Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 804

摘要

Defense Reply · No Waiver of POF Objections; $1.3B Money Judgment Disputed

This six-page reply letter, dated February 19, 2026 from Melinda Sarafa (with co-counsel Joshua Dratel and John Kaley), responds to the government's February 17, 2026 letter (ECF No. 803, case-doc-803) on the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ("POF") in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al., 23-CR-118 (AT).

I. Mr. Guo Has Not Waived His Right to Object to the POF

The government continues to argue that Mr. Guo has waived his right to lodge objections to the POF. The defense rejects that argument and traces the procedural history:

• The government first floated the waiver argument in its September 19, 2025 response (ECF No. 750) to Mr. Guo's motion seeking to preserve the value of certain forfeitable assets (ECF No. 724);
• In his reply in further support of the motion to preserve assets (ECF No. 754), Mr. Guo explained in detail why he had not waived his right to contest multiple aspects of forfeiture, including:
• Entry of a personal money judgment;
• Whether certain property is forfeitable at all;
• Whether alleged proceeds attributable to acquitted conduct is forfeitable;
• Whether certain valuations are accurate;
• Whether certain property, such as disgorgement received by the SEC, should offset any money judgment (ECF No. 754 at 2-3).

The defense argues that the Court implicitly rejected the waiver theory at that stage by entertaining Mr. Guo's objections on the preservation motion, and that nothing has changed to resurrect the waiver argument now.

II. The $1.3 Billion Money Judgment is Unsupported

The defense renews its objections to entry of a $1.3 billion personal money judgment, repeating arguments developed in its principal POF objections (case-doc-799):

• The government has not adduced evidence sufficient to establish the scope of the fraud or to identify the specific individuals defrauded;
• The government has not established that Mr. Guo personally obtained $1.3 billion in proceeds;
• Acquitted conduct cannot form the basis of forfeiture liability;
• Any money judgment must be offset by the substantial cash and other assets already seized or recovered by the government, the bankruptcy trustee, and others.