Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — appeal · 2Cir ECF 26-361_dkt_34

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