Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 760

摘要

Supplemental Third-Party Petition · Hamilton Investment Management (BVI and UK)

This 15-page document, dated October 22, 2025, is a supplemental § 853(n) petition filed by Hamilton Investment Management, Ltd. (BVI) and Hamilton Investment Management, Ltd. (UK) ("Petitioners") to amend the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture entered against Defendant Miles Guo (case-doc-720, August 11, 2025) in United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT).

Procedural Posture

The Hamilton entities previously filed an ancillary petition on April 7, 2025 (ECF No. 673, the "HIM Wang Ancillary Petition") in connection with the forfeiture order entered against co-defendant Yvette Wang. This supplemental petition extends the same claim of interest to property identified in the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture against Mr. Guo.

Petitioners

Two separate corporate entities with identical names but different jurisdictions:

• Hamilton Investment Management, Ltd. (BVI) — incorporated in the British Virgin Islands;
• Hamilton Investment Management, Ltd. (UK) — incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom.

A footnote explains that there are two entities with identical names but incorporated in different jurisdictions bringing the claim.

Statutory Basis and Relief Sought

The supplemental petition is filed under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c). It asks the Court to:

• Adjudicate the Petitioners' interest in the specific property identified;
• Amend the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture entered against Mr. Guo (case-doc-720) to exclude the Petitioners' Property;
• Return the Petitioners' Property to its rightful owners.

Argument Structure

The petition argues that the property at issue is owned by the Petitioners as a result of their own corporate activities and is not properly subject to forfeiture as criminal proceeds of either Defendant Wang or Defendant Guo. The petition emphasizes the unique forfeiture posture of the matter, where two co-defendants have separate forfeiture orders covering substantially overlapping property — requiring the Petitioners to file in both proceedings to preserve their claims.