{"id":"court_sdny_612_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":612,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-04-04","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant","summary_zh":"第三方受害人请求修改索赔程序的动议——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo，另涉共同被告 Kin Ming Je、Yanping Wang）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #612（2025-04-04 提交）。代理 Himalaya Exchange（HEX）大批存款客户的律师 Bradford L. Geyer 向承审法官 Analisa Torres 提出动议，要求修改现行索赔申报程序——包括延长申报截止日期、要求政府披露具体被扣押账户信息、允许客户身份与损失信息以密封方式提交等，以推动被扣押资金向被认定为受害人的 HEX 存款人返还。","summary_en":"Motion by third-party claimants seeking modified claims procedures — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), with co-defendants Kin Ming Je and Yanping Wang, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #612 (filed 2025-04-04). Attorney Bradford L. Geyer, representing a large group of Himalaya Exchange (HEX) depositor-claimants, moves before presiding Judge Analisa Torres to modify the claims-filing process — including extending the filing deadline, requiring the government to disclose which specific seized accounts are at issue, and permitting claimant identifying and loss information to be filed under seal — to facilitate return of seized funds to HEX depositors identified as victims.","body_en":"## **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n## **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\n **Defendants.**\n\nCriminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n **MOTION FOR ORDER OF PROCEDURES FOR AMENDED AND RENEWED RETURN OF HIMALAYA EXCHANGE DEPOSITORS VICTIMIZED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT**\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## **I. URGENT ACTION REQUESTED BY APRIL 7, 2025**\n\nClaimants, represented by the undersigned Bradford L. Geyer, Esq., of\n\nFormerFedsGroup.Com, respectfully demand the return of funds illegally seized by the United\n\nStates of America (\"Government\"), as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3771; 18 U.S.C. §\n\n983(a)(1)(A)(i), the Bank Robbery Act (18 U.S.C. § 2113), common law larceny by trick and\n\nfalse pretenses, 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(i) and (n), Rule 41(g), 42 U.S.C. § 10607, Fed. R. Crim. P.\n\n32.2(b), and principles of unjust enrichment. These funds were taken from individuals that the\n\nU.S. Government itself identifies as victims but instead of treating them as victims the U.S.\n\nGovernment has treated them as \"marks\" to be mugged by the U.S. Government.\n\n## **II. MOTION TO MODIFY PROCESS FOR PETITIONS FOR CLAIMS**\n\nOn March 20, 2023, in the Government's Motion at ECF 10, the Government set forth in detail the \"rights\" (more than requirements) of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 but then asked this Court to alter the rights of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 by Order.\n\nThis Court responded by Minute Order granting the Government's Motion to alter the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 in many significant ways.\n\nTherefore, it would appear that the District Court has or believes it has the authority to alter the statutory terms, details, and requirements of the statutes governing victims' rights, forfeiture, remission, and/or ancillary hearings concerning those affected by the Government seizing their funds (termed broadly as property in the statutes).\n\nIf the District Court did not have the authority to alter the statutes in response to the Government's March 20, 2023, Motion at ECF 10, then the Government has comprehensively violated the governing statutes and nothing is valid that has been done in relation to the seized funds.\n\n#### **III. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL**\n\nIn support thereof, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that his now roughly 6,505[1](#page-1-0) individual clients as individual Members and investors in the Himalaya Exchange (HEX) be permitted to file their identifying information and financial losses under seal in support of their demands under 18 U.S. Code § 3771 and otherwise for the return of their funds.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> As of 12:00 a.m. on March 4, 2025, undersigned counsel has approximately 6,537 clients under agreement. Of these, approximately 3,539 were authenticated by HEX that also provided deposits, HDO, HCN and redemption information. Removed from the 6,537 total are approximately 117 former clients who terminated the attorney client relationship when rumors whipsawed the community that seemed to require victims to endorse the government's prosecution theory as a prerequisite to receiving funds return. Undersigned counsel is informed that it will take 4-6 weeks from any filing deadline for HEX to authenticate each customer along with victim loss information.\n\n#### **IV. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS**\n\nTherefore, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests the following alterations to the claims process:\n\nA. Extended Deadline: Claims may be filed as late as May 15, 2025\n\nB. Disclosure Requirements: The Government must necessarily and practically as well as for legal disclosure identify exactly which investment entities it seized money from. If the Bill of Particulars from April 2023 remains the universe of seized accounts, then we can rely on the HEX funds being in appropriate identified accounts and not other entities (Exhibit A – HEX accounts in highlight). If the Government developed another opinion or seized other accounts, it should be required to disclose it. HEX records show all transactions going into and coming out of these accounts. It stands to reason that the banking records the Government seized recount the same transaction history.\n\nAre a HEX investor's funds at issue? In violation of 18 U.S.C. 3771, the Government has not informed affected persons of these details.\n\nTherefore, in spite of the Minute Order of the Court to the Motion at ECF10, the Government must be required to identify each specific transaction of seizing funds with each entity involved by its full legal name. Presumably these transactions of seizure involved far fewer than the original 80 entities of interest. Then investors can analyze what funds they invested are at issue. Again, 18 U.S.C. 3771 and other statutes mandate that disclosure, in spite of the Court making some alterations to the statutes.\n\nC. Co-mingling Theory Disclosure: The disclosure rights of those who have lost funds or property also would require the Government to identify whether it seized or is holding funds under a theory of the proceeds of crime being co-mingled with the entity's legitimate funds (i.e.,\n\n3\n\nthe investors investments) and whether it contends that any crime was committed using the entity. The 6,537 clients invested their own funds, this is all documented in HEX encrypted files, with comprehensive account activity records and they deny any involvement with criminal activity.\n\nD. Disclosure of Erroneous Seizures: The Government must disclose pursuant to these statutes if there was -- in hindsight -- no reason to seize any funds from a particular entity. If so, the funds should be returned *in toto* forthwith.\n\nE. Consolidated Filing: Counsel will file a single, umbrella claim for his clients supported by attachments under seal of the individual identities and amounts of funds lost for those clients for whom HEX provided loss calculations. Counsel will not file separate petitions for each separate client, but will provide information for each of them as independent claimants by spreadsheet. The spreadsheet will be filed under seal and will include clients by HID#'s with approximately 6,537. Of these, 1,433 have filed a consolidated affidavit signed by HID# designed to cover the ancillary petition and the remission process. The challenge is that no client has yet communicated to undersigned counsel that the Defendants victimized them although we have countless letters where victims express the view that they were victims of the US government (Exhibit B). There are also countless problems with HEX customers no longer having ready access to HEX customer service with account access capability. These are just a few examples. (Exhibit C).\n\n## **V. RECOMMENDED PLAN OFFERS ROBUST AUTHENTICATION PROCEDURES**\n\n- A. To ensure robust documentation addressing compliance concerns, the process can follow the guidelines below:\n- 1. **Exhibit ECF 207-1**: Contains identity verification records, including full name, date of birth, address, and government-issued identification, establishing a direct relationship between each claimant and their account (Exhibit D).\n- 2. **Exhibit ECF 207-2**: Provides a comprehensive account history, detailing all transactions associated with the claimant's Himalaya account (e.g., deposits, withdrawals, transfers) (Exhibit E).\n- 3. **Exhibit ECF 207-3**: Documents transaction records between the claimant's personal bank account and the Himalaya account, validating transaction consistency and legitimacy (Exhibit E).\n- 4. **Exhibit ECF 208-2 through Exhibit ECF 208-7**: Comprise audit reports, expert accounting summaries, and compliance assessments. Notably, these include:\n\t- Identity verification documents\n\t- Transaction logs substantiating each claim.\n\t- State-of-the-art facial recognition software-backed validation (Exhibit E) (ECF 208-4 pp. 1-44).\n- B. Additionally, safeguards should be put in in place for:\n\t- Secure handling of sensitive financial data, with controlled access for review.\n\t- Valuation and prioritization of HCO and HCN claims in regard to all claims.\n\n#### **VI. NEED FOR COURT PERMISSION**\n\nCourt authorization is essential for:\n\n- A. Coordinating and managing thousands of secure communications, which are expected to continue through May 15, 2025, if permitted.\n- B. Consolidating claims into an aggregated filing detailing a list of HID#s for represented clients along with total claims based on deposits, HCO, HCN and redemptions.\n- C. Enabling HEX to match HID-based claims with source data (e.g., identification records, banking compliance data, transaction histories) for government clearance.\n- D. Secure access to relevant data under mutually agreed-upon conditions.\n- E. Counsel here recommends in the interests of justice reliance upon the business records of HEX as \"best evidence,\" that is more authoritative, comprehensive and admissible as business records. The information required is automatically admissible and reliable as having been received funds from the Members, which was then taken by the U.S. Government.\n- F. The Government should be required to disclose under the governing statutes, even as modified by the Court around March 20, 2023, why it contends certain transactions were improper. HEX records show all aspects of HEX financial transactions including funding sources backed up by robust KYC procedures.\n- G. Petitions or claims should not be due prior to the United States of America's (Government's) sentencing of Michael Guo (Kwok). Although Yvette Wang pled guilty and was sentenced, Wang is clearly a minor participant in this criminal case and Wang has disclaimed any ownership, control, or financial interest in any of the investors' funds\n\nseized by the Government. The Government cannot lawfully base forfeiture, remission, or ancillary proceedings based on the sentencing of Wang who has no interest in the funds seized. Indeed, the Government took this position officially, then flip-flopped its position, and could be seen as being barred by judicial estoppel. The Government first insisted that disposition of the seized funds could not begin until Guo is sentenced, then switching its position, does not make it legal to begin this process before Guo's sentencing is complete. The original and superseding indictments indicate that Kwok (Guo) has and had no managerial or executive control or ownership of the Himalaya Exchange. They make ambiguous references to Je's involvement in entities other than the Exchange.\n\n- H. Need for Additional Time: Counsel must cross cultural, language, and internet access barriers to reach clients with specific requirements to proceed. Although Counsel will relieve the Court of 6,537 individual claims, the process takes more time than might be counted from timelines triggered from Wang's sentencing.\n- I. While it is appropriate for additional filing deadlines to commence only after Guo's sentencing—whether viewed as premature beforehand or deferred as a judicial safeguard against humanitarian harm—a cooperative framework for capital return, established in partnership with HEX, offers a compelling alternative. Leveraging HEX's advanced KYC compliance systems and military-grade encryption will not only preserve the value of seized assets but also conserve vast government and judicial resources.\n\n## **VII. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS**\n\n### A. URGENT TIMING CONSIDERATIONS\n\nUnder the most restrictive interpretation of applicable deadlines, Counsel must file applications for his clients on or before April 7, 2025. Accordingly, this Court's Order is urgently requested to provide sufficient time for Counsel and other affected parties to prepare and file sealed submissions.\n\n## B. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL CLAIMANTS\n\nCounsel represents approximately 6,537 individual clients of the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\"), some of whom also made separate investments in other entities connected to Michael Guo (Kwok). The counsel can identify no valid basis for treating his clients differently from other HEX claimants or independent pro se applicants. All claimants should be afforded the same procedural rights and protections in seeking the return of their seized funds.\n\n## C. LACK OF CLEAR FILING INSTRUCTIONS\n\nThe Department of Justice website suggests that applications for return of funds should be directed to the agency that seized the funds. However, the Government has failed to provide clear and comprehensive information regarding:\n\nWhich specific agencies conducted the seizures.\n\nThe precise funds that were seized.\n\nWhich of the approximately 80 business entities under investigation actually had funds seized.\n\nThe Government has provided only fragmented, piecemeal information about these critical details. As a result, investors face significant uncertainty regarding where to direct their applications for relief. The only clear options appear to be filing with the U.S. Department of\n\nJustice or with this Court.\n\n#### D. DELEGATION CONCERNS AND EXISTING SOLUTIONS\n\nAny delegation of this Court's authority to a special master, magistrate, or administrator would be both prejudicial to claimants and unnecessary. HEX already possesses all the necessary information to facilitate the return of funds, maintained in secure, encrypted form.\n\n#### E. PRACTICAL BARRIERS FOR VULNERABLE CLAIMANTS\n\nThe guidance provided at www.Forfeiture.gov appears to lack binding legal authority and functions more as informal commentary rather than authoritative instruction. Moreover, this approach is particularly impractical for many victims who face substantial barriers, including:\n\n- Language obstacles;\n- Residency within the restrictive environment of the People's Republic of China;\n- Limited access to information after the Government disabled HEX's website.\n\nFor these vulnerable individuals, complying with the unprotected disclosure requirements outlined on forfeiture.gov entails extraordinary risk and potential exposure, which underscores the urgent need for a safer, court-supervised alternative.\n\n#### **VIII. PROPOSED APPROACH TO RESOLUTION**\n\nCounsel is prepared to proffer relevant information and—assuming proper access is provided by HEX—invites the Department of Justice to review data under secure conditions. This invitation should be considered a proffer that the Government may accept at its election.\n\nCounsel anticipates that HEX will file its own application for the return of reserve funds\n\nseized by the U.S. Government. Counsel's clients support either of two potential remedies: Option A: Return of Funds to HEX\n\nThe return of HEX's reserve funds in their entirety would allow all Members (investors) to receive their investments directly from HEX, including those who are not represented by Counsel. This would be the speediest, most secure, and least expensive approach.\n\nOption B: Return of Funds to Individual Members\n\nAlternatively, the return of funds to individual Members would require the Government to articulate with specificity any concerns about particular Member accounts. This approach would dispel vague assertions and force the Government to identify any specific Members about whom it has reliable evidence of wrongdoing.\n\nIn the absence of individualized concerns, the innocent and unimpeachable Members should have their seized investments returned promptly. If the Government fails to identify specific persons or circumstances of concern, we must conclude that none exist.\n\n#### VII. IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT ACTIONS\n\nIt is important to note that the U.S. Government not only seized funds but also shut down HEX's website and online operations, which were crucial components of its business model and increased burdens on HEX claimants.\n\n#### **IX. GOVERNMENT'S STATED INTENTIONS**\n\nIn ECF 233, the Government stated: \"The government wishes to note that it does not believe the assets that the government has seized and seeks to forfeit should be transferred to the bankruptcy estate. Rather the government intends to forfeit the criminal proceeds of the Kwok enterprise, which the government has seized, and return those assets to the victims of Kwok's\n\ncrimes provided it is granted approval from the Department of Justice's remission or restoration process, and of dictating an order of forfeiture from this court. To the extent there is a dispute with the trustee, or any third party, concerning forfeiture of seized assets, the time to adjudicate those disputes will arise after the criminal trial.\"\n\nThis statement affirms the Government's intention to return assets to victims but fails to provide a clear, practical pathway for doing so that addresses the unique circumstances of this case.\n\n#### **X. BACKGROUND RELEVANT LAW GOVERNING**\n\n#### **A. RIGHTS OF VICTIMS**\n\nUnder the Crime Victim's Reform Act, any redemption process should enable victims to perfect their claims and authenticate under an updated 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) process that complies with 18 U.S. Code § 3771. Section 983 was designed before the emergence of cryptocurrency exchanges and innovations in human rights capital creation systems (bit coin, Himalaya Coin, etc.) this growing gulf under Section 3771 may be trumped by the fact that victims are being forced by the government under court supervision to expose their personal information to foreign governments (\"doxxing\").\n\n## **B. STATUTORY COMMAND WITHOUT EXCEPTION TO MAKE RESTITUTION TO THESE VICTIMS**\n\nIn statutory interpretation, a canon of construction is that the specific controls over the general. see HCSC-- Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1, 6, 101 S.Ct. 836, 67 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981).\" Downing v. Globe Direct LLC, 682 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012). A statute that precisely fits the scenario evidences the legislatures intent to regulate exactly that situation rather than generic statutes which do not appear to relate to the situation at hand. This contrast is evidence of the legislature's intent in the substance of the specific statute and the need to enact it. A poorly fitting generic statute or one that is confused as to application must give away to a statute that specifically governs the exact situation being considered.\n\n18 U.S. Code § 3771 - Crime victims' rights includes numerous relevant provisions, including:\n\nThe right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.\n\nThe right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.\n\nRequirements that officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, their rights.\n\nThe crime victim or their lawful representative, and the attorney for the Government may assert these rights.\n\nWhen there are multiple crime victims, the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings,\n\n42 U.S.C. §10607 further establishes services to victims, including requirements that responsible officials:\n\nIdentify the victim or victims of a crime.\n\nInform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained.\n\nAssist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services and relief.\n\n#### **XI. CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court:\n\n- 1) Modify the process for filing claims as detailed in this motion;\n- 2) Authorize the presentation of the individual personal and financial information of investors seeking the return of their funds seized by the U.S. Government under seal or the equivalent if the Court directs applications to be made to the seizing department under restated directions that are easy to find and comply with;\n- 3) Recognize the unique challenges presented by this case, including the large number of claimants, cross-cultural and language barriers, and technical nature of cryptocurrency exchange records;\n- 4) Adopt, in the interests of justice, a flexible system in the event remission is required whereby the full authentication of HEX clients can be done under secured information access conditions, allowing the Government to access source documents that constitute best evidence and create certainty regarding authentication of identity while maintaining appropriate confidentiality protections;\n- 5) Direct the USAO to publish clear, easily accessible instructions for filing claims in accordance with any Order the Court may issue; and\n- 6) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nThese modifications will serve the interests of justice by balancing the need for thorough authentication with the privacy concerns of approximately 6,537 investors who seek only to recover funds that were seized by the Government. The flexible authentication system we\n\npropose would allow for efficient processing of claims while ensuring that all necessary verification can be completed securely.\n\nWe submit that these requested modifications are reasonable, necessary, and within the Court's authority to grant, particularly in light of the Court's previous willingness when good reasons were shown to modify statutory requirements in response to the Government's Motion at ECF10 on March 20, 2023.\n\nDated: April 4, 2025\n\n## Dated: April 4, 2025 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 0807 (856) 607-5708\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 4, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 (856) 607-5708","body_zh":"美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）\n\n美利坚合众国（United States of America），原告\n\n对\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\n关于为受美国政府侵害的喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）存款人修改并重新提出返还程序命令的动议\n\n指派给：主审法官、尊敬的美国联邦地区法院法官 Analisa Torres\n\nI. 请求在 2025年4月7日 前采取紧急行动\n\n由下述签名的 FormerFedsGroup.Com 的 Bradford L. Geyer 律师代表的权利主张人，根据 18 U.S.C. § 3771、18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i)、《银行抢劫法》（Bank Robbery Act，18 U.S.C. § 2113）、普通法上的以欺诈和虚假托辞实施的侵吞罪（larceny by trick and false pretenses）、21 U.S.C. §§ 853(i) 及 (n)、《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Crim. P.）第 41(g) 条、42 U.S.C. § 10607、第 32.2(b) 条以及不当得利原则的授权，谨此要求返还被美利坚合众国（“政府”）非法扣押的资金。这些资金取自美国政府自身认定为受害者的个人，但美国政府非但没有将他们视为受害者，反而将他们视作供美国政府抢劫的“目标”。\n\nII. 关于修改主张权利申请程序的动议\n\n在 2023年3月20日 政府于 ECF 10 提交的动议中，政府详细阐述了 18 U.S.C. § 3771 的各项“权利”（不仅是规定要求），但随后却请求本法院通过裁定（Order）变更 18 U.S.C. § 3771 规定的权利。\n\n本法院通过法庭记录裁定（Minute Order）批准了政府的动议，在许多重大方面变更了 18 U.S.C. § 3771 的法定要求。\n\n因此，地区法院似乎拥有或自认为拥有权力去变更规范受害者权利、没收、免除（remission）以及/或涉及因政府扣押其资金（在法条中被广泛称为财产）而受影响者的附随听证程序的相关成文法条款、细节和要求。\n\n如果地区法院没有权力针对政府 2023年3月20日 在 ECF 10 的动议变更相关成文法，那么政府就全面违反了管辖法条，且与被扣押资金相关的一切行为均属无效。\n\nIII. 关于封存提交的动议\n\n为此，下述签名律师谨此请求允许其目前大约 6,505 名作为喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange，简称 HEX）个人会员和投资者的个人客户[1]在封存状态下提交其身份识别信息和经济损失情况，以支持他们根据《美国法典》第 18 编第 3771 条（18 U.S. Code § 3771）及其他规定要求返还资金的主张。\n\n1 截至 2025年3月4日 凌晨 12:00，下述签名律师签署代理协议的客户大约有 6,537 名。其中，约 3,539 名已由 HEX 完成认证，HEX 并提供了存款、HDO、HCN 及赎回信息。从 6,537 名的总数中剔除了大约 117 名因社区内流言四起而终止律师与客户关系的前客户，该流言似乎要求受害者必须赞同政府的指控理论，以此作为获得资金返还的先决条件。下述签名律师获悉，自任何提交截止日期起，HEX 需要 4 至 6 周的时间来认证每位客户并整理受害者损失信息。\n\nIV. 其他请求的修改事项\n\n因此，下述签名律师谨此请求对权利主张程序作出以下调整：\n\nA. 延长截止日期：权利主张的提交时间可推迟至 2025年5月15日。\n\nB. 披露要求：无论是出于实际操作的必要还是出于法定披露的要求，政府都必须准确指明其从哪些投资实体中扣押了资金。如果 2023年4月 的《具体罪状说明书》（Bill of Particulars）仍是被扣押账户的全部范围，那么我们就可以确信 HEX 的资金存在于相应已识别的账户中，而非其他实体（证据 A——突出显示的 HEX 账户）。如果政府形成了其他意见或扣押了其他账户，则应被要求予以披露。HEX 的记录显示了进出这些账户的所有交易。理所当然，政府扣押的银行记录也会记录相同的交易历史。\n\nHEX 投资者的资金是否涉案？政府未向受影响人员告知这些细节，违反了 18 U.S.C. 3771。\n\n因此，尽管法院对 ECF 10 的动议作出了法庭记录裁定，但仍必须要求政府使用每个涉案实体的完整法定名称，明确每一次扣押资金的具体交易。据推测，这些扣押交易涉及的实体远少于最初关注的 80 个实体。这样投资者便可分析自己投资的哪些资金涉案。同样，尽管法院对法条作出了某些变更，但 18 U.S.C. 3771 及其他法条仍强制要求进行上述披露。\n\nC. 混同理论披露：财产或资金遭受损失者的披露权利还要求政府说明，其扣押或持有资金是否基于犯罪所得与该实体的合法资金（即投资者的投资款）发生混同的理论，以及政府是否主张曾利用该实体实施过任何犯罪。这 6,537 名客户投资的是他们自己的资金，这在 HEX 的加密文件以及完备的账户活动记录中均有记载，且他们否认参与了任何犯罪活动。\n\nD. 披露错误扣押：根据前述法条，如果事后看来根本没有理由从某一特定实体扣押任何资金，政府必须予以披露。若确属此类情形，相关资金应立即全额（in toto）返还。\n\nE. 统合提交：本代理律师将为其客户提交一份单一的统合权利主张书，并附上由 HEX 提供损失计算的客户的个人身份及损失资金数额的封存附件。本代理律师不会为每位客户单独提交申请书，而是通过电子表格形式作为独立的主张人提供他们每个人的信息。该电子表格将以封存形式提交，并将按 HID 编号列出大约 6,537 名客户。其中，1,433 名客户已提交了按 HID 编号签署的统合宣誓书，旨在同时涵盖附随申请程序和免除程序。困难在于，目前尚无任何客户向本代理律师表示他们受到了被告的侵害，尽管我们收到了无数信件，受害者在其中表达了他们是美国政府受害者的观点（证据 B）。此外，HEX 客户还面临着大量问题，他们不再能够随时联系具备账户访问权限的 HEX 客户服务。这些仅是少数几个例子（证据 C）。\n\nV. 建议方案提供了稳健的认证程序\n\n- A. 为确保具备解决合规关切的稳健证明文件，该程序可遵循以下指引：\n- 1. ECF 207-1 证据：包含身份核验记录，包括全名、出生日期、地址以及政府签发的身份证件，建立起每位主张人与其账户之间的直接关联（证据 D）。\n- 2. ECF 207-2 证据：提供全面的账户历史记录，详细列出与主张人喜马拉雅账户相关的所有交易（例如存款、取款、转账）（证据 E）。\n- 3. ECF 207-3 证据：记录主张人个人银行账户与喜马拉雅账户之间的交易记录，以证实交易的一致性和合法性（证据 E）。\n- 4. ECF 208-2 证据至 ECF 208-7 证据：包含审计报告、专家会计汇总及合规评估。值得注意的是，这些包括：\n\t- 身份核验文件\n\t- 证实各项主张的交易日志\n\t- 依托尖端人脸识别软件进行的核验（证据 E）（ECF 208-4 第 1-44 页）。\n- B. 此外，还应对以下事项建立保障措施：\n\t- 敏感财务数据的安全处理，并设置用于审查的受控访问权限。\n\t- 针对所有权利主张对 HCO 和 HCN 主张进行估值并确定优先级。\n\nVI. 获得法院许可的必要性\n\n在下列事项上，获得法院授权至关重要：\n\n- A. 协调并管理数千起安全通信，若获许可，该通信预计将持续至 2025年5月15日。\n- B. 将各项主张整合为一份汇总提交文件，详细列出受代理客户的 HID 编号清单，以及基于存款、HCO、HCN 和赎回的总主张额。\n- C. 使 HEX 能够将基于 HID 的主张与源数据（例如身份记录、银行合规数据、交易历史）进行匹配，以供政府审核放行。\n- D. 在双方商定的条件下对相关数据进行安全访问。\n- E. 为维护司法公正，本代理律师在此建议依赖 HEX 的业务记录作为“最佳证据”（best evidence），其更具权威性、全面性，且作为业务记录具有可采性。所需信息具有当然的可采性和可靠性，因为其证明了确实收到来自会员的资金，而该资金随后被美国政府拿走。\n- F. 即使依据法院在 2023年3月20日 左右修改后的管辖法条，政府也应被要求披露其认为某些交易属于不当交易的理由。HEX 的记录展示了 HEX 财务交易的方方面面，包括在稳健的了解你的客户（KYC）程序支持下的资金来源。\n- G. 申请书或权利主张的提交期限不应早于美利坚合众国（政府）对 Michael Guo（Kwok）的量刑判决。虽然 Yvette Wang 已认罪并已被判刑，但 Wang 显然是该刑事案件中的次要参与者，且 Wang 已声明放弃对政府扣押的任何投资者资金\n\n的任何所有权、控制权或经济利益。政府不能合法地基于对涉案扣押资金无任何利益的 Wang 的量刑判决，来开展没收、免除或附随程序。事实上，政府正式采取过这一立场，随后又推翻了自身立场，这可被视为受到司法不容反悔原则（judicial estoppel）的禁止。政府起初坚称，在对 Guo 判刑之前不得开始处置被扣押资金，随后转变立场，但这并不能使其在对 Guo 的量刑完成前启动该程序合法化。原起诉书和附随追加起诉书表明，Kwok（Guo）现在和过去均未对喜马拉雅交易所拥有任何管理权、行政控制权或所有权。起诉书中对 Je 参与交易所之外的其他实体仅作出了含糊的指涉。\n\n- H. 需要额外时间的理由：律师必须跨越文化、语言和互联网接入障碍，才能联系到客户并满足继续推进的具体要求。尽管律师将使法院免于处理 6,537 起单独的主张，但该过程所需的时间远超自 Wang 被判刑起算的时间表。\n- I. 尽管额外的提交截止日期在 Guo 被判刑后才开始起算较为妥当——无论是认为此前起算尚不成熟，还是将其作为防止人道主义伤害的司法保护措施而予以顺延——但与 HEX 合作建立的资金返还协作框架提供了一个令人信服的替代方案。利用 HEX 先进的 KYC 合规系统和军工级加密技术，不仅能够保全被扣押资产的价值，还将节省大量的政府和司法资源。\n\nVII. 其他考量因素\n\nA. 紧急时间考量\n\n根据对适用截止日期的最严格解释，律师必须在 2025年4月7日 或之前为其客户提交申请。因此，迫切请求本法院作出裁定，以便为律师和其他受影响当事人提供充足的时间来准备和封存提交材料。\n\nB. 平等对待所有权利主张人\n\n本律师代表 Himalaya Exchange（“HEX”，喜马拉雅交易所）约 6,537 名个人客户，其中部分人员亦对与 Michael Guo (Kwok)（郭文贵）相关的其他实体进行了单独投资。本律师认为，没有任何正当依据将本律师的客户与 HEX 的其他主张权利人或独立亲自诉讼申请人区别对待。在寻求返还被扣押资金方面，所有主张权利人均应享有相同的正当程序权利与保护。\n\nC. 缺乏明确的申报指示\n\nDepartment of Justice（司法部）网站建议，要求返还资金的申请应直接向扣押该资金的机构提出。然而，政府未能就以下方面提供明确且全面的信息：\n\n具体由哪些机构执行了扣押。\n\n具体扣押了哪些资金。\n\n在接受调查的约 80 家商业实体中，究竟哪些实体实际被扣押了资金。\n\n政府仅就这些关键细节提供了零散、片段化的信息。结果导致投资者在应向何处提出救济申请方面面临极大的不确定性。唯一明确的选择似乎只有向 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）或向本法院提出。\n\nD. 对权力转授权的担忧及现有解决方案\n\n将本法院的职权转授予特别主事官、治安法官或管理人，既会对主张权利人造成损害，亦无必要。HEX 已经以安全、加密的形式妥善保存了协助返还资金所需的全部必要信息。\n\nE. 弱势主张权利人面临的实际障碍\n\nwww.Forfeiture.gov 上提供的指引似乎缺乏法律约束力，其性质更偏向非正式说明而非权威性指示。此外，对于面临诸多实质性障碍的众多受害者而言，该途径尤其不切实际，这些障碍包括：\n\n- 语言障碍；\n- 居住在 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国）的限制性环境中；\n- 在政府关闭 HEX 网站后获取信息的渠道受限。\n\n对于这些弱势群体而言，遵守 forfeiture.gov 上列出的无保护公开披露要求将带来极大的风险和潜在暴露，这进一步凸显了建立一个更安全、受法院监督的替代机制的迫切需求。\n\nVIII. 拟议的解决方案\n\n本律师随时准备提供相关信息，并且在 HEX 提供适当访问权限的前提下，邀请司法部在安全保密的条件下审查数据。该项提议应被视为一项陈词提请，政府可自行决定是否接受。\n\n本律师预计 HEX 将就美国政府扣押的准备金自行提出返还申请。本律师的客户支持以下两种潜在救济方案中的任一种：方案 A：将资金返还给 HEX\n\n全额返还 HEX 的准备金将使所有会员（投资者）能够直接从 HEX 处获得其投资款项，包括那些未经本律师代理的人士。这将是最快捷、最安全且成本最低的途径。\n\n方案 B：将资金返还给个人会员\n\n或者，将资金返还给个人会员将要求政府明确说明对特定会员账户的任何具体关切。该方案将消除模棱两可的说辞，并迫使政府明确指出其掌握有可靠不法行为证据的特定会员。\n\n在没有针对个别账户的具体关切的情况下，清白且无可挑剔的会员应尽快获得被扣押投资款项的返还。如果政府未能指出具体的关注人员或情形，我们必须得出并不存在此类情况的结论。\n\nVII. 政府行为的影响\n\n必须指出的是，美国政府不仅扣押了资金，还关闭了 HEX 的网站和在线运营，而这些是其商业模式的关键组成部分，此举加重了 HEX 主张权利人的负担。\n\nIX. 政府陈述的意图\n\n在 ECF 233 中，政府陈述道：“政府谨此说明，政府认为其已扣押并寻求没收的资产不应移交给破产财团。相反，政府拟没收其已扣押的 Kwok 犯罪企业的犯罪收益，并将这些资产返还给 Kwok 犯罪行为的受害者，前提是获得司法部减免或恢复程序的批准，并由本法院下达没收令。在就扣押资产的没收事宜与破产管理人或任何第三方存在争议的范围内，审理这些争议的时间将在刑事审判之后。”\n\n该声明确认了政府向受害者返还资产的意图，但未能提供一条明确、切实可行且能应对本案特殊情况的实现途径。\n\nX. 适用的相关背景法律\n\nA. 受害者的权利\n\n根据《Crime Victims' Rights Act》（犯罪受害者权利法），任何赎回程序均应使受害者能够完善其主张，并在符合 18 U.S. Code § 3771 规定的更新后的 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) 程序下进行身份认证。第 983 条是在加密货币交易所及人权资本创造系统创新（比特币、喜马拉雅币等）出现之前制定的；受害者在法院监督下被政府强迫向外国政府暴露其个人信息（即“开盒/人肉搜索”）这一事实，可能会进一步凸显第 3771 条项下这一日益扩大的鸿沟。\n\nB. 对这些受害者进行赔偿的无例外法定指令\n\n在法定解释中，一项法律解释准则是特别法优于一般法。参见 HCSC-Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1, 6, 101 S.Ct. 836, 67 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981)；Downing v. Globe Direct LLC, 682 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012)。精确契合特定情形的法律证明了立法机关确切规范该情形的意图，而非看似与眼前情形无关的通用法律。这种对比体现了立法机关在特定法律实体内容中的立法意图以及制定该法律的必要性。适用上欠妥的通用法律或在适用上存在混淆的法律，必须让位于具体管辖正在审议之确切情形的法律。\n\n18 U.S. Code § 3771——犯罪受害者的权利包含诸多相关规定，其中包括：\n\n依法获得充分和及时赔偿的权利。\n\n诉讼不受不合理拖延的权利。\n\n司法部的官员和雇员应尽最大努力确保犯罪受害者获悉并被赋予其权利的规定要求。\n\n犯罪受害者或其合法代表以及政府律师均可主张这些权利。\n\n当存在多名犯罪受害者时，法院应制定合理的程序以落实本章规定，且该程序不得使诉讼过分复杂化或过分拖延。\n\n42 U.S.C. § 10607 进一步确立了向受害者提供的服务，包括要求负责官员：\n\n确认犯罪的一名或多名受害者。\n\n告知受害者根据本法或任何其他法律可能享有的任何赔偿或其他救济，以及获得该等救济的方式。\n\n协助受害者联系负责提供相关服务和救济的人员。\n\nXI. 结论\n\n基于上述理由，我们谨请求法院：\n\n- 1) 变更本动议中详述的申报主张程序；\n- 2) 如果法院根据易于查找和遵守的重述指示指导向执行扣押的部门提出申请，则准许在密封（保密）或同等条件下提交寻求返还被美国政府扣押资金的投资者的个人与财务信息；\n- 3) 确认本案所呈现的独特挑战，包括主张权利人人数众多、跨文化及语言障碍，以及加密货币交易所记录的技术复杂性；\n- 4) 本着司法公正的原则，在需要进行减免程序的情况下采纳一套灵活的机制，以便在安全的信息访问条件下完成对 HEX 客户的全面身份认证，允许政府查阅构成最佳证据的源文件并确保身份认证的确定性，同时维持适当的保密保护；\n- 5) 指示 USAO（美国联邦检察官办公室）根据法院可能发布的任何命令，公布清晰且易于获取的申报主张指示；以及\n- 6) 给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n这些变更将平衡彻底认证的需求与约 6,537 名仅寻求收回被政府扣押资金的投资者的隐私关切，从而服务于司法公正。我们拟议的灵活认证机制将允许高效处理各项主张，同时确保能够安全地完成所有必要的核实工作。\n\n我们提请注意，这些所请求的变更均属合理、必要，且在法院的裁量职权范围之内，特别是考虑到在展示充分理由后，法院此前于 2023 年 3 月 20 日针对政府在 ECF 10 提出的动议即曾愿意对法定要求予以变更。\n\n日期：2025 年 4 月 4 日\n\n日期：2025 年 4 月 4 日 谨此呈递\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 0807 (856) 607-5708\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2025 年 4 月 4 日，上述文书的真实准确副本已通过 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 ECF 系统以电子方式归档并送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 (856) 607-5708","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Himalaya","forfeiture","Geyer","Crime Victim","Himalaya Exchange","Je","CIPA","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","853(i)","Rule 41(g)","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":10,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":207,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":208,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":233,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3337,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-04-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-04-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:33:53"}