# Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 031

Community discussion, batch 031 (Aug 29, 2025 – Sep 3, 2025), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Across Aug 29–Sep 3, 2025, this batch focused on how to pursue seized-funds recovery through federal procedure, with participants arguing between § 853(n) Pro Se filings, CVRA victim framing, and Petition for Remission strategies. Actual disputes centered on procedural standing, filing channels, and how aggressively to press claims. The discussion repeatedly referenced United States v. Fafalios, 919 F. Supp. 276 (S.D. Ohio 1996), filing 718-1, and form 388 logistics. Community statements, not court findings.

English reading guide and paraphrases; Chinese source messages remain authoritative.

## Group discussion on asset recovery options: Pro Se petitions versus Petition for Remission

Participants argued over whether to pursue recovery via Pro Se action under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) or through victim-style Petition for Remission, with contention focused on strategy and potential collateral effects. Community statements, not court findings.

- ntp***, Sep 2, 2025: A participant claimed someone was still pushing people to present themselves as victims, and linked a related social post to support that critique. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5fb36f6be715e6d02152)
- ntp***, Sep 2, 2025: The same participant shared another external message, continuing the complaint about victim-label advocacy. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa73317a861c4ff66516d)
- ntp***, Sep 2, 2025: Another participant said the exchange had turned into a public quarrel with Tang Ping, signaling further escalation. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2038fb0a60147b2f357b)
## Invoking Fafalios to support § 853(n) due process and handling unfiled motions

Participants contended that Fafalios supports stronger third-party procedural rights under § 853(n), and disputed which filing format should be used when courts or clerks appear unresponsive. Community statements, not court findings.

- reb***, Aug 31, 2025: One participant cited United States v. Fafalios, 919 F. Supp. 276 (S.D. Ohio 1996), and argued that § 853(n) is meant to let third parties independently present evidence, so docket refusal can amount to a due-process loss. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q137ae068b1eaf90975f7)
- rui***, Aug 31, 2025: Another participant asked which specific motion or document was being discussed in that legal argument. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1ed0c0a0d0461478a16f)
- rui***, Aug 31, 2025: The same participant responded that they would submit the filing in paper form on the motion day. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa64e01b5e201cf7c86f2)
## Debating contributor legal status: third party or amicus

Participants disputed whether community members without formal status qualified as third parties, or were better treated as amici, while contesting how far procedural complaints could be raised. Community statements, not court findings.

- sar***, Aug 30, 2025: A participant stated they were not HID but still claimed a genuine stakeholder interest in fairness and judicial integrity, and asked whether that should be accepted as a role in the process. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qba143b3ea90cfb100747)
- rui***, Aug 30, 2025: Another participant accepted that this framing was acceptable. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q06aac8fa02e1a4944742)
- rui***, Aug 30, 2025: A third participant challenged the classification as third party and suggested the person may be better characterized as amicus. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc6f965e80f286104c087)
## Dispute over court submission routes, email blocking, and contact points

Participants disputed the reliability of filing and outreach channels, including whether Pro Se documents were blocked through email and whether alternative phone or inbox methods should be used. Community statements, not court findings.

- ntp***, Aug 30, 2025: A participant asked where the ProSe@nysd.uscourts.gov filing email was located. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qca56f82682ce33dbd62b)
- ntp***, Aug 30, 2025: The same participant queried whether a particular contact number was the correct one and referenced a user. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q32c92674c990fc1a0a7f)
- ntp***, Aug 30, 2025: The participant then circulated an additional external reference while continuing the filing-channel dispute. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb9f66fa39151374ae9ff)
## Disputing victim-role versus Pro Se participation and report strategy

Participants argued over whether to proceed as victims, as third-party Pro Se claimants, or through broader objections, with contention over how to treat compensation requests versus false-claim challenges. Community statements, not court findings.

- sar***, Sep 3, 2025: A participant claimed for anyone who already transferred to farms, recovery follows the forfeiture route but others lacking clear payment records must use Pro Se, which can seek money and also oppose fraudulent claims, while warning that CVRA/claim language was being conflated with § 853(n). Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7c68e074f47d76884d0a)
- sar***, Sep 3, 2025: Another participant argued that Alliance and similar actors oppose victim-position filing and supported using a personal victim-style self-file instead of certain lawyers. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q562cb4d10f0ed959868e)
- sar***, Sep 3, 2025: The same participant reported the thread reached over 5,000 views in two days, showing substantial community engagement. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q760e8cd90418a66ae0d9)
## Exploring HDO reserve, white paper clauses, and CVRA or § 853(n) claims

Participants claimed document access and contract-language evidence mattered for asserting property rights, and disputed whether the white paper could support CVRA or § 853(n)-based arguments. Community statements, not court findings.

- goh***, Sep 3, 2025: One participant asked where the HDO/‘喜交所’ white paper could be obtained. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0969001a5225e0bdd38f)
- ntp***, Sep 3, 2025: Another participant replied that the website was down, asking where to find the document. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9cbac1ffdf2a89e3771a)
- goh***, Sep 3, 2025: A follow-up message asked whether anyone had a backup copy. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q54b78a46569026e68e51)
## Reviewing filing 718-1 and hearing attachments for substitution proceedings

Participants disputed whether the 718-1 attachment changed the hearing record and whether source documents on nfsc were comparable to earlier versions before non-participants submit arguments. Community statements, not court findings.

- chu***, Sep 3, 2025: A participant asked whether 718-1, the substitution-hearing record, differed from earlier versions and whether the prosecutor's section was broader. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q0bb487edb837374ab95e)
- rui***, Sep 3, 2025: Another participant asked if the referenced record was from the nfsc site. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qca9f9029f3981716d9d0)
- chu***, Sep 3, 2025: A participant confirmed that this was indeed the source. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc84e3c46a88f4764ee2a)
## Borrowers and investors discuss recovery routes and feasibility of court claims

Participants contended about practical enforcement channels, costs, and whether filing choices could still produce recoveries, with disputes over expectations of what was actually achievable. Community statements, not court findings.

- hon***, Sep 1, 2025: One participant asserted that submitting form 388 requires an additional fee. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc2fe6d52c6c0708a4274)
- chu***, Sep 1, 2025: Another participant shared a relevant social-media message in the same recovery-implementation discussion. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa99c0aaa664f995ee334)
- hon***, Sep 2, 2025: A participant reflected that many in the case were paying fees and struggling in court with little clarity on recovery, noting financial strain and uncertainty. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q93a8b0b5b97d3312a870)
## Dispute over creditor list entries, victim definition, and project-level allegations

Participants disputed identity handling in creditor records and whether listed names affect who can credibly claim status, with continued contention over what counts as a complete filing. Community statements, not court findings.

- rim***, Sep 1, 2025: A participant pointed out a nickname in the creditor table and suggested checking the correct name entry. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa8d07fe9c0269ce0d050)
- rui***, Sep 1, 2025: Another participant responded that the name was not present in their check. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qeb0fe7c47ebe83b8a964)
- rui***, Sep 1, 2025: A further reply said they had filed as a creditor but used a different alias-name format. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q39156a4f90d49de47166)
## Back-and-forth on bankruptcy creditors, RICO accusations, and court-report credibility

Participants disputed case quality and conduct in a bankruptcy context, including whether legal actions had failed, and whether rivals’ conduct or filings warranted criticism, with contention spilling into motive accusations. Community statements, not court findings.

- rim***, Sep 1, 2025: A participant remarked that the case contained many loopholes. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q6814647f8f13d2077f84)
- rim***, Sep 1, 2025: Another participant observed that one user did not appear to understand these issues. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qeabf715b59b18498aa9c)
- rui***, Sep 1, 2025: A sharp reply accused that user of inaction and framed the criticism with explicit emotional/insulting language. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qeca4bef12f9f4aab0e2e)