{"id":"court_sdny_716_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"Government Letter Motion for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture","summary_zh":"检方动议信——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #716（2025年7月28日立案）。联邦检察官办公室致函主审法官 Analisa Torres，援引敲诈勒索没收、欺诈没收及洗钱没收相关法条与判例，请求法院签发所附初步没收令，就郭文贵在“G系企业”的权益、犯罪所得及涉及洗钱的财产（包括被查扣的布加迪、兰博基尼、劳斯莱斯等车辆）予以没收。","summary_en":"Government letter motion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #716 (filed July 28, 2025). The U.S. Attorney's Office writes to presiding Judge Analisa Torres, citing racketeering, fraud, and money-laundering forfeiture statutes and case law, asking the court to enter the attached preliminary order of forfeiture covering Guo's interests in the 'G' entities, criminal proceeds, and property involved in laundering — including seized vehicles such as a Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Rolls-Royce.","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":"U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n[Type text]\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building\n26 Federal Plaza\nNew York, NY 10278\nJuly 28, 2025\nBY ECF（经由电子案件归档系统）\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\nNew York, New York 10007\n案由：United States v. Miles Guo（美国诉郭文贵案），S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n政府谨此提交本信函动议，请求法院作出附于附件 A 的拟定没收初步裁定。法院应当命令 Guo（郭文贵）没收其在构成其勒索敲诈企业一部分的 G 系列实体中的权益、其在诈骗过程中获取的收益，以及涉及清洗上述收益的财产。\n\nI. 适用法律\nA. 勒索敲诈罪没收\n第 1963 条规定，联邦地区法院在量刑时“应当命令”被告人没收以下财产：\n(1) 该人违反第 1962 条所获取或维持的任何权益；\n(2) 对……[RICO]企业具有影响力的任何 (A) 权益；(B) 证券；(C) 债权；或 (D) 任何种类的财产或合同权利；以及\n(3) 构成或来源于该人违反第 1962 条直接或间接从勒索敲诈活动或非法追讨债务中所获取之任何收益的任何财产。\n18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)。\nB. 诈骗罪没收\n第 981(a)(1)(C) 条规定，下列财产应予以民事没收：“构成或来源于可追溯至……构成‘特定非法活动’（定义见本编第 1956(c)(7) 条）之任何犯罪或共谋实施该犯罪所得收益的任何财产，无论不动产或动产。”\n《美国法典》第 18 编第 1956(c)(7)(A) 条进而规定，术语“特定非法活动”包括（除其他外）“构成列于本编第 1961(1) 条之犯罪的任何行为或活动，但可根据 [31 U.S.C. §§ 5311 et seq.] 提起公诉的行为除外。”\n\n因此，18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) 中指明的犯罪清单包含在“构成列于本编第 1961(1) 条之犯罪的任何行为或活动”之中。在 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) 所列的犯罪中，包括违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的行为（郭已被定罪），以及证券销售中的欺诈行为（郭同样被定罪）。《美国法典》第 28 编第 2461(c) 条授权在刑事案件中将民事没收作为被告人判刑的一部分予以使用。参见 United States v. Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136, 145 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012)。\nC. 洗钱罪没收\n第 982 条规定，“法院在对被判定犯有违反第 1956 条之罪的人进行量刑时……应当命令该人向美国没收涉及该犯罪的任何财产（无论不动产或动产），或可追溯至该财产的任何财产。”18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)。正如借调至联邦地区法院审案的 Bianco 法官所指出的：\n法院一贯认定，术语“涉及”应当作广义解释，以“包括涉及洗钱犯罪、用于实施洗钱犯罪或用于便利洗钱犯罪的任何财产”。United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267, 271-72 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)（汇集多起判例），aff’d, 514 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2008)。\n参考 Schlesinger 案，各联邦地区法院正确地指出，第二巡回法院“确认了当财产作为非法交易收益的渠道时，该财产作为涉及洗钱交易的财产予以没收。”United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 251 F. Supp. 3d 684, 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)。\nUnited States v. Kenner, 443 F. Supp. 3d 354, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)（脚注省略）。\nD. 金钱判决\n在像本案这样以对人金钱判决形式寻求没收的情况下，联邦地区法院“必须确定命令被告人支付的金额”。Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A)。法院的认定“可以基于已有案卷记录中的证据”，Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B)，“包括在先前庭审中的证词”。United States v. Mathieu, 853 F. App’x 739, 742 (2d Cir. 2021)（内部引号省略）。“没收金额的计算不是一门精密科学。”United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 48 (2d Cir. 2011)。法院只需基于“现有信息”作出“合理估计”。同上（引号和引用省略）。法院可以使用“一般参照点作为出发点”，并“从证据中进行合理推断”。同上。作为“量刑的一个方面”，Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 49 (1995)，没收金额依据优势证据标准确定，United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 116 (2d Cir. 2007)。\n\nII. 论述\n法院应当作出拟定的没收初步裁定，并没收郭在 G Enterprise（G系列企业）犯罪收益中的权益，以及涉及清洗上述收益的财产。\nA. 法院应当作出 13 亿美元的金钱判决\n首先，法院应当作出 13 亿美元的金钱判决。该金钱判决金额代表了个人受害者汇至 G 企业欺诈行为中某些分支机构的资金金额的保守估计，这些分支包括：GTV、农场（the Farms）、G Clubs 以及喜马拉雅交易所（the Himalaya Exchange）。参见 GXZ 26；Trial Tr. 4330-32。虽然陪审团在 GTV 诈骗罪名项上作出了无罪裁决，但法院在量刑时可以考虑庭审记录中与 GTV 相关的事实。参见 United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 151 (1997) (per curiam)。庭审记录至少以优势证据确立了 GTV 私募属于 RICO（敲诈勒索与腐败组织）企业以及诈骗与洗钱共谋的一部分。\n首先，大量的庭审证据确立了正如起诉书所指控的内容，即该 RICO 企业早在 2020 年 GTV 私募之前就已随 Rule of Law（“ROL”，法治）各组织开始运作。1 随后，郭通过一系列相互关联的骗局继续诈骗其追随者，其中包括 2020 年的 GTV 私募。多名投资者作证说明了郭是如何诱骗他们投资 GTV 的：他声称保证投资者免受损失，声称他们的资金将用于发展 GTV 的业务，然而却将 1 亿美元的投资者资金汇入一项高风险对冲基金押注中以使郭的儿子获利。参见 Trial Tr. 209 (Le Zhou（周乐）)；同上，第 701 页 (Patrick Chin（陈伯克）)；同上，第 2376-77 页 (Minran Wu（吴敏然）)；同上，第 4465-67、4471-72 页 (Wei Chen（陈巍）)；同上，第 1350-58、1365-73 页 (Ya Li（李亚）)。此外，GTV 私募与 G 企业的其他分支相互关联且不可分割。事实上，农场借款和 G Clubs 骗局是隐瞒发行 GTV 股票的手段——并且它们就是在 GTV 平台本身上推广的。参见例如 GXZ 9（郭视频汇总图表，包括从 GTV 网站保存的已发布视频，并包括郭虚假承诺以农场借款和 G Clubs 会员资格换取 GTV 股票的视频）。甚至与喜币（H Coin）相关的骗局也与 GTV 私募相互关联。参见例如 Trial Tr. 244（根据先前的投资，包括在 GTV 的投资，来分配喜币）；同上，第 1358 页（Ya Li 作证称“再投资规则是，一旦您收到 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）[关于 GTV 私募]的退款，在 45 天内您应该将这笔钱重新投资回该投资项目，然后您就可以获得百分之五的喜币。”）。\n1 参见例如 Trial Tr. 424（Karin Maistrello 作证称“老板”——即郭——“负责法治各组织”），473-74（Maistrello 关于共同被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）在 ROL 筹款活动期间指示进行虚假“内部转账”的证词），1404-06（Ya Li 关于郭的视频的证词，视频中郭虚假声称其向法治基金捐赠 1 亿美元，并“协调”了 10 亿美元的捐赠）；GXVI 192（视频）；GXVI 192-T（文字记录/翻译）；Trial Tr. 4086（郭在破产相关证词中承认其从未向 ROL 各组织捐赠 1 亿美元），4089（同上）。\n\n因此，来源于 GTV 私募的资金属于可没收财产，应计入郭的金钱判决计算中。2\nB. 法院应当没收郭在特定财产中的权益\n其次，法院应当没收郭在没收初步裁定所列特定财产中的权益。总体而言，郭已在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下多次确认其基本上没有任何资产。参见 Trial Tr. 4039-46（关于郭在接受伪证罪处罚前提下提交的破产申请的证词，其中他声称几乎没有任何资产）；Dkt. 800, Ex. A (Dec. 24, 2024 Tr.) 第 13-14 页（郭向法院陈述其没有“支付律师费用的财务资源”），第 11 页（郭的律师向法院陈述“郭先生已通知我们他没有任何资产”，并且他的宣誓书“将列明他没有任何财产，也没有任何现金或银行账户”）。因此，郭在向法院的陈述中实际上已放弃了此类权益，其无法令人信服地主张对所列财产享有任何权益。无论如何，如下文所述，该财产构成 G 企业的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产。\n1. 来自银行账户的资金\n政府寻求没收从数个银行账户扣押的现金，这些账户曾被用于推进被告人的犯罪及其勒索敲诈企业。参见 Ex. A ¶¶ a–u, bb。这些账户由 G 企业的成员使用和控制：“Hamilton”及相关实体；“Himalaya Exchange”及相关实体；G Clubs；G Fashion 以及 GETTR。这些银行账户的每位账户持有人在起诉书中均被指名为 RICO 企业的成员。参见 S3 Indictment ¶ 3(a)。如下文所述，政府在此附上了支持扣押这些银行账户中的资金作为可没收财产的宣誓书。\na. 2022 年 9 月 18 日扣押的资金\n2022 年 9 月 18 日从以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”、“GETTR USA, Inc.”以及“G Fashion”名义持有的账户中扣押的资金（参见 Ex. A ¶¶ a–h, t–u），来源于 G 企业的收益及涉及洗钱的财产，详见随附的特别特工 Anthony Alecci 扣押令宣誓书（作为附件 B 和 C 附后）。\nb. 2022 年 9 月 20 日扣押的资金\n2022 年 9 月 20 日从以“Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.”、“Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.”以及“Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.”名义持有的账户中扣押的资金（参见 Ex. A ¶¶ i–j, r），来源于 G 企业的收益\n2 来源于 GTV 私募的实际资金已被 SEC 追回，SEC 设立了用于向受害者分配的公平基金（fair fund）。如果法院要从没收金额中扣除 GTV 私募资金，则应扣除约 4.11 亿美元。参见 GXZ 26 第 2 页。\n\n以及涉及洗钱的财产，如特别探员 Alecci（阿莱奇）的扣押令宣誓书（作为附件 D 附后）所述。\n\nc. 于 2022年10月16日 至 2023年3月10日 期间扣押的资金\n于 2022年10月16日 至 2023年3月10日 期间，从以“G Club International Ltd.”（G俱乐部国际有限公司）、“Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、“Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.”（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）、“Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）、“Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）、“Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.”（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）、“G Fashion International Limited”（G时尚国际有限公司）、“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.”（喜马拉雅货币清算私人有限公司）名义开设的账户中扣押的资金（参见附件 A 第 k–q、s 段），源自 G Enterprise（G企业）的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产，如特别探员 Alecci 的扣押令宣誓书（作为附件 E 附后）所述。\n\nd. 于 2023年5月12日 扣押的资金\n于 2023年5月12日 从以“G Club Operations LLC”（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）名义开设的账户中扣押的资金（参见附件 A 第 bb 段），源自 G 企业的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产，如特别探员 Zachary Effting（扎卡里·埃夫廷）的扣押令宣誓书（作为附件 F 附后）所述。\n\n2. Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）\n位于 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey（新泽西州马瓦市拉马波山谷路675号）的房产（即“马瓦豪宅”）及其屋内财物源自 G 企业的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产。参见附件 A 第 v 段。马瓦豪宅本身是用经过洗钱的受害者资金购买的。参见 GXZ 12A（追踪从 Crane Advisory Group LLC 出发，经由一名律师的账户及 Hamilton 实体，用于支付马瓦豪宅的资金）；Trial Tr. 1433（Ya Li［李雅］作证称“Crane 是一家接收［G Club］卡计划——接收来自该卡计划款项的公司”）；Tr. 1999-2002（Haitham Khaled［海瑟姆·哈立德］描述向 Crane 的进账电汇及随后的对外转账）。\n\n从马瓦豪宅扣押并列于初步没收裁定中的具体财产，同样是可追溯至 G 企业的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产。参见附件 A 第 aa 段。庭审证人 Amy Buck（艾米·巴克）作证称，她为马瓦豪宅经手了约 1800万美元 的支出，包括家具和艺术品，且这些资金来自 Hamilton，即由同谋 William Je（余建明）控制、用于洗钱收益的 RICO 企业的一个分支机构。参见 Trial Tr. 3884, 3892-94；GXBUCK 1292（Buck 的付款电子表格）。FBI（联邦调查局）还从马瓦豪宅中扣押了装有一枚戒指和一只手镯的盒子，以及法定货币。参见附件 A 第 aa(lxxiv)-(lxxxiii) 段。特别探员 Gabriella Luciano（加布里埃拉·卢西亚诺）在庭审中就其中一次现金扣押作证。Trial Tr. 3558（从保险箱中扣押 394,040美元）。特别探员 Zachary Effting 的声明（作为附件 G 附后）证实了 FBI 从马瓦豪宅扣押了初步没收裁定中列出的其他物品。参见附件 G。\n\n3. 钢琴\n虽然并非从马瓦豪宅扣押3，但该架配有定制琴凳的 Bösendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539（贝森朵夫 185VC 保时捷编号49539）钢琴（即“钢琴”）（参见附件 A 第 z 段）也是通过 Amy Buck 使用欺诈收益及涉及洗钱的财产支付的。参见 Trial Tr. 3917-18（Buck 关于该钢琴的证词）；GXBUCK 69（该钢琴的发票）。\n\n4. Bugatti（布加迪）\n政府于 2023年5月11日 或前后扣押的车辆识别代号为 VF9SW3V3XNM795047 的 Bugatti Chiron Super Sport（布加迪 Chiron Super Sport）（即“布加迪”）（参见附件 A 第 w 段），源自 G 企业的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产。正如特别探员 Effting 于 2023年3月14日 作出的宣誓书（作为附件 H 附后）中所述，该布加迪是 G Clubs 利用其会员资金为郭的儿子 Mileson（郭强）购买的。庭审证据广泛证实了该宣誓书中所阐明的合理根据。参见 Trial Tr. 3090:6–14（前 G Clubs 首席执行官 Limarie Reyes［利马莉·雷耶斯］作证称，布加迪是由 G Clubs 用会员付款购买的）；Trial Tr. 1793:2–1796:21（布加迪经销商总裁 Lonny Soza［朗尼·索扎］的证词，描述了布加迪由一家 G Club 实体购买，但 Mileson Guo 为实际的“客户”和买家）；GX 226（将买方认定为“G Club International Ltd.”的布加迪购买合同）。\n\n5. Lamborghini（兰博基尼）\n政府于 2023年3月15日 或前后扣押的车辆识别代号为 ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393 的 Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roadster（兰博基尼 Aventador SVJ 敞篷跑车）（即“兰博基尼”）（参见附件 A 第 x 段），源自 G 企业的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产。执法人员在郭位于 Greenwich（格林威治）的庄园执行搜查令时，发现该兰博基尼停放在该处的车库内。参见 Trial Tr. 64:3–23（参与搜查并在郭的格林威治车库中发现兰博基尼的 FBI 探员的证词）。而且，与布加迪一样，该兰博基尼是用 G Clubs 会员的资金购买的，但实际目的是供郭氏家族个人使用。参见例如 GXGC 276（授权购买与在郭的个人车库中发现停放的车辆具有相同车辆识别代号的兰博基尼的 G Clubs 公司决议）；Trial Tr. 3080:17–20（前 G Clubs 首席执行官 Reyes 作证称，她不知道该兰博基尼曾提供给 G Clubs 会员使用）。\n\n6. Rolls Royce Phantom（劳斯莱斯幻影）\n政府于 2023年3月20日 或前后扣押的车辆识别代号为 SCATT8C08MU206445 的 Rolls Royce Phantom EWB（劳斯莱斯幻影长轴距版）（即“劳斯莱斯”）（参见附件 A 第 y 段），源自 G 企业的收益以及涉及洗钱的财产。正如作为附件 H 附后的宣誓书中所述，该劳斯莱斯是使用 RICO 企业的收益及涉及洗钱的财产购买的。参见附件 H 第 34 段。该劳斯莱斯被发现停放在 New York, New York（纽约州纽约市）第五大道800号车库的一个区域，郭在该处存放其部分汽车，该车库距离郭的 Sherry-Netherland（雪梨荷兰）公寓大约两个街区。参见 Trial Tr. 5435:9-14（郭的前安保主管 Scott Barnett［斯科特·巴尼特］作证称，他在保卫郭期间曾看到过一辆劳斯莱斯以及其他豪华汽车）。\n\n3 该钢琴并未运往马瓦豪宅；而是运往了 3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号），G 企业在该处设有办公场所。参见 Trial Tr. 3917。该钢琴随后被移走，并最终于 2025年5月22日 或前后由政府从 351 Walker Street, Staten Island, New York（纽约州斯塔滕岛沃克街351号）扣押。\n\n* * *\n\n基于上述理由，法院应作出拟议的初步没收裁定。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nSEAN S. BUCKLEY（肖恩·S·巴克利）\n美国检察官，根据 28 U.S.C. § 所赋予的权力代理\n\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n签署人：/s/ .\nMicah F. Fergenson（米卡·F·弗根森）\nRyan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\nJustin Horton（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\n助理联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2882,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-09-04 14:42:01"}