{"id":"court_sdny_871_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":871,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2026-08-25","title":"Case: 26-2382,Document 871DktEntry: 1.1, (1 of 24)Page 1 of 24","summary_zh":"履行令申请书 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118-AT ECF #871（2026-08-25立案）。自辩请愿人 Lionheart 向第二巡回上诉法院提出履行令（mandamus）请愿，请求上诉法院责令地方法院正式立案登记并审查其依据 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) 及《犯罪受害者权利法》提交的涉案没收资产第三方主张。","summary_en":"Petition for a Writ of Mandamus — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118-AT ECF #871 (filed Aug 25, 2026). Pro se petitioner Lionheart files a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Second Circuit seeking to compel the District Court to docket and judicially evaluate a third-party ancillary claim under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the Crime Victims' Rights Act regarding forfeited property.","body_en":"Case: 26-2382,Document\n            Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                               871DktEntry: 1.1, (1 of 24)Page 1 of 24\n                                                      Filed 08/25/26\n\n1    Lionheart\n     Pro Se                                                                           Aug 25 2026\n2\n     SDNY Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n3\n              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n4\n\n5\n\n6    IN RE: Lionheart                              Docket No.\n                              Petitioner,\n7\n\n8                                                  PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS\n\n9\n\n10\n       Petitioner, Lionheart, proceeding pro se, respectfully petitions this Honorable Court for a Writ\n11\n     of Mandamus directed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York\n12\n     (SDNY), compelling the District Court to docket and judicially address Petitioner’s third-party\n13\n\n14   petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) in Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT.\n\n15   I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED\n16\n       1. Whether a Writ of Mandamus should issue compelling the District Court to docket\n17\n     Petitioner’s § 853(n) petition, which has remained undocketed and without judicial consideration\n18\n     since its submission on July 13, 2026.\n19\n\n20     2. Whether the District Court's ongoing failure to docket the petition deprives Petitioner of the\n\n21   statutory ancillary proceeding mandated by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c),\n22\n     creating a substantial risk that the property may be distributed, liquidated, or otherwise disposed\n23\n     of before Petitioner's statutory claim receives judicial consideration.\n24\n     II. STATEMENT OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT\n25\n\n26     Petitioner does not ask this Court to adjudicate the underlying merits of Petitioner’s property\n\n27   claim or pre-judge factual issues in the first instance. Rather, Petitioner requests that this Court\n28\n     issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the District Court to:\n\n                                                       1\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n            Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                               871DktEntry: 1.1, (2 of 24)Page 2 of 24\n                                                      Filed 08/25/26\n\n1      1. Docket Petitioner’s July 13, 2026 submission, titled \"THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND\n2\n     MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C. §\n3\n     853(n) AND THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT (CVRA)\";\n4\n       2. Refer the petition to the presiding District Judge for a judicial determination regarding\n5\n\n6    standing, timeliness, and legal sufficiency under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n);\n\n7      3. Conduct the mandatory ancillary proceeding required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R.\n8\n     Crim. P. 32.2(c) if the petition is determined to be sufficient; and\n9\n       4. Preserve the status quo regarding the disputed corporate equities and assets potentially\n10\n     subject to Petitioner’s claim, to the extent necessary to prevent disposition before judicial\n11\n\n12   consideration of the petition.\n\n13   III. STATEMENT OF FACTS\n14\n       1. Petitioner asserts a legal property interest in property and corporate interests allegedly\n15\n     subject to the forfeiture orders, as described in the underlying petition and its supporting\n16\n     materials..\n17\n\n18     2. On July 13, 2026, within the applicable statutory period following forfeiture notices,\n\n19   Petitioner submitted a redacted copy of Petitioner’s \"THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND\n20\n     MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF\" to the SDNY Clerk’s Office /\n21\n     Pro Se Intake Unit via electronic mail (attached hereto as Exhibit A).\n22\n       3. As of the date of this Petition, the filing has remained undocketed for more than thirty days.\n23\n\n24     4. Without an official docket entry, no judicial officer has reviewed the filing to determine\n\n25   whether it satisfies the procedural requirements of § 853(n)(2) or whether an ancillary\n26\n     proceeding must be formally initiated.\n27\n\n28\n\n                                                       2\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n            Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                               871DktEntry: 1.1, (3 of 24)Page 3 of 24\n                                                      Filed 08/25/26\n\n1      5. Petitioner acknowledges that the July 13, 2026 submission did not contain a separate\n2\n     declaration expressly stating that it was signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner is prepared to\n3\n     promptly cure that formal defect and to submit a corrected and properly verified petition if\n4\n     permitted by the District Court. Petitioner does not seek mandamus relief requiring the Court of\n5\n\n6    Appeals to adjudicate the merits of the underlying third-party claim; he seeks only to have the\n\n7    District Court receive, docket, and judicially determine the sufficiency and timeliness of\n8\n     Petitioner’s claim.\n9\n     IV. REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE\n10\n       A. Petitioner Satisfies the Cheney Prerequisites for Mandamus Relief\n11\n\n12     Under Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004), a writ of mandamus is\n\n13   appropriate where: (1) the petitioner has a clear and indisputable right; (2) no other adequate\n14\n     means exist to attain the desired relief; and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.\n15\n     All three elements are met here.\n16\n       1. Clear and Indisputable Right: At a minimum, where a person submits a filing expressly\n17\n\n18   invoking 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and asserting a legal interest in forfeited property, the District Court\n\n19   should provide a judicial determination as to whether the submission satisfies the statutory\n20\n     requirements, rather than leaving the submission without any docket entry or judicial disposition.\n21\n     Section 853(n)(2) grants third parties a statutory right to petition the court, and Rule 32.2(c)(1)\n22\n     provides that, when a third party files a petition asserting an interest in forfeited property as\n23\n\n24   prescribed by statute, the court must conduct an ancillary proceeding. Petitioner has a clear right\n\n25   to judicial consideration of a timely petition asserting a legal interest in forfeited property under\n26\n     § 853(n). At minimum, the petition must be placed before a judicial officer for a determination of\n27\n     its timeliness, sufficiency, and any resulting entitlement to an ancillary proceeding.\n28\n\n                                                        3\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n            Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                               871DktEntry: 1.1, (4 of 24)Page 4 of 24\n                                                      Filed 08/25/26\n\n1      2. No Other Adequate Means of Relief: Petitioner has no alternative remedy. Because the\n2\n     Clerk’s Office has not docketed the petition, there is no appealable order, no pending motion,\n3\n     and no judicial record from which to seek interlocutory or direct appellate review. Mandamus is\n4\n     the sole mechanism to compel the District Court to open the judicial door.\n5\n\n6      3. Immediate Threat of Irreparable Harm Under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(7): Following the District\n\n7    Court's June 25, 2026 order authorizing administrative remission, the Government may attempt\n8\n     to dispose of or liquidate the subject corporate entities and assets. Section 853(n)(7) provides that\n9\n     the United States obtains clear title only after the court has disposed of all timely petitions filed\n10\n     under § 853(n), or after the statutory period for filing such petitions has expired. Leaving\n11\n\n12   Petitioner’s petition undocketed creates a dangerous procedural vacuum where assets may be\n\n13   distributed while Petitioner's filing remains ignored without a judicial ruling. Mandamus is\n14\n     urgently required to force the docketing of the petition so that judicial consideration precedes any\n15\n     administrative disposition or transfer of clear title.\n16\n       B. The CVRA Provides an Additional Basis for Relief, To the Extent Applicable\n17\n\n18     To the extent Petitioner qualifies as a “crime victim” under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, the CVRA\n\n19   provides an additional statutory basis for appellate review. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), if the\n20\n     District Court fails to afford a victim these statutory rights, the victim may petition the Court of\n21\n     Appeals for a writ of mandamus. If Petitioner qualifies as a “crime victim” within the meaning of\n22\n     the CVRA, the failure to provide any judicial consideration of Petitioner's asserted rights also\n23\n\n24   implicates the rights protected by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), including the right to be reasonably heard\n\n25   at public proceedings and to receive timely notice. Section 3771(d)(3) further provides an\n26\n     express mandamus mechanism for enforcement of those rights.\n27\n     PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n28\n\n                                                        4\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n               Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                                  871DktEntry: 1.1, (5 of 24)Page 5 of 24\n                                                         Filed 08/25/26\n\n1      WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant this Petition and issue a\n2\n     narrow Writ of Mandamus directed to the United States District Court for the Southern District\n3\n     of New York to:\n4\n       1. Direct the District Court to docket Petitioner’s July 13, 2026 petition;\n5\n\n6      2. Direct the District Court to determine the timeliness, standing, and sufficiency of\n\n7    Petitioner's petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) in the first instance;\n8\n       3. Direct the District Court, if the petition is judicially determined to be sufficient, to proceed\n9\n     with the ancillary proceeding required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c),\n10\n     including such discovery and evidentiary procedures as the District Court determines necessary\n11\n\n12   and appropriate;\n\n13     4. Direct the District Court to preserve the status quo, to the extent necessary to prevent final\n14\n     disposition or liquidation of corporate equities potentially subject to Petitioner's claim, pending\n15\n     judicial consideration of the petition; and\n16\n       5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n17\n\n18   Respectfully submitted,\n\n19   I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my\n20\n     knowledge.\n21\n     Date: August 21, 2026\n22\n     By: /s/\n23\n\n24   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n25   xxxxxxxxx\n     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n26\n     Petitioner Pro Se\n27\n\n28\n\n                                                       5\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                   871DktEntry: 1.1, (6 of 24)Page 6 of 24\n                                          Filed 08/25/26\n\nEXHIBIT A\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (7 of 24)Page 7 of 24\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n      v.\n MILES GUO,\n a/k/a/ “Ho Wan Kwok,”\n a/k/a “Miles Kwok,”\n a/k/a “Guo Wengui,”\n a/k/a “Brother Seven,”\n a/ka/ “The Principal,”\n a/ka/ “The Boss,”\n\n                                       Defendant.\n\n                 THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE\n\n   RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) AND THE CRIME\n\n                                 VICTIMS’ RIGHTS ACT (CVRA)\n\n       I respectfully request that the Court Clerk only docket the redacted version of my document\n\nand file Exhibit A under seal.\n\n       My name is                        . Due to safety concerns, I would like to use the\n\npseudonym Lionheart in this case.\n\n       I am an investor in the G Enterprise. As set forth in Exhibit A, I invested a total of\n\n$_____ in the G Enterprise projects.\n\n       The innocent third-party Petitioner (hereinafter, the \"Petitioner\"), as a legitimate and bona\n\nfide investor in the \"G Enterprise\" projects (including, but not limited to, Himalaya Exchange, G\n\nClubs, and GTV, among other entities), hereby submits this Third-Party Petition and Motion for\n\nAlternative Restitutionary Relief. This submission is made pursuant to Title 21, United States\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n         Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                            871DktEntry: 1.1, (8 of 24)Page 8 of 24\n                                                   Filed 08/25/26\n\nCode, Section 853(n) (21 U.S.C. § 853(n)), Rule 32.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal\n\nProcedure, and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771).\n\n       The Petitioner respectfully objects the Court’s Order of Forfeiture entered against the G\n\nEnterprise entities and assets, and respectfully requests that this Court:\n\n          Grant the vast community of innocent investors a meaningful opportunity to be heard in\n\nan open court through an ancillary evidentiary hearing; and\n\n          Modify the forfeiture order to the extent necessary to protect innocent third-party\n\nproperty interests, adopt an alternative restitutionary remedy whereby the corporate equities of the\n\nG Enterprise are transferred in-kind in their entirety to the innocent investors.\n\n I. PROCEDURAL INJUSTICE AND EVIDENTIARY DEFICIENCIES: REQUEST FOR\n\n     AN ANCILLARY HEARING AND THE SUBPOENA OF CRITICAL WITNESSES\n\n       1. The Preponderance of the Evidence Standard Is Insufficient to Justify a Massive\n\nDeprivation of Innocent Third-Party Property Rights\n\n       The Petitioner notes that, pursuant to the Court's Order (Doc. 858) and related judicial\n\nrulings, the Court’s determination that the G Enterprise entities constitute the \"Alter Ego\" of the\n\nDefendant—and the subsequent issuance of the forfeiture orders—relied strictly upon the civil\n\n\"Preponderance of the Evidence\" standard.\n\n       The Petitioner asserts that the alleged preponderance of evidence used to establish an alter-\n\nego relationship contains substantial factual and legal deficiencies. As a matter of corporate law,\n\nthe Defendant was never a shareholder, director, or designated legal representative of the G\n\nEnterprise entities, nor did he receive salary or compensation therefrom. The forfeiture, based upon\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n           Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                              871DktEntry: 1.1, (9 of 24)Page 9 of 24\n                                                     Filed 08/25/26\n\nthis lower standard of proof, lacks conclusive factual foundation. This constitutes a severe and\n\nprejudicial deprivation of the investors' legitimate private property rights.\n\n          2. The Complete Deprivation of a Non-Party’s Opportunity to Defend Violates\n\nConstitutional Due Process\n\n          Previously, because the investors were categorized as non-parties to the underlying criminal\n\ntrial, the electronic court system blocked them from filing pleadings or defense entries directly onto\n\nthe main case docket. The Court has effectively severed the mechanism by which investors could\n\nspeak for their own financial survival, while simultaneously executing an Order of Forfeiture that\n\nseizes the very assets tied to the investors' livelihoods. This adjudication model—depriving\n\nproperty without affording a prior, meaningful opportunity to be heard—stands in direct violation\n\nof the core protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States\n\nConstitution. Accordingly, the Petitioner urgently demands that the Court convene an open\n\nAncillary Hearing to restore the investors' constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to be\n\nheard..\n\n          3. The Evidence Purporting to Show the Defendant's Control Is Factually Deficient and\n\nRequires Rigorous Cross-Examination\n\n          Petitioner respectfully submits that the evidence cited in Doc. 858 does not establish that the\n\nG Enterprise entities were alter egos of the Defendant.\n\n          The Rule of Law Organizations: The Court relied on the testimony of Karin Maistrello\n\n(Trial Tr. at 424) to conclude that the Defendant controlled the Rule of Law funds. However, as a\n\nmatter of corporate law, the Rule of Law organizations were governed by an independent Board of\n\nDirectors who made collective decisions. The Petitioner hereby requests that the Court subpoena\n\nthe other directors and employees of the Rule of Law organizations to testify regarding their\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (10 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 10 of 24\n\ncorporate independence. By extension, the allegations regarding farm loan fraud require the\n\ntestimony of the respective Farm Owner and key volunteers; similarly, G Clubs and the Himalaya\n\nExchange require the testimony of their respective directors and staff.\n\n       The Misleading Nature of the \"Top Boss\" Label: The Court cited testimonies (Trial Tr. at\n\n1941, 1995, 1996, 2975, 2980, 2999) depicting the Defendant as the \"Top Boss.\" The petitioner\n\ndoes not know how to access the cited evidence and has had no opportunity to challenge its\n\nreliability. In fact, the nexus between the Defendant and his vast base of followers was a loose,\n\nvoluntary online dynamic between a public figure and digital supporters. The New Federal States of\n\nChina, the Farms, and the Himalaya Farm Alliance legally operated in a manner akin to an\n\nexpansive fan club. No evidence demonstrates that these organizations possessed any formal,\n\ncontractual, or legally enforceable authority over their members or individual Farm Owners. Farm\n\nmembers are entirely free to disregard the farm owner's orders. The farm owners are also entirely\n\nfree to disregard the defendant's orders.\n\n       Factual Refutation of Control (The Phoenix Farm Case): Take the \"Phoenix Farm,\" in\n\nwhich the Petitioner personally invested, as a concrete counterexample. When the Phoenix Farm\n\nOwner, Lihong Wei (also known as Sara), unlawfully misappropriated the investors' funds and\n\nblocked them from being wired to the Himalaya Farm Alliance, the Defendant publicly expressed\n\nhis intent on a live broadcast that she should be prosecuted and sent to prison. However, the\n\nsubsequent legal actions were entirely driven by the Secretary-General, Qidong Xia (“长岛伟哥”),\n\nwho filed suit under his privately controlled entity MOS (Mountains of Spices LLC)(see Mountains\n\nof Spices LLC v. Lafrenz (2:21-cv-01497) District Court, D. Arizona). And the final outcome\n\ncompletely bypassed the Defendant's directives. Lihong Wei was never imprisoned. Furthermore,\n\nthe capital stolen by Lihong Wei was never recovered by the Himalaya Farm Alliance or injected\n\ninto the G Enterprise; instead, it was privately pocketed by Qidong Xia. This sequence of events\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (11 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 11 of 24\n\ntends to demonstrate that the entities operated through separate corporate decision-makers rather\n\nthan under the Defendant's unilateral control, thoroughly undermining the prosecution's claim of\n\nthe Defendant's \"absolute control.\"\n\n       4. The Prosecution’s Discretionary Non-Prosecution Agreements Have Inflicted Massive\n\nFinancial Damage on Innocent Investors\n\n       The Petitioner notes with grave concern that the Government has handed out Non-\n\nProsecution Agreements to the very individuals who actively misappropriated investor capital,\n\nwhile failing to claw back the stolen funds. This has caused severe financial losses to the true\n\nvictims.\n\n       Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c), the Petitioner requests that this Court issue subpoenas\n\nto compel the presence of critical shareholders, insiders, and farm operators for direct, cross-\n\nexamination and accounting. These individuals include: William Je, Yvette, Qidong Xia (长岛伟\n\n哥), Ya Li (木兰传奇), Xuebing Wang (老班长), Lihong Wei (Sara), Jianfeng Dai (大卫), Cosmos,\n\nand Ha En(哈恩). It is procedurally imperative to uncover the truth through these examinations and\n\ninitiate a formal clawback of the investor capital stolen by these farm operators.\n\n           II. THE GENUINE COMMERCIAL VALUE, SCARCE CREDIT PREMIUM, AND\n\n                 SUBSTANTIAL APPRECIATION OF THE G ENTERPRISE\n\n       The prosecution utilized alter-ego doctrines to paint the G Enterprise entities as mere\n\ninstruments of fraud, did not address whether these businesses possessed genuine commercial\n\nviability. To the contrary, entities like the Himalaya Exchange possessed robust technological\n\nachievements, an established user base, and irreplaceable market advantages:\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (12 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 12 of 24\n\n       An Absolute, Rigid Demand for Offshore Financial Accounts:\n\n       Due to the severe capital flight controls imposed by mainland China (restricting individuals\n\nto an annual foreign exchange quota of $50,000 USD), coupled with the continuous regulatory\n\ncrackdowns on regional offshore brokers like Futu Holdings and Tiger Brokers, a diaspora\n\npopulation of over one billion people faces a critical shortage of secure, unmonitored financial\n\nsanctuaries to preserve their wealth. Concurrently, major U.S. financial institutions, such as East\n\nWest Bank and Bank of America (BOA), enforce over-inclusive, hostile screening against Chinese\n\nnationals, often resulting in arbitrary account freezes and closures (as experienced firsthand by the\n\nPetitioner). The streamlined online KYC and compliance onboarding provided by the Himalaya\n\nExchange solved a massive structural pain point, serving as both the genesis and terminal anchor\n\nfor Chinese offshore wealth management.\n\n       Demonstrable Commercial Assets and Track Record:\n\n       Trial evidence confirmed that the Himalaya Exchange maintained anti-money laundering\n\nand KYC (Know Your Customer) screening standards that were far more rigorous than those of\n\nmany mainstream global cryptocurrency exchanges. Its fully constructed database, network\n\ninfrastructure, high-net-worth client acquisitions, and the functional HPAY real-time payment\n\ngateway represent immensely valuable, revenue-generating startup assets.\n\n       Sustainable Interest Yield Generation:\n\n       The Himalaya Exchange operated under a reserve asset management model analogous to\n\ntraditional banking logic. The surplus fiat reserves remaining outside of the daily inflow/outflow\n\nliquidity requirements could be safely deployed into short-term U.S. Treasury bills, yielding\n\nconsistent, low-risk interest income. Circle Internet Group Inc., which currently has a market\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (13 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 13 of 24\n\ncapitalization of $16 billion, is a company of this type; Himalaya Exchange could become a\n\ncompany similar to Circle.\n\n       Institutional Validation by Sovereign Wealth Capital:\n\n       Prior to the intervention of the Government, the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund was\n\nactively conducting institutional due diligence to execute a major strategic investment into the\n\nHimalaya Exchange. This external corporate validation proves that the business plan possessed an\n\nexceptionally high probability of commercial success. Unlike purely speculative \"meme\" or\n\ncommemorative tokens circulating in the U.S. market—such as those issued by Donald Trump or\n\nMelania Trump, which lack underlying operating entities or asset injections yet sustain hundreds of\n\nmillions in market cap—Himalaya Coin (HCN) was anchored by concrete utility and enterprise\n\ninfrastructure.\n\n       The \"Scarce Credit Premium\" Derived from Shared Universal Values:\n\n       The G Enterprise was built by Chinese dissidents dedicated to the pursuit of freedom and\n\ndemocracy. Navigating relentless transnational repression from a totalitarian regime required an\n\nironclad corporate promise: the absolute refusal to yield to political coercion and the unyielding\n\nprotection of client privacy. In a financial industry where trust is the supreme currency, this\n\nresistance created an extraordinary credit premium. This premium explains why the market price of\n\nHCN sustained a steady average above $20 USD during the three months preceding the exchange’s\n\nforced offline status. This immense valuation and digital asset appreciation belong entirely to the\n\ninnocent third-party investors—not the Defendant. The Court’s mandatory shutdown and\n\nliquidation of the exchange do not punish the Defendant; rather, they destroy the legitimate private\n\nproperty of the victims.\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (14 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 14 of 24\n\n              III. THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY: FORMATION OF AN \"INVESTOR\n\n  MUTUAL FUND\" TO RECEIVE AND REHABILITATE THE CORPORATE ASSETS\n\n       To maximize the preservation of the innocent investors' capital and avoid the immense\n\nvalue-destruction, delays, and high administrative overhead typical of government-managed\n\nremission and civil forfeiture asset sales, the Petitioner formally requests the implementation of the\n\nfollowing Alternative Restitutionary Relief:\n\n       1. The Structure and Capitalization of a New \"Investor Mutual Fund\"\n\n       Exclusion of Implicated Corporate Intermediaries: Because the \"Himalaya Farm Alliance\"\n\nhas been named in the prosecution’s RICO conspiracy framework, and because it has entirely lost\n\nthe confidence of the investors base due to an absolute lack of governance, internal feuds, and\n\narbitrary account terminations (such as the widespread banning of users on Gettr and Discord under\n\nthe management of Yue Zhou, aka 青藤), it is disqualified from serving as a fiduciary trustee. A\n\nnew, fully independent \"Investor Mutual Fund\" must be incorporated.\n\n       In-Kind Restitution of Corporate Shares and Physical Assets: The Petitioner requests that\n\nthe Court order an in-kind restitution of 100% of the frozen and seized corporate equities of the G\n\nEnterprise companies, as well as the seized real estate, luxury vehicles, yachts, and high-value\n\nfurnishings, transferring them directly to this newly formed, investor-owned Mutual Fund.\n\n       Severing the Alter-Ego Chain of Control: Upon the complete transfer of all corporate shares\n\nand governance rights to this independent, victim-owned fund, the G Enterprise entities will be\n\nlegally and operationally decoupled from the Defendant. The Defendant will retain zero control,\n\nbeneficial interest, or residual equity. Consequently, the entities will cease to be his \"alter ego\" and\n\nmust be permitted to resume lawful commercial operations under independent regulatory\n\ncompliance.\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (15 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 15 of 24\n\n       2. Implementing Democratic Corporate Governance and Volunteer-Led Ledger\n\nReconstruction\n\n       Equity-Proportional Shareholder Democracy: Shareholder equity percentages within the\n\nMutual Fund will be calculated based on a rigorous reconciliation of the existing Himalaya Farm\n\nAlliance investment ledgers. All investors, as legitimate shareholders, will exercise voting rights\n\nproportional to their capital contributions at general shareholder meetings (which may be\n\ntransparently hosted within organized pro-se litigant groups, such as the forum established by\n\ninvestor Chunk Chyi, http). Shareholders will\n\ndemocratically elect or replace the Fund’s Board of Directors, and the Board will appoint CEOs to\n\nmanage Himalaya Exchange and other G Enterprise entities.\n\n       The Efficiency of Reconciling the Existing Himalaya Farm Alliance Ledgers:\n\n       Standard U.S. receivership accounting and forensic liquidations are prohibitively expensive\n\nand logistically slow. This case involves tens of thousands of Chinese investors dispersed\n\nworldwide. The investor community possesses an abundance of highly qualified financial,\n\naccounting, and legal professionals who are eager to work pro bono as volunteers to audit and\n\ncross-reference the Himalaya Farm Alliance ledgers against prosecution data and G Enterprise bank\n\nrecords. The investor collective is fully prepared to adopt and validate these audited Himalaya Farm\n\nAlliance ledgers, and they are even willing to absorb existing bad debts through the company's\n\nfuture operating revenues. This level of transactional efficiency is completely unachievable through\n\nthe government's bureaucratic remission process.\n\n       Value Protection Against Forced Judicial Asset Fire Sales:\n\n       The Court should consider enjoining the Government from executing rushed, fire-sale\n\nauctions of the seized real estate, vehicles, yachts, and furniture. Seized secondary luxury goods\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (16 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 16 of 24\n\nrarely fetch fair market value when liquidated under time-sensitive judicial mandates. To the\n\ninvestor community, these assets carry an immense brand heritage and historical value that far\n\nexceeds their raw market appraisal. By transferring these assets to the Mutual Fund, the investors\n\ncan generate continuous revenue through commercial exhibitions and curated experiential access,\n\nor execute strategic, high-value asset liquidations when market conditions maximize returns.\n\n       3. The Implementation of a Dual-Track \"Cash-Out vs. Equity-Retention\" Election\n\nMechanism\n\n       To balance the differing desires of the investor base, the Petitioner requests that the Court\n\ndirect the Government, upon completing its final claims tally, to establish a fixed pro-rata\n\nrestitution ratio based on the current available cash pool (approximately $634 million USD) against\n\nthe total valid claims submitted (approximately $889 million USD), yielding an approximate 71%\n\ncash recovery baseline.\n\n       Investors Electing Cash Restitution: Shall have the right to immediately draw down their\n\ncash share at the designated pro-rata percentage and completely exit the liquidation pool.\n\n       Investors Electing the Mutual Fund: Shall have their corresponding cash allocation securely\n\npreserved within the Fund to serve as operating capital. This capital will be converted into equity\n\nshares of the revitalized G Enterprise and the reopened exchange, allowing these investors to retain\n\ntheir upside potential, future dividend distributions, and long-term asset appreciation.\n\n         IV. COMPELLING EQUITABLE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS\n\n              REGARDING VULNERABLE AND PERSECUTED INVESTORS\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (17 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 17 of 24\n\n       The Petitioner explicitly cautions the Court that a rigid, traditional \"notice-and-claim, first-\n\ncome, first-served\" administrative remission framework will result in an absolute denial of justice\n\nand a massive unconstitutional taking of private property for the following populations:\n\n       Innocent Investors Residing in the Mainland China Under Totalitarian Regimes: Clear\n\nevidence exists within the record (including documents associated with \"Tony\") establishing that\n\nthe Chinese Ministry of State Security and domestic police apparatus have categorized personal\n\ncapital investments into the G Enterprise as an act of \"Endangering National Security.\" If this Court\n\nrigidly mandates that every individual claimant must register their true identity, upload national\n\nidentification documents, and expose their physical domicile to a public, searchable U.S. judicial\n\ndatabase—thereby triggering international mail deliveries—these files will be intercepted. These\n\nvulnerable investors will face imminent, severe political persecution, asset confiscation inside\n\nChina, and prolonged loss of personal liberty. Allowing the Mutual Fund to utilize the existing\n\nHimalaya Farm Alliance ledgers to verify investment tranches collectively and anonymously is the\n\none appropriate mechanism to preserve both the physical safety and the property rights of these\n\npersecuted victims.\n\n       Severe Document Disruption via Informal Foreign Exchange Channels:\n\n       Due to China's draconian banking walls, a substantial portion of the investor base was\n\nforced to deploy indirect, informal third-party wire transfers, or utilize peer-to-peer USDT\n\ncryptocurrency clearing to move their capital out of the mainland. The SEC’s prior GTV Fair Fund\n\nadministration systematically disqualified vast numbers of real, bona fide investors simply because\n\nthey could not produce a pristine, direct wire receipt matching their legal names. If this Court\n\nmechanically demands that individual, unsophisticated foreign claimants provide a perfect banking\n\nchain that complies with U.S. institutional standards, it will cause an immediate forfeiture of\n\nproperty for the most vulnerable victims.\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (18 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 18 of 24\n\n       Barriers of Language, Lapsed Deadlines, and Deceased Claimants:\n\n       A vast percentage of the investor base possesses zero English literacy and lacks any\n\ncomprehension of complex U.S. federal asset forfeiture timelines. Because these multi-\n\njurisdictional proceedings have dragged on for years, many investors have lost tracking capabilities,\n\nand some have passed away entirely, leaving heirs completely unaware of the existence of these\n\noffshore accounts. Applying a strict \"statute-of-bar\" or \"first-come, first-served\" asset exhaustion\n\nrule is fundamentally inequitable and directly violates the substantive purpose of restitution.\n\n       For the foregoing reasons, an in-kind transfer of corporate assets to an Investor Mutual Fund\n\nrepresents an equitable and practical alternative to achieve comprehensive equity.\n\n                     V. SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AND COMPROMISE CLAUSE\n\n       The Petitioner explicitly affirms that the historical development and scale of the G\n\nEnterprise are inseparable from the extensive early capital capitalization and execution provided by\n\nmajor shareholder William Je, alongside other large-scale silent shareholders.\n\n       However, given the current situation, William Je and other shareholders may choose not to\n\nappear in court due to fears of retaliation by the CCP. Their absence has severe negative impact on\n\nthe fair adjudication of the case.\n\n       The Petitioner does not seek to unlawfully expropriate or permanently dilute the legitimate\n\nholdings of these shareholders. The temporary, full transfer of corporate equity to a Mutual Fund\n\ncomprised of fellow fighter investors is an emergency, protective legal mechanism to rescue the\n\ncompany from permanent administrative destruction. Should the defendants and other shareholders\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                           871DktEntry: 1.1, (19 of 24)\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26     Page 19 of 24\n\nsucceed in overturning the case in accordance with the law in the future, the mutual fund will\n\nimmediately initiate a negotiation mechanism to return the corresponding equity interests.\n\n                                              CONCLUSION\n\n       For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:\n\n       1. Recognize Petitioner's standing as a bona fide, innocent investor entitled to robust\n\nproperty protection under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the CVRA;\n\n       2. Permit Petitioner reasonable access to the materials necessary to litigate this ancillary\n\nproceeding, subject to appropriate protective orders.\n\n       3. Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1)(B), a targeted period of\n\ndiscovery and the issuance of subpoenas to compel the presence and cross-examination of William\n\nJe, Yvette Wang, the operating directors of the respective G Enterprise entities, and the primary\n\nfarm organizers—including Qidong Xia (长岛伟哥), Ya Li (木兰传奇), Xuebing Wang (老班长),\n\nLihong Wei (Sara), Jianfeng Dai (大卫), Cosmos, and Ha En (哈恩)—to definitively map out the\n\ncorporate financial truth and trace the investor capital misappropriated by individual farm owners;\n\nand subsequently schedule an open, ancillary evidentiary hearing on these matters; and\n\n       4. Vacate or modify the Order of Forfeiture that mandates the corporate dissolution and\n\nbankruptcy of the G Enterprise, and authorize the creation of the investor-governed \"Investor\n\nMutual Fund\" to receive the corporate equities and assets in-kind, enabling the businesses to safely\n\nreturn to normal commercial operations under independent fiduciary oversight.\n\n       Respectfully Submitted,\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                   871DktEntry: 1.1, (20 of 24)\n                                          Filed 08/25/26     Page 20 of 24\n\nBy:\n\nPro Se\n\n[REDACTED]\n\n[REDACTED]\n\n[REDACTED]\n\n[REDACTED]\n\nDated: July 13, 2026\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                   871DktEntry: 1.1, (21 of 24)\n                                          Filed 08/25/26     Page 21 of 24\n\nEXHIBIT B\n\nCase: 26-2382,\n                  Case:           08/24/2026,\n                         26-2382,Document\n        Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT              871DktEntry:\n                                  08/24/2026, DktEntry: 1.1,\n                                                        1.1, (22\n                                                             (22 of\n                                                  Filed 08/25/26 of 24)\n                                                                    24)\n\nTHIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE\nRESTITUTIONARY RELIEF -23_cr_00118 - UNITED STATES OF\nAMERICA v. MILES GUO D\n                            ail.com>                                           Jul 13, 2026, 11:22 PM\n\n                                                                                                                       5\n                                                                                                                                :\nto ProSe, ryan.finkel, justin.horton, micah.fergenson, nathan.rehn, juliana.murray, msarafa, idratel, jkaley\n                                                   to:    ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov\n\n                                                                                                          ‹\nDear Clerk of the Court,\n                                                  cc: ryan.finkel@usdoj.gov,\nI am a non-party moving pro se in                     justin.horton@usdoj.gov,                                 PROCEED\nUNDER A PSEUDONYM, TO FILI                            micah.fergenson@usdoj.gov,                               A REDACTED\nPETITION. pdf] and an accompany                       nathan.rehn@usdoj.gov,                                   RESTITUTIONARY\nRELIEF - unredacted.pdf] for filing                   juliana.murray@usdoj.gov,\n                                                         msarafa@sarafalaw.com,\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Civil F                      jdratel@dratellewis.com,                              to file the redacted\nversions publicly and the unredact                       jkaley@doarlaw.com                                    y\n                                                date: Jul 13, 2026, 11:22 PM\nI have attached the following four (\n                                            subject: THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND\n                                                     MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE\n[FOR PUBLIC DOCKETING]\n                                                     RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF\n                                                         -23_cr_00118 - UNITED STATES OF\n  File 1: MOTION TO PROCEED                                                                                    ND TO PERMIT\n                                                         AMERICA v. MILES GUO\nPUBLIC FILING OF A REDACTED                                                                                    eudonym\n\"Lionheart\")                             mailed-by: gmail.com\n                                                                                                           V\n\n   File 2: THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF - redacted.pdf\n(Public version of the main motion, with true name and dollar amounts redacted)\n\n[REQUESTED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL]\n\n  File 3: THIRD-PARTY PETITION AND MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RESTITUTIONARY RELIEF - unredacted. pdf\n(Contains my true name and financial details. Highlighted text indicates redacted portions)\n\n  File 4: Exhibit A investment_evidence.pdf (Contains full Discord screenshots and translations)\n\nInstructions for Docketing:\n\n        Reply           « Reply all             > Forward\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n                   Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                                      871DktEntry: 1.1, (23 of 24)\n                                                             Filed 08/25/26     Page 23 of 24\n                                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n\n                  Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500\n\n                                                    MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT\n\nDocket Number(s): ________________________________________                _______________Caption [use short title]_____________________\n            PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS\nMotion for: ______________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________________\n\nSet forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought:\nAn order compelling the U.S. District Court\n________________________________________________________\n                                                                           IN RE: Lionheart             Petitioner\nfor the SDNY to docket Petitioner's filings\n________________________________________________________\nin Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT.\n________________________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________________\n             Lionheart, Petitioner\nMOVING PARTY:_______________________________________                NATHAN REHN, USA SDNY\n                                                     OPPOSING PARTY:____________________________________________\n\n          ___Plaintiff                ___Defendant\n\n          ✔\n          ___Appellant/Petitioner    ___Appellee/Respondent\n                                                                                    NATHAN REHN\nMOVING ATTORNEY:___________________________________ OPPOSING ATTORNEY:________________________________________\n                        [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\n\n________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________\n                                    ANALISA TORRES, SDNY DISTRICT COURT\nCourt- Judge/ Agency appealed from: _________________________________________________________________________________________\n\nPlease check appropriate boxes:                                         FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND\n                                                                        INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:\nHas movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):     Has this request for relief been made below?          ___Yes ___No\n         ✔\n        ___Yes     ___No (explain):__________________________           Has this relief been previously sought in this court? ___Yes ___No\n        _______________________________________________                 Requested return date and explanation of emergency: ________________\n                                                                        _____________________________________________________________\nOpposing counsel’s position on motion:\n                                                                        _____________________________________________________________\n                                        ✔\n         ___Unopposed ___Opposed ___Don’t        Know\n                                                                        _____________________________________________________________\nDoes opposing counsel intend to file a response:\n                                                                        _____________________________________________________________\n                             ✔\n         ___Yes ___No ___Don’t          Know\n\nIs oral argument on motion requested?                  ✔ (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)\n                                               ___Yes ___No\n\nHas argument date of appeal been set?                   ✔\n                                               ___ Yes ___No If yes, enter date:_______________________________________________________\n\nSignature of Moving Attorney:\n                                               8/21/2026\n                                          Date:__________________ Service by: ___CM/ECF ___Other [Attach proof of service]\n\nForm T-1080 (rev.12-13)\n\nCase: 26-2382,Document\n              Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT     08/24/2026,\n                                                 871DktEntry: 1.1, (24 of 24)\n                                                        Filed 08/25/26     Page 24 of 24\n\n     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n    CAPTION:\n    In re Lionheart\n                                                                                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE*\n\n                                                                                    Docket Number:\n                                       v.\n\n               I, Lionheart                                                      , hereby certify under penalty of perjury that\n                                            (print name)                                     Form T-1080,Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym,\n    on August 18, 2026                                                , I served a copy of\n                     (date)\n    Petition for a Writ of Mandamus,Certificate of Service,Exhibit A,Exhibit B\n\n                                                                    (list all documents)\n    by (select all applicable)**\n___ Personal Delivery                                     ___ United States Mail                     ___ Federal Express or other\n                                                                                                         Overnight Courier\n___ Commercial Carrier                                    ___ E-Mail (on consent)\n    on the following parties:\n    Nathan Rehn                                   26 Federal Plaza,37th Floor                New York NY                      10278\n    Name                                         Address                                     City              State          Zip Code\n    Hon. Analisa Torres                           500 Pearl Street, Room 2110                New York NY                      10007\n    Name                                         Address                                     City              State          Zip Code\n\n    Name                                         Address                                     City              State          Zip Code\n\n    Name                                         Address                                     City              State          Zip Code\n\n*A party must serve a copy of each paper on the other parties, or their counsel, to the appeal or\nproceeding. The Court will reject papers for filing if a certificate of service is not simultaneously\nfiled.\n\n**If different methods of service have been used on different parties, please complete a separate\ncertificate of service for each party.\n\n    August 21, 2026\n                  Today’s Date\n    Certificate of Service Form (Last Revised 12/2015)\n\u0003","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Himalaya","853(n)","forfeiture","Himalaya Exchange","CVRA","Pro Se","pro se","Je","Crime Victim","Miles Guo","William Je","Kwok","Torres","Analisa Torres","Horton","Fergenson","Murray","Finkel","GTV","Rule 32.2","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","G Clubs","Farm Loan","GETTR","CCP","RICO","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":8,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":858,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":5780,"status":"published","published_at":"2026-08-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2026-08-25","updated_at":"2026-08-28 22:16:51"}