{"id":"court_sdny_198_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":198,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":"2023-12-07","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant","summary_zh":"答辩状（第三方财产返还动议之回复）—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #198（2023-12-07 立案）。喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）客户代理律师 Bradford L. Geyer 就其“返还被扣押财产”动议，针对政府的反对意见提交回复，主张交易所资金独立于郭文贵个人财产、法院对该交易所缺乏管辖权，并对没收行动可能造成客户损失提出异议。","summary_en":"Reply brief (motion for return of seized property) — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #198 (filed 2023-12-07). Counsel Bradford L. Geyer, representing customers of the Himalaya Exchange, replies to the government's opposition to their motion for return of seized property, arguing the Exchange's funds are independent of Kwok's personal assets, disputing the court's jurisdiction over the Exchange, and objecting to potential customer losses from the forfeiture action.","body_en":"# **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n# **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\"**\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and**\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\n**Defendants.,**\n\n## **Defendant.**\n\nCriminal No.: 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n# **REPLY OF THIRD PARTY CUSTOMERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED BY COMPLAINANT**\n\nCustomers of the Himalaya Exchange, by and through undersigned counsel, Bradford L. Geyer, Esq., whose investments in the Exchange have been seized as actions ancillary to the core criminal prosecution in this case, hereby file this REPLY to the Government's letter objection, in support of their Motion for the Return of Property Seized by the Complainant, United States of America.\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n| I.   | The Big Picture: Himalaya Exchange Thrown In As An After-Thought | 4 |\n|------|------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| II.  | Parallel Chapter 11 Bankruptcy In Connecticut And Objection Here | 3 |\n| III. | Lack Of Jurisdiction Over The Himalaya Exchange                  | 6 |\n| IV.  | Points Of Clarification:                                         | 8 |\n\n| V.    | Purported Customers Assertion:                  | 10 |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------|----|\n| VI.   | Customer Data Safety Concerns:                  | 13 |\n| VII.  | Doj's Responsibility For Customer Safety:       | 18 |\n| VIII. | Data Protection And Legal Obligations:          | 18 |\n| IX.   | Hamalaya Exchange Not Part Of Bankruptcy Estate | 19 |\n| X.    | Allegations Of Indictment Paragraph 21:         | 32 |\n\nUndersigned counsel now represents in excess of 3,539 customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"the Exchange\"), who hold Himalaya Dollar (HDO) and Himalaya Coin (HCN) cryptocurrency (“Petitioners”),[1](#page-1-0) but who have been prevented by the actions of the DOJ and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York from withdrawing their investments into hard currency removed from the Exchange, creating a total loss of their investment funds.\n\nUndersigned counsel addresses and replies to the Government's response to the Motion for Return of Property, dated December 7, 2023 [2](#page-1-1) (Attachment A - ECF 188) that counsel received without any discernible effort to engage in a meet-and-confer process after learning about the filing via Twitter.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> <http> Undersigned counsel estimates represented Exchange customers will continue to increase 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<span id=\"page-1-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> In light of the Government's Response, we will seek leave to amend the motion and proposed order for relief. The Government's Response confirms the need for this Court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction in this matter. The petitioners have no adequate remedy at law to protect their confidentiality and to ensure the return of their seized assets without the hardships outlined in their Motion that will be caused by extreme delay. See .\" De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)(\" (1) the movant has \"no adequate remedy at law\", and (2) \"the equities favor the exercise of jurisdiction.\" ) The petitioners require the Court's supervision 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\nThe U.S. Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") purports to be protecting the undersigned counsel's clients against being defrauded through the solution of the DOJ itself seizing counsel's clients' funds and depriving them of their investments. Thus, the DoJ is causing the harm they purport to be seeking to avoid. The DOJ is involved in conversion of counsel's client's investment funds into U.S. Treasury funds.\n\nThe DoJ's actions in this Court and others place the Honorable Presiding Judge in the uncomfortable position of likely causing a total loss of the funds of at least 3,539 investors and thousands of other investors, in the name of protecting them. The black eye to this Court that is developing of a total loss of the investment of those to be protected, which the DoJ is creating, is caused by directly seizing counsel's client's funds in the form of the Himalaya Exchange's reserve funds.\n\nIn addition to the loss of HDO stable coin funds, which is pegged 1:1 by the USD cash reserve, currently seized by the DoJ, counsel's clients have already incurred a substantial devaluation of \\$136M of their HCN trading coin value as a result of the seizure. Taking into account the price before seizure and the current price of the HCN, the difference is a \\$136M devaluation loss that clearly qualifies under Article 3 to approach this Honorable Court. This only relates to the current represented customers. If the HDO stable coin reserve is not restored to counsel's clients and the HCN value ends up at zero then the total loss/damages will amount to an estimated \\$329,737,812 exclusive of reserves. Undersigned counsel's clients hold both HDO coin and HCN coin balances. Therefore, the longer the delay in the resolution of repayment the greater the loss is likely to be to counsel's clients. If this is left as suggested by the DoJ until after the trial where the forfeiture procedure commences there is serious risk of irreparable harm to counsel's clients. If the HCN crashes to zero they will have lost all of their investment. The\n\n3\n\nDoJ seemed to ignore this issue in their Response and fail to acknowledge the possible draconian consequences that are likely to flow from their ill-informed seizure.\n\n## **THE BIG PICTURE: HIMALAYA EXCHANGE THROWN IN AS AN AFTER-THOUGHT TO UNRELATED PROSECUTION**\n\nThe allegations in the indictment lodged with this Court concern various actions by Kwok and Je.\n\nThe Himalya Exchange, is a company organized and resident in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVIs\"), a country which became independent of the British Crown around 1850. Under the U.S.A.'s diplomatic positions and treaties and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the U.S. Government is committed to respecting the sovereignty, independence, and importance of smaller countries like the BVIs.\n\nFurthermore, the indictment confesses that the Himalaya Exchange was created and is operated now under \"foreign based companies.\" Therefore, the Himalaya Exchange is not a U.S. company, but a company of the British Virgin Islands, an independent sovereign country. And the DOJ admits that it in turn is operated by \"foreign based companies.\"\n\nNot only is the Himalaya Exchange thrown into this mix as an after-thought, but it is distinctly different in that the U.S. Government has no jurisdiction over the Exchange. We have a complex series of many transactions involving many companies, and then the Exchange was simply pulled in for no discernible reason.\n\nThe only slender thread by which there is an attempt to bring the Exchange into this case at all are vague and legally unfounded concepts.\n\nThe indictment neither explicitly nor implicitly alleges any hint of wrongdoing by the Himalaya Exchange itself or any of the undersigned's clients.\n\nCuriously, the DOJ describes the Himalaya Exchange in the past tense. In fact, the Exchange is still operating, yet without the ability to redeem digital currency for hard currency because the DOJ is holding the reserve funds seized from the Exchange. Why the DOJ views the Exchange in the past tense is curious. Is this an awareness that the DOJ itself planned to kill off the Himalaya Exchange?\n\n## **PARALLEL CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY IN CONNECTICUT AND OBJECTION HERE**\n\nI also acknowledge the involvement of Bankruptcy Counsel representing the Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins and have enclosed a letter addressed to the same counsel today (Attachment B). The updated Motion for Return of Property, aims to streamline the issues, economize judicial resources, and prevent the creation of an ethical cloud over the criminal case.\n\nAdditionally, I raise concerns about potential compromises to counsel's client's confidentiality due to the Chinese connections of the Bankruptcy attorneys to its Chinese office (Attachment C : ECF 561). This is of great concern.\n\nThe Paul Hastings letter filed on behalf of Luc Despins (Attachment D -ECF 189 without notice or any meet-and-confer effort-) asserts that counsel's customer motion implicates property of the chapter 11 estate and claims that relief granted by the Honorable Court would violate the automatic stay. The bankruptcy is in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut.\n\nIt should be noted that the Trustee Luc Despins in the Connecticut Chapter 11 proceeding, although not speaking for himself but only through counsel at Paul Hastings who are not appointed as Trustees, is clearly engaged in massive \"churning\" of this case, requesting that\n\ncounsel's clients and others pay Despins' fees and expenses of **which he has made claims already in excess of \\$21 million**. Thus, it appears that those who are supposed to be protected by this case are in fact being plucked like chickens. The massive number of filings in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case and enormous fees and expenses being requested are no doubt likely to be paid out of customer funds if the Trustee oversees any fund distribution and are further reasons for concern by this Court. Please see the astronomical fees claimed by the trustee to date (Attachment E) and the highlighted text suggesting that the trustee has an concerning interest in counsel's clients' funds (Attachment E1)..\n\n#### **LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE**\n\nIn this case here in this Court and in the Chapter 11 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, the DOJ is suffering from several major mistakes.\n\nThe Himalaya Exchange is based in the British Virgin Islands. It has no connection with the United States of America. The governing documents forbid any transaction with any U.S. resident or any person transacting on behalf of or as trustee or agent for any such person.\n\nTherefore, the DOJ has no jurisdiction over the Himalya Exchange or counsel's clients as they never committed any act or omission that would create U.S. jurisdiction.\n\nThere are no allegations that the Himalaya Exchange committed any act or omission that would create U.S. jurisdiction. While the indictment seems to be written to induce assumptions, none of the activities of the Himalaya Exchange took place within U.S. jurisdiction. If a Manhattan-based stock advisor recommended in his investment newsletter investing in biodiesel projects in the Bahamas, that would be the advisor's action. Being mentioned by a U.S. person would not be an act by the Bahamian company within the United States. By prohibiting any\n\n6\n\ntransaction with the United States, the Himalaya Exchange makes clear that there is no jurisdiction by the United States of America and that the Exchange has been designed to prevent any jurisdiction of the U.S. Government over any of the Exchange's activities.\n\nTherefore, the DOJ has no jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange or counsel's clients. Indeed, in Paragraph 11 of the indictment (which we assume the DOJ wrote for the Grand Jury to sign), the DoJ writes\n\n#### **\"… Kwok held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\"**\n\nTherefore, the DoJ admits that nothing Kwok did or alleged against Kwok has any relevance to the Himalaya Exchange either as to its involvement in any fraud by Kwok, as any instrumentality of Kwok.\n\nInstead, the indictment confusingly and vaguely attempts to combine unrelated issues of Hon Wan Kwok (Miles Guo) and King Ming Je, to obscure and inter-mingle matters that do not apply to the Himalaya Exchange.\n\nFurthermore, while admitting that only Je has any relevance to the Himalaya Exchange, the DOJ through paragraph 11 of the indictment alleges that the Himalaya Exchange was\n\n## **\"founded and operated through various entities he [Je] owned, which were based abroad.\"**\n\nTherefore, the DOJ admits that at all times it knew and knows now that the Himalaya Exchange is outside of the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Not only are there no facts to bring the Himalaya Exchange within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, or the DOJ or SEC, but even the parent companies of the Exchange are \"based abroad.\"\n\nIn paragraph 11, the indictment vaguely makes obscure references to the idea that other Kwok / Guo entities had \"purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange.\"\n\nHowever, one does not describe any ownership relationship as a \"business relationship.\" A \"business relationship\" implies a lack of ownership and a lack of direct control, but instead an arm's length free-market transaction.\n\nFurthermore, of course there is nothing illegal or potentially illegal about a \"business relationship.\" And the nature of this comment is unexplained. Did the Exchange buy office supplies or left-over office furniture unwanted by other companies?\n\nNevertheless, the Himalaya Exchange is under the jurisdiction of the British Virgin Isles.\n\n#### **POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:**\n\nA second major mistake, related, of the DOJ's actions is failing to investigate that the roughly \\$335 million to \\$609 million (per the indictment's numbers) which the DOJ admits that it seized is beneficially owned by counsel's clients and other customers of the Exchange and is held in trust for counsel's clients and other customers. Using the indictment's numbers supplied by the DOJ, the indictment recites that DOJ seized \\$335 million from the Himalaya Exchange but then says DOJ later seized \\$274 million from both the Himalaya Exchange and G|Clubs together, without clarifying how much was seized from the Himalaya Exchange rather than from G|Clubs. Therefore, the indictment is unclear about the seizure from the Himalaya Exchange alone, but the Forfeiture bill of particulars (ECF 38 Attachment F) indicates a total of \\$302,081,718.48 for all Himalaya related accounts.\n\nThe DOJ has at every stage confused the Himalaya Exchange's funds as if they were the funds of the criminal Defendants in this case, Kwok and Je. The funds seized by the DOJ are the reserve funds guaranteeing counsel's clients' investment in the HDO digital currency.\n\nStrangely, the indictment tries to twist the reality that the reserve funds seized by DOJ are beneficially owned by counsel's clients and held in trust on their behalf into a basis for fraud.\n\nThis is no different from the fractional reserves of a bank to protect depositors, except that here the reserves are 100% of redemption value, not partial or fractional reserves.\n\nIf bank examiners observed that a bank was secured by \\$500 million in fractional reserves, then seized those reserves, forcing the bank into insolvency, they could not plausibly claim that the bank's promises to depositors were originally fraudulent because the government later seized the bank reserves, causing the problem.\n\nBy seizing the reserve fund of the Himalaya Exchange, the DOJ has destroyed the investments it is purporting to protect. Undersigned counsel's clients are incapable of converting their crypto currency investments into hard money by redeeming the digital HDO \"coins\" from the reserve fund. Thus, holders of the coins can trade HCN coins, but cannot withdraw their profit of those trades received in HDO into U.S. dollars and remove their money.\n\nThe DOJ attempts to hint at customer redemption being a false promise. In fact, based on the financial information provided, counsel's clients received a total of \\$26,772,727.65 in redemption to date into their own named bank accounts (redeeming HDO back into USD into their account). This is for the clients I represent and does not include other customers, therefore this figure is likely to be higher. This genuine and functioning process of redemption was interrupted only by the DOJ seizing the reserve fund from which redemptions are made.\n\nNow, however, the funds held in trust as reserves and pledged to investors like counsel's clients has been stolen from them and deposited in the U.S. Treasury instead. The Exchange has therefore not been able to redeem any money back to their customers as the reserve has been taken.\n\nWhile there may be some cause to ensure that the reserve funds will be used exclusively for their intended purpose of funding redemptions of investors wanting to withdraw their funds from the Exchange, perhaps putting a non-bankruptcy trustee in control of those funds, is one thing that cannot happen: The DOJ cannot engage in conversion of client funds for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury and the churning of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Further comments are made in relation to this below.\n\n### **PURPORTED CUSTOMERS ASSERTION:**\n\nBoth the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Trustee have insinuated the presence of alleged customers, suggesting that the customers implicated in the motion are fictional. This assertion is unequivocally rejected and, to say the least, deeply unsettling.[3](#page-9-0) Both entities claim to be safeguarding victims in distinct ways, and their entire proceedings hinge on this assumption. However, both have initiated a strategy to undermine the legitimate claims of actual victims. This strongly indicates their true motive, which is to seize and retain these funds through any available means. The anticipated approach would involve cooperation to promptly return these\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> If the trustee has a concerning focus on my clients' money, the Government has a concerning focus on the iden�ty of my clients and we are asking this Honorable Court for assistance. The meet and confer, that was par�ally described correctly if it should have been described at all, and which lasted 42 minutes following the government being provided with a dra� of the filing, suggested a lack of concern about the sensi�vity of the personal informa�on. How personal informa�on is shared about my \"purported\" clients is a mater of great concern since the US Department of Jus�ce has proved a poor steward of personal informa�on even of its own employees. ECF 186 FN10. Here its likely the CCP government en�ty that compromised millions of clearance files of DOJ employees may have an even keener interest in Exchange customers iden��es. I can't state this more clearly: exchanging informa�on and repatria�ng the funds through the wrong procedure imperils my clients.\n\nfunds to victims as proposed in the motion, and avoiding the depletion of their funds through administrative and trustee fees. Instead, they have opted for a narrative that accuses victims of falsehoods and cite legal technicalities and case law to justify their inaction. None of these arguments hold any merit upon examination and do not offer reasonable justifications for their conduct.\n\nThe creation of a smokescreen to divert attention from the core facts should be approached with extreme caution. No compelling reasons supported by actual evidence have been provided to justify withholding these funds. In a case of this nature, one would expect the prosecuting authority to adopt an approach that aids and expedites assistance to victims with methods which do not engage depleting those Funds with extortionate admin or legal fees . However, they have taken an adversarial stance inconsistent with their professed commitment to protecting victims.\n\nThe problem in this circumstance and the motion filed by the undersigned's clients and the issue before the Court is the improper seizure of the reserve fund. The DOJ must release the entire Himalaya Exchange reserve fund as a whole.\n\nIt is really no concern of this Court or the DOJ how the Himalaya Exchange conducting regular business according to its business obligations and legal governing documents carries out its normal business of redeeming digital coin from that reserve fund. The claim before the Court is that the reserve fund was improperly seized and should be returned to the custody of the Exchange operating under the laws and authority of the British Virgin Islands' Government.\n\nOtherwise, the DOJ would have to recreate the function of the Exchange in processing individual redemptions of digital coins to many thousands of Exchange customers. That is what the Exchange does. We are not asking the DOJ to go into the cryptocurrency business.\n\nTherefore, it is unnecessary for the DOJ or this Court to concern itself with the identity of the depositors / investors who have a claim against the reserve fund. Maybe the DOJ might conceivably have an interest in whether any of the depositors / investors in digital coin at the Himalaya Exchange are actually the same persons as the Defendants whom the DOJ is prosecuting or their agents. But that would not justify any of the DOJ's actions or the seizure of the reserve fund. The DOJ cannot seize an entire bank and impoverish 99.99999% of its depositors on the mere possibility that 2 of the depositor accounts might belong to people they are prosecuting. The focus can only be on the actual Defendants, not everyone else.\n\nIn fact, however, questions about the Exchange customers are easily answered and laid to rest – without waiving of course jurisdictional objections. But the insinuations lose sight of the situation. The issue is that the DOJ had no authority to seize the reserve funds in the first place, nor does it have the right to interrogate individual Exchange customers.\n\nEnclosed is a letter from Candey, an independent legal firm appointed by the Exchange, confirming their commitment to overseeing the selection of an independent forensic accounting firm (Attachment G). This firm will conduct an audit to verify the authenticity of the Himalaya account number (\"HID\") provided by counsel's clients upon retaining legal services against the Himalaya Exchange database and verify records exist for them. This report will be ready on December 21 2003 and will be filed with the Court. Similar to a bank account number, this HID is unique to each customer account and was a requisite when consenting to the legal retainer for\n\nrepresentation. It cannot be arbitrarily generated and is known exclusively to the Himalaya account holder.\n\nA comprehensive list of HIDs, completing the consent form for the Exchange to release their financial information, has been submitted to the Exchange along with the requested information for each customer, which had been received prior to the filing of the motion . Simultaneously, counsel's clients have submitted five (5) interim victim witness statements during this period. [Himalaya Customer Statements \\(Subtitles\\) -](http) YouTube . This will in due course be followed proper affidavits and other information needed. These are a small group who at great risk have put themselves forward to be representatives of fellow customers, many of whom are counsel's clients. This is the normal course followed in class actions. The victims should not have to face procedural hurdles outside the norm in a case where they risk serious harm.\n\n### **CUSTOMER DATA SAFETY CONCERNS:**\n\nIn response to heightened concerns regarding the security of customer data, the Exchange was requested to furnish an illustrative instance underscoring these apprehensions. As part of the compliance protocol, customers undergo ID verification and an AI facial recognition process facilitated by the independent service provider, Jumio. An alarming Jumio photograph was discovered within a customer's application, revealing potential threats directed at an individual attempting to register using her details. The attached image depicts a man brandishing a knife behind a woman applying for a customer account, prompting serious concerns about customer safety.\n\nThis unsettling discovery serves as compelling evidence of the extent to which suspicious actors are willing to go in an attempt to masquerade as genuine customers. Moreover, it raises awareness of the potential threats faced by Chinese dissidents in various scenarios. If these actors are willing to resort to such extremes for onboarding, it begs the question of the potential risks when they identify the actual customers on the Exchange. The responsibility of the Department of Justice (DoJ) is called into question, considering the serious harm to individuals that could result from any leaked data. The presented evidence is a tangible example, indicating that the fears expressed by counsel's clients are not mere exaggerations but genuine concerns. The urgency of the situation prompts reflection on whether the DoJ will recognize the gravity of the issue before irreparable damage occurs.\n\n![](_page_14_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nProfile Whitelisted IPs Risk Scoring Security Question Supporting Documents\n\n# User Details\n\n| ID                         | 11efb5eb-0127-4cb5-abed-4ec501c3f5bd                                  | ENABLED                    | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|-------------------------|\n| DATE CREATED               | Sunday, February 6, 2022                                              | APPROVED                   | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| DISPLAY NAME               | <div></div>                                                           | DELETED                    | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| USER TYPE                  | <div>Individual <span>v</span></div>                                  | LOCKED OUT                 | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| FIRST/MIDDLE NAME          | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    | STOP DEPOSITS              | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| LAST NAME                  | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    | STOP TRADING               | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| FULL NAME                  | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    | STOP<br>WITHDRAWALS        | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| BIRTH DATE                 | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    | FORCED TO<br>CHANGE PASS   | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| E-MAIL<br>ADDRESS/USERNAME | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span>@gmail.com</div>                          | 2-FACTOR<br>AUTHENTICATION | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| MOBILE PHONE               | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    | ONLINE                     | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| ADDRESS LINE 1             | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    | ABLE TO ACCESS<br>API KEYS | <span>[REDACTED]</span> |\n| ADDRESS LINE 2             | <div></div>                                                           |                            |                         |\n| RESIDENCE COUNTRY          | <div>Taiwan <span>v</span></div>                                      |                            |                         |\n| CITY                       | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    |                            |                         |\n| STATE                      | <div>Please Select State <span>v</span> <span>[REDACTED]</span></div> |                            |                         |\n| POST CODE                  | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    |                            |                         |\n| CITIZENSHIP COUNTRY        | <div>Taiwan <span>v</span></div>                                      |                            |                         |\n| ID DOCUMENT NUMBER         | <div><span>[REDACTED]</span></div>                                    |                            |                         |\n| COMMENTS                   | <div><span>/</span></div>                                             |                            |                         |\n| LAST COMMENT BY            | <div></div>                                                           |                            |                         |\n| FAILED LOGIN ATTEMPTS      | 0                                                                     |                            |                         |\n\n## User Settings\n\n| CURRENT TIER              | 0              |\n|---------------------------|----------------|\n| DAILY WITHDRAWAL REMAIN   | [CENSORED]     |\n| MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL REMAIN | [CENSORED] USD |\n| TOTAL BALANCES IN USD     | 0.00           |\n| DIFFERENT IP VERIFICATION | Disabled       |\n\nHome > Users > Risk Scoring: [Redacted Email]\n\n**Risk Scoring: [Redacted Email]**\n\nProfileWhiteListed IPs**Risk Scoring**Security QuestionSupporting Documents\n\n| INTERNAL ID                        | HR3MJMT                                                     |\n|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| MANUALRISKSCORE                    | <span>0</span> <span>Save</span>                            |\n| TOTAL RISK SCORE                   | [Redacted Score]                                            |\n| RISK LEVEL                         | [Redacted Level]                                            |\n| COMPLYADVANTAGE<br>HITS            | 0                                                           |\n| COMPLYADVANTAGE<br>LINK            | <span>ComplyAdvantage Link</span>                           |\n| VERIFICATION<br>APPLICATION STATUS | Pending                                                     |\n| CATEGORY                           | <span>[Dropdown]</span> <span>Save &amp; Inform User</span> |\n| NUMBER OF ATTEMPT TO<br>JUMIO      | 1 <span>Reset</span>                                        |\n\n| DATE & TIME         | FULL NAME     | ROLE          |\n|---------------------|---------------|---------------|\n| 2/6/2022 2:54:46 AM | Auto (System) | Auto (System) |\n\n| QUESTION SORT ORDER | QUESTION                                                                                                                                               | ANSWER |\n|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|\n| 10                  | Place of birth                                                                                                                                         |        |\n| 11                  | Citizenship on the document                                                                                                                            | Taiwan |\n| 12                  | Please tell us about your current employment status.                                                                                                   |        |\n| 13                  | Please tell us about your occupation or business activity.                                                                                             |        |\n| 14                  | Please tell us about business you may conduct in other country(s) besides where you<br>are registered for tax purposes?                                |        |\n| 15                  | Is your individual activity or business registered or conducted in preferential tax zone<br>(for instance, free economic zone, offshore jurisdiction)? |        |\n| 16                  | Please tell us about your annual turnover, in individual or business activity, which is<br>handled in cash.                                            |        |\n| 17                  | Please tell us about your annual turnover, in individual or business activity, which is<br>handled in cryptocurrency.                                  |        |\n| 18                  | Please tell us about your source(s) of income/funds. Select more than one box if<br>necessary.                                                         |        |\n| 19                  | Please tell us about your source(s) of wealth? Select more than one box if<br>necessary.                                                               |        |\n| 20                  | Please select the service(s) you plan to use. Select more than one box if<br>necessary.                                                                |        |\n| 21                  | How much do you plan to deposit per year (USD and crypto combined)?                                                                                    |        |\n| 22                  | Please tell us which countries the funds will be received and/or transferred from.                                                                     |        |\n| 23                  | Let us know what your level of experience is with cryptocurrency trading? Please select<br>one:                                                        |        |\n\n# **DOJ'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CUSTOMER SAFETY:**\n\nThe DOJ needs to consider these safety concerns seriously rather than suggesting the existence of false customers due to nondisclosure of full names. The unique Himalaya account number (HID) will be disclosed when there are safeguards in place as suggested. Each unique HID is linked to a genuine customer/real person holding a Himalaya Exchange account. After seizing assets and placing customers at high risk, the DOJ has a responsibility to safeguard individuals potentially at risk due to their actions.[4](#page-17-0)\n\n## **DATA PROTECTION AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS:**\n\nThe Exchange emphasized to me that by providing this image to me as requested by counsel's clients that it does not waive any obligations under data protection, legal requirements, privilege, or any other legal rights it holds. This disclosure aims to enhance understanding of the real threats faced by innocent victims. Proper legal procedures must be followed to request any additional material or customer information.\n\nIn addition to the Government's response (ECF 188 Attachment A) and the Bankruptcy Trustee's lawyer which was filed immediately after in this Court (ECF 189 Attachment D), the Trustee also seems to have filed a motion in the bankruptcy court in Connecticut on December 8,\n\n<span id=\"page-17-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> [Atorney General Guidelines for Vic�m and Witness Assistance, 2022 Edi�on | Office for Vic�ms of Crime](http)  [\\(ojp.gov\\)](http) Privacy Considera�ons for Vic�ms and Witnesses page 5.\n\n2023 (ECF 2425 Attachment H), raising different reasons and omitting the implication of chapter\n\n11 property or violation of an automatic stay. The Trustee's motion emphasizes the leadership of\n\nthe Debtor over Himalaya Exchange entities and ongoing reviews of the Motion's impact on the\n\nchapter 11 case:\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\" and \"business vehicles for the Debtor.\" 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.\" (footnotes omitted) [5](#page-18-0)\n\n# **HAMALAYA EXCHANGE NOT PART OF BANKRUPTCY ESTATE**\n\nThe Bankruptcy trustee lacks the authority and jurisdiction to intervene in the motion\n\npresented by the undersigned counsel in this esteemed Court, and their request should be rejected\n\nfor the following reasons:\n\na) After a thorough review of the bankruptcy case dockets no such judgment referred to has been found declaring that the Himalaya Exchange or the stable coin reserve funds, initially held in trust by the Himalaya Exchange for its customers and now seized by the DoJ, are part of the Chapter 11 estate.\n\n<span id=\"page-18-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> Atachment H (ECF 2425 Trustee Mo�on For Return)\n\n- b) If these assets were indeed part of the Chapter 11 estate, there is no order from the Bankruptcy Court, as evident from the docket or presented to this Court, confirming this status.\n- c) There is no evidence or any proper reasoning that any of counsel's clients or the motion itself would interfere with the administration of the chapter 11 estate. Serious complaints will be raised if it is asserted that any of them have engaged or attempted to engage in any conduct or that this motion in anyway amounts to interference to the Trustee or the DoJ. These Victims have a right to be fairly heard and have due process of their motion without being targeted and tarnished with historic events related to the injunction. All of counsel's clients are located outside of the U.S and have exercised their right to claim their legitimate money by instructing a Lawyer and have not warranted any suggestion of interference. It is their money and they have legal right to claim it back. There is no justified reason for this assertion to be made and again highlights the bold stance made by this Trustee based on running a narrative to divert the fact there is no real proper basis for his interference in their claim.\n- d) During a recent hearing concerning the Mawah Mansion, the Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins expressed his intention to administer the Exchange funds seized by the DoJ, as highlighted in the attached transcript (ECF 2174 Attachment I; pages 24-29). Regardless of the wisdom behind allowing the bankruptcy attorney to administer the funds, it is evident that he currently lacks the authority to manage these funds, and there is no indication that the funds are part of the Estate. The representations made to this Court in the Paul Hastings\n\nletter appear to be misleading and inaccurate. This is further supported by the fact that the motion to the Bankruptcy Court does not reference the Exchange, its assets, or customer funds as part of the chapter 11 estate.\n\n- e) So there are also serious concerns after the comments made by the trustee in relation to obtaining access to the entire amount of the seizure in the criminal case and acting as receiver and using the blueprint of the Mawah Mansions to obtain more money for the estate. It is very clear from the narrative of the document that he seems to be persuading the court that he can act as the receiver of the DOJ seized funds and bring those funds into the bankruptcy court for administration.\n- f) This narrative raises serious concerns about a trustee charging substantial fees, claiming that these fees are derived from the sale of the house namely \\$1m will be part of the estate and the house is being sold to assist the Department of Justice (DOJ) in securing and liquidating real property. The trustee suggests that this action is necessary due to the difficulty the DOJ would face in seizing the property. Additionally, there is open discussion in court about funds from a criminal case that are irrelevant to the estate's jurisdiction. It is crucial to emphasize that counsel's client's funds do not belong to the estate, and there seems to be a premeditated effort to create questionable circumstances with motives aimed at implying a connection to Kwok.\n- g) The comments made by the trustee in this docket are evidently prejudicial and detrimental to the victims' claims. The trustee discusses that the Bankruptcy Court and him can decide on who has a claim and who is a victim, bearing in\n\nmind he has no involvement in the criminal trial or any of the evidence. In effect he want to indirectly be allowed to decide which facts he wants to take into account in this assessments without any proper safe guards and requirements of actual evidence. His indication that counsel's clients'Fund could be distributed to other creditors is highly inappropriate in itself in a case of this nature where each customer has a easily identifiable accounts and balances in order to distribute the funds distribution of client funds poses significant risks of loss to extortionate legal fees and other third parties lacking legal rights to these funds.\n\n- h) The improper seizure of counsel's client's funds, specifically the Mawah Mansions, and other funds seized by the Government, is directly linked to the ongoing criminal case. This Court not only possesses the necessary authority but also the capability to address the administration and distribution of these seizures. The DOJ has permitted the trustee to intervene in matters exclusive to this case by either remaining silent and taking no action and all or claiming priorityOver Himalaya exchange reserve funds to that of the Trustee. The Trustee's strategic plan, formulated well before any adverse jury finding, raises serious concerns about diverting funds from innocent victims based on a perceived connection to Kwok, creating a prejudicial situation. The Trustee's apprehension about this motion or counsel's clients interfering with the Ch11 Estate adds further cause for concern.\n- i) We respectfully request the Court's intervention to prevent the trustee from interfering with the seizures in this case.\n- j) Furthermore, Luc Despins would face a conflict of interest in administering counsel's client's funds without their or undersigned counsel's consent. The unique statutory authority of a bankruptcy trustee requires consent in other contexts. Regardless of the perspective, the funds held by the Exchange were in trust for clients as beneficiaries and do not fall within the estate.\n- k) The primary concern before this esteemed Court is the return of legitimate Customer Funds. This money does not belong to Kwok, who is the subject of the the chapter 11 estate. The estate lacks the authority or legal basis to claim ownership or administer the funds. The ownership, control, or leadership of the Himalaya Exchange has no bearing on these customer reserve funds.\n- l) Please refer to audit reports and the balance of the seizures from the Himalaya accounts (Attachments J and K). These audit reports confirm customer stable coin reserve funds held in trust by the Himalaya Exchange for the HDO, of which counsel's clients are the owners. The petitioners are the beneficiaries of this trust, and only the customers have the legal right to claim this money. The DOJ seizure related to the Himalaya Exchange accounts appears to comprise of the HDO stable coin reserves, and the best evidence suggests that all the money belongs to counsel's clients. It is unclear how these funds were used as instrumentalities of the crimes. These funds essentially remain in these accounts until HDO is redeemed, and the customers are paid in US dollars by financial institutions.\n- m) Before the seizure, customers regularly redeemed their HDO, and the funds for these redemptions were paid from the stable coin reserve held by the Exchange.\n\nRegardless of the perspective, this money does not constitute part of the Exchange's assets, property, or revenue. The Exchange has no ownership rights, proprietary claims, or the right to use the money for any purpose other than redeeming it upon the customer's request. Customers purchased HDO as a stable coin backed by USD \\$1: 1 x HDO.\n\n- n) The Exchange's governing rules also indicate that a reserve of hard currency would be held by the Exchange for every HDO sold, hence the hard currency equivalent. Customers essentially purchased a product comprising HDO backed by a hard currency cash reserve, and the product is the cryptocurrency coin attached to the reserve.\n- o) The DOJ's seizure from the Himalaya account seizures is just short of the stable coin reserve total indicated in the audit reports. The last audit report was conducted just weeks before the seizure. The best evidence suggests that all the money of which counsel's clients are beneficiaries is there, maintained by the Exchange in properly safeguarded accounts, and it is not clear how these funds were used as instrumentalities of the crimes. These funds essentially remain in these accounts until HDO is redeemed, and the customers are paid in US dollars by financial institutions.\n- p) At its core, the primary theory of this case is simple: like any asset that serves as security for a loan or obligation, the funds seized by the DOJ are not free and clear. They are pledged to counsel's clients and held in trust for the benefit of the Himalaya Exchange depositors, investors, and customers. These funds guarantee counsel's client's rights to redeem their digital coins, convert them\n\ninto hard currency, and withdraw their investments as normal banking funds or currency.\n\nq) Importantly, recent regulations worldwide promote setting stable coin reserves at 100%, as evident from the funds seized and the total reserve indicated in the audit report, confirming the reserve being held by the Exchange in proper bank accounts at 100%. An example of that development in regulation can be found at [http](http)[1693986077.](http) Therefore, the DOJ and the Chapter 11 Trustee have made the serious mistake of confusing the reserve fund held by the Exchange as being *profit* owned by the criminal Defendants as their personal funds rather than a reserve fund for the benefit of investors like counsel's clients.\n\nThe trustee lacks jurisdiction to assert that these funds fall within the Chapter 11 estate, even if it were determined that the Himalaya Exchange is part of it, which it is not. The funds seized by the DOJ do not belong to the estate any more than a bank would have proprietary rights over money deposited by its customers. Therefore, the motion has been appropriately filed in the correct court and forum, and there are no grounds for it to be considered within the Chapter 11 estate or that it violates an automatic stay. Consequently, the trustee's motion should be denied.\n\n> a) It is a matter of serious concern that the trustee has referenced an unrelated injunction application concerning different matters to assert that the Exchange and its customers (i.e., the clients represented by\n\nundersigned counsel) are under the leadership of Miles Guo. Undersigned counsel denies this claim, representing customers who reject this farfetched fabrication, that the motion is potentially crafted to cause interference. It is submitted that this appears to be the motivation of the Trustee rather than innocent victims.\n\n- b) As an illustrative example, Dr. Martin Luther King was the acknowledged leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, yet it did not imply that Dr. King had command, control, ownership, influence, or a financial stake in the operations of any specific Baptist Church considering itself part of the civil rights movement.\n- c) Leadership in a freedom and liberty movement does not constitute evidence, nor does it imply any form of ownership, over customer stable coin funds held in trust by the Exchange, for which the customers are the sole legal beneficiaries. No other party worldwide has the right to claim, use, or distribute these funds.\n- d) However, the DOJ proceeded to confiscate these funds from counsel's clients without any prior notice or explanation. This action is unrelated to the actions or conduct of these customers, and suggesting that innocent victims of DOJ seizures, residing outside the U.S., would interfere with the administration of the Chapter 11 estate is not only a manipulative use of facts to create a false illusion of interference but is also defamatory towards these victims. It appears that the trustee is attempting to infer conduct that is the subject of a historic injunction\n\n26\n\nand historic acts alleged by others and applying that as a basis or evidence that will or likely will interfere. These victims have the right to be heard and make their motion, and the focus should be on the trustee's interference in this motion, not on the innocent victims themselves.\n\n- e) The customers bringing forth this Motion have not engaged in any acts or actions that warrant such accusations and public defamation (the filings are publicly available) in this manner.\n- f) They have followed the proper legal procedures and engaged legal representation, as is their right, to receive due process without being subjected to such conduct. The Trustee's application and the representations made by the DoJ in their reply strongly suggest an attempt to prevent the court from hearing this Motion by using strategic false tactics, reflecting not only impropriety but also collusion between them. The DoJ, with the ability to assert priority over the seized funds, remains silent, allowing this course of events to continue, which benefits their case\n- g) Examination of the case dockets indicates that the Trustee has repeatedly employed this rhetoric in relation to other defendants, seemingly confident that the Court will accept it at face value and assume that Exchange customers, including those represented by undersigned counsel, have or will engage in similar actions.\n- h) Even if these assertions were true, they do not constitute grounds for the Court to reject hearing the motion. The claim that this motion amounts\n\nto interference lacks substance and legal standing. The Trustee lacks a declaration that the Exchange and its Customer funds form part of the estate, and the possession of the funds lies with the DOJ. The Court is urged to scrutinize this matter carefully and not allow innocent victims to be subjected to such defamatory behavior. The Trustee has not presented any evidence to suggest that Himalaya Exchange customers, particularly those represented in this motion, have engaged in any acts warranting suspicion or accusation of interference.\n\n- i) They have the right to make the motion, be heard, and claim their money. It is reprehensible to characterize this, along with other suggestions, as interference.\n- j) They are victims of the seizure seeking the return of their money, which is their investment in the Exchange and is not within the ownership rights of the Trustee's estate.\n\nConsidering this conduct, the Trustee exhibits clear bias and prejudice against the Exchange customers and is not suitable to administer any Exchange funds.\n\nAdditional concerns include the potential distribution of customer money to other creditors first and the allocation of their money towards the Trustee's legal fees. This is evidence in the comments made in the Bankruptcy Court referred to above.\n\nEach customer's claim to the seized funds is traceable to their HDO balance on the Exchange, and only they should receive this money back. The Trustee and DoJ representations of distribution are inappropriate and indicate the transfer of one victim's easily identifiable money\n\nto another. This conduct is distasteful, manipulative, and an abuse of the court process, attempting to unfairly tarnish this innocent group of customers.\n\nThis Court possesses the authority to handle these funds, and the Trustee brings no added value or process aside from claiming fees and depleting Customer Funds.\n\nThe reliance on received claims lacks merit, as those claims can easily be presented to this Court and addressed accordingly.\n\nThe customer Motion suggests a more secure and cost-effective way to ensure the protection of customer funds from depletion with minimal deductions.\n\nAs a result of the seizures the DoJ would have obtained bank records from the bank holding the Exchanges reserves. The DoJ likely has access to bank records and KYC information for a vast number of customers, with evidence of customer deposits and hard currency redemptions in the Exchange bank statements. This information supports the customer's motion and shows the DOJ is aware there are numerous genuine customers. This against the backdrop of the representations about \"purported\" customers falls short of reasonable nor does it reflect any empathy.\n\nExamining the history of this Trustee and claimed legal fees raises further concerns. There appears to be a no-notice hearing where \\$37 million in funds belonging to the Exchange, loaned to another party as security until the return of a yacht, were accepted by the Court and the Trustee as security. The boat was returned, yet the security was not released. Once the boat was returned, the Trustee changed tact and then claimed that the third party Company was an alter ego of Miles Guo and, therefore, the loaned money now belonged to the Estate. The Court granted the application, and the estate received the entirety of the security funds.<sup>6</sup> Immediately\n\n<span id=\"page-28-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> Atachment G1\n\nafterward, the trustee applied for legal fees and was granted approximately \\$11 million in legal fees out of the \\$37M money belonging to the Exchange and counsel's clients.\n\nDuring the legal proceedings, the Trustee asserted that the Exchange could pursue damages against him in case of future disputes. While the merits of these motions are not explicitly argued or evaluated, there is a reasonable basis to express apprehension regarding the conduct involved. Specifically, concerns arise when an agreement designates the Funds as a security, and later, the Company receiving these funds becomes part of the estate. Instead of repaying the loan, the estate allows the trustee to assert a \\$11 million claim for his legal fees, encompassing his initial fees since commencement hence an inference this conduct was adopted to claim his legal fees as there was no money in the estate to pay them This matter is brought to attention, particularly because a similar action has now commenced in relation to Himalaya Exchange customer funds, raising legitimate concerns about the potential change in status of customer money under the Trustee's administration.\n\nThe concern is substantiated and supported by statements made during the hearing, as referenced in the transcript (Attachment I) where the trustee indicates that the Bankruptcy process will determine who has a valid claim and who is considered a victim. Such conduct is a cause for serious concern. To further support this argument, it is noted that, even at that juncture, the Trustee did not assert that the Exchange and its customer funds were part of the estate. The docket notes, which are voluminous, have not been included in this communication but can be provided upon request.\n\nNo notice of any of these proceedings was given to the Exchange or its customers to contest. The trustee then collaborated with the DoJ to sell the Mahwah mansion detailed in the indictment and agreed to a stipulation with the DoJ to sell the house, retaining \\$1 million in fees\n\n30\n\nfor doing so, with the remainder placed in escrow to be distributed and decided between them later. This is contested by the Taurus Fund, the actual owner of the house.\n\nThere appears to be no pressing reason to sell the house other than the advantage of the trustee receiving fees. While the merits of the above occurrences are not argued, this is raised to provide examples illustrating a clear running theme of the Trustee claiming exorbitant legal fees and depleting estate assets. This fact is relevant to the customer funds, which he now wants to claim. Additionally, he recently presented a bill to the Court for millions in legal fees before moving on to the customer action. There is a genuine fear that customers will receive nothing back if this matter is passed to the Trustee, placing them at the bottom of a list of legal fees and other creditors being paid first.\n\nBoth the trustee and DOJ suggest the customers are purported customers, implying that the customers are not genuine. This is denied and is a highly inappropriate allegation leveled against counsel representing them, suggesting collusion with the Exchange to fabricate the entire motion. Please refer to the link of a video provided by some customers sharing their stories. The Exchange lawyers have also provided a letter confirming that the Exchange has instructed them to oversee an independent forensic accounting and audit firm to audit the list of customers making this motion. A report will be provided and filed by December 21st 2023.\n\nThere are serious concerns about the delay in customers getting their funds returned. Customers hold two types of assets: HDO, the stable coin, and HCN, the trading coin. The current seizures relate to the HDO stable coin reserve. Some customers have balances of both, and some only have balances of HCN. In any case, they can only realize any value from their HCN by selling it and receiving HDO. If the HCN value drops to zero, they lose their entire asset. Currently, the HCN asset is devalued by \\$136 million. This is the total HCN balance by the\n\n31\n\ncurrent customers taking action, accounting for the depreciation in price from the coin price on the date prior to seizure to the current average fluctuating price. If something is not done soon there is a real risk of irreparable harm resulting in substantial losses to counsel's client and other customers.\n\nThe timing of the bankruptcy trustee's submission that customer funds fall within the Chapter 11 estate, only when a motion is filed by customers to claim their funds, is also highly suspicious.\n\nConsidering that this indication has never been made to this Court before, no application has been filed in the Bankruptcy Court despite awareness of the Exchange for a substantial period, and the fact that he acknowledged the Exchange could claim damages regarding him taking legal fees, it strongly implies that there was no suggestion the Exchange and its customer funds formed part of the estate until the customer motion was filed.\n\nThis action appears not to be bona fide and does not align logically. There is a strong suspicion that the Trustee has filed these motions to claim more legal fees and assist the DoJ in derailing the motion, preventing investors like counsel's clients from being protected.\n\n#### **ALLEGATIONS OF INDICTMENT PARAGRAPH 21:**\n\nIncredibly, the DOJ-drafted indictment argues in paragraph 21 that \"Moreover, unlike cryptocurrencies, HCN could not be traded for, or converted into, other currencies.\" But the DOJ itself seized the reserve fund by which the digital coins could be converted into other currencies. It is the DOJ's improper actions that are the reason that the investors are being prevented from redeeming their coins into U.S. dollars.\n\nIn paragraph 22 of the DOJ-written indictment, the DOJ offers a word salad stew. Having already admitted that Kwok had no role with the Himalaya Exchange in paragraph 11, and claiming that the Exchange was operated by \"foreign based\" companies by Je without specifics, the DOJ then tries to sell us on the idea that Kwok (with no control over the Exchange) and Je transferred \\$37 million to buy a yacht that Kwok had already bought.\n\nAlthough this explanation is opaque, at worst the implication of this would be that the Exchange would be the new owner of the yacht as a tangible investment. From the Court dockets there was a clear agreement that this was a security until the boat was retuned and a Court order made to that effect. Once it did return the Trustee decided to claim that the boat company who received the loan was in fact the alter ego of Kwok and therefore the money belonged to the estate. The Court made an order against its own previous order where it accepted the \\$37M was third party money , which was always held in an escrow account and not an account belonging to the Trust and or estate.\n\nHowever, during this discussion, the DOJ effectively admits that the Exchange Funds were in fact independent of any other business entity of the defendants. It is admitted that the Exchange as an independent entity loaned money to a Kwok entity, secured by a valuable asset. Dated: December 15, 2023 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\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# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby cer�fy that on December 15, 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 District of Columbia.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 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），控告人\n\n-v-\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”、“校长”，\n\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n\n被告人。\n被告人。\n\n刑事案号：23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nHIMALAYA EXCHANGE（喜马拉雅交易所）第三方客户就其请求归还控告人所扣押财产动议之答辩书\n\n喜马拉雅交易所的客户，由下述签字律师 Bradford L. Geyer（布拉德福德·L·盖耶）律师代理——其在该交易所的投资已因作为本案核心刑事起诉的附带行动而被扣押——特此就政府的书面异议提交本答辩书，以支持其请求归还控告人美利坚合众国所扣押财产的动议。\n\n目录\nI. 总体情况：喜马拉雅交易所纯属事后生硬拉入 4\nII. 康涅狄格州平行的第 11 章破产程序及在此提出的异议 3\nIII. 对喜马拉雅交易所缺乏管辖权 6\nIV. 澄清要点： 8\nV. 所谓客户主张： 10\nVI. 客户数据安全担忧： 13\nVII. 司法部对客户安全的责任： 18\nVIII. 数据保护与法定义务： 18\nIX. 喜马拉雅交易所不属于破产财产 19\nX. 起诉书第 21 段之指控： 32\n\n下述签字律师目前代表喜马拉雅交易所（“交易所”）的 3,539 名以上客户，他们持有 Himalaya Dollar (HDO)（喜马拉雅美元）和 Himalaya Coin (HCN)（喜马拉雅币）加密货币（“请愿人”），[1](#page-1-0) 但因 Department of Justice（DOJ，美国司法部）及纽约南区检察官的行动，他们被阻止将其投资兑换为硬通货从交易所提取，从而导致其投资资金全盘损失。\n\n下述签字律师针对并答辩于政府于 2023 年 12 月 7 日就归还财产动议所作的回应[2](#page-1-1)（附件 A - ECF 188），律师是在通过 Twitter 得知该提交文件后收到的，此前未见任何进行磋商程序（meet-and-confer）的明显努力。\n下述签字律师估计，随着口碑传至其他迄今未收到政府关于其资金被扣押通知的受害者，且随着我们真实纯正的意图得以明晰，所代表的交易所客户人数将继续增加。在现存的各项挑战中，许多交易所客户心怀恐惧，并讽刺地认为美国政府的行动可能是其他政府的马前卒。\n\n2 鉴于政府的回应，我们将申请准许修改动议及拟议的救济裁定。政府的回应证实了本法院在本案中行使衡平管辖权的必要性。请愿人在普通法上缺乏充分的救济途径来保护其保密性，并在不承受因极端拖延而导致的动议所述困境的情况下确保其被扣押资产得以归还。参见 De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)（“(1) 动议人‘在普通法上无充分救济’，且 (2)‘衡平原则支持行使管辖权’。”）请愿人要求法院对联邦执法官员的行为进行监督。同上，第 382 页（内部引号略）（引自 Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988) 及 Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)）。\n\n美国司法部（“DOJ”）声称要保护下述签字律师的委托人免遭欺诈，其解决办法却是司法部亲自扣押律师委托人的资金并剥夺其投资。因此，司法部正在造成他们声称试图避免的损害。司法部正在参与将律师委托人的投资资金非法侵占（conversion）为美国财政部资金的行为。\n\n司法部在本法院及其他法院的行动，将尊敬的主审法官置于一个极为尴尬的境地：以保护他们之名，极可能导致至少 3,539 名投资者及数千名其他投资者的资金全盘损失。司法部正在造成的、令本法院蒙羞的受保护人投资全盘损失，正是由于直接扣押了以喜马拉雅交易所储备金形式存在的律师委托人资金所致。\n\n除了与美元现金储备 1:1 锚定、目前被司法部扣押的 HDO 稳定币资金损失外，律师的委托人因该扣押已蒙受了其 HCN 交易币价值 1.36 亿美元的巨额贬值。考虑到扣押前的价格与 HCN 当前的价格，其差额为 1.36 亿美元的贬值损失，这显然符合根据第三条（Article 3）向本尊敬的法院提请救济的资格。这仅仅涉及目前已代理的客户。如果 HDO 稳定币储备不归还给律师的委托人且 HCN 价值最终归零，则除储备金外，总损失/损害赔偿估计将达 329,737,812 美元。下述签字律师的委托人同时持有 HDO 币和 HCN 币的余额。因此，偿还问题的解决拖延越久，律师委托人可能遭受的损失就越大。如果按照司法部的建议，将其留待没收程序开始的审判之后，律师的委托人将面临遭受不可挽回之损害的严重风险。如果 HCN 崩盘归零，他们将损失全部投资。司法部在其回应中似乎忽略了这一问题，未能承认其不明智的扣押可能引发的极其严苛的后果。\n\n总体情况：喜马拉雅交易所作为毫不相关的起诉的事后附加物被生硬拉入\n\n提交给本法院的起诉书中的指控涉及郭文贵和余建明的多项行为。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所是一家在 British Virgin Islands（BVI，英属维尔京群岛）设立并定居的公司，该国于 1850 年左右脱离英国王室独立。根据美国的委任外交立场、条约以及《加勒比盆地倡议》（Caribbean Basin Initiative），美国政府承诺尊重诸如英属维尔京群岛等较小国家的主权、独立与重要性。\n\n此外，起诉书自认喜马拉雅交易所是在“外国公司”项下设立且目前在其项下运营。因此，喜马拉雅交易所并非一家美国公司，而是一家独立主权国家英属维尔京群岛的公司。且司法部承认它反过来是由“外国公司”运营的。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所不仅是作为事后附加物被生硬拉入这一混乱局面，而且其截然不同之处在于美国政府对该交易所毫无管辖权。我们面对的是涉及多家公司的极其复杂的系列交易，随后该交易所毫无可识别之由地被直接拉了进来。\n\n试图将该交易所卷入该案的唯一微弱纽带，全是一些模糊且缺乏法律依据的概念。\n\n起诉书既未明示也未默示指控喜马拉雅交易所本身或下述签字人的任何委托人存在任何不当行为的迹象。\n\n奇怪的是，司法部用过去时态来描述喜马拉雅交易所。事实上，该交易所仍在运营，只是由于司法部扣押了从该交易所查扣的储备资金，导致其无法将数字货币兑换为硬通货。司法部为何以过去时态看待该交易所令人费解。这是否意味着司法部早有计划要消灭喜马拉雅交易所？\n\n康涅狄格州平行的第 11 章破产程序及在此提出的异议\n\n本人亦知悉代表第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）的破产律师的介入，并附上了今日致该律师的信函（附件 B）。更新后的归还财产动议旨在理顺争议焦点、节省司法资源，并防止在刑事案件上投下职业道德阴影。\n\n此外，由于破产律师与其中国办事处的中国关联，本人对律师委托人的保密性可能受损提出担忧（附件 C：ECF 561）。这极为令人担忧。\n\n代表 Luc Despins 提交的 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）信函（附件 D - ECF 189，未作事先通知，亦未作任何磋商努力）声称，律师的客户动议牵涉第 11 章破产财产，并主张尊敬的法院若准予救济将违反自动中止（automatic stay）规定。该破产案位于 U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）。\n\n应当指出的是，康涅狄格州第 11 章程序中的受托人 Luc Despins，尽管并非亲自陈述，而仅通过未被指定为受托人的普衡律师事务所的律师发声，却显然在本案中大肆进行“案件翻转牟利”（churning），要求律师的委托人及他人支付 Despins 的费用和开支，其主张的金额已超过 2,100 万美元。因此，本应受本案保护的人，实际上却似乎正在像鸡一样被拔毛。第 11 章破产案中提出的大量申请文件以及所要求的巨额费用和开支，如果由受托人监管任何资金分配，毫无疑问很可能会从客户资金中支付，这也是本法院应当担忧的进一步理由。请参阅受托人迄今索要的天文数字般的费用（附件 E），以及表明受托人对律师委托人的资金怀有令人不安的利益企图的高亮文本（附件 E1）。\n\n对喜马拉雅交易所缺乏管辖权\n\n在本法院审理的本案以及美国康涅狄格区破产法院的第 11 章案件中，司法部正陷入数个重大错误。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所设在英属维尔京群岛。它与美利坚合众国毫无关联。其治理文件禁止与任何美国居民、或代表任何此类人员或作为其受托人或代理人进行交易的任何人进行任何交易。\n\n因此，司法部对喜马拉雅交易所或律师的委托人没有管辖权，因为他们从未实施过任何会产生美国管辖权的行为或不作为。\n\n没有任何指控表明喜马拉雅交易所实施了任何会产生美国管辖权的行为或不作为。虽然起诉书的措辞似乎旨在诱导推定，但喜马拉雅交易所的任何活动均未发生在美国管辖范围内。如果一名位于曼哈顿的股票顾问在其投资简报中建议投资巴哈马的生物柴油项目，那是该顾问的行为。被美国人提及并不构成巴哈马公司在美国境内的行为。通过禁止与美国进行任何交易，喜马拉雅交易所明确表明美利坚合众国对其没有管辖权，且该交易所的设计初衷就是为了防止美国政府对该交易所的任何活动享有任何管辖权。\n\n因此，司法部对喜马拉雅交易所或律师的委托人没有管辖权。事实上，在起诉书第 11 段（我们推测这是司法部起草供大陪审团签署的）中，司法部写道：\n“……郭文贵在喜马拉雅交易所未担任任何正式职位或头衔。”\n\n因此，司法部承认郭文贵所做的任何事情或被指控针对郭文贵的事项，与喜马拉雅交易所均无任何关联，无论是在涉及郭文贵的任何欺诈方面，还是作为郭文贵的任何工具方面。\n\n相反，起诉书混乱且含糊地试图将郭文贵（Miles Guo）和余建明（King Ming Je）无关的事项捏合在一起，以混淆和掺杂不适用于喜马拉雅交易所的事项。\n\n此外，在承认仅 Je（余建明）与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）存在关联的同时，DOJ（美国司法部）通过起诉书第 11 段指控，喜马拉雅交易所是“通过其 [Je] 拥有的设立在境外的多家实体创立并运营的”。\n\n因此，司法部承认其在任何时候都知道，并且现在也知道，喜马拉雅交易所处于 United States of America（美利坚合众国）管辖权之外。不仅没有任何事实能将喜马拉雅交易所置于本法院、Connecticut Bankruptcy Court（康涅狄格州破产法院）、司法部或 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的管辖范围内，甚至该交易所的母公司都是“设在境外”的。\n\n在第 11 段中，起诉书含糊不清地暗指郭氏实体与其他实体与喜马拉雅交易所之间存在“据称的业务关系”。\n\n然而，人们不会将任何所有权关系描述为“业务关系”。“业务关系”意味着缺乏所有权和直接控制权，而是指公平的市场独立交易。\n\n此外，“业务关系”当然不存在任何非法或潜在非法之处。而且该言论的性质未作解释。难道是交易所购买了其他公司不需要的办公用品或剩余办公家具吗？\n\n尽管如此，喜马拉雅交易所仍受 British Virgin Isles（英属维尔京群岛）的管辖。\n澄清要点：\n\n司法部相关行动的第二个重大错误在于，未能调查司法部承认扣押的约 3.35 亿美元至 6.09 亿美元（根据起诉书的数据）实为下签律师的客户及交易所其他客户实益所有，并为下签律师的客户及其他客户以信托方式持有。根据司法部在起诉书中提供的数据，起诉书叙述司法部从喜马拉雅交易所扣押了 3.35 亿美元，但随后又称司法部后来从喜马拉雅交易所和 G|Clubs 一同扣押了 2.74 亿美元，但并未澄清其中有多少是从喜马拉雅交易所而非 G|Clubs 扣押的。因此，起诉书对于仅从喜马拉雅交易所扣押的数额并不明确，但没收明细表（ECF 38 附件 F）显示所有与喜马拉雅相关的账户总计为 302,081,718.48 美元。\n\n司法部在各个阶段都混淆了喜马拉雅交易所的资金，将其视同本案刑事被告 Kwok（郭文贵）和 Je 的资金。司法部扣押的资金是为下签律师客户在 HDO 数字货币中的投资提供保障的储备基金。\n\n令人匪夷所思的是，起诉书试图将司法部扣押的储备基金由下签律师客户实益拥有并代表其以信托方式持有这一事实，歪曲为欺诈的依据。\n\n这与银行保护存款人的部分准备金制度并无二致，区别仅在于此处的储备是按 100% 的赎回价值全额储备，而非部分或分式储备。\n\n如果银行检查员发现某家银行有 5 亿美元的分式储备作为担保，随后查扣了这些储备，迫使该银行破产，那么他们断然不能强辩称该银行对存款人的承诺原本就是欺诈性的，因为制造问题的正是政府随后扣押银行储备的行为。\n\n通过扣押喜马拉雅交易所的储备基金，司法部摧毁了其声称要保护的投资。下签律师的客户无法通过从储备基金赎回数字 HDO“代币”将其加密货币投资转换为法定硬通币。因此，代币持有者可以交易 HCN 代币，但无法将这些以 HDO 形式收到的交易利润提取为美元并取走其资金。\n\n司法部企图暗示客户赎回是一纸空头支票。事实上，根据所提供的财务信息，截至目前，下签律师的客户已总共收到 26,772,727.65 美元的赎回款项，存入以其自身姓名开立的银行账户中（将 HDO 赎回为美元汇入其账户）。这仅涉及本人所代表的客户，不包括其他客户，因此实际数字很可能更高。这一真实且正常运作的赎回流程，仅因司法部扣押了用于进行赎回的储备基金而被迫中断。\n\n然而现在，作为储备金并向包括下签律师客户在内的投资者承诺的信托资金，已被从他们手中剥夺并存入 U.S. Treasury（美国财政部）。由于储备已被抽走，交易所因此无法向其客户赎回任何资金。\n\n虽然可能有理由确保储备基金专门用于其既定目的，即为希望从交易所提取资金的投资者提供赎回资金，例如让一名非破产受托人来控制这些资金，但有一件事绝不能发生：司法部绝不能为了美国财政部的利益以及 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章破产受托人）的佣金翻炒而侵占客户资金。下文对此作出了进一步说明。\n所谓客户之主张：\n\nDepartment of Justice（美国司法部，DOJ）与受托人均含沙射影地暗示存在所谓的客户，暗示动议中所涉及的客户是虚构的。这一断言被断然否决，且往轻里说也是极度令人不安的。[3] 两家机构均声称以不同方式保护受害者，其整个诉讼程序均建立在这一假设之上。然而，双方均已采取策略企图削弱真正受害者的合法主张。这强烈表明了他们的真实动机，即通过一切可行手段查扣并保留这些资金。预期的做法本应是配合动议中提出的方案，迅速将这些资金\n\n3 如果受托人对我方客户资金的关注令人担忧，那么政府对我方客户身份的关注同样令人担忧，我们特此请求尊敬的法庭给予协助。在向政府提供动议草案后持续了 42 分钟的协商会议（如果该会议确实应当被描述的话，其描述也仅有部分属实）表明，政府对个人信息的敏感性缺乏关切。有关我方“所谓”客户的个人信息如何被共享是一个令人高度关切的问题，因为美国司法部甚至对其自身雇员的个人信息也已被证明是一个不合格的管理者。ECF 186 脚注 10。在此，危害了数百万司法部雇员安全审查档案的 CCP（中国共产党）政府实体，很可能对交易所客户的身份有着更为强烈的兴趣。我必须极其明确地指出：通过错误的程序交换信息和返还资金会危及我方客户的安全。\n\n返还给受害者，并避免因行政和受托人费用而耗尽其资金。然而，他们却选择了一种指责受害者造假的论调，并引用法律技术细节和判例法来为其不作为开脱。经审视，这些论据均站不住脚，并未能为其行为提供合理的正当理由。\n\n制造烟幕以转移对核心事实的关注，对此应保持高度警惕。至今尚未提供任何以实际证据为支撑的令人信服的理由来证明扣留这些资金具有正当性。在此类案件中，人们本指望检控机关采取协助并加速救济受害者的办法，且不以昂贵的行政或律师费耗尽这些资金。然而，他们却采取了对抗立场，这与其所宣称的保护受害者的承诺背道而驰。\n\n在此情况下、在下签律师客户所提起的动议中以及本法院面临的问题，正是储备基金被不当扣押这一事实。司法部必须将喜马拉雅交易所的全部储备基金作为一个整体予以全额返还。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所如何根据其业务义务和法定管理文件开展日常业务、如何从该储备基金中执行数字代币的正常赎回业务，实与本法院或司法部无关。提交给本法院的请求权主张是：该储备基金系被不当扣押，应当返还给在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）政府法律和管辖权下运营的交易所保管。\n\n否则，司法部就必须代行交易所的职能，去为数以万计的交易所客户逐一处理数字代币的赎回业务。而这正是交易所的本职工作。我们并非要求司法部去从事加密货币业务。\n\n因此，司法部或本法院均无必要去探究对储备基金享有权利主张的存款人/投资者的身份。司法部或许可能会合理地关注喜马拉雅交易所数字代币的存款人/投资者中是否有人与司法部正在起诉的被告或其代理人实为同一人。但这并不能使司法部的任何行动或对储备基金的扣押具有正当性。司法部绝不能仅仅因为 2 个存款人账户可能属于其正在起诉的人员，就扣押整家银行并使 99.99999% 的存款人陷入绝境。关注的焦点只能是被告本人，而非其他所有人。\n\n然而事实上，有关交易所客户的疑问是很容易解答并得以消除的——当然，这绝不构成对管辖权异议的放弃。但这些含沙射影的言论忽视了问题的本质。核心问题在于司法部从一开始就无权扣押储备基金，亦无权讯问个别交易所客户。\n\n随函附上由交易所指定的一家独立律所 Candey 出具的信函，确认他们承诺监督选定一家独立的法证会计师事务所（附件 G）。该事务所将进行审计，对照喜马拉雅交易所的数据库核实下签律师客户在委托法律服务时提供的喜马拉雅账户号码（“HID”）的真实性，并核实是否存在关于他们的记录。该报告将于 2023 年 12 月 21 日准备就绪，并将提交给法庭。与银行账号类似，该 HID 对每个客户账户而言都是唯一的，并且是同意接受委托代理时所必需的。\n\n该号码无法任意生成，且仅为喜马拉雅账户持有人所知晓。\n\n一份载有完整签署了同意交易所披露其财务信息之授权书的 HID 清单，已连同每位客户所要求的全部信息（均在动议提交前收到）一并提交给交易所。与此同时，下签律师的客户在此期间已提交了五（5）份受害者证人临时陈述书。喜马拉雅客户陈述（中文字幕）- YouTube。随后将在适当时机补充正式的宣誓书及其他所需信息。这是一小部分冒着巨大风险挺身而出代表广大客户同胞（其中许多是下签律师的客户）的人士。这是集体诉讼中遵循的常规做法。在面临严重损害风险的案件中，受害者不应面对超出常规的程序性障碍。\n客户数据安全顾虑：\n\n为回应有关客户数据安全的日益加剧的担忧，该交易所（Exchange）被要求提供一个突出体现这些担忧的说明性实例。作为合规流程的一部分，客户须接受由独立服务提供商 Jumio 协助进行的身份验证和人工智能人脸识别程序。在一份客户申请中发现了一张令人震惊的 Jumio 照片，揭示了针对企图使用其个人信息进行注册的个人所面临的潜在威胁。所附图像显示一名男子在一名前来申请客户账户的女性身后挥舞着一把刀，这引发了对客户安全的严重担忧。\n\n这一令人不安的发现提供了强有力的证据，表明可疑行为人为伪装成真实客户不惜采取何种极端手段。此外，它还提高了人们对中国异见人士在各种情况下所面临潜在威胁的认识。如果这些行为人为了完成注册审核愿意采取如此极端的手段，那么当他们在交易所上识别出实际客户时，可能会产生何种潜在风险的问题便不言而喻。鉴于任何泄露的数据都可能对个人造成严重伤害，司法部（Department of Justice，简称 DoJ）的责任受到了质疑。所呈递的证据是一个切实的例子，表明代理律师的委托人所表达的恐惧绝非夸大其词，而是切实的担忧。情况的紧迫性促使人们反思，司法部是否会在造成无法弥补的损害之前认识到该问题的严重性。\n\n![](_page_14_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n个人资料 白名单IP 风险评分 安全问题 证明文件\n用户详情\nID 11efb5eb-0127-4cb5-abed-4ec501c3f5bd 已启用 [已遮蔽]\n创建日期 2022年2月6日，星期日 已批准 [已遮蔽]\n显示名称\n已删除 [已遮蔽]\n用户类型 个人 v\n被锁定 [已遮蔽]\n名/中间名 [已遮蔽]\n停止存入 [已遮蔽]\n姓氏 [已遮蔽]\n停止交易 [已遮蔽]\n全名 [已遮蔽]\n停止\n提取 [已遮蔽]\n出生日期 [已遮蔽]\n强制\n更改密码 [已遮蔽]\n电子邮件\n地址/用户名 [已遮蔽]@gmail.com\n双重\n认证 [已遮蔽]\n移动电话 [已遮蔽]\n在线 [已遮蔽]\n地址第1行 [已遮蔽]\n能够访问\nAPI密钥 [已遮蔽]\n地址第2行\n居住国家/地区 台湾 v\n城市 [已遮蔽]\n州/省 请选择州/省 v [已遮蔽]\n邮政编码 [已遮蔽]\n国籍国家/地区 台湾 v\n身份证明文件号码 [已遮蔽]\n备注 /\n最后备注人\n登录失败次数 0\n用户设置\n当前层级 0\n每日剩余提现额度 [已审查]\n每月剩余提现额度 [已审查] 美元\n以美元计的总余额 0.00\n不同IP验证 已禁用\n\n首页 > 用户 > 风险评分：[已遮蔽邮箱]\n\n风险评分：[已遮蔽邮箱]\n\n个人资料 白名单IP 风险评分 安全问题 证明文件\n内部ID HR3MJMT\n手动风险评分 0 保存\n总风险评分 [已遮蔽分数]\n风险等级 [已遮蔽等级]\nCOMPLYADVANTAGE\n命中数 0\nCOMPLYADVANTAGE\n链接 ComplyAdvantage链接\n验证\n申请状态 待处理\n类别 [下拉菜单] 保存并通知用户\n尝试JUMIO\n次数 1 重置\n日期与时间 全名 角色\n2022年2月6日 凌晨2:54:46 自动（系统） 自动（系统）\n问题排序 问题 答案\n10 出生地\n11 文件上的国籍 台湾\n12 请告诉我们您当前的就业状况。\n13 请告诉我们您的职业或商业活动。\n14 请告诉我们除您出于税务目的登记的国家之外，您是否还在其他国家开展业务？\n15 您的个人活动或业务是否在税收优惠区（例如自由经济区、离岸司法管辖区）注册或开展？\n16 请告诉我们您在个人或商业活动中以现金结算的年营业额。\n17 请告诉我们您在个人或商业活动中以加密货币结算的年营业额。\n18 请告诉我们您的收入/资金来源。如有必要，可选择多个框。\n19 请告诉我们您的财富来源？如有必要，可选择多个框。\n20 请选择您计划使用的服务。如有必要，可选择多个框。\n21 您计划每年存入多少金额（美元与加密货币合计）？\n22 请告诉我们资金将从哪些国家接收和/或转出。\n23 请告诉我们您在加密货币交易方面的经验水平？请选择一项：\n\n司法部对客户安全的责任：\n\n司法部需要认真考虑这些安全问题，而不是因为未披露全名就暗示存在虚假客户。当落实如前所述的保障措施时，将披露唯一的喜马拉雅账号（Himalaya account number，简称 HID）。每一个唯一的 HID 都对应着一名持有喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）账户的真实客户/真人。在扣押资产并将客户置于高度风险之中后，司法部有责任保障因其行为而可能面临风险的个人。[4](#page-17-0)\n\n数据保护与法律义务：\n\n交易所向我强调，按照代理律师委托人的要求向我提供此图像，并不意味着其放弃在数据保护、法律要求、特权或其拥有的任何其他法定权利项下的任何义务。此次披露旨在加深对无辜受害者所面临真实威胁的理解。如需索取任何其他材料或客户信息，必须遵守正当法律程序。\n\n除了政府的答复（ECF 188 附件 A）以及破产受托人的律师紧随其后在本法院提交的文件（ECF 189 附件 D）之外，受托人似乎还于2023年12月8日在康涅狄格州破产法院提交了一份动议\n\n4 《总检察长受害者与证人协助指南，2022年版 | 犯罪受害者办公室》（ojp.gov） 受害者与证人隐私考量 第5页。\n\n（ECF 2425 附件 H），提出了不同的理由，并略去了涉及破产法第11章（chapter 11）财产或违反自动中止（automatic stay）的含义。受托人的动议强调了债务人对喜马拉雅交易所各实体的领导权，并强调了对该动议对第11章案件影响的持续审查：\n\n“正如法院所忆及的那样，法院此前在就针对债务人及某些关联方发出初步禁令的命令中认定，喜马拉雅交易所和各种其他附属的喜马拉雅实体‘均在债务人的领导之下’，且为‘债务人的商业工具’。受托人还指出，在该第11章案件中已提交了多份债权证明（proofs of claims），基于在喜马拉雅交易所或向其进行的‘投资’主张债权。\n\n受托人正在审查该动议并评估后续步骤。鉴于该动议若获得批准，将干扰本第11章案件的管理，包括涉及债权的解决和破产财产的分配，在法院希望就此事安排现状听证会（status conference）的情况下，受托人听候法院酌情安排。”（脚注略）[5](#page-18-0)\n\n喜马拉雅交易所不属于破产财产\n\n破产受托人缺乏在本受尊敬的法院中对下述署名律师所呈交的动议进行干预的权力与管辖权，其请求应基于以下理由予以驳回：\n\na) 在对破产案件诉讼记录（dockets）进行全面审查后，未发现有所提及的宣布喜马拉雅交易所或最初由喜马拉雅交易所为其客户信托持有、现已被司法部扣押的稳定币储备基金属于第11章破产财产的判决。\n\n5 附件 H（ECF 2425 受托人要求返还的动议）\n\n- b) 如果这些资产确实属于第11章破产财产，从案件记录中或呈交本法院的文件中均明显可见，并不存在破产法院确认此种地位的命令。\n- c) 没有任何证据或任何合理正当的理由表明代理律师的任何委托人或该动议本身会干扰第11章破产财产的管理。如果有人声称他们中的任何人从事或企图从事任何此类行为，或者声称本动议在任何方面构成对受托人或司法部的干扰，将引起严重申诉。这些受害者有权在不受针对并不被与禁令相关的历史事件所抹黑的情况下获得公正的审听并使其动议获得正当法律程序。代理律师的所有委托人均位于美国境外，并通过委托律师行使追索其合法财产的权利，并未招致任何关于干扰的无端指责。这是他们的钱，他们有合法权利予以追回。做出这种断言没有任何正当理由，并再次凸显了该受托人所采取的冒进立场，其依据一套说辞以掩盖其干预其债权请求缺乏真正正当依据的事实。\n- d) 在最近一次有关马瓦豪宅（Mawah Mansion）的听证会中，第11章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）表达了他管理司法部扣押的交易所资金的意图，如所附庭审笔录（ECF 2174 附件 I；第24-29页）中所强调的那样。不论允许破产律师管理这些资金背后的考量是否明智，显而易见的是，他目前缺乏管理这些资金的权力，并且没有任何迹象表明这些资金属于破产财产（Estate）。在普衡律师事务所（Paul Hastings）\n\n信函中向本法院所作的陈述似乎具有误导性且不准确。破产法院动议中未将交易所、其资产或客户资金列为第11章破产财产的一部分这一事实，进一步支持了这一点。\n\n- e) 因此，在受托人发表了关于获取刑事案件中扣押的全部金额、担任接管人并利用马瓦豪宅的蓝图为破产财产获取更多资金的言论后，也引发了严重担忧。从该文件的叙述中可以非常清楚地看出，他似乎在试图说服法院，使其能够担任司法部扣押资金的接管人，并将这些资金带入破产法院进行管理。\n- f) 这种说辞引发了对受托人收取巨额费用的严重担忧，其声称这些费用来源于房屋出售，即100万美元将成为破产财产的一部分，并且出售该房屋是为了协助司法部（DOJ）保全和变现不动产。受托人暗示采取此行动是必要的，因为司法部在扣押该财产时会面临困难。此外，法庭上公开讨论了来自刑事案件的、与破产财产管辖权无关的资金。必须强调的是，代理律师委托人的资金不属于破产财产，并且似乎存在蓄意的企图，通过带有暗示与 Kwok（郭文贵）存在关联的动机来制造存疑的局面。\n- g) 受托人在本案卷中的言论显然对受害者的权利主张造成了损害和不利影响。受托人谈到破产法院和他可以决定谁拥有债权以及谁是受害者，同时考虑到\n\n请注意，他并未参与刑事审判，也未参与任何证据的审查。实际上，他是想在没有任何适当的保障措施和实际证据要求的情况下，被间接地允许自行决定在这些评估中考虑哪些事实。他所表示的可以将代理律师委托人的资金分配给其他债权人的说法，在这类性质的案件中本身是极不恰当的；在此类案件中，每个客户都有清晰可辨的账户和余额，直接分配客户资金将带来重大损失风险，使资金被高昂的律师费以及对这些资金缺乏合法权利的其他第三方侵吞。\n\n- h) 对代理律师委托人资金的不当查扣，特别是对 Mawah Mansions（马瓦庄园）以及政府查扣的其他资金，与正在进行的刑事案件直接相关。本法院不仅拥有必要的管辖权，而且具备处理这些查扣财产的管理和分配的能力。DOJ（美国司法部）通过要么保持沉默完全不采取行动，要么主张对 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）准备金相较于破产受托人拥有优先权，从而允许破产受托人介入本案专属的事项。破产受托人在陪审团作出任何不利裁决之前很久就制定的战略计划，引发了人们对基于与 Kwok（郭文贵）之间所谓的联系而从无辜受害者处转移资金的严重担忧，从而造成了具有偏见的情形。破产受托人对本动议或对代理律师的委托人干扰第 11 章破产财产的顾虑，进一步增加了令人担忧的理由。\n\n- i) 我们谨请求本法院进行干预，以防止破产受托人干扰本案中的查扣资产。\n\n- j) 此外，若未经代理律师委托人或下署律师的同意，Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）在管理代理律师委托人的资金方面将面临利益冲突。破产受托人独特的法定权力在其他情形下均需要取得同意。无论从何种角度来看，交易所持有的资金都是为了作为受益人的客户而以信托方式持有的，不属于破产财产。\n\n- k) 摆在尊敬的法院面前的首要关切是返还合法的客户资金。这笔钱不属于第 11 章破产财产主体的郭文贵。破产财产缺乏主张所有权或管理这些资金的权力或法律依据。喜马拉雅交易所的所有权、控制权或领导权与这些客户准备金无关。\n\n- l) 请参阅审计报告以及从喜马拉雅账户查扣的余额（附件 J 和 K）。这些审计报告确认了由喜马拉雅交易所为 HDO 以信托方式持有的客户稳定币准备金，代理律师的委托人即为这些资金的所有人。申请人是该信托的受益人，只有客户才有主张这笔钱的合法权利。司法部对喜马拉雅交易所账户的相关查扣似乎包含 HDO 稳定币准备金，且最佳证据表明所有款项均属于代理律师的委托人。目前尚不清楚这些资金是如何被用作犯罪工具的。这些资金基本上一直保留在这些账户中，直到 HDO 被赎回，并由金融机构向客户支付美元。\n\n- m) 在查扣之前，客户定期赎回其 HDO，这些赎回的资金均从交易所持有的稳定币准备金中支付。\n\n无论从何种角度来看，这笔钱都不构成交易所的资产、财产或收入的一部分。交易所对其没有任何所有权、产权主张，也无权将这笔钱用于除应客户要求进行赎回以外的任何其他目的。客户购买 HDO 是作为由 1 美元支持 1 个 HDO（USD $1: 1 x HDO）的稳定币。\n\n- n) 交易所的管理规则还表明，交易所每售出一个 HDO，就会持有硬通货准备金，因此具有等值的硬通货。客户实质上购买的是一种由硬通货现金储备支持的 HDO 产品，而该产品就是附属于该准备金的加密货币代币。\n\n- o) 司法部从喜马拉雅账户查扣的款项，仅略少于审计报告中注明的稳定币准备金总额。最后一份审计报告是在查扣发生前几周进行的。最佳证据表明，代理律师委托人作为受益人的全部款项都在那里，由交易所在妥善保管的账户中维护，目前尚不清楚这些资金是如何被用作犯罪工具的。这些资金基本上一直保留在这些账户中，直到 HDO 被赎回，并由金融机构向客户支付美元。\n\n- p) 本质上，本案的基本理论很简单：就像作为贷款或债务担保的任何资产一样，被司法部查扣的资金并非无负担且无争议的财产。它们已质押给代理律师的委托人，并为了喜马拉雅交易所的存款人、投资者和客户的利益而以信托方式持有。这些资金保证了代理律师委托人赎回其数字代币、将其转换为硬通货，并作为普通银行资金或货币提取其投资的权利。\n\nq) 重要的是，全球近期的监管法规均提倡将稳定币准备金设定为 100%，从查扣的资金和审计报告中指出的准备金总额可以证明这一点，确认了交易所妥善存放在银行账户中的准备金达到 100%。该监管发展的一个例子可见于 http1693986077.。因此，司法部和第 11 章破产受托人犯下了严重错误，将交易所持有的准备金误认为是犯罪被告人作为其个人资金所有的利润，而非像代理律师委托人这样的投资者的利益准备金。\n\n即使认定喜马拉雅交易所属于破产财产的一部分（事实并非如此），破产受托人也缺乏管辖权来主张这些资金属于第 11 章破产财产。司法部查扣的资金并不属于破产财产，正如银行对其客户存入的资金不拥有所有权一样。因此，本动议已在正确的法院和管辖法庭适当地提出，没有任何理由将其视为属于第 11 章破产财产之内，亦无理由认为其违反了自动中止令。因此，破产受托人的动议应予驳回。\n\n> a) 破产受托人引用了一份涉及不同事项的无关禁令申请，以主张交易所及其客户（即下署律师代表的委托人）处于 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的领导之下，这是令人严重关切的事项。下署律师代表否认这一荒谬捏造的客户对此主张予以否认，该捏造称本动议可能旨在造成干扰。在此提请注意，这似乎是破产受托人的动机，而非无辜受害者的动机。\n\n- b) 举例说明，Martin Luther King（马丁·路德·金）博士是 20 世纪 60 年代公认的民权运动领袖，但这并不意味着金博士对任何自视为民权运动一部分的具体浸信会教堂的运营拥有指挥权、控制权、所有权、影响力或经济利益。\n\n- c) 在争取自由运动中的领导地位并不构成证据，也不意味着对交易所信托持有的客户稳定币资金拥有任何形式的所有权，而客户是这些资金的唯一合法受益人。全球任何其他方均无权主张、使用或分配这些资金。\n\n- d) 然而，司法部在没有任何事先通知或解释的情况下，直接没收了代理律师委托人的这些资金。该行为与这些客户的行为或品行无关，暗示居住在美国境外的司法部查扣行动的无辜受害者会干扰第 11 章破产财产的管理，不仅是通过操纵事实来制造干扰的虚假假象，而且是对这些受害者的诽谤。破产受托人似乎试图推断作为历史禁令标的的行为以及他人指控的历史行为，并将其作为将会或可能造成干扰的依据或证据。这些受害者有权获得听证并提出他们的动议，焦点应当放在破产受托人对本动议的干扰上，而不是无辜受害者本身。\n\n- e) 提出本动议的客户未曾从事任何足以招致以此种方式进行指控和公开诽谤（相关案卷公开可查）的作为或行为。\n\n- f) 他们遵循了正当的法律程序并聘请了法律代理，这是他们的权利，以便在不受此类行为影响的情况下获得正当程序保护。破产受托人的申请以及司法部在答辩中作出的陈述强烈表明，他们企图通过使用虚假的战略手段来阻止法院审理本动议，这不仅反映出不当性，而且反映出两者之间的串通。有能力对被查扣资金主张优先权的司法部却保持沉默，放任这种事态发展继续下去，从而有利于他们的案件。\n\n- g) 对案件卷宗的审查表明，破产受托人针对其他被告一再使用这种说辞，似乎确信法院会按字面意思全盘接受，并假定交易所客户（包括下署律师代表的客户）已经或将会从事类似行为。\n\n- h) 即使这些说法属实，它们也不构成本法院拒绝审理该动议的理由。关于本动议构成干扰的主张缺乏事实依据和法律地位。破产受托人并未取得宣告交易所及其客户资金构成破产财产一部分的确认判决，且资金的占有权归司法部所有。敦请法院仔细审查此事，切勿让无辜受害者遭受此类诽谤行为。破产受托人没有提出任何证据表明喜马拉雅交易所的客户，特别是本动议中所代表的客户，从事过任何足以引起怀疑或受到干扰指控的行为。\n\n- i) 他们有权提出动议、获得听证并索回他们的资金。将此以及其他建议定性为干扰是应受谴责的。\n\n- j) 他们是查扣行动的受害者，寻求退还其资金，这是他们在交易所的投资，不属于破产受托人破产财产的所有权范围。\n\n鉴于这种行为，破产受托人对交易所客户表现出明显的偏见和歧视，不适合管理任何交易所资金。\n\n其他担忧包括可能先将客户资金分配给其他债权人，以及将他们的资金用于支付破产受托人的律师费。上述破产法院发表的意见中便体现了这一点。\n\n每个客户对被查扣资金的主张均可追溯至其在交易所的 HDO 余额，且只有他们才应当收回这笔款项。破产受托人和司法部关于分配的陈述是不恰当的，表明将一个受害者清晰可辨的款项转移给另一个受害者。这种行为令人反感、具有操纵性，并且是对法庭程序的滥用，企图不公正地抹黑这群无辜的客户。\n\n本法院拥有处理这些资金的权力，而破产受托人除了索取费用和耗尽客户资金之外，无法带来任何附加价值或法定程序。\n\n对已收到索赔的依赖缺乏依据，因为这些索赔完全可以提交给本法院并得到相应处理。\n\n客户动议提出了一种更安全且更具成本效益的方式，以确保客户资金免遭耗尽，并以最小的扣除额获得保护。\n\n由于查封，DoJ（美国司法部）本应已从持有交易所储备金的银行获取了银行记录。司法部很可能掌握大量客户的银行记录和 KYC（了解你的客户）信息，并在交易所的银行对账单中拥有客户存款和硬通货赎回的证据。该信息支持客户的动议，并表明司法部知晓存在大量真实客户。在此背景下，针对“据称”客户的陈述既不合理，也未体现出任何同理心。\n\n审查该受托人的历史以及其所主张的律师费，引发了进一步的关切。此前似乎存在一次未经通知的听证会，会上属于交易所的 3700 万美元资金（作为担保借给另一方直至游艇归还）被法院和受托人接纳为担保物。游艇已归还，然而担保物却未被解除质押。一旦游艇归还，受托人便改变策略，声称该第三方公司是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的另一个自我（alter ego），因此所借资金现在属于破产财产（Estate）。法院批准了该申请，破产财产接收了全部担保资金。6 紧接着，\n\n6 附件 G1\n\n受托人申请了律师费，并从属于交易所及代理律师委托人的 3700 万美元款项中获得了约 1100 万美元的律师费批准。\n\n在诉讼程序中，受托人声称交易所若在未来发生争议可以向其主张损害赔偿。虽然这些动议的实体理由并未明确进行辩论或评估，但有合理的依据对所涉及的行为表示担忧。具体而言，当一份协议将相关资金指定为担保，而随后接收这些资金的公司变成了破产财产的一部分时，担忧便随之产生。破产财产并未偿还借款，而是允许受托人就其律师费提出 1100 万美元的索赔，这涵盖了其自案件启动以来的初始费用，因此可以推断采取这一做法是为了主张其律师费，因为破产财产中没有资金予以支付。提请注意此事，特别是因为针对 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）客户资金目前也启动了类似的诉讼行动，这引发了对受托人管理下客户资金潜在地位变化的合理担忧。\n\n该关切得到了听证会期间所作陈述的证实与支持，正如笔录（附件 I）中所示，受托人指出破产程序将决定谁拥有有效主张以及谁被视为受害者。此类行为令人严重关切。为了进一步支持这一论点，应当指出的是，即使在当时，受托人也并未主张交易所及其客户资金属于破产财产的一部分。案卷记录篇幅庞大，未包含在本文件中，但可按要求提供。\n\n交易所及其客户均未收到有关任何上述程序的通知以便提出抗辩。受托人随后与司法部合作出售起诉书中所详述的马哈瓦（Mahwah）豪宅，并与司法部达成协议以出售该房屋，为此保留了 100 万美元的费用，其余部分存入代管账户以供日后在他们之间进行分配和裁决。房屋的实际所有者 Taurus Fund（金牛座基金）对此提出了异议。\n\n除了受托人获取费用的利益之外，出售该房屋似乎没有紧迫的理由。虽然不对上述事件的实体理由展开辩论，但提出此情况是为了提供示例，说明受托人索取巨额律师费并耗尽破产财产资产的明确一贯做法。该事实与他现在企图索取的客户资金密切相关。此外，他在转向客户诉讼之前，最近向法院提交了一份数百万美元的律师费账单。人们真正担心的是，如果此事移交给受托人，客户将分文不得，从而被置于优先支付律师费和其他债权人的名单的最底层。\n\n受托人和司法部均暗示客户是所谓的据称客户，暗示客户并非真实客户。对此予以否认，这是对代表他们的律师提出的极不恰当的指控，暗示其与交易所串通伪造了整个动议。请参阅部分客户分享其亲身经历的视频链接。交易所的律师还提供了一封信函，确认交易所已指示他们监督一家独立的法务会计与审计事务所对提出本动议的客户名单进行审计。审计报告将于 2023 年 12 月 21 日前提供并提交。\n\n对于客户取回资金的拖延存在严重关切。客户持有两种类型的资产：稳定币 HDO 和交易币 HCN。当前的查封涉及 HDO 稳定币储备。部分客户同时拥有两者的余额，部分客户仅拥有 HCN 余额。在任何情况下，他们只能通过出售 HCN 并接收 HDO 来变现其 HCN 的价值。如果 HCN 价值跌至零，他们将损失其全部资产。目前，HCN 资产已贬值 1.36 亿美元。这是目前采取行动的客户持有的 HCN 总余额，计算了自查封前一日的代币价格至当前平均波动价格的跌幅。如果不尽快采取措施，代理律师的委托人及其他客户将面临遭受重大损失的无法挽回的实质损害风险。\n\n破产受托人仅在客户提交动议要求索回资金时，才提出客户资金属于 Chapter 11（第 11 章）破产财产的意见，其时机也高度可疑。\n\n鉴于该表态此前从未向本法院作出过，尽管知晓交易所已存在相当长一段时间却从未向破产法院提交任何申请，以及他承认交易所可就其收取律师费一事向其索赔的事实，这强烈暗示在提交客户动议之前，根本没有任何交易所及其客户资金构成破产财产一部分的说法。\n\n该行为似乎非出于善意，且在逻辑上不合常理。存在强烈怀疑，受托人提交这些动议是为了索取更多律师费并协助司法部阻挠该动议，从而阻止代理律师的委托人等投资者获得保护。\n\n起诉书第 21 段之指控：\n\n令人难以置信的是，由司法部起草的起诉书在第 21 段中辩称：“此外，与加密货币不同，HCN 无法兑换或转换为其他货币。”但正是司法部自身查封了可将数字货币转换为其他货币的储备基金。正是司法部的不当行为，导致投资者无法将其代币兑换为美元。\n\n在司法部撰写的起诉书第 22 段中，司法部提供了一通毫无逻辑的拼凑之词。在第 11 段中已经承认 Kwok（郭文贵）在喜马拉雅交易所中没有任何角色，并且在没有具体细节的情况下声称交易所由 Je（余建明）通过“设在外国”的公司运营之后，司法部随后试图让我们接受这样的说法：郭（对交易所没有控制权）和余转移了 3700 万美元去购买一艘郭已经购买过的游艇。\n\n尽管这种解释晦涩不明，但在最坏的情况下，其含义也是交易所将作为有形投资成为游艇的新所有人。从法院案卷来看，存在一份明确的协议表明这是一项直到游艇归还为止的担保，并且法院为此作出了裁定。一旦游艇确实归还，受托人便决定声称接收借款的游艇公司实际上是郭的另一个自我，因此这笔款项属于破产财产。法院作出了与其自身先前的裁定相悖的裁定，而其先前裁定曾接纳该 3700 万美元为第三方资金，且该资金一直存放在代管账户中，而非属于信托和/或破产财产的账户。\n\n然而，在这一讨论过程中，司法部实际上承认了交易所资金事实上独立于被告的任何其他商业实体。这证明了作为独立实体的交易所向郭的实体提供了由一项有价值资产作担保的贷款。日期：2023 年 12 月 15 日 谨此提交\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer，PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\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送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 2023 年 12 月 15 日，上述文件的真实准确副本已通过 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia（美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）的 ECF（电子案卷归档）系统进行电子归档并送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer，PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708","key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Je","Kwok","Guo","Despins","Geyer","Luc Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings","CIPA","forfeiture","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":38,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":188,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":189,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":561,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2174,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2425,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":9157,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-07","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:12:32"}