{"id":"court_sdny_817_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":817,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2026-02-18","title":"SDNY ECF 817","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 1 of 42\n\nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n.:.~.:':\nr-.I\nCr:\n|. -.i.. °\"71\n.~.'..\n8 =\" 'i\n§§-if .~ -.\nFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT .-'\nHI . I . I ..~ 1 1 -= ,\n..,~= '~-1 .v\"'\nIn re: Tony, ._ ..\n.l ,_,.,\nVictimin United States v. Kwok, et al., ' .|: :~-J\n:'-~\\\n'a:- *'J\n1:23-CR-118-1 (AT) ..- , \\-.. . .\\\nIn\nPETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\nI. Introduction\nv \\\nI, Tony (real name: J\\ > ' \" ,f`> `\\ / - ., \\\"/ ,a crime victim within the meaning of the Crime\nVictims' Rights Act (\"CVRA\"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e), respectfully petition this Court\nfor a writ of mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (d)(3), which expressly\nauthorizes crime victims to seek mandamus relief to enforce the rights\nguaranteed by the CVRA, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21 .\nI have submitted multiple filings to the pro se email of Southern District of New\nYork (SDNY)-including several sealed documents (Exhibit A-C) and one public\ndocument (Exhibit D)--raising issues directly affecting my property rights under\n21 U.S.C. §853(n) and Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. §3771 .\nSpecifically, Exhibit A was submitted pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(n), and\nExhibits B, C, and D were submitted pursuant totheCVRA. Despite repeated\nattempts over the course of several months, none of these filings have been\ndocketed, adjudicated, or otherwise acknowledged by the district court.\nAt the January 20, 2026 status conference (Exhibit H), the district court\nrepresented that pro se petitions submitted under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), including\nthose filed by individuals without counsel, are being processed and will be\ndocketed in due course. in reliance on that representation, I understand that my\n§ 853(n) petition (Exhibit A), submitted to the SDNY pro se filing address, will be\ndocketed and adjudicated pursuant to the forfeiture statute.\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 2 of 42\n\nHowever, the status conference transcript contains no reference whatsoever to\nthe Crime Victims' Rights Act. The only characterization remotely addressing my\nfilings was the Court's generalized statement that it had received numerous\n\"complaints.\" By omitting any reference to the CVRA and by characterizing\nvictim~rights submissions as \"complaints,\" the Court effectively downgraded my\nCVRA filings to a category that does not carry any assurance of docketing or\nadjudication.\nAs a result, my CVRA submissions (Exhibits B-D), especially Exhibit D, remain\nundocketed and unaddressed to this day. This treatment deprives me of my\nstatutory right under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4) to be reasonably heard, and reflects\na procedural framework under which CVRA motions-unlike § 853(n) petitions-\nare neither guaranteed entry on the docket nor meaningful judicial consideration.\nThe district court's non-docketing and downgrading my petitions under\nCVRA to \"complaints\" operates as a constructive denial of CVRA rights\nand destroys appellate reviewability by preventing any appealable order\nfrom ever issuing.\nThis petition does not seek any factual disputes arising from foreign proceedings,\nnor to adjudicate the merits of victim classification. it seeks only to prevent\nstatutory rights under the CVRA from being extinguished by non-docketing .\nIssue presented:\nWhether mandamus relief is warranted where the district court gave formal,\ndocketed consideration to cpA submissions materially affecting sentencing in\nUnited States v. Miles Guo (defense counsel filed ECF 783, Court ordered\ngovernment response ECF 787, government opposed ECF 795), but refused to\ndocket or substantively review my CVRA filings-which likewise bear directly on\nthe statutory sentencing framework, including restitution and forfeiture\ndeterminations-recharacterizing them to \"complaints\" at the January 20, 2026\nstatus conference, thereby leaving me with no adequate means to obtain\nmeaningful judicial review.\nI do not seek parity of substantive standing with the parties, only parity of\ndocketing and reviewability for filings material to sentencing.\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 3 of 42\n\nII. Background\nThe following background is provided solely to explain why my CVRA\nfilin Is bear directly on sentencin -related procedures and why non-\n4 S\ndocketing causes irreparable procedural harm.\nTimeline of Wrongful National Security Prosecution Leading to Escape\nfrom China:\nI am a Chinese national whose personal financial investments made during\n2020-2021 were later reclassified by Chinese authorities as constituting \"the\ncrime of funding criminal activities that endanger national security,\" despite my\ncomplete lack Of political activity, political intent, or association with any political\norganization. As documented in my attorney's defense brief (Exhibit F, pp. 77-\n88), the investments were entirely private and lawful, and the national-security\ncharacterization was inconsistent with the actual nature of the transactions.\nThe same funds were subsequently implicated in the United States as part of the\nfraud scheme charged inUnited States v. Kwok, et al.,creating a direct cross-\nsovereign conflict: China treated the funds as instruments of national-security\noffenses, while the United States treated them as proceeds of criminal fraud .\nBetween May 202X0 .and March 2021, I conducted cross-border investment\ntransfers totaling / ><A' Chinese court records reflect USD\nM414\nmz¢zoz4»f this amount, excluding USD used to purchase \"H-\nCoins.\" All transfers were ordinary personal investments with no political\ncharacter. (Exhibit A at 3, Exhibit F at 10.)\nof the USD /. \\ ix( . \\ /\"\\ / //f \\ Jx effected in Chinese records, USD \\ ` /\\ \\// , \\ /w > corresponds\nto funds that the SEC's GW Fair Fund (No. 3-20537) publicly stated should be\nreturned to eligible claimants. Despite repeated inquiries, no refund has been\nissued. I currently reside abroad after fleeing political prosecution, have\nsustained serious injury, have lost the ability to work, and have no source of\nincome. The continued failure of the Fair Fund to process this refund has caused\nsevere financial hardship. Without a docketed filing or judicial action, agencies\nhave disclaimed responsibility by pointing to the absence of a court record.\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 4 of 42\n\nOn October 27, 2021, another investor in the same investment channel.\nwas detained by Chinese police. Her detention marked the initiation of a\ncriminal case designated as \"the crime of funding criminal activities that\nendanger national security.\"\nthree offic:ersL,\".,., .We...,, _,\n/`\n\\15\nentered my residence to conduct a search. They\nseized my passport,mobile phone, andcomputer. (Exhibit F, pp. 2-10.) I was\ntaken to a public security facility for interrogation, The search warrant stated that\n1 was suspected of the same national-security offense, and the interrogation\nfocused on my G-Series investments and matters related to Guo Wengui.\n(Exhibit F, pp. 2-4, 28-43.)\nO\n»weM\n1\"=¢:ll,f\" -,. ''. J, `< ;*. ~.1 ,/.. RE m. ,» .*. . »\" 1/,/ { ...»` 41 \"w/ .A\nf\n\", 'f\n.;\nI was placed under ,. /, x *JI, /\". \".f,\n.\n_\\. \\\n.\n*( f\n\"\n_ ,/'W *X'_ *.\n/\n, y\n'*\nr .' _, m\n.\"\na pre-trial\ncompulsory measure, based on the same accusation. Throughout the\nproceedings, I consistently stated that all transfers were ordinary financial\ninvestments unrelated to politics.(Exhibit F, PP.12-15.)\nthe Procuratorate formally indicted the case. (Exhibit F, pp.\n9'*- '_Lf** 1*,rI* the court imposed a second pre-triai compulsory\nmeasure. (Exhibit F, pp. 65-67.) On he court held a Iirst\nhearing without issuing a verdict.(Exhibit F, pp. 62-64.)\nO :\" /n '`._ _ . .. ,. Jg ,.* g},*.. *45.... \" ..1 , ' \"J M ..\" \"J \\.+. ..*;*g 1' .. * TJ* 4 \\. he court imposed six months of \"designated residential\nL r* * r .J *. F LL ».,,*\nsurveillance.\" (Exhibit F, pp- 71--73.) A second hearing was scheduled for\nL.p \": *-\n\"+\n. \"4 ,u **J+- -., l\".r *\"F\n.,\nm E* 915'7u,f n'* J.*1 .r '. *- .'24 n. .. .> .5\n°\n. \"=. \":.Exhibit F, pp. 74-76.} Because I was forced to flee China\nbefore that hearing, I have no knowledge of what occurred and have never\nreceived any related records or judgment.\nPrior to the second hearing, prosecutors repeatedly pressured me to sign a\nf' .. \"\"[ *'* '1 n.1 \\ /1:Ui £ §..: ..'pa':\" ::== y I? 'v 24?a \" guilt\" agreement, stating that signing would result\nin a sentence of approximately five years, while refusalwouldresult in a\nsignificantly longer sentence. l signed under coercive pressure. I replaced .*,<*\nattorneys in an effort to understand the case and potential sentencing outcomes.\nEach independently advised that the case was political in nature, had been\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 5 of 42\n\nescalated to central authorities, and that a custodial sentence exceeding five\nyears was unavoidable.\nDuring my escape from China, I suffered a severe and life-threatening accident,\nresulting in lasting physical and psychological injury. Photographs documenting\nthese injuries were included in my first pro se submission to the SDNY. (Exhibit\nA.)\nAfter reaching safety abroad, I learned that the United States was prosecuting\nUnited States v. Guo. In those proceedings, investors associated with the G-\nSeries funds, including myself, have been treated as victims for administrative\nand procedural purposes. The Government has expressly acknowledged, on\nthe record, the existence of such a victim group and its ongoing\ninteractions with those individuals. (ECF. 511 ).\nAgainst this backdrop, my current legal position is defined by an\nunresolved dual-sovereign conflict arising from the same funds: (1) China\nclassifies me as a national-security offender based on these investments,\nand (2) in U.S. criminal proceedings, I have been treated as a financial\nvictim for procedural purposes, notwithstanding the Government's\nacknowledgment that investor classifications remain contested and\nunadjudicated.\nBeginning in September 2025, I submitted multiple pro se filings in the Southern\nDistrict of New York seeking recognition of third-party rights under 21 U.S.C. §\n853(n) and victim rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (CVRA). None were docketed.\nPaper submissions sent via UPS and USPS were signed for by court personnel\nbut never appeared on the docket. This resulted in a complete procedural cutoff\nno access to § 853(n), no access to CVRArights, no docket, no appealable\norder, and no judicial remedy.\nMy Immigration Background:\nDue to the extreme duress and psychological pressure I experienced while\nfleeing persecution, my cognitive functioning was significantly impaired. As a\nresult, l only recently realized and remembered that l am the beneficiary of a U.S.\nfamily-based 1-130 petition (Exhibit G) filed by my sister who is an American\ncitizen. This lapse reflects the severity of the trauma I endured, but it is not the\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 6 of 42\n\n...........\n. ...\n.\nfocus of this petition. This constitutes a federally recognized pending legal\n.........\n..\ninterest in the United States.The failure to docket my motions has undermined\n.....\nm\nl VIe\nllgy\ni.\nc\na\niSA\nT\nnp\nSl\nt\nha.\ndo\nii\neD\nmn\nis\nt\nm\nv\nrti\ni\nr\nit\ne\nev\ndu\nei o\nr\ne\nucD\nFe\ncn\nr\naos\ni\ngt\ne\nn\nlra\nt\nu\nd.\ne\naan\nt\nn\nrer\nnd\nr\nieta\ns\ncr\nc\nf\nia\nim\nll\nno\nea\nn\ngn\na\ncld\ni\nt\ntA\nfni\nn\ns\nrn\nU\noc\ndu\na\nm\nmtne\nit\naves\nP\ni ttixo\nhett\nr\nyao\nerno\nim\nac\ns\nc\nla\na\ni aln\nyu\ne\nmn\nes\ndd\nedde\niv\nu\nu\nIo\nedD\nnrn\nre\ng\ndag\nu\nn\ne\neo\nl\ne\nn\nrti\ni\nlIn\nt\nyt\nn\nyg\nP\nl ie\nn\nc\nCh\ng\ngroa\na\no\nl\nfar\nl\nin\nm\nnc\ns\nc\nas\nse\nh\nnt\ni\naio\ns\nf\ncs\ni\nr\nc\niast ath\na\nce\nli\nt\nts\ntein\nr\no\naf re\nc\nin\nnzd\nsi\na\nse\ne\natA\nir\nos\nca\nr\ntnl\ni\nil\nos\nsAy\nn\ni\nonr\nf\nse\nff\ng\n,\nc\ne\nt\nwho\nfc\nr\ne\nig\no\ntt\nhn\nsmi\noi anz\nu\nme\ntg\nthd\ne\nae\nny\n.\n..\n.\n..........................................................................................................................................................................\n...\nprocedural mechanism to examine or reconcile those differences.\nIn the People's Republic of China, I was charged with offenses characterized\nas endangering national security based on my investment in the G-Series\n(Exhibit F, pp. 47-61). In contrast, in the United States criminal proceedings,\nthe same funds-including those associated with the Rule of Law Foundation,\nGCIub, and related entities-are treated as proceeds of fraud, and I have\nbeen identified as a victim of Guo Wengui for purposes of the prosecution. ..\na\nrT esh cse ois\ng\nne\nn\nc\nid\ni ln\neiv\nc\nde\no\nor mg ne\np\ntn\na\nht\nt\ne\nibc el la\ne\nxs\nil\nss\ne\nti\ng\nif ni ac gla it rdi eo\ne\ncn\nn\nos\nt ri\ndta\nie\nr wi ss\ni\ne\nta\nh\ncf or ro uom\nts ps\nt rh\nj\noue\ncr i\ness dda uim\nc\nrate\nio\nl\nf\nn\nein\ns\nxa\n.\na\nn\nT\nmc\nh\nii nea ayl\nt\na\nic\noc\na\nnt niv .nit oy\nt\ny be et\n......................................................................................\nJl\n\"\ncp\nA\ndovT\ni Os\nuiir\ner\nth\nrco\nt\nscf\nppe\nt\nt\nec\nthw\nui\ner\nime\nn\ncec\no\nmrit\nde\neo\na\nc,\nh\ns\nsad\nn\ne\ntt\no\nia\ni\nth\nni\nnc\nod\nan\nu\nme\nt\ne\nnu\nng\nt\n,\np\nr\nr\ne\ncds\na\nG\nrFn\na\ne\ni\ni\nf\no\nts\nolt\nuf\nsi\nih\nos\nrt\nmv\nxo\nr\ne\nr\nre\nFi\nc\nd\neHecm\nWr\noo\nt\ni\nf,i\nun\nlf\nxsm\nec\ni\nb\ne\nng\nc\ne\no\nco\nHnp\nta\nl\n\"\ntu\nav\nt\ngo\nt\nu\nh\nmr\nif\n(e\nuu\no\nnft\nS\ne\ns\nt\nin\nn\ntua\n,h\nD\n.\nc\nd\nl\na\nn\nie\ntotW\ns\nNe\nie\nnd\npf\npd\ndd\nYa\nh\nltt\nr\ne\nh\nh\ni\nob\nti\nt\nDl\nan\nraee\nisy\nand\nt\nkr\ne\np\nngI\nda\ni\nd\nt\ncv\n.\nsr\neh\nic\ne\ncuo\ni\n7\nna\nd\ntk\ns\nat\ns\na1n\niv\nu\noi\ntoe\ng\nt8\noeo\na\nf\ninc\nn\no,\nr\nw\nl\nt\nub\ns\nsha\nnEal\nt\ne\nete\nai\na\nin\nxio\nde\no\nd\nln\nd\n.P\nn\nen\nn\nrg\ny\nB\ne\nen\nt.e\nha\nh\n)o\no\nptd\na\n.\nid\nep\nfp\nr\ns\niim\ne\nei\np\nnld\nn\ne\nsr\nddoi\nec\n'e\nsn\ns\ner\nfo\nb\nili\nt\ne\nois\npu\nRn\ne\nynt\nnens\ndr\nes\nt\na\nnii\nh\nmt\npes\no\ndyt\neit\nu\nn\nav\nee\na\nf\nbe\nD\no\ntnn\nca\ntll\nr\nei\ntc\nk\ney\nn\nc\nl\ni\nyn\nra\np\ne\nsi\no\n,u\nodd\nas\n,n\nf\nmw\nve\nr\naw\ntv\nCen\nl\nmy\nree\nri\nit\nh\nt\nssi\ndr\neoh\nf\nii\niai\nngf\nnw\nnei in\nr\nae\ne\nt\ngd\ni\nn\na\n'd\no\nt\ns\nt\nfh\na\nl\nh\nf\nr\nve\nt\nos\naei mc\ntU\na\ns\nt\ntti. himS\nn\neg.\n.\n..\n......\n..\n..\n..\n.\n.........................................................................\n..................................................\n.\n.....\n....\n..\nthe same investment activity (Exhibit F, pp. 44-46).\n....\n..........\n..\n. . ........\n.......\n........\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 7 of 42\n\nNotwithstanding these overlapping and contradictory indicators, the Southern\nDistrict of New York declined to docket or adjudicate motions seeking to\nchallenge the victim list and related forfeiture procedures. As a result, no\nprocedural mechanism has been available to examine, verify, or reconcile the\ncompeting classifications reflected in the record.\nWhere a court relies on victim determinations that are inconsistent with both\nforeign sovereign actions and domestic enforcement materials\n-white foreclosing procedural review--the reliability of the victim-\ndetermination framework itself is called into question. The issue presented is\ntherefore not a dispute over evidentiary weight, but a structural deficiency in\nthe process by which identity and victim status have been assigned.\nB. Due Process Considerations\nWhen identity classifications, victim determinations, and foreign-threat\nindicators converge without an available mechanism for procedural testing ,\nthe reliability of adjudicative outcomes cannot be presumed. Proceeding\nundersuch conditions risks arbitrary process, unreliable determinations, and a\nbreakdown in adversarial testing-core safeguards of due process in federal\ncriminal proceedings.\nC. Foreign Coercive Measures Affecting Access to Court\nAdditional facts demonstrate the impact of foreign coercive measures on my\nability to access U.S. courts. During a national-security raid, Chinese security\nofficers seized my passport. The passport was intentionally omitted from the\nofficial seizure inventory (Exhibit F, pp. 5-7), notwithstanding that officers Eater\nproduced it during interrogation. Such unrecorded seizure is a documented\ntechnique used by state-security authorities toimpose covert exit restrictions\nwhile avoiding formal documentation requirements.\nThis conduct indicates that l was subjected not to routine financial-crime\nprocedures, but to political-security control measures that impaired my ability\nto seek protection and relief from U.S. courts. Foreign coercive action directed\nat a federal litigant presents a structural risk to the integrity of judicial\nproceedings. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings,817 F.2d 1108 (4th Cir.\n1987). The undisclosed passport seizure constitutes concrete evidence of\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 8 of 42\n\nforeign interference affecting my access to statutory remedies in the Southern\nDistrict of New York, supporting the need for supervisory review.\nD. Summary\nIn sum, the same investment activity has produced materially divergent legal\nclassifications across jurisdictions, assigning incompatible identities to the\nsameindividual. Where both the defendant and a designated victim are\nindependently associated with indicators of foreign political targeting, and\nwhere procedural avenues to test or reconcile those classifications have been\nforeclosed,the reliability of the victim-determination framework cannot be\npresumed. Under such circumstances, continued reliance on that framework\nraises serious questions regarding procedural integrity and warrants\nsupervisory consideration.\nIV. Evidence Regarding Victim Determinations and\nForfeiture Assets\nAs detailed in my counsel's submission (Exhibit F, pp. 77-88), the Chinese\nprosecution interviewed /X ndividuals connected to the financial flows at issue.\nRecords indicate that \\/1/ of these individuals transferred Chinese Yuan (RMB)\ninto the personal bank account o ` / \\ // \\ / \\/ , who then used her foreign-trade\n>\\\"\\. / \\ 2 \\ \\\\. /\\\ncompany account to convert the RMB intoU.S. dollars and wire the amounts to\naccounts designated bytheHimalaya Seven-Star Association Farm.\nBased on my knowledge, once the funds reached the Seven-Star Association\nFarm accounts, the administrator (known online \\.,/ \\ / \">// . transferred amounts\n/ \\/`- /` I/ \\ *,\nreceived from China into accounts designated by the Alliance Secretary-General\nQidongXia (aka Changdao Brother). Farm personnel confirmed in 2025 that\nborrowing and investment funds from Chinese investors are currently frozen by\nthe U.S. Government.\nThis transactional structure, consistent with other G-Series investments across\nChina, demonstrates several points:\n1. The financial flows ofChinese investors exhibit nationwide uniformity and a\nsystemic pattern.\n2. The victim group possesses a cohesive and traceable transactional record .\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 9 of 42\n\n3. Any inaccuracies in victim status or fund characterization could materially\naffect the assessment of forfeiture assets.\nAccordingly, because the identity of the victim group, the nature of the funds, and\nthe cross~border transaction structure are uniform, traceable, and verifiable, the\nforfeiture framework currently relied upon by the SDNY warrants careful review.\nThe record shows that the same funds are treated in the United States as \"fraud-\nvictim assets,\" while originating investors were simultaneously subject to foreign\nnational-security proceedings.\nWithout further procedural or factual clarification, these discrepancies limit the\nability to reliably assess victim status, the scope of forfeiture, and restitution\neligibility. The available record indicates the need for individualized review and\nverification before any determinations can be considered fully supported.\nExhibit F, pp. 44-46, notes that Chinese authorities classified the Guo Wengui-\nrelated cases as national-security matters subject to \"centralized handling\" ( 42\n943), reflecting coordinated multi-agency actions and streamlined processes\nunder the Ministry of Public Security. This context indicates that the individuals\nwhose funds ultimately reached U.S.-frozen accounts were part of a larger,\nstructured network, highlighting the importance of careful assessment in the U.S.\nproceedings to ensure that victim determinations and forfeiture assessments are\naccurate and properly documented.\nV. Cross-Border Context Relevant to Procedural Review\nI do not raise a diplomatic or foreign-policy dispute. The record shows that some\nfunds implicated in the forfeiture proceedings were subject to legal treatment in\nChina while being characterized in the United States as proceeds of fraud.\nThis divergence underscores the need for careful judicial review to ensure that\nvictim determinations, asset characterization, and forfeiture administration rest on\na complete, reviewable record and comply with statutory safeguards.\nVI. Argument for Issuance of the Writ of Mandamus\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 10 of 42\n\nThis petition does not ask this Court to decide the merits of sentencing, forfeiture,\nrestitution, or any underlying factual disputes. It seeks only the minimum\nprocedural relief necessary to ensure that my CVRA submission is docketed and\nreceives a reviewable procedural disposition so that statutory rights are not\nextinguished by non-docketing.\nAlthough mandamus traditionally implicates the considerations articulated in\nCheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2001 ), Congress has\nspecifically authorized mandamus relief under the CVRA where procedural\ninaction would otherwise nullify a victim's statutory rights. The circumstances\nhere satisfy those considerations, particularly where non-docketing forecloses\nany meaningful avenue for judicial review.\n. No Other Adequate Means to Obtain Relief\nAt the January 20, 2026 status conference, there was no reference to\nCVRA and my filings under CVRA are treated as \"complaints\" rather than\ndocketed motions, there is no ruling, order, or mechanism through which\nthe resulting procedural disparity can be corrected. The court's approach\nforecloses appellate review and eliminates any means to secure equal\nprocedural treatment across cases.\nThe harm is concrete. Because my filings were not docketed or\nadjudicated, the court did not consider evidence directly bearing on\nrestitution, the allocation of forfeited assets, or other collateral federal\ninterests, including my pending 1-130 family-based immigration petition.\nLikewise, absent a docketed filing or judicial action, I have no procedural\nmechanism through which the SEC's GTV Fair Fund can act, as the\nabsence of a docketed filing or judicial disposition has led the agency to\ndisclaim authority.\n. A Clear and Indisputable Right to Relief\nMy right to relief is clear and indisputable. The CVRA guarantees victims\nthe right to be reasonably heard and to receive fair and respectful\ntreatment. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Filings invoking those rights cannot be\nprocedurally nullified by recharacterizing them as informal \"complaints.\"\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 11 of 42\n\nThe procedural disparity is evident. In United States v. Miles Guo, the\ndistrict court explicitly reviewed filings raising sentencing-related issues.\nOn January 5, 2026, Mr. Guo's counsel submitted a letter seeking\ndisclosure of classified information \"material or helpful in the sentencing\ncontext\" pursuant to the Classified information Procedures Act (\"ClPA\")\n(ECF 783). The court ordered the government to respond by January 21 ,\n2026 (ECF 787), notwithstanding subsequent opposition (ECF 795). This\nconfirms that filings materially affecting sentencing are ordinarily\nafforded formal docketing and judicial consideration.\nMy filings-supported by official documentation and personal experience,\nand directly relevant to restitution and the distribution of forfeited assets-\nare similarly material to sentencing and related federal interests. Treating\nthem as non-docketed \"complaints\" denies me equal procedural\nconsideration and violates clear statutory guarantees.\n. Mandamus Is Appropriate Under the Circumstances\nAbsent mandamus, sentencing, restitution, and forfeiture proceedings may\ncontinue on an incomplete record, while my statutory rights remain\nprocedurally extinguished.\nBecause the district court's inaction both undermines procedural parity and\nthreatens irreparable harm by rendering any errors in sentencing,\nrestitution, asset recovery, and related federal interests effectively\nirreversible, judicial intervention is warranted. Mandamus is necessary to\nensure that my filings receive the same procedural attention and review\nafforded to filings in analogous cases, solely to preserve statutory and\nconstitutional rights.\nThis request is made solely to preserve meaningful review by this Court and any\nhigher reviewing authority, should jurisdiction ultimately be deemed unavailable\nat this stage.\nVII. Family Safety Statement (Submitted Solely for\nContextual Clarification)\nI respectfully note that the foreign national-security proceedings described above\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 12 of 42\n\nimposed substantial constraints on my ability to communicate freely and to\npursue legal remedies during the relevant period.\nAs a result of prior investigative actions by foreign authorities, my immediate\nfamily members residing abroad became aware of these proceedings. I do not\nallege that any harm has occurred, nor do I assert any intent of future harm.\nThis information is submitted only to explain why access to the U.S. judicial\nprocess-including docketed consideration of my submissions under 21 U.S.C. §\n853(n) and the CVRA-is of heightened importance. Where foreign coercive\ncircumstances impair a litigant's access to court, the failure to docket and\nadjudicate filings presents a structural risk to the integrity and independence of\nthe judicial process.\nVIII. Relief Sought\nI respectfully request that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the\nfollowing relief:\n1.Order the district court to docket my redacted CVRA motion, Exhibit D on the\nSDNY docket.\n2. Enter a prompt, docketed procedural disposition on my request to preserve the\nappellate record in Exhibit D, Relief 4, without directing any substantive outcome,\nfor the limited purpose of clarifying the status of my submission in the district\ncourt record.\nRespemctfull¢y suubmoitteyd: -z'\nTony\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 13 of 42\n\nCertificate of Service\nI ..\nrc»-a.»\nl`.. F\n|..... G ..,O .,.\nIn re: Tony, Petitioner .I.\n.\nI\nI\n...I\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1\nP := '.=: ;\nSDNY case: United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nI_-|.\n..-\n»\n-.=') .. .\nx I\nI hereby certifythat on January 21, 2026, true and correct redacted copieslbf\ni'~.?1\nthe following documents were sewed 51 us\n1. Redacted Motion to Request Redaction of Personal Information ;\n2. Redaeted Petition for Writ of Mandamus;\n3. Redacted Exhibit D:Victim's Motionto Remedy Structural Procedural\nBreakdown and Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action Under the\nCourt's Inherent Authority.\n4. A stenographic transcript of Jan 20, 2026 status conference\nA separate notice identifying the existence of sealed exhibits A, B, C, E, F,\nG were sewed on the Court and the Government. The sealed materials\nthemselves were not publicly filed.\nService was effected via clo mailing on the following recipients:\n1. The Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n2. Ryan B. Finkel\nAssistant United States Attorney\nUnited States Attorney's Office\nSouthern District of New York\nOne St. Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 14 of 42\n\nIdentification and Service Clarification\nFor identification purposes only, the petitioner proceeds pro se under the\nname \"Tony.\"\nThe petitioner's legal name i II.. ...».\"x5\ng\n~. /». ''' <\"'. §¢. .: § :\"><**\",-L,.»* -»s `w'` is statement is provided solely to\nclarify the identity of the filer and does not confer any representative, agency,\nor Ie al capacity on any other individual.\ns\nService was executed via do mailing using the following sender information:\n7.-.\n_...nu\n,.,.,.. assistedsolely with translation, mailing, and payment of the iiiing\nfee, anddid not provide legal representation for the petitioner.\nRespectfully submitted,\nTony (real name |\nPetitioner, pro se\nExecuted on January 27, 2026.\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 15 of 42\n\nRedacted Exhibit D: Victim's Motion to\nRemedy Structural Procedural\nBreakdown and Request Sua Sponte\nCorrective Action\nUnder Court's Inherent Authority\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 16 of 42\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK,alkla MILES Guo, et al.,\nDefendants.\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nVictim's Motion to Remedy Structural Procedural\nBreakdown and Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action\nUnder Court's Inherent Authority\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\nDear Judge Torres:\n\\`:< of_ /\nI, , `~ \\. a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully submit this motion\npro se to request that the Court toRemedy Structural Procedural Breakdown\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 17 of 42\n\nand Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action Under Court's Inherent\nAuthority\nI. Background\nl,l have submitted multiple pro se motions to the SDNY in\nan effort to exclude my lawful G-related investments from the forfeiture\nproceedings. My filing history is as follows\nOn September 19, 2025, I submitted my first 853(n) Third-Party\nPetition by email to the SDNY pro se intake.\nOn September 20, 2025, l submitted my first CVRA Crime Victim\nMotion.\nA few days later, I discovered that those versions lacked handwritten\nsignatures. I immediately corrected them. On September 25, 2025, i\nresubmitted both the signed 853(n) petition and the signed CVRA\nmotion by email, and also mailed the hardcopy packages to both the\nCourt and the U.S. Attorney's Office. USPS records confirm that both\ninstitutions received and signed for the mailed filings.\nDespite these steps, none of the filings were docketed.\nOn October 22, 2025, I submitted my second CVRA motion, and in\nthat submission I included USPS Proof of Delivery showing that my\nearlier hardcopy filings had indeed been delivered but never docketed.\nin total, I submitted three motions (one 853(n) petition and two CVRA\nmotions), each sent both electronically and in physical hardcopy.\nThese Proof-of-Delivery records are contained in\nAppendix__A_Proof__of__Delivery_to_SDNY_and_USA_..Nov3__2025.pdf.\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 18 of 42\n\nNotwithstanding these repeated attempts, none of my filings were\nuploaded to the docket, and this multi-week failure constitutes a clear\nviolation of my CVRA rights:\n1. The right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4)),\n2. The right to be treated with fairness and respect (§3771(a)(8)),\n3. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay\n(§3771(3)(7));\n4. The right to be protected from further harm (§3771(a)(1 )),\n5. The right to full and truthful consideration of victim status under\nthe statutory definition of \"crime victim.\"\nII. Procedural irregularity\nAs in my previous suppressed motion that was filed by 09-20-2025 :\nI am a lawful investor in G-related projects, and have never engaged\nin fraud, wrongdoing, or political activism. Nevertheless, I was\ntargeted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities, labeled\nas \"a threat to national security,\" and subjected to retaliatory\nprosecution solely because of the investment and the identity of the\nindividuals and platforms associated with it. I was forced to flee,\nsuffered loss of home, livelihood, community, and safety, and has\nremained in exile ever since. These facts are verified, documented,\nand corroborated by court records, including parallel cases such as\nthe prosecution and imprisonment of investor Wu who\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 19 of 42\n\nremains incarcerated after being accused of \"subverting the State\" for\npublishing minor online posts with negligible readership. The\npersecution of investors like Wu and Petitioner demonstrates that the\ndanger is real, ongoing, and directly tied to this matter.\nIf a victim is classified as a \"threat to national security\" and subjected\nto political persecution in their home country, and Judge Torres still\nsuppressed victims' filing, this constitutes a serious procedural\nviolation:\n1. Violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA, 18 U.S.C. §\n3771 )\n•\nFailure to recognize Petitioner's status as a crime victim.\n. Denial of the right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4)).\n. Denial of fair treatment (§377t (a)(8)).\n. Failure to protect the Petitioner from further harm (§3771(a)(1 )).\n•\nIgnoring statutory deadlines and causing procedural delays\n(§3771(8)(7)).\n. Allowing personally identifiable information (PII) to remain\nexposed, despite life-threatening risks from foreign persecution.\n2. Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process\n•\nCourt knowingly increased risk to Petitioner (State-Created\nDanger Doctrine).\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 20 of 42\n\n•\nDenied meaningful participation in proceedings affecting\nproperty, rights, and victim recognition.\n3. Violation of Equal Protection Clause\n•\nDifferential treatment of victims persecuted by foreign actors\n(CCP) versus baseless creditor registrants which detailed in Dkt.\n733.\n•\nSilencing legitimate victims while elevating unverified or\nillegitimate claimants.\n. Failure to provide heightened procedural protection to a uniquely\nvulnerable class.\n4. Violation of the Court's Inherent Authority to Protect Litigants\nFacing Foreign Persecution\n. Ignored documented, ongoing life-threatening risk from foreign\ngovernment persecution.\n5. Continuation of Proceedings Despite Known Contamination of\nVictim Identity and Evidence\n. Bankruptcy (22-50073) Doc. 2083 admitted that creditor and\nvictim pools are overlapping and subjective.\n. Criminal proceedings proceeded without resolving identity\nconflicts, allowing baseless claimants to dominate the narrative.\n6. Ignoring External Influence and Foreign Interference Risks\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 21 of 42\n\n•\nFailed to consider CCP's targeted persecution of G~investors as\na material factor in procedural decisions.\n•\nAllowed narrative and evidentiary record to reflect interests\naligned with foreign persecution actors.\n. Neglect of this factor constitutes a structural and constitutional\nviolation requiring corrective action.\n7. Structural Procedural Breakdown\nVictim-Perpetrator Identity Conflict and Structural Procedural\nBreakdown, Foreign Influence on Victim Classification\n7.1 Conflict of Legal Status\nA triple~Iayer identity conflict:\nIn China:\nThe same investment is classified as a threat to national\nsecurity, I am treated as a perpetrator under a political-security\nframework. Subsequently, I suffered political persecution at the\nhands of Chinese authorities, effectively making me a victim of\nstate retaliation.\nIn the United States:\nThe identical investment is characterized as part of a fraudulent\nscheme perpetrated by Guo Wengui, I am treated as a victim\nunder the CVRA and federal criminal fraud statutes.\nDirect contradiction:\nI am simultaneously considered:\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 22 of 42\n\n. A perpetrator by Chinese authorities,\n. A victim of political persecution by the same Chinese\nauthorities,\n•\nA victim of fraud under U.S. law.\nAdditional conflict - the case of Wu I lu\nIn\nR\nAnother investor, Wul , __,v was criminally convicted in China\nfor the very same investment scheme that the U.S. government\nlabels as investor fraud. Despite clearly qualifying as a fraud\nvictim under U.S. law, Wu was entirely excluded from the\nSDNY's victim-identification process.\nSystemic implication:\nThese conflicts demonstrate that the identity contradictions\nare not isolated, but systemic, affecting the entire victim\nframework in the U.S. proceedings.\n7.2 Impact on Legal Proceedings\nU.S. court determinations regarding victim status, asset\nforfeiture, restitution, and CVRA participation rely on the\nassumption that investors are genuine victims of fraud.\nHowever:\n•\nif the same individual is legally treated as a perpetrator by\nanother sovereign authority,\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 23 of 42\n\n. If other investors such as W /of\\ /y f> \\ ,,:» are criminally\npunished abroad for the same investment,\n. If these individuals are excluded from the U.S. victim list,\n. ...then the evidentiary foundation of the U.S.\nproceedings collapses.\nThis constitutes systemic misclassification of victims, because:\n•\nSimilarly situated individuals are classified inconsistently,\n. Core facts about who qualifies as a \"victim\" remain\nunresolved,\n. The evidentiary record becomes internally contradictory.\nAs a result, a structural procedural breakdown occurs: U.S. court\ndecisions rely on factual premises that cannot simultaneously be\ntrue.\n7.3 Consequences for Court Actions\nMisidentification and systemic misclassification of\nvictim/perpetrator status produce:\n•\nImproper inclusion or exclusion of individuals in criminal\nand forfeiture proceedings,\n. Reliance on contaminated, incomplete, or contradictory\nevidence,\nI\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 24 of 42\n\na Potential violations of Due Process, Equal Protection, and\nstatutory CVRA protections;\na A breakdown of procedural legitimacy, because the court\ncannot lawfully proceed while the fundamental identity and\nfactual framework of the case remain contradictory.\nIn short:\nWhen the same investment produces \"perpetrators\" in\nChina, \"victims\" in the U.S., and key individuals like Wu\n' /* 4 * * are excluded, the entire victim framework becomes\nr *\" .-* 1 r *\"+. al!\"\ninternally inconsistent, requiring a structural corrective\nresponse to restore fairness and lawful participation.\nWhen two sovereigrls classify the same individual as botha\nnational-security perpetrator and a fraud victim, the U.S.\ncourt cannot rely on unverified victim lists without first\nresolving the conflict. Proceeding without resolving this\ncontradiction renders the forfeiture framework legally\nunreliable and constitutionally infirm.\nIn addition, the victim's misclassification in this case is\nexacerbated by foreign influence. Evidence-including the\npersecution of investors like Wu ./ E4,,F /w, `x/I\" * ~-4/,f\n\\\nnd myself by the\nChinese Communist\nParty---demonst6\nr\na/` ' tE e».r s\"Pw. »-\nthat external actors\nhave directly or indirectly shaped the narrative of who qualities\nas a \"victim,\" When the U.S. court relies on these classifications\nwithout independent verification, the proceedings risk being\ncontaminated by foreign political interests, further undermining\ndue process, fairness, and the integrity of the forfeiture\nframework.\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 25 of 42\n\n8. U.S. Court Cannot Adopt a Narrative That Aligns With a\nPersecuting Regime\nA U.S. criminal proceeding cannot constitutionally adopt a victim-\nidentification narrative that aligns, even inadvertently, with the\ninterests of the very foreign regime persecuting the victim. Doing so\nundermines the neutrality of the judicial process and violates\nfundamental due process principles.\ng_ Ignoring Judicial Misconduct and Proceeding Despite Known\nContamination\nIn Dkt. 733, Ryan Bai identified potential misconduct bythe\nProsecution and Trustee Luc, amounting to fraud upon the Court.\nHowever, the court:\n. failed to act on the allegations for several months, ignoring the\npotential harm to legitimate victims and allowing the\ncontinuation of forfeiture-related proceedings based on a\nrecord known to be compromised.\n. After the submission of Dkt. 733, the Court proceeded to\nadvance the forfeiture process, even though the issues raised\ndirectly undermine the reliability and legality of the underlying\nvictim-identification and asset-forfeiture determinations.\nLegal Implications:\n•\nDue Process Violation: Continuing proceedings on a record\nknown to be contaminated violates the Petitioner's Fifth\nAmendment rights. The situated victims are being denied a fair\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 26 of 42\n\nopportunity to be heard.\n•\nCVRA Violation: The Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. §\n3771) guarantees that victims have the right to participate in\nmatters affecting assets and proceedings. Ignoring the alert in\nDkt. 733 prevents legitimate victims from exercising this\nright.\n. Struetural Procedural Breakdown: By proceeding despite\nnotice of record contamination, the Court propagates the\nmisclassification of victims and creditors, creating an\ninternally inconsistent evidentiary framework that\nundermines the integrity of the entire forfeiture process.\n. Abuse of Discretion I Failure to Correct: The Court's inaction\nin response to clear warnings of procedural contamination\nconstitutes judicial inaction in the face of structural error,\nwarranting corrective intervention.\n10. Potential Procedural and Legal Violations Related to Dkt. 765\nSuppression of a victim's lawful motions requesting judicial\nrecusal\nO The district court failed to consider or act upon Petitioner's\nmotions seeking judicial recusal, directly suppressing the\nexercise of rights guaranteed under the Crime Victims'\nRights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) and depriving Petitioner of a\nfair opportunity to be heard.\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 27 of 42\n\no This suppression undermines Due Process and may\nviolate Equal Protection, as other similarly situated parties\nmay have been permitted to pursue procedural relief.\nContamination of the appellate record\nO By filing Dkt. 765 while Petitioner's recusal-related motions\nwere still pending, the district court potentially prejudiced\nthe Second Circuit appellate review by introducing\ncontent that could influence appellate consideration before\nthe Court had issued a ruling on the underlying motions.\nO This act creates a structural procedural conflict because\nthe appellate record now includes materials reflecting the\ndistrict court's suppression of legitimate victim motions,\nthereby tainting the evidentiary and procedural record\nupon which appellate review will rely.\nStructural Procedural Breakdown i\n•\nThe combination of suppressing the motions and then\npublicly exposing them demonstrates a structural\nprocedural failure:\n•\nVictim's right to participate and be heard was denied\n(CVRA §3771 (3)(4). (a)(8));\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 28 of 42\n\n. Core procedural mechanisms meant to protect victims were\nundermined,\n. The integrity of the record was compromised because the\ncourt ignored a pending motion regarding its own\nimpartiality (recusal).\nThis is not merely a \"technical error\", it strikes at the\nfoundation of due process, because the procedural system\nfailed to allow the victim to assert their rights while\nsimultaneously exposing them to potential retaliation.\nIII RELIEF REQUESTED\nBased on the foregoing facts, including my persecution by the\nChinese Communist Party (CCP), the misclassification and silencing\nof legitimate victims, and the resulting structural procedural\nbreakdowns in this case, l respectfully request that this Court exercise\nits inherent authority, sua sponte, to grant the following relief:\n1. Exclusion of My Investments from Forfeiture Proceedings\nas a Gateway to Correcting the Record\nI was forced to flee China due to targeted political persecution,\nlosing all financial resources and means of livelihood. My G-\nrelated investments, totaling approximately [XXX] use, were\npreviously documented but never properly entered into the\nrecord. I respectfully request that the Court exclude these\ninvestments from any ongoing or future forfeiture\nproceedings, not merely to protect my property, but as the\nnecessary first step tocorrect the contaminated evidentiary\nand victim-identification record that underpins the criminal\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 29 of 42\n\nforfeiture and related proceedings.\n2. Structural Corrective Action and Sua Sponte Authority\nThe structural procedural errors identified--including\nmisidentification of victims, contradictory classification of\nvictim/perpetrator status, suppression of motions, and reliance\non contaminated evidence--have corrupted the foundation of\nall related orders and determinations.\nI therefore request that the Court exercise its inherent authority\nto:\nO rectify the misclassification and exclusion of legitimate\nvictims, including myself,\nO correct the evidentiary record and any tainted\ndeterminations, and\nO restore procedural and constitutional integrity in this case.\n3. Vacatur or Reconsideration of All Orders Contaminated by\nProcedural Breakdown\nAs a consequence of the structural collapse in this case, I\nrequest that the Court sua sponte review, vacate, or\nreconsider all orders and judgments that relied on the\ncontaminated record, including, but not limited to:\ncriminal conviction(s) related to G-related investments,\nO\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 30 of 42\n\n..\n..........\n.\n.\no forfeiture or asset seizure orders, and\n.....................\n.....\n4.\nProo tea\na\no\ncfn\nr\ntf\niy\ne\ns\no\nc\nub\nnt\npa\ne\np\noi dl\nr\nf\neo\nb\ntsr\ny\nh\nsp\nem\ner e\nd\nAist pr mii da poel\ne\ntnr\ni\nle\not li\nal nfe\ni te\ns\nea\nd\n.\ns\nR\ne\nv\ne\nicd cte oimt re dsrm\n,\npin roa sti eo cn us\nt\noa rn iad\nl\nc mo in sv ci oc nti do un\nct\n.\n.\n.\n.\n...........................................................................................................\ns\nc\ntT\nau\noh\nkp\nne\nep\nt\nr\nar\nse\ne\nm\nul se\nas\nia\nn\nes sade\npt\niv\noo\noi\nnf\nc\nn\no4D\ntt i\netmk\nh\nat e.\nm\nc\n7\na\nto\ni6\np\not5\ni\np\nno\nenr te\nls\nolv\na\nw\nce\nt\noea\ne\nrl\nr\nre\nre\ne\ned\nc\nce\nt\no\ntxh\nrc\naa\ndl\nnut\n.\nd\ndR\nI\ne\ncry\ned\nla aq,n\nrur\ni\nfaB\ne\nyi\na\ns\ns\nti\nhti\nn\np\netg\nhr re\naa\nev\nt\nc\nri to\ni\nohsu\nrek\nds\no\nCl by\nf\no eu for rt\ne\n.............................................................\nany appellate consideration.\n.....\n5. Any Further Relief the Court Deems Just and Proper\n..............\nI respectfully request that the Court grant any additional relief\n...............................\nnecessary to restore fairness, protect my rights as a victim,\nand ensure the lawfulness and integrity of all proceedings in\nthis matter.\n6. Upload a redacted version of this motion as Victim's motion\nredacted.pdf on the public docket, with personal identifying\ninformation (such as addresses, phone numbers, and account\nnumbers) removed, while maintaining the unredacted version\nEunder seal on the Clerk's docket for the Court's full\nconsideration.\nRespectfully submitted\n\"\" cii-\n_ ,,- P \" _-_,_\nNovember 23, 2025\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 31 of 42\n\nExhibit H\nA stenographic transcript of Jan 20, 2026 status\nconference\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 32 of 42\n\n1 v. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n2 MILES GUO,\n3 Defendant Conference\n4 -x\n5 New York, N.Y.\nJanuary 20, 2026\n6 10:05 a.m.\n7\nBefore\n8\nHON. ANALISA TORRES,\n9\nDistrict Judge\n10\n11 APPEARANCES\n12\nJAY CLAYTON\n13 United States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of New York\n14 RYAN B. FINKEL\nJULIANA N. MURRAY\n15 MICAH F. FERGENSON\nJUSTIN HORTON\n16 Assistant United States Attorneys\n17 MELINDA M. SARAFA\nJOHN F. KALEY\n18 JOSHUA L. DRATEL\nAttorneys for Defendant\n19\n20 Also Present Tuo Huang, interpreter (Mandarin)\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS I P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 33 of 42\n\n1 THE COURT: Good morning.\n2 we're here :Ln the matter of United States v. Miles\n3 Guo.\n4 Would you make your appearances, please.\n5 MR, FINKEL2 Good morning, your Honor\n6 Ryan Finkel, Juliana Murray, Micah Ferguson, and\nJustin Horton, for the government.\n'7\n8 THE COURT: Would the interpreter please make their\n9 appearance\n*\n10 THE INTERPRETER: Good morning, your Honor.\n11 Federal court professionally qualified interpreter Tuo\n12 Huang .\n13 THE COURT' And now the defense.\n14 MS. SARAFI-\\: Good morning, your Honor.\n15 Melinda Sarafa, John Kaley, and Joshua Dratel, for\n16 Miles Guo.\n17 THE COURT: Please be seated.\n18 Many individuals who believe they are victims of\n19 Mr. Goo's fraudulent scheme have asked for the return of their\n20 money . Some have contacted the prosecution and some have\n21 contacted the Court. Apparently, there is confusion about how\n22 the process of reimbursement works.\n23 I'm going to address two types of claims concerning\n24 the forfeited assets linked to Mr. GUn's illegal conduct in\n25 this case.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPQRTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 34 of 42\n\n1 First, under 21, United States Code, Section\n2 853(i) (1), and 28 Code of Federal Regulations 9, a victim may\n3 submit to the prosecution what is known as a petition for\n4 remission. A petition for remission asks the government to\n5 return assets to the victims of a defendant's crimes. The\n6 government will evaluate these petitions following the\n7 procedures described in Title 28 of the Code of Federal\n8 Regulations, Part 9.\n9 In a letter to the Court dated January 9th of this\n10 year, the government states that, in evaluating such petitions,\n11 it will consider whether a victim alleges a monetary loss that\n12 was directly caused by the criminal conduct, whether the\n13 allegations are supported by documentary evidence and whether\n14 the victim did not knowingly contribute to, participate in,\n15 benefit from, or act in a willfully blind manner to the events\n16 There is a second type of claim. Under Title 21,\n17 United States Code 853(n), an'individual can seek return of\n18 their assets if they show a stronger legal claim to the\n19 forfeited asset than the government does. One way a claimant\n20 can do that is by showing that they have superior title to an\n21 asset as of the date tee asset was forfeited to the government.\n22 In other words, the claimant must show that he or she had a\n23 stronger legal right to the asset than the defendant at the\n24 time of the criminal offense.\n25 For example, if a defendant were to borrow someone's\nSOUTHERN DI STRICT REPORTERS r P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 35 of 42\n\n1 car, and then use it to commit a crime, the car owner may be\n2 able to successfully assert that they have a superior legal\n3 interest in the car under Section 853(n)(6}(A).\n4 Another way a claimant can meet this standard is by\n5 showing that they were a bona fide purchaser for value of an\n6 interest in the forfeited asset. In other words, that he or\nshe bought the forfeited asset from the defendant in good f aith\n'7\n8 after his criminal acts, but with no knowledge of his criminal\n9 activity .\n10 A person who believes that they have such a claim can\n11 seek to recover their money by filing a Section 853(n) claim\n12 with the Court. However, I want to emphasize that victims of\n13 Mr. Guo's fraudulent scheme may be viewed under the law as\n14 general creditors and may not, therefore, be able to recover\n15 their money under Section 853(n). In other words, Section\n16 853(n) claims are not interchangeable with petitions for\n17 remission.\n18 Submissions received by the Court that do not\n19 reference Section 853(n) r but which the Court has instead\n20 determined to be petitions for remission, have been referred to\n21 the government for its consideration. Those submissions have\n22 not been placed on the docket and will not be placed on the\n23 docket .\n24 The Court is in the process of considering and\n25 docketing a large volume of submissions which name Section\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS f P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 36 of 42\n\n1 853(n) . Individuals who are represented by attorneys have been\n2 added to the docket as interested parties so that they may file\n3 their submissions directly on the docket. Individuals who are\n4 not represented by attorneys have not been added as interested\n5 parties on the docket. But the Court has received and is\n6 processing their petitions and will docket them as needed in\n7 due course. The Court may direct that the petitions be\n8 redacted or filed under seal to protect the claimants'\n9 personally identifiable or other sensitive information.\n10 In addition, the Court has received miscellaneous\n11 petitions making various complaints. Those submissions are\n12 being evaluated on an individual basis.\n13 The Court has called this status conference to discuss\n14 these matters with the parties in order to expedite the Court's\n15 consideration of the large volume of Section 853(n) petitions\n16 which number over 100. The Court has also asked for the\n17 parties' views on the appointment of a special master under\n18 Federal Rue of Civil Procedure 53, which permits a master to\n19 perform duties consented to by the par ties or to address\n20 post-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely\n21 addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge in\n22 the district.\n23 I've reviewed the government's letter dated January\n24 9th and the defendant's letter dated January 16th, both of this\n25 year. The parties recommend that the Court appoint a special\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS f P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 37 of 42\n\n1 master to assist in evaluating Section 853(n) petitions, and in\n2 administering ancillary proceedings in this case as needed.\n3 Compensation for a special master is limited by\n4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(g) (2) which states that:\nr\n5 Compensation must be paid either by a party or parties or from\n6 a fund or subject matter of the action within the Court's\n7 control .\n8 How does the government propose that the special\n9 master be compensated?\n10 MR. FINKEL: Your Honor, the government doesn't have a\n11 specific proposal with respect to that issue, but can certainly\n12 consider it and file a letter with the Court.\n13 Obviously the government is mindful of the assets that\n14 it has acquired through forfeiture and wants to retain as much\n15 as possible for victims\n16 THE COURT: Is the government aware of other courts\n17 nationally where a special master has been appointed to handle\n18 Section 853(n) petitions?\n19 MR. FINKEL: Standing here today, your Honor, I am\n20 not. That's not to say that it hasn't happened. I don't know\n21 if it has.\n22 THE COURT: I'd like you to look into that and report\n23 back to me\n24 MR. FINKEL We will do that.\n25 THE COURT Is there anything from the defense?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 38 of 42\n\n1 MS. SARAFA: Your Honor, I think our view is very\n2 similar to that articulated by the government. We would like\n3 to see as much of the seized assets preserved and returned to\n4 the investors and customers of the entities involved in this\n5 case . And I'm not aware of any authority, standing here today,\n6 regarding sources of funds for compensation of a special\n7 master.\n8 THE COURT: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b)(1)\n9 requires that prior to appointing a special master, the Court\n10 must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard;\n11 and that any party may suggest candidates for appointment.\n12 Therefore, by February 10th of this year, the parties\n13 shall confer and jointly file a letter recommending candidates\n14 to serve as special master under Rule 53(b) (1), and a\n15 recommendation as to the terms of compensation. Of course, the\n16 letter should also discuss the specific scope of the special\n17 master's appointment.\n18 Mr. Guo, you've been understanding what the\n19 interpreter has said; correct?\n20 THE DEFENDANT: (In English) Yes, your Honor.\n21 THE COURT: All righty. Is there anything further?\n22 MR. FINKEL Not from the government.\n23 THE COURT: All righty. The matter is adjourned.\n24 MS. SARAFA: Thank you, your Honor.\n25 * * *\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 39 of 42\n\n/\nPublic Documents\nrel\n......... in\nf~J\n:n\n\"kg\nI.\ni. .-. 1|\nI\n. i it\n»~I\nIi\nut. }\n\"1\n-II .: 0 .\n. -0\n| ~*\ni:1. -. I I\n.>\n|*' to\n:`\\ 'i\n4'.h\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 40 of 42\n\nIn re: Tony, Petitioner\nClerk of Court\nr\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit\n40 Foley Square\na*\na\nNew York, NY 10007 l .go\nE\n;\n4\n.\n4\nRelated District Court Case: li 1 | , ,,.. = .... »\nII; v\" ' \"\\)\n;» ¢\ni'7\\1\n~.3\nUnited States M Kwok, et al., I.gp-\nl\"\"\nS.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\nDear Clerk of Court,\nEnclosed please find the following documents, submitted in bothone redacted\nversion for public docketing and one unredacted version for filing under\nseal, as revised pursuant to the Court's December 16, 2025, and January 9,\n2025 return notice and the requested modifications set forth therein:\n1: Cover Letter (Corrected)\n2: Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Updated)\n3: Motion to Request Redaction of Personal Information (Updated)\n4: Certificate of Service (Corrected)\n5: Exhibit D:Victim's Motion to Remedy Strucfural Procedural\nBreakdown and Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action Under Court's\nInherent Authorify\nAlso enclosed are the following documents submitted inONLY one\nunredacted version only, for filing under seal:\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 41 of 42\n\nExhibit A: Petition for AnciIlaly Hearing Pursuant to21 U.S.C. § 853(n),\nExhibit B: Motion to Enforce the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. §\n3771),\nExhibitC: Crime Victim Motion and Request for Hearing (Submitted Under\nSeal Pursuant to the CVRA and the Court's Authority)\nExhibit E: Evidence of Submissions for Motions A-D, including both paper\nand electroniclemaii records,\nExhibit F: Key Court Documents Regarding the Crime of Funding ActivitieS\nEridangering National Security in China,\nExhibitG: Tony's immigration and identity-related documents.\nLastly, Exhibit H: Astenographic transcript of Jan 20, 2026 status\nconference,only in Public version.\nIdentification and Filing Clarification\nFor identification purposes only, the petitioner proceeds pro se under the\nname \"Tony.\"\nThe petitioner's legal name is W-:*' \"~, \"\\IH4\" 1 /.\"**.J \"l;1»44.. This statement is provided eoleiy to\n* *'-, J,--* :I~4 5 \"m\nclarify the identity of the filer and does not confer any representative,agency,\nor Iegai capacity on any other individual.\nIn addition, enclosed is a $600 filing fee check provided b ~~. ,I#+\nJ\n*4\"\\.*\"H.x' * +4m3 l/\n.H\nJt E* * /.°., who is\nnot counsel of record. 2n1n<: .-.1 ».ssistedsolely with translation, mailing, and\n: 44 . ¢\"'.-1'\npayment of the filing fee, and provided no legal representationin connection\nwith this filing.\nRespectfully submitted ,\nt\" . »\" +'*_\" ,r *.l.,_\nTony [real name: F 34\n,I\"+..-*\"* '1». +F \\. ,»*.,\nA 4. X\nPetitioner, pro se\nSignature:\nJanuary 28, 2026\n\n•\nI\n\"\"\"C3se: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 42 of 42\n\nUNITEDSTATES ITY\n®\nPRiDFl\nI l I II I IIHIII-I I l...ll.. I |. It .II llll.., MAIL\nPDSTAGE\nPOSTAL SERVlCE®\nUr\n58%\nRetail \"4 i\nV\nl\nII.\n>ec'£ed delivery as i.\nUS POSTAGE PAID ! FHDM:\nL*\nmystic shipments\nOrigin:95112\nr 7'0 W)'\n$19.95\nsend 0O 5F 7 I' 028 2, 1\"2 06 003 -17 pr naldestinations. _ C/==~l\nL\ni II]\ntited- international\nPRIORITY MAIL® 1\nenusers internatit .\\\n1 Lb 10.50 OF\nI I r\nRDC 03 4\nInge does nafcover cel I'|\nIons see the Uomestic EXPECTED DELIVERY DAY: 01/31/28 I\nternatiunal Mai! .Mani\n.cost\n: I\n! SHIP JL\ni\nI I TO:\nI 40 FOLEY SQ\nILING\nNEW YOF1K nY 100074502 \"FG:\n34 f r\n(,L<:;r}4 0 co if?\n~GMESTIC 1\n'I '_\n| USPSTRACKINGQ? #\nI lln~*t<& cQf,lHl4T <\n| 1 'J 7»»~ ijfe 5.369404 c irrzm\n:r\nitledule free'PacI<age FE\nscarf the GR €:0de.~\nL\nF=°'?~/ Squava\n-.=:\nI\n9595 5104 4042 5028 4090 91 Mw-Y°>*4» ,HY F\"°\" X\n1\nL\n[\nr\nI\nbSPS.G@WP1CKL1P' v\" I\nI\n_ _ r I\nn\nnwcn I ll\\l~QI l1;","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":9644,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-02-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-02-18","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:57:03"}