{"id":"court_sdny_493_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":493,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-02-25","title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) w","summary_zh":"政府关于赔偿方式的函件——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案关联被告 Yanping Wang(王燕平),SDNY 1:23-cr-00118(S4 23 Cr. 118) ECF #493(2025年2月25日提交)。美国联邦检察官办公室(纽约南区)致法官Analisa Torres的函件,请求法院对王燕平一案改用司法部没收资产返还受害人的「减免(remission)」程序,以替代直接判定赔偿(restitution),理由是受害人数量庞大、逐一核算损失将极为繁琐,不利于及时补偿受害人。","summary_en":"Government letter regarding victim compensation method — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo) co-defendant Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 (S4 23 Cr. 118), ECF No. 493 (filed February 25, 2025). A letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to Judge Analisa Torres requesting that the court authorize victim compensation through the Department of Justice's forfeiture remission process rather than a formal restitution order, on the ground that the large number of victims would make individualized restitution calculations impracticable and would delay compensation.","body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nw\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278*\n\nFebruary 25, 2025\n\n**BY ECF** Honorable Analisa Torres\n\nUnited States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY\n\n# **Re:** *United States v. Yanping Wang***, S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nThe Government writes with respect to restitution in the above-captioned matter, and to respectfully request that the Court order victim compensation through remission as an alternative to restitution.\n\n### **I. Procedural History**\n\nOn March 15, 2023, Wang was arrested at her Manhattan apartment on Criminal Complaint 23 Mag. 2007 (GWG), charging her with conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) & 78ff, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 and 2. On March 29, 2023, Superseding Indictment S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) was filed, charging Miles Guo, Kin Ming Je, and Wang in various counts for their participation in the fraud and money laundering conduct described therein. (Dkt. 19.) On January 3, 2024, a second Superseding Indictment was filed, charging Wang, Guo and Je with, *inter alia*, engaging in a racketeering conspiracy named in that Indictment as the \"Kwok Enterprise\" (*i.e.*, the Guo Enterprise).\n\nOn May 3, 2024, Wang pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Superseding Information S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (the \"Superseding Information\"), which charged her in two counts with participating in a wire fraud conspiracy and a money laundering conspiracy, each in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count One of the Superseding Information, to which Wang pleaded, charged her with participating in a fraud scheme to raise money through entities including GTV Media Group, Inc., the Himalaya Farm Alliance, G CLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange from 2018 through May 2023. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Wang agreed to forfeit \\$1.4 billion dollars, which represents proceeds traceable to the offenses and involved in the money laundering conspiracy offense. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Wang further agreed not to challenge any restitution amount less than or equal to \\$1.4 billion.\n\nOn January 6, 2025, this Court sentenced Wang principally to 120 months in prison, ordered forfeiture in the amount of \\$1.4 billion (including Wang's interests in bank accounts and certain specific property), and deferred determination of restitution until April 7, 2025. (Dkt. 489; *see also* Dkt. 488.)\n\n### **II. Discussion**\n\nThe Government seeks to return assets that are finally forfeited to victims of the defendant's crimes in the most efficient manner possible. Because of the complexity of the case and the number of victims involved, awarding restitution to victims in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3663A would be extremely costly and administratively impractical. The cost and time associated with calculating each victim's loss, determining whether the victim has already been compensated through the Securities and Exchange Commission or otherwise, and then paying out a percentage of the victim's losses, would delay payment and diminish the amount of money actually paid to victims. Therefore, consistent with the Government's frequent approach in complex cases with numerous victims, the Government moves for entry of an order authorizing the United States to compensate victims with finally forfeited assets through a remission process, as restitution would be impracticable in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3).\n\nRestitution to persons \"directly and proximately harmed\" by fraud and money laundering is ordinarily mandatory. *See* 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). In such a case, the Court is authorized to determine a restitution amount and a schedule of victims and payments. However, an order of restitution is not required when \"the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable,\" or when imposing restitution would require \"determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses\" which \"would complicate or prolong the sentencing process.\" *Id.* § 3663A(c)(3). In situations where restitution is impracticable, the Government routinely seeks to return money to victims through the remission process, governed by 28 C.F.R. Part 9. When a court makes a finding that a restitution order is impracticable, the Department of Justice regularly uses a forfeiture remission process to compensate victims, and it would do so in this case. *See, e.g.*, *United States v. Madoff*, 09 Cr. 213 (DC), Dkt. 106 & *United States v. Bonventre*, 10 Cr. 228, Dkt. 318 (Madoff Ponzi scheme); *United States v. Sharma*, 18 Cr. 340, Dkt. 407 (multi-million dollar cryptocurrency scheme); *United States v. Dos Santos*, 20 Cr. 398, Dkt. 283 (multi-million dollar cryptocurrency scheme).\n\nThe forfeiture statutes authorize the Attorney General to \"grant petitions for mitigation or remission of forfeiture, restore forfeited property to victims of a violation of this subchapter, or take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this section.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1). The applicable regulations are set forth in 28 C.F.R. Part 9. In order to qualify for remission, a crime victim must provide information to support specific elements, including that the victim suffered a specific pecuniary loss directly caused by the criminal offense, that the victim did not contribute to the offense, that the victim has not been compensated for the loss from another means, and that the victim has no other recourse available. *See generally* 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b).\n\nIt is the policy of the Department of Justice, consistent with the Crime Victims' Rights Act, to ensure that crime victims receive \"full and timely restitution as provided in law.\" *See* 18 U.S.C.\n\n§ 3771(c)(1); *see also* Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2025, at 1-1 (noting a goal of the program is to \"[r]ecover assets that may be used to compensate victims\"), available at http Accordingly, when the Government seizes property in connection with a criminal case, the Government's goal is to forfeit the property and then, in a qualifying case, use remission proceedings administered by the Attorney General through his delegee, the Chief of the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division (\"MLARS\"), to distribute funds to victims. Frequently MLARS will distribute those assets through a remission program by which victims may petition for portions of forfeited property. *E.g., United States v. Sharma*, 18 Cr. 340 (LGS), 2022 WL 1910026, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022). In a multi-victim or complex case, the process of notifying potential victims, processing petitions, verifying losses, and recommending a distribution of available funds may be managed on behalf of the Department of Justice by an appointed contractor or trustee, as authorized by 28 C.F.R. § 9.9(c).\n\nVictims' interests will be best served in this case through remission of finally forfeited funds and by using the remission process. An alternative arrangement whereby restitution is calculated and distributed to victims by the Government and the Court would be nearly impossible administratively, and would come at great expense to victims' recovery. In order to enter an order of restitution, the Court would need to determine and corroborate each victim's losses. That would require determining and corroborating, for each of the thousands of victims, both the amount of funds the victim provided the Guo Enterprise, any partial refunds from the Guo Enterprise, the amount a victim was compensated through the SEC's disgorgement process, and potentially any funds returned to the victim through collateral means. That task is all the more challenging given the global nature of the defendant's fraud.\n\nInstead, a process whereby the Government distributes finally forfeited funds through a contracted claims administrator will more be efficient, and will not \"complicate or prolong the sentencing process\" at expense of the victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3).\n\n#### **III. Conclusion**\n\nAccordingly, the Government requests that the Court order victim compensation through remission as an alternative to restitution.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nMATTHEW PODOLSKY Acting United States Attorney\n\nby: /s/\n\nMicah F. Fergenson Ryan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana N. Murray Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\ncc: Counsel of Record (by ECF)","body_zh":"United States Attorney Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）\n\nThe Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278（纽约州纽约市联邦广场 26 号雅各布·K·贾维茨联邦大楼 37 层，邮编 10278）\n\n2025年2月25日\n\n通过 ECF 送达\nHonorable Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n500 Pearl Street New York, NY（纽约州纽约市珍珠街 500 号）\n\n关于：United States v. Yanping Wang（美国诉王雁平案），S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n政府谨就上述标题案件中的赔偿事宜致信，并恭请法院裁定通过减免程序向受害者进行补偿，以此作为赔偿的替代方案。\n\nI. 诉讼程序历程\n\n2023年3月15日，Wang（王雁平）根据刑事起诉书（Criminal Complaint）23 Mag. 2007 (GWG) 在其曼哈顿公寓被捕，该起诉书指控其犯有共谋实施电汇及证券欺诈罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 371；电汇欺诈罪，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 和 2；证券欺诈罪，违反 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) 与 78ff、17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 以及 18 U.S.C. § 2；以及洗钱罪，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 和 2。2023年3月29日，第一份替代起诉书（Superseding Indictment）S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) 提交归档，指控 Miles Guo（郭文贵）、Kin Ming Je（余建明）和王雁平因参与其中所述的欺诈和洗钱行为而犯有多项罪名。（Dkt. 19。）2024年1月3日，第二份替代起诉书提交归档，指控王雁平、郭文贵和余建明（除其他事项外）参与了该起诉书中称为“Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）”（即郭氏企业）的敲诈勒索共谋。\n\n2024年5月3日，王雁平根据认罪协议，对替代检察起诉书（Superseding Information）S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)（简称“《替代检察起诉书》”）认罪，《替代检察起诉书》以两项罪名指控其参与电汇欺诈共谋和洗钱共谋，各项均违反 18 U.S.C. § 371。王雁平认罪的《替代检察起诉书》第一项罪名指控其自 2018 年至 2023 年 5 月期间，参与了通过包括 GTV Media Group, Inc.、Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）、G CLUBS 和 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）在内的实体筹集资金的欺诈计划。根据认罪协议的条款，王雁平同意没收 $1.4 billion（14亿美元），该金额代表可追溯至犯罪行为并涉及洗钱共谋犯罪的收益。根据认罪协议，王雁平进一步同意不对任何小于或等于 $1.4 billion 的赔偿金额提出异议。\n\n2025年1月6日，本法院判处王雁平主要刑期为 120 个月监禁，下达了金额为 $1.4 billion 的没收令（包括王雁平在银行账户中的权益和某些特定财产），并将赔偿的裁决推迟至 2025年4月7日。（Dkt. 489；亦见 Dkt. 488。）\n\nII. 论述\n\n政府力求以最高效的方式将最终没收的资产返还给被告犯罪行为的受害者。由于案情复杂且涉及受害者众多，根据 18 U.S.C. § 3663A 向受害者判予赔偿将极其昂贵且在行政管理上不具可行性。计算每位受害者的损失、确定受害者是否已通过 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）或其他方式获得补偿，然后按比例支付受害者损失所需的成本和时间，将延误付款并减少实际支付给受害者的金额。因此，依照政府在涉及众多受害者的复杂案件中一贯采取的做法，政府提请法院签署一项命令，授权美国政府通过减免程序使用最终没收的资产向受害者进行补偿，因为在本案中进行赔偿是不具可行性的。18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)。\n\n向受到欺诈和洗钱“直接且近因损害”的人员进行赔偿通常是强制性的。见 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii)。在此类案件中，法院获权确定赔偿金额以及受害者和付款的时间表。然而，当“可确认的受害者人数庞大以致赔偿不具可行性”，或者当施加赔偿需要“确定与受害者损失的原因或金额相关的复杂事实问题”而该等问题“将使量刑程序复杂化或延长”时，则无需作出赔偿命令。同上，§ 3663A(c)(3)。在赔偿不具可行性的情况下，政府常规性地寻求通过受 28 C.F.R. Part 9 规制的减免程序向受害者返还款项。当法院认定赔偿命令不具可行性时，Department of Justice（美国司法部）经常使用没收减免程序来补偿受害者，在本案中亦将如此行事。例如参见 United States v. Madoff（美国诉麦道夫案），09 Cr. 213 (DC)，Dkt. 106 及 United States v. Bonventre（美国诉邦文特雷案），10 Cr. 228，Dkt. 318（麦道夫庞氏骗局）；United States v. Sharma（美国诉夏尔马案），18 Cr. 340，Dkt. 407（数百万美元加密货币骗局）；United States v. Dos Santos（美国诉多斯桑托斯案），20 Cr. 398，Dkt. 283（数百万美元加密货币骗局）。\n\n没收法规授权 Attorney General（司法部长）“批准减轻或减免没收的请求，将没收的财产归还给违反本分章行为的受害者，或采取任何其他符合司法利益且不与本条规定相悖的行动以保护无辜人员的权利。”21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1)。适用法规载于 28 C.F.R. Part 9。为了符合减免资格，犯罪受害者必须提供信息以支持特定要件，包括受害者遭受了由该犯罪行为直接造成的特定金钱损失、受害者未助长该犯罪行为、受害者尚未通过其他途径获得该损失的补偿，以及受害者没有其他可用的求偿手段。总体参见 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)。\n\n依照《Crime Victims' Rights Act（犯罪受害者权利法案）》，司法部的政策是确保犯罪受害者获得“法律规定的充分且及时的赔偿”。见 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1)；亦见《Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual 2025（2025年资产没收政策手册）》第 1-1 页（指出该项目的目标是“[追]索可用于补偿受害者的资产”），可查阅于相关网址。因此，当政府扣押与刑事案件相关的财产时，政府的目标是没收该财产，随后在符合条件的案件中，使用由司法部长通过其被授权人——司法部刑事司 Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section（洗钱和资产追回处，简称“MLARS”）处长——管理的减免程序，向受害者分发资金。MLARS 通常会通过减免项目分发这些资产，受害者可通过该项目申请分得部分没收财产。例如，United States v. Sharma，18 Cr. 340 (LGS), 2022 WL 1910026, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022)。在涉及多名受害者或复杂的案件中，经 28 C.F.R. § 9.9(c) 授权，通知潜在受害者、处理申请、核实损失并就可用资金的分发提出建议的流程，可由指定的主管承包商或受托人代表司法部进行管理。\n\n在本案中，通过对最终没收资金进行减免并使用减免程序，将最符合受害者的利益。由政府和法院计算并向受害者分发赔偿金的替代安排在行政上几乎是不可能的，并且会给受害者的受偿带来巨大成本。为了下达赔偿命令，法院需要确定并证实每位受害者的损失。这将需要对数千名受害者中的每一位确定并证实以下各项：受害者提供给郭氏企业的资金数额、来自郭氏企业的任何部分退款、受害者通过 SEC 的非法所得追缴程序获得的补偿数额，以及潜在通过附属手段返还给受害者的任何资金。鉴于被告欺诈行为的全球性特征，该任务变得更加艰巨。\n\n相反，由政府通过签约的理赔管理人分发最终没收资金的程序将更加高效，并且不会以牺牲受害者为代价而“使量刑程序复杂化或延长”。18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)。\n\nIII. 结论\n\n因此，政府请求法院裁定通过减免程序向受害者进行补偿，以此作为赔偿的替代方案。\n\n谨呈，\n\nMATTHEW PODOLSKY（马修·波多尔斯基）\nActing United States Attorney（代理美国联邦检察官）\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nMicah F. Fergenson（米卡·F·弗根森）\nRyan B. Finkel（莱恩·B·芬克尔）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\n抄送：在案记录律师（通过 ECF）","key_entities":["Guo","forfeiture","CIPA","Crime Victim","Je","Torres","Himalaya","Kwok","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","GTV","G Clubs","Himalaya Exchange","853(i)"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":19,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":106,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":283,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":318,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":407,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":489,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1377,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-02-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-02-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:26:26"}