{"id":"court_sdny_514_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":514,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"March 27, 2025 BY ECF March 27, 2025** Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New Yo","summary_zh":"第三方权益人律师提交法庭信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #514。代表大批 Himalaya Exchange（HEX）会员的律师 Bradford Geyer 就检方 ECF #511 信函提交补充回应，反对以匿名邮件作为指控依据，主张涉案没收/返还程序应置于法院监督之下，请求将此事上报司法部并启动反情报审查，并强调涉案 HEX 客户属无辜第三方。","summary_en":"Letter from counsel for third-party claimants — in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #514. Attorney Bradford Geyer, representing a large group of Himalaya Exchange (HEX) members, submits a supplemental response to the government's ECF No. 511 letter, objecting to reliance on an anonymous email as evidence, arguing that the forfeiture/remission process should remain under court supervision, requesting that the matter be elevated to Main Justice with a counterintelligence review, and asserting that the HEX customers at issue are innocent third parties.","body_en":"**March 27, 2025**\n\n**BY ECF March 27, 2025** Honorable Analisa Torres United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY\n\nRe: *United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)*: Supplemental Response to Government's Letter Filed as ECF No. 511 Submitted by Counsel for Certain Himalaya Exchange (HEX) Members\n\nYour Honor:\n\nThe undersigned, on behalf of Members of the Himalaya Exchange (HEX), respectfully submits this supplemental response to the Government's March 25, 2025 letter (ECF No. 511). That letter introduces an anonymous email as purported evidence and uses it to make sweeping assertions that unjustly implicate innocent customers—my clients—in a manner that is both unsubstantiated and deeply concerning.\n\nOnce again, the Government appears to be advancing its prosecutorial narrative through vague, anonymous, and unverified allegations. In a prior filing this January, prosecutors invoked concern for the welfare of HEX Members as a reason to accelerate Mr. Guo's sentencing—while simultaneously creating an environment where those same investors now risk being labeled coconspirators or fools simply for seeking return of their own lawfully invested funds. However this may be characterized, it amounts to coercion by implication, and it is improper.\n\nThere appears to be an effort to use the remission process as a pressure mechanism— \"rummaging around\" among victims whose assets were seized without cause, leveraging their desperation to fill evidentiary gaps in the Government's case against Mr. Guo. That is not justice. It borders on blackmail.\n\nWe are reminded of the warning articulated by Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia:\n\n*\"The vernacular is to 'sing,' is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.\"*\n\nWhere coercion is present, the truth becomes compromised. Demanding that thousands of investors of HEX (not to mention across more than 80 entities) justifies the return of their seized property—under threat of insinuated criminal exposure—inevitably skews whatever information is elicited. That is a structural defect in the current approach.\n\nSentencing should proceed only after a deliberate, fact-based process free of procedural shortcuts and foreign entanglement. The urgency now claimed by the Government is neither consistent nor justified. If, as prosecutors contend, they have proven Mr. Guo guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why must they now rely on the coerced assistance of those who were never part of the case? The government had the HEX banking information. Which ones were illegitimate or proceeds from the crimes or conspirators, all which occurred in the British Virgin Islands?\n\nThe prosecution's pattern—accusatory claims built on shaky or anonymous foundations—should preclude it from unilateral control over remission. In the unlikely event proper jurisdiction is found to be present over the seizure of HEX accounts, Court supervision over the redemption process under these circumstances is not optional; it is essential. Once the process escapes judicial oversight, there is a very real risk that thousands of innocent investors will be denied access to their own funds based on politics or narrative convenience rather than evidence.\n\nWe respectfully reiterate our request that this matter be elevated to Main Justice. In addition, a **counterintelligence review** is clearly warranted. The Court is reminded of **Stipulation 1**, read to the jury on May 29, 2024, and admitted into evidence by agreement of the parties. That stipulation confirms:\n\n- The FBI has investigated individuals working under the direction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as part of \"Operation Fox Hunt,\" an aggressive international campaign to coerce Chinese dissidents back to the PRC;\n- Mr. Guo was identified as the CCP's highest-priority target in 2017;\n- U.S. law enforcement received credible intelligence that the PRC funded anti-Guo protests, deployed undeclared agents to the United States, and ran cyber operations to deplatform him from U.S. social media;\n- Multiple individuals later some with US government ties were convicted of illegal lobbying acted on the PRC's behalf to pressure the Trump administration for Guo's extradition.\n\nThese facts are not speculative; they are part of the trial record. Moreover, we also seem to have US government and Chinese government collaboration in censorship of Mr. Guo.[1](#page-2-0)\n\nIn this context, the alignment between the CCP's objectives and the U.S. Government's prosecutorial conduct is too stark to ignore. Whether intentional or inadvertent, the Government's actions—targeting the same dissident, adopting the same disinformation tactics, and freezing assets associated with his movement—have functionally advanced CCP goals. And the most direct victims of this alignment are the thousands of innocent HEX customers now caught in the crossfire none of whom had any involvement with the charged crimes.\n\nThese individuals did nothing wrong. Yet under the Government's current approach, they are being subjected to forfeiture without due process and standing to lose billions in HCN value, and in many cases, implicitly accused of complicity or gullibility simply for maintaining their investments. This framework inverts the presumption of innocence and directly contradicts victim protection principles.\n\nA **neutral counterintelligence review** is essential. It should determine whether the prosecution has been influenced—directly or indirectly—by foreign state actors or adversarial narratives. Such a review is critical to preserving public trust, protecting institutional integrity, and preventing further harm to individuals who have already suffered unjust losses.\n\nIn the interim, **remission must not proceed outside court supervision.** The stakes are too high for discretion to be left in the hands of those who have already demonstrated a troubling willingness to politicize forfeiture.\n\nWe must also be honest about the financial reality: **every single dollar invested in the Himalaya Exchange was still in trust when the U.S. Government seized those funds.** The rational equation is simple and sobering:\n\n## **Total investment loss = 0% stolen by Defendant Guo + 100% seized by the U.S. Government.**\n\nThis is not theory—it is fact. Yet now, anyone who seeks restitution must risk being labeled a conspirator or a dupe. This is an entirely manufactured dilemma, and it should be unacceptable in any legal system that claims to value fairness.\n\nMy clients have voiced these concerns through proper channels and I am asking for elevation and escalation to Main Justice. They have received not transparency, but hostility. The\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Guo interview had been scheduled for three hours but was [cut off](http) after an hour and 19 minutes following protests from the Chinese Embassy in Washington to VOA and the State Department. (http referenced by the White House on March 15, 2025 http).\n\ncurrent prosecutorial approach is clear: **\"accept our narrative, or you're the enemy.\"** This is not prosecution; it is persecution.\n\nMore disturbingly, the Government appears to be using customer claims as leverage to influence Mr. Guo's sentencing. This tactic weaponizes the very individuals the Government previously claimed to protect. Their dissenting views are treated not as evidence of legitimate concern, but as threats to be neutralized. This is coercion, plain and simple.\n\nThe sudden urgency we see now—after months of delay—raises questions. Meanwhile, my clients continue to push for a rational, lawful process of restitution: one that includes authentication, verification, and procedural safeguards.\n\n## To be clear: **there is no credible basis to assert that the 6,700+ HEX Members conspired to defraud themselves.[2](#page-3-0)**\n\nThe notion that these individuals, many of whom are apolitical or entirely uninvolved with any of the defendants, are part of some global scheme to defraud themselves is, frankly, absurd. Many customers simply viewed HEX as a legitimate cryptocurrency platform. Others supported it due to its pro-democracy mission. Regardless of their reason for investing, **none of them confiscated their own money. The U.S. Government did.**\n\nWe respectfully urge the Court to protect these individuals from becoming collateral damage in what increasingly appears to be a foreign-influenced prosecution, and to restore public confidence through transparency, oversight, and accountability.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708 Bradford L. Geyer, PHV\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> As of March 25, 2025, our review indicates approximately 6,700 customers (net of 109 terminations). In ECF 506 n.1, we previously misattributed losses to 5,242 customers, when in fact those figures were based on only 3,539 verified clients. The updated number is expected to increase but will be further refined during authentication. Full accuracy requires restored access to HEX's records, which may have been compromised by Government seizures.","body_zh":"2025年3月27日\n\n通过ECF送达 2025年3月27日 尊敬的Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯） 美国联邦地区法官 纽约南区（Southern District of New York） 500 Pearl Street New York, NY\n\n关于：United States v. Miles Guo（美国诉郭文贵案），S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)：针对政府作为ECF第511号文件提交之信函的补充回应 由部分Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所，HEX）会员的代理律师提交\n\n尊敬的法官：\n\n下署人谨代表Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所，HEX）会员，就政府2025年3月25日的信函（ECF No. 511）恭敬呈递本补充回应。该信函将一封匿名电子邮件作为所谓的证据引入，并借此作出全盘性断言，以毫无根据且令人深感担忧的方式不公正地牵连无辜客户——即我的当事人。\n\n政府似乎再次试图通过模糊、匿名且未经核实的指控来推进其起诉层面的陈述。在今年1月的一份早期提交文件中，检察官以关切HEX会员福祉为由要求加快对Guo（郭）先生的量刑——与此同时，却制造了一种环境，使这些投资者如今仅仅因为寻求返还自己合法投资的资金，就面临被贴上共谋者或受骗愚人的标签的风险。无论对此如何定性，这都构成了借暗含威胁进行的强迫，并且是不当的。\n\n目前似乎存在一种企图，即将特免返还程序用作施压机制——在那些资产无端遭扣押的受害者中“四处搜寻”，利用他们的绝望来填补政府针对Guo（郭）先生一案中的证据漏洞。这不是正义。这已近乎敲诈。\n\n这让我们想起了Eastern District of Virginia（弗吉尼亚东区）T.S. Ellis III（T·S·埃利斯三世）法官所阐述的警告：\n\n“检察官惯用的行话是‘招供’。你必须警惕的是，他们可能不仅会‘招供’，还可能会‘编造’。”\n\n在存在强迫的地方，真相就会受到损害。在受到暗示性刑事追责威胁的情况下，要求HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）的数千名投资者（更不用说横跨80多个实体）证明其被扣押财产返还的正当性，必然会使所获得的任何信息发生偏差。这是当前做法中的一项结构性缺陷。\n\n量刑应当仅在经过深思熟虑、基于事实且免受程序捷径和外国势力纠缠的过程之后方可进行。政府如今声称的紧迫性既不连贯，也缺乏合理性。如果正如检察官所主张的那样，他们已经排除了合理怀疑证明Guo（郭）先生有罪，为何他们现在必须依赖从未参与本案的人员在被强迫之下提供的协助？政府掌握了HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）的银行信息。究竟哪些是非法的，哪些是犯罪所得或来自共谋者，而所有这一切均发生在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）？\n\n检方的模式——建立在不可靠或匿名基础之上的指责性主张——应当排除其对特免返还程序的单方面控制。即便在极不可能的情况下认定对HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）账户的扣押具有正当管辖权，在当前情况下，法院对赎回程序的监督也不是可有可无的；它是必不可少的。该程序一旦脱离司法监督，数千名无辜投资者就面临非常现实的风险，即仅仅基于政治或陈述便利而非证据被剥夺获取自身资金的权利。\n\n我们谨恭敬重申我们的请求，即本案应上呈至Main Justice（司法部总部）。此外，进行反情报审查显然是有正当理由的。本法院被提请注意于2024年5月29日向陪审团宣读、并经各方当事人同意作为证据采信的第1项事实约定。该事实约定确认：\n\n- FBI（联邦调查局）曾调查在Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党，CCP）指令下工作的人员，该行动属于“猎狐行动”的一部分，后者是一项旨在强迫中国异见人士返回PRC（中华人民共和国）的极具侵略性的国际行动；\n- Guo（郭）先生在2017年被确定为CCP（中国共产党）的最高优先级目标；\n- 美国执法部门获得了可靠的情报，表明PRC（中华人民共和国）资助了反郭抗议活动，向美国部署了未申报的特工人员，并开展了旨在将其从美国社交媒体平台封禁的网络行动；\n- 多名个人随后因代表PRC（中华人民共和国）向Trump（特朗普）政府施压要求引渡郭而从事非法游说活动被定罪，其中部分人与美国政府存在关联。\n\n这些事实并非推测；它们是审判记录的一部分。此外，在对Guo（郭）先生的审查封禁方面，我们似乎也看到了美国政府与中国政府之间的协同。注1\n\n在此背景下，CCP（中国共产党）的目标与美国政府的起诉行为之间的高度一致性令人无法忽视。无论是有意还是无意，政府的行为——针对同一位异见人士、采用相同的虚假信息策略、并冻结与其运动相关的资产——在功能上推进了CCP（中国共产党）的目标。而这种协同最直接的受害者，就是如今陷入交火之中的数千名无辜HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）客户，他们当中没有任何人参与了被指控的罪行。\n\n这些人没有做错任何事。然而在政府目前的做法下，他们正在未经正当程序的情况下遭受财产没收，并面临损失数十亿HCN（喜币）价值的境地，而且在许多情况下，仅仅因为维持其投资就被含沙射影地指责为同谋或轻信。这种构架颠倒了无罪推定，并与受害者保护原则直接背道而驰。\n\n中立的反情报审查是必不可少的。该审查应当确定起诉是否直接或间接地受到了外国国家行为体或敌对陈述的影响。此类审查对于维护公众信任、保护机构廉洁性以及防止对已经遭受不公损失的个人造成进一步伤害至关重要。\n\n在此期间，特免返还程序绝不能在法院监督之外进行。将自由裁量权留给那些已经表现出将没收程序政治化之令人不安倾向的人手中，风险实在太高。\n\n我们还必须诚实面对财务现实：在被美国政府扣押时，投资于Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的每一分钱都仍处于信托状态。理性的等式简单而发人深省：\n\n总投资损失 = 被告Guo（郭）盗取0% + 被美国政府扣押100%。\n\n这不是理论——这是事实。然而现在，任何寻求赔偿的人都必须冒着被贴上共谋者或受骗者标签的风险。这是一个完全人为制造的困境，在任何声称重视公平的法律体系中都应当是不可接受的。\n\n我的当事人已通过正当渠道表达了这些担忧，我请求将此事上呈并升级至Main Justice（司法部总部）。他们得到的不是透明，而是敌意。\n\n注1：对郭的采访原定进行三小时，但在中国驻华盛顿大使馆向VOA（美国之音）和国务院提出抗议后，在1小时19分钟后被切断。（白宫于2025年3月15日引用的网页链接）。\n\n当前的起诉方式显而易见：“接受我们的陈述，否则你就是敌人。”这不是起诉；这是迫害。\n\n更令人不安的是，政府似乎正在利用客户的主张作为筹码来影响对Guo（郭）先生的量刑。这种策略将政府此前声称要保护的人员武器化。他们的异见未被视为合法关切的证据，反而被视为需要消除的威胁。这就是强迫，纯粹而简单。\n\n经过数月的拖延后，我们现在看到的突如其来的紧迫性引发了疑问。与此同时，我的当事人继续推动合理、合法的赔偿程序：一个包含身份认证、核实和程序保障的程序。\n\n明确而言：没有任何可靠的依据可以断言6700多名HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）会员共谋欺诈他们自己。注2\n\n认为这些个人（其中许多人持非政治立场，或完全未参与任何被告的事务）参与了欺诈他们自己的某项全球性骗局的说法，坦率地讲，是荒谬的。许多客户仅仅是将HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）视为一个合法的加密货币平台。其他人支持它则是由于其支持民主的使命。无论他们投资的理由为何，他们当中没有任何人没收了自己的钱。是美国政府没收的。\n\n我们谨恭敬敦促本法院保护这些个人，使其免于在日益显现出受到外国影响的起诉中沦为附带损害，并通过透明度、监督和问责制恢复公众信心。\n\n/签名/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141\nRoute 130 S. 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856) 607-5708\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV\n\n注2：截至2025年3月25日，我们的审查显示约有6700名客户（扣除109名终止客户）。在ECF 506脚注1中，我们此前错误地将损失归因于5242名客户，而实际上这些数据仅基于3539名经核实的当事人。更新后的数字预计会有所增加，但将在身份认证过程中进一步精细化。完全的准确性需要恢复对HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）记录的访问权限，而这些记录可能已因政府扣押而受到损害。","key_entities":["Guo","CCP","Geyer","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Je","forfeiture","Miles Guo","Torres","Analisa Torres","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":506,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":511,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1380,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:26:48"}