{"id":"court_sdny_735_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":735,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"OPINION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, Plaintiff,","summary_zh":"第三方没收资产权益请愿状 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #735。第三方 Carolyn Sun 依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 主张对被没收资产中 G-club 会员费的权益，并反对由 Himalaya Alliance 领导层及其代理律师组织的债权人索赔，请求隐私保护。","summary_en":"Third-Party Petition for Interest in Forfeited Assets — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #735. Third party Carolyn Sun asserts interest in G-club membership fees as forfeited property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), opposes claims organized by Himalaya Alliance leadership, and requests privacy protection for personal identifying information.","body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, Plaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nMiles Guo, et al. Defendant.\n\nCase No. 23-cr-00118 (AT)\n\n# **PETITION UNDER 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)**\n\n## **I. Background**\n\n- 1. I previously filed a motion asking the Court to clarify the meaning of \"victim\", since I believed I had received fair value for my G-club membership fees. That motion was denied, and I withdrew it, mistakenly thinking I had no standing.\n- 2. I now understand I may file under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) as a third party with an interest in forfeited property. If § 853(n) does not apply, I reserve the right to assert CVRA protections.\n- 3. I do not endorse the prosecution's theory of this case and express no opinion about the Defendant's guilt or innocence.\n\n### **II. Interest in Property**\n\n- 1. I paid \\$20,500 in G-club membership fees, which are among the restrained assets.\n- 2. I claim standing as a bona fide purchaser for value, without knowledge of illegality or forfeiture risk.\n\n## **III. Opposition to Other Claims**\n\n1. I object to two categories of claims:\n\na. Creditor registrations filed in the bankruptcy case of the Defendant, which the Court has already ruled were baseless and an obstruction of justice.\n\nb. Claims organized or promoted by Himalaya Alliance or Himalaya Farm leaders, including those represented by Attorney Greyer. The Court has recognized these leaders as possible co-conspirators of the Defendant.\n\n2. These claims should not dilute the asset pool or affect legitimate petitions.\n\n# **IV. Privacy and Redaction**\n\nI respectfully request permission to redact my living address, phone number, email address and financial information from the public docket. This is consistent with Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 and the Court's authority to protect privacy and safety. See *Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.*, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Because this is a high-profile case with contentious competing claimants, I ask that my contact information be provided only through non-public channels.\n\n### **V. Relief Requested**\n\nPetitioner respectfully asks the Court to:\n\n- 1. Recognize standing under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n);\n- 2. Exclude creditor registrations already deemed baseless and obstruction of justice;\n- 3. Exclude claims organized or promoted by Himalaya Alliance or Farm leaders, including those represented by Attorney Greyer;\n- 4. In the alternative, if § 853(n) does not apply, allow Petitioner to assert rights under the CVRA;\n- 5. Grant the request to redact personal identifying information from public filings; and\n- 6. Provide any further relief the Court finds just.\n\n### **VI. Declaration**\n\nI, Carolyn Sun, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nExecuted on: 09/04/2025\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_16.jpeg)","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）原告：United States of America（美利坚合众国），\n\n诉\n\n被告：Miles Guo（郭文贵）等。\n\n案号：Case No. 23-cr-00118 (AT)\n\n依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提出的请愿书\n\nI. 背景\n\n- 1. 本人此前曾提交动议，请求法院澄清“受害者”的含义，因为我认为本人所缴纳的 G-club 会费已获得了合理的对价价值。该动议被驳回，本人随后撤回了该动议，当时误以为自己没有原告资格。\n- 2. 本人现在明白，本人可以作为对被没收财产享有权益的第三方，依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提出申请。如果 § 853(n) 不适用，本人保留主张 CVRA（《犯罪受害者权利法案》）保护的权利。\n- 3. 本人不认可控方在本案中的指控逻辑，对被告的有罪或无罪不发表意见。\n\nII. 财产权益\n\n- 1. 本人支付了 $20,500 的 G-club 会费，该款项属于被扣押资产的一部分。\n- 2. 本人主张作为不知悉违法行为或没收风险的有对价善意取得人具有主体资格。\n\nIII. 对其他权利主张的异议\n\n1. 本人对以下两类权利主张提出异议：\n\na. 在被告的破产案件中提交的债权人登记，法院此前已裁定该等登记毫无根据且构成妨碍司法公正。\n\nb. 由 Himalaya Alliance（喜马拉雅联盟）或 Himalaya Farm（喜马拉雅农场）负责人组织或推动的权利主张，包括由 Greyer（格雷耶）律师代理的主张。法院已认定这些负责人可能是被告的共谋者。\n\n2. 这些主张不应稀释资产池或影响合法的请愿申请。\n\nIV. 隐私与内容隐匿\n\n本人谨请求允许在公开案卷中隐匿本人的居住地址、电话号码、电子邮件地址和财务信息。这符合 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条）以及法院保护隐私和安全的职权。参见 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)。由于本案属于备受瞩目且竞争性索赔人之间争议激烈的案件，本人请求本人的联系信息仅通过非公开渠道提供。\n\nV. 请求的救济\n\n请愿人谨请求法院：\n\n- 1. 确认依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 具有主体资格；\n- 2. 排除已被认定为毫无根据且妨碍司法公正的债权人登记；\n- 3. 排除由喜马拉雅联盟或农场负责人组织或推动的权利主张，包括由格雷耶律师代理的主张；\n- 4. 作为备选主张，如果 § 853(n) 不适用，允许请愿人主张 CVRA 项下的权利；\n- 5. 准予在公开提交的文件中隐匿个人身份识别信息的请求；以及\n- 6. 提供法院认为公正的任何进一步救济。\n\nVI. 声明\n\n本人 Carolyn Sun（孙卡罗琳），依据美利坚合众国法律，在接受伪证罪处罚的前提下声明，就本人所知所信，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n签署日期：09/04/2025\n\nCarolyn Sun\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_15.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_16.jpeg)","key_entities":["853(n)","Himalaya","Himalaya Alliance","CVRA","Guo","Miles Guo","Je","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":465,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:21:16"}