{"id":"court_sdny_761_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":761,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":"2025-10-22","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":"Himalaya Exchange 投资者代理律师答辩状 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #761（2025年10月22日）。代理数千名 HEX 成员的律师回应个人投资者动议，声称投资者否认被害人身份、其损失源于政府没收而非被告欺诈，并援引新近生效的加密资产法律以质疑没收程序的合法性基础。","summary_en":"Response from counsel for Himalaya Exchange member-claimants — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #761 (filed Oct. 22, 2025). Counsel representing members of HEX responds to individual investor motions, arguing that investors reject victim status, claim their losses result from government seizure rather than defendant fraud, and cite newly enacted crypto legislation challenging the legal basis for forfeiture.","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 **RESPONSE OF 6,512 CLAIMANTS AS MEMBERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE AND THEIR COUNSEL TO INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS**\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## **RESPONSE OF 6,540 CLAIMANTS AS MEMBERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE AND THEIR COUNSEL TO INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS**\n\nCounsel for Petitioners (Claimants), representing approximately 6,512 Himalaya Exchange's investor members, hereby address relevant portions of motions filed by individual investors seeking the return of their funds. These motions, documented in ECF Nos. 733, 734, 738 (supplemented by ECF No. 743), 740, and 744, and informed by Defendant Kwok (Guo)'s disclaimer of any property interest, ownership, or rights in the Himalaya Exchange in ECF No. 710, contain sections that appear coordinated. The Court and the government should carefully consider these motions, including their additional content. While there is no issue with individual claimants collaborating, the coordinated efforts targeting undersigned counsel involve spreading clear falsehoods. A review of the court record would reveal that these statements about counsel are untrue, despite their frequent repetition.\n\nFor Petitioners (Claimants) who are customers of the Himalaya Exchange hereby respond to those portions of motions which are relevant, filed by individual investors seeking the return of their funds. In ECF No. 733, and ECF No. 734 and ECF No. 738 (supplemented by ECF No. 743), and ECF No. 740, and ECF No. 744, all as informed by Defendant Kwok (Guo) disclaiming any property interest in the assets, ownership, or rights in the Himalaya Exchange in ECF No. 710, the motions of individual investors include sections which are almost certainly coordinated, along with other content, should be carefully listened to by the Court and the government. There is of course nothing wrong with individual claimants working together, except that – concerning undersigned counsel's efforts – they are evidently coordinating in spreading obvious falsehoods. Were they referring to the court record, they would know that their statements about this counsel are false, even if often repeated.\n\n#### **I. INNOCENT INVESTORS PASSIONATELY RESIST BEING CALLED VICTIMS**\n\nThe ongoing cryptocurrency-related prosecutions and enforcement actions, despite the President's directives and the recent passage of the \"Genius\" Act by Congress, warrant careful consideration by prosecutors and the Court. Many investors in the Himalaya Exchange (HEX) have expressed frustration at being labeled as victims. A key issue is the government's apparent view that crypto exchanges like HEX were invalid under U.S. law, even when their operations may not have fallen under U.S. jurisdiction. The criminal case against Defendants Kwok (Guo), Je, and Wang rests on the assertion that they defrauded investors, yet many of these investors insist they were not defrauded and reject the victim label. There is no evidence in the record showing that HEX investors suffered losses, except for reputational and financial harm to HEX caused by the government's actions, including what has been described as overreaching into international jurisdictions, such as the British Virgin Islands, and seizing reserve or trust fund\n\nassets supporting the exchange. Prosecutors have not identified specific victims or quantified their alleged losses, which is critical in this context to substantiate fraud claims.\n\nFraud, whether in criminal or civil contexts, requires proof of losses proximately caused by a misrepresentation that a reasonable person would rely upon. Statements by the Defendants about HEX, such as optimistic claims often considered non-actionable \"puffery\" in legal terms, do not constitute fraud, especially since the Defendants are not owners, executives, or in control of HEX or its parent entities. Without evidence of specific losses or reasonable reliance, the fraud allegations lack foundation. Approximately two-thirds of HEX members, now represented by undersigned counsel, align with individual investor motions rejecting victim status. There is consensus among investors that they were not defrauded by Kwok, Je, or Wang, but rather harmed by the U.S. government's actions, which seized their investments. Counsel has consistently argued that the government's seizure of funds—intended to protect investors from alleged fraud—ironically caused the very financial harm it aimed to prevent.\n\nThe government's determination to pursue this case, particularly against Chinese dissidents, raises questions, especially in light of new legislation that may alter the legal framework governing HEX. With no convictions yet finalized, the relevance of the \"Genius\" Act to this case merits attention. The investors' unified rejection of victim status, coupled with the lack of evidence of fraud by the Defendants, calls into question the purpose and beneficiaries of the government's actions. Counsel appreciates the investors' clear stance against being labeled as defrauded, which should prompt careful reflection by the Court and prosecutors. The focus remains on ensuring the return of seized funds to investors, who maintain that their losses stem solely from government intervention.\n\n## **II. NEVERTHELESS, COUNSEL CANNOT REPRESENT THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS**\n\n\"It is confusing at times that those seeking return of seized funds by innocent bystanders do not represent Kwok (Guo), Wang or Je. The criminal defendants have their own attorneys. They have to have different attorneys.\n\nHowever, at the same time, if Kwok, Wang and Je committed no crimes -- at least with regard to HEX -- then any basis for seizing the investors' funds evaporates. The innocent third parties whose funds were seized have a direct, proximate cause, slam-dunk personal interest into whether Kwok, Wang, or Je are convicted falsely and in violation of due process, the rules of evidence, the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and confusion of ambiguity and innuendo. It affects them directly if there never was any crime, which there was not.\n\nBut neither undersigned counsel nor any other lawyer seeking the return of seized funds are legally allowed to act as the defendants' attorney. Counsel may argue all the reasons why his clients should get their money back, but is careful to represent his clients and not intrude into the job of Kwok (Guo)'s legal representation.\n\n#### **III. SPECULATION**\n\nThe complaints directed at undersigned counsel repeatedly criticize both the Bankruptcy Trustee and federal prosecutors while simultaneously promoting unfounded conspiracy theories regarding counsel's conduct. These allegations are not only baseless but also internally inconsistent, undermining the credibility of those advancing them.\n\nFor example, claims that FormerFeds' undersigned counsel's representation was orchestrated by Himalaya Farm Alliance leaders, or that clients were reclassified as \"victims\" without their consent, are entirely false. FormerFeds' client engagements are initiated directly by the clients themselves, are fully documented, and bear no connection to any alleged co-\n\nconspirators. A mere introduction through public channels does not compromise the integrity of the attorney–client relationship. Moreover, these allegations defy logic: counsel has consistently supported the same concerns raised by complainants regarding the Trustee's conduct. If counsel were colluding with the individuals alleged, why would he align himself with the very parties criticizing him and advocate for their interests?\n\nThis contradiction is further illustrated in ECF Docket No. 742, page 8, which states:\n\nI also emphasize once more: this criminal case is by its nature a global RICO conspiracy. At the very time Defendant filed Motion 724, his co-conspirator Zhang Yongbing openly admitted to meeting with him at MDC [Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn]. This, along with other evidence, confirms that the organized criminal activity at the heart of this case has never ceased.\n\nThis claim lacks coherence. A jail visit, standing alone, proves nothing. It is common for friends or associates to visit an incarcerated person, and such a visit reveals nothing about the content of their discussions—whether substantive or mundane. While questions about such interactions may warrant inquiry, they do not constitute evidence of wrongdoing. The statement cited may simply reflect a misstatement or poor phrasing—an occurrence familiar even to undersigned counsel. Unfortunately, many of the complaints against counsel follow this same pattern of speculation and faulty reasoning.\n\nThe structure of representation in this matter further dispels any suggestion of impropriety. The criminal defendants, the Himalaya Exchange, and related business entities are each represented by separate counsel because their interests diverge. Undersigned counsel\n\nrepresents many, but thousands of HEX customers are not his clients. If Defendants Guo, Je, and Yang succeed in overturning their convictions, undersigned counsel's clients may recover their funds, to the extent they have not been dissipated by the Trustee. Similarly, if the Himalaya Exchange itself prevails, all Members—represented and unrepresented alike—could potentially recover funds not lost to government seizure or Trustee expenses. The existence of overlapping yet distinct interests among these parties is both expected and legitimate.\n\nIf the Himalaya Exchange succeeds, Members could potentially recover up to 100% of their investments, assuming no losses from mismanagement. However, if undersigned counsel's clients prevail independently, recovery will depend on their ability to navigate the complex claims process—a process that appears intentionally burdensome, especially for foreignlanguage speakers with limited familiarity with the U.S. legal system, but also because they are fearful regarding the confidentiality of their claims. Many clients may understandably choose to opt out of the standard forfeiture process due to these barriers and concerns, risking that recoverable funds will go unclaimed.\n\nIn multi-party proceedings of this magnitude, it is not unusual for interests to converge and diverge at different stages. Given the complexity of the criminal case and the large number of overseas HEX Members—many of whom are dissidents with limited legal resources undersigned counsel believed that the justice system would benefit from hearing their voices. Counsel's participation has always been motivated by a sincere commitment to ensuring that this vulnerable community was fairly represented and that justice was served.\n\n### **IV. WIDESPREAD FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT**\n\nWhile neither the Court, its personnel, nor an unrelated attorney may provide legal advice\n\nto non-clients, a well-established principle in legal ethics is that it is always appropriate to respond to such inquiries with: \"I think you should consult a U.S.-based attorney about that.\"\n\nOne persistent misunderstanding has undermined the handling of these forfeiture cases from the beginning: non-attorneys unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system have incorrectly assumed that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is a subordinate branch of this U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This error has led to significant missteps, unnecessary complaints cluttering the Court's docket, and irrelevant discussions—all stemming from the misguided notion that this Court can issue orders to the Bankruptcy Trustee or the Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut. To this, counsel can only advise: \"You should speak with a U.S.-based attorney about that.\"\n\nThe undersigned counsel shares the movants' concerns regarding the excessive expenses . The underlying bankruptcy petition is a Chapter 11 reorganization case, which is designed to restructure struggling entities and restore them to viability—even if that requires legal or operational changes to ensure compliance. Under Chapter 11, a qualified trustee could modify the business model to address any defects, remove legal, regulatory, or practical barriers to success, and guide the reorganized entities toward profitability. Creditors with valid claims could then receive payments over an extended timeline, with the potential for full recovery. However, the trustee failed to pursue any such reorganization. Moreover, the Chapter 11 petition improperly lists Ho Wan Kwok as an individual debtor rather than as a business entity.\n\nThat said, repeated efforts to enlist this Court in issuing orders to the bankruptcy trustee\n\nrepresent an inefficient use of judicial resources. Individuals concerned about these apparent\n\nviolations of bankruptcy law must file appropriate motions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the\n\nDistrict of Connecticut, where the proceeding is venued—not here.\n\nDated: October 22, 2025\n\nDated: October 22, 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](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on October 22, 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](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708","body_zh":"美国联邦地区法院 纽约南区（Southern District of New York）\n\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“校长”，\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扣押资金的返还（Restitution of Seized Funds） 刑事案号：23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n6,512 名喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）成员申索人及其律师对个别动议的回应\n\n指派予：美国联邦地区法院法官 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）阁下，主审法官\n\n6,540 名喜马拉雅交易所成员申索人及其律师对个别动议的回应\n\n请愿人（申索人）的代理律师代表喜马拉雅交易所约 6,512 名投资者成员，在此就个别投资者为寻求退还资金而提交的动议中的相关部分作出回应。这些记录于 ECF No. 733、734、738（由 ECF No. 743 补充）、740 和 744 的动议，在获悉被告 Kwok（郭）于 ECF No. 710 中放弃对喜马拉雅交易所的任何财产权益、所有权或权利后提出，其中包含了看似经过协同的内容。法院和政府应当仔细审阅这些动议，包括其补充内容。虽然个别申索人之间进行协作无可厚非，但针对下述签名律师的协同行动却涉及散布显而易见的谎言。查阅法庭记录便会发现，尽管这些针对律师的言论被频繁重复，但均非属实。\n\n作为喜马拉雅交易所客户的请愿人（申索人），在此对个别投资者为寻求退还资金而提交的动议中与之相关的部分作出回应。在 ECF No. 733、ECF No. 734、ECF No. 738（由 ECF No. 743 补充）、ECF No. 740 以及 ECF No. 744 中，在均获悉被告 Kwok（郭）于 ECF No. 710 中放弃对喜马拉雅交易所资产的任何财产权益、所有权或权利的情况下，个别投资者的动议包含了几乎可以确定是经过协同的部分，连同其他内容，均应受到法院和政府的认真倾听。个别申索人共同合作当然没有问题，但关于下述签名律师所作的工作，他们显然是在协同散布显而易见的谎言。如果他们参考法庭记录，就会明白他们关于本律师的言论是虚假的，即便这些言论被屡次重复。\n\nI. 无辜投资者坚决拒绝被称为受害者\n\n尽管存在总统指令以及国会近期通过的《天才法案》（\"Genius\" Act），当前正在进行的与加密货币相关的起诉和执法行动，仍值得检方和法院仔细推敲。喜马拉雅交易所（HEX）的许多投资者对被贴上受害者标签表示沮丧。一个关键问题在于，政府显然认为像 HEX 这样的加密货币交易所根据美国法律是无效的，即使它们的运营可能并不属于美国管辖范围。针对被告 Kwok（郭）、Je 和 Wang 的刑事案件基于他们欺诈了投资者的指控，然而这些投资者中的许多人坚称自己并未受骗，并拒绝接受受害者标签。记录中没有任何证据表明 HEX 投资者遭受了损失，除了政府行动对 HEX 造成的声誉和财务损害——包括被指过度干预英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands）等国际司法管辖区，以及扣押支持该交易所的储备或信托基金资产。检方尚未确定具体受害者或量化其所谓的损失，而这在当前语境下对于证实欺诈指控至关重要。\n\n欺诈——无论是在刑事还是民事语境下——都需要证明存在合理人会信赖的虚假陈述所直接导致的损失。被告关于 HEX 的言论，例如通常在法律层面上被视为不可诉的“吹捧”（puffery）的乐观表述，并不构成欺诈，尤其是鉴于被告并非 HEX 或其母实体的所有者、高管，亦未控制 HEX 或其母实体。在缺乏具体损失或合理信赖的证据的情况下，欺诈指控缺乏依据。目前由下述签名律师代表的约三分之二 HEX 成员，与拒绝受害者身份的个别投资者动议立场一致。投资者一致认为他们没有被 Kwok、Je 或 Wang 欺诈，而是受到了扣押其投资的美国政府行动的损害。律师一直主张，政府旨在保护投资者免受所谓欺诈而采取的资金扣押，讽刺地造成了其原本试图防止的财务损害。\n\n政府执意推进本案，尤其是针对中国异见人士，引发了诸多质疑，特别是在可能改变管辖 HEX 法律框架的新立法出台的背景下。在尚未作出最终定罪的情况下，《天才法案》与本案的相关性值得关注。投资者对受害者身份的一致拒绝，加之缺乏被告实施欺诈的证据，令人质疑政府行动的目的和受益者。律师赞赏投资者拒绝被贴上受骗标签的明确立场，这应当促使法院和检方进行认真反思。重点仍然是确保将扣押资金返还给坚称自身损失完全源于政府干预的投资者。\n\nII. 尽管如此，律师不能代表刑事被告\n\n“有时令人困惑的是，那些为无辜旁观者寻求返还被扣押资金的人并不代表 Kwok（郭）、Wang 或 Je。刑事被告有他们自己的律师。他们必须拥有不同的律师。\n\n然而，与此同时，如果 Kwok、Wang 和 Je 没有犯罪——至少在涉及 HEX 方面——那么扣押投资者资金的任何依据就都不复存在了。资金被扣押的无辜第三方对于 Kwok、Wang 或 Je 是否被错误定罪，以及定罪是否违反了正当程序、证据规则、排除合理怀疑的有罪标准，以及是否混淆了模棱两可与影射，具有直接的、近因性的、板上钉钉的个人切身利益。如果根本从未存在任何犯罪（事实也确实不存在），这将直接影响到他们。\n\n但无论是下述签名律师还是寻求返还扣押资金的任何其他律师，在法律上都不被允许担任被告的辩护律师。律师可以主张其委托人应当拿回钱财的所有理由，但会谨慎代表自己的委托人，而不侵入 Kwok（郭）的法律代理工作。\n\nIII. 揣测\n\n针对下述签名律师的投诉屡次批评破产受托人（Bankruptcy Trustee）和联邦检察官，同时宣扬有关律师行为的毫无根据的阴谋论。这些指控不仅毫无依据，而且自相矛盾，损害了提出指控者的公信力。\n\n例如，关于 FormerFeds 下述签名律师的代理是由喜马拉雅农场联盟（Himalaya Farm Alliance）领导人策划的，或者委托人在未经其同意的情况下被重新归类为“受害者”的说法，完全是不实的。FormerFeds 的客户聘用均由客户本人直接发起，手续完备记录在案，且与任何所谓的共犯毫无关联。仅仅通过公开渠道的引荐并不会损害律师与委托人关系的诚信性。此外，这些指控不合逻辑：律师一直支持投诉人就受托人行为提出的相同关切。如果律师与被指控的个人串通，他为何要与批评他的各方站在一起并维护他们的利益？\n\nECF 案卷第 742 号第 8 页进一步说明了这一矛盾，其中指出：\n\n我还要再次强调：这起刑事案件在本质上是一起跨国 RICO（《反勒索与受贿组织法》）共谋。在被告提交第 724 号动议的同时，其同案共犯 Zhang Yongbing 公开承认在大都会拘留中心（MDC [Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn]）与他会面。这与其他证据一道证实，作为本案核心的组​​织犯罪活动从未停止。\n\n这一指控缺乏连贯逻辑。仅凭一次监狱探视本身证明不了任何事情。朋友或熟人探视被羁押人员是常见现象，而且这种探视根本无法说明他们讨论的内容——无论是实质性的还是琐碎的内容。虽然对此类互动存疑可能值得调查，但它们并不构成违法行为的证据。所引述的陈述可能只是反映了口误或措辞欠佳——即便是下述签名律师对此类情况也不陌生。遗憾的是，针对律师的许多投诉都遵循着同样的揣测和错误推理模式。\n\n本案中的代理结构进一步消除了任何不当行为的嫌疑。刑事被告、喜马拉雅交易所及相关商业实体均由各自独立的律师代表，因为他们的利益存在分歧。下述签名律师代表了许多人，但数千名 HEX 客户并不是他的委托人。如果被告 Guo、Je 和 Yang 成功推翻其定罪，下述签名律师的委托人可能会追回其资金，前提是这些资金尚未被受托人耗尽。同样，如果喜马拉雅交易所本身胜诉，所有成员——无论是否有律师代理——都有可能追回未因政府扣押或受托人费用而损失的资金。这些当事方之间存在重叠但又各异的利益，既在意料之中，也是合法合理的。\n\n如果喜马拉雅交易所胜诉，在假设没有因管理不善造成损失的前提下，成员有可能追回高达 100% 的投资。然而，如果下述签名律师的委托人独立胜诉，追回将取决于他们应对复杂索赔流程的能力——这一流程似乎被刻意复杂化，特别是对于对美国法律体系缺乏了解的外语使用者而言，同时也因为他们对索赔的保密性存有担忧。由于这些障碍和顾虑，许多委托人可能会可以理解地选择退出标准的没收程序，从而面临可追回资金无人认领的风险。\n\n在如此规模的多方诉讼程序中，利益在不同阶段发生汇聚和分歧并不罕见。鉴于刑事案件的复杂性以及大量海外 HEX 成员（其中许多人是法律资源有限的异见人士），下述签名律师认为司法系统将受益于倾听他们的声音。律师的参与始终源于真诚的承诺，即确保这一弱势群体得到公正的代表，并使正义得到伸张。\n\nIV. 对美国破产法院的普遍不理解\n\n虽然法院、法院工作人员或无关律师均不得向非委托人提供法律建议，但法律职业道德中一项公认的原则是，对于此类询问，作出如下回应始终是恰当的：“我认为您应该就此咨询一位常驻美国的律师。”\n\n从一开始就破坏这些没收案件处理的一个持续存在的误解是：不熟悉美国法律体系的非律师人士错误地认为，美国破产法院是本 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）美国联邦地区法院的下属分支机构。这一错误导致了重大失误、塞满法院案卷的不必要控诉以及无关的讨论——所有这些都源于一种错误的观念，即认为本法院可以向破产受托人或位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的破产法院发布命令。对此，律师只能建议：“对此您应该咨询常驻美国的律师。”\n\n下述署名律师同样对动议提出方关于费用过高的担忧表示认同。作为基础的破产申请是一起 Chapter 11（第 11 章）重组案件，其宗旨在于重组陷入困境的实体并恢复其生存能力——即使这需要进行法律或运营层面的调整以确保合规。在第 11 章的框架下，合格的受托人可以修改商业模式以解决任何缺陷，消除法律、监管或实际操作中阻碍成功的障碍，并引导重组后的实体实现盈利。持有有效债权的债权人随后便可在更长的期限内获得款项清偿，并有可能获得全额清偿。然而，受托人未能推进任何此类重组。此外，第 11 章申请不当地将 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）列为个人债务人而非商业实体。\n\n话虽如此，屡次试图促使本法院向破产受托人发布命令的做法构成了对司法效率低下的利用。对这些明显的违反破产法行为表示关切的个人，必须向该程序管辖地所属的 District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区）美国破产法院提交适当的动议——而非在此处提交。\n\n日期：October 22, 2025\n\n日期：October 22, 2025 谨此呈递\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送达证明\n\n我特此证明，于 October 22, 2025，上述文件的真实准确副本已通过纽约南区美国联邦地区法院的 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":["Kwok","Je","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Guo","Geyer","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA","forfeiture","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":710,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":733,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":734,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":738,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":740,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":743,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":744,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":2036,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-10-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-10-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:29:12"}