{"id":"court_sdny_506_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":506,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-03-21","title":"Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY","summary_zh":"撤销没收令的信件动议(附拟议裁定)——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵)案,SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #506(2025年3月21日提交)。代理喜马拉雅交易所(HEX)大批客户的律师提交信件动议,请求法院无损撤销2025年1月7日作出的初步没收令、中止附属申请(ancillary petition)截止期限,并要求政府在被告郭文贵量刑后方可重新发出没收通知、暂缓处理已提交的853(n)申请;文件附有拟议法院令(Proposed Order)及多封HEX客户请求撤回其HID或澄清其并非郭文贵受害人的信件。","summary_en":"Letter motion to vacate forfeiture order (with proposed order) — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 506 (filed March 21, 2025). Counsel for a large group of Himalaya Exchange (HEX) customers filed a letter motion asking the court to vacate without prejudice the January 7, 2025 preliminary order of forfeiture, toll the ancillary petition deadline, and direct the government to withhold reissuing forfeiture notices and hold pending § 853(n) petitions in abeyance until after defendant Guo's sentencing; the filing includes a proposed order and several HEX customer letters requesting withdrawal of their HID numbers or clarifying they do not consider themselves victims of Guo.","body_en":"Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY\n\nMarch 21, 2025\n\nYour Honor,\n\nWe respectfully submit this letter motion on behalf of over approximately 5,242 individual members of the Himalaya Exchange (HEX), who the government itself concedes are innocent victims of the Government seizures (they do not accept they are victims of the offences and or any of the defendants, which is clear from my numerous previous filings).1\n\nWe request that the Honorable Court to:\n\nVACATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture entered on January 7, 2025;\n\nTOLL AND STRIKE the ancillary petition deadline currently set for April 7, 2025;\n\n1 These 5,242 members of the Himalaya Exchange (HEX) (the only business conducted by Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd., Himalaya International Reserve Ltd ]holding HDO reserve that was the subject to the seizure], part of the Exchange group companies. of and in the British Virgin Islands), were authenticated on January 4, 2024 (ECF 212). At that time, HEX confirmed that for 5,242 clients on January 4, 2024, there was a total of \\$13,739,075.51 in HCN, \\$45,222,849.46 in HDO, based on \\$207,067,553.60 in reserves. It will take 2-4 weeks to compile an updated client list with updated clients and losses. Since that time we have had clients terminate the attorney client relationship, while others created one. This is all contained in a secure email account where incoming emails are received from HimalayaRestoration.Com and only identified by a 7 digit Himalaya Identification Number (HID#). This deters hacking and this key can then be used to unlock KYC, identity information, account information and banking information stored and encrypted by HEX. This account has received thousands of emails joining, a few dropping, and in some cases, dropping and rejoining, most times in good faith, but also including separate communications by suspected plants, bad actors and chaos agents.\n\nDIRECT the government to reissue any forfeiture-related notices only after the sentencing of Defendant Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo);\n\nQUARANTINE any petitions already submitted under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) until a valid forfeiture judgment can be issued after Defendant Guo's sentencing.\n\n#### Inadequate Notice\n\nThe claims-filing deadlines triggered by the government's Final Notice of Forfeiture, premised solely upon the purported consent of Defendant Yanping Wang—who expressly disclaims any ownership or legitimate nexus to the HEX assets—cannot legally bind other interested third parties. While forfeiture interests in well counseled, compliance driven crypto exchanges are relatively new subject matter for courts, it is well-established law that forfeiture actions cannot rest upon the consent of a party lacking a forfeitable interest. See United States v. Ribadeneyra, 105 F.3d 833, 835 (2d Cir. 1997) (\"A court cannot order the forfeiture of property unless the defendant has an interest in it.\"); United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2003) (\"Forfeiture is not an independent punishment; it must be tied to the defendant's own interest in the tainted property.\"). Deadlines for filing forfeiture claims are therefore binding only if grounded upon valid forfeiture proceedings initiated by individuals with demonstrable, legitimate ownership or authority.\n\nIn United States v. Morrison, 656 F. Supp. 2d 338, 344-45 (E.D.N.Y. 2009), the court emphasized that forfeitures under RICO require a clear nexus between the seized property and the underlying racketeering activity. Similarly, United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278-79 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), clarified that valid consent-based forfeitures must originate from individuals who possess genuine control or ownership interests in the targeted assets. Defendant Wang's consent, lacking any requisite ownership or lawful authority, fundamentally invalidates the government's basis for initiating claims-filing deadlines.\n\nFurther, enforcing deadlines premised upon invalid consent infringes upon fundamental due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, mandating meaningful notice and a genuine opportunity to contest governmental actions against one's property. See Mullane v.\n\nCentral Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950) (requiring notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties and provide them an opportunity to respond). A forfeiture notice that is procedurally defective—here, because it rests entirely upon the purported authority of a party without lawful standing for the government to use her in the way they have—cannot impose legally binding deadlines upon legitimate third-party claimants.\n\nAccordingly, because Defendant Wang's consent—when looked at alone--could not legally trigger valid forfeiture proceedings under either statutory authority or constitutional standards, the resulting claims-filing deadlines lack legal force. Therefore, these deadlines must be deemed unenforceable as against legitimate third-party claimants or co-defendants who received notice solely through procedurally defective and insufficient means.\n\nAdditionally, the government appears to have made no effort to provide notice beyond posting on a website. Although this method might meet minimum statutory notice requirements, the context and unique circumstances of this case call for heightened scrutiny. The government's aggressive approach—posting notice prematurely, simultaneously pushing for the expedited sentencing of Defendant Guo as a necessary prerequisite, when it long ago seized all HEX bank account records reflecting funds from thousands of individuals unrelated to the criminal prosecution—raises concerns regarding the validity and sufficiency of the original forfeiture notice. Furthermore, given the numerous filings by undersigned counsel highlighting humanitarian concerns and unique challenges presented by this matter, and Defendant Wang's lack of any discernible interest in HEX funds after a full criminal trial, it becomes clear that reliance on the prior notice is questionable. The better course of action, in light of these factors, would be for the government to undertake a proper notification process or a procedural \"do-over\" following Defendant Guo's sentencing.\n\n#### Contextual Inaccuracies\n\nWe also respectfully submit this response to the government's letter dated March 18, 2025, addressing several critical omissions and failure to provide context that significantly impact this matter (ECF 503).\n\nFirst, the government's letter states it has \"been contacted by counsel purporting to represent a group comprised of thousands of victims,\" yet inexplicably fails to disclose that this counsel is the undersigned, Bradford L. Geyer, who has consistently represented these victims through numerous filings on record in this Court. The government has consistently referred to HEX, cryptocurrency, victims, customers and asserted legal representation as \"purported\" implying doubt about their authenticity. They are all real.\n\nSecond, the government omits critical context from its arguments. Upon becoming aware of the government's preliminary forfeiture order, we promptly engaged with government representatives to propose an efficient, secure, and humanitarian approach for repatriating the seized funds. Our proposal leveraged independently verified source information securely housed within HEX's encrypted system, designed specifically to resist cyberattacks by hostile state actors. This proposed method would protect victim identities from potential exploitation or retaliation, substantially reduce resource expenditures, and expedite restitution to victims.\n\nAlarmingly, the government misrepresented these good-faith discussions to the Court, suggesting incorrectly that customers sought to accelerate Defendant Guo's sentencing. In truth, our dialogue focused exclusively on the practical challenges of filing thousands of affidavits and the possibility of an aggregated filing within a tight timeframe and the legitimate concerns regarding the public exposure of victims' identities before protective measures could be established by the Court.\n\nUndersigned Counsel emphasizes unequivocally that there was never any attempt or intent to influence the timing of Defendant Guo's sentencing for financial recovery. These discussions were driven solely by statutory filing deadlines and the imperative need to safeguard victims. The government's contradictory positions—first proceeding under Wang and subsequently pushing forward Guo's sentencing—are inherently inconsistent and further substantiate the merits of this motion. Despite these on-going negotiations and proffering a path forward (Attachment A, p.5-6), the government moved precipitously the very next day (ECF 493) to initiate remission proceedings—vetoing almost all the points that we were discussing.\n\nThird, the government's actions have raised substantial concerns regarding its commitment to victims, prompting our formal request for escalation to Main Justice made more timely from a discerned shift in policy regarding cryptocurrency exchanges. 2 The current administration's policy reportedly no longer classifies cryptocurrency transactions as inherently suspect, nor seeks the dismantlement of exchanges without clear evidence of illegality. We detailed these significant policy considerations in prior correspondence to the SDNY on March 13, 2025, urging reconsideration of the preliminary forfeiture and highlighting the potential for devastating harm to thousands of innocent victims who face unrealistic deadlines, language barriers, and threats to their personal safety and security. (Attachment B)\n\nThe government's insistence on initiating these proceedings prior to Miles Guo's sentencing, effectively constitutes an unlawful confiscation of victims' funds, depriving them of due process. By imposing unforgiving deadlines now instead of waiting until after sentencing, the government has denied victims all the procedural protections that would typically accompany properly timed forfeiture proceedings. This approach forces those few victims fortunate enough to have seen the government's notice—which was available for only a brief 30-day period—into an untenable position: either compromise their personal safety by publicly disclosing sensitive identifying information or abandon their rightful claims entirely.\n\nThe combined impact of an extremely brief claims submission period, significant language barriers, the inability of many HEX customers located in China to access the government's forfeiture notice, the abrupt and unannounced seizure of the HEX website (the primary means for victims to access their account information and for HEX customers to be contacted), and the stringent requirement for victims to substantiate specific financial losses \"directly caused by the criminal offense\" (ECF 493, p.2)—despite their belief that their losses were caused by U.S. government actions rather than by any defendant—means many victims will likely forego the process rather than submit false statements or endanger themselves and their families.\n\n2http\n\nGiven these circumstances, it is reasonable to question whether the government, aware of the absence of a legitimate legal basis for these actions, is attempting to prematurely enforce the remission process in order to produce claims that might prejudice Miles Guo's sentencing while suppressing of claimants who successfully reclaim their funds. Forfeiture should not be used to bolster the case against Guo. The government is attempting to construct a situation where there are practical difficulties in noticing the defendants, having shut down the HEX website, and obtaining, collating and filing of the affidavits, due to the factors outlined herein leaving victims with the remission only method to which they don't agree. Indeed, we have documented multiple instances where clients have withdrawn from this process precisely because they do not view themselves as victims of the defendants. 3\n\nUndersigned counsel can't send up any more emergency flares than he already has: terrible consequences will ensue from this government action. Innocent people will walk away from their money because the US government is terrifying them, many will be targeted, many will feel coerced into making submissions that are not properly protected, many will live in fear that their families will be persecuted or worse.\n\nThrough this process, it has become clear that minimal credible evidence exists linking Miles Guo to HEX operations. Despite the government's prior acknowledgment in ECF Nos. 500 and 502 that forfeiture proceedings could not commence until after Mr. Guo's sentencing, the government prematurely initiated the forfeiture process affecting as many as 10,000 HEX customers. It appears they acted hastily, failing to provide proper notice to undersigned counsel—or indeed, to any relevant party—as evidenced by their filing of Defendant Wang's forfeiture consent on the docket. This unilateral action imposed restrictive deadlines through preliminary forfeiture notices, thereby pressuring customers into submitting remission certifications—many of which are likely inaccurate or unfounded—to bolster the government's\n\n3 The government's reference to undersigned counsel, along with its false implication that we seek to expedite Mr. Guo's sentencing in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights (Attachment C), has caused significant panic and confusion among HEX customers. Following the government's filing on March 18th, undersigned counsel received numerous termination emails. Attached is a sample of the correspondence we have received since the government filing (Attachment D).\n\nsentencing position against Mr. Guo, despite the ongoing lack of substantive connection between Mr. Guo and HEX.\n\nMoreover, Defendant Wang lacks legitimate authority or ownership rights over HEX assets. Her purported consent, therefore, does not and cannot legally justify the government's seizure of these funds. Simply put, an individual cannot lawfully authorize the seizure of property to which she holds no valid claim or ownership interest.\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Court vacate the initial final forfeiture without prejudice and temporarily hold any coerced claims in abeyance until after Defendant Gou's sentencing. Additionally, if jurisdictional challenges or ancillary proceedings fail to invalidate the government's forfeiture or otherwise preserve HEX assets for judicially supervised distribution, we urge the Court to adopt the secure and efficient repatriation method currently under negotiation, which we will soon detail in forthcoming filings. This approach ensures full compliance with the government's obligations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, provides timely restitution to victims with dramatic judicial and government economies, and prevents further irreparable harm.\n\nFor the Court's consideration we have submitted a draft order (Attachment E)\n\n.\n\nVery Kind Regards,\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nBradford L. Geyer (856) 607-5708 NJ 022751991 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com FormerFedsGroup.Com, LLC 141 \"I\" Rt. 130 South, 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077\n\n# EXHIBIT A\n\n# RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submission of Sample File and Supporting Documents for HEX Claims Process\n\nFinkel, Ryan (USANYS) FR\n\nSun, 09 Mar 2025 8:37:43 PM -0400 •\n\nTo \"Brad Geyer\" \n\nCc \"Murray, Juliana 1 (USANYS)\" , \"Fergenson, Micah (USANYS)\" , \"Horton, Justin (USANYS)\" \n\nBrad – The Government is going to hire a claims administrator to assist in the management of the remission process We believe this will be the most efficient way to return money to victims of the defendants' fraud. After checking with MLARS, we can't yet agree to any of your requests until the claims administrator is put in place. That said, we hope to work with you at that time and agree that there we can derive efficiencies through collaborative efforts.\n\nHappy to further discuss.\n\nRyan\n\nFrom: Brad Geyer Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2025 4:40 PM To: Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) Cc: Murray, Juliana (USANYS) 1 ; Fergenson, Micah (USANYS) ; Horton, Justin (USANYS) Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submission of Sample File and Supporting Documents for HEX Claims Process\n\nHey all:\n\nSorry for the delay. Lots of client relations stuff. I also worked very hard to frame this so as to not garner your objection. If I filed something like this that would permit me to begin the arduous process of pulling things together, would it draw an objection and, if so, on what part? I think I made it flexible for all eventualities.\n\nVery Kind Regards, Brad\n\n# Bradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n\n\nMobile: (856)\\_607-5708 Email: Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nUSA: 141 | Route 130 South, Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n\"Surround Yourself With FormerFeds Who Share Your Mission (TM)\"\n\nIMPORTANT: FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) now provides under the supervision of Bradford L. Geyer who is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.\n\n--- On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 15:43:23 -0500 Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) wrote ---\n\nBrad –the Government is very likely to hire a claims administrator to manage the remission process. The questions about data sensitivity, and using HEX data will need to be addressed once that administrator is hired. I can say that we believe all victims should be protected and will work toward ensuring that is the case -including by keeping their identities appropriately protected.\n\nThanks,\n\nRyan\n\nFrom: Brad Geyer Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 9:27 AM To: Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) Cc: Murray, Juliana (USANYS) 1 ; Fergenson, Micah (USANYS) ; Horton, Justin (USANYS) Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submission of Sample File and Supporting Documents for HEX Claims Process\n\nTeam Government:\n\nI know there are a bunch of distractions right now that makes this all even harder, but I wanted to qive you a quick update. I am still working through challenges on my side that sort of moots the last draft and I am developing a new draft/process that incorporates tracks available to the Court.\n\nDo you have any insight about the substance of Monday's hearing? Is it in person or does she do virtual?\n\nI will pull together a new draft that covers the most likely remission scenario by the weekend (I hope). Any proposed change requires me to brief and educate my clients and it is a taxing process.\n\nVKR/ Brad\n\n## Bradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\nMobile: (856) 607-5708 Email: Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nUSA: 141 | Route 130 South, Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n\"Surround Yourself With FormerFeds Who Share Your Mission (TM)\"\n\nIMPORTANT: FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) now provides law firm services under the supervision of Bradford L. Geyer who is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.\n\n--- On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:07:24 -0500 Brad Geyer wrote -\n\nHey Team Government:\n\nOK, it took me longer than I had hoped. Not easy getting these folks to trust any process.\n\nLet me know what I need to cut or alter, so that I can file this without triggering an objection. I can scale it down as necessary. The only key deliverable I really need is a consolidated filing. To comport with timelines and get this distilled down to ~5 day clearance process for you, I need to get started ASAP, Some of my clients express deep seated concerns with engaging in the process primarily because they are terrified of an inadvertent disclosure or hacking that will result in retaliation of family members in China. Most of my ethnically Chinese clients share this concern. For these and other reasons, I think this is clearly a way forward that is in the interests of justice\n\nPlease let me know what the government position is.\n\nVery Kind Regards, Brad\n\nBradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\nA line drawing depicting a horizontal beam supported by two vertical lines extending upwards at the ends, with five equally spaced, open-bottomed rectangular compartments hanging below the beam.\n\nMobile: (856) 607-5708 Email: Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nUSA:\n\n141 | Route 130 South, Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n\"Surround Yourself With FormerFeds Who Share Your Mission (TM)\"\n\nIMPORTANT: FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) now provides law firm services under the supervision of Bradford L. Geyer who is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.\n\n---- On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 13:37:26 -0500 Brad Geyer wrote ---\n\nTo give an idea of the scope of the challenge. In today's call, we were discussing the terrible situation that low information customers are in (combined with poor language skills) who are really hard to reach. Some are in jurisdictions where they can't receive emails from certain domains or access certain websites. Some are family members who opened accounts and then minimized their footprint, not from US authorities of course, but from CCP. That's a significant project for these people to be reached, many by word of mouth. If I have the consolidated filing course forward approved it makes everything else possible.\n\n## Bradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n\n\nMobile: (856)\\_607-5708 Email: Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nUSA: 141 | Route 130 South. Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n\"Surround Yourself With FormerFeds Who Share Your Mission (TM)\"\n\nVKR/Brad\n\nIMPORTANT: FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) now provides law firm services under the supervision of Bradford L. Geyer who is a member of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bars. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.\n\n---- On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 13:28:59 -0500 Brad Geyer wrote ---\n\n> The challenge is the timelines. I have to start this week. Can we ask for expediting the request or elevating the request? I think anyone reviewing it would have to agree its sensible. I can't imagine the court would object. I understand the disagreement on the other issues, but if I just get this one piece approved, I can get these people on track to align them with your timelines. VKR/Brad\n\n## Bradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n|
- | 1 1
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ | |\n|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n\nMobile: (856)\\_607-5708 Email: Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nUSA: 141 | Route 130 South. Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n\"Surround Yourself With FormerFeds Who Share Your Mission (TM)\"\n\nThe contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.\n\n---- On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 13:16:34 -0500 Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) wrote ---\n\nBrad - thanks for the email. We will review what you sent. As mentioned, because there is not a procedure in place yet for requesting restitution/remission, and because we are awaiting feedback from other DOJ components concerning your request(s), we can't yet take a position on the consolidating filing at this time. As we discussed on Friday, we should have more information on that soon. You may wish to wait to file a motion until you hear from us.\n\nThank you.\n\nFrom: Brad Geyer Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 9:08 AM To: Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) Cc: Murray, Juliana (USANYS) 1 ; Fergenson, Micah (USANYS) ; Horton, Justin (USANYS) Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Submission of Sample File and Supporting Documents for HEX Claims Process\n\nDear Team Government,\n\nFollowing our recent discussions and your request to review a sample file, I am pleased to provide the enclosed documents in the filed attachment. These materials are intended to demonstrate the structure, reliability, and comprehensiveness of the data we plan to unlock for the government's clearance process to be arranged with HEX. We documented this in prior filings (that I can't believe anyone had time to review carefully).\n\nBelow is a summary of the contents of the linked attached document:\n\n- 1. Exhibit 207-1: Contains client identity verification records, detailing the customer's full name, date of birth, address, and government-issued identification. This establishes the direct relationship between the customer and the account in question.\n- 2. Exhibit 207-2: Provides a comprehensive account history, highlighting all transactions related to the client's Himalaya account, including deposits, withdrawals, and transfers.\n- 3. Exhibit 207-3: Offers detailed records of funds moving between the customer's personal bank account and the Himalaya account, demonstrating transaction consistency and legitimacy.\n- 4. Exhibit 208-2 through Exhibit 208-7: These exhibits collectively cover audit reports, expert accounting summaries, and compliance assessments. Of particular importance are the identity verification documents and detailed transaction logs that\n\n#### Filing Plan and Timeline\n\nAs I mentioned during our phone calls, my objective is to file a motion tomorrow, that hopefully the government will not object to, that authorizes me to make a consolidated filing for somewhere between 5, 000 and 8,000 clients. Refining and deconflicting my client list will require additional time-approximately 2 to 4 weeks- in the consolidated filing setting where I make the filing on their behalfs. Just for this simplified process, we need to review between 12,000 and 15,000 emails to ensure accuracy and eliminate duplications.\n\n#### Key Points to Consider:\n\n#### 1. Efficiency for the Court and Government:\n\nA consolidated claims filing by me, on behalf of account holders, will satisfy the court's requirements while reducing your workload and that of the court by an estimated 90%. I can present the information in a more meaningful and comprehensive manner than thousands of independent submissions. As you can see, this includes multiple point, robust customer identification protocols that includes facial matching.\n\n#### 2. Compliance & Reliability:\n\nThe matching of compliance files via the HID number offers greater reliability than what clients could ever provide themselves. The HEX information is the definitive original source/account information and the compliance data provided by the exchange in recording and storage procedures that are robust, trustworthy and protected y military grade encryption, that provides a perfect record of all that occurred.\n\n#### 3. HEX Data Review:\n\nI believe reviewing the sample file will remind you of the reliability of this information. I am confident that with the provided documentation and auditor-backed data, you will find the claims process to be most accurate and reliable and efficient to get the government what it needs to authenticate claims.\n\nLater in the process, I look forward to working collaboratively to develop a process that addresses your concerns while serving the best interests of all parties involved.\n\nI will try to get a simple, short motion that nails down key points while highlighting for the court that important aspects of the way forward still needs to be worked out by the parties. This will allow me to begin the deconfliction process so we can stay on the Court's timelines.\n\nSincerely, Brad Geyer\n\n# EXHIBIT B\n\n\n\nRyan B. Finkel Justin Horton Juliana Newcomb Murray Micah Festa Fergenson US Department of Justice Crim Division, SDNY 1 St. Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007\n\nMarch 13, 2025\n\nMessrs. Finkel, Horton, Murray and Fergenson,\n\nIn accordance with required consultations and legal rights, I seek clarification on the following matters. This correspondence may be used as part of the record in subsequent pleadings. Additionally, because of dire urgency, I formally request that this matter be escalated to the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and/or the Office of the Attorney General.\n\nOn January 7, 2025, in ECF 489, the Court entered a judgment of criminal conviction solely against Ms. Wang. From our review, there appears to be no judgment against Kwok or Je. Additionally, no sentence has been entered against Kwok, meaning that no statutory clock has begun regarding the return of my clients' funds.\n\nPlease confirm whether the government shares this interpretation of the case status.\n\nIt is also important to note that Ms. Wang repeatedly disclaimed any interest in the funds belonging to 80 different organizations, including those beyond HEX. Based on available information, Wang never had any ownership interest in HEX. While it is possible she received exaggerated promises from third parties, this does not constitute a legal claim to the assets. The fact that she relinquished rights in ECF 488 is irrelevant if she had no ownership rights to HEX in the first place.\n\nMoreover, Wang's forfeiture was made with consent. However, my clients never consented to forfeiture, nor did HEX. Given that other parties, including my clients and potentially additional stakeholders, have a vested interest, it would have been appropriate for you to confer with me or provide notice regarding your preliminary forfeiture order.\n\nConsequently, as far as we can determine, there has been no valid forfeiture by Wang, as there was nothing for her to forfeit. We were never notified of your intention to include HEX in the preliminary forfeiture order and only learned of it after it was posted when a client brought it to my attention. There has been no legally valid forfeiture with respect to the Himalaya Exchange.\n\nRegarding evidentiary matters, we maintain that the only legally competent and relevant witness in this case was the defense expert, Maggie Sklar, who testified on July 2, 2024. Sklar was the only expert qualified in this case. Some prosecution witnesses, despite objections, provided purported expert opinions without being properly qualified. While Sklar and Paul Hinton discussed the complexities of the cryptocurrency sector, their testimony did not establish wrongdoing. Innovation, a hallmark of American enterprise, should not be conflated with illegality.\n\nAdditionally, the assertion that cryptocurrency exchange characteristics are inherently fraudulent is unsustainable. Novelty and unfamiliarity do not equate to criminality. Given recent shifts in policy during the Presidential transition. it appears that cryptocurrency regulations are undergoing significant transformation, which may directly impact this case.\n\nDespite this, without notice to me or my clients, a preliminary forfeiture order was issued and posted. Given the circumstances, this order may be invalid and may not have provided effective notice. I formally request that the forfeiture order be withdrawn until these legal issues are resolved. As a practical matter, the remission process cannot even commence until Guo has been sentenced.\n\nFurthermore, there are as many as 10,000 members of the exchange facing significant language and communication barriers. Some reside in jurisdictions such as China, where accessing the official notice is impossible. Additionally, security concerns force these individuals to reveal their identities before a process has been established to address their safety concerns. We explained this in multiple filings (ECF 186, 198, 207-209, 211, 212, 229 and 250) and I have made numerous attempts to work out a plan since learning of your filing. You must know that not addressing these issues until after the mandatory claims submission date is tantamount to confiscation.\n\nDespite my efforts to collaborate with the government to develop a procedure that prevents a humanitarian crisis-where investors must choose between claiming their funds or jeopardizing their personal safety-it is evident that the government remains committed to proceeding within the statutory timeframe without adjustments. Along with extensive filings is an audited, well understood compliance system that provides the government with a way forward to access audited compliance files tracking all aspects of the entire financial and K YC record of each HEX customer detailing all bank transactions and account activity. (http).\n\nCompounding this issue, the government's shutdown of HEX, under a policy that may no longer be in effect, has made it impossible for claimants to access or download the necessary information to support their ancillary or remission claims.\n\nIn summary, the process being enforced by SDNY effectively results in the confiscation of funds and the dismantling of the exchange. It imposes unrealistic deadlines, requires customers to put themselves and their families at risk, and demands submission of information that is no longer accessible due to government shutdown of HEX. This is also the platform that HEX would use to notify the victims. This outcome is troubling under any circumstances, but it is particularly egregious when evolving policy appears to no longer classify cryptocurrency transactions as inherently suspect and criminal and policy goals seem to have shifted away from the ends of shutting down of crypto exchanges justifies the means. This may no longer be government policy. For these reasons, I request that this matter be elevated as requested to determine whether the filing of the preliminary forfeiture prior to the sentencing of Miles Kwok might be reconsidered.\n\nVery Kind Regards,\n\nIllegible signature.\n\nBradford L. Geyer (856) 607-5708 Brad(@)FormerFedsGroup.Com FormerFedsGroup.Com, LLC 141 \"I\" Rt. 130 South, 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077\n\n# EXHIBIT C\n\n\n\nw\n\nUnited States Attorney Southern District of New York\n\nThe Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278\n\nMarch 18, 2025\n\nBY 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. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 188 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nOn December 20, 2024, the Court adjourned sentencing in this matter sine die, following the defense's filing of an ex parte letter and an ex parte conference that day relating to the defense's pending request for substitution of counsel. The parties have since submitted multiple letters to the Court by email, and following the Court's March 3, 2025, proceeding, the Government has filed its letters publicly on the docket. (Dkts. 500-502.)\n\nThe Government respectfully writes to request that the Court: (i) authorize defense counsel to publicly file their ex parte materials regarding the defendant's motion for substitution of counsel as specified below; (ii) unseal the ex parte transcripts from the December 20, 2024 and March 3, 2025 conferences, to the extent appropriate; and (iii) if necessary, appoint new counsel to the defendant so that a sentencing date can be promptly scheduled. The defendant was convicted in July 2024 following an eight-week jury trial. Promptly proceeding to sentencing is necessary to serve the interests of justice and specifically to vindicate the rights of victims.\n\n# 1. The Court Should Order Defense Counsel to Make Certain Filings Public\n\nOn March 3, 2025, the Court directed the parties to advise as to whether ex parte and sealed materials relating to the defendant's substitution of counsel motion may be publicly filed. On March 10, 2025, defense counsel filed a letter stating that the defendant has no objection to the public filing of his \"(i) CJA financial affidavit; (ii) two documents filed by Mr. Kwok in connection with his bankruptcy which describe the debt he owes others; (iii) letters from defense counsel dated December 10, 2024 and January 28, 2025.\" (Dkt. 499.) Based on discussions between the parties, the Government understands that defense counsel is awaiting Court authorization to publicly file these documents. Accordingly, the Government, without defense objection, requests that the Court order the defense to publicly file those ex parte and sealed materials relating to the defendant's substitution of counsel motions, which were identified in the defendant's March 10, 2025 letter.\n\n#### 2. Non-Privileged Sections of the December 20, 2024, and March 3, 2025 Transcripts Should be Made Public\n\nFollowing the defense's December 10, 2024 letter to the Court, the Court held two conferences on December 20, 2024 and March 3, 2025—portions of which were ex parte and remain sealed. Only the portions of those ex parte conferences that are subject to a valid privilege should remain sealed.\n\nIn the context of substitution of counsel proceedings, the right to public access predominates, and generally, \"[a]ll motions to withdraw should be served upon the client and (unless excused by the court) upon all other parties.\" S.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 1.4(b) (applicable in criminal cases pursuant to S.D.N.Y. Local Crim. R. 1.1(b)). A court may \"permit[] the reasons for withdrawal to be stated in camera and under seal,\" but only in \"an appropriate case.\" Id. Pre-2024 Cmte. Note. Public access \"ensure[s] that 'the public may see [a defendant] is fairly dealt with and not unjustly' denied an important substantive right. United States v. Avenatti, 550 F. Supp. 3d 36, 47 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (quoting Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984))). To be sure, the Second Circuit has recognized various privileges as reason to restrict access to otherwise public materials. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 1995). Thus, any statements in the sealed transcripts reflecting attorney-client communications or work product may remain sealed absent a showing otherwise. However, those protections apply to only a narrow set of information. \"The attorney-client privilege protects communications (1) between a client and his or her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.\" United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011). Attorney workproduct protects only \"materials containing mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative that were prepared in anticipation of litigation.\" United States v. Petit, 438 F. Supp. 3d 212, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the Court should review the sealed transcripts and limit any continued sealing solely to those portions that may be \"necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship.\" Team Obsolete Ltd. V. A.H.R.M.A. Ltd, 464 F.Supp.2d 164, 165 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, No. 10 Cv. 569 (RJA) (LGF), 2013 WL 12234139, at \\*4-5 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2013) (recognizing that \"disclosure [of withdrawal motion] would be useful to [the opposing party] primarily to oppose withdrawal,\" but finding that disclosure request \"to be moot\" after ruling the \"motion should be denied\").\n\nAlthough the Government was not party to the ex parte portions of the December 20, 2024 and March 3, 2025 conferences, scrutiny is appropriate to determine what information from those conferences should remain shielded from the Government and the public. The Government is not, at this time, asserting that any privileged attorney-client communications or attorney work-product information that the Court required to be shared during the ex parte portions of those proceedings should be subject to public view. However, given that the defendant has made known to third parties (including the Government) his desire to substitute his attorneys due to \"conflict . . . . lack of trust in his current counsel based on issues at trial and the resulting breakdown of communication between counsel and Mr. Guo,\"1 it is plausible that much of what was discussed during the ex parte portions of those conferences is not confidential, and thus not privileged. See\n\n1 Jan. 28, 2025 Ltr. from S. Kamaraju to the Court, copying Government counsel.\n\nMejia, 655 F.3d at 134 (absence of confidentiality defeats claim of privilege). Accordingly, the defendant's statements regarding displeasure (if any) with his current counsel at the conferences are not subject to protection. Nor would the defendant's statements to the Court regarding his impressions of counsel's conduct (if any), as such an opinion is not an attorney-client communication. At this time, all that may be withheld are a recounting, at the Court's direction, of confidential statements between the defendant and his counsel \"for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.\" Mejia, 655 F.3d at 132. Similarly, the Government does not presently dispute that counsel's statements in response to Court questions during the ex parte portions of those conferences about attorney work-product are protected. But particularly because trial has concluded, and the defense has already provided the Government with its objections to the PSR, counsel's strategies and mental impressions related to sentencing (to the extent they were discussed during the ex parte portions of the conferences) may have been disclosed already and thus would not be subject to protection.\n\nAccordingly, the Government requests that the defense provide the Court with proposed redactions to the ex parte transcripts by March 24, 2025, and that the unredacted portions be made available on that date, with the redacted portions subject to the Court's review. The defense does not consent to this request.\n\n# 3. This Matter Should Proceed to Sentencing as Soon as Practicable\n\nAs set forth in its prior letters, the Government maintains that the defendant's December 10, 2024 motion for substitution of counsel should be denied. *(See Dkts. 500-502.)*2\n\nNonetheless, under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), the victims in this case have a statutory right to restitution and to \"proceedings free from unreasonable delay.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). As it did with respect to Yanping Wang, the Government intends to seek an order authorizing the United States to compensate the thousands of the defendant's victims with finally forfeited assets through a remission process, as restitution would be impracticable in this case. *See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3); Dkt. 495.* However, any remission process cannot commence until a final order of forfeiture is entered as to the defendant, which cannot happen until sentencing\n\n2 The Court has discretion to deny the motion unless it finds the conflict \"so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense.\" United States v. John Doe No. 1, 272 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2001). That condition is not satisfied. The Government previously noted that one of the lawyers seeking to withdraw met with the defendant on December 25, 2024 that is, after the filing and hearing on the ex parte substitution motion. See Dkt. 500 at 4. More recently, at the parties' last conference with the Court, three of the lawyers seeking to withdraw met privately with the defendant in the Marshals Service's holding area next to the courtroom. The defendant's ex parte statements may have asserted \"certain disagreements\" with counsel, or even an \"intense rift\"—but neither condition is tantamount to the \"total lack of communication\" that is required to deprive the Court of discretion to deny a dilatory motion to substitute counsel after several sentencing adjournments and more than eight months after the jury's verdict. John Doe No. 1, 272 F.3d at 124; United States v. Muhammad, No. 12 Cr. 337 (ADS) (GRB), 2012 WL 6021458, at \\*3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2012).\n\nis completed.3 The Government has already received dozens of inquiries from victims seeking just compensation, and the Government also has been contacted by counsel purporting to represent a group comprised of thousands of victims. As the Court knows, many victims lost hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more). Others lost their retirement funds or substantial amounts of their life savings. Victims are waiting for closure, accountability, and commencement of the remission process, without visibility into when the defendant will be sentenced. The Government would like to return the hundreds of millions of dollars it seeks to forfeit to victims as soon as reasonably possible and attempt to repair the damage that Guo and his co-conspirators caused. The Government cannot do so until the defendant is sentenced. The interests of the victims in this case weigh heavily in favor of scheduling a date certain for the defendant's sentencing.\n\nThe need for swift resolution of this matter is therefore acute. The Government appreciates that the Court is weighing the merits of the defendant's motion to substitute counsel. The Government respectfully requests that, to the extent the Court intends to grant (or deny) the defendant's substitution request, it do so promptly, and set a sentencing date in short order. The only remaining work for the defendant's counsel (current or substitute) is to prepare a sentencing submission in consultation with their client, and advocate for their client during a sentencing hearing. These last remaining activities should happen as soon as possible given the right of victims, and the public, to a timely resolution of this case. To the extent that the Court grants the defendant's motion, the Government believes that the Federal Defenders—who represented the defendant at his presentment and initial arraignment, and are not conflicted from this matter could be promptly appointed as substitute counsel with the defendant's current counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act as a supplement to new counsel. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13 (1983) (declaring the decision to grant or deny a motion to change counsel \"is within the discretion of the trial court\").\n\nThe Government is available to address any questions the Court may have.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n MATTHEW PODOLSKY Acting United States Attorney\n\nby: /s/\n\n Micah 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\n3 The defendant has not offered to consent to a final order of forfeiture.\n\n# EXHIBIT D\n\n#### STOP Client claims\n\n\n\nI did not suffer a loss on the Hi-Tech Exchange, I withdraw my claim for funds, and I am not a victim of Miles Guo, I am a victim of the U.S. Department of Justice, and I was harmed because of the injustice of the Department of Justice. I cease and desist from authorizing counsel to pursue my claim.\n\n#### Rescission contract\n\n| [Icon] | ████████████████████ |\n|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Thu, 13 Mar 2025 5:25:55 AM -0400 • |\n| To | ████████████████████████████████ |\n| | ████████████████████████████████████████ |\n\n\n\nHello, Hello,\n\nI am very sorry that I did not read the terms carefully when I read this letter again. I feel like I'm not a victim, and I want to be released from our relationship.\n\n\n\nI'm asking again to revoke the HID authorization\n\n#### MY (HID):\n\nI was misled by Zhang Xinfang's propaganda, I am not a victim, and again I ask that the motion to intervene be withdrawn, I am not a victim of Mr. Kwok's, please understand the withdrawal of my name.\n\n## About Canceling the right of representing for Himalaya Exchange Issues\n\n| | Thu, 13 Mar 2025 1:31:58 PM -0400 € | |\n|----|-------------------------------------|--|\n| To | | |\n\nDear Bardford,\n\n, I'm writing to you to double confirm that I'm not on the list of victims of Yvette Wang or Miles Guo.\n\nIf I supplied any requirement that is ONLY for lawsuit withen SEC!\n\nBut the situation is changing now, so please delete any request under my HID if there's any existing and stop representing any right of me right now.\n\nThank you for your feedback.\n\n[Icon][Blacked Out Sender Name]Wed, 19 Mar 2025 1:51:48 PM -0400\n\n| To | [Blacked Out Recipient 1]
[Blacked Out Recipient 2] |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n\nDear Sir ,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr. Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the court and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.\n\nYours sincerely\n\n#### STOP Client claims\n\n\n\nI did not suffer a loss on the Hi-Tech Exchange, I withdraw my claim for funds, and I am not a victim of Miles Guo, I am a victim of the U.S. Department of Justice, and I was harmed because of the injustice of the Department of Justice. I cease and desist from authorizing counsel to pursue my claim.\n\n#### Rescission contract\n\n\n\n\n\nHello, Bradford Geyer\n\nI am very sorry that I did not read the terms carefully when I read this letter again. I feel like I'm not a victim, and I want to be released from our relationship.\n\nClient:\n\nI'm asking again to revoke the HID authorization\n\n**23****[Redacted] @ [Redacted]***Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:04:06 AM -0400*\n\n| To | [Redacted] > |\n|-----------|---------------------|\n|-----------|---------------------|\n\nMY (HID): **[Redacted]**\n\n propaganda, I am not a victim, and again I ask that the motion to I was misled by intervene be withdrawn, I am not a victim of Mr. Kwok's, please understand the withdrawal of my name.\n\n#### About Canceling the right of representing for Himalaya Exchange Issues\n\n| th
| [REDACTED] @ [REDACTED]
Thu, 13 Mar 2025 1:31:58 PM -0400 • |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n\nTo **[REDACTED RECIPIENT]** >\n\nDear Bardford,\n\n, I'm writing to you to double confirm that I'm not on the list of victims of Yvette Wang or Miles Guo.\n\nIf I supplied any requirement that is ONLY for lawsuit withen SEC!\n\nBut the situation is changing now, so please delete any request under my HID if there's any existing and stop representing any right of me right now.\n\nThank you for your feedback.\n\n\n\nDear Sir ,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr. Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the court and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as , as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.\n\nYours sincerely\n\n#### About revoke my HID authorization\n\n\n\nDear Mr Geyer:\n\nRecently, I saw thousands of victims in the documents related to Miles Guo and Yvette Wang. I am not sure whether Himalaya users are included here.\n\nI am not a victim of Miles Guo and Yvette Wang, and the original HID authorization was for claims against the US government. In order to avoid unnecessary trouble, I apply to revoke my HID authorization, my Himalaya ID (HID):\n\nIf you cannot handle this matter as soon as possible, I reserve the right to take legal action.\n\nThank you for your understanding of this matter.\n\nBest wishes!\n\nA investor\n\n# Urgent notice regarding the misuse of personal HID.\n\n\n\nDear Attorney:\n\nDear Sir ,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr. Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the court and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's (actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\nThank vou for vour attention to this matter. I look forward\n\n[REDACTED]reasons stated in the attachment to this email (please open the email attachment), I have discovered from the court documents of the Miles Guo case that my client HID in the Himalaya Exchange may have been mistakenly used for the purpose of identifying victims, rather than for the purpose of pursuing compensation as required by the SEC. Therefore, I formally request to terminate my status as a client represented by you. Please remove my HID: [REDACTED] from your client representation list. Thank you!\n\nSincerely\n\nSent from Proton Mail for iOS\n\n#### Request the revocation\n\n**xu** [REDACTED]\n\nThu, 20 Mar 2025 8:47:29 AM -0400 •\n\n| To | [REDACTED] |\n|----|-------------------------|\n| | [REDACTED] |\n| | [REDACTED] |\n\nReading 2 / 3\n\nDear Sir,\n\nI am a client of Himalaya Exchange. My Himalaya ID (HID) is\n\nI have never been a victim of Miles Guo and Yangping Wang.\n\nI originally entrusted you to unlock the funds of Himalaya Exchange seized by the SEC. It was not to make Himalaya Exchange return any of my funds. Now, I formally withdraw my entrustment to you. Please remove me from your client list.\n\nIf my above entrustment has been submitted to the court, please withdraw it as well.\n\nHope to get your prompt reply. Thank you.\n\n#### Re: Guo Wengui's (Miles Guo)case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n**mo**[B].d[B]Thu, 20 Mar 2025 9:00:47 AM -0400 •\n\n| To | [B] d [B] |\n|----|-------------------------------------|\n|----|-------------------------------------|\n\n| Dear | [B] |\n|------|------------------|\n|------|------------------|\n\nToday is my third time sending you an email.\n\n- I, Yung Chin (Himalaya HID number: ► = = = ) hereby formally declare that:\n- 1. I am not a victim in the case of Guo Wengui.\n\n2. I will not participate in any legal actions related to this case, including but not limited to lawsuits, claims, or any other legal proceedings.\n\n3. The representation agreement between myself and Bradford Geyer is hereby formally terminated as of March 9 2025 and any legal authorization related to this case is no longer valid.\n\nThis statement is a true and accurate representation of my intent.\n\nThank you for your attention.\n\n\n\n#### Terminate the agency relationship and revoke the HID:LR605BD request\n\n| e | Thu, 20 Mar 2025 9:35:00 AM -0400 • | |\n|----|--------------------------------------|--|\n| To | | |\n| | | |\n\nDear Sir,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to MILES GUO, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr. Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioninq the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen Himalaya Exchange funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as & & believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.\n\nSent from Proton Mail for iOS\n\n#### Urgent: Request for Immediate Revocation of My HID\n\n| ZC | |\n|-----------|--------------------------------------|\n| | Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:36:58 AM -0400 • |\n| To | |\n\nDear Sir,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr. Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the court and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\n\n\n#### Subject: Request for Immediate Revocation of My HID\n\n| sk | |\n|-----------|--------------------------------------|\n| | Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:12:39 AM -0400 · |\n| To | |\n\nDear Brad,\n\nI am writing to formally request the immediate revocation of my HID, as I believe it is being misused in this context. My HID is\n\nI was severely misled when agreeing to be part of this agency. I was under the impression that the sole purpose of this representation was to recover assets related to Himalaya Exchange and the frozen funds, not to be categorized as a \"victim\" of Miles Guo. This misrepresentation has led to a situation where legal action is being weaponized in a way that does not reflect my actual position.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the explicit purpose of petitioning the court and the SEC to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo.\n\nAccordingly, I demand the immediate revocation of my HID and confirmation of its removal from any related filings. If this matter is not resolved, I reserve the right to pursue legal action.\n\nI trust that you will handle this request with the seriousness it warrants. Please confirm the revocation of my HID at your earliest convenience.\n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter.\n\nSincerely,\n\n\n\nNotice of Concern: Misrepresentation of My HID in Legal Context\n\n| | Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:01:02 PM -0400 • |\n|----|--------------------------------------|\n| To | |\n| | |\n\n**Dear Sir,**\n\nI am formally addressing you to rectify certain deliberately misrepresented facts and to submit an urgent and serious request that requires your immediate attention.\n\nIn the court documents concerning Mr. Guo, it is alleged that I, along with thousands of others, am a victim of Mr. Guo. However, this accusation is gravely inaccurate, not only misleading but also entirely inconsistent with the truth.\n\nThe reality is that we voluntarily provided our HID and explicitly designated you as our co-agent for the sole purpose of petitioning the court and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. The true infringement on our rights stems from the actions of the SEC, not Mr. Guo. Therefore, I hereby formally and unequivocally demand the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as a some, as it has been wrongfully utilized and misleadingly represented in this case.\n\nLet it be clear that should this matter remain unresolved in a timely and appropriate manner, I reserve the right to pursue legal action to protect my legitimate interests. I trust that you will handle this request with the gravity it warrants and take the necessary steps to ensure that the facts are not further distorted.\n\n#### Statement on I am not Mr. Guo's victim\n\nThu, 20 Mar 2025 8:54:13 AM -0400 • To\n\nDear Sir,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been\n\nevidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submitan urgent request for your attention. In the court\n\ndocuments pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I,along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr.Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and\n\nappointed you as our co-agent with the express purposeof petitioning the court and the Securities and ExchangeCommission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and\n\nour investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's\n\nactions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully\n\nrequest the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as\n\nas I believe it is being misused in this context.Please be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legalaction should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you\n\nwill address this request with the seriousness it warrants. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forwardto your prompt response.\n\n| Fri, 21 Mar 2025 7:28:08 AM -0400 |\n|-----------------------------------|\n| To \"Questions\" |\n\nDear Sir,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr. Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the court and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as 2TU8U8E as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\n## Urgent Withdrawal of Authorization for HEX HID\n\n\n\nDear Counsel:\n\nGreetings!\n\nI am writing to bring to your attention a recent factual misunderstanding and to kindly request your assistance. In recent court documents related to Mr. Miles Guo, it has been reported that I, along with thousands of others, am a victim of Mr. Guo. However, the actual situation is that I, together with other relevant individuals, voluntarily submitted an HID and designated you as our joint representative to request the court and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and related investments, In reality, we are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Mr. Miles Guo. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request your assistance in immediately withdrawing the HID number associated with me to correct the erroneous consequences arising from this misinformation. At the same time, I urqe you to address this matter as soon as possible. Should the issue not be resolved in a timely manner, I reserve the right to pursue further legal action. However, I believe that with your professional assistance, we can resolve this matter appropriately. Thank you for your attention to this letter. I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely\n\nSincerely\n\n Fri, 21 Mar 2025 3:21:26 AM -0400\n\n| To | |\n|----|----------------|\n|----|----------------|\n\nDear Sir,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr. Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn reality, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the court and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\n#### important. I am not a victim of Miles Guo\n\n\n\nDear Mr. Bradford L. Geyer,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention.\n\nIn the count documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr.Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth. In\n\nreality, each of us provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the count and the SEC to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. As you stated in the relevant video, we are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo. Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as as\n\nI believe it is being misused in this context. Please be advised that I reserve the right to pursue leqal action should this matter remain unresolved.\n\nFri, 21 Mar 2025 1:25:59 AM -0400\n\n| To | |\n|----|---------------|\n|----|---------------|\n\nDear Mr. Bradford L. Geyer,\n\nI am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention.\n\nIn the count documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr.Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth. In reality, each of us provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the count and the SEC to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. As you stated in the relevant video, we are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo.\n\nAccordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved.\n\n\n\nDear Mr. Bradford L. Geyer,I am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit an urgent request for your attention.In the count documents pertaining to Miles Guo, it is suggested that I, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr.Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.In reality, each of us provided our HID and appointed you as our co-agent with the express purpose of petitioning the count and the SEC to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. As you stated in the relevant video, we are victims of the SEC's actions, not of Miles Guo.Accordingly, I respectfully request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as [REDACTED] as I believe it is being misused in this context.Please be advised that I reserve the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.\n\n## Request the immediate revocation of my HID from Himalaya Restoration Legal Case\n\n| ye | |\n|------------------------------------|--|\n| Fri, 21 Mar 2025 12:22:46 AM -0400 | |\n| To | |\n\nDear Sir,\n\nl am writing to address certain facts that have been evidently and deliberately misrepresented and to submit and urgent request for your attention. In the court documents pertaining to Mr Miles Guo, it is suggested that |, along with thousands of others, have been victims of Mr Miles Guo. However, this assertion does not align with the truth.\n\nIn fact, each of us voluntarily provided our HID and appointed you as the court and the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to release the frozen HEX funds and our investments therein. We are victims of The SEC's actions, Not of Mr Miles Guo. Thus, I request the immediate revocation of my HID, identified as as I believe it is being misused in this context.\n\nPlease be advised that I receive the right to pursue legal action should this matter remain unresolved. I trust you will address this request with the seriousness it warrants.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.\n\nRegards\n\n\n\n# EXHIBIT E\n\n## IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant\n\n-v-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"\n\nand\n\nKIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"\n\nand\n\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"\n\nDefendants.\n\nCriminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n#### ORDER\n\n Assigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## [PROPOSED] ORDER TO VACATE PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE AND TOLL ANCILLARY DEADLINE WITHOUT PREJUDICE\n\nUpon consideration of the Letter Motion submitted by counsel for third-party victims of the Himalaya Exchange (HEX), and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that:\n\n- 1. The Preliminary Order of Forfeiture entered on January 7, 2025 is VACATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;\n- 2. The ancillary petition deadline currently set for April 7, 2025 is TOLLED and STRICKEN pending further order of the Court;\n- 3. The United States Government shall not reissue any forfeiture-related notices or initiate any new forfeiture deadlines related to the HEX property at issue until after the sentencing and forfeiture adjudication of Defendant Miles Guo;\n- 4. Any third-party petitions already filed under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) are QUARANTINED pending a valid forfeiture determination and shall not be ruled upon until further order of this Court.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2025\n\nHon. Analisa Torres United States District Judge","body_zh":"尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）美国联邦地区法官，Southern District of New York（纽约南区），500 Pearl Street New York, NY\n\n2025年3月21日\n\n法官阁下：\n\n我们谨代表喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange，简称 HEX）大约 5,242 名以上个人成员恭敬提交本信函动议；政府自身也承认这些成员系政府扣押行为的无辜受害者（他们并不认可自己是相关罪行和/或任何被告的受害者，这从我此前提交的大量文件中已明确体现）。1\n\n我们请求尊贵的法院：\n\n在不影响再次起诉权利的情况下撤销（VACATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE）于 2025年1月7日 作出的初步没收裁定；\n\n中止并撤销（TOLL AND STRIKE）目前定于 2025年4月7日 的附属申请截止日期；\n\n1 喜马拉雅交易所（HEX）（该交易所系位于且注册于英属维尔京群岛的交易所集团旗下公司 Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd. 以及持有作为扣押标的的 HDO 储备金的 Himalaya International Reserve Ltd 所开展的唯一业务）的这 5,242 名成员已于 2024年1月4日 经过身份认证（ECF 212）。当时，HEX 确认截至 2024年1月4日，基于 $207,067,553.60 的储备金，5,242 名客户名下总计持有价值 $13,739,075.51 的 HCN 以及 $45,222,849.46 的 HDO。编制一份包含更新后客户及损失情况的最新客户名单需要 2 至 4 周时间。自那时起，我们既遇到了部分客户终止律师-委托人代理关系的情况，也遇到了其他客户建立代理关系的情况。所有这些信息均保存在一个安全的电子邮件账户中，该账户接收来自 HimalayaRestoration.Com 的来信，且仅通过一个 7 位数的喜马拉雅识别码（HID#）进行识别。此举可防止黑客攻击，该密钥随后可用于解锁由 HEX 存储并加密的 KYC（了解你的客户）、身份信息、账户信息及银行信息。该账户已收到数千封要求加入的邮件，少数要求退出，在某些情况下，还存在退出后又重新加入的情况，其中绝大多数均出于善意，但也包括疑似卧底、不良行为者及制造混乱的代理人发来的个别通讯。\n\n指令（DIRECT）政府仅在被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，又名 Miles Guo）被判刑之后，方可重新发出任何与没收相关的通知；\n\n隔离审查（QUARANTINE）任何已根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提交的申请，直至被告郭文贵被判刑后能够作出有效的没收判决书为止。\n通知不充分\n\n由政府的最终没收通知所引发的权利主张申报截止日期，仅仅建立在被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）所谓的同意之上——而该被告已明确否认对 HEX 资产拥有任何所有权或合法关联——因此在法律上无法对其他利害关系第三方产生约束力。尽管对于法院而言，在具备良好法律顾问指导、以合规为驱动的加密货币交易所中涉及的没收权益属于相对较新的标的事项，但没收诉讼不能建立在缺乏可没收权益的一方的同意之上，这是确立已久的法律原则。参见 United States v. Ribadeneyra, 105 F.3d 833, 835 (2d Cir. 1997)（“除非被告对财产享有权益，否则法院不得命令没收该财产”）；United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2003)（“没收并非一项独立的惩罚；它必须与被告自身在涉案财产中的权益相挂钩”）。因此，提出没收权利主张的截止日期，唯有建立在由具有可证明的、合法所有权或权限的个人所启动的有效没收程序基础之上，才具有约束力。\n\n在 United States v. Morrison, 656 F. Supp. 2d 338, 344-45 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) 一案中，法院强调依据 RICO（《诈骗及腐败组织集团犯罪法》）进行的没收要求被扣押财产与作为起因的有组织敲诈勒索活动之间存在明确关联。同样，United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267, 278-79 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) 阐明，基于有效同意的没收必须源自对目标资产享有真实控制权或所有权权益的个人。被告王雁平的同意缺乏任何必要的所有权或合法权限，从根本上使政府启动权利主张申报截止日期的依据归于无效。\n\n此外，强制执行基于无效同意所设定的截止日期，侵犯了第五修正案所保障的基本正当程序权利，该权利要求在政府针对个人财产采取行动时，必须提供有实质意义的通知和提出异议的真正机会。参见 Mullane v.\n\nCentral Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950)（要求采取合理预计可通知到利害关系方并为其提供回应机会的通知方式）。在程序上存在瑕疵的没收通知——在此即由于其完全建立在一个缺乏合法诉讼资格的一方所谓的权限之上，致使政府无法按其现有方式利用该当事人——不能对合法的第三方权利主张人施加具有法律约束力的截止日期。\n\n因此，由于被告王雁平的同意——仅凭其自身而言——无论依据成文法授权还是宪法标准均不能合法引发有效的没收程序，由此产生的权利主张申报截止日期便缺乏法律效力。所以，对于仅通过程序上有瑕疵且不充分的途径收到通知的合法第三方权利主张人或共同被告而言，必须认定这些截止日期不具有可执行性。\n\n此外，政府似乎除了在网站上发布公告之外，未做出任何提供通知的努力。尽管这种方式可能符合法定的最低通知要求，但本案的背景和特殊情况要求进行更严格的审查。政府采取的进取性做法——过早发布通知，同时又将加快被告郭文贵的量刑作为必要前提加以推进，而在很久以前政府就已扣押了反映与该刑事指控无关的数千人资金的所有 HEX 银行账户记录——引发了对原没收通知的有效性和充分性的担忧。再者，鉴于下签名律师提交了大量文件强调人道主义关切以及本案所呈现的独特挑战，且被告王雁平在经历完整刑事审判后对 HEX 资金缺乏任何可辨识的权益，依托此前通知的做法显然是存疑的。鉴于这些因素，更好的做法是让政府在被告郭文贵被判刑后重新进行正当的通知程序或在程序上“重来一次”。\n语境不实\n\n我们亦就政府 2025年3月18日 的信函恭敬提交本回应，以指出对本案具有重大影响的若干关键遗漏和未能提供完整语境的情况（ECF 503）。\n\n首先，政府的信函称其“已接到自称代表由数千名受害者组成的群体的律师的联系”，却令人费解地未予披露该律师正是下签名人 Bradford L. Geyer（布拉德福德·L·盖耶），而下签名人一直通过在本法院记录在案的大量文件持续代表这些受害者。政府一贯将 HEX、加密货币、受害者、客户以及所主张的法律代理统称为“所谓的”，暗示对其真实性存疑。他们全都真实存在。\n\n其次，政府在其论述中遗漏了关键语境。在获悉政府的初步没收裁定后，我们迅速与政府代表接洽，提议采用一种高效、安全且具人道主义的方法来返还被扣押的资金。我们的方案利用了安全存放在 HEX 加密系统内的、经独立核实的源信息，该系统专为抵御敌对国家行为者的网络攻击而设计。这一拟议方案将保护受害者身份免遭潜在利用或报复，大幅减少资源消耗，并加快对受害者的赔偿进度。\n\n令人震惊的是，政府向法院歪曲了这些善意沟通，错误地暗示客户企图加速被告郭文贵的量刑进程。事实上，我们的对话完全聚焦于在紧迫的时间限制内提交数千份宣誓书的实际困难、集中合并申报的可行性，以及在法院建立保护措施之前公开披露受害者身份的合理担忧。\n\n下签名律师明确强调，绝不存在任何为了资金追回而试图或意图影响被告郭文贵量刑时间的行为。这些讨论纯粹是由法定申报截止日期以及保护受害者的迫切需要所驱动的。政府自相矛盾的立场——先是依据王雁平推进，随后又推进郭文贵的量刑——内在不一致，进一步证明了本动议的合理性。尽管谈判仍在进行且已提出了可行的解决途径（附件 A，第 5-6 页），政府却在次日仓促采取行动（ECF 493）启动减免程序——几乎否决了我们正在讨论的所有要点。\n\n第三，政府的作为已引发对其是否致力于保护受害者的重大关切，促使我们正式请求将案件呈报至司法部总部（Main Justice），而基于对加密货币交易所政策的明显转变，这一请求显得更为及时。2 据悉，现任政府的政策不再将加密货币交易定性为具有固有的可疑性，亦不会在缺乏明确违法证据的情况下寻求取缔交易所。我们在 2025年3月13日 发给纽约南区联邦检察官办公室的前期信函中详细阐述了这些重大政策考量，敦促其重新考虑初步没收，并强调了数千名面临不切实际的截止日期、语言障碍以及个人人身安全与保障面临威胁的无辜受害者可能遭受毁灭性伤害。（附件 B）\n\n政府执意在郭文贵被判刑前启动这些程序，实质上构成了对受害者资金的非法没收，剥夺了他们的正当程序权利。政府现在就强加严苛的截止日期，而不是等到判刑之后，从而剥夺了受害者在适时开展的没收程序中通常应享有的全部程序性保护。这种做法迫使极少数有幸看到政府通知的受害者——该通知仅公示了短短 30 天——陷入进退两难的绝境：要么公开披露敏感身份信息以致危及其人身安全，要么彻底放弃其合法的权利主张。\n\n极短的权利主张提交期限、巨大的语言障碍、许多身处中国的 HEX 客户无法获取政府没收通知的客观现状、HEX 网站（受害者获取其账户信息以及 HEX 客户被联络的主要途径）在未发通知的情况下被突遭扣押，以及要求受害者必须证实特定经济损失系“由该刑事犯罪直接导致”的严苛要求（ECF 493，第 2 页）——尽管他们认为自身的损失是由美国政府的作为而非由任何被告造成的——这些因素的叠加影响意味着，许多受害者很可能会放弃该程序，而不是提交虚假陈述或将自己及家人置于危险之中。\n\n2http\n\n鉴于这些情况，有理由质疑政府在明知此类行动缺乏合法法律依据的情况下，是否正企图提前强行实施免除（remission）程序，以期制造可能对 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的量刑产生不利偏见的索赔主张，同时打压成功索回资金的索赔人。没收不应当被用来加强针对郭的指控。政府正企图人为制造一种由于关闭 HEX 网站而在通知被告方面存在实际困难，并且由于文中所述因素而在获取、整理和提交宣誓书方面存在实际困难的局面，致使受害者只能采用他们并不认同的免除程序这唯一一种途径。事实上，我们已记录多起委托人正是因为不认为自己是被告的受害者而退出该程序的案例。3\n\n下签名律师已无法发出比现在更多的紧急求救信号：政府的这一行动将导致可怕的后果。无辜的人会因为美国政府制造的恐慌而放弃自己的金钱，许多人将成为针对目标，许多人会感到被迫提交未获得妥善保护的材料，许多人将在担心其家人遭受迫害甚至更糟待遇的恐惧中生活。\n\n通过这一程序，情况已经明朗，即几乎没有可信的证据将郭文贵与 HEX 的运营联系起来。尽管政府此前在 ECF 编号 500 和 502 中承认没收程序在郭先生被判刑之后才能启动，但政府仍提前启动了影响多达 10,000 名 HEX 客户的没收程序。从政府在案件卷宗上提交被告 Wang（王）的没收同意书即可证明，他们显然行事仓促，未能向下签名律师——甚至实际上未能向任何相关方——提供适当的通知。这一单方面行动通过初步没收通知强加了严苛的截止日期，从而迫使客户提交免除认证——其中许多可能是不准确或毫无根据的——以便在郭先生与 HEX 之间持续缺乏实质关联的情况下，\n\n3 政府对下签名律师的提及，连同其关于我们企图侵犯郭先生根据《第六修正案》所享有的权利以加快对其量刑程序的不实暗示（附件 C），已在 HEX 客户中引起重大恐慌与混乱。在政府于 3 月 18 日提交文件后，下签名律师收到了大量终止委托的电子邮件。随附自政府提交文件以来我们收到的往来函件样本（附件 D）。\n\n强化政府对郭先生的量刑立场。\n\n此外，被告王对 HEX 资产缺乏合法的控制权或所有权。因此，她所谓的同意不能、在法律上也无法证明政府扣押这些资金的正当性。简而言之，个人不能合法授权扣押其不持有有效索赔主张或所有权权益的财产。\n\n基于前述理由，我们谨请法院无偏见地撤销最初的最终没收令，并将任何被强迫提出的索赔主张暂时搁置，直至被告郭被判刑之后。此外，如果管辖权异议或附随程序未能使政府的没收无效，或未能以其他方式保全 HEX 资产以供司法监督下的分配，我们敦促法院采纳目前正在谈判中、我们即将在随后的呈送文件中详细说明的安全高效的遣返方案。该方法可确保完全遵守政府在 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪被害人权利法》）项下的义务，以极大的司法和政府资源节约向受害者提供及时的赔偿，并防止造成进一步的不可挽回的损害。\n\n供法院审酌，我们已提交了一份裁定草案（附件 E）。\n\n顺致最亲切的问候，\n\n__________________________\n\nBradford L. Geyer (856) 607-5708 NJ 022751991 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com FormerFedsGroup.Com, LLC 141 \"I\" Rt. 130 South, 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077\n证据 A\n回复：[外部] 回复：HEX 索赔程序样本文件及支持文件的提交\n\nFinkel, Ryan (USANYS) 发送\n\n2025 年 3 月 9 日，星期日，晚上 8:37:43 -0400 •\n\n收件人：\"Brad Geyer\" \n\n抄送：\"Murray, Juliana 1 (USANYS)\" , \"Fergenson, Micah (USANYS)\" , \"Horton, Justin (USANYS)\" \n\nBrad – 政府将聘请一名索赔管理人来协助管理免除程序。我们认为这将是向被告诈骗案受害者退还资金的最有效途径。在与 MLARS（洗钱与资产追回科）确认后，在索赔管理人就位之前，我们目前尚无法同意你的任何请求。尽管如此，我们希望届时能与你合作，并同意通过协作努力可以提高效率。\n\n很乐意进一步讨论。\n\nRyan\n\n发件人：Brad Geyer 发送时间：2025 年 3 月 8 日，星期六，下午 4:40 收件人：Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) 抄送：Murray, Juliana (USANYS) 1 ; Fergenson, Micah (USANYS) ; Horton, Justin (USANYS) 主题：回复：[外部] 回复：HEX 索赔程序样本文件及支持文件的提交\n\n各位好：\n\n抱歉回复晚了。处理了大量客户关系事务。我也付出了很大努力来构建这份文书，以期不招致你们的反对。如果我提交这样一份允许我开始整合材料这一繁重程序的文件，是否会招致反对？如果会，是在哪一部分？我认为我已使其具备灵活性以应对所有可能出现的情况。\n\n顺致最亲切的问候，Brad\nBradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n[插图]\n\n手机：(856) 607-5708 电子邮件：Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n美国：141 | Route 130 South, Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n“让与你怀揣相同使命的前联邦官员伴你左右 (TM)”\n\n重要提示：FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) 现由 Bradford L. Geyer 监督提供服务，其为 Pennsylvania（宾夕法尼亚州）和 New Jersey（新泽西州）律师协会成员。本电子邮件及其任何附件的内容均属保密信息。仅供指定的收件人使用。如你错误收到本电子邮件，请立即通知发件人，切勿向任何人披露其内容或进行复制。\n\n--- 于 2025 年 3 月 5 日，星期三，15:43:23 -0500 Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) 写道 ---\n\nBrad – 政府极有可能聘请索赔管理人来管理免除程序。关于数据敏感性以及使用 HEX 数据的问题，需要在聘请该管理人后进行处理。我可以说明的是，我们认为所有受害者都应受到保护，并将努力确保做到这一点——包括对他们的身份信息予以适当保护。\n\n谢谢，\n\nRyan\n\n发件人：Brad Geyer 发送时间：2025 年 2 月 28 日，星期五，上午 9:27 收件人：Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) 抄送：Murray, Juliana (USANYS) 1 ; Fergenson, Micah (USANYS) ; Horton, Justin (USANYS) 主题：回复：[外部] 回复：HEX 索赔程序样本文件及支持文件的提交\n\n政府团队：\n\n我知道目前有许多干扰事项让这一切变得更加困难，但我还是想向各位简要通报最新进展。我仍在克服我这边的各种困难，这在一定程度上让上一版草案失去了意义，目前我正在制定一份纳入了法院可选途径的新草案/流程。\n\n对于周一听证会的实质内容，各位有什么了解吗？是现场开庭还是线上进行？\n\n我将在周末前（希望如此）整合出一份涵盖最有可能的免除方案的新草案。任何拟议的变更都需要我向委托人通报情况并进行解释，这是一个非常劳心劳力的过程。\n\n顺致最亲切的问候，Brad\nBradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n手机：(856) 607-5708 电子邮件：Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n美国：141 | Route 130 South, Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n“让与你怀揣相同使命的前联邦官员伴你左右 (TM)”\n\n重要提示：FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) 现由 Bradford L. Geyer 监督提供律师事务所服务，其为宾夕法尼亚州和新泽西州律师协会成员。本电子邮件及其任何附件的内容均属保密信息。仅供指定的收件人使用。如你错误收到本电子邮件，请立即通知发件人，切勿向任何人披露其内容或进行复制。\n\n--- 于 2025 年 2 月 25 日，星期二，14:07:24 -0500 Brad Geyer 写道 ---\n\n政府团队各位好：\n\n好的，耗费的时间比我预想的要长。要让这些人信任任何程序可不容易。\n\n请告知我需要删减或修改哪些内容，以便我可以在不引发异议的情况下提交此文书。如有必要，我可以压缩其篇幅。我唯一真正需要的关键成果是一份合并呈呈文书。为了符合时间表要求并将其精简为供你们审核的约 5 天审批流程，我需要尽快启动。我的一些委托人对参与该程序表达了深切的担忧，主要是因为他们极度害怕因意外泄露或黑客攻击而导致中国境内的家人遭到报复。我的大多数华裔委托人都有这种担忧。基于这些及其他原因，我认为这显然是一条符合司法利益的前进道路。\n\n请告知政府的立场。\n\n顺致最亲切的问候，Brad\n\nBradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n一幅线条画，描绘了一根水平梁，两端由向上延伸的两条垂直线支撑，梁下方悬挂着五个等距分布、底部敞开的矩形隔仓。\n\n手机：(856) 607-5708 电子邮件：Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n美国：\n\n141 | Route 130 South, Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n“让与你怀揣相同使命的前联邦官员伴你左右 (TM)”\n\n重要提示：FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) 现由 Bradford L. Geyer 监督提供律师事务所服务，其为宾夕法尼亚州和新泽西州律师协会成员。本电子邮件及其任何附件的内容均属保密信息。仅供指定的收件人使用。如你错误收到本电子邮件，请立即通知发件人，切勿向任何人披露其内容或进行复制。\n\n---- 于 2025 年 2 月 24 日，星期一，13:37:26 -0500 Brad Geyer 写道 ---\n\n为了让大家了解挑战的严峻程度。在今天的电话会议中，我们讨论了信息匮乏（加上语言能力较差）的客户所处的糟糕处境，这些人极难取得联系。有些人身处的司法管辖区无法接收来自某些域名的电子邮件或无法访问某些网站。有些是开了账户后就尽量抹去痕迹的家庭成员，当然不是为了防范美国当局，而是为了防范中共。要联系到这些人是一个庞大的工程，许多人需要靠口口相传。如果我提出的合并呈呈方案获得批准，后续的一切就都具备了可行性。\nBradford L. GeyerFormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n[插图]\n\n手机：(856) 607-5708 电子邮件：Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n美国：141 | Route 130 South. Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n“让与你怀揣相同使命的前联邦官员伴你左右 (TM)”\n\n顺致最亲切的问候，Brad\n\n重要提示：FormerFeds LLC (FormerFedsGroup.Com) 现由 Bradford L. Geyer 监督提供律师事务所服务，其为宾夕法尼亚州和新泽西州律师协会成员。本电子邮件及其任何附件的内容均属保密信息。仅供指定的收件人使用。如你错误收到本电子邮件，请立即通知发件人，切勿向任何人披露其内容或进行复制。\n\n---- 于 2025年2月24日 星期一 13:28:59 -0500 Brad Geyer（布拉德·盖耶） 写道 ---\n\n> 难点在于时间线。我本周必须开始。我们能否申请加急处理该请求或提级该请求？我认为任何审查它的人都必须同意它是合情合理的。我无法想象法院会表示反对。我理解在其他问题上的分歧，但如果我只要这项内容获得批准，我就能让这些人走上正轨，以配合你们的时间线。顺祝商祺，Brad\nBradford L. Geyer（布拉福德·L·盖耶）FormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n- | 1 1\nــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ | |\n\n手机：(856)_607-5708 电子邮件：Brad@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n美国：141 | Route 130 South. Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 888-486-FEDS\n\n“让与您肩负共同使命的前联邦特工陪伴左右 (TM)”\n\n本电子邮件及其任何附件的内容均属机密。它们仅供指定收件人使用。如果您错误地收到了本电子邮件，请立即通知发件人，切勿向任何人披露其内容或制作其副本。\n\n---- 于 2025年2月24日 星期一 13:16:34 -0500 Finkel, Ryan (USANYS)（瑞安·芬克尔，纽约南区联邦检察官办公室） 写道 ---\n\nBrad - 感谢您的来信。我们将审查您发送的内容。如前所述，由于目前尚未建立请求赔偿/减免的程序，并且我们正在等待司法部其他部门关于您的请求的反馈，因此我们目前尚无法就合并提交文件表明立场。正如我们周五讨论的那样，我们应该很快会获得有关该事项的更多信息。在收到我们的回复之前，您可能希望先不要提出动议。\n\n谢谢。\n\n发件人：Brad Geyer 发送时间：2025年2月24日 星期一 9:08 收件人：Finkel, Ryan (USANYS) 抄送：Murray, Juliana (USANYS) 1 ; Fergenson, Micah (USANYS) ; Horton, Justin (USANYS) 主题：[EXTERNAL] 回复：提交 HEX 索赔程序的样本文件和支持文件\n\n尊敬的政府团队：\n\n继我们最近的讨论以及您审查样本文件的要求之后，我很高兴在提交的附件中提供随附的文件。这些材料旨在展示我们计划为与 HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）安排的政府清算程序解锁的数据的结构、可靠性和全面性。我们在先前的提交文件中记录了这一点（我难以置信竟然有人有时间仔细审查）。\n\n以下是链接所附文件的内容摘要：\n\n- 1. 证物 207-1：包含客户身份验证记录，详细说明客户的全名、出生日期、地址和政府签发的身份证明。这确立了客户与相关账户之间的直接关联。\n- 2. 证物 207-2：提供全面的账户历史记录，突出显示与客户 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）账户相关的所有交易，包括存款、取款和转账。\n- 3. 证物 207-3：提供客户个人银行账户与喜马拉雅账户之间资金往来的详细记录，证明交易的一致性和合法性。\n- 4. 证物 208-2 至证物 208-7：这些证物共同涵盖审计报告、专家会计摘要和合规性评估。特别重要的是身份验证文件和详细的交易日志\n提交计划与时间线\n\n正如我在通话中提到的，我的目标是明天提出一项动议，希望政府不会对此提出异议，该动议授权我代表大约 5,000 至 8,000 名客户进行合并提交。在由我代表他们进行提交的合并提交环境下，细化并排除我的客户名单的冲突将需要额外的时间——大约 2 到 4 周。仅就这一简化程序而言，我们需要审查 12,000 至 15,000 封电子邮件，以确保准确性并消除重复。\n需要考虑的关键要点：\n1. 法院和政府的效率：\n\n由我代表账户持有人进行的合并索赔提交将满足法院的要求，同时减少您和法院估计 90% 的工作量。与数千份独立提交相比，我能够以更有意义、更全面的方式呈现信息。如您所见，这包括包括面部匹配在内的多点、健全的客户识别协议。\n2. 合规性与可靠性：\n\n通过 HID 号码比对合规文件比客户自行提供的文件具有更高的可靠性。HEX 信息是权威的原始来源/账户信息，交易所提供的合规数据在记录和存储程序上是健全、值得信赖并受到军工级加密保护的，这为所发生的一切提供了完美的记录。\n3. HEX 数据审查：\n\n我相信审查样本文件会让您想起该信息的可靠性。我相信，借助所提供的文件和经审计机构支持的数据，您会发现索赔程序是最准确、最可靠且高效的，能够为政府提供验证索赔所需的信息。\n\n在该程序的后期，我期待进行协作以建立一个既能解决您的关切又能符合所有相关方最大利益的程序。\n\n我将努力准备一份简单、简短的动议以确定关键要点，同时向法院强调后续路径的重要方面仍需由双方共同制定。这将使我能够开始排重程序，以便我们能够保持在法院的时间线上。\n\n此致，Brad Geyer\n证物 B\n\n[图片：_page_15_Picture_1.jpeg]\n\nRyan B. Finkel\nJustin Horton\nJuliana Newcomb Murray\nMicah Festa Fergenson\nUS Department of Justice（美国司法部）\nCrim Division, SDNY（纽约南区刑事处）\n1 St. Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n2025年3月13日\n\nFinkel、Horton、Murray 和 Fergenson 先生/女士：\n\n根据所要求的磋商和法定权利，我谨就以下事项寻求澄清。本函件可能会用作后续诉状中记录的一部分。此外，鉴于情况极度紧急，我正式请求将此事提级至副司法部长办公室和/或司法部长办公室。\n\n2025年1月7日，在 ECF 489 中，法院仅针对 Ms. Wang（王女士）作出了刑事定罪判决书。从我们的审查来看，似乎不存在针对 Kwok（郭）或 Je（余）的判决书。此外，尚未对 Kwok 作出判决，这意味着关于返还我当事人资金的法定起算时钟尚未开始。\n\n请确认政府是否对案件状态持有相同的解释。\n\n同样重要的是要注意，王女士曾多次声明放弃对属于 80 个不同组织的资金的任何权益，包括 HEX 之外的组织。根据现有信息，王在 HEX 从未拥有任何所有权权益。虽然她有可能收到了来自第三方的夸大承诺，但这并不构成对资产的合法权利主张。如果她最初对 HEX 就没有任何所有权权利，那么她在 ECF 488 中放弃权利的事实就是无关紧要的。\n\n此外，王的没收是在同意的情况下作出的。然而，我的当事人从未同意没收，HEX 也未同意。鉴于包括我的当事人以及可能的其他利益相关者在内的其他各方拥有既得利益，您本应与我进行磋商或就您的初步没收裁定提供通知。\n\n因此，据我们所知，王并没有作出有效的没收，因为她没有任何东西可供没收。我们从未收到您打算将 HEX 纳入初步没收裁定的通知，并且只是在一名当事人在其发布后提请我注意时才获悉此事。就 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）而言，尚未发生具有法律效力的没收。\n\n关于证据事项，我们坚持认为本案中唯一具有法定资格且相关的证人是于 2024年7月2日 出庭作证的辩方专家 Maggie Sklar（麦琪·斯科拉尔）。Sklar 是本案中唯一合格的专家。一些控方证人尽管受到反对，但在未获得适当资格认定的情况下提供了所谓的专家意见。虽然 Sklar 和 Paul Hinton（保罗·欣顿）讨论了加密货币领域的复杂性，但他们的证词并未证实存在违法行为。作为美国企业标志的创新，不应与违法行为混为一谈。\n\n此外，声称加密货币交易所特征本质上具有欺诈性的断言是站不住脚的。新颖和不熟悉并不等同于犯罪。鉴于总统权力过渡期间最近的政策转变，加密货币法规似乎正在经历重大变革，这可能会直接影响本案。\n\n尽管如此，在未向我或我的当事人发出通知的情况下，初步没收裁定已签发并发布。在目前的情况下，该裁定可能是无效的，并且可能未提供有效通知。我正式请求在这些法律问题得到解决之前撤回没收裁定。从实际情况来看，在 Guo（郭）被判刑之前，减免程序甚至无法启动。\n\n此外，交易所多达 10,000 名会员面临着巨大的语言和沟通障碍。一些人居住在中国等司法管辖区，在这些地区根本无法查阅官方通知。此外，安全方面的担忧迫使这些人在建立解决其安全关切的程序之前就披露其身份。我们在多份提交文件（ECF 186、198、207-209、211、212、229 和 250）中对此进行了解释，并且自得知你们的提交文件以来，我已多次尝试制定计划。你们必须知道，将这些问题拖延至强制性索赔提交日期之后才予以解决，无异于没收。\n\n尽管我努力与政府合作制定一项程序以防止人道主义危机——即投资者必须在索取资金与危及人身安全之间做出选择——但显而易见的是，政府仍致力于在法定期限内推进而不做任何调整。与大量提交文件并存的，是一套经过审计的、易于理解的合规系统，该系统为政府提供了一条访问经审计合规文件的可行途径，这些文件追踪了每位 HEX 客户整个财务和 KYC（了解你的客户）记录的各个方面，并详细记录了所有银行交易和账户活动。(http)。\n\n更严重的是，政府根据一项可能已不再有效的政策关闭了 HEX，导致索赔人无法访问或下载必要的信息来支持其附带权利主张或减免权利主张。\n\n综上所述，SDNY（纽约南区）所执行的程序实际上导致了资金被没收以及交易所被拆解。它强加了不切实际的截止日期，要求客户将自身及其家人置于危险之中，并要求提交因政府关闭 HEX 而无法再访问的信息。这同时也是 HEX 用于通知受害者的平台。在任何情况下这种结果都是令人不安的，而当不断演变的政策似乎不再将加密货币交易归类为本质上可疑和犯罪、且政策目标似乎已不再认为关闭加密货币交易所这一目的可以使手段正当化时，这一结果尤为令人震惊。这可能已不再是政府政策。出于这些原因，我请求按要求将此事提级，以确定在对 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）判刑之前提交初步没收申请是否可以予以重新考虑。\n\n顺祝商祺，\n\n签名（字迹无法辨认）。\n\nBradford L. Geyer（布拉德福德·L·盖耶） (856) 607-5708 Brad(@)FormerFedsGroup.Com FormerFedsGroup.Com, LLC 141 \"I\" Rt. 130 South, 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077\n证物 C\n\n\n\nw\n\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官） Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nThe Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor New York, New York 10278\n\n2025年3月18日\n\n经由 ECF\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres（尊敬的阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官） United States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官） Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY\n关于：United States v. Miles Guo（美国诉郭文贵案），案号 S3 23 Cr. 188 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n2024年12月20日，在辩方提交单方信函以及当天举行了与辩方待决的更换辩护律师请求相关的单方庭审会议之后，法院无限期推迟了本案的量刑程序。此后，各方通过电子邮件向法院提交了多封信函；在法院2025年3月3日的诉讼程序之后，政府已将其信函公开提交至案卷目录。（案卷编号 500-502。）\n\n政府谨致函请求法院：(i) 授权辩护律师按如下详述公开提交其关于被告更换辩护律师动议的单方材料；(ii) 在适当范围内，对2024年12月20日和2025年3月3日庭审会议的单方笔录予以解封；以及 (iii) 在必要时，为被告指定新律师，以便迅速安排量刑日期。在历时八周的陪审团审判之后，被告已于2024年7月被定罪。迅速推进至量刑阶段对于维护司法利益、特别是维护受害者权利是必要的。\n1. 法院应命令辩护律师将某些提交文件予以公开\n\n2025年3月3日，法院指示各方就被告更换辩护律师动议相关的单方及密封材料是否可以公开提交提出意见。2025年3月10日，辩护律师提交了一封信函，声明被告对其“(i) CJA（刑事司法法案）财务宣誓书；(ii) Kwok（郭）先生就其破产案提交的两份载明其所欠他人债务的文件；(iii) 辩护律师日期为2024年12月10日和2025年1月28日的信函”予以公开提交并无异议。（案卷编号 499。）基于各方之间的沟通，政府获悉辩护律师正在等待法院授权以公开提交这些文件。据此，在辩方无异议的情况下，政府请求法院命令辩方公开提交被告2025年3月10日信函中所指明的、与被告更换辩护律师动议相关的那些单方及密封材料。\n2. 2024年12月20日和2025年3月3日笔录的非特权部分应予公开\n\n在辩方于2024年12月10日向法院致函之后，法院于2024年12月20日和2025年3月3日举行了两次庭审会议——其中的部分内容为单方进行且仍处于密封状态。只有这些单方庭审会议中受有效特权保护的部分才应保持密封。\n\n在更换辩护律师程序的背景下，公众查阅权占据主导地位，并且通常情况下，“所有退出代理动议均应送达客户，并（除非获法院免除）送达所有其他各方。”S.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 1.4(b)（根据 S.D.N.Y. Local Crim. R. 1.1(b) 适用于刑事案件）。法院可以“允许在非公开审理且密封的情况下陈述退出代理的理由”，但仅限于“适当的案件”。同上，2024年之前委员会注释。公众查阅“确保‘公众可以看到［被告］受到公正对待，其重要实体权利未被不公正地’剥夺。United States v. Avenatti（美国诉阿弗纳蒂案），550 F. Supp. 3d 36, 47 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)（引自 Waller v. Georgia（沃勒诉佐治亚州案），467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984)））。诚然，Second Circuit（第二巡回法院）已承认各种特权可作为限制查阅原本公开的材料的理由。参见 United States v. Amodeo（美国诉阿莫迪奥案），44 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 1995)。因此，密封笔录中反映律师与客户交流或工作成果的任何陈述，在没有相反证明的情况下均可保持密封。然而，这些保护仅适用于狭窄范围的信息。“律师与客户特权保护 (1) 客户与其律师之间 (2) 旨在且事实上保持保密的 (3) 出于获取或提供法律咨询目的的交流。”United States v. Mejia（美国诉梅希亚案），655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011)。律师工作成果仅保护“在预期诉讼时准备的、包含律师或其他代表的心智印象、结论、意见或法律理论的材料。”United States v. Petit（美国诉佩蒂特案），438 F. Supp. 3d 212, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)（引文省略）。据此，法院应审查密封笔录，并将任何继续密封严格限制在“为维护律师与客户关系的保密性所必需”的那些部分。Team Obsolete Ltd. V. A.H.R.M.A. Ltd（过时车队有限公司诉美国历史赛车摩托车协会有限公司案），464 F.Supp.2d 164, 165 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)；另见 Ceglia v. Zuckerberg（塞利亚诉扎克伯格案），No. 10 Cv. 569 (RJA) (LGF), 2013 WL 12234139, at *4-5 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2013)（承认“［退出代理动议的］披露主要对［相对方］反对退出有用”，但在裁定“动议应予驳回”后认定披露请求“已失去意义”）。\n\n尽管政府未参与2024年12月20日和2025年3月3日庭审会议的单方部分，但进行严格审查以确定这些会议中的哪些信息应继续对政府和公众屏蔽是恰当的。政府目前并未主张法院要求在这些诉讼程序的单方部分中分享的任何受特权保护的律师与客户交流或律师工作成果信息应当公开。然而，鉴于被告已向第三方（包括政府）表明其希望更换律师，理由是“冲突……因审判中的问题而对现任律师缺乏信任，以及由此导致的律师与 Guo（郭）先生之间沟通的破裂”，1 在这些庭审会议的单方部分中讨论的许多内容很可能并不具有保密性，因而也不受特权保护。参见\n\n1 S. Kamaraju（S·卡马拉朱）于2025年1月28日致法院的信函，抄送政府律师。\n\nMejia，655 F.3d at 134（缺乏保密性使特权主张不能成立）。据此，被告在庭审会议上关于对其现任律师不满的陈述（如有）不受保护。被告向法院陈述的关于其对律师行为的印象（如有）亦不受保护，因为此类意见并非律师与客户之间的交流。目前，唯一可以不予公开的，是在法院指示下对被告与其律师之间“出于获取或提供法律咨询之目的”所作保密陈述的叙述。Mejia，655 F.3d at 132。同样，政府目前对律师在这些庭审会议单方部分中就律师工作成果回答法院问题时的陈述受保护一事不持异议。但特别是由于审判已经结束，且辩方已经向政府提供了其对 PSR（判决前调查报告）的异议，律师与量刑相关的策略和心智印象（只要它们在庭审会议的单方部分中被讨论过）可能已被披露，因此将不再受保护。\n\n据此，政府请求辩方在2025年3月24日之前向法院提供对单方笔录拟议的遮蔽版本，并在该日期提供未遮蔽部分，遮蔽部分须经法院审查。辩方不同意此项请求。\n3. 本案应尽快推进至量刑阶段\n\n如其先前信函所述，政府坚称被告2024年12月10日提出的更换辩护律师动议应予驳回。（参见案卷编号 500-502。）2\n\n尽管如此，根据 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪受害者权利法》），18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)，本案受害者依法享有获得赔偿以及获得“不受不合理拖延的诉讼程序”的法定权利。18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)。正如政府就 Yanping Wang（王雁平）案所做的那样，政府打算请求法院下达一项命令，授权美国通过免除/退还程序，用最终被没收的资产对数千名被告受害者进行补偿，因为在本案中直接判令赔偿是不切实际的。参见 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3)；案卷编号 495。然而，任何免除/退还程序在针对被告作出最终没收命令之前均无法启动，而这必须在量刑\n\n2 法院有权自由裁量驳回该动议，除非法院认定该冲突“严重到导致完全缺乏沟通，从而妨碍了适当的辩护”。United States v. John Doe No. 1（美国诉无名氏一号案），272 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2001)。该条件并未得到满足。政府此前指出，请求退出代理的律师之一曾于2024年12月25日与被告会面，即在提交单方更换动议并举行听证之后。参见案卷编号 500 第4页。最近，在各方与法院的最后一次庭审会议上，请求退出代理的三名律师在法庭旁的 Marshals Service（法警局）羁押区私下会见了被告。被告的单方陈述可能声称与律师存在“某些分歧”，甚至存在“激烈隔阂”——但在数次推迟量刑且在陪审团作出裁决八个多月之后，这两种情况都不能等同于剥夺法院自由裁量权以驳回拖延性的更换辩护律师动议所必需的“完全缺乏沟通”。John Doe No. 1，272 F.3d at 124；United States v. Muhammad（美国诉穆罕默德案），No. 12 Cr. 337 (ADS) (GRB), 2012 WL 6021458, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2012)。\n\n完成之后方可进行。3 政府已收到数十起寻求公正补偿的受害者的问询，并且政府也接到了声称代表由数千名受害者组成的群体的律师的联系。正如法院所知，许多受害者损失了数万（或更多）美元。其他受害者则失去了退休金或大笔毕生积蓄。受害者们正在等待案件了结、追究责任以及免除/退还程序的启动，却无法知晓被告将于何时被判刑。政府希望在合理可行的情况下尽快将拟没收的数亿美元归还给受害者，并试图弥补郭及其同谋造成的损害。在被告被判刑之前，政府无法做到这一点。本案受害者的利益极大地支持为被告的量刑确定一个确切的日期。\n\n因此，迅速解决本案的需求极为迫切。政府理解法院正在权衡被告更换辩护律师动议的法律依据。政府谨请求，若法院意图准许（或驳回）被告的更换律师请求，应尽快作出决定，并迅速确定判决日期。被告律师（现任或接任）唯一剩下的工作就是在与当事人协商后准备判决前陈述意见，并在判决听证会期间为其当事人进行辩护。鉴于受害者和公众有权要求本案得到及时解决，这最后剩余的工作应当尽快进行。在法院准许被告动议的前提下，政府认为，曾在被告首次到案听审和初步罪状提审时代表被告、且在本案中不存在利益冲突的联邦公设辩护人（Federal Defenders），可被迅速指定为接任律师，并根据《刑事司法法案》（Criminal Justice Act）指定被告的现任律师作为新律师的补充。参见 Morris 诉 Slappy，461 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)（宣布准许或驳回更换律师动议的决定“属于初审法院的自由裁量权范围”）。\n\n政府随时准备回答法院可能提出的任何问题。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n代理美国检察官（Acting United States Attorney）\nMATTHEW PODOLSKY\n\n签署人：/s/\n\n助理美国检察官（Assistant United States Attorneys）\nMicah F. Fergenson\nRyan B. Finkel\nJustin Horton\nJuliana N. Murray\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314\n\n抄送：在案记录律师（通过 ECF）\n\n3 被告尚未提出同意最终没收令（order of forfeiture）。\n证据附录 D（EXHIBIT D）\n停止客户申索\n\n\n\n我没有在高科技交易所（Hi-Tech Exchange）遭受损失，我撤回我的资金申索，我不是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的受害者，我是美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）的受害者，我是因为司法部的不公而受到伤害。我停止并终止授权律师追索我的申索。\n解除合同\n[图标] ████████████████████\n2025年3月13日，星期四 5:25:55 AM -0400 •\n收件人 ████████████████████████████████\n████████████████████████████████████████\n\n\n\n您好，您好，\n\n非常抱歉，当我再次阅读这封信时，我没有仔细阅读条款。我觉得我不是受害者，我想解除我们的关系。\n\n\n\n我再次请求撤销 HID 授权\n我的 (HID)：\n\n我被张新芳（Zhang Xinfang）的宣传误导了，我不是受害者，我再次请求撤回参加诉讼动议（motion to intervene），我不是郭先生的受害者，请理解并撤回我的名字。\n关于取消喜马拉雅交易所事宜代理权的通知\n2025年3月13日，星期四 1:31:58 PM -0400 €\n收件人\n\n亲爱的 Bardford：\n\n，我写信给您是想再次确认，我不在 Yvette Wang（王雁平）或郭文贵的受害者名单上。\n\n如果我提供了任何要求，那仅适用于针对 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的诉讼！\n\n但现在情况正在发生变化，因此如果我的 HID 下存在任何请求，请予以删除，并立即停止代表我的任何权利。\n\n感谢您的反馈。\n\n[图标][已涂黑的发件人姓名] 2025年3月19日，星期三 1:51:48 PM -0400\n收件人 [已涂黑的收件人 1]\n[已涂黑的收件人 2] |\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我写信是为了指出某些被明显且故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注。在与郭文贵有关的法院文件中表明，我和成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的是向法院和证券交易委员会（SEC）请愿，要求释放冻结的 HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行为的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别码为 ），因为我认为它在这种情况下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，如果此问题仍未解决，我保留采取法律行动的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理这一请求。\n\n感谢您对此事的关注。我期待您的迅速回复。\n\n谨启\n停止客户申索\n\n\n\n我没有在高科技交易所遭受损失，我撤回我的资金申索，我不是郭文贵的受害者，我是美国司法部的受害者，我是因为司法部的不公而受到伤害。我停止并终止授权律师追索我的申索。\n解除合同\n\n\n\n\n\n您好，Bradford Geyer：\n\n非常抱歉，当我再次阅读这封信时，我没有仔细阅读条款。我觉得我不是受害者，我想解除我们的关系。\n\n客户：\n\n我再次请求撤销 HID 授权\n\n23[已屏蔽] @ [已屏蔽] 2025年3月13日，星期四 10:04:06 AM -0400\n收件人 [已屏蔽] >\n\n我的 (HID)：[已屏蔽]\n\n我被 宣传误导了，我不是受害者，我再次请求撤销 参加诉讼动议被撤回，我不是郭先生的受害者，请理解并撤回我的名字。\n关于取消喜马拉雅交易所事宜代理权的通知\nth\n[已屏蔽] @ [已屏蔽]\n2025年3月13日，星期四 1:31:58 PM -0400 • |\n\n收件人 [已屏蔽的收件人] >\n\n亲爱的 Bardford：\n\n，我写信给您是想再次确认，我不在王雁平或郭文贵的受害者名单上。\n\n如果我提供了任何要求，那仅适用于针对 SEC 的诉讼！\n\n但现在情况正在发生变化，因此如果我的 HID 下存在任何请求，请予以删除，并立即停止代表我的任何权利。\n\n感谢您的反馈。\n\n\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我写信是为了指出某些被明显且故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注。在与郭文贵有关的法院文件中表明，我和成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的是向法院和证券交易委员会（SEC）请愿，要求释放冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行为的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别码为 ），因为我认为它在这种情况下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，如果此问题仍未解决，我保留采取法律行动的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理这一请求。\n\n感谢您对此事的关注。我期待您的迅速回复。\n\n谨启\n关于撤销我的 HID 授权\n\n\n\n亲爱的 Geyer 先生：\n\n最近，我在与郭文贵和王雁平有关的文件中看到了成千上万的受害者。我不确定这里是否包括喜马拉雅用户。\n\n我不是郭文贵和王雁平的受害者，最初的 HID 授权是用于针对美国政府的主张。为了避免不必要的麻烦，我申请撤销我的 HID 授权，我的喜马拉雅 ID (HID)：\n\n如果您不能尽快处理此事，我保留采取法律行动的权利。\n\n感谢您对此事的理解。\n\n致以最良好的祝愿！\n\n一位投资者\n关于滥用个人 HID 的紧急通知。\n\n\n\n尊敬的律师：\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我写信是为了指出某些被明显且故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注。在与郭文贵有关的法院文件中表明，我和成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的是向法院和证券交易委员会（SEC）请愿，要求释放冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行为的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别码为 ），因为我认为它在这种情况下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，如果此问题仍未解决，我保留采取法律行动的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理这一请求。\n\n感谢您对此事的关注。我期待\n\n[已屏蔽]本邮件附件中所述的原因（请打开邮件附件），我从郭文贵案的法院文件中发现，我在喜马拉雅交易所的客户 HID 可能被错误地用于识别受害者的目的，而不是用于按 SEC 要求追索赔偿的目的。因此，我正式请求终止作为由您代表的客户的身份。请将我的 HID：[已屏蔽] 从您的客户代理名单中移除。谢谢！\n\n谨启\n\n发自 Proton Mail iOS 版\n请求撤销\n\nxu [已屏蔽]\n\n2025年3月20日，星期四 8:47:29 AM -0400 •\n收件人 [已屏蔽]\n[已屏蔽]\n[已屏蔽]\n\n阅读 2 / 3\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我是喜马拉雅交易所的客户。我的喜马拉雅 ID (HID) 是\n\n我从未是郭文贵和王雁平（Yangping Wang）的受害者。\n\n我最初委托您是为了解锁被 SEC 扣押的喜马拉雅交易所资金。并不是为了让喜马拉雅交易所退还我的任何资金。现在，我正式撤回对您的委托。请将我从您的客户名单中移除。\n\n如果我的上述委托已被提交给法院，也请一并撤回。\n\n希望能尽快得到您的回复。谢谢。\n回复：郭文贵（Miles Guo）案 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\nmo[B].d[B] 2025年3月20日，星期四 9:00:47 AM -0400 •\n收件人 [B] d [B]\n亲爱的 [B]\n\n今天是我第三次给您发邮件。\n\n- 本人 Yung Chin（喜马拉雅 HID 号码：► = = = ）特此郑重声明：\n- 1. 我不是郭文贵案中的受害者。\n\n2. 我不会参与任何与本案相关的法律行动，包括但不限于诉讼、申索或任何其他法律程序。\n\n3. 我与 Bradford Geyer 之间的代理协议自 2025年3月9日 起正式终止，与本案相关的任何法律授权均不再有效。\n\n本声明真实、准确地表达了我的意图。\n\n感谢您的关注。\n\n\n终止代理关系并撤销 HID:LR605BD 请求\ne 2025年3月20日，星期四 9:35:00 AM -0400 •\n收件人\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我写信是为了指出某些被明显且故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注。在与郭文贵有关的法院文件中表明，我和成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的是向美国司法部（DoJ）和美国证券交易委员会（SEC）请愿，要求释放冻结的喜马拉雅交易所资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行为的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别码为 & & ），因为我认为它在这种情况下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，如果此问题仍未解决，我保留采取法律行动的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理这一请求。\n\n感谢您对此事的关注。我期待您的迅速回复。\n\n自 iOS 版 Proton Mail 发送\n紧急：请求立即撤销我的 HID\nZC\n2025年3月20日星期四 10:36:58 AM -0400 •\n收件人\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。在与 Miles Guo（郭文贵）相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，简称 SEC）请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 ），因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，若此事仍未得到解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理此项请求。\n\n[图：_page_43_Figure_1.jpeg]\n主题：请求立即撤销我的 HID\nsk\n2025年3月20日星期四 11:12:39 AM -0400 ·\n收件人\n\n尊敬的 Brad（布拉德）：\n\n我特此致信，正式请求立即撤销我的 HID，因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。我的 HID 为\n\n在同意参与此代理关系时，我受到了严重的误导。我原先以为此项代理的唯一目的是追回与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）相关的资产及被冻结的资金，而不是被归类为郭文贵的“受害者”。这种曲解导致法律行动被当作武器使用，而这种方式并未反映我的真实立场。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和 SEC 请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。\n\n因此，我要求立即撤销我的 HID，并确认已将其从任何相关归档文件中移除。若此事未获解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。\n\n我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理此项请求。请在您方便时尽早确认撤销我的 HID。\n\n感谢您对对此事的及时关注。\n\n此致，\n\n[图：_page_44_Picture_12.jpeg]\n\n关注通告：我的 HID 在法律语境中被曲解\n2025年3月20日星期四 12:01:02 PM -0400 •\n收件人\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我正式致信给您，旨在纠正某些被故意曲解的事实，并提出一项需要您立即关注的紧急而严肃的请求。\n\n在有关郭先生的法庭文件中，声称我与成千上万的其他人一样，是郭先生的受害者。然而，该指控严重不准确，不仅具有误导性，而且与事实完全不符。\n\n实际情况是，我们自愿提供了我们的 HID，并明确指定您作为我们的共同代理人，唯一目的就是向法院和 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，简称 SEC）请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。对我们权利的真正侵害源自 SEC 的行动，而非郭先生。因此，我特此正式且明确地要求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 a some），因为在此案中它被不当利用并受到了误导性陈述。\n\n在此明确声明，如果此事未能得到及时且妥善的解决，我保留提起法律诉讼以维护自身合法权益的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃性处理此项请求，并采取必要步骤确保事实不再被进一步扭曲。\n关于我不是郭先生受害者的声明\n\n2025年3月20日星期四 8:54:13 AM -0400 • 收件人\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。在与郭文贵相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和美国证券交易委员会（SEC）请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 ），因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。请注意，若此事仍未得到解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理此项请求。感谢您对此事的关注。期待您的迅速回复。\n2025年3月21日星期五 7:28:08 AM -0400\n收件人 \"Questions\"\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。在与郭文贵相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和美国证券交易委员会（SEC）请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 2TU8U8E），因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，若此事仍未得到解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理此项请求。\n紧急撤回 HEX HID 授权\n\n[图：_page_48_Figure_2.jpeg]\n\n尊敬的律师：\n\n您好！\n\n我特此致信，旨在提请您注意近期的一起事实误解，并恳请您的协助。在近期与郭文贵先生相关的法庭文件中，有报道称我与成千上万的其他人一样，是郭先生的受害者。然而，实际情况是我与其他相关个人自愿提交了 HID，并指定您作为我们的联合代表，以请求法院和美国证券交易委员会（SEC）解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金及相关投资。事实上，我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而非郭文贵先生的受害者。基于上述理由，我谨请求您协助立即撤回与我关联的 HID 编号，以纠正由此错误信息所产生的不良后果。同时，我敦促您尽快处理此事。如果该问题未能得到及时解决，我保留提起进一步法律诉讼的权利。然而，我相信在您的专业协助下，我们能够妥善解决此事。感谢您对此信的关注。期待您的迅速回复。此致\n\n此致\n\n2025年3月21日星期五 3:21:26 AM -0400\n收件人\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。在与郭文贵相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和美国证券交易委员会（SEC）请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 ），因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，若此事仍未得到解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理此项请求。\n重要。我不是郭文贵的受害者\n\n[图：_page_50_Figure_2.jpeg]\n\n尊敬的 Bradford L. Geyer（布拉德福德·L·盖尔）先生：\n\n我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。\n\n在与郭文贵相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。事实上，我们每个人都提供了我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和 SEC 请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。正如您在相关视频中所陈述的那样，我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 ），因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。请注意，若此事仍未得到解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。\n\n2025年3月21日星期五 1:25:59 AM -0400\n收件人\n\n尊敬的 Bradford L. Geyer 先生：\n\n我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。\n\n在与郭文贵相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。事实上，我们每个人都提供了我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和 SEC 请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。正如您在相关视频中所陈述的那样，我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。\n\n因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 ），因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。\n\n请注意，若此事仍未得到解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。\n\n[图：_page_52_Figure_2.jpeg]\n\n尊敬的 Bradford L. Geyer 先生：我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。在与郭文贵相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。事实上，我们每个人都提供了我们的 HID 并指定您作为我们的共同代理人，其明确目的在于向法院和 SEC 请愿，要求解冻被冻结的 HEX 资金以及我们在其中的投资。正如您在相关视频中所陈述的那样，我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是郭文贵的受害者。因此，我谨请求立即撤销我的 HID（识别编号为 [REDACTED]），因为我认为它在当前语境下被滥用了。请注意，若此事仍未得到解决，我保留提起法律诉讼的权利。\n\n感谢您对此事的关注。期待您的迅速回复。\n请求从喜马拉雅恢复法律案件中立即撤销我的 HID\nye\n2025年3月21日星期五 12:22:46 AM -0400\n收件人\n\n尊敬的先生：\n\n我特此致信，旨在澄清某些明显且被故意曲解的事实，并提请您紧急关注此项请求。在与郭文贵先生相关的法庭文件中，显示我与成千上万的其他人一样，都是郭文贵先生的受害者。然而，这一断言与事实不符。\n\n事实上，我们每个人都是自愿提供我们的 HID 并委托您促请法院以及 Security and Exchange Commission（SEC，美国证券交易委员会）释放被冻结的 HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）资金及我们在其中的投资。我们是 SEC 行动的受害者，而不是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）先生的受害者。因此，我要求立即撤销我的 HID（标识为 ），因为我认为它在此背景下正被滥用。\n\n请注意，如果此事仍未得到解决，我保留采取法律行动的权利。我相信您会以应有的严肃态度处理这一请求。\n\n感谢您对此事的关注。我期待您的及时回复。\n\n此致\n\n附件 E\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 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），原告\n\n-v-（诉）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”或“校长”，\n\n以及\n\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，\n\n以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n\n被告。\n\n刑事案号：23-cr-118 (AT)\n裁定\n\n分配予：尊敬的美国联邦地区法院法官 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯），主审法官\n[拟议]关于无偏见撤销初步没收裁定并中止附随程序截止期限的裁定\n\n经审议 Himalaya Exchange (HEX)（喜马拉雅交易所）第三方受害人的代理律师提交的信函动议，且基于所展示的正当理由，特此裁定：\n\n- 1. 于 2025年1月7日 作出的初步没收裁定予以无偏见撤销；\n- 2. 目前定于 2025年4月7日 的附随申请截止期限予以中止并撤销，直至本法院另行下达裁定；\n- 3. 在被告 Miles Guo 的量刑及没收裁决完成之前，美国政府不得重新发布任何与没收相关的通知，亦不得就涉案 HEX 财产启动任何新的没收截止期限；\n- 4. 根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 已经提交的任何第三方申请予以搁置，等待有效的没收裁决，在本法院另行下达裁定之前不对其进行裁决。\n\n特此裁定。\n\n日期：____________, 2025\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯） 美国联邦地区法院法官","key_entities":["Guo","Miles Guo","forfeiture","Je","Geyer","Himalaya","Finkel","Himalaya Exchange","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Kwok","Torres","Analisa Torres","Yanping Wang","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Bradford Geyer","853(n)","Crime Victim","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Kamaraju","CCP","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":212,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":489,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":493,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":495,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":499,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":500,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":503,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":11294,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-03-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-03-21","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:17:13"}