Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 799

摘要

Defense Objections to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture

This 34-page letter, dated February 3, 2026 from Melinda Sarafa (with co-counsel Joshua Dratel and John Kaley) on behalf of Mr. Guo, sets out Mr. Guo's objections to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ("POF") entered August 11, 2025 (ECF No. 720) in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al., 23-CR-118 (AT). Filed pursuant to the Court's January 8, 2026 Order (ECF No. 784) and a subsequent order extending the filing deadline (ECF No. 798).

Threshold Position on Specific Property

The government's July 28, 2025 letter motion (ECF No. 716) made two distinct requests:

1. Entry of a money judgment of $1.3 billion against Mr. Guo;
2. Forfeiture of Mr. Guo's interest in the specific property listed in the preliminary order of forfeiture (the "Specific Property").

The defense states that Mr. Guo has consistently taken no position with respect to any personal interest he may have in the Specific Property. Mr. Guo reconfirms here that he does not assert a personal interest in the Specific Property and supports return of the Specific Property to its rightful owners.

I. Introduction and Summary of Argument

The defense identifies multiple reasons the Court should decline to enter a $1.3 billion money judgment:

• First: The government has not adduced evidence sufficient to establish the scope of the fraud, nor has the government identified who exactly was defrauded;
• Second: The government has not established that Mr. Guo personally obtained the $1.3 billion in purported crime proceeds that forms the basis of the government's forfeiture request;
• Third: Acquitted conduct cannot be the basis for imposing forfeiture liability;
• Fourth: Mr. Guo is entitled to have whatever forfeiture amount this Court determines is applicable offset by the very substantial value of cash and other assets already seized and/or in the possession of the government, the Bankruptcy Trustee, and possibly others.

Exhibit A — Summary of Recovered Cash

Attached as Exhibit A is a summary of the more than $1 billion in cash that the government has already recovered in connection with the matter — bearing directly on the offset argument.

Structural Argument

The defense argues that the POF as entered conflates two distinct concepts:

• Forfeiture of Mr. Guo's interest in the Specific Property (which Mr. Guo does not contest);
• A personal money judgment against Mr. Guo (which the defense disputes on the four grounds above).

The defense argues these must be treated separately under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act and § 853 forfeiture jurisprudence.