Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 802

摘要

Joint Letter · Special Master / Magistrate Alternatives

This three-page joint letter, dated February 10, 2026 and submitted by the government with defense input, responds to the Court's January 20, 2026 conference inquiries about the potential appointment of a Special Master in United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT). The letter addresses several practical questions about whether and how such an appointment could work.

1. Payment for a Special Master

The parties agree that no clear funding source is available to pay a Special Master:

• Forfeiture-fund assets cannot be used because, absent resolution of all third-party claims and entry of a final order of forfeiture, those assets cannot be used by the government;
• Both sides also oppose using forfeited assets to pay a Special Master in principle, because doing so would reduce the amount available to return to victims (the defense objects to the word "victims" and asserts that "claimants" should be used).
• The Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) was floated by the defense as a possible source, but the government conferred with components at Main Justice and confirmed that the AFF is not available to finance special masters in this context.

Footnote on Defense Position

The defense's recurring linguistic objection appears: given the number of disclaimers of victim status by investors and customers in this case, the defense objects to the word "victims" in this context and asserts that the proper term is "claimants."

Quasi-Special-Master Precedent

In response to the Court's question, the government identifies one prior case where a district court appointed an entity to act as a quasi-special-master (to evaluate § 853(n) claims) and as claims administrator — providing a possible structural model — but does not commit to any particular approach.

Alternative Path: Magistrate Referral

With no funding source identified, the parties suggest the Court consider referring the third-party forfeiture claims to a Magistrate Judge under existing case-management authority. The Magistrate referral path does not require an external funding source because Magistrate Judges are part of the existing court resources.