{"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":"人身保护令申请 —— United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-cr-00118-1 (AT) 案，向美国第二巡回上诉法院提出（上诉法院案号 26-361，2026 年 2 月 18 日提出）。自代理被害人 Tony 主张地方法院未将其提交的多份 §853(n) 和 CVRA（被害人权利法）相关申请记录在案或进行实质审理，请求上诉法院发令强制地方法院对这些申请进行处理。","summary_en":"Petition for writ of mandamus —— Case 26-361, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (filed 2/18/2026), concerning United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al., 1:23-cr-00118-1 (AT). Pro se petitioner, asserting crime victim status, alleges the district court has failed to docket or substantively review multiple filings under 18 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the Crime Victims' Rights Act, requesting mandamus relief to compel judicial consideration.","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":"案件编号：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷记录编号：7.1，第 1 页，共 42 页\n\n美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院（United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit）\n\n关于：Tony，\nUnited States v. Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等案）中的受害者，\n1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n职务履行令申请书（Petition for Writ of Mandamus）\n\n一、引言\n\n本人 Tony（真名：[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]），系 Crime Victims' Rights Act（《犯罪受害者权利法》，简称“CVRA”），18 U.S.C. § 3771(e) 所界定的犯罪受害者，谨依据 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3)（该条款明确授权犯罪受害者通过申请职务履行令救济以主张 CVRA 所保障之权利）以及 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21（《联邦上诉程序规则》第 21 条），向本院恭请核发职务履行令。\n\n本人曾向 Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院，简称 SDNY）的无律师自辩（pro se）电子邮箱提交多份文书——包括数份封存文件（证据 A-C）和一份公开文件（证据 D）——提出了直接影响本人依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 以及《犯罪受害者权利法》（CVRA），18 U.S.C. § 3771 所享有之财产权利的问题。具体而言，证据 A 系依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提交，证据 B、C 和 D 系依据 CVRA 提交。尽管在数月内多次尝试，地区法院均未将上述任何文书登载入案卷记录（docketed）、未予以裁决，亦未作出任何确认回应。\n\n在 2026 年 1 月 20 日的案件进展听证会（证据 H）上，地区法院表示，依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提交的无律师自辩申请书，包括由未聘请律师的个人提交的申请，正在处理中并将在适当时机载入案卷记录。基于该表态，本人理解本人提交至 SDNY 无律师自辩提交邮箱的 § 853(n) 申请书（证据 A）将依据没收法规被载入案卷记录并予以裁决。\n\n案件编号：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷记录编号：7.1，第 2 页，共 42 页\n\n然而，听证会笔录完全未提及《犯罪受害者权利法》。唯一能与本人的提交文书勉强相关的定性，仅是法庭泛泛地表示收到了大量“投诉”（complaints）。法庭通过省去对 CVRA 的任何提及，并将受害者权利主张文书定性为“投诉”，实际上将本人的 CVRA 提交文书贬低至一个没有任何载入案卷记录或裁决保障的类别。\n\n结果导致本人的 CVRA 提交文书（证据 B-D），尤其是证据 D，至今仍未载入案卷记录，亦未得到处理。此种处理方式剥夺了本人依 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4) 享有的获得合理陈述意见的法定权利，并反映出一种程序架构：在该架构下，CVRA 动议与 § 853(n) 申请书不同，既无法获得录入案卷的保障，也无法获得有意义的司法审查。\n\n地区法院对本人依据 CVRA 提出的申请不予载入案卷并降格为“投诉”的做法，构成了对 CVRA 权利的推定剥夺（constructive denial），并通过阻断任何可上诉裁定/命令的出具，彻底摧毁了上诉审查的可能性。\n\n本申请书并不寻求解决源自境外诉讼的任何事实争议，亦不寻求对受害者身份认定的实体是非作出裁决。其仅旨在防止 CVRA 项下的法定权利因不予录入案卷而归于消灭。\n\n提请裁决的争议焦点（Issue presented）：\n在地区法院对 United States v. Miles Guo（美国诉郭文贵案）中实质性影响量刑的提交文书给予了正式的、已载入案卷记录的审议（辩护律师提交 ECF 783，法庭责令政府答复 ECF 787，政府表示反对 ECF 795），却拒绝将本人同样直接关乎法定判决量刑框架（包括赔偿和没收认定）的 CVRA 提交文书载入案卷或进行实质性审查，并在 2026 年 1 月 20 日的案件进展听证会上将其重新定性为“投诉”，从而使本人无法获得任何有意义的司法审查途径的情况下，是否应当批准职务履行令救济？\n\n本人并不寻求与诉讼各方享有同等的实体诉讼地位，仅寻求对量刑具有实质影响的文书享有同等的案卷录入权和可审查性。\n\n案件编号：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷记录编号：7.1，第 3 页，共 42 页\n\n二、背景\n\n提供以下背景仅用于说明为何本人的 CVRA 提交文书直接关乎量刑相关程序，以及为何不予载入案卷会造成无法弥补的程序性损害。\n\n导致逃离中国的不当国家安全指控时间线：\n\n本人系一名中国公民，在 2020 年至 2021 年期间进行的个人金融投资，后来被中国当局重新定性为构成“资助危害国家安全犯罪活动罪”，尽管本人完全未参与任何政治活动、无任何政治意图，亦未与任何政治组织发生关联。正如本人的辩护律师在辩护意见书中所载（证据 F，第 77-88 页），这些投资完全属于私人性质且完全合法，国家安全定性与交易的实际性质并不相符。\n\n相同资金随后在美国被卷入 United States v. Kwok, et al. 所指控的欺诈计划中，从而造成了直接的跨主权冲突：中国将该资金视为危害国家安全犯罪的工具，而美国则将其视为刑事欺诈的收益。\n\n在 2020 年 5 月至 2021 年 3 月期间，本人进行了总计[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]的跨境投资汇款。中国法院记录反映其中[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]美元（不包括用于购买“喜币/H-Coins”的美元）。所有转账均为普通的个人投资，不具有任何政治性质。（证据 A 第 3 页，证据 F 第 10 页。）\n\n在中国记录所载的[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]美元中，有[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]美元对应于美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的 GW Fair Fund（第 3-20537 号公平基金）公开声明应返还给合资格索赔人的资金。尽管本人多次询问，却未获得任何退款。本人在逃离政治指控后目前居住在国外，身受重伤，已丧失工作能力，且无任何收入来源。公平基金持续未能处理此项退款，造成了严重的经济困境。在缺乏录入案卷的文书或司法行动的情况下，相关机构以缺乏法院案卷记录为由推卸责任。\n\n案件编号：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷记录编号：7.1，第 4 页，共 42 页\n\n2021 年 10 月 27 日，同一投资渠道的另一名投资者被中国警方拘留。对她的拘留标志着一项被定性为“资助危害国家安全犯罪活动罪”的刑事案件的立案。\n\n[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]三名人员进入本人的住所进行搜查。他们扣押了本人的护照、手机和电脑。（证据 F，第 2-10 页。）本人被带至一处公安机关接受讯问。搜查证上载明本人涉嫌同一危害国家安全罪名，讯问重点集中在涉案的 G 系列投资及与郭文贵有关的事项。（证据 F，第 2-4、28-43 页。）\n\n基于同样的指控，本人被采取了[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]审前强制措施。在整个诉讼过程中，本人始终声明所有转账均为与政治无关的普通金融投资。（证据 F，第 12-15 页。）\n\n[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]检察院对该案正式提起公诉。（证据 F，第 [经涂黑处理/OCR乱码] 页。）法院采取了第二次审前强制措施。（证据 F，第 65-67 页。）在[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]，法院举行了第一次开庭审理，但未宣判。（证据 F，第 62-64 页。）\n\n在[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]，法院作出了六个月“指定居所监视居住”的措施。（证据 F，第 71-73 页。）第二次开庭审理定于[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]举行。（证据 F，第 74-76 页。）由于本人在开庭前被迫逃离中国，本人对后续发生的情况一无所知，且从未收到任何相关记录或判决书。\n\n在第二次开庭前，检察官反复向本人施压，要求本人签署一份[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]“认罪”协议，并表示签署将判处约五年有期徒刑，而拒绝签署将导致面临显著更长的刑期。本人在强迫压力下签署了协议。为了了解案情和可能的量刑结果，本人更换了[经涂黑处理/OCR乱码]律师。每位律师均独立告知该案具有政治性质，已上报至中央机关，且五年以上监禁刑不可避免。\n\n案件编号：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷记录编号：7.1，第 5 页，共 42 页\n\n在逃离中国期间，本人遭遇了严重且危及生命的意外事故，导致了持久的身体与心理创伤。记录这些伤情的照片已包含在本人向 SDNY 提交的第一份无律师自辩材料中。（证据 A。）\n\n安全到达国外后，本人获悉美国正在对 United States v. Guo 进行起诉。在这些诉讼程序中，与 G 系列基金相关的投资者（包括本人在内）在行政和程序层面上均被视为受害者。政府已在案卷记录中明确承认存在此类受害者群体，并正在与这些个人保持沟通。（ECF 511。）\n\n在此背景下，本人目前的法律处境体现为基于同一笔资金而产生的悬而未决的双重主权冲突：(1) 中国基于这些投资将本人定性为危害国家安全罪犯；(2) 在美国刑事诉讼中，尽管政府承认投资者身份分类仍存争议且尚未经司法裁决，但在程序层面本人被视为经济受害者。\n\n自 2025 年 9 月起，本人在纽约南区联邦地区法院提交了多份无律师自辩材料，寻求确认 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 项下的第三方权利以及 18 U.S.C. § 3771（CVRA）项下的受害者权利。然而无一被载入案卷记录。通过 UPS 和 USPS 寄送的纸质文书虽已由法院工作人员签收，但从未在案卷记录中体现。这导致了完全的程序阻断——无法适用 § 853(n)，无法行使 CVRA 权利，无案卷记录，无具可上诉性的裁定/命令，亦无司法救济。\n\n本人的移民背景：\n\n由于在逃避迫害期间承受了极度的胁迫和心理压力，本人的认知功能受到了严重损害。因此，本人直到近期才意识到并回忆起：本人系本人身为美国公民的姐姐所提交的美国基于家庭亲属关系的 I-130 移民申请（证据 G）的受益人。这一疏漏反映了本人所承受创伤的严重性，但并不是\n\n案件编号：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷记录编号：7.1，第 6 页，共 42 页\n\n……本请愿书的焦点。这构成了在美国联邦层面获承认的未决法律权益。未能将我的动议录入案卷（docket），削弱了审查或调和这些分歧的程序机制。\n\n在中华人民共和国（People's Republic of China），我因对G系列（G-Series）的投资而被指控犯有危害国家安全性质的罪行（证据标物 F，第 47-61 页）。相比之下，在美国的刑事诉讼程序中，同样的资金——包括与法治基金（Rule of Law Foundation）、GClub 及相关实体关联的资金——被视为诈骗所得，且就检方起诉而言，我已被认定为郭文贵（Guo Wengui）的受害者。……相同的投资活动（证据标物 F，第 44-46 页）。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 7 of 42\n\n尽管存在这些重叠且矛盾的指标，纽约南区（Southern District of New York）仍拒绝将旨在对受害者名单及相关没收程序提出异议的动议录入案卷或进行裁决。其结果是，没有任何程序机制可用于审查、核实或调和记录中所反映的相互对立的定性。\n\n当法院所依赖的受害者认定既与外国主权行为不一致，又与国内执法材料相冲突——同时又剥夺了程序性复核时——受害者认定框架本身的可靠性就受到了质疑。因此，所提出的问题并非对证据证明力的争议，而是分配身份和受害者身份的程序中存在的结构性缺陷。\n\nB. 正当程序考量\n\n当身份分类、受害者认定和外国威胁指标汇聚在一起，却没有可用的程序性检验机制时，裁判结果的可靠性就无法被推定。在此类条件下推进程序，存在程序任意、认定不可靠以及对抗性检验机制失效的风险——而这些是对抗性检验在联邦刑事诉讼程序中正当程序的核心保障。\n\nC. 影响诉诸法院权利的外国强制措施\n\n更多事实表明了外国强制措施对我诉诸美国法院能力的影响。在一次国家安全突击搜查中，中国安全人员扣押了我的护照。该护照被故意从官方扣押清单中遗漏（证据标物 F，第 5-7 页），尽管执法人员随后在审讯期间出示了该护照。此类不予记录的扣押是国家安全机关用于实施隐蔽出境限制、同时规避正式文书要求的有记录可查的技术手段。\n\n该行为表明，我所遭受的并非常规的金融犯罪程序，而是政治安全控制措施，这些措施损害了我向美国法院寻求保护和救济的能力。针对联邦诉讼当事人的外国强制行动对司法程序的完整性构成了结构性风险。参见 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 817 F.2d 1108 (4th Cir. 1987)。未予披露的护照扣押构成了外国干预影响我在纽约南区获取法定救济途径的具体证据，支持了进行监督性复核的必要性。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 8 of 42\n\nD. 总结\n\n总而言之，相同的投资活动在不同司法管辖区之间产生了实质上相异的法律定性，将互不相容的身份强加给同一个人。当被告人和指定受害者都各自独立地与外国政治针对指标相关联，且检验或调和这些定性的程序途径已被封死时，受害者认定框架的可靠性便无法被推定。在此类情况下，继续依赖该框架会引发对程序完整性的严重质疑，并有必要进行监督性考量。\n\nIV. 关于受害者认定及没收资产的证据\n\n正如我的律师所提交的文件（证据标物 F，第 77-88 页）中详细说明的那样，中国检方讯问了与涉案资金流动有关的多名个人。记录表明，这些个人中有人将人民币（RMB）转入了个人的银行账户，该人随后使用其外贸公司账户将人民币兑换成美元，并将款项电汇至喜马拉雅七星联盟农场（Himalaya Seven-Star Association Farm）指定的账户。\n\n据我所知，资金一旦进入七星联盟农场账户，管理员（网络所知名号）便将从中国收到的款项转入联盟秘书长夏奇东（Qidong Xia，又名长岛哥）指定的账户。农场工作人员于 2025 年证实，来自中国投资者的借款和投资资金目前已被美国政府冻结。\n\n该交易结构与全中国范围内其他G系列投资一致，证明了以下几点：\n\n1. 中国投资者的资金流动表现出全国范围的一致性和系统性规律。\n\n2. 受害者群体拥有连贯且可追溯的交易记录。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 9 of 42\n\n3. 受害者身份或资金性质认定中的任何不准确，都可能对没收资产的评估产生实质性影响。\n\n因此，由于受害者群体的身份、资金性质以及跨境交易结构均具有一致性、可追溯性和可核实性，纽约南区联邦地区法院（SDNY）目前所依赖的没收框架有必要进行仔细复核。记录表明，相同的资金在美国被视为“欺诈受害者资产”，而源头投资者却同时受到外国国家安全诉讼程序的管辖。\n\n在没有进一步的程序或事实澄清的情况下，这些差异限制了可靠评估受害者身份、没收范围和赔偿资格的能力。现有记录表明，在任何认定被视为获得充分支持之前，都需要进行个别化复核和核实。\n\n证据标物 F 第 44-46 页指出，中国当局将郭文贵相关案件定性为属于“集中办理”的国家安全事项，反映了在公安部领导下协调一致的多部门行动和简化流程。这一背景表明，其资金最终流入美国被冻结账户的个人，是一个更大的、有组织网络的一部分，这凸显了在美国诉讼程序中进行仔细评估的重要性，以确保受害者认定和没收评估准确无误并有适当记录。\n\nV. 与程序复核相关的跨境背景\n\n我并非提出外交或外交政策争议。记录表明，没收程序中涉及的部分资金在中国受到了法律处置，而在美国却被定性为诈骗所得。\n\n这种分歧突显了进行仔细司法复核的必要性，以确保受害者认定、资产定性和没收管理建立在完整、可复核的记录之上，并符合法定保障要求。\n\nVI. 签发职务执行令的理由\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 10 of 42\n\n本请愿书并未要求本法院对量刑、没收、赔偿的实体问题或任何基础事实争议作出裁决。它仅寻求确保我的《犯罪受害者权利法案》（Crime Victims' Rights Act，简称 CVRA）呈递文件被录入案卷并获得可复核的程序性处置所必需的最低限度程序救济，以使法定权利不致因未予录入案卷而归于消灭。\n\n尽管职务执行令（mandamus）在传统上涉及 Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2001) 中所阐明的考量因素，但国会在 CVRA 项下明确授权了职务执行令救济，以应对若非如此程序上的不作为便会使受害人的法定权利归于无效的情形。本案的情形符合这些考量，特别是在未予录入案卷封死了进行司法复核的任何有意义途径的情况下。\n\n. 无其他适当救济途径\n\n在 2026 年 1 月 20 日的案件进展会议（status conference）上，未提及 CVRA，且我在 CVRA 项下提交的文件被视为“申诉（complaints）”而非已录入案卷的动议，因此没有任何裁定、命令或机制可以借以纠正由此产生的程序不平等。法院的做法剥夺了上诉复核，并消除了在各个案件中确保平等程序待遇的任何手段。\n\n损害是实质具体的。由于我的呈递文件未被录入案卷或裁决，法院未考虑直接关涉赔偿、没收资产分配或其他附随联邦利益的证据，包括我未决的 I-130 基于家庭的移民申请。同样，在缺乏录入案卷的文件或司法行动的情况下，我也缺乏使美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的 GTV 公平基金（GTV Fair Fund）采取行动的程序机制，因为录入案卷的文件或司法处置的缺失已导致该机构声称不具管辖权。\n\n. 享有救济的明确且无可争议的权利\n\n我获得救济的权利是明确且无可争议的。CVRA 保障受害者有被合理听取意见以及获得公正且受尊重对待的权利。18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)。主张这些权利的提交文件不能通过将其重新定性为非正式的“申诉”而在程序上归于无效。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 11 of 42\n\n程序上的不平等是显而易见的。在 United States v. Miles Guo 案中，地区法院明确审查了提出与量刑相关事项的文件。2026年1月5日，郭先生的律师根据《Classified Information Procedures Act（机密信息程序法）》（“CIPA”）提交了一封信函，请求披露“在量刑背景下具有实质性或有帮助”的机密信息（ECF 783）。尽管随后出现了反对意见（ECF 795），法院仍命令政府在2026年1月21日之前作出回应（ECF 787）。这证实了对量刑有实质影响的文件通常都会获得正式的案件卷宗登记和司法考量。\n\n我的文件——有官方文件和个人亲身经历作为支持，并且与赔偿以及被没收资产的分配直接相关——同样对量刑和相关的联邦利益具有实质意义。将它们当作不予登记入卷的“投诉”来对待，剥夺了我平等的程序考量权利，并违反了明确的法定保障。\n\n在当前情况下签发调卷令/执行令是适当的\n\n若无调卷令/执行令，量刑、赔偿和没收程序可能会在不完整的记录基础上继续进行，而我的法定权利在程序上仍将处于被消灭的状态。\n\n因为地区法院的不作为既破坏了程序平等，又因导致量刑、赔偿、资产追回和相关联邦利益方面的任何错误实际上不可逆转而构成不可弥补的损害威胁，所以司法干预是正当必要的。签发调卷令/执行令是必要的，以确保我的文件获得与类似案件中提交的文件相同的程序关注和审查，这完全是为了维护法定和宪法权利。\n\n提出本请求完全是为了在本阶段最终被认定无管辖权的情况下，保留本院及任何更高级别审查机构进行有效审查的机会。\n\nVII. 家庭安全声明（仅为澄清背景而提交）\n\n我谨指出，上述涉及外国国家安全的程序\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 12 of 42\n\n在相关期间对我自由沟通以及寻求法律救济的能力造成了重大限制。\n\n由于外国当局先前的调查行动，我居住在国外的直系亲属知悉了这些程序。我并非声称已发生任何伤害，亦非主张存在未来伤害的意图。提交此信息仅为解释为何获得美国司法程序——包括根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 和 CVRA 对我的提交材料进行登记入卷的考量——具有格外的重要性。在外国胁迫情形损害诉讼当事人诉诸法院的途径时，未能对文件进行登记入卷和裁判会对司法程序的完整性与独立性构成结构性风险。\n\nVIII. 寻求的救济\n\n我谨请求本院签发调卷令/执行令，指示给予以下救济：\n\n1. 命令地区法院将我经过隐名处理的 CVRA 动议（证物 D）登记入 SDNY 案件卷宗。\n\n2. 针对我在证物 D 救济项 4 中关于保留上诉记录的请求，迅速作出已登记入卷的程序性处置，而不指示任何实体结果，其有限目的仅为澄清我的提交材料在地区法院记录中的状态。\n\n谨此提交：\nTony\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 13 of 42\n\n送达证书\n\n关于：申请人 Tony\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\nSDNY 案件：United States v. Kwok, et al. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n我特此证明，于2026年1月21日，以下文件的真实且正确的隐名处理副本已按如下方式送达：\n\n1. 隐名处理后的《请求隐名处理个人信息的动议》；\n2. 隐名处理后的《调卷令/执行令请愿书》；\n3. 隐名处理后的证物 D：《受害者关于补救结构性程序崩溃并请求依据法院固有权力主动采取纠正措施的动议》；\n4. 2026年1月20日状态会议的速记记录文本。\n\n一份指明存在密封证物 A、B、C、E、F、G 的单独通知已送达法院和政府。密封材料本身未予公开归档。\n\n送达系通过转交邮寄方式向以下接收人进行：\n\n1. Analisa Torres 法官阁下\n美国联邦地区法官\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n2. Ryan B. Finkel\n联邦助理检察官\nUnited States Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nOne St. Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 14 of 42\n\n身份及送达澄清\n\n仅出于识别目的，请愿人以“Tony”的名义代表本人（pro se）提起诉讼。\n\n请愿人的法定姓名为……提供本声明仅为澄清归档人的身份，并不向任何其他个人赋予任何代理人、代理机构或法律资格。\n\n送达系使用以下发件人信息通过转交邮寄方式执行：\n\n……仅协助了翻译、邮寄及缴纳申请费，并未向请愿人提供法律代理。\n\n谨此提交，\nTony（真实姓名……）\n请愿人，亲自代表本人（pro se）\n签署于2026年1月27日。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 15 of 42\n\n隐名处理后的证物 D：受害者关于补救结构性程序崩溃并请求依据法院固有权力主动采取纠正措施的动议\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 16 of 42\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n原告，\nv.\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 MILES GUO 等，\n被告。\n\n案号：1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n受害者关于补救结构性程序崩溃并请求依据法院固有权力主动采取纠正措施的动议\n\n致：Analisa Torres 法官阁下\n美国联邦地区法官\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n本人……作为 18 U.S.C. § 3771 项下的受害者，谨代表本人（pro se）提交本动议，请求法院补救结构性程序崩溃\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 17 of 42\n\n并请求依据法院固有权力主动采取纠正措施\n\nI. 背景\n\n本人已向 SDNY 提交了多份代表本人（pro se）的动议，试图将本人合法的 G 系列相关投资排除在没收程序之外。本人的文件提交记录如下：\n\n2025年9月19日，本人通过电子邮件向 SDNY 亲自诉讼接待处提交了第一份 853(n) 第三方请愿书。\n\n2025年9月20日，本人提交了第一份 CVRA 犯罪受害者动议。\n\n几天后，本人发现这些版本缺少手写签名。本人立即进行了纠正。2025年9月25日，本人通过电子邮件重新提交了已签署的 853(n) 请愿书和已签署的 CVRA 动议，并且还将纸质材料包裹邮寄给了法院和美国联邦检察官办公室。USPS（美国邮政署）记录确认，两家机构均已收到并签收了邮寄的文件。\n\n尽管采取了这些步骤，所有文件均未被登记入卷。\n\n2025年10月22日，本人提交了第二份 CVRA 动议，并在该提交材料中附上了 USPS 投递证明，显示本人早先的纸质文件确实已被送达但从未被登记入卷。\n\n本人总共提交了三份动议（一份 853(n) 请愿书和两份 CVRA 动议），每份均以电子方式和实体纸质形式发送。\n\n这些投递证明记录包含在 Appendix__A_Proof__of__Delivery_to_SDNY_and_USA_..Nov3__2025.pdf 中。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 18 of 42\n\n尽管进行了这些多次尝试，本人的任何文件均未被上传至案件卷宗，这种持续数周的未能登记入卷构成了对本人 CVRA 权利的明显侵犯：\n\n1. 获得合理陈述意见的权利（§ 3771(a)(4)）；\n2. 受到公平与尊重对待的权利（§ 3771(a)(8)）；\n3. 程序免受不合理拖延的权利（§ 3771(a)(7)）；\n4. 免受进一步伤害保护的权利（§ 3771(a)(1)）；\n5. 依据“犯罪受害者”的法定定义，其受害者身份获得充分且真实考量的权利。\n\nII. 程序违规\n\n正如本人在2025年9月20日提交的先前被压制/隐匿的动议中所述：\n\n本人是 G 系列相关项目的合法投资者，从未参与过欺诈、不法行为或政治活动。然而，仅仅因为该笔投资以及与该投资相关的个人和平台的身份，本人便成为了 Chinese Communist Party (CCP，中国共产党) 当局的目标，被贴上“危害国家安全”的标签，并遭受了报复性起诉。本人被迫逃亡，失去了家园、生计、社群和安全，此后一直处于流亡状态。这些事实均已由法院记录核实、记录并佐证，包括平行案件，例如投资者吴某遭受的起诉和监禁，\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 19 of 42\n\n吴某在因发表读者极少的轻微网络言论而被指控“颠覆国家政权”后至今仍身陷囹圄。对吴某以及请愿人等投资者的迫害表明，危险是真实的、持续存在的，并且与本案直接相关。\n\n如果一名受害者在其母国被定性为“危害国家安全”并遭受政治迫害，而 Torres 法官仍然压制/隐匿受害者的文件，这构成严重的程序违法：\n\n1. 违反《Crime Victims' Rights Act（犯罪受害者权利法）》（CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771）\n• 未能承认请愿人的犯罪受害者身份。\n• 剥夺获得合理陈述意见的权利（§ 3771(a)(4)）。\n• 剥夺获得公平对待的权利（§ 3771(a)(8)）。\n• 未能保护请愿人免受进一步伤害（§ 3771(a)(1)）。\n• 忽视法定期限并造成程序延误（§ 3771(a)(7)）。\n• 尽管存在因外国迫害带来的致命风险，仍允许个人身份信息（PII）处于暴露状态。\n\n2. 违反第五修正案正当程序\n• 法院在明知的情况下增加了请愿人的风险（国家制造危险理论）。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 20 of 42\n\n• 剥夺了有意义地参与影响财产、权利和受害者认定的程序的权利。\n\n3. 违反平等保护条款\n• 对遭受外国行为体（CCP）迫害的受害者，与 Dkt. 733 中详细说明的毫无依据的债权人登记人给予了差别对待。\n• 使合法受害者噤声，同时抬高未经核实或非法的索赔人。\n• 未能向这一极为脆弱的群体提供更强有力的程序保护。\n\n4. 违反法院保护面临外国迫害的诉讼当事人的固有权力\n• 忽视了有记录证明的、来自外国政府迫害的持续致命风险。\n\n5. 在明知受害者身份和证据存在污染的情况下仍继续推进程序\n• 破产案（22-50073）Doc. 2083 承认债权人和受害者群体存在重叠且具有主观性。\n• 刑事诉讼程序在未解决身份冲突的情况下继续推进，导致无根据的索赔人主导了话语权。\n\n6. 忽视外部影响和外国干预风险\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 21 of 42\n\n• 未能将 CCP（中国共产党）对 G 系列投资者的针对性迫害视为程序裁决中的实质性考量因素。\n\n• 允许陈述叙事和证据记录反映出与外国迫害行为方一致的利益。\n\n• 忽视这一因素构成了需要采取纠正措施的结构性及宪法性侵害。\n\n7. 结构性程序崩塌\n受害者与加害者身份冲突及结构性程序崩塌，外国对受害者定性的影响\n\n7.1 法律地位的冲突\n三重身份冲突：\n在中国：\n同一种投资行为被定性为对国家安全的威胁，我在政治安全框架下被当作加害者对待。随后，我遭受了中国当局的政治迫害，实际上使我成为国家报复的受害者。\n在美国：\n完全相同的投资行为被定性为 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）所实施欺诈计划的一部分，在 CVRA（《犯罪受害者权利法案》）及联邦刑事欺诈法规项下，我被视为受害者。\n直接矛盾：\n我同时被认定为：\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 22 of 42\n\n• 中国当局眼中的加害者，\n• 同一中国当局政治迫害的受害者，\n• 美国法律项下的欺诈受害者。\n\n额外冲突——Wu（吴）某的案例\n\n另一名投资者 Wu（吴）某，因完全相同的、被美国政府定性为投资者欺诈的投资计划，在中国被判处刑事罪名。尽管完全符合美国法律项下的欺诈受害者资格，Wu 却被完全排除在 SDNY（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的受害者认定程序之外。\n\n体制性影响：\n这些冲突表明，身份矛盾并非孤立现象，而是体制性的，影响了美国诉讼程序中的整个受害者框架。\n\n7.2 对法律诉讼程序的影响\n美国法院关于受害者地位、资产没收、赔偿以及依据 CVRA 参与诉讼的裁定，均依赖于投资者系真正欺诈受害者这一前提假定。\n然而：\n• 如果同一个人被另一个主权当局在法律上当作加害者对待，\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 23 of 42\n\n• 如果像 Wu 这样的其他投资者因同一投资而在境外受到刑事惩罚，\n• 如果这些个人被排除在美国受害者名单之外，\n• ……那么美国诉讼程序的证据基础就会崩塌。\n\n这构成了对受害者的体制性错误分类，因为：\n• 处于类似处境的个人被给予了不一致的分类，\n• 关于谁有资格作为“受害者”的核心事实仍未解决，\n• 证据记录变得内部自相矛盾。\n\n结果导致结构性程序崩塌的发生：美国法院的裁决依赖于无法同时为真的事实前提。\n\n7.3 对法院诉讼行为的后果\n对受害者/加害者地位的错误认定和体制性错误分类导致：\n• 在刑事和没收程序中不当纳入或排除相关个人，\n• 依赖受污染的、不完整的或自相矛盾的证据，\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 24 of 42\n\n• 可能侵犯正当程序、平等保护以及 CVRA 法定保护；\n• 程序合法性的崩塌，因为在案件的基本身份和事实框架仍存在矛盾的情况下，法院无法合法推进诉讼。\n\n简而言之：\n当同一项投资在中国产生“加害者”、在美国产生“受害者”，并且像 Wu 这样的关键个人被排除在外时，整个受害者框架就变得内部自相矛盾，需要采取结构性纠正应对措施以恢复公正和合法参与。\n\n当两个主权体将同一个人既定性为国家安全加害者又定性为欺诈受害者时，美国法院在未首先解决该冲突的情况下，不能依赖未经核实的受害者名单。在未解决该矛盾的情况下继续推进程序，将使没收框架在法律上不可靠且在宪法层面存在瑕疵。\n\n此外，本案中受害者的错误分类因外国影响而进一步加剧。证据——包括 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）对像 Wu 这样的投资者以及对本人的迫害——表明，外部行为方已直接或间接地塑造了关于谁符合“受害者”资格的叙事。当美国法院在未经独立核实的情况下依赖这些分类时，诉讼程序便存在受到外国政治利益污染的风险，从而进一步破坏正当程序、公正性以及没收框架的完整性。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 25 of 42\n\n8. 美国法院不得采纳与迫害政权相一致的叙事\n在宪法层面上，美国刑事诉讼程序不得采纳在客观上即便属于无意中也与迫害受害者的同一外国政权的利益相一致的受害者认定叙事。这样做会破坏司法程序的公立中立性，并违反基本的正当程序原则。\n\n9. 忽视司法不当行为并在已知存在污染的情况下推进程序\n在 Dkt. 733 中，Ryan Bai 指出了 Prosecution（检方）和 Trustee Luc（受托人 Luc）可能存在的构成对法庭欺诈的不当行为。\n然而，法院：\n• 数月未对这些指控采取行动，忽视了对合法受害者可能造成的损害，并允许基于已知受损的记录继续推进没收相关程序。\n• 在提交 Dkt. 733 后，法院继续推进没收程序，尽管所提出的问题直接动摇了作为基础的受害者认定和资产没收裁决的可靠性与合法性。\n\n法律影响：\n• 侵犯正当程序：基于已知受到污染的记录继续推进程序侵犯了申请人的第五修正案权利。处于该处境的受害者被剥夺了获得公正听审的机会。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 26 of 42\n\n• 违反 CVRA：《犯罪受害者权利法案》（18 U.S.C. § 3771）保证受害者有权参与影响资产和程序的事务。忽视 Dkt. 733 中的警示阻止了合法受害者行使这项权利。\n• 结构性程序崩塌：在获悉记录受到污染的情况下仍推进程序，法院助长了对受害者和债权人的错误分类，造成了一个内部自相矛盾的证据框架，破坏了整个没收程序的完整性。\n• 滥用自由裁量权 / 未予纠正：法院对程序受污染的明确警示不予作为，构成了面对结构性错误时的司法不作为，应当受到纠正性干预。\n\n10. 与 Dkt. 765 相关的潜在程序和法律违规\n压制受害者依法提出要求法官回避的动议\n• 地区法院未能审议或处理申请人要求法官回避的动议，直接压制了行使《犯罪受害者权利法案》（18 U.S.C. § 3771）所保障权利的行为，并剥夺了申请人获得公正听审的机会。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 27 of 42\n\n• 这种压制破坏了正当程序并可能侵犯平等保护，因为其他处于类似处境的当事人可能已被允许寻求程序救济。\n\n上诉记录受到污染\n• 地区法院在申请人关于回避的动议仍在待决期间提交 Dkt. 765，可能通过引入在法院对基础动议作出裁定之前就可能影响上诉审议的内容，对 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）的上诉复审造成不利偏见。\n• 这一行为造成了结构性程序冲突，因为上诉记录现在包含了反映地区法院压制合法受害者动议的材料，从而玷污了上诉复审将依赖的证据和程序记录。\n\n结构性程序崩塌\n• 既压制动议又公开披露动议的做法，表明存在结构性程序缺陷：\n• 受害者参与和陈述的权利被剥夺（CVRA § 3771(a)(3)、(4)、(8)）；\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 28 of 42\n\n• 旨在保护受害者的核心程序机制遭到破坏，\n• 记录的完整性受到损害，因为法院忽视了关于其自身公正性（回避）的待决动议。\n\n这不仅仅是一个“技术性错误”，它动摇了正当程序的基础，因为程序制度未能允许受害者主张其权利，同时又使他们面临遭受报复的潜在风险。\n\nIII. 请求的救济\n基于上述事实，包括本人遭受 Chinese Communist Party（CCP/中国共产党）的迫害、合法受害者被错误分类和噤声，以及本案中由此造成的结构性程序崩塌，我谨请求本法院依其固有效力依职权（sua sponte）准予以下救济：\n\n1. 将本人的投资排除在没收程序之外，以此作为纠正记录的切入点\n因遭受针对性政治迫害，我被迫逃离中国，失去了所有财务资源和谋生手段。我与 G 系列相关的投资总额约计 [XXX] 美元，此前已有记录但从未被妥善记入案卷记录。我谨请求法院将这些投资排除在任何正在进行或未来的没收程序之外，这不仅是为了保护我的财产，而且是纠正作为刑事没收及相关程序基础的、受到污染的证据和受害者认定记录所必需的第一步。\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 29 of 42\n\n2. 结构性纠正措施与依职权裁决权\n已指出的结构性程序错误——包括对受害者的错误认定、受害者/加害者地位的矛盾分类、对动议的压制以及对受污染证据的依赖——已经腐蚀了所有相关命令和裁决的基础。\n\n因此，我请求法院行使其固有权力以：\n• 纠正对包括本人在内的合法受害者的错误分类和排除，\n• 纠正证据记录及任何受玷污的裁决，以及\n• 恢复本案中的程序与宪法完整性。\n\n3. 撤销或重新审议所有受程序崩塌污染的命令\n作为本案结构性瓦解的后果，我请求法院依职权复审、撤销或重新审议依赖受污染记录作出的所有命令和判决，包括但不限于：\n• 与 G 系列相关投资有关的刑事定罪，\n\nCase: 26-361, 02/18/2026, DktEntry: 7.1, Page 30 of 42\n\n• 没收或资产查封命令，以及\n\n4. 保护合法受害者免受外国迫害及检方/诉讼不当行为侵害，纠正本案中因受污染证据和程序违规所导致的事实与记录错误。对相关动议及 Dkt. 4 等事项中提出的问题进行适当处理。\n\n任何上诉审理。\n\n5. 法院认为公正且适当的任何进一步救济\n\n我谨请求法院给予为恢复公正、保护我作为受害人的权利、以及确保本案所有诉讼程序的合法性与完整性所必需的任何额外救济。\n\n6. 在公开案卷中上传本动议的删节版本，命名为 Victim's motion redacted.pdf，其中个人身份识别信息（如地址、电话号码和账号）均已移除，同时在书记官案卷中将未删节版本作盖印保密处理，以供法院全面审酌。\n\n谨此提交\n\n2025年11月23日\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 31 页，共 42 页\n\n证据 H\n2026年1月20日案情进展会议速记记录\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 32 页，共 42 页\n\n1 对 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n2 MILES GUO（郭文贵），\n3 被告 案件进展会议\n4 -x\n5 纽约州纽约市\n2026年1月20日\n6 上午 10:05\n\n主审法官\n\nANALISA TORRES 阁下，\n\n地区法官\n\n出庭人员\n\nJAY CLAYTON\nUnited States Attorney for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦检察官）\nRYAN B. FINKEL\nJULIANA N. MURRAY\nMICAH F. FERGENSON\nJUSTIN HORTON\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理联邦检察官）\nMELINDA M. SARAFA\nJOHN F. KALEY\nJOSHUA L. DRATEL\n被告辩护律师\n\n黄拓（音译，Tuo Huang），普通话翻译员\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 33 页，共 42 页\n\n1 法庭：早上好。\n2 我们现在审理 United States v. Miles Guo（美国 诉 郭文贵）一案。\n3\n4 请出庭人员报到。\n5 FINKEL 先生：法官阁下，早上好。\n6 Ryan Finkel、Juliana Murray、Micah Ferguson 和 Justin Horton 代表政府出庭。\n7\n8 法庭：请翻译员报到。\n9\n10 翻译员：法官阁下，早上好。\n11 联邦法院专业资质翻译员黄拓（Tuo Huang）。\n12\n13 法庭：现在请辩方报到。\n14 SARAFA 女士：法官阁下，早上好。\n15 Melinda Sarafa、John Kaley 和 Joshua Dratel 代表郭文贵出庭。\n16\n17 法庭：请就座。\n18 许多认为自己是郭先生欺诈计划受害者的个人已要求退还其款项。有些人联系了检方，有些人联系了法院。显然，对于偿还程序的运作方式存在困惑。\n19\n20 我将就本案中与郭先生非法行为相关的没收资产，针对两类权利主张进行说明。\n21\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 34 页，共 42 页\n\n1 首先，根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1) 以及 28 C.F.R. § 9，受害人可向检方提交所谓的豁免/减免申请（petition for remission）。豁免申请系请求政府将被告犯罪所得资产返还给受害人。政府将按照《联邦法典》第 28 编第 9 部分（28 C.F.R. Part 9）所载程序对这些申请进行评估。\n2\n3 在今年1月9日致法院的一封信中，政府指出，在评估此类申请时，将考虑受害人所主张的金钱损失是否由犯罪行为直接造成、主张是否有书面证据支持、以及受害人是否没有明知地协助、参与、受益于相关事件或对此类事件采取故意视而不见（willful blindness）的态度。\n4\n5 存在第二种权利主张。根据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)，如果个人能够证明其对被没收资产享有优于政府的合法权利主张，则可寻求返还其资产。主张人证明这一点的一种方式是证明截至该资产被没收给政府之日，其对该资产享有优先所有权。换言之，主张人必须证明在发生犯罪行为时，其对该资产享有的合法权利强于被告。\n6\n7 例如，如果被告借用了某人的汽车，然后用它来实施犯罪，车主或许能够根据第 853(n)(6)(A) 条成功主张其对该汽车享有优先的合法权益。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 35 页，共 42 页\n\n1 主张人满足此标准的另一种方式是证明其为该没收资产权益的善意有偿取得人（bona fide purchaser for value）。换言之，即其在被告实施犯罪行为后、但对其犯罪活动一无所知的情况下，出于善意从被告处购买了该没收资产。\n2\n3 认为自己拥有此类权利主张的人士，可以通过向法院提交第 853(n) 条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人在法律上可能被视为普通债权人，因此可能无法根据第 853(n) 条追回其资金。换言之，第 853(n) 条权利主张与豁免申请不可互换替代。\n4\n5 法院收到的未提及第 853(n) 条、但被法院认定为属于豁免申请的材料，已转交政府予以审酌。这些材料未被录入案卷系统，也不会被录入案卷系统。\n6\n7 法院目前正在审理并录入大量指明第 853(n) 条的材料。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 36 页，共 42 页\n\n1 有律师代理的个人已被作为利害关系方添加到案卷中，以便其可直接将材料提交至案卷。没有律师代理的个人尚未作为利害关系方添加到案卷中。但法院已经收到并正在处理其申请，并将在适当时候按需将其录入案卷。法院可指示对申请进行删节处理或以盖印保密方式提交，以保护主张人的个人身份识别信息或其他敏感信息。\n2\n3 此外，法院还收到了提出各类申诉的杂项申请。这些材料正逐案进行个别评估。\n4\n5 法院召开本次案件进展会议以与各方讨论这些事项，从而加快法院审理超过 100 件的大量第 853(n) 条申请的进度。法院还征求了各方关于根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 53 条（Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53）指定特别主事官（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，或处理本地区在任地区法官或地方法官无法有效且及时处理的审后事项。\n6\n7 我已审阅了政府今年1月9日的信函以及被告今年1月16日的信函。双方均建议法院指定一名特别主事官，以协助评估第 853(n) 条申请，并按需在本案中协助主持附随程序（ancillary proceedings）。\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 37 页，共 42 页\n\n1 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，该条款规定：报酬必须由一方或多方当事人支付，或从法院控制下的诉讼标的或基金中支付。\n2\n3 政府对特别主事官的报酬支付有何建议？\n4\n5 FINKEL 先生：法官阁下，政府就该问题尚无具体方案，但当然可以对此进行考量并向法院提交信函。\n6\n7 显然，政府充分知悉其通过没收获得的资产，并希望尽可能多地为受害人保留资产。\n8\n9 法庭：政府是否知悉全国范围内有其他法院指定特别主事官来处理第 853(n) 条申请的先例？\n10\n11 FINKEL 先生：就今天此时而言，法官阁下，我尚不知晓。但这并不是说没有发生过。我不知道是否存在这种情况。\n12\n13 法庭：我希望你们就此进行调研并向我汇报。\n14\n15 FINKEL 先生：我们会照办。\n16\n17 法庭：辩方是否有意见？\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 38 页，共 42 页\n\n1 SARAFA 女士：法官阁下，我认为我们的观点与政府表达的观点非常相似。我们希望看到查封资产尽可能多地得到保全并返还给本案涉及实体的投资者和客户。而且，就今天此时而言，我也不了解有关支付特别主事官报酬的资金来源的任何法律依据。\n2\n3 法庭：《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 53(b)(1) 条要求，在指定特别主事官之前，法院必须向各方发出通知并给予陈述意见的机会；任何一方均可推荐被任命的候选人。\n4\n5 因此，在今年2月10日之前，各方应进行磋商，并依据第 53(b)(1) 条共同提交一份信函，推荐担任特别主事官的候选人，并就报酬条款提出建议。当然，信函还应探讨特别主事官任命的具体职权范围。\n6\n7 郭先生，你一直听得懂翻译员所说的话，对吗？\n8\n9 被告：（用英语）是的，法官阁下。\n10\n11 法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？\n12\n13 FINKEL 先生：政府方面没有了。\n14\n15 法庭：好的。休庭。\n16\n17 SARAFA 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n18\n19 * * *\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 39 页，共 42 页\n\n/\n公开文件\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 40 页，共 42 页\n\n事项：申请人 Tony\n法院书记官\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n关联地区法院案件：\nUnited States v. Kwok, et al.（美国 诉 郭文贵 等）\nS.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院）案号：1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n尊敬的法院书记官：\n\n随函附上以下文件，根据法院2025年12月16日及2025年1月9日退回通知及其中载明的修改要求进行了修订，均以一份供公开录入案卷的删节版本及一份供盖印保密归档的未删节版本一并提交：\n\n1：附信（已更正）\n2：人身保护/执行令状（委任令）申请书（已更新）\n3：请求对个人信息作删节处理的动议（已更新）\n4：送达证明（已更正）\n5：证据 D：受害人关于纠正结构性程序故障并请求依据法院固有权力主动采取纠正措施的动议\n\n随函亦附上以下仅以一份未删节版本提交、供盖印保密归档的文件：\n\n案件：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷条目：7.1，第 41 页，共 42 页\n\n附件 A：依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提起的附随听证申请书，\n附件 B：执行《犯罪被害人权利法案》（Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771)，简称 CVRA）的动议，\n附件 C：犯罪被害人动议及听证请求（依据 CVRA 及法院职权密封提交），\n附件 E：动议 A 至 D 的提交证明，包括纸质及电子/电子邮件记录，\n附件 F：关于资助危害中国国家安全活动罪的关键法院文件，\n附件 G：Tony 的移民及身份相关文件。\n最后，附件 H：2026年1月20日状态会议的速记记录文本，仅公开版本。\n\n身份及立案说明\n仅出于身份识别目的，请愿人以“Tony”名义亲自代表自身（pro se）进行诉讼。\n请愿人的法定姓名为 [乱码/涂黑]。本声明仅用于澄清立案人的身份，不赋予任何其他个人任何代表、代理或法律身份/资格。\n此外，随附一张 600 美元的立案费支票，由 [乱码/涂黑] 提供，其并非记录在案的律师。[乱码/涂黑] 仅协助进行翻译、邮寄及支付立案费，就本次立案并未提供任何法律代理。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nTony [真实姓名：乱码/涂黑]\n请愿人，亲自代表自身（pro se）\n签名：\n2026年1月28日\n\n案号：26-361，02/18/2026，案卷分录：7.1，第 42 页，共 42 页\n\nUnited States Postal Service（美国邮政署，简称 USPS）\nPriority Mail（优先邮件）\n邮资\n零售\n已付美国邮资\n始发地：95112\n19.95 美元\n优先邮件 1\n1 磅 10.50 盎司\n预计送达日期：01/31/26\n寄送至：\n40 FOLEY SQ\nNEW YORK NY 10007-1502\n国内\nUSPS 追踪单号：\nUSPS.COM/PICKUP","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":9644,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-02-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-02-18","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:12:24"}