{"id":"court_sdny_733_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":733,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America,","summary_zh":"被害人动议（CVRA）——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #733。自称案件被害人的请愿人 Ryan Bai 依《犯罪被害人权利法》18 U.S.C. § 3771 及联邦民诉规则 60(d)(3) 提出动议，指控检方隐匿有利于被告的 Brady 证据、纵容存疑债权人参与没收程序，要求法院撤销相关没收令、将其投资排除在外，并对检方与破产受托人 Luc Despins 提出资格异议。","summary_en":"Crime-victim motion — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF #733. Self-identified victim Ryan Bai moves under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3), alleging the prosecution withheld Brady evidence and allowed disputed creditors into the forfeiture process, and asks the court to vacate the forfeiture orders, exclude his investments, and disqualify the prosecution team and bankruptcy trustee Luc Despins.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America,**\n\n**v.**\n\n**Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a Miles Guo, et al., Defendants.**\n\n## **Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT VICTIM'S MOTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT) AND FED. R. CIV. P. 60(d)(3)**\n\n(To Vacate Fraudulent Forfeiture Orders or Appoint Independent Receiver, Disqualify Government and Trustee, Compel Docketing)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nI, Ryan Bai , a victim of the alleged crimes in this case, respectfully invoke my rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, which guarantees victims the right to be heard, the right to restitution, and the right to proceedings free from fraud and unreasonable delay. I invested a total of \\$23,000 in entities tied to the alleged fraudulent activities in this case, specifically: \\$10,000 in GClub, \\$5,000 in Himalaya Exchange, \\$5,000 in A10, and \\$3,000 in the farm loan program (evidence attached in Exhibit\\_B.pdf). These investments establish my status as a victim with a direct interest in the forfeiture and restitution proceedings. I acknowledge the Court's diligence in managing this complex case and appreciate the efforts of the prosecution and bankruptcy trustee, Luc A. Despins. However, recent evidence, including Document 729 (1:23-cr-00118) and a widely circulated public report (attached as Exhibit\\_A.pdf), reveals serious procedural violations and fraud upon the court that undermine the integrity of the forfeiture process and violate my statutory rights. The key allegations of the attached report and how they impact myself (All videos mentioned below are linked in the report attached as Exhibit\\_A.):\n\n- The prosecution withheld Brady evidence favorable to the Defendant, harming victims' interests by allowing disqualified creditors.\n- The prosecution failed to disclose the Defendant's live broadcasts on January 10 and 11 in 2023, where he warned that creditors such as Gongzu and Julia had problematic claims, yet the Trustee not only disregarded this but continued to accept these problematic creditors. Over two years, the prosecution failed to investigate, allowing Luc to represent illegal creditors in the criminal case, until a June hearing where Luc informed Judge Manning of plans to reduce \\$32 billion in illegal claims.\n- The prosecution, in documents 7, 26, and 192, alleges that the defendant's Gettr post on January 11, 2023 encouraged creditors to file false claims, thereby inflating the trustee's legal fees and interfering with the bankruptcy proceedings. The prosecution also alleges that the defendant's video on January 23 similarly aimed\n\nto inflate the trustee's legal fees and disrupt the bankruptcy proceedings. However, the prosecution not only failed to provide the link of full content of the January 23, 2023 video but also did not clarify whether they reviewed the video. The prosecution failed to fulfill its reasonable duty to investigate and did not provide Brady evidence.\n\n- Cross Undermining Effect and Repetitive Omission in document 7, 26, 192**:** On January 11, the government ignored the Defendant's broadcasts naming Gongzu as a problematic creditor; on January 23, it ignored the Defendant's explanation that Luc's acceptance of Gongzu opened the door to all investors. Though from different sources, both omissions concern the same theme, showing a pattern of repeated Brady violations. Moreover, ignoring the evidence from January 10 and 11 not only undermines the prosecution's allegations regarding the January 11 Gettr link but also weakens the prosecution's allegations regarding January 23. Similarly, ignoring the Brady video evidence from January 23 has the same effect. **The prosecution's violations regarding creditor-related issues exhibit cross-undermining and repetitive characteristics, serving as the most direct evidence of the prosecution harming victims by turning a blind eye to illegal creditors**.\n- The prosecution failed to disclose critical context from the January 23, 2023 video, in which the defendant explained that, because the Chapter 11 Trustee, Luc A. Despins, accepted claims from entities such as Gongzu and Julia, all investors in the G-series could lawfully register as creditors. Given the large number of Gseries investors, this would reasonably result in increased administrative costs, including the trustee's attorney fees, a point the prosecution omitted to support its selective allegations of interference with the bankruptcy proceedings.\n- Trustee Luc only notified Judge Manning of the intent to reduce \\$32 billion in illegal claims but failed to inform Judge Torres in the criminal court, and the prosecution further neglected its Brady investigation obligations to disclose the illegality of numerous creditors, **failing to advocate for the interests of victims like myself.**\n- Over the past two and a half years, the prosecution has taken no action against Luc. Instead, despite the severe issues with Luc's creditors, they have remained indifferent, allowing Luc to represent illegal creditors in the criminal case's asset forfeiture. The report points out that this constitutes **collaborative misconduct.**\n- The report indicates that evidence related to creditors, heavily tainted by the prosecution, was submitted to the following judges, deceiving and misleading them in their decisions on the defendant's bail: Document 7: Judge Parker, Documents 26, 192: Judge Torres, Document 87: Second Circuit judges. Additionally, the prosecution overstepped its authority by using Bankruptcy Court Motion 1345, which was not approved by Judge Manning of the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, to wrongly accuse the defendant of \"encouraging creditor registration\" as a violation of the injunction, posing a risk to Judge Manning's bankruptcy court orders. The report indicates the impact is **systemic and cross-jurisdictional.**\n\nIn summary, the report highlights that, during the defendant's bail-related proceedings, the prosecution extensively concealed Brady evidence favorable to the defendant concerning creditors, engaged in selective accusations and evidence presentation, withheld evidence, and failed to fulfill its investigation obligations. **For two years, the prosecution failed to verify or correct creditor issues with Luc, resulting in severe harm to the rights of victims like myself. The report identifies the prosecution's misconduct as systemic and cross-jurisdictional, with numerous false evidence submissions affecting Judge Parker once, Judge Torres twice, and the Second Circuit judges once, while also posing a risk to Judge Manning's court orders. The report concludes that this constitutes prosecution fraud upon the court.**\n\nPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771, I assert my statutory rights to intervene in these proceedings to protect my interests as a victim. The CVRA mandates that victims have: (1) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of public court proceedings; (3) the right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, or forfeiture; (4) the right to confer with the government's attorney; (5) the right to full and timely restitution; and (6) the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and fraud. The documented misconduct violates these protections, particularly the right to a fair restitution and forfeiture process. I invoke these rights to challenge the fraudulent forfeiture orders and to seek equitable relief.\n\nBecause fraud upon the court has tainted forfeiture from the outset, the relief requested is not discretionary but mandatory. The Court cannot permit forfeiture orders procured through fraud to stand. Accordingly, I respectfully request that this Court:\n\n- a. Exclude my investments, totaling \\$23,000 (\\$10,000 in GClub, \\$5,000 in Himalaya Exchange, \\$5,000 in A10, and \\$3,000 in the farm loan program), from the forfeiture proceedings to protect my rights as a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3771;\n- b. **Declare void and null all forfeiture orders and proceedings premised upon fraudulent creditor claims**, procedurally defective bankruptcy determinations, or fraud upon the court, **pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)**. No forfeiture proceedings should continue unless and until the underlying conviction is lawfully sustained. In the alternative, if the Court determines that forfeiture may proceed despite these allegations, I respectfully request the appointment of an independent Receiver or Special Master to ensure neutrality and protect victims' rights. This alternative request is not a concession that forfeiture may lawfully proceed under fraud but serves as a protective measure for victims if the Court declines to vacate the forfeiture orders.\n- c. **Disqualify the United States prosecution team and Trustee Luc A. Despins from further participation in forfeiture or asset distribution, due to fraud upon the court and loss of neutrality;**\n- d. Enjoin the prosecution and Mr. Despins from handling seized assets pending appointment of a neutral custodian;\n- e. Compel docketing of this motion and its exhibits to ensure transparency, consistent with the Court's constitutional duty and the public's right of access to judicial records;\n- f. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, grant the request to file a redacted version of this motion and its Exhibit\\_B on the public docket, with personal identifying information (such as addresses, phone numbers, and account numbers) removed, while maintaining the unredacted version under seal on the Clerk's docket for the Court's full consideration.\n- g. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nI expressly reserve all rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) to seek review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit via a petition for mandamus should this Court decline to docket or rule on this motion. Non-docketing or refusal to adjudicate effectively denies my CVRA rights, including the right to be heard and to restitution. I further reserve the right to pursue any additional remedies available under law.\n\n**DECLARATION** Under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare that this petition is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as harassment or delay, and that the factual contentions herein have evidentiary support or will likely have such support after reasonable investigation. The information provided in support of this petition is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n![](_page_3_Figure_9.jpeg)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\nUnited States of America（美利坚合众国）,\n\nv.（诉）\n\nHo Wan Kwok, a/k/a Miles Guo（郭文贵，又名 Miles Guo）等人，被告。\n\n案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n受害人依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771（《犯罪受害人权利法》）及《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60(d)(3) 条提出的动议\n\n（请求撤销欺诈性没收裁定或指定独立接管人、取消政府及受托人资格、强制登记入卷）\n\n尊敬的 Torres（托雷斯）法官：\n\n我，Ryan Bai（白睿安），作为本案指控罪行的受害人，恭敬地援引 18 U.S.C. § 3771《犯罪受害人权利法》（CVRA）项下赋予我的权利。该法保障受害人获得陈述意见的权利、获得赔偿的权利，以及享有不受欺诈和不合理拖延的诉讼程序的权利。我向与本案指控的欺诈活动相关的实体共计投资了 $23,000，具体包括：GClub（G俱乐部）$10,000、Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）$5,000、A10 $5,000，以及农场贷款项目 $3,000（证据附于 Exhibit_B.pdf）。这些投资确立了我作为在没收和赔偿程序中享有直接利害关系的受害人地位。我认可法院在审理这一复杂案件中的勤勉，并感谢检方及破产受托人 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）所付出的努力。然而，包括文件 729（1:23-cr-00118）以及一份广泛流传的公开报告（附于 Exhibit_A.pdf）在内的最新证据表明，存在严重的程序违法和欺诈法庭行为，破坏了没收程序的公正性，并侵犯了我的法定权利。所附报告的核心指控及其对我本人的影响如下（下文提及的所有视频均链接于作为 Exhibit_A 附上的报告中）：\n\n- 检方隐匿了对被告有利的 Brady（布雷迪）证据，通过允许不合格的债权人参与，损害了受害人的利益。\n\n- 检方未能披露被告在 2023 年 1 月 10 日和 11 日的直播内容，被告在直播中警告称 Gongzu（阿公）和 Julia（朱莉娅）等债权人的债权存在问题，然而受托人不仅对此不予理会，反而继续接纳这些有问题的债权人。在长达两年的时间里，检方未进行调查，放任 Luc 在刑事案件中代表非法债权人，直至 6 月的一次听证会上，Luc 向 Manning（曼宁）法官告知了削减 $32 billion（320亿美元）非法债权的计划。\n\n- 检方在文件 7、26 和 192 中指控被告于 2023 年 1 月 11 日发布的 Gettr（盖特）帖子鼓励债权人提交虚假债权申请，从而虚增了受托人的律师费并干扰了破产程序。检方还指控被告于 1 月 23 日发布的视频同样意在虚增受托人的律师费并扰乱破产程序。然而，检方不仅未能提供 2023 年 1 月 23 日视频的完整内容链接，也未说明其是否审查过该视频。检方未能履行其合理的调查职责，未提供 Brady 证据。\n\n- 文件 7、26、192 中的交叉削弱效应与重复遗漏：1 月 11 日，政府忽视了被告点名 Gongzu 为问题债权人的直播；1 月 23 日，政府忽视了被告关于 Luc 接纳 Gongzu 便为所有投资者打开了大门的解释。虽然来自不同渠道，但两处遗漏均关乎同一主题，展现出反复违反 Brady 规则的模式。此外，忽视 1 月 10 日和 11 日的证据，不仅削弱了检方关于 1 月 11 日 Gettr 链接的指控，也削弱了检方关于 1 月 23 日的指控。同样，忽视 1 月 23 日的 Brady 视频证据也具有相同的效果。检方在债权人相关问题上的违规行为表现出交叉削弱和重复的特征，是检方对非法债权人视而不见、从而损害受害人利益的最直接证据。\n\n- 检方未能披露 2023 年 1 月 23 日视频中的关键背景信息，被告在视频中解释称，由于第 11 章破产受托人 Luc A. Despins 接纳了来自 Gongzu 和 Julia 等实体的债权，G 系列的所有投资者均可依法登记为债权人。鉴于 G 系列投资者人数众多，这合理地会导致管理成本（包括受托人的律师费）增加，检方省略了这一点，以支持其关于干扰破产程序的目的性指控。\n\n- 受托人 Luc 仅向 Manning 法官通报了削减 $32 billion 非法债权的意向，却未向刑事法院的 Torres 法官通报，检方更进一步怠于履行其 Brady 调查义务去披露众多债权人的非法性，未能为像我这样的受害人的利益进行主张。\n\n- 在过去的两年半里，检方未对 Luc 采取任何行动。相反，尽管 Luc 的债权人存在严重问题，他们仍漠不关心，放任 Luc 在刑事案件的资产没收中代表非法债权人。报告指出，这构成了协同不当行为。\n\n- 报告指出，被检方严重污染的债权人相关证据被提交给了以下法官，在他们对被告保释做出决定时对其进行了欺骗和误导：文件 7 提交给 Parker（帕克）法官，文件 26、192 提交给 Torres 法官，文件 87 提交给第二巡回法院法官。此外，检方利用未获得 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）破产法院 Manning 法官批准的破产法院动议 1345，错误指控被告“鼓励债权人登记”违反禁令，从而越权行事，对 Manning 法官的破产法院命令构成了威胁。报告指出，该影响具有系统性和跨司法管辖区的特征。\n\n总而言之，报告强调，在被告保释相关的诉讼程序中，检方大量隐匿了关于债权人的对被告有利的 Brady 证据，进行选择性指控和证据开示，扣押证据，且未能履行其调查义务。两年来，检方未能向 Luc 核实或纠正债权人问题，导致像我这样的受害人的权利受到严重损害。报告认定检方的不当行为具有系统性和跨司法管辖区性，多次提交虚假证据的行为影响了 Parker 法官一次、Torres 法官两次、第二巡回法院法官一次，同时也对 Manning 法官的法院命令构成了威胁。报告的结论是，这构成了检方对法庭的欺诈。\n\n依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771，我主张我介入这些诉讼程序的法定权利，以保护我作为受害人的利益。CVRA 规定受害人享有：(1) 受到合理保护免遭被告人侵害的权利；(2) 获得合理、准确且及时的公开法庭审理通知的权利；(3) 在涉及释放、认罪答辩、量刑或没收的程序中获得陈述意见的权利；(4) 与政府检察官进行磋商的权利；(5) 获得全额且及时赔偿的权利；以及 (6) 享有不受不合理拖延和欺诈的诉讼程序的权利。记录在案的不当行为违反了这些保护条款，特别是获得公正赔偿和没收程序的权利。我援引这些权利，对欺诈性的没收裁定提出异议，并寻求衡平法上的救济。\n\n鉴于对法庭的欺诈自始就污染了没收程序，所请求的救济并非自由裁量性的，而是强制性的。法院绝不能允许通过欺诈手段获取的没收裁定继续有效。因此，我谨请求本法院：\n\n- a. 将我的投资共计 $23,000（包括 GClub 中的 $10,000、Himalaya Exchange 中的 $5,000、A10 中的 $5,000，以及农场贷款项目中的 $3,000）排除在没收程序之外，以保护我依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771 作为受害人所享有的权利；\n\n- b. 依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 60(d)(3) 条，宣告所有基于欺诈性债权人主张、存在程序缺陷的破产认定或对法庭的欺诈行为而作出的没收裁定及程序无效且作废。除非且直至作为基础的有罪判决在法律上得以维持，否则不得继续进行任何没收程序。或者，若法院认定尽管存在这些指控，没收程序仍可继续进行，我谨请求指定一名独立的接管人或专门主事官，以确保中立性并保护受害人的权利。该备选请求并不意味着承认没收程序可以在存在欺诈的情况下合法进行，而是在法院拒绝撤销没收裁定时作为对受害人的一项保护性措施。\n\n- c. 鉴于存在对法庭的欺诈及丧失中立性，取消美国检方团队和受托人 Luc A. Despins 进一步参与没收或资产分配的资格；\n\n- d. 在指定中立托管人之前，禁止检方和 Despins 先生处置被扣押的资产；\n\n- e. 强制将本动议及其附件登记入卷，以确保透明度，这符合法院的宪法义务和公众查阅司法记录的权利；\n\n- f. 依据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条及《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 5.2 条，准许在公开案卷中提交本动议及其 Exhibit_B 的涂发版本（隐去地址、电话号码和账号等个人身份信息），同时将未经涂发的版本在书记官案卷中予以密封保存，以供法院全面审议。\n\n- g. 准予法院认为公正且适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n我明确保留依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) 的所有权利，即若本法院拒绝将本动议登记入卷或作出裁决，我保留通过人身保护令/调卷令申请向 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）寻求复审的权利。不予入卷或拒绝裁决实际上剥夺了我依据 CVRA 所享有的权利，包括获得陈述意见的权利和获得赔偿的权利。我进一步保留寻求法律项下可用的任何额外补救措施的权利。\n\n声明：在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下，依据 28 U.S.C. § 1746，我声明本申请并非出于任何不当目的（如骚扰或拖延）而提出，且此处的各项事实主张均有证据支持，或在经过合理调查后很可能获得此类支持。据我所知所信，为支持本申请所提供的信息均真实、准确且完整。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n[签名图像]","key_entities":["forfeiture","Brady","Despins","Torres","CVRA","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Farm Loan","GETTR","Crime Victim","Guo","Kwok","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":7,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":87,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":729,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1605,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:27:32"}