{"id":"qbf38011342c6e2971d84","batch_id":"batch-000150","seq":236,"speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-23T03:56:42.310Z","text":"不过他后半部分：\n\n“Luc如果有不同意见，到南区走民事附属程序才是正常程序。”\n\n这里就要分开看，我认为方向上抓到了一部分真正的问题。\n\n858确实明确说：\n\n第三方对Listed Property的产权主张，应当通过 18 U.S.C. §853(n) + Rule 32.2 ancillary proceedings 处理。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.858.0.pdf\n\n而且在第10页，Torres再次强调：\n\n第三方提出的§853(n)产权问题将在sentencing之后的ancillary proceedings里处理，法院当时不对任何第三方是否拥有superior legal interest发表意见。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.858.0.pdf\n\n所以如果场景是：\n\n某项具体财产已经列入POF → Trustee/Luc说“这项财产属于bankruptcy estate，而不是Government” → 两边真正争的是第三方产权优先顺序，\n\n那么§853(n) ancillary proceeding确实是非常自然、甚至通常就是法定的第三方产权裁决机制。\n\n这一点群友不是完全没有抓到。\n\n但他说：\n\n“政府本来有权直接从Luc那里执行强制移交。”\n\n这句话还是太快了。\n\n因为858专门处理过郭要求法院：\n\n命令Government从Chapter 11 Trustee手里拿走bankruptcy assets。\n\n法院直接拒绝。\n\n858第15页描述得非常清楚：郭要求法院命令Government从Luc那里取得bankruptcy assets，理由之一就是Government forfeiture interest优先于bankruptcy creditors。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.858.0.pdf\n\n然后法院回答：\n\n“The Court does not have the power to grant the relief Guo requests.” gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.858.0.pdf\n\n最后结论再次正式写：\n\n“The Court DENIES Guo’s motion at ECF No. 724 seeking an order compelling the Government to seize assets in the bankruptcy proceedings.” gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.858.0.pdf\n\n所以858建立的程序结构实际上更接近：\n\nPOF认定Listed Property可没收\n↓\nGovernment被授权可以seize\n↓\n但不是必须立刻seize\n↓\n法院不能命令Government什么时候、怎样seize\n↓\n第三方如果对具体已没收财产主张superior interest\n↓\n§853(n) ancillary proceeding处理第三方产权\n↓\n最终第三方权益裁决完成以后，进入Final Order / disposition。\n\n还有一个很容易被忽视的细节。\n\n858在讨论offset的时候说，只有当财产在 Final Order of Forfeiture 下真正归United States，并且所有third-party interests都裁判完成以后，其价值才用于抵减$889m money judgment。 gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.858.0.pdf\n\n这进一步说明：\n\nPOF/858阶段 ≠ 所有产权关系和执行步骤都已经终局完成。\n\n所以我会把群友那句话改成一个法律上更准确的版本：\n\n如果5739涉及的某项资产已经属于720 POF所列的Specific Property，而Luc作为Trustee主张Bankruptcy Estate拥有优先或独立产权，那么这种第三方产权争议原则上应当受到§853(n)/Rule 32.2 ancillary process的约束；但858并没有要求Government立即从Luc手中强制取得财产，反而明确认定Rule 32.2只是授权Government seizure，并不强制其何时、以何种方式执行。","text_en":null,"edited":false,"reply_to":null,"reply_status":"none","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbf38011342c6e2971d84","reply_url":null,"reply_label":"","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150/pages/2","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000150/pages/2","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_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbf38011342c6e2971d84","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbf38011342c6e2971d84/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qbf38011342c6e2971d84","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q380cef0e929838653ccb","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-23T03:44:17.154Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q380cef0e929838653ccb"},{"id":"qf54d3f3a70de3a772f92","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-08-23T03:50:04.066Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf54d3f3a70de3a772f92"},{"id":"q8b79757ef1b8dfaed8e4","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-23T03:55:28.413Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q8b79757ef1b8dfaed8e4"},{"id":"qf09b6638cfadae7b2799","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-23T03:56:53.947Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf09b6638cfadae7b2799"},{"id":"q9cf0bef1f8be6177ea34","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-23T03:59:03.138Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9cf0bef1f8be6177ea34"},{"id":"qbcdbb6afdfb00ed437e2","speaker":"roy***","date":"2026-08-23T03:59:23.608Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbcdbb6afdfb00ed437e2"}],"parent_message":null}