Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 108

joh*** cites roy*** contending that investors who transferred funds intended for the farm loan project can claim losses and seek relief in the Southern District or the Second Circuit because the project is an involved entity whose operators remain accountable.

joh*** asks whether that person was also an investor in Phoenix Farm.

ntp*** recounts merely depositing funds rather than joining A10 and asks how such funds are legally categorized.

yyy*** contends that presenting too many demands at once to the Second Circuit might prove excessively difficult.

yyy*** argues in favor of filing a CVRA motion to demand money directly from co-conspirators and defendants other than Guo.

yyy*** suggests citing specific filings by Ryan from the Second Circuit to place that evidence onto the Southern District docket and force the judge to review it.

kir*** describes individuals persecuted by the CCP as a result of Guo's alleged fraud as falling under the prosecution's category of secondary victims.

kir*** questions why those individuals ended up aligned with the defense.

kir*** contends that the alleged supporters represented by the defense are entirely classified as victims by the prosecution.

joh*** describes how bankruptcy trustee Luc and the prosecution framed involved companies as Guo's alter ego and G Enterprise to convince the jury, supported by witness testimony.

joh*** contends that the legal representative of Taurus was Guo's bodyguard and had no connection to the Guo family.

joh*** describes Luc attempting and failing to attribute Guo Qiang's corporate assets to Guo, resulting in an order to pay Guo Qiang's attorney fees.

mil*** recounts signing an agreement transferring Phoenix funds to Spice Mountain and states the completed transfer left the money with Changdao.

yyy*** shares a court docket record concerning Mountains of Spices LLC v. Lafrenz.

reb*** argues that depositing funds directly into Himalaya Exchange prevents the exchange from denying receipt.

spr*** contends that prosecutors counted 1,250 investors' funds toward sentencing loss without intending to reimburse them, distinguishing sentencing loss from restitution orders that exclude 1,198 individuals denying victimhood.

roy*** argues that Honeycutt v. United States, 21 U.S.C. § 853, Section 853(n), and Dkt. 716-4 limit forfeiture to personally obtained proceeds and prohibit joint and several liability across unproven alter egos.

joh*** contends that restitution was entirely replaced by forfeiture, leaving the 1,250 supporters without compensation.

reb*** contends that the government concealed that G series ownership by Guo was never independently proven and improperly used trustee-generated legal outcomes to prove RICO.

reb*** argues that the prosecution engaged in circular reasoning by using alleged conspiracies to prove conspiracy and G series ownership to prove ownership.

hel*** argues that excessive doubts and procedural injustice in the case warrant dismissal and a retrial.

kir*** states being unsure of the document number.

yyy*** contends that the Second Circuit must carefully address the more than ten mandamus petitions filed for the same case rather than easily dismissing them.

kir*** asks whether participants believe sentencing will still occur on Jun 29, 2026.

him*** speculates that the current state of the case is seventy percent driven by the Alliance, twenty percent by the CCP, and ten percent by the U.S. government.

joh*** points to a redacted privacy reference numbered 131.

roy*** shares an external social media post from platform X.

0x_*** recounts that Phoenix funds were transferred in mid-October 2020 to Gservice under Zhang Xin and Yun Jing, which led to a bank freeze and lawsuit CV2021-000495 to determine ownership.

joh*** argues that investors' intended purpose was the farm loan entity and that fraudsters must explain any intermediary transfers.

joh*** suggests that those involved in the farm loan can file private actions to seek the separation and return of their funds from the case.

joh*** argues that Guo entered a plea of not guilty and that the goal was never solely focused on reducing the sentence.

joh*** contends that having the case dismissed is fundamentally difficult and virtually impossible.

mia*** contends that only defendants have standing to appeal for acquittal on procedural grounds, precluding third parties from demanding dismissal or prosecutors from dropping charges.

yyy*** asks whether Second Circuit appellate documents will automatically become part of the case record following an appeal of the primary case.

mia*** argues that five mandamus petitions urge the appeals court to compel the Southern District to docket evidentiary motions and postpone sentencing to supplement records.

reb*** contends that the Second Circuit used judicial discretion to decline docketing detailed factual arguments, which should instead be filed directly in the Southern District.