Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 154

roy*** describes an Apr 4, 2025 verified petition in case 23-cr-118 (Dkt. 597) under Section 853(n) addressing ECF 488 forfeiture assets, arguing that G Club funds from over 8,000 members belong to G Club and beneficial owner Haoran He rather than Guo's personal assets.

roy*** contends that the sworn petition separates G Club members' payments and entity operations from Guo, challenging the assumption that all company assets constituted Guo's personal control prior to the 858 decision.

roy*** argues that while the government evidenced a multi-tiered banking chain exceeding $10 million involving other signatories, extending such tiered control into Guo's personal control over all gross inflows requires transaction-by-transaction proof.

roy*** contends that documented bank control chains place other individuals at the account, beneficial ownership, and signatory levels, while evidence against Guo primarily reflects strategic direction and family benefits.

roy*** argues that direct financial control indicators for HEX and Hamilton point to Je, contending that legally distinct strategic influence cannot be automatically converted into personal direct control merely because Guo was labeled the overall boss.

him*** contends that Luc has still not proven in the bankruptcy proceeding that the G series is Guo's alter ego.

him*** argues that aside from the judge finding the Mahwah estate belongs to Guo, Luc has failed to prove that other G Club assets belong to Guo.

him*** contends that G Club's objection motion in bankruptcy court specifically asserts that Luc failed to prove all G Club assets belong to Guo.

him*** argues that bankruptcy proceedings directly affect members who have G Club funds and are pursuing Section 853(n) petitions or remission in criminal court.

him*** contends that if G Club assets are distributed by Luc in bankruptcy, G Club members will have no funds left to recover through Section 853(n) in criminal court.

him*** contends that G Club opposes distributing assets to Luc, maintaining that property should instead go to criminal court for Section 853(n) claimants or remission victims.

kir*** contends that hah*** does not even dare to serve a summons.

kir*** disputes hah***'s claims regarding summonses, mocking hah*** for failing to serve one after being challenged in the Second Circuit by Ryan.

kir*** demands that hah*** produce the summons.

hah*** shares a message containing no text.

kir*** argues that after all this time, the opposing party still does not know whom they are suing.

kir*** contends that whenever Tony or prosecutorial forfeiture procedure issues are raised, him*** breaks down and changes the subject.

kir*** states that the refund process remains unclear.

wen*** recounts seeking a refund from the organizers.

wen*** recounts demanding a refund to the original payment method while not knowing whom to contact.

ntp*** shares a social media post and asks whether two circulated reports refer to the same matter.

ntp*** shares an external social media video link related to the discussions.

spr*** shares an external social media link without adding further commentary.

him*** contends that the ultimate objective of the legal case is to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party.

kir*** contends that hah*** should only speak once a summons has actually been served.

kir*** disputes may***'s stance by alleging that someone is refusing to admit being imprisoned.

joh*** argues that Tony's sovereign conflict and the private CVRA claim unexpectedly disrupted the foundational framework of jurisdictional sovereignty and forfeiture.

joh*** contends that the S3 indictment set a predetermined framework that prosecutors advanced through witnesses, Wang's guilty plea, and her agreement to forfeiture.

kir*** argues that while conviction and arrest present no conflict, conflict arises under Rule 32.