{"id":"court_sdny_598_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":598,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-04-04","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n- v. -\n\nYVETTE WANG a/k/a \"Yanping,\" a/k/a \"Y,\"\n\nDefendant.\n\nTHIRD-PARTY PETITION TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN FORFEITED PROPERTY AND TO AMEND THE PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORECITURE - VERIFIED CLAIM OF S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nPetitioner Interest in Forfeited Property and to Amend the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) (the \"Petition\"). Petitioner seeks the return of funds in which Petitioner has a legal right, title, and/or interest (\"Petitioner's Property\") (as more fully defined below) and that the United States Government (the \"Government\") improperly seized as part of an order of forfeiture entered into with Defendant Y vette Wang (\"Defendant Wang\"). Specifically, Petitioner's Property was improperly seized by the Government when the Government seized all the funds in bank account number 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (\"Account 2770\"). However, any order of forfeiture reaching the funds in Account 2770, including Petitioner's Property, was unlawful and improper as Defendant Wang has no legal right, title, or interest in either Account 2770 or Petitioner's Property. The Forfeiture Order (as more fully defined below) is therefore rendered invalid as to Petitioner's Property because right, title, or interest in Petitioner's Property was vested in the Petitioner rather than Defendant Wang, and was superior to any right, title, or interest of Defendant Wang at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the Forfeiture Order (as defined below). As such, this Court should amend the Forfeiture Order to remove Petitioner's Property from the Forfeiture Order that the Government immediately return Petitioner's Property to Petitioner. In support of Petitioner's claim, Petitioner states as follows:\n\n#### L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nIt appears that the funds in Account 2770, including Petitioner's Property, were purely \"collateral damage\" in the Government's seizure of assets prior to its prosecution of Defendant Wang and Miles Guo (\"Defendant Guo\"). It has been over two and a half years since the seizure of Account 2770, and in that time span, there has never been any explanation as to how Account 2770 (including Petitioner's Property) is related to any of the offenses to which Defendant Wang pled guilty, a necessary prerequisite to a valid forfeiture order under the law. There was never any showing that any proceeds of any unlawful activity to which Defendant Wang pled guilty were ever deposited in Account 2770; no showing that any proceeds of such activity were ever commingled with Petitioner's Property; and, indeed, no showing that Defendant Wang ever had anything to do with Account 2770 or even knew of its existence.\n\nAs will be shown below, Petitioner is a beneficiary of a constructive trust over Petitioner's Property and Petitioner's Property cannot be seized by the Government in this case. Neither Defendant Wang, nor the Government who now stands in her shoes, have ever demonstrated that they have any interest whatsoever in Petitioner's Property in Account 2770 or in Account 2770 in general. While Defendant Wang consented to the forfeiture of \"all her right, title, and interest\" in Account 2770 (and thus, Petitioner's Property) in the Forfeiture Order (ECF No. 488 at 2-3), her consent has no legal bearing as to Account 2770 or Petitioner's Property. Defendant Wang never had such \"right, title, and interest\" in Account 2770 - there is no evidence that she was a signatory\n\nBA66BHAG8I8E78CBF<G87@BA8L<AGB66BHAGBEBG;8EJ<F8;474AL6BAGEB?BI8E 66BHAG4A7G;8E8<FAB8I<78A68G;4G898A74AG.4A:8I8E7<E86G874ALBA87<E86G?LBE indirectly, to deposit any money into Account 2770. Defendant Wang cannot forfeit property that F;8 7B8F ABG BJA 4A7 <A J;<6; F;8 ;4F AB <AG8E8FG !A 946G <G 4CC84EF G;4G G;8 BHEG A8I8E 8FG45?<F;87G;4G(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGL<F8I8AFH5=86GGB9BE98<GHE8<AG;89<EFG<AFG4A684FE8DH<E87 by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A).\n\nBE 4?? G;8 9BE8:B<A: E84FBAF 4A7 9BE G;8 E84FBAF 78@BAFGE4G87 58?BJ (8G<G<BA8E E8FC86G9H??L E8DH8FGFG;4GG;<FBHEG\n :E4AGG;<F (8G<G<BA 4@8A7G;8 BE98<GHE8 'E78EGB 8K6?H78(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGLBE78EG;8<@@87<4G8E8GHEAB9(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGLGB(8G<G<BA8E BE78EG;4G (8G<G<BA8E<F 8AG<G?87GB E86BI8E (8G<G<BA8ETF 4GGBEA8LFT 988F 4A7 6BFGF<A6HEE87<A 6BAA86G<BAJ<G;G;<F(8G<G<BA4A7:E4AG(8G<G<BA8E?84I8GBFH5@<G4A4CC?<64G<BA9BEFH6;4GGBEA8LFT 988F4A76BFGF4A7:E4AGFH6;4A7BG;8EE8?<89G;4G<FA868FF4EL4A7=HFG\n\n## II. **BACKGROUND FACTS**\n\n## **#1'1'-,#/70/-.#/15**\n\n 4@<?GBA 'CCBEGHA<GL HA7 \\*( Q 4@<?GBA 'CCBEGHA<GL HA7R 4 4L@4A !F?4A7F\\*8:E8:4G87(BEG9B?<BB@C4ALCEBI<787(8G<G<BA8EJ<G;4A'998E<A:%8@BE4A7H@G;8 Q'998E<A: %8@BE4A7H@R 74G87 \"4AH4EL   GEH8 4A7 6BEE86G 6BCL B9 G;8 '998E<A: %8@BE4A7H@<F4GG46;87;8E8GB4F**4&' '1**\n\n 4@<?GBA'CCBEGHA<GLHA7<F4Q9HA7FC86<4?<M<A:<A8DH<GL<AI8FG@8AGFF8?86G87 5LG;8!AI8FG@8AG%4A4:8E14FG;4GG8E@<F789<A87<AG;8'998E<A:%8@BE4A7H@2J<G;4I<8JGB ?BA: G8E@64C<G4?:4<AF 4. ” **Exhibit A**, Offering Memorandum at 33. The Investment Manager (as G;4GG8E@<F789<A87<AG;8'998E<A:%8@BE4A7H@;47<78AG<9<874ABCCBEGHA<GLGB<AI8FG<A454A> (the “Digital Bank”) (as more fully described in Offering Memorandum at 33). In connection with G;<F<AI8FG@8AG 4@<?GBA'CCBEGHA<GLHA7FBH:;GGBE4<F864C<G4?5L<FFH<A:I4E<BHF6?4FF8FB9 shares. Id. at 34.\n\n3. J Offering Memorandum offered Petitioner an opportunity to acquire Class B Shares attributed to a segregated portfolio of Hamilton Opportunity Fund - Hamilton M&A Fund SP (the \"M&A Fund\").\n\n4. Defendant Wang was not a director or member of, and otherwise lacked any corporate or equity interest in, the M&A Fund or Hamilton Opportunity Fund. The evidentiary record is devoid of any evidence to the contrary.\n\n5. Defendant Wang did not make any investments in the M&A Fund; again, the evidentiary record is devoid of any evidence to the contrary.\n\n6. On January 26, 2022, Petitioner submitted an application (the \"Subscription Agreement\") to Hamilton Opportunity Fund for a subscription for \\$300,000 worth of Class B Shares in the M&A Fund. A true and correct copy of the Subscription Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n7. approved and accepted the Subscription Agreement. See Exhibit B, Subscription Agreement at 15.\n\n8. On January 28, 2022, pursuant to the terms of the Subscription Agreement, Petitioner wired \\$300,135.29 (the \"Petitioner's Property\") to Account Number 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank. A true and correct copy of the wire confirmation is attached hereto as Exhibit C.\n\n9. J The account to which Petitioner wired Petitioner's Property to is Account 2770.\n\n10. Pursuant to the terms of the Offering Memorandum, Petitioner is entitled to redemption of Petitioner's shares at the Petitioner's option. Exhibit A, Offering Memorandum at 17; see also id. at 53 (stating that subject to certain limitations, \"Class B Shares may be redeemed\n\n4\n\nat the option of the Shareholder on any Redemption Day”).\n\n11. The assets of Hamilton Opportunity Fund are “kept segregated, separate and F8C4E4G8?L<78AG<9<45?89EB@G;BF8B94ALBG;8EF8:E8:4G87CBEG9B?<BFB9G;8HA74A74AL:8A8E4? assets of the Fund.” **Exhibit A**, Offering Memorandum at 12. In addition, pursuant to the laws of G;8 4L@4A !F?4A7F <G <F G;8 7HGL B9 4@<?GBA 'CCBEGHA<GL HA7 GB QF8:E8:4G8 4A7 >88C F8:E8:4G87CBEG9B?<B4FF8GFB9846;F8:E8:4G87CBEG9B?<BF8C4E4G84A7F8C4E4G8?L<78AG<9<45?89EB@ F8:E8:4G87CBEG9B?<B4FF8GFB94ALBG;8EF8:E8:4G87CBEG9B?<B R **4&' '1**'998E<A:%8@BE4A7H@ 4G 6<G<A:G;8B@C4A<8F6G)8I<F87B94L@4A!F?4A7F(4EG/!5\n\n## **#'62/#-\\$!!-2,1**\n\n12. On September 18, 2022, the Government seized the entire balance of the funds in 66BHAG\n\n13. To date, there are no documents available publicly as to what probable cause the BI8EA@8AG;47GBF8<M8G;89HA7F<A66BHAG\n\n# C. **The Criminal Case Against Defendant Wang and Defendant Guo and the -/\\$#'12/#/\"#/**\n\n14. On March 6, 2023, the Government filed an indictment against Defendant Wang 4A7898A74AGHB4A74G;<E77898A74AG.<??<4@\"8J;B;4FA8I8E588A4EE4<:A87 ECF No. 2.\n\n15. On May 3, 2024, the Government filed a superseding information (the Q\\*HC8EF87<A:!A9BE@4G<BAR4:4<AFG898A74AG.4A: ECF No. 325. The Superseding Information 6;4E:87 898A74AG .4A: J<G; BA8 6BHAG B9 BAFC<E46L GB B@@<G .<E8 E4H7 BHAG ! \\*HC8EF87<A: !A9BE@4G<BA 4G\n 4A7 BA8 6BHAG B9BAFC<E46LGBB@@<G%BA8L \\$4HA78E<A: BHAG !! \\*HC8EF87<A: !A9BE@4G<BA 4G +;8 \\*HC8EF87<A: !A9BE@4G<BA 4?FB 6BAG4<A87 4 BE98<GHE8??8:4G<BAG;8QBE98<GHE8??8:4G<BAR Superseding Information at 4.\n\n16. On the same day, May 3, 2024, Defendant Wang pled guilty to Count I and Count\n\nII as charged in the Superseding Information.\n\n17. Ju Also on May 3, 2024, this Court entered a Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (\"Original Forfeiture Order\"). ECF No. 329.\n\n18. In the Original Forfeiture Order, Defendant Wang consented to forfeit, \"all her right, title, and interest in\" certain assets, including Account 2770, because such property \"constitute[ed] proceeds of the offenses charged in Count One that the Defendant personally obtained and/or property involved in offense charged in Count Two of the [Superseding] Information.\" Original Forfeiture Order at 2-6 (emphasis added).\n\n19. Defendant Guo did not plead guilty to any of the offenses charged against him. Accordingly, a jury trial was held between May 22, 2024 and July 16, 2024 (the \"Guo Trial\"). On July 16, 2024, the jury found Defendant Guo guilty of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. ECF No. 395. As of the date of this Petition, Defendant Guo has not yet been sentenced.\n\n20. On January 6, 2025, Defendant Wang was sentenced.\n\n21. On January 7, 2025, this Court entered a Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (the \"Forfeiture Order\") ECF No. 488. As it pertains to Petitioner, the Forfeiture Order is substantially similar to the Original Forfeiture Order in all material respects. In the Forfeiture Order, Defendant Wang consented to forfeit, \"all her right, title, and interest in\" certain assets, including Account 2770, because such property \"constitute [ed] proceeds of the offenses charged in Count One that the Defendant personally obtained and/or property involved in offense charged in Count Two of the [Superseding] Information.\" Forfeiture Order at 2-11 (emphasis added).\n\n22. The assets in Account 2770 are described in both the Original Forfeiture Order and\n\nthe Forfeiture Order as follows:\n\n\\$89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank, held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC\" and seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022 (23-FB1-000074).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 3; Forfeiture Order at 3.\n\n#### III. ARGUMENT\n\n23. In an ancillary criminal forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1), this Court must determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether a petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property to be forfeited, and whether such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid, in whole or in part, because such interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant, or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).\n\n24. Here, Petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in Petitioner's Property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6)(A) by virtue of a constructive trust over such property. Moreover, Petitioner's interest in Petitioner's Property was both vested in Petitioner and was superior to any right Defendant Wang had in Petitioner's Property because Defendant Wang had no legal right, title or, interest in either Petitioner's Property or Account 2770. In other words, Defendant Wang could not forfeit her interest in Account 2770 because she had no interest that was properly subject to criminal forfeiture. Accordingly, the Forfeiture Order should be modified to remove Petitioner's Property, and Petitioner's Property should be returned to Petitioner.\n\n# A. The Government Failed to Demonstrate that the Funds in Account 2770, Including Petitioner's Property, Were Properly Subject to Forfeiture in the First Instance, Making the Forfeiture Order Improper as to Such Funds\n\n25. J. The Government has no legal cause to retain Petitioner's Property because there is no evidence that the Government has ever demonstrated that Petitioner's Property, and Account 2770 in general, is actually forfeitable property, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A).\n\n26. \" \"When the government seeks to obtain an order of forfeiture, 'Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(1) ... requires the sentencing court to determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute.\"\" U.S. v. Watts, 786 F. 3d 152, 172 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing U.S. v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.2007)). Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2, \"if the government seeks forfeiture of specific property, the court must determine whether the government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense.\" Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); Watts, 786 F.3d at 172. \"At various points in the proceedings, the government bears the burden of proving this legal conclusion to varying degrees of certainty: as a matter of probable cause at a post-indictment hearing. . .or by a preponderance of the evidence at a bench trial or before a jury.\" Id. (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). \"Only if the government meets the relevant legal threshold, however, may the property in question be considered 'subject to forfeiture' in any legal sense. Prior to that, while the government has simply announced its intent to seek forfeiture through the indictment, the property is seen merely as 'potentially forfeitable' . . . or 'potentially subject to forfeiture.\"\" Id. (internal citations omitted).\n\n27. This means that before the court reaches the question of whether the petitioner is entitled to the return of the property under §853(n), it is necessary to determine if the property in dispute is actually forfeitable in the first instance. If not, the government had no statutory authority to seize the property. If the property was improperly seized, the government must return the\n\naccounts seized regardless of whether the petitioner can meet the criteria set forth in §853(n). See e.g. United States v. Delco Wire & Cable Co., 772 F. Supp. 1511, 1518 (E.D.PA, 1991).\n\n28. Jull and complete Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A) inquiry is critical to the fair administration of justice. The entire forfeiture system rests upon the supposition that a court has conducted an inquiry and determined that the property is subject to forfeiture. In enacting ancillary proceeding statutes, Congress chose to place the burden of proof on the third-party during an ancillary proceeding, since \"the United States will have already proven its forfeiture allegations in the criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.\" S. REP. 98-225, 209, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3392.\n\n29. In this matter, there has never been a determination of whether there exists a nexus between Account 2770 and any of the offenses Defendant Wang was charged with (and pled guilty to), and, as a result, Petitioner is forced to file this Petition. Based on all the information contained in the publicly-available documents in both Defendant Wang's and Defendant Guo's criminal case, the Government cannot prevail with respect to Account 2770.\n\n30. Here, in the Superseding Information, the Government included a Forfeiture Allegation as to both Count II and sought forfeiture of specific property. Superseding Information at 4. There is no evidence in the record that the Government even attempted to show, let alone that it met its burden to show, a nexus between Account 2770, and the offenses to which Defendant Wang pled guilty.\n\n31. As to Count I, the Forfeiture Allegation states that, \"[a]s a result of committing the wire fraud offense alleged in Count One of this Superseding Information, YVETTE WANG, a/k/a \"Yanping\" a/k/a \"Y,\" the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United\n\n9\n\n States Code, Section[] 981(a)(1)(C)<sup>1</sup>...and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and 4?? CEBC8EGL E84? 4A7 C8EFBA4? G;4G 6BAFG<GHG8F BE <F 78E<I87 9EB@ CEB6887F GE46845?8 GB G;8 commission of said offense.” Superseding Information at 4. The Government must prove the 8?8@8AGF B9 9BE98<GHE8 HA78E\n, U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 , U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Moreover, “if the Government’s theory of forfeiture is that the property was HF87 GB 6B@@<G BE 946<?<G4G8 G;8 6B@@<FF<BA B9 4 6E<@<A4? B998AF8 BE J4F <AIB?I87 <A G;8 6B@@<FF<BA B9 4 6E<@<A4? B998AF8G;8 BI8EA@8AG F;4?? 8FG45?<F;G;4GG;8E8 J4F 4 FH5FG4AG<4? 6BAA86G<BA58GJ88AG;8CEBC8EGL4A7G;8B998AF8 ” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3).\n\n32. The record is devoid of any allegations pertaining to how funds in Account 2770 4E8BE4E878E<I879EB@CEB6887FGE46845?8GB898A74AG.4A:TF6BAFC<E46LGB6B@@<GJ<E89E4H7 +;8\\*HC8EF87<A:!A9BE@4G<BA4??8:8FG;4GQ192EB@4G?84FG<ABE45BHG\nHAG<?4G?84FGBABE45BHG %4E6;\n6B6BAFC<E4GBEF@47894?F8E8CE8F8AG4G<BAFGB<AI8FGBEFG;4GG;8LJBH?7E868<I8 FGB6><A8K6;4A:89BEG;8<E<AI8FG@8AGF<A+-G;8 <@4?4L44E@??<4A68BE:4A<M4G<BA4A7 ?H5F 4A7 G;4G G;8L JBH?7 E868<I8 6ELCGB6HEE8A6L <A 8K6;4A:89BE G;8<E <AI8FG@8AGF <A G;8 <@4?4L4K6;4A:8 1G;8 QE4H7 \\*6;8@8R2 +;EBH:;G;8 1E4H7 \\*6;8@820-++.& 4>4Q04AC<A:R4>4Q0RG;87898A74AG4A7;8E6B6BAFC<E4GBEF<A6?H7<A:%<?8FHB<A7H687 investors to invest more than \\$1 billion into entities Guo controlled.” Superseding Information at +;8E84E8AB4??8:4G<BAF<AG;8\\*HC8EF87<A:!A9BE@4G<BAE8:4E7<A:898A74AG.4A:78CBF<G<A: 4ALCEB6887F9EB@G;8E4H7\\*6;8@8<AGB66BHAG \\*<@<?4E?LG;8E84E8AB4??8:4G<BAF<AG;8 \\*HC8EF87<A:!A9BE@4G<BAG;4G4F4E8FH?GB9G;8E4H7\\*6;8@84AL<AI8FGBEF78CBF<G87@BA8L<AGB\n\n , U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) provides that “[a]ny property, real or personal, [is subject to forfeiture] J;<6; 6BAFG<GHG8F BE <F 78E<I87 9EB@ CEB6887F GE46845?8 GB 4 I<B?4G<BA B9R I4E<BHF FC86<9<87 offenses, including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, wire fraud, as charged against Defendant Wang <ABHAG!\n\nAccount 2770. Nor can there be any such allegations, as the only deposits into Account 2770 were 9EB@<AI8FGBEFJ;BJ8E8<AI8FG<A:<AG;8<:<G4?4A>P4A<AI8FG@8AGG;4G<FABG<@C?<64G87<A any way by the “Fraud Scheme” described in the Superseding Information. To be sure, Petitioner 499<E@F G;4G (8G<G<BA8E J4F A8I8E 4 I<6G<@ B9 4AL 6BA7H6G 5L 898A74AG.4A: 4??8:87 <A G;8 \\*HC8EF87<A:!A9BE@4G<BA4A77B8FABG58?<8I8G;4G4ALB9(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGLJ4F8I8EHF87<A 4ALHA?4J9H?46G<I<GL\n\n33. Finally, there was no relevant testimony during Defendant Guo’s trial concerning 66BHAG +;8E8J4FABG8FG<@BALE8:4E7<A:J;8G;8E4ALB9G;8CEB6887FB9G;8E4H7\\*6;8@8 J8E8 8I8E 78CBF<G87 <AGB 66BHAG  ABE 9BE G;4G @4GG8E J;8G;8E 898A74AG .4A: 8I8E deposited any money into Account 2770. Simply put, there is nothing in the record that would <A7<64G8G;8E8<F4A8KHF58GJ88A66BHAG4A7898A74AG.4A:TFJ<E89E4H76;4E:8?8G4?BA8 FH99<6<8AG8I<78A68GB78G8E@<A8G;4GG;8BI8EA@8AG@8G<GF5HE78AB9F;BJ<A:4A7G;8BHEG CEBC8E?L47=H7<64G87G;4GG;84CCEBCE<4G8A8KHF8K<FGF9BE9BE98<GHE8B966BHAGGB58CEBC8E\n\n34. As to Count II, the Forfeiture Allegation states that, “[a]s a result of committing the @BA8L?4HA78E<A: B998AF8 4??8:87<A BHAG +JB B9G;<F !A9BE@4G<BA 0-++.& 4>4 Q04AC<A:R4>4Q0RG;87898A74AGF;4??9BE98<GGBG;8,A<G87\\*G4G8FCHEFH4AGGB+<G?8\n,A<G87 \\*G4G8FB78\\*86G<BA4 4AL4A74??CEBC8EGLE84?4A7C8EFBA4?<AIB?I87<AF4<7B998AF8 BE4ALCEBC8EGLGE46845?8GBFH6;CEBC8EGL<A6?H7<A:5HGABG?<@<G87GB4FH@B9@BA8L<A,A<G87 States currency representing the amount of property involved in said offense.” Superseding !A9BE@4G<BA4G FGBBHAG!!+;8BI8EA@8AGQ@HFGCEBI8G;88?8@8AGFB99BE98<GHE8HA78E\n\n, U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) provides that “[t]he court, imposing sentence on a person convicted of an B998AF8<AI<B?4G<BAB9F86G<BA\n1G;8@BA8L ?4HA78E<A:FG4GHG82B9G;<FG<G?8 F;4??BE78EG;4G G;8C8EFBA9BE98<GGBG;8,A<G87\\*G4G8F4ALCEBC8EGLE84?BEC8EFBA4?*+081.8'&+057%\\*1(('05'*BE any property *traceable to such property*.” 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) (emphasis added).\n\nU.S.C. § 982(a)(1) by a preponderance of the evidence.\" U.S. v. Beltramea, 785 F.3d 287, 290 (8th Cir. 2015).\n\n35. Jo The Superseding Information alleges that Defendant Wang committed conspiracy to launder money because Defendant Wang \"knowing that the property involved in certain financial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such financial transactions. . . and which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit, proceeds of the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count One of this Information.\" Superseding Information at 3.\n\n36. It is unclear how Account 2770 could be forfeited for the money laundering charge in Count II. From the allegations, the charge of money laundering arises from Defendant Wang engaging in financial transactions with the \"proceeds of the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count One.\" Superseding Information at 3. As argued above, there is no evidence that funds in Account 2770 had any relation to the Fraud Scheme alleged in Count I (see ¶ 31-33, above) - there is no evidence that such funds \"constitute|d| or [were] derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of' wire fraud. See e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Since funds in Account 2770 were not Fraud Scheme proceeds nor were they derived from Fraud Scheme proceeds, such funds could not serve as the basis for the money laundering charge in Count II and cannot be forfeited as part of Defendant Wang's conviction for Count II.\n\n37. J The overt acts that the Government alleges to support the money laundering charge further fail to show how the funds in Account 2770 can be forfeitable. In the Superseding Information, the Government sets forth two acts evidencing money laundering. Superseding Information at 3. Although the Government states that these two overt acts were \"among others\" that Defendant Wang committed in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to launder money\n\n12\n\n(Superseding Information at 3), these other acts were never identified.\n\n38. First, per the Superseding Information, on May 20, 2020, Defendant Wang opened a bank account in the name of GTV, which, notably, Account 2770 was not. Superseding Information at 3. On June 2, 2020, Defendant Wang transferred approximately \\$200 million to that account. Id. The funds transferred into the GTV account were from a JP Morgan Chase Bank account held by Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\") (Guo Trial, 05/31/2024, 953:25-954:4; Guo Trial, 06/26/2024, 4359:1-14), not from Account 2770. There was never any testimony that any money from Account 2770 ever went into the Saraca JP Morgan Chase Bank account to then be transferred to the GTV account cited in the Superseding Information. Moreover, Account 2770 did not even exist in 2020.\n\n39. The second act the Government alleges is that \"on or about June 5, 2020,\" Defendant Wang \"authorized a wire transfer of \\$100 million from GTV's parent company, Saraca, to a high-risk hedge fund, for the benefit of Saraca and its ultimate beneficial owner, Defendant Guo's son.\" Superseding Information at 3-4. First, this plainly alleges that the money was transferred from a Saraca account, which Account 2770 was demonstrably not. Also, again, there was never any testimony that any money from Account 2770 ever went into a Saraca account. Moreover, once again, Account 2770 did not even exist in 2020.\n\n40. As seen from the above argument, there are no allegations or testimony regarding Account 2770 whatsoever. The only reference in the record to Account 2770 is Defendant Wang's consent to forfeit it. However, \"a defendant's consent to forfeiture [does not] abrogate the requirement that a nexus exist between the property sought for forfeiture and the conviction of offense.\" Beltramea, 785 F.3d at 291. As the Eighth Circuit stressed, \"ftThe district court had an independent duty to ensure that the required nexus exists.\" Id. (emphasis added).\n\n41. Here, there are no factual allegations in the Superseding Information, in the Original Forfeiture Order or the Forfeiture Order as to even an alleged nexus between Account 2770 and the offenses to which Defendant Wang pled guilty.\n\n42. J The Government's continued retention of the funds in Account 2770, without showing that there is a nexus, is wrong and inequitable. Should the Government retain the funds in Account 2770, it will be unjustly enriched, since the funds belong to third parties, including Petitioner, who are (1) not Defendant Wang or Defendant Guo; and (2) not involved the Fraud Scheme, let alone victims of such a scheme. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 332 (1998) (explaining that a criminal \"forfeiture serves no remedial purpose, is designed to punish the offender, and cannot be imposed upon innocent owners.\") (emphasis added).\n\n# B. Petitioner Has Interest in Petitioner's Property Because There Exists a Constructive Trust Over Such Property\n\n43. Even putting aside the Government's failure to properly demonstrate that the funds in Account 2770 were part of any activity alleged in the Superseding Information, Petitioner's Property should be returned to Petitioner because Petitioner has a greater interest in it than does Defendant Wang, or, now, the Government.\n\n44. Under the doctrine of constructive trusts, Petitioner's Property is protected and remains the property of Petitioner regardless of any other ownership claims, including Defendant\n\nWang's or the Government, standing in her shoes. The Second Circuit has held that \"a constructive trust qualifies as a 'legal right, title, or interest in the property' that 'may be a superior interest' to a defendant's interest for the purposes of a forfeiture statute analogous to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).\" Willis Mgmt. (Vermont), Ltd. v. United States, 652 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir. 2011).\n\n45. purpose.\" Counihan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 F.3d 357, 361 (2d Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). \"Its purpose is to prevent unjust enrichment, although unjust enrichment does not necessarily implicate the performance of a wrongful act. . What is necessary is that the court identify a party who is holding property under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not to retain it.\" Id. (internal citations omitted).\n\n46. \" \"Whether a party is unjustly enriched is a legal conclusion reached through the application of principles of equity. . . A court of equity in decreeing a constructive trust is bound by no unyielding formula. The equity of the transaction must shape the measure of relief. . . Unjust enrichment results when a person retains a benefit which, under the circumstances of the transfer and considering the relationship of the parties, it would be inequitable to retain.\" Id. (internal\n\n<sup>3 &</sup>quot;The federal common law choice-of-law rule is to apply the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in the litigation.\" In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., 961 F.2d 341, 350 (2d Cir. 1992), aff'd in part sub nom. Refco F/X Assocs., Inc. v. Mebco Bank, S.A., No. 89 CV. 3071 (WK), 1992 WL 200748 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1992). Here, there are three competing jurisdictions whose laws could apply: New York, California, and Cayman Islands. Petitioner's payment of Petitioner's Property was pursuant to the Subscription Agreement, which is governed by Cayman Islands law. See Exhibit B, Subscription Agreement at 8, ¶2(s). Account 2770 was an account in a California bank when Petitioner deposited Petitioner's Property. Since Account 2770 was seized (pursuant to a search and seizure warrant issued by a court in New York state), the funds are now in possession of the Government in New York. New York is the forum state of this case. From these facts, New York has the greatest interest in this litigation, and its laws should apply to an imposition of a constructive trust. However, to the extent that the Government challenges this choice-of-law determination, Petitioner reserves all rights to request that this Court impose a constructive trust over Petitioner's Property under California and/or Cayman Islands law.\n\ncitations omitted).\n\n47. The New York Court of Appeals outlined several factors to be considered in 78G8E@<A<A:J;8G;8E46BAFGEH6G<I8GEHFGF;BH?758<@CBF87<A68EG4<A6<E6H@FG4A68F<A6?H7<A: Q\n46BA9<78AG<4?BE9<7H6<4ELE8?4G<BA4CEB@<F84GE4AF98E<AE8?<4A68G;8E8BA4A7 HA=HFG8AE<6;@8AG . ” *Sharp v. Kosmalski*, 40 N.Y.2d 119, 121 (1976). However, New York courts ;4I8?BA:;8?7G;4GQG;8F8946GBEF4E8@8E8?LHF89H?:H<78F4A74E8ABGG4?<F@4A<6 R*170+\\*#0* of 3d at 362 (citing to a plethora of New York state cases that have stated this proposition).\n\n 8E8 G;8E8 <F 4 6BAFGEH6G<I8 GEHFG 9BE G;8 58A89<G B9 (8G<G<BA8E BI8E (8G<G<BA8ETF Property as of the date that it was deposited into Account 2770.\n\n49. Petitioner entered into a confidential and/or fiduciary relationship<sup>4</sup> with Hamilton 'CCBEGHA<GLHA7J;8A(8G<G<BA8E8K86HG87G;8\\*H5F6E<CG<BA:E88@8AG<ABE78EGB46DH<E868EG4<A Class B shares in Hamilton M&A Fund SP. Per the Subscription Agreement, Hamilton 'CCBEGHA<GLHA7\\*(@4784CEB@<F8GB(8G<G<BA8EG;4G(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGLJBH?758<AI8FG87 in the Digital Bank. In reliance on this promise, the Petitioner wired Petitioner's Property to 66BHAG4F<AFGEH6G87<AG;8\\*H5F6E<CG<BA:E88@8AG +;8BI8EA@8AGTF<@CEBC8EF8<MHE8 B9 66BHAG  9BE687 4 5E846; B9 4@<?GBA 'CCBEGHA<GL HA7 \\*(TF CEB@<F8 GB <AI8FG Petitioner's Property into the Digital Bank. Because of Government's seizure, Petitioner is not 8I8A45?8GB8K8E6<F8;<F)<:;GB9)878@CG<BAGBB5G4<A546>(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGL +;<FJBH?7\n\n I8A <9 G;8 BHEG 78G8E@<A8F G;4G G;8 E8?4G<BAF;<C J4F ABG 6BA9<78AG<4? 4A7BE G;8E8 J4F AB 9<7H6<4EL E8?4G<BAF;<C 58GJ88A 4@<?GBA 'CCBEGHA<GL HA7 4A7 (8G<G<BA8E FH6; JBH?7 ABG 58 78G8E@<A4G<I84FG;845F8A68B949<7H6<4ELE8?4G<BAF;<C7B8FABGCE86?H78G;8BHEG9EB@9<A7<A: a constructive trust exists. *See Koreag*, 961 F.2d at 353 (stating that “[w]e do not believe, however, G;4GG;8?46>B94 9<7H6<4EL E8?4G<BAF;<C58GJ88A1G;8C4EG<8F24HGB@4G<64??L78984GF 1426?4<@B9 constructive trust. Although a fiduciary relationship is one of the factors cited by New York courts, G;845F8A68B94AL BA8 946GBEJ<?? ABG<GF8?9 78984GG;8<@CBF<G<BA B946BAFGEH6G<I8GEHFGJ;8A otherwise required by equity”).\n\nE8FH?G<AHA=HFG8AE<6;@8AGGBG;858A89<GB9G;8BI8EA@8AGF<A68G;8BI8EA@8AG<FABJE8G4<A<A: (8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGLJ<G;BHG4AL?8:4?64HF8GB7BFB *See, e.g., U.S. v. Coluccio, 51 F.3d 337, 340* A7<E 9<A7<A:G;4G<@CBF<G<BAB946BAFGEH6G<I8GEHFGJ4FCEBC8EJ;8E84@BA:FGBG;8E E84FBAFBI8EA@8AGTF9BE98<GHE864HF8745E846;B94A<@C?<87CEB@<F8*144'58-*36,256.80 *744'0%;* F.3d 1154, 1159 (2d Cir. 1994) (finding a constructive trust appropriate where Q+;8:BI8EA@8AGTF9BE98<GHE89BE68745E846;B9G;4GCEB@<F8G;4G@4LE8FH?G<A4CBG8AG<4??LHA=HFG enrichment of the government (and commensurate unjust impoverishment of [the plaintiff]).”\n\n50. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown that a constructive trust should be imposed over (8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGL \\*H6;46BAFGEH6G<I8GEHFGQDH4?<9<8F4F4S?8:4?E<:;GG<G?8BE<AG8E8FG<AG;8 CEBC8EGLTG;4GS@4L584FHC8E<BE<AG8E8FGTGB47898A74AGTF<AG8E8FG9BEG;8CHECBF8FB949BE98<GHE8 statute analogous to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).” *Willis,* 652 F.3d at 242.\n\n51. The property upon which the constructive trust is sought – Petitioners Property – is 84F<?LGE46845?8 *See Exhibit C.*\n\n52. Moreover, the imposition of a constructive trust is fully available to Petitioner, even <9G;8BI8EA@8AG6BAG8A7FG;4GBG;8EF4E8BJ87E8FG<GHG<BA9EB@4AL9BE98<G87CEBC8EGL Q.;8A4 C4EGL64A7<E86G?LGE468<GF4FF8GFJ<G;BHGE8FBEG<A:GB9<6G<BAFBECE8FH@CG<BAF46BAFGEH6G<I8GEHFG is available even in cases involving multiple fraud victims.” *U.S. v. Ovid,* 2012 WL 2087084, \\*7 C.D.N.Y., Jun. 8, 2012). “[C]ourts are not free to disregard the law of constructive trusts when a 6?4<@4AG 64A 7<E86G?LGE468<GF CEBC8EGL 8I8A<9G;<F?84I8F BA8<AAB68AG I<6G<@ 58GG8E B99G;4A another equally innocent victim.” *Id.* The “orthodox approach to multiple-fraud cases” is to QE8GHEA12<78AG<9<45?84FF8GFGBG;8<E BJA8EFGHEA<A:GB CEB E4G4 7<FGE<5HG<BA BA?LJ;8A FC86<9<6 identification or transactional tracing is impossible.” *Id.* at \\*8 (citing *Restatement (Third) of '56+676+100,75604+%\\*/'06*N)8CBEG8ETF&BG84G\n\n## C. **Petitioner Has a Superior Interest in the Petitioner's Property**\n\n53. Petitioner's interest in Petitioner's Property is absolutely superior to any interest G;4GG;8BI8EA@8AGBE898A74AG.4A:@4L;4I8<A(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGL\n\n54. 21 U. \\* C. § 853(n) is clear that, in addition to Petitioner's interest in the forfeited CEBC8EGLG;4G(8G<G<BA8E@HFG78@BAFGE4G85L4CE8CBA78E4A68B9G;88I<78A68G;4G(8G<G<BA8ETF <AG8E8FGQE8A78EFG;8BE78EB99BE98<GHE8<AI4?<7<AJ;B?8BE<AC4EG5864HF8G;8E<:;GG<G?8BE<AG8E8FG J4FI8FG87<AG;8C8G<G<BA8E*4#6\\*'46\\*#06\\*'&'('0&#06*BEJ4FFHC8E<BEGB4ALE<:;GG<G?8BE<AG8E8FG *1(6\\*'&'('0&#06*4GG;8G<@8B9G;86B@@<FF<BAB9G;846GFJ;<6;:<I8E<F8GBG;89BE98<GHE8B9G;8 CEBC8EGLHA78EG;<FF86G<BA .\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A) (emphasis added).\n\n 8E84F F8G 9BEG;45BI8898A74AG.4A: A8I8E ;474AL<AG8E8FG<A(8G<G<BA8ETF (EBC8EGL BE 66BHAG  <A7887 G;8 E86BE7 <F 8AG<E8?L F<?8AG 4F GB J;4G G;8 E8?4G<BAF;<C <F 58GJ88A898A74AG.4A:G;8E4H7\\*6;8@84A766BHAG\n\n56. It is axiomatic that neither the Government nor Defendant Wang can argue that they ;4I84FHC8E<BE<AG8E8FG<A4CEBC8EGL<AJ;<6;G;8LA8I8E;474A<AG8E8FG \\$<>8J<F8898A74AG .4A:64AABG9BE98<G;8E<AG8E8FG<A4CEBC8EGL<AJ;<6;F;8;47AB<AG8E8FG\n\n## D. **Petitioner is Entitled to Costs and Attorneys' Fees**\n\n57. The Petitioner has been required to retain legal counsel and has incurred costs to 9<?8G;<FC8G<G<BA4FF8EG<A:(8G<G<BA8ETFE<:;GGB(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGL4A7GB6;4??8A:8G;89BE98<GHE8 of Petitioner's Property. Upon prevailing in this proceeding, Petitioner reserves all rights to recover 4GGBEA8LFT 988F4A76BFGF<A6HEE87<A6BAA86G<BAJ<G;G;<F(8G<G<BA4A7@4L E86BI8E(8G<G<BA8ETF 6BFGF4A7 E84FBA45?84GGBEA8LTF 988F CHEFH4AGGBG;8DH4?668FFGB \"HFG<686G Q\"R , U.S.C. § 2412. Federal courts have consistently held that § 853(n) proceedings are civil for the CHECBF8FB94??BJ<A:4FH668FF9H?6?4<@4AGGB6B??86G4GGBEA8LTF988FHA78EG;8\" *''0+6'& 6#6'581:* .3d 352, 355 (4th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Douglas*, 55 F.3d 584, 588 (11th Cir. 1995); *U.S. v. Bailey*, 2015 WL 1893610 at \\*20 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2015).\n\n# IV. **CONCLUSION**\n\n58. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner has an interest in Petitioner's Property, J;<6;E8A78EFG;8BE98<GHE8'E78E<AI4?<74FGBFH6;CEBC8EGL *See e.g.* 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). 898A74AG.4A:7B8FABG;4I84ALE<:;GG<G?8BE<AG8E8FG<A(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGL4A7A8I8E7<7 (8G<G<BA8E;4FCEBI8A4A764ACEBI84G4ALA868FF4EL;84E<A:5LCE8CBA78E4A68B98I<78A68G;4G the Forfeiture Order needs to be amended to exclude Petitioner's Property.\n\n59. Therefore, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court: (1) grant this Petition; 4@8A7G;8BE98<GHE8'E78EGB8K6?H78(8G<G<BA8ETF(EBC8EGLBE78EG;8<@@87<4G8E8GHEAB9 (8G<G<BA8ETF (EBC8EGL GB (8G<G<BA8E BE78E G;4G (8G<G<BA8E <F 8AG<G?87 GB E86BI8E (8G<G<BA8ETF 4GGBEA8LFT 988F4A76BFGF<A6HEE87<A6BAA86G<BAJ<G;G;<F(8G<G<BA4A7:E4AG(8G<G<BA8E?84I8GB FH5@<G4A4CC?<64G<BA9BEFH6;4GGBEA8LFT988F4A76BFGF4A7:E4AGFH6;4A7BG;8EE8?<89G;4G<F A868FF4EL4A7=HFG\n\nDated: April 2, 2025\n\n4G87CE<? )8FC86G9H??LFH5@<GG87\n\n/s/ Jeffrey S. Gavenman \"899E8L\\* Gavenman, Esq. \"8E8@L. Schulman, Esq. \\* ,\\$%& ++ )0 \\$\\$ K86HG<I8BH?8I4E7\\*H<G8 &BEG;8G;8F74% =:4I8A@4AF6;H?@4A5; 6B@ =F6;H?@4AF6;H?@4A5; 6B@\n\n/s/ Paul W. Butler (4H?. Butler, Esq. ,+\\$)\\$\\$\\*+)+!\\*\nBAA86G<6HGI8AH8&.\\*H<G8 .4F;<A:GBA C. 20036 C4H?5HG?8E?8:4?FGE4G8:<8F 6B@ *1705'.(14'6+6+10'4*\n\n# ATTESTATION AND OATH\n\nPursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3), I, \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ penalty of perjury that my claim to this property is not frivolous and that the information provided in support of this claim is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nExecuted on this 2000 -- day of April, 2025\n\n![](_page_19_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\nSignature","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["forfeiture","Guo","853(n)","Je","Saraca","GTV","Gavenman","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":325,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":329,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":395,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":4840,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-04-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-04-04","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:54:26"}