Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 785

摘要

Government Letter · § 853(n) vs Remission, Special Master, MVRA Impracticability

This six-page letter, dated January 9, 2026 from the Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT), responds to the Court's December 22, 2025 order (Dkt. 782, case-doc-782) seeking the government's views on three related questions.

Topics Addressed

A. The Differences Between Petitions for Remission of Forfeited Assets and Claims Submitted Under § 853(n)

The letter distinguishes two parallel third-party processes.

1. Claims Submitted Under § 853(n):

• Title 21, United States Code, Section 853 sets forth comprehensive procedural rules for the administration of forfeiture, including when a third party (or petitioner) can claim an ownership interest superior to the government's interest in forfeitable property through an "ancillary proceeding";
• Third parties have 30 days following notice (absent extension) to file a claim with the district court asserting an interest in specific property that the government seeks to finally forfeit, which will then be adjudicated as part of an ancillary proceeding (21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6));
• Section 853(n) provides that any third-party petitioner has standing to assert its claim to specific property where the petitioner demonstrates "an interest in a particular, specific asset, as opposed to a general interest in an entire forfeited estate or account." The letter cites United States v. Ribadeneira, 105 F.3d 833, 835-36 (2d Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).

2. Petitions for Remission:

The letter describes the alternative path: an administrative process within the DOJ Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section by which the government can return assets to victims after forfeiture — a discretionary path lacking the procedural protections of § 853(n).

The government takes the position that many of the third-party submissions in the case are properly handled through remission rather than § 853(n) ancillary proceedings, because the petitioners assert generalized victim interests rather than interests in specific assets.

B. Special Master Appointment

The government supports the Court's consideration of appointing a Special Master under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 to make recommendations on third-party claims, citing the volume of submissions and the need for efficient resolution before any final order of forfeiture issues.

C. MVRA Impracticability Finding

The government requests that the Court find restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, impracticable in this case, given:

• The size of the alleged victim universe;
• The documentation challenges in tracing losses to specific victims.

An impracticability finding would shift the victim-recovery process from court-administered MVRA restitution to the DOJ-administered remission process.