Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 148

roy*** contended fraud on the court requires a deliberate, court-directed deceptive scheme beyond ordinary Brady issues, and claimed the key question is which counts depended on the same money-flow/victim/proceeds theory shown through a possibly truncated expert graph. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** cited United States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389 (2d Cir. 1997), arguing that selective use of a misleading subset of materials can move from non-Brady disclosure into Brady or Napue territory if favorable counter-information was known but withheld and jurors were left with a false impression. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** stated that fraud on the court should be the final legal step, outlining a staged analysis (facts, government knowledge, disclosure, trial use, legal label) and distinguishing China-related prosecution records as potentially relevant only to reliability, not automatic innocence. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** argued 716-4 shows FBI awareness in 2022 of layered and mixed funds through many entities and accounts, including at least 28 Farm, 19 G Club, 16 Crane, and 14 Hamilton accounts, plus a documented chain from G Club client to Medici, MBI, BSI, then Deltec/Hamilton. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** claimed the document also indicates 716-4 is likely a probable-cause affidavit with explicit limits, and he argued it proves known complexity and commingling but not the full upstream RMB path, so he said Tony’s later ledger evidence would be needed for a fuller tracing narrative. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** contended that if Tony can prove the exact 716-4 content, what the expert removed, government knowledge, and which counts actually relied on the simplified flow, the issue could migrate from sentencing reliability to conviction-level trial contamination. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** contended the core claim is that investor status, loss calculations, proceeds designation, and financial remedies were treated as automatic in sequence, and argued that commingling and mixed transfers make those automatic links contestable. Community statements, not court findings.

joh*** alleged prosecution misinformation on three points in shorthand: victim count, fraud-victim loss, and the money-laundering flow chart. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** claimed the timeline is victim identification then loss quantification then proceeds characterization then restitution/forfeiture, and argued that disputed findings in early nodes are said to flow into later remedies if not corrected. Community statements, not court findings.

lon*** disputed whether appellate review could use fresh material beyond the trial record, framing the issue as a procedural boundary for the current posture. Community statements, not court findings.

kir*** claimed that appeals generally rely on the pretrial and trial record, arguing no fresh evidentiary record for conviction stage replacement. Community statements, not court findings.

lon*** claimed that the existing evidence already proves Guo’s innocence, a position participants treated as a legal conclusion rather than a separate adjudicated finding. Community statements, not court findings.

reb*** raised the disputed issue of whether proving no complete commingling is a strict prerequisite, asking if a defense showing of family funds in mixed pools can still satisfy harmless-error review. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** argued that commingling alone is neither automatic government win nor defense win, and claimed Banco Cafetero and United States v. Daugerdas, 837 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2016) and 892 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 2018), show traceability analysis, balances, and timing can preserve or weaken forfeiture claims. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** contended that larger lawful inflows are not enough by themselves, and argued the key appellate point is whether the government used a valid tracing method instead of a bare mixed-pool-to-family-conclusion inference. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** argued that Dkt. 5739 appears to consolidate asset fights into a compromise framework subject to Rule 9019 approval, and claimed the Aug 25, 2026 hearing is pivotal if third-party objections raise authority, property interests, and competing distribution claims. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** contended that Luc had already started recovery actions before final alter-ego rulings, citing Dkt. 5739 language saying he was still seeking rulings that certain entities were Guo alter egos or beneficially owned. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** summarized 5739 as a global split proposal between criminal forfeiture and estate pools, including a Mahwah sale split after expenses, a $2,540,087.05 split item for MOS, and a $152,716,104 estate-recovery schedule with 424 adversary proceedings, while reserving claims if forfeiture fails. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** claimed title in Taurus Fund LLC and pretrial coordination on Mahwah did not equal a prior adjudication, and argued the posture remained: Luc needed alter-ego/beneficial ownership proof, while the government separately claimed crime-purchased forfeitability. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** pointed to ECF No. 3370 filed Aug 5, 2024 and 2023 Mahwah settlement history, arguing these filings support early practical alignment in which Luc sought swift enforcement while government and trustee roles were still linked to pending trial status. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** contended that 11 U.S.C. 101(5) and Rule 3003 allow contingent/disputed claims to be filed before final alter-ego adjudication, but argued this does not automatically validate treating those claims as established truth for beneficiary or estate-control decisions. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** confirmed Arizona case figures of $3,508,872 from G-Service and $4,630,416.58 from Aeon recovered by MOS and said he could not confirm those same amounts were expressly in Dkt. 5739, warning against merging litigation buckets. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** contended that if those sums were independently recovered for MOS, a dispute could arise where estate characterization conflicts with prior recovery, and he said later objections might turn on phrases like independent ownership, prior recovery, judgment satisfaction, and double recovery. Community statements, not court findings.

roy*** argued that the strongest defense is ownership and prior adjudication evidence, not simply the absence of forfeiture, and claimed NPA-style concessions constrain government claims but do not itself erase Trustee powers under 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 548, or 550. Community statements, not court findings.