{"id":"court_ctb_2425_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2425,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"NOTICE","filed_date":"2023-12-08","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1 | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n\n## **NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE REGARDING MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY FILED BY ALLEGED CUSTOMERS OF HIMALAYA EXCHANGE IN DEBTOR'S CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the chapter 11 case of Ho\n\nWan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby provides notice that, on December 6, 2023, counsel\n\npurportedly representing 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange2 filed a motion (the\n\n\"Motion\") in the criminal case pending against the Debtor in the United States District Court for\n\nthe Southern District of New York [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Case\") seeking\n\nthe return of property seize by the United States in connection with the Criminal Case. The\n\ndeadline to respond to the Motion has been set for December 19, 2023.\n\n 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n2 Himalaya Exchange is a British Virgin Island registered company named Himalaya International Clearing Limited.\n\nA copy of the Motion [Criminal Case ECF No. 186] is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**. The U.S. Department of Justice has already responded to the Motion. A copy of that response is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**.\n\n As the Court will recall, the Court previously found, in connection with its order granting a preliminary injunction against the Debtor and certain related parties, that Himalaya Exchange and various other affiliated Himalaya entities are \"all under the leadership of the Debtor\"3 and \"business vehicles for the Debtor.\"4 The Trustee also notes that numerous proofs of claims have been filed in this chapter 11 case asserting claims based on \"investments\" in or with Himalaya Exchange.\n\nThe Trustee is reviewing the Motion and evaluating next steps. Given that the Motion, if granted, would interfere with the administration of this chapter 11 case, including as it relates to the resolution of claims and the distribution of estate property, the Trustee is available the Court's discretion, to the extent the Court wishes to schedule a status conference on this matter.\n\nDated: December 8, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nCHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue\n\n 3 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, dated January 13, 2023, Adv. Proc. No. 22-5032 (JAM) at 60 (\"[T]he Himalaya entities, NFSC, GTV, GNews, and ROLF are all *under the leadership of the Debtor* and share the same common goal of 'taking down the CCP.'\") (emphasis added). The Himalaya entities include Himalaya Exchange. *See id.* ¶ 4 (\"NFSC is associated, affiliated, and/or connected with the Himalaya Global Alliance (together with affiliated Himalaya entities, such as Himalaya Exchange and Himalaya Farms, 'Himalaya')\"). *See also id.* ¶ 2 (\"The GSeries includes the following entities: Himalaya Exchange, Gettr, GFashion, GMusic, GClubs, GNews, and GEdu.\").\n\n4 *See id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the *leader* of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya. The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as *business vehicles for the Debtor*, and their members are *personally loyal to the Debtor*.\") (emphases added).\n\nNew York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1 | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on December 8, 2023, the foregoing Notice was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: December 8, 2023 By: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n## **Exhibit A**\n\n**Motion**\n\nCase 22-50878 1:100cr242518 Filed D2l08f251 TEMerleit2108088284:18:00 1 dPage 6 of 32\n\n## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nCase No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nV.\n\n## MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY\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,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" Defendants.,\n\nUndersigned counsel represents 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"the Exchange\"), who hold Himalaya Dollar (HDO) and Himalaya Coin (HCN) cryptocurrency (\"petitioners\"). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), petitioners move for return of their property seized by the United States in United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY). The petitioners have a distinct, identifiable third-party interest in the forfeited property. Petitioners\n\nDated: December 6, 2023\n\nfile the attached Memorandum in Support of this Motion.\n\nMyer and Scher LLP /s/ Jamie Scher Bv: NY 2488435 377B South Oyster Bay Road Plainview, NY 118013 Jamie(@myerandscher.com (516) 713-0655\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com LLC By: /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n### CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE AND NOTICE\n\nI, Bradford Geyer, certify that counsel I have conferred with counsel for the Government in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court, and have been unable to reach agreement. I also hereby certify that on on December 6, 2023, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC /s/ Brad Geyer By: Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nS1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nV.\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,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" Defendants.\n\nMEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY\n\n| | Table of Contents | |\n|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | I. | |\n| | II. | |\n| | A. The Seizure | |\n| | B. The Himalaya Exchange | |\n| | 1. Overview | |\n| | 2. Customer Onboarding Compliance, AML, and KYC Checks | |\n| | 3. Customer Base | |\n| | 4. Jurisdiction and Registration | |\n| | 5. Financial and Audits | |\n| | a. | |\n| | b. | |\n| | c. | |\n| | III. | |\n| | A. Adverse Social Media | |\n| | B. False Complaints to Regulators | |\n| | C. The United States Department of State Report | |\n| | IV. | |\n| | A. The Equities Require Return Without Further Delay
B. Petitioners Have Distinct, Identifiable Interest in the Forfeited Funds and Were Not
Given Proper Notice of the Seizure
C. Confidentiality is Imperative to Petitioners
D. Procedures for Reasonable Conditions to Protect Access to the Property
are available under Rule 41(g) | |\n| | V. Conclusion | |\n\n#### I. INTRODUCTION\n\nUndersigned counsel represents in excess of 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"the Exchange\"), who hold Himalaya Dollar (HDO) and Himalaya Coin (HCN) cryptocurrency (\"petitioners\").1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), petitioners move for return of their property seized by the United Stares in United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY). The petitioners have a distinct, identifiable third-party interest in the forfeited property. In the GOVERNMENT'S MOTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3771 filed in March 2023, the United States characterizes the petitioners as \"victims\" of the Defendants. As outlined in this Motion, the seizure of the assets in this case has made them \"victims\" of the seizure by the United States.\n\nFrom its inception, the Himalaya Exchange has performed extensive due diligence in its establishment of a safe customer base and has consistently met stringent audit and compliance standards. At the date of the seizure the reserve was at 100%. Based on an analysis of financial records of the Exchange and Himalaya International Reserves Limited, key findings are as follows:\n\n- · The operating activity of the Himalaya Entities demonstrates an active business with highly vetted customers and has generated sufficient revenue to meet its operation cost without recourse to any customer funds.\n- · Customers were able to redeem \\$100,000 HDO per month back to USD into their accounts. All redemptions were honored unless they did not comply with specific compliance and/or AML rules. The Petitioner's deposits, current balances of HDO, HCN and redemptions indicate a properly run and actively traded exchange.\n- · The Petitioners have not experienced any misrepresentation, fraud or loss of funds from the Exchange.\n\n4 http Undersigned counsel estimates the number of Exchange customers will increase by thousands as word of mouth reaches other victims who until now have never received notification from the Government about their funds being seized and it becomes clear that our intentions are authentic and genuine. Among the challenges that exist, many Exchange customers are fearful and ironically assume the U.S. government action may be a stalking horse for other governments.\n\n#### II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\n## A. THE SEIZURE\n\nPages 35-36 of the Superseding Indictment in United States v. Kwok has conclusory allegations regarding the Defendants' use of the Himalayan Exchange to perpetrate a fraud scheme. From the perspective of Exchange customers, these allegations have little or no connection or relevance to the forfeiture plight involving their funds held in constructive trust by the Himalaya Exchange. It then contains the relevant forfeiture allegations on pages 35-36 ¶ 55 j, k, m, o, p and s allowing the United States to seize millions of dollars in accounts of the Himalayan Exchange:2\n\ni. \\$4.643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000590 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\nk. \\$14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000254 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\nm.. \\$10,008,284.04 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBil 0133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\no. \\$272,350,313.76 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10138-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\np. \\$310,594.31 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10139-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\n2 This is also outlined in the Government's Bill of Particulars (Docket 38)with the addition of paragraph 1. \\$7.715.00. in United States currency on deposit in Account Number 7801000589 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022. There also seems to be discrepancy between the amount seized and the audit reports reviewed by counsel. Counsel suspects this is a result of banking transfers and activity that are not in the public record. For purposes of this filing, the money contained in hard currency contained in licensed bank accounts is held now by the U.S. government.\n\ns. \\$161,809.47 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16. 2022.\n\nThe seizure by the United States of these accounts comprises of the majority of the stable coin reserve of which the Exchange customers and current petitioners are the beneficiaries. The Exchange at all times since its launch has maintained the stable coin reserve at 100%. Hence, all the stable coins issued were backed 1HD in the bank. The reserve was at 100% at the date of seizure from the Exchange account. There has been no fraudulent use of or misappropriation of customer funds at any time. In fact, as outlined below, the Exchange had an external audit of the stable coin reserve twice, the last being shortly before the seizure date. These audits confirmed the reserve was fully intact.\n\n### B. THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE\n\n#### 1. OVERVIEW\n\nThe Himalaya Exchange (\"Exchange\") is a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") registered company named Himalaya International Clearing Limited, trading as Himalaya Exchange. It operates a user-to-user, centralized cryptocurrency exchange platform that consists of an engine that operates a continuously matched order book in respect to virtual asset products. It is a platform for clients to trade, store and manage the Himalaya cryptocurrencies, namely the Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\") and the Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\"). HCN is the Exchange's trading coin, a cryptocurrency priced by supply and demand. HDO is a stable coin, structured with the aim of maintaining its value at 1:1 to the US Dollar. Exchange customers can redeem HDO to US Dollars from their HDO balance in accordance with the exchange redemption terms outlined below. HCN\n\n#### Case 22-59933:2Box-20258-FiledIt2008/28:18A008/28:18:00000/28:18:000 6 Bagg 13 of 32\n\nis issued by Himalaya International Financial Group Limited. HDO are issued by Himalaya International Reserves Limited.\n\nThe Exchange was launched to bring financial freedom to everyone in the world as well as to help those who are wrongly persecuted, including those having their assets taken illegally, or held for ransom with the threat of it being taken by the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") without any justified reason. Exchange customers have no connection to Defendants. The Exchange is extremely popular among non-Americans, in particular those with Chinese ethnicity, as they rely on the Exchange being professionally and securely managed and the Exchange will not compromise any personal information to foreign governments, other than what is legally required. It also allows politically persecuted people a tool for financial security of their legitimate money (e.g. those people attending peaceful demonstration in Hong Kong have their bank accounts shut down and in general those targeted/persecuted/intimidated by the CCP that have had their assets confiscated). The Exchange is seen by the CCP as a threat which undermines their power to confiscate assets (illegally) and control the Chinese economy. Included in the affected group whose funds were seized by the United States are non-Americans whom the Chinese government views as being dissident.\n\nThe launch of the Exchange followed a staged process. Phase 1 client registration was launched in April 2021. This was pre-launch registration of private participation customers. Onboarding was in line within permitted jurisdictions only (non-US and others) and fully complied with \"Know Your Customer\" (KYC) procedures.\n\nTo sign up, the Petitioners had to undergo a formal on-boarding procedure and K Y C and anti-money laundering (AML) checks. The onboarding process with KYC and AML checks is set out in more detail below. Once approved by the compliance officials the Petitioners had access to their Himalaya Exchange account and deposited US dollars to purchase HDO Credits upon launch of the Exchange with US Dollars on a 1:1 ratio.\n\nThe Whitepaper.3 which is discussed in the Superseding Indictment, explains that the HDO would only be available to members of the Exchange. Members of the Exchange were able to participate in an issuance of the Himalaya Dollar through purchase of HDO Credits through the Exchange. The Whitepaper also explains that in order to provide liquidity support for HDO Credits, and as a safeguard against price volatility, a reserve would be established by the Issuer (Himalaya International Reserves Limited). The Reserve was managed with the aim of maintaining its value at a level equal in value in US Dollars to the value of HDO in circulation.\n\nIn July 2021, during Phase 2, the Exchange launched two cryptocurrencies: HCN and HDO. Both coins are Ethereum-based tokens with backwards compatibility with the ERC- 20 standard. The HDO is issued by Himalaya International Reserves and pegged to the US Dollar. HCN is not pegged to the value of any fiat currency and so its value is subject to supply and demand in the secondary market. This is the trading coin on the Exchange. Members are able to trade HCN Credits on the Exchange. Users who had registered with the Exchange were allowed to purchase pre-allocated HCN just before launch at the initial HCN issuance price of US \\$0.10 per HCN using HDO credits. The opening price for the HCN at launch was \\$0.10 per HCN.\n\nOn November 1, 2021, Phase 3 involved the full launch of the Himalaya Exchange. Registered users were now able to trade in HCN using HDO to purchase HCN and receive HDO on sales. Customer registration continued for those who applied to the Exchange with the same onboarding requirements outlined below.\n\n3 http\n\n#### Case 22-59933:2Box-20258-FiledIt2008/28:18A008/28:18A008/28:18A00 8 Bag9 15 of 32\n\nIn January 2022, Phase 4 involved the launch of Himalaya Pay (\"HPay\"). This app, available in some permitted jurisdictions to existing Exchange members, allows peer to peer transfers of HDO and HCN for Exchange members only. The app also allows gift card purchases using HDO for use with Exchange approved merchants to purchase goods, again in some permitted jurisdictions. The app is not available for use in the US or for US residents.\n\nThe HDO is multi-functional and allows members to purchase the trading coin HCN and purchase gift cards which can be used to purchase goods from approved Exchange ecosystem merchants. Merchant purchases using gift cards can be undertaken by members via HPay, which also allows peer-to-peer transfers between Exchange customers.\n\nAs discussed below, the stable coin audit reports conducted on December 15, 2021 and July 31, 2022 show that the Exchange maintained a 100% reserve in US dollars with the ratio of equivalent 1 HDO to \\$1. The last audit report was done just prior to the seizure where the reserves were at 100%.\n\n#### 2. CUSTOMER ONBOARDING COMPLAINCE, AML AND KYC CHECKS\n\nThe Exchange operates strict onboarding procedures. As discussed above, these procedures include rigorous AML and KYC checks as part of the Exchange's on-boarding process. The compliance process also involves customer registration, identification and verification, name screening, risk assessment, and ongoing due diligence. The extensive AML and compliance procedures include enhanced due diligence (EDD), Sanction and Politically Exposed Person (PEP) screening, periodic account checks and reviews, and transaction monitoring.\n\nWhen applying to register for an Exchange account, Petitioners were first required complete a KYC and AML questionnaire with a number of questions including, but not limited to, their personal details including their country of residence and source of funds. As a further\n\n#### Case 22-5993:20258-FiledIt2008/28:18AilereElla0/08/28/24:18:00:00 9 Page 16 of 32\n\nsafeguard, before they submitted their registration, they were required to declare that they were not residents of the US, Canada or Japan. These are not the only jurisdictions which are prohibited but these three countries were further highlighted with a check box for the customer to declare they are not a resident in those jurisdictions. Petitioners were also required to verify their identity and provide official identity documentation. They were directed to identity verification software provided by Jumio, which provides artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition checks against the ID submitted.\n\nSome Petitioners experienced their paperwork being assessed by compliance officers and further review was undertaken before their account was approved. Some were asked to provide additional bank statements, source of wealth information, and source of funds information. Petitioners also experienced ongoing reviews of their accounts and transaction monitoring and they were asked for further financial or other documentation. Further, as part of their own AML and compliance procedures, the Exchange's banking partners also required customers' KYC and other information in order to allow deposits and redemptions from each customer. This shows the high standards the Exchange maintained as well as additional financial safeguards through the banks, who are independent.\n\n### 3. CUSTOMER BASE\n\nThe Exchange customers are comprised of independent investors who reside in countries where it is permissible to invest in a stable coin/trading coin exchange. They range from small business owners to executives, people in the education and health care industries-pretty much any vocation you would associate with a given population. They are non-Americans with some level of disposable wealth to engage in speculative investments. The Exchange customers have no association with organized crime or illicit trade anymore that this can be alleged against customers of the New York Stock Exchange. While many customers of Chinese ethnicity and are aligned philosophically with the pro-democracy movement in China, this is not true for all the investors who merely saw the Exchange as a good investment opportunity.\n\n### 4. JURISDICTION AND REGISTRATION\n\nIt is clear from the onboarding process outlined above that the Exchange prohibited onboarding of U.S. residents. The Exchange does not offer any of its products or services in those excluded jurisdictions. In order to register as a user of the Exchange, the prospective user is required to indicate their personal details including their country of residence. Anyone in an excluded jurisdiction is automatically rejected as the Country does not appear in the drop-down menu to select. The U.S. is one of the prohibited and excluded jurisdictions. Petitioners are required to notify the Exchange if they move jurisdictions in which they are resident, so the Exchange can assess whether they can continue to provide services in the new Country.\n\n### 5. FINANCIALS AND AUDITS\n\nEach Petitioner and customer of the Exchange is able to log into their own account and see all their records which includes HCN and HDO balances, deposits, trades, redemptions and HPay activity. Each Petitioner signed a consent Form for their information to be provided by the Exchange to their lawyer. This includes their deposits, redemptions, HDO and HCN balances. This was requested from the Exchange and has been provided.\n\n## a) Coin Price Harmed By Seizure\n\nExchange customers control their accounts and are able to buy and sell HCN. If they buy HCN they will use the HDO to purchase and if they sell they will receive HDO for the sale. This is reflected in their account trading activity and HCN and HDO balances. HCN is valued by supply and demand, which causes its trading price to fluctuate daily. Further, HCN is exclusive to the Exchange and cannot be transferred to other Exchanges. Petitioners only have the ability to retain and realize their assets in the Exchange. The VCN is an important asset to the Petitioners who have purchased the HDO with USD and used the HDO to purchase the HCN. The price of one HCN at the time of seizure was around 24 HDO equivalent to \\$24. The current price is fluctuating around 14HDO equivalent to \\$14USD.\n\nThe HCN price has dropped significantly as a result of the seizure and redemptions are now unavailable. This is because the Department of Justice has seized the reserve from which the Exchange paid out customer redemptions. Redemptions were paused by the Exchange as result. The value of the HCN just prior to seizure compared to the current value reflects an HCN devaluation of approximately \\$136M USD. If the Exchange crashes and the HCN plumets or the Exchange has to cease doing business, due to the seizures and lack of long-term reserves, then the Petitioners will lose their entire HCN assets with no recourse. It seems little consideration has been given to the substantial loss which will be caused to the Petitioners by the seizures. The Department of Justice has claimed that seizing the funds will protect the \"victims.\" Unfortunately, the effect is the opposite and the consequences of their actions will cause catastrophic losses to the Petitioners and many other customers of the Exchange who will be irreparably harmed.\n\nExchange customers supremely value trust and the herculean efforts the Exchange has endured to protect customer information, which to many customers is considered a \"life or death\" matter because of the human rights issues and other threats of persecution for a certain class of Exchange customers as stated above. There is no other reason for this protection of data, and in particular protection of their personal details. Since all customers of the Exchange have been vetted.\n\n#### b) Audit reports and Financial Analysis\n\nStable coin audits undertaken by independent auditors concluded that all HDO are 100% backed by currency. They further expressed the opinion that Himalaya International Reserves Limited's financial reporting was accurate and complete. As noted above, at the date of the seizure the reserve was at 100%.\n\n### c) No Loss to Customers or Redemptions\n\nExchange records provided with the consent of the Petitioners show that no customer had any losses as a result of the initial HCN coin offering and those that did trade the initial coins in fact made profits. Some customers then requested redemptions of those profits which the Exchange processed in accordance with the redemption policy. Further, those that did not trade the initial HCN or part of their HCN also had no losses as the value of the HCN coin increased since issuance and has not dropped below the initial purchase price of \\$0.10 per coin. Subsequent trading of HCN between customers has been carried out at the current market price as would be expected from a trading.\n\nRedemptions are the process where a customer makes a request to convert their HDO back into USD paid directly into the customer's named bank account. It is clear from their records that numerous Petitioners received redemptions from the Exchange. This process involved the customer requesting the redemption by logging into their account. The Exchange set the limit of \\$100k per month. The records received clearly indicate that the Petitioners were given many redemptions and the total figure is substantial in value. This again supports the fact that the Petitioners have not been defrauded and is indicative of a properly run Exchange. Further, from the information it is clear that there are not substantial losses as stated in the indictment but that there are substantial profits and gains made by the Petitioners.\n\n####\n\n !\"#\"#\\$\\$ %\"&& !\"'##&\" (&!%(# !\"(\"(&\"' ##!) !\"!(&( #!(&'\n\n# \\*+,-.,/01.,234015,\\*4066037.8\n\n !\"%\"!&%\"##&&!& %!()9):;)&!'< &# %#!&!!()%\"#&!&%\" \"&=#!!(!#%(%'>(% )'(\\$\"(\")\"#&\"##! &%&!(#!&%=\"% \"(=\"&)!&'\"(&# %?#=@)9):;!!(\"((\"&\"\"\" !\"'\n\nA((!!(&\" %(# !\"&% !(& %(#\"(!!(\"&%B& !\" \"()#!&\"C>DE\\$FGEC4 The following are the dates upon each notice was issued:\n\n· BCSC (Canada) caution list & CSA (Central regulator Canada);\n\n· IOSCO (Global) caution list;\n\n. CMVM (Portugal) caution list;\n\n5 http\n\noutside of China. For example, Foreign Policy reported on March 29, 2022 on the government targeting of the Chinese diaspora, particularly \"Hong Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Chinese dissidents, in countries such as the United Kingdom and Morocco. They reported threatening calls, cyberattacks, and harassment, including of family members in the PRC.\"6\n\n## IV. RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 41(g)\n\n## A. The Equities Require Return Now Without Further Delay\n\nRule 41(g) provides:\n\nA person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.\n\nRule 41(g) motion is an equitable remedy that is available only when there is no adequate remedy at law and the equities favor the exercise of jurisdiction. De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006); see also U.S. (Drug Enforcement Agency) v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler Automobile, 972 F.2d 472, 479 (2d Cir. 1992). A third-party claimant contesting a criminal forfeiture may lack an adequate remedy at law if the claimant faces months or years of delay before the claimant may seek an ancillary proceeding in the criminal forfeiture action. De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382. In this matter, the trial is not scheduled to commence until April 8, 2024. The equities favor resolution of this matter now rather than continued delay that will irreparably harm petitioners. Through no fault of their own, petitioners are unable to liquidate their holdings in the Exchange.\n\n6 http See also. http http\n\n## B. Petitioners Have Distinct, Identifiable Interest in the Forfeited Funds and Were Not Given Proper Notice of the Seizure\n\nThe petitioners have a distinct, identifiable third-party interest in the forfeited property pursuant to 21 U.S. Code § 853(n). Despite the government's claim that the notice was not practicable', the Exchange maintains confidential information about the customers of the Exchange. The government could have worked with the Exchange to make viable notice and execute a speedy confidential return of the seized funds. As the United States understands, the customers of the Exchange are ALL foreign nationals. Publication on the SDNY website was insufficient to reach them in their given languages. Customers who contacted undersigned counsel expressed fear and frustration about how little information was available about the condition of their funds and they had no idea when or if they would ever receive their funds back. There is a suspicion within the community, ill-founded no doubt, that the U.S. Government is working with the CCP to expose Exchange customers who are viewed by the CCP as dissidents. The undersigned counsel is not a risk assessment expert in this area and has no position regarding the credibility of these concerns, but it is impossible not to notice that this is a strong inference that has been drawn by the community and its clients.\n\nThe cases cited to the Court in its Motion Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3771 (Docket 10) are distinguishable from this case. For example, See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 20 Cr. 524 (KPF) \"Upon the motion of the United States of America dated January 23, 2023, it is found that: (a) there are over one hundred thousand potential individual victims in this case; (b) there is no readily available up-to-date compilation of such individuals; and (c) it is impracticable to accord all of the potential victims notice.\" In this case, there are a limited number of victims, there is an up to date, though confidential, list of the victims, and thus the Government could have notified the victims upon seizure by working with the Exchange.\n\n## C. Confidentiality is Imperative to Petitioners\n\nFurther, as noted above, confidentiality is imperative to members of the Exchange because of the potential for political persecution. Counsel certifies under penalty of perjury that based upon information he has been provided, the petitioners have right, title and interest in the seized property and can provide additional information confidentially to support petitioners' claims.\n\n# D. are Available under Rule 41(g)\n\nA variety of reasonable conditions are available for the speedy and confidential return of the petitioners seized funds in this matter. See Department of Justice Manual 9-111.125 - Trustees and Monitors in Forfeiture Cases. 8 Because of the meticulous compliance procedures followed by the Exchange, this confidential and speedy return of the funds to petitioners who are completely innocent parties, can be effectuated with minor cooperation between a designate from the United States Attorney's Office and undersigned counsel, through a controlled and protected procedure, that can also be subject to approval by this Court in camera. Because the petitioners have already endured punishment in the form of confiscated funds and loss of significant returns on their investment, we request that the Honorable Court refrain from the appointment of a trustee, monitor receiver because this will exacerbate their injury and further diminish the corpus of their investment.\n\n9 The purpose of the trustee and monitor policy is to provide guidance for the appointment of trustees and monitors in Department of Justice federal forfeiture cases involving complex assets or business enterprises. The key distinction between a monitor and a trustee is that only a trustee has the authority to manage an enterprise. A monitor observes and reports. A receiver is a fiduciary who is responsible only to the court, and a custodian takes actual custody of the assets and may be recommended where a number of assets are located in a foreign country. In this case, all the details about investor identity and investment activity is meticulously organized, protected and preserved by the Exchange and all the information relevant to the Government's obligation to release the funds can be readily obtained, provided and reviewed.\n\n8 http\n\nOne of the aspects of the seizure that caused outright alarm by certain customers of the Exchange was the rumor that the U.S. Department of Justice had attempted to seize the customer lists of the Exchange. It is clear that their information cannot be protected even with strict compliance protections.10 With lives at stake, petitioners implore the Court not to entrust personally identifiable information involving third-party investors, with no known connection to the alleged criminal conduct, to the Government.\n\nFurther, the forfeiture statutes do not preclude, as a matter of law, the imposition of a constructive trust to protect these victims from further injury. See United States v. \\$4,224,958.57 (Boylan), 392 F.3d 1002, 1003-1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that victims of a large, fraudulent investment scheme established a sufficient legal interest in the seized proceeds through a constructive trust to confer on them standing to contest the forfeiture); see also Willis Mgmt. (Vermont), Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 236, 238 (2d Cir. 2011). Such a constructive trust should be ordered by the Court to allow for the clearing, release, and redemption of the Petitioners funds.\n\n10 Many of the attorneys and staff assigned to this matter at the U.S. Attorney's office may sympathize with undersigned counsel's expressions of concern about information security since many of us (undersigned counsel as a former DOJ employee) have had had our clearance files compromised. See Office of Personnel Management data breach - Wikipedia; Final notices going out this week to the 21 million people whose data was stolen in the security clearance breach - The Washington Post, The Office of Personnel Management data breach was a 2015 data breach targeting Standard Form 86 (SF-86) U.S. government security clearance records retained by the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). One of the largest breaches of government data in U.S. history, the attack was carried out by an advanced persistent threat based in China, widely believed to be the Jiangsu State Security Department, a subsidiary of China's Ministry of State Security spy agency. Approximately 22.1 million records were affected, including records related to government employees, other people who had undergone background checks, and their friends and family. The breach included personally identifiable information such as Social Security numbers, as well as names, dates and places of birth, and addresses. State-sponsored hackers working on behalf of the Chinese government carried out the attack.\n\nIn this matter it would be serious concern if Government ever were to consider it to be a good idea to obtain all account information from thousands of vulnerable Exchange customers who are located outside the United States requiring the Himalaya Exchange to unencrypt it and provide it to the US Government, when the US Government has a terrible track record of protecting such information.\n\n#### V. CONCLUSION\n\nBased on the foregoing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), petitioners move for return of their property seized by the United Stares in United States v. Kwok, 23 CR 18 SDNY), and as that the Court adopt the aforementioned procedure for the confidential and speedy return of their property.\n\n> /s/ Jamie Scher Jamie Scher NY 2488435 Myer and Scher LLP 377B South Oyster Bay Road Plainview, NY 118013 Jamie(@myerandscher.com (516) 713-0655\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on December 6, 2023, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.\n\nCase 22-500781:13ecr242518-FiledI12008128t 1E6tereFilled08/26/18/08/26/126/08/26/26/26/26/26/26/2\n\n## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nV.\n\nCase No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n### PROPOSED ORDER\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,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" Defendants.,\n\nThe Court, having reviewed the Motion for Return of Property and Memorandum in Support hereby orders:\n\n1. I The United States Attorney's Office is directed to meet with the counsel for the 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange to develop a secure and protected system for returning customer HDO Reserve to effectuate the immediate return of the petitioners property;\n\n2. at the same time to permit the United States to authenticate that the customers are real and that their account activity is authentic;\n\n3. The procedure and plan will be submitted to the Court for in camera review and approval on or before January 5, 2024 to begin returning HDO Reserve on a rolling basis beginning no later than January 20, 2024.\n\n-- - -\n-- -- - -- - --- -- - --- -- -- - -!\"-#\\$%&'\\$----- - -- -- - -(\n--)- - -\\*- -\n+--\n - -,\n - --.-\n\n/-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n --\n\n> --\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n#### 0000000000000000000000000000000-123456-748457-637493:4-;16<5-\n\n-\n\n--\n\n-\n\n# **Exhibit B**\n\n**Response of U.S. Department of Justice**\n\n![](_page_29_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n## **U.S. Department of Justice**\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007*\n\nDecember 7, 2023\n\n## **VIA ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n## **Re:** *United States v. Kwok, et al.***, S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes in response to the Motion for Return of Property, dated December 6, 2023 (Dkt. 186 (\"Motion\")). The Motion, which was filed by counsel for 3,345 purported customers (the \"Petitioners\") of the Himalaya Exchange (the \"Exchange\"), seeks the \"return of [Petitioners'] property seized by the United States\" in connection with the above-captioned case. (Motion at 1.) As alleged in the Indictment in the above-captioned case, the Exchange is an instrumentality of the charged fraud crimes, and the funds in question—which were seized by the Government in between 2022 and 2023 pursuant to judicially authorized seizure warrants—are listed in the Indictment as assets subject to forfeiture. (Superseding Indictment, Dkt. 19 at ¶¶ 12, 17-24, 55(j), (k), (m), (o), (p), (s).) For the reasons described herein, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion.\n\nThe Motion seeks the return of assets pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Courts have jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) only when (1) the movant has \"no adequate remedy at law\", and (2) \"the equities favor the exercise of jurisdiction.\" *De Almeida v. United States*, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006). When assessing jurisdiction, the Second Circuit has advised district courts that \"[j]urisdiction under Rule 41 is to be exercised with great restraint and caution since it rests upon the court's supervisory power over the actions of federal law enforcement officials.\" *Id.* at 382 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing *Floyd v. United States*, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988) and *Hunsucker v. Phinney*, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)).\n\nHere, as a result of the Indictment's forfeiture allegations, which include the funds at issue, the Petitioners have an adequate remedy at law to resolve their claims—namely, the exclusive remedies available to claimants seeking to assert an interest in forfeitable property under Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. In particular, Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n) provides the *exclusive* means by which a party may assert an interest in property subject to forfeiture. *DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States*, 496 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2007) (\"It is . . . well settled that section 853(n) provides the exclusive means by which a third party may lay claim to forfeited assets—after the preliminary forfeiture order has been entered.\"); *see also United States* *v. Rashid*, 373 F. App'x 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2010). Consequently, there are no grounds to assert equitable jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 41(g). *See De Almeida*, 459 F.3d at 382.\n\nIt may well be that some, or all, of the Petitioners are entitled to the Government's seized funds at an appropriate time. But this is not that time. Following a conviction, a district court \"must determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute\" and \"promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture . . . without regard to any third party's interest in the property.\" F ed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). Criminal forfeiture proceedings pursuant to Sections 981 and 982, including any related judicial proceedings, are governed principally by 21 U.S.C. § 853. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1). After a court issues a preliminary order of forfeiture, a third party may petition the court for an ancillary hearing to \"adjudicate the validity of [the third-party's] alleged interest in [the criminally forfeited] property.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n); *see also United States v. Daugerdas*, 892 F.3d 545, 552 (2d Cir. 2018).\n\nIn any event, it is not clear to the Government that the Petitioners have satisfied threshold Article III standing requirements. The Government was first contacted by Petitioners' counsel yesterday. During a phone call, the Government requested that Petitioners' counsel provide information sufficient to demonstrate that the 3,345 Petitioners were all, in fact, customers of the Exchange. Counsel declined to provide any such information, claiming that doing so could, in sum and substance, jeopardize Petitioners' safety from the \"Chinese Communist Party.\" The Government further inquired how Petitioners' counsel himself had verified that all 3,345 of his clients were customers of the Exchange. Counsel responded that each Petitioner had provided him with a \"seven-digit unique identifier,\" which he then used to confirm the Petitioners' status as customers directly with counsel for the Exchange. However, Petitioners' counsel declined to share any of the information about the Petitioners with the Government, or to explain how he was able to verify their status as Exchange customers using such identifiers. Counsel also indicated that he has not yet obtained documentation in the Exchange's possession regarding his clients' Exchange accounts because, among other things, he did not want to be responsible for \"getting someone killed.\" When the Government offered to confer to find a way to address counsel's privacy concerns, counsel stated, in substance, that he would be filing the Motion to \"put the court on notice\" that \"there are people getting stomped on.\" Thus, the Government does not agree with Petitioners' counsel's certification that he \"conferred with counsel for the Government in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court, and ha[s] been unable to reach agreement.\" (Dkt. 186 at 2.)\n\nTo be clear, and as explained above, the Government seized more than \\$600 million in proceeds of the charged crimes—including the Exchange funds in question—to preserve those funds for later disbursement and restitution to victims. When such distribution should occur, and the mechanism for doing so, will be determined after the completion of the pending criminal proceedings and as the law directs.\n\nCongress has determined that the forfeiture process is the exclusive means for persons claiming an interest in forfeitable property to assert those interests. To allow some third parties to subvert that process and \"jump the line\" may prejudice other third parties seeking to claim an interest in the property. Ancillary forfeiture proceedings are specifically designed to ensure an orderly and efficient process for resolving competing claims to forfeitable assets. Accordingly, the Government requests that the Court deny Petitioners' Motion.\n\nThe Government is available to address any questions the Court may have.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nB\n\nRyan B. Finkel Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson Justin Horton Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n:　（合并管理）\n\n第11章受托人就喜马拉雅交易所被指称客户在债务人于纽约南区美国联邦地区法院审理中的刑事诉讼中提出的返还财产动议发出的通知\n\nLuc A. Despins 以 Ho Wan Kwok（以下简称“债务人”）第11章案件受托人（以下简称“受托人”）的身份，特此通知：2023年12月6日，据称代表喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）2 的3,345名客户的律师，在债务人于美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）审理中的刑事案件 [案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（以下简称“刑事案件”）中提交了一项动议（以下简称“该动议”），请求返还美国政府因该刑事案件而扣押的财产。对该动议作出答复的截止日期已确定为2023年12月19日。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（宝罗律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n2 Himalaya Exchange 是一家在英属维尔京群岛注册的公司，名称为 Himalaya International Clearing Limited（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）。\n\n该动议副本 [刑事案件 ECF No. 186] 作为附件A附后。美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）已对该动议作出答复。该答复副本作为附件B附后。\n\n如本院所忆及，本院先前在作出准许针对债务人及若干关联方的初步禁令的命令时认定，Himalaya Exchange 及其他多个关联 Himalaya 实体“均由债务人领导”3，且为“债务人的商业工具”。4 受托人还注意到，本第11章案件中已提交大量债权证明，主张基于在 Himalaya Exchange 内或与 Himalaya Exchange 有关的“投资”的债权。\n\n受托人正在审阅该动议并评估下一步措施。鉴于该动议如获准，将妨碍本第11章案件的管理，包括与债权处理和遗产财产分配有关的事项，如本院希望就此事项安排一次状态会议，受托人愿依本院酌处权参加。\n\n日期：2023年12月8日 LUC A. DESPINS，\n\n第11章受托人\n\n签字人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（获准 pro hac vice 出庭） Avram E. Luft（获准 pro hac vice 出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue\n\n3 经修正的《关于部分准许初步禁令动议的裁决备忘录》，日期为2023年1月13日，对抗程序案号 22-5032 (JAM)，第60页（“[T]he Himalaya entities, NFSC, GTV, GNews, and ROLF are all under the leadership of the Debtor and share the same common goal of 'taking down the CCP.'”）（强调为后加）。Himalaya 实体包括 Himalaya Exchange。参见同上第4段（“NFSC is associated, affiliated, and/or connected with the Himalaya Global Alliance (together with affiliated Himalaya entities, such as Himalaya Exchange and Himalaya Farms, 'Himalaya')”）。另参见同上第2段（“The GSeries includes the following entities: Himalaya Exchange, Gettr, GFashion, GMusic, GClubs, GNews, and GEdu.”）。\n\n4 参见同上第7段（“The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya. The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.”）（强调为后加）。\n\nNew York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（获准 pro hac vice 出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK 等人，1　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n:　（合并管理）\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，前述通知已于2023年12月8日以电子方式提交。该提交的通知已通过本院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统以电子邮件发送给上述第11章案件中的所有当事人，或依电子提交通知书所示，以邮寄方式发送给无法接受电子提交的任何人。当事人可通过本院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅该提交文件。\n\n日期：2023年12月8日 签字人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（获准 pro hac vice 出庭） Avram E. Luft（获准 pro hac vice 出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP，200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n附件A\n\n动议\n\n案号 22-50878 1:100cr242518 于 D2l08f251 提交 TEMerleit2108088284:18:00 第1页，共32页\n\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n\n美利坚合众国，\n\n案号 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n诉\n\n返还财产动议\n\nHO WAN KWOK，亦称“Miles Guo”、亦称“Miles Kwok”、亦称“Guo Wengui”、亦称“Brother Seven”、亦称“The Principal”；KIN MING JE，亦称“William Je”；及 YANPING WANG，亦称“Yvette”，被告人。\n\n下列签署律师代理喜马拉雅交易所（以下简称“交易所”）的3,345名客户，该等客户持有 Himalaya Dollar (HDO) 和 Himalaya Coin (HCN) 加密货币（以下简称“申请人”）。根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第41(g)条，申请人请求返还美国政府在 United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY) 中扣押的其财产。申请人对被没收的财产具有独立、可识别的第三方利益。申请人\n\n日期：2023年12月6日\n\n提交所附支持本动议的备忘录。\n\nMyer and Scher LLP（迈尔及谢尔律师事务所） /s/ Jamie Scher 签署人：NY 2488435 377B South Oyster Bay Road Plainview, NY 118013 Jamie(@myerandscher.com (516) 713-0655\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com LLC /s/ Brad Geyer 签署人：Bradford L. Geyer，PHV 待决 NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n会议证明及通知\n\n本人 Bradford Geyer 证明，本人已与政府方律师进行协商，真诚努力通过协议解决该动议提出的问题而无需本院介入，但未能达成协议。本人还特此证明，前述文件的真实准确副本已于2023年12月6日通过美国纽约南区联邦地区法院的 ECF 系统以电子方式提交并送达。\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com LLC /s/ Brad Geyer 签署人：Bradford L. Geyer，PHV 待决 NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n\n美利坚合众国\n\nS1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK，亦称“Miles Guo”、亦称“Miles Kwok”、亦称“Guo Wengui”、亦称“Brother Seven”、亦称“The Principal”；KIN MING JE，亦称“William Je”；及 YANPING WANG，亦称“Yvette”，被告人。\n\n支持返还财产动议的备忘录\n\n目录\n\nI.\nII.\nA. 扣押\nB. 喜马拉雅交易所\n1. 概述\n2. 客户准入合规、AML 及 KYC 审查\n3. 客户基础\n4. 管辖权及注册\n5. 财务及审计\na.\nb.\nc.\nIII.\nA. 不利的社交媒体\nB. 向监管机构提出的虚假投诉\nC. 美国国务院报告\nIV.\nA. 衡平原则要求不得再行拖延而返还\nB. 申请人对被没收资金具有独立、可识别的利益，且未获给予关于扣押的适当通知\nC. 保密对申请人至关重要\nD. 根据第41(g)条，可适用为保护获取财产而设定合理条件的程序\nV. 结论\n\nI. 引言\n\n下列签署律师代理超过3,345名喜马拉雅交易所（以下简称“交易所”）的客户，该等客户持有 Himalaya Dollar (HDO) 和 Himalaya Coin (HCN) 加密货币（以下简称“申请人”）。1 根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第41(g)条，申请人请求返还美国政府在 United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY) 中扣押的其财产。申请人对被没收的财产具有独立、可识别的第三方利益。在美国于2023年3月提交的《政府根据〈美国法典〉第18编第3771条提出的动议》中，美国将申请人描述为被告人的“受害人”。如本动议所述，本案资产的扣押使其成为美国政府扣押行为的“受害人”。\n\n自成立以来，喜马拉雅交易所在建立安全客户基础方面进行了广泛的尽职调查，并始终符合严格的审计及合规标准。在扣押之日，储备金为100%。根据对交易所及 Himalaya International Reserves Limited 财务记录的分析，主要发现如下：\n\n喜马拉雅实体的运营活动显示，该企业拥有经过严格审查的活跃客户，并已产生足以在不动用任何客户资金的情况下支付运营成本的收入。\n\n客户能够每月将 $100,000 HDO 赎回为 USD 并存入其账户。除不符合特定合规和/或 AML 规则外，所有赎回均得到兑现。申请人的存款、现有 HDO、HCN 余额及赎回情况表明，该交易所运营得当且交易活跃。\n\n申请人未曾遭受交易所的任何虚假陈述、欺诈或资金损失。\n\n下列签署律师估计，随着口碑传至其他迄今从未收到政府关于其资金被扣押通知的受害人，并且本律师的意图明确为真实和真诚，交易所客户人数将增加数千人。在现有的挑战中，许多交易所客户感到恐惧，并且具有讽刺意味地认为美国政府的行动可能是其他政府的先行工具。\n\nII. 事实背景\n\nA. 扣押\n\n美国诉 Kwok（郭文贵）一案的修正后起诉书第35至36页载有关于被告人利用 Himalayan Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）实施欺诈计划的概括性指控。从交易所客户的角度看，这些指控与涉及其由 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）以推定信托方式持有的资金所面临的没收困境，几乎或完全没有联系或相关性。其后，第35至36页第55段j、k、m、o、p和s项载有相关没收指控，允许美国扣押 Himalayan Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）账户中的数百万美元：2\n\ni. 原存于 FV Bank（FV银行）账户号码7801000590、以“Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）名义持有的$4.643,744.70美元，由政府于2022年9月20日或前后扣押；\n\nk. 原存于 FV Bank（FV银行）账户号码7801000254、以“Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）名义持有的$14,599,257.25美元，由政府于2022年9月20日或前后扣押；\n\nm. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBil 0133-0000、以“Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）名义持有的$10,008,284.04美元，由政府于2022年10月16日或前后至2023年3月10日或前后期间扣押；\n\no. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10138-0000、以“Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）名义持有的$272,350,313.76美元，由政府于2022年10月16日或前后至2023年3月10日或前后期间扣押；\n\np. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10139-0000、以“Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）名义持有的$310,594.31美元，由政府于2022年10月16日或前后至2023年3月10日或前后期间扣押；\n\n2 该情况亦载于政府的要求提供案情细节书（Docket 38），并增加了第1项：存于 FV Bank（FV银行）账户号码7801000589、以“Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）名义持有的$7.715.00美元，由政府于2022年9月20日或前后扣押。被扣押金额与律师审阅的审计报告之间似乎也存在差异。律师怀疑这是公共记录中未载明的银行转账和活动所致。就本次提交而言，持牌银行账户内的现金现由美国政府持有。\n\ns. 原存于 Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10183-0000、以“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.”（喜马拉雅货币清算有限公司）名义持有的$161,809.47美元，由政府于2022年10月16日或前后扣押。\n\n美国对这些账户的扣押构成稳定币储备的大部分，交易所客户及现申请人是该储备的受益人。自启动以来，交易所始终维持100%的稳定币储备。因此，所有已发行的稳定币均由银行内按1:1比例的资金支持。于从交易所账户扣押之日，储备金为100%。在任何时候均不存在对客户资金的欺诈性使用或挪用。事实上，如下文所述，交易所曾两次对稳定币储备进行外部审计，最近一次是在扣押日期前不久。这些审计确认储备金完好无损。\n\nB. HIMALAYA EXCHANGE（喜马拉雅交易所）\n\n1. 概述\n\nHimalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）（“交易所”）是一家在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）（“BVI”）注册、名为 Himalaya International Clearing Limited（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、以 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）名义经营的公司。其运营一个用户对用户的中心化加密货币交易平台，该平台包括一个就虚拟资产产品运行持续撮合订单簿的引擎。该平台供客户交易、存储及管理喜马拉雅加密货币，即 Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）（“HCN”）和 Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元）（“HDO”）。HCN是交易所的交易币，一种由供求关系定价的加密货币。HDO是一种稳定币，其结构旨在使其价值与美元维持1:1的比例。交易所客户可根据下文概述的交易所赎回条款，从其HDO余额中将HDO赎回为美元。HCN由 Himalaya International Financial Group Limited（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）发行。HDO由 Himalaya International Reserves Limited（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）发行。\n\n交易所的启动旨在为世界上每个人带来金融自由，并帮助那些受到不当迫害的人，包括资产被非法夺走，或在中国共产党（“CCP”）无任何正当理由威胁将其夺走的情况下，其资产被扣作赎金的人。交易所客户与被告人没有任何关联。该交易所在非美国人群体中极受欢迎，尤其是在华裔人士中；他们依赖于该交易所得到专业且安全的管理，并且该交易所除法律要求外，不会向外国政府泄露任何个人信息。它还为其合法资金的金融安全向受政治迫害者提供工具（例如，参加香港和平示威的人士，其银行账户会被关闭；以及一般而言，那些遭中国共产党针对、迫害或恐吓，其资产被没收的人）。中国共产党将该交易所视为一种威胁，认为其削弱了中国共产党（非法）没收资产及控制中国经济的权力。在资金被美国扣押的受影响群体中，包括被中国政府视为异见人士的非美国人。\n\n交易所的启动遵循分阶段程序。第一阶段的客户注册于2021年4月启动。这是在启动前为私人参与客户进行的注册。准入仅在允许的司法管辖区内进行（非美国及其他地区），并完全遵守“了解你的客户”（KYC）程序。\n\n为注册，申请人须经过正式的准入程序以及KYC和反洗钱（AML）审查。下文对含有KYC和AML审查的准入程序作出更详细说明。经合规官员批准后，申请人即可进入其Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）账户，并在交易所启动时存入美元，以1:1的比例使用美元购买HDO Credits（HDO积分）。\n\n修正后起诉书中讨论的白皮书3说明，HDO仅向交易所成员提供。交易所成员可通过交易所购买HDO Credits（HDO积分），从而参与 Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元）的发行。白皮书还说明，为向HDO Credits（HDO积分）提供流动性支持，并作为防范价格波动的保障，发行人 Himalaya International Reserves Limited（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）将设立储备金。该储备金的管理旨在使其美元价值维持在与流通中HDO价值相等的水平。\n\n2021年7月，在第二阶段，交易所推出两种加密货币：HCN和HDO。两种币均为基于 Ethereum（以太坊）的代币，并向后兼容 ERC-20 标准。HDO由 Himalaya International Reserves（喜马拉雅国际储备）发行，并与美元挂钩。HCN不与任何法定货币价值挂钩，因此其价值受二级市场中的供求关系影响。这是交易所中的交易币。成员可以在交易所交易HCN Credits（HCN积分）。已在交易所注册的用户获准在启动前不久，以每个HCN US $0.10的初始HCN发行价格，使用HDO积分购买预先配售的HCN。HCN在启动时的开盘价格为每个HCN $0.10。\n\n2021年11月1日，第三阶段包括 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的全面启动。已注册用户此时能够使用HDO交易HCN，即购买HCN并在出售时获得HDO。对于向交易所申请的人员，客户注册继续进行，并适用下文所列相同的准入要求。\n\n3 http\n\n2022年1月，第四阶段包括推出 Himalaya Pay（喜马拉雅支付）（“HPay”）。该应用程序在某些允许的司法管辖区内向现有交易所成员提供，仅允许交易所成员之间点对点转移HDO和HCN。该应用程序还允许使用HDO购买礼品卡，以在某些允许的司法管辖区内向经交易所批准的商户购买商品。该应用程序不可在美国使用，也不可供美国居民使用。\n\nHDO具有多种功能，允许成员购买交易币HCN，并购买可用于向经批准的交易所生态系统商户购买商品的礼品卡。成员可通过HPay使用礼品卡进行商户购买，HPay还允许交易所客户之间进行点对点转账。\n\n如下文所述，分别于2021年12月15日和2022年7月31日进行的稳定币审计报告表明，交易所维持了100%的美元储备，其比例为等值1 HDO对$1。最后一份审计报告于扣押前不久完成，当时储备金为100%。\n\n2. 客户准入、合规、AML和KYC审查\n\n交易所实行严格的准入程序。如上所述，这些程序包括作为交易所准入程序一部分的严格AML和KYC审查。合规程序还包括客户注册、身份识别和核验、姓名筛查、风险评估及持续尽职调查。广泛的AML和合规程序包括强化尽职调查（EDD）、制裁和政治公众人物（PEP）筛查、定期账户核查和审查，以及交易监控。\n\n申请注册交易所账户时，申请人首先须完成一份KYC和AML问卷，其中包括但不限于其个人资料、居住国家和资金来源等问题。作为进一步保障，在提交注册前，他们须声明其并非美国、加拿大或日本的居民。这些并非唯一被禁止的司法管辖区，但特别突出这三个国家，并设有复选框，供客户声明其并非该等司法管辖区的居民。申请人还须核验其身份并提供官方身份证明文件。他们被引导使用 Jumio（Jumio）提供的身份核验软件，该软件针对所提交的身份证件提供人工智能（AI）面部识别审查。\n\n一些申请人的文件由合规官员评估，并在其账户获批准前接受进一步审查。一些申请人被要求提供额外的银行对账单、财富来源信息和资金来源信息。申请人还经历了其账户的持续审查和交易监控，并被要求提供进一步的财务或其他文件。此外，作为其自身AML和合规程序的一部分，交易所的银行合作伙伴也要求取得客户的KYC及其他信息，方允许每名客户进行存款和赎回。这表明交易所维持的高标准，以及通过独立银行提供的额外金融保障。\n\n3. 客户基础\n\n交易所客户由居住在允许投资稳定币/交易币交易所的国家的独立投资者构成。他们包括小企业主、高管、教育和医疗保健行业人士——几乎涵盖通常会与某一人口群体相关联的任何职业。他们是拥有一定可支配财富、能够从事投机性投资的非美国人。交易所客户与有组织犯罪或非法交易毫无关联，正如不能对纽约证券交易所客户作出此类指控一样。尽管许多客户具有华人血统，并在理念上认同中国的民主运动，但并非所有仅将交易所视为良好投资机会的投资者皆是如此。\n\n4. 管辖权和注册\n\n从上文概述的开户注册流程可以清楚看出，交易所禁止美国居民注册。交易所不在这些被排除的司法管辖区提供其任何产品或服务。为注册成为交易所用户，潜在用户须填写其个人资料，包括其居住国。任何位于被排除司法管辖区的人都会被自动拒绝，因为其所在国家不会出现在可供选择的下拉菜单中。美国是被禁止和排除的司法管辖区之一。申请人如迁往其居住地所属司法管辖区以外的地区，须通知交易所，以便交易所评估其是否能够继续在新的国家提供服务。\n\n5. 财务和审计\n\n每位申请人及交易所客户均可登录其自身账户，查看其所有记录，包括 HCN 和 HDO 余额、存款、交易、赎回及 HPay 活动。每位申请人均签署了一份同意书，允许交易所向其律师提供其信息。这包括其存款、赎回、HDO 和 HCN 余额。已向交易所请求该等资料，且交易所已予提供。\n\na) 查封损害币价\n\n交易所客户控制其账户，并能够买卖 HCN。如其购买 HCN，将使用 HDO 进行购买；如其出售，则将收到出售所得的 HDO。该等情况反映在其账户交易活动以及 HCN 和 HDO 余额中。HCN 的价值由供求关系决定，因此其交易价格每日波动。此外，HCN 为交易所独有，无法转移至其他交易所。申请人仅能在交易所内持有并实现其资产价值。VCN 对于以 USD 购买 HDO 并使用 HDO 购买 HCN 的申请人而言是一项重要资产。查封时，一枚 HCN 的价格约为 24 HDO，等值于 $24。当前价格在约 14HDO、等值于 $14USD 的水平波动。\n\n由于查封，HCN 价格已大幅下跌，且目前无法赎回。这是因为司法部（Department of Justice）查封了交易所用于向客户支付赎回款项的储备金。因此，交易所暂停了赎回。HCN 在查封前的价值与当前价值相比，显示 HCN 贬值约 $136M USD。若交易所因查封及缺乏长期储备而崩溃，且 HCN 暴跌，或交易所必须停止营业，则申请人将失去其全部 HCN 资产，而无任何救济途径。对于查封将给申请人造成的重大损失，似乎几乎未予考虑。司法部声称，查封资金将保护“受害人”。不幸的是，效果恰恰相反，其行为的后果将给申请人及交易所许多其他客户造成灾难性损失，并使其遭受无法弥补的损害。\n\n交易所客户极为重视信任，并极为重视交易所为保护客户信息所付出的艰巨努力；如上所述，由于针对某一类交易所客户的人权问题及其他迫害威胁，对许多客户而言，这被视为“生死攸关”的问题。不存在其他理由需要如此保护数据，尤其是保护其个人资料。因为交易所的所有客户均已接受审查。\n\nb) 审计报告和财务分析\n\n独立审计师进行的稳定币审计得出结论，所有 HDO 均有 100% 的货币支持。他们进一步发表意见称，喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司（Himalaya International Reserves Limited）的财务报告准确且完整。如上所述，在查封之日，储备金为 100%。\n\nc) 客户无损失或赎回\n\n经申请人同意提供的交易所记录显示，没有任何客户因首次 HCN 发币而遭受任何损失，而实际交易了初始币的客户事实上获得了利润。随后，一些客户请求赎回该等利润，交易所依照赎回政策进行了处理。此外，未交易初始 HCN 或其部分 HCN 的客户也没有损失，因为 HCN 币的价值自发行以来已上涨，且从未跌破每枚 $0.10 的初始购买价格。客户之间后续进行的 HCN 交易均按现行市场价格完成，正如交易所预期的那样。\n\n赎回是指客户提出请求，将其 HDO 转换回 USD，并直接支付至以客户名义开立的银行账户的程序。从其记录可清楚看出，众多申请人已从交易所获得赎回款项。该程序涉及客户登录其账户并提出赎回请求。交易所设定的限额为每月 $100k。收到的记录清楚表明，申请人获得了多笔赎回，且总金额价值巨大。这再次支持申请人未遭受欺诈这一事实，并表明该交易所运营规范。此外，从该等信息可以清楚看出，并不存在起诉书中所称的重大损失，而是申请人获得了大量利润和收益。\n\n原文此处因 OCR 乱码无法辨识。\n\n原文此处因 OCR 乱码无法辨识。\n\n原文此处因 OCR 乱码无法辨识。\n\n这场社交媒体攻击似乎在交易所预注册阶段前后开始，当时交易所尚未上线，交易也尚未开始。\n\nB. 向监管机构提出虚假投诉\n\n交易所受到发布于各个监管机构网站上的警示通知的影响，该等通知随后出现在 Twitter 上。一些 Twitter 信息积极提供监管机构链接，并鼓励他人投诉。该等通知涉及新西兰、不列颠哥伦比亚省（加拿大）、巴哈马、葡萄牙、意大利和匈牙利等司法管辖区。申请人了解到，所有该等通知现已被移除。从通知被移除可明显看出，各司法管辖区的监管机构均会进行调查，发现不存在不当行为，并决定移除警示通知。4\n\nC.\n\n美国国务院（United States Department of State）的报告《2022 年人权实践国别报告：中国（包括香港、澳门和西藏）》5描述了中国异见人士在中国境外遭受针对的一些情形。据了解，中国共产党（CCP）及其代理人曾实施恐吓行为或对异见人士（以及其他群体）采取报复行动。\n\n· FMA（新西兰）警示名单：\n· CONSOB（意大利）警示名单；\n· 证券委员会（巴哈马）警示名单；以及\n· MNB（匈牙利）警示名单。\n\n该等通知现已被移除。\n\n4 下列为各项通知发布的日期：\n\n· BCSC（加拿大）警示名单及 CSA（加拿大中央监管机构）；\n\n· IOSCO（全球）警示名单；\n\n· CMVM（葡萄牙）警示名单；\n\n5 http\n\n在中国境外。例如，《外交政策》（Foreign Policy）于 March 29, 2022 报道称，政府针对华人侨民，特别是“在英国和摩洛哥等国家的香港人、维吾尔人、西藏人和中国异见人士”。报道指出，他们收到威胁电话、遭受网络攻击和骚扰，包括其在中华人民共和国境内的家庭成员。6\n\nIV. 刑事诉讼规则 41(g)\n\nA. 衡平考量要求立即返还，不得进一步拖延\n\n规则 41(g) 规定：\n\n因对财产进行非法搜查和扣押或因被剥夺财产而受到损害的人，可以提出动议请求返还该财产。该动议必须在财产被扣押所在地的地区提出。法院必须就裁决该动议所必要的任何事实争议接收证据。如法院准许该动议，法院必须将财产返还给动议提出人，但可以施加合理条件，以保障日后程序中对该财产及其使用的获取。\n\n规则 41(g) 动议是一种衡平法救济，只有在无法律上的充分救济且衡平考量支持行使管辖权时方可适用。De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)；另见 U.S. (Drug Enforcement Agency) v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler Automobile, 972 F.2d 472, 479 (2d Cir. 1992)。在刑事没收中对没收提出异议的第三方权利主张人，如在其可于刑事没收诉讼中寻求附带程序之前面临数月或数年的延误，则可能缺乏法律上的充分救济。De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382。在本案中，审判计划于 April 8, 2024 才开始。衡平考量支持现在解决本案，而非继续拖延，因为该等拖延将对申请人造成无法弥补的损害。申请人并无过错，却无法在交易所变现其持有资产。\n\n6 http 另见。http http\n\nB. 申请人对被没收资金具有独特、可识别的利益，且未获得适当的查封通知\n\n根据 21 U.S. Code § 853(n)，申请人对被没收财产享有独特、可识别的第三方利益。尽管政府声称通知“不具可行性”，交易所仍保有关于交易所客户的保密信息。政府本可与交易所合作，作出可行的通知，并迅速、保密地返还被查封资金。正如美国所理解，交易所客户全部为外国国民。在纽约南区（Southern District of New York，SDNY）网站上发布通知，不足以以其各自语言触及他们。联系下列签名律师的客户表达了恐惧和挫败感，因为关于其资金状况可获得的信息极少，他们不知道何时或是否能够收回其资金。该社群中存在一种怀疑，尽管毫无根据，即美国政府正与中国共产党合作，暴露被中国共产党视为异见人士的交易所客户。下列签名律师并非该领域的风险评估专家，对这些担忧的可信度不持立场，但不可不注意到，该社群及其客户已作出这一强烈推断。\n\n本院在其根据《美国法典》第18编第3771条提出的动议（Docket 10）中所援引的案件，与本案有别。例如，参见 United States v. Brown, 20 Cr. 524 (KPF)：“根据美利坚合众国于2023年1月23日提出的动议，认定：(a) 本案有逾十万名潜在个人受害人；(b) 没有关于该等人员的现成最新汇编；且 (c) 向所有潜在受害人发出通知并不可行。”本案受害人人数有限，存在一份最新但保密的受害人名单，因此，政府本可通过与该交易所合作，在扣押时通知受害人。\n\nC. 对请愿人而言，保密至关重要\n\n此外，如上所述，鉴于可能遭受政治迫害，保密对交易所成员至关重要。代理律师在伪证处罚的约束下证明：根据其获得的信息，请愿人对被扣押财产享有权利、所有权及权益，并可保密地提供额外信息以支持请愿人的请求。\n\nD. 根据规则41(g)可获得救济\n\n本案可采用多种合理条件，以迅速且保密地返还请愿人被扣押的资金。参见 Department of Justice Manual 9-111.125 - Trustees and Monitors in Forfeiture Cases。8 鉴于交易所遵循严谨的合规程序，可通过美国联邦检察官办公室指定人员与下列签名律师之间的有限合作，经由受控且受保护的程序，迅速且保密地将资金返还给完全无辜的请愿人；该程序亦可提交本院不公开审查并批准。鉴于请愿人已经因资金被没收及其投资的重大收益损失而承受惩罚，我们请求尊敬的法院不要任命受托人、监察人或接管人，因为这将加重其损害，并进一步减少其投资本金。\n\n9 受托人与监察人政策的目的，是就司法部涉及复杂资产或商业企业的联邦没收案件中任命受托人和监察人提供指导。监察人与受托人之间的关键区别在于，只有受托人有权管理企业。监察人负责观察和报告。接管人是仅对法院负责的受托人，而保管人实际占有资产；当若干资产位于外国时，可能建议任命保管人。在本案中，关于投资者身份和投资活动的所有细节均由交易所严谨地组织、保护和保存，且与政府释放资金义务相关的所有信息均可随时取得、提供和审查。\n\n8 http\n\n某些交易所客户因扣押而产生强烈恐慌的一个方面，是有关美国司法部曾试图扣押交易所客户名单的传言。显然，即使采取严格合规保护措施，他们的信息也无法得到保护。10 在生命受到威胁的情况下，请愿人恳请本院不要将涉及第三方投资者的个人可识别信息委托给政府；该等第三方投资者与被指控的犯罪行为没有已知关联。\n\n此外，没收法规并不在法律上排除设立推定信托，以保护这些受害人免受进一步损害。参见 United States v. \\$4,224,958.57 (Boylan), 392 F.3d 1002, 1003-1005 (9th Cir. 2004)（认定大型欺诈性投资计划的受害人通过推定信托在被扣押收益中确立了充分的法律权益，从而赋予其对没收提出异议的诉讼资格）；另参见 Willis Mgmt. (Vermont), Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 236, 238 (2d Cir. 2011)。本院应下令设立此类推定信托，以允许清算、释放及赎回请愿人的资金。\n\n10 鉴于我们中的许多人（下列签名律师曾为 DOJ 雇员）的安全许可档案曾遭泄露，美国联邦检察官办公室中被指派处理本案的许多律师和工作人员可能会同情下列签名律师对信息安全的担忧。参见 Office of Personnel Management data breach - Wikipedia；Final notices going out this week to the 21 million people whose data was stolen in the security clearance breach - The Washington Post。美国人事管理局数据泄露事件，是2015年针对由 United States Office of Personnel Management（美国人事管理局，OPM）保存的 Standard Form 86（SF-86）美国政府安全许可记录的数据泄露事件。作为美国历史上规模最大的政府数据泄露事件之一，该攻击由位于中国的高级持续性威胁实施，普遍认为该威胁系中国国家安全部间谍机构下属的江苏省国家安全厅。约22.1 million份记录受到影响，包括与政府雇员、其他接受过背景审查的人员及其亲友有关的记录。泄露内容包括社会保障号码等个人可识别信息，以及姓名、出生日期和地点及地址。代表中国政府行事的国家支持黑客实施了该攻击。\n\n在本案中，如政府曾考虑要求位于美国境外的数千名弱势交易所客户提供全部账户信息，要求 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）将该等信息解密并提供给美国政府，这将引起严重关切，因为美国政府在保护此类信息方面有着极差的记录。\n\nV. 结论\n\n基于上述理由，请愿人根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》41(g)条，请求返还美利坚合众国在 United States v. Kwok, 23 CR 18 SDNY) 中扣押的其财产，并请求本院采用上述程序，以保密且迅速地返还其财产。\n\n/s/ Jamie Scher（杰米·谢尔） Jamie Scher NY 2488435 Myer and Scher LLP（迈耶与谢尔律师事务所）377B South Oyster Bay Road Plainview, NY 118013 Jamie(@myerandscher.com (516) 713-0655\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer（布拉德·盖耶） Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于2023年12月6日，上述文件的真实准确副本已通过 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）美国联邦地区法院的 ECF 系统以电子方式提交并送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.\n\nCase 22-500781:13ecr242518-FiledI12008128t 1E6tereFilled08/26/18/08/26/126/08/26/26/26/26/26/26/2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n\n诉\n\nCase No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n拟议命令\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，KIN MING JE，又名 “William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG，又名 “Yvette”，被告。\n\n本院审阅《关于返还财产的动议》及支持该动议的备忘录后，特此命令：\n\n1. 美国联邦检察官办公室应与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）3,345名客户的代理律师会面，制定安全且受保护的制度，以返还客户 HDO Reserve，从而立即返还请愿人的财产；\n\n2. 同时允许美利坚合众国核实客户真实存在且其账户活动真实；\n\n3. 该程序和计划应于2024年1月5日或之前提交本院不公开审查并批准，并应不迟于2024年1月20日开始分批返还 HDO Reserve。\n\n-- -- - -- - --- -- - --- -- -- - -!\"-#\\$%&'\\$----- - -- -- - -(\n\n--)- - -\\*- -\n\n+--\n\n - -,\n\n - --.-\n\n/-\n\n--\n\n0000000000000000000000000000000-123456-748457-637493:4-;16<5-\n\n附件B\n\n美国司法部的答复\nU.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦检察官办公室）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\nDecember 7, 2023\n通过 ECF\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Judge Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦地区法院法官）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n事由：United States v. Kwok, et al., S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n政府致函答复日期为2023年12月6日的《关于返还财产的动议》（Dkt. 186（“动议”））。该动议由 Himalaya Exchange（“交易所”）3,345名自称客户（“请愿人”）的代理律师提出，请求“返还美利坚合众国扣押的[请愿人]财产”，该扣押与上述案件有关。（动议，第1页。）如上述案件起诉书所指控，交易所是被指控欺诈罪行的工具，而有关资金——政府依据经司法授权的扣押令于2022年和2023年间扣押——在起诉书中被列为应予没收的资产。（补充起诉书，Dkt. 19，第 ¶¶ 12, 17-24, 55(j), (k), (m), (o), (p), (s) 段。）基于下述理由，政府谨请本院驳回该动议。\n\n该动议根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》41(g)条请求返还资产。法院仅在以下情形下依据规则41(g)具有管辖权：(1) 动议提出人“没有充分的法律救济”，且 (2)“衡平因素支持行使管辖权”。De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)。在评估管辖权时，Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）已建议地区法院，“依据规则41的管辖权应极其克制且谨慎地行使，因为它建立在法院对联邦执法官员行为的监督权之上。”Id. at 382（省略内部引文标记）（援引 Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988) 和 Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)）。\n\n在此，由于起诉书的没收指控包括争议资金，请愿人拥有充分的法律救济来解决其请求——即根据《美国法典》第21编第853条，可供寻求主张对可没收财产享有权益的请求人使用的专属救济。尤其是，《美国法典》第21编第853(n)条规定了当事人可主张对须没收财产享有权益的专属方式。DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2007)（“……第853(n)条规定了第三方可在初步没收命令作出后主张对被没收资产权利的专属方式，这一点已得到充分确立。”）；另参见 United States v. Rashid, 373 F. App'x 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2010)。因此，不存在依据规则41(g)主张衡平管辖权的理由。参见 De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382。\n\n申请人中的部分或全部人士很可能在适当时候有权获得政府扣押的资金。但现在并非适当时候。在作出有罪判决后，地区法院“必须确定根据适用法规应予没收的财产”，并且“应立即作出初步没收令……，不考虑任何第三方对该财产的权益。”Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)。根据Sections 981 and 982进行的刑事没收程序，包括任何相关司法程序，主要受21 U.S.C. § 853管辖。见18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1)。法院作出初步没收令后，第三方可以向法院申请附属听证，以“裁定[第三方]对[被刑事没收]财产所主张权益的有效性。”21 U.S.C. § 853(n)；另见United States v. Daugerdas, 892 F.3d 545, 552 (2d Cir. 2018)。\n\n无论如何，政府尚不清楚申请人是否已满足Article III诉讼资格的门槛要求。政府昨日首次收到申请人律师的联系。在一次电话通话中，政府要求申请人律师提供足以证明3,345名申请人事实上均为交易所客户的信息。律师拒绝提供任何此类信息，称这样做实质上可能危及申请人免受“中国共产党”伤害的安全。政府还询问申请人律师本人如何核实其3,345名客户均为交易所客户。律师答复称，每名申请人均向其提供了一个“七位数唯一识别码”，其随后使用该识别码直接与交易所律师确认申请人作为客户的身份。然而，申请人律师拒绝与政府分享任何有关申请人的信息，或解释其如何能够利用此类识别码核实他们作为交易所客户的身份。律师还表示，其尚未取得交易所持有的有关其客户交易所账户的文件，原因包括其不希望为“害死某人”负责。政府提出进行协商以寻找解决律师隐私顾虑的方法时，律师实质上表示，他将提出该动议，以“通知法院”“有人正在遭受践踏”。因此，政府不同意申请人律师所作出的证明，即其“已与政府律师进行了善意协商，努力通过协议解决动议提出的问题而无须法院介入，但未能达成协议。”(Dkt. 186 at 2.)\n\n为明确起见，如上所述，政府扣押了超过$600 million的被指控罪行所得款项——包括所涉交易所资金——以保存该等资金，供日后向受害人发放及赔偿。何时进行此类分配，以及进行分配的机制，将在待决刑事程序完成后并依照法律规定确定。\n\n国会已确定，没收程序是声称对可没收财产享有权益的人士主张该等权益的专属途径。允许某些第三方规避该程序并“插队”，可能会损害其他寻求主张对该财产享有权益的第三方。附属没收程序专门旨在确保以有序、高效的程序解决对可没收资产的相互竞争的主张。因此，政府请求法院驳回申请人的动议。\n\n政府可随时就法院可能提出的任何问题作出回应。\n\n谨此呈递，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯） 美国联邦检察官\n\n代表：\n\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔） Juliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里） Micah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗格森） Justin Horton（贾斯廷·霍顿） 助理美国联邦检察官 (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276","key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Kwok","forfeiture","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Geyer","CCP","Rule 41(g)","CIPA","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings","Despins","853(n)","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Chinese Communist Party","Bradford Geyer","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","GTV","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":19,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":188,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8029,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-08 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-08","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:49:44"}