---
type: court_doc
id: "court_2cir_26-361_dkt_34"
court: "2Cir"
case_no: ""
doc_number: null
doc_type: "DOC"
filed_date: null
lang: "zh"
url: "https://mubeitech.com/court/court_2cir_26-361_dkt_34"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_2cir_26-361_dkt_34"
---
# 2Cir ECF 26-361_dkt_34

**强制令续请愿书(Renewed Petition for Writ of Mandamus)——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo)案第二巡回上诉法院 26-361 号 ECF #34(2026年6月15日立案)。请愿人 Tony 以犯罪被害人权利法(CVRA,18 U.S.C. § 3771(e))下的被害人身份续请上诉法院发出强制令,指其2月18日、5月23日提交地区法院的材料迟迟未获正式立案,并称地区法院'拒绝直接受理 pro se 强制令材料、却将其作为上诉材料副本挂上 SDNY 案卷'的做法构成程序性规避,已致 Ryan Bai 等人的姓名、住址、联系方式等个人信息在公开案卷中泄露(如 SDNY Dkt. 765、845);其援引'Cheney 标准'三要件,指出6月29日量刑日期临近、此前两个月延期未解决相关问题。**


> 原始法庭文件为英文；下方为英文全文，顶部为中文摘要。

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 1 of 26
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
In re: Tony,
Victim in United States v. Kwok, et al.,
1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)
RENEWED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
I. Introduction
I, Tony, a crime victim within the meaning of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act
(“CVRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e), respectfully petition this Court for a renewed writ
of mandamus.
II. Background
On February 18, 2026, this Court docketed my mandamus petition, which sought
an order directing the District Court to docket my submission, which is materially
related to sentencing. That submission was included as Exhibit D to my original
mandamus petition and is attached here as Exhibit A.
On March 11, 2026, the Court directed that multiple related matters—Nos. 25-
3046, 26-77, 26-361, 26-364, 26-441, and 26-563—be heard in tandem.
On March 16, 2026, I filed a record-preservation submission in the district court
(referenced in Second Circuit No. 26-361, Dkt. 16), requesting that materials

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 2 of 26
relating to the other mandamus proceedings be consistently docketed and made
part of the district court record, to avoid inconsistent treatment across petitioners.
Although the district court had received my mandamus-related materials as early
as February 18, 2026, those materials were not publicly docketed until March 26,
2026 (SDNY Dkt. 817).
On April 18, 2026, I filed an emergency motion in this Court seeking to stay
sentencing pending resolution of the mandamus petition. The Government filed
its opposition on May 1, 2026, and I submitted a reply the same day.
On April 23, 2026, the District Court adjourned the original sentencing to June
29, 2026, stating “Due to the complexity of the outstanding issues raised in the
parties' voluminous sentencing submissions”.
On May 15, 2026, this Court issued an order addressing the tandem petitions,
my mandamus petition was denied with the stating in relevant part: “In view of
the large number of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the
court will address expeditiously, petitioners’ mandamus petitions as to docketing
their submissions are denied without prejudice to renewal if the district court fails
to docket the submissions within a reasonable time.”
On May 23, 2026, while reviewing my case materials, I identified an additional
exhibit relating to alliance ledger records. I promptly submitted that material to
the district court for record preservation and filed it in this Court (Dkt. 29).
III. Procedural Concern of how District Court Treat Mandamus
Petitions
A separate procedural concern arises from the manner in which the District Court
has treated mandamus petitions filed in the Court of Appeals by pro se
petitioners in this case.
More than ten pro se mandamus matters arising from this criminal case have
now been opened in the Second Circuit. In each instance, the underlying pattern
has been similar: the petitioners attempted to submit materials directly to the
District Court, but those submissions were not docketed in the ordinary course,
thereby preventing the petitioners from obtaining access to the District Court as a

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 3 of 26
forum in which a motion could be formally filed and adjudicated.
Once mandamus proceedings are opened in the Court of Appeals, however, the
District Court has repeatedly placed copies of those appellate mandamus papers
onto the SDNY docket. This creates a serious procedural distortion. No rule
requires the District Court to treat an appellate mandamus petition as a substitute
for docketing the underlying district-court submission. Nor does the later
appearance of mandamus papers on the SDNY docket cure the earlier failure to
docket the original filing in a form that is actually adjudicable. At most, this
practice makes the substance visible while avoiding ordinary district-court
treatment of the submission itself. In practical effect, it operates as a form of
procedural shielding.
This practice has also produced concrete privacy harms. Because of the
sensitivity of this case, the SDNY docket is closely monitored by multiple
interested actors. After Ryan Bai’s first mandamus filing was placed on the SDNY
docket as Dkt. 765, his full name, home address, telephone number, and email
address were exposed. More recently, in connection with SDNY Dkt. 845, a
Mainland Chinese investor—apparently unfamiliar with the relevant procedural
and privacy rules—had highly sensitive identifying information exposed on the
public docket, including Chinese identification information. These exposures are
especially serious in a case involving Mainland Chinese investors, many of whom
have alleged interrogation, coercion, arrest, or prosecution by PRC authorities.
Ryan Bai has specifically asserted that the District Court’s decision to place his
mandamus materials on the SDNY docket in this manner was a retaliatory
move, resulting in the public exposure of his personal information. Ryan Bai
subsequently filed Second Circuit Dkt. 30 to expand the mandamus relief in Case
No. 25-2726 seeking, inter alia, recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), citing the
appearance of bias and conflict arising from the District Court’s handling of these
matters. Regardless of the ultimate merit of that request, the fact that the District
Court’s treatment of mandamus-related filings has itself generated further claims
of bias, privacy harm, and appellate litigation underscores the seriousness of the
issue.
Accordingly, the Court should address whether its current practice—refusing
ordinary docketing of pro se submissions while later placing appellate mandamus

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 4 of 26
papers on the SDNY docket—has deprived me of meaningful district-court
access, distorted the ordinary adjudicative process, and exposed sensitive
individuals to avoidable harm.
IV. The District Court’s Prior Adjournment Has Not Resolved the
Issues, and the Failure to Act Has Become More Serious as
Sentencing Nears
The District Court’s prior two-month adjournment did not resolve the underlying
issues. As of now, fewer than three weeks remain before the currently scheduled
June 29, 2026 sentencing date, and more than four weeks have passed since
the Second Circuit’s May 15, 2026 order stated: “In view of the large number
of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will
address expeditiously,” while denying docketing-related mandamus relief
without prejudice to renewal if the District Court failed to docket the submissions
within a reasonable time. Yet, to date, the District Court still has not meaningfully
addressed the core issues that several victims identified in their stay motions
(See other petitioners’ stay motion: 25-2726, 26-77, 26-441) as directly bearing
on sentencing. Those issues did not disappear merely because sentencing was
adjourned. To the contrary, they have become more serious with time, as
the District Court has neither provided a procedural path for resolving them
nor stated that it will decline to rely on the disputed matters at sentencing.
Under these circumstances, the prior adjournment cannot be viewed as having
cured the problem; it has instead exposed the continuing failure to confront
issues that directly affect the reliability and integrity of the sentencing
process.
V. Cheney Standards:
1: I lack any other adequate means of obtaining relief.
This is not the first time the Court of Appeals has expressed the expectation that
the District Court would promptly address pro se submissions in this case. In
addition to the May 15, 2026 tandem order, the Second Circuit had already
stated in Ryan Bai’s earlier mandamus matter that, “[i]n view of the large number
of submissions received by the district court, which we trust the court will address

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 5 of 26
expeditiously,” relief was denied without prejudice to renewal if the District Court
failed to act within a reasonable time. See SDNY Dkt. 767 (reflecting the
November 26, 2025 order). Despite that prior appellate warning, the same
docketing and access problems have continued.
The District Court’s own handling of victim-rights submissions has further
demonstrated the absence of any effective district-court remedy. At the January
20, 2026 status conference, the Court referred to CVRA motions as “complaints.”
By omitting any reference to the CVRA and by characterizing victim-rights
submissions in that manner, the Court effectively downgraded those filings into a
category carrying no assurance of docketing, adjudication, or procedural
recognition as statutory victim-rights motions.
The Court’s subsequent two-month adjournment did not cure these problems.
Now, with fewer than three weeks remaining before the June 29, 2026
sentencing date, the District Court still has not opened an evidentiary hearing,
provided a meaningful remedial framework, or docketed multiple third-party
submissions under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and the CVRA. Nor has it resolved the
issues that several victims identified in their stay motions as directly bearing on
sentencing. Those issues have not disappeared with time; they have instead
deepened. Under these circumstances, the continuing failure to docket, hear, or
otherwise process these matters now reflects a state of procedural paralysis,
leaving petitioners without any adequate means of obtaining relief except through
mandamus.
2. My right to relief is clear and indisputable.
My right to relief is clear and indisputable. First, the District Court may not
effectively deny basic docket access where the Court has expressly
recognized § 853(n) and CVRA as the only statutory avenues for nonparties
in SDNY Dkt. 528, it may not render those avenues illusory through non-
docketing or procedural downgrading. Docketing is a ministerial function, and the
later appearance of mandamus materials on the district-court docket does not
convert the underlying submission into a properly docketed and adjudicable
district-court motion. I therefore have a clear right to ordinary docket treatment of
submissions properly directed to the District Court.
Second, several of the unresolved submissions identify issues that directly bear

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 6 of 26
on sentencing, including victim identity, ownership, tracing, forfeiture scope,
record contamination, and the reliability of the Government’s asserted loss
framework. As explained in my stay motion (26-361 Dkt 18), the source structure
of the funds included within the Government’s proposed loss calculation was
never meaningfully developed at trial. My Chinese court materials, together with
the Alliance-ledger materials later submitted in Dkt. 29 for record-preservation
purposes, reflect a highly intermixed funding structure in which Mainland Chinese
investors entered the U.S.-linked pool through layered intermediary mechanisms,
including Chinese yuan settlement through intermediaries (黄牛). In that posture,
the Government’s loss model remains materially unverified. It does not appear to
have explicitly tested whether the same funds can be consistently classified as
“actual loss” under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 across competing interpretive frameworks,
nor does it resolve whether portions of the aggregated inflows should instead be
treated as non-loss, disputed, or legally ambiguous funds.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B), the District Court may not
simply proceed on an untested and materially disputed loss framework to the
extent that framework bears on sentencing. Where the underlying source pool
remains unresolved, highly commingled, and subject to competing legal
characterizations, the Court must either resolve those disputes through an
adequate process or expressly determine that it will not rely on the disputed loss
matters in imposing sentence.
3. Mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances.
Mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals has
already reminded the District Court, on more than one occasion, that the large
number of submissions in this case should be addressed expeditiously. Yet, with
fewer than three weeks remaining before the currently scheduled June 29, 2026
sentencing date, the District Court still has not restored any meaningful
procedural path. It has not opened an evidentiary hearing, has not provided a
workable remedial framework, and has not even ensured ordinary docketing of
multiple pro se victims and third-party submissions. In practical effect, affected
victims and claimants are still being denied the most basic form of access to the
District Court as a forum in which their statutory motions may be filed, heard, and

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 7 of 26
adjudicated.
This failure is especially serious because the District Court itself expressly
recognized in Dkt. 528 that nonparties may seek relief through a motion under
the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Having acknowledged the availability of the CVRA
as a statutory avenue, the Court cannot then, in practice, deny victims any
meaningful ability to enter the Court, docket their submissions, and seek
adjudication of those rights. To do so is not merely administrative delay; it
effectively strips the CVRA route of practical force and deprives victims of the
procedural protection the statute was meant to provide.
The circumstances are also extraordinary because the submissions at issue do
not concern marginal or collateral matters. In my own filings, I submitted Chinese
charging and court materials bearing directly on the treatment of G-Series
investors in the People’s Republic of China, including evidence showing the
political and sovereign risks those investors faced there. That evidentiary
dimension was not presented at trial. Only after my mandamus filings did the
issue emerge in a concrete form: namely, that the same underlying funds may be
treated in China as connected to “the crime of funding activities that endanger
national security,” while in the United States they are treated as funds belonging
to ordinary fraud victims. This is not a minor dispute. It bears directly on the
factual architecture of the case, on the characterization of victim status and loss,
and on the reliability of the sentencing and forfeiture record now before the
District Court.
Under these circumstances, mandamus is not being sought as a substitute for
ordinary review, but because ordinary process has broken down. Where the
District Court has repeatedly failed to docket, hear, or otherwise process
submissions that bear directly on sentencing and on the factual integrity of the
case itself, issuance of the writ is appropriate.
VI. Relief Sought
My original mandamus filings only focused primarily on the CVRA because the
District Court had indicated in the status conference on January 20, 2026 that §
853-related matters would be addressed through a special-master process. That

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 8 of 26
process, however, has not materialized. No special master has been appointed,
no schedule has been set, and no alternative mechanism has been identified for
adjudicating those property-interest issues. Under these circumstances, it is now
necessary for the District Court at minimum to confirm receipt of my previously
submitted § 853-related motion, sent on May 19, 2-02cr-500, t11h8 e titlei s “1:23
– Tony – Petition under 21 U.S.C §853(n) (Public Version)”, I also attached the
proof of delivery in Exhibit E to the original mandamus which was sealed by this
Court.
1. Order the district court to docket my redacted CVRA motion, Attached in
Exhibit A.
2. Enter a docketed procedural disposition on my request, reflected in Exhibit A,
Relief 4, for the limited purpose of preserving the appellate record and clarifying
the status of my submission in the district court record, including confirming
receipt of my CVRA motion and my § 853(n) property-interest motion without
directing any substantive outcome.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony
June 7, 2026

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 9 of 26
Exhib i t
A

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 10 of 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a MILES GUO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT
Victim’s Motion to Remedy Structural Procedural
Breakdown and Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action
Under Court’s Inherent Authority
The Honorable Analisa Torres
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Dear Judge Torres:
I, a victim under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, respectfully submit this motion
pro se to request that the Court to Remedy Structural Procedural Breakdown

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 11 of 26
and Request Sua Sponte Corrective Action Under Court’s Inherent
Authority
I. Background
I, have submitted multiple pro se motions to the SDNY in
an effort to exclude my lawful G-related investments from the forfeiture
proceedings. My filing history is as follows:
On September 19, 2025, I submitted my first 853(n) Third-Party
Petition by email to the SDNY pro se intake.
On September 20, 2025, I submitted my first CVRA Crime Victim
Motion.
A few days later, I discovered that those versions lacked handwritten
signatures. I immediately corrected them. On September 25, 2025, I
resubmitted both the signed 853(n) petition and the signed CVRA
motion by email, and also mailed the hardcopy packages to both the
Court and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. USPS records confirm that both
institutions received and signed for the mailed filings.
Despite these steps, none of the filings were docketed.
On October 22, 2025, I submitted my second CVRA motion, and in
that submission I included USPS Proof of Delivery showing that my
earlier hardcopy filings had indeed been delivered but never docketed.
In total, I submitted three motions (one 853(n) petition and two CVRA
motions), each sent both electronically and in physical hardcopy.
These Proof-of-Delivery records are contained in
Appendix_A_Proof_of_Delivery_to_SDNY_and_USA_Nov3_2025.pdf.

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 12 of 26
Notwithstanding these repeated attempts, none of my filings were
uploaded to the docket, and this multi-week failure constitutes a clear
violation of my CVRA rights:
1. The right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4));
2. The right to be treated with fairness and respect (§3771(a)(8));
3. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay
(§3771(a)(7));
4. The right to be protected from further harm (§3771(a)(1));
5. The right to full and truthful consideration of victim status under
the statutory definition of “crime victim.”
II. Procedural irregularity
As in my previous suppressed motion that was filed by 09-20-2025 :
I am a lawful investor in G-related projects, and have never engaged
in fraud, wrongdoing, or political activism. Nevertheless, I was
targeted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities, labeled
as “a threat to national security,” and subjected to retaliatory
prosecution solely because of the investment and the identity of the
individuals and platforms associated with it. I was forced to flee,
suffered loss of home, livelihood, community, and safety, and has
remained in exile ever since. These facts are verified, documented,
and corroborated by court records, including parallel cases such as
the prosecution and imprisonment of investor Wu who

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 13 of 26
remains incarcerated after being accused of “subverting the State” for
publishing minor online posts with negligible readership. The
persecution of investors like Wu and Petitioner demonstrates that the
danger is real, ongoing, and directly tied to this matter.
If a victim is classified as a “threat to national security” and subjected
to political persecution in their home country, and Judge Torres still
suppressed victims’ filing, this constitutes a serious procedural
violation:
1. Violation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA, 18 U.S.C. §
3771)
● Failure to recognize Petitioner’s status as a crime victim.
● Denial of the right to be reasonably heard (§3771(a)(4)).
● Denial of fair treatment (§3771(a)(8)).
● Failure to protect the Petitioner from further harm (§3771(a)(1)).
● Ignoring statutory deadlines and causing procedural delays
(§3771(a)(7)).
● Allowing personally identifiable information (PII) to remain
exposed, despite life-threatening risks from foreign persecution.
2. Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process
● Court knowingly increased risk to Petitioner (State-Created
Danger Doctrine).

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 14 of 26
● Denied meaningful participation in proceedings affecting
property, rights, and victim recognition.
3. Violation of Equal Protection Clause
● Differential treatment of victims persecuted by foreign actors
(CCP) versus baseless creditor registrants which detailed in Dkt.
733.
● Silencing legitimate victims while elevating unverified or
illegitimate claimants.
● Failure to provide heightened procedural protection to a uniquely
vulnerable class.
4. Violation of the Court’s Inherent Authority to Protect Litigants
Facing Foreign Persecution
● Ignored documented, ongoing life-threatening risk from foreign
government persecution.
5. Continuation of Proceedings Despite Known Contamination of
Victim Identity and Evidence
● Bankruptcy (22-50073) Doc. 2083 admitted that creditor and
victim pools are overlapping and subjective.
● Criminal proceedings proceeded without resolving identity
conflicts, allowing baseless claimants to dominate the narrative.
6. Ignoring External Influence and Foreign Interference Risks

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 15 of 26
● Failed to consider CCP’s targeted persecution of G-investors as
a material factor in procedural decisions.
● Allowed narrative and evidentiary record to reflect interests
aligned with foreign persecution actors.
● Neglect of this factor constitutes a structural and constitutional
violation requiring corrective action.
7. Structural Procedural Breakdown
Victim-Perpetrator Identity Conflict and Structural Procedural
Breakdown, Foreign Influence on Victim Classification
7.1 Conflict of Legal Status
A triple-layer identity conflict:
In China:
The same investment is classified as a threat to national
security; I am treated as a perpetrator under a political-security
framework. Subsequently, I suffered political persecution at the
hands of Chinese authorities, effectively making me a victim of
state retaliation.
In the United States:
The identical investment is characterized as part of a fraudulent
scheme perpetrated by Guo Wengui; I am treated as a victim
under the CVRA and federal criminal fraud statutes.
Direct contradiction:
I am simultaneously considered:

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 16 of 26
● A perpetrator by Chinese authorities;
● A victim of political persecution by the same Chinese
authorities;
● A victim of fraud under U.S. law.
Additional conflict – the case of Wu :
Another investor, Wu , was criminally convicted in China
for the very same investment scheme that the U.S. government
labels as investor fraud. Despite clearly qualifying as a fraud
victim under U.S. law, Wu was entirely excluded from the
SDNY’s victim-identification process.
Systemic implication:
These conflicts demonstrate that the identity contradictions
are not isolated, but systemic, affecting the entire victim
framework in the U.S. proceedings.
7.2 Impact on Legal Proceedings
U.S. court determinations regarding victim status, asset
forfeiture, restitution, and CVRA participation rely on the
assumption that investors are genuine victims of fraud.
However:
● If the same individual is legally treated as a perpetrator by
another sovereign authority;

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 17 of 26
● If other investors such as Wu are criminally
punished abroad for the same investment;
● If these individuals are excluded from the U.S. victim list,
● …then the evidentiary foundation of the U.S.
proceedings collapses.
This constitutes systemic misclassification of victims, because:
● Similarly situated individuals are classified inconsistently;
● Core facts about who qualifies as a “victim” remain
unresolved;
● The evidentiary record becomes internally contradictory.
As a result, a structural procedural breakdown occurs: U.S. court
decisions rely on factual premises that cannot simultaneously be
true.
7.3 Consequences for Court Actions
Misidentification and systemic misclassification of
victim/perpetrator status produce:
● Improper inclusion or exclusion of individuals in criminal
and forfeiture proceedings;
● Reliance on contaminated, incomplete, or contradictory
evidence;

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 18 of 26
● Potential violations of Due Process, Equal Protection, and
statutory CVRA protections;
● A breakdown of procedural legitimacy, because the court
cannot lawfully proceed while the fundamental identity and
factual framework of the case remain contradictory.
In short:
When the same investment produces “perpetrators” in
China, “victims” in the U.S., and key individuals like Wu
are excluded, the entire victim framework becomes
internally inconsistent, requiring a structural corrective
response to restore fairness and lawful participation.
When two sovereigns classify the same individual as both a
national-security perpetrator and a fraud victim, the U.S.
court cannot rely on unverified victim lists without first
resolving the conflict. Proceeding without resolving this
contradiction renders the forfeiture framework legally
unreliable and constitutionally infirm.
In addition, the victim's misclassification in this case is
exacerbated by foreign influence. Evidence—including the
persecution of investors like Wu and myself by the
Chinese Communist Party—demonstrates that external actors
have directly or indirectly shaped the narrative of who qualifies
as a “victim.” When the U.S. court relies on these classifications
without independent verification, the proceedings risk being
contaminated by foreign political interests, further undermining
due process, fairness, and the integrity of the forfeiture
framework.

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 19 of 26
8. U.S. Court Cannot Adopt a Narrative That Aligns With a
Persecuting Regime
A U.S. criminal proceeding cannot constitutionally adopt a victim-
identification narrative that aligns, even inadvertently, with the
interests of the very foreign regime persecuting the victim. Doing so
undermines the neutrality of the judicial process and violates
fundamental due process principles.
9. Ignoring Judicial Misconduct and Proceeding Despite Known
Contamination
In Dkt. 733, Ryan Bai identified potential misconduct by the
Prosecution and Trustee Luc, amounting to fraud upon the Court.
However, the court:
● failed to act on the allegations for several months, ignoring the
potential harm to legitimate victims and allowing the
continuation of forfeiture-related proceedings based on a
record known to be compromised.
● After the submission of Dkt. 733, the Court proceeded to
advance the forfeiture process, even though the issues raised
directly undermine the reliability and legality of the underlying
victim-identification and asset-forfeiture determinations.
Legal Implications:
● Due Process Violation: Continuing proceedings on a record
known to be contaminated violates the Petitioner’s Fifth
Amendment rights. The situated victims are being denied a fair

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 20 of 26
opportunity to be heard.
● CVRA Violation: The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. §
3771) guarantees that victims have the right to participate in
matters affecting assets and proceedings. Ignoring the alert in
Dkt. 733 prevents legitimate victims from exercising this
right.
● Structural Procedural Breakdown: By proceeding despite
notice of record contamination, the Court propagates the
misclassification of victims and creditors, creating an
internally inconsistent evidentiary framework that
undermines the integrity of the entire forfeiture process.
● Abuse of Discretion / Failure to Correct: The Court’s inaction
in response to clear warnings of procedural contamination
constitutes judicial inaction in the face of structural error,
warranting corrective intervention.
10. Potential Procedural and Legal Violations Related to Dkt. 765
Suppression of a victim’s lawful motions requesting judicial
recusal
○ The district court failed to consider or act upon Petitioner’s
motions seeking judicial recusal, directly suppressing the
exercise of rights guaranteed under the Crime Victims’
Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) and depriving Petitioner of a
fair opportunity to be heard.

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 21 of 26
○ This suppression undermines Due Process and may
violate Equal Protection, as other similarly situated parties
may have been permitted to pursue procedural relief.
Contamination of the appellate record
○ By filing Dkt. 765 while Petitioner’s recusal-related motions
were still pending, the district court potentially prejudiced
the Second Circuit appellate review by introducing
content that could influence appellate consideration before
the Court had issued a ruling on the underlying motions.
○ This act creates a structural procedural conflict because
the appellate record now includes materials reflecting the
district court’s suppression of legitimate victim motions,
thereby tainting the evidentiary and procedural record
upon which appellate review will rely.
Structural Procedural Breakdown
● The combination of suppressing the motions and then
publicly exposing them demonstrates a structural
procedural failure:
● Victim’s right to participate and be heard was denied
(CVRA §3771(a)(4), (a)(8));

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 22 of 26
● Core procedural mechanisms meant to protect victims were
undermined;
● The integrity of the record was compromised because the
court ignored a pending motion regarding its own
impartiality (recusal).
This is not merely a “technical error”; it strikes at the
foundation of due process, because the procedural system
failed to allow the victim to assert their rights while
simultaneously exposing them to potential retaliation.
III — RELIEF REQUESTED
Based on the foregoing facts, including my persecution by the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the misclassification and silencing
of legitimate victims, and the resulting structural procedural
breakdowns in this case, I respectfully request that this Court exercise
its inherent authority, sua sponte, to grant the following relief:
1. Exclusion of My Investments from Forfeiture Proceedings
as a Gateway to Correcting the Record
I was forced to flee China due to targeted political persecution,
losing all financial resources and means of livelihood. My G-
related investments, totaling approximately [XXX] USD, were
previously documented but never properly entered into the
record. I respectfully request that the Court exclude these
investments from any ongoing or future forfeiture
proceedings, not merely to protect my property, but as the
necessary first step to correct the contaminated evidentiary
and victim-identification record that underpins the criminal

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 23 of 26
forfeiture and related proceedings.
2. Structural Corrective Action and Sua Sponte Authority
The structural procedural errors identified—including
misidentification of victims, contradictory classification of
victim/perpetrator status, suppression of motions, and reliance
on contaminated evidence—have corrupted the foundation of
all related orders and determinations.
I therefore request that the Court exercise its inherent authority
to:
○ rectify the misclassification and exclusion of legitimate
victims, including myself;
○ correct the evidentiary record and any tainted
determinations; and
○ restore procedural and constitutional integrity in this case.
3. Vacatur or Reconsideration of All Orders Contaminated by
Procedural Breakdown
As a consequence of the structural collapse in this case, I
request that the Court sua sponte review, vacate, or
reconsider all orders and judgments that relied on the
contaminated record, including, but not limited to:
○ criminal conviction(s) related to G-related investments;

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 24 of 26
○ forfeiture or asset seizure orders; and
○ any bail or pretrial release determinations and conviction
affected by misidentified victims, prosecutorial misconduct
or suppressed motions.
4. Protection of the Appellate Record
The release of Dkt. 765 revealed that Ryan Bai previously
suppressed victim motions were excluded, raising a risk of
contaminating the appellate record. I request that the Court
take sua sponte action to correct and clarify the record before
any appellate consideration.
5. Any Further Relief the Court Deems Just and Proper
I respectfully request that the Court grant any additional relief
necessary to restore fairness, protect my rights as a victim,
and ensure the lawfulness and integrity of all proceedings in
this matter.
6. Upload a redacted version of this motion as Victim’s motion
redacted.pdf on the public docket, with personal identifying
information (such as addresses, phone numbers, and account
numbers) removed, while maintaining the unredacted version
under seal on the Clerk’s docket for the Court’s full
consideration.
Respectfully submitted
November 23, 2025

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 25 of 26
Certificate of Service
In re: Tony Petitioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Case No: 26-361
SDNY Case: United States v. Kwok, et al., 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)
I, Tony, hereby certify as follows:
On June 10, 2026, I mailed true and correct copies of the following documents:
RENEWED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
Exhibit A
were served on the following parties:
1: Nathan Rehn
United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10278
2: Micah F. Fergenson
United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278
Executed on June 10, 2026, 2026.

Case: 26-361, 06/15/2026, DktEntry: 34.1, Page 26 of 26
Respectfully submitted,
Tony