{"id":"court_sdny_247_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":247,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-03-07","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"法庭裁定书（Order）—— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #247（2024年3月7日立案）。主审法官 Analisa Torres 驳回大批 Himalaya Exchange 客户依《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第41(g)条提出的返还被扣押资产（涉案银行账户）动议，认定起诉书下达后此类动议已被 21 U.S.C. §853(k) 排除，第三方仅能在判决后依 §853(n) 提起附属程序主张权益，且案件审理期间的衡平因素倾向于政府继续持有涉案资产。","summary_en":"Court order — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #247 (filed March 7, 2024). District Judge Analisa Torres denied a Rule 41(g) motion brought by a large group of Himalaya Exchange customers/petitioners seeking return of seized bank accounts, holding that post-indictment Rule 41(g) relief is foreclosed by 21 U.S.C. §853(k), that third parties' only avenue is an ancillary §853(n) proceeding after sentencing, and that the equities favor the government's continued retention of the property pending trial.","body_en":"# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n-against-\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,\"\n\nKIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and\n\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"\n\nDefendants.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), Petitioners, 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange who hold Himalaya Dollar and Himalaya Coin cryptocurrencies, move for the return of property seized by the United States as part of the proceedings in this action. Pet'rs Mot., ECF No. 186; *see generally* Pet'rs Mem., ECF No. 186-1. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\nThe Himalaya Exchange is a \"cryptocurrency exchange platform\" that allows users \"to trade, store[,] and manage the Himalaya cryptocurrencies.\" Pet'rs Mem. at 5. According to Petitioners, the Himalaya Exchange was \"launched to bring financial freedom\" to \"those who are wrongly persecuted, including those [who] hav[e] [had] their assets taken illegally, or held for ransom with the threat of it being taken by the Chinese Communist Party.\" *Id.* at 6.\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ DATE FILED: 03/07/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n**ORDER**\n\nOn March 29, 2023, Defendants, Ho Wan Kwok, Kin Ming Je, and Yanping Wang, were indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of New York. ECF No. 19. On January 3, 2024, a grand jury returned a second superseding indictment. S2, ECF No. 215. The Himalaya Exchange features prominently in the indictment as \"an instrumentality of the charged fraud crimes.\" Gov. Ltr. at 1, ECF No. 188; *see* S2 ¶¶ 3(a), 15, 19.\n\nSpecifically, the indictment alleges that \"[f]rom at least in or about April 2021 through at least in or about March 2023,\" Defendants Ho Wan Kwok and Kin Ming Je \"fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$262 million in victim funds through the Himalaya Exchange.\" S2 ¶ 19. Through their allegedly false and misleading statements, Kwok and Je \"trumpeted the prospects and valuation of the Himalaya Exchange\" and its offerings. *Id.* ¶ 19(a). As to Defendant Yanping Wang, the indictment alleges that she was \"allocated millions of dollars in [the Exchange's] purported cryptocurrencies, assisted in the recruitment of Himalaya Exchange personnel, and worked to transfer fraud proceeds to the Himalaya Exchange.\" *Id.* ¶ 15. The Government further alleges that \"unlike real cryptocurrencies,\" the Exchange's offerings were not recorded on a blockchain, and were ultimately used to enrich Defendants, their families, and associates. *Id.* ¶¶ 7(e), 19. For example, the Government claims that in April 2022, Kwok and Je \"arranged for the transfer of approximately \\$37 million in Himalaya Exchange funds\" to Kwok \"as a purported 'loan' to personally guarantee the cost of a luxury yacht that Kwok had previously purchased and used.\" *Id.* ¶ 19(g).\n\nIn 2022 and 2023, after obtaining the requisite warrants, the Government seized multiple bank accounts affiliated with the Himalaya Exchange and lists them in the indictment as assets\n\n2\n\nsubject to forfeiture. Gov. Ltr. at 1; *see* S2 \b6 59(10), (11), (13), (15), (16) (20).<sup>1</sup> By motion dated December 6, 2023, Petitioners seek the return of the funds in those accounts pursuant to Rule 41(g). Pet'rs Mot. They claim that they are the beneficiaries of the seized accounts, Pet'rs Mem. at 5, that \"[t]here has been no fraudulent use of or misappropriation of customer funds,\" *id.*, that the Government should have provided notice in order to \"execute a speedy confidential return of the seized funds,\" *id.* at 16, and that, absent a \"reversal of the improper seizure, . . . the Exchange will collapse and [Petitioners] will completely lose their investments,\" Pet'rs Reply at 16, ECF No. 229.\n\n#### **DISCUSSION**\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) provides that a \"person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return.\" \"A 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.\" *De Almeida v. United States*, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006). \"Jurisdiction 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.* (cleaned up); *United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold*, No. 95 Mag. 2167, 1995 WL 758762, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 1995) (\"When faced with situations where claimants have an available forum to contest the lawfulness of a seizure, courts routinely have refused to adopt jurisdiction over Rule 41[(g)] motions.\")\n\nOnce an indictment is filed, however, a Rule 41(g) motion is \"clearly barred by [21 U.S.C.] § 853(k).\" *United States v. Kolfage*, No. 20 Cr. 412, 2020 WL 7342796, at \\*9 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Petitioners' motion, which was filed prior to the January 3, 2024 superseding indictment, references the identical forfeiture allegations in the March 29, 2023 indictment. *See* Pet'rs Mem. at 4 (citing S1 ¶ 55(j), (k), (m), (o), (p), (s)).\n\nDec. 14, 2020) (collecting cases). Section 853(k) provides that \"no party claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture under this section may . . . commence an action at law or equity against the United States concerning the validity of his alleged interest in the property subsequent to the filing of an indictment.\"The only exception is § 853(n), which permits an \"innocent third party claim[ing] a legal interest in the forfeitable property\" to \"petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property.\" *United States v. Watts*, 786 F.3d 152, 160 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)) (cleaned up). But, such an ancillary proceeding \"may commence only after the sentence is entered by an order of forfeiture and notice is given to the public.\" *United States v. Huggins*, No. 13 Cr. 155, 2013 WL 1728269, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2013), *R. & R. adopted*, 2013 WL 1736466 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2013) (citing 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(1)). The Second Circuit has recognized that an \"ancillary proceeding\" pursuant to § 853(n) \"is evidently the *only* avenue for a post-indictment third-party claim to forfeited property.\" *De Almeida*, 459 F.3d at 381; *see DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States*, 496 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2007). Therefore, Petitioners' Rule 41(g) motion, which presents a \"postindictment third-party claim to forfeited property,\" is foreclosed. *See Huggins*, 2013 WL 1728269, at \\*2.\n\nEven if this were not the case, the equities also weigh against granting Petitioners' motion. \"[A] defendant's or third party's right to the return of lawfully seized property is subject to the Government's legitimate continuing interest in that property.\" *Allen v. Grist Mill Cap. LLC*, 88 F.4th 383, 396 (2d Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). While a criminal proceeding is pending, \"[t]he United States' retention of [] property generally is reasonable if it has a need for the property in an investigation or prosecution.\" *Id.* at 396 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on the indictment, the property is likely a component of the Government's case\n\nagainst Defendants. Further, the seizures were conducted pursuant to judicially authorized seizure warrants. And, the Government has stated that it aims \"to preserve [the Himalaya Exchange-related] funds for later disbursement and restitution to victims\" of the alleged fraud schemes. Gov. Ltr. at 2. Petitioners have, therefore, failed to rebut the presumption that favors the Government during the pendency of a criminal matter. *See Allen*, 88 F.4th at 396 (\"[D]uring the pendency of an ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the government's retention of the seized property is unreasonable.\").\n\nLastly, the impractical and potentially conflicting nature of adjudicating Petitioners' claim concurrently with—and separately from—the underlying criminal matter also weighs against granting their desired relief. *See De Almeida*, 459 F.3d at 382–83 (holding that declining equitable jurisdiction is proper where \"relegating the claimant to [forfeiture] proceeding[s] would avoid problems inherent in parallel proceedings\" (citation omitted)).\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, Petitioners' motion is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 189.\n\n# SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: March 7, 2024 New York, New York\n\nQs","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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），\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\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n根据《Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure（联邦刑事诉讼规则）》第 41(g) 条，请求人（即 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）持有喜马拉雅美元和喜马拉雅币加密货币的 3,345 名客户）提出动议，请求返还美国作为本案诉讼程序一部分所扣押的财产。请求人动议，ECF No. 186；整体参见请求人备忘录，ECF No. 186-1。基于下文阐述的理由，该动议被驳回。\n\n背景\n\n喜马拉雅交易所是一个允许用户“交易、存储及管理喜马拉雅加密货币”的“加密货币交易平台”。请求人备忘录第 5 页。据请求人称，喜马拉雅交易所的“设立是为了向那些遭受错误迫害的人带来财务自由，包括那些资产被非法剥夺，或因面临被中国共产党剥夺的威胁而遭索要赎金的人”。同上，第 6 页。\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: 03/07/2024\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n裁定\n\n2023年3月29日，被告郭文贵、余建明和王雁平被纽约南区的大陪审团起诉。ECF No. 19。2024年1月3日，大陪审团作出第二份附随起诉书。S2，ECF No. 215。喜马拉雅交易所在起诉书中被重点列为“所指控欺诈犯罪的工具”。政府信函第 1 页，ECF No. 188；参见 S2 第 3(a)、15、19 段。\n\n具体而言，起诉书指控“至少在约 2021年4月 至至少约 2023年3月 期间”，被告郭文贵和余建明“通过喜马拉雅交易所欺诈性获取了约 2.62 亿美元以上的受害者资金”。S2 第 19 段。通过其涉嫌虚假和误导性的陈述，郭文贵和余建明“大肆鼓吹喜马拉雅交易所及其产品的前景和估值”。同上，第 19(a) 段。关于被告王雁平，起诉书指控其“被分配了数百万美元该交易所据称的加密货币，协助招聘喜马拉雅交易所的人员，并致力于将欺诈所得转移至喜马拉雅交易所”。同上，第 15 段。政府进一步指控，“与真正的加密货币不同”，该交易所的产品并未记录在区块链上，且最终被用于让被告、其家属及同伙牟取私利。同上，第 7(e)、19 段。例如，政府声称在 2022年4月，郭文贵和余建明“安排将喜马拉雅交易所约 3700 万美元的资金转移”给郭文贵，“作为据称的‘贷款’，用以个人担保郭文贵此前购买并使用的豪华游艇的费用”。同上，第 19(g) 段。\n\n在 2022 年和 2023 年，政府在获得必要令状后，扣押了与喜马拉雅交易所关联的多个银行账户，并在起诉书中将其列为应予没收的资产。政府信函第 1 页；参见 S2 第 59(10)、(11)、(13)、(15)、(16)、(20) 段。脚注1。通过日期为 2023年12月6日 的动议，请求人根据第 41(g) 条请求返还这些账户中的资金。请求人动议。他们声称自己是被扣押账户的受益人，请求人备忘录第 5 页；声称“不存在对客户资金的欺诈性使用或挪用”，同上；声称政府本应发出通知以便“对被扣押资金执行迅速且保密的返还”，同上，第 16 页；并声称如果不能“撤销不当扣押，……该交易所将会倒闭，且请求人将彻底损失其投资”，请求人答辩状第 16 页，ECF No. 229。\n\n讨论\n\n《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 41(g) 条规定，“因财产遭受非法搜查和扣押，或财产被剥夺而受到侵害的人，可以提出动议请求返还该财产”。“第 41(g) 条动议是一项衡平法救济，仅在不存在充分的普通法救济且衡平考量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)。“根据第 41 条行使管辖权必须极其克制和审慎，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（已作格式清理）；United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold，No. 95 Mag. 2167, 1995 WL 758762，第 *2 页 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 1995)（“当面临主张权利人拥有可用审判地来对扣押的合法性提出异议的情形时，法院通常拒绝就第 41(g) 条动议确立管辖权。”）\n\n然而，起诉书一旦提交，第 41(g) 条动议便“显然受到 21 U.S.C. § 853(k) 的阻阻”。United States v. Kolfage，No. 20 Cr. 412, 2020 WL 7342796，第 *9 页 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n脚注1：请求人的动议是在 2024年1月3日 附随起诉书之前提交的，引用了 2023年3月29日 起诉书中相同的没收指控。参见请求人备忘录第 4 页（引用 S1 第 55(j)、(k)、(m)、(o)、(p)、(s) 段）。\n\nDec. 14, 2020)（汇集多起先例）。第 853(k) 条规定，“对本条项下应予没收的财产主张权益的任何一方，均不得……在提交起诉书后，就其对该财产所主张权益的有效性，向美国提起普通法或衡平法诉讼”。唯一的例外是第 853(n) 条，该条允许“对可没收财产主张合法权益的无辜第三方”“向法院申请举行听证会，以裁决其对该财产所主张权益的有效性”。United States v. Watts，786 F.3d 152, 160 (2d Cir. 2015)（引自 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)）（已作格式清理）。但是，此种附随程序“只能在通过没收裁定作出判决并向公众发出通知后方可启动”。United States v. Huggins，No. 13 Cr. 155, 2013 WL 1728269，第 *4 页 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2013)，报告与建议被采纳，2013 WL 1736466 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2013)（引用 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(1)）。第二巡回法院已经确认，根据第 853(n) 条进行的“附随程序”“显然是起诉后第三方对被没收财产主张权利的唯一途径”。De Almeida，459 F.3d 第 381 页；参见 DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States，496 F.3d 175, 183 (2d Cir. 2007)。因此，请求人提出“起诉后第三方对被没收财产主张权利”的第 41(g) 条动议已无可能成立。参见 Huggins，2013 WL 1728269，第 *2 页。\n\n即使情况并非如此，衡平考量同样不利于支持请求人的动议。“被告或第三方获得返还合法扣押财产的权利，受制于政府对该财产的正当持续利益。”Allen v. Grist Mill Cap. LLC，88 F.4th 383, 396 (2d Cir. 2023)（已作格式清理）。在刑事诉讼未决期间，“如果美国在调查或起诉中需要该财产，其对财产的扣留通常是合理的”。同上，第 396 页（内部引号和引文省略）。根据起诉书，该财产很可能是政府指控被告案件的一个组成部分。\n\n此外，扣押是根据司法授权的扣押令状进行的。并且，政府已声明其目的是“保留这些与喜马拉雅交易所相关的资金，以便日后向被指控欺诈方案的受害者进行分发和赔偿”。政府信函第 2 页。因此，请求人未能推翻在刑事案件未决期间偏向政府的推定。参见 Allen，88 F.4th 第 396 页（“在正在进行的刑事调查或诉讼程序未决期间，被告承担证明政府扣留被扣押财产不合理的举证责任。”）。\n\n最后，在进行基础刑事案件的同时——并与之分开——并期审理请求人的权利主张，其不切实际且具有潜在冲突的性质，同样不利于准予其所请求的救济。参见 De Almeida，459 F.3d 第 382–83 页（判定在“将主张权利人移至没收程序处理可避免平行程序所固有的问题”的情况下，拒绝行使衡平管辖权是适当的（引文省略））。\n\n结论\n\n基于前述理由，请求人的动议被驳回。法院书记官长受命终结 ECF No. 189 处的动议。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2024年3月7日 纽约州纽约市\n\n法官签名栏","key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Je","Kwok","forfeiture","853(n)","Rule 41(g)","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","Guo","Miles Guo","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":19,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":188,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":189,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":215,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":229,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1368,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-03-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-03-07","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:26:12"}