{"id":"court_sdny_716_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"U.S. Department of Justice\n[Type text]\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building\n26 Federal Plaza\nNew York, NY 10278\nJuly 28, 2025\nBY ECF\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\nNew York, New York 10007\nRe: United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nDear Judge Torres:\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter motion to request that the Court enter the\nproposed preliminary order of forfeiture attached as Exhibit A. The Court should order Guo to\nforfeit his interest in the G entities that formed part of his racketeering enterprise, the proceeds he\nobtained during the course of the fraud, and property involved in the laundering of the proceeds.\nI. Applicable Law\nA. Racketeering Forfeiture\nSection 1963 directs that a district court, in imposing sentence, “shall order” a defendant\nto forfeit the following property:\n(1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of Section 1962;\n(2) any (A) interest in; (B) security of; (C) claim against; or (D) property or\ncontractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over . . . [the RICO]\nenterprise . . . and\n(3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person\nobtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt\ncollection in violation of section 1962.\n18 U.S.C. § 1963(a).\nB. Fraud Forfeiture\nSection 981(a)(1)(C) subjects to civil forfeiture: “Any property, real or personal, which\nconstitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to . . . any offense constituting ‘specific unlawful\nactivity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\nSection 1956(c)(7)(A) of Title 18, United States Code, in turn provides that the term “specified\n\nunlawful activity” includes, among other things, “any act or activity constituting an offense listed\nin section 1961(1) of this title except an act which is indictable under [31 U.S.C. §§ 5311 et seq.].”\nThe list of offenses identified in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) are thus included within “any act or activity\nconstituting an offense listed in section 1961(1) of this title.” Among the offenses set forth in 18\nU.S.C. § 1961(1) is violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, for which Guo was convicted, and fraud in the\nsale of securities, for which Guo was also convicted. Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)\nauthorizes the use of civil forfeiture in criminal cases as part of a defendant’s sentence. See United\nStates v. Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136, 145 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012).\nC. Money Laundering Forfeiture\nSection 982 directs that a “court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense\nin violation of section 1956 . . . shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property,\nreal or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property.” 18 U.S.C.\n§ 982(a)(1). As Judge Bianco, sitting by designation on the district court, has observed:\nCourts have consistently held that the term “involved in” should be interpreted\nbroadly to “include any property involved in, used to commit, or used to facilitate\nthe money laundering offense.” United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267,\n271-72 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (collecting cases), aff’d, 514 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2008).\nReferring to Schlesinger, district courts have correctly observed that the Second\nCircuit has “affirmed forfeiture of property as involved in money laundering\ntransactions when it has served as a conduit for the proceeds of the illegal\ntransactions.” United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 251 F. Supp. 3d 684, 698\n(S.D.N.Y. 2017).\nUnited States v. Kenner, 443 F. Supp. 3d 354, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (footnote omitted).\nD. Money Judgment\nWhere, as here, forfeiture is sought in the form of a personal money judgment, the district\ncourt “must determine the amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to pay.” Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A). The court’s determination “may be based on evidence already in the\nrecord,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B), “including testimony at the earlier trial.” United States v.\nMathieu, 853 F. App’x 739, 742 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The\ncalculation of forfeiture amounts is not an exact science.” United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32,\n48 (2d Cir. 2011). The Court is only required to “make a reasonable estimate,” based on “the\navailable information.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts may use “general points\nof reference as a starting point” and “make reasonable extrapolations from the evidence.” Id. As\n“an aspect of sentencing,” Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 49 (1995), forfeiture amounts are\ndetermined by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 116 (2d\nCir. 2007).\n\nII. Discussion\nThe Court should enter the proposed preliminary order of forfeiture, and forfeit Guo’s\ninterest in the G Enterprise’s criminal proceeds, and property involved in laundering those\nproceeds.\nA. The Court Should Enter a Money Judgment of $1.3 Billion\nFirst, the Court should enter a money judgment of $1.3 billion. The money judgment\namount represents a conservative estimate of the amount of funds sent by individual victims to\ncertain arms of the G Enterprise’s frauds: GTV, the Farms, G Clubs, and the Himalaya Exchange.\nSee GXZ 26; Trial Tr. 4330-32. While the jury returned acquittals on the GTV fraud counts, the\nCourt may consider at sentencing the GTV-related facts from the trial record. See United States\nv. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 151 (1997) (per curiam). The trial record established by at least a\npreponderance that the GTV private placement was part of the RICO enterprise and the fraud and\nmoney laundering conspiracies.\nAs an initial matter, extensive trial evidence established, as alleged in the Indictment, that\nthe RICO enterprise began well prior to the 2020 GTV private placement, with the Rule of Law\n(“ROL”) organizations. 1 Guo then continued to defraud his followers with a series of\ninterconnected schemes, including the GTV private placement in 2020. Multiple investors\ntestified as to how Guo fraudulently induced them into investing in GTV by purporting to\nguarantee investors against loss, claiming their funds would be used to grow GTV’s business, and\ninstead sending $100 million of investor funds to a high-risk hedge fund bet for the benefit of\nGuo’s son. See Trial Tr. 209 (Le Zhou); id. at 701 (Patrick Chin); id. at 2376-77 (Minran Wu); id.\nat 4465-67, 4471-72 (Wei Chen); id. at 1350-58, 1365-73 (Ya Li). Further, the GTV private\nplacement was connected with and integral to the other arms of the G Enterprise. Indeed, the Farm\nloan and G Clubs schemes were ways to conceal issuances of GTV stock—and they were promoted\non the GTV platform itself. See, e.g., GXZ 9 (summary chart of Guo videos, including those\nposted preserved from the GTV website, and including videos where Guo falsely promises GTV\nstock in exchange for Farm loans and G Clubs memberships). Even the H Coin-related schemes\nwere interconnected with the GTV private placement. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 244 (allocation of H Coin\nbased on prior investment, including in GTV); id. at 1358 (Ya Li testifying that the “[r]einvestment\nrule is once you received the refund from SEC [for the GTV private placement], within 45 days\nyou should invest this money back to the investment project and then you can get five percent of\nH Coin.”).\n1 See, e.g., Trial Tr. 424 (Karin Maistrello testimony that “Boss”—i.e., Guo—“was in charge of\nthe Rule of Law organizations”), 473-74 (Maistrello testimony regarding order from co-defendant\nYvette Wang to perform sham “internal transfers” during ROL fundraiser), 1404-06 (Ya Li\ntestimony regarding Guo video where Guo falsely claimed he was donating $100 million to the\nRule of Law Fund, and “coordinating” a donation of $1 billion); GXVI 192 (video); GXVI 192-T\n(transcript/translation); Trial Tr. 4086 (Guo admitting in bankruptcy-related testimony that he\nnever made a $100 million donation to the ROL organizations), 4089 (same).\n\nAccordingly, the funds derived from the GTV private placement are forfeitable and should\nbe included in the computation of Guo’s money judgment.2\nB. The Court Should Forfeit Guo’s Interest in the Specific Property\nSecond, the Court should forfeit Guo’s interest in the specific property listed in the\npreliminary order of forfeiture. As a general matter, Guo has repeatedly affirmed, under penalty\nof perjury, that he essentially has no assets. See Trial Tr. 4039-46 (testimony regarding Guo’s\nbankruptcy filings under penalty of perjury where he claimed almost no assets); Dkt. 800, Ex. A\n(Dec. 24, 2024 Tr.) at 13-14 (Guo representing to the Court that he does not “have the financial\nresources to afford” an attorney), 11 (Guo’s counsel representing to the Court that “Mr. Guo has\ninformed us that he has no assets” and his affidavit “would list him as having no property and no\ncash or bank accounts”). Accordingly, Guo cannot credibly claim any interest in the listed\nproperty, having effectively disclaimed such interest in his representations to the Court. In any\nevent, the property constitutes proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering, as set forth below.\n1. Funds from Bank Accounts\nThe Government seeks to forfeit cash seized from several bank accounts, which were used\nin furtherance of the defendant’s crimes and his racketeering enterprise. See Ex. A ¶¶ a–u, bb.\nThese accounts were used and controlled by members of the G Enterprise: “Hamilton” and related\nentities; the “Himalaya Exchange” and related entities; G Clubs; G Fashion, and GETTR. Each\nof the account holders of these bank accounts was named in the Indictment as a member of the\nRICO enterprise. See S3 Indictment ¶ 3(a). As set forth below, the Government has attached\nhereto the affidavits supporting the seizure of the funds in these bank accounts as forfeitable\nproperty.\na. The Funds Seized on September 18, 2022\nThe funds seized on September 18, 2022, from accounts held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” “GETTR USA, Inc.,” and “G Fashion,” see Ex. A ¶¶ a–h, t–u, derived\nfrom proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money laundering, as set forth in the\nattached seizure warrant affidavits of Special Agent Anthony Alecci, attached as Exhibits B and\nC.\nb. The Funds Seized on September 20, 2022\nThe funds seized on September 20, 2022, from accounts held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Reserves, Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.,” and “Himalaya\nInternational Financial Group, Ltd.,” see Ex. A ¶¶ i–j, r, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise\n2 The actual funds derived from the GTV private placement were recovered by the SEC, which\nestablished a fair fund for distribution to victims. If the Court were to deduct the GTV private\nplacement funds from the forfeiture amount, approximately $411 million should be deducted. See\nGXZ 26 at 2.\n\nand property involved in money laundering, as set forth in the seizure warrant affidavit of Special\nAgent Alecci, attached as Exhibit D.\nc. The Funds Seized Between October 16, 2022 and March 10, 2023\nThe funds seized between October 16, 2022 and March 10, 2023, from accounts held in\nthe name of “G Club International Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,” “Hamilton\nCapital Holding Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Financial\nGroup Ltd.,” “Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.,” “G Fashion International Limited,”\n“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,” see Ex. A ¶¶ k–q, s, derived from proceeds of the G\nEnterprise and property involved in money laundering, as set forth in the seizure warrant affidavit\nof Special Agent Alecci, attached as Exhibit E.\nd. The Funds Seized on May 12, 2023\nThe funds seized on May 12, 2023, from accounts held in the name of “G Club Operations\nLLC,” see Ex. A ¶ bb, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering, as set forth in the seizure warrant affidavit of Special Agent Zachary Effting, attached\nas Exhibit F.\n2. The Mahwah Mansion\nThe property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey (the “Mahwah\nMansion”) and its contents derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in\nmoney laundering. See Ex. A ¶ v. The Mahwah Mansion itself was purchased using laundered\nvictim funds. See GXZ 12A (tracing funds from Crane Advisory Group LLC, via an attorney’s\naccount and Hamilton entities, to pay for Mahwah Mansion); Trial Tr. 1433 (Ya Li testifying that\n“Crane is a company to receiving the [G Club] card program—receiving the money from the card\nprogram”); Tr. 1999-2002 (Haitham Khaled describing the incoming wires to Crane and\nsubsequent outgoing transfers).\nThe specific property seized from the Mahwah Mansion listed in the preliminary order of\nforfeiture are likewise proceeds traceable to the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering. See Ex. A ¶¶ aa. Trial witness Amy Buck testified that she facilitated approximately\n$18 million in expenditures for the Mahwah Mansion, including furniture and art, and the funds\ncame from Hamilton, an arm of the RICO enterprise controlled by co-conspirator William Je that\nwas used to launder proceeds. See Trial Tr. 3884, 3892-94; GXBUCK 1292 (Buck’s spreadsheet\nof payments). The FBI also seized from the Mahwah Mansion boxes with a ring and a bracelet,\nand fiat currencies. See Ex. A ¶¶ aa(lxxiv)-(lxxxiii). Special Agent Gabriella Luciano testified at\ntrial about one of the cash seizures. Trial Tr. 3558 ($394,040 seized from safe). The declaration\nfrom Special Agent Zachary Effting, attached as Exhibit G, establishes that the FBI seized the\nother items listed in the preliminary order of forfeiture from the Mahwah Mansion. See Ex. G.\n\n3. The Piano\nWhile not seized from the Mahwah Mansion,3 the Bösendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539\npiano with custom bench (the “Piano”), see Ex. A ¶ z, was also paid for, via Amy Buck, with fraud\nproceeds and property involved in money laundering. See Trial Tr. 3917-18 (Buck testimony\nregarding the Piano); GXBUCK 69 (invoice for the Piano).\n4. The Bugatti\nThe Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nVF9SW3V3XNM795047 seized by the Government on or about May 11, 2023 (the “Bugatti”),\nsee Ex. A ¶ w, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering. As described in Special Agent Effting’s March 14, 2023 affidavit, attached as Exhibit\nH, the Bugatti was purchased for Guo’s son, Mileson, by G Clubs using its members’ funds. Trial\nevidence extensively corroborated the probable cause demonstrated in that affidavit. See Trial Tr.\n3090:6–14 (testimony of former G Clubs CEO Limarie Reyes that Bugatti was purchased by G\nClubs with member payments); Trial Tr. 1793:2–1796:21 (testimony of Lonny Soza, president of\nBugatti dealership, describing Bugatti’s purchase by a G Club entity but with Mileson Guo as the\nactual “client” and purchaser); GX 226 (Bugatti purchase contract identifying buyer as “G Club\nInternational Ltd.”).\n5. The Lamborghini\nThe Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roads, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393 seized by the Government on or about March 15, 2023 (the\n“Lamborghini”), see Ex. A ¶ x, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved\nin money laundering. The Lamborghini was found parked the garage of Guo’s Greenwich estate\nwhen law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at that premises. See Trial Tr. 64:3–23\n(testimony of FBI agent who participated in search that found Lamborghini in Guo’s Greenwich\ngarage). And, like the Bugatti, the Lamborghini was purchased with G Clubs members’ funds but\nfor the actual purpose of the Guo family’s personal use. See, e.g., GXGC 276 (G Clubs corporate\nresolution authorizing purchase of Lamborghini with the same VIN as the one found parked in\nGuo’s personal garage); Trial Tr. 3080:17–20 (testimony of former G Clubs CEO Reyes that she\nwas unaware of the Lamborghini ever being made available to G Clubs members).\n6. The Rolls Royce Phantom\nThe Rolls Royce Phantom EWB, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nSCATT8C08MU206445, seized by the Government on or about March 20, 2023 (the “Rolls\nRoyce”), see Ex. A ¶ y, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering. As described in the affidavit attached as Exhibit H, the Rolls Royce was purchased\n3 The Piano was not shipped to the Mahwah Mansion; rather it was shipped to 3 Columbus Circle,\nwhere the G Enterprise maintained office space. See Trial Tr. 3917. The Piano was thereafter\nmoved and ultimately seized by the Government on or about May 22, 2025, from 351 Walker\nStreet, Staten Island, New York.\n\nusing proceeds from the RICO enterprise and property involved in money laundering. See Ex. H\n¶ 34. The Rolls Royce was found parked in an area of a garage at 800 Fifth Avenue in New York,\nNew York where Guo stored certain of his cars, which garage is located approximately two blocks\naway from Guo’s Sherry-Netherland apartment. See Trial Tr. 5435:9-14 (testimony of Guo’s\nformer head security officer Scott Barnett that he had observed a Rolls Royce, among other luxury\ncars, during his time guarding Guo).\n* * *\nFor the above reasons, the Court should enter the proposed preliminary order of forfeiture.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSEAN S. BUCKLEY\nAttorney for the United States, Acting\nUnder Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. §\n515\nSouthern District of New York\nBy: /s/ .\nMicah F. Fergenson\nRyan B. Finkel\nJustin Horton\nJuliana N. Murray\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2882,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:36"}