{"id":"court_sdny_612_1","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":612,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant","summary_zh":"申请密封提交动议 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #612。代理律师 Bradford L. Geyer 代表喜马拉雅交易所投资者申请法院许可，允许其提交投资者身份和财务信息（密封或等同处理），以支持这批已认证客户主张返还被美国政府没收资金的权益；动议援引多项法律依据包括受害人权利、没收和其他救济条款。","summary_en":"Motion to File Investor Data Under Seal — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #612. Counsel Bradford L. Geyer, representing Himalaya Exchange investors, seeks court permission to file investor personal and financial information under seal to support their claims for return of government-seized funds, citing multiple statutes including victim rights, forfeiture, and restitution provisions.","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 TO FILE UNDER SEAL FINANCIAL AND PERSONAL DATA OF FINANCIAL VICTIMS SEEKING RETURN OF THEIR PROPERTY**\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## **MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL FINANCIAL AND PERSONAL DATA OF FINANCIAL VICTIMS SEEKING RETURN OF THEIR PROPERTY**\n\n## **Urgent Action Requested by April 6, 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 U.S.\n\nGovernment, as authorized by **18 U.S.C. § 3771**; **18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i)**, the **Bank**\n\n**Robbery Act (18 U.S.C. § 2113)**, **common law larceny by trick and false pretenses**, **21**\n\n**U.S.C. §§ 853(i) and (n)**, **Rule 41(g)**, **42 U.S.C. § 10607**, **Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)**, and\n\nprinciples of **unjust enrichment**. These funds were taken from individuals that the U.S.\n\nGovernment 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\nIn support thereof, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that his now over 6,000 individual clients as individual Members and investors in the Himalaya Exchange 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\nThe Court might consider the following additional points:\n\n- 1) Under worst-case evaluation, Counsel must file applications for his clients **on or before April 7, 2025**. Therefore, the Court's Order is requested in time for Counsel and others to file under seal.\n- 2) Counsel sees no reason why any clients of other law firms like Peter Katz or independent *pro se* applicants should not also have the same right or available process. Although Counsel can only speak for his own clients, he is not aware of any distinction between his clients and others that would justify any different handling.\n- 3) Undersigned Counsel is representing clients of the Himalaya Exchange, some of whom also made separate investments in other entities related to the inspiration of Michael Guo (Kwok). Counsel sees no reason why the many investors in any of the entities should not have the same right of filing under seal if they desire.\n- 4) Obviously, different people are different. Some don't care about being public. Some care a great deal. Some are too frightened to claim their money out of fear of disclosure or attention. Filing under seal should be available for those who wish it.\n- 5) There is talk at the DOJ website in the form of instructions that the applications for return of funds should be directed to the agency that seized the funds.\n- 6) However, the Government has not to Counsel's awareness been clear or comprehensive about what agency has seized the funds, what funds, for which of 80\n\n2\n\ndifferent organizations. There were \"up to\" in the original zone of the Government's suspicion of around 80 institutions. But has made piecemeal mentions of different seizures referred to here and there.\n\n- 7) Therefore, it is not clear to whom an investor would submit an application for relief other than to the U.S. Department of Justice or filing in this Court (even if filing in this Court is delegated to an official like a special master, magistrate, or administrator, which Counsel opposes as prejudicing the outcome in advance).\n- 8) Furthermore, the instructions at [www.Forfeiture.gov](htt) do not seem to be authoritative in a legal sense but merely discussion.\n- 9) Therefore, moving Counsel presents a Proposed Order presenting the alternative treatments of filing the confidential data with the Court under seal or presenting it to the U.S. Department of Justice to be treated equivalent to under seal. The Court may wish to direct the recipient of where applications should be submitted as well as authorizing filing under seal. Again, submission to the Court might not mean personal handling by the District Court Judge but might mean delegation.\n- 10) Counsel will be filing a demand for the return to the investors in HEX of their investments that the U.S. Government took for the purpose of protecting the investors from anyone who would take their money. This has caused some confusion as we are seeing in individual *pro se* concerns being filed. The U.S. Government seized the money of the investors to protect it from being taken. President Ronald Reagan famously quipped: **\"I've always felt that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.'\"**  <http>\n- 11) In support of these applications for the return of the investors' money, Counsel will file information about the now over 6,000 HEX investors who are also Counsel's clients.\n- 12) This of course involves over 6,000 known and identifiable individuals, not technically a class although it is a large group of investors.\n- 13) Some of this information, Counsel will proffer and once again invite the DOJ to meet and review under secure conditions and will claim the invitation to the DOJ to review the data as a proffer to be accepted at the Government's election.\n- 14) Meanwhile, Counsel also expects the Himalaya Exchange to file its own application for the return *in toto* of the reserve funds seized by the U.S. Government from the Himalaya Exchange.\n- 15) Counsel's clients *support either remedy* and arguing in the alternative urge either approach. If the entirety of HEX's reserve funds were returned in full, the Members (investors) in HEX could then receive their investments from HEX, including those Members who are not Counsel's clients.\n- 16) Counsel expects that the reserve funds taken directly from the Exchange are most directly the right of the Exchange on behalf of its Members.\n- 17) On the other hand, the Government has hypothesized the unsupported possibility that some of the Members of HEX might not meet with the Government's approval. Therefore, considering the individual members would allow the Government to start to get specific for the first time and actually identify any Member account for which it has any reliable evidence of any concern.\n- 18) Therefore, demanding return of individual Members' investments is equally valid but\n\nallows us to disperse the fog and get precise about any reasons for the Government's vague ruminations. Seeing none, the innocent and unimpeachable Members should have their seized investments returned. If the Government will not tell us of any persons or circumstances of individualized concerns, we must conclude that there are none. The law, as in life, does require us to \"Speak now or forever hold your peace.\"\n\n- 19) Reports and data that Counsel hopes HEX will file may further support the applications for refund of investors' money. Counsel's clients will request to rely upon the information presented by HEX as well as their own information. Because part of HEX's business operations is or at least was to maintain the records of Members' participation and investments in the Exchange, HEX's information about the individual Members is equally authoritative as the information of individual members. For example, if one were to prove that she deposited \\$5,000 in a bank account, either the depositor could prove that she deposited the money or the bank could prove that it received the \\$5,000 from its customer. Either would establish the fact as true.\n- 20) The Membership and Member activity records of HEX are of course business records that were at the relevant times (and now if HEX has not been crippled by the U.S. Government) maintained and relied upon in the regular course of business, which are self-authenticating and admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.\n- 21) It should be remembered that the U.S. Government also seized and shut down HEX's website and on-line operations which was a crucial part of its operations.\n- 22) In the government filing docket 233 they indicate the following:\n\n#### **\"the government wishes to note that it does not believe the assets that the government has seized and seeks to forfeit**\n\n**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 crimes provided it is granted approval from the Department of Justices 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\n## **Background Relevant Law Governing**\n\n# **I. 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 DoJ under court supervision to expose their personal information to foreign governments (\"doxxing\").\n\n## **II. 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\n\nfitting generic statute or one that is confused as to application must give away to a statute that\n\nspecifically governs the exact situation being considered.\n\n## **18 U.S. Code § 3771 - Crime victims' rights requires** *(emphases added)***:**\n\n**(a)RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.—**A [crime victim](http) has the following rights:\n\n\\* \\* \\* (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. \\* \\* \\*\n\n(6) *The right to full and timely restitution* as provided in law. (7) *The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.*\n\n\\* \\* \\* (10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 [\\(42 U.S.C. 10607\\(c\\)](http)) [\\[1\\]](http) and provided contact information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of Justice.\n\n#### **(b)RIGHTS AFFORDED.—**\n\n#### **(1)IN GENERAL.—**\n\nIn any court proceeding involving an offense against a [crime victim,](http) the court shall ensure that the [crime victim](http) is afforded the rights described in subsection **(a).** Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record.\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n#### **(c)BEST EFFORTS TO ACCORD RIGHTS.—**\n\n### **(1)Government.—**\n\nOfficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime *shall make their best efforts to see that [crime victims](http) are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).*\n\n### **(2)Advice of attorney.—**\n\nThe prosecutor shall advise the [crime victim](http) that the [crime victim](http) can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection (a).\n\n### \\* \\* \\*\n\n**(d)ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS.—**\n\n**(1)Rights.—**\n\n*The [crime victim](http) or the [crime victim'](http)s lawful representative, and the attorney for the Government may assert the rights described in subsection (a)*. A person accused of the crime may not obtain any form\n\nof relief under this chapter.\n\n**(2)Multiple crime victims.—**\n\nIn a case where the court finds that the number of [crime victims](http) makes it impracticable to accord all of the [crime victims](http) the rights described in subsection (a), *the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings.*\n\n### **(3)Motion for relief and writ of mandamus.—**\n\nThe rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred. The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith. *If the district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition the [court of appeals](http) for a writ of mandamus. The [court of appeals](http) may issue the writ on the order of a single judge* pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The [court of appeals](http) shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed, unless the litigants, with the approval of the court, have stipulated to a different time period for consideration. In deciding such application, the [court of appeals](http) shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review. In no event shall proceedings be stayed or subject to a continuance of more than five days for purposes of enforcing this chapter. If the [court](http)  [of appeals](http) denies the relief sought, the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion. \\* \\* \\*\n\n## **(f)Procedures To Promote Compliance.—**\n\n**(1)Regulations.—** Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this chapter, *the Attorney General of the United States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of [crime victims](http) and to ensure compliance by responsible officials with the obligations described in law respecting [crime](http)  [victims.](http)*\n\n(2)Contents.—The regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) shall—\n\n(A) designate an administrative authority within the Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a [crime victim;](http)\n\n(B) require a course of training for employees and offices of the Department of Justice that fail to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of [crime victims,](http) and otherwise assist such employees and offices in responding more effectively to the needs of [crime](http)  [victims;](http)\n\n(C) *contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination from employment, for employees of the Department of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of [crime victims;](http) and*\n\n(D) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant.\n\n### **42 U.S.C. §10607. Services to victims requires that** *(emphases added)***:**\n\n#### **(a) Designation of responsible officials**\n\nThe head of each department and agency of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall designate by names and office titles the persons who will be responsible for identifying the victims of crime and performing the services described in subsection (c) of this section at each stage of a criminal case.\n\n#### **(b) Identification of victims**\n\nAt the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, a responsible official shall-\n\n(1) identify the victim or victims of a crime;\n\n(2) inform the victims of their right to receive, on request, the services described in subsection (c) of this section; and\n\n(3) inform each victim of the name, title, and business address and telephone number of the responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services described in subsection (c) of this section.\n\n#### **(c) Description of services**\n\n(1) A responsible official shall-\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n(B) inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled under this or any other law and [1](http) manner in which such relief may be obtained;\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n(D) assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services and relief described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C).\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n(3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of-\n\n(A) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation; \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\*\n\n## **(e) Definitions**\n\nFor the purposes of this section-\n\n(1) the term \"responsible official\" means a person designated pursuant to subsection (a) of this section to perform the functions of a responsible official under that section; and\n\n(2) the term \"victim\" means a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime, including-\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n#### **III.CONCLUSION**\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court authorize the\n\npresentation of the individual personal and financial information of investors seeking the return\n\nof their funds seized by the U.S. Government under seal or the equivalent if the Court directs\n\napplications to be made to the seizing department.\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 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n#### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on April 4, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the\n\nSouthern District of New York.\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708","body_zh":"美国联邦地区法院 纽约南区（Southern District of New York）\n\n美利坚合众国（UNITED STATES OF AMERICA），原告\n\n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\n请求对寻求返还财产的金融受害者之财务及个人数据予以密封归档的动议\n\n指派予：联邦地区法院主审法官 Analisa Torres 阁下\n\n请求对寻求返还财产的金融受害者之财务及个人数据予以密封归档的动议\n\n请求于 2025 年 4 月 6 日前采取紧急行动\n\n由下述署名律师、FormerFedsGroup.Com 的 Bradford L. Geyer 律师代表的索赔人，谨根据 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）、普通法上的欺诈与虚假借口侵吞财产罪、21 U.S.C. §§ 853(i) 及 (n)、《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 41(g) 条（Rule 41(g)）、42 U.S.C. § 10607、《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(b) 条（Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)）之授权，以及不当得利原则，恭敬地要求返还被美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，反而将他们视为被美国政府打劫的“目标”。\n\n为支持本动议，下述署名律师谨此请求允许其目前超过 6,000 名作为 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）个人会员和投资者的个人客户密封提交其身份识别信息和财务损失情况，以支持他们根据 18 U.S. Code § 3771 及其他规定要求返还资金的主张。\n\n法院可考虑以下补充要点：\n\n- 1) 在最坏情况的评估下，律师必须在 2025 年 4 月 7 日或之前为其客户提交申请。因此，恳请法院及时作出命令，以便律师及其他人能够密封归档。\n- 2) 律师认为没有任何理由剥夺其他律师事务所（如 Peter Katz）的任何客户或独立亲自出庭（pro se）申请人的相同权利或可用程序。尽管律师只能代表其自己的客户发言，但他并未发现自己的客户与其他人之间存在任何足以证明应作不同处理的区别。\n- 3) 下述署名律师代表 Himalaya Exchange 的客户，其中部分客户亦在 Michael Guo（Kwok）所倡导的其他实体中进行了单独投资。律师认为，没有任何理由剥夺这些实体中众多投资者在有意愿时进行密封归档的相同权利。\n- 4) 显然，人与人各不相同。有些人不在乎公开。有些人则极其在乎。有些人因害怕被披露或引起注意而不敢认领自己的资金。应为有此意愿的人提供密封归档途径。\n- 5) 司法部（DOJ）网站上以指导说明的形式提及，返还资金的申请应提交给扣押该资金的机构。\n- 6) 然而，就律师所知，政府并未就究竟是哪个机构扣押了资金、扣押了哪些资金、涉及 80 家不同组织中的哪一家给出明确或全面的说明。在政府最初的怀疑范围内曾“多达”约 80 家机构。但政府只是在此处和彼处零星提及了不同的扣押情况。\n\n- 7) 因此，除向美国司法部提交或向本法院归档（即使向本法院归档被委托给诸如特别主事官、助理法官或管理人等官员，律师反对这种做法，因为这会在事先对结果产生预断）之外，投资者并不清楚应向谁提交救济申请。\n- 8) 此外，www.Forfeiture.gov 上的指导说明在法律意义上似乎并不具有权威性，而仅属于探讨性质。\n- 9) 因此，动议律师提出了一份拟定命令（Proposed Order），提供了两种备选处理方式：将机密数据向法院密封归档，或将其提交给美国司法部并按等同于密封的方式处理。法院可能希望指明申请应提交至何处，并授权密封归档。同样，向法院提交可能并不意味着由地区法院法官亲自处理，而是可能意味着委托处理。\n- 10) 律师将代表 HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）的投资者提交返还其投资款项的请求，该款项系美国政府以保护投资者免遭他人侵占其资金为由而收缴的。正如我们在提交的个别亲自出庭者的关切中所看到的那样，这引发了一些困惑。美国政府扣押了投资者的资金，以保护其免遭侵占。罗纳德·里根总统曾有名言调侃道：“我一直觉得英语中最可怕的九个单词是：‘I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.’（我是政府派来的，我是来帮忙的。）”http\n- 11) 为支持这些返还投资者款项的申请，律师将提交有关目前超过 6,000 名同为律师客户的 HEX 投资者的信息。\n- 12) 这当然涉及 6,000 多名已知且可识别的个人，尽管这是一个庞大的投资者群体，但严格从法律意义上讲并不构成集体诉讼。\n- 13) 对于其中部分信息，律师将主动提供（proffer），并再次邀请司法部在安全条件下会面并进行审查，且将邀请司法部审查数据的主张视为一项由政府自行决定是否接受的证据出示提议。\n- 14) 与此同时，律师亦预计 Himalaya Exchange 将自行提交申请，要求全额（in toto）返还美国政府从 Himalaya Exchange 扣押的准备金。\n- 15) 律师的客户支持上述任一救济方式，并以此作为备选主张敦促采取任一途径。如果 HEX 的全部准备金得以全额返还，HEX 的会员（投资者）便可从 HEX 处领回其投资，包括那些非本律师客户的会员。\n- 16) 律师预计，直接从交易所收缴的准备金，最直接属于交易所代表其会员所享有的权利。\n- 17) 另一方面，政府假设了一种毫无根据的可能性，即 HEX 的某些会员可能未获得政府的认可。因此，对个别会员予以考量将使政府首次能够具体化，并实际指出其掌握任何有关疑虑的可靠证据的任何会员账户。\n- 18) 因此，要求返还个别会员的投资同样具有正当性，但这\n\n使我们能够拨开迷雾，查明政府模糊推测背后的具体原因。鉴于未发现任何理由，无辜且无可指责的会员应获返还其被扣押的投资。如果政府不向我们指出存在个别疑虑的具体人员或情形，我们必须得出并不存在此类情况的结论。法律如同人生，确实要求我们“现在说出来，否则永远保持沉默”。\n\n- 19) 律师希望 HEX 提交的报告和数据可能会进一步支持退还投资者资金的申请。律师的客户将请求依据 HEX 提交的信息以及他们自身的信息。由于 HEX 的业务运营之一（或至少曾经）是维护会员参与和在交易所投资的记录，因此 HEX 关于个别会员的信息与个别会员自身的信息具有同等的权威性。例如，若要证明某人在银行账户中存入了 5,000 美元，既可以由存款人证明其存入了该笔款项，也可以由银行证明其从客户处收到了这 5,000 美元。两者均可确立该事实的真实性。\n- 20) HEX 的会员资格及会员活动记录当然属于业务记录，在相关时期（以及在 HEX 未被美国政府瘫痪的当下）均系在正常业务过程中维护并依循的，根据《联邦证据规则》，这些记录具有自证性且具有可采性。\n- 21) 应当铭记的是，美国政府还扣押并关闭了 HEX 的网站及在线业务，而这是其运营的关键组成部分。\n- 22) 在政府提交的第 233 号案卷中，其表明了以下内容：\n\n“政府希望指出，政府不认为其已扣押并寻求没收的资产\n\n应移交给破产财团。相反，政府打算没收其已扣押的郭氏犯罪集团的犯罪所得，并在获得司法部免除或恢复程序批准以及本法院下达没收令的情况下，将这些资产返还给郭氏罪行的受害者。在与破产受托人或任何第三方就扣押资产的没收发生争议的范围内，裁决这些争议的适当时机将在刑事审判之后到来。”\n\n适用的相关背景法律\n\n一、受害者的权利\n\n根据《犯罪受害者改革法》（Crime Victim's Reform Act），任何赎回程序都应使受害者能够完善其权利主张，并在符合 18 U.S. Code § 3771 规定的更新版 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) 程序下进行认证。第 983 条的设计早于加密货币交易所的出现以及人权资本创造系统（比特币、喜马拉雅币等）的创新，第 3771 条项下这一日益扩大的鸿沟可能会因受害者在法院监督下被司法部强迫向外国政府暴露其个人信息（“人肉搜索/开盒”）这一事实而被打破。\n\n二、向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，一项解释准则为特别法优于一般法。参见 HCSC–Laundry 诉 United States，450 U.S. 1, 6, 101 S.Ct. 836, 67 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981)；Downing 诉 Globe Direct LLC，682 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012)。一项精准契合案情的法规证明了立法机关对该特定情况进行确切规范的意图，而非看似与眼前情况无关的宽泛法规。这种对比体现了立法机关在特定法案实质内容中的意图以及制定该法案的必要性。一项适用性欠佳\n\n的宽泛法规或在适用上存在混淆的法规，必须让位于具体管辖所考量之确切情形的法规。\n\n18 U.S. Code § 3771 - 犯罪受害者权利规定（强调为后加）：\n\n(a) 犯罪受害者的权利。——犯罪受害者享有以下权利：\n\n* * * (3) 不被排除在任何此类公开法院诉讼程序之外的权利，除非法院在收到明确且有说服力的证据后，认定如果受害者在该程序中听到其他证言，其证言将被实质性改变。* * *\n\n(6) 依法获得全额且及时赔偿的权利。(7) 获得无不合理迟延之诉讼程序的权利。\n\n* * * (10) 获知本条项下权利及《1990 年受害者权利与赔偿法》（Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990）第 503(c) 条（42 U.S.C. 10607(c)）[1] 所述服务的权利，并获得司法部受害者权利监察员办公室（Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman）的联系方式。\n\n(b) 赋予的权利。——\n\n(1) 总则。——\n\n在涉及针对犯罪被害人罪行的任何法庭程序中，法院应当确保犯罪被害人享有(a)款所述的权利。在作出(a)(3)款所述的决定之前，法院应尽一切努力允许被害人尽可能全面地到场，并应考虑不将被害人排除在刑事程序之外的合理替代方案。依据本章驳回救济的任何决定的理由均应在记录中明确载明。\n\n* * *\n\n(c)尽最大努力给予权利。—\n\n(1)政府。—\n\n从事犯罪侦查、调查或起诉工作的Department of Justice（司法部）及美国其他部门和机构的官员和雇员应尽最大努力，确保犯罪被害人获悉并被给予(a)款所述的权利。\n\n(2)律师咨询建议。—\n\n检察官应当告知犯罪被害人，该犯罪被害人可以就(a)款所述权利寻求律师的咨询建议。\n\n* * *\n\n(d)执行与限制。—\n\n(1)权利。—\n\n犯罪被害人或犯罪被害人的法定代理人，以及代表政府的检察官可以主张(a)款所述的权利。被控犯罪的人不得依据本章获得任何形式的救济。\n\n(2)多名犯罪被害人。—\n\n在法院认定犯罪被害人的人数使得给予所有犯罪被害人(a)款所述权利在实际上不可行的情况下，法院应制定合理的程序以使本章生效，且该程序不得使诉讼程序产生不当的繁琐或拖延。\n\n(3)申请救济动议及调卷令。—\n\n(a)款所述的权利应在被告因该犯罪正被起诉的地方法院主张，或者在未进行起诉的情况下，在犯罪发生所在辖区所在地的地方法院主张。地方法院应即刻受理并裁决任何主张被害人权利的动议。如果地方法院驳回所请求的救济，动议提出人可以向court of appeals（上诉法院）请愿申请调卷令。上诉法院可以根据巡回区规则或《联邦上诉程序规则》，由一名法官作出裁定签发该令状。上诉法院应在请愿书提交后72小时内即刻受理并对该申请作出裁决，除非诉讼当事人在经法院批准后另行约定审理期限。在裁决该申请时，上诉法院应适用通常的上诉审查标准。为了执行本章之目的，在任何情况下均不得将程序中止或展期超过五日。如果上诉法院驳回所请求的救济，驳回的理由应在书面意见中明确载于记录。* * *\n\n(f)促进合规的程序。—\n\n(1)规章。— 不迟于本章颁布之日后1年内，Attorney General of the United States（美国司法部长）应颁布规章以执行犯罪被害人的权利，并确保责任官员遵守法律所述关于犯罪被害人的义务。\n\n(2)内容。— 根据第(1)款颁布的规章应当——\n\n(A) 在司法部内部指定一个行政主管机关，负责接收并调查与提供或侵犯犯罪被害人权利相关的控告；\n\n(B) 对未能遵守有关对待犯罪被害人的联邦法律规定的司法部雇员和办事机构要求进行培训课程，并以其他方式协助此类雇员和办事机构更有效地回应犯罪被害人的需求；\n\n(C) 对故意或肆意不遵守有关对待犯罪被害人的联邦法律规定的司法部雇员，载明包括停职或终止雇佣在内的纪律处分；以及\n\n(D) 规定司法部长或司法部长指定的人员应为控告的最终裁决人，且控告人不得对司法部长的最终决定提出司法审查。\n\n42 U.S.C. § 10607。对被害人的服务要求（强调为后加）：\n\n(a) 责任官员的指定\n\n从事犯罪侦查、调查或起诉工作的美国各部门和机构的负责人，应按姓名和职务指定在刑事案件的各个阶段负责识别犯罪被害人并履行本条(c)款所述服务的人员。\n\n(b) 被害人的识别\n\n在发现犯罪后、且在不干扰调查的情况下能够进行的最早时机，责任官员应当——\n\n(1) 识别一名或多名犯罪被害人；\n\n(2) 告知被害人其有权应请求获得本条(c)款所述的服务；以及\n\n(3) 告知每位被害人责任官员的姓名、职务、办公地址及电话号码，被害人应向该责任官员提出对本条(c)款所述各项服务的请求。\n\n(c) 服务说明\n\n(1) 责任官员应当——\n\n* * *\n\n(B) 告知被害人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* * *\n\n(D) 协助被害人联系负责提供(A)、(B)和(C)项所述服务及救济的人员。\n\n* * *\n\n(3) 在犯罪调查和起诉期间，责任官员应尽早向被害人提供以下情况的通知——\n\n(A) 犯罪调查的进展情况，以适宜告知被害人且不干扰调查为限；* * * * * *\n\n(e) 定义\n\n就本条而言——\n\n(1) 术语“责任官员”是指根据本条(a)款被指定履行该条项下责任官员职责的人员；以及\n\n(2) 术语“被害人”是指由于犯罪行为而遭受直接身体、精神或财产损害的人员，包括——\n\n* * *\n\nIII. 结论\n\n基于上述理由，我们谨请求法院准许在封存状态下提交寻求返还被美国政府扣押资金的投资者的个人身份及财务信息，若法院指示向执行扣押的部门提出申请，则准许采用同等效力的方式提交。\n\n日期：2025年4月4日\n\n日期：2025年4月4日 谨此提交\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer（布拉德·盖耶）\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV（临时出庭律师执照）\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141 Route 130 S. 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856) 607-5708\n\n送达证书\n\n我在此证明，2025年4月4日，本前述文书的一份真实准确的副本已通过U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地方法院）的ECF电子案件归档系统进行了电子归档和送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer（布拉德·盖耶）\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV（临时出庭律师执照）\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141 Route 130 S. 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856) 607-5708","key_entities":["Crime Victim","Kwok","Geyer","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","forfeiture","Guo","Je","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","853(i)","Rule 41(g)"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3086,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:32:15"}