# Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 036

Community discussion, batch 036 (Sep 10, 2025 – Sep 13, 2025), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Sep 10 to Sep 13, 2025, batch 36 focused on filings 739, 742, 744, 745, and 747 with references to 724 and 733. Participants argued over whether strategy should prioritize criminal reversal routes (Rule 29/33, appeal claims, misconduct) versus 21 U.S.C. § 853 asset-control remedies, and whether Remission alone applied. They also disputed source handling, identity claims, and whether actions were legal advocacy or political pressure. Community statements, not court findings.

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

## Members disputed the authenticity of filing signatories and identity matching for specific participants

Participants contested who authored filings and whether certain signatory links were trustworthy, while others downplayed the identity issue as nonessential. Community statements, not court findings.

- ntp***, Sep 10, 2025: A masked speaker asked whether the prosecution informant was effectively the Alliance, questioning source credibility. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd0f182a1325c08a6863f)
- chu***, Sep 10, 2025: Another participant replied that the material increasingly looked prosecution-driven. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1d4d0adba421f532f604)
- rui***, Sep 10, 2025: A third participant downplayed those identity claims, saying they were not central. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q828bfb753dec27a55fd5)
## Participants debated motions 739 and 742, alleging selective quotations and potential damage to victim-list treatment

Participants argued that portions of motions were being framed through selective or politicized interpretation, with concern that this could contaminate victim characterization or outcomes. Community statements, not court findings.

- hon***, Sep 10, 2025: A participant criticized the rhetoric around the filing context as politically charged and accusatory. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q5f8f30715b08d6a9abb5)
- him***, Sep 10, 2025: Another participant accused document 793 of using internet hearsay in a clipped or decontextualized way. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q50fa70ad3e3e8ea38454)
- rui***, Sep 10, 2025: A participant claimed the pressure on Guo was being produced by the same opposing camp. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q21355d5d605aab77d4b8)
## Discussion on filing a 21 U.S.C. § 853 motion to place assets under independent third-party control

Participants contended that a 853(g)/(i) motion could ask for independent custody to stop dissipation, while also acknowledging strong judicial discretion in practice. Community statements, not court findings.

- reb***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant set out a 853 filing plan citing 21 U.S.C. § 853(g),(i), Rule 32.2(b)(2)(A), asset-loss evidence, and the possibility of court-appointed independent custody. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q06dccbd95f36cee29636)
- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant insisted Luc had already harmed victims and that the 853 interests were therefore clear. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb209464bf50494099490)
- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant stated they would not let the effort be withdrawn. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qedc662eff67157cc809c)
## Debate over the Remission route and victim-claim pathways in motion 742 under 853 procedures

Participants disputed whether motion 742 treated Remission as the sole remedy and debated whether broader claimant positioning under 853 was being narrowed. Community statements, not court findings.

- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: One participant objected that motion 742 was presented as if Remission were the only compensation path. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qbcdb5f703f089ac2f4e2)
- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant argued that such a narrow remedy approach would effectively silence all victims. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf2293ccb3e467183ea1a)
- reb***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant advised adding concrete evidence, including document 724, directly to the court record. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q41f466acd6c7aaf2638b)
## Debate on where trustee-controlled funds came from, government-prosecutor links, and legal response strategy

Participants disputed the source mix of spent funds and questioned whether they were Luc’s forfeitable assets, Guo’s funds, or fund money while considering prosecution-trustee dynamics. Community statements, not court findings.

- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant asked whether Luc’s wasteful spending came from Luc’s forfeited property, Guo-related funds, or another fund source. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qeb0a3a313ea0f2b424a2)
- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant asked for clarity about the so-called legal fund. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc331ee5d2926f53a11d4)
- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant commented that Grok appeared rigid, signaling distrust of available workflows. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe052d46d62fb8c436c5d)
## Dispute over prosecutorial misconduct, appeals, and Rule 29/Rule 33 reversal options

Participants argued for and against different post-conviction pathways, including Rule 29, Rule 33, and misconduct claims, while noting different procedural consequences for future prosecution. Community statements, not court findings.

- ntp***, Sep 11, 2025: One participant argued that pressure should target prosecutorial handling and asset sale dynamics rather than direct confrontation, doubting direct tactical value against government actors. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q24d5f9a96d71caf06943)
- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant laid out multiple reversal routes—appeal, Rule 29, Rule 33, and misconduct—and argued that Rule 29 and misconduct differ in whether reprosecution is possible. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q96ff33ab20fb4035d1b0)
- hon***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant asked what “716” referred to, introducing procedural confusion into the thread. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd679ded91af19247ad3b)
## Argument over whether the farm owner was a principal or a co-conspirator

Participants disputed role labels, with one side calling the farm owner a principal and another noting community reaction dynamics around prior naming and identity handling. Community statements, not court findings.

- hon***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant claimed a prior chart had a logical error and that the farm owner was a principal, not merely a conspirator. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q39bdb7ae19fce169cad5)
- hah***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant recalled that early naming in a related context involved only one identified actor. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q61f3067c69d95fc93ff5)
- ntp***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant characterized their counterpart’s response as expected behavior. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q9a8e0feff5a1a75f362d)
## Assessment of motions 742 and 744 regarding victim status, conspiracy allegations, and independent third-party relief

Participants argued over whether motions 742 and 744 should center on victim restitution versus reversal, citing motion 733 language about removing Luc-related parties and returning assets. Community statements, not court findings.

- rod***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant dismissed 742’s position as too narrow, saying Luc and allies should be removed first if no broader remedy is offered. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qd2026b449bf7c777fcb3)
- rod***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant argued that motion 733 was focused on ejecting Luc and collaborators and returning money to victims rather than seeking reversal. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qdf65bea42aa14b9bd329)
- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant challenged the appropriateness of framing victim issues as an appeal claim in that context. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf60d0af72720f1ca0174)
## Procedural sharing on pro se submission, clerk screening, and technical filing issues

Participants contended with practical filing barriers, including clerk-facing submission issues, email access restrictions, and technology steps for court-related communications. Community statements, not court findings.

- zha***, Sep 10, 2025: A participant suggested switching to a different email account after being blocked from delivery. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q716d082ce6fb42e50b8d)
- rui***, Sep 12, 2025: A participant reported that filing 747 had been issued. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qc024b604a464617b46e3)
- reb***, Sep 13, 2025: Another participant shared a workaround for getting a communication app installed through a nonstandard package source due to technical friction. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qa7d06487a236c23be8bd)
## Debate over whether community aims were legal redress or political objectives, with procedural justice as the core concern

Participants disputed the movement’s purpose, contrasting calls for immediate criminal litigation with warnings about political framing and uncertain state capacity versus willful non-use. Community statements, not court findings.

- rui***, Sep 11, 2025: A participant called for treating the conduct as fraud and moving toward formal case prosecution steps. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qed1b60115972da54baba)
- rod***, Sep 11, 2025: Another participant argued that broad overturn attempts could be politically and fiscally damaging. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qb035ec2cde2c096e05e4)
- rui***, Sep 13, 2025: A final participant challenged whether perceived weakness reflected lack of ability or deliberate non-use of capacity. Community statements, not court findings. [Chinese original](https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q896fec4d28430519b413)