{"id":"court_sdny_672_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":672,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":"2025-04-07","title":"Third-Party Petition to Adjudicate Interest in Forfeited Property and Amend the Preliminary Order — Verified Claim of the Himalaya Entities","summary_zh":"第三方资产追回申请（Himalaya 实体） —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #672（2025年4月7日提交）。Himalaya International Financial Group 等六家关联实体联合申请，声称政府就 Himalaya Exchange 运营相关账户没收行为违法。申请人主张 Yvette Wang 对这些账户无权益，申请法院修改没收令、返还财产并赔付诉讼费用。","summary_en":"Third-Party Petition for Return of Forfeited Property (Himalaya Entities) —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #672 (filed April 7, 2025). Six affiliated entities of Himalaya International Financial Group jointly petition, asserting that the Government unlawfully seized accounts related to Himalaya Exchange operations. Petitioners argue Defendant Yvette Wang has no legal interest in the accounts and seek amendment of the forfeiture order, return of property, and recovery of attorney's fees.","body_en":"## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n| <b>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</b> | <b>THIRD-PARTY PETITION TO</b>        |\n|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------|\n|                                 | <b>ADJUDICATE PETITIONERS'</b>        |\n| - V. -                          | <b>INTEREST IN FORFEITED PROPERTY</b> |\n|                                 | <b>AND TO AMEND THE PRELIMINARY</b>   |\n| <b>YVETTE WANG</b>              | <b>ORDER OF FORFEITURE -</b>          |\n| a/k/a \"Yanping,\"                |                                       |\n| a/k/a \"Y,\"                      | <b>VERIFIED CLAIM OF</b>              |\n|                                 | <b>HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL</b>         |\n|                                 | <b>FINANCIAL GROUP, LTD.,</b>         |\n| Defendant.                      | <b>HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL</b>         |\n|                                 | <b>RESERVES, LTD., HIMALAYA</b>       |\n|                                 | <b>INTERNATIONAL CLEARING, LTD.,</b>  |\n|                                 | <b>HIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING</b>     |\n|                                 | <b>PTY LTD., HAMILTON CAPITAL</b>     |\n|                                 | <b>HOLDING, LTD., AND HAMILTON</b>    |\n|                                 | <b>OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC</b>           |\n|                                 | <b>S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)</b>             |\n\nPetitioners Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd. (\"HIFG\"), Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd. (\"Himalaya International Reserves\"), Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd. (\"Himalaya International Clearing\")<sup>1</sup>, Hamilton Capital Holding, Ltd (\"HCH\"), Himalaya Currency Clearing, Ltd. (\"Himalaya Currency Clearing\")2 , and Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (\"Hamilton\") (together, Himalaya Group, Exchange Service Companies, and Hamilton are the \"Petitioners\") file this Third-Party Petition to Adjudicate Petitioners' Interest in Forfeited Property and to Amend the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) (the \"Petition\"). Petitioners seek the return of funds in\n\n<sup>1</sup> Collectively, HIFG, Himalaya International Reserves and Himalaya International Clearing are the \"Himalaya Group.\"\n\n<sup>2</sup> Collectively, HCH and Himalaya Currency Clearing are \"Exchange Service Companies.\"\n\nwhich Petitioners have a legal right, title, and/or interest (\"Petitioners' Property\") (as defined below) and that the United States Government (the \"Government\") seized as part of an order of forfeiture entered into with Defendant Yvette Wang (\"Defendant Wang\"). However, any order of forfeiture reaching the funds in the Accounts is unlawful and improper as Defendant Wang has no legal right, title, or interest in the Accounts or the funds therein. The Forfeiture Order<sup>3</sup> is therefore rendered invalid as to Petitioners' Property because the right, title, or interest in Petitioners' Property was vested in Petitioners rather than Defendant Wang, and was superior to any right, title, or interest of Defendant Wang at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the Forfeiture Order. As such, this Court should amend the Forfeiture Order to remove Petitioners' Property from the Forfeiture Order and order that the Government immediately return Petitioners' Property to Petitioners.<sup>4</sup> In support of Petitioners’ claim, Petitioners respectfully state as follows:\n\n## **I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\nThis Petition is aimed primarily to stop the forfeiture of funds that belong to legitimate Customers of a legitimate business – the Himalaya Exchange (the \"Exchange\") – and to return such funds to those Customers. As part of Defendant Wang's sentencing, the Government seeks to forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars of funds in various accounts without showing that these funds have the requisite nexus to the charges to which Defendant Wang pled guilty. In the\n\n<sup>3</sup> Reference is to the Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (the \"Forfeiture Order\") that this Court entered on January 7, 2025, with consent from Defendant Wang. ECF No. 488.\n\n<sup>4</sup> The ultimate goal here is to return any funds properly invested by Petitioners' customers and/or investors in the Exchange (\"Customers\") to the Customers themselves. As such, Petitioners reserve the right to request that any part of Petitioners' Property that came from Customers is returned directly to such Customers. Additionally, to the extent any Customers file petitions in this matter, Petitioners reserve the right to endorse the legal theories in such petitions, and to make the arguments in this Petition – or some portion of this Petition – in the alternative, solely to be applied in case the Court deems that Petitioners' Property remains the legal property of Petitioners, rather than the Customers.\n\nSuperseding Information (as defined below), there is only one allegation with respect to the Exchange - that \"coconspirators\" (not even Defendant Wang herself) \"made false representations to investors that. . .they would receive cryptocurrency in exchange for their investments into the Himalaya Exchange.\" Superseding Information at 2. However, it is unclear what nexus exists between this allegation and the attempted forfeiture of Petitioners' Property.\n\nIf the Government is taking the position that Defendant Wang made any misrepresentations regarding the Exchange – and it is not even clear the Government is making this allegation – such representations were not authorized by the Exchange or made as an agent of the Exchange, and the Exchange bears no responsibility for any such statements. The only representations from the Exchange to investors about the mechanics of the Exchange, including what Customers would receive, were those contained in the terms and conditions of the Exchange and the White Papers of the Exchange, which were reviewed by lawyers in 12 jurisdictions and published on the Exchange website. The Exchange bears no responsibility for any other statements made by any other actors about how the Exchange operates, particularly if such statements are contradicted by the clear statements in the White Papers and the terms and conditions of the Exchange. And, importantly, despite the Government's contentions otherwise, Petitioners staunchly maintain that any of the Exchange's Customers who invested in Himalaya Exchange *did* receive cryptocurrency (assuming they passed the requisite Know-Your-Customer (\"KYC\") protocol), which is verified by the cryptocurrency auditor, Armanino LLP, and the cryptocurrency expert, Maggie Sklar.\n\nIt is unclear what basis the Government has for attempting this forfeiture of the Exchange's accounts. It is even more unclear what basis the Government has for attempting the forfeiture of the accounts of the other entities discussed herein, which are only tangentially related to the\n\nExchange. The Government cannot rely on Defendant Wang's \"consent\" to seize accounts without proving the requisite nexus.\n\nAs will be shown below, Petitioners are all the named owners of their respective Accounts and thus have a valid property interest in Petitioners' Property - the funds in the Accounts. Petitioners' Property cannot be seized by the Government in this case. Neither Defendant Wang, nor the Government who now stands in her shoes, have demonstrated that they have the requisite interest in Petitioners' Property to justify forfeiture under the law. While Defendant Wang consented to the forfeiture of \"all her right, title, and interest\" in Petitioners' Property in the Forfeiture Order (ECF No. 488 at 2-3), her consent has no legal bearing as to Petitioners' Property. Defendant Wang cannot forfeit property that she does not own, and in which she has no interest. In fact, it appears that the Court never established that Petitioners' Property is even subject to forfeiture in the first instance, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(b)(1)(A). Due to the Government's improper seizures, the Exchange's operations have been frozen, jeopardized, and continue to be jeopardized to this day.\n\nFor all the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons demonstrated below, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court: (1) grant this Petition; (2) amend the Forfeiture Order to exclude Petitioners' Property; (3) order the immediate return of Petitioners' Property to Petitioners5 ; (4) order that Petitioners are entitled to recover Petitioners' attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this Petition and grant Petitioners leave to submit an application for such attorneys' fees and costs; and (5) grant such and other relief that is necessary and just.\n\n<sup>5</sup> With the caveat noted in footnote 4, *supra*.\n\n## **II. BACKGROUND FACTS**\n\n### **A. The Himalaya Exchange – Overview**\n\n1. The Himalaya Group owns and operates the Exchange – a cryptocurrency6 exchange.\n\n2. The Exchange employs stringent onboarding protocols, comprehensive Anti-Money Laundering (\"AML\") and KYC checks and proper regulatory mapping as to where they can provide their services and the prohibition of providing services in jurisdictions in which they still were required to obtain licenses, including the U.S.\n\n3. The Exchange has more than 10,000 customers. The Exchange facilitates the buying and selling of two types of digital assets: the Himalaya Dollar, known as the \"HDO\" (\"HDO\") and the Himalaya Coin, known as the \"HCN\" (the \"HCN\").\n\n4. The HDO is a \"stable coin\" token that is intended to be fixed to the U.S. dollar and was at all times backed by reserves consisting of dollar-for-dollar cash or cash-equivalent assets (the \"Reserves\"). At all times prior to the Government's seizures of the Accounts, the Reserves contained assets that were equivalent in value to all HDO's in circulation at any given time. The Reserves will be discussed more fully below.\n\n5. The HCN is a trading cryptocurrency valued by supply and demand. Customers use HDO to purchase HCN and then can sell HCN to obtain HDO, which can be redeemed back to fiat U.S. dollar.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Again, we note the Government's position that the Exchange was not a legitimate cryptocurrency, however, Petitioners strongly disagree and maintain that a preponderance of the evidence will show that the Exchange was, indeed, a legitimate cryptocurrency and that the facts stated herein are correct.\n\n# **B. The Himalaya Group Entities Relevant to this Petition, their Role in the Operation of the Exchange, and their Seized Property**\n\n# *i) Himalaya International Clearing*\n\n6. Himalaya International Clearing is an entity organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\").\n\n7. The Himalaya International Clearing's trading name is Himalaya Exchange.\n\n8. Himalaya International Clearing maintains bank accounts that serve as clearing accounts for customer deposits and redemptions (the \"Clearing Accounts\") (as more fully defined below).\n\n9. When a customer purchases HDOs, the customer's cash payment is initially deposited into a Clearing Account. In exchange, the customer receives a credit for an equivalent number of HDOs. The customer can then use his or her HDO credits to buy and sell HCNs, the Exchange's market-traded cryptocurrency. When customers buy and sell HCNs, they are credited or debited HDOs in an amount corresponding to the market price of the HCN at the time of the transaction. When customers want to redeem their HDOs back into U.S. dollars, this redemption also occurs through the Clearing Accounts, with cash being sent back from the Clearing Accounts to the customer's personal bank account.\n\n10. The Government seized two of Himalaya International Clearing's bank accounts. The first bank account seized by the Government is as follows:\n\n\\$14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number 7801000254 at FV Bank, held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.\" and seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022 (23-FBl-000051).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order<sup>7</sup> at 3; Forfeiture Order at 3. This bank account will be hereinafter referred to as the \"FV Clearing Account.\" The second Clearing Account that was seized by the Government is as follows:\n\n\\$10,008,284.04 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number MBl10133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International, held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.\" and seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022, and on or about March 10, 2023 (23-FBl-000289).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 4; Forfeiture Order at 4. This bank account will be hereinafter referred to as the \"Mercantile Clearing Account.\"\n\n11. The FV Clearing Account and the Mercantile Clearing Account contain the funds of the Exchange's customers.\n\n# ii) *Himalaya International Reserves*\n\n12. Himalaya International Reserves is a limited company incorporated in the BVI.\n\n13. Himalaya International Reserves owns the bank accounts that hold funds that make\n\nup the cash reserves backing the HDO (the \"Reserves Accounts\") (as more fully described below).\n\n14. The Reserve Accounts also consist of customer funds.\n\n15. After a customer purchases HDOs, funds processed in the Clearing Accounts are often sent to the Reserves Accounts, where they back the HDOs. Likewise, when customers seek to redeem their HDOs back to hard currency, money in the Reserves Accounts travels back to the Clearing Accounts to meet the redemption request. In addition, the Clearing Accounts discussed above also contain a large buffer of reserves to facilitate customer redemptions.\n\n16. Himalaya International Reserves is also the entity that issues the HDOs.\n\n<sup>7</sup> Reference is to the Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (\"Original Forfeiture Order\") entered by this Court on May 3, 2024, as consented to by Defendant Wang. ECF No. 329.\n\n17. At all times prior to the Government seizures, the Reserves Accounts held cash or cash-equivalent assets that backed 100% of the HDOs in circulation at any given time. This is supported by two audits conducted by Armanino LLP – a reputable stable coin auditor. A true and correct copy of the supporting Armanino reports are attached hereto as **Exhibit A** and **Exhibit B**. These audits were done soon after the exchange was launched and then a few months before the seizures occurred.\n\n18. The Government seized two bank accounts held by Himalaya International Reserves. The first bank accounts seized by the Government is as follows:\n\n\\$4,643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number 7801000590 at **FV Bank**, held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.\" and seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022 (23-FBl-000050).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 3; Forfeiture Order at 3. This bank account will be hereinafter referred to as the \"FV Reserves Account.\" The second Himalaya International Reserves account that was seized by the Government is as follows:\n\n\\$272,350,429.22 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number MBl10138-0000 at **Mercantile Bank International**, held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.\" and seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022, and on or about March 10, 2023 (23-FBl-000290).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 4; Forfeiture Order at 4. This bank account will be hereinafter referred\n\nto as the \"Mercantile Reserves Account.\" Together, the FV Reserves Account and the Mercantile\n\nReserves Account are the \"Reserves Accounts.\"\n\n19. Given the size of the Exchange and the size of the reserves prior to the seizure, the Exchange held additional reserves in various other bank accounts in addition to the Reserves Accounts and the Clearing Accounts discussed above. For example, prior to the seizure, the Exchange had approximately \\$75 million in cash reserves that were held via one of Hamilton's segregated funds, Hamilton FX Fund SP (the \"FX Fund\"). This will be discussed below.\n\niii) *Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.*\n\n20. HIFG is an entity organized under the laws of BVI.\n\n21. HIFG issues and manages the HCN.\n\n22. HFIG's bank accounts hold commissions or revenues earned by the Exchange (the\n\n\"Exchange Earnings\"), which are largely used to meet operational expenses. Portions of the Exchange Earnings were used for operating purposes and for certain discretionary loans; however, Customer funds were never used for such purposes – again, the customer Reserve Accounts were fully intact and accounted for at the time of the Government's seizure of Petitioners' Property.\n\n23. The Government seized two of HFIG's bank accounts. The first HIFG bank account seized by the Government is as follows:\n\n\\$7,715.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number 7801000589 at FV Bank, held in the name of \"Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.\" and seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022 (23- FBl-000011).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 4; Forfeiture Order at 4. This bank account will be hereinafter referred\n\nto as the \"First HIFG Account.\" The second HIFG account that was seized by the Government is\n\nas follows:\n\n\\$310,594.31 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number MBl10139-0000 at **Mercantile Bank International**, held in the name of \"Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.\" and seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022, and on or about March 10, 2023 (23-FBl-000182).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 4; Forfeiture Order at 4. This bank account will be hereinafter referred to as the \"Second HIFG Account.\" The First HIFG Account and the Second HIFG account are collectively, the \"HIFG Accounts.\"\n\n# **C. Other Entities Relevant to the Operations of the Exchange**\n\n# iv) *Hamilton Capital Holding*\n\n24. Hamilton Capital Holding is an entity organized under the law of the United Kingdom.\n\n25. Hamilton Capital Holding provides various services to the Exchange. These services include staffing, legal and compliance, accounting and finance, cybersecurity, programming, marketing, customer services, and entering into contracts with third-party vendors. Payments pursuant to these contracts are made through Hamilton Capital Holding.\n\n26. The Hamilton Capital Holding account seized by the Government is as follows:\n\n\\$3,090,856.54 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number MBl10137-0000 at Mercantile Bank International, held in the name of \"Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.\" and seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022, and on or about March 10, 2023 (23-FBl-000288).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 4; Forfeiture Order at 4. This bank account will be hereinafter referred\n\nto as the \"First Services Account.\"\n\n- v) *Himalaya Currency Clearing*\n- 27. Himalaya Currency Clearing is an entity organized under the laws of Australia.\n- 28. The Himalaya Currency Clearing account seized by the Government is as follows:\n\n\\$176,983.37 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number MBl10183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International, held in the name of \"Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.\" and seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022 (23-FBl-000183).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 5<sup>8</sup>; Forfeiture Order at 4. This bank account will be hereinafter referred to as the \"Second Services Account.\" Together, the First Services Account and the Second Services Account are the \"Services Accounts.\"\n\nvi) *Hamilton FX Fund SP*\n\n29. The Hamilton FX Fund SP (the \"FX Fund\") is a segregated portfolio of Hamilton. Hamilton is Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company operating as a mutual fund under Section 4(3) of the Mutual Funds Law (Revised) of the Cayman Islands. Pursuant to the laws of the Cayman Islands, the assets of Hamilton FX were kept segregated, separate, and separately identifiable from those of any other segregated portfolios of Hamilton and any general assets of Hamilton.\n\n30. As discussed above, the FX Fund held additional HDO reserves for the Exchange in its bank account. However, these funds had been seized by the Government. Specifically, FX Fund's account that was seized is as follows:\n\n\\$75,000,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account number 5090037705 at **Silvergate Bank**, held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC\" and seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022 (23-FBl-000078).\n\nOriginal Forfeiture Order at 2; Forfeiture Order at 2. This bank account will be hereinafter referred to as the \"FX Reserves Account.\"\n\n31. Together, the Clearing Accounts, the Reserves Accounts, HFIG Accounts, the Services Accounts, and the FX Reserves Account are the \"Accounts.\"\n\n32. Because Petitioners are the named account holder of its respective accounts as described above, and because they exercise full dominion and control over the funds in those\n\n<sup>8</sup> In the Original Forfeiture Order, the amount in the Second Services Account was listed as \\$161,809.47. *See* Original Forfeiture Order at 5.\n\nrespective accounts, each Petitioner has a property interest in its respective funds deposited the Accounts (collectively, the \"Petitioners' Property\").\n\n### **D. The Criminal Case of Defendant Wang and Defendant Guo**\n\n33. On March 6, 2023, the Government filed an indictment against Defendant Wang, Defendant Guo, and a third defendant, William Je, who has never been arraigned. ECF No. 2.\n\n34. On May 3, 2024, the Government filed a superseding information (the \"Superseding Information\") against Defendant Wang. ECF No. 325. The Superseding Information charged Defendant Wang with one count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud (Count I) (Superseding Information at 1-2) and one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (Count II) (Superseding Information at 2-4). The Superseding Information also contained a Forfeiture Allegation (the \"Forfeiture Allegation\"). Superseding Information at 4.\n\n35. On the same day, May 3, 2024, Defendant Wang pled guilty to Count I and Count II as charged in the Superseding Information.\n\n36. Also on May 3, 2024, this Court entered the Original Forfeiture Order. ECF No. 329.\n\n37. In the Original Forfeiture Order, Defendant Wang consented to forfeit, \"all *her*  right, title, and interest in\" certain assets, including the Accounts, because such property purportedly \"constitute[ed] proceeds of the offenses charged in Count One that the Defendant personally obtained and/or property involved in offense charged in Count Two of the [Superseding] Information.\" Original Forfeiture Order at 2-6 (emphasis added).\n\n38. Defendant Guo did not plead guilty to any of the offenses charged against him. Accordingly, a jury trial was held between May 22, 2024 and July 16, 2024 (the \"Guo Trial\"). On July 16, 2024, the jury found Defendant Guo guilty of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit securities\n\n12\n\nfraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. ECF No. 395. As of the date of this Petition, Defendant Guo has not yet been sentenced.\n\n39. On January 6, 2025, Defendant Wang was sentenced.\n\n40. On January 7, 2025, this Court entered the Forfeiture Order. ECF No. 488. As it pertains to Petitioners, the Forfeiture Order is substantially similar to the Original Forfeiture Order in all material respects. In the Forfeiture Order, Defendant Wang consented to forfeit, \"all *her*  right, title, and interest in\" certain assets, including the Accounts, because such property purportedly \"constitute[ed] proceeds of the offenses charged in Count One that the Defendant personally obtained and/or property involved in offense charged in Count Two of the [Superseding] Information.\" Forfeiture Order at 2-11 (emphasis added).\n\n#### **III. ARGUMENT**\n\n41. In an ancillary criminal forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1), this Court must determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether a petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property to be forfeited, and whether such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid, in whole or in part, because such interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant, or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property. *See* 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).\n\n42. Here, Petitioners have a legal right, title, or interest in Petitioners' Property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6)(A) because they are the legal owners of the Accounts and exercise dominion and control over the funds contained therein. Moreover, Petitioners' interest in Petitioners' Property was both vested in Petitioners and was superior to any right Defendant Wang had in Petitioners' Property because Defendant Wang had *no* legal right, title or, interest in Petitioners' Property. In other words, Defendant Wang could not forfeit her interest in the Accounts because she had no interest that was properly subject to criminal forfeiture. Accordingly, the Forfeiture Order should be amended to remove Petitioners' Property, and Petitioners' Property should be returned to the Petitioners.<sup>9</sup>\n\n# **A. The Government Failed to Demonstrate that the Funds in the Accounts Were Properly Subject to Forfeiture in the First Instance, Making the Forfeiture Order Improper as to Such Funds**\n\n43. The Government has no legal cause to retain Petitioners' Property because the Government has failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that Petitioners' Property constitutes forfeitable property as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(b)(1)(A).\n\n44. \"When the government seeks to obtain an order of forfeiture, 'Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(1) ... requires the sentencing court to determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute.'\" *United States v. Watts*, 786 F.3d 152, 172 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing *United States v. Capoccia*, 503 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.2007)). Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2, \"if the government seeks forfeiture of specific property, the court *must* determine whether the government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense.\" Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); *U.S. v. Watts*, 786 F.3d at 172. \"At various points in the proceedings, *the government bears the burden of proving this legal conclusion* to varying degrees of certainty: as a matter of probable cause at a post-indictment hearing. . .or by a preponderance of the evidence at a bench trial or before a jury.\" *Id.* (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). \"Only if the government meets the relevant legal threshold, however, may the property in question be considered 'subject to forfeiture' in any legal sense. Prior to that, while the government has simply announced its intent to seek forfeiture through the indictment, the property is seen merely as 'potentially forfeitable' . . . or 'potentially subject to\n\n<sup>9</sup> Again, with the caveat noted in footnote 4, *supra*.\n\nforfeiture.'\" *Id.* (internal citations omitted).\n\n45. This means that before the court even reaches the question of whether the Petitioners are entitled to the return of the property under §853(n), it is necessary to determine if the property in dispute is actually forfeitable in the first instance. If not, the government had no statutory authority to seize the property. If the property was improperly seized, the government must return the accounts seized regardless of whether the claimant can meet the criteria set forth in §853(n). *See e.g. United States v. Delco Wire & Cable Co*., 772 F. Supp. 1511, 1518 (E.D.PA, 1991).\n\n46. A full and complete Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A) inquiry is critical to the fair administration of justice. The entire forfeiture system rests upon the supposition that a court has conducted an inquiry and determined that the property is subject to forfeiture. In enacting ancillary proceeding statutes, Congress chose to place the burden of proof on the third-party during an ancillary proceeding, since \"the United States will have already proven its forfeiture allegations in the criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.\" S. REP. 98-225, 209, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3392.\n\n47. In this matter, there has never been a determination that there exists a nexus between the Accounts and any of the offenses with which Defendant Wang was charged (and to which she pled guilty), and, as a result, Petitioners are forced to file this Petition.\n\n48. As to Count I, the Forfeiture Allegation states that, \"[a]s a result of committing the wire fraud offense alleged in Count One of this Superseding Information, YVETTE WANG, a/k/a \"Yanping\" a/k/a \"Y,\" the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United\n\n15\n\nStates Code, Section[] 981(a)(1)(C)10. . .and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of said offense.\" Superseding Information at 4.\n\n49. The Government must prove the elements of forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Moreover, \"if the Government's theory of forfeiture is that the property was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial connection between the property and the offense.\" 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3).\n\n50. In Defendant Wang's criminal case, the Government has not shown how funds in the Accounts are, or are derived from, proceeds traceable to Defendant Wang's conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The Superseding Information alleges that \"[f]rom at least in or about 2018 until at least on or about March 15, 2023, coconspirators made false representations to investors that they would receive stock in exchange for their investments in GTV, the Himalaya Farm Alliance organization, and GClubs, and *that they would receive cryptocurrency in exchange for their investments in the Himalaya Exchange* [(the \"Fraud Scheme\")]. Through the [Fraud Scheme], YVETTE WANG, a/k/a 'Yanping,' a/k/a 'Y,' the defendant, and her coconspirators, including Miles Guo, induced investors to invest more than \\$1 billion into entities Guo controlled.\" Superseding Information at 2 (emphasis added).\n\n51. There is nothing from these allegations that show a direct nexus between the charge\n\n<sup>10 18</sup> U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) provides that \"[a]ny property, real or personal, [is subject to forfeiture] which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of\" various specified offenses, including violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, wire fraud, as charged against Defendant Wang in Count I.\n\nof conspiracy to commit wire fraud and the Accounts. There is no evidence that Defendant Wang (as opposed to unidentified purported \"coconspirators\") made any false statements regarding the receipt of cryptocurrency to anyone, and certainly not to any customers who invested in the Exchange. Here, Petitioners believe that the preponderance of evidence will show that, notwithstanding the Government's position to the contrary, all customers who deposited money into the Exchange did receive cryptocurrency and were able to redeem that cryptocurrency prior to the seizures. As such, any statements about the receipt of cryptocurrency would not be false and would therefore not be fraudulent. The Superseding Information is therefore silent on any information that would indicate there is a nexus between funds in the Accounts and Defendant Wang's wire fraud charge, let alone sufficient evidence to determine that the Government met its burden of showing, and the Court properly adjudicated, that the appropriate nexus exists for forfeiture of the Accounts to be proper.\n\n52. As to Count II, the Forfeiture Allegation states that, \"[a]s a result of committing the money laundering offense alleged in Count Two of this Information, YVETTE WANG, a/k/a \"Yanping\" a/k/a \"Y,\" the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1)11, any and all property, real and personal, involved in said offense, or any property traceable to such property, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of property involved in said offense.\" Superseding Information at 4. As to Count II, The Government \"must prove the elements of forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) by a preponderance of the evidence.\" *U.S. v. Beltramea*, 785 F.3d 287, 290 (8th\n\n<sup>11 18</sup> U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) provides that \"[t]he court, imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense in violation of section 1956 [the money-laundering statute] of this title . . . shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, *involved in such offense*, or any property *traceable to such property*.\" 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) (emphasis added).\n\nCir. 2015).\n\n53. The Superseding Information alleges that Defendant Wang committed conspiracy to launder money because Defendant Wang \"knowing that the property involved in certain financial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such financial transactions. . .and which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit, proceeds of the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count One of this Information.\" Superseding Information at 3.\n\n54. Here, the Accounts cannot be forfeited for the money laundering charge in Count II. From the allegations, the charge of money laundering arises from Defendant Wang engaging in financial transactions with the \"proceeds of the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count One.\" Superseding Information at 3. As argued above, the Government has not met its burden of demonstrating how the funds in the Accounts were related to the Fraud Scheme alleged in Count I (*see* ¶¶ 48-51, above) – there is no information from which to glean that such funds \"constitute[d] or [were] derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of\" wire fraud. *See e.g.* 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Accordingly, such funds could not serve as the basis for the money laundering charge in Count II and cannot be forfeited as part of Defendant Wang's conviction for Count II.\n\n55. The overt acts that the Government alleges to support the money laundering charge further fail to show how the funds in the Accounts can be forfeitable. In the Superseding Information, the Government sets forth two acts evidencing money laundering.12 Superseding Information at 3.\n\n56. First, per the Superseding Information, on May 20, 2020, Defendant Wang opened\n\n<sup>12</sup> Although the Government states that these two overt acts were \"among others\" that Defendant Wang committed in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to launder money (Superseding Information at 3), these other acts are not identified.\n\na bank account in the name of GTV. Superseding Information at 3. Notably, none of the Accounts were in the name of GTV. Also, according to the Superseding Information, on June 2, 2020, Defendant Wang transferred approximately \\$200 million to the GTV account. *Id.* The funds transferred into the GTV account were from a JP Morgan Chase Bank account held by Saraca Media, Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\") (Guo Trial, 05/31/2024, 953:25-954:4; Guo Trial, 06/26/2024, 4359:1-14), *not* from any of the Accounts.\n\n57. The second act the Government alleges in the Superseding Information for Count II is that \"on or about June 5, 2020,\" Defendant Wang \"authorized a wire transfer of \\$100 million from GTV's parent company, Saraca Media, Group, Inc., to a high-risk hedge fund, for the benefit of Saraca and its ultimate beneficial owner, Guo's son.\" Superseding Information at 3-4. This plainly alleges that the money was transferred from a Saraca account, which the Accounts were demonstrably not.13\n\n58. As seen from above, there is not a sufficient nexus between Defendant Wang's charges and the Accounts to permit a forfeiture of the Accounts. There are no allegations in the Superseding Information with respect to specific Accounts, any specific investments that the Government deems fraudulent, or how Defendant Wang acquired interest in the Accounts that she can now forfeit. The *only* concrete reference in the record as to the Accounts in Defendant Wang's case is Defendant Wang's consent to forfeit these funds. However, \"a defendant's consent to forfeiture [does not] abrogate the requirement that a nexus exist between the property sought for forfeiture and the conviction of offense.\" *Beltramea*, 785 F.3d at 291. As the Eighth Circuit stressed, \"[t]he district court had an independent duty to *ensure* that the required nexus exists.\" *Id.*\n\n<sup>13</sup> It should be noted that the \\$100 million transfer from Saraca was to the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund L.P., an entity that has no relationship to any of the Petitioners.\n\n(emphasis added).\n\n59. Here, there are no factual allegations in the Superseding Information in the Original Forfeiture Order or the Forfeiture Order as to an alleged nexus between the Accounts and the offenses to which Defendant Wang pled guilty.\n\n# **B. Petitioners Have an Interest in Petitioners' Property Because They are the Named Owners of the Accounts**\n\n60. Here, Petitioners have a legal interest and right in the funds in Accounts by virtue of being the named owners of the Accounts associated with them and having complete dominion and control over the funds in their respective Accounts. Thus, Petitioners have standing to challenge the Forfeiture Order.\n\n## **C. Petitioners Have a Superior Interest in the Petitioners' Property**\n\n61. Petitioners' interest in Petitioners' Property is superior to any interest that the Government or Defendant Wang have in Petitioners' Property.\n\n62. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) is clear that, in addition to establishing Petitioners' interest in the forfeited property, that Petitioners must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Petitioners' interest \"renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner *rather than the defendant* or was superior to any right, title, or interest *of the defendant* at the time of the commission of the acts which give rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A) (emphasis added).\n\n63. Here, as set forth above, the Government never met their burden of proof to show that the Accounts were property that would be properly subject to forfeiture in Defendant Wang's case. As such, the Government never demonstrated that its interest in the Accounts is superior to that of Petitioners.\n\n64. To be sure, \"[u]nlike a civil forfeiture action, which is an *in rem* proceeding brought\n\n20\n\nagainst the property sought to be forfeited, criminal forfeiture is an *in personam* proceeding. . .[it] is a sanction against the individual defendant rather than a judgment against the property itself. . . Thus, in a criminal forfeiture proceeding, the Government acquires only the *defendant's* interest in the property. Because criminal forfeiture follows the defendant as part of his penalty, the Government may seize any of the *defendant's* property that is traceable to the proceeds of criminal conduct.\" *U.S. v. Bailey*, No. 1:11CR10, 2012 WL 569744, at \\*14 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 22, 2012) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original).\n\n65. It is axiomatic that neither the Government nor Defendant Wang can argue that they have a superior interest in a property in which they never had an interest. Accordingly, Petitioners' interest in the Account is superior to that of Defendant Wang and the Government.\n\n#### **D. Petitioners Are Entitled to Costs and Attorneys' Fees**\n\n66. Petitioners have been required to retain legal counsel and have incurred costs to file this petition asserting Petitioners' right to Petitioners' Property and to challenge the forfeiture of Petitioners' Property. Upon prevailing in this proceeding, Petitioners reserve all rights to recover attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this Petition and may recover Petitioners' costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (\"EAJA\"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Federal courts have consistently 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); *U.S. v. Bailey*, 2015 WL 1893610 at \\*20 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2015).\n\n### **IV. CONCLUSION**\n\n67. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners have an interest in Petitioners' Property, which renders the Forfeiture Order invalid as to such property. *See e.g.* 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A). Defendant Wang does not have any right, title, or interest in Petitioners' Property, and never did.\n\nPetitioners have proven, and can prove at any necessary hearing, by preponderance of evidence that the Forfeiture Order needs to be amended to exclude Petitioners' Property.\n\n68. Therefore, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court: (1) grant this Petition; (2) amend the Forfeiture Order to exclude Petitioners' Property; (3) order the immediate return of Petitioners' Property to Petitioners14; (4) order that Petitioners are entitled to recover Petitioners' attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this Petition and grant Petitioners leave to submit an application for such attorneys' fees and costs; and (5) grant such and other relief that is necessary and just.\n\nDated: April 7, 2025\n\nDated: April 7, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Jeffrey S. Gavenman Jeffrey S. Gavenman, Esq. Jeremy W. Schulman, Esq. SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC 6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 425 North Bethesda, MD 20852 (240) 356-8550 jgavenman@schulmanbh.com jschulman@schulmanbh.com\n\n/s/ Paul W. Butler Paul W. Butler, Esq. BUTLER LEGAL STRATEGIES 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 531 Washington, D.C. 20036 paul@butlerlegalstrategies.com\n\n*Counsel for Petitioners*\n\n<sup>14</sup> Again, with the caveat noted in footnote 4, *supra*.\n\nPursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3), I attest and declare under penalty of perjury that my claim to this property is not frivolous and that the information provided in support of this claim is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL\nFINANCIAL GROUP, LTD.\nBy: Ehsan Masud E. Masud\nTitle: Chief Financial Officer\nDate: 7th April 2025\n\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL\nRESERVES, LTD.\nBy: Ehsan Masud E.M. Sud\nTitle: Chief Financial Officer\nDate: 7th April 2025\n\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL\nCLEARING, LTD.\nBy: Ehsan Masud E.H. Masud\nTitle: Chief Financial Officer\nDate: 7th April 2025\n\nHIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING\nPTY, LTD.\nBy: Ehsan Masud E.M. Masud\nTitle: Chief Financial Officer\nDate: 7th April 2025\n\nHAMILTON CAPITAL HOLDING, LTD.\nBy: Ehsan Masud\nTitle: Chief Financial Officer\nDate: 7th April 2025\n\nHAMILTON OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC\nBy: Ehsan Masud E.M. Sud\nTitle: Chief Financial Officer\nDate: 7th April 2025","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国联邦纽约南区地方法院）\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n诉\nYVETTE WANG（王雁平）\n又名“Yanping”、\n又名“Y”，\n被告。\n关于判定请愿人对被没收财产之权益及修改初步没收裁定的第三方请愿书——\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL GROUP, LTD.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）、\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL RESERVES, LTD.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）、\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL CLEARING, LTD.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、\nHIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING PTY LTD.（喜马拉雅货币清算私人有限公司）、\nHAMILTON CAPITAL HOLDING, LTD.（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）及\nHAMILTON OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金独立投资组合公司）之经核实的申索书\n案号：S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n请愿人 Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司，简称“HIFG”）、Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司，简称“喜马拉雅国际储备”）、Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司，简称“喜马拉雅国际清算”）1、Hamilton Capital Holding, Ltd（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司，简称“HCH”）、Himalaya Currency Clearing, Ltd.（喜马拉雅货币清算有限公司，简称“喜马拉雅货币清算”）2 以及 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金独立投资组合公司，简称“汉密尔顿”）（喜马拉雅集团、交易所服务公司与汉密尔顿统称为“请愿人”），依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(c) 条，提呈本份《关于判定请愿人对被没收财产之权益及修改初步没收裁定的第三方请愿书》（简称“《请愿书》”）。请愿人请求返还资金，\n\n1 HIFG、喜马拉雅国际储备与喜马拉雅国际清算合称为“喜马拉雅集团”。\n\n2 HCH 与喜马拉雅货币清算合称为“交易所服务公司”。\n\n请愿人对该等资金拥有法定权利、所有权和/或权益（下称“请愿人财产”），且该等资金系 United States Government（美国政府，简称“政府”）作为与被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平，简称“被告王”）达成的没收裁定的一部分予以扣押的。然而，任何针对有关账户内资金的没收裁定均属非法和不当，因为被告王对该等账户或其中的资金不享有任何法定权利、所有权或权益。因此，没收裁定3 就请愿人财产而言归于无效，因为在导致该没收裁定的行为发生之时，请愿人财产的权利、所有权或权益即归属于请愿人而非被告王，且优于被告王的任何权利、所有权或权益。据此，本法院应当修改没收裁定，将请愿人财产从没收裁定中剔除，并命令政府立即向请愿人返还请愿人财产。4 为支持请愿人的申索，请愿人谨陈述如下：\n\nI. 初步声明\n\n本《请愿书》的主要目的是阻止没收属于一家合法企业——Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所，简称“交易所”）——的合法客户的资金，并将该等资金返还给该等客户。作为对被告王量刑的一部分，政府企图没收各账户中数以亿美元计的资金，却未能证明该等资金与被告王认罪答辩所涉及的指控之间存在必要的关联。在\n\n3 参见本法院于 2025年1月7日 经被告王同意后作出的《关于特定财产/金钱判决的合意初步没收裁定》（简称“《没收裁定》”）。ECF No. 488。\n\n4 此处的最终目标是将请愿人客户和/或投资人向交易所正当投资的任何资金（简称“客户”）返还给客户本人。因此，请愿人保留请求将来源于客户的请愿人财产的任何部分直接返还给该等客户的权利。此外，在任何客户就此事提呈请愿书的范围内，请愿人保留支持该等请愿书中的法律理论的权利，并保留备位提出本《请愿书》——或本《请愿书》的部分——抗辩主张的权利，该等主张仅在法院认定请愿人财产仍为请愿人而非客户的合法财产的情形下适用。\n\n替代起诉书（定义见下文）中，关于交易所的指控仅有一项——即“共谋者”（甚至不是被告王本人）“向投资者作出虚假陈述，称……他们向喜马拉雅交易所投资将获得加密货币作为回报”。《替代起诉书》第 2 页。然而，这项指控与企图没收请愿人财产之间究竟存在何种关联，尚不清楚。\n\n即便政府持有的立场是被告王就交易所作出了任何虚假陈述——而且目前甚至尚不清楚政府是否作出了该项指控——该等陈述亦未获得交易所的授权，亦非作为交易所的代理人而作出，交易所对任何此类言论概不承担责任。交易所向投资者作出的关于交易所机制（包括客户将获得何种资产）的唯一陈述，仅包含在交易所的条款与条件以及交易所的白皮书中，该等文件经过 12 个司法管辖区律师的审查，并已在交易所网站上公布。对于任何其他行为主体就交易所运作方式所发表的任何其他言论，特别是当该等言论与白皮书及交易所条款与条件中的明确表述相抵触时，交易所概不承担责任。并且，重要的是，尽管政府持有相反主张，请愿人坚决主张，任何投资于喜马拉雅交易所的交易所客户（在通过了必要的“了解你的客户”即“KYC”流程的前提下）*确实*收到了加密货币，这一点已由加密货币审计机构 Armanino LLP 以及加密货币专家 Maggie Sklar 予以证实。\n\n政府企图对交易所账户进行此项没收的依据何在，尚不清楚。政府企图对本文所讨论的其他实体的账户进行没收的依据何在，就更不清楚了，因为这些实体与交易所仅有附带关联。\n\n政府不能在未证明必要关联的情况下，仅凭被告王的“同意”来扣押账户。\n\n如下文所示，请愿人均为其各自账户的记名所有人，因此对请愿人财产——即账户中的资金——享有合法的财产权益。本案中政府不得扣押请愿人财产。无论被告王，还是如今代位其地位的政府，均未证明其对请愿人财产享有法律上足以支持没收的必要权益。虽然被告王在《没收裁定》（ECF No. 488 第 2-3 页）中同意没收其对请愿人财产的“全部权利、所有权和权益”，但她的同意就请愿人财产而言不具有任何法律效力。被告王不得没收其并不拥有、且对其不享有任何权益的财产。事实上，本法院似乎从未依《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(b)(1)(A) 条的规定，在首要步骤确定请愿人财产是否属于可没收之财产。由于政府的不当扣押，交易所的运营已被冻结、受到危害，且直至今日仍持续受到危害。\n\n基于上述全部理由以及下文所阐明的理由，请愿人谨请求本法院：(1) 准许本《请愿书》；(2) 修改《没收裁定》，将请愿人财产予以排除；(3) 命令立即向请愿人返还请愿人财产5；(4) 裁定请愿人有权追索因本《请愿书》所产生的请愿人律师费及诉讼费用，并准许请愿人提交该等律师费及诉讼费用的申请；以及 (5) 准予其他必要且公正的救济。\n\n5 附带上文脚注 4 所提及的保留说明。\n\nII. 背景事实\n\nA. 喜马拉雅交易所——概览\n\n1. 喜马拉雅集团拥有并运营该交易所——一家加密货币6 交易所。\n\n2. 交易所在提供服务的地域范围上采用了严格的准入流程、全面的反洗钱（简称“AML”）和 KYC 审查，以及合规的监管映射，并禁止在尚需取得牌照的司法管辖区（包括美国）提供服务。\n\n3. 交易所拥有超过 10,000 名客户。交易所为两类数字资产的买卖提供便利：被称为“HDO”（简称“HDO”）的喜马拉雅美元，以及被称为“HCN”（简称“HCN”）的喜马拉雅币。\n\n4. HDO 是一种旨在与美元挂钩的“稳定币”代币，且始终由等额现金或现金等价物资产组成的储备（简称“储备金”）提供全额支持。在政府扣押有关账户之前的任何时候，储备金所包含的资产价值在任何给定时间均与流通中的全部 HDO 等值。关于储备金将在下文中作更详尽的讨论。\n\n5. HCN 是一种由供求关系定价的交易型加密货币。客户使用 HDO 购买 HCN，随后可通过出售 HCN 获取 HDO，HDO 可兑回为法定美元。\n\n6 我们再次注意到政府认为交易所并非合法加密货币的立场，然而，请愿人坚决不同意，并主张证据优势将证明交易所确实属于合法加密货币，且本文陈述的事实均属真实无误。\n\nB. 与本请愿书相关的喜马拉雅集团实体、其在交易所运营中的角色及其被扣押财产\n\ni) 喜马拉雅国际清算\n\n6. 喜马拉雅国际清算是依据 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，简称“BVI”）法律设立的实体。\n\n7. 喜马拉雅国际清算的商号为喜马拉雅交易所。\n\n8. 喜马拉雅国际清算开立有银行账户，用作客户充值与赎回的清算账户（简称“清算账户”）（定义见下文）。\n\n9. 当客户购买 HDO 时，客户的现金付款最初存入清算账户。作为对价，客户会收到等额 HDO 的存记。随后，客户可以使用其 HDO 存记买卖 HCN（即交易所的市场交易加密货币）。当客户买卖 HCN 时，会根据交易发生时 HCN 的市场价格被存记或借记相应金额的 HDO。当客户希望将其 HDO 兑回为美元时，此项赎回亦通过清算账户进行，现金将从清算账户汇回至客户的个人银行账户。\n\n10. 政府扣押了喜马拉雅国际清算的两个银行账户。政府扣押的第一个银行账户如下：\n\n原存放在 FV Bank 账号为 7801000254、以“Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.”名义持有的 14,599,257.25 美元款项，由政府于 2022年9月20日 左右扣押（23-FBl-000051）。\n\n《原没收裁定》7 第 3 页；《没收裁定》第 3 页。该银行账户下文称为“FV 清算账户”。政府扣押的第二个清算账户如下：\n\n原存放在 Mercantile Bank International 账号为 MBl10133-0000、以“Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.”名义持有的 10,008,284.04 美元款项，由政府在 2022年10月16日 左右至 2023年3月10日 左右之间扣押（23-FBl-000289）。\n\n《原没收裁定》第 4 页；《没收裁定》第 4 页。该银行账户下文称为“Mercantile 清算账户”。\n\n11. FV 清算账户及 Mercantile 清算账户内包含交易所客户的资金。\n\nii) 喜马拉雅国际储备\n\n12. 喜马拉雅国际储备是一家在 BVI 注册成立的有限公司。\n\n13. Himalaya International Reserves（喜马拉雅国际储备）拥有持有构成支持 HDO 现金储备之资金的银行账户（下称“储备账户”）（如下文更详尽所述）。\n\n14. 储备账户亦包含客户资金。\n\n15. 在客户购买 HDO 后，清算账户中处理的资金通常会被送至储备账户，并在该账户中为 HDO 提供支持。同样，当客户寻求将其 HDO 赎回为硬通货时，储备账户中的款项会转回至清算账户以满足赎回请求。此外，上文讨论的清算账户还包含大量储备缓冲资金，以便利客户赎回。\n\n16. 喜马拉雅国际储备亦是发行 HDO 的实体。\n\n7 系指本法院于 2024年5月3日 依被告 Wang（王）之同意而录入的《针对特定财产/金钱判决的同意初步没收令》（下称“原没收令”）。ECF No. 329。\n\n17. 在政府实施扣押之前的任何时候，储备账户持有的现金或现金等价物资产，在任何特定时间均对流通中的 HDO 提供 100% 的支持。这得到了知名稳定币审计机构 Armanino LLP 进行的两次审计的支持。作为支持的 Armanino 报告的真实准确副本作为附件 A 和附件 B 附于本呈文。这些审计是在交易所成立后不久以及在扣押发生前数月进行的。\n\n18. 政府扣押了喜马拉雅国际储备持有的两个银行账户。政府扣押的第一个银行账户如下：\n\n原存放于 FV Bank（FV银行）、账号为 7801000590、户名为“Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.”并由政府于 2022年9月20日 左右扣押的 4,643,744.70 美元（23-FBI-000050）。\n\n原没收令第 3 页；没收令第 3 页。该银行账户下文统称为“FV 储备账户”。政府扣押的第二个喜马拉雅国际储备账户如下：\n\n原存放于 Mercantile Bank International（商业国际银行）、账号为 MBl10138-0000、户名为“Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.”并由政府于 2022年10月16日 左右至 2023年3月10日 左右期间扣押的 272,350,429.22 美元（23-FBI-000290）。\n\n原没收令第 4 页；没收令第 4 页。该银行账户下文统称为“Mercantile 储备账户”。FV 储备账户与 Mercantile 储备账户统称为“储备账户”。\n\n19. 鉴于扣押前交易所的规模及储备的规模，除上述讨论的储备账户和清算账户外，交易所还在其他各类银行账户中持有额外储备。例如，在扣押前，交易所拥有约 7500 万美元的现金储备，系通过 Hamilton（汉密尔顿）的隔离基金之一 Hamilton FX Fund SP（下称“FX 基金”）持有。此情况将在下文讨论。\n\niii) Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）\n\n20. HIFG（喜马拉雅国际金融集团）是根据 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）法律设立的实体。\n\n21. HIFG 发行并管理 HCN。\n\n22. HIFG 的银行账户持有交易所赚取的佣金或收入（下称“交易所收益”），主要用于满足运营开支。交易所收益的一部分用于运营目的及某些酌情贷款；然而，客户资金从未用于此类目的——同样，在政府扣押请愿人财产时，客户储备账户完全完好无损并经充分清点核算。\n\n23. 政府扣押了 HIFG 的两个银行账户。政府扣押的第一个 HIFG 银行账户如下：\n\n原存放于 FV Bank、账号为 7801000589、户名为“Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.”并由政府于 2022年9月20日 左右扣押的 7,715.00 美元（23-FBI-000011）。\n\n原没收令第 4 页；没收令第 4 页。该银行账户下文统称为“第一 HIFG 账户”。政府扣押的第二个 HIFG 账户如下：\n\n原存放于 Mercantile Bank International、账号为 MBl10139-0000、户名为“Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.”并由政府于 2022年10月16日 左右至 2023年3月10日 左右期间扣押的 310,594.31 美元（23-FBI-000182）。\n\n原没收令第 4 页；没收令第 4 页。该银行账户下文统称为“第二 HIFG 账户”。第一 HIFG 账户与第二 HIFG 账户统称为“HIFG 账户”。\n\nC. 与交易所运营相关的其他实体\n\niv) Hamilton Capital Holding（汉密尔顿资本控股）\n\n24. Hamilton Capital Holding 是根据英国法律设立的实体。\n\n25. Hamilton Capital Holding 向交易所提供各项服务。这些服务包括人员配备、法律与合规、会计与财务、网络安全、程序开发、市场营销、客户服务以及与第三方供应商订立合同。根据此类合同进行的付款均通过 Hamilton Capital Holding 支付。\n\n26. 被政府扣押的 Hamilton Capital Holding 账户如下：\n\n原存放于 Mercantile Bank International、账号为 MBl10137-0000、户名为“Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.”并由政府于 2022年10月16日 左右至 2023年3月10日 左右期间扣押的 3,090,856.54 美元（23-FBI-000288）。\n\n原没收令第 4 页；没收令第 4 页。该银行账户下文统称为“第一服务账户”。\n\nv) Himalaya Currency Clearing（喜马拉雅货币清算）\n\n27. Himalaya Currency Clearing 是根据澳大利亚法律设立的实体。\n\n28. 被政府扣押的 Himalaya Currency Clearing 账户如下：\n\n原存放于 Mercantile Bank International、账号为 MBl10183-0000、户名为“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.”并由政府于 2022年10月16日 左右扣押的 176,983.37 美元（23-FBI-000183）。\n\n原没收令第 5 页8；没收令第 4 页。该银行账户下文统称为“第二服务账户”。第一服务账户与第二服务账户统称为“服务账户”。\n\nvi) Hamilton FX Fund SP（汉密尔顿外汇独立投资组合基金）\n\n29. Hamilton FX Fund SP（下称“FX 基金”）是 Hamilton 的独立投资组合。Hamilton 是开曼群岛独立投资组合公司，根据《开曼群岛共同基金法（修订版）》第 4(3) 条作为共同基金运营。根据开曼群岛法律，Hamilton FX 的资产与 Hamilton 的任何其他独立投资组合及 Hamilton 的任何一般资产保持隔离、分开并可分别识别。\n\n30. 如上所述，FX 基金在其银行账户中为交易所持有额外的 HDO 储备。然而，这些资金已被政府扣押。具体而言，被扣押的 FX 基金账户如下：\n\n原存放于 Silvergate Bank（银门银行）、账号为 5090037705、户名为“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”并由政府于 2022年9月18日 左右扣押的 75,000,000.00 美元（23-FBI-000078）。\n\n原没收令第 2 页；没收令第 2 页。该银行账户下文统称为“FX 储备账户”。\n\n31. 清算账户、储备账户、HIFG 账户、服务账户以及 FX 储备账户统称为“各账户”。\n\n32. 由于请愿人是上述各自账户的名义持有人，且由于其对该等各自账户中的资金行使完全的管辖与支配权，各请愿人均对存入各账户中的各自资金享有财产权益（统称“请愿人财产”）。\n\n8 在原没收令中，第二服务账户中的金额列为 161,809.47 美元。参见原没收令第 5 页。\n\nD. 被告 Wang 与被告 Guo 之刑事案件\n\n33. 2023年3月6日，政府针对被告 Wang、被告 Guo（郭）及第三名从未被提审的被告 William Je（余建明）提起了起诉书。ECF No. 2。\n\n34. 2024年5月3日，政府针对被告 Wang 提起了替代控告书（下称“替代控告书”）。ECF No. 325。替代控告书指控被告 Wang 犯有一项共谋电汇欺诈罪（罪名项一）（替代控告书第 1-2 页）及一项共谋洗钱罪（罪名项二）（替代控告书第 2-4 页）。替代控告书亦包含一项没收指控（下称“没收指控”）。替代控告书第 4 页。\n\n35. 同日，即 2024年5月3日，被告 Wang 对替代控告书中所指控的罪名项一和罪名项二作出了认罪答辩。\n\n36. 亦在 2024年5月3日，本法院录入了原没收令。ECF No. 329。\n\n37. 在原没收令中，被告 Wang 同意没收其对某些资产（包括各账户）所拥有的“全部权利、所有权和权益”，因为据称该等财产“构成被告个人获取的罪名项一所指控罪行的收益，及/或涉及［替代］控告书罪名项二所指控罪行的财产”。原没收令第 2-6 页（重点为后加）。\n\n38. 被告 Guo 未对其受指控的任何罪行进行认罪答辩。据此，于 2024年5月22日 至 2024年7月16日 期间进行了陪审团审理（下称“Guo 案审理”）。2024年7月16日，陪审团裁定被告 Guo 犯有共谋敲诈勒索罪、共谋电汇欺诈罪、共谋洗钱罪、共谋证券欺诈罪、证券欺诈罪、电汇欺诈罪及洗钱罪。ECF No. 395。截至本呈文提交之日，被告 Guo 尚未被判刑。\n\n39. 2025年1月6日，被告 Wang 被判刑。\n\n40. 2025年1月7日，本法院录入了没收令。ECF No. 488。在涉及请愿人的部分，没收令在所有实质性方面均与原没收令大体相似。在没收令中，被告 Wang 同意没收其对某些资产（包括各账户）所拥有的“全部权利、所有权和权益”，因为据称该等财产“构成被告个人获取的罪名项一所指控罪行的收益，及/或涉及［替代］控告书罪名项二所指控罪行的财产”。没收令第 2-11 页（重点为后加）。\n\nIII. 论辩\n\n41. 在依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(c)(1) 条进行的附随刑事没收程序中，本法院必须依据优势证据标准确定请愿人是否对拟没收财产享有合法权利、所有权或权益，以及该等权利、所有权或权益是否使没收裁定全部或部分无效，原因在于在引发财产没收的行为发生时，该等权益归属于请愿人而非被告，或优先于被告的任何权利、所有权或权益。参见 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A)。\n\n42. 在本案中，根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A)，请愿人对请愿人财产拥有合法权利、所有权或权益，因为他们是这些账户的合法所有人，并对其中所含资金行使支配权和控制权。此外，请愿人对请愿人财产的权益既已归属于请愿人，又优于被告 Wang（王雁平）在请愿人财产中拥有的任何权利，因为被告王对请愿人财产没有任何合法权利、所有权或权益。换言之，被告王不可能放弃其在这些账户中的权益，因为她并没有任何应依法受到刑事没收的权益。因此，没收令应予以修改以剔除请愿人财产，并将请愿人财产归还给请愿人。9\n\nA. 政府未能在第一时间内证明这些账户中的资金应依法受到没收，从而使得针对此类资金的没收令并不正当\n\n43. 政府没有任何合法理由扣留请愿人财产，因为政府未能按照 Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(b)(1)(A)（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(b)(1)(A) 条）的要求提供任何证据来证明请愿人财产构成可予没收的财产。\n\n44. “当政府寻求获得没收令时，‘《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 32.2(b)(1) 条……要求量刑法院根据适用成文法确定哪些财产应予没收。’”United States v. Watts, 786 F.3d 152, 172 (2d Cir. 2015)（援引 United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir. 2007)）。根据 Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2，“如果政府寻求没收特定财产，法院必须确定政府是否已在财产与犯罪行为之间确立了必要关联。”Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(b)(1)(A)（强调为原文所加）；U.S. v. Watts, 786 F.3d at 172。“在诉讼程序的各个阶段，政府承担证明这一法律结论的举证责任，且确信程度各有不同：在起诉书后听证会上需达到合理根据的标准……或者在无陪审团审判或陪审团审判中需达到优势证据标准。”同上（强调为原文所加）（内部引文省略）。“然而，唯有在政府达到相关法定门槛的情况下，涉案财产才能在任何法律意义上被视为‘应予没收’。在此之前，尽管政府只是通过起诉书宣布了寻求没收的意图，该财产仅被视为‘潜在可予没收的’……或‘潜在应予没收的’。”同上（内部引文省略）。\n\n9 同样，附有上文脚注 4 中指出的保留说明。\n\n45. 这意味着，在法院尚未触及请愿人是否有权根据 § 853(n) 获得财产返还这一问题之前，必须首先确定争议财产在第一时间内是否确实可予没收。如果不是，政府便没有法定权力查扣该财产。如果财产被不当查扣，无论索赔人是否符合 § 853(n) 规定的标准，政府都必须归还被查扣的账户。参见例如 United States v. Delco Wire & Cable Co., 772 F. Supp. 1511, 1518 (E.D.PA, 1991)。\n\n46. 完整且全面的 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A) 审查对于司法公正至关重要。整个没收体系都建立在法院已进行审查并认定该财产应予没收这一前提假设之上。在制定附随程序成文法时，国会之所以选择在附随程序中将举证责任置于第三方，是因为“美国在刑事案件中已经超越合理怀疑地证明了其没收指控。”S. REP. 98-225, 209, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3392。\n\n47. 在本案中，从未有裁定认定这些账户与被告王被指控（且她已认罪）的任何罪行之间存在关联，因此，请愿人被迫提交本请愿书。\n\n48. 关于罪名项一，没收指控声明，“由于实施了本替代起诉书罪名项一所指控的电汇诈欺罪行，被告 YVETTE WANG（王艳平），又名“Yanping”，又名“Y”，应根据《美国法典》第 18 编第 981(a)(1)(C) 条10……以及《美国法典》第 28 编第 2461(c) 条，向美国没收构成或源自可追溯至实施上述罪行之收益的任何及所有不动产与动产。”替代起诉书第 4 页。\n\n49. 政府必须以优势证据证明 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) 规定的没收要件。18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(1)。此外，“如果政府的没收理论依据是该财产被用于实施或协助实施刑事犯罪，或卷入刑事犯罪的实施，则政府应证明该财产与该罪行之间存在实质性联系。”18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3)。\n\n50. 在被告王的刑事案件中，政府并未证明这些账户中的资金如何属于可追溯至被告王合谋实施电汇诈欺之收益，或如何源自此类收益。替代起诉书指控，“自至少约 2018 年起直至至少约 2023 年 3 月 15 日，共谋者向投资者进行虚假陈述，称其对 GTV、Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）组织和 GClubs 的投资将获得股票作为回报，并且其对 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的投资将获得加密货币作为回报[（即‘诈欺计划’）]。通过该[诈欺计划]，被告 YVETTE WANG（王艳平），又名‘Yanping’，又名‘Y’，及其共谋者（包括 Miles Guo（郭文贵））诱导投资者向郭控制的实体投资了超过 10 亿美元。”替代起诉书第 2 页（强调为原文所加）。\n\n51. 这些指控中没有任何内容能证明合谋实施电汇诈欺的指控\n\n10 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) 规定，“任何构成或源自可追溯至违反”各项特定罪行之收益的“动产或不动产，[均应予以没收]”，包括违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 电汇诈欺罪（正如罪名项一中对被告王所指控的那样）。\n\n与这些账户之间存在直接关联。没有任何证据表明被告王（相对于身份不明的所谓“共谋者”）向任何人做出过有关接收加密货币的任何虚假陈述，更不用说向任何投资于该交易所的客户做出了。在本案中，请愿人认为优势证据将表明，尽管政府持相反立场，但所有向该交易所存入资金的客户确实收到了加密货币，并且在查扣发生前能够赎回该加密货币。因此，任何关于接收加密货币的陈述都不是虚假的，因而也不构成诈欺。因此，替代起诉书对于任何表明这些账户中的资金与被告王的电汇诈欺指控之间存在关联的信息均未提及，更不用说有充分证据用以判定政府已履行其证明责任、且法院已适当判定存在使没收这些账户成为正当的适当关联了。\n\n52. 关于罪名项二，没收指控声明，“由于实施了本起诉书罪名项二所指控的洗钱罪行，被告 YVETTE WANG（王艳平），又名“Yanping”，又名“Y”，应根据《美国法典》第 18 编第 982(a)(1) 条11，向美国没收卷入上述罪行的任何及所有不动产与动产，或可追溯至此类财产的任何财产，包括但不限于代表卷入上述罪行财产金额的以美元计价的一笔款项。”替代起诉书第 4 页。关于罪名项二，政府“必须以优势证据证明 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) 规定的没收要件。”U.S. v. Beltramea, 785 F.3d 287, 290 (8th\n\n11 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) 规定，“法院在对被判定犯有违反本编第 1956 条[洗钱成文法]罪行的人判刑时……应下令该人向美国没收卷入该罪行的任何动产或不动产，或可追溯至此类财产的任何财产。”18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)（强调为原文所加）。\n\nCir. 2015)。\n\n53. 替代起诉书指控被告王犯有合谋洗钱罪，因为被告王“明知卷入某些金融交易的财产代表某种形式的非法活动收益，仍将要并确实进行及企图进行此类金融交易……且该交易实际上卷入了指定非法活动的收益，即本起诉书罪名项一所指控的电汇诈欺计划的收益。”替代起诉书第 3 页。\n\n54. 在本案中，这些账户不能因罪名项二中的洗钱指控而被没收。从指控来看，洗钱指控源于被告王利用“罪名项一所指控的电汇诈欺计划的收益”进行金融交易。替代起诉书第 3 页。如上所述，政府尚未履行其举证责任来证明这些账户中的资金如何与罪名项一所指控的诈欺计划相关联（参见上文第 48-51 段）——没有任何信息可以推断出此类资金“构成或源自可追溯至实施”电汇诈欺之收益。参见例如 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)。因此，此类资金不能作为罪名项二洗钱指控的依据，也不能作为被告王在罪名项二中被定罪的一部分而被没收。\n\n55. 政府为支持洗钱指控而指控的公开行为进一步未能表明这些账户中的资金如何具有可没收性。在替代起诉书中，政府列出了证明洗钱的两项行为。12 替代起诉书第 3 页。\n\n56. 首先，根据替代起诉书，2020 年 5 月 20 日，被告王以 GTV 的名义开设了一个银行账户。替代起诉书第 3 页。值得注意的是，这些账户中没有一个是以 GTV 名义开设的。此外，根据替代起诉书，2020 年 6 月 2 日，被告王向 GTV 账户转移了约 2 亿美元。同上。转入 GTV 账户的资金来自 Saraca Media, Group, Inc.（“Saraca”）（萨拉卡媒体集团股份有限公司）持有的摩根大通银行（JP Morgan Chase Bank）账户（郭案庭审，2024 年 5 月 31 日，953:25-954:4；郭案庭审，2024 年 6 月 26 日，4359:1-14），而不是来自这些账户中的任何一个。\n\n57. 政府在替代起诉书中针对罪名项二指控的第二项行为是，“在 2020 年 6 月 5 日或前后”，被告王“批准从 GTV 的母公司 Saraca Media, Group, Inc. 向一家高风险对冲基金电汇 1 亿美元，用于 Saraca 及其最终实益所有人郭的儿子的利益。”替代起诉书第 3-4 页。这明确指控了该款项是从 Saraca 账户转出的，而显而易见这些账户并非 Saraca 账户。13\n\n58. 如上所述，被告 Wang（王）的指控与相关账户之间不存在充分的关联，从而无法对相关账户进行没收。在《替代起诉书》（Superseding Information）中，没有任何关于特定账户、政府认定为具有欺诈性的任何特定投资，或被告王如何取得其目前可予以没收的相关账户权益的指控。在被告王的案件记录中，关于相关账户的唯一具体提及就是被告王同意没收这些资金。然而，“被告对没收的同意［并未］免除所寻求没收的财产与被定罪罪行之间必须存在关联的要求。”Beltramea 案，785 F.3d at 291。正如第八巡回上诉法院所强调的，“地方法院负有独立的职责来确保所需的关联确实存在。”同上。\n\n13 应当指出的是，从 Saraca 转出的 1 亿美元系转至 Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund L.P.（海曼香港机会在岸基金有限合伙），该实体与任何申诉人均无关联。\n\n（强调为后加）。\n\n59. 在本案中，在《替代起诉书》、原没收裁定或《没收裁定》中，均不存在关于相关账户与被告王认罪答辩之罪行之间存在所指称关联的事实指控。\n\nB. 申诉人对申诉人财产享有权益，因为他们是相关账户的指定所有人\n\n60. 在本案中，申诉人作为与其相关的相关账户的指定所有人，并对其各自账户中的资金拥有完全的支配权和控制权，因而对相关账户中的资金享有法律上的权益和权利。因此，申诉人具有对《没收裁定》提出异议的当事人资格。\n\nC. 申诉人对申诉人财产享有优先权益\n\n61. 申诉人对申诉人财产享有的权益，优于政府或被告王对申诉人财产享有的任何权益。\n\n62. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 明确规定，除了确立申诉人对被没收财产的权益外，申诉人还必须以优势证据证明，申诉人的权益“导致没收裁定全部或部分无效，因为在该产生依据本条没收财产的行为发生时，该项权利、所有权或权益系归属于申诉人而非被告，或优于被告的任何权利、所有权或权益。”21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A)（强调为后加）。\n\n63. 在本案中，如上文所述，政府从未履行其举证责任以证明相关账户在被告王的案件中属于依法应予以没收的财产。因此，政府从未证明其对相关账户享有的权益优于申诉人的权益。\n\n64. 诚然，“与针对寻求没收的财产提起的对物诉讼的民事没收诉讼不同，刑事没收是对人诉讼……它是对个人被告的制裁，而不是对财产本身的判决……因此，在刑事没收程序中，政府仅获得被告在财产中的权益。由于刑事没收作为刑罚的一部分针对被告个人，政府可以扣押任何可追溯至犯罪行为收益的被告财产。”U.S. v. Bailey 案，No. 1:11CR10，2012 WL 569744，at *14（W.D.N.C.（北卡罗来纳西区联邦地方法院）2012 年 2 月 22 日）（内部引文省略）（强调为原文所有）。\n\n65. 显而易见的是，政府和被告王都不能主张他们对一项从未享有过权益的财产拥有优先权益。因此，申诉人对相关账户享有的权益优于被告王和政府的权益。\n\nD. 申诉人有权获得诉讼费用和律师费\n\n66. 申诉人被迫聘请法律顾问并支付了费用以提交本申诉书，以主张申诉人对申诉人财产的权利并对申诉人财产的没收提出异议。在本次程序胜诉后，申诉人保留追讨与本申诉书相关的律师费及费用的全部权利，并可依据《平等获取司法机会法》（Equal Access to Justice Act，简称“EAJA”），28 U.S.C. § 2412，追讨申诉人的诉讼费用和合理律师费。联邦法院一贯认定，就允许胜诉的主张人依据 EAJA 收取律师费而言，§ 853(n) 程序属于民事性质。参见 United States v. Cox 案，575 F.3d 352, 355 (4th Cir. 2009)；United States v. Douglas 案，55 F.3d 584, 588 (11th Cir. 1995)；U.S. v. Bailey 案，2015 WL 1893610 at *20 (W.D.N.C. 2015 年 4 月 27 日)。\n\nIV. 结论\n\n67. 基于上述理由，申诉人对申诉人财产享有权益，这导致《没收裁定》对该等财产无效。参见如 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A)。被告王对申诉人财产不享有任何权利、所有权或权益，且从未享有过。\n\n申诉人已经以优势证据证明，并能够在任何必要的技术听证会上证明，《没收裁定》需要被修改以排除申诉人财产。\n\n68. 因此，申诉人谨请本法院：(1) 支持本申诉；(2) 修改《没收裁定》以排除申诉人财产；(3) 命令立即将申诉人财产返还给申诉人14；(4) 裁定申诉人有权追讨与本申诉相关的申诉人律师费和费用，并准予申诉人提交此类律师费及费用的申请；以及 (5) 准予必要且公正的此类及其他救济。\n\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日 谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Jeffrey S. Gavenman\nJeffrey S. Gavenman，律师\nJeremy W. Schulman，律师\nSCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC（舒尔曼巴塔查亚有限责任公司）\n6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 425\nNorth Bethesda, MD 20852\n(240) 356-8550\njgavenman@schulmanbh.com\njschulman@schulmanbh.com\n\n/s/ Paul W. Butler\nPaul W. Butler，律师\nBUTLER LEGAL STRATEGIES（巴特勒法律策略公司）\n1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 531\nWashington, D.C. 20036\npaul@butlerlegalstrategies.com\n\n申诉人之代理律师\n\n14 同样带有上文脚注 4 中所提及的说明。\n\n依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(3)，本人在此作证并在承担伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，本人对该财产的主张并非无理取闹，且就本人所知及所信，为支持该主张所提供的信息均属真实准确。\n\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL GROUP, LTD.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）\n签署人：Ehsan Masud E. Masud\n职务：首席财务官\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL RESERVES, LTD.（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）\n签署人：Ehsan Masud E.M. Sud\n职务：首席财务官\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\nHIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL CLEARING, LTD.（喜马拉雅国际结算有限公司）\n签署人：Ehsan Masud E.H. Masud\n职务：首席财务官\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\nHIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING PTY, LTD.（喜马拉雅货币结算私人有限公司）\n签署人：Ehsan Masud E.M. Masud\n职务：首席财务官\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\nHAMILTON CAPITAL HOLDING, LTD.（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）\n签署人：Ehsan Masud\n职务：首席财务官\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日\n\nHAMILTON OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金独立投资组合公司）\n签署人：Ehsan Masud E.M. Sud\n职务：首席财务官\n日期：2025 年 4 月 7 日","key_entities":["forfeiture","Himalaya","Je","Guo","853(n)","GTV","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","Gavenman","Miles Guo","William Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":325,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":329,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":395,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":6604,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-04-07 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-04-07","updated_at":"2026-09-04 14:44:29"}