{"id":"court_sdny_802_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":802,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"FORFEITURE","filed_date":"2026-02-10","title":"U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney","summary_zh":"检辩联合信函 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok 等人案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），SDNY 23-CR-118 (AT) ECF #802（2026年2月10日立案）。检方与辩方就法院提议委任特别主事一事提交联合回应，双方一致认为由于缺乏经费来源（不得动用没收资产或司法部没收资产基金），委任私人特别主事不具可行性，建议法院将案卷中约134起及直接送交检方的约238起第853(n)条财产主张转交联邦助理法官（Magistrate Judge）进行审查并出具报告建议。","summary_en":"Joint Status Letter — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al. (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 23-CR-118 (AT), ECF No. 802 (filed February 10, 2026). The Government and defense submitted a joint response regarding the proposed appointment of a special master, agreeing that appointing a private special master is impracticable due to the lack of an available payment source and recommending that approximately 134 docketed and approximately 238 undocketed § 853(n) claims be referred to a Magistrate Judge for review and recommendations.","body_en":"U.S. Department of Justice\n\n                                                     United States Attorney\n                                                     Southern District of New York\n029S-NY-3269901_0\n000618_Import.docx                                   The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building\n                     \\                               26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\n                                                     New York, New York 10278\n\n                                                     February 10, 2026\n\nBY ECF\nHon. Analisa Torres\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan\nUnited States Courthouse\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n    Re:     United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\n       The Government writes in response to the Court’s order during the January 20, 2026,\nconference regarding the potential appointment of a special master. The parties have conferred\nand respond to the Court’s questions as follows:\n\n    1. Payment for a Special Master. The Government and the defendant agree that it is not clear\n       what, if any, funds are available to pay a special master. 1 The parties agree that the funds\n       identified in the preliminary orders of forfeiture cannot be used for this purpose because,\n       absent resolution of all third-party claims and entry of a final order of forfeiture, those\n       assets cannot be used by the Government. Moreover, and in any event, the parties oppose\n       using forfeited assets to pay a special master, because doing so would reduce the amount\n       available to return to victims. 2,3\n\n1\n The defense proposed to use the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (“AFF”) for this\npurpose. The Government conferred with components at Main Justice regarding that possibility,\nand confirmed that the AFF is not available to finance special masters in this context.\n2\n The defense position is: Having received numerous disclaimers of “victim” status by investors\nand customers in this case, the defense objects to the use of the word “victims” in this sentence\nand asserts that “claimants” should be used.\n3\n  In response to the Court’s question to the Government, the Government is aware of one case\nwhere a district court appointed an entity to act as a quasi-special master (to evaluate § 853(n)\nclaims) and claims administrator (an individual to manage the payment to entities with qualifying\npetitions). See United States v. Value of Certain E-Metal Accts., No. 11 Cv. 1530 (ELH), Dkt. 4\n(D. Md. July 15, 2011).\n\n    2. Candidates. Without a payment source, the parties agree that appointing a private party to\n       serve as a special master would be impracticable. Instead, the parties propose that the\n       Court, to the extent necessary, refer certain forfeiture-related matters to a Magistrate Judge.\n       Other courts have adopted this approach for similar issues. See e.g., United States v.\n       Hwang, No. 22 Cr. 240 (AKH), Dkt. 401 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2025) (appointing magistrate\n       judge for restitution issues).\n\n    3. Scope of Duties. As indicated in the Government’s January 9, 2026, letter to the Court\n       (ECF No. 785), approximately 134 purported § 853(n) claims were filed on the docket, and\n       the Government has received another approximately 238 purported § 853 claims directly.\n       (There may be some overlap between these two sets of purported claims.) The parties\n       propose that decision as to whether these purported claims are properly brought be referred\n       to a Magistrate Judge for review. 4 See Fed. R. Crim Pro. 59(b).\n\n        The Government submits that after this Court’s referral, the Magistrate Judge should set a\n        conference to discuss, and schedule, the Government’s motion to dismiss purported claims,\n        which the Government asserts do not have standing under § 853(n) and should instead be\n        treated as petitions for remission. See 1/20/26 Hr’g Tr. at 4 (“[The Court:] “victims of Mr.\n        Guo’s fraudulent scheme may be viewed under the law as general creditors and may not,\n        therefore, be able to recover their money under Section 853(n).”). Following the Magistrate\n        Judge’s review of that motion, the Magistrate Judge can then provide this Court a report\n        and recommendation regarding which, if any, of those purported claims should be\n        dismissed. After the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is filed, this Court can\n        entertain any objections to it. See Fed. R. Crim Pro. 59(b)(2). Thereafter, any remaining\n        claimants should propose a schedule to resolve outstanding issues.\n\n        The defense submits that the Magistrate Judge should be afforded the discretion to\n        determine how to proceed. Following the Magistrate Judge’s review, the Magistrate Judge\n        can then provide this Court a report and recommendation. After the Magistrate Judge’s\n        report and recommendation is filed, this Court can entertain any objections to it. See Fed.\n        R. Crim Pro. 59(b)(2). Thereafter, any remaining claimants should propose a schedule to\n        resolve outstanding issues. 5\n\n4\n  The Government believes that claims not filed on the docket should be treated as petitions for\nremission because § 853(n) claimants must petition the Court, not the Government. See 1/20/26\nHr’g Tr. at 4 (“[The Court:] “A person who believes that they have such a claim can seek to recover\ntheir money by filing a Section 853(n) claim with the Court.”); 21 U.S.C. § 853 (n)(2). The defense\nasserts that, given the potential for confusion on the part of claimants, a Magistrate Judge should\nreview in the first instance all undocketed claims received directly by the Government, in addition\nto those filed on the docket.\n5\n  The defense has informed the Government that the defendant does not intend to assert a personal\ninterest in the specific property but reserves the right to participate in forfeiture-related litigation.\nThe Government’s position is that the defendant is not entitled to participate in any such litigation\nbecause, inter alia, he has not asserted a personal interest in any of the assets that would be the\n\n   The parties are available to address any questions that the Court may have.\n\n                                             Respectfully submitted,\n\n                                              SEAN S. BUCKLEY\n                                              Attorney for the United States, Acting Under\n                                              Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515\n                                              Southern District of New York\n\n                                      By:                /s/\n                                              ___________________________\n                                              Micah F. Fergenson\n                                              Ryan B. Finkel\n                                              Justin Horton\n                                              Juliana N. Murray\n                                              Assistant United States Attorneys\n                                              (212) 637–6612/2314/2190/2276\n\nsubject of the litigation. Dkt. 799 at 1 (“Mr. Guo reconfirms here that he does not assert a personal\ninterest in the Specific Property.”). Accordingly, the Government’s position is that the defendant\nhas no basis to involve himself in litigation regarding the specific property at issue. The defense\nsubmits that it is impossible at this juncture to determine whether Mr. Guo may have a basis to\nintervene in any such litigation and therefore is unwilling to waive his rights beyond\nacknowledging that he does not assert a personal interest in the Specific Property. The defense,\nmoreover, objects to the Government raising this issue here as the Court has not directed the parties\nto address it.","body_zh":"U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）\n\n                                                     United States Attorney（联邦检察官）\n                                                     Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n029S-NY-3269901_0\n000618_Import.docx                                   The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building（雅各布·K·贾维茨联邦大楼）\n                     \\                               26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor\n                                                     New York, New York 10278\n\n                                                     February 10, 2026\n\n经由 ECF\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯法官阁下）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n    事由：United States v. Miles Guo（美国诉郭文贵案），S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n       针对法庭在 2026年1月20日会议期间就可能任命特别主事官（special master）作出的命令，政府特此致信回复。双方已进行磋商，并就法庭提出的问题回复如下：\n\n    1. 特别主事官的报酬。政府与被告一致同意，目前尚不清楚是否有资金（若有）可用于支付特别主事官的报酬。1 双方一致同意，初步没收令中指明的资金不能用于此目的，因为在所有第三方主张得到解决并作出最终没收令之前，政府不能使用这些资产。此外，无论在何种情况下，双方均反对使用被没收的资产来支付特别主事官，因为这样做会减少可退还给受害者的金额。2,3\n\n辩方提议为此目的使用司法部的 Assets Forfeiture Fund（“AFF”，资产没收基金）。政府就该可能性与 Main Justice（司法部总部）的相关部门进行了磋商，并确认在此情况下无法使用 AFF 为特别主事官提供资金。\n\n辩方立场为：鉴于在本案中已收到多份投资者和客户放弃“受害者”身份的声明，辩方反对在本句中使用“受害者”一词，并主张应使用“主张权利人（claimants）”。\n\n针对法庭向政府提出的问题，政府知悉曾有一案中地区法院指定了一个实体担任准特别主事官（以评估 § 853(n) 主张）和权利主张管理人（一名负责管理向具有合规申请资格的实体付款的个人）。参见 United States v. Value of Certain E-Metal Accts. 案，No. 11 Cv. 1530 (ELH), Dkt. 4 (D. Md. July 15, 2011)。\n\n    2. 候选人。在没有支付来源的情况下，双方一致认为任命私人方担任特别主事官是不可行的。相反，双方提议法庭在必要限度内将某些与没收相关的事项移交给 Magistrate Judge（联邦助理法官）。其他法院就类似问题也采纳了这一做法。参见例如 United States v. Hwang 案，No. 22 Cr. 240 (AKH), Dkt. 401 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2025)（就赔偿问题任命联邦助理法官）。\n\n    3. 职责范围。正如政府在 2026年1月9日致法庭的信函（ECF No. 785）中所指出的，案卷中大约记录了 134 项声称依据 § 853(n) 提出的主张，且政府已直接收到另外约 238 项声称依据 § 853 提出的主张。（这两组声称的主张之间可能存在某些重叠。）双方提议，将关于这些声称的主张是否属于正当提出的裁决移交给联邦助理法官进行审查。4 参见 Fed. R. Crim Pro. 59(b)。\n\n        政府主张，在由本法庭移交之后，联邦助理法官应安排一次会议，以讨论并排定政府关于驳回声称主张的动议日程；政府主张这些诉求依据 § 853(n) 不具备诉讼资格（standing），而是应作为赦免/减免申请（petitions for remission）处理。参见 1/20/26 听证会记录（Hr’g Tr.）第 4 页（“[法庭：]‘郭先生欺诈计划的受害者在法律上可能被视为一般债权人，因此可能无法根据第 853(n) 条追回他们的资金。’”）。在联邦助理法官对该动议进行审查后，联邦助理法官可向本法庭提交一份报告与建议，说明这些声称的主张中哪些（若有）应当予以驳回。在联邦助理法官的报告与建议提交后，本法庭可以审理对该报告提出的任何异议。参见 Fed. R. Crim Pro. 59(b)(2)。此后，任何剩余的主张权利人均应提出一份日程安排，以解决未决问题。\n\n        辩方主张，应赋予联邦助理法官决定如何推进的裁量权。在联邦助理法官审查之后，联邦助理法官即可向本法庭提交报告与建议。在联邦助理法官的报告与建议提交后，本法庭可以审理对该报告提出的任何异议。参见 Fed. R. Crim Pro. 59(b)(2)。此后，任何剩余的主张权利人均应提出一份日程安排，以解决未决问题。5\n\n政府认为，未在案卷上登记的主张应当被视为赦免/减免申请，因为 § 853(n) 的主张权利人必须向法庭提出申请，而非向政府提出。参见 1/20/26 听证会记录第 4 页（“[法庭：]‘认为自己拥有此类主张的人可以通过向法庭提交第 853(n) 条主张来寻求追回他们的资金。’”）；21 U.S.C. § 853 (n)(2)。辩方主张，鉴于主张权利人一方存在产生混淆的可能性，联邦助理法官除审查案卷上登记的主张外，还应在一审程序中审查所有由政府直接收到的未登记在案卷上的主张。\n\n辩方已通知政府，被告无意对特定财产主张个人权益，但保留参与没收相关诉讼的权利。政府的立场是被告无权参与任何此类诉讼，因为除其他原因外，他未对任何作为诉讼标的之\n\n   双方随时准备回答法庭可能提出的任何问题。\n\n                                             谨呈，\n\n                                              SEAN S. BUCKLEY\n                                              Attorney for the United States, Acting Under\n                                              Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515（依据 28 U.S.C. § 515 授予职权代理之联邦检察官）\n                                              Southern District of New York\n\n                                      签署人：            /s/\n                                              ___________________________\n                                              Micah F. Fergenson\n                                              Ryan B. Finkel\n                                              Justin Horton\n                                              Juliana N. Murray\n                                              Assistant United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）\n                                              (212) 637–6612/2314/2190/2276\n\n资产主张个人权益。Dkt. 799 第 1 页（“郭先生在此重申，他并未对特定财产主张个人权益。”）。因此，政府的立场是被告没有依据参与有关涉案特定财产的诉讼。辩方主张，目前尚无法确定郭先生是否有依据介入任何此类诉讼，因此除确认其不对特定财产主张个人权益外，不愿放弃其他权利。此外，由于法庭并未指示各方就此问题作出说明，辩方对政府在此提出该问题表示反对。","key_entities":["853(n)","forfeiture","Guo","Torres","CIPA","Miles Guo","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":4,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":401,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":785,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":799,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1073,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-02-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-02-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:14:17"}