Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 864

摘要

Sentencing Transcript · 360 Months' Imprisonment Imposed

Official transcript of the sentencing proceeding in United States v. Miles Guo, 23 Cr. 118 (AT), held before Judge Analisa Torres in the Southern District of New York on June 29, 2026. The transcript was filed on the docket on July 15, 2026 (66 pages).

Course of the Day

The proceeding was called at 11:05 a.m., but the Court was informed by the Marshals Service that Mr. Guo was delayed by a couple of hours; the matter was adjourned and resumed at 4:01 p.m. with Mr. Guo present at counsel table. Pages 3–30 of the transcript are sealed by order of the Court.

Appearances

For the government: Assistant United States Attorneys Ryan B. Finkel, Micah F. Fergenson, Juliana N. Murray and Justin Horton, under United States Attorney Jay Clayton, with paralegal specialist David Naguib. For the defendant: Melinda M. Sarafa (Sarafa Zellan PLLC), Joshua L. Dratel (Law Offices of Joshua L. Dratel, P.C.) and John F. Kaley (Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack). Mandarin interpreters Stephanie Liu and I Ching Ng were present.

Fatico Hearing Denied

Mr. Guo requested an evidentiary (Fatico) hearing to resolve his factual disputes with the presentence report, particularly the loss calculation. Noting that fact-finding at sentencing is by a preponderance of the evidence (United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 595 (2d Cir. 1999)) and having presided over the two-month trial, the Court concluded it could make the necessary determinations without an evidentiary hearing.

Factual Findings

The Court overruled Mr. Guo's objection that there were no victims, relying on more than 230 victim statements and the trial testimony, and rejected his claim that he did not purport to act on behalf of a charitable, educational or religious organization. It found it more likely than not that he willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, justice in connection with the investigation, prosecution or sentencing, and that he was the leader of and directed the G Enterprise as alleged in Count One. On loss, the Court observed that under the top bracket of the Guidelines loss table it need only find loss exceeding $550 million, and made that finding, citing testimony from victims Le Zhou and Wei Chen and written victim statements showing investors sought refunds they did not receive despite promises that funds could be withdrawn at any time.

Guidelines Calculation and Recommendations

The Court found an offense level of 55, treated as 43 (the maximum), criminal history category I, and a resulting Guidelines recommendation of 2,100 months' imprisonment by operation of the statutory maxima, with a fine range of $50,000 to $5 million. Probation recommended a below-Guidelines sentence of 240 months on Counts One through Three and Seven through Eleven, concurrent, plus 60 months on Count Four consecutive — 300 months in total. The government recommended at least 360 months (30 years). The defense argued for a sentence substantially below both the Guidelines range and the presentence report recommendation, urging that the § 3553(a) factors should outweigh the Guidelines and submitting statements from 1,286 unique individuals who affirmatively stated they were not victims; counsel also argued that the government's own position that the case is too complicated for restitution reinforced that loss could not be established on the record without a Fatico hearing.

Sentence Imposed

On Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten and Eleven, Mr. Guo was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment, the terms on all nine counts to run concurrently. The Court imposed no term of supervised release, citing Guidelines § 5D1.1(c) (supervised release should not be imposed where not statutorily required and the defendant is likely to be deported after serving his sentence), and no fine.

Forfeiture

Mr. Guo was ordered to forfeit the property listed in the preliminary order of forfeiture and in the supplemental order of forfeiture filed at ECF No. 790, including a money judgment of $889 million. The Court noted that numerous third-party petitions asserting claims under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) had been sent to it, and stated it would provide further guidance on the handling of those petitions in due course, given the sentence imposed and its resolution of Mr. Guo's objections to the forfeiture order.

Appeal and Designation

The Court advised Mr. Guo of his right to appeal the conviction and sentence, with a notice of appeal due within 14 days of the judgment of conviction. Defense counsel asked the Court to recommend designation to the BOP facility at Danbury, or Fairton if Danbury were unavailable; the government took no position.