{"id":"court_ctb_4338_7","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4338,"sub_number":7,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":"2025-04-22","title":"Exhibit 7 ","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit 7**\n\n\n\nJanuary 6, 2025\n\n**By ECF** Hon. Paul G. Gardephe United States District Judge Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\n\nRe: *SEC v. Ho Wan Kwok, et al.*, 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG)\n\nDear Judge Gardephe:\n\nPlaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") respectfully submits this letter to update the Court regarding its efforts to serve relief defendant Qiang Guo (a/k/a Mileson Guo).\n\nEarlier today, the SEC filed an affidavit of service as to Qiang Guo. (Dkt. 68). The SEC effectuated service in the United Kingdom (\"UK\") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2)(A), which, in circumstances applicable here, permits service of an individual outside the United States by a means that is 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.\n\nAs set forth in the letter from the SEC's UK counsel attached as Exhibit A hereto, service as to Qiang Guo was effectuated in a manner authorized by Rule 6.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules of England and Wales, which allows for service at a defendant's last known address.\n\nThe SEC has now completed service of all defendants and relief defendants.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ *Daniel Loss\\_\\_\\_\\_*\n\nDaniel Loss Counsel to the SEC\n\ncc: All counsel of record (by ECF)\n\n\n\nHon. Paul G. Gardephe, U.S.D.J. Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\n\nE: T: Our ref: [alan.ward@shlegal.com](mailto:alan.ward@shlegal.com) +44 20 7809 2295 01-61-07066\n\nJanuary 6, 2025\n\nDear Judge Gardephe\n\nWe respectfully write to you upon the request of our client, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the \"Commission\") with regards to assistance that we are providing as the Commission's English counsel in the matter of service of process on Qiang Guo (also known as Mileson Guo), in the United Kingdom. Specifically, we have been asked by the Commission to explain the method of service on Qiang Guo that was used in this case and its validity under the laws of England and Wales.\n\nService on Qiang Guo was conducted pursuant to Rule 6.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules of England and Wales (\"English CPR\"), which allows for service of English proceedings on an individual under English law at his or her \"last known\" address. Based on our understanding of the facts set forth below, including certain facts that are based on the Commission's representations, it is our view that the address of 5 Princes Gate, Apt. 6, London, United Kingdom SW7 1QJ (the \"Princes Gate Address\") qualifies as Qiang Guo's \"last known\" address under English law and that service at the Princes Gate Address would constitute effective service in the context of English proceedings under Rule 6.9 of the English CPR.\n\nThe basis of our view is set forth below, but we note as an initial matter that it is consistent with a November 13, 2024 decision by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut finding that service of a summons and complaint on Qiang Guo via FedEx shipment to the Princes Gate Address was in accordance with Rule 6.9 of the English CPR. *See Despins v. Qiang Guo (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 24-5238 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.), ECF Nos. 15 & 23.\n\n#### Legal Standard for \"Last Known\" Address Under the English CPR\n\nUnder the English CPR, to serve at an individual's last known address, \"reasonable steps\" must have first been taken, \"to ascertain the address of the defendant's current residence or place of business.\" If identified, the defendant must be served at that current address. A second requirement for service at a last known address is that consideration must have been given to, \"whether there is – (i) an alternative place where; or (ii) an alternative method by which service might be effected.\"\n\nLONLIVE\\111797966.2\n\n\n\nThe High Court of England and Wales has provided recent guidance and judicial authority concerning the concept of \"last known address\" in *Boetthcher v XIO (UK) LLP (In Liquidation) & Ors* [2023] EWHC 801. In particular, the Court provided that:\n\n- i. A claimant must establish that there is a good, arguable case that the address for service 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- ii. A defendant's last known residence need not be the defendant's usual residence.\n- iii. A defendant may have more than one last known address.\n- iv. A defendant's last known address may be a residence at which the defendant is residing, or one at which they are no longer residing at the time of service. However, this cannot be an address at which the defendant has never resided (as also raised in *Marshall v Maggs* [2006] EWCA Civ 20; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 1945, CA).\n- v. \"Knowledge\" of a defendant's residence in this context refers to the claimant's actual knowledge or constructive knowledge, being knowledge which the claimant could have acquired by exercising reasonable diligence. In this case, we consider constructive knowledge as to the Princes Gate Address is established, with reference to the \"reasonable diligence\" undertaken, as particularised below.\n\n#### Factual Evidence Associating Qiang Guo with the Princes Gate Address\n\nWe understand that there is factual evidence associating Qiang Guo with the Princes Gate Address. Although there is mixed evidence as to whether the Princes Gate Address is Qiang Guo's *current* residence, we believe the factual evidence set forth below, if accurate, is sufficient under English law to establish that the Princes Gate Address is a \"last known\" address of Qiang Guo.\n\n- 1. Telephone Records: The Commission has advised us that, based on information provided by the National Crime Agency for the United Kingdom (\"NCA\"), as of at least November 5, 2024, a mobile phone contract in the name of Qiang Guo is registered to the Princes Gate Address.\n- 2. Credit Card Records: The Commission has advised us that, based on information provided by the NCA, on or about November 1, 2024, an individual identified as Qiang Guo applied for an American Express card using the Princes Gate Address.\n- 3. Vehicle Insurance Records: The Commission has advised us that, based on information provided by the NCA, vehicles insured to Qiang Guo were registered to the Princes Gate Address as of at least June 2024.\n- 4. Court Records: Based on a review of the dockets in other U.S. court proceedings, we understand that Qiang Guo has been served via the Princes Gate Address (as his current or last known address) on at least four occasions in 2023 and 2024.\n\t- a. On March 21, 2024, in *Despins v. RM Auctions Deutschland GMBH and Qiang Guo (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 24-05245 (JAM), ECF No. 22, the summons and complaint were served on Qiang Guo via FedEx shipment to the Princes Gate Address.\n\n\n\n- b. On March 21, 2024, in *Despins v. Qiang Guo (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 24-5238 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.), ECF No. 15, the summons and complaint were served on Qiang Guo via FedEx shipment to the Princes Gate Address.\n- c. On January 31, 2023, in *Despins v. Bravo Luck Ltd. and Qiang Guo (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 22-05027 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.), ECF No. 27, the summons and complaint were served by hand delivery to the building concierge at the Princes Gate Address.\n- d. On February 17, 2023, in *Genever Holdings LLC et al. v. Ho Wan Know, Hing Chi Ngok, Qiang Guo, and Mei Guo (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 23- 05002 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.), ECF No. 16, the summons and complaint were served on Qiang Guo via FedEx shipment to the Princes Gate Address.\n- 5. Bank Records: The Commission has advised us that, as of at least November 2020 and May 2021, bank records obtained by the Commission for wire transfers to Qiang Guo reflected the Princes Gate Address as Qiang Guo's address.\n- 6. Mail Records: Based on our review of a declaration filed on the docket in a U.S. court proceeding, we understand that a letter mailed (via Royal Mail, United Kingdom) to Qiang Guo at the Princes Gate Address was delivered on February 28, 2023 and accepted by the executed signature \"GUO.\" *See* Declaration of Patrick R. Linsey, *Despins v. Bravo Luck Ltd. and Qiang Guo (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 22-05027 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 2, 2023), ECF No. 93-2.\n- 7. Property Records: Based on our review of records held by the His Majesty's Land Registry, we understand that the leasehold for the Princes Gate Address is currently owned (and has been owned since June 3, 2016) by K Legacy Ltd., a company that, according to UK Companies House records, is beneficially owned by Qiang Guo.\n- 8. Interviews with Building Personnel: 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.[1](#page-4-0) Similarly, we understand based on our review of a declaration in an unrelated matter that, on January 31, 2023, an individual at the Princes Gate Address confirmed to an English solicitor that Qiang Guo lived there. *See* Declaration of Patrick R. Linsey, *Despins v. Bravo Luck Ltd. and Qiang Guo (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22- 50073, Adv. P. No. 22-05027 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 2, 2023), ECF No. 93-2.\n\n1 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. This information appears to be contradicted by other evidence discussed here, including telephone, credit card, insurance, property, and court records suggesting that that Qiang Guo maintains an ongoing association to the Princes Gate Address. Moreover, even if the information provided by the concierge on February 18, 2024 were accurate, under English law, it is not a requirement that the \"last known\" address be the defendant's current residence.\n\n#### Steps Taken to Ascertain Current Residence and Consideration of Alternative Places of Service\n\nAs noted above, to serve a defendant at his or her last known address under English law, reasonable steps must first be taken to ascertain the defendant's current address, and consideration must be given to alternative locations of service. Here, it is our opinion that these standards have been satisfied. In particular, as part of our work for the Commission in this matter, we retained an investigative firm at a cost of approximately £29,000 to attempt to locate Qiang Guo. Despite the extensive and costly efforts exerted, the steps taken by the investigative firm did not reveal a current address for Qiang Guo (other than the Princes Gate Address).\n\nAmong other things, the investigative firm (1) conducted a comprehensive search of public records, including searches of live and archived web pages, blogs, social media channels, documents filed in legal proceedings, subscription databases of corporate and directorship information globally, land and property registers in relevant jurisdictions, and newspaper and magazine archives; (2) conducted a total of more than 70 hours of surveillance in the vicinity of potential locations associated with Qiang Guo in multiple countries on approximately 10 different dates over the past year, but did not observe him; and (3) investigated multiple private aircraft potentially associated with Qiang Guo, but did not successfully identify the particular aircraft used by him.\n\n### Conclusion\n\nAccordingly, based on the information summarised above, including the factual representations by the Commission that we have not undertaken to independently verify, we consider that the Princes Gate Address qualifies as Qiang Guo's \"last known\" address under English law and that service at the Princes Gate Address would constitute effective service in the context of English proceedings under Rule 6.9 of the English CPR.\n\nYours faithfully\n\n**Stephenson Harwood LLP**","body_zh":"证据 7\n\n2025年1月6日\n\n通过 ECF 呈交 美国地区法官 Paul G. Gardephe（保罗·G·加德菲）阁下 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse（瑟古德·马歇尔美国法院大楼） 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\n\n事由：SEC 诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等案，案号 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG)\n\n尊敬的加德菲法官：\n\n原告 Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，简称“SEC”）谨呈递本函，向法庭通报其向救济被告 Qiang Guo（郭强，又名 Mileson Guo）进行送达的最新工作进展。\n\n今天早些时候，SEC 提交了针对郭强的送达宣誓证明书。（案卷号 68）。SEC 根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 4(f)(2)(A) 条在 United Kingdom（英国，简称“UK”）完成了送达；在适用于本案的情形下，该规则允许依照外国关于在其普通管辖权法院提起诉讼的送达法律所规定的、合理旨在给予通知的方式，对位于美国境外的个人进行送达。\n\n正如本函所附附件 A 中 SEC 的英国法律顾问的信函所述，对郭强的送达是依照《英格兰和威尔士民事诉讼规则》第 6.9 条所授权的方式完成的，该规则允许在被告的最后已知地址进行送达。\n\nSEC 现已完成对所有被告及救济被告的送达。\n\n谨此呈递，\n\n/签名/ Daniel Loss____\n\nDaniel Loss（丹尼尔·洛斯） SEC 法律顾问\n\n抄送：所有记录在案的法律顾问（通过 ECF）\n\n美国地区法官 Paul G. Gardephe 阁下 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\n\n电邮：[alan.ward@shlegal.com] 电话：+44 20 7809 2295 我们的案号：01-61-07066\n\n2025年1月6日\n\n尊敬的加德菲法官：\n\n应我们的客户 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，简称“委员会”）的请求，我们谨就作为委员会的英国法律顾问在向位于英国的 Qiang Guo（郭强，又名 Mileson Guo）送达法律文书事宜中所提供的协助向您致信。具体而言，委员会要求我们说明本案中对郭强所采用的送达方式及其在英格兰和威尔士法律下的有效性。\n\n对郭强的送达是依据《英格兰和威尔士民事诉讼规则》（简称“英国 CPR”）第 6.9 条进行的，该规则允许根据英国法在其“最后已知”地址向个人送达英国诉讼程序文书。根据我们对下述事实的理解，包括某些基于委员会陈述的事实，我们认为，5 Princes Gate, Apt. 6, London, United Kingdom SW7 1QJ（简称“太子门地址”）符合英国法下郭强的“最后已知”地址资格，且在太子门地址进行送达将构成英国 CPR 第 6.9 条下英国诉讼程序背景中的有效送达。\n\n我们观点的依据阐述如下，但我们首先指出，这一观点与 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）2024年11月13日的一项裁定一致，该裁定认定通过联邦快递（FedEx）向太子门地址寄送传票和起诉书向郭强进行送达符合英国 CPR 第 6.9 条的规定。参见 Despins 诉 Qiang Guo（In re Kwok），案号 22-50073，附随诉讼案号 24-5238 (JAM)（Bankr. D. Conn.），ECF 编号 15 与 23。\n英国 CPR 下“最后已知”地址的法律标准\n\n根据英国 CPR，要在个人的最后已知地址进行送达，必须首先采取“合理步骤”“以查明被告当前住所或营业地点的地址”。如果查明，则必须在该当前地址向被告进行送达。在最后已知地址进行送达的第二个要求是，必须已经考虑“是否存在——(i) 可以进行送达的替代地点；或 (ii) 可以借以实现送达的替代方式。”\n\nLONLIVE\\111797966.2\n\nHigh Court of England and Wales（英格兰和威尔士高等法院）最近在 Boetthcher 诉 XIO (UK) LLP (In Liquidation) 及其他人 [2023] EWHC 801 案中就“最后已知地址”的概念提供了指导和司法裁判先例。法院特别指出：\n\n- i. 原告必须确立存在充分且合理的论据（good, arguable case）证明送达地址是被告的最后已知住所。这意味着，根据现有证据，原告在该问题上的主张优于被告的主张。\n- ii. 被告的最后已知住所不必是被告的惯常住所。\n- iii. 被告可以拥有不止一个最后已知地址。\n- iv. 被告的最后已知地址可以是被告当时正在居住的住所，也可以是在送达时其已不再居住的住所。然而，这不能是被告从未居住过的地址（正如 Marshall 诉 Maggs [2006] EWCA Civ 20；[2006] 1 W.L.R. 1945, CA 中所提出的）。\n- v. 在此语境下对被告住所的“知晓”是指原告的实际知晓或推定知晓，即原告通过行使合理注意（reasonable diligence）本可以获得的知晓。在本案中，参考下文详述的所采取的“合理注意”，我们认为关于太子门地址的推定知晓已经确立。\n将郭强与太子门地址联系起来的事实证据\n\n据我们了解，存在将郭强与太子门地址联系起来的事实证据。尽管关于太子门地址是否为郭强的当前住所存在不一致的证据，但我们认为，下述事实证据如果属实，在英国法下足以确立太子门地址是郭强的一个“最后已知”地址。\n\n- 1. 电话记录：委员会已告知我们，根据 National Crime Agency for the United Kingdom（英国国家打击犯罪局，简称“NCA”）提供的信息，截至至少2024年11月5日，一份以郭强名义登记的移动电话合同注册在太子门地址。\n- 2. 信用卡记录：委员会已告知我们，根据 NCA 提供的信息，在2024年11月1日或前后，一名身份确认为郭强的个人使用太子门地址申请了美国运通卡（American Express）。\n- 3. 车辆保险记录：委员会已告知我们，根据 NCA 提供的信息，截至至少2024年6月，投保在郭强名下的车辆注册在太子门地址。\n- 4. 法院记录：根据对其他美国法院诉讼程序案卷的查阅，我们了解到郭强在2023年和2024年曾至少四次通过太子门地址（作为其当前或最后已知地址）接受送达。\n\t- a. 2024年3月21日，在 Despins 诉 RM Auctions Deutschland GMBH 及 Qiang Guo（In re Kwok）案中，案号 22-50073，附随诉讼案号 24-05245 (JAM)，ECF 编号 22，传票和起诉书通过联邦快递寄送至太子门地址送达给郭强。\n\n- b. 2024年3月21日，在 Despins 诉 Qiang Guo（In re Kwok）案中，案号 22-50073，附随诉讼案号 24-5238 (JAM)（Bankr. D. Conn.），ECF 编号 15，传票和起诉书通过联邦快递寄送至太子门地址送达给郭强。\n- c. 2023年1月31日，在 Despins 诉 Bravo Luck Ltd. 及 Qiang Guo（In re Kwok）案中，案号 22-50073，附随诉讼案号 22-05027 (JAM)（Bankr. D. Conn.），ECF 编号 27，传票和起诉书通过直接当面交付给太子门地址的大楼门房完成送达。\n- d. 2023年2月17日，在 Genever Holdings LLC 等人诉 Ho Wan Know、Hing Chi Ngok、Qiang Guo 及 Mei Guo（In re Kwok）案中，案号 22-50073，附随诉讼案号 23-05002 (JAM)（Bankr. D. Conn.），ECF 编号 16，传票和起诉书通过联邦快递寄送至太子门地址送达给郭强。\n- 5. 银行记录：委员会已告知我们，截至至少2020年11月和2021年5月，委员会获取的向郭强电汇的银行记录显示太子门地址为郭强的地址。\n- 6. 邮件记录：根据我们对在一项美国法院诉讼案卷中提交的一份陈述书（declaration）的查阅，我们了解到一封邮寄（通过英国皇家邮政，Royal Mail）给太子门地址郭强的信件于2023年2月28日妥投，并由签名字样“GUO”签收。参见 Patrick R. Linsey 的陈述书，Despins 诉 Bravo Luck Ltd. 及 Qiang Guo（In re Kwok），案号 22-50073，附随诉讼案号 22-05027（Bankr. D. Conn. 2023年6月2日），ECF 编号 93-2。\n- 7. 财产记录：根据我们对 His Majesty's Land Registry（英国皇家土地登记处）保存的记录的查阅，我们了解到太子门地址的租赁权目前由 K Legacy Ltd. 拥有（且自2016年6月3日以来一直由其拥有），根据英国公司注册处（UK Companies House）的记录，该公司由郭强实际拥有（beneficially owned）。\n- 8. 对大楼人员的访谈：在2023年12月29日或前后，太子门地址的大楼门房告诉我们律所聘请的调查员，郭强是大楼的住户。[1] 同样，根据我们对一起无关案件中一份陈述书的查阅，我们了解到在2023年1月31日，太子门地址的一名人员向一名英国事务律师确认郭强住在那里。参见 Patrick R. Linsey 的陈述书，Despins 诉 Bravo Luck Ltd. 及 Qiang Guo（In re Kwok），案号 22-50073，附随诉讼案号 22-05027（Bankr. D. Conn. 2023年6月2日），ECF 编号 93-2。\n\n1 我们注意到，在2024年2月18日，太子门地址的一名大楼门房告诉我们律所聘请的调查员郭强不是住户，并拒绝提供任何额外信息。该信息似乎与此处讨论的其他证据相矛盾，包括表明郭强与太子门地址保持持续联系的电话、信用卡、保险、财产和法院记录。此外，即使门房在2024年2月18日提供的信息是准确的，根据英国法，“最后已知”地址也并不要求必须是被告的当前住所。\n为查明当前住所采取的步骤及对替代送达地点的考量\n\n如上所述，根据英国法在被告最后已知地址向其进行送达，必须首先采取合理步骤查明被告的当前地址，并必须对替代送达地点予以考虑。在此，我们认为这些标准已经得到满足。特别是，作为我们在此事宜中为委员会工作的一部分，我们聘请了一家调查公司（费用约为 29,000 英镑）试图寻找郭强的下落。尽管付出了广泛且昂贵的努力，调查公司采取的步骤未能查明郭强的当前地址（除太子门地址外）。\n\n除其他事项外，调查公司 (1) 对公共记录进行了全面检索，包括对公开及归档的网页、博客、社交媒体频道、法律诉讼中提交的文件、全球公司及董事信息的订阅数据库、相关司法管辖区的土地及财产登记簿以及报纸和杂志档案的检索；(2) 在过去一年中大约10个不同日期，在多个国家与郭强相关的潜在地点周边进行了总计超过70小时的监视，但未观察到他；以及 (3) 调查了多架可能与郭强相关的私人飞机，但未能成功识别出他所使用的特定飞机。\n结论\n\n因此，根据上述汇总的信息，包括我们未承担独立核实责任的委员会的事实陈述，我们认为太子门地址符合英国法下郭强的“最后已知”地址资格，且在太子门地址进行送达将构成英国 CPR 第 6.9 条下英国诉讼程序背景中的有效送达。\n\n此致\n\nStephenson Harwood LLP（罗夏信律师事务所）","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":15,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":16,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":27,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":68,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":69,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":93,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2015,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-04-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-04-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:02:28"}