{"id":"batch-000150","number":150,"revision":3,"date_start":"2026-08-21T20:56:09.706Z","date_end":"2026-08-24T20:10:58.522Z","total_messages":459,"summary_en":"Community discussion, batch 150 (Aug 21, 2026 – Aug 24, 2026), 459 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Batch 150 (Aug 21-24, 2026) focuses on money-trace disputes, procedural sequencing, and identity framing. Participants dispute whether 716-4 and filings like Dkt.858 and ECF 612, 643, 676, 734, 223, and 493 prove ownership facts or only describe flows, and whether CVRA, Section 853(n), and Section 3771 claims can run alongside forfeiture and restitution/remission discussions. The core conflict is whether G-series and Himalaya funds follow a single forfeiture narrative or remain contested across criminal, bankruptcy, and third-party ownership tracks. Community statements, not court findings.","guide_en":[{"title":"Information asymmetry on fund destinations: community says government can see more of the chain than investors can verify","description":"Participants argue there is an information asymmetry where authorities reference deeper flow chains while investors still lack verifiable, personal evidence of where their money eventually landed, and they dispute whether this affects the practical ability to support third-party claims. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q83f715cb4cdbde0db853","q156529e9f3405a8ff771","q89cf9e543bac48505b33"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q83f715cb4cdbde0db853","summary_en":"A participant says investors enter bankruptcy to prevent deposits from being treated as estate assets and says prosecutors still have not shared enough flow detail for investors to know where each payment went. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q156529e9f3405a8ff771","summary_en":"roy*** frames this as a hard transparency gap: government may have bank records and later-transfer chains, but investors cannot easily receive a personal trace from their own wire to a final destination, which is argued to burden third-party property claimants under Section 853(n) and due process fairness concerns. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q89cf9e543bac48505b33","summary_en":"hel*** says tracing is technically possible but fund-flow information remains one-sided, with investors seeing only their own outgoing transfers while not seeing where those funds went, and confirms personally wiring to Himalaya International Clearing Ltd at Metropolitan Commercial Bank. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"716-4 as a key turning point, but the evidence scope remains community-interpreted, especially for about $1.04 billion and 80+ accounts","description":"Participants contend 716-4 is treated as a major evidentiary anchor, while they still argue over its scope, especially the reach of the approximately $1.04 billion mapping claim and the claimed 80-plus-account chain. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q991656ab51eb21a6902b","q156529e9f3405a8ff771","qd6b569574205e303421d"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q991656ab51eb21a6902b","summary_en":"roy*** says 716-4 acknowledges government and investigative access to extensive bank records, reporting identification and attempted tracing of more than approximately $1.04 billion with at least 80 related accounts, plus large transfers from Himalaya Clearing through Prime Trust and multiple FV accounts. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q156529e9f3405a8ff771","summary_en":"The same participant says this creates a practical fairness issue because the community lacks individual trace reports from deposit to final location despite the government apparently holding fuller chains. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qd6b569574205e303421d","summary_en":"roy*** points to 716-4 pages 58-59 as an admitted example where around $3.4 million was sent to Himalaya International Clearing Ltd at Metropolitan Commercial Bank and later tracked to other destination accounts, treating that route as established in the filing rather than user speculation. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Himalaya/MCB pathway dispute: whether multiple remittances are consolidated into one chain","description":"Participants dispute whether Himalaya-to-MCB remittance patterns prove a single receipient chain, with debate over whether overlapping account identifiers and multiple senders establish one recoverable flow or just shared routing points. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qd6b569574205e303421d","q6cd4d8334637a4fc4f56","q963391759498f8b7de07"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qd6b569574205e303421d","summary_en":"roy*** states that a cited example in 716-4 shows Investor-2 routing about $3.4 million through Himalaya International Clearing into further traced accounts, which he uses to align with the Krungthai-Himalaya-MCB path. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q6cd4d8334637a4fc4f56","summary_en":"Another message maps that route to account 7801000254, says it was later seized with $14,599,257.25, and says multiple depositors reportedly used that same account, making the final beneficiary account number a key matching factor. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q963391759498f8b7de07","summary_en":"hel*** notes two identifiers tied to Himalaya/clearing records and asks whether those remittances are recoverable through Section 853(n), without asserting a final conclusion. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Some argue to collect all original remittance records first and match each transfer by time, amount, and beneficiary","description":"Participants contend that the safest workflow is evidence-first reconstruction: gather original transfer documents and match by timestamp, amount, beneficiary, bank, and identifiers before arguing status labels or legal pathways. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qe9cdce10b7d006c7b267","q6cd4d8334637a4fc4f56","q88e8bc04f2d718d5a83a"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qe9cdce10b7d006c7b267","summary_en":"roy*** asks investors to submit original remittance evidence so the group can map each payment from depositor to recipient account and then compare against forfeiture records, bankruptcy materials, and criminal tracking before making return or ownership conclusions. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q6cd4d8334637a4fc4f56","summary_en":"He repeatedly emphasizes account-level matching, citing account 7801000254 and another MBI10133-0000 as examples where precise beneficiary numbers and bank/Swift data could determine which seized account a depositor’s funds hit. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q88e8bc04f2d718d5a83a","summary_en":"roy*** adds a related procedural angle, saying Luc already sued Yongbing Zhang and that Fair Fund flows through a lawyer trust account can become frozen, which he says is plausible and supports the need for documentary sequencing. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"CVRA pivot to victim-rights line: from replacing Guo narrative to personal victim status, but not reopening the criminal merits","description":"Participants claim the community’s preferred route is to keep CVRA claims tightly limited to personal procedural protections, and they contend this is stronger than a broad argument seeking to overturn Guo’s criminal outcomes. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q3ee8acc35e78bb9c304f","q87ac0fcd99d1a735f80d","qb9ce49fcfd202f311fc5"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q3ee8acc35e78bb9c304f","summary_en":"roy*** advises that CVRA standing should be grounded in statutory victim rights such as fair treatment, notice, participation, and timely proceedings, and that it should be tied to specific personal harms rather than a general attack on prosecution or court errors by proxy. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q87ac0fcd99d1a735f80d","summary_en":"He proposes a four-step argument structure using Section 3771 language and warns that participants should avoid contradictory assertions that are inconsistent across CVRA filings and property filings. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qb9ce49fcfd202f311fc5","summary_en":"roy*** stresses a limiting point: CVRA is not a vehicle for a new trial under Section 3771(d)(5), so he argues the strongest position is CVRA rights review and relief, not full criminal record relitigation. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Disputed framing of victim status versus denying money/claims characterization","description":"Participants dispute whether one can hold simultaneous lines: claiming CVRA victim rights while separately disputing how specific funds, entities, or loss amounts are characterized. They contend these two tracks can be legally compatible if carefully worded. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q87ac0fcd99d1a735f80d","q0ec0189ea3352a70c5b3","qb9ce49fcfd202f311fc5"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q87ac0fcd99d1a735f80d","summary_en":"roy*** warns that saying both 'I am a victim' and 'I deny debtor characterization of all funds' can create a perceived inconsistency, and recommends language claiming CVRA standing while expressly disputing government classifications of particular funds and losses. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q0ec0189ea3352a70c5b3","summary_en":"He recommends replacing a 'victim means overturning conviction' slogan with a narrower argument: CVRA rights have been harmed for the claimant, and those harms can affect victim, loss, forfeiture, and sentencing records where those records overlap. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qb9ce49fcfd202f311fc5","summary_en":"roy*** repeats that CVRA must drive remedies tied to the claimant’s own rights and connects disputed factual findings to potential effects on broader criminal records without presenting CVRA as a full substitute for appellate review on guilt. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"CVRA and 853(n) as parallel questions: whether victim-procedure rights are halted by ancillary property proceedings","description":"Participants contend CVRA and Section 853(n) are separate mechanisms, and they dispute claims that active 853(n) motions or forfeiture phases automatically suspend CVRA standing or timing. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q71fa4ac2c16f0f4f6a88","q9e6aa67697c7bc8293c4","qee7825a056b5f27ef901"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q71fa4ac2c16f0f4f6a88","summary_en":"roy*** says CVRA does not disappear after sentencing or after a Section 853(n) filing, and argues unresolved CVRA motions should be decided under Section 3771 procedures with possible appellate mandamus review if denied. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q9e6aa67697c7bc8293c4","summary_en":"joh*** asks what remains of CVRA when Torres focuses on sentencing and forfeiture, implying concern that victim-procedure rights could be sidelined. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qee7825a056b5f27ef901","summary_en":"A user questions whether Section 853(n) is too narrow because it only talks about money and does not govern broader forfeiture outcomes. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Third-party property objections should use 853(n) not direct 5739 distribution, and parties contest whether that bypasses property adjudication","description":"Participants argue that third-party ownership claims should normally go through Section 853(n), and they dispute whether settlement channels like 5739 can substitute for a judge-led property-interest determination. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qdefd048fff1ba4b4b8da","q8a427277f535f1a671d6","q9d22df8229acbfb665e0"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qdefd048fff1ba4b4b8da","summary_en":"roy*** distinguishes Dkt.858 from a final courtwide forfeiture directive, saying it adjudicates Guo’s own forfeitable liabilities and money judgment while third-party specific-legal-interest claims are routed to Section 853(n) ancillary proceedings under its own structure. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q8a427277f535f1a671d6","summary_en":"reb*** argues a disconnect exists between 858 findings that certain flows are criminal proceeds and subsequent 5739/settlement outcomes assigning some G-series funds, saying the record lacks a neutral judge-led adjudication of competing title claims. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q9d22df8229acbfb665e0","summary_en":"joh*** compares this to the Mahwah agreement and claims the sequence can appear to assume forfeitable status first, then permit governmental-Luc negotiation before an explicit judicial property ruling. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Disagreement on mechanical forfeiture from conviction: some argue offense findings cannot automatically classify every fund as proceeds","description":"Participants dispute a strict 'conviction equals seizure of all funds' position, contending that criminal findings on offense and specific proceeds are not identical claims. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qc3b7ce6cd17fc737a73a","q513b01890a91937f7a26","qcafb93574b5d1d1d3a7a"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qc3b7ce6cd17fc737a73a","summary_en":"ntp*** says bankruptcy assets can still be treated as fraud-related, reflecting one side of the dispute over scope. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q513b01890a91937f7a26","summary_en":"joh*** says Luc may use criminal sentencing outcomes to support his claim that recovery in bankruptcy is consistent with the underlying criminal framework. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qcafb93574b5d1d1d3a7a","summary_en":"spr*** argues legally that a criminal offense is not automatically identical to proceeds attribution and that a jury conviction does not prove every related payment is government-claimable criminal property. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Overlap of criminal, bankruptcy, and third-party claims over one pool remains unresolved","description":"Participants dispute whether one fund pool has parallel rights in criminal, bankruptcy, and third-party channels, with one side seeing contamination and another treating those lanes as independent. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q1cf7d814044d06112abe","qd6d5ee2e0ec80482efbc","q66d57d7bfc5f74b38ae5"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q1cf7d814044d06112abe","summary_en":"kir*** states that this creates a conflict with the criminal proceeding. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qd6d5ee2e0ec80482efbc","summary_en":"joh*** warns that after sentencing, any return process in Luc’s bankruptcy may affect forfeiture timing because ownership and adversary proceedings are intertwined and unclear. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q66d57d7bfc5f74b38ae5","summary_en":"ntp*** responds that the bankruptcy issue is separate from the criminal matter, reflecting the contrary view in the same thread. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Return-route disagreement shifts between official narrative and petition/remission feasibility","description":"Participants contest whether official restitution-remission language is a full return pathway, arguing over whether petitions, petitions-once rules, and fairness expectations are being applied consistently. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q79ca7023a046b9a49e9b","qdd52761fe7db67265aad","q314bc9791b49b2059e2b"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q79ca7023a046b9a49e9b","summary_en":"beg*** cites DOJ’s stated posture: $8.89 billion forfeiture, direct restitution deemed impractical, and future remission to qualifying victims with prior petition filers not needing to refile. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qdd52761fe7db67265aad","summary_en":"The same participant contends prosecution framing may omit a simpler option and characterizes some seizures as an aggressive narrative rather than transparent accounting. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q314bc9791b49b2059e2b","summary_en":"joh*** references the bankruptcy context, suggesting that frozen property posture there limits what criminal-side actors can say in return discussions. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Dispute over Geyer independence, authority boundaries, and HEX/HID identity mapping","description":"Participants argue about Geyer’s role by highlighting both Rule 41(g) recovery posture and possible links to HEX onboarding systems, disputing whether his representation stayed purely independent or became jointly directed. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["qd389ddf789f5c6636422","q835954931dea65e5fb6b","q3f713bd08c3d0119e08a"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"qd389ddf789f5c6636422","summary_en":"roy*** says later ECF filings (including 514, 612, 643, 676) show a staged strategy: initial third-party property-return framing, HEX-client numbers around 3,539 to 3,575 with many confirmations, and then a move to combining forfeiture, ancillary, and remission routes without a single fixed identity label. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q835954931dea65e5fb6b","summary_en":"He adds that Geyer’s own filing language on 3,345 clients as distinct third-party interests is contrasted with ECF 223 from the government, which questions who was directing him and highlights dependence on HEX notifications and HID-based customer onboarding. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q3f713bd08c3d0119e08a","summary_en":"roy*** further details that HID-based client intake flowed through Himalayarestoration with identity verification in HEX systems, argues this conflicts with blanket independence claims, and cites 2023-2025 community and filing records showing the public framing centered on DOJ/SEC asset-recovery litigation. Community statements, not court findings."}]},{"title":"Execution and settlement boundary: immediate forfeiture enforcement versus settlement or ancillary allocation first","description":"Participants dispute whether DOJ should execute forfeiture as ordered or whether litigation over competing interests can justify negotiated allocation first, with opposing views on when settlement is procedurally allowed. Community statements, not court findings.","message_ids":["q4b3c6dbb39547f21d263","q1dc4cb1625f2586e72f5","qc36aa5d29b2c5d11fe93"],"quotes":[{"message_id":"q4b3c6dbb39547f21d263","summary_en":"reb*** contends the government should execute forfeiture directly and not bargain when disputes arise, arguing that property challenged as non-Guo should be pushed into civil ancillary proceedings and that executive settlement is not costless. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"q1dc4cb1625f2586e72f5","summary_en":"joh*** describes the process as forcibly seized, suggesting a sentiment that enforcement feels coercive. Community statements, not court findings."},{"message_id":"qc36aa5d29b2c5d11fe93","summary_en":"reb*** says Torres has already found inflows to be criminal proceeds and then argues if that point is uncontested the government should execute without settlement dilution, reflecting the opposite view to delayed allocation. Community statements, not court findings."}]}],"summary":"讨论围绕该案核心在于三条线的交叠与边界：其一资金流证据链，争论政府披露与投资者可核验资料差距，尤其首笔/中间链条与最终受益归属的证据标准；其二程序性路线，CVRA、§853(n)、Dkt.858、5739/9019等是否应按谁先行、谁有管辖来推进；其三叙事与身份问题，围绕“受害者主张”与授权范围如何避免自我定性冲突，以及Geyer等中介是否真正独立并具备正当代理依据。多数观点仍停留在“先立证再推论”，共识不足于“定罪即没收”或“单一返还通道”结论。","guide":[{"title":"资金去向信息不对称：社区认为政府可见链条与投资者缺少可核验个人到账证据并存","message_ids":["q83f715cb4cdbde0db853","q156529e9f3405a8ff771","q89cf9e543bac48505b33"]},{"title":"716-4被视为关键转折证据，但真实性与外延仍以社区解读为主，尤其涉及约1.04亿和80+账户","message_ids":["q991656ab51eb21a6902b","q156529e9f3405a8ff771","qd6b569574205e303421d"]},{"title":"Himalaya/MCB路径争议：是否多人汇款归集到同账？对“单一受款链条”仍存在明显分歧","message_ids":["qd6b569574205e303421d","q6cd4d8334637a4fc4f56","q963391759498f8b7de07"]},{"title":"部分观点主张先汇总全部原始汇款底单，再按时间金额受益人逐笔匹配，避免先下定论","message_ids":["qe9cdce10b7d006c7b267","q6cd4d8334637a4fc4f56","q88e8bc04f2d718d5a83a"]},{"title":"CVRA转向受害者权利主线：从替郭叙事转为个人受害者身份，但仍强调不能当作重开刑审路径","message_ids":["q3ee8acc35e78bb9c304f","q87ac0fcd99d1a735f80d","qb9ce49fcfd202f311fc5"]},{"title":"围绕“有无受害者身份”与“否认资金/债权定性”存在表述冲突：既要保留财产权主张又不愿自限","message_ids":["q87ac0fcd99d1a735f80d","q0ec0189ea3352a70c5b3","qb9ce49fcfd202f311fc5"]},{"title":"CVRA与853(n)并行问题持续争论：受害人程序权是否会因财产附属程序而中止","message_ids":["q71fa4ac2c16f0f4f6a88","q9e6aa67697c7bc8293c4","qee7825a056b5f27ef901"]},{"title":"第三方财产异议是否应走853(n)附属程序而非直接进入5739分配，是否跳过产权裁决","message_ids":["qdefd048fff1ba4b4b8da","q8a427277f535f1a671d6","q9d22df8229acbfb665e0"]},{"title":"对“定罪=全部款项可直接没收”分歧明显，部分坚持不能机械化套用刑事定性进行财产归属","message_ids":["qc3b7ce6cd17fc737a73a","q513b01890a91937f7a26","qcafb93574b5d1d1d3a7a"]},{"title":"刑事、破产与第三方主张并行是否成立未定：对同一资金池是否有多方并列权利长期争论","message_ids":["q1cf7d814044d06112abe","qd6d5ee2e0ec80482efbc","q66d57d7bfc5f74b38ae5"]},{"title":"返还路径分歧在“官方叙事、已有petition与restitution/remission可行性”间切换，修辞与法律可执行性不一","message_ids":["q79ca7023a046b9a49e9b","qdd52761fe7db67265aad","q314bc9791b49b2059e2b"]},{"title":"围绕Geyer相关独立性、授权边界与身份映射争议：HEX/HID链条与victim claim是否构成越权","message_ids":["qd389ddf789f5c6636422","q835954931dea65e5fb6b","q3f713bd08c3d0119e08a"]},{"title":"执行与和解边界继续拉锯：是否必须先执行没收再裁决，或可按司法裁量先行分配与和解","message_ids":["q4b3c6dbb39547f21d263","q1dc4cb1625f2586e72f5","qc36aa5d29b2c5d11fe93"]}],"closed":true,"is_finalized":true,"updated_at":"2026-09-06T19:36:40.123Z","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_batch","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150/pages/3","base_batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-batches/batch-000150?page=3","page":3,"page_size":200,"total_pages":3,"has_more":false,"next_url":null,"prev_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-batches/batch-000150?page=2","messages":[{"id":"qd8836ae174fb9928e46a","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":401,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T04:29:42.015Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息]  螺丝哥被抓了？","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd8836ae174fb9928e46a","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q3155606a58e1896a3744","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":402,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-24T04:30:07.531Z","text":"联系不上了？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3155606a58e1896a3744","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q9d759dcdd40750a8c7d5","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":403,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-24T04:30:30.319Z","text":"这事很大啊","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9d759dcdd40750a8c7d5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q12b3170f43f673b91342","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":404,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T04:35:40.315Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 你不关心一下？","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q12b3170f43f673b91342","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q95b9dc1ff80266b14270","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":405,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T04:41:09.538Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 抓他，对你也没有好处吧","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q95b9dc1ff80266b14270","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q651f40df42752972caad","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":406,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T05:12:58.824Z","text":"联盟就是个笑话","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q651f40df42752972caad","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qfdc9a989b5e1b7767478","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":407,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T05:13:07.489Z","text":"关键时刻居然是黄老师出手","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfdc9a989b5e1b7767478","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q8c8130ef127ab9afdbe8","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":408,"speaker":"sar***","date":"2026-08-24T05:15:58.915Z","text":"只有你才这么嘴甜，称他为老湿。\n但是，现在想明白了，虽然黄河边喜欢胡话八道，但是他还是比联盟的人好。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q51923d4924f691416556","reply_status":"out_of_scope","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8c8130ef127ab9afdbe8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复的附件未收录","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q17e68221f1efee221160","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":409,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T05:17:10.188Z","text":"从这张图上 联盟vs砸郭 孰优孰劣 可见一斑","edited":false,"reply_to":"q8c8130ef127ab9afdbe8","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q17e68221f1efee221160","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8c8130ef127ab9afdbe8","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q29bb11c4c74c282a8e54","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":410,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T05:19:33.393Z","text":"[删节：隐私信息] 不知道你看得懂不\n做什么和说什么，两码事","edited":true,"reply_to":"q17e68221f1efee221160","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q29bb11c4c74c282a8e54","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q17e68221f1efee221160","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qca15a86ca05fca066223","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":411,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T05:20:03.058Z","text":"联盟是要人命的","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qca15a86ca05fca066223","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q0789360058867da75358","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":412,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T05:20:14.654Z","text":"砸锅只是动动嘴皮子","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0789360058867da75358","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q96bf0b73d0a603802742","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":413,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T05:21:44.043Z","text":"魔女就是典型","edited":false,"reply_to":"qca15a86ca05fca066223","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q96bf0b73d0a603802742","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qca15a86ca05fca066223","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q5e47fe63cdab57b7b3a7","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":414,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T05:22:11.265Z","text":"嘴上笑嘻嘻 底下动刀子","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5e47fe63cdab57b7b3a7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q78b51877a32a70ae76b9","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":415,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T05:36:12.643Z","text":"你又在二巡说，有青联盟的记录造假证据，他们会容你？🤣 🤣 🤣","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q78b51877a32a70ae76b9","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q9ca3d01cb62805b0aed9","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":416,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-24T05:40:10.730Z","text":"刚刚才懂","edited":false,"reply_to":"q29bb11c4c74c282a8e54","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9ca3d01cb62805b0aed9","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q29bb11c4c74c282a8e54","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q22423a17bd8553d48b06","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":417,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-24T05:45:55.387Z","text":"😂😂😂。有时候我开玩笑你们都不知道","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q22423a17bd8553d48b06","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q5ab7b8fbb1f0f75c351c","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":418,"speaker":"sar***","date":"2026-08-24T05:46:52.865Z","text":"那是我更蠢了🤪","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5ab7b8fbb1f0f75c351c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q1e5994cf5be99dafdeb8","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":419,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-24T05:50:26.417Z","text":"我写不出您的论文！ 或者二巡的法庭文件 那么多页","edited":false,"reply_to":"q5ab7b8fbb1f0f75c351c","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1e5994cf5be99dafdeb8","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5ab7b8fbb1f0f75c351c","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q346a219f144caf161ce8","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":420,"speaker":"sar***","date":"2026-08-24T05:53:03.427Z","text":"各有所长哈","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q346a219f144caf161ce8","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q4419368875bb13977aea","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":421,"speaker":"beg***","date":"2026-08-24T05:55:55.831Z","text":"螺丝说他反对共产党，是美国的共产党 还是中国的？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4419368875bb13977aea","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q8850e493941c6d829759","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":422,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T05:56:11.966Z","text":"他没仔细说😂","edited":false,"reply_to":"q4419368875bb13977aea","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8850e493941c6d829759","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q4419368875bb13977aea","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q874434384d5faf6383f7","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":423,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-24T06:00:03.546Z","text":"估计他马上就会直播，重磅消息","edited":false,"reply_to":"q51fc0d51e1d886c0ae75","reply_status":"out_of_scope","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q874434384d5faf6383f7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"被回复的附件未收录","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qed1c9bab72d79cb4fd96","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":424,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T06:01:37.833Z","text":"流量密码","edited":false,"reply_to":"q874434384d5faf6383f7","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qed1c9bab72d79cb4fd96","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q874434384d5faf6383f7","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qedc37cd4cd2a842dfe32","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":425,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T06:02:27.027Z","text":"［用户 may***］ 星辰不会是去找他了吧","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qedc37cd4cd2a842dfe32","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qe1d6a7661deff0e92e68","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":426,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-24T06:07:27.364Z","text":"这周五还在说话","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe1d6a7661deff0e92e68","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qa281d35600f36d77c359","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":427,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-24T06:11:02.858Z","text":"老黄工作生活分的很清","edited":false,"reply_to":"q17e68221f1efee221160","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa281d35600f36d77c359","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q17e68221f1efee221160","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q32e5eb48c00c9fe1cee6","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":428,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T06:24:27.029Z","text":"青那帮讲情怀的，才不会管人死活","edited":false,"reply_to":"qa281d35600f36d77c359","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q32e5eb48c00c9fe1cee6","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa281d35600f36d77c359","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q68b4707d616fc15acc74","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":429,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T06:25:43.979Z","text":"灭口的事儿，这帮人绝对干得出来","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q68b4707d616fc15acc74","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q136f30ca79237859cc70","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":430,"speaker":"joh***","date":"2026-08-24T07:23:00.155Z","text":"脸皮厚，确实屁酱无敌。占了别人的youtube频道直播，把别人赶走，这话也说得出口\n［用户 him***］ 安小东，不知道和那个 冷天晴 有没有联系，这两个人的推文内容不同，但是格式，完全一致\n充满了索引 #符号，莫不是同一个团队，在负责编辑\n第三梯队，不怕被青灭口吗\nhttps://x.com/toukuip82522t/status/2091207822276968671?s=46","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":true,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q136f30ca79237859cc70","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qc603a6cb390ae7b26526","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":431,"speaker":"may***","date":"2026-08-24T08:49:21.139Z","text":"黄河边赚的是砸锅的钱，虽然砸锅，但砸的有底线，不害郭🤣","edited":false,"reply_to":"q8c8130ef127ab9afdbe8","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc603a6cb390ae7b26526","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8c8130ef127ab9afdbe8","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q91c0acaa2df248b90b55","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":432,"speaker":"_ki***","date":"2026-08-24T10:08:26.533Z","text":"能有三倍吗","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q91c0acaa2df248b90b55","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qd6d6524dce219340700b","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":433,"speaker":"hel***","date":"2026-08-24T11:46:54.071Z","text":"有50%退款各位就要感謝自己祖先的庇佑了。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd6d6524dce219340700b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qc3a1509daeb1a90421b7","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":434,"speaker":"sar***","date":"2026-08-24T16:14:47.732Z","text":"螺丝哥有消息吗？","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc3a1509daeb1a90421b7","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q9cb57e508c2c0a5173b9","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":435,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T16:15:00.070Z","text":"电话没打通","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9cb57e508c2c0a5173b9","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qf0cb10b71f801abb879e","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":436,"speaker":"lon***","date":"2026-08-24T16:27:21.812Z","text":"共产党秋后算账这招还是一直不变的","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf0cb10b71f801abb879e","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qdf9f628942d483a9b307","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":437,"speaker":"lon***","date":"2026-08-24T16:28:01.842Z","text":"他一直羞辱共产党，共产党随便找个借口就能把他抓起来","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdf9f628942d483a9b307","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q12a30486ee5dae5918e2","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":438,"speaker":"sar***","date":"2026-08-24T16:36:09.571Z","text":"这是我厌恶共匪的理由。现代社会居然还有这种邪恶的政权。","edited":false,"reply_to":"qdf9f628942d483a9b307","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q12a30486ee5dae5918e2","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdf9f628942d483a9b307","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q8cc0074ded50db3848ff","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":439,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-24T17:01:48.593Z","text":"没人接还是打不通？","edited":false,"reply_to":"q9cb57e508c2c0a5173b9","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8cc0074ded50db3848ff","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9cb57e508c2c0a5173b9","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q147ea0fbfca61cb2f9e5","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":440,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-24T17:02:07.249Z","text":"没人接","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q147ea0fbfca61cb2f9e5","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q08f39cdab401f02327e9","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":441,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T19:24:47.000Z","text":"有一份新的实质性文件，而且正好是明天5739听证前的关键回复。\n\nDkt. 5769，2026年8月24日：Luc提交了 “Reply (Omnibus) in Support of Trustee’s Motion … for Approval of Settlement with United States of America”，也就是针对 Dkt. 5739 Global Settlement 的综合支持回复。公开案件索引已经把它列为目前最新filing，并明确关联5739。\n\n这份5769的重要性在于：它不是普通certificate of service，而是Luc在8月25日听证前正式回应反对意见、要求法院批准5739的最后一轮实体briefing。因此它很可能会直接处理此前5747、5749、5752等异议/保留权利提出的问题。就目前我能可靠核对到的公开索引，5769的完整正文还没有被可访问来源完整抓取出来，所以我现在不把具体论点冒充成已核实事实；但文件标题和程序位置已经足以确认，它是5739听证前非常重要的一步。\n\n法院最新官方calendar仍然显示：Dkt. 5739 hearing = 2026年8月25日下午2:00，Bridgeport Bankruptcy Court。\n\n对你一直追的资产/forfeiture问题，这份5769最值得看三件事：Luc是否明确主张 Trustee与Government可以通过§363/Rule 9019直接划分Estate Assets与Forfeiture Assets；他怎么回应第三方“自己的adversary/ownership rights不能被5739影响”的异议；以及他有没有解释为什么某些与23-cr-118 forfeiture重叠的资产不需要先走§853(n)产权裁判。如果5769在这几个点上写得很明确，它会比5739原始motion更有价值，因为这是被别人质疑以后Luc被迫给出的法律答案。\n\n另外，8月24日 Adv. 24-05269（Himalaya Australia Athena Farm / Himalaya New World） 的TRO和default judgment事项确实已经按官方calendar开庭，但截至我这轮检查，还没有查到新公开order/result。 本轮也没有查到 SDNY 23-cr-118 或 Second Circuit 26-1853 在8月24日出现新的实质性公开文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok最新公开docket索引⁠\nManning法官官方日程⁠","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q08f39cdab401f02327e9","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q6a9af903e8efc1f5342c","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":442,"speaker":"sar***","date":"2026-08-24T19:26:19.355Z","text":"大家有什么盖尓的法律文件东西吗？我想写点东西关于联盟是怎么把盖尔找来的，以什么理由，此地无银三百两，后来又是怎样偷梁换柱的\n[删节：成员身份]","edited":true,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6a9af903e8efc1f5342c","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qeaa00cf3100dbed70e98","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":443,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-24T19:27:29.265Z","text":"他一个默默无闻的律师是怎么找到这么多中国人授权他代理的，让他把这事儿说清楚就行","edited":false,"reply_to":"q6a9af903e8efc1f5342c","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qeaa00cf3100dbed70e98","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6a9af903e8efc1f5342c","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qaa2f2bda2d5870de980a","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":444,"speaker":"ntp***","date":"2026-08-24T19:30:35.479Z","text":"普通人怎么了解25号听证会的内容","edited":false,"reply_to":"q08f39cdab401f02327e9","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qaa2f2bda2d5870de980a","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q08f39cdab401f02327e9","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qb9f4c70d0698eecafb0b","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":445,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T19:54:05.137Z","text":"我监测了相关信息，只要有新动向都会给我","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb9f4c70d0698eecafb0b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qbdfdb7f2695f96ce4d78","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":446,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T19:56:14.024Z","text":"有，而且我刚把这条线重新顺了一遍。Geyer（Bradford L. Geyer）这条线其实很适合写，因为法院卷宗里能清楚看到他的角色从“帮HEX客户拿回自己的财产”逐步变成“受害者/赔偿/remission框架”的过程。 但我建议你不要直接写“偷梁换柱已经坐实”，而是把前后文件并排，让读者自己看出角色变化。\n\n最值得抓的是这几个节点：\n\n1. 2023年9月26日：Geyer是怎么被推给投资人的。\n    后来提交到SDNY的 ECF 740 附件和陈述记录：Himalaya Exchange 在2023年9月26日向用户发邮件，要求用户通过 himalayarestoration.com 注册 Bradford Geyer；当时向用户介绍的核心理由，是他作为所谓独立律师帮助HEX用户追回/恢复被扣押的资产。这份后来提交的第三方petition明确把那封邮件列为 Exhibit 28。\n\n这个起点非常值得写，因为它不是：\n\n“政府需要统计郭文贵诈骗受害者，所以请大家授权Geyer。”\n\n而更接近：\n\n“你是HEX客户，你的资产被扣了；找独立律师Geyer帮你把钱拿回来。”\n\n2. 2023年12月6日：Geyer第一次正式进郭案，身份写得非常清楚。\n    ECF 184、185、186 是核心原始文件。\n\nGeyer申请 pro hac vice 时写的是，他要代表 3,345名Himalaya Exchange customers whose funds have been seized。\n\nECF 186的标题就是：\n\nMOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY\n\n依据的是 Rule 41(g)。正文说这些3,345名客户对政府扣押的财产拥有：\n\n“distinct, identifiable third-party interest”\n\n也就是说，他当时的理论是：\n\n这些人是第三方财产权人 → 钱是客户自己的 → 政府扣错了 → 应该返还。 \n\n这一点非常关键。\n\n因为这和后来：\n\n这些人是郭文贵诈骗的victims → 通过remission/restitution拿赔偿\n\n在法律结构上不是同一个概念。\n\n3. 更有意思的是，当时Geyer自己的brief还在和政府对着干。\n    2023年12月的后续reply，Geyer继续把他们称为 Third Party Customers of the Himalaya Exchange，争的是政府扣押客户资产是否合法，还争论HEX资产与郭个人资产之间的关系。","edited":false,"reply_to":"q6a9af903e8efc1f5342c","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbdfdb7f2695f96ce4d78","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6a9af903e8efc1f5342c","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q04eb19eb23b0e68eb2ea","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":447,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T19:57:02.314Z","text":"所以第一阶段非常明确：\n\nGeyer = 帮HEX客户对政府主张第三方财产。\n\n不是“替政府收集诈骗受害人”。\n\n4. 2024年1月5日，政府自己留下了一份特别有价值的文件：ECF 223。\n\nSDNY检方当时对Geyer非常不客气，直接告诉Torres法官：\n\nGeyer并不是刑事案任何party的律师，只是声称分别代表数千名HEX客户；政府甚至说，这些人的身份他似乎都不知道，有些可能根本没交流过。\n\n最值得你引用的是政府脚注的意思：\n\n“It is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer.”\n\n而且政府继续说，看起来Geyer正在与 Himalaya Exchange closely working。\n\n这个特别适合你说的“此地无银三百两”方向，但建议不要写成阴谋结论。\n\n可以问：\n\n既然Geyer被宣传成投资人的“独立律师”，为什么连美国政府在2024年1月都公开向法院提出：到底是谁在指挥Geyer并不清楚，而且认为他与HEX合作密切？\n\n这个问题本身已经够重了。\n\n5. 然后角色开始发生明显变化。\n\n到 2024年11月25日 ECF 478，Geyer的文件已经不再单纯是最初的“HEX customers / third-party owners / Rule 41(g)”语言。\n\n这份文件开始把相关人员称为 victims/investors，范围还扩展到了：\n\nHimalaya Exchange、G Clubs、Farm Loan Program、GTV private placement，\n\n并且开始援引 CVRA 等受害者法律框架。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q04eb19eb23b0e68eb2ea","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qed0644e143ff9221dde1","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":448,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T19:57:39.641Z","text":"这就是你文章里非常重要的第二阶段：\n\n2023：第三方财产权人。\n2024：victims/investors。\n\n6. 真正的大转折发生在2025年3月。\n\nECF 506 保存了一组Geyer与SDNY检方的邮件。\n\n2025年3月9日，AUSA Ryan Finkel直接告诉Geyer：\n\n政府将聘请一个 claims administrator 管理 remission process，因为政府认为这是把钱返还给 defendants’ fraud 的 victims 最有效率的方法。\n\n然后政府还说，希望claims administrator到位以后继续与Geyer合作，通过协作提高效率。\n\n这个节点非常重要。\n\n因为到了这里已经变成：\n\n政府的victim/remission system\n↕\nGeyer掌握的大批HEX客户资料/授权\n\n两套体系开始发生实际接口。\n\n7. 2025年4月7日 ECF 676，变化就写到法院文件标题和请求里了。\n\n这时Geyer代表的已经是约 6,575名 HEX成员/claimants，申请理论不再只是Rule 41(g)，而是同时往：\n\nrestitution + ancillary forfeiture + remission\n\n几个方向走。\n\n所以从程序史上看，确实可以画出一条非常清楚的线：\n\n2023年9月：\nHEX告诉客户——找Geyer，帮助恢复你自己的资产。\n\n2023年12月：\nGeyer告诉法院——我是3,345名HEX客户的律师；他们是第三方财产权人；依据Rule 41(g)把他们自己的钱还回来。\n\n2024年1月：\n美国政府反而质疑——Geyer到底是谁在指挥？他与HEX是什么关系？\n\n2024年11月以后：\nGeyer的诉讼语言逐渐出现victim、CVRA等概念。\n\n2025年3月：\nSDNY明确告诉Geyer，政府要建立一个给“fraud victims”使用的remission claims process，并希望以后与他协作。\n\n2025年4月：\nGeyer自己的申请已经同时进入restitution / ancillary forfeiture / remission框架。\n\n2025年8月以后：\n他又代表约6,512名HEX客户正式进入§853(n) ancillary proceeding，继续主张第三方财产权。\n\n而这里最值得追问的，恰恰不是一句“Geyer坏不坏”。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qed0644e143ff9221dde1","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q381ada5c674007d5db42","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":449,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T19:58:11.172Z","text":"真正的问题是：\n\n同一批人、同一份授权、同一套HEX登记资料，究竟授权Geyer干什么？\n\n最初授权如果只是：\n\n“帮我追回我自己的HEX资产。”\n\n那么后来能不能自然扩张成：\n\n“把我作为郭文贵诈骗victim参与remission/restitution程序”？\n\n这中间涉及非常实质的 scope of representation / informed consent / authority 问题。\n\n而且这一点后来真的有人进法院挑战。\n\n例如ECF 740里的第三方申请人明确向法院主张：自己当初是因为被告知要保护/追回资产才登记Geyer，后来认为相关victim form / remission / delegation与自己真实立场不符，因此要求认定先前授权无效。这是申请人的指控，不等于法院已经认定Geyer存在欺诈，但它证明“授权到底是什么”已经成为正式进入法院卷宗的争议。\n\n另外还有一个非常值得挖的文件：ECF 712（2025年6月30日）。有人指控Geyer未经授权代表自己，Geyer专门提交response，说他查了记录，该人实际上在 2023年12月22日上午9:20 注册成为他的client，并出现在后来提交的6,491人master roster上。\n\n这个文件很有价值，因为它逼出了一个核心问题：\n\nGeyer到底靠什么证明每一个人的授权？注册页面具体写了什么？授权书全文是什么？2023年的版本和2025年的版本有没有变化？有没有明确写“victim、remission、CVRA、restitution”？\n\n我认为你要写“联盟怎么把Geyer找来、为什么找他、后来发生了什么”，最硬的文章不是从骂Geyer开始，而是从这句话开始：\n\n先别急着讨论Geyer后来做了什么，先看看2023年联盟/HEX把他介绍给投资人时，到底承诺他是来干什么的。\n\n然后放 2023年9月26日邮件 → ECF 184/185/186 → ECF 223 → ECF 478 → ECF 506 → ECF 676/712。\n\n这条证据链一排出来，“从第三方产权代理到受害者赔偿框架，授权到底在哪里发生了变化？”这个问题就已经非常有杀伤力，而且比直接说“偷梁换柱”更难被反驳。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q381ada5c674007d5db42","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qfeaf5fcbfed7ada2bc11","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":450,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:00:38.524Z","text":"继续往下挖以后，这条线比刚才更清楚了，而且我觉得真正值得写的已经不只是“联盟找来Geyer”，而是Geyer掌握的几千名HEX客户授权，是怎样一步步进入政府最终的victim/remission体系的。\n\n最早的起点非常硬。2023年12月6日，Geyer向法院申请代表 3,345名HEX客户，说的是这些人的资金被政府扣押，他要依据 Rule 41(g) 帮他们拿回来。ECF 184甚至只写了一件事：他请求代表“3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange whose funds have been seized”。 ECF 186进一步明确，这些客户对被扣资产拥有“distinct, identifiable third-party interest”。\n\n而且ECF 186-1里面还有一句特别重要的话：Geyer当时明确主张，HEX客户没有遭遇来自交易所的misrepresentation、fraud或loss of funds。他的理论反而是：政府虽然称这些人为郭案“victims”，但真正使他们遭受损失的是政府扣押。\n\n所以如果你要写“原始定位”，证据非常完整：\n\n不是“郭文贵诈骗受害者请律师索赔”。\n\n而是：\n\n“HEX客户认为自己的资产被美国政府扣押，聘请Geyer向美国政府追讨第三方财产。”\n\n这两个身份在法律上差别很大。\n\n更有意思的是，政府当时根本不接受Geyer这个角色。\n\n2024年1月5日 ECF 223，SDNY告诉Torres法官：Geyer不是刑案任何party的律师，只是声称分别代表数千名HEX客户；政府甚至质疑他是否知道这些人的身份、是否真的和他们交流过，并留下了那句非常扎眼的话：\n\n“it is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer.”\n\n政府紧接着还说，看起来Geyer与HEX合作得非常密切。\n\n所以2024年初的结构其实是：\n\nHEX/联盟体系 → 大批客户登记 → Geyer → 对抗SDNY/DOJ要求返还资产。\n\n政府当时是他的对手，不是合作方。\n\n然后真正值得你写的变化开始出现。\n\n到2024年11月的 ECF 478，Geyer已经不只代理HEX。他开始把：\n\nHEX、G Clubs、Farm Loan Program、GTV Private Placement\n\n放进同一份申请，而且使用了“victims/investors”、CVRA、§853(n)、Rule 41(g)等多套语言。\n\n这里我需要把刚才说的“偷梁换柱”再说精确一点：Geyer并不是突然公开承认“我的客户都是郭诈骗的受害者”。 相反，他在后来的文件里仍然反复争辩HEX与郭之间缺乏实质联系。\n\n真正发生的是更加微妙的事情：\n\n原先非常纯粹的“第三方产权/政府错误扣押”理论，后来逐渐和“victim、CVRA、restitution、remission”程序语言混合在了一起。\n\n这个变化到了2025年2月至3月，终于出现了实质性的制度接口。\n\n2025年2月25日，政府提交 ECF 493，正式要求法院允许政府不用逐个做MVRA restitution，而是通过 remission，把最终没收资产返还给郭案的fraud victims。政府解释，因为受害者数量和案件复杂程度太高，逐人计算损失成本太大。\n\n与此同时，Geyer已经在私下和SDNY反复沟通怎么把他手里这批HEX客户接入这个系统。\n\n而 ECF 506 是我认为目前整条线最重要的文件。\n\n里面直接公开了Geyer和AUSA Ryan Finkel等人的邮件。\n\n例如2025年2月24日，Geyer告诉政府，他想要一个 consolidated filing，这样就可以把这些客户“on track to align them with your timelines”。政府回答说，目前还没有正式的restitution/remission程序，建议他等进一步消息。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfeaf5fcbfed7ada2bc11","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qfe437c5ceee56e4fcff6","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":451,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:01:13.955Z","text":"2月25日，Geyer又直接问政府：\n\n我怎样修改文件，才能不引起你们反对？\n\n他甚至说：\n\n“Let me know what I need to cut or alter, so that I can file this without triggering an objection.”\n\n这句话非常值得保存。\n\n注意，这和2024年1月的状态已经完全不一样了。\n\n2024年1月：\n\n政府：你到底代表谁？谁在指挥你？\n\n2025年2月：\n\nGeyer：你告诉我文件怎么改，我尽量改到你们不反对。\n\n这不能单独证明有什么违法交易，但程序关系显然发生了变化。\n\n然后2025年3月9日，AUSA Ryan Finkel直接告诉Geyer：\n\n政府会聘请一个 claims administrator 管理remission，政府认为这是向“defendants’ fraud”的victims返还资金最有效的办法；administrator到位后，政府希望继续跟Geyer合作，认为双方合作可以提高效率。\n\n这就是整条线的核心转折。\n\n可以非常客观地概括成：\n\n2023：Geyer替HEX客户向政府追钱。\n\n↓\n\n2024：政府质疑Geyer代表权和HEX关系。\n\n↓\n\n2025：政府建立郭案fraud-victim remission体系。\n\n↓\n\nGeyer开始与政府讨论如何把自己掌握的HEX客户数据、claim files、KYC和授权体系接进去。\n\n而且ECF 506还披露，Geyer告诉政府，他掌握的是一套相当完整的HEX客户资料，包括：\n\n银行交易、账户活动、KYC、financial/compliance records。 \n\n所以真正应该追的问题是：\n\nHEX/联盟最初收集数千客户HID和授权时，有没有告诉这些客户：这些数据以后可能被拿来参与美国政府定义的“郭文贵诈骗受害者remission process”？\n\n这个问题比“Geyer是不是叛变”重要得多。\n\n而卷宗里恰好已经有人提出这个争议。\n\nECF 506里面居然附了大量“撤销Geyer授权”的邮件\n\n这一点特别重要，因为这些邮件不是我们在网上找到的传言，而是Geyer自己提交给法院作为附件的。\n\n其中有人明确写：\n\n我不是Miles Guo的victim。\n\n有人要求：\n\n终止与Bradford Geyer的representation agreement。\n\n还有人说，自己当初提供HID并授权Geyer，是为了：\n\n要求释放被冻结的HEX资金和投资。\n\n并称自己理解的立场一直是：\n\n他们是政府行动的受害者，而不是郭的受害者。\n\nGeyer之所以把这些邮件交给法院，是为了说明政府的filing造成客户恐慌和大量termination emails。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qfe437c5ceee56e4fcff6","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q0bbb37d7007dc9976b24","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":452,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:01:53.837Z","text":"所以不能简单把这些客户邮件里的指控当成法院已经认定的事实。\n\n但它至少证明了一件事：\n\n到了2025年3月，Geyer所代表客户内部已经真实发生了“我什么时候被变成郭案victim了？”的授权争议。\n\n而且这不是一个孤立的人。\n\n随后又出现 ECF 508。\n\nChunk Chyi正式向法院要求撤销与Geyer之间的representation agreement，并要求法院宣告所谓数千HEX客户协议无效。他声称自己在2023年12月是在第三方误导下签约，理解的是让Geyer去追回HEX资金。\n\n然后又有 ECF 709。\n\n另一个申请人Beibei Zhu提出非常严重的指控，声称Geyer未经有效授权代表她，并要求法院处罚Geyer。\n\n接下来就出现了非常关键的 ECF 712——Geyer自己的回应。\n\nGeyer没有说“我从来没代表她”。\n\n恰恰相反，他说他检查记录以后发现：\n\nBeibei Zhu于2023年12月22日上午9:20登记成为他的client，而且后来被列入2025年4月7日密封提交的6,491人master roster。 \n\n这一点非常重要。\n\n因为它说明Geyer证明授权的方法之一，确实是：\n\n2023年客户在那个registration system里的登记记录。\n\n那么你下一步就应该死死追一个文件：\n\n2023年12月那份真正的Client Agreement / Registration Agreement全文\n\n这可能是整条证据链的“钥匙”。\n\n我们现在已经知道：\n\n2023年12月22日的registration记录，到了2025年仍然被Geyer用来证明自己有权把某个人列进6,491人的master roster。 \n\n那份2023 agreement里到底写了什么？\n\n尤其要找这几个词：\n\nvictim\nMiles Guo / Kwok\nfraud\nCVRA\nrestitution\nremission\n21 U.S.C. §853(n)\nRule 41(g)\nDepartment of Justice\nreturn/recovery of seized property\n\n如果2023年的协议只是：\n\nauthorize Geyer to recover my seized HEX property from the Government\n\n却没有：\n\nauthorize Geyer to identify me or act for me as a victim of defendants’ fraud in a remission process\n\n那么问题就非常大。\n\n反过来，如果原始协议本身已经非常宽，明确授权他采取任何restitution/remission/victim程序，那“偷梁换柱”的说法就会弱很多。\n\n所以真正决定这篇文章强弱的不是评论，而是原始授权书。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0bbb37d7007dc9976b24","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q46d806ec9c16b7413137","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":453,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:02:32.285Z","text":"还有一个非常值得注意的变化，就是人数：\n\n2023年12月：3,345人。 \n\n后来政府ECF 223说Geyer声称代表的已经是超过5,000人。\n\n到了2025年4月7日 ECF 676，Geyer声称代表约 6,575名HEX members/claimants。这份申请已经明确把救济写成：\n\nrestitution、ancillary forfeiture以及/或者remission。 \n\n而到了ECF 712，他又提到一份 6,491人的sealed master roster。\n\n所以这篇文章如果以后真写，我认为最强的标题方向其实不是：\n\n《Geyer如何背叛联盟》\n\n这种很容易被对方说成情绪文章。\n\n真正厉害的是：\n\n《从3,345名“第三方产权人”到6,000多名“remission claimants”：Geyer代理权限究竟什么时候改变了？》\n\n然后只问四个问题：\n\n第一，谁在2023年把Geyer介绍给HEX客户？\n\n第二，当时告诉客户聘他到底是为了什么？\n\n第三，2023年的原始授权具体允许他做什么？\n\n第四，什么时候、通过什么新的知情同意，授权范围从“向政府追回我的资产”扩展到了restitution/remission/victim体系？\n\n目前我查到的公开法院材料里，前三个问题已经有很多证据，第四个问题反而是最大的空洞。\n\n而这个“缺口”，可能才是你说的“此地无银三百两”真正应该抓的地方。\n\n我接下来最想继续替你挖的是2023年9月26日HEX发给客户的原始邮件 + 2023年12月Geyer registration/client agreement原文 + himalayarestoration.com当时的注册页面/宣传材料。这三样一旦对上，基本就能回答“联盟当初到底怎么把Geyer塞进来的”。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q46d806ec9c16b7413137","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qd389ddf789f5c6636422","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":454,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:04:49.510Z","text":"继续往下，ECF 612、643、676把这条线又往前推了一大步。现在已经可以更准确地说：Geyer并不是简单从“反政府”突然变成“帮政府认定受害者”，而是出现了一种更值得追问的双轨代理——一边坚持HEX客户的钱是政府错误扣押的第三方财产，一边又试图把同一批客户接入政府的 restitution/remission 程序。\n\n2025年3月27日的 ECF 514 很关键。Geyer当时还在公开攻击政府的remission路线。他说，政府似乎在利用remission程序向HEX客户施压，把这些投资人逼进政府的案件叙事；甚至用了很重的措辞，说这种做法“borders on blackmail”。也就是说，到这个时间点，Geyer公开告诉法院的仍然是：我的客户不是因为承认自己是郭文贵诈骗受害者才来拿钱，政府不能要求他们接受检方理论作为返还资金的条件。 \n\n紧接着，2025年4月4日的 ECF 612 更有意思。Geyer说自己当时大约有 6,537名签署representation agreement的客户；其中大约3,539人的HEX账户数据已经获得认证。与此同时，他承认大约 117名前客户已经终止代理关系，原因正是社区里出现传言，说要想拿回钱就必须接受政府的“victim”理论。\n\n这一百多人非常重要。\n\n因为这不是别人后来替他们总结，而是Geyer自己向法院承认发生了客户退出潮，而且退出与“victim身份是否意味着必须接受政府指控”直接有关。 \n\n更值得注意的是，ECF 612里面Geyer依然把这6,537人的目标概括成：\n\n“仅仅寻求收回被美国政府扣押的投资资金。”\n\n他还要求政府明确披露究竟扣了哪些账户、哪些HEX资金真正进入被扣押账户。\n\n所以到 2025年4月4日，Geyer自己的正式立场仍然不是：\n\n“这6,500多人已经全部承认自己是郭文贵诈骗受害者。”\n\n相反，更接近：\n\n“他们是HEX投资人，他们的钱被政府拿走了；无论你叫什么程序，都应该把钱还回来。”\n\n然后 ECF 643，2025年4月7日，标题甚至直接写：\n\nRETURN OF HIMALAYA EXCHANGE DEPOSITORS VICTIMIZED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT\n\n中文就是：\n\n“返还给遭美国政府侵害的HEX存款人。”\n\n这个标题是Geyer自己提交的拟议命令。\n\n这个证据很硬，因为就在同一时期，政府的 ECF 493 已经完全采用另一套定义：\n\n政府说，remission是为了把最终没收的钱发给：\n\n“victims of the defendant’s crimes”\n\n而且要求申请人证明自己的具体经济损失是由犯罪行为直接造成的，还要证明没有通过SEC等其他渠道得到重复补偿。\n\n所以同一时期其实存在两个明显不同的叙事：\n\nDOJ：\n\n这些钱最终要通过remission返还给郭案诈骗犯罪的受害者。\n\nGeyer：\n\n我的HEX客户是被美国政府错误扣押资金所伤害的投资人。\n\n这两种身份并没有自动统一。\n\n但接下来最微妙的地方出现了。\n\nECF 676，同样是2025年4月7日。\n\nGeyer已经明确把自己代表的约 6,575名HEX investors 放进一个“combined petition”，同时寻求：\n\nrestitution\nancillary forfeiture\nremission\n\n三种可能路线。\n\n而且这份文件又继续坚持：\n\nHEX客户的钱应该作为其投资资金返还，他们是“innocent victims”，甚至主张若真有赔偿义务，应由美国财政资金承担，而不能拿无辜HEX投资人的钱去赔其他人。\n\n所以这里才是文章里最值得画出来的那个“交叉点”：\n\nGeyer并没有正式放弃“第三方财产权”理论。\n\n同时，\n\n他又开始利用restitution/remission程序作为拿钱回来的备用路径。\n\n问题于是变成：\n\n一个客户可以当然同时主张这两种身份吗？\n\n理论上，有些情况下可以提出alternative claims。\n\n比如：\n\n第一主张：这本来就是我的特定财产，依据§853(n)/Rule 41(g)还给我。\n如果法院不接受：退一步，我至少作为crime victim参加remission。\n\n法律诉讼里这种alternative pleading本身不一定有问题。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd389ddf789f5c6636422","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q0601e82b2b4592191291","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":455,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:07:12.411Z","text":"真正的问题是律师有没有获得客户授权这样做。\n\n这也是为什么那份2023年原始representation agreement那么重要。\n\n因为如果客户只授权：\n\n“追回我被冻结的HEX资产。”\n\n律师可以不可以自行扩大为：\n\n“如果产权路线失败，我还授权你把我作为fraud victim申请remission？”\n\n这就不能只靠程序便利来回答，而要回到律师—客户授权范围。\n\n而且现在我们又能进一步锁定一个非常具体的数字变化：\n\n2025年3月4日前后：6,537名签约客户。\n\n减掉约：\n\n117名终止代理。\n\n理论上剩约：\n\n6,420人。\n\n可是一个月后的 ECF 676 又说自己代表 6,575人。\n\n这并不自动说明造假，因为期间完全可能有新客户加入，也可能不同文件采用不同统计时间点和定义。\n\n但是——这个数字一定值得逐份做表。\n\n因为我们现在至少见过：\n\n3,345\n5,000+\n6,537\n6,505\n6,575\n6,491\n\n这么多个数字。\n\n如果我要审查这套代理关系，我一定会要求回答：\n\n每个数字对应什么时间？\n\n是“注册过网站的人”？\n\n“签了representation agreement的人”？\n\n“HEX认证过HID的人”？\n\n“仍然有效的client”？\n\n“提交victim/remission form的人”？\n\n还是“被列入sealed master roster的人”？\n\n这些概念不能混。\n\n这里还有一个特别值得你注意的东西。\n\nECF 612明确说，在6,537名签约客户中，只有约 3,539人已经由HEX认证并能够提供存款、HDO、HCN、赎回等数据。\n\n也就是说：\n\n律师声称代理6,500多人，不等于当时已经有6,500多份完整、经HEX验证的损失文件。\n\n这对后来如果有人把“Geyer代表6,500名受害者”直接等同于：\n\n“法院/政府已经验证了6,500名郭文贵诈骗受害者”\n\n是完全不同的事情。\n\n至少从ECF 612看，当时经HEX认证的具体数据只是其中一部分。\n\n而政府自己的 ECF 493 又明确规定，真正进入remission，还需要逐人证明：\n\n具体经济损失、\n损失与犯罪的直接因果关系、\n没有参与犯罪、\n没有从SEC等其他渠道重复获得补偿、\n以及其他资格条件。 \n\n因此一个非常重要的文章问题可以写成：\n\n“6,500名Geyer客户”什么时候被公众叙事变成了“6,500名郭文贵诈骗受害者”？\n\n因为从卷宗看，这两个数字不是天然等号。\n\n还有一件特别有意思。\n\nECF 506里Geyer向政府发送的材料，附件里确实出现大量客户自己要求退出的邮件。\n\n有人说：\n\n“I am not a victim of Miles Guo.”\n\n有人明确终止Geyer代理；\n\n还有人强调，自己当初给HID和授权，是为了追回HEX资金，而不是为了参加针对郭的victim claim。\n\n而Geyer随后在ECF 612里又向法院说明，确实已经有约117人退出。\n\n所以这里可以形成一个非常漂亮的内部验证链：\n\n客户邮件：\n\n我不是郭的victim，我撤销授权。\n\n↓\n\nGeyer自己的法院文件：\n\n约117名前客户已经终止attorney-client relationship，原因涉及“必须接受政府理论才能拿钱”的传言。\n\n这比网上说“很多人都退出了”有力得多，因为两边都已经进入卷宗。\n\n更值得注意的是，2025年3月27日ECF 514 → 4月4日ECF 612 → 4月7日ECF 643/676，短短十天里可以看到Geyer同时做三件事：\n\n反对政府把remission变成迫使HEX客户接受检方理论的工具；\n\n继续称HEX客户为“victimized by the U.S. Government”；\n\n同时又建立可以让这些人进入restitution/remission的程序框架。 \n\n这就是我现在认为最值得写的地方：\n\n不是简单的“Geyer反水”。\n\n更准确的说法是：\n\nGeyer试图同时保留两个互相存在张力的法律身份：\n\n第三方产权人——钱本来就是我的；\n\n潜在remission claimant——如果政府坚持把钱当犯罪所得，我至少还要进入分配程序。\n\n这本身未必违法。\n\n但是如果客户最初只知道第一条，而不知道第二条，那么问题就从“诉讼策略”升级成了：","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0601e82b2b4592191291","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qa5253d62c8b19882bfdb","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":456,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:07:35.502Z","text":"代理权限和知情同意。\n\n而现在还有最后一个非常大的空缺：\n\n究竟是谁建立了 himalayarestoration.com？\n\n网站由谁控制？\n\n2023年9月26日那封HEX邮件是谁批准发出的？\n\nBradford Geyer本人和HEX/联盟之间有没有written engagement、referral agreement、data-sharing arrangement或其他协议？\n\n政府在2024年1月的ECF 223已经公开说，它认为Geyer和HEX“working closely”，并问出了：\n\n“it is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer.” \n\n但是这句话只能证明政府当时提出了这个疑问，还不能证明“联盟控制Geyer”。\n\n所以你说的“联盟是怎么把Geyer找来的”这一部分，我们现在已经证明了“联盟/HEX负责把客户导向Geyer”；但还没有证明最前面的那一步——究竟是谁先找到Geyer、怎么谈的、谁付钱、谁建立网站。\n\n这正是下一层真正值得挖的东西。\n\n如果把目前整条线压成一句最强的问题，我会写成：\n\n2023年，联盟/HEX告诉数千投资人：请登记Bradford Geyer，让这位“独立律师”帮你追回被美国政府扣押的资产；两年后，同一批客户资料却开始被组织进入美国政府为“郭文贵诈骗受害者”建立的remission体系。那么，中间究竟经过了什么新的授权、谁批准了这种用途变化、客户本人又是否真正知情？\n\n这个问法目前有卷宗支撑，而且比直接说“Geyer和政府勾结”要扎实得多。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa5253d62c8b19882bfdb","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"qbce06fec4d5cbc6ea3ab","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":457,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:09:03.847Z","text":"继续。现在挖到了一个非常关键、而且比前面“谁找的Geyer”更接近原始证据的文件：ECF 526-1。\n\n这份文件把喜交所当初为什么把Geyer介绍给客户，写得几乎没有歧义。\n\n2023年12月22日，Himalaya Exchange 发给投资人的《General Investor Status Update》明确说：\n\n喜交所此前为了客户采取了法律行动；刑事起诉公开以后，交易所为了保护客户利益，“identified an independent lawyer”——找到了一个独立律师代表客户。\n\n然后它连续强调两次：\n\n这个律师 “entirely independent from the Exchange”；\n\n以及：\n\nHEX “does not have any influence over this lawyer”。\n\n接着才告诉客户：\n\n可以联系这个律师，寻求独立法律意见，并采取法律行动，“to protect and recover your asset”。\n\n然后直接给：\n\nBradford Geyer\nhimalaya.restoration@formerfedsgroup.com\nhimalayarestoration.com。\n\n这个文件非常重要，因为现在已经不是别人回忆“联盟当时怎么宣传Geyer”，而是HEX自己的正式邮件进入了SDNY卷宗。\n\n所以文章第一幕基本可以定了：\n\n喜交所没有告诉投资人：“我们给你们找了一位律师，把大家登记成郭文贵诈骗受害者。”\n\n它告诉大家的是：\n\n“我们找了一位完全独立、我们对其没有影响力的律师，帮助你保护并追回自己的资产。” \n\n这就是最初授权环境。\n\n而且我又找到一个非常有价值的同期外部记录。\n\n2023年12月8日，Geyer自己的 FormerFeds 发布了新闻稿。\n\n标题就是：\n\n“Himalaya Exchange customers launch legal action against the U.S. Department of Justice”\n\n——“喜马拉雅交易所客户对美国司法部发起法律行动”。\n\n新闻稿根本没有把故事讲成：\n\n“几千名郭文贵诈骗受害者寻找赔偿。”\n\n它讲的是：\n\n数千HEX投资人的资金被DOJ冻结，因此要求解除冻结并赔偿政府行动造成的损失。\n\n而且新闻稿直接说，法律行动针对的是 Department of Justice；还说Geyer代表的是资金被冻结的HEX客户。\n\n这和12月6日提交的 Rule 41(g) Motion for Return of Property 完全吻合。\n\n那份正式motion写：\n\nGeyer代表 3,345名HEX customers；\n\n并明确主张：\n\n这些人对被政府扣押的财产具有 “distinct, identifiable third-party interest”。\n\n所以现在前三份同期材料互相验证：\n\nHEX自己的邮件：\n\n找独立律师 → protect and recover your asset。\n\nFormerFeds自己的新闻稿：\n\nHEX customers launch legal action against DOJ。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbce06fec4d5cbc6ea3ab","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q835954931dea65e5fb6b","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":458,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:09:43.540Z","text":"Geyer自己的法院文件：\n\n3,345名HEX客户 → Rule 41(g) → distinct identifiable third-party interest。\n\n这已经相当硬了。\n\n⸻\n\n但现在出现了一个特别有意思的矛盾。\n\nHEX邮件一遍又一遍强调：\n\nGeyer完全独立。\n\nHEX对他没有任何影响力。 \n\n可仅仅两周以后，2024年1月5日，SDNY政府在ECF 223里恰好对这个“独立性”提出了公开质疑。\n\n这份政府文件我重新核了原页。\n\n政府告诉Torres：\n\nGeyer声称分别代理超过5,000人，但似乎不知道这些客户真实身份，也可能没和他们交流。\n\n然后脚注直接写：\n\n“it is not clear who is directing Mr. Geyer.”\n\n更关键的是政府接着解释为什么怀疑。\n\n政府说：\n\n第一，HEX似乎通知了所有注册客户去Geyer那里登记。\n\n第二，Geyer管理一个 himalayarestoration.com/customers/ 网站。\n\n第三，个人只需要提供HID，似乎无需提供其他身份信息，就可以成为Geyer的“client”。\n\n第四，那个网站甚至明确强调Geyer并不需要知道客户的personal identity。\n\n第五，然后Geyer会拿这个HID去HEX进行“verification”。\n\n所以政府得出的结论是：\n\nGeyer显然是在与HEX协作，而HEX同时在推广Geyer的工作。\n\n我还直接看了ECF 223第一页原件，这些话确实就在政府脚注里，不是二手总结。\n\n这个对比非常适合文章：\n\nHEX对客户说：\n\n“我们对这个律师没有任何影响，他完全独立。”\n\n↓\n\n美国政府两周后对法官说：\n\n“不清楚到底是谁在指挥Geyer；他的客户认证体系明显依赖HEX，并且HEX正在推广他的工作。” \n\n注意：这还不能证明HEX“控制”Geyer。\n\n但已经足够提出一个非常合理的问题：\n\n既然完全独立，为什么Geyer获取和确认客户身份的核心机制，却必须由HEX的HID数据库来完成？\n\n这就不是一句“独立律师”可以解释完的了。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q835954931dea65e5fb6b","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"},{"id":"q3f713bd08c3d0119e08a","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":459,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-24T20:10:58.522Z","text":"而且现在我们终于能够看清 himalayarestoration.com 当时到底怎么运作。\n\n根据政府ECF 223的描述：\n\n客户输入HID\n↓\n成为Geyer所谓client\n↓\nGeyer把HID拿去HEX核验\n↓\nHEX确认该HID\n↓\n律师据此把这个人纳入集体代理体系。 \n\n这非常重要。\n\n因为它意味着最初这个系统的“身份钥匙”并不是：\n\n姓名＋护照＋律师面谈＋individual retainer review。\n\n而是：\n\nHID。\n\n而真正把HID对应到：\n\n姓名、KYC、银行记录、HEX余额等个人资料的数据库，又掌握在HEX。\n\n这也是为什么到2025年Geyer还能告诉法院，他掌握一套机制：\n\n客户只以HID出现在自己的secure email里；然后用这个HID作为key，去解锁HEX保存的KYC、身份、账户和银行信息。\n\n所以2023年的体系和2025年的体系其实连续起来了：\n\nHEX负责拥有底层客户数据库；\nGeyer负责拿HID建立律师代理名单；\n双方通过HID完成匹配。\n\n这也是政府为什么2024年初就说：\n\n“counsel is in consultation with the Himalaya Exchange。” \n\n⸻\n\n现在还有一个非常厉害的细节。\n\n当时并不只是法院文件说“对DOJ”。\n\nGeyer/FormerFeds在2023年12月8日真的公开把整个行动宣传成：\n\n“Launch Legal Action Against the Department of Justice.” \n\n甚至现在还能找到当年的社区记录：2023年12月7日至9日，宣传标题就是：\n\n《喜马拉雅交易所客户对司法部的法律诉讼》\n\n并宣传：\n\nBradford Geyer代表3,345名客户要求政府归还被扣财产。\n\n当时还专门有 HimalayaRestoration 的视频频道/发布会。\n\n这就让“当初大家为什么把HID交给Geyer”这个问题变得更加明确。\n\n至少从当时公开环境看，一个普通HEX用户看到的是：\n\n我的HEX资产被美国政府冻结。\n\nHEX给我找了一位独立律师。\n\n这个律师要对DOJ采取法律行动。\n\n目的是protect and recover my assets。\n\n我要把HID交给他登记。\n\n而不是：\n\n我要授权他以后把我作为Miles Guo刑事案件的fraud victim处理。\n\n⸻\n\n而且这个“原始理解”后来不只是有人嘴上说。\n\n2025年，已经有人把这个问题正式送进法院。\n\n例如 ECF 734 的申请人明确指控：\n\n自己正是依赖HEX那封邮件，才相信Geyer要针对DOJ/SEC采取asset-recovery行动；她说自己的授权理解仅限于这个范围。她还特别引用了2023年12月8日那场 “Launch Legal Action Against the Department of Justice” 的直播。\n\n这里必须保持证据等级：\n\n这是该申请人的主张，不是Torres法官已经认定Geyer实施了欺诈。\n\n但是她引用的底层事实——HEX原始邮件的内容——我们现在已经可以通过ECF 526-1独立验证。\n\n所以这个控诉并不是完全凭空来的。\n\n⸻\n\n还有一个我刚才特别想提醒你的地方：\n\n不要把“Geyer后来没有起诉DOJ”写得过于绝对。\n\n因为他确实在郭刑事案里提交了Rule 41(g) motion，向政府要求返还财产。严格法律意义上，这属于在刑事案中寻求司法救济，并不是另立民事案“Geyer v. DOJ”。\n\n因此如果文章写：\n\n“他承诺起诉DOJ，最后根本没有采取任何对政府法律行动。”\n\n对方很容易拿ECF 186反驳。\n\n更严谨、也更厉害的写法是：\n\n当初的公开宣传是“对司法部发起法律行动”；实际采取的第一项核心救济，是在郭文贵刑事案内依据Rule 41(g)要求返还财产。随后其代理理论又进一步扩展到§853(n)、CVRA、restitution以及remission。\n\n这样没人容易抓住漏洞。\n\n⸻\n\n然后还有一个非常值得研究的节点：\n\n为什么最初是3,345人，短短一个月左右就变成5,000多人？\n\n政府2024年1月5日已经写成 over five thousand people。\n\n这说明2023年12月6日提交第一份motion以后，HEX→HimalayaRestoration的导流还在快速继续。\n\n当时可能出现的是：\n\nHEX向整个注册用户群发送通知\n→ 客户只需HID登记\n→ Geyer再找HEX核验\n→ 名单迅速从3,345增长到5,000+。","edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q3f713bd08c3d0119e08a","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150"}],"prev_batch_id":"batch-000149","next_batch_id":"batch-000151"}