Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 1 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Pagei1of21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`1
`
`!|
`
`||
`
`THIRD-PARTY PETITION TO
`ADJUDICATE PETITIONER’S
`INTEREST IN FORFEITED
`PROPERTY AND TO AMEND THE
`|
`PRELIMINARY ORDER OF
`|
`FORFEITURE
`|
`|. VERIFIED CLAIM OF
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`= ¥.5
`
`YVETTE WANG
`a/k/a “Yanping,”
`a/k/a “Y,”
`
`Defendant.
`
`S4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)
`
`|!
`
`PetitionerP| (“Petitioner”) files this Third-Party Petition to Adjudicate
`Petitioner’s Interest in Forfeited Property and to Amend the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture,
`
`pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) (the “Petition”).
`
`Petitioner seeks the return of funds in which Petitioner has a legal right,title, and/or interest
`
`(“Petitioner’s Property”) (as morefully defined below) andthat the United States Government
`
`(the “Government”) improperly seized as part of an order of forfeiture entered into with
`
`Defendant Yvette Wang(“Defendant Wang”). Specifically, Petitioner’s Property was improperly
`
`seized by the Government when the Government seized all the funds in bank account number
`
`5090042770 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Account
`
`2770”). However, any order of forfeiture reaching the funds in Account 2770,
`
`including
`
`Petitioner’s Property, was unlawful and improper as Defendant Wanghasnolegalright,title, or
`
`interest in either Account 2770 or Petitioner’s Property. The Forfeiture Order (as more fully
`
`defined below) is therefore rendered invalid as to Petitioner’s Property because right, title, or
`
`interest in Petitioner’s Property was vested in the Petitioner rather than Defendant Wang,and was
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 2 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 2of21
`
`superior to any right, title, or interest of Defendant Wangat the time of the commission ofthe
`
`acts that gaverise to the Forfeiture Order (as defined below). As such, this Court should amend
`
`the Forfeiture Order to remove Petitioner’s Property from the Forfeiture Order and order that the
`
`Government immediately return Petitioner’s Property to Petitioner. In support of Petitioner’s
`
`claim, Petitioner states as follows:
`
`L
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`It appears that the funds in Account 2770, including Petitioner’s Property, were purely
`
`“collateral damage” in the Government’s seizure ofassets prior to its prosecution of Defendant
`
`Wang and Miles Guo (“Defendant Guo”). It has been over two and a half years since the seizure
`
`of Account 2770, and in that time span, there has never been any explanation as to how Account
`
`2770 (including Petitioner’s Property) is related to any of the offenses to which Defendant Wang
`
`pled guilty, a necessary prerequisite to a valid forfeiture order under the law. There was never any
`showing that any proceeds of any unlawful activity to which Defendant Wang sid guilty were
`
`ever deposited in Account 2770; no showing that any proceeds of such activity were ever
`
`commingled with Petitioner’s Property; and, indeed, no showing that Defendant Wang ever had
`
`anything to do with Account 2770 or even knewofits existence.
`
`Aswill be shownbelow,Petitioner is a beneficiary of a constructive trust over Petitioner’s
`
`Property and Petitioner’s Property cannot be seized by the Governmentin this case. Neither
`
`Defendant Wang, nor the Government who now stands in her shoes, have ever demonstrated that
`
`they have any interest whatsoeverin Petitioner’s Property in Account 2770 or in Account 2770 in
`
`general. While Defendant Wangconsentedto the forfeiture of “all herright, title, and interest” in
`
`Account 2770 (and thus, Petitioner’s Property) in the Forfeiture Order (ECF No. 488 at 2-3), her
`
`consenthas no legal bearing as to Account 2770 or Petitioner’s Property. Defendant Wang never
`
`had such “right,title, and interest” in Account 2770 — there is no evidence that she was a signatory
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 3 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 3of21
`
`on Account 2770, ever deposited money into Account 2770, or otherwise had any control over
`
`Account 2770, and there is no evidence that Defendant Wangeverdirected anyone, directly or
`
`indirectly, to deposit any money into Account 2770. Defendant Wang cannotforfeit property that
`
`she does not own, and in which she has nointerest. In fact, it appears that the Court never
`
`established that Petitioner’s Property is even subjectto forfeiture in thefirst instance, as required
`
`by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A).
`
`For all
`
`the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons demonstrated below, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that this Court: (1) grant this Petition; (2) amend the Forfeiture Order to
`
`exclude Petitioner’s Property; (3) order the immediate return of Petitioner’s Property to Petitioner;
`
`(4) order that Petitioner is entitled to recover Petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
`
`connection with this Petition and grant Petitioner leave to submit an application for such attorneys’
`
`fees and costs; and (5) grant such andotherrelief that is necessary andjust.
`
`Il.
`
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`A. Petitioner’s Property
`
`1.
`
`Archiwoods Investment Value Fund (“Archiwoods”) prepared an Information
`
`Option Memorandum (the “Option Memorandum”), dated February 14, 2022, outlining an
`
`investment opportunity in the Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Hamilton Opportunity Fund”),
`
`a Cayman Islands Segregated Portfolio Company. Archiwoods gave this Option Memorandum to
`
`prospective investors, including Petitioner. A true and correct copy of the Option Memorandumis
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`Investing in the Hamilton M&A Fund SP (the “M&A Fund”), was “identified by
`
`the investment manager with a view to high value creation and long-term capital gain.” Exhibit
`
`A, Option Memorandum at 4. The Investment Manager (defined as “Archiwoods Investment
`
`Management Pty Ltd” in the Option Memorandum) had identified an opportunity to invest in a
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 4 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 4of21
`
`bank (the “Investment Strategy”), Exhibit A,at 4, 8, and solicited investments, including from
`
`Petitioner, to take advantageofthis opportunity.
`
`3.
`
`The Option Memorandum offered Petitioner an opportunity to acquire Class B
`
`Sharesattributed to the M&A Fund, a segregated portfolio ofHamilton Opportunity Fund. A true
`
`and correct copy of the standard Offering Memorandum provided by the Hamilton Opportunity
`
`Fundto potential investors in the M&A Fund, dated January 20, 2022,is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`B.
`
`4,
`
`Defendant Wang was not a director or member of, and otherwise lacked any
`
`corporate or equity interest in, the M&A Fund, the Hamilton Opportunity Fund, or Archiwoods.
`
`The evidentiary record is devoid of any evidence to the contrary.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Wang did not make any investments in the M&A Fundor Archiwoods;
`
`again, the evidentiary record is devoid of any evidenceto the contrary.
`
`6.
`
`Prior to May 31, 2022,Petitioner submitted an application to invest in Archiwoods
`
`and agreed to invest $170,000.00. Petitioner’s agreement to invest this sum was on the express
`
`condition that the entirety of the investment would be usedto purchaseshares in the M&A Fund.
`
`On May31, 2022,Petitioner received confirmationof their investment in Archiwoods. A true and
`
`correct copy of Petitioner’s investment confirmationis attached hereto as ExhibitC.
`
`7.
`
`On February 8, 2022, pursuantto the terms of the Option Memorandum,Petitioner
`
`wired $173,450.00 (the “Petitioner Property”) to a bank account belonging to Archiwoods. A true
`
`and correct copy of Petitioner’s wire information is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`8.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the Option Memorandum, Archiwoods entered into an
`
`agreement with Hamilton Opportunity Fund, acting on behalf of the M&A Fund. Upon
`
`information andbelief, Archiwoods invested a monetary sum (including the entirety ofPetitioner’s
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 5 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 5of21
`
`Property) with the Hamilton Opportunity Fund for the acquisition of Class B shares in the
`
`Hamilton M&A FundSP,a Segregated Portfolio of Hamilton Opportunity Fund.
`
`9:
`
`Upon information and belief, Archiwoods wired its full
`
`investment amount
`
`(including Petitioner’s Property) into Account 2770, whichis the only account in which Hamilton
`
`Opportunity Fund held funds meant for the acquisition of Class B Shares.
`
`10.
`
`The Offering Agreementthatall investors sign and that governsthe termsofhis or
`
`her investmentinto the Hamilton Opportunity Fund (including the M&A Fund), entitles investors
`
`to redeem their shares at the investor’s option. Exhibit B, at 17; see also id. at 53 (stating that
`
`
`subject to certain limitations, “Class B Shares may be redeemed at the option of the Shareholder
`
`on any Redemption Day”). In turn, Petitioner had the right to redeem his investment with
`
`Archiwoodsat the end of the investmentterm (the “Right of Redemption”), Exhibit A,at 4-5.
`
`11.
`
`The assets of each segregated portfolio ofthe Hamilton Opportunity Fundare “kept
`
`segregated, separate and separately identifiable from those of any other segregated portfolios of
`
`the Fund and any generalassets of the Fund.” See Exhibit B, at 12; see also Exhibit A, at 4. In
`
`
`addition, pursuantto the laws of the Cayman Islands,it is the duty of Hamilton Opportunity Fund
`
`to “segregate, and keep segregated, portfolio assets of each segregated portfolio separate and
`
`separately identifiable from segregated portfolio assets of any other segregated portfolio.” Exhibit
`
`B, at 22-23 (citing The Companies Act (Revised) of CaymanIslands, Part XIV, 219(6)(b)).
`
`B. Seizure of Account 2770
`
`12.
`
`On September 18, 2022, the Governmentseized the entire balance of the funds in
`
`Account 2770, which included Petitioner's Property.
`
`13.
`
`To date, there are no documents available publicly as to what probable cause the
`
`Government had to seize the funds in Account 2770.
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 6 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 6of21
`
`C. The Criminal Case Against Defendant Wang and Defendant Guo and_the
`Forfeiture Order
`
`14,
`
`On March 6, 2023, the Government filed an indictment against Defendant Wang
`
`and Defendant Guo,anda third defendant, William Je, who has never been arraigned. ECF No.2.
`
`15.
`
`On May 3, 2024,
`
`the Government
`
`filed a superseding information (the
`
`“Superseding Information”) against Defendant Wang. ECF No. 325. The Superseding Information
`
`charged Defendant Wang with one count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud (Count J)
`
`(Superseding Information at 1-2) and one count of Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering
`
`(Count II) (Superseding Information at 2-4). The Superseding Information also contained a
`
`Forfeiture Allegation (the “Forfeiture Allegation”). Superseding Information at4.
`
`16.
`
`Onthe same day, May 3, 2024, Defendant Wangpled guilty to Count I and Count
`
`II as charged in the Superseding Information.
`
`17.
`
`Also on May3, 2024,this Court entered a Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture
`
`as to Specific Property/Money Judgment(“Original Forfeiture Order”). ECF No. 329.
`
`18.
`
`In the Original Forfeiture Order, Defendant Wang consented to forfeit, “all her
`
`right, title, and interest
`
`in” certain assets,
`
`including Account 2770, because such property
`
`“constitute[ed] proceeds of the offenses charged in Count One that the Defendant personally
`
`obtained and/or property involved in offense charged in Count Two of the [Superseding]
`
`Information.” Original Forfeiture Order at 2-6 (emphasis added).
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Guo did not plead guilty to any of the offenses charged against him.
`
`Accordingly, a jury trial was held between May 22, 2024 and July 16, 2024 (the “Guo Trial”). On
`
`July 16, 2024, the jury found Defendant Guo guilty of racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to
`
`commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit securities
`
`fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. ECF No. 395. As of the date ofthis
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 7 of 21
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Page7of 21Filed 04/04/25
`
`
`Petition, Defendant Guohasnotyet been sentenced.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`On January 6, 2025, Defendant Wang was sentenced.
`
`On January 7, 2025, this Court entered a Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture
`
`as to Specific Property/Money Judgment(the “Forfeiture Order”) ECF No. 488. Asit pertains to
`
`Petitioner, the Forfeiture Order is substantially similar to the Original Forfeiture Order in all
`
`material respects. In the Forfeiture Order, Defendant Wang consentedto forfeit,“all her right,title,
`
`and interest in” certain assets, including Account 2770, because such property “constitute[ed]
`
`proceeds of the offenses charged in Count One that the Defendant personally obtained and/or
`
`property involved in offense charged in Count Twoofthe [Superseding] Information.” Forfeiture
`
`Order at 2-11 (emphasis added).
`
`22.
`
`The assets in Account 2770 are described in both the Original Forfeiture Order and
`
`the Forfeiture Orderas follows:
`
`$89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account
`number 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank, held in the name of "Hamilton
`Opportunity Fund SPC"and seized by the Governmenton or about September
`18, 2022 (23-FB1-000074).
`
`Original Forfeiture Order at 3; Forfeiture Order at3.
`
`i.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`23.
`
`In an ancillary criminal forfeiture proceeding pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and
`
`Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(1), this Court must determine, by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence, whethera petitioner hasa legalright,title, or interest in the property to be forfeited,
`
`and whether suchright, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid, in wholeorin part,
`
`because such interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant, or was superior to any
`
`right, title, or interest of the defendantat the time of the commission of the acts which gaverise to
`
`the forfeiture of the property. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 8 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 8of21
`
`24.
`
`Here, Petitioner hasa legalright, title, or interest in Petitioner’s Property pursuant
`
`to 21 U.S.C. §853(n)(6)(A) by virtue of a constructive trust over such property. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner’s interest in Petitioner’s Property was both vested in Petitioner and was superior to any
`
`right Defendant Wanghad in Petitioner’s Property because Defendant Wanghad xolegalright,
`
`title or, interest in either Petitioner’s Property or Account 2770. In other words, Defendant Wang
`
`could notforfeit her interest in Account 2770 because she had nointerest that was properly subject
`
`to criminalforfeiture. Accordingly, the Forfeiture Order should be modified to removePetitioner’s
`
`Property, and Petitioner’s Property should be returned to Petitioner.
`
`A. The Government Failed to Demonstrate that the Funds in Account 2770
`
`Including Petitioner’s Property, Were Properly Subject to Forfeiture in the First
`Instance, Making the Forfeiture Order Improper as to Such Funds
`
`25.
`
`The Governmenthasnolegal cause to retain Petitioner’s Property becausethere is
`
`no evidence that the Government has ever demonstrated that Petitioner’s Property, and Account
`
`2770 in general, is actually forfeitable property, as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A).
`
`26.
`
`“When the government seeks to obtain an order of forfeiture, ‘Federal Rule of
`
`Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(1) ... requires the sentencing court to determine whatproperty is
`
`subjectto forfeiture under the applicable statute.’” U.S. v. Watts, 786 F.3d 152, 172 (2d Cir. 2015)
`
`(citing U.S. v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.2007)). Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2, “if
`
`the government seeks forfeiture of specific property, the court must determine whether the
`
`government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense.”
`
`Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); Watts, 786 F.3d at 172. “At various points in the
`
`proceedings, the government bears the burden of proving this legal conclusion to varying
`
`degrees of certainty: as a matter of probable cause at a post-indictment hearing.
`
`.
`
`.or by a
`
`preponderance ofthe evidence at a benchtrial or before a jury.” Jd. (emphasis added) (internal
`
`citations omitted). “Only if the government meets the relevant legal threshold, however, may the
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 9 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 9Qof21
`
`property in question be considered ‘subject to forfeiture’ in any legal sense. Prior to that, while the
`
`governmenthas simply announced its intent to seek forfeiture through the indictment, the property
`
`is seen merely as ‘potentially forfeitable’ .
`
`.
`
`. or ‘potentially subject to forfeiture.”Jd. (internal
`
`citations omitted).
`
`27.
`
`This meansthat before the court reaches the question of whetherthepetitioneris
`
`entitled to the return of the property under §853(n), it is necessary to determineif the property in
`
`dispute is actually forfeitable in thefirst instance.If not, the governmenthadnostatutory authority
`
`to seize the property. If the property was improperly seized, the government must return the
`
`accounts seized regardless of whetherthe petitioner can meetthecriteria set forth in §853(n). See
`
`e.g. United States v. Delco Wire & Cable Co., 772 F. Supp. 1511, 1518 (E.D.PA, 1991).
`
`28.
`
`A full and complete Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2.(b)(1)(A) inquiry is critical to the fair
`
`administration ofjustice. The entire forfeiture system rests upon the supposition that a court has
`
`conducted an inquiry and determinedthatthe property is subjectto forfeiture. In enacting ancillary
`
`proceeding statutes, Congress chose to place the burden of proof on the third-party during an
`
`ancillary proceeding, since “the United States will have already provenits forfeiture allegations in
`
`the criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.” S. REP. 98-225, 209, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182,
`
`3392.
`
`29.
`
`In this matter, there has never been a determination of whether there exists a nexus
`
`between Account 2770and anyofthe offenses Defendant Wang wascharged with (andpledguilty
`
`to), and, as a result, Petitioner is forcedto file this Petition. Based onall the information contained
`
`in the publicly-available documents in both Defendant Wang’s and Defendant Guo’s criminalcase,
`
`the Government cannotprevail with respect to Account 2770.
`
`30.
`
`Here,
`
`in the Superseding Information,
`
`the Government included a Forfeiture
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 10 of 21
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608_Filed 04/04/25 Page 10 of 21
`
`Allegation as to both Counts I and CountII and soughtforfeiture ofspecific property. Superseding
`Informationat 4. There is no evidencein the record that the Government even attempted to show,
`let alonethat it met its burden to show, a nexus between Account 2770, and the offenses to which
`
`Defendant Wang pledguilty.
`
`As to CountI,the Forfeiture Allegationstatesthat, “{a]s a result ofcommitting the
`31.
`wire fraud offense alleged in Count Oneofthis Superseding Information, YVETTE WANG,a/k/a
`
`“Yanping”a/k/a “Y,” the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States pursuantto Title 18, United
`
`States Code, Section[] 981(a)(1)(C)!. . .and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and
`all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the
`
`commission of said offense.” Superseding Information at 4. The Government must prove the
`
`elements of forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) by a preponderance of the evidence. 18
`
`U.S.C. § 983(c)(1). Moreover,“if the Government’s theory offorfeiture is that the property was
`
`used to commit or facilitate the commission of a criminal offense, or was involved in the
`
`commission of a criminal offense, the Government shall establish that there was a substantial
`
`connection between the property andthe offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3).
`
`32.
`
`The record is devoid of any allegations pertaining to how funds in Account 2770
`
`are, or are derived from, proceedstraceable to Defendant Wang’s conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
`
`The Superseding Informationallegesthat“[f]rom at least in or about 2018 untilat least on or about
`
`March 15, 2023, coconspirators made false representations to investors that they would receive
`
`stock in exchangefor their investments in GTV, the Himalaya Farm Alliance organization, and
`
`
`'18 U.S.C. § 98 1(a)(1)(C) provides that “[a]ny property,real or personal,[is subject to forfeiture]
`which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation of” various specified
`offenses, includingviolations of 18 U.S.C.§ 1343, wire fraud, as charged against Defendant Wang
`in CountI.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 11 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 11 of 21
`
`GClubs, and that they would receive cryptocurrency in exchangefor their investments in the
`
`Himalaya Exchange [(the “Fraud Scheme”)]. Through the [Fraud Scheme], YVETTE WANG,
`
`a/k/a “Yanping,”a/k/a “Y,” the defendant, and her coconspirators, including Miles Guo, induced
`
`investors to invest more than $1 billion into entities Guo controlled.” Superseding Informationat
`
`2. There are no allegations in the Superseding Information regarding Defendant Wang depositing
`
`any proceeds from the Fraud Schemeinto Account 2770. Similarly, there are no allegationsin the
`
`Superseding Information that as a result ofthe Fraud Scheme, any investors deposited moneyinto
`
`Account 2770. Norcan there be any suchallegations, as the only deposits from Archiwoods into
`
`Account 2770 were from investors who were investing in the Digital Bank pursuant to the
`
`Investment Strategy — an investment that is not implicated in any way by the “Fraud Scheme”
`
`described in the Superseding Information. To besure,Petitioner affirms that Petitioner was never
`
`a victim of any conduct by Defendant Wangalleged in the Superseding Information and does not
`
`believe that any of Petitioner’s Property was ever used in any unlawfulactivity.
`
`33.
`
`Finally, there was no relevant testimony during Defendant Guo’s trial concerning
`
`Account 2770. There wasno testimony regarding whether any ofthe proceedsofthe Fraud Scheme
`
`were ever deposited into Account 2770, nor, for that matter, whether Defendant Wang ever
`
`deposited any money into Account 2770. Simply put, there is nothing in the record that would
`
`indicate there is a nexus between Account 2770 and Defendant Wang’swire fraud charge,let alone
`
`sufficient evidence to determine that the Government met its burden of showing, and the Court
`
`properly adjudicated, that the appropriate nexus exists for forfeiture ofAccount 2770 to be proper.
`
`34.
`
`As to CountII, the Forfeiture Allegation states that, “[a]s a result of committing the
`
`money laundering offense alleged in Count Two of this Information, YVETTE WANG,a/k/a
`
`“Yanping”a/k/a “Y,” the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 12 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 12 of 21
`
`States Code, Section 982(a)(1)*, any andall property, real and personal, involved in said offense,
`
`or any property traceable to such property, including but not limited to a sum of money in United
`
`States currency representing the amount of property involved in said offense.” Superseding
`
`Information at 4. As to Count II, The Government“must prove the elements of forfeiture under 18
`
`U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) by a preponderanceofthe evidence.” U.S. v. Beltramea, 785 F.3d 287, 290 (8
`
`Cir. 2015).
`
`35.
`
`The Superseding Information alleges that Defendant Wang committed conspiracy
`
`to launder money because Defendant Wang “knowing that the property involved in certain
`
`financial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did
`
`conduct and attempt to conduct such financial transactions. .
`
`.and which in fact involved the
`
`proceeds ofspecified unlawfulactivity, to wit, proceeds ofthe wire fraud schemealleged in Count
`
`Oneofthis Information.” Superseding Informationat 3.
`
`36.
`
`It is unclear how Account 2770could beforfeited for the money laundering charge
`
`in CountII. From the allegations, the charge of money laundering arises from Defendant Wang
`
`engagingin financial transactions with the “proceeds of the wire fraud schemealleged in Count
`
`One.” Superseding Information at 3. As argued above,there is no evidencethat funds in Account
`
`2770 hadanyrelation to the Fraud Schemealleged in CountI (see J 31-33, above) — there is no
`
`evidence that such funds “constitute[d] or [were] derived from proceeds traceable to the
`
`commission of” wire fraud. See e.g. 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). Since funds in Account 2770 were
`
`not Fraud Schemeproceeds norwerethey derived from Fraud Schemeproceeds, such funds could
`
`? 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) provides that “[t]he court, imposing sentence on a person convicted of an
`offense in violation of section 1956 [the money-launderingstatute] ofthis title .
`.
`. shall order that
`the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such offense, or
`any property traceable to such property.” 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) (emphasis added).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 13 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 13 of 21
`
`notserve as the basis for the money laundering charge in CountII and cannotbeforfeited as part
`
`of Defendant Wang’s conviction for CountII.
`
`37.
`
`The overt acts that the Governmentalleges to support the money laundering charge
`
`further fail to show how the funds in Account 2770 can be forfeitable. In the Superseding
`
`Information, the Governmentsets forth two acts evidencing money laundering. Superseding
`
`Information at 3. Although the Governmentstates that these two overt acts were “among others”
`
`that Defendant Wang committed in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to launder money
`
`(Superseding Informationat 3), these other acts were neveridentified.
`
`38.
`
`First, per the Superseding Information, on May 20, 2020, Defendant Wang opened
`
`a bank account in the name of GTV, which, notably, Account 2770 was not. Superseding
`
`Information at 3. On June 2, 2020, Defendant Wangtransferred approximately $200 million to
`
`that account. Jd. The fundstransferred into the GTV accountwere from a JP Morgan Chase Bank
`
`
`account held by Saraca Media Group,Inc. (“Saraca”) (Guo Trial, 05/31/2024, 953:25-954:4: Guo
`
`Trial, 06/26/2024, 4359:1-14), not from Account 2770. There was neverany testimony that any
`
`money from Account 2770 ever went into the Saraca JP Morgan Chase Bank accountto then be
`
`transferred to the GTV accountcited in the Superseding Information. Moreover, Account 2770 did
`
`not even exist in 2020.
`
`39.
`
`The second act the Government alleges is that “on or about June 5, 2020,”
`
`Defendant Wang“authorized a wire transfer of $100 million from GTV’s parent company,Saraca,
`
`to a high-risk hedge fund, for the benefit of Saraca andits ultimate beneficial owner, Defendant
`
`Guo’s son.” Superseding Information at 3-4. First, this plainly alleges that the money was
`
`transferred from a Saraca account, which Account 2770 was demonstrably not. Also, again, there
`
`was never any testimony that any money from Account 2770 ever went into a Saraca account.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 14 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 14 of 21
`
`Moreover, once again, Account 2770 did not even exist in 2020.
`
`40.
`
`As seen from the above argument,there are noallegations or testimony regarding
`
`Account 2770 whatsoever. The only referencein the record to Account 2770 is Defendant Wang’s
`
`consent to forfeit it. However, “a defendant’s consent to forfeiture [does not] abrogate the
`
`requirementthat a nexus exist between the property sought for forfeiture and the conviction of
`
`offense.” Beltramea, 785 F.3d at 291. As the Eighth Circuit stressed, “[t]he district court had an
`
`independentduty to ensure that the required nexus exists.” Jd. (emphasis added).
`
`41.
`
`Here, there are no factual allegations in the Superseding Information,
`
`in the
`
`Original Forfeiture Order or the Forfeiture Order as to even an alleged nexus between Account
`
`2770 and the offenses to which Defendant Wang pledguilty.
`
`42.
`
`The Government’s continued retention of the funds in Account 2770, without
`
`showing that there is a nexus, is wrong and inequitable. Should the Governmentretain the funds
`
`in Account 2770, it will be unjustly enriched, since the funds belong to third parties, including
`
`Petitioner, who are (1) not Defendant Wang or Defendant Guo; and (2) not involved the Fraud
`
`Scheme,let alone victims of sucha scheme. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 332 (1998)
`
`(explaining that a criminal “forfeiture serves no remedial purpose,
`
`is designed to punish the
`
`offender, and cannot be imposed upon innocent owners.”) (emphasis added).
`
`B. Petitioner Has Interest_in Petitioner’s Property Because There Exists a
`Constructive Trust Over Such Property
`
`43.
`
`Even putting aside the Government’s failure to properly demonstrate that the funds
`
`in Account 2770 were part of any activity alleged in the Superseding Information,Petitioner’s
`
`Property should be returned to Petitioner because Petitioner has a greater interest in it than does
`
`Defendant Wang,or, now, the Government.
`
`44.
`
`Under the doctrine of constructive trusts, Petitioner’s Property is protected and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608 Filed 04/04/25 Page 15 of 21
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 608
`Filed 04/04/25
`Page 15 of 21
`
`remains the property ofPetitioner regardless ofany other ownershipclaims, including Defendant
`
`Wang’s or the Government, standing in her shoes. The Second Circuit? has held that “a
`
`constructive trust qualifies as a ‘legalright,title, or interest in the property’ that ‘may be a superior
`
`interest’ to a defendant’s interest for the purposes ofa forfeiture statute analogous to 21 U.S.C. §
`
`853(n)(6)(A).” Willis Mgmt. (Vermont), Ltd. v. UnitedStates, 652 F.3d 236, 242 (2d Cir. 201 1).
`
`45.
`
`“A constructive trust is an equitable remedy, necessarilyflexible to accomplish its
`
`purpose.” Counihan y. Allstate Ins. Co., 194 F.3d 357, 361 (2d Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). “Its
`
`purposeis to prevent unjust enrichment, although unjust enrichment doesnot necessarily implicate
`
`the performance of a wrongful act. . .Whatis necessary is that the court identify a party whois
`
`holding property under such circumstances that in equity and good conscience he ought not to
`
`retain it.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
`
`46.
`
`“Whether a party is unjustly enriched is a legal conclusion reached through the
`
`application ofprinciples of equity. .. A court of equity in decreeing a constructivetrust is bound
`
`
`> “The federal commonlaw choice-of-law ruleis to apply the law ofthe jurisdiction having the
`greatestinterest in thelitigation.” In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., 961 F.2d 341, 350 (2d
`Cir. 1992), affd in part sub nom. Refco F/XAssocs., Inc. v. Mebco Bank, S.A., No. 89 CIV. 3071
`(WK), 1992 WL 200748 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1992). Here, there are four competing jurisdictions
`whose laws could apply: Australia, New York, California, and Cayman Islands. Petitioner’s
`payment of Petitioner’s Property was pursuant
`to the Option Memorandum. The Option
`Memorandum makes clear that Archiwoods would then enter into some agreement with the
`Hamilton Opportunity Fund on Petitioner’s behalf. On information andbelief, any agreement
`between Archiwoods and the Hamilton Opportunity Fund is governed by Cayman Islands law.
`Account 2770 was an accountin a California bank whenPetitioner deposited Petitioner’s Property.
`Since Account 2770 was seized (pursuantto a search andseizure warrantissued by a court in New
`Yorkstate), the funds are now in possession of the Government in New York and the California
`bank no longer exists. New Yorkis the forum state of this case. From these facts, New York has
`the greatestinterest in this litigation, and its laws should apply to an imposition of a constructive
`trust. However,