{"id":"court_sdny_223_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":223,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":"2024-01-05","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) U.S. Department of Justice** Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 223 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 3","summary_zh":"政府回应信 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #223（2024年1月5日）。政府驳斥律师 Bradford Geyer 代表 Himalaya Exchange 用户提出的 Rule 41(g) 返还被没收资金动议，主张法院缺乏管辖权，正确的程序应在定罪后进行没收程序；政府强调被没收资金系欺诈所得，已被保护用于最终返还受害人。","summary_en":"Government Letter —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #223 (January 5, 2024). Government opposes attorney Bradford Geyer's Rule 41(g) motion on behalf of Himalaya Exchange customers seeking return of seized funds, arguing lack of jurisdiction and that proper procedure requires forfeiture hearing after conviction; Government asserts seized funds are fraud proceeds preserved for eventual victim restitution.","body_en":"Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007*\n\nJanuary 5, 2024\n\n## **VIA ECF AND EMAIL**\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.***, S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes in response to several recent unsolicited filings by Bradford Geyer, who does not represent any party to this criminal action, but rather claims to represent, individually, thousands of customers of the Himalaya Exchange (the \"Petitioners\"), whose identities he does not appear to know and with whom he may not have even communicated.<sup>1</sup> For the reasons set forth in the Government's December 7, 2023 letter (Dkt. 188), Mr. Geyer's filings are improper, and his motion should be denied for lack of jurisdiction.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Given that Mr. Geyer claims to represent over five thousand people (not as a class, but individually) whose identities he does not appear to know and with whom he does not appear to communicate, it is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer. It does seem clear, however, that Petitioners' counsel is working closely with the Himalaya Exchange, an instrumentality of the Kwok Enterprise that was founded and is owned by a currently-at-large international fugitive, defendant Kin Ming Je. Indeed, the Government has learned that the Himalaya Exchange appears to have notified all its registered customers (*i.e.* victims of the Himalaya Exchange) to file a claim with Petitioners' counsel. (*See* Ex. A.) Petitioners' counsel, in turn, manages a website in which individuals fill out a form and provide their Himalaya customer ID number (and apparently no other identifying information) to become a \"client\" of Petitioners' counsel. *See* http That website underscores that counsel does not need \"to know the personal identity\" of the client. Counsel then, apparently, \"verifies\" the client's ID number with the Himalaya Exchange, which makes it clear that counsel is in consultation with the Himalaya Exchange and that the Himalaya Exchange is promoting counsel's work. These facts alone warrant caution as to Mr. Geyer's claims to represent the interests of thousands of individuals in making a claim to lawfully seized fraud proceeds in this criminal case, in which Je is a charged defendant—and, indeed, a defendant who is charged with attempting to obstruct the Government's seizures themselves. (Dkt. 215 (Indictment) ¶¶ 21-23.) In any event, for the reasons set out here and the Government's initial letter, Mr. Geyer's filings are without merit.\n\nThe law governing claims to forfeitable assets is clear: non-parties to a criminal action may petition a court for an ancillary hearing to adjudicate their claims to forfeitable property \"[f]ollowing the entry of an order of forfeiture.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(1)(1) (procedure for third party interests); see also Fed. R. Crim P. 32.2(b)(1) (\"as soon as practical after a verdict or finding of guilty. . . on any count in an indictment or information regarding which criminal forfeiture is sought, the court must determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute\"). This process will take place following any conviction in the trial set to begin in approximately three months. Mr. Geyer seeks to upend this well-settled procedure, followed in every criminal case, by filing a motion under Rule 41(g) for return of property prior to trial. The law is clear, however, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioners' motion.\n\nMr. Geyer does not dispute that this Court has power to grant the motion only by exercising equitable jurisdiction. (Dkt. 186-1 at 15 (\"Rule 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.\")) As Mr. Geyer acknowledges, that extraordinary exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate 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 \"[][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. Phimey, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)). Mr. Geyer makes no argument and offers no authority (aside from cases setting out the standard itself), to demonstrate that he can meet these standards. That is because the Petitioners clearly have an adequate remedy at law: namely, criminal forfeiture proceedings. This Court thus lacks jurisdiction to grant Mr. Geyer's motion.2\n\nFinally, it bears emphasis that the Government seized funds in this case-pursuant to courtauthorized seizure warrants based on a judicial finding that the funds were the proceeds of fraudin order to prevent the funds' dissipation and preserve the funds for eventual return to victims. Specifically, on September 18, 2022, September 20, 2022, and October 16, 2022, the Government filed applications with U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron to seize the contents of several bank accounts, including accounts holding funds that are the subject of Mr. Geyer's motion. The Government sought the seizure warrants after learning-on September 16, 2022-that approximately \\$49 million was going to be transferred out of a bank account holding victim funds. The Government viewed that wire as a potential liquidation event that would have frustrated the\n\n2 Moreover, denial of the motion would be consistent\n\nprovided to the Court as Exhibit B.\n\nrecovery of victim funds at a later date. Each of the Government's seizure warrant applications was supported by a corresponding affidavit from a Special Agent of the FBI. Magistrate Judge Aaron authorized the seizure warrants, which were served on the relevant financial institutions, and the funds were transferred to the Government. Those funds are preserved in Governmentcontrolled accounts until their disposition to victims can be adjudicated by this Court.\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\nThe Government wishes to state unequivocally that its goal is to return the money that Kwok and his criminal enterprise stole to victims of the charged offenses. The Government intends to handle the disbursement of funds to victims in the same way it handled the seizure of those funds—in accordance with the laws regarding forfeiture and restitution.\n\n Accordingly, this Court should deny Mr. Geyer's motion, order that Mr. Geyer cease lodging unsolicited filings on this docket, and handle forfeiture and restitution at the appropriate stage in the case— *i.e.*, following the trial set to begin later this year.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy: /s/\n\n Ryan B. Finkel Juliana N. Murray Micah F. Fergenson Justin Horton Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276","body_zh":"案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York（美国联邦检察官 纽约南区办公室）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007（西尔维奥·J·莫洛大楼，圣安德鲁广场1号，纽约州纽约市 10007）\n\n2024年1月5日\n\n经由 ECF 及电子邮件发送\n\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案），案号 S2 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府谨就Bradford Geyer（布拉德福德·盖耶）近期提交的数份未经请求的主动申报文件作出回应。盖耶先生并不代表本刑事诉讼的任何一方当事人，而是声称分别代表Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的数千名客户（即“请愿人”），但他似乎既不知道这些客户的身份，甚至可能从未与他们进行过沟通。1 基于政府于2023年12月7日提交的信函（Dkt. 188）中所述的理由，盖耶先生提交的文件是不当的，其动议应因缺乏管辖权而予以驳回。\n\n1 鉴于盖耶先生声称代表五千多人（并非作为集体，而是分别代表），而他似乎既不知晓这些人员的身份，也未与他们进行沟通，目前尚不清楚是谁在指示盖耶先生。然而，显而易见的是，请愿人的代理律师正与喜马拉雅交易所密切合作，该交易所是Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）的一个工具，由目前在逃的国际通缉犯、被告人Kin Ming Je（余建明）创立并拥有。事实上，政府获悉，喜马拉雅交易所似乎已通知其所有注册客户（即喜马拉雅交易所的受害者）向请愿人的代理律师提出索赔。（参见证物 A。）请愿人的代理律师继而运营一个网站，个人只需在其中填写一份表格并提供其喜马拉雅客户ID编号（显然没有其他身份识别信息），即可成为请愿人代理律师的“客户”。参见网址该网站强调，律师“无需知晓客户的个人身份”。随后，律师显然会向喜马拉雅交易所“核实”客户的ID编号，这清楚地表明律师正在与喜马拉雅交易所进行磋商，且喜马拉雅交易所正在推广该律师的工作。仅凭这些事实，就足以对盖耶先生声称代表数千名个人的利益、并在本案中对依法扣押的诈骗所得提出索赔的主张保持警惕。在这一刑事案件中，余建明是被起诉的被告人——而且事实上，他被指控企图阻碍政府的扣押行为本身。（Dkt. 215（起诉书）第21-23段。）无论如何，基于此处及政府初始信函中所述的理由，盖耶先生提交的文件均无事实与法律依据。\n\n规范对可没收资产提出权利主张的法律是明确的：刑事诉讼的非当事人可在“作出没收命令之后”，向法院提请附属听证会，以裁决其对可没收财产的主张。21 U.S.C. § 853(1)(1)（第三方利益程序）；亦见《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第32.2(b)(1)条（“在起诉书或检察官起诉书中寻求刑事没收的任何罪名项作出有罪裁决或判定之后，法院必须在切实可行的情况下尽快确定哪些财产应根据适用法规予以没收”）。这一程序将在定于大约三个月后开始的审判中作出任何定罪后进行。盖耶先生试图通过在审判前根据第41(g)条提出要求返还财产的动议，来颠覆这一在每个刑事案件中均遵循的成熟程序。然而，法律明确规定，本法院缺乏批准请愿人动议的管辖权。\n\n盖耶先生并不否认本法院仅能通过行使衡平管辖权来批准该动议。（Dkt. 186-1 第15页（“第41(g)条动议是一项衡平法救济，仅在法律上无充分救济且衡平考量支持行使管辖权时方可适用。”））正如盖耶先生所承认的，仅当(1)动议提出人“在法律上无充分救济”且(2)“衡平考量支持行使管辖权”时，行使这种非同寻常的管辖权才是适当的。De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)。在评估管辖权时，联邦第二巡回上诉法院曾告诫各地区法院：“根据第41条行使管辖权时必须保持极大的克制和谨慎，因为它是建立在法院对联邦执法人员行为的监督权基础之上的。”同上，第382页（内部引文省略）（引自 Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988) 及 Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)）。盖耶先生未提出任何论点，也未提供任何判据（除了列明标准本身的判例之外），以证明其能够符合这些标准。这是因为请愿人显然拥有充分的法律救济途径：即刑事没收程序。因此，本法院缺乏批准盖耶先生动议的管辖权。2\n\n2 此外，驳回该动议亦符合作为证物B提供给法院的文件。\n\n最后，需要强调的是，政府在本案中扣押资金——系依据法院授权的扣押令，该扣押令基于司法裁定认定相关资金为诈骗所得——旨在防止资金流失，并保全资金以便最终返还给受害者。具体而言，在2022年9月18日、2022年9月20日和2022年10月16日，政府向联邦治安法官Stewart D. Aaron（斯图尔特·D·亚伦）提交了扣押若干银行账户内存款的申请，其中包括持有作为盖耶先生动议标的之资金的账户。政府是在2022年9月16日获悉约4900万美元即将从一个存放受害者资金的银行账户中转出后，才申请扣押令的。政府认为该笔电汇是一次潜在的清算事件，若发生将阻碍日后受害者资金的追回。政府提交的每份扣押令申请均有FBI（联邦调查局）特别探员出具的相应宣誓书作为支持。亚伦治安法官批准了扣押令，扣押令送达给相关金融机构后，资金已移交归政府掌管。这些资金目前保存在政府控制的账户中，直至本法院对向受害者处置该等资金作出裁决。\n\n* * *\n\n政府谨明确声明，其目标是将郭文贵及其犯罪集团盗取的钱款返还给被指控罪行的受害者。政府打算按照扣押这些资金的相同方式——即依据有关没收和赔偿的法律——来处理向受害者发放资金的事宜。\n\n因此，本法院应当驳回盖耶先生的动议，命令盖耶先生停止在此案卷中提交未经请求的主动申报文件，并在案件的适当阶段——即在定于今年晚些时候开始的审判之后——处理没收和赔偿事宜。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nRyan B. Finkel（赖安·B·芬克尔）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗根森）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理美国联邦检察官）\n(212) 637-6612 / 2314 / 2190 / 2276","key_entities":["Geyer","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","forfeiture","Je","Kwok","Torres","Rule 41(g)","Bradford Geyer","Kin Ming Je","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":188,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":215,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1149,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-01-05 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-01-05","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:25:05"}