{"id":"court_sdny_188_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":188,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":"2023-12-07","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) U.S. Department of Justice** Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 188 Filed 12/07/23 Page 1 of 3","summary_zh":"政府回应函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #188（2023年12月7日）。美国检察机关对喜马拉雅交易所客户代理人所提没收资产返还动议的答辩函，主张联邦法第21编第853条(n)款为排他性救济渠道，反对基于《刑事诉讼规则》第41条(g)的返还请求，要求法院驳回动议。","summary_en":"Government's response letter — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #188 (filed December 7, 2023). Government argues that Title 21 U.S.C. Section 853(n) provides exclusive remedy for third-party forfeiture claimants, Rule 41(g) does not apply, petitioners lack Article III standing, and requests court deny motion for return of property.","body_en":"Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\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":"案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York（美国联邦检察官 纽约南区办公室）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\n2023年12月7日\n\n通过 ECF 提交\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）\n美国联邦地区法官\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国 诉 郭文贵 等人案），案号 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府特此就日期为2023年12月6日的《要求返还财产的动议》（Dkt. 186（“动议”））作出答复。该动议由 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所，以下简称“交易所”）3,345名声称的客户（“请愿人”）的律师提交，请求“返还美国扣押的[请愿人的]财产”，该财产与上述标题案件相关。（动议第1页。）正如上述标题案件的起诉书所指控，该交易所是指控的欺诈犯罪的犯罪工具，而相关涉案资金——由政府于2022年至2023年期间根据司法授权的扣押令予以扣押——已在起诉书中被列为应予没收的资产。（替代起诉书，Dkt. 19 第12、17-24、55(j)、(k)、(m)、(o)、(p)、(s)段。）基于本文所述的理由，政府谨提请法院驳回该动议。\n\n该动议系依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第41(g)条请求返还资产。法院仅在满足以下条件时才依据第41(g)条享有管辖权：(1) 动议人“在普通法上无充分救济途径”，且 (2) “衡平法权衡倾向于行使管辖权”。De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)。在评估管辖权时，第二巡回法院曾向地区法院提出建议：“依第41条行使管辖权须极为克制与谨慎，因为该管辖权建立在法院对联邦执法官员行为的监督权基础之上。”同上引，第382页（省略内部引号）（援引 Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988) 以及 Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)）。\n\n本案中，由于起诉书中包含了包括涉案资金在内的没收指控，请愿人享有充分的法定救济途径来解决其主张——即《美国法典》第21篇第853条项下赋予寻求对可没收财产主张权益的权利主张人的专属救济途径。特别是，《美国法典》第21篇第853(n)条规定了当事人对属于应予没收财产主张权益的“专属”方式。DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2007)（“……在初步没收命令作出之后，第853(n)条规定了第三方对被没收资产主张权利的专属方式，这一点是毫无争议的”）；亦见 United States v. Rashid, 373 F. App'x 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2010)。因此，不存在依据第41(g)条主张衡平法管辖权的理由。见 De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382。\n\n请愿人中的部分或全部人员很可能在适当的时机有权获得政府扣押的资金。但现在并非该时机。在定罪后，地区法院“必须依据适用法律确定哪些财产属于应予没收的财产”，并且“在不考虑任何第三方对该财产的权益的情况下，……及时作出初步没收命令”。《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第32.2(b)条。依据第981条和第982条开展的刑事没收程序（包括任何相关的司法程序）主要受 21 U.S.C. § 853 管辖。见 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1)。在法院作出初步没收命令后，第三方可向法院申请举行附随听证会，以“裁定[第三方]对[刑事没收]财产所声称权益的有效性”。21 U.S.C. § 853(n)；亦见 United States v. Daugerdas, 892 F.3d 545, 552 (2d Cir. 2018)。\n\n无论如何，在政府看来，请愿人是否已满足宪法第三条规定的门槛性诉讼资格要求尚不明确。政府是在昨天首次收到请愿人律师的联络。在一次电话交谈中，政府要求请愿人律师提供充分信息，以证明这3,345名请愿人事实上确实均为该交易所的客户。该律师拒绝提供任何此类信息，并声称概括而言，这样做可能会危及请愿人免受“中国共产党”侵害的安全。政府进一步询问请愿人律师本人是如何核实其所有3,345名客户均为该交易所客户的。该律师答复称，每位请愿人都向其提供了一个“七位数的唯一标识符”，随后他利用该标识符直接向交易所的律师确认了这些请愿人的客户身份。然而，请愿人律师拒绝向政府分享有关请愿人的任何信息，亦拒绝解释他是如何使用此类标识符来核实他们作为交易所客户的身份的。该律师还表示，他尚未获得该交易所持有的关于其客户交易所账户的文件，原因包括他不希望为“导致某人丧命”承担责任。当政府提出进行协商以寻求解决该律师隐私顾虑的办法时，该律师在实质上表示，他提交该动议是为了“提请法院注意”“有人正在遭受践踏”。因此，政府不同意请愿人律师作出的证明，即其“本着诚信原则与政府律师进行了协商，试图在无需法院介入的情况下就动议提出的问题达成协议，但未能达成协议”。（Dkt. 186 第2页。）\n\n需要明确的是，正如前文所述，政府扣押了所指控罪行的超过6亿美元犯罪所得（包括相关涉案的交易所资金），目的是保全这些资金，以便日后向受害者发放和赔偿。何时应进行该等分配以及分配机制如何，将在未结刑事诉讼程序结束之后依法予以确定。\n\n国会已明确规定，没收程序是主张对可没收财产享有权益的人士提出该等主张的专属方式。若允许部分第三方破坏该程序并“插队”，可能会损害其他寻求对该财产主张权益的第三方的利益。附随没收程序正是专门设计用来确保以有序且高效的流程解决对可没收资产的竞合权利主张。因此，政府请求法院驳回请愿人的动议。\n\n政府随时准备回答法院可能提出的任何问题。\n\n谨呈，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n美国联邦检察官\n\n签署人：\n\nRyan B. Finkel（赖安·B·芬克尔）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nMicah F. Fergenson（米卡·F·弗格森）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\n联邦助理检察官\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276","key_entities":["forfeiture","Je","853(n)","Rule 41(g)","Torres","Kwok","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":19,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1111,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-07","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:24:48"}