{"id":"court_sdny_800_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":800,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2026-02-05","title":"Q1KVGUOC 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT","summary_zh":"法庭听证记录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok 等人案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），SDNY 23-CR-118 (AT) ECF #800（2026年2月5日立案）。本件为2026年1月20日状态会议的官方记录，托雷斯（Analisa Torres）法官向控辩双方阐明受害者追索被没收财产的法定程序，区分了向检方提出的没收财产免除申请与向法院提起的第853(n)条确权主张，并说明未引用第853(n)条的申请已直接转交检方处理而不予单独入卷。","summary_en":"Court Hearing Transcript — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al. (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 23-CR-118 (AT), ECF No. 800 (filed February 5, 2026). This official transcript of the January 20, 2026 conference records Judge Analisa Torres clarifying the procedures for claimants seeking reimbursement, distinguishing administrative petitions for remission evaluated by the prosecution from judicial property claims under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), and noting that submissions not citing § 853(n) are referred directly to the government without being placed on the court docket.","body_en":"Q1KVGUOC\n\n1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n2 ------------------------------x\n\n3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n4 v. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n5 MILES GUO,\n\n6 Defendant. Conference\n\n7 ------------------------------x\n\n8 New York, N.Y.\n January 20, 2026\n9 10:05 a.m.\n\n10\n Before:\n11\n HON. ANALISA TORRES,\n12\n District Judge\n13\n\n14 APPEARANCES\n\n15\n JAY CLAYTON\n16 United States Attorney for the\n Southern District of New York\n17 RYAN B. FINKEL\n JULIANA N. MURRAY\n18 MICAH F. FERGENSON\n JUSTIN HORTON\n19 Assistant United States Attorneys\n\n20 MELINDA M. SARAFA\n JOHN F. KALEY\n21 JOSHUA L. DRATEL\n Attorneys for Defendant\n22\n\n23 Also Present: Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n\n24\n\n25\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\n Q1KVGUOC\n\n1 THE COURT: Good morning.\n\n2 we're here in the matter of United States v. Miles\n\n3 Guo.\n\n4 Would you make your appearances, please.\n\n5 MR. FINKEL: Good morning, your Honor.\n\n6 Ryan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Fergenson, and\n\n7 Justin Horton, for the government.\n\n8 THE COURT: Would the interpreter please make their\n\n9 appearance.\n\n10 THE INTERPRETER: Good morning, your Honor.\n\n11 Federal court professionally qualified interpreter Tuo\n\n12 Huang.\n\n13 THE COURT: And now the defense.\n\n14 MS. SARAFA: Good morning, your Honor.\n\n15 Melinda Sarafa, John Kaley, and Joshua Dratel, for\n\n16 Miles Guo.\n\n17 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n\n18 Many individuals who believe they are victims of\n\n19 Mr. Guo's fraudulent scheme have asked for the return of their\n\n20 money. Some have contacted the prosecution and some have\n\n21 contacted the Court. Apparently, there is confusion about how\n\n22 the process of reimbursement works.\n\n23 I'm going to address two types of claims concerning\n\n24 the forfeited assets linked to Mr. Guo's illegal conduct in\n\n25 this case.\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\n Q1KVGUOC\n\n1 First, under 21, United States Code, Section\n\n2 853(i)(1), and 28 Code of Federal Regulations 9, a victim may\n\n3 submit to the prosecution what is known as a petition for\n\n4 remission. A petition for remission asks the government to\n\n5 return assets to the victims of a defendant's crimes. The\n\n6 government will evaluate these petitions following the\n\n7 procedures described in Title 28 of the Code of Federal\n\n8 Regulations, Part 9.\n\n9 In a letter to the Court dated January 9th of this\n\n10 year, the government states that, in evaluating such petitions,\n\n11 it will consider whether a victim alleges a monetary loss that\n\n12 was directly caused by the criminal conduct, whether the\n\n13 allegations are supported by documentary evidence and whether\n\n14 the victim did not knowingly contribute to, participate in,\n\n15 benefit from, or act in a willfully blind manner to the events.\n\n16 There is a second type of claim. Under Title 21,\n\n17 United States Code 853(n), an individual can seek return of\n\n18 their assets if they show a stronger legal claim to the\n\n19 forfeited asset than the government does. One way a claimant\n\n20 can do that is by showing that they have superior title to an\n\n21 asset as of the date the asset was forfeited to the government.\n\n22 In other words, the claimant must show that he or she had a\n\n23 stronger legal right to the asset than the defendant at the\n\n24 time of the criminal offense.\n\n25 For example, if a defendant were to borrow someone's\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\n Q1KVGUOC\n\n1 car, and then use it to commit a crime, the car owner may be\n\n2 able to successfully assert that they have a superior legal\n\n3 interest in the car under Section 853(n)(6)(A).\n\n4 Another way a claimant can meet this standard is by\n\n5 showing that they were a bona fide purchaser for value of an\n\n6 interest in the forfeited asset. In other words, that he or\n\n7 she bought the forfeited asset from the defendant in good faith\n\n8 after his criminal acts, but with no knowledge of his criminal\n\n9 activity.\n\n10 A person who believes that they have such a claim can\n\n11 seek to recover their money by filing a Section 853(n) claim\n\n12 with the Court. However, I want to emphasize that victims of\n\n13 Mr. Guo's fraudulent scheme may be viewed under the law as\n\n14 general creditors and may not, therefore, be able to recover\n\n15 their money under Section 853(n). In other words, Section\n\n16 853(n) claims are not interchangeable with petitions for\n\n17 remission.\n\n18 Submissions received by the Court that do not\n\n19 reference Section 853(n), but which the Court has instead\n\n20 determined to be petitions for remission, have been referred to\n\n21 the government for its consideration. Those submissions have\n\n22 not been placed on the docket and will not be placed on the\n\n23 docket.\n\n24 The Court is in the process of considering and\n\n25 docketing a large volume of submissions which name Section\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\n Q1KVGUOC\n\n1 853(n). Individuals who are represented by attorneys have been\n\n2 added to the docket as interested parties so that they may file\n\n3 their submissions directly on the docket. Individuals who are\n\n4 not represented by attorneys have not been added as interested\n\n5 parties on the docket. But the Court has received and is\n\n6 processing their petitions and will docket them as needed in\n\n7 due course. The Court may direct that the petitions be\n\n8 redacted or filed under seal to protect the claimants'\n\n9 personally identifiable or other sensitive information.\n\n10 In addition, the Court has received miscellaneous\n\n11 petitions making various complaints. Those submissions are\n\n12 being evaluated on an individual basis.\n\n13 The Court has called this status conference to discuss\n\n14 these matters with the parties in order to expedite the Court's\n\n15 consideration of the large volume of Section 853(n) petitions\n\n16 which number over 100. The Court has also asked for the\n\n17 parties' views on the appointment of a special master under\n\n18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, which permits a master to\n\n19 perform duties consented to by the parties or to address\n\n20 post-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely\n\n21 addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge in\n\n22 the district.\n\n23 I've reviewed the government's letter dated January\n\n24 9th and the defendant's letter dated January 16th, both of this\n\n25 year. The parties recommend that the Court appoint a special\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\n Q1KVGUOC\n\n1 master to assist in evaluating Section 853(n) petitions, and in\n\n2 administering ancillary proceedings in this case as needed.\n\n3 Compensation for a special master is limited by\n\n4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(g)(2), which states that:\n\n5 Compensation must be paid either by a party or parties or from\n\n6 a fund or subject matter of the action within the Court's\n\n7 control.\n\n8 How does the government propose that the special\n\n9 master be compensated?\n\n10 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, the government doesn't have a\n\n11 specific proposal with respect to that issue, but can certainly\n\n12 consider it and file a letter with the Court.\n\n13 Obviously the government is mindful of the assets that\n\n14 it has acquired through forfeiture and wants to retain as much\n\n15 as possible for victims.\n\n16 THE COURT: Is the government aware of other courts\n\n17 nationally where a special master has been appointed to handle\n\n18 Section 853(n) petitions?\n\n19 MR. FINKEL: Standing here today, your Honor, I am\n\n20 not. That's not to say that it hasn't happened. I don't know\n\n21 if it has.\n\n22 THE COURT: I'd like you to look into that and report\n\n23 back to me.\n\n24 MR. FINKEL: We will do that.\n\n25 THE COURT: Is there anything from the defense?\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300\n\n Q1KVGUOC\n\n1 MS. SARAFA: Your Honor, I think our view is very\n\n2 similar to that articulated by the government. We would like\n\n3 to see as much of the seized assets preserved and returned to\n\n4 the investors and customers of the entities involved in this\n\n5 case. And I'm not aware of any authority, standing here today,\n\n6 regarding sources of funds for compensation of a special\n\n7 master.\n\n8 THE COURT: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(1)\n\n9 requires that prior to appointing a special master, the Court\n\n10 must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard;\n\n11 and that any party may suggest candidates for appointment.\n\n12 Therefore, by February 10th of this year, the parties\n\n13 shall confer and jointly file a letter recommending candidates\n\n14 to serve as special master under Rule 53(b)(1), and a\n\n15 recommendation as to the terms of compensation. Of course, the\n\n16 letter should also discuss the specific scope of the special\n\n17 master's appointment.\n\n18 Mr. Guo, you've been understanding what the\n\n19 interpreter has said; correct?\n\n20 THE DEFENDANT: (In English) Yes, your Honor.\n\n21 THE COURT: All righty. Is there anything further?\n\n22 MR. FINKEL: Not from the government.\n\n23 THE COURT: All righty. The matter is adjourned.\n\n24 MS. SARAFA: Thank you, your Honor.\n\n25 * * *\n\n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n (212) 805-0300","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["853(n)","Finkel","Guo","Sarafa","Miles Guo","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Dratel","Kaley","Torres","Analisa Torres","853(i)","CIPA","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1547,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-02-05 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-02-05","updated_at":"2026-08-17 09:56:30"}