Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): community discussion 156
Community discussion, batch 156 (Sep 3, 2026 – Sep 7, 2026), 1,028 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Discussions centered on the aftermath of Guo's case and key associates' legal jeopardy. Participants debated rumors that figures like Brother Screw were detained in China, contesting whether such detentions undermine the prosecution's victim narrative on appeal. Procedurally, they disputed the scope of Judge Torres's rulings limiting political testimony, third-party interventions under Section 853(n) and the CVRA, and farm leaders' settlements. Meanwhile, arguments erupted over trustee fund distributions, currency swap tracing, and internal factional conflicts.
Firsthand participant accounts and investment experiences, preserved with dates, sources and reply context.
Machine-generated English reading guide and paraphrases. Follow the Chinese source links to check each statement; paraphrases are not direct quotations.
Disagreements over Rumors Surrounding Brother Screw's Disappearance, Detention, Legal Status, and Personal Risk
3 cited messages · Sep 5, 2026 – Sep 5, 2026
Participants dispute the credibility of reports concerning Brother Screw's detention in China and discuss the associated personal and legal risks.
Participant hah*** posts a message containing no text.
Chinese original · hah*** · Sep 5, 2026Participant kir*** asks participant hah*** when the one million dollars allegedly owed will be repaid.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 5, 2026Participant sar*** contends that the Alliance faction behaves arrogantly and refuses to admit fault, likening their behavior to the Chinese Communist Party.
Chinese original · sar*** · Sep 5, 2026
Debate on the Impact of a Pro Se Petitioner's Alleged Domestic Arrest on the Prosecution's Victim Narrative, Restitution, and Appellate Review
3 cited messages · Sep 5, 2026 – Sep 5, 2026
Participants debate how confirming a pro se petitioner's arrest in China would influence federal forfeiture proceedings, restitution, and appellate review in the Second Circuit.
Participant kir*** argues that if pro se petitioner Chunk Chyi's reported arrest in China is procedurally confirmed, it would dismantle the prosecution's victim narrative, highlight due process issues in the Second Circuit under docket numbers 26-77 and 26-1853, and complicate Section 853(n) forfeiture and remission of the 889 million dollars.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 5, 2026Participant kir*** asserts to participant joh*** that participants cin*** and may*** urgently trying to phone Brother Screw shows that serious trouble has occurred.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 5, 2026Participant zha*** asks whether so much information has already been exposed.
Chinese original · zha*** · Sep 5, 2026
Disagreements over Legal Interpretations of Judge Torres's Rulings Limiting Political Background Defenses and Testimony (Dkt. 319–386)
3 cited messages · Sep 3, 2026 – Sep 3, 2026
Participants examine trial orders and defense submissions from Dkt. 319 through Dkt. 386 regarding the boundaries of Judge Torres's limits on political defense evidence.
Participant roy*** outlines a procedural timeline spanning Dkt. 319 on May 2, 2024, Dkt. 338 on May 16, 2024, and Dkt. 380 on Jun 24, 2024, contending that Judge Torres did not issue a blanket ban on political evidence under Rule 403 but partially eased restrictions on expert Paul Doran regarding CCP opposition and overseas police stations.
Chinese original · roy*** · Sep 3, 2026Participant roy*** contends that orders Dkt. 338, Dkt. 364/365, and Dkt. 380 allowed political evidence reflecting Guo's state of mind while barring broader geopolitical debates, noting that DX Stip.0001 and transcript pages 402:9–405:11 had already introduced CCP harassment to the jury.
Chinese original · roy*** · Sep 3, 2026Participant roy*** points to the Jul 1, 2024 defense opposition at Dkt. 386 in case 23-cr-118 responding to Dkt. 385, arguing that the defense framed its position around the CCP coercing investors into submitting false complaints rather than claiming federal prosecutors were foreign agents.
Chinese original · roy*** · Sep 3, 2026
Discussion on Legal Grounds for Third-Party Intervention (853(n)/CVRA), Independent Private Prosecution Authority, and Procedural Boundaries
3 cited messages · Sep 6, 2026 – Sep 6, 2026
Participants debate whether third parties possess procedural rights to intervene in criminal forfeiture proceedings under Section 853(n) and the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Participant hah*** posts a message containing no text.
Chinese original · hah*** · Sep 6, 2026Participant him*** argues that the judge's order 528 authorized third parties to intervene in the case under Section 853(n) and the CVRA.
Chinese original · him*** · Sep 6, 2026Participant him*** asks the interlocutor whether they intend to oppose the judge.
Chinese original · him*** · Sep 6, 2026
Controversy over Bankruptcy Settlement Proposals, Trustee Retained Funds, and the Classification of G-Series Investments as Claims
3 cited messages · Sep 7, 2026 – Sep 7, 2026
Participants dispute the disposition of retained funds by the bankruptcy trustee and whether civil settlements are intended to shield associates from criminal proceedings.
Participant kir*** shares a link to an X post by user weiwei603438482.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 7, 2026Participant kir*** remarks that another issue remains to be addressed.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 7, 2026Participant joh*** contends that parties are settling now to prevent Luc from appearing in the criminal proceedings.
Chinese original · joh*** · Sep 7, 2026
Analysis of Currency Swap Paths, Asset Tracing, and the Recovery Dilemma for Domestic Investors
3 cited messages · Sep 7, 2026 – Sep 7, 2026
Participants analyze RMB lending operations and informal currency swaps used to move investment capital, debating whether these transactions complicate tracing.
Participant ntp*** recalls the RMB lending arrangements run by Old Park during the Xi-Korea farm period.
Chinese original · ntp*** · Sep 7, 2026Participant joh*** argues to participant spr*** that the topic is merely being used to divert attention.
Chinese original · joh*** · Sep 7, 2026Participant joh*** contends that such an arrangement is functionally equivalent to an underground currency swap.
Chinese original · joh*** · Sep 7, 2026
Speculation on Farm Leaders' Legal Exposure, Non-Prosecution Agreements, and the Impact of the Long Island Civil Settlement on the Second Circuit Appeal
3 cited messages · Sep 6, 2026 – Sep 7, 2026
Participants speculate on the legal exposure of farm leaders, non-prosecution deals, and statutory detention limits under criminal law.
Participant kir*** shares a link to an X post by user ruienxiaoge3.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 6, 2026Participant joh*** contends that settlements indicate prosecutors are preparing to abandon three hundred core operatives, claiming Long Island only reappeared because he recognized his own jeopardy.
Chinese original · joh*** · Sep 7, 2026Participant kir*** states to participant may*** that the maximum detention period in criminal cases is thirty-seven days.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 7, 2026
Debate on Investor Psychology and Deception: Voluntary Participation, Perceptions of Hicoin Value, and Pyramid Scheme Logic
3 cited messages · Sep 3, 2026 – Sep 6, 2026
Participants debate the psychological factors driving investment in Hicoin, questioning whether individuals were deliberately misled or motivated by expectations of wealth.
Participant cin*** contends that the community will eventually collapse once members realize Ryan is deceiving them.
Chinese original · cin*** · Sep 3, 2026Participant may*** asks when their Hicoin will surpass Bitcoin.
Chinese original · may*** · Sep 4, 2026Participant may*** argues that Guo's wealth-building promises succeeded by preying on human weaknesses.
Chinese original · may*** · Sep 6, 2026
Skepticism over Fundraising and Settlement Bargaining Amid Community Infighting, Loyalty Tests, and Accusations
3 cited messages · Sep 4, 2026 – Sep 6, 2026
Participants engage in internal conflicts over financial transactions, mutual accusations of hostility, and claims regarding custody limits for Brother Screw.
Participant kir*** asks participant cin*** when the money will be transferred.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 5, 2026Participant cin*** asks why members are being so harsh toward Lindong.
Chinese original · cin*** · Sep 4, 2026Participant kir*** contends that Brother Screw can be held in custody for a maximum of thirty-seven days.
Chinese original · kir*** · Sep 6, 2026