{"id":"court_sdny_648_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":648,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              |   | |-----------------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"第三方权益申索状——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #648。一名身份经隐去的申索人依 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 与联邦刑事诉讼规则 32.2(c) 提出异议，称因郭文贵等人就喜马拉雅交易所稳定币 HDO 具黄金储备支撑、获国际机构认购等宣传而汇款至该平台指定账户，主张受骗且为善意第三方，要求将其权益从罚没令涉及账户中排除并申请听证。","summary_en":"Third-party petition — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #648. An unnamed petitioner, invoking 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), states that representations by Guo Wengui and associates about the Himalaya Exchange's HDO stablecoin — including claimed gold-reserve backing and institutional subscription — induced remittances to the platform's designated account, and asserts victim/bona fide-purchaser status seeking exclusion of that interest from the forfeiture order and a hearing.","body_en":"| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              |   |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK                             |   |\n| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | x |\n|                                                           | : |\n|                                                           | : |\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                  | : |\n\nVERIFIED PETITION UNDER FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2 AND 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) FOR ADJUDICATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF\n\n-v.-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\"\n\nKIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"\n\nS1 23 CR 118 (AT)\n\n : Defendants.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n\n (the \"Petitioner\"), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 32.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, hereby respectfully petitions this Court for a determination of the Petitioner's interest in specific property subject to the Court's Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (the \"Forfeiture Order\"), signed on January 6, 2025, and entered on January 7, 2025. The Forfeiture Order includes various bank accounts (\"Forfeited Accounts\"), as described in Dkt. 488. Petitioner seeks to exclude from forfeiture the specific property in which Petitioner has a legal right, title, and interest—namely, (the \"Property\").\n\n:\n\nIn support hereof, Petitioner states as follows:\n\n 1.I, the Petitioner, transferred a total of in two separate remittances to a forfeited account, as shown in the remittance receipts attached as Exhibit A:\n\n a. On November 15, 2021, I remitted to account number 7801000254, held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.\" — the designated U.S. account for the Himalaya Exchange platform. This account was seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022 (Asset ID: 23-FBI-000051).\n\nb. On December 6, 2021, I remitted to the same account listed above.\n\nto the same account listed above.\n\n2. I was induced to deposit funds into Himalaya Exchange due to extensive promotional materials and public statements made by Guo Wengui and his team. Specifically, Guo claimed on several occasions that 20% of the proceeds from the sale of Himalaya Exchange's digital currency, HDO, would be used to purchase gold and backed by 20% gold reserves. In addition, Guo and his affiliates widely promoted that the HDO tokens would be subscribed to by \"top global financial institutions\" who would hold them in long-term lockup, thereby supporting price stability and growth potential. These representations led me to believe that the platform had significant development potential and asset backing. However, subsequent court filings revealed that these statements were false, misleading, and part of a fraudulent financial scheme.\n\n3. In March 2023, Defendants Guo and Wang were arrested. Defendant \"Je\" remains at large.\n\n4. Prior to their arrests, Petitioner was unaware of the criminal nature of Himalaya Exchange, Hamilton Fund, and G|Clubs Inc. It was only after their arrests that Petitioner became aware that Defendants had been charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.\n\n5. On May 3, 2024, Defendant Wang pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government. As part of that agreement, she agreed to forfeit over \\$1.4 billion in assets, including the Property (Dkt. 325).\n\n6. That same day, Defendant Wang consented to the entry of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment, including the funds provided by Petitioner (Dkt. 329).\n\n7. On July 18, 2024, Defendant Guo was convicted at trial of racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, securities fraud, and related substantive counts (Dkt. 395).\n\n8. On January 7, 2025, this Court sentenced Defendant Wang to 120 months in prison (Dkt. 489).\n\n9. On the same day, this Court signed the Forfeiture Order (Dkt. 488).\n\n10. Petitioner was not informed prior to the entry of the Forfeiture Order and had no knowledge that Defendant Wang had agreed to forfeit the Property.\n\n11. As a victim of Defendant Wang's fraudulent conduct, Petitioner has a legal interest in the Property, which Defendant Wang had no authority to forfeit. Petitioner's interest is superior to that of Defendant Wang, and thus the Property should not have been included in the Forfeiture Order.\n\n12. Petitioner was not involved in any of the above-mentioned crimes and had no knowledge of the Defendants' illegal activities. Petitioner is therefore an innocent third party pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Under that section, any third party asserting a legal interest in forfeited property may petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of their interest.\n\n13. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2)-(3), this petition is sworn, signed, and sets forth the nature and extent of Petitioner's right, title, or interest in the Property, the time and circumstances of Petitioner's acquisition thereof, and additional facts supporting Petitioner's claim and relief sought.\n\n14. Petitioner is the lawful owner of the Property, having been defrauded of it by the Defendants.\n\n15. In the alternative, Petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value under 21 U.S.C. § 853(1)(6)(B), having transferred funds to the Defendants based on false and fraudulent representations.\n\n16. Petitioner became aware of the Forfeiture Order via publication on www.forfeiture.gov between February 6, 2025, and March 7, 2025, which stated that any person, other than the defendant, who claims a legal interest in forfeited property must file a petition within thirty (30) days of final publication or actual notice, whichever is earlier.\n\n17. Petitioner has filed this Petition within thirty (30) days of the final date of publication. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:\n\na. Amend the Forfeiture Order to exclude the Property in which Petitioner has a right, title, and interest as an innocent third party, a holder of a superior interest, and/or a bona fide purchaser for value.\n\nb. Hold a hearing pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(1) on any disputed matters.\n\nc. In the alternative, should this Petition be denied, permit Petitioner to assert a claim for compensation for the Property.\n\nd. In the alternative, and if this Petition is denied, grant Petitioner restitution or remission of the Property through applicable processes.\n\ne. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n![](_page_2_Figure_12.jpeg)\n\nApril 6, 2025.\n\n## VERIFICATION\n\nI attest and declare under penalty of perjury that my petition is not frivolous and the information provided in support of my petition is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nExecuted on April 6th, 2025 in","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n:\n:\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国） :\n\n根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Fed. R. Crim. P.）第 32.2 条及《美国法典》第 21 编第 853 条第 (n) 款（21 U.S.C. § 853(n)）请求对申请人就以下特定财产之权利进行裁决的经宣誓请愿书\n\n-诉-\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“七哥”，又名“馆长”，\n\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n\nS1 23 CR 118 (AT)\n\n: 被告人。\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n\n（“申请人”）依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 以及《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(c) 条，特此恭敬地向本院提出请愿，请求确定申请人在本院于 2025年1月6日 签署并于 2025年1月7日 录入的《关于特定财产/金钱判决的同意初步没收裁定》（“没收裁定”）所涵盖之特定财产中的权益。如 Dkt. 488 所述，该没收裁定包括多个银行账户（“被没收账户”）。申请人请求将申请人拥有合法权利、所有权和权益的特定财产——即 （“涉案财产”）排除在没收范围之外。\n\n:\n\n为支持本请愿，申请人陈述如下：\n\n1. 我（即申请人）分两笔向一个被没收账户转入了总额为 的资金，具体如附于附件 A 的汇款收据所示：\n\na. 于 2021年11月15日，我向以“Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）”名义开设的账号 7801000254 进行了汇款——该账户为 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）平台的指定美国账户。该账户于 2022年9月20日 左右被政府扣押（资产编号：23-FBI-000051）。\n\nb. 于 2021年12月6日，我向上述同一账户进行了汇款。\n\n向上述同一账户。\n\n2. 由于郭文贵及其团队进行的大量宣传材料和公开声明，我被诱导将资金存入喜马拉雅交易所。具体而言，郭文贵多次声称，出售喜马拉雅交易所数字货币 HDO 的收益中，有 20% 将用于购买黄金，并由 20% 的黄金储备作为后盾。此外，郭文贵及其关联方广泛宣传 HDO 代币将被“全球顶级金融机构”认购，且这些机构将进行长期锁仓，从而支撑价格稳定和增长潜力。这些陈述使我相信该平台具有巨大的发展潜力和资产支撑。然而，随后的法庭文件披露，这些陈述是虚假的、误导性的，属于欺诈性金融骗局的一部分。\n\n3. 2023年3月，被告郭文贵和王雁平被捕。被告“余建明”目前仍然在逃。\n\n4. 在他们被捕之前，申请人并不知晓喜马拉雅交易所、Hamilton Fund（汉密尔顿基金）以及 G|Clubs Inc.（G俱乐部公司）的犯罪性质。直到他们被捕后，申请人才得知被告被指控犯有串谋电汇欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱罪，违反了 18 U.S.C. § 1349。\n\n5. 2024年5月3日，被告王雁平根据与政府达成的认罪协议，就串谋电汇欺诈罪进行认罪答辩，违反了 18 U.S.C. § 1349。作为该协议的一部分，她同意没收超过 14 亿美元的资产，其中包括涉案财产（Dkt. 325）。\n\n6. 同日，被告王雁平同意录入《关于特定财产/金钱判决的初步没收裁定》，其中包括申请人提供的资金（Dkt. 329）。\n\n7. 2024年7月18日，被告郭文贵在庭审中被判定犯有敲诈勒索串谋罪、电汇欺诈、银行欺诈、洗钱、证券欺诈及相关的实质性罪名项（Dkt. 395）。\n\n8. 2025年1月7日，本院判处被告王雁平 120 个月监禁（Dkt. 489）。\n\n9. 同日，本院签署了《没收裁定》（Dkt. 488）。\n\n10. 在《没收裁定》录入之前，申请人未获告知，且不知晓被告王雁平已同意没收涉案财产。\n\n11. 作为被告王雁平欺诈行为的受害者，申请人对涉案财产享有合法权益，而被告王雁平无权没收该财产。申请人的权益优于被告王雁平的权益，因此涉案财产本不应被纳入《没收裁定》。\n\n12. 申请人未参与任何上述犯罪活动，且对被告的非法活动毫不知情。因此，根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)，申请人属于无辜第三方。根据该条款，任何对被没收财产主张合法权益的第三方均可向法院请愿举行听证会，以裁定其权益的有效性。\n\n13. 依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2)-(3)，本请愿书经宣誓并签署，载明了申请人对涉案财产所享有权利、所有权或权益的性质和范围、申请人获取该财产的时间和情况，以及支持申请人主张和请求救济的其他事实。\n\n14. 申请人是涉案财产的合法所有人，该财产系被被告诈骗所得。\n\n15. 或者，根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(B)，申请人属于有价善意购买人，因基于虚假和欺诈性陈述而向被告转移了资金。\n\n16. 申请人通过 2025年2月6日 至 2025年3月7日 期间在 www.forfeiture.gov 上的公示获悉《没收裁定》，该公示指出，除被告外，任何对被没收财产主张合法权益的人，必须在最终公示之日或实际通知之日起三十（30）日内（以较早者为准）提交请愿书。\n\n17. 申请人已在最终公示之日起三十（30）日内提交了本请愿书。因此，申请人恭敬地请求本院：\n\na. 修改《没收裁定》，排除申请人作为无辜第三方、优先权益持有者和/或有价善意购买人享有权利、所有权和权益的涉案财产。\n\nb. 依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 就任何争议事项举行听证会。\n\nc. 或者，若本请愿被驳回，允许申请人就涉案财产提出赔偿主张。\n\nd. 或者，若本请愿被驳回，通过适用程序向申请人给予涉案财产的赔偿或减免。\n\ne. 给予法院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步的救济。\n\n2025年4月6日。\n\n宣誓确认\n\n我在承担作伪证处罚的前提下作证并声明：我的请愿书绝非无理取闹，支持我请愿书所提供的信息就我所知所信均属真实且正确。\n\n签署于 2025年4月6日，地点：","key_entities":["forfeiture","Guo","Himalaya","Je","Himalaya Exchange","853(n)","Kwok","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","CIPA","Rule 32.2"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":325,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":329,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":395,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":489,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1133,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:24:47"}