{"id":"court_2cir_26-361_emergency_stay","court":"2Cir","case_no":"","doc_number":null,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"2Cir ECF 26-361_emergency_stay","summary_zh":"紧急停止量刑动议——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo)案第二巡回上诉法院 26-361 号案 ECF/DktEntry 18.1/18.2(2026年4月18日提交)。Pro se 请愿人 Tony 请求上诉法院在其强制令请愿(即 DktEntry 7)审结前,暂缓 SDNY 原定2026年4月27日进行的量刑,理由是量刑照常进行将实质剥夺其 CVRA 权利,并主张政府损失计算方法存在系统性缺陷——包括资金经多层中间账户转移、部分'受害人'因在中国被拘押而无法参与核实、以及跨实体混同资金未做去重处理。","summary_en":"Emergency motion to stay sentencing — filed in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), Second Circuit No. 26-361, ECF/DktEntry 18.1/18.2 (filed April 18, 2026). Pro se petitioner Tony asks the Second Circuit to stay the SDNY sentencing then scheduled for April 27, 2026, pending resolution of his mandamus petition (Dkt. 7), arguing that proceeding would effectively extinguish his CVRA rights and that the government's loss-calculation methodology is systemically flawed — citing multi-layer intermediary fund routing, a victim pool partly inaccessible due to detentions in China, and failure to de-duplicate commingled transfers across entities.","body_en":"Form T-1080 (rev.12-13)\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\nThurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse   40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500\nMOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT\nDocket Number(s): ________________________________________        _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________\nMotion for: ______________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\nSet forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________\nMOVING PARTY:_______________________________________ OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________\n___Plaintiff\n    ___Defendant\n___Appellant/Petitioner     ___Appellee/Respondent\nMOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________\n________________________________________________________  _______________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\nCourt- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________\nPlease check appropriate boxes:\n   FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND\n     INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:\n\nIs oral argument on motion requested?\n ___Yes  ___No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)\nHas argument date of appeal been set?\n  ___ Yes ___No  If yes, enter date:_______________________________________________________\nSignature of Moving Attorney:\n_________________________________ Date:__________________  Service by: ___CM/ECF   ___Other [Attach proof of service]\n[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]\nHas this request for relief been made below?                   ___Yes  ___No\nHas this relief been previously sought in this court?\n ___Yes  ___No\nRequested return date and explanation of emergency:     ________________\n_____________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________\n_____________________________________________________________\nHas movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):\n___Yes   ___No (explain):__________________________\n\n_______________________________________________\nOpposing counsel’s position on motion:\n___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t Know\n\nDoes opposing counsel intend to file a response:\n___Yes    ___No    ___Don’t Know\n26-361\nEMERGENCY MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY STAY\n OF SENTENCING PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\nPlease see in the motion\nTony\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York\nTony\nNathan Rehn\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10278\n(212)-637-2354\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York, Hon. Analisa Torres, U.S. District Judge\nSentencing  date is April 27, 2026, therefore before the sentencing date\nApril 15, 2026\nIn Re: Tony\nto prevent irreparable harm.\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.1, Page 1 of 1\nSIGN\n\n---\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND\nCIRCUIT\nIn Re: Tony\nSDNY: 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nSecond Circuit: 26-361\nEMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY SENTENCING PENDING\nMANDAMUS REVIEW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR\nRECORD PRESERVATION\nI, Tony, appearing pro se, respectfully move this Court to stay the sentencing in SDNY\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, currently scheduled for April 27, 2026, pending resolution\nof my petition for a writ of mandamus.\n\nThe issues presented do not merely affect the precision of loss calculation; they\nrender the entire loss determination structurally unreliable and legally insufficient\nfor sentencing purposes. Proceeding to sentencing on such a record would violate\nbasic due process requirements that sentencing be based on reliable and verified\ninformation.\n\nI. Background:\n\nAccording to my original mandamus, funds remitted to G-series entities and subsequently\nfrozen by the United States have, in multiple instances, been characterized by Chinese\nauthorities as conduct constituting “funding criminal activities that endanger national\nsecurity”, creating a direct cross-sovereign inconsistency in the treatment of the same\ntransactions. At the same time, certain individuals identified as “victims” in the U.S.\nproceedings have reportedly been detained in China and are unable to appear or\nassert claims, raising concerns regarding the completeness and adversarial balance\nof the record before the Court. The record further shows that numerous investors\nfollowed a substantially identical remittance pathway, reflecting a broader, systemic\npattern rather than isolated conduct. In addition, official Chinese materials classify these\nmatters as national-security cases subject to “centralized handling” (集中处置)—a\nprocess of coordinated, higher-level governmental control rather than ordinary case-by-\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 1 of 9\n\n---\n\ncase adjudication—underscoring the need for careful scrutiny to ensure that victim\ndeterminations and forfeiture assessments are based on a complete and independently\nverifiable record.\nII. A STAY IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE APPELLATE RIGHTS\nAND PREVENT IRREPARABLE HARM\nAbsent a stay, the harm is immediate and irreversible:\n\nA. Extinguishment of CVRA Rights at Sentencing\nMy rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act will be effectively extinguished. The\nright to be reasonably heard at sentencing is inherently time-sensitive and can only be\nexercised prior to the imposition of sentence. Once sentencing has occurred, that right\ncannot be restored. The mandamus petition does not seek to alter substantive outcomes,\nbut to ensure that the record on which sentencing is based is procedurally complete. If\nsentencing proceeds before mandamus review, the very right at issue—the right to have\nsubmissions docketed and considered—will be rendered meaningless.\n\nB. Irreparable Harm from Systemic Methodological Defects in Loss Attribution\n1. Intermediary-Mediated Flow Structure (See my original Mandamus, SDNY 817,\npage 9)\n\nAs reflected in the record, funds originating from Chinese investors were not\ntransferred directly to downstream entities, but instead moved through a structured\nintermediary process. Specifically, investor funds were first deposited into\npersonal accounts and then routed through foreign-trade company accounts for\ncurrency conversion before being transmitted to accounts associated with the\nHimalaya Alliance network. Once received, those funds were further redistributed\nthrough additional layers of designated accounts under organizational control. This\nmulti-layered routing structure was not isolated, but appears to follow a uniform\nand systemically replicated pattern across transactions.\n\n2. Victim Pool Contamination and Inaccessibility (Frozen / Detained Claimants)\n\nA further structural issue arises from the effective inaccessibility of a subset of\nputative victims due to foreign enforcement actions, detention, or coercive\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 2 of 9\n\n---\n\nmeasures affecting their ability to assert claims or participate in verification\nprocesses. Where individuals within the alleged victim pool are unavailable to\nconfirm, reject, or clarify their claimed losses, the resulting dataset becomes\npartially non-adversarial and structurally incomplete. This affects not only\nindividual claim validity, but also the integrity of aggregate loss calculations that\ndepend on victim confirmation for allocation and reconciliation.\n\nAccordingly, the absence of a fully participatory victim verification process\nintroduces systematic distortion risk in both (i) the scope of recognized losses and\n(ii) the allocation of funds among claimants.\n\n3. Failure to De-duplicate Across Commingled and Multi-Layer Transfers\n\nThe Government’s methodology does not appear to implement a rigorous de-\nduplication framework capable of distinguishing between: initial capital\ncontributions, intra-entity transfers, intermediary pass-through movements, partial\nredemptions or reallocations, and overlapping accounting classifications across\nentities or accounts. Given the documented intermediary structure and\ncommingling at intermediary layer and downstream accounts, the same economic\nvalue may be reflected multiple times across different segments of the\ntransactional record. Without a trace-level reconciliation model, aggregated\ninflow figures risk overstating net pecuniary harm by failing to eliminate\ninternal movement redundancies. This creates a material risk that the nominal\nloss figure reflects gross flow aggregation rather than net, non-duplicative victim\nloss.\n\n4. Cross-Jurisdictional Legal Classification Conflict and Unvalidated Loss\nAttribution Model\n\nThe record also reflects materially inconsistent legal characterizations of the same\nfinancial flows across jurisdictions, including divergent sovereign determinations\nregarding the legal nature of the underlying transactions. While such foreign\nclassifications are not dispositive in U.S. sentencing, their existence underscores\nthat the underlying dataset has not been subjected to a unified legal classification\nframework capable of consistently distinguishing lawful investment flows,\ndisputed funds, and alleged criminal proceeds. Critically, the Government’s loss\nmodel does not appear to have explicitly tested whether the same funds can be\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 3 of 9\n\n---\n\nconsistently classified as “actual loss” under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1 across competing\ninterpretive frameworks, nor does it resolve whether portions of the aggregated\ninflows should be treated as non-loss, disputed, or legally ambiguous funds.\nInstead, the model proceeds from aggregated financial movement data to a\nconclusion of loss magnitude without a documented intermediate step validating\nclassification stability under the governing legal standard.\n\n5. Systemic Replication Through “Centralized Handling” (集中处置)\n\nThe record further reflects that the intermediary-mediated routing structure and\nvictim pool issue, as well as Cross-Jurisdictional issue described above are not\nlimited to isolated transactions, but is consistent with a broader pattern identified\nin Chinese enforcement and administrative characterization as “centralized\nhandling” (集中处置). Therefore, the government has not produced a loss\nestimate; it has produced an unverified aggregation of financial flows that\ncannot, as a matter of law or methodology, be translated into “actual loss”\nunder U.S.S.G. §2B1.1.\n6. Fatico Hearing Insufficiency in Addressing Structural Defects\n\nNotably, defense counsel has requested a Fatico hearing (SDNY Dkt. 822) to\naddress disputed sentencing issues. While such a hearing may be appropriate for\nresolving discrete factual disputes through testimony and evidentiary presentation,\nit is not capable of curing the structural defects identified here. A Fatico hearing\npresumes that disputed facts can be resolved through adversarial testing of\nevidence—such as witness credibility, document authenticity, or competing\nfactual narratives. However, the issues presented in this case are not limited to\ndiscrete factual disagreements, but instead concern systemic methodological\ndeficiencies in the construction of the loss figure itself.\n\nAccordingly, even if a Fatico hearing were conducted, it would not address the\nthreshold issue presented here: whether the Government’s loss estimate is derived\nfrom a sufficiently reliable and methodologically valid foundation as required\nunder U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.\n\n7. Conclusion: Structural Defects Render Loss Determination Irreparably Unreliable\n\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 4 of 9\n\n---\n\nTaken together, the foregoing defects demonstrate that the Government’s loss\ncalculation rests on a structurally unstable and methodologically unverified\nfoundation. The underlying dataset is non-adversarial, non-deduplicated, and\nclassification-unstable. As a result, any resulting figure is not merely imprecise—it\nraises serious questions as to whether it can qualify as a ‘reasonable estimate’\nunder U.S.S.G. §2B1.1. The intermediary-mediated and systemically replicated\ntransaction structure (“centralized handling”), combined with victim\ninaccessibility, absence of de-duplication controls, and unresolved cross-\njurisdictional classification conflicts, prevents reliable separation of investor-\noriginated funds, intermediary transfers, and downstream allocations.\n\nAlthough the Government invokes a “reasonable estimate” standard (SDNY Dkt.\n833), such a determination must still satisfy the reliability requirements of\nU.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. Those requirements cannot be met here\nbecause the underlying dataset is non-adversarial, commingled, and\nmethodologically unvalidated. While a Fatico hearing may resolve discrete factual\ndisputes, it cannot cure systemic methodological defects where the issue is the\nabsence of a reliable framework for loss attribution itself.\n\nAccordingly, once the current loss model is adopted at sentencing, it becomes the\nbinding factual predicate for restitution and forfeiture, and would significantly\nconstrain meaningful appellate review or any subsequent effort to revise or\ndisplace that determination, as doing so would require disturbing the finality\nframework of the judgment. Critically, this transformation occurs not after\nresolution of the mandamus issues, but in the absence of any adjudication\naddressing their merits. In that posture, the Court is not merely deferring\nreview—it is allowing the contested methodology itself to be transformed into\nbinding fact. Proceeding to sentencing under these circumstances would\ntherefore effectively moot the mandamus relief by eliminating the Court’s\nability to provide meaningful post-adoption correction, because the\nchallenged framework would already have been incorporated into the\noperative judgment.\n\nIn the absence of a stay, the mandamus petition would be rendered effectively\nunreviewable in a meaningful sense, because the challenged methodology would\nhave already been crystallized into binding sentencing findings without prior\nadjudication of the issues currently before this Court.\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 5 of 9\n\n---\n\nIII. Likelihood of Success\nLikelihood of Success on the Merits:\n\nThe mandamus petition presents a substantial likelihood of success because the district\ncourt failed to docket and consider material evidence directly bearing on: victim\nidentification, loss calculation, and ownership of funds. This is not a routine evidentiary\ndispute. It is a record-formation failure that directly affects the legal validity of any\nsentencing determination.\n1: Incomplete Record Material exhibits (including Exhibit D) were never docketed. A\nsentencing based on an incomplete record is inherently unreliable.\n\n2: Unverified Victim Pool The Government relies on a broad victim population that:\ncannot be independently verified, includes individuals unable to appear, and lacks\ndisclosed methodology.  An unverified victim pool cannot support a reliable loss\ncalculation under U.S.S.G. §2B1.1.\n\n3: Cross-Border Legal Conflict: The same funds are: treated as “criminal proceeds\nendangering national security” by Chinese authorities, and as “victim losses” in this\nproceeding.  A loss calculation built on legally contradictory characterizations of the\nsame funds is structurally unreliable.\nIV. Impact on public interest\n\nPublic interest strongly favors a stay. This case presents a replicable risk that sentencing\nmay proceed on unverified and internally inconsistent records, thereby normalizing\nadjudication based on evidentiary frameworks that have not been subjected to adversarial\ntesting.\nV. Balance of equities\n\nThe choice is between a short delay and a potentially flawed sentencing—equity strongly\nfavors preserving the status quo to prevent irreversible incorporation of disputed facts\ninto the sentencing record. These issues cannot be dismissed as harmless. Loss amount\nand victim identification are central drivers of the applicable sentencing range.\nStructural unreliability in these determinations necessarily undermines the integrity\nof the sentencing framework as a whole.\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 6 of 9\n\n---\n\nVI. RECORD PRESERVATION (CRITICAL FACTUAL\nFOUNDATION)\nTo preserve issues for review, Petitioner identifies the following material facts that were\nnot fully incorporated into the sentencing record:\nA. CCP Interference with Witnesses (Ya Li Testimony on SDNY Dkt. 415, p.\n141)\n\n1: Trial testimony confirms that Chinese authorities contacted a government\nwitness’s family and issued warnings related to “national security”\n2: This directly corroborates evidence I submitted regarding state pressure on\nparticipants\nThis evidence bears on credibility of witnesses, voluntariness of complaints,\nintegrity of the evidentiary record.\nB. Evidence of Systematic Coerced or Falsified Complaints\n\n1:Defense submissions acknowledge that some complaints were coerced or state-\ninfluenced (SDNY Dkt. 822, p 58)\n\n2: Key declarants did not appear for cross-examination (25-2726 Dkt. 34, 40)\n\n3: First-hand exculpatory explanations (including livestream disclosures) were never\nentered into the trial record (25-2726 Dkt. 40 page 21)\nThis creates a record where: accusations are included, but countervailing first-\nhand evidence is structurally absent.\nC. Cross-Border Legal Conflict Over the Same Funds\nMy evidence demonstrates:\n1: The same funds are treated by a foreign sovereign as national-security-related\ncriminal funds\n2: While in this proceeding they are treated as victim losses\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 7 of 9\n\n---\n\nThis unresolved conflict creates ambiguity in ownership, uncertainty in victim\nstatus , instability in loss calculation. A loss figure derived from legally\nconflicting characterizations cannot be considered reliable.\nD. Impact on Government Theory and Expert Testimony\nFBI agent Kimberly Espinoza  (SDNY Dkt. 425 p. 129)  and government  experts\nPaul Hinton (SDNY Dkt. 441)  relied on a simplified “money-in/money-out” fraud\nmodel.\nMy evidence introduces:\n1: Coercion\n2: Political pressure\n3: Alternative explanations for fund flows\n4: Unverified sources of funds and judicial conflicts\nHad this evidence been included: expert conclusions may have been limited or\nundermined, the reliability of the Government’s model would be materially\naffected\nE. Core Structural Defect\nTaken together:\n1: Missing evidence\n2: Untested victim pool\n3: Cross-border legal conflict\n4: Unchallenged expert assumptions\ncreate a single structural problem:\nThe sentencing record is structurally unreliable and incapable of supporting a\nlawful sentencing determination.\n\nThe above issues are preserved for appellate review and are not presented as\nresolved findings of fact.\nVI. Relief requested\n\nAbsent resolution of these issues, proceeding to sentencing would risk imposing\npunishment based on a record that is incomplete, internally inconsistent, and legally\nunreliable. This harm is irreparable because it would be extremely difficult to\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 8 of 9\n\n---\n\nreconstruct on appeal. Once sentencing is imposed, appellate review will be confined\nto a record that never incorporated my submissions. A brief stay is therefore\nnecessary to prevent irreparable harm and to preserve the integrity of the judicial\nprocess.\nI respectfully request that the Second Circuit issue an immediate stay of all sentencing\nproceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,\nCase No. 1:23‑CR‑118‑1 (AT), until my pending mandamus petition before this Court is\nfully adjudicated.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing\nstatements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and\nbelief.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony\nApril 15, 2026\n\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.2, Page 9 of 9\n\n---\n\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, Ryan Bai, hereby certify as follows:\nOn April 16, 2026, I submitted true and correct copy of the following document:\nEMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY SENTENCING PENDING\nMANDAMUS REVIEW, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR RECORD\nPRESERVATION\nwas served on the following party\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\nExecuted on April 16, 2026.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony\nCase: 26-361, 04/18/2026, DktEntry: 18.3, Page 1 of 1","body_zh":"表格 T-1080（2013年12月修订版）\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼，纽约州纽约市福利广场40号，邮编10007，电话：212-857-8500\n动议信息陈述表\n案号：________________________________________        _______________案由［使用简短标题］_____________________\n动议请求事项：______________________________________________\n\n请在下方列明所寻求救济的准确、完整陈述：\n\n动议方：_______________________________________ 相对方：____________________________________________\n___原告\n    ___被告\n___上诉人/请愿人     ___被上诉人/答辩人\n动议方律师：___________________________________ 相对方律师：________________________________________\n________________________________________________________  _______________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\n被上诉的法院-法官/行政机构：_________________________________________________________________________________________\n请勾选相应方框：\n   适用于紧急动议、暂缓执行动议以及\n     上诉期间禁令动议：\n\n是否申请就动议进行口头辩论？\n ___是  ___否（口头辩论申请不一定会获准）\n上诉辩论日期是否已确定？\n  ___ 是 ___否  如是，请输入日期：_______________________________________________________\n动议方律师签名：\n_________________________________ 日期：__________________  送达方式：___CM/ECF系统   ___其他［附送达证明］\n［律师姓名，包含律所、地址、电话号码及电子邮件］\n该救济请求此前是否已在下级法院提出？                   ___是  ___否\n该救济此前是否已向本院寻求？\n ___是  ___否\n要求的答复日期及紧急情况说明：     ________________\n\n动议方是否已通知相对方律师（Local Rule 27.1（《本地规则》第27.1条）要求）：\n___是   ___否（说明）：__________________________\n\n相对方律师对动议的立场：\n___不反对 ___反对 ___未知\n\n相对方律师是否打算提交答复：\n___是    ___否    ___未知\n26-361\n紧急动议：在人身保护令/调卷令请愿（Petition for Writ of Mandamus）裁决前暂时中止量刑程序\n请见动议正文\nTony\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nTony\nNathan Rehn\n纽约州纽约市联邦广场26号37楼，邮编10278\n(212)-637-2354\nUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院），Hon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯阁下），美国联邦地区法官\n量刑日期为2026年4月27日，因此应在量刑日期之前\n2026年4月15日\n关于：Tony\n以防止不可挽回的损害。\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷条目：18.1，第 1 页，共 1 页\n签名\n\n---\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n关于：Tony\n纽约南区案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n第二巡回法院案号：26-361\n紧急动议：在调卷令/执行令（Mandamus）审查期间中止量刑程序，或作备位请求，保全记录\n我，Tony，以 pro se（本人亲自辩护）身份出庭，谨此恭请本院中止纽约南区联邦地区法院第 1:23-cr-00118-AT 号案件中目前定于2026年4月27日进行的量刑程序，直至我的执行令/调卷令请愿书获得裁决为止。\n\n所提出的问题不仅影响损失计算的精确度；它们还使得整个损失认定在结构上不可靠，并且在法律上不足以用于量刑目的。在这样的记录基础上推进量刑，将违反量刑必须基于可靠且经核实的信息这一基本正当程序要求。\n\nI. 背景：\n\n根据我最初的执行令/调卷令请愿书，汇入G系列实体并随后被美国冻结的资金，在多起案件中被中国当局定性为构成“资助危害国家安全犯罪活动”的行为，从而在对相同交易的处理上造成了直接的跨主权不一致。与此同时，在美国诉讼程序中被确定为“受害者”的某些个人据报道在中国被拘留，无法出庭或主张权利，这引发了对提交给法院的记录的完整性和对抗性平衡的关切。记录进一步显示，众多投资者遵循了基本相同的汇款路径，反映出一种更广泛的、系统性的模式，而非孤立的行为。此外，中国官方材料将这些事项归类为属于“集中处置”的国家安全案件——这是一个协调的、更高级别的政府控制过程，而非普通的逐案审判——这突显了进行严格审查的必要性，以确保受害者认定和没收评估是建立在完整且可独立核实的记录之上的。\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷条目：18.2，第 1 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n以确保受害者认定和没收评估是建立在完整且可独立核实的记录之上的。\nII. 为保全上诉权利并防止不可挽回的损害，中止执行是必要的\n若不中止，损害将是立即发生且不可逆转的：\n\nA. 在量刑阶段《犯罪受害者权利法案》（CVRA）权利的消灭\n我在《Crime Victims’ Rights Act（犯罪受害者权利法案）》项下的权利将被实际消灭。在量刑时获得合理陈述意见的权利在性质上具有时间敏感性，且只能在判处刑罚之前行使。一旦完成量刑，该权利将无法恢复。执行令/调卷令请愿书并不寻求改变实质结果，而是确保作为量刑基础的记录在程序上是完整的。如果在执行令/调卷令审查之前进行量刑，那么处于争议焦点的权利本身——即提交的意见被记入案卷并予以考虑的权利——将变得毫无意义。\n\nB. 损失归因中系统性方法论缺陷所造成的不可挽回损害\n1. 中介引导的流转结构（参见我最初的执行令/调卷令请愿书，SDNY 817号案卷，第9页）\n\n正如记录所反映的那样，源自中国投资者的资金并非直接转入下游实体，而是通过结构化的中介流程进行流转。具体而言，投资者资金首先存入个人账户，然后通过外贸公司账户进行货币兑换，然后再转入与喜马拉雅联盟网络相关的账户。一旦收到，这些资金便会通过该组织控制下的更多层级的指定账户进一步重新分配。这种多层级的路由结构并非个例，而是在各项交易中均表现出统一且系统性复制的模式。\n\n2. 受害者群体受污染与无法接触（被冻结/被拘留的权利主张人）\n\n另一个结构性问题源于：由于外国执法行动、拘留或强制措施，一部分推定受害者在实际上无法被接触到，从而影响了他们主张权利或参与核实程序的能力。当所谓受害者群体内的个人无法确认、否认或澄清他们所主张的损失时，所形成的数据集在部分上就变成了非对抗性的且在结构上是不完整的。这不仅影响个别索赔的有效性，而且还影响依赖受害者确认进行分配和对账的总损失计算的完整性。\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷条目：18.2，第 2 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n因此，缺乏充分参与的受害者核实程序，在以下两方面均引入了系统性扭曲风险：(i) 确认损失的范围，以及 (ii) 索赔人之间的资金分配。\n\n3. 未能在混杂和多层转账中进行去重\n\n政府的方法论似乎并未实施严格的去重框架以区分：初始出资、实体内部转账、中介过桥流转、部分赎回或重新分配，以及跨实体或账户的重叠会计分类。鉴于已记录的中介结构以及中介层和下游账户中的混同情况，相同的经济价值可能会在交易记录的不同分段中被多次反映。如果没有追踪层面的对账模型，总流入数据就有可能因未能消除内部流转的冗余而夸大净经济损害。这造成了一种实质性风险，即名义损失数字反映的是总流量汇总，而非扣除重复后的受害者净损失。\n\n4. 跨司法管辖区的法律定性冲突与未经核验的损失归因模型\n\n记录还反映出不同司法管辖区对相同资金流的法律定性存在实质性不一致，包括关于基础交易法律性质的主权认定分歧。虽然此类外国定性在美国量刑中并非决定性的，但它们的存在突显出基础数据集尚未经过能够一致区分合法投资流、争议资金和涉嫌犯罪收益的统一法律分类框架的处理。关键在于，政府的损失模型似乎并未在相互冲突的解释框架下明确测试相同资金是否可根据 U.S.S.G. §2B1.1（《美国量刑指南》第2B1.1条）一致地归类为“实际损失”，也未解决总流入中的某些部分是否应作为非损失、有争议或法律上模棱两可的资金处理。相反，该模型直接从汇总的资金流转数据推导出损失规模的结论，而没有经过记录在案的、用于验证准据法律标准下分类稳定性的中间步骤。\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷条目：18.2，第 3 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n相反，该模型直接从汇总的资金流转数据推导出损失规模的结论，而没有经过记录在案的、用于验证准据法律标准下分类稳定性的中间步骤。\n\n5. 通过“集中处置”实现的系统性复制\n\n记录进一步反映出，上述中介引导的路由结构、受害者群体问题以及跨司法管辖区问题并不局限于孤立的交易，而是与中国执法和行政定性中所认定的“集中处置”这一更广泛的模式相一致。因此，政府提供的并非损失评估；它提供的是未经核实的资金流动汇总，无论在法律上还是在方法论上，都不能转化为 U.S.S.G. §2B1.1（《美国量刑指南》第2B1.1条）项下的“实际损失”。\n\n6. Fatico 听证会在解决结构性缺陷方面的不足\n\n值得注意的是，辩护律师已请求举行 Fatico 听证会（SDNY 案卷第 822 条），以解决有争议的量刑问题。虽然此类听证会可能适合通过作证和质证举证来解决个别事实争议，但它无法治愈此处所指出的结构性缺陷。Fatico 听证会以争议事实可以通过证据的对抗性质证（例如证人可信度、文件真实性或相互竞争的事实陈述）予以解决为前提。然而，本案中提出的问题并不仅限于个别事实分歧，而是涉及损失数字本身构建中的系统性方法论缺陷。\n\n因此，即使举行了 Fatico 听证会，它也无法解决此处提出的先决问题：政府的损失估算是否源自 U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3（《美国量刑指南》第6A1.3条）和 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第32条）所要求的充分可靠且在方法论上有效的基础。\n\n7. 结论：结构性缺陷导致损失认定存在无法挽回的不可靠性\n\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷条目：18.2，第 4 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n综合来看，上述缺陷表明政府的损失计算建立在结构不稳定且方法未经核实的基础之上。底层数据集不具对抗性质、未去重且归类不稳定。因此，由此得出的任何数据不仅是不精确的——更引发了其是否符合《美国量刑指南》（U.S.S.G.）第 2B1.1 条下“合理估计”标准的严重质疑。经由中介居间且系统性复制的交易结构（“集中处理”），结合受害者无法取得联系、缺乏去重控制措施以及未解决的跨司法管辖区归类冲突，导致无法可靠地区分源自投资者的资金、中介流转资金以及下游分配资金。\n\n尽管政府援引了“合理估计”标准（SDNY Dkt. 833），但该等认定仍须符合 U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 以及《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Crim. P.）第 32 条的可靠性要求。由于底层数据集未经对抗质证、存在混同且方法未经核验，在此无法满足这些要求。虽然 Fatico 听证程序可以解决个别的离散事实争议，但在问题根源在于损失归因本身缺乏可靠框架的情况下，它无法治愈系统性的方法论缺陷。\n\n因此，一旦在量刑时采纳当前的损失模型，该模型即成为针对赔偿和没收具有约束力的事实依据，并将严重限制有意义的上诉复核，或实质性限制任何后续修改或推翻该认定的努力，因为这样做将需要触动判决终局性框架。关键在于，这种转变并非发生在对人身保护令/职务履行令（mandamus）问题作出裁决之后，而是发生在对其是非曲直完全缺乏任何司法裁判的情况下。在这种处境下，法院不仅仅是在推迟复核——而是在任由备受争议的方法论本身转变为具有约束力的事实。因此，在此种情形下推进量刑将实质上使 mandamus 救济失去实际意义（moot），因为它剥夺了法院在采纳该模型后提供有意义纠正的能力，因为受质疑的框架届时将已被纳入具有法律效力的判决书中。\n\n在不予中止（stay）审理的情况下，mandamus 申请实质上将被置于在有意义层面上无法复核的状态，因为在目前提交给本院的问题得到先行审理裁决之前，受质疑的方法论就已经被固定为具有约束力的量刑事实认定。\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷分录：18.2，第 5 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\nIII. 胜诉可能性\n实体胜诉可能性：\n\n由于地区法院未能将直接涉及以下事实的关键证据记入案卷并予以考虑：受害者确认、损失计算以及资金所有权，因此 mandamus 申请展现出相当大的胜诉可能性。这不是一起常规的证据争议，而是一次直接影响任何量刑裁决法定有效性的案卷形成缺失。\n1：案卷不完整 关键物证（包括物证 D）从未被记入案卷。基于不完整案卷所作的量刑本质上是不可靠的。\n\n2：受害者群体未经核实 政府依赖的庞大受害者群体：无法独立核实，包含无法出庭的个人，且缺乏公开的方法论。未经核实的受害者群体无法支持符合 U.S.S.G. §2B1.1 规定的可靠损失计算。\n\n3：跨境法律冲突：针对同一笔资金：被中国当局认定为“危害国家安全的犯罪所得”，而在本案程序中被认定为“受害者损失”。建立在对同一笔资金存在法律上相互矛盾的定性之上的损失计算，在结构上是不可靠的。\nIV. 对公共利益的影响\n\n公共利益极大地支持予以中止。本案呈现出一种可复制的风险，即量刑可能基于未经核实且内在自相矛盾的案卷进行，从而使基于未经对抗性质证的证据框架进行裁判的做法常态化。\nV. 衡平利益权衡\n\n摆在面前的抉择是在短暂延期与可能存在缺陷的量刑之间进行权衡——衡平原则极大地支持维持现状，以防止将存在争议的事实不可逆地并入量刑案卷。这些问题绝不能被视作无害瑕疵而忽略。损失金额和受害者确认是适用量刑幅度的核心驱动因素。这些认定中的结构性不可靠，必然会削弱量刑框架整体的完整性与正当性。\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷分录：18.2，第 6 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\nVI. 案卷保留（关键事实基础）\n为保留待复核的问题，请愿人指出以下未被完全纳入量刑案卷的关键事实：\nA. 中共（CCP）对证人的干预（Ya Li 在 SDNY Dkt. 415，第 141 页的证词）\n\n1：庭审证词证实，中国当局联系了一名政府证人的家属，并发布了与“国家安全”相关的警告\n2：这直接印证了我所提交的关于国家对参与者施加压力的证据\n该证据关乎证人的可信度、投诉的自愿性、证据案卷的真实完整性。\nB. 存在系统性被胁迫或虚假投诉的证据\n\n1：辩方提交的文件承认部分投诉是受到胁迫或受国家影响所致（SDNY Dkt. 822，第 58 页）\n\n2：关键声明人未出庭接受交叉询问（25-2726 Dkt. 34, 40）\n\n3：第一手的开脱性解释（包括直播披露内容）从未被载入庭审案卷（25-2726 Dkt. 40 第 21 页）\n这造成了这样一种案卷记录：指控被纳入其中，但反向的第一手抗辩证据在结构上却完全缺失。\nC. 围绕同一笔资金的跨境法律冲突\n我的证据表明：\n1：同一笔资金被外国主权国家视为与国家安全相关的涉案犯罪资金\n2：而在本程序中它们被视为受害者损失\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷分录：18.2，第 7 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n这一未解决的冲突造成了所有权的不明确、受害者身份的不确定、损失计算的不稳定。由法律上相互冲突的定性所推导出的损失数字不能被视为具有可靠性。\nD. 对政府主张理论及专家证词的影响\nFBI（联邦调查局）特工 Kimberly Espinoza（SDNY Dkt. 425 第 129 页）和政府专家 Paul Hinton（SDNY Dkt. 441）依赖于一个简化的“资金流入/流出”欺诈模型。\n我的证据引入了：\n1：胁迫\n2：政治施压\n3：对资金流向的替代性合理解释\n4：未经核实的资金来源及司法冲突\n如果采纳了这些证据：专家的结论可能会受到限制或被推翻，政府模型的可靠性将受到实质性影响\nE. 核心结构性缺陷\n综合而言：\n1：证据缺失\n2：受害者群体未经质证核实\n3：跨境法律冲突\n4：未受质询的专家假设\n造成了单一的结构性问题：\n量刑案卷在结构上不可靠，无法支持合法的量刑裁决。\n\n上述问题均予以保留以供上诉复核，且不作为已解决的事实认定提出。\nVI. 申请的救济\n\n若不解决这些问题，继续进行量刑将面临基于不完整、内在自相矛盾且在法律上不可靠的案卷施加刑罚的风险。这种损害是不可弥补的，因为在\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷分录：18.2，第 8 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n上诉中将极难予以重建。一旦作出量刑，上诉复核将局限于一份从未纳入我所提交材料的案卷。因此，短暂中止程序对于防止不可弥补的损害并维护司法程序的完整性与公正性是必不可少的。\n我谨请求第二巡回上诉法院立即对 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案号 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) 的所有量刑程序发布中止令，直至本院对我正在审理中的 mandamus 申请作出全面裁判为止。\n\n根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，本人在甘受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，据本人所知、所悉及所信，前述陈述均真实且正确。\n谨此提交，\nTony\n2026年4月15日\n\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷分录：18.2，第 9 页，共 9 页\n\n---\n\n送达证书\n关于：请愿人 Tony\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国第二巡回联邦上诉法院）\n案号：26-361\n纽约南区联邦地区法院案号：United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n本人 Ryan Bai 特此证明如下：\n于 2026年4月16日，本人提交了以下文件的真实无误副本：\n在 MANDAMUS 复核审理期间中止量刑的紧急动议，或在备选情况下，保留案卷的紧急动议\n并已送达至下列当事人\nNathan Rehn\nUnited States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, NY 10278\n签署于 2026年4月16日。\n谨此提交，\nTony\n案件：26-361，04/18/2026，案卷分录：18.3，第 1 页，共 1 页","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2769,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 09:29:41"}