{"id":"court_ctb_4338_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4338,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------- |          | x                                 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------|\n| In re:                                                  |          | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                            |          | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                         | Debtors. | :<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered)  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------  |          | :<br>x                            |\n\n### **MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER REGARDING SERVICE PROCEDURES**\n\nLuc A. Despins (hereinafter, the \"Trustee\"), in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully files this motion (the \"Motion\") seeking entry of the proposed order attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\") authorizing the Trustee to utilize particular service procedures with respect to Defendant Qiang Guo (\"Mileson\" or the \"Defendant\"), pursuant to Rules 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Rules\") and Rules 7004, 7005, 9013 and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\").<sup>2</sup> In support of the entry of the Proposed Order, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Trustee files this Motion in order to address the recent assertion by the\n\nDebtor's son, Mileson, in a February 20, 2025 witness statement (the \"Cyprus Affidavit\") filed\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Trustee has filed this motion in the above captioned chapter 11 cases (the \"Chapter 11 Cases\") and in each of the Adversary Proceedings (as defined below).\n\nin the Trustee's litigation against Mileson in Cyprus (the \"Cyprus Litigation\"), that Mileson is a resident of Switzerland and has not resided at his address in London since 2021. Mileson has claimed in the Cyprus Affidavit, among other things, that given his alleged residence in Switzerland, he was not properly served with documents related to the Cyprus Litigation that the Trustee served on Mileson at his address in London in October of 2024. The Cyprus Affidavit followed a January 13, 2025 filing (the \"BVI Defense\") by Mileson and K Legacy Ltd. (\"K Legacy\") in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") which stated that the address in London \"was a residence of Mileson's between 2016 and 2022.\"<sup>3</sup>\n\n2. Mileson's assertion of a Swiss address<sup>4</sup> in the Cyprus Litigation raises service issues relevant to the Trustee's litigation efforts generally, because the Trustee understands that Swiss law (a) strictly prohibits (including through criminal sanctions) the mailing of foreign court documents to parties in Switzerland and (b) requires that all legal documents (including those initiating adversary proceedings as well as subsequent documents) be served through Switzerland's centralized service agency pursuant to the Hague Convention on Service of Process (the \"Hague Convention\"), a time-consuming process that can delay the service of documents by several months. Given Mileson's track record, the Trustee suspects that Mileson is asserting his Swiss residency strategically to delay the Trustee's litigation.\n\n3. As discussed in greater detail below, the Trustee requests relief in the Proposed Order that would address these service issues by (a) confirming the effectiveness of prior service on Mileson at Mileson's address in London at 5 Princes Gate, Flat 6, London, SW7 IQJ, United Kingdom (the \"London Apartment\"); and (b) establishing service procedures (the \"Service\n\n<sup>3</sup> BVI Defense ¶ 11.2, attached hereto as **Exhibit 1**.\n\n<sup>4</sup> The Trustee understands that this address is Rigistrasse 201, 6353 Weggis, Switzerland (the \"Swiss Address\").\n\nProcedures\") under which any future service of documents on Mileson shall be sufficient<sup>5</sup> upon (i) the mailing of such documents to the London Apartment; (ii) the emailing of such documents to the email addresses for Mileson of which the Trustee is aware (the \"Mileson Email Addresses\"<sup>6</sup> ); (iii) the emailing of such documents to Mileson's counsel, including Arethusa Forsyth and those counsel currently representing Mileson in proceedings against the Trustee in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") and Cyprus; and (iv) the publication of such documents on a publicly available \"Mileson Page\" on the case website maintained by Epiq at http\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n5. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n# **MOTION**\n\n### **I. Background**\n\n### **A. Trustee's Litigation Against Mileson**\n\n6. As the Court is aware, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in which Mileson is a defendant, including, adversary proceeding numbers 24- 05238 (seeking recovery of approximately \\$90 million of avoidable transfers (the \"First Mileson Avoidance Action\")); 25-05048 (related to transfers made to Mileson that are not addressed in\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Proposed Order provides that service pursuant to the Service Procedures shall constitute proper and effective service on Mileson pursuant to Rules 4 and 5, Bankruptcy Rules 7004, 7005 and Bankruptcy Rules 9013 and 9014, as applicable (including in connection with service of documents filed in the Chapter 11 Cases and in adversary proceedings not yet commenced as of the date of the entry of the Proposed Order).\n\n<sup>6</sup> The Mileson Email Addresses are as follows: ukistruehome@gmail.com; jeffyuef2@icloud.com; ipadforfly@icloud.com; cybermail2018@protonmail.com; raps.sinless0h@icloud.com.\n\nthe First Mileson Avoidance Action (the \"Second Mileson Avoidance Action\")), 24-05225 (related to transfers to an aircraft manufacturer to purchase aircraft for Mileson (the \"Cirrus Avoidance Action\")); 24-05245 (related to transfers to an auction house to purchase one or more vehicles for Mileson (the \"RM Auctions Action\")); 24-05311 (related to the Debtor's apartment in Cyprus nominally owned by Mileson through Bouillor Holdings Limited (the \"Bouillor Action\")); 24-05249 (the Trustee's first omnibus alter ego adversary proceeding (the \"First Omnibus Alter Ego Action\")); 24-05318 (the severed action for defaulting defendants to the First Omnibus Alter Ego action (the \"Severed Alter Ego Action\")); 24-05322 (the Trustee's second omnibus alter ego adversary proceeding (the \"Second Omnibus Alter Ego Action); 24-05273 (the Trustee's civil RICO action); 23-05002 (related to the use of the Sherry Netherland apartment (the \"Sherry Netherland Action\")); and 22-05027 (related to the purported trust agreement under which the Sherry Netherland apartment was allegedly held in trust for the benefit of Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\"), a company nominally owned by Mileson (the \"Bravo Luck Action,\" and, together with the other adversary proceedings listed in this paragraph, the \"Adversary Proceedings\")). Documents in numerous of the Adversary Proceedings have been served on Mileson at the London Apartment.\n\n7. Mileson has been assiduous in refusing to appear personally before this Court in connection with the Adversary Proceedings or any other matters, preferring instead to default on his obligation to respond by the Court's deadlines. Mileson has only appeared personally in the Trustee's litigation against him in the BVI (the \"BVI Proceedings\") and the Cyprus Litigation, where Mileson is in both cases represented by counsel. Moreover, the Trustee anticipates that Mileson will actively oppose, with the assistance of counsel, the Trustee's actions against Mileson in Switzerland, where the Trustee initiated proceedings (the \"Swiss Attachment\n\n4\n\nProceedings\") in February 2025 that resulted in Mileson's Swiss property being attached (the \"Swiss Attachment\").\n\n8. Further, though Mileson has refused to appear personally before this Court in matters related to his father's chapter 11 case, he did file a proof of claim in the procedurally consolidated Genever Holdings LLC chapter 11 case,<sup>7</sup> and he has participated in litigation and other matters related to his father's chapter 11 case through companies nominally owned by him. Bravo Luck, for example, actively opposed the Trustee in the Bravo Luck Adversary Proceeding prior to capitulating and agreeing to a settlement, signed by Mileson and approved by the Court, in which Mileson and Bravo Luck gave up, in exchange for no material consideration, all the rights and interests they had asserted with respect to the Sherry Netherland apartment.<sup>8</sup> Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), nominally owned by Mileson through Infinity Treasury Management LLC (\"Infinity Treasury\"), has been involved in the Debtor's chapter 11 case since its commencement, when Lamp Capital was listed as one of the twenty largest unsecured creditors on the Debtor's voluntary chapter 11 petition in connection with financing a \\$1 million retainer paid to the Debtor's prior counsel.<sup>9</sup> Lamp Capital was subsequently held in contempt by the Court in April 2023 for failure to comply with Rule 2004 discovery obligations.<sup>10</sup> Lamp Capital and Infinity Treasury then unsuccessfully opposed the Trustee's default judgment motion in the Trustee's adversary proceeding number 23-05028 seeking an alter ego ruling with respect to Lamp Capital (the \"Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding\"). The Court in its default judgment decision held that Lamp Capital and Infinity Treasury (the \"Lamp Entities\") deliberately\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* Claim 3-1, *In re Genever Holdings LLC,* No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (filed March 5, 2021).\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See Order Granting, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation Regarding Settlement with Bravo Luck Limited and Mileson Guo (a/k/a Qiang Guo and/or Guo Qiang)* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Aug. 30, 2023) [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 118].\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy*, at 13 [Main Case Docket No. 1].\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court*, at 4 [Main Case Docket No. 1709].\n\ndefaulted on their obligation to respond to the Trustee's complaint, agreeing with the Trustee that\n\n\"Mr. Guo and the Lamp Entities have been aware of these proceedings since before the Petition\n\nwas filed, have selectively chosen to engage or avoid them, and the Default was a continuation of\n\nthat choice.\"<sup>11</sup>\n\n## **B. Service at London Apartment in Adversary Proceedings**\n\n# 9. In the Adversary Proceedings, the Trustee has served Mileson at the London\n\nApartment by mail or courier service with complaints, summons, and related documents (the\n\n| Complaint Service | Complaint Documents                    | Adversary Proceeding     |\n|-------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------|\n| Dates             |                                        |                          |\n| January 31, 2023  | Complaint and Summons                  | Bravo Luck Action        |\n|                   | [Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF Nos. 1, 2]13 |                          |\n| February 17, 2023 | Complaint and Summons                  | Sherry Netherland Action |\n|                   | [Adv. Proc. 23-05002, ECF Nos. 1, 9]   |                          |\n| March 21, 2024    | Complaint and Summons                  | First Omnibus Alter Ego  |\n|                   | [Adv. Proc. 24-05249, ECF Nos. 1, 5]14 | Action                   |\n\n\"Complaint Documents\"), on the following dates (the \"Complaint Service Dates\")<sup>12</sup>:\n\n<sup>11</sup> Adv. Proc. ECF No. 63, at 11. The Court's decision was recently affirmed by the District Court in March 2025, which \"agrees with the Bankruptcy Court that the Lamp Entities' failure to timely respond to the Complaint is better-viewed as a continuation of Lamp Capital's contemptuous disregard for the broader bankruptcy proceedings, which itself is evidence of the Lamp Entities' willful and deliberate default.\" [24-217, ECF 22, at 11.]. Among other things, the District Court upheld this Court's rejection of the Lamp Entities' notice arguments: \"Regarding the Lamp Entities awareness of the Adversary Proceeding, they offered that counsel was hired by someone *believed to be* the Debtor's son, and that counsel had general knowledge of the Chapter 11 case and related adversary proceedings 'through the grapevine.' Again, a dubious assertion, and one supported only by the representations of counsel, which are not evidence.\" *Id.* at 10 (emphasis in original).\n\n<sup>12</sup> *See Certificate of Service*, Bravo Luck Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 27] (\"Bravo Luck COS\"); *Certificate of Service*, Sherry Netherland Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 16] (\"Sherry Netherland COS\"); *Certificate of Service Regarding Summons and Complaint*, First Omnibus Alter Ego Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 23] (\"First Omnibus Alter Ego COS\"); *Certificate of Service Regarding Summons, Complaint, and Notice of Applicability of Avoidance Action Procedures*, First Mileson Avoidance Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 10] (\"First Mileson Avoidance Action COS\"); *Certificate of Service Regarding Summons, Complaint, and Notice of Applicability of Avoidance Action Procedures*, RM Auction Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 22] (\"RM Auction COS\"); *Certificate of Service Regarding Summons, Complaint, and Notice of Applicability of Avoidance Action Procedures*, Cirrus Avoidance Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 16] (\"Cirrus Avoidance COS\"); *Certificate of Service*, RICO Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 52] (\"RICO COS\"); *Certificate of Service Regarding Summons and Complaint*, Bouillor Action [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 13] (\"Bouillor COS\").\n\n<sup>13</sup> In addition, on January 31, 2023, these documents were hand delivered by an English solicitor to the Princes' Gate concierge. *See* Bravo Luck COS.\n\n<sup>14</sup> In addition, on April 17, 2024, these documents were emailed to Mileson's counsel, Arethusa Forsyth. *See* First Omnibus Alter Ego COS.\n\n| March 21, 2024  | Complaint, Summons, Notice of<br>Applicability of Avoidance Action<br>Procedures<br>[Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF Nos. 1, 3,<br>15<br>4] | First Mileson Avoidance<br>Action |\n|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|\n| March 27, 2024  | Complaint, Summons, Notice of<br>Applicability of Avoidance Action<br>Procedures<br>[Adv. Proc. 24-05245, ECF Nos. 1, 2,<br>4]16     | RM Auctions Action                |\n| March 27, 2024  | Complaint, Summons, Notice of<br>Applicability of Avoidance Action<br>Procedures<br>[Adv. Proc. 24-05225, ECF Nos. 1, 3,<br>4]17     | Cirrus Avoidance Action           |\n| May 10, 2024    | Complaint and Summons<br>[Adv. Proc. 24-05273, ECF Nos. 1, 5]18                                                                      | RICO Action                       |\n| August 26, 2024 | Complaint and Summons<br>[Adv. Proc. 24-05311, ECF Nos. 1, 9]19                                                                      | Bouillor Action                   |\n\n### 10. Further, in the Adversary Proceedings the Trustee has served Mileson at the\n\nLondon Apartment by mail or courier service with other documents (the \"Other Documents\"\n\nand, together with the Complaint Documents, the \"Served Documents\") on the following dates\n\n(the \"Other Service Dates\" and, together with the Complaint Service Dates, the \"Service Dates\"):\n\n| Other Service | Other Documents                                     | Adversary         |\n|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------|\n| Dates         |                                                     | Proceeding        |\n| February 17,  | Motion for Summary Judgment, Memorandum of          | Sherry Netherland |\n| 2023          | Law in Support of the Motion for Summary            | Action            |\n|               | Judgment, Local Rule 56(a)(1) Statement,            |                   |\n|               | Declaration of the Chapter 11 Trustee in Support of |                   |\n|               | the Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion to          |                   |\n\n<sup>15</sup> These documents were signed for by an \"N. Noelle\" at Princes Gate on March 27, 2024. In addition, on April 17, 2024, these documents were emailed to Mileson's counsel, Arethusa Forsyth. *See* First Mileson Avoidance Action COS.\n\n<sup>16</sup> In addition, on April 17, 2024, these documents were emailed to Mileson's counsel, Arethusa Forsyth. *See* RM Auctions COS.\n\n<sup>17</sup> In addition, on April 17, 2024, these documents were emailed to Mileson's counsel, Arethusa Forsyth. *See* Cirrus COS.\n\n<sup>18</sup> In addition, on April 17, 2024, these documents were emailed to Mileson's counsel, Arethusa Forsyth. *See* RICO COS.\n\n<sup>19</sup> In addition, on August 26, 2024, these documents were emailed to Mileson's counsel, Arethusa Forsyth, and mailed to the address of Mileson's office in Brentford, United Kingdom. *See* Bouillor COS.\n\n|                | Schedule Hearing on the Motion for Summary          |                     |\n|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------|\n|                | Judgment, Motion to Expedite, and Notice to Qiang   |                     |\n|                | Guo                                                 |                     |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 23-05002, ECF Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8] |                     |\n| March 6, 2023  | Amended Complaint                                   | Bravo Luck Action   |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF No. 40]                   |                     |\n| June 5, 2023   | Notice of Filing Revised Proposed Order Granting    | Bravo Luck Action   |\n|                | Motion for Default Judgment                         |                     |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF No. 95]                   |                     |\n| August 7, 2023 | Rule 9019 Settlement Motion, Motion to Limit        | Bravo Luck Action   |\n|                | Service of Settlement Motion and Notice of          |                     |\n|                | Hearing                                             |                     |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF Nos. 112, 115 and 116]    |                     |\n| June 4, 2024   | Request for Entry of Default Against Qiang Guo      | First Omnibus Alter |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 24-05249, ECF No. 27]                   | Ego Action          |\n|                |                                                     |                     |\n|                |                                                     |                     |\n| July 1, 2024   | Motion for Default Judgment                         | First Omnibus Alter |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 24-05249, ECF No. 36]                   | Ego Action          |\n| September 17,  | Request for Entry of Default against Qiang Guo      | Cirrus Avoidance    |\n| 2024           | [Adv. Proc. 24-05225, ECF No. 17]                   | Action              |\n|                | October 16, 2024 Motion for Default Judgment        | First Mileson       |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF No. 17]                   | Avoidance Action    |\n| November 13,   | Motion for Entry of Consented to Stipulated         | Severed Alter Ego   |\n| 2024           | Judgment                                            | Action              |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 24-05318, ECF No. 104]                  |                     |\n| February 19,   | Motion to Lift Stay as to Remaining Claims          | First Mileson       |\n| 2025           | [Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF No. 28]                   | Avoidance Action    |\n| February 28,   | Order Lifting Stay as to Remaining Claims           | First Mileson       |\n| 2025           | [Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF No. 29] (the \"Lift Stay   | Avoidance Action    |\n|                | Order\")                                             |                     |\n| March 4, 2025  | Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment             | Second Omnibus      |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 24-05322, ECF No. 8]                    | Alter Ego Action    |\n| March 7, 2025  | Sealed Emergency Ex Parte TRO Motion, Sealed        | Cirrus Avoidance    |\n|                | TRO Order, Ex Parte Motion to Amend Sealed          | Action              |\n|                | TRO Order, and Sealed Order Granting Ex Parte       |                     |\n|                | Motion to Amend Sealed TRO Order                    |                     |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 24-05225, ECF Nos. 49, 52, 53 and 54]   |                     |\n\n| March 26, 2025 | Notice of Continued Hearing on Motion for Entry | Second Omnibus   |\n|----------------|-------------------------------------------------|------------------|\n|                | of Stipulated Judgment                          | Alter Ego Action |\n|                | [Adv. Proc. 24-05322, ECF No. 13]               |                  |\n\n# **C. Trustee's Knowledge Regarding Mileson's Addresses**\n\n11. During the entire time period relevant to this Motion through to the present, the Trustee has been conducting an investigation into the financial affairs of the Debtor that has resulted in the Trustee becoming aware of a number of pieces of evidence related to the multiple addresses and residences used by Mileson. This evidence includes, among other things, documents produced in discovery, as well as numerous documents used by the United States Government (the \"Government\") as trial exhibits (the \"Government Exhibits\") in its criminal prosecution of the Debtor and made available to the Trustee in July of 2024. While the Trustee's knowledge regarding Mileson's addresses has evolved over time, the evidence has in each instance supported the Trustee's decision to serve Mileson at the London Apartment on each of the Service Dates, as explained further below.\n\n# **i. Trustee's Knowledge Through July 1, 2024**\n\n12. Prior to the Trustee obtaining access to the Government Exhibits in mid-July 2024, the Trustee was aware of numerous documents and other evidence that caused the Trustee to understand that Mileson used the London Apartment as his address. Among other things:\n\n- a. Documents obtained in the Trustee's investigation identified the London Apartment as Mileson's address and Mileson as the nominal owner of the entity holding title to the London Apartment, K Legacy.\n- b. The Debtor, in his declaration filed with this Court on March 20, 2022 and in his April 6, 2022 Bankruptcy Rule 341 meeting of creditors, stated that his son lived in London.<sup>20</sup>\n\n<sup>20</sup> *See* Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions ¶ 6 [Docket No. 107]; Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 24:13-14.\n\n- c. Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, stated in her deposition taken on January 20, 2023, that her brother lived in London.<sup>21</sup>\n- d. On January 31, 2023, an individual at the London Apartment building (\"Princes Gate\") confirmed to the Trustee's English solicitor that Mileson lived at Princes Gate.<sup>22</sup>\n- e. On February 28, 2023, a letter from the Trustee was delivered to Princes Gate and accepted with the executed signature \"GUO.\"<sup>23</sup>\n- f. Documents obtained in the Trustee's investigation showed that Mileson was sent emails to his \"ukistruehome@gmail.com\" email address as late as March 2024.<sup>24</sup> For the avoidance of doubt, this spells out \"UK is **true** home\" (emphasis added).\n- 13. By contrast, until mid-July 2024 the Trustee was not aware of the Swiss Address\n\nand had not seen documentary or other evidence pointing to the Swiss Address as an address for\n\nMileson.\n\n14. In sum, on each of the Service Dates through July 1, 2024 (the only Service Date\n\nduring that month), the Trustee understood that Mileson used the London Apartment as his\n\naddress and that the Trustee had no knowledge of the Swiss Address. Based on this\n\nunderstanding, the Trustee decided to serve the Served Documents on Mileson at the London\n\nApartment.\n\n# **ii. Trustee's Knowledge After July 2024 Through January 13, 2025**\n\n15. As noted above, in July 2024, the Government provided the Trustee with\n\nnumerous of the Government Exhibits. Based on his review of these documents, as well as\n\n<sup>21</sup> *See* Mei Guo Depo. Tr., Jan. 20, 2023, at 51:3-4.\n\n<sup>22</sup> *See Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok For Entry Of Default Judgment Against Qiang Guo*, ¶ 34 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, June 2, 2023) [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 93- 1].\n\n<sup>23</sup> *See Declaration of Patrick R. Linsey in Support of Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment Against Qiang Guo*, ¶ 11 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, June 2, 2023) [Adv. Proc. ECF No. 93-2].\n\n<sup>24</sup> *See* Email from Sydney Montgomery to ukistruehome@gmail.com, dated March 5, 2024 (discussing closing an escrow account in connection with aircraft of the Debtor), attached hereto as **Exhibit 2**.\n\nadditional documents obtained in the Trustee's ongoing investigation, the Trustee understood\n\nthat Mileson continued to use the London Apartment as his address. For example:\n\n- a. Mileson sent an email on January 7, 2023 inviting friends to visit him in London (while also mentioning that he was \"now officially [a] Swiss resident\").<sup>25</sup>\n- b. Mileson's attorney represented in a short biography of Mileson dated to January 2023 that his address was at the London Apartment and that he resided in London.<sup>26</sup>\n- c. The London Apartment was used as Mileson's address on an accountant's invoice dated January 2023 and emailed to Mileson in April 2023.<sup>27</sup>\n- d. Mileson used the London Apartment as his address in a Cyprus corporate registry filing dated to March 12, 2024.<sup>28</sup>\n- e. In September 2024 Mileson's counsel Arethusa Forsyth was communicating with representatives of Princes Gate regarding the payment of delinquent maintenance charges (and litigating seeking to allow such charges) in connection with the London Apartment.\n- 16. The Trustee's understanding, further supported by these documents, that Mileson\n\nused the London Apartment as his address, was reinforced on January 6, 2025, when the\n\nSecurities and Exchange Commission (the \"SEC\") filed a letter (the \"SEC Letter\")<sup>29</sup> in the\n\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with its\n\nsecurities fraud action against the Debtor, in which Mileson is a relief defendant. In the SEC\n\nLetter, the SEC reported that it had served Mileson in the United Kingdom pursuant to Rule\n\n4(f)(2)(A), which permits service by a means that is reasonably calculated to give notice as\n\nprescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action in its courts of\n\n<sup>25</sup> *See* Email from Mileson to Janice Bateman, dated January 7, 2023 (asking Bateman to \"meet in London\") [GXUK386], attached hereto as **Exhibit 3**.\n\n<sup>26</sup> *See* Email from Arethusa Forsyth to Neil Singh, dated January 26, 2023 (\"Mr Guo resides in London\") [GXUK390], attached hereto as **Exhibit 4**.\n\n<sup>27</sup> *See* Email from Simone Boesch to Mileson, dated April 3, 2023 (listing Q Guo's address as the London Apartment) [GXUK407], attached hereto as **Exhibit 5**.\n\n<sup>28</sup> *See* Transfer of Shares of a Private Company Form, dated March 13, 2024 (showing London Apartment as address), attached hereto (original and certified English translation) as **Exhibit 6**.\n\n<sup>29</sup> The SEC Letter, together with the Stephenson Harwood Letter is attached hereto as **Exhibit 7**.\n\ngeneral jurisdiction. The SEC Letter attached a letter from the SEC's English counsel, Stephenson Harwood LLP (the \"Stephenson Harwood Letter\") setting forth why the London Apartment qualified as Mileson's \"last known\" address pursuant to Rule 6.9 of the Civil Procedures Rules of England and Wales (the \"CPR\"), which allows for service of English proceedings at an individual's \"usual or last known residence.\"<sup>30</sup> According to the Stephenson Harwood Letter, the London Apartment was used as Mileson's address on, among other things, a November 5, 2024 mobile phone contract, a November 1, 2024 credit card application, and vehicle insurance records dating to at least June 2024.<sup>31</sup>\n\n17. While substantial evidence continued to point to the London Apartment as\n\nMileson's address, Government Exhibits and other documents obtained by the Trustee during\n\nand after July 2024 made the Trustee aware for the first time of the existence of the Swiss\n\nAddress and suggested that Mileson also used this as his address. For example:\n\n- a. Documentary evidence showing that Mileson purchased real property at the Swiss Address in December 2022.\n- b. Mileson sent an email on January 7, 2023 mentioning that he was \"now officially [a] Swiss resident\" (while also inviting friends to visit him in London, suggesting he still lived in London).<sup>32</sup>\n- c. The Swiss Canton of Luzerne identified the Swiss address as Mileson's address in correspondence dated to March 2023.<sup>33</sup>\n- d. Utility bills were being sent to Mileson at the Swiss Address as of January 2024.<sup>34</sup>\n\n<sup>30</sup> CPR 6.9. A copy of CPR 6.9 is attached hereto at **Exhibit 8**.\n\n<sup>31</sup> The Stephenson Harwood Letter also describes certain inconsistent information from Princes Gate personnel. *Compare* Stephenson Hardwood Letter, at 3 ¶ 8 (\"On or about December 29, 2023, the building concierge at the Princes Gate Address told an investigator retained by our firm that Qiang Guo was a resident of the building\") *to id.* at 3, n. 1 (\"We note that, on February 18, 2024, a building concierge at the Princes Gate Address told an investigator retained by our firm that Qiang Guo was not a resident and refused to provide any additional information.\").\n\n<sup>32</sup> *See* Ex. 3 [GXUK386].\n\n<sup>33</sup> *See* Email from Mileson to Jan Loser, dated March 20, 2023, at 3 [GXUK405], attached hereto as **Exhibit 9**.\n\n<sup>34</sup> *See* Affidavit of Ownership, dated April 9, 2024, at 4 (EWS Utility Bill, dated January 9, 2024), attached hereto as **Exhibit 10**.\n\ne. Mileson used the Swiss Address in a BVI corporate filing related to K Legacy dated April 9, 2024.<sup>35</sup>\n\n18. In sum, on each of the Service Dates after July 2024 and prior to January 13, 2025, the Trustee understood that Mileson continued to use the London Apartment as his address and, further, that Mileson was also using the Swiss Address, though Mileson had not yet claimed in court filings that he no longer resided at the London Apartment.\n\n19. Based on this understanding, the Trustee decided to serve the Served Documents on Mileson at the London Address during this period, but did not conduct service on the Swiss Address. This was for several reasons. For one thing, it was far from clear whether Mileson had actually established his residence at the Swiss Address given that he was continuing to use the London Apartment as his address during the time period after the Swiss Property was purchased in late 2022, as set forth above in paragraph 17, and had continued to claim as his address a residence where he very clearly did not live, the mansion at 20 South Bay Road in Hong Kong, nominally owned by the BVI company Leading Shine Limited, which Mileson identified as his address on documents dated as recently as June 3, 2024.<sup>36</sup> In addition, the Trustee understood that Swiss law requires that all service, whether or not such service is of the complaint commencing an action or subsequently filed documents, be undertaken through a months-long Hague Convention process, and that mailing Court documents to a party in Switzerland is a criminal violation of Swiss law. Further, a person may have multiple addresses or last known addresses, and in Mileson's case the London Apartment was one of these addresses.\n\n<sup>35</sup> *See id.*, at 1-2 (Biography).\n\n<sup>36</sup> *See* Annual Return, Canadian Agri-Product Monetary Investments Limited, dated June 3, 2024, at Schedule 1 (PDF Page 10) (listing Majestic View Manor in Hong Kong as Mileson's address), attached hereto as **Exhibit 13.**\n\n#### **iii. Trustee's Knowledge After January 13, 2025**\n\n20. On January 13, 2025, Mileson filed the BVI Defense brief, which claimed that the London Apartment was \"a residence of Mileson's between 2016 and 2022.\"<sup>37</sup> On February 20, 2025, Mileson filed the Cyprus Affidavit, in which he claimed that he had not resided in London since 2021 and that he was residing in Switzerland as of the date in October 2024 when the Trustee attempted to serve him at the London Apartment with documents filed in the Cyprus Proceeding.<sup>38</sup> The Trustee notes that he doubts Mileson's credibility generally and that there are numerous contradictions between the Cyprus Affidavit's position that Mileson left London in 2021 and other documentary evidence, including the BVI Defense where Mileson claimed to use the London Apartment as \"a residence\" between 2016 and **2022**. <sup>39</sup> Moreover, documents obtained by the Trustee in late February 2025 show that Mileson continued to receive correspondence at the London Apartment through January 2025.\n\n21. On February 27, 2025, the Court held a hearing (the \"February 27 Hearing\") at\n\nwhich the Trustee discussed the Cyprus Affidavit, the March 4, 2025 service deadline under the\n\nLift Stay Order, and related issues, stating as follows:\n\n[L]ast Friday, for the first time, we saw a pleading or an affidavit from the debtor's son in another proceeding where he clearly disavowed the residence in, his residence in London, saying that the London apartment has not been his residence since 2021. To be clear, we knew, and in 2024, we knew that he had a house in, he had acquired a house in Switzerland and we knew that he had made a corporate\n\n<sup>37</sup> BVI Defense ¶ 11.2.\n\n<sup>38</sup> In the Cyprus Affidavit, Mileson accused the Trustee of representing to the BVI court in September 2024, in the Trustee's litigation against Mileson and K Legacy disputing the ownership of the K Legacy and the London Apartment, that the Swiss Address was Mileson's last known address, and concealing from the Cyprus court in filings made in October 2024 that the Trustee (purportedly) knew Mileson resided in Switzerland and not the UK. The Trustee has filed an additional affidavit with the BVI court to clarify the positions he previously took. *See Fifth Affidavit of Luc A. Despins*, dated April 3, 2025, attached hereto as **Exhibit 11**. The affidavit has been attached without the exhibits thereto, and the exhibits can be provided, subject to BVI confidentiality rules, upon request.\n\n<sup>39</sup> Also questionable are Mileson's claims in the Cyprus Affidavit that he had limited information regarding the Trustee's proceedings against his father, and had not participated such proceedings, despite, as discussed herein, Mileson's intense involvement through his nominally owned companies such as Lamp Capital and Bravo Luck.\n\nfiling in the BVI, listing the house in Switzerland as his address. But at the same time, we knew that he filed similar filings, for example, in Cyprus, listing London as his address, and a corporate filing in Hong Kong, listing a Hong Kong house as his address, as well. But now, in this affidavit, he basically says, I've always lived only Switzerland since 2021. <sup>40</sup>\n\nWe disagree with that, obviously, for all sorts of reasons, but we wanted to bring this to the Court's attention, because there's no doubt that we can accomplish service at the London apartment, but to be clear, he still owns the London apartment. There's no issue about him having sold it or anything like that; he still owns the apartment, so we can accomplish service there -- there's no issue – by March 4th.\n\nBut if we determine that we have to serve in Switzerland, we could not complete service by March 4th. And I said, \"if,\" Your Honor, because this action against him was commenced in February -- February 15th or 14th, 2024 – long before these indicia of Switzerland ownership appeared, and therefore, we believe that this was an issue of not initial service, but rather, supplemental service and we need to figure out this thing. <sup>41</sup>\n\n22. Following the February 27 Hearing, the Trustee was informed that Mileson was\n\npresent at the Swiss Address when he was visited by Swiss police in connection with the Swiss Attachment. The Trustee also obtained evidence suggesting that Mileson has established yet another residence in the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\"). The Trustee's investigation has recently revealed that Mileson spent over 200 days in the UAE during calendar-year 2024 and that he applied for a UAE \"investor residence visa\" on February 27, 2025. The timing of this visa application is revealing—it appears to be a reaction by Mileson to the Swiss Attachment.\n\n23. In sum, on each of the Service Dates after January 13, 2025, the Trustee understood that Mileson was claiming to no longer be using the London Apartment as his residence and, as confirmed by the Cyprus Affidavit, was claiming to reside in Switzerland, or at least to have resided at the Swiss Address as of October 2024. However, the Trustee doubted Mileson's credibility, and other evidence discussed above continued to suggest that Mileson used\n\n<sup>40</sup> Feb. 27, 2025 Hr'g Tr., at 26-28, attached hereto as **Exhibit 12**.\n\n<sup>41</sup> *Id.*\n\nthe London Apartment as his address and, further, that he may have established yet another residence elsewhere. The Trustee also continued to understand that Swiss law requires that all service, whether or not such service is of the complaint commencing an action or subsequently filed documents, be undertaken through a months-long Hague Convention process, and that mailing Court documents to a party in Switzerland is a criminal violation of Swiss law. Further, a person may have multiple addresses or last known addresses, and in Mileson's case evidence continued to indicate that the London Apartment was one of these addresses. The Trustee does not concede either that the London Apartment is no longer Mileson's last known address or that the Swiss Address is Mileson's last known address. There is a visible pattern of Mileson using the Swiss address for legally tactical reasons as he feels convenient—for example, Mileson has not raised the Swiss Address as an issue in the ongoing BVI Proceedings even though documents in those proceedings were not served on Mileson in Switzerland, and, as discussed above, Mileson used the Swiss address in corporate filings in the BVI in April 2024 while using the London Apartment address in corporate filings in Cyprus in March 2024 and a third Hong Kong address in corporate filings in Hong Kong in June 2024.\n\n### **II. Service of Complaint Documents Was Proper Under Rule 4**\n\n24. The Complaint Documents were properly served on Mileson at the London Apartment pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2)(A), which permits service by means that are reasonably calculated to give notice as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction. Here, the foreign country is the United Kingdom, where CPR 6.9(2) allows for service of English proceedings at an individual's \"usual or last known residence.\"<sup>42</sup>\n\n<sup>42</sup> *See* Ex. 8, CPR 6.9.\n\n25. The legal standard under English law for determining the \"last known residence\"\n\nunder CPR 6.9 was discussed by the High Court of England and Wales in the case of *Boetthcher*\n\n*v XIO (UK) LLP (In Liquidation) & Ors* [2023] EWHC 801,<sup>43</sup> which listed a number of\n\n\"observations [that] may be made about the concept of the defendant's last known residence in\n\norder to test the validity of service at that address,\" consisting of the following:\n\n- (1) The claimant must establish that there is a good arguable case that the address at which service was effected was the defendant's last known residence. This means that, on the evidence available, the claimant has the better of the argument on this issue than the defendant.\n- (2) The defendant's last known residence need not be the defendant's usual residence.\n\n# **(3) The defendant may have more than one last known residence.**\n\n- (4) The defendant's last known residence may be a residence at which the defendant is residing or no longer resides (having once resided there) at the time of the purported service of process. It cannot be an address at which the defendant never resided.\n- (5) Knowledge of the defendant's residence in this context refers to the claimant's actual knowledge or constructive knowledge, i.e. knowledge which the claimant could have acquired exercising reasonable diligence. An honest or even reasonable belief is not sufficient if the defendant never resided at the relevant address.\n- (5) The claimant's state of knowledge is to be assessed as at the date on which the proceedings were served at the address in question.\n\n*Boettcher*, ¶ 49 (emphasis added).\n\n26. Moreover, under CPR 6.9 (3), \"where a claimant has reason to believe that the\n\n[usual or last known] residence of the defendant . . . is an address at which the defendant no\n\nlonger resides . . . , the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the\n\ndefendant's current residence . . . .\" Should the claimant by taking reasonable steps then\n\ndetermine the defendant's current residence . . . , the defendant should be served at such location.\n\n<sup>43</sup> A copy of *Boettcher* is attached hereto as **Exhibit 14.**\n\nCPR 6.9 (4)(a). If the claimant cannot by taking reasonable steps determine the defendant's current residence . . . , the claimant must \"consider whether there is – (i) an alternative place where; or (ii) an alternative method by which service might be effected.\" CPR 6.9 (4)(b). If the claimant cannot determine either the defendant's current residence or an alternative place or method of service, the claimant may serve the defendant's \"usual or last known address.\" CPR 6.9 (6).\n\n27. Here, the London Apartment qualifies as Mileson's \"last known residence\" for purposes of CPR 6.9. As stated in *Boettcher*, the Trustee's state of knowledge \"is to be assessed as at the date on which the proceedings were served at the address in question,\" in this case, the Complaint Service Dates, which range from January 31, 2023 to August 26, 2024. *Boettcher* ¶ 49(5).\n\n28. First, as of the Complaint Service Dates that occurred prior to July 2024 (the \"Pre-July 2024 Complaint Service Dates\")<sup>44</sup> the Trustee had no information regarding Mileson's alleged change of residence to the Swiss Address, the existence of which the Trustee was not then aware. And, as of the Pre-July 2024 Complaint Service Dates, numerous pieces of evidence discussed in paragraph 12 herein pointed to the London Apartment as Mileson's address, including documents obtained in the Trustee's investigation, information supplied by individuals at Princes Gate, and mail signed for on behalf of \"GUO.\" As such, the Trustee had no reason to believe that the London Apartment was a location where Mileson \"no longer resides,\" which would have triggered the obligation in CPR 6.9 (3) for the Trustee to \"take reasonable steps to\n\n<sup>44</sup> These consist of all the Complaint Service Dates with the exception of the August 26, 2024 service date in the Bouillor Action, including: the January 31, 2023 service in the Bravo Luck Action; the February 17, 2023 service in the Sherry Netherlands Action; the March 21, 2024 service in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Action; the March 21, 2024 service in the First Mileson Avoidance Action; the March 27, 2024 service in the RM Auctions Action; the March 27, 2024 service in the Cirrus Avoidance Action; and the May 10, 2024 service in the RICO Action.\n\nascertain the address of the defendant's current residence or place of business,\" CPR 6.9 (3), and consider an alternative address, CPR 6.9 (4), at that time unknown.\n\n29. Second, with respect to the August 26, 2024 date of the service of the Complaint Documents in the Bouillor Action (after the Trustee had become aware of the Swiss Address, but before Mileson claimed in court filings to have left the UK for Switzerland), *Boettcher* is right on point and demonstrates that the London Apartment was the Debtor's \"last known residence\" under CPR 6.9. In *Boettcher*, the Court ruled that the evidence established \"a good arguable case\" that the defendant's last known residence was at an address in London (referred to as \"33SR\") \"as far as [the Plaintiff] was aware or ought to have been aware by the exercise of reasonably diligence,\" based on:\n\n- a. the defendant previously residing at the London address, *id.* ¶ 55;\n- b. the plaintiff's investigation revealing that \"the defendant still had a residence at 33SR, even if that was not accurate, and also had a residence in Germany and/or Switzerland\"—the court explained that \"the fact that Mr Geyer had multiple residences is not a reason why 33SR could not be a last known, or even a usual,\" *id.* ¶ 56, and that inquiries revealing multiple addresses \"did not give him reason to believe that [the plaintiff] no longer resided at 33SR,\" *id.* ¶ 57;\n- c. a conversation between an employee of plaintiff's counsel and the porter at 33SR reinforcing the conclusion that the defendant lived there (despite subsequent contradictory statements from the porter) *id.* ¶ 58; and\n- d. evidence suggesting the defendant received letters of claim identifying 33SR as the defendant's address, including one email asking him to identify his preferred address of service, but that the defendant took not steps to inform the plaintiff or his solicitors that he no longer resided at 33SR—per the court: \"[The plaintiff] is entitled to rely on [the defendant's] failure to correct any impression that [the plaintiff] had that 33SR was [the defendant's] last known residence.\" *Id.* ¶ 59.\n- 30. Here, the same circumstances as of August 26, 2024 demonstrate proper service\n\nunder CPR 6.9. As in *Boettcher*, (a) Mileson previously resided at the London Apartment; (b)\n\nthe Trustee's investigation and analysis of the Government Exhibits revealed the Swiss Address\n\nbut did not give any reason to believe that Mileson no longer resided at the London Apartment; (c) statements from an individual at Princes Gate confirmed Mileson was a resident; and (d) despite having received papers from the Trustee addressed to him at the London Apartment, Mileson took no steps to inform the Trustee that he no longer resided at the London Apartment. As such, as in *Boettcher*, \"the evidence establishes a good arguable case that [the London Apartment] was [Mileson's] last known residence, as far as [the Trustee] was aware or ought to have been aware by the exercise of reasonable diligence.\" *Id.* ¶ 54.\n\n31. In sum, service of the Complaint on Mileson at the London Apartment satisfied the service requirements of CPR 6.9 and, therefore, was proper under Rule 4(f)(2)(A).\n\n#### **III. Service of Other Documents Was Proper Under Rule 5**\n\n32. Service of the Other Documents was in each instance carried out consistent with Rule 5(b)(2)(C), which allows for mailing a document to a person's \"last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing.\"\n\n33. The Trustee's service of the Other Documents on Mileson on the Other Document Service Dates through July 2024 occurred prior to the Trustee being made aware of the Swiss Address, and therefore the London Apartment clearly qualified as the last known address for Mileson for purposes of Rule 5.\n\n34. The Trustee's service of Other Documents on Mileson after July 2024 occurred after the Trustee had become aware of the existence of the Swiss Address. However, plenty of evidence, as discussed above, continued to point to the London Apartment as Mileson's address, and Mileson had not stated that he no longer lived in London or that he resided in Switzerland. Moreover, the Trustee could not mail documents to the Swiss Address without violating Swiss law—he could only serve such documents in Switzerland through a months-long Hague\n\n20\n\nConvention process. Therefore, the Trustee appropriately served these Other Documents at the London Apartment.\n\n35. Moreover, the Trustee's service of certain Other Documents in early 2025 at the London Apartment was appropriate even though this service occurred after the BVI Defense and Cyprus Affidavit were filed on January 13 and February 20, 2025, respectively. Significant evidence continued to point to the London Apartment as Mileson's address, and as on prior occasions, the Trustee could not mail documents to the Swiss Address without violating Swiss law—he could only serve such documents in Switzerland through a months-long Hague convention process, which would also result in the Trustee missing any near-term service deadlines (as alluded to by the Trustee at the February 27 Hearing).\n\n#### **IV. Trustee's Request For Order Approving Service Procedures**\n\n36. In light of the situation described herein, the Trustee requests that the Court enter the Proposed Order, which would (a) confirm that the Complaint Documents were properly served on Mileson at the London Apartment pursuant to Rule 4; (b) confirm that the Other Documents were properly served on Mileson at the London Apartment pursuant to Rule 5, and (c) approve Service Procedures with respect to the Adversary Proceedings, Chapter 11 Cases, and adversary proceedings that have not yet been commenced, as applicable, under which documents would be considered properly served on Mileson based on (i) the mailing of such documents (by U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, or other postal or courier service) to the London Apartment, (ii) the emailing of such documents to the Mileson Email Addresses; (iii) the emailing of such documents to counsel known to represent Mileson: Arethusa Forsyth (Mileson's representative in, among other things, negotiations with Princes Gate), Nicos Avraamides of L. Papaphilippou & Co. LLC (Mileson's counsel in Cyprus), and David Lim of\n\n21\n\nOgier (Mileson's counsel in the BVI); and (iv) the publication of such documents on a publicly available \"Mileson Page\" on the case website maintained by Epiq at http\n\n37. The entry of the Proposed Order will provide guidance and certainty in connection with service on Mileson so as to reduce the risk of any future disputes (and concomitant delays and costs) related to procedural service issues. Moreover, to ensure that there is no prejudice involved in the approval of the Proposed Order, the Trustee intends to serve Mileson with this Motion at the Swiss Address pursuant to the Hague Convention and any other requirements of Swiss Law.\n\n38. In requesting this relief, the Trustee does not concede either that the London Apartment is no longer Mileson's last known address or that the Swiss Address is Mileson's last known address.\n\n### **V. Conclusion**\n\n39. Given the above, the Trustee requests that the Court enter the Proposed Order approving prior service on Mileson in this Adversary Proceeding and establishing procedures to govern service in the future.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee requests that the Court enter the Proposed Order and grant\n\nsuch other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: April 22, 2025 New York, New York\n\n> By: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n> > *and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6690 douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n### **Exhibit A**\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------- |          | x                                 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----------------------------------|\n| In re:                                                  |          | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                            |          | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                         | Debtors. | :<br>:<br>(Jointly Administered)  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------  |          | :<br>x                            |\n\n#### **[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SERVICE PROCEDURES**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\")<sup>2</sup> of Luc A. Despins, as chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the estate of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for entry of an order regarding service procedures with respect to Defendant Qiang Guo (\"Mileson\" or the \"Defendant\") in connection with the above-captioned chapter 11 cases (the \"Chapter 11 Cases\"), the Adversary Proceedings (as defined in the Motion), and future adversary proceedings, as applicable; and the Court having considered the Motion and all exhibits and documents attached to the Motion; and the Court having held a hearing on the Motion on \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2025 (the \"Hearing\"); and the Court having considered the reasons set forth on the record at the Hearing; and the Court having found that: (a) the Court has jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; (b) consideration of the Motion is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); (c) venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; (d)\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Motion.\n\ndue and sufficient notice of the Motion has been given under the particular circumstances and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; (e) service of the Motion was proper under Rules 4 and 5, as made applicable by Bankruptcy Rules 7004 and 7005, and under Bankruptcy 9013 and 9014, each as applicable; (f) the Motion and its supporting materials establish just cause for the relief granted herein and the Motion has satisfied all applicable legal and factual burdens; and after due deliberation, considering the foregoing, and for the reasons that the Court stated on the record at the Hearing, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. Service of each of the Complaint Documents (as defined in the Motion) on the Defendant at 5 Princes Gate, Flat 6, London, SW7 IQJ, United Kingdom (the \"London Apartment\"), was proper and effective pursuant to Rule 4 and Bankruptcy Rule 7004.\n\n3. Service of the each of the Other Documents (as defined in the Motion) filed in this Adversary Proceeding, was proper and effective pursuant to Rule 5 and Bankruptcy Rule 7005.\n\n4. Upon the entry of this Order, all documents (each, a \"Document\") required to be served on the Defendant (including this Order) shall be served on the Defendant according to the following methods and procedures (the \"Service Procedures\").\n\n- a. Each Document shall be sent by U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, or other postal or courier service, to the London Apartment, and service of such Document shall be effective upon mailing; and\n- b. Each Document shall be sent via email to the following email addresses: (i) ukistruehome@gmail.com; (ii) jeffyuef2@icloud.com;\n\n2\n\n(iii) ipadforfly@icloud.com; (iv) cybermail2018@protonmail.com; and (v) raps.sinless0h@icloud.com.\n\n- c. Each Document shall be sent via email to the Defendant's counsels (i) Arethusa Forsyth, at email address arethusaf@proton.me; (ii) Nicos Avraamides, of L Papaphilippou & Co. LLC, at email address na@papaphilippou.eu; and (iii) David Lim, of Ogier, at email address david.lim@ogier.com, and service of such document by email to each of these counsel shall be effective notwithstanding such counsel purporting to not be authorized to accept service thereof.\n- d. Each Document shall be made publicly available on a \"Mileson Page\" maintained by Epiq and available through the case website at http\n\n5. Service of any Document pursuant to the above Service Procedures shall constitute proper and effective service on the Defendant pursuant to Rules 4 and 5, Bankruptcy Rules 7004 and 7005, and Bankruptcy Rules 9013 and 9014, as applicable (including in connection with Documents filed in the above-captioned adversary proceeding, matters in the Chapter 11 Cases, and in adversary proceedings not yet commenced as of the date of this Order, as applicable).\n\n6. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nSigned this \\_\\_ day of \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2025\n\nHon. Julie A. Manning United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）、\n等，　:\n:\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n（合并管理）\n\nx\n关于送达程序的裁定动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（以下简称“受托人”）作为 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）的第11章受托人，通过其下列签署的律师，谨此提出本动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求作出随附于本动议后作为附件A的拟议裁定（以下简称“拟议裁定”），授权受托人就被告 Qiang Guo（郭强）（“Mileson”或“被告”）采用特定送达程序，依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（以下简称“《规则》”）第4条和第5条，以及《联邦破产程序规则》（以下简称“《破产规则》”）第7004条、第7005条、第9013条和第9014条。2 为支持作出拟议裁定，受托人陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人提出本动议，以应对债务人的儿子 Mileson 于2025年2月20日在受托人于塞浦路斯针对 Mileson 提起的诉讼（以下简称“塞浦路斯诉讼”）中提交的一份证人陈述（以下简称“塞浦路斯宣誓书”）中最近作出的主张，即 Mileson 是瑞士居民，且自2021年以来未居住于其伦敦地址。Mileson 在塞浦路斯宣誓书中主张，除其他事项外，鉴于其所称居住于瑞士，受托人于2024年10月在其伦敦地址向 Mileson 送达的与塞浦路斯诉讼有关的文件未得到适当送达。塞浦路斯宣誓书是在 Mileson 和 K Legacy Ltd.（以下简称“K Legacy”）于2025年1月13日在英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands，以下简称“BVI”）提交的一份文件（以下简称“BVI 答辩”）之后作出的；该文件称，伦敦地址“在2016年至2022年期间曾是 Mileson 的住所。”3\n\n1. 本第11章案件中的债务人为 HO WAN KWOK（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为 Luc A. Despins，作为 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n2. 受托人已在上述标题所列第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）以及各项对抗程序（定义见下文）中提出本动议。\n\n2. Mileson 在塞浦路斯诉讼中主张其瑞士地址4，引发了与受托人整体诉讼工作相关的送达问题，因为受托人了解到，瑞士法律：(a) 严格禁止（包括通过刑事制裁）向瑞士境内当事人邮寄外国法院文件；及 (b) 要求所有法律文件（包括启动对抗程序的文件以及后续文件）均须根据《关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书公约》（以下简称“《海牙送达公约》”）通过瑞士的中央送达机构进行送达；该程序耗时，可能使文件送达延迟数月。鉴于 Mileson 的过往表现，受托人怀疑 Mileson 是出于策略性目的主张其瑞士居住身份，以拖延受托人的诉讼。\n\n3. 如下文更详细论述，受托人请求在拟议裁定中给予救济，以通过以下方式解决这些送达问题：(a) 确认此前在 Mileson 位于 5 Princes Gate, Flat 6, London, SW7 IQJ, United Kingdom 的伦敦地址（以下简称“伦敦公寓”）向 Mileson 进行送达的有效性；及 (b) 确立送达程序（以下简称“送达程序”），根据该程序，今后向 Mileson 送达任何文件，在以下情形下均应视为充分5：(i) 将该等文件邮寄至伦敦公寓；(ii) 将该等文件通过电子邮件发送至受托人知悉的 Mileson 电子邮件地址（以下简称“Mileson 电子邮件地址”6）；(iii) 将该等文件通过电子邮件发送至 Mileson 的律师，包括 Arethusa Forsyth，以及目前在 BVI 和塞浦路斯针对受托人的程序中代理 Mileson 的律师；及 (iv) 在 Epiq 维护的案件网站上公开可访问的“Mileson 页面”发布该等文件，网址为 http\n\n3. BVI 答辩 ¶ 11.2，随附于本动议后作为附件1。\n\n4. 受托人了解到，该地址为 Rigistrasse 201, 6353 Weggis, Switzerland（以下简称“瑞士地址”）。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n4. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，以及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦地区法院）的移送常设命令，对本事项享有管辖权。本事项属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 所称的核心程序。\n\n5. 依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本地区为适当审判地。\n\n动议\n\n一、背景\n\nA. 受托人针对 Mileson 的诉讼\n\n6. 如本院所知，受托人已启动多项以 Mileson 为被告的对抗程序，包括：对抗程序案号 24-05238（请求追回约 \\$90 million 的可撤销转让，以下简称“第一项 Mileson 撤销诉讼”）；25-05048（涉及向 Mileson 作出的、未在第一项 Mileson 撤销诉讼中处理的转让，以下简称“第二项 Mileson 撤销诉讼”）；24-05225（涉及向飞机制造商作出的、用于为 Mileson 购买飞机的转让，以下简称“Cirrus 撤销诉讼”）；24-05245（涉及向拍卖行作出的、用于为 Mileson 购买一辆或多辆车辆的转让，以下简称“RM Auctions 诉讼”）；24-05311（涉及债务人位于塞浦路斯的公寓，该公寓名义上由 Mileson 通过 Bouillor Holdings Limited 持有，以下简称“Bouillor 诉讼”）；24-05249（受托人的第一项综合替身人格对抗程序，以下简称“第一项综合替身人格诉讼”）；24-05318（针对第一项综合替身人格诉讼中缺席被告而分离出的诉讼，以下简称“分离替身人格诉讼”）；24-05322（受托人的第二项综合替身人格对抗程序，以下简称“第二项综合替身人格诉讼”）；24-05273（受托人的民事 RICO 诉讼）；23-05002（涉及 Sherry Netherland 公寓的使用，以下简称“Sherry Netherland 诉讼”）；以及 22-05027（涉及一项所称信托协议，据称根据该协议，Sherry Netherland 公寓为 Bravo Luck Limited（以下简称“Bravo Luck”）的利益而由信托持有；Bravo Luck 是一家名义上由 Mileson 所有的公司，以下简称“Bravo Luck 诉讼”；并与本段所列其他对抗程序合称“对抗程序”）。在众多对抗程序中，文件已在伦敦公寓向 Mileson 送达。\n\n5. 拟议裁定规定，依照送达程序进行的送达，就适用情形而言（包括与在第11章案件中以及在拟议裁定作出之日尚未启动的对抗程序中提交的文件送达有关的情形），应构成根据《规则》第4条和第5条、《破产规则》第7004条和第7005条以及《破产规则》第9013条和第9014条对 Mileson 作出的适当且有效送达。\n\n6. Mileson 电子邮件地址如下：ukistruehome@gmail.com；jeffyuef2@icloud.com；ipadforfly@icloud.com；cybermail2018@protonmail.com；raps.sinless0h@icloud.com。\n\n7. Mileson 一直勤于拒绝就对抗程序或任何其他事项亲自出席本院，反而选择在本院规定的期限内不履行其答辩义务而缺席。Mileson 仅曾在受托人于 BVI 针对其提起的诉讼（以下简称“BVI 程序”）和塞浦路斯诉讼中亲自出庭，在这两项案件中 Mileson 均由律师代理。此外，受托人预计，Mileson 将在律师协助下积极反对受托人在瑞士针对 Mileson 采取的行动；受托人于2025年2月在瑞士启动了程序（以下简称“瑞士扣押程序”），该程序导致 Mileson 的瑞士财产被扣押（以下简称“瑞士扣押”）。\n\n8. 此外，尽管 Mileson 拒绝就其父亲的第11章案件相关事项亲自出席本院，但他确实在程序上合并的 Genever Holdings LLC 第11章案件中提交了债权证明，7 并且他通过名义上由其所有的公司参与了与其父亲第11章案件有关的诉讼及其他事项。例如，Bravo Luck 在 Bravo Luck 对抗程序中曾积极反对受托人，后最终让步并同意和解；该和解由 Mileson 签署并经本院批准，其中 Mileson 和 Bravo Luck 放弃了其就 Sherry Netherland 公寓所主张的一切权利和权益，而未获得任何实质性对价。8 Lamp Capital LLC（以下简称“Lamp Capital”）通过 Infinity Treasury Management LLC（以下简称“Infinity Treasury”）名义上由 Mileson 所有，自债务人第11章案件启动之时即参与其中；当时，Lamp Capital 被列为债务人自愿第11章申请书中的二十大无担保债权人之一，涉及为支付给债务人先前律师的 \\$1 million 预付律师费提供融资。9 随后，Lamp Capital 因未履行《规则》第2004条规定的证据开示义务，于2023年4月被本院认定藐视法庭。10 此后，Lamp Capital 和 Infinity Treasury 未能成功反对受托人在其对抗程序案号 23-05028 中提出的缺席判决动议；该程序寻求就 Lamp Capital 作出替身人格裁定（以下简称“Lamp Capital 对抗程序”）。本院在其缺席判决裁决中认定，Lamp Capital 和 Infinity Treasury（以下简称“Lamp 实体”）故意未履行其对受托人起诉书作出答辩的义务，并同意受托人的意见，即：\n\n7. 参见 Claim 3-1, In re Genever Holdings LLC, No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (filed March 5, 2021)。\n\n8. 参见《根据 Bankruptcy Rule 9019 批准第11章受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 关于与 Bravo Luck Limited 和 Mileson Guo（又名 Qiang Guo 和/或 Guo Qiang）达成和解之动议的命令》（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Aug. 30, 2023）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 118]。\n\n9. 参见 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, at 13 [Main Case Docket No. 1]。\n\n10. 参见 Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court, at 4 [Main Case Docket No. 1709]。\n\n“Guo 先生和 Lamp 实体在申请书提交之前即已知悉这些程序，曾有选择地决定参与或回避这些程序，而缺席是该选择的延续。”11\n\nB. 在对抗程序中向伦敦公寓送达\n\n9. 在对抗程序中，受托人已通过邮件或快递服务，在伦敦公寓向 Mileson 送达起诉书、传票及相关文件（以下简称“起诉文件”），送达日期（以下简称“起诉送达日期”）如下12：\n\n起诉送达日期　起诉文件　对抗程序\n\n2023年1月31日　起诉书和传票　Bravo Luck 诉讼\n[Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF Nos. 1, 2]13\n\n2023年2月17日　起诉书和传票　Sherry Netherland 诉讼\n[Adv. Proc. 23-05002, ECF Nos. 1, 9]\n\n2024年3月21日　起诉书和传票　第一项综合替身人格\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05249, ECF Nos. 1, 5]14　诉讼\n\n11 Adv. Proc. ECF No. 63, at 11。地区法院于 2025 年 3 月最近确认了本院的裁决，并“同意破产法院的看法，即 Lamp Entities（兰普实体）未能及时答复起诉状，更应被视为 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）对更广泛破产程序蔑视性漠视的延续，而这本身即证明了 Lamp Entities 故意且有意地缺席。”[24-217, ECF 22, at 11.]。除其他事项外，地区法院维持了本院对 Lamp Entities 关于通知的论点的驳回：“关于 Lamp Entities 对该对抗程序的知悉情况，其提出，律师系由被认为是债务人之子的人聘请，且该律师通过‘小道消息’对 Chapter 11 案件及相关对抗程序有一般性了解。再次，这是一项可疑的主张，并且仅由律师的陈述支持，而律师的陈述并非证据。”Id. at 10（原文强调）。\n\n12 见送达证明，Bravo Luck Action（Bravo Luck 诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 27]（“Bravo Luck COS”）；送达证明，Sherry Netherland Action（Sherry Netherland 诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 16]（“Sherry Netherland COS”）；关于传票及起诉状的送达证明，First Omnibus Alter Ego Action（第一项综合替身责任诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 23]（“First Omnibus Alter Ego COS”）；关于传票、起诉状及撤销诉讼程序适用通知的送达证明，First Mileson Avoidance Action（第一项 Mileson 撤销诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 10]（“First Mileson Avoidance Action COS”）；关于传票、起诉状及撤销诉讼程序适用通知的送达证明，RM Auction Action（RM Auction 诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 22]（“RM Auction COS”）；关于传票、起诉状及撤销诉讼程序适用通知的送达证明，Cirrus Avoidance Action（Cirrus 撤销诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 16]（“Cirrus Avoidance COS”）；送达证明，RICO Action（RICO 诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 52]（“RICO COS”）；关于传票及起诉状的送达证明，Bouillor Action（Bouillor 诉讼）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 13]（“Bouillor COS”）。\n\n13 此外，2023 年 1 月 31 日，这些文件由一名英格兰事务律师亲手递交给 Princes' Gate（王子门）的礼宾人员。见 Bravo Luck COS。\n\n14 此外，2024 年 4 月 17 日，这些文件通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson（迈尔森）的律师 Arethusa Forsyth（阿瑞图莎·福赛思）。见 First Omnibus Alter Ego COS。\n\n2024 年 3 月 21 日　起诉状、传票、撤销诉讼程序适用通知\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF Nos. 1, 3, 4]　第一项 Mileson 撤销诉讼\n\n2024 年 3 月 27 日　起诉状、传票、撤销诉讼程序适用通知\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05245, ECF Nos. 1, 2, 4]16　RM Auctions 诉讼\n\n2024 年 3 月 27 日　起诉状、传票、撤销诉讼程序适用通知\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05225, ECF Nos. 1, 3, 4]17　Cirrus 撤销诉讼\n\n2024 年 5 月 10 日　起诉状及传票\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05273, ECF Nos. 1, 5]18　RICO 诉讼\n\n2024 年 8 月 26 日　起诉状及传票\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05311, ECF Nos. 1, 9]19　Bouillor 诉讼\n\n10. 此外，在各对抗程序中，受托人已于下列日期（“其他送达日期”，与起诉状送达日期合称“送达日期”）通过邮件或快递服务，将其他文件（“其他文件”，与起诉状文件合称“已送达文件”）送达至 Mileson 位于伦敦的公寓：\n\n其他送达日期　其他文件　对抗程序\n\n2023 年 2 月 17 日　简易判决动议、支持简易判决动议的法律备忘录、地方规则 56(a)(1) 陈述、支持简易判决动议的 Chapter 11 受托人声明、排期审理简易判决动议的动议、加速审理动议及致 Qiang Guo（郭强）的通知\n[Adv. Proc. 23-05002, ECF Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8]　Sherry Netherland 诉讼\n\n15 这些文件于 2024 年 3 月 27 日由“ N. Noelle”在 Princes Gate 签收。此外，2024 年 4 月 17 日，这些文件通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson 的律师 Arethusa Forsyth。见 First Mileson Avoidance Action COS。\n\n16 此外，2024 年 4 月 17 日，这些文件通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson 的律师 Arethusa Forsyth。见 RM Auctions COS。\n\n17 此外，2024 年 4 月 17 日，这些文件通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson 的律师 Arethusa Forsyth。见 Cirrus COS。\n\n18 此外，2024 年 4 月 17 日，这些文件通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson 的律师 Arethusa Forsyth。见 RICO COS。\n\n19 此外，2024 年 8 月 26 日，这些文件通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson 的律师 Arethusa Forsyth，并邮寄至 Mileson 在英国布伦特福德的办公室地址。见 Bouillor COS。\n\n2023 年 3 月 6 日　修正起诉状\n[Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF No. 40]　Bravo Luck 诉讼\n\n2023 年 6 月 5 日　提交准许缺席判决动议的经修订拟议裁定通知\n[Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF No. 95]　Bravo Luck 诉讼\n\n2023 年 8 月 7 日　Rule 9019 和解动议、限制送达和解动议及听证通知的动议\n[Adv. Proc. 22-05027, ECF Nos. 112, 115 and 116]　Bravo Luck 诉讼\n\n2024 年 6 月 4 日　请求对 Qiang Guo 记入缺席\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05249, ECF No. 27]　第一项综合替身责任诉讼\n\n2024 年 7 月 1 日　缺席判决动议\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05249, ECF No. 36]　第一项综合替身责任诉讼\n\n2024 年 9 月 17 日　请求对 Qiang Guo 记入缺席\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05225, ECF No. 17]　Cirrus 撤销诉讼\n\n2024 年 10 月 16 日　缺席判决动议\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF No. 17]　第一项 Mileson 撤销诉讼\n\n2024 年 11 月 13 日　准许经同意的约定判决的动议\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05318, ECF No. 104]　已分案的替身责任诉讼\n\n2025 年 2 月 19 日　就其余请求解除中止的动议\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF No. 28]　第一项 Mileson 撤销诉讼\n\n2025 年 2 月 28 日　就其余请求解除中止的裁定\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05238, ECF No. 29]（“解除中止裁定”）　第一项 Mileson 撤销诉讼\n\n2025 年 3 月 4 日　准许约定判决的动议\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05322, ECF No. 8]　第二项综合替身责任诉讼\n\n2025 年 3 月 7 日　密封的紧急单方临时限制令动议、密封的临时限制令、修正密封临时限制令的单方动议，以及准许修正密封临时限制令的单方动议的密封裁定\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05225, ECF Nos. 49, 52, 53 and 54]　Cirrus 撤销诉讼\n\n2025 年 3 月 26 日　关于准许约定判决动议的延期听证通知\n[Adv. Proc. 24-05322, ECF No. 13]　第二项综合替身责任诉讼\n\nC. 受托人关于 Mileson 地址的知悉情况\n\n11. 在与本动议相关的整个期间直至目前，受托人一直在调查债务人的财务事务，该调查使受托人知悉了与 Mileson 使用的多个地址和住所相关的若干证据。该等证据包括但不限于在证据开示中提供的文件，以及美国政府（“政府”）在其对债务人的刑事起诉中作为审判证物使用并于 2024 年 7 月向受托人提供的众多文件（“政府证物”）。尽管受托人关于 Mileson 地址的知悉情况随时间推移而发展，但证据在每一情形中均支持受托人在每个送达日期向伦敦公寓的 Mileson 送达文件的决定，如下文进一步说明。\n\ni. 受托人截至 2024 年 7 月 1 日的知悉情况\n\n12. 在受托人于 2024 年 7 月中旬取得政府证物之前，受托人已知悉众多文件及其他证据，这些材料使受托人理解 Mileson 将伦敦公寓作为其地址。除其他事项外：\n\na. 受托人调查中取得的文件将伦敦公寓列为 Mileson 的地址，并将 Mileson 列为持有伦敦公寓产权的实体 K Legacy 的名义所有人。\n\nb. 债务人在其于 2022 年 3 月 20 日向本院提交的声明以及其于 2022 年 4 月 6 日举行的 Bankruptcy Rule 341 债权人会议上表示，其儿子居住在伦敦。20\n\n20 见 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生支持 Chapter 11 案件及若干动议的声明，第 6 段 [Docket No. 107]；日期为 2022 年 4 月 6 日的电话 341 债权人会议记录，24:13-14。\n\nc. 债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）在其于 2023 年 1 月 20 日进行的证言中表示，她的兄弟居住在伦敦。21\n\nd. 2023 年 1 月 31 日，伦敦公寓所在楼宇（“Princes Gate”）的一名人员向受托人的英格兰事务律师确认，Mileson 居住在 Princes Gate。22\n\ne. 2023 年 2 月 28 日，受托人的一封信被递交至 Princes Gate，并以签署的“GUO”签名被接收。23\n\nf. 受托人调查中取得的文件显示，截至 2024 年 3 月，Mileson 仍通过其“ukistruehome@gmail.com”电子邮件地址接收电子邮件。24 为免生疑义，该地址拼写为“UK is true home”（原文强调）。\n\n13. 相反，截至 2024 年 7 月中旬，受托人并不知悉瑞士地址，且未见有文件或其他证据表明瑞士地址为 Mileson 的地址。\n\n14. 总而言之，在截至 2024 年 7 月 1 日的每个送达日期（该月唯一的送达日期），受托人理解 Mileson 将伦敦公寓作为其地址，且受托人并不知悉瑞士地址。基于该理解，受托人决定在伦敦公寓向 Mileson 送达已送达文件。\n\nii. 受托人在 2024 年 7 月之后至 2025 年 1 月 13 日期间的知悉情况\n\n15. 如上所述，2024 年 7 月，政府向受托人提供了众多政府证物。根据其对这些文件以及受托人持续调查中取得的其他文件的审阅，受托人理解 Mileson 继续将伦敦公寓作为其地址。例如：\n\n21 见 Mei Guo 证言记录，2023 年 1 月 20 日，51:3-4。\n\n22 见支持 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的 Chapter 11 受托人提出对 Qiang Guo 作出缺席判决动议的法律备忘录，第 34 段（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, June 2, 2023）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 93- 1]。\n\n23 见 Patrick R. Linsey 支持 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的 Chapter 11 受托人提出对 Qiang Guo 作出缺席判决动议的声明，第 11 段（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, June 2, 2023）[Adv. Proc. ECF No. 93-2]。\n\n24 见 Sydney Montgomery 致 ukistruehome@gmail.com 的电子邮件，日期为 2024 年 3 月 5 日（讨论关闭与债务人飞机有关的托管账户），作为附件 Exhibit 2。\n\na. Mileson 于 2023 年 1 月 7 日发送电子邮件，邀请朋友到伦敦探望他（同时提到他“现已正式成为[一名]瑞士居民”）。25\n\nb. Mileson 的律师在一份日期为 2023 年 1 月的 Mileson 简短传记中陈述，其地址为伦敦公寓，且其居住在伦敦。26\n\nc. 日期为 2023 年 1 月并于 2023 年 4 月通过电子邮件发送给 Mileson 的一张会计师发票中，使用伦敦公寓作为 Mileson 的地址。27\n\nd. Mileson 在一份日期为 2024 年 3 月 12 日的塞浦路斯公司登记申报中，使用伦敦公寓作为其地址。28\n\ne. 2024 年 9 月，Mileson 的律师 Arethusa Forsyth 正在就与伦敦公寓有关的逾期维护费支付事宜，与 Princes Gate 的代表沟通（并就寻求准许该等费用进行诉讼）。\n\n16. 这些文件进一步支持了受托人对于 Mileson 将伦敦公寓作为其地址的理解；而该理解于 2025 年 1 月 6 日得到加强，当时 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）（“SEC”）就其针对债务人的证券欺诈诉讼向 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）提交了一封信（“SEC 信函”）29，Mileson 在该诉讼中为救济被告。在 SEC 信函中，SEC 报告称其已根据 Rule 向英国的 Mileson 送达。\n\n4(f)(2)(A)，该项规定允许以一种经合理计算足以提供通知的方式进行送达，即依照外国法律就该外国一般管辖权法院审理的诉讼中的送达所规定的方式进行送达。随附的 SEC Letter（SEC 函）附有 SEC 的英国律师 Stephenson Harwood LLP（Stephenson Harwood 律师事务所，以下简称“Stephenson Harwood Letter（Stephenson Harwood 函）”）出具的一封函件，说明为何伦敦公寓符合 England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules（英格兰和威尔士民事诉讼规则，以下简称“CPR”）第 6.9 条规定的 Mileson（迈尔森）的“最后已知”地址；该条规则允许在个人的“通常住所或最后已知住所”向其送达英国诉讼文件。30 根据 Stephenson Harwood Letter，除其他资料外，伦敦公寓被用作 Mileson 的地址，包括一份日期为 November 5, 2024 的移动电话合同、一份日期为 November 1, 2024 的信用卡申请，以及至少可追溯至 June 2024 的车辆保险记录。31\n\n25 见 Mileson 致 Janice Bateman（珍妮丝·贝特曼）的电子邮件，日期为 January 7, 2023（要求 Bateman“在伦敦会面”）[GXUK386]，作为证物 3 随附于本文件。\n\n26 见 Arethusa Forsyth（阿瑞修莎·福赛思）致 Neil Singh（尼尔·辛格）的电子邮件，日期为 January 26, 2023（“Guo 先生居住在伦敦”）[GXUK390]，作为证物 4 随附于本文件。\n\n27 见 Simone Boesch（西蒙娜·伯施）致 Mileson 的电子邮件，日期为 April 3, 2023（将 Q Guo（郭强）的地址列为伦敦公寓）[GXUK407]，作为证物 5 随附于本文件。\n\n28 见日期为 March 13, 2024 的《私营公司股份转让表》（显示伦敦公寓为地址），其原件及经认证的英文译本作为证物 6 随附于本文件。\n\n29 SEC Letter 连同 Stephenson Harwood Letter 作为证物 7 随附于本文件。\n\n30 CPR 6.9。CPR 6.9 的副本作为证物 8 随附于本文件。\n\n31 Stephenson Harwood Letter 还说明了来自 Princes Gate（王子门）工作人员的某些相互矛盾的信息。比较 Stephenson Harwood Letter，at 3 ¶ 8（“On or about December 29, 2023, the building concierge at the Princes Gate Address told an investigator retained by our firm that Qiang Guo was a resident of the building”）与同上，at 3, n. 1（“We note that, on February 18, 2024, a building concierge at the Princes Gate Address told an investigator retained by our firm that Qiang Guo was not a resident and refused to provide any additional information.”）。\n\n17. 尽管大量证据继续表明伦敦公寓是 Mileson 的地址，但受托人在 July 2024 期间及之后取得的政府证物和其他文件，首次使受托人知悉瑞士地址的存在，并表明 Mileson 也将其用作地址。例如：\n\na. 书面证据显示，Mileson 于 December 2022 购买了位于瑞士地址的不动产。\n\nb. Mileson 于 January 7, 2023 发送了一封电子邮件，提到他“现在正式成为[一名]瑞士居民”（同时还邀请朋友到伦敦探望他，这表明他仍居住在伦敦）。32\n\nc. 瑞士 Luzerne 州在日期为 March 2023 的通信中将瑞士地址列为 Mileson 的地址。33\n\nd. 截至 January 2024，公用事业账单一直被寄送至 Mileson 的瑞士地址。34\n\n32 见证物 3 [GXUK386]。\n\n33 见 Mileson 致 Jan Loser（扬·洛瑟）的电子邮件，日期为 March 20, 2023，at 3 [GXUK405]，作为证物 9 随附于本文件。\n\n34 见日期为 April 9, 2024 的《所有权宣誓书》，at 4（EWS 公用事业账单，日期为 January 9, 2024），作为证物 10 随附于本文件。\n\ne. Mileson 在一份与 K Legacy 有关、日期为 April 9, 2024 的 BVI 公司备案文件中使用了瑞士地址。35\n\n18. 总而言之，在 July 2024 之后且 January 13, 2025 之前的每个送达日期，受托人理解为 Mileson 继续将伦敦公寓用作其地址，并且 Mileson 也在使用瑞士地址，尽管 Mileson 当时尚未在向法院提交的文件中主张其不再居住于伦敦公寓。\n\n19. 基于这一理解，受托人决定在此期间向 Mileson 的伦敦地址送达已送达文件，但未在瑞士地址进行送达。原因有数项。其一，如上文第 17 段所述，鉴于 Mileson 在 late 2022 购得瑞士房产后的一段期间内继续将伦敦公寓用作其地址，尚远未明确 Mileson 是否实际上已在瑞士地址建立住所；而且，他还继续将一处他显然并不居住的住所，即位于 Hong Kong 的 20 South Bay Road 的宅邸，作为其地址。该宅邸名义上由 BVI 公司 Leading Shine Limited（Leading Shine Limited 公司）所有，且 Mileson 在日期最晚为 June 3, 2024 的文件中仍将其列为自己的地址。36 此外，受托人理解，瑞士法律要求所有送达，无论是启动诉讼的起诉状送达还是之后提交文件的送达，均须通过耗时数月的 Hague Convention（海牙公约）程序进行，并且向在瑞士的一方邮寄法院文件构成违反瑞士法律的刑事犯罪。再者，一个人可以有多个地址或最后已知地址；就 Mileson 而言，伦敦公寓即为其中一个地址。\n\n35 见同上，at 1-2（Biography）。\n\n36 见 Canadian Agri-Product Monetary Investments Limited（加拿大农业产品货币投资有限公司）《年度申报表》，日期为 June 3, 2024，at Schedule 1（PDF Page 10）（将 Hong Kong 的 Majestic View Manor（Majestic View Manor 宅邸）列为 Mileson 的地址），作为证物 13 随附于本文件。\n\niii. 受托人在 January 13, 2025 之后所知悉的情况\n\n20. 于 January 13, 2025，Mileson 提交了 BVI Defense（英属维尔京群岛答辩书），其中主张伦敦公寓“在 2016 至 2022 年间曾是 Mileson 的一处住所”。37 于 February 20, 2025，Mileson 提交了 Cyprus Affidavit（塞浦路斯宣誓书），其中主张自 2021 起其未在伦敦居住，并且在 October 2024 受托人试图在伦敦公寓向其送达 Cyprus Proceeding（塞浦路斯程序）中提交的文件之时，其居住在瑞士。38 受托人指出，其总体上质疑 Mileson 的可信度，且 Cyprus Affidavit 所称 Mileson 于 2021 离开伦敦的立场与其他书面证据之间存在诸多矛盾，包括 BVI Defense 中 Mileson 主张其在 2016 至 2022 年间将伦敦公寓用作“一处住所”。39 此外，受托人在 late February 2025 获得的文件显示，Mileson 至 January 2025 仍持续在伦敦公寓收取通信函件。\n\n21. 于 February 27, 2025，法院举行了一次听证会（以下简称“February 27 Hearing（2 月 27 日听证会）”），受托人在该听证会上讨论了 Cyprus Affidavit、Lift Stay Order（解除中止命令）规定的 March 4, 2025 送达期限及相关问题，并陈述如下：\n\n“[上]周五，我们首次看到债务人的儿子在另一程序中提交的一份诉状或宣誓书，其中他明确否认其在伦敦的住所，即称伦敦公寓自 2021 起就不是他的住所。为明确起见，我们知道，并且在 2024 年我们知道，他在瑞士有一栋房屋，他已经购得瑞士的一栋房屋；我们也知道，他曾在 BVI 提交公司备案文件，将瑞士的房屋列为其地址。但与此同时，我们知道他在塞浦路斯等地提交过类似文件，将伦敦列为其地址，也在 Hong Kong 提交过公司备案文件，将一栋 Hong Kong 房屋列为其地址。然而现在，他在这份宣誓书中基本上说，我自 2021 起一直只居住在瑞士。”40\n\n“我们显然不同意这一说法，理由有很多，但我们希望提请法院注意此事，因为毫无疑问，我们可以在伦敦公寓完成送达；但为明确起见，他仍拥有伦敦公寓。不存在他已将其出售或类似情形的问题；他仍拥有该公寓，因此我们可以在那里完成送达——不存在任何问题——在 March 4th 之前。”\n\n“但如果我们认定必须在瑞士进行送达，我们无法在 March 4th 之前完成送达。而且，法官阁下，我说‘如果’，是因为针对他的本案是在 February——February 15th 或 14th, 2024——启动的，远早于出现这些瑞士所有权迹象，因此，我们认为这不是初始送达的问题，而是补充送达的问题，我们需要弄清楚这件事。”41\n\n37 BVI Defense ¶ 11.2。\n\n38 在 Cyprus Affidavit 中，Mileson 指控受托人于 September 2024 在受托人针对 Mileson 和 K Legacy 提起的、对 K Legacy 及伦敦公寓所有权提出争议的 BVI 诉讼中，向 BVI 法院陈述瑞士地址是 Mileson 的最后已知地址；并且在 October 2024 向塞浦路斯法院提交的文件中隐瞒受托人（据称）知悉 Mileson 居住在瑞士而非 UK 的情况。受托人已向 BVI 法院提交一份补充宣誓书，以澄清其先前所持立场。见 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）《第五份宣誓书》，日期为 April 3, 2025，作为证物 11 随附于本文件。该宣誓书在未附其附件的情况下随附；其附件可依申请提供，但须遵守 BVI 保密规则。\n\n39 同样值得质疑的是，Mileson 在 Cyprus Affidavit 中主张其对受托人针对其父亲的程序所知有限，且未参与该等程序；然而，如本文所述，Mileson 通过其名义上所有的 Lamp Capital（Lamp Capital 公司）和 Bravo Luck（Bravo Luck 公司）等公司深度参与其中。\n\n40 February 27, 2025 Hr'g Tr., at 26-28，作为证物 12 随附于本文件。\n\n41 同上。\n\n22. 在 February 27 Hearing 之后，受托人获悉，瑞士警方因 Swiss Attachment（瑞士扣押）前往瑞士地址时，Mileson 当时在场。受托人还取得证据，表明 Mileson 可能已在 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国，“UAE”）建立又一住所。受托人的调查最近显示，Mileson 在 calendar-year 2024 期间在 UAE 停留超过 200 日，并于 February 27, 2025 申请了一项 UAE“投资者居留签证”。该签证申请的时机颇具说明性——其似乎是 Mileson 对 Swiss Attachment 的反应。\n\n23. 总而言之，在 January 13, 2025 之后的每个送达日期，受托人理解为 Mileson 主张其不再将伦敦公寓用作住所，并且如 Cyprus Affidavit 所确认，其主张居住在瑞士，或至少主张其截至 October 2024 居住在瑞士地址。然而，受托人质疑 Mileson 的可信度，而上文讨论的其他证据继续表明 Mileson 将伦敦公寓用作其地址，并且他可能已在其他地方建立又一住所。受托人还继续理解，瑞士法律要求所有送达，无论是启动诉讼的起诉状送达还是之后提交文件的送达，均须通过耗时数月的 Hague Convention 程序进行，并且向在瑞士的一方邮寄法院文件构成违反瑞士法律的刑事犯罪。再者，一个人可以有多个地址或最后已知地址；就 Mileson 而言，证据继续表明伦敦公寓是其中一个地址。受托人既不承认伦敦公寓不再是 Mileson 的最后已知地址，也不承认瑞士地址是 Mileson 的最后已知地址。存在一种明显模式，即 Mileson 依其方便为法律策略目的使用瑞士地址——例如，尽管在持续进行的 BVI Proceedings（英属维尔京群岛程序）中提交的文件并未在瑞士向 Mileson 送达，Mileson 并未将瑞士地址作为问题提出；并且，如上文所述，Mileson 于 April 2024 在 BVI 的公司备案文件中使用瑞士地址，同时于 March 2024 在 Cyprus 的公司备案文件中使用伦敦公寓地址，并于 June 2024 在 Hong Kong 的公司备案文件中使用第三个 Hong Kong 地址。\n\nII. 根据 Rule 4，对起诉状文件的送达适当\n\n24. 起诉状文件已依照 Rule 4(f)(2)(A) 在伦敦公寓向 Mileson（迈尔森）妥为送达；该规则允许采用外国法律规定、在该国普通管辖权法院的诉讼中合理预计能够提供通知的送达方式。在本案中，该外国为 United Kingdom（英国），其 CPR 6.9(2) 允许在个人的“通常住所或最后已知住所”送达英国诉讼文书。42\n\n42 见附件 8，CPR 6.9。\n\n25. 英格兰法下确定 CPR 6.9 所称“最后已知住所”的法律标准，已由 High Court of England and Wales（英格兰和威尔士高等法院）在 Boetthcher v XIO (UK) LLP (In Liquidation) & Ors [2023] EWHC 801 一案中讨论，43 该案列出了若干“可就被告最后已知住所这一概念作出的观察，以检验向该地址送达是否有效”，具体如下：\n\n- (1) 原告必须证明，有充分可辩称的理由认为实施送达的地址是被告的最后已知住所。这意味着，根据现有证据，原告在该问题上的论证优于被告。\n- (2) 被告的最后已知住所无需是被告的通常住所。\n(3) 被告可以有一个以上的最后已知住所。\n\n- (4) 被告的最后已知住所可以是在据称送达诉讼文书时被告正在居住或已不再居住（但曾经居住）的住所。该地址不能是被告从未居住过的地址。\n- (5) 在此语境中，对被告住所的知情，是指原告的实际知情或推定知情，即原告通过尽合理勤勉本可获得的知情。若被告从未在相关地址居住，即使原告具有诚实乃至合理的相信亦不足够。\n- (5) 原告的知情状态应以在相关地址送达诉讼文书之日为准。\n\nBoettcher，第 49 段（着重号为后加）。\n\n26. 此外，根据 CPR 6.9 (3)，“如原告有理由相信被告的[通常或最后已知]住所……是被告已不再居住的地址……，原告必须采取合理步骤查明被告当前住所的地址……。”如原告经采取合理步骤确定被告当前住所……，则应在该地点向被告送达。\n\n43 Boettcher 的副本作为附件 14 随附于此。\n\nCPR 6.9 (4)(a)。如原告经采取合理步骤无法确定被告当前住所……，原告必须“考虑是否存在——(i) 可实施送达的替代地点；或 (ii) 可实施送达的替代方式。”CPR 6.9 (4)(b)。如原告既无法确定被告当前住所，也无法确定替代送达地点或方式，原告可以在被告的“通常或最后已知地址”向其送达。CPR 6.9 (6)。\n\n27. 在本案中，就 CPR 6.9 而言，伦敦公寓符合 Mileson 的“最后已知住所”。如 Boettcher 所述，受托人的知情状态“应以在相关地址送达诉讼文书之日为准”；在本案中，即起诉状送达日期，范围从 January 31, 2023 至 August 26, 2024。Boettcher 第 49(5) 段。\n\n28. 第一，截至发生在 July 2024 之前的起诉状送达日期（“July 2024 前起诉状送达日期”）44，受托人没有关于 Mileson 据称将住所变更至瑞士地址的信息；当时受托人并不知悉该地址的存在。截至 July 2024 前起诉状送达日期，本文件第 12 段所讨论的大量证据均表明伦敦公寓是 Mileson 的地址，包括受托人在调查中取得的文件、Princes Gate（王子门）人员提供的信息，以及代“GUO”签收的邮件。因此，受托人没有理由相信伦敦公寓是 Mileson“已不再居住”的地点，从而不会触发 CPR 6.9 (3) 规定的受托人“采取合理步骤以\n\n44 这些日期包括除 Bouillor Action（Bouillor 诉讼）中 August 26, 2024 的送达日期外的所有起诉状送达日期，包括：Bravo Luck Action（Bravo Luck 诉讼）中 January 31, 2023 的送达；Sherry Netherlands Action（Sherry Netherlands 诉讼）中 February 17, 2023 的送达；First Omnibus Alter Ego Action（第一项综合另我诉讼）中 March 21, 2024 的送达；First Mileson Avoidance Action（第一项 Mileson 避免诉讼）中 March 21, 2024 的送达；RM Auctions Action（RM Auctions 诉讼）中 March 27, 2024 的送达；Cirrus Avoidance Action（Cirrus 避免诉讼）中 March 27, 2024 的送达；以及 RICO Action（RICO 诉讼）中 May 10, 2024 的送达。\n\n查明被告当前住所或营业地点的地址”的义务，CPR 6.9 (3)，以及在当时尚不知晓的情况下考虑替代地址，CPR 6.9 (4)。\n\n29. 第二，就在 Bouillor Action 中于 August 26, 2024 送达起诉状文件而言（当时受托人已知悉瑞士地址，但 Mileson 尚未在法院提交的文件中声称其已离开英国前往瑞士），Boettcher 与本案高度相关，并表明根据 CPR 6.9，伦敦公寓是债务人的“最后已知住所”。在 Boettcher 中，法院裁定，基于以下证据，“就[原告]所知或经行使合理勤勉本应知悉的范围而言”，有证据确立了充分可辩称的理由，认为被告的最后已知住所位于伦敦某地址（称为“33SR”）：\n\n- a. 被告此前居住于该伦敦地址，id. 第 55 段；\n- b. 原告的调查显示，“被告仍在 33SR 有一处住所，即使这并不准确，并且还在德国和/或瑞士有一处住所”——法院解释称，“Geyer 先生有多个住所这一事实，并不意味着 33SR 不能是最后已知住所，甚至不能是通常住所”，id. 第 56 段；而显示多个地址的查询结果“并未使其有理由相信[原告]已不再居住在 33SR”，id. 第 57 段；\n- c. 原告律师的一名雇员与 33SR 门房之间的谈话，进一步支持被告居住于此的结论（尽管该门房之后作出了相互矛盾的陈述），id. 第 58 段；以及\n- d. 有证据表明被告收到过以 33SR 为被告地址的索赔函，包括一封要求其说明首选送达地址的电子邮件，但被告未采取任何步骤告知原告或其律师其已不再居住于 33SR——按法院所言：“[原告]有权依赖[被告]未纠正[原告]所持的、认为 33SR 是[被告]最后已知住所的任何印象。”Id. 第 59 段。\n\n30. 在本案中，截至 August 26, 2024 的相同情形表明，依照 CPR 6.9 的送达适当。如同 Boettcher 一案，(a) Mileson 此前居住于伦敦公寓；(b) 受托人对政府证物的调查与分析发现了瑞士地址，但没有提供任何理由使其相信 Mileson 已不再居住于伦敦公寓；(c) Princes Gate 一人的陈述确认 Mileson 为居民；以及 (d) 尽管已收到受托人寄送至伦敦公寓、以其为收件人的文件，Mileson 未采取任何步骤告知受托人其已不再居住于伦敦公寓。因此，如同 Boettcher 一案，“证据确立了充分可辩称的理由，认为就[受托人]所知或经行使合理勤勉本应知悉的范围而言，[伦敦公寓]是[Mileson]的最后已知住所。”Id. 第 54 段。\n\n31. 总之，在伦敦公寓向 Mileson 送达起诉状符合 CPR 6.9 的送达要求，因此根据 Rule 4(f)(2)(A) 属于适当送达。\n\nIII. 其他文件的送达根据 Rule 5 属于适当送达\n\n32. 每次对其他文件的送达，均按照 Rule 5(b)(2)(C) 实施；该规则允许将文件邮寄至个人的“最后已知地址——在此情形下，送达于邮寄时完成。”\n\n33. 受托人于 July 2024 前的其他文件送达日期向 Mileson 送达其他文件，发生在受托人获悉瑞士地址之前；因此，就 Rule 5 而言，伦敦公寓显然符合 Mileson 的最后已知地址。\n\n34. 受托人在 July 2024 后向 Mileson 送达其他文件，发生在受托人已知悉瑞士地址存在之后。然而，如上所述，大量证据仍表明伦敦公寓是 Mileson 的地址，且 Mileson 未曾表示其已不再居住于伦敦或居住于瑞士。此外，受托人无法在不违反瑞士法律的情况下将文件邮寄至瑞士地址——其只能通过为期数月的 Hague Convention（海牙公约）程序在瑞士送达该等文件。因此，受托人在伦敦公寓适当送达了这些其他文件。\n\n35. 此外，受托人于 early 2025 在伦敦公寓送达某些其他文件亦属适当，即使该送达发生在 BVI Defense（BVI 答辩书）和 Cyprus Affidavit（塞浦路斯宣誓书）分别于 January 13 和 February 20, 2025 提交之后。大量证据仍表明伦敦公寓是 Mileson 的地址，并且如同此前，受托人无法在不违反瑞士法律的情况下将文件邮寄至瑞士地址——其只能通过为期数月的 Hague Convention 程序在瑞士送达该等文件；该程序还将导致受托人错过任何近期送达期限（如受托人在 February 27 Hearing（2 月 27 日听证会）中所提及）。\n\nIV. 受托人请求作出批准送达程序的命令\n\n36. 鉴于本文件所述情形，受托人请求法院作出拟议命令，该命令将：(a) 确认起诉状文件已根据 Rule 4 在伦敦公寓向 Mileson 妥为送达；(b) 确认其他文件已根据 Rule 5 在伦敦公寓向 Mileson 妥为送达；以及 (c) 酌情批准适用于对抗诉讼、Chapter 11 Cases（第 11 章案件）以及尚未提起的对抗诉讼的送达程序，据此，下列方式将被视为已向 Mileson 妥为送达文件：(i) 通过 U.S. Postal Service（美国邮政局）、Federal Express（联邦快递）或其他邮政或快递服务，将该等文件邮寄至伦敦公寓；(ii) 将该等文件通过电子邮件发送至 Mileson 电子邮件地址；(iii) 将该等文件通过电子邮件发送至已知代表 Mileson 的律师：Arethusa Forsyth（阿瑞图莎·福赛斯）（包括在与 Princes Gate 的谈判中担任 Mileson 的代表）、L. Papaphilippou & Co. LLC 的 Nicos Avraamides（尼科斯·阿夫拉阿米德斯）（Mileson 在塞浦路斯的律师），以及 Ogier 的 David Lim（大卫·林）（Mileson 在 BVI 的律师）；以及 (iv) 在 Epiq 维护的案件网站上一个公开可访问的“Mileson 页面”发布该等文件，网址为 http\n\n37. 作出拟议命令将就向 Mileson 送达提供指引和确定性，从而降低未来任何与程序送达问题有关的争议（及随之而来的延误和费用）的风险。此外，为确保批准拟议命令不会造成任何不利影响，受托人拟根据 Hague Convention 及瑞士法律的任何其他要求，在瑞士地址向 Mileson 送达本动议。\n\n38. 受托人请求该项救济，并不承认伦敦公寓已不再是 Mileson 的最后已知地址，也不承认瑞士地址是 Mileson 的最后已知地址。\n\nV. 结论\n\n39. 鉴于上述情况，受托人请求法院作出拟议命令，批准本对抗程序中先前向 Mileson 送达的文件，并确立规范今后送达的程序。\n\n【本页其余部分故意留白】\n\n因此，受托人请求法院作出拟议命令，并给予其他公正且适当的救济。\n\n日期：April 22, 2025　New York, New York\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglass Barron（获准 pro hac vice 出庭）PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6690 douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\nChapter 11 受托人的律师\n\n附件 A\n\n美国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT）康涅狄格州联邦地区（DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）布里奇波特分庭（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等　：\n：\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nx\n\n［拟议］关于送达程序的命令\n\n根据 Luc A. Despins 作为 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）遗产的 Chapter 11 受托人（“受托人”）提出的动议（“该动议”）2，请求就上述标题所列 Chapter 11 案件（“Chapter 11 案件”）、对抗程序（定义见该动议）以及视情况而定的未来对抗程序中被告 Qiang Guo（“Mileson”或“被告”）的送达程序作出命令；且法院已审议该动议及其所附的全部证据和文件；且法院已于 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2025 就该动议举行听证会（“听证会”）；且法院已审议听证会记录中所载明的理由；且法院已认定：(a) 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 和 1334，法院对审议该动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；(b) 根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，审议该动议属于核心程序；(c) 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本法院为适当审理地点；(d)\n\n1 本 Chapter 11 案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2 本文中使用但未定义的首字母大写术语，应具有该动议中赋予其的含义。\n\n在具体情形下，已就该动议给予适当且充分的通知，并且看来无需给予其他或进一步通知；(e) 根据规则 4 和 5（经破产规则 7004 和 7005 适用）以及视情况而定的破产规则 9013 和 9014，对该动议的送达均属适当；(f) 该动议及其支持材料证明存在正当理由给予本文所准予的救济，且该动议已满足所有适用的法律和事实举证责任；并经适当审议，考虑上述事项及法院在听证会上记录中陈述的理由，现命令如下：\n\n1. 该动议按本文所述予以准许。\n\n2. 根据规则 4 和破产规则 7004，在位于 5 Princes Gate, Flat 6, London, SW7 1QJ, United Kingdom（“伦敦公寓”）的地址向被告送达各项起诉书文件（定义见该动议），均属适当且有效。\n\n3. 根据规则 5 和破产规则 7005，对本对抗程序中提交的每一项其他文件（定义见该动议）的送达，均属适当且有效。\n\n4. 本命令作出后，所有须向被告送达的文件（每项称为“一份文件”）（包括本命令），应按照下列方式和程序向被告送达（“送达程序”）。\n\na. 每份文件均应通过美国邮政服务、Federal Express 或其他邮政或快递服务寄送至伦敦公寓，且该文件自寄送时起送达生效；以及\n\nb. 每份文件均应通过电子邮件发送至以下电子邮箱地址：(i) ukistruehome@gmail.com；(ii) jeffyuef2@icloud.com；(iii) ipadforfly@icloud.com；(iv) cybermail2018@protonmail.com；以及 (v) raps.sinless0h@icloud.com。\n\nc. 每份文件均应通过电子邮件发送至被告的律师：(i) Arethusa Forsyth，电子邮箱地址为 arethusaf@proton.me；(ii) L Papaphilippou & Co. LLC 的 Nicos Avraamides，电子邮箱地址为 na@papaphilippou.eu；以及 (iii) Ogier 的 David Lim，电子邮箱地址为 david.lim@ogier.com；即使该等律师声称未获授权接受该等文件的送达，向上述每位律师以电子邮件送达该文件仍属有效。\n\nd. 每份文件均应在由 Epiq 维护的“Mileson 页面”上公开提供，并可通过案件网站 http 访问。\n\n5. 根据上述送达程序对任何文件的送达，均构成根据规则 4 和 5、破产规则 7004 和 7005，以及视情况而定的破产规则 9013 和 9014 对被告的适当且有效送达（包括就上述标题所列对抗程序中提交的文件、Chapter 11 案件中的事项，以及截至本命令日期尚未提起的对抗程序中的事项，视情况而定）。\n\n6. 本法院应保留对因执行、解释和强制实施本命令而产生或与之有关的一切事项的管辖权。\n\n签署于 \\_\\_ 日 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2025\n\nHon. Julie A. Manning（Julie A. Manning 法官）美国破产法官","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","RICO","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Miles Guo","Geyer"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":8,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":10,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":13,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":16,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":17,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":23,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":28,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":29,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":36,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":40,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":52,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":63,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":93,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":95,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":104,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":118,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8880,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:52:51"}