{"id":"court_2cir_26-361_dkt_34","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-361_dkt_34","summary_zh":"强制令续请愿书(Renewed 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 26-361 号 ECF #34(2026年6月15日立案)。请愿人 Tony 以犯罪被害人权利法(CVRA,18 U.S.C. § 3771(e))下的被害人身份续请上诉法院发出强制令,指其2月18日、5月23日提交地区法院的材料迟迟未获正式立案,并称地区法院'拒绝直接受理 pro se 强制令材料、却将其作为上诉材料副本挂上 SDNY 案卷'的做法构成程序性规避,已致 Ryan Bai 等人的姓名、住址、联系方式等个人信息在公开案卷中泄露(如 SDNY Dkt. 765、845);其援引'Cheney 标准'三要件,指出6月29日量刑日期临近、此前两个月延期未解决相关问题。","summary_en":"Renewed Petition for Writ of Mandamus — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), Second Circuit No. 26-361, ECF/DktEntry #34 (filed June 15, 2026). Petitioner Tony, proceeding as a crime victim under the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)), renews his request that the Circuit compel the District Court to docket his February 18 and May 23, 2026 submissions, arguing that the District Court's practice of declining to docket pro se mandamus materials directly while later posting copies of appellate mandamus filings on the SDNY docket amounts to \"procedural shielding\" that has exposed petitioners' personal information (citing Ryan Bai's name/address/contact details via SDNY Dkt. 765 and a Chinese investor's ID data via SDNY Dkt. 845). Invoking the three Cheney factors, he contends the prior two-month adjournment did not resolve the underlying issues as the June 29, 2026 sentencing date approaches.","body_en":"Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 26\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\nFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\nIn re: Tony,\nVictim in United States v. Kwok, et al.,\n1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nRENEWED PETITION FOR WRIT OF\nMANDAMUS\nI. Introduction\nI, Tony, a crime victim within the meaning of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act\n(“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e), respectfully petition this Court for a renewed writ\nof mandamus.\nII. Background\nOn February 18, 2026, this Court docketed my mandamus petition, which sought\nan order directing the District Court to docket my submission, which is materially\nrelated to sentencing. That submission was included as Exhibit D to my original\nmandamus petition and is attached here as Exhibit A.\nOn March 11, 2026, the Court directed that multiple related matters—Nos. 25-\n3046, 26-77, 26-361, 26-364, 26-441, and 26-563—be heard in tandem.\nOn March 16, 2026, I filed a record-preservation submission in the district court\n(referenced in Second Circuit No. 26-361, Dkt. 16), requesting that materials\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 26\nrelating to the other mandamus proceedings be consistently docketed and made\npart of the district court record, to avoid inconsistent treatment across petitioners.\nAlthough the district court had received my mandamus-related materials as early\nas February 18, 2026, those materials were not publicly docketed until March 26,\n2026 (SDNY Dkt. 817).\nOn April 18, 2026, I filed an emergency motion in this Court seeking to stay\nsentencing pending resolution of the mandamus petition. The Government filed\nits opposition on May 1, 2026, and I submitted a reply the same day.\nOn April 23, 2026, the District Court adjourned the original sentencing to June\n29, 2026, stating “Due to the complexity of the outstanding issues raised in the\nparties' voluminous sentencing submissions”.\nOn May 15, 2026, this Court issued an order addressing the tandem petitions,\nmy mandamus petition was denied with the stating in relevant part: “In view of\nthe large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the\ncourt will address expeditiously, petitioners’ mandamus petitions as to docketing\ntheir submissions are denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails\nto docket the submissions within a reasonable time.”\nOn May 23, 2026, while reviewing my case materials, I identified an additional\nexhibit relating to alliance ledger records. I promptly submitted that material to\nthe district court for record preservation and filed it in this Court (Dkt. 29).\nIII. Procedural Concern of how District Court Treat Mandamus\nPetitions\nA separate procedural concern arises from the manner in which the District Court\nhas treated mandamus petitions filed in the Court of Appeals by pro se\npetitioners in this case.\nMore than ten pro se mandamus matters arising from this criminal case have\nnow been opened in the Second Circuit. In each instance, the underlying pattern\nhas been similar: the petitioners attempted to submit materials directly to the\nDistrict Court, but those submissions were not docketed in the ordinary course,\nthereby preventing the petitioners from obtaining access to the District Court as a\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 26\nforum in which a motion could be formally filed and adjudicated.\nOnce mandamus proceedings are opened in the Court of Appeals, however, the\nDistrict Court has repeatedly placed copies of those appellate mandamus papers\nonto the SDNY docket. This creates a serious procedural distortion. No rule\nrequires the District Court to treat an appellate mandamus petition as a substitute\nfor docketing the underlying district-court submission. Nor does the later\nappearance of mandamus papers on the SDNY docket cure the earlier failure to\ndocket the original filing in a form that is actually adjudicable. At most, this\npractice makes the substance visible while avoiding ordinary district-court\ntreatment of the submission itself. In practical effect, it operates as a form of\nprocedural shielding.\nThis practice has also produced concrete privacy harms. Because of the\nsensitivity of this case, the SDNY docket is closely monitored by multiple\ninterested actors. After Ryan Bai’s first mandamus filing was placed on the SDNY\ndocket as Dkt. 765, his full name, home address, telephone number, and email\naddress were exposed. More recently, in connection with SDNY Dkt. 845, a\nMainland Chinese investor—apparently unfamiliar with the relevant procedural\nand privacy rules—had highly sensitive identifying information exposed on the\npublic docket, including Chinese identification information. These exposures are\nespecially serious in a case involving Mainland Chinese investors, many of whom\nhave alleged interrogation, coercion, arrest, or prosecution by PRC authorities.\nRyan Bai has specifically asserted that the District Court’s decision to place his\nmandamus materials on the SDNY docket in this manner was a retaliatory\nmove, resulting in the public exposure of his personal information. Ryan Bai\nsubsequently filed Second Circuit Dkt. 30 to expand the mandamus relief in Case\nNo. 25-2726 seeking, inter alia, recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), citing the\nappearance of bias and conflict arising from the District Court’s handling of these\nmatters. Regardless of the ultimate merit of that request, the fact that the District\nCourt’s treatment of mandamus-related filings has itself generated further claims\nof bias, privacy harm, and appellate litigation underscores the seriousness of the\nissue.\nAccordingly, the Court should address whether its current practice—refusing\nordinary docketing of pro se submissions while later placing appellate mandamus\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 4 of 26\npapers on the SDNY docket—has deprived me of meaningful district-court\naccess, distorted the ordinary adjudicative process, and exposed sensitive\nindividuals to avoidable harm.\nIV. The District Court’s Prior Adjournment Has Not Resolved the\nIssues, and the Failure to Act Has Become More Serious as\nSentencing Nears\nThe District Court’s prior two-month adjournment did not resolve the underlying\nissues. As of now, fewer than three weeks remain before the currently scheduled\nJune 29, 2026 sentencing date, and more than four weeks have passed since\nthe Second Circuit’s May 15, 2026 order stated: “In view of the large number\nof submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will\naddress expeditiously,” while denying docketing-related mandamus relief\nwithout prejudice to renewal if the District Court failed to docket the submissions\nwithin a reasonable time. Yet, to date, the District Court still has not meaningfully\naddressed the core issues that several victims identified in their stay motions\n(See other petitioners’ stay motion: 25-2726, 26-77, 26-441) as directly bearing\non sentencing. Those issues did not disappear merely because sentencing was\nadjourned. To the contrary, they have become more serious with time, as\nthe District Court has neither provided a procedural path for resolving them\nnor stated that it will decline to rely on the disputed matters at sentencing.\nUnder these circumstances, the prior adjournment cannot be viewed as having\ncured the problem; it has instead exposed the continuing failure to confront\nissues that directly affect the reliability and integrity of the sentencing\nprocess.\nV. Cheney Standards:\n1: I lack any other adequate means of obtaining relief.\nThis is not the first time the Court of Appeals has expressed the expectation that\nthe District Court would promptly address pro se submissions in this case. In\naddition to the May 15, 2026 tandem order, the Second Circuit had already\nstated in Ryan Bai’s earlier mandamus matter that, “[i]n view of the large number\nof submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 5 of 26\nexpeditiously,” relief was denied without prejudice to renewal if the District Court\nfailed to act within a reasonable time. See SDNY Dkt. 767 (reflecting the\nNovember 26, 2025 order). Despite that prior appellate warning, the same\ndocketing and access problems have continued.\nThe District Court’s own handling of victim-rights submissions has further\ndemonstrated the absence of any effective district-court remedy. At the January\n20, 2026 status conference, the Court referred to CVRA motions as “complaints.”\nBy omitting any reference to the CVRA and by characterizing victim-rights\nsubmissions in that manner, the Court effectively downgraded those filings into a\ncategory carrying no assurance of docketing, adjudication, or procedural\nrecognition as statutory victim-rights motions.\nThe Court’s subsequent two-month adjournment did not cure these problems.\nNow, with fewer than three weeks remaining before the June 29, 2026\nsentencing date, the District Court still has not opened an evidentiary hearing,\nprovided a meaningful remedial framework, or docketed multiple third-party\nsubmissions under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the CVRA. Nor has it resolved the\nissues that several victims identified in their stay motions as directly bearing on\nsentencing. Those issues have not disappeared with time; they have instead\ndeepened. Under these circumstances, the continuing failure to docket, hear, or\notherwise process these matters now reflects a state of procedural paralysis,\nleaving petitioners without any adequate means of obtaining relief except through\nmandamus.\n2. My right to relief is clear and indisputable.\nMy right to relief is clear and indisputable. First, the District Court may not\neffectively deny basic docket access where the Court has expressly\nrecognized § 853(n) and CVRA as the only statutory avenues for nonparties\nin SDNY Dkt. 528, it may not render those avenues illusory through non-\ndocketing or procedural downgrading. Docketing is a ministerial function, and the\nlater appearance of mandamus materials on the district-court docket does not\nconvert the underlying submission into a properly docketed and adjudicable\ndistrict-court motion. I therefore have a clear right to ordinary docket treatment of\nsubmissions properly directed to the District Court.\nSecond, several of the unresolved submissions identify issues that directly bear\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 6 of 26\non sentencing, including victim identity, ownership, tracing, forfeiture scope,\nrecord contamination, and the reliability of the Government’s asserted loss\nframework. As explained in my stay motion (26-361 Dkt 18), the source structure\nof the funds included within the Government’s proposed loss calculation was\nnever meaningfully developed at trial. My Chinese court materials, together with\nthe Alliance-ledger materials later submitted in Dkt. 29 for record-preservation\npurposes, reflect a highly intermixed funding structure in which Mainland Chinese\ninvestors entered the U.S.-linked pool through layered intermediary mechanisms,\nincluding Chinese yuan settlement through intermediaries (黄牛). In that posture,\nthe Government’s loss model remains materially unverified. It does not appear to\nhave explicitly tested whether the same funds can be consistently classified as\n“actual loss” under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 across competing interpretive frameworks,\nnor does it resolve whether portions of the aggregated inflows should instead be\ntreated as non-loss, disputed, or legally ambiguous funds.\nUnder Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B), the District Court may not\nsimply proceed on an untested and materially disputed loss framework to the\nextent that framework bears on sentencing. Where the underlying source pool\nremains unresolved, highly commingled, and subject to competing legal\ncharacterizations, the Court must either resolve those disputes through an\nadequate process or expressly determine that it will not rely on the disputed loss\nmatters in imposing sentence.\n3. Mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances.\nMandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals has\nalready reminded the District Court, on more than one occasion, that the large\nnumber of submissions in this case should be addressed expeditiously. Yet, with\nfewer than three weeks remaining before the currently scheduled June 29, 2026\nsentencing date, the District Court still has not restored any meaningful\nprocedural path. It has not opened an evidentiary hearing, has not provided a\nworkable remedial framework, and has not even ensured ordinary docketing of\nmultiple pro se victims and third-party submissions. In practical effect, affected\nvictims and claimants are still being denied the most basic form of access to the\nDistrict Court as a forum in which their statutory motions may be filed, heard, and\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 7 of 26\nadjudicated.\nThis failure is especially serious because the District Court itself expressly\nrecognized in Dkt. 528 that nonparties may seek relief through a motion under\nthe Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Having acknowledged the availability of the CVRA\nas a statutory avenue, the Court cannot then, in practice, deny victims any\nmeaningful ability to enter the Court, docket their submissions, and seek\nadjudication of those rights. To do so is not merely administrative delay; it\neffectively strips the CVRA route of practical force and deprives victims of the\nprocedural protection the statute was meant to provide.\nThe circumstances are also extraordinary because the submissions at issue do\nnot concern marginal or collateral matters. In my own filings, I submitted Chinese\ncharging and court materials bearing directly on the treatment of G-Series\ninvestors in the People’s Republic of China, including evidence showing the\npolitical and sovereign risks those investors faced there. That evidentiary\ndimension was not presented at trial. Only after my mandamus filings did the\nissue emerge in a concrete form: namely, that the same underlying funds may be\ntreated in China as connected to “the crime of funding activities that endanger\nnational security,” while in the United States they are treated as funds belonging\nto ordinary fraud victims. This is not a minor dispute. It bears directly on the\nfactual architecture of the case, on the characterization of victim status and loss,\nand on the reliability of the sentencing and forfeiture record now before the\nDistrict Court.\nUnder these circumstances, mandamus is not being sought as a substitute for\nordinary review, but because ordinary process has broken down. Where the\nDistrict Court has repeatedly failed to docket, hear, or otherwise process\nsubmissions that bear directly on sentencing and on the factual integrity of the\ncase itself, issuance of the writ is appropriate.\nVI. Relief Sought\nMy original mandamus filings only focused primarily on the CVRA because the\nDistrict Court had indicated in the status conference on January 20, 2026 that §\n853-related matters would be addressed through a special-master process. That\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 8 of 26\nprocess, however, has not materialized. No special master has been appointed,\nno schedule has been set, and no alternative mechanism has been identified for\nadjudicating those property-interest issues. Under these circumstances, it is now\nnecessary for the District Court at minimum to confirm receipt of my previously\nsubmitted § 853-related motion, sent on May 19, 2-02cr-500, t11h8 e titlei s “1:23\n– Tony – Petition under 21 U.S.C §853(n) (Public Version)”, I also attached the\nproof of delivery in Exhibit E to the original mandamus which was sealed by this\nCourt.\n1. Order the district court to docket my redacted CVRA motion, Attached in\nExhibit A.\n2. Enter a docketed procedural disposition on my request, reflected in Exhibit A,\nRelief 4, for the limited purpose of preserving the appellate record and clarifying\nthe status of my submission in the district court record, including confirming\nreceipt of my CVRA motion and my § 853(n) property-interest motion without\ndirecting any substantive outcome.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony\nJune 7, 2026\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 9 of 26\nExhib i t\nA\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 10 of 26\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a MILES GUO, et al.,\nDefendants.\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nVictim’s Motion to Remedy Structural Procedural\nBreakdown and Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action\nUnder Court’s Inherent Authority\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\nDear Judge Torres:\nI, a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully submit this motion\npro se to request that the Court to Remedy Structural Procedural Breakdown\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 11 of 26\nand Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action Under Court’s Inherent\nAuthority\nI. Background\nI, have submitted multiple pro se motions to the SDNY in\nan effort to exclude my lawful G-related investments from the forfeiture\nproceedings. My filing history is as follows:\nOn September 19, 2025, I submitted my first 853(n) Third-Party\nPetition by email to the SDNY pro se intake.\nOn September 20, 2025, I submitted my first CVRA Crime Victim\nMotion.\nA few days later, I discovered that those versions lacked handwritten\nsignatures. I immediately corrected them. On September 25, 2025, I\nresubmitted both the signed 853(n) petition and the signed CVRA\nmotion by email, and also mailed the hardcopy packages to both the\nCourt and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. USPS records confirm that both\ninstitutions received and signed for the mailed filings.\nDespite these steps, none of the filings were docketed.\nOn October 22, 2025, I submitted my second CVRA motion, and in\nthat submission I included USPS Proof of Delivery showing that my\nearlier hardcopy filings had indeed been delivered but never docketed.\nIn total, I submitted three motions (one 853(n) petition and two CVRA\nmotions), each sent both electronically and in physical hardcopy.\nThese Proof-of-Delivery records are contained in\nAppendix_A_Proof_of_Delivery_to_SDNY_and_USA_Nov3_2025.pdf.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 12 of 26\nNotwithstanding these repeated attempts, none of my filings were\nuploaded to the docket, and this multi-week failure constitutes a clear\nviolation of my CVRA rights:\n1. The right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4));\n2. The right to be treated with fairness and respect (§3771(a)(8));\n3. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay\n(§3771(a)(7));\n4. The right to be protected from further harm (§3771(a)(1));\n5. The right to full and truthful consideration of victim status under\nthe statutory definition of “crime victim.”\nII. Procedural irregularity\nAs in my previous suppressed motion that was filed by 09-20-2025 :\nI am a lawful investor in G-related projects, and have never engaged\nin fraud, wrongdoing, or political activism. Nevertheless, I was\ntargeted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities, labeled\nas “a threat to national security,” and subjected to retaliatory\nprosecution solely because of the investment and the identity of the\nindividuals and platforms associated with it. I was forced to flee,\nsuffered loss of home, livelihood, community, and safety, and has\nremained in exile ever since. These facts are verified, documented,\nand corroborated by court records, including parallel cases such as\nthe prosecution and imprisonment of investor Wu who\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 13 of 26\nremains incarcerated after being accused of “subverting the State” for\npublishing minor online posts with negligible readership. The\npersecution of investors like Wu and Petitioner demonstrates that the\ndanger is real, ongoing, and directly tied to this matter.\nIf a victim is classified as a “threat to national security” and subjected\nto political persecution in their home country, and Judge Torres still\nsuppressed victims’ filing, this constitutes a serious procedural\nviolation:\n1. Violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA, 18 U.S.C. §\n3771)\n● Failure to recognize Petitioner’s status as a crime victim.\n● Denial of the right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4)).\n● Denial of fair treatment (§3771(a)(8)).\n● Failure to protect the Petitioner from further harm (§3771(a)(1)).\n● Ignoring statutory deadlines and causing procedural delays\n(§3771(a)(7)).\n● Allowing personally identifiable information (PII) to remain\nexposed, despite life-threatening risks from foreign persecution.\n2. Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process\n● Court knowingly increased risk to Petitioner (State-Created\nDanger Doctrine).\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 14 of 26\n● Denied meaningful participation in proceedings affecting\nproperty, rights, and victim recognition.\n3. Violation of Equal Protection Clause\n● Differential treatment of victims persecuted by foreign actors\n(CCP) versus baseless creditor registrants which detailed in Dkt.\n733.\n● Silencing legitimate victims while elevating unverified or\nillegitimate claimants.\n● Failure to provide heightened procedural protection to a uniquely\nvulnerable class.\n4. Violation of the Court’s Inherent Authority to Protect Litigants\nFacing Foreign Persecution\n● Ignored documented, ongoing life-threatening risk from foreign\ngovernment persecution.\n5. Continuation of Proceedings Despite Known Contamination of\nVictim Identity and Evidence\n● Bankruptcy (22-50073) Doc. 2083 admitted that creditor and\nvictim pools are overlapping and subjective.\n● Criminal proceedings proceeded without resolving identity\nconflicts, allowing baseless claimants to dominate the narrative.\n6. Ignoring External Influence and Foreign Interference Risks\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 15 of 26\n● Failed to consider CCP’s targeted persecution of G-investors as\na material factor in procedural decisions.\n● Allowed narrative and evidentiary record to reflect interests\naligned with foreign persecution actors.\n● Neglect of this factor constitutes a structural and constitutional\nviolation requiring corrective action.\n7. Structural Procedural Breakdown\nVictim-Perpetrator Identity Conflict and Structural Procedural\nBreakdown, Foreign Influence on Victim Classification\n7.1 Conflict of Legal Status\nA triple-layer identity conflict:\nIn China:\nThe same investment is classified as a threat to national\nsecurity; I am treated as a perpetrator under a political-security\nframework. Subsequently, I suffered political persecution at the\nhands of Chinese authorities, effectively making me a victim of\nstate retaliation.\nIn the United States:\nThe identical investment is characterized as part of a fraudulent\nscheme perpetrated by Guo Wengui; I am treated as a victim\nunder the CVRA and federal criminal fraud statutes.\nDirect contradiction:\nI am simultaneously considered:\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 16 of 26\n● A perpetrator by Chinese authorities;\n● A victim of political persecution by the same Chinese\nauthorities;\n● A victim of fraud under U.S. law.\nAdditional conflict – the case of Wu :\nAnother investor, Wu , was criminally convicted in China\nfor the very same investment scheme that the U.S. government\nlabels as investor fraud. Despite clearly qualifying as a fraud\nvictim under U.S. law, Wu was entirely excluded from the\nSDNY’s victim-identification process.\nSystemic implication:\nThese conflicts demonstrate that the identity contradictions\nare not isolated, but systemic, affecting the entire victim\nframework in the U.S. proceedings.\n7.2 Impact on Legal Proceedings\nU.S. court determinations regarding victim status, asset\nforfeiture, restitution, and CVRA participation rely on the\nassumption that investors are genuine victims of fraud.\nHowever:\n● If the same individual is legally treated as a perpetrator by\nanother sovereign authority;\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 17 of 26\n● If other investors such as Wu are criminally\npunished abroad for the same investment;\n● If these individuals are excluded from the U.S. victim list,\n● …then the evidentiary foundation of the U.S.\nproceedings collapses.\nThis constitutes systemic misclassification of victims, because:\n● Similarly situated individuals are classified inconsistently;\n● Core facts about who qualifies as a “victim” remain\nunresolved;\n● The evidentiary record becomes internally contradictory.\nAs a result, a structural procedural breakdown occurs: U.S. court\ndecisions rely on factual premises that cannot simultaneously be\ntrue.\n7.3 Consequences for Court Actions\nMisidentification and systemic misclassification of\nvictim/perpetrator status produce:\n● Improper inclusion or exclusion of individuals in criminal\nand forfeiture proceedings;\n● Reliance on contaminated, incomplete, or contradictory\nevidence;\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 18 of 26\n● Potential violations of Due Process, Equal Protection, and\nstatutory CVRA protections;\n● A breakdown of procedural legitimacy, because the court\ncannot lawfully proceed while the fundamental identity and\nfactual framework of the case remain contradictory.\nIn short:\nWhen the same investment produces “perpetrators” in\nChina, “victims” in the U.S., and key individuals like Wu\nare excluded, the entire victim framework becomes\ninternally inconsistent, requiring a structural corrective\nresponse to restore fairness and lawful participation.\nWhen two sovereigns classify the same individual as both a\nnational-security perpetrator and a fraud victim, the U.S.\ncourt cannot rely on unverified victim lists without first\nresolving the conflict. Proceeding without resolving this\ncontradiction renders the forfeiture framework legally\nunreliable and constitutionally infirm.\nIn addition, the victim's misclassification in this case is\nexacerbated by foreign influence. Evidence—including the\npersecution of investors like Wu and myself by the\nChinese Communist Party—demonstrates that external actors\nhave directly or indirectly shaped the narrative of who qualifies\nas a “victim.” When the U.S. court relies on these classifications\nwithout independent verification, the proceedings risk being\ncontaminated by foreign political interests, further undermining\ndue process, fairness, and the integrity of the forfeiture\nframework.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 19 of 26\n8. U.S. Court Cannot Adopt a Narrative That Aligns With a\nPersecuting Regime\nA U.S. criminal proceeding cannot constitutionally adopt a victim-\nidentification narrative that aligns, even inadvertently, with the\ninterests of the very foreign regime persecuting the victim. Doing so\nundermines the neutrality of the judicial process and violates\nfundamental due process principles.\n9. Ignoring Judicial Misconduct and Proceeding Despite Known\nContamination\nIn Dkt. 733, Ryan Bai identified potential misconduct by the\nProsecution and Trustee Luc, amounting to fraud upon the Court.\nHowever, the court:\n● failed to act on the allegations for several months, ignoring the\npotential harm to legitimate victims and allowing the\ncontinuation of forfeiture-related proceedings based on a\nrecord known to be compromised.\n● After the submission of Dkt. 733, the Court proceeded to\nadvance the forfeiture process, even though the issues raised\ndirectly undermine the reliability and legality of the underlying\nvictim-identification and asset-forfeiture determinations.\nLegal Implications:\n● Due Process Violation: Continuing proceedings on a record\nknown to be contaminated violates the Petitioner’s Fifth\nAmendment rights. The situated victims are being denied a fair\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 20 of 26\nopportunity to be heard.\n● CVRA Violation: The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. §\n3771) guarantees that victims have the right to participate in\nmatters affecting assets and proceedings. Ignoring the alert in\nDkt. 733 prevents legitimate victims from exercising this\nright.\n● Structural Procedural Breakdown: By proceeding despite\nnotice of record contamination, the Court propagates the\nmisclassification of victims and creditors, creating an\ninternally inconsistent evidentiary framework that\nundermines the integrity of the entire forfeiture process.\n● Abuse of Discretion / Failure to Correct: The Court’s inaction\nin response to clear warnings of procedural contamination\nconstitutes judicial inaction in the face of structural error,\nwarranting corrective intervention.\n10. Potential Procedural and Legal Violations Related to Dkt. 765\nSuppression of a victim’s lawful motions requesting judicial\nrecusal\n○ The district court failed to consider or act upon Petitioner’s\nmotions seeking judicial recusal, directly suppressing the\nexercise of rights guaranteed under the Crime Victims’\nRights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) and depriving Petitioner of a\nfair opportunity to be heard.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 21 of 26\n○ This suppression undermines Due Process and may\nviolate Equal Protection, as other similarly situated parties\nmay have been permitted to pursue procedural relief.\nContamination of the appellate record\n○ By filing Dkt. 765 while Petitioner’s recusal-related motions\nwere still pending, the district court potentially prejudiced\nthe Second Circuit appellate review by introducing\ncontent that could influence appellate consideration before\nthe Court had issued a ruling on the underlying motions.\n○ This act creates a structural procedural conflict because\nthe appellate record now includes materials reflecting the\ndistrict court’s suppression of legitimate victim motions,\nthereby tainting the evidentiary and procedural record\nupon which appellate review will rely.\nStructural Procedural Breakdown\n● The combination of suppressing the motions and then\npublicly exposing them demonstrates a structural\nprocedural failure:\n● Victim’s right to participate and be heard was denied\n(CVRA §3771(a)(4), (a)(8));\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 22 of 26\n● Core procedural mechanisms meant to protect victims were\nundermined;\n● The integrity of the record was compromised because the\ncourt ignored a pending motion regarding its own\nimpartiality (recusal).\nThis is not merely a “technical error”; it strikes at the\nfoundation of due process, because the procedural system\nfailed to allow the victim to assert their rights while\nsimultaneously exposing them to potential retaliation.\nIII — RELIEF REQUESTED\nBased on the foregoing facts, including my persecution by the\nChinese Communist Party (CCP), the misclassification and silencing\nof legitimate victims, and the resulting structural procedural\nbreakdowns in this case, I respectfully request that this Court exercise\nits inherent authority, sua sponte, to grant the following relief:\n1. Exclusion of My Investments from Forfeiture Proceedings\nas a Gateway to Correcting the Record\nI was forced to flee China due to targeted political persecution,\nlosing all financial resources and means of livelihood. My G-\nrelated investments, totaling approximately [XXX] USD, were\npreviously documented but never properly entered into the\nrecord. I respectfully request that the Court exclude these\ninvestments from any ongoing or future forfeiture\nproceedings, not merely to protect my property, but as the\nnecessary first step to correct the contaminated evidentiary\nand victim-identification record that underpins the criminal\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 23 of 26\nforfeiture and related proceedings.\n2. Structural Corrective Action and Sua Sponte Authority\nThe structural procedural errors identified—including\nmisidentification of victims, contradictory classification of\nvictim/perpetrator status, suppression of motions, and reliance\non contaminated evidence—have corrupted the foundation of\nall related orders and determinations.\nI therefore request that the Court exercise its inherent authority\nto:\n○ rectify the misclassification and exclusion of legitimate\nvictims, including myself;\n○ correct the evidentiary record and any tainted\ndeterminations; and\n○ restore procedural and constitutional integrity in this case.\n3. Vacatur or Reconsideration of All Orders Contaminated by\nProcedural Breakdown\nAs a consequence of the structural collapse in this case, I\nrequest that the Court sua sponte review, vacate, or\nreconsider all orders and judgments that relied on the\ncontaminated record, including, but not limited to:\n○ criminal conviction(s) related to G-related investments;\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 24 of 26\n○ forfeiture or asset seizure orders; and\n○ any bail or pretrial release determinations and conviction\naffected by misidentified victims, prosecutorial misconduct\nor suppressed motions.\n4. Protection of the Appellate Record\nThe release of Dkt. 765 revealed that Ryan Bai previously\nsuppressed victim motions were excluded, raising a risk of\ncontaminating the appellate record. I request that the Court\ntake sua sponte action to correct and clarify the record before\nany appellate consideration.\n5. Any Further Relief the Court Deems Just and Proper\nI respectfully request that the Court grant any additional relief\nnecessary to restore fairness, protect my rights as a victim,\nand ensure the lawfulness and integrity of all proceedings in\nthis matter.\n6. Upload a redacted version of this motion as Victim’s motion\nredacted.pdf on the public docket, with personal identifying\ninformation (such as addresses, phone numbers, and account\nnumbers) removed, while maintaining the unredacted version\nunder seal on the Clerk’s docket for the Court’s full\nconsideration.\nRespectfully submitted\nNovember 23, 2025\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 25 of 26\nCertificate of Service\nIn re: Tony Petitioner\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\nCase No: 26-361\nSDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nI, Tony, hereby certify as follows:\nOn June 10, 2026, I mailed true and correct copies of the following documents:\nRENEWED PETITION FOR WRIT OF\nMANDAMUS\nExhibit A\nwere served on the following parties:\n1: Nathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n2: Micah F. Fergenson\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278\nExecuted on June 10, 2026, 2026.\n\nCase: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 26 of 26\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5145,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-07-07 13:44:16"}