# Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok): English community reading guides

Community statements, not court findings.

[Browse topics](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/topics/markdown)

## [Batch 156](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000156)

Community discussion, batch 156 (Sep 3, 2026 – Sep 6, 2026), 438 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Sep 3–6, 2026, thread moved from custody duration and re-arrest risk to legal-process disputes, mixing custody/fate speculation with evidentiary review. Participants contest whether Twitter posts are evidence, whether ACA funds follow Guo or Yu, and whether Torres’s motion rulings show partial relevance limits or judge bias. They repeatedly cite Dkt.319/338/380, Dkt.364/365, and Dkt.385–387, and cases 24-05249 and 26-1853 as unsettled points. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000156/markdown)

## [Batch 155](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000155)

Community discussion, batch 155 (Aug 31, 2026 – Sep 3, 2026), 1,016 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From August 31 to September 3, 2026, discussion focused on whether settlement and forfeiture can be separated from bankruptcy handling, whether venue/procedure across Southern District, bankruptcy, and criminal tracks was proper, and how MOS, gclub, and farm funds were attributed. Participants disputed who should be prosecuted and whether losses were 1.5 billion, 1.1 billion, 900 million, or 1.4 billion. Rule 32(i)(3)(B), §2B1.1, Gall v. United States, Rita v. United States, and filing 733 were cited. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000155/markdown)

## [Batch 154](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000154)

Community discussion, batch 154 (Aug 27, 2026 – Aug 31, 2026), 981 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Across Aug 27, 2026–Aug 31, 2026, batch-000154 discussions focused on G Club ownership using case 23-cr-118 materials, including Dkt.597 and Yvette Wang’s ECF 488, to challenge claims that all inflows were Guo-controlled. Participants debated whether bankruptcy outcomes and criminal forfeiture under §853(n) should diverge over G Club assets, and whether 858 claims justify treating those assets as personal. Disputes repeatedly returned to service, standing, and evidence reliability, while no unified finding emerged. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000154/markdown)

## [Batch 153](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000153)

Community discussion, batch 153 (Aug 27, 2026 – Aug 27, 2026), 260 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Batch 153 (Aug 27, 2026) centers on two disputes: who actually controlled key entities and funds, and how forfeiture amounts should be attributed. Participants argue over a “boss” label versus documented operational authority, with focus on Himalaya Exchange, G Club, and related projects. They dispute how Count 3, Rule 2004 subpoena timing, Dkt.940/2331, Dkt.803, Dkt.822, Dkt.826-1, GXZ26, and later judgments in 720 and 858 support allocation between identified transactions and broader gross-inflow totals around $5.17b and $8.89b. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000153/markdown)

## [Batch 152](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000152)

Community discussion, batch 152 (Aug 25, 2026 – Aug 27, 2026), 281 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. The thread disputes the base for forfeiture in Wang and Guo, tracking a 1.4 billion plea against a 1.3 billion trial accounting and later 889 million after the 411 million SEC-related adjustment, while questioning how much is personally obtained, laundering property, and uncollected balance. Participants cite Rule 32.2 and harmless-error concerns, and contest the effects of Dkt.469, Dkts. 488/720/858, bankruptcy Dkts 5739/5777/5747/5769, and alter-ego litigation in Adv. Proc. 24-5249, Taurus/Mahwah, and 26-1853. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000152/markdown)

## [Batch 151](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000151)

Community discussion, batch 151 (Aug 24, 2026 – Aug 25, 2026), 230 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Across Aug 24–25, 2026, participants debate two themes: whether HEX-Himalaya onboarding and HID consent indicate an organized referral chain, and whether forfeiture treatment in the Guo/Wang filings is coherent. They contest how far evidence supports active recruitment versus verifiable authorization, and whether claims can shift between third-party rights and victim remedies without double counting. Key references cited include ECF 212, 229, 478, 469, 488, 720, 858, 859, GXZ26, and 716-4. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000151/markdown)

## [Batch 150](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000150)

Community discussion, batch 150 (Aug 21, 2026 – Aug 24, 2026), 459 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Batch 150 (Aug 21-24, 2026) focuses on money-trace disputes, procedural sequencing, and identity framing. Participants dispute whether 716-4 and filings like Dkt.858 and ECF 612, 643, 676, 734, 223, and 493 prove ownership facts or only describe flows, and whether CVRA, Section 853(n), and Section 3771 claims can run alongside forfeiture and restitution/remission discussions. The core conflict is whether G-series and Himalaya funds follow a single forfeiture narrative or remain contested across criminal, bankruptcy, and third-party ownership tracks. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000150/markdown)

## [Batch 149](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000149)

Community discussion, batch 149 (Aug 20, 2026 – Aug 21, 2026), 177 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Between Aug 20 and 21, 2026, participants tracked two threads: CIPA disclosure and forfeiture over Guo-related proceeds. They dispute when CIPA objections became viable and whether sealed material handling in ECF 111, 340-341, 353-356, 783, and 805 should have been reopened at sentencing. They also contest whether Dkt. 858’s $889M figure under §853(n) and Honeycutt complies with United States v. Elias and United States v. Guan after control-based findings. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000149/markdown)

## [Batch 148](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000148)

Community discussion, batch 148 (Aug 19, 2026 – Aug 20, 2026), 193 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Across Aug 19–20, 2026, discussion focused on whether Dkt. 716-4 visualization simplification supports only sentencing objections or broader reversal arguments. The main disagreement was over disclosure levels—Brady/Napue versus fraud on the court—and whether victim count, loss, proceeds, and tracing assumptions can justify downstream remedies. Participants also contested Dkt. 5739’s allocation framework, with references to ECF No. 3370, 124 F.3d 389 (United States v. Vozzella), 837 F.3d 212/892 F.3d 545 (United States v. Daugerdas), and 23-cr-118. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000148/markdown)

## [Batch 147](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000147)

Community discussion, batch 147 (Aug 19, 2026 – Aug 19, 2026), 167 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Batch 147 on Aug 19, 2026 centers on a split between using Dkt. 5739 to seek vacate/remand of conviction-sentencing-forfeiture and a narrower strategy limited to sentencing discretion. Participants dispute the legal force of the “thousands of victims” claim versus validated victim lists, and whether delayed disclosure, cross-sovereign ownership conflicts, and filings in Dkt. 291, Dkt. 388, Dkt. 804, Dkt. 810, and Dkt. 5744/5745 plus 25-3046 Dkt. 39 support broader due process and evidentiary error arguments. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000147/markdown)

## [Batch 146](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000146)

Community discussion, batch 146 (Aug 15, 2026 – Aug 19, 2026), 903 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Aug 15–19, 2026, participants debated how criminal, bankruptcy, and appeal procedures in case 26-1853 could be coordinated, with recurring conflict over private-prosecution mechanics, service deadlines, and whether forfeiture can align with restitution and recovery timing. They repeatedly challenged whether bankruptcy creditors and criminal victims are legally identical, referencing 5739, case 870, FRAP 10(e), and Torres’ ECF 691 to argue about asset boundaries and appellate strategy under unresolved facts. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000146/markdown)

## [Batch 145](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000145)

Community discussion, batch 145 (Aug 12, 2026 – Aug 15, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Aug 12–15, 2026, participants debate Guo’s case under Rule 32.2 and § 853(n)/(i), mainly whether delayed filing in the second hearing is procedural error. They dispute evidentiary proof of control, whether a § 853(n) win changes the $889 million proceeds framework tied to the June 29, 2026 sentencing figure, and whether restitution can outrank bankruptcy recovery. Source authenticity and identity narratives were repeatedly used to harden factions. Community statements, not court findings. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000145/markdown)

## [Batch 144](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000144)

Community discussion, batch 144 (Aug 9, 2026 – Aug 12, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Aug 9 to Aug 12, 2026, the thread moved from Guo-related identity framing into procedural dispute. Members argued whether social posts could stand in for court records, and whether PACER-confirmed details about mandates, recall motions, vacate motions, and denied stays were actionable. They also argued over audio authenticity and third-party rights, while debating Mahwah/Taurus-linked forfeiture, asset-priority claims, and whether political pressure could alter judicial outcomes around case file number 868. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000144/markdown)

## [Batch 143](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000143)

Community discussion, batch 143 (Aug 6, 2026 – Aug 9, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Batch 143 (Aug 6, 2026 to Aug 9, 2026, 1000 messages) shows a divided thread on the Guo matter. Participants dispute whether Gaer’s move into the second-cycle criminal process is tactical opportunism or a rights-driven restitution strategy, and whether Dkt. 478 and Dkt. 676 reflect mixed theories under 21 U.S.C. §§853(i), 853(n), 18 U.S.C. §3771, and Rule 41(g). They also argue over third-party identity, filing timing, and the interaction of criminal forfeiture with bankruptcy issues involving HCHK, Trustee Luc Despins, and 9019 settlement mechanics. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000143/markdown)

## [Batch 142](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000142)

Community discussion, batch 142 (Aug 2, 2026 – Aug 6, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Discussion moved from a sell-house/sell-dream fraud-versus-recovery framing to second-circuit appeal logistics, counsel status, and deadline risk. Participants argued over whether alleged defaults can affect third-party forfeiture claims, with recurring contention on §853(n), CJA filing mechanics, and case references 26-1853 and 26-1296. Others disputed the evidentiary value of social media, live streams, and shared links, while legal posters focused on 18 U.S.C. §3661, 28 U.S.C. §2255, and Rule 32 standards. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000142/markdown)

## [Batch 141](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000141)

Community discussion, batch 141 (Jul 29, 2026 – Aug 2, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Batch 141 concerns whether second-appeal defects can be cured and whether facts can be reopened. Participants dispute Form B timing, counsel substitution, and whether counsel gaps and record limits forfeit remedies. They also contest asset-control and forfeiture: some tie fees/property to personal control, while others support criminal forfeiture, bankruptcy, and third-party return. Evidence credibility is the core disagreement over social posts, screenshots, calls, and filings, with references to ECF 2174, ECF 848/26-1296, and Dkt. 866. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000141/markdown)

## [Batch 140](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000140)

Community discussion, batch 140 (Jul 27, 2026 – Jul 29, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Jul 27, 2026 to Jul 29, 2026, the discussion focused on the Guo case’s financial fallout: whether refunds were possible without a full reversal and how seized assets map to losses. Participants argued whether the conduct was RICO conspiracy, embezzlement, or civil damage, and whether appeal timing or retrial pathways could alter recovery. They also disputed controlling responsibility and challenged the reliability of evidence and identity-based legitimacy claims. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000140/markdown)

## [Batch 139](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000139)

Community discussion, batch 139 (Jul 24, 2026 – Jul 27, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Batch 139 (July 24, 2026 to July 27, 2026) shows community dispute over U.S. forfeiture reach, Tony/Sarah materials, disclosure obligations, and who qualifies as third-party claimants or amici. They contest whether sovereignty framing blocks enforcement, whether Guo’s boss role proves ownership, and whether IAC or vacate/emergency-stay paths can materially change appellate posture. Repeated references center on 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A)(B), 853(i), and remission implications. No extra docket or ECF identifiers appear in the supplied messages. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000139/markdown)

## [Batch 138](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000138)

Community discussion, batch 138 (Jul 21, 2026 – Jul 24, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. From Jul 21–24, 2026, the thread split between appeal procedure and identity-politics around Guo. Participants argued over second-circuit timing, third-party participation, evidence admissibility, and whether second-circuit relief is realistic. They disputed standards tied to Brady, jury-instruction error, and structural error, and how Baker v. Carr, Political Question Doctrine, and separation-of-powers analysis might affect jurisdictional discretion on foreign-security claims. No court holding is confirmed. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000138/markdown)

## [Batch 137](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000137)

Community discussion, batch 137 (Jul 19, 2026 – Jul 21, 2026), 1,000 messages, on the Guo Wengui / Miles Guo (Ho Wan Kwok) case. Across this batch, discussion in the Guo Wen Gui case moved from blame narratives involving Qingteng, Ryan, and allied accounts toward technical disputes over the alleged phone exchange and self-prosecution letter. Members argued over authenticity, procedural legality, and what the second circuit might change, especially sentencing, forfeiture, and record treatment. They also clashed over whether Wang and GTV developments affected scope, with many claims framed as procedural manipulation rather than proven outcomes. Community statements, not court findings.

[English Markdown](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/batches/batch-000137/markdown)

[Next page](https://mubeitech.com/en/discussions/markdown?page=2)