{"id":"court_sdny_744_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":744,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"RESPONSE","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, v.","summary_zh":"回应 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #744。第三方申请人 Ryan Bai 回应指控其为网络人格「Ruien Xiaoge」的指控，主张基于对 G Club、Himalaya Exchange、A10 和 Farm Loan Program 的投资获得受害人身份，反驳身份指控为骚扰受害人行为，并请求法院调查指控者动机、禁止共谋者自诉出庭，并暂停没收程序待虚假陈述问题解决。","summary_en":"Response — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #744. Third-party claimant Ryan Bai responds to allegations that he is an online persona \"Ruien Xiaoge\"; asserts victim status; characterizes identity-based attacks as bad-faith and potentially violating victim protection statutes; requests the court disregard such allegations, investigate the filers' motives and possible alignment with defendant's interests, prevent co-conspirators from appearing pro se, and stay forfeiture proceedings pending resolution of fraud allegations.","body_en":"## **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, v.**\n\n## **Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a Miles Guo, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT**\n\n## **Emergency Response: Ryan Bai's Response to ECF No. 739, 742 And Miscellaneous Relief**\n\nI, Ryan Bai, respectfully submit this Response to address allegations raised in ECF No. 739, 742 filed on September 10, 2025, which speculates without evidence that I am an internet persona known as \"Ruien Xiaoge\" and further suggests that recent third-party motions are the product of coordinated online activity.\n\nThese claims are baseless and irrelevant. Courts adjudicate on facts and law, not on internet rumor or conjecture. My standing rests on documented investments totaling \\$23,000 in G Club, Himalaya Exchange, A10, and the Farm Loan Program — which establish my victim status under 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Whether I am called Ryan Bai, John Doe, or any other name is immaterial; the fact of my financial injury is uncontroverted.\n\nThese identity-based attacks serve no legitimate purpose. Instead, they are transparent attempts to distract this Court from the real issue — documented fraud upon the court by the prosecution and the Trustee. By resorting to rumor-mongering rather than addressing the substance of the fraud allegations, the opposing filer effectively underscores their gravity. Efforts to delegitimize me through irrelevant speculation do not weaken the fraud claims; they aggravate them, amplifying the appearance that fraud is now being actively shielded.\n\n**Moreover, the assertion in ECF No. 739, that I am not an \"independent victim\" , raises a troubling implication. If this logic holds, it could suggest that all individuals in similar circumstances — potentially thousands of claimed victims — are also not independent, thereby labeling them as Guo Wengui's supporters and negating the legitimacy of any victim. Such an absurd conclusion lacks factual support and appears to be a contrived attempt to overturn Guo's case. This unreasonable reasoning casts doubt on the filer's motives, suggesting possible alignment with Guo's interests, which warrants further judicial scrutiny.**\n\n**More ridiculously, in ECF NO. 742 page 4, the petitioner accused me, Ryan Bai, is the same person as Ryan Xiaoge, claiming my goal is to overturn Guo's case. I firmly reject these baseless accusations in this filing. First, there is no evidence to**\n\n**support the claim that Ryan Bai is any online persona. Second, like Document 739, this motion suggests that as a victim, I seek to overturn Guo Wengui's case. If this logic holds, then the thousands of others who invested in Guo's schemes, sharing my circumstances, could also be accused of the same motive. This absurd intent is clearly designed to taint the entire victim list, covertly interfering with judicial proceedings. In truth, it is the filer who aims to overturn Guo's conviction through this tactic.**\n\n**I consider such conduct to border on victim intimidation, potentially under 18 U.S.C. § 1512, as it seeks to silence me as a victim or deter my exposure of prosecutorial misconduct through baseless personal attacks. This compounds the fraud already before the Court.**\n\nFor these reasons, I respectfully request\n\n1: The Court disregards the identity-based allegations as immaterial and recognizes them for what they are: a bad-faith attempt to suppress legitimate fraud-on-the-court claims. If the Court were to entertain such rumor-mongering, it would risk becoming complicit in the very fraud I have alleged.\n\n2: Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1, file the attached public version of this motion on the public docket, omitting additional personal identifying information beyond that previously disclosed, and maintain the signed version under seal in the court record for full consideration.\n\n3: Investigate the filers and motives behind ECF Nos. 739 and 742 both submitted on September 10, 2025, to determine if they align with or inadvertently support the defendant's interests in **interfering with judicial proceedings**. At the same time, review subsequent court filings to ensure that the **defendant's suspected co-conspirators are not allowed to appear** *pro se* **in court filings.**\n\n4: **I respectfully reiterate the relief I sought in ECF No. 733. Given that multiple filings have revealed fraud upon the court in the underlying proceedings, any forfeiture process built on such a foundation exposes victims to heightened risk with each additional day it continues. Extending the forfeiture proceedings even by one day therefore compounds that risk. If the Court finds that declaring the forfeiture orders void and null ab initio is too drastic at this stage, I respectfully request, in the alternative, that the forfeiture proceedings be stayed pending resolution of the disputes concerning the alleged fraud. Once those issues are resolved, the forfeiture process may then be reopened, if appropriate.**\n\nRespectfully submitted, Ryan Bai Date: September 10, 2025","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）美利坚合众国 诉\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵），又名 Miles Guo，等人，被告。案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n紧急答复：Ryan Bai 对 ECF No. 739、742 的答复及其他救济请求\n\n我，Ryan Bai，谨此提交本答复，以回应于 2025年9月10日 提交的 ECF No. 739 和 742 中提出的指控。该等文件毫无根据地推测我是在网络上被称为“Ruien Xiaoge（瑞恩小哥）”的网络人物，并进一步暗示近期由第三方提出的动议是协同网络行动的产物。\n\n这些主张毫无根据且无关紧要。法院是基于事实和法律进行裁决，而非基于网络谣言或推测。我的当事人诉讼资格建立在对 G Club、Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）、A10 以及 Farm Loan Program（农场贷款项目）总额为 $23,000 的有据可查的投资之上——这些确立了我根据 18 U.S.C. § 3771 所享有的受害者地位。我被称为 Ryan Bai、John Doe（无名氏）还是其他任何名字都无关紧要；我遭受经济损害的事实是不容争辩的。\n\n这些针对身份的攻击不具有任何合法目的。相反，它们是企图转移本法院对真正问题注意力的明显手段——即检方和 Trustee（受托人）向法庭实施的有据可查的欺诈行为。相对方提交人选择诉诸造谣而非应对欺诈指控的实质内容，实际上凸显了这些指控的严重性。企图通过无关的推测来削弱我的合法地位并不会削弱欺诈主张；相反会使之加重，加剧了欺诈目前正受到主动包庇的迹象。\n\n此外，ECF No. 739 中关于我不是“独立受害者”的断言，引出了一种令人不安的推论。如果这种逻辑成立，可能意味着所有处于类似境况的人——潜在的数千名据称受害者——也都是不独立的，从而将他们贴上郭文贵支持者的标签并剥夺任何受害者的合法资格。如此荒谬的结论缺乏事实依据，且看似是一种企图推翻郭案的生搬硬造之举。这种不合理的推理令人生疑该提交人的动机，表明其可能与郭的利益一致，这值得法院进一步审查。\n\n更荒谬的是，在 ECF NO. 742 第 4 页中，申请人指控我，Ryan Bai，与 Ryan Xiaoge 是同一个人，声称我的目标是推翻郭案。我在这份文件中坚决驳斥这些毫无根据的指控。首先，没有任何证据支持 Ryan Bai 是任何网络人物的主张。其次，与文件 739 一样，该动议暗示作为一名受害者的我意图推翻郭文贵的案件。如果这种逻辑成立，那么其他数千名投资于郭的计划、与我境况相同的人，也可能被指控具有相同的动机。这种荒谬的意图显然是为了抹黑整个受害者名单，暗中干预司法程序。事实上，企图通过此种策略推翻郭之定罪的正是该提交人。\n\n我认为此类行为已近乎构成受害者恐吓，可能触犯 18 U.S.C. § 1512，因为其企图通过毫无根据的人身攻击让我作为受害者噤声，或阻止我揭露检方的渎职行为。这使得本法院所面临的欺诈问题进一步加剧。\n\n基于这些理由，我谨请求：\n\n1：法院将基于身份的指控视为无关紧要而不予理会，并认清其本质：即出于恶意企图压制关于向法庭实施欺诈的合法主张。如果法院采信此类造谣行为，恐有沦为我所指控的欺诈同谋的风险。\n\n2：根据 Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 49.1 条），将本动议所附的公开版本录入公开案卷，隐去除此前已披露信息之外的其他个人身份识别信息，并将签署版本在法院记录中予以密封保存以供全面审酌。\n\n3：对均于 2025年9月10日 提交的 ECF Nos. 739 和 742 的提交人及其动机展开调查，以查明他们是否在干预司法程序方面与被告的利益一致或在无意中支持了被告的利益。同时，审查后续向法院提交的文件，以确保被告的可疑共犯不被允许在法院文件中 pro se（亲自代表自己/无律师代理）出庭。\n\n4：我谨重申我在 ECF No. 733 中所请求的救济。鉴于多份提交文件已揭示基础诉讼程序中存在向法庭实施欺诈的行为，建立在此类基础之上的任何没收程序，其持续的每一天都会使受害者面临更高的风险。因此，将没收程序哪怕延长一天，也会加剧这种风险。若法院认为在现阶段宣布没收命令 ab initio（自始）无效并作废过于严厉，我谨退一步请求，在涉及涉嫌欺诈的争议解决之前，中止没收程序。一旦这些问题得到解决，在适当情况下可再重新启动没收程序。\n\n谨此提交，Ryan Bai 日期：2025年9月10日","key_entities":["Guo","forfeiture","Je","Kwok","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Farm Loan","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":733,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":739,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":742,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":779,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:23:22"}