{"id":"court_sdny_478_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":478,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2024-11-25","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant","summary_zh":"动议 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #478（2024-11-25 提交）。案后由律师 Bradford L. Geyer 代表数名身份保密的当事人提交的“重新提出的财产返还动议”，主张其为喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）、G Clubs、农场贷款计划（Farm Loan Program）及 GTV 私募等项目的受害人/投资人，援引《犯罪受害者权利法》(CVRA)、联邦刑事诉讼规则 41(g) 等条款，要求法院命令政府返还被扣押资金，并暂停破产受托人对相关款项的进一步动用。","summary_en":"Motion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #478 (filed 2024-11-25). A post-trial \"renewed motion\" filed by attorney Bradford L. Geyer on behalf of several identity-protected clients claiming victim/investor status in Himalaya Exchange, G Clubs, the Farm Loan Program, and the GTV private placement, invoking the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to demand return of seized funds and a halt to further disbursements by the bankruptcy trustee.","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,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"**\n\n**and**\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"**\n\n**and**\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\n**Defendants.**\n\nCriminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n**RENEWED MOTION AFTER TRIAL OF FINANCIAL VICTIMS FOR RETURN OF THEIR PROPERTY**\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n| <b>STATUTORY DEMAND FOR RESTITUTION OF ILLEGALLY</b> |                              |\n|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|\n| <b>SEIZED VICTIM FUNDS OF \"MEMBERS\" OF</b>           |                              |\n| <b>(A)</b>                                           | <b>HIMALAYA EXCHANGE</b>     |\n| <b>(B)</b>                                           | <b>G CLUBS</b>               |\n| <b>(C)</b>                                           | <b>FARM LOAN PROGRAM</b>     |\n| <b>(D)</b>                                           | <b>GTV PRIVATE PLACEMENT</b> |\n\nClaimants, represented by the undersigned Bradford L. Geyer, Esq., of\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com, respectfully demand the return of funds illegally seized by the U.S.\n\nGovernment, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i), the Bank Robbery Act (18 U.S.C. §\n\n2113), common law larceny by trick and false pretenses, 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(i) and (n), 18 U.S.C.\n\n§ 3771, Rule 41(g), 42 U.S.C. § 10607, Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b), and principles of unjust\n\nenrichment. The funds, identified by the U.S. Government as belonging to victims of the defendants, should be fully restored. Representing five additional victims alongside thousands of Himalaya Exchange customers, undersigned counsel urges the immediate return of these funds and demands that bankruptcy Trustee from further expenses drawdowns.\n\nUnder the Crime Victim's Rights Act 18 U.S. Code § 3771 (CVRA), any 18 U.S.C. §\n\n983(a)(1)(A)(i) process must comply with CVRA. Section 983 was designed before the\n\nemergence of cryptocurrency exchanges and innovations in human rights capital creation\n\ninnovations (bit coin, Himalaya Coin, etc.), and what had already been a gulf between the two, is\n\nhere now a chasm with notice failures, unreasonable delays and perhaps uniquely in this case, a\n\nrequirement that anyone wanting their stolen money returned, must submit to \"doxing\" to foreign\n\ngovernments, many of whom are at serious risk and are still in mainland China, where they could\n\nbe easily persecuted for participating in these activities just like the witness Mr. Yi.[1](#page-1-0)\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> **Jianhu Yi** (23 Cr. 118 (AT); July 3, 2024) provided detailed testimony of retaliatory actions by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly through its Ministry of State Security (MSS) and Ministry of Public Security (MPS). Key points Yi highlighted included:\n\n**Detention and Interrogation**: Being detained and interrogated by officers from the Ministry of National Security. They held him for extended periods, confiscated his personal items, and questioned him under duress about his investments and associations.\n\n**Intimidation Tactics**: Enduring threats of imprisonment if he refused to comply with the authorities. They demonstrated knowledge of his and his family's whereabouts, leveraging this information to heighten fear and compliance.\n\n**Forced Cooperation**: Coerced into signing documents, including accusations against others, which he described as fabricated or inaccurate. Authorities used his family and his assets as leverage, demanding his cooperation under the threat of repercussions.\n\n**Defamation and Asset Freezes**: The CCP allegedly employs tactics like \"spamouflage\" to discredit critics through false narratives and media campaigns. Retaliatory freezing of bank accounts and assets, both domestically and internationally, were mentioned as tools used to stifle dissent and complicate critics' lives abroad.\n\n**Global Surveillance and Harassment**: highlighted transnational repression, indicating that the CCP surveils and harasses dissidents overseas, including attempts to manipulate legal systems and leverage international mechanisms like Interpol Red Notices for political purposes.\n\nThis court must act to halt further harm to victims.\n\n| Legal Name | Farm Loan    | G Clubs      | GTV | Himalaya Exchange Costomer |\n|------------|--------------|--------------|-----|----------------------------|\n| Person A   | \\$102,000.00 | \\$70,000.00  | Yes | No                         |\n| Person B   | \\$0.00       | \\$50,000.00  | Yes | No                         |\n| Person C   | \\$20,000.00  | \\$50,000.00  | No  | No                         |\n| Person D   | \\$0.00       | \\$130,000.00 | No  | No                         |\n| Person E   | \\$50,000.00  | \\$0.00       | No  | No                         |\n\n# **I. STATUS AS VICTIM**\n\nFive identity protected clients referenced above, who are classified by the government as victims of Kwok, Je, and Wang, assert that their true victimization stems from the U.S. Government's tortious interference, which disrupted their secured investments. They argue that without this interference, there would have been no loss, nor would the bankruptcy trustee have been able to unjustly seize funds belonging to genuine victims. They believe their community comprises the lion share of ownership and report widespread apprehension to come forward. While prosecutors allege unfulfilled promises by the defendants, the victims maintain that government actions prevented the defendants from fulfilling those promises.\n\n# **II. STATUTORY COMMANDS WITHOUT EXCEPTION TO MAKE RESTITUTION TO THESE VICTIMS**\n\n# *1. Applicable Law[2](#page-2-0)*\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span>The Justice for All Act of 2004 (the \"Act\") expanded the rights of victims in federal criminal proceedings and established certain requirements concerning the Government's notification of victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(a).\n\nThe Act provides that:\n\n *Crime victims have the following rights, among others: (1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or parole proceeding, involving the crime, and timely notice of the release of the defendant; (3) the right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the Court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; (8) the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy; (9) the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement; and (10) the right to be informed of these rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). The Act defines a victim of a crime as \"a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense.\" 18 U.S.C. § 377l(e)(2)(A). Section 3771 requires the Court to ensure that crime victims are afforded the rights enumerated in the statute, see 18 U.S.C. 377l(b), and obligates the Government to use \"best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights\" provided, see 18 U.S.C. § 377l(c)(1). The Act does not set forth any specific notification procedures. In addition, the Act recognizes that in cases involving a large number of crime victims, it may be impracticable to accord all of the victims the rights identified in Section 3771(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(d)(2). Specifically, the Act provides that in such cases, \"the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to [the Act] that does not unduly complicate or prolong proceedings.\" Id. A number of Courts in this district have addressed the effect of the Act in cases involving large numbers of victims, particularly securities fraud prosecutions, and have approved procedures similar to those proposed and outlined below. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 20 Cr. 524 (KPF) (ECF N United States v. Scott, 17 Cr. 630 (ER) (ECF No. 481, entered June 8, 2022); United States v. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC); United States v. Rigas, 02 Cr. 1236 (LBS); United States v. Ebbers, S3 02 Cr. 1144 (BSJ); United States v. Eberhard, S1 03 Cr. 562 (RWS); United States v. Bongiorno, 05 Cr. 390 (SHS).*\n\nThe CVRA unequivocally mandates compliance without allowing discretion, exceptions, conditions, or qualifiers. Undersigned counsel represents 5,280 and counting Himalaya Exchange (HE) depositors whose full investments remain frozen in seized custodial accounts, as well as five additional depositors who confirm there are many more victims like them. These individuals have been thoroughly vetted through their community as legitimate claimants.\n\nThe Government's inaction and failure to prioritize victim protection not only violate statutory obligations but also risk exacerbating the suffering of those most in need of justice and restitution. Swift and decisive action is essential to restore trust and prevent further harm.[3](#page-4-0)\n\n### **III. CONFLICT BETWEEN 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) and CVRA**\n\nThe inherent conflict between the formulaic process of 18 U.S.C. § 983 and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) is starkly evident here, where failures of notice, mass confusion, language barriers, secretive actions, and threats to victims' safety converge. These systemic barriers make § 983's procedural requirements not only unworkable for thousands of victims but also dangerous. Victims, particularly those facing language barriers or confusion about their rights, are forced to risk exposure of their identities to assert claims—a threat that jeopardizes their safety.\n\nFor victims under threat of retaliation, including from powerful actors like the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), *[4](#page-4-1)* which reportedly operates covertly in Western nations, complying with § 983's framework amplifies their vulnerability. The Government's awareness of these risks yet indifference—or tacit encouragement—violates CVRA's protections, which exist to prevent revictimization, safeguard dignity, and prioritize victim safety.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> The vast majority of legitimate victims affected by these seizures are too fearful to communicate with the U.S. Government, viewing it as complicit in their oppression rather than a source of relief. Recently, we were retained by an HE client who uncharacteristically felt safe enough to engage with the Government. However, the redacted communications we reviewed suggest that the Government is, at best, showing no urgency in returning the seized funds and, at worst, potentially violating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), raising concerns that the funds may never be returned. http (see highlights).\n\n<span id=\"page-4-1\"></span><sup>4</sup>Targeting Through Operation Fox Hunt: Expert testimony referenced \"Operation Fox Hunt,\" a CCP initiative targeting overseas dissidents through coercion, intimidation, and false legal claims. These actions underline a systematic effort by the CCP to suppress dissent, silence critics, and maintain control both within and beyond China's borders.\n\nBy favoring procedural expediency over the CVRA's substantive protections, the Government effectively creates a system that intimidates victims and punishes them for asserting their rights. This chilling effect,2 especially in the face of threats from entities like the CCP, is compounded by the outdated nature of § 983, which predates modern financial systems like cryptocurrency exchanges designed to promote economic freedom and human rights.\n\nCVRA was enacted precisely to remedy such deficiencies, ensuring victims are not forced to choose between asserting their rights and protecting their lives. Its protections must take precedence, as adherence to outdated § 983 procedures undermines justice and perpetuates harm.\n\n#### **IV.APPLICATION TO CLASS MEMBERS**\n\nThe Government has admitted to seizing \\$1.4 billion from individuals it acknowledges as innocent victims of the Defendants' alleged crimes (ECF Dkt. #329). The prosecution asserts these funds were stolen from undersigned counsel's clients, not owned by the Defendants, and thus cannot be considered criminal proceeds. By its own admission, the Government recognizes these funds as stolen property belonging to the victims, who have a rightful claim to their return.\n\n# **V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS PLUNDERING THE ASSETS OF INDIVIDUALS IT DESIGNATES AS VICTIMS**\n\nDuring the prosecution, the Government formally designated undersigned counsel's clients as \"victims\" of the alleged crimes charged against Kwok, Je, and Wang allegedly perpetrated by the Defendants connected to:\n\n- *1. Himalaya Exchange;*\n- *2. G Clubs;*\n- *3. Farm Loan Program;*\n- *4. GTV private placement.*\n\nThe true harm to undersigned counsel's clients appears to stem not from the Defendants but from the U.S. Government, which seized their funds, deprived them of rightful assets, and refuses to return them even after the criminal trial's conclusion. No evidence suggests any alternative explanation for their losses, leaving the Government's actions as the sole cause of harm and underscoring the urgent need to restore these victims' assets that include prominent assets like the Mahwah Conference Center and Bugatti sports car either directly or through the bankruptcy Trustee.[5](#page-6-0)\n\n## **VI. MAYBE'S, GUESSES and SPECULATION WHEN GOVERNMENT WHEN GOVERNMENT SHOULD KNOW EVERY DETAIL**\n\nThere can be no excuse of \"we don't know\" or \"we will get back to you\" when the Government had to be prepared to prove with competent evidence to a very high standard every aspect of the Defendants' alleged crimes against the designated Victims. If the Government does not have this evidence at its fingertips, then it was never prepared to take the underlying criminal case to trial. In other words, the Government can promptly return the funds of\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> ECF #130; http billion-dollar-fraud-conspiracy\n\nundersigned counsel's Himalaya Exchange clients through an already established secure authentication process. Once a CVRA-compliant structure and procedure are implemented, all funds—including those belonging to the victim classes represented by the aforementioned clients —can be efficiently restored. This approach would provide the Government with greater certainty while ensuring the necessary protections for the victims.\n\n# **V. COLOSSAL WASTE AND PLUNDERING OF CLIENTS' FUNDS BY CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE**\n\nKwok filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition for protection from bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut Case No: 22-50073.\n\nThe Trustee has plundered an astonishing \\$38 million and the meter is running relentlessly as he disposes of assets with significant billing to coordinate with the government. The only response to the fact that the government lacks jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange – which never operated in the United States and prohibited any U.S. citizen, U.S. resident, or agent of a U.S. citizen or resident from participating – was a comment in a letter to the Honorable Court herein that Himalaya Exchange \"may be\" part of the bankruptcy estate. That is, after 2 years of investigation and millions of dollars set on fire in bonfires, *he does not know*. How many tens of millions of the clients' money more will he need to shred to find out? If he does not know by now, then the answer is simple: The Himalaya Exchange is *not* part of the bankruptcy estate. There is no evidence that it is.\n\nThe Chapter 11 Petition was filed by KWOK personally – *not by any business.*\n\nTherefore, only the personal shares or deposits of Kwok are within the Chapter 11 Trustee. As laid out in prior filings, if Kwok had any money in the Himalaya Exchange, G Clubs, Farm Loan Program or GTV (and/or any of the other entities) as the Chapter 11 Trustee could only access Kwok's personal funds on deposit. So instead of tens of millions of dollars and two years of investigating, a bankruptcy trustee would have understood that the none of aforementioned assets plays a part in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy.\n\nBased on our limited calculation, between May and Oct 2024, the Trustee has spent hundreds of hours and billed at least 300k USD on matters related to the criminal case, including phone calls with DOJ/prosecutors, criminal dockets, attending criminal trials and forfeiture related documents and discussions. In other words, the trustee knows better than anyone that the frozen assets do not belong to the defendant. Nevertheless, the trustee still works very hard trying to plunder more of them.\n\n### **VI. EVEN ASSUMING GOVERNMENT'S THEORY REGARDING DEFENDANTS WERE TRUE, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED CAPACITY TO AGREE WITH GOVERNMENTS'S PLAN TO PLUNDER FUNDS**\n\nEven if the Government's allegations against the defendants were accurate, it is indefensible to allow the accused to consent to the seizure of funds that do not belong to them. These assets, by the Government's own admission, are the rightful property of the victims. Allowing individuals accused of fraud to authorize such actions undermines justice and directly harms the victims. The \"Consent Order\" entered on May 3, 2024 (ECF Dkt. #329), between the Government and the defendants, further victimizes those already harmed. This agreement effectively enabled the Government to confiscate funds belonging to depositors, including:\n\n- *\\$4,643,744.70 FV Bank for Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.;*\n- *\\$14,599,257.25 FV Bank account for Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.;*\n- *\\$11,538,579.87 Mercantile Bank for G Club International, Ltd.;*\n- *\\$11,538,579.87 Mercantile Bank for Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.;*\n- *\\$272,350,313.76 Mercantile Bank for Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.;*\n- *Additional amounts totaling millions from related accounts.*\n\nThese funds, held in trust for depositors, were seized over two years before the Consent Order's issuance. The order, sealed and concealed from victims and the public, was executed without notifying undersigned counsel, who represents over 5,242 depositors with claims on these assets. This lack of transparency and consultation flagrantly violates victims' rights under the Crime Victims'Rights Act (CVRA), including their rights to be informed, heard, and treatedwith fairness.\n\nThe Government's actions disregarded clear filings on record that established counsel's representation of thousands of Himalaya depositors. By failing to notify counsel or allow input, the Government deprived victims of their ability to contest the seizure or advocate for their rightful assets. This Court should not condone such an agreement, which even under the\n\ngovernment's theory would have enabled those accused of defrauding victims to assist in further stripping them of their property.\n\nThis Consent Order sets a dangerous precedent by prioritizing procedural expediency over substantive justice. Victims must not bear the consequences of decisions made without their participation or consent, particularly when those decisions violate the fundamental rights protected under the CVRA. This Court must act to rectify this injustice and ensure that victims' rights are respected and their property is restored.\n\n#### **VII. BURDEN IS ON THE GOVERNMENT**\n\nUnder CVRA the Government has the burden of establishing any reason to delay or deny restitution. Again, the Government needed to have evidence prepared and organized to prove these matters at the criminal trial beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\n#### **VIII. RESTITUTION IS SPECIFIC TO SECURED CREDITORS**\n\nSimilarly, the investors and claimants under each organization are entitled to the return of *their* specific funds that were taken from that particular organization. The Government and Court are not authorized to mix it all up together and then sprinkle a little around to everyone. Creditors cannot claim funds from a different organization with whom they never did business.\n\n#### **IX. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\nGovernment's actions have inflicted significant harm on innocent victims by unjustly seizing their rightful assets without clear justification. To ensure justice and compliance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), this Court should take immediate steps immediately lift all seizures or, alternatively, direct the Government to collaborate on creating a fair, secure, and efficient\n\nprocess to return funds to innocent victims in compliance with the CVRA and other applicable laws and order a suspension of all actions by the bankruptcy trustee or any other party to claim or utilize these funds. Justice demands swift and decisive action to halt this ongoing harm, protect the rights of innocent victims, and ensure their restitution. Anything less perpetuates the profound injustices these individuals have already endured.\n\nDated: November 24, 2024\n\n### Dated: November 24, 2024 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on November 24, 2024, 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 NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708","body_zh":"美国联邦法院纽约南区地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）\n\n美利坚合众国（United States of America），原告\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”或“主事人”，\n\n及\n\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，\n\n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金融受害者要求归还其财产的审后重新动议\n\n指派予：联邦地区法院法官 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）阁下，主审法官\n\n关于对以下项目“会员”被非法扣押的受害者资金进行赔偿的法定要求：\n(A) 喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）\n(B) G CLUBS（G俱乐部）\n(C) 农场贷款项目（Farm Loan Program）\n(D) GTV 私募（GTV Private Placement）\n\n索赔人由下述署名的 FormerFedsGroup.Com 的 Bradford L. Geyer 律师代表，依据 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i)、《银行抢劫法》（Bank Robbery Act，18 U.S.C. § 2113）、普通法上的以欺诈和虚假托词实施的盗窃、21 U.S.C. §§ 853(i) 及 (n)、18 U.S.C. § 3771、联邦刑事诉讼规则第 41(g) 条、42 U.S.C. § 10607、Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b) 以及不当得利原则的授权，谨此要求归还被美国政府非法扣押的资金。经美国政府确认属于被告受害者的这些资金应当予以全额返还。下述署名律师代表另外五名受害者以及数千名喜马拉雅交易所客户，敦促立即归还这些资金，并要求破产受托人停止进一步支取费用。\n\n根据《犯罪受害者权利法》（Crime Victims' Rights Act，18 U.S. Code § 3771，简称 CVRA），任何 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) 程序均必须遵守 CVRA。第 983 条的设计早于加密货币交易所的出现以及人权资本创造创新（比特币、喜马拉雅币等）的发展，两者之间原已存在的鸿沟，在此如今已成为一道深渊，伴随着送达通知失败、不合理的拖延，以及在本案中或许尤为独特的一项要求——即任何希望拿回被盗款项的人，都必须向外国政府屈从并“被开盒/曝光身份”，而他们中许多人正面临严重危险，且仍身处中国大陆，在那里他们极易因参与这些活动而遭受迫害，正如证人 Yi 先生（易健虎）一样。[1]\n\n[1] Jianhu Yi（易健虎，23 Cr. 118 (AT)；2024年7月3日）提供了关于中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party，简称 CCP）特别是通过其国家安全部（MSS）和公安部（MPS）采取报复行动的详尽证言。Yi 强调的关键要点包括：\n拘留与审讯：被国家安全部的官员拘留并审讯。他们对他进行了长时间的羁押，没收了他的个人物品，并在胁迫下就其投资和关联情况对他进行讯问。\n恐吓手段：承受若拒绝配合当局即被判监禁的威胁。他们显示出掌握他和其家人的行踪信息，利用该信息加深恐惧并迫使其顺从。\n强迫配合：被迫在文件上签字，包括对他人的指控，他称这些指控纯属伪造或不实。当局利用他的家人和资产作为筹码，以可能遭受报复为要挟，要求其予以配合。\n诽谤与资产冻结：据称中共采用如“垃圾伪装”（spamouflage）等手段，通过虚假叙事和媒体宣传抹黑批评者。报复性冻结国内及国际银行账户和资产被提及作为压制异见并使批评者海外生活陷入困境的工具。\n全球监控与骚扰：重点指出了跨国镇压，表明中共在海外监控并骚扰异见人士，包括企图操纵法律系统以及出于政治目的利用国际刑警组织红色通缉令等国际机制。\n\n本法院必须采取行动以制止对受害者造成进一步伤害。\n\n法定姓名 农场贷款 G Clubs GTV 喜马拉雅交易所客户\nPerson A 102,000.00美元 70,000.00美元 是 否\nPerson B 0.00美元 50,000.00美元 是 否\nPerson C 20,000.00美元 50,000.00美元 否 否\nPerson D 0.00美元 130,000.00美元 否 否\nPerson E 50,000.00美元 0.00美元 否 否\n\nI. 受害者身份\n\n上述提及的五名受到身份保护的委托人（他们被政府归类为 Kwok、Je 和 Wang 的受害者）主张，他们的真正受害根源在于美国政府的侵权干预，该干预破坏了他们有担保的投资。他们辩称，若无此等干预，既不会产生损失，破产受托人也无法不当地扣押属于真正受害者的资金。他们认为其群体占据了所有权的最大份额，并反映出站出来维权普遍存在担忧顾虑。尽管检方指控被告未履行承诺，但受害者坚称是政府的行动阻碍了被告履行那些承诺。\n\nII. 要求向这些受害者进行赔偿的无例外法定指令\n\n1. 适用法律[2]\n\n[2] 《2004年人人享有司法公正法》（Justice for All Act of 2004，下称“该法”）扩大了受害者在联邦刑事诉讼中的权利，并确立了有关政府向受害者发出通知的某些要求。见 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)。\n\n该法规定：\n\n犯罪受害者享有下列各项权利，其中包括：(1) 受到合理保护以防遭受被告人侵害的权利；(2) 就涉及该犯罪的任何公开法庭程序或假释程序获得合理、准确和及时的通知，并及时获知被告人被释放的权利；(3) 不被排除在任何此类公开法庭程序之外的权利，除非法院在收到清晰且令人信服的证据后，认定受害者若在程序中听取其他证言，其本人的证言将发生实质性改变；(4) 在地区法院涉及释放、认罪答辩、量刑或任何假释程序的任何公开程序中获得合理陈述意见的权利；(5) 与本案政府检察官进行商商榷的合理权利；(6) 依据法律规定获得全额和及时赔偿的权利；(7) 获得免受不合理拖延的程序的权利；(8) 获得公平对待以及受害者尊严和隐私受到尊重的权利；(9) 及时获知任何认罪协议或延期起诉协议的权利；以及 (10) 获知这些权利的权利。见 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)。该法将犯罪受害者定义为“因联邦犯罪行为的发生而直接且近因受到伤害的人”。18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A)。第 3771 条要求法院确保犯罪受害者被赋予法条中列举的权利，见 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)，并要求政府承担“尽最大努力确保犯罪受害者获知并被赋予所规定的权利”的义务，见 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1)。该法并未规定任何具体的通知程序。此外，该法认识到在涉及大量犯罪受害者的案件中，向所有受害者赋予第 3771(a) 条确定的权利可能是不切实际的。见 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2)。具体而言，该法规定在此类案件中，“法院应当制定合理的程序以落实[该法]，且该程序不得过分复杂化或拖延诉讼程序。”同上。本辖区内有多家法院处理过该法在涉及大量受害者的案件中的效力问题，特别是在证券欺诈起诉案件中，并批准了与下文提议和概述的程序类似的程序。参见，例如，United States v. Brown, 20 Cr. 524 (KPF) (ECF N；United States v. Scott, 17 Cr. 630 (ER) (ECF No. 481, 2022年6月8日录入)；United States v. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC)；United States v. Rigas, 02 Cr. 1236 (LBS)；United States v. Ebbers, S3 02 Cr. 1144 (BSJ)；United States v. Eberhard, S1 03 Cr. 562 (RWS)；United States v. Bongiorno, 05 Cr. 390 (SHS)。\n\nCVRA 明确强制要求遵从，不容许任何自由裁量、例外、条件或限制。下述署名律师代表 5,280 名且仍在增加的喜马拉雅交易所（HE）存款人，其全额投资仍被冻结在被扣押的托管账户中；同时代表另外五名证实存在更多类似受害者的存款人。这些人士作为合法的索赔人已在其社群内部经过充分的审核。\n\n政府的不作为以及未能优先保护受害者，不仅违反了法定义务，而且可能加剧那些最需要正义与赔偿的人们的痛苦。迅速且果断的行动对于恢复信任和防止进一步伤害至关重要。[3]\n\nIII. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) 与 CVRA 之间的冲突\n\n18 U.S.C. § 983 的公式化程序与《犯罪受害者权利法》（CVRA）之间的内在冲突在此处显露无遗，送达通知失败、大规模混乱、语言障碍、秘密行动以及对受害者安全的威胁在此时交织汇聚。这些体制性障碍使得第 983 条的程序性要求对数千名受害者而言不仅无法施行，而且极具危险性。受害者（特别是那些面临语言障碍或对其权利感到困惑的人）被迫冒着身份被暴露的风险来主张索赔——这一威胁危及他们的安全。\n\n对于面临报复威胁（包括来自据报道在西方国家进行秘密活动的中国共产党（CCP）[4]等强大行为体的威胁）的受害者而言，遵从第 983 条的框架加剧了他们的脆弱处境。政府知晓这些风险却保持漠视——或默许纵容——这违反了 CVRA 的保护规定，而这些保护规定的存在正是为了防止再次受害、维护尊严并优先保障受害者安全。\n\n[3] 受这些扣押影响的绝大多数合法受害者过于恐惧而不敢与美国政府沟通，他们认为美国政府是其压迫的同谋，而非救济的来源。最近，我们接受了一位非同寻常地感到足够安全并与政府进行了接触的 HE 客户的委托。然而，我们审阅的涂黑通信表明，政府充其量在归还被扣押资金方面毫无紧迫感，往坏处说，可能涉嫌违反《犯罪受害者权利法》（CVRA），引发了该笔资金可能永远无法归还的担忧。http（见重点标注）。\n\n[4] 通过“猎狐行动”进行针对：专家证言提到了“猎狐行动”（Operation Fox Hunt），这是一项中共通过胁迫、恐吓和虚假法律指控针对海外异见人士的行动。这些行动凸显了中共在中国境内外压制异见、使批评者噤声并维持控制的系统性企图。\n\n政府选择程序上的便利而非《CVRA》（Crime Victims' Rights Act，《犯罪被害人权利法案》）的实质性保护，实际上建立了一个恐吓被害人并因其主张自身权利而予以惩罚的体系。这种寒蝉效应2，尤其是在面临来自CCP（中国共产党）等实体的威胁时，因第983条（18 U.S.C. § 983）的过时性而进一步加剧；该法条早于旨在促进经济自由和人权的加密货币交易所等现代金融体系出现。\n\n制定《CVRA》正是为了补救此类缺陷，确保被害人无需在主张权利与保护生命之间作出抉择。其保护必须居于优先地位，因为坚持过时的第983条程序会破坏司法公正并使损害持续存在。\n\nIV. 适用于集体成员\n\n政府已承认从其承认为被告所指控罪行的无辜被害人处扣押了$1.4 billion（ECF Dkt. #329）。控方坚称这些资金系从下签律师的委托人处盗取，并非被告所有，因此不能被视为犯罪所得。根据其自身承认，政府承认这些资金属于被害人的被盗财产，被害人对返还这些财产享有合法主张权。\n\nV. 美利坚合众国正在掠夺其指定为被害人的个人的资产\n\n在控诉期间，政府正式将下签律师的委托人指定为针对Kwok（郭文贵）、Je（余建明）和Wang（王雁平）被指控罪行的“被害人”，这些罪行据称是由与以下各方相关的被告所犯：\n\n1. Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）；\n2. G Clubs（G俱乐部）；\n3. Farm Loan Program（农场贷款项目）；\n4. GTV private placement（GTV私募）。\n\n对下签律师的委托人造成的真正损害似乎并非来自被告，而是来自美国政府，政府扣押了他们的资金，剥夺了他们的合法资产，甚至在刑事审判结束后仍拒绝返还。没有任何证据表明对其损失存在任何替代解释，这使得政府的行为成为损害的唯一原因，并凸显了直接或通过破产Trustee（破产受托人）向这些被害人返还资产的紧迫性，这些资产包括诸如Mahwah Conference Center（马鞍会议中心）和Bugatti（布加迪）跑车等显著资产。5\n\nVI. 在政府理应知晓每一处细节的情况下却充斥着“可能”、猜测和推测\n\n当政府必须准备好以极高的标准用合格的证据证明被告针对指定被害人所涉指控罪行的每一个方面时，绝不能有“我们不知道”或“我们稍后回复您”的借口。如果政府手中没有这些证据，那么它就根本没有准备好将基础刑事案件付诸审判。换言之，政府可以迅速退还下签律师的喜马拉雅交易所委托人的资金，\n\n5 ECF #130; http billion-dollar-fraud-conspiracy\n\n通过已经建立的安全认证程序进行。一旦实施了符合《CVRA》的架构和程序，所有资金——包括属于上述委托人所代表的被害人群体的资金——都可以得到高效返还。这种方法将为政府提供更大的确定性，同时确保对被害人的必要保护。\n\nV. 第11章破产受托人对委托人资金的巨大浪费与掠夺\n\n郭文贵在U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）提交了自愿第11章破产保护申请，案号为：22-50073。\n\n受托人已掠夺了惊人的$38 million，并且随着他处置资产并产生大量账单以与政府进行协调，计费表仍在无情运转。针对政府对喜马拉雅交易所缺乏管辖权——该交易所从未在美国运营，且禁止任何美国公民、美国居民或美国公民或居民的代理人参与——这一事实的唯一回应，是在给本案尊敬的法院的一封信中提出评论，称喜马拉雅交易所“可能”属于破产财产的一部分。也就是说，在经过两年的调查和数百万美元被当场烧毁之后，他不知道。为了弄清楚这一点，他还需要再粉碎委托人的几千万美元？如果他到现在都不知道，那么答案很简单：喜马拉雅交易所不属于破产财产的一部分。没有任何证据表明它是。\n\n第11章破产申请是由郭文贵个人提交的——并非由任何企业提交。\n\n因此，只有郭文贵的个人股份或存款才归属于第11章受托人管辖。正如先前的备案文书所阐述的，如果郭文贵在喜马拉雅交易所、G俱乐部、农场贷款项目或GTV（及/或任何其他实体）中有任何资金，第11章受托人也只能获取郭文贵存放的个人资金。因此，破产受托人本应明白上述资产均不属于第11章破产财产，而无需耗费数千万美元和两年的调查时间。\n\n根据我们的有限计算，在2024年5月至10月期间，受托人在与刑事案件相关的事务上花费了数百小时并开具了至少300k USD的账单，包括与DOJ（美国司法部）/检察官的电话沟通、刑事案卷、出席刑事审判以及没收相关文件和讨论。换言之，受托人比任何人都清楚冻结的资产不属于被告。尽管如此，受托人仍然非常卖力地试图掠夺更多的资产。\n\nVI. 即使假定政府关于被告的理论属实，也不应赋予被告同意政府掠夺资金计划的资格\n\n即使政府对被告的指控是准确的，允许被告同意扣押不属于他们的资金也是站不住脚的。根据政府自身的承认，这些资产是被害人的合法财产。允许被指控欺诈的个人授权此类行为会破坏司法公正并直接伤害被害人。政府与被告于2024年5月3日达成的“同意命令”（Consent Order，ECF Dkt. #329），进一步伤害了那些已经受害的人。该协议实际上使政府能够没收属于存款人的资金，包括：\n\n$4,643,744.70 FV Bank 属于 Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）；\n$14,599,257.25 FV Bank 账户属于 Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）；\n$11,538,579.87 Mercantile Bank 属于 G Club International, Ltd.（G俱乐部国际有限公司）；\n$11,538,579.87 Mercantile Bank 属于 Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）；\n$272,350,313.76 Mercantile Bank 属于 Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）；\n来自相关账户的总额达数百万的其他金额。\n\n这些为存款人信托持有的资金，在同意命令发布的两年前即已被扣押。该命令被封存且向被害人和公众隐瞒，其签署和执行并未通知代表对这些资产拥有主张权的5,242多名存款人的下签律师。这种缺乏透明度和协商的做法，公然侵犯了被害人在《Crime Victims' Rights Act》（CVRA，《犯罪被害人权利法案》）下的权利，包括其知情权、获得听证权以及获得公正对待的权利。\n\n政府的行为无视了案卷中明确确立律师代理数千名喜马拉雅存款人的备案记录。由于未能通知律师或允许其发表意见，政府剥夺了被害人对扣押提出异议或为其合法资产进行抗辩的能力。本法院不应纵容此类协议，因为即使根据\n\n政府自身的理论，该协议也会使那些被指控诈骗被害人的人得以协助进一步剥夺被害人的财产。\n\n该同意命令开创了一个危险的先例，将程序便利置于实质正义之上。被害人绝不能承受在没有其参与或同意的情况下所作决定的后果，尤其是当这些决定侵犯了受《CVRA》保护的基本权利时。本法院必须采取行动纠正这一不公，并确保被害人的权利得到尊重，其财产得到恢复。\n\nVII. 举证责任在政府\n\n根据《CVRA》，政府承担证明任何延迟或拒绝赔偿理由的举证责任。同样，政府需要在刑事审判中准备并整理好证据，以排除合理怀疑证明这些事项。\n\nVIII. 赔偿特定于有担保债权人\n\n同样，每个组织下的投资者和主张权利人有权获得从该特定组织取走的属于其自身的特定资金。政府和法院无权将所有资金混在一起，然后向所有人分发一点。债权人不能从他们从未与之开展过业务的不同组织中主张资金。\n\nIX. 结论与请求的救济\n\n政府的行为通过在没有明确理由的情况下不公正地扣押无辜被害人的合法资产，对其造成了重大损害。为确保正义并遵守《Crime Victims' Rights Act》（CVRA，《犯罪被害人权利法案》），本法院应立即采取措施，立即解除所有扣押，或者指示政府进行协作，以建立一个公平、安全和高效的\n\n程序，根据《CVRA》和其他适用法律向无辜被害人返还资金，并命令暂停破产受托人或任何其他方主张或使用这些资金的所有行为。正义要求采取迅速果断的行动，制止这种持续的损害，保护无辜被害人的权利，并确保其获得赔偿。任何不达此要求的做法都会使这些人已经遭受的深重不公持续存在。\n\n日期：2024年11月24日\n\n日期：2024年11月24日 谨此提交\n\n/签名/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n送达证书\n\n本人特此证明，于2024年11月24日，前述文件的真实准确副本已通过U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的ECF系统以电子方式归档并送达。\n\n/签名/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708","key_entities":["Himalaya","CVRA","Kwok","Himalaya Exchange","Crime Victim","CCP","Geyer","Je","GTV","G Clubs","Farm Loan","CIPA","Guo","Chinese Communist Party","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","MSS","853(i)","Rule 41(g)","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":130,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":481,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3241,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-11-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-11-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:33:56"}