Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 064

A participant argued against opening a separate bankruptcy battleground for Guo-related actors, doubting whether there is anyone capable of giving reliable strategy guidance in that forum. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed the immediate focus should be to sort out the criminal case first. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked whether discussing criminal-court issues inside bankruptcy court is appropriate. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant disputed the scale of possible reversals and asked how many bankruptcy or criminal rulings could be overturned. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked how the matter got there, signaling uncertainty over the procedural path to the appealed posture. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed that from a strategic perspective the side is already considered to have won. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed that if an investment is treated as forfeited property by Luc, it can still support a claimant position in related disputes. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant disputed procedural handling and argued that the process was not compliant. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed third-party claimants are those who are asking to be paid. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant cited an ECF filing on Dec 17, 2025 in SDNY before Judge Torres requesting a second roughly three-month continuance of sentencing from Jan 20, 2026, citing material volume, complexity, language needs, and legal-financial constraints. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that third-party motions would surface many issues, while also doubting Judge Torres would allow a broad tactical use of that process. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant summarized ECF 776 as an adversarial response to delay allegations, emphasizing that it is not meant to relitigate trial issues and that sentencing includes non-trial matters tied to 64 TB discovery claims. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed victims or third parties need not wait for sentencing to begin forfeiture proceedings. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed third-party motions can be handled before sentencing. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant disputed published notice availability by asserting the August 11, 2025 forfeiture order existed but was not found on the government site. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed the dispute is framed as a Brady issue involving allegedly withheld favorable statements. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant referenced a German remittance document linked to case number 1344 as one contested reason for questioning the evidentiary set. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed ECF 780 rebuts delay and misconduct allegations, contesting that this is a fifth continuance, insisting 64 TB review remains incomplete, and arguing forfeiture process timing has been policy-driven rather than solely defense-caused since Aug 11, 2025. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that in bankruptcy, victims can qualify as creditors, potential creditors, parties in interest, or claimants, and excluding them would be institutionally incoherent. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant contended judges are remaining silent on case topics and that this silence is itself a critical signal. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked what legal term applies to alleged judicial differential treatment, framing it as a bias or fairness argument. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant contended that Guo was not the CEO. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed he served only as a consultant and spokesperson. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant disputed whether he was merely a G-series investor or a self-funded market actor, and whether losses resulted from fake promotion by insiders. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant asked whether Lady May is not in Luc’s possession. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued that summoning Luc should be a priority and questioned why counsel is not pressing that. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed at least one actor—either prosecutors or Luc—must have committed misconduct. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant argued the case has exposed systemic shortcomings in U.S. legal accountability and could have international reputational consequences. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant contended the current rhetoric is a repackaged deception tactic, using dismissive labeling language rather than substantive legal reasoning. Community statements, not court findings.

A participant claimed to understand why counsel did not emphasize second-circuit issues. Community statements, not court findings.