{"id":"court_sdny_211_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":211,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"REPLY","filed_date":"2023-06-26","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant","summary_zh":"答辩状（Reply）—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #211（2023年6月26日提交）。由代表喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）客户的律师 Bradford L. Geyer 与 Jamie Scher 提交，回应破产受托人 Luc Despins（Paul Hastings 律所代理）此前就该批客户「返还被扣押财产」动议提出的反对意见；文件主张喜马拉雅交易所系境外（英属维尔京群岛）实体、不属于郭文贵破产财产范围，并援引起诉书指出郭在该交易所并无正式职务、交易所由 Kin Ming Je（William Je）名下境外实体运营，据此要求法院准许客户方的返还财产动议继续推进。","summary_en":"Reply brief — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #211 (filed June 26, 2023). Filed by attorneys Bradford L. Geyer and Jamie Scher on behalf of customers of the Himalaya Exchange, replying to Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins (represented by Paul Hastings LLP) opposition to the customers' motion for return of seized property. The filing argues the Himalaya Exchange is a foreign (British Virgin Islands) entity outside Kwok's bankruptcy estate, citing the indictment's statement that Kwok held no formal position at the Exchange — which it says was operated through offshore entities controlled by Kin Ming Je ('William Je') — and asks the court to allow the customers' return-of-property motion to proceed.","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\nCriminal No.: 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n **REPLY TO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THIRD PARTY CUSTOMERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED BY COMPLAINANT**\n\n## **REPLY TO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THIRD PARTY CUSTOMERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RETURNOF PROPERTY SEIZED BY COMPLAINANT**\n\nCustomers of the Himalaya Exchange, by and through undersigned counsel, Bradford L.\n\nGeyer, Esq., whose investments in the Exchange have been seized as actions ancillary to the core\n\ncriminal prosecution in this case, have filed a Motion for Intervention in support of their Motion\n\nfor the Return of Property Seized by the Complainant, United States of America.\n\nCounsel's clients filed a Motion for Return of Property, and the U.S. Department of\n\nJustice (\"DOJ\") filed a response opposing the procedural method of these Himalaya Exchange\n\ndepositors challenging the forfeiture (ECF 186). Counsel's clients filed a Reply to the DOJ\n\n(ECF 198) and Supplement (ECF 207-209).\n\nMeanwhile, the Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins, by counsel from the law firm of Paul Hastings also filed a response of his own (ECF 202). Counsel's clients file a brief Reply to the Trustee.\n\n### **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nThe case at bar before the Court is a criminal prosecution by the Government against the named Defendants. However, as an ancillary side matter the Government has also seized various funds and property from various entities or people for related but varying reasons, alleging in forfeiture proceedings that such are the instrumentalities or proceeds of the crimes being prosecuted.\n\nTherefore, the forfeiture proceedings and the Intervenors' objections thereto are a separate matter from the core criminal prosecutions but have been included within the main criminal case, arising out of it. This forces us into some difficult procedures.\n\nInitially, the 3,539 Customers of the Himalaya Exchange represented by the undersigned counsel (there being other customers as well not currently counsel's clients) are confronted with the ungainly and awkward context in which the U.S. Department of Justice has combined a criminal prosecution of **HO WAN KWOK, KIN MING JE, and YANPING WANG,** apparently under various other alias names, with the forfeiture of funds from various people and entities in a \"seize first, investigate later\" approach.\n\nIt would have been less cumbersome for everyone if the DOJ had separated the criminal prosecution in one case from the forfeiture proceedings in another. Better still, it would have been better if the DOJ had completed the prosecution of Kwok, Je, and Wang to find out if they actually committed any crimes at all which might justify some or all of the asserted forfeitures.\n\nCounsel's 3,539 clients who are Himalaya Exchange customers are faced with intervening in a criminal case through no choice of their own. The matters should have been addressed separately in separate cases and probably should be severed now. But that was not the decision of the Himalaya customers.\n\n### **II. ARGUMENT**\n\n## **A. HIMALAYA EXCHANGE IS NOT PART OF THE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ESTATE**\n\nLong before undersigned counsel's awareness of these matters or involvement, it appears that the Chapter 11 petition in bankruptcy was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut *by Kwok* as the Bankrupt Debtor seeking protection from the bankruptcy courts.\n\nHowever, to the best of counsel's understanding and knowledge, the Petitioner\n\n(Bankrupt, Debtor) did not name the Himalaya Exchange of the British Virgin Islands – an\n\nindependent country since 1850, following colonial occupation of the British Empire, as an asset\n\nor a going concern to be administered under Kwok's Chapter 11.\n\nThe Objection or Notice by the Trustee Luc Despins, by counsel, states that:\n\nAs 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\n\nHowever, except for the reality that \"leadership\" is a meaningless term in the law, this is clear error and is not possible. The \"Debtor\" here is HAN WO KWOK.\n\nThe U.S. Department of Justice and the Grand Jury it convened have formally found that:\n\nIn Paragraph 11 of the indictment (which we assume the DOJ wrote for the Grand Jury to sign), the Grand Jury found:\n\n### **\"… Kwok held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\"**\n\nThis raises the head-scratcher of what \"leadership\" means in a bankruptcy context. Furthermore, the Grand Jury found in paragraph 11 of the indictment that the Himalaya Exchange was\n\n### **\"founded and operated through various entities he [Je] owned, which were based abroad.\"**\n\nThus, this Court has mistakenly or by being given bad information assigned \"leadership\" (whatever that is in the law) to Kwok whom the Grand Jury has found to have no role in the Himalaya Exchange, when the Grand Jury has found that the Himalaya Exchange is controlled by \"various entities… which were based abroad\" operated by Je.\n\nNow, we don't know what various entities the Grand Jury identified, but in normal usage of English it would indicate more than a handful of entities. If the Himalaya Exchange were operated by a fair number of \"various entities\" abroad, that means that no one entity had dominance over the operations of the Himalaya Exchange. No one of these \"various entities\" could dictate operations of the Exchange. At least we have been offered nothing but inkblot tests inviting us to imagine things that have not been stated.\n\n### **B. CONFUSION OF ROLES**\n\nA Chapter 11 bankruptcy, of course, like a personal Chapter 13 bankruptcy, is aimed at sustaining and continuing the affected business or businesses with the hope that the business(es) will emerge from bankruptcy having paid off all or most debts to the extent possible. Therefore, it would be mistake to view these matters in terms of Kwok hiding assets from his creditors\n\nwhen a successful Chapter 11 process would be aimed at eventually paying all of those creditors back to the maximum extent achievable.[1](#page-4-0)\n\nThis is often pursued by the businesses continuing to operate. If the businesses cannot continue to operate than most likely a Chapter 7 bankruptcy would be appropriate or might emerge as the only viable alternative after an attempted Chapter 11 Reorganization\n\nOn Kwok's petition, Luc Despins was appointed by the Bankruptcy Court as the Chapter 11 Trustee. That Court entrusted Despins with the qualifications, capabilities, and diligence to administer the bankruptcy and what looked from the start like a fairly complex one at that.\n\nEveryone is entitled to consult an attorney. But despite billing \\$21 million submitted to the Bankruptcy Court, is he not qualified to be Trustee? Is the law firm of Paul Hastings actually the Trustee? Having noted this, counsel will address all further business directly to Luc Despins, which of course he can review with attorneys. Although he seems to be represented by counsel, Despins is also designated by statute as the authorized representative of the bankruptcy estate. The Trustee has greater responsibilities to act in his own name than the average person.\n\nThe Bankruptcy Court determined that \"The Trustee is an experienced bankruptcy professional.\" at Case 22-05003 Doc 247 Filed 06/26/23.\n\nTherefore, why should anyone be contacting the Trustee through the law firm of Paul Hastings? Why can't the Trustee administer the Chapter 11 without having the law firm do all of the Trustee's work? Counsel's clients are being bled dry first by the Trustee and then again by the Trustee's lawyers? And the Trustee has the effrontery to cast aspersions on the Himalaya Exchange and its customers.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span>1\n\n<sup>1</sup> http\n\nCounsel concludes that all parties should be dealing with the officially-appointed Trustee directly and keeping legal fees for advice to the Trustee to a minimum.\n\n### **C. IDENTITY OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE**\n\nCounsel for Luc Despins notes that he is not aware of an entity known as the Himalaya Exchange. The Himalaya Exchange--which both the DOJ and Trustee seems to have ignored – has no connection with United States jurisdiction and no one can be a member (investor, depositor) who is a U.S. person, U.S. resident, or anyone acting on behalf of any U.S. person or resident. This crucial fact may have been overlooked because the Trustee has not realized that there is a Himalaya Exchange has nothing to do with Kwok's Chapter 11.\n\nHowever, the Trustee has spent at least \\$21 million in legal fees and costs conducting investigations. It is inconceivable for him to suggest that he made no inquiries as to the Himalaya Exchange, including basics such as (a) what the Grand Jury found, (b) the home jurisdiction, and (c) the governing documents which are on the Exchange's website.\n\n### **D. TRUSTEE SEEKS TO CONVERT CHAPTER 11**\n\nThis circumstance in itself is questionable and clearly shows this set of events and objections have only arisen because his plan to try and act as a receiver and administer the funds is now being challenged. This of note being a different role to that of a chapter 11 trustee. It is very apparent that there are ongoing discussions with the trustee and the DOJ and indeed he references that he wishes to approach the DOJ at the bankruptcy hearing in August 2003 (Exhibit I Docket 198-12) to act as the receiver to administer the Funds. This makes no sense as if he could prove it to be belonging to the Chapter 11 estate then he would not need to act in any capacity as a receiver or refer to that before the Bankruptcy Judge. It is apparent that he knows\n\nthat this does not come within the Chapter 11 otherwise there would be no reference to him trying to speak to the DOJ to act as a receiver for the administration of these funds. He has no authority to simply step in and suggest he should undertake a role which has nothing to do with him. He's further not the appropriate person to be undertaking that role and there could be a clear conflict of interest as has occurred here where he now has changed tact in a very a short space of time highly correlated to the filing of this action and is now suggesting that this money belongs to Kwok and not only is it possibly part of the chapter 11 case but that this action somehow interferes with the administration of the chapter 11. This the conduct has been seen before by the trustee where he accepted the \\$37 million loan given to the boat company as a security for the boat and a court order was made to that effect and made no suggestion that this money was part of the Chapter 11 estate. As soon as the boat was returned he changed his stance and made an application that boat company was part of the Chapter 11 estate and therefore the money loaned to it belonged to the estate. He then proceeded to claim that \\$11 million in legal fees should first be settled out of the money loaned by the exchange. These issues are highlighted because the course of conduct raises significant concerns regarding the safeguarding of customer funds. His shifting stance doesn't appear to stem from any new findings but rather resembles a recurring strategy. The examples provided serve to underscore these growing concerns.\n\nThe Trustee could not in any view act in both the capacity as a trustee and a receiver of these funds. The receiver should not be in the position of the Trustee and must be impartial in assessing the claims on actual evidence and administering the return of the funds.\n\nHe has not addressed this point as it does not favor him and this is a serious concern and a conflict of interest on any given view of him attempting to act in a capacity as both. His conduct so far is not that of an impartial receiver as he seems to claim everything under the\n\n7\n\nchapter 11 estate without any evidence in support whilst incurring substantial legal fees. This cannot simply be ignored.\n\nWith the Mawah Mansion even where the DoJ as part of their case says that the house was allegedly bought from Gclub members fees, yet somehow he stipulates that the proceeds of an unproven fraud amount to money belonging to the alleged defendant and his estate should be awarded the proceeds of a crime to administer. If the DoJ case is correct then those Gclub member funds belong to those victims and on any view do not belong to Kwok, whether as an individual, as a Debtor-Petitioner, or officer of any entity. The Trustee is now attempting to do that with this customer money. It would be wholly unjust for the Court to allow this conduct to continue to affect the Himalaya customer funds.\n\nPlease note that questions or concerns about how things will be managed do not change the fact the funds belong to the Himalaya Exchange customers, either as their deposits and/or as the operating funds necessary to make the Exchange continue operation.\n\nOne question is whether the DOJ is up to the task of routinely handling restitution of victim's losses back to those victims and we are hopeful this answer will be in the resounding affirmative in the very near future.\n\n### **E. DEFENDANTS ROBBED THEMSELES?**\n\nThe Trustee, like the DOJ, are of the opinion that Kwok, Je, and Wang defrauded people. But whom? If the customers of the Himalaya Exchange are not genuine investors, then where did the money come from? Whom did the Defendants defraud if there are not close to 10,000 members / investors in the Himalaya Exchange, of which counsel represents 3,859 (and growing)?\n\nThe DOJ and Trustee would seem to be thinking that Kwok, Je, and Wang defrauded\n\nthemselves out of up to \\$609 million. If the customers of the Exchange were really just Kwok, Je, and Wang, then whom did they defraud? And if nobody, what are the grounds for seizure? Even more perplexingly, the money has not disappeared—its all intact.\n\n## **F. THE RESERVE FUNDS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ARE NOT PART OF THE CHAPTER 11 ESTATE NOR DO THEY HAVE ANY RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION ALLOWING FORFEITURE**\n\nLuc Despins, by counsel several times avers that the reserve funds of the Himalaya Exchange \"*may*\" be part of the Chapter 11 estate. This is a tacit admission that there has been as of yet no evidentiary showing or ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut concerning the funds of the Himalaya Exchange.\n\nAfter \\$21 million invoiced for the Trustee's work, with more invoices mentioned coming, and all of the resources of the Federal Government, there is no decision or basis for treating the funds as being under the administration of the Chapter 11 Trustee.\n\nThe Trustee asserts that the Bankruptcy Court must be given the opportunity to rule on whether alleged customer funds are the property of the Chapter 11 estate. Well, of course, that is true, but it comes quite late. It is unfortunate that this is split between a DOJ investigation and a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Even worse that we don't officially know yet if the Defendants are actually guilty of anything, at this stage in this case. But we do have at least \\$21 million worth of work by the Trustee with more invoices in the pipeline and the entire resources of the Federal Government. And yet, there is no evidence that the Himalaya Exchange reserve funds are directly or indirectly the property of the Bankrupt Kwok.\n\nThe Bankruptcy Court has an opportunity that it has not availed itself of. If there is no decision that the Himalaya Exchange funds constitute property of Kwok, how long do the innocent victims have to wait? The undersigned counsel's clients have suffered actual, realworld, sometimes life-changing harm. When is this opportunity to decide going to be employed?\n\nCounsel's clients invested funds intended for house purchases, children's college education, retirement, etc. The money seized by the DOJ is not just a number, but real people's lives.\n\nThe reserve fund should not be plundered for other purposes.\n\nRecall that the Chapter 11 case was opened by the Petition of Kwok. The indictment here in this case states about two times emphatically that Kwok has no title or role in the Himalaya Exchange. Therefore, based on the indictment we as of yet have no basis for seeing that the Himalaya Exchange's money is part of Kwok's Petition under Chapter 11. At most, the indictment claims that Je – not Kwok – set up the Exchange but also that the Exchange is operated by other foreign businesses outside of the United States, over which the United States of America has no legal jurisdiction.\n\n### **G. THE RESERVE FUNDS ARE HELD IN TRUST FOR DEPOSITORS**\n\nThe reserve funds that have been seized by the DOJ are held in trust for the Exchange's customers / depositors / investors. Therefore, the funds are an asset secured as collateral for the Exchange Customers. These funds are not on the same terms as just funds in an unsecured bank account. The reserve fund is held in trust by the Himalaya Exchange customers for the benefit of those customers. They are not owned free and clear by anyone else.\n\nThe Trustee argues that funds deposited with a bank are the property of the bank. But they are not. First, they are held in trust to the depositors and the bank – which often has \"trust\" in its name – is a fiduciary holding the funds for another. True, the fractional (less than 100%) reserve system in U.S. banks requires the bank to juggle funds and seek to satisfy all of its needs. But funds received from depositors are owned by the depositors particularly when those funds are held in trust at a 100% reserve rate until redeemed. Indeed, in any prosecution and even this one the bank balance shown in Kwok's depositor accounts in banks would be claimed by DOJ to be actual wealth of Kwok. The full amount deposited will be treated by DOJ as Kwok's property, even if secured in the bank by less than 100% reserves.\n\nMoreover, if a bank were to fail or struggle, the Government would intervene and manage the bank and funds held for the benefit of depositors first and foremost.\n\nSimilarly, a landlord of an apartment complex cannot take security deposits from 300 tenants and go on a world cruise with the security deposits. The deposits belong to the tenants, subject to conditions that they do not damage the apartment, clean it, etc., etc.\n\n### **H. GENUINE VS. CONTRIVED HIMALAYA EXCHANGE CUSTOMERS**\n\nThe Trustee, like the DOJ, clearly wants to tackle the entire Himalaya Exchange on the speculation that maybe some of the accounts are actually Kwok, Je, and/or Wang. But that is irrelevant even if it might be true. The genuine investors should not be pillaged on the mere possibility that in setting up the Exchange its architects held a few digital coins for themselves.\n\nThe suggestions of the Trustee amount to the inference that this court is not capable of doing the necessary checks involved--returning the funds back to the victims. This Court is the correct Court to administer these Funds—particularly in light of security and safety concerns- and it is fully competent to undertake that task. In the course of that task if any funds appear to be in the name of Kwok then those funds no doubt will be isolated and the Trustee can make a claim.\n\nThe suggestion of claiming Chapter 11 on the entire customer funds, even those traced to Je or Wang, has no legal basis and the Trustee has no jurisdiction as a trustee to interfere or\n\ninstigate an injunction or make any claims at this stage. For the court to allow interference from a trustee on these grounds is wholly unjust and further adds substantial legal cost for them to defend this now in addition in the Bankruptcy Court. The Trustee's suggested course is merely depleting funds, loss of customer assets and depreciation in value of the assets as indicated in the last motion. The trustee or the DOJ have failed to both address that these funds are linked to a stable coin and the effect of that reserve being depleted or lost affects the ability of the customers to sell their trading coin and retrieve any funds back. The Trustee has not addressed the point in relation to the catastrophic losses that will occur if these funds are nor restored or how he even contemplates minimizing that occurrence.\n\nRather, the criminal proceeding and the Chapter 11 Trustee would, at most, investigate Kwok, and not destroy the entire Exchange. Again, if the only people who invested in the Himalaya Exchange were Kwok, Je, and/or Yang, then whom did they defraud? Only themselves? As can be seen from the forensic report the accounts are real people, genuine investors, and innocent third parties. The Government must preserve the accounts and property of innocent, third parties.\n\nThe Trustee references the belief that the victims and creditors of Kwok have made investments in the Himalaya exchange. This still does not bring it within the Chapter 11 as the exchange is not owned by Mr. Kwok.\n\nAs can be seen from the recently served forensic review of the customers, see Exhibit F, that are represented that they are clearly real, they have been properly vetted and have ID and are real persons. This report being conducted by independent lawyers and forensic accountants, who have no affiliation to Counsel and or the exchange clearly show an independent review of the exchange database with a bank statements and financial records that these customers are real\n\nand have proper Exchange accounts and balances. These are not unnamed customers they are identified by their Himalaya account number HID for real safety concerns. The knife picture being a compelling piece of evidence now before the Court, trustee and DoJ. Although neither the trustee or DoJ comment on this but simply ignore it and carry on their repetitive non evidential stance of throwing unwarranted accusations.\n\nIn relation to the suggestion that Kwok has used thousands of customers worldwide to park his assets there is simply no evidence to show this occurred. The DOJ are in full possession of the banking evidence from the exchange's bank accounts. These clearly show these customers and many others depositing funds from their own accounts into the exchange and redeeming their money. It is inconceivable that this trustee is suggesting this stance in an effort to suddenly claim these under the Chapter 11. The DOJ needs to be held accountable for allowing or at the very least not responding and failing to correct this inference. This is not even part of the indictment case and if all the money does belong to Kwok then where is the fraud which is the whole basis of the indictment? Both the DOJ and the trustee seem to think that they can throw out these meritless assertions and that no one will notice that there is no actual evidence to support these claims. The Customer action has received from the exchange a compelling independent report by reputable forensic independent accountants overseen by independent lawyers verifying the centricity of this claim. This is actual evidence the court should take into account and not the assertions and analogies drawn by the trustee who is not even compassionate or ashamed in carrying out this course of conduct.\n\n### **I. MISAPPROPRIATION OF CUSTOMER FUNDS**\n\nThere is also a real risk that other creditors will obtain the funds of these customers. There are clear indications of that intention by the trustee in an August 2003 hearing (Exhibit I Docket 198-12). Heavy referencing to deciding who will be able to claim and who is a victim being left to this trustee who has already indicated serious prejudicial and defamatory comments by way of reference to the injunction and that somehow without any evidence whatsoever that these customers who are outside the United States have some connection to this historic conduct. These customers took no action direct or indirect against this Trustee for him to make these assertions and suggestions that properly instigated legal proceedings somehow is akin to the harassment outlined in the historic events which led to the injunction. In making these comments and applying this repeated commentary to innocent customers where there is no evidence of any harassment clearly shows a biased individual who is prepared to lodge unwarranted accusations to divert attention away from the proper legal basis upon which these claims have been made.\n\nThe justice being suggested by both the DOJ and the trustee amounts to unwarranted seizures, passage of a substantial time period prior to any return of funds, depletion of funds and claims being made by the trustee to further delay and have their funds given to others, not to mention imposition of exorbitant fees. Exchange customers should in no way be mixed with creditors of the Chapter 11 estate as they do not fall within this category and it would be wholly unfair and unjust to take money away from clearly identifiable victims' accounts and give that money to a creditor who has no right of claim. Further there is a concern that this creditor has serious links to China as does the trustee. The court may think these submissions are harsh however these people face that reality and this simply cannot be brushed under the carpet and ignored that there are connections with both the creditor and the trustee to China.\n\n14\n\n### **J. TRUSTEE'S FINDINGS ARE NOT DECISIONS OF A COURT**\n\nLuc Despins presents several of his beliefs, decisions, or conclusions as though they carry the weight of official court determinations and concrete evidence supporting those claims. While a Trustee indeed possesses distinct responsibilities that necessitate sound business judgments, it doesn't justify presenting all assertions based merely on speculation and past events concerning others. Such an approach seems designed to divert attention from the genuine issues and the legitimate legal reasons for intervention. None of the statements provided offer compelling evidence or logical justification. The Trustee's obligations, as defined by the statute, differ significantly from those of a mere observer. However, when these actions impact third-party rights or have a decisive influence on contested matters, the Trustee's beliefs and actions must be presented with genuine integrity and a solid foundation, which appears to be lacking in this instance.\n\n### **K. JUDICIAL SYSTEM RUNS ON PROOF, NOT STORIES OR GUESSES**\n\nLuc Despins also recites that judges previously found that Kwok had hidden assets from creditors. That would require actual facts showing where Kwok hid those assets. If as Despins argues Kwok can be proven to have hidden assets, that would require facts showing where those assets were hidden. Or at least some chain of transactions constituting proof. There is no hidden asset scenario in the customer motion. It is clear from the recent forensic review there is nothing of the sort. Therefore, these anecdotes are not relevant if those incidents do not show any substantial funds going from Kwok to the Himalaya Exchange. The DoJ have the banking evidence from the Himalaya Exchange bank accounts for months along with supporting compliance information and it has not raised any evidence of this kind.\n\nTherefore, if there is evidence that Kwok hid assets in other places – but no evidence of it being through the he Exchange – this does not help the Trustee's position.\n\nOwnership of the reserve funds must turn on facts, not suspicion.\n\nFurthermore, if like 10,000 other people, Kwok, had invested some of their own funds in Himalaya crypto-currency, on the same terms as thousands of other people, then this Court will establish that in the process of identifying which victims are due their money, those suspected funds if any would be held by the DoJ and the Trustee can then come in and claim that account if one exists. If one was to take the analogy of the Trustee, then no customers exist and thousands around the world are acting on the instruction of Kwok and all of their money from their own accounts somehow all belongs to Kwok and the chapter 11 estate. This is far from plausible on any given view. If the Exchange grew, their own investment in it might become more valuable. That could be true even with no personal control or influence over the Exchange. It is clear here that there are thousands of other customers and it is their investment that the trustee is trying to assert belongs to Kwok. This is categorically legalizing theft under the guise of a exercising his powers as a trustee. There is not even a remote link between the seized funds and Kwok and we will tie the source inextricably to my innocent exchange customers. One who is optimistic about Tesla Motors might share or even promote her vision for why it will grow even if she has no control or management role of any kind.\n\n### **L. OTHER ANECDOTES ARE ONLY SPECULATION**\n\nSimilarly, the Trustee raises suspicion that people might have sympathy for or support for Kwok. But that in itself tells us nothing. They would be very likely outraged by believing that the inspiration for several businesses they were interested in was being treated unfairly. It is a very bad idea to show up at an official's home to protest, but for someone to show up at a\n\n16\n\ndemonstration does not require that they had ever had any contact with Kwok before. People can be motivated purely by what they perceive to be injustice with no personal relationship at all. And a protest can be their first involvement. To use this as a plausible legal basis for denying victims their money back not only has no proper logic let alone any proper legal basis, it's a fallacious argument.\n\n### **M. KWOK HAS NO CONTROL OVER HIMALAYA EXCHANGE**\n\nThe Trustee brushes aside the reality that neither this Court, the DOJ, nor the Bankruptcy Court has any jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange, which is a company in the British Virgin Islands. The indictment claims that Kwok has no control over the Exchange. It claims that Je has some leadership role through non-U.S. parent businesses.\n\nThe Trustee responds that the Chapter 11 Trustee has authority:\n\n\"Pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, property of a chapter 11 estate consists of \"all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case\" \"wherever located and by whomever held.\" 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (emphasis added).\"\n\nYes, but that is exactly the question. That is not an answer to the question.\n\nAgain, the DOJ's indictment avers that Kwok has no title or role or control over the\n\nHimalaya Exchange. The Trustee tacitly admits that there has been no ruling to the contrary.\n\nThe indictment asserts that the Himalaya Exchange is operated by non-U.S. foreign companies or entities. The Exchange has no offices or activities in the United States. Its membership agreements and governing documents forbid any U.S. person or resident or their agent from participating in the Exchange. This would include Kwok.\n\nIf we *speculate* that the Himalaya Exchange were holding (say) a hypothetical \\$300,000 of cryptocurrency for Kwok in his own individual trading account, of course Kwok's personal\n\ninvestment in the Exchange like any other customer would be Kwok's funds and might be subject to this case in forfeiture or distribution to creditors in the Chapter 11.\n\nHowever, Kwok would be forbidden by the governing documents of the Exchange from being a member (investor) or trading any coins or holding any coins there. The Exchange was specifically designed to not allow any contact with the United States or U.S. investors. Thus if Kwok is a U.S. resident, his membership in the Exchange would violate its terms.\n\nThe question is what about the other 9,997 investors in the Himalaya Exchange's cryptocurrency? Does Kwok have any \"legal or equitable interests?\" So far, all facts point to no. One would imagine that the DOJ would have figured that out before presenting the draft of the indictment to the Grand Jury for its signature. We should already know.\n\n### **III. CONCLUSION**\n\nCustomers of the Himalaya Exchange should be allowed to proceed with their Motion for Return of Property including what evidentiary showings and hearings both sides may need to present.\n\nAny allegations against Kwok should not be levied against innocent victims and it is very clear from these trusty submissions he is trying to suggest every angle he can in order to persuade the court that there is some insincerity in this genuine application. The proper course is for this court to hear and see the actual evidence that these customers are real and it is their own money and their own assets that are at stake. The customers deserve to have their evidence presented under this Court's supervision in a secure manner, without meritless and baseless interference from a trustee who has not an ounce of empathy for victims in this case.\n\nDated: December 26, 2023\n\nDated: December 26, 2023 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Jamie Scher Jamie Scher NY 2488435 Myer and Scher LLP 377B South Oyster Bay Road Plainview, NY 118013 Jamie@myerandscher.com (516) 713-0655\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on December 26, 2023, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.","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），原告\n\n诉\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“七哥”，又名“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。\n\n刑事案号：23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n喜马拉雅交易所第三方客户就其针对原告扣押财产申请返还之动议对破产受托人的答辩意见\n喜马拉雅交易所第三方客户就其针对原告扣押财产申请返还之动议对破产受托人的答辩意见\n\nHimalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）客户由下述署名律师 Bradford L. Geyer, Esq. 代表——其在交易所的投资已被扣押，作为本案核心刑事起诉的附带行为——已提交干预动议，以支持其关于返还由原告美利坚合众国所扣押财产的动议。\n\n律师所代表的客户提交了返还财产动议，而 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部，简称“DOJ”）提交了反对意见，反对这些喜马拉雅交易所存款人挑战没收的程序方法（ECF 186）。律师所代表的客户向司法部提交了答辩意见（ECF 198）及补充文件（ECF 207-209）。\n\n与此同时，第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins 通过 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的律师也提交了他本人的答辩意见（ECF 202）。律师所代表的客户就受托人提出简要答辩意见。\n\nI. 引言\n\n法院审理的本案是政府针对上述具名被告提起的刑事起诉。然而，作为附带事务，政府还出于相关但各异的原因，从各个实体或个人处扣押了多笔资金和财产，并在没收程序中声称这些是被起诉罪行的工具或收益。\n\n因此，没收程序及干预人对此提出的异议是独立于核心刑事起诉的事项，但却被纳入了主要刑事案件之中，并由此产生。这迫使我们陷入了一些困难的程序之中。\n\n首先，由下述署名律师代表的 3,539 名喜马拉雅交易所客户（目前还有其他客户并非律师的当事人）面临着一种笨拙而尴尬的局面：美国司法部将针对 Ho Wan Kwok、Kin Ming Je 和 Yanping Wang（显然使用各种其他化名）的刑事起诉，与针对各个人员和实体的资金没收混为一谈，采取的是“先扣押，后调查”的做法。\n\n如果司法部将刑事起诉作为一个案件，而将没收程序作为另一个案件分开处理，对所有人来说都会少很多累赘。更进一步说，如果司法部先完成对郭、余和王三人的起诉，以查明他们是否真正犯下了任何可能支持部分或全部声称没收的罪行，那会更好。\n\n律师代表的 3,539 名身为喜马拉雅交易所客户的当事人，别无选择地面临着介入一起刑事案件的境地。这些事项本应在独立的案件中分别处理，而且现在可能也应当分案审理。但这并不是喜马拉雅客户的决定。\n\nII. 论证\n\nA. 喜马拉雅交易所不属于第 11 章破产财产的一部分\n\n早在下述署名律师知悉或介入这些事项之前，郭作为破产债务人寻求破产法院的保护，似乎就已在 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）提交了第 11 章破产申请。\n\n然而，据律师的最大理解和所知，申请人（破产人、债务人）并未将 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的喜马拉雅交易所——自 1850 年英国殖民统治之后成为独立国家——列为应在郭的第 11 章程序下管理的资产或持续经营企业。\n\n受托人 Luc Despins 通过其律师提出的异议或通知中指出：\n\n正如法院所忆及的，法院此前在关于针对债务人及某些关联方准予初步禁令的裁定中认定，喜马拉雅交易所及其他各类喜马拉雅关联实体“均处于债务人的领导之下”3，且为“债务人的商业工具”。4\n\n然而，除了“领导权”在法律上是一个毫无意义的术语这一事实之外，这显然是错误的，也是不可能的。此处的“债务人”是郭文贵。\n\n美国司法部及其召集的大陪审团已正式认定：\n\n在起诉书第 11 段中（我们推测这是司法部起草供大陪审团签署的），大陪审团认定：\n“……郭在喜马拉雅交易所没有担任任何正式职位或头衔。”\n\n这就引出了在破产语境下“领导权”究竟意味着什么的令人费解的问题。此外，大陪审团在起诉书第 11 段中认定，喜马拉雅交易所是\n“通过他 [余] 所拥有的、总部设在境外的各个实体创立并运营的。”\n\n因此，本法院在被提供错误信息或发生误解的情况下，将“领导权”（无论这在法律上指什么）归给了郭——而大陪审团已认定郭在喜马拉雅交易所没有任何角色，同时大陪审团认定喜马拉雅交易所由余运营的“总部设在境外的……各个实体”所控制。\n\n现在，我们不知道大陪审团指认的各个实体是哪些，但在英语的通常用法中，这表明不止少数几个实体。如果喜马拉雅交易所由境外的相当数量的“各个实体”运营，那就意味着没有单一实体对喜马拉雅交易所的运营拥有支配权。这些“各个实体”中没有任何一个可以单独支配交易所的运营。至少，呈现在我们面前的除了一堆如同墨迹测验般邀请我们去凭空想象未被陈述之事的材料外，别无他物。\n\nB. 角色的混淆\n\n当然，第 11 章破产与个人第 13 章破产一样，旨在维持和延续受影响的一个或多个企业，希望该企业（或各企业）在尽可能偿还全部或大部分债务后走出破产程序。因此，若将这些事项视为郭向其债权人隐匿资产，将是错误的，\n\n因为成功的第 11 章程序旨在最终在最大可能范围内清偿所有这些债权人。[1](#page-4-0)\n\n这通常是通过企业继续运营来实现的。如果企业无法继续运营，那么很可能第 7 章破产清算是合适的，或者在尝试第 11 章重组后可能成为唯一可行的替代方案。\n\n根据郭的申请，Luc Despins 被破产法院指定为第 11 章受托人。该法院信任 Despins 具备管理破产的资格、能力和勤勉，而且这从一开始看起来就是一个相当复杂的破产案。\n\n每个人都有权咨询律师。但尽管向破产法院提交了 2,100 万美元的账单，他是否没有资格担任受托人？难道 Paul Hastings 律师事务所才是真正的受托人吗？指出这一点后，律师今后所有的事务都将直接与 Luc Despins 沟通，他当然可以与律师一起审阅。虽然他似乎由律师代表，但法定上 Despins 也是破产财产的法定代表。与普通人相比，受托人承担着更多以自己名义行事的责任。\n\n破产法院在案号 Case 22-05003 Doc 247 Filed 06/26/23 中认定“受托人是一名经验丰富的破产专业人士”。\n\n既然如此，为什么任何人还要通过 Paul Hastings 律师事务所来联系受托人？为什么受托人不能在不由律师事务所包揽受托人全部工作的情况下管理第 11 章程序？律师的当事人先是被受托人榨干，接着又被受托人的律师榨干？而受托人竟然还有脸对喜马拉雅交易所及其客户进行诋毁。\n1 http\n\n律师认为，所有当事方都应当直接与官方指定的受托人打交道，并将向受托人提供建议的法律费用控制在最低限度。\n\nC. 喜马拉雅交易所的主体身份\n\nLuc Despins 的律师指出，他不知道存在一个名为喜马拉雅交易所的实体。喜马拉雅交易所——司法部和受托人似乎都忽视了这一点——与美国司法管辖区没有任何联系，任何属于美国人、美国居民或代表任何美国人或居民行事的人都不能成为其成员（投资者、存款人）。这一关键事实可能被忽视了，因为受托人尚未意识到存在一个与郭的第 11 章破产毫无关系的喜马拉雅交易所。\n\n然而，受托人已经花费了至少 2,100 万美元的法律费用和开支来进行调查。他声称自己没有对喜马拉雅交易所进行任何调查，包括诸如 (a) 大陪审团的认定，(b) 注册司法管辖区，以及 (c) 交易所网站上的管治文件等基本事项，这是不可思议的。\n\nD. 受托人试图转换第 11 章程序\n\n这种情况本身就值得怀疑，并且清楚地表明这一系列事件和异议的产生，仅仅是因为他试图充当破产接管人并管理这些资金的计划目前受到了挑战。值得注意的是，这与第 11 章受托人的角色不同。显而易见的是，受托人与司法部之间正在进行讨论，事实上他提到他希望在 2023 年 8 月的破产听证会上与司法部接洽（证物 I 案卷 198-12），以作为破产接管人来管理这些资金。这毫无道理，因为如果他能证明这些资金属于第 11 章破产财产，那么他就不需要以任何破产接管人的身份行事，也不需要在破产法官面前提及这一点。显然，他知道\n\n这不属于第 11 章的范围，否则就不会提及他试图与司法部沟通以作为破产接管人来管理这些资金。他无权直接介入并建议自己承担一个与他毫无关系的角色。他进一步说也不是承担该角色的合适人选，而且可能存在明显的利益冲突，就像这里发生的情况一样：他在极短的时间内改变了策略（与本案的提起高度相关），现在声称这笔钱属于郭，不仅可能属于第 11 章案件的一部分，而且该行动在某种程度上干扰了第 11 章的管理。受托人此前就曾有过此类行为：他接受了向游艇公司提供的 3,700 万美元贷款作为该游艇的担保物，法院也作出了相应裁定，当时他并未提出这笔钱属于第 11 章破产财产。游艇一被归还，他就改变了立场，提出申请主张该游艇公司属于第 11 章破产财产的一部分，因此借给该公司的款项也属于破产财产。随后，他进而声称应首先从交易所出借的款项中支付 1,100 万美元的法律费用。之所以强调这些问题，是因为这种行为模式引发了对客户资金保障的严重关切。他立场的转变似乎并非源于任何新发现，而是更像一种反复使用的策略。所提供的示例正是为了强调这些日益增长的关切。\n\n无论从何种角度来看，受托人（Trustee）都绝不能同时兼任受托人与该等资金接管人（receiver）的双重身份。接管人不应处于受托人的地位，且必须保持公正，依据实际证据评估主张，并管理资金的返还。\n\n受托人并未就这一点作出说明，因为这对其不利；无论从何种角度看其试图兼任双重身份的行为，这都是一个严重关切并构成了利益冲突。迄今为止，其行为并非公正接管人所为，因为他似乎在没有任何证据支持的情况下，就主张将所有财产归入第11章破产财产（Chapter 11 estate），同时还产生了巨额律师费。对此绝不能等闲视之。\n\n关于马瓦豪宅（Mawah Mansion），即便作为司法部（DoJ，即 Department of Justice）指控案件的一部分，司法部称该房屋据称是用 Gclub 会员费购买的，但他不知何故竟约定将未经证实的欺诈所得等同于属于涉案被告人的资金，且其破产财产应当被裁定获得犯罪所得以供管理。如果司法部的指控属实，那么这些 Gclub 会员资金属于那些受害者，无论如何都不属于 Kwok（郭文贵）——无论他是作为个人、作为债务人-申请人（Debtor-Petitioner），还是作为任何实体的管理人员。受托人目前正企图对这些客户资金采取同样的手法。法院若允许这种行为继续影响喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）的客户资金，将是极其不公正的。\n\n请注意，关于各项事务将如何管理的疑问或担忧，并不能改变该等资金属于喜马拉雅交易所客户这一事实，无论该等资金是作为其存款，还是作为维持交易所继续运营所必需的运营资金。\n\n一个问题在于司法部是否有能力按常规程序处理向受害者退赔损失的事宜，我们希望在不久的将来这一问题的答案将是极其明确的肯定。\n\nE. 被告人抢劫了他们自己？\n\n受托人与司法部一样，均认为郭文贵、Je（余建明）和 Wang（王雁平）诈骗了他人。但诈骗了谁？如果喜马拉雅交易所的客户不是真正的投资者，那么这些资金是从何而来的？如果喜马拉雅交易所中不存在接近 10,000 名会员/投资者（其中本律师代理了 3,859 名且人数仍在增加），那么被告人诈骗了谁？\n\n司法部和受托人似乎认为，郭文贵、余建明和王雁平诈骗了他们自己高达 6.09 亿美元（$609 million）。如果交易所的客户实际上仅仅是郭文贵、余建明和王雁平，那么他们诈骗了谁？如果没有任何人被骗，那么扣押的根据何在？更令人费解的是，这笔钱并没有消失——它完好无损。\n\nF. 喜马拉雅交易所的储备资金不属于第11章破产财产，亦与任何允许没收（forfeiture）的交易无任何关联\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）通过其代理律师多次声称，喜马拉雅交易所的储备资金“可能”属于第11章破产财产。这是对其默示的承认：截至目前，美国康涅狄格区破产法院（U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut）尚未就喜马拉雅交易所的资金作出任何举证证明或裁定。\n\n在为受托人的工作开具了 2,100 万美元（$21 million）的发票（且提及后续还有更多发票），并动用了联邦政府全部资源之后，依然没有任何裁决或依据将该等资金作为归由第11章受托人管辖的财产予以处置。\n\n受托人坚称，必须给予破产法院机会，以裁定涉案客户资金是否属于第11章破产财产。诚然，这确实属实，但这来得太迟了。令人遗憾的是，此事被分割在司法部调查与第11章破产程序之间。更糟糕的是，在本案目前的阶段，我们尚未正式得知被告人是否确实犯有任何罪行。然而，我们却看到了受托人价值至少 2,100 万美元的工作、后续接踵而至的发票以及联邦政府的全部资源。即便如此，仍没有任何证据表明喜马拉雅交易所的储备资金直接或间接属于破产人郭文贵所有。\n\n破产法院拥有做出裁决的机会，但它并未加以利用。如果没有裁决认定喜马拉雅交易所的资金构成郭文贵的财产，那么无辜的受害者还要等待多久？下述署名律师的委托人遭受了实际的、现实的、有时甚至是改变人生的损害。这种做出裁决的机会究竟何时才会被付诸行使？\n\n代理律师的委托人所投资的资金原计划用于购房、子女大学教育、养老等。被司法部扣押的资金不仅是一个数字，而是活生生的人的生活。\n\n储备资金不应被挪作他用进行掠夺。\n\n回想一下，该第11章破产案是由郭文贵的破产申请（Petition）所启动的。本案的起诉书大约两次明确强调郭文贵在喜马拉雅交易所没有任何头衔或职务。因此，根据起诉书，我们截至目前没有任何依据认为喜马拉雅交易所的资金属于郭文贵第11章破产申请的一部分。起诉书至多声称是余建明（而非郭文贵）设立了交易所，但同时也表明交易所是由美国境外的其他外国企业运营的，美利坚合众国对此不具有法定管辖权。\n\nG. 储备资金系为存款人以信托形式持有\n\n被司法部扣押的储备资金系为交易所的客户/存款人/投资者以信托形式持有的。因此，该等资金是作为交易所客户的担保物而设立担保的资产。这些资金不同于无担保银行账户中的普通资金。该储备基金由喜马拉雅交易所客户为了该等客户的利益以信托方式持有。任何其他方均不对其拥有完全且无权利负担的所有权（free and clear）。\n\n受托人辩称存入银行的资金属于银行的财产。但事实并非如此。首先，这些资金是为存款人以信托方式持有的，而银行——其名称中通常带有“信托（trust）”字样——是为他人持有资金的受托人（fiduciary）。诚然，美国银行的部分准备金制度（低于 100% 的准备金）要求银行周转资金并设法满足其所有需求。但是，从存款人处收到的资金归存款人所有，尤其是当这些资金按 100% 准备金率以信托方式持有直至被赎回时更是如此。事实上，在任何刑事起诉中，甚至包括本案在内，司法部都会主张郭文贵在银行的存款账户中显示的银行余额属于郭文贵的实际财富。所存入的全部金额都将被司法部视为郭文贵的财产，即使该等款项在银行中是以低于 100% 的准备金作担保。\n\n此外，如果一家银行发生倒闭或陷入困境，政府将进行干预，并首要为了存款人的利益而管理该银行及所持有的资金。\n\n同样地，公寓园区的房东不能从 300 名租户处收取押金，然后带着这些押金去环球航海旅行。押金属于租户，条件是他们不损坏公寓、保持清洁等。\n\nH. 真实的与伪造的喜马拉雅交易所客户\n\n受托人与司法部一样，显然企图全盘对付整个喜马拉雅交易所，其所依据的推测是：部分账户可能实际上属于郭文贵、余建明和/或王雁平。但即便这可能是真的，也与本案无关。绝不能仅仅因为交易所的设计者在设立交易所时可能为自己保留了少量数字代币，就掠夺真正的投资者。\n\n受托人的建议等同于在推断本法院没有能力进行涉及将资金返还给受害者所必需的核查工作。鉴于安全与保障方面的考量，本法院是管理这些资金的适格法院，并且完全有能力承担该项任务。在执行该任务的过程中，如果发现任何资金处于郭文贵名下，那么毫无疑问这些资金将被隔离，受托人届时可以提出权利主张。\n\n主张对全部客户资金（包括追踪至余建明或王雁平的资金）适用第11章破产程序的主张毫无法律依据，且受托人作为受托人目前无权干预、申请禁令或提出任何权利主张。法院若基于这些理由允许受托人进行干预是完全不公正的，并且还会进一步增加他们如今在破产法院额外进行抗辩的巨额诉讼费用。受托人建议的做法纯粹是在消耗资金，导致客户资产流失以及如上一份动议中所指出的资产价值贬损。受托人或司法部均未说明这些资金与稳定币挂钩的事实，也未说明该储备金被消耗或损失将影响客户出售其交易代币并取回任何资金的能力。受托人并未就如果这些资金得不到恢复将发生的灾难性损失这一问题作出说明，亦未说明其究竟打算如何尽量减少此类情况的发生。\n\n相反，刑事诉讼程序和第11章受托人至多应当对郭文贵进行调查，而不是摧毁整个交易所。重申一遍，如果投资喜马拉雅交易所的唯一人员就是郭文贵、余建明和/或王雁平，那么他们诈骗了谁？仅仅是他们自己？从法务审查报告中可以看出，这些账户属于真实的人、真正的投资者以及无辜的第三方。政府必须保护无辜第三方的账户和财产。\n\n受托人提到了其认为郭文贵的受害者和债权人曾在喜马拉雅交易所进行过投资。这仍然不能将其纳入第11章破产财产管辖范围，因为该交易所并非郭文贵先生所有。\n\n从最近送达的关于所代理客户的法务审查报告（见附件 F，即 Exhibit F）中可以看出，他们显然是真实的，他们经过了正当审查并持有身份证明，是真实的人。该报告由与代理律师和/或交易所无任何关联的独立律师和法务会计师出具，基于银行对账单和财务记录对交易所数据库进行了独立审查，清楚表明这些客户是真实的，并且拥有合规的交易所账户和余额。出于真实的安全顾虑，这些客户并非匿名客户，而是通过其喜马拉雅账户编号 HID 进行识别。那张带刀的照片是目前提交给法院、受托人和司法部的一项有力证据。尽管受托人和司法部均未对此发表评论，而只是置之不理，并继续采取其一贯无证据支持的立场，肆意提出毫无根据的指控。\n\n关于郭文贵利用全球数千名客户存放其资产的说法，根本没有任何证据表明发生过这种情况。司法部完全掌握了来自交易所银行账户的银行证据。这些证据清楚表明，正是这些客户及许多其他客户从他们自己的账户向交易所存入资金并赎回其款项。该受托人提出这种立场企图突然将这些资产归入第11章破产财产，是令人难以置信的。司法部应当为允许提出这种推论、或至少未予回应并不予纠正该推论承担责任。这甚至不属于起诉书指控案情的一部分；如果所有的钱确实都属于郭文贵，那么作为整个起诉书基础的欺诈行为又在哪里？司法部和受托人似乎都认为他们可以抛出这些毫无价值的主张，并且没有人会注意到没有任何实际证据支持这些主张。客户诉讼方已从交易所获得了一份由知名独立法务会计师在独立律师监督下出具的极具说服力的独立报告，证实了该项主张的核心真实性。这是法院应当予以考虑的实际证据，而不是那位在采取此类行为时甚至毫无同情心或不知羞耻的受托人所作出的主张和类比。\n\nI. 侵吞客户资金\n\n其他债权人获得这些客户资金的真实风险同样存在。受托人在2003年8月（注：应为2023年）的一场听证会上明确表露了该意图（证物 I，Docket 198-12）。大量提及其在决定谁能够索赔以及谁属于受害者方面拥有裁量权，而该受托人此前已通过提及禁令发表了具有严重偏见和诽谤性的言论，并在毫无任何证据的情况下声称这些位于美国境外的客户不知何故与这一历史行为存在某种关联。这些客户并未对该受托人采取任何直接或间接的行动，以致其作出此类断言并暗示正当发起的法律程序不知何故类似于导致禁令的历史事件中所述的骚扰行为。在缺乏任何骚扰证据的情况下，对无辜客户发表这些言论并一再进行此类评论，清楚地表明该受托人怀有偏见，企图通过提出无端指控来转移视线，掩盖提出这些主张的正当法律依据。\n\nDOJ（美国司法部）与受托人所主张的司法无异于无端扣押、在返还任何资金前经历漫长时间、资金耗损，以及受托人为了进一步拖延并将其资金交予他人而提出的索赔主张，更不用说强加过高的费用。交易所客户绝不应与 Chapter 11（第11章）破产财团的债权人混为一谈，因为他们不属于这一类别；从清晰可辨的受害者账户中拿走资金并将其交予无权索赔的债权人，将是完全不公平且不正义的。此外，令人担忧的是，该债权人与中国存在严重关联，受托人亦是如此。法院可能认为这些意见陈述过于严厉，然而这些人正面临着这样的现实，债权人和受托人双方均与中国存在关联的事实绝不能被掩盖和忽视。\n\nJ. 受托人的认定并非法院裁决\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）提出了他的若干信念、决定或结论，仿佛它们具有官方法院裁定以及支持这些主张的切实证据的效力。虽然受托人确实承担着需要作出合理商业判断的特定职责，但这并不能成为其仅凭推测以及涉及他人的过往事件来提出所有断言的理由。这种做法似乎旨在转移对真正问题以及介入的正当法律理由的注意力。所提供的任何陈述均未提供令人信服的证据或合乎逻辑的合理解释。根据法律定义，受托人的义务与普通观察者的义务有显著不同。然而，当这些行为影响第三方权利或对争议事项产生决定性影响时，受托人的信念和行动必须展现出真正的诚信和坚实的基础，而在此案中这一基础显然是欠缺的。\n\nK. 司法体系依据证据运行，而非故事或猜测\n\nLuc Despins 还叙述称，此前法官曾认定 Kwok（郭文贵）向债权人隐匿了资产。这需要有实际事实来证明 Kwok 将这些资产隐匿在何处。如果正如 Despins 所主张的那样，能够证明 Kwok 隐匿了资产，那就需要有事实表明这些资产被隐匿在何处，或者至少需要构成证据的某种交易链条。客户动议中并不存在隐匿资产的情形。从近期的司法鉴识审查中可以清楚看出，根本不存在此类情况。因此，如果这些事件未能显示有任何大额资金从 Kwok 流向 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），那么这些道听途说的传闻便与本案无关。DOJ 掌握 Himalaya Exchange 银行账户的银行凭证以及支持合规信息已有数月之久，且尚未提出任何此类证据。\n\n因此，即使有证据表明 Kwok 在其他地方隐匿了资产——但没有证据表明是通过该交易所隐匿的——这对其受托人的立场也毫无助益。\n\n储备资金的归属必须取决于事实，而非怀疑。\n\n此外，如果 Kwok 像其他10,000人一样，按照与其他数千人相同的条件将自己的一部分资金投资于喜马拉雅加密货币，那么本法院将在确定哪些受害者应获退还款项的过程中认定，该笔涉嫌资金（如有）将由 DOJ 持有，届时受托人可以出面就该账户（如果存在）提出权利主张。如果按照受托人的类比逻辑，那么就不存在任何客户，全球成千上万的人都是根据 Kwok 的指示行事，而他们来自自己账户的所有资金不知何故全部归 Kwok 及第11章破产财团所有。从任何角度来看，这都绝不合乎情理。如果交易所发展壮大，他们自己在其中的投资可能会升值。即便对交易所没有任何个人控制权或影响力，情况也可能如此。此处显而易见的是，存在成千上万的其他客户，而受托人正试图声称属于这些客户的投资属于 Kwok。这完全是在行使其受托人权力的幌子下将盗窃行为合法化。被扣押的资金与 Kwok 之间甚至连微弱的联系都不存在，我们将把资金来源与我方无辜的交易所客户紧密且不可分割地联系在一起。一个看好 Tesla Motors（特斯拉汽车）的人可能会认同甚至宣扬其对于该公司为何会发展的愿景，即使她没有任何形式的控制或管理角色。\n\nL. 其他传闻纯属推测\n\n同样，受托人提出怀疑，认为人们可能对 Kwok 怀有同情或支持。但这本身说明不了任何问题。他们极有可能是因为认为自己感兴趣的几家企业的灵感来源受到了不公正对待而感到愤慨。前往官员住所抗议是非常糟糕的想法，但某人出现在示威现场，并不要求其此前必须与 Kwok 有过任何接触。人们完全可以纯粹出于对他们所感知到的不公的动机而行动，彼此之间没有任何个人关系。并且抗议可能就是他们的首次参与。以此作为拒绝向受害者返还款项的看似合理的法律依据，不仅缺乏合理的逻辑，更谈不上任何正当的法律依据，这是一个荒谬的论点。\n\nM. KWOK 对 HIMALAYA EXCHANGE 无控制权\n\n受托人无视了本法院、DOJ 以及破产法院均对 Himalaya Exchange 无管辖权这一事实，该交易所是一家位于英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands）的公司。起诉书称 Kwok 对该交易所没有控制权。起诉书称 Je（王雁平）通过非美国的母体企业拥有某些领导职务。\n\n受托人回应称第11章受托人拥有法定职权：\n\n“根据《破产法典》第541条，第11章破产财团的财产包括‘截至案件开始时债务人在财产中的所有法定或衡平法权益’，‘不论位于何处且由何人持有’。11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)（强调为后加）。”\n\n是的，但那恰恰是问题所在。那并不是对该问题的回答。\n\n再次强调，DOJ 的起诉书明确断言 Kwok 在 Himalaya Exchange 没有任何头衔、职务或控制权。受托人已默示承认目前尚无相反的裁决。\n\n起诉书断言 Himalaya Exchange 是由非美国的外国公司或实体运营的。该交易所载美国境内没有办事处或业务活动。其会员协议和管辖文件禁止任何美国人、美国居民或其代理人参与该交易所。这将包括 Kwok。\n\n如果我们推测 Himalaya Exchange 在其个人交易账户中为 Kwok 持有（假设）300,000美元的虚拟加密货币，那么当然，Kwok 在该交易所的个人投资就像任何其他客户一样，属于 Kwok 的资金，并可能在本案中受到没收或在第11章程序中分配给债权人。\n\n然而，根据交易所的管辖文件，Kwok 将被禁止成为会员（投资者）或在该交易所交易任何代币或持有任何代币。该交易所经特别设计，不允许与美国或美国投资者发生任何接触。因此，如果 Kwok 是美国居民，其在交易所的会员资格将违反其条款。\n\n问题在于，Himalaya Exchange 加密货币的其他9,997名投资者该当如何？Kwok 是否拥有任何“法定或衡平法权益”？到目前为止，所有事实都表明没有。人们可以想象，DOJ 在将起诉书草案提交大陪审团签署之前就应当已经查明了这一点。我们理应早已知晓。\n\nIII. 结论\n\nHimalaya Exchange 的客户应当获准推进其要求返还财产的动议，包括双方可能需要出示的证据证明及出席听证会。\n\n针对 Kwok 的任何指控均不应对无辜受害者提出，从该受托人的陈述中可以非常清楚地看出，他正试图从一切可能的角度进行影射，以说服法院相信这一真实的申请中存在某些不诚实之处。正当的途径是由本法院听取并审视实际证据，即这些客户是真实的，且受到危及的是他们自己的金钱和自己的财产。客户理应在本法院的监督下以安全的方式出示其证据，而不受对本案受害者毫无同情心的受托人毫无根据、毫无价值的干涉。\n\n日期：2023年12月26日\n\n日期：2023年12月26日 谨此提交\n\n/s/ Jamie Scher\nJamie Scher\nNY 2488435\nMyer and Scher LLP\n377B South Oyster Bay Road\nPlainview, NY 118013\nJamie@myerandscher.com\n(516) 713-0655\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，PHV待批\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856) 607-5708\n\n送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于2023年12月26日，前述文书的真实准确副本已通过 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）美国地方法院的 ECF 系统以电子方式提交并送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，PHV待批\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141 Route 130 S., 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com","key_entities":["Kwok","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Je","Despins","Luc Despins","forfeiture","Geyer","Paul Hastings","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","CIPA","Miles Guo","William Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":202,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":207,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":247,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":5704,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-06-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-06-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:43:39"}