{"id":"court_sdny_717_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":717,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"补充权威依据告知书 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #717（2025年7月28日）。代理数千名 HEX 成员的律师通知法庭，2025年7月18日生效的《GENIUS 法案》及同日总统关于加密资产执法的指示根本性改变了案件适用法律，要求法庭基于新法和行政部门政策方向重新审视没收程序。","summary_en":"Notice of supplemental authority — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #717 (filed July 28, 2025). Counsel for members of HEX notifies the court that the GENIUS Act (enacted July 18, 2025) and presidential directives on cryptocurrency enforcement issued the same day have fundamentally altered the applicable law governing the case, requiring reconsideration of forfeiture proceedings under new statutory and executive policy frameworks.","body_en":"# **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n### **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\n **Defendants.**\n\n Restitution of Seized Funds Criminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n## **NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY COMPLETELY ALTERING THE GOVERNING LAW OF THIS CASE BY COUNSEL'S 6,540 CLIENTS**\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## **NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY COMPLETELY ALTERING THE GOVERNING LAW OF THIS CASE, FILED BY COUNSEL'S 6,540 CLIENTS [1](#page-0-0)**\n\nPetitioners (Claimants) hereby file this NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY\n\nwhich as of 2:30 PM, July 18, 2023, *COMPLETELY ALTERED THE GOVERNING LAW OF*\n\n*THIS CASE* in every aspect of the crypto-currency activities of the Himalaya Exchange. The\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> This most recent figure includes the original 3,345 customers authenticated by HEX (minus 72 who had dropped prior to our most recent April filing where we estimated the number of clients at 6,575). From this figure we have removed 35 clients who have dropped since April (21 of whom had been previously authenticated by the Himalaya Exchange (HEX)). This figure does not yet include additional sign-ups since our most recent April filing. This figure is a good faith estimate and not a final tally that will be finally reviewed and authenticated and matched with HEX compliance and account information.\n\nlaw governing every aspect of this case touching on the crypto-currency, stable coin, or digital investments of the Himalaya Exchange (HEX) has been completely changed as of 3:30 PM July 18, 2025.\n\nIt should be noted that no aspect of this case is \"FINAL\" given that no \"JUDGMENT\" has been entered against Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo) or Kin Ming Je. Given that this case is not final, even as to the conviction of Kwok (Guo) without a Judgment having been entered, the case must now conform to the change in the governing law as of July 18, 2025.\n\nFrom around 2:50 PM to 3:30 PM, EST, July 18, 2025, the President of the United States signed into law the informally named \"GENIUS Act,\" designated as **\"S.1582 — 119th Congress (2025-2026).\"** It passed the U.S. Senate on June 17, 2025, and passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 17, 2025 at about 3:53 PM.\n\nIt should be noted that even if the precise provisions of the new legislation might not be specifically \"on point\" with some aspect of this case, the overall approach to regulation and prosecution of digital assets is addressed by the \"GENIUS Act.\" The methodology, policies, definitions of digital assets, definitions of terms, and goals of regulation and prosecution are all altered. Therefore, even where a detailed aspect of this case is not directly met by a provision of the Act, the overall policy and definitions still affect this case.\n\nBut more than that, the Chief Executive and the only law enforcement officer named and empowered in the U.S. Constitution, held a presentation, legal seminar, economic seminar, and policy session giving very strong, very clear, direction to the United States, Executive Branch, and by implication the U.S. Department of Justice and its representatives.\n\nIt would be difficult to listen to President Trump's 39 minute presentation and not interpret it as a powerful set of marching orders to the DOJ and the Executive Branch. Indeed\n\nlegal persecution of crypto currency was specifically targeted by Trump's remarks. And again, there is only one official identified in the U.S. Constitution as \"the\" law enforcement official of the United States of America – the President.\n\nThe President's signing session and explanation can be viewed on C-SPAN after the fact, as C-SPAN frequently preserves official sessions for later viewing.[2](#page-2-0)\n\nFurthermore, the U.S. Department of Justice on April 7, 2025, issued a \"Memorandum for All Employees\" from the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche titled \"Ending Regulation by Prosecution\" concerning the \"digital assets industry.\" It should not be missed that this is a Memorandum \"*for all Employees*\" which means all representatives of the Department of Justice.\n\nThe directives given verbally by the President on July 18, 2025, and the enactment into law of the \"Genius Act\" must be viewed as confirming and giving more force to this Memorandum of April 7, 2025.\n\nIn general, the undersigned counsel is focused on the cancellation of the improper seizure and proposed forfeiture of the funds of his clients, who are an estimated 6,540 Members of (investors in) the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\"). HEX is based in the sovereign nation of the British Virgin Islands. Counsel's clients respectfully demand the return of their own investment funds (their personalty) which they entrusted to, invested with, or deposited in the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\") in their individually assigned HEX account. Those funds were illegally seized by the United States of America (\"Government\") which lacked jurisdiction over the extraterritorial entities associated with HEX.\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> President Trump Signs Cryptocurrency Bill Into Law | Video | C-SPAN.org http\n\nAlso, to avoid any continuing confusion, the undersigned Counsel represents thousands of Members of HEX. There are thousands of Members whom Counsel does not represent, some of whom are represented by other attorneys or chose to represent themselves. The wording of Counsel's explanation should not be misunderstood to imply that all Members are represented by undersigned Counsel.\n\nAs Counsel has tried to clarify several times, he does not represent the criminal Defendants, and yet the seizure of his clients' funds are dependent upon the allegations against the criminal Defendants. So while undersigned Counsel and his clients might be legally agnostic (though interested on a human level) in the criminal prosecution itself, if the convictions against the Defendants, then there is no basis for seizing the funds of his client's investor clients or putting them through any procedure of any kind whatsoever. The money must simply be returned to my clients, immediately, and free of any of the unconscionable legal \"waste\" and \"dissipation of assets\" by the bonfire consuming my clients' funds by unnecessary processing, investigation, and delay.\n\nThus, Counsel is ethically required for his clients to zealously advocate for his clients that if the change of the law affects both the seizure of crypto-related assets and the existence of any crime supposedly justifying the seizure of my clients' funds these are reasons for his client's funds to be immediately returned to them. It is for other attorneys to argue for the Defendants. But if there never was any crime, then Counsel must point out that there is no reason to seize, waste, or dissipate his client's funds.\n\nAlso, of course, the prosecution has suggested (that is early on suspicioned) that as many as 80 different business entities may have been involved in the criminal Defendants' activities.\n\nOn further review of the case, access to case materials, and investigation, Counsel now\n\nunderstands that the Himalaya Exchange subdivided its funds into 5-6 different business entities outside the United States all having a different functional goal supporting the Exchanges' business.\n\nSo, there are at least 74-75 business entities out of the Government's estimate of 80 that have nothing whatsoever to do with HEX and are unimpacted by revolutionary changes to cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency enforcement. These other 74 entities could very well have had business activities, offices, functions, etc. carried out within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of America. Counsel has only limited information about these non-HEX activities.\n\nSo Counsel tries to clarify and emphasize that the other 75 non-HEX business entities may all have their own individual stories. They may be under U.S. jurisdiction. The activities relating to these 75 non-HEX entities may all come under different laws, certainly different fact patterns, all for different reasons. They may not receive the same benefits and deference that lawful crypto exchanges are now accorded.\n\nCounsel is focusing only on HEX of the British Virgin Islands and its related companies outside the United States, etc.\n\nFinally, counsel again objects and respectfully reminds the Court that his clients are by the explicit policies and requirements of HEX not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Government. The Government has never responded to that problem except a half hearted \"maybe\" (not sure yet) from the personal Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins. The Court has not ruled on the lack of jurisdiction of the U.S. Government over HEX, its funds, or its Members / investors. But then again the U.S. Government has never responded in over a year and a half to these concerns and that was prior to the implementation of dramatic changes to how cryptocurrencies are treated. It seems reasonable to assume that there may be now additional\n\nprotections that apply to undersigned counsel's clients that do not apply to others, providing an additional reason to reverse the seizures.\n\nIt may be so unthinkable for professionals in New York City to believe that any investment company would not be eagerly seeking investments from Wall Street and throughout the United States, that nobody ever stopped to ask \"But did HEX ever solicit any investments within the United States?\" The hubris and status of Wall Street and the U.S. market would make that a question almost impossible to contemplate. Of course, everyone wants investments from within the United States! But with HEX, its creators emphatically rejected any participation of any U.S. citizen or resident or agent thereof. HEX, focused on a community of dissidents from the Chinese Communist Party, and distrustful of Western countries eager to please China, as well as wanting to avoid the onerous securities regulations decisively rejected and banned any investments from the United States and other countries including Japan. Whereas any resident of NYC would think it so obvious as to not require the question that everyone wants money invested from the USA, in fact HEX did not. And HEX prohibited any investments from the USA.\n\nTrustee Luc Despins response of \"maybe\" effectively \"I don't know, not sure yet\" is not effective. Chapter 11 is created and authorized as a \"reorganization\" of an on-going business or businesses to restore a business or businesses to viability while paying off as many creditors as possible in the Chapter 11 plan. Federal law does not authorize Chapter 11 as a \"liquidation.\"\n\nA Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition is a \"liquidation\" aimed at collecting all available assets, selling them for the highest possible price, and distributing those funds among creditors according to legal hierarchies of status.\n\nA Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition requires a plan and efforts to get a business back on its\n\nfeet and restore it to profitability and viability. The plan may have to recognize that all creditors cannot be made whole. Most commonly, the Chapter 11 plan distinguishes between different categories of creditors and attempts to make the higher priority creditors whole first. It may involve destroying the interests of shareholders (called a \"cram down\"[3](#page-6-0)) if that promotes the ability to repay as many non-equity creditors as possible.\n\nA Chapter 11 plan could fail. But Chapter 11 demands the creation and mapping out of a plan to get the business(es) back on its / their feet, and demands the actual attempt. If the plan fails then a \"liquidation\" may be required but not without first a good faith, diligent, sincere attempt to restore the business to viability. (It appears that modification of the line of business is a possibility so the nature, goals, and methods of the business could be altered to promote viability.)\n\nHere, however, the Chapter 11 petition was filed by Ho Wan Kwok *as an individual – not as a business or effectively in the name of any business.* Later, Genevers was added as a co-petitioner but Counsel does not know why and Genevers appears to have nothing to do with HEX. If the addition of Genevers makes an actual business co-petitioner, it does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to HEX.\n\nTherefore, even Luc Despins' half-hearted, non-committal bookmark regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction is too vague, intentionally uncertain, and indeterminate to suffice.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>3</sup> Cramdown of Equity in Chapter 11 Plan Requires Assessment of Equity's Value to Satisfy \"Fair and Equitable\" Standard, Business Restructuring Review (January 15, 2025). http\n\n## **Humanitarian Concerns Over Conventional Forfeiture Procedures**\n\nIf members of the Himalaya Exchange are forced to participate in conventional asset forfeiture processes, it would likely require them to submit identifying personal information to the U.S. government. This data exposure would effectively doxx members, many of whom are dissidents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Given this population's legitimate fears of transnational repression, this risk presents the real possibility of triggering a humanitarian crisis. We have noticed the Government about this concern repeatedly from our first filing in ECF 186-1 page 18 and in Footnote 10 as co-victims of prior CCP data breaches:\n\nMany of the attorneys and staff assigned to this matter at the U.S. Attorney's office may sympathize with undersigned counsel's expressions of concern about information security since many of us (undersigned counsel as a former DOJ employee) have had had our clearance files compromised.[4](#page-7-0) The Office of Personnel Management data breach was a 2015 data breach targeting Standard Form 86 (SF-86) U.S. government security clearance records retained by the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). One of the largest breaches of government data in U.S. history, the attack was carried out by an advanced persistent threat based in China, widely believed to be the Jiangsu State Security Department, a subsidiary of China's Ministry of State Security spy agency. Approximately 22.1 million records were affected, including records related to government employees, other people who had undergone background checks, and their friends and family. The breach included personally identifiable information such as Social Security numbers, as well as names, dates and places of birth, and addresses. State-sponsored hackers working on behalf of the Chinese government carried out the attack.\n\nIn this matter it would be serious concern if Government ever were to consider it to be a good idea to obtain all account information from thousands of vulnerable Exchange customers who are located outside the United States requiring the Himalaya Exchange to unencrypt it and provide it to the US Government, when the US Government has a terrible track record of protecting such information.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> See Office of Personnel Management data breach - Wikipedia; Final notices going out this week to the 21 million people whose data was stolen in the security clearance breach - The Washington Post (December 8, 2015). http\n\n## **Recent CCP hacking developments highlight this fear in neon lights:**\n\nMicrosoft was revealed to have employed China-based engineers to support U.S. Department of Defense cloud services under a \"digital escort\" model. This practice drew condemnation from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who deemed it \"obviously unacceptable.\" Microsoft responded by banning Chinese engineers from Pentagon projects.[5](#page-8-0)\n\nThe issue is unlikely to be confined solely to the DoD, as Microsoft is a major cloud service provider for multiple U.S. government agencies through its Azure platform, which is authorized under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). The \"digital escort\" model, where U.S. citizens with security clearances oversee foreign engineers (including those in China) who provide technical support, was designed to meet federal contracting requirements for handling sensitive but unclassified data (Impact Levels 4 and 5). This model was critical to Microsoft securing government cloud contracts nearly a decade ago. Given that FedRAMP applies to cloud services across the federal government, similar arrangements could theoretically exist for other agencies, including the DoJ, which relies on\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> Pete Hegseth Orders Review to Protect DOD Cloud Services From Chinese Hackers, ExecutiveGov (July 21, 2025). http\n\nMicrosoft to stop using China-based engineers for US military tech support, TechRadar (July 21, 2025).\n\nhttp\n\nA Little-Known Microsoft Program Could Expose the Defense Department to Chinese Hackers, Propublica (July 15, 2025).\n\nhttp\n\nMicrosoft for cloud and IT services. The Probublica report noted that the \"digital escort\" system, where escorts often lack the technical expertise to properly oversee foreign engineers, could expose any federal system to cyberattacks, especially from a sophisticated actor like China. This suggests the problem could extend to other agencies, though no specific evidence confirms its use in the DoJ or elsewhere outside the DoD. The DoD's response, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's two-week review of all Pentagon cloud contracts, indicates a focus on military systems, but it also hints at broader implications. Hegseth's statement that \"some tech companies\" use similar models suggests other providers (e.g., Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud) might face scrutiny, potentially affecting government-wide cloud services. While the available information does not explicitly confirm that the DoJ used China-based engineers in the same \"digital escort\" model, the DoJ's reliance on Microsoft Azure for cloud services raises the possibility of similar vulnerabilities. The DoJ handles sensitive data, including law enforcement records, criminal justice information, and national security-related investigations, which could be categorized as Impact Level 4 or 5 data, similar to the DoD's. A breach or backdoor in these systems could compromise any data my clients provide through the forfeiture process.[6](#page-9-0)\n\nIn the trial of Ho Wan Kwok, it was proven that The Republic of China, governed by the CCP, embarked on a massive world-wide campaign to silence dissidents and critics of the CCP including within the United States of America. See, Trial Testimony, Paul Doran, July 4, 2024, Pages: 5085 – 5193; Trial Testimony of Jianhu Yi, July 3, 2024, pages 5040-5085.\n\nhttp\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> China-based hackers breached US government email accounts, Microsoft and White House say, CNN (July 12, 2023).\n\nThis was also the subject of Stipulation 1 in the trial and following agreed stipulation was read to the jury on 29 May 2024:\n\n*MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Your Honor, at this time the defense would like to read and enter into evidence a stipulation between the parties. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. KAMARAJU: It's DX Stip 0001. And it reads:*\n\n*\"It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the United States of America and Miles Guo, the defendant, through their attorneys of record, that:*\n\n*1. The FBI has investigated individuals who, working at the direction of the government of the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC government\") have engaged in an international campaign, known as \"Operation Fox Hunt,\" to coerce individuals located in the United States and elsewhere to return to China to face charges brought by the PRC government or to otherwise reach financial settlements with the PRC government.*\n\n*2. In 2017, a US law enforcement agency assessed that Mr. Miles Guo was the highest priority of China's repatriation efforts.*\n\n*3. In 2017, a US law enforcement agency received information that Chinese officials were paying and providing food and signs to protestors of Mr. Guo.*\n\n*4. In 2018, a US law enforcement agency received information that the PRC government had established a special investigative group in China to manage China's investigation of, and actions against, Mr. Guo.*\n\n*5. To carry out some of the objectives of Fox Hunt, in 2017, the PRC government tasked a specially designated group of operatives (\"the Group\") with discrediting and harassing individuals, including Mr. Guo, by using interactive computer*\n\n*services and electronic communication systems. The Group is based out of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau at a facility in Beijing's Dong Cheng District. The Group was previously referred to as the \"Cyber Investigation Team\" and was later referred to as the 9112 Special Project Working Group. The Group's tactics aimed at Mr. Guo included using anonymized social media accounts operated by the Group and by pressuring US social media companies to remove Mr. Guo and US-based associates of Mr. Guo from social media platforms. These efforts were part of the PRC government's broader effort to prevent, disrupt, and harass Mr. Guo's use of social media and other online platforms to disseminate and discuss disfavored content. In or about December 2018, officers of the Group were directed to post three videos or posts daily with YouTube and Facebook accounts, with one of the posts required to be anti-Mr. Guo. On February 3, 2020, a PRC government official issued a tasking requirement that every member of the Group shall write an original article with content related to targeting Mr. Guo, the COVID pandemic, or Hong Kong. The FBI investigated the Group's activities, including its activities aimed at Mr. Guo, and the US government has charged many of the Group's members with violations of US law.*\n\n*6. Since Mr. Guo fled the PRC, the PRC government has sought his return for prosecution in the PRC and has employed numerous methods to effect Mr. Guo's capture or arrest. In May 2017, the PRC government sent four undeclared agents from the PRC's Ministry of State Security (\"MSS\") to the United States to attempt to cause Mr. Guo's coerced repatriation to the PRC as part of the Fox Hunt initiative. The US government disrupted the PRC government's efforts to forcefully repatriate Mr. Guo and Mr. Guo continued to reside in the United States.*\n\n*\\* \\* \\**\n\n*THE COURT: It is admitted.*\n\nMoreover, the Republic of China (\"China\") seems to have set up a systematic enforcement network of fake police stations within the United States in order to terrorize and persecute refugees from Chinese communism and other critics.\n\nThe Boston case is hardly an exception. Last month, the Department of Justice indicted two New York residents, Lu Jianwang and Chen Jinping, for \"conspiring to act as agents\" of the CCP's Ministry of Public Security (MPS) and for obstructing justice by destroying evidence of their communications with the MPS. The two were operating an MPS secret police station in Manhattan's Chinatown neighborhood, which was aiding the CCP's transnational repression by intimidating and threatening Chinese dissidents.[7](#page-12-0)\n\nThe revelation that Microsoft employed China-based engineers under a \"digital escort\" model to support sensitive U.S. government cloud systems—condemned by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as \"obviously unacceptable\"—not only raises alarming cybersecurity concerns about the Pentagon and other agencies like the DOJ that rely on Microsoft's FedRAMP-authorized services, but also underscores the broader national security threat posed by the CCP's transnational repression campaigns, including Operation Fox Hunt, covert propaganda operations and illegal police stations on U.S. soil targeting Chinese dissidents. Forcing HEX members into forfeiture proceedings designed prior to the emergence of stable coin exchanges overseas with overseas customers who remain at risk of retaliation, may invite similar exposure and potentially *catastrophic* consequences. The government would do well to consider the GENIUS Act's mandates and align enforcement with both the law and humanitarian principles and return funds\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>7</sup> Erin Walsh and Andrew Harding, \"Crack Down on Illegal Chinese Police Stations in the US,\" The Hill (May 18, 2023). http\n\nto HEX or at least through HEX where doxxing transfers to unsecure systems are not required and funds can be returned without inadvertent disclosures through facilitation by HEX using its secure, military-grade encryption systems\n\n### **Conclusion**\n\nGiven the clear changes in law and Executive Branch policy, coupled with the potential for extreme harm, there is no legal or ethical basis for requiring the continued seizure, wasting, or forced processing of Petitioners' funds through a doxxing process. As stated in prior filings, the forfeitures should be reversed *in toto* on jurisdictional grounds. In the event the GENIUS Act does not differentiate overseas funds held in custodial accounts for the HEX exchange—which were established through heavily counseled legal structuring to avoid jurisdictional claims by the U.S. government—these funds should be returned immediately through the HEX system, which does not require disclosure of sensitive financial data. Ideally, the Government would make a joint motion to accept a consolidated filing on behalf of undersigned counsel's clients, establishing a clearance process that provides the Government full access in a secure environment without the necessity of transferring data to insecure government systems. This\n\nwould be free from any administrative delays or legal gamesmanship. The Claimants' requests for the Court to rule the entire case lacking in jurisdiction with regard to HEX remain pending.\n\nDated: July 28, 2025\n\n### Dated: July 28, 2025 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on July 28, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708","body_zh":"美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）\n美利坚合众国（United States of America）\n\n诉\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”或“Principal”，\n\n以及\n\nKin Ming Je（余建明），又名“William Je”，\n\n以及\n\nYanping Wang（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n\n被告。\n\n扣押资金的赔偿 刑事案号：23-cr-118 (AT)\n律师代表的 6,540 名委托人提交的关于彻底改变本案管辖法律的补充判例与法规依据通知（Notice of Supplemental Authority Completely Altering the Governing Law of This Case by Counsel's 6,540 Clients）\n\n分配给联邦地区法院法官 Analisa Torres 阁下主持审理\n律师代表的 6,540 名委托人提交的关于彻底改变本案管辖法律的补充判例与法规依据通知 [1]\n\n申诉人（权利主张人）特此提交本份补充依据通知，\n\n该依据自 2023 年 7 月 18 日下午 2:30 起，在喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）加密货币活动的各个方面彻底改变了本案的管辖法律。\n\n[注 1：此最新数据包括由 HEX 认证的最初 3,345 名客户（减去在我们最近的 4 月份归档文件之前退出的 72 名客户，当时我们估计委托人人数为 6,575 名）。从该数据中，我们移除了自 4 月份以来退出的 35 名委托人（其中 21 人此前已获得喜马拉雅交易所 (HEX) 的认证）。该数据尚未包括自我们最近的 4 月份归档文件以来新增注册的人员。该数据是出于善意的估算，并非最终统计数据，最终将经过复核、认证并与 HEX 合规及账户信息进行比对。]\n\n截至 2025 年 7 月 18 日下午 3:30，管辖本案涉及喜马拉雅交易所（HEX）加密货币、稳定币或数字投资各个方面的法律已发生彻底改变。\n\n应当指出的是，鉴于尚未对郭文贵或余建明作出“判决书”（Judgment），本案的任何方面均非“终局”（Final）。鉴于本案尚未终结，即使是在未作出判决书的情况下对郭文贵的定罪，本案现在也必须符合截至 2025 年 7 月 18 日管辖法律的变更。\n\n美国东部时间 2025 年 7 月 18 日下午约 2:50 至 3:30，美国总统签署了非正式命名的《GENIUS 法案》（GENIUS Act），其正式编号为“S.1582 — 第 119 届国会（2025-2026）”。该法案于 2025 年 6 月 17 日在联邦参议院通过，并于 2025 年 7 月 17 日下午约 3:53 在联邦众议院通过。\n\n应当指出的是，即使新立法的具体条款可能并未具体“切合”本案的某些方面，但《GENIUS 法案》阐述了对数字资产监管和起诉的总体方针。数字资产的监管方法、政策、定义、术语定义以及监管和起诉的目标均已被改变。因此，即使本案的某一具体方面并未直接对应法案的某一条款，总体政策和定义仍对本案产生影响。\n\n但不仅如此，作为美国宪法中唯一指名并赋权的行政首脑及执法官员，总统举行了一场演示会、法律研讨会、经济研讨会和政策会议，向合众国、行政部门，并进而向司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）及其代表给出了极其强硬、极其明确的指示。\n\n听过特朗普总统长达 39 分钟的演讲后，很难不将其解读为向司法部和行政部门下达的一套强有力的行动指令。事实上，\n\n特朗普的言论特别针对了对加密货币的法律迫害。在此重申，美国宪法中确认为美利坚合众国“唯一”执法官员的只有一人——即总统。\n\n事后可以在 C-SPAN 上观看总统的签署仪式和说明，因为 C-SPAN 经常保存官方会议内容以供日后观看。[2]\n\n此外，美国司法部副部长 Todd Blanche 于 2025 年 4 月 7 日发布了一份题为《结束通过起诉进行监管》（Ending Regulation by Prosecution）的关于“数字资产行业”的“致全体员工备忘录”（Memorandum for All Employees）。不容忽视的是，这是一份“致全体员工”的备忘录，这意味着它面向司法部的所有代表。\n\n总统于 2025 年 7 月 18 日作出的口头指示以及《GENIUS 法案》的颁布生效，必须被视为对这份 2025 年 4 月 7 日备忘录的确认并赋予其更高效力。\n\n总体而言，下述署名律师的重点是撤销对其委托人资金的不当扣押和拟议没收，这些委托人是喜马拉雅交易所（“HEX”）的约 6,540 名会员（投资者）。HEX 设在英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands）这一主权实体境内。律师的委托人谨要求归还属于他们自己的投资资金（其动产），这些资金是他们委托给、投资于或存放在喜马拉雅交易所（“HEX”）各自指定的 HEX 账户中的。这些资金被对 HEX 相关境外实体缺乏管辖权的美利坚合众国（“政府”）非法扣押。\n\n[注 2：特朗普总统签署加密货币法案成为法律 | 视频 | C-SPAN.org http]\n\n此外，为避免持续产生任何混淆，下述署名律师代表 HEX 的数千名会员。尚有数千名会员并非由本律师代表，其中一些人由其他律师代表或选择自行代表。本律师说明中的用词不应被误解为暗示所有会员均由下述署名律师代表。\n\n正如律师曾多次试图澄清的那样，他并不代表刑事被告人，然而对其委托人资金的扣押取决于对刑事被告人的指控。因此，尽管下述署名律师及其委托人在法律层面上可能对刑事起诉本身持中立态度（尽管在人道层面上抱有关切），但如果针对被告人的定罪受到影响，那么扣押其投资人委托人的资金或让他们经受任何形式的任何程序就毫无依据。必须立即将款项归还给我的委托人，且不得因不必要的处理、调查和拖延而使资金陷入吞噬我委托人资产的肆意法律“浪费”和“资产流失”之火中。\n\n因此，出于职业道德要求，律师必须为其委托人竭力辩护：如果法律的改变既影响到涉加密货币资产的扣押，又影响到据称用以证明扣押我委托人资金具有正当性的任何犯罪之成立，这些都是将其委托人资金立即归还给他们的理由。为被告人进行辩护是其他律师的职责。但如果根本不存在任何犯罪，那么律师必须指出，没有任何理由去扣押、浪费或流失其委托人的资金。\n\n此外，起诉方当然曾提出（即早期怀疑）可能有多达 80 个不同的商业实体卷入了刑事被告人的活动。\n\n经进一步审查本案、获取案件材料和调查后，律师现在\n\n获悉，喜马拉雅交易所将其资金细分至美国境外的 5 至 6 个不同的商业实体中，每个实体都有不同的职能目标以支持该交易所的业务。\n\n因此，在政府估计的 80 个商业实体中，至少有 74 至 75 个与 HEX 毫无关联，且不受加密货币及加密货币执法领域革命性变化的影响。这其他 74 个实体完全可能在美利坚合众国的地域管辖范围内开展过业务活动、设有办事处、行使职能等。律师关于这些非 HEX 活动的信息十分有限。\n\n因此，律师试图澄清并强调，其他 75 个非 HEX 商业实体可能各自有其独立的情况。它们可能受美国管辖。与这 75 个非 HEX 实体相关的活动可能都受不同法律的管辖，当然也涉及不同的事实模式，且均出于不同的原因。它们可能无法获得合法加密交易所目前所享有的同等利益和遵从。\n\n律师仅关注英属维尔京群岛的 HEX 及其在美国境外的关联公司等。\n\n最后，律师再次提出异议，并谨提醒法院：根据 HEX 明确的政策和要求，其委托人不受美国政府的管辖。政府对这一问题除个人第 11 章破产受托人（Chapter 11 Trustee）Luc Despins 给出的半心半意的“可能”（尚不确定）之外，从未作出过正面回应。法院尚未就美国政府对 HEX、其资金或其会员/投资者缺乏管辖权一事作出裁定。但话又说回来，一年半多以来，美国政府从未对这些关切作出回应，而这还是在对待加密货币方式发生重大转变之前。合理推断，目前可能存在适用于下述署名律师委托人但不适用于其他人的额外保护措施，这构成了撤销扣押的又一理由。\n\n纽约市的专业人士或许难以置信会有任何投资公司不渴望从华尔街和全美各地寻求投资，以至于从未有人停下来问一句：“但 HEX 曾经在美国境内招揽过任何投资吗？”华尔街和美国市场的自负与地位使得这一问题几乎难以想象。当然，所有人都想要来自美国境内的投资！但对于 HEX 而言，其创建者坚决拒绝任何美国公民、居民或其代理人的任何参与。HEX 专注于由中国共产党异见人士组成的群体，不信任急于讨好中国的西方国家，并且为了规避繁重的证券法规，断然拒绝并禁止了来自美国以及包括日本在内的其他国家的任何投资。尽管任何纽约市居民都会认为每个人都想要来自美国的投资是显而易见、无需多问的，但事实上 HEX 并非如此。并且 HEX 禁止来自美国的任何投资。\n\n受托人 Luc Despins 所作出的“可能”（实际等于“我不知道，目前还不确定”）的回应是无效的。第 11 章破产程序的设立和授权是为了对持续经营的一个或多个企业进行“重组”（Reorganization），以便在第 11 章计划中尽可能多地偿还债权人的同时，恢复一个或多个企业的生存能力。联邦法律并未授权将第 11 章作为“清算”（Liquidation）手段。\n\n第 7 章破产申请是一项“清算”，旨在收集所有可用资产，以尽可能最高的价格出售，并根据法定的清偿顺位在债权人之间分配这些资金。\n\n第 11 章破产申请需要制定计划并付出努力，以使企业重新\n\n恢复元气，并恢复其盈利能力和生存能力。该计划可能必须承认无法使所有债权人获得全额受偿。最常见的情况是，第 11 章计划会对不同类别的债权人进行区分，并尝试优先使较高优先级的债权人获得全额受偿。如果这能促进偿还尽可能多的非股权债权人的能力，该计划可能涉及消灭股东的权益（被称为“强制批准”[3]）。\n\n[注 3：即 cram down]\n\n《破产法》第11章（Chapter 11）计划可能会失败。但第11章要求制定并规划出一套使该企业（或多家企业）重新恢复正常运转的计划，并要求做出实际尝试。如果该计划失败，则可能需要进行“清算”，但前提必须是先做出善意、勤勉、真诚的尝试以恢复企业的生存能力。（改变业务线似乎存在可能性，因此可以调整企业的性质、目标和方式以促进其生存能力。）\n\n然而在本案中，第11章破产重组申请是由 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）以个人名义提起的——并非以企业名义，实质上也非以任何企业的名义提起。随后，Genevers 被追加为共同申请人，但辩护律师不知其原因，且 Genevers 似乎与 HEX（喜马拉雅交易所）没有任何关系。即使追加 Genevers 使其成为实质上的企业共同申请人，该实体似乎也与 HEX 没有任何关联。\n\n因此，即使 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯宾斯）就域外管辖权所作出的敷衍且不置可否的标记，也因过于含糊、刻意不确定且无法定夺而不足以成立。\n\n3 《第11章计划中的股权强制批准要求评估股权价值以满足“公平且公正”标准》，《企业重组评论》（2025年1月15日）。http\n\n对常规没收程序的重大人道主义关切\n\n如果 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的用户被迫参与常规的资产没收程序，这很可能会要求他们向美国政府提交可识别个人身份的信息。这种数据暴露实际上会导致用户遭到“人肉搜索”开盒曝光，而其中许多人是中国共产党（CCP）的异见人士。鉴于这一群体对跨国镇压有着合理的恐惧，这种风险带来了引发人道主义危机的真实可能性。作为以往 CCP 数据泄露事件的共同受害者，我们从 ECF 186-1 第18页的首次提交文件以及脚注10中，就已反复向政府提示了这一担忧：\n\n美国联邦检察官办公室中被指派处理本案的许多检察官和工作人员，可能会对下述署名律师表达的对信息安全的关切产生共鸣，因为我们当中的许多人（下述署名律师作为前司法部雇员）的背景审查档案都曾遭到泄露。[4](#page-7-0) 美国人事管理局数据泄露事件是指2015年针对由 United States Office of Personnel Management（美国人事管理局，简称 OPM）保存的86号标准表格（SF-86）美国政府安全审查记录的数据泄露事件。作为美国历史上最大规模的政府数据泄露事件之一，该袭击是由一个位于中国的高级持续性威胁实体实施的，外界普遍认为该实体是 Jiangsu State Security Department（江苏省国家安全厅），即中国国家安全部情报机构的下属部门。约有2210万条记录受到影响，包括与政府雇员、其他接受过背景审查的人员及其亲友相关的记录。泄露内容包含社会安全号码等个人身份信息，以及姓名、出生日期、出生地点和地址。代表中国政府行事的国家支持的黑客实施了此次袭击。\n\n在本案中，如果政府曾经认为从位于美国境外的数千名脆弱的交易所客户那里获取全部账户信息是一个好主意，并要求喜马拉雅交易所解密并提供给美国政府，这将是一个严重的担忧，因为美国政府在保护此类信息方面的记录极其糟糕。\n\n4 参见维基百科“美国人事管理局数据泄露事件”；《本周向在安全审查泄露事件中数据被盗的2100万人发出最终通知》，《华盛顿邮报》（2015年12月8日）。http\n\n近期 CCP 的黑客攻击动态更是极其鲜明地凸显了这种恐惧：\n\n据透露，Microsoft（微软）曾雇佣常驻中国的工程师，在“数字陪同”模式下为 U.S. Department of Defense（美国国防部，简称 DoD）的云服务提供支持。这一做法遭到了国防部长 Pete Hegseth（皮特·海格塞斯）的谴责，他认为这“显然不可接受”。微软对此作出的回应是禁止中国工程师参与五角大楼的项目。[5](#page-8-0)\n\n该问题不太可能仅限于国防部，因为微软通过其 Azure 平台作为多个美国政府机构的主要云服务提供商，该平台已获得 Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program（联邦风险与授权管理计划，简称 FedRAMP）的授权。“数字陪同”模式是指由持有安全许可的美国公民监督提供技术支持的外国工程师（包括在中国的工程师），该模式旨在满足处理敏感但非机密数据（影响级别4和5）的联邦承包合同要求。近十年前，该模式对于微软获得政府云合同至关重要。鉴于 FedRAMP 适用于整个联邦政府的云服务，从理论上讲，其他机构也可能存在类似的安排，包括依赖于\n\n5 《皮特·海格塞斯下令开展审查以保护国防部云服务免受中国黑客攻击》，ExecutiveGov（2025年7月21日）。http\n\n《微软将停止使用常驻中国的工程师为美军提供技术支持》，TechRadar（2025年7月21日）。\n\nhttp\n\n《一项鲜为人知的微软项目可能使国防部面临中国黑客的威胁》，Propublica（2025年7月15日）。\n\nhttp\n\n微软提供云和 IT 服务的司法部（DoJ）。Propublica 的报道指出，“数字陪同”系统中的陪同人员往往缺乏适当监督外国工程师的技术专长，该系统可能使任何联邦系统面临网络攻击的风险，尤其是来自像中国这样技术高超的行动方。这表明该问题可能会蔓延至其他机构，尽管尚无具体证据证实其在司法部或国防部以外的其他地方被使用。国防部的反应，包括国防部长皮特·海格塞斯对所有五角大楼云合同进行的为期两周的审查，表明其重点在于军事系统，但这也暗示了更广泛的影响。海格塞斯关于“一些科技公司”使用类似模式的表态表明，其他提供商（例如 Amazon Web Services 即亚马逊网络服务，或 Google Cloud 即谷歌云）可能也会面临审查，并可能波及全政府范围的云服务。尽管现有信息并未明确证实司法部在相同的“数字陪同”模式下使用了常驻中国的工程师，但司法部对 Microsoft Azure 云服务的依赖增加了存在类似漏洞的可能性。司法部处理敏感数据，包括执法记录、刑事司法信息以及与国家安全相关的调查，这些数据与国防部的数据类似，均可归类为影响级别4或5的数据。这些系统中的违规漏洞或后门可能会危及我的委托人通过没收程序提供的任何数据。[6](#page-9-0)\n\n在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的庭审中，已有证据证明由中共统治的中华民国（注：原文如此，指中国）开展了一场大规模的全球行动，以压制中共的异见人士和批评者，包括在美国境内的异见人士。参见2024年7月4日 Paul Doran（保罗·多兰）的庭审证词，第5085–5193页；2024年7月3日 Jianhu Yi（易建虎）的庭审证词，第5040–5085页。\n\nhttp\n\n6 《微软与白宫称常驻中国的黑客侵入了美国政府电子邮件账户》，CNN（2023年7月12日）。\n\n这同样也是庭审中第1号双方认同协议书（Stipulation 1）的主题，以下经商定的认同协议书已于2024年5月29日宣读给陪审团：\n\nKAMARAJU 律师：好的。法官阁下，此时辩方希望宣读并将双方之间的一份认同协议书作为证据呈庭。法庭：请继续。KAMARAJU 律师：这是辩方证据认同协议书 DX Stip 0001。内容如下：\n\n“美利坚合众国与被告 Miles Guo（郭文贵）特此通过各自的记录律师达成认同并商定如下：\n\n1. 联邦调查局（FBI）曾对部分个人进行过调查，这些人在中华人民共和国政府（以下简称‘中国政府’）的指示下开展了一场名为‘猎狐行动’的跨国行动，胁迫位于美国及其他地方的个人返回中国以面临中国政府提起的指控，或以其他方式与中国政府达成财务和解。\n\n2. 2017年，一家美国执法机构评估认为，郭文贵先生是中国遣返行动中的最高优先级目标。\n\n3. 2017年，一家美国执法机构收到情报，称中国官员正在向针对郭先生的抗议者付款并提供食物和标语牌。\n\n4. 2018年，一家美国执法机构收到情报，称中国政府已在中国境内成立了一个特别调查组，以统筹中国对郭先生的调查及针对郭先生采取的行动。\n\n5. 为了实现猎狐行动的部分目标，2017年，中国政府指派了一个特别指定的特工行动小组（以下简称‘该小组’），利用交互式计算机\n\n服务和电子通信系统来败坏包括郭先生在内的个人的声誉并对其进行骚扰。该小组设在北京市公安局位于北京市东城区的一处设施内。该小组此前被称为‘网络调查分队’，后被称为9112专案工作组。该小组针对郭先生的策略包括使用由该小组运营的匿名社交媒体账户，以及向美国社交媒体公司施压以将郭先生及郭先生在美国的关联人员从社交媒体平台上移除。这些行动是中国政府更大规模行动的一部分，旨在阻止、扰乱和骚扰郭先生使用社交媒体和其他在线平台传播和讨论不被官方认可的内容。在2018年12月前后，该小组的警官被指示每天用 YouTube 和 Facebook 账户发布三条视频或帖子，其中必须有一条帖子是反对郭先生的内容。2020年2月3日，一名中国政府官员下达了一项任务要求，要求该小组的每位成员都必须撰写一篇原创文章，内容须与针对郭先生、新冠疫情或香港有关。FBI 调查了该小组的活动，包括其针对郭先生的活动，美国政府已对该小组的多名成员以违反美国法律提起指控。\n\n6. 自郭先生逃离中国以来，中国政府一直在寻求将其引渡回中国接受起诉，并采用了多种手段企图抓捕或逮捕郭先生。2017年5月，中国政府向美国派遣了四名来自中华人民共和国国家安全部（MSS）的未申报特工，企图作为‘猎狐行动’计划的一部分，强行将郭先生遣返回中国。美国政府挫败了中国政府强行遣返郭先生的企图，郭先生得以继续居住在美国。\n\n* * *\n\n法庭：准予作为证据采纳。”\n\n此外，中华民国（“中国”，注：原文如此）似乎已在美国境内建立了一个由虚假警察局组成的系统性执法网络，以恐吓和迫害逃离中国共产主义的难民及其他批评人士。\n\n波士顿的案件绝非个例。上个月，司法部起诉了两位纽约居民 Lu Jianwang（卢建旺）和 Chen Jinping（陈金平），罪名是“合谋充当中共公安部（MPS）代理人”，以及通过销毁与公安部通信的证据来妨碍司法公正。这两人在曼哈顿唐人街地区经营着一家公安部秘密警察站，通过恐吓和威胁中国异见人士，协助中共进行跨国镇压。[7](#page-12-0)\n\n披露表明，Microsoft（微软公司）在“数字护送”模式下雇佣位于中国的工程师来支持敏感的美国政府云系统——这一做法被Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth（国防部长皮特·赫格塞斯）谴责为“显然不可接受”——这不仅引发了对五角大楼以及DOJ（司法部）等依赖微软经FedRAMP授权服务的机构令人震惊的网络安全担忧，而且还凸显了CCP（中国共产党）跨国镇压行动所构成的更广泛国家安全威胁，包括“猎狐行动”、隐蔽宣传行动以及在美国领土上针对中国异见人士设立的非法警察站。强迫HEX会员进入在海外稳定币交易所出现之前所设计的没收程序，而这些海外客户仍面临遭受报复的风险，这可能会招致类似的暴露并可能导致灾难性的后果。政府理应考虑GENIUS Act（《天才法案》）的法定要求，使执法既符合法律又符合人道主义原则，并将资金归还\n\n7 Erin Walsh 和 Andrew Harding，“Crack Down on Illegal Chinese Police Stations in the US”，The Hill（2023年5月18日）。http\n\n给HEX，或者至少通过HEX进行归还，在HEX系统中不需要向不安全系统转移会导致人肉搜索（doxxing）的数据，并且可以通过HEX利用其安全的军工级加密系统进行协助，在不发生无意泄露的情况下归还资金。\n\n结论\n\n鉴于法律和行政部门政策的明确变化，再加上可能造成极端损害的潜在风险，要求继续扣押、挥霍申诉人（Petitioners）的资金，或强迫通过人肉搜索程序处理这些资金，没有任何法律或伦理依据。如先前的案卷文件所述，基于管辖权理由，各项没收应当被全面（in toto）撤销。如果《天才法案》未对HEX交易所托管账户中持有的海外资金作出区分——这些账户是通过经过严密法律咨询的架构设计建立的，旨在避免美国政府的管辖权主张——这些资金应立即通过HEX系统归还，该系统不需要披露敏感的财务数据。理想情况下，政府应提出联合动议，接受代表下述署名律师的委托人提交的合并案卷，建立一个在安全环境中向政府提供完全访问权限的清查程序，而无需将数据转移到不安全的政府系统。这\n\n将免受任何行政延误或法律博弈的影响。主张权利人（Claimants）请求法院裁定整个案件在涉及HEX方面缺乏管辖权的动议仍在等待裁决中。\n\n日期：2025年7月28日\n日期：2025年7月28日 谨此提交\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer（布拉德·盖耶） Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n送达证书\n\n我谨在此证明，于2025年7月28日，上述文件的真实准确副本已通过U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的ECF系统以电子方式归档并送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","CCP","Kwok","forfeiture","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Geyer","CIPA","Despins","Luc Despins","Kin Ming Je","Kamaraju","Chinese Communist Party","Yanping Wang","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","MSS"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":4094,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:41:09"}