`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
` Complainant
`
` -v-
`
`HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a “Miles Guo,”
`“Miles Kwok,” “Guo Wengui,” “Brother
`Seven,” or “The Principal,”
`
` and
`
`KIN MING JE, a/k/a “William Je,”
`
` and
`
`YANPING WANG, a/k/a “Yvette,”
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Criminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)
`
`
`
`
` MOTION FOR ORDER OF
` PROCEDURES FOR
` AMENDED AND RENEWED
` RETURN OF HIMALAYA
` EXCHANGE DEPOSITORS
` VICTIMIZED BY THE U.S.
` GOVERNMENT
`
`
`
` Assigned to the Honorable U.S.
` District Court Judge Analisa
` Torres, Presiding Judge
`
`I.
`
`URGENT ACTION REQUESTED BY APRIL 7, 2025
`
`Claimants, represented by the undersigned Bradford L. Geyer, Esq., of
`
`FormerFedsGroup.Com, respectfully demand the return of funds illegally seized by the United
`
`States of America ("Government"), as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3771; 18 U.S.C. §
`
`983(a)(1)(A)(i), the Bank Robbery Act (18 U.S.C. § 2113), common law larceny by trick and
`
`false pretenses, 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(i) and (n), Rule 41(g), 42 U.S.C. § 10607, Fed. R. Crim. P.
`
`32.2(b), and principles of unjust enrichment. These funds were taken from individuals that the
`
`U.S. Government itself identifies as victims but instead of treating them as victims the U.S.
`
`Government has treated them as "marks" to be mugged by the U.S. Government.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`
`II. MOTION TO MODIFY PROCESS FOR PETITIONS FOR CLAIMS
`
`On March 20, 2023, in the Government's Motion at ECF 10, the Government set forth in
`
`detail the "rights" (more than requirements) of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 but then asked this Court to
`
`alter the rights of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 by Order.
`
`This Court responded by Minute Order granting the Government's Motion to alter the
`
`statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 in many significant ways.
`
`Therefore, it would appear that the District Court has or believes it has the authority to
`
`alter the statutory terms, details, and requirements of the statutes governing victims' rights,
`
`forfeiture, remission, and/or ancillary hearings concerning those affected by the Government
`
`seizing their funds (termed broadly as property in the statutes).
`
`If the District Court did not have the authority to alter the statutes in response to the
`
`Government's March 20, 2023, Motion at ECF 10, then the Government has comprehensively
`
`violated the governing statutes and nothing is valid that has been done in relation to the seized
`
`funds.
`
`III. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`In support thereof, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that his now roughly 6,5051
`
`individual clients as individual Members and investors in the Himalaya Exchange (HEX) be
`
`permitted to file their identifying information and financial losses under seal in support of their
`
`demands under 18 U.S. Code § 3771 and otherwise for the return of their funds.
`
`
`
`
`1 As of 12:00 a.m. on March 4, 2025, undersigned counsel has approximately 6,537 clients under agreement. Of
`these, approximately 3,539 were authenticated by HEX that also provided deposits, HDO, HCN and redemption
`information. Removed from the 6,537 total are approximately 117 former clients who terminated the attorney client
`relationship when rumors whipsawed the community that seemed to require victims to endorse the government’s
`prosecution theory as a prerequisite to receiving funds return. Undersigned counsel is informed that it will take 4-6
`weeks from any filing deadline for HEX to authenticate each customer along with victim loss information.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 3 of 14
`
`
`
`
`IV. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS
`
`Therefore, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests the following alterations to the
`
`claims process:
`
`A. Extended Deadline: Claims may be filed as late as May 15, 2025
`
`B. Disclosure Requirements: The Government must necessarily and practically as well as
`
`for legal disclosure identify exactly which investment entities it seized money from. If the Bill of
`
`Particulars from April 2023 remains the universe of seized accounts, then we can rely on the
`
`HEX funds being in appropriate identified accounts and not other entities (Exhibit A – HEX
`
`accounts in highlight). If the Government developed another opinion or seized other accounts, it
`
`should be required to disclose it. HEX records show all transactions going into and coming out
`
`of these accounts. It stands to reason that the banking records the Government seized recount the
`
`same transaction history.
`
`Are a HEX investor's funds at issue? In violation of 18 U.S.C. 3771, the Government has
`
`not informed affected persons of these details.
`
`Therefore, in spite of the Minute Order of the Court to the Motion at ECF10, the
`
`Government must be required to identify each specific transaction of seizing funds with each
`
`entity involved by its full legal name. Presumably these transactions of seizure involved far
`
`fewer than the original 80 entities of interest. Then investors can analyze what funds they
`
`invested are at issue. Again, 18 U.S.C. 3771 and other statutes mandate that disclosure, in spite
`
`of the Court making some alterations to the statutes.
`
`C. Co-mingling Theory Disclosure: The disclosure rights of those who have lost funds or
`
`property also would require the Government to identify whether it seized or is holding funds
`
`under a theory of the proceeds of crime being co-mingled with the entity's legitimate funds (i.e.,
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`
`the investors investments) and whether it contends that any crime was committed using the
`
`entity. The 6,537 clients invested their own funds, this is all documented in HEX encrypted files,
`
`with comprehensive account activity records and they deny any involvement with criminal
`
`activity.
`
`D. Disclosure of Erroneous Seizures: The Government must disclose pursuant to these
`
`statutes if there was -- in hindsight -- no reason to seize any funds from a particular entity. If so,
`
`the funds should be returned in toto forthwith.
`
`E. Consolidated Filing: Counsel will file a single, umbrella claim for his clients supported
`
`by attachments under seal of the individual identities and amounts of funds lost for those clients
`
`for whom HEX provided loss calculations. Counsel will not file separate petitions for each
`
`separate client, but will provide information for each of them as independent claimants by
`
`spreadsheet. The spreadsheet will be filed under seal and will include clients by HID#’s with
`
`approximately 6,537. Of these, 1,433 have filed a consolidated affidavit signed by HID#
`
`designed to cover the ancillary petition and the remission process. The challenge is that no client
`
`has yet communicated to undersigned counsel that the Defendants victimized them although we
`
`have countless letters where victims express the view that they were victims of the US
`
`government (Exhibit B). There are also countless problems with HEX customers no longer
`
`having ready access to HEX customer service with account access capability. These are just a
`
`few examples. (Exhibit C).
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 5 of 14
`
`RECOMMENDED PLAN OFFERS ROBUST AUTHENTICATION
`PROCEDURES
`
`V.
`
`
`
`A. To ensure robust documentation addressing compliance concerns, the process can follow
`
`the guidelines below:
`
`
`
`1. Exhibit ECF 207-1: Contains identity verification records, including full name, date of
`
`birth, address, and government-issued identification, establishing a direct relationship
`
`between each claimant and their account (Exhibit D).
`
`2. Exhibit ECF 207-2: Provides a comprehensive account history, detailing all transactions
`
`associated with the claimant's Himalaya account (e.g., deposits, withdrawals, transfers)
`
`(Exhibit E).
`
`3. Exhibit ECF 207-3: Documents transaction records between the claimant’s personal
`
`bank account and the Himalaya account, validating transaction consistency and
`
`legitimacy (Exhibit E).
`
`4. Exhibit ECF 208-2 through Exhibit ECF 208-7: Comprise audit reports, expert
`
`accounting summaries, and compliance assessments. Notably, these include:
`
`•
`
`Identity verification documents
`
`• Transaction logs substantiating each claim.
`
`• State-of-the-art facial recognition software-backed validation (Exhibit E) (ECF
`
`208-4 pp. 1-44).
`
`B. Additionally, safeguards should be put in in place for:
`
`• Secure handling of sensitive financial data, with controlled access for review.
`
`• Valuation and prioritization of HCO and HCN claims in regard to all claims.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 6 of 14
`
`VI. NEED FOR COURT PERMISSION
`
`Court authorization is essential for:
`
`A. Coordinating and managing thousands of secure communications, which are expected to
`
`continue through May 15, 2025, if permitted.
`
`B. Consolidating claims into an aggregated filing detailing a list of HID#s for represented
`
`clients along with total claims based on deposits, HCO, HCN and redemptions.
`
`C. Enabling HEX to match HID-based claims with source data (e.g., identification records,
`
`banking compliance data, transaction histories) for government clearance.
`
`D. Secure access to relevant data under mutually agreed-upon conditions.
`
`E. Counsel here recommends in the interests of justice reliance upon the business records of
`
`HEX as “best evidence,” that is more authoritative, comprehensive and admissible as
`
`business records. The information required is automatically admissible and reliable as
`
`having been received funds from the Members, which was then taken by the U.S.
`
`Government.
`
`F. The Government should be required to disclose under the governing statutes, even as
`
`modified by the Court around March 20, 2023, why it contends certain transactions were
`
`improper. HEX records show all aspects of HEX financial transactions including funding
`
`sources backed up by robust KYC procedures.
`
`G. Petitions or claims should not be due prior to the United States of America's
`
`(Government's) sentencing of Michael Guo (Kwok). Although Yvette Wang pled guilty
`
`and was sentenced, Wang is clearly a minor participant in this criminal case and Wang
`
`has disclaimed any ownership, control, or financial interest in any of the investors' funds
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 7 of 14
`
`seized by the Government. The Government cannot lawfully base forfeiture, remission,
`
`or ancillary proceedings based on the sentencing of Wang who has no interest in the
`
`funds seized. Indeed, the Government took this position officially, then flip-flopped its
`
`position, and could be seen as being barred by judicial estoppel. The Government first
`
`insisted that disposition of the seized funds could not begin until Guo is sentenced, then
`
`switching its position, does not make it legal to begin this process before Guo's
`
`sentencing is complete. The original and superseding indictments indicate that Kwok
`
`(Guo) has and had no managerial or executive control or ownership of the Himalaya
`
`Exchange. They make ambiguous references to Je's involvement in entities other than the
`
`Exchange.
`
`H. Need for Additional Time: Counsel must cross cultural, language, and internet access
`
`barriers to reach clients with specific requirements to proceed. Although Counsel will
`
`relieve the Court of 6,537 individual claims, the process takes more time than might be
`
`counted from timelines triggered from Wang's sentencing.
`
`I. While it is appropriate for additional filing deadlines to commence only after Guo’s
`
`sentencing—whether viewed as premature beforehand or deferred as a judicial safeguard
`
`against humanitarian harm—a cooperative framework for capital return, established in
`
`partnership with HEX, offers a compelling alternative. Leveraging HEX’s advanced
`
`KYC compliance systems and military-grade encryption will not only preserve the value
`
`of seized assets but also conserve vast government and judicial resources.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`
`VII. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
`
`A. URGENT TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
`
`Under the most restrictive interpretation of applicable deadlines, Counsel must file
`
`applications for his clients on or before April 7, 2025. Accordingly, this Court's Order is urgently
`
`requested to provide sufficient time for Counsel and other affected parties to prepare and file
`
`sealed submissions.
`
`B. EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL CLAIMANTS
`
`Counsel represents approximately 6,537 individual clients of the Himalaya Exchange
`
`("HEX"), some of whom also made separate investments in other entities connected to Michael
`
`Guo (Kwok). The counsel can identify no valid basis for treating his clients differently from
`
`other HEX claimants or independent pro se applicants. All claimants should be afforded the
`
`same procedural rights and protections in seeking the return of their seized funds.
`
`C. LACK OF CLEAR FILING INSTRUCTIONS
`
`The Department of Justice website suggests that applications for return of funds should
`
`be directed to the agency that seized the funds. However, the Government has failed to provide
`
`clear and comprehensive information regarding:
`
`Which specific agencies conducted the seizures.
`
`The precise funds that were seized.
`
`Which of the approximately 80 business entities under investigation actually had funds
`
`seized.
`
`The Government has provided only fragmented, piecemeal information about these
`
`critical details. As a result, investors face significant uncertainty regarding where to direct their
`
`applications for relief. The only clear options appear to be filing with the U.S. Department of
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`
`Justice or with this Court.
`
`D. DELEGATION CONCERNS AND EXISTING SOLUTIONS
`
`Any delegation of this Court's authority to a special master, magistrate, or administrator
`
`would be both prejudicial to claimants and unnecessary. HEX already possesses all the necessary
`
`information to facilitate the return of funds, maintained in secure, encrypted form.
`
`E. PRACTICAL BARRIERS FOR VULNERABLE CLAIMANTS
`
`The guidance provided at www.Forfeiture.gov appears to lack binding legal authority and
`
`functions more as informal commentary rather than authoritative instruction. Moreover, this
`
`approach is particularly impractical for many victims who face substantial barriers, including:
`
`
`
`
`
`• Language obstacles;
`
`• Residency within the restrictive environment of the People's Republic of China;
`
`• Limited access to information after the Government disabled HEX's website.
`
`For these vulnerable individuals, complying with the unprotected disclosure requirements
`
`outlined on forfeiture.gov entails extraordinary risk and potential exposure, which underscores
`
`the urgent need for a safer, court-supervised alternative.
`
`
`
`VIII. PROPOSED APPROACH TO RESOLUTION
`
`Counsel is prepared to proffer relevant information and—assuming proper access is
`
`provided by HEX—invites the Department of Justice to review data under secure conditions.
`
`This invitation should be considered a proffer that the Government may accept at its election.
`
`Counsel anticipates that HEX will file its own application for the return of reserve funds
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`
`seized by the U.S. Government. Counsel's clients support either of two potential remedies:
`
`Option A: Return of Funds to HEX
`
`The return of HEX's reserve funds in their entirety would allow all Members (investors)
`
`to receive their investments directly from HEX, including those who are not represented by
`
`Counsel. This would be the speediest, most secure, and least expensive approach.
`
`Option B: Return of Funds to Individual Members
`
`Alternatively, the return of funds to individual Members would require the Government
`
`to articulate with specificity any concerns about particular Member accounts. This approach
`
`would dispel vague assertions and force the Government to identify any specific Members about
`
`whom it has reliable evidence of wrongdoing.
`
`In the absence of individualized concerns, the innocent and unimpeachable Members
`
`should have their seized investments returned promptly. If the Government fails to identify
`
`specific persons or circumstances of concern, we must conclude that none exist.
`
`VII. IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
`
`It is important to note that the U.S. Government not only seized funds but also shut down
`
`HEX's website and online operations, which were crucial components of its business model and
`
`increased burdens on HEX claimants.
`
`
`
`IX. GOVERNMENT'S STATED INTENTIONS
`
`In ECF 233, the Government stated: "The government wishes to note that it does not
`
`believe the assets that the government has seized and seeks to forfeit should be transferred to the
`
`bankruptcy estate. Rather the government intends to forfeit the criminal proceeds of the Kwok
`
`enterprise, which the government has seized, and return those assets to the victims of Kwok's
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
`
`crimes provided it is granted approval from the Department of Justice's remission or restoration
`
`process, and of dictating an order of forfeiture from this court. To the extent there is a dispute
`
`with the trustee, or any third party, concerning forfeiture of seized assets, the time to adjudicate
`
`those disputes will arise after the criminal trial."
`
`This statement affirms the Government's intention to return assets to victims but fails to
`
`provide a clear, practical pathway for doing so that addresses the unique circumstances of this
`
`case.
`
`X. BACKGROUND RELEVANT LAW GOVERNING
`
`A. RIGHTS OF VICTIMS
`
`Under the Crime Victim's Reform Act, any redemption process should enable victims to
`
`perfect their claims and authenticate under an updated 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(1)(A)(i) process that
`
`complies with 18 U.S. Code § 3771. Section 983 was designed before the emergence of
`
`cryptocurrency exchanges and innovations in human rights capital creation systems (bit coin,
`
`Himalaya Coin, etc.) this growing gulf under Section 3771 may be trumped by the fact that
`
`victims are being forced by the government under court supervision to expose their personal
`
`information to foreign governments ("doxxing").
`
`B. STATUTORY COMMAND WITHOUT EXCEPTION TO MAKE
`RESTITUTION TO THESE VICTIMS
`
`In statutory interpretation, a canon of construction is that the specific controls over the
`
`general. see HCSC-- Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1, 6, 101 S.Ct. 836, 67 L.Ed.2d 1
`
`(1981)." Downing v. Globe Direct LLC, 682 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2012). A statute that precisely fits
`
`the scenario evidences the legislatures intent to regulate exactly that situation rather than generic
`
`statutes which do not appear to relate to the situation at hand. This contrast is evidence of the
`
`legislature's intent in the substance of the specific statute and the need to enact it. A poorly fitting
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`
`generic statute or one that is confused as to application must give away to a statute that
`
`specifically governs the exact situation being considered.
`
`18 U.S. Code § 3771 - Crime victims' rights includes numerous relevant provisions,
`
`including:
`
`The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
`
`The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
`
`Requirements that officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall make their
`
`best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, their rights.
`
`The crime victim or their lawful representative, and the attorney for the Government may
`
`assert these rights.
`
`When there are multiple crime victims, the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to
`
`give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings,
`
`42 U.S.C. §10607 further establishes services to victims, including requirements that
`
`responsible officials:
`
`Identify the victim or victims of a crime.
`
`Inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled
`
`under this or any other law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained.
`
`Assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services
`
`and relief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`
`
`XI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court:
`
`
`
`1) Modify the process for filing claims as detailed in this motion;
`
`2) Authorize the presentation of the individual personal and financial information of
`
`investors seeking the return of their funds seized by the U.S. Government under seal
`
`or the equivalent if the Court directs applications to be made to the seizing
`
`department under restated directions that are easy to find and comply with;
`
`3) Recognize the unique challenges presented by this case, including the large number
`
`of claimants, cross-cultural and language barriers, and technical nature of
`
`cryptocurrency exchange records;
`
`4) Adopt, in the interests of justice, a flexible system in the event remission is required
`
`whereby the full authentication of HEX clients can be done under secured
`
`information access conditions, allowing the Government to access source documents
`
`that constitute best evidence and create certainty regarding authentication of identity
`
`while maintaining appropriate confidentiality protections;
`
`5) Direct the USAO to publish clear, easily accessible instructions for filing claims in
`
`accordance with any Order the Court may issue; and
`
`6) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`These modifications will serve the interests of justice by balancing the need for thorough
`
`authentication with the privacy concerns of approximately 6,537 investors who seek only to
`
`recover funds that were seized by the Government. The flexible authentication system we
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Document 612 Filed 04/04/25 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`
`propose would allow for efficient processing of claims while ensuring that all necessary
`
`verification can be completed securely.
`
`We submit that these requested modifications are reasonable, necessary, and within the
`
`Court's authority to grant, particularly in light of the Court's previous willingness when good
`
`reasons were shown to modify statutory requirements in response to the Government's Motion at
`
`ECF10 on March 20, 2023.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 4, 2025
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brad Geyer
`Bradford L. Geyer, PHV
`NJ 022751991
`Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303
`Cinnaminson, NJ 0807
`(856) 607-5708
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on April 4, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was
`
`electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the
`Southern District of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brad Geyer
`Bradford L. Geyer, PHV
`NJ 022751991
`Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303
`Cinnaminson, NJ 08077
`(856) 607-5708
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`