{"id":"court_sdny_198_11","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":198,"sub_number":11,"doc_type":"NOTICE","filed_date":"2023-12-08","title":"EXHIBIT H UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","summary_zh":"通知 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #198（2023年12月8日）。第11章破产受信人通知，关于喜马拉雅交易所客户的代理人为没收资产返还权所提动议；受信人指出该动议可能影响破产程序的管理和资产分配，建议法院酌情安排状态会议。","summary_en":"Notice — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #198 (filed December 8, 2023). Chapter 11 Trustee's notice regarding motion for return of property filed by counsel for customers of Himalaya Exchange; Trustee indicates motion could interfere with bankruptcy administration and estate distribution, offers to attend status conference at Court's discretion.","body_en":"# EXHIBIT H\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n------------------------------------------------------x\n\n| In re:                                    | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n|-------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| HO WAN KWOK, <i>et al.</i> , <sup>1</sup> | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                  | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |\n\n------------------------------------------------------x\n\n# **NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE REGARDING MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY FILED BY ALLEGED CUSTOMERS OF HIMALAYA EXCHANGE IN DEBTOR'S CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the chapter 11 case of Ho\n\nWan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby provides notice that, on December 6, 2023, counsel\n\npurportedly representing 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange2 filed a motion (the\n\n\"Motion\") in the criminal case pending against the Debtor in the United States District Court for\n\nthe Southern District of New York [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Case\") seeking\n\nthe return of property seize by the United States in connection with the Criminal Case. The\n\ndeadline to respond to the Motion has been set for December 19, 2023.\n\n 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Himalaya Exchange is a British Virgin Island registered company named Himalaya International Clearing Limited.\n\nA copy of the Motion [Criminal Case ECF No. 186] is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**. The U.S. Department of Justice has already responded to the Motion. A copy of that response is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**.\n\n As the Court will recall, the Court previously found, in connection with its order granting a preliminary injunction against the Debtor and certain related parties, that Himalaya Exchange and various other affiliated Himalaya entities are \"all under the leadership of the Debtor\"3 and \"business vehicles for the Debtor.\"4 The Trustee also notes that numerous proofs of claims have been filed in this chapter 11 case asserting claims based on \"investments\" in or with Himalaya Exchange.\n\nThe Trustee is reviewing the Motion and evaluating next steps. Given that the Motion, if granted, would interfere with the administration of this chapter 11 case, including as it relates to the resolution of claims and the distribution of estate property, the Trustee is available the Court's discretion, to the extent the Court wishes to schedule a status conference on this matter.\n\nDated: December 8, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nCHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue\n\n 3 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, dated January 13, 2023, Adv. Proc. No. 22-5032 (JAM) at 60 (\"[T]he Himalaya entities, NFSC, GTV, GNews, and ROLF are all *under the leadership of the Debtor* and share the same common goal of 'taking down the CCP.'\") (emphasis added). The Himalaya entities include Himalaya Exchange. *See id.* ¶ 4 (\"NFSC is associated, affiliated, and/or connected with the Himalaya Global Alliance (together with affiliated Himalaya entities, such as Himalaya Exchange and Himalaya Farms, 'Himalaya')\"). *See also id.* ¶ 2 (\"The GSeries includes the following entities: Himalaya Exchange, Gettr, GFashion, GMusic, GClubs, GNews, and GEdu.\").\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the *leader* of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya. The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as *business vehicles for the Debtor*, and their members are *personally loyal to the Debtor*.\") (emphases added).\n\nNew York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x |   |                         |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                                            | : | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                                                   | : |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., <sup>1</sup>                                                 | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                                                   | : |                         |\n| Debtors.                                                                          | : | (Jointly Administered)  |\n|                                                                                   | : |                         |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------x |   |                         |\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on December 8, 2023, the foregoing Notice was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: December 8, 2023\n\nDated: December 8, 2023 By: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n**Motion**\n\nCase C2:5007231c20001202913 Filled Official CELLE CELLER CONSULER PARE COP 2018 Of 32\n\n# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nCase No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nV.\n\n# MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" Defendants.,\n\nUndersigned counsel represents 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"the Exchange\"), who hold Himalaya Dollar (HDO) and Himalaya Coin (HCN) cryptocurrency (\"petitioners\"). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), petitioners move for return of their property seized by the United States in United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY). The petitioners have a distinct, identifiable third-party interest in the forfeited property. Petitioners\n\nDated: December 6, 2023\n\nfile the attached Memorandum in Support of this Motion.\n\nMyer and Scher LLP /s/ Jamie Scher Bv: NY 2488435 377B South Oyster Bay Road Plainview, NY 118013 Jamie(@myerandscher.com (516) 713-0655\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com LLC By: /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n# CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE AND NOTICE\n\nI, Bradford Geyer, certify that counsel I have conferred with counsel for the Government in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court, and have been unable to reach agreement. I also hereby certify that on on December 6, 2023, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC /s/ Brad Geyer By: Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n# - - - -\n- **SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK** '-\n\n-\n\n# **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**\n\n-\n\n-**S1 23 Cr. 118 (A1)** -\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n**HO WAN KWOK,**\n\n-\n\n**a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"** - **a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"** - **a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\"** - **a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\"** - &'!()'-- a/k/a \"The Pr \\*'\\$+,\"-- **KIN MING JE,** - a/k/a \"William Je,\" and **YANPING WANG,** - a/k/a \"Yvette,\" - 0\\$/\\$(--\n\n**MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY**\n\n-\n\n-\n\n|  | Table of Contents                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |\n|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|  | I.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |\n|  | II.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  |\n|  | A. The Seizure                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |\n|  | B. The Himalaya Exchange                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |\n|  | 1. Overview                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |\n|  | 2. Customer Onboarding Compliance, AML, and KYC Checks                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |\n|  | 3. Customer Base                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |\n|  | 4. Jurisdiction and Registration                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |\n|  | 5. Financial and Audits.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |\n|  | a.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |\n|  | b.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |\n|  | c.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |\n|  | III.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |\n|  | A. Adverse Social Media                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |\n|  | B. False Complaints to Regulators                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |\n|  | C. The United States Department of State Report                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |\n|  | IV. C Motion for Return of Property Pursuant to Federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure 41(g)  15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |\n|  | A. The Equities Require Return Without Further Delay<br>B. Petitioners Have Distinct, Identifiable Interest in the Forfeited Funds and Were Not<br>Given Proper Notice of the Seizure<br>C. Confidentiality is Imperative to Petitioners<br>D. Procedures for Reasonable Conditions to Protect Access to the Property<br>are available under Rule 41(g) |  |\n|  | V. Conclusion                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |\n\n# Table of Content\n\n#### I. INTRODUCTION\n\nUndersigned counsel represents in excess of 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"the Exchange\"), who hold Himalaya Dollar (HDO) and Himalaya Coin (HCN) cryptocurrency (\"petitioners\").1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), petitioners move for return of their property seized by the United Stares in United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY). The petitioners have a distinct, identifiable third-party interest in the forfeited property. In the GOVERNMENT'S MOTION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3771 filed in March 2023, the United States characterizes the petitioners as \"victims\" of the Defendants. As outlined in this Motion, the seizure of the assets in this case has made them \"victims\" of the seizure by the United States.\n\nFrom its inception, the Himalaya Exchange has performed extensive due diligence in its establishment of a safe customer base and has consistently met stringent audit and compliance standards. At the date of the seizure the reserve was at 100%. Based on an analysis of financial records of the Exchange and Himalaya International Reserves Limited, key findings are as follows:\n\n- · The operating activity of the Himalaya Entities demonstrates an active business with highly vetted customers and has generated sufficient revenue to meet its operation cost without recourse to any customer funds.\n- · Customers were able to redeem \\$100,000 HDO per month back to USD into their accounts. All redemptions were honored unless they did not comply with specific compliance and/or AML rules. The Petitioner's deposits, current balances of HDO, HCN and redemptions indicate a properly run and actively traded exchange.\n- · The Petitioners have not experienced any misrepresentation, fraud or loss of funds from the Exchange.\n\n<sup>4</sup> http Undersigned counsel estimates the number of Exchange customers will increase by thousands as word of mouth reaches other victims who until now have never received notification from the Government about their funds being seized and it becomes clear that our intentions are authentic and genuine. Among the challenges that exist, many Exchange customers are fearful and ironically assume the U.S. government action may be a stalking horse for other governments.\n\n#### II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\n# A. THE SEIZURE\n\nPages 35-36 of the Superseding Indictment in United States v. Kwok has conclusory allegations regarding the Defendants' use of the Himalayan Exchange to perpetrate a fraud scheme. From the perspective of Exchange customers, these allegations have little or no connection or relevance to the forfeiture plight involving their funds held in constructive trust by the Himalaya Exchange. It then contains the relevant forfeiture allegations on pages 35-36 ¶ 55 j, k, m, o, p and s allowing the United States to seize millions of dollars in accounts of the Himalayan Exchange:2\n\ni. \\$4.643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000590 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\nk. \\$14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000254 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\nm.. \\$10,008,284.04 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBil 0133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\no. \\$272,350,313.76 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10138-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\np. \\$310,594.31 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10139-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\n<sup>2</sup> This is also outlined in the Government's Bill of Particulars (Docket 38)with the addition of paragraph 1. \\$7.715.00. in United States currency on deposit in Account Number 7801000589 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022. There also seems to be discrepancy between the amount seized and the audit reports reviewed by counsel. Counsel suspects this is a result of banking transfers and activity that are not in the public record. For purposes of this filing, the money contained in hard currency contained in licensed bank accounts is held now by the U.S. government.\n\ns. \\$161,809.47 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of - \"Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022.\n\n#'--The seizure by the United States of these accounts comprises of the majority of the stable coin reserve of which the Exchange customers and current petitioners are the beneficiaries. The Exchange at all times since its launch has maintained the stable coin reserve at 100%. Hence, all the stable coins issued were backed 1HD in the bank. The reserve was at 100% at the !'-!'-(- date of seizure from the Exchange account. There has been no fraudulent use of or misappropriation of customer funds at any time. In fact, as outlined below, the Exchange had an external audit of the stable coin reserve twice, the last being shortly before the seizure date. These audits confirmed the reserve was fully intact. -\n\n-\n\n# **B. THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE**\n\n# I. OVERVIEW\n\n-\n\nThe Himalaya Exchange (\"Exchange\") is a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") registered company named Himalaya International Clearing Limited, trading as Himalaya Exchange. It \\$- operates a user-to-user, centralized cryptocurrency exchange platform that consists of an engine that operates a continuously matched order book in respect to virtual asset products. It is a platform !'- for clients to trade, store and manage the Himalaya cryptocurrencies, namely the Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\") and the Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\"). HCN is the Exchange's trading coin, a - cryptocurrency priced by supply and demand. HDO is a stable coin, structured with the aim of maintaining its value at 1:1 to the US Dollar. Exchange customers can redeem HDO to US Dollars from their HDO balance in accordance with the exchange redemption terms outlined below. HCN\n\n### Case 22:5800731:2800-249298-FilledImbletereFiltedI081251281081251281089993 of 32\n\nis issued by Himalaya International Financial Group Limited. HDO are issued by Himalaya International Reserves Limited.\n\nThe Exchange was launched to bring financial freedom to everyone in the world as well as to help those who are wrongly persecuted, including those having their assets taken illegally, or held for ransom with the threat of it being taken by the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") without any justified reason. Exchange customers have no connection to Defendants. The Exchange is extremely popular among non-Americans, in particular those with Chinese ethnicity, as they rely on the Exchange being professionally and securely managed and the Exchange will not compromise any personal information to foreign governments, other than what is legally required. It also allows politically persecuted people a tool for financial security of their legitimate money (e.g. those people attending peaceful demonstration in Hong Kong have their bank accounts shut down and in general those targeted/persecuted/intimidated by the CCP that have had their assets confiscated). The Exchange is seen by the CCP as a threat which undermines their power to confiscate assets (illegally) and control the Chinese economy. Included in the affected group whose funds were seized by the United States are non-Americans whom the Chinese government views as being dissident.\n\nThe launch of the Exchange followed a staged process. Phase 1 client registration was launched in April 2021. This was pre-launch registration of private participation customers. Onboarding was in line within permitted jurisdictions only (non-US and others) and fully complied with \"Know Your Customer\" (KYC) procedures.\n\nTo sign up, the Petitioners had to undergo a formal on-boarding procedure and K YC and anti-money laundering (AML) checks. The onboarding process with KYC and AML checks is set out in more detail below. Once approved by the compliance officials the Petitioners had access to their Himalaya Exchange account and deposited US dollars to purchase HDO Credits upon launch of the Exchange with US Dollars on a 1:1 ratio.\n\nThe Whitepaper.3 which is discussed in the Superseding Indictment, explains that the HDO would only be available to members of the Exchange. Members of the Exchange were able to participate in an issuance of the Himalaya Dollar through purchase of HDO Credits through the Exchange. The Whitepaper also explains that in order to provide liquidity support for HDO Credits, and as a safeguard against price volatility, a reserve would be established by the Issuer (Himalaya International Reserves Limited). The Reserve was managed with the aim of maintaining its value at a level equal in value in US Dollars to the value of HDO in circulation.\n\nIn July 2021, during Phase 2, the Exchange launched two cryptocurrencies: HCN and HDO. Both coins are Ethereum-based tokens with backwards compatibility with the ERC- 20 standard. The HDO is issued by Himalaya International Reserves and pegged to the US Dollar. HCN is not pegged to the value of any fiat currency and so its value is subject to supply and demand in the secondary market. This is the trading coin on the Exchange. Members are able to trade HCN Credits on the Exchange. Users who had registered with the Exchange were allowed to purchase pre-allocated HCN just before launch at the initial HCN issuance price of US \\$0.10 per HCN using HDO credits. The opening price for the HCN at launch was \\$0.10 per HCN.\n\nOn November 1, 2021, Phase 3 involved the full launch of the Himalaya Exchange. Registered users were now able to trade in HCN using HDO to purchase HCN and receive HDO on sales. Customer registration continued for those who applied to the Exchange with the same onboarding requirements outlined below.\n\n<sup>3</sup> http\n\nIn January 2022, Phase 4 involved the launch of Himalaya Pay (\"HPay\"). This app, available in some permitted jurisdictions to existing Exchange members, allows peer to peer transfers of HDO and HCN for Exchange members only. The app also allows gift card purchases using HDO for use with Exchange approved merchants to purchase goods, again in some permitted jurisdictions. The app is not available for use in the US or for US residents.\n\nThe HDO is multi-functional and allows members to purchase the trading coin HCN and purchase gift cards which can be used to purchase goods from approved Exchange ecosystem merchants. Merchant purchases using gift cards can be undertaken by members via HPay, which also allows peer-to-peer transfers between Exchange customers.\n\nAs discussed below, the stable coin audit reports conducted on December 15, 2021 and July 31, 2022 show that the Exchange maintained a 100% reserve in US dollars with the ratio of equivalent 1 HDO to \\$1. The last audit report was done just prior to the seizure where the reserves were at 100%.\n\n# 2. CUSTOMER ONBOARDING COMPLAINCE, AML AND KYC CHECKS\n\nThe Exchange operates strict onboarding procedures. As discussed above, these procedures include rigorous AML and KYC checks as part of the Exchange's on-boarding process. The compliance process also involves customer registration, identification and verification, name screening, risk assessment, and ongoing due diligence. The extensive AML and compliance procedures include enhanced due diligence (EDD), Sanction and Politically Exposed Person (PEP) screening, periodic account checks and reviews, and transaction monitoring.\n\nWhen applying to register for an Exchange account, Petitioners were first required complete a KYC and AML questionnaire with a number of questions including, but not limited to, their personal details including their country of residence and source of funds. As a further safeguard, before they submitted their registration, they were required to declare that they were not residents of the US, Canada or Japan. These are not the only jurisdictions which are prohibited but these three countries were further highlighted with a check box for the customer to declare they are not a resident in those jurisdictions. Petitioners were also required to verify their identity and provide official identity documentation. They were directed to identity verification software provided by Jumio, which provides artificial intelligence (AI) facial recognition checks against the ID submitted.\n\nSome Petitioners experienced their paperwork being assessed by compliance officers and further review was undertaken before their account was approved. Some were asked to provide additional bank statements, source of wealth information, and source of funds information. Petitioners also experienced ongoing reviews of their accounts and transaction monitoring and they were asked for further financial or other documentation. Further, as part of their own AML and compliance procedures, the Exchange's banking partners also required customers' KYC and other information in order to allow deposits and redemptions from each customer. This shows the high standards the Exchange maintained as well as additional financial safeguards through the banks, who are independent.\n\n# 3. CUSTOMER BASE\n\nThe Exchange customers are comprised of independent investors who reside in countries where it is permissible to invest in a stable coin/trading coin exchange. They range from small business owners to executives, people in the education and health care industries-pretty much any vocation you would associate with a given population. They are non-Americans with some level of disposable wealth to engage in speculative investments. The Exchange customers have no association with organized crime or illicit trade anymore that this can be alleged against customers of the New York Stock Exchange. While many customers of Chinese ethnicity and are aligned philosophically with the pro-democracy movement in China, this is not true for all the investors who merely saw the Exchange as a good investment opportunity.\n\n# 4. JURISDICTION AND REGISTRATION\n\nIt is clear from the onboarding process outlined above that the Exchange prohibited onboarding of U.S. residents. The Exchange does not offer any of its products or services in those excluded jurisdictions. In order to register as a user of the Exchange, the prospective user is required to indicate their personal details including their country of residence. Anyone in an excluded jurisdiction is automatically rejected as the Country does not appear in the drop-down menu to select. The U.S. is one of the prohibited and excluded jurisdictions. Petitioners are required to notify the Exchange if they move jurisdictions in which they are resident, so the Exchange can assess whether they can continue to provide services in the new Country.\n\n# 5. FINANCIALS AND AUDITS\n\nEach Petitioner and customer of the Exchange is able to log into their own account and see all their records which includes HCN and HDO balances, deposits, trades, redemptions and HPay activity. Each Petitioner signed a consent Form for their information to be provided by the Exchange to their lawyer. This includes their deposits, redemptions, HDO and HCN balances. This was requested from the Exchange and has been provided.\n\n# a) Coin Price Harmed By Seizure\n\nExchange customers control their accounts and are able to buy and sell HCN. If they buy HCN they will use the HDO to purchase and if they sell they will receive HDO for the sale. This is reflected in their account trading activity and HCN and HDO balances. HCN is valued by supply and demand, which causes its trading price to fluctuate daily. Further, HCN is exclusive to the Exchange and cannot be transferred to other Exchanges. Petitioners only have the ability to retain and realize their assets in the Exchange. The VCN is an important asset to the Petitioners who have purchased the HDO with USD and used the HDO to purchase the HCN. The price of one HCN at the time of seizure was around 24 HDO equivalent to \\$24. The current price is fluctuating around 14HDO equivalent to \\$14USD.\n\nThe HCN price has dropped significantly as a result of the seizure and redemptions are now unavailable. This is because the Department of Justice has seized the reserve from which the Exchange paid out customer redemptions. Redemptions were paused by the Exchange as result. The value of the HCN just prior to seizure compared to the current value reflects an HCN devaluation of approximately \\$136M USD. If the Exchange crashes and the HCN plumets or the Exchange has to cease doing business, due to the seizures and lack of long-term reserves, then the Petitioners will lose their entire HCN assets with no recourse. It seems little consideration has been given to the substantial loss which will be caused to the Petitioners by the seizures. The Department of Justice has claimed that seizing the funds will protect the \"victims.\" Unfortunately, the effect is the opposite and the consequences of their actions will cause catastrophic losses to the Petitioners and many other customers of the Exchange who will be irreparably harmed.\n\nExchange customers supremely value trust and the herculean efforts the Exchange has endured to protect customer information, which to many customers is considered a \"life or death\" matter because of the human rights issues and other threats of persecution for a certain class of Exchange customers as stated above. There is no other reason for this protection of data, and in particular protection of their personal details. Since all customers of the Exchange have been vetted.\n\n# b) Audit reports and Financial Analysis\n\nStable coin audits undertaken by independent auditors concluded that all HDO are 100% backed by currency. They further expressed the opinion that Himalaya International Reserves Limited's financial reporting was accurate and complete. As noted above, at the date of the seizure the reserve was at 100%.\n\n# c) No Loss to Customers or Redemptions\n\nExchange records provided with the consent of the Petitioners show that no customer had any losses as a result of the initial HCN coin offering and those that did trade the initial coins in fact made profits. Some customers then requested redemptions of those profits which the Exchange processed in accordance with the redemption policy. Further, those that did not trade the initial HCN or part of their HCN also had no losses as the value of the HCN coin increased since issuance and has not dropped below the initial purchase price of \\$0.10 per coin. Subsequent trading of HCN between customers has been carried out at the current market price as would be expected from a trading.\n\nRedemptions are the process where a customer makes a request to convert their HDO back into USD paid directly into the customer's named bank account. It is clear from their records that numerous Petitioners received redemptions from the Exchange. This process involved the customer requesting the redemption by logging into their account. The Exchange set the limit of \\$100k per month. The records received clearly indicate that the Petitioners were given many redemptions and the total figure is substantial in value. This again supports the fact that the Petitioners have not been defrauded and is indicative of a properly run Exchange. Further, from the information it is clear that there are not substantial losses as stated in the indictment but that there are substantial profits and gains made by the Petitioners.\n\n#\n\n !\"#\"#\\$\\$ %\"&& !\"'##&\" (&!%(# !\"(\"(&\"' ##!) !\"!(&( #!(&'\n\n# \\*+,-.,/01.,234015,\\*4066037.8\n\n !\"%\"!&%\"##&&!& %!()9):;)&!'< &# %#!&!!()%\"#&!&%\" \"&=#!!(!#%(%'>(% )'(\\$\"(\")\"#&\"##! &%&!(#!&%=\"% \"(=\"&)!&'\"(&# %?#=@)9):;!!(\"((\"&\"\"\" !\"'\n\nA((!!(&\" %(# !\"&% !(& %(#\"(!!(\"&%B& !\" \"()#!&\"C>DE\\$FGEC<H!C( FG\"&&\"'\"&\"\"#%#!& #(#!!&&(\"!&\"I\"!&&'\n\nThis social media attack appears to have commenced around the time of the pre-registration phase of the Exchange, when the Exchange had not even launched and trading had not even commenced.\n\n# B. False Complaints to Regulators\n\nThe Exchange was subject to cautionary notices posted on individual regulator websites that then appeared on twitter. Some twitter messages actively provided the regulator links and encouraged others to complain. The notices were in the jurisdictions of New Zealand, British Columbia (Canada), Bahamas, Portugal, Italy and Hungary. The Petitioners understand that all of these notices are now removed. It is apparent from the removal of the notices that regulators in each jurisdiction would have investigated and found no wrongdoing and decided to remove the cautionary notices.4\n\n# C.\n\nThe United States Department of State's report \"2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet),5 described some of the circumstances where Chinese dissidents have been targeted outside of China. It is understood that the CCP and its agents engaged in acts to intimidate or took reprisal against dissidents (amongst other groups)\n\n- FMA (New Zealand) caution list:\n- · CONSOB (Italy) caution list;\n- · Securities Commission (Bahamas) caution list; and\n- MNB (Hungary) caution list.\n\nThese notices have now been removed..\n\n<sup>4</sup> The following are the dates upon each notice was issued:\n\n<sup>·</sup> BCSC (Canada) caution list & CSA (Central regulator Canada);\n\n<sup>·</sup> IOSCO (Global) caution list;\n\n<sup>.</sup> CMVM (Portugal) caution list;\n\n<sup>5</sup> http\n\noutside of China. For example, Foreign Policy reported on March 29, 2022 on the government targeting of the Chinese diaspora, particularly \"Hong Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and Chinese dissidents, in countries such as the United Kingdom and Morocco. They reported threatening calls, cyberattacks, and harassment, including of family members in the PRC.\"6\n\n# IV. RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 41(g)\n\n# A. The Equities Require Return Now Without Further Delay\n\nRule 41(g) provides:\n\nA person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.\n\nRule 41(g) motion is an equitable remedy that is available only when there is no adequate remedy at law and the equities favor the exercise of jurisdiction. De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006); see also U.S. (Drug Enforcement Agency) v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler Automobile, 972 F.2d 472, 479 (2d Cir. 1992). A third-party claimant contesting a criminal forfeiture may lack an adequate remedy at law if the claimant faces months or years of delay before the claimant may seek an ancillary proceeding in the criminal forfeiture action. De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382. In this matter, the trial is not scheduled to commence until April 8, 2024. The equities favor resolution of this matter now rather than continued delay that will irreparably harm petitioners. Through no fault of their own, petitioners are unable to liquidate their holdings in the Exchange.\n\n<sup>6</sup> http See also. http http\n\n# B. Petitioners Have Distinct, Identifiable Interest in the Forfeited Funds and Were Not Given Proper Notice of the Seizure\n\nThe petitioners have a distinct, identifiable third-party interest in the forfeited property pursuant to 21 U.S. Code § 853(n). Despite the government's claim that the notice was not practicable', the Exchange maintains confidential information about the customers of the Exchange. The government could have worked with the Exchange to make viable notice and execute a speedy confidential return of the seized funds. As the United States understands, the customers of the Exchange are ALL foreign nationals. Publication on the SDNY website was insufficient to reach them in their given languages. Customers who contacted undersigned counsel expressed fear and frustration about how little information was available about the condition of their funds and they had no idea when or if they would ever receive their funds back. There is a suspicion within the community, ill-founded no doubt, that the U.S. Government is working with the CCP to expose Exchange customers who are viewed by the CCP as dissidents. The undersigned counsel is not a risk assessment expert in this area and has no position regarding the credibility of these concerns, but it is impossible not to notice that this is a strong inference that has been drawn by the community and its clients.\n\nThe cases cited to the Court in its Motion Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3771 (Docket 10) are distinguishable from this case. For example, See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 20 Cr. 524 (KPF) \"Upon the motion of the United States of America dated January 23, 2023, it is found that: (a) there are over one hundred thousand potential individual victims in this case; (b) there is no readily available up-to-date compilation of such individuals; and (c) it is impracticable to accord all of the potential victims notice.\" In this case, there are a limited number of victims, there is an up to date, though confidential, list of the victims, and thus the Government could have notified the victims upon seizure by working with the Exchange.\n\n# C. Confidentiality is Imperative to Petitioners\n\nFurther, as noted above, confidentiality is imperative to members of the Exchange because of the potential for political persecution. Counsel certifies under penalty of perjury that based upon information he has been provided, the petitioners have right, title and interest in the seized property and can provide additional information confidentially to support petitioners' claims.\n\n# D. are Available under Rule 41(g)\n\nA variety of reasonable conditions are available for the speedy and confidential return of the petitioners seized funds in this matter. See Department of Justice Manual 9-111.125 - Trustees and Monitors in Forfeiture Cases. 8 Because of the meticulous compliance procedures followed by the Exchange, this confidential and speedy return of the funds to petitioners who are completely innocent parties, can be effectuated with minor cooperation between a designate from the United States Attorney's Office and undersigned counsel, through a controlled and protected procedure, that can also be subject to approval by this Court in camera. Because the petitioners have already endured punishment in the form of confiscated funds and loss of significant returns on their investment, we request that the Honorable Court refrain from the appointment of a trustee, monitor receiver because this will exacerbate their injury and further diminish the corpus of their investment.\n\n9 The purpose of the trustee and monitor policy is to provide guidance for the appointment of trustees and monitors in Department of Justice federal forfeiture cases involving complex assets or business enterprises. The key distinction between a monitor and a trustee is that only a trustee has the authority to manage an enterprise. A monitor observes and reports. A receiver is a fiduciary who is responsible only to the court, and a custodian takes actual custody of the assets and may be recommended where a number of assets are located in a foreign country. In this case, all the details about investor identity and investment activity is meticulously organized, protected and preserved by the Exchange and all the information relevant to the Government's obligation to release the funds can be readily obtained, provided and reviewed.\n\n<sup>8</sup> http\n\nOne of the aspects of the seizure that caused outright alarm by certain customers of the Exchange was the rumor that the U.S. Department of Justice had attempted to seize the customer lists of the Exchange. It is clear that their information cannot be protected even with strict compliance protections.10 With lives at stake, petitioners implore the Court not to entrust personally identifiable information involving third-party investors, with no known connection to the alleged criminal conduct, to the Government.\n\nFurther, the forfeiture statutes do not preclude, as a matter of law, the imposition of a constructive trust to protect these victims from further injury. See United States v. \\$4,224,958.57 (Boylan), 392 F.3d 1002, 1003-1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that victims of a large, fraudulent investment scheme established a sufficient legal interest in the seized proceeds through a constructive trust to confer on them standing to contest the forfeiture); see also Willis Mgmt. (Vermont), Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 236, 238 (2d Cir. 2011). Such a constructive trust should be ordered by the Court to allow for the clearing, release, and redemption of the Petitioners funds.\n\n<sup>10</sup> Many of the attorneys and staff assigned to this matter at the U.S. Attorney's office may sympathize with undersigned counsel's expressions of concern about information security since many of us (undersigned counsel as a former DOJ employee) have had had our clearance files compromised. See Office of Personnel Management data breach - Wikipedia; Final notices going out this week to the 21 million people whose data was stolen in the security clearance breach - The Washington Post, The Office of Personnel Management data breach was a 2015 data breach targeting Standard Form 86 (SF-86) U.S. government security clearance records retained by the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). One of the largest breaches of government data in U.S. history, the attack was carried out by an advanced persistent threat based in China, widely believed to be the Jiangsu State Security Department, a subsidiary of China's Ministry of State Security spy agency. Approximately 22.1 million records were affected, including records related to government employees, other people who had undergone background checks, and their friends and family. The breach included personally identifiable information such as Social Security numbers, as well as names, dates and places of birth, and addresses. State-sponsored hackers working on behalf of the Chinese government carried out the attack.\n\nIn this matter it would be serious concern if Government ever were to consider it to be a good idea to obtain all account information from thousands of vulnerable Exchange customers who are located outside the United States requiring the Himalaya Exchange to unencrypt it and provide it to the US Government, when the US Government has a terrible track record of protecting such information.\n\n#\n\n !\"#\\$%&' !()\\*+),-./0123415126789:;<=>? %@ -ABC' !## ))D\n\n EEF!-# F!-# BC>\\$@@\\$?G H)-#II\" ?JJ\n-K)\n) \"(LBC%%@M%? F!N!)#D#! &G%O'J%?PMOGG\n\nEE\nQ) IDQ)\"RS BFM>>JG%TT% -%\\$%%?M-D-?M? !BFM@MJJ\nN!QD ! &@GO'OMJPGJM@\n\n# UVWXYWUXUVU\n\nZ+)#)A#!+O>M>?###)L ##)([ )!,D-DA# -A#BLC\\D\n\nEE\nQ) IDQ)\"RS BFM>>JG%TT% -%\\$%%?M-D?M? !BFM@MJJ N!QD\n\nCase 22:5007831-13000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\n\n# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nV.\n\nCase No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n# PROPOSED ORDER\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" Defendants.,\n\nThe Court, having reviewed the Motion for Return of Property and Memorandum in Support hereby orders:\n\n1. I The United States Attorney's Office is directed to meet with the counsel for the 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange to develop a secure and protected system for returning customer HDO Reserve to effectuate the immediate return of the petitioners property;\n\n2. at the same time to permit the United States to authenticate that the customers are real and that their account activity is authentic;\n\n3. The procedure and plan will be submitted to the Court for in camera review and approval on or before January 5, 2024 to begin returning HDO Reserve on a rolling basis beginning no later than January 20, 2024.\n\n-- - -\n-- -- - -- - --- -- - --- -- -- - -!\"----- - --#\\$%&'\\$- -- - -(\n--)- - -\\*- -\n+--\n - -,\n - 28, 2024.\n\n/-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n-\n\n# 0000000000000000000000000000000-**UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE**\n\n-\n\n-\n\n# **Exhibit B**\n\n**Response of U.S. Department of Justice**\n\n![](_page_30_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n# **U.S. Department of Justice**\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007*\n\nDecember 7, 2023\n\n# **VIA ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n# **Re:** *United States v. Kwok, et al.***, S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes in response to the Motion for Return of Property, dated December 6, 2023 (Dkt. 186 (\"Motion\")). The Motion, which was filed by counsel for 3,345 purported customers (the \"Petitioners\") of the Himalaya Exchange (the \"Exchange\"), seeks the \"return of [Petitioners'] property seized by the United States\" in connection with the above-captioned case. (Motion at 1.) As alleged in the Indictment in the above-captioned case, the Exchange is an instrumentality of the charged fraud crimes, and the funds in question—which were seized by the Government in between 2022 and 2023 pursuant to judicially authorized seizure warrants—are listed in the Indictment as assets subject to forfeiture. (Superseding Indictment, Dkt. 19 at ¶¶ 12, 17-24, 55(j), (k), (m), (o), (p), (s).) For the reasons described herein, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion.\n\nThe Motion seeks the return of assets pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Courts have jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) only when (1) the movant has \"no adequate remedy at law\", and (2) \"the equities favor the exercise of jurisdiction.\" *De Almeida v. United States*, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006). When assessing jurisdiction, the Second Circuit has advised district courts that \"[j]urisdiction under Rule 41 is to be exercised with great restraint and caution since it rests upon the court's supervisory power over the actions of federal law enforcement officials.\" *Id.* at 382 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing *Floyd v. United States*, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988) and *Hunsucker v. Phinney*, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)).\n\nHere, as a result of the Indictment's forfeiture allegations, which include the funds at issue, the Petitioners have an adequate remedy at law to resolve their claims—namely, the exclusive remedies available to claimants seeking to assert an interest in forfeitable property under Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. In particular, Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n) provides the *exclusive* means by which a party may assert an interest in property subject to forfeiture. *DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States*, 496 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2007) (\"It is . . . well settled that section 853(n) provides the exclusive means by which a third party may lay claim to forfeited assets—after the preliminary forfeiture order has been entered.\"); *see also United States*  *v. Rashid*, 373 F. App'x 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2010). Consequently, there are no grounds to assert equitable jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 41(g). *See De Almeida*, 459 F.3d at 382.\n\nIt may well be that some, or all, of the Petitioners are entitled to the Government's seized funds at an appropriate time. But this is not that time. Following a conviction, a district court \"must determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute\" and \"promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture . . . without regard to any third party's interest in the property.\" F ed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b). Criminal forfeiture proceedings pursuant to Sections 981 and 982, including any related judicial proceedings, are governed principally by 21 U.S.C. § 853. *See* 18 U.S.C. § 982(b)(1). After a court issues a preliminary order of forfeiture, a third party may petition the court for an ancillary hearing to \"adjudicate the validity of [the third-party's] alleged interest in [the criminally forfeited] property.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n); *see also United States v. Daugerdas*, 892 F.3d 545, 552 (2d Cir. 2018).\n\nIn any event, it is not clear to the Government that the Petitioners have satisfied threshold Article III standing requirements. The Government was first contacted by Petitioners' counsel yesterday. During a phone call, the Government requested that Petitioners' counsel provide information sufficient to demonstrate that the 3,345 Petitioners were all, in fact, customers of the Exchange. Counsel declined to provide any such information, claiming that doing so could, in sum and substance, jeopardize Petitioners' safety from the \"Chinese Communist Party.\" The Government further inquired how Petitioners' counsel himself had verified that all 3,345 of his clients were customers of the Exchange. Counsel responded that each Petitioner had provided him with a \"seven-digit unique identifier,\" which he then used to confirm the Petitioners' status as customers directly with counsel for the Exchange. However, Petitioners' counsel declined to share any of the information about the Petitioners with the Government, or to explain how he was able to verify their status as Exchange customers using such identifiers. Counsel also indicated that he has not yet obtained documentation in the Exchange's possession regarding his clients' Exchange accounts because, among other things, he did not want to be responsible for \"getting someone killed.\" When the Government offered to confer to find a way to address counsel's privacy concerns, counsel stated, in substance, that he would be filing the Motion to \"put the court on notice\" that \"there are people getting stomped on.\" Thus, the Government does not agree with Petitioners' counsel's certification that he \"conferred with counsel for the Government in an effort in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion without the intervention of the Court, and ha[s] been unable to reach agreement.\" (Dkt. 186 at 2.)\n\nTo be clear, and as explained above, the Government seized more than \\$600 million in proceeds of the charged crimes—including the Exchange funds in question—to preserve those funds for later disbursement and restitution to victims. When such distribution should occur, and the mechanism for doing so, will be determined after the completion of the pending criminal proceedings and as the law directs.\n\nCongress has determined that the forfeiture process is the exclusive means for persons claiming an interest in forfeitable property to assert those interests. To allow some third parties to subvert that process and \"jump the line\" may prejudice other third parties seeking to claim an interest in the property. Ancillary forfeiture proceedings are specifically designed to ensure an orderly and efficient process for resolving competing claims to forfeitable assets. Accordingly, the Government requests that the Court deny Petitioners' Motion.\n\nThe Government is available to address any questions the Court may have.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nB\n\nRyan B. Finkel Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson Justin Horton Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276","body_zh":"证据 H\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，1\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n（合并审理）\n\n第 11 章受托人关于喜马拉雅交易所声称的客户在债务人于美国纽约南区联邦地区法院审理中的刑事诉讼程序中提出返还财产动议的通知\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯）以 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人）第 11 章破产案受托人（下称“受托人”）的身份特此发出通知：2023年12月6日，声称代表 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）2 的 3,345 名客户的律师，在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）正在审理的针对债务人的刑事案件 [案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（下称“刑事案件”）中提出了一项动议（下称“该动议”），请求返还美国政府就该刑事案件扣押的财产。对该动议作出回应的截止日期已定为 2023年12月19日。\n\n1 本第 11 章破产案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n2 喜马拉雅交易所是一家名为 Himalaya International Clearing Limited 的英属维尔京群岛注册公司。\n\n该动议的副本 [刑事案件 ECF 编号 186] 作为附件 A 附于本通知后。美国司法部已对该动议作出回应。该回应的副本作为附件 B 附于本通知后。\n\n正如法院所知悉，法院此前在针对债务人及某些关联方作出准予初步禁令的命令中认定，喜马拉雅交易所及其他各类关联的喜马拉雅实体“均处于债务人的领导之下”3 且为“债务人的商业工具”4。受托人亦注意到，在本第 11 章案件中已提交了大量主张基于在喜马拉雅交易所内或与其进行的“投资”之债权证明。\n\n受托人正在审查该动议并评估后续步骤。鉴于若准予该动议将干扰本第 11 章案件的财产管理，包括涉及债权清理及破产财产分配的相关事宜，在法院希望就此事项安排案件状态会议的前提下，受托人可随时听候法院裁量安排。\n\n日期：2023年12月8日\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（获特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nAvram E. Luft（获特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\n\n3 2023年1月13日《准予部分初步禁令动议的更正判决备忘录》，破产衍生诉讼案号 22-5032 (JAM) 第 60 页（“[喜]马拉雅各实体、NFSC、GTV、GNews 以及 ROLF 均处于债务人的领导之下，并享有‘推翻中共’的共同目标。”）（强调为后加）。喜马拉雅实体包括喜马拉雅交易所。见同前第 4 段（“NFSC 与 Himalaya Global Alliance（连同关联的喜马拉雅实体，如喜马拉雅交易所和喜马拉雅农场，统称‘喜马拉雅’）相关联、附属和/或相连接”）。另见同前第 2 段（“GSeries 包括以下实体：喜马拉雅交易所、Gettr、GFashion、GMusic、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu。”）。\n\n4 见同前第 7 段（“债务人是爆料革命、NFSC、ROLF 和喜马拉雅的领导者。爆料革命、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和喜马拉雅为债务人的目的服务，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员对债务人个人效忠。”）（强调为后加）。\n\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（获特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK 等，1：案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。：（合并审理）\n\n送达证明\n\n下述签字人特此证明，2023年12月8日，上述通知已通过电子方式提交。本提交通知已通过法院的电子案件卷宗（“CM/ECF”）系统以电子邮件形式发送给上述第 11 章案件的所有当事人，或按照电子送达通知所示，通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子送达的主体。各当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交的文件。\n\n日期：2023年12月8日\n\n日期：2023年12月8日\n签署人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（获特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nAvram E. Luft（获特许出庭 pro hac vice）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6000\naviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师\n\n1 本第 11 章破产案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n附件 A\n\n动议\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2029-1 提交于 12/08/23 官方第 2 页，共 32 页\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n\n美利坚合众国，\n案号 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n诉\n返还财产动议\nHO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“七哥”，又名“校长”，\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，以及\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n被告。\n\n下述签名律师代表 Himalaya Exchange（下称“该交易所”）的 3,345 名持有喜马拉雅美元（HDO）和喜马拉雅币（HCN）加密货币的客户（下称“请求人”）。根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 41(g) 条，请求人动议要求返还美国在 United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY) 案中扣押的属于其所有的财产。请求人对被没收财产享有明确、可识别的第三方权益。请求人提交所附支持本动议的备忘录。\n\n日期：2023年12月6日\n\nMyer and Scher LLP\n签署人：/s/ Jamie Scher\nNY 2488435\n377B South Oyster Bay Road\nPlainview, NY 11803\nJamie@myerandscher.com\n(516) 713-0655\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com LLC\n签署人：/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，特许出庭资格待批\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856) 607-5708\n\n磋商及通知证明书\n\n我，Bradford Geyer，特此证明，我已与政府方律师进行了磋商，试图本着诚信原则通过协商解决该动议所提出的问题而无需法院介入，但未能达成一致。本人亦特此证明，2023年12月6日，前述文件的真实准确副本已通过美国纽约南区联邦地区法院的 ECF 系统完成电子提交并送达。\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com LLC\n签署人：/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，特许出庭资格待批\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856) 607-5708\n\n纽约南区\n\n美利坚合众国\n\nS1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nHO WAN KWOK，\n又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“七哥”，又名“校长”，\nKIN MING JE，\n又名“William Je”，以及\nYANPING WANG，\n又名“Yvette”，\n\n支持返还财产动议的备忘录\n\n目录\n一、\n二、\nA. 扣押\nB. 喜马拉雅交易所\n1. 概述\n2. 客户准入合规、反洗钱及了解你的客户审查\n3. 客户群体\n4. 管辖权与注册\n5. 财务与审计\na.\nb.\nc.\n三、\nA. 负面社交媒体\nB. 向监管机构的虚假投诉\nC. 美国国务院报告\n四、根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 41(g) 条提出的返还财产动议 15\nA. 衡平法理要求不得进一步拖延、立即返还\nB. 请求人对被没收资金享有明确、可识别的权益，且未收到适当的扣押通知\nC. 保密性对请求人至关重要\nD. 第 41(g) 条项下可采用保护财产获取权的合理条件程序\n五、结论\n\n目录\n一、引言\n\n下述签名律师代表喜马拉雅交易所（下称“该交易所”）3,345 名以上持有喜马拉雅美元（HDO）和喜马拉雅币（HCN）加密货币的客户（下称“请求人”）。1 根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 41(g) 条，请求人动议要求返还美国在 United States v. Kwok et al, 23 CR 118 (SDNY) 案中扣押的属于其所有的财产。请求人对被没收财产享有明确、可识别的第三方权益。在 2023年3月 提交的《政府根据〈美国法典〉第 18 编第 3771 条提出的动议》中，美国将请求人定性为各被告的“受害者”。正如本动议所述，本案中对资产的扣押反倒使他们成为了美国政府扣押行为的“受害者”。\n\n自成立以来，喜马拉雅交易所在建立安全的客户群方面进行了广泛的尽职调查，并始终符合严格的审计和合规标准。在扣押之日，准备金率为 100%。根据对该交易所及 Himalaya International Reserves Limited 财务记录的分析，主要调查结果如下：\n\n· 喜马拉雅各实体的运营活动表明其业务活跃，客户经过高度审查，并且已产生足够的收入以满足其运营成本，而无需动用任何客户资金。\n· 客户每月可将 100,000 HDO 赎回为美元并存入其账户。所有赎回均获兑付，除非不符合特定的合规和/或反洗钱规则。请求人的充值、HDO 和 HCN 的当前余额以及赎回情况表明，该交易所运营规范且交易活跃。\n· 请求人未曾遭遇来自该交易所的任何虚假陈述、欺诈或资金损失。\n\n下述签名律师估计，随着口碑传达至其他迄今从未收到政府关于其资金被扣押通知的受害者，并且随着我们意图的真实性与真诚性变得明朗，交易所客户的数量将增加数千人。在当前存在的诸多挑战中，许多交易所客户心怀恐惧，并讽刺性地认为美国政府的行动可能是其他政府的马前卒。\n\n二、事实背景\nA. 扣押\n\n在 United States v. Kwok（美国诉郭案）的替代起诉书中，第 35-36 页包含了关于被告利用 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）实施欺诈计划的断论性指控。从交易所客户的角度来看，这些指控与涉及其由喜马拉雅交易所推定信托持有的资金的没收困境几乎没有或毫无关联或相关性。随后在第 35-36 页第 55 段第 j、k、m、o、p 和 s 项中包含了相关的没收指控，允许美国没收喜马拉雅交易所账户中的数百万美元：2\n\ni. 原存放于 FV Bank、账户名为“Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）的 7801000590 号账户中的 4,643,744.70 美元法定货币，由政府于 2022 年 9 月 20 日或前后扣押；\n\nk. 原存放于 FV Bank、账户名为“Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）的 7801000254 号账户中的 14,599,257.25 美元法定货币，由政府于 2022 年 9 月 20 日或前后扣押；\n\nm. 原存放于 Mercantile Bank International、账户名为“Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.”的 MBil 0133-0000 号账户中的 10,008,284.04 美元法定货币，由政府于 2022 年 10 月 16 日或前后至 2023 年 3 月 10 日或前后期间扣押；\n\no. 原存放于 Mercantile Bank International、账户名为“Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.”的 MBI10138-0000 号账户中的 272,350,313.76 美元法定货币，由政府于 2022 年 10 月 16 日或前后至 2023 年 3 月 10 日或前后期间扣押；\n\np. 原存放于 Mercantile Bank International、账户名为“Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）的 MBI10139-0000 号账户中的 310,594.31 美元法定货币，由政府于 2022 年 10 月 16 日或前后至 2023 年 3 月 10 日或前后期间扣押；\n\n2 这也在政府的事实细节清单（Docket 38）中进行了概述，并增加了第 1 项：存放在 FV Bank、账户名为“Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.”的 7801000589 号账户中的 7,715.00 美元法定货币，由政府于 2022 年 9 月 20 日或前后扣押。扣押金额与律师审阅的审计报告之间似乎也存在差异。律师怀疑这是未列入公开记录的银行转账和活动所致。就本申请而言，存放在持牌银行账户中的硬通货资金目前由美国政府持有。\n\ns. 原存放于 Mercantile Bank International、账户名为“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.”的 MBI10183-0000 号账户中的 161,809.47 美元法定货币，由政府于 2022 年 10 月 16 日或前后扣押。\n\n美国对这些账户的扣押构成了交易所客户及当前申诉人作为受益人的稳定币储备的大部分。自推出以来，交易所在任何时候都将稳定币储备维持在 100%。因此，发行的所有稳定币都在银行有 1:1 的资金支持。在从交易所账户扣押之日，储备金率为 100%。在任何时候都不存在对客户资金的欺诈性使用或挪用。事实上，如下所述，交易所对稳定币储备进行了两次外部审计，最后一次是在扣押日期前不久。这些审计证实储备完好无损。\n\nB. 喜马拉雅交易所\nI. 概述\n\n喜马拉雅交易所（“交易所”）是一家英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）注册公司，名为 Himalaya International Clearing Limited，以 Himalaya Exchange 名义开展交易。它运营着一个用户对用户的中心化加密货币交易平台，该平台由一个针对虚拟资产产品运行持续撮合订单簿的引擎组成。它是客户交易、存储和管理喜马拉雅加密货币的平台，即 Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币，“HCN”）和 Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅美元，“HDO”）。HCN 是交易所的交易币，一种由供需定价的加密货币。HDO 是一种稳定币，其结构旨在维持其与美元 1:1 的价值。交易所客户可以根据下文概述的交易所赎回条款，将其 HDO 余额兑换为美元。HCN\n\n由 Himalaya International Financial Group Limited 发行。HDO 由 Himalaya International Reserves Limited 发行。\n\n交易所的推出旨在为全世界所有人带来财务自由，并帮助那些受到不公正迫害的人，包括那些资产被非法剥夺的人，或在没有任何正当理由的情况下受到 CCP（中国共产党）剥夺威胁而被索取赎金的人。交易所客户与被告没有任何关联。该交易所在非美国人中极受欢迎，尤其是在华裔人群中，因为他们信赖交易所的专业和安全管理，并且除法律要求外，交易所不会向外国政府妥协任何个人信息。它还为遭受政治迫害的人提供了一种保护其合法资金安全的工具（例如，那些参加香港和平示威的人其银行账户被关闭，以及通常那些受到 CCP 针对/迫害/恐吓而资产被没收的人）。交易所被 CCP 视为一种威胁，削弱了其（非法）没收资产和控制中国经济的权力。资金被美国扣押的受影响群体中，包括被中国政府视为异见人士的非美国人。\n\n交易所的推出遵循了分阶段的过程。第一阶段客户注册于 2021 年 4 月启动。这是私人参与客户的预上线注册。入驻仅符合允许的司法管辖区（非美国等），并完全遵守“Know Your Customer（了解你的客户，KYC）”程序。\n\n为进行注册，申诉人必须接受正式的入驻程序以及 KYC 和反洗钱（AML）检查。包含 KYC 和 AML 检查的入驻流程在下文中会有更详细的阐述。一旦获得合规官员的批准，申诉人即可访问其喜马拉雅交易所账户，并在交易所上线后按 1:1 的比例存入美元以购买 HDO 积分。\n\n替代起诉书中讨论的白皮书 3 解释称，HDO 仅向交易所成员提供。交易所成员能够通过在交易所购买 HDO 积分来参与喜马拉雅美元的发行。白皮书还解释说，为了向 HDO 积分提供流动性支持，并作为抵御价格波动的保障，发行方（Himalaya International Reserves Limited）将建立储备金。该储备金的管理目标是维持其价值与流通中 HDO 的美元价值相当。\n\n2021 年 7 月，在第二阶段期间，交易所推出了两种加密货币：HCN 和 HDO。这两种代币都是基于以太坊的代币，向后兼容 ERC-20 标准。HDO 由 Himalaya International Reserves 发行并与美元挂钩。HCN 未与任何法定货币的价值挂钩，因此其价值受二级市场的供需关系影响。这是交易所上的交易币。成员能够在交易所上交易 HCN 积分。在交易所注册的用户获准在刚上线前使用 HDO 积分以每枚 HCN 0.10 美元的初始 HCN 发行价购买预分配的 HCN。上线时 HCN 的开盘价为每枚 HCN 0.10 美元。\n\n2021 年 11 月 1 日，第三阶段涵盖了喜马拉雅交易所的全面上线。注册用户此时能够使用 HDO 购买 HCN 以及在出售时接收 HDO 来交易 HCN。对于向交易所提出申请的人，客户注册继续进行，且适用下述相同的入驻要求。\n\n3 http\n\n2022 年 1 月，第四阶段涉及推出 Himalaya Pay（“HPay”）。该应用程序在某些允许的司法管辖区向现有的交易所成员提供，仅允许交易所成员之间进行 HDO 和 HCN 的点对点转账。该应用程序还允许使用 HDO 购买礼品卡，以便与交易所批准的商家一起用于购买商品，同样仅限于某些允许的司法管辖区。该应用程序不可在美国使用，亦不可供美国居民使用。\n\nHDO 具有多功能性，允许成员购买交易币 HCN，并购买可用于从经批准的交易所生态系统商家处购买商品的礼品卡。成员可通过 HPay 使用礼品卡进行商家采购，HPay 还允许交易所客户之间进行点对点转账。\n\n如下所述，于 2021 年 12 月 15 日和 2022 年 7 月 31 日进行的稳定币审计报告显示，交易所保持了 100% 的美元储备，比例相当于 1 HDO 兑 1 美元。最后一份审计报告是在扣押前夕完成的，当时储备率为 100%。\n\n2. 客户入驻合规、AML 和 KYC 检查\n\n交易所执行严格的入驻程序。如上所述，这些程序包括作为交易所入驻流程一部分的严格 AML 和 KYC 检查。合规流程还包括客户注册、身份识别与验证、姓名筛查、风险评估以及持续尽职调查。广泛的 AML 和合规程序包括强化尽职调查（EDD）、制裁与政治公众人物（PEP）筛查、定期账户检查和审查以及交易监控。\n\n在申请注册交易所账户时，申诉人首先需要填写一份 KYC 和 AML 问卷，其中包含若干问题，包括但不限于其个人详细信息，包括其居住国家和资金来源。作为进一步的保障措施，在提交注册之前，他们被要求声明自己不是美国、加拿大或日本的居民。这些并非唯一被禁止的司法管辖区，但通过复选框对这三个国家进行了进一步突出显示，以供客户声明其不是这些司法管辖区的居民。申诉人还被要求验证其身份并提供官方身份证件。他们被引导至 Jumio 提供的身份验证软件，该软件对提交的身份证件进行人工智能（AI）人脸识别比对。\n\n部分申诉人经历了自己的文件由合规官员评估，并在其账户获得批准之前进行了进一步审查。有些人被要求提供额外的银行对账单、财富来源信息和资金来源信息。申诉人还经历了对其账户的持续审查和交易监控，并且他们被要求提供进一步的财务或其他文件。此外，作为其自身 AML 和合规程序的一部分，交易所的银行合作伙伴也要求提供客户的 KYC 和其他信息，以允许每个客户进行存款和赎回。这表明了交易所维持的高标准，以及通过独立的银行所获得的额外财务保障。\n\n3. 客户群体\n\n该交易所（The Exchange）的客户由居住在允许投资稳定币/交易币交易所的国家的独立投资者组成。他们的职业从小型企业主到高管，再到教育和医疗保健行业人员——涵盖了人们所能联想到的特定人群中的几乎任何职业。他们是非美国人，拥有一定程度的可支配财富来从事投机性投资。该交易所的客户与有组织犯罪或非法交易毫无关联，就像人们不能把这些指控加诸于 New York Stock Exchange（纽约证券交易所）的客户一样。虽然许多客户为华裔并且在理念上认同中国的民主运动，但并非所有投资者都是如此，许多人仅仅是将该交易所视为一个良好的投资机会。\n\n4. 管辖权与注册\n\n从上文概述的入驻流程可以清楚看出，该交易所禁止美国居民入驻。该交易所不在这些被排除的司法管辖区提供其任何产品或服务。为了注册成为该交易所的用户，潜在用户必须提供包括其居住国在内的个人详细信息。任何位于被排除管辖区内的人都会被自动拒绝，因为其国家不会出现在可供选择的下拉菜单中。美国就是被禁止和排除的司法管辖区之一。请愿人（Petitioners）如果搬迁了其居住的司法管辖区，则必须通知该交易所，以便该交易所评估是否可以在新国家继续提供服务。\n\n5. 财务与审计\n\n该交易所的每位请愿人和客户都能够登录自己的账户并查看其所有记录，其中包括 HCN 和 HDO 余额、存款、交易、赎回以及 HPay 活动。每位请愿人都签署了一份同意书（consent Form），允许交易所将其信息提供给其律师。这包括他们的存款、赎回、HDO 和 HCN 余额。该信息已向交易所提出索取请求并已获提供。\n\na) 扣押对币价造成的损害\n\n交易所客户控制其账户并能够买卖 HCN。如果他们购买 HCN，他们将使用 HDO 进行购买；如果他们出售，他们将收到出售所得的 HDO。这反映在他们的账户交易活动以及 HCN 和 HDO 余额中。HCN 的价值由供求关系决定，这导致其交易价格每日波动。此外，HCN 为该交易所专有，无法转移至其他交易所。请愿人仅有能力在该交易所内保留和变现其资产。对于使用美元（USD）购买了 HDO 并使用 HDO 购买了 HCN 的请愿人而言，VCN 是一项重要资产。扣押发生时一枚 HCN 的价格约为 24 HDO，相当于 24 美元。当前价格在 14 HDO 左右波动，相当于 14 美元。\n\n由于扣押，HCN 价格大幅下跌，且目前无法进行赎回。这是因为 Department of Justice（司法部）扣押了交易所用于向客户支付赎回款项的储备金。交易所因此暂停了赎回。扣押前夕的 HCN 价值与当前价值相比，反映出 HCN 贬值了约 1.36 亿美元（$136M USD）。如果交易所崩溃且 HCN 暴跌，或者由于扣押和缺乏长期储备而导致交易所不得不停止营业，那么请愿人将失去其全部 HCN 资产且求偿无门。似乎极少有人考虑到扣押将给请愿人造成的巨大损失。司法部声称扣押资金将保护“受害者”。不幸的是，其实际效果恰恰相反，其行为的后果将给请愿人以及该交易所的许多其他客户造成灾难性的损失，并将使其遭受无法弥补的损害。\n\n交易所客户极为看重信任以及交易所为保护客户信息所付出的艰巨努力；对于许多客户而言，由于上述针对某类交易所客户的人权问题及其他迫害威胁，保护客户信息被视为“生死攸关”的大事。出于保护数据，特别是保护其个人详细信息的目的，不存在其他原因。因为该交易所的所有客户都经过了审查。\n\nb) 审计报告与财务分析\n\n独立审计师进行的稳定币审计得出结论，所有 HDO 均有 100% 的货币储备支持。他们进一步发表意见，认为 Himalaya International Reserves Limited（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）的财务报告是准确且完整的。如上所述，在扣押之日，该储备金比例为 100%。\n\nc) 客户无损失或赎回\n\n经请愿人同意提供的交易所记录显示，没有客户因最初的 HCN 代币发行而遭受任何损失，而那些确实交易了最初代币的人实际上获得了利润。随后，一些客户请求赎回这些利润，交易所按照赎回政策对此进行了处理。此外，那些没有交易初始 HCN 或部分 HCN 的客户也没有遭受损失，因为 HCN 代币自发行以来的价值有所上升，并且从未跌破每枚代币 0.10 美元的初始购买价格。客户之间随后进行的 HCN 交易一直按照当前市场价格进行，正如交易中所预期的那样。\n\n赎回是客户提出请求将其 HDO 转换回美元并直接支付至客户指定银行账户的过程。从他们的记录中可以清楚看出，众多请愿人收到了来自交易所的赎回款项。该流程包括客户通过登录其账户请求赎回。交易所设定了每月 10 万美元（$100k）的限额。收到的记录清楚地表明，请愿人获得了多次赎回，且总金额价值巨大。这再次支持了请愿人并未受骗的事实，并表明交易所运营正常。此外，从这些信息中可以清楚看出，并不存在起诉书中所述的重大损失，而是请愿人获得了巨大的利润和收益。\n\n!\"#\"#$$ %\"&& !\"'##&\" (&!%(# !\"(\"(&\"' ##!) !\"!(&( #!(&'\n\n\\*+,-.,/01.,234015,\\*4066037.8\n\n !\"%\"!&%\"##&&!& %!()9):;)&!'< &# %#!&!!()%\"#&!&%\" \"&=#!!(!#%(%'>(% )'($\"(\")\"#&\"##! &%&!(#!&%=\"% \"(=\"&)!&'\"(&# %?#=@)9):;!!(\"((\"&\"\"\" !\"'\n\nA((!!(&\" %(# !\"&% !(& %(#\"(!!(\"&%B& !\" \"()#!&\"C>DE$FGEC<H!C( FG\"&&\"'\"&\"\"#%#!& #(#!!&&(\"!&\"I\"!&&'\n\n这场社交媒体攻击似乎大约始于交易所的预注册阶段，当时交易所甚至尚未上线，交易也根本尚未开始。\n\nB. 向监管机构的虚假投诉\n\n该交易所曾受到个别监管机构网站上发布的警示公告的影响，随后这些公告出现在了推特（twitter）上。一些推特消息主动提供了监管机构的链接，并鼓励他人进行投诉。这些公告出现在 New Zealand（新西兰）、British Columbia (Canada)（加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省）、Bahamas（巴哈马）、Portugal（葡萄牙）、Italy（意大利）和 Hungary（匈牙利）的司法管辖区。请愿人了解到，所有这些公告现已被移除。从这些公告的移除可以明显看出，各管辖区的监管机构应当已经进行了调查，未发现任何不当行为，并决定移除这些警示公告。4\n\nC.\n\nUnited States Department of State（美国国务院）的报告《2022年各国人权实践报告：中国（包括香港、澳门和西藏）》5，描述了中国持不同政见者在中国境外成为针对目标的部分情况。据了解，CCP（中国共产党）及其代理人采取了恐吓行为或对持不同政见者（以及其他群体）进行了报复\n\n- FMA (New Zealand)（新西兰金融市场管理局）警示名单：\n\n- · CONSOB (Italy)（意大利国家公司和证券交易所委员会）警示名单；\n\n- · Securities Commission (Bahamas)（巴哈马证券委员会）警示名单；以及\n\n- MNB (Hungary)（匈牙利央行）警示名单。\n\n这些公告现已被移除。\n\n4 以下为各项公告发布的日期：\n\n· BCSC (Canada)（加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省证券委员会）警示名单与 CSA (Central regulator Canada)（加拿大证券管理机构）；\n\n· IOSCO (Global)（国际证券事务监察委员会组织）警示名单；\n\n. CMVM (Portugal)（葡萄牙证券市场委员会）警示名单；\n\n5 http\n\n在中国境外。例如，《Foreign Policy》（外交政策）于 2022 年 3 月 29 日报道了政府针对海外华人社群的情况，特别是针对在英国和摩洛哥等国家的“香港人、维吾尔人、西藏人和中国持不同政见者。他们报告了威胁电话、网络攻击和骚扰，包括针对其在中华人民共和国境内家庭成员的骚扰。”6\n\nIV. 刑事诉讼规则第 41(g) 条\n\nA. 衡平原则要求立即返还而不得进一步拖延\n\n第 41(g) 条规定：\n\n因财产遭受非法搜查和扣押或因财产被剥夺而受到侵害的人，可以提出动议请求返还财产。该动议必须在财产被扣押的地区提出。法院必须就裁决该动议所必需的任何事实问题听取证据。如果法院准许该动议，法院必须将财产返还给动议人，但可以施加合理的条件以保护对该财产的获取及其在后续诉讼程序中的使用。\n\n第 41(g) 条动议是一项衡平法救济，仅在法律上没有充分救济且衡平原则支持行使管辖权时方可适用。De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)；亦见 U.S. (Drug Enforcement Agency) v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler Automobile, 972 F.2d 472, 479 (2d Cir. 1992)。对刑事没收提出异议的第三方索赔人如果在能够在刑事没收诉讼中寻求附随程序之前面临数月或数年的拖延，则其可能缺乏充分的法律救济。De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382。在本案中，审判预定直至 2024 年 4 月 8 日才开始。衡平原则支持现在解决此事，而不是继续拖延从而对请愿人造成无法弥补的损害。非因自身过错，请愿人无法变现其在该交易所的持仓。\n\n6 http 亦见 http http\n\nB. 请愿人对被没收资金享有明确、可识别的利益，且未收到关于扣押的正当通知\n\n根据 21 U.S. Code § 853(n)，请愿人对被没收的财产享有明确、可识别的第三方利益。尽管政府声称通知“不可行”，但交易所保留了关于交易所客户的机密信息。政府本可以与交易所合作发出可行的通知，并对被扣押资金执行迅速、保密的返还。正如美国政府所知，交易所的客户全部为外国国民。在 SDNY（纽约南区）网站上发布公告不足以通过其各自的语言送达他们。与下述签字律师联系的客户表达了恐惧和沮丧，因为关于其资金状况的信息极少，而且他们不知道何时能够或是否能拿回其资金。社区内部存在一种怀疑——毫无疑问是缺乏根据的——即美国政府正在与中共合作，以曝光被中共视为持不同政见者的交易所客户。下述签字律师并非该领域的风险评估专家，对这些担忧的可信度不持立场，但不可忽视的是，这是该社区及其客户得出的强烈推论。\n\n在依《美国法典》第 18 编第 3771 条向法院提起的动议（案卷号 10）中向法院引用的判例与本案存在区别。例如，参见 United States v. Brown, 20 Cr. 524 (KPF)：“根据美利坚合众国 2023 年 1 月 23 日提出的动议，认定：(a) 本案有超过十万名潜在的个人受害者；(b) 目前无法随时获取该等个人的最新汇总名册；以及 (c) 向所有潜在受害者发出通知是不切实际的。”在本案中，受害者人数有限，存在一份最新（尽管保密）的受害者名单，因此政府本可以通过与 Exchange（交易所）合作，在扣押时通知受害者。\n\nC. 保密对请愿人至关重要\n\n此外，如上所述，鉴于存在遭受政治迫害的可能性，保密对交易所的成员至关重要。律师在接受伪证处罚的前提下证明，根据其获得的信息，请愿人对被扣押的财产享有权利、所有权和权益，并能够以保密方式提供补充信息以支持请愿人的主张。\n\nD. 根据第 41(g) 条可采取的措施\n\n在本案中，存在多种合理的条件可用于快速且保密地向请愿人返还被扣押的资金。参见《司法部手册》（Department of Justice Manual）9-111.125——没收案件中的受托人与监督员。由于交易所遵循了严格的合规程序，通过由 United States Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）的指定代表与下述署名律师之间的少量合作，通过受控且受保护的程序（该程序亦可经本院不公开审查批准），即可向完全无辜的请愿人实现保密且快速的资金返还。由于请愿人已经承受了资金被没收以及投资遭受重大收益损失形式的惩罚，我们请求尊敬的法院不要指定受托人、监督员或接管人，因为这会加剧他们的损害并进一步减少其投资本金。\n\n受托人与监督员政策的目的是为涉及复杂资产或商业企业的 Department of Justice（美国司法部）联邦没收案件中指定受托人和监督员提供指导。监督员与受托人之间的关键区别在于，只有受托人才有权管理企业。监督员负责观察并报告。接管人是对法院单方承担责任的受托人，而保管人对资产进行实际监管，在若干资产位于外国的情况下可建议指定保管人。在本案中，有关投资者身份和投资活动的所有细节均由交易所精心整理、保护和保存，且与政府释放资金义务相关的所有信息均可随时获取、提供并审查。\n\n网址\n\n引起该交易所某些客户强烈恐慌的扣押情况之一，是有传言称美国司法部曾试图扣押该交易所的客户名单。显而易见的是，即使有严格的合规保护，他们的信息也无法得到保护。由于人命关天，请愿人恳求法院不要将涉及与指控的犯罪行为毫无已知关联的第三方投资者的个人身份信息托付给政府。\n\n此外，在法律层面上，没收法规并不排除施加拟制信托以保护这些受害者免受进一步损害。参见 United States v. $4,224,958.57 (Boylan), 392 F.3d 1002, 1003-1005 (9th Cir. 2004)（裁定大型欺诈投资计划的受害者通过拟制信托对被扣押的收益确立了充分的合法权益，从而赋予其质疑没收的主体资格）；并参见 Willis Mgmt. (Vermont), Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 236, 238 (2d Cir. 2011)。法院应当下达此类拟制信托命令，以允许对请愿人的资金进行结算、释放和赎回。\n\n美国联邦检察官办公室负责本案的许多律师和工作人员可能会对下述署名律师对信息安全的担忧表示同情，因为我们许多人（署名律师曾为司法部雇员）的安全审查档案都曾遭到泄露。参见维基百科上的美国人事管理部门数据泄露事件；《华盛顿邮报》报道“本周将向在安全审查泄露事件中数据被盗的 2100 万人发出最终通知”。人事管理部门数据泄露事件是 2015 年针对由 United States Office of Personnel Management（美国联邦人事管理局，简称 OPM）保留的 Standard Form 86 (SF-86) 美国政府安全审查记录的数据泄露事件。作为美国历史上最大规模的政府数据泄露事件之一，该攻击由位于中国的高级持续性威胁组织实施，该组织被广泛认为隶属于中国国家安全部间谍机构旗下的江苏省国家安全厅。约 2210 万份记录受到影响，包括与政府雇员、其他接受过背景调查的人员及其亲友相关的记录。泄露的信息包括社会安全号码等个人身份信息，以及姓名、出生日期与地点和地址。代表中国政府工作的国家支持黑客实施了此次攻击。\n\n在本案中，如果政府曾经认为向位于美国境外的数千名脆弱的交易所客户获取所有账户信息是个好主意，要求 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）解密并将其提供给美国政府，这将是一个令人严重关切的问题，因为美国政府在保护此类信息方面的记录极其糟糕。\n\n附件 B\n\n美国司法部的回应\n\n美国司法部\n\n纽约南区联邦检察官\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007\n\n2023 年 12 月 7 日\n通过 ECF\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\n美国联邦地区法官\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Kwok, et al.，S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府特此致信，对 2023 年 12 月 6 日提交的《返还财产动议》（案卷号 186，“动议”）作出回应。该动议由 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所，“交易所”）3,345 名据称客户（“请愿人”）的律师提交，请求“返还美国在本案相关事项中扣押的[请愿人的]财产”。（动议第 1 页。）正如本案起诉书所指控的，该交易所是被控欺诈犯罪的犯罪工具，而涉案资金——系政府依据司法授权的扣押令于 2022 年至 2023 年间扣押——已在起诉书中列为应予没收的资产。（替代起诉书，案卷号 19，第 12、17-24、55(j)、(k)、(m)、(o)、(p)、(s) 段。）基于本文所述理由，政府谨请求法院驳回该动议。\n\n该动议请求依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 41(g) 条返还资产。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“在法律上没有充分的补救措施”，以及 (2)“根据衡平原则宜行使管辖权”。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：“依据第 41 条行使管辖权应保持高度克制和谨慎，因为其基础是法院对联邦执法人员行为的监督权。”同上，第 382 页（内部引文省略）（引用 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在本案中，鉴于起诉书所提出的没收指控涵盖了涉案资金，请愿人拥有充分的普通法补救措施来解决其主张——即寻求对可没收财产主张权益的权利主张人依据《美国法典》第 21 编第 853 条所享有的排他性补救措施。具体而言，《美国法典》第 21 编第 853(n) 条提供了一方对依法应予没收的财产主张权益的排他性途径。DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2007)（“……第 853(n) 条规定了第三方在作出初步没收令后对被没收资产主张权利的排他性途径，这一点已得到确立。”）；亦参见 United States v. Rashid, 373 F. App'x 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2010)。因此，没有任何理由依据第 41(g) 条主张衡平管辖权。参见 De Almeida, 459 F.3d at 382。\n\n部分或全部请愿人完全有可能在适当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“必须根据适用法律确定哪些财产应予没收”，并“在不考虑任何第三方对该财产享有的权益的情况下，及时作出初步没收令……”。《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(b) 条。依据第 981 条和第 982 条进行的刑事没收程序（包括任何相关的司法程序）主要受《美国法典》第 21 编第 853 条管辖。参见《美国法典》第 18 编第 982(b)(1) 条。在法院发布初步没收令后，第三方可以向法院申请举行附随听证会，以“对[第三方]对[刑事没收]财产所主张权益的有效性进行审理判定”。《美国法典》第 21 编第 853(n) 条；亦参见 United States v. Daugerdas, 892 F.3d 545, 552 (2d Cir. 2018)。\n\n无论如何，政府方尚不清楚请愿人是否已满足《宪法》第三条（Article III）门槛性的诉讼资格要求。政府方系于昨日首次接到请愿人律师的联络。在一次电话通话中，政府方要求请愿人律师提供充分信息，以证明这 3,345 名请愿人事实上确系该交易所（Exchange）的客户。该律师拒绝提供任何此类信息，声称大意是这样做可能会危害请愿人免受“中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party）”侵害的安全。政府方进一步询问请愿人律师本人是如何核实其全部 3,345 名委托人均系该交易所客户的。该律师回应称，每位请愿人均向其提供了一个“七位数唯一标识符”，随后他利用该标识符直接向交易所律师确认了请愿人的客户身份。然而，请愿人律师拒绝向政府方分享有关请愿人的任何信息，亦拒绝解释他是如何利用此类标识符核实其交易所客户身份的。该律师还表示，他尚未取得交易所持有的关于其委托人交易所账户的文件，除其他原因外，是因为他不想为“导致他人丧命”承担责任。在政府方提出进行协商以寻求解决该律师隐私关切的方法时，该律师实质上表示，他将提出动议以“提醒法院注意”“有人正在遭受践踏”。因此，政府方不同意请愿人律师的证明，即其“本着善意努力与政府方律师进行了协商，以期在无需法院介入的情况下通过协议解决动议所提出的问题，但未能达成协议”。（Dkt. 186 第 2 页。）\n\n为明确起见，且如上文所述，政府方扣押了被指控罪行的收益超过 600,000,000 美元——包括涉案的交易所资金——以保存该等资金用于日后向被害人发放和进行赔偿。此类分配应于何时进行以及具体机制，将在未结刑事诉讼程序结束之后依法予以确定。\n\n国会（Congress）已确定，没收程序是对可没收财产主张权益之人主张该等权益的唯一途径。允许某些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。附随没收程序专为确保以有序且高效的流程解决对可没收资产的竞争性权利主张而设计。因此，政府方请求法院驳回请愿人的动议。\n\n政府方随时准备回答法院可能提出的任何问题。\n\n谨此呈递，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n联邦检察官（United States Attorney）\n\n签署人：\n\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·费尔根森）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\n联邦助理检察官（Assistant United States Attorneys）\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276","key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Kwok","forfeiture","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Rule 41(g)","Miles Guo","Geyer","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Despins","853(n)","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Chinese Communist Party","Bradford Geyer","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","GTV","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":19,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":188,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":2425,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":7951,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-08 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-08","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:10:22"}