Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 789

摘要

Defense Letter · § 853(n) Petitions and Restitution Impracticability

This four-page letter, dated January 16, 2026 from Melinda Sarafa (with co-counsel Joshua Dratel and John Kaley), responds to the government's January 9, 2026 letter (ECF No. 785, case-doc-785) on petitions for remission of forfeited assets, claims submitted under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al., 23-CR-118 (AT).

Threshold Position

The defense reconfirms that Mr. Guo has taken no position with respect to any personal interest he may have in the assets the government seeks to forfeit. This filing addresses only the government's January 9, 2026 submission and does not address Mr. Guo's broader objections to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, which are reserved for separate briefing (case-doc-799).

Two Principal Concerns Raised

The letter focuses on what the defense characterizes as the government's attempt to "subjugate the § 853(n) petition process in favor of remissions":

1. § 853(n) Primacy

The defense argues:

• Third-party claims properly raised under § 853(n) should be fully adjudicated by the Court in ancillary proceedings;
• The § 853(n) framework provides procedural protections (notice, hearing, discovery, appeals);
• The remission process — a Department of Justice administrative discretion vehicle — is not a substitute for the statutorily mandated ancillary proceeding.

2. Victim Identification and Loss Determination

The defense argues:

• The government continues to conflate categories;
• The disclaimers of victim status by hundreds of investors and customers materially affect both:
• The identification of victims under MVRA;
• The determination of losses for forfeiture and Guidelines calculations.

Agreement on MVRA Impracticability

The defense agrees with the government's separate request that the Court find restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, impracticable in this case. The defense reasons that the universe of putative victims is too unresolved — both because of the scope of the alleged scheme and because of the disclaimers — to support a workable restitution order.