{"id":"court_sdny_830_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":830,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2026-04-06","title":"SDNY ECF 830","summary_zh":"关于被害人赔偿争议的反对意见状及交叉制裁动议——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo）等被告案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #830（2026-04-06 提交）。由代理大批喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）客户的律师 Bradford L. Geyer 提交，反对前委托客户 Zhubeibei / Beibei Zhu 就没收资产赔偿提出的补充通知及“程序欺诈”指控与制裁动议，主张该指控缺乏新证据、系重复滥诉，并依据联邦民诉规则第 11 条及法院固有权力对 Zhu 提出交叉制裁请求。","summary_en":"Response in opposition and cross-motion for sanctions concerning restitution of seized funds — in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui) et al., SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #830 (filed 2026-04-06). Filed by Bradford L. Geyer, counsel for a large group of Himalaya Exchange customers, opposing a supplemental notice of victim damages and 'procedural fraud' allegations and motion for sanctions filed by former client Zhubeibei / Beibei Zhu, arguing the claims are repetitive and unsupported by new evidence, and cross-moving for sanctions against Zhu under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the court's inherent authority.","body_en":"1\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n                       -v-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a   “Miles Guo,”\n“Miles Kwok,” “Guo Wengui,” “Brother\nSeven,” or  “The Principal,”\n\n                         and\n\nKIN MING JE, a/k/a “William Je,”\n\n                         and\n\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a “Yvette,”\n\n                                   Defendants.\n\n            Restitution of Seized Funds\n          Criminal No.:   23-cr-118 (AT)\n\nRESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO\nZHUBEIBEI / BEIBEI ZHU’S\nSUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF\nVICTIM DAMAGES, OBJECTION TO\nPROCEDURAL FRAUD, AND\nMOTION FOR SANCTIONS; AND\nCROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS\nUNDER COURT’s INHERENT\nAUTHORITY UNDER FED. R. CIV. P.\n11\n\n              Assigned to the Honorable U.S.\n              District Court Judge Analisa\n                  Torres, Presiding Judge\n\nRESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ZHUBEIBEI / BEIBEI ZHU’S SUPPLEMENTAL\nNOTICE OF VICTIM DAMAGES, OBJECTION TO PROCEDURAL FRAUD, AND\nMOTION FOR SANCTIONS; AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT\nTO FED. R. CIV. P. 11 AND THE COURT’S INHERENT AUTHORITY\n\nTO THE HONORABLE ANALISA TORRES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:\n\nUndersigned counsel, Bradford L. Geyer, respectfully submits this Response in\nOpposition to the frivolous, vexatious, and bad-faith “Supplemental Notice of Victim Damages,\nObjection to Procedural Fraud, and Motion for Sanctions” filed by Zhubeibei / Beibei Zhu on or\nabout March 21–22, 2026. This motion and subsequent letter motions filed through the pro se\nfiling system on March 26, April 2, April 4, and April 6, 2026, are recycled, meritless attacks\nthat was already rejected by this Court’s prior proceedings. It should be denied in full, stricken\n\n---\n\n2\n\nfrom the record, and met with sanctions against the movant for abuse of process and Rule 11\nviolations.\n\nI. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\nThis is not a legitimate victim claim. It is a deliberate, bad-faith disruption tactic designed\nto harass undersigned counsel, smear legitimate victim advocacy, and delay restitution for\nthousands of bona fide Himalaya Exchange customers whose assets were seized by the\nGovernment. Movant voluntarily registered as a client on December 22, 2023, affirmatively\nconsented to representation, and was included in the sealed master roster. When she later\nobjected, counsel immediately terminated the relationship (see ECF 712). That should have\nended the matter.\n\nInstead, movant has launched a campaign of repetitive, inflammatory filings (ECF 709,\nnow this Supplemental Motion) that recycle the same debunked allegations while escalating\ndemands to half a million dollars in punitive damages. This is classic vexatious litigation. The\nmotion contains zero new evidence, relies on inflammatory rhetoric (“procedural predatory\nbehavior,” “administrative hijacking,” “secondary plunder”), and ignores the documented record.\nIt is an abuse of the Court’s process and should be met with sanctions.\n\nII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\nMovant affirmatively consented to representation on December 22, 2023, at 9:20 a.m.,\nBeibei Zhu registered as a client of FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC and expressly requested\nrepresentation in connection with the seized Himalaya Exchange assets. She was added to the\n\n---\n\n3\n\nmaster client roster (filed under seal) and was one of the initial 3,345+ customers on whose\nbehalf the Rule 41(g) Motion for Return of Property was filed on December 6, 2023 (ECF 186).\nHer consent was written and voluntary.\n\nThe December 2023 motion protected victims — It did not “hijack” anything. The ECF\n186 motion (and supporting memorandum, ECF 186-1) was filed to return customer property\nseized by the Government. It was not an “inducement motion” or “false representation.” It was\nvictim advocacy filed in direct response to the Government’s forfeiture allegations. Movant’s\nclaim that counsel somehow “locked” her assets is a fabrication that ignores the procedural\nhistory and the Government’s independent seizure actions (see ECF 188, 189).\nCounsel Terminated Representation Upon Objection In June 2025, after movant filed her first\nmeritless motion (ECF 709), counsel promptly reviewed her file, confirmed the registration, and\nterminated the attorney-client relationship in the Response filed June 30, 2025 (ECF 712).\nMovant has been removed from all client lists and is free to represent herself or retain other\ncounsel. There is no ongoing representation, no retainer agreement in dispute, and no basis for\nany damages claim.\n\nIII. ARGUMENT\nA. The Motion Is Frivolous and Repetitive\nMovant’s claims of “false representation,” “perjury,” and “procedural fraud” are identical\nto those already addressed in ECF 709 and ECF 712. She offers no new evidence — no retainer\nagreement dispute, no proof of lack of consent, no documentation of any “hijacking.” Instead,\nshe recycles conspiracy-laden rhetoric and demands $500,000 in sanctions and damages without\n\n---\n\n4\n\nany legal or factual support. This violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)–(3). The motion should be\ndenied outright.\n\nB. There Was No Unauthorized Representation — Movant Consented\nThe record is undisputed: movant registered, requested representation, and was treated\nexactly as every other consenting customer. Her sudden reversal months later does not\nretroactively create “fraud.” Counsel’s termination of the relationship in ECF 712 moots any\nclaim for ongoing harm.\n\nC. The Trustee and Government Actions Are Irrelevant to Counsel\nMovant’s attacks on Trustee Luc A. Despins and the Government’s forfeiture positions\n(ECF 188, 189) have nothing to do with undersigned counsel. Counsel did not file those\ndocuments, does not control the Trustee, and has no fiduciary duty to the bankruptcy estate.\nAttempting to drag counsel into a collateral dispute with the Trustee is a transparent attempt to\nmanufacture liability where none exists.\n\nD. This Filing Harms Legitimate Victims\nWhile movant files inflammatory supplemental motions demanding personal windfalls,\nover thousands of verified customers (and thousands more) wait for the return of their lawfully\nheld assets. This pattern of vexatious filings wastes Court resources and delays justice for real\nvictims. The Court’s inherent authority and Rule 11 exist precisely to deter such conduct.\n\n---\n\n5\n\nIV. CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS\nPursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) and the Court’s inherent authority (see Chambers v.\nNASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)), undersigned counsel respectfully requests that the Court:\nStrike the Supplemental Motions in  their entirety as frivolous and vexatious;\n\nImpose monetary sanctions on movant Beibei Zhu / Zhubeibei in an amount the Court deems\nappropriate to deter future abuse;\n\nIssue a formal warning or pre-filing injunction against further repetitive, baseless filings in this\nmatter without leave of Court; and\n\nGrant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nV. CONCLUSION\nThe Supplemental Motion is a meritless, bad-faith attack by a former client who\nvoluntarily sought representation, later changed her mind, and now seeks to punish counsel for\nperforming victim advocacy on behalf of thousands of others. It should be denied with prejudice,\nand sanctions should be imposed on the movant.\nDated:  April 6, 2026\n\nRESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer\n\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV\n\nNJ 022751991\n\nSuite 141 Route 130 S.  303\n\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\n\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n(856) 607-5708\n\n---\n\n6\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on April 6, 2026, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was\nelectronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York.\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer\n\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV\n\nNJ 022751991\n\nSuite 141 Route 130 S.  303\n\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\n\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n(856) 607-5708","body_zh":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n\n                       -v-（诉）\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“七哥”或“主事人”，\n\n                         以及\n\nKIN MING JE（余建明），又名“William Je”，\n\n                         以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n\n                                   被告。\n\n            扣押资金赔偿\n          刑事案号：23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n对 ZHUBEIBEI / BEIBEI ZHU（朱贝贝）提交的《受害者损失补充通知、对程序欺诈的异议以及制裁动议》的反对答辩；以及依据联邦民事诉讼规则及法院固有权力提出的制裁交叉动议\n分派给：主审法官 Analisa Torres（阿纳丽莎·托雷斯）阁下，美国联邦地区法院法官\n\n对 ZHUBEIBEI / BEIBEI ZHU 提交的《受害者损失补充通知、对程序欺诈的异议以及制裁动议》的反对答辩；以及依据 FED. R. CIV. P. 11 及法院固有权力提出的制裁交叉动议\n\n致：美国联邦地区法院法官 ANALISA TORRES 阁下：\n\n署名律师 Bradford L. Geyer（布拉德福德·L·盖耶）谨此提交本反对答辩，针对 Zhubeibei / Beibei Zhu 于 2026 年 3 月 21 日至 22 日左右提交的无理取闹、恶意滥诉的《受害者损失补充通知、对程序欺诈的异议以及制裁动议》。该动议以及随后于 2026 年 3 月 26 日、4 月 2 日、4 月 4 日和 4 月 6 日通过本人诉讼提交系统提交的信件动议，均属重复、无根据的攻击，且已被本法院先前的诉讼程序驳回。该动议应予全盘驳回、\n\n---\n从案卷中剔除，并因动议人滥用诉讼程序及违反第 11 条规则而对其施加制裁。\n\nI. 前言\n这并非正当的受害者主张。这是一项蓄意的、恶意的扰乱策略，旨在骚扰署名律师、抹黑正当的受害者权益维护工作，并拖延对数千名资产被政府扣押的真正的 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）客户的赔偿。动议人于 2023 年 12 月 22 日自愿注册为客户，明确同意接受代理，并被列入封存的总名册中。当其随后提出异议时，律师立即终止了代理关系（见 ECF 712）。此事本应就此结束。\n\n相反，动议人发起了一连串重复且具煽动性的文书提交（ECF 709，以及如今的这份补充动议），重复使用已被揭穿的相同指控，同时将索赔要求升级至 50 万美元的惩罚性赔偿。这是典型的无理滥诉。该动议毫无新证据，仅依赖煽动性言辞（“程序性掠夺行为”、“行政绑架”、“二次掠夺”），并无视已有案卷记录。这构成对法院诉讼程序的滥用，应受到制裁。\n\nII. 事实背景\n动议人明确同意接受代理。2023 年 12 月 22 日上午 9:20，Beibei Zhu 注册为 FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC（前联邦人员集团有限责任公司）的客户，并明确要求就扣押的喜马拉雅交易所资产事宜提供代理服务。她被添加到\n\n---\n客户总名册（已封存提交），且是 2023 年 12 月 6 日代表其提交《依据第 41(g) 条要求返还财产的动议》（ECF 186）的最初 3,345 名以上客户之一。她的同意是书面且自愿的。\n\n2023 年 12 月的动议保护了受害者——它没有“绑架”任何东西。提交 ECF 186 动议（及支持性备忘录 ECF 186-1）是为了返还被政府扣押的客户财产。它不是“引诱动议”或“虚假陈述”。这是直接针对政府没收指控而进行的受害者权益维护工作。动议人声称律师以某种方式“锁定了”其资产，这一说法纯属捏造，忽视了诉讼程序历史和政府的独立扣押行为（见 ECF 188、189）。\n律师在收到异议后终止了代理关系。2025 年 6 月，在动议人提交其首份无事实依据的动议（ECF 709）后，律师迅速审查了其档案，确认了注册情况，并在 2025 年 6 月 30 日提交的答辩（ECF 712）中终止了律师-客户关系。动议人已从所有客户名单中移除，可自由选择自行代表或聘请其他律师。不存在持续的代理关系，不存在有争议的聘用协议，也不存在任何损害赔偿主张的依据。\n\nIII. 论辩\nA. 该动议无理取闹且具有重复性\n动议人关于“虚假陈述”、“伪证”和“程序欺诈”的主张，与 ECF 709 和 ECF 712 中已处理的主张完全相同。她没有提供任何新证据——没有聘用协议争议，没有缺乏同意的证据，也没有任何“绑架”的书面记录。相反，她在没有任何法律或事实依据的情况下，兜售充斥着阴谋论的言辞，并要求获得 500,000 美元的制裁和损害赔偿。\n\n---\n这违反了 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)–(3)。该动议应予直接驳回。\n\nB. 不存在未经授权的代理——动议人已表示同意\n记录不容置疑：动议人进行了注册，请求了代理，并受到了与其他所有表示同意的客户完全相同的对待。她数月后的突然反悔并不能溯及既往地构成“欺诈”。律师在 ECF 712 中终止代理关系，已使任何关于持续性损害的主张归于无实际意义。\n\nC. 破产受托人及政府的行为与律师无关\n动议人对受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯）以及政府没收立场（ECF 188、189）的攻击，与署名律师无关。律师未曾提交这些文件，不控制受托人，对破产财产亦不承担信义义务。企图将律师拖入与受托人的附带争议中，显然是在凭空捏造责任。\n\nD. 本次提交损害了正当受害者的利益\n在动议人提交煽动性的补充动议要求个人意外之财的同时，数千名经核实的客户（以及成千上万的其他客户）正在等待返还其合法持有的资产。这种恶意反复提交文书的模式浪费了法院资源，并拖延了真正受害者获得正义的时间。法院的固有权力及第 11 条规则的存在，正是为了遏制此类行为。\n\n---\nIV. 制裁交叉动议\n依据 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) 及法院固有权力（见 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)），署名律师谨请求法院：\n将该等补充动议作为无理取闹及滥诉之文件予以全盘剔除；\n\n在法院认为适当的金额范围内对动议人 Beibei Zhu / Zhubeibei 处以金钱制裁，以遏制未来的滥用行为；\n\n发出正式警告或诉前禁令，禁止其未经法院许可就本案进一步提交重复、毫无根据的文书；以及\n\n准予法院认为公正和适当的其他救济。\n\nV. 结论\n该补充动议是一名前客户发起的毫无根据、出于恶意的攻击；该客户曾自愿寻求代理，后又改变主意，如今企图对代表数千名其他人进行受害者权益维护工作的律师施加惩罚。该动议应予带偏见驳回，且应对动议人施加制裁。\n日期：2026 年 4 月 6 日\n\n谨此提交\n\n/签名/ Brad Geyer\n\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV（特许临时出庭律师）\n\n新泽西州执照号：NJ 022751991\n\nSuite 141 Route 130 S. 303\n\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\n\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n(856) 607-5708\n\n---\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 2026 年 4 月 6 日，前述文件的真实准确副本已通过 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 ECF 系统完成电子提交和送达。\n\n/签名/ Brad Geyer\n\nBradford L. Geyer, PHV\n\n新泽西州执照号：NJ 022751991\n\nSuite 141 Route 130 S. 303\n\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\n\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n\n(856) 607-5708","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1151,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-04-06 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-04-06","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:14:04"}