Judge Rachel P. Kovner rejected claims from nine alleged fraud victims seeking to contest the forfeiture of roughly 127,271 Bitcoin, ruling in a Sept. 25 order that none of them cleared the legal threshold to bring the challenge. The court found every claimant lacked Article III standing, meaning they could not show a concrete ownership stake in the seized coins. The criminal case itself is a civil forfeiture action the DOJ filed on Oct. 14, 2025, tied to alleged fraud and money laundering involving Prince Holding Group and its chairman, Chen Zhi.
Two timely claims, seven late, all dead on arrival
Kovner struck the timely claims of Ath Leepinyo and Connie Wilson and denied permission for the remaining seven to file late. The court treated the claimants' plausible fraud allegations as establishing, at most, the position of general unsecured creditors — not ownership of the Bitcoin. That distinction matters. A constructive trust could theoretically give a claimant an equitable ownership interest and standing, Kovner acknowledged in the order, but none of the nine plausibly alleged the necessary connection between their funds and the specific coins now in government hands.
One claimant leaned on an investigator's hunch
Lawrence D. Van Dyn Hoven argued his stolen cryptocurrency was part of the seizure, citing an investigator's belief to that effect. Kovner wasn't persuaded. His filings, she found, offered no supporting facts explaining why that belief should hold up. It's the kind of claim that sounds concrete until you ask for the paper trail behind it.
What the ruling doesn't do
The Sept. 25 order resolves the nine claimants' standing. It does not finalize the forfeiture or move any assets to a reserve. The government still has to succeed in the forfeiture action, and that's the hinge everything else swings on.
Remission is the remaining door
If the government does forfeit the Bitcoin, victims can petition the DOJ for remission — a discretionary process that lets them recover from forfeited property even without a present ownership interest. The bar is specific. Under 28 CFR 9.8, petitioners must document a financial loss directly caused by the offense underlying the forfeiture or a related offense. They also need to clear other eligibility conditions: no knowing participation in or benefit from the offense, no willful blindness, no prior compensation, and no reasonably available alternative assets for recovery. When forfeited property can't cover all petitions in full, recognized victims receive proportionate shares, capped at each victim's share of the associated net forfeiture proceeds.
The next concrete step is the forfeiture action itself. Until the government wins that, no remission petition has a pot to draw from — and the 127,271 Bitcoin stays exactly where it is.
