{"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":"Q1KVGUOC\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\n     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n------------------------------x\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）,\nv.                                 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nMILES GUO（郭文贵）,\nDefendant（被告）.                    Conference（庭商）\n------------------------------x\n纽约州纽约市\n                                                     2026年1月20日\n上午 10:05\n主审法官：\nHON. ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）,\nDistrict Judge（地区法官）\n出庭人员\nJAY CLAYTON（杰伊·克莱顿）\nUnited States Attorney for the\n          Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官）\nRYAN B. FINKEL（瑞安·B·芬克尔）\n     JULIANA N. MURRAY（朱莉安娜·N·默里）\nMICAH F. FERGENSON（米卡·F·弗根森）\n     JUSTIN HORTON（贾斯汀·霍顿）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（联邦助理检察官）\nMELINDA M. SARAFA（梅琳达·M·萨拉法）\n     JOHN F. KALEY（约翰·F·凯利）\nJOSHUA L. DRATEL（约书亚·L·德拉特尔）\n          Attorneys for Defendant（被告辩护律师）\n在场人员：     Tuo Huang（黄拓），Interpreter (Mandarin)（法庭传译员（普通话））\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.（南区速记员公司）\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q1KVGUOC\nTHE COURT（法官）：      早上好。\n我们在此审理 United States v. Miles Guo（美利坚合众国诉郭文贵案）。\n请各位出庭人员登记姓名身份。\nMR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：     法官阁下，早上好。\nRyan Finkel、Juliana Murray、Micah Fergenson 和 Justin Horton 代表政府出庭。\nTHE COURT（法官）：      请传译员登记身份。\nTHE INTERPRETER（传译员）：      法官阁下，早上好。\n联邦法院专业认证资格传译员 Tuo Huang。\nTHE COURT（法官）：      现在请辩护方登记。\nMS. SARAFA（萨拉法女士）：     法官阁下，早上好。\nMelinda Sarafa、John Kaley 和 Joshua Dratel 代表郭文贵出庭。\nTHE COURT（法官）：      请就座。\n许多认为自己是郭先生欺诈计划受害者的人士已要求退还其资金。部分人联系了检方，部分人联系了本法院。显然，对于偿付程序的运作方式存在困惑。\n我将就涉及与本案郭先生非法行为相关的被没收资产的两类权利主张进行说明。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q1KVGUOC\n首先，根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1) 以及 28 C.F.R. § 9，受害者可向检方提交所谓的减免申请（petition for remission）。减免申请是请求政府向被告犯罪行为的受害者返还资产。政府将按照《联邦法规汇编》（Code of Federal Regulations）第 28 篇第 9 部分所载的程序对这些申请进行评估。\n在今年 1 月 9 日致本法院的信函中，政府表示在评估此类申请时，将考虑受害者主张的金钱损失是否由犯罪行为直接引起、该主张是否有书面证据支持，以及受害者是否存在明知而促成、参与、获益于相关事件或对相关事件采取故意义务视而不见（willfully blind）的态度。\n存在第二类权利主张。根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)，如果个人能证明对被没收资产拥有优于政府的合法权利主张，则可寻求返还其资产。权利主张人做到这一点的一种途径是证明截至资产被没收归政府之日，其对该资产拥有优先权属（superior title）。换言之，权利主张人必须证明其在犯罪发生之时对该资产拥有优于被告的合法权利。\n例如，如果被告借用他人的\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q1KVGUOC\n车辆并将其用于实施犯罪，车主或许能够根据 Section 853(n)(6)(A) 成功主张其对该车辆享有优先的合法权益。\n权利主张人符合该标准的另一种途径是证明其为被没收资产中某项权益的善意有偿受让人（bona fide purchaser for value）。换言之，即其在被告实施犯罪行为之后出于善意从被告处购买了被没收资产，但对被告的犯罪活动不知情。\n认为自己拥有此类权利主张的人士可以通过向本法院提交 Section 853(n) 权利主张来寻求追回其资金。然而，我想强调的是，郭先生欺诈计划的受害者在法律上可能被视为普通债权人，因此可能无法根据 Section 853(n) 追回其资金。换言之，Section 853(n) 权利主张与减免申请不可互换通用。\n法院收到的未提及 Section 853(n)、而是被法院认定为减免申请的材料，已移交政府予以审酌。这些材料未录入案卷（docket），也不会录入案卷。\n法院目前正在审理并将大量载明 Section 853(n) 的材料录入案卷。\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q1KVGUOC\n由律师代理的个人已被作为利害关系人添加到案卷中，以便其可直接在案卷上提交材料。没有律师代理的个人未被作为利害关系人添加到案卷中。但法院已收到并正在处理他们的申请，并将在适当时机按需录入案卷。法院可指示对申请进行隐名遮蔽处理或以密封（under seal）方式归档，以保护权利主张人的个人身份信息或其他敏感信息。\n此外，法院还收到了一些提出各类投诉的杂项申请。这些材料目前正逐一接受评估。\n法院召开本次案件进展庭商会议（status conference）与各方讨论这些事项，以加快法院对数量超过 100 份的大量 Section 853(n) 申请的审理。法院还征求了各方对于根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Civil Procedure）第 53 条任命特别主事官（special master）的意见，该规则允许特别主事官履行经各方同意的职责，或处理本地区内现有地区法官或治安法官无法有效且及时处理的审后事项。\n我审阅了政府今年 1 月 9 日的信函以及被告今年 1 月 16 日的信函。各方均建议法院任命一名特别\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q1KVGUOC\n主事官，以协助评估 Section 853(n) 申请，并在必要时协助管理本案的附随程序（ancillary proceedings）。\n特别主事官的报酬受《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 53(g)(2) 条的限制，该条规定：报酬必须由当事人一方或各方支付，或从法院控制下的诉讼标的或基金中支付。\n政府对特别主事官的报酬支付方式有何提议？\nMR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：    法官阁下，政府针对该问题尚无具体方案，但当然会予以考虑并向法院提交信函。\n显而易见，政府非常清楚通过没收所获得的资产，并希望为受害者尽可能多地保留资产。\nTHE COURT（法官）：     政府是否知晓全美范围内有其他法院任命特别主事官处理 Section 853(n) 申请的先例？\nMR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：    就今天站在法庭上的情况而言，法官阁下，我尚不知晓。这并不是说没有发生过。我不知道是否存在。\nTHE COURT（法官）：     希望你们调查一下并向我汇报。\nMR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：    我们会去办。\nTHE COURT（法官）：     辩护方有什么要说的吗？\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q1KVGUOC\nMS. SARAFA（萨拉法女士）：     法官阁下，我认为我们的观点与政府所阐述的非常相似。我们希望看到涉案实体的投资者和客户能够尽可能多地保留并拿回被扣押的资产。而且就今天站在这里而言，我尚未获悉任何关于特别主事官报酬资金来源的判例依据。\nTHE COURT（法官）：      《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 53(b)(1) 条要求在任命特别主事官之前，法院必须给予各方通知和陈述意见的机会；并且任何一方均可建议任命人选。\n因此，各方应在今年 2 月 10 日前进行协商，并共同提交一份信函，推荐根据 Rule 53(b)(1) 担任特别主事官的人选，以及关于报酬条款的建议。当然，信函中还应讨论特别主事官任命的具体职责范围。\n郭先生，传译员刚才翻译的内容你都听懂了吗，对吗？\nTHE DEFENDANT（被告）：     （用英文）是的，法官阁下。\nTHE COURT（法官）：      好的。还有其他事项吗？\nMR. FINKEL（芬克尔先生）：     政府方面没有了。\nTHE COURT（法官）：      好的。休庭。\nMS. SARAFA（萨拉法女士）：     谢谢法官阁下。\n*   *     *\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300","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":"2026-08-23 07:16:25"}