Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 803
The government argues that Mr. Guo waived his objections to the $1.3 billion forfeiture and asks the court to reject his late challenges as meritless. (803-1)
摘要
Government Letter · Opposition to Defense POF Objections
This eleven-page letter, dated February 17, 2026 from the Assistant U.S. Attorneys, responds to Mr. Guo's February 3, 2026 objections (Dkt. 799, case-doc-799) to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ("POF") in United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT). The government argues the objections are waived and, alternatively, meritless.
A. Relevant Background — Procedural Chronology
The letter walks through what the government characterizes as the defendant's repeated requests for more time on forfeiture without ever taking a substantive position:
- July 17, 2024: Jury conviction on nine counts after a nearly eight-week trial;
- April 8, 2025: Court appointed the defendant's present (third) defense team; the Court ordered the parties to file a letter by April 29, 2025 stating when the defendant would provide his forfeiture position;
- April 29, 2025 (Dkt. 697): Parties asked for an update by May 9, 2025;
- May 9, 2025 (Dkt. 701): Defendant asked until May 23 to "sort out the forfeiture issue";
- May 23, 2025 (Dkt. 705): Defendant asked until June 13, 2025 for further due diligence;
- June 13, 2025 (Dkt. 708): Defendant asked until June 27, 2025 to provide a position;
- June 27, 2025 (Dkt. 711): Defendant stated he "is unable to take a position with respect to issues regarding potential forfeiture and remission of money and property seized by the Government";
- July 14, 2025 (Dkt. 716): Government's letter requesting entry of a POF noted Guo was not consenting to a POF but acknowledged the Court could enter one anyway;
- August 11, 2025 (Dkt. 720): The Court entered the POF.
B. Government's Two-Part Argument
Waiver
By repeatedly declining to take a position on forfeiture across more than five months of granted extensions, then never opposing entry of the POF, the defendant waived any later objections. The government argues the time to object to the POF has long passed and that the defense's post-entry objections cannot reopen the order.
Merits
Even on the merits, the government argues:
- The defense's substantive objections — particularly to the $1.3 billion money judgment — are unsupported;
- The objections mischaracterize the trial record;
- The objections rest on legal theories already rejected by controlling precedent.
Relief Sought
The government asks the Court to:
- Reject Mr. Guo's belated POF objections;
- Allow the existing POF to stand pending final adjudication of third-party petitions and ultimate entry of a final order of forfeiture.