Summary
Summary being generated…
Document not found.
Document not found.
Summary being generated…
法庭文件 · 2026-06-12 · 61 页 · United States District Court · S.D.N.Y.
A pro se petitioner asks the Second Circuit to order the district court to docket her May 22, 2026 motion asserting third-party forfeiture rights under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), which she says the court received but never entered on the record despite repeated requests.
This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (appellate docket No. 26-1626, DktEntry 8.1) and entered on the district-court record as Document 851 in United States v. Kwok, et al., No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.). The cover letter is dated June 9, 2026 and the filing was docketed June 12, 2026. The petitioner, identified only as "Anna," proceeds pro se and invokes 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) and 49.1, and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (the All Writs Act). An affidavit for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is enclosed.
### Petitioner's Account
Petitioner describes herself as a bona fide, innocent investor who placed her life savings in the "G-series." She states those funds are now seized by or under the constructive custody of the DOJ, the SEC, Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins of Paul Hastings LLP, or leaders within the Himalaya Alliance and farms — and, she stresses, were not retained by defendant Kwok. On that basis she asserts a right to initiate ancillary proceedings over the property under § 853(n). She states that on May 22, 2026 she filed a "Motion to Subpoena Luc Despins and Key Himalaya Alliance & Farm Personnel; Evidentiary Hearing, & Asserting 853(n) Rights, Privacy and Declaration" with the S.D.N.Y. by mail and email, but that the motion was excluded from the public record without stated legal justification despite repeated docketing requests.
### Argument
Petitioner argues that the prosecution's victim-classification framework (S.D.N.Y. Doc. 511) improperly forces investors into a binary of "victim or co-conspirator," leaving no procedural mechanism for a § 853(n) third-party claimant, and that the Government cannot bypass the mandatory ancillary proceeding by imposing an "extra-statutory label" on innocent third parties. She contends the victim narrative is undermined by the affected parties themselves, citing Doc. 834, in which (per the petition) 1,254 designated "victims" declared that their financial injuries stem from the Government's civil takings and seizures rather than from the defendant. She frames the request under the mandamus standard of In re Von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987), and Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004).
### Relief Sought
Petitioner asks the Second Circuit to issue a writ directing the district court to (1) docket all relevant documents for all parties, including third-party pro se § 853(n) petitioners, and (2) convene a formal ancillary evidentiary hearing under § 853(n) to adjudicate her claimed legal interest in the property. The 61-page filing attaches the underlying May 22, 2026 motion (Exhibit A), proof of mailing (Exhibit B), and proofs of email docketing requests dated May 29, June 2, and June 5, 2026 (Exhibits C–E).