Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 858

摘要

Order on Miles Guo's Objections to the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture — Money Judgment Set at $889 Million

This is an Order issued by District Judge Analisa Torres and entered as Document 858 in United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo), No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), filed June 29, 2026. It resolves Guo's objections (ECF No. 799) to the preliminary order of forfeiture ("POF," ECF No. 720) entered August 11, 2025. The Court sustains the objections in part and overrules them in part.

Background

On July 16, 2024 a jury convicted Guo of nine counts, including racketeering conspiracy (Count One), conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud (Counts Two–Four), and wire and securities fraud tied to the Farm Loan Program, G|CLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange (Counts Seven–Eleven); he was acquitted on the counts connected to the GTV Private Placement (Counts Five, Six, and Twelve). These schemes were charged as components of the "G Enterprise." The convictions triggered forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1963(a), 981(a)(1)(C), and 982(a)(1). The Government sought a $1.3 billion money judgment plus forfeiture of "Listed Property," including cash seized from numerous bank accounts and a Mahwah, New Jersey mansion and its contents (luxury vehicles and furnishings).

The Court's Rulings

- Scope. The Court rejects Guo's argument that forfeiture must exclude "proceeds" from people who deny being victims. Reliance is not an element of criminal fraud, and an investor's subjective belief does not determine whether funds are fraud proceeds; objections from Himalaya Exchange members and other third parties are reserved for ancillary proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n).
- Possession. The Court rejects Guo's claim that he can forfeit only property he "personally obtained." Proceeds are forfeitable if they were, at some point, under the defendant's control; the trial record established Guo's control over the G Enterprise and its assets, and Honeycutt v. United States is distinguishable.
- GTV Private Placement / SEC disgorgement. Guo argued that funds from the GTV Private Placement should be excluded and the judgment reduced by amounts recovered by the SEC. The Court holds that $411 million already disgorged to the SEC (which established a fair fund for victims) must be deducted, but declines to deduct a further ~$75 million Guo attributed to G-Coin/G-Dollar sales and Voice of Guo Media, finding it not traceable to the crimes of conviction. The remaining $889 million is traceable to the Farm Loan Program, G|CLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange.
- Offsets. The Court declines to offset the money judgment by assets already in the Government's possession or by property not covered by the POF; the value of property in a final order of forfeiture will be credited toward the judgment once third-party claims are resolved.
- Bankruptcy assets. The Court denies Guo's motion (ECF No. 724) to compel the Government to seize assets held by the Chapter 11 Trustee in Guo's bankruptcy (In re Kwok, D. Conn.), holding it lacks the power to force the Government to execute a seizure.
- Restitution. Finding restitution impracticable given the case's complexity and the number of victims, the Court authorizes a remission process to compensate victims in lieu of a restitution order under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.

Disposition

The Court sustains Guo's objections to the extent of deducting $411 million, setting the final money judgment at $889 million; overrules the remaining objections; confirms forfeiture of the Listed Property; denies the motion at ECF No. 724 (directing the Clerk to terminate it); and authorizes victim remission. So ordered June 29, 2026.