{"id":"court_sdny_654_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":654,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","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 #654。申索人 Sonar Advisers Inc.（由律师 Patricia A. Pileggi/ArentFox Schiff LLP 代理，首席执行官 Kentaro Azuma 具结）依 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提出异议，称其通过 Medici Bank International 电汇投入 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC 旗下\"喜马拉雅数字资产基金\"以认购 Himalaya Coin 相关份额，主张自己是善意第三方/被害人，要求将其权益从罚没令涉及账户中排除并申请听证，并保留依《平等司法权利法》主张律师费的权利。","summary_en":"Third-party petition — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #654. Petitioner Sonar Advisers Inc. — represented by counsel Patricia A. Pileggi of ArentFox Schiff LLP and verified by CEO Kentaro Azuma — invokes 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), stating it wired funds via Medici Bank International into the Himalaya Digital Assets Fund SP under Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC to subscribe for shares tied to Himalaya Coin, asserts bona fide third-party/victim status seeking exclusion from the forfeiture order and a hearing, and reserves a claim for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.","body_en":"## UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------- **X**\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 \\$1,000,000.00\n\n- **V.** - HO 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\n\nY ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"\n\nS4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nDefendants.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------- X\n\nSonar Advisers Inc. (the \"Petitioner\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Patricia A. Pileggi, ArentFox SchiffLLP, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 32.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, hereby respectfully petitions the 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, signed by Your Honor on January 6, 2025 and entered on January 7, 2025, (the \"Forfeiture Order\") which includes various bank accounts (\"Forfeited Accounts\"), Dkt. 488, to exclude all property in which the Petitioner has right, title, and interest, namely, \\$ I ,000,000.00 (the \"Property\"). In support hereof, Petitioner states as\n\nfollows:\n\n1. On July 20, 2021 , Petitioner transferred \\$1 ,000,000.00 U.S. Currency to Himalaya Digital Assets Fund SP, a Segregated Portfolio of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC.\n\n2. Petitioner provided the funds via wire transfer to Defendants by sending \\$1 ,000,000.00 to Medici Bank International, 1250 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 301 , San Juan, PR 00907, Account No: 4500 4500032415 02. The Reference/Memo for this wire transfer stated: \"FFC MBI Zl 855080005Z Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC.\" The wire transfer was made through The Reserve Trust Company, ABA No. 102007558, 5600 S. Quebec St. Suite 205D, Greenwood Village, CO 80111. *See* **Ex. A,** Memorandum for Remittance; **Ex. B,** Mizuho Bank Statement; **Ex. C,** Wire Instructions Change Form; **Ex. D,** Email Confirming Transfer of Funds to Medici Bank International.\n\n3. In exchange for its investment in Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Petitioner was advised that it would become a Shareholder and would subscribe for Class A Shares in the Himalaya Digital Assets Fund SP, a Segregated Portfolio of the Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, a Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company operating as a Fund under Section 4(3) of the Mutual Funds Law (Revised) of the Cayman Islands. *See* **Ex. E,** Subscription Agreement; **Ex. F,** Offering Memorandum. As represented to Petitioner by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Himalaya Digital Assets Fund SP would invest in Himalaya Coin, a digital token. *See* **Ex. G,**  PowerPoint Presentation from Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. The Himalaya Exchange included a purported stablecoin called the Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\" or \"H Dollar\") and a trading coin called the Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\" or \"H Coin\").\n\n4. As set forth in the Superseding Indictment, and in more detail below, the Himalaya Exchange was part of a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors such as Petitioner. In furtherance of this fraudulent scheme, funds obtained from investors such as Petitioner for the purpose of investing in Himalaya Coin were transferred to the Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC.\n\n5. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, Miles Guo, his co-defendants, and coconspirators solicited investments in various entities in various entities and programs by promising outsized financial returns and other benefits. Miles Guo, his co-defendants and coconspirators created and maintained several interrelated and overlapping entities - ie., the G Enterprise. Dkt. # 307, ~ 2, 3.\n\n6. The interrelated and overlapping entities that formed the G Enterprise included Hamilton Fund Opportunity Fund SPC. Dkt. No. 307, ~ 3a.\n\n7. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds were transferred to bank accounts held in the names of entities owned or controlled by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC and other entities. Dkt. No. 307, ~ 4.\n\n8. According to the Superseding Indictment, Miles Guo, his co-defendant, codefendants and co-conspirators, obtained more than approximately \\$262 million in victim funds through the Himalaya Exchange, a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" accessible on the internet. The Himalaya Exchange included a purported stablecoin called the Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\" or \"H Dollar\") and a trading coin called Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\" or \"H Coin\").The Himalaya Exchange claimed that the \"stablecoin\" was a digital asset with a fixed l-to-\\$1 value backed by reserves, and that the \"trading coin\" was a cryptocurrency with valuation based on supply and demand. Dkt. No. 307, ~ 19.\n\n9. Contrary to representations of MILES GUO, his co-defendants and coconspirators, HCN and HDO were not cryptocurrencies. transactions using HCN and HDO were- unlike real cryptocurrencies -not recorded on a \"blockchain,\" which is an electronic,\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_8.jpeg)\n\npublicly accessible, decentralized ledger that uses cryptography to record cryptocurrency transactions. Instead of using a publicly accessible blockchain, transactions in HCN and HDO were recorded in an internal database, which was not subject to public review. Dkt. No. 307,, l 9e.\n\n10. Moreover, HCN and HDO could not be traded anywhere other than purportedly on the Himalaya Exchange. Nor could HCN be traded for, or converted into, other currencies. HCN purportedly could be traded for only HDO (and only on the Himalaya Exchange), and HDO purportedly could be converted only to or from fiat currency (and only on the Himalaya Exchange. Dkt. No. 307, , l 9f.\n\n11. Upon information and belief, the funds provided by Petitioner were transferred into one of the Forfeited Accounts at Silvergate Bank, held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC\" and seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022, among potentially other Forfeited Accounts.\n\n12. Petitioner never received any funds or investment back from Defendants, having now suffered a total loss of its \\$1,000,000.00 investment.\n\n13. In March 2023, Defendants Kwok and Wang were arrested. Defendant Je remains at large.\n\n14. Petitioner was not aware of the criminal nature of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC leading up to the arrest of the Defendants. After the arrest, Petitioner learned the Defendants were charged with Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, Securities Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Money Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, as well as related substantive counts.\n\n15. 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,\n\nwherein Defendant Wang agreed to forfeit to the United States a sum of money equal to \\$1 .4 Billion through various accounts and other property, including forfeiting all right, title, and interest of the Property. See Dkt. 325.\n\n16. On May 3, 2024, Defendant Wang consented to the entry of Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment, including all funds provided by Petitioner into the Forfeited Accounts as detailed above. See Dkt. 329.\n\n17. On July 18, 2024, Defendant Kwok was convicted after a Jury Trial of Racketeering Conspiracy, Conspiracy to Commit Wire or Bank, Money Laundering and Securities Fraud, as well as related substantive counts. See Dkt. 395.\n\n18. On January 7, 2025, Defendant Wang was sentenced by Your Honor to 120 months imprisonment. See Dkt. 489.\n\n19. On January 7, 2025, Your Honor signed the Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment. See Dkt. 488.\n\n20. Petitioner was not consulted prior to the entry of the Forfeiture Order. Petitioner had no knowledge that Defendant Wang consented to forfeit the Property.\n\n21. As a victim of Defendant Wang, Petitioner has an interest in the Property which Defendant Wang had no authority to agree to forfeit. Rather, Petitioner has a superior interest in the Property which cannot be the subject of the Forfeiture Order relating to Defendant Wang.\n\n22. Petitioner was not involved in the aforementioned crimes, except as a victim, nor was it knowledgeable of the Defendants' illicit and illegal activities. Accordingly, Petitioner is also an innocent third party pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Any third party \"asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may ... petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the\n\nproperty.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2). The petition, which is sworn and signed by the petitioner, \"shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioner's right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the petitioner's acquisition of the right, title, or interest in the property, and additional facts supporting the petitioner's claim, and the relief sought.\" *Id.* § 853(n)(3).\n\n23. Here, Petitioner is the lawful owner of the Property - having been defrauded of the Property by the Defendants.\n\n24. In the alternative, Petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of its interest in the Property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(B), as it provided the Property to Defendants under false and fraudulent pretenses.\n\n25. Petitioner was made aware of the Order of Forfeiture by viewing it as www.forfeiture.gov (which was published from February 6, 2025 through March 7, 2025) noting that: \"[p]ursuant to Title 21 , United States Code, Section 835(n), persons other than the defendant who wish to assert a legal interest in property that has been ordered forfeited to the United States must file a petition for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of their alleged interest in the property with the Court within thirty (30) days of the final publication of notice, or receipt of actual notice, whichever is earlier.\"\n\n26. The Petitioner has been required to retain legal counsel and has incurred costs to file this petition asserting Petitioner's right to Petitioner's Property and to challenge the forfeiture of Petitioner's Property. Upon prevailing in this proceeding, Petitioner reserves all rights to recover attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this Petition and may recover Petitioner's costs and reasonable attorney 's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (\"EAJA\"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Federal courts have held that§ 853(n) proceedings are civil for the purposes of allowing a successful claimant to collect attorney's fees under the EAJA. See *United States v. Cox,* 575 F.3d 352, 355 (4th Cir. 2009); *United States v. Douglas,* 55 F.3d 584, 588 (11th Cir. 1995); *US v. Bailey,* 2015 WL 1893610 at \\*20 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2015).\n\n- 27. Petitioner has filed this petition within 30 days of the final publication of notice. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests and petition this Court:\n\t- a. to amend the Forfeiture Order to exclude the Property in which Petitioner has a right, title, and interest as an innocent third party, superior interest, and/or a bona fide purchaser for value;\n\t- b. for a hearing pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(11) on any disputed matters;\n\t- c. in the alternative, and in the event that this Petition is denied, Petitioner hereby respectfully asserts a claim for compensation for its interest in the Property;\n\t- d. in the alternative, and in the event that this Petition is denied, Petitioner hereby respectfully moves this Cout1 to be granted restitution and/or payment of the Property through the remission process;\n\t- *e.* for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: April 7, 2025\n\nRespectfully Submitted,\n\nDated: April 7, 2025\n\nRespectfully Submitted,\n\nPatricia A. Pileggi\n\n---\n\nPatricia A. Pileggi\n\nArentF ox Schiff LLP *JC*  1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 212.745 .0839 patricia.pileggi@afslaw.com Attorney for Petitioner\n\n## **VF.RTFTCA TION**\n\nI, Kentaro Azuma, attest and declare under penalty of perjury that my petition is not frivolous and the information provided in suppo11 ofmy petition is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nExecuted on April \\_2\\_, 2025.\n\nKentaro Azuma\n\nChief Executive Officer & President","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nX\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2 条及 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提请判定请愿人对 1,000,000.00 美元特定财产权利的经核实请愿书\n\n- 诉 -\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”、“校长”，\n\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n\n案号：S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n被告。\n\nX\n\nSonar Advisers Inc.（以下简称“请愿人”），由其下述具名律师 Patricia A. Pileggi（ArentFox Schiff LLP 律师事务所）代表，依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(c) 条之规定，特此恭敬地向法院提请判定请愿人在特定财产中的权益。该财产受制于法官阁下于 2025 年 1 月 6 日签署并于 2025 年 1 月 7 日录入的法院《关于特定财产/金钱判决的同意初步没收令》（以下简称“没收令”），其中包括若干银行账户（以下简称“被没收账户”），详见 ECF 编号（Dkt.）488。请愿人请求从中排除请愿人享有权利、所有权及权益的全部财产，即 1,000,000.00 美元（以下简称“该财产”）。为支持本请愿，请愿人陈述如下：\n\n1. 2021 年 7 月 20 日，请愿人将 1,000,000.00 美元款项转账至 Himalaya Digital Assets Fund SP（喜马拉雅数字资产基金 SP），该基金为 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机遇基金 SPC）的独立投资组合。\n\n2. 请愿人通过电汇向被告提供资金，向位于 1250 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 301, San Juan, PR 00907 的 Medici Bank International（梅第奇国际银行）汇出 1,000,000.00 美元，账户号码为：4500 4500032415 02。该电汇的附言/备忘栏注明：“FFC MBI Z1855080005Z Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”。该笔电汇通过 The Reserve Trust Company（储备信托公司，ABA 编号：102007558，地址：5600 S. Quebec St. Suite 205D, Greenwood Village, CO 80111）进行。参见证据 A，汇款备忘录；证据 B，瑞穗银行（Mizuho Bank）对账单；证据 C，电汇指示变更表格；证据 D，确认向 Medici Bank International 转入资金的电子邮件。\n\n3. 作为对 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC 投资的对价，请愿人获悉其将成为股东，并将认购 Himalaya Digital Assets Fund SP 的 A 类股份，该基金系 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC 的独立投资组合，后者是一家根据开曼群岛《共同基金法（修订版）》第 4(3) 条作为基金运营的开曼群岛独立投资组合公司。参见证据 E，认购协议；证据 F，发售备忘录。正如 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC 向请愿人所作出的陈述，Himalaya Digital Assets Fund SP 将投资于名为 Himalaya Coin（喜币）的数字代币。参见证据 G，Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）的演示文稿（PowerPoint Presentation）。Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）包括一种据称名为 Himalaya Dollar（喜美元，简称“HDO”或“H Dollar”）的稳定币，以及一种据称名为 Himalaya Coin（喜币，简称“HCN”或“H Coin”）的交易币。\n\n4. 如替代起诉书中所陈述并在下文更详细说明，Himalaya Exchange 是欺诈包括请愿人在内的投资者的欺诈计划的一部分。为推进该欺诈计划，为投资 Himalaya Coin 之目的而从包括请愿人在内的投资者处获取的资金被转入 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC。\n\n5. 如替代起诉书中所指控，郭文贵、其同案被告及共谋人通过承诺高额财务回报和其他利益，招揽对各类实体及项目的投资。郭文贵、其同案被告及共谋人创建并维持了若干相互关联和重叠的实体——即 G Enterprise（郭氏集团/G系实体）。Dkt. # 307，第 2、3 段。\n\n6. 组成 G Enterprise 的相互关联和重叠的实体包括 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC。Dkt. No. 307，第 3a 段。\n\n7. 该欺诈计划收益中的数亿美元被转入以 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC 及其他实体拥有或控制的实体名义持有的银行账户。Dkt. No. 307，第 4 段。\n\n8. 根据替代起诉书，郭文贵、其同案被告及共谋人通过 Himalaya Exchange——一个可在互联网上访问的据称的加密货币“生态系统”——从受害者处获取了超过约 2.62 亿美元的资金。Himalaya Exchange 包括一种据称名为 Himalaya Dollar（喜美元，简称“HDO”或“H Dollar”）的稳定币，以及一种据称名为 Himalaya Coin（喜币，简称“HCN”或“H Coin”）的交易币。Himalaya Exchange 声称该“稳定币”是由储备支持、具有 1 比 1 美元固定价值的数字资产，而该“交易币”是估值基于供需关系的加密货币。Dkt. No. 307，第 19 段。\n\n9. 与郭文贵、其同案被告及共谋人的陈述相反，HCN 和 HDO 并非加密货币。使用 HCN 和 HDO 的交易不同于真实的加密货币，并未记录在“区块链”上——区块链是一种电子的、公开可访问的、使用密码学来记录加密货币交易的去中心化账本。HCN 和 HDO 的交易并未采用公开可访问的区块链，而是记录在未接受公众审查的内部数据库中。Dkt. No. 307，第 19e 段。\n\n10. 此外，除据称在 Himalaya Exchange 之外，HCN 和 HDO 无法在任何其他地方进行交易。HCN 也无法兑换成其他货币或转换为其他货币。据称 HCN 只能交易为 HDO（且仅在 Himalaya Exchange 上进行），而据称 HDO 只能兑换为法定货币或由法定货币兑换而来（且仅在 Himalaya Exchange 上进行）。Dkt. No. 307，第 19f 段。\n\n11. 依据所得信息及确信，请愿人提供的资金被转入 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”名义持有并由政府于 2022 年 9 月 18 日前后扣押的被没收账户之一，以及可能转入的其他被没收账户中。\n\n12. 请愿人从未从被告处收回任何资金或投资，目前其 1,000,000.00 美元的投资遭受全部损失。\n\n13. 2023 年 3 月，被告郭文贵和王雁平被捕。被告余建明目前仍在逃。\n\n14. 在被告被捕之前，请愿人并不知晓 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC 的犯罪性质。在被告被捕后，请愿人得知被告被指控犯有合谋电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱罪（违反 18 U.S.C. § 1349）以及相关实质性罪名项。\n\n15. 2024 年 5 月 3 日，被告王雁平根据与政府达成的认罪协议，对合谋电信欺诈（违反 18 U.S.C. § 1349）作出了认罪答辩，其中被告王雁平同意通过各类账户及其他财产向美国没收总计 14 亿美元的款项，包括没收对该财产的全部权利、所有权和权益。参见 Dkt. 325。\n\n16. 2024 年 5 月 3 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令，包括如上文详述的由请愿人提供至被没收账户的全部资金。参见 Dkt. 329。\n\n17. 2024 年 7 月 18 日，被告郭文贵经陪审团审理后被判犯有合谋勒索敲诈（RICO 阴谋）、合谋电信或银行欺诈、洗钱和证券欺诈，以及相关实质性罪名项。参见 Dkt. 395。\n\n18. 2025 年 1 月 7 日，被告王雁平被法官阁下判处 120 个月监禁。参见 Dkt. 489。\n\n19. 2025 年 1 月 7 日，法官阁下签署了《关于特定财产/金钱判决的没收令》。参见 Dkt. 488。\n\n20. 在录入该没收令之前，未曾征询请愿人的意见。请愿人对被告王雁平同意没收该财产一事毫无所知。\n\n21. 作为被告王雁平的受害者，请愿人对该财产享有权益，被告王雁平无权同意没收该财产。相反，请愿人对该财产享有优先权益，该财产不得成为与被告王雁平相关的没收令的标的。\n\n22. 除作为受害者外，请愿人并未参与上述犯罪，亦不知晓被告的违法犯罪活动。因此，请愿人亦属 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 规定下的无辜第三方。任何“就依据本条被裁定没收归美国的财产主张合法权益”的第三方“均可……向法院提请听证，以判定其在涉案财产中所主张权益的有效性。”21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2)。该请愿书须由请愿人宣誓并签署，“应阐明请愿人在该财产中权利、所有权或权益的性质和范围、请愿人获得该财产权利、所有权或权益的时间和情况、支持请愿人主张的补充事实，以及所寻求的救济。”同上，§ 853(n)(3)。\n\n23. 在本案中，请愿人系该财产的合法所有人——其该财产系被被告欺诈所得。\n\n24. 备位主张，请愿人依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(B) 属于其在该财产中权益的支付对价的善意受让人，因其系在虚假和欺诈性虚饰下向被告提供了该财产。\n\n25. 请愿人系通过在 www.forfeiture.gov（于 2025 年 2 月 6 日至 2025 年 3 月 7 日期间发布）上查看没收令而知晓该裁定，该公告指出：“依据《美国法典》第 21 编第 853(n) 条，除被告以外、希望对已裁定没收归美国的财产主张合法权益的人士，必须在最后一次发布公告之日起三十（30）日内，或收到实际通知之日起三十（30）日内（以较早者为准），向法院提交听证请愿书，以判定其所主张财产权益的有效性。”\n\n26. 请愿人被迫聘请法律顾问，并为提交本请愿书以主张请愿人对请愿人财产的权利及抗辩对请愿人财产的没收而产生了费用。在本程序中胜诉后，请愿人保留追索与本请愿相关之律师费及开支的全部权利，并可依据《司法均等法案》（Equal Access to Justice Act，简称“EAJA”，28 U.S.C. § 2412）追索请愿人的费用和合理律师费。联邦法院裁定，就允许胜诉索赔人依据 EAJA 收取律师费而言，§ 853(n) 程序具有民事性质。参见 United States v. Cox, 575 F.3d 352, 355 (4th Cir. 2009)；United States v. Douglas, 55 F.3d 584, 588 (11th Cir. 1995)；US v. Bailey, 2015 WL 1893610 at *20 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2015)。\n\n27. 请愿人已在最后一次公告发布之日起 30 日内提交本请愿书。据此，请愿人谨向本法院提出如下请求与请愿：\na. 修改没收令，排除请愿人作为无辜第三方享有权利、所有权和权益、享有优先权益和/或作为支付对价之善意受让人的该财产；\nb. 依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 就任何争议事项举行听证；\nc. 备位请求，若本请愿被驳回，请愿人特此恭敬地就其在该财产中的权益主张赔偿请求；\nd. 备位请求，若本请愿被驳回，请愿人特此恭敬地提请本法院通过特赦/减免（remission）程序准予对该财产予以返还赔偿和/或支付；\ne. 给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\n谨此呈递，\n\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\n谨此呈递，\n\nPatricia A. Pileggi\n\nPatricia A. Pileggi\n\nArentFox Schiff LLP（艾伦特·福克斯·希夫律师事务所） *JC* 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 212.745.0839 patricia.pileggi@afslaw.com 请愿人代理律师\n\n宣誓证明\n\n我，Kentaro Azuma（东健太郎），在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下证明并声明，我的请愿书并非毫无根据，且就我所知和所信，为支持我的请愿书所提供的信息均真实、正确。\n\n于2025年4月_2_日签署。\n\nKentaro Azuma（东健太郎）\n\n首席执行官兼总裁","key_entities":["Himalaya","forfeiture","Himalaya Exchange","853(n)","Guo","Je","Miles Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Kin Ming Je","William Je","CIPA","Rule 32.2"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":307,"court":"SDNY"},{"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":1932,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:57"}