{"id":"court_sdny_495_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":495,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":"2025-02-26","title":"| Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT                                                       | Document 495 | Filed 02/26/25","summary_zh":"政府信函/动议 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #495（2025年2月26日提交）。检方就同案被告王雁萍（Yanping Wang）已判处没收的资产致函 Torres 法官，以被害人数量众多、损失核定复杂为由，请求法院以司法部没收资产减免（remission）程序替代直接判处归还令进行赔偿分配；法院当日批准该请求。","summary_en":"Government letter/motion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 495 (filed February 26, 2025). The prosecution wrote to Judge Torres concerning compensation of victims from assets already ordered forfeited from co-defendant Yanping Wang, requesting that the Court authorize compensation through the DOJ's forfeiture remission process rather than direct restitution, citing the large number of victims and complexity of loss determinations; the Court granted the request the same day.","body_en":"|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------|----------|-------------|-----------|\n| <div><p>U.S. Departme</p><p>United States A</p><p>Southern Distri</p></div> |              | <div><p>DOCUMENT</p><p>ELECTRONICALLY FILED</p><table><tr><td>DOC #:</td><td>________</td></tr><tr><td>DATE FILED:</td><td>2/26/2025</td></tr></table></div> |                 | DOC #: | ________ | DATE FILED: | 2/26/2025 |\n| DOC #:                                                                      | ________     |                                                                                                                                                              |                 |        |          |             |           |\n| DATE FILED:                                                                 | 2/26/2025    |                                                                                                                                                              |                 |        |          |             |           |\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**\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres United 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)\n\nGRANTED.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: February 26, 2025 New York, New York\n\nOs","body_zh":"U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\nUnited States Attorney（联邦检察官办公室）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n文件\n已电子归档\n文件编号：________\n归档日期：2/26/2025\n\nThe Jacob K. Javits Federal Building\n26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\nNew York, New York 10278\n\n2025年2月25日\n\n通过 ECF 送达\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nUnited States District Judge（联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY\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政府特就上述案卷中的被害人赔偿事宜致信，并恭请法院裁定通过赦免程序对被害人进行补偿，以此作为赔偿的替代方案。\n\nI. 诉讼历史\n\n2023年3月15日，王在其曼哈顿公寓依据刑事起诉状 23 Mag. 2007 (GWG) 被捕，该起诉状指控其犯有合谋实施电汇与证券欺诈罪，违反 18 U.S.C. § 371；电汇欺诈罪，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 及 2；证券欺诈罪，违反 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) 与 78ff、17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 及 18 U.S.C. § 2；以及洗钱罪，违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957 及 2。2023年3月29日，检方提起了第一份替代起诉书 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)，在多项罪名项中指控 Miles Guo（郭文贵）、Kin Ming Je（余建明）及王参与了其中所述的欺诈和洗钱行为。（案卷号 19。）2024年1月3日，检方提起了第二份替代起诉书，指控王、郭和余等人从事了在该起诉书中被称为「Kwok Enterprise（郭氏犯罪集团）」（即 Guo Enterprise（郭氏企业集团））的勒索勒索与敲诈合谋等行为。\n\n2024年5月3日，王根据一份认罪协议，对替代正式起诉书 S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)（以下简称「替代正式起诉书」）进行了认罪答辩，该起诉书指控其犯有两项罪名，即参与电汇欺诈合谋与洗钱合谋，均违反 18 U.S.C. § 371。王所认罪的替代正式起诉书第一项罪名，指控其在2018年至2023年5月期间，参与了一项通过包括 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团）、Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）、G CLUBS 及 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）在内的实体进行集资的欺诈计划。根据认罪协议的条款，王同意被没收 $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合谋罪的收益。根据认罪协议，王进一步同意不对任何低于或等于 $1.4 billion 的赔偿金额提出异议。\n\n2025年1月6日，本法院对王主要判处了 120 个月的监禁，下达了金额为 $1.4 billion 的没收命令（包括王在银行账户中的权益和某些特定财产），并将赔偿金额的认定推迟至2025年4月7日。（案卷号 489；亦见案卷号 488。）\n\nII. 论证分析\n\n政府寻求以尽可能最高效的方式，将最终被没收的资产返还给被告人犯罪行为的被害人。鉴于案件的复杂性以及涉及的被害人人数众多，若依据 18 U.S.C. § 3663A 向被害人裁定赔偿，成本将极其高昂，且在行政管理上不可行。计算每位被害人的损失、确定被害人是否已通过 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）或其他途径获得补偿、进而按比例向被害人支付损失所需的时间和成本，将延迟支付并减少实际发放给被害人的金额。因此，依照政府在涉及众多被害人的复杂案件中经常采取的做法，鉴于本案中实施赔偿并不可行，政府提请法院签署一项命令，授权美国通过赦免程序，使用最终被没收的资产对被害人进行补偿。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。参见 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii)。在此类案件中，法院获授权确定赔偿金额以及被害人和支付的时间表。然而，当「可识别的被害人人数过多以至于赔偿在实际操作中不可行」，或下达赔偿将需要「确定与被害人损失的原因或金额相关的复杂事实问题」从而「使量刑程序复杂化或拖延量刑程序」时，则不需要下达赔偿命令。同上，§ 3663A(c)(3)。在赔偿不可行的情况下，政府通常寻求通过受 28 C.F.R. Part 9 规制的赦免程序向被害人返还款项。当法院认定赔偿命令不可行时，Department of Justice（美国司法部）经常使用没收财产赦免程序来补偿被害人，在本案中也将如此行事。参见，例如，United States v. Madoff（美国诉麦道夫案），09 Cr. 213 (DC)，案卷号 106 及 United States v. Bonventre（美国诉邦文特雷案），10 Cr. 228，案卷号 318（麦道夫庞氏骗局）；United States v. Sharma（美国诉夏尔马案），18 Cr. 340，案卷号 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，案卷号 283（数百万美元加密货币骗局）。\n\n财产没收法律授权 Attorney General（司法部长）「批准减免或赦免没收的申请，将没收财产返还给违反本分章行为的被害人，或采取符合司法利益且不与本条规定相悖的任何其他行动以保护无辜人员的权利。」21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1)。适用规章载于 28 C.F.R. Part 9。为了符合赦免资格，犯罪被害人必须提供支持特定要件的信息，包括被害人遭受了由犯罪行为直接造成的特定财产损失、被害人未对犯罪行为提供助力、被害人未通过其他方式获得该损失的补偿，以及被害人没有其他可用的求偿途径。一般参见 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b)。\n\n依照 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪被害人权利法》），司法部的政策是确保犯罪被害人获得「法律规定的全额且及时的赔偿」。参见 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（指出该项目的目标之一是「追回可用于补偿被害人的资产」），获取网址：http。据此，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」）主管管理的赦免程序，向被害人分配资金。MLARS 通常会通过一项赦免项目来分配这些资产，被害人可通过该项目申请分配部分被没收的财产。例如，United States v. Sharma（美国诉夏尔马案），18 Cr. 340 (LGS), 2022 WL 1910026，第 *2 页 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022)。在涉及多名被害人或复杂的案件中，通知潜在被害人、处理申请、核实损失并提出可用资金分配建议的程序，可由依据 28 C.F.R. § 9.9(c) 获授权任命的承包商或受托人代表司法部进行管理。\n\n在本案中，通过最终被没收资金的赦免并采用赦免程序，将最符合被害人的利益。若采取由政府和法院计算并向被害人分配赔偿的替代方案，在行政管理上将几乎不可能实现，并将给被害人的权益追回造成巨大的成本消耗。为了签署赔偿命令，法院需要确定并证实每位被害人的损失。这将需要针对数千名被害人中的每一位，确定并证实其提供给郭氏企业集团的资金数额、来自郭氏企业集团的任何部分退款、被害人通过 SEC 的追缴非法所得程序获得的补偿金额，以及可能通过附带途径返还给被害人的任何资金。鉴于被告人欺诈行为的全球性，这项任务尤为艰巨。\n\n相反，由政府通过合同聘请的理赔管理机构来分配最终被没收资金的程序将更加高效，并且不会以损害被害人利益为代价而「使量刑程序复杂化或拖延量刑程序」。18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)。\n\nIII. 结论\n\n据此，政府请求法院裁定通过赦免程序对被害人进行补偿，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）\n代理联邦检察官\n\n签署人：/s/\n\nMicah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·费根森）\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\n助理联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\n抄送：在册代理律师（通过 ECF）\n\n准予所请。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：2025年2月26日\n纽约州纽约市","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":1428,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-02-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-02-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:15"}