{"id":"court_sdny_853_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":853,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2026-06-25","title":"SARAFA ZELLAN 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 370 | New York, NY 10036","summary_zh":"延期量刑申请信 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok 等人案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），SDNY 23-CR-118 (AT) ECF #853（2026年6月25日立案）。郭文贵辩护律师提请法院推迟原定于2026年6月29日的量刑宣判，理由是尚有六项重大附带争议未决，包括损失金额的 Fatico 证据听证会申请、针对前律师的第17(c)条传票强制动议、未决的 Brady 证据披露动议、破产信托资产保全动议以及数千份第853(n)条投资者请愿书的定性与移交处理。检方对此表示反对。","summary_en":"Defense Letter Motion to Adjourn Sentencing — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al. (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 23-CR-118 (AT), ECF No. 853 (filed June 25, 2026). Counsel for Miles Guo requested an adjournment of the sentencing scheduled for June 29, 2026, citing six unresolved matters including requests for a Fatico evidentiary hearing on loss calculations, an outstanding Rule 17(c) subpoena motion to compel, a sealed Brady motion, bankruptcy asset preservation, and the disposition of thousands of third-party § 853(n) petitions, which the Government opposed.","body_en":"SARAFA ZELLAN\n43 West 43rd Street, Suite 370 | New York, NY 10036\n212.785.7577 | 646.868.8266 (fax)\nwww.sarafazellan.com\n\nJune 25, 2026\n\nBy ECF Filing and Email\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRe: United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.\n23-CR-118 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nOn behalf of our client Miles Guo, we respectfully request that Mr. Guo's sentencing, currently scheduled for June 29, 2026, be adjourned. This request is based on the fact that several complex sentencing-related issues remain insufficiently resolved, notwithstanding the best efforts of all involved to prepare this matter to move forward on June 29, 2026. The Government, per Assistant United States Attorney Ryan Finkel, opposes this request.\n\nIn our professional judgment the case is not ready for sentencing based on the following:\n\n1. **Fatico Hearing.** In his initial sentencing submission (ECF No. 826-1) as well as his reply sentencing memorandum (ECF No. 834), Mr. Guo requested a Fatico hearing to resolve the issue of loss amount – the most significant issue impacting the Guidelines calculation in this case – and other issues such as alleged obstruction of justice. This request remains pending. Preparation for sentencing is virtually impossible without knowing whether or not there will be an evidentiary hearing on key sentencing issues.\n\n2. **Rule 17(c) Subpoena.** In our respectful view, one of Mr. Guo's prior attorneys has yet to fulfill fully his obligations in response to the Rule 17(c) subpoena authorized by the Court and served on him on March 23, 2026. Undersigned counsel filed a motion to compel in this matter on April 2, 2026 (ECF No. 829), which also has yet to be resolved fully. Most recently, on April 30, 2026, counsel for the subpoenaed party (\"Witness 1\") filed a sealed letter characterizing Mr. Guo's subpoena requests as \"wildly speculative\" and \"blunderbuss.\" However, in further support of our motion to compel, undersigned counsel will submit to the Court, under seal, copies of [REDACTED]\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres\nJune 25, 2026\n\n[REDACTED] This matter should be resolved fully sufficiently in advance of sentencing so that Mr. Guo and his counsel can assess and utilize any forthcoming information or take other appropriate action.\n\n3. **Brady Motion.** On February 24, 2026, defense counsel submitted a sealed motion seeking to compel the Government to produce certain documents and information pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 383 U.S. 73 (1963), and its progeny, for use at sentencing. The motion remains outstanding. At a minimum, Mr. Guo requests that the Court order the Government to produce unredacted copies of USAO_00282658-USAO_00282813, which we believe contain material directly relevant to sentencing,1 and we believe it would be unreasonable and unfair to require Mr. Guo to be sentenced while denying his counsel this important information. For the sentencing process to be fair, Mr. Guo is entitled to have this information and for counsel to be able to have it and utilize it in our sentencing presentation.\n\n4. **Motion to Preserve Assets.** On September 4, 2025, Mr. Guo filed a letter motion (ECF No. 724) seeking an order directing the Government to obtain from the Chapter 11 bankruptcy Trustee assets that may be forfeitable in this criminal case (subject to appeal of the jury verdict) but which currently are in the Trustee's custody and thus subject to diminution in value as professional expenses in the bankruptcy case accumulate. This matter remains unresolved, yet it is relevant to the size of any personal money judgment the Court may impose with respect to Mr. Guo at the time of sentencing.\n\n5. **Special Master.** Pursuant to the Court's order during the January 20, 2026, conference in this case, and a subsequent order dated March 17, 2026 (ECF No. 820), the parties have submitted to the Court proposals for the appointment of a special master to address claims brought under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and related matters. This matter remains open, as does resolution of the outstanding § 853(n) petitions. Again, as thousands of petitioners assert that they are not victims of Mr. Guo, further clarity on these issues would aid in preparation for sentencing.\n\n6. **§ 853(n) Petitions.** Related to the Special Master issue, thousands of investors have filed petitions for return of seized funds pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Many of these have been docketed, but an unknown number were submitted either directly to the U.S. Attorney's Office or to the U.S. Attorney's Office via the Office of the Court Clerk. In a letter motion filed on February 24, 2026 (ECF No. 806), defense counsel sought not only clarification with respect to the handling of § 853(n) petitions, but also an order directing the Government to produce to defense counsel copies of all petitions in their possession that are styled as § 853(n) petitions or that could be construed as § 853(n) petitions, given that these materials bear on the nature and circumstances of the offense and plainly are relevant to sentencing issues. This matter remains unresolved and undersigned counsel have had no visibility into the number or nature of such petitions in the Government's sole possession.\n\n1 [REDACTED]\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres\nJune 25, 2026\n\nFor all of the reasons set forth above, we respectfully submit that the volume and complexity of these outstanding issues render it impossible to conduct sentencing on June 29, 2026, and in a manner that affords both the defendant and his counsel a proper opportunity to bring to the Court's attention facts and arguments relevant to sentencing, particularly as they relate to the nature of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. Accordingly, we request most respectfully that sentencing be adjourned to a date that will afford adequate time to resolve these issues and thereby allow for a fully informed and fair sentencing proceeding.\n\nFinally, we note that since April 29, 2026, when counsel provided both the Court and Government with statements from 1,259 supporters of Mr. Guo, we have received many supplemental statements from these and other supporters. We will provide the Court and the Government with redacted copies of the additional submissions under seal. Here, however, we update the data included in our April 29, 2026, letter (ECF No. 843) as follows:\n\nOf the 1,286 individuals represented, 1,182 of whom expressly stated that they had invested in one or more G Series entities, 1,223 expressly disclaimed having been victimized by Mr. Guo.2 Several investors disclosed the total amount of their G Series investments; the total disclosed from this group amounts to $72,372,224.94. In addition, we note that 108 declarants reported being interrogated by the CCP in connection with Mr. Guo and/or their G Series investments; 35 reported being coerced to make statements such as confessions, guarantees, repentance, or acknowledgements of having been defrauded; 7 reported being forced to file false complaints against Mr. Guo; and 28 reported being arrested and/or prosecuted by the CCP. We continue to believe that the statements provide meaningful additional context reflecting the complex motivations, values, and autonomy of investors in the G Series entities.\n\nWe thank Your Honor for the Court's consideration of all of the above.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nMelinda Sarafa\nJoshua Dratel\nJohn Kaley\n\ncc: All counsel via ECF\n\n2 We note that SS30 wrote to counsel on April 29, 2026, stating that \"[d]ue to personal reasons,\" he wishes to withdraw his statement. We have adjusted our numbers accordingly and will include the updated submission from SS30 in our sealed transmittal to the Court.","body_zh":"SARAFA ZELLAN（萨拉法·泽兰律师事务所）\n43 West 43rd Street, Suite 370 | New York, NY 10036\n212.785.7577 | 646.868.8266（传真）\nwww.sarafazellan.com\n\n2026年6月25日\n\n经由 ECF 提交及电子邮件发送\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）\nUnited States District Judge（美国联邦地区法官）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl Street\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n案由：United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.（美国诉郭文贵等人案）\n23-CR-118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n代表我们的委托人 Miles Guo（郭文贵），我们谨此请求将目前定于2026年6月29日进行的郭先生的量刑判决程序予以延期。尽管所有相关人员均已尽最大努力准备在2026年6月29日推进本案，但由于多项与量刑相关的复杂问题仍未得到充分解决，故提出本请求。由 Assistant United States Attorney（美国联邦助理检察官）Ryan Finkel 代表的政府方反对本请求。\n\n根据我们的专业判断，基于以下几点，本案尚未具备进行量刑判决的条件：\n\n1. **Fatico 听证会。** 在其最初的量刑陈述文件（ECF No. 826-1）以及答辩量刑备忘录（ECF No. 834）中，郭先生均请求举行 Fatico 听证会，以解决损失金额问题——这是本案中影响《量刑指南》（Guidelines）计算的最重要问题——以及其他问题，例如被指控的妨碍司法。该请求目前仍在审理中。在无法知晓是否会对关键量刑问题举行证据听证会的情况下，进行量刑准备工作实际上是不可能的。\n\n2. **Rule 17(c) Subpoena（《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第 17(c) 条传票）。** 我们审慎地认为，郭先生的前任律师之一尚未完全履行其应对本法院授权并于2026年3月23日向其送达的第 17(c) 条传票的义务。署名律师于2026年4月2日就该事项提交了强制作出答复的动议（ECF No. 829），该动议同样尚未完全解决。最近，在2026年4月30日，被传票人（“Witness 1（证人1）”）的律师提交了一份密封信函，称郭先生的传票请求是“疯狂的推测”和“乱放空枪”。然而，为了进一步支持我们的强制作出答复动议，署名律师将以密封形式向法院提交以下材料的副本：[已涂黑]\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres\n2026年6月25日\n\n[已涂黑] 该事项应在量刑之前充分且完全地予以解决，以便郭先生及其律师能够评估并利用任何即将获得的信息，或采取其他适当行动。\n\n3. **Brady Motion（布雷迪动议）。** 2026年2月24日，辩护律师提交了一份密封动议，旨在依据 Brady v. Maryland, 383 U.S. 73 (1963) 及其衍生判例，强制政府方出示若干文件和信息以用于量刑。该动议仍未解决。郭先生至少请求法院命令政府方出示 USAO_00282658-USAO_00282813 的未涂黑副本，我们认为其中包含与量刑直接相关的材料，1 且我们认为，在剥夺其律师获取该等重要信息权利的同时要求对郭先生进行量刑是不合理且不公正的。为了确保量刑程序的公正，郭先生有权获得这些信息，其律师也有权获取并将其运用于我们的量刑陈述中。\n\n4. **保全财产动议。** 2025年9月4日，郭先生提交了一份信函动议（ECF No. 724），请求作出裁定，指示政府方从 Chapter 11（第11章）破产 Trustee（受托人）处获取在本刑事案件中可能应予没收（取决于对陪审团裁决的上诉结果）的财产，但该等财产目前由受托人保管，因而随着破产案件中专业费用的累积而面临价值减损。该事项仍未解决，但它与法院在量刑时可能对郭先生作出的任何个人金钱判决的金额大小密切相关。\n\n5. **Special Master（特别主事官）。** 依据法院在本案2026年1月20日庭审会议期间作出的命令以及随后于2026年3月17日作出的裁定（ECF No. 820），各方已向法院提交了关于任命特别主事官的提议，以处理依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提起的申诉及相关事宜。该事项仍悬而未决，尚未解决的 § 853(n) 请愿书亦是如此。同样，鉴于数千名请愿人声明他们并非郭先生的受害者，在这些问题上获得进一步明确将有助于进行量刑准备。\n\n6. **§ 853(n) 请愿书。** 与特别主事官问题相关，数千名投资者已依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 提交了要求返还被扣押资金的请愿书。其中许多已被记录在案，但有未知数量的请愿书是直接提交给 U.S. Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室），或是通过法院书记官办公室提交给美国联邦检察官办公室的。在2026年2月24日提交的一份信函动议（ECF No. 806）中，辩护律师不仅寻求明确有关 § 853(n) 请愿书的处理方式，而且还请求法院下达命令，指示政府方向辩护律师出示其持有的所有冠以 § 853(n) 请愿书抬头或可被解释为 § 853(n) 请愿书的请愿书副本，因为这些材料关乎犯罪的性质和情节，显然与量刑问题相关。该事项仍未解决，且署名律师对于完全由政府方持有的该类请愿书的数量或性质毫不知情。\n\n1 [已涂黑]\n\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres\n2026年6月25日\n\n基于上述所有理由，我们谨此提请注意：这些悬而未决问题的体量和复杂性，使得无法在2026年6月29日进行量刑，亦无法以使被告人及其律师获得适当机会提请法院注意与量刑相关的事实和主张（特别是与犯罪性质以及被告人的历史和特征相关的内容）的方式进行量刑。因此，我们极其审慎地请求将量刑延期至一个能够提供充足时间以解决这些问题的日期，从而确保进行全面知情且公正的量刑程序。\n\n最后，我们提请注意，自2026年4月29日律师向法院和政府方提供来自郭先生的1,259名支持者的陈述以来，我们又收到了来自这些支持者及其他支持者的多份补充陈述。我们将以密封形式向法院和政府方提供这些补充提交材料的涂黑副本。在此，我们将2026年4月29日信函（ECF No. 843）中所包含的数据更新如下：\n\n在所代表的1,286名个人中，有1,182人明确表示他们投资了一家或多家 G 系列实体，1,223人明确否认曾受到郭先生的侵害。2 其中数名投资者披露了其在 G 系列投资的总额；该群体所披露的总金额达 $72,372,224.94。此外，我们注意到，有108名声明人报告称因郭先生和/或其在 G 系列的投资而遭到 CCP（中国共产党）的审讯；35人报告称被迫作出如供词、保证书、悔过书或承认被骗等陈述；7人报告称被迫对郭先生提出虚假控告；28人报告称遭到 CCP 的逮捕和/或起诉。我们继续认为，这些陈述提供了有意义的补充背景，反映了 G 系列实体投资者的复杂动机、价值观和自主性。\n\n感谢法官阁下对上述所有事项的考量。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nMelinda Sarafa\nJoshua Dratel\nJohn Kaley\n\n抄送：全体律师，经由 ECF\n\n2 我们注意到 SS30 于2026年4月29日致信律师，声明“由于个人原因”，他希望撤回其陈述。我们已相应调整了数据，并将在向法院呈递的密封文件中包含 SS30 的更新提交材料。","key_entities":["Guo","853(n)","Torres","Analisa Torres","Sarafa","CCP","Brady","Kwok","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Finkel","Dratel","Kaley"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":724,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":806,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":820,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":826,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":829,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":834,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":843,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1249,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-06-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-06-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:14:08"}