{"id":"court_2cir_26-1629_dkt_1","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-1629_dkt_1","summary_zh":"强制令请愿书(Petition for Writ of Mandamus)——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo)案第二巡回上诉法院 26-1629 号 ECF #1(2026年6月12日收讫)。第三方请愿人陈志强(Zhiqiang Chen,pro se)依 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及联邦刑事诉讼规则32.2(c)主张对合计 $134,361(G-Series $100,060、Sirius/Himalaya Coin $24,301、G Club $10,000)的财产权益,称其5月31日提交的没收第三方请愿及6月3日督促立案动议均未获地区法院处理,请求上诉法院发出强制令责令受理,并指地区法院对代理律师(如曾伟成)与 pro se 请愿人存在选择性立案的不一致做法,同时质疑被告王(Wang)认罪没收资产池的合法性与资金可追溯性。","summary_en":"Petition for Writ of Mandamus — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 26-1629, ECF/DktEntry #1 (received June 12, 2026). Third-party petitioner Zhiqiang Chen, pro se under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) (expressly non-CVRA), asserts a $134,361 property interest (G-Series $100,060, Sirius/Himalaya Coin $24,301, G Club $10,000), stating his May 31 § 853(n) petition and June 3 motion to compel docketing went unaddressed by the District Court, and asks the Circuit to compel docketing while alleging inconsistent treatment of represented vs. pro se claimants and questioning the legality/traceability of the forfeiture pool underlying defendant Wang's consent forfeiture.","body_en":"# 2Cir 26-1629 — Zhiqiang Chen, Petition for Writ of Mandamus (DktEntry 1.1, 24 页, 2026-06-12 收讫)\n\n> 关联刑事案：United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) (SDNY)\n> 第三方请愿人：Zhiqiang Chen（陈志强），pro se；§853(n) + Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c)，明示 non-CVRA\n> 主张资产合计 **$134,361**（G-Series $100,060 + Sirius/Himalaya Coin $24,301 + G Club $10,000）\n\n\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 1 of 24\n\n*(右上角骑缝戳：US COURT OF APPEALS / RECEIVED / 2026 JUN 12)*\n\n**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS**\n\n**FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**\n\nIn re: Zhiqiang Chen,\n*United States v. Kwok, et al.,*\n1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n**PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS**\n\n### I. Introduction\n\nI, Zhiqiang Chen, a third party Pro Se under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) asserting property right, stating investment purpose and non-CVRA (of the Defendant). I respectfully petition this Court for a writ of mandamus.\n\n### II. Background\n\nAs set forth in Exhibit A, I submitted a third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) to the District Court on May 31, 2026, asserting a property interest based on an investment of $134,361 in the G-Series. I also mailed a hard copy of that petition to the District Court on June 1, 2026. Proofs are in Exhibit B.\n\nOn June 3, 2026, after receiving no confirmation of docketing, I submitted a motion to compel docketing of my § 853(n) petition. Nearly two weeks have now passed since that submission. To date, neither my § 853(n) petition nor my motion to compel has been docketed by the District Court, and no action has been taken. As a result, **I remain unable to access the District Court as a forum in which my statutory claim may be formally filed and adjudicated.**\n\nThe previous date for sentencing was April 27, 2026, it was adjourned to June\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 2 of 24\n\n29, 2026 by the District Court, detailed in SDNY Dkt 837, the reason for adjournment is \"Due to the complexity of the outstanding issues raised in the parties' voluminous sentencing submissions\"\n\n### III. Ongoing Selective Docketing Treatment by the District Court\n\nThe District Court's failure to docket my § 853(n) petition is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader and continuing pattern affecting numerous third-party claimants in this case.\n\nFirst, more than ten mandamus petitions have been filed in this Court arising from the same underlying issue: the District Court's failure to provide a consistent procedural mechanism through which third parties may submit and have their filings docketed. This pattern reflects a systemic barrier to access, rather than a case-specific irregularity.\n\nSecond, the available SDNY docket reflects inconsistent treatment between represented and pro se § 853(n) claimants. For example, SDNY Dkt. 777 shows that a § 853(n) petition submitted by a represented party, Weicheng Zeng, was accepted and docketed notwithstanding that it was filed outside the statutory period set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). By contrast, pro se third-party submissions—including my own—have not been docketed at all after SDNY Dkt. 744, effectively preventing access to the statutory process.\n\nThird, during the January 20, 2026 status conference, the District Court discussed the potential appointment of a special master to address the complex disputes arising from § 853(n) claims and victim-related issues. At that time, the Court acknowledged the scale and complexity of these competing claims. The original sentencing date of April 27, 2026 was subsequently adjourned. However, with fewer than three weeks remaining before the currently scheduled June 29, 2026 sentencing date, no special master has been appointed, and no alternative procedural framework has been implemented to resolve these disputes.\n\nFourth, on May 15, 2026, this Court addressed a group of tandem mandamus petitions and again emphasized that, \"[i]n view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address expeditiously,\" relief was denied without prejudice to renewal if the District Court failed to docket the submissions within a reasonable time. Despite this explicit guidance, the District Court has taken no meaningful action to ensure consistent\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 3 of 24\n\ndocketing or access. As a result, numerous third-party submissions remain undocketed to this day.\n\nTaken together, these circumstances demonstrate not merely delay, but a continuing failure to provide third-party claimants with any reliable procedural pathway to assert their statutory rights under § 853(n).\n\n### IV. Parallel Concerns Regarding the Treatment of Victim Submissions\n\nThe procedural deficiencies described above are not limited to § 853(n) claimants, but extend to the treatment of victim submissions as well.\n\nIn SDNY Dkt. 511, the Government identified two categories of purported victims: (i) individuals who believe they were defrauded, and (ii) individuals who do not believe they were defrauded or who are characterized as potentially aligned with the defendant. SDNY Dkt. 528 further states that nonparties may seek relief only through two statutory mechanisms: a petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) or a motion under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\").\n\nAgainst that backdrop, disputes regarding victim status and entitlement have increasingly been litigated in the Court of Appeals rather than resolved in the District Court. For example, in Case No. 25-2726 (Dkt. 46), the Government questioned whether certain individuals \"actually claim to have been harmed\" or instead seek to challenge the prosecution. Subsequent filings in related matters, including Case No. 26-77 (Dkt. 18) and SDNY Dkt. 848, have raised concerns regarding the integrity of the remission process.\n\nThese developments indicate that the CVRA pathway has become procedurally unstable and contested in practice. Under these circumstances, § 853(n) represents the only clear statutory mechanism through which I may assert my property rights. The District Court's failure to docket my § 853(n) petition therefore does not merely delay my claim; it effectively forecloses my only reliable avenue for relief.\n\n### V. Serious Concern about Forfeiture Assets\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 4 of 24\n\nSubstantial evidence in both the District Court record and related Second Circuit proceedings raises serious questions regarding the legality and factual foundation of the forfeiture asset pool underlying Defendant Wang's consent forfeiture.\n\nAs reflected in Second Circuit Case No. 26-361 and the record preservation materials (Dkt. 29), the assets at issue are subject to numerous unresolved and material disputes. These include, inter alia, issues of ownership characterization, commingling of funds, multi-layered transactional structures, and the use of intermediary transfer mechanisms that obscure direct tracing.\n\nThe materials submitted in Dkt. 29 further document contemporaneous Alliance-related transfers demonstrating a complex, multi-step flow of funds involving multiple intermediaries. This evidentiary record reflects a financial structure far more intricate than any simplified or linear loss model, and it raises substantial uncertainty as to how funds should be attributed, classified, or traced.\n\nIn light of this complexity, the Government's current loss and victim framework appears insufficient to account for the full scope of intermediary-mediated transactions and disputed ownership interests reflected in the record.\n\nMoreover, Defendant Wang's plea agreement and related forfeiture stipulations (SDNY Dkt. 488) purport to broadly encompass assets within the forfeiture pool. However, where significant disputes remain unresolved regarding ownership, tracing, and classification—including competing claims arising from both alleged victims and third parties—any final forfeiture determination risks resting on an incomplete and potentially unreliable factual foundation.\n\nThese unresolved issues bear directly on whether the assets at issue are properly forfeitable as Defendant Wang's property in the first instance. They also directly impact whether third-party property interests, including my own, can be adjudicated in a fair and legally sound manner.\n\nUnder these circumstances, the failure to docket and consider third-party § 853(n) submissions does not merely delay adjudication—it materially undermines the integrity of the forfeiture process itself.\n\n### VI. Cheney Standard\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 5 of 24\n\nI respectfully submit that a writ of mandamus is warranted because (1) I have no other adequate means to obtain relief, (2) my right to relief is clear and indisputable, and (3) issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.\n\nFirst, I have no other adequate means to obtain relief. The District Court has not docketed my § 853(n) petition or my related motion to compel, which prevents any adjudication of my claim and denies me access to the only statutory mechanism available to assert my property rights.\n\nSecond, my right to relief is clear and indisputable. Section 853(n) provides a mandatory procedural pathway for third-party claimants like me to assert property interests. By failing to docket my submission, the District Court has effectively eliminated that pathway altogether.\n\nThird, issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Despite prior guidance from this Court and the approaching sentencing date, the District Court continues to fail to docket third-party submissions, including mine. This ongoing failure reflects a broader breakdown in access that warrants limited intervention to preserve the integrity of the forfeiture process.\n\nFor these reasons, I respectfully submit that the requirements for mandamus relief are satisfied.\n\n### VII. Relief Sought\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to:\n\n1. Promptly docket my § 853(n) petition, which was submitted on May 31, 2026 and mailed in hard copy on June 1, 2026;\n\n2. Ensure that third-party submissions under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) are docketed in a consistent and timely manner, so as to provide a meaningful procedural pathway for adjudication of third-party property interests prior to sentencing.\n\nI further requests such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 6 of 24\n\nRespectfully Submitted,\nZhiqiang Chen,\n1524 65th ST #2FL, Brooklyn, NY 11219\n+1(917)774-8848\nchenzhiq9@gmail.com\nJune 8, 2026\n\n*(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 6/8/2026)*\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 7 of 24\n\n**Exhibit A**\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 8 of 24\n\n*(图片：Chase 电汇申请单 \"Wire Transfer Outgoing Request\"，标 Page 1 of 4)*\n\n- **Wire Transfer Sender Information**\n - Sender Name: ZHI QIANG CHEN\n - Account Name: ZHI QIANG CHEN\n - City/State/Zip/Country: BROOKLYN, NY, 11219-5729, USA\n - Daytime Phone: 917-774-8848\n - Primary ID Type: Driver's License (NY); ID Issue Date 12/31/2015; ID Exp 10/27/2021\n - Secondary ID Type: Chase or Bank Issued Credit/Debit Card; ID Number XXXXXXXXXXXX[已涂黑]; ID Exp 09/30/2025\n- **Wire Transfer Information**\n - Request Date: 03/18/2021, 09:52:59AM Eastern time; Effective date 03/18/2021; Wire Type: Domestic\n - Debit Account #: XXXXX; Debit Account Type: CHASE BETTER BANKING\n - Wire Amount (US dollars): **$100,060.00**; Source of funds: Checking; Wire Fee: $35.00\n - Currency: US Dollars; Exchange rate N/A; Amount to Collect (USD): $100,095.00\n- **Recipient Account Information**\n - Account Name: **CRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC**\n - Account Number: [已涂黑]; Text to Recipient: REF#[已涂黑]\n- **Receiving Bank Information**\n - Bank Name: Citibank, N.A.; Street: 1000 Willis Ave; Bank ABA/SWIFT: 021000089; City/State/Zip: Albertson, NY 11507, USA\n\nN15220-CS WTA (08/2019)\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 9 of 24\n\n*(图片：Chase 电汇申请单 \"Wire Transfer Outgoing Request\"，标 Page 1 of 4)*\n\n- **Wire Transfer Sender Information**\n - Sender Name: ZHI CHEN\n - Account Name: ZHI CHEN; Street Address [已涂黑]\n - City/State/Zip/Country: BROOKLYN, NY, 11219-5729, USA; Daytime Phone 917-774-8848\n - Primary ID Type: Driver's License (NY); ID Number [已涂黑]; ID Issue Date 10/20/2021; ID Exp 10/27/2029\n- **Wire Transfer Information**\n - Request Date: 12/18/2021, 11:43:50AM Eastern time; Effective date 12/20/2021; Wire Type: Domestic\n - Debit Account #: XXXXX8377; Debit Account Type: CHASE BETTER BANKING\n - Wire Amount (US dollars): **$24,301.00**; Source of funds: Checking; Wire Fee: $35.00\n - Amount to Collect (USD): $24,336.00\n- **Recipient Account Information**\n - Account Name: sirius networking Inc.; Account Number: 703100013\n - Text to Recipient: Sirius networking inc. 651 N Broad Street Ste 205 #4568 Middletown, DE 19709\n- **Receiving Bank Information**\n - Bank Name: JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association; Street: 875 Saw Mill River Rd; Bank ABA/SWIFT: 021000021; City/State/Zip: Ardsley, NY 10502-1117, USA\n - Text to Receiving Bank: 199 Main Street Los Altos, CA 94022 Chase\n\nN15220-CS WTA (08/2019)\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 10 of 24\n\n*(图片：手机截图，gclubs.com 账户页，时间 9:19)*\n\nG|CLUBS — 我的账户\n- CHEN 先生\n- Tier 5 会员\n- 会员卡：1000010010000582\n- 会员有效期：有效期至 2022年11月19日\n- 会员权益：GIFASHION 50% VIP优惠；G|CLUBS 手册\n- 会员信用：$0 USD\n- 会员状态：有效会员\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 11 of 24\n\n*(图片：手机截图，gclubs.com 购买历史，时间 9:19)*\n\nG|CLUBS — 返回我的账户 / 购买历史\n\n| 订单时间 | 订单号 |\n|---|---|\n| 2021年10月31日 | KF2110311556 |\n| 2021年8月16日 | TK210817021(0) |\n| 2021年6月27日 | DQ210627163 |\n| 2020年10月29日 | ZX201029044… |\n\n联系我们 / 用户协议 / 隐私协议\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 12 of 24\n\n*(图片：手机邮件截图 \"付款已收到\"，时间 10:35)*\n\n尊敬的 ZHI Q CHEN，\n\n您于2020-10-29 04:44:51提交了完整的 G|CLUBS 1级的会员申请。您的会员费 $10000 也已收到。我们正在审核您的申请材料，如需获取更多信息，会与您联系。您将于30天内通过电子邮件收到申请结果。\n\n我们建议您在 G|CLUBS 的网站 www.gclubs.com 上查询您的申请编号 ZX2010290444511，打印并保留一份申请副本，包含您的《会员资格协议》及附带的相关披露信息。您也可以在我们的网站上查询到 G|CLUBS 的使用条款和隐私政策。\n\n根据《会员资格协议》及披露中说明的情况，您可以在规定的时间范围内，通过电子邮件或邮寄的方式取消您的会员申请，及要求退还会员费。\n\n再次感谢您对 G|CLUBS 的关注。如果您还有其他疑问，请通过 info@gclubs.com 与我们联系。\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 13 of 24\n\n*(图片：Chase 个人支票 No. 102)*\n\n- 出票人：ZHI QIANG CHEN，BROOKLYN, NY 11219-5729\n- DATE: 10/29/2020\n- PAY TO THE ORDER OF: **G Club Operations LLC** — **$10,000.00**（Ten thousand only）\n- MEMO: ZX2010290444511\n- 银行：JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.；ABA 021000021（支票底栏）\n- 手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 14 of 24\n\n**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT**\n**SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\\---------------------------------- X\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n    -v.-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\"\n\nKIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"\n    Defendants.\n\n**PETITION UNDER FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 AND 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) FOR ADJUDICATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF $134361**\n\nS1 23 CR 118 (AT)\n\\---------------------------------- X\n\nI, Zhiqiang Chen, move this Court as a pro se petitioner, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) (the \"Petition\"), respectfully seek the return of funds in which I have a legal right, title, and/or interest (\"Petitioner's Property\") (as more fully defined below) and that the United States Government (the \"Government\") improperly seized as part of an order of forfeiture entered into with Defendant Yvette Wang (\"Defendant Wang\").\n\n### I. Background\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 15 of 24\n\nOn March 18, 2021, I wired $100,060 to Crane Advisory Group LLC as an investment in the G-Series program. These funds are presently frozen by the Government in account number 6867165278. (See Exhibit A.)\n\nExhibit A further reflects that on December 18, 2021, I invested an additional $24301 in Sirius Networking Inc., account number 703100013, for the purpose of obtaining an allocation of Himalaya Coin. However, due to regulatory and account-opening restrictions applicable to U.S. persons at the time, I was unable to receive or hold such digital assets. As a result, no Himalaya Coin was ever delivered to me in connection with this investment.\n\nThe last page of Exhibit A reflects that I also invested $10,000 in G Club Operations LLC on October 29, 2020. Pages 3 through 5 of Exhibit A further reflect documentary proof of my investment in G Club.\n\nAlthough these accounts are not specifically identified in the forfeiture orders (see SDNY Dkts. 488, 720), I have reason to believe that these funds were subsequently transferred, through intermediary accounts, into accounts that are subject to the Government's forfeiture actions and are therefore effectively frozen.\n\nAccordingly, both investments are implicated in the Government's asset restraint and forfeiture scheme, either directly or indirectly.\n\n### II. Grounds for Docketing and Adjudicating the Petition\n\n**1: Selective Docketing Concerns and the Need for Consistent Treatment of Similarly Situated Petitioners:**\n\nI acknowledge that my petition was filed outside the time period set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). However, the circumstances presented here warrant consideration beyond strict timeliness.\n\nMultiple purported victims have filed petitions for writs of mandamus before the Second Circuit, seeking to compel the district court to docket and consider their\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 16 of 24\n\nsubmissions, based on allegations of selective docketing practices in this case. These filings reflect a broader and ongoing concern that certain submissions have not been treated in a consistent or transparent manner.\n\nThe record further reflects that, in SDNY Dkt. 777, a petition submitted by a represented party, Weicheng Zeng, was accepted and docketed notwithstanding that it was filed outside the statutory period set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). By contrast, numerous petitions submitted by pro se individuals have not been docketed or considered, despite raising comparable claims.\n\nAt present, no fewer than thirteen mandamus petitions arising from this case are pending before the Second Circuit. In its Order dated May 15, 2026, the Court of Appeals expressly noted: \"In view of the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address expeditiously.\" This statement reflects the appellate court's expectation that all submissions be addressed in a timely and even-handed manner.\n\nIn light of these circumstances, if the Court selectively refuses to docket my petition—particularly where similarly situated or even untimely submissions have been accepted—raises serious concerns regarding fairness, consistency, and the integrity of the judicial process. To avoid further inconsistency and potential conflict with the Second Circuit's directive, I respectfully request that my petition be docketed and considered, notwithstanding any alleged timeliness issues.\n\n**2: Material Impairment of Victims' Access to Judicial Relief**\n\nThe Government's filings in SDNY Dkt. 511 describe two categories of purported victims: (i) individuals who recognize the alleged fraud and believe they were deliberately deceived by the defendants, and (ii) individuals who do not believe they were defrauded, including those characterized by the Government as potentially complicit in the alleged scheme or as having been misled into opposing the Government's position. The Government further notes that many individuals within these categories now believe their funds were wrongfully seized.\n\nThe Court's Order in SDNY Dkt. 528 similarly recognizes that nonparties may seek relief only through either a third-party petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) or a motion under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), which applies to persons \"directly and proximately harmed\" by the defendant's alleged conduct.\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 17 of 24\n\nNotwithstanding this framework, subsequent proceedings have not reflected a consistent or operational mechanism for CVRA participation. No CVRA petitions have been docketed or adjudicated in a manner consistent with the Court's order, and multiple pro se petitioners have instead been directed into or constrained to appellate mandamus proceedings before the Second Circuit, including Case No. 25-2726.\n\nIn that proceeding, the Government itself questioned whether certain petitioners \"actually claim to have been harmed as a result of Guo's crimes, or whether they instead seek to challenge and prolong Guo's prosecution as continued supporters of Guo.\" This characterization appears difficult to reconcile with the Government's own victim framework in Dkt. 511, which does not condition victim status on alignment with the Government's litigation position.\n\nSimilarly, filings in Second Circuit Case No. 26-77 (Dkt. 18) and SDNY-related mandamus proceedings (including SDNY Dkt. 848 Bao Chu) raise concerns that the implementation of the victim-registration and remission process has not been uniform, and may have been affected by inconsistent representations regarding eligibility and impact.\n\nTaken together, these circumstances reflect an apparent misalignment between the Government's stated victim framework, the Court's procedural directives, and the practical treatment of CVRA-related submissions. This misalignment has resulted in uncertainty as to the proper procedural channel for victims to seek relief. In light of these circumstances, a selective refusal to docket my petition—particularly where similarly situated or even untimely submissions have been accepted—would raise serious concerns regarding fairness, consistency, and the integrity of the judicial process.\n\nIn practical operation, the available victim-side channels in this case have been either materially obstructed or materially contaminated: CVRA participation has not functioned as a consistent adjudicative path, while remission and victim-registration processes have been clouded by misleading, intermediary-driven, or otherwise unreliable practices. In that posture, § 853(n) remains the only judicial mechanism through which a petitioner like me can meaningfully and lawfully seek adjudication of my property interest.\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 18 of 24\n\n**3: Subsequent District Court and Second Circuit Evidence Raising Serious Questions About the Legality of Wang's Consent Forfeiture**\n\nAs reflected in Second Circuit Case No. 26-361 and the record preservation materials in Dkt. 29, the forfeiture-related asset pool in this case contains numerous unresolved and substantial disputes, including issues relating to sovereignty and legal characterization of funds, commingling of assets, multi-layered transactional \"layering,\" and the use of intermediary transfer mechanisms.\n\nDkt. 29 further reflects detailed contemporaneous records of Alliance-related transfers, which demonstrate a highly complex and multi-step flow of funds involving multiple intermediaries. These records indicate that the underlying financial architecture is significantly more intricate than a simplified \"single-victim\" or linear loss model.\n\nIn light of this complexity, the Government's existing loss and victim framework appears insufficient to account for the full scope of intermediary-mediated transfers and disputed ownership interests reflected in the record.\n\nMoreover, Defendant Wang's plea agreement and related stipulations (SDNY Dkt. 488) purport to encompass forfeiture of assets broadly defined therein. However, where substantial disputes regarding ownership, tracing, and classification of funds remain unresolved—including competing claims arising from the victim framework and the documented commingling of assets—final forfeiture determinations without prior resolution of these issues risk relying on an incomplete factual foundation.\n\nAccordingly, these unresolved disputes bear directly on whether the property at issue was in fact forfeitable as Defendant Wang's interest, and whether third-party interests like me can be adjudicated on a reliable factual record.\n\n### III. Relief Sought:\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Court:\n\n1. Direct that this Petition be docketed and entered into the record for purposes of preserving appellate review and ensuring a complete and\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 19 of 24\n\ntransparent record;\n\n2. Adjudicate my claims under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c), including Petitioner's asserted legal and equitable interest in the identified funds totaling $134361; Set such further proceedings as may be necessary under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 32.2(c) to determine whether I have established a legal right, title, or interest in the property superior to that of Defendant Wang.\n\n3. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nRespectfully Submitted,\nZhiqiang Chen,\n1524 65th ST #2FL, Brooklyn, NY 11219\n+1(917)774-8848\nchenzhiq9@gmail.com\n\n*(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 5/31/2026)*\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 20 of 24\n\n**Exhibit B**\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 21 of 24\n\n**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT**\n**SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n    Plaintiff,\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a MILES GUO, et al.,\n    Defendants.\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n**Motion to Compel Docketing of 853n Motion**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nI respectfully write to inform the Court that I submitted a 853n motion on May 31, 2026. The title is \"PETITION UNDER FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 AND 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) FOR ADJUDICATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF $134361\". I also mailed a hard copy of the motion on June 1, 2026.\n\nI respectfully request that the Court direct the Clerk to docket my motion upon receipt.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\nZhiqiang Chen\nJune 3, 2026\n\n*(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 6/3/2026)*\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 22 of 24\n\n*(图片：USPS Certified Mail 回执 + 收据，旋转 90°，影像较暗)*\n\n- USPS — PARKVILLE, 6618 20TH AVE, BROOKLYN NY 11204-9997；日期 06/11/2026 03:22 PM\n- Tracking Number: 9589 0710 5270 3371 7385 00\n- U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only)\n- Sent To（手写）：500 Pearl Street, Room D[C], New York, NY 1[0]0[0]7\n- 含 Certified Fee / Extra Services & Fees / Postage 等栏（手写金额模糊）；Postmark Here\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 23 of 24\n\n*(右上角骑缝戳：US COURT OF APPEALS / RECEIVED / 2026 JUN 12 PM 3:01)*\n\n**Certificate of Service**\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\nSDNY case: United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\nI hereby certify that on **June 9, 2026**, true and correct copies of the following documents were served:\n\n    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\n    Exhibit A\n    Exhibit B\n\nService was effected on the following recipients:\n\n1. **The Honorable Analisa Torres**\n United States District Judge\n United States District Court for the Southern District of New York\n 500 Pearl Street\n New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n2. **Ryan B. Finkel**\n Assistant United States Attorney\n United States Attorney's Office\n Southern District of New York\n One St. Andrew's Plaza\n New York, NY 10007\n\nRespectfully submitted,\nZhiqiang Chen\nPetitioner, *pro se*\nJune 9 2026\n\n*(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 6/9/2026)*\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 24 of 24\n\n*(图片：寄往二巡的挂号信封)*\n\n- 寄件人：ZHI QIANG CHEN, 1524 65th street 2FL, Brooklyn NY 11249 *(原件笔误，应为 11219)*\n- 收件人：Clerk Court, United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 40 Foley Square, New York NY 10007\n- USPS Retail / FCM LG ENV / BROOKLYN NY / JUN 10, 2026 / $8.02；CERTIFIED MAIL；Tracking 9589 0710 5270 3371 7…\n- 落地戳：USM[AILED] SDNY","body_zh":"2Cir 26-1629 — Zhiqiang Chen（陈志强），执行令请愿书（DktEntry 1.1，24 页，2026-06-12 收讫）\n\n> 关联刑事案：United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案），1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)（SDNY）\n> 第三方请愿人：Zhiqiang Chen（陈志强），pro se（自行代理/无律师代理）；依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) 主张财产权利，陈述投资目的并明确非《犯罪受害者权利法案》（non-CVRA，针对被告）\n> 主张资产合计 $134,361（G-Series $100,060 + Sirius/Himalaya Coin $24,301 + G Club $10,000）\n\n\n\n---\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 1 of 24\n\n*(右上角骑缝戳：US COURT OF APPEALS / RECEIVED / 2026 JUN 12)*\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n\nFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n（第二巡回区）\n\n关于：Zhiqiang Chen（陈志强）\nUnited States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案）\n1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n执行令请愿书\n\n一、 引言\n\n本人 Zhiqiang Chen（陈志强），系依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及 Fed. R. Crim. P.（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）第 32.2(c) 条主张财产权利、陈述投资目的且不依据 CVRA（《犯罪受害者权利法案》）（针对被告）的第三方 Pro Se（自行代理人）。本人谨向本院提请签发执行令（writ of mandamus）。\n\n二、 背景\n\n如证据 A 所载，本人于 2026 年 5 月 31 日向 District Court（地方法院）提交了依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 的第三方请愿书，基于在 G-Series（G系列）中投资的 $134,361 主张财产权益。本人亦于 2026 年 6 月 1 日向地方法院邮寄了该请愿书的纸质副本。相关证明见证据 B。\n\n2026 年 6 月 3 日，在未收到任何登记录入案卷（docketing）确认的情况下，本人提交了一份要求强制录入本人 § 853(n) 请愿书案卷的动议。自该次提交至今已过去近两周时间。截至目前，本人的 § 853(n) 请愿书及要求强制录入案卷的动议均未被地方法院录入案卷，且法院未采取任何行动。因此，本人仍无法进入地方法院这一法庭以使本人的法定主张获得正式立案与审理。\n\n原定的判决日期为 2026 年 4 月 27 日，后被地方法院推迟至 2026 年 6 月\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 2 of 24\n\n29 日，详见 SDNY（纽约南区地方法院）Dkt 837，推迟理由为“鉴于双方当事人大量的判决前提交文件中提出的未决问题的复杂性”。\n\n三、 地方法院持续存在的选择性录入案卷待遇\n\n地方法院未能录入本人 § 853(n) 请愿书的行为并非个例，而是影响本案中众多第三方权利主张人的更广泛且持续存在的模式的一部分。\n\n首先，本院已受理了十余起基于同一根本问题提起的执行令请愿：即地方法院未能提供一套一致的程序机制供第三方提交文件并予以录入案卷。这一模式反映出的是一种系统性的准入障碍，而非针对个案的偶发异常。\n\n其次，现有的 SDNY 案卷反映出有代理律师的与 pro se（自行代理的）§ 853(n) 主张人之间存在不一致的待遇。例如，SDNY Dkt. 777 显示，由律师代理的当事人 Weicheng Zeng（曾伟成）提交的 § 853(n) 请愿书尽管是在 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 规定的法定期限之外提交的，但仍被接受并录入案卷。相比之下，在 SDNY Dkt. 744 之后，自行代理的第三方提交的文件——包括本人提交的文件——根本未被录入案卷，从而实质上剥夺了当事人进入法定义务程序的途径。\n\n第三，在 2026 年 1 月 20 日的状态会议（status conference）期间，地方法院曾讨论过可能指定一名 special master（特别主事官/特派专员）来解决由 § 853(n) 主张及受害者相关问题引发的复杂争议。当时，法院承认了这些相互冲突的主张的规模与复杂性。原定于 2026 年 4 月 27 日的判决日期随后被推迟。然而，距离目前定于 2026 年 6 月 29 日的判决日期已不足三周，法院既未指定特别主事官，也未建立任何替代性程序框架来解决这些争议。\n\n第四，2026 年 5 月 15 日，本院审理了一组连带提起的执行令请愿，并再次强调：“鉴于地方法院收到的大量提交文件，我们相信地方法院将迅速予以处理”，在不影响如果地方法院未能在合理时间内录入提交文件时再次提请的前提下（without prejudice to renewal），驳回了救济请求。尽管有此明确指引，地方法院仍未采取任何实质性行动以确保护送录卷的一致性\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 3 of 24\n\n或程序准入。结果，众多第三方提交的文件至今仍未被录入案卷。\n\n综合上述情况表明，这不仅是拖延问题，而是持续未能向第三方主张人提供任何可靠的程序途径以依据 § 853(n) 主张其法定权利。\n\n四、 关于受害者提交文件待遇的平行关切\n\n上述程序缺陷不仅限于 § 853(n) 主张人，同样延伸至对受害者提交文件的处理方式。\n\n在 SDNY Dkt. 511 中，Government（政府方）认定了两类所谓的受害者：(i) 认为自己被骗的个人，以及 (ii) 不认为自己被骗或被定性为可能与被告结盟的个人。SDNY Dkt. 528 进一步指出，非当事人仅可通过两种法定机制寻求救济：依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提起的请愿书，或依据 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪受害者权利法案》，简称“CVRA”）提起的动议。\n\n在此背景下，关于受害者身份和受偿资格的争议越来越多地在上诉法院进行诉讼，而非在地方法院得到解决。例如，在案件编号 25-2726 (Dkt. 46) 中，政府方质疑某些个人是否“确实主张受到损害”，抑或是试图对控诉提出异议。随后在相关案件中提交的文件，包括案件编号 26-77 (Dkt. 18) 及 SDNY Dkt. 848，均对 remission（特赦返还/没收财产返还）程序的公正完整性提出了关切。\n\n这些事态发展表明，CVRA 途径在实践中已变得程序不稳定且充满争议。在这种情况下，§ 853(n) 代表了本人用以主张财产权利的唯一明确的法定机制。因此，地方法院未能录入本人 § 853(n) 请愿书的行为，不仅拖延了本人的权利主张，更实质上阻断了本人获得救济的唯一可靠途径。\n\n五、 关于没收资产的严重关切\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 4 of 24\n\n地方法院案卷记录以及相关第二巡回法院诉讼程序中的大量证据，对作为 Defendant Wang（被告王雁平）同意没收（consent forfeiture）基础的没收资产池的合法性与事实基础提出了严重质疑。\n\n正如第二巡回法院案件编号 26-361 及记录保全材料 (Dkt. 29) 所反映的，涉案资产存在大量未决的实质性争议。其中包括但不限于：所有权定性问题、资金混同、多层级交易结构，以及掩盖了直接资金追溯的中介转账机制的使用。\n\nDkt. 29 中提交的材料进一步记录了同期的 Alliance（联盟）相关转账，证明了涉及多个中介机构的复杂多步资金流向。该证据记录反映出一种远比任何简化或线性损失模型复杂得多的财务结构，并对资金应如何归属、分类或追溯带来了巨大的不确定性。\n\n鉴于这种复杂性，政府方目前的损失和受害者框架似乎不足以涵盖记录中所反映的中介媒介交易的全部范围以及存在争议的所有权权益。\n\n此外，被告王雁平的认罪协议及相关的没收附带协议（SDNY Dkt. 488）声称将没收资产池内的资产广泛涵盖在内。然而，在所有权、资金追溯和分类方面仍存在重大未决争议的情况下——包括来自指控受害者和第三方的相互冲突的主张——任何最终的没收裁定都有可能建立在不完整且可能不可靠的事实基础之上。\n\n这些未决问题直接关系到涉案资产首先是否应当作为被告王雁平的财产予以没收。它们也直接影响到包括本人在内的第三方财产权益能否以公正且合法合规的方式得到审理。\n\n在这些情况下，未能将第三方的 § 853(n) 提交文件录入案卷并加以审理，不仅拖延了司法裁判，更实质上损害了没收程序本身的公正完整性。\n\n六、 Cheney 标准\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 5 of 24\n\n本人谨提出，签发执行令是正当合理的，因为：(1) 本人没有其他充分的手段来获得救济；(2) 本人获得救济的权利明确且无可争议；以及 (3) 在此等情况下签发该命令是适当的。\n\n首先，本人没有其他充分的手段来获得救济。地方法院未将本人的 § 853(n) 请愿书或本人的相关强制录卷动议录入案卷，这阻碍了对本人主张的任何审理，并剥夺了本人利用用以主张财产权利的唯一可用法定机制的机会。\n\n其次，本人获得救济的权利明确且无可争议。第 853(n) 条为像本人这样的第三方主张人提供了一条主张财产权益的强制性程序途径。地方法院因未能将本人提交的文件录入案卷，实质上彻底取消了该途径。\n\n第三，在当前情况下签发该命令是适当的。尽管有本院先前的指引且判决日期日益临近，地方法院仍持续未能将包括本人在内的第三方提交的文件录入案卷。这种持续的失职反映出更广泛的诉讼准入机制崩溃，有必要进行有限的司法干预以维护没收程序的公正完整性。\n\n基于上述理由，本人谨认为已完全符合获得执行令救济的法定要件。\n\n七、 诉求救济\n\n基于前述理由，本人谨请求本院签发执行令，责令地方法院：\n\n1. 迅速将本人于 2026 年 5 月 31 日提交并于 2026 年 6 月 1 日邮寄纸质副本的 § 853(n) 请愿书录入案卷；\n\n2. 确保依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提交的第三方文件以一致且及时的方式录入案卷，以便在判决之前为审理第三方财产权益提供有意义的程序途径。\n\n本人进一步请求本院在当前情况下认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 6 of 24\n\n谨此提交，\nZhiqiang Chen（陈志强）\n1524 65th ST #2FL, Brooklyn, NY 11219\n+1(917)774-8848\nchenzhiq9@gmail.com\n2026 年 6 月 8 日\n\n*(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 6/8/2026)*\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 7 of 24\n\n证据 A\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 8 of 24\n\n*(图片：Chase（摩根大通银行）汇出电汇申请单 \"Wire Transfer Outgoing Request\"，标第 1 页，共 4 页)*\n\n- 电汇汇款人信息\n - 汇款人姓名：ZHI QIANG CHEN\n - 账户名称：ZHI QIANG CHEN\n - 城市/州/邮编/国家：BROOKLYN, NY, 11219-5729, USA\n - 日间电话：917-774-8848\n - 主要证件类型：驾照（NY）；证件签发日期 12/31/2015；证件到期日 10/27/2021\n - 次要证件类型：Chase或银行签发的信用卡/借记卡；证件号码 XXXXXXXXXXXX[已涂黑]；证件到期日 09/30/2025\n- 电汇信息\n - 申请日期：03/18/2021，美国东部时间上午 09:52:59；生效日期 03/18/2021；电汇类型：国内\n - 扣款账号 #：XXXXX；扣款账户类型：CHASE BETTER BANKING\n - 电汇金额（美元）：$100,060.00；资金来源：支票账户；电汇手续费：$35.00\n - 币种：美元；汇率 不适用；实收金额（美元）：$100,095.00\n- 收款人账户信息\n - 账户名称：CRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC\n - 账号：[已涂黑]；给收款人的附言：REF#[已涂黑]\n- 收款银行信息\n - 银行名称：Citibank, N.A.；街道：1000 Willis Ave；银行 ABA/SWIFT：021000089；城市/州/邮编：Albertson, NY 11507, USA\n\nN15220-CS WTA (08/2019)\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 9 of 24\n\n（图片：Chase 电汇申请单 \"Wire Transfer Outgoing Request\"，标 Page 1 of 4）\n\n- 电汇汇款人信息\n - 汇款人姓名：ZHI CHEN\n - 账户名称：ZHI CHEN；街道地址 [已涂黑]\n - 城市/州/邮编/国家：BROOKLYN, NY, 11219-5729, USA；日间电话 917-774-8848\n - 主要证件类型：驾照（NY）；证件号码 [已涂黑]；证件签发日期 10/20/2021；证件到期日 10/27/2029\n- 电汇信息\n - 申请日期：12/18/2021，美国东部时间上午 11:43:50；生效日期 12/20/2021；电汇类型：国内\n - 扣款账号 #：XXXXX8377；扣款账户类型：CHASE BETTER BANKING\n - 电汇金额（美元）：$24,301.00；资金来源：支票账户；电汇手续费：$35.00\n - 实收金额（美元）：$24,336.00\n- 收款人账户信息\n - 账户名称：sirius networking Inc.；账号：703100013\n - 给收款人的附言：Sirius networking inc. 651 N Broad Street Ste 205 #4568 Middletown, DE 19709\n- 收款银行信息\n - 银行名称：JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association；街道：875 Saw Mill River Rd；银行 ABA/SWIFT：021000021；城市/州/邮编：Ardsley, NY 10502-1117, USA\n - 给收款银行的附言：199 Main Street Los Altos, CA 94022 Chase\n\nN15220-CS WTA (08/2019)\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 10 of 24\n\n（图片：手机截图，gclubs.com 账户页，时间 9:19）\n\nG|CLUBS — 我的账户\n- CHEN 先生\n- Tier 5 会员\n- 会员卡：1000010010000582\n- 会员有效期：有效期至 2022年11月19日\n- 会员权益：GIFASHION 50% VIP优惠；G|CLUBS 手册\n- 会员信用：$0 USD\n- 会员状态：有效会员\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 11 of 24\n\n（图片：手机截图，gclubs.com 购买历史，时间 9:19）\n\nG|CLUBS — 返回我的账户 / 购买历史\n订单时间　订单号\n2021年10月31日　KF2110311556\n2021年8月16日　TK210817021(0)\n2021年6月27日　DQ210627163\n2020年10月29日　ZX201029044…\n\n联系我们 / 用户协议 / 隐私协议\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 12 of 24\n\n（图片：手机邮件截图 \"付款已收到\"，时间 10:35）\n\n尊敬的 ZHI Q CHEN，\n\n您于2020-10-29 04:44:51提交了完整的 G|CLUBS 1级的会员申请。您的会员费 $10000 也已收到。我们正在审核您的申请材料，如需获取更多信息，会与您联系。您将于30天内通过电子邮件收到申请结果。\n\n我们建议您在 G|CLUBS 的网站 www.gclubs.com 上查询您的申请编号 ZX2010290444511，打印并保留一份申请副本，包含您的《会员资格协议》及附带的相关披露信息。您也可以在我们的网站上查询到 G|CLUBS 的使用条款和隐私政策。\n\n根据《会员资格协议》及披露中说明的情况，您可以在规定的时间范围内，通过电子邮件或邮寄的方式取消您的会员申请，及要求退还会员费。\n\n再次感谢您对 G|CLUBS 的关注。如果您还有其他疑问，请通过 info@gclubs.com 与我们联系。\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 13 of 24\n\n（图片：Chase 个人支票 No. 102）\n\n- 出票人：ZHI QIANG CHEN，BROOKLYN, NY 11219-5729\n- DATE: 10/29/2020\n- PAY TO THE ORDER OF: G Club Operations LLC — $10,000.00（Ten thousand only）\n- MEMO: ZX2010290444511\n- 银行：JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.；ABA 021000021（支票底栏）\n- 手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 14 of 24\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n---------------------------------- X\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n -v.-（诉）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“七哥”，又名“校长”，\n\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，以及\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n 被告。\n\n根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第32.2条及《美国法典》第21卷第853(n)条要求裁定申请人对134361美元特定财产权利的请愿书\n\nS1 23 CR 118 (AT)\n---------------------------------- X\n\n本人，Zhiqiang Chen（陈志强），作为亲自诉讼的请愿人向本法院提出动议，根据《美国法典》第21卷第853(n)条及《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第32.2(c)条（下称“本请愿书”），恭请返还本人拥有合法权利、所有权和/或权益的资金（下称“申请人财产”）（如下文更完整之定义），且该笔资金已被United States Government（美国政府，下称“政府”）作为与被告Yvette Wang（王雁平，下称“被告Wang”）达成的没收裁定的一部分而不当扣押。\nI. 背景\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 15 of 24\n\n2021年3月18日，本人向Crane Advisory Group LLC电汇了$100,060，作为对G系列项目的投资。该笔资金目前已被政府冻结在账号为6867165278的账户中。（见附件A。）\n\n附件A进一步显示，2021年12月18日，本人向Sirius Networking Inc.账号为703100013的账户追加投资了$24301，用于获取Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）的份额。然而，由于当时适用于美国人士的监管及开户限制，本人无法接收或持有此类数字资产。因此，与该笔投资相关的喜马拉雅币从未交付给本人。\n\n附件A的最后一页显示，本人还于2020年10月29日向G Club Operations LLC投资了$10,000。附件A的第3页至第5页进一步反映了本人对G Club投资的书面证明。\n\n尽管这些账户并未在没收裁定中明确列出（见纽约南区案卷第488、720号文件），但本人有理由相信，这些资金随后通过中介账户被转移至受政府没收行动约束的账户中，因而实际上已被冻结。\n\n因此，这两笔投资均直接或间接地卷入了政府的资产限制和没收方案之中。\nII. 登记入卷及裁定本请愿书的理由\n\n1：关于选择性登记入卷的担忧以及对同类处境请愿人进行一致对待的必要性：\n\n本人承认，本人的请愿书是在《美国法典》第21卷第853(n)条规定的期限之外提交的。然而，此处所呈现的情况理应获得超越严格时效限制的考量。\n\n多名据称受害者已向Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）提交了职务履行令请愿书，基于本案中存在选择性登记入卷行为的指控，请求强制地区法院将其\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 16 of 24\n\n提交的文件登记入卷并予以审议。这些归档反映了一种更广泛且持续存在的担忧，即某些提交的文件未能得到一致或透明的对待。\n\n案卷记录进一步显示，在纽约南区案卷第777号文件中，由代理律师代理的一方Weicheng Zeng提交的请愿书被接收并登记入卷，尽管该请愿书是在《美国法典》第21卷第853(n)条规定的法定期限之外提交的。相比之下，由亲自诉讼个人提交的众多请愿书尽管提出了同类权利主张，却未被登记入卷或予以审议。\n\n目前，本案引发的不少于十三起职务履行令请愿书正在第二巡回上诉法院审理中。在上诉法院日期为2026年5月15日的裁定中，法院明确指出：“鉴于地区法院收到的大量提交文件，我们相信法院将迅速予以处理。”该表述反映了上诉法院对于所有提交文件均应得到及时且公平处理的期望。\n\n鉴于上述情况，如果法院选择性地拒绝将本人的请愿书登记入卷——特别是在处于同类处境甚至逾期的提交已被接收的情况下——将引发关于公平性、一致性以及司法程序完整性的严重担忧。为避免进一步的不一致以及与第二巡回上诉法院指令的潜在冲突，本人谨请求不论是否存在任何被指称的时效问题，均将本人的请愿书登记入卷并予以审议。\n\n2：受害者获取司法救济的途径受到实质性损害\n\n政府在纽约南区案卷第511号文件中的归档描述了两类据称受害者：(i) 认识到涉嫌欺诈并认为自己受到被告故意欺骗的个人，以及 (ii) 不认为自己被欺诈的个人，包括被政府描述为可能串通参与涉嫌方案或被误导从而反对政府立场的个人。政府进一步指出，这些类别中的许多人现在认为自己的资金被错误扣押。\n\n法院在纽约南区案卷第528号文件中的裁定同样确认，非当事人当事人仅可通过根据《美国法典》第21卷第853(n)条提出的第三方请愿书，或根据《Crime Victims' Rights Act（犯罪受害者权利法）》（下称“CVRA”）提出的动议来寻求救济，该法适用于受到被告涉嫌行为“直接且近因损害”的人员。\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 17 of 24\n\n尽管有这一框架，但随后的诉讼程序并未反映出用于CVRA参与的一致或具有操作性的机制。没有任何CVRA请愿书以符合法院裁定的方式被登记入卷或裁定，相反，多名亲自诉讼的请愿人被引导或被迫转向第二巡回上诉法院的职务履行令上诉程序，包括案号为25-2726的案件。\n\n在该程序中，政府本身质疑某些请愿人是否“真正声称因郭的犯罪行为而受到损害，或者他们是否反而试图作为郭的继续支持者来质疑并拖延对郭的起诉。”这一定性似乎难以与政府自己在第511号文件中关于受害者的框架相调和，该框架并未将受害者地位以与政府的诉讼立场保持一致为前提条件。\n\n同样，在第二巡回上诉法院案号26-77（案卷第18号文件）以及与纽约南区相关的职务履行令程序（包括纽约南区案卷第848号文件Bao Chu）中的归档引发了担忧，即受害者登记和减免程序的执行并不统一，并可能受到有关资格和影响的不一致陈述的影响。\n\n综合来看，这些情况反映出政府所阐述的受害者框架、法院的程序指令与CVRA相关提交文件的实际处理之间存在明显的不协调。这种不协调导致了受害者寻求救济的正当程序渠道存在不确定性。鉴于上述情况，选择性地拒绝将本人的请愿书登记入卷——特别是在处于同类处境甚至逾期的提交已被接收的情况下——将引发关于公平性、一致性以及司法程序完整性的严重担忧。\n\n在实际操作中，本案中受害者一侧可用的渠道要么受到实质性阻碍，要么受到实质性污染：CVRA参与未能作为一条一致的裁决途径发挥作用，而减免和受害者登记程序又被误导性、中介主导或其他不可靠的做法所笼罩。在此种局面下，第853(n)条仍然是像本人这样的请愿人能够切实且合法地寻求对其财产权益进行裁定的唯一司法机制。\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 18 of 24\n\n3：地区法院和第二巡回上诉法院随后的证据对Wang的同意没收的合法性提出了严重质疑\n\n正如 Second Circuit（第二巡回法院）第 26-361 号案件以及 Dkt. 29 中的记录保全材料所反映的那样，本案中与没收相关的资产池存在大量尚未解决的实质性争议，包括与主权及资金法律性质认定相关的问题、资产混同、多层级的交易“分层”（layering），以及中介转账机制的使用。\n\nDkt. 29 进一步反映了 Alliance（联盟）相关转账的详细同期记录，这些记录表明存在高度复杂且涉及多个中介的多步骤资金流动。这些记录表明，底层金融架构远比简化的“单一受害者”或线性损失模型要复杂得多。\n\n鉴于这种复杂性，政府现有的损失与受害者框架似乎不足以涵盖记录中所反映的由中介促成的转账以及存在争议的所有权权益的全部范围。\n\n此外，Defendant Wang（被告王）的认罪答辩协议及相关约定（SDNY Dkt. 488）声称涵盖对其中所宽泛界定之资产的没收。然而，在关于资金所有权、追溯和分类的重大争议仍未解决的情况下——包括由受害者框架引起的相互竞争的权利主张以及记录在案的资产混同——在未事先解决这些问题的情况下作出最终没收决定，可能会依赖于不完整的事实基础。\n\n因此，这些未决争议直接关系到涉案财产实际上是否属于作为被告王权益的可没收财产，以及是否可以在可靠的事实记录上对我等第三方的权益作出裁判。\nIII. 申请的救济：\n\n基于前述理由，我谨请求法院：\n\n1. 指示将本申诉书记入案卷并录入记录，以保留上诉审查之目的，并确保记录完整且\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 19 of 24\n\n透明；\n\n2. 根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 和 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》）第 32.2(c) 条裁判我的权利主张，包括申诉人所主张的对已明确的共计 $134361 资金的法定及衡平权益；根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 和 Rule 32.2(c) 安排可能需要的进一步程序，以确定我是否确立了优于被告王对该财产的合法权利、所有权或权益。\n\n3. 准予法院认为公正且适当的该等其他及进一步救济。\n\n谨此提交，\nZhiqiang Chen（陈志强），\n1524 65th ST #2FL, Brooklyn, NY 11219\n+1(917)774-8848\nchenzhiq9@gmail.com\n\n(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 5/31/2026)\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 20 of 24\n\n证物 B\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 21 of 24\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n 原告，\n诉\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a MILES GUO, et al.（郭文贵，又名郭浩云等），\n 被告。\n案件编号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n请求强制将 853n 动议记入案卷的动议\n\n尊敬的 Torres（托雷斯）法官：\n\n我谨致信告知法院，我于 2026年5月31日 提交了一份 853n 动议。标题为“根据联邦刑事诉讼规则第 32.2 条和 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 请求裁判申诉人对 $134361 特定财产权利的申诉书”。我还于 2026年6月1日 邮寄了该动议的纸质副本。\n\n我谨请求法院指示书记官在收到我的动议后将其记入案卷。\n\n谨此提交，\nZhiqiang Chen\n2026年6月3日\n\n(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 6/3/2026)\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 22 of 24\n\n(图片：USPS Certified Mail 回执 + 收据，旋转 90°，影像较暗)\n\n- USPS — PARKVILLE, 6618 20TH AVE, BROOKLYN NY 11204-9997；日期 06/11/2026 03:22 PM\n- 追踪号码：9589 0710 5270 3371 7385 00\n- 美国邮政署挂号信收据（仅限国内邮件）\n- 寄至（手写）：500 Pearl Street, Room D[C], New York, NY 1[0]0[0]7\n- 含 Certified Fee / Extra Services & Fees / Postage 等栏（手写金额模糊）；此处盖邮戳\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 23 of 24\n\n(右上角骑缝戳：US COURT OF APPEALS / RECEIVED / 2026 JUN 12 PM 3:01)\n\n送达证明\n\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n纽约南区案件：United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n我在此证明，于 2026年6月9日，已送达下列文件的真实正确副本：\n\n PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS（执行令申请书）\n 证物 A\n 证物 B\n\n送达已对下列接收人完成：\n\n1. The Honorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）\n 美国联邦地区法官\n 美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n 500 Pearl Street\n New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n2. Ryan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\n 美国助理检察官\n 美国联邦检察官办公室\n 纽约南区\n One St. Andrew's Plaza\n New York, NY 10007\n\n谨此提交，\nZhiqiang Chen\n申诉人，pro se（自行代理）\n2026年6月9日\n\n(手写签名：Zhiqiang Chen / 6/9/2026)\n\nCase: 26-1629, 06/12/2026, DktEntry: 1.1, Page 24 of 24\n\n(图片：寄往二巡的挂号信封)\n\n- 寄件人：ZHI QIANG CHEN, 1524 65th street 2FL, Brooklyn NY 11249 (原件笔误，应为 11219)\n- 收件人：Clerk Court, United States Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 40 Foley Square, New York NY 10007\n- USPS Retail / FCM LG ENV / BROOKLYN NY / JUN 10, 2026 / $8.02；挂号信；追踪 9589 0710 5270 3371 7…\n- 落地戳：USM[AILED] SDNY","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4119,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:30:12"}