{"id":"court_sdny_864_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":864,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2026-07-15","title":"Q6T1GUOS 1    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT","summary_zh":"判决听证会官方记录笔录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 23-CR-118 ECF #864（2026-07-15立案）。该文件记录了2026年6月29日由 Analisa Torres 法官主持的量刑听证过程，包括控辩双方出庭情况、对量刑前报告（PSR）的确认与审阅，以及辩方就损失金额计算等事实争议提出举行 Fatico 证据听证会的申请。","summary_en":"Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 23-CR-118 ECF #864 (filed July 15, 2026). Official transcript of the sentencing proceeding held on June 29, 2026 before District Judge Analisa Torres, recording appearances of counsel, discussions regarding the presentence report, and the defense's request for a Fatico evidentiary hearing on factual objections including loss amount calculations.","body_en":"Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n2    ------------------------------x\n\n3    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n4                 v.                                23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n5    MILES GUO,\n\n6                   Defendant.                      Sentencing\n     ------------------------------x\n7                                                   New York, N.Y.\n                                                    June 29, 2026\n8                                                   11:05 a.m.\n\n9    Before:\n\n10                            HON. ANALISA TORRES,\n\n11                                                  District Judge\n\n12                                 APPEARANCES\n\n13   JAY CLAYTON\n          United States Attorney for the\n14        Southern District of New York\n     BY: RYAN B. FINKEL, ESQ.\n15        MICAH F. FERGENSON, ESQ.\n          JULIANA N. MURRAY, ESQ.\n16        JUSTIN HORTON, ESQ.\n          Assistant United States Attorneys\n17\n     SARAFA ZELLAN PLLC\n18        Attorneys for Defendant\n     BY: MELINDA M. SARAFA, ESQ.\n19\n     LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA L. DRATEL, P.C.\n20        Attorneys for Defendant\n     BY: JOSHUA L. DRATEL, ESQ.\n21\n     DOAR RIECK KALEY & MACK\n22        Attorneys for Defendant\n     BY: JOHN F. KALEY, ESQ.\n23\n     ALSO PRESENT:     DAVID NAGUIB, Paralegal Specialist, USAO\n24                     STEPHANIE LIU, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n                       I CHING NG, Interpreter (Mandarin)\n25\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1               THE COURT:    Good morning.     We're here in the matter of\n\n2    United States v. Guo.\n\n3               Counsel, please make your appearances.\n\n4               MR. FINKEL:    Good morning, your Honor.         Ryan Finkel,\n\n5    Juliana Murray, Micah Ferguson, Justin Horton, and David\n\n6    Naguib, who is a paralegal in our office.\n\n7               MS. SARAFA:    Good morning, your Honor.         Melinda\n\n8    Sarafa, John Kaley, and Joshua Dratel for Miles Guo, who is not\n\n9    present.\n\n10              THE COURT:    Please be seated.\n\n11              I'm informed by the Marshals Service that Mr. Guo is\n\n12   delayed by a couple of hours, and so he will be joining us at\n\n13   about 1 p.m., and so we will adjourn until that time.\n\n14              (Recess)\n\n15              (Pages 3-30 SEALED by order of the Court)\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              (4:01 p.m.)\n\n2              THE COURT:     Good afternoon.     This matter is on for\n\n3    sentencing in United States v. Miles Guo.\n\n4              Would you make your appearances, please.\n\n5              MR. FINKEL:     Yes, your Honor.     Ryan Finkel, Juliana\n\n6    Murray, Micah Fergenson, and Justin Horton for the United\n\n7    States.   We're joined at counsel table by David Naguib, who is\n\n8    a paralegal in our office.\n\n9              MS. SARAFA:     Good afternoon, your Honor.         Melinda\n\n10   Sarafa, John Kaley, Joshua Dratel for Miles Guo, who is also\n\n11   present at counsel table.\n\n12             THE COURT:     Please be seated.\n\n13             I'm now addressing this question to the defense.              Who\n\n14   is going to be speaking for Mr. Guo at this time?\n\n15             MS. SARAFA:     Your Honor, we have divided up\n\n16   responsibilities, so different attorneys will speak to\n\n17   different portions of the proceedings.         Mr. Dratel will be\n\n18   addressing the presentence report.        I will be addressing the\n\n19   Court with respect to Mr. Guo and our sentencing presentation.\n\n20             THE COURT:     Mr. Dratel, have you read the presentence\n\n21   report?\n\n22             MR. DRATEL:     Yes, your Honor.\n\n23             THE COURT:     And did you discuss it with Mr. Guo?\n\n24             MR. DRATEL:     Yes.\n\n25             THE COURT:     Was it translated for him?\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1               MR. DRATEL:     Yes.\n\n2               THE COURT:     Mr. Guo, your lawyer has said that he has\n\n3    read the presentence report and that the report was translated\n\n4    for you.    Did you read the presentence report?\n\n5               THE DEFENDANT:     (In English) Yes, your Honor.\n\n6               THE COURT:     Did you discuss it with your attorney?\n\n7               THE DEFENDANT:     (Through the interpreter) Yes.\n\n8               THE COURT:     Has the government reviewed the\n\n9    presentence report?\n\n10              MR. FINKEL:     Yes, your Honor.\n\n11              THE COURT:     Mr. Guo has raised numerous factual\n\n12   objections to the report.\n\n13              \"Fact-finding at sentencing is made by a preponderance\n\n14   of the evidence.\"        See United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580,\n\n15   595 (2d Cir. 1999).\n\n16              Mr. Guo requests an evidentiary hearing, or Fatico\n\n17   hearing, to resolve his factual disputes with the report,\n\n18   particularly with respect to the calculation of the loss\n\n19   amount.\n\n20              A Fatico hearing is a presentence evidentiary hearing\n\n21   during which the parties are permitted to present evidence and\n\n22   arguments on disputed factual matters relevant to sentencing.\n\n23   See United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979).\n\n24              A \"district court is not required, by either the Due\n\n25   Process Clause or the federal Sentencing Guidelines, to hold a\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    full-blown evidentiary hearing in resolving sentencing\n\n2    disputes.\"    United States v. Phillips, 431 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir.\n\n3    2005); and United States v. Litwock, 611 Fed. App'x 12, 16 (2d\n\n4    Cir. 2015).    All that is required is that the defendant have\n\n5    \"some opportunity to rebut the Government's allegations.\"\n\n6    United States v. Slevin, 106 F.3d 1086, 1091 (2d Cir. 1996).\n\n7              I have closely reviewed Mr. Guo's sentencing\n\n8    submissions, which articulate his objections to the presentence\n\n9    report.   I have also carefully reviewed the substantial record\n\n10   in this case, including the evidence presented at the two-month\n\n11   trial.    Having done so, I conclude that I am able to make the\n\n12   factual determinations necessary for sentencing without an\n\n13   evidentiary hearing.\n\n14             I will begin by addressing Mr. Guo's factual disputes\n\n15   unrelated to the loss amount.\n\n16             First, based on my review of the over 230 victim\n\n17   statements submitted by the government, and the trial\n\n18   testimony, Mr. Guo's objection that there are no victims is\n\n19   overruled.\n\n20             Second, I reject Mr. Guo's claim that he did not\n\n21   purport to act on behalf of a \"charitable, educational,\n\n22   religious, or political organization or government agency\" in\n\n23   connection with his crimes.\n\n24             For example, Mr. Guo founded the Rule of Law Society\n\n25   and told people he would use the money to help the Chinese\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    people.   One victim, Jenny Li, testified at trial that she took\n\n2    out a second mortgage on her home to finance Mr. Guo's\n\n3    investments, which started with a $6,000 donation to the Rule\n\n4    of Law Society, made after trusting Mr. Guo's unfulfilled\n\n5    promise that he would donate a hundred million dollars of his\n\n6    own money to the Society first.         (See, for example, Trial\n\n7    Transcript pages 1170 to 1180, and 1211 to 1213.)\n\n8              At trial, the Society's former president and\n\n9    treasurer, Karin Maistrello, testified that despite receiving\n\n10   tens of millions of dollars in donations, the organization did\n\n11   \"nothing\" to help the Chinese people.          (See Trial Transcript\n\n12   pages 423 to 424, 471, and 3317 to 3320; and Government Exhibit\n\n13   WA30, Summary of Donations for 2019-2023.)\n\n14             Trial testimony from witnesses Le Zhou, a victim, and\n\n15   Ya Li, one of Mr. Guo's close associates, also shows that\n\n16   Mr. Guo acted on behalf of a political organization——the \"New\n\n17   Federal State of China\"——by, for example, raising funds through\n\n18   the Farm Loans Program.      (See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n19   pages 221 to 227 and 1376 to 1377.)\n\n20             Third, I overrule Mr. Guo's objection that his\n\n21   fraudulent schemes and money laundering did not involve\n\n22   \"fictitious entities\" or \"shell corporations.\"\n\n23             At sentencing for Mr. Guo's co-conspirator, Yvette\n\n24   Wang, I found, based on the evidence at Mr. Guo's trial, that\n\n25   the two \"created shell companies\" as part of their schemes.\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    (See Wang Sentencing Transcript, page 56, lines 6-7, filed at\n\n2    ECF No. 491.)    I reaffirm that finding today.\n\n3              Fourth, Mr. Guo states that he did not derive more\n\n4    than a million dollars in gross receipts from at least one\n\n5    financial institution.      This objection is overruled.         I\n\n6    conclude that Mr. Guo \"must have profited at least $1 million\"\n\n7    from the offense conduct.      United States v. Constantinescu, 147\n\n8    F.4th 299, 316 (2d Cir. 25).      For example, I find that Mr. Guo\n\n9    and his co-conspirators used G|Club funds that pay personal\n\n10   expenses for Mr. Guo and his family, including the purchase of\n\n11   a multimillion-dollar luxury yacht and mansion.            (See, for\n\n12   example, Trial Transcript pages 1957 to 1959, 3064 to 3065, and\n\n13   3701 to 3703.)\n\n14             Fifth, I overrule Mr. Guo's claim that he did not play\n\n15   an organizing or leadership role in the crimes of conviction.\n\n16   Witnesses testified that Mr. Guo was the \"top boss,\" that he\n\n17   was the spokesperson for the various G entities, and that he\n\n18   would have the final say.      (See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n19   pages 421, 1376, 1941, 1995 to 1996, 2978, 2980, and 3162.)\n\n20             Indeed, the jury convicted Mr. Guo of Count One, which\n\n21   alleged that he was the leader of, and directed, the G\n\n22   Enterprise.\n\n23             Sixth, I find that it is more likely than not that\n\n24   Mr. Guo willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to\n\n25   obstruct or impede justice, in connection with the\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of this case:\n\n2              As one example, trial testimony shows that Mr. Guo was\n\n3    involved in creating a \"blacklist\" of former supporters who\n\n4    criticized him, and Mr. Guo then shared their personally\n\n5    identifiable information online.        (See, for example, Trial\n\n6    Transcript pages 274 to 276 and 1487 to 1491.)            Multiple victim\n\n7    statements refer to the online harassment and intimidation\n\n8    people have experienced for speaking out against Mr. Guo.\n\n9    (See, for example, Statements 3, 4, 106, 113, 175, 190B, 209.)\n\n10             In addition, Mr. Guo——as evidenced by photos retrieved\n\n11   from one of his cellphones and by testimony at trial about\n\n12   statements made during his broadcasts——contributed to and\n\n13   enabled the harassment of the Trustee of his bankruptcy estate.\n\n14   That harassment included protests outside of the Trustee's home\n\n15   and the school where his daughter worked, with graphic signs\n\n16   echoing Mr. Guo's statements on his broadcasts that the Trustee\n\n17   was a \"CCP running dog.\"      (See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n18   pages 252 to 259, 4091, and 4214 to 4218; and Government\n\n19   Exhibits VI 194 and 1B124F.)      Mr. Guo even instructed witnesses\n\n20   to throw out subpoenas from the Trustee.          (See Trial Transcript\n\n21   pages 1498 to 1499.)\n\n22             I, therefore, overrule Mr. Guo's objection.\n\n23             I now address the factual dispute related to the loss\n\n24   amount.\n\n25             The presentence report found a loss amount of more\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    than $550 million.       Mr. Guo argues that there is no loss\n\n2    amount.\n\n3              I will make a few important observations before I\n\n4    proceed with my factual findings.\n\n5              First, based on the top bracket of the guidelines loss\n\n6    table, I only need to find that the loss amount exceeds\n\n7    $550 million to apply the guidelines enhancement calculated by\n\n8    probation.    (See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(P).)\n\n9              Second, assuming all other enhancements apply, because\n\n10   the total offense level I will calculate greatly exceeds the\n\n11   highest total offense level under the guidelines, a loss\n\n12   calculation of only $3.5 million would result in the same\n\n13   applicable guidelines range.      (See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J).)\n\n14             Third, I share several concerns expressed by some of\n\n15   my colleagues that the guidelines place undue weight on the\n\n16   amount of loss involved in the fraud.         See, for example, United\n\n17   States v. Emmenegger, 329 F.Supp.2d 416, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n18   2004); United States v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, 22 Civ. 673,\n\n19   Sentencing Transcript pages 6 to 7.\n\n20             Finally, although factual findings relating to loss\n\n21   must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, the\n\n22   Second Circuit has said that the Court \"need not establish loss\n\n23   with precision but rather 'need only make a reasonable estimate\n\n24   of the loss, given the available information.'\"            United States\n\n25   v. Uddin, 551 F.3d 176, 180 (2d Cir. 2009).\n\n                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Guidelines Section 2B1.1(b)(1) defines \"loss\" as the\n\n2    greater of \"actual loss\" and \"intended loss.\"            \"Actual loss\" is\n\n3    defined as the \"reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that\n\n4    resulted from the offenses.\"       \"Intended loss\" is defined as the\n\n5    \"pecuniary harm that the defendant purposely sought to\n\n6    inflict.\"    \"Reasonably foreseeable harm\" is harm \"the defendant\n\n7    knew or, under the circumstances, reasonably should have known,\n\n8    was a potential result of the offense.\"\n\n9              At trial, government expert Paul Hinton estimated that\n\n10   $1.3 billion in individual donations flowed into bank accounts\n\n11   associated with the racketeering enterprise, which the jury's\n\n12   verdict on Count One demonstrates was the result of fraud.\n\n13   See, for example, Trial Transcript pages 4430 to 4332; and\n\n14   Government Exhibit Z26.\n\n15             Mr. Guo disputes the government's loss estimate on\n\n16   several grounds.     He states that \"inflows to the G-Series\n\n17   entities\" do not establish loss because this methodology\n\n18   improperly includes acquitted conduct, fails to account for\n\n19   redemptions, refunds, or double counting, and \"erroneously\n\n20   includes funds from individuals who deny they were defrauded.\"\n\n21             There is no evidence that investors received anything\n\n22   of value before the fraud was uncovered.           The inflows into the\n\n23   various G Enterprise entities are, therefore, a reasonable\n\n24   estimate of the loss amount.       See, for example, United States\n\n25   v. Stitsky, 536 Fed. App'x 98, 110-112 (2d Cir. 2013).\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1               Even if I exclude the $411 million in GTV proceeds\n\n2    from the $1.3 billion figure, which Mr. Guo claims derives from\n\n3    acquitted conduct, the loss estimate would still far exceed\n\n4    $550 million.     See Government Exhibit Z26, page 35; see also\n\n5    Affidavit of FBI Special Agent Anthony Alecci, ¶ 18(c), filed\n\n6    at ECF No. 716-2.\n\n7               I note that this exclusion is conservative because GTV\n\n8    inflows are part of the racketeering conspiracy crime of\n\n9    conviction.    For example, one witness, Le Zhou, testified that\n\n10   to join G|Club, individuals were first required to purchase GTV\n\n11   stock.   See Trial Transcript page 232, and pages 1376 and 4478.\n\n12   In other words, inflows to GTV are connected to the\n\n13   racketeering enterprise as a whole and to other fraudulent\n\n14   schemes.\n\n15              Next, I reject Mr. Guo's claim that the loss amount\n\n16   should be reduced by \"returns\" or various \"credits\" he claims\n\n17   are applicable.\n\n18              As an initial matter, the Second Circuit has held that\n\n19   \"loss in fraud cases includes the amount of property taken,\n\n20   even if all or part has been returned.\"          United States v.\n\n21   Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244, 251 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\n22              Further, based on testimony at trial, and the parties'\n\n23   submissions, I do not find that Mr. Guo's victims received\n\n24   anything of value—–or that Mr. Guo intended to give them\n\n25   something of value—–that would justify discounting the loss\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    amount.   See, for example, testimony of Le Zhou on Trial\n\n2    Transcript pages 409 to 410, testimony of Jenny Li on\n\n3    pages 1211 to 1213, and testimony of Ya Li on pages 1386 to\n\n4    1387.\n\n5              Nor is there evidence that Mr. Guo returned the\n\n6    victims' money before the offense was detected, or that he\n\n7    pledged collateral to the victims.         See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt.\n\n8    3(D)(i) and (ii).\n\n9              Witness testimony from victims Le Zhou and Wei Chen,\n\n10   and written victim statements, show that individuals sought\n\n11   refund but did not receive them, even when Mr. Guo promised\n\n12   they could withdraw their funds at any time.             See, for example,\n\n13   Trial Transcript pages 270 to 272, 4504 to 4505; and Victim\n\n14   Statements 168 and 221.\n\n15             As to potential double counting, Mr. Guo presents only\n\n16   an unsubstantiated statement that G|Club \"accepted\" Himalaya\n\n17   Exchange funds as \"payment methods for G Club membership.\"               He\n\n18   does not offer any evidence establishing this fact, nor does he\n\n19   estimate the percentage of G|Club's inflows potentially\n\n20   attributable to payments made to the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n21             Further, even if I were to entirely exclude the\n\n22   inflows into G|CLUBS due to double counting concerns, inflows\n\n23   into the Farm Loan Program and the Himalaya Exchange alone\n\n24   exceed $550 million and justify my loss calculation.\n\n25             Finally, I do not consider whether a person\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    subjectively regards him- or herself as a \"victim\" in\n\n2    determining \"loss.\"\n\n3              A person's subjective opinion of their victim status\n\n4    does not determine whether Mr. Guo's schemes were fraudulent,\n\n5    and therefore, their subjective opinion does not impact either\n\n6    the \"actual loss\" or \"intended loss\" calculation.\n\n7              I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that\n\n8    Mr. Guo intended to deceive his victims and take their money\n\n9    for personal gain, rather than his promised initiatives, and\n\n10   that it was reasonably foreseeable that his victims would make\n\n11   the payments they made.      Therefore, both the actual loss and\n\n12   the intended loss exceed $550 million.\n\n13             In sum, I reject Mr. Guo's objections and hold that\n\n14   the government's inflow methodology serves as a \"reasonable\n\n15   estimate\" of the loss attributable to his crimes.             Based on the\n\n16   government's estimates of inflows into the various G Enterprise\n\n17   entities, I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, a loss\n\n18   amount of at least $550 million.\n\n19             Mr. Guo's sentencing submission raises over 50\n\n20   additional objections to various paragraphs of the presentence\n\n21   report.   I have carefully reviewed each of these objections and\n\n22   find that they either rehash the same objections already\n\n23   overruled, contradict the jury's verdict, or do not ultimately\n\n24   influence my sentence.\n\n25             Are there any objections to the presentence report\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    regarding factual accuracy, that the defense has not already\n\n2    articulated?\n\n3              MR. DRATEL:     Your Honor, just——and we do obviously\n\n4    reassert those that we did in writing, but we just wanted to\n\n5    add, based on two subsequent developments.\n\n6              One is the Court's denial of the Fatico hearing, which\n\n7    is Docket No. 855, and the order earlier today approving an\n\n8    order of forfeiture, that's 858, and we think that reinforces\n\n9    two factors.    One is that a loss amount cannot be determined\n\n10   based on the current record; and second is that a Fatico\n\n11   hearing is required.      And the reason is, as the Court is not\n\n12   deciding at this time the validity of 853(n) petitions, and we\n\n13   believe——and I know the Court feels differently, but we believe\n\n14   that if someone is not defrauded, it is not part of the corpus\n\n15   of the crime; therefore, it cannot be part of a loss figure.\n\n16   So we have more than a hundred million dollars from——that's\n\n17   just two sets of investors, who represent about 7,000\n\n18   investors——who have taken the position there was no fraud;\n\n19   their money is not part of a fraud.         That would reduce the loss\n\n20   figure in that regard.      And with respect to some of the offsets\n\n21   and the other parts, the trial transcript, the way the Court\n\n22   charged the jury, which is the statute, which is that it\n\n23   doesn't matter whether he had a gain at all, whether he made a\n\n24   dime.   So the jury's verdict doesn't establish anything with\n\n25   respect to loss amount.      And the trial testimony, by our\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    analysis, would limit that loss amount to less than\n\n2    $1.5 million.     And the fact that also the government says, and\n\n3    the Court agrees in the forfeiture order today, that this case\n\n4    is too complicated for restitution, only again reinforces that\n\n5    a loss amount cannot be established on the current record and\n\n6    without a Fatico hearing.\n\n7              And we also think that it should be at a higher burden\n\n8    of proof for the reasons we set forth in our papers.\n\n9              Thank you, your Honor.\n\n10             THE COURT:     The government has no objections to the\n\n11   factual findings in the presentence report, correct?\n\n12             MR. FINKEL:     That's correct, your Honor.\n\n13             THE COURT:     There being no further objections, I adopt\n\n14   the factual recitations in the report.          And it shall be made a\n\n15   part of the record and placed under seal.           If an appeal is\n\n16   taken, counsel on appeal may have access to the sealed report\n\n17   without further application to the Court.\n\n18             Although courts are no longer required to follow the\n\n19   sentencing guidelines, we are still required to consider the\n\n20   applicable guidelines in imposing sentence, and to do so, it is\n\n21   necessary that we accurately calculate the sentencing range.\n\n22             Following a two-month jury trial——\n\n23             MR. DRATEL:     Your Honor, I'm sorry.         I apologize.    I\n\n24   missed one that I think the Court may not have discussed in its\n\n25   digest of the objections, and that's with respect to\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    paragraph 116, the 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) guidelines section that\n\n2    applies to the offense involving sophisticated money\n\n3    laundering, and we specifically objected to that.             So I don't\n\n4    know if the Court covered that in its review.\n\n5              THE COURT:     Yes.   I will be addressing that later on.\n\n6              MR. DRATEL:     Oh, okay.     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n7              THE COURT:     Yes.\n\n8              As I was saying, after a two-month jury trial, the\n\n9    defendant was convicted of nine of twelve counts of the third\n\n10   superseding indictment:\n\n11             Count One:     Racketeering Conspiracy;\n\n12             Count Two:     Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud or Bank\n\n13   Fraud;\n\n14             Count Three:     Money Laundering Conspiracy;\n\n15             Count Four:     Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud;\n\n16             Count Seven:     Wire Fraud, in connection with the Farm\n\n17   Loan Program;\n\n18             Count Eight:     Securities Fraud, in connection with the\n\n19   Farm Loan Program;\n\n20             Count Nine:     Wire Fraud, in connection with G|CLUBS;\n\n21             Count Ten:     Securities Fraud, in connection with\n\n22   G|CLUBS; and\n\n23             Count Eleven:     Wire Fraud, in connection with the\n\n24   Himalaya Exchange.\n\n25             The jury acquitted Mr. Guo of three counts:\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Count Five:     Wire Fraud, in connection with GTV\n\n2    Private Placement;\n\n3              Count Six:     Securities Fraud, in connection with GTV\n\n4    Private Placement; and\n\n5              Count Twelve:     Unlawful Monetary Transaction.\n\n6              The presentence report calculates a total offense\n\n7    level of 55, and in accordance with guidelines Chapter 5\n\n8    Part A, Application Note 2, because the offense level is more\n\n9    than 43, the report treats the total offense level as 43.                The\n\n10   report calculates a criminal history category of I, resulting\n\n11   in a guidelines sentence of life imprisonment.            However, in\n\n12   accordance with guidelines section 5G1.2(b), the guidelines\n\n13   sentence applicable here is constrained by the maximum\n\n14   statutorily authorized length of imprisonment, which the report\n\n15   calculates as 2100 months, or 175 years.           The report calculates\n\n16   a fine range of $50,000 to $5 million.\n\n17             The government calculates the same guidelines range.\n\n18             Mr. Guo disputes the presentence report's guidelines\n\n19   analysis.    I now address each of his objections:\n\n20             First, as discussed earlier in this proceeding,\n\n21   Mr. Guo contends that there is no loss amount.            For the reasons\n\n22   I have already stated, I find sufficient support in the record\n\n23   that the loss amount exceeds $550 million and apply the\n\n24   30-level enhancement under guidelines Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(P).\n\n25             Second, Mr. Guo contends the government has not shown\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    that there are more than five victims.          In light of the over\n\n2    230 victim statements submitted by the government, and the\n\n3    trial record, which reflects the stunning breadth of Mr. Guo's\n\n4    fraudulent schemes, I agree with probation and apply a 2-level\n\n5    enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) because there are\n\n6    at least 10 victims.\n\n7              Third, for the reasons I have already stated, I agree\n\n8    with probation that Mr. Guo acted on behalf of a charitable,\n\n9    educational, religious, or political organization, and apply\n\n10   the 2-level enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(9)(A).\n\n11             Fourth, like probation, I apply a 2-level enhancement\n\n12   under Section 2B1.1(b)(10) because the offense \"involved\n\n13   sophisticated means\"——namely, the use of \"fictitious entities\"\n\n14   and \"corporate shells,\" as well as the invention of a phony\n\n15   cryptocurrency.     See, for example, Trial Transcript pages 3657\n\n16   to 3666; see also pages 2667 to 2668, 2671, and 2673 to 2674.\n\n17             Fifth, I agree with probation and apply a 2-level\n\n18   enhancement under Section 2S.1(b)(3) because Mr. Guo was\n\n19   convicted of money laundering under 18, United States Code,\n\n20   Section 1956, and the offense involved \"sophisticated\n\n21   laundering\"——namely, the use of \"fictitious entities\" and\n\n22   \"corporate shells.\"\n\n23             Sixth, for the reasons I have already stated, I apply\n\n24   a 4-level enhancement under Section 3B1.1 because Mr. Guo was\n\n25   \"an organizer or leader\" of the criminal activity, which\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    involved five or more participants.\n\n2              Seventh, I apply a 2-level obstruction of justice\n\n3    enhancement under Section 3C1.1 because Mr. Guo \"willfully\n\n4    obstructed or impeded . . . the administration of justice with\n\n5    respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the\n\n6    instant offense of conviction.\"         As I discussed earlier, I find\n\n7    by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Guo intimidated\n\n8    potential cooperators or witnesses by creating a \"blacklist\" of\n\n9    his critics and sharing their personally identifiable\n\n10   information with his supporters, who have a pattern of engaging\n\n11   in harassing behavior.      See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n12   pages 1533, lines 12-17.       Separately, I find that Mr. Guo both\n\n13   directly and indirectly contributed to a campaign of harassment\n\n14   to deter the Trustee of his bankruptcy estate from seizing\n\n15   Mr. Guo's property and investigating his finances so that his\n\n16   fraud victims can be repaid.\n\n17             Based on my independent evaluation of the sentencing\n\n18   guidelines, I find that the offense level is 55, which I treat\n\n19   as 43 because that is the maximum possible offense level; the\n\n20   criminal history category is I; and the resulting guidelines\n\n21   recommendation is 2100 months' imprisonment because of the\n\n22   statutory maximum.       I also calculate a fine range of $50,000 to\n\n23   $5 million.\n\n24             Now I will hear from the parties.\n\n25             Does the government wish to be heard with regard to\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    sentencing?\n\n2              MR. FINKEL:     It does, your Honor.       And I also want to\n\n3    note for your Honor that there is at least one victim here who\n\n4    wishes to be heard.\n\n5              THE COURT:     I will allow that individual to come\n\n6    forward later on.\n\n7              MR. FINKEL:     Okay.\n\n8              THE COURT:     Actually, you know something, I think that\n\n9    it would be better to have the victim come forward now.\n\n10             MR. FINKEL:     Okay.\n\n11             THE COURT:     I understand that the government has\n\n12   identified a victim who wishes to make a statement.\n\n13             Before we proceed with victim statements, I want to\n\n14   explain the law that applies to victim statements.              The Crime\n\n15   Victims' Rights Act defines a crime victim as a person directly\n\n16   and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a\n\n17   federal offense.     18, United States Code, Section 3771(e).             In\n\n18   other words, you are only a victim if you have been directly\n\n19   and proximately harmed by Mr. Guo and his crimes.\n\n20             For anyone who wishes to be heard, I'm going to ask\n\n21   you two questions before you start:         (1) What is your name? and\n\n22   (2) Are you a victim of Mr. Guo's offenses?              If you state that\n\n23   you are not a victim of Mr. Guo's crimes, you will not be\n\n24   permitted to speak.      Each individual will have up to\n\n25   two minutes to complete their statement.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              So you may call the individual that you have\n\n2    identified.\n\n3              MR. FINKEL:     Yes, your Honor.      It's Ms. Chen.      If she\n\n4    could please come up.\n\n5              THE COURT:     If she could step to the podium.\n\n6              MR. FINKEL:     While she comes up, your Honor, I may\n\n7    have missed it——apologies——but is your Honor's finding with\n\n8    respect to the base offense level consistent with the\n\n9    recommendation in the PSR of a base offense level of 7?\n\n10             THE COURT:     Yes.\n\n11             MS. CHEN:      My name is Wei Chen.      I'm a victim of Miles\n\n12   Guo's fraud, and I testified in June 2024.\n\n13             I understand only two minutes allowed.            However, I\n\n14   prepared I believe more than two minutes.           I wonder if possible\n\n15   for me to——\n\n16             THE COURT:     I would like you to limit your statement.\n\n17   And so if you could condense it, please.\n\n18             MS. CHEN:      Okay.   I'll be quick.\n\n19             So, your Honor, I appreciate the opportunity.             This\n\n20   fraud destroyed my life and my family.          It did not just take\n\n21   money, it took our sense of security; it took our peace of\n\n22   mind; it took our hope; and it took life from us, the\n\n23   best years of our lives.         It created a constant mental burden\n\n24   that feels like an ongoing suffering.          And this problem has not\n\n25   ended.   We live with it every day, every hour.           It is anxiety,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    regret, guilt towards our family, sleepless nights and constant\n\n2    stress of trying to survive financially after losing years of\n\n3    savings and hard work.      And this harm extends beyond\n\n4    individuals.    It affects families; it affects children, their\n\n5    education, their future; it affects elderly family members,\n\n6    their care and their stability.         Behind every victim is a whole\n\n7    family.    Their life has been deeply damaged and destroyed.\n\n8               Your Honor, one especially harmful part of this fraud\n\n9    is how it unfolded over time.       It was one program after\n\n10   another, where we were repeatedly encouraged to give more and\n\n11   more.   At first, we used our hard-earned savings, but over time\n\n12   we were pushed into debt.       Toward the end of 2021, the fraud\n\n13   introduced new programs with urgency, pressure, and promises of\n\n14   significant returns, pushing us to borrow close to 400,000 at a\n\n15   high interest rate.      We took on the debt because we believed in\n\n16   the false promise that returns would come quickly and allow us\n\n17   to repay the debt.       Instead, those promises were false, and\n\n18   that loan accumulated about 300,000 in interest since December\n\n19   2021.   It continues to grow every day in a way that is\n\n20   overwhelming and deeply stressful.         So for the past ten years,\n\n21   this harm has not been in the past; it follows into the\n\n22   present.    It shapes how we live today and affects our tomorrow.\n\n23              We were once a happy family.        The happiness is gone,\n\n24   and it's hard to regain.\n\n25              What makes it even more painful is that the defendant\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    continues to deny this fraud.       His supporters continue to\n\n2    spread misinformation and continue attacking victims who came\n\n3    forward.    Since I testified, I experienced attacks, and some of\n\n4    those attacks made me fear for my safety.           That added even more\n\n5    weight to the harm.      It would have been easier to stay silent,\n\n6    but I chose to come back and speak here after two years.                 I\n\n7    chose to do what I believe is right, even when it's painful,\n\n8    even when it feels unsafe.       I am here because victims' rights\n\n9    have been delayed and denied for too long.           Even though\n\n10   speaking publicly exposes me to more attacks, I am here to tell\n\n11   the Court and the public the truth about the real harm caused\n\n12   by the fraud, by this fraud itself, caused by the fraud network\n\n13   running it, caused by the sentencing delays, and any future\n\n14   delays until the money is returned to the true victims of the\n\n15   fraud, the true victims that are enduring the harm every day\n\n16   from Miles Guo's criminal conduct.         Sentencing delay has\n\n17   extended the harm, because for my family, the time is not\n\n18   neutral.    Every additional month, every additional day without\n\n19   meaningful financial relief adds more debt from this\n\n20   high-interest borrowing because of this fraud, because of this\n\n21   false promise.     Further delays do not simply postpone relief.\n\n22   It creates additional financial harm that becomes harder and\n\n23   harder to overcome.\n\n24              For years, we the victims waited and waited for\n\n25   so-called investment to deliver the returns we were promised.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    And now we find ourselves waiting again——waiting for justice to\n\n2    be served, waiting for closure, waiting for return of our money\n\n3    that rightfully belongs to us, our hard-earned money.               We need\n\n4    that money to pay off debts, support our children's education,\n\n5    care for our families, and the basic necessities of life.                 The\n\n6    continued waiting is not difficult, it is painful.\n\n7              THE COURT:      Thank you, ma'am.      If you would please\n\n8    bring your statement to a close.         Continue for another\n\n9    30 seconds and please then stop.\n\n10             MS. CHEN:      So it is not just a financial fraud.             It is\n\n11   damaging our health, our stability, our trust, our dignity, our\n\n12   hope, and the future we are trying to build.\n\n13             And next, I want to address restitution.             I understand\n\n14   government position regarding remission, regarding the\n\n15   complexity of the case and number of victims involved.\n\n16   However, victims' loss have been already clearly established\n\n17   through the sworn testimony and of evidence before this Court,\n\n18   including my own.        I respectfully ask the Court to consider\n\n19   ordering restitution at his sentencing today.\n\n20             THE COURT:      All right.     Thank you, ma'am.      I will\n\n21   carefully consider what you have said.\n\n22             MS. CHEN:      Thank you.\n\n23             THE COURT:      Thank you.\n\n24             Are there any other victims, any other individuals who\n\n25   will come up and answer yes when I ask whether they are a\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    victim of Mr. Guo?\n\n2              Please step up.\n\n3              What is your name?\n\n4              SPECTATOR:     Ching Li Bard Jordan (phonetic).\n\n5              THE COURT:     Are you a victim of Mr. Guo's crimes?\n\n6              SPECTATOR:     Yes, ma'am.\n\n7              THE COURT:     Go ahead.\n\n8              SPECTATOR:     We're here today for Miles's sentencing.\n\n9    We're also here to witness America's funeral, that you killed\n\n10   your nation.\n\n11             THE COURT:     All right.     So ma'am, so far I don't hear\n\n12   your saying that you're a victim.        And so if you're ready to\n\n13   state how you have been victimized by Mr. Guo's criminal\n\n14   conduct, you may go forward, but so far, I am not hearing that.\n\n15             SPECTATOR:     We do not hate you, nor——\n\n16             THE COURT:     I'm going to have to bring this to a close\n\n17   because what you're making is a political statement unrelated\n\n18   to his various criminal conduct.\n\n19             Is there any other individual who claims to be a\n\n20   victim of Mr. Guo?\n\n21             And is there any other individual in the overflow who\n\n22   may be a victim of Mr. Guo?\n\n23             All right.     I've heard word that there is no other\n\n24   individual identifying themselves as a victim in the overflow\n\n25   room.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              All righty then.      I will hear from the government.\n\n2              MR. FINKEL:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n3              Miles Guo is not a Democratic activist.             He is a con\n\n4    artist, he is a fraudster, he is a scammer, and a thief.                  And\n\n5    to afford just punishment for his crimes, to promote respect\n\n6    for the law, to deter him specifically and others who may seek\n\n7    to do what he has already done, to protect the public, to\n\n8    protect the many who, sadly, remain under Miles Guo's spell,\n\n9    this Court should impose a sentence of at least——at least——\n\n10   30 years' imprisonment.      And that's because for nearly\n\n11   five years, the defendant preyed on thousands.             He lied to\n\n12   them, he brainwashed many, he attacked and harassed others, and\n\n13   he caused all that pain and suffering, not because he cares\n\n14   about any political cause; he did it because he cares the most\n\n15   of all about himself.\n\n16             This was not a moment of poor judgment or an\n\n17   aberration of an otherwise law-abiding life.             Miles Guo did\n\n18   this to feed his narcissism.       He did it so he can live a life\n\n19   of luxury and excess——a Bugatti; a Lamborghini; a $26 million\n\n20   mansion; a $36,000 mattress——two of them actually; a $50,000\n\n21   fire log holder; a music video, promoting himself, holding a\n\n22   light saber.\n\n23             And Miles Guo sits here today, unapologetic, refusing\n\n24   to accept even a modicum of responsibility.              He's steadfast\n\n25   that all of this wreckage, everything he left in his wake,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    never even happened.      Even worse, he portrays himself as a\n\n2    victim.    But the evidence that this Court saw, that a jury saw,\n\n3    proved that Guo was a perpetrator on a grand scale.               And it's\n\n4    certainly one thing, your Honor, to deny guilt as a defendant\n\n5    in an American courtroom, but it's another entirely to deny\n\n6    reality.    And that's where I'd like to focus my brief remarks,\n\n7    on the reality of the harm that Miles Guo caused, because that\n\n8    should be a primary focus, your Honor, in assessing the\n\n9    seriousness of the offense and deciding what constitutes just\n\n10   punishment.\n\n11              Your Honor referenced the 235 victim statements that\n\n12   have been submitted to you.       They account for the magnitude of\n\n13   the harm.    They discuss the financial burden.           We just heard\n\n14   from Ms. Chen as well.      But it was more than just financial\n\n15   security and money.      There's a reality of enduring anguish.\n\n16              Statement 42:    \"I lost my passion.          My whole body was\n\n17   depressed.    I suffered from severe depression and want to kill\n\n18   myself every day.\"\n\n19              Statement 200:    \"I was overwhelmed with shame, guilt,\n\n20   and despair.    I struggled with recurring suicidal thoughts.             I\n\n21   lost my will to live.\"\n\n22              That is the reality of Miles Guo's harm.\n\n23              And these victims come from across the country and\n\n24   around the world, and they have, generally speaking, a unifying\n\n25   theme.    They were part of the Chinese diaspora, and universally\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    against the Chinese Communist Party, the CCP.            And it's Miles\n\n2    Guo's false statements about fighting the CCP that drew victims\n\n3    to him, and that separates Miles Guo from a garden-variety\n\n4    fraud.\n\n5               Sure, he promised his victims financial gain and\n\n6    riches.    But it was more sinister than that.           He claimed to be\n\n7    part of their family, their brother.         He called them his\n\n8    brothers and his sisters, as someone who could be trusted,\n\n9    claiming to share the same political and moral views as his\n\n10   victims.    So your Honor, in that sense it's an extraordinary\n\n11   affinity fraud that the defendant committed because he targeted\n\n12   a community, and, ironically, or perhaps even purposefully, as\n\n13   Statement 157 summed it up well, \"While loudly proclaiming his\n\n14   goal to defeat the CCP, he actually served their interests, by\n\n15   discrediting the very cause he claimed to support.             By\n\n16   betraying us, the true believers in ending the CCP's tyranny,\n\n17   he tarnished the fight against the CCP itself.            Now whenever\n\n18   someone hears about efforts to oppose the CCP, they may\n\n19   question whether it's just another scam.\"           So in a very real\n\n20   way, rather than fight the CCP as he loves to claim over and\n\n21   over again, he helped their cause.\n\n22              Your Honor, another important point for the Court to\n\n23   consider is his total and utter contempt for United States\n\n24   laws.    As your Honor saw during trial, as the jury saw, the\n\n25   defendant's audaciousness in criminality grew over time.                 He\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    started out, as your Honor recounted before, with the Rule of\n\n2    Law Society and foundation.       It grew into GTV, in which he was\n\n3    investigated and dealt with in a civil regulatory manner.                 So\n\n4    he changed his efforts.      He changed his tactics.          He tried to\n\n5    dress up his fraud by, instead of selling stock, pretending to\n\n6    sell farm loans.     And then that continued in its audaciousness\n\n7    by creating a fake business called G|CLUBS.              And in the summer\n\n8    of 2022, and the fall, when grand jury subpoenas found their\n\n9    way to G|CLUBS and the government seized $630 million, the\n\n10   defendant once again, instead of stopping what he was doing,\n\n11   instead of realizing that he was violating the law, he doubled\n\n12   down and tripled down and quadrupled down, and he launched the\n\n13   810 and the 815, schemes that collected money by claiming to\n\n14   sell more stock, with the express purpose of sending that money\n\n15   abroad, to the Middle East, expressly out of reach of the U.S.\n\n16   government.\n\n17             And that contempt, your Honor, continued today—-today,\n\n18   before you, when the defendant lied, malingering, pretending to\n\n19   be ill, to try to avoid sentencing today.\n\n20             The ever-evolving nature of the defendant's\n\n21   criminality also underscores I think a very important point for\n\n22   this Court: the defendant is and remains a significant danger\n\n23   to society.\n\n24             Victim statements recount, as Ms. Chen just did, how\n\n25   the enterprise continues, developing new meme coins and\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    money-luring opportunities.       The defendant operates like the\n\n2    law does not apply to him, and only incarceration will keep the\n\n3    public safe.    As your Honor mentioned, he has acolytes who are\n\n4    willing to protest in front of an elementary school——an\n\n5    elementary school——because one of the teachers was the daughter\n\n6    of the bankruptcy trustee who was discharging his job to try to\n\n7    obtain money for creditors in accordance with the laws of the\n\n8    United States.\n\n9              The defendant personally told Ya Li to destroy\n\n10   subpoenas; his daughter was told to lie in a deposition.                 The\n\n11   defendant moved a boat outside the jurisdiction of the United\n\n12   States to avoid civil contempt.         He was held in criminal\n\n13   contempt by a judge of New York State Supreme Court.\n\n14             He has no respect for the law, and there is nothing\n\n15   that can assure this Court that once released, he won't\n\n16   continue to prey on the victims he has already victimized, and\n\n17   many others.\n\n18             Now, in their sentencing submission, the defense makes\n\n19   much of defendant's history and characteristics.             And they\n\n20   recount his mythology——the same mythology that the defendant\n\n21   used to lure victims into his schemes; the same mythology he\n\n22   used to build a cult of personality and to brainwash victims.\n\n23   I don't know, and I think no one knows, how much of that\n\n24   history is true, but certainly this defendant has little\n\n25   credibility left to spend here before this Court, so I would\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    submit that instead of evaluating the truth of the defendant's\n\n2    mythology, the truth of his words, or lack thereof, we look at\n\n3    his actions.    His actions speak louder than his words.              And\n\n4    here's what we know:\n\n5              The defendant immigrated to the United States in 2015,\n\n6    thereabouts.    He claimed he needed asylum, that he needed\n\n7    protection, from the United States.          He had access to\n\n8    opportunities that many cannot have access to but wish they\n\n9    could.   He's brilliant.     He is charismatic.           He is smart.     He\n\n10   could have lived a successful, law-abiding life in the United\n\n11   States, but almost immediately, he chose to commit crimes on a\n\n12   grand scale.    And if anything, while here as an asylee, he\n\n13   should have maintained rigid compliance with the laws of the\n\n14   United States, with its rules and regulations.              But instead, he\n\n15   took opportunity after opportunity to engage and engineer a\n\n16   fraud of historic proportions.          Those are the actions that is\n\n17   the history and characteristics that should animate this\n\n18   Court's sentence.\n\n19             Last point, but an important one.           The defendant\n\n20   clearly has his supporters, those who speak online and try to\n\n21   scare victims who have come forward; those who try to scare the\n\n22   truth from coming out; supporters who promise that this is all\n\n23   a charade and one day Miles Guo will return to them to lead\n\n24   them.    And the reality is that they——many of them, at least——\n\n25   are probably victims too.       And the defendant maintains this\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    hold and grip over them; a grip so tight that he can convince\n\n2    them that they aren't victims at all.           And that underscores,\n\n3    your Honor, the danger the defendant poses to the public.                  If\n\n4    released, it is near certainty, if not absolutely certain, that\n\n5    he will pick their pockets again, that he will victimize those\n\n6    supporters again.        Those victims may disclaim their victimhood,\n\n7    they may disclaim that they were defrauded.               What was proven at\n\n8    the trial that you presided over, your Honor, is that the\n\n9    defendant Miles Guo intended to defraud them; he acted with\n\n10   knowledge, he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it\n\n11   for himself, over and over and over again.\n\n12              So it is up to this Court, and your Honor alone, to\n\n13   protect those who are unable to protect themselves, and the\n\n14   government submits that a lengthy sentence, one that\n\n15   incapacitates the defendant from harming others, is necessary\n\n16   here.\n\n17              And so when reflecting on the reality, the reality of\n\n18   what the defendant has done, his course of conduct for\n\n19   five years, all that he built, all the lives he destroyed, it's\n\n20   sort of hard to understand how a person could be responsible\n\n21   for all these significant crimes.         Miles Guo's criminality is\n\n22   massive.    The harm he caused was and remains devastating to\n\n23   thousands.    The obstruction, the flouting of Court's orders,\n\n24   the vengeance on those who stood in his way and their family.\n\n25   Miles Guo did not lead a movement, he led a criminal enterprise\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    that was built on lies he told so he could take other people's\n\n2    money and spend it on himself.          And he strengthened that\n\n3    enterprise through threats and violence and fear.\n\n4              For leading one of the most extraordinary frauds that\n\n5    this country has seen, to protect the public and those who\n\n6    can't protect themselves, a lengthy and substantial sentence of\n\n7    at least——at least——30 years is absolutely necessary in this\n\n8    case.\n\n9              Thank you.\n\n10             THE COURT:     Now I'll hear from the defense.\n\n11             MS. SARAFA:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n12             I think we can all agree that this is no ordinary\n\n13   case.   Miles Guo is no ordinary individual.              The U.S.\n\n14   government, not to mention the Chinese government, has a\n\n15   certain view of him.\n\n16             It's important at this stage of the case to take a\n\n17   deep, full look at who Miles Guo as a person is and how his\n\n18   background relates to why we're here today.\n\n19             Let me acknowledge that Mr. Guo went to trial.                   He\n\n20   maintains his innocence.       He was found not guilty of the\n\n21   government's core fraud allegations concerning the GTV Private\n\n22   Placement, as well as of engaging in an unlawful monetary\n\n23   transaction.    We acknowledge that he was found guilty of other\n\n24   fraud counts related to the Farm Loans, G|CLUBS, and Himalaya\n\n25   Exchange, as well as money laundering and conspiracy-related\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    counts.    We accept that verdict for purposes of sentencing, but\n\n2    it is important to place it in its proper context and\n\n3    understand its limits.\n\n4               Mr. Guo is a human being like every other defendant\n\n5    who has appeared before this Court.         He has a unique personal\n\n6    history that has shaped his fundamental character, motivation,\n\n7    and his orientation to the world.        He was born in China\n\n8    two years into the cultural revolution.          That lasted a full\n\n9    ten years.    And his parents were deemed enemies of the State\n\n10   during that period of time.       As a result, his childhood, one of\n\n11   eight brothers born to his parents, consisted of total\n\n12   immersion in the hardships and abuses that an authoritarian\n\n13   government can and does inflict on its people.            Now millions of\n\n14   Chinese individuals may have had similar experiences during the\n\n15   cultural revolution, but that fact has not diminished the\n\n16   lasting impact that those experiences have on every single one\n\n17   of them.    Mr. Guo's unwavering support for democracy, a more\n\n18   democratic China, and a better life for the people of China, is\n\n19   rooted in his personal experience.\n\n20              He did not receive much of a formal education.                He\n\n21   quit school at about age 15 to work and help support his\n\n22   family.    He married young, still in his teens, and had two\n\n23   children with his wife, to whom he remains married to this day,\n\n24   before he reached age 20.       That's about how old he was in 1989\n\n25   when the Tiananmen protests began in China, and given Mr. Guo's\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    childhood, it's not surprising that he sold his motorcycle,\n\n2    provided the funds to support the protestors of Tiananmen.                For\n\n3    that support, he was visited by police officers, who,\n\n4    tragically, shot his brother, who was trying to protect Mr. Guo\n\n5    when a firearm was drawn.       Both of them were arrested.         His\n\n6    brother died of his wounds.       Mr. Guo served approximately\n\n7    two years in prison.\n\n8              I start here because the government suggests not\n\n9    only——I mean argues strenuously that Mr. Guo is not a genuine\n\n10   political dissident but that he has adopted that persona solely\n\n11   for personal financial gain.       In reality, Mr. Guo came to his\n\n12   lifelong commitment to democracy honestly and through the\n\n13   crucible of extreme trauma.       I don't think we can gloss over\n\n14   the impact of his witnessing his brother shot and killed by the\n\n15   police.   While he was incarcerated, he witnessed at least 50\n\n16   political prisoners being executed.\n\n17             He was physically tortured on multiple occasions not\n\n18   only during his post-Tiananmen incarceration but also after he\n\n19   exposed corruption by a prominent Beijing city official.\n\n20             And to the extent the government maintains that\n\n21   Mr. Guo's personal background is a mythology, I would point to\n\n22   the probation officer's personal observations of the physical\n\n23   scars that Mr. Guo bears to this day as a result of torture.\n\n24   That's referenced in the presentence report.\n\n25             Experiences like the ones Mr. Guo has endured shape a\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    person.   In this case, they solidified his commitment to\n\n2    opposing authoritarian rule, exposing corruption, and\n\n3    supporting a democratic China.          His support of democracy, by\n\n4    the way, also extends to assisting the United States in\n\n5    protecting its own national security and understanding the many\n\n6    ways that China infiltrates this country and attempts to\n\n7    undermine it.\n\n8              In short, Mr. Guo is a legitimate pro-democracy\n\n9    activist and has been since his youth.           Any suggestion to the\n\n10   contrary isn't supported by the facts, not the least of which\n\n11   are the fact that for years Mr. Guo has been the primary target\n\n12   of China's Operation Fox Hunt, and he's had multiple immediate\n\n13   family members as well as employees and supporters arrested and\n\n14   detained for years.\n\n15             It's worth asking why China would go to the lengths it\n\n16   has to silence and repatriate Mr. Guo.           Why is he such a threat\n\n17   to the CCP?    The extent of the CCP's efforts reflect its deep\n\n18   concerns about Mr. Guo's ability to undermine his authority and\n\n19   reveal information it does not want disclosed.             If Mr. Guo's\n\n20   activities were merely the work of a conman or a fraudster and\n\n21   nothing more, the CCP would not be deploying armies of\n\n22   operatives to discredit him through a staggeringly extensive\n\n23   social media campaign.      At some point, in its scope, that\n\n24   social media campaign was second only to the CCP's efforts to\n\n25   discredit the Hong Kong protestors, democracy protestors of\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    2019.   The CCP has spent tens if not hundreds of millions of\n\n2    dollars recruiting U.S. political and business elite to lobby\n\n3    the U.S. government for his repatriation to China.             They've\n\n4    pressured U.S. social media companies to de-platform him,\n\n5    they've interrogated, coerced, arrested, prosecuted, jailed\n\n6    individuals in China for just listening to his broadcast.\n\n7    They've taken advantage of the U.S. legal system and the First\n\n8    Amendment freedoms here to file a false rape complaint against\n\n9    Mr. Guo and then orchestrate demonstrations outside his home,\n\n10   calling him a rapist, and then publicize those demonstrations\n\n11   on social media.\n\n12              We detailed this and more in our sentencing\n\n13   submission, but even the many pages in our sentencing\n\n14   submission that discuss this campaign against him really can't\n\n15   capture the true magnitude of the Chinese government operation\n\n16   against Mr. Guo as well as against those who dare to listen to\n\n17   his broadcast where they can in China, or to engage in any way\n\n18   with any entities associated with him.\n\n19              And these facts are not in dispute.           I mean, the U.S.\n\n20   government itself has brought dozens of criminal prosecutions\n\n21   against individuals who have done the CCP's bidding against\n\n22   Mr. Guo.    We've cited complaint after complaint, document after\n\n23   document drafted by the United States government detailing\n\n24   these efforts.\n\n25              And that brings us to the conduct in this case.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              The jury acquitted Mr. Guo of the GTV Private\n\n2    Placement, convicted on other counts.           We accept the jury's\n\n3    verdict, but we do recognize that that verdict has limits,\n\n4    especially with respect to proven losses and victimization of\n\n5    investors and supporters.       The creation of GTV was a direct\n\n6    response to CCP efforts to silence Mr. Guo, to suppress his\n\n7    speech by pressuring other social media platforms to shut down\n\n8    his accounts.     GTV, in contrast, was free from external\n\n9    pressure, and it became a vibrant and active platform.               That\n\n10   platform was itself part of the efforts to take down the CCP.\n\n11   That platform was a way to get out messages about corruption,\n\n12   expose what actually is taking place in China at the behest of\n\n13   the Chinese government, and those broadcasts are the effort.\n\n14   So it's not accurate to say that this organization did nothing,\n\n15   that his movement did nothing.          That platform was a core part\n\n16   of undertaking the dismantling of the CCP, building a movement.\n\n17             The Himalaya Exchange provided a safe place to store\n\n18   money outside the prying eyes of the CCP.            And that is a\n\n19   service for which there is a tremendous market.              It also\n\n20   provided an opportunity for individuals to make money through\n\n21   creating H Coin on the Himalaya Exchange.            The letters we\n\n22   provided to the Court contain numerous accounts of individuals\n\n23   who profited substantially from their investment in the\n\n24   Himalaya Exchange, and who invested in it for reasons having\n\n25   nothing to do with the alleged misrepresentations of Mr. Guo,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    with respect to the exchange being backed by gold, for\n\n2    instance.\n\n3              G|CLUBS, G Fashion, the Farm Loans, these were all\n\n4    part of building a brand to support the whistleblower movement.\n\n5              The luxury cars.      The government's made much of those\n\n6    cars.   Mr. Guo himself doesn't drive.         There's been no\n\n7    observation of him out and about driving around in those cars.\n\n8    The Bugatti never even left the showroom in Texas.             They were\n\n9    props for videos, to show what could be, what could be achieved\n\n10   for the people of China, to build the brand for the\n\n11   whistleblower movement.\n\n12             The mansion, the Mahwah mansion.          Again, much has been\n\n13   made of that.     There was also testimony at trial that that was\n\n14   intended as a permanent home for the whistleblower movement.\n\n15   Mr. Guo himself lived in Connecticut.          He wasn't living at the\n\n16   mansion in Mahwah.       That's just not accurate.\n\n17             These were not personal luxuries that he was obtaining\n\n18   for himself.    These were part of the brand which resonated\n\n19   strongly with thousands of individuals who see in the movement\n\n20   hope for a freer and a more democratic China.\n\n21             I should also note that Mr. Guo——much has been made of\n\n22   his Brioni suits, the yacht.       A lot of these things were\n\n23   obtained prior to any alleged misconduct in this case.\n\n24   Mr. Guo's family members were legitimate billionaires long\n\n25   before Mr. Guo came to this country, long before the conduct at\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    issue in this case.      The movement was a separate project,\n\n2    independent of personal wealth.         The government narrative about\n\n3    needing the money and creating these entities as a way to\n\n4    obtain money just doesn't make sense.          The government knows\n\n5    well that if Mr. Guo had needed or cared about money, it would\n\n6    have been much easier for him to avail himself of the many\n\n7    opportunities to secure the release of billions of dollars in\n\n8    funds seized by the CCP if only he would agree to stop\n\n9    criticizing it and exposing corruption.          He was unwilling to do\n\n10   that.   He had those opportunities.        At least $10 billion in\n\n11   seized assets.     He could have just said, okay, I'll stop\n\n12   criticizing the CCP.      Those assets would have been unfrozen.\n\n13   But that's not what animates him.        That is not what motivates\n\n14   him.    That is not why we're here.      The simple and indisputable\n\n15   fact that he could have availed himself of those opportunities\n\n16   underscores his genuine commitment to the underlying movement.\n\n17   His fidelity consistently has been to the movement.              Even his\n\n18   original pursuit of wealth back in the early '90s, after being\n\n19   released from prison following Tiananmen, was for that very\n\n20   purpose.    That's the purpose, to achieve that level of wealth\n\n21   and prominence and then be able to exert the kind of influence\n\n22   that one needs to have in order to build a movement that has\n\n23   any hope of taking on a government and a party as powerful as\n\n24   the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n25              There is a——\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              THE COURT:     One moment, please.\n\n2              You may continue.\n\n3              MS. SARAFA:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n4              There's a vast gulf in this case between the loss\n\n5    amount advanced by the government, set forth in the guidelines,\n\n6    and the alleged harm to victims, and the overwhelming number of\n\n7    investors and customers who disclaim victim status.              This goes\n\n8    straight to the nature and circumstances of the offense, the\n\n9    seriousness of the conduct, and we respectfully submit that\n\n10   this is a case where the 3553(a) factors should weigh more\n\n11   heavily than the guidelines.\n\n12             There are literally thousands of investors and\n\n13   customers of the G series entities who affirmatively state that\n\n14   they are not victims of Mr. Guo.        These are not deluded,\n\n15   brainwashed sycophants.      We submitted statements from 1286\n\n16   unique individuals.      We accounted for multiple individuals in\n\n17   our number count and in our statistics, unlike the government,\n\n18   who cites 235 statements but, by our assessment, at least 40 or\n\n19   more are from the same individual.         1286 unique individuals.\n\n20   Of those, 1223 expressly stated that they were not victimized\n\n21   by Mr. Guo.    Most of them did not indicate the size of their\n\n22   investments in the submissions they sent to us, but for those\n\n23   that did, the amount totaled more than $72 million.              108 of\n\n24   them reported being interrogated by the CCP.             35 reported being\n\n25   coerced to make statements such as confessions, guarantees,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    repentance, or acknowledgment of having been defrauded.                   Seven\n\n2    reported being forced to file false complaints with U.S. law\n\n3    enforcement and media.       28 reported being arrested and/or\n\n4    prosecuted by the CCP.       We continue to receive more of these\n\n5    statements daily.        And these are not cookie-cutter\n\n6    presentations.     They're unique, detailed, thoughtful accounts\n\n7    of individual deliberation and due diligence in connection with\n\n8    their investments from individuals from all walks of life, many\n\n9    professionals, even one from a non-Chinese lawyer in Australia,\n\n10   who invested at the suggestion of one of his clients.               These\n\n11   are not robotic recitations from brainwashed masses lacking\n\n12   agency.   And these support——these individuals who provided\n\n13   these statements, they included supporting\n\n14   documents——government-issued IDs, passports, other\n\n15   identification documents.        They included videos, audio,\n\n16   recordings of interrogation by Chinese officials, photos,\n\n17   screenshots of text messaging between them and the officials, a\n\n18   tremendous amount of indicia of credibility, and we've included\n\n19   at least one of those in its entirety in our sentencing\n\n20   submission, but there are hundreds of these.              And apart from\n\n21   those, apart from those statements, there are more than 6,000\n\n22   Himalaya Exchange customers who have submitted 853(n)\n\n23   petitions.    There are more than 300 Hamilton investors who have\n\n24   submitted 853(n) petitions.        Both of those groups, thousands of\n\n25   customers, maintain that they were not victimized by Mr. Guo\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    and that their investments, the money that's been seized, is\n\n2    not the proceeds of fraud.       They're not crime proceeds.             That's\n\n3    their position.     That's thousands and thousands of investors.\n\n4              At trial, there was a discussion about extrapolating\n\n5    from the testimony of Yi Jianhu, one of the defense witnesses\n\n6    who said that he'd been pressured by the Chinese government to\n\n7    make false statements.      And the government strenuously objected\n\n8    to the defense making any inference about such pressure having\n\n9    been exerted on other witnesses in the case.             And the Court\n\n10   said that——the Court granted that request and said it's not\n\n11   proper to extrapolate or speculate because we've only\n\n12   heard——beyond the testimony of the people who testified in this\n\n13   trial.\n\n14             And yet the loss amount that the government talks\n\n15   about and the loss amount calculated in the PSR is speculation.\n\n16   The witnesses at trial testified to no more than 1.5 million in\n\n17   losses.   The individuals in this room, the more than 6,000\n\n18   Himalaya Exchange customers, the nearly 1300 people who sent us\n\n19   letters, they all say, we were not victimized.            We invested for\n\n20   reasons that have nothing to do with the misrepresentations\n\n21   Mr. Guo allegedly made.      And these people, these individuals\n\n22   consistently say that any hardship they suffered is a result of\n\n23   their funds being seized and held by the government.\n\n24             They maintain also that Mr. Guo was up front in his\n\n25   broadcasts about the risk of investment.           These are not\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    victimized, brainwashed people.         They talk about receiving real\n\n2    value for the investments they made.          Not just G|CLUBS, not\n\n3    just actually getting, you know, G Fashion, not just GTV, but\n\n4    Himalaya Exchange.       People made real money with——through the\n\n5    Himalaya Exchange.       That's value.    In fact, many of them are\n\n6    still holders of H Coin, which retained value to this day.                It\n\n7    retained value up until the very day that Mr. Guo was convicted\n\n8    and the platform was shut down.         I believe one of the\n\n9    individuals even said the decision to invest with Mr. Guo was\n\n10   one of the most important and correct of his life.              And that\n\n11   was a consistent refrain.       These individuals say that they've\n\n12   made their own independent decisions about whether to send\n\n13   money to various G series entities.          They weren't victimized or\n\n14   brainwashed by Mr. Guo.\n\n15             The government has, sitting in its coffers, more than\n\n16   $600 million seized.      The GTV entities readily settled the SEC\n\n17   case and disgorged more than $500 million.            That money is all\n\n18   going back to——it has already——most of it has already gone back\n\n19   to investors; in fact, it had even before the trial.\n\n20             The money is not——this is not like a Ponzi scheme,\n\n21   where there's preying on subsequent investors because you have\n\n22   to keep bringing in money to give——to pay out original\n\n23   investors.    The money was all there.        These were operating\n\n24   businesses.    Value was obtained by the people investing in\n\n25   them.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Mr. Guo's pro-democracy, anti-CCP message resonated\n\n2    with people around the globe.       The supporters' statements\n\n3    overflow with hope.      That is inspired by Mr. Guo.         That is\n\n4    meaningful.    That is meaningful.      That in itself is meaningful.\n\n5              We've talked about some of Mr. Guo's assistance to the\n\n6    United States.     We've done our best to provide the Court with\n\n7    that information to the best of our ability, although quite a\n\n8    bit of information is not even available to us.             We've\n\n9    requested it; we have not received it.\n\n10             We've also provided to the Court information about\n\n11   Mr. Guo's physical and mental health, which has deteriorated\n\n12   since he's been at MDC.      The conditions at the MDC are well\n\n13   known to this Court.      That's no surprise.       The conditions in\n\n14   the Bureau of Prisons are not great.         Mr. Guo's physical and\n\n15   mental health most likely will get worse as he continues to\n\n16   spend time in incarceration.       In this district——and those\n\n17   factors are important and considered by courts, taken very\n\n18   seriously.    In this district, less than a quarter of defendants\n\n19   in fraud cases are sentenced within the sentencing guidelines.\n\n20   Most are sentenced substantially below the guidelines.              And\n\n21   that is a recognition, as your Honor has recognized, that\n\n22   particularly in fraud cases, that the guidelines substantially\n\n23   overstate the seriousness of the offense.           The judiciary\n\n24   sentencing information, the JSIN data, for 2021 to 2025, in\n\n25   cases like this, where 2B1.1 is the primary guideline, the\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    offense level is 43 and the criminal history category is I, no\n\n2    prior criminal history, excluding cooperating defendants, the\n\n3    average length of imprisonment in those cases is 167 months.\n\n4    The median is 144 months.       Sam Bankman-Fried was mentioned\n\n5    earlier.    His case involved $8 billion, multiples of what was\n\n6    involved here, and I dare say not thousands of individuals who\n\n7    said they weren't victimized.       He received a sentence of\n\n8    25 years.    The government cited that in its brief.           We submit\n\n9    that a sentence below that is warranted here.            A sentence\n\n10   substantially below the sentencing guidelines is warranted in\n\n11   this case, and substantially below what the government has\n\n12   requested.\n\n13              The fact that so many people have come forward, and in\n\n14   their own words, not in some prefab template letter, have come\n\n15   forward and told this Court their own story of why they\n\n16   invested, their own reliance on the documentation, the white\n\n17   papers, the credit placement memorandum, the loan agreements,\n\n18   they read those documents.       They made their decisions to\n\n19   invest.    They understood the risk.       They told your Honor that\n\n20   in their own words, that is just, and that really distinguishes\n\n21   this case.    That along with the fact that Mr. Guo has been this\n\n22   target of the CCP, which has really been an animating force\n\n23   behind this entire whistleblower movement, and that's the\n\n24   reason the movement resonates so strongly with so many people.\n\n25   It's the reason so many people are here today, because the\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    oppression that they've experienced by the CCP is something\n\n2    that everybody has an interest in moving on from.              And\n\n3    Mr. Guo's message is one of hope and promise for a better\n\n4    future.\n\n5               The individuals who continue to support him are not\n\n6    deluded.    They're very clear-eyed.        They've communicated that\n\n7    to the Court.     And that really goes to the seriousness of the\n\n8    offense and the nature and circumstances——or the nature and\n\n9    circumstances of the offense, which we submit warrants a\n\n10   sentence substantially below the guidelines level and what the\n\n11   government has requested.\n\n12              Thank you, your Honor.\n\n13              THE COURT:    Mr. Guo, would you like to say something?\n\n14              THE DEFENDANT:    Your Honor, I would like to ask the\n\n15   interpreter to speak for me.\n\n16              Initially, I did not plan to speak.            I look at this\n\n17   today, I must say something regarding what just happened in\n\n18   your courtroom.     And also, in the other room, you asked the\n\n19   marshals to testify and recall how I came to this building.\n\n20   They said only one marshal brought me up here.             In fact, there\n\n21   were two marshals who brought me up.          You don't have to trust\n\n22   me.   You can trust the camera.         From 5 a.m. this morning, I\n\n23   fainted and fell on the floor.          And 911 sent me to the\n\n24   hospital.    So there have been people telling them that, don't\n\n25   send me to the hospital, you have to send him to the court.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    After two rounds of injections and the medication I took, the\n\n2    doctors said, you have to stay here, you cannot leave.                You\n\n3    don't have to trust me.       You can just look at the videos in the\n\n4    hospital and you can look that up.\n\n5              So two officers from MDC received a call saying that I\n\n6    must return to MDC.       And I vomited many times on the way back\n\n7    to MDC, and I vomited as well all through the day.                So you\n\n8    don't have to trust me.       You can ask the two officers from MDC.\n\n9              So when I returned to my room in MDC, they asked a\n\n10   doctor to come.     So a doctor came.       I returned to MDC at 10:30\n\n11   and then the doctor came at 10:45, and they asked me, are you\n\n12   still okay?    And I told them that, look at my face, I have\n\n13   face——I have blood on my face and all over my body.                I'm still\n\n14   vomiting blood.     And then that doctor said, I'll come back\n\n15   later to give you a treatment, or maybe I just send you back to\n\n16   your unit.    I said, I would like to go to the court.              You don't\n\n17   have to trust me.        You can look at the videos from the\n\n18   hospital.\n\n19             Around 1:30 p.m. a mysterious woman came——\n\n20             THE COURT:      Mr. Guo, please face me.\n\n21             One moment.      If you would just translate what I just\n\n22   said.\n\n23             THE DEFENDANT:      So that woman in black talked to them,\n\n24   saying that I could bring him to the court.               Okay.   This lady\n\n25   was riding in another car, she was riding another vehicle, and\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    I came with the vehicle with the officers.            So before I left\n\n2    MDC, they cut up my clothing and wiped off the blood from my\n\n3    face so I got changed into this.\n\n4              So that lady, she's not a police officer.             She is\n\n5    someone else, and she was in another car, and when I came here,\n\n6    she was waiting for me downstairs.\n\n7              And then, so when I came here, I said, I have tummy\n\n8    ache, I need to go to the bathroom.          I don't feel well.           They\n\n9    put me into another room.        And this lady and the other officer,\n\n10   they were still around.       You can look at the videos later.\n\n11   Therefore, regarding what the prosecutor said earlier, that's\n\n12   not the truth.     Even for these facts, with these clear facts,\n\n13   he was not telling the truth, and he was playing the role of a\n\n14   doctor, police, and a judge.        In this case, whatever the\n\n15   prosecutor said cannot be the truth.          So when the prosecutor\n\n16   spoke in front of you, your Honor, he mentioned that there was\n\n17   only one officer.        However, he did not mention the other lady.\n\n18   You can ask him who was that lady.\n\n19             And lastly, I would like to tell the judge that, for\n\n20   the things I would like to say, that's included in the\n\n21   submissions from my lawyers.        I believe in the U.S. laws and\n\n22   the judge.    The reason I came to the U.S. is to destroy CCP.                   I\n\n23   lost my family members, and 270 people have been arrested, and\n\n24   I lost billions of dollars.\n\n25             And your Honor, I thank you for everything you did.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    And I will appeal.       Thank you.\n\n2               THE COURT:    Is there any reason why sentence should\n\n3    not be imposed at this time?\n\n4               MS. SARAFA:    Your Honor, subject to our objections\n\n5    about loss not being calculable without a Fatico and other\n\n6    objections that we put on the record, no.           And Mr. Guo's\n\n7    health, as discussed in the other room.\n\n8               MR. FINKEL:    The government believes that sentencing\n\n9    should go forward.       And if I may, with respect, your Honor, I\n\n10   just note for the record that Mr. Guo stood and gesticulated\n\n11   with his arms throughout his colloquy with the Court.              He was\n\n12   cogent and clear in his presentation and seemed alert.              But\n\n13   that, of course, is just from my perspective.\n\n14              THE COURT:    As I have stated, the guidelines range to\n\n15   be used in this case is 2100 months' imprisonment.\n\n16              Under the Supreme Court's decision in Booker and its\n\n17   progeny, the guidelines range is only one factor that I must\n\n18   consider in deciding the appropriate sentence.            As I mentioned\n\n19   earlier, I am also required to consider the other factors set\n\n20   forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a).                  These\n\n21   include:\n\n22              First, the nature and circumstances of the offense and\n\n23   the history and characteristics of the defendant;\n\n24              Second, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect\n\n25   the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    and to provide just punishment for the offense; to afford\n\n2    adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public\n\n3    from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the\n\n4    defendant with needed education or vocational training, medical\n\n5    care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective\n\n6    manner;\n\n7              Third, the kinds of sentences available;\n\n8              Fourth, the guidelines range;\n\n9              Fifth, any pertinent policy statement;\n\n10             Sixth, the need to avoid unwarranted sentence\n\n11   disparities among defendants with similar records who have been\n\n12   found guilty of similar conduct; and\n\n13             Seventh, the need to provide restitution to any\n\n14   victims of the offense.\n\n15             Ultimately, I am required to impose a sentence\n\n16   sufficient, but no greater than necessary, to comply with the\n\n17   purposes of sentencing that I just mentioned.\n\n18             Probation recommends a below-guidelines sentence of\n\n19   240 months' imprisonment on Counts One through Three and Seven\n\n20   through Eleven, to run concurrently with each other, and\n\n21   60 months' imprisonment on Count Four, to run consecutively to\n\n22   the other counts.        The total recommended sentence is\n\n23   300 months' imprisonment.\n\n24             The government recommends a sentence of at least\n\n25   360 months' imprisonment, or 30 years.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Mr. Guo argues for a sentence \"substantially below the\n\n2    applicable guidelines range and the sentencing recommendation\n\n3    in the [presentence report],\" but does not request a specific\n\n4    sentence.\n\n5              I have given substantial thought and attention to the\n\n6    appropriate sentence in this case in light of all the factors\n\n7    set forth in Section 3553(a) and the purposes of sentencing.\n\n8              On July 16, 2024, having heard and seen all the\n\n9    evidence in the case, including the testimony of 34 government\n\n10   witnesses and nine defense witnesses, a jury of 12 people\n\n11   unanimously concluded that Mr. Guo was engaged in a series of\n\n12   fraudulent crimes and conspiracies, including a racketeering\n\n13   conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and conspiracy to\n\n14   commit securities fraud.\n\n15             I must first consider the history and characteristics\n\n16   of the defendant.\n\n17             Mr. Guo, also known by the name Ho Wan Kwok, was born\n\n18   in 1968 in the People's Republic of China.           He was the seventh\n\n19   of eight brothers born to his father, a miner, and his mother,\n\n20   a homemaker.    His birth occurred shortly after the Cultural\n\n21   Revolution that was launched by Mao Zedong, and Mr. Guo's\n\n22   parents were viewed as enemies of the State.             During his\n\n23   childhood, his family lived in poverty, and Mr. Guo witnessed\n\n24   his family suffer from persecution at the hands of the Chinese\n\n25   Communist Party, which I will refer to as the CCP.             He reports\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    that, as a result, both of his parents suffered from\n\n2    significant mental health issues.\n\n3               Mr. Guo states that between May 1989 and April 1991,\n\n4    he served a 22-month prison term in China, after being charged\n\n5    with subversive activities in connection with his support of\n\n6    the demonstration in Tiananmen Square.           He additionally reports\n\n7    being held in an open cell with other political prisoners and\n\n8    witnessing the execution of dozens of inmates.\n\n9               In 1991, Mr. Guo began his career as a real estate\n\n10   developer.    In about 2000, he immigrated to Hong Kong and\n\n11   became a citizen.        Sixteen years later, fearing political\n\n12   arrest, he fled to England, and in 2017, he entered the United\n\n13   States on a tourist visa.        One month prior to the expiration of\n\n14   his visa, Mr. Guo applied for asylum, and his petition remains\n\n15   pending.\n\n16              Between 2016 and 2018, Mr. Guo claims that he was\n\n17   engaged in a public campaign to, in his words, expose the CCP\n\n18   and support democracy in China.\n\n19              I will now turn to the nature and circumstances of the\n\n20   offense, as well as the need for the sentence imposed to\n\n21   reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the\n\n22   law, provide just punishment for the offense, and protect the\n\n23   public from further crimes of Mr. Guo.\n\n24              Much of Mr. Guo's sentencing submission outlines\n\n25   abuses that he claims he suffered at the hands of the CCP.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    Even crediting these claims, I find that none of them excuse\n\n2    his fraudulent conduct.\n\n3              For at least five years, Mr. Guo participated in a\n\n4    conspiracy to defraud over a thousand victims from around the\n\n5    world.   Relying on his online presence and charismatic\n\n6    personality, Mr. Guo, along with his co-conspirators, targeted\n\n7    his followers by promising them outsized financial returns and\n\n8    benefits for investing in various fraudulent businesses and\n\n9    programs.    Mr. Guo and his conspirators told their victims that\n\n10   the money they contributed would be used to support\n\n11   pro-democracy efforts in China.         However, Mr. Guo and his\n\n12   conspirators misappropriated the money to line their pockets,\n\n13   as well as those of Mr. Guo's family——taking the victims' money\n\n14   and using it to further Mr. Guo's extravagant lifestyle.\n\n15             Mr. Guo was known as \"Boss\" and was in control of the\n\n16   G Enterprise entities.      See, for example, Trial Transcript\n\n17   pages 1941 and 1677 to 1678.       He was the face of the business\n\n18   and, through his broadcasts, sought investments from his\n\n19   supporters and made promises to them.          Although Ms. Yvette Wang\n\n20   and Mr. William Je also played a significant role in the\n\n21   conspiracy, Mr. Guo was ultimately the boss and had the final\n\n22   say.\n\n23             Mr. Guo's schemes caused his victims great financial\n\n24   and emotional harm:\n\n25             One victim writes:      \"[Mr.] Guo repeatedly fabricated\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    stories in his broadcasts. . .          He convinced us that investing\n\n2    in his projects was the only way to ensure financial safety.\n\n3    Under this fear and persuasion, I sold my property, redeemed\n\n4    all my long-term investments and life insurance, and invested\n\n5    all my funds into his fraudulent ventures.\"               Statement 168.\n\n6              Another writes:      \"I invested over $120,000——my entire\n\n7    savings from years of sacrifice.         I have no job, and I gave all\n\n8    my money to [Mr.] Guo.      Now, I have no idea how I will sustain\n\n9    myself for the rest of my life or how to face my family.\"\n\n10   Statement 158.\n\n11             Another states:      \"My husband and I were cruelly\n\n12   defrauded of more than $1,500,000——our entire life savings.\n\n13   Because of [Mr. Guo] and his accomplices. . ., we fell from a\n\n14   comfortable life into complete poverty.           My husband had to do\n\n15   hard physical labor at low wages [and] borrow money from\n\n16   others. . .    I had to apply for social assistance. . .              Our\n\n17   whole family almost ended up sleeping on the streets.\"\n\n18   Statement 184.\n\n19             As I noted during Ms. Wang's sentencing, the victims\n\n20   have not only experienced financial hardship, but many have\n\n21   lost relationships with loved ones because of their\n\n22   participation in Mr. Guo's scams.         See Wang Sentencing\n\n23   Transcript pages 56-57.      The Court has received letters from\n\n24   people whose partners left them and from parents whose children\n\n25   no longer talk to them.      These victims and others continue to\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    experience depression and severe psychological distress due to\n\n2    Mr. Guo's actions and the actions of his co-conspirators.\n\n3              One victim writes:      \"I trusted [Mr. Guo] and his\n\n4    associates, which led to a deep sense of personal violation and\n\n5    a prolonged period of distress.         The emotional toll of this\n\n6    betrayal has affected my mental well-being and daily life,\n\n7    which caused me a series of unpredictable consequences such as\n\n8    insurance defaults, family discord and quarrels, personal\n\n9    health and psychological breakdown, [and] career interruption.\"\n\n10   Statement 163A.\n\n11             Another writes:      \"The long-term extreme fear, anxiety,\n\n12   and stress caused me to suffer from severe anxiety disorder and\n\n13   I needed medication to sleep.       In two months, I lost more than\n\n14   40 pounds and my hair began to fall out.\"           Statement 188.\n\n15             Another states:      \"Trust within my family has been\n\n16   badly damaged.     My wife frequently argues with me over this\n\n17   failed investment, and has even threatened to divorce me if we\n\n18   can't recover the money.       This has plunged me into a deep state\n\n19   of guilt and suffering.\"       Statement 190B.\n\n20             I have read countless letters in the record expressing\n\n21   similar sentiments.\n\n22             Mr. Guo preyed on those seeking to bring democracy to\n\n23   China——people who hoped deeply that the political system in\n\n24   China would be challenged.       He also preyed on their deep\n\n25   fears——telling them he provided the best way to keep their\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    money safe from China.      As he took advantage of people's deeply\n\n2    held emotions, Mr. Guo single-mindedly dedicated himself to\n\n3    increasing his own wealth.\n\n4              To this day, despite the jury's verdict and the\n\n5    hundreds of victim statements submitted to the Court, Mr. Guo\n\n6    takes no responsibility for his actions and instead insists,\n\n7    incredibly, that his conduct caused no loss and harmed no one.\n\n8    Meanwhile, he has called upon his supporters to harass and\n\n9    intimidate those who dare to speak out against him.              The\n\n10   seriousness of his crime and the need for deterrence, to\n\n11   protect the public, and to promote respect for the law warrant\n\n12   a serious punishment.\n\n13             Despite the gravity of these offenses, there are\n\n14   several considerations that support a below-guidelines\n\n15   sentence.\n\n16             As I said earlier, I recognize that the loss\n\n17   guidelines were not developed by the Sentencing Commission\n\n18   using an empirical approach, and the guidelines placed undue\n\n19   weight on the loss amount.       See, for example, United States v.\n\n20   Adelson, 441 F.Supp.2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).\n\n21             In addition, I must consider the need to avoid\n\n22   unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar\n\n23   records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.\n\n24             As an initial point, I struggle to compare Mr. Guo's\n\n25   case with any other, given the severity of Mr. Guo's crimes,\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    his exploitation of a philanthropic purpose, his history of\n\n2    intimidating his critics, and his continued refusal to accept\n\n3    responsibility.\n\n4              With respect to Mr. Guo's co-conspirator, Ms. Wang, on\n\n5    January 6, 2025, I sentenced her to 120 months' imprisonment,\n\n6    the statutory maximum penalty.\n\n7              I note, however, that due to the statutory maximum\n\n8    penalty, the applicable guidelines range in Ms. Wang's case was\n\n9    120 months' imprisonment——roughly only 5 percent of the\n\n10   guidelines range applicable here.         See Wang Sentencing\n\n11   Transcript at page 13, line 3.          And although she played an\n\n12   important role in the fraudulent scheme, she ultimately\n\n13   reported to Mr. Guo, the boss.          See Id. at page 57,\n\n14   lines 19-23.\n\n15             Moreover, Ms. Wang accepted responsibility, as\n\n16   evidenced by her guilty plea.       See Id. at page 58, lines 16 to\n\n17   17.   By contrast, Mr. Guo, to this day, denies responsibility\n\n18   and exhibits no remorse for the harm that he has caused to so\n\n19   many people.\n\n20             Finally, I do consider the length of Mr. Guo's current\n\n21   confinement.    Mr. Guo has spent over three years at the\n\n22   Metropolitan Detention Center.          I recognize that the conditions\n\n23   of confinement there are uniquely difficult, which warrants a\n\n24   shorter sentence than might otherwise be imposed.              See United\n\n25   States v. Chavez, 710 F.Supp.3d 227, 234-35 (S.D.N.Y. 2024).\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              I conclude, for the reasons stated, that a sentence\n\n2    below the guidelines range is warranted.\n\n3              Mr. Guo, please rise for the imposition of sentence.\n\n4              It is the judgment of this Court that with respect to\n\n5    Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and\n\n6    Eleven, you are sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment.              The\n\n7    terms of imprisonment on these nine counts shall be served\n\n8    concurrently to each other.\n\n9              I do not impose a term of supervised release because,\n\n10   pursuant to guidelines Section 5D1.1(c), courts should not\n\n11   impose supervised release in a case in which it is not required\n\n12   by statute and the defendant is likely to be deported after\n\n13   serving his term of imprisonment.\n\n14             I shall not impose a fine because probation does not\n\n15   recommend one, but you must pay the mandatory special\n\n16   assessment of $900, which is due immediately.\n\n17             I shall not order restitution because of the\n\n18   complexity of the case and the number of victims.             I instead\n\n19   grant the government's motion to authorize the United States to\n\n20   compensate victims with finally forfeited assets through a\n\n21   remission process, as restitution would be impractical in this\n\n22   case.   18, United States Code, Section 3663A(c)(3).\n\n23             We'll take a pause at this time.          You may be seated.\n\n24             (Recess)\n\n25             THE COURT:     Please be seated.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              Earlier, I stated that Mr. Guo's total term of\n\n2    incarceration is 360 months.       I want to clarify that with\n\n3    respect to Counts One, Three, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and\n\n4    Eleven, I'm imposing 240 months' imprisonment, to run\n\n5    concurrently with each other and the terms of imprisonment on\n\n6    all other counts.\n\n7              With respect to Count Two, I'm imposing a term of\n\n8    360 months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with the\n\n9    sentences imposed on all other counts.\n\n10             And with respect to Count Four, I'm imposing a\n\n11   sentence of 60 months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with\n\n12   the sentence imposed on Count Two and to run consecutively with\n\n13   the sentences imposed on all other counts.\n\n14             Mr. Guo, I'm required to remind you that:\n\n15             As a result of committing the offense alleged in Count\n\n16   One of the S3 superseding indictment, you shall forfeit to the\n\n17   United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,\n\n18   Section 1963:\n\n19             Any interest acquired or maintained in violation of\n\n20   Section 1962;\n\n21             Any interest in, security of, claim against, or\n\n22   property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of\n\n23   influence over, any enterprise the defendants and their\n\n24   co-conspirators established, operated, controlled, conducted,\n\n25   or participated in the conduct of, in violation of\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    Section 1962; and\n\n2              Any property constituting, derived from, any proceeds\n\n3    obtained, directly or indirectly, from the racketeering\n\n4    activity charged in Count One.\n\n5              As a result of committing the wire fraud and\n\n6    securities fraud offenses alleged in Counts Two, Four, and\n\n7    Seven through Eleven of the indictment, you shall forfeit to\n\n8    the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,\n\n9    Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28, United States Code,\n\n10   Section 2461(c), any and all property, real and personal, that\n\n11   constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the\n\n12   commission of said offenses, including but not limited to a sum\n\n13   of money in United States currency representing the amount of\n\n14   proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses.\n\n15             As a result of committing the money laundering offense\n\n16   alleged in Count Three of the indictment, you shall forfeit to\n\n17   the United States, pursuant to 18, United States Code,\n\n18   Section 982(a)(1), any and all property, real and personal,\n\n19   involved in said offenses, or any property traceable to such\n\n20   property, including but not limited to a sum of money in United\n\n21   States currency representing the amount of property involved in\n\n22   said offenses.\n\n23             On August 11, 2025, the Court entered a preliminary\n\n24   order of forfeiture in this case.        Mr. Guo filed numerous\n\n25   objections to that order, which I reviewed carefully.              Earlier\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    today I issued an opinion addressing Mr. Guo's objections.\n\n2              Mr. Guo, you are required to forfeit the property\n\n3    listed in the preliminary order of forfeiture.            You are also\n\n4    required to forfeit the property listed in the supplemental\n\n5    order of forfeiture filed by the government at ECF No. 790.\n\n6    The order of forfeiture includes a money judgment of\n\n7    $889 million against you.\n\n8              I'm aware that numerous third-party petitions have\n\n9    been sent to the Court seeking to assert claims under 21,\n\n10   United States Code, 853(n).       The Court will provide further\n\n11   guidance on the handling of these petitions in due course,\n\n12   given the sentence imposed today and the Court's resolution of\n\n13   Mr. Guo's numerous objections to the Court's forfeiture order.\n\n14             Does the government know of any legal reason why this\n\n15   sentence as stated should not be imposed?\n\n16             MR. FINKEL:     It does not, your Honor.\n\n17             THE COURT:     Does the defense have any objection to the\n\n18   imposition of the sentence as stated?\n\n19             MS. SARAFA:     Just we would reiterate our prior\n\n20   objections, your Honor.\n\n21             THE COURT:     The sentence as stated is imposed.\n\n22             That is the sentence of this Court.            Mr. Guo, you have\n\n23   a right to appeal your conviction and sentence.             The notice of\n\n24   appeal must be filed within 14 days of the judgment of\n\n25   conviction.\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1              If you are not able to pay the costs of an appeal, you\n\n2    may apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.             If you\n\n3    request, the Clerk of Court will prepare and file a notice of\n\n4    appeal on your behalf.\n\n5              Are there any further applications?\n\n6              MR. FINKEL:     One brief one, your Honor.         On\n\n7    March 17th, the government filed an application for a limited\n\n8    unsealing of the petitions received by the clerk's office.\n\n9    It's at Docket 818.      This will enable the government to compare\n\n10   what the clerk's office has received to what the government has\n\n11   received by individuals seeking to file petitions so that the\n\n12   petition process and forfeiture process with respect to\n\n13   third-party claims can move forward.         I don't know if the Court\n\n14   has had an opportunity to review that or if the Court will\n\n15   order that.    We can certainly provide again the proposed order\n\n16   for that.\n\n17             THE COURT:     Yes.   Is there any objection?\n\n18             MS. SARAFA:     No, your Honor, although with respect to\n\n19   853(n) petitions, I do want to note that in our letter dated\n\n20   February 24, 2026, we sought an order directing the government\n\n21   to produce to defense counsel copies of all the petitions that\n\n22   they've received either pursuant to 853(n) or that could be\n\n23   construed as pursuant to 853(n), and I don't believe there's\n\n24   been a ruling on that.\n\n25             THE COURT:     First, government's application is\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    granted.\n\n2               Mr. Finkel, on the application just made by the\n\n3    defense?\n\n4               MR. FINKEL:     The government objects.        The defendant\n\n5    has no right to that information.         The forfeiture as to the\n\n6    defendant is final.       The defendant has stated previously that\n\n7    he does not assert a personal interest in any of the specific\n\n8    property that is subject to forfeiture.           That is what those\n\n9    petitions are about——the specific property that the defendant\n\n10   himself has no interest in, by order of this Court and by his\n\n11   own admission.     The defendant's request should be denied.\n\n12              THE COURT:     The application of the defense is denied.\n\n13              Are there any further applications?\n\n14              MR. FINKEL:     Not from the government.        Thank you.\n\n15              MS. SARAFA:     Yes, your Honor.      Excuse me, your Honor.\n\n16   We also, in our letter dated June 25, 2026, ECF No. 853, we\n\n17   requested production to the defense of unredacted copies of\n\n18   certain FBI 302s.        We specified the Bates range for the\n\n19   documents that we requested unredacted copies of, and I don't\n\n20   believe there's been a ruling on that request.\n\n21              THE COURT:     Mr. Finkel?\n\n22              MR. FINKEL:     I think there was a ruling on that\n\n23   request.    Your Honor issued several rulings in the last\n\n24   couple of days, and one a few months ago, as well as other\n\n25   rulings regarding discovery.        The government has met its\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    disclosure obligations in this case, as your Honor explicitly\n\n2    held in a decision I think you issued yesterday.             Rule 16 is\n\n3    over, discovery is over, this case before the district court\n\n4    with respect to Mr. Guo is finished.         It should be denied.\n\n5              THE COURT:     The application is denied.\n\n6              MS. SARAFA:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n7              Two other brief matters.       Just to let the Court know,\n\n8    we do intend to make a request to make all of the sealed\n\n9    submissions part of the record for appeal, and I believe we'll\n\n10   do that in writing following today's proceeding.\n\n11             And then finally, with respect to designation, we\n\n12   would ask the Court to recommend in the judgment that Mr. Guo\n\n13   be designated to the BOP facility in Danbury, and if that is\n\n14   not available for any reason, to designate him to Fairton.\n\n15             THE COURT:     Does the government have any objection?\n\n16             MR. FINKEL:     Your Honor, the government takes no\n\n17   position on this, but it is my understanding that it is the\n\n18   BOP's preference that the defendant request a region as opposed\n\n19   to particular facilities, as it's difficult for them to\n\n20   accommodate specific facility requests.\n\n21             MS. SARAFA:     Your Honor, I——in our collective\n\n22   experience, there have been many recommendations to specific\n\n23   facilities, and I believe the BOP will do its best to\n\n24   accommodate the recommendation and designate within the\n\n25   relevant region, should that specific designation be\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300\n\n     Q6T1GUOS\n\n1    unavailable.\n\n2              THE COURT:     So the application is granted.           I will\n\n3    make that recommendation.\n\n4              Any further applications?\n\n5              MS. SARAFA:     Nothing further from the defense, your\n\n6    Honor.\n\n7              THE COURT:     Very well.     That brings our sentencing\n\n8    hearing to an end.       The matter is adjourned.\n\n9              ALL COUNSEL:     Thank you, your Honor.\n\n10                                      o0o\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n                                 (212) 805-0300","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Guo","CCP","Finkel","Miles Guo","Sarafa","GTV","Dratel","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","forfeiture","853(n)","Kaley","CIPA","Horton","Murray","Fergenson","Farm Loan","Chinese Communist Party","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Crime Victim"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":491,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":716,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":790,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":853,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":16478,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-07-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-07-15","updated_at":"2026-08-17 09:56:35"}