") created by the United States Securities and Exchanges Commis-\nsion (SEC) under the File Number of 3-20537;\nc. depositing the secured distribution from the Fair Fund to the Firm's client trust account (toast so-\ncount). if the Firm's efforts result in successfid and favorable distribution for me:\nd. maintaining the secured distribution in the client trust account of the Firm until my authorization\nto withdraw it out of the trust account\n3. Excluded Start\nThe Firm is not hired to:\n1) litigate against any parties regarding your right in GTV Stock or Digital Assets; 2) increase the value of\nyour recovered investment through making investment in the market or making loens to other parties, which are\nbeyond our expertise; and 3) other unrelated maters to the Engagement\n4. Legal Fees kad payment\nI agree to the attorney fee at 1% of the requested distribution refund sought by me, which is\n$ at this time, but is subject to change in the course of representation.\n3. Generator Law and Dispute Resolution\nThis agreement is governed by the law of State of Illinois of the United States By entering this agreement,\nI give the United States federal or state courts in Cook County of Illinois the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the\ndisputes out of the agreement.\nAGREED by:\nDare\nAGREED by:\nYoogbing Zhang on behalf of ZYB & Associates LLC\nYoughing Zhang\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 51 of 61\nII!; Iii\nNBllttJJ~fill(ftftfffJ.»lftl,f>llf)Vdt.\n'fl011~,A\\U,\nfUU:\nU)ft (~A+M•I\n~d(fN,1,UJ\nttm m, 17lft-!II. 11.tftlllfVtlQoJBtfMtil'tlldlfl\nm,it;tt,'.■-ft\\UU1 •\n1 UY IIRllll\nl. Otl<IM>\nJ.. :nil IJ MtttO ..\n1U1 .>-11-4 .!:.llll16·t\nft1f:,t:_HU\n~~\n{/{.it)·\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 52 of 61\nApril 10, 2022\n•\n~ffi/J\\lf\n2022/4/10, 09:23\ntj~ a{J~{u.ldt~::kJ~~9:f :\n1~.Pfrfi 1=5 llRnOO?i:lt!l~±m~u~)i'H±:5!tl=H&'.\ncosmos@ltk ()/!;~Am. EHt: cosmos, ).ffi\\Blffi\nffi, if!H-#8065, ~+#6311, Jllii;~lm~) i'l=filiu\nuis:, it=f!m ffi ~~ f\" a{] i!lt&: §'I im~~ trfi ~\n.~,, #.§..t{~M'iJ£~1=5~ff~~~~Vifi, 1fVifi~*ll\n!.@1$8~1iEf.@fo.lcosmos1'l=filiu!fil{!k~it9.Wi'sl,g!i,-J-~\n1'1= 9.\\iu a{] U ~\n:m~~filiua~~~1n~~lfcl15m~. ~1n~111J:En\n00>~1$1?1l~A~•~~~i'l=filiul?1l{!kYitZt($, 93~**\n~!llia~~f\"\nhttp\nn\n~a ?m!I! )li-tv~ifiliJiijl~ 00 ~tib a{] fiJ. ~ Af H jj/1\nltD%~\n\nCCaassee:: 2 266--11662266,, 0 066//1122//22002266,, DDkkttEEnnttrryy:: 11..11,, PPaaggee 5533 ooff 6 611\ndul.Final_Version pot\n金額先空筆記事或许振惠客一下大\n汇軍计算 台灣選派先空瓣\n金額扫日期影先空著不填 !.\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 54 of 61\nPURSUANT TO AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 1,\n2020\nTO: LENDER\n•\nLENDER'S Email:\nFJOM.BOU.OWD.\nY~tol.-1td\nIHAl-'-IPl~ttlltbm.A.'lldlla6..Hw~l140\n,_.....,\n,-.111--. ... ocwt-............. Nlf\"dll,lOZO,ll ..... l(f)-\nl ......... )\"<;Ml .... ~ .. ndol'IJlbtfat.l~--~.ttw\"\"-....-u_.,._\n~,-,,.~ .......... - ..l lfr\no.i.-.,..,...,,.?Oll\n•\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 55 of 61\nM(J_\nc~\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 56 of 61\nFrom: Pr e Filing <pro .1:e m1ng@1W$d,uscourts.gov>\nDate: o Friday, May 22nd, 2026 at 12:04 PM\nSubject: ATION, PLEASE REVIE\nTo\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\nYour email has been recei\\led by the Pro Se Intake Unit of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, {This Is not the\nUnited States Ba_nkruptcy Court,)\nDocuments from prose litigants that meet the required standards for electronic filing will be filed and wlll appear on the ECF docket withln two\nbusiness days of receipt (see required standards below). If you send your document by email and It Is accepted for filing, you should not deliver\na hard copy version to the court.\nRequirements for Flllng a New Action by Emafl:\nDocuments must be attached to the emall In PDF fonnat, no larger than~ megabytes;\nThe complalnt must be signed by the filing party;\n•\nFee requirements and Instructions:\n•\nPlease note that your comp la Int wlll not be revlewed until the court receives payment of the flllng fees,\nPayment must be made within 30 days of lhe date your case Is assigned a docket number. If rnaUlng payment, please send a\ncertified check, bank theck, or money order to: Cuhlers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.\nYour payment must include the docket number, which you can leam by cal11ng (212) 805·0175.\nIf you have not consented to e-servlce, your docket number will also be malled to you, at the address provided on the complaint, in\na form order tMt will Include payment Instructions. If you do not make payment within 30 days of the date a docket number ts assigned to your\ncase, the action will be dismissed without preJt1dlc.e.\nIf you cannot pay the filing fees and want to reqllest that the court waive the filifl8 fees, you must email an MP.lication to proceed in\nformo oquptris.\nFilfng Documents In an Existing case by Emal!:\nDocuments must be attached to the email In PDF format, no larger than 10 megabytes;\nThe email and attached document must contain the docket number, filer's name, address, and telephone number;\nDocuments must be signed by the filing party;\nAny additional comments, questions, or other messages In the emall w\\11 be disregarded;\nAny additional correspol'ldence Included In the email will be disregarded.\nFor any submission, If your document does not appear on the ECF docket within two business days, It has not met the required standards for\nelectfontc filing. If so, you must submit your document to the court In paper form by (a) sending your document by mall, or overnight delivery\nservice, to the appropriate courthouse listed below; or (bl delivering your document In-person to the appropriate courthouse Usted below\nbetween the hours of 9:30 AM to 1:30 PM; or (c) depositing your docutnent after hours In the court's night depository box at the 500 Pearl\nStreet, NV, NY courthouse.\nUnited States Courthouse\nP,o Se Intake Unit\nS00 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 57 of 61\nC\nAnna ( ) DOCKETING STATUS case #1-23-cr-118(AT)\nI would like to know the docketing status on my May 22, 2026 filing -if there is a requirement that has not been met\nfor the filing to be docketed, please advise.\nThank you.\nRegards.\nAnn....-..\nG-series Investor\nChina\n------- Forwarded Message------\nFrom: •\nDate: On Friday, May 22nd, 2026 at 12:09 PM\nSubject: Fw: IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\n\"\n------- Forwarded Message -------\nFrom: Pro Se Filing <pro se filing@nysd.uscourts.gQl!>\nDate: On Friday, May 22nd, 2026 at 12:04 PM\nSubject: IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\nTo:\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\nYour email has been received by the Pro Se Intake Unit of the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York. (This is not the United States Bankruptcy Court.)\nDocuments from pro se litigants that meet the required standards for electronic filing will be filed\nand will appear on the ECF docket within two business days of receipt (see required standards\nbelow). If you send your document by email and it is accepted for filing, you should not deliver a\nhard copy version to the court.\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 58 of 61\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\nFrom Pro Se Filing <pro_seJiling@nysd.us urts,gov>\nTo\nDate M\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\nYour email has been received by the Pro Se Intake Unit of the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York. (This is not the United States Bankruptcy Court.)\nDocuments from pro se litigants that meet the required standards for electronic filing will be filed and\nwill appear on the ECF docket within two business days of receipt (see required standards below). If\nyou send your document by email and it is accepted for filing, you should not deliver a hard copy\nversion to the court.\nRequirements for Filing a New Action by Email:\n• Documents must be attached to the email in PDF format, no larger than 12 megabytes;\n• The complaint must be signed by the filing party;\n• Fee requirements and instructions:\n• Please note that your complaint will not be reviewed until the court receives\npayment of the filing..fu§.\n• Payment must be made within 30 days of the date your case is assigned a docket\nnumber. If mailing payment, please send a certified check, bank check, or money order to:\nCashiers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.\n• Your payment must include the docket number, which you can learn by calling (212)\n805-0175.\n• If you have not consented to e-service, your docket number will also be mailed to you,\nat the address provided on the complaint, in a form order that will include payment instructions.\nIf you do not make payment within 30 days of the date a docket number is assigned to your\ncase, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.\n• If you cannot pay the filing fees and want to request that the court waive the filing fees,\nyou must email an ll,pplicatlon to proceed in torma pQJJ!W]i.\nFiling Documents in an Existing Case by Email:\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 59 of 61\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\nFrom Pro Se Filing <pro_seJiling@nysd.uscourts.gov>\nTo\nDate\nIMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE REVIEW\nYour email has been received by the Pro Se Intake Unit of the United States District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York. (This is not the United States Bankruptcy Court.)\nDocuments from pro se litigants that meet the required standards for electronic filing will be filed and\nwill appear on the ECF docket within two business days. of receipt (see required standards below). If\n'\nyou send your document by email and it is accepted for filing, you should not deliver a hard copy\nversion to the court.\nRequirements for Filing a New Action by Email:\n• Documents must be attached to the email in PDF format, no larger than 15. megabytes;\n• The complaint must be signed by the filing party;\n• Fee requirements and instructions:\n• Please note that your complaint will not be reviewed until the court receives\npayment of the filing fees.\n• Payment must be made within 30 days of the date your case is assigned a docket\nnumber. If mailing payment, please send a certified check, bank check, or money order to:\nCashiers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.\n• Your payment must include the docket number, which you can learn by calling (212)\n805-0175.\n• If you have not consented to e-service, your docket number will also be mailed to you,\nat the address provided on the complaint, in a form order that will include payment instructions.\nIf you do not make payment within 30 days of the da_te a docket number is assigned to your\ncase, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.\n• If you cannot pay the filing fees and want to requestthat the court waive the filing fees,\nin\nyou must email an i!P-P-lication to proceed fm{lQ!J/2£fil.,\nFiling Documents in an Existing Case by Email:\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 60 of 61\nRespectfully submitted\nThe undersigned, Anna , declares under penalty of perjury the foregoing is\ntrue and correct to the best of Petitioner's knowledge and belief.\nSignature: ~\nCertificate of Service\nPetitioner certifies that on June 9th 2026, Petitioner submitted this Writ of Mandamus filing\n,\nto the following parties:\nVia USPS:\nThe Hon. Analisa Torres, SONY District Court\n500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 -1312\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the SONY\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\nVia email only:\nCounsels for the Defendant\n• msarafa@sarafalaw.com\n• jdratel@dratellewis.com\n• jkaley@doarlaw.com\nSignature: - - -\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, MDktEntAry: 1.1I, PLage 61 of 61\n~ERVIC~-® \\\n'--\"'\"•~ \"-~\n.,\n·.,\n\"\"'\"-~. '\n\"'apply).'\n,rnational destinations.\n\\ FR\n••\n,.;:;,t\nl\n-0~w\n·i: :./ -~ /ood7\n' ,1... •\nC\nI £\" \" - '\"!- t✓ w'\"\n►>\n\\1• \\ '\", _ \" -,, a<i\"> · ,Dc · -o , • .} it,;:} .~;e -~ -1 ..i . i.~O\n' --~ ~ ·~•,.'4'~ • 'l_ ~ ~ - - --\n:a·~-;;..,\"~_:.. ·- ,\n·r· • · ·\n1 . ,:(_\ni'\n~ n:.-\n\\ ,i· --- ~NAT\\ONA • . ,'.\"\\';......\n~;J.:'\"\n1,1, I - .\niO:\n\\,._,_~ _-· I\nEXP~;TE~ ~ELIVERY DAY: 06/12/26\nI!' __ _.,,. 1\n~ ~,-- ~\n(>~k\nI\n\\\nUS t,,Oc$1( ~PP44\n\\\n&vv1\nU rvLA./4V\ne1\n~q\n4 \\) Fol\niitCvrtL-\n~ _j\n7\n'(uflLI >-JY (\noov\n\\,\n\\\n'\n~r\\NSURED\nI","body_zh":"Case: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 1 of 61\nredar-kct\nDate: June 9\", 2026\n发件人：\n地址：\n电话：\n电子邮箱：\n收件人：法院书记官\nUnited States Court of Appeals（美国联邦上诉法院）\n2ND Circuit（第二巡回区）\n40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\n事由：Petition for Writ of Mandamus（申请调卷令/执行令状请愿书）\n请愿人：Anna\n案件：United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-00118(AT)\n\n尊敬的第二巡回区法院书记官：\n\n随函附上由 Anna——United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-00118(AT) 案中的 Pro Se（亲自出庭/无律师代表）请愿人——依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)、Fed. R. Crim. P.（联邦刑事诉讼规则）32.2(c)、Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 以及 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 提起的 Petition for Writ of Mandamus（调卷令/执行令状请愿书）。\n\n随附文件包括：\nAFFIDAVIT FOR PERMISSION IN FORMA PAUPERIS（以无力支付诉讼费当事人身份申请许可之宣誓书）\nPetition for Writ of Mandamus（调卷令/执行令状请愿书）\n证物 A——《传唤 Luc Despins 以及 Himalaya Alliance（喜马拉雅联盟）与农场关键人员之动议；证据听证会，及主张 853(n) 权利、隐私权与声明》，于 5/22/2026 提交至 SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n证物 B——5/22/26 动议已送交 SDNY 地区法院之凭据\n证物 C——日期为 5/29/2026、请求地区法院登入案件卷宗（Docketing）之电子邮件凭据\n证物 D——日期为 6/2/2026、请求地区法院登入案件卷宗之电子邮件凭据\n证物 E——日期为 6/5/2026、向地区法院发出的“强制登入住卷动议”电子邮件请求之凭据\n\n谨此提交，\n……\nAnna\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 2 of 61\nCourt of Appeals\nFor The Second Circuit\n已接收\nUnited States Court of Appeals（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\nfor the Second Circuit\n经办人：JUN 12 2026\n\n关于：Anna，United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-cr-00118-1(AT) 案之第三方，\n请愿人。\n针对 SDNY 地区法院之调卷令/执行令状请愿书\n\n管辖权陈述\n本院有权依据《All-Writs Act（通用令状法）》28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 签发调卷令/执行令状，因下级案件“属于本院之上诉管辖权范围”。\n\n调卷令/执行令状的适用标准\n为符合获得调卷令/执行令状救济之条件，请愿人必须证明：\n1. 对该令状之签发拥有“明确且无可争议的”权利；\n2. 行政或司法官员负有不具有自由裁量权的、纯事务性的作为义务；以及\n3. 请愿人无其他适当的替代救济途径以获得所诉求的救济。\n参见 In re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987)；Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)。\n\n诉求救济陈述\n请愿人系第三方，曾向地区法院提交《传唤 Luc Despins 以及 Himalaya Alliance 与农场关键人员之动议；证据听证会，及主张 853(n) 权利、隐私权与声明》，但地区法院压制请愿人的合法主张，并在请愿人多次请求后仍拒绝将其录入案卷。请愿人走投无路，谨此恭请本院签发令状，指示地区法院将请愿人的请愿书录入案件卷宗，并就相关实体法定问题进行实体审理。\n\n事实与争议焦点陈述\n事实：\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 3 of 61\n1) 请愿人是一名善意、无辜的投资者，合法地将毕生积蓄投资于 G-series（G系列）。这些资金目前被 DOJ（美国司法部）、SEC（美国证券交易委员会）、Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）的 Chapter 11（第11章）破产受托人 Luc Despins，或 Himalaya Alliance 及各农场内部的关键领导人扣押或处于其推定羁押之下；至关重要的是，这些资产均未被被告 Kwok 保留，亦不在其羁押控制之下。因此，请愿人在法律上有权依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 对涉案财产提起附随程序，以维护其受法律认可的合法权益。\n\n2) 2026年5月22日，请愿人通过美国邮政平信和电子邮件向地区法院提交了一份动议。此后，尽管请愿人反复请求地区法院将该动议登入住卷，但该动议在没有任何法定理由说明的情况下被压制并未列入公开记录，正如本文件所附证物中的通信往来所证明。\n\n争议焦点：\n1) 检方指定的受害者在法庭记录中明确作证称，他们未遭受可归责于被告的法律认可的损害或财务损失——检方的受害者分类框架（SDNY 案卷号 Doc. 511）反映了基本没收原则的系统性崩溃。检方不当构建了一个封闭的法律闭环，在此闭环中投资者要么被定性为受害者，要么被定性为同谋，完全没有为 853(n) 条款权利主张人留出任何程序机制。请愿人坚决拒绝这种有缺陷的分类法；政府不能通过强加法定外的标签于无辜第三方身上，来绕过 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 所要求的强制性附随程序。\n\n受影响各方自身从根本上推翻了政府关于受害者的叙事。根据案卷 Doc. 834，表面的“受害者”中共有 1254 人正式声明，他们的财务损失并非源于被告的行为，而是政府破坏性的民事征收和非法占有性扣押的直接后果。\n\n2) 检方所谓的“欺诈收益”实际上是 G系列投资者的合法资金——检方单方面将 G系列投资定性为“欺诈收益”（Doc 716-4），代表着联邦没收权力的不当扩张。根据第二巡回区既定的先例，政府不能简单地宣布整个合法第三方资金池为犯罪团伙的企业收益。请愿人坚持认为，根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)，这种定性在法律上是站不住脚的，且在结构上是无效的。\nPage 2 of 5\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 4 of 61\n3) 政府的资产扣押完全建立在一个在法律上未经证明且未经验证的“alter ego（另一个人格/代持）”理论之上，该理论绕过了正式证据裁判的强制性要求——第11章破产受托人 Luc Despins 在从未满足严格的举证责任或获得法律要求的正式司法裁判的情况下，草率地对整个 G系列投资载体综合体适用了“另一个人格”定性。更严重的是，检方在本次刑事诉讼程序中采纳了受托人 Luc 未经裁判的“另一个人格”理论。这种未经授权的协同实际上使受托人和政府剥夺了请愿人的合法毕生积蓄，实现了与标准正当程序完全脱节的对第三方财产权的永久剥夺。由于该资产扣押完全基于未经诉讼的“另一个人格”假定而非具体、个别化的资金追踪，因此对这些资金的保留违反了联邦没收法和破产法的基本原则。\n\n4) 检方系统性地免除了被告所谓同谋的责任，以豁免权换取针对被告的证词——本案异常的诉讼历史凸显了一种破坏司法程序公正性的显失公平。检察官通过豁免那些目前实际占有超过 1 亿美元未被扣押投资者资金的当事人（Doc 834）来获取定罪，同时试图阻止无辜的第三方投资者依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 主张附随权利。这种不寻常的执法立场——庇护实际占有资产的未被起诉人员，同时系统性地剥夺无辜权利主张人的诉讼渠道——对检方框架的结构合法性提出了质疑，并凸显了未能保障涉案企业真正受害者的系统性缺陷。\n\n5) 涉案资产池背负着两种互斥定性但未获司法裁判的法律冲突（Case No. 26-361）——地区法院完全未处理这一关键的前置性问题，导致同一资产池上持续存在“双重定义”的悖论。当中国共产党（PRC）政府将 G系列资金归类为针对国家安全的非法政治基金时，检方却草率地将其贴上“欺诈收益”的标签。地区法院未能举行附随程序来裁判这一地缘政治与法律冲突，放弃了确定请愿人毕生积蓄真实法律地位的职责。\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 5 of 61\n6) 证人受胁迫与证据污染——应当开展附随程序以解决检方法律主张中的重大结构性缺陷：通过外国国家干预对证人证据造成的系统性污染。Phoenix Farm（凤凰农场）CEO Wei Li hong（魏丽红）未经授权向中共传输投资者记录，引发了针对国内投资者的一连串政治迫害。根据既定的正当程序原则，定罪或没收不能建立在中国大陆境内个人的证词之上，因为他们可能在国家暴力威胁下被迫做出虚假陈述，将自己在 G系列的投资定性为欺诈。请愿人有权获得证据听证会，以调查这种普遍存在的证人胁迫，并确定获得豁免的各农场领导层的真实监管效忠归属。\n\n签发令状的理由\n《通用令状法》赋予本院签发调卷令/执行令状的权力，以指示地区法院向所有各方（包括依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 的第三方亲自出庭请愿人）将所有相关文件登入案卷。本院应当签发调卷令/执行令状，因为请愿人对该令状享有明确且无可争议的权利。请愿人没有其他替代救济途径。申请调卷令/执行令状是请愿人获得救济的唯一途径。\n\n结论\n基于上述理由，请愿人谨此请求本院签发调卷令/执行令状，指示地区法院：\n1. 立即将请愿人的动议提交并录入官方案件卷宗；\n2. 授权并签发对相关关键人员出庭作证的传票；以及\n3. 召开正式的附随证据听证会，正如 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 明确规定的那样，以裁判请愿人在被扣押的 G系列投资资金中受法律认可的合法权益。\n\n请愿人进一步请求本院审查这些极其反常的程序违规行为，行使其监督权力以纠正地区法院明显的自由裁量权滥用，并通过恢复请愿人基本的正当程序权利来维护联邦司法程序的系统完整性。\n\n隐私声明\n请愿人谨此请求以公开遮蔽形式提交本请愿书，已对个人及财务数据进行遮蔽处理。随函提供一套已做遮蔽处理的文件。\n\n日期：June 9\", 2026\nAnna\n\nCase: 26-1626, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 6 of 61\n1 Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n4 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\n6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n传唤 Luc Despins 以及 Himalaya Alliance 与农场关键人员之动议；证据听证会，及主张 853(n) 权利、隐私权与声明，由 Anna 提出。\n7 原告，\n\n8\n\nv.\n\n11 HO WAN KWOK (A/K/A MILES GUO, MILES KWOK, WENGUI GUO AND BROTHER SEVEN)（郭文贵，又名 Miles Guo、Miles Kwok、郭文贵及七哥），\n\nYvette Wang（王雁平），\n\n被告。\n\n事实\n17 我叫 Anna，是一名 G系列投资者，亲自出庭向法院陈述我个人的经历以及与本案相关的围绕我投资的事实。\n\n1) 我的背景——我是一名退休人员、一位母亲，并且是一名终生生活在共产主义中国的基督徒。我目睹了中共篡改圣经、禁止销售圣经，并要求中国人民崇拜共产党。他们告诉我们，虽然父母亲，但“爹亲娘亲不如共产党亲”。在经历了这种精神和思想上的压制之后，我致力于讲述关于该政权企图用共产党取代上帝的真相。\n\n2) 灭共运动——我参与灭共运动……\n\n……反中共运动根植于我作为国家赞助的宗教与政治迫害受害者的终身经历。自2017年以来，我一直是Guo（郭文贵）先生的支持者，将他的运动视为揭露CCP（中共）侵犯人权行为的必要载体。2020年6月4日，我参与建立了New Federal State of China（新中国联邦），这是一个致力于推动中国和平转型走向民主且无中共未来的组织。\n\n我断然拒绝DOJ（司法部）检察官将该组织定性为“邪教”的做法。此类标签不仅具有煽动性，而且在事实上脱离了中共被记录在案的暴行这一现实，例如对中国儿童强行活摘器官。我主张我的First Amendment（第一修正案）结社自由与宗教表达权利，坚称我对郭先生的支持是源于深刻的个人与精神信仰。为了将数以千计的全球投资者和活动人士贬为“邪教成员”，政府正在无视一个寻求从极权政权中获得解放的人群的正当诉求。\n\n3) 我对G系列（G-series）的投资——我所进行的投资是支持自由中国这项结构化、全球性努力的一部分。郭先生设计并推广了一个由独立实体组成的生态系统：GTV（VOG）、Himalaya Alliance（喜马拉雅联盟）、Himalaya Farms（喜马拉雅农场）、G-Club、G-Fashion、Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）以及Himalaya Reserve（喜马拉雅储备）。每个实体均在其各自的司法管辖区内合法设立，并由其自身的运营团队管理。我支持自由中国这一事业的承诺是切实的：在从2020年5月至2023年2月的近三年时间里，我从自己辛勤赚取的积蓄中进行了15笔单独的电汇，总额为……美元。通过合法的银行渠道和必要的中间人，我将这些资金导向了诸如VOG、Korean En-Dian Farm（韩国恩典农场）、New Zealand Farm（新西兰农场）、G-Club以及喜马拉雅交易所等实体。我还向Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）进行了捐款。这些资金是对我所信仰的运动和企业架构的投资；绝非供被告利用的“非法所得”，亦非被告混同的个人资金。\n\n对政府针对我的G系列投资所采取非法行为的质疑\n\n1) 中共对G系列投资者的跨国金融审查——因我选择投资G系列而承受的痛苦、焦虑与折磨，是中共对全球金融实行极权控制的直接后果。中国政府将任何对G系列的投资均定为犯罪。我十分确信，如果我向银行披露我的电汇真实目的，交易将被立即终止，且我将面临严厉的国家报复。这种敌对环境迫使我依靠替代途径来保障我的投资。\n\n在2021年发生的一个令人心碎的案例中，我请求一位姓……的朋友使用他的商业账户，通过他的……为我转账约……美元至……。仅因这单次协助行为，银行便以“洗钱”和“危害国家安全”为由冻结了他的整个公司账户。他激烈地反抗这种不公，提起了诉讼和上诉，但两项均败诉。中国政府对他处以罚款，并威胁要将他判刑入狱。目睹一位仅因试图帮助我逃避金融审查的朋友走向财务崩溃，给我造成了巨大的心理创伤。我使用中间人绝非企图误导任何金融机构；这是处于受压迫状态下的公民为了将资本转移至自由之地而可采用的唯一可行生存机制。\n\n在Second Circuit（第二巡回法院）案号26-361的背景下，Tony的申诉揭示了司法部检察官叙事中的一个深刻缺陷。District Court（地方法院）尚未回答一个关键问题：同一笔资金，何以既能被PRC（中华人民共和国）当局定性为危害国家安全的非法“反华政府”资金，又被美国政府坚称为只不过是“诈骗所得”？\n\n这种双重定性在逻辑上是不可能的。如果这些资金是独立公民为了抵御压迫政权而部署的财务盾牌，并导致了中国境内的冻结令与警方审讯，那么它就代表着为自由而冒风险的合法、辛勤赚取的资本。政府不能在采纳由中共金融封锁所制造的资产池规模的同时，默示认可该政权对其自身公民的镇压。\n\n由于未能解决这一矛盾，记录中对一项关键区分仍保持沉默。独立投资者注入G系列的资金是带着明确的反极权政治意图汇出的。将这些出于政治动机的资本投入视为标准的、统一的诈骗计划，就是无视了已被记录的现实，即这些资产被外国敌对势力视为武器化的异见，而非犯罪赃物。\n\n2) 司法部对FBI（联邦调查局）Special Agent（特别探员）Anthony Alecci的证词宣誓书（SDNY Doc. 716-4）的依赖，在法律上不足以证明对G系列资产进行全面没收的正当性。Alecci探员引用了18 U.S.C. § 981与§ 1956，将这些资金定性为电汇与银行诈骗的“所得”。然而，这种定性在法律层面上是站不住脚的。\n\n我的资本投入是出于善意目的进行的，并且来源于合法的税后收入。根据第二巡回法院的“合并原则”，除非政府首先证明这些资金已是一项既遂犯罪的所得，否则政府不能将账户之间单纯的资金转移归类为“洗钱”。在此案中，政府未能证明所指控的诈骗行为与我的具体资产之间存在关联。此外，政府的诈骗理论遭到了“受害者”本人的驳斥；如Document 834所指出，绝大多数投资者明确拒绝政府关于他们遭受诈骗的主张，反而依据§ 853(n)主张其作为合法财产所有人的地位。\n\nAlecci探员的调查（SDNY Doc. 716-4）依赖于一个逻辑谬误：即根据18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)，交易的频繁程度自动等同于隐匿所得。事实上，我的投资从一开始就绝非“诈骗所得”。它们是用于G系列生态系统的合法投资。没收要求政府以优势证据证明存在犯罪“玷污”。在面对绝大多数否认“受害者”身份的成千上万名投资者（SDNY Doc 843）的情况下，在判决前就没收资产，政府已经构成了未经法定犯罪证明的民事征收。在合法成立的实体之间转移资金是标准的商业惯例，并非18 U.S.C. §§ 1343或1344项下的特定非法活动。\n\n政府的受害者识别与归类危机\n\n从拒绝受害者身份、拒绝依据CVRA（《犯罪受害者权利法》）行事、转而寻求依据21 U.S.C. § 853(n)确认独立的第三方财产权益的G系列投资者的立场来看，政府目前的受害者框架不仅是不一致的，而且在结构上是有缺陷的，在程序上是危险的。\n\n1) 对受害者身份的选择性把关\n\n在SDNY Doc 511中，政府对所谓的受害者群体采取了极其宽泛的定义。其陈述称，“一组人认识到了诈骗的实质，并认为被告故意欺骗了他们”，而“另一组人则不认为自己受到了诈骗（要么是因为他们参与了共谋，要么是因为他们被共谋所误导）。许多人现在认为政府非法扣押了他们的钱款。”在该表述下，政府的受害者理论宽泛到不仅涵盖自我认同的受害者，还涵盖了拒绝受害者标签并认为政府非法拿走其资金的投资者。然而，当这些相同或处境相似的投资者以程序上对抗的立场出现在法庭上时，政府的框架就发生了转变。在地区法院将量刑日期从2026年4月27日延期至2026年6月29日之后，政府对提交至第二巡回法院的4份紧急中止申请提出了反对意见：Ryan Bai（案号25-2726）、Tony（案号26-361）、Chunk Chyi（案号26-77）以及Carolyn Sun（案号26-441）。正如Chunk Chyi在第二巡回法院案号26-77（Dkt. 18）的回应文件中所反映的那样，即使在他明确援引《犯罪受害者权利法》并指明具体财产损失之后，政府仍然试图将他定性为单纯的“支持者”，而非有权获得实质性考虑的受害者。Chunk准确地指出了由此产生的扭曲：受害者认定似乎较少作为一项平等适用的法定保护来运作，而更多地作为一项实际上专属于那些拥有代理律师、程序杠杆或机构认可的人的特权。这种差距尤为悬殊，如该文件第3至4页所述，Chunk观察到某些有代理律师的HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）索赔人据称否认自己是“受害者”，但政府在对被告进行量刑时却将他们视为“受害者”。相比之下，明确主张损失并援引《犯罪受害者权利法》的Pro Se（自辩）请愿人，却遭到政府关于其受害者资格不足或其损失不应计算在内的抗辩。结合第8页所引用的记录，这种不一致性变得更加显著。在那里，Chunk提到了辩护律师在SDNY Document 843中提交的内容，报告称律师已收到1,254份“支持者声明”。根据政府自身在Document 511中的表述，此类个人本应属于不认为自己被骗、但其资金仍被计入更广泛受害者框架的人员类别。然而，这些个人并没有被政府当作受害者对待，而是实际上通过辩护律师得到了代表。\n\n综合来看，这些记录支持了一个令人不安的推论：在实践中，政府对“受害者”身份的认定似乎以一种优待高端代理的方式运作。那些拥有律师、机构结盟或程序杠杆的人，其立场可能会被纳入政府的量刑叙事中，但对于自辩个人，政府会根据政府认为合适的方式给他们贴上任何标签，有时完全违背这些自辩个人的意愿。这绝非对法定框架的中立适用。这是一个结构上具有选择性的体系，它将获得受害者身份以及由此产生的权利的途径，建立在诉讼立场而非法律权利的基础之上。\n\n2) 对退出受害者身份的选择性把关\n\n在政府对4名自辩请愿人在第二巡回法院提交的紧急中止申请所作的反对中，这一矛盾变得更加昭然若揭。在那里，尽管其自身在Document 511中的定义十分宽泛，政府却实际上将这4名请愿人视为郭先生的支持者，而非属于其先前主张的更广泛受害者框架内的人员。我本人拒绝受害者身份，拒绝依据《犯罪受害者权利法》行事，并转而表明自己是G系列投资者和郭先生的支持者。从这一立场出发，政府将这4名自辩请愿人视为“支持者”的做法是……\n\n令人深感不安。这表明，要摆脱政府默认的受害者定性并主张独立立场的唯一实际途径，就是在法庭上与政府正面交锋，并且必须具备不同寻常的诉讼程序运用能力和坚韧毅力。\n\n这是政府框架中的一个重大缺陷。如果只有极少数能力出众的诉讼当事人——例如 Ryan、Chunk、Tony、Carolyn 以及处境相似的请愿人——能够迫使政府停止将他们视为被动的“受害者”，转而承认他们为程序上独立的当事主体，那么政府的定性体系就根本没有作为中立的法律框架在运行。它的运作实质上是一个选择性的关卡把关机制。在实践中，当这种宽泛的受害者标签有利于政府关于损失数额和量刑的论述时，它将普通的 G 系列（G-series）投资者困在该标签之中；而除非他们具备非凡的诉讼能力，否则便剥夺了他们获得独立法律主体地位认定的任何现实途径。这绝不是一个稳固的受害者认定框架。这是一个在程序上扭曲的结构，其风险在于剥夺普通投资者的正当程序权利、使其无法实质性适用 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)，并剥夺他们在法律下的平等待遇。\n\n记录所反映的不仅是政府行为的不一致，更是缺乏一条具有稳定性且切实可行的受害者定性规则。这一框架在支持政府认定的损失归属时便扩大范围将特定个人纳入为“受害者”，而在这些个人试图主张独立的程序性权利时又收缩范围将其排除在外。这证明政府的运作缺乏可识别的限制性原则。在实践和现实中，它切断了处境相似的投资者根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 主张其权利的任何可预测或可通达的途径，进而不仅引发了关于公平性的严重关切，也引发了对该框架法律可行性的严重质疑。\n\n对法院的推定欺诈：凭空捏造完全虚构的“另一个人格”资金池并污染审判记录\n\nDOJ（美国司法部）检察官与第 11 章破产受托人（Chapter 11 Trustee）Luc Despins 存在一系列重大隐瞒行为，已构成对法院的推定欺诈（constructive fraud on the courts）。政府与受托人 Luc 系统性地隐瞒了被扣押资金中包含大量来自独立投资者的未受污染合法资金这一事实，反而断然谎称公司资产的 100% 均为“犯罪所得”，以此策划了存在程序缺陷的记录，以迎合预设的定论。\n\n这一精心谋划的隐瞒行为造成了三个毁灭性的法律后果：\n\n1) 人为捏造“另一个人格”资金池\n\n受托人和政府绕过了法定的资金穿透追踪（tracing）要求，捏造了一套涵盖一切的笼统“另一个人格”（alter ego）理论。由于隐瞒了我所投入的合法真实资金，以及处境相似的投资者所投入的数亿美元资金的存在，政府与受托人 Luc 诱导破产法院和地区法院确立了一个范围过宽的没收财产池。他们实质上将具有独立信托义务的各个独立法人实体混为一谈、化为一个单一体，在追缴犯罪所得的幌子下查扣无辜第三方的财产。\n\n2) 对正当程序权利的结构性剥夺\n\n通过虚构全盘公司欺诈的单一论调，政府与受托人 Luc 在审判开始之前便实质上压制了第三方依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 享有的法定权利。他们向地区法院提交了一份经过精心剪裁且未受质证的记录，从而确保任何随后的附属诉讼程序都被当作附带的行政琐事对待，而非针对优先法定所有权所进行的强制性对抗式司法裁判。\n\n3) 对陪审团事实认定职能的污染与破坏\n\n这种错误定性直接延伸至刑事审判中，从根本上污染了审判记录。政府将资金进出量巨大的银行账户统一作为“欺诈账户”出示，同时蓄意隐瞒未受污染的投资者合法资金的大规模注入，从而呈现了扭曲的财务全貌。这种重大扭曲污染了陪审团的判断，营造出全面犯罪的假象，剥夺了被告人获得公正审判的权利，并使陪审团无法获得准确评估犯罪故意所需的背景信息。\n\n法院指定的破产受托人与联邦检察官对司法机关负有绝对的真实陈述义务（duty of candor）。当他们积极漠视投资者资金独立、清白的来源以人为夸大没收财产池时，他们所犯的不仅是错误；他们是在实施破坏整个司法体系公信力的推定欺诈。本法院必须介入，以制止这份虚构记录的最终敲定。\n\n关于传唤 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）的 Luc Despins 及喜马拉雅联盟与农场核心领导人员并举行证据听证会的动议\n\n我谨此请求本法院下达命令，向 Luc Despins（普衡律师事务所，第 11 章破产受托人）以及喜马拉雅联盟（Himalaya Alliance）和农场（Farms）的核心领导人员发出传票，其中包括 Wei Lihong（魏丽红）、Zhang Yongbing（张永兵）、Ha-En、Cosmos、Guo Shuai（郭帅）、Xia Qidong（夏奇东）、William Je（余建明）和 Wang Xuebing（王雪冰）。我进一步请求举行证据听证会，以调查投资者数据可能遭受泄露的情况以及 G 系列投资者由此面临的跨国镇压问题。\n\n1) 魏丽红（又名 Sarah Wei、木兰），原亚利桑那凤凰城农场 CEO，负责 VOG（Voice of Guo）投资。\n\n对其发出传票的依据：我主张魏丽红作为受托人，负责处理我电汇至 VOG/GTV 的美元投资款。该投资要求披露我高度敏感的个人身份信息（PII）。\n\na) 泄密与跨国镇压的证据：\n\n国家机关审讯——在将资金和个人身份信息转移给魏丽红后，我先后三次遭到中华人民共和国（PRC）国家安全部（MSS）和当地警方的单独审讯。\n\nb) 未经授权披露我的数据：在这些审讯过程中，中国官员明确表示我否认投资是没有用的，因为魏丽红已经提供了一份“反政府”的 GTV/VOG 投资者名单，我的名字就在上面。\n\nc) 持续的骚扰：由于这种背叛行为的直接后果，我目前仍处于国家监视之下，行动受到限制，旅行期间须向当地警方报告。\n\n需要发出传票以查明：\n\n• 遭到魏背叛的投资者是否受到中共（CCP）的系统性强迫，从而向 FBI（美国联邦调查局）作虚假报案称自己被被告人“诈骗”。\n\n• 美国司法部目前用于计算量刑和没收指南所依据的受害者书面陈述（第 833 号文件），是否是在外国极权政权意图破坏 G 系列生态系统的极端胁迫下取得的。\n\n签发传票强制魏出庭作证，对于维护这些司法程序的严肃公正性至关重要。严格要求魏出庭作证，是为了揭露对投资者数据的严重泄露事件，该事件直接影响到政府刑事案件及没收财产池的公信力。另一个问题是，魏是否从一开始就是伪装成反共斗士的中共特工？喜马拉雅联盟和农场的关键领导人中究竟有多少是潜伏的中共特工？\n\n影响本案诉讼程序严肃公正性的一个关键问题，是受中华人民共和国（中国）指使的秘密外国行为体可能扮演的角色。有必要举行证据听证会，以调查 G 系列领导层内部的核心人物——特别是魏以及喜马拉雅联盟和农场内部的其他重要领导人——是否充当了外国势力的未注册代理人，违反了 18 U.S.C. § 951 以及《外国代理人登记法》（FARA，22 U.S.C. § 611 等条款）。\n\n美国联邦法院和情报机构已有案卷记录表明，中国共产党惯常利用“受控反对派”（controlled opposition）和深度潜伏人员渗透海外异见团体、攫取专有数据并操纵美国国内的法律程序。公司“投资者名单”突然未经授权泄露给中国安全机关，引发了重大的法律和事实问题：Sarah Wei 是否自这些项目启动伊始就作为中国国家机构伪装的棋子在活动，旨在从内部破坏该运动？\n\n喜马拉雅联盟领导层结构中多名潜伏的中共特工的潜在暴露，直接威胁到底层刑事和没收记录的有效性。如果关键组织人物是隐藏的外国国家资产，那么他们与司法部达成的配合协议、他们对公司资产的管理以及他们与联邦调查局的互动就不能被认定为可靠。\n\n他们的行动目标将与中国的地缘政治目标完全一致：即策划 G 系列生态系统的崩溃，确保异见人士的资金被冻结和没收，并操纵美国司法资源以最终实现对政治对手的国际金融封锁。\n\n在仍存在实质性且未查明的风险——即控制底层资金的公司领导层可能一直在秘密执行敌对外国政府指令——的情况下，法院绝不能允许最终确定没收财产池。严格要求进行证据开示和交叉质询，以揭露这些核心人员的真实从属关系，并保护美国司法体系的公正性免受外国政府的颠覆。\n\n2) Paul Hastings LLP 的 Luc Despins，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵先生）破产财产的第 11 章受托人\n\n发出传票的依据：作为法院指定的受托人，Luc Despins 已控制了 G 系列投资者的大额投资款，包括我电汇至 G-Club 的美元款项。受托人 Luc 对法院负有信托义务，须准确报告破产财产的性质。然而，将我的 G-Club 资金定性为被告人的个人财产，是对公司真实情况的重大失实陈述：\n\na) 缺乏事实关联性：我向 G-Club 进行了真实的资本出资，而 G-Club 是一个依法成立的法人实体，拥有自身独立的运营范围。\n\nb) “另一个人格”的误导：受托人 Luc 主张 G-Club 仅仅是被告人的“另一个人格”，以此为其将第三方资本吞并入破产财产池的行为进行辩解。这一宽泛的结论是在没有对我合法资金进行个别化追踪分析的情况下，提交给破产法院和刑事法院的。\n\nc) 对法院的推定欺诈：受托人 Luc 和司法部检察官未向法院披露被扣押资金中有相当大一部分包含来自独立投资者的未受污染合法资金，反而声称资产的 100% 均为“犯罪所得”，从而制造了存在程序缺陷的记录，为没收目的凭空捏造了郭先生的另一个人格资产池，并污染了刑事案件中陪审团的判断。\n\n受托人 Luc 已使破产财产蒙受了数百万美元的行政管理费用，\n\n然而，他未能提供一份将被告的个人资产与我的投资区分开来的透明且逐项列明的账目。在未允许我就追踪我的投资一事对 Trustee Luc（受托人吕克）进行交叉质询的情况下直接作出终局裁定，违反了程序正义的基本原则。\n\n3) Zhang Yongbing（张勇兵），一名 Illinois（伊利诺伊州）的移民律师，曾受聘代表我的利益以追回我投资于 VOG 的资金。他被政府指定为被告的“共谋者”（文件 388）。在被告被捕后，张律师多次出现在 Himalaya Alliance（喜马拉雅联盟）的直播中。据称，张律师代表了众多同样投资于 G 系列项目的中国政治庇护寻求者。据称，张律师在为郭先生的法律辩护筛选证人方面发挥了关键作用；据称，张律师阻止了某些能够证明郭先生无罪的关键证人代表郭先生出庭作证，例如 Second Circuit（第二巡回法院）第 26-361 号案件中的索赔人 Tony。\n\n传票签发理由：关于我 VOG 资产的返还与羁押/保管状况存在重大出入。记录在案的事实表明，众多提起独立索赔的同类投资者已经成功收回了他们的资金。然而，我的资金仍未获返还，亦未有账目说明。有必要签发传票强令律师提供正式账目，以确定我资产目前的法律地位、所在地点及羁押/保管状况。\n\n我谨提请本法院注意一项破坏底层审理记录完整性的恶劣程序及宪法瑕疵。如文件 388 所载，Attorney Zhang Yongbing（张勇兵律师）被检察官明确指定为被告的未受起诉共谋者。尽管存在这一正式指定，Department of Justice（司法部，DOJ）却未能阻止该“共谋者”参与并筛选被告潜在的法律辩护证人。这一令人震惊的矛盾在记录中引入了两项致命的法律错误：\n\na) 对辩护阵营的结构性渗透及无法补救的利益冲突\n根据 Sixth Amendment（第六修正案），刑事被告人有权获得无利益冲突的律师辩护以及不受干预的私密辩护策略。通过允许一名被政府官方视为犯罪共谋者的人士（张律师）担任被告审判证人的把关人，辩护阵营遭到了结构性渗透。张律师存在绝对且不可调和的利益冲突：作为一名试图避免自身被起诉的被点名共谋者，其首要动因是自保并配合控方的定性叙事，而非协助制定强有力的辩护方案或查找未受污染的投资者资金。\n\nb) 检方对证人筛选的利用\n\n政府不能自相矛盾。检察官不能在官方法院备案文件中将一名律师定性为犯罪共谋者以摧毁其信誉，同时又允许该律师控制、审查和过滤辩方可用的证人。这种安排实际上让控方在辩护体系内部拥有了一名代理人，使得受保护的共谋者能够压制或阻拦来自独立投资者的关键证言，而这些证人本可证明 G 系列资金具有合法性且未受污染。\n\n指派未受起诉的共谋者监督或影响辩方证人的筛选，构成了对抗制诉讼程序的严重颠覆。这表明存在着蓄意控制案情叙事、净化审判记录并剥夺被告获得公正审判权利的精心策划。对张律师干预辩方证人池的范围进行全面的证据质证调查是必要的。\n\n4) Ha-En（河恩）与 Cosmos，两人均为前韩国恩典农场首席执行官；ACA Capital（ACA资本）的 William Je（余建明）；Xia Qidong（又名长岛哥、长岛、夏奇东），前喜马拉雅联盟主席、Mountain Spice Farm（山顶香雀农场）首席执行官；Guo Shuai（郭帅，草根小哥），喜马拉雅联盟负责人。\n\n于 2020 年，我向韩国恩典农场借贷项目电汇了美元。河恩称，喜马拉雅联盟派来的首席执行官 Cosmos 拿走了这笔款项。但在 2022 年，联盟负责人郭帅（草根小哥）公开发表声明，指控 Cosmos 团队实施了欺诈，并且他正在起诉 Cosmos 团队。\n\n传票签发理由：\n\na) 在政府文件 273 中，司法部检察官声称 ACA Capital 收受了 1.3 亿美元的农场借贷资金。ACA Capital 是一家独立的公司实体，与被告、被告家族或其家族信托之间均不存在任何法律、财务或家族关联。\n\nb) 在文件 804 中，被告陈述称，多位独立的喜马拉雅联盟首席执行官及其他人员羁押并占有约 1 亿美元的资金，其中包括农场借贷基金。\n\n需要签发传票以强令上述人员进行宣誓作证并出具财务记录，以阐明农场借贷资产的真实羁押/保管状况及所有权归属。我旨在揭露控方逻辑中的一项根本性缺陷：\n\n• 资金追踪的落空：如果 1.3 亿美元的农场借贷资金是由 ACA Capital、其他单独的高管（喜马拉雅联盟各首席执行官）或其他人持有，政府便无法履行其法定义证责任，以证明这些资金构成被告的犯罪所得。\n\n• 人为捏造的“RICO 犯罪企业”：通过将 ACA Capital 和联盟首席执行官的独立财务行为盲目归咎于被告，司法部检察官捏造了一个虚构的 RICO（《反勒索与受贿组织法》）资产池。他们在未执行第二巡回法院 United States v. Banco Cafetero Panama, 797 F.2d 1154 (2d Cir. 1986) 案所要求的强制性逐项追踪的情况下，将包括我自身出资在内的独立第三方公司资本转化为一个集中的“犯罪企业”。\n\n在记录证明被告对涉案的 1 亿美元资金缺乏所有权与控制权的情况下，法院绝不能允许政府根据 RICO 没收裁定扣押整个公司生态系统。必须向 ACA Capital 及喜马拉雅联盟领导层签发传票，以强令其提供透明的账目说明，并制止这种对没收资产池的不合宪扩大。\n\n5) Wang Xuebing（或作 Wang Xuebin，王雪冰），New Zealand Farm（新西兰农场）首席执行官兼喜马拉雅联盟主席。\n\n王雪冰的证言对于解决本次没收程序中的一项核心事实争议至关重要：即 G 系列农场借贷资金究竟是被告的“另一个自我”，还是完全由独立的区域运营者所控制、操纵和扣留。\n\n我个人的具体交易历史为独立第三方管理及潜在的自私交易提供了初步证据：\n\na) 资金出资：在 2020 年至 2022 年期间，我直接向新西兰农场借贷项目进行了一系列总额达美元的电汇。\n\nb) 程序违规：在王先生的直接下属（Wen Xiao，文晓）的指示下，我被要求签署一份空白的农场借贷合同，特别是被告知省去日期和金额，仅留下我的签名（作为物证附于本文件后）。这一高度违规的程序确保了合同从未被王雪冰正当签署或会签，致使我的资金完全处于无保障状态。\n\nc) 逮捕后的单方修改：被告于 2023 年 3 月 15 日被捕。数月后，即 2023 年，在被告处于联邦羁押且完全无法出席任何公司实体活动的情况下，王雪冰执行了一份单方合同延期文件（作为物证附于本文件后），在未经我同意或知情的情况下，擅自将农场借贷的到期期限延长了两年。\n\n政府的没收案依赖于被告对所有进账的投资者资金保持不受限制的支配与控制这一理论。王先生的行为完全推翻了这一点：\n\n• 独立的支配权：王雪冰在被告被捕后能够单方面变更财务合同并截留我的资金这一事实，确凿地证明了被告并不占有或控制这些资金。\n\n• 调查潜在的侵占行为：根据 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(c)条），我有权查明我资产目前的所在地点与羁押/保管状况。王先生的欺诈手段强烈表明，当地领导层意图将农场借贷项目资金转为己用，这完全独立于被告被指控的任何共谋。\n\n当新西兰的一名独立运营者正在积极变更合同并扣留资金时，政府在法律上不能将我的资产作为被告的财产予以没收。严格有必要签发传票强令王雪冰说明我资金的确切所在地点，并揭露政府“另一个自我”没收论调中的致命缺陷。\n\n综上所述，本案目前的证据记录存在根本性缺陷，因为它依赖于在隐瞒真相方面具有极深财务和法律利益的人士所作的未经审查的陈述。如文件 388 所确立，William Je、Xia Qidong、Wei Lihong（Sarah Wei，魏丽红）以及张勇兵律师等人均是被告被指定的共谋者。\n\n据信，夏、魏、张三人已与司法部达成了暂缓/免予起诉、配合或豁免协议。作为指控被告不法行为并支持政府叙事的交换，这些人免受了起诉。\n\n政府在没收和刑事指控叙事中的结构性缺陷立足于三个关键现实：\n\na) 受保护的各方才是资产的真正羁押/保管人\n尽管政府基于宽泛的“另一个自我”理论系统性地将 100% 的财务责任归咎于被告，但书证表明，正是这些未受起诉的共谋者行使了自主控制权，并积极扣留了我的资本，包括由魏丽红经手、后由张勇兵经手的投资于 VOG 的美元。\n\nb) 武器化的胁迫与证人偏见\n通过向管理 G 系列实体日常交易的实际运营领导者授予豁免权，政府变相激励了这些行为人将合法的第三方出资错误定性为“欺诈所得”。这种安排使得这些共谋者得以推卸刑事责任，同时掩护自身免于对失踪的投资者资金提供账目说明。\n\nc) 举行 Rule 32.2(c)（第 32.2(c)条）附随听证会的绝对必要性\n\n我享有的正当程序权利不应被检察官与自利的共谋者之间的行政协议所规避。为确定被扣押财产的真实“受污染性”及其最终处置，必须正式传唤上述人员出庭。我有法定权利在强制性证据听证会上对这些证人进行严格的交叉质询，以查明其缺失财产的下落，并揭露没收资产池的人为捏造性质。\n\n基于前述理由，我谨请求本法院撤销过早作出的没收决定，并将本案发回重审并下达指示\n\n签发所请求的传票并立即召集全面的附属程序。\n\n救济请求\n\n为此，我谨请求本法院作出裁定，准予以下救济：\n1. 确认法定所有权：根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)，正式确认我对向 G-Series（G 系列）实体投入的所有已记录资本出资享有作为优先、善意所有人的诉讼资格及财产权利；\n2. 签发传票：根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 45 条，签发证人出庭传票及提交证据传票，强制以下关键证人出庭并提交记录：\no Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第 11 章破产受托人（Paul Hastings LLP，普衡律师事务所）\no Wei Lihong（魏丽红，又名 Sarah Wei），Arizona Phoenix Farm（亚利桑那凤凰农场）前首席执行官\no Attorney Zhang Yongbing（张勇兵律师），投资者索赔法律代表\no Wang Xuebing（王雪冰），New Zealand（新西兰）首席执行官\no Guo Shuai（郭帅）、Ha-En（哈恩）及 Cosmos（喜马拉雅农场联盟）领导层人员\no William Je（余建明），ACA Capital（阿波罗智慧资产管理）；\n3. 举行证据听证会：根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(c) 条召集全面的附属证据听证会，以准确认定可追溯的没收资产池的真实规模；以及\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 23 页，共 61 页\n\n4. 额外的衡平法救济：准予本法院认为为保护申请人的正当法律程序权利及防止对法院构成推定欺诈所必需、公正且妥当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条提出的隐私/封存请求\n\n我谨请求以公开遮盖版形式提交本动议（遮盖姓名、地址、电子邮件、电话、财务数据，并封存我的身份信息，如姓名、地址、出生日期、身份证件号等）。\n\n声明\n\n我谨在此声明，在受伪证罪处罚的前提下，据我所知所信，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n日期：2026年5月21日\n\nAnna\n\n送达证明\n我证明于2026年5月21日将本文件提交至：\n法院亲自诉讼案件受理窗口（Pro Se Intake）以供归档\n通过电子邮件：ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov\n及\n通过美国邮政寄送至：\nClerk of Court（法院书记官）\nUnited States District Court（美国联邦地区法院）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n美国联邦检察官办公室纽约南区分部（US Attorney's Office SDNY）：\n• ryan.finkel@usdoj.gov（Ryan Finkel，美国助理检察官）\n• justin.horton@usdoj.gov\n• micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov\n\n辩护律师：\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 24 页，共 61 页\n\n• msarafa@sarafalaw.com\n• jdratel@dratellewis.com\n• jkaley@doarlaw.com\n\n附件/证据目录：个人身份证件、投资凭证及证据\n\n谨此提交，\n\n签名：Anna\n正楷打印姓名：Anna\n地址：\n电话：\n电子邮件：\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 25 页，共 61 页\n附件/证据清单\n1) 个人身份证件\n2) 投资摘要\n3) 投资凭证 - 19页\n4) 冻结朋友银行账户\n5) 与张勇兵律师就获得VOG退款事宜签署的协议\n6) 韩国恩典农场事宜\n7) 新西兰农场借款事宜\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 26 页，共 61 页\n中华人民共和国外交部\n中华人民共和国\n电子普通护照\n公安部出入境管理局\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 27 页，共 61 页\n日期 从本人账户 汇入账户 经由第三方/中间人 金额（美元）\n中国农业银行，本人账户，富国银行\n通过张勇兵律师代理的VOG总计\n渣打银行，本人账户 农协银行，美元\n向韩国恩典农场/哈恩/Cosmos汇款总计 美元\n中国建设银行，本人账户 人民币汇率@1:7\n建设银行，本人账户 人民币汇率@1:7\n中国建设银行，本人账户 人民币汇率@1:7\n中国建设银行，本人账户 人民币汇率@1:7\n中国农业银行，本人账户 人民币汇率@1:7\n人民币 美元\n中国建设银行，本人账户 人民币\n中国建设银行，本人账户 人民币\n换算为人民币\n中国建设银行\n中国农业银行，本人账户 人民币\n中国建设银行，本人账户 人民币\n向G-CLUBS汇款总计 美元\n2023年4月18日 中国农业银行 美元\n向喜美元（用于购买喜币）汇款总计\n全部投资总计\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 28 页，共 61 页\n汇款详情\n账户\n款项\n迷你子账户 美元现汇\n0.00美元(手续费)\n0.00美元(电报费)\n国际支出金额 美元\n汇款状态 受理成功\n收款方名称\n收款账户\nSWIFT/BIC\n收款银行名称 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A（富国银行）\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 29 页，共 61 页\n中国农业银行\n交易类型：汇出汇款\n受理终端：\n发报案号\n客户姓名\n交易结果：交易成功\n出证金额\n成交汇率\n收款方姓名：THING RET\n汇款金额：\n汇款币种：美元\n费用承担方式：共同承担\n手续费：\n邮电费：\n附言：\n受理日期/时间\n行股份有限公司\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 30 页，共 61 页\n交易所需的短信验证码为\n转入账户居民 收款，\n产生的金额 USD。切勿\n将验证码告知他人！请警惕电信\n诈骗，切勿向陌生人转账汇款。\nEMUI已防止第三方应用读取和使用\n验证码：\n复制验证码\n尊敬的客户，您\n本次海外电汇申请（序列号\n已提交\n处理。\n2分钟\n尊敬的客户，您\n本次海外电汇交易（序列号\n已成\n功。\n2分钟前\n您尾号\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 31 页，共 61 页\n个人活期账户交易明细\n交易日期 记账日期 收入/支出 金额 余额 交易名称\n支出\n转账\n结束\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 32 页，共 61 页\nYMA (TWEN)\n将702,721,373韩币（柒亿零贰佰柒拾贰万壹仟叁佰柒拾叁韩元）\n韩币交予联盟委托收款人：\n1. 菅團（温暖姐姐）\n2. 成先钠（西朝鲜）\n3. 王環皓（至暗时刻）\n地点：首尔特别市道林洞216-2\n查验并交付完成\n2021.04.05\n委托人签字 付款人签字 收款人签字\n1. 成先钠\n2. 张丽\n3. 主環皓\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 33 页，共 61 页\n交易账户 建设银行\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言 跨行转出\n对方账户\n记账日\n账户余额\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 34 页，共 61 页\n跨行转出\n交易账户\n交易时间\n跨行转出\n交易地点/附言\n对方账户\n记账日\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 35 页，共 61 页\n跨行转出\n¥ 00\n交易账户\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言 跨行转出\n对方账户\n记账日\n账户余额\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 36 页，共 61 页\n跨行转出\n交易账户\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言 跨行转出\n对方账户\n记账日\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 37 页，共 61 页\n交易类型 向他行账户转账\n交易渠道 手机银行\n转账金额\n大写金额\n凭证号\n收款方\n户名\n账号\n收款银行\n付款方\n户名 电子回单专用章\n账号\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 38 页，共 61 页\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 39 页，共 61 页\n业务凭证\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 40 页，共 61 页\n跨行转出\n¥\n交易账户 建设银行\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言\n对方账户\n记账日\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 41 页，共 61 页\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 42 页，共 61 页\n交易时间\n交易类型 向他行账户转账\n交易渠道 手机银行\n转账金额\n大写金额\n凭证号\n收款方\n户名\n账号\n收款银行\n付款方\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 43 页，共 61 页\n通知收款人\n付款人\n收款人\n收款账户\n收款银行\n交易时间\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 44 页，共 61 页\n跨行转出\n交易账户\n交易时间\n交易地点/附言\n对方账户\n记账日\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 45 页，共 61 页\n付款人\n付款账户\n收款人\n收款账户\n收款银行\n转账金额\n红色\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 46 页，共 61 页\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 47 页，共 61 页\n上海商业储蓄银行国际金融业务分行\n活期账户取款凭条及对外汇款申请书\n日期\n本人/吾等声明本人/吾等非属当地个人、公司法人或政府机构\n银行留存联\n授权从本人/吾等第2710800号账户扣款\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 48 页，共 61 页\n今天美元汇率是\n加上汇款手续费\n今天人民币\n一共需要：\n款项最慢后天会到，您到时确认一下。\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 49 页，共 61 页\n中国移动\n目前二审，主要是针对刑期和罚款金额两个部分，金额问题不大，最主要刑期减轻是关键\n\n案号：26-1626，2026年6月12日，案卷分录：1.1，第 50 页，共 61 页\n受保密特权保护并予以保密\n服务协议\n委托人）同意与 Law Offices of Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵律师事务所，即 ZYB & Associates LLC，或“本所”）就从公平基金（Fair Fund）管理人处获取资产分配事宜签署法律服务协议。本所将提供以下服务：\n2.\na. 代表我向 GTV Media Group Fair Fund（GTV传媒集团公平基金）提交索赔申请表及支持性文件；\nb. 尽力从 United States Securities and Exchange Commission（SEC，美国证券交易委员会）在第 3-20537 号文件项下设立的 GTV Fair Fund（GTV公平基金，即“公平基金”）中为我争取获得相应比例的 GTV 传媒集团投资资金分配；\nc. 若本所的努力为我争取到了成功且有利的分配款项，将该笔从公平基金获取的分配款存入本所的客户信托账户（信托账户）；\nd. 将该笔获取的分配款保存在本所的客户信托账户中，直至我授权从该信托账户中提取。\n3. 不予受理的事项\n本所未被聘请处理以下事项：\n1) 就您在 GTV 股票或数字资产中的权利向任何当事方提起诉讼；2) 通过在市场上进行投资或向其他当事方提供贷款来增加您收回的投资价值，该等事项超出本所的专业范围；以及 3) 与本委托事项无关的其他事宜。\n4. 律师费及支付\n我同意按我所申请的分配退款金额的 1% 支付律师费，当前金额为 $ 美元，但在代理过程中可能会有所变动。\n5. 适用法律与争议解决\n本协议受 United States（美国）State of Illinois（伊利诺伊州）法律管辖。签署本协议即表明，我授予美国伊利诺伊州库克县的联邦或州法院对因本协议引起的争议享有专属管辖权。\n同意人：\n日期：\n同意人：\nYongbing Zhang（张勇兵）代表 ZYB & Associates LLC\n张勇兵\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 51 页，共 61 页\n[图像/中文手写及扫描文本残片，部分内容模糊及残缺]\nNBllttJJ~fill(ftftfffJ.»lftl,f>llf)Vdt.\n'fl011~,A\\U,\nfUU:\nU)ft (~A+M•I\n~d(fN,1,UJ\nttm m, 17lft-!II. 11.tftlllfVtlQoJBtfMtil'tlldlfl\nm,it;tt,'.■-ft\\UU1 •\n1 UY IIRllll\nl. Otl\nJ.. :nil IJ MtttO ..\n1U1 .>-11-4 .!:.llll16·t\nft1f:,t:_HU\n~~\n{/{.it)·\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 52 页，共 61 页\n2022年4月10日\n•\n~ffi/J\\lf\n2022/4/10, 09:23\ntj~ a{J~{u.ldt~::kJ~~9:f :\n1~.Pfrfi 1=5 llRnOO?i:lt!l~±m~u~)i'H±:5!tl=H&'.\ncosmos@ltk ()/!;~Am. EHt: cosmos, ).ffi\\Blffi\nffi, if!H-#8065, ~+#6311, Jllii;~lm~) i'l=filiu\nuis:, it=f!m ffi ~~ f\" a{] i!lt&: §'I im~~ trfi ~\n.~,, #.§..t{~M'iJ£~1=5~ff~~~~Vifi, 1fVifi~*ll\n!.@1$8~1iEf.@fo.lcosmos1'l=filiu!fil{!k~it9.Wi'sl,g!i,-J-~\n1'1= 9.\\iu a{] U ~\n:m~~filiua~~~1n~~lfcl15m~. ~1n~111J:En\n00>~1$1?1l~A~•~~~i'l=filiul?1l{!kYitZt($, 93~**\n~!llia~~f\"\nhttp\nn\n~a ?m!I! )li-tv~ifiliJiijl~ 00 ~tib a{] fiJ. ~ Af H jj/1\nltD%~\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 53 页，共 61 页\ndul.Final_Version pot\n金額先空著記事或许振惠客一下大\n汇率计算 台灣選派先空著\n金額和日期都先空著不填 !.\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 54 页，共 61 页\n根据8月1日的协议，\n\n致：出借人\n•\n出借人电子邮件：\n发自：借款人\nY~tol.-1td\n[文本模糊残缺]\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 55 页，共 61 页\nM(J_\nc~\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 56 页，共 61 页\n发件人：Pro Se Filing（本人诉讼立案处）\n日期：2026年5月22日星期五 中午12:04\n主题：重要信息，请查阅\n收件人：\n重要信息，请查阅\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）本人诉讼立案处已收到您的电子邮件。（此机构非美国破产法院。）\n本人诉讼当事人提交的文件如符合电子立案的规定标准，将在收到后两个工作日内完成立案并显示在 ECF（电子案卷系统）案卷中（参见下方规定标准）。如果您通过电子邮件发送了文件且该文件被接收立案，您无需再向法院递交纸质副本。\n通过电子邮件提起新诉讼的要求：\n文件必须以 PDF 格式作为电子邮件附件提供，大小不得超过 10 兆字节；\n起诉状必须由立案方签字；\n•\n立案费用要求及说明：\n•\n请注意，在法院收到立案规费之前，不会对您的起诉状进行审查。\n款项必须在您的案件被分配案卷编号之日起 30 天内支付。如通过邮寄付款，请将保付支票、银行本票或汇票寄至：Cashiers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007。\n您的付款必须附上案卷编号，您可通过拨打 (212) 805-0175 获取该编号。\n如果您未同意电子送达，您的案卷编号还将通过格式裁定书邮寄至您在起诉状上提供的地址，其中将包含付款说明。如果您在案件被分配案卷编号之日起 30 天内未付款，诉讼将被无偏见驳回。\n如果您无力支付立案费用并希望请求法院减免立案费用，您必须通过电子邮件发送一份 in forma pauperis（以赤贫者身份诉讼）的申请书。\n通过电子邮件在既有案件中提交文件的要求：\n文件必须以 PDF 格式作为电子邮件附件提供，大小不得超过 10 兆字节；\n电子邮件及随附文件必须包含案卷编号、立案人姓名、地址和电话号码；\n文件必须由立案方签字；\n电子邮件中包含的任何补充说明、问题或其他信息将不予考虑；\n电子邮件中包含的任何补充往来函件将不予考虑。\n对于任何提交，若您的文件在两个工作日内未出现在 ECF 案卷上，即表示其未达到电子立案的规定标准。若属此类情况，您必须通过以下方式向法院提交纸质文件：(a) 通过邮寄或隔夜递送服务将您的文件寄至下方列出的相应法院大楼；或 (b) 于上午 9:30 至下午 1:30 之间亲自将您的文件递交至下方列出的相应法院大楼；或 (c) 在非工作时间将您的文件投入位于 500 Pearl Street, NY, NY 法院大楼的法院夜间投递箱。\n美国法院大楼\n本人诉讼立案处\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 57 页，共 61 页\nAnna ( ) 案卷记录状态 案件编号 #1-23-cr-118(AT)\n我想了解我于 2026年5月22日 提交文件的案卷记录状态——如果存在尚未满足的立案记录要求，请告知。\n谢谢。\n此致。\nAnna\nG系列投资人\n中国\n------- 转发邮件 -------\n发件人：•\n日期：2026年5月22日星期五 中午12:09\n主题：Fw: 重要信息，请查阅\n\"\n------- 转发邮件 -------\n发件人：Pro Se Filing（本人诉讼立案处）\n日期：2026年5月22日星期五 中午12:04\n主题：重要信息，请查阅\n收件人：\n重要信息，请查阅\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）本人诉讼立案处已收到您的电子邮件。（此机构非美国破产法院。）\n本人诉讼当事人提交的文件如符合电子立案的规定标准，将在收到后两个工作日内完成立案并显示在 ECF 案卷中（参见下方规定标准）。如果您通过电子邮件发送了文件且该文件被接收立案，您无需再向法院递交纸质副本。\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 58 页，共 61 页\n重要信息，请查阅\n发件人：Pro Se Filing <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>\n收件人：\n日期：\n重要信息，请查阅\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）本人诉讼立案处已收到您的电子邮件。（此机构非美国破产法院。）\n本人诉讼当事人提交的文件如符合电子立案的规定标准，将在收到后两个工作日内完成立案并显示在 ECF 案卷中（参见下方规定标准）。如果您通过电子邮件发送了文件且该文件被接收立案，您无需再向法院递交纸质副本。\n通过电子邮件提起新诉讼的要求：\n• 文件必须以 PDF 格式作为电子邮件附件提供，大小不得超过 12 兆字节；\n• 起诉状必须由立案方签字；\n• 立案费用要求及说明：\n• 请注意，在法院收到立案规费之前，不会对您的起诉状进行审查。\n• 款项必须在您的案件被分配案卷编号之日起 30 天内支付。如通过邮寄付款，请将保付支票、银行本票或汇票寄至：Cashiers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007。\n• 您的付款必须附上案卷编号，您可通过拨打 (212) 805-0175 获取该编号。\n• 如果您未同意电子送达，您的案卷编号还将通过格式裁定书邮寄至您在起诉状上提供的地址，其中将包含付款说明。如果您在案件被分配案卷编号之日起 30 天内未付款，诉讼将被无偏见驳回。\n• 如果您无力支付立案费用并希望请求法院减免立案费用，您必须通过电子邮件发送一份以 in forma pauperis（赤贫者身份）诉讼的申请书。\n通过电子邮件在既有案件中提交文件：\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 59 页，共 61 页\n重要信息，请查阅\n发件人：Pro Se Filing <pro_se_filing@nysd.uscourts.gov>\n收件人：\n日期：\n重要信息，请查阅\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）本人诉讼立案处已收到您的电子邮件。（此机构非美国破产法院。）\n本人诉讼当事人提交的文件如符合电子立案的规定标准，将在收到后两个工作日内完成立案并显示在 ECF 案卷中（参见下方规定标准）。如果您通过电子邮件发送了文件且该文件被接收立案，您无需再向法院递交纸质副本。\n通过电子邮件提起新诉讼的要求：\n• 文件必须以 PDF 格式作为电子邮件附件提供，大小不得超过 15 兆字节；\n• 起诉状必须由立案方签字；\n• 立案费用要求及说明：\n• 请注意，在法院收到立案规费之前，不会对您的起诉状进行审查。\n• 款项必须在您的案件被分配案卷编号之日起 30 天内支付。如通过邮寄付款，请将保付支票、银行本票或汇票寄至：Cashiers Room 260, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007。\n• 您的付款必须附上案卷编号，您可通过拨打 (212) 805-0175 获取该编号。\n• 如果您未同意电子送达，您的案卷编号还将通过格式裁定书邮寄至您在起诉状上提供的地址，其中将包含付款说明。如果您在案件被分配案卷编号之日起 30 天内未付款，诉讼将被无偏见驳回。\n• 如果您无力支付立案费用并希望请求法院减免立案费用，您必须通过电子邮件发送一份以 in forma pauperis（赤贫者身份）诉讼的申请书。\n通过电子邮件在既有案件中提交文件：\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 60 页，共 61 页\n谨此提交\n下述签名人 Anna ，在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，就申诉人所知所信，前述内容均属真实无误。\n签名：~\n送达证书\n申诉人证明，于 2026年6月9日，申诉人已将本 Writ of Mandamus（履行职责令申请书）文件提交给以下各方：\n通过美国邮政（USPS）：\nThe Hon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官），SDNY District Court（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 -1312\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney's Office for the SDNY（纽约南区美国联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n仅通过电子邮件：\n被告律师\n• msarafa@sarafalaw.com\n• jdratel@dratellewis.com\n• jkaley@doarlaw.com\n签名：- - -\n\n案件编号：26-1626，06/12/2026，案卷记录项：1.1，第 61 页，共 61 页\n[美国邮政快递/挂号信标签及追踪收据扫描件]\nSERVICE®\n国际目的地适用。\n预计送达日期：06/12/26\nUS POSTAL SERVICE\n已投保","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":11397,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:32:00"}