\n\n| t
o
p
r
o
s
e
• | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | f
r
o
m
: | 0
@
i
l
R
P
<
>
a
n
r
o
s
e
p
r
o
s
e
r
y
a
n
g
m
a
.c
o
m
y |\n| | t
o
: | @
d
t
p
r
o
s
e
n
y
s
. u
s
c
o
u
r
s
.g
o
v |\n| U
N
I | d
t
a
e
: | S
2
8
, 2
0
2
, 1
2
1
6
A
M
5
e
p
: |\n| S
O
U
T
H
U
N
I
T
E
[
P
l
i
t
i
f
f
a
n | b
j
t
s
u
e
c
: | E
M
i
C
M
S
S
i
C
R
V
A
R
i
h
d
G
M
i
d
t
t
t
t
t
t
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
o
o
n
:
o
u
r
u
s
o
p
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
n
g
g
s
a
n
r
a
v
e
s
s
e
p
a
n
C
f
f
D
k
t
V
i
t
i
M
t
i
d
P
t
l
l
P
d
i
i
L
i
h
t
U
d
d
d
o
c
e
c
m
o
o
n
s
a
n
r
e
e
n
o
a
p
s
e
o
r
o
c
e
e
n
g
s
n
g
o
n
a
r
e
s
s
e
v
P
t
i
l
F
d
A
f
t
T
h
S
i
D
f
d
t
C
l
F
i
l
, V
i
t
i
r
o
s
e
c
o
r
a
r
a
e
r
r
e
e
c
c
e
s
s
e
e
e
n
a
n
s
o
n
s
e
a
r
e
s
c
m
u
u
u
v
u
u
-
F
d
S
k
R
l
3
3
d
P
i
M
i
d
i
h
P
j
d
i
R
l
i
f
(
R
E
E
C
F
7
3
3
t
t
t
t
o
r
c
e
o
e
e
u
e
a
n
r
o
s
e
c
u
o
n
s
c
o
n
u
c
w
r
e
u
c
e
e
e
:
,
3
9
4
2
4
4
)
7
, 7
,7 |\n| V
O
H
W
A | i
l
d
-b
m
a
e
y
: | i
l
g
m
a
.c
o
m |\n| D
f
d
t
e
e
n
| ·\"
, ·
· | |\n\nCase No. 1 :23-cr-00118-AT\n\n**Emergency Motion: Court Must Stop Suppressing CRVA Rights and Grave Proceedings in Light of Unaddressed Prosecutorial Fraud -After Three s, Rule 33 and Prosecution Misconduct with Prejudice Relief (RE: ECF 733, 7:**\n\n**The Honorable Analisa Torres**\n\n# **Certificate of Service**\n\n### **In re: Ryan Bai (aka. Ranyue Bai), Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit**\n\n### **Case: United States v. Kwok, et al. 1 :23-CR-118-1 (AT)**\n\nI, Ryan Bai (a.k.a. Ranyue Bai), certify that on October 22, 2025, true and correct copies of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, along with Exhibits A-8, were served on the following parties via USPS Priority Mail by Ryan Bai, acting solely as sender on my behalf and not in any legal capacity:\n\n- 1. The Honorable Analisa Torres, United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 -1312\n- 2. Ryan 8 . Finkel, Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York One St. Andrew's Plaza, New York, NY 10007\n\nExecuted on October 22, 2025.\n\n~ Ranyue Bai (Oct 13, 2025 12:55:44 PDT)\n\nRyan Bai (a.k.a. Ranyue Bai)\n\n-\n\nt","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["forfeiture","Torres","Kwok","Je","Crime Victim","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se","Despins","CVRA","Analisa Torres","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Brady","Miles Guo","Geyer","Finkel","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":5,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":507,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":700,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":733,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":744,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":750,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":754,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":6461,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-10-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-10-29","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:54"},{"id":"court_sdny_763_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":763,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-10-23","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n## **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"**\n\nand\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"**\n\nand\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\nDefendants.\n\n Restitution of Seized Funds Criminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\nMOTION UNDER SEAL TO ACCEPT ANCILLARY FILING AND TO PRESERVE CLAIMS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COURT'S AUGUST 11 ORDER (ECF No. 720)\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n# **NOTICE OF FILING UNDER SEAL APPLICATIONS FOR RESTITUTION IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COURT'S AUGUST 11 ORDER (ECF No. 720) AND MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SEALED FILING**\n\nUndersigned Counsel provides this notice to the Court and the parties that he has filed under seal the application of 6,512 Members of the Himalaya Exchange for return to them of their investments and property seized from HEX by the U.S. Government.\n\nThese 6,512 applications are filed pursuant to this Court's Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment entered on August 11, 2025 (ECF No. 720) (the \"Preliminary Order\"). Counsel also has provided additional precedent interpreting 21 U.S.C. 853(n) and related laws as providing flexibility for its goals under unusual circumstances such as large groups of similarly-situated claimants as here.\n\nUndersigned counsel has on the PACER record respectfully moved for acceptance of this collective ancillary filing on behalf of 6,512**[1](#page-1-0)** authenticated and consent-authorized customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\"). This total reflects requests up to last night at 10:00 p.m. of anyone who requested cancellation of their attorney-fee agreement with the undersigned Counsel.\n\nAs previously stated, Counsel has continually updated the number as additional clients have joined and some clients have asked to terminate their representation. Counsel and the Former Feds Group have reviewed thousands of emails relating to this case and have crossreferenced status through HEX's records and management. This is how the total today is 6,512 which is likely to now be a closed class having made their filing for restitution of their funds seized by the U.S. Government from the entities comprising the diversified functioning of the Himalaya Exchange.\n\nCounsel hopes that the Court, Government, and others will appreciate that without the role of Counsel spending hundreds of hours uncompensated on contingency is a considerable saving for this Court of judicial resources by representing now 6,512 individuals without the Court processing 6,512 separate groups of pleadings to the Court's case file.\n\nUndersigned Counsel understands that faced with a flood of filings in March and April, that this Honorable Court (1) gave a blanket instruction that pleadings containing Personally Identifying Information (PII) and financial information should automatically (presumptively) be\n\n1 Counsel and his team have reviewed thousands of emails and communications with Himalaya Exchange clients and refined the lists in various categories. Thus, 6,512 members identified through HID#'s is now the final updated total now authenticated by the Himalaya Exchange through October 10, 2025 with client totals that account for 433,992,619.55 HCN, 84,689,498.20 HDO, 318,618,144.77 Deposits and 39,565,818.64 in redemptions. It is important to make clear that Counsel does not purport to speak for all HEX Members as there are many members whom he does not represent including 187 clients who have terminated the attorney client relationship. Of course, the Defendants in the criminal matter have their own separate attorneys.\n\nplaced under seal by the Clerk, and (2) that the August 11, 2025, Order explicitly stated that previously submitted information and claims need not be re-filed again and further burden the Court's record. The applicants for return of their investments explicitly incorporate by reference the filings and information previously submitted.\n\nThis Court will be aware as it has become a major administrative topic across the Federal courts that a massive intrusion of hacking into sealed documents in PACER was discovered. This has been addressed quietly at first but now requiring a major redesign of ECF and PACER to protect against hacking. Evidence in Kwok's trial and a stipulation with the Government proved that the Chinese Communist Party has targeted Kwok and his followers as dissidents and intend to do them harm.\n\nTherefore, the applicants here incorporate by reference as if submitted herein the Know Your Customer identity verification information of HEX that has been repeatedly proffered to the U.S. Attorney's Office to be disclosed only under secure conditions. Because the Government has been repeatedly offered this, but has not taken the opportunity, Counsel asserts that the Government has *constructively* already received all of this KYC information of the applicants here but has not yet reviewed it. This information continues to be proffered.\n\nHowever, out of an abundance of caution, Counsel moves the Court by the Clerk to confirm[2](#page-2-0) the status of the those submissions emailed to the Court and the U.S. Attorney's Office yesterday on October 22, 2025, is both noticed as received and officially placed under seal.\n\nConfirmed by other legal teams unrelated to this case, technical problems with this Court's and other District Courts persist with the Federal Court's Electronic Case Files (ECF) system. That is, the problem is not limited to SDNY but is being experienced across the country.\n\n\n\n2 Meaning confirmed within the Court's system not that Counsel needs a response.\n\nCounsel understands that the software innovation originally limited to Acrobat of Portable Document Format (PDF) is – contrary to appearances – *not* a standardized file format. There are apparently many internal coding variations in PDF files. PACER and ECF reject some of these coding formats. Other legal teams known to Counsel but completely unrelated to this case have indicated problems with this for months.\n\nNot only did Counsel have to spend an inordinate amount of time but it is possible that others such as individual claimants, *pro se*, were unable to file by yesterday's deadline.\n\nAs a result, undersigned Counsel attempted to post this Notice yesterday, October 22, 2025, had considerable difficulties filing what he did post, but was forced to submit the application of 6,512 HEX Members under seal by email to the Court and the Government. Counsel hopes to make sure that the Court's attention is drawn to those submissions and hopes that ECF / PACER's continuing improvements will resolve these challenges.\n\n### RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on October 23, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Kwok","Geyer","Je","Guo","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Chinese Communist Party","853(n)","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":720,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1130,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-10-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-10-23","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:54"},{"id":"court_sdny_759_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":759,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-10-22","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n## **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"**\n\nand\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"**\n\nand\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\nDefendants.\n\n Restitution of Seized Funds Criminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\nUPDATED AND FINAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR COUNSEL'S 6,512 CLIENTS\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## **UPDATED AND FINAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR COUNSEL'S 6,512 CLIENTS**\n\nBradford L. Geyer, Esq., of FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC, respectfully enters his appearance on behalf of 6,512 authenticated customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\"), all of whom are identifiable third-party claimants with verified, traceable interests in the seized Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\") and Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\") cryptocurrency, as well as associated reserves.\n\nThese claimants were authenticated by HEX as of October 10, 2025, through unique Himalaya Identification Numbers (\"HIDs\"). This authentication process reflects aggregate holdings totaling \\$84,689,498.20 (HDO) and 433,992,619.55 (HCN). The value of HDO total claim being \\$84,689,498.20 from the seized funds. Separately, the compensatory loss claim from the government for loss of HCN asset as a result of the seizure of funds, website resulting in the Exchange not able to function being 433,992,619.55 (HCN) x \\$ 13.77 per HCN (price at the date of trading paused July 17, 2024 as a result of the government conduct) = \\$5,976,051,078 loss This appearance excludes 187 individuals who have voluntarily terminated representation since the initial filing. New clients were not accepted after October 12, 2025. Counsel represents only those HEX clients whose identities and balances have been authenticated via secure, encrypted HEX servers and whose fee agreements expressly authorize representation.[1](#page-1-0) In support, undersigned counsel submits under seal Exhibit A (declaration), Exhibit B (client list), Exhibit C (affidavit).\n\nCounsel enters this appearance for the limited purposes of:\n\n1. Representing the authenticated clients in ancillary forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c);\n\n2. Preserving clients' rights under the remission process pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(i), many of whom were unable to file remission claims;\n\n3. Contesting the jurisdiction of the United States over assets seized from HEX and related entities;\n\n1 There is one exception for one client who signed up, but was not authenticated by HEX. This client is referenced in Exhibit B filed under seal.\n\n4. Coordinating with the United States and the Court to ensure equitable adjudication consistent\n\nwith the Court's Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (ECF No. 720) entered August 11, 2025.\n\nDated: October 22, 2025\n\nDated: October 22, 2025 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on October 22, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Geyer","Himalaya","Guo","Kwok","Je","forfeiture","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Himalaya Exchange","853(n)","853(i)","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":720,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":520,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-10-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-10-22","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:51"},{"id":"court_sdny_761_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":761,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":"2025-10-22","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n### **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\n **Defendants.**\n\n Restitution of Seized Funds Criminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n **RESPONSE OF 6,512 CLAIMANTS AS MEMBERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE AND THEIR COUNSEL TO INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS**\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## **RESPONSE OF 6,540 CLAIMANTS AS MEMBERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE AND THEIR COUNSEL TO INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS**\n\nCounsel for Petitioners (Claimants), representing approximately 6,512 Himalaya Exchange's investor members, hereby address relevant portions of motions filed by individual investors seeking the return of their funds. These motions, documented in ECF Nos. 733, 734, 738 (supplemented by ECF No. 743), 740, and 744, and informed by Defendant Kwok (Guo)'s disclaimer of any property interest, ownership, or rights in the Himalaya Exchange in ECF No. 710, contain sections that appear coordinated. The Court and the government should carefully consider these motions, including their additional content. While there is no issue with individual claimants collaborating, the coordinated efforts targeting undersigned counsel involve spreading clear falsehoods. A review of the court record would reveal that these statements about counsel are untrue, despite their frequent repetition.\n\nFor Petitioners (Claimants) who are customers of the Himalaya Exchange hereby respond to those portions of motions which are relevant, filed by individual investors seeking the return of their funds. In ECF No. 733, and ECF No. 734 and ECF No. 738 (supplemented by ECF No. 743), and ECF No. 740, and ECF No. 744, all as informed by Defendant Kwok (Guo) disclaiming any property interest in the assets, ownership, or rights in the Himalaya Exchange in ECF No. 710, the motions of individual investors include sections which are almost certainly coordinated, along with other content, should be carefully listened to by the Court and the government. There is of course nothing wrong with individual claimants working together, except that – concerning undersigned counsel's efforts – they are evidently coordinating in spreading obvious falsehoods. Were they referring to the court record, they would know that their statements about this counsel are false, even if often repeated.\n\n#### **I. INNOCENT INVESTORS PASSIONATELY RESIST BEING CALLED VICTIMS**\n\nThe ongoing cryptocurrency-related prosecutions and enforcement actions, despite the President's directives and the recent passage of the \"Genius\" Act by Congress, warrant careful consideration by prosecutors and the Court. Many investors in the Himalaya Exchange (HEX) have expressed frustration at being labeled as victims. A key issue is the government's apparent view that crypto exchanges like HEX were invalid under U.S. law, even when their operations may not have fallen under U.S. jurisdiction. The criminal case against Defendants Kwok (Guo), Je, and Wang rests on the assertion that they defrauded investors, yet many of these investors insist they were not defrauded and reject the victim label. There is no evidence in the record showing that HEX investors suffered losses, except for reputational and financial harm to HEX caused by the government's actions, including what has been described as overreaching into international jurisdictions, such as the British Virgin Islands, and seizing reserve or trust fund\n\nassets supporting the exchange. Prosecutors have not identified specific victims or quantified their alleged losses, which is critical in this context to substantiate fraud claims.\n\nFraud, whether in criminal or civil contexts, requires proof of losses proximately caused by a misrepresentation that a reasonable person would rely upon. Statements by the Defendants about HEX, such as optimistic claims often considered non-actionable \"puffery\" in legal terms, do not constitute fraud, especially since the Defendants are not owners, executives, or in control of HEX or its parent entities. Without evidence of specific losses or reasonable reliance, the fraud allegations lack foundation. Approximately two-thirds of HEX members, now represented by undersigned counsel, align with individual investor motions rejecting victim status. There is consensus among investors that they were not defrauded by Kwok, Je, or Wang, but rather harmed by the U.S. government's actions, which seized their investments. Counsel has consistently argued that the government's seizure of funds—intended to protect investors from alleged fraud—ironically caused the very financial harm it aimed to prevent.\n\nThe government's determination to pursue this case, particularly against Chinese dissidents, raises questions, especially in light of new legislation that may alter the legal framework governing HEX. With no convictions yet finalized, the relevance of the \"Genius\" Act to this case merits attention. The investors' unified rejection of victim status, coupled with the lack of evidence of fraud by the Defendants, calls into question the purpose and beneficiaries of the government's actions. Counsel appreciates the investors' clear stance against being labeled as defrauded, which should prompt careful reflection by the Court and prosecutors. The focus remains on ensuring the return of seized funds to investors, who maintain that their losses stem solely from government intervention.\n\n## **II. NEVERTHELESS, COUNSEL CANNOT REPRESENT THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS**\n\n\"It is confusing at times that those seeking return of seized funds by innocent bystanders do not represent Kwok (Guo), Wang or Je. The criminal defendants have their own attorneys. They have to have different attorneys.\n\nHowever, at the same time, if Kwok, Wang and Je committed no crimes -- at least with regard to HEX -- then any basis for seizing the investors' funds evaporates. The innocent third parties whose funds were seized have a direct, proximate cause, slam-dunk personal interest into whether Kwok, Wang, or Je are convicted falsely and in violation of due process, the rules of evidence, the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and confusion of ambiguity and innuendo. It affects them directly if there never was any crime, which there was not.\n\nBut neither undersigned counsel nor any other lawyer seeking the return of seized funds are legally allowed to act as the defendants' attorney. Counsel may argue all the reasons why his clients should get their money back, but is careful to represent his clients and not intrude into the job of Kwok (Guo)'s legal representation.\n\n#### **III. SPECULATION**\n\nThe complaints directed at undersigned counsel repeatedly criticize both the Bankruptcy Trustee and federal prosecutors while simultaneously promoting unfounded conspiracy theories regarding counsel's conduct. These allegations are not only baseless but also internally inconsistent, undermining the credibility of those advancing them.\n\nFor example, claims that FormerFeds' undersigned counsel's representation was orchestrated by Himalaya Farm Alliance leaders, or that clients were reclassified as \"victims\" without their consent, are entirely false. FormerFeds' client engagements are initiated directly by the clients themselves, are fully documented, and bear no connection to any alleged co-\n\nconspirators. A mere introduction through public channels does not compromise the integrity of the attorney–client relationship. Moreover, these allegations defy logic: counsel has consistently supported the same concerns raised by complainants regarding the Trustee's conduct. If counsel were colluding with the individuals alleged, why would he align himself with the very parties criticizing him and advocate for their interests?\n\nThis contradiction is further illustrated in ECF Docket No. 742, page 8, which states:\n\nI also emphasize once more: this criminal case is by its nature a global RICO conspiracy. At the very time Defendant filed Motion 724, his co-conspirator Zhang Yongbing openly admitted to meeting with him at MDC [Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn]. This, along with other evidence, confirms that the organized criminal activity at the heart of this case has never ceased.\n\nThis claim lacks coherence. A jail visit, standing alone, proves nothing. It is common for friends or associates to visit an incarcerated person, and such a visit reveals nothing about the content of their discussions—whether substantive or mundane. While questions about such interactions may warrant inquiry, they do not constitute evidence of wrongdoing. The statement cited may simply reflect a misstatement or poor phrasing—an occurrence familiar even to undersigned counsel. Unfortunately, many of the complaints against counsel follow this same pattern of speculation and faulty reasoning.\n\nThe structure of representation in this matter further dispels any suggestion of impropriety. The criminal defendants, the Himalaya Exchange, and related business entities are each represented by separate counsel because their interests diverge. Undersigned counsel\n\nrepresents many, but thousands of HEX customers are not his clients. If Defendants Guo, Je, and Yang succeed in overturning their convictions, undersigned counsel's clients may recover their funds, to the extent they have not been dissipated by the Trustee. Similarly, if the Himalaya Exchange itself prevails, all Members—represented and unrepresented alike—could potentially recover funds not lost to government seizure or Trustee expenses. The existence of overlapping yet distinct interests among these parties is both expected and legitimate.\n\nIf the Himalaya Exchange succeeds, Members could potentially recover up to 100% of their investments, assuming no losses from mismanagement. However, if undersigned counsel's clients prevail independently, recovery will depend on their ability to navigate the complex claims process—a process that appears intentionally burdensome, especially for foreignlanguage speakers with limited familiarity with the U.S. legal system, but also because they are fearful regarding the confidentiality of their claims. Many clients may understandably choose to opt out of the standard forfeiture process due to these barriers and concerns, risking that recoverable funds will go unclaimed.\n\nIn multi-party proceedings of this magnitude, it is not unusual for interests to converge and diverge at different stages. Given the complexity of the criminal case and the large number of overseas HEX Members—many of whom are dissidents with limited legal resources undersigned counsel believed that the justice system would benefit from hearing their voices. Counsel's participation has always been motivated by a sincere commitment to ensuring that this vulnerable community was fairly represented and that justice was served.\n\n### **IV. WIDESPREAD FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT**\n\nWhile neither the Court, its personnel, nor an unrelated attorney may provide legal advice\n\nto non-clients, a well-established principle in legal ethics is that it is always appropriate to respond to such inquiries with: \"I think you should consult a U.S.-based attorney about that.\"\n\nOne persistent misunderstanding has undermined the handling of these forfeiture cases from the beginning: non-attorneys unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system have incorrectly assumed that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is a subordinate branch of this U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This error has led to significant missteps, unnecessary complaints cluttering the Court's docket, and irrelevant discussions—all stemming from the misguided notion that this Court can issue orders to the Bankruptcy Trustee or the Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut. To this, counsel can only advise: \"You should speak with a U.S.-based attorney about that.\"\n\nThe undersigned counsel shares the movants' concerns regarding the excessive expenses . The underlying bankruptcy petition is a Chapter 11 reorganization case, which is designed to restructure struggling entities and restore them to viability—even if that requires legal or operational changes to ensure compliance. Under Chapter 11, a qualified trustee could modify the business model to address any defects, remove legal, regulatory, or practical barriers to success, and guide the reorganized entities toward profitability. Creditors with valid claims could then receive payments over an extended timeline, with the potential for full recovery. However, the trustee failed to pursue any such reorganization. Moreover, the Chapter 11 petition improperly lists Ho Wan Kwok as an individual debtor rather than as a business entity.\n\nThat said, repeated efforts to enlist this Court in issuing orders to the bankruptcy trustee\n\nrepresent an inefficient use of judicial resources. Individuals concerned about these apparent\n\nviolations of bankruptcy law must file appropriate motions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the\n\nDistrict of Connecticut, where the proceeding is venued—not here.\n\nDated: October 22, 2025\n\nDated: October 22, 2025 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on October 22, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Guo","Geyer","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA","forfeiture","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":710,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":733,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":734,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":738,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":740,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":743,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":744,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":2036,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-10-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-10-22","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:52"},{"id":"court_sdny_762_1","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":762,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-10-22","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
<","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-v-
HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"
\"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother
Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"
and
KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"
and
YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"
Defendants.
| Restitution of \\$
Criminal No.:
[PROPOSED] ORDER
MOTION TO ACCEPT
FILING AND TO PR
|\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n\n Restitution of Seized Funds Criminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ACCEPT ANCILLARY FILING AND TO PRESERVE CLAIMS\n\n## **ORDER**\n\nWHEREAS, on August 11, 2025, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment (ECF No. 720) (the \"Preliminary Order\"), pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853, and Rules 32.2(b)(3) and 32.2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;\n\nWHEREAS, the Preliminary Order directs that third-party interests in the forfeited property shall be adjudicated pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n), and retains jurisdiction to enforce and amend the Preliminary Order as necessary pursuant to Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Preliminary Order ¶ 9);\n\nWHEREAS, on October 21, 2025, counsel for 6,512 authenticated and consent-authorized customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\") filed a Motion to Accept Ancillary Filing and to Preserve Claims in Conformity with the Court's August 11 Order (ECF No. [Motion ECF No.]) (the \"Motion\"), seeking acceptance of a collective ancillary petition on behalf of said customers, whose interests are authenticated through HEX's encrypted ledger system, fee-agreement authorizations, and representative affidavits, his authentication process reflects aggregate holdings totaling 84,689,498.20 (HDO), 433,992,619.55 (HCN). The value of HDO total claim being \\$84,948,639.40 from the seized funds. Separately, the compensatory loss claim from the DoJ for loss of HCN asset as a result of the seizure of funds and website resulting in the Exchange not able to function being 434,208,503.75 (HCN) x \\$ 13.77 per HCN (price at the date of trading paused July 17, 2024 as a result of the government conduct) = \\$5,979,051,096.64 loss.\n\nWHEREAS, the Motion requests that the Court deem the fee-agreement authorizations and representative affidavits as substantial compliance with the sworn-statement requirement of Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(3), in light of the practical impossibilities faced by foreign claimants, including risks of political retaliation and barriers to accessing U.S. court systems, consistent with *McIntosh v. United States*, 601 U.S. 330, 339–40 (2024) (affirming flexibility in forfeiture procedures under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2 where substantial compliance exists and no prejudice occurs);\n\nWHEREAS, the Motion further requests permission for ongoing submission of additional affidavits to supplement the filing as secure channels become available, in accordance with the Court's retained jurisdiction under Preliminary Order ¶ 9 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(2) (authorizing amendment of petitions based on evolving circumstances);\n\nWHEREAS, the Court has considered the Motion, the Government's response (if any), and the applicable law, including the need to reconcile procedural requirements with due process principles under *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.*, 339 U.S. 306, 314–15 (1950), and to avoid unconstitutional deprivations of property under Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 622 (1993);\n\n#### NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:\n\nThe Motion is GRANTED;\n\nThe collective ancillary filing submitted with the Motion is accepted as compliant with the Preliminary Order and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n);\n\nThe sealed attachment listing each claimant's HID number, and HDO balances is treated as a verified schedule of ownership interests in respect of the seized funds;\n\nThe fee-agreement authorizations and representative affidavits are deemed to constitute substantial compliance with the sworn-statement requirement of Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(3);\n\nThe Government is permitted to review HEX's KYC data, Jumio facial-recognition and banking data, and transactional records only under secure, Court-approved conditions, including under a protective order limiting disclosure to verification purposes only and with redaction of sensitive personal information as appropriate, to verify claimant identities and interests in a manner that protects claimant privacy and security;\n\nCurrent clients represented in the Motion are authorized to continue submitting affidavits under penalty of perjury, which shall be included in one or more supplemental submissions to the ancillary filing, with such supplements to be filed by counsel within 60 days of this Order or as secure channels become available, whichever is later; the Court retains jurisdiction to accept and adjudicate these supplemental submissions consistent with Preliminary Order ¶ 9 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c)(2), without prejudice to the timeliness or validity of the original filing;\n\nThe Court shall schedule an ancillary hearing pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(4), if necessary to adjudicate the validity of the petitioners' interests, or otherwise proceed to enter a Final Order of Forfeiture upon resolution of all third-party claims;\n\nThis Order does not preclude the Government from challenging the validity of individual claims on substantive grounds, such as lack of superior interest under Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(6), following verification of the provided data;\n\nThis Order shall not prejudice the rights of any unrepresented HEX customers or other third parties to file separate petitions under Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n).\n\nThis Order shall not prejudice any other rights or remedies available to the claimants, including petitions for remission under Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(i), or motions for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).\n\nSO ORDERED:\n\n\\_**\\_**\\_**\\_**\\_**\\_**\\_**\\_**\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ HONORABLE ANALISA TORRES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n### **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on October 22, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["853(n)","forfeiture","Guo","Kwok","Geyer","Je","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","853(i)","CIPA","Rule 32.2"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":720,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":970,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-10-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-10-22","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:53"},{"id":"court_sdny_4757_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":4757,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-10-21","title":"SDNY ECF 4757","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| | DISTRICT OF | CONNECTICUT |\n| | BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | |\n| In Re.
Ho Wan Kwok | §
§
§ | Case No.
22-50073
Lead Case No.
22-50073 |\n| Debtor(s) | § | Jointly Administered |\n| Monthly Operating Report | | Chapter 11 |\n| Reporting Period Ended: 09/30/2025 | | Petition Date: 02/15/2022 |\n| Months Pending: 44 | | Industry Classification:
0
0
0
0 |\n| Reporting Method:
Accrual Basis | | Cash Basis |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (current): | | 0 |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (as of date of order for relief): | | 0 |\n| Supporting Documentation (check all that are attached):
(For jointly administered debtors, any required schedules must be provided on a non-consolidated basis for each debtor)
Statement of cash receipts and disbursements
Balance sheet containing the summary and detail of the assets, liabilities and equity (net worth) or deficit | | |\n| Statement of operations (profit or loss statement)
Accounts receivable aging
Postpetition liabilities aging
Statement of capital assets
Schedule of payments to professionals
Schedule of payments to insiders
All bank statements and bank reconciliations for the reporting period
Description of the assets sold or transferred and the terms of the sale or transfer | | |\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party Printed Name of Responsible Party\n\n10/21/2025\n\nDate\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nAddress Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nSTATEMENT: This Periodic Report is associated with an open bankruptcy case; therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 4757 Filed 10/21/25 Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 Page 2 of 26\n\nDebtor's Name Ho Wan Kwok Case No. 22-50073\n\n| | Part 1: Cash Receipts and Disbursements | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|\n| a. | Cash balance beginning of month | \\$73,878,810 | |\n| b. | Total receipts (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$2,919,316 | \\$149,158,120 |\n| c. | Total disbursements (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$477,075 | \\$70,048,841 |\n| d. | Cash balance end of month (a+b-c) | \\$76,321,052 | |\n| e. | Disbursements made by third party for the benefit of the estate | \\$0 | \\$12,757 |\n| f. | Total disbursements for quarterly fee calculation (c+e) | \\$477,075 | \\$70,061,598 |\n| | Part 2: Asset and Liability Status | Current Month | |\n| | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | | |\n| a. | Accounts receivable (total net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Accounts receivable over 90 days outstanding (net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Inventory
(Book
Market
Other
(attach explanation)) | \\$0 | |\n| d | Total current assets | \\$0 | |\n| e. | Total assets | \\$0 | |\n| f. | Postpetition payables (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Postpetition payables past due (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Postpetition taxes payable | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Postpetition taxes past due | \\$0 | |\n| j. | Total postpetition debt (f+h) | \\$0 | |\n| k. | Prepetition secured debt | \\$0 | |\n| l. | Prepetition priority debt | \\$0 | |\n| m. | Prepetition unsecured debt | \\$0 | |\n| n. | Total liabilities (debt) (j+k+l+m) | \\$0 | |\n| o. | Ending equity/net worth (e-n) | \\$0 | |\n| | Part 3: Assets Sold or Transferred | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Total cash sales price for assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary | | |\n| | course of business | \\$0 | \\$26,373,948 |\n| b. | Total payments to third parties incident to assets being sold/transferred
outside the ordinary course of business | \\$0 | \\$1,160,344 |\n| c. | Net cash proceeds from assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary
course of business (a-b) | \\$0 | \\$25,213,604 |\n| | Part 4: Income Statement (Statement of Operations) | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | | |\n| a. | Gross income/sales (net of returns and allowances) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Cost of goods sold (inclusive of depreciation, if applicable) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Gross profit (a-b) | \\$0 | |\n| d. | Selling expenses | \\$0 | |\n| e. | General and administrative expenses | \\$0 | |\n| f. | Other expenses | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Depreciation and/or amortization (not included in 4b) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Interest | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Taxes (local, state, and federal) | \\$0 | |\n\nk. Profit (loss) \\$0 \\$0\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 4757 Filed 10/21/25 Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 Page 3 of 26\n\n| | | | Approved
Current Month | Approved
Cumulative | Paid Current
Month | Paid
Cumulative |\n|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|\n| | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (bankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$323,874 | \\$63,697,997 | \\$323,874 | \\$63,697,997 |\n| | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| i | Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. Local Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$7,025,977 | \\$0 | \\$7,025,977 |\n| ii | Paul Hastings LLP (counsel to c Lead Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$44,183,366 | \\$0 | \\$44,183,366 |\n| iii | Brown Rudnick (counsel to Ho Lead Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | |\n| iv | Pullman & Comley, LLC (counsLead Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$875,922 | \\$0 | \\$875,922 |\n| v | Coleman Worldwide Advisors LOther | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | |\n| vi | Dundon Advisors (UCC financiFinancial Professional | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | |\n| vii | Verdolino & Lowey, PC (financ Financial Professional | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | |\n| viii | Harney Westwood & Riegels LPOther | | \\$173,989 | \\$3,471,557 | \\$173,989 | \\$3,471,557 |\n| ix | Paul Wright / Peter Shaw | Other | \\$0 | \\$103,077 | \\$0 | \\$103,077 |\n| x | Pallas Partners LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$838,055 | \\$0 | \\$838,055 |\n| xi | Edmiston and Company Limite Other | | \\$0 | \\$1,176,250 | \\$0 | \\$1,176,250 |\n| xii | Engineering Operations and Ce Other | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | |\n| xiii | Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LOther | | \\$0 | \\$339,890 | \\$0 | \\$339,890 |\n| xiv | Kroll LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$3,143,750 | \\$0 | \\$3,143,750 |\n| xv | Prager Dreifuss AG | Local Counsel | \\$138,482 | \\$1,622,965 | \\$138,482 | \\$1,622,965 |\n| xvi | Eisner Advisory Group LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$221,763 | \\$0 | \\$221,763 |\n| xvii | Winne, Banta, Basralian & KahnLocal Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$15,753 | \\$0 | \\$15,753 |\n| xviii | Sage-Popovich, Inc. | Other | \\$11,403 | \\$86,821 | \\$11,403 | \\$86,821 |\n| xix | Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$75,609 | \\$0 | \\$75,609 |\n| xx | Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$351,411 | \\$0 | \\$351,411 |\n| xxi | ENSafrica (Mauritius) | Other | \\$0 | \\$45,125 | \\$0 | \\$45,125 |\n| xxii | William De Robillard / Andre P Other | | \\$0 | \\$29,917 | \\$0 | \\$29,917 |\n| xxiii | Marxer Attorneys | Local Counsel | \\$0 | \\$73,363 | \\$0 | \\$73,363 |\n| xxiv | Hadef & Partners LLC | Local Counsel | \\$0 | \\$17,424 | \\$0 | \\$17,424 |\n| xxv | | | | | | |\n| xxvi | | | | | | |\n| xxvii | | | | | | |\n| xxviii | | | | | | |\n| xxix | | | | | | |\n| xxx | | | | | | |\n| xxxi | | | | | | |\n| xxxii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiv | | | | | | |\n| xxxv | | | | | | |\n| xxxvi | | | | | | |\n\n| xxxvii | | | |\n|---------|--|--|--|\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxix | | | |\n| xl | | | |\n| xli | | | |\n| xlii | | | |\n| xliii | | | |\n| xliv | | | |\n| xlv | | | |\n| xlvi | | | |\n| xlvii | | | |\n| xlviii | | | |\n| xlix | | | |\n| l | | | |\n| li | | | |\n| lii | | | |\n| liii | | | |\n| liv | | | |\n| lv | | | |\n| lvi | | | |\n| lvii | | | |\n| lviii | | | |\n| lix | | | |\n| lx | | | |\n| lxi | | | |\n| lxii | | | |\n| lxiii | | | |\n| lxiv | | | |\n| lxv | | | |\n| lxvi | | | |\n| lxvii | | | |\n| lxviii | | | |\n| lxix | | | |\n| lxx | | | |\n| lxxi | | | |\n| lxxii | | | |\n| lxxiii | | | |\n| lxxiv | | | |\n| lxxv | | | |\n| lxxvi | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxviii | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | lxxix | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------|---------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|\n| | lxxx | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxix | | | | | | |\n| | xc | | | | | | |\n| | xci | | | | | | |\n| | xcii | | | | | | |\n| | xciii | | | | | | |\n| | xciv | | | | | | |\n| | xcv | | | | | | |\n| | xcvi | | | | | | |\n| | xcvii | | | | | | |\n| | xcviii | | | | | | |\n| | xcix | | | | | | |\n| | c | | | | | | |\n| | ci | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Approved
Current Month | Approved
Cumulative | Paid Current
Month | Paid
Cumulative |\n| b. | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (nonbankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | |\n| | | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| | i | Baker Hostetler LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | ii | Clayman & Rosenberg LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iii | Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer Other | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iv | Harcus Parker Ltd. | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | v | LALIVE SA | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vi | Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vii | Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | viii | Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | ix | The Casper Firm | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | x | The Francis Firm PLLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | xi | VX Cerda & Associates | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | xii | | | | | | |\n| | xiii | | | | | | |\n| | xiv | | | | | | |\n\n| | xv | | | |\n|---|--------|--|--|--|\n| | xvi | | | |\n| | xvii | | | |\n| | xviii | | | |\n| | xix | | | |\n| | xx | | | |\n| | xxi | | | |\n| | xxii | | | |\n| | xxiii | | | |\n| | xxiv | | | |\n| | xxv | | | |\n| | xxvi | | | |\n| | xxvii | | | |\n| | xxviii | | | |\n| | xxix | | | |\n| | xxx | | | |\n| | xxxi | | | |\n| | xxxii | | | |\n| | xxxiii | | | |\n| | xxxiv | | | |\n| | xxxv | | | |\n| | xxxvi | | | |\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxix | | | |\n| | xl | | | |\n| | xli | | | |\n| | xlii | | | |\n| | xliii | | | |\n| | xliv | | | |\n| | xlv | | | |\n| | xlvi | | | |\n| | xlvii | | | |\n| | xlviii | | | |\n| | xlix | | | |\n| l | | | | |\n| | li | | | |\n| | lii | | | |\n| | liii | | | |\n| | liv | | | |\n| | lv | | | |\n| | lvi | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| lvii | |\n|---------|--|\n| lviii | |\n| lix | |\n| lx | |\n| lxi | |\n| lxii | |\n| lxiii | |\n| lxiv | |\n| lxv | |\n| lxvi | |\n| lxvii | |\n| lxviii | |\n| lxix | |\n| lxx | |\n| lxxi | |\n| lxxii | |\n| lxxiii | |\n| lxxiv | |\n| lxxv | |\n| lxxvi | |\n| lxxvii | |\n| lxxviii | |\n| lxxix | |\n| lxxx | |\n| lxxxi | |\n| lxxxii | |\n| lxxxiii | |\n| lxxxiv | |\n| | |\n| lxxxv | |\n| lxxxvi | |\n| lxxxvi | |\n| lxxxvi | |\n| lxxxix | |\n| xc | |\n| xci | |\n| xcii | |\n| xciii | |\n| xciv | |\n| xcv | |\n| xcvi | |\n| xcvii | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 4757 Filed 10/21/25 Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 Page 8 of 26\n\n| | xcix | | | | |\n|----|------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | c | | | | |\n| c. | | All professional fees and expenses (debtor & committees) | | | |\n\n| | Part 6: Postpetition Taxes | | | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------|---------------------------|\n| a. | | Postpetition income taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | | Postpetition income taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes accrued | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| d. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes paid | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| e. | Postpetition property taxes paid | | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| f. | | Postpetition other taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| g. | | Postpetition other taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | Part 7: Questionnaire - During this reporting period: | | | |\n| a. | | Were any payments made on prepetition debt? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| b. | | Were any payments made outside the ordinary course of business
without court approval? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| c. | | Were any payments made to or on behalf of insiders? | Yes | No | |\n| d. | | Are you current on postpetition tax return filings? | Yes | No | |\n| e. | | Are you current on postpetition estimated tax payments? | Yes | No | |\n| f. | | Were all trust fund taxes remitted on a current basis? | Yes | No | |\n| g. | (if yes, see Instructions) | Was there any postpetition borrowing, other than trade credit? | Yes | No | |\n| h. | the court? | Were all payments made to or on behalf of professionals approved by | Yes | No
N/A | |\n| i. | Do you have: | Worker's compensation insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | Casualty/property insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | General liability insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| j. | | Has a plan of reorganization been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| k. | | Has a disclosure statement been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| l. | set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1930? | Are you current with quarterly U.S. Trustee fees as | Yes | No | |\n\n| | Part 8: Individual Chapter 11 Debtors (Only) | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|\n| a. | Gross income (receipts) from salary and wages | \\$0 |\n| b. | Gross income (receipts) from self-employment | \\$0 |\n| c. | Gross income from all other sources | \\$0 |\n| d. | Total income in the reporting period (a+b+c) | \\$0 |\n| e. | Payroll deductions | \\$0 |\n| f. | Self-employment related expenses | \\$0 |\n| g. | Living expenses | \\$0 |\n| h. | All other expenses | \\$0 |\n| i. | Total expenses in the reporting period (e+f+g+h) | \\$0 |\n| j. | Difference between total income and total expenses (d-i) | \\$0 |\n| k. | List the total amount of all postpetition debts that are past due | \\$0 |\n| l. | Are you required to pay any Domestic Support Obligations as defined by 11
U.S.C § 101(14A)? | Yes
No |\n| m. | If yes, have you made all Domestic Support Obligation payments? | Yes
No
N/A |\n\n#### **Privacy Act Statement**\n\n28 U.S.C. § 589b authorizes the collection of this information, and provision of this information is mandatory under 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, and 1107. The United States Trustee will use this information to calculate statutory fee assessments under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The United States Trustee will also use this information to evaluate a chapter 11 debtor's progress through the bankruptcy system, including the likelihood of a plan of reorganization being confirmed and whether the case is being prosecuted in good faith. This information may be disclosed to a bankruptcy trustee or examiner when the information is needed to perform the trustee's or examiner's duties or to the appropriate federal, state, local, regulatory, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency when the information indicates a violation or potential violation of law. Other disclosures may be made for routine purposes. For a discussion of the types of routine disclosures that may be made, you may consult the Executive Office for United States Trustee's systems of records notice, UST-001, \"Bankruptcy Case Files and Associated Records.\" *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 59,818 et seq. (Oct. 11, 2006). A copy of the notice may be obtained at the following link: htt eo/rules\\_regulations/index.htm. Failure to provide this information could result in the dismissal or conversion of your bankruptcy case or other action by the United States Trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F).\n\n### **I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Monthly Operating Report and its supporting documentation are true and correct and that I have been authorized to sign this report on behalf of the estate.**\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party\n\nChapter 11 Trustee\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nPrinted Name of Responsible Party\n\n10/21/2025\n\nTitle Date\n\n\n\nBankruptcy1to50\n\n\n\n\n\nPageFour\n\nUST Form 11-MOR (12/01/2021) 12\n\n**In re Ho Wan Kwok Case No.** 22-50073 (JAM) **Debtor Reporting Period:** 9/1/2025 - 9/30/2025\n\n#### **INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR CASH RECEIPTS AND CASH DISBURSEMENTS**\n\n(This Form must be submitted for each bank account maintained by the Debtor)\n\nAmounts reported should be per the debtor's books, not the bank statement. The beginning cash should be the ending\n\ncash from the prior month or, if this is the first report, the amount should be the balance on the date the petition was\n\nfiled. Attach the bank statements and a detailed list of all disbursements made during the\n\nreport period that includes\n\nthe date, the check number, the payee, the transaction description, and the amount. A\n\nbank reconciliation must\n\nbe attached for each account. [See MOR-1 (CON'T)]\n\n| | Current Month | Cumulative July 8, 2022 to Date |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------|\n| | Actual | Actual |\n| Cash - Beginning of Month | | |\n| RECEIPTS | | |\n| Recovered Funds | \\$
- | \\$
23,712,225.06 |\n| Funds received from B. Hofmeister Assignee for benefit of creditors | \\$
- | \\$
38,792,899.51 |\n| of HCHK pursuant to settlement order | | |\n| Clark Hill Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
499,000.00 |\n| Retainer Refund (Kercsmar Collins & O'Hara / Lewis Roca) | \\$
- | \\$
4,544.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | \\$
- | \\$
4,000,000.00 |\n| Adversary Proceeding Interpleader Funds | \\$
- | \\$
32,923,028.42 |\n| Refund from AIG | \\$
- | \\$
71.25 |\n| Funds received from The Casper Firm Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
48,750.00 |\n| Refund from Yachtzoo Yacht Management (Lady May II balance) | \\$
- | \\$
255.17 |\n| | | |\n| Funds received from Axos Bank | \\$
- | \\$
1,592,469.98 |\n| Refund of insurance premium from cancellation of protection and | \\$
- | \\$
29,255.02 |\n| indemnity insurance upon sale of Lady May on 6/30/23 | | |\n| Funds received from Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi PCA for sale of | \\$
- | \\$
10,302,313.64 |\n| Bombardier jet | | |\n| Net proceeds of sale of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held | \\$
- | \\$
2,692,924.71 |\n| by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash dividends on account of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. | \\$
- | \\$
54,858.88 |\n| held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash distribution on account of limited partnership interest held in | \\$
- | \\$
2,561,150.56 |\n| Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman), L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Funds received for sale of Greenwich Taconic property | \\$
- | \\$
6,784,668.79 |\n| Refund received from Pullman & Comley, LLC for overpayment of | \\$
- | \\$
26,102.00 |\n| invoices | | |\n| Funds received from First Bank of Greenwich | \\$
- | \\$
134,338.76 |\n| Refund with respect to unauthorized fraudulent disbursements | \\$
- | \\$
12,240.99 |\n| Funds received from World Insurance Associates, LLC | \\$
- | \\$
44,935.80 |\n| Funds received from Harneys Corporate Services' Bank | \\$
- | \\$
24,715.00 |\n| Settlement payments | \\$
1,679,439.41 | \\$
12,482,710.47 |\n| Refund from Eversource Energy with respect to overpayment | \\$
- | \\$
346.56 |\n| Refund from Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC with respect to | \\$
- | \\$
260,030.80 |\n| overpayment | | |\n| Reimbursement with respect to inter-Debtor DIP facility funding | \\$
- | \\$
2,907,327.18 |\n| Genever entities | | |\n| Funds from Morgan Stanley (attached Yanping Wang account) | \\$
- | \\$
519,297.24 |\n| Funds for costs from Hamilton Capital Holdings Limited | \\$
- | \\$
199,655.40 |\n| administrators | | |\n| Refund received from Prager Dreifuss AG for overpayment of | \\$
- | \\$
56,102.43 |\n| expenses | | |\n| *
Funds received for sale of motor vehicles | \\$
- | \\$
137,600.00 |\n| Refund from Anthem Health Plans, Inc. | \\$
- | \\$
38,151.98 |\n| Funds from Bank of America, N.A. re Mileson Account Proceeds | \\$
1,011,320.84 | \\$
1,011,320.84 |\n| Bank Account Interest | \\$
228,556.17 | \\$
7,304,829.42 |\n| Total Receipts | \\$
2,919,316.42 | \\$
149,158,119.86 |\n| DISBURSEMENTS | | |\n| ORDINARY ITEMS: | | |\n| Bank Fees | \\$
7,083.98 | \\$
181,891.18 |\n| | | |\n\n\\*The proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles were inadvertently wired to the Genever Holdings Axos bank account, but upon receipt the funds were immediately forwarded to the Trustee's East West bank account.\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | 9/1/2025 - 9/30/2025 |\n| Fees paid to International Surety Ltd for surety bond renewal | \\$
- | \\$
384,747.00 |\n| premium | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yacht repair invoices out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$
576,895.09 |\n| Repair Escrow | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Miller Advertising Agency Inc. (English | \\$
- | \\$
21,140.60 |\n| Court Publication Notice) | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Dexter White Invoice | \\$
- | \\$
16,235.00 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Bridgeport Harbor Marina out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$
18,137.64 |\n| Repair Escrow | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Safe Harbor out of the Yacht Repair | \\$
- | |\n| | | |\n| Escrow | | \\$
148,287.04 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yachtzoo for operating expenses out of the | \\$
- | \\$
431,604.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harneys Corporate Services Limited | \\$
- | \\$
1,665.00 |\n| Disbursement paid to JP Reynolds Company Inc. (for customs duty | \\$
- | \\$
14,965.35 |\n| and customs bond premium) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to James Pizzaruso for pay roll in connection with | \\$
- | \\$
31,026.98 |\n| sale of Lady May | | |\n| Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$
76,150.88 |\n| | | |\n| of HCHK (for HCHK admin matters and employee payments) | | |\n| | | |\n| Disbursement paid to RKH IT Solutions (IT Consultant for HCHK | \\$
- | \\$
17,794.73 |\n| Assignee) | | |\n| Fees paid to SHM Newport Shipyard LLC (for Lady May II | \\$
- | \\$
16,384.10 |\n| winterization and dockage fees) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to R.I. Martine Survey (for Lady May II appraisal) | \\$
- | \\$
700.00 |\n| | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Brosnan Risk Consultants LTD (for security | \\$
- | \\$
57,246.47 |\n| | | |\n| services for HCHK Assignee) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to ARD Facilities Management Group LLC (for | \\$
29,175.00 | \\$
335,630.00 |\n| moving and storage services for HCHK, Golden Spring and Greenwich, | | |\n| CT residence) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to FDS46 Crew Series LLC (Lady May II captain | \\$
- | \\$
2,130.00 |\n| salary) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$
550,000.00 |\n| of HCHK (for settlement payment) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Cole Schotz, counsel to Brian W. Hofmeister, | \\$
- | \\$
766,758.37 |\n| Assignee of HCHK Entities (for preparation and prosecution of the | | |\n| | | |\n| assignment proceedings per settlement order) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A. Atkins Appraisal Corp., appraiser to Brian | \\$
- | \\$
7,800.00 |\n| W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for appraisal fees per | | |\n| settlement order) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, MSB | \\$
- | \\$
75,000.00 |\n| counsel to Brian. W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees | | |\n| and expenses per settlement order) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to DLA, LLC, financial advisor to Brian. W. | \\$
- | \\$
155,000.00 |\n| | | |\n| Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees per settlement order) | | |\n| | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Prager Dreifuss AG (for advance on Swiss | \\$
- | \\$
5,835.49 |\n| court fees) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hawk Eye Security LLC (for security services | \\$
99,922.96 | \\$
956,553.65 |\n| at Mahwah Mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A&A Home Services LLC (for repairs to the | \\$
- | \\$
17,800.00 |\n| 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Next Frontier Advisors (for deposit for virtual | \\$
- | \\$
11,000.00 |\n| | | |\n| staging at the 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Knight Security Systems (for security system | \\$
- | \\$
1,710.50 |\n| installation at the 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Slocum's Lock & Key LLC (for updating keys | \\$
- | \\$
1,932.91 |\n| and replacing deadbolt at the 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to CT Fence and Landscaping, LLC (for servicing | \\$
- | \\$
1,277.56 |\n| | | |\n| | | 218,275.04 |\n| | | |\n| | \\$
- | \\$ |\n| | | |\n| | \\$
284.20 | \\$
1,306.06 |\n| | | |\n| the gate at the 373 Taconic property)
Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo
Valley Road real property taxes)
Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo
Valley Road sewer and water)
Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$
139,323.90 |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | 9/1/2025 - 9/30/2025 |\n| Disbursement paid to World Insurance Associates LLC (for the 373 | \\$
- | \\$
75,139.60 |\n| Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Tax Collector - Town of Greenwich (for the | \\$
- | \\$
27,847.85 |\n| 373 Taconic property real estate tax bill) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Rockland Electric (for electric company | \\$
5,621.94 | \\$
56,870.70 |\n| invoices at 675 Ramapo Valley Road house and gate house )
Disbursement paid to City of Stamford, CT (for tax bills for 2022 and | \\$
- | \\$
617.73 |\n| 2023) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Seriatim Inc. (for deposit for personal property | \\$
- | \\$
2,520.00 |\n| inventory services at 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Greenwich Pool Service, LLC (for pool services | \\$
- | \\$
1,749.44 |\n| at 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to PSE&G (for gas utility invoices at 675 Ramapo | \\$
322.40 | \\$
16,813.35 |\n| Valley Road property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for alarm registration fee | \\$
- | \\$
30.00 |\n| for 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Verizon (for services at 675 Ramapo Valley | \\$
448.72 | \\$
6,174.32 |\n| Road property ) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Optimum (for internet services at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$
561.89 |\n| property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Eversource (for electric bill at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$
2,327.99 |\n| property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for test wire in favor | \\$
- | \\$
100.00 |\n| of the District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Atko Bros Landscaping (for landscaping
services at 373 Taconic property) | \\$
- | \\$
6,168.30 |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for police security at 373 | \\$
- | \\$
8,500.00 |\n| Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Kyle Davis Lawn Care, LLC (for landscaping at | \\$
2,339.35 | \\$
52,895.49 |\n| Mahwah Mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to JL Holdings, Inc. (for pool and spa | \\$
3,445.00 | \\$
4,084.75 |\n| winterization at 675 Ramapo Valley Road property) | | |\n| Unauthorized fraudulent disbursements
* | \\$
- | \\$
12,240.99 |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for wire in favor of the | \\$
- | \\$
218,150.40 |\n| District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hackensack Roofing Co. Inc. (for roofing | \\$
- | \\$
18,382.15 |\n| repair invoices for roof at Mahwah mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Milo Plastering (for plaster repair at Mahwah | \\$
- | \\$
31,000.00 |\n| mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to TransPerfect Translations International Inc. (for | \\$
- | \\$
812.50 |\n| translation and proofreading services) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Planet Depos, LLC (for deposition services in | \\$
- | \\$
7,647.55 |\n| adversary proceeding) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Montvale Moving Services LLC (for packing | \\$
- | \\$
1,300.00 |\n| and moving at the Mahwah mansion)
Disbursement paid to IPTeam Janitorial LLC (for cleaning invoice at | \\$
- | \\$
11,089.00 |\n| the Mahwah Mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Dark Star Electrical Contracting LLC (for light | \\$
- | \\$
450.00 |\n| fixture maintenance at Mahwah Mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Divergent Language Solutions, LLC (for | \\$
- | \\$
2,546.32 |\n| translation services) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Aircraft Servicing (Guernsey) Limited (for | \\$
- | \\$
12,166.57 |\n| airport fees / jet fuel and storage of aircraft) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Alliant Insurance Services (for Aircraft Hull & | \\$
- | \\$
5,600.00 |\n| Liability Policy) | | |\n| Total Ordinary Disbursements | \\$
148,643.55 | \\$
5,825,991.43 |\n| REORGANIZATION ITEMS: | | |\n| Professional Fees | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC | \\$
- | \\$
7,025,976.72 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Paul Hastings LLP | \\$
- | \\$
44,183,366.19 |\n| Broker fees paid with respect to Edmiston and Company Limited | \\$
- | \\$
1,176,250.00 |\n| | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pullman & Comley, LLC | \\$
- | \\$
875,921.76 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC | \\$
- | \\$
339,889.67 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harney Westwood & Riegels LP | \\$
173,989.20 | \\$
3,471,557.34 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kroll LLC | \\$
- | \\$
3,143,750.38 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pallas Partners LLP | \\$
- | \\$
838,055.34 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Prager Dreifuss AG | \\$
138,481.58 | \\$
1,622,964.82 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Eisner Advisory Group LLC | \\$
- | \\$
221,763.00 |\n\n\\*These cash disbursements in the aggregate amount constitute unauthorized disbursements due to forged checks and unauthorized ACH payments. The accounts involved were immediately closed upon discovery of the fraudulent activity. The Trustee has worked in conjunction with the estate's bank to recover the stolen funds, and has been in communication with the United States Trustee regarding same. As of the date of this MOR, \\$12,240.99 has been reimbursed to the estate's bank account.\n\nFORM MOR-1 (INDV) 2/2008 PAGE 3 OF 5\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 9/1/2025 - 9/30/2025 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C. | \\$
- | \\$ | 15,753.33 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Sage-Popovich, Inc. | \\$
11,403.18 | \\$ | 86,821.19 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,609.18 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP | \\$
- | \\$ | 351,411.46 |\n| Fees paid with respect to ENSafrica (Mauritius) | \\$
- | \\$ | 45,124.51 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Paul Wright / Peter Shaw (English | \\$
- | \\$ | 103,077.43 |\n| barristers) | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to William De Robillard / Andre Patrice | \\$
- | \\$ | 29,917.25 |\n| Doger de Speville (Mauritius barristers) | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Marxer Attorneys (Liechtenstein counsel) | \\$
4,557.60 | \\$ | 77,920.26 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Hadef & Partners LLC (UAE counsel) | \\$
- | \\$ | 17,424.42 |\n| U. S. Trustee Fees | \\$
- | \\$ | 520,295.58 |\n| Other Reorganization Expenses (attach schedule) | \\$
- | \\$ | - |\n| Total Reorganization Items | \\$
328,431.56 | \\$ | 64,222,849.83 |\n| | | | |\n| Total Disbursements (Ordinary + Reorganization)
Financing of Genever Entities | \\$
477,075.11 | \\$ | 70,048,841.26 |\n| | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 25,004.19 |\n| invoices for Gallagher Basset Services Inc. (for air monitoring for | | | |\n| asbestos abatement, ATRU and variance drawings, final inspection and | | | |\n| asbestos survey and reporting work at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 236,452.00 |\n| US counsel fees (Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 274,811.83 |\n| US counsel fees (O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 98,089.58 |\n| BVI corporate fees (Harneys Corporate Services) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 121,300.00 |\n| US invoices for ABF Environmental Inc. (for asbestos abatement and | | | |\n| insulation work) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 39,924.43 |\n| US invoices for Gustav Restoration LLC (invoices for terrace cleaning | | | |\n| project and for deposit for work at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 324,516.61 |\n| US invoices for Acheson Doyle Partners Architects, PC (for apartment | | | |\n| stabilization work at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 5,750.00 |\n| invoices for Catalpa Special Inspections, Inc. (for remediation project at | | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 122,849.05 |\n| invoices for Skyline Windows LLC (for window replacement at The | | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,515.01 |\n| invoices for Arista Air Conditioning Corp. (for service repair proposal | | | |\n| at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 229,678.89 |\n| invoices for The Sherry Netherland, Inc. (for installation of HVAC | | | |\n| units, security deposit and proprietary rent) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 384,187.42 |\n| US invoices for Sciame Homes NY LLC (for general contractor at The | | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 19,793.64 |\n| US invoices for Burnham Nationwide, Inc. (for apartment restoration at | | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 12,590.00 |\n| invoices for U.S. Trustee Fees | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 166,754.00 |\n| | | | |\n| invoices for AIG insurance premium | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 29,446.33 |\n| invoices for Hillmann Consulting (for post fire smoke damage | | | |\n| investigation at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 101,500.00 |\n| invoices for ARD Facilities Management Group LLC (for storage | | | |\n| services for The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 9/1/2025 - 9/30/2025 |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,068.63 |\n| invoices for Cleaning Contractors Corp. (for furniture cleaning at The | | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 32,777.50 |\n| invoices for Montvale Moving Services LLC (for packing and moving | | | |\n| furniture at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 554,269.78 |\n| invoices for J and A Construction Consultants dba Dryfast Property | | | |\n| Restoration (for restoration work at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,750.00 |\n| invoices for The Light Touch (for work removing and packaging light | | | |\n| fixtures at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,177.50 |\n| invoices for CitiQuiet, Inc. (for removing and reinstalling window at | | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Total DIP Financing Items | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,788,206.39 |\n| | | | |\n| Net Cash Flow (Total Receipts - Total Disbursements - DIP | \\$
2,442,241.31 | \\$ | 76,321,072.21 |\n| Financing) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Cash - End of Month (Must equal reconciled bank statement) | \\$
76,321,051.59 | \\$ | 76,321,051.59 |\n| Third Party Disbursements on Behalf of the Estate | | | |\n| None | \\$
- | \\$ | 12,757.00 |\n\n#### **THE FOLLOWING SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED**\n\n**DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY FEES: (FROM CURRENT MONTH ACTUAL COLUMN)**\n\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS | \\$
477,075.11 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|\n| LESS: TRANSFERS TO OTHER DEBTOR IN POSSESSION ACCOUNTS | \\$
- |\n| PLUS: ESTATE DISBURSEMENTS MADE BY OUTSIDE SOURCES (i.e. from escrow | \\$
- |\n| accounts) | |\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY | \\$
477,075.11 |\n| FEES | |\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 | (JAM) |\n| Debtor. | :
: | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | :
x | |\n\n# **ATTACHMENT TO MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2025 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2025**\n\nThis attachment is incorporated into and made a part of the Monthly Operating Report (\"MOR\") of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins.\n\n# **General Disclaimers**\n\n- 1. The MOR is presented on a form promulgated in 2021 by the Executive Office of the United States Trustee. This form in many instances requires inserting a number for a line item even if the line item does not apply. The form also does not allow for the insertion of explanations or asterisks next to answers. Accordingly, as presented, certain responses may be inapplicable or incomplete. Following guidance from the United States Trustee's office, this attachment is being filed as an integral part of the MOR.\n- 2. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the appointment of Luc A. Despins, Esq. as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"). The information in this MOR is based only on information beginning on the date of the Trustee's appointment and only on bank accounts within the Trustee's control.[1](#page-17-0)\n- 3. The Trustee reserves the rights to amend, modify or supplement this MOR or update it in future MORs.\n\n#### **Specific Responses**\n\n### Part 1 Responses\n\n4. As noted above, this information is limited to cash receipts and disbursements since the Trustee was appointed and with respect to accounts under the Trustee's control. Not all cash receipts held by the Trustee as reflected in this MOR have been determined to be\n\n1 The Trustee is currently investigating the Debtor's assets and financial affairs (with respect to which investigation the Debtor has not cooperated).\n\nproperty of the estate at this time. There are various on-going litigations with respect to the funds held by the Trustee, which, if finally determined in a manner adverse to the Trustee, would materially reduce the total amount of cash held by the Trustee at this time. In addition, cash disbursements included here do not reflect payments made pursuant to the *Order (I) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363, (II) Authorizing Genever US and Genever BVI to Obtain Post-Petition Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 264, (III) Granting Non-Priming Liens and Providing Superpriority Administrative Expense Claims, (IV) Modifying Automatic Stay, and (V) Granting Related Relief*, entered on September 12, 2023 [Dkt. 2193], which authorized the Kwok estate to finance expenses of the Genever entities, which are described in the summary of cash receipts and disbursements.\n\n# Part 2 Responses\n\n- 5. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section. The Trustee's counsel is currently reviewing the over 1,200 proofs of claim filed in connection with the claims bar date, which occurred on February 17, 2023.\n- 6. The Trustee is aware of certain professional fees and expenses that have arisen in connection with services provided by the Trustee's professionals. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n\n#### Part 3 Responses\n\n7. On June 27, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May [Docket No. 1953]. On December 19, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May II [Docket No. 2449]. On June 20, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order [Docket No. 3265] authorizing and approving the liquidation of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. and the distribution of the proceeds of such liquidation, as discussed in the Trustee' s related motion [Docket No. 3203] and report of results of sale [Docket No. 3372].\n\n# Part 4 Responses\n\n8. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section.\n\n## Part 5 Responses\n\n- 9. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n- 10. The Trustee is aware of a number of professional firms that have provided services to the official committee of unsecured creditors or the Debtor (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) but that have not at this time had their retentions approved by the Court. The Trustee includes such professional firms (of which he is aware) in this part of the MOR out of an abundance of caution but reserves all his rights with respect to the retention and/or payment of fees with respect to such professional firms. The Trustee also notes that the Debtor may have employed professionals (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) of which the Trustee is not aware.\n\n#### Part 6 Responses\n\n11. The Trustee is not aware of any postpetition taxes that have accrued during the time period since the Trustee's appointment.\n\n#### Part 7 Responses\n\n12. The Trustee notes that the Debtor filed a chapter 11 plan on April 20, 2022 [Docket No. 197] (the \"April 2022 Plan\") with respect to which no disclosure statement was filed or approved.\n\n#### Part 8 Responses\n\n13. The Trustee has insufficient information to respond to Part 8.\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 4757 | Filed 10/21/25 | Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 | Page 21 of 26 |\n|-------------------------------------|----------------|---------------------------|----------------------|\n| EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® | | | Direct inquiries to: |\n| | | | 888 761-3967 |\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** Page 1 of 4 STARTING DATE: September 01, 2025 ENDING DA TE: September 30, 2025 Total days in statement period: 30\n\n( 4)\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR LUC A DESPINS, CH11 TRUSTEE CASE #22-50073 C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10166-0005\n\nStay alert for financial scams. If you receive an email, text, or call from someone unknown about receiving or sending money for inheritance, charities, or anything similar, do not respond or share your personal information.\n\n# **Standard Business Checking**\n\n| Account number
Enclosures
Low balance
Average balance | 4
\\$2,266,050.99
\\$4,496,706.43 | Beginning balance
Total additions
Total subtractions
Ending balance | ( 7)
( 37) | \\$7,325,009.94
2,690,760.25
6,465,611.93
\\$3,550, 158.26 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n\n| CREDITS | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------------|--------------|\n| Number | Date | Transaction Description | | | Additions |\n| | 09-02 | Deposit | | | 1,011,320.84 |\n| | 09-15 | Wire Trans-IN | 69a471a7-83a3-42d2 -9aaa-6e4461e8318a | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | 09-17 | Wire Trans-IN | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | 09-18 | Wire Trans-IN | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | 09-22 | Wire Trans-IN | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | 09-24 | Wire Trans-IN | | | |\n| | 09-24 | | | | |\n| | | Pre-Auth Credit | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| CHECKS | | | | | |\n| Number | Date | Amount | Number | Date | Amount |\n| 1603 | 09-09 | 448.72 | 1605 | 09-19 | 311
.36 |\n| 1604 | 09-19 | 11.04 | 1606 | 09-19 | 3,445.00 |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| DEBITS | | | | | |\n| Date | Transaction Description | | | | Subtractions |\n| 08-29 | Preauth Debit | Township of Mahw 2015295757 250829 | | | 41 .69 |\n| 08-29 | Preauth Debit | Township of Mahw 2015295757 250829 | | 242.51 | |\n| 09-02 | Preauth Debit | ROCKLAND ELECTR REco 250902 592911soooo | | | 480.93 |\n| 09-02
Preauth Debit
RocKLAND ELEcTR REco 250902 85766340005 | | | | 5,141
.01 | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4757 Filed 10/21/25 Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 Page 22 of 26\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT [li]** EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge®\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nPage 2 of 4 STARTING DATE: September 01, 2025 ENDING DA TE: September 30, 2025\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n| Date | Transaction Description | | | |\n|------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|--|\n| | 09-03 Outgoing Wire | DXX3323P00002143 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 32,452.84 FOR HAWK | | |\n| | | EYE RE SE | 32,452.84 | |\n| | 09-03 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | |\n| | 09-03 Debit Memo | FIDUCIARY MAINTENA NCE | 25.00 | |\n| | 09-03 Debit Memo | FIDUCIARY COLLATERAL | 6,378.98 | |\n| | 09-09 Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101549434 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 4,557.60 | |\n| | 09-09 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCV WI | 40.00 | |\n| | 09-09 Outgoing Wire | DXX3329P00002621 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 17,951.16 FOR HAWK | | |\n| | | EYE RE SE | 17,951.16 | |\n| | 09-09 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | |\n| | 09-10 Onln Bkg Trfn D | TO ACC 05500021280 | 6,000,000.00 | |\n| | 09-12 Outgoing Wire | DXX332CP00002125 KYLE DAVIS LAWN CA 031101266 RE KWOK 2,339.35 FOR KYLE | | |\n| | | DAVIS LAWN | 2,339.35 | |\n| | 09-12 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | |\n| | 09-15 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 | |\n| | 09-16 Outgoing Wire | DXX3330P00002176 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 16,506.32 FOR HAWK | | |\n| | | EYE RESE | 16,506.32 | |\n| | 09-16 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | |\n| | 09-17 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 | |\n| | 09-17 Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101551248 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 138,481.58 | |\n| | 09-17 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCV WI | 40.00 | |\n| | 09-18 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 | |\n| | 09-22 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 | |\n| | 09-23 Outgoing Wire | DXX3337P00002817 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE: IN RE KWOK \\$16,506.32 | | |\n| | | FOR HAWKE | 16,506.32 | |\n| | 09-23 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | |\n| | 09-24 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 | |\n| | 09-30 Outgoing Wire | DXX333EP00004240 ARD FACILITIES MAN 221270211 REF KWOK PMT TO PARAMOUNT | | |\n| | | OF 23,250. | 23,250.00 | |\n| | 09-30 Outgoing Wire | DXX333EP00004223 ARD FACILITIES MAN 221270211 RE KWOK PMT TO PAR AMOUNT | | |\n| | | OF 5,925.00 | 5,925.00 | |\n| | 09-30 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | |\n| | 09-30 Outgoing Wire | DXX333EP00004205 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 16,506.32 FOR HAWK | | |\n| | | EYE RE SE | 16,506.32 | |\n| | 09-30 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | |\n| | 09-30 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX333EP00004188 HARNEY WESTWOOD AN FCIBVGVGXXX REF KWOK 173,989.20 | | |\n| | | FOR HARNEY WESTW | 173,989.20 | |\n| | 09-30 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **DAILY BALANCES**\n\n| Date | Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount |\n|-------|--------------|-------|--------------|-------|--------------|\n| 08-31 | 7,324,725.74 | 09-12 | 2,266,050.99 | 09-19 | 2,775,678.06 |\n| 09-02 | 8,330,424.64 | 09-15 | 2,298,040.99 | 09-22 | 2,825,668.06 |\n| 09-03 | 8,291,507.82 | 09-16 | 2,281,474.67 | 09-23 | 2,809,101.74 |\n| 09-09 | 8,268,450.34 | 09-17 | 2,402,455.46 | 09-24 | 3,770,018.78 |\n| 09-10 | 2,268,450.34 | 09-18 | 2,779,445.46 | 09-30 | 3,550,158.26 |\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4757 Filed 10/21/25 Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 Page 23 of 26\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nPage 3 of 4 STARTING DATE: September 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: September 30, 2025\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT**\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n\n\n\nEASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® Case 22-50073 Doc 4757 Filed 10/21/25 Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 Page 25 of 26\n\nDirect inquiries to: 888 761-3967\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** Page 1 of 2 STARTING DATE: September 01, 2025 ENDING DA TE: September 30, 2025 Total days in statement period: 30\n\n( O)\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR LUC A DESPINS, CH 11 TRUSTEE CASE #22-50073 C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10166-0005\n\nStay alert for financial scams. If you receive an email, text, or call from someone unknown about receiving or sending money for inheritance, charities, or anything similar, do not respond or share your personal information.\n\n# **Trustee-Non Vendor MMA**\n\n| Account number
Low balance
Average balance
Interest paid year to date | \\$66,553,800.34
\\$70,750,743.49
\\$2,036,947.31 | Total additions
Ending balance | Beginning balance
Total subtractions | \\$66,553,800.34
6,228,556.17
( 2)
11,463.18
( 2)
\\$72,770,893.33 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| CREDITS
Number
Date
09-10
09-30 | Transaction Description
Onln Bkg Trft C
Interest Credit | FR ACC 05500022540 | | Additions
6,000,000.00
228,556.17 |\n| DEBITS
Date
Transaction Description
09-23 Outgoing Wire
oxx3331P00002s10 sAGE-POPovicH, 1Nc 211914011 REF. IN RE KWOK \\$1 1,403.1s
FORSAGE | | | | Subtractions
-11,403.18 |\n| 09-23 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | | | -60.00 |\n| DAILY BALANCES
Date
Amount
08-31
66,553,800.34
09-10
72,553,800.34 | Date
09-23
09-30 | Amount
72,542,337.16
72,770,893.33 | Date | Amount |\n| INTEREST INFORMATION
Annual percentage yield earned | | 4.00% Interest-bearing days | | 30 |\n\nAverage balance for APY \\$70,750,743.49 Interest earned \\$228,556.17\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4757 Filed 10/21/25 Entered 10/21/25 14:36:59 Page 26 of 26\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nPage 2 of 2 STARTING DATE: September 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: September 30, 2025\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT**\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":10074,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-10-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-10-21","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:56"},{"id":"court_ctb_4675_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4675,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"PETITION","filed_date":"2025-09-22","title":"| DISTRICT OF
CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION
In Re.
Ho Wan Kwok
Case No.
22-50073
§
§
§
L","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| DISTRICT OF
CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION
In Re.
Ho Wan Kwok
Case No.
22-50073
§
§
§
Lead Case No.
22-50073
§
Debtor(s)
Jointly Administered
Monthly Operating Report
Chapter 11
Petition Date: 02/15/2022
Reporting Period Ended: 08/31/2025
Industry Classification:
0
0
0
Months Pending: 43
Reporting Method:
Accrual Basis
Cash Basis | | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---|---|\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | 0 |\n| | | | | |\n| | Debtor's Full-Time Employees (current): | | 0 | |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (as of date of order for relief):
0 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| Supporting Documentation (check all that are attached):
(For jointly administered debtors, any required schedules must be provided on a non-consolidated basis for each debtor) | | | | |\n| Statement of cash receipts and disbursements
Balance sheet containing the summary and detail of the assets, liabilities and equity (net worth) or deficit
Statement of operations (profit or loss statement)
Accounts receivable aging
Postpetition liabilities aging
Statement of capital assets
Schedule of payments to professionals
Schedule of payments to insiders
All bank statements and bank reconciliations for the reporting period
Description of the assets sold or transferred and the terms of the sale or transfer | | | | |\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party Printed Name of Responsible Party\n\n09/22/2025\n\nDate\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nAddress Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nSTATEMENT: This Periodic Report is associated with an open bankruptcy case; therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4675 Filed 09/22/25 Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 Page 2 of 25\n\nDebtor's Name Ho Wan Kwok Case No. 22-50073\n\n| | Part 1: Cash Receipts and Disbursements | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|\n| a. | Cash balance beginning of month | \\$76,700,280 | |\n| b. | Total receipts (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$266,294 | \\$146,238,803 |\n| c. | Total disbursements (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$3,087,764 | \\$69,571,766 |\n| d. | Cash balance end of month (a+b-c) | \\$73,878,810 | |\n| e. | Disbursements made by third party for the benefit of the estate | \\$0 | \\$12,757 |\n| f. | Total disbursements for quarterly fee calculation (c+e) | \\$3,087,764 | \\$69,584,523 |\n| | Part 2: Asset and Liability Status | Current Month | |\n| a. | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | | |\n| | Accounts receivable (total net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Accounts receivable over 90 days outstanding (net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Inventory
(Book
Market
Other
(attach explanation)) | \\$0 | |\n| d | Total current assets | \\$0 | |\n| e. | Total assets | \\$0 | |\n| f. | Postpetition payables (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Postpetition payables past due (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Postpetition taxes payable | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Postpetition taxes past due | \\$0 | |\n| j. | Total postpetition debt (f+h) | \\$0 | |\n| k. | Prepetition secured debt | \\$0 | |\n| l. | Prepetition priority debt | \\$0 | |\n| m. | Prepetition unsecured debt | \\$0 | |\n| n. | Total liabilities (debt) (j+k+l+m) | \\$0 | |\n| o. | Ending equity/net worth (e-n) | \\$0 | |\n| | | | |\n| | Part 3: Assets Sold or Transferred | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Total cash sales price for assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary | \\$0 | \\$26,373,948 |\n| b. | course of business
Total payments to third parties incident to assets being sold/transferred | | |\n| | outside the ordinary course of business | \\$0 | \\$1,160,344 |\n| c. | Net cash proceeds from assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary
course of business (a-b) | \\$0 | \\$25,213,604 |\n| | | | |\n| | Part 4: Income Statement (Statement of Operations)
(Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Gross income/sales (net of returns and allowances) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Cost of goods sold (inclusive of depreciation, if applicable) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Gross profit (a-b) | \\$0 | |\n| d. | Selling expenses | \\$0 | |\n| e. | General and administrative expenses | \\$0 | |\n| f. | Other expenses | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Depreciation and/or amortization (not included in 4b) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Interest | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Taxes (local, state, and federal) | \\$0 | |\n| j. | Reorganization items | \\$0 | |\n\nk. Profit (loss) \\$0 \\$0\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4675 Filed 09/22/25 Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 Page 3 of 25\n\n| Approved
Approved
Paid Current
Current Month
Cumulative
Month
\\$2,937,094
\\$63,374,123
\\$2,937,094
Debtor's professional fees & expenses (bankruptcy) Aggregate Total
Itemized Breakdown by Firm
Firm Name
Role
i
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. Local Counsel
\\$943,602
\\$7,025,977
\\$943,602
ii
Paul Hastings LLP (counsel to c Lead Counsel
\\$0
\\$44,183,366
\\$0
iii
Brown Rudnick (counsel to Ho Lead Counsel
\\$0
\\$0
\\$0
iv
Pullman & Comley, LLC (counsLead Counsel
\\$54,952
\\$875,922
\\$54,952
v
Coleman Worldwide Advisors LOther
\\$0
\\$0
\\$0
vi
Dundon Advisors (UCC financiFinancial Professional
\\$0
\\$0
\\$0
vii
Verdolino & Lowey, PC (financ Financial Professional
\\$0
\\$0
\\$0
viii
Harney Westwood & Riegels LPOther
\\$1,048,173
\\$3,297,568
\\$1,048,173
ix
Paul Wright / Peter Shaw
Other
\\$63,446
\\$103,077
\\$63,446
x
Pallas Partners LLP
Other
\\$170,920
\\$838,055
\\$170,920
xi
Edmiston and Company Limite Other
\\$0
\\$1,176,250
\\$0
xii
Engineering Operations and Ce Other
\\$0
\\$0
\\$0
xiii
Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LOther
\\$33,791
\\$339,890
\\$33,791
xiv
Kroll LLC
Other
\\$134,864
\\$3,143,750
\\$134,864
xv
Prager Dreifuss AG
Local Counsel
\\$274,528
\\$1,484,483
\\$274,528
xvi
Eisner Advisory Group LLC
Other
\\$42,618
\\$221,763
\\$42,618
xvii
Winne, Banta, Basralian & KahnLocal Counsel
\\$985
\\$15,753
\\$985
xviii
Sage-Popovich, Inc.
Other
\\$0
\\$75,418
\\$0
xix
Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC
Other
\\$8,443
\\$75,609
\\$8,443
xx
Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP
Other
\\$91,752
\\$351,411
\\$91,752
xxi
ENSafrica (Mauritius)
Other
\\$9,007
\\$45,125
\\$9,007 | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|\n| | Paid
Cumulative |\n| | \\$63,374,123 |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | \\$7,025,977 |\n| | \\$44,183,366 |\n| | \\$0 |\n| | \\$875,922 |\n| | \\$0 |\n| | \\$0 |\n| | \\$0 |\n| | \\$3,297,568 |\n| | \\$103,077 |\n| | \\$838,055 |\n| | \\$1,176,250 |\n| | \\$0 |\n| | \\$339,890 |\n| | \\$3,143,750 |\n| | \\$1,484,483 |\n| | \\$221,763 |\n| | \\$15,753 |\n| | \\$75,418 |\n| | \\$75,609 |\n| | \\$351,411 |\n| | \\$45,125 |\n| xxii
William De Robillard / Andre P Other
\\$6,716
\\$29,917
\\$6,716 | \\$29,917 |\n| xxiii
Marxer Attorneys
Local Counsel
\\$37,274
\\$73,363
\\$37,274 | \\$73,363 |\n| xxiv
Hadef & Partners LLC
Local Counsel
\\$16,023
\\$17,424
\\$16,023 | \\$17,424 |\n| xxv | |\n| xxvi | |\n| xxvii | |\n| xxviii | |\n| xxix | |\n| xxx | |\n| xxxi | |\n| xxxii | |\n| xxxiii | |\n| xxxiv | |\n| xxxv | |\n| xxxvi | |\n\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n|----|---------|--|--|--|\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxix | | | |\n| | xl | | | |\n| | xli | | | |\n| | xlii | | | |\n| | xliii | | | |\n| | xliv | | | |\n| | xlv | | | |\n| | xlvi | | | |\n| | xlvii | | | |\n| | xlviii | | | |\n| | xlix | | | |\n| l | | | | |\n| li | | | | |\n| | lii | | | |\n| | liii | | | |\n| | liv | | | |\n| | lv | | | |\n| | lvi | | | |\n| | lvii | | | |\n| | lviii | | | |\n| | lix | | | |\n| | lx | | | |\n| | lxi | | | |\n| | lxii | | | |\n| | lxiii | | | |\n| | lxiv | | | |\n| | lxv | | | |\n| | lxvi | | | |\n| | lxvii | | | |\n| | lxviii | | | |\n| | lxix | | | |\n| | lxx | | | |\n| | lxxi | | | |\n| | lxxii | | | |\n| | lxxiii | | | |\n| | lxxiv | | | |\n| | lxxv | | | |\n| | lxxvi | | | |\n| | lxxvii | | | |\n| | lxxviii | | | |\n\n| | lxxix | | | | | | |\n|----|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|---------------|------------|--------------|------------|\n| | lxxx | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxix | | | | | | |\n| | xc | | | | | | |\n| | xci | | | | | | |\n| | xcii | | | | | | |\n| | xciii | | | | | | |\n| | xciv | | | | | | |\n| | xcv | | | | | | |\n| | xcvi | | | | | | |\n| | xcvii | | | | | | |\n| | xcviii | | | | | | |\n| | xcix | | | | | | |\n| | c | | | | | | |\n| | ci | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Approved | Approved | Paid Current | Paid |\n| | | | | Current Month | Cumulative | Month | Cumulative |\n| b. | | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (nonbankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| | i | Baker Hostetler LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | ii | Clayman & Rosenberg LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iii | Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer Other | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iv | Harcus Parker Ltd. | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | v
vi | LALIVE SA
Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | Other
Other | \\$0
\\$0 | \\$0
\\$0 | \\$0
\\$0 | \\$0
\\$0 |\n| | vii | Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | viii | Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | ix | The Casper Firm | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | x
xi | The Francis Firm PLLC
VX Cerda & Associates | Other
Other | \\$0
\\$0 | \\$0
\\$0 | \\$0
\\$0 | \\$0
\\$0 |\n| | xii | | | | | | |\n| | xiii | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | xiv | | | | | | |\n\n| xv | | | |\n|--------|--|--|--|\n| xvi | | | |\n| xvii | | | |\n| xviii | | | |\n| xix | | | |\n| xx | | | |\n| xxi | | | |\n| xxii | | | |\n| xxiii | | | |\n| xxiv | | | |\n| xxv | | | |\n| xxvi | | | |\n| xxvii | | | |\n| xxviii | | | |\n| xxix | | | |\n| xxx | | | |\n| xxxi | | | |\n| xxxii | | | |\n| xxxiii | | | |\n| xxxiv | | | |\n| xxxv | | | |\n| xxxvi | | | |\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxix | | | |\n| xl | | | |\n| xli | | | |\n| xlii | | | |\n| xliii | | | |\n| xliv | | | |\n| xlv | | | |\n| xlvi | | | |\n| xlvii | | | |\n| xlviii | | | |\n| xlix | | | |\n| l | | | |\n| li | | | |\n| lii | | | |\n| liii | | | |\n| liv | | | |\n| lv | | | |\n| lvi | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| lvii | | | |\n|---------|--|--|--|\n| lviii | | | |\n| lix | | | |\n| lx | | | |\n| lxi | | | |\n| lxii | | | |\n| lxiii | | | |\n| lxiv | | | |\n| lxv | | | |\n| lxvi | | | |\n| lxvii | | | |\n| lxviii | | | |\n| lxix | | | |\n| lxx | | | |\n| lxxi | | | |\n| lxxii | | | |\n| lxxiii | | | |\n| lxxiv | | | |\n| lxxv | | | |\n| lxxvi | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxviii | | | |\n| lxxix | | | |\n| lxxx | | | |\n| lxxxi | | | |\n| lxxxii | | | |\n| lxxxiii | | | |\n| lxxxiv | | | |\n| lxxxv | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxix | | | |\n| xc | | | |\n| xci | | | |\n| xcii | | | |\n| xciii | | | |\n| xciv | | | |\n| xcv | | | |\n| xcvi | | | |\n| xcvii | | | |\n| xcviii | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4675 Filed 09/22/25 Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 Page 8 of 25\n\n| | xcix | | | | |\n|----|------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | c | | | | |\n| c. | | All professional fees and expenses (debtor & committees) | | | |\n\n| | Part 6: Postpetition Taxes | | | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------|---------------------------|\n| a. | | Postpetition income taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | | Postpetition income taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes accrued | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| d. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes paid | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| e. | Postpetition property taxes paid | | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| f. | | Postpetition other taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| g. | | Postpetition other taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | Part 7: Questionnaire - During this reporting period: | | | |\n| a. | | Were any payments made on prepetition debt? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| b. | | Were any payments made outside the ordinary course of business
without court approval? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| c. | | Were any payments made to or on behalf of insiders? | Yes | No | |\n| d. | | Are you current on postpetition tax return filings? | Yes | No | |\n| e. | | Are you current on postpetition estimated tax payments? | Yes | No | |\n| f. | | Were all trust fund taxes remitted on a current basis? | Yes | No | |\n| g. | (if yes, see Instructions) | Was there any postpetition borrowing, other than trade credit? | Yes | No | |\n| h. | the court? | Were all payments made to or on behalf of professionals approved by | Yes | No
N/A | |\n| i. | Do you have: | Worker's compensation insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | Casualty/property insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | General liability insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| j. | | Has a plan of reorganization been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| k. | | Has a disclosure statement been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| l. | set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1930? | Are you current with quarterly U.S. Trustee fees as | Yes | No | |\n\n| | Part 8: Individual Chapter 11 Debtors (Only) | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|\n| a. | Gross income (receipts) from salary and wages | \\$0 |\n| b. | Gross income (receipts) from self-employment | \\$0 |\n| c. | Gross income from all other sources | \\$0 |\n| d. | Total income in the reporting period (a+b+c) | \\$0 |\n| e. | Payroll deductions | \\$0 |\n| f. | Self-employment related expenses | \\$0 |\n| g. | Living expenses | \\$0 |\n| h. | All other expenses | \\$0 |\n| i. | Total expenses in the reporting period (e+f+g+h) | \\$0 |\n| j. | Difference between total income and total expenses (d-i) | \\$0 |\n| k. | List the total amount of all postpetition debts that are past due | \\$0 |\n| l. | Are you required to pay any Domestic Support Obligations as defined by 11
U.S.C § 101(14A)? | Yes
No |\n| m. | If yes, have you made all Domestic Support Obligation payments? | No
N/A
Yes |\n\n#### **Privacy Act Statement**\n\n28 U.S.C. § 589b authorizes the collection of this information, and provision of this information is mandatory under 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, and 1107. The United States Trustee will use this information to calculate statutory fee assessments under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The United States Trustee will also use this information to evaluate a chapter 11 debtor's progress through the bankruptcy system, including the likelihood of a plan of reorganization being confirmed and whether the case is being prosecuted in good faith. This information may be disclosed to a bankruptcy trustee or examiner when the information is needed to perform the trustee's or examiner's duties or to the appropriate federal, state, local, regulatory, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency when the information indicates a violation or potential violation of law. Other disclosures may be made for routine purposes. For a discussion of the types of routine disclosures that may be made, you may consult the Executive Office for United States Trustee's systems of records notice, UST-001, \"Bankruptcy Case Files and Associated Records.\" *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 59,818 et seq. (Oct. 11, 2006). A copy of the notice may be obtained at the following link: htt eo/rules\\_regulations/index.htm. Failure to provide this information could result in the dismissal or conversion of your bankruptcy case or other action by the United States Trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F).\n\n## **I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Monthly Operating Report and its supporting documentation are true and correct and that I have been authorized to sign this report on behalf of the estate.**\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party\n\nChapter 11 Trustee\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nPrinted Name of Responsible Party\n\n09/22/2025\n\nTitle Date\n\n\n\nBankruptcy1to50\n\n\n\n\n\nPageFour\n\n**In re Ho Wan Kwok Case No.** 22-50073 (JAM) **Debtor Reporting Period:** 8/1/2025 - 8/31/2025\n\n#### **INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR CASH RECEIPTS AND CASH DISBURSEMENTS**\n\n(This Form must be submitted for each bank account maintained by the Debtor)\n\nAmounts reported should be per the debtor's books, not the bank statement. The beginning cash should be the ending\n\ncash from the prior month or, if this is the first report, the amount should be the balance on the date the petition was\n\nfiled. Attach the bank statements and a detailed list of all disbursements made during the\n\nreport period that includes\n\nthe date, the check number, the payee, the transaction description, and the amount. A\n\nbank reconciliation must\n\nbe attached for each account. [See MOR-1 (CON'T)]\n\n| | Current Month | Cumulative July 8, 2022 to Date |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|---------------------------------|\n| | Actual | Actual |\n| Cash - Beginning of Month | | |\n| RECEIPTS | | |\n| Recovered Funds | \\$
- | \\$
23,712,225.06 |\n| Funds received from B. Hofmeister Assignee for benefit of creditors | \\$
- | \\$
38,792,899.51 |\n| of HCHK pursuant to settlement order | | |\n| Clark Hill Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
499,000.00 |\n| | | |\n| Retainer Refund (Kercsmar Collins & O'Hara / Lewis Roca) | \\$
- | \\$
4,544.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | \\$
- | \\$
4,000,000.00 |\n| Adversary Proceeding Interpleader Funds | \\$
- | \\$
32,923,028.42 |\n| Refund from AIG | \\$
- | \\$
71.25 |\n| Funds received from The Casper Firm Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
48,750.00 |\n| Refund from Yachtzoo Yacht Management (Lady May II balance) | \\$
- | \\$
255.17 |\n| Funds received from Axos Bank | \\$
- | \\$
1,592,469.98 |\n| Refund of insurance premium from cancellation of protection and | \\$
- | \\$
29,255.02 |\n| indemnity insurance upon sale of Lady May on 6/30/23 | | |\n| Funds received from Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi PCA for sale of | \\$
- | \\$
10,302,313.64 |\n| Bombardier jet | | |\n| Net proceeds of sale of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held | \\$
- | \\$
2,692,924.71 |\n| by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash dividends on account of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. | \\$
- | \\$
54,858.88 |\n| held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash distribution on account of limited partnership interest held in | \\$
- | \\$
2,561,150.56 |\n| Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman), L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Funds received for sale of Greenwich Taconic property | \\$
- | \\$
6,784,668.79 |\n| Refund received from Pullman & Comley, LLC for overpayment of | \\$
- | \\$
26,102.00 |\n| invoices | | |\n| Funds received from First Bank of Greenwich | \\$
- | \\$
134,338.76 |\n| Refund with respect to unauthorized fraudulent disbursements | \\$
- | \\$
12,240.99 |\n| Funds received from World Insurance Associates, LLC | \\$
- | \\$
44,935.80 |\n| Funds received from Harneys Corporate Services' Bank | \\$
- | \\$
24,715.00 |\n| Settlement payments | \\$
- | \\$
10,803,271.06 |\n| Refund from Eversource Energy with respect to overpayment | \\$
- | \\$
346.56 |\n| Refund from Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC with respect to | \\$
- | \\$
260,030.80 |\n| | | |\n| overpayment | | |\n| Reimbursement with respect to inter-Debtor DIP facility funding | \\$
- | \\$
2,907,327.18 |\n| Genever entities | | |\n| Funds from Morgan Stanley (attached Yanping Wang account) | \\$
- | \\$
519,297.24 |\n| Funds for costs from Hamilton Capital Holdings Limited | \\$
- | \\$
199,655.40 |\n| administrators | | |\n| Refund received from Prager Dreifuss AG for overpayment of | \\$
- | \\$
56,102.43 |\n| expenses | | |\n| Funds received for sale of motor vehicles
* | \\$
- | \\$
137,600.00 |\n| Refund from Anthem Health Plans, Inc. | \\$
38,151.98 | \\$
38,151.98 |\n| Bank Account Interest | \\$
228,142.08 | \\$
7,076,273.25 |\n| Total Receipts | \\$
266,294.06 | \\$
146,238,803.44 |\n| DISBURSEMENTS | | |\n| ORDINARY ITEMS: | | |\n| Bank Fees | \\$
8,031.70 | \\$
174,807.20 |\n| Fees paid to International Surety Ltd for surety bond renewal | \\$
- | \\$
384,747.00 |\n| premium | | |\n\n\\*The proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles were inadvertently wired to the Genever Holdings Axos bank account, but upon receipt the funds were immediately forwarded to the Trustee's East West bank account.\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 8/1/2025 - 8/31/2025 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yacht repair invoices out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$ | 576,895.09 |\n| Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Miller Advertising Agency Inc. (English | \\$
- | \\$ | 21,140.60 |\n| Court Publication Notice) | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Dexter White Invoice | \\$
- | \\$ | 16,235.00 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Bridgeport Harbor Marina out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$ | 18,137.64 |\n| Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Safe Harbor out of the Yacht Repair | \\$
- | | |\n| Escrow | | \\$ | 148,287.04 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yachtzoo for operating expenses out of the | \\$
- | \\$ | 431,604.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harneys Corporate Services Limited | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,665.00 |\n| Disbursement paid to JP Reynolds Company Inc. (for customs duty | \\$
- | \\$ | 14,965.35 |\n| and customs bond premium) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to James Pizzaruso for pay roll in connection with | \\$
- | \\$ | 31,026.98 |\n| sale of Lady May | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$ | 76,150.88 |\n| of HCHK (for HCHK admin matters and employee payments) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to RKH IT Solutions (IT Consultant for HCHK | \\$
- | \\$ | 17,794.73 |\n| Assignee) | | | |\n| Fees paid to SHM Newport Shipyard LLC (for Lady May II | \\$
- | \\$ | 16,384.10 |\n| winterization and dockage fees) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to R.I. Martine Survey (for Lady May II appraisal) | \\$
- | \\$ | 700.00 |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Brosnan Risk Consultants LTD (for security | \\$
- | \\$ | 57,246.47 |\n| services for HCHK Assignee) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to ARD Facilities Management Group LLC (for | \\$
- | \\$ | 306,455.00 |\n| moving and storage services for HCHK, Golden Spring and Greenwich, | | | |\n| CT residence) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to FDS46 Crew Series LLC (Lady May II captain | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,130.00 |\n| salary) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$ | 550,000.00 |\n| of HCHK (for settlement payment) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Cole Schotz, counsel to Brian W. Hofmeister, | \\$
- | \\$ | 766,758.37 |\n| Assignee of HCHK Entities (for preparation and prosecution of the | | | |\n| assignment proceedings per settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A. Atkins Appraisal Corp., appraiser to Brian | \\$
- | \\$ | 7,800.00 |\n| W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for appraisal fees per | | | |\n| settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, MSB | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,000.00 |\n| counsel to Brian. W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees | | | |\n| and expenses per settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to DLA, LLC, financial advisor to Brian. W. | \\$
- | \\$ | 155,000.00 |\n| Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees per settlement order) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Prager Dreifuss AG (for advance on Swiss | \\$
- | \\$ | 5,835.49 |\n| court fees) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hawk Eye Security LLC (for security services | \\$
46,080.15 | \\$ | 856,630.69 |\n| at Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A&A Home Services LLC (for repairs to the | \\$
- | \\$ | 17,800.00 |\n| 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Next Frontier Advisors (for deposit for virtual | \\$
- | \\$ | 11,000.00 |\n| staging at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Knight Security Systems (for security system | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,710.50 |\n| installation at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Slocum's Lock & Key LLC (for updating keys | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,932.91 |\n| and replacing deadbolt at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to CT Fence and Landscaping, LLC (for servicing | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,277.56 |\n| the gate at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
76,344.45 | \\$ | 218,275.04 |\n| Valley Road real property taxes) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,021.86 |\n| Valley Road sewer and water) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$ | 139,323.90 |\n| Valley Road taxes) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to World Insurance Associates LLC (for the 373
Taconic property) | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,139.60 |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 8/1/2025 - 8/31/2025 |\n| Disbursement paid to Tax Collector - Town of Greenwich (for the | \\$
- | \\$ | 27,847.85 |\n| 373 Taconic property real estate tax bill) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Rockland Electric (for electric company | \\$
5,033.21 | \\$ | 51,248.76 |\n| invoices at 675 Ramapo Valley Road house and gate house ) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to City of Stamford, CT (for tax bills for 2022 and | \\$
- | \\$ | 617.73 |\n| 2023) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Seriatim Inc. (for deposit for personal property | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,520.00 |\n| inventory services at 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Greenwich Pool Service, LLC (for pool services | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,749.44 |\n| at 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to PSE&G (for gas utility invoices at 675 Ramapo | \\$
319.32 | \\$ | 16,490.95 |\n| Valley Road property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for alarm registration fee | \\$
- | \\$ | 30.00 |\n| for 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Verizon (for services at 675 Ramapo Valley | \\$
- | \\$ | 5,725.60 |\n| Road property ) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Optimum (for internet services at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$ | 561.89 |\n| property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Eversource (for electric bill at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,327.99 |\n| property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for test wire in favor | \\$
- | \\$ | 100.00 |\n| of the District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Atko Bros Landscaping (for landscaping | \\$
- | \\$ | 6,168.30 |\n| services at 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for police security at 373 | \\$
- | \\$ | 8,500.00 |\n| Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Kyle Davis Lawn Care, LLC (for landscaping at | \\$
11,860.22 | \\$ | 50,556.14 |\n| Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to JL Holdings, Inc. (for pool and spa | \\$
- | \\$ | 639.75 |\n| winterization at 675 Ramapo Valley Road property) | | | |\n| *
Unauthorized fraudulent disbursements | \\$
- | \\$ | 12,240.99 |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for wire in favor of the | \\$
- | \\$ | 218,150.40 |\n| District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hackensack Roofing Co. Inc. (for roofing | \\$
- | \\$ | 18,382.15 |\n| repair invoices for roof at Mahwah mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Milo Plastering (for plaster repair at Mahwah | \\$
- | \\$ | 31,000.00 |\n| mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to TransPerfect Translations International Inc. (for | \\$
- | \\$ | 812.50 |\n| translation and proofreading services) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Planet Depos, LLC (for deposition services in | \\$
- | \\$ | 7,647.55 |\n| | | | |\n| adversary proceeding) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Montvale Moving Services LLC (for packing | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,300.00 |\n| and moving at the Mahwah mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to IPTeam Janitorial LLC (for cleaning invoice at | \\$
- | \\$ | 11,089.00 |\n| the Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Dark Star Electrical Contracting LLC (for light | \\$
- | \\$ | 450.00 |\n| fixture maintenance at Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Divergent Language Solutions, LLC (for | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,546.32 |\n| translation services) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Aircraft Servicing (Guernsey) Limited (for | \\$
- | \\$ | 12,166.57 |\n| airport fees / jet fuel and storage of aircraft) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Alliant Insurance Services (for Aircraft Hull & | \\$
- | \\$ | 5,600.00 |\n| Liability Policy) | | | |\n| Total Ordinary Disbursements | \\$
147,669.05 | \\$ | 5,677,347.88 |\n| REORGANIZATION ITEMS: | | | |\n| Professional Fees | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC | \\$
943,601.55 | \\$ | 7,025,976.72 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Paul Hastings LLP | \\$
- | \\$ | 44,183,366.19 |\n| Broker fees paid with respect to Edmiston and Company Limited | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,176,250.00 |\n| | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pullman & Comley, LLC | \\$
54,952.00 | \\$ | 875,921.76 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC | \\$
33,791.04 | \\$ | 339,889.67 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harney Westwood & Riegels LP | \\$
1,048,173.05 | \\$ | 3,297,568.14 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kroll LLC | \\$
134,864.34 | \\$ | 3,143,750.38 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pallas Partners LLP | \\$
170,919.80 | \\$ | 838,055.34 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Prager Dreifuss AG | \\$
274,528.06 | \\$ | 1,484,483.24 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Eisner Advisory Group LLC | \\$
42,618.00 | \\$ | 221,763.00 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C. | \\$
984.90 | \\$ | 15,753.33 |\n| | | | |\n\n\\*These cash disbursements in the aggregate amount constitute unauthorized disbursements due to forged checks and unauthorized ACH payments. The accounts involved were immediately closed upon discovery of the fraudulent activity. The Trustee has worked in conjunction with the estate's bank to recover the stolen funds, and has been in communication with the United States Trustee regarding same. As of the date of this MOR, \\$12,240.99 has been reimbursed to the estate's bank account.\n\nFORM MOR-1 (INDV) 2/2008 PAGE 3 OF 5\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 8/1/2025 - 8/31/2025 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Sage-Popovich, Inc. | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,418.01 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC | \\$
8,442.99 | \\$ | 75,609.18 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP | \\$
91,751.56 | \\$ | 351,411.46 |\n| Fees paid with respect to ENSafrica (Mauritius) | \\$
9,007.38 | \\$ | 45,124.51 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Paul Wright / Peter Shaw (English
barristers) | \\$
63,446.10 | \\$ | 103,077.43 |\n| Fees paid with respect to William De Robillard / Andre Patrice
Doger de Speville (Mauritius barristers) | \\$
6,716.00 | \\$ | 29,917.25 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Marxer Attorneys (Liechtenstein counsel) | \\$
37,274.08 | \\$ | 73,362.66 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Hadef & Partners LLC (UAE counsel) | \\$
16,023.47 | \\$ | 17,424.42 |\n| U. S. Trustee Fees | \\$
3,000.15 | \\$ | 520,295.58 |\n| Other Reorganization Expenses (attach schedule) | \\$
- | \\$ | - |\n| Total Reorganization Items | \\$
2,940,094.47 | \\$ | 63,894,418.27 |\n| | | | |\n| Total Disbursements (Ordinary + Reorganization) | \\$
3,087,763.52 | \\$ | 69,571,766.15 |\n| Financing of Genever Entities | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 25,004.19 |\n| invoices for Gallagher Basset Services Inc. (for air monitoring for | | | |\n| asbestos abatement, ATRU and variance drawings, final inspection and | | | |\n| asbestos survey and reporting work at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 236,452.00 |\n| US counsel fees (Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 274,811.83 |\n| US counsel fees (O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 98,089.58 |\n| BVI corporate fees (Harneys Corporate Services) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 121,300.00 |\n| US invoices for ABF Environmental Inc. (for asbestos abatement and | | | |\n| insulation work) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 39,924.43 |\n| US invoices for Gustav Restoration LLC (invoices for terrace cleaning | | | |\n| project and for deposit for work at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 324,516.61 |\n| US invoices for Acheson Doyle Partners Architects, PC (for apartment | | | |\n| stabilization work at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 5,750.00 |\n| invoices for Catalpa Special Inspections, Inc. (for remediation project at | | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland)
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 122,849.05 |\n| invoices for Skyline Windows LLC (for window replacement at The | | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,515.01 |\n| invoices for Arista Air Conditioning Corp. (for service repair proposal | | | |\n| at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 229,678.89 |\n| invoices for The Sherry Netherland, Inc. (for installation of HVAC | | | |\n| units, security deposit and proprietary rent) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 384,187.42 |\n| US invoices for Sciame Homes NY LLC (for general contractor at The | | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$ | 19,793.64 |\n| US invoices for Burnham Nationwide, Inc. (for apartment restoration at | | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland)
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 12,590.00 |\n| invoices for U.S. Trustee Fees | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 166,754.00 |\n| invoices for AIG insurance premium | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 29,446.33 |\n| invoices for Hillmann Consulting (for post fire smoke damage | | | |\n| investigation at The Sherry Netherland) | | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$ | 101,500.00 |\n| invoices for ARD Facilities Management Group LLC (for storage | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | 8/1/2025 - 8/31/2025 |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
2,068.63 |\n| invoices for Cleaning Contractors Corp. (for furniture cleaning at The | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
32,777.50 |\n| invoices for Montvale Moving Services LLC (for packing and moving | | |\n| furniture at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
554,269.78 |\n| invoices for J and A Construction Consultants dba Dryfast Property | | |\n| Restoration (for restoration work at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
1,750.00 |\n| invoices for The Light Touch (for work removing and packaging light | | |\n| fixtures at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
2,177.50 |\n| invoices for CitiQuiet, Inc. (for removing and reinstalling window at | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Total DIP Financing Items | \\$
- | \\$
2,788,206.39 |\n| Net Cash Flow (Total Receipts - Total Disbursements - DIP | \\$
(2,821,469.46) \\$ | 73,878,830.90 |\n| Financing) | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash - End of Month (Must equal reconciled bank statement) | \\$
73,878,810.28 | \\$
73,878,810.28 |\n| Third Party Disbursements on Behalf of the Estate | | |\n| None | \\$
- | \\$
12,757.00 |\n\n#### **THE FOLLOWING SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED**\n\n**DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY FEES: (FROM CURRENT MONTH ACTUAL COLUMN)**\n\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS | \\$
3,087,763.52 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|\n| LESS: TRANSFERS TO OTHER DEBTOR IN POSSESSION ACCOUNTS | \\$
- |\n| PLUS: ESTATE DISBURSEMENTS MADE BY OUTSIDE SOURCES (i.e. from escrow | \\$
- |\n| accounts) | |\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY | \\$
3,087,763.52 |\n| FEES | |\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
:
Case No. 22-50073
(JAM) | |\n| Debtor. | :
:
: | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n\n# **ATTACHMENT TO MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2025 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025**\n\nThis attachment is incorporated into and made a part of the Monthly Operating Report (\"MOR\") of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins.\n\n# **General Disclaimers**\n\n- 1. The MOR is presented on a form promulgated in 2021 by the Executive Office of the United States Trustee. This form in many instances requires inserting a number for a line item even if the line item does not apply. The form also does not allow for the insertion of explanations or asterisks next to answers. Accordingly, as presented, certain responses may be inapplicable or incomplete. Following guidance from the United States Trustee's office, this attachment is being filed as an integral part of the MOR.\n- 2. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the appointment of Luc A. Despins, Esq. as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"). The information in this MOR is based only on information beginning on the date of the Trustee's appointment and only on bank accounts within the Trustee's control.[1](#page-17-0)\n- 3. The Trustee reserves the rights to amend, modify or supplement this MOR or update it in future MORs.\n\n### **Specific Responses**\n\n## Part 1 Responses\n\n4. As noted above, this information is limited to cash receipts and disbursements since the Trustee was appointed and with respect to accounts under the Trustee's control. Not all cash receipts held by the Trustee as reflected in this MOR have been determined to be\n\n1 The Trustee is currently investigating the Debtor's assets and financial affairs (with respect to which investigation the Debtor has not cooperated).\n\nproperty of the estate at this time. There are various on-going litigations with respect to the funds held by the Trustee, which, if finally determined in a manner adverse to the Trustee, would materially reduce the total amount of cash held by the Trustee at this time. In addition, cash disbursements included here do not reflect payments made pursuant to the *Order (I) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363, (II) Authorizing Genever US and Genever BVI to Obtain Post-Petition Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 264, (III) Granting Non-Priming Liens and Providing Superpriority Administrative Expense Claims, (IV) Modifying Automatic Stay, and (V) Granting Related Relief*, entered on September 12, 2023 [Dkt. 2193], which authorized the Kwok estate to finance expenses of the Genever entities, which are described in the summary of cash receipts and disbursements.\n\n# Part 2 Responses\n\n- 5. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section. The Trustee's counsel is currently reviewing the over 1,200 proofs of claim filed in connection with the claims bar date, which occurred on February 17, 2023.\n- 6. The Trustee is aware of certain professional fees and expenses that have arisen in connection with services provided by the Trustee's professionals. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n\n### Part 3 Responses\n\n7. On June 27, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May [Docket No. 1953]. On December 19, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May II [Docket No. 2449]. On June 20, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order [Docket No. 3265] authorizing and approving the liquidation of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. and the distribution of the proceeds of such liquidation, as discussed in the Trustee' s related motion [Docket No. 3203] and report of results of sale [Docket No. 3372].\n\n# Part 4 Responses\n\n8. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section.\n\n# Part 5 Responses\n\n- 9. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n- 10. The Trustee is aware of a number of professional firms that have provided services to the official committee of unsecured creditors or the Debtor (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) but that have not at this time had their retentions approved by the Court. The Trustee includes such professional firms (of which he is aware) in this part of the MOR out of an abundance of caution but reserves all his rights with respect to the retention and/or payment of fees with respect to such professional firms. The Trustee also notes that the Debtor may have employed professionals (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) of which the Trustee is not aware.\n\n### Part 6 Responses\n\n11. The Trustee is not aware of any postpetition taxes that have accrued during the time period since the Trustee's appointment.\n\n### Part 7 Responses\n\n12. The Trustee notes that the Debtor filed a chapter 11 plan on April 20, 2022 [Docket No. 197] (the \"April 2022 Plan\") with respect to which no disclosure statement was filed or approved.\n\n### Part 8 Responses\n\n13. The Trustee has insufficient information to respond to Part 8.\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 4675 | Filed 09/22/25 | Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 | Page 21 of 25 |\n|-------------------------------------------|----------------|---------------------------|----------------------|\n| !-
EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® | | | Direct inquiries to: |\n\n888 761-3967\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** Page 1 of 1 STARTING DATE: August 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: August 31, 2025 Total days in statement period: 31\n\n( **O)**\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR LUC A DESPINS, CH 11 TRUSTEE CASE #22-50073 C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10166-0005\n\nSwitch to e-statements via our Mobile App or Online Banking for a paperless experience! You can access up to seven years of account history easily at your fingertips. Learn more by visiting eastwestbank.com/mobile or call 833.468.8356 for details.\n\n# **Trustee-Non Vendor MMA**\n\n| Account number
Low balance
Average balance
Interest paid year to date | \\$66,325,658.26
\\$66,325,658.26
\\$1,808,391.14 | Beginning balance
Total additions
Total subtractions
Ending balance | 111
IOI | \\$66,325,658.26
228, 142.08
0.00
\\$66,553,800.34 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| CREDITS
Number
Date
08-31 | Transaction Description
Interest Credit | | | Additions
228,142.08 |\n| | | | | |\n\n| Date | DAIL V BALANCES
Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount | |\n|-------|---------------------------|-------|---------------|------|--------|--|\n| 07-31 | 66,325,658.26 | 08-31 | 66,553,800.34 | | | |\n| | INTEREST INFORMATION | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Annual percentage yield earned | 4. 13% | Interest-bearing days | 31 |\n|--------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------------|---------------|\n| Average balance for APY | \\$66,325,658.26 | Interest earned | \\$228, 142.08 |\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | 9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL
El Monte, CA. 91731 | Doc 4675
Filed 09/22/25
EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® | Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 | | Page 22 of 25
Direct inquiries to:
888 761
-3967
ACCOUNT STATEMENT
of
Page
1
4
STARTING DATE: August 01, 2025
ENDING DATE: August 31, 2025
Total days in statement period: 31 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | BK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR
LUC A DESPINS, CH11 TRUSTEE
CASE #22-50073
C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP
200 PARK AVE
NEW YORK NY 10166-0005 | | | | ( 2)
Switch to e-statements via our Mobile App
or Online Banking for a paperless
experience! You can access up to seven
years of account history easily at your
fingertips. Learn more by visiting
eastwestbank.com/mobile or call
833.468.8356 for details. |\n| Account number
Enclosures
Low balance
Average balance | | Standard Business Checking
\\$7,325,009.94
\\$9,054,227.31 | 2
Total additions
Ending balance | Beginning balance
Total subtractions | \\$10,374,621.48
38,151
.98
(1)
3,087,763.52
(63)
\\$7,325,009.94 |\n| CREDITS
Number | Date
08-01 | Transaction Description
Wire Trans-IN | 5da314ac-408e-466d -86fe-f7acd071a873 PAUL
HASTINGS LLP INV 07242025DDW01 . ANTHEM
REFUNDS R | | Additions
38,151
.98 |\n| CHECKS
Number
1601 | Date
08-26 | Amount
12.03 | Number
1602 | Date
08-26 | Amount
307.29 |\n| DEBITS
Date
08-01
08-01
08-01
08-06 Outgoing Wire
08-06 Service Charge | Transaction Description
Service Charge
Debit Memo
Debit Memo | wIRE TRANs-IN
FIDucIARY MAINTENA NcE
FIDucIARY coLLATER AL
DAVIS LAW
OUTGOING WIRE | DXX3306P00002300 KYLE DAvIs LAWN cA 031101266 RE KWOK 10 116.10 FOR KYLE | | Subtractions
10.00
25.00
6,406.70
7,909.76
60.00 |\n\n| | OUTGOING WIRE | |\n|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|\n| 08-06 Outgoing Wire | DXX3306P00002296 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 15 360.05 FOR HAWK | |\n| | EYE RESE | 15,360.05 |\n| 08-06 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 |\n| 08-07 Preauth Debit | Township of Mahw 2015295757 250807 | 76,344.45 |\n| 08-08 Preauth Debit | ROCKLAND ELECTR RECO 250808 59297160000 | 559.03 |\n| 08-08 Preauth Debit | ROCKLAND ELECTR RECO 250808 85766340005 | 4,474.18 |\n| 08-12 Outgoing Wire | DXX330CP00002944 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 REF. IN RE KWOK, \\$ 15,360.05 | |\n| | FOR HAWK | 15,360.05 |\n| 08-12 Service Charge | ouTG0ING wIRE | 60.00 |\n| 08-13 Outgoing Fx Ccy | Fx ouT wIRE 101543746 1 1 BK EST Ho wAN KWOK | 37,274.08 |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4675 Filed 09/22/25 Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 Page 23 of 25\n\n**li EASTWESTBANK** Your financial bridge®\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nPage 2 of 4 STARTING DATE: August 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: August 31, 2025\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n| Date | Transaction Description
Subtractions | | | | |\n|------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--|--|\n| | 08-13 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCY WI | 40.00 | | |\n| | 08-13 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX330DP00001771 HADEF AND PARTNERS ADCBAEAAXXX RE KWOK \\$16,023.47 FOR | | | |\n| | | HADEF AND PAR | 16,023.47 | | |\n| | 08-13 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 | | |\n| | 08-13 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX330DP00001706 KOBRE AND KIM GCC EBILAEADXXX RE KWOK \\$29,986.46 FOR | | | |\n| | | KOBRE AND KIM | 29,986.46 | | |\n| | 08-13 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101544854 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 8,442.99 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCY WI | 40.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101544851 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 63,446.10 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCY WI | 40.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101544847 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 114,235.32 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCY WI | 40.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101544853 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 141,991.57 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCY WI | 40.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101544849 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 160,292.74 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCY WI | 40.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002181 WINNE, BANTABASRAL 221272303 RE KWOK 984.90 FOR WINNE | | | |\n| | | BANTA PERS | 984.90 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002188 KYLE DAVIS LAWN CA 031101266 RE KWOK 3,950.46 FOR KYLE | | | |\n| | | DAVIS LAWN | 3,950.46 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002195 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 15 360.05 FOR HAWK | | | |\n| | | EYE RESE | 15,360.05 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002293 EPIQ CORPORA TE RES 043000096 RE KWOK 33,791.04 FOR EPIQ | | | |\n| | | PER ORD A | 33,791.04 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002197 EISNER ADVISORY GR 026009593 RE KWOK 42,618.00 FOR EISNER | | | |\n| | | ADVISOR | 42,618.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002199 PULLMAN AND COMLEY 026009593 RE KWOK 54,952.00 FOR | | | |\n| | | PULLMAN PER OR | 54,952.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002202 KROLL LLC 026009593 RE KWOK 62,652.82 FOR KROLL PER 5TH | 62,652.82 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002278 KROLL LLC 026009593 RE KWOK 72,211.52 FOR KROLL PER MO F | 72,211.52 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Outgoing Wire | DXX3313P00002299 NEUBERT, PEPE AND 211170101 RE KWOK 943,601.55 FOR | | | |\n| | | NEUBERT PER 0 | 943,601.55 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX3313P00001846 MR WILLIAM DE ROBI MCBLMUMUXXX RE KWOK 2,530.00 FOR | | | |\n| | | WILLIAM DE ROBI | 2,530.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX3313P00001840 ANDRE PATRICE DOGE MCBLMUMUXXX RE KWOK 4,186.00 FOR | | | |\n| | | PATRICE DE SPEV | 4,186.00 | | |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 | | |\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4675 Filed 09/22/25 Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 Page 24 of 25\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** I= EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge®\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nPage 3 of 4 STARTING DATE: August 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: August 31, 2025\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n| Date | Transaction Description | | Subtractions |\n|------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|\n| | 08-19 Intl Wire Xfer | sxx3313poooo183s ENsAFRIcA MAuRITIu McBLMuMuxxx RE KwoK s.001.38 F oR | |\n| | | ENSAFRICA RE S | 9,007.38 |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 |\n| | 08-19 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX3313P00001912 KOBRE AND KIM GCC EBILAEADXXX RE KWOK 15,951.20 FOR | |\n| | | KOBRE AND KIM | 15,951.20 |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 |\n| | 08-19 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX3313P00001882 KOBRE AND KIM GCC EBILAEADXXX RE KWOK 45,813.90 FOR | |\n| | | KOBRE AND KIM | 45,813.90 |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 |\n| | 08-19 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX3313P00001851 PALLAS PARTNERS LL COUTGB22XXX RE KWOK 170,919.80 FOR | |\n| | | PALLAS PARTNE | 170,919.80 |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 |\n| | 08-19 Intl Wire Xfer | BXX3313P00001830 HARNEY WESTWOOD AN FCIBVGVGXXX REF KWOK 906,181.48 | |\n| | | FOR HARNEY WESTW | 906,181.48 |\n| | 08-19 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 |\n| | 08-27 Preauth Debit | QUARTERLY FEE PAYMENT 250827 0000 | 3,000.15 |\n| | | | |\n\n#### **DAILY BALANCES**\n\n| Date | Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount |\n|-------|---------------|-------|----------------|-------|--------------|\n| 07-31 | 10,374,621.48 | 08-08 | 10,301,564.29 | 08-26 | 7,328,010.09 |\n| 08-01 | 10,406,331.76 | 08-12 | 10,286, 144.24 | 08-27 | 7,325,009.94 |\n| 08-06 | 10,382,941.95 | 08-13 | 10,202,680.23 | | |\n| 08-07 | 10,306,597.50 | 08-19 | 7,328,329.41 | | |\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n\n#### **Checking Account** Case 22-50073 Doc 4675 Filed 09/22/25 Entered 09/22/25 18:38:24 Page 25 of 25\n\n**Statement Date Page**\n\n**08/31/2025 4 of 4**\n\n","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","Yanping Wang"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2193,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":10320,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-22","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:48"},{"id":"court_sdny_749_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":749,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-09-16","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n| | : | |\n|----------------------------|---|------------------------|\n| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | : | |\n| | : | |\n| Plaintiff, | : | |\n| | : | |\n| vs. | : | No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT) |\n| | : | |\n| MILES GUO AND YVETTE WANG, | : | |\n| | : | |\n| Defendants. | : | |\n| | : | |\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_## **POST OAK MOTORS, LLC'S VERIFIED PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF THIRD-PARTY INTEREST IN PROPERTY SUBJECT TO PRELIMINARY FORFEITURE ORDER**\n\nPost Oak Motors, LLC d/b/a Post Oak Motor Cars, Ltd. and Bugatti Houston (\"Post Oak\"), through its attorneys Finn Dixon & Herling LLP, petitions this Court pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(c) and asserts its superior right, title, and interest to specific property subject to this Court's Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment, ECF 720 (the \"Preliminary Forfeiture Order\").\n\n# **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. This is a petition to establish Post Oak's ownership of the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport bearing the Vehicle Identification Number VF9SW3V3XNM795047 (the \"Bugatti\") that the government erroneously seeks to forfeit.\n\n2. Post Oak is an automotive dealership that specializes in rare and exotic vehicles, and high-value vehicle maintenance. Post Oak is an authorized retailer for Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., d/b/a Bugatti Automobiles of the Americas, and Volkswagen of America, Inc., d/b/a Bugatti Automobiles USA (together, \"Bugatti Automobiles\"). As an authorized retailer, Post Oak\n\norders and purchases bespoke vehicles, like the Bugatti, from Bugatti Automobiles for re-sale to Post Oak's customers.\n\n3. Post Oak entered an agreement with G Club International Limited (\"G Club\") to sell G Club a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport. Post Oak in turn entered an agreement with Bugatti Automobiles to purchase a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport.\n\n4. Post Oak paid Bugatti Automobiles in full for the Bugatti and accepted delivery of the Bugatti at its dealership, thereby acquiring title to the vehicle.\n\n5. However, G Club never took title from Post Oak, as the sale of the Bugatti from Post Oak to G Club was never consummated. While G Club paid Post Oak the amounts due to Post Oak under the agreement, G Club never accepted delivery of the Bugatti (as is required to transfer title under applicable law), never provided necessary information for Post Oak to register the Bugatti in the name of G Club or any individual, and never received a certificate of title to the Bugatti. Post Oak therefore retains title to the Bugatti.\n\n6. After Post Oak paid Bugatti Automobiles for the vehicle in full and accepted delivery, Post Oak maintained possession, custody, and control of the Bugatti at its dealership until it was seized by the United States Marshals (the \"Marshals\"). Post Oak fully cooperated with the Marshals in their seizure of the Bugatti. Post Oak also cooperated extensively with the government in its investigation of G Club's attempt to purchase the Bugatti. After the Bugatti was seized, Post Oak has continued to cooperate by providing testimony through its representative at Defendant Miles Guo's criminal trial and by performing regular maintenance on the Bugatti.\n\n7. Despite its good faith purchase of the Bugatti from Bugatti Automobiles, Post Oak has now been placed in an unjust and untenable position by duplicative claims from the government in this forfeiture matter and from the chapter 11 trustee appointed in Defendant Guo's\n\nbankruptcy proceedings pending in the District of Connecticut (the \"Trustee\"), both of whom purport to be acting in the interests of Defendant Guo's creditors and victims. The government seeks to forfeit a vehicle Post Oak paid for and to which it retains title under the law, while the Trustee has asserted claims against Post Oak seeking to recover funds paid by G Club toward its purchase of the Bugatti—funds Post Oak no longer has because they were passed in good faith almost immediately to Bugatti Automobiles to satisfy the purchase price Post Oak owed for its purchase of the vehicle. *See Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee v. Post Oak Motors, LLC*, No. 24- 05017 (Bankr. D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2024).\n\n8. Because the government seeks to forfeit the vehicle, which Post Oak still owns, while the Trustee seeks the funds paid by G Club, which Post Oak used to purchase the vehicle from Bugatti Automobiles, Post Oak is in an impossible position and has no choice but to petition the Court to confirm its ownership of the Bugatti. Post Oak does not seek any windfall through these proceedings: by establishing its ownership of the Bugatti and obtaining its return, Post Oak seeks only to protect itself against millions of dollars in losses as a result of nothing more than its good faith participation in what it reasonably believed at the time was a routine transaction.\n\n#### **PARTIES**\n\n9. Post Oak is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Texas.\n\n10. Defendant Guo is one of the two defendants in this criminal action. According to the government's allegations, Defendant Guo is affiliated with G Club, ECF 2 ¶ 10, the entity with which Post Oak contracted for the sale of the Bugatti.\n\n11. The United States of America is prosecuting Defendant Guo and has obtained the Preliminary Forfeiture Order, which it seeks to enforce against Post Oak's property.\n\n# **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**\n\n12. On information and belief, on March 15, 2023, Defendant Guo was arrested pursuant to an indictment filed on March 6, 2023. *See* ECF 2. The indictment charged Defendant Guo with several counts including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.\n\n*Id.* The indictment also contained the following forfeiture allegations:\n\n[Defendants] shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses and, and [sic] the following specific property:\n\n…\n\nA Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number VF9SW3V3XNM795047[.]\n\n*Id.* ¶ 54(w).\n\n13. On July 16, 2024, the jury found Defendant Guo guilty on Counts One (Racketeering Conspiracy), Two (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud or Bank Fraud), Three (Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering), Four (Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud), Seven (Wire Fraud for a Farm Loan Program), Eight (Securities Fraud for a Farm Loan Program), Nine (Wire Fraud related to \"G|Clubs\"), Ten (Securities Fraud related to \"G|Clubs\"), and Eleven (Wire Fraud related to the Himalaya Exchange). ECF 395.\n\n14. On August 11, 2025, the Court entered the Preliminary Forfeiture Order against Defendant Guo.1 The Preliminary Forfeiture Order preliminarily forfeited to the government all of\n\n1 The Bugatti was previously identified in the Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment as against Defendant Yvette Wang. *See* ECF 488, at ¶ aa. The government thereafter requested that the forfeiture matters as to Defendant Wang be stayed pending entry of the Preliminary Forfeiture Order as to Defendant Guo. ECF 671. Post Oak timely secured the government's agreement that any petition with respect to the Bugatti would be filed in connection with the Preliminary Forfeiture Order as to Defendant Guo.\n\nthe Defendant's right, title, and interest to the Bugatti, subject to the adjudication of third-party interests. ECF 720.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n#### **I. Post Oak's Business**\n\n15. Post Oak is a luxury automotive dealership that sells exotic vehicles and \"hypercars,\" high-performance cars boasting advanced automotive technology that are generally manufactured in limited production allocations and typically sell for millions of dollars.\n\n16. Hypercars are often manufactured on a bespoke basis. Instead of purchasing a car from a dealership's inventory, purchasers contact dealerships to order a vehicle configured by the manufacturer to the purchaser's desired specifications. These specifications can include interior and exterior colors, material used in the wheels and trim, accessories, and other details. The car is then manufactured pursuant to the specifications, and purchased by the dealership for re-sale to the customer.\n\n17. Bugatti manufactures hypercars, including the Chiron model. The Bugatti Chiron was produced in a limited production run of just 500 vehicles across all trim levels. One such trim level of the Bugatti Chiron is the Super Sport, of which fewer than 100 were manufactured.\n\n#### **II. Post Oak's Relationship with Bugatti Automobiles**\n\n18. Post Oak is party to a Retailer Agreement with Bugatti Automobiles, which allows Post Oak to act as an authorized dealer of vehicles manufactured by Bugatti Automobiles, including the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport.\n\n19. The Retailer Agreement incorporates certain Standard Provisions and Retailer Operating Standards, which, among other things, govern Post Oak's dealings with Bugatti Automobiles and certain aspects of its operation of its dealership and the sales of vehicles manufactured by Bugatti Automobiles to Post Oak's customers.\n\n20. Under the Retailer Agreement, Post Oak is permitted to purchase vehicles from Bugatti Automobiles for re-sale to Post Oak's customers, pursuant to purchase terms established by Bugatti Automobiles.\n\n21. The Retailer Agreement is governed by Texas law.\n\n22. Vehicles are considered \"goods,\" and therefore transactions involving vehicles are subject to the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the version of the Uniform Commercial Code (\"UCC\") adopted in Texas. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.105(a) (defining \"Goods\" as \"all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Chapter 8) and things in action.\"); *One Ford Mustang, VIN 1FAFP40471F207859 v. Texas*, 231 S.W.3d 445, 451 (Ct. App. Tex. 2007) (\"Motor vehicles necessarily fit within this definition [of 'goods'].\") (citing Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.105(a)).\n\n23. Under the Texas Business and Commerce Code, title to a vehicle passes upon physical delivery of the vehicle unless agreed otherwise by the parties. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.401(a) (\"[T]itle to goods passes from the seller to the buyer in any manner and on any conditions explicitly agreed on by the parties.\"); *id.* at § 2.401(b) (\"Unless otherwise explicitly agreed title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods.\"); *see also, e.g.*, *First Nat. Bank of El Campo, Tx v. Buss*, 143 S.W.3d 915, 920 (Tex. App. 2004) (\"The Code provides, unless otherwise explicitly agreed, that title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods.\") (citing Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.401(b)).\n\n24. Here, Post Oak and Bugatti Automobiles agreed expressly as to when title to the Bugatti purchased by Post Oak would transfer from Bugatti Automobiles to Post Oak.\n\n25. According to the Retailer Agreement, title to vehicles purchased by Post Oak from Bugatti Automobiles remains with Bugatti Automobiles until Bugatti Automobiles receives the purchase price in full.\n\n26. Specifically, the Retailer Agreement provides that: (i) in the event a vehicle is delivered to Post Oak prior to receipt of the entire purchase price, Bugatti Automobiles retains a purchase price security interest in the vehicle; (ii) upon delivery of the vehicle to Post Oak, Post Oak assumes, and must insure against, all risks to the vehicle; and (iii) upon payment of the purchase price in full, title transfers to Post Oak.\n\n#### **III. G Club Agrees to Purchase the Bugatti from Post Oak**\n\n27. A dealership in the United Kingdom, H.R. Owen, contacted Post Oak because its customer, Mileson Guo, and his company G Club were interested in purchasing a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport configured for use in the United States. H.R. Owen required a U.S. retailer to handle the transaction.\n\n28. Post Oak had no prior knowledge of or dealings with Defendant Guo or G Club and accepted the referral from H.R. Owen.\n\n29. At the time of the referral, G Club provided H.R. Owen with a configuration of the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport it sought to purchase, reflected in a Personal Configuration dated October 25, 2021.\n\n30. On October 28, 2021, Post Oak and G Club (through Limarie Reyes, the Chief Executive Officer of G Club), executed a Supplemental Terms of Purchase for a Bugatti Chiron Super Sport (the \"Supplemental Terms\"), which, among other things, contemplated a series of deadlines for G Club to make payments to Post Oak toward the purchase price of the Bugatti. The\n\nSupplemental Terms also included the final configuration of the Bugatti to be ordered by Post Oak from Bugatti Automobiles.\n\n31. Post Oak received a small commission from Bugatti Automobiles for its work on the transaction, which it split with H.R. Owen.\n\n#### **IV. Post Oak Orders, Pays For, and Accepts Delivery of the Bugatti**\n\n32. Relying on G Club's agreement to the Supplemental Terms, Post Oak placed an order for the Bugatti with Bugatti Automobiles, and received invoices from Bugatti Automobiles for the amounts due from Post Oak.\n\n33. Following receipt of a series of payments from G Club for the Bugatti, in December 2022 Post Oak made the final payment due to Bugatti Automobiles for Post Oak's purchase of the vehicle.\n\n34. Pursuant to the Retailer Agreement, title passed from Bugatti Automobiles to Post Oak once the vehicle was paid for in full.\n\n35. The transfer of title from Bugatti Automobiles to Post Oak is further evidenced by the issuance on January 5, 2023 of a Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (\"MCO\") for the Bugatti, certifying that the Bugatti was transferred to Post Oak Motor Cards, Ltd.\n\n36. The Bugatti was delivered to Post Oak on January 10, 2023. Post Oak accepted the delivery.\n\n37. As title holder and pursuant to the terms of the Retailer Agreement, all risks with respect to the Bugatti were borne by Post Oak upon delivery of the vehicle to its premises. Post Oak maintained insurance for the Bugatti, and was required to perform complex and costly maintenance of the vehicle on a regular basis.\n\n38. Post Oak's facilities include surveilled garages with controlled access points, and Post Oak utilizes a digital lockbox to safeguard the keys to the vehicles in its inventory. In short,\n\nPost Oak had possession, custody, and control of the Bugatti in addition to having title to the Bugatti.\n\n# **V. Post Oak's Sale of the Bugatti to G Club was Never Consummated**\n\n39. Despite Post Oak's receipt of the funds due from G Club under its agreement to purchase the Bugatti, Post Oak's sale of the Bugatti to G Club was never consummated.\n\n40. The Supplemental Terms designate the application of Virginia law. However, the distinction between the Texas and Virgina versions of the UCC is irrelevant here.2 In both jurisdictions, title to a vehicle passes upon physical delivery, unless the parties explicitly agree otherwise. *Compare* Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.401(b) (\"Unless otherwise explicitly agreed title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods\") *with* Va. Code 8.2-401(2) (same).\n\n41. The agreement between Post Oak and G Club does not contain any agreement regarding the passing of title. To the contrary, the Supplemental Terms provide that Post Oak will provide notice to G Club when the vehicle is available for G Club to take possession, and that G Club is required to take possession of the vehicle within a certain time period of receiving such notice. Therefore, the default rule under the UCC controls here: title would pass upon Post Oak's delivery of the Bugatti to G Club.\n\n42. But Post Oak never delivered the Bugatti. Although Post Oak attempted to elicit the necessary information from G Club to finalize the delivery, G Club stopped responding to Post\n\n2 As in Texas, in Virginia motor vehicles qualify as \"goods\" and are governed by Virgina's version of the UCC. Va. Code § 8.2-105(1) (defining \"Goods\" as \"all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (Title 8.8A) and things in action.\"); *see also, e.g., Manassas Autocars, Inc. v. Couth*, 274 Va. 82 (2007) (applying the UCC as adopted in Virginia to a dispute over a vehicle).\n\nOak, and the delivery was never completed. Therefore, title to the vehicle never passed from Post Oak to G Club.\n\n43. Post Oak retained possession, custody, and control of the Bugatti until May 11, 2023, when Post Oak cooperated with the government in its seizure of the vehicle.\n\n44. G Club's failure to take delivery was a significant missing step in the contemplated transaction, implicating not only the transfer of title, but various other rights and obligations.\n\n45. The fact that title to the Bugatti was never transferred to G Club is further evidenced by Post Oak's retention and current possession of the MCO.\n\n46. An MCO, also sometimes known as a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin or MSO, is a necessary step in obtaining a title for a vehicle. In order to register a car after a purchase, the relevant state's Departments of Motor Vehicles (\"DMV\") or analogous state agency requires the MCO to establish the vehicle's origin and the chain of ownership, first from the manufacturer to the dealership, and then in turn from the dealership to the purchaser. Only on receipt of the MCO will a DMV issue a certificate of title and registration to the vehicle's new owner.\n\n47. That did not happen here. Post Oak never provided the MCO to G Club or any affiliated individual, and neither G Club nor anyone affiliated with it ever received title to the Bugatti.\n\n48. Until the government's seizure of the Bugatti, Post Oak continued to insure the vehicle and bear all risks. Indeed, Post Oak has continued to service the Bugatti even after the government seized it.\n\n49. After seizure of the vehicle, Post Oak continued to cooperate with the government in connection with Defendant Guo's trial. Lonny Soza, Post Oak's General Manager based in\n\nTexas, met with prosecutors on two separate occasions and testified at Defendant Guo's trial in New York on June 6, 2024 regarding Post Oak's dealings with G Club.\n\n# **VI. The Government's Erroneous Claim to the Bugatti**\n\n50. The Preliminary Forfeiture Order includes the Bugatti in the list of assets regarding which the government \"seeks the forfeiture of all Defendant's right, title, and interest.\"\n\n51. But the government has no claim to the Bugatti because Defendant Guo never had any right, title, or interest in the Bugatti that could be forfeited to the government. First, the prospective purchaser of the Bugatti was G Club, not Defendant Guo. G Club is not a defendant in this action, and there is no preliminary forfeiture as to any interests it could have had in the Bugatti. Second, the sale was never completed, and title in the Bugatti never passed to G Club (or Defendant Guo) under applicable law.\n\n52. Accordingly, Post Oak, not Defendant Guo or G Club, had right, title, and interest in the Bugatti at all relevant times, including \"at the time of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A).\n\n53. For the foregoing reasons, the Bugatti is not subject to forfeiture, should be excluded from any final forfeiture order, and should be returned to Post Oak.\n\n## **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, Post Oak respectfully requests a final judgment:\n\n- A. declaring that Post Oak possesses right, title and interest to the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport bearing Vehicle Identification Number VF9SW3V3XNM795047 superior to the government and all other petitioners;\n- B. excluding the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport bearing Vehicle Identification Number VF9SW3V3XNM795047 from any final order of forfeiture entered in this action;\n- C. enjoining the government to turn over to Post Oak the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport bearing Vehicle Identification Number VF9SW3V3XNM795047;\n- D. awarding Post Oak its attorney's fees; and\n\nE. providing such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: September 10, 2025 Stamford, Connecticut\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n## FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP\n\nBy*: /s/ David R. Allen* David R. Allen Eli Yampel dallen@fdh.com eyampel@fdh.com Six Landmark Square Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Tel: (203) 325-5000 Fax: (203) 325-5001\n\n> *Attorneys for Petitioner Post Oak Motors, LLC*\n\n#### **VERIFICATION**\n\nI, Lonny Soza, General Manager at Post Oak Motors, LLC, declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that I have read Post Oak Motors, LLC's Verified Petition for Determination of Third Party Interest in Property Subject to Forfeiture and verify that the statements contained therein are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.\n\nDated: September *\\_B\\_\\_,* 2025\n\ny Soza\n\nGeneral Manager, Post Oak Motors, LLC\n\n## **CERTIFICATION**\n\nI hereby certify that on September 10, 2025, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.\n\nBy: */s/ David R. Allen* David R. Allen FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP Six Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2704 Tel: (203) 325-5000 Fax: (203) 325-5001 E-mail: dallen@fdh.com","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Guo","forfeiture","Je","Miles Guo","Farm Loan","853(n)","CIPA","Despins","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":395,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":671,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":720,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":3597,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-16 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-16","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:50"},{"id":"court_sdny_748_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":748,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-09-15","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n-against-\n\nMILES GUO, KIN MING JE, and YVETTE WANG,\n\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ DATE FILED: \\_\\_9/15/2025\\_\\_\\_\n\n23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n**ORDER**\n\nDefendants.\n\nANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nThe Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to add Post Oak Motors, LLC, to the docket as an interested party in this case.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: September 15, 2025 New York, New York\n\n[Signature]","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Guo","Miles Guo","Je","Kin Ming Je","Torres","Analisa Torres"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":77,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-15","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:49"},{"id":"court_sdny_746_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":746,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-09-11","title":"RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"**RECEIVED**\n\nCLERK'S OFFICE\n\nS.D.N.Y.\n\n**100%** RECYCLABLE\n\nEXPRESS WORLDWIDE **DOX DHL**\n\n2025-04-05 MDP 1.0 / 40-160807\n\n| From: | [Blacked out area] | Origin: | RTM |\n|-------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-----|\n| To: | Clerk of the Court
Southern District Court of the United States
Pearl Street 500
Room 120
10007, New York
United States | Contact: | |\n\n**US-ZYP-ZY4**\n\n| NPA | |\n|------------|--|\n| Day | |\n| Time | |\n\nContent: letter\n\n| Pce/Shpt Weight | 0.5 kg |\n|-----------------|---------------|\n| Piece | 1/1 |\n\nWAYBILL 44 1573 3696\n\n(2L)US10007+42000000\n\n(J) VGLF XP14 8154 9951\n\n# CLAIM FORM\n\n\n\n### You must complete all Parts of This Form For The ASSETS You are CLAIMING.\n\nNote: There is no legal form or format required for filing a claim; this document is provided for your convenience. Please visit http for more specific guidance on filing your claim whith the appropriate seizing agency.\n\nFrivolous Claim Statement: If a court finds that a claimant's assettion of an interest in property was frivolous, the court may impose a civil fine. Tille 18 United States Code, Subsction 983(h). A false statement or claimmay subject a person to criminal prosecution under Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1001 and 1621.\n\nPrivacy Act Notice: The Department of Justice is collecting this information for the purpose of processing your claim. Providing this information is voluntary; however, the information is necessary to process your application. Information collected is covered by Privacy Act System of Records Notice Department of Justice (DOJ-DO2 DOJ Computer Systems Activity & Access Records, Federal Register (71 FR 20170). This information only be disclosed to contractors when necessary to accomplish an agency function, to law enforcement when there is a violation or potential violation of law, or in accordance with other published routine uses. For a complete list of routine uses, see the system of records notice listed above.\n\n## Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 1 of 14\n\n### SECTION I - CONTACT INFORMATION\n\n**PETITIONER INFORMATION**\n\n| Petitioner/Contact Name: (Last, First) | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|----------------------------------------|--|\n| Business/Institution Name: (if applicable) | | Prisoner ID: (if applicable) | |\n| Address: (Include Street, City, State, and Zip Code) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Social Security Number/Tax Identification Number: (Enter N/A if you do not have one) | | N/A | |\n| Please provide an explanation why you do not have a Social Security Number, if above is N/A: | | I have not lived in the United States. | |\n| Phone: (optional) | | Email: (optional) | |\n\n**ATTORNEY INFORMATION (if applicable)**\n\n| Attorney Name: (Last, First) | | N/A | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|-----|--|\n| Attorney Title: | | | |\n| Firm Name: (if applicable) | | | |\n| Attorney Address: (Include Street, City, State, and Zip Code) | | | |\n| | | | |\n\nAre you an attorney filing this petition on behalf of your client? □ YES □ NO\n\n| Attorney Phone: (optional) | | Attorney Email: (optional) | |\n|----------------------------|--|----------------------------|--|\n|----------------------------|--|----------------------------|--|\n\nIf any of this information changes, you are responsible for notifying the agency of the new information.\n\n## Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 2 of 14\n\n## SECTION II - ASSET LIST\n\nList each asset ID and asset description that you are claiming.\n\n| # | Asset ID | Asset Description |\n|---|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | | \\$14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account n
umber at FV Bank, held in the name of \"Himalaya Internat
ional Clearing, Ltd.\" and seized by the Government on or about September 2
0, 2022 |\n| 2 | | \\$89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account n
umber at Silvergate Bank, held in the name of \"Hamilton Opp
ortunity Fund SPC\" and seized by the Government on or about September
18, 2022 |\n\nIn the space below, please explain why you have a valid, good faith, and legally recognizable interest in this asset:\n\n(the Petitioner\"), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 32.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, herby respectfully petitions the Court for a determination of the Petitioner s interest in specific property subject to the Court s Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment, signed by Your Honor on January 6, 2025 and entered on January 7, 2025, (the Forfeiture Order\") which includes various bank accounts ( Forfeited Accounts\"), Dkt. 488, to exclude all property in which the Petifioner has right, title, and interest, namely, \\$436,000 (the Property\"). In support hereof, the Petitioner states as follows:\n\n2 .m 2021 and 2022, I invested \\$33,000 into the Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd. account to purchase virtual currency (H-Coin) through the Himalaya Exchange. However, I have not received any returns on my investment.\n\n3, In 2022, I invested \\$10,3000 into the Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC. However, I have not received any relums on my investment.\n\n4, I the petitioner never received any funds or investment back from the investments before they were seized by the government, having now suffered a total of unrecovered funds of my \\$436,000 investment.\n\n5.1, the petitioner, was not consulted prior to the entry of the Forfeiture Order. Petitioner had no knowledge that Defendant Wang consented to forfeit the Properly. I invested in Hamilton Opportunity Fund to support the Whistleblower Movement which is led by Miles Guo. I believe that Mr. Guo is not lying,he is simply doing the right thing to take down the C.CP\n\n6, As an owner of the above listed assets, I, the petitioner has an interest in the Property which Defendant Wang had no authority to agree to forfeit. Rather, Petitioner has a superior interest in the Property which cannot be the subject of the Forfeiture Order relating to Defendant Wang.\n\n### Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 3 of 14\n\n7, I was not involved in, nor did I have any knowledge of the Defendants' activities, Accordingly, I am also an innocent third party pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Any third party asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may.. petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2). The petition, which is sworn and signed by the me, shall s e t forth t h e n a t u r e a n d extent of the petitioners right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the petitioner s acquisition of the right, title, or interest in theproperty, and additional facts supporting the petitioner s claim, and the relief sought.\" Id. § 853(n)(3).\n\n8,Here, I, the petitioner is the lawful owner of the Property. 16. Alternatively, Petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of my interest in the Property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(B).\n\n9, Petitioner was made aware of the Order of Forfeiture by viewing it at www.forfeiture.gov (which was published from February 6, 2025 through March 7, 2025) noting that: pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 835(n), persons other than the defendant who wish to assert a legal interest in property that has been ordered forfeited to the United States must file a petition for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of their alleged interest in the property with the Court within thirty (30) days of the final publication of notice, or receipt of actual notice, whichever is earlier.\"\n\n10, Petitioner has filed this petition within 60 days of the initial publication of notice. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests and petitions this Court:\n\na. to amend the Forfeiture Order to exclude the Property in which Petitioner has a rightful interest as an innocent third party, superior interest, and/or a bona fide purchaser for value.\n\nb. A hearing pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) on any disputed matters.\n\nc. Compensation for the value of Petitioner's interest if the Petition is denied;\n\nd. Any other relief the Court d e e m s just a n d proper.\n\ne. To protect the Petitioner's personal information by ensuring it is redacted in all court records and proceedings.\n\nDated: April 6, 2025\n\nIn the space below, please list any documents you are including in support of your interest in the asset(s). If none are included, please explain why.\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 4 of 14\n\n# (; otpbonk\n\nOTP bank Nyri.\n\n1051 Budapest, Nádor utca 16.\n\nTel.:06-1-473-5000\n\nFax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n### Tranzakció adatai\n\n| Tranzakció típusa | Belföldi utalás |\n|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Forrás számla | [Blacked out] |\n| Kedvezményezett | Himalaya International Clearing Ltd
[Blacked out] |\n| Összeg | 50000 USD |\n| Közlemény | 0 [Blacked out] Commerce House, WickhamsCay
1, Ro [Blacked out] Himalaya International
Clearing Ltd ad Town, Tortola, BVI VG1110 [Blacked out] |\n| Utalás/tranzakció dátuma | 2021-08-10 10:53:00 |\n| Tranzakció azonosító | 29 |\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 5of 14\n\n\n\nOTP bank Nyrt. 1051 Budapest, Nádor ulca 16. Tel.: 06-1-473-5000\n\nFax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n### Tranzakció adatai\n\nTranzakció tipusa Forrás számla Kedvezményezett Összeg Közlemény Utalás/Iranzakció dátuma\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\nBelföldi utalás\n\nHimalaya International Clearing Lld\n\n#### 50000 USD\n\nCommerce House, Wickhams 01 Himalaya International Cay 1, Ro Clearing Ltd ad Town, Tortola, BVI VG1110\n\n2021-10-29 13:39:00\n\n## Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 6of 14\n\n(; otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrt. 1051 Budapest, Nádor utca 16. Tel.: 06-1-473-5000 Fax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n### Tranzakció adatai\n\nTranzakció típusa\n\nForrás számla\n\nKedvezményezett\n\nÖsszeg\n\nKözlemény\n\nUtalás/tranzakció dátuma\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\nBelföldi utalás\n\nHimalaya International Clearing Ltd\n\n#### 100000 USD\n\nCommerce House, Wickhams O Cay 1, Ro Himalaya International Clearing Ltd ad Town, Tortola, BVI VG1110\n\n2021-11-05 12:50:00\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 7 of 14\n\n(; otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrt. 1051 Budapest, Nádor utca 16. Tel. 06-1-473-5000 Fax.:06-1-473-5955 www.otpbank.hu\n\n# Tranzakció adatai\n\nBelföldi utalás\n\nHimalaya International Clearing Ltd\n\n50000 USD\n\n 0\nCay 1, Ro Clearing Ltd ad Town, Tortola, BVI VG1110\n\n2021-11-19 07:50:00\n\n40\n\nTranzakció típusa\n\nKedvezményezett\n\nUtalás/tranzakció dátuma\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\nForrás számla\n\nÖsszeg\n\nKözlemény\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 8 of 14\n\n\n\n(; otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrt. 1051 Budapest, Nádor ulca 16. Tel.: 06-1-473-5000\n\nFax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n#### Tranzakció adatai\n\nTranzakció fípusa\n\nForrás számla\n\nKedvezményezett\n\nŐsszeg\n\nKözlemény\n\nUtalás/tranzakció dátuma\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\nBelföldi utalás\n\nHimalaya International Clearing Ltd\n\n#### 38000 USD\n\nCommerce House, Wickhams 0 Himalaya International Cay 1, Ro Clearing Ltd ad Town, Tortola, BVI VG1110\n\n2021-12-06 08:54:00\n\n# Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT | Filed 04/06/25 Page 9of 14\n\n# G otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyri.\n\n1051 Budapest, Nádor utca 16,\n\nTel.:06-1-473-5000 Fax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n### Tranzakció adatai\n\n| Tranzakció típusa | Belföldi utalás |\n|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Forrás számla | |\n| Kedvezményezett | Himalaya International Clearing Ltd |\n| Összeg | 25000 USD |\n| Közlemény | 0 Commerce House, Wickhams
Cay 1, Ro Himalaya International
Clearing Ltd ad Town, Tortola, BVI VG1110 |\n| Utalás/tranzakció dátuma | 2022-03-10 14:31:00 |\n| Tranzakció azonosító | 60 |\n\nCase 1:23-cr-# 00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 10 of 14\n\n# & otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrt. 1051 Budapest, Nádor utca 16. Tel.:06-1-473-5000 Fax,:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n### Tranzakció adatai\n\nTranzakció lípusa Belföldi utalás Forrás számla Himalaya International Clearing Ltd Kedvezményezett Összeg 20000 USD 0 Commerce House, Wickhams Cay 1, Ro Himalaya International Közlemény Clearing Ltd ad Town, Tortola, BVI VG1110 Utalás/tranzakció dátuma\n\n2022-02-15 12:17:00\n\nરક\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\n# Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page11 of 14\n\n0 1/2\n\n👍 otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrt. 1051 Budapest. Nádor ulca 16. Tel.:06-1-473-5000 Fax.:06-1-473-5955 www.olpbank.hu\n\n### Tranzakció adatai\n\nBelföldi utalás Tranzakció típusa Forrás számla Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC on be Kedvezményezett 100500 USD Összeg HAMILTON MA FUND 0 . SP CLAhalf of Hamilton M and A Fund SP Közlemény Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC on be be be 2022-01-24 09:33:00 Utalás/franzakció dátuma 52 Tranzakció azonosító\n\nCase\n\n# 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 12 of 14\n\n日 1/2\n\n(; otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrt.\n\n1051 Budapest, Nádor ulca 18.\n\nTel.:06-1-473-5000\n\nFax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.ofpbank.hu\n\n### Tranzakció adatai\n\nBelföldi utalás Tranzakció tipusa Forrás számla Hamillon Opportunity Fund SPC on be Kedvezményezett 2500 USD Összeg HAMILTON MA FUND 0 SP CLAhaif of Hamilton M and A Fund SP Közlemény Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC on bel 2022-02-02 12:07:00 Ulalás/tranzakció dátuma 54 Tranzakció azonosiló\n\nStandard Petition Form\n\n### Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 13 of 14\n\n### SECTION IV - RECOVERY OF LOSS\n\nComplete this section for assets you have recovered all or a portion of your losses either via an insurance claim and/or via some other source of recovery. If you have more recovery of loss information than may fit on this page, print out multiple copies of this page to attach with the claim and indicate which assets apply to each page. If you have not received any recovery of your losses, then leave this section blank.\n\n| RECOVERY OF LOSS INFORMATION | |\n|------------------------------|-------------------|\n| Asset ID | Asset Description |\n| N/A | N/A |\n| | |\n\n| INSURANCE CLAIM INFORMATION (if applicable) | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|\n| Name of Insured: (Last, First) | |\n| Policy Number: | Claim Number: |\n| Name of Insurance Company: | Name of Insurance Agent: (Last, First) |\n| Insurance Company Address: (Include Street, City, State, and Zip Code) | |\n| Phone: (optional) | Email: (optional) |\n| Have you received compensation from the insurance company? □ YES □ NO | Amount of Compensation: |\n\nIf other sources of recovery exist (e.g., restitution, returns on investments), please list and describe the details below.\n\n| OTHER SOURCE(S) OF RECOVERY (if applicable) | |\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------|\n| Source of Recovery 1: | Amount of Recovery: |\n| Source of Recovery 2: | Amount of Recovery: |\n\nIn the space below, please list any documents you are including in support of your claim of recovery of loss. lf none are included, please explain why.\n\nI have not recovered any funds from any source.\n\n# SECTION VII - DECLARATION AND REPRESENTATION\n\nThe following declaration must be completed by the claimant.\n\nl attest and declare under penally of perjury that my olaim is not frivolous and the information provided in support of\nand the first and a worlds the has at my knowledge a i attest and declare under penally of polyary that my\nmy claim is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nIn Leidschendam, Netherlands\n\nSignature\n\nPrinted Name\n\n04/06/2025\n\nDate","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Himalaya","forfeiture","853(n)","Je","Guo","Miles Guo","Himalaya Exchange","Rule 32.2"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":2370,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-11","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:48"},{"id":"court_sdny_747_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":747,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-09-11","title":"RECEIVED CLERK'S OFFICE","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# RECEIVED\n\nCLERK'S OFFICE\nS.D.N.Y.\n\n100% RECYCLABLE\n\nEXPRESS WORLDWIDE DOX DHL\n2025-04-05 MDP 1.0 / '40-180807'\n\n| Labels | Values |\n|--------|--------|\n| From | |\n| Origin | RTM |\n\nTo: Clerk of the Court\nSouthern District Court of the United States\nPearl Street 500\nRoom 120\n10007 New York\nUnited States\n\nContact:\n\n# US-ZYP-ZY4\n\n| Labels | Values |\n|--------|--------|\n| Day | |\n| Time | |\n\nNPA\n\n| Labels | Values |\n|-----------------|--------|\n| Content | letter |\n| Pce/Shpt Weight | 0.5 kg |\n| Piece | 1/1 |\n\nWAYBILL 44 1573 3696\n\n(2L)US10007+42000000\n\n(J) VGLE XP14 8154 9951\n\n# CLAIM FORM\n\n\n\n### YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL PARTS OF THIS FORM FOR THE ASSETS YOU ARE CLAIMING.\n\nNote: There is no legal form or formal required for filing a claim; this document is provided for your convenience. Please visit http for more specific guidance on filing your claim with the appropriate seizing agency.\n\nFrivolous Glaim Statement: If a court finds that a claimant's assertion of an interest in property was frivolous, the court may impose a civil fine. Title 18 United States Code, Subsection 983(h). A false statement or claim may subject a person to criminal prosecution under Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1001 and 1621.\n\nPrivacy Act Notice: The Department of Justice is collecting this information for the purpose of processing your claim. Providing this information is voluntary, however, the information is necessary to process your application. Information collected is covered by Privacy Act System of Records Notice Department of Justice (DOJ), DOJ-002-DOJ Computer Systems Activity & Access Records, Federal Register (71 FR 29170). This information may be disclosed to contractors when necessary to accomplish an agency function, to law enforcement when there is a violation or potential violation of law, or in accordance with other published routine uses. For a complete list of routine uses, see the system of records notice listed above.\n\n#### Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 1 of 8\n\n### SECTION I - CONTACT INFORMATION\n\n| CONSULTION PETITIONER INFORMATION . CONSULTION . CONSULTION . CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CONSULTION CO | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| Petitioner/Contact Name: (Last, First) | | | | |\n| Business/Institution Name: (if applicable) | Prisoner ID: (if applicable) | | | |\n| Address: (Include Street, City, State, and Zip Code) | | | | |\n| Social Security Number/Tax Identification Number: (Enter N/A if you do not have one)
N/A | | | | |\n| Please provide an explanation why you do not have a Social Security Number, if above is N/A:
I have not lived in the United States. | | | | |\n| Phone: (optional) | Email: (optional) | | | |\n| REE BENEVER SECTION ATTORNEY INFORMATION (if applicable) (if applicable) | | | | |\n| Attorney Name: (Last, First)
N/A | | | | |\n| Attorney Title: | | | | |\n| Firm Name: (if applicable) | | | | |\n| Attorney Address: (Include Street, City, State, and Zip Code) | | | | |\n| Are you an attorney filing this petition on behalf of your client? [] YES □ NO | | | | |\n| Attorney Phone: (optional) | Attorney Email: (optional) | | | |\n\nIf any of this information changes, you are responsible for notifying the agency of the new information.\n\n# Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT Filed 04/06/25 Page 2 of 8\n\n# SECTION II - ASSET LIST\n\nList each asset ID and asset description that you are claiming.\n\n| # | Asset ID | Asset Description |\n|---|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | | \\$14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in account n
umber at FV Bank, held in the name of \"Himalaya Internation
al Clearing, Ltd.\" and seized by the Government on or about September 2
0, 2022 |\n\nIn the space below, please explain why you have a valid, good faith, and legally recognizable interest in this asset.\n\n1, the Petitioner\"), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 32.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, herby respectfully petitions the Court for a determination of the Petitioner s interest in specific property subject to the Court s Consent Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment, signed by Your Honor on January 6, 2025 and entered on January 7, 2025, (the Forfeiture Order\") which includes various bank accounts ( Forfeited Accounts''), Dkt. 488, to exclude all property in which the Petitioner has right, title, and interest, namely, \\$150,300 (the Property\"). In support hereof, the Petitioner states as follows:\n\n2, in 2022, I invested \\$150,300 into the Himalional Clearing, Ltd. account to purchase virtual currency (H-Coin) through the Himalaya Exchange. However, I have not received any returns on my investment.\n\n3, I the petitioner never received any funds or investment back from the investments before they were seized by the government, having now suffered a total of unrecovered funds of my \\$150,300 investment.\n\n4., I, the pelitioner, was not consulted prior to the entry of the Forfeiture Order. Petitioner had no knowledge that Defendant Wang consented to forfeit the Property. I invested in Hamilton Opportunity Fund to support the Whistleblower Movement which is led by Miles Guo. I believe that Mr. Guo is not lying,he is simply doing the right thing to take down the CCP.\n\n5, As an owner of the above listed assets, I, the petitioner has an interest in the Property which Defendant Wang had no authority to agree to forfeit. Rather, Petitioner has a superior interest in the Property which cannot be the subject of the Forfeiture Order relating to Defendant Wang.\n\n6, I was not involved in, nor did I have any knowledge of the Defendants' activities, Accordingly, I am also an innocent third party pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n). Any third party asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may., petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property.\" 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2), The petition, which is sworn and signed by the me, shall s e t forth t h e n a t u r e a n d extent of the petitioners right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the petitioner s acquisition of the right, title, or interest in theproperty, and additional facts supporting the petitioner s claim, and the relief sought.\" Id. § 853(n)(3).\n\n7,Here, I, the petitioner is the lawful owner of the Property. 16. Alternatively, Petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of my interest in the Property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(B).\n\n#### Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 3 of 8\n\n8, Petitioner was made aware of the Order of Forfeiture by viewing it at www.forfeiture.gov (which was published from February 6, 2025 through March 7, 2025) noting that: pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 835(n), persons other than the defendant who wish to assert a legal interest in property that has been ordered forfeited to the United States must file a petition for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of their alleged interest in the property with the Court within thirty (30) days of the final publication of notice, or receipt of actual notice, whichever is earlier.\"\n\n9, Petitioner has filed this petition within 60 days of the initial publication of notice. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests and petitions this Court:\n\na. to amend the Forfeiture Order to exclude the Property in which Petitioner has a rightful interest as an innocent third party, superior interest, and/or a bona fide purchaser for value.\n\nb. A hearing pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) on any disputed matters.\n\nc. Compensation for the value of Petitioner's interest if the Petition is denied;\n\nd. Any other relief the Court d e e m s just a n d proper.\n\ne. To protect the Petitioner's personal information by ensuring it is redacted in all court records and proceedings.\n\nDated: April 6, 2025\n\nIn the space below, please list any documents you are including in support of your interest in the asset(s). If none are included, please explain why.\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 4 of 8\n\n(; otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyri.\n\n1051 Budapest, Nádor utca 16.\n\nTel.: 06-1-473-5000\n\nFax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n# Tranzakció adatai\n\nTranzakció tipusa Forrás számla Kedvezményezett Összeg 0 Commerce House,Wickhams Cay Közlemény Utalás/tranzakció dátuma\n\n18\n\nStandard Petition Form\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\nBelföldi utalás\n\nHimalaya International Clearing Ltd\n\n#### 50100 USD\n\n1,Road Clearing Ltd Town,Tortola,BVI,VG1110\n\n2022-01-31 11:46:00\n\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 5 of 8\n\n(; otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrl. 1051 Budapest, Nádor uica 16, Tel.:06-1-473-5000 Fax.:06-1-473-5955 www.olpbank.hu\n\n# Tranzakció adatai\n\nTranzakció tipusa Belföldi utalás Forrás számla Himalaya International Clearing Ltd Kedvezményezett Ősszeg ,Commerce House,Wickhams Cay 0 Közlemény Utalás/tranzakció dátuma\n\nhalaya International Clearing Ltd\n\n50100 USD\n\n1, Road Himalaya International Clearing Ltd Town, Tortola, BVI, VG1110\n\n2022-02-16 07:59:00\n\n21\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\nBellokul utalas\n\n21\n\n## Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 6of 8\n\n# (; otpbank\n\nOTP bank Nyrt. 1051 Budapest, Nádor ulca 16.\n\nTel.; 06-1-473-5000\n\nFax.:06-1-473-5955\n\nwww.olpbank.hu\n\n#### Tranzakció adatai\n\nBelföldi utalás\n\nHimalaya International Clearing Ltd\n\n50100 USD\n\nCommerce House,Wickhams Cay 0 1,Road Himalaya International Clearing Ltd Town, Tortola, BVI, VG1110\n\n2022-03-08 11:57:00\n\n26\n\nTranzakció lipusa\n\nKedvezményezett\n\nUtalás/tranzakció dátuma\n\nTranzakció azonosító\n\nForrás számla\n\nÖsszeg\n\nKözlemény\n\n#### Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 7 of 8\n\n#### SECTION IV - RECOVERY OF LOSS\n\nComplete this section for assets you have recovered all or a portion of your losses either via an insurance claim and/or via some other source of recovery. If you have more recovery of loss information than may fit on this page, print out multiple copies of this page to attach with the claim and indicate which assets apply to each page. If you have not received any recovery of your losses, then leave this section blank.\n\n| RECOVERY OF LOSS INFORMATION | |\n|------------------------------|-------------------|\n| Asset ID | Asset Description |\n| N/A | N/A |\n| | |\n\n| INSURANCE CLAIM INFORMATION (if applicable) | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|\n| Name of Insured: (Last, First) | |\n| Policy Number: | Claim Number: |\n| Name of Insurance Company: | Name of Insurance Agent: (Last, First) |\n| Insurance Company Address: (Include Street, City, State, and Zip Code) | |\n| Phone: (optional) | Email: (optional) |\n| Have you received compensation from the insurance company? □ YES □ NO | Amount of Compensation: |\n\nIf other sources of recovery exist (e.g., restitution, returns on investments), please list and describe the details below.\n\n| OTHER SOURCE(S) OF RECOVERY (if applicable) | |\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------|\n| Source of Recovery 1: | Amount of Recovery: |\n| Source of Recovery 2: | Amount of Recovery: |\n\nIn the space below, please list any documents you are including in support of your claim of recovery of loss. If none are included, please explain why.\n\nI have not recovered any funds from any source.\n\n### Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT - Filed 04/06/25 Page 8 of 8\n\n# SECTION VII - DECLARATION AND REPRESENTATION\n\nThe following declaration must be completed by the claimant.\n\nl attest and declare under penally of perjury that my claim is not frivolous and the information provided in support of my claim is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.\n\nIn Leidschendam, Netherlands\n\n\n\nPrinted Name\n\n04/06/2025\n\nDate","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["forfeiture","Himalaya","853(n)","Je","Guo","Miles Guo","Himalaya Exchange","CCP","Rule 32.2"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":488,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1908,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-11","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:49"},{"id":"court_sdny_739_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":739,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2025-09-10","title":"Below are the evidences Consolidated Comment on Motions 723–734","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### Below are the evidences\n\n#### Consolidated Comment on Motions 723–734\n\n#### 1. Organized Nature of False Third-Party Filings\n\nThe series of motions (723–734) were not independently filed, but were the result of coordinated planning by Guo Wengui's supporters under the self-described \"Retrial Group.\"\n\n#### 2. Internal Coordination\n\nGroup members openly discussed division of tasks, synchronized timing, and even countdowns for filing, showing deliberate organization.\n\n#### 3. Direct Control by Ryan Bai (\"Ryan Xiaoge\")\n\nRyan explicitly admitted in group chats: \"733 is Ryan's motion,\" \"It can be used when the time comes,\" and \"Seven minutes left.\" These statements prove he was directly orchestrating the filings as an agent for the Defendant, not as an independent victim.\n\n#### 4. Role of Chunk Chyi, Himam, and Others\n\nThey regularly updated motion status (e.g., 730, 731, 732, 735), further demonstrating that these filings were part of a collective team action rather than individual claims.\n\n#### 5. Motion 734 Origin\n\nPublic records confirm Motion 734 was filed by a \"comrade\" based in Spain, covering issues related to G-Club, bankruptcy court, Alliance farms, and creditor registration again underscoring the coordinated campaign.\n\n#### Conclusion:\n\nThese \"third-party motions\" are in fact proxy actions orchestrated on behalf of Guo Wengui's interest group, not bona fide §853(n) claims by independent third parties. They constitute procedural abuse and should be denied.\n\n\"As evidenced by public records and group chat screenshots (Exhibit A–D), these filers openly coordinated, admitted authorship (e.g., '733 is Ryan's motion'), and acted under the banner of a 'Retrial Group.' These facts confirm they are not bona fide third parties but organized proxies of the Defendant, maliciously abusing §853(n) proceedings.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n26是保护自己的Gclub投资反对债权人和农场组织的索赔者瓜分自己投资。729则是比较系统的抨击了Luc盖尔农场和检方的一些列违规违法操作....\n\n[The text below this line is too blurry to transcribe accurately.]\n\n\n\n瑞恩小哥新号 (灭共音乐第一人)\n跟着你的有一个正常的?\n黄河边的儿子\n哈哈哈, 半人半屎\n前两天刚和老郭律师开会\n全家癌症, 子女暴毙的贱种\n所以你说话可以小心点\n哈哈哈哈哈\n摸摸币你也有份\n又开始吹牛了, 笑死我了\n你真是个贱种\n\nRecently, Ryen once again admitted in a private message: \"I just had a meeting with Guo's lawyer two days ago.\"\n\n| | | | | CD
0 |\n|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|---|---------|\n| | | | | E
0 |\n| 发帖
← | | | | |\n| | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 | | | 关於 |\n| | @ruienxiaoge3 | | | |\n| 回复给 @mubeitech | 有些人拼命喊 我不是受害人 然后指控检方 luc | | | |\n| | 我拼命喊:我是受害人 然后指控检方 luc | | | |\n| | 美国历史上没有如此荒唐的闹剧 | | | |\n| | 25年9月10日, 3:23 · 49 查看 | | | |\n| 1 转帖
1 喜欢 | | | | |\n| O | | C | | |\n| | 11 | | 3 | 88 |\n| 最相关的回复 × | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 发布你的回复 | | | | |\n| | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | | | |\n\n\"I am desperately shouting: 'I am a victim! I am a victim!' — and then I accuse the prosecutors and Luc. There has never been such an absurd farce in U.S. history.\"\n\nRyan Bai is not an independent third party or a legitimate victim submitting neutral legal opinions, but rather a participant with clear judicial hostility, whose motion represents a deliberate procedural abuse and an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.\n\n| 09:28 11月25日周一 四国 0 · | | | 00/ 4 3 95% 1 |\n|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|----------------|\n| ← 干死长岛帮126人 | | | 关注 |\n| | | | |\n| 帖子
MARKET | 回复 | 媒体 | |\n| | | | |\n| | 干死长岛帮126人 @fuckchangdao126 · 14小时 | | |\n| | 太棒了!必须让共产党安排这126人全部消失在地球 | | |\n| ட் ! | | | |\n| | > QMAY @ @Q May 007 . 19小时 | | |\n| | 在美国法院提供虚假证词(俗称\"做假证\"或 | | |\n| | perjury)是严重的刑事犯罪,可能带来以下后 | | |\n| 果: | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 1. 刑事处罚 | | | |\n| | र 排你做假证的人要把你消灭吗 | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | == > |\n| | | | |\n| | | | ન્ડ્લ્ |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | 早晚一天安排你做假證的人要把你消滅嘛 | | |\n| | http | | |\n| | http | | |\n| O | 17
0 | lı 109
3 | |\n| | 干死长岛帮126人 @fuckchangdao126 · 14小时 | | |\n| | 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 | III O | > |\n\nPosted from the first X (Twitter) account of \"Ruien Xiaoge\" (瑞恩小哥), issuing death threats against the 126 victims in this case who had submitted victim impact statements to the Judge in November:\n\n\"Kill all 126 members of the Long Island group.\n\nThe Communist Party must ensure that these 126 people completely disappear from the earth!\"\n\n(I have already submitted the evidence dated November 26, 2024.)\n\n| 10:42 9月9日周二 团 ▷ ▷ · | E | Ca/ @ 59 . 39% =
10 | X | |\n|----------------------------------------------------|----|--------------------------|---|--|\n| ← 发帖 | | | | |\n| 已置顶
瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人
@ruienxiaoge3 | 关注 | | | |\n| 郭文贵翻案组阶段性报告已经出来了
中文版写的更加主观情绪化一些 | | | | |\n| 英文版客观 没有主观情绪。 | | | | |\n| 大家随便用 随便造 随便贴 你们想怎么用就怎么用 想去哪发就
去哪发 发到法庭上也没关系!!! | | | | |\n| 中文版
mega.nz/file/pGcC2LTA#...
英文版 | | | | |\n| mega.nz/file/EfEwXDZb#... | | | | |\n| 828.6 KB file on MEGA
mega.nz | | | | |\n| 25年9月8日, 8:18 · 3,327 查看 | | | | |\n| 9 转帖 2 引用 16 喜欢 2 书签 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 最相关的回复 ▼
A先生 @dDiVul8m3g82864 · 1天 | | | | |\n| 发布你的回复 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n\"The staged retrial report for Guo Wengui is already prepared… Everyone can use it freely… Even submitting it to the court is fine!!!\"\n\n| | | 01:58 9月8日周一 四四(2) · | | | Ca / @ 95% 0 | |\n|------|---------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|------|\n| | | | | | C | 0 |\n| ← | 发帖 | | | | | |\n| | 사
已置顶 | | | | | |\n| | | | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 | | 关注 | |\n| | @ruienxiaoge3 | | | | | |\n| | | | 本人将在下周,正式担任郭文贵庭外影子主律师一职,任期至
郭文贵无罪出狱或者上诉开启为止,期间将主要从事给郭文贵 | | | |\n| | | 翻案的所有必要工作。 谢谢大家。 | | | | |\n| | | 25年9月6日, 22:17 · 712 查看 | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| 3 转帖 | 1 引用 | 16 喜欢 | | | | |\n| O | | 11 | 0 | N | | 88 |\n| | 最相关的回复 ▼ | | | | | |\n| | | 塘尾 @tang_t8696 · 1天 | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | 回复给 @ruienxiaoge3 | | | | |\n| | | | 加油!把新旧联盟灭爆组的人绳之以法、是正义的必须! | | | |\n| | 01 | 17 | 0 | 11 120 | 지 | 88 |\n| | | 我主打翻案 新老联盟让其他人打 つ | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 @ruienxiaoge3 · 1天 | | | |\n| | O | 11 | 0 | 115 | 3 | ರ್ಕೆ |\n| | | | 藤原浩二 @Fujiwara1151358 · 11小时 | | | |\n| | | 回复给 @ruienxiaoge3
走势终完美 七哥终归来 © | | | | |\n| | O | 17 | 0 | ılı 24 | E | ರ್ಕೆ |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n\"I will oƯicially serve as Mr. Guo's shadow lead attorney outside the court, until he is acquitted and released or his appeal begins.\"\n\n尊敬的Assistant Attorney,我是Chunk Chyi,这是我写的第三封信,我还会继续把这封信公开在社交网络上,并且在\n\n持续扩大我的影响力，因为我不想被悄无声息地逮捕甚至被杀害。我提及的所有内容，都可以通过网络查询到，没有任何机密信息。所以，我把信件公开在社交网络，我认为是完全合理合法的。\n\n检方指控郭文贵十三项罪名，但是，最后，陪审团裁决罪名的列表只有十二项罪名，妨碍司法的指控，偷偷摸摸无声息就没有了，没有任何文件说明为什么取消了妨碍司法的指控。我认为，被告最容易被定罪的指控罪名就是妨碍司法!被告申请两次保释，检方指控和法官采纳的非常重要的一项理由，就是被告涉嫌妨碍司法。拒绝被告保释的妨碍司法理由之中，非常重要的一条，就是被告鼓动或者建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人属于妨碍司法并且虚假索赔。检方是这样指控被告的，法官也这样认定了。检方如果不取消对被告妨碍司法的指控，我认为，妨碍司法的罪名，陪审团会非常容易达成一致意见。但是，检方去什么偷偷摸摸无声息在没有任何文件说明的情况下就取消了妨碍司法的指控，这确实让我这种普通人无法理解。\n\n检方在指控被告鼓励或建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人是妨碍司法虚假索赔的时候,非常明显故意忽略了被告在视频直播中谈及的Luc首先接受了其他G系列投资者登记为债权人的事实。被告在视频直播中清楚地表明,在2023年1月18日之前,如果被告鼓励或建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人,被告就是犯罪。但是,2023年1月18日以后,如果Luc不接受被告的追随者,也就是G系列投资者去破产法庭登记为债权人,Luc就是犯罪。因为卢克已经在被告鼓励或建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人之前,已经接受了其他几个G系列投资者在破产法庭登记为债权人。被告当时的视频直播内容,事件前后过程,表达的清清楚楚,但是,检方非常明显地故意忽略了部分内容。被告在视频直播中提到过Luc和其中一个或者几个人进行电话沟通,并且之后进行了债权人登记,并且是高达千倍的虚假登记。这些内容,在被告建议或鼓励其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人之前,就已经通过视频直播清楚地表明了,但是,检方在引用被告关于鼓励或建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人的证据的时候,非常明显,检方忽略了部分非常关键的内容。在被告破产案的法律文件中,文件1191,受托人在申请债权人登记的动议里面,通知列表里面就包括纽约南区检察官办公室。一个普通的民事案件,为什么要通知纽约南区检察官办公室啊?这至少也说明,检方从受托人申请债权人登记的时候,检方对被告的破产案之中的债权人登记,是知情的。并且在检方对被告申请拘押申请和拒绝被告保释的动议里面指控建议或者鼓励债权人登记是妨碍司法虚假索赔,法官也认可是妨碍司法虚假索赔的情况下,受托人两年多来没有在破产法庭主动提交thousands债权人名单里的妨碍司法虚假索赔。在破产法庭,受托人和被告对于债权人登记,一直都有纠纷,在Luc明明白已经知道了是被告在鼓励其追随者到破产法庭登记为债权人的情况下,Luc全部接受了被告鼓励的债权,并且整个thousands债权人名单,大多数都是被告鼓励而登记的。直到最近,受托人才在破产法庭申请删除部分虚假索赔的债权人名单,两年多的时间,受托人对妨碍司法虚假索赔的thousands债权人名单没有任何疑义并且代表了妨碍司法虚假索赔的thousands债权人介入到刑事法庭,造成被告非常不利的影响。我严重怀疑这是受托人在妨碍司法。我严重怀疑,受托人在Luc在被告鼓励其追随者登记为债权人之前,最早接受的那几个债权人,就是被告刑事案之前GTV案件的报案人,甚至是2022年9月2022年十月司法扣押喜马拉雅交易所和汉密尔顿公司的报案人,我严重怀疑受托人Luc最早接受的债权人就是刑事案件的报案人,并且受托人Luc接受的债权是破产案变质的开端,因为受托人Luc引入了被告刑事案件提及的G系列投资者登记为债权人,被告郭文贵之后的鼓励的债权人登记,只不过是做的和Luc之前做的事情的性质一模一样的事情,真正涉嫌妨碍\n\n请您指示如何, 现又八儿啦!\n\n在文件10, 文件10-1, 文件11, 受害者通知程序的文件里面, 检方提到, 已知的thousands受害者, 谁是这已知的thousands受害者, 检方从来没有给出过任何直接的说明, 并且在有关郭文贵的社区里面, 我询问过很多人, 没有人能给出明确的答案。更夸张的是, 在郭文贵的追随者或者郭文贵的投资者社区, 根本就没有thousands投资者承认是受害者, 谁是那文件11提及的已知的thousands受害者, 到目前为止, 我寻找了一年多, 根本找不到。检方所认为的受害者, 是被告郭文贵所有的追随者或者投资者, 如果在郭文贵的追随者或者投资者社区都不能找到这已知的thousands受害者, 我根本就不知道还能去哪里寻找这已知的thousands受害者。检方能不能直接回复我, 到底谁才是那已知的thousands受害者啊?如果需要保密, 检方没有必要告诉我具体的受害者名单, 检方只需要告诉我那已知的thousands受害者是哪一部分人或者群体就可以。已知的thousands受害者可能的选项只可能是GTV投资者或者是破产案的债权人, 除了这两个选项, 我根本找不出其他任何可能。在郭文贵社区, 我询问过很多人, 根本不可能有其它任何可能。GTV已经被陪审团裁定无罪, 并且陪审团的无罪裁决, 法官没有权利推翻, 意思就是GTV投资者没有资格成为受害者, GTV案已经和解, 并且已经开启退款, GTV投资者不能被当做合法的受害者。那就只剩下债权人这个选项了。但是, 郭文贵鼓动或者建议的债权人登记, 已经被检方指控并且法官也采纳了是妨碍司法虚假索赔, 而受托人Luc代表的thousands债权人, 绝大多数都是被被告鼓动或者建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人的结果。如果这thousands债权人是检方的已知的thousands受害者, 符合程序正义吗?检方文件11声称的已知的thousands受害者, 非常可能是检方逮捕被告的理由。如果检方没有提及已知的thousands受害者, 我也没有必要询问到底哪个群体是检方已知的。\n\nthousands受害者, 到底检方已知的thousands受害者是不是逮捕被告的理由。根据检方对被告鼓动或者建议其追随者到破产法庭登记为债权人是妨碍司法并且虚假索赔的指控, 受托人Luc对妨碍司法虚假索赔的债权人登记全部接受, 妨碍司法并且虚假索赔的债权人登记不能成为检方逮捕被告的理由。在加上检方对被告视频直播内容的断章取义, 真实的情况, 是受托人Luc首先接受G系列投资者虚假索赔在先, 之后被告才建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人, 做受托人Luc接受其它G系列投资者登记为债权人一样的事情。被告鼓动或者建议其追随者做一模一样的事情, 只有被告被指控并且认定为妨碍司法虚假索赔, 这是极其不公平的, 真正妨碍司法虚假索赔的是受托人Luc。并且我严重怀疑受托人Luc在被告鼓动债权人登记之前接受的几个债权人就是刑事案件的报案人。鉴于破产案在受托人接受债权人登记之前已经在破产案文件1911, 通知了纽约南区检察官办公室, 也就是检方对破产案受托人接受债权人登记的过程, 非常可\n\nOn August 11, \"Chunk Chyi,\" issued a third open letter to the prosecution under the guise of a victim and spread it online, demanding disclosure of the original victim list and questioning \"whether real victims exist,\" expressing hope that the case \"is very likely to be overturned and vacated.\"\n\nthousands受害者, 到底检方已知的thousands受害者是不是逮捕被告的理由。根据检方对被告鼓动或者建议其追随者到破产法庭登记为债权人是妨碍司法并且虚假索赔的指控, 受托人Luc对妨碍司法虚假索赔的债权人登记全部接受, 妨碍司法并且虚假索赔的债权人登记不能成为检方逮捕被告的理由。在加上检方对被告视频直播内容的断章取义, 真实的情况, 是受托人Luc首先接受G系列投资者虚假索赔在先, 之后被告才建议其追随者去破产法庭登记为债权人, 做受托人Luc接受其它G系列投资者登记为债权人一样一样的事情。被告鼓动或者建议其追随者做一模一样的事情, 只有被指控并且认定为妨碍司法虚假索赔, 这是极其不公平的, 真正妨碍司法虚假索赔的是受托人Luc。并且我严重怀疑受托人Luc在被告鼓动债权人登记之前接受的几个债权人就是刑事案件的报案人。鉴于破产案在受托人接受债权人登记之前已经破产案文件1911, 通知了纽约南区检察官办公室, 也就是检方对破产案受托人接受债权人登记的过程, 非常可能是全部知情的, 我质疑的这些内容, 希望检方能够给我回复。如果我质疑的这些内容包含Brady证据或者Brady违规, 甚至违反宪法第四修正案, 检方有义务立即通知给被告和辩护律师。\n\n另外, 其他方面的Brady证据, 就是关于喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场, 喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场领导层, 根据检方起诉书和文件382, 文件388, 我认为, 他们都属于检方指控的嫌疑共谋犯, 如果检方认为这些人不是嫌疑共谋犯, 那么检方直接告诉我谁才是嫌疑共谋犯。这个案件, 不正常的地方太多, 最基本的是谁是被告的嫌疑共谋犯都没有一个明确的名单。检方在文件382里面提及的Qidong Xia, Yongbing Zhang, 这两个人是喜马拉雅联盟最核心的领导层, Geyer代理了喜马拉雅数千客户协议, Qidong Xia 和 Yongbing Zhang, 就是最核心的策划者, 推动者, 负责人之一。在被告王艳萍的量刑听证会上, 做受害者发言的Ava, Forrest Zhou, 也许我打字的名字不准确, 但是, 做受害者发言的那两个或三个人, 就是目前喜马拉雅联盟最高层, 属于检方指控的嫌疑共谋犯, 嫌疑共谋犯成了检方认可的受害者, 并且作为被告王艳萍受害者陈述发言的人在控制着喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场, 喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场通过欺诈手段组织的喜马拉雅交易所客户客户协议和超过一百名数字银行投资者协议, 通过Geyer和Gavenman到了刑事法庭申请资金赎回, 这严重涉嫌共谋, 严重涉嫌妨碍司法, 检方对Geyer和Gavenman没有反对没有要求法庭驳回Geyer和Gavenman, 并且检方没有调查这背后的严重涉嫌的刑事犯罪, 何其荒谬。牵涉到喜马拉雅交易所数千客户协议的也包括喜马拉雅交易所公司, 喜马拉雅交易所公司也通过律师申请了资金赎回, 根据检方的指控, 喜马拉雅交易所公司可能属于企业嫌疑共谋犯, 企业嫌疑共谋犯来到了刑事法庭申请资金赎回, 检方不反对不要求法官驳回企业嫌疑共谋犯的资金赎回, 我不理解。喜马拉雅交易所数千客户协议, 始于喜马拉雅交易所公司给所有客户发送的一份推荐Geyer律师和Geyer代理协议链接的邮件。这是极其不正常的行为, 既然喜马拉雅交易所公司自己可以申请资金赎回, 为什么还给客户推荐律师和签署协议的链接, 在逻辑上根本无法解释, 我有理由怀疑喜马拉雅交易所公司和Geyer和喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场之间有严重的共谋嫌疑, 这三方严重涉嫌对刑事法庭妨碍司法! 包括一百多名数字银行投资者的代理律师Gavenman, 我也有理由怀疑涉嫌共谋涉嫌妨碍司法。这些分布在全世界各地的投资者, 为什么就在茫茫人海之中不约而同都选择了Geyer和Gavenman来代理资金赎回, 没有背后喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场的操控, 这绝对不可能发生!\n\n另外，在法庭外面，做受害者陈述的Zhou Chen和Forrest Chen，可能是共谋涉嫌犯，也可能是受害者，还有检方提及的共谋嫌疑犯Qidong Xia和Yongbing Zhang，他们多次声称接到被告的电话，或者多次声称去MDC探视被告，那么，这些检方认可的受害者或者检方合作的受害者，或者检方指控的嫌疑共谋犯，利用投资者不知道真假的郭文贵电话和郭文贵MDC探视做背书进行的违法犯罪活动，这些违法犯罪活动包括他们通过欺诈手段组织，推动喜马拉雅交易数千客户和Geyer签署协议，数字银行投资者和Gavenman签署协议，这也包括这些嫌疑共谋犯参与鼓动债权人登记。这些涉嫌违法犯罪的活动，已经延伸到了刑事法庭没收程序，甚至不止没收程序，在庭审之前的法庭文件Luc和Geyer就干预影响刑事案件的进展。包括检方提到的行政程序的大概800份资金赎回请愿书，背后可能也有喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场的鼓动。王艳萍的126份受害者陈述里面是不是包含喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场领导层我也持怀疑态度。所有这些喜马拉雅联盟喜马拉雅农场领导层在法庭文件背后参与的违法犯罪活动，严重涉嫌共谋的违法犯罪活动，严重涉嫌妨碍司法的违法犯罪活动，检方没有在刑事法庭上提及或者没有完整提及。我认为这些属于Brady证据，甚至我认为检方可能违反宪法第四修正案。\n\n我再次声明，我在这封信里面提及的内容，不一定全部属于Brady证据。兰，而这封信提及的内容，告知被告Brady证据，检方必须履行义务。如果检方不履行Brady义务，这个案件，非常可能被推翻或者被撤销。\n\n□ [baoliao2019@gmail.com](mailto:baoliao2019@gmail.com)\\n件人: ryan.fenkel@usdoj.gov\n\n---------- Forwarded message ----------\n发件人: 喜和 [baoliao2019@gmail.com](mailto:baoliao2019@gmail.com)\nate: 2025年9月11日周一 07:56\n\nDate: 2025年8月11日周一 07:50\n\nSubject: the third letter about case DOJ vs Miles Guo from Chunk Chyi\nTo: [juliana.murray@usdoj.gov](mailto:juliana.murray@usdoj.gov)\n[引用文字已隐藏]\n\nOn August 11, \"Chunk Chyi,\" issued a third open letter to the prosecution under the guise of a victim and spread it online, demanding disclosure of the original victim list and questioning \"whether real victims exist,\" expressing hope that the case \"is very likely to be overturned and vacated.\n\n# 发帖\n\n瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻译组成员 灭共音乐第一人\n@ruienxiaoge3\n回复给 @celikkolu\n\n你他妈是智障 法盲 猪头! 量刑必须把没收程序里面的第三\n方纠纷全部解决 第三方纠纷必须通过发动议解决!! 我等\n将在第三方动议里面将程序不正义尽数播出! 法官没有任何\n办法! 老郭律师也会拿我等的动议做抓手! 你们的末日到\n了!! 还做梦想拿钱? 你死了啥都有!\n25年7月18日, 21:11 · 28 查看\n\n最相关的回复\n\nmiss\n@celikkolu · 2小时\n回复给 @ruienxiaoge3\n真的2b, 蠢不自知\n\n瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻译组成员 灭共音乐第一人 @ruienxiao... · 2小时\n傻逼 你他妈就是法盲 你检方详参关于没收程序的回复怒了俩周屁都\n没憋出来。还指望没收量刑 拿钱? 做梦去吧!\n\n发布你的回复\n\n发帖\n\n**瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻译组成员 灭共音乐第一人**\n@ruenxiaoge3 关注\n\n检方还在做梦没收令? 法庭敢下没收令吗? 还想着量刑? 做梦去吧! 有我等掌握法庭宇宙真理的人在想量刑想没收? 不问问我们同不同意 那是绝对不行的啊! 没收令下来后, 敬请期待我等挂起的法庭风暴!!!!!!\n\nRuien Xiaoge:\n\n\"The prosecutors are still dreaming about a forfeiture order? Does the court even dare to issue a forfeiture order? Still thinking about sentencing? Keep dreaming! … You want sentencing and forfeiture? Without asking for our consent? That is absolutely impossible! Once the forfeiture order is issued, just wait for the storm in court that we will unleash!\"\n\n\"In our third-party motions we will expose all the injustices of the proceedings! The judge has no way to stop us! Guo Wengui's lawyers will also use our motions as leverage! Your end is near! And you still dream of getting money? Go to hell!\"\n\n| 10:59 8月19日周二 M · | | | | / @ @ 1 97% ▲ | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------|---|\n| | | | | 141
0 | × |\n| 23:59 7月18日間五 八月 四 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 円 | | | | 20 × 電気 64 % 4 | |\n| | | | | ો જન્મિનિટ વિદ્યાર
10 | |\n| 发帖 | | | | | |\n| | t2 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 已转帖 | | | | |\n| | Chunk Chyi
@baoliaogeming | | | 关注 | |\n| 回复给 @aus mini | | | | | |\n| | 你在这里说,第三方可以提出异议。但,你是否知道,我是 | | | | |\n| | 唯一一个在法庭上提出异议,要求打击卢克盖尔的人啊?整个 | | | | |\n| | 法庭,我是唯一一个想给郭文贵翻案的第三方,最终被法官把 | | | | |\n| | 我逼成了受害者,因为我担心我的生命安全! | | | | |\n| | 25年7月16日, 15:14 · 131 查看 | | | | |\n| 1 转帖 | 2 喜欢 | | | | |\n| O | 11 | C | B | 88 | |\n| 最相关的回复 ▼ | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| iloners 1258 - 1203 - 1203 - 120 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 -
Same House . | 191 | | H TE M TRE BE LE TE
『八八八八八八八八八 | | |\n| ## 0 05 | 0 | × 移除 | | 同 | |\n\nChunk Chyi:\n\n\"In the entire court, I am the only third party who wants to overturn the conviction for Guo Wengui. In the end, the judge forced me to become a 'victim,' because I fear for my life!\"\n\n| 16:57 8月17日周日 ... status indicators ... | | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| ← 发帖
| | | | | | |\n| Himam @Haier918 · 8月2日
回复给 @Weiwei603438482
所以你是因为贪嗔痴慢疑才去打盖尔的?是微软把你的邮箱封了,不是法院?
O1733(Share/Bookmark icons)
Weiwei @Weiwei603438482 关注
回复给 @Haier918
我打盖尔是要推翻受害人名单,受害人是造假的,这个案子就不成立。就必须释放七哥。只有七哥能带大家赚钱。是的,法庭没有必要也不敢封我的邮箱,那样违法。
25年8月2日, 3:27 · 91 查看
O110(Share/Bookmark icons)
最相关的回复 ▼
| | | | | | |\n| Himam @Haier918 · 8月2日
回复给 @Weiwei603438482
即使受害人名单造假,也不可能推翻案件吧?更何况盖尔的名单没有造假。是联盟农场没有告知战友盖尔合同的真实目的。另外,七哥说过要带战友赚钱的是农场,七哥不负责带你赚钱。
O170(Share/Bookmark icons)
Weiwei @Weiwei603438482 · 8月2日
A10项目你没看懂没有七哥,A10不可能实现。所以七哥说A10是最有智慧的游击战。官司赢了每个人,每个参与的战友、投资人、基金都能赚到大钱,否则就是一场空。中国不会有房倒银塌,因为七哥管理的基金都投资了中国的科技产业。你们竹篮打水一场空,七哥不在乎个人生死,保护好七哥,他可是下金蛋的鸡。
O17(Interaction icons/counts)
发布你的回复(App icons)
| | | | | | |\n\n\"I am targeting Geyer's (Motion No. 709 filed in court). In fact, the real purpose is to overturn the victim list. If the victims are fabricated, then this case cannot stand, and Guo Wengui must be released. Only Guo Wengui is able to help us make money.\"!\n\n\n\n\"The criminal case exists only because there are victims. If the victim list is overturned in court, then Brother Seven must be released.\"\n\n| 发帖 | | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---|-----|--|----|\n| | Weiwei @Weiwei603438482 | | | | 关注 |\n| 回复给 @ruienxiaoge3 | | | | | |\n| 要提交动议,基于Sabrina律师“无效辩护”(Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)提出,请求法院撤销定罪或准予新审判,依据是美国宪法第六修正案、《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第33条和《美国法典》第28篇2255条 | | | | | |\n| 25年8月12日, 1:05 · 300 查看 | | | | | |\n| 1 引用 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 最相关的回复 ▼ | | | | | |\n| 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 @ruienxiaoge3 · 4天 | | | | | |\n| 回复给 @Weiwei603438482 | | | | | |\n| 你别这么疯 搞点现实的 去搞检方的程序不正义 我们几个好好通力合作大概率不用上诉就能翻案 | | | | | |\n| 1 | 1 | 1 | 206 | | |\n| Weiwei @Weiwei603438482 · 4天 | | | | | |\n| 我的时间不够用,你们去做!听我的指挥!我是朱蓓蓓 | | | | | |\n| 8 | 1 | 1 | 767 | | |\n| Weiwei @Weiwei603438482 · 4天 | | | | | |\n| 回复给 @Weiwei603438482 和 @ruienxiaoge3 | | | | | |\n| 不是我说的,是七哥说的话。是七哥的意思,他和我在一起 | | | | | |\n| 1 | 1 | 3 | 182 | | |\n| 回复给 @Weiwei603438482 和 @ruienxiaoge3 | | | | | |\n| 发布你的回复 | | | | | |\n\n\"A motion must be filed based on Attorney Sabrina's 'IneƯective Assistance of Counsel,' requesting that the court vacate the conviction or grant a new trial, citing the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 2255.\"\n\n踰踱踲踳 \"Go and do it! Follow my command! I am Beibei Zhu.\"\n\n踰踱踲踳 \"These are not my words, they are what Brother Seven said. It is Brother Seven's intention.\"\n\n\"I am targeting Geyer's Motion No. 709 filed in court. In fact, the real purpose is to overturn the victim list. If the victims are fabricated, then this case cannot stand, and Guo Wengui must be released. Only Guo Wengui is able to help us make money.\"\n\n| | 17:07 8月16日周六 守 © 四 | | | | (0)
141 |\n|-----------|---------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|\n| | | | | | |\n| ← | 发帖 | | | | |\n| | | | | 间节点上怎么最快阻止量刑、推动翻案。这样会比纯 | |\n| | 01 | 17 1 | C2 2 | 11-1 70 | 3
8 |\n| | Weiwei | @Weiwei603438482 | | | 关注 |\n| | | | 回复给 @ruienxiaoge3 和 @tianhuo_seven | | |\n| | | | | 不要等上诉,郭先生第一个律师Sabrina已经利用法律规则 | |\n| | | | | Rule 29 ( c ) 未在规定的14天内需要提交\"无罪判决动议\"的 | |\n| | | | | 正式法庭动议稿。这导致了上诉时对证据提交的不允许。现在 | |\n| | | | | 就要把证据都提交到法庭,这是最后的机会了。法庭判定之后 | |\n| | | | 就没有机会提交法庭证据了!王歧山就赢了! | | |\n| | | 25年8月12日,0:59 · 68 查看 | | | |\n| 1 喜欢 | | | | | |\n| | O | 12 | 3 | 12 | 88 |\n| | 最相关的回复 ~ | | | | |\n| | | Weiwei @Weiwei603438482 · 4天 | | | |\n| | | | 回复给 @Weiwei603438482 @ruienxiaoge3 和 | | |\n| | @tianhuo seven | | | 按照这个去提交法庭文件!把证据固定在法庭之上,没有时间了!王 | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | O | 17 | C | 111 44 | B
89 |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | 回复给 @Weiwei603438482 @ruienxiaoge3 和 @tianhuo_seven | |\n| 发布你的回复 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 27
GIF | 00 | (0) | | | 03 |\n\n踰踱踲踳 \"Do not wait for the appeal. Mr. Guo's first attorney, Sabrina, failed to file a formal Rule 29(c) motion for a judgment of acquittal within the required 14 days under the law. This has resulted in the evidence being barred from submission during the appeal. All the evidence must be submitted to the court right now—this is the last chance. Once the court issues its ruling, there will be no opportunity to submit evidence to the court.\"\n\n踰踱踲踳 \"File the court documents according to this plan and lock the evidence into the court record—there is no more time.\"\n\n| | TestYourHeart | | | | |\n|---------|-------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------|---|------------------------------------------------|\n| | @Testurheart | | | | 关注 |\n| | | | 检方的动议来了,如此多附件,看来是很详细的一本账,如果法官 | | |\n| | | | 批准没收令.早在排队中的三百多份第三方动议马上就会上传, | | |\n| | | | 讨论已久的痛打Luc盖尔的动议也会陆续呈到法官面前.看看有 | | |\n| | | | 多少\"爱\"七哥的\"战友\"来趁火打劫;又有多少\"没死绝\"的爆料 | | |\n| | | | 革命人与七哥并肩作战!很快,法庭将再难平静 | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | 2 米谢MichelleW & @MichelleW8712 · 9小时 | | |\n| | | | 郭先生刑事案716、717号文档已经进入电子案卷系统。 | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | 716号文档应该是检方请求让托雷斯法官签发没收令的动议,随附8个附 | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | 件,目测总页数超过200页;717号文档内容尚不清楚。 | | |\n| | | | 待文档可提供下载后,会尽快带来文档内容及翻译。 | | |\n| Borumen | Data Filer | Description | | | |\n| 717 | Jul 28, 2025 | Main Dooument | Notice (Other | | Buy on PAGER (\\$1.50) |\n| 716 | Jul 28, 2025 | Main Dogument | etter Motion | | Buy on PAGER (80.70) |\n| | | | | | Buy on PACER (\\$1,50) |\n| | | | | | Buy on PACER [\\$3.00] |\n| | | | | | Buy on PAGER (\\$3.00) |\n| | | | | | Buy on PACER (\\$3.00) |\n| | | achmant F | | | Buy on PACER (\\$3.00) |\n| | | Attachment 7 | Exhibit G | | Buy on PACER (\\$3.00) |\n| | | | Extribit H | | Buy on PACER (\\$0.40)
Buy on PHCER (\\$3.00) |\n| | 25年7月29日, 9:08 · 579 查看 | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 2 转帖 | 7 喜欢 | | | | |\n| O | | 17 | 0 | 1 | 8 |\n\n> \"If the judge approves the forfeiture order, more than 300 third-party motions that have already been lined up will be uploaded immediately... The Whistleblower Movement warriors will stand shoulder to shoulder with (Guo Wengui), and soon, the court will no longer remain calm—the court will no longer remain calm!\"\n\n> \"Hope the judge doesn't have a heart attack.\"\n\n| 17:17 7月27日周日
← 发帖
t2 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 已转帖
Chunk Chyi
@baoliaogeming | 关注 |
回复给 @aus_mini
你在这里说,第三方可以提出异议。但,你是否知道,我是唯一一个在法庭上提出异议,要求打击卢克盖尔的人啊?整个法庭,我是唯一一个想给郭文贵翻案的第三方,最终被法官把我逼成了受害者,因为我担心我的生命安全!
25年7月16日, 15:14 · 153 查看
1 转帖 2 喜欢
💬🔁❤️🔖↗️
最相关的回复 ▼
发布你的回复
Chunk Chyi
@baoliaogeming
| 关注 | 15:17 7月27日周日
← 发帖
瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员
@ruienxiaoge3 |
老郭案件为什么这么荒谬
prose 将是老郭唯一的
[Media Content]
25年7月26日, 21:35 · 365
2 转帖 1 引用 8 喜欢
💬🔁❤️🔖↗️
发布你的回复
瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员
@ruienxiaoge3
|\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|\n| Chunk Chyi
@baoliaogeming
| 关注 | | | |\n| 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员
@ruienxiaoge3
| | | | |\n\nIn the entire court, I'm the only third party who tried to help Guo Wengui overturn his case, and in the end the judge turned me into a \"victim\" because I feared for my life!\n\n发帖\n\n瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻译组成员 灭共音乐第一人\n@ruienxiaoge3 关注\n\n老郭案件为什么这么荒谬的原因！螺丝哥倡导的第三方自诉 prose 将是老郭唯一的翻案途径！\n\n25年7月26日, 21:35 · 365 查看\n2 转帖 1 引用 8 喜欢\n\n\n\nThe third-party pro se private lawsuit led by Chunk Chyi will be Guo's only path to overturn the case!\n\n| | | 21:57 7月18日周五 朋友圈 · | | | | | 9% | × |\n|---|----|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------|---|----|---|\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| ← | 发帖 | | | | | | | |\n| | | @ruienxiaoge3 | | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 | | # | | |\n| | | 回复给 @celikkolu | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | 你妈了个逼就是法盲中的极品 脑残中的大王 智障里的老大! | | | |\n| | | | | | 庭审记录你妈了个逼的有个屁用? 程序不正义都是在庭审外 | | | |\n| | | | | | 的 接下去老郭律师和第三方自诉人 都要捅上去!你这个脑残 | | | |\n| | | | | | 还把庭审记录当红头文件 你以为是你亲爱的党爹啊? 操你妈 | | | |\n| | | | | | 的喷血大烂逼! | | | |\n| | | | 25年7月18日, 21:02・10 查看 | | | | | |\n| | O | | 17 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| | | 最相关的回复 ▼ | | | | | | |\n| | | | miss @celikkolu · 51分
回复给 @ruienxiaoge3 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | 你这些低能,傻逼话去跟法官讲吧。那么大个人了,该醒醒了,回归 | | | |\n| | | | | | 正常人,好好做一个正常人,别他妈当智障了,行吗, | | | |\n| | | O 1 | | C 27 | | | | |\n| | | | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 @ruienxiaog · 45分 :
你他妈是智障 法盲 猪头! 量刑必须把没收程序里面的第三方纠纷全
部解决 第三方纠纷必须通过发动议解决!! 我等在第三方动议里面
将把程序不正义尽数捅出! 法官没有任何办法!老郭律师也会拿我等
的动议做抓手! 你们的末日到了!! 还做梦想拿钱? 你死了啥都有! | | | | | |\n| | | O | 17 | C | 3 | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| | | 发布你的回复 | | | | | | |\n\n\n\nComing up next, Guo's lawyer and the third-party petitioners will both take action.\n\n| 00:04 7月19日周六 | 67% |\n|---------------|-----|\n|---------------|-----|\n\n发帖\n\n| | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人
@ruienxiaoge3
| 关注 |\n|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|\n|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|\n\n回复给 @celikkolu\n\n你他妈是智障 法盲 猪头! 量刑必须把没收程序里面的第三方纠纷全部解决 第三方纠纷必须通过发动议解决!! 我等在第三方动议里面将把程序不正义尽数捅出! 法官没有任何办法!老郭律师也会拿我等的动议做抓手! 你们的末日到了!!还做梦想拿钱?你死了啥都有!\n\n25年7月18日, 21:11 · 28 查看\n\n| O | 11 | C | n | | |\n|---|----|---|---|--|--|\n|---|----|---|---|--|--|\n\n最相关的回复 ~\n\n| | miss @celikkolu · 2小时
回复给 @ruienxiaoge3
真的2b,蠢不自知
| O | 1 | C | ilıl 21 | B |\n|---|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|---------|---|---------|---|\n| O | 1 | C | ilıl 21 | B | | |\n\n| | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 @ruienxiao... · 2小时
傻逼 你他妈就是法盲 你检方洋爹关于没收程序的回复憋了两周屁都
没憋出来。 还指望没收 量刑 拿钱? 做梦去吧!
| O | 1 | C | ilıl 21 | B |\n|---|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|---------|---|---------|---|\n| O | 1 | C | ilıl 21 | B | | |\n\n发布你的回复\n\n发布你的回复\n\n\"We'll expose procedural injustice in upcoming third-party motions! The judge can do nothing! Guo's lawyers will use our motion as leverage. Your end is near—dream on if you think you'll get paid!\"\n\n23:06 7月18日周五\n\n← 发帖\n\n**瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人** @ruienxiaoge3 [关注]\n\n天火 老郭最近案子转折 就是我和螺丝哥干的 不吹牛逼不说话 本人是唯一一和郭先生律师开过会的人! 本人把螺丝哥的翻案思路捅给了律师 律师表示很有兴趣! 并且最近联盟取消瞎见等节目 就是律师跟着本人的思路行动!!!\n\n---\n\n**🔥天火 NFSC²⁰²⁵ 🛡️** @tianhuo\\_seven · 20小时\n\n## 🔥两个精神分裂症，心心相惜......!!\n\n25年7月18日, 19:42 · 109 查看\n\n1 转帖 1 喜欢\n\n---\n\n最相关的回复\n\n**miss** @celikkolu · 3小时\n回复给 @ruienxiaoge3\n9月量刑只有一个结局, 牢底坐穿。庭审记录显示, 诈骗实锤\n1 🔁 1 ♡ 130 👁️\n\n**瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人** @ruienxiao... · 3小时\n你做梦去吧 9月根本没有量刑 郭案不会有量刑\n🔁 ♡ 17 👁️\n\n**miss** @celikkolu · 3小时\n回复给 @ruienxiaoge3\n翻案个毛线。牢底坐穿, 把诈骗的钱吐回来\n2 🔁 1 ♡ 69 👁️\n\n**瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人** @ruienxiao... · 3小时\n能翻案你全家都死光\n🔁 ♡\n\n发布你的回复\n\n\"The turning point in Guo's case came from me and Chunk Chyi… I'm the only one who met with Mr. Guo! I handed Chunk Chyi's legal ideas to the lawyer. The lawyer liked them and is acting accordingly!\"\n\n| | @ruienxiaoge3 | 瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 | | | |\n|----------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------|----|\n| | | 回复给 @Baoliaogeming64和 @Kk26400689 | | | |\n| | | 那我也百分百告诉你 没什么我认识的大佬 就是我本人和七哥 | | | |\n| | | 律师开会 开完会律师就采取行动 假郭美和青藤犯下的罪行是 | | | |\n| | | 干扰司法程序 在辩方量刑前 制造假的联邦监狱信息 ai电话 假 | | | |\n| | | 探访 来施压被告量刑 这罪名大了去了!我这边开完会 那里就 | | | |\n| | 没有相见了 你觉得是巧合啊 ? | | | | |\n| | 25年7月17日,0:28 · 184 查看 | | | | |\n| 3 转帖 | 2 喜欢 | | | | |\n| O | 11 | 0 | ﺍﻟﻤﺎ | ರ್ಕೆ | |\n| 最相关的回复 ▼ | | | | | |\n| | 淘喵先生 ♥ @Baoliaogeming64 · 1天
哈哈哈← | 回复给 @ruienxiaoge3和 @Kk26400689 | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| 01 | 17
是吃素的! | C
瑞恩小哥-郭文贵翻案组成员 灭共音乐第一人 @ruienxiaoge3 · 1天
不用哈了 律师同意的情况下我可以把会议内容全部公布 这帮律师不 | 11 96 | B | 88 |\n| O | 12 1 | C22 | 11 93 | 3 | 88 |\n| | 你这可真是爆大料了!6 在 | 超限战斗士Sarah ♥ @SarahZh67248600 · 20小时
回复给 @ruienxiaoge3 @Baoliaogeming64 和 @Kk26400689 | | | |\n| O | 17 | C | III 31 | B | 88 |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n\"I personally met with Guo's lawyer. After our meeting, the lawyer took action.\" , \"With the lawyer's consent, I can publish the entire meeting details.","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Guo","Geyer","Brady","Gavenman","GTV","forfeiture","Murray","853(n)","Miles Guo","Je","GETTR","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4588,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-10","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:46"},{"id":"court_sdny_740_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":740,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-09-10","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n#### SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\n-against-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" et al.,\n\nDefendants. Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\nTHIRD-PARTY PETITION FOR ANCILLARY HEARING PURSUANT TO 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), MOTION TO RELEASE FROZEN PROPERTY UNDER RULE 41(g), DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF PRIOR PETITION FOR REMISSION AND DELEGATION FORM, REQUEST FOR PRIVACY PROTECTION, REQUEST FOR COURT ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING ASSET RECORDS, AND DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT RESPONSE WITHIN COURT-ORDERED TIMEFRAME\n\n#### TO THE HONORABLE ANALISA TORRES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:\n\nI. [Petitioner, redacted] appearing pro se, respectfully submit this petition pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting my legal interest in frozen property-specifically, the farm loan (\\$35,000), two GClub membership cards (\\$70,000), Himalaya Exchange account assets (Himalaya Dollar (HDO) valued at \\$205,559 and Himalaya Coin (HCN) totaling 141,138 locked by Alliance Farms, with remaining balances of HDO 187,365.33 and HCN 5,633.00 as of September 20, 2022), and HCN locked by Alliance Farms-in connection with the above-captioned case. As an innocent third-party investor, I request: (1) an ancillary hearing to adjudicate my claim, (2) the release and return of my frozen assets, (3) a declaration that any prior victim form (likely a Petition for Remission) or delegation form to Bradford Geyer I submitted was invalid due to misrepresentation by Alliance Farms and Bradford Geyer, (4) protection of my privacy through sealing of personal information, (5) court assistance in obtaining records of my investments, including those related to the A10 project, due to my inability to access my Himalaya Exchange account (HID: redacted) because of its seizure, and (6) an order directing the Government to file a response to this petition within a court-specified timeframe. I further challenge procedural errors in\n\nthe criminal forfeiture and related bankruptcy proceedings (Case No. 22-50073, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut) involving Ho Wan Kwok, including lack of notice, overbroad freezing, lack of transparency, and improper prioritization of third-party claimants in bankruptcy.\n\n#### I. INTRODUCTION\n\n- 1. I am an innocent investor who lawfully invested in the farm loan (\\$35,000), two GClub membership cards (\\$70,000), Himalaya Exchange account assets (HDO valued at \\$205,559 and HCN totaling 141,138 locked by Alliance Farms, with remaining balances of HDO 187,365.33 and HCN 5,633.00 as of September 20, 2022), and HCN locked by Alliance Farms prior to the March 2023 indictment, with no involvement in the defendants' alleged criminal activities.\n- 2. My assets have been frozen by the Government or the bankruptcy trustee, Luc A. Despins, in Ho Wan Kwok's bankruptcy case (Case No. 22-50073, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut), but I am uncertain whether they are listed as criminal proceeds in the forfeiture schedule.\n- 3. I was misled by Alliance Farms, identified as a suspected co-conspirator in ECF Nos. 382, 388, and 395, and Bradford Geyer, attorney for Himalaya Exchange users seeking victim status, into submitting an online victim form (likely a Petition for Remission) and a delegation form via the Himalaya Exchange platform, specifically through the website http as instructed in an email from Himalaya Exchange dated September 26, 2023 (Exhibit 28). These filings incorrectly implied I was a victim of fraud, which I do not believe, and I declare them invalid (see Exhibit 30: Unsworn Declaration of Misrepresentation).\n- 4. Due to the seizure of the Himalaya Exchange platform, as referenced in Exhibit 29, I am unable to access my account (HID: redacted) to retrieve transaction records for my HDO. HCN. locked HCN, and investments in the A10 project, necessitating court assistance to obtain these records from the Government, the bankruptcy trustee, Alliance Farms, or Himalaya Exchange.\n- 5. I assert procedural errors in the criminal forfeiture process (e.g., lack of notice, overbroad freezing, lack of transparency) and the bankruptcy case (Case No. 22-50073) (e.g., lack of notice, improper prioritization of third-party claimants, failure to consider the criminal forfeiture exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4)), supported by precedents such as United States v. Madoff and 1MDB Civil Forfeiture Litigation.\n- 6. To protect my personal and financial privacy, I request that the Court seal my personal information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email, financial details, HID:redaccted) due to risks of personal safety, financial harm, harassment, or reputational damage in this politically sensitive case.\n- 7. To ensure timely adjudication of my claims, I request that the Court order the Government to file a response to this petition within a court-specified timeframe, pursuant to Local Rule 49.1 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 47.\n- 8. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), I request an ancillary hearing to establish my superior legal interest. Under Rule 41(g), I seek the immediate release and return of my frozen assets. Additionally, I request court assistance to obtain records of my investments.\n\n# II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\n#### 9. My Investments:\n\n- · I invested \\$35,000 in the farm loan, as evidenced by [Exhibit 1: Farm Loan 1, Exhibit 2: Farm Loan 1-2, Exhibit 3: Farm Loan 2, Exhibit 4: Farm Loan 2-1, Exhibit 5: Farm Loan 3, Exhibit 6: Farm Loan 3-1, redacted for privacy].\n- · I purchased two GClub membership cards valued at \\$70,000, as evidenced by [Exhibit 7: GClub 1, Exhibit 8: GClub 2, Exhibit 9: GClub A, redacted for privacy].\n- · I invested \\$205,559 in a Himalaya Exchange account (HID: redacted) for Himalaya Dollar (HDO), as evidenced by [Exhibit 10: Himalaya Exchange Top-Up Records, Exhibit 11: HDO 1, Exhibit 12: HDO 2, Exhibit 13: HDO 3, Exhibit 14: HDO 4, Exhibit 15: HDO 5, Exhibit 16: HDO 6, Exhibit 17: HDO 7, Exhibit 18: HDO 7-1, redacted for privacy]. Some HDO was transferred for investment in the A10 project, but due to the seizure of the Himalaya Exchange\n\nplatform, I am unable to access my account to provide precise transaction records for the A10 project, though such records are available upon request from the Government, the bankruptcy trustee, Alliance Farms, or Himalaya Exchange.\n\n- · 141,138 Himalaya Coins (HCN) allocated from my investments that were subsequently locked by Alliance Farms, as evidenced by [Exhibit 19: HCN 2, Exhibit 20: HCN 2-1, Exhibit 21: HCN 3, Exhibit 22: HCN 3-1, Exhibit 23: HCN 4, Exhibit 24: HCN 4-1, Exhibit 25: HCN 4-2. Exhibit 26: HCN 1, redacted for privacy]. As of September 20, 2022, my Himalaya Exchange account (HID: redacted) held HDO 187,365.33 and HCN 5,633.00, as evidenced by |Exhibit 27: Screen Capture, redacted for privacy].\n- 10. These investments were made in good faith prior to the March 2023 indictment and are not traceable to the defendants' alleged crimes, as supported by [Exhibits 1-27].\n- 11. On or about March 2023, my assets, including the farm loan, GClub membership cards, HDO, HCN, and HCN locked by Alliance Farms, were frozen by the Government or the bankruptcy trustee, Luc A. Despins, in Ho Wan Kwok's bankruptcy case (Case No. 22-50073, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut).\n- 12. I received no direct written notice of the freeze or forfeiture, violating 18 U.S.C. § 983(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 341 (bankruptcy notice requirements).\n- 13. On September 26, 2023, I received an email from Himalaya Exchange (Exhibit 28) instructing me to complete an online form at http to register with attorney Bradford Geyer, identified as independent counsel for Himalaya Exchange users seeking to recover assets. Alliance Farms, identified as a suspected co-conspirator in ECF Nos. 382, 388. and 395, and Bradford Geyer further instructed investors to submit an online victim form (likely a Petition for Remission) and a delegation form, misrepresenting that such filings were necessary to recover assets. In or around March 2025, I was misled into submitting these forms, believing they were required to protect my rights (see Exhibit 29: Unsworn Declaration of Misrepresentation).\n- 14. Third-party claimants in the bankruptcy case (Case No. 22-50073) are attempting to seize my assets, despite my superior legal interest, and the bankruptcy court has failed to consider the criminal forfeiture exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).\n- 15. Neither the Government nor the bankruptcy trustee has provided a transparent list of seized or frozen assets, preventing me from confirming whether my farm loan, GClub membership cards, HDO, HCN, or locked HCN are designated as criminal proceeds. Additionally, my inability to access my Himalaya Exchange account due to its seizure further hinders my ability to provide detailed evidence of my investments, including those in the A10 project.\n\n#### III. LEGAL STANDARD\n\n- 16. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n): A third party asserting a legal interest in property subject to forfeiture may petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate their claim, demonstrating a superior legal interest or innocent ownership.\n- 17. Rule 41(g): A person aggrieved by the deprivation of property may move for its return in the district where it was seized (18 U.S.C. § 983(d)).\n- 18. Innocent Owner Defense: An innocent owner's property shall not be forfeited if they did not know of or participate in the conduct giving rise to forfeiture (18 U.S.C. § 983(d)).\n- 19. Bankruptcy Automatic Stay: Criminal forfeiture is exempt from the bankruptcy automatic stay (11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4)), but the bankruptcy court must notify all claimants and protect their interests (11 U.S.C. § 341).\n- 20. Court Assistance for Evidence: Courts may order limited discovery to assist pro se litigants in obtaining evidence when access is restricted by external factors, such as asset seizures (Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); United States v. Madoff, 08-cr-00213 (S.D.N.Y.)).\n- 21. Privacy Protection: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and Local Rule 5.3, courts may seal sensitive personal or financial information or allow pseudonymous filings to protect privacy, particularly when public disclosure risks personal safety or involves sensitive financial data (Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008)).\n\n22. Government Response: Under Local Rule 49.1 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 47, the Court may set a reasonable timeframe for the Government to respond to motions to ensure timely adjudication of claims.\n\n# 23. Precedents:\n\n- · In United States v. Madoff, 08-cr-00213 (S.D.N.Y.), investors successfully challenged inadequate notification and overbroad asset freezes, securing the return of legitimate investments, and retracted filings made under misrepresentation. Courts also assisted investors in obtaining records when access was restricted.\n- · In 1MDB Civil Forfeiture Litigation (C.D. Cal., 2016-2021), third parties obtained relief due to the government's failure to notify and distinguish legitimate assets.\n- · In United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer, 664 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2009), courts required a direct nexus between frozen assets and criminal proceeds.\n- · In Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308 (1999), the Supreme Court limited asset freezes to those directly related to the alleged offense.\n\n# IV. ARGUMENT\n\n# 24. I Am an Innocent Owner:\n\n- · My investments in the farm loan (\\$35,000), two GClub membership cards (\\$70,000), HDO (\\$205,559, with 187,365.33 remaining as of September 20, 2022), HCN (141,138 locked by Alliance Farms and 5,633.00 remaining), and the A10 project were made lawfully prior to the March 2023 indictment, as evidenced by [Exhibits 1-27], and I had no knowledge of or participation in the defendants' alleged crimes.\n- · Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d), I qualify as an innocent owner, entitled to the return of my property.\n\n# 25. Invalidity of Prior Petition for Remission and Delegation Form:\n\n· In or around March 2025, I was misled by Alliance Farms , and Bradford Geyer, through instructions in a September 26, 2023, email from Himalaya Exchange (Exhibit 28) to register with Bradford Geyer at http into submitting an online victim form (likely a Petition for Remission) and a delegation form, under the false impression that these\n\nMisrepresentation).\n\n- · I do not believe I was defrauded by Ho Wan Kwok and do not consider myself a victim. These filings do not reflect my true position and should be declared invalid, as they were submitted under misrepresentation.\n- This is consistent with United States v. Madoff, where courts allowed investors to clarify or retract filings made under misunderstanding.\n\n# 26. Procedural Errors in Criminal Forfeiture:\n\n- · Lack of Notice: I did not receive direct written notice of the freeze or forfeiture, violating 18 U.S.C. § 983(a), similar to errors in 1MDB Civil Forfeiture Litigation.\n- · Overboard Freeze: The Government has not demonstrated that my farm loan, GClub membership cards, HDO, HCN, or locked HCN are traceable to criminal proceeds, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 853(c) and United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer. My assets may be frozen under an overbroad restraining order.\n- · Lack of Transparency: The Government has not provided a clear list of seized assets, as noted in ECF Nos. 382, 388, and 395, preventing me from confirming their status.\n\n# 27. Procedural Errors in Bankruptcy Proceedings:\n\n- · Lack of Notice: I was not notified of the bankruptcy proceedings or the inclusion of my assets in the bankruptcy estate in Case No. 22-50073, violating 11 U.S.C. § 341.\n- · Improper Prioritization: The bankruptcy court allowed third-party claimants to assert claims over my assets, ignoring the criminal forfeiture exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4).\n- · Lack of Transparency: The bankruptcy trustee, Luc A. Despins, has not disclosed the creditor list or asset distribution plan in Case No. 22-50073, hindering my ability to protect my rights.\n\n# 28. Inability to Access Transaction Records:\n\n· Due to the seizure of the Himalaya Exchange platform, as referenced in Exhibit 29, I am unable to access my account (HID: redacted) to retrieve transaction records for my HDO, HCN, locked HCN, and A10 project investments. This restriction, caused by the Government's\n\n# 29. Alliance Farms and Bradford Geyer's Role:\n\n- · ECF Nos. 382, 388, and 395 identify Alliance Farms as a suspected co-conspirator, yet it has not been indicted, raising questions about the Government's failure to distinguish legitimate investor assets from criminal proceeds. Alliance Farms' locking of my 141,138 HCN further complicates my ability to access my assets.\n- · The September 26, 2023, email from Himalaya Exchange (Exhibit 28) instructed me to register with Bradford Geyer, reinforcing the misrepresentation by Alliance Farms and Bradford Geyer that submitting victim and delegation forms was necessary, potentially prejudicing my rights as an innocent owner.\n\n#### 30. Privacy Protection:\n\n- · Public disclosure of my personal and financial information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email, investment details, HID: redacted) risks personal safety, financial harm, harassment, or reputational damage due to the politically sensitive nature of this case and its association with sensitive financial matters.\n- · I respectfully request that the Court seal my personal information in all court filings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, Local Rule 5.3, and the Court's inherent authority, as supported by Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011) and Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008).\n- · Alternatively, I request leave to file a separate Motion to Seal to protect my privacy, ensuring that my identity and financial details, including my HID : Redacted, remain confidential.\n\n#### 31. Need for Timely Government Response:\n\n· To ensure prompt adjudication of my claims and prevent further financial harm, I request that the Court order the Government to file a response to this petition within a reasonable timeframe, as permitted under Local Rule 49.1 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 47,\n\ntypically 14-30 days, to clarify the status of my assets and address the procedural errors alleged herein.\n\n### V. RELIEF REQUESTED\n\nWHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court:\n\n- 1. Grant an ancillary hearing pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) to adjudicate my legal interest in the farm loan (\\$35,000), two GClub membership cards (\\$70,000), Himalaya Exchange account assets (HDO valued at \\$205,559 and HCN totaling 141,138 locked by Alliance Farms, with remaining balances of HDO 187,365.33 and HCN 5,633.00 as of September 20, 2022), and HCN locked by Alliance Farms.\n- 2. Order the immediate release and return of my frozen assets under Rule 41(g).\n- 3. Declare any prior victim form (likely a Petition for Remission) or delegation form submitted to Bradford Geyer invalid due to misrepresentation by Alliance Farms and Bradford Geyer, as evidenced by the September 26, 2023, Himalaya Exchange email (Exhibit 28).\n- 4. Declare the freeze invalid due to procedural errors in the criminal and bankruptcy proceedings (Case No. 22-50073, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut), including lack of notice, overbroad freezing, and lack of transparency.\n- 5. Order the Government, the bankruptcy trustee (Luc A. Despins, c/o Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166), Alliance Farms, or Himalaya Exchange to provide records of my investments in HDO, HCN, locked HCN, and the A10 project, as I am unable to access my Himalaya Exchange account (HID:redacted) due to its seizure.\n- 6. Enjoin third-party claimants in the bankruptcy case (Case No. 22-50073) from seizing my assets, pending adjudication of my rights.\n- 7. Protect my privacy by sealing my personal information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email, financial details, HID: redacted) in all court filings.\n- 8. Grant leave to file a separate Motion to Seal, if necessary, to ensure confidentiality of my personal and financial information.\n\n- 9. Order the Government to file a response to this petition within a court-specified timeframe, pursuant to Local Rule 49.1 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 47, to ensure timely adjudication of my claims.\n- 10. Provide such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\n# VI. DECLARATIONI\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.\n\nDATED: September 9, 2025 Signed:\n\nPetitioner redacted\n\nAddress redacted\n\nPhone: redacted\n\nEmail: redacted\n\nExhibits:\n\nExhibit 1-6: Farm Loan 1, Farm Loan 2, Farm Loan 2-1, Farm Loan 2-1, Farm Loan 3-\n\n1 [Farm Loan Investment Contract and Payment Records, redacted for privacy]\n\nExhibit 7-9: GClub 1, GClub A [Membership Card Agreement and Payment Confirmation, redacted for privacy]\n\nExhibit 10-18: Himalaya Exchange Top-Up Records, HDO 1, HDO 2, HDO 3, HDO 4, HDO 5,\n\nHDO 6, HDO 7-1 [Himalaya Exchange Account Payment Records, redacted for privacy]\n\nExhibit 19-26: HCN 2, HCN 2-1, HCN 3, HCN 3-1, HCN 4-1, HCN 4-2, HCN 1 [Evidence\n\nof HCN Sent for Lockup per Instruction of Alliance Farms, redacted for privacy]\n\nExhibit 27: Screen Capture of Balance in Himalaya Exchange Account (HDO 187,365.33 and HCN\n\n5,633.00 as of September 20, 2022, redacted for privacy)\n\nExhibit 28: Himalaya Exchange Email, September 26, 2023, Instructing Registration with Bradford Geyer (redacted for privacy)\n\nExhibit 29: Himalaya Exchange access error\n\nExhibit 30: Unsworn Declaration of Misrepresentation (under 28 U.S.C. § 1746)","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Farm Loan","forfeiture","Geyer","Bradford Geyer","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","853(n)","Rule 41(g)","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se","Guo","Miles Guo","Torres","Analisa Torres","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3148,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-10","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:46"},{"id":"court_sdny_741_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":741,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2025-09-10","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -against-HO WAN KWOK, a/","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\n\n-against-\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a “Miles Guo,” et al.,\nDefendants.\n\nCase No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n## MOTION TO SEAL PERSONAL INFORMATION OR PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY\n\nTO THE HONORABLE ANALISA TORRES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:\n\nI, (Petitioner) appearing **pro se**, respectfully move this Court to seal my personal information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email, financial details, HID: redacted) in all court filings related to my Third-Party Petition or, in the alternative, permit me to proceed pseudonymously as “Petitioner,” pursuant to **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, Local Rule 5.3**, and the Court’s inherent authority.\n\n### 1. Basis for Motion:\nPublic disclosure of my personal and financial information risks personal safety, financial harm, harassment, or reputational damage due to the politically sensitive nature of this case (**United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT**) and its association with politically sensitive matters involving the Himalaya Exchange, Alliance Farms, and bankruptcy proceedings (Case No. 22-50073, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut).\n\n### 2. Legal Support:\nSealing or pseudonymity is supported by **Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011)** and **Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008)**, which allow privacy protection when public disclosure poses significant risks.\n\n### 3. Request:\nI request that the Court seal my personal information in all filings, including the Third-Party Petition and Exhibits 1–30, or permit me to proceed pseudonymously. I have\n\nsubmitted redacted versions of all documents for public filing and unredacted versions for sealed filing, as required.\n\nDATED: September 10, 2025\n\nSigned: [手写: 签名]\n\nName (redacted )\n\nAddress (redacted)\n\nPhone: (redacted)\n\nEmail: (redacted )","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","Torres","Analisa Torres","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":275,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-09-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-09-10","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:47"},{"id":"court_ctb_4628_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4628,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-08-28","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: | :
:
Chapter 11
: |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | :
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1 | :
:
Jointly Administered
: |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER: (I) SUPPLEMENTING, AMENDING, AND SUPERSEDING (A) ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEDIATION, APPOINTING THE HONORABLE JAMES J. TANCREDI AS MEDIATOR, AND AMENDING ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS; AND (B) ORDER AMENDING ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEDIATION, APPOINTING THE HONORABLE JAMES J. TANCREDI AS MEDIATOR, AND AMENDING ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS TO FACILITATE CONSENSUAL PRE-LITIGATION AND PRE-APPEARANCE MEDIATION; AND (II) APPROVING INTERVENTION OF APPROPRIATE AVOIDANCE DEFENDANTS IN OMNIBUS ALTER EGO ACTIONS AS TO ALTER EGO CLAIMS AGAINST SPECIFIED ALTER EGO DEFENDANTS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, as chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby respectfully moves (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, in the form of the proposed order attached hereto as **Exhibit 1** (the \"Proposed Order\"), (i) supplementing, amending, and superseding (a) the Court's *Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings* [ECF No. 3163] (the \"Litigation Procedures Order\"); and (b) the Court's ordering amending the Litigation Procedures Order to approve procedures\n\n1 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\napplicable to consensual pre-litigation and pre-appearance mediation [ECF No. 3465] (the \"Pre-Litigation Procedures Order\" and, together with the Litigation Procedures Order, collectively, the \"Procedures Orders\"); and (ii) approving the intervention of relevant Avoidance Defendants in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions. [2](#page-1-0) In support of this Motion, the Trustee states the following:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. This Motion requests the approval of Amended Avoidance Action Procedures, including appended Discovery Procedures (collectively, the \"Amended Procedures\"), governing litigation, mediation, and discovery in respect to the Trustee's Avoidance Claims.\n\n2. The Amended Procedures will streamline Mediation Proceedings, making the process voluntary and thus appropriately reserved for parties that are actively interested in pursuing settlement negotiation and thus most likely to benefit from Mediators' efforts.\n\n3. The Amended Procedures also adopt Discovery Procedures that are designed to provide for efficient discovery proceedings appropriate to the extraordinary circumstances of this Chapter 11 Case. Where appropriate, these procedures provide for coordination of discovery proceedings (and, in particular, depositions), calculated to minimize duplicative process.\n\n4. Finally, by this Motion, the Trustee requests that the Court (a) approve relevant Avoidance Defendants' intervention in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions as the sole mechanism for such defendants to dispute the Trustee's claims that certain entities (*i.e.*, the Specified Alter Ego Defendants) are alter egos of and/or that they or their property are equitably or beneficially owned by the Debtor (collectively, \"Alter Ego Claims\") by filing a Notice of Intervention in the appropriate Alter Ego Action on or before the later of: (a) thirty (30) days from the entry of the Proposed Order; or (b): in any Avoidance Action commenced after the filing of this Motion, sixty\n\n2 All capitalized terms not defined in this Motion adopt the terms defined in the Procedures Orders and the Proposed Order, as applicable.\n\n(60) days from service of the summons and adversary complaint, and order that all Avoidance Defendants (whether or not they have filed a Notice of Intervention) shall be bound by the Court's judgments in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions as to the Specified Alter Ego Defendants. [3](#page-2-0)\n\n5. Absent such an order, the Trustee expects that Avoidance Defendants will seek to re-litigate the Trustee's Alter Ego Claims against the Specified Alter Ego Defendants dozens (if not more) times in the hundreds of pending Avoidance Actions. To state the obvious, this would be substantially inefficient and result in waste of judicial and Estate resources.\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n6. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n7. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an official committee of unsecured creditors (\"Committee\") in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n8. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [ECF No. 465] (the \"Trustee Order\") directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to the Trustee Order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee.\n\n9. Since his appointment, the Trustee has investigated the Debtor's financial affairs, including, among other things, claims relating to prepetition transfers of interests of the Debtor in property and postpetition transfers of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate that were not\n\n3 By seeking this relief, the Trustee does not waive but rather expressly maintains his position that all of the Court's existing rulings that certain entities are alter egos of and/or equitably or beneficially owned by the Debtor are effective and binding against the Avoidance Defendants.\n\nauthorized by the Court or under the Bankruptcy Code (collectively, \"Avoidance Claims\") as well as other Estate Claims.\n\n10. On January 29, 2024, the Court entered its *Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings* [ECF No. 2578] (the \"Original Procedures Order\"), establishing certain procedures governing litigation of the Avoidance Actions.\n\n11. Between February 9 and 15, 2024, the Trustee commenced an initial round of approximately 270 Avoidance Actions, *i.e.,* adversary proceedings to avoid and recover certain prepetition and postpetition transfers.\n\n12. On May 2, 2024, the Court entered its Litigation Procedures Order, amending and supplementing the Original Procedures Order, including, among other things, by adopting the Mediation Procedures. Approximately fifty (50) Avoidance Defendants are presently engaged in Mediation Proceedings with the Trustee supervised by Judge Tancredi.\n\n13. In addition to filing Avoidance Actions, the Trustee has also stipulated with numerous parties to toll the Trustee's statute of limitations to commence adversary proceedings against them. The Trustee is presently negotiating or otherwise communicating with these and other parties the Trustee believes may be subject to Estate Claims, as well as with counsel for Avoidance Defendants that have not yet appeared in the Avoidance Actions commenced by the Trustee (collectively, \"Counterparties\").\n\n14. To assist in resolution of Estate Claims, the Trustee requested, and the Court approved, the Pre-Litigation Procedures. The Pre-Litigation Procedures provide a process whereby the Trustee may undertake Mediation Proceedings with Counterparties prior to the Trustee commencing suit against them or with Avoidance Defendants the Trustee has sued but whose counsel have not yet appeared in this Court.\n\n4\n\n15. The Trustee has continued to file Avoidance Actions since the Trustee's initial filings in February 2024. To date, the Trustee has filed approximately 400 Avoidance Actions against nearly 500 Avoidance Defendants.\n\n#### **PROPOSED RELIEF**\n\n16. The Trustee proposes that the Court enter the Proposed Order amending and superseding the Procedures Orders in the following material respects:\n\n17. First, the Proposed Order provides for a single, simplified set of Mediation Procedures applicable to both appearing Avoidance Defendants (as provided in the Litigation Procedures Order) and non-appearing[4](#page-4-0) Avoidance Defendants and counterparties not yet sued by the Trustee (as provided in the Pre-Litigation Procedures Order). These simplified procedures also entrust to the Mediators' discretion the logistics and procedure of Mediation Proceedings and permit any party (*i.e.*, the Trustee or the applicable Avoidance Defendant or Counterparty) or the Mediator to terminate Mediation Proceedings at any time by filing a notice of termination.[5](#page-4-1) The lists of Stayed Avoidance Claims and Partially Stayed Avoidance Claims (*i.e.*, those claims specified in Exhibits 3-A and 3-B to the Amended Procedures) have also been revised; principally to reflect additional Avoidance Actions filed since April 2024 as well as amended complaints filed in certain pending actions.\n\n4 \"Non-appearing\" in this context refers to Avoidance Defendants whose counsel have contacted the Trustee and indicated interest in pursuing settlement but have not filed notices of appearance in the relevant Avoidance Actions. To be clear, where Avoidance Defendants do not appear and do not seek to negotiate a resolution with the Trustee, the Trustee has and will continue to pursue relief by default.\n\n5 Specifically, the amended procedures provide the Mediator discretion to determine (i) the length and schedule of any sessions, (ii) the order and format of presentations, (iii) the location of sessions and whether sessions are to be held in-person or via videoconference, (iv) whether the Mediating Parties shall be required to provide written submissions, and (v) who will attend mediation sessions. *See* Amended Procedures ¶ p.\n\n18. Second, the Proposed Order provides for the approval of Discovery Procedures pursuant to which the Trustee intends to undertake discovery with Avoidance Defendants. Among other things, these Discovery Procedures:\n\na. Provide for the Trustee to populate an electronic discovery Depository comprising documents subject to discovery by Avoidance Defendants. *See* Discovery Procedures ¶¶ 2-4. The Depository will be organized with Data Rooms covering subject matter foreseeably subject to discovery in Avoidance Actions. Avoidance Defendants seeking further written discovery from the Trustee shall first diligently seek to obtain documents and information from the Data Rooms and must make reasonable efforts to coordinate with other Avoidance Defendants when multiple Avoidance Defendants are seeking discovery as to the same or similar subject matter. *See id.* ¶ 6.\n\nb. Adopt a generally applicable Discovery Schedule in Avoidance Actions, subject to modification by up to ninety (90) days by stipulation of the parties and subject to further modification by order of the Court. *See id.* ¶ 5.\n\nc. Require Avoidance Defendants to coordinate in conducting deposition discovery including through omnibus deposition proceedings to minimize the risk that the same witnesses repeatedly deposed as to the same subject matter. *See id.* ¶ 10.\n\n19. Finally, the Proposed Order provides that Avoidance Defendants that have standing and that wish to dispute the Trustee's claims that certain defendants (*i.e.*, the Specified Alter Ego Defendants)[6](#page-5-0) in *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd., et al.*, Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249 (the \"First\n\n6 The Specified Alter Ego Defendants are: G Club International Limited; G Club Operations LLC; Himalaya International Financial Group Limited; Himalaya International Reserves Limited; Himalaya International Clearing Limited; Himalaya International Payments Limited; Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.; ACA Capital Group Ltd.; Hamilton Capital Holding Limited; Hamilton Investment Management Limited; Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC; Anton Development Limited; Eastern Profit Corporation Limited; Gold Perfect Limited; Group Dynasty Limited; Joy Chance Holdings Limited; Pacific King Investment Limited; Strong Country\n\nOmnibus Alter Ego Action\"), and *AA Global Ventures Limited, et al.*, Adv Proc. No. 24-05233 (the \"Second Omnibus Alter Ego Action\" and, together with the First Omnibus Alter Ego Action, collectively, the \"Omnibus Alter Ego Actions\") are alter egos of and/or equitably or beneficially owned by the Debtor may intervene in the applicable Omnibus Alter Ego Action(s) and that, irrespective of such intervention, Avoidance Defendants shall be bound by any judgments entered in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions with respect to the Specified Alter Ego Defendants.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF**\n\n20. The procedures in the Proposed Order provide orderly procedures for further litigation of the Trustee's Avoidance Claims.\n\n#### **A. Mediation Proceedings**\n\n21. Mediation Proceedings have provided the Trustee and Avoidance Defendants and Counterparties with a valuable resource to pursue negotiated resolutions of Avoidance Claims where the defendant is interested in doing so. The Trustee intends to continue to utilize Mediation Proceedings through the Mediation Procedures in the Amended Procedures.\n\n22. At the same time, some of the Avoidance Defendants presently referred to Mediation Proceedings have shown little if any interest in seeking to negotiate a settlement.\n\n23. To date, litigation of the Trustee's claims against Avoidance Defendants in Mediation Proceedings has been stayed; except for many of these defendants' participation in omnibus motion to dismiss briefing.[7](#page-6-0) Litigation should proceed with respect to Avoidance Defendants that are not interested in actively pursuing settlement through mediation. Moreover,\n\nHoldings Group Limited; AAGV Limited; Joincorp International Limited; Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited; and Ampleforth Capital Ltd.\n\n7 Certain Avoidance Defendants initially premised joint motion to dismiss briefing as a development that would assist the parties in making progress in settlement negotiations. However, after this Court ruled, rather than reengaging in Mediation Proceedings, most Avoidance Defendants unsuccessfully sought to pursue an interlocutory appeal in the District Court.\n\nvoluntary Mediation Proceedings will ensure that the valuable resource of the Mediators' time and attention are conserved for disputes where the parties are most likely to benefit (*i.e.*, those where the parties are actually interested in pursuing settlement).\n\n24. Under this revised structure, it is also sensible to defer to the Mediators' discretion as to matters of logistics and procedure (scheduling and format of proceedings, etc.). In any event, to date parties have generally deferred to the Mediators as to these matters and, where mutual interest exists in pursuing settlement negotiations, the parties have approached Mediation Proceedings cooperatively and with flexibility.\n\n#### **B. Discovery Procedures**\n\n25. The Court should also approve the proposed Discovery Procedures governing discovery proceedings in Avoidance Actions. The scope and complexities of the Debtor's fraudulent shell game are manifest, and the Trustee's investigation has amassed a trove of documents and information, much of which is likely subject to discovery in Avoidance Actions.\n\n26. Moreover, many Avoidance Actions will involve discovery as to similar or identical subject matter. Accordingly, the Trustee has proposed commonsense measures to institute efficiencies and, wherever possible, limit unnecessarily duplicative discovery proceedings.\n\n27. First, providing for the Trustee to produce documents by way of an electronic Depository organized into Data Rooms based on common subject matter, rather than on a defendant-by-defendant basis, will promote efficiency. [8](#page-7-0) It will also benefit Avoidance Defendants by offering them access to the Trustee's written production at the outset of discovery proceedings, without the need to serve written discovery.\n\n8 As discussed in the Discovery Procedures, *see* ¶ 5(a), the specific Data Rooms to which Avoidance Defendants are granted access will be determined on a Defendant-by-Defendant basis, based on the Avoidance Claims subject to litigation with respect to any defendant.\n\n28. Further efficiencies will be achieved and redundancies avoided by requiring Avoidance Defendants to meet and confer with the Trustee prior to serving Written Discovery Requests, and requiring defendants to look first to the Depository for documents and information and to reasonably coordinate with other Avoidance Defendants as to written discovery involving similar subject matter.\n\n29. These procedures are particularly appropriate here, where the vast majority of the Trustee's documents and information are not his own business documents but rather a collection of materials amassed in conducting a years'-long Bankruptcy Rule 2004 investigation.\n\n30. Second, the generally applicable Discovery Schedule, subject to extension on a claim-by-claim basis, will balance the efficiencies of uniform scheduling with flexibility to provide for adjustments where warranted. This procedure will also dispense with the need for the Court to hold many dozens of pretrial conferences for discovery scheduling in the near future.\n\n31. Third, by requiring parties engaged in discovery to coordinate in holding depositions, the Discovery Procedures will reduce the need for repetitive depositions. Allowing depositions to proceed in an uncoordinated manner risks numerous parties issuing deposition notices and subpoenas as to the same deponents. Not only would this waste the Trustee's time (and thus Estate resources), it would almost certainly lead to diminished cooperation by third-party witnesses, who, understandably, will not be inclined to repeatedly sit for depositions concerning the same subject matter.\n\n#### **C. Intervention Notices**\n\n32. Finally, the Court should order that Avoidance Defendants wishing to dispute the Trustee's claims that the Specified Alter Ego Defendants are the Debtor's alter egos and/or that they or their property are equitably or beneficially owned by the Debtor may do so only by timely\n\n9\n\nintervention in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions. The claims that the Trustee has asserted in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions underpin the Trustee's avoidance claims with respect to transfers made via the Specific Alter Ego Defendants. Indeed, for this reason, the Trustee's Avoidance Complaints asserting claims as to such transfers generally incorporate by reference the Trustee's adversary complaints filed in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions.\n\n33. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), applicable to the Avoidance Actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 7024, provides for the Court to approve the permissive intervention of any party having \"a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.\"\n\n34. In the absence of a single forum to adjudicate the Trustee's claims against the Specified Alter Ego Defendants, the Trustee expects that numerous Avoidance Defendants may seek to re-litigate the same legal and factual disputes in dozens of Adversary Proceedings. The result would impose substantial unnecessary costs and delays on the parties and the Court and risks creating myriad repetitive proceedings. For the avoidance of doubt, Avoidance Defendants will be bound by any ruling as to the Specified Alter Ego Defendants in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions whether or not the Trustee's claims against the Avoidance Defendants are otherwise stayed for any reason (including, without limitation, because they are listed on Exhibits 3-A or 3-B to the Amended Procedures or because they are subject to Mediation Proceedings).\n\n35. To be clear, the right to intervene should be limited to Avoidance Defendants that possess standing to dispute these matters (*i.e.*, where the Trustee has asserted that transfers were made to the Avoidance Defendants via one or more Specified Alter Ego Defendants). Accordingly, the Court should permit the Trustee to object to any Notice of Intervention where the Avoidance Defendant at issue lacks standing. [9](#page-10-0)\n\n#### **MEET-AND-CONFER PROCESS**\n\n36. On or before June 17, 2025, the Trustee filed an initial draft of the Amended Procedures in all Avoidance Actions pending at that time. In doing so, the Trustee solicited feedback from all Avoidance Defendants as to the proposed revised procedures.\n\n37. The Trustee has considered written feedback from more than two dozen Avoidance Defendants. The Trustee has also held multiple, lengthy meet-and-confer sessions with counsel for nearly 20 Avoidance Defendants.\n\n38. Through this process, in consideration of the feedback received, the Trustee has made numerous and substantial adjustments to the Amended Procedures (and, in particular, the proposed Discovery Procedures). Indeed, last month the Trustee circulated a revised draft of the Amended Procedures to Avoidance Defendants that initially submitted comments, which draft the Trustee has still further revised in consideration of additional feedback.\n\n#### **NOTICE AND NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n39. The Trustee will file this Motion, and any notice or order scheduling a hearing on this Motion (the \"Hearing Notice\"), in: (a) the Chapter 11 Case, (b) all pending Avoidance Actions (whether or not stayed), and (c) the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions. Notice will thus be given to all appearing parties in these proceedings eligible to receive electronic notice. The Trustee will also send the Motion and any Hearing Notice via U.S. Mail to all non-appearing Avoidance Defendants.\n\n9 By seeking this relief, the Trustee does not waive but rather expressly maintains his position that all of the Court's existing rulings that certain entities are alter egos of and/or equitably or beneficially owned by the Debtor are effective and binding against the Avoidance Defendants.\n\nThe foregoing constitutes due and sufficient notice, and the Trustee submits that no further notice should be required.\n\n40. No other or prior motion for the relief sought herein has been made to this Court or any other Court.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n**WHEREFORE**, the Court should grant this Motion by entry of the Proposed Order and\n\ngrant such other and further relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: August 28, 2025 New Haven, Connecticut\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 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 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4628 Filed 08/28/25 Entered 08/28/25 16:20:57 Page 14 of 53\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n**(Proposed Order)**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| --------------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1 | :
:
Jointly Administered
: |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n\n#### **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING**\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER: (I) SUPPLEMENTING, AMENDING, AND SUPERSEDING (A) ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEDIATION, APPOINTING THE HONORABLE JAMES J. TANCREDI AS MEDIATOR, AND AMENDING ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS; AND (B) ORDER AMENDING ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEDIATION, APPOINTING THE HONORABLE JAMES J. TANCREDI AS MEDIATOR, AND AMENDING ORDER APPROVING PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO AVOIDANCE CLAIM ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS TO FACILITATE CONSENSUAL PRE-LITIGATION AND PRE-APPEARANCE MEDIATION; AND (II) APPROVING INTERVENTION OF APPROPRIATE AVOIDANCE DEFENDANTS IN OMNIBUS ALTER EGO ACTIONS AS TO ALTER EGO CLAIMS AGAINST SPECIFIED ALTER EGO DEFENDANTS**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\") for Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for entry of an order (this \"Order\") (i) supplementing, amending, and superseding (a) the Court's *Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings* [ECF No. 3163] (the \"Litigation Procedures Order\"); and (b) the Court's ordering amending the Litigation Procedures\n\n1 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\nOrder to approve procedures applicable to consensual pre-litigation and pre-appearance mediation [ECF No. 3465] (the \"Pre-Litigation Procedures Order\" and, together with the Litigation Procedures Order, collectively, the \"Procedures Orders\"); and (ii) approving the intervention of relevant Avoidance Defendants in *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd., et al.*, Adv. Proc. No. 24- 05249 (the \"First Omnibus Alter Ego Action\"), and/or *AA Global Ventures Limited, et al.*, Adv Proc. No. 24-05233 (the \"Second Omnibus Alter Ego Action\" and, together with the First Omnibus Alter Ego Action, collectively, the \"Omnibus Alter Ego Actions\") for certain purposes; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion is in the best interest of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, its creditors, and all parties in interest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon proceedings at a hearing held on \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ \\_\\_, 2025; and any objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted as set forth herein.\n\n2. The *Amended Avoidance Litigation and Mediation Procedures*, including, without limitation, the appended Discovery Procedures (collectively, the \"Amended Procedures\") appended hereto as **Exhibit A** are hereby approved and so ordered.[2](#page-15-0)\n\n3. This Order and the Amended Procedures appended hereto shall amend and supersede the existing Procedures Orders.\n\n4. On or before the later of: (a) thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order; or (b): in any Avoidance Action commenced after the filing of the Motion, sixty (60) days from service of the summons and adversary complaint, any Avoidance Defendant wishing to dispute the Trustee's\n\n2 Capitalized terms not expressly defined in this Order shall adopt the meanings ascribed to them in the Amended Procedures.\n\nclaims that any of G Club International Limited; G Club Operations LLC; Himalaya International Financial Group Limited; Himalaya International Reserves Limited; Himalaya International Clearing Limited; Himalaya International Payments Limited; Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.; ACA Capital Group Ltd.; Hamilton Capital Holding Limited; Hamilton Investment Management Limited; Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC; Anton Development Limited; Eastern Profit Corporation Limited; Gold Perfect Limited; Group Dynasty Limited; Joy Chance Holdings Limited; Pacific King Investment Limited; Strong Country Holdings Group Limited; AAGV Limited; Joincorp International Limited; Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited; and/or Ampleforth Capital Ltd. (collectively, the \"Specified Alter Ego Defendants\") are alter egos of and/or that they or their property are equitably or beneficially owned by the Debtor (such claims, collectively, \"Alter Ego Claims\") shall file a *Notice of Intervention* in the Omnibus Alter Ego Action in which such claims are pending. The Notice of Intervention shall identify the intervening Avoidance Defendant and identify the specific Alter Ego Claims as to which the Avoidance Defendant seeks to intervene.\n\n5. The intervening Avoidance Defendant's right to participate in proceedings in Omnibus Alter Ego Actions shall be limited to those claims that the Avoidance Defendant has identified and has standing to dispute. No Notice of Intervention shall be effective unless timely filed.\n\n6. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of any Notice of Intervention, the Trustee may object to an Avoidance Defendant's intervention in an Omnibus Alter Ego Action by filing an objection in the relevant Omnibus Alter Ego Action for the following reasons: (a) the Trustee disputes the Avoidance Defendant's standing to participate in the Omnibus Alter Ego Action or the scope of intervention described in the Notice of Intervention exceeds such standing; or (b) the Notice of Intervention is untimely. Following the filing of such an objection, the relevant Avoidance Defendant may file a reply withing fourteen (14) days, following which the Court shall resolve the Trustee's objection. In the absence of an objection by the Trustee, the Avoidance Defendant's intervention in the Omnibus Alter Ego Action to the extent described in the Notice of Intervention shall be deemed approved.\n\n7. Any judgments entered in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions with respect to the Specified Alter Ego Defendants shall be binding on all Avoidance Defendants, irrespective of whether an Avoidance Defendant filed a Notice of Intervention in the relevant Omnibus Alter Ego Action. For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Amended Procedures, this shall include Avoidance Defendants against which the Trustee's Avoidance Claims are otherwise stayed.\n\n8. The Court retains jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the implementation of this Order.\n\n9. This Order shall be effective immediately upon entry.\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n**(Amended Avoidance Litigation and Mediation Procedures)**\n\n### **Amended Avoidance Litigation and Mediation Procedures**\n\na. The Amended Avoidance Action Procedures (as may be further amended, the \"Amended Procedures\") shall apply to: (i) any adversary proceedings commenced by the Trustee on or after February 1, 2024, in which the Trustee asserts claims solely under sections 544, 547, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and analogous claims under applicable state law (the \"Avoidance Actions\"); and/or (ii) in respect to Mediation Procedures (as defined herein) to any claims asserted or that may be asserted by the Trustee.\n\nb. Upon filing a complaint commencing any Avoidance Action (an \"Avoidance Complaint\"), the Trustee shall file a *Notice of Applicability of Amended Avoidance Litigation and Mediation Procedures* in a form substantially similar to that attached hereto as **Exhibit 1** (the \"Amended Procedures Notice\"). The Trustee shall serve a copy of the Amended Procedures Notice on each defendant in an Avoidance Action (an \"Avoidance Defendant\") together with the Summons and Avoidance Complaint pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004.\n\nc. Motions affecting multiple Avoidance Actions shall be filed in each applicable Avoidance Action and shall use a caption substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit 2**.\n\nd. To the extent that an Avoidance Complaint (including exhibits) contains information that is designated confidential or highly confidential pursuant to the amended Protective Order [Main Case ECF Nos. 923, 3264, 4448] (as may be further modified, the \"Protective Order\") and the amended Stipulated Addendum to Protective Order [Main Case ECF Nos. 2460, 3264, 4448] (as may be further modified, the \"P.O. Addendum\"), the Trustee may file the Avoidance Complaint under seal (a \"Sealed Avoidance Complaint\"), *provided, however*, the Trustee shall file unsealed a copy of the Avoidance Complaint that redacts any information that is designated confidential or highly confidential (a \"Redacted Avoidance Complaint\"). Service of a Redacted Avoidance Complaint shall constitute sufficient service of a complaint as required by Bankruptcy Rule 7004. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Protective Order and the P.O. Addendum, upon any Avoidance Defendant and its counsel each executing copies of Exhibit A to the Protective Order and, if applicable, Exhibit A to the P.O. Addendum (a \"P.O. Consent\"), the Trustee may provide a copy of the unredacted Avoidance Complaint to such Avoidance Defendant. Following the appearance of any self-represented Avoidance Defendant, such Avoidance Defendant shall confer with counsel for the Trustee and advise whether they prefer to receive notice by email or by U.S. Mail and the Trustee shall provide any required notices to the self-represented Avoidance Defendant consistent with their stated preference.\n\ne. An Avoidance Defendant's time to respond to any Avoidance Complaint (the \"Response Date\") shall be sixty (60) days from the date that service is effected on such Avoidance Defendant, *provided, however*, that, without further order of the Court, the Trustee and any Avoidance Defendant may stipulate to further extend the defendant's Response Date up to ninety (90) additional days. Any such stipulation shall be made in writing and the Trustee shall file such stipulation or otherwise shall file a notice of the stipulated extension on the docket in the applicable Avoidance Action. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary:\n\ni. The claims against Avoidance Defendants set forth on **Exhibit 3-A** attached hereto (the \"Stayed Avoidance Claims\") shall be stayed pending further order of the Court. At such time that the stay of the Stayed Avoidance Claims is lifted, the Court shall determine whether the Stayed Avoidance Claims shall be subject to the Mediation Procedures and set deadlines for Avoidance Defendants in such actions to respond to the Avoidance Complaints. For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding such stay, certain aspects of Stayed Avoidance Claims may be subject to litigation and binding adjudication through the procedure described in the Court's Order approving these Amended Procedures (*i.e.*, in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions, as defined in the Court's Order).\n\nii. The claims against Avoidance Defendants set forth on **Exhibit 3-B** attached hereto (the \"Partially Stayed Avoidance Claims\") shall be stayed pending further order of the Court solely as to any legal or factual issues concerning whether AA Global Ventures Limited; AAGV Limited; Alzarro Enterprises Ltd.; Ampleforth Capital Ltd.; Assets Sino Limited; Auspicious Coast Limited; BSA Strategic Fund I; Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited; Crane Advisory Group LLC; Delta Konsult Limited; Eagle Eye Investments Limited; Fiesta Investment Ltd.; Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited; Gold Perfect Limited; Group Dynasty Limited; GS Security Solutions Inc.; Guang Hong Limited; H Reserve Management Limited; Head Win Group Limited; Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited; Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited; Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.; Infinity Treasury Management Inc.; Insight Phoenix Fund; Joincorp International Limited; Joy Chance Holdings Limited; Kingdom Rich Limited; Long Gate Limited; New Miracle Limited; Pacific King Investment Limited; Rich Group Development Limited; Rising Sun Capital Ltd.; River Valley Operations LLC; Sail Victory Limited; Strong Country Holdings Group Limited; Thousand Stars Company Limited; New Dynamic Development Limited; ACA Capital Group Ltd, Anton Development Limited, G Club International Limited, G Club Operations LLC, G Fashion, G Fashion Media Group Inc., GFNY Inc., Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd, Himalaya International Clearing Ltd, Leading Shine Limited, Rule of Law Foundation III Inc., Rule of Law Society IV Inc., Saraca Media Group Inc., AA Global Ventures Limited, AAGV Limited, Alzarro Enterprises Ltd., Ampleforth Capital Ltd., Assets Sino Limited, Auspicious Coast Limited, BSA Strategic Fund I, Canadian Agriproduct Monetary Investments Limited, Crane Advisory Group LLC, Delta Konsult Limited, Eagle Eye Investments Limited, Fiesta Investment Ltd., Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited, Gold Perfect Limited, Group Dynasty Limited, GS Security Solutions Inc., Guang Hong Limited, H Reserve Management Limited, Head Win Group Limited, HGA Property Operation LLC, Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited, Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited, Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., Infinity Treasury Management Inc., Insight Phoenix Fund, Joincorp International Limited, Joy Chance Holdings Limited, Kingdom Rich Limited, Long Gate Limited, New Miracle Limited, Pacific King Investment Limited, Rich Group Development Limited, Rising Sun Capital Ltd., River Valley Operations LLC, Sail Victory\n\nLimited, Strong Country Holdings Group Limited, and/or Thousand Stars Company Limited were alter-egos of the Debtor and/or whether the property of such entities was property of the Debtor and/or of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate (collectively, the \"Stayed Issues\"). For the avoidance of doubt, Stayed Issues may be mediated on a voluntary basis and may also be subject to litigation and binding adjudication through the procedure described in the Court's Order approving these Amended Procedures (*i.e.*, in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions, as defined in the Court's Order).\n\niii. Upon or after the filing of any new Avoidance Action, the Trustee may designate claims in such action to be Stayed Avoidance Claims or Partially Stayed Avoidance Claims by filing a notice of such designation (a \"Stay Designation Notice\") in the relevant Avoidance Action. Any Avoidance Defendant wishing to challenge a Stay Designation Notice shall file a response to such notice in the relevant Avoidance Action within seven (7) days of appearing in same, to which the Trustee may reply within fourteen (14) days of the filing of such response. Any disputes over a Stay Designation Notice shall be determined by the Court.\n\nf. In the event that any Avoidance Defendant responds to an Avoidance Complaint by filing a motion pursuant to Civil Rule 12, the Trustee shall have sixty (60) days to respond to such motion, *provided, however*, if such a motion is filed with respect to claims that are stayed or with respect to claims that become stayed while such a motion is pending, the Trustee shall have sixty (60) days to respond to such motion following the termination of the stay. An Avoidance Defendant shall have thirty (30) days to reply to any response by the Trustee to a motion filed pursuant to Civil Rule 12.\n\ng. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, no initial pretrial conference pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7016 will be held prior to discovery in any Avoidance Action and, accordingly, the Summons issued by the Clerk of the Court and served by the Trustee will not include a date for a pretrial conference. To the extent that a party to an Avoidance Action believes that a pretrial conference is necessary to address scheduling or other issues, any party may request such a conference at any time by filing a request on the docket in the Avoidance Action.\n\nh. Discovery in any Avoidance Action as to any claims that are not stayed shall be conducted pursuant to the discovery procedures (the \"Discovery Procedures\") appended hereto as **Exhibit 4**. Civil Rule 26 (to the extent incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 7026), and District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule 7026-1, shall apply to the Avoidance Actions, except to the extent that they are expressly modified by the Amended Procedures (including, without limitation, the appended Discovery Procedures). For the avoidance of doubt, the stay effective during Mediation Proceedings shall include all formal discovery but shall not preclude any informal exchange of documents or information on a voluntary basis or as an Assigned Mediator (as defined herein) may direct.\n\ni. Any party to an Avoidance Action may request that these Amended Procedures be modified as applied in such Avoidance Action for good cause shown. Such modification shall be requested by motion filed in the applicable Avoidance Action.\n\nj. Any claims asserted or that may be asserted by the Trustee, including, without limitation, Avoidance Claims, shall be subject to the following procedures described in paragraphs (k) through (w) herein governing mediation proceedings (the \"Mediation Procedures\").\n\nk. The Trustee and any other party the Trustee believes may be subject to claims owned by the Estate (a \"Counterparty\") may stipulate (a \"Mediation Stipulation\") to refer the Trustee's claims against such Counterparty (the \"Mediated Claims\") to non-binding mediation proceedings (as set forth herein, the \"Mediation Proceedings\"). Mediation Stipulations shall be made as follows:\n\ni. Mediation Stipulations shall be made in writing signed by the Trustee and the applicable Counterparty and shall confirm that the Trustee and the Counterparty consent to the Mediation Procedures.\n\nii. Mediation Stipulations in pending Avoidance Actions shall be filed in the applicable Avoidance Action.\n\niii. Mediation Stipulations shall be submitted to Judge Tancredi (a \"Mediation Referral\") with joint correspondence (whether by letter or by email) to Judge Tancredi's mediation email address attaching the applicable Mediation Stipulation and briefly (and in a non-argumentative manner) describing the Mediated Claims.\n\nl. If the Trustee has already commenced litigation against a Counterparty at the time that the Trustee and the Counterparty (collectively, the \"Mediating Parties\") execute the Mediation Stipulation, litigation shall be stayed (including, without limitation, as to such Counterparty's obligation to respond to the Avoidance Complaint) until the conclusion of Mediation Proceedings. If any litigation deadlines would otherwise expire during Mediation Proceedings or within thirty (30) days following the termination thereof, such deadlines shall be suspended until the first business day that is thirty (30) days following the termination of Mediation Proceedings, *provided, however*, as to any deadline for the Trustee to respond to a motion filed pursuant to Civil Rule 12 prior to or during Mediation Proceedings, the Trustee's deadline to respond to such motion shall be the first business day that is sixty (60) days following the termination of Mediation Proceedings. For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding such stay, certain aspects of Mediated Claims may be subject to litigation and binding adjudication through the procedure described in the Court's Order approving these Amended Procedures (*i.e.*, in the Omnibus Alter Ego Actions, as defined in the Court's Order).\n\nm. United States Bankruptcy Judge James J. Tancredi (\"Judge Tancredi\") has been appointed as the lead mediator, *see* original *Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings* [Main Case ECF No. 3163], and shall continue to oversee all Mediation Proceedings, *provided, however*, mediations shall be conducted by Judge Tancredi or by a mediator from an approved panel of mediators (the \"Mediation Panel\"). The members of the Mediation Panel shall be selected by Judge Tancredi, subject to the Court's approval of the appointment of each such mediator and rates of compensation applicable to same. For the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee or any Counterparty may suggest potential mediators for appointment to the Mediation Panel to Judge Tancredi and Judge Tancredi may in his discretion consult with the Trustee or such Counterparty regarding their suggestions. The Trustee shall request the Court's approval of mediators selected by Judge Tancredi by filing a motion in the Main Case only with notice filed in any pending Avoidance Actions, and the appointment of a mediator to the Mediation Panel shall become effective upon approval by the Court following the Court's consideration of the motion and any objections or responses to same. All matters concerning the responsibility of parties to Mediation Proceedings to compensate any Assigned Mediator shall be reserved pending the assignment of any mediators to a Mediation Panel that require compensation, if any.\n\nn. Upon a Mediation Referral, Judge Tancredi shall assign the Mediated Claims to be mediated by himself or by a member of the Mediation Panel (the \"Assigned Mediator\"). Judge Tancredi may also order that related Mediation Proceedings (including, where appropriate, where claims are asserted against multiple defendants in a single Avoidance Action) be consolidated. Upon notification of their assignment, the Assigned Mediator shall determine whether they have any conflicts with respect to the Mediated Claims and, in the event of a conflict, shall recuse themself and not act in the particular mediation unless such conflict is disclosed to and expressly waived by the Mediating Parties. If the Assigned Mediator is recused, Judge Tancredi shall assign an alternative mediator from the Mediation Panel or shall assign himself to the mediation. If a Mediating Party believes that a conflict of interest precludes the service of the Assigned Mediator or otherwise opposes the assignment of the Assigned Mediator, such party may seek the assignment of a different Assigned Mediator by letter submitted to Judge Tancredi through his mediation email address (with copies to the opposing party and the Assigned Mediator).\n\no. All proceedings and writings incident to Mediation Proceedings shall be considered privileged and confidential and subject to all protections of Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and shall not be reported or admitted as evidence for any reason except to prove that a party failed to comply with the Mediation Procedures. No stenographic, written, electronic, or any other form of recording or internet posting shall be made at any time during or after the Mediation Proceedings except to memorialize a definitive settlement agreement approved by Judge Tancredi. Judge Tancredi (including, without limitation, in his capacity as lead mediator and as an Assigned Mediator), any other Assigned Mediator, and their respective agents, shall have absolute judicial immunity as provided under state, federal, and common law, from liability for any act or omission in connection with the Mediation Proceedings, and from compulsory process to testify or produce documents in connection with the Mediation Proceedings except as set forth in this paragraph, and shall be held harmless by all Mediating Parties. Neither any Assigned Mediator nor Judge Tancredi shall be subpoenaed or called as a witness or expert by any party except as set forth in this paragraph. No party shall attempt to compel the testimony of, or compel the production of documents from, the Assigned Mediator (including his/her agents, partners, or employees of their respective law firms or organizations) or Judge Tancredi (including his agents, partners, or employees), *provided, however*, subject to Court order, the Assigned Mediator or Judge Tancredi may be called as a witness by any party and may be compelled to testify on a limited basis in\n\nproceedings where it is alleged that a party failed to comply with the Mediation Procedures. Any documents provided to the Assigned Mediator or Judge Tancredi by the parties shall be destroyed within thirty (30) days after the termination of Mediation Proceedings unless the Court orders otherwise.\n\np. The Assigned Mediator shall preside over any mediation sessions and the rules of evidence shall not apply. The Assigned Mediator shall determine the format of any mediation sessions, including, without limitation, (i) the length and schedule of any sessions, (ii) the order and format of presentations, (iii) the location of sessions and whether sessions are to be held inperson or via videoconference, (iv) whether the Mediating Parties shall be required to provide written submissions, and (v) whether counsel only and/or client representatives with authority to settle Mediated Claims shall be required to attend mediation sessions. The Assigned Mediator may implement any procedures which are reasonable and practical under the circumstances. Judge Tancredi is authorized to seek any amendments to the Mediation Procedures during the Mediation Proceedings that he believes are necessary to assist with the mediation. Any Mediating Party may communicate *ex-parte* with the Assigned Mediator to the extent that their Assigned Mediator deems appropriate. The Trustee and his counsel may communicate *ex-parte* with Judge Tancredi concerning the implementation of these Mediation Procedures, the selection of mediators to the Mediation Panel, the categorization of Avoidance Actions, and/or any recommendations issued by Judge Tancredi to the Court.\n\nq. Mediating Parties shall participate in Mediation Proceedings pursuant to the Mediation Procedures and as directed by the applicable Assigned Mediator in good faith and with a view toward reaching a consensual resolution. An Assigned Mediator may report any noncompliance with the Mediation Procedures to the Court by a written notice, which Judge Tancredi shall cause to be filed in any applicable adversary proceeding or otherwise in the Main Case. If a Mediating Party fails to comply with the Mediation Procedures, the Court may (with or without the filing of a motion by any party) schedule a hearing to consider the appropriateness of sanctions against the noncompliant party. Such sanctions may include, without limitation, assessing costs of the Mediation Proceedings and/or the opposing party's attorneys' fees against the noncompliant party. Additionally, in cases of willful, persistent, or egregious noncompliance, the Court may enter a default judgment or dismissal against the party that failed to comply with the Mediation Procedures. Failure to achieve settlement and/or termination of Mediation Proceedings alone cannot constitute grounds for a finding of \"bad faith\" or the imposition of sanctions. An Assigned Mediator (other than Judge Tancredi) may at any time and for any reason recommend to Judge Tancredi that Mediation Proceedings as to any Mediated Claims be reassigned.\n\nr. If Mediation Proceedings are successful in achieving a settlement of the Mediated Claims, in whole or in part, the Assigned Mediator shall prepare a report (the \"Mediator's Report\") indicating whether the Mediating Parties adhered to these Mediation Procedures. The Assigned Mediator may, but shall not be required, to indicate in such Mediator's Report whether the Assigned Mediator believes that the proposed settlement that the economics and terms of the settlement agreement are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Chapter 11 estate as measured by the standards of *In re Iridium Operating LLC*, 478 F.3d 452, 462 (2d Cir. 2007). If the Mediated Claims are the subject of a pending adversary proceeding, Judge Tancredi shall cause the Mediator's Report to be filed in the applicable adversary proceeding. If the Mediated Claims are not the subject of a pending adversary proceeding, the Assigned Mediator shall transmit the Mediator's Report to the Trustee and the Trustee shall provide a copy of such report to the applicable Counterparty. The Mediator's Report shall not address the substance of mediation discussions or provide details of any settlement that might be reached.\n\ns. The Trustee shall file a motion requesting Court approval as soon as practicable following the issuance of any Mediator's Report indicating a full or partial settlement. The Trustee may submit a motion seeking such approval under seal (with access limited to the Trustee, the relevant Counterparty, counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, and the United States Trustee) to the extent the Trustee believes that public disclosure of the settlement terms would harm the estate and/or would implicate commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential information public disclosure of which would prejudice parties to the settlement. Where a motion is filed under seal, the Trustee shall file on the public docket a copy of the motion that redacts any commercially sensitive or otherwise confidential information.\n\nt. Members of the Mediation Panel shall regularly consult with Judge Tancredi concerning the status of Mediation Proceedings to which they are assigned. Judge Tancredi may submit reports to the Court regarding the progress of Mediation Proceedings and any recommendations of Judge Tancredi to promote the efficient administration of the Avoidance Actions and/or Mediated Claims. Such reports shall be issued in writing and filed on the docket in the Main Case with notice to any Avoidance Defendants that would be impacted by any recommendations of Judge Tancredi. Upon a hearing considering Judge Tancredi's recommendations and any timely written response but without need for the filing of a motion, the Court may enter further orders addressing such recommendations.\n\nu. The Mediation Procedures shall be subject to modification by further order of the Court, including, without limitation, by a motion filed in the Main Case by the Trustee or any party in interest for good cause shown, or otherwise as the Court deems appropriate, including, without limitation, based upon Judge Tancredi's recommendations.\n\nv. Mediation Proceedings shall terminate upon the earliest of the issuance of a Mediator's Report indicating a complete resolution of the Mediating Parties' Mediated Claims, a written notice of termination by any Mediating Party or Judge Tancredi (a \"Termination Notice\"), or an order of the Court terminating such proceedings. Any Termination Notice shall be served on the following parties (as applicable): (i) the Trustee, (ii) the Counterparty, (iii) the Assigned Mediator, and (iv) Judge Tancredi. If the Termination Notice applies to Mediated Claims that are the subject of an adversary proceeding, the issuing party shall cause the Termination Notice to be filed in the applicable adversary proceeding. A Termination Notice may be issued at any time by any of the foregoing parties and for any reason. For the avoidance of doubt, Judge Tancredi may\n\nissue a Termination Notice immediately upon a Mediation Referral if Judge Tancredi declines to accept the Mediated Claims for Mediation Proceedings.\n\nw. Notwithstanding anything in these Amended Procedures to the contrary, these Mediation Procedures may be modified by the Court upon the request of the Trustee or any other party in interest, or as otherwise ordered by the Court (including, without limitation, upon recommendations issued by Judge Tancredi), upon a motion filed in the Main Case only in accordance with any applicable rules, provided, however, the revised Mediation Procedures, upon approval, shall be filed in all Avoidance Actions.\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n**(Amended Procedures Notice)**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------|------------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | :
x | |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 | | :
: | |\n| TRUSTEE, | | :
: | Adv. Proceeding No. xx-xxxxx |\n| v. | Plaintiff, | :
: | |\n| | | :
: | |\n| [ | ], | :
: | |\n| | Defendant. | : | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | :
x | |\n\n### **[FORM OF[ NOTICE OF APPLICABILITY OF AMENDED AVOIDANCE LITIGATION AND MEDIATION PROCEDURES**\n\n**PLEASE TAKE NOTICE** that the *Order Granting Motion for Entry of Order: (I)*\n\n*Supplementing, Amending, and Superseding (A) Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings; (B) Order Amending Order Amending*\n\n1 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*Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings to Facilitate Consensual Pre-Litigation and Pre-Appearance Mediation; and (II) Approving Intervention of Appropriate Avoidance Defendants in Omnibus Alter Ego Actions as to Alter Ego Claims Against Specified Alter Ego Defendants* [Main Case ECF No. (\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_)] appended hereto as **Exhibit 1**, including, without limitation, the *Amended Avoidance Litigation and Mediation Procedures* appended thereto, is hereby made applicable to and governs this adversary proceeding.\n\nDated: [\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_], 202\\_ LUC A. DESPINS\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ FORM*\n\n[Attorney (ct )] NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2884 Email: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n### **[FORM OF[ Exhibit 1**\n\n**(Order Granting Motion for Entry of Order: (I) Supplementing, Amending, and Superseding (A) Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings; and (B) Order Amending Order Amending Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings to Facilitate Consensual Pre-Litigation and Pre-Appearance Mediation; and (II) Approving Intervention of Appropriate Avoidance Defendants in Omnibus Alter Ego Actions as to Alter Ego Claims Against Specified Alter Ego Defendants)**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4628 Filed 08/28/25 Entered 08/28/25 16:20:57 Page 32 of 53\n\n# **EXHIBIT 2**\n\n**(Form of Caption)**\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION
----------------------------------------------------------------
x | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | 1
et al., | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
:
(Jointly Administered)
: |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
v. | ----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, | x
:
Adv. Proceeding Nos. 24-05005, 24-05006,
:
24-05008, 24-05009, 24-05010, 24-05011,
:
24-05012, 24-05013, 24-05014, 24-05015,
:
24-05016, 24-05017, 24-05018, 24-05019,
:
24-05020, 24-05021, 24-05022, 24-05023,
: |\n| AVOIDANCE DEFENDANTS, | | :
24-05024, 24-05025, 24-05026, 24-05027,
:
24-05028, 24-05029, 24-05030, 24-05031,
:
24-05032, 24-05033, 24-05035, 24-05036,
: |\n| | Defendants. | 24-05037, 24-05038, 24-05039, 24-05040,
:
24-05041, 24-05042, 24-05043, 24-05044,
:
24-05045, 24-05046, 24-05047, 24-05048,
:
:
24-05049, 24-05050, 24-05051, 24-05052,
:
24-05053, 24-05054, 24-05055, 24-05056,
:
24-05057, 24-05058, 24-05059, 24-05060,
:
24-05061, 24-05062, 24-05063, 24-05064, |\n| | | :
24-05065, 24-05066, 24-05067, 24-05068,
:
24-05069, 24-05070, 24-05071, 24-05072,
:
24-05073, 24-05074, 24-05075, 24-05076,
:
:
24-05077, 24-05078, 24-05079, 24-05080,
:
24-05081, 24-05082, 24-05084, 24-05085,
:
24-05086, 24-05087, 24-05088, 24-05089,
:
24-05090, 24-05091, 24-05092, 24-05093, |\n| (caption
continues on next page) | | :
24-05094, 24-05095, 24-05096, 24-05097,
:
24-05098, 24-05099, 24-05100, 24-05101,
: |\n\n1 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: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 24-05102, 24-05103, 24-05104, 24-05105, 24-05106, 24-05107, 24-05108, 24-05109, 24-05110, 24-05111, 24-05112, 24-05113, 24-05114, 24-05115, 24-05116, 24-05117, 24-05118, 24-05119, 24-05120, 24-05121, 24-05122, 24-05123, 24-05124, 24-05125, 24-05126, 24-05127, 24-05128, 24-05129, 24-05130, 24-05131, 24-05133, 24-05134, 24-05135, 24-05136, 24-05137, 24-05138, 24-05139, 24-05140, 24-05141, 24-05142, 24-05143, 24-05144, 24-05145, 24-05146, 24-05147, 24-05148, 24-05149, 24-05150, 24-05151, 24-05152, 24-05153, 24-05154, 24-05155, 24-05156, 24-05157, 24-05159, 24-05160, 24-05161, 24-05162, 24-05163, 24-05164, 24-05165, 24-05166, 24-05167, 24-05168, 24-05169, 24-05170, 24-05171, 24-05172, 24-05173, 24-05174, 24-05175, 24-05176, 24-05177, 24-05178, 24-05179, 24-05180, 24-05181, 24-05182, 24-05184, 24-05185, 24-05186, 24-05188, 24-05189, 24-05190, 24-05191, 24-05192, 24-05193, 24-05195, 24-05196, 24-05197, 24-05198, 24-05199, 24-05200, 24-05201, 24-05202, 24-05203, 24-05204, 24-05205, 24-05206, 24-05207, 24-05208, 24-05209, 24-05210, 24-05211, 24-05212, 24-05214, 24-05215, 24-05216, 24-05217, 24-05218, 24-05219, 24-05220, 24-05221, 24-05222, 24-05223, 24-05224, 24-05225, 24-05226, 24-05227, 24-05228, 24-05229, 24-05230, 24-05231, 24-05232, 24-05233, 24-05234, 24-05235, 24-05236, 24-05237, 24-05238, 24-05239, 24-05240, 24-05241, 24-05242, 24-05243, 24-05244, 24-05245, 24-05246, 24-05247, 24-05248, 24-05250, 24-05251, 24-05252, 24-05253, 24-05254, 24-05255, 24-05256, 24-05257, 24-05258, 24-05259, 24-05260, 24-05261, 24-05262, 24-05263, 24-05264, 24-05265, 24-05266, 24-05267, 24-05268,\n\n(caption continues on next page)\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------- : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x 24-05269, 24-05270, 24-05272, 24-05274, 24-05275, 24-05276, 24-05279, 24-05280, 24-05282, 24-05286, 24-05287, 24-05288, 24-05289, 24-05290, 24-05291, 24-05292, 24-05293, 24-05294, 24-05295, 24-05296, 24-05297, 24-05298, 24-05299, 24-05300, 24-05301, 24-05302, 24-05303, 24-05304, 24-05305, 24-05306, 24-05307, 24-05308, 24-05309, 24-05310, 24-05313, 24-05315, 24-05316, 24-05317, 25-05003, 25-05004, 25-05005, 25-05006, 25-05007, 25-05008, 25-05009, 25-05010, 25-05011, 25-05012, 25-05013, 25-05014, 25-05015, 25-05016, 25-05017, 25-05018, 25-05019, 25-05020, 25-05021, 25-05022, 25-05023, 25-05024, 25-05025, 25-05026, 25-05027, 25-05028, 25-05029, 25-05030, 25-05031, 25-05032, 25-05033, 25-05034, 25-05035, 25-05036, 25-05037, 25-05038, 25-05039, 25-05040, 25-05041, 25-05042, 25-05043, 25-05044, 25-05045, 25-05046, 25-05047, 25-05048, 25-05049, 25-05050, 25-05051, 25-05052, 25-05057, 25-05058, 25-05059, 25-05061, 25-05067, 25-05068, 25-05069, 25-05070, 25-05071, 25-05072, 25-05073, 25-05074, 25-05075, 25-05076, 25-05077, 25-05078, 25-05079, 25-05080, 25-05081, 25-05082, 25-05083, 25-05084, 25-05085, 25-05086, 25-05087, 25-05088, 25-05089, 25-05090, 25-05091, 25-05092, 25-05093, 25-05094, 25-05095, 25-05096, 25-05097, 25-05098, 25-05099, 25-05100, 25-05101, 25-05102, 25-05103, 25-05104, 25-05105\n\n## **EXHIBIT 3-A**\n\n**(Fully Stayed Avoidance Claims)**\n\n| ADV. PROC. NO. | DEFENDANT |\n|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05008 | Boardwalk Motor Imports LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05009 | Mercantile Bank International Corp. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05012 | Ogier |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05014 | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05017 | Post Oak Motors, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05022 | FAM United LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05023 | Studio Cataldi Group SRL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05026 | Yieldesta LP |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05029 | Great Bowery Inc dba Camilla Lowther Management |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05032 | Hugga LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05037 | Triple2 Digital LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05038 | D4Zero S.R.L. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05041 | CFG Global Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05043 | Loro Piana S.P.A. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05045 | The Quinlan Law Firm, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05046 | Janco SRL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05050 | Oro Mont Alpi SRL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05051 | Mindy Wechsler |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05052 | MF19 Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05068 | Caribe Condado, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05080 | Reinhard Plank S.R.L. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05084 | Tavares Cutting Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05087 | Mosaicon Shoes SRL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05088 | Tokyoseiki Co. LTD |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05089 | Pellettieri Di Parma SRL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05091 | Shalom B LLC dba Asher Fabric Concepts |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05094 | Solazzo Calzature S.R.L. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05095 | SOD Stone Offroad Design GmbH |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05096 | 1245 Factory Place, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05097 | Liapull S.R.L. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05099 | American Arbitration Association, Inc. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05104 | Ice24 SRO |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05106 | Reach Manufacturing, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05111 | DNM Beauty Distribution |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05113 | 1322089 B.C. L.T.D. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05116 | Hilton Management, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05118 | J Tan Jewelry Design, Inc. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05121 | Shaylen Music LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05123 | Bestview1 Pty Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05124 | Legends OWO LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05127 | Waycap S.P.A. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05129 | Fay Ye |\n\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05131 | Lawrence River |\n|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05136 | ASAP SRL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05137 | Bellerive Attorneys at Law |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05139 | Houston Litstar LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05140 | Quinones Law PLLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05142 | Immobiliara Barbara 2000 SRL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05143 | Dream Projects LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05146 | Fortnum Information Security Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05148 | Galaxy Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05150 | Jialin Qin |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05151 | Li Sho Yo |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05153 | Ming Ni |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05155 | Hayashi Meiou |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05156 | 12476517 Canada Society |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05157 | DP Textile & Apparel Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05160 | LA International Foundation |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05164 | National Sweepstakes Company, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05165 | Oxford Visionary Ltd. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05166 | Chris Lee |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05169 | D&D Solutions LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05170 | The Gertz File Investigative Reporting Project Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05173 | Wenhua Gong |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05176 | Luminescence Co Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05177 | Xiaobo He |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05180 | Richmond Strategic Advisor |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05191 | Deng Qian |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05193 | Fiesta Investments Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05195 | Shujuan Milne |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05197 | Great Lakes Drone Company |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05198 | G-Service LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05205 | Marini Pietrantoni Muniz LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05207 | Bering Yachts LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05210 | Jiayao Gan |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05215 | Bradley Staple, dba Staples Building Solutions |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05217 | Haisong Peng |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05218 | Hou Yuan Chan |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05224 | OSC Orbit Services Company LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05227 | Tao Zheng |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05230 | Cayuse Government Services |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05231 | 9 East 40th Street |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05232 | Daihao Zhou |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05234 | Lyzon Enterprises Corporation |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05235 | Halley Chen CPA Professional Corporation |\n\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05236 | Feng Yi |\n|-------------------------|--------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05237 | Qiang Hu |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05239 | Jianhai Jiao |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05240 | Fengjie Ma |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05241 | MZC Financial Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05242 | Cotton Craft Textiles Intl Trading |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05243 | Ihotry Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05244 | Quick-Equip LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05245 | RM Auctions Deutschland GmbH |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05245 | Qiang Guo |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05246 | WA & HF LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05248 | Curiosity Corp. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05248 | Flying Colours Corp |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05248 | River Valley Operations LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05248 | Supreme SG PTE LTD |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05248 | Top California Beach Corporation |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05248 | Wang's Realty Management Service Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05250 | Scarabaeus Wealth Management AG |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05251 | LLC Stz Fund No. 1 |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05252 | Gettr USA Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05253 | Ivy Capital Advisor Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05254 | NAV Consulting Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05255 | Ziba Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05256 | New Mulberry PTE Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05257 | Mishcon de Reya LLP |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05258 | Hogan Lovells International LLP |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05259 | Top Target General Trading LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05260 | GCP Investment Advisors SL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05261 | Starling Bank Ltd. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05262 | Red Team Partners |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | G Club Holdco I LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | G Club Three |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | HAA Group Pty Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | Mountains of Spices Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | Omicron Nutraceutical LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | Rosy Acme Ventures Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05264 | Smaragdos Mamzeris |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05265 | Siu Ming Je |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05266 | Gong Jianfen |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05267 | Khaled Ashafy |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05268 | Pure Global Group Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya Australia Athena Farm Inc. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya Australia PTY Ltd |\n\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya Boston Mayflower LLC |\n|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya New World Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya New York Rock Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya Shanghai Farm LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya UK Club |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Himalaya Worldwide SL |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | HML Vancouver Sailing Farm Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | Golden Gate Himalaya Farm LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | MOS Himalaya Foundation Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05269 | UK Himalaya Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05270 | Crocker Mansion Estate LLC and Taurus Fund |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Weihua Li |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Rongrong Li |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Zhang Lin |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Mi Kyung Yang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Xue Wang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Yaping Zhang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Zhixuan Li |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Fanggui Zhu |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Yuechen Lan |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Tian Shu Huang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Shiying Li |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Jianxiao Chen |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05272 | Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Onshore Fund LP |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05274 | Kin Ming Je |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05274 | Sin Ting Rong |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Lamp Capital LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Golden Spring (New York) Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Greenwich Land LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | HCHK Technologies Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | HCHK Property Management Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Lexington Property and Staffing Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Leading Shine NY Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | G Club International Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | G Club Operations LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | G Fashion |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | G Fashion Media Group Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Rule of Law Foundation III Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Rule of Law Society IV Inc. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | GFNY Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Anton Development Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Himalaya International Clearing Ltd |\n\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Ltd |\n|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | GF Italy LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | ACA Capital Group Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Hamilton Investment Management Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Himalaya International Reserves Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Hudson Diamond NY LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | Saraca Media Group Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05275 | G Fashion International Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05276 | ZYB Associates, LLC d/b/a Law Offices of Yongbing Zhang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05276 | Yongbing Zhang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05286 | Clear Treasury Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05287 | Ascentiq Solutions Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05288 | 5ivetech Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05289 | Aviva |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05290 | Birchstone Capital AG |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05291 | Callsign Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05292 | Epic IT Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05293 | Goodman Masson Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05294 | Hays Specialist Recruitment Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05295 | G Club Two |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05296 | Offensive Shield Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05297 | Kionasoft LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05298 | HP Inc UK Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05299 | Zendesk Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05300 | IW Group Services UK Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05301 | Qun Ju |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05302 | Whole Alpha Trading LLC (f/k/a Art Operation LLC) |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05303 | CyberApt Recruitment Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05304 | Teneo Ltd UK |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05305 | Telehouse International Corporation |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05306 | I.com Solutions Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05307 | Softcat PLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05308 | The Golden Sealine Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05309 | Haitong International Securities |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05310 | Qiu Yue Shou |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05316 | Foley Hoag LLP |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05317 | Norris McLaughlin PA |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05006 | CRISP Insurance Advisors |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05007 | Hatstone Lawyers (BVI) Ltd |\n\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05008 | CyGlass Inc |\n|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05009 | Strategic Political Management LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05010 | David Consulting Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05011 | Melbourne ROLF Incorporated |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05012 | Bambee Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05014 | JS Morlu LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05015 | Cesare Attolini NY LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05016 | Global Shuttle Pte Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05017 | Hee-Seup Shin |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05020 | Abu Dhabi Motors LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05021 | Savino Del Bene USA Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05023 | Mandelli USA Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05024 | Prodome Management Consulting LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05025 | Taiwan Baudau Farm International Limited Company |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05026 | CSQ
Project Development Consultants |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05027 | Cyjax Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05028 | KDEBECHE Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05029 | Chan Chih Hsing |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05030 | O'Rourke (Midlands) Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05031 | Chetu Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05032 | VP Bank (BVI) Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05034 | Wenlong Wang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05035 | Xiang Zeng |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05036 | 17 State Owner LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05037 | BitGo Trust Company Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05038 | S.A. Leather |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05040 | SDL Auctions Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05042 | Passione Rossa LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05044 | BMW of Freeport |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05046 | Vision Building Energy Efficiency LLC d/b/a Bee |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05047 | FV Bank International Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05067 | X49 FZ LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05068 | Yay Design Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05069 | Ping Tang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05070 | A.C.N. 676 287 157 PTY Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05071 | Lee Thian Guan John |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05072 | Dante Emanuel Leslie Delroy Brown |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05073 | Azeem Bashir |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05074 | Azalea M Garcia Corujo Esq (AGC Consulting) |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05076 | Yuekun Ji |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05077 | Andrew David Law |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05078 | Richard E Signorelli Attorney at Law |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05081 | Syed Ehsan Haque |\n\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05082 | Ali Albakri |\n|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05087 | Cedric DuPont Antiques |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05088 | 1stDibs.com |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05089 | Warp & Weft |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05090 | Westland Antiques Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05091 | Artistic Tile Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05092 | Gold Medal Service LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05093 | Lobel Modern Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05094 | NY Blinds and Shades Inc dba Innovation Shades |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05095 | Labarbiera Custom Homes LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05096 | MonStar Air Heating & Cooling LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05097 | Picture Perfect Glass & Mirror LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05098 | Prevenitas Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05099 | Marmiro Stones Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Chenyang Wang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Danni Yu |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Foteini Kantziou |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Haitao Guan |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Jian Jiao |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Kai Zhao |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Le Qiao |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Lee Shin Jiet |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Naseer Ahmad Khan |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Niels Bom Olesen |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Xianggang Li |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Xiaona Chen |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Xu Zhang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Ying Hu |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Yuxiang Diao |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Zelin Li |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05100 | Zhuowei Xu |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05101 | Armanino LLP |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05102 | Rizwan Javed |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05104 | Astound Broadband |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05105 | Ace Decade Holdings Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05105 | Bravo Luck Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05105 | Eastern Profit Corporation Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05105 | Guang Hong Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05105 | H Reserve Management Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05105 | New Dynamic Development Limited |\n\n### **EXHIBIT 3-B**\n\n**(Partially Stayed Avoidance Claims)**\n\n| ADV. PROC. NO. | DEFENDANT |\n|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05006 | Amazon Web Services |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05007 | Blueberry Builders |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05011 | E.L.J.M. Consulting LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05016 | Imperius International Trad Co Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05019 | Mary Fashion SPA |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05021 | Bannon Strategic Advisors Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05024 | TT Resources 1 Pty Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05028 | Yuqiang Qin |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05028 | Yunfu Jiang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05036 | Mei Guo |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05044 | Teris-Phoenix, LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05054 | Style Eyes Inc. d/b/a Ginger Finds |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05056 | FFP (BVI) Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05057 | Amazon Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05057 | Hing Chi Ngok |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05057 | Alex Hadjicharalambous |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05057 | Bernardo Enriquez |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05057 | Chunguang Han |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05057 | Mei Guo |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05058 | Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05059 | Federal Express |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05060 | Apple Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05060 | Alex Hadjicharalambous |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05060 | Bernardo Enriquez |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05060 | Chunguang Han |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05060 | Mei Guo |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05065 | A.Z. Bigiotterie
S.A.S. DI Zanutto Gabriele & C. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05069 | B&H Foto & Electronics Corp |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05069 | Hing Chi Ngok |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05069 | Alex Hadjicharalambous |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05069 | Bernardo Enriquez |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05069 | Chunguang Han |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05075 | Marcella Monica Falciani |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05077 | American Express |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05082 | Ohtzar Shlomo Solomon Treasure LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05085 | Vandenloom LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05090 | Swans Team Design Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05093 | 2 B Packing LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05098 | Shing Seung Ankerite Engineering Ltd. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05102 | Ocorian Consulting Ltd |\n\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05105 | N87 Inc |\n|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05109 | Moran Yacht Management, Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05112 | Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05115 | Cloudflare, Inc. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05122 | Indium Software Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05125 | Rilievi Group S.R.L. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05133 | Beile Li |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05134 | V.X. Cerda & Associates PA |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05135 | Liberty Jet Management Corp. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05141 | Flat Rate Movers Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05145 | Manhattan Motorcars, Inc |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05154 | Kamel Debeche |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05159 | Gold Leaf Consulting Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05161 | Mandelli USA, Inc. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05168 | The Francis Firm PLLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05172 | Federal Corporation (Japan) |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05174 | SGB Packaging |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05175 | Lau Lai Chun Annie. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05186 | Berkeley Rowe Ltd. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05188 | Weddle Law PLLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05189 | TD Avenue (The Diamond Avenue) |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05192 | Forbes Hare |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05199 | Lawall & Mitchell LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05199 | Aaron Mitchell |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05203 | Oasis Tech Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05206 | Hao Haidong |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05211 | Putnam's Landscaping LLC |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05223 | G-Translators Pty Ltd |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05226 | ACASS Canada Ltd. |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05238 | Qiang Guo |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05248 | Tut Co Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | BSA Strategic Fund I |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05263 | Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 24-05271 | Junjie Jiang |\n| Adv. Proc. No. 25-05052 | N.A.R. Enterprises Inc dbs Luxury Cleaning NY |\n\n## **EXHIBIT 4**\n\n**(Discovery Procedures in Avoidance Actions)**\n\n### **DISCOVERY PROCEDURES IN AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\n1. These Discovery Procedures shall apply to all Avoidance Actions unless otherwise ordered by the Court.\n\n2. No later than sixty (60) days following the Court's approval of these Discovery Procedures, the Trustee shall create an electronic discovery depository (the \"Depository\") comprised of data rooms (the \"Data Rooms\") each containing all non-privileged[1](#page-47-0) documents[2](#page-47-1) in the possession of the Trustee related to the following subject matter:\n\n- a. Golden Spring (New York) Limited[3](#page-47-2) ;\n- b. Lamp Capital LLC;\n- c. Leading Shine NY Ltd.;\n- d. Hudson Diamond NY LLC;\n- e. Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.;\n- f. HCHK Technologies, Inc.;\n- g. HCHK Property Management, Inc.;\n- h. Greenwich Land LLC;\n- i. New Dynamic Development Limited;\n- j. Taurus Fund LLC; and\n\nk. The Trustee's allegations in Avoidance Complaints asserting claims for actual fraudulent transfer under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and/or N.Y. Debtor & Creditor Law regarding the Debtor's \"shell game\" of using alter egos and nominees to hold title to his assets and conduct his affairs. *See, e.g., Avoidance Complaint* in *Despins v. Agora Lab, Inc.* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05005 Docket No. 1] ¶¶ 15-27, 32-34.\n\nl. The Avoidance Defendants, *provided, however*, the Trustee need not include documents related to Avoidance Defendants (i) as to which the Trustee has solely asserted Stayed Avoidance Claims, (ii) that are engaging in Mediation Proceedings as of the date\n\n1 \"Non-privileged\" as used in paragraph 2 above shall mean not subject to any attorney-client privilege, work product, or similar privilege or protection, that is owned or controlled by the Trustee, including, without limitation, in respect to the Trustee's own attorney-client relationships and creation of work product by the Trustee and/or his professionals and/or pursuant to the *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information* [Main Case ECF No. 856] (as may be further modified, the \"Privileges Order\") and/or the Bankruptcy Code (including, without limitation, as successor to the Debtor).\n\n2 Documents shall be uploaded to the data room in the form produced to the Trustee, including any available metadata. If not apparent from such metadata, the Trustee will cooperate to respond to any inquiries by Avoidance Defendants as to the source of documents in the Data Rooms. Further, at the request of any Avoidance Defendant undertaking discovery, the Trustee will supply copies of subpoenas and document requests issued to producing parties with respect to documents in the Data Rooms.\n\n3 For the avoidance of doubt, in producing all documents related to the entities set forth in subparagraphs (a) through (j), the Trustee shall include, among other things, all documents related to any prepetition or postpetition transfers made via such entities.\n\nwhich is sixty (60) days following the Court's approval of these Discovery Procedures, or (iii) as to which the Trustee's claims have been resolved by settlement or dismissal.\n\n3. With respect to documents as to which the Trustee asserts privilege, work product, or any similar privilege or protection, the Trustee shall produce a categorical privilege log generally identifying by producing parties and/or categories of documents those documents covered by the above subject matter that have been withheld from the Data Rooms, *provided, however*, the Trustee need not include on such log the work product of, or communications between and among, the Trustee, his counsel, and his other advisors.\n\n4. Access to the Depository shall be limited to attorneys appearing for Avoidance Defendants that (a) have individually certified compliance with these Discovery Procedures[4](#page-48-0) , and (b) whose law firms and applicable clients have executed P.O. Consents.[5](#page-48-1) In accessing any Data Room(s), the accessing attorney shall certify compliance with these requirements and shall list the Avoidance Defendant(s) for which the accessing attorney is accessing the Data Room(s). Avoidance Defendants accessing documents and information in the Data Rooms shall be deemed to understand that the Trustee's creation of and delivery of documents into the Depository is subject to the following reservation of rights:\n\n- a. The vast majority of the documents and information in the Depository was compiled by the Trustee from third parties in the course of his investigation and the Trustee makes absolutely no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, and/or authenticity of documents or information therein.\n- b. The inclusion of documents or information in the Depository shall not constitute an admission or basis to argue that such documents or information are relevant or admissible, nor that the documents are genuine, nor shall the inclusions of documents or information in the Depository constitute an admission of any facts.\n- c. The inclusion of documents or information in the Depository shall not constitute nor evidence any waiver of attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other privilege or protection exercisable by the Trustee, whether in his own right or as successor-in-interest.\n- d. The Trustee and any Avoidance Defendants participating in discovery reserve all rights and objections with respect to documents and information contained in the Depository.\n- e. The Protective Order applies to all documents and information contained in the Depository to the extent that such documents and information are designated \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" and access to the Depository shall be\n\n4 This certification shall be provided in a form reasonably acceptable to the Trustee.\n\n5 To obtain access to the Depository, the P.O. Consents must consent to both the Protective Order and the P.O Addendum. \"Applicable clients\" as used in paragraph 3 above shall mean the Avoidance Defendant for which the attorney access the Data Room(s) is appearing and for which Avoidance Defendant the attorney is accessing the Data Room(s).\n\nstrictly limited to counsel for Avoidance Defendants that have (individually or through their law firms) agreed to be bound by the Protective Order.\n\nf. Counsel that obtain documents or information through Discovery Proceedings in any Avoidance Action may only share such documents and information with the client(s) as to which such Discovery Proceedings are conducted. For the avoidance of doubt, counsel that obtain documents or information through Discovery Proceedings as to one client may not share such documents or information with any other individuals or entities (including counsel's other client(s), unless such other clients are independently entitled to access the documents or information in accordance with these Discovery Procedures).\n\n5. The following discovery schedule (the \"Discovery Schedule\") shall apply in Avoidance Actions, with deadlines running from the date that discovery is commenced (the \"Discovery Start Date\"):\n\na. No later than seven days after the Discovery Start Date, the Trustee shall grant the Avoidance Defendant's counsel, provided such counsel is otherwise eligible to access the Depository, access to the Data Rooms containing documents related to the claims asserted in the applicable Avoidance Action. If the Trustee and the Avoidance Defendant disagree about which Data Rooms should be accessible to an Avoidance Defendant's counsel, the parties shall meet and confer to seek to resolve such disagreement, following which the disagreement may be submitted to the Court by a motion filed in the relevant Avoidance Action.\n\nb. No later than fourteen (14) days after the Discovery Start Date, the parties shall exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Civil Rule 26(a)(1) (\"Automatic Disclosures\"), *provided, however*, any obligation of the Trustee to produce documents as part of the Trustee's Automatic Disclosures shall be satisfied by the Trustee's granting of access to the Avoidance Defendant to any relevant Data Rooms.\n\nc. Any initial interrogatories, requests for admission, and/or requests for production of documents (collectively, the \"Written Discovery Requests\"), pursuant to Civil Rules 33, 34, and 36, made applicable to the Avoidance Actions by Bankruptcy Rules 7033, 7034, and 7036, as well as initial subpoenas to third-parties, shall be served no later than ninety (90) days after the Discovery Start Date. The parties may serve supplemental Written Discovery Requests and subpoenas, consistent with the other dates and deadlines set forth herein, based on newly discovered information or developments in the litigation.\n\nd. The deadline for the completion of all fact discovery, including deposition discovery, discovery conducted through the Depository, discovery conducted pursuant to Written Discovery Requests, under, *e.g.*, Bankruptcy Rules 7030, 7033, 7034, and 7036, and Civil Rules 30, 33, 34, and 36, and/or third-party discovery pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9016 and Civil Rule 45, shall be three hundred (300) days after the Discovery Start Date.\n\ne. Any party that believes expert discovery is required shall provide written notice to all other parties no later than sixty (60) days prior to the close of discovery. Upon receipt of such notice, the parties shall confer regarding a schedule for expert discovery including, without limitation, disclosure and deposition deadlines, which schedule the parties shall submit to the Court for approval. In the absence of agreement as to the schedule governing expert discovery, the parties shall request a status conference to address the matter.\n\nf. The deadlines above may be extended (a) up to ninety (90) days by a written stipulation between the parties filed in the applicable Avoidance Action; and/or (b) upon a motion by any party by order of the Court.\n\n6. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any Avoidance Defendants wishing to serve Written Discovery Requests on the Trustee shall, prior to service: (i) make diligent efforts to obtain any documents and information sought from the Depository; (ii) exclude from Written Discovery Requests any requests for documents and information available through the Depository; (iii) meet and confer with the Trustee regarding the availability of documents and information in the Depository and the contemplated Written Discovery Requests and to discuss other Avoidance Defendants that may be undertaking discovery with respect to the same or similar subject matter; and (iv) make reasonable efforts to coordinate with other Avoidance Defendants[6](#page-50-0) to avoid duplicative or cumulative discovery and to serve joint requests where reasonably possible, including, by way of example, by service of common interrogatories. The Trustee reserves all rights to object to such Written Discovery Requests, including without limitation on the grounds that the requests, in the aggregate, are duplicative and/or overly burdensome on the Trustee. Any disputes as to the foregoing shall be resolved by the Court upon appropriate motion.\n\n7. Discovery shall be available in any Avoidance Action (\"Discovery-Eligible Actions\") except for those in which: (a) the Trustee's claims are Stayed Avoidance Claims under subparagraph (e)(i) of the Amended Procedures; and/or (b) any Defendant is participating in Mediation Proceedings with the Trustee regarding the claims in such action. Any party to a Discovery-Eligible Action may file a Notice of Discovery Start Date in such action, which filing shall fix the Discovery Start Date as the later of: (x) the first business day at least seventy (70) days after entry of the Court's order approving these Discovery Procedures; or (b) the date of the filing of the Notice of Discovery Start Date.\n\n8. For the avoidance of doubt, documents and information that are in the possession of a party solely under circumstances that render such documents and information subject to mediation privilege and confidentiality shall not be discoverable.\n\n9. The inclusion of documents and information in the Depository shall not constitute nor be evidence of a waiver of attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other\n\n6 For the avoidance of doubt, the obligation to coordinate with other Avoidance Defendants shall apply only when other Avoidance Defendants are known to the Avoidance Defendant subject to the obligation, including, without limitation, following the Trustee advising that other Avoidance Defendants are seeking the same or similar discovery.\n\nprivilege or protection exercisable by the Trustee, whether in his own right or as a successor-ininterest. Nor shall the inclusion of documents and information in the Depository constitute or be evidence of a waiver of the work product doctrine with respect to the Trustee's investigation of the Debtor's financial affairs, which protection the Trustee has expressly reserved.\n\n10. Prior to undertaking deposition discovery, any Avoidance Defendant shall meet and confer with the Trustee as to the deponents, subject matter, and scheduling of any depositions, with an eye toward efficiency, including, among other things, limiting any duplication and other burdens of deposition discovery. During such conferences, the Trustee may propose and Avoidance Defendants shall consider when reasonable omnibus deposition proceedings including Avoidance Defendants from multiple Avoidance Actions. No parties shall notice depositions to occur in any Avoidance Action earlier than 75 days following the Discovery Start Date. Upon noticing any deposition, the noticing party must provide at least twenty-one (21) days advance written notice (an \"Avoidance Deposition Notice\") to the Trustee and to all Avoidance Defendants by email to the Trustee's and Avoidance Defendants' appearing counsel, or, as to Avoidance Defendants for which counsel has not appeared, by U.S. Mail. Where multiple parties wish to depose the same deponent, the Trustee and all Avoidance Defendants shall cooperate in scheduling to avoid duplicative depositions. Upon the request of any Avoidance Defendant wishing to issue an Avoidance Deposition Notice, the Trustee shall furnish a list of Avoidance Defendants and their appearing counsel (including email addresses where available) or mailing address. With respect to any deponent that has previously been deposed in an Avoidance Action, no further deposition may be noticed by any Avoidance Defendant that received an Avoidance Deposition Notice as to such deponent while the Avoidance Defendant was participating in discovery and the deposition occurred at least 75 days following such defendant's Discovery Start Date, except upon the Trustee's advance written consent or order of the Court. Where multiple Avoidance Defendants are participating in depositions, (i) they shall make reasonable efforts to avoid duplicative inquiry; and (ii) where necessary, the parties shall confer regarding reasonable adjustments to the time allocated for deposition discovery pursuant to Civil Rule 30(d)(1).\n\n11. For the avoidance of doubt, the Protective Order and the P.O. Addendum shall apply in any deposition proceedings.\n\n12. For the avoidance of doubt, in light of the anticipated inclusion in the Depository of documents designated Highly Confidential, direct access to the Depository shall be limited to parties' counsel that are eligible for such access. The foregoing shall not prevent such counsel from sharing documents and information obtained through Discovery Proceedings with their applicable client if otherwise permissible under the Protective Order and the P.O. Addendum.\n\n13. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, as to Partially Stayed Avoidance Claims, discovery shall not proceed with respect to any Stayed Issues pending further order of the Court.\n\n14. In light of these Discovery Procedures, the parties shall not be required to hold a discovery planning conference pursuant to Civil Rule 26(f), *provided, however,* the parties shall confer and cooperate in good faith as may be necessary to undertake discovery pursuant to these\n\nDiscovery Procedures, including, without limitation, the subject matter set forth in Civil Rule 26(f)(3).\n\n15. For the avoidance of doubt, D. Conn. Local R. Civ. P. 37 shall apply to any disputes arising in discovery proceedings in Avoidance Actions.","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Je","Himalaya","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","HCHK","Saraca","Kin Ming Je","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2578,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3163,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3465,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":15860,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-08-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-08-28","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:45"},{"id":"court_ctb_4623_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4623,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-08-21","title":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | | | | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | DISTRICT OF
CONNECTICUT | | | | | | |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | | | | | | |\n| In Re.
Ho Wan Kwok | §
§
§ | Case No.
22-50073
Lead Case No.
22-50073 | | | | | |\n| Debtor(s) | § | Jointly Administered | | | | | |\n| Monthly Operating Report | | Chapter 11 | | | | | |\n| Reporting Period Ended: 07/31/2025 | | Petition Date: 02/15/2022 | | | | | |\n| Months Pending: 42 | | Industry Classification:
0
0
0
0 | | | | | |\n| Reporting Method:
Accrual Basis | | Cash Basis | | | | | |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (current): | | 0 | | | | | |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (as of date of order for relief): | | 0 | | | | | |\n| Supporting Documentation (check all that are attached):
(For jointly administered debtors, any required schedules must be provided on a non-consolidated basis for each debtor)
Statement of cash receipts and disbursements
Balance sheet containing the summary and detail of the assets, liabilities and equity (net worth) or deficit
Statement of operations (profit or loss statement)
Accounts receivable aging
Postpetition liabilities aging
Statement of capital assets
Schedule of payments to professionals
Schedule of payments to insiders
All bank statements and bank reconciliations for the reporting period
Description of the assets sold or transferred and the terms of the sale or transfer | | | | | | | |\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party Printed Name of Responsible Party\n\n08/21/2025\n\nDate\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nAddress Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nSTATEMENT: This Periodic Report is associated with an open bankruptcy case; therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4623 Filed 08/21/25 Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31 Page 2 of 27\n\nDebtor's Name Ho Wan Kwok Case No. 22-50073\n\n| | Part 1: Cash Receipts and Disbursements | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|\n| a. | Cash balance beginning of month | \\$74,876,892 | |\n| b. | Total receipts (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$3,240,140 | \\$145,972,509 |\n| c. | Total disbursements (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$1,416,752 | \\$66,484,003 |\n| d. | Cash balance end of month (a+b-c) | \\$76,700,280 | |\n| e. | Disbursements made by third party for the benefit of the estate | \\$0 | \\$12,757 |\n| f. | Total disbursements for quarterly fee calculation (c+e) | \\$1,416,752 | \\$66,496,760 |\n| | Part 2: Asset and Liability Status | Current Month | |\n| | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | | |\n| a. | Accounts receivable (total net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Accounts receivable over 90 days outstanding (net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Inventory
(Book
Market
Other
(attach explanation)) | \\$0 | |\n| d | Total current assets | \\$0 | |\n| e. | Total assets | \\$0 | |\n| f. | Postpetition payables (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Postpetition payables past due (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Postpetition taxes payable | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Postpetition taxes past due | \\$0 | |\n| j. | Total postpetition debt (f+h) | \\$0 | |\n| k. | Prepetition secured debt | \\$0 | |\n| l. | Prepetition priority debt | \\$0 | |\n| m. | Prepetition unsecured debt | \\$0 | |\n| n. | Total liabilities (debt) (j+k+l+m) | \\$0 | |\n| o. | Ending equity/net worth (e-n) | \\$0 | |\n| | Part 3: Assets Sold or Transferred | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Total cash sales price for assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary | | |\n| b. | course of business
Total payments to third parties incident to assets being sold/transferred | \\$137,600 | \\$26,373,948 |\n| | outside the ordinary course of business
Net cash proceeds from assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary | \\$0 | \\$1,160,344 |\n| c. | course of business (a-b) | \\$137,600 | \\$25,213,604 |\n| | Part 4: Income Statement (Statement of Operations)
(Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Gross income/sales (net of returns and allowances) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Cost of goods sold (inclusive of depreciation, if applicable) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Gross profit (a-b) | \\$0 | |\n\nd. Selling expenses \\$0\n\ne. General and administrative expenses \\$0\n\nf. Other expenses \\$0\n\ng. Depreciation and/or amortization (not included in 4b) \\$0\n\nh. Interest \\$0\n\ni. Taxes (local, state, and federal) \\$0\n\nj. Reorganization items \\$0\n\nk. Profit (loss) \\$0 \\$0\n\nUST Form 11-MOR (12/23/2022)\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4623 Filed 08/21/25 Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31 Page 3 of 27\n\n| | | | Approved
Current Month | Approved
Cumulative | Paid Current
Month | Paid
Cumulative |\n|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|\n| | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (bankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$1,257,339 | \\$60,437,028 | \\$1,257,339 | \\$60,437,028 |\n| | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| i | Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. Local Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$6,082,375 | \\$0 | \\$6,082,375 |\n| ii | Paul Hastings LLP (counsel to c Lead Counsel | | \\$867,160 | \\$44,183,366 | \\$867,160 | \\$44,183,366 |\n| iii | Brown Rudnick (counsel to Ho Lead Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| iv | Pullman & Comley, LLC (counsLead Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$820,970 | \\$0 | \\$820,970 |\n| v | Coleman Worldwide Advisors LOther | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| vi | Dundon Advisors (UCC financiFinancial Professional | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| vii | Verdolino & Lowey, PC (financ Financial Professional | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| viii | Harney Westwood & Riegels LPOther | | \\$0 | \\$2,249,395 | \\$0 | \\$2,249,395 |\n| ix | Paul Wright / Peter Shaw | Other | \\$0 | \\$39,631 | \\$0 | \\$39,631 |\n| x | Pallas Partners LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$667,136 | \\$0 | \\$667,136 |\n| xi | Edmiston and Company Limite Other | | \\$0 | \\$1,176,250 | \\$0 | \\$1,176,250 |\n| xii | Engineering Operations and Ce Other | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| xiii | Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LOther | | \\$0 | \\$306,099 | \\$0 | \\$306,099 |\n| xiv | Kroll LLC | Other | \\$82,410 | \\$3,008,886 | \\$82,410 | \\$3,008,886 |\n| xv | Prager Dreifuss AG | Local Counsel | \\$163,907 | \\$1,209,955 | \\$163,907 | \\$1,209,955 |\n| xvi | Eisner Advisory Group LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$179,145 | \\$0 | \\$179,145 |\n| xvii | Winne, Banta, Basralian & KahnLocal Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$14,768 | \\$0 | \\$14,768 |\n| xviii | Sage-Popovich, Inc. | Other | \\$60,418 | \\$75,418 | \\$60,418 | \\$75,418 |\n| xix | Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$67,166 | \\$0 | \\$67,166 |\n| xx | Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP | Other | \\$45,956 | \\$259,660 | \\$45,956 | \\$259,660 |\n| xxi | ENSafrica (Mauritius) | Other | \\$0 | \\$36,117 | \\$0 | \\$36,117 |\n| xxii | William De Robillard / Andre P Other | | \\$0 | \\$23,201 | \\$0 | \\$23,201 |\n| xxiii | Marxer Attorneys | Local Counsel | \\$36,089 | \\$36,089 | \\$36,089 | \\$36,089 |\n| xxiv | Hadef & Partners LLC | Local Counsel | \\$1,401 | \\$1,401 | \\$1,401 | \\$1,401 |\n| xxv | | | | | | |\n| xxvi | | | | | | |\n| xxvii | | | | | | |\n| xxviii | | | | | | |\n| xxix | | | | | | |\n| xxx | | | | | | |\n| xxxi | | | | | | |\n| xxxii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiv | | | | | | |\n| xxxv | | | | | | |\n| xxxvi | | | | | | |\n\n| xxxvii | | | |\n|---------|--|--|--|\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxix | | | |\n| xl | | | |\n| xli | | | |\n| xlii | | | |\n| xliii | | | |\n| xliv | | | |\n| xlv | | | |\n| xlvi | | | |\n| xlvii | | | |\n| xlviii | | | |\n| xlix | | | |\n| l | | | |\n| li | | | |\n| lii | | | |\n| liii | | | |\n| liv | | | |\n| lv | | | |\n| lvi | | | |\n| lvii | | | |\n| lviii | | | |\n| lix | | | |\n| lx | | | |\n| lxi | | | |\n| lxii | | | |\n| lxiii | | | |\n| lxiv | | | |\n| lxv | | | |\n| lxvi | | | |\n| lxvii | | | |\n| lxviii | | | |\n| lxix | | | |\n| lxx | | | |\n| lxxi | | | |\n| lxxii | | | |\n| lxxiii | | | |\n| lxxiv | | | |\n| lxxv | | | |\n| lxxvi | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxviii | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | lxxix | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|------------|--------------|------------|\n| | lxxx | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxix | | | | | | |\n| | xc | | | | | | |\n| | xci | | | | | | |\n| | xcii | | | | | | |\n| | xciii | | | | | | |\n| | xciv | | | | | | |\n| | xcv | | | | | | |\n| | xcvi | | | | | | |\n| | xcvii | | | | | | |\n| | xcviii | | | | | | |\n| | xcix | | | | | | |\n| | c | | | | | | |\n| | ci | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Approved | Approved | Paid Current | Paid |\n| | | | | Current Month | Cumulative | Month | Cumulative |\n| b. | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (nonbankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | |\n| | | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | i | Firm Name
Baker Hostetler LLP | Role
Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | ii | Clayman & Rosenberg LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iii | Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer Other | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iv | Harcus Parker Ltd. | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | v | LALIVE SA | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vi | Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vii | Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | viii | Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | ix | The Casper Firm | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | x | The Francis Firm PLLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | xi | VX Cerda & Associates | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | xii | | | | | | |\n| | xiii | | | | | | |\n| | xiv | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n| xv | | | |\n|--------|--|--|--|\n| xvi | | | |\n| xvii | | | |\n| xviii | | | |\n| xix | | | |\n| xx | | | |\n| xxi | | | |\n| xxii | | | |\n| xxiii | | | |\n| xxiv | | | |\n| xxv | | | |\n| xxvi | | | |\n| xxvii | | | |\n| xxviii | | | |\n| xxix | | | |\n| xxx | | | |\n| xxxi | | | |\n| xxxii | | | |\n| xxxiii | | | |\n| xxxiv | | | |\n| xxxv | | | |\n| xxxvi | | | |\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxix | | | |\n| xl | | | |\n| xli | | | |\n| xlii | | | |\n| xliii | | | |\n| xliv | | | |\n| xlv | | | |\n| xlvi | | | |\n| xlvii | | | |\n| xlviii | | | |\n| xlix | | | |\n| l | | | |\n| li | | | |\n| lii | | | |\n| liii | | | |\n| liv | | | |\n| lv | | | |\n| lvi | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| lvii | | | |\n|---------|--|--|--|\n| lviii | | | |\n| lix | | | |\n| lx | | | |\n| lxi | | | |\n| lxii | | | |\n| lxiii | | | |\n| lxiv | | | |\n| lxv | | | |\n| lxvi | | | |\n| lxvii | | | |\n| lxviii | | | |\n| lxix | | | |\n| lxx | | | |\n| lxxi | | | |\n| lxxii | | | |\n| lxxiii | | | |\n| lxxiv | | | |\n| lxxv | | | |\n| lxxvi | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxviii | | | |\n| lxxix | | | |\n| lxxx | | | |\n| lxxxi | | | |\n| lxxxii | | | |\n| lxxxiii | | | |\n| lxxxiv | | | |\n| lxxxv | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxix | | | |\n| xc | | | |\n| xci | | | |\n| xcii | | | |\n| xciii | | | |\n| xciv | | | |\n| xcv | | | |\n| xcvi | | | |\n| xcvii | | | |\n| xcviii | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4623 Filed 08/21/25 Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31 Page 8 of 27\n\n| | xcix | | | | |\n|----|------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | c | | | | |\n| c. | | All professional fees and expenses (debtor & committees) | | | |\n\n| Part 6: Postpetition Taxes | | | Current Month | Cumulative | |\n|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|------------|---------------------------|\n| a. | | Postpetition income taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | | Postpetition income taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes accrued | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| d. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes paid | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| e. | Postpetition property taxes paid | | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| f. | | Postpetition other taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| g. | | Postpetition other taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | Part 7: Questionnaire - During this reporting period: | | | |\n| a. | | Were any payments made on prepetition debt? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| b. | | Were any payments made outside the ordinary course of business
without court approval? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| c. | | Were any payments made to or on behalf of insiders? | Yes | No | |\n| d. | | Are you current on postpetition tax return filings? | Yes | No | |\n| e. | Are you current on postpetition estimated tax payments? | | Yes | No | |\n| f. | | Were all trust fund taxes remitted on a current basis? | Yes | No | |\n| g. | (if yes, see Instructions) | Was there any postpetition borrowing, other than trade credit? | Yes | No | |\n| h. | the court? | Were all payments made to or on behalf of professionals approved by | Yes | No
N/A | |\n| i. | Do you have: | Worker's compensation insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | Casualty/property insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | General liability insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| j. | Has a plan of reorganization been filed with the court? | | Yes | No | |\n| k. | | Has a disclosure statement been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| l. | | Are you current with quarterly U.S. Trustee fees as
set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1930? | Yes | No | |\n\n| | Part 8: Individual Chapter 11 Debtors (Only) | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|\n| a. | Gross income (receipts) from salary and wages | \\$0 |\n| b. | Gross income (receipts) from self-employment | \\$0 |\n| c. | Gross income from all other sources | \\$0 |\n| d. | Total income in the reporting period (a+b+c) | \\$0 |\n| e. | Payroll deductions | \\$0 |\n| f. | Self-employment related expenses | \\$0 |\n| g. | Living expenses | \\$0 |\n| h. | All other expenses | \\$0 |\n| i. | Total expenses in the reporting period (e+f+g+h) | \\$0 |\n| j. | Difference between total income and total expenses (d-i) | \\$0 |\n| k. | List the total amount of all postpetition debts that are past due | \\$0 |\n| l. | Are you required to pay any Domestic Support Obligations as defined by 11
U.S.C § 101(14A)? | Yes
No |\n| m. | If yes, have you made all Domestic Support Obligation payments? | Yes
No
N/A |\n\n#### **Privacy Act Statement**\n\n28 U.S.C. § 589b authorizes the collection of this information, and provision of this information is mandatory under 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, and 1107. The United States Trustee will use this information to calculate statutory fee assessments under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The United States Trustee will also use this information to evaluate a chapter 11 debtor's progress through the bankruptcy system, including the likelihood of a plan of reorganization being confirmed and whether the case is being prosecuted in good faith. This information may be disclosed to a bankruptcy trustee or examiner when the information is needed to perform the trustee's or examiner's duties or to the appropriate federal, state, local, regulatory, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency when the information indicates a violation or potential violation of law. Other disclosures may be made for routine purposes. For a discussion of the types of routine disclosures that may be made, you may consult the Executive Office for United States Trustee's systems of records notice, UST-001, \"Bankruptcy Case Files and Associated Records.\" *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 59,818 et seq. (Oct. 11, 2006). A copy of the notice may be obtained at the following link: htt eo/rules\\_regulations/index.htm. Failure to provide this information could result in the dismissal or conversion of your bankruptcy case or other action by the United States Trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F).\n\n## **I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Monthly Operating Report and its supporting documentation are true and correct and that I have been authorized to sign this report on behalf of the estate.**\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party\n\nChapter 11 Trustee\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nPrinted Name of Responsible Party\n\n08/21/2025\n\nTitle Date\n\n\n\nBankruptcy1to50\n\n\n\n\n\nPageFour\n\n**In re Ho Wan Kwok Case No.** 22-50073 (JAM) **Debtor Reporting Period:** 7/1/2025 - 7/31/2025\n\n#### **INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR CASH RECEIPTS AND CASH DISBURSEMENTS**\n\n(This Form must be submitted for each bank account maintained by the Debtor)\n\nAmounts reported should be per the debtor's books, not the bank statement. The beginning cash should be the ending\n\ncash from the prior month or, if this is the first report, the amount should be the balance on the date the petition was\n\nfiled. Attach the bank statements and a detailed list of all disbursements made during the\n\nreport period that includes\n\nthe date, the check number, the payee, the transaction description, and the amount. A\n\nbank reconciliation must\n\nbe attached for each account. [See MOR-1 (CON'T)]\n\n| | Current Month | Cumulative July 8, 2022 to Date |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------|\n| | Actual | Actual |\n| Cash - Beginning of Month | | |\n| RECEIPTS | | |\n| Recovered Funds | \\$
- | \\$
23,712,225.06 |\n| Funds received from B. Hofmeister Assignee for benefit of creditors | \\$
- | \\$
38,792,899.51 |\n| of HCHK pursuant to settlement order | | |\n| Clark Hill Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
499,000.00 |\n| Retainer Refund (Kercsmar Collins & O'Hara / Lewis Roca) | \\$
- | \\$
4,544.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | \\$
- | \\$
4,000,000.00 |\n| Adversary Proceeding Interpleader Funds | \\$
- | \\$
32,923,028.42 |\n| Refund from AIG | \\$
- | \\$
71.25 |\n| Funds received from The Casper Firm Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
48,750.00 |\n| Refund from Yachtzoo Yacht Management (Lady May II balance) | \\$
- | \\$
255.17 |\n| | | |\n| Funds received from Axos Bank | \\$
- | \\$
1,592,469.98 |\n| Refund of insurance premium from cancellation of protection and | \\$
- | \\$
29,255.02 |\n| indemnity insurance upon sale of Lady May on 6/30/23 | | |\n| Funds received from Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi PCA for sale of | \\$
- | \\$
10,302,313.64 |\n| | | |\n| Bombardier jet | | |\n| Net proceeds of sale of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held | \\$
- | \\$
2,692,924.71 |\n| by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash dividends on account of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. | \\$
- | \\$
54,858.88 |\n| held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash distribution on account of limited partnership interest held in | \\$
- | \\$
2,561,150.56 |\n| Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman), L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Funds received for sale of Greenwich Taconic property | \\$
- | \\$
6,784,668.79 |\n| Refund received from Pullman & Comley, LLC for overpayment of | \\$
- | \\$
26,102.00 |\n| invoices | | |\n| Funds received from First Bank of Greenwich | \\$
- | \\$
134,338.76 |\n| Refund with respect to unauthorized fraudulent disbursements | \\$
5,000.00 | \\$
12,240.99 |\n| Funds received from World Insurance Associates, LLC | \\$
- | \\$
44,935.80 |\n| Funds received from Harneys Corporate Services' Bank | \\$
- | \\$
24,715.00 |\n| Settlement payments | \\$
12,500.00 | \\$
10,803,271.06 |\n| Refund from Eversource Energy with respect to overpayment | \\$
- | \\$
346.56 |\n| Refund from Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC with respect to | \\$
- | \\$
260,030.80 |\n| overpayment | | |\n| Reimbursement with respect to inter-Debtor DIP facility funding | \\$
2,857,324.46 | \\$
2,907,327.18 |\n| Genever entities | | |\n| Funds from Morgan Stanley (attached Yanping Wang account) | \\$
- | \\$
519,297.24 |\n| Funds for costs from Hamilton Capital Holdings Limited | \\$
- | \\$
199,655.40 |\n| administrators | | |\n| Refund received from Prager Dreifuss AG for overpayment of | \\$
- | \\$
56,102.43 |\n| expenses | | |\n| *
Funds received for sale of motor vehicles | \\$
137,600.00 | \\$
137,600.00 |\n| Bank Account Interest | \\$
227,715.97 | \\$
6,848,131.17 |\n| Total Receipts | \\$
3,240,140.43 | \\$
145,972,509.38 |\n| DISBURSEMENTS | | |\n| ORDINARY ITEMS: | | |\n| Bank Fees | \\$
6,713.82 | \\$
166,775.50 |\n| Fees paid to International Surety Ltd for surety bond renewal | \\$
- | \\$
384,747.00 |\n| premium | | |\n\n\\*The proceeds from the sale of the motor vehicles were inadvertently wired to the Genever Holdings Axos bank account, but upon receipt the funds were immediately forwarded to the Trustee's East West bank account.\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 7/1/2025 - 7/31/2025 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yacht repair invoices out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$ | 576,895.09 |\n| Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Miller Advertising Agency Inc. (English | \\$
- | \\$ | 21,140.60 |\n| Court Publication Notice) | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Dexter White Invoice | \\$
- | \\$ | 16,235.00 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Bridgeport Harbor Marina out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$ | 18,137.64 |\n| Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Safe Harbor out of the Yacht Repair | \\$
- | | |\n| Escrow | | \\$ | 148,287.04 |\n| | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yachtzoo for operating expenses out of the | \\$
- | \\$ | 431,604.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harneys Corporate Services Limited | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,665.00 |\n| Disbursement paid to JP Reynolds Company Inc. (for customs duty | \\$
- | \\$ | 14,965.35 |\n| and customs bond premium) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to James Pizzaruso for pay roll in connection with | \\$
- | \\$ | 31,026.98 |\n| sale of Lady May | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$ | 76,150.88 |\n| of HCHK (for HCHK admin matters and employee payments) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to RKH IT Solutions (IT Consultant for HCHK | \\$
- | \\$ | 17,794.73 |\n| Assignee) | | | |\n| | | | 16,384.10 |\n| Fees paid to SHM Newport Shipyard LLC (for Lady May II | \\$
- | \\$ | |\n| winterization and dockage fees) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to R.I. Martine Survey (for Lady May II appraisal) | \\$
- | \\$ | 700.00 |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Brosnan Risk Consultants LTD (for security | \\$
- | \\$ | 57,246.47 |\n| services for HCHK Assignee) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to ARD Facilities Management Group LLC (for | \\$
- | \\$ | 306,455.00 |\n| moving and storage services for HCHK, Golden Spring and Greenwich, | | | |\n| CT residence) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to FDS46 Crew Series LLC (Lady May II captain | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,130.00 |\n| | | | |\n| salary) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$ | 550,000.00 |\n| of HCHK (for settlement payment) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Cole Schotz, counsel to Brian W. Hofmeister, | \\$
- | \\$ | 766,758.37 |\n| Assignee of HCHK Entities (for preparation and prosecution of the | | | |\n| assignment proceedings per settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A. Atkins Appraisal Corp., appraiser to Brian | \\$
- | \\$ | 7,800.00 |\n| W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for appraisal fees per | | | |\n| settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, MSB | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,000.00 |\n| counsel to Brian. W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees | | | |\n| | | | |\n| and expenses per settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to DLA, LLC, financial advisor to Brian. W. | \\$
- | \\$ | 155,000.00 |\n| Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees per settlement order) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Prager Dreifuss AG (for advance on Swiss | \\$
- | \\$ | 5,835.49 |\n| court fees) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hawk Eye Security LLC (for security services | \\$
78,146.46 | \\$ | 810,550.54 |\n| at Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A&A Home Services LLC (for repairs to the | \\$
- | \\$ | 17,800.00 |\n| 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Next Frontier Advisors (for deposit for virtual | \\$
- | \\$ | 11,000.00 |\n| staging at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Knight Security Systems (for security system | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,710.50 |\n| installation at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Slocum's Lock & Key LLC (for updating keys | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,932.91 |\n| and replacing deadbolt at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to CT Fence and Landscaping, LLC (for servicing | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,277.56 |\n| the gate at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$ | 141,930.59 |\n| | | | |\n| Valley Road real property taxes) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,021.86 |\n| Valley Road sewer and water) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$ | 139,323.90 |\n| Valley Road taxes) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to World Insurance Associates LLC (for the 373 | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,139.60 |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | 7/1/2025 - 7/31/2025 |\n| Disbursement paid to Tax Collector - Town of Greenwich (for the | \\$
- | \\$
27,847.85 |\n| 373 Taconic property real estate tax bill) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Rockland Electric (for electric company | \\$
2,424.47 | \\$
46,215.55 |\n| invoices at 675 Ramapo Valley Road house and gate house ) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to City of Stamford, CT (for tax bills for 2022 and | \\$
- | \\$
617.73 |\n| 2023) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Seriatim Inc. (for deposit for personal property | \\$
- | \\$
2,520.00 |\n| inventory services at 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Greenwich Pool Service, LLC (for pool services | \\$
- | \\$
1,749.44 |\n| at 373 Taconic property)
Disbursement paid to PSE&G (for gas utility invoices at 675 Ramapo | \\$
328.24 | \\$
16,171.63 |\n| Valley Road property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for alarm registration fee | \\$
- | \\$
30.00 |\n| for 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Verizon (for services at 675 Ramapo Valley | \\$
448.12 | \\$
5,725.60 |\n| Road property ) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Optimum (for internet services at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$
561.89 |\n| property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Eversource (for electric bill at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$
2,327.99 |\n| property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for test wire in favor | \\$
- | \\$
100.00 |\n| of the District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Atko Bros Landscaping (for landscaping | \\$
- | \\$
6,168.30 |\n| services at 373 Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for police security at 373 | \\$
- | \\$
8,500.00 |\n| Taconic property) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Kyle Davis Lawn Care, LLC (for landscaping at | \\$
10,716.10 | \\$
38,695.92 |\n| Mahwah Mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to JL Holdings, Inc. (for pool and spa | \\$
- | \\$
639.75 |\n| winterization at 675 Ramapo Valley Road property) | | |\n| *
Unauthorized fraudulent disbursements | \\$
5,000.00 | \\$
12,240.99 |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for wire in favor of the | \\$
- | \\$
218,150.40 |\n| District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hackensack Roofing Co. Inc. (for roofing | \\$
- | \\$
18,382.15 |\n| repair invoices for roof at Mahwah mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Milo Plastering (for plaster repair at Mahwah | \\$
- | \\$
31,000.00 |\n| mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to TransPerfect Translations International Inc. (for | \\$
- | \\$
812.50 |\n| translation and proofreading services) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Planet Depos, LLC (for deposition services in | \\$
- | \\$
7,647.55 |\n| adversary proceeding) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Montvale Moving Services LLC (for packing | \\$
- | \\$
1,300.00 |\n| and moving at the Mahwah mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to IPTeam Janitorial LLC (for cleaning invoice at | \\$
266.56 | \\$
11,089.00 |\n| the Mahwah Mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Dark Star Electrical Contracting LLC (for light | \\$
- | \\$
450.00 |\n| fixture maintenance at Mahwah Mansion) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Divergent Language Solutions, LLC (for | \\$
- | \\$
2,546.32 |\n| translation services) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Aircraft Servicing (Guernsey) Limited (for | \\$
- | \\$
12,166.57 |\n| airport fees / jet fuel and storage of aircraft) | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Alliant Insurance Services (for Aircraft Hull & | \\$
- | \\$
5,600.00 |\n| Liability Policy) | | |\n| Total Ordinary Disbursements | \\$
104,043.77 | \\$
5,529,678.83 |\n| REORGANIZATION ITEMS: | | |\n| Professional Fees | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC | \\$
- | \\$
6,082,375.17 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Paul Hastings LLP | \\$
867,160.08 | \\$
44,183,366.19 |\n| Broker fees paid with respect to Edmiston and Company Limited | \\$
- | \\$
1,176,250.00 |\n| | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pullman & Comley, LLC | \\$
- | \\$
820,969.76 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC | \\$
- | \\$
306,098.63 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harney Westwood & Riegels LP | \\$
- | \\$
2,249,395.09 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kroll LLC | \\$
82,409.59 | \\$
3,008,886.04 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pallas Partners LLP | \\$
- | \\$
667,135.54 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Prager Dreifuss AG | \\$
163,906.51 | \\$
1,209,955.18 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Eisner Advisory Group LLC | \\$
- | \\$
179,145.00 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C. | \\$
- | \\$
14,768.43 |\n| | | |\n\n\\*These cash disbursements in the aggregate amount constitute unauthorized disbursements due to forged checks and unauthorized ACH payments. The accounts involved were immediately closed upon discovery of the fraudulent activity. The Trustee has worked in conjunction with the estate's bank to recover the stolen funds, and has been in communication with the United States Trustee regarding same. As of the date of this MOR, \\$12,240.99 has been reimbursed to the estate's bank account.\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | 7/1/2025 - 7/31/2025 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Sage-Popovich, Inc. | \\$
60,418.01 | \\$
75,418.01 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC | \\$
- | \\$
67,166.19 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP | \\$
45,955.76 | \\$
259,659.90 |\n| Fees paid with respect to ENSafrica (Mauritius) | \\$
- | \\$
36,117.13 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Paul Wright / Peter Shaw (English
barristers) | \\$
- | \\$
39,631.33 |\n| Fees paid with respect to William De Robillard / Andre Patrice
Doger de Speville (Mauritius barristers) | \\$
- | \\$
23,201.25 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Marxer Attorneys (Liechtenstein counsel) | \\$
36,088.58 | \\$
36,088.58 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Hadef & Partners LLC (UAE counsel) | \\$
1,400.95 | \\$
1,400.95 |\n| | | |\n| U. S. Trustee Fees | \\$
55,369.00 | \\$
517,295.43 |\n| Other Reorganization Expenses (attach schedule) | \\$
- | \\$
- |\n| Total Reorganization Items | \\$
1,312,708.48 | \\$
60,954,323.80 |\n| | | |\n| Total Disbursements (Ordinary + Reorganization) | \\$
1,416,752.25 | \\$
66,484,002.63 |\n| Financing of Genever Entities | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
25,004.19 |\n| invoices for Gallagher Basset Services Inc. (for air monitoring for | | |\n| asbestos abatement, ATRU and variance drawings, final inspection and
asbestos survey and reporting work at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$
236,452.00 |\n| US counsel fees (Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$
274,811.83 |\n| US counsel fees (O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$
98,089.58 |\n| BVI corporate fees (Harneys Corporate Services) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$
121,300.00 |\n| US invoices for ABF Environmental Inc. (for asbestos abatement and | | |\n| insulation work) | - | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever
US invoices for Gustav Restoration LLC (invoices for terrace cleaning | \\$ | \\$
39,924.43 |\n| project and for deposit for work at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$
324,516.61 |\n| US invoices for Acheson Doyle Partners Architects, PC (for apartment | | |\n| stabilization work at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
5,750.00 |\n| invoices for Catalpa Special Inspections, Inc. (for remediation project at | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
122,849.05 |\n| invoices for Skyline Windows LLC (for window replacement at The | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
2,515.01 |\n| invoices for Arista Air Conditioning Corp. (for service repair proposal | | |\n| at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
229,678.89 |\n| invoices for The Sherry Netherland, Inc. (for installation of HVAC | | |\n| units, security deposit and proprietary rent) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$
384,187.42 |\n| US invoices for Sciame Homes NY LLC (for general contractor at The | | |\n| Sherry Netherland)
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever | \\$
- | \\$
19,793.64 |\n| US invoices for Burnham Nationwide, Inc. (for apartment restoration at | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
12,590.00 |\n| invoices for U.S. Trustee Fees | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
166,754.00 |\n| invoices for AIG insurance premium | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
29,446.33 |\n| invoices for Hillmann Consulting (for post fire smoke damage | | |\n| investigation at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
101,500.00 |\n| invoices for ARD Facilities Management Group LLC (for storage | | |\n| services for The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| | | |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | 7/1/2025 - 7/31/2025 |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
2,068.63 |\n| invoices for Cleaning Contractors Corp. (for furniture cleaning at The | | |\n| Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
32,777.50 |\n| invoices for Montvale Moving Services LLC (for packing and moving | | |\n| furniture at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
554,269.78 |\n| invoices for J and A Construction Consultants dba Dryfast Property | | |\n| Restoration (for restoration work at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
1,750.00 |\n| invoices for The Light Touch (for work removing and packaging light | | |\n| fixtures at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
2,177.50 |\n| invoices for CitiQuiet, Inc. (for removing and reinstalling window at | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Total DIP Financing Items | \\$
- | \\$
2,788,206.39 |\n| Net Cash Flow (Total Receipts - Total Disbursements - DIP | \\$
1,823,388.18 | \\$
76,700,300.36 |\n| Financing) | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash - End of Month (Must equal reconciled bank statement) | \\$
76,700,279.74 | \\$
76,700,279.74 |\n| Third Party Disbursements on Behalf of the Estate | | |\n| None | \\$
- | \\$
12,757.00 |\n| | | |\n\n#### **THE FOLLOWING SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED**\n\n**DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY FEES: (FROM CURRENT MONTH ACTUAL COLUMN)**\n\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS | \\$
1,416,752.25 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|\n| LESS: TRANSFERS TO OTHER DEBTOR IN POSSESSION ACCOUNTS | \\$
- |\n| PLUS: ESTATE DISBURSEMENTS MADE BY OUTSIDE SOURCES (i.e. from escrow | \\$
- |\n| accounts) | |\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY | \\$
1,416,752.25 |\n| FEES | |\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
:
Case No. 22-50073
(JAM)
: | |\n| Debtor. | :
: | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x | |\n\n# **ATTACHMENT TO MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2025 THROUGH JULY 31, 2025**\n\nThis attachment is incorporated into and made a part of the Monthly Operating Report (\"MOR\") of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins.\n\n# **General Disclaimers**\n\n- 1. The MOR is presented on a form promulgated in 2021 by the Executive Office of the United States Trustee. This form in many instances requires inserting a number for a line item even if the line item does not apply. The form also does not allow for the insertion of explanations or asterisks next to answers. Accordingly, as presented, certain responses may be inapplicable or incomplete. Following guidance from the United States Trustee's office, this attachment is being filed as an integral part of the MOR.\n- 2. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the appointment of Luc A. Despins, Esq. as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"). The information in this MOR is based only on information beginning on the date of the Trustee's appointment and only on bank accounts within the Trustee's control.[1](#page-17-0)\n- 3. The Trustee reserves the rights to amend, modify or supplement this MOR or update it in future MORs.\n\n### **Specific Responses**\n\n### Part 1 Responses\n\n4. As noted above, this information is limited to cash receipts and disbursements since the Trustee was appointed and with respect to accounts under the Trustee's control. Not all cash receipts held by the Trustee as reflected in this MOR have been determined to be\n\n1 The Trustee is currently investigating the Debtor's assets and financial affairs (with respect to which investigation the Debtor has not cooperated).\n\nproperty of the estate at this time. There are various on-going litigations with respect to the funds held by the Trustee, which, if finally determined in a manner adverse to the Trustee, would materially reduce the total amount of cash held by the Trustee at this time. In addition, cash disbursements included here do not reflect payments made pursuant to the *Order (I) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363, (II) Authorizing Genever US and Genever BVI to Obtain Post-Petition Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 264, (III) Granting Non-Priming Liens and Providing Superpriority Administrative Expense Claims, (IV) Modifying Automatic Stay, and (V) Granting Related Relief*, entered on September 12, 2023 [Dkt. 2193], which authorized the Kwok estate to finance expenses of the Genever entities, which are described in the summary of cash receipts and disbursements.\n\n# Part 2 Responses\n\n- 5. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section. The Trustee's counsel is currently reviewing the over 1,200 proofs of claim filed in connection with the claims bar date, which occurred on February 17, 2023.\n- 6. The Trustee is aware of certain professional fees and expenses that have arisen in connection with services provided by the Trustee's professionals. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n\n### Part 3 Responses\n\n7. On June 27, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May [Docket No. 1953]. On December 19, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May II [Docket No. 2449]. On June 20, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order [Docket No. 3265] authorizing and approving the liquidation of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. and the distribution of the proceeds of such liquidation, as discussed in the Trustee' s related motion [Docket No. 3203] and report of results of sale [Docket No. 3372].\n\n# Part 4 Responses\n\n8. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section.\n\n# Part 5 Responses\n\n- 9. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n- 10. The Trustee is aware of a number of professional firms that have provided services to the official committee of unsecured creditors or the Debtor (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) but that have not at this time had their retentions approved by the Court. The Trustee includes such professional firms (of which he is aware) in this part of the MOR out of an abundance of caution but reserves all his rights with respect to the retention and/or payment of fees with respect to such professional firms. The Trustee also notes that the Debtor may have employed professionals (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) of which the Trustee is not aware.\n\n### Part 6 Responses\n\n11. The Trustee is not aware of any postpetition taxes that have accrued during the time period since the Trustee's appointment.\n\n### Part 7 Responses\n\n12. The Trustee notes that the Debtor filed a chapter 11 plan on April 20, 2022 [Docket No. 197] (the \"April 2022 Plan\") with respect to which no disclosure statement was filed or approved.\n\n### Part 8 Responses\n\n13. The Trustee has insufficient information to respond to Part 8.\n\n# EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® Case 22-50073 Doc 4623 Filed 08/21/25 Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31 Page 21 of 27\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nDirect inquiries to: 888 761 -3967\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** Page 1 of 2 STARTING DA TE: July 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: July 31, 2025 Total days in statement period: 31\n\n( **O)**\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR LUC A DESPINS, CH 11 TRUSTEE CASE #22-50073 C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10166-0005\n\nReceive money using Direct Deposits! Set up direct deposit and have your paycheck or other recurring payments sent to your bank account automatically. Talk to your payer or call 888.895.5650 for more details.\n\n# **Trustee-Non Vendor MMA**\n\n| Account number | | Beginning balance | | \\$66,292,378.52 |\n|----------------------------|-----------------|--------------------|------|-----------------|\n| Low balance | \\$66,097,942.29 | Total additions | (1) | 227,715.97 |\n| Average balance | \\$66,201,778.85 | Total subtractions | ( 7) | 194,436.23 |\n| Interest paid year to date | \\$1,580,249.06 | Ending balance | | \\$66,325,658.26 |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **CREDITS**\n\n| Number | Date | Transaction Description | Additions |\n|--------|-------|-------------------------|------------|\n| | 07-31 | Interest Credit | 227,715.97 |\n\n#### **DEBITS**\n\n| Date | Transaction Description | | Subtractions |\n|-------|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|\n| 07-16 | Outgoing Fx Ccy | Fx ouT wIRE 101537788 1 1 BK EST Ho wAN KWOK | -36,088.58 |\n| 07-16 | Service Charge | ouTG0ING FxccvwI | -40.00 |\n| | 07-16 Outgoing Wire | oxx32FOP00002699 HAWK EYE sEcumv 031101266 REF KWOK 15,360.05 FOR HAWK | |\n| | | EYE, SEC | -15,360.05 |\n| | 07-16 Outgoing Wire | DXX32FOP00002745 KROLL LLC 026009593 REKWOK 82,409.59 FOR KROLL PER MO FE | -82,409.59 |\n| | 07-16 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | -60.00 |\n| 07-21 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32F5P00003078 SAGE-POPOVICH INC 271974017 REF. IN RE KWOK, 60,418.01 | |\n| | | FORSAGE | -60,418.01 |\n| 07-21 | Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | -60.00 |\n\n#### **DAILY BALANCES**\n\n| Date | Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount |\n|-------|----------------|-------|---------------|------|--------|\n| 06-30 | 66,292,378.52 | 07-21 | 66,097,942.29 | | |\n| 07-16 | 66, 158,420.30 | 07-31 | 66,325,658.26 | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n#### **INTEREST INFORMATION**\n\n| Annual percentage yield earned | | 4. 13% Interest-bearing days | 31 |\n|--------------------------------|-----------------|------------------------------|--------------|\n| Average balance for APY | \\$66,201,778.85 | Interest earned | \\$227,715.97 |\n\n\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** Page 2 of 2 STARTING DATE: July 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: July 31, 2025\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n\n| Case 22-50073
9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL | Doc 4623
Filed 08/21/25
Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31
EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® | Page 23 of 27
Direct inquiries to:
888 761
-3967 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| El Monte, CA. 91731 | | ACCOUNT STATEMENT
of
Page
1
3
STARTING DATE: July 15, 2025
ENDING DATE: July 31, 2025
Total days in statement period: 17
( 4) |\n| BK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR
LUC A DESPINS, CH11 TRUSTEE
CASE #22-50073
C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP
200 PARK AVE
NEW YORK NY 10166-0005 | Receive money using Direct Deposits!
Set up direct deposit and have your
paycheck or other recurring payments
sent to your bank account automatically.
Talk to your payer or call 888.895.5650
for more details. | |\n| Standard Business Checking
Account number
Enclosures | Beginning balance
Total additions
4 | \\$0.00
10,472,659.60
(2) |\n| Low balance
Average balance | \\$0.00
Total subtractions
\\$8,588,983.04
Ending balance | 98,038.12
( 12)
\\$10,374,621.48 |\n| CREDITS
Number
Date
07-18
07-23 | Transaction Description
TR FROM XXX0846
Transfer Credit
Wire Trans-IN | Additions
10,460,159.60 |\n| CHECKS
Number
Date
3980
07-29
3982 *
07-29
3983
07-30 | Amount
Number
Date
309.10
3984
07-28
* Skip in check sequence
19.14
448.12 | Amount
266.56 |\n| DEBITS
Date
Transaction Description
07-23 Service Charge
07-24 Outgoing Wire | wIRETRANs-IN
oxx32FSP0000391s KYLE 0AvIs LAWN cA 031101266 RE KWOK 10,116.10 FOR KYLE | Subtractions
10.00 |\n| 07-24 Service Charge
07-24 Outgoing Wire | DAVIS LAW
OUTGOING WIRE
DXX32F8P00003900 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 15,360.05 FOR HAWK
EYE, RES | 10,716.10
60.00
15,360.05 |\n| 07-24 Service Charge
07-25 Outgoing Wire | OUTGOING WIRE
DXX32F9P00003141 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 15,360.05 FOR HAWK | 60.00 |\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** Case 22-50073 Doc 4623 Filed 08/21/25 Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31 Page 24 of 27\n\nI= EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge®\n\nPage 2 of 3 STARTING DATE: July 15, 2025 ENDING DATE: July 31, 202\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n#### **DAIL V BALANCES**\n\n| Date | Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount |\n|-------|----------------|-------|---------------|-------|---------------|\n| 07-18 | 10,460, 159.60 | 07-25 | 10,431,033.40 | 07-30 | 10,374,621.48 |\n| 07-23 | 10,472,649.60 | 07-28 | 10,375,397.84 | | |\n| 07-24 | 10,446,453.45 | 07-29 | 10,375,069.60 | | |\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n\n\n\n07/30/2025 3983 \\$448.12\n\n| | | Doc 4623 | Filed 08/21/25
EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® | Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31 | Page 26 of 27
Direct inquiries to:
888 761
-3967 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL
El Monte, CA. 91731 | | | | ACCOUNT STATEMENT
of
Page
1
2
STARTING DA TE: July 01, 2025
ENDING DATE: July 31, 2025
Total days in statement period: 31
( O) |\n| BK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR
LUC A DESPINS, CH11 TRUSTEE
CASE #22-50073
C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP
200 PARK AVE
NEW YORK NY 10166-0005 | | | for more details. | Receive money using Direct Deposits!
Set up direct deposit and have your
paycheck or other recurring payments
sent to your bank account automatically.
Talk to your payer or call 888.895.5650 | |\n| | * * Closed Account - | Final Statement | | | |\n| Low balance | Standard Business Checking
Account number
Average balance | \\$0.00
\\$8,048,331.59 | Beginning balance
Total additions
Total subtractions
Ending balance | | \\$8,584,513.04
2,999,924.46
( 3)
11,584,437.50
( 19)
\\$.00 |\n| CREDITS | | | | | |\n| Number | Date
07-03 | Transaction Description
Wire Trans-IN | 1e078140-211a-4b2b-9680-610907982ef3
GENEVER HOLDINGS L 122287251 GENEVER US | | Additions |\n| | | | | | 2,857,324.46 |\n| 1501 | 07-14
07-15 | Wire Trans-IN
Return Item | edcfcc72-0cc0-4242 -b135-988aaeaea80c Genever
Holdings 122287251 /ROC/ Auction motor
REFER TO MAKER CHECK 1501 | | 137,600.00
5,000.00 |\n| CHECKS
Number
1501 | Date
07-14 | Amount
5,000.00 | Number | Date | Amount |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4623 Filed 08/21/25 Entered 08/21/25 15:05:31 Page 27 of 27\n\nI= EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge®\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nPage 2 of 2 STARTING DATE: July 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: July 31, 2025\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT**\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n| Date | Transaction Description | | Subtractions |\n|------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|\n| | 07-08 Service Charge | ouTG0ING wIRE | 60.00 |\n| | 07-08 Intl Wire Xfer | sxx32E8Poooo2188 KOBRE AND KIM Gcc EBILAEADxxx RE KwoK 4595576 Fo R osRE | |\n| | | AND KIM MON | 45,955.76 |\n| | 07-08 Service Charge | INTL WIRE XFER | 70.00 |\n| | 07-08 Preauth Debit | ROCKLAND ELECTR RECO 250708 59297160000 | 364.72 |\n| | 07-08 Preauth Debit | ROCKLAND ELECTR RECO 250708 85766340005 | 2,059.75 |\n| | 07-10 Outgoing Wire | DXX32EAP00002942 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 16,706.26 FOR HAWK | |\n| | | EYE RE SE | 16,706.26 |\n| | 07-10 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 60.00 |\n| | 07-14 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 |\n| | 07-18 Transfer Debit | TR TO NEW DDA XXX2540 | 10,460, 159.60 |\n\n#### **DAILY BALANCES**\n\n| Date | Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount |\n|-------|---------------|-------|----------------|-------|----------------|\n| 06-30 | 8,584,513.04 | 07-08 | 10,339,335.86 | 07-15 | 10,460, 159.60 |\n| 07-02 | 8,399, 162.66 | 07-10 | 10,322,569.60 | 07-18 | 0.00 |\n| 07-03 | 11,255,006.17 | 07-14 | 10,455, 159.60 | | |\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Despins","Paul Hastings","Je","Yanping Wang"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2193,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9943,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-08-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-08-21","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:44"},{"id":"court_sdny_721_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":721,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-08-14","title":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n## UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n- v. -\n\nYVETTE WANG a/k/a \"Yanping,\" a/k/a \"Y,\"\n\nDefendant.\n\n**NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF THIRD-PARTY PETITION TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN FORFEITED PROPERTY AND TO AMEND THE PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE - VERIFIED CLAIM OF**\n\nS4 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nPetitioner (the \"Petitioner\") hereby gives notice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.\n\nP. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)1, of the voluntary dismissal of Petitioner's ancillary petition (the \"Petition\") filed on April 3, 2025 (ECF No. 536). Because the United States has not served an answer nor filed a dispositive motion with respect to the Petition, dismissal by notice is proper and does not require a court order.\n\n[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]\n\n1 At least one Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has held that ancillary petitions relating to forfeiture proceedings are civil actions, and therefore proceed subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. *See United States v. Peck*, 139 F.4th 1158, 1166 (10th Cir. 2025) (\"But ancillary proceedings are not treated like criminal cases. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure treat ancillary proceedings according to the rules applicable in civil cases.\"). As such, Petitioner fashions this notice of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.\n\nDated: August 14, 2025 Respectfully submitted,\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Jeffrey S. Gavenman Jeffrey S. Gavenman, Esq. Jeremy W. Schulman, Esq. SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA, LLC 6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 425 North Bethesda, MD 20852 (240) 356-8550 [jgavenman@schulmanbh.com](mailto:jgavenman@schulmanbh.com) [jschulman@schulmanbh.com](mailto:jschulman@schulmanbh.com)\n\n*Counsel for Petitioner*","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Gavenman","Je","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":536,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":247,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-08-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-08-14","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:42"},{"id":"court_sdny_720_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":720,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-08-11","title":"SDNY ECF 720","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n8/11/2025\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n:\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n: PRELIMINARY ORDER OF\n-v. - FORFEITURE AS TO SPECIFIC\n: PROPERTY/MONEY JUDGMENT\nMILES GUO,\n: S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\na/k/a “Ho Wan Kwok,”\na/k/a “Miles Kwok,” :\na/k/a “Guo Wengui,”\na/k/a “Brother Seven,” :\na/k/a “The Principal,”\na/k/a “Boss,” :\nDefendant. :\n-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\nWHEREAS, on or about April 24, 2024, MILES GUO (the “Defendant”), was\ncharged in a thirteen-count Superseding Indictment, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (the “Indictment”), with\nracketeering conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d) (Count One);\nconspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,\nSection 1349 (Count Two); money laundering conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 1956(h) (Count Three); conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation of Title\n18, United States Code, Section 371 (Count Four); wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United\nStates Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Five); securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United\nStates Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5;\nand Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 (Count Six); wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United\nStates Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Seven); securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United\nStates Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5;\nand Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 (Count Eight); wire fraud, in violation of Title 18,\nUnited States Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Nine); securities fraud , in violation of Title 15,\n\nUnited States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section\n240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 (Count Ten); wire fraud, in violation of\nTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Eleven); unlawful monetary transactions,\nin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 and 2 (Count Twelve);\nWHEREAS, the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation as to Count One of the\nInformation, seeking forfeiture to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,\nSection 1963, of any interest acquired or maintained in violation of Section 1962; any interest in,\nsecurity of, claim against, or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of\ninfluence over, any enterprise the defendants and their co-conspirators established, operated,\ncontrolled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of Section 1962; and any\nproperty constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from the\nracketeering activity charged in Count One including certain specified specific property;\nWHEREAS, the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation as to Counts Two, Four,\nand Five through Eleven, seeking forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c), of any and all\nproperty, real and personal, involved in the offenses charged in Counts Two, Four, and Five\nthrough Eleven of the Indictment, or any property traceable to such property, including but not\nlimited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of property involved\nin the offense charged in Counts Two, Four, and Five through Eleven of the Indictment;\nWHEREAS, the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation as to Counts Three and\nTwelve, seeking forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section\n982(a)(1), any and all property, real and personal, or any property traceable to such property,\n\nincluding but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of\nproperty involved in Counts Three and Twelve of the Indictment.\nWHEREAS, on or about July 16, 2024, the Defendant was found guilty by a jury\nof Counts One through Four, and Seven through Eleven;\nWHEREAS, the Government asserts that $1,300,000,000 in United States currency\nrepresents (i) the proceeds traceable to the commission of the offenses charged in Counts One,\nTwo, Four, Seven through Eleven of the Indictment that the Defendant personally obtained; and\n(ii) the property involved in the offense charged in Count Three of the Indictment, for which the\nDefendant is jointly and severally liable with co-defendant, Yvette Wang (the “Co-defendant”) to\nthe extent a forfeiture money judgment is entered against the Co-defendant in this case;\nWHEREAS, the Government seeks the entry of a money judgment in the amount\nof $1,300,000,000 in United States currency representing (i) the proceeds traceable to the\ncommission of the offenses charged in Counts One, Two, Four, Seven through Eleven of the\nIndictment that the Defendant personally obtained; and (ii) the property involved in the offense\ncharged in Count Three of the Indictment, for which the Defendant is jointly and severally liable\nwith co-defendant, Yvette Wang (the “Co-defendant”) and the forfeiture money judgment is\nentered against the Co-defendant in this case;\nWHEREAS, the Government further seeks the forfeiture of all Defendant’s right,\ntitle and interest in the following assets:\na. $64,826.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037713 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nb. $75,000,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037705 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\n\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nc. $467,343.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037754 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nd. $89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\ne. $1,683,077.40 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042762 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nf. $85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Funds SPC,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 18, 2022;\ng. $48,230,709.62 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090030288 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nInvestment Management” Ltd., seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 18, 2022;\nh. $1,800,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037739 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\ni. $4,643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000590 at FV Bank held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Reserves, Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 20, 2022;\nj. $14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000254 at FV Bank held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Clearing, Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 20, 2022;\nk. $12,620,625.39 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10103-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\n\nname of “G Club International Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or\nabout October 16, 2022;\nl. $10,008,284.04 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\nm. $3,090,856.54 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10137-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.,” seized by the Government\nbetween on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\nn. $272,350,429.22 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10138-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\no. $310,594.31 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10139-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\np. $1,187,278.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10171-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\nq. $47,888.50 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10172-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “G Fashion International Limited,” seized by the Government on\nor about October 16, 2022;\nr. $7,715.00, in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000589 at FV Bank held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Financial Group, Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or\nabout September 20, 2022;\ns. $176,983.37 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\n\nname of “Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment on or about October 16, 2022;\nt. $2,745,377.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 9878904409 at Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. held in the\nname of “GETTR USA, Inc.,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 18, 2022;\nu. $9,899,659.19 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 157525208185 at US Bank held in the name of “G Fashion,”\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\nv. All that lot or parcel of land, together with its buildings, appurtenances,\nimprovements, fixtures, attachments, and easements, located at 675\nRamapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430, Parcel No. 3300021-\n03-00001-02 and described as Lot Number: 1.02 Block: 21.03 District: 33\nCity, Municipality, Township: MAHWAH TWP (the “Subject Property”);\nw. A Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nVF9SW3V3XNM795047 seized by the Government on or about May 11,\n2023;\nx. A Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roads, bearing Vehicle Identification\nNumber ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393 seized by the Government on or about\nMarch 15, 2023;\ny. A Rolls Royce Phantom EWB, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nSCATT8C08MU206445 seized by the Government on or about March 20,\n2023;\nz. A Bösendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539 piano with custom bench seized by\nthe Government on or about May 22, 2025 from 351 Walker Street, Staten\nIsland, New York;\naa. The following personal property seized by the Government from the\nSubject Property on or about March 15, 2023:\ni. A Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon Bed with\nNightstands, Ebony Veneer, Brass, Velvet;\nii. A Hästens 2000T md mattress;\niii. A Hästens 2000T sf mattress;\niv. A Wembe watch storage box;\n\nv. A Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98” QLED Smart TV – 8K;\nvi. A Louis XV Style French Ormolu-Mounted Mahogany Commode by\nJoseph Émmanuel Zweiner;\nvii. A “K’ang Hsi” extension table in etched and patinated pewter and\nbronze with hand-painted enamel colors by Philip & Kelvin LaVerne;\nviii. A “Punto ‘83” table in stainless steel with mesh tabletop with\nadjustable height and adjustable petals by Gabriella Crespi, Italy 1982;\nix. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Still Life Musicale 1960s bronze wall\nplaque with colored enamel;\nx. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Venus Contemplating 1960s bronze wall\nplaque with colored enamel;\nxi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chinoi Plaque #14 limited edition 1960s\nbronze and pewter plaque;\nxii. Baroque Style Carved Gilt Wood Frame, late 19th Century 44.75\" X\n38.5\";\nxiii. Pair of ormolu-mounted display cabinets in the style of Francois\nLinke;\nxiv. Ormolu mounted single door vitrine with curved glass sides and\nfront, resting on hoof feet;\nxv. Ornate wrought iron table with inlaid marble top. Book matched center\ncartouche, black outline;\nxvi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Special Eternal Forest Game Table\nlabeled on underside bronze and pewter;\nxvii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Marriage Whirl oriental motif\nboomerang shaped bronze, pewter, and enamel;\nxviii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Eternal Forest Cocktail Table bronze\nand pewter with colored enamel;\nxix. Pair of Sèvres-style porcelain jardiniere/vases having white ground\nwith gold accents, ormolu mounts;\n\nxx. A Sèvres-style porcelain jardiniere/vase having a dark blue ground\nwith gold accents, ormolu mounts;\nxxi. Pair of Louis XVI style giltwood console tables with white marble\ntops. H-37.5\" x W-6;\nxxii. Pair of octagonal marble pedestals, white with gray veins. H-32\" x\nDiameter-23\";\nxxiii. Louis XV style French table desk, ormolu mounted marquetry,\nwith leather top;\nxxiv. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Festival Console with waterfall ends,\nsigned on the top 1960s;\nxxv. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Special Festival Console with waterfall\nends, signed on the top 1960s;\nxxvi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Kuan Su Coffee Table bronze and\npewter/silver-tone metal top with floral;\nxxvii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chan round bronze, pewter, and\nenamel table with Chinese motif;\nxxviii. Regency style cerule x-base footstools with paw feet, red velvet\nupholstery, and fringe;\nxxix. Earlier 20th c. Bar Cabinet with sterling silver mounted vertical\nstiles, cartouches, and ball;\nxxx. 1960s Maison Jansen style French brass, black patina, and smoked\nglass coffee table;\nxxxi. French ormolu mounted marquetry inlaid table desk with single\nfrieze drawer. Finished front and back;\nxxxii. Pair of French Empire style gilt and patinated bronze ormolu\nmounted tables with black marble tops;\nxxxiii. Empire-style center table with book-matched flamed veneer top;\nxxxiv. Jansen Style Two-tier Bouillotte Table on fluted tripod pedestal\nwith ormolu mounts, marble top;\n\nxxxv. Boulle-style Bureau Plat silver and gold metal scrolling design\ntable desk inlaid with tortoiseshell;\nxxxvi. Tabriz, from Iran, modern production. 13' 8\" x 20'. Quality: 45 raj.\nCotton warp and weft;\nxxxvii. Bidjar, from Iran, first quarter of the 20th c. 14' 5\" x 19' 7\". Wool\nweft, cotton warp;\nxxxviii. Bidjar, from Iran, late 19th - early 20th c. 12' 3\" x 19'.\nWool warp and weft, wool face;\nxxxix. Pair of mid-19th c. Louis XV style paraclose mirrors, floral;\nxl. Italian Tuscan antique giltwood mirror with plume-topped urn finial;\nxli. Two (2) Regency style giltwood mirrors with urn and floral finial;\nxlii. Giltwood Louis XV style overmantel double mirror;\nxliii. Two (2) Italian Neoclassical giltwood pier mirrors;\nxliv. Pair of Italian Florentine style giltwood mirrors each with a plume;\nxlv. Italian giltwood mirror with rococo crest with cross-hatched\npanels;\nxlvi. Pair of French Régence style giltwood mirrors, the crest with a\nplume;\nxlvii. Pair of giltwood mirrors each with a plumed mask crest;\nxlviii. Pair of Empire 19th c. gilt bronze floor torcheres embellished with\nlion masks draped;\nxlix. Pair of 18-light Baccarat Torcheres. H-95\" x W-26\". Dimensions\nare approximate;\nl. 19th c Silver and tortoiseshell mounted table cabinet, with enamel\ninset;\nli. Pair of small figural patinated black and gilt bronze candlesticks;\nlii. Pair of gilt bronze chenet with obelisk, lion mask, dolphin;\n\nliii. Pair of marble pedestals having a square top, round column;\nliv. Pair of Regency style bronze patinated torcheres, attributed to English\nlamp manufacturer;\nlv. Late Georgian Chippendale style hexagonal center table with cabriole\nlegs and hairy paw and ball;\nlvi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chan elongated hexagonal table, mottled\nbronze on the top, bronze;\nlvii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chan hexagonal pedestal, bronze on the\ntop, bronze and pewter Chinese;\nlviii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Les Chine Cocktail Table square\nmottled bronze top supported;\nlix. Persian Silk Tabriz Rug, 7'7\" x 11'2\" located on 2nd Floor of the\nSubject Property;\nlx. Louis XV style giltwood pier mirror;\nlxi. Pair of Louis XV style giltwood mirrors;\nlxii. Italian Tuscan giltwood mirror;\nlxiii. French giltwood paraclose mirror with Louis XVI style floral\nwreath;\nlxiv. Chinese Chippendale Giltwood double parclose mirror;\nlxv. Louis XV style giltwood paraclose mirror (double frame) with\nshell and wave crest;\nlxvi. French Brass Three Panel Firescreen with Empire style swags and\nwreaths;\nlxvii. Ferdinand Barbedienne (1810 - 1892) French Three-Piece Clock\nGarniture;\nlxviii. Pair of Victorian urn and swag chenet H-18\" x W-16\" x D-6\";\nlxix. Pair of Louis XV style gilt bronze and brass andirons depicting\ncherubs;\n\nlxx. Louis XV style gilt bronze 'log cradle';\nlxxi. Pair of gilt bronze Louis XV style chenets;\nlxxii. French Tapestry Size 6'8\" x 9'5\" located on the 3rd Floor of the\nSubject Property;\nlxxiii. Antique Chinese Export Cast Brass Pair of Foo Dogs;\nlxxiv. $9,895.00 in United States currency;\nlxxv. $1,000.00 in United States currency;\nlxxvi. A ring with box;\nlxxvii. A bracelet with box;\nlxxviii. $1,300.00 in United States currency;\nlxxix. $394,040.00 in United States currency;\nlxxx. Yellow coins;\nlxxxi. 5,000 Euros;\nlxxxii. $188,050 Hong Kong dollars;\nlxxxiii. 250 Chinese Yuan;\nbb. $7,173,427.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in the TD\nBank, N.A. official check account, which currency was previously held in\nTD Bank N.A. accounts 440-5491468 ($2,815,502.30) and 440-5492044\n($4,357,924.95) in the name of “G Club Operations LLC,” seized by the\nGovernment on or about May 12, 2023.\n(a. through bb., collectively, the “Specific Property”), as constituting proceeds of the offenses\ncharged in Counts One, Two, Four and Counts Seven through Eleven and/or property involved in\nthe offense charged in Count Three of the Indictment;\nWHEREAS, the Court finds that, as a result of acts and/or omissions of the\nDefendant, the proceeds traceable to the offense charged in Counts One through Four and Counts\n\nSeven through Eleven and/or property involved in the offense charged in Count Three of the\nIndictment cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence, with the exception of the Specific\nProperty; and\nWHEREAS, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(g), and Rules\n32.2(b)(3), and 32.2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government is now\nentitled, pending any assertion of third-party claims, to reduce the Specific Property to its\npossession and to notify any and all persons who reasonably appear to be a potential claimant of\ntheir interest herein;\nNOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:\n1. As a result of the offenses charged in Counts One through Four, Seven\nthrough Eleven of the Indictment, to which the Defendant was found guilty, a money judgment in\nthe amount of approximately $1.3 billion in United States currency (the “Money Judgment”),\nrepresenting the amount of proceeds traceable to the offense charged in Counts One, Two, Four,\nand Seven through Eleven of the Indictment that the Defendant personally obtained and property\ninvolved in the offense charged in Count Three of the Indictment, for which the Defendant is\njointly and severally liable with the Co-defendant, to the extent a forfeiture money judgment is\nentered against the Co-defendant in this case, shall be entered against the Defendant.\n2. Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,\nthis Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment is final as to the\nDefendant, MILES GUO, and shall be deemed part of the sentence of the Defendant, and shall be\nincluded in the judgment of conviction therewith.\n\n3. Upon entry of this Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific\nProperty/Money Judgment, the United States (or its designee) is hereby authorized to take\npossession of the Specific Property and to hold such property in its secure custody and control.\n4. Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(1), Rule 32.2(b)(6)\nof the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules G(4)(a)(iv)(C) and G(5)(a)(ii) of the\nSupplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, the\nUnited States is permitted to publish forfeiture notices on the government internet site,\nwww.forfeiture.gov. This site incorporates the forfeiture notices that have been traditionally\npublished in newspapers. The United States forthwith shall publish the internet ad for at least thirty\n(30) consecutive days. Any person, other than the Defendant, claiming interest in the Specific\nProperty must file a Petition within sixty (60) days from the first day of publication of the Notice\non this official government internet web site, or no later than thirty-five (35) days from the mailing\nof actual notice, whichever is earlier.\n5. The published notice of forfeiture shall state that the petition (i) shall be for\na hearing to adjudicate the validity of the petitioner’s alleged interest in the Specific Property, (ii)\nshall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury, and (iii) shall set forth the nature and\nextent of the petitioner’s right, title or interest in the Specific Property, the time and circumstances\nof the petitioner’s acquisition of the right, title and interest in the Specific Property, any additional\nfacts supporting the petitioner’s claim, and the relief sought, pursuant to Title 21, United States\nCode, Section 853(n).\n6. Pursuant to 32.2 (b)(6)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the\nGovernment shall send notice to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant\nwith standing to contest the forfeiture in the ancillary proceeding.\n\n7. Upon adjudication of all third-party interests, this Court will enter a Final\nOrder of Forfeiture with respect to the Specific Property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,\nSection 853(n), in which all interests will be addressed. All Specific Property forfeited to the\nUnited States under a Final Order of Forfeiture shall be applied towards the satisfaction of the\nMoney Judgment.\n8. Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the\nUnited States Attorney’s Office is authorized to conduct any discovery needed to identify, locate\nor dispose of forfeitable property, including depositions, interrogatories, requests for production\nof documents and the issuance of subpoenas.\n9. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Preliminary Order of\nForfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment, and to amend it as necessary, pursuant to Rule\n32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.\nSO ORDERED:\nAugust 11, 2025\nHONORABLE ANALISA TORRES DATE\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3692,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-08-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-08-11","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:42"},{"id":"court_sdny_716_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"U.S. Department of Justice\n[Type text]\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building\n26 Federal Plaza\nNew York, NY 10278\nJuly 28, 2025\nBY ECF\nThe Honorable Analisa Torres\nUnited States District Judge\nSouthern District of New York\n500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\nNew York, New York 10007\nRe: United States v. Miles Guo, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nDear Judge Torres:\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter motion to request that the Court enter the\nproposed preliminary order of forfeiture attached as Exhibit A. The Court should order Guo to\nforfeit his interest in the G entities that formed part of his racketeering enterprise, the proceeds he\nobtained during the course of the fraud, and property involved in the laundering of the proceeds.\nI. Applicable Law\nA. Racketeering Forfeiture\nSection 1963 directs that a district court, in imposing sentence, “shall order” a defendant\nto forfeit the following property:\n(1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of Section 1962;\n(2) any (A) interest in; (B) security of; (C) claim against; or (D) property or\ncontractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over . . . [the RICO]\nenterprise . . . and\n(3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person\nobtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt\ncollection in violation of section 1962.\n18 U.S.C. § 1963(a).\nB. Fraud Forfeiture\nSection 981(a)(1)(C) subjects to civil forfeiture: “Any property, real or personal, which\nconstitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to . . . any offense constituting ‘specific unlawful\nactivity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\nSection 1956(c)(7)(A) of Title 18, United States Code, in turn provides that the term “specified\n\nunlawful activity” includes, among other things, “any act or activity constituting an offense listed\nin section 1961(1) of this title except an act which is indictable under [31 U.S.C. §§ 5311 et seq.].”\nThe list of offenses identified in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) are thus included within “any act or activity\nconstituting an offense listed in section 1961(1) of this title.” Among the offenses set forth in 18\nU.S.C. § 1961(1) is violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, for which Guo was convicted, and fraud in the\nsale of securities, for which Guo was also convicted. Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)\nauthorizes the use of civil forfeiture in criminal cases as part of a defendant’s sentence. See United\nStates v. Contorinis, 692 F.3d 136, 145 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012).\nC. Money Laundering Forfeiture\nSection 982 directs that a “court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense\nin violation of section 1956 . . . shall order that the person forfeit to the United States any property,\nreal or personal, involved in such offense, or any property traceable to such property.” 18 U.S.C.\n§ 982(a)(1). As Judge Bianco, sitting by designation on the district court, has observed:\nCourts have consistently held that the term “involved in” should be interpreted\nbroadly to “include any property involved in, used to commit, or used to facilitate\nthe money laundering offense.” United States v. Schlesinger, 396 F. Supp. 2d 267,\n271-72 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (collecting cases), aff’d, 514 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2008).\nReferring to Schlesinger, district courts have correctly observed that the Second\nCircuit has “affirmed forfeiture of property as involved in money laundering\ntransactions when it has served as a conduit for the proceeds of the illegal\ntransactions.” United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 251 F. Supp. 3d 684, 698\n(S.D.N.Y. 2017).\nUnited States v. Kenner, 443 F. Supp. 3d 354, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (footnote omitted).\nD. Money Judgment\nWhere, as here, forfeiture is sought in the form of a personal money judgment, the district\ncourt “must determine the amount of money that the defendant will be ordered to pay.” Fed. R.\nCrim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A). The court’s determination “may be based on evidence already in the\nrecord,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B), “including testimony at the earlier trial.” United States v.\nMathieu, 853 F. App’x 739, 742 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The\ncalculation of forfeiture amounts is not an exact science.” United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32,\n48 (2d Cir. 2011). The Court is only required to “make a reasonable estimate,” based on “the\navailable information.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts may use “general points\nof reference as a starting point” and “make reasonable extrapolations from the evidence.” Id. As\n“an aspect of sentencing,” Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29, 49 (1995), forfeiture amounts are\ndetermined by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Capoccia, 503 F.3d 103, 116 (2d\nCir. 2007).\n\nII. Discussion\nThe Court should enter the proposed preliminary order of forfeiture, and forfeit Guo’s\ninterest in the G Enterprise’s criminal proceeds, and property involved in laundering those\nproceeds.\nA. The Court Should Enter a Money Judgment of $1.3 Billion\nFirst, the Court should enter a money judgment of $1.3 billion. The money judgment\namount represents a conservative estimate of the amount of funds sent by individual victims to\ncertain arms of the G Enterprise’s frauds: GTV, the Farms, G Clubs, and the Himalaya Exchange.\nSee GXZ 26; Trial Tr. 4330-32. While the jury returned acquittals on the GTV fraud counts, the\nCourt may consider at sentencing the GTV-related facts from the trial record. See United States\nv. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 151 (1997) (per curiam). The trial record established by at least a\npreponderance that the GTV private placement was part of the RICO enterprise and the fraud and\nmoney laundering conspiracies.\nAs an initial matter, extensive trial evidence established, as alleged in the Indictment, that\nthe RICO enterprise began well prior to the 2020 GTV private placement, with the Rule of Law\n(“ROL”) organizations. 1 Guo then continued to defraud his followers with a series of\ninterconnected schemes, including the GTV private placement in 2020. Multiple investors\ntestified as to how Guo fraudulently induced them into investing in GTV by purporting to\nguarantee investors against loss, claiming their funds would be used to grow GTV’s business, and\ninstead sending $100 million of investor funds to a high-risk hedge fund bet for the benefit of\nGuo’s son. See Trial Tr. 209 (Le Zhou); id. at 701 (Patrick Chin); id. at 2376-77 (Minran Wu); id.\nat 4465-67, 4471-72 (Wei Chen); id. at 1350-58, 1365-73 (Ya Li). Further, the GTV private\nplacement was connected with and integral to the other arms of the G Enterprise. Indeed, the Farm\nloan and G Clubs schemes were ways to conceal issuances of GTV stock—and they were promoted\non the GTV platform itself. See, e.g., GXZ 9 (summary chart of Guo videos, including those\nposted preserved from the GTV website, and including videos where Guo falsely promises GTV\nstock in exchange for Farm loans and G Clubs memberships). Even the H Coin-related schemes\nwere interconnected with the GTV private placement. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 244 (allocation of H Coin\nbased on prior investment, including in GTV); id. at 1358 (Ya Li testifying that the “[r]einvestment\nrule is once you received the refund from SEC [for the GTV private placement], within 45 days\nyou should invest this money back to the investment project and then you can get five percent of\nH Coin.”).\n1 See, e.g., Trial Tr. 424 (Karin Maistrello testimony that “Boss”—i.e., Guo—“was in charge of\nthe Rule of Law organizations”), 473-74 (Maistrello testimony regarding order from co-defendant\nYvette Wang to perform sham “internal transfers” during ROL fundraiser), 1404-06 (Ya Li\ntestimony regarding Guo video where Guo falsely claimed he was donating $100 million to the\nRule of Law Fund, and “coordinating” a donation of $1 billion); GXVI 192 (video); GXVI 192-T\n(transcript/translation); Trial Tr. 4086 (Guo admitting in bankruptcy-related testimony that he\nnever made a $100 million donation to the ROL organizations), 4089 (same).\n\nAccordingly, the funds derived from the GTV private placement are forfeitable and should\nbe included in the computation of Guo’s money judgment.2\nB. The Court Should Forfeit Guo’s Interest in the Specific Property\nSecond, the Court should forfeit Guo’s interest in the specific property listed in the\npreliminary order of forfeiture. As a general matter, Guo has repeatedly affirmed, under penalty\nof perjury, that he essentially has no assets. See Trial Tr. 4039-46 (testimony regarding Guo’s\nbankruptcy filings under penalty of perjury where he claimed almost no assets); Dkt. 800, Ex. A\n(Dec. 24, 2024 Tr.) at 13-14 (Guo representing to the Court that he does not “have the financial\nresources to afford” an attorney), 11 (Guo’s counsel representing to the Court that “Mr. Guo has\ninformed us that he has no assets” and his affidavit “would list him as having no property and no\ncash or bank accounts”). Accordingly, Guo cannot credibly claim any interest in the listed\nproperty, having effectively disclaimed such interest in his representations to the Court. In any\nevent, the property constitutes proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering, as set forth below.\n1. Funds from Bank Accounts\nThe Government seeks to forfeit cash seized from several bank accounts, which were used\nin furtherance of the defendant’s crimes and his racketeering enterprise. See Ex. A ¶¶ a–u, bb.\nThese accounts were used and controlled by members of the G Enterprise: “Hamilton” and related\nentities; the “Himalaya Exchange” and related entities; G Clubs; G Fashion, and GETTR. Each\nof the account holders of these bank accounts was named in the Indictment as a member of the\nRICO enterprise. See S3 Indictment ¶ 3(a). As set forth below, the Government has attached\nhereto the affidavits supporting the seizure of the funds in these bank accounts as forfeitable\nproperty.\na. The Funds Seized on September 18, 2022\nThe funds seized on September 18, 2022, from accounts held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” “GETTR USA, Inc.,” and “G Fashion,” see Ex. A ¶¶ a–h, t–u, derived\nfrom proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money laundering, as set forth in the\nattached seizure warrant affidavits of Special Agent Anthony Alecci, attached as Exhibits B and\nC.\nb. The Funds Seized on September 20, 2022\nThe funds seized on September 20, 2022, from accounts held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Reserves, Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.,” and “Himalaya\nInternational Financial Group, Ltd.,” see Ex. A ¶¶ i–j, r, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise\n2 The actual funds derived from the GTV private placement were recovered by the SEC, which\nestablished a fair fund for distribution to victims. If the Court were to deduct the GTV private\nplacement funds from the forfeiture amount, approximately $411 million should be deducted. See\nGXZ 26 at 2.\n\nand property involved in money laundering, as set forth in the seizure warrant affidavit of Special\nAgent Alecci, attached as Exhibit D.\nc. The Funds Seized Between October 16, 2022 and March 10, 2023\nThe funds seized between October 16, 2022 and March 10, 2023, from accounts held in\nthe name of “G Club International Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,” “Hamilton\nCapital Holding Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,” “Himalaya International Financial\nGroup Ltd.,” “Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.,” “G Fashion International Limited,”\n“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,” see Ex. A ¶¶ k–q, s, derived from proceeds of the G\nEnterprise and property involved in money laundering, as set forth in the seizure warrant affidavit\nof Special Agent Alecci, attached as Exhibit E.\nd. The Funds Seized on May 12, 2023\nThe funds seized on May 12, 2023, from accounts held in the name of “G Club Operations\nLLC,” see Ex. A ¶ bb, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering, as set forth in the seizure warrant affidavit of Special Agent Zachary Effting, attached\nas Exhibit F.\n2. The Mahwah Mansion\nThe property located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey (the “Mahwah\nMansion”) and its contents derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in\nmoney laundering. See Ex. A ¶ v. The Mahwah Mansion itself was purchased using laundered\nvictim funds. See GXZ 12A (tracing funds from Crane Advisory Group LLC, via an attorney’s\naccount and Hamilton entities, to pay for Mahwah Mansion); Trial Tr. 1433 (Ya Li testifying that\n“Crane is a company to receiving the [G Club] card program—receiving the money from the card\nprogram”); Tr. 1999-2002 (Haitham Khaled describing the incoming wires to Crane and\nsubsequent outgoing transfers).\nThe specific property seized from the Mahwah Mansion listed in the preliminary order of\nforfeiture are likewise proceeds traceable to the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering. See Ex. A ¶¶ aa. Trial witness Amy Buck testified that she facilitated approximately\n$18 million in expenditures for the Mahwah Mansion, including furniture and art, and the funds\ncame from Hamilton, an arm of the RICO enterprise controlled by co-conspirator William Je that\nwas used to launder proceeds. See Trial Tr. 3884, 3892-94; GXBUCK 1292 (Buck’s spreadsheet\nof payments). The FBI also seized from the Mahwah Mansion boxes with a ring and a bracelet,\nand fiat currencies. See Ex. A ¶¶ aa(lxxiv)-(lxxxiii). Special Agent Gabriella Luciano testified at\ntrial about one of the cash seizures. Trial Tr. 3558 ($394,040 seized from safe). The declaration\nfrom Special Agent Zachary Effting, attached as Exhibit G, establishes that the FBI seized the\nother items listed in the preliminary order of forfeiture from the Mahwah Mansion. See Ex. G.\n\n3. The Piano\nWhile not seized from the Mahwah Mansion,3 the Bösendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539\npiano with custom bench (the “Piano”), see Ex. A ¶ z, was also paid for, via Amy Buck, with fraud\nproceeds and property involved in money laundering. See Trial Tr. 3917-18 (Buck testimony\nregarding the Piano); GXBUCK 69 (invoice for the Piano).\n4. The Bugatti\nThe Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nVF9SW3V3XNM795047 seized by the Government on or about May 11, 2023 (the “Bugatti”),\nsee Ex. A ¶ w, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering. As described in Special Agent Effting’s March 14, 2023 affidavit, attached as Exhibit\nH, the Bugatti was purchased for Guo’s son, Mileson, by G Clubs using its members’ funds. Trial\nevidence extensively corroborated the probable cause demonstrated in that affidavit. See Trial Tr.\n3090:6–14 (testimony of former G Clubs CEO Limarie Reyes that Bugatti was purchased by G\nClubs with member payments); Trial Tr. 1793:2–1796:21 (testimony of Lonny Soza, president of\nBugatti dealership, describing Bugatti’s purchase by a G Club entity but with Mileson Guo as the\nactual “client” and purchaser); GX 226 (Bugatti purchase contract identifying buyer as “G Club\nInternational Ltd.”).\n5. The Lamborghini\nThe Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roads, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393 seized by the Government on or about March 15, 2023 (the\n“Lamborghini”), see Ex. A ¶ x, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved\nin money laundering. The Lamborghini was found parked the garage of Guo’s Greenwich estate\nwhen law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at that premises. See Trial Tr. 64:3–23\n(testimony of FBI agent who participated in search that found Lamborghini in Guo’s Greenwich\ngarage). And, like the Bugatti, the Lamborghini was purchased with G Clubs members’ funds but\nfor the actual purpose of the Guo family’s personal use. See, e.g., GXGC 276 (G Clubs corporate\nresolution authorizing purchase of Lamborghini with the same VIN as the one found parked in\nGuo’s personal garage); Trial Tr. 3080:17–20 (testimony of former G Clubs CEO Reyes that she\nwas unaware of the Lamborghini ever being made available to G Clubs members).\n6. The Rolls Royce Phantom\nThe Rolls Royce Phantom EWB, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nSCATT8C08MU206445, seized by the Government on or about March 20, 2023 (the “Rolls\nRoyce”), see Ex. A ¶ y, derived from proceeds of the G Enterprise and property involved in money\nlaundering. As described in the affidavit attached as Exhibit H, the Rolls Royce was purchased\n3 The Piano was not shipped to the Mahwah Mansion; rather it was shipped to 3 Columbus Circle,\nwhere the G Enterprise maintained office space. See Trial Tr. 3917. The Piano was thereafter\nmoved and ultimately seized by the Government on or about May 22, 2025, from 351 Walker\nStreet, Staten Island, New York.\n\nusing proceeds from the RICO enterprise and property involved in money laundering. See Ex. H\n¶ 34. The Rolls Royce was found parked in an area of a garage at 800 Fifth Avenue in New York,\nNew York where Guo stored certain of his cars, which garage is located approximately two blocks\naway from Guo’s Sherry-Netherland apartment. See Trial Tr. 5435:9-14 (testimony of Guo’s\nformer head security officer Scott Barnett that he had observed a Rolls Royce, among other luxury\ncars, during his time guarding Guo).\n* * *\nFor the above reasons, the Court should enter the proposed preliminary order of forfeiture.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSEAN S. BUCKLEY\nAttorney for the United States, Acting\nUnder Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. §\n515\nSouthern District of New York\nBy: /s/ .\nMicah F. Fergenson\nRyan B. Finkel\nJustin Horton\nJuliana N. Murray\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n(212) 637-2190 / 6612 / 2276 / 2314","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2882,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:36"},{"id":"court_sdny_716_1","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Exhibit A\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\n:\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n: PRELIMINARY ORDER OF\n- v. - FORFEITURE AS TO SPECIFIC\n: PROPERTY/MONEY JUDGMENT\nMILES GUO,\n: S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\na/k/a “Ho Wan Kwok,”\na/k/a “Miles Kwok,” :\na/k/a “Guo Wengui,”\na/k/a “Brother Seven,” :\na/k/a “The Principal,”\na/k/a “Boss,” :\nDefendant. :\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x\nWHEREAS, on or about April 24, 2024, MILES GUO (the “Defendant”), was\ncharged in a thirteen-count Superseding Indictment, S3 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (the “Indictment”), with\nracketeering conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(d) (Count One);\nconspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,\nSection 1349 (Count Two); money laundering conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 1956(h) (Count Three); conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation of Title\n18, United States Code, Section 371 (Count Four); wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United\nStates Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Five); securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United\nStates Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5;\nand Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 (Count Six); wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United\nStates Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Seven); securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United\nStates Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5;\nand Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 (Count Eight); wire fraud, in violation of Title 18,\nUnited States Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Nine); securities fraud , in violation of Title 15,\n\nUnited States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section\n240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 (Count Ten); wire fraud, in violation of\nTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1343 and 2 (Count Eleven); unlawful monetary transactions,\nin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 and 2 (Count Twelve);\nWHEREAS, the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation as to Count One of the\nInformation, seeking forfeiture to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,\nSection 1963, of any interest acquired or maintained in violation of Section 1962; any interest in,\nsecurity of, claim against, or property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of\ninfluence over, any enterprise the defendants and their co-conspirators established, operated,\ncontrolled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of Section 1962; and any\nproperty constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from the\nracketeering activity charged in Count One including certain specified specific property;\nWHEREAS, the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation as to Counts Two, Four,\nand Five through Eleven, seeking forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 981(a)(1)(C) and Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c), of any and all\nproperty, real and personal, involved in the offenses charged in Counts Two, Four, and Five\nthrough Eleven of the Indictment, or any property traceable to such property, including but not\nlimited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of property involved\nin the offense charged in Counts Two, Four, and Five through Eleven of the Indictment;\nWHEREAS, the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation as to Counts Three and\nTwelve, seeking forfeiture to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section\n982(a)(1), any and all property, real and personal, or any property traceable to such property,\n\nincluding but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of\nproperty involved in Counts Three and Twelve of the Indictment.\nWHEREAS, on or about July 16, 2024, the Defendant was found guilty by a jury\nof Counts One through Four, and Seven through Eleven;\nWHEREAS, the Government asserts that $1,300,000,000 in United States currency\nrepresents (i) the proceeds traceable to the commission of the offenses charged in Counts One,\nTwo, Four, Seven through Eleven of the Indictment that the Defendant personally obtained; and\n(ii) the property involved in the offense charged in Count Three of the Indictment, for which the\nDefendant is jointly and severally liable with co-defendant, Yvette Wang (the “Co-defendant”) to\nthe extent a forfeiture money judgment is entered against the Co-defendant in this case;\nWHEREAS, the Government seeks the entry of a money judgment in the amount\nof $1,300,000,000 in United States currency representing (i) the proceeds traceable to the\ncommission of the offenses charged in Counts One, Two, Four, Seven through Eleven of the\nIndictment that the Defendant personally obtained; and (ii) the property involved in the offense\ncharged in Count Three of the Indictment, for which the Defendant is jointly and severally liable\nwith co-defendant, Yvette Wang (the “Co-defendant”) and the forfeiture money judgment is\nentered against the Co-defendant in this case;\nWHEREAS, the Government further seeks the forfeiture of all Defendant’s right,\ntitle and interest in the following assets:\na. $64,826.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037713 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nb. $75,000,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037705 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\n\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nc. $467,343.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037754 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nd. $89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\ne. $1,683,077.40 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042762 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\nf. $85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Funds SPC,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 18, 2022;\ng. $48,230,709.62 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090030288 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nInvestment Management” Ltd., seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 18, 2022;\nh. $1,800,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037739 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of “Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC,” seized by the Government on or about September\n18, 2022;\ni. $4,643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000590 at FV Bank held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Reserves, Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 20, 2022;\nj. $14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000254 at FV Bank held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Clearing, Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 20, 2022;\nk. $12,620,625.39 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10103-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\n\nname of “G Club International Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or\nabout October 16, 2022;\nl. $10,008,284.04 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\nm. $3,090,856.54 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10137-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.,” seized by the Government\nbetween on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\nn. $272,350,429.22 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10138-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\no. $310,594.31 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10139-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\np. $1,187,278.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10171-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March\n10, 2023;\nq. $47,888.50 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10172-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\nname of “G Fashion International Limited,” seized by the Government on\nor about October 16, 2022;\nr. $7,715.00, in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000589 at FV Bank held in the name of “Himalaya\nInternational Financial Group, Ltd.,” seized by the Government on or\nabout September 20, 2022;\ns. $176,983.37 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the\n\nname of “Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,” seized by the\nGovernment on or about October 16, 2022;\nt. $2,745,377.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 9878904409 at Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. held in the\nname of “GETTR USA, Inc.,” seized by the Government on or about\nSeptember 18, 2022;\nu. $9,899,659.19 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 157525208185 at US Bank held in the name of “G Fashion,”\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\nv. All that lot or parcel of land, together with its buildings, appurtenances,\nimprovements, fixtures, attachments, and easements, located at 675\nRamapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430, Parcel No. 3300021-\n03-00001-02 and described as Lot Number: 1.02 Block: 21.03 District: 33\nCity, Municipality, Township: MAHWAH TWP (the “Subject Property”);\nw. A Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nVF9SW3V3XNM795047 seized by the Government on or about May 11,\n2023;\nx. A Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roads, bearing Vehicle Identification\nNumber ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393 seized by the Government on or about\nMarch 15, 2023;\ny. A Rolls Royce Phantom EWB, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nSCATT8C08MU206445 seized by the Government on or about March 20,\n2023;\nz. A Bösendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539 piano with custom bench seized by\nthe Government on or about May 22, 2025 from 351 Walker Street, Staten\nIsland, New York;\naa. The following personal property seized by the Government from the\nSubject Property on or about March 15, 2023:\ni. A Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon Bed with\nNightstands, Ebony Veneer, Brass, Velvet;\nii. A Hästens 2000T md mattress;\niii. A Hästens 2000T sf mattress;\niv. A Wembe watch storage box;\n\nv. A Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98” QLED Smart TV – 8K;\nvi. A Louis XV Style French Ormolu-Mounted Mahogany Commode by\nJoseph Émmanuel Zweiner;\nvii. A “K’ang Hsi” extension table in etched and patinated pewter and\nbronze with hand-painted enamel colors by Philip & Kelvin LaVerne;\nviii. A “Punto ‘83” table in stainless steel with mesh tabletop with\nadjustable height and adjustable petals by Gabriella Crespi, Italy 1982;\nix. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Still Life Musicale 1960s bronze wall\nplaque with colored enamel;\nx. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Venus Contemplating 1960s bronze wall\nplaque with colored enamel;\nxi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chinoi Plaque #14 limited edition 1960s\nbronze and pewter plaque;\nxii. Baroque Style Carved Gilt Wood Frame, late 19th Century 44.75\" X\n38.5\";\nxiii. Pair of ormolu-mounted display cabinets in the style of Francois\nLinke;\nxiv. Ormolu mounted single door vitrine with curved glass sides and\nfront, resting on hoof feet;\nxv. Ornate wrought iron table with inlaid marble top. Book matched center\ncartouche, black outline;\nxvi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Special Eternal Forest Game Table\nlabeled on underside bronze and pewter;\nxvii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Marriage Whirl oriental motif\nboomerang shaped bronze, pewter, and enamel;\nxviii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Eternal Forest Cocktail Table bronze\nand pewter with colored enamel;\nxix. Pair of Sèvres-style porcelain jardiniere/vases having white ground\nwith gold accents, ormolu mounts;\n\nxx. A Sèvres-style porcelain jardiniere/vase having a dark blue ground\nwith gold accents, ormolu mounts;\nxxi. Pair of Louis XVI style giltwood console tables with white marble\ntops. H-37.5\" x W-6;\nxxii. Pair of octagonal marble pedestals, white with gray veins. H-32\" x\nDiameter-23\";\nxxiii. Louis XV style French table desk, ormolu mounted marquetry,\nwith leather top;\nxxiv. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Festival Console with waterfall ends,\nsigned on the top 1960s;\nxxv. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Special Festival Console with waterfall\nends, signed on the top 1960s;\nxxvi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Kuan Su Coffee Table bronze and\npewter/silver-tone metal top with floral;\nxxvii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chan round bronze, pewter, and\nenamel table with Chinese motif;\nxxviii. Regency style cerule x-base footstools with paw feet, red velvet\nupholstery, and fringe;\nxxix. Earlier 20th c. Bar Cabinet with sterling silver mounted vertical\nstiles, cartouches, and ball;\nxxx. 1960s Maison Jansen style French brass, black patina, and smoked\nglass coffee table;\nxxxi. French ormolu mounted marquetry inlaid table desk with single\nfrieze drawer. Finished front and back;\nxxxii. Pair of French Empire style gilt and patinated bronze ormolu\nmounted tables with black marble tops;\nxxxiii. Empire-style center table with book-matched flamed veneer top;\nxxxiv. Jansen Style Two-tier Bouillotte Table on fluted tripod pedestal\nwith ormolu mounts, marble top;\n\nxxxv. Boulle-style Bureau Plat silver and gold metal scrolling design\ntable desk inlaid with tortoiseshell;\nxxxvi. Tabriz, from Iran, modern production. 13' 8\" x 20'. Quality: 45 raj.\nCotton warp and weft;\nxxxvii. Bidjar, from Iran, first quarter of the 20th c. 14' 5\" x 19' 7\". Wool\nweft, cotton warp;\nxxxviii. Bidjar, from Iran, late 19th - early 20th c. 12' 3\" x 19'.\nWool warp and weft, wool face;\nxxxix. Pair of mid-19th c. Louis XV style paraclose mirrors, floral;\nxl. Italian Tuscan antique giltwood mirror with plume-topped urn finial;\nxli. Two (2) Regency style giltwood mirrors with urn and floral finial;\nxlii. Giltwood Louis XV style overmantel double mirror;\nxliii. Two (2) Italian Neoclassical giltwood pier mirrors;\nxliv. Pair of Italian Florentine style giltwood mirrors each with a plume;\nxlv. Italian giltwood mirror with rococo crest with cross-hatched\npanels;\nxlvi. Pair of French Régence style giltwood mirrors, the crest with a\nplume;\nxlvii. Pair of giltwood mirrors each with a plumed mask crest;\nxlviii. Pair of Empire 19th c. gilt bronze floor torcheres embellished with\nlion masks draped;\nxlix. Pair of 18-light Baccarat Torcheres. H-95\" x W-26\". Dimensions\nare approximate;\nl. 19th c Silver and tortoiseshell mounted table cabinet, with enamel\ninset;\nli. Pair of small figural patinated black and gilt bronze candlesticks;\nlii. Pair of gilt bronze chenet with obelisk, lion mask, dolphin;\n\nliii. Pair of marble pedestals having a square top, round column;\nliv. Pair of Regency style bronze patinated torcheres, attributed to English\nlamp manufacturer;\nlv. Late Georgian Chippendale style hexagonal center table with cabriole\nlegs and hairy paw and ball;\nlvi. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chan elongated hexagonal table, mottled\nbronze on the top, bronze;\nlvii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Chan hexagonal pedestal, bronze on the\ntop, bronze and pewter Chinese;\nlviii. Philip and Kelvin LaVerne Les Chine Cocktail Table square\nmottled bronze top supported;\nlix. Persian Silk Tabriz Rug, 7'7\" x 11'2\" located on 2nd Floor of the\nSubject Property;\nlx. Louis XV style giltwood pier mirror;\nlxi. Pair of Louis XV style giltwood mirrors;\nlxii. Italian Tuscan giltwood mirror;\nlxiii. French giltwood paraclose mirror with Louis XVI style floral\nwreath;\nlxiv. Chinese Chippendale Giltwood double parclose mirror;\nlxv. Louis XV style giltwood paraclose mirror (double frame) with\nshell and wave crest;\nlxvi. French Brass Three Panel Firescreen with Empire style swags and\nwreaths;\nlxvii. Ferdinand Barbedienne (1810 - 1892) French Three-Piece Clock\nGarniture;\nlxviii. Pair of Victorian urn and swag chenet H-18\" x W-16\" x D-6\";\nlxix. Pair of Louis XV style gilt bronze and brass andirons depicting\ncherubs;\n\nlxx. Louis XV style gilt bronze 'log cradle';\nlxxi. Pair of gilt bronze Louis XV style chenets;\nlxxii. French Tapestry Size 6'8\" x 9'5\" located on the 3rd Floor of the\nSubject Property;\nlxxiii. Antique Chinese Export Cast Brass Pair of Foo Dogs;\nlxxiv. $9,895.00 in United States currency;\nlxxv. $1,000.00 in United States currency;\nlxxvi. A ring with box;\nlxxvii. A bracelet with box;\nlxxviii. $1,300.00 in United States currency;\nlxxix. $394,040.00 in United States currency;\nlxxx. Yellow coins;\nlxxxi. 5,000 Euros;\nlxxxii. $188,050 Hong Kong dollars;\nlxxxiii. 250 Chinese Yuan;\nbb. $7,173,427.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in the TD\nBank, N.A. official check account, which currency was previously held in\nTD Bank N.A. accounts 440-5491468 ($2,815,502.30) and 440-5492044\n($4,357,924.95) in the name of “G Club Operations LLC,” seized by the\nGovernment on or about May 12, 2023.\n(a. through bb., collectively, the “Specific Property”), as constituting proceeds of the offenses\ncharged in Counts One, Two, Four and Counts Seven through Eleven and/or property involved in\nthe offense charged in Count Three of the Indictment;\nWHEREAS, the Court finds that, as a result of acts and/or omissions of the\nDefendant, the proceeds traceable to the offense charged in Counts One through Four and Counts\n\nSeven through Eleven and/or property involved in the offense charged in Count Three of the\nIndictment cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence, with the exception of the Specific\nProperty; and\nWHEREAS, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(g), and Rules\n32.2(b)(3), and 32.2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government is now\nentitled, pending any assertion of third-party claims, to reduce the Specific Property to its\npossession and to notify any and all persons who reasonably appear to be a potential claimant of\ntheir interest herein;\nNOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:\n1. As a result of the offenses charged in Counts One through Four, Seven\nthrough Eleven of the Indictment, to which the Defendant was found guilty, a money judgment in\nthe amount of approximately $1.3 billion in United States currency (the “Money Judgment”),\nrepresenting the amount of proceeds traceable to the offense charged in Counts One, Two, Four,\nand Seven through Eleven of the Indictment that the Defendant personally obtained and property\ninvolved in the offense charged in Count Three of the Indictment, for which the Defendant is\njointly and severally liable with the Co-defendant, to the extent a forfeiture money judgment is\nentered against the Co-defendant in this case, shall be entered against the Defendant.\n2. Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,\nthis Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment is final as to the\nDefendant, MILES GUO, and shall be deemed part of the sentence of the Defendant, and shall be\nincluded in the judgment of conviction therewith.\n\n3. Upon entry of this Preliminary Order of Forfeiture as to Specific\nProperty/Money Judgment, the United States (or its designee) is hereby authorized to take\npossession of the Specific Property and to hold such property in its secure custody and control.\n4. Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(1), Rule 32.2(b)(6)\nof the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules G(4)(a)(iv)(C) and G(5)(a)(ii) of the\nSupplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, the\nUnited States is permitted to publish forfeiture notices on the government internet site,\nwww.forfeiture.gov. This site incorporates the forfeiture notices that have been traditionally\npublished in newspapers. The United States forthwith shall publish the internet ad for at least thirty\n(30) consecutive days. Any person, other than the Defendant, claiming interest in the Specific\nProperty must file a Petition within sixty (60) days from the first day of publication of the Notice\non this official government internet web site, or no later than thirty-five (35) days from the mailing\nof actual notice, whichever is earlier.\n5. The published notice of forfeiture shall state that the petition (i) shall be for\na hearing to adjudicate the validity of the petitioner’s alleged interest in the Specific Property, (ii)\nshall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury, and (iii) shall set forth the nature and\nextent of the petitioner’s right, title or interest in the Specific Property, the time and circumstances\nof the petitioner’s acquisition of the right, title and interest in the Specific Property, any additional\nfacts supporting the petitioner’s claim, and the relief sought, pursuant to Title 21, United States\nCode, Section 853(n).\n6. Pursuant to 32.2 (b)(6)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the\nGovernment shall send notice to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant\nwith standing to contest the forfeiture in the ancillary proceeding.\n\n7. Upon adjudication of all third-party interests, this Court will enter a Final\nOrder of Forfeiture with respect to the Specific Property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,\nSection 853(n), in which all interests will be addressed. All Specific Property forfeited to the\nUnited States under a Final Order of Forfeiture shall be applied towards the satisfaction of the\nMoney Judgment.\n8. Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the\nUnited States Attorney’s Office is authorized to conduct any discovery needed to identify, locate\nor dispose of forfeitable property, including depositions, interrogatories, requests for production\nof documents and the issuance of subpoenas.\n9. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Preliminary Order of\nForfeiture as to Specific Property/Money Judgment, and to amend it as necessary, pursuant to Rule\n32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.\nSO ORDERED:\nHONORABLE ANALISA TORRES DATE\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3693,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:36"},{"id":"court_sdny_716_2","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Exhibit B\n\n22 MAG 7580\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n-v.-\nAffidavit in Support of Seizure\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate Warrant\nBank account 5090037739, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-1”), Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090037705, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-2”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090037754, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-3”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090037713, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-4”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042770, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-5”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042762, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-6”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042820, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-7”),\n\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042747, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-8”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090030288, held by Hamilton\nInvestment Management Ltd. (“Target Account-\n9”), and all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAny and all monies and funds up to and\nincluding the sum of $16,000,000.00 contained\nin Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. account\n9878904409, held by GETTR USA, Inc.\n(“Target Account-10”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest; and\nAll monies and funds contained in Metropolitan\nCommercial Bank account 0299006891, held\nFor Benefit Of FV Bank (“Target Account-11”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest (collectively, the “Target\nProperty”).\nDefendant-in-rem.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.:\nAnthony Alecci, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn,\ndeposes and says:\nI. Introduction\n1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or\n“Investigating Agency”). I have been a Special Agent with the FBI since in or about August 2020.\nSince in or about September 2021, I have been assigned to the FBI’s Complex Financial Crimes\n2\n\nsquad. During my time with the FBI, I have participated in investigations of securities and wire\nfraud schemes, bank fraud, and money laundering, and have, among other things, conducted or\nparticipated in debriefings of witnesses, reviews of financial records, and the execution of search\nwarrants. In particular, I have participated in the execution of search warrants involving physical\npremises, electronic devices, and other electronic evidence.\n2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the United States of America’s Application\nfor the issuance of a seizure warrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984:\na. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037739,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-1”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nb. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037705,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-2”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nc. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037754,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-3”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nd. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037713,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-4”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\ne. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042770,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-5”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nf. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042762,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-6”), and all funds traceable thereto,\n3\n\nincluding accrued interest;\ng. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042820,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-7”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nh. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042747,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-8”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest; and\ni. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090030288,\nheld by Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. (“Target Account-9”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest;\nj. Any and all monies and funds up to and including the sum of\n$16,000,000.00 contained in Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. account 9878904409, held by\nGETTR USA, Inc. (“Target Account-10”), and all funds traceable thereto, including accrued\ninterest; and\nk. All monies and funds contained in Metropolitan Commercial Bank account\n0299006891, held For Benefit Of (“FBO”) FV Bank (“Target Account-11”), and all funds\ntraceable thereto, including accrued interest (collectively, the “Target Property”).\n3. The Target Property constitutes the proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343\n(wire fraud); 1344 (bank fraud); and 1956 (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money\nlaundering) (together, the “Target Offenses”), as described below.\n4. This affidavit is based on, among other sources of information: (i) my personal\nknowledge; (ii) information provided by personnel at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission\n(“SEC”) participating in a parallel investigation; (iii) my review of publicly available promotional\nmaterials relating to, among other ventures, “G Club” and the “Himalaya Exchange;” (iv) my\n4\n\nreview of the publicly available websites for GTV Media Group, Inc. (“GTV”), the Himalaya\nExchange, and “G Club,” and materials available on those websites; (v) open-source research that\nI have conducted on the Internet; (vi) my review of digital videos posted on www.gnews.org\n(“GNews”) by GTV Media Group, Inc. and its employees and agents; (vii) my participation in\nvarious witness interviews; (viii) my review of electronic evidence obtained pursuant to\nsubpoenas, orders issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) for non-content information, and\njudicially authorized search warrants; (ix) the review and analysis of various bank account records,\nincluding financial records obtained from financial institutions pursuant to subpoenas and other\nrequests, conducted by myself and financial analysts at the FBI and SEC; (xi) my conversations\nwith other law enforcement officers; and (x) my training and experience concerning the\ncommission of financial crimes. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose\nof establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course\nof my investigation. Where dates, figures, and calculations are set forth herein, they are\napproximate. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of\nothers are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise\nindicated.\n5. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that the Target Property is\nsubject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), (C) & (D) and 18 U.S.C.\n§981(b) as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and/or the proceeds of\nviolations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344, or property traceable thereto. In summary, the evidence\nreveals a series of fraudulent investment schemes (the “Investment Schemes”) that pertain to\nseveral interrelated companies and their affiliated entities, including GTV Media Group Inc., G\nFashion (“G Fashion”), the Himalaya Farm Alliance (the “Farms”), Himalaya International\nClearing Ltd. (“Himalaya International Clearing”), G Club Operations LLC (“G Club”), Hamilton\n5\n\nInvestment Management Ltd. (“Hamilton”), ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), and Crane\nAdvisory Group LLC (“Crane”). As set forth in more detail below, the leaders of the fraudulent\ninvestment schemes are Miles Guo, a/k/a “Guo Wengui,” a/k/a “Miles Kwok” (“GUO”) and\nWilliam Je, a/k/a Je Kin Ming (“JE”).\n6. Analysts at the FBI and SEC and I have traced the flow of certain fraud proceeds\nfrom victims of the Investment Schemes to the Target Property.\nII. Statutory Basis for Forfeiture\n7. The statutory provisions pursuant to which the Target Property is subject to civil\nseizure and forfeiture are as follows:\nMoney Laundering Offenses\n8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(A), subjects to civil forfeiture:\nAny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in\nviolation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such\nproperty.\n9. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\nknowing that the property involved in a financial transaction\ninvolves the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts\nor attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact\ninvolves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity –\n(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in\npart—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the\nsource, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds\nof specified unlawful activity [shall be guilty of a\ncrime.]\n10. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\ntransports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit,\nor transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the\nUnited States to or through a place outside the United States or to a\nplace in the United States from or through a place outside the\n6\n\nUnited States—\n(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in\nthe transportation, transmission, or transfer represent\nthe proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that\nsuch transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or\nin part—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source,\nthe ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified\nunlawful activity [shall be guilty of a crime.]\n11. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) further provides that “[a]ny person who conspires to commit\nany offense defined in [Section 1956] shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for\nthe offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”\nBank and Wire Fraud Offenses\n12. For purposes of Section 1956, “specified unlawful activity,” defined in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1956(c)(7), includes, among other things, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344. See 18\nU.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1).\n13. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), subjects to civil forfeiture any\nproperty, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation\nof . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of\nthis title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\nSeizure Warrants\n14. The Court is empowered by 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) to issue a seizure warrant for any\nproperty subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) & (C). Section 981(b)(2)\nprovides that such a seizure may be made “pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as\nprovided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” In addition, Section\n981(b)(3) provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41(a), a seizure warrant may be issued pursuant to Section 981(b) by a judicial officer in any\n7\n\ndistrict in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed under Title 28, United States\nCode, Section 1355(b). Under Section 1355(b)(1)(A), a forfeiture action or proceeding may be\nbrought in the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.\nAs set forth below, the offenses underlying the requested seizure warrant included acts or\nomissions occurring in the Southern District of New York.\n15. With respect to fungible property, including cash and funds deposited in a financial\ninstitution, 18 U.S.C. § 984 provides, in relevant part, that:\n(a)(1) In any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is cash, monetary\ninstruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution . . . , or\nprecious metals:\n(A) it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property\ninvolved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture; and\n(B) it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has\nbeen removed and replaced by identical property.\n(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), any identical property found in the same place\nor account as the property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture shall\nbe subject to forfeiture under this section.\n(b) No action pursuant to this section to forfeit property not traceable directly to the\noffense that is the basis for the forfeiture may be commenced more than 1 year from the\ndate of the offense.\nIII. Probable Cause\nA. Probable Cause Regarding Commission of the Subject Offenses\nOverview of the Fraudulent Investment Schemes\n16. Since in or around May 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern\nDistrict of New York (“SDNY”) and the FBI, among other law enforcement agencies, have been\ninvestigating a series of interrelated fraudulent investment schemes that pertain to several\ncompanies that are owned or operated by, or otherwise affiliated with, GUO, JE, and their\nassociates (collectively, the “Investment Schemes”). To date, the investigation (“Investigation”)\n8\n\nhas revealed that the Investment Schemes involve the solicitation and subsequent investment\nand/or misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars. GUO and JE are leaders of the\nInvestment Schemes.\n17. The Investment Schemes are conducted through various, interrelated offerings, all\nof which exhibit features that are consistent with fraud. For example, investors are promised\nunrealistic, outsized returns on their investments; investors are induced to invest on the basis of\nnumerous misrepresentations; a large portion of the investment money is misappropriated; and\nwith respect to the sale of digital asset securities, those currencies have never been tradable on a\npublic exchange, despite representations that they would be.\n18. Certain of the interrelated Investment Schemes are historical, while others are\nongoing. Specifically:\na. The GTV stock offering and the G Coin offering described below\n(collectively, the “Unregistered Stock Offerings”) operated between in or about April 2020 and in\nor about July 2020. As a result of the Unregistered Stock Offerings, whose proceeds were\ncommingled, companies affiliated with GUO, JE, and others collectively raised at least\napproximately $487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United\nStates.\nb. Starting at least in or about July 2020, the leaders of the scheme began to\npitch investors on a new set of investment opportunities, marketed as an opportunity to convert\ntheir existing investments in GTV into a “loan” to GTV (the “Convertible Loan Offering”). The\nConvertible Loan Offering was carried out by the Guo-backed Himalaya Farm Alliance, which\nconsists of informal groups, or “Farms,” of Chinese expatriates located in various cities around the\nworld. Between in or about August 2020 and March 2021, the U.S.-based Farms raised\napproximately $148 million from the Convertible Loan Offering.\n9\n\nc. GUO, JE, and others continue to conduct the Investment Schemes,\nincluding relating to G Club (which has been operating since in or about October 2020) and the\nHimalaya Exchange (which has been operating since in or about April 2021). As described below,\nG Club and the Himalaya Exchange have raised at least approximately $664 million between in or\nabout September 2020 and the present.\nBackground on GUO and JE\n19. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of documents, records, videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, and public source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. GUO is a purported billionaire and a Chinese national who allegedly fled\nChina for the United States in 2014, after learning that an associate had been arrested on corruption\ncharges.\nb. GUO is involved with various entities relevant to the Investment Schemes,\nas described in greater detail below, including GTV, G Music LLC (“G Music”), G Club, G\nFashion (“G Fashion”), and GETTR USA, Inc. (“Gettr”). GUO does not hold formal titles or\npositions at these entities.\nc. In or about 2018, GUO founded organizations named the Rule of Law\nFoundation (“ROLF”) and Rule of Law Society (“ROLS”). Based on my review of publicly\navailable information, I have learned that the Rule of Law projects were underway by December\n2018.1 ROLF and ROLS are purportedly organizations dedicated to exposing and combatting\ncorruption in China by the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”). At times, the board members for\n1 See http\n(describing Guo and Bannon’s involvement in the “Rule of Law Fund”).\n10\n\nROLF and/or ROLS have included Stephen K. Bannon (“Bannon”) and Kyle Bass (“Bass”). GUO\ndoes not hold a formal position at ROLF or ROLS; however, on the ROLS website, GUO is\ndescribed as “the founder, a promoter and a spokesperson” and a sponsor.\nd. JE, a close associate of GUO, has been described as a financier and\nentrepreneur. JE is involved with various other entities relevant to the Investment Schemes, as\ndescribed in greater detail below. Specifically:\ni. JE is the CEO of Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.\n(“Hamilton”), a purported global fund management company.2 Hamilton is headquartered in the\nBritish Virgin Islands and was incorporated on or about February 5, 2018. JE was formally\nappointed Director of Hamilton on or about March 20, 2019.\nii. JE is the Director of ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), a\npurported Hong Kong-based investment firm3 that was incorporated in the United Kingdom on or\nabout July 10, 2020.\niii. JE is listed as the founder and Chairman of Himalaya Exchange, a\npurported cryptocurrency “ecosystem.” JE is the 100% beneficial owner of various entities that\noperate Himalaya Exchange, including Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. (“Himalaya\nClearing”), Major Lead International Ltd., Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.\n(“Himalaya Financial”), and Himalaya International Reserves Ltd. (“Himalaya Reserves”).\nGTV Stock Offering\n20. Between approximately April 20, 2020 and June 2, 2020, GTV, its parent company\nSaraca Media Group, Inc. (“Saraca”), and Voice of Guo Media, Inc. (“VOG”; collectively, the\n2 See http\n3 See http\n11\n\n“Companies”) solicited thousands of individuals to invest in an offering of GTV common stock\n(the “GTV Stock Offering”). During that time period, more than approximately 5,000 investors\n(including many in the United States) collectively paid approximately $452 million for purported\nGTV common stock.\n21. Based on my review of the GTV Stock Offering’s information memorandum dated\nApril 20, 2020 (the “Memorandum”), interviews of witnesses, and review of public source\ninformation, as well as documents and records obtained during the course of the investigation, I\nhave learned the following, among other things:\na. GTV was founded on or about April 17, 2020, as a Delaware corporation\nand a wholly owned subsidiary of Saraca. GTV’s principal place of business was located in the\nSouthern District of New York, in a townhouse located at 162 E. 64th St., New York, NY, 10065\n(the “Townhouse”).\nb. According to the Memorandum, GUO was the “sponsor” of both Saraca and\nGTV, as well as the “adviser[sic]” and “key host” of GTV. The Memorandum also stated that\nGUO was a billionaire, successful businessman, and dissident in China. According to various\nwitnesses, as well as social media content, GUO consistently presented himself as the founder and\nface of GTV.\nc. The Memorandum and a separate letter to prospective investors outlining\n“Investment Procedures Guidelines” listed GUO’s phone number as the contact number for\ninquiries from potential investors.\nd. At the time of the GTV Stock Offering, the Companies had recently\nlaunched a news-focused social media platform called GTV, including the website www.gtv.org.\nThe Memorandum claimed GTV would be “the first ever platform which w[ould] combine the\npower of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-art technology, big data, artificial\n12\n\nintelligence, block-chain technology and real-time interactive communication” and that GTV\nwould be “the only uncensored and independent bridge between China and the Western world.”\nThe Memorandum also claimed that GTV would “be a bridge between China and the Western\nworld . . . allowing for free and open communication, business transactions and trading,\nuncensored by the Chinese government.” The Memorandum boasted that GTV’s platform would\nbe so powerful as to “expos[e] corruption, obstruction, illegality, brutality, harassment, and\ninhumanity in China.” The Memorandum also indicated that GTV would compete with companies\nsuch as Zoom, WeChat, TikTok, YouTube, Cisco, Citrix, Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay.\ne. The Memorandum listed Yvette Y. Wang, Max Krasner, and Daniel\nPodhaskie as GTV’s Executive Directors.\nf. The Memorandum highlighted the credentials of GTV’s Non-executive\nDirectors, including, among others, Bannon, Bass, and Darren Blanton (“Blanton”). As described\nabove, Bannon and Bass were also board members of the ROLF and/or ROLS.\ng. The Memorandum stated that investor funds would be used for the\nfollowing, among other purposes: acquisition of companies; upgrading GTV technology and\nsecurity; and marketing. The Memorandum did not contemplate that investor funds would be used\nto invest in hedge funds or any similar type of financial investment, or that investor funds would\nbe given to other companies, such as Saraca.\nh. Based on my conversations with a source of information (“SOI4”) involved\nwith the ROLF, the Companies, the GTV Stock Offering, and the Phoenix Farm, as well as my\n4 The SOI is providing information to law enforcement in hopes of entering into a cooperation\nagreement and receiving leniency at sentencing. The SOI has provided reliable information that\nhas been corroborated by, among other things, electronic evidence, videos, cellphone records, and\nsubpoena and search warrant returns.\n13\n\nreview of the metadata of the Memorandum, I have learned that JE was a primary author of the\nMemorandum.\nG Coin Offering\n22. During the same period of April 2020 through June 2020, GTV and Saraca also\nsolicited GTV Investors to invest in a companion digital asset security that was referred to as either\nG-Coins or G-Dollars (the “G Coin Offering”).\n23. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, as well as my review of reports of interviews with GTV Investors and conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement, I have learned the following, among other things, about\nthe G Coin Offering:\na. From approximately in or about April 2020, through at least in or about June\n2020, I have learned that the Companies, as well as representatives for the Companies, such as\nGUO, marketed the sale of G-Coins and G-Dollars to the public through online videos on\nYouTube, Twitter, and other video-sharing and social media platforms.\nb. The Companies’ online promotions set forth that G-Coins (which the\nCompanies indicated would eventually be merged into G-Dollars, forming a single digital asset),\nand G-Dollars would be usable to purchase goods or services or exchange for gold or fiat currency\non an online platform. As part of its solicitation of G-Coin and G-Dollar investors, the Companies\ndid not provide investors with financial information about the plan to develop any digital asset or\nplatform, or any written offering materials, including, for example, a whitepaper or private\nplacement memorandum.\nc. The Companies collected at least approximately $31 million from the G-\nCoin and G-Dollar Investors, pooling the proceeds in bank accounts associated with the\n14\n\nCompanies and commingling them with proceeds from the GTV Stock Offering. As part of the G\nCoin Offering, many investors received a purported 20% discount on the $.01 purchase price for\nG-Coins and G-Dollars. Investors participated in the G Coin Offering by transferring funds\ndirectly to the Companies’ U.S. bank accounts, by making payments to the Companies’ accounts\non online payment platforms, by making purchases via the Apple App Store, or by writing checks.\n24. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, and review of\ntranslations of statements that were made by GUO regarding the G Coin Offering, as well as my\nconversations with others, I have learned that GUO made numerous false statements in order to\nsolicit investments for the G Coin Offering. Examples of some those statements are described\nbelow, in substance and in part:\na. In a statement contained within a video by GUO on or about May 9, 2020,\nGuo stated that G-Coins could be exchanged into U.S. dollars or physical gold.\nb. In another statement contained within a video on or about May 16, 2020,\nGUO stated that the G-Coin and G-Dollar currencies could be exchanged with gold.\n25. Based on my participation in this investigation, I believe that the above-described\nstatements regarding G-Coins and G-Dollar are false. In particular, during the course of the\ninvestigation, I have not found any evidence that there is or has ever been an exchange where G-\nCoins or G-Dollars could be exchanged for U.S. dollars or gold.\n26. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records, and review of videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, as well as my review of reports of interviewed individuals who invested in GTV (the\n“GTV Investors”) and my conversations with others, including other law enforcement officers, I\nhave learned the following, among other things, about the solicitation of investments for the GTV\nStock Offering and G Coin Offering:\n15\n\na. GTV disseminated information about the two offerings to the general public\nthrough publicly-available videos on websites affiliated with the Companies, including\nwww.gtv.org and www.gnews.org, as well as on social media platforms such as YouTube and\nTwitter. The first solicitation video, posted on YouTube on April 21, 2020, was entitled, as\ntranslated into English, “GTV Private Placement Subscription Instructions” (the “Launch Video”).\nThe Launch Video described the investment terms for the GTV Stock Offering and provided a\nmobile phone number for potential investors to use for inquiries about the offering. The Launch\nVideo has had over 3,000 views. None of the GTV Stock Offering solicitation videos, including\nthe Launch Video, were password protected or placed any restriction on who could view them or\nany limitations on their ability to be shared. As a result, the general public, including prospective\nU.S. investors, were able to access the online marketing videos about the GTV Stock Offering\nthrough, for example, independent online research, social media, or referrals from other investors.\nb. GUO led the effort to solicit investors for the GTV Stock Offering. GUO,\nwho is a prolific user of social media and has an enormous social media following, used various\nsocial media platforms to attract followers and to solicit investors for the GTV Stock Offering.\nThose social media platforms included WhatsApp and Discord, both of which have end-to-end\nencrypted chat services.5 Among other things, the Companies sent the Launch Video via phone\nmessages to hundreds of prospective individual investors with a link to a Google Drive folder that\ncontained additional offering material for the GTV Stock Offering, including the subscription\nagreement and investment instructions. GUO also assured potential investors that they would\n5 End-to-end encryption is a system of communication where only the communicating users can\nread the messages. End-to-end encryption prevents law enforcement authorities from intercepting\nsuch communications through wiretaps or through search warrants on the service provider, such\nas WhatsApp.\n16\n\nrealize enormous returns, at one point suggesting that they would receive 1,000 times their\ninvestment, see infra ¶ 40(c). In another statement, in or about June 2020, GUO stated in substance\nand in part that GTV stock was worth 30 times what it had been worth before.\nc. Based on my review of a GTV confidentiality agreement, I have learned\nthat in order to participate in the GTV Stock Offering, GTV Investors were required to sign a\nconfidentiality agreement that required them to keep all information concerning GTV confidential,\nincluding the existence of the confidentiality agreement.\nd. The GTV Stock Offering was structured as a private placement offering of\n10% into GTV, with the remaining 90% of GTV to be controlled by Saraca, which was its parent\ncompany. According to due diligence records from an investment fund, Saraca is a wholly-owned\nsubsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc. (“Hudson BVI”), a British Virgin Islands company.\nHudson is in turn wholly owned by Qiang Guo (“QIANG GUO”). Based on my review of open-\nsource material, I have learned that QIANG GUO is GUO’S son.\ne. By early June 2020, banks began to suspect that the Companies were\nengaged in potentially unlawful activity and started to close accounts that were linked to Saraca,\nGTV, and GUO. Around that same time period, GTV Investors began to express concerns about\nGTV’s use of their money, and the legitimacy of their investments. Some of those investors\nexpressed their concerns directly to GUO and many investors requested that their money be\nreturned. In response, GUO and his associates often attempted to shun and ostracize the investors.\nFor example, GUO suggested that one investor was a spy for the CCP and that other investors\nshould not interact with that investor\nMisappropriation of Unregistered Stock Offering Funds\n27. A significant portion of the investor funds collected through the Unregistered Stock\nOfferings (collectively, “Offering Funds”) were misappropriated through investments.\n17\n\n28. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other\nthings:\na. GUO, JE, and others arranged for approximately $100 million of the\nOfferings Funds to get invested on behalf of GTV’s parent company, Saraca, in a high-risk hedge\nfund investment managed by a firm named Hayman Capital Management L.P. (“Hayman”).\nAccording to its website, Hayman is an SEC-registered asset management firm that was founded\nby Bass, who was a non-executive director of GTV at the time of the transfer.\nb. In or about May 2020, Bass facilitated GUO’s and JE’s investment in a\nhigh-risk investment fund called the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund (the “Hayman\nFund”), which was operated by Hayman.\nc. JE coordinated with Hayman regarding the investment. For example, in a\nMay 29, 2020 email from JE to a Hayman representative (“Hayman Rep-1”), JE wrote, in\nsubstance and in part: “We will have one onshore and one offshore vehicle. The onshore one will\ninvest USD100m and the offshore one will invest USD1m. The address of the onshore vehicle is:\n162 E64th St., New York, NY 10065 United States.” On or about May 31, 2020, JE wrote, in\nsubstance and in part, “The $1m will come from my personal account and I owned[sic] 100% of\nHamilton Investment Management Ltd.”\ni. The address JE provided for the “onshore” vehicle is the address of\nthe Townhouse. See supra ¶ 21(a).\nii. Based on my participation in this Investigation, review of bank\nrecords and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations with others, including law enforcement\nand witnesses, I have learned that the Townhouse has been listed on corporate documents and/or\n18\n\nbank account documentation as the business address for at least seven GUO-affiliated entities;\nspecifically: Saraca, GTV, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land, ROLF (until\napproximately May 2022), and ROLS (until approximately May 2022).\nd. Three days after the close of the GTV Stock Offering, on or about June 5,\n2020, $100 million of the Offering Funds were transferred from a particular JP Morgan Chase\nbank account to an onshore bank account associated with Hayman for the purpose of investing in\nthe Hayman Fund. The funds were transferred on behalf of Saraca; as noted above, Saraca was\nthe parent company to GTV and was 100% owned by GUO’s son, QIANG QUO.\ne. Three days later, on or about June 8, 2020, $1 million was transferred on\nbehalf of Hamilton,6 JE’s company, from a bank account in the name of JE to an offshore bank\naccount associated with Hayman, also for the purpose of investing in the Hayman Fund.\nf. The transfer of Offering Funds to Hayman was completely inconsistent with\nGTV’s representations to the GTV Investors about how their funds would be used.\n29. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of\ndocuments and records, as well as my conversations with others, including law enforcement, I\nhave learned that on or about September 13, 2021, the SEC announced settled charges against\nthe Companies, based on their violations of the registration requirements for the Unregistered\nStock Offerings (i.e., the GTV Stock Offering and the associated digital asset G Coin Offering).\nThe SEC’s settlement required the Companies to pay more than $539 million in disgorgement\nand penalties.\nThe Convertible Loan Offering\n6 In April 2018, JE submitted on behalf of Hamilton an account opening document to a U.K. bank\nthat claimed that he owns 100% of Hamilton and that the company “does not involve itself in\ninvestments.”\n19\n\n30. After the Unregistered Stock Offerings described above were discovered by banks\nand numerous bank accounts were frozen, leaders of the schemes began to pitch investors on a\nnew set of investment opportunities. One new investment scheme launched in or about July 2020\nwas marketed to prospective investors as an opportunity to convert their existing investments in\nGTV into a “loan” to GTV. The Convertible Loan Offering was carried out by the “Himalaya\nFarm Alliance,” a collective of informal groups—known as “Farms”—of Chinese expatriates\nlocated in various cities around the world, including New York and Phoenix. The Himalaya Farm\nAlliance’s purported purpose was to assist the Chinese pro-democracy movement; the Himalaya\nFarm Alliance existed primarily as private groups on social media platforms such as Discord. The\nFarms were typically referred to by the names of preexisting companies that they affiliated\nthemselves with for banking purposes; e.g., Mountains of Spices LLC and Davy & Tony\nInternational Limited for the New York Farm, and Maywind Trading LLC, Medical Supply\nSystem International LLC and Santel LLC for the Phoenix Farm.\n31. In connection with the Convertible Loan Offering, the Farms provided prospective\ninvestors with a “Loan Agreement” that disclosed that the loan would be made to the individual\nFarm (e.g., “Phoenix Farm (Maywind Trading LLC)”) and that the loaned funds would be used by\nthat specific Farm for “general working capital purposes.” Investors executed the Loan Agreement\nand sent it to their Farm leaders after transferring their funds to the Farm, but were not provided\ncounter-executed copies of the agreement.\n32. Between in or about August 2020 and in or about March 2021, the U.S.-based\nFarms collectively raised approximately $148 million from the Convertible Loan Offering (the\n“Loan Funds”). Investors agreed to provide loans to the Farms for the purpose of acquiring GTV\nshares (once the three-year note had matured). Once the funds were collected by the U.S. Farms,\nthey were transferred to domestic and foreign accounts owned by different legal entities, including\n20\n\nan Abu Dhabi bank account in the name of ACA Capital (the “UAE ACA Capital Account”),\nwhich is owned and controlled by JE.\nMisappropriation of Convertible Loan Offering Funds\n33. A significant portion of the Loan Funds collected through the Convertible Loan\nOffering were misappropriated, as described below.\n34. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other\nthings:\na. JE was sole signatory of the UAE ACA Capital Account. JE wired\napproximately $33.3 million of the Loan Funds out of the UAE ACA Capital Account to Swiss\nand UK accounts belonging to himself, his wife (Sin Ring Rong), and his company, Hamilton.\nThe wires to his and his wife’s personal accounts—which amounted to more than approximately\n$10 million—were described as dividends, salary or director fees. However, JE was not a director\nor employee of GTV, Saraca, or other affiliated entities.\nb. JE arranged for approximately $34 million in transfers from UAE ACA\nCapital Account to U.S. bank accounts in the names of three companies that are each 100% owned\nby GUO’s family members; specifically:\ni. Approximately $5 million to Greenwich Land LLC, which is owned\nby GUO’s wife, Hing Chi Ngok;\nii. Approximately $18 million to Hudson Diamond NY LLC, which is\nowned by Guo’s daughter, Mei Guo; and\niii. Approximately $11 million to Lamp Capital LLC, which is owned\nby Guo’s son, QIANG GUO.\n21\n\nc. The $34 million was commingled with other investor funds, including GTV\nOffering Funds. Based on my review of bank account records, I have learned that much of this\nGTV Investor money was used to fund lavish lifestyle expenses (e.g., approximately $2.3 million\nin expenses relating to GUO’s yacht, and approximately $600,000 for the purchase of luxury\nautomobiles).\nd. JE also arranged for large transfers from UAE ACA Capital Account to other\ncompanies with ties to GUO; specifically:\ni. Approximately $19 million to Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.\n(“Lexington Property”), which is owned by former GTV Treasurer, Anthony DiBattista\n(“DiBattista”). The registered address of Lexington Property is 750 Lexington Avenue, New\nYork, NY;\nii. Approximately $32 million to Savio Law LLC (as escrow agent),\npursuant to a purported loan agreement between ACA Capital and Saraca (which is owned by\nGUO’s son, QIANG GUO); and\niii. Approximately $1 million to Bannon Film Industries, Inc., a\ncompany owned by Steve Bannon. As described above, Bannon was listed in the Memorandum\nas a non-executive GTV Director and was a Director of the ROLF / ROLS.\nThe G Club Operations LLC Scheme\n35. Some of the Farms recruited investors to invest in GTV through the purchase of “G\nClub” memberships. As described in greater detail below, law enforcement believes G Club is an\nongoing fraudulent scheme operated by GUO, JE, and others.\n36. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of the\nwebsites, subpoena returns, records and documents, including operating agreements and articles\n22\n\nof incorporation, open-source research I have conducted on the Internet, and my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. In or about October 2020, G Club Operations LLC (“G Club”) was\nregistered in Puerto Rico. According to the Operating Agreement, the purpose of G Club is to\n“provide[] Membership Concierge services with exclusive offers and discounts for luxury hotels\nand retailers for High Net Worth individuals from the Asian market.”\nb. An image from the G Club website (“G Club Website”), viewable at\nhttp is shown below:\n37. G Club purportedly offers five membership tiers: Tier 5 Membership ($50,000\nannually); Tier 4 Membership ($40,000 annually); Tier 3 Membership ($30,000 annually); Tier 2\nMembership ($20,000 annually); and Tier 1 Membership ($10,000 annually). According to the G\nClub Membership Agreement, “A Member may subsequently elect a higher tier of membership,”\nbut “may not subsequently elect a lower tier of Membership.” The annual fee for the desired\nmembership tier must be paid in full with the submission of the G Club membership application,\nand G Club reserves the right to reject any membership application within 30 days at its sole and\n23\n\nabsolute discretion. The Membership Agreement further states: “If an Application is rejected and\nmembership denied, G Clubs shall return the Membership Fee within ten (10) calendar days of\nsuch rejection . . . in the form of the original payment of the Membership Fee or, at the option of\nG Clubs, by check.”\n38. One photograph posted to the G Club Website depicted GUO living a lavish\nlifestyle; specifically, he is shown standing on top of what appears to be a large yacht smoking a\ncigar. The G Club Website also states that:\nG Clubs memberships provide its members with access to a concierge customer\nservice with Mandarin and English access and support. G Clubs members will have\nthe opportunity to attend the annual G Summit meeting which may occur in person\nor virtually. G Clubs members will also get exclusive early access to the latest\nfashion collections and special member pricing on purchases made on the G\nFashion website.\n39. In a video summary posted on GNews on or about July 8, 2021, Guo claimed that\nG Club had approximately 25,000 members, and predicted that G Club would grow to at least 100\nmillion users, attracting $16 trillion of investment.\n40. Despite the representations on the G Club Website about purported membership\nbenefits, law enforcement believes that G Club is being used, at least in part, to perpetuate the\nfraud schemes, including by soliciting and receiving investments while evading regulatory\nrequirements. Specifically, based on my review of an interview report of an August 2, 2021\ninterview (the “August 2, 2021 Interview”) conducted by others of a GTV investor (“Investor-1”),\nI have learned that Investor-1 stated the following, in substance and in part, during that interview:\na. Investor-1 invested $200,000 USD in GTV in or around May 2020.\nInvestor-1’s money came from Investor-1’s savings.\nb. Investor-1 came to believe that GTV was a scam because Investor-1 did not\nreceive any GTV shares, and when Investor-1 asked for a refund, no one responded to Investor-1.\n24\n\nc. Investor-1 invested in GTV because: 1) there were a lot of American\npoliticians supporting Guo; (2) Guo said it was original stock and there would be at least 1,000x\ngrowth; and (3) Investor-1 thought Investor-1 would make money on the GTV stock because Guo\nsaid this in videos. Investor-1 did not think Investor-1 would lose money because Guo promised\nthe GTV investment would make money.\nd. Investor-1 thought that GTV would use the money to build a website like\nYouTube, Facebook and Twitter, but did not know for certain what it would be used for.\ne. Investor-1 subsequently invested in the Convertible Loan Program through\nthe “Canada Farm” in or around August 2020. Specifically, Investor-1 sent approximately $71,019\nto “Canada Himalayan Club Medica Inc.” as a loan. Investor-1 believed that the loan was for 3-5\nyears, with 3% interest and that at the end of that period Investor-1 would receive the money or\nGTV stock. Investor-1 never received an executed copy of the investment contract. The money\nInvestor-1 sent was frozen by the Canadian SEC.\nf. Investor-1 attempted to invest in GTV again in or around March 2021\nthrough G Club. Specifically, Investor-1 was instructed to send Investor-1’s investment funds to\n“Crane Advisory Group,” who in turn would send the money to G Club. Investor-1 sent\napproximately $100,015 to Crane Advisory Group for the purchase of GTV shares at the price of\n$1 per ten shares.\ng. In or around July 2021, Investor-1 attempted to initiate a refund by\ncontacting G Club online customer service department. In response to Investor-1’s refund request,\nG Club, through “notices@gclubs.com,” sent the following email:\nYou recently made a payment with respect to your G|CLUBS membership through\nCrane. Your wire payment transfer exceeded the amount of a single membership\nand you have not applied for multiple memberships. We received $100,015.00 via\nwire. You had applied for one Tier 5 membership and filled out the KYC package\nindicating the total amount was for multi membership of G|CLUBS (see attached).\n25\n\nTo credit the total amount to you, you must apply for additional memberships.\nPlease fill and sign the attached, advising how many memberships you wish to\npurchase and their tier.\nIf sending the excess funds was an error and you wish an immediate return of\n$50,015, please immediately advise. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience\ncaused.\nh. In response, Investor-1 informed G Club that Investor-1 had sent the $100,015.00\nin funds not to purchase a G Club membership, but rather to invest in GTV. Investor-1 requested\nthat all of Investor-1’s funds be returned. In a subsequent email, Investor-1 also noted that it would\nnot have made sense for Investor-1 to send a sum of $100,015.00, given that the most expensive\nG Club membership cost $50,000. Investor-1 also explained in another email that, in a phone\nconversation with a representative of G Club, the representative had made it clear that Investor-\n1’s funds were going to be used for an investment in GTV, not for the purchase of a G Club\nmembership.\ni. Investor-1 had not received any of Investor-1’s $100,015 investment back as of the\ndate of the interview.\n41. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, my review of\ndocuments, records, and email search warrant returns, as well as my conversations with others,\nincluding witnesses, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. An individual named Alex Hadjicharalambous (“Hadjicharalambous”), whose title\nwas the Financial Controller for G Club, was the authorized signer listed on multiple bank accounts\nin the name of G Club. On July 13, 2021, Hadjicharalambous received an email at his G Club\nemail account (alexh@gclubs.com) from a G Fashion IT Manager entitled “HCHKTech email”\nthat read, in substance and in part: “Hello Alex, As you know we now work for HCHK\nTechnologies. Use the credentials in this email and follow the steps below to log into your new\nemail account.”\n26\n\nb. Based on my review of open-source material on the Internet and subpoena returns,\nI have learned the following, among other things:\ni. On or about April 29, 2021, HCHK Technologies, Inc. (“HCHK\nTechnologies”) was incorporated in the State of Delaware. At the time of incorporation, Anthony\nDiBattista was director of HCHK Technologies. Between on or about May 27, 2021 and\nNovember 10, 2021, DiBattista was Treasurer of HCHK Technologies. On or about December\n13, 2021, DiBattista resigned as President, CEO, and Director of HCHK Technologies.\nc. On or about August 18, 2021, HCHK Property Management, Inc. (“HCHK\nProperty”) was incorporated in Delaware. Yvette Wang was elected as the initial director of\nHCHK Property. See ¶ 21(e). On or about December 15, 2021, by written consent of the Board\nof Directors of HCHK Property (i.e., Wang), DiBattista was appointed Treasurer of HCHK\nProperty. On or about January 1, 2022, Wang resigned and DiBattista was appointed as President,\nCEO, and Director of HCHK Property.\nd. DiBattista’s roles with various of the other GUO-affiliated entities included, among\nothers, Treasurer of GTV, authorized signatory of Lexington Property bank accounts, and\nTreasurer of G Music LLC.\ne. Based on my review of subpoena returns and my conversations with others, I have\nlearned that on or about July 18, 2021, a G Fashion HR employee sent a “transition memo” to Alex\nHadjicharalambous that, “[e]ffective as of July 19, 2021, all GFashion employees will have the\noption to transfer to GFashion’s staffing company, HCHK Technologies, Inc.,” which would\n“thereafter serve the role of staffing company for GFashion and other enterprises.” The transition\nmemo further reflected that an employee’s failure to execute the transition memo that same day\nwould result in termination.\n27\n\nf. Based on my review of open-source Internet research and subpoena returns, I have\nlearned that one of the Directors of HCHK Technologies is also the Director and Chairman of the\nAudit Committee of Gettr,7 a social media platform that reportedly evolved from GTV Media. I\nhave further learned that JE’s company, Hamilton, owns 95% of Gettr and contributed $35 million\nto Gettr in capital contribution.\ng. Based on the foregoing, I have learned that starting on or about July 19, 2021,\ncertain employees of G Fashion, Gettr, and other GUO-affiliated entities began to operate under\nthe company names HCHK Technologies and/or HCHK Property.\nThe Himalaya Exchange Scheme\n42. As described above, JE founded a purported cryptocurrency exchange platform\ncalled Himalaya Exchange, available at http (the “Himalaya Exchange\nWebsite”). Similar to the link between G-Coin / G-Dollar and the Unregistered Stock Offerings,\nHimalaya Coin (ticker: HCO or HCN) and Himalaya Dollar (ticker: HDO) (together, the\n“Himalaya Assets”) were initially offered as a companion digital asset security for investors in the\nConvertible Loan Program.\n43. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of the\nHimalaya Exchange Website, videos posted on GNews, bank records and subpoena returns, and\nopen-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my conversations with\nothers, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other things:\n7 See http\n(last visited July 6, 2022). Based on my conversations with others, I have learned that Gettr is one\nof the companies for which HCHK Technologies provides purported staffing services.\n28\n\na. The Himalaya Exchange is described as a global digital exchange with a\nfull ecosystem, that includes (or will include) a stablecoin (Himalaya Dollar),8 a trading coin\n(Himalaya Coin), and a blockchain payment application called “Himalaya Pay.”\nb. JE is described as the founder and Chairman of the Himalaya Exchange.\nc. As described above, JE is also the founder and CEO of BVI-based\nHamilton and the Director of Hong Kong-based ACA Capital.\nd. An image from the Himalaya Exchange Website, viewable at\nhttp is shown below:\n44. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of the\nHimalaya Exchange Website, videos posted on GNews, bank records and subpoena returns, and\nopen-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my conversations with\nothers, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned, among other things, that investors\n8 A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency that seeks to peg itself to a stable currency, typically the U.S.\ndollar.\n29\n\nwere misled about how and when they would be able to trade their cryptocurrency assets.\nSpecifically:\na. When the Himalaya Exchange Website was launched, investors were told\nthat, as of June 2021, they would be able to exchange and withdraw their cryptocurrency. An\nimage of the website from May 2021 depicting this representation is shown below:\nb. The Himalaya Exchange Website later changed its “trade” date to September 2021.\nBased on my training, experience, and participation in this investigation, I have learned that it is\ncommon for fraudulent cryptocurrencies to use similar tactics to those used here; specifically it is\ncommon for fraudulent cryptocurrencies to: (1) not be tradable on a public exchange; and\n(2)induce investors to purchase the cryptocurrencies through false promises that the\ncryptocurrency will be available to trade on a public exchange soon.\nc. The initial coin offering (“ICO”) of the Himalaya Assets purportedly took place on\nthe Himalaya Exchange Website or about November 1, 2021. According to data on the Himalaya\nExchange Website, the price of a Himalaya Asset increased from 10 cents at the time of the ICO\nto $27 approximately two weeks later, resulting in a purported $27 billion valuation by mid-\nNovember 2021, as reflected in the graph below from the Himalaya Exchange Website:\n30\n\nd. According to Himalaya Exchange’s promotional materials, the value of the\nHimalaya Dollar is pegged to the U.S. Dollar. “Credits” are used to secure positions within the\nHimalaya Ecosystem, which positions correspond to a particular type of crypto asset. Promotional\nmaterials also state that “[c]redits can only be used on the Himalaya Exchange or within the\nHimalaya Ecosystem, representing a right to participating in trading on the Himalaya\nExchange and do not carry any right to require their exchange for fiat currency or crypto-assets.”\nPromotional materials clarify that references to Himalaya Coin, Himalaya Dollar, “or any other\ntype of asset on an account at the Himalaya Exchange or through the Himalaya Pay App are\nreferences to Credits corresponding to that asset.”\ne. According to the Himalaya Dollar whitepaper dated April 2021 (the “Whitepaper”),\navailable on the Himalaya Exchange Website, Himalaya Dollar is an Ethereum-\nbased token “structured with the aim of maintaining its value 1-to-1 to the United States Dollar.\n31\n\nHimalaya Dollar Credits benefit from potential liquidity support which may be provided through\nthe [Himalaya] Reserve which will be managed with the aim of maintaining its value at a level\nequal in value in U.S. dollars to the value of Himalaya Dollars in circulation as described below.”\nf. The Whitepaper further states that Himalaya Reserves, the issuer of Himalaya\nDollar, “intends to create and hold in the Reserve a mix of United States dollars or other currencies\nin cash and cash equivalents,” and further states, “it is intended to make the Reserve transparent\nto the public. The Issuer intends to have the Reserve audited annually by independent auditors.\nThe results of those audits will be made publicly available with details of the then-current\ncomposition of the Reserve and the market value of the assets as at[sic] the time of publication.”\nTo date, no such audit results have been published.\ng. As described above, the Himalaya Assets have never traded on an open exchange,\nand instead purport to trade only on the private Himalaya Exchange. Himalaya Exchange restrains\nthe flow of real currency out of the Himalaya Exchange by its members, as described above. Thus,\nthe ability to convert Himalaya Dollars and Himalaya Coins back into U.S. currency was limited.\n45. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of the\nHimalaya Exchange Website, videos posted on GNews, and public source research that I have\nconducted on the Internet, as well as my conversations with others, I have learned the following,\namong other things:\na. As described above, Himalaya Dollar purports to be a “stablecoin” that is\npegged 1-to-1 to the value of the U.S. dollar. Other major stablecoins include TerraUSD, Tether,\nand USD Coin.\nb. In a video summary posted on GNews in November 2021, GUO\nrepresented, in sum and substance, that Himalaya Coin was backed by the U.S. dollar through\n32\n\nstablecoin Himalaya Dollar, and further stated that Himalaya Coin is backed by a reserve of 20%\nof the proceeds in gold.\nc. In or about May 2022, there was a global stablecoin collapse that began\nwhen a particular stablecoin called TerraUSD lost its peg (i.e., no longer had sufficient hard-asset\nreserves to back its cryptocurrency at a 1-to-1 ratio to the U.S. dollar). As a result, the\ncryptocurrency market lost approximately $300 billion in value. The valuation of TerraUSD\nthrough May 10, 2022 is reflected in the graph below:\nd. In contrast, data on the Himalaya Exchange Website reflects very little\nfluctuation or decrease in the purported value of the Himalaya Assets during the same time period,\nas reflected in the graph below from the Himalaya Exchange Website:\n33\n\n46. I have reviewed the graph displayed above in paragraphs 44(c), showing the value\nof the Himalaya Assets’ purported value between approximately November 1, 2021 and December\n31, 2021. The graph is consistent with the purported price of the Himalaya Assets being falsified—\nspecifically, it reflects a steep increase in price over the first two weeks and then an apparent\nfluctuation in price, but all within a narrow band.\n47. I have also reviewed the graphs displayed above in paragraphs 45(c) and (d),\nreflecting the price of stablecoin TerraUSD and the purported price of a Himalaya Asset between\nApril 2021 and May 10, 2021. The data reflected in the Himalaya Asset graph is inconsistent with\nthe valuation of other stablecoins, including TerraUSD, during the stablecoin crash.9\n9 On or about June 15, 2022, it was reported that William Je said the following: “Despite the\ncryptocurrency market’s recent dip, HDO has constantly remained stable with the US dollar 1:1\nwithout fluctuation. Impressively, this makes HDO the only stable coin in the world to maintain\n100% during this time-period of uncertainty.” See http\nreleases/iconic-ferrari-f1-car-sold-by-rm-sotheby-s-using-cryptocurrency-himalaya-dollar-\n883914213.html (last visited July 6, 2022)\n34\n\nOverview of the Scheme to Launder Fraud Proceeds\n48. As described in greater detail herein, since at least in or about 2020, GUO, JE, and\nothers have operated the Investment Schemes, i.e., various interrelated fraudulent investment\nschemes. The Investment Schemes involve entities affiliated with GUO and/or JE, including GTV,\nG Fashion, G Club, Crane, Lamp Capital LLC, Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land LLC,\nHCHK Technologies, the Himalaya Farms, the Himalaya Exchange, Hamilton, and ACA Capital,\namong others.\n49. As described above, between in or about April 2020 and June 2020, GUO, JE, and\nothers fraudulently obtained more than approximately $635 million in purported investments\nthrough the Unregistered Stock Offerings and Convertible Loan Offering. See supra ¶ 18.\nRecords that I or others have reviewed in the course of the Investigation show that, between in or\nabout November 2020 and June 2022, G Club has generated more than approximately $221 million\nin purported G Club membership fees.\n50. As detailed below, the evidence demonstrates that between at least approximately\nApril 2020 and the present, GUO, JE, and others have been engaged in a scheme to launder fraud\nproceeds from the Investment Schemes (which include the Unregistered Stock Offerings, the\nConvertible Loan Offering, G Club, and the Himalaya Exchange) (collectively, the “Investment\nScheme Funds”).\n51. As part of the money laundering scheme, JE and others have conducted financial\ntransactions totaling more than approximately $1.04 billion, as described in greater detail below.\n52. As a further part of the money laundering scheme, at least approximately $252\nmillion of the Investment Scheme Funds were remitted, either directly or indirectly, to bank\naccounts in the United States and the Bahamas held in the name of JE’s companies—Hamilton,\nACA Capital, and Himalaya Exchange—or otherwise controlled by JE.\n35\n\n53. In particular, as described below, JE opened certain of the Target Accounts and\nother bank accounts at Silvergate Bank, a bank in La Jolla, California that markets itself as “the\nleading bank for innovative business in fintech and cryptocurrency.” Target Accounts-1 through\n-8 are in the name of a Cayman Islands-registered hedge fund, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC;\nTarget Account-9 is in the name of JE’s company, Hamilton Investment Management Ltd., which\ncompany is the investment manager of the Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC. JE is the principal\nof Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. and an authorized signer on the Silvergate Target\nAccounts.\n54. As further described below, JE opened three accounts at FV Bank, a bank in Puerto\nRico that markets itself as “The Global Digital Bank.” The FV Bank accounts are in the names\nof various legal entities through which JE and others operate the Himalaya Exchange—Himalaya\nClearing, Himalaya Financial, and Himalaya Reserves. JE is the ultimate beneficial owner of those\nHimalaya legal entities, see supra ¶ 19(d), and is an authorized signer on the FV accounts.\n55. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into and among the Target Accounts\nin ways that, based on my training and experience, are indicative of money laundering.\nSpecifically, the tracing of the funds reflects, among other things: (a) transfers of Investment\nScheme Funds from U.S. bank accounts to bank accounts located overseas (including the UAE\nand the Bahamas) in high risk jurisdictions that are frequent havens for money laundering;\n(b)layering of Investment Scheme Funds through a series of entities and bank accounts, in some\ncases pursuant to purported loan agreements or other financial arrangements, in a manner\nconsistent with concealment of the nature, source, or origin of the funds; (c) investments in real\nestate or other business interests that have no apparent connection with the stated purposes of the\nbusinesses controlling the bank accounts; and (d) the transfer of Investment Scheme Funds\nbetween multiple banks, as well as among multiple accounts within the same bank, in a single day.\n36\n\nUse of Multiple Banks and Financial Institutions to Conceal Investment Scheme Funds\n56. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. To date, law enforcement has identified more than at least 80 bank accounts\nbeing used by GUO, JE, and others to process Investment Scheme Funds, which include, among\nothers:\ni. At least approximately 19 bank accounts in the name of G Club\nentities (i.e., G Club International Limited or G Club Operations LLC) at approximately seven\ndifferent financial institutions;\nii. At least approximately 16 bank accounts in the name of Crane (i.e.,\nCrane Advisory Group LLC) at approximately six different financial institutions;\niii. At least approximately 28 bank accounts in the name of Farm\nentities at approximately six different financial institutions;\niv. At least approximately eight bank accounts in the name of G Fashion\nat approximately six different financial institutions;\nv. At least approximately 14 bank accounts in the name of Hamilton\nentities (e.g., Hamilton Investment Management Inc. or Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC) at\nSilvergate Bank in California; and\nvi. At least approximately three bank accounts in the name of Himalaya\nentities (i.e., Himalaya Reserve, Himalaya Financial, and Himalaya Clearing) at FV Bank in Puerto\nRico.\n37\n\nb. In addition to utilizing bank accounts held in the names of entities owned or\ncontrolled by JE and others directly involved in the Investment Schemes, GUO, JE, and others\nlayer Investment Scheme Funds through accounts at other financial institutions and third-party\npayment management entities to conceal the nature and source of the funds. For example, and as\ndescribed in greater detail herein:\ni. BSI Group LLC (“BSI Group”) is a Missouri-based company that\noffers payment agreement services. Based on my conversations with others, I have learned that\nBSI Group effectively operates as a wholesaler and opens bank accounts at U.S.-based financial\ninstitutions for its customers. U.S. banks that BSI Group contracts with include Capital One, The\nReserve Trust Company (“Reserve Trust”), Prime Trust LLC (“Prime Trust”), and a Puerto Rico-\nbased financial institution called Mercantile Bank International Corp. and its affiliated entities\n(“Mercantile Bank” or “MBI”). BSI Group is a client of Capital One, Reserve Trust, and Prime\nTrust, among other entities, while MBI is one of BSI Group’s customers.\nii. BSI Group manages transactions on behalf of its own customers,\nincluding MBI. BSI Group’s customers direct the movement of their funds—which are held in\naccounts in the name of BSI Group and/or Reserve Trust and Prime Trust—by requesting\ntransactions through BSI Group’s website (e.g., indicating the originator, payee, and amount for a\nspecific transaction).\niii. GUO, JE, and others have laundered more than approximately $300\nmillion in Investment Scheme Funds through bank accounts held in the names of various financial\nintermediary companies, including BSI Group, Reserve Trust, and Prime Trust. GUO, JE, and\nothers have also layered Investment Scheme Funds through bank accounts held at various different\nfinancial institutions.\n38\n\niv. For example, on or about May 20, 2021, G Club’s financial\ncontroller, Alex Hadjicharalambolous, exchanged emails with employees at Puerto Rico-based\nfinancial institutions Medici Bank and MBI regarding a $15 million wire transfer of G Club\nInvestment Scheme Funds from a bank account in the name of BSI Group to a bank account in the\nname of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC at Deltec Bank & Trust (“Deltec”), which is located in\nthe Bahamas (the “Hamilton Bahamas Account”). The next day, David Fallon (the President of\nHamilton) emailed Hajicharalmbous to advise that Hamilton could not credit the wire to G Club,\nbecause the wire reflected that the sender was “BSI Group.”\nv. Hadjicharalambous forwarded the email to an MBI employee, who\nthen responded to Hadjicharalmbous (copying Fallon) with the following explanation, in substance\nand in part:\nHI guys, so flow of funds is as follows. It’s a little detailed here so apologies.\nThe wire comes from BSI group ( MBIs corresponding bank partner)to Deltec\n(Hamilton)\nThe accounts are as follows\nBSI/MBI have an account at Capital one, it is an MBI Bank escrow account owned\nby MBI. BSI does the processing for us.\nMedici is a client of MBI for this 15mm dollar transaction, Medici has an account\nwith MBI at Capital one\nGCLUB is a client of Medici.\nGclubs clients send money to the MBI account at Capital one denoted for GClub\n(through medici). Medici ledgers each wire as they come into the bank.\nTo solve below request, what exactly do you need to show the fund admin? Proof\nof account ownership or money inflow (source of funds)\nFor going forward activity, GClub is now a direct client of MBI, so wires will be\nsent from GClubs account at MBI, but the wires will always come from BSI as the\nMBI corresponding bank . We (MBI bank) will have the flow of funds from GClub\nclient to the account, so we will have the ability to trace the full flow of funds in\nand out of the GCLUB account.\n39\n\nvi. Similarly, on or about July 1, 2021, Hadjicharalambolous sent an\nemail to an employee at Medici Bank, directing Medici Bank to transfer approximately $4 million\nfrom a G Club Medici Bank account to a G Club MBI account. The wire instructions attached to\nthe email identify MBI as the beneficiary entity, but list Reserve Trust as the beneficiary bank.\nvii. Based on my participation in this Investigation, I believe that the\nforegoing explanation is an example of the manner in which GUO, JE, and others launder\nInvestment Scheme Funds through multiple financial institutions in an effort to, among other\nthings, conceal their source. See ¶ 56(b)(3).\nTracing of Fraudulent Proceeds\n57. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Investors participate in the Investment Schemes by either wiring money\ndirectly to a bank account controlled or used by entities affiliated with GUO, JE, and others\n(including the Farms, G Club, or the Himalaya Exchange), or by wiring or otherwise transferring\nmoney to other entities at the direction of the Target Subjects (including, for example, Crane, BSI\nGroup, Reserve Trust, or Prime Trust), which funds are then transmitted to bank accounts\nultimately controlled by GUO, GUO’s associates, and JE. I have discovered accounts located in\nthe UAE, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Bahamas, and the British Virgin Islands,\nwhich GUO, JE, and other Target Subjects have used for the purpose of receiving investment funds\nfrom investors in the Unregistered Stock Offerings, the Convertible Loan Offering, G Club, and\nthe Himalaya Exchange.\n40\n\nb. To date, I and analysts at the FBI and SEC have identified and attempted to\ntrace more than approximately $1.04 billion in Investment Scheme Fund transactions, a substantial\npart of which has been laundered through financial institutions located in at least four different\ncountries, including the United States, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, and the UAE.\nFraud Proceeds are Combined in Hamilton Bahamas Account Before Transfer to Certain of the\nSilvergate Target Accounts\n58. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Between in or about May 2021 and June 2021, approximately $100 million\nin Investment Scheme Funds were transferred from G Club bank accounts into the Hamilton\nBahamas Account. Before the approximately $100 million was combined in the Hamilton\nBahamas Account, the Investment Scheme Funds were layered through a series of entities at\nvarious different banks in a manner that, based on my training and experience, is indicative of\nmoney laundering. Specifically:\ni. As described above, certain prospective Investment Scheme\ninvestors were instructed to send funds intended as an investment in GTV (for example) to a bank\naccount in the name of Crane. See supra at ¶ 40(f). Approximately $78.2 million of Investment\nScheme Funds was sent from individual or institutional investors in China and elsewhere to two\nCrane Advisory bank accounts (the “Crane Citibank Accounts”) between in or about November\n2020 and April 2021.\n41\n\nii. Approximately $60 million of those Investment Scheme Funds were\nthen transferred from the Crane Citibank Accounts to approximately five different bank accounts\nat MSSB held in the name of Crane (together, the “Crane MSSB Accounts”).\niii. The approximately $60 million in Investment Scheme Funds from\nthe Crane MSSB Accounts was combined with approximately $49 million in other Investment\nScheme Funds that had been transferred into the Crane MSSB Accounts from two Crane accounts\nat a different bank, Capital One (together, the “Crane Capital One Accounts”), raising the total\ncombined balance in the Crane MSSB Accounts to approximately $109 million.\niv. Approximately $79 million of those approximately $109 million in\nInvestment Scheme Funds in the Crane MSSB Accounts were then transferred to accounts at the\nsame bank (i.e., MSSB), but in the name of G Club (i.e., the G Club MSSB Accounts). The\napproximately $79 million was combined with approximately $79.7 million in other Investment\nScheme Funds that had been transferred into the G Club MSSB Accounts from individual G Club\nInvestors and from G Club bank accounts at Signature Bank, First Bank of Puerto Rico, and City\nNational Bank, raising the total combined balance of Investment Scheme Funds in the G Club\nMSSB Accounts to more than approximately $158 million.\nv. Approximately $85 million of Investment Scheme Funds was\ntransferred from the G Club MSSB Accounts to the Hamilton Bahamas Account, and combined\nwith approximately $15 million in other Investment Scheme Funds (relating to G Club and the\nHimalaya Assets) sourced from a bank account in the name of BSI Group. See ¶ 56(b)(v). Thus,\nthe $100 million of Investment Scheme Funds in the Hamilton Bahamas Account consisted of\n42\n\nfunds transferred from the G Club MSSB Accounts and other accounts containing Investment\nScheme Funds.\nFraud Proceeds are Transferred to Silvergate Bank\n59. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. On or about July 5, 2021, JE submitted a business bank account application\nto Silvergate Bank (the “Silvergate Application”) in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Funds\nSPC. JE’s company, Hamilton, is the investment manager of the Cayman Islands-registered hedge\nfund, Hamilton Investment Opportunity SPC. Between in or about July 2021 and the present, JE\nopened more than approximately 14 bank accounts at Silvergate Bank in the name of various\nHamilton-affiliated hedge funds or entities, including Hamilton Investment Opportunity SPC and\nHamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, and at least four bank accounts at Silvergate Bank in the name\nof Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. See ¶ 19(d)(iii).\nb. Between on or about September 1, 2021 and on or about July 5, 2022, JE-\ncontrolled Silvergate Bank accounts received approximately $664 million in Investment Scheme\nFunds. Specifically:\ni. In or about September 2021, approximately $85 million of the\nInvestment Scheme Funds was transferred from the Hamilton Bahamas Account, see supra at\n¶ 56(b)(iv), to a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending\nin 9306 (the “9306 Silvergate Account”). The approximately $85 million was combined with\napproximately $25 million in Investment Scheme Funds sourced from a bank account in the name\n43\n\nof Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. at a bank in the Bahamas (the “Himalaya Bahamas\nAccount”). Thus, as of in or about late September 2021, the 9306 Silvergate Account held at least\napproximately $110 million in Investment Scheme Funds.\nii. On or about October 27, 2021, approximately $59 million of the\napproximately $110 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 9306 Silvergate\nAccount to a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Digital Assets, ending in 7747 (the\n“7747 Silvergate Account”). Later that same day, the approximately $59 million was transferred\nfrom the 7747 Silvergate Account to Target Account-1 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the\nname of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 7739).\niii. Also on or about October 27, 2021, approximately $25 million of\nthe approximately $110 million was transferred from the 9306 Silvergate Account to Target\nAccount-2 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\nending in 7705). As described in greater detail below, once received in Target Account-2, the\nmonies were combined with approximately $50 million in Himalaya Asset Investor Funds sourced\nfrom an FV Bank account in the name of Himalaya International Clearing Ltd., ending in 3763\n(the “3763 FV Account”).\n1. Approximately $30 million of the $50 million transferred\nfrom the 3763 FV Account into Target Account-2 can be traced to the approximately $110 million\nin Investment Scheme Funds that had been held in the 9306 Silvergate Account. That is, while\napproximately $25 million of the $110 million was transferred directly to Target Account-2 on\nor about October 27, 2021, an additional $30 million of the approximately $110 million was\ntransferred into Target Account-2 only after passing through three other bank accounts: the 7747\nSilvergate Account (held in the name of Hamilton Digital Assets), then Target Account-1 (held\n44\n\nin the name Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC), and finally the 3763 FV Account (held in the name\nof Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.).\niv. Also on or about October 27, 2021, approximately $26 million of\nthe approximately $110 million was transferred from the 9306 Silvergate Account to a Silvergate\nBank account in the name of Hamilton Diversified Trading Fund, ending in 7762 (the “7762\nSilvergate Account”). Later that same day, the approximately $26 million was transferred from\nthe 7762 Silvergate Account to Target Account-3 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of\nHamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 7754). Approximately two months later, on or about\nJanuary 4, 2022, approximately $26 million was transferred from Target Account-3 to the UAE\nACA Capital Account (i.e., an offshore bank account controlled by JE). See ¶¶ 32, 34.\nc. On or about December 2, 2021, approximately $46.5 million in Investment\nScheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-1 to Target Account-4 (i.e., a Silvergate\nBank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 7713). Once received in\nTarget Account-4, the monies were combined with approximately $5.6 million in Investment\nScheme Funds sourced from the Himalaya Bahamas Account (which funds passed through a\nSilvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton PE Fund SP, ending in 7721), raising the\ncombined balance of Target Account-4 to approximately $52.1 million.\nd. On or about December 17, 2021, approximately $24.5 million of the\napproximately $52.1 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-\n4 to a bank account in the name of Insight Title Services LLC Trust AC; the stated purpose of the\ntransaction was for the purchase of residential property in Mahwah, New Jersey on behalf of an\nentity called Taurus Fund SP. Based on my review of a corporate resolution signed by JE, I have\nlearned that Taurus Fund SP is a segregated portfolio of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (i.e.,\nthat JE controls Taurus Fund SP).\n45\n\ne. Between at least on or about January 24, 2022 and on or about April 4, 2022,\napproximately $73.8 million of Investment Scheme Funds was transferred into Target Account-\n5 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 2770).\nThe incoming transfers into Target Account-5 consisted primarily of wires ranging between\napproximately $1,100 to approximately $3 million from Chinese individuals, with some\nindividuals sending multiple incoming wires. Based on my participation in this investigation and\nmy training and experience, I believe the transfers into Target Account-5 are consistent with\nmoney laundering, including layering funds through different entities—for example, directing\ninvestor funds into a bank account in the names of an entity other than the intended investment\nvehicle, which here would be G Club or Himalaya Exchange. I further believe that the incoming\ntransfers are consistent with G Club investors purchasing multiple memberships, and therefore are\nfraud proceeds. See ¶ 40(g).\nf. Between on or about March 10, 2022 and on or about April 1, 2022,\napproximately $77,998,889.20 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from bank\naccounts in the name of HCHK Technologies or HCHK Property into Target Account-6 (i.e., a\nSilvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 2762). As\ndescribed above, starting in or about July 2021, various GUO-affiliated entities began to operate\nunder the newly-formed companies HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property. See ¶ 41. Based\non my participation in this investigation and my training and experience, and as described above,\nI believe the nature of the transfers into Target Account-6 are consistent with money laundering,\nincluding layering funds through different entities and concealing their true source and/or purpose.\nSee, e.g., ¶ 56(b)(v).\ng. The Investment Scheme Funds were traced into Target Account-7 and\nTarget Account-8 in the following manner:\n46\n\ni. On or about January 31, 2022, approximately $5.1 million in\nInvestment Scheme Funds was transferred from a bank account in the name of a particular Chinese\ninvestor (“Investor-2”) into Target Account-7 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of\nHamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 2820).\nii. Between on or about January 31, 2022 and on or about February 4,\n2022, approximately $1 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from bank accounts\nin the names of two particular Chinese investors (“Investor-3” and “Investor-4”) into Target\nAccount-8 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\nending in 2747).\niii. Based on my review of subpoena returns and search warrant returns,\nI have learned that Investor-2 through -4 had previously invested in the GTV Stock Offering and/or\nthe other Investment Schemes. Specifically:\n1. According to a spreadsheet GTV maintained of more than\napproximately 1,200 investors in the GTV Stock Offering, Investor-2, Investor-3, and Investor-4\neach purchased GTV stock; Investor-2 purchased approximately 3.3 million shares, Investor-3\npurchased approximately 2 million shares, and Investor-4 purchased approximately 800,000\nshares.\n2. On or about January 25, 2021, the President of Crane\nemailed “onboarding profiles” for Investor-2, Investor-3, and Investor-4 to MSSB. As described\nabove, see ¶ 40(f), potential investors in the Investment Schemes were directed to send their\ninvestments to Crane, which purportedly served as payment processor for GTV, G Club, and/or\nHimalaya Exchange.\n3. On or about June 15, 2021, Investor-2 emailed a wire\ntransfer request to MSSB that stated the following, in substance and in part: “I’d like to invest [in]\n47\n\na company called Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.” The email requested a wire of\napproximately $3.4M to a Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. account at Metropolitan\nCommercial Bank. See infra ¶ 59(h).\nh. Based on my participation in this Investigation and my training and\nexperience, and as described above, I believe the approximately $5.1M in transfers from Investor-\n2 into Target Account-7 and the approximately $1 million in transfers from Investor-3 and\nInvestor-4 into Target Account-8 are the proceeds of wire fraud and money laundering, because\nthey are funds Investors-2 through-4 paid with the intent to purchase additional G Club\nmemberships and/or Himalaya Assets, but which GUO, JE and others instead directed into JE’s\nhedge fund bank account to conceal their true source and/or purpose. See, e.g., ¶ 56(b)(v).\ni. On or about June 11, 2021, JE opened Target Account-9 (i.e., a Silvergate\nBank account in the name of JE’s company, Hamilton Investment Management Ltd., ending in\n0288). Between at least in or about January 2022 and in or about June 2022, at least approximately\n$50.4 million of Investment Scheme Funds was transferred into Target Account-9 over the course\nof approximately five incoming wire transfers; specifically:\n1. On or about January 13, 2022, Target Account-9 received an\nincoming wire of approximately $10.8 million in Investment Scheme Funds from a Signature Bank\naccount in the name of Prime Trust, ending in 6126 (the “Prime Trust Signature Account”). See\n¶ 56(b)(i)-(iii).\n2. On or about February 10, 2022, Target Account-9 received an\nincoming wire of approximately $11.7 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the Prime Trust\nSignature Account.\n3. On or about June 13, 2022, Target Account-9 received an incoming\nwire of approximately $8 million in Investment Scheme Funds from a particular bank account at\n48\n\nMetropolitan Commercial Bank (“MCB”), ending in 6891 (the “6891 MCB Account”).\nTransaction details provided by Silvergate Bank list “FV Bank – Himalaya International” as the\nPayer on the transaction, and identify MCB as the name of the “Payer” financial institution. FV\nBank records, in turn, reflect that the transfer was from the 3763 FV Account, but do not reflect\nany involvement of MCB as an intermediary for the transaction. Based on information provided\nby MCB, I have learned that the 6891 MCB Account was a pooled funds account for FV Bank,\nand have further learned that MCB processes transactions for FV Bank’s account holders (as\nrelevant here, the Himalaya entities) in USD.\nj. On or about June 14, 2022, Target Account-9 received an incoming wire\nof approximately $10 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the 6891 MCB Account. FV\nBank account records reflect that the transfer was actually from the 3763 FV Account, but do not\nreflect any involvement of MCB as an intermediary for the transaction.\nk. On or about June 22, 2022, Target Account-9 received an incoming wire\nof approximately $10 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the 6891 MCB Account. FV\nBank account records reflect that the transfer was from the 3763 FV Account, but do not reflect\nany involvement of MCB as an intermediary for the transaction.\nFraud Proceeds are Used to Fund GUO-Affiliated Companies\n60. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. As described above, JE’s company owns approximately 95% of Gettr. See\nsupra at ¶ 41(f).\n49\n\nb. On or about June 30, 2022, approximately $3 million was transferred from\nTarget Account-4 to Target Account-10 (i.e., a Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. bank account\nheld in the name of GETTR USA, Inc., ending in 4409). The wire details reflect that the transfer\nwas for “CAPITAL CALL JUNE 3M USD.”\nc. On or about July 27, 2022, approximately $3 million was transferred from\nTarget Account-4 to Target Account-10. The wire details reflect that the transfer was for\n“CAPITAL CALL JULY 3M USD.”\nd. On or about August 29, 2022, approximately $5 million was transferred\nfrom Target Account-4 to Target Account-10. The wire details reflect that the transfer was for\n“CAPITAL CALL AUGUST 10M USD (X2 5M).”\ne. On or about August 30, 2022, an additional approximately $5 million was\ntransferred from Target Account-4 to Target Account-10. The wire details reflect that the\ntransfer was for “CAPITAL CALL AUGUST 5M USD (10M TRA NSFER 2 of 2).”\nf. Based on the foregoing, I believe that JE and others are using fraud proceeds\nto fund Gettr.\nFraud Proceeds are Layered Through Various Banking Institutions\n61. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. As described herein, GUO, JE, and others have layered fraud proceeds\nthrough accounts at various entities, including, among others: certain accounts at MCB maintained\n50\n\nFBO FV Bank’s account holders (i.e., the Himalaya entities); and accounts held by BSI Group in\nthe name of various entities. See ¶ 56(b).\nb. As further described herein, FV Bank holds Investment Scheme Funds in\ncorrespondent bank accounts, or FBO accounts, at MCB.\n62. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned that, starting at least in or about February 2022, JE and\nothers began to layer more than approximately $300 million in Investment Scheme Funds through\ncertain bank accounts. Specifically:\na. Between on or about February 15, 2022 and on or about March 29, 2022,\napproximately $160 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV\nAccount to a Royal Business Bank account in the name of Prime Trust LLC, ending in 6050 (the\n“Prime Trust RBB Account”) in the course of approximately 16 wire transactions.\nb. On or about March 21, 2022, JE opened an FV Bank account in the name\nof Himalaya International Financial Group, ending in 2119 (the “2119 FV Account”) and an FV\nBank account in the name of Himalaya International Reserves Ltd., ending in 8239 (the “8239 FV\nAccount”).\nc. Between on or about March 21, 2022 and on or about May 13, 2022,\napproximately $190 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV\nAccount (i.e., the Himalaya Clearing FV Bank account ending in 3763) to the 2119 FV Account\nand the 8239 FV Account in the course of approximately 12 wire transactions. For example:\n51\n\ni. Between on or about March 21, 2022 and on or March 29, 2022,\napproximately $100 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV\nAccount to the 2119 FV Account and/or the 8239 FV Account in the course of approximately 10\nwire transactions.\nii. On or about May 13, 2022, approximately $30 million in Investment\nScheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV Account to the 2119 FV Account in a single wire\ntransaction, and approximately $60 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the\n3763 FV Account to the 8239 FV Account in a single wire transaction.\nd. On or about May 24, 2022, approximately $44.6 million in Investment\nScheme Funds was transferred from the 2119 FV Account to the 8239 FV Account in a single wire\ntransaction.\ni. The approximately $44.6 million was part of approximately $80\nmillion that had been transferred from the 3763 FV Account to the 2119 FV Account. See\n¶ 62(c)(i)(ii).\nii. That is, while approximately $110 million was transferred directly\nfrom the 3763 FV Account to the 8239 FV Account, an additional approximately $44.6 million of\nthe approximately $190 million was transferred into the 8239 FV Account only after passing\nthrough the 2119 FV Account.\ne. On or about August 15, 2022, an employee of MCB sent email correspondence\nconfirming MCB’s relationship with FV Bank regarding Target Account-11, which is an MCB\naccount FBO FV Bank customers. The MCB employee confirmed that Target Account-11 is a\npooled account that contains funds for the Himalaya entities (i.e., the 3763 FV Account, the 2119\nFV Account, and the 8239 FV Account).\n52\n\n63. Based on my review of information provided by Silvergate, I have learned that\nTarget Account-1 through Target Account-9 held a combined total of approximately\n$292,407,029.22 as of on or about August 31, 2022, as reflected in the table below:\nTarget Account Account Number Balance\nTarget Account-1 5090037739 $1,800,000.00\nTarget Account-2 5090037705 $75,000,000.00\nTarget Account-3 5090037754 $467,343.00\nTarget Account-4 5090037713 $167,826.87\nTarget Account-5 5090042770 $83,872,761.75\nTarget Account-6 5090042762 $76,690,856.60\nTarget Account-7 5090042820 $5,106,100.00\nTarget Account-8 5090042747 $1,026,000.00\nTarget Account-9 5090030288 $48,276,141.00\nTotal $292,407,029.22\n64. Based on my review of information from Silvergate, I have learned that Target\nAccount-10 received a total of approximately $16,000,000.00 from Target Account-4 between\non or about June 30, 2022 and on or about August 30, 2022.\n65. Based on my review of information provided by FV Bank and MCB, I have learned\nthat Target Account-11 held a combined total of approximately $13,613,172.71 as of on or about\nAugust 15, 2022.\nIII. Conclusion\n66. Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that funds\nheld in the accounts constituting the Target Property are subject to forfeiture as proceeds of\nviolations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) and § 1344 (bank fraud), and/or as property involved\nin violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and 1956(h) (money laundering\nand conspiracy to commit money laundering).\n53\n\n67. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(b), I respectfully request that the Court\nissue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the Target Property.\n/s/ Anthony Alecci, by SDA with permission\n_____________________________________\nANTHONY ALECCI\nSpecial Agent\nFederal Bureau of Investigation\nSworn to me through the transmission of this\nAffidavit by reliable electronic means, pursuant to\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(d)(3) and 4.1,\nthis 18th day of September, 2022\n_____________________________________\nTHE HONORABLE STEWART D. AARON\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n54","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":14824,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:37"},{"id":"court_sdny_716_3","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Exhibit C\n\n22 MAG 7581\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n-v.-\nAffidavit in Support of Seizure\nAll monies and funds contained in US Bank Warrant\naccount 157525208185, held by G Fashion, and\nall funds traceable thereto, including accrued Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984\ninterest (the “Target Account”).\nDefendant-in-rem.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.:\nAnthony Alecci, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn,\ndeposes and says:\nI. Introduction\n1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or\n“Investigating Agency”). I have been a Special Agent with the FBI since in or about August 2020.\nSince in or about September 2021, I have been assigned to the FBI’s Complex Financial Crimes\nsquad. During my time with the FBI, I have participated in investigations of securities and wire\nfraud schemes, bank fraud, and money laundering, and have, among other things, conducted or\nparticipated in debriefings of witnesses, reviews of financial records, and the execution of search\nwarrants. In particular, I have participated in the execution of search warrants involving physical\npremises, electronic devices, and other electronic evidence.\n2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the United States of America’s Application\nfor the issuance of a seizure warrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984, all monies and funds\ncontained in US Bank account 157525208185, held by G Fashion, and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest (the “Target Account”).\n\n3. The Target Account constitutes the proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343\n(wire fraud); 1344 (bank fraud); and 1956 (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money\nlaundering) (together, the “Target Offenses”), as described below.\n4. This affidavit is based on, among other sources of information: (i) my personal\nknowledge; (ii) information provided by personnel at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission\n(“SEC”) participating in a parallel investigation; (iii) my review of publicly available promotional\nmaterials relating to, among other ventures, “G Club” and the “Himalaya Exchange;” (iv) my\nreview of the publicly available websites for GTV Media Group, Inc. (“GTV”), the Himalaya\nExchange, and “G Club,” and materials available on those websites; (v) open-source research that\nI have conducted on the Internet; (vi) my review of digital videos posted on www.gnews.org\n(“GNews”) by GTV Media Group, Inc. and its employees and agents; (vii) my participation in\nvarious witness interviews; (viii) my review of electronic evidence obtained pursuant to\nsubpoenas, orders issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) for non-content information, and\njudicially authorized search warrants; (ix) the review and analysis of various bank account records,\nincluding financial records obtained from financial institutions pursuant to subpoenas and other\nrequests, conducted by myself and financial analysts at the FBI and SEC; (xi) my conversations\nwith other law enforcement officers; and (x) my training and experience concerning the\ncommission of financial crimes. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose\nof establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course\nof my investigation. Where dates, figures, and calculations are set forth herein, they are\napproximate. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of\nothers are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise\nindicated.\n5. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that the Target Account is\n2\n\nsubject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), (C) & (D) and 18 U.S.C.\n§981(b) as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and/or the proceeds of\nviolations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344, or property traceable thereto. In summary, the evidence\nreveals a series of fraudulent investment schemes (the “Investment Schemes”) that pertain to\nseveral interrelated companies and their affiliated entities, including GTV Media Group Inc., G\nFashion (“G Fashion”), the Himalaya Farm Alliance (the “Farms”), Himalaya International\nClearing Ltd. (“Himalaya International Clearing”), G Club Operations LLC (“G Club”), Hamilton\nInvestment Management Ltd. (“Hamilton”), ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), and Crane\nAdvisory Group LLC (“Crane”). As set forth in more detail below, the leaders of the fraudulent\ninvestment schemes are Miles Guo, a/k/a “Guo Wengui,” a/k/a “Miles Kwok” (“GUO”) and\nWilliam Je, a/k/a Je Kin Ming (“JE”).\n6. Analysts at the FBI and SEC and I have traced the flow of certain fraud proceeds\nfrom victims of the Investment Schemes to the Target Account.\nII. Statutory Basis for Forfeiture\n7. The statutory provisions pursuant to which the Target Account is subject to civil\nseizure and forfeiture are as follows:\nMoney Laundering Offenses\n8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(A), subjects to civil forfeiture:\nAny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in\nviolation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such\nproperty.\n9. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\nknowing that the property involved in a financial transaction\ninvolves the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts\nor attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact\ninvolves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity –\n3\n\n(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in\npart—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the\nsource, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds\nof specified unlawful activity [shall be guilty of a\ncrime.]\n10. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\ntransports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit,\nor transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the\nUnited States to or through a place outside the United States or to a\nplace in the United States from or through a place outside the\nUnited States—\n(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in\nthe transportation, transmission, or transfer represent\nthe proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that\nsuch transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or\nin part—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source,\nthe ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified\nunlawful activity [shall be guilty of a crime.]\n11. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) further provides that “[a]ny person who conspires to commit\nany offense defined in [Section 1956] shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for\nthe offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”\nBank and Wire Fraud Offenses\n12. For purposes of Section 1956, “specified unlawful activity,” defined in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1956(c)(7), includes, among other things, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344. See 18\nU.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1).\n13. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), subjects to civil forfeiture any\nproperty, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation\nof . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of\nthis title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\n4\n\nSeizure Warrants\n14. The Court is empowered by 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) to issue a seizure warrant for any\nproperty subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) & (C). Section 981(b)(2)\nprovides that such a seizure may be made “pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as\nprovided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” In addition, Section\n981(b)(3) provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41(a), a seizure warrant may be issued pursuant to Section 981(b) by a judicial officer in any\ndistrict in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed under Title 28, United States\nCode, Section 1355(b). Under Section 1355(b)(1)(A), a forfeiture action or proceeding may be\nbrought in the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.\nAs set forth below, the offenses underlying the requested seizure warrant included acts or\nomissions occurring in the Southern District of New York.\n15. With respect to fungible property, including cash and funds deposited in a financial\ninstitution, 18 U.S.C. § 984 provides, in relevant part, that:\n(a)(1) In any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is cash, monetary\ninstruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution . . . , or\nprecious metals:\n(A) it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property\ninvolved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture; and\n(B) it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has\nbeen removed and replaced by identical property.\n(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), any identical property found in the same place\nor account as the property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture shall\nbe subject to forfeiture under this section.\n(b) No action pursuant to this section to forfeit property not traceable directly to the\noffense that is the basis for the forfeiture may be commenced more than 1 year from the\ndate of the offense.\n5\n\nIII. Probable Cause\nA. Probable Cause Regarding Commission of the Subject Offenses\nOverview of the Fraudulent Investment Schemes\n16. Since in or around May 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern\nDistrict of New York (“SDNY”) and the FBI, among other law enforcement agencies, have been\ninvestigating a series of interrelated fraudulent investment schemes that pertain to several\ncompanies that are owned or operated by, or otherwise affiliated with, GUO, JE, and their\nassociates (collectively, the “Investment Schemes”). To date, the investigation (“Investigation”)\nhas revealed that the Investment Schemes involve the solicitation and subsequent investment\nand/or misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars. GUO and JE are leaders of the\nInvestment Schemes.\n17. The Investment Schemes are conducted through various, interrelated offerings, all\nof which exhibit features that are consistent with fraud. For example, investors are promised\nunrealistic, outsized returns on their investments; investors are induced to invest on the basis of\nnumerous misrepresentations; a large portion of the investment money is misappropriated; and\nwith respect to the sale of digital asset securities, those currencies have never been tradable on a\npublic exchange, despite representations that they would be.\n18. While certain of the interrelated Investment Schemes are ongoing, others are\nhistorical. Specifically:\na. The GTV stock offering and the G Coin offering described below\n(collectively, the “Unregistered Stock Offerings”) operated between in or about April 2020 and in\nor about July 2020. As a result of the Unregistered Stock Offerings, whose proceeds were\ncommingled, companies affiliated with GUO, JE, and others collectively raised at least\n6\n\napproximately $487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United\nStates.\nb. Starting at least in or about July 2020, the leaders of the scheme began to\npitch investors on a new set of investment opportunities, marketed as an opportunity to convert\ntheir existing investments in GTV into a “loan” to GTV (the “Convertible Loan Offering”). The\nConvertible Loan Offering was carried out by the Guo-backed “Himalaya Farm Alliance,” which\nconsists of informal groups, or “Farms,” of Chinese expatriates located in various cities around the\nworld. Between in or about August 2020 and March 2021, the U.S.-based Farms raised\napproximately $148 million from the Convertible Loan Offering.\nc. GUO, JE, and others continue to conduct the Investment Schemes,\nincluding relating to G Club (which has been operating since in or about October 2020) and the\nHimalaya Exchange (which has been operating since in or about April 2021).\nBackground on GUO and JE\n19. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of documents, records, videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, and public source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. GUO is a purported billionaire and a Chinese national who allegedly fled\nChina for the United States in 2014, after learning that an associate had been arrested on corruption\ncharges.\nb. GUO is involved with various entities relevant to the Investment Schemes,\nas described in greater detail below, including GTV, G Music LLC (“G Music”), G Club, G\nFashion (“G Fashion”), and GETTR USA, Inc. (“Gettr”). GUO does not hold formal titles or\npositions at these entities.\n7\n\nc. In or about 2018, GUO founded organizations named the Rule of Law\nFoundation (“ROLF”) and Rule of Law Society (“ROLS”). Based on my review of publicly\navailable information, I have learned that the Rule of Law projects were underway by December\n2018.1 ROLF and ROLS are purportedly organizations dedicated to exposing and combatting\ncorruption in China by the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”). At times, the board members for\nROLF and/or ROLS have included Stephen K. Bannon (“Bannon”) and Kyle Bass (“Bass”). GUO\ndoes not hold a formal position at ROLF or ROLS; however, on the ROLS website, GUO is\ndescribed as “the founder, a promoter and a spokesperson” and a sponsor.\nd. JE, a close associate of GUO, has been described as a financier and\nentrepreneur. JE is involved with various other entities relevant to the Investment Schemes, as\ndescribed in greater detail below. Specifically:\ni. JE is the CEO of Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.\n(“Hamilton”), a purported global fund management company.2 Hamilton is headquartered in the\nBritish Virgin Islands and was incorporated on or about February 5, 2018. JE was formally\nappointed Director of Hamilton on or about March 20, 2019.\nii. JE is the Director of ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), a\npurported Hong Kong-based investment firm3 that was incorporated in the United Kingdom on or\nabout July 10, 2020.\niii. JE is listed as the founder and Chairman of Himalaya Exchange, a\npurported cryptocurrency “ecosystem.” JE is the 100% beneficial owner of various entities that\n1 See http\n(describing Guo and Bannon’s involvement in the “Rule of Law Fund”).\n2 See http\n3 See http\n8\n\noperate Himalaya Exchange, including Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. (“Himalaya\nClearing”), Major Lead International Ltd., Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.\n(“Himalaya Financial”), and Himalaya International Reserves Ltd. (“Himalaya Reserves”).\nGTV Stock Offering\n20. Between approximately April 20, 2020 and June 2, 2020, GTV, its parent company\nSaraca Media Group, Inc. (“Saraca”), and Voice of Guo Media, Inc. (“VOG”; collectively, the\n“Companies”) solicited thousands of individuals to invest in an offering of GTV common stock\n(the “GTV Stock Offering”). During that time period, more than approximately 5,000 investors\n(including many in the United States) collectively paid approximately $452 million for purported\nGTV common stock.\n21. Based on my review of the GTV Stock Offering’s information memorandum dated\nApril 20, 2020 (the “Memorandum”), interviews of witnesses, and review of public source\ninformation, as well as documents and records obtained during the course of the investigation, I\nhave learned the following, among other things:\na. GTV was founded on or about April 17, 2020, as a Delaware corporation\nand a wholly owned subsidiary of Saraca. GTV’s principal place of business was located in the\nSouthern District of New York, in a townhouse located at 162 E. 64th St., New York, NY, 10065\n(the “Townhouse”).\nb. According to the Memorandum, GUO was the “sponsor” of both Saraca and\nGTV, as well as the “adviser[sic]” and “key host” of GTV. The Memorandum also stated that\nGUO was a billionaire, successful businessman, and dissident in China. According to various\nwitnesses, as well as social media content, GUO consistently presented himself as the founder and\nface of GTV.\n9\n\nc. The Memorandum and a separate letter to prospective investors outlining\n“Investment Procedures Guidelines” listed GUO’s phone number as the contact number for\ninquiries from potential investors.\nd. At the time of the GTV Stock Offering, the Companies had recently\nlaunched a news-focused social media platform called GTV, including the website www.gtv.org.\nThe Memorandum claimed GTV would be “the first ever platform which w[ould] combine the\npower of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-art technology, big data, artificial\nintelligence, block-chain technology and real-time interactive communication” and that GTV\nwould be “the only uncensored and independent bridge between China and the Western world.”\nThe Memorandum also claimed that GTV would “be a bridge between China and the Western\nworld . . . allowing for free and open communication, business transactions and trading,\nuncensored by the Chinese government.” The Memorandum boasted that GTV’s platform would\nbe so powerful as to “expos[e] corruption, obstruction, illegality, brutality, harassment, and\ninhumanity in China.” The Memorandum also indicated that GTV would compete with companies\nsuch as Zoom, WeChat, TikTok, YouTube, Cisco, Citrix, Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay.\ne. The Memorandum listed Yvette Y. Wang, Max Krasner, and Daniel\nPodhaskie as GTV’s Executive Directors.\nf. The Memorandum highlighted the credentials of GTV’s Non-executive\nDirectors, including, among others, Bannon, Bass, and Darren Blanton (“Blanton”). As described\nabove, Bannon and Bass were also board members of the ROLF and/or ROLS.\ng. The Memorandum stated that investor funds would be used for the\nfollowing, among other purposes: acquisition of companies; upgrading GTV technology and\nsecurity; and marketing. The Memorandum did not contemplate that investor funds would be used\n10\n\nto invest in hedge funds or any similar type of financial investment, or that investor funds would\nbe given to other companies, such as Saraca.\nh. Based on my conversations with a source of information (the “SOI4”)\ninvolved with the ROLF, the Companies, the GTV Stock Offering, and the Phoenix Farm, as well\nas my review of the metadata of the Memorandum, I have learned that JE was a primary author of\nthe Memorandum.\nG Coin Offering\n22. During the same period of April 2020 through June 2020, GTV and Saraca also\nsolicited GTV Investors to invest in a companion digital asset security that was referred to as either\nG-Coins or G-Dollars (the “G Coin Offering”).\n23. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, as well as my review of reports of interviews with GTV Investors and conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement, I have learned the following, among other things, about\nthe G Coin Offering:\na. From approximately in or about April 2020, through at least in or about June\n2020, I have learned that the Companies, as well as representatives for the Companies, such as\nGUO, marketed the sale of G-Coins and G-Dollars to the public through online videos on\nYouTube, Twitter, and other video-sharing and social media platforms.\nb. The Companies’ online promotions set forth that G-Coins (which the\nCompanies indicated would eventually be merged into G-Dollars, forming a single digital asset),\n4 The SOI is providing information to law enforcement in hopes of entering into a cooperation\nagreement and receiving leniency at sentencing. The SOI has provided reliable information that\nhas been corroborated by, among other things, electronic evidence, videos, cellphone records, and\nsubpoena and search warrant returns.\n11\n\nand G-Dollars would be usable to purchase goods or services or exchange for gold or fiat currency\non an online platform. As part of its solicitation of G-Coin and G-Dollar investors, the Companies\ndid not provide investors with financial information about the plan to develop any digital asset or\nplatform, or any written offering materials, including, for example, a whitepaper or private\nplacement memorandum.\nc. The Companies collected at least approximately $31 million from the G-\nCoin and G-Dollar Investors, pooling the proceeds in bank accounts associated with the\nCompanies and commingling them with proceeds from the GTV Stock Offering. As part of the G\nCoin Offering, many investors received a purported 20% discount on the $.01 purchase price for\nG-Coins and G-Dollars. Investors participated in the G Coin Offering by transferring funds\ndirectly to the Companies’ U.S. bank accounts, by making payments to the Companies’ accounts\non online payment platforms, by making purchases via the Apple App Store, or by writing checks.\n24. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, and review of\ntranslations of statements that were made by GUO regarding the G Coin Offering, as well as my\nconversations with others, I have learned that GUO made numerous false statements in order to\nsolicit investments for the G Coin Offering. Examples of some those statements are described\nbelow, in substance and in part:\na. In a statement contained within a video by GUO on or about May 9, 2020,\nGuo stated that G-Coins could be exchanged into U.S. dollars or physical gold.\nb. In another statement contained within a video on or about May 16, 2020,\nGUO stated that the G-Coin and G-Dollar currencies could be exchanged with gold.\n25. Based on my participation in this investigation, I believe that the above-described\nstatements regarding G-Coins and G-Dollar are false. In particular, during the course of the\n12\n\ninvestigation, I have not found any evidence that there is or has ever been an exchange where G-\nCoins or G-Dollars could be exchanged for U.S. dollars or gold.\n26. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records, and review of videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, as well as my review of reports of interviewed individuals who invested in GTV (the\n“GTV Investors”) and my conversations with others, including other law enforcement officers, I\nhave learned the following, among other things, about the solicitation of investments for the GTV\nStock Offering and G Coin Offering:\na. GTV disseminated information about the two offerings to the general public\nthrough publicly-available videos on websites affiliated with the Companies, including\nwww.gtv.org and www.gnews.org, as well as on social media platforms such as YouTube and\nTwitter. The first solicitation video, posted on YouTube on April 21, 2020, was entitled, as\ntranslated into English, “GTV Private Placement Subscription Instructions” (the “Launch Video”).\nThe Launch Video described the investment terms for the GTV Stock Offering and provided a\nmobile phone number for potential investors to use for inquiries about the offering. The Launch\nVideo has had over 3,000 views. None of the GTV Stock Offering solicitation videos, including\nthe Launch Video, were password protected or placed any restriction on who could view them or\nany limitations on their ability to be shared. As a result, the general public, including prospective\nU.S. investors, were able to access the online marketing videos about the GTV Stock Offering\nthrough, for example, independent online research, social media, or referrals from other investors.\nb. GUO led the effort to solicit investors for the GTV Stock Offering. GUO,\nwho is a prolific user of social media and has an enormous social media following, used various\nsocial media platforms to attract followers and to solicit investors for the GTV Stock Offering.\nThose social media platforms included WhatsApp and Discord, both of which have end-to-end\n13\n\nencrypted chat services.5 Among other things, the Companies sent the Launch Video via phone\nmessages to hundreds of prospective individual investors with a link to a Google Drive folder that\ncontained additional offering material for the GTV Stock Offering, including the subscription\nagreement and investment instructions. GUO also assured potential investors that they would\nrealize enormous returns, at one point suggesting that they would receive 1,000 times their\ninvestment, see infra ¶ 40(c). In another statement, in or about June 2020, GUO stated in substance\nand in part that GTV stock was worth 30 times what it had been worth before.\nc. Based on my review of a GTV confidentiality agreement, I have learned\nthat in order to participate in the GTV Stock Offering, GTV Investors were required to sign a\nconfidentiality agreement that required them to keep all information concerning GTV confidential,\nincluding the existence of the confidentiality agreement.\nd. The GTV Stock Offering was structured as a private placement offering of\n10% into GTV, with the remaining 90% of GTV to be controlled by Saraca, which was its parent\ncompany. According to due diligence records from an investment fund, Saraca is a wholly-owned\nsubsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc. (“Hudson BVI”), a British Virgin Islands company.\nHudson is in turn wholly owned by Qiang Guo (“QIANG GUO”). Based on my review of open-\nsource material, I have learned that QIANG GUO is GUO’S son.\ne. By early June 2020, banks began to suspect that the Companies were\nengaged in potentially unlawful activity and started to close accounts that were linked to Saraca,\nGTV, and GUO. Around that same time period, GTV Investors began to express concerns about\n5 End-to-end encryption is a system of communication where only the communicating users can\nread the messages. End-to-end encryption prevents law enforcement authorities from intercepting\nsuch communications through wiretaps or through search warrants on the service provider, such\nas WhatsApp.\n14\n\nGTV’s use of their money, and the legitimacy of their investments. Some of those investors\nexpressed their concerns directly to GUO and many investors requested that their money be\nreturned. In response, GUO and his associates often attempted to shun and ostracize the investors.\nFor example, GUO suggested that one investor was a spy for the CCP and that other investors\nshould not interact with that investor\nMisappropriation of Unregistered Stock Offering Funds\n27. A significant portion of the investor funds collected through the Unregistered Stock\nOfferings (collectively, “Offering Funds”) were misappropriated through investments.\n28. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other\nthings:\na. GUO, JE, and others arranged for approximately $100 million of the\nOfferings Funds to get invested on behalf of GTV’s parent company, Saraca, in a high-risk hedge\nfund investment managed by a firm named Hayman Capital Management L.P. (“Hayman”).\nAccording to its website, Hayman is an SEC-registered asset management firm that was founded\nby Bass, who was a non-executive director of GTV at the time of the transfer.\nb. In or about May 2020, Bass facilitated GUO’s and JE’s investment in a\nhigh-risk investment fund called the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund (the “Hayman\nFund”), which was operated by Hayman.\nc. JE coordinated with Hayman regarding the investment. For example, in a\nMay 29, 2020 email from JE to a Hayman representative (“Hayman Rep-1”), JE wrote, in\nsubstance and in part: “We will have one onshore and one offshore vehicle. The onshore one will\ninvest USD100m and the offshore one will invest USD1m. The address of the onshore vehicle is:\n15\n\n162 E64th St., New York, NY 10065 United States.” On or about May 31, 2020, JE wrote, in\nsubstance and in part, “The $1m will come from my personal account and I owned[sic] 100% of\nHamilton Investment Management Ltd.”\ni. The address JE provided for the “onshore” vehicle is the address of\nthe Townhouse. See supra ¶ 21(a).\nii. Based on my participation in this Investigation, review of bank\nrecords and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations with others, including law enforcement\nand witnesses, I have learned that the Townhouse has been listed on corporate documents and/or\nbank account documentation as the business address for at least seven GUO-affiliated entities;\nspecifically: Saraca, GTV, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land, ROLF (until\napproximately May 2022), and ROLS (until approximately May 2022).\nd. Three days after the close of the GTV Stock Offering, on or about June 5,\n2020, $100 million of the Offering Funds were transferred from a particular JP Morgan Chase\nbank account to an onshore bank account associated with Hayman for the purpose of investing in\nthe Hayman Fund. The funds were transferred on behalf of Saraca; as noted above, Saraca was\nthe parent company to GTV and was 100% owned by GUO’s son, QIANG QUO.\ne. Three days later, on or about June 8, 2020, $1 million was transferred on\nbehalf of Hamilton,6 JE’s company, from a bank account in the name of JE to an offshore bank\naccount associated with Hayman, also for the purpose of investing in the Hayman Fund.\nf. The transfer of Offering Funds to Hayman was completely inconsistent with\nGTV’s representations to the GTV Investors about how their funds would be used.\n6 In April 2018, JE submitted on behalf of Hamilton an account opening document to a U.K. bank\nthat claimed that he owns 100% of Hamilton and that the company “does not involve itself in\ninvestments.”\n16\n\n29. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of\ndocuments and records, as well as my conversations with others, including law enforcement, I\nhave learned that on or about September 13, 2021, the SEC announced settled charges against\nthe Companies, based on their violations of the registration requirements for the Unregistered\nStock Offerings (i.e., the GTV Stock Offering and the associated digital asset G Coin Offering).\nThe SEC’s settlement required the Companies to pay more than $539 million in disgorgement\nand penalties.\nThe Convertible Loan Offering\n30. After the Unregistered Stock Offerings described above were discovered by banks\nand numerous bank accounts were frozen, leaders of the schemes began to pitch investors on a\nnew set of investment opportunities. One new investment scheme launched in or about July 2020\nwas marketed to prospective investors as an opportunity to convert their existing investments in\nGTV into a “loan” to GTV. The Convertible Loan Offering was carried out by the “Himalaya\nFarm Alliance,” a collective of informal groups—known as “Farms”—of Chinese expatriates\nlocated in various cities around the world, including New York and Phoenix. The Himalaya Farm\nAlliance’s purported purpose was to assist the Chinese pro-democracy movement; the Himalaya\nFarm Alliance existed primarily as private groups on social media platforms such as Discord.\na. The Farms were typically referred to by the names of preexisting companies\nthat they affiliated themselves with for banking purposes. That is, the Farms opened and operated\nbank accounts in the names of various corporate entities.\nb. The Phoenix Farm was affiliated with Maywind Trading LLC\n(“Maywind”), Medical Supply System International LLC (“Medical Supply System”) and Santel\nLLC (“Santel”), while the New York Farm was affiliated with Mountains of Spices LLC\n(“Mountains of Spices”) and Davy & Tony International Limited (“Davy & Tony”).\n17\n\n31. In connection with the Convertible Loan Offering, the Farms provided prospective\ninvestors with a “Loan Agreement” that disclosed that the loan would be made to the individual\nFarm (e.g., “Phoenix Farm (Maywind Trading LLC)”) and that the loaned funds would be used by\nthat specific Farm for “general working capital purposes.” Investors executed the Loan Agreement\nand sent it to their Farm leaders after transferring their funds to the Farm, but were not provided\ncounter-executed copies of the agreement.\n32. Between in or about August 2020 and in or about March 2021, the U.S.-based\nFarms collectively raised approximately $148 million from the Convertible Loan Offering (the\n“Loan Funds”). Investors agreed to provide loans to the Farms for the purpose of acquiring GTV\nshares (once the three-year note had matured). Once the funds were collected by the U.S. Farms,\nthey were transferred to domestic and foreign accounts owned by different legal entities, including\nan Abu Dhabi bank account in the name of ACA Capital (the “UAE ACA Capital Account”),\nwhich is owned and controlled by JE.\nMisappropriation of Convertible Loan Offering Funds\n33. A significant portion of the Loan Funds collected through the Convertible Loan\nOffering were misappropriated, as described below.\n34. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other\nthings:\na. JE was sole signatory of the UAE ACA Capital Account. JE wired\napproximately $33.3 million of the Loan Funds out of the UAE ACA Capital Account to Swiss\nand UK accounts belonging to himself, his wife (Sin Ring Rong), and his company, Hamilton.\nThe wires to his and his wife’s personal accounts—which amounted to more than approximately\n18\n\n$10 million—were described as dividends, salary or director fees. However, JE was not a director\nor employee of GTV, Saraca, or other affiliated entities.\nb. JE arranged for approximately $34 million in transfers from UAE ACA\nCapital Account to U.S. bank accounts in the names of three companies that are each 100% owned\nby GUO’s family members; specifically:\ni. Approximately $5 million to Greenwich Land LLC, which is owned\nby GUO’s wife, Hing Chi Ngok;\nii. Approximately $18 million to Hudson Diamond NY LLC, which is\nowned by Guo’s daughter, Mei Guo; and\niii. Approximately $11 million to Lamp Capital LLC, which is owned\nby Guo’s son, QIANG GUO.\nc. The $34 million was commingled with other investor funds, including GTV\nOffering Funds. Based on my review of bank account records, I have learned that much of this\nGTV Investor money was used to fund lavish lifestyle expenses (e.g., approximately $2.3 million\nin expenses relating to GUO’s yacht, and approximately $600,000 for the purchase of luxury\nautomobiles).\nd. JE also arranged for large transfers from UAE ACA Capital Account to other\ncompanies with ties to GUO; specifically:\ni. Approximately $19 million to Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.\n(“Lexington Property”), which is owned by former GTV Treasurer, Anthony DiBattista\n(“DiBattista”). The registered address of Lexington Property is 750 Lexington Avenue, New\nYork, NY;\n19\n\nii. Approximately $32 million to Savio Law LLC (as escrow agent),\npursuant to a purported loan agreement between ACA Capital and Saraca (which is owned by\nGUO’s son, QIANG GUO); and\niii. Approximately $1 million to Bannon Film Industries, Inc., a\ncompany owned by Steve Bannon. As described above, Bannon was listed in the Memorandum\nas a non-executive GTV Director and was a Director of the ROLF / ROLS.\nThe G Club Operations LLC Scheme\n35. Some of the Farms recruited investors to invest in GTV through the purchase of “G\nClub” memberships. As described in greater detail below, law enforcement believes G Club is an\nongoing fraudulent scheme operated by GUO, JE, and others.\n36. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of the\nwebsites, subpoena returns, records and documents, including operating agreements and articles\nof incorporation, open-source research I have conducted on the Internet, and my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. In or about October 2020, G Club Operations LLC (“G Club”) was\nregistered in Puerto Rico. According to the Operating Agreement, the purpose of G Club is to\n“provide[] Membership Concierge services with exclusive offers and discounts for luxury hotels\nand retailers for High Net Worth individuals from the Asian market.”\nb. An image from the G Club website (“G Club Website”), viewable at\nhttp is shown below:\n20\n\n37. G Club purportedly offers five membership tiers: Tier 5 Membership ($50,000\nannually); Tier 4 Membership ($40,000 annually); Tier 3 Membership ($30,000 annually); Tier 2\nMembership ($20,000 annually); and Tier 1 Membership ($10,000 annually). According to the G\nClub Membership Agreement, “A Member may subsequently elect a higher tier of membership,”\nbut “may not subsequently elect a lower tier of Membership.” The annual fee for the desired\nmembership tier must be paid in full with the submission of the G Club membership application,\nand G Club reserves the right to reject any membership application within 30 days at its sole and\nabsolute discretion. The Membership Agreement further states: “If an Application is rejected and\nmembership denied, G Clubs shall return the Membership Fee within ten (10) calendar days of\nsuch rejection . . . in the form of the original payment of the Membership Fee or, at the option of\nG Clubs, by check.”\n38. One photograph posted to the G Club Website depicted GUO living a lavish\nlifestyle; specifically, he is shown standing on top of what appears to be a large yacht smoking a\ncigar. The G Club Website also states that:\nG Clubs memberships provide its members with access to a concierge customer\nservice with Mandarin and English access and support. G Clubs members will have\n21\n\nthe opportunity to attend the annual G Summit meeting which may occur in person\nor virtually. G Clubs members will also get exclusive early access to the latest\nfashion collections and special member pricing on purchases made on the G\nFashion website.\n39. In a video summary posted on GNews on or about July 8, 2021, Guo claimed that\nG Club had approximately 25,000 members, and predicted that G Club would grow to at least 100\nmillion users, attracting $16 trillion of investment.\n40. Despite the representations on the G Club Website about purported membership\nbenefits, law enforcement believes that G Club is being used, at least in part, to perpetuate the\nfraud schemes, including by soliciting and receiving investments while evading regulatory\nrequirements. Specifically, based on my review of an interview report of an August 2, 2021\ninterview (the “August 2, 2021 Interview”) conducted by others of a GTV investor (“Investor-1”),\nI have learned that Investor-1 stated the following, in substance and in part, during that interview:\na. Investor-1 invested $200,000 USD in GTV in or around May 2020.\nInvestor-1’s money came from Investor-1’s savings.\nb. Investor-1 came to believe that GTV was a scam because Investor-1 did not\nreceive any GTV shares, and when Investor-1 asked for a refund, no one responded to Investor-1.\nc. Investor-1 invested in GTV because: 1) there were a lot of American\npoliticians supporting Guo; (2) Guo said it was original stock and there would be at least 1,000x\ngrowth; and (3) Investor-1 thought Investor-1 would make money on the GTV stock because Guo\nsaid this in videos. Investor-1 did not think Investor-1 would lose money because Guo promised\nthe GTV investment would make money.\nd. Investor-1 thought that GTV would use the money to build a website like\nYouTube, Facebook and Twitter, but did not know for certain what it would be used for.\n22\n\ne. Investor-1 subsequently invested in the Convertible Loan Program through\nthe “Canada Farm” in or around August 2020. Specifically, Investor-1 sent approximately $71,019\nto “Canada Himalayan Club Medica Inc.” as a loan. Investor-1 believed that the loan was for 3-5\nyears, with 3% interest and that at the end of that period Investor-1 would receive the money or\nGTV stock. Investor-1 never received an executed copy of the investment contract. The money\nInvestor-1 sent was frozen by the Canadian SEC.\nf. Investor-1 attempted to invest in GTV again in or around March 2021\nthrough G Club. Specifically, Investor-1 was instructed to send Investor-1’s investment funds to\n“Crane Advisory Group,” who in turn would send the money to G Club. Investor-1 sent\napproximately $100,015 to Crane Advisory Group for the purchase of GTV shares at the price of\n$1 per ten shares.\ng. In or around July 2021, Investor-1 attempted to initiate a refund by\ncontacting G Club online customer service department. In response to Investor-1’s refund request,\nG Club, through “notices@gclubs.com,” sent the following email:\nYou recently made a payment with respect to your G|CLUBS membership through\nCrane. Your wire payment transfer exceeded the amount of a single membership\nand you have not applied for multiple memberships. We received $100,015.00 via\nwire. You had applied for one Tier 5 membership and filled out the KYC package\nindicating the total amount was for multi membership of G|CLUBS (see attached).\nTo credit the total amount to you, you must apply for additional memberships.\nPlease fill and sign the attached, advising how many memberships you wish to\npurchase and their tier.\nIf sending the excess funds was an error and you wish an immediate return of\n$50,015, please immediately advise. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience\ncaused.\nh. In response, Investor-1 informed G Club that Investor-1 had sent the $100,015.00\nin funds not to purchase a G Club membership, but rather to invest in GTV. Investor-1 requested\nthat all of Investor-1’s funds be returned. In a subsequent email, Investor-1 also noted that it would\n23\n\nnot have made sense for Investor-1 to send a sum of $100,015.00, given that the most expensive\nG Club membership cost $50,000. Investor-1 also explained in another email that, in a phone\nconversation with a representative of G Club, the representative had made it clear that Investor-\n1’s funds were going to be used for an investment in GTV, not for the purchase of a G Club\nmembership.\ni. Investor-1 had not received any of Investor-1’s $100,015 investment back as of the\ndate of the interview.\n41. Based on my participation in this Investigation, my review of law enforcement\nreports, court filings, review of bank records, subpoena returns, and search warrant returns, my\ntraining and experience, as well as my conversations with others, including law enforcement and\nwitnesses, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Based on my review of an informal translation and transcription of a voice\nmessage that GUO sent to the SOI and others via WhatsApp in or about 2020, which was provided\npursuant to a subpoena, I have learned that GUO directed the Phoenix Farm to send its “40 million\nloan money” (i.e., Convertible Loan Offering funds) “in different wires, on different days, to\nGFashion in Los Angeles, and then use a loan agreement to legalize the wires. Leanne [Li] and\nTiantian [Hao] have already coordinated with banks in California. You three together please figure\nout how the money goes into these accounts and solve this issue, OK?”\nb. On or about July 31, 2020, the following entities were registered for\nincorporation in the State of California: “G Club,” “G Club One,” “G Club Two,” “G Club Three,”\nand “G Fashion” (the “California G Entities”). The registration filings for the California G Entities\nall had the same registered address (800 N Harper Ave, Los Angeles, California 90046) and\nofficers (Leanne Li (“LI”) as CEO and Secretary, and Tian Hao (“HAO”) as CFO and Director).\nThe type of business listed for each of the California G Entities was “Fashion.” Based on my\n24\n\nopen-source research, I have learned that the listed address appears to be a residential address,\nwhich, based on my training and experience, is an indicia of money laundering.\n42. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, my review of\ndocuments, records, and email search warrant returns, as well as my conversations with others,\nincluding witnesses, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. An individual named Alex Hadjicharalambous (“Hadjicharalambous”), whose title\nwas the Financial Controller for G Club, was the authorized signer listed on multiple bank accounts\nin the name of G Club. On July 13, 2021, Hadjicharalambous received an email at his G Club\nemail account (alexh@gclubs.com) from a G Fashion IT Manager entitled “HCHKTech email”\nthat read, in substance and in part: “Hello Alex, As you know we now work for HCHK\nTechnologies. Use the credentials in this email and follow the steps below to log into your new\nemail account.”\nb. Based on my review of open-source material on the Internet and subpoena returns,\nI have learned the following, among other things:\ni. On or about April 29, 2021, HCHK Technologies, Inc. (“HCHK\nTechnologies”) was incorporated in the State of Delaware. At the time of incorporation, Anthony\nDiBattista was director of HCHK Technologies. Between on or about May 27, 2021 and\nNovember 10, 2021, DiBattista was Treasurer of HCHK Technologies. On or about December\n13, 2021, DiBattista resigned as President, CEO, and Director of HCHK Technologies.\nc. On or about August 18, 2021, HCHK Property Management, Inc. (“HCHK\nProperty”) was incorporated in Delaware. Yvette Wang was elected as the initial director of\nHCHK Property. See ¶ 21(e). On or about December 15, 2021, by written consent of the Board\nof Directors of HCHK Property (i.e., Wang), DiBattista was appointed Treasurer of HCHK\n25\n\nProperty. On or about January 1, 2022, Wang resigned and DiBattista was appointed as President,\nCEO, and Director of HCHK Property.\nd. DiBattista’s roles with various of the other GUO-affiliated entities included, among\nothers, Treasurer of GTV, authorized signatory of Lexington Property bank accounts, and\nTreasurer of G Music LLC.\ne. Based on my review of subpoena returns and my conversations with others, I have\nlearned that on or about July 18, 2021, a G Fashion HR employee sent a “transition memo” to Alex\nHadjicharalambous that, “[e]ffective as of July 19, 2021, all GFashion employees will have the\noption to transfer to GFashion’s staffing company, HCHK Technologies, Inc.,” which would\n“thereafter serve the role of staffing company for GFashion and other enterprises.” The transition\nmemo further reflected that an employee’s failure to execute the transition memo that same day\nwould result in termination.\nf. Based on my review of open-source Internet research and subpoena returns, I have\nlearned that one of the Directors of HCHK Technologies is also the Director and Chairman of the\nAudit Committee of Gettr,7 a social media platform that reportedly evolved from GTV Media. I have\nfurther learned that JE’s company, Hamilton, owns 95% of Gettr and contributed $35 million to Gettr\nin capital contribution.\ng. Based on the foregoing, I have learned that starting on or about July 19, 2021,\ncertain employees of G Fashion, Gettr, and other GUO-affiliated entities began to operate under\nthe company names HCHK Technologies and/or HCHK Property.\n7 See http\n(last visited July 6, 2022). Based on my conversations with others, I have learned that Gettr is one\nof the companies for which HCHK Technologies provides purported staffing services.\n26\n\nOverview of the Scheme to Launder Fraud Proceeds\n43. As described in greater detail herein, since at least in or about 2020, GUO, JE, and\nothers have operated the Investment Schemes, i.e., various interrelated fraudulent investment\nschemes. The Investment Schemes involve entities affiliated with GUO and/or JE, including GTV,\nG Fashion, G Club, Crane, Lamp Capital LLC, Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land LLC,\nHCHK Technologies, the Himalaya Farms, the Himalaya Exchange, Hamilton, and ACA Capital,\namong others.\n44. As described above, between in or about April 2020 and June 2020, GUO, JE, and\nothers fraudulently obtained more than approximately $635 million in purported investments\nthrough the Unregistered Stock Offerings and Convertible Loan Offering. See supra ¶ 18.\nRecords that I or others have reviewed in the course of the Investigation show that, between in or\nabout November 2020 and June 2022, G Club has generated more than approximately $221 million\nin purported G Club membership fees.\n45. The evidence demonstrates that between at least approximately April 2020 and the\npresent, GUO, JE, and others have been engaged in a scheme to launder fraud proceeds from the\nInvestment Schemes (which include the Unregistered Stock Offerings, the Convertible Loan\nOffering, G Club, and the Himalaya Exchange) (collectively, the “Investment Scheme Funds”).\n46. As part of the money laundering scheme, JE and others have conducted financial\ntransactions totaling more than approximately $1.04 billion, as described in greater detail below.\n47. Investment Scheme Funds (specifically, Convertible Loan Offering funds), have\nbeen traced into the Target Account in ways that, based on my training and experience, are\nindicative of money laundering. Specifically, the tracing of the funds reflects, among other things,\nthe layering of Convertible Loan Offering funds through a series of entities and bank accounts, in\nsome cases pursuant to purported loan agreements or other financial arrangements.\n27\n\nUse of Multiple Banks and Financial Institutions to Conceal Investment Scheme Funds\n48. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. To date, law enforcement has identified more than at least 80 bank accounts\nbeing used by GUO, JE, and others to process Investment Scheme Funds, which include, among\nothers:\ni. At least approximately 19 bank accounts in the name of G Club\nentities (i.e., G Club International Limited or G Club Operations LLC) at approximately seven\ndifferent financial institutions;\nii. At least approximately 16 bank accounts in the name of Crane (i.e.,\nCrane Advisory Group LLC) at approximately six different financial institutions;\niii. At least approximately 28 bank accounts in the name of Farm\nentities at approximately six different financial institutions;\niv. At least approximately eight bank accounts in the name of G Fashion\nat approximately six different financial institutions;\nv. At least approximately 14 bank accounts in the name of Hamilton\nentities (e.g., Hamilton Investment Management Inc. or Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC) at\nSilvergate Bank in California; and\nvi. At least approximately three bank accounts in the name of Himalaya\nentities (i.e., Himalaya Reserve, Himalaya Financial, and Himalaya Clearing) at FV Bank in Puerto\nRico.\n28\n\nTracing of Fraudulent Proceeds\n49. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Investors have participated in the Investment Schemes (including the\nConvertible Loan Offering) by sending money to bank accounts controlled or used by GUO, JE,\nand others (including bank accounts in the names of the Farms’s entities, G Club, or Hamilton), or\nby wiring or otherwise transferring money to other entities at the direction of the Target Subjects.\nFor example, investors sent money to entities affiliated with a specific Farm (for example, to bank\naccount(s) in the name of Maywind for the Phoenix Farm), which funds are then transmitted to\nbank accounts ultimately controlled by GUO, GUO’s associates, and JE. I have discovered\naccounts located in the UAE, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Bahamas, and the British\nVirgin Islands, which GUO, JE, and other Target Subjects have used for the purpose of receiving\ninvestment funds from investors in the Unregistered Stock Offerings, the Convertible Loan\nOffering, G Club, and the Himalaya Exchange.\nb. To date, I and analysts at the FBI and SEC have identified and attempted to\ntrace more than approximately $1.04 billion in Investment Scheme Fund transactions, a substantial\npart of which has been laundered through financial institutions located in at least four different\ncountries, including the United States, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, and the UAE.\nConvertible Loan Offering Proceeds are Transferred to the Phoenix Farm Accounts\n50. Based on my participation in this Investigation, my training and experience, my\nreview and analysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and\n29\n\nfinancial analysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet,\nmy review of evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants,\nmy review of an interview with a witness who worked at the Phoenix Farm (“Witness-1”), and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. The Phoenix Farm began operating in or about September 2020. In or about\nlate September 2020, Yvette Wang and others visited individuals who operated the Phoenix Farm\nin Phoenix, Arizona. During the visit, Wang stated to Witness-1 and others, in sum and substance,\nthat GUO directed that “loan” investments sent to the Phoenix Farm entities (i.e., Maywind,\nMedical Supply, and Santel) should be moved around among bank accounts to avoid suspicion.\nSee also ¶ 41(a).\nb. Based on my review of an informal translation and transcription of a voice\nmessage that GUO sent to the SOI via WhatsApp, which was provided pursuant to a subpoena, I\nhave learned that GUO stated the following to the SOI, in substance and in part: “As for the three\ncompanies (Maywind, Santel, Medical supply), [SOI], you can discuss with [Yvette Wang] where\nto transfer the money to.”\nc. In or about August 2020, LI opened the Target Account under the name\n“G Fashion.” On or about August 13, 2020, LI added HAO as an authorized signer on the Target\nAccount.\nd. Between in or about September 2020 and on or about December 31, 2020,\nthe Target Account received approximately $9.9 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the\nPhoenix Farm bank accounts. Specifically:\ni. On or about September 30, 2020, approximately $1 million was\ntransferred from a JP Morgan Chase bank account in the name of Medical Supply System\nInternational LLC, ending in 9002, to the Target Account.\n30\n\nii. On or about November 19, 2020, approximately $2.9 million was\ntransferred from a Bank of America bank account in the name of Medical Supply System\nInternational LLC, ending in 3775, to the Target Account. Based on my review of the funds\ntransfer request authorization for the wire transfer, I have learned that the purpose of the payment\nwas listed as “Other / Additional Support Loans.”\niii. On or about December 1, 2020, approximately $3 million was\ntransferred from a JP Morgan Chase bank account in the name of Maywind Trading LLC, ending\nin 0414, to the Target Account.\niv. On or about December 10, 2020, approximately $3 million was\ntransferred from a JP Morgan Chase bank account in the name of Maywind Trading LLC, ending\nin 4311, to the Target Account.\nv. Aside from the above deposits, activity in the Target Account\nconsisted of de minimis service charges.\nvi. Based on my review of information provided by US Bank, I have\nlearned that the Target Account held approximately $9,899,785.06 as of on or about February 28,\n2022.\nIII. Conclusion\n51. Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that funds\nheld in the Target Account are subject to forfeiture as proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343\n(wire fraud) and § 1344 (bank fraud), and/or as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C.\n§§1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and 1956(h) (money laundering and conspiracy to commit\nmoney laundering).\n31\n\n52. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(b), I respectfully request that the Court\nissue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the funds held in the Target Account.\n/s/ Anthony Alecci, by SDA with permission\n________________________________\nANTHONY ALECCI\nSpecial Agent\nFederal Bureau of Investigation\nSworn to me through the transmission of this\nAffidavit by reliable electronic means, pursuant to\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(d)(3) and 4.1,\nthis 18th day of September, 2022\n___________________________________\nTHE HONORABLE STEWART D. AARON\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n32","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":9118,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:38"},{"id":"court_sdny_716_4","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Exhibit D\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 MAG 7684\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n-v.-\nAffidavit in Support of Seizure\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate Warrant\nBank account 5090042853, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-1”), Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in FV Bank\naccount 7801000589, held by Himalaya\nInternational Financial Group, Ltd. (“Target\nAccount-2”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in FV Bank\naccount 7801000590, held by Himalaya\nInternational Reserves, Ltd. (“Target Account-\n3”), and all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest; and\nAll monies and funds contained in FV Bank\naccount 7801000254, held by Himalaya\nInternational Clearing, Ltd. (“Target Account-\n4”), and all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest (collectively, the “Target\nProperty”).\nDefendants-in-rem.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.:\nAnthony Alecci, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn,\ndeposes and says:\nI. Introduction\n1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or\n“Investigating Agency”). I have been a Special Agent with the FBI since in or about August 2020.\n\nSince in or about September 2021, I have been assigned to the FBI’s Complex Financial Crimes\nsquad. During my time with the FBI, I have participated in investigations of securities and wire\nfraud schemes, bank fraud, and money laundering, and have, among other things, conducted or\nparticipated in debriefings of witnesses, reviews of financial records, and the execution of search\nwarrants. In particular, I have participated in the execution of search warrants involving physical\npremises, electronic devices, and other electronic evidence.\n2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the United States of America’s Application\nfor the issuance of a seizure warrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984, for:\na. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042853,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-1”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nb. All monies and funds contained in FV Bank account 7801000589, held by\nHimalaya International Financial Group, Ltd. (“Target Account-2”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest;\nc. All monies and funds contained in FV Bank account 7801000590, held by\nHimalaya International Reserves, Ltd. (“Target Account-3”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest; and\nd. All monies and funds contained in FV Bank account 7801000254, held by\nHimalaya International Clearing, Ltd. (“Target Account-4”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest (collectively, the “Target Property”).\n3. The Target Property constitutes the proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343\n(wire fraud); 1344 (bank fraud); and 1956 (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money\nlaundering) (together, the “Target Offenses”), as described below.\n4. This affidavit is based on, among other sources of information: (i) my personal\n2\n\nknowledge; (ii) information provided by personnel at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission\n(“SEC”) participating in a parallel investigation; (iii) my review of publicly available promotional\nmaterials relating to, among other ventures, “G Club” and the “Himalaya Exchange;” (iv) my\nreview of the publicly available websites for GTV Media Group, Inc. (“GTV”), the Himalaya\nExchange, and “G Club,” and materials available on those websites; (v) open-source research that\nI have conducted on the Internet; (vi) my review of digital videos posted on www.gnews.org\n(“GNews”) by GTV Media Group, Inc. and its employees and agents; (vii) my participation in\nvarious witness interviews; (viii) my review of electronic evidence obtained pursuant to\nsubpoenas, orders issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) for non-content information, and\njudicially authorized search warrants; (ix) the review and analysis of various bank account records,\nincluding financial records obtained from financial institutions pursuant to subpoenas and other\nrequests, conducted by myself and financial analysts at the FBI and SEC; (xi) my conversations\nwith other law enforcement officers; and (x) my training and experience concerning the\ncommission of financial crimes. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose\nof establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course\nof my investigation. Where dates, figures, and calculations are set forth herein, they are\napproximate. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of\nothers are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise\nindicated.\n5. As set forth herein, there is probable cause to believe that the Target Property is\nsubject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), (C) & (D) and 18 U.S.C.\n§ 981(b) as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and/or the proceeds of\nviolations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344, or property traceable thereto. In summary, the evidence\nreveals a series of fraudulent investment schemes (the “Investment Schemes”) that pertain to\n3\n\nseveral interrelated companies and their affiliated entities, including GTV Media Group Inc., G\nFashion (“G Fashion”), the Himalaya Farm Alliance (the “Farms”), Himalaya International\nClearing Ltd. (“Himalaya International Clearing”), G Club Operations LLC (“G Club”), Hamilton\nInvestment Management Ltd. (“Hamilton”), ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), and Crane\nAdvisory Group LLC (“Crane”). As set forth in more detail below, the leaders of the fraudulent\ninvestment schemes are Miles Guo, a/k/a “Guo Wengui,” a/k/a “Miles Kwok” (“GUO”) and\nWilliam Je, a/k/a Je Kin Ming (“JE”).\n6. Analysts at the FBI and SEC and I have traced the flow of certain fraud proceeds\nfrom victims of the Investment Schemes to the Target Property.\nII. Statutory Basis for Forfeiture\n7. The statutory provisions pursuant to which the Target Property is subject to civil\nseizure and forfeiture are as follows:\nMoney Laundering Offenses\n8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(A), subjects to civil forfeiture:\nAny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in\nviolation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such\nproperty.\n9. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\nknowing that the property involved in a financial transaction\ninvolves the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts\nor attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact\ninvolves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity –\n(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in\npart—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the\nsource, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds\nof specified unlawful activity [shall be guilty of a\ncrime.]\n4\n\n10. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\ntransports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit,\nor transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the\nUnited States to or through a place outside the United States or to a\nplace in the United States from or through a place outside the\nUnited States—\n(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in\nthe transportation, transmission, or transfer represent\nthe proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that\nsuch transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or\nin part—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source,\nthe ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified\nunlawful activity [shall be guilty of a crime.]\n11. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) further provides that “[a]ny person who conspires to commit\nany offense defined in [Section 1956] shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for\nthe offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”\nBank and Wire Fraud Offenses\n12. For purposes of Section 1956, “specified unlawful activity,” defined in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1956(c)(7), includes, among other things, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344. See 18\nU.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1).\n13. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), subjects to civil forfeiture any\nproperty, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation\nof . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of\nthis title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\nSeizure Warrants\n14. The Court is empowered by 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) to issue a seizure warrant for any\nproperty subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) & (C). Section 981(b)(2)\nprovides that such a seizure may be made “pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as\n5\n\nprovided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” In addition, Section\n981(b)(3) provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41(a), a seizure warrant may be issued pursuant to Section 981(b) by a judicial officer in any\ndistrict in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed under Title 28, United States\nCode, Section 1355(b). Under Section 1355(b)(1)(A), a forfeiture action or proceeding may be\nbrought in the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.\nAs set forth below, the offenses underlying the requested seizure warrant included acts or\nomissions occurring in the Southern District of New York.\n15. With respect to fungible property, including cash and funds deposited in a financial\ninstitution, 18 U.S.C. § 984 provides, in relevant part, that:\n(a)(1) In any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is cash, monetary\ninstruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution . . . , or\nprecious metals:\n(A) it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property\ninvolved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture; and\n(B) it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has\nbeen removed and replaced by identical property.\n(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), any identical property found in the same place\nor account as the property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture shall\nbe subject to forfeiture under this section.\n(b) No action pursuant to this section to forfeit property not traceable directly to the\noffense that is the basis for the forfeiture may be commenced more than 1 year from the\ndate of the offense.\nIII. Probable Cause\nA. Probable Cause Regarding Commission of the Subject Offenses\n16. On or about September 17, 2022, I submitted an affidavit in support of seizure\nwarrants for approximately 11 bank accounts, including approximately one Metropolitan\nCommercial Bank (“MCB”) account, held at For Benefit Of FV Bank, and approximately nine\n6\n\nSilvergate Bank (“Silvergate”) accounts, held by William JE in the name of Hamilton Opportunity\nFund SPC or Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. (the “September 17 Affidavit”). The\nSeptember 17 Affidavit is incorporated herein as Exhibit A. On or about September 18, 2022, the\nHonorable Stewart D. Aaron issued seizure warrants for those 11 accounts, including a warrant to\nSilvergate for the nine Silvergate accounts (the “Silvergate Warrant”) and a warrant to MCB for\nthe one MCB account held For Benefit Of FV Bank (the “MCB Warrant”).\n17. In coordinating with Silvergate in anticipation of the service and execution of the\nSilvergate Warrant, Silvergate provided updated account balances for all Silvergate accounts in\nthe name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC and/or Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.\nBased on my review of account balance summaries, additional documents provided by Silvergate\nBank, open-source information, and my conversations with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the\nSouthern District of New York, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Silvergate operates an intra-bank network called the Silvergate Exchange\nNetwork, or “SEN.” Active bank clients with Silvergate can participate in SEN, which enables\nSilvergate clients themselves to transfer money between their Silvergate accounts and the accounts\nof other Silvergate clients.\nb. The Silvergate business deposit account master agreement for the Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC relationship at Silvergate lists Target Account-1 as a SEN account. Based\non information provided by Silvergate, I have learned that the account balance of Target Account-\n1 as of on or about August 31, 2022 was $0.\nc. As reflected in the September 17 Affidavit, the balance of the Hamilton\nInvestment Opportunity Fund SPC account at Silvergate ending in -2762 (i.e., “Target Account-\n6” in the September 17 Affidavit, or the “2762 Account”) was approximately $76,690,856.60. On\nor about September 8, 2022, the 2762 Account received incoming transfers from HCHK\n7\n\nTechnologies Inc. and HCHK Property Management Inc., respectively, each in the amount of $5\nmillion.\nd. On or about September 15, 2022, the Target Subjects transferred\napproximately $85,899,889.20—nearly the entire balance—from the 2762 Account to Target\nAccount-1. As described in the September 17 Affidavit, the nature of the transfers of funds into\nthe 2762 Account had been consistent with money laundering, including layering funds through\ndifferent entities and concealing their true source and/or purpose. See Sept. Aff. at ¶ 56(b)(v), (f).\n18. In coordinating with MCB and counsel for FV Bank in anticipation of the service\nand execution of the MCB Warrant, counsel for both MCB and FV Bank advised law enforcement\nof the following, in sum and substance:\na. The funds held in the pooled MCB account FBO FV Bank (i.e., “Target\nAccount-11” in the September 17, 2022 Affidavit) include funds belonging to all FV Bank’s\ncustomers, not only the Himalaya entities. See Sept. Aff. at ¶¶ 59(i)(3), 62.\nb. The funds that were the target of the MCB Warrant, held in the MCB pooled\naccount, were also identified by three particular FV Bank account numbers: Target Account-2\n(i.e., FV Bank account 7801000589, held by Himalaya International Financial Group, Ltd.),\nTarget Account-3 (i.e., FV Bank account 7801000590, held by Himalaya International Reserves,\nLtd., and Target Account-4 (i.e., FV Bank account 7801000254, held by Himalaya International\nClearing, Ltd.).\n19. Based on the foregoing information, law enforcement will not execute the MCB\nWarrant and instead seeks to direct the warrant to FV Bank.\nIII. Conclusion\n20. Based on the information set forth in the September 17 Affidavit and the foregoing,\nI submit that there is probable cause to believe that funds held in the Target Property are subject\n8\n\nto forfeiture as proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) and § 1344 (bank fraud),\nand/or as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and\n1956(h) (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering).\n21. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(b), I respectfully request that the Court\nissue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the Target Property.\n_/s_/_ A__n_th_o_n_y_ _A_l_e_cc_i_, _b_y_ S_D__A_ _w_i_th_ permission\nANTHONY ALECCI\nSpecial Agent\nFederal Bureau of Investigation\nSworn to me through the transmission of this\nAffidavit by reliable electronic means, pursuant to\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(d)(3) and 4.1, this\n2_0_ day of September, 2022\n_____________________________________\nTHE HONORABLE STEWART D. AARON\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n9\n\nEXHIBIT A\n\n22 MAG 7580\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n-v.-\nAffidavit in Support of Seizure\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate Warrant\nBank account 5090037739, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-1”), Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090037705, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-2”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090037754, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-3”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090037713, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-4”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042770, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-5”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042762, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-6”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042820, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-7”),\n\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090042747, held by Hamilton\nOpportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-8”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Silvergate\nBank account 5090030288, held by Hamilton\nInvestment Management Ltd. (“Target Account-\n9”), and all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest;\nAny and all monies and funds up to and\nincluding the sum of $16,000,000.00 contained\nin Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. account\n9878904409, held by GETTR USA, Inc.\n(“Target Account-10”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest; and\nAll monies and funds contained in Metropolitan\nCommercial Bank account 0299006891, held\nFor Benefit Of FV Bank (“Target Account-11”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest (collectively, the “Target\nProperty”).\nDefendant-in-rem.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.:\nAnthony Alecci, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn,\ndeposes and says:\nI. Introduction\n1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or\n“Investigating Agency”). I have been a Special Agent with the FBI since in or about August 2020.\nSince in or about September 2021, I have been assigned to the FBI’s Complex Financial Crimes\n2\n\nsquad. During my time with the FBI, I have participated in investigations of securities and wire\nfraud schemes, bank fraud, and money laundering, and have, among other things, conducted or\nparticipated in debriefings of witnesses, reviews of financial records, and the execution of search\nwarrants. In particular, I have participated in the execution of search warrants involving physical\npremises, electronic devices, and other electronic evidence.\n2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the United States of America’s Application\nfor the issuance of a seizure warrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984:\na. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037739,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-1”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nb. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037705,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-2”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nc. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037754,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-3”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nd. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090037713,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-4”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\ne. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042770,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-5”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nf. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042762,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-6”), and all funds traceable thereto,\n3\n\nincluding accrued interest;\ng. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042820,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-7”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nh. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090042747,\nheld by Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (“Target Account-8”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest; and\ni. All monies and funds contained in Silvergate Bank account 5090030288,\nheld by Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. (“Target Account-9”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest;\nj. Any and all monies and funds up to and including the sum of\n$16,000,000.00 contained in Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. account 9878904409, held by\nGETTR USA, Inc. (“Target Account-10”), and all funds traceable thereto, including accrued\ninterest; and\nk. All monies and funds contained in Metropolitan Commercial Bank account\n0299006891, held For Benefit Of (“FBO”) FV Bank (“Target Account-11”), and all funds\ntraceable thereto, including accrued interest (collectively, the “Target Property”).\n3. The Target Property constitutes the proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343\n(wire fraud); 1344 (bank fraud); and 1956 (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money\nlaundering) (together, the “Target Offenses”), as described below.\n4. This affidavit is based on, among other sources of information: (i) my personal\nknowledge; (ii) information provided by personnel at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission\n(“SEC”) participating in a parallel investigation; (iii) my review of publicly available promotional\nmaterials relating to, among other ventures, “G Club” and the “Himalaya Exchange;” (iv) my\n4\n\nreview of the publicly available websites for GTV Media Group, Inc. (“GTV”), the Himalaya\nExchange, and “G Club,” and materials available on those websites; (v) open-source research that\nI have conducted on the Internet; (vi) my review of digital videos posted on www.gnews.org\n(“GNews”) by GTV Media Group, Inc. and its employees and agents; (vii) my participation in\nvarious witness interviews; (viii) my review of electronic evidence obtained pursuant to\nsubpoenas, orders issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) for non-content information, and\njudicially authorized search warrants; (ix) the review and analysis of various bank account records,\nincluding financial records obtained from financial institutions pursuant to subpoenas and other\nrequests, conducted by myself and financial analysts at the FBI and SEC; (xi) my conversations\nwith other law enforcement officers; and (x) my training and experience concerning the\ncommission of financial crimes. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose\nof establishing probable cause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course\nof my investigation. Where dates, figures, and calculations are set forth herein, they are\napproximate. Where the contents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of\nothers are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise\nindicated.\n5. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that the Target Property is\nsubject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), (C) & (D) and 18 U.S.C.\n§981(b) as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and/or the proceeds of\nviolations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344, or property traceable thereto. In summary, the evidence\nreveals a series of fraudulent investment schemes (the “Investment Schemes”) that pertain to\nseveral interrelated companies and their affiliated entities, including GTV Media Group Inc., G\nFashion (“G Fashion”), the Himalaya Farm Alliance (the “Farms”), Himalaya International\nClearing Ltd. (“Himalaya International Clearing”), G Club Operations LLC (“G Club”), Hamilton\n5\n\nInvestment Management Ltd. (“Hamilton”), ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), and Crane\nAdvisory Group LLC (“Crane”). As set forth in more detail below, the leaders of the fraudulent\ninvestment schemes are Miles Guo, a/k/a “Guo Wengui,” a/k/a “Miles Kwok” (“GUO”) and\nWilliam Je, a/k/a Je Kin Ming (“JE”).\n6. Analysts at the FBI and SEC and I have traced the flow of certain fraud proceeds\nfrom victims of the Investment Schemes to the Target Property.\nII. Statutory Basis for Forfeiture\n7. The statutory provisions pursuant to which the Target Property is subject to civil\nseizure and forfeiture are as follows:\nMoney Laundering Offenses\n8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(A), subjects to civil forfeiture:\nAny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in\nviolation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such\nproperty.\n9. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\nknowing that the property involved in a financial transaction\ninvolves the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts\nor attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact\ninvolves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity –\n(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in\npart—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the\nsource, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds\nof specified unlawful activity [shall be guilty of a\ncrime.]\n10. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\ntransports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit,\nor transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the\nUnited States to or through a place outside the United States or to a\nplace in the United States from or through a place outside the\n6\n\nUnited States—\n(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in\nthe transportation, transmission, or transfer represent\nthe proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that\nsuch transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or\nin part—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source,\nthe ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified\nunlawful activity [shall be guilty of a crime.]\n11. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) further provides that “[a]ny person who conspires to commit\nany offense defined in [Section 1956] shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for\nthe offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”\nBank and Wire Fraud Offenses\n12. For purposes of Section 1956, “specified unlawful activity,” defined in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1956(c)(7), includes, among other things, violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344. See 18\nU.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1).\n13. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), subjects to civil forfeiture any\nproperty, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation\nof . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of\nthis title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\nSeizure Warrants\n14. The Court is empowered by 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) to issue a seizure warrant for any\nproperty subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) & (C). Section 981(b)(2)\nprovides that such a seizure may be made “pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as\nprovided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” In addition, Section\n981(b)(3) provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41(a), a seizure warrant may be issued pursuant to Section 981(b) by a judicial officer in any\n7\n\ndistrict in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed under Title 28, United States\nCode, Section 1355(b). Under Section 1355(b)(1)(A), a forfeiture action or proceeding may be\nbrought in the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.\nAs set forth below, the offenses underlying the requested seizure warrant included acts or\nomissions occurring in the Southern District of New York.\n15. With respect to fungible property, including cash and funds deposited in a financial\ninstitution, 18 U.S.C. § 984 provides, in relevant part, that:\n(a)(1) In any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is cash, monetary\ninstruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution . . . , or\nprecious metals:\n(A) it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property\ninvolved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture; and\n(B) it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has\nbeen removed and replaced by identical property.\n(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), any identical property found in the same place\nor account as the property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture shall\nbe subject to forfeiture under this section.\n(b) No action pursuant to this section to forfeit property not traceable directly to the\noffense that is the basis for the forfeiture may be commenced more than 1 year from the\ndate of the offense.\nIII. Probable Cause\nA. Probable Cause Regarding Commission of the Subject Offenses\nOverview of the Fraudulent Investment Schemes\n16. Since in or around May 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern\nDistrict of New York (“SDNY”) and the FBI, among other law enforcement agencies, have been\ninvestigating a series of interrelated fraudulent investment schemes that pertain to several\ncompanies that are owned or operated by, or otherwise affiliated with, GUO, JE, and their\nassociates (collectively, the “Investment Schemes”). To date, the investigation (“Investigation”)\n8\n\nhas revealed that the Investment Schemes involve the solicitation and subsequent investment\nand/or misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars. GUO and JE are leaders of the\nInvestment Schemes.\n17. The Investment Schemes are conducted through various, interrelated offerings, all\nof which exhibit features that are consistent with fraud. For example, investors are promised\nunrealistic, outsized returns on their investments; investors are induced to invest on the basis of\nnumerous misrepresentations; a large portion of the investment money is misappropriated; and\nwith respect to the sale of digital asset securities, those currencies have never been tradable on a\npublic exchange, despite representations that they would be.\n18. Certain of the interrelated Investment Schemes are historical, while others are\nongoing. Specifically:\na. The GTV stock offering and the G Coin offering described below\n(collectively, the “Unregistered Stock Offerings”) operated between in or about April 2020 and in\nor about July 2020. As a result of the Unregistered Stock Offerings, whose proceeds were\ncommingled, companies affiliated with GUO, JE, and others collectively raised at least\napproximately $487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United\nStates.\nb. Starting at least in or about July 2020, the leaders of the scheme began to\npitch investors on a new set of investment opportunities, marketed as an opportunity to convert\ntheir existing investments in GTV into a “loan” to GTV (the “Convertible Loan Offering”). The\nConvertible Loan Offering was carried out by the Guo-backed Himalaya Farm Alliance, which\nconsists of informal groups, or “Farms,” of Chinese expatriates located in various cities around the\nworld. Between in or about August 2020 and March 2021, the U.S.-based Farms raised\napproximately $148 million from the Convertible Loan Offering.\n9\n\nc. GUO, JE, and others continue to conduct the Investment Schemes,\nincluding relating to G Club (which has been operating since in or about October 2020) and the\nHimalaya Exchange (which has been operating since in or about April 2021). As described below,\nG Club and the Himalaya Exchange have raised at least approximately $664 million between in or\nabout September 2020 and the present.\nBackground on GUO and JE\n19. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of documents, records, videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, and public source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. GUO is a purported billionaire and a Chinese national who allegedly fled\nChina for the United States in 2014, after learning that an associate had been arrested on corruption\ncharges.\nb. GUO is involved with various entities relevant to the Investment Schemes,\nas described in greater detail below, including GTV, G Music LLC (“G Music”), G Club, G\nFashion (“G Fashion”), and GETTR USA, Inc. (“Gettr”). GUO does not hold formal titles or\npositions at these entities.\nc. In or about 2018, GUO founded organizations named the Rule of Law\nFoundation (“ROLF”) and Rule of Law Society (“ROLS”). Based on my review of publicly\navailable information, I have learned that the Rule of Law projects were underway by December\n2018.1 ROLF and ROLS are purportedly organizations dedicated to exposing and combatting\ncorruption in China by the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”). At times, the board members for\n1 See http\n(describing Guo and Bannon’s involvement in the “Rule of Law Fund”).\n10\n\nROLF and/or ROLS have included Stephen K. Bannon (“Bannon”) and Kyle Bass (“Bass”). GUO\ndoes not hold a formal position at ROLF or ROLS; however, on the ROLS website, GUO is\ndescribed as “the founder, a promoter and a spokesperson” and a sponsor.\nd. JE, a close associate of GUO, has been described as a financier and\nentrepreneur. JE is involved with various other entities relevant to the Investment Schemes, as\ndescribed in greater detail below. Specifically:\ni. JE is the CEO of Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.\n(“Hamilton”), a purported global fund management company.2 Hamilton is headquartered in the\nBritish Virgin Islands and was incorporated on or about February 5, 2018. JE was formally\nappointed Director of Hamilton on or about March 20, 2019.\nii. JE is the Director of ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), a\npurported Hong Kong-based investment firm3 that was incorporated in the United Kingdom on or\nabout July 10, 2020.\niii. JE is listed as the founder and Chairman of Himalaya Exchange, a\npurported cryptocurrency “ecosystem.” JE is the 100% beneficial owner of various entities that\noperate Himalaya Exchange, including Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. (“Himalaya\nClearing”), Major Lead International Ltd., Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.\n(“Himalaya Financial”), and Himalaya International Reserves Ltd. (“Himalaya Reserves”).\nGTV Stock Offering\n20. Between approximately April 20, 2020 and June 2, 2020, GTV, its parent company\nSaraca Media Group, Inc. (“Saraca”), and Voice of Guo Media, Inc. (“VOG”; collectively, the\n2 See http\n3 See http\n11\n\n“Companies”) solicited thousands of individuals to invest in an offering of GTV common stock\n(the “GTV Stock Offering”). During that time period, more than approximately 5,000 investors\n(including many in the United States) collectively paid approximately $452 million for purported\nGTV common stock.\n21. Based on my review of the GTV Stock Offering’s information memorandum dated\nApril 20, 2020 (the “Memorandum”), interviews of witnesses, and review of public source\ninformation, as well as documents and records obtained during the course of the investigation, I\nhave learned the following, among other things:\na. GTV was founded on or about April 17, 2020, as a Delaware corporation\nand a wholly owned subsidiary of Saraca. GTV’s principal place of business was located in the\nSouthern District of New York, in a townhouse located at 162 E. 64th St., New York, NY, 10065\n(the “Townhouse”).\nb. According to the Memorandum, GUO was the “sponsor” of both Saraca and\nGTV, as well as the “adviser[sic]” and “key host” of GTV. The Memorandum also stated that\nGUO was a billionaire, successful businessman, and dissident in China. According to various\nwitnesses, as well as social media content, GUO consistently presented himself as the founder and\nface of GTV.\nc. The Memorandum and a separate letter to prospective investors outlining\n“Investment Procedures Guidelines” listed GUO’s phone number as the contact number for\ninquiries from potential investors.\nd. At the time of the GTV Stock Offering, the Companies had recently\nlaunched a news-focused social media platform called GTV, including the website www.gtv.org.\nThe Memorandum claimed GTV would be “the first ever platform which w[ould] combine the\npower of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-art technology, big data, artificial\n12\n\nintelligence, block-chain technology and real-time interactive communication” and that GTV\nwould be “the only uncensored and independent bridge between China and the Western world.”\nThe Memorandum also claimed that GTV would “be a bridge between China and the Western\nworld . . . allowing for free and open communication, business transactions and trading,\nuncensored by the Chinese government.” The Memorandum boasted that GTV’s platform would\nbe so powerful as to “expos[e] corruption, obstruction, illegality, brutality, harassment, and\ninhumanity in China.” The Memorandum also indicated that GTV would compete with companies\nsuch as Zoom, WeChat, TikTok, YouTube, Cisco, Citrix, Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay.\ne. The Memorandum listed Yvette Y. Wang, Max Krasner, and Daniel\nPodhaskie as GTV’s Executive Directors.\nf. The Memorandum highlighted the credentials of GTV’s Non-executive\nDirectors, including, among others, Bannon, Bass, and Darren Blanton (“Blanton”). As described\nabove, Bannon and Bass were also board members of the ROLF and/or ROLS.\ng. The Memorandum stated that investor funds would be used for the\nfollowing, among other purposes: acquisition of companies; upgrading GTV technology and\nsecurity; and marketing. The Memorandum did not contemplate that investor funds would be used\nto invest in hedge funds or any similar type of financial investment, or that investor funds would\nbe given to other companies, such as Saraca.\nh. Based on my conversations with a source of information (“SOI4”) involved\nwith the ROLF, the Companies, the GTV Stock Offering, and the Phoenix Farm, as well as my\n4 The SOI is providing information to law enforcement in hopes of entering into a cooperation\nagreement and receiving leniency at sentencing. The SOI has provided reliable information that\nhas been corroborated by, among other things, electronic evidence, videos, cellphone records, and\nsubpoena and search warrant returns.\n13\n\nreview of the metadata of the Memorandum, I have learned that JE was a primary author of the\nMemorandum.\nG Coin Offering\n22. During the same period of April 2020 through June 2020, GTV and Saraca also\nsolicited GTV Investors to invest in a companion digital asset security that was referred to as either\nG-Coins or G-Dollars (the “G Coin Offering”).\n23. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, as well as my review of reports of interviews with GTV Investors and conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement, I have learned the following, among other things, about\nthe G Coin Offering:\na. From approximately in or about April 2020, through at least in or about June\n2020, I have learned that the Companies, as well as representatives for the Companies, such as\nGUO, marketed the sale of G-Coins and G-Dollars to the public through online videos on\nYouTube, Twitter, and other video-sharing and social media platforms.\nb. The Companies’ online promotions set forth that G-Coins (which the\nCompanies indicated would eventually be merged into G-Dollars, forming a single digital asset),\nand G-Dollars would be usable to purchase goods or services or exchange for gold or fiat currency\non an online platform. As part of its solicitation of G-Coin and G-Dollar investors, the Companies\ndid not provide investors with financial information about the plan to develop any digital asset or\nplatform, or any written offering materials, including, for example, a whitepaper or private\nplacement memorandum.\nc. The Companies collected at least approximately $31 million from the G-\nCoin and G-Dollar Investors, pooling the proceeds in bank accounts associated with the\n14\n\nCompanies and commingling them with proceeds from the GTV Stock Offering. As part of the G\nCoin Offering, many investors received a purported 20% discount on the $.01 purchase price for\nG-Coins and G-Dollars. Investors participated in the G Coin Offering by transferring funds\ndirectly to the Companies’ U.S. bank accounts, by making payments to the Companies’ accounts\non online payment platforms, by making purchases via the Apple App Store, or by writing checks.\n24. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, and review of\ntranslations of statements that were made by GUO regarding the G Coin Offering, as well as my\nconversations with others, I have learned that GUO made numerous false statements in order to\nsolicit investments for the G Coin Offering. Examples of some those statements are described\nbelow, in substance and in part:\na. In a statement contained within a video by GUO on or about May 9, 2020,\nGuo stated that G-Coins could be exchanged into U.S. dollars or physical gold.\nb. In another statement contained within a video on or about May 16, 2020,\nGUO stated that the G-Coin and G-Dollar currencies could be exchanged with gold.\n25. Based on my participation in this investigation, I believe that the above-described\nstatements regarding G-Coins and G-Dollar are false. In particular, during the course of the\ninvestigation, I have not found any evidence that there is or has ever been an exchange where G-\nCoins or G-Dollars could be exchanged for U.S. dollars or gold.\n26. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records, and review of videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, as well as my review of reports of interviewed individuals who invested in GTV (the\n“GTV Investors”) and my conversations with others, including other law enforcement officers, I\nhave learned the following, among other things, about the solicitation of investments for the GTV\nStock Offering and G Coin Offering:\n15\n\na. GTV disseminated information about the two offerings to the general public\nthrough publicly-available videos on websites affiliated with the Companies, including\nwww.gtv.org and www.gnews.org, as well as on social media platforms such as YouTube and\nTwitter. The first solicitation video, posted on YouTube on April 21, 2020, was entitled, as\ntranslated into English, “GTV Private Placement Subscription Instructions” (the “Launch Video”).\nThe Launch Video described the investment terms for the GTV Stock Offering and provided a\nmobile phone number for potential investors to use for inquiries about the offering. The Launch\nVideo has had over 3,000 views. None of the GTV Stock Offering solicitation videos, including\nthe Launch Video, were password protected or placed any restriction on who could view them or\nany limitations on their ability to be shared. As a result, the general public, including prospective\nU.S. investors, were able to access the online marketing videos about the GTV Stock Offering\nthrough, for example, independent online research, social media, or referrals from other investors.\nb. GUO led the effort to solicit investors for the GTV Stock Offering. GUO,\nwho is a prolific user of social media and has an enormous social media following, used various\nsocial media platforms to attract followers and to solicit investors for the GTV Stock Offering.\nThose social media platforms included WhatsApp and Discord, both of which have end-to-end\nencrypted chat services.5 Among other things, the Companies sent the Launch Video via phone\nmessages to hundreds of prospective individual investors with a link to a Google Drive folder that\ncontained additional offering material for the GTV Stock Offering, including the subscription\nagreement and investment instructions. GUO also assured potential investors that they would\n5 End-to-end encryption is a system of communication where only the communicating users can\nread the messages. End-to-end encryption prevents law enforcement authorities from intercepting\nsuch communications through wiretaps or through search warrants on the service provider, such\nas WhatsApp.\n16\n\nrealize enormous returns, at one point suggesting that they would receive 1,000 times their\ninvestment, see infra ¶ 40(c). In another statement, in or about June 2020, GUO stated in substance\nand in part that GTV stock was worth 30 times what it had been worth before.\nc. Based on my review of a GTV confidentiality agreement, I have learned\nthat in order to participate in the GTV Stock Offering, GTV Investors were required to sign a\nconfidentiality agreement that required them to keep all information concerning GTV confidential,\nincluding the existence of the confidentiality agreement.\nd. The GTV Stock Offering was structured as a private placement offering of\n10% into GTV, with the remaining 90% of GTV to be controlled by Saraca, which was its parent\ncompany. According to due diligence records from an investment fund, Saraca is a wholly-owned\nsubsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc. (“Hudson BVI”), a British Virgin Islands company.\nHudson is in turn wholly owned by Qiang Guo (“QIANG GUO”). Based on my review of open-\nsource material, I have learned that QIANG GUO is GUO’S son.\ne. By early June 2020, banks began to suspect that the Companies were\nengaged in potentially unlawful activity and started to close accounts that were linked to Saraca,\nGTV, and GUO. Around that same time period, GTV Investors began to express concerns about\nGTV’s use of their money, and the legitimacy of their investments. Some of those investors\nexpressed their concerns directly to GUO and many investors requested that their money be\nreturned. In response, GUO and his associates often attempted to shun and ostracize the investors.\nFor example, GUO suggested that one investor was a spy for the CCP and that other investors\nshould not interact with that investor\nMisappropriation of Unregistered Stock Offering Funds\n27. A significant portion of the investor funds collected through the Unregistered Stock\nOfferings (collectively, “Offering Funds”) were misappropriated through investments.\n17\n\n28. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other\nthings:\na. GUO, JE, and others arranged for approximately $100 million of the\nOfferings Funds to get invested on behalf of GTV’s parent company, Saraca, in a high-risk hedge\nfund investment managed by a firm named Hayman Capital Management L.P. (“Hayman”).\nAccording to its website, Hayman is an SEC-registered asset management firm that was founded\nby Bass, who was a non-executive director of GTV at the time of the transfer.\nb. In or about May 2020, Bass facilitated GUO’s and JE’s investment in a\nhigh-risk investment fund called the Hayman Hong Kong Opportunities Fund (the “Hayman\nFund”), which was operated by Hayman.\nc. JE coordinated with Hayman regarding the investment. For example, in a\nMay 29, 2020 email from JE to a Hayman representative (“Hayman Rep-1”), JE wrote, in\nsubstance and in part: “We will have one onshore and one offshore vehicle. The onshore one will\ninvest USD100m and the offshore one will invest USD1m. The address of the onshore vehicle is:\n162 E64th St., New York, NY 10065 United States.” On or about May 31, 2020, JE wrote, in\nsubstance and in part, “The $1m will come from my personal account and I owned[sic] 100% of\nHamilton Investment Management Ltd.”\ni. The address JE provided for the “onshore” vehicle is the address of\nthe Townhouse. See supra ¶ 21(a).\nii. Based on my participation in this Investigation, review of bank\nrecords and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations with others, including law enforcement\nand witnesses, I have learned that the Townhouse has been listed on corporate documents and/or\n18\n\nbank account documentation as the business address for at least seven GUO-affiliated entities;\nspecifically: Saraca, GTV, Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land, ROLF (until\napproximately May 2022), and ROLS (until approximately May 2022).\nd. Three days after the close of the GTV Stock Offering, on or about June 5,\n2020, $100 million of the Offering Funds were transferred from a particular JP Morgan Chase\nbank account to an onshore bank account associated with Hayman for the purpose of investing in\nthe Hayman Fund. The funds were transferred on behalf of Saraca; as noted above, Saraca was\nthe parent company to GTV and was 100% owned by GUO’s son, QIANG QUO.\ne. Three days later, on or about June 8, 2020, $1 million was transferred on\nbehalf of Hamilton,6 JE’s company, from a bank account in the name of JE to an offshore bank\naccount associated with Hayman, also for the purpose of investing in the Hayman Fund.\nf. The transfer of Offering Funds to Hayman was completely inconsistent with\nGTV’s representations to the GTV Investors about how their funds would be used.\n29. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of\ndocuments and records, as well as my conversations with others, including law enforcement, I\nhave learned that on or about September 13, 2021, the SEC announced settled charges against\nthe Companies, based on their violations of the registration requirements for the Unregistered\nStock Offerings (i.e., the GTV Stock Offering and the associated digital asset G Coin Offering).\nThe SEC’s settlement required the Companies to pay more than $539 million in disgorgement\nand penalties.\nThe Convertible Loan Offering\n6 In April 2018, JE submitted on behalf of Hamilton an account opening document to a U.K. bank\nthat claimed that he owns 100% of Hamilton and that the company “does not involve itself in\ninvestments.”\n19\n\n30. After the Unregistered Stock Offerings described above were discovered by banks\nand numerous bank accounts were frozen, leaders of the schemes began to pitch investors on a\nnew set of investment opportunities. One new investment scheme launched in or about July 2020\nwas marketed to prospective investors as an opportunity to convert their existing investments in\nGTV into a “loan” to GTV. The Convertible Loan Offering was carried out by the “Himalaya\nFarm Alliance,” a collective of informal groups—known as “Farms”—of Chinese expatriates\nlocated in various cities around the world, including New York and Phoenix. The Himalaya Farm\nAlliance’s purported purpose was to assist the Chinese pro-democracy movement; the Himalaya\nFarm Alliance existed primarily as private groups on social media platforms such as Discord. The\nFarms were typically referred to by the names of preexisting companies that they affiliated\nthemselves with for banking purposes; e.g., Mountains of Spices LLC and Davy & Tony\nInternational Limited for the New York Farm, and Maywind Trading LLC, Medical Supply\nSystem International LLC and Santel LLC for the Phoenix Farm.\n31. In connection with the Convertible Loan Offering, the Farms provided prospective\ninvestors with a “Loan Agreement” that disclosed that the loan would be made to the individual\nFarm (e.g., “Phoenix Farm (Maywind Trading LLC)”) and that the loaned funds would be used by\nthat specific Farm for “general working capital purposes.” Investors executed the Loan Agreement\nand sent it to their Farm leaders after transferring their funds to the Farm, but were not provided\ncounter-executed copies of the agreement.\n32. Between in or about August 2020 and in or about March 2021, the U.S.-based\nFarms collectively raised approximately $148 million from the Convertible Loan Offering (the\n“Loan Funds”). Investors agreed to provide loans to the Farms for the purpose of acquiring GTV\nshares (once the three-year note had matured). Once the funds were collected by the U.S. Farms,\nthey were transferred to domestic and foreign accounts owned by different legal entities, including\n20\n\nan Abu Dhabi bank account in the name of ACA Capital (the “UAE ACA Capital Account”),\nwhich is owned and controlled by JE.\nMisappropriation of Convertible Loan Offering Funds\n33. A significant portion of the Loan Funds collected through the Convertible Loan\nOffering were misappropriated, as described below.\n34. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of bank records and subpoena returns, as well as my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other\nthings:\na. JE was sole signatory of the UAE ACA Capital Account. JE wired\napproximately $33.3 million of the Loan Funds out of the UAE ACA Capital Account to Swiss\nand UK accounts belonging to himself, his wife (Sin Ring Rong), and his company, Hamilton.\nThe wires to his and his wife’s personal accounts—which amounted to more than approximately\n$10 million—were described as dividends, salary or director fees. However, JE was not a director\nor employee of GTV, Saraca, or other affiliated entities.\nb. JE arranged for approximately $34 million in transfers from UAE ACA\nCapital Account to U.S. bank accounts in the names of three companies that are each 100% owned\nby GUO’s family members; specifically:\ni. Approximately $5 million to Greenwich Land LLC, which is owned\nby GUO’s wife, Hing Chi Ngok;\nii. Approximately $18 million to Hudson Diamond NY LLC, which is\nowned by Guo’s daughter, Mei Guo; and\niii. Approximately $11 million to Lamp Capital LLC, which is owned\nby Guo’s son, QIANG GUO.\n21\n\nc. The $34 million was commingled with other investor funds, including GTV\nOffering Funds. Based on my review of bank account records, I have learned that much of this\nGTV Investor money was used to fund lavish lifestyle expenses (e.g., approximately $2.3 million\nin expenses relating to GUO’s yacht, and approximately $600,000 for the purchase of luxury\nautomobiles).\nd. JE also arranged for large transfers from UAE ACA Capital Account to other\ncompanies with ties to GUO; specifically:\ni. Approximately $19 million to Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.\n(“Lexington Property”), which is owned by former GTV Treasurer, Anthony DiBattista\n(“DiBattista”). The registered address of Lexington Property is 750 Lexington Avenue, New\nYork, NY;\nii. Approximately $32 million to Savio Law LLC (as escrow agent),\npursuant to a purported loan agreement between ACA Capital and Saraca (which is owned by\nGUO’s son, QIANG GUO); and\niii. Approximately $1 million to Bannon Film Industries, Inc., a\ncompany owned by Steve Bannon. As described above, Bannon was listed in the Memorandum\nas a non-executive GTV Director and was a Director of the ROLF / ROLS.\nThe G Club Operations LLC Scheme\n35. Some of the Farms recruited investors to invest in GTV through the purchase of “G\nClub” memberships. As described in greater detail below, law enforcement believes G Club is an\nongoing fraudulent scheme operated by GUO, JE, and others.\n36. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of the\nwebsites, subpoena returns, records and documents, including operating agreements and articles\n22\n\nof incorporation, open-source research I have conducted on the Internet, and my conversations\nwith others, including law enforcement, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. In or about October 2020, G Club Operations LLC (“G Club”) was\nregistered in Puerto Rico. According to the Operating Agreement, the purpose of G Club is to\n“provide[] Membership Concierge services with exclusive offers and discounts for luxury hotels\nand retailers for High Net Worth individuals from the Asian market.”\nb. An image from the G Club website (“G Club Website”), viewable at\nhttp is shown below:\n37. G Club purportedly offers five membership tiers: Tier 5 Membership ($50,000\nannually); Tier 4 Membership ($40,000 annually); Tier 3 Membership ($30,000 annually); Tier 2\nMembership ($20,000 annually); and Tier 1 Membership ($10,000 annually). According to the G\nClub Membership Agreement, “A Member may subsequently elect a higher tier of membership,”\nbut “may not subsequently elect a lower tier of Membership.” The annual fee for the desired\nmembership tier must be paid in full with the submission of the G Club membership application,\nand G Club reserves the right to reject any membership application within 30 days at its sole and\n23\n\nabsolute discretion. The Membership Agreement further states: “If an Application is rejected and\nmembership denied, G Clubs shall return the Membership Fee within ten (10) calendar days of\nsuch rejection . . . in the form of the original payment of the Membership Fee or, at the option of\nG Clubs, by check.”\n38. One photograph posted to the G Club Website depicted GUO living a lavish\nlifestyle; specifically, he is shown standing on top of what appears to be a large yacht smoking a\ncigar. The G Club Website also states that:\nG Clubs memberships provide its members with access to a concierge customer\nservice with Mandarin and English access and support. G Clubs members will have\nthe opportunity to attend the annual G Summit meeting which may occur in person\nor virtually. G Clubs members will also get exclusive early access to the latest\nfashion collections and special member pricing on purchases made on the G\nFashion website.\n39. In a video summary posted on GNews on or about July 8, 2021, Guo claimed that\nG Club had approximately 25,000 members, and predicted that G Club would grow to at least 100\nmillion users, attracting $16 trillion of investment.\n40. Despite the representations on the G Club Website about purported membership\nbenefits, law enforcement believes that G Club is being used, at least in part, to perpetuate the\nfraud schemes, including by soliciting and receiving investments while evading regulatory\nrequirements. Specifically, based on my review of an interview report of an August 2, 2021\ninterview (the “August 2, 2021 Interview”) conducted by others of a GTV investor (“Investor-1”),\nI have learned that Investor-1 stated the following, in substance and in part, during that interview:\na. Investor-1 invested $200,000 USD in GTV in or around May 2020.\nInvestor-1’s money came from Investor-1’s savings.\nb. Investor-1 came to believe that GTV was a scam because Investor-1 did not\nreceive any GTV shares, and when Investor-1 asked for a refund, no one responded to Investor-1.\n24\n\nc. Investor-1 invested in GTV because: 1) there were a lot of American\npoliticians supporting Guo; (2) Guo said it was original stock and there would be at least 1,000x\ngrowth; and (3) Investor-1 thought Investor-1 would make money on the GTV stock because Guo\nsaid this in videos. Investor-1 did not think Investor-1 would lose money because Guo promised\nthe GTV investment would make money.\nd. Investor-1 thought that GTV would use the money to build a website like\nYouTube, Facebook and Twitter, but did not know for certain what it would be used for.\ne. Investor-1 subsequently invested in the Convertible Loan Program through\nthe “Canada Farm” in or around August 2020. Specifically, Investor-1 sent approximately $71,019\nto “Canada Himalayan Club Medica Inc.” as a loan. Investor-1 believed that the loan was for 3-5\nyears, with 3% interest and that at the end of that period Investor-1 would receive the money or\nGTV stock. Investor-1 never received an executed copy of the investment contract. The money\nInvestor-1 sent was frozen by the Canadian SEC.\nf. Investor-1 attempted to invest in GTV again in or around March 2021\nthrough G Club. Specifically, Investor-1 was instructed to send Investor-1’s investment funds to\n“Crane Advisory Group,” who in turn would send the money to G Club. Investor-1 sent\napproximately $100,015 to Crane Advisory Group for the purchase of GTV shares at the price of\n$1 per ten shares.\ng. In or around July 2021, Investor-1 attempted to initiate a refund by\ncontacting G Club online customer service department. In response to Investor-1’s refund request,\nG Club, through “notices@gclubs.com,” sent the following email:\nYou recently made a payment with respect to your G|CLUBS membership through\nCrane. Your wire payment transfer exceeded the amount of a single membership\nand you have not applied for multiple memberships. We received $100,015.00 via\nwire. You had applied for one Tier 5 membership and filled out the KYC package\nindicating the total amount was for multi membership of G|CLUBS (see attached).\n25\n\nTo credit the total amount to you, you must apply for additional memberships.\nPlease fill and sign the attached, advising how many memberships you wish to\npurchase and their tier.\nIf sending the excess funds was an error and you wish an immediate return of\n$50,015, please immediately advise. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience\ncaused.\nh. In response, Investor-1 informed G Club that Investor-1 had sent the $100,015.00\nin funds not to purchase a G Club membership, but rather to invest in GTV. Investor-1 requested\nthat all of Investor-1’s funds be returned. In a subsequent email, Investor-1 also noted that it would\nnot have made sense for Investor-1 to send a sum of $100,015.00, given that the most expensive\nG Club membership cost $50,000. Investor-1 also explained in another email that, in a phone\nconversation with a representative of G Club, the representative had made it clear that Investor-\n1’s funds were going to be used for an investment in GTV, not for the purchase of a G Club\nmembership.\ni. Investor-1 had not received any of Investor-1’s $100,015 investment back as of the\ndate of the interview.\n41. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, my review of\ndocuments, records, and email search warrant returns, as well as my conversations with others,\nincluding witnesses, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. An individual named Alex Hadjicharalambous (“Hadjicharalambous”), whose title\nwas the Financial Controller for G Club, was the authorized signer listed on multiple bank accounts\nin the name of G Club. On July 13, 2021, Hadjicharalambous received an email at his G Club\nemail account (alexh@gclubs.com) from a G Fashion IT Manager entitled “HCHKTech email”\nthat read, in substance and in part: “Hello Alex, As you know we now work for HCHK\nTechnologies. Use the credentials in this email and follow the steps below to log into your new\nemail account.”\n26\n\nb. Based on my review of open-source material on the Internet and subpoena returns,\nI have learned the following, among other things:\ni. On or about April 29, 2021, HCHK Technologies, Inc. (“HCHK\nTechnologies”) was incorporated in the State of Delaware. At the time of incorporation, Anthony\nDiBattista was director of HCHK Technologies. Between on or about May 27, 2021 and\nNovember 10, 2021, DiBattista was Treasurer of HCHK Technologies. On or about December\n13, 2021, DiBattista resigned as President, CEO, and Director of HCHK Technologies.\nc. On or about August 18, 2021, HCHK Property Management, Inc. (“HCHK\nProperty”) was incorporated in Delaware. Yvette Wang was elected as the initial director of\nHCHK Property. See ¶ 21(e). On or about December 15, 2021, by written consent of the Board\nof Directors of HCHK Property (i.e., Wang), DiBattista was appointed Treasurer of HCHK\nProperty. On or about January 1, 2022, Wang resigned and DiBattista was appointed as President,\nCEO, and Director of HCHK Property.\nd. DiBattista’s roles with various of the other GUO-affiliated entities included, among\nothers, Treasurer of GTV, authorized signatory of Lexington Property bank accounts, and\nTreasurer of G Music LLC.\ne. Based on my review of subpoena returns and my conversations with others, I have\nlearned that on or about July 18, 2021, a G Fashion HR employee sent a “transition memo” to Alex\nHadjicharalambous that, “[e]ffective as of July 19, 2021, all GFashion employees will have the\noption to transfer to GFashion’s staffing company, HCHK Technologies, Inc.,” which would\n“thereafter serve the role of staffing company for GFashion and other enterprises.” The transition\nmemo further reflected that an employee’s failure to execute the transition memo that same day\nwould result in termination.\n27\n\nf. Based on my review of open-source Internet research and subpoena returns, I have\nlearned that one of the Directors of HCHK Technologies is also the Director and Chairman of the\nAudit Committee of Gettr,7 a social media platform that reportedly evolved from GTV Media. I\nhave further learned that JE’s company, Hamilton, owns 95% of Gettr and contributed $35 million\nto Gettr in capital contribution.\ng. Based on the foregoing, I have learned that starting on or about July 19, 2021,\ncertain employees of G Fashion, Gettr, and other GUO-affiliated entities began to operate under\nthe company names HCHK Technologies and/or HCHK Property.\nThe Himalaya Exchange Scheme\n42. As described above, JE founded a purported cryptocurrency exchange platform\ncalled Himalaya Exchange, available at http (the “Himalaya Exchange\nWebsite”). Similar to the link between G-Coin / G-Dollar and the Unregistered Stock Offerings,\nHimalaya Coin (ticker: HCO or HCN) and Himalaya Dollar (ticker: HDO) (together, the\n“Himalaya Assets”) were initially offered as a companion digital asset security for investors in the\nConvertible Loan Program.\n43. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of the\nHimalaya Exchange Website, videos posted on GNews, bank records and subpoena returns, and\nopen-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my conversations with\nothers, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned the following, among other things:\n7 See http\n(last visited July 6, 2022). Based on my conversations with others, I have learned that Gettr is one\nof the companies for which HCHK Technologies provides purported staffing services.\n28\n\na. The Himalaya Exchange is described as a global digital exchange with a\nfull ecosystem, that includes (or will include) a stablecoin (Himalaya Dollar),8 a trading coin\n(Himalaya Coin), and a blockchain payment application called “Himalaya Pay.”\nb. JE is described as the founder and Chairman of the Himalaya Exchange.\nc. As described above, JE is also the founder and CEO of BVI-based\nHamilton and the Director of Hong Kong-based ACA Capital.\nd. An image from the Himalaya Exchange Website, viewable at\nhttp is shown below:\n44. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of the\nHimalaya Exchange Website, videos posted on GNews, bank records and subpoena returns, and\nopen-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my conversations with\nothers, including law enforcement and witnesses, I have learned, among other things, that investors\n8 A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency that seeks to peg itself to a stable currency, typically the U.S.\ndollar.\n29\n\nwere misled about how and when they would be able to trade their cryptocurrency assets.\nSpecifically:\na. When the Himalaya Exchange Website was launched, investors were told\nthat, as of June 2021, they would be able to exchange and withdraw their cryptocurrency. An\nimage of the website from May 2021 depicting this representation is shown below:\nb. The Himalaya Exchange Website later changed its “trade” date to September 2021.\nBased on my training, experience, and participation in this investigation, I have learned that it is\ncommon for fraudulent cryptocurrencies to use similar tactics to those used here; specifically it is\ncommon for fraudulent cryptocurrencies to: (1) not be tradable on a public exchange; and\n(2)induce investors to purchase the cryptocurrencies through false promises that the\ncryptocurrency will be available to trade on a public exchange soon.\nc. The initial coin offering (“ICO”) of the Himalaya Assets purportedly took place on\nthe Himalaya Exchange Website or about November 1, 2021. According to data on the Himalaya\nExchange Website, the price of a Himalaya Asset increased from 10 cents at the time of the ICO\nto $27 approximately two weeks later, resulting in a purported $27 billion valuation by mid-\nNovember 2021, as reflected in the graph below from the Himalaya Exchange Website:\n30\n\nd. According to Himalaya Exchange’s promotional materials, the value of the\nHimalaya Dollar is pegged to the U.S. Dollar. “Credits” are used to secure positions within the\nHimalaya Ecosystem, which positions correspond to a particular type of crypto asset. Promotional\nmaterials also state that “[c]redits can only be used on the Himalaya Exchange or within the\nHimalaya Ecosystem, representing a right to participating in trading on the Himalaya\nExchange and do not carry any right to require their exchange for fiat currency or crypto-assets.”\nPromotional materials clarify that references to Himalaya Coin, Himalaya Dollar, “or any other\ntype of asset on an account at the Himalaya Exchange or through the Himalaya Pay App are\nreferences to Credits corresponding to that asset.”\ne. According to the Himalaya Dollar whitepaper dated April 2021 (the “Whitepaper”),\navailable on the Himalaya Exchange Website, Himalaya Dollar is an Ethereum-\nbased token “structured with the aim of maintaining its value 1-to-1 to the United States Dollar.\n31\n\nHimalaya Dollar Credits benefit from potential liquidity support which may be provided through\nthe [Himalaya] Reserve which will be managed with the aim of maintaining its value at a level\nequal in value in U.S. dollars to the value of Himalaya Dollars in circulation as described below.”\nf. The Whitepaper further states that Himalaya Reserves, the issuer of Himalaya\nDollar, “intends to create and hold in the Reserve a mix of United States dollars or other currencies\nin cash and cash equivalents,” and further states, “it is intended to make the Reserve transparent\nto the public. The Issuer intends to have the Reserve audited annually by independent auditors.\nThe results of those audits will be made publicly available with details of the then-current\ncomposition of the Reserve and the market value of the assets as at[sic] the time of publication.”\nTo date, no such audit results have been published.\ng. As described above, the Himalaya Assets have never traded on an open exchange,\nand instead purport to trade only on the private Himalaya Exchange. Himalaya Exchange restrains\nthe flow of real currency out of the Himalaya Exchange by its members, as described above. Thus,\nthe ability to convert Himalaya Dollars and Himalaya Coins back into U.S. currency was limited.\n45. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review of the\nHimalaya Exchange Website, videos posted on GNews, and public source research that I have\nconducted on the Internet, as well as my conversations with others, I have learned the following,\namong other things:\na. As described above, Himalaya Dollar purports to be a “stablecoin” that is\npegged 1-to-1 to the value of the U.S. dollar. Other major stablecoins include TerraUSD, Tether,\nand USD Coin.\nb. In a video summary posted on GNews in November 2021, GUO\nrepresented, in sum and substance, that Himalaya Coin was backed by the U.S. dollar through\n32\n\nstablecoin Himalaya Dollar, and further stated that Himalaya Coin is backed by a reserve of 20%\nof the proceeds in gold.\nc. In or about May 2022, there was a global stablecoin collapse that began\nwhen a particular stablecoin called TerraUSD lost its peg (i.e., no longer had sufficient hard-asset\nreserves to back its cryptocurrency at a 1-to-1 ratio to the U.S. dollar). As a result, the\ncryptocurrency market lost approximately $300 billion in value. The valuation of TerraUSD\nthrough May 10, 2022 is reflected in the graph below:\nd. In contrast, data on the Himalaya Exchange Website reflects very little\nfluctuation or decrease in the purported value of the Himalaya Assets during the same time period,\nas reflected in the graph below from the Himalaya Exchange Website:\n33\n\n46. I have reviewed the graph displayed above in paragraphs 44(c), showing the value\nof the Himalaya Assets’ purported value between approximately November 1, 2021 and December\n31, 2021. The graph is consistent with the purported price of the Himalaya Assets being falsified—\nspecifically, it reflects a steep increase in price over the first two weeks and then an apparent\nfluctuation in price, but all within a narrow band.\n47. I have also reviewed the graphs displayed above in paragraphs 45(c) and (d),\nreflecting the price of stablecoin TerraUSD and the purported price of a Himalaya Asset between\nApril 2021 and May 10, 2021. The data reflected in the Himalaya Asset graph is inconsistent with\nthe valuation of other stablecoins, including TerraUSD, during the stablecoin crash.9\n9 On or about June 15, 2022, it was reported that William Je said the following: “Despite the\ncryptocurrency market’s recent dip, HDO has constantly remained stable with the US dollar 1:1\nwithout fluctuation. Impressively, this makes HDO the only stable coin in the world to maintain\n100% during this time-period of uncertainty.” See http\nreleases/iconic-ferrari-f1-car-sold-by-rm-sotheby-s-using-cryptocurrency-himalaya-dollar-\n883914213.html (last visited July 6, 2022)\n34\n\nOverview of the Scheme to Launder Fraud Proceeds\n48. As described in greater detail herein, since at least in or about 2020, GUO, JE, and\nothers have operated the Investment Schemes, i.e., various interrelated fraudulent investment\nschemes. The Investment Schemes involve entities affiliated with GUO and/or JE, including GTV,\nG Fashion, G Club, Crane, Lamp Capital LLC, Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land LLC,\nHCHK Technologies, the Himalaya Farms, the Himalaya Exchange, Hamilton, and ACA Capital,\namong others.\n49. As described above, between in or about April 2020 and June 2020, GUO, JE, and\nothers fraudulently obtained more than approximately $635 million in purported investments\nthrough the Unregistered Stock Offerings and Convertible Loan Offering. See supra ¶ 18.\nRecords that I or others have reviewed in the course of the Investigation show that, between in or\nabout November 2020 and June 2022, G Club has generated more than approximately $221 million\nin purported G Club membership fees.\n50. As detailed below, the evidence demonstrates that between at least approximately\nApril 2020 and the present, GUO, JE, and others have been engaged in a scheme to launder fraud\nproceeds from the Investment Schemes (which include the Unregistered Stock Offerings, the\nConvertible Loan Offering, G Club, and the Himalaya Exchange) (collectively, the “Investment\nScheme Funds”).\n51. As part of the money laundering scheme, JE and others have conducted financial\ntransactions totaling more than approximately $1.04 billion, as described in greater detail below.\n52. As a further part of the money laundering scheme, at least approximately $252\nmillion of the Investment Scheme Funds were remitted, either directly or indirectly, to bank\naccounts in the United States and the Bahamas held in the name of JE’s companies—Hamilton,\nACA Capital, and Himalaya Exchange—or otherwise controlled by JE.\n35\n\n53. In particular, as described below, JE opened certain of the Target Accounts and\nother bank accounts at Silvergate Bank, a bank in La Jolla, California that markets itself as “the\nleading bank for innovative business in fintech and cryptocurrency.” Target Accounts-1 through\n-8 are in the name of a Cayman Islands-registered hedge fund, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC;\nTarget Account-9 is in the name of JE’s company, Hamilton Investment Management Ltd., which\ncompany is the investment manager of the Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC. JE is the principal\nof Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. and an authorized signer on the Silvergate Target\nAccounts.\n54. As further described below, JE opened three accounts at FV Bank, a bank in Puerto\nRico that markets itself as “The Global Digital Bank.” The FV Bank accounts are in the names\nof various legal entities through which JE and others operate the Himalaya Exchange—Himalaya\nClearing, Himalaya Financial, and Himalaya Reserves. JE is the ultimate beneficial owner of those\nHimalaya legal entities, see supra ¶ 19(d), and is an authorized signer on the FV accounts.\n55. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into and among the Target Accounts\nin ways that, based on my training and experience, are indicative of money laundering.\nSpecifically, the tracing of the funds reflects, among other things: (a) transfers of Investment\nScheme Funds from U.S. bank accounts to bank accounts located overseas (including the UAE\nand the Bahamas) in high risk jurisdictions that are frequent havens for money laundering;\n(b)layering of Investment Scheme Funds through a series of entities and bank accounts, in some\ncases pursuant to purported loan agreements or other financial arrangements, in a manner\nconsistent with concealment of the nature, source, or origin of the funds; (c) investments in real\nestate or other business interests that have no apparent connection with the stated purposes of the\nbusinesses controlling the bank accounts; and (d) the transfer of Investment Scheme Funds\nbetween multiple banks, as well as among multiple accounts within the same bank, in a single day.\n36\n\nUse of Multiple Banks and Financial Institutions to Conceal Investment Scheme Funds\n56. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. To date, law enforcement has identified more than at least 80 bank accounts\nbeing used by GUO, JE, and others to process Investment Scheme Funds, which include, among\nothers:\ni. At least approximately 19 bank accounts in the name of G Club\nentities (i.e., G Club International Limited or G Club Operations LLC) at approximately seven\ndifferent financial institutions;\nii. At least approximately 16 bank accounts in the name of Crane (i.e.,\nCrane Advisory Group LLC) at approximately six different financial institutions;\niii. At least approximately 28 bank accounts in the name of Farm\nentities at approximately six different financial institutions;\niv. At least approximately eight bank accounts in the name of G Fashion\nat approximately six different financial institutions;\nv. At least approximately 14 bank accounts in the name of Hamilton\nentities (e.g., Hamilton Investment Management Inc. or Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC) at\nSilvergate Bank in California; and\nvi. At least approximately three bank accounts in the name of Himalaya\nentities (i.e., Himalaya Reserve, Himalaya Financial, and Himalaya Clearing) at FV Bank in Puerto\nRico.\n37\n\nb. In addition to utilizing bank accounts held in the names of entities owned or\ncontrolled by JE and others directly involved in the Investment Schemes, GUO, JE, and others\nlayer Investment Scheme Funds through accounts at other financial institutions and third-party\npayment management entities to conceal the nature and source of the funds. For example, and as\ndescribed in greater detail herein:\ni. BSI Group LLC (“BSI Group”) is a Missouri-based company that\noffers payment agreement services. Based on my conversations with others, I have learned that\nBSI Group effectively operates as a wholesaler and opens bank accounts at U.S.-based financial\ninstitutions for its customers. U.S. banks that BSI Group contracts with include Capital One, The\nReserve Trust Company (“Reserve Trust”), Prime Trust LLC (“Prime Trust”), and a Puerto Rico-\nbased financial institution called Mercantile Bank International Corp. and its affiliated entities\n(“Mercantile Bank” or “MBI”). BSI Group is a client of Capital One, Reserve Trust, and Prime\nTrust, among other entities, while MBI is one of BSI Group’s customers.\nii. BSI Group manages transactions on behalf of its own customers,\nincluding MBI. BSI Group’s customers direct the movement of their funds—which are held in\naccounts in the name of BSI Group and/or Reserve Trust and Prime Trust—by requesting\ntransactions through BSI Group’s website (e.g., indicating the originator, payee, and amount for a\nspecific transaction).\niii. GUO, JE, and others have laundered more than approximately $300\nmillion in Investment Scheme Funds through bank accounts held in the names of various financial\nintermediary companies, including BSI Group, Reserve Trust, and Prime Trust. GUO, JE, and\nothers have also layered Investment Scheme Funds through bank accounts held at various different\nfinancial institutions.\n38\n\niv. For example, on or about May 20, 2021, G Club’s financial\ncontroller, Alex Hadjicharalambolous, exchanged emails with employees at Puerto Rico-based\nfinancial institutions Medici Bank and MBI regarding a $15 million wire transfer of G Club\nInvestment Scheme Funds from a bank account in the name of BSI Group to a bank account in the\nname of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC at Deltec Bank & Trust (“Deltec”), which is located in\nthe Bahamas (the “Hamilton Bahamas Account”). The next day, David Fallon (the President of\nHamilton) emailed Hajicharalmbous to advise that Hamilton could not credit the wire to G Club,\nbecause the wire reflected that the sender was “BSI Group.”\nv. Hadjicharalambous forwarded the email to an MBI employee, who\nthen responded to Hadjicharalmbous (copying Fallon) with the following explanation, in substance\nand in part:\nHI guys, so flow of funds is as follows. It’s a little detailed here so apologies.\nThe wire comes from BSI group ( MBIs corresponding bank partner)to Deltec\n(Hamilton)\nThe accounts are as follows\nBSI/MBI have an account at Capital one, it is an MBI Bank escrow account owned\nby MBI. BSI does the processing for us.\nMedici is a client of MBI for this 15mm dollar transaction, Medici has an account\nwith MBI at Capital one\nGCLUB is a client of Medici.\nGclubs clients send money to the MBI account at Capital one denoted for GClub\n(through medici). Medici ledgers each wire as they come into the bank.\nTo solve below request, what exactly do you need to show the fund admin? Proof\nof account ownership or money inflow (source of funds)\nFor going forward activity, GClub is now a direct client of MBI, so wires will be\nsent from GClubs account at MBI, but the wires will always come from BSI as the\nMBI corresponding bank . We (MBI bank) will have the flow of funds from GClub\nclient to the account, so we will have the ability to trace the full flow of funds in\nand out of the GCLUB account.\n39\n\nvi. Similarly, on or about July 1, 2021, Hadjicharalambolous sent an\nemail to an employee at Medici Bank, directing Medici Bank to transfer approximately $4 million\nfrom a G Club Medici Bank account to a G Club MBI account. The wire instructions attached to\nthe email identify MBI as the beneficiary entity, but list Reserve Trust as the beneficiary bank.\nvii. Based on my participation in this Investigation, I believe that the\nforegoing explanation is an example of the manner in which GUO, JE, and others launder\nInvestment Scheme Funds through multiple financial institutions in an effort to, among other\nthings, conceal their source. See ¶ 56(b)(3).\nTracing of Fraudulent Proceeds\n57. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Investors participate in the Investment Schemes by either wiring money\ndirectly to a bank account controlled or used by entities affiliated with GUO, JE, and others\n(including the Farms, G Club, or the Himalaya Exchange), or by wiring or otherwise transferring\nmoney to other entities at the direction of the Target Subjects (including, for example, Crane, BSI\nGroup, Reserve Trust, or Prime Trust), which funds are then transmitted to bank accounts\nultimately controlled by GUO, GUO’s associates, and JE. I have discovered accounts located in\nthe UAE, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Bahamas, and the British Virgin Islands,\nwhich GUO, JE, and other Target Subjects have used for the purpose of receiving investment funds\nfrom investors in the Unregistered Stock Offerings, the Convertible Loan Offering, G Club, and\nthe Himalaya Exchange.\n40\n\nb. To date, I and analysts at the FBI and SEC have identified and attempted to\ntrace more than approximately $1.04 billion in Investment Scheme Fund transactions, a substantial\npart of which has been laundered through financial institutions located in at least four different\ncountries, including the United States, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, and the UAE.\nFraud Proceeds are Combined in Hamilton Bahamas Account Before Transfer to Certain of the\nSilvergate Target Accounts\n58. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Between in or about May 2021 and June 2021, approximately $100 million\nin Investment Scheme Funds were transferred from G Club bank accounts into the Hamilton\nBahamas Account. Before the approximately $100 million was combined in the Hamilton\nBahamas Account, the Investment Scheme Funds were layered through a series of entities at\nvarious different banks in a manner that, based on my training and experience, is indicative of\nmoney laundering. Specifically:\ni. As described above, certain prospective Investment Scheme\ninvestors were instructed to send funds intended as an investment in GTV (for example) to a bank\naccount in the name of Crane. See supra at ¶ 40(f). Approximately $78.2 million of Investment\nScheme Funds was sent from individual or institutional investors in China and elsewhere to two\nCrane Advisory bank accounts (the “Crane Citibank Accounts”) between in or about November\n2020 and April 2021.\n41\n\nii. Approximately $60 million of those Investment Scheme Funds were\nthen transferred from the Crane Citibank Accounts to approximately five different bank accounts\nat MSSB held in the name of Crane (together, the “Crane MSSB Accounts”).\niii. The approximately $60 million in Investment Scheme Funds from\nthe Crane MSSB Accounts was combined with approximately $49 million in other Investment\nScheme Funds that had been transferred into the Crane MSSB Accounts from two Crane accounts\nat a different bank, Capital One (together, the “Crane Capital One Accounts”), raising the total\ncombined balance in the Crane MSSB Accounts to approximately $109 million.\niv. Approximately $79 million of those approximately $109 million in\nInvestment Scheme Funds in the Crane MSSB Accounts were then transferred to accounts at the\nsame bank (i.e., MSSB), but in the name of G Club (i.e., the G Club MSSB Accounts). The\napproximately $79 million was combined with approximately $79.7 million in other Investment\nScheme Funds that had been transferred into the G Club MSSB Accounts from individual G Club\nInvestors and from G Club bank accounts at Signature Bank, First Bank of Puerto Rico, and City\nNational Bank, raising the total combined balance of Investment Scheme Funds in the G Club\nMSSB Accounts to more than approximately $158 million.\nv. Approximately $85 million of Investment Scheme Funds was\ntransferred from the G Club MSSB Accounts to the Hamilton Bahamas Account, and combined\nwith approximately $15 million in other Investment Scheme Funds (relating to G Club and the\nHimalaya Assets) sourced from a bank account in the name of BSI Group. See ¶ 56(b)(v). Thus,\nthe $100 million of Investment Scheme Funds in the Hamilton Bahamas Account consisted of\n42\n\nfunds transferred from the G Club MSSB Accounts and other accounts containing Investment\nScheme Funds.\nFraud Proceeds are Transferred to Silvergate Bank\n59. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. On or about July 5, 2021, JE submitted a business bank account application\nto Silvergate Bank (the “Silvergate Application”) in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Funds\nSPC. JE’s company, Hamilton, is the investment manager of the Cayman Islands-registered hedge\nfund, Hamilton Investment Opportunity SPC. Between in or about July 2021 and the present, JE\nopened more than approximately 14 bank accounts at Silvergate Bank in the name of various\nHamilton-affiliated hedge funds or entities, including Hamilton Investment Opportunity SPC and\nHamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, and at least four bank accounts at Silvergate Bank in the name\nof Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. See ¶ 19(d)(iii).\nb. Between on or about September 1, 2021 and on or about July 5, 2022, JE-\ncontrolled Silvergate Bank accounts received approximately $664 million in Investment Scheme\nFunds. Specifically:\ni. In or about September 2021, approximately $85 million of the\nInvestment Scheme Funds was transferred from the Hamilton Bahamas Account, see supra at\n¶ 56(b)(iv), to a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending\nin 9306 (the “9306 Silvergate Account”). The approximately $85 million was combined with\napproximately $25 million in Investment Scheme Funds sourced from a bank account in the name\n43\n\nof Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. at a bank in the Bahamas (the “Himalaya Bahamas\nAccount”). Thus, as of in or about late September 2021, the 9306 Silvergate Account held at least\napproximately $110 million in Investment Scheme Funds.\nii. On or about October 27, 2021, approximately $59 million of the\napproximately $110 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 9306 Silvergate\nAccount to a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Digital Assets, ending in 7747 (the\n“7747 Silvergate Account”). Later that same day, the approximately $59 million was transferred\nfrom the 7747 Silvergate Account to Target Account-1 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the\nname of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 7739).\niii. Also on or about October 27, 2021, approximately $25 million of\nthe approximately $110 million was transferred from the 9306 Silvergate Account to Target\nAccount-2 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\nending in 7705). As described in greater detail below, once received in Target Account-2, the\nmonies were combined with approximately $50 million in Himalaya Asset Investor Funds sourced\nfrom an FV Bank account in the name of Himalaya International Clearing Ltd., ending in 3763\n(the “3763 FV Account”).\n1. Approximately $30 million of the $50 million transferred\nfrom the 3763 FV Account into Target Account-2 can be traced to the approximately $110 million\nin Investment Scheme Funds that had been held in the 9306 Silvergate Account. That is, while\napproximately $25 million of the $110 million was transferred directly to Target Account-2 on\nor about October 27, 2021, an additional $30 million of the approximately $110 million was\ntransferred into Target Account-2 only after passing through three other bank accounts: the 7747\nSilvergate Account (held in the name of Hamilton Digital Assets), then Target Account-1 (held\n44\n\nin the name Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC), and finally the 3763 FV Account (held in the name\nof Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.).\niv. Also on or about October 27, 2021, approximately $26 million of\nthe approximately $110 million was transferred from the 9306 Silvergate Account to a Silvergate\nBank account in the name of Hamilton Diversified Trading Fund, ending in 7762 (the “7762\nSilvergate Account”). Later that same day, the approximately $26 million was transferred from\nthe 7762 Silvergate Account to Target Account-3 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of\nHamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 7754). Approximately two months later, on or about\nJanuary 4, 2022, approximately $26 million was transferred from Target Account-3 to the UAE\nACA Capital Account (i.e., an offshore bank account controlled by JE). See ¶¶ 32, 34.\nc. On or about December 2, 2021, approximately $46.5 million in Investment\nScheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-1 to Target Account-4 (i.e., a Silvergate\nBank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 7713). Once received in\nTarget Account-4, the monies were combined with approximately $5.6 million in Investment\nScheme Funds sourced from the Himalaya Bahamas Account (which funds passed through a\nSilvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton PE Fund SP, ending in 7721), raising the\ncombined balance of Target Account-4 to approximately $52.1 million.\nd. On or about December 17, 2021, approximately $24.5 million of the\napproximately $52.1 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-\n4 to a bank account in the name of Insight Title Services LLC Trust AC; the stated purpose of the\ntransaction was for the purchase of residential property in Mahwah, New Jersey on behalf of an\nentity called Taurus Fund SP. Based on my review of a corporate resolution signed by JE, I have\nlearned that Taurus Fund SP is a segregated portfolio of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (i.e.,\nthat JE controls Taurus Fund SP).\n45\n\ne. Between at least on or about January 24, 2022 and on or about April 4, 2022,\napproximately $73.8 million of Investment Scheme Funds was transferred into Target Account-\n5 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 2770).\nThe incoming transfers into Target Account-5 consisted primarily of wires ranging between\napproximately $1,100 to approximately $3 million from Chinese individuals, with some\nindividuals sending multiple incoming wires. Based on my participation in this investigation and\nmy training and experience, I believe the transfers into Target Account-5 are consistent with\nmoney laundering, including layering funds through different entities—for example, directing\ninvestor funds into a bank account in the names of an entity other than the intended investment\nvehicle, which here would be G Club or Himalaya Exchange. I further believe that the incoming\ntransfers are consistent with G Club investors purchasing multiple memberships, and therefore are\nfraud proceeds. See ¶ 40(g).\nf. Between on or about March 10, 2022 and on or about April 1, 2022,\napproximately $77,998,889.20 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from bank\naccounts in the name of HCHK Technologies or HCHK Property into Target Account-6 (i.e., a\nSilvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 2762). As\ndescribed above, starting in or about July 2021, various GUO-affiliated entities began to operate\nunder the newly-formed companies HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property. See ¶ 41. Based\non my participation in this investigation and my training and experience, and as described above,\nI believe the nature of the transfers into Target Account-6 are consistent with money laundering,\nincluding layering funds through different entities and concealing their true source and/or purpose.\nSee, e.g., ¶ 56(b)(v).\ng. The Investment Scheme Funds were traced into Target Account-7 and\nTarget Account-8 in the following manner:\n46\n\ni. On or about January 31, 2022, approximately $5.1 million in\nInvestment Scheme Funds was transferred from a bank account in the name of a particular Chinese\ninvestor (“Investor-2”) into Target Account-7 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of\nHamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, ending in 2820).\nii. Between on or about January 31, 2022 and on or about February 4,\n2022, approximately $1 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from bank accounts\nin the names of two particular Chinese investors (“Investor-3” and “Investor-4”) into Target\nAccount-8 (i.e., a Silvergate Bank account in the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\nending in 2747).\niii. Based on my review of subpoena returns and search warrant returns,\nI have learned that Investor-2 through -4 had previously invested in the GTV Stock Offering and/or\nthe other Investment Schemes. Specifically:\n1. According to a spreadsheet GTV maintained of more than\napproximately 1,200 investors in the GTV Stock Offering, Investor-2, Investor-3, and Investor-4\neach purchased GTV stock; Investor-2 purchased approximately 3.3 million shares, Investor-3\npurchased approximately 2 million shares, and Investor-4 purchased approximately 800,000\nshares.\n2. On or about January 25, 2021, the President of Crane\nemailed “onboarding profiles” for Investor-2, Investor-3, and Investor-4 to MSSB. As described\nabove, see ¶ 40(f), potential investors in the Investment Schemes were directed to send their\ninvestments to Crane, which purportedly served as payment processor for GTV, G Club, and/or\nHimalaya Exchange.\n3. On or about June 15, 2021, Investor-2 emailed a wire\ntransfer request to MSSB that stated the following, in substance and in part: “I’d like to invest [in]\n47\n\na company called Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.” The email requested a wire of\napproximately $3.4M to a Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. account at Metropolitan\nCommercial Bank. See infra ¶ 59(h).\nh. Based on my participation in this Investigation and my training and\nexperience, and as described above, I believe the approximately $5.1M in transfers from Investor-\n2 into Target Account-7 and the approximately $1 million in transfers from Investor-3 and\nInvestor-4 into Target Account-8 are the proceeds of wire fraud and money laundering, because\nthey are funds Investors-2 through-4 paid with the intent to purchase additional G Club\nmemberships and/or Himalaya Assets, but which GUO, JE and others instead directed into JE’s\nhedge fund bank account to conceal their true source and/or purpose. See, e.g., ¶ 56(b)(v).\ni. On or about June 11, 2021, JE opened Target Account-9 (i.e., a Silvergate\nBank account in the name of JE’s company, Hamilton Investment Management Ltd., ending in\n0288). Between at least in or about January 2022 and in or about June 2022, at least approximately\n$50.4 million of Investment Scheme Funds was transferred into Target Account-9 over the course\nof approximately five incoming wire transfers; specifically:\n1. On or about January 13, 2022, Target Account-9 received an\nincoming wire of approximately $10.8 million in Investment Scheme Funds from a Signature Bank\naccount in the name of Prime Trust, ending in 6126 (the “Prime Trust Signature Account”). See\n¶ 56(b)(i)-(iii).\n2. On or about February 10, 2022, Target Account-9 received an\nincoming wire of approximately $11.7 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the Prime Trust\nSignature Account.\n3. On or about June 13, 2022, Target Account-9 received an incoming\nwire of approximately $8 million in Investment Scheme Funds from a particular bank account at\n48\n\nMetropolitan Commercial Bank (“MCB”), ending in 6891 (the “6891 MCB Account”).\nTransaction details provided by Silvergate Bank list “FV Bank – Himalaya International” as the\nPayer on the transaction, and identify MCB as the name of the “Payer” financial institution. FV\nBank records, in turn, reflect that the transfer was from the 3763 FV Account, but do not reflect\nany involvement of MCB as an intermediary for the transaction. Based on information provided\nby MCB, I have learned that the 6891 MCB Account was a pooled funds account for FV Bank,\nand have further learned that MCB processes transactions for FV Bank’s account holders (as\nrelevant here, the Himalaya entities) in USD.\nj. On or about June 14, 2022, Target Account-9 received an incoming wire\nof approximately $10 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the 6891 MCB Account. FV\nBank account records reflect that the transfer was actually from the 3763 FV Account, but do not\nreflect any involvement of MCB as an intermediary for the transaction.\nk. On or about June 22, 2022, Target Account-9 received an incoming wire\nof approximately $10 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the 6891 MCB Account. FV\nBank account records reflect that the transfer was from the 3763 FV Account, but do not reflect\nany involvement of MCB as an intermediary for the transaction.\nFraud Proceeds are Used to Fund GUO-Affiliated Companies\n60. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. As described above, JE’s company owns approximately 95% of Gettr. See\nsupra at ¶ 41(f).\n49\n\nb. On or about June 30, 2022, approximately $3 million was transferred from\nTarget Account-4 to Target Account-10 (i.e., a Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. bank account\nheld in the name of GETTR USA, Inc., ending in 4409). The wire details reflect that the transfer\nwas for “CAPITAL CALL JUNE 3M USD.”\nc. On or about July 27, 2022, approximately $3 million was transferred from\nTarget Account-4 to Target Account-10. The wire details reflect that the transfer was for\n“CAPITAL CALL JULY 3M USD.”\nd. On or about August 29, 2022, approximately $5 million was transferred\nfrom Target Account-4 to Target Account-10. The wire details reflect that the transfer was for\n“CAPITAL CALL AUGUST 10M USD (X2 5M).”\ne. On or about August 30, 2022, an additional approximately $5 million was\ntransferred from Target Account-4 to Target Account-10. The wire details reflect that the\ntransfer was for “CAPITAL CALL AUGUST 5M USD (10M TRA NSFER 2 of 2).”\nf. Based on the foregoing, I believe that JE and others are using fraud proceeds\nto fund Gettr.\nFraud Proceeds are Layered Through Various Banking Institutions\n61. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. As described herein, GUO, JE, and others have layered fraud proceeds\nthrough accounts at various entities, including, among others: certain accounts at MCB maintained\n50\n\nFBO FV Bank’s account holders (i.e., the Himalaya entities); and accounts held by BSI Group in\nthe name of various entities. See ¶ 56(b).\nb. As further described herein, FV Bank holds Investment Scheme Funds in\ncorrespondent bank accounts, or FBO accounts, at MCB.\n62. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned that, starting at least in or about February 2022, JE and\nothers began to layer more than approximately $300 million in Investment Scheme Funds through\ncertain bank accounts. Specifically:\na. Between on or about February 15, 2022 and on or about March 29, 2022,\napproximately $160 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV\nAccount to a Royal Business Bank account in the name of Prime Trust LLC, ending in 6050 (the\n“Prime Trust RBB Account”) in the course of approximately 16 wire transactions.\nb. On or about March 21, 2022, JE opened an FV Bank account in the name\nof Himalaya International Financial Group, ending in 2119 (the “2119 FV Account”) and an FV\nBank account in the name of Himalaya International Reserves Ltd., ending in 8239 (the “8239 FV\nAccount”).\nc. Between on or about March 21, 2022 and on or about May 13, 2022,\napproximately $190 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV\nAccount (i.e., the Himalaya Clearing FV Bank account ending in 3763) to the 2119 FV Account\nand the 8239 FV Account in the course of approximately 12 wire transactions. For example:\n51\n\ni. Between on or about March 21, 2022 and on or March 29, 2022,\napproximately $100 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV\nAccount to the 2119 FV Account and/or the 8239 FV Account in the course of approximately 10\nwire transactions.\nii. On or about May 13, 2022, approximately $30 million in Investment\nScheme Funds was transferred from the 3763 FV Account to the 2119 FV Account in a single wire\ntransaction, and approximately $60 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the\n3763 FV Account to the 8239 FV Account in a single wire transaction.\nd. On or about May 24, 2022, approximately $44.6 million in Investment\nScheme Funds was transferred from the 2119 FV Account to the 8239 FV Account in a single wire\ntransaction.\ni. The approximately $44.6 million was part of approximately $80\nmillion that had been transferred from the 3763 FV Account to the 2119 FV Account. See\n¶ 62(c)(i)(ii).\nii. That is, while approximately $110 million was transferred directly\nfrom the 3763 FV Account to the 8239 FV Account, an additional approximately $44.6 million of\nthe approximately $190 million was transferred into the 8239 FV Account only after passing\nthrough the 2119 FV Account.\ne. On or about August 15, 2022, an employee of MCB sent email correspondence\nconfirming MCB’s relationship with FV Bank regarding Target Account-11, which is an MCB\naccount FBO FV Bank customers. The MCB employee confirmed that Target Account-11 is a\npooled account that contains funds for the Himalaya entities (i.e., the 3763 FV Account, the 2119\nFV Account, and the 8239 FV Account).\n52\n\n63. Based on my review of information provided by Silvergate, I have learned that\nTarget Account-1 through Target Account-9 held a combined total of approximately\n$292,407,029.22 as of on or about August 31, 2022, as reflected in the table below:\nTarget Account Account Number Balance\nTarget Account-1 5090037739 $1,800,000.00\nTarget Account-2 5090037705 $75,000,000.00\nTarget Account-3 5090037754 $467,343.00\nTarget Account-4 5090037713 $167,826.87\nTarget Account-5 5090042770 $83,872,761.75\nTarget Account-6 5090042762 $76,690,856.60\nTarget Account-7 5090042820 $5,106,100.00\nTarget Account-8 5090042747 $1,026,000.00\nTarget Account-9 5090030288 $48,276,141.00\nTotal $292,407,029.22\n64. Based on my review of information from Silvergate, I have learned that Target\nAccount-10 received a total of approximately $16,000,000.00 from Target Account-4 between\non or about June 30, 2022 and on or about August 30, 2022.\n65. Based on my review of information provided by FV Bank and MCB, I have learned\nthat Target Account-11 held a combined total of approximately $13,613,172.71 as of on or about\nAugust 15, 2022.\nIII. Conclusion\n66. Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that funds\nheld in the accounts constituting the Target Property are subject to forfeiture as proceeds of\nviolations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) and § 1344 (bank fraud), and/or as property involved\nin violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and 1956(h) (money laundering\nand conspiracy to commit money laundering).\n53\n\n67. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(b), I respectfully request that the Court\nissue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the Target Property.\n/s/ Anthony Alecci, by SDA with permission\n_____________________________________\nANTHONY ALECCI\nSpecial Agent\nFederal Bureau of Investigation\nSworn to me through the transmission of this\nAffidavit by reliable electronic means, pursuant to\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(d)(3) and 4.1,\nthis 18th day of September, 2022\n_____________________________________\nTHE HONORABLE STEWART D. AARON\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n54","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":17290,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:38"},{"id":"court_sdny_716_5","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Exhibit E\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n22 MAG 8279\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n-v.-\nAffidavit in Support of Seizure\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile Warrant\nBank International account MBI10103-0000,\nheld by G Club International Ltd. (“Target Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984\nAccount-1”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile\nBank International account MBI10133-0000,\nheld by Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.\n(“Target Account-2”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile\nBank International account MBI10137-0000,\nheld by Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. (“Target\nAccount-3”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile\nBank International account MBI10138-0000,\nheld by Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.\n(“Target Account-4”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile\nBank International account MBI10139-0000,\nheld by Himalaya International Financial Group\nLtd. (“Target Account-5”), and all funds\ntraceable thereto, including accrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile\nBank International account MBI10171-0000,\nheld by Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.\n(“Target Account-6”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest;\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile\nBank International account MBI10172-0000,\nheld by G Fashion International Limited\n\n(“Target Account-7”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest; and\nAll monies and funds contained in Mercantile\nBank International account MBI10183-0000,\nheld by Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.\n(“Target Account-8”), and all funds traceable\nthereto, including accrued interest (collectively,\nthe “Target Property”).\nDefendants-in-rem.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.:\nAnthony Alecci, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn,\ndeposes and says:\nI. Introduction\n1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or\n“Investigating Agency”). I have been a Special Agent with the FBI since in or about August 2020.\nSince in or about September 2021, I have been assigned to the FBI’s Complex Financial Crimes\nsquad. During my time with the FBI, I have participated in investigations of securities and wire\nfraud schemes, bank fraud, and money laundering, and have, among other things, conducted or\nparticipated in debriefings of witnesses, reviews of financial records, and the execution of search\nwarrants. In particular, I have participated in the execution of search warrants involving physical\npremises, electronic devices, and other electronic evidence.\n2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the United States of America’s Application\nfor the issuance of a seizure warrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984, for:\na. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10103-0000, held by G Club International Ltd. (“Target Account-1”), and all funds traceable\n2\n\nthereto, including accrued interest;\nb. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10133-0000, held by Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. (“Target Account-2”), and all\nfunds traceable thereto, including accrued interest;\nc. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10137-0000, held by Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. (“Target Account-3”), and all funds\ntraceable thereto, including accrued interest;\nd. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10138-0000, held by Himalaya International Reserves Ltd. (“Target Account-4”), and all\nfunds traceable thereto, including accrued interest;\ne. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10139-0000, held by Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (“Target Account-5”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including accrued interest;\nf. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10171-0000, held by Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. (“Target Account-6”), and all\nfunds traceable thereto, including accrued interest;\ng. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10172-0000, held by G Fashion International Limited (“Target Account-7”), and all funds\ntraceable thereto, including accrued interest; and\nh. All monies and funds contained in Mercantile Bank International account\nMBI10183-0000, held by Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd. (“Target Account-8,” together\nwith Target Account-1 through -7, the “Target Accounts”), and all funds traceable thereto,\nincluding accrued interest (collectively, the “Target Property”).\n3. The Target Property constitutes the proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343\n3\n\n(wire fraud) and 1956 (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering) (together,\nthe “Target Offenses”), as described below.\n4. This affidavit is based on, among other sources of information: (i) my personal\nknowledge; (ii) information provided by personnel at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission\n(“SEC”) participating in a parallel investigation; (iii) my review of publicly available promotional\nmaterials relating to, among other ventures, “G Club” and the “Himalaya Exchange;” (iv) my\nreview of the publicly available websites for GTV Media Group, Inc. (“GTV”), the Himalaya\nExchange, and “G Club,” and materials available on those websites; (v) open-source research that\nI have conducted on the Internet; (vi) my review of digital videos posted on www.gnews.org\n(“GNews”) by GTV Media Group, Inc. and its employees and agents; (vii) my participation in\nvarious witness interviews; (viii) my review of electronic evidence obtained pursuant to\nsubpoenas, orders issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) for non-content information, and\njudicially authorized search warrants; (ix) the review and analysis of various bank account records,\nincluding financial records obtained from financial institutions pursuant to subpoenas and other\nrequests, conducted by myself and financial analysts at the FBI and SEC; (x) my review of\ndocuments provided by counsel for, among other entities, G Club, HCHK Technologies Inc.,\nHamilton Investment Management Ltd., and Major Lead International ROM (the parent entity of\nthe “Himalaya Exchange”); (xi) my conversations with other law enforcement officers; and\n(xi) my training and experience concerning the commission of financial crimes. Because this\naffidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause, it does not\ninclude all the facts that I have learned during the course of my investigation. Where dates, figures,\nand calculations are set forth herein, they are approximate. Where the contents of documents and\nthe actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein, they are reported in\nsubstance and in part, except where otherwise indicated.\n4\n\n5. As set forth herein, there is probable cause to believe that the Target Property is\nsubject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A), (C) & (D) and 18 U.S.C.\n§981(b) as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and/or the proceeds of\nviolations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, or property traceable thereto. In summary, the evidence reveals a\nseries of fraudulent investment schemes that pertain to several interrelated companies and their\naffiliated entities, including GTV Media Group Inc. (“GTV”), G Fashion (“G Fashion”), the\nHimalaya Farm Alliance (the “Farms”), the Himalaya Exchange (“Himalaya”), G Club Operations\nLLC (“G Club”), Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. (“Hamilton”), ACA Capital Group Ltd.\n(“ACA Capital”), and Crane Advisory Group LLC (“Crane”). As set forth in more detail below,\nthe leaders of the fraudulent investment schemes are Miles Guo, a/k/a “Guo Wengui,” a/k/a “Miles\nKwok” (“GUO”) and William Je, a/k/a Je Kin Ming (“JE”).\n6. Analysts at the FBI and SEC and I have traced the flow of certain fraud proceeds\nfrom victims of the investment schemes to the Target Property.\nII. Statutory Basis for Forfeiture\n7. The statutory provisions pursuant to which the Target Property is subject to civil\nseizure and forfeiture are as follows:\nMoney Laundering Offenses\n8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(A), subjects to civil forfeiture:\nAny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in\nviolation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such\nproperty.\n9. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\nknowing that the property involved in a financial transaction\ninvolves the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts\nor attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact\ninvolves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity –\n5\n\n(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in\npart—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the\nsource, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds\nof specified unlawful activity [shall be guilty of a\ncrime.]\n10. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\ntransports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit,\nor transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the\nUnited States to or through a place outside the United States or to a\nplace in the United States from or through a place outside the\nUnited States—\n(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in\nthe transportation, transmission, or transfer represent\nthe proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that\nsuch transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or\nin part—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source,\nthe ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified\nunlawful activity [shall be guilty of a crime.]\n11. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) further provides that “[a]ny person who conspires to commit\nany offense defined in [Section 1956] shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for\nthe offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”\nWire Fraud Offenses\n12. For purposes of Section 1956, “specified unlawful activity,” defined in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1956(c)(7), includes, among other things, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. See 18 U.S.C.\n§§ 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1).\n13. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), subjects to civil forfeiture any\nproperty, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation\nof . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of\nthis title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\n6\n\nSeizure Warrants\n14. The Court is empowered by 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) to issue a seizure warrant for any\nproperty subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) & (C). Section 981(b)(2)\nprovides that such a seizure may be made “pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as\nprovided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” In addition, Section\n981(b)(3) provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41(a), a seizure warrant may be issued pursuant to Section 981(b) by a judicial officer in any\ndistrict in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed under Title 28, United States\nCode, Section 1355(b). Under Section 1355(b)(1)(A), a forfeiture action or proceeding may be\nbrought in the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.\nAs set forth below, the offenses underlying the requested seizure warrant included acts or\nomissions occurring in the Southern District of New York.\n15. With respect to fungible property, including cash and funds deposited in a financial\ninstitution, 18 U.S.C. § 984 provides, in relevant part, that:\n(a)(1) In any forfeiture action in rem in which the subject property is cash, monetary\ninstruments in bearer form, funds deposited in an account in a financial institution . . . , or\nprecious metals:\n(A) it shall not be necessary for the Government to identify the specific property\ninvolved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture; and\n(B) it shall not be a defense that the property involved in such an offense has\nbeen removed and replaced by identical property.\n(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), any identical property found in the same place\nor account as the property involved in the offense that is the basis for the forfeiture shall\nbe subject to forfeiture under this section.\n(b) No action pursuant to this section to forfeit property not traceable directly to the\noffense that is the basis for the forfeiture may be commenced more than 1 year from the\ndate of the offense.\n7\n\nIII. Probable Cause\nA. Probable Cause Regarding Commission of the Subject Offenses\nThe Prior Seizure Warrants\n16. On or about September 17, 2022, I submitted (under seal) an affidavit in support of\nseizure warrants for funds held in 11 bank accounts, including all funds in one Metropolitan\nCommercial Bank (“MCB”) account, held For Benefit Of FV Bank, and all funds in nine Silvergate\nBank (“Silvergate”) accounts, held by William JE in the names of Hamilton Opportunity Fund\nSPC or Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. (the “September 17 Affidavit1”). The September\n17 Affidavit is incorporated herein as Exhibit A. On or about September 18, 2022, the Honorable\nStewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued\nseizure warrants for those 11 accounts, including a warrant to Silvergate for the nine Silvergate\naccounts (“Silvergate Warrant-1”) and a warrant to MCB for the one MCB account held For\nBenefit Of FV Bank (the “MCB Warrant”).\n17. Also on or about September 17, 2022, I submitted (under seal) an affidavit in\nsupport of a seizure warrant for approximately one U.S. Bank account, held in the name of G\nFashion (the “G Fashion Affidavit”). The G Fashion Affidavit is incorporated herein as Exhibit\nB. On or about September 18, 2022, Judge Aaron issued a seizure warrant for that U.S. Bank\naccount (the “U.S. Bank Warrant”).\n18. On or about September 20, 2022, I submitted (under seal) an affidavit in support of\nseizure warrants for four additional bank accounts, specifically, one Silvergate account, held in the\nname of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, and three FV Bank accounts, held in the names of\nHimalaya International Financial Group, Ltd., Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd., and\n1 The September 17 Affidavit also supported the seizure of up to $16 million contained in a\nManufacturers & Traders Trust Co. held by GETTR USA, Inc.\n8\n\nHimalaya International Clearing, Ltd. (the “September 20 Affidavit.”) The September 20\nAffidavit is incorporated herein as Exhibit C. On or about September 20, 2022, Judge Aaron\nissued seizure warrants for (a) that Silvergate account (“Silvergate Warrant-2”), and (b) those three\nFV Bank accounts (the “FV Warrant,” together with Silvergate Warrant-1, Silvergate Warrant-2,\nand the U.S. Bank Warrant, the “Prior Seizure Warrants”).\nOverview of the Fraudulent Investment Schemes\n19. Since in or around May 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern\nDistrict of New York (“SDNY”) and the FBI, among other law enforcement agencies, have been\ninvestigating a series of interrelated fraudulent investment schemes that pertain to several\ncompanies that are owned or operated by, or otherwise affiliated with, GUO, JE, and their\nassociates (collectively, the “Investment Schemes”). To date, the investigation (“Investigation”)\nhas revealed that the Investment Schemes involve the solicitation and subsequent investment\nand/or misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars. GUO and JE are leaders of the\nInvestment Schemes.\n20. The Investment Schemes are conducted through various, interrelated investment\nofferings, all of which exhibit features that are consistent with fraud. For example, investors are\npromised unrealistic, outsized returns on their investments; investors are induced to invest on the\nbasis of numerous misrepresentations; a large portion of the investment money is misappropriated;\nand with respect to the sale of digital asset securities, those currencies have never been tradable on\na public exchange, despite representations that they would be.\n21. Certain of the interrelated Investment Schemes are historical, while others are\nongoing. Specifically:\na. The GTV stock offering and the G Coin offering (collectively, the\n“Unregistered Stock Offerings”) operated between in or about April 2020 and in or about July\n9\n\n2020. As a result of the Unregistered Stock Offerings, the proceeds of which were commingled,\ncompanies affiliated with GUO, JE, and others (the “Target Subjects”) collectively raised at least\napproximately $487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United\nStates. The Unregistered Stock Offerings are described in greater detail in the September 17\nAffidavit. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 20-29.\nb. Starting at least in or about July 2020, the leaders of the Investment\nSchemes began to pitch investors on a new set of investment opportunities, marketed as an\nopportunity to convert their existing investments in GTV into a “loan” to GTV (the “Convertible\nLoan Offering”). The Convertible Loan Offering was carried out by the Guo-backed Himalaya\nFarm Alliance, which consists of informal groups, or “Farms,” of Chinese expatriates located in\nvarious cities around the world. Between in or about August 2020 and March 2021, the U.S.-\nbased Farms raised approximately $148 million from the Convertible Loan Offering. The\nConvertible Loan Offering is described in greater detail in the September 17 Affidavit. See Ex. A\nat ¶¶ 30-34.\nc. Starting in or about October 2020, the leaders of the Investment Schemes\nbegan to pitch investors on a purported luxury, exclusive concierge service called G Club (the “G\nClub Membership Offering”). The G Club Website, viewable at http advertises\n“An Exclusive Membership to a First-Class Tomorrow.” G Club purportedly offers five\nmembership tiers, ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 annually. The annual fee for the desired\nmembership tier must be paid in full with the submission of the G Club membership application,\nand G Club reserves the right to reject any membership application within 30 days at its sole and\nabsolute discretion. According to the G Club Website, G Club memberships provide, among other\nthings, “access to a concierge customer service with Mandarin and English access and support”\nand “exclusive early access to [the] latest fashion collections, including special member pricing on\n10\n\npurchases, extended video blogging time and early access to select music.” The G Club\nMembership Offering is described in greater detail in the September 17 Affidavit. See Ex. A at\n¶¶ 35-41. G Club is an ongoing investment scheme.\nd. In or about 2021, JE founded and began to market a purported\ncryptocurrency exchange platform called the Himalaya Exchange, available at\nhttp Similar to the link between G-Coin / G-Dollar and the Unregistered\nStock Offerings, the purported cryptocurrencies Himalaya Coin (“HCO” or “HCN”) and Himalaya\nDollar (“HDO”) (together, the “Himalaya Assets”) were initially offered as purported companion\ndigital asset securities for investors in the Convertible Loan Program. When the Himalaya\nExchange Website was launched, prospective investors were told that they would be able to\nexchange and withdraw their Himalaya cryptocurrency as of June 2021. However, the initial coin\noffering (“ICO”) of the Himalaya Assets was delayed several times, with the ICO taking place on\nNovember 1, 2021. The Himalaya Exchange is described in greater detail in the September 17\nAffidavit, see Ex. A ¶¶ 42-47, and herein. See infra at ¶¶ 41-47. The Himalaya Exchange is an\nongoing investment scheme.\n22. As described in the September 17 Affidavit, JE and others have raised at least\napproximately $664 million between in or about September 2020 and the present through G Club\nand the Himalaya Exchange.\nBackground on GUO and JE\n23. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review of law\nenforcement reports, review of documents, records, videos that were posted on social media\nplatforms, and public source research that I have conducted on the Internet, as well as my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\n11\n\na. GUO is a purported billionaire and a Chinese national who allegedly fled\nChina for the United States in 2014, after learning that an associate had been arrested on corruption\ncharges.\nb. GUO is involved with various entities relevant to the Investment Schemes,\nincluding GTV, G News, G Music LLC (“G Music”), G Club, G Fashion (“G Fashion”), and\nGETTR USA, Inc. (“Gettr”). GUO does not hold formal titles or positions at these entities.\nHowever, Guo publicly promotes these entities, including in videos he posts for his “followers”\non GTV, G News, and GETTR.2\nc. In or about 2018, GUO founded organizations named the Rule of Law\nFoundation (“ROLF”) and the Rule of Law Society (“ROLS”). Based on my review of publicly\navailable information, I have learned that the Rule of Law projects were underway by in or about\nDecember 2018.3 ROLF and ROLS are purportedly organizations dedicated to exposing and\ncombatting corruption in China by the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”). At times, the board\nmembers for ROLF and/or ROLS have included Stephen K. Bannon (“Bannon”) and Kyle Bass\n(“Bass”). GUO does not hold a formal position at ROLF or ROLS; however, on the ROLS website,\nGUO is described as “the founder, a promoter and a spokesperson,” and a sponsor.\nd. JE, a close associate of GUO, has been described as a financier and\nentrepreneur. JE is involved with various entities relevant to the Investment Schemes, as described\nin greater detail below. Specifically:\n2 See, e.g., gnews.org/articles/992 and http\n3 See http\n(describing Guo and Bannon’s involvement in the “Rule of Law Fund”).\n12\n\ni. JE is the CEO of Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.\n(“Hamilton”), a purported global fund management company.4 Hamilton is headquartered in the\nBritish Virgin Islands and was incorporated on or about February 5, 2018. JE was formally\nappointed Director of Hamilton on or about March 20, 2019.\nii. JE is the Director of ACA Capital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), a\npurported Hong Kong-based investment firm5 that was incorporated in the United Kingdom on or\nabout July 10, 2020.\ne. JE is listed as the founder and Chairman of the Himalaya Exchange, a\npurported cryptocurrency “ecosystem.” JE is the 100% beneficial owner of various entities that\noperate the Himalaya Exchange, including Major Lead International Ltd., Himalaya International\nClearing Ltd. (“Himalaya Clearing”), Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (“Himalaya\nFinancial”), and Himalaya International Reserves Ltd. (“Himalaya Reserves”).\nOverview of the Scheme to Launder Fraud Proceeds\n24. As described in greater detail herein and in the September 17 Affidavit, since at\nleast in or about 2020, GUO, JE, and others have operated the Investment Schemes, i.e., various\ninterrelated fraudulent investment schemes. The Investment Schemes involve entities affiliated\nwith GUO and/or JE, including GTV, G Fashion, G Club, HCHK Technologies, the Himalaya\nFarms, the Himalaya Exchange, Hamilton, and ACA Capital, among others.\n25. As described above, between in or about April 2020 and June 2020, GUO, JE, and\nothers fraudulently obtained more than approximately $635 million in purported investments\nthrough the Unregistered Stock Offerings and Convertible Loan Offering. See supra ¶ 21.\n4 See http (last visited October 11, 2022).\n5 See http (last visited October 11, 2022).\n13\n\nMoreover, records that I or others have reviewed in the course of the Investigation show that,\nbetween in or about November 2020 and June 2022, the G Club Membership Offering has\ngenerated more than approximately $221 million in purported G Club membership fees. As\ndescribed herein, records that I or others have reviewed in the court of the Investigation further\nshow that, between in or about April 2021and October 2022, the Himalaya Exchange scheme has\ngenerated more than approximately $500 million in purported cryptocurrency investments.\n26. As detailed below and in the September 17 Affidavit, the evidence demonstrates\nthat between at least approximately April 2020 and the present, GUO, JE, and others have been\nengaged in a scheme to launder fraud proceeds from the Investment Schemes (which include the\nUnregistered Stock Offerings, the Convertible Loan Offering, the G Club Membership Offering,\nand the Himalaya Exchange) (collectively, the “Investment Scheme Funds”).\n27. As part of the money laundering scheme, JE and others have conducted financial\ntransactions totaling more than approximately $1.5 billion, as described in greater detail below and\nin the September 17 Affidavit.\n28. As a further part of the money laundering scheme, and as set forth below, see infra\n¶¶ 51-53, at least approximately $626 million of the Investment Scheme Funds were remitted,\neither directly or indirectly, to the Target Accounts between on or about July 2, 2021 and October\n6, 2022.\nMercantile Bank and the Target Accounts\n29. The Target Accounts are all held at Mercantile Bank.\na. Mercantile Bank is a payments and digital asset custody bank based in\nPuerto Rico.6 Mercantile Bank was incorporated on or about July 16, 2018.\n6 http\n14\n\nb. Counsel for Mercantile Global Holdings, Inc. (“MGH”)—the parent\nholding company of Mercantile Bank—has described Mercantile Bank as “a startup bank.”\nSpecifically, because Mercantile Bank does not have direct access to the Federal Reserve payment\nsystem via a Federal Reserve master account, it has sought to partner with other bank(s) that have\nsuch an account (i.e., correspondent banking partners).7\n30. Based on my review of materials provided by MGH in response to a grand jury\nsubpoena, I have learned that six of the eight Target Accounts are held in the name of companies\nthat are wholly owned by JE and are associated with the operations of the Himalaya Exchange or\nits managing entity, Hamilton. The other two Target Accounts are held in the name of G Fashion\nand G Club (i.e., two of the other ongoing Investment Schemes).\n31. As described in the September 17 Affidavit and herein, JE and others have layered\nInvestment Scheme Funds into and through the Target Accounts at Mercantile Bank, among other\nfinancial institutions, to conceal the nature and source of the funds. See Ex. A at ¶ 56(b).\n32. Between on or about October 7, 2022 and October 11, 2022, Mercantile Bank sent\nletters to representatives of the U.S. Attorney’s Office advising, in substance and in part, that if\nthe Government “publicly seizes the funds in” the Target Accounts, “there is a high probability\nthat [Mercantile Bank] will have no choice but to permanently cease operations in the near future.”\n8\n7 For example, in or about January 2021, Mercantile Bank announced that it had reached a\ndefinitive agreement for a reverse merger with a publicly traded company, in which Mercantile\nBank would itself become a publicly traded entity. See, e.g., http\nrelease/mercantile-bank-international-corp.-announces-reverse-merger-transaction-with-crucial\n(last visited October 13, 2022). However, that reverse merger fell through.\n8 As described in paragraph 38 below, Hamilton had sought to purchase Mercantile Bank just prior\nto the execution of the Prior Seizure Warrants. The funds apparently earmarked for the purchase\nwere seized pursuant to the Prior Seizure Warrants, and the acquisition fell through.\n15\n\nExecution of the Prior Seizure Warrants and the Target Subjects’ Liquidation Efforts\n33. On or about September 20, 2022, the FBI served Silvergate Warrant-1 and the U.S.\nBank Warrant, among others.9 On or about September 21, 2022, the FBI served Silvergate\nWarrant-2 and the FV Warrant.\n34. As described in greater detail herein, since the execution of the Prior Seizure\nWarrants and the Government’s seizure of more than approximately $320 million in Investment\nScheme Funds contained in Hamilton and/or Himalaya Exchange accounts at Silvergate Bank and\nFV Bank pursuant to those warrants, see supra at ¶¶ 16 and 18, JE and other Target Subjects have\nattempted to move more than approximately $58 million in Investment Scheme Funds held at\nMercantile Bank.\nJE’s Attempted Transfer of Funds on September 22, 2022 and September 23, 2022\n35. In response to a grand jury subpoena issued on or about September 23, 2022, MGH\nprovided certain documents and information to the Government, including account balances for\nall Mercantile Bank accounts held in the names of various entities affiliated with William JE,\nincluding G Club, G Fashion, Himalaya (in the name of Himalaya Clearing, Himalaya Financial,\nHimalaya Reserves, and Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.) and Hamilton (in the name of\nHamilton Capital Holding and Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.), as well as certain\ncommunications among MGH, JE, and others.\n36. Based on my review of documents and information provided by MGH, and as\ndescribed in greater detail below, I have learned that between on or about September 22, 2022 and\nSeptember 23, 2022 (i.e., within days of the Government’s seizure), JE attempted to move funds\n9 As described in the September 20 Affidavit, see Ex. B at ¶ 19, in light of clarification regarding\nwhere certain funds were held, the FBI did not serve the MCB Warrant and instead obtained a new\nwarrant (i.e., the FV Warrant).\n16\n\nout of Target Account-2 at Mercantile Bank (i.e., the Himalaya International Clearing account),\npurportedly to liquidate approximately $46 million of what JE claimed to be his own Himalaya\nExchange digital assets.\n37. Based on my review of account balance summaries, account monthly statements,\nand additional documents provided by MGH, including notes of calls between employees of MGH,\nMercantile Bank, and Hamilton, my review of documents provided by Silvergate, open-source\nresearch, and my conversations with representatives of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern\nDistrict of New York, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Before execution of the Prior Search Warrants, Hamilton had engaged in\nnegotiations to purchase Mercantile Bank. Specifically, between in or about December 2021 and\nin or about September 2022, Hamilton conducted due diligence on Mercantile Bank and prepared\nto acquire Mercantile Bank. On or about September 16, 2022, MGH and the Hamilton Opportunity\nFund entered into a stock purchase agreement, pursuant to which Hamilton agreed to pay\n$49,695,000 to acquire Mercantile Bank.\nb. That same day, on or about September 16, 2022, Hamilton initiated an\noutgoing wire of approximately $49.695 million in Investment Scheme Funds from one of its\nSilvergate accounts to MGH (“Wire-1”). The beneficiary was listed as “Mercantile Global\nHolding Inc.,” and the stated purpose of the wire transfer request was: “Bank Purchase Hamilton\nMA Fund SP.” Those funds—which appear to have been related to Hamilton’s attempted purchase\nof Mercantile Bank—were never transferred to Mercantile Bank, and instead were seized pursuant\nto Silvergate Warrant-1.\nc. According to MGH, MGH employees had multiple conversations with\nHamilton employees about the status of Wire-1. During a FaceTime audio call initiated at\napproximately 7:55 p.m. GMT / 2:55 p.m. ET on or about September 22, 2022 between Priya Patel\n17\n\n(“Patel”) (Internal Litigation and Regulatory Counsel for Hamilton Capital Holding) and MGH’s\nGlobal Head of Legal and Compliance (“MGH Employee-1”), Patel advised MGH Employee-1,\nin sum and substance, that Hamilton’s funds at Silvergate—including Wire-1—had been seized,\nand that Hamilton may need to transfer money out of its accounts at Mercantile Bank.\nd. Approximately 18 minutes later, at approximately 8:13 p.m. GMT / 3:13\np.m. ET on or about September 22, 2022, JE called the CEO of MGH (“MGH Employee-2”) via\nWhatsApp. During the call, JE stated, in substance and in part, that Hamilton needed to transfer\napproximately $30 million10 for an unnamed “VIP” client and for G Club to a bank in Abu Dhabi,\nUAE. In response, MGH Employee-2 advised JE, in substance and in part, that MGH would\nrequire all such transfer requests to be submitted in writing. Based on information provided by\nMGH, I have learned that JE did not disclose identifying information about the “VIP” client to\nMGH Employee-2 during that call.\ne. Hours later, at approximately 11:30 p.m. GMT / 6:30 p.m. ET on or about\nSeptember 22, 2022, Ehsan Masud (Hamilton’s CFO) sent MGH Employee-2 a WhatsApp\nmessage that read, in substance and in part: “We are likely to have a large VIP corporate\nredemption tomorrow of approx. $50m USD[.] Happy to jump on a call tomorrow to discuss.\nMany thanks”. Minutes later, MGH Employee-2 responded and advised Masud, in sum and\nsubstance, that a transfer of that size would “require detailed documentation and [ ] take more than\na day to process.” In subsequent WhatsApp communications between Masud and MGH\nEmployee-2 over approximately the next hour, Masud expressed urgency regarding the timing of\n10 As reflected herein and in MGH records, the stated amount of the outgoing transfer(s) appears\nto have ranged from approximately $30 million to approximately $50 million over the course of\ncommunications among JE, Masud, and MGH Employee-2. Ultimately, the written outgoing\nwire requests reflect requested transfers totaling approximately $46 million between two\ntransactions. See ¶ 37(j)(v).\n18\n\nthe outgoing transfer; for example, when MGH Employee-2 advised Masud that MGH Employee-\n2 had scheduled a meeting among MGH compliance personnel and Hamilton employees for on or\nabout September 24, 2022, Masud wrote, in substance and in part: “But this would mean we will\nmiss USD cut off for tomorrow” and “we need to get the ball rolling tomorrow soonest”.\nf. At approximately 3:01 a.m. GMT on or about September 23, 2022 / 10:01\np.m. ET on or about September 22, 2022, JE sent MGH Employee-2 WhatsApp messages that\nread, in substance and in part: “Hi, as discussed, my company would like to redeem some money\nso that we could continue to support the operation of your bank and other entities.”\ng. MGH Employee-2 responded to JE at approximately 9:38 a.m. GMT / 4:38\na.m. ET on or about September 23, 2022, advising JE, in sum and substance, that MGH Employee-\n2 would be speaking to Masud at approximately 11:00 a.m. and asking JE whether Masud was\naware of “what is happening?” In response, JE wrote, in substance and in part: “[Masud] only\nknows FV bank is frozen. He did not know the fund nor the transaction issues”, and “[w]e are just\ndoing normal redemption of a client.”\nh. During a WhatsApp call between MGH Employee-2 and Masud at\napproximately 11:01 a.m. GMT / 6:01 a.m. ET on or about September 23, 2022, Masud again\nexpressed urgency regarding the timing of the outgoing $50 million wire request for the “VIP”\nclient (whose identity had not yet been disclosed to MGH). According to MGH, MGH Employee-\n2 insisted on learning the identity of the client requesting the transfer; in response, Masud advised,\nin sum and substance, that the client was ACA Capital (i.e., JE’s Hong Kong-based investment\nfirm, see ¶ 23(d)(ii)), and that the wire would be sent to a particular bank in Abu Dhabi, UAE.\nMasud also advised that Hamilton had a plan to move most of its assets out of the United States.\n19\n\ni. In WhatsApp messages between JE and MGH Employee-2 hours later on\nor about September 23, 2022, JE wrote, in substance and in part: “I could send you all documents\nto show that I own ACA”, and “[w]e need the execution today or it is meaningless.”\nj. In WhatsApp messages starting at approximately 5:03 p.m. GMT / 12:03\np.m. ET on or about September 23, 2022, JE wrote the following to MGH Employee-2, in\nsubstance and in part: “Sent you all the ACA stuff”, “We are just redeeming”, and “Masud does\nnot know about ACA.” Based on my review of documents provided by MGH, I have learned that\nJE sent several documents to MGH that day, including, among others, the following:\ni. A letter on Himalaya Exchange letterhead from Masud (who is\nidentified in the letter as CFO of the Himalaya Exchange) addressed to “ACA Capital Group\nLimited,” purportedly dated October 29, 2021, reflecting a purported “Reservation of Himalaya\nCoin” and containing the following, in sum and substance:\nThe Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd., through the Himalaya Exchange,\nhas reserved Forty Million Himalaya Coin (HCN) for you at the price of $0.10 U.S.\nDollars per coin. As agreed, you can call on this Reservation as and when required.\nWe will credit your HCN on request, provided you have sufficient HDO position\nto cover the above mentioned HCN purchase.\nii. A “Himalaya Exchange OTC Transaction Form” on Himalaya\nExchange letterhead, addressed to “Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,” purportedly reflecting\ntransaction execution details regarding the sale by “william.k.je@acacap.com” of approximately\n1,308,044.47 HCN at the price of $24.464 per HCN, for a total of 32 million HDO. The form\nreflected an effective transaction date and time of 9:35 p.m. GMT on or about September 22, 2022,\nand was signed by JE on or about September 22, 2022.\niii. A second “Himalaya Exchange OTC Transaction Form” on\nHimalaya Exchange letterhead, addressed to “Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,” purportedly\n20\n\nreflecting transaction execution details regarding the sale by “william.k.je@acacap.com” of\napproximately 572,269.46 HCN at the price of $24.464 per HCN, for a total of 14 million HDO.\nThe form reflected an effective transaction date and time of 9:35 p.m. GMT on or about September\n22, 2022 (i.e., the same minute as the transaction reflected above in ¶ 37(j)(ii)), and was signed by\nJE on or about September 22, 2022.\niv. A blurry screenshot on Himalaya Exchange letterhead reflecting\nwhat purports to be the Himalaya Exchange Website’s Order Book page, which screenshot was\npurportedly taken at approximately 9:35 p.m. on or about September 22, 2022, as shown below:\nv. A “Himalaya Exchange Redemption Request Form” on Himalaya\nExchange letterhead, reflecting the name “ACA Capital Group Limited” and the Himalaya\n21\n\nExchange Login Email Address “william.k.je@acacap.com,” authorizing the “redemption of my\nHimalaya Dollar to USD from my Himalaya Exchange account” in the amount of approximately\n46 million HDO, for a total outgoing transfer of approximately $46 million. The purported\nredemption request form, which was signed by JE on or about September 23, 2022, provided bank\naccount information for an account in the name of ACA Capital Group Limited at First Abu Dhabi\nBank in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”).\nk. In a WhatsApp message from JE to MGH Employee-2 at approximately\n9:12 p.m. GMT / 4:12 p.m. ET on or about Friday, September 23, 2022, JE wrote the following to\nMGH Employee-2, in substance and in part: “pls let me know if you need further information.\nWe are redeeming and need to be done today. Otherwise, it is meaningless.” At approximately\n9:29 p.m. GMT / 4:29 p.m. ET, JE wrote to MGH Employee-2, in substance and in part: “We\ncould divide into 2 tranches,” and then, “On a call with the lawyer now.” Approximately 30\nminutes later, JE wrote to MGH Employee-2: “Hi, pls hold until Mon.” (i.e., September 26, 2022).\n38. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, and review of\ndocuments and records, and in light of the nature and circumstances of JE’s purported redemption\nrequests, for the following reasons, among others, I believe that JE was attempting to move\napproximately $46 million in Investment Scheme Funds to bank accounts beyond the reach of U.S.\nlaw enforcement:\na. Based on the timing of the attempted outgoing transfers—shortly after the\nGovernment’s seizure of approximately $320 million in other JE-controlled accounts held at other\nbanks—I believe that JE attempted to move the funds offshore in anticipation of potential future\nGovernment seizure of funds (such as the requested seizure of the Target Accounts).\nb. As described above, the transfers were requested from Target Accounts at\nMercantile Bank to JE-controlled accounts at a bank in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Based on my training\n22\n\nand experience, I am aware that UAE authorities are unlikely to provide timely responses to formal\nrequests for information from U.S. authorities, and that UAE authorities are unlikely to enforce\nU.S. seizure warrants or forfeiture orders for funds held in the UAE.\nc. Based on my review of the nature and circumstances of the attempted\ntransfers, including the repeated urgency regarding the timing of those transfers (e.g., JE’s repeated\nstatements that the transfers would be “meaningless” if not completed quickly) as contrasted with\nthe claim that the redemption was merely the “normal redemption of a client,” as well as the fact\nthat Hamilton did not initially disclose that JE was, in fact, the client (through his ownership of\nACA Capital), I believe that Hamilton provided false or misleading information to Mercantile\nBank for the purpose of convincing Mercantile Bank to release the approximately $46 million\nquickly.\nThe Attempted Account Closing on October 7, 2022\n39. Based on my review of written communications from G Club’s attorneys to\nMercantile Bank, I have learned that, following Hamilton’s unsuccessful attempt to move\napproximately $46 million in Investment Fund Schemes out of Mercantile Bank, on or about\nOctober 7, 2022, G Club (through its attorneys) attempted to close Target Account-1 (i.e., the G\nClub Mercantile Bank account). G Club did not provide instructions regarding where the account\nbalance of approximately $12 million should be transferred once Target Account-1 was closed.\nPending Litigation Regarding the Prior Seizure Warrants\n40. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, my review of\nrecords and documents, including court documents, and my conversations with representatives of\nthe U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, I have learned the following,\namong other things:\n23\n\na. On or about September 29, 2022, following the execution of the Prior\nSeizure Warrants, an external counsel for Major Lead International Ltd. (i.e., the parent entity of\nthe Himalaya Exchange), Hamilton Investment Management Ltd., and Hamilton Opportunity\nFund SPC (“Williams & Connolly”) filed a letter under seal in the U.S. District Court for the\nSouthern District of New York (“Letter-1”), requesting an “emergency pre-motion conference in\nadvance of a forthcoming motion under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 41(g) that will seek the immediate\nrelease of certain accounts and the return of funds seized from” certain accounts that were subject\nto the Prior Seizure Warrants. Letter-1 included the following representations, among others:\ni. JE, the UBO of the Himalaya Exchange, “directly or indirectly holds\nHimalaya Dollars and Coins, but those holdings represent a minority of the issued currencies. . . .\nMost currency is owned by the other nearly 18,000 [Himalaya] Exchange customers.”\nii. The freezing of the Himalaya Exchange operating accounts at FV\nBank “placed the Himalaya Exchange and associated customer holdings in serious jeopardy” and,\n“[w]hen [Himalaya] Exchange participants learn that they can no longer readily redeem their\nstable-coin Himalaya Dollars for cash, that almost certainly will lead to a massive, artificial\ndevaluation of the market-traded Himalaya Coins.” (emphasis added).\nb. On or about October 3, 2022, Williams & Connolly filed a motion for return\nof property under seal (the “Motion”) on behalf of Major Lead International Ltd. (“the “Himalaya\nGroup”), Hamilton Investment Management Ltd., and Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC\n(collectively, the “Movants”). 22 Misc. 275 (VSB), Dkts. 8 through 8-18 (under seal).\nc. The Motion included the following representations, among others:\niii. The Himalaya Group, through various subsidiaries, “owns and\noperates an innovative cryptocurrency exchange known as the Himalaya Exchange.”\n24\n\niv. The Himalaya Exchange “has more than 18,000 customers and a\nmarket capitalization of $25 billion.”\nv. The Himalaya Exchange “facilitates the buying and selling of two\ntypes of digital assets”—the Himalaya Dollar (or “HDO”), which the Movants described as “a\n‘stable coin’ token that is fixed to the U.S. dollar and backed by reserves consisting of dollar-for-\ndollar cash or cash-equivalent assets”; and the Himalaya Coin (or “HCN”), which the Movants\ndescribed as “a trading cryptocurrency valued by supply and demand.” (emphasis added).\nvi. “Customers can participate in the [Himalaya] Exchange by buying\nHimalaya Dollars, using that currency to buy and sell Himalaya Coin, and ultimately redeeming\nHimalaya Dollars back into U.S. dollars.” (emphasis added).\nvii. The Himalaya Exchange’s “pioneering model” combines “pure\ncryptocurrency trading with ‘stable coin’ backed by traditional currency.”\nviii. JE, the UBO of the Himalaya Exchange, “is also a customer of the\n[Himalaya] Exchange and owns a substantial amount of Himalaya Dollars and Himalaya Coin\nthrough other entities” and “will be negatively impacted” by the seizures, like other Himalaya\nExchange customers.\nix. JE “is prepared to consider reasonable restrictions on his ability to\nredeem Himalaya Dollars,” to the extent the Government has concerns about the UBO’s (i.e., JE’s)\ntreatment of his substantial holdings.\nx. Two of the Himalaya Group’s primary operating accounts at FV\nBank are the “Clearing Account,” which is used to process Himalaya Exchange customer deposits\nand redemption, and the “Reserve Account,” which holds customer funds.\nxi. When a customer “purchases Himalaya Dollars,” the customer’s\ncash payment is deposited into the Clearing Account, and the customer receives “a credit” for an\n25\n\nequivalent number of Himalaya Dollars. Mot. at 3. Funds spent to “purchase[] Himalaya Dollars”\nare “often sent to the Reserve Account, where they back the Himalaya Dollars.”\nxii. The customer can use Himalaya Dollar “credits” to “buy and sell\nHimalaya Coins, the [Himalaya] Exchange’s market-traded cryptocurrency.”\nxiii. When customers “seek to redeem their Himalaya Dollars back to\nhard currency,” customer money in the “Reserve Account travels back to the Clearing Account to\nmeet the redemption request.”\nxiv. The freezing of the FV Bank accounts—including the Clearing and\nReserve Accounts—has resulted in the Himalaya Exchange’s inability to process 142 pending\ncustomer redemption requests (as of the date the Motion was filed), despite the Himalaya\nExchange having a “back-up processing bank, Mercantile Bank.”\nxv. The Himalaya Exchange’s alleged inability to process redemption\nrequests would “precipitate the loss of confidence” of customers, “resulting in billions of dollars\nin market losses.”\nThe Himalaya Exchange Scheme\n41. The Himalaya Exchange is marketed and described as a cryptocurrency11 exchange.\nAs detailed herein, however—and contrary to claims made in Letter-1 and the Motion, described\nabove—the evidence demonstrates that the Himalaya Exchange does not appear to be a functional\ncryptocurrency exchange; that HDO does not appear to reside on the blockchain (contrary to\nrepresentations by the Himalaya Exchange, see infra ¶ 46(f)); and that the “customers” or\n11 Based on my training and experience, I know that “cryptocurrency” describes digital currency\nin which transactions are verified, and records maintained, by a decentralized system using\ncryptography (generally referred to as the “blockchain”), rather than by a centralized authority\nsuch as a bank.\n26\n\n“members” of the Himalaya Exchange appear, in fact, to be investors in (and victims of) the\ninterrelated Investment Schemes—including the Himalaya Exchange, as described more fully in\nthe September 17 Affidavit. See, e.g., Ex. A at ¶¶ 50-52, 54-55.\n42. Statements by the Himalaya Exchange and the Movants—including the Himalaya\nDollar Whitepaper12 (“HDO Whitepaper”) and the Himalaya Coin Whitepaper13 (“HCN\nWhitepaper,” together, the “Whitepapers”), information posted on the Himalaya Exchange\nwebsite, JE’s publicly-reported statements, Letter-1, and the Motion—are inconsistent regarding,\namong other things: (a) what “Himalaya Dollars” and “Himalaya Coins” actually are; (b) the\nliquidity of Himalaya Dollars and Himalaya Coins; (c) how the purported “market price” of\nHimalaya Coin is determined; and (d) whether the purported Himalaya cryptocurrencies exist on\nthe blockchain.\nHimalaya Dollar and Himalaya Coin\n43. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, open-source\nresearch that I have conducted on the Internet, my review of documents and evidence obtained\npursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, my review of court filings, and\nmy conversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. The Himalaya Exchange markets itself as a cryptocurrency exchange, or\n“true crypto ecosystem.” In the Whitepapers, the “Himalaya Exchange” is defined as a “crypto\nasset exchange on which members can buy, sell and trade their crypto assets.” HDO Whitepaper\n12 Available for download at http\n2.amazonaws.com/hedocs/hdo_whitepaper_eng_v6e.pdf (last visited October 12, 2022).\n13 Available for download at http\n2.amazonaws.com/hedocs/hcn_whitepaper_eng_v7e.pdf (last visited October 12, 2022).\n27\n\nat 3 (emphasis added). An image from the Himalaya Exchange Website, viewable at\nhttp is shown below:\nb. Himalaya Dollar is described in the Motion papers and the HDO\nWhitepaper as a “‘stable coin’ token” or “a new stablecoin pegged to the U.S. Dollar.” See, e.g.,\nHDO Whitepaper at 7. JE is reported to have described HDO as “the only stable coin in the world\nto maintain” a 1-to-1 stability with the U.S. dollar following the global stablecoin crash in or about\nMay 2022. See Ex. A at 34 n.9 (emphasis added).\nc. Himalaya Coin is described in the Motion papers and the HCN Whitepaper\nas a “trading cryptocurrency valued by supply and demand,” a “market-traded cryptocurrency,” or\nthe “official coin issued” by the Himalaya Exchange. See, e.g., HCN Whitepaper at 4.\n28\n\nd. Elsewhere, however, it is stated that the Himalaya Exchange operates not\nthrough the use of cryptocurrency, but rather through the use of “Credits,” as reflected in the\nStructural Considerations portion of the HDO Whitepaper shown below:\nSee HDO Whitepaper at 10 (emphasis added); HCN Whitepaper at 11; see also Ex. A at ¶ 44(d).\nThat is, as reflected in the language above, the Himalaya Exchange operates through the use of\n“credits” (not cryptocurrency), and those credits (a) can only be used within the Himalaya\nEcosystem, and (b) do not carry any right to require their exchange for fiat currency or crypto-\nassets. Moreover, while a Himalaya Exchange member may request to exchange that member’s\nHDO credits for an equivalent payment in U.S. dollars, the Himalaya Exchange has the\n“discretion” to deny any such request.\ne. The January 2022 version of the HDO Whitepaper contains approximately\n135 references to “credits.” See generally HDO Whitepaper. By contrast, the HDO Whitepaper\ncontains only six references to “stablecoin” or “stablecoins.” See id.\n29\n\nf. The January 2022 version of the HCN Whitepaper contains approximately\n131 references to “credits.” See generally HCN Whitepaper. By contrast, the HCN Whitepaper\ncontains only 15 references to “token” or “tokens.” See id.\ng. Images from the Himalaya Exchange Website, viewable at\nhttp are shown below:\nThe above descriptions of Himalaya Dollar and Himalaya Coin on the Himalaya Exchange\nWebsite make no mention of “credits.”\nh. I submit that the foregoing establishes that, contrary to claims that HDO and\nHCN are cryptocurrencies, HDO and HCN are not in fact cryptocurrencies. Rather, individuals\nwho purportedly “buy” HDO and use their HDO to “buy” HCN have simply sent money to bank\naccounts controlled by JE and others in exchange for what are described as “credits.”\n30\n\nValuation of Himalaya Coin\n44. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, open-source\nresearch that I have conducted on the Internet, my review of documents and evidence obtained\npursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, my review of court filings, and\nmy conversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. The Movants have represented that Himalaya Coin is “valued by supply and\ndemand.”\nb. In a declaration submitted by Ehsan Masud, the CFO of Hamilton, in\nsupport of the Motion, Masud represented that the market capitalization of HCN exceeded $25\nbillion as of October 2, 2022.\nc. The purported historical price of HCN is reflected in data on the Himalaya\nExchange Website. See, e.g., Ex. A at ¶¶ 44(c), 45(d).\nd. Contrary to representations that the price of HCN is determined by market\nsupply and demand, the HCN Whitepaper states the following regarding Subsequent Issuances\n(i.e., issuances of HCN after the initial coin offering, or ICO), in substance and in part:\n31\n\nHCN Whitepaper at 16. That is, as reflected in the language above, the Issuer has “sole and\nabsolute discretion” to decide that the Issue Price, as calculated by the methodology described\nabove, “does not constitute a fair market price,” in which case the Issuer is “entitled to make such\nadjustments in the calculation of the Issue Price as it deems necessary in order to achieve an Issue\nPrice which it deems to be a fair market price.” Id. (emphasis added).\ne. The HCN Whitepaper also states the following: “Members should note that\nthe value of HCN Credits is independent from the value of any other assets, including HCN\ntokens.” Id.\nf. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, I\nsubmit that the foregoing reflects that—contrary to representations that the price of “HCN” (and\ntherefore the value of HCN Credits)is determined by market supply and demand—the Himalaya\n32\n\nExchange has absolute discretion to set a “price” for the issuance of future HCN without any regard\nfor the purported market value of any purportedly issued HCN.\nLiquidity of Himalaya Assets\n45. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, open-source\nresearch that I have conducted on the Internet, my review of documents and evidence obtained\npursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, my review of court filings, and\nmy conversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. The Movants have made certain statements regarding the liquidity of the\nHimalaya Dollar. For example, Masud represented that Himalaya Dollar can be redeemed back\nto fiat US dollar “at any time.” See also supra at ¶ 40(a)(ii).\nb. By contrast, as described above, the HDO Whitepaper states that a\nHimalaya Exchange member’s request to exchange Himalaya Dollar Credits into U.S. Dollars is\n“at the discretion of the Himalaya Exchange.” See supra at ¶ 43(d).\nc. The HDO Whitepaper further states, in substance and in part: “While it is\nintended that the Himalaya Exchange should provide good levels of liquidity, the maintenance of\nthe Reserve is intended to provide an additional layer of potential liquidity as a barrier to\nunexpected market events. It provides the Issuer [i.e., Himalaya Financial] with the discretionary\nability to take action to support liquidity where it deems necessary.” HDO Whitepaper at 12. And:\n“The Issuer is not obliged to provide liquidity support and the Himalaya Exchange is not obliged\nto agree to any request from a Member to exchange HDO Credits for U.S. Dollars and such actions\nare at the sole discretion of the Issuer and the Himalaya Exchange respectively. Members do not\nhave any direct or indirect claim on the Issuer or the Reserve.” Id.\nd. In his declaration in support of the Motion, Masud has also made certain\nstatements regarding the liquidity of Himalaya Coin, including, among others, that “[a]ll HCN are\n33\n\nheld by customers of the Exchange,” and that “[c]ustomers use HDO to purchase HCN and\ncustomers sell HCN to obtain HDO, which can be redeemed back to fiat US dollar.”\ne. By contrast, the HCN Whitepaper states the following, in substance and in\npart:\nMembers are advised that neither crypto assets or fiat currency may be held by\nMembers within the Himalaya Ecosystem, and the Himalaya Ecosystem does not\nprovide . . . any type of custody or other arrangements to facilitate this. The\nHimalaya Exchange intends to hold in its own name and for its own account, crypto\nassets which it may elect to use at the request of a Member to complete an exchange\nof a Member’s Credits for corresponding crypto assets. . . . where such request\nfrom a Member is approved by the Himalaya Exchange.\nHCN Whitepaper at 11 (emphasis added).\nf. Despite representations by the Movants about the purported liquidity of\nHDO and HCN, evidence gathered during this Investigation (including the language from the\nWhitepapers cited above) demonstrates that Himalaya Exchange customers’ ability to convert\nHimalaya Assets into fiat currency is limited and lies within the sole discretion of the Himalaya\nExchange. Based on my review of bank records and subpoena returns, I have learned that some\nHimalaya Exchange customers have purportedly executed successful “redemptions” (i.e., received\nback fiat currency from bank accounts controlled by Hamilton and/or Himalaya entities).\nHowever, based on my participation in this Investigation, training, and experience, it appears that\nthe Himalaya Exchange granted certain purported “redemption” requests and returned Investments\nScheme Funds to certain members’ bank accounts in an effort to perpetuate the fraud; that is, to\ncreate the appearance that Himalaya Exchange cryptocurrencies are liquid.\nAnalysis of the Blockchain\n46. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\n34\n\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. The Movants have represented that “the Himalaya Dollar is backed by\nreserves consisting of dollar-for-dollar cash or cash-equivalent assets.”\nb. The Movants stated that an outside accountant “[p]eriodically . . . examines\nthe books and records of the Exchange and provides reports confirming this dollar for dollar\nbacking.” In connection with the Motion, the Movants submitted an Independent Accountant’s\nReport, dated August 10, 2022 (the “Accountant’s Report”), prepared by a particular accounting\nfirm headquartered in California (the “Accounting Firm”).14 The Accountant’s Report is attached\nhereto as Exhibit D.\nc. The Accountant’s Report indicates that Himalaya Dollars “are\ncryptographic digital tokens residing on the Ethereum blockchain at the smart contract address\n[0x7C197afcd8D36884309ed731424985E3ed17F018]” (the “Blockchain Address”), and further\nreferences “collateralized HDO Credits, which are HDO-denominated liabilities issued and\npurchased for dollars on Himalaya Ecosystem Platforms.” Ex. D. at 1.\nd. The Himalaya Dollar Bank & Funds Holding Report, which is a report that\nwas provided by the Himalaya International Reserve to the Accounting Firm, states, among other\nthings, that approximately 401,047,298.15 HDO Tokens “have been minted on the Ethereum\n14 As reflected in Exhibit D, the Accountant’s Report is approximately one page long, with an\nattachment of the Himalaya Dollar Bank & Funds Holding Report, which was signed by Himalaya\nInternational Reserve CEO Jesse Brown on or about August 10, 2022. See Ex. D. On or about\nOctober 10, 2022, the FBI received a voluminous subpoena response from the Accounting Firm\nconsisting of, among other things, what appears to be documentation supporting the Accountant’s\nReport. The FBI’s review of that subpoena response is ongoing.\n35\n\nblockchain at the smart contract address” (i.e., the Blockchain Address) as of on or about July 31,\n2022. See Ex. D at 2 n.1.\ne. Based on my conversations with others, including a member of the FBI’s\nvirtual currency response team, I have learned the following, in substance and in part:\ni. Neither the Whitepapers nor the Himalaya Exchange Website\nprovide the smart contract address15 for the Himalaya cryptocurrencies. Without a smart contract\naddress, it is difficult for potential or current investors to conduct due diligence regarding the\nHimalaya cryptocurrencies.\nii. Based on the FBI’s review of the Blockchain Address (i.e. that\nMovants provided to the Government in the Accountant’s Report (which does not appear to be\npublicly available) on an open-source block explorer (the “Explorer”), it appears that the\nBlockchain Address first appeared on the Ethereum blockchain on or about March 16, 2021. As\ndescribed in the September 17 Affidavit, the Himalaya Exchange has been operating (pre-ICO)\nsince in or about April 2021. See Ex. A at ¶ 18(c).\nf. Based on the FBI’s review of the Blockchain Address on the Explorer, it\nappears that the Blockchain Address is affiliated with HDO. It further appears that there are there\napproximately 24 holders of HDO; that approximately 70 transactions appear on the Blockchain\nAddress between on or about March 16, 2021 and on or about October 14, 2022; and that market\ncapitalization is not tracked within the Explorer for HDO.16\n15 Based on my training and experience and my conversations with others, I am aware that a\ncontract address hosts a smart contract, which is a set of code stored on a blockchain that runs\nwhen predetermined conditions are met. I am further aware that a contract address could be\nresponsible for deploying a particular cryptocurrency (e.g., a token or coin) on a blockchain.\n16 By comparison, and as an example, I and others searched the smart contract address of a\nstablecoin called “Gemini Dollar” (the “Gemini Blockchain Address”) on the Explorer. See\n36\n\ng. Based on the foregoing, I submit that (i) the purported Himalaya Exchange\n“cryptocurrency” HDO does not, in fact, appear to reside within the Blockchain Address, and\n(ii) “HDO Tokens” have not, in fact, been minted on the Blockchain Address, contrary to the\nHimalaya Dollar Bank & Funds Holding Report. See Ex. D at 2 n.1.\n47. As described above, the Himalaya Exchange is marketed to investors as a\ncryptocurrency exchange where individuals can hold and trade cryptocurrency assets, including\nstablecoin and trading coins. In fact, as detailed above, the evidence demonstrates that members\nof the Himalaya Exchange do not hold, own, or control cryptocurrency or digital assets. Rather,\nHimalaya Exchange members who send money to bank accounts controlled by JE and others\n(including the Target Accounts) receive “credits,” which purportedly give them an option to buy\ncryptocurrency (in the form of HDO stablecoins or HCN trading coins). While members may\nbelieve they have effectively exercised that option and are in possession of cryptocurrency or\ndigital assets, the Himalaya Exchange is a closed cryptocurrency platform, and members (like the\npublic) do not have transparency into the purported market for HDO or HCN, beyond the data that\nis reflected on the Himalaya Exchange Website. Moreover, it is the Himalaya Exchange (and not\nmembers) that holds the money that members have paid for the purpose of “buying” HDO (i.e.,\nInvestment Scheme Funds), and the Himalaya Exchange holds those funds “in its own name and\nfor its own account.” See supra at ¶ 45(e).\nhttp (last visited October 13, 2022). Based on that search, I am aware that\nthat that there are approximately 9,927 holders of Gemini Dollar; that approximately 520,188\ntransactions were recorded on the Gemini Blockchain Address between its ICO in or about\nFebruary 2022 and approximately 9:17 p.m. on or about October 13, 2022; and that Gemini Dollar\nhas a current market capitalization of approximately $329 million.\n37\n\nB. Tracing of Fraudulent Proceeds to the Target Accounts\n48. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Investors participate in the Investment Schemes by either wiring money\ndirectly to a bank account controlled or used by entities affiliated with GUO, JE, and others\n(including the Farms, G Club, or the Himalaya Exchange), or by wiring or otherwise transferring\nmoney to other entities at the direction of the Target Subjects, which funds are then transmitted to\nbank accounts ultimately controlled by JE and other Target Subjects. See Ex. A at ¶ 57(a).\nb. To date, I and analysts at the FBI and SEC have identified and attempted to\ntrace more than approximately $1.6 billion in Investment Scheme Fund transactions, a substantial\npart of which has been laundered through financial institutions located in at least four different\ncountries, including the United States, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, and the UAE.\n49. As described in the September 17 Affidavit, prospective Investment Scheme\ninvestors were instructed to send funds intended as an investment in GTV, G Club, or the Himalaya\nExchange (for example) to certain bank accounts. See, e.g., Ex. A at ¶¶ 40(g), 57, 61-62.\na. Those Investment Scheme Funds were transferred into and among more\nthan at least 80 bank accounts being used by JE and others in ways that, based on my training and\nexperience, are indicative of money laundering. See Ex. A at ¶ 55.\nb. Specifically, the tracing of the funds reflects, among other things:\n(a)transfers of Investment Scheme Funds from U.S. bank accounts to bank accounts located\noverseas (including the UAE and the Bahamas) in high risk jurisdictions that are frequent havens\n38\n\nfor money laundering; (b) layering of Investment Scheme Funds through a series of entities and\nbank accounts, in some cases pursuant to purported loan agreements or other financial\narrangements, in a manner consistent with concealment of the nature, source, or origin of the funds;\n(c)investments in real estate or other business interests that have no apparent connection with the\nstated purposes of the businesses controlling the bank accounts; and (d) the transfer of Investment\nScheme Funds between multiple banks, as well as among multiple accounts within the same bank,\nin a single day. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 56-57.\nFraud Proceeds are Layered Through Various Banking Institutions\n50. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Approximately $60 million of Investment Scheme Funds (including, in\nparticular, funds raised through the GTV Stock Offering and the Convertible Loan Offering) were\ntransferred into the Crane MSSB Accounts between in or about May 2021 and June 2021, after\nbeing layered through a series of entities at various different banks in a manner that, based on my\ntraining and experience, is indicative of money laundering. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 58(a), 61-62.\nb. The approximately $60 million in Investment Scheme Funds from the Crane\nMSSB Accounts was combined with approximately $49 million in other Investment Scheme\nFunds that had been transferred into the Crane MSSB Accounts from two Crane accounts at a\ndifferent bank, Capital One (together, the “Crane Capital One Accounts”), raising the total\ncombined balance in the Crane MSSB Accounts to approximately $109 million. Ex. A at\n¶ 58(a)(iii).\n39\n\nc. Approximately $79 million of those approximately $109 million in\nInvestment Scheme Funds in the Crane MSSB Accounts were then transferred to accounts at the\nsame bank (i.e., MSSB), but in the name of G Club (i.e., the G Club MSSB Accounts). The\napproximately $79 million was combined with approximately $79.7 million in other Investment\nScheme Funds that had been transferred into the G Club MSSB Accounts from individual G Club\nInvestors and from G Club bank accounts at Signature Bank, First Bank of Puerto Rico, and City\nNational Bank, raising the total combined balance of Investment Scheme Funds in the G Club\nMSSB Accounts to more than approximately $158 million.\nFraud Proceeds are Transferred to the Target Accounts at Mercantile Bank\n51. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into and among the Target Accounts\nin ways that, based on my training and experience, are indicative of money laundering.\nSpecifically, the tracing of the funds reflects, among other things: (a) transfers of Investment\nScheme Funds from U.S. bank accounts to bank accounts located overseas in high-risk\njurisdictions that are frequent havens for money laundering (including the Bahamas, Hong Kong,\nthe Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands); (b) layering of Investment Scheme Funds\nthrough a series of entities and bank accounts, in some cases pursuant to purported loan agreements\nor other financial arrangements, in a manner consistent with concealment of the nature, source, or\norigin of the funds; and (c) the transfer of Investment Scheme Funds among the Target Accounts\nin a single day.\n52. Based on my review of information provided by MGH, I have learned that the\nTarget Accounts held a combined total of approximately $305,196,589.12 as of on or about\nOctober 6, 2022, as reflected in the table below (the “Account Balances Table”):\nTarget Account Account Number Balance\nTarget Account-1 MBI10103-0000 $12,887,977.68\nTarget Account-2 MBI10133-0000 $10,312,965.97\n40\n\nTarget Account Account Number Balance\nTarget Account-3 MBI10137-0000 $3,196,001.32\nTarget Account-4 MBI10138-0000 $277,000,000.00\nTarget Account-5 MBI10139-0000 $356,460.30\nTarget Account-6 MBI10171-0000 $1,211,105.79\nTarget Account-7 MBI10172-0000 $52,078.06\nTarget Account-8 MBI10183-0000 $180,000.00\nTotal $305,196,589.12\n53. Based on my participation in this Investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, my review of court filings and evidence obtained pursuant to\nsubpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my conversations with others, I have\nlearned the following, among other things:\nTarget Account-1\na. On or about May 5, 2021, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of G Club Operations LLC (the “Target\nAccount-1 Application”). The Target Account-1 Application described G Club’s business as, in\nsubstance and in part, “holding the securities of (or other equity interests in) companies and\nenterprises.”\nb. Alex Hadjicharalambous (“Hadjicharalambous”), the Financial Controller\nfor G Club, is an authorized signer on Target Account-1. See Ex. A at ¶ 41(a).\nc. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-1 had an\naccount balance of $12,887,977.68 as of October 6, 2022.\nd. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account-1; for\nexample:\n41\n\ni. The initial deposit of funds into Target Account-1 consisted of an\napproximately $4 million transfer of Investment Scheme Funds from a G Club account held at\nMedici Bank.\nii. Between on or about August 23, 2021 and November 19, 2021,\napproximately $74 million of the aforementioned Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from\nthe G Club MSSB Accounts to Target Account-1.\niii. On or about December 24, 2021, approximately $10 million of the\nInvestment Scheme Funds was transferred from a Silvergate bank account ending in -7739, held\nin the name of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (identified as “Target Account-1” in the\nSeptember 17 Affidavit, see Ex. A) to Target Account-1.\nTarget Account-2\ne. On or about November 11, 2021, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.\n(the “Target Account-2 Application”). The Target Account-2 Application reflected that Himalaya\nClearing did not plan to engage in digital currency activity.\nf. JE is an authorized signer on Target Account-2 and is listed as the ultimate\nbeneficial owner and 100% shareholder of Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.\ng. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-2 had an\naccount balance of $10,312,965.97 as of October 6, 2022.\nh. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account-2; for\nexample:\ni. Between on or about November 29, 2021 and December 6, 2021,\napproximately $100 million of the Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from bank accounts\n42\n\nat Metropolitan Commercial Bank and Reserve Trust into Target Account-2. See September 17\nAffidavit at ¶¶ 56(b)(i), 59(g)(iii)(3).\nii. On or about December 2, 2021, approximately $50 million of the\naforementioned Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-1 into Target\nAccount-2.\nTarget Account-3\ni. On or about December 6, 2021, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of Hamilton Capital Holdings Ltd. (the\n“Target Account-3 Application”). The Target Account-3 Application described Hamilton Capital\nHoldings Ltd.’s business as, in substance and in part, “[c]onsultancy services company offering\nback office support.” The Target Account-3 Application described the source of assets used to\nfund Target Account-3 as “loan proceed(s).”\nj. JE is an authorized signer on Target Account-3 and is listed as the ultimate\nbeneficial owner and 100% shareholder of Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.\nk. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-3 had an\naccount balance of $3,196,001.32 as of October 6, 2022.\nl. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account-3 via\ninternal Mercantile Bank transfers from Target Account-2 and Target Account-6. Specifically:\ni. Between approximately on or about December 7, 2021 and August\n5, 2022, approximately $42 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target\nAccount-2 into Target Account-3.\nii. Between approximately on or about August 10, 2022 and September\n16, 2022, approximately $8 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target\nAccount-6 into Target Account-3.\n43\n\nTarget Account-4\nm. On or about December 2, 2021, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.\n(the “Target Account-4 Application”). The Target Account-4 Application described the nature of\nHimalaya International Reserves Ltd.’s business as “investment management.” While the\napplication information relates to “Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,” in the Acknowledgment\nsection of the application, the legal entity name was (apparently inaccurately) entered as Himalaya\nInvestment Reserves Ltd.\nn. JE is an authorized signer on Target Account-4 and is listed as the CEO,\nultimate beneficial owner, and 100% shareholder of Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.\no. Based on my review of email communications, dated between on or about\nFebruary 17, 2022 and March 3, 2022, among Mercantile Bank’s Deputy Chief Compliance\nOfficer (“MB Employee-1”) and Hamilton’s General Counsel, Georgette Adonis-Roberts, relating\nto the opening of certain of the Target Accounts, I have learned that Hamilton made the following\nrepresentations to Mercantile Bank, among others:\ni. Himalaya Reserves is “the Himalaya Dollar Issuer.”\nii. Himalaya Reserves has “[n]o direct customers.”\niii. The stated purpose of Target Account-4 is “[t]o maintain the\nreserves of the proceeds of the Himalaya Dollar.”\niv. The anticipated Target Account-4 activity would consist of\n“hold[ing] the proceeds of Himalaya Dollar redemptions.”\nv. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-4\nhad an account balance of $277,000,000.00 as of October 6, 2022.\n44\n\np. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account-4; for\nexample:\ni. Between on or about March 25, 2022 and on or about August 5,\n2022, approximately $115 million in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from an FV Bank\naccount held in the name of Himalaya Clearing (identified as “Target Account-4” in the September\n20 Affidavit, see Ex. C) into Target Account-4.\nii. On or about May 16, 2022, an additional approximately $150\nmillion in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-2 (i.e., Himalaya\nClearing) into Target Account-4.\niii. On or about June 27, 2022, an additional approximately $10 million\nin Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from an FV Bank account held in the name of\nHimalaya Reserves (identified as “Target Account-3” in the September 20 Affidavit, see Ex. C)\ninto Target Account-4. While the Mercantile Bank records reflect that the transfer originated at\nFV Bank, the originator bank account number is listed as “*6891,” which I understand to refer to\nthe pooled MCB account held FBO FV Bank. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 2(k), 62(e); see also Ex. C at ¶ 18(b).\nTarget Account-5\nq. On or about December 2, 2021, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of Himalaya Financial Group Ltd. (the\n“Target Account-5 Application”). The Target Account-5 Application described the nature of\nHimalaya Financial’s business as “managing investments.”\nr. Based on my review of email communications, dated between on or about\nFebruary 17, 2022 and March 3, 2022, among MB Employee-1 and Hamilton employees\n(including CFO Ehsan Masud and General Counsel Georgette Adonis-Roberts) relating to the\n45\n\nopening of certain of the Target Accounts, I have learned that Hamilton employees made the\nfollowing representations to Mercantile Bank, among others:\ni. Himalaya Financial is the “Himalaya Coin Issuer.”\nii. Himalaya Financial “does not have direct customers as the coins are\nlisted on the Himalaya Exchange as a broker.”\niii. The anticipated Target Account-5 activity would consist of\n“transactions from HICL [i.e., Himalaya Clearing] to realize profits and payments for\ninvestments.”\ns. JE is an authorized signer on Target Account-5 and is listed as the CEO,\nultimate beneficial owner, and 100% shareholder of Himalaya Financial Group Ltd.\nt. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-5 had an\naccount balance of $356,460.30 as of October 6, 2022.\nu. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account-5; for\nexample:\ni. On or about March 25, 2022, approximately $10 million in\nInvestment Scheme Funds was transferred from an FV Bank account held in the name of Himalaya\nClearing (identified as “Target Account-4” in the September 20 Affidavit, see Ex. C) into Target\nAccount-5.\nii. On or about March 30, 2022, an additional approximately $10\nmillion in Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from the same FV Bank account into Target\nAccount-5.\niii. On or about April 15, 2022, approximately $20 million in\nInvestment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-2 (i.e., the Mercantile Bank\nHimalaya Clearing account) into Target Account-5.\n46\n\nTarget Account-6\nv. On or about April 19, 2022, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of Hamilton Investment Management\nLimited (the “Target Account-6 Application”). The Target Account-6 Application described the\nnature of Hamilton Investment Management Limited’s business as “consulting” and described the\nsource of assets used to fund Target Account-6 as “loan proceed(s).”\nw. JE is an authorized signer on Target Account-6 and is listed as the\nPresident, ultimate beneficial owner, and 100% shareholder of Hamilton Investment Management\nLimited.\nx. Based on my review of email communications, dated on or about April 22,\n2022, among MB Employee-1 and Gentjana Hysi, the CFO of Hamilton Investment Management\nLimited (the “Hamilton CFO”) relating to the opening of Target Account-6, I have learned the\nfollowing, in substance and in part:\ni. MB Employee-1 identified inconsistencies between the stated\nnature of Hamilton Investment Management Limited’s business as provided in the Target\nAccount-6 Application (“Professional Organization offering Consulting Services”), and the stated\nnature of Hamilton’s business as reflected in: (a) the UK Government’s registrar of companies\n(“Financial Intermediation”); and (b) the company’s website (“investment management platform\nspecializing in Private Equity and Digital Asset Management.”). In response, the Hamilton CFO\nwrote the following:\nTotally understand your confusion, the website that you see relates to Hamilton\nInvestment Management Limited (B.V.I.) not the UK entity. To answer your\nquestion, HIM Limited (UK) is not regulated and does not handle customer funds,\nonly provides consulting services to third parties and some of its affiliated\ncompanies. Our IT team is working to resolve the website issue and confusion.\nOnce completed we’ll share with you the link.\n47\n\nii. MB Employee-1 requested loan documentation relating to the “loan\nproceed” source of funds for Target Account-6. In response, the Hamilton CFO emailed MB\nEmployee-1 a loan agreement (the “HIML Loan Agreement”) and wrote, in substance and in part:\n“HIML has provided a loan facility to one of its affiliates . . . and is expected the borrower will\nmake regular payments to reduce the loan balance.”\ny. Based on my participation in this Investigation and my review of documents\nand records, including the HIML Loan Agreement, I am aware of the following, among other\nthings:\ni. The HIML Loan Agreement is dated July 7, 2020.\nii. Hamilton Investment Management Limited is listed as the “Lender,”\nand Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. is listed as the “Borrower.”\niii. The registered office address listed for both Lender and Borrower is\nthe same address in London, England.\niv. Pursuant to the terms of the HIML Loan Agreement, the Lender\nagreed to lend the Borrower up to approximately $25 million to apply “towards the costs\nincurred . . . whilst identifying and advising on potential corporate investment opportunities\nglobally for the Lender” and to cover “operating, fixed and recurring costs.”\nv. JE signed the HIML Loan Agreement on behalf of Hamilton Capital\nHolding Ltd. (i.e., the Borrower).\nz. As described above, JE is the 100% owner of both Hamilton Capital\nHolding Ltd. (see supra at ¶ 52(h)) and Hamilton Investment Management Limited. See supra at\n¶ 52(s).\naa. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-6 had an\naccount balance of $1,211,105.79 as of October 6, 2022.\n48\n\nbb. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account-6; for\nexample:\ni. On or about July 13, 2022, approximately $8 million of Investment\nScheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-3 (i.e., the Hamilton Capital Holding\naccount) into Target Account-6. The description of the transfer was “HCH Loan Repayment.”\nii. On or about August 10, 2022, approximately $4 million of\nInvestment Fraud Funds was transferred from Target Account-6 back into Target Account-3\n(i.e., the Hamilton Capital Holding account). The description of the transfer was: “HIM will\nloan/transfer $4M to HCH account.”\niii. On or about September 16, 2022, an additional approximately $4\nmillion of Investment Scheme Funds was transferred from Target Account-6 back into Target\nAccount-3 (i.e., the Hamilton Capital Holding account). The description of the transfer was:\n“Loan facility.”\ncc. Based on my participation in this Investigation and my training and\nexperience, and as described above, I believe the transfer of $8 million into Target Account-6\n(which is a JE-controlled account) from Target Account-3 (which is a JE-controlled account) as\na purported loan repayment, and the subsequent transfer of $8 million from Target Account-6\nback into Target Account-3 as a purported loan, reflects the laundering of funds through the use\nof layering of Investment Scheme Funds in a manner consistent with concealment of the nature,\nsource, or origin of the funds.\nTarget Account-7\ndd. On or about April 27, 2022, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of G Fashion International Limited (the\n“Target Account-7 Application”). The Target Account-7 Application described the nature of G\n49\n\nFashion International Limited’s business as “Equity Holding Company.” The stated purpose of\nTarget Account-7 was “[c]urrent relationship with other affiliates.” The company email address\nprovided in the Target Account-7 Application for the General Counsel of G Fashion (the “G\nFashion GC”) was a particular “@hchktech.com” email address. See Ex. A at ¶¶ 41, 59(f).\nee. Based on my review of email communications, dated between on or about\nApril 7, 2022 and June 8, 2022, among MB Employee-1, MGH Employee-2, the G Fashion GC,\nand Hadjicharalambous, among others, relating to the opening of Target Account-7, I have\nlearned the following, in substance and in part:\ni. Hadjicharalambous (who is listed as the Financial Controller of G\nClub, see supra at ¶ 52(b)) introduced MGH Employee-2 to the G Fashion GC by email on or\nabout April 7, 2022, and asked for MGH Employee-2’s assistance in “fast track[ing]” the opening\nof an account for “G FASHION INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a BVI entity.” In the email,\nHadjicharalambous stated, in substance and in part, that G Fashion “need[s] an account opened\nASAP.”\nii. In an email to MB Employee-1, the G Fashion GC described G\nFashion as “a high-end fashion company established in 2021 which solely operates through its e-\ncommerce website. The company is headquartered in NYC and has clients all over the world.\nFurther, the company’s products are exclusively manufactured in Italy due to the high-end and\npristine reputation of Italian manufacturers in the fashion industry. The company’s vision is to\nbecome a high-end fashion brand and compete head-to-head with the biggest in the industry.”\niii. On or about May 5, 2022, Hadjicharalambous emailed MGH\nEmployee-2 and MB Employee-1, among others, to advise that Hadjicharalambous would “be\nhandling the account moving forward from a financial perspective very similarly to how I manage\nthe GCLUB BVI account.”\n50\n\niv. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-7\nhad an account balance of $52,078.06 as of October 6, 2022.\nff. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account 7 via four\ninternal Mercantile Bank transfers from Target Account-2 (i.e., the Himalaya Clearing account),\ntotaling approximately $3.35 million between on or about May 5, 2022 and August 19, 2022. The\ndescriptions for two of the four incoming transfers reference, in substance and in part, “HDO\nRedemption.”\nTarget Account-8\ngg. On or about August 30, 2022, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for an account in the name of Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd\n(the “Target Account-8 Application”). The Target Account-8 Application described the nature of\nHimalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd’s business as “Outsourced Customer Service Center and\nCompliance Consulting.” The stated purpose of opening Target Account-8 was as follows: “We\nwould like to receive service fees from our clients in USD and then send them in AUD to our\nAustralian bank account. Unfortunately, our Australian bank does not provide FX conversion and\ncan only receive AUD.”\nhh. JE is listed as the ultimate beneficial owner and 100% shareholder (via his\nwholly-owned entity, Major Lead International Ltd.) of Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.\nii. Based on my review of email communications, dated between on or about\nAugust 8, 2022 and August 31, 2022, among MB Employee-1, MGH Employee-2, and Masud\n(i.e., Hamilton’s CFO), among others, relating to the opening of Target Account-8, I have learned\nthe following, in substance and in part:\ni. On or about August 24, 2022, Masud sent an email to MB\nEmployee-1, MGH Employee-2, and others with information about an entity called Himalaya\n51\n\nCurrency Clearing, which Masud described, in substance and in part, as “an important entity within\nthe Group, as it is one of the few which holds regulatory licenses.” In the email, Masud requested\nthat Mercantile Bank set up a bank account for Himalaya Currency Clearing “ASAP please.”\nii. In subsequent email communications on or about August 29, 2022,\nHeeseup Shin, Hamilton’s Head of Legal and Compliance, Australia (“Shin”), advised MB\nEmployee-1 and others, in substance and in part, that “William Je is the ultimate beneficiary/\nindividual shareholder (100%) of Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd (Australia).”\niii. As shown in the Account Balances Table above, Target Account-8\nhad an account balance of $180,000.00 as of October 6, 2022.\njj. Investment Scheme Funds have been traced into Target Account-8 via an\ninternal Mercantile Bank transfer from Target Account-2 (i.e., the Himalaya Clearing account),\non or about September 13, 2022, totaling approximately $180,000.\nIII.Request for Non-Disclosure and Sealing\n54. The nature and scope of this ongoing criminal investigation—including the\nidentities of Target Subjects of the Investigation—is not publicly known. As described herein, the\naffidavits supporting the Prior Seizure Warrants were filed under seal and remain under seal.\nPremature public disclosure of this affidavit or the requested warrant could alert potential criminal\ntargets that they are under investigation, causing them to destroy evidence, flee from prosecution,\nor otherwise seriously jeopardize the investigation. Specifically, as set forth above, the targets of\nthis investigation appear to have the financial means that would facilitate their flight from\nprosecution, and have traveled internationally in the past to jurisdictions where extradition to the\nUnited States for purposes of prosecution is unlikely or impossible.\n52\n\n55. For these reasons, I respectfully request that this affidavit and all papers submitted\nherewith be maintained under seal until the Court orders otherwise, except that the Government\nbe permitted without further order of this Court to provide copies of the warrant and affidavit as\nneed be to personnel assisting it in the investigation and prosecution of this matter, and to disclose\nthose materials as necessary to comply with discovery and disclosure obligations in any\nprosecutions related to this matter.\nIV.Conclusion\n56. Based on the information set forth in the September 17 Affidavit, the G Fashion\nAffidavit, the September 20 Affidavit, and the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to\nbelieve that funds held in the Target Property are subject to forfeiture as proceeds of violations of\n18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) and, and/or as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C.\n§§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1956(a)(2)(B)(i), and 1956(h) (money laundering and conspiracy to commit\nmoney laundering).\n53\n\n57. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(b), I respectfully request that the Court\nissue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the Target Property.\n_____________________________________\nANTHONY ALECCI\nSpecial Agent\nFederal Bureau of Investigation\nSworn to me through the transmission of this\nAffidavit by reliable electronic means, pursuant to\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(d)(3) and 4.1, this\n__ day of October, 2022\n_____________________________________\nTHE HONORABLE STEWART D. AARON\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n54","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":14363,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:39"},{"id":"court_sdny_716_6","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":716,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2025-07-28","title":"SDNY ECF 716","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Exhibit F\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 23 MAG 3908\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nTO BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n-v.-\nAffidavit in Support of Seizure\nAll monies, funds, and assets contained in the Warrant\nTD Bank, N.A. official check account that were\npreviously held in TD Bank, N.A. accounts 440- Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984\n5491468 and 440-5492044, held by G CLUB\nOPERATIONS LLC (the “Target Account”),\nand all funds traceable thereto, including\naccrued interest (the “Target Property”);\nDefendant-in-rem.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK) ss.:\nZachary Effting, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, being duly sworn,\ndeposes and says:\nI. Introduction\n1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI” or\n“Investigating Agency”). I have been a Special Agent with the FBI since in or about February\n2020. Since in or about October 2020, I have been assigned to the FBI’s Complex Financial\nCrimes squad. During my time with the FBI, I have participated in investigations of securities and\nwire fraud schemes, bank fraud, and money laundering, and have, among other things, conducted\nor participated in debriefings of witnesses, reviews of financial records, and the execution of search\nwarrants. In particular, I have participated in the execution of search warrants involving physical\npremises, property used in connection with crime, electronic devices, and other electronic\nevidence.\n2. This affidavit is submitted in support of the United States of America’s Application\nfor the issuance of a seizure warrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984, to seize the following\n\nproperty: all monies, funds, and assets contained in the TD Bank, N.A. official check account that\nwere previously held in TD Bank, N.A. accounts 440-5491468 and 440-5492044, held by G CLUB\nOPERATIONS LLC (the “Target Property”).\n3. The Target Property constitutes the proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343\n(wire fraud); 1344 (bank fraud); and 1956 (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money\nlaundering) (together, the “Target Offenses”), as described below.\n4. This affidavit is based on, among other sources of information: (i) my review of\ndocuments and other evidence; (ii) my conversations with other law enforcement personnel and\nreview of law enforcement reports, including reports of surveillance; (iii) my review of publicly\navailable information, including digital videos posted on the Internet and other open source\nresearch conducted on the Internet relating to, among other ventures, “G|CLUBS”; (iv) my\nparticipation and the participation of other law enforcement officers in various witness interviews;\n(v)my review of evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas, orders issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C.\n§2703(d) for non-content information, and judicially authorized search warrants, including\nemails, cellphone location data, and cellphone toll records; (vi) my review and analysis of various\nbank account records; and (vii) my training and experience concerning the commission of financial\ncrimes. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable\ncause, it does not include all the facts that I have learned during the course of my investigation.\nWhere dates, figures, and calculations are set forth herein, they are approximate. Where the\ncontents of documents and the actions, statements, and conversations of others are reported herein,\nthey are reported in substance and in part, except where otherwise indicated.\n5. As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that the Target Property is\nsubject to seizure and forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C) and 18 U.S.C.\n§981(b) as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and § 1957, and/or the proceeds\n2\n\nof violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 , or property traceable thereto. In summary, the evidence reveals\na fraudulent scheme (the “Fraud”) that pertains to several interrelated companies and their\naffiliated entities, including GTV Media Group Inc., G Fashion (“G Fashion”), the Himalaya Farm\nAlliance (the “Farms”), Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. (“Himalaya International Clearing”),\nG Club Operations LLC (“G Club”), Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. (“Hamilton”), ACA\nCapital Group Ltd. (“ACA Capital”), and Crane Advisory Group LLC (“Crane”). As set forth in\nmore detail below, the leaders of the Fraud are Miles Guo, a/k/a “Guo Wengui,” a/k/a “Miles\nKwok” (“GUO”) and William Je, a/k/a Je Kin Ming (“JE”).\n6. Forensic accountants and analysts at the FBI and SEC and I have traced the flow of\ncertain fraud proceeds from victims of the fraud scheme to the purchase of the Target Property.\nII. Statutory Basis for Forfeiture\n7. The statutory provisions pursuant to which the Target Property is subject to civil\nseizure and forfeiture are as follows:\nMoney Laundering Offenses\n8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(A), subjects to civil forfeiture:\nAny property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in\nviolation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such\nproperty.\n9. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) provides that any person who:\ntransports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit,\nor transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the\nUnited States to or through a place outside the United States or to a\nplace in the United States from or through a place outside the\nUnited States—\n(A) with the intent to promote the carrying on or specified\nunlawful activity—\n[shall be guilty of a crime.]\n3\n\n10. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) provides that any person who:\ntransports, transmits, or transfers, or attempts to transport, transmit,\nor transfer a monetary instrument or funds from a place in the\nUnited States to or through a place outside the United States or to a\nplace in the United States from or through a place outside the\nUnited States—\n(B) knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in\nthe transportation, transmission, or transfer represent\nthe proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that\nsuch transportation, transmission, or transfer is designed in whole or\nin part—\n(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source,\nthe ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified\nunlawful activity [shall be guilty of a crime.]\n11. 18 U.S.C. § 1957 provides that any person who knowingly engages or attempts to\nengage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000\nand is derived from specified unlawful activity [shall be guilty of a crime.]\n12. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) further provides that “[a]ny person who conspires to commit\nany offense defined in [Sections 1956 and 1957] shall be subject to the same penalties as those\nprescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”\nWire Fraud Offenses\n13. For purposes of Section 1956, “specified unlawful activity,” defined in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1956(c)(7), includes, among other things, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as well as conspiracy\nto commit violations thereof. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(c)(7) and 1961(1).\n14. Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), subjects to civil forfeiture any\nproperty, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to a violation\nof . . . any offense constituting ‘specified unlawful activity’ (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of\nthis title), or a conspiracy to commit such offense.”\n4\n\nSeizure Warrants\n15. The Court is empowered by 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) to issue a seizure warrant for any\nproperty subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) & (C). Section 981(b)(2)\nprovides that such a seizure may be made “pursuant to a warrant obtained in the same manner as\nprovided for a search warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” In addition, Section\n981(b)(3) provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure\n41(a), a seizure warrant may be issued pursuant to Section 981(b) by a judicial officer in any\ndistrict in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed under Title 28, United States\nCode, Section 1355(b). Under Section 1355(b)(1)(A), a forfeiture action or proceeding may be\nbrought in the district in which any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the forfeiture occurred.\nAs set forth below, the offenses underlying the requested seizure warrant included acts or\nomissions occurring in the Southern District of New York.\nIII. Probable Cause\nA. Background\nIndictments\n16. On March 30, 2023, the Government filed a 12-count superseding Indictment,\ncaptioned United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, Kin Ming Je, and Yanping Wang, S1 23 Cr. 118 (the\n“Indictment”), charging Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a “Miles Guo,” a/k/a “Miles Kwok,” a/k/a “Guo\nWengui,” a/k/a “Brother Seven,” a/k/a “The Principal” (“KWOK”), Kin Ming Je, a/k/a “William\nJe” (“JE”), and Yanping Wang, a/k/a “Yvette” (“WANG”) with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371\n(conspiracy to commit wire, bank and securities fraud and money laundering), 1343 (wire fraud),\n1957 (unlawful monetary transactions), and 2 (aiding and abetting). The Indictment also charged\nKWOK and JE with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(A) (international concealment money\nlaundering) and 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) (international promotional money laundering); and 15 U.S.C.\n5\n\n§§ 78j(b) & 78ff and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (securities fraud). In addition, the Indictment charged\nJE with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (obstruction of justice). The Indictment is attached\nhereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference herein.\nOverview of the Investigation\n17. Since in or around May 2020, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern\nDistrict of New York (“SDNY”) and the FBI, among other law enforcement agencies, have been\ninvestigating a fraud (the “Fraud”) that pertains to several companies that are owned or operated\nby, or otherwise affiliated with, KWOK, JE, WANG, and other Target Subjects. To date, the\ninvestigation has revealed that the Fraud involved the solicitation of more than $1 billion and the\nsubsequent money laundering and/or misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars. KWOK\nis the leader of, and directed, the Fraud. JE is the financial architect and key money launderer for\nthe Fraud. WANG operated as KWOK’s “chief of staff” and managed the day-to-day operations\nof the entities used to perpetrate the Fraud.\n18. KWOK, JE, and WANG have conducted the Fraud, which occurred between at\nleast in or about 2018 through in or about March 2023, through various interrelated offerings, all\nof which exhibit features that are consistent with fraud. For example, as described further below\nand in the Indictment, investors were promised unrealistic, outsized returns on their investments;\ninvestors were induced to invest on the basis of numerous misrepresentations; a large portion of\nthe investment money was misappropriated; and with respect to the sale of digital asset securities,\nthose currencies have never been tradable on a public exchange, despite representations that they\nwould be.\n19. Based on my conversations with other law enforcement officers who have\nparticipated in this investigation and my review of the Indictment, I have learned that the Fraud\nincludes, among other means and methods, the following:\n6\n\na. Starting at least in or about June 2020, KWOK began promoting G|CLUBS,\na purported high-end membership club. G|CLUBS, which launched in or about October 2020,\nclaimed to provide “Membership Concierge services with exclusive offers and discounts for luxury\nhotels and retailers for High Net Worth individuals from the Asian market” through the sale of\npurported memberships. In soliciting G|CLUBS membership funds, KWOK and others\nrepresented that G|CLUBS membership would be a mechanism to obtain stock in KWOK-\naffiliated companies, including GTV and a company called G|FASHION. G|CLUBS raised at\nleast approximately $250 million in purported membership fees, which funds were commingled\nwith other fraud proceeds and used to promote the Fraud and/or misappropriated. See Ex. 1 at\n¶¶ 14-15.\n20. Based on my training and experience and my conversations with other law\nenforcement officers who have participated in this investigation, I am aware that each of these\nmeans and methods of the Fraud described more fully in the Indictment bear the hallmarks of\nfraud. For example, the investors were promised unrealistic outsized returns on their investments;\ninvestors were induced to invest on the basis of numerous misrepresentations; and more than\napproximately $300 million in fraud proceeds has been misappropriated, including an\napproximately $100 million investment in a high-risk hedge fund for the benefit of KWOK’s son,\nthe purchase of a mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey for approximately $26.5 million in or about\nDecember 2021 through an entity owned and controlled by JE on behalf of KWOK, and the\ntransfer of approximately $13 million in fraud proceeds to an escrow account, which funds were\nsubsequently used to pay for extravagant renovations to, and furnishings for, the Mahwah\nMansion. See Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 12(h), 13(f), 15.\n7\n\nFinancial Investigation of Fraud Proceeds\n21. Based on my conversations with other law enforcement officers and my training\nand experience, I am aware that financial tracing analysis conducted by the United States\nAttorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY), the FBI, and the SEC\n(which is engaged in a parallel investigation) uncovered extensive layering of Fraud funds through\nmore than 500 accounts at financial institutions, held in the names of more than 80 individuals or\nentities, including various of the KWOK-controlled entities and dozens of other affiliated entities\nthat KWOK, JE, WANG, and other Target Subjects appear to have established as money\nlaundering vehicles. As the examples described in part in paragraphs 22-24, infra, show, financial\ntracing identified large transfers of Fraud proceeds to, through, and among domestic and\ninternational bank accounts, including accounts that JE controlled in the UAE and the Bahamas,\nconsistent with a large-scale layering of proceeds of crime for purposes of concealing their source,\norigin, location, and/or nature. See, e.g. Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 3, 4, 32, 32(g).\nTracing of Fraud Scheme Proceeds\n22. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and financial\nanalysts at the FBI and SEC, open-source research that I have conducted on the Internet, my review\nof evidence obtained pursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my\nconversations with others, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. Investors participated in the Fraud by either wiring money directly to a bank\naccount controlled or used by entities affiliated with KWOK, JE, and others (including the Farms,\nG|CLUBS, or the Himalaya Exchange), or by wiring or otherwise transferring money to other\nentities at the direction of the Target Subjects (including, for example, a company called Crane\nAdvisory Group (“Crane”), which funds are then transmitted to bank accounts ultimately\n8\n\ncontrolled by KWOK, JE, and their associates). I am aware of accounts located in the UAE, the\nUnited Kingdom, the United States, the Bahamas, and the British Virgin Islands, which KWOK,\nJE, and other Target Subjects have used for the purpose of receiving investment funds from\ninvestors in the Fraud, including G|CLUBS investors.\nb. For example, between in or about May 2021 and June 2021, approximately\n$100 million in Fraud funds were transferred from G|CLUBS bank accounts into a Bahamas bank\naccount held in the name of Hamilton Capital Management Ltd. (the “Hamilton Bahamas\nAccount”), which is a JE-controlled company. Before the approximately $100 million of Fraud\nfunds was combined in the Hamilton Bahamas Account, they were layered through a series of\nentities at various different banks in a manner that, based on my training and experience, is\nindicative of money laundering. Specifically:\ni. Certain prospective investors were instructed to send funds intended\nas an investment in GTV (for example) to bank accounts in the name of Crane. Approximately\n$78.2 million of Fraud funds was sent from individual or institutional investors in China and\nelsewhere to two Crane bank accounts (the “Crane Citibank Accounts”) between in or about\nNovember 2020 and April 2021.\nii. Approximately $60 million of those Fraud funds were then\ntransferred from the Crane Citibank Accounts to approximately five different bank accounts at\nMorgan Stanley Smith Barney (“MSSB”) held in the name of Crane (together, the “Crane MSSB\nAccounts”).\niii. The approximately $60 million in Fraud funds from the Crane\nMSSB Accounts was combined with approximately $49 million in other Fraud funds that had been\ntransferred into the Crane MSSB Accounts from two Crane accounts at a different bank, Capital\n9\n\nOne (together, the “Crane Capital One Accounts”), raising the total combined balance in the Crane\nMSSB Accounts to approximately $109 million.\niv. Approximately $79 million of those approximately $109 million in\nFraud funds in the Crane MSSB Accounts were then transferred to accounts at the same bank (i.e.,\nMSSB), but in the name of G|CLUBS (i.e., the G|CLUBS MSSB Accounts). The approximately\n$79 million was combined with approximately $79.7 million in other Fraud funds that had been\ntransferred into the G|CLUBS MSSB Accounts from individual G|CLUBS investors and from\nG|CLUBS bank accounts at Signature Bank, First Bank of Puerto Rico, and City National Bank,\nraising the total combined balance of Fraud funds in the G|CLUBS MSSB Accounts to more than\napproximately $158 million.\nv. Between in and about October 2021 and in or about April 2022,\napproximately $85 million of Fraud funds was transferred from the G|CLUBS MSSB Accounts to\nthe Hamilton Bahamas Account, and combined with approximately $15 million in other Fraud\nfunds (relating to G|CLUBS and the Himalaya Exchange). Thus, the $100 million of Fraud funds\nin the Hamilton Bahamas Account consisted exclusively of funds transferred from the G|CLUBS\nMSSB Accounts and other accounts containing Fraud funds.\n23. Between in or about September 2022 and March 2023, law enforcement served\njudicially authorized seizure warrants on several U.S. banks for the funds located in approximately\n21 additional bank accounts, into which I and forensic accountants and analysts at the FBI and\nSEC traced proceeds of the Fraud. The bank accounts subject to seizure were held in the names\nof various entities associated with KWOK and JE, or entities under JE’s control, including\nG|CLUBS, G|Fashion, and the Hamilton entities that control the Himalaya Exchange. Between in\nor about September 2022 and March 2023, the Government seized approximately $630 million in\nfraud proceeds pursuant to the seizure warrants, including approximately $11,538,579.87 from a\n10\n\nG|CLUBS account at Mercantile Bank (the “G|CLUBS Mercantile Account”), which represented\nthe balance in the account at the time of seizure. See Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 23-24.\n24. Based on my participation in this investigation, training, experience, review and\nanalysis of various bank account records and financial analyses performed by me and forensic\naccountants and analysts at the FBI and SEC, my review of court filings and evidence obtained\npursuant to subpoenas and judicially authorized search warrants, and my conversations with\nothers, I have learned the following, among other things:\na. On or about May 5, 2021, a business bank account application was\nsubmitted to Mercantile Bank for the G|CLUBS Mercantile Account. The application for the\nG|CLUBS Mercantile Account described G|CLUBS’s business as, in substance and in part,\n“holding the securities of (or other equity interests in) companies and enterprises.”\nb. Alex Hadjicharalambous, the Financial Controller for G|CLUBS, was an\nauthorized signer on the G|CLUBS Mercantile Account.\nc. Proceeds of the Fraud were traced into G|CLUBS Mercantile Account. For\nexample:\ni. The initial deposit of funds into G|CLUBS Mercantile Account,\nwhich occurred on or about July 2, 2021, consisted of an approximately $4 million transfer of\ntraceable Fraud proceeds from a G|CLUBS account held at Medici Bank.\nii. Between on or about August 23, 2021 and November 19, 2021,\napproximately $74 million of Fraud proceeds was transferred from the G|CLUBS MSSB Accounts\ninto the G|CLUBS Mercantile Account.\niii. On or about December 24, 2021, approximately $10 million of\nFraud proceeds was transferred from a Silvergate Bank account ending in -7739, held in the name\n11\n\nof Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (which account was seized pursuant to one of the\nGovernment’s prior seizure warrants) to the G|CLUBS Mercantile Account.\nThe Target Property\n25. Based on my review of documents, subpoena and search warrant returns, law\nenforcement reports, my conversations with witnesses and other law enforcement officers, and my\ntraining and experience, I am aware of the following, among other things:\na. Subpoena returns provided by TD Bank, N.A. reflect that “G Club\nOperations LLC” opened two bank accounts at TD Bank on or about January 13, 2022—\nspecifically, a business premier checking account ending in -1468 (the “1468 Account”) and a\nbusiness simple checking account ending in -2044 (the “2044 Account,” and together with the\n1468 Account, the “TD Accounts”).\nb. In account opening documentation dated on or about January 13, 2022,\nLimarie Reyes Molinaris (“Reyes Molinaris”), the then-CEO for G|CLUBS, is listed as the sole\nauthorized signer for the TD Accounts. On or about February 1, 2022, the signature card for each\nof the TD Accounts was updated to add Alex Hadjicharalambous, the Financial Controller for\nG|CLUBS, as an additional authorized signer. See supra at ¶ 24(b).\nc. On or about January 14, 2022, Reyes Molinaris deposited a “Manager’s\nCheck” from Oriental Bank in Puerto Rico into the 1468 Account; the check was in the amount of\napproximately $2,931,953.17, was dated November 22, 2021, was made payable to G CLUB\nOPERATIONS LLC. Based on my participation in this investigation and my review of\ndocuments, I am aware that the Oriental Bank check represented the balance of a G|CLUBS\naccount that Oriental Bank had closed, which account held funds traceable to the Fraud, that is,\nfunds derived from the fraudulent solicitation of investments. Based on my review of records for\nthe 1468 Account, I am aware that only approximately 21 disbursements were made from the 1468\n12\n\nAccount, and I am further aware that those disbursements consisted primarily of wire / ACH fees\nand check card purchases amounting to less than approximately $128,000 in debits.\nd. On or about January 14, 2022, approximately 13 checks were deposited into\nthe 2044 Account, for a collective deposit of approximately $313,600.00. The 13 checks were\nmade payable to G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC and were dated between on or about July 15, 2021\nand on or about August 3, 2021. Based on my review of documents, including G|CLUBS\nmembership lists and the memo lines of the checks, it appears that the checks were from G|CLUBS\ninvestors who were fraudulently induced to invest money. Between in or about January 2022 and\nJuly 2022, the 2044 Account received approximately $15,707,658.67 in credits (consisting of\ndeposits from G|CLUBS investors who were fraudulently induced to invest money) and\napproximately $9,637,000.17 in debits (including two outgoing wires to a particular bank account\nat Kyrgyz-Swiss Bank in Kyrgyzstan totaling approximately $7,000,000).\ne. TD Bank closed the TD Accounts on or about March 7, 2023.\ni. The 1468 Account statement for the period March 1, 2023 through\nMarch 7, 2023 reflects a closing balance of approximately $2,815,502.30. On or about March 7,\n2023, TD Bank issued a check to G CLUB OPERATIONS LCC (numbered 90519810-6) for the\nclosing balance of the 1468 Account.\nii. The 2044 Account statement for the period March 1, 2023 through\nMarch 7, 2023 reflects a closing balance of approximately $4,357,924.95. On or about March 7,\n2023, TD Bank issued a check to G CLUB OPERATIONS LCC (numbered 90519811-7) for the\nclosing balance of the 2044 Account.\nf. Based on my participation in this investigation, my review of documents,\nand my conversations with others, I am aware that the combined approximately $7,173,427.25 that\nrepresents the closing balances of the TD Accounts is currently being held in the Target Account\n13\n\n(i.e., the TD Bank, N.A. official check account that is holding funds previously held in TD Bank,\nN.A. accounts 440-5491468 and 440-5492044, held by G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC).\nIV. Conclusion\n26. Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that the\nfunds held in the Target Property are subject to forfeiture as proceeds of violations of 18 U.S.C.\n§1343 (wire fraud), and/or as property involved in violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(A)(i),\n1956(a)(2)(B)(i), 1957, and 1956(h) (money laundering and conspiracy to commit money\nlaundering).\n27. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(b), I respectfully request that the Court\nissue a warrant authorizing the seizure of the Target Property.\n_Z_a_c_h_a_r_y_ _E_ff_t_in_g_ _(b__y_ V_F__ w__it_h_ p_e__rm__is_s_i_o_n_)__\nZACHARY EFFTING\nSpecial Agent\nFederal Bureau of Investigation\nSworn to me through the transmission of this\nAffidavit by reliable electronic means, pursuant to\nFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(d)(3) and 4.1, this\n_1_2 day of May, 2023\n_____________________________________\nTHE HONORABLE VALERIE FIGUEREDO\nUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n14\n\nEx. 1\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g1e o 1f 74 0of 56\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ORIGINAL 1\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA INDICTMENT\nV. Sl 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\nHO WAN KWOK,\na/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"\na/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\"\na/k/a \"Brother Seven,\"\na/k/a \"The Principal,\"\nKINMINGJE,\na/k/a \"William Je,\" and\nYANPING WANG,\na/k/a \"Yvette,\"\nDefendants.\nCOUNT ONE\n(Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, Securities Fraud, Bank Fraud, and\nMoney Laundering)\nThe Grand Jury charges:\nOverview\n1. From at least in or about 2018 through at least in or about March 2023, HO WAN\nKWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\"\na/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"\nthe defendants, and others known and unknown, conspired to defraud thousands of victims of more\nthan approximately $1 billion, including victims located in the Southern District of New York.\nKWOK, JE, WANG, and their co-conspirators operated through a series of complex fraudulent\nand fictitious businesses and investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g2e o 1f 84 0of 56\nentities, which allowed the defendants and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and\nmisappropriate victim funds.\n2. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\"\na/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING\nWANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, took advantage of KWOK's\nprolific online presence and hundreds of thousands of online followers to solicit investments in\nvarious entities and programs by promising outsized financial returns and other benefits. The\nentities and programs used in the scheme included those known as GTV, GICLUBS, GIMUSIC,\nGIFashion, and the Himalaya Exchange, among others. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK, JE,\nand WANG well knew, the entities were instrumentalities that KWOK, JE, and WANG created\nand used to perpetrate their fraud and exploit KWOK's followers. The scheme allowed KWOK,\nJE, and WANG to enrich themselves, their family members, and their co-conspirators, and to fund\nKWOK's extravagant lifestyle.\n3. As part of the scheme, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"\na/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William\nJe,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, laundered\nhundreds of millions of dollars of fraud proceeds. To conceal the illegal source of the funds,\nKWOK, JE, and WANG transferred, and directed the transfer of, money into and through more\nthan approximately 500 accounts held in the names of at least 80 different entities or individuals.\nHundreds of millions of dollars of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds were transferred, either\ndirectly or indirectly, to bank accounts in the United States, Bahamas, and United Arab Emirates\n(\"UAE\"), among other places, and held in the name of companies owned or otherwise controlled\nby JE.\n2\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g3e o 1f 94 0of 56\n'v\n4. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\"\na/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the\ndefendants, used more than approximately $300 million of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds for\ntheir and their families' benefit. For example, KWOK used fraudulently-obtained victim money\nto purchase, fund, or finance a $26.5 million purchase of an approximately 50,000-square-foot\nmansion in New Jersey for KWOK and his family; luxury vehicles, including an approximately\n$3.5 million Ferrari for one ofKWOK's close family members (\"Relative-I\"); an approximately\n$37 million luxury yacht that was used by KWOK and his family and purchased in the name of\none ofKWOK's close family members (\"Relative-2\"); a piano valued at approximately $140,000;\nan approximately $36,000 mattress; and a $100 million investment in a high-risk hedge fund for\nthe ultimate benefit of Relative-I, among other things. For his part, among other things, JE\ntransferred at least $10 million of the fraud proceeds into his and his spouse's personal bank\naccounts.\n5. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\"\na/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YA NPING\nWANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, operated the scheme for years,\nand continued to do so at least through at least March 2023. They did so, among other things, by\ncontinually adapting the scheme's means and methods to evade the enforcement of investor\nprotection, anti-money laundering, and bankruptcy laws in the United States, and by retaliating\nagainst individual victims who complained or demanded the return of invested funds.\n3\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g4e o 2f 04 0of 56\nRelevant Persons and Entities\n6. At all relevant times, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"\na/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, was the leader\nof, and directed, the scheme.\na. KWOK is an exiled Chinese businessman who fled to the United States in\nor about 2015 and purchased a penthouse apartment at a New York City hotel for approximately\n$67.5 million. Starting at least in or about 2017, KWOK, who then purported to be a billionaire,\ngarnered a substantial online following. KWOK granted numerous media interviews and posted\non social media, claiming to advance a movement against the Chinese Communist Party.\nb. In or about 2018, KWOK founded two purported nonprofit organizations,\nnamely, the Rule of Law Foundation and the Rule of Law Society. The Rule of Law Society's\nwebsite lists KWOK as its \"founder, a promot[e]r, and a spokesperson.\" Both organizations\nfeature photographs of KWOK on their websites. KWOK used the nonprofit organizations to\namass followers who were aligned with his purported campaign against the Chinese Communist\nParty and who were also inclined to believe KWOK's statements regarding investment and money\nmaking opportunities. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK well knew, he and others provided false\nand materially misleading information to promote these \"opportunities\" and to defraud KWOK's\nfollowers and other victims.\n7. At all relevant times, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, was a dual\ncitizen of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom who principally resided in the United Kingdom,\nwhile traveling to the United States and elsewhere. JE owned and operated numerous companies\nand investment vehicles central to the scheme and served as its financial architect and key money\nlaunderer.\n4\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g5e o 2f 14 0of 56\n8. At all relevant times, Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, was a\ncitizen of China who principally resided in New York, New York and has had a close relationship\nwith HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a\n\"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant. In particular, WANG has worked for\nKWOK and KWOK's family for several years, since at least in or about 2018, and has operated as\na \"chief of staff' for KWOK. In that capacity, WANG has held titles in a variety of entities that\nwere instrumentalities of the fraud described herein. For example, WANG has served as the\nPresident, Treasurer, and Secretary of entities that purportedly managed KWOK's money.\n9. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\")\nwas a corporation based in New York, New York. Relative-I was its ultimate beneficial owner.\n10. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") was\na purported news-focused social media platform based in New York, New York. GTV was\nfunctionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"\na/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, although\nKWOK held no formal position or title at GTV. KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant,\nlikewise held no formal position or title at GTV, but in fact exercised control over its finances.\nSaraca was the parent company of GTV. YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, was\nan \"Executive Director\" of GTV.\n11. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, G Club Operations, LLC (\"GICLUBS\")\n_was a purported membership organization based in Puerto Rico and in New York, New York.\nGICLUBS was functionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a\n\"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant,\nalthough KWOK held no formal position or title at GICLUBS. KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"\n5\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g6e o 2f 24 0of 56\nthe defendant, likewise held no formal position or title at GICLUBS, but in fact exercised control\nover its finances. .\n12. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, the \"Himalaya Exchange\" was a\npurported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" that KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant,\nfounded and operated through various entities he owned, which were based abroad. Entities\nfunctionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"\na/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, such as\nGICLUBS and GIFashion, had purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange.\nKWOK promoted the Himalaya Exchange and claimed to be the designer of its purported\ncryptocurrency, although KWOK held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\nThe Fraud\nThe GTV Private Placement\n13. Between in or about April 2020 and in or about June 2020, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a\n\"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\nPrincipal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YA NPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the\ndefendants, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained more than $400 million in\nvictim funds through an illegal private stock offering related to GTV (the \"GTV Private\nPlacement\").\na. On or about April 21, 2020, KWOK posted, and caused to be posted, a video\non social media announcing the unregistered offering of GTV common stock via a private\nplacement. In that video, KWOK described, in substance and in part, the investment terms for the\nGTV Private Placement, and directed people to contact him, via a mobile messaging application,\nwith any questions about the GTV Private Placement. The video and GTV Private Placement\n6\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g7e o 2f 34 0of 56\nmaterials-including the written \"Confidential Information Memorandum\" (the \"PPM\"),\nSubscription Agreement, and Investment Procedure Guidelines-were transmitted to thousands of\npotential investors, including those in the Southern District of New York, via mobile messaging\napplications, social media, and text messages.\nb. The PPM promoted GTV as the \"first ever platform which will combine the\npower of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-'art technology, big data, artificial\nintelligence, block-chain technology and real-time interactive communication.\"\nc. According to the PPM' s metadata, JE was the \"author\" of the PPM. The\nPPM disclosed the terms of the GTV Private Placement and identified KWOK as GTV's \"Sponsor\nand Adviser.\" According to the PPM, among other GTV materials, neither KWOK nor JE held\nany formal management position with GTV. Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant,\nwas identified in the PPM as an \"Executive Director\" of GTV.\nd. The PPM also contained the following representations, in substance and in\npart, among others:\nThe GTV Private Placement was for investors who were \"interested\n1.\nin evaluating an opportunity to invest capital into GTV;\"\nii. GTV planned to use the proceeds raised from the GTV Private\nPlacement \"to expand and strengthen the business;\" and\nThe PPM included a chart itemizing the \"contemplated use of\n111.\nproceeds\" raised from the GTV Private Placement:\n7\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g8e o 2f 44 0of 56\nAcquisition of companies to strengthen and grow\nGTV\nUpgrade of GTV technology and security Approximate 10%\nMarketing Approximate 8%\nWorking capital Approximate 7%\nOther Approximate 5%\nTotal 100%\ne. Between on or about April 20, 2020 and on or about June 2, 2020,\napproximately $452 million worth ofGTV common stock was purportedly sold to more than 5,500\ninvestors located in the United States, including in the Southern District of New York, and abroad.\nInvestors participated in the GTV Private Placement based, in part, on the belief that their money\nwould be invested into GTV to develop and grow that business, as the PPM promised.\nf. The vast majority of the proceeds derived from investors in the GTV Private\nPlacement were not used to develop and grow the GTV business, but instead were deposited\ndirectly into bank accounts held in the name of Saraca, GTV's parent company, which is\nbeneficially owned by Relative-I.\ng. The GTV Private Placement was not made pursuant to a registration\nstatement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\"). Rather, the offering\nwas purportedly made pursuant to SEC regulations that permit the sale of unregistered securities\nsubject to limitations on the type of investors to whom the securities are offered and the manner in\nwhich their investments may be solicited. To evade these limitations, however, KWOK, and others\n8\n\nCaseC a1s:2e3 1-c:2r-30-0c1r-1080-1A1T8 - A TD o Dcuomcuemnte 7n1t 61-96 F iFleilde d0 30/72/92/82/32 5 P a gPea g9e o 2f 54 0of 56\nunder his control, used at least one intermediary entity to purchase GTV stock on behalf of pools\nof investors who did not qualify to participate in the GTV Private Placement.\nh. In or about early June 2020, and only days after the GTV Private Placement\nclosed, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a\n\"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING\nWANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, misappropriated approximately\n$100 million raised from investors in the GTV Private Placement and directed that those funds be\nplaced with a high-risk hedge fund (\"Fund-I\") for the benefit of Saraca and its ultimate beneficial\nowner, Relative-I. This transaction was contrary to the PPM's representations to prospective GTV\ninvestors about how investments in GTV would be used. Indeed, the $100 million investment into\nFund-I was not made for the benefit of GTV, but rather for the benefit of Saraca. The victims\nwho supplied the $100 million invested into Fund-I did not own any shares of Saraca. Ultimately,\nthe investment into Fund-I lost approximately $30 million in value.\ni. After directing $100 million of GTV victim funds into Fund-I, HO WAN\nKWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\"\na/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, continued to promote GTV using false and misleading\nrepresentations.\nThe Farm Loan Program\n14. Beginning in or about June 2020-the same month that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a\n\"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\nPrincipal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators\nmisappropriated money from the GTV Private Placement for the benefit of Saraca and\nRelative-I-KWOK, JE, and their co-conspirators fraudulently obtained more than approximately\n9\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g0e o2f6 4 o0f 56\n$150 million in victim funds through the \"Himalaya Farm Alliance.\" The Himalaya Farm\nAlliance, which KWOK organized and promoted, was a collective of informal groups (e ach known\nas a \"Farm\") located in various cities around the world. KWOK, JE, and others working on their\nbehalf and at their direction, obtained these funds by making further misrepresentations to the\ninvestors in the GTV Private Placement and fraudulently soliciting further investments, this time\nin the form of \"loans\" to a Farm, and promising that such loans would be convertible into GTV\ncommon stock at a conversion rate of one share per dollar loaned (the \"Farm Loan Program\").\na. Starting in or about June 2020, domestic banks that held accounts used to\nprocess the funds raised through the GTV Private Placement began to freeze and close GTV\nassociated bank accounts because, among other reasons, the accounts had received dozens of large\nincoming wire transfers, some of which referenced an unregistered stock offering.\nb. These bank account closures frustrated the ability of KWOK, JE, and their\nco-conspirators to collect proceeds from victims seeking to invest in GTV.\nc. On or about July 22, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK\npromoted the Farm Loan Program. According to KWOK and those working on his behalf,\nindividuals seeking to invest (or reinvest) in GTV could participate in the Farm Loan Program.\nd. After launching the Farm Loan Program, KWOK continued to promote\nGTV and to falsely represent the value of GTV. For example, on or about August 2, 2020, in a\nvideo distributed via social media, KWOK falsely stated, in substance and part, \"How much is\nGTV? .. . a market value of2 billion US dollars.\"1 In truth and in fact, and as KWOK well knew,\nGTV's market value was far less because, among other things, GTV was a new business that\ngenerated no revenue.\n1 All statements attributed herein to KWOK have been translated from Mandarin to English,\nunless otherwise noted.\n10\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g1e o2f7 4 o0f 56\ne. Thousands of victims \"loaned\" money to the Farms by sending money to\nbank accounts controlled by the Farms (and not GTV). According to the \"Loan Agreements,\"\nwhich the Farms frequently did not countersign, these funds were to be used for a Farm's \"general\nworking capital purposes.\"\nf. KWOK and JE misappropriated funds that were raised through the Farm\nLoan Program. For example:\ni. Approximately $20 million was transferred to Relative-I,\napproximately $950,000 of which was used to pay for flight crew services on a private jet;\nii. Approximately $5 million was transferred to an entity owned by\nKWOK's spouse;\niii. Approximately $2.3 million was used to cover maintenance\nexpenses associated with an approximately 145-foot luxury yacht worth approximately $37\nmillion, nominally owned by Relative-2 and used by KWOK; and\niv. Approximately $10 million was transferred to personal bank\naccounts in the name of JE and/or JE's spouse.\nGICLUBS\n15. While making misrepresentations regarding the Farm Loan Program, HO WAN\nKWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\"\na/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known\nand unknown, fraudulently induced KWOK's followers to transfer additional funds to a purported\nonline membership club called GICLUBS. From at least in or about October 2020 through at least\n11\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g2e o2f8 4 o0f 56\nin or about March 2023, KWOK, JE, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained more\nthan approximately $250 million in victim funds through GICLUBS.\na. Starting at least on or about June 20, 2020, in a video distributed via social\nmedia, KWOK promoted and encouraged individuals to purchase what KWOK referred to as a\n\"G Club . . . membership card.\"\nb. Formally launched in or about October 2020, GICLUBS claimed, on its\nwebsite, to be \"an exclusive, high-end membership program offering a full spectrum of services\"\nand \"a gateway to carefully curated world-class products, services and experiences.\"\nc. To join GICLUBS, a member was required to make a one-time payment to\npurchase a \"membership,\" in addition to an annual membership fee. The cost of the membership\nvaried based on the membership tier selected by the prospective member: Tier 5 Membership cost\n$50,000; Tier 4 Membership cost $40,000; Tier 3 Membership cost $30,000; Tier 2 Membership\ncost $20,000; and Tier 1 Membership cost $10,000.\nd. On or about July 5, 2021, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK\nstated, in substance and in part, that there were \"25,000 [GICLUBS] member[s] ... $100 million\ndollars, the cash [in] the bank account. Then we have the 111 million ... [who] want to join.\" By\ncontrast, GICLUBS internal documents reflected approximately 5,900 active members as of in or\nabout August 2021.\ne. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK and JE well knew, GICLUBS provided\nnothing close to \"a full spectrum of services\" and \"experiences\" to its members. Despite collecting\nhundreds of millions of dollars in purported membership fees, GICLUBS maintained a relatively\nsmall number of employees and provided its members few to no discemable membership benefits.\nIndeed, GICLUBS did not even make good on prizes it offered members for participating in\n12\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g3e o2f9 4 o0f 56\ncontests. On or about February 14, 2021, GICLUBS held a webcast and sweepstakes during which\nmembers were promised luxury prizes. On at least one occasion, instead of providing a BMW to\na member who purportedly won a sweepstakes, GI CLUBS claimed to the member that the member\nhad requested that the value of the BMW be applied toward an upgrade from a Tier 1 GICLUBS\nMembership to a Tier 4 GICLUBS Membership and partially credited toward annual membership\nfees for the next three years. As of on or about March 8, 2021-months after GICLUBS launched\nand began to collect \"membership\" fees-GICLUBS did not have a business plan or a board of\ndirectors.\nf. KWOK and JE also used GICLUBS as a mechanism to continue fraudulent\nprivate placement offerings. KWOK, and others known and unknown, told KWOK's online\nfollowers that their purchase of GICLUBS memberships would entitle them to stock in KWOK\naffiliated entities, such as GTV and GIFashion.\ni. In a conversation regarding GICLUBS membership funds on or\nabout May 4, 2021, JE stated, in substance and in part, that \"first of all, [prospective members] are\nbuying the GICLUBS membership, but they are expecting they would probably receive some\nshares, you know, on, on, on the future GTV, I think this is their expectation.\"\nii. On or about July 30, 2021, KWOK stated in a video distributed via\nsocial media, in substance and in part, \"Some of the comrades in arms asked, ' [w ]ill I still get a\nfree stock offer when I buy a GICLUBS membership?' 100%. Because I said that I have to promise\nthat anyone who buys G-Club membership before September 17 must be allotted shares, which is\nexactly the same. Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use your money to buy G\nClub before September 17, G-Club and the stock shares. You'll get both.\"\n13\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g4e o3f0 4 o0f 56\ng. KWOK, JE, and others known and unknown, asked investors to purchase\nmultiple memberships in GICLUBS, enabling KWOK and JE to increase the amount of money\nsolicited. In this regard, the GICLUBS website stated, in substance and in part, that members with\nmultiple memberships would \"receive additional benefits\" when, in truth and in fact, and as\nKWOK and JE well knew, multiple memberships did not provide members with additional\nbenefits.\n16. All told, investors purchased hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of GIC LUBS\nmemberships. However, most of this money did not fund the business of GICLUBS. Rather, HO\nWAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother\nSeven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others\nknown and unknown, misappropriated a substantial portion of the funds victims had paid\nGICLUBS for \"memberships,\" using, among other things, a complex web of entities and bank\naccounts to do so. For example:\na. GICLUBS funds, which had been funneled through bank accounts in other\nentities' names, were used to pay personal expenses for KWOK and his family, including luxury\npurchases of an approximately $2.6 million yacht and luxury automobiles that together cost more\nthan $5 million.\nb. In or about November 2021, JE directed approximately $26.5 million of\nGICLUBS funds, which ·had been funneled through bank accounts in other entities' names, toward\nthe purchase of KWOK's 50,000 square foot New Jersey mansion.\nc. JE directed the transfer of an additional $13 million of GICLUBS\nmembership payments to an escrow account. The funds were subsequently used to pay for\nextravagant renovations to KWOK's New Jersey mansion, including to a wing for Relative-I and\n14\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g5e o3f1 4 o0f 56\nto a wing for Relative-2, and to purchase various furniture and decorative items including, among\nother items, Chinese and Persian rugs worth approximately $978,000, a $62,000 television, and\na $53,000 fireplace log cradle holder.\nd. On or about August 5, 2021, JE directed the transfer of approximately $1.1\nmillion consisting of GICLUBS membership payments into a bank account that JE controlled.\ne. GICLUBS used membership fees to purchase luxury automobiles, including\na custom-built Bugatti sports car for approximately $4.4 million. While the car's signed purchase\nagreement listed GICLUBS as the customer, the initial specifications documentation for the\ncustom-built car named Relative-I as the customer. Relative-I had no official position with\nGICLUBS.\nThe Himalaya Exchange\n17. From at least in or about April 2021 through at least in or about March 2023, HO\nWAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother\nSeven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others\nknown and unknown, fraudulently obtained more than approximately $262 million in victim funds\nthrough the Himalaya Exchange, a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" accessible on the\ninternet. The Himalaya Exchange included a purported stablecoin called the Himalaya Dollar\n(\"HDO\" or \"H Dollar\") and a trading coin called Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\" or \"H Coin\"). The\nHimalaya Exchange claimed that the \"stablecoin\" was a digital asset with a fixed l-to-$1 value\nbacked by reserves, and that the \"trading coin\" was a cryptocurrency with valuation based on\nsupply and demand. JE was the founder and Chairman of the Himalaya Exchange.\n18. In videos distributed via social media, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a\n\"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant,\n15\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g6e o3f2 4 o0f 56\ntrumpeted the prospects and valuation of the Himalaya Exchange and both HCN and HDO, which\nhe publicly described as cryptocurrencies. For example, in a video posted on the Internet on or\nabout October 20, 2021, KWOK falsely stated the following, among other things, and in substance\nand in part:\na. \"I am talking about your H Coins, 'Brother Seven' [i.e., KWOK] designed\nit ....[ I]t has the attribute of currency, why? It has 20% gold. Awesome[.] [I]t was born as\ncurrency on the first day, so it has value and it is linked to gold ... clear gold directly. No matter\nhow much it raises, 20% will turn into gold.\"\nb. \"If the H Coin is worthless, [the issuer of H coin] can sell all 20% of the\ngold, exchange it to you, and become your money. Or take all the value of 20% gold and ask\neveryone to unify it and make it yours.\"\nc. \"If anyone loses money, I can say that I will compensate 100%. I give you\n100%. Whoever loses money, I will bear it.\"\nd. \"I can sell the H Coin in the market in one minute and get it back to my\nH Dollar, and back to your fiat money unit. ... [A]nd you can buy anything immediately.\"\n19. The initial coin offering ofHCN and HDO occurred on or about November 1, 2021.\nHCN began trading at 10 cents and, within approximately two weeks, the Himalaya Exchange\nwebsite claimed that each HCN purportedly was worth approximately 27 HDO (i.e., $27), which\nrepresented a 26,900% increase in value. That is, approximately two weeks after the initial coin\noffering, the Himalaya Exchange website indicated that HCN purportedly had an approximately\n$27 billion valuation.\n20. At the time of the Himalaya Exchange launch, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles\nGuo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the\n16\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g7e o3f3 4 o0f 56\ndefendant, marketed HCN to his online followers and others. For example, on or about November\n1, 2021-the day of the initial coin offering-KWOK released an official music video for an\noriginal song called \"HCoin To the Moon\" via social media. The phrase \"to the moon\" is popularly\nassociated with cryptocurrencies and implies a sharp increase in value. The music video depicted\nKWOK in various luxurious locations and depicted imagery of gold and wealth.\n21. At times, including following the Himalaya Exchange launch, KIN MING JE, a/k/a\n\"William Je,\" the defendant, misleadingly marketed the Himalaya Exchange. For example, in or\nabout June 2022, JE attempted to create the impression that a 3€ ,561,127 purchase of a Ferrari (the\n\"Ferrari\") from a particular auction house was completed with HDO. JE stated, in substance and\nin part, that he was \"extremely pleased that [a] buyer decided to purchase [a] world-class car using\nHDO.\" Contrary to JE' s claim, the Ferrari was not purchased using HDO. In truth and in fact,\nand as JE well knew, a Himalaya Exchange employee sent the auction house an international bank\nwire to cover the cost of the Ferrari, while also processing a corresponding \"transaction\" on the\nHimalaya Exchange to create the false appearance that the purchase had taken place using HDO.\nJE's statement was also misleading in that, among other things, the unidentified \"buyer\" of the\nFerrari was, in fact, Relative-I.\n22. Contrary to representations of HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles\nKwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE,\na/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, HCN and HDO could not be\ntraded anywhere other than (purportedly) on the Himalaya Exchange. Moreover, unlike\ncryptocurrencies, HCN could not be traded for, or converted into, other currencies. HCN\npurportedly could be traded for only HDO ( and only on the Himalaya Exchange), and HDO\npurportedly only could be converted to or from fiat currency ( and only on the Himalaya Exchange).\n17\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g8e o3f4 4 o0f 56\na. Indeed, the HDO and HCN Whitepapers, available on the Himalaya\nExchange website, provided in fine print that, contrary to KWOK's representations, HCN and\nHDO were not cryptocurrencies. Rather, according to the HCN Whitepaper, the \"operation of the\nHimalaya Exchange and associated applications and infrastructure will be facilitated through the\nuse of 'Credits.\"' Those credits (i) could \"only be used on the Himalaya Exchange or within the\nHimalaya Ecosystem,\" and (ii) did \"not carry any right to require their exchange for fiat currency\nor crypto-assets.\" Moreover, while Himalaya Exchange members could request to exchange their\n\"HDO\" credits for an equivalent payment in U.S. dollars, the HDO Whitepaper stated that the\nHimalaya Exchange had the \"discretion\" to deny any such request.\n23. In or about April 2022, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"\na/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a\n\"William Je,\" the defendants, arranged for the transfer of approximately $37 million in Himalaya\nExchange funds from a Himalaya Exchange bank account to a particular escrow account. The $3 7\nmillion was structured as a purported \"loan\" to cover the cost of a luxury yacht that KWOK had\npreviously purchased and used, which yacht was then-owned by an entity held in the name of\nRelative-2.\nGovernment Seizure ofF raud Proceeds\n24. On or about September 20, 2022 and September 21, 2022, U.S. authorities served\njudicially-authorized seizure warrants on several domestic banks, and subsequently seized\napproximately $335 million of proceeds from bank accounts held in the names of Himalaya\nExchange entities and other entities associated with HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a\n\"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING\nJE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants. Following the September 2022 judicially authorized\n18\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 1g9e o3f5 4 o0f 56\nseizures, JE attempted to transfer approximately $46 million from domestic bank accounts\nassociated with the Himalaya Exchange, which had not yet been seized by the United States, to a\nbank account in the UAE that JE controlled.\na. Within approximately two days of the first judicially authorized seizures of\nHimalaya Exchange-related funds, on or about September 22, 2022, JE contacted the management\nof a domestic bank that held Himalaya Exchange bank accounts. JE sought to implement a wire\ntransfer, which he and a Himalaya Exchange executive claimed to the domestic bank was needed\nto effectuate a \"redemption\" from HDO to U.S. dollars for an unnamed \"VIP\" (i.e., very important\nclient of the Himalaya Exchange).\nb. In subsequent communications with the domestic bank, JE revealed that the\nVIP was, in fact, JE himself. JE provided the domestic bank with documents reflecting two\npurported HCN sales by JE on or about September 22, 2022-totaling 46 million HDO, which JE\nwas attempting to \"convert\" into $46 million. JE twice emphasized to the domestic bank's\nmanagement, in substance and in part, that the $46 million transfer needed to happen \"today or it\nis meaningless.\"\n25. On or about October 16, 2022, pursuant to a judicially authorized warrant, U.S.\nauthorities seized an additional approximately $274 million of proceeds from several Himalaya\nExchange and GICLUBS accounts at the domestic bank from which JE requested the $46 million\ntransfer.\na. As a result of the judicially-authorized seizures, U.S. authorities seized\nmore than approximately $634 million of fraud proceeds, including approximately $278 million\nfrom bank accounts held in the names of the Himalaya Exchange entities, including accounts that\npurported to hold its HDO cash reserves.\n19\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g0e o3f6 4 o0f 56\nb. Following the seizures, the Himalaya Exchange website continued to\nrepresent that HDO was backed by a \"Reserve consisting of USD and cash-equivalent assets\"\nwhen, in truth and in fact, it was not.\nc. Despite the seizure of the Himalaya Exchange' s cash reserves, the\npurported price ofHCN had not suddenly and sharply declined through the date ofthis Indictment.\nSTATUTORY ALLEGATIONS\n26. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023,\nin the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a\n\"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING\nJE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known\nand unknown, willfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed together\nand with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, ( 1) wire fraud, in violation\nof Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; (2) securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United\nStates Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff, and Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-\n5; (3) bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344; (4) international\npromotional money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section\n1956(a)(2)(A); and (5) international concealment money laundering, in violation of Title 18,\nUnited States Code Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i).\n27. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles\nGuo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\"\nKIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and\nothers known and unknown, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and\nartifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent\n20\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g1e o3f7 4 o0f 56\npretenses, representations, and promises, would and did transmit and cause to be transmitted by\nmeans of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings,\nsigns, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in\nviolation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG agreed to\nobtain victims' money by causing materially false information and misrepresentations to be\ntransmitted over interstate wires, in connection with the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan\nProgram, GICLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange.\n28. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a\n\"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\nPrincipal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the\ndefendants, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by\nuse of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a\nnational securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a\nsecurity registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a\nmanipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal\nRegulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b)\nmaking an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order\nto make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading;\nand (c ) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a\nfraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG agreed to fraudulently induce\ninvestors to participate in the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, and GICLUBS by\nproviding materially false and misleading information and representations in connection with\npurported shares of GTV common stock and purported companies affiliated with GTV.\n21\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g2e o3f8 4 o0f 56\n2 9. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a\n\"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\nPrincipal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the\ndefendants, and others known and unknown, knowingly would and did execute and attempt to\nexecute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, as defined in Title 18, United States\nCode, Section 20, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, and other property owned\nby, and under the custody and control of, such a financial institution, by means of false and\nfraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,\nSection 1344, to wit, KWOK, JE,,and WANG agreed to participate in a scheme to mislead U.S.\nfinancial institutions through false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and documents, in\nconnection with the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, GICLUBS, and the\nHimalaya Exchange, in order to obtain money of, or under the custody and control of, at least one\nfinancial institution.\n30. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a\n\"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\nPrincipal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the\ndefendants, and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and\nattempt to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the\nUnited States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States\nfrom and through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on\nspecified unlawful activity, to wit, the offenses alleged in Counts Two through Eight of this\nIndictment in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section l 956(a)(2)(A)(i).\n22\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g3e o3f9 4 o0f 56\n31. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a\n\"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\nPrincipal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YA NPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the\ndefendants, and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and\nattempted to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the\nUnited States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States\nfrom and through a place outside the United States, knowing that the monetary instrument and\nfunds involved in the transportation, transmission, and transfer represent the proceeds of some\nform of unlawful activity, and knowing that such transportation, transmission, and transfer is\ndesigned in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and\ncontrol of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit, the offenses alleged in Counts Two\nthrough Eight of this Indictment, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section\n1956(a)(2)(B)(i).\nOvert Acts\n32. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its illegal objects, HO WAN KWOK,\na/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The\nPrincipal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YA NPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the\ndefendants, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt acts, among others, in\nthe Southern District of New York and elsewhere:\na. On or about April 21, 2020, KWOK posted, and caused to be posted, a video\non social media announcing the unregistered offering of GTV stock via the GTV Private\nPlacement.\n23\n\n..\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g4e o4f0 4 o0f 56\nb. On or about June 5, 2020, WANG, while located in the Southern District of\nNew York, authorized a wire transfer of $100 million from Saraca to Fund-1.\nc. On or about July 22, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK\npromoted the Farm Loan Program.\nd. On or about August 2, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK\nstated, in substance and part, \"How much is GTV? ... a market value of 2 billion US dollars.\"\ne. On or about May 28, 2021, JE transferred approximately $13 million from\na bank account in the UAE that JE controlled to a bank account held by an entity (owned by\nRelative-2) at a particular bank in New York, New York.\nf. On or about July 30, 2021, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK\nstated, in substance and in part, \"Some of the comrades in arms asked, ' [w ]ill I still get a free stock\noffer when I buy a G-Clubs membership?' 100%. Because I said that I have to promise that [to]\nanyone who buys G-Clubs membership before September 17 [they] must be allotted shares, which\nis exactly the same. Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use your money to buy\nG-Clubs before September 17, G-Clubs and the stock shares. You'll get both.\"\ng. On or about August 5, 2021, JE directed the transfer of approximately $1.1\nmillion consisting of funds victims had sent to GICLUBS in exchange for \"memberships\" to a\nbank account that JE controlled.\nh. On or about October 20, 2021, in a video distributed via social media,\nKWOK stated, in substance and in part, that KWOK \"designed\" HCN, that \"[n]o matter how much\nit raises, 20% will tum into gold,\" and that \"[i]f anyone loses money\" on HCN, \"I can say that I\nwill compensate 100%.\"\n24\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g5e o4f1 4 o0f 56\nOn or about September 22, 2022, JE texted a U.S. bank's management, in\n1.\nsubstance and in part, that a $46 million transfer to a JE-controlled bank account in the UAE\nneeded to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\"\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\nCOUNT TWO\n(Wire Fraud - GTV Private Placement)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n33. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n34. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March\n2021, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN\nMING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, knowingly\nhaving devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money\nand property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted\nand caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate\nand foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing\nsuch scheme and artifice, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG conducted the GTV Private Placement\nto sell GTV stock and fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and\nmisrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary\ntransfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n25\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g6e o4f2 4 o0f 56\nCOUNT THREE\n(Securities Fraud - GTV Private Placement)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n35. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n36. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March\n2021, in the Southern District ofNew York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN\nMING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, willfully\nand knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate\ncommerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed,\nin connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange\nand any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in\nviolation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.lOb-5, by (a) employing a device,\nscheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to\nstate a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances\nunder which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of\nbusiness which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK,\nJE, and WANG conducted the GTV Private Placement to sell GTV stock and obtain money from\nvictims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through\nelectronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York\nand elsewhere.\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations,\nSection 240.1 0b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n26\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g7e o4f3 4 o0f 56\nCOUNT FOUR\n(Wire Fraud - Farm Loan Program)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n3 7. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n38. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March\n2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOWA N KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN\nMING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise\na scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and\nfraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by\nmeans of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings,\nsigns, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit,\nKWOK and JE conducted the Farm Loan Program to fraudulently obtain money from victims\nthrough false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic\ncommunications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and\nelsewhere.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\nCOUNT FIVE\n(Securities Fraud-Farm Loan Program)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n39. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n27\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g8e o4f4 4 o0f 56\n40. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March\n2023, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN\nMING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by\nuse of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a\nnational securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a\nsecurity registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a\nmanipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal\nRegulations, Section 240. lOb-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud;\n(b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in\norder to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not\nmisleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would\noperate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted the Farm Loan\nProgram to obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, including\nregarding, among other things, the value of GTV, which scheme was furthered through electronic\ncommunications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and\nelsewhere.\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations,\nSection 240.1 0b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\nCOUNT SIX\n(Wire Fraud - GICLUBS)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n41. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n28\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 2g9e o4f5 4 o0f 56\n42. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March\n2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOWA N KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN\nMING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise\na scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and\nfraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by\nmeans of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings,\nsigns, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit,\nKWOK and JE promoted and marketed GICLUBS to fraudulently obtain money from victims\nthrough false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic\ncommunications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and\nelsewhere.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\nCOUNT SEVEN\n(Securities Fraud-GICLUBS)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n43. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n44. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March\n2021, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN\nMING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by\nuse of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a\nnational securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a\n29\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g0e o4f6 4 o0f 56\nsecurity registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a\nmanipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal\nRegulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud;\n(b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in\norder to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not\nmisleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would\noperate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE promoted and marketed\nG\\CLUBS to obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations,\nincluding regarding, among other things, the value of GTV, which scheme was furthered through\nelectronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York\nand elsewhere.\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal\nRegulations, Section 240.10 b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\nCOUNT EIGHT\n(Wire Fraud-The Himalaya Exchange)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n45. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n46. From at least in or about April 2021 up to and including at least in or about March\n2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOWA N KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"\na/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN\nMING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise\na scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and\nfraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by\nmeans of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings,\n30\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g1e o4f7 4 o0f 56\nsigns, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit,\nKWOK and JE operated the Himalaya Exchange to fraudulently obtain money from victims\nthrough false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic\ncommunications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and\nelsewhere.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\nCOUNT NINE\n(International Promotional Money Laundering)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n4 7. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n48. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023,\nin the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a\n\"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING\nJE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to\ntransport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States\nto and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and\nthrough a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on specified\nunlawful activity, to wit, KWOK and JE directed and made international transfers of funds into,\nout of, and through the United States, with the intent to promote the fraud offenses in Counts Two\nthrough Eight of the Indictment.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(A) and 2.)\n31\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g2e o4f8 4 o0f 56\nCOUNT TEN\n(International Concealment Money Laundering)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n49. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n50. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023,\nin the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a\n\"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING\nJE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to\ntransport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States\nto and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and\nthrough a place outside the United States, knowing that the monetary instrument and funds\ninvolved in the transportation, transmission, and transfer represented the proceeds of some form\nof unlawful activity, and knowing that such transportation, transmission, and transfer was designed\nin whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control\nof the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, namely, the fraud offenses alleged in Counts Two\nthrough Eight of this Indictment, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted international financial\ntransactions into, and out of, and through the United States involving fraud proceeds, including,\namong other transactions, transactions involving bank accounts held in the names of entities\nnominally owned by other individuals and by entities not overtly associated with the defendants,\nin order to conceal the ownership, control, and/or receipt of the proceeds of the fraud and the illegal\nnature and source of such proceeds.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) and 2.)\n32\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g3e o4f9 4 o0f 56\n\\\nCOUNT ELEVEN\n(Unlawful Monetary Transactions)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n51. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n52. On or about June 5, 2020, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO\nWAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother\nSeven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YA NPING WANG, a/k/a\n\"Yvette,\" the defendants, within the United States, knowingly engaged and attempted to engage\nin a monetary transaction, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(£)(1), in\ncriminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 that was derived from specified\nunlawful activity, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG made, and directed others to make, a wire\ntransfer of approximately $100 million derived from the offenses charged in Counts Two and\nThree to Fund-1.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.)\nCOUNT TWELVE\n(Obstruction of Justice)\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n53. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are\nrepeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n54. From at least on or about September 20, 2022 through the date of the filing of this\nIndictment, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William\nJe,\" the defendant, corruptly obstructed, influenced, and impeded an official proceeding and\nattempted so to do, to wit, JE attempted to transfer money to the UAE, beyond the jurisdiction of\n33\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g4e o5f0 4 o0f 56\nthe United States, to impede and interfere with a federal grand jury investigation in the Southern\nDistrict of New York of the offenses alleged in Counts One through Eleven of this Indictment, and\nproceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York\nconcerning the seizure and forfeiture of criminally derived proceeds.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2) and 2.)\nFORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS\n55. As a result of committing the offenses alleged in Counts One through Eight of this\nIndictment, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\"\na/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING\nWANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18,\nUnited States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c), any\nand all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the\ncommission of said offenses, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency\nrepresenting the amount of proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses and, and the\nfollowing specific property:\na. $64,826.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037713 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\nb. $75,000,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037705 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n34\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g5e o5f1 4 o0f 56\nl\nc. $467,343.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037754 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\nd. $89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\ne. $1,683,077.40 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042762 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\nf. $85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of\"Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\ng. $48,230,709.62 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090030288 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of\"Hamilton Investment Management\"\nLtd., seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\nh. $1,800,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090037739 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\ni. $85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of\"Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n35\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g6e o5f2 4 o0f 56\nj. $4,643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000590 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\nk. $14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 7801000254 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.,\"\nseized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n1. $11,538,579.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10103-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"G Club\nInternational Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\nm. $10,008,284.04 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBil 0133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya\nInternational Clearing Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and\non or about March 10, 2023;\nn. $3,090,856.54 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10137-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Hamilton Capital\nHolding Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about\nMarch 10, 2023;\no. $272,350,313.76 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10138-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya\nInternational Reserves Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and\non or about March 10, 2023;\np. $310,594.31 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10139-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya\n36\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g7e o5f3 4 o0f 56\nInternational Financial Group Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16,\n2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\nq. $1,187,278.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10171-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Hamilton\nInvestment Management Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022\nand on or about March 10, 2023;\nr. $43,782.71 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10172-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"G Fashion\nInternational Limited,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\ns. $161,809.47 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber MBI10183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya\nCurrency Clearing Pty Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\nt. $2,745,377.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 9878904409 at Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. held in the name of \"GETTR USA,\nInc.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\nu. $9,899,659.19 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account\nNumber 157525208185 at US Bank held in the name of \"G Fashion,\" seized by the Government\non or about September 18, 2022;\nv. All that lot or parcel of land, together with its buildings, appurtenances,\nimprovements, fixtures, attachments, and easements, located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road,\nMahwah, New Jersey 07430, Parcel No. 3300021-03-00001-02 and described as Lot Number: 1.02\nBlock: 21.03 District: 33 City, Municipality, Township: MAHWAH TWP\n37\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g8e o5f4 4 o0f 56\n♦\nf •\nw. A Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nVF9SW3V3XNM795047;\nx. A Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roads, bearing Vehicle Identification\nNumber ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393;\ny. A Rolls Royce Phantom EWB, bearing Vehicle Identification Number\nSCAT T8C08MU206445;\nz. A 46m 2014 Feadship superyacht \"Lady May\" (ex Como), bearing IMO\nNumber 112359, MMSI Number 319059500, and Callsign ZGDQ9;\naa. A Bosendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539 piano with custom bench, purchased\nfor approximately $140,938.69;\nbb. A Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon Bed with Nightstands,\nEbony Veneer, Brass, Velvet, purchased for approximately $31,413.71;\ncc. A Hastens 2000T md mattress, purchased for approximately $36,590.00;\ndd. A Hastens 2000T sf mattress, purchased for approximately $36,210.00;\nee. A Wembe watch storage box, purchased for approximately $59,392.91;\nff. A Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98\" QLED Smart TV - 8K,\npurchased for approximately $62,787.54;\ngg. A Louis XV Style French Ormolu-Mounted Mahogany Commode by\nJoseph Emmanuel Zweiner;\nhh. A \"K'ang Hsi\" extension table in etched and patinated pewter and bronze\nwith hand-painted enamel colors by Philip & Kelvin LaV erne, purchased for approximately\n$180,000.00; and\n38\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 3g9e o5f5 4 o0f 56\nii. A \"Punto '83\" table in stainless steel with mesh tabletop with adjustable\nheight and adjustable petals by Gabriella Crespi, Italy 1982, purchased for approximately\n$180,000.00.\n(a) through (ii), collectively, the \"Specific Property.\"\n56. As a result of committing the money laundering offenses alleged in Counts One,\nNine, Ten and Eleven of this Indictment, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles\nKwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a\n\"William Je,\" and YA NPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, shall forfeit to the United\nStates, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(l), any and all property, real and\npersonal, involved in said offense, or any property traceable to such property, including but not\nlimited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of property involved\nin said offense and the Specific Property.\nSubstitute Assets Provision\n57. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission\nof the defendants:\na. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\nb. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;\nc. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;\nd. has been substantially diminished in value; or\ne. has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided\nwithout difficulty;\n39\n\nCasCea 1s:e2 31-:c2r3-0-c0r1-01081-A18T- A T D o Dcoucmuemnet n7t1 169-6 F i lFeidle 0d3 0/279/2/283/2 5 P a g Pea 4g0e o5f6 4 o0f 56\n\\\nit is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) and\nTitle 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the\ndefendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property.\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981 and 982;\nTitle 21, United States Code, Section 853; and\nTitle 28, United States Code, Section 2461.)\n-\nJ:k--;_~\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\ns\\,)''f eQ. ¼~ )~(,...\n~' L\\.. ..)_ND\"! CT°M 1 This most recent figure includes the original 3,345 customers authenticated by HEX (minus 72 who had dropped prior to our most recent April filing where we estimated the number of clients at 6,575). From this figure we have removed 35 clients who have dropped since April (21 of whom had been previously authenticated by the Himalaya Exchange (HEX)). This figure does not yet include additional sign-ups since our most recent April filing. This figure is a good faith estimate and not a final tally that will be finally reviewed and authenticated and matched with HEX compliance and account information.\n\nlaw governing every aspect of this case touching on the crypto-currency, stable coin, or digital investments of the Himalaya Exchange (HEX) has been completely changed as of 3:30 PM July 18, 2025.\n\nIt should be noted that no aspect of this case is \"FINAL\" given that no \"JUDGMENT\" has been entered against Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo) or Kin Ming Je. Given that this case is not final, even as to the conviction of Kwok (Guo) without a Judgment having been entered, the case must now conform to the change in the governing law as of July 18, 2025.\n\nFrom around 2:50 PM to 3:30 PM, EST, July 18, 2025, the President of the United States signed into law the informally named \"GENIUS Act,\" designated as **\"S.1582 — 119th Congress (2025-2026).\"** It passed the U.S. Senate on June 17, 2025, and passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 17, 2025 at about 3:53 PM.\n\nIt should be noted that even if the precise provisions of the new legislation might not be specifically \"on point\" with some aspect of this case, the overall approach to regulation and prosecution of digital assets is addressed by the \"GENIUS Act.\" The methodology, policies, definitions of digital assets, definitions of terms, and goals of regulation and prosecution are all altered. Therefore, even where a detailed aspect of this case is not directly met by a provision of the Act, the overall policy and definitions still affect this case.\n\nBut more than that, the Chief Executive and the only law enforcement officer named and empowered in the U.S. Constitution, held a presentation, legal seminar, economic seminar, and policy session giving very strong, very clear, direction to the United States, Executive Branch, and by implication the U.S. Department of Justice and its representatives.\n\nIt would be difficult to listen to President Trump's 39 minute presentation and not interpret it as a powerful set of marching orders to the DOJ and the Executive Branch. Indeed\n\nlegal persecution of crypto currency was specifically targeted by Trump's remarks. And again, there is only one official identified in the U.S. Constitution as \"the\" law enforcement official of the United States of America – the President.\n\nThe President's signing session and explanation can be viewed on C-SPAN after the fact, as C-SPAN frequently preserves official sessions for later viewing.[2](#page-2-0)\n\nFurthermore, the U.S. Department of Justice on April 7, 2025, issued a \"Memorandum for All Employees\" from the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche titled \"Ending Regulation by Prosecution\" concerning the \"digital assets industry.\" It should not be missed that this is a Memorandum \"*for all Employees*\" which means all representatives of the Department of Justice.\n\nThe directives given verbally by the President on July 18, 2025, and the enactment into law of the \"Genius Act\" must be viewed as confirming and giving more force to this Memorandum of April 7, 2025.\n\nIn general, the undersigned counsel is focused on the cancellation of the improper seizure and proposed forfeiture of the funds of his clients, who are an estimated 6,540 Members of (investors in) the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\"). HEX is based in the sovereign nation of the British Virgin Islands. Counsel's clients respectfully demand the return of their own investment funds (their personalty) which they entrusted to, invested with, or deposited in the Himalaya Exchange (\"HEX\") in their individually assigned HEX account. Those funds were illegally seized by the United States of America (\"Government\") which lacked jurisdiction over the extraterritorial entities associated with HEX.\n\n2 President Trump Signs Cryptocurrency Bill Into Law | Video | C-SPAN.org http\n\nAlso, to avoid any continuing confusion, the undersigned Counsel represents thousands of Members of HEX. There are thousands of Members whom Counsel does not represent, some of whom are represented by other attorneys or chose to represent themselves. The wording of Counsel's explanation should not be misunderstood to imply that all Members are represented by undersigned Counsel.\n\nAs Counsel has tried to clarify several times, he does not represent the criminal Defendants, and yet the seizure of his clients' funds are dependent upon the allegations against the criminal Defendants. So while undersigned Counsel and his clients might be legally agnostic (though interested on a human level) in the criminal prosecution itself, if the convictions against the Defendants, then there is no basis for seizing the funds of his client's investor clients or putting them through any procedure of any kind whatsoever. The money must simply be returned to my clients, immediately, and free of any of the unconscionable legal \"waste\" and \"dissipation of assets\" by the bonfire consuming my clients' funds by unnecessary processing, investigation, and delay.\n\nThus, Counsel is ethically required for his clients to zealously advocate for his clients that if the change of the law affects both the seizure of crypto-related assets and the existence of any crime supposedly justifying the seizure of my clients' funds these are reasons for his client's funds to be immediately returned to them. It is for other attorneys to argue for the Defendants. But if there never was any crime, then Counsel must point out that there is no reason to seize, waste, or dissipate his client's funds.\n\nAlso, of course, the prosecution has suggested (that is early on suspicioned) that as many as 80 different business entities may have been involved in the criminal Defendants' activities.\n\nOn further review of the case, access to case materials, and investigation, Counsel now\n\nunderstands that the Himalaya Exchange subdivided its funds into 5-6 different business entities outside the United States all having a different functional goal supporting the Exchanges' business.\n\nSo, there are at least 74-75 business entities out of the Government's estimate of 80 that have nothing whatsoever to do with HEX and are unimpacted by revolutionary changes to cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency enforcement. These other 74 entities could very well have had business activities, offices, functions, etc. carried out within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States of America. Counsel has only limited information about these non-HEX activities.\n\nSo Counsel tries to clarify and emphasize that the other 75 non-HEX business entities may all have their own individual stories. They may be under U.S. jurisdiction. The activities relating to these 75 non-HEX entities may all come under different laws, certainly different fact patterns, all for different reasons. They may not receive the same benefits and deference that lawful crypto exchanges are now accorded.\n\nCounsel is focusing only on HEX of the British Virgin Islands and its related companies outside the United States, etc.\n\nFinally, counsel again objects and respectfully reminds the Court that his clients are by the explicit policies and requirements of HEX not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Government. The Government has never responded to that problem except a half hearted \"maybe\" (not sure yet) from the personal Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins. The Court has not ruled on the lack of jurisdiction of the U.S. Government over HEX, its funds, or its Members / investors. But then again the U.S. Government has never responded in over a year and a half to these concerns and that was prior to the implementation of dramatic changes to how cryptocurrencies are treated. It seems reasonable to assume that there may be now additional\n\nprotections that apply to undersigned counsel's clients that do not apply to others, providing an additional reason to reverse the seizures.\n\nIt may be so unthinkable for professionals in New York City to believe that any investment company would not be eagerly seeking investments from Wall Street and throughout the United States, that nobody ever stopped to ask \"But did HEX ever solicit any investments within the United States?\" The hubris and status of Wall Street and the U.S. market would make that a question almost impossible to contemplate. Of course, everyone wants investments from within the United States! But with HEX, its creators emphatically rejected any participation of any U.S. citizen or resident or agent thereof. HEX, focused on a community of dissidents from the Chinese Communist Party, and distrustful of Western countries eager to please China, as well as wanting to avoid the onerous securities regulations decisively rejected and banned any investments from the United States and other countries including Japan. Whereas any resident of NYC would think it so obvious as to not require the question that everyone wants money invested from the USA, in fact HEX did not. And HEX prohibited any investments from the USA.\n\nTrustee Luc Despins response of \"maybe\" effectively \"I don't know, not sure yet\" is not effective. Chapter 11 is created and authorized as a \"reorganization\" of an on-going business or businesses to restore a business or businesses to viability while paying off as many creditors as possible in the Chapter 11 plan. Federal law does not authorize Chapter 11 as a \"liquidation.\"\n\nA Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition is a \"liquidation\" aimed at collecting all available assets, selling them for the highest possible price, and distributing those funds among creditors according to legal hierarchies of status.\n\nA Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition requires a plan and efforts to get a business back on its\n\nfeet and restore it to profitability and viability. The plan may have to recognize that all creditors cannot be made whole. Most commonly, the Chapter 11 plan distinguishes between different categories of creditors and attempts to make the higher priority creditors whole first. It may involve destroying the interests of shareholders (called a \"cram down\"[3](#page-6-0)) if that promotes the ability to repay as many non-equity creditors as possible.\n\nA Chapter 11 plan could fail. But Chapter 11 demands the creation and mapping out of a plan to get the business(es) back on its / their feet, and demands the actual attempt. If the plan fails then a \"liquidation\" may be required but not without first a good faith, diligent, sincere attempt to restore the business to viability. (It appears that modification of the line of business is a possibility so the nature, goals, and methods of the business could be altered to promote viability.)\n\nHere, however, the Chapter 11 petition was filed by Ho Wan Kwok *as an individual – not as a business or effectively in the name of any business.* Later, Genevers was added as a co-petitioner but Counsel does not know why and Genevers appears to have nothing to do with HEX. If the addition of Genevers makes an actual business co-petitioner, it does not seem to have any relevance whatsoever to HEX.\n\nTherefore, even Luc Despins' half-hearted, non-committal bookmark regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction is too vague, intentionally uncertain, and indeterminate to suffice.\n\n3 Cramdown of Equity in Chapter 11 Plan Requires Assessment of Equity's Value to Satisfy \"Fair and Equitable\" Standard, Business Restructuring Review (January 15, 2025). http\n\n## **Humanitarian Concerns Over Conventional Forfeiture Procedures**\n\nIf members of the Himalaya Exchange are forced to participate in conventional asset forfeiture processes, it would likely require them to submit identifying personal information to the U.S. government. This data exposure would effectively doxx members, many of whom are dissidents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Given this population's legitimate fears of transnational repression, this risk presents the real possibility of triggering a humanitarian crisis. We have noticed the Government about this concern repeatedly from our first filing in ECF 186-1 page 18 and in Footnote 10 as co-victims of prior CCP data breaches:\n\nMany of the attorneys and staff assigned to this matter at the U.S. Attorney's office may sympathize with undersigned counsel's expressions of concern about information security since many of us (undersigned counsel as a former DOJ employee) have had had our clearance files compromised.[4](#page-7-0) The Office of Personnel Management data breach was a 2015 data breach targeting Standard Form 86 (SF-86) U.S. government security clearance records retained by the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM). One of the largest breaches of government data in U.S. history, the attack was carried out by an advanced persistent threat based in China, widely believed to be the Jiangsu State Security Department, a subsidiary of China's Ministry of State Security spy agency. Approximately 22.1 million records were affected, including records related to government employees, other people who had undergone background checks, and their friends and family. The breach included personally identifiable information such as Social Security numbers, as well as names, dates and places of birth, and addresses. State-sponsored hackers working on behalf of the Chinese government carried out the attack.\n\nIn this matter it would be serious concern if Government ever were to consider it to be a good idea to obtain all account information from thousands of vulnerable Exchange customers who are located outside the United States requiring the Himalaya Exchange to unencrypt it and provide it to the US Government, when the US Government has a terrible track record of protecting such information.\n\n4 See Office of Personnel Management data breach - Wikipedia; Final notices going out this week to the 21 million people whose data was stolen in the security clearance breach - The Washington Post (December 8, 2015). http\n\n## **Recent CCP hacking developments highlight this fear in neon lights:**\n\nMicrosoft was revealed to have employed China-based engineers to support U.S. Department of Defense cloud services under a \"digital escort\" model. This practice drew condemnation from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who deemed it \"obviously unacceptable.\" Microsoft responded by banning Chinese engineers from Pentagon projects.[5](#page-8-0)\n\nThe issue is unlikely to be confined solely to the DoD, as Microsoft is a major cloud service provider for multiple U.S. government agencies through its Azure platform, which is authorized under the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). The \"digital escort\" model, where U.S. citizens with security clearances oversee foreign engineers (including those in China) who provide technical support, was designed to meet federal contracting requirements for handling sensitive but unclassified data (Impact Levels 4 and 5). This model was critical to Microsoft securing government cloud contracts nearly a decade ago. Given that FedRAMP applies to cloud services across the federal government, similar arrangements could theoretically exist for other agencies, including the DoJ, which relies on\n\n5 Pete Hegseth Orders Review to Protect DOD Cloud Services From Chinese Hackers, ExecutiveGov (July 21, 2025). http\n\nMicrosoft to stop using China-based engineers for US military tech support, TechRadar (July 21, 2025).\n\nhttp\n\nA Little-Known Microsoft Program Could Expose the Defense Department to Chinese Hackers, Propublica (July 15, 2025).\n\nhttp\n\nMicrosoft for cloud and IT services. The Probublica report noted that the \"digital escort\" system, where escorts often lack the technical expertise to properly oversee foreign engineers, could expose any federal system to cyberattacks, especially from a sophisticated actor like China. This suggests the problem could extend to other agencies, though no specific evidence confirms its use in the DoJ or elsewhere outside the DoD. The DoD's response, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's two-week review of all Pentagon cloud contracts, indicates a focus on military systems, but it also hints at broader implications. Hegseth's statement that \"some tech companies\" use similar models suggests other providers (e.g., Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud) might face scrutiny, potentially affecting government-wide cloud services. While the available information does not explicitly confirm that the DoJ used China-based engineers in the same \"digital escort\" model, the DoJ's reliance on Microsoft Azure for cloud services raises the possibility of similar vulnerabilities. The DoJ handles sensitive data, including law enforcement records, criminal justice information, and national security-related investigations, which could be categorized as Impact Level 4 or 5 data, similar to the DoD's. A breach or backdoor in these systems could compromise any data my clients provide through the forfeiture process.[6](#page-9-0)\n\nIn the trial of Ho Wan Kwok, it was proven that The Republic of China, governed by the CCP, embarked on a massive world-wide campaign to silence dissidents and critics of the CCP including within the United States of America. See, Trial Testimony, Paul Doran, July 4, 2024, Pages: 5085 – 5193; Trial Testimony of Jianhu Yi, July 3, 2024, pages 5040-5085.\n\nhttp\n\n6 China-based hackers breached US government email accounts, Microsoft and White House say, CNN (July 12, 2023).\n\nThis was also the subject of Stipulation 1 in the trial and following agreed stipulation was read to the jury on 29 May 2024:\n\n*MR. KAMARAJU: Okay. Your Honor, at this time the defense would like to read and enter into evidence a stipulation between the parties. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. KAMARAJU: It's DX Stip 0001. And it reads:*\n\n*\"It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the United States of America and Miles Guo, the defendant, through their attorneys of record, that:*\n\n*1. The FBI has investigated individuals who, working at the direction of the government of the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC government\") have engaged in an international campaign, known as \"Operation Fox Hunt,\" to coerce individuals located in the United States and elsewhere to return to China to face charges brought by the PRC government or to otherwise reach financial settlements with the PRC government.*\n\n*2. In 2017, a US law enforcement agency assessed that Mr. Miles Guo was the highest priority of China's repatriation efforts.*\n\n*3. In 2017, a US law enforcement agency received information that Chinese officials were paying and providing food and signs to protestors of Mr. Guo.*\n\n*4. In 2018, a US law enforcement agency received information that the PRC government had established a special investigative group in China to manage China's investigation of, and actions against, Mr. Guo.*\n\n*5. To carry out some of the objectives of Fox Hunt, in 2017, the PRC government tasked a specially designated group of operatives (\"the Group\") with discrediting and harassing individuals, including Mr. Guo, by using interactive computer*\n\n*services and electronic communication systems. The Group is based out of the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau at a facility in Beijing's Dong Cheng District. The Group was previously referred to as the \"Cyber Investigation Team\" and was later referred to as the 9112 Special Project Working Group. The Group's tactics aimed at Mr. Guo included using anonymized social media accounts operated by the Group and by pressuring US social media companies to remove Mr. Guo and US-based associates of Mr. Guo from social media platforms. These efforts were part of the PRC government's broader effort to prevent, disrupt, and harass Mr. Guo's use of social media and other online platforms to disseminate and discuss disfavored content. In or about December 2018, officers of the Group were directed to post three videos or posts daily with YouTube and Facebook accounts, with one of the posts required to be anti-Mr. Guo. On February 3, 2020, a PRC government official issued a tasking requirement that every member of the Group shall write an original article with content related to targeting Mr. Guo, the COVID pandemic, or Hong Kong. The FBI investigated the Group's activities, including its activities aimed at Mr. Guo, and the US government has charged many of the Group's members with violations of US law.*\n\n*6. Since Mr. Guo fled the PRC, the PRC government has sought his return for prosecution in the PRC and has employed numerous methods to effect Mr. Guo's capture or arrest. In May 2017, the PRC government sent four undeclared agents from the PRC's Ministry of State Security (\"MSS\") to the United States to attempt to cause Mr. Guo's coerced repatriation to the PRC as part of the Fox Hunt initiative. The US government disrupted the PRC government's efforts to forcefully repatriate Mr. Guo and Mr. Guo continued to reside in the United States.*\n\n*\\* \\* \\**\n\n*THE COURT: It is admitted.*\n\nMoreover, the Republic of China (\"China\") seems to have set up a systematic enforcement network of fake police stations within the United States in order to terrorize and persecute refugees from Chinese communism and other critics.\n\nThe Boston case is hardly an exception. Last month, the Department of Justice indicted two New York residents, Lu Jianwang and Chen Jinping, for \"conspiring to act as agents\" of the CCP's Ministry of Public Security (MPS) and for obstructing justice by destroying evidence of their communications with the MPS. The two were operating an MPS secret police station in Manhattan's Chinatown neighborhood, which was aiding the CCP's transnational repression by intimidating and threatening Chinese dissidents.[7](#page-12-0)\n\nThe revelation that Microsoft employed China-based engineers under a \"digital escort\" model to support sensitive U.S. government cloud systems—condemned by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as \"obviously unacceptable\"—not only raises alarming cybersecurity concerns about the Pentagon and other agencies like the DOJ that rely on Microsoft's FedRAMP-authorized services, but also underscores the broader national security threat posed by the CCP's transnational repression campaigns, including Operation Fox Hunt, covert propaganda operations and illegal police stations on U.S. soil targeting Chinese dissidents. Forcing HEX members into forfeiture proceedings designed prior to the emergence of stable coin exchanges overseas with overseas customers who remain at risk of retaliation, may invite similar exposure and potentially *catastrophic* consequences. The government would do well to consider the GENIUS Act's mandates and align enforcement with both the law and humanitarian principles and return funds\n\n7 Erin Walsh and Andrew Harding, \"Crack Down on Illegal Chinese Police Stations in the US,\" The Hill (May 18, 2023). http\n\nto HEX or at least through HEX where doxxing transfers to unsecure systems are not required and funds can be returned without inadvertent disclosures through facilitation by HEX using its secure, military-grade encryption systems\n\n### **Conclusion**\n\nGiven the clear changes in law and Executive Branch policy, coupled with the potential for extreme harm, there is no legal or ethical basis for requiring the continued seizure, wasting, or forced processing of Petitioners' funds through a doxxing process. As stated in prior filings, the forfeitures should be reversed *in toto* on jurisdictional grounds. In the event the GENIUS Act does not differentiate overseas funds held in custodial accounts for the HEX exchange—which were established through heavily counseled legal structuring to avoid jurisdictional claims by the U.S. government—these funds should be returned immediately through the HEX system, which does not require disclosure of sensitive financial data. Ideally, the Government would make a joint motion to accept a consolidated filing on behalf of undersigned counsel's clients, establishing a clearance process that provides the Government full access in a secure environment without the necessity of transferring data to insecure government systems. This\n\nwould be free from any administrative delays or legal gamesmanship. The Claimants' requests for the Court to rule the entire case lacking in jurisdiction with regard to HEX remain pending.\n\nDated: July 28, 2025\n\n### Dated: July 28, 2025 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on July 28, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856) 607-5708","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Guo","Je","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","CCP","Kwok","forfeiture","Miles Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Geyer","CIPA","Despins","Luc Despins","Kin Ming Je","Kamaraju","Chinese Communist Party","Yanping Wang","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","MSS"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":4094,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-28","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:40"},{"id":"court_ctb_4524_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4524,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2025-07-03","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In re:","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\nIn re:\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.[1](#page-0-0)\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,\n\nJointly Administered\n\n## **MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL**\n\nPursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7(e), incorporated by Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9083-3, the undersigned, Ruby A. Nagamine, respectfully moves to withdraw her appearance as counsel of record for Amazon Web Services, Inc. (\"AWS\") and Amazon.com, Inc. (\"Amazon\") in the above-captioned Chapter 11 bankruptcy case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") and in the related adversary proceedings, *Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.*, Adv. Pro. No. 24-05006, and *Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee vs. Amazon.com, Inc.*, Adv. Pro. No. 24-05057 (the \"Adversary Proceedings\"). In support, the undersigned respectfully represents as follows:\n\n1. K&L Gates LLP is counsel to AWS and Amazon in the Chapter 11 Case and the Adversary Proceedings.\n\n2. Effective May 23, 2025, the undersigned, Ruby A. Nagamine, will no longer be an attorney at K&L Gates LLP.\n\n1 The Debtors 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- 3. AWS and Amazon will remain represented by Lindsay Sampson Bishop and Brian\n- T. Peterson of K&L Gates LLP in the Chapter 11 Case and the Adversary Proceedings.\n\nDated: July 3, 2025\n\n## K&L GATES LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Ruby A. Nagamine* Ruby A. Nagamine (*phv208290*) K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 623-7580 Email: ruby.nagamine@klgates.com\n\n*Withdrawing counsel for Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.*\n\n## **CERTIFICATION**\n\nI hereby certify that on this day, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.\n\n> By: */s/ Brian T. Peterson* Brian T. Peterson, (phv208265) K&L Gates LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 623-7580 Fax: (206) 623-7022 E-mail: [brian.peterson@klgates.com](mailto:brian.peterson@klgates.com) [ruby.nagamine@klgates.com](mailto:ruby.nagamine@klgates.com)\n\nLindsay Sampson Bishop, (ct29990) K&L Gates LLP 1 Congress St, Boston, MA 02114 Phone: (617) 261-3100 Fax: (617) 261-3175 E-mail: [lindsay.bishop@klgates.com](mailto:lindsay.bishop@klgates.com)\n\n*Counsel for Amazon Web Services, Inc.*","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Luc Despins","Miles Guo","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":456,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-07-03 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-07-03","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:36"},{"id":"court_sdny_712_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":712,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"RESPONSE","filed_date":"2025-06-30","title":"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n### **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Guo Wengui,\" \"Brother Seven,\" or \"The Principal,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"**\n\n **and**\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\n **Defendants.**\n\n Restitution of Seized Funds Criminal No.: 23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n## **RESPONSE TO MOTION OF BEIBEI ZHU**\n\nAssigned to the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Analisa Torres, Presiding Judge\n\n## **RESPONSE TO MOTION OF BEIBEI ZHU TO HOLD BRADFORD L. GEYER ACCOUNTABLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED AND FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION AND TO SEEK MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF \\$100,000**\n\n## **I. RESPONSE TO MOTION**\n\n## **A. Beibei Zhu Asked to be Represented by Bradford Geyer**\n\nAfter reviewing her file earlier today, Beibei Zhu—associated with the Himalaya\n\nExchange under HID: 2R5RWN2—previously confirmed her consent to be represented by\n\nundersigned counsel, Bradford L. Geyer.\n\nMs. Zhu registered as a client at 9:20 a.m. on December 22, 2023, and is listed among the\n\n6,491 members on the master roster submitted under seal on April 7, 2025, however, her account\n\nvalues have not yet been independently verified by HEX. (see ECF No. 676).[1](#page-1-0) Undersigned counsel plans to provide an updated list in a consolidated filing after the procedural picture clears under the Court's guidance and supervision in the weeks to come.\n\nEvery HEX member whom the undersigned counsel represents has affirmatively requested representation in writing—typically through digital means such as email or secure online communication. As the Court is aware, some HEX members have retained other counsel. There is no circumstance in which a member is listed as a client of Mr. Geyer without their express written authorization. That said, any final filing submitted to the Court will include a definitive client list authenticated through HEX's internal accounting systems on every client's behalf at an effective future date to be determined. Counsel continues to receive communications both seeking counsel and also some seeking to drop as represented clients.\n\nGiven the ongoing nature of member updates—additions and removals at the request of individuals—counsel and his team have spent considerable time carefully reviewing all related communications and agreements to ensure accuracy and integrity and we time our updates with the government filings and court procedures.\n\nAlthough the contingency fee agreements with clients reflect express written consent to a 1% success-based fee. Any insinuation that counsel is representing clients without proper authorization, or that the fee structure is unclear or inappropriate, is unfounded and should cease. Mr. Geyer's compensation, if any, depends on the existence of written agreements with those he\n\n1 As of April 7, 2025 a total of 3,539 client members have had their identities and account values formally verified and documented by HEX\n\nrepresents.\n\nThe only notable complication is that many clients have expressly requested that their names and details not be made publicly available, due to credible fears of harassment. Counsel has personally observed activity surrounding this matter that he finds suspicious and sometimes lacking in earnestness.\n\n#### **B. Counsel Terminates Attorney Agreement for Beibei Zhu**\n\nBecause clients have the right to terminate an attorney representation agreement, and with no other message or motive, the undersigned counsel on the apparent request of Zhu terminates the attorney-client agreement. Zhu is free therefore to represent herself or to retain any other attorney she wishes without obstacle or limitation and we have been responsive in terminating agreements with anyone who wishes to terminate their representation.\n\n#### **C. It is Unfortunate if There Was Any Misunderstanding.**\n\nIt is unfortunate, though perhaps inevitable, that meaningful analysis in this case is complicated by significant communication barriers. These arise from the diverse linguistic backgrounds of the participants—including those whose funds were seized—and the general unfamiliarity many have with the complexities of the U.S. forfeiture process. Miscommunications over email, translation issues, and cultural misunderstandings have further exacerbated these challenges.\n\nMoreover, the vast majority of undersigned counsel's clients have expressed concerns ranging from moderate to extreme—about the risk of being targeted by bad actors, including those believed to be state-sponsored. This fear is not speculative. Upon review of the trial\n\n3\n\ntranscript from the prosecution of Miles Guo last year, undersigned counsel notes that at least two witnesses provided sworn testimony in open court describing in chilling detail the retaliation directed at Chinese dissidents and named investors. These threats were presented credibly under oath.\n\nIn light of these legitimate concerns, and at the request of multiple clients, undersigned counsel has repeatedly proposed to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys a mechanism by which client identities and related information can be disclosed confidentially—without public exposure that could lead to doxxing, surveillance, or physical harm. Although counsel's communications with government attorneys have been professional and courteous, no agreement has yet been reached to establish a confidential inspection process for the U.S. Government to review and verify client information.\n\nNotably, in April, undersigned counsel submitted under seal a list of clients—identified by Himalaya Exchange HID numbers—who are seeking the return of their investments. Based on a careful review of that sealed filing, Beibei Zhu (HID: 2R5RWN2) was included in that submission. However, her information will not be included in future public or sealed filings and that filing was deconflicted by as of April 7, 2025, with changes since then along with an estimated ~3,500 that remain to be audited by HEX.\n\n#### **II. CONCLUSION**\n\nFor all the reasons set forth above, counsel takes the opportunity to clarify the concerns of the Moving Party Ms. Zhu, while those HEX Members who are his clients respectfully request that the Court order the return of their funds of each such Member of the HEX which was seized\n\n4\n\nby the U.S. Government. As for Ms. Zhu, she has been removed from our client list and is free to make her own filing if and when the forfeiture process is restarted with proper government notice or by Court order.\n\nIn the meantime, undersigned counsel takes this opportunity to observe that justice demands swift and decisive action to halt this ongoing harm and ensure that the rights of innocent victims are fully protected. Anything less would perpetuate the profound injustices already inflicted upon these individuals.\n\nCounsel continues to be concerned that each of roughly 10,000 accounts are individually reviewed through the traditional forfeiture process, this will take an inordinate amount of time and administrative costs consuming the Members' investment funds. This task of managing the individual accounts of Members has always been the responsibility and business of the Himalaya Exchange and undersigned counsel respectfully submits that the Honorable Court should not seek to recreate the functioning of HEX by an expensive, slow, and parallel process.\n\nDated: June 30, 2025\n\nDated: June 30, 2025 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on June 30, 2025, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and by email to:\n\n> Bei Bei Zhu Email: [beibeizhu2018@gmail.com](mailto:beibeizhu2018@gmail.com) Cherry Blossom Road, Xi, a City Shaanxi Province 19802907101\n\n> > /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Geyer","Guo","Himalaya","forfeiture","Kwok","Miles Guo","Je","Himalaya Exchange","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Bradford Geyer","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":676,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":1222,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-06-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-06-30","updated_at":"2026-07-06 20:56:36"},{"id":"court_ctb_4499_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4499,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-06-23","title":"|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT | | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | DISTRICT OF
CONNECTICUT | | | | | |\n| | BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | | | | |\n| In Re.
Ho Wan Kwok | §
§
§ | Case No.
22-50073
Lead Case No.
22-50073 | | | | |\n| Debtor(s) | § | Jointly Administered | | | | |\n| Monthly Operating Report | | Chapter 11 | | | | |\n| Reporting Period Ended:
05/31/2025 | | Petition Date:
02/15/2022 | | | | |\n| Months Pending:
40 | | Industry Classification:
0
0
0
0 | | | | |\n| Reporting Method: | Accrual Basis | Cash Basis | | | | |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (current): | | 0 | | | | |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (as of date of order for relief): | | 0 | | | | |\n| Supporting Documentation (check all that are attached): | | (For jointly administered debtors, any required schedules must be provided on a non-consolidated basis for each debtor) | | | | |\n| Statement of cash receipts and disbursements
Statement of operations (profit or loss statement)
Accounts receivable aging
Postpetition liabilities aging
Statement of capital assets | | Balance sheet containing the summary and detail of the assets, liabilities and equity (net worth) or deficit | | | | |\n\n- Schedule of payments to professionals\n- Schedule of payments to insiders\n- All bank statements and bank reconciliations for the reporting period\n- Description of the assets sold or transferred and the terms of the sale or transfer\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\n06/23/2025\n\nDate\n\nSignature of Responsible Party Printed Name of Responsible Party Address Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nSTATEMENT: This Periodic Report is associated with an open bankruptcy case; therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.\n\nUST Form 11-MOR (12/01/2021) 1\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 4499 Filed 06/23/25 Entered 06/23/25 13:16:46 Page 2 of 25\n\n| Debtor's Name Ho Wan Kwok | | Case No. 22-50073 | | | |\n|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|---------------|--|--|\n| | Part 1: Cash Receipts and Disbursements | Current Month | Cumulative | | |\n| a. | Cash balance beginning of month | \\$67,426,594 | | | |\n| b. | Total receipts (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$2,986,763 | \\$133,776,874 | | |\n| c. | Total disbursements (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$1,603,936 | \\$62,392,286 | | |\n| d. | Cash balance end of month (a+b-c) | \\$68,809,421 | | | |\n| e. | Disbursements made by third party for the benefit of the estate | \\$0 | \\$12,757 | | |\n| f. | Total disbursements for quarterly fee calculation (c+e) | \\$1,603,936 | \\$62,405,043 | | |\n| | Part 2: Asset and Liability Status
(Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | Current Month | | | |\n| a. | Accounts receivable (total net of allowance) | \\$0 | | | |\n| b. | Accounts receivable over 90 days outstanding (net of allowance) | \\$0 | | | |\n| c. | Inventory
(Book
Market
Other
(attach explanation)) | \\$0 | | | |\n| d | Total current assets | \\$0 | | | |\n| e. | Total assets | \\$0 | | | |\n| f. | Postpetition payables (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | | | |\n| g. | Postpetition payables past due (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | | | |\n| h. | Postpetition taxes payable | \\$0 | | | |\n| i. | Postpetition taxes past due | \\$0 | | | |\n| j. | Total postpetition debt (f+h) | \\$0 | | | |\n| k. | Prepetition secured debt | \\$0 | | | |\n| l. | Prepetition priority debt | \\$0 | | | |\n| m. | Prepetition unsecured debt | \\$0 | | | |\n| n. | Total liabilities (debt) (j+k+l+m) | \\$0 | | | |\n| o. | Ending equity/net worth (e-n) | \\$0 | | | |\n| | Part 3: Assets Sold or Transferred | Current Month | Cumulative | | |\n| a. | Total cash sales price for assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary | | | | |\n| b. | course of business
Total payments to third parties incident to assets being sold/transferred | \\$0 | \\$26,236,348 | | |\n| | outside the ordinary course of business | \\$0 | \\$1,160,344 | | |\n| c. | Net cash proceeds from assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary
course of business (a-b) | \\$0 | \\$25,076,004 | | |\n| | Part 4: Income Statement (Statement of Operations) | Current Month | Cumulative | | |\n| | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | | | | |\n| a. | Gross income/sales (net of returns and allowances) | \\$0 | | | |\n| b. | Cost of goods sold (inclusive of depreciation, if applicable) | \\$0 | | | |\n| c. | Gross profit (a-b) | \\$0 | | | |\n| d. | Selling expenses | \\$0 | | | |\n\ne. General and administrative expenses \\$0 f. Other expenses \\$0\n\ng. Depreciation and/or amortization (not included in 4b) \\$0\n\nh. Interest \\$0\n\ni. Taxes (local, state, and federal) \\$0\n\nj. Reorganization items \\$0\n\nk. Profit (loss) \\$0 \\$0\n\nUST Form 11-MOR (12/01/2021) 2\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4499 Filed 06/23/25 Entered 06/23/25 13:16:46 Page 3 of 25\n\n| | | Part 5: Professional Fees and Expenses | | | | | |\n|----|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|\n| | | | | Approved
Current Month | Approved
Cumulative | Paid Current
Month | Paid
Cumulative |\n| a. | | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (bankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$1,404,069 | \\$56,710,588 | \\$1,404,069 | \\$56,710,588 |\n| | | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| | i | Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C Local Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$6,082,375 | \\$0 | \\$6,082,375 |\n| | ii | Paul Hastings LLP (counsel to cLead Counsel | | \\$1,095,123 | \\$41,144,203 | \\$1,095,123 | \\$41,144,203 |\n| | iii | Brown Rudnick (counsel to Ho Lead Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iv | Pullman & Comley, LLC (coun Lead Counsel | | \\$0 | \\$820,970 | \\$0 | \\$820,970 |\n| | v | Coleman Worldwide Advisors LOther | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vi | Dundon Advisors (UCC financi Financial Professional | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vii | Verdolino & Lowey, PC (financFinancial Professional | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | viii | Harney Westwood & Riegels LPOther | | \\$0 | \\$2,249,395 | \\$0 | \\$2,249,395 |\n| | ix | Paul Wright / Peter Shaw | Other | \\$0 | \\$39,631 | \\$0 | \\$39,631 |\n| | x | Pallas Partners LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$667,136 | \\$0 | \\$667,136 |\n| | xi | Edmiston and Company LimitedOther | | \\$0 | \\$1,176,250 | \\$0 | \\$1,176,250 |\n| | xii | Engineering Operations and CerOther | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | xiii | Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LOther | | \\$0 | \\$306,099 | \\$0 | \\$306,099 |\n| | xiv | Kroll LLC | Other | \\$83,704 | \\$2,864,137 | \\$83,704 | \\$2,864,137 |\n| | xv | Prager Dreifuss AG | Local Counsel | \\$144,999 | \\$837,006 | \\$144,999 | \\$837,006 |\n| | xvi | Eisner Advisory Group LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$179,145 | \\$0 | \\$179,145 |\n| | xvii | Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kah Local Counsel | | \\$3,892 | \\$14,768 | \\$3,892 | \\$14,768 |\n| | xviii | Sage-Popovich, Inc. | Other | \\$0 | \\$15,000 | \\$0 | \\$15,000 |\n| | xix | Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$67,166 | \\$0 | \\$67,166 |\n| | xx | Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP | Other | \\$76,352 | \\$187,987 | \\$76,352 | \\$187,987 |\n| | xxi | ENSafrica (Mauritius) | Other | \\$0 | \\$36,117 | \\$0 | \\$36,117 |\n| | xxii | William De Robillard / Andre POther | | \\$0 | \\$23,201 | \\$0 | \\$23,201 |\n| | xxiii | | | | | | |\n| | xxiv | | | | | | |\n| | xxv | | | | | | |\n| | xxvi | | | | | | |\n| | xxvii | | | | | | |\n| | xxviii | | | | | | |\n| | xxix | | | | | | |\n| | xxx | | | | | | |\n| | xxxi | | | | | | |\n| | xxxii | | | | | | |\n| | xxxiii | | | | | | |\n| | xxxiv | | | | | | |\n| | xxxv | | | | | | |\n| | xxxvi | | | | | | |\n\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n|----|--------|--|--|--|\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxix | | | |\n| | xl | | | |\n| | xli | | | |\n| | xlii | | | |\n| | xliii | | | |\n| | xliv | | | |\n| | xlv | | | |\n| | xlvi | | | |\n| | xlvii | | | |\n| | xlviii | | | |\n| | xlix | | | |\n| l | | | | |\n| li | | | | |\n| | lii | | | |\n| | liii | | | |\n| | liv | | | |\n| | lv | | | |\n| | lvi | | | |\n| | lvii | | | |\n| | lviii | | | |\n| | lix | | | |\n| | lx | | | |\n| | lxi | | | |\n| | lxii | | | |\n| | lxiii | | | |\n| | lxiv | | | |\n| | lxv | | | |\n| | lxvi | | | |\n| | lxvii | | | |\n| | lxviii | | | |\n| | lxix | | | |\n| | lxx | | | |\n| | lxxi | | | |\n| | lxxii | | | |\n| | lxxiii | | | |\n| | lxxiv | | | |\n| | lxxv | | | |\n| | lxxvi | | | |\n| | lxxvii | | | |\n| | lxxvii | | | |\n\n| | lxxix | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------|---------------|------------|--------------|------------|\n| | lxxx | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxix | | | | | | |\n| | xc | | | | | | |\n| | xci | | | | | | |\n| | xcii | | | | | | |\n| | xciii | | | | | | |\n| | xciv | | | | | | |\n| | xcv | | | | | | |\n| | xcvi | | | | | | |\n| | xcvii | | | | | | |\n| | xcviii | | | | | | |\n| | xcix | | | | | | |\n| | c | | | | | | |\n| | ci | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Approved | Approved | Paid Current | Paid |\n| | | | | Current Month | Cumulative | Month | Cumulative |\n| b. | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (nonbankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| | i | Baker Hostetler LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | ii | Clayman & Rosenberg LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iii | Ganfer Shore Leeds & ZaudererOther | | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | iv | Harcus Parker Ltd. | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | v | LALIVE SA | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vi | Lawall & Mitchell, LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | vii | Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | viii | Schulman Bhattacharya, LLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | ix | The Casper Firm | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | x | The Francis Firm PLLC | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | xi | VX Cerda & Associates | Other | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | xii | | | | | | |\n| | xiii | | | | | | |\n| | xiv | | | | | | |\n\n| | xv | | | |\n|---|--------|--|--|--|\n| | xvi | | | |\n| | xvii | | | |\n| | xviii | | | |\n| | xix | | | |\n| | xx | | | |\n| | xxi | | | |\n| | xxii | | | |\n| | xxiii | | | |\n| | xxiv | | | |\n| | xxv | | | |\n| | xxvi | | | |\n| | xxvii | | | |\n| | xxviii | | | |\n| | xxix | | | |\n| | xxx | | | |\n| | xxxi | | | |\n| | xxxii | | | |\n| | xxxiii | | | |\n| | xxxiv | | | |\n| | xxxv | | | |\n| | xxxvi | | | |\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxix | | | |\n| | xl | | | |\n| | xli | | | |\n| | xlii | | | |\n| | xliii | | | |\n| | xliv | | | |\n| | xlv | | | |\n| | xlvi | | | |\n| | xlvii | | | |\n| | xlviii | | | |\n| | xlix | | | |\n| l | | | | |\n| | li | | | |\n| | lii | | | |\n| | liii | | | |\n| | liv | | | |\n| | lv | | | |\n| | lvi | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| lvii
lviii
lix
lx
lxi
lxii
lxiii
lxiv
lxv
lxvi
lxvii
lxviii
lxix
lxx
lxxi
lxxii
lxxiii
lxxiv
lxxv
lxxvi
lxxvii
lxxvii
lxxix
lxxx
lxxxi
lxxxii
lxxxii
lxxxiv
lxxxv
lxxxvi
lxxxvi
lxxxvi
lxxxix
xc
xci
xcii
xciii
xciv
xcv
xcvi
xcvii
xcviii | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4499 Filed 06/23/25 Entered 06/23/25 13:16:46 Page 8 of 25\n\n| | xcix | | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|------|--|--|--|--|\n| | c | | | | |\n| c.
All professional fees and expenses (debtor & committees) | | | | | |\n\n| | Part 6: Postpetition Taxes | | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------|---------------------------|\n| a. | Postpetition income taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | Postpetition income taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | Postpetition employer payroll taxes accrued | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| d. | Postpetition employer payroll taxes paid | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| e. | Postpetition property taxes paid | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| f. | Postpetition other taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| g. | Postpetition other taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | Part 7: Questionnaire - During this reporting period: | | | |\n| a. | Were any payments made on prepetition debt? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| b. | Were any payments made outside the ordinary course of business
without court approval? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| c. | Were any payments made to or on behalf of insiders? | Yes | No | |\n| d. | Are you current on postpetition tax return filings? | Yes | No | |\n| e. | Are you current on postpetition estimated tax payments? | Yes | No | |\n| f. | Were all trust fund taxes remitted on a current basis? | Yes | No | |\n| g. | Was there any postpetition borrowing, other than trade credit?
(if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| h. | Were all payments made to or on behalf of professionals approved by
the court? | Yes | No
N/A | |\n| i. | Worker's compensation insurance?
Do you have: | Yes | No | |\n| | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | Casualty/property insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | General liability insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| j. | Has a plan of reorganization been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| k. | Has a disclosure statement been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| l. | Are you current with quarterly U.S. Trustee fees as
set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1930? | Yes | No | |\n\n| | Part 8: Individual Chapter 11 Debtors (Only) | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|\n| a. | Gross income (receipts) from salary and wages | \\$0 |\n| b. | Gross income (receipts) from self-employment | \\$0 |\n| c. | Gross income from all other sources | \\$0 |\n| d. | Total income in the reporting period (a+b+c) | \\$0 |\n| e. | Payroll deductions | \\$0 |\n| f. | Self-employment related expenses | \\$0 |\n| g. | Living expenses | \\$0 |\n| h. | All other expenses | \\$0 |\n| i. | Total expenses in the reporting period (e+f+g+h) | \\$0 |\n| j. | Difference between total income and total expenses (d-i) | \\$0 |\n| k. | List the total amount of all postpetition debts that are past due | \\$0 |\n| l. | Are you required to pay any Domestic Support Obligations as defined by 11
U.S.C § 101(14A)? | Yes
No |\n| m. | If yes, have you made all Domestic Support Obligation payments? | Yes
No
N/A |\n\n#### **Privacy Act Statement**\n\n28 U.S.C. § 589b authorizes the collection of this information, and provision of this information is mandatory under 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, and 1107. The United States Trustee will use this information to calculate statutory fee assessments under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The United States Trustee will also use this information to evaluate a chapter 11 debtor's progress through the bankruptcy system, including the likelihood of a plan of reorganization being confirmed and whether the case is being prosecuted in good faith. This information may be disclosed to a bankruptcy trustee or examiner when the information is needed to perform the trustee's or examiner's duties or to the appropriate federal, state, local, regulatory, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency when the information indicates a violation or potential violation of law. Other disclosures may be made for routine purposes. For a discussion of the types of routine disclosures that may be made, you may consult the Executive Office for United States Trustee's systems of records notice, UST-001, \"Bankruptcy Case Files and Associated Records.\" *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 59,818 et seq. (Oct. 11, 2006). A copy of the notice may be obtained at the following link: htt www.justice.gov/ust/eo/rules\\_regulations/index.htm. Failure to provide this information could result in the dismissal or conversion of your bankruptcy case or other action by the United States Trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F).\n\n### **I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Monthly Operating Report and its supporting documentation are true and correct and that I have been authorized to sign this report on behalf of the estate.**\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party\n\nChapter 11 Trustee\n\nTitle Date\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nPrinted Name of Responsible Party\n\n06/23/2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPageFour\n\n**In re Ho Wan Kwok Case No.** 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n **Debtor Reporting Period:** 5/1/2025 - 5/31/2025\n\n#### **INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR CASH RECEIPTS AND CASH DISBURSEMENTS**\n\n(This Form must be submitted for each bank account maintained by the Debtor)\n\nAmounts reported should be per the debtor's books, not the bank statement. The beginning cash should be the ending\n\ncash from the prior month or, if this is the first report, the amount should be the balance on the date the petition was\n\nfiled. Attach the bank statements and a detailed list of all disbursements made during the report period that includes\n\nthe date, the check number, the payee, the transaction description, and the amount. A\n\nbank reconciliation must\n\nbe attached for each account. [See MOR-1 (CON'T)]\n\n| | Current Month | Cumulative July 8, 2022 to Date |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------|\n| | Actual | Actual |\n| Cash - Beginning of Month | | |\n| RECEIPTS | | |\n| Recovered Funds | \\$
- | \\$
23,712,225.06 |\n| Funds received from B. Hofmeister Assignee for benefit of creditors | \\$
- | \\$
38,792,899.51 |\n| of HCHK pursuant to settlement order | | |\n| Clark Hill Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
499,000.00 |\n| Retainer Refund (Kercsmar Collins & O'Hara / Lewis Roca) | \\$
- | \\$
4,544.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | \\$
- | \\$
4,000,000.00 |\n| Adversary Proceeding Interpleader Funds | \\$
- | \\$
32,923,028.42 |\n| Refund from AIG | \\$
- | \\$
71.25 |\n| Funds received from The Casper Firm Settlement | \\$
- | \\$
48,750.00 |\n| Refund from Yachtzoo Yacht Management (Lady May II balance) | \\$
- | \\$
255.17 |\n| | | |\n| Funds received from Axos Bank | \\$
- | \\$
1,592,469.98 |\n| Refund of insurance premium from cancellation of protection and | \\$
- | \\$
29,255.02 |\n| indemnity insurance upon sale of Lady May on 6/30/23 | | |\n| Funds received from Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi PCA for sale of | \\$
- | \\$
10,302,313.64 |\n| Bombardier jet | | |\n| Net proceeds of sale of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held | \\$
- | \\$
2,692,924.71 |\n| by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash dividends on account of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. | \\$
- | \\$
54,858.88 |\n| held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash distribution on account of limited partnership interest held in | \\$
- | \\$
2,561,150.56 |\n| Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman), L.P. | | |\n| | | |\n| Funds received for sale of Greenwich Taconic property | \\$
- | \\$
6,784,668.79 |\n| Refund received from Pullman & Comley, LLC for overpayment of | \\$
- | \\$
26,102.00 |\n| invoices | | |\n| Funds received from First Bank of Greenwich | \\$
- | \\$
134,338.76 |\n| Refund with respect to unauthorized fraudulent disbursements | \\$
- | \\$
7,240.99 |\n| Funds received from World Insurance Associates, LLC | \\$
- | \\$
44,935.80 |\n| Funds received from Harneys Corporate Services' Bank | \\$
- | \\$
24,715.00 |\n| Settlement payments | \\$
2,760,271.06 | \\$
2,830,271.06 |\n| Refund from Eversource Energy with respect to overpayment | \\$
- | \\$
346.56 |\n| Refund from Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC with respect to | \\$
- | \\$
260,030.80 |\n| overpayment | | |\n| Reimbursement with respect to inter-Debtor DIP facility funding | \\$
- | \\$
50,002.72 |\n| Genever entities | | |\n| Bank Account Interest | \\$
226,492.01 | \\$
6,400,475.44 |\n| Total Receipts | \\$
2,986,763.07 | \\$
133,776,874.12 |\n| DISBURSEMENTS | | |\n| ORDINARY ITEMS: | | |\n| Bank Fees | \\$
6,266.31 | \\$
153,626.84 |\n| Fees paid to International Surety Ltd for surety bond renewal | \\$
- | \\$
268,747.00 |\n| premium | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yacht repair invoices out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$
576,895.09 |\n| Repair Escrow | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Miller Advertising Agency Inc. (English | \\$
- | \\$
21,140.60 |\n| Court Publication Notice) | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Dexter White Invoice | \\$
- | \\$
16,235.00 |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 5/1/2025 - 5/31/2025 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Bridgeport Harbor Marina out of the Yacht | \\$
- | \\$ | 18,137.64 |\n| Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Safe Harbor out of the Yacht Repair | \\$
- | | |\n| Escrow | | \\$ | 148,287.04 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Yachtzoo for operating expenses out of the | \\$
- | \\$ | 431,604.00 |\n| Yacht Repair Escrow | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harneys Corporate Services Limited | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,665.00 |\n| Disbursement paid to JP Reynolds Company Inc. (for customs duty | \\$
- | \\$ | 14,965.35 |\n| and customs bond premium) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to James Pizzaruso for pay roll in connection with | \\$
- | \\$ | 31,026.98 |\n| sale of Lady May
Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$ | 76,150.88 |\n| of HCHK (for HCHK admin matters and employee payments) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to RKH IT Solutions (IT Consultant for HCHK | \\$
- | \\$ | 17,794.73 |\n| Assignee) | | | |\n| Fees paid to SHM Newport Shipyard LLC (for Lady May II | \\$
- | \\$ | 16,384.10 |\n| winterization and dockage fees) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to R.I. Martine Survey (for Lady May II appraisal) | \\$
- | \\$ | 700.00 |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Brosnan Risk Consultants LTD (for security | \\$
- | \\$ | 57,246.47 |\n| services for HCHK Assignee) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to ARD Facilities Management Group LLC (for | \\$
29,925.00 | \\$ | 296,730.00 |\n| moving and storage services for HCHK, Golden Spring and Greenwich, | | | |\n| CT residence) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to FDS46 Crew Series LLC (Lady May II captain | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,130.00 |\n| salary) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to B. Hofmeister Assignee for Benefit of Creditors | \\$
- | \\$ | 550,000.00 |\n| of HCHK (for settlement payment) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Cole Schotz, counsel to Brian W. Hofmeister, | \\$
- | \\$ | 766,758.37 |\n| Assignee of HCHK Entities (for preparation and prosecution of the | | | |\n| assignment proceedings per settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A. Atkins Appraisal Corp., appraiser to Brian | \\$
- | \\$ | 7,800.00 |\n| W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for appraisal fees per | | | |\n| settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC, MSB | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,000.00 |\n| counsel to Brian. W. Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees | | | |\n| and expenses per settlement order) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to DLA, LLC, financial advisor to Brian. W. | \\$
- | \\$ | 155,000.00 |\n| Hofmeister, Assignee of HCHK Entities (for fees per settlement order) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Prager Dreifuss AG (for advance on Swiss | \\$
- | \\$ | 5,835.49 |\n| court fees) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hawk Eye Security LLC (for security services | \\$
63,172.94 | \\$ | 666,925.26 |\n| at Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to A&A Home Services LLC (for repairs to the | \\$
- | \\$ | 17,800.00 |\n| 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Next Frontier Advisors (for deposit for virtual | \\$
- | \\$ | 11,000.00 |\n| staging at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Knight Security Systems (for security system | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,710.50 |\n| installation at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Slocum's Lock & Key LLC (for updating keys | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,932.91 |\n| and replacing deadbolt at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to CT Fence and Landscaping, LLC (for servicing | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,277.56 |\n| the gate at the 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$ | 141,930.59 |\n| Valley Road real property taxes) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
- | \\$ | 763.56 |\n| Valley Road sewer and water) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Township of Mahwah, NJ (for 675 Ramapo | \\$
69,661.95 | \\$ | 139,323.90 |\n| Valley Road taxes) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to World Insurance Associates LLC (for the 373 | \\$
- | \\$ | 75,139.60 |\n| Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Tax Collector - Town of Greenwich (for the | \\$
- | \\$ | 27,847.85 |\n| 373 Taconic property real estate tax bill) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Rockland Electric (for electric company | \\$
3,330.83 | \\$ | 42,336.99 |\n| invoices at 675 Ramapo Valley Road house and gate house ) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to City of Stamford, CT (for tax bills for 2022 and | \\$
- | \\$ | 617.73 |\n| 2023) | | | |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|----------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | | 5/1/2025 - 5/31/2025 |\n| Disbursement paid to Seriatim Inc. (for deposit for personal property | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,520.00 |\n| inventory services at 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Greenwich Pool Service, LLC (for pool services | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,749.44 |\n| at 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to PSE&G (for gas utility invoices at 675 Ramapo | \\$
2,781.58 | \\$ | 15,425.28 |\n| Valley Road property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for alarm registration fee | \\$
- | \\$ | 30.00 |\n| for 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Verizon (for services at 675 Ramapo Valley | \\$
896.84 | \\$ | 4,829.06 |\n| Road property ) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Optimum (for internet services at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$ | 561.89 |\n| property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Eversource (for electric bill at 373 Taconic | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,327.99 |\n| property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for test wire in favor | \\$
- | \\$ | 100.00 |\n| of the District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Atko Bros Landscaping (for landscaping | \\$
- | \\$ | 6,168.30 |\n| services at 373 Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Town of Greenwich (for police security at 373 | \\$
- | \\$ | 8,500.00 |\n| Taconic property) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Kyle Davis Lawn Care, LLC (for landscaping at | \\$
6,064.55 | \\$ | 23,187.03 |\n| Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to JL Holdings, Inc. (for pool and spa | \\$
- | \\$ | 639.75 |\n| winterization at 675 Ramapo Valley Road property) | | | |\n| Unauthorized fraudulent disbursements
* | \\$
- | \\$ | 7,240.99 |\n| Disbursement paid to Central Bank of Cyprus (for wire in favor of the | \\$
- | \\$ | 218,150.40 |\n| District Court of Limassol, Cyprus) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Hackensack Roofing Co. Inc. (for roofing repair | \\$
- | \\$ | 18,382.15 |\n| invoices for roof at Mahwah mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Milo Plastering (for plaster repair at Mahwah | \\$
- | \\$ | 31,000.00 |\n| mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to TransPerfect Translations International Inc. (for | \\$
- | \\$ | 812.50 |\n| translation and proofreading services) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Planet Depos, LLC (for deposition services in | \\$
- | \\$ | 7,647.55 |\n| adversary proceeding) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Montvale Moving Services LLC (for packing | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,300.00 |\n| and moving at the Mahwah mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to IPTeam Janitorial LLC (for cleaning invoice at | \\$
- | \\$ | 9,969.44 |\n| the Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Dark Star Electrical Contracting LLC (for light | \\$
- | \\$ | 450.00 |\n| fixture maintenance at Mahwah Mansion) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Divergent Language Solutions, LLC (for | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,546.32 |\n| translation services) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Aircraft Servicing (Guernsey) Limited (for | \\$
12,166.57 | \\$ | 12,166.57 |\n| airport fees / jet fuel and storage of aircraft) | | | |\n| Disbursement paid to Alliant Insurance Services (for Aircraft Hull & | \\$
5,600.00 | \\$ | 5,600.00 |\n| Liability Policy) | | | |\n| Total Ordinary Disbursements | \\$
199,866.57 | \\$ | 5,219,771.69 |\n| REORGANIZATION ITEMS: | | | |\n| Professional Fees | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Neubert, Pepe & Monteith PC | \\$
- | \\$ | 6,082,375.17 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Paul Hastings LLP | \\$
1,095,122.80 | \\$ | 41,144,203.44 |\n| Broker fees paid with respect to Edmiston and Company Limited | \\$
- | \\$ | 1,176,250.00 |\n| | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pullman & Comley, LLC | \\$
- | \\$ | 820,969.76 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC | \\$
- | \\$ | 306,098.63 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Harney Westwood & Riegels LP | \\$
- | \\$ | 2,249,395.09 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kroll LLC | \\$
83,703.78 | \\$ | 2,864,137.28 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Pallas Partners LLP | \\$
- | \\$ | 667,135.54 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Prager Dreifuss AG | \\$
144,998.70 | \\$ | 837,006.39 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Eisner Advisory Group LLC | \\$
- | \\$ | 179,145.00 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Winne, Banta, Basralian & Kahn, P.C. | \\$
3,892.40 | \\$ | 14,768.43 |\n| | | | |\n| Fees paid with respect to Sage-Popovich, Inc. | \\$
- | \\$ | 15,000.00 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Chryssafinis & Polyviou LLC | \\$
- | \\$ | 67,166.19 |\n| Fees paid with respect to Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP | \\$
76,351.66 | \\$ | 187,987.14 |\n| Fees paid with respect to ENSafrica (Mauritius) | \\$
- | \\$ | 36,117.13 |\n| | | | |\n\n\\*These cash disbursements in the aggregate amount constitute unauthorized disbursements due to forged checks and unauthorized ACH payments. The accounts involved were immediately closed upon discovery of the fraudulent activity. The Trustee has worked in conjunction with the estate's bank to recover the stolen funds, and has been in communication with the United States Trustee regarding same. As of the date of this MOR, \\$7,240.99 has been reimbursed to the estate's bank account.\n\n| \\$
\\$
\\$
\\$
\\$
\\$
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
\\$ | Reporting Period:
-
-
-
-
1,404,069.34
1,603,935.91 | \\$
\\$
\\$
\\$
\\$ | 5/1/2025 - 5/31/2025
39,631.33
23,201.25
461,926.43 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | - |\n| | | | 57,172,514.20 |\n| | | \\$ | 62,392,285.89 |\n| | | | |\n| | - | \\$ | 25,004.19 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 236,452.00 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 274,811.83 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 98,089.58 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 121,300.00 |\n| | | | |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 39,924.43 |\n| | | | |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 324,516.61 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 5,750.00 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 122,849.05 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 2,515.01 |\n| \\$ | 30,303.87 | \\$ | 135,830.12 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 384,187.42 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 19,793.64 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 12,590.00 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 138,047.00 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 29,446.33 |\n| \\$ | 45,150.00 | \\$ | 86,450.00 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 2,068.63 |\n| \\$ | - | \\$ | 32,777.50 |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
invoices for Catalpa Special Inspections, Inc. (for remediation project at
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
US invoices for Burnham Nationwide, Inc. (for apartment restoration at
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US
Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | | |\n\n| In re Ho Wan Kwok | Case No. | 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|----------------------|\n| Debtor | Reporting Period: | 5/1/2025 - 5/31/2025 |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
554,269.78 |\n| invoices for J and A Construction Consultants dba Dryfast Property | | |\n| Restoration (for restoration work at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
1,750.00 |\n| invoices for The Light Touch (for work removing and packaging light | | |\n| fixtures at The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Payment pursuant to DIP Order with respect to financing Genever US | \\$
- | \\$
2,177.50 |\n| invoices for CitiQuiet, Inc. (for removing and reinstalling window at | | |\n| The Sherry Netherland) | | |\n| Total DIP Financing Items | \\$
75,453.87 | \\$
2,650,600.62 |\n| | | |\n| Net Cash Flow (Total Receipts - Total Disbursements - DIP | \\$
1,307,373.29 | \\$
68,733,987.61 |\n| Financing) | | |\n| | | |\n| Cash - End of Month (Must equal reconciled bank statement) | \\$
68,733,966.99 | \\$
68,733,966.99 |\n| Third Party Disbursements on Behalf of the Estate | | |\n| None | \\$
- | \\$
12,757.00 |\n\n#### **THE FOLLOWING SECTION MUST BE COMPLETED**\n\n**DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY FEES: (FROM CURRENT MONTH ACTUAL COLUMN)**\n\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS | \\$
1,603,935.91 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|\n| LESS: TRANSFERS TO OTHER DEBTOR IN POSSESSION ACCOUNTS | \\$
- |\n| PLUS: ESTATE DISBURSEMENTS MADE BY OUTSIDE SOURCES (i.e. from escrow | \\$
- |\n| accounts) | |\n| TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR CALCULATING U.S. TRUSTEE QUARTERLY | \\$
1,603,935.91 |\n| FEES | |\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
:
Case No. 22-50073
(JAM)
: |\n| Debtor. | :
: |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |\n\n## **ATTACHMENT TO MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2025 THROUGH MAY 31, 2025**\n\nThis attachment is incorporated into and made a part of the Monthly Operating Report (\"MOR\") of Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins.\n\n## **General Disclaimers**\n\n- 1. The MOR is presented on a form promulgated in 2021 by the Executive Office of the United States Trustee. This form in many instances requires inserting a number for a line item even if the line item does not apply. The form also does not allow for the insertion of explanations or asterisks next to answers. Accordingly, as presented, certain responses may be inapplicable or incomplete. Following guidance from the United States Trustee's office, this attachment is being filed as an integral part of the MOR.\n- 2. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order approving the appointment of Luc A. Despins, Esq. as Chapter 11 Trustee (the \"Trustee\"). The information in this MOR is based only on information beginning on the date of the Trustee's appointment and only on bank accounts within the Trustee's control.[1](#page-17-0)\n- 3. The Trustee reserves the rights to amend, modify or supplement this MOR or update it in future MORs.\n\n#### **Specific Responses**\n\n#### Part 1 Responses\n\n4. As noted above, this information is limited to cash receipts and disbursements since the Trustee was appointed and with respect to accounts under the Trustee's control. Not all cash receipts held by the Trustee as reflected in this MOR have been determined to be\n\n1 The Trustee is currently investigating the Debtor's assets and financial affairs (with respect to which investigation the Debtor has not cooperated).\n\nproperty of the estate at this time. There are various on-going litigations with respect to the funds held by the Trustee, which, if finally determined in a manner adverse to the Trustee, would materially reduce the total amount of cash held by the Trustee at this time. In addition, cash disbursements included here do not reflect payments made pursuant to the *Order (I) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Extend Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 363, (II) Authorizing Genever US and Genever BVI to Obtain Post-Petition Financing Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 264, (III) Granting Non-Priming Liens and Providing Superpriority Administrative Expense Claims, (IV) Modifying Automatic Stay, and (V) Granting Related Relief*, entered on September 12, 2023 [Dkt. 2193], which authorized the Kwok estate to finance expenses of the Genever entities, which are described in the summary of cash receipts and disbursements.\n\n## Part 2 Responses\n\n- 5. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section. The Trustee's counsel is currently reviewing the over 1,200 proofs of claim filed in connection with the claims bar date, which occurred on February 17, 2023.\n- 6. The Trustee is aware of certain professional fees and expenses that have arisen in connection with services provided by the Trustee's professionals. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n\n#### Part 3 Responses\n\n7. On June 27, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May [Docket No. 1953]. On December 19, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order authorizing and approving the sale of the Lady May II [Docket No. 2449]. On June 20, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order [Docket No. 3265] authorizing and approving the liquidation of shares of Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. held by Reverence Capital Partners Opportunities Fund I (Cayman) L.P. and the distribution of the proceeds of such liquidation, as discussed in the Trustee' s related motion [Docket No. 3203] and report of results of sale [Docket No. 3372].\n\n## Part 4 Responses\n\n8. To the extent this section is applicable (the Debtor is an individual), the Trustee has insufficient information to complete this section.\n\n## Part 5 Responses\n\n- 9. As of the end of the reporting period, certain interim applications for reimbursement of expenses have been approved by the Court pursuant to various orders approving interim fee applications and as set forth in the *Order Establishing Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for Retained Professionals*, entered on August 18, 2023 [Docket No. 2094].\n- 10. The Trustee is aware of a number of professional firms that have provided services to the official committee of unsecured creditors or the Debtor (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) but that have not at this time had their retentions approved by the Court. The Trustee includes such professional firms (of which he is aware) in this part of the MOR out of an abundance of caution but reserves all his rights with respect to the retention and/or payment of fees with respect to such professional firms. The Trustee also notes that the Debtor may have employed professionals (prior to the appointment of the Trustee) of which the Trustee is not aware.\n\n#### Part 6 Responses\n\n11. The Trustee is not aware of any postpetition taxes that have accrued during the time period since the Trustee's appointment.\n\n#### Part 7 Responses\n\n12. The Trustee notes that the Debtor filed a chapter 11 plan on April 20, 2022 [Docket No. 197] (the \"April 2022 Plan\") with respect to which no disclosure statement was filed or approved.\n\n### Part 8 Responses\n\n13. The Trustee has insufficient information to respond to Part 8.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 4499 | Filed 06/23/25 | Entered 06/23/25 13:16:46 | Page 21 of 25 |\n|---------------|----------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------|\n| | | EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® | | Direct inquiries to: |\n\nDirect inquiries to: 888 761 -3967\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** Page 1 of 4 STARTING DA TE: May 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: May 31, 2025 Total days in statement period: 31\n\n( **6)**\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR LUC A DESPINS, CH11 TRUSTEE CASE #22-50073 C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 PARK AVE NEW YORK NY 10166-0005\n\nStay alert for financial scams. If you receive an email, text, or call from someone unknown about receiving or sending money for inheritance, charities, or anything similar, do not respond or share your personal information.\n\n# **Standard Business Checking**\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL\n\nEl Monte, CA. 91731\n\n| Account number | | Beginning balance | | \\$1,580,646.95 |\n|-----------------|-----------------|--------------------|-------|------------------|\n| Enclosures | 6 | Total additions | ( 10) | .06
2,760,271 |\n| Low balance | \\$1,565,126.23 | Total subtractions | (S4) | 1,679,389.78 |\n| Average balance | \\$2, 183,064.26 | Ending balance | | \\$2,661,528.23 |\n\n\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** li EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge® Case 22-50073 Doc 4499 Filed 06/23/25 Entered 06/23/25 13:16:46 Page 22 of 25\n\nPage 2 of 4 STARTING DATE: May 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: May 31, 2025\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n| Number | Date | Amount | Number | Date | Amount |\n|--------|-------|----------|--------|-------|--------|\n| 1325 | 05-06 | 448.42 | 1327 | 05-28 | 70.12 |\n| 1326 | 05-28 | 1,444.87 | 1328 | 05-29 | 448.42 |\n\n#### **DEBITS**\n\n| Date | Transaction Description | | Subtractions |\n|-------|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| 04-30 | Preauth Debit | ALL1ANTINsuRANcE ALL1ANTINs 2s0430 | 5,600.00 |\n| 05-01 | Debit Memo | FIDucIARY MAINTENA NcE | 25.00 |\n| 05-01 | Debit Memo | FIDucIARY coLLATER AL | 5,551.31 |\n| 05-05 | Service Charge | wIRE TRANs-IN | 10.00 |\n| 05-05 | Preauth Debit | Township of Mahw 201 S29S7S7 2S0S0S | 69,661
.95 |\n| 05-06 | Preauth Debit | ROCKLAND ELECTR REco 2s0s06 ss2s11aoooo | 202.79 |\n| 05-06 | Preauth Debit | ROCKLAND ELECTR REco 2s0s06 ss166340oos | 3,128.04 |\n| 05-07 | Service Charge | wIRE TRANs-IN | 10.00 |\n| 05-07 | Outgoing Fx Ccy | Fx ouT wIRE 101s22ao3 1 1 BK EST Ho wAN KWOK | 12,166.57 |\n| 05-07 | Service Charge | ouTG0ING FxccYwI | 40.00 |\n| 05-07 | Outgoing Wire | Dxx32A1P00002s4s ARD FAcILITIES MGM 221210211 BNF coNT; usA. oB I;KW0K | |\n| | | PMTTO PARA | 3,950.00 |\n| 05-07 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32A7P00002S43 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 1S,360.0S FOR HAWK | |\n| | | EYE RESE | 15,360.05 |\n| 05-07 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32A7P00002S36 ARD FACILITIES MGM 221270211 BNF CONT; USA - OB l;KWOK | |\n| | | PMTTO PARA | 16,000.00 |\n| 05-07 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32A7P00002S23 ARD FACILITIES MGM 221270211 BNF CONT; USA· OB l;KWOK | |\n| | | PMTTO PARA | 30,100.00 |\n| 05-08 | Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 |\n| 05-09 | Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 |\n| 05-12 | Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 |\n| 05-14 | Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 |\n| 05-14 | Outgoing Fx Ccy | FX OUT WIRE 101S240S6 1 1 BK EST HO WAN KWOK | 101,461.58 |\n| 05-14 | Service Charge | OUTGOING FX CCY WI | 40.00 |\n| 05-14 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32AEP000026S0 ARD FACILITIES MGM 221270211 BNF CONT; USA· OB l;REF | |\n| | | KWOKPMTTO | 1,975.00 |\n| 05-14 | Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| 05-14 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32AEP00002641 ARD FACILITIES MGM 221270211 BNF CONT; USA - OB l;RE KWOK | |\n| | | PMTTO P | 8,000.00 |\n| 05-14 | Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| 05-14 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32AEP00002761 ARD FACILITIES MGM 221270211 BNF CONT; USA· OB l;KWOK | |\n| | | PMTTO PARA | 15,050.00 |\n| 05-14 | Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| 05-14 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32AEP00002771 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 1S,360.0S FOR HAWK | |\n| | | EYE, RES | 15,360.05 |\n| 05-14 | Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| 05-15 | Outgoing Wire | DXX32AFP00001768 WINNE BANTA BASRAL 221272303 BNF CONT; USA· OB l;BNF | |\n| | | CONT; US- 0 | 3,892.40 |\n| 05-15 | Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| 05-15 | Intl Wire Xfer | BXX32AEP00002629 KOBRE & KIM GCC LL EBILAEADXXX REF KWOK 76,3S1 .66 FOR | |\n| | | KOBRE AND KIM | 76,351.66 |\n| | 05-15 Service Charge | INTL wIRE xFER | 50.00 |\n| | 05-22 Outgoing Fx Ccy | Fx ouT wIRE 101s2s134 1 1 BK EST Ho wAN KWOK | 43,537.12 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4499 Filed 06/23/25 Entered 06/23/25 13:16:46 Page 23 of 25\n\n**ACCOUNT STATEMENT** I= EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge®\n\n9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL El Monte, CA. 91731\n\nPage 3 of 4 STARTING DATE: May 01, 2025 ENDING DATE: May 31, 2025\n\nBK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR\n\n| Date | Transaction Description | | Subtractions |\n|------|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| | 05-22 Service Charge | ouTG0ING FxccYwI | 40.00 |\n| | 05-22 Outgoing Wire | Dxx32B6Poooo11s4 KYLE DAvIs LAWN cA 031101266 KwoK 6.064.ss FOR KYLE | |\n| | | DAVIS LAWN CA | 6,064.55 |\n| | 05-22 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| | 05-22 Outgoing Wire | DXX32B6P00001746 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 15,360.05 FOR HAWK | |\n| | | EYE RE SE | 15,360.05 |\n| | 05-22 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| | 05-22 Outgoing Wire | DXX32B6P00001742 KROLL LLC 026009593 RE KWOK 83,703.78 FOR KROLL PER MO F | 83,703.78 |\n| | 05-22 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| | 05-27 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 |\n| | 05-27 Service Charge | WIRE TRANS-IN | 10.00 |\n| | 05-28 Outgoing Wire | DXX32BCP00002711 HAWK EYE SECURITY 031101266 RE KWOK 17,092.79 FOR HAWK | |\n| | | EYE RE SE | 17,092.79 |\n| | 05-28 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| | 05-28 Outgoing Wire | DXX32BCP00002708 THE SHERRY NETHERL 021000089 RE KWOK 30,303.87 FOR THE | |\n| | | SHERRY NET | 30,303.87 |\n| | 05-28 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n| | 05-28 Outgoing Wire | DXX32BCP00002705 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 322271724 RE KWOK 1,095, 122. 80 FOR | |\n| | | PAUL HASTIN | 1,095, 122.80 |\n| | 05-28 Service Charge | OUTGOING WIRE | 40.00 |\n\n#### **DAILY BALANCES**\n\n| Date | Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount |\n|-------|--------------|-------|---------------|-------|--------------|\n| 04-30 | 1,575,046.95 | 05-08 | 2,235, 116.23 | 05-22 | 2,288,880.04 |\n| 05-01 | 1,569,470.64 | 05-09 | 2,300,106.23 | 05-27 | 2,934,131.10 |\n| 05-05 | 1,568,532.10 | 05-12 | 2,350,096.23 | 05-28 | 1,789,976.65 |\n| 05-06 | 1,564,752.85 | 05-14 | 2,518,039.60 | 05-29 | 1,789,528.23 |\n| 05-07 | 1,565,126.23 | 05-15 | 2,437,705.54 | 05-30 | 2,661,528.23 |\n| | | | | | |\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n\n\n\n| !-
Case 22-50073
Doc 4499
Filed 06/23/25
EASTWESTBANK Your financial bridge®
9300 Flair Dr., 1 St FL | Entered 06/23/25 13:16:46 | Page 25 of 25
Direct inquiries to:
888 761-3967 | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| El Monte, CA. 91731 | | ACCOUNT STATEMENT
of
Page
1
1
STARTING DATE: May 01, 2025
ENDING DATE: May 31, 2025
Total days in statement period: 31
( O) | | |\n| BK EST/HO WAN KWOK DEBTOR
LUC A DESPINS, CH 11 TRUSTEE
CASE #22-50073
C/O PAUL HASTINGS LLP
200 PARK AVE
NEW YORK NY 10166-0005 | | Stay alert for financial scams. If you
receive an email, text, or call from
someone unknown about receiving or
sending money for inheritance, charities,
or anything similar, do not respond or
share your personal information. | | |\n| Trustee-Non Vendor MMA | | | | |\n| Account number
\\$65,845,946.75
Low balance
\\$65,845,946.75
Average balance
\\$1, 132,593.33
Interest paid year to date | Beginning balance
Total additions
Total subtractions
Ending balance | \\$65,845,946.75
226,492.01
111
0.00
IOI
\\$66,072,438.76 | | |\n| CREDITS
Number
Date
Transaction Description
05-31
Interest Credit | | Additions
226,492.01 | | |\n\n| DAIL V BALANCES | | | | | |\n|-----------------|----------------------|-------|---------------|------|--------|\n| Date | Amount | Date | Amount | Date | Amount |\n| 04-30 | 65,845,946.75 | 05-31 | 66,072,438.76 | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | INTEREST INFORMATION | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n#### Annual percentage yield earned\n\n4. 13% Interest-bearing days Average balance for APY \\$65,845,946.75 Interest earned 31 \\$226,492.01\n\n#### **OVERDRAFT/RETURN ITEM FEES**\n\n| | Total for
this period | Total
year-to-date |\n|--------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------|\n| Total Overdraft Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |\n| Total Returned Item Fees | \\$0.00 | \\$0.00 |","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Despins","Paul Hastings","Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2193,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9828,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-06-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-06-23","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:33"},{"id":"court_ctb_4452_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4452,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-05-30","title":"|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF
Bridgeport Division | Connecticut |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In Re.
Genever Holdings LLC
Debtor(s) | §
§
§
§ | Case No.
22-50592
Lead Case No.
22-50073
Jointly Administered |\n| Monthly Operating Report | | Chapter 11 |\n| Reporting Period Ended:
04/30/2025
Months Pending:
55
Reporting Method:
Debtor's Full-Time Employees (current):
Debtor's Full-Time Employees (as of date of order for relief): | Accrual Basis | Petition Date:
10/12/2020
Industry Classification:
5
3
1
3
Cash Basis
0
0 |\n| Supporting Documentation (check all that are attached): | | (For jointly administered debtors, any required schedules must be provided on a non-consolidated basis for each debtor) |\n\n| Statement of cash receipts and disbursements |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Balance sheet containing the summary and detail of the assets, liabilities and equity (net worth) or deficit |\n| Statement of operations (profit or loss statement) |\n| Accounts receivable aging |\n| Postpetition liabilities aging |\n| Statement of capital assets |\n| Schedule of payments to professionals |\n| Schedule of payments to insiders |\n| All bank statements and bank reconciliations for the reporting period |\n| Description of the assets sold or transferred and the terms of the sale or transfer |\n| |\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\n05/28/2025\n\nDate\n\nSignature of Responsible Party Printed Name of Responsible Party Luc A. Despins, as holder of proxy from Genever Holding\n\n> Address Paul Hastings, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY 10166\n\nSTATEMENT: This Periodic Report is associated with an open bankruptcy case; therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 4452 Filed 05/30/25 Entered 05/30/25 10:59:13 Page 2 of 12\n\n| | Part 1: Cash Receipts and Disbursements | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-------------|\n| a. | Cash balance beginning of month | \\$89,697 | |\n| b. | Total receipts (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | Total disbursements (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$50,053 | \\$145,394 |\n| d. | Cash balance end of month (a+b-c) | \\$39,644 | |\n| e. | Disbursements made by third party for the benefit of the estate | \\$147,926
* | \\$5,471,232 |\n| f. | Total disbursements for quarterly fee calculation (c+e) | \\$197,978 | \\$5,616,626 |\n| | Part 2: Asset and Liability Status | Current Month | |\n| a. | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.)
Accounts receivable (total net of allowance) | | |\n| | | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Accounts receivable over 90 days outstanding (net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Inventory
(Book
Market
Other
(attach explanation)) | \\$0 | |\n| d | Total current assets | \\$247,038 | |\n| e. | Total assets | \\$71,247,038 | |\n| f. | Postpetition payables (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Postpetition payables past due (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Postpetition taxes payable | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Postpetition taxes past due | \\$0 | |\n| j. | Total postpetition debt (f+h) | \\$0 | |\n| k. | Prepetition secured debt | \\$775,678 | |\n| l. | Prepetition priority debt | \\$0 | |\n| m. | Prepetition unsecured debt | \\$195,300,000 | |\n| n. | Total liabilities (debt) (j+k+l+m) | \\$196,075,678 | |\n| o. | Ending equity/net worth (e-n) | \\$-124,828,640 | |\n| | Part 3: Assets Sold or Transferred | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Total cash sales price for assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary
course of business | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | Total payments to third parties incident to assets being sold/transferred | | |\n| c. | outside the ordinary course of business
Net cash proceeds from assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | course of business (a-b) | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | Part 4: Income Statement (Statement of Operations)
(Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Gross income/sales (net of returns and allowances) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Cost of goods sold (inclusive of depreciation, if applicable) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Gross profit (a-b) | \\$0 | |\n| d. | Selling expenses | \\$0 | |\n| e. | General and administrative expenses | \\$0 | |\n| f. | Other expenses | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Depreciation and/or amortization (not included in 4b) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Interest | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Taxes (local, state, and federal) | \\$0 | |\n| j. | Reorganization items | \\$0 | |\n| k. | Profit (loss) | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 4452 Filed 05/30/25 Entered 05/30/25 10:59:13 Page 3 of 12\n\n| | | | Approved
Current Month | Approved
Cumulative | Paid Current
Month | Paid
Cumulative |\n|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|---------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|\n| | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (bankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$10,272 | \\$618,690 | \\$10,273 | \\$618,690 |\n| | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| i | Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, PC. Co-Counsel | | \\$2,062 | \\$22,855 | \\$2,063 | \\$22,855 |\n| ii | O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen Co-Counsel | | \\$8,210 | \\$271,317 | \\$8,210 | \\$271,317 |\n| iii | Acheson Doyle Partners | Other | \\$0 | \\$324,518 | \\$0 | \\$324,518 |\n| iv | | | | | | |\n| v | | | | | | |\n| vi | | | | | | |\n| vii | | | | | | |\n| viii | | | | | | |\n| ix | | | | | | |\n| x | | | | | | |\n| xi | | | | | | |\n| xii | | | | | | |\n| xiii | | | | | | |\n| xiv | | | | | | |\n| xv | | | | | | |\n| xvi | | | | | | |\n| xvii | | | | | | |\n| xviii | | | | | | |\n| xix | | | | | | |\n| xx | | | | | | |\n| xxi | | | | | | |\n| xxii | | | | | | |\n| xxiii | | | | | | |\n| xxiv | | | | | | |\n| xxv | | | | | | |\n| xxvi | | | | | | |\n| xxvii | | | | | | |\n| xxviii | | | | | | |\n| xxix | | | | | | |\n| xxx | | | | | | |\n| xxxi | | | | | | |\n| xxxii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiv | | | | | | |\n| xxxv | | | | | | |\n| xxxvi | | | | | | |\n\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n|---|--------|--|--|--|\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxix | | | |\n| | xl | | | |\n| | xli | | | |\n| | xlii | | | |\n| | xliii | | | |\n| | xliv | | | |\n| | xlv | | | |\n| | xlvi | | | |\n| | xlvii | | | |\n| | xlviii | | | |\n| | xlix | | | |\n| l | | | | |\n| | li | | | |\n| | lii | | | |\n| | liii | | | |\n| | liv | | | |\n| | lv | | | |\n| | lvi | | | |\n| | lvii | | | |\n| | lviii | | | |\n| | lix | | | |\n| | lx | | | |\n| | lxi | | | |\n| | lxii | | | |\n| | lxiii | | | |\n| | lxiv | | | |\n| | lxv | | | |\n| | lxvi | | | |\n| | lxvii | | | |\n| | lxviii | | | |\n| | lxix | | | |\n| | lxx | | | |\n| | lxxi | | | |\n| | lxxii | | | |\n| | lxxiii | | | |\n| | lxxiv | | | |\n| | lxxv | | | |\n| | lxxvi | | | |\n| | lxxvii | | | |\n| | lxxvii | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| | lxxix | | | | | | |\n|----|-------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------|---------------|------------|--------------|------------|\n| | lxxx | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxix | | | | | | |\n| | xc | | | | | | |\n| | xci | | | | | | |\n| | xcii | | | | | | |\n| | xciii | | | | | | |\n| | xciv | | | | | | |\n| | xcv | | | | | | |\n| | xcvi | | | | | | |\n| | xcvii | | | | | | |\n| | xcviii | | | | | | |\n| | xcix | | | | | | |\n| | c | | | | | | |\n| | ci | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Approved | Approved | Paid Current | Paid |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Current Month | Cumulative | Month | Cumulative |\n| b. | | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (nonbankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | | | | |\n| | | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| | i | | | | | | |\n| | ii | | | | | | |\n| | iii | | | | | | |\n| | iv | | | | | | |\n| | v | | | | | | |\n| | vi | | | | | | |\n| | vii | | | | | | |\n| | viii | | | | | | |\n| | ix | | | | | | |\n| | x | | | | | | |\n| | xi | | | | | | |\n| | xii | | | | | | |\n| | xiii
xiv | | | | | | |\n\n| xv | | | |\n|--------|--|--|--|\n| xvi | | | |\n| xvii | | | |\n| xviii | | | |\n| xix | | | |\n| xx | | | |\n| xxi | | | |\n| xxii | | | |\n| xxiii | | | |\n| xxiv | | | |\n| xxv | | | |\n| xxvi | | | |\n| xxvii | | | |\n| xxviii | | | |\n| xxix | | | |\n| xxx | | | |\n| xxxi | | | |\n| xxxii | | | |\n| xxxiii | | | |\n| xxxiv | | | |\n| xxxv | | | |\n| xxxvi | | | |\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxix | | | |\n| xl | | | |\n| xli | | | |\n| xlii | | | |\n| xliii | | | |\n| xliv | | | |\n| xlv | | | |\n| xlvi | | | |\n| xlvii | | | |\n| xlviii | | | |\n| xlix | | | |\n| l | | | |\n| li | | | |\n| lii | | | |\n| liii | | | |\n| liv | | | |\n| lv | | | |\n| lvi | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| lvii | | | |\n|--------|--|--|--|\n| lviii | | | |\n| lix | | | |\n| lx | | | |\n| lxi | | | |\n| lxii | | | |\n| lxiii | | | |\n| lxiv | | | |\n| lxv | | | |\n| lxvi | | | |\n| lxvii | | | |\n| lxviii | | | |\n| lxix | | | |\n| lxx | | | |\n| lxxi | | | |\n| lxxii | | | |\n| lxxiii | | | |\n| lxxiv | | | |\n| lxxv | | | |\n| lxxvi | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxix | | | |\n| lxxx | | | |\n| lxxxi | | | |\n| lxxxii | | | |\n| lxxxii | | | |\n| lxxxiv | | | |\n| lxxxv | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxix | | | |\n| xc | | | |\n| xci | | | |\n| xcii | | | |\n| xciii | | | |\n| xciv | | | |\n| xcv | | | |\n| xcvi | | | |\n| xcvii | | | |\n| xcviii | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 4452 Filed 05/30/25 Entered 05/30/25 10:59:13 Page 8 of 12\n\n| | xcix | | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|------|-----|--|--|--|\n| | c | | | | |\n| c.
All professional fees and expenses (debtor & committees) | | \\$0 | | | |\n\n| | Part 6: Postpetition Taxes | | | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------|---------------------------|\n| a. | | Postpetition income taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | | Postpetition income taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes accrued | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| d. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes paid | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| e. | Postpetition property taxes paid | | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| f. | | Postpetition other taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| g. | | Postpetition other taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | Part 7: Questionnaire - During this reporting period: | | | |\n| a. | | Were any payments made on prepetition debt? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| b. | | Were any payments made outside the ordinary course of business
without court approval? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| c. | | Were any payments made to or on behalf of insiders? | Yes | No | |\n| d. | | Are you current on postpetition tax return filings? | Yes | No | |\n| e. | | Are you current on postpetition estimated tax payments? | Yes | No | |\n| f. | | Were all trust fund taxes remitted on a current basis? | Yes | No | |\n| g. | (if yes, see Instructions) | Was there any postpetition borrowing, other than trade credit? | Yes | No | |\n| h. | the court? | Were all payments made to or on behalf of professionals approved by | Yes | No
N/A | |\n| i. | Do you have: | Worker's compensation insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | Casualty/property insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | General liability insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| j. | | Has a plan of reorganization been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| k. | | Has a disclosure statement been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| l. | | Are you current with quarterly U.S. Trustee fees as
set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1930? | Yes | No | |\n\n| | Part 8: Individual Chapter 11 Debtors (Only) | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|\n| a. | Gross income (receipts) from salary and wages | \\$0 |\n| b. | Gross income (receipts) from self-employment | \\$0 |\n| c. | Gross income from all other sources | \\$0 |\n| d. | Total income in the reporting period (a+b+c) | \\$0 |\n| e. | Payroll deductions | \\$0 |\n| f. | Self-employment related expenses | \\$0 |\n| g. | Living expenses | \\$0 |\n| h. | All other expenses | \\$0 |\n| i. | Total expenses in the reporting period (e+f+g+h) | \\$0 |\n| j. | Difference between total income and total expenses (d-i) | \\$0 |\n| k. | List the total amount of all postpetition debts that are past due | \\$0 |\n| l. | Are you required to pay any Domestic Support Obligations as defined by 11
U.S.C § 101(14A)? | Yes
No |\n| m. | If yes, have you made all Domestic Support Obligation payments? | Yes
No
N/A |\n\n#### **Privacy Act Statement**\n\n28 U.S.C. § 589b authorizes the collection of this information, and provision of this information is mandatory under 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, and 1107. The United States Trustee will use this information to calculate statutory fee assessments under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The United States Trustee will also use this information to evaluate a chapter 11 debtor's progress through the bankruptcy system, including the likelihood of a plan of reorganization being confirmed and whether the case is being prosecuted in good faith. This information may be disclosed to a bankruptcy trustee or examiner when the information is needed to perform the trustee's or examiner's duties or to the appropriate federal, state, local, regulatory, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency when the information indicates a violation or potential violation of law. Other disclosures may be made for routine purposes. For a discussion of the types of routine disclosures that may be made, you may consult the Executive Office for United States Trustee's systems of records notice, UST-001, \"Bankruptcy Case Files and Associated Records.\" *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 59,818 et seq. (Oct. 11, 2006). A copy of the notice may be obtained at the following link: htt www.justice.gov/ust/eo/rules\\_regulations/index.htm. Failure to provide this information could result in the dismissal or conversion of your bankruptcy case or other action by the United States Trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F).\n\n## **I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Monthly Operating Report and its supporting documentation are true and correct and that I have been authorized to sign this report on behalf of the estate.**\n\n/s/ Luc A. Despins\n\nSignature of Responsible Party\n\nChapter 11 Trustee\n\nTitle Date\n\nLuc A. Despins, as holder of proxy of Genever Holdings\n\nPrinted Name of Responsible Party\n\n05/28/2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPageFour","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Despins","Je","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3458,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-05-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-05-30","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:28"},{"id":"court_ctb_4453_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4453,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-05-30","title":"|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Bridgeport Division | Connecticut | | | | |\n| In Re.
Genever Holdings Corporation | §
§
§ | Case No.
22-50542
Lead Case No.
22-50073 | | | | |\n| Debtor(s) | § | Jointly Administered | | | | |\n| Monthly Operating Report | | Chapter 11 | | | | |\n| Reporting Period Ended:
04/30/2025 | | Petition Date:
10/11/2022 | | | | |\n| Months Pending:
31 | | Industry Classification:
5
3
1
3 | | | | |\n| Reporting Method: | Accrual Basis | Cash Basis | | | | |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (current): | | 0 | | | | |\n| Debtor's Full-Time Employees (as of date of order for relief): | 0 | | | | | |\n| Supporting Documentation (check all that are attached):
(For jointly administered debtors, any required schedules must be provided on a non-consolidated basis for each debtor) | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Statement of cash receipts and disbursements |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Balance sheet containing the summary and detail of the assets, liabilities and equity (net worth) or deficit |\n| Statement of operations (profit or loss statement) |\n| Accounts receivable aging |\n| Postpetition liabilities aging |\n| Statement of capital assets |\n| Schedule of payments to professionals |\n| Schedule of payments to insiders |\n| All bank statements and bank reconciliations for the reporting period |\n| Description of the assets sold or transferred and the terms of the sale or transfer |\n| |\n\n/s/ Claire Abrehart\n\n05/21/2025\n\nDate\n\nClaire Abrehart, Director\n\nSignature of Responsible Party Printed Name of Responsible Party\n\nAddress Harneys Corporate Services Limited, Craigmuir Chambers, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands\n\nSTATEMENT: This Periodic Report is associated with an open bankruptcy case; therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 4453 Filed 05/30/25 Entered 05/30/25 11:10:08 Page 2 of 12\n\n| | Part 1: Cash Receipts and Disbursements | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|---------------------------|\n| a. | Cash balance beginning of month | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Total receipts (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | Total disbursements (net of transfers between accounts) | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| d. | Cash balance end of month (a+b-c) | \\$0 | |\n| e. | Disbursements made by third party for the benefit of the estate | \\$1,108 | \\$118,451 |\n| f. | Total disbursements for quarterly fee calculation (c+e) | \\$1,108 | \\$118,451 |\n| | Part 2: Asset and Liability Status | Current Month | |\n| a. | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.)
Accounts receivable (total net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Accounts receivable over 90 days outstanding (net of allowance) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Inventory
(Book
Market
Other
(attach explanation)) | \\$0 | |\n| d | Total current assets | | *Please see the attached. |\n| | Total assets | \\$0 | *Please see the attached. |\n| e. | | \\$0 | |\n| f. | Postpetition payables (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| g. | Postpetition payables past due (excluding taxes) | \\$0 | |\n| h. | Postpetition taxes payable | \\$0 | |\n| i. | Postpetition taxes past due | \\$0 | |\n| j. | Total postpetition debt (f+h) | \\$0 | |\n| k. | Prepetition secured debt | \\$0 | |\n| l. | Prepetition priority debt | \\$0 | |\n| m. | Prepetition unsecured debt | \\$254,000,000 | |\n| n. | Total liabilities (debt) (j+k+l+m) | \\$254,000,000 | |\n| o. | Ending equity/net worth (e-n) | \\$-254,000,000 | |\n| | Part 3: Assets Sold or Transferred | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| a. | Total cash sales price for assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | course of business
Total payments to third parties incident to assets being sold/transferred | | |\n| | outside the ordinary course of business | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | Net cash proceeds from assets sold/transferred outside the ordinary
course of business (a-b) | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | Part 4: Income Statement (Statement of Operations) | Current Month | Cumulative |\n| | (Not generally applicable to Individual Debtors. See Instructions.) | | |\n| a. | Gross income/sales (net of returns and allowances) | \\$0 | |\n| b. | Cost of goods sold (inclusive of depreciation, if applicable) | \\$0 | |\n| c. | Gross profit (a-b) | \\$0 | |\n| d. | Selling expenses | \\$0 | |\n| e. | General and administrative expenses | \\$0 | |\n\n- f. Other expenses \\$0\n- g. Depreciation and/or amortization (not included in 4b) \\$0\n- h. Interest \\$0\n- i. Taxes (local, state, and federal) \\$0\n- j. Reorganization items \\$0\n- k. Profit (loss) \\$0 \\$0\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 4453 Filed 05/30/25 Entered 05/30/25 11:10:08 Page 3 of 12\n\n#### Debtor's Name Genever Holdings Corporation Case No. 22-50542\n\n| | | | Approved
Current Month | Approved
Cumulative | Paid Current
Month | Paid
Cumulative |\n|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|------|---------------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|\n| | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (bankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$1,108 | \\$55,043 | \\$1,108 | \\$55,043 |\n| | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| i | Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, PC Co-Counsel | | \\$1,108 | \\$55,043 | \\$1,108 | \\$55,043 |\n| ii | | | | | | |\n| iii | | | | | | |\n| iv | | | | | | |\n| v | | | | | | |\n| vi | | | | | | |\n| vii | | | | | | |\n| viii | | | | | | |\n| ix | | | | | | |\n| x | | | | | | |\n| xi | | | | | | |\n| xii | | | | | | |\n| xiii | | | | | | |\n| xiv | | | | | | |\n| xv | | | | | | |\n| xvi | | | | | | |\n| xvii | | | | | | |\n| xviii | | | | | | |\n| xix | | | | | | |\n| xx | | | | | | |\n| xxi | | | | | | |\n| xxii | | | | | | |\n| xxiii | | | | | | |\n| xxiv | | | | | | |\n| xxv | | | | | | |\n| xxvi | | | | | | |\n| xxvii | | | | | | |\n| xxviii | | | | | | |\n| xxix | | | | | | |\n| xxx | | | | | | |\n| xxxi | | | | | | |\n| xxxii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiii | | | | | | |\n| xxxiv | | | | | | |\n| xxxv | | | | | | |\n| xxxvi | | | | | | |\n\nUST Form 11-MOR (12/01/2021) 3\n\n| xxxvii | | | |\n|--------|--|--|--|\n| xxxvii | | | |\n| xxxix | | | |\n| xl | | | |\n| xli | | | |\n| xlii | | | |\n| xliii | | | |\n| xliv | | | |\n| xlv | | | |\n| xlvi | | | |\n| xlvii | | | |\n| xlviii | | | |\n| xlix | | | |\n| l | | | |\n| li | | | |\n| lii | | | |\n| liii | | | |\n| liv | | | |\n| lv | | | |\n| lvi | | | |\n| lvii | | | |\n| lviii | | | |\n| lix | | | |\n| lx | | | |\n| lxi | | | |\n| lxii | | | |\n| lxiii | | | |\n| lxiv | | | |\n| lxv | | | |\n| lxvi | | | |\n| lxvii | | | |\n| lxviii | | | |\n| lxix | | | |\n| lxx | | | |\n| lxxi | | | |\n| lxxii | | | |\n| lxxiii | | | |\n| lxxiv | | | |\n| lxxv | | | |\n| lxxvi | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | lxxix | | | | | | |\n|----|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------|------------|--------------|------------|\n| | lxxx | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxii | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxiv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxv | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxvi | | | | | | |\n| | lxxxix | | | | | | |\n| | xc | | | | | | |\n| | xci | | | | | | |\n| | xcii | | | | | | |\n| | xciii | | | | | | |\n| | xciv | | | | | | |\n| | xcv | | | | | | |\n| | xcvi | | | | | | |\n| | xcvii | | | | | | |\n| | xcviii | | | | | | |\n| | xcix | | | | | | |\n| | c | | | | | | |\n| | ci | | | | | | |\n| | | | | Approved | Approved | Paid Current | Paid |\n| | | | | Current Month | Cumulative | Month | Cumulative |\n| b. | | Debtor's professional fees & expenses (nonbankruptcy) Aggregate Total | | \\$0 | \\$98,090 | \\$0 | \\$98,090 |\n| | | Itemized Breakdown by Firm | | | | | |\n| | | Firm Name | Role | | | | |\n| | i | Harney's Corporate Services | Financial Professional | \\$0 | \\$98,090 | \\$0 | \\$98,090 |\n| | ii | | | | | | |\n| | iii | | | | | | |\n| | iv | | | | | | |\n| | v | | | | | | |\n| | vi | | | | | | |\n| | vii | | | | | | |\n| | viii | | | | | | |\n| | ix | | | | | | |\n| | x | | | | | | |\n| | xi | | | | | | |\n| | xii | | | | | | |\n| | xiii | | | | | | |\n| | xiv | | | | | | |\n\n| | xv | | | |\n|-----|--------|--|--|--|\n| | xvi | | | |\n| | xvii | | | |\n| | xviii | | | |\n| | xix | | | |\n| | xx | | | |\n| | xxi | | | |\n| | xxii | | | |\n| | xxiii | | | |\n| | xxiv | | | |\n| | xxv | | | |\n| | xxvi | | | |\n| | xxvii | | | |\n| | xxviii | | | |\n| | xxix | | | |\n| | xxx | | | |\n| | xxxi | | | |\n| | xxxii | | | |\n| | xxxiii | | | |\n| | xxxiv | | | |\n| | xxxv | | | |\n| | xxxvi | | | |\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxvii | | | |\n| | xxxix | | | |\n| xl | | | | |\n| | xli | | | |\n| | xlii | | | |\n| | xliii | | | |\n| | xliv | | | |\n| | xlv | | | |\n| | xlvi | | | |\n| | xlvii | | | |\n| | xlviii | | | |\n| | xlix | | | |\n| l | | | | |\n| li | | | | |\n| lii | | | | |\n| | liii | | | |\n| | liv | | | |\n| lv | | | | |\n| | lvi | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| lvii | | | |\n|--------|--|--|--|\n| lviii | | | |\n| lix | | | |\n| lx | | | |\n| lxi | | | |\n| lxii | | | |\n| lxiii | | | |\n| lxiv | | | |\n| lxv | | | |\n| lxvi | | | |\n| lxvii | | | |\n| lxviii | | | |\n| lxix | | | |\n| lxx | | | |\n| lxxi | | | |\n| lxxii | | | |\n| lxxiii | | | |\n| lxxiv | | | |\n| lxxv | | | |\n| lxxvi | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxvii | | | |\n| lxxix | | | |\n| lxxx | | | |\n| lxxxi | | | |\n| lxxxii | | | |\n| lxxxii | | | |\n| lxxxiv | | | |\n| lxxxv | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxvi | | | |\n| lxxxix | | | |\n| xc | | | |\n| xci | | | |\n| xcii | | | |\n| xciii | | | |\n| xciv | | | |\n| xcv | | | |\n| xcvi | | | |\n| xcvii | | | |\n| xcviii | | | |\n\n| | xcix | | | | | |\n|----|------|----------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|\n| | c | | | | | |\n| c. | | All professional fees and expenses (debtor & committees) | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n\n| | Part 6: Postpetition Taxes | | | Current Month | Cumulative |\n|----|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|---------------|---------------------------|\n| a. | | Postpetition income taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| b. | | Postpetition income taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| c. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes accrued | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| d. | | Postpetition employer payroll taxes paid | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| e. | Postpetition property taxes paid | | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| f. | | Postpetition other taxes accrued (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| g. | | Postpetition other taxes paid (local, state, and federal) | | \\$0 | \\$0 |\n| | | Part 7: Questionnaire - During this reporting period: | | | |\n| a. | | Were any payments made on prepetition debt? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| b. | | Were any payments made outside the ordinary course of business
without court approval? (if yes, see Instructions) | Yes | No | |\n| c. | | Were any payments made to or on behalf of insiders? | Yes | No | |\n| d. | | Are you current on postpetition tax return filings? | Yes | No | |\n| e. | | Are you current on postpetition estimated tax payments? | Yes | No | |\n| f. | | Were all trust fund taxes remitted on a current basis? | Yes | No | |\n| g. | (if yes, see Instructions) | Was there any postpetition borrowing, other than trade credit? | Yes | No | |\n| h. | the court? | Were all payments made to or on behalf of professionals approved by | Yes | No
N/A | |\n| i. | Do you have: | Worker's compensation insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | Casualty/property insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| | | General liability insurance? | Yes | No | |\n| | | If yes, are your premiums current? | Yes | No
N/A | (if no, see Instructions) |\n| j. | | Has a plan of reorganization been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| k. | | Has a disclosure statement been filed with the court? | Yes | No | |\n| l. | | Are you current with quarterly U.S. Trustee fees as
set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1930? | Yes | No | |\n\n| | Part 8: Individual Chapter 11 Debtors (Only) | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--|--|--|\n| a. | Gross income (receipts) from salary and wages | \\$0 | | | |\n| b. | Gross income (receipts) from self-employment | \\$0 | | | |\n| c. | Gross income from all other sources | \\$0 | | | |\n| d. | Total income in the reporting period (a+b+c) | \\$0 | | | |\n| e. | Payroll deductions | \\$0 | | | |\n| f. | Self-employment related expenses | \\$0 | | | |\n| g. | Living expenses | \\$0 | | | |\n| h. | All other expenses | \\$0 | | | |\n| i. | Total expenses in the reporting period (e+f+g+h) | \\$0 | | | |\n| j. | Difference between total income and total expenses (d-i) | \\$0 | | | |\n| k. | List the total amount of all postpetition debts that are past due | \\$0 | | | |\n| l. | Are you required to pay any Domestic Support Obligations as defined by 11
U.S.C § 101(14A)? | Yes
No | | | |\n| m. | If yes, have you made all Domestic Support Obligation payments? | Yes
No
N/A | | | |\n\n### **Privacy Act Statement**\n\n28 U.S.C. § 589b authorizes the collection of this information, and provision of this information is mandatory under 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, and 1107. The United States Trustee will use this information to calculate statutory fee assessments under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The United States Trustee will also use this information to evaluate a chapter 11 debtor's progress through the bankruptcy system, including the likelihood of a plan of reorganization being confirmed and whether the case is being prosecuted in good faith. This information may be disclosed to a bankruptcy trustee or examiner when the information is needed to perform the trustee's or examiner's duties or to the appropriate federal, state, local, regulatory, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency when the information indicates a violation or potential violation of law. Other disclosures may be made for routine purposes. For a discussion of the types of routine disclosures that may be made, you may consult the Executive Office for United States Trustee's systems of records notice, UST-001, \"Bankruptcy Case Files and Associated Records.\" *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 59,818 et seq. (Oct. 11, 2006). A copy of the notice may be obtained at the following link: htt www.justice.gov/ust/eo/rules\\_regulations/index.htm. Failure to provide this information could result in the dismissal or conversion of your bankruptcy case or other action by the United States Trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F).\n\n### **I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Monthly Operating Report and its supporting documentation are true and correct and that I have been authorized to sign this report on behalf of the estate.**\n\n| | /s/ Claire Abrehart |\n|--|---------------------|\n| | |\n\nSignature of Responsible Party\n\nDirector\n\nTitle Date\n\nClaire Abrehart\n\nPrinted Name of Responsible Party\n\n05/21/2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPageFour","body_zh":null,"key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3567,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-05-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-05-30","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:29"},{"id":"court_ctb_4448_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4448,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-05-29","title":"Exhibit 1 Modified Protective Order (clean)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **Exhibit 1**\n\n**Modified Protective Order (clean)**\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| | x | |\n|--------------|--------|----------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter
11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | :
: | Case No. 22-50073
(JAM) |\n| Debtor.1 | :
: | Re: ECF No.
874 |\n| | :
x | |\n\n## **MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nThis Protective Order (\"Order\") is entered into by and among: (a) Luc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's estate (the \"Trustee\"), and (b) any other persons or entities who become bound by this Order by signifying their assent through execution of **Exhibit A** hereto. Each of the persons or entities identified in the foregoing clauses (a) and (b) shall be referred to herein individually as a \"Party,\" and collectively as the \"Parties.\"2 This Order is being entered pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 107(b) and Rule 9018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), and, as applicable, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 7026 and 9014 and Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n1 Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n2 The designation of a \"Party\" is for purposes of reference in this Order only.\n\n#### **Recitals**\n\nWHEREAS, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), in this Court (the case commenced by such petition, the \"Chapter 11 Case\"); and there are, or may be, judicial or other proceedings before this Court and other courts, tribunals, or judicial bodies, including in foreign jurisdictions, including but not limited to investigations, contested matters, adversary proceedings, and other disputes and litigation (each a \"Dispute\" and, collectively, the \"Disputes\") arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in or relating to the Chapter 11 Case;\n\nWHEREAS, the Court authorized the appointment of the Trustee by granting the United States Trustee's application for an order approving the appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104(d);\n\nWHEREAS, the Parties have sought or may seek certain Discovery Material (as defined below) from one another with respect to one or more Disputes, including through informal or formal requests, Rule 2004 notices or motions, or service of document requests, interrogatories, depositions, subpoenas, and other discovery requests (collectively, the \"Discovery Requests\") as provided by the Federal Rules, the Bankruptcy Rules, and the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Local Rules\"); and\n\nWHEREAS, the Parties anticipate that there are certain persons or entities other than the Parties hereto that may also propound or be served with Discovery Requests in connection with one or more Disputes during the course of the Chapter 11 Case;\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, to facilitate and expedite the production, exchange, and treatment of Discovery Material and to protect Discovery Material that a Party seeks to maintain as Confidential Material or Highly Confidential Material (as those terms are defined below), it is\n\nhereby agreed, and, upon Court approval, it is hereby ORDERED that the following terms will govern any requests for and production and handling of Discovery Material (as defined below):\n\n#### **Scope of Order**\n\n1. This Order governs the disclosure or exchange of all information and documents in connection with this Chapter 11 Case and related Disputes, by a Party (each a \"Producing Party\"), to any other Party (each a \"Receiving Party\"), formally or informally, either prior to or after the filing of a contested matter or adversary proceeding, in connection with an exchange of exhibits in advance of a hearing, and/or in response to or in connection with any Discovery Requests, including, without limitation, deposition testimony (whether based upon oral examination or written questions); interrogatories; answers to interrogatories; requests for admission; responses to requests for admission; documents, information, and things produced as well as any and all copies, abstracts, digests, notes, summaries, and excerpts thereof (collectively referred to as \"Discovery Material\"). Discovery Material includes hard copy documents and electronically stored information contemplated by the Bankruptcy Rules, and the Federal Rules, including but not limited to, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, data, or data compilations stored in any medium, testimony, exhibits, discovery responses, and all other mediums of expression.\n\n2. This Order does not affect, amend or modify any existing confidentiality agreements or protective orders applicable to any Producing Party and/or Receiving Party, and nothing in this Order shall constitute a waiver of any rights under such agreements or orders.\n\n3. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Order—including the fact that a party is a Party to this Order—entitles or is intended to entitle any Party or non-Party to any Discovery Material for any purpose, including in connection with any Dispute.\n\n4. Subject to a Producing Party's rights under Paragraphs 9, 10 and 18 of hereof, upon the consent of the Trustee, any non-Party that executes Exhibit A and delivers a copy to the Trustee shall be treated as a Party to this Order with all rights and obligations of the signatory Parties hereto. For the further avoidance of any doubt, reference to becoming a \"Party\" upon execution of Exhibit A is for the purposes of this Order only and not intended to reflect any agreement as to such party's status as a litigant.\n\n## **Designating Discovery Material**\n\n5. Any Producing Party may designate Discovery Material as \"Confidential Material\" or \"Highly Confidential Material\" (any such designated Discovery Material, \"Designated Material\") in accordance with the following provisions:\n\n> (a) Confidential Material: A Producing Party may designate Discovery Material as \"Confidential\" ifsuch Producing Party reasonably believes that: (i) such Discovery Material (A) constitutes or contains nonpublic proprietary or confidential technical, business, financial, personal, or other information of a nature that should be protected under the Bankruptcy Rules or the Federal Rules or (B) is subject by law or by contract to a legally protected right of privacy; or (ii) the Producing Party (A) is under a preexisting obligation to a third party to treat such Discovery Material as confidential or (B) has been reasonably requested by another Party or non-Party to so designate such Discovery Material on the groundsthat such other Party or non- Party considers such Discovery Material to contain information that is confidential or proprietary to such Party or non-Party.\n\n- (b) Highly Confidential Material: A Producing Party may designate Discovery Material as \"Highly Confidential\" if such Producing Party reasonably believes (or with respect to documents received from another person, has been reasonably advised by such other person) that such Discovery Material is ofsuch a nature that a risk of personal safety, identity theft, or competitive injury would be created if such Discovery Material were disclosed to persons other than those identified in Paragraph 10 of this Order, such as addresses or other sensitive personal identifiable information, trade secrets, sensitive financial or business information, or material prepared by a Party's industry advisors, financial advisors, accounting advisors, experts, or its consultants (and their respective staff). Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, account statements, ACH and wire transfer records, check copies, and similar records created by financial institutions to memorialize account balances and transactions (collectively, 'Bank Statements') do not pose a risk of personal safety, identity theft, or competitive injury sufficient to warrant the heightened restrictions applicable to Discovery Material designated 'Highly Confidential.' Absent further order of the Court, Bank Statements shall not be designated as 'Highly Confidential' under this Order.\n- (c) Designation By Another Party: Any Party may designate any Discovery Material as Confidential or Highly Confidential in accordance with paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b), whether or not that Party is the one which originally disclosed or exchanged the Discovery Material, and in such event, the designating Party shall be a Producing Party with respect to that\n\nDiscovery Material.\n\n(d) Undesignated Material: Subject to the rights and obligations of the Parties under Paragraphs 7, 8 and 34 of this Order, no Party shall have any obligation or duty to maintain as confidential or prevent from disclosure any Discovery Material that is not Designated Material (\"Undesignated Material\"), unless that Party has actual knowledge that the subject of the Discovery Material has been previously designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to this Order or any other protective order.\n\n6. Manner of Designating Discovery Material: Where reasonably practicable, any Designated Material shall be designated by the Producing Party as such by marking each such page \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" as applicable. Such markings should not obliterate or obscure the content of the material that is produced. Where marking of every page of such materials is not reasonably practicable, such as with certain native file documents, a Producing Party may designate material as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" by informing the Receiving Party in a clear and conspicuous manner at the time of production of such materialthat it is \"Confidential\" or \"HighlyConfidential,\" such as by including such designation in the filename and/or the produced Relativity (or other document review platform) load file, if applicable. Discovery Material produced prior to the execution of this Order pursuant to an agreement that such Discovery Material would be treated as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" shall be treated as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" pursuant to this Order notwithstanding such Discovery Material not bearing such markings.\n\n7. Late Designation of Discovery Material: The failure to designate particular Discovery Material as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" at the time of production shall not operate to waive a Producing Party's right to later designate such Discovery Material as Designated Material or later apply another designation pursuant to this Order (\"Misdesignated\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 8 of 24\n\nMaterial\"). At such time, arrangements will be made for the destruction of the Misdesignated Material or for the return to the Producing Party of all copies of the Misdesignated Material and for the substitution, where appropriate, of properly labeled copies of such Discovery Material. Upon receipt of replacement copies of such Misdesignated Material with the proper designation, the Receiving Party or Parties shall take all reasonable steps to return or destroy all previously produced copies of such Misdesignated Material. If requested by the Producing Party, a Receiving Party shall verify in writing that it has taken all reasonable steps to return or destroy such Misdesignated Material. No Party shall be deemed to have violated this Order if, prior to notification of any later designation, such Discovery Material was disclosed or used in any manner consistent with its original designation but inconsistent with its later designation. Once suchlater designation has been made, however, any Discovery Material shall be treated in accordance with that later designation; provided, however, that if the material that was not designated has been, at the time of the later designation, previously publicly filed with a court, no Party shall be bound by such later designation except to the extent determined by the Court upon motion of the Party that failed to make the designation.\n\n#### **Use and Disclosure of Confidential or Highly Confidential Material**\n\n8. General Limitations On Use And Disclosure Of All Discovery Material: All Discovery Material shall be used by the Trustee in carrying out his duties and responsibilities under the Bankruptcy Code and the appointment order in this case and/or by other Receiving Parties for the purposes of a Dispute or the Chapter 11 Case, including a Dispute in a foreign jurisdiction, but not for any other purpose, including any other litigation or judicial proceedings that are not a Dispute and are not related to this Chapter 11 Case, or any business, competitive, governmental, commercial, or administrative purpose or function.\n\n9. Confidential Material: Confidential Material, and any and all information contained therein, may be given, shown, made available to, or communicated only to the following:\n\n- (a) the Trustee;\n- (b) any Party who has signed Exhibit A and delivered a copy thereof to the Trustee;\n- (c) any Party to a Dispute in a foreign jurisdiction whom the Trustee has requested sign Exhibit A, subject to the Trustee seeking entry of a protective order in such foreign jurisdiction that is consistent with this Order and substantially similar hereto, to the extent allowable under foreign law; and\n- (d) any other persons specified in Paragraph 10 below.\n\n10. Highly Confidential Material: Highly Confidential Material, and any and all information contained therein, may be given, shown, made available to, or communicated only to the following:\n\n- (a) counsel, and staff working under the express direction of such counsel,for:\n\t- i. the Trustee;\n\t- ii. the Creditor's Committee;\n\t- iii. any Party who has signed Exhibit A and delivered a copy to the Trustee;\n\t- iv. any Party to a Dispute in a foreign jurisdiction whom the Trustee has requested sign Exhibit A, subject to the Trustee seeking entry of a protective order in such foreign jurisdiction that is consistent with this Order and substantially similar hereto, to the extent allowable under foreign law; and\n- (b) professionals retained under Sections 328 and 1103 of the Bankruptcy Code, and industry advisors, financial advisors, accounting advisors, experts, and consultants (and their respective staff) that are retained by the\n\nsignatories to this Order or by a Party who has signed Exhibit A in connection with the Disputes or this Chapter 11 Case;\n\n- (c) any person who is indicated on the face of a document to have been an author, addressee, or copy recipient thereof, an actual or intended recipient thereof, or in the case of meeting minutes, an attendee of the meeting;\n- (d) any adverse witness during the course of a deposition where counsel questioning the witness reasonably believes that questioning the witness regarding the document is necessary and that doing so would not cause competitive or personal harm, provided that the relevant section of the deposition transcript is itself designated as Highly Confidential, the witness is not permitted to retain a copy of the document, and the relevant deposition exhibit is designated as Highly Confidential, and subject to paragraph 12;\n- (e) outside photocopying, graphic production services, or litigation support services, as necessary for use in connection with a Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case;\n- (f) court reporters, stenographers, or videographers who record deposition or other testimony in connection with a Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case;\n- (g) the Court, a foreign court, tribunal, and/or judicial body, its officers, and clerical staff in any judicial proceeding that may result from a Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case;\n- (h) any mediators and their staffs retained in connection with a Dispute or these this Chapter 11 Case; and\n- (i) any other person or entity with respect to whom the Producing Party may consent in writing or on the record at a deposition.\n\n11. Designated Material To Be Disclosed Only In Accordance With Paragraphs 9 and 10: Highly Confidential Material, and any and all information contained therein, shall not be given, shown, made available to, disclosed, or communicated in any way, except to those people provided in Paragraph 10 of this Order. Confidential Material, and the substantive information contained therein, shall not be given, shown, made available to, disclosed, or communicated in any way, except to those people provided in Paragraph 9 of this Order.\n\n12. Prerequisite to Disclosure of Designated Material: Before any person or their representative identified in Paragraph 10(b), 10(d), 10(h) or 10(i) hereof is given access to Designated Material, such person or their representative shall be provided with a copy of this Order and shall execute Exhibit A annexed hereto. Each such executed Exhibit A shall be retained in the files of counsel for the Party who gave access to the Designated Material to the person who was provided such access. A copy of such executed Exhibit A for representatives identified in Paragraphs 10(a)(ii), 10(d), 10(h) and 10(i), but not for representatives identified in Paragraph 10(b), shall be provided to the Producing Party. Such executed Exhibit A for representatives identified in Paragraph 10(b) shall not be subject to disclosure under the Federal Rules or the Bankruptcy Rules unless a showing of good cause is made and the Court so orders. For the avoidance of doubt, an Exhibit A may be executed on behalf of an organization for any representative identified in Paragraph 10(b) rather than requiring each relevant individual at that organization to execute Exhibit A.\n\n13. Sealing of Designated Material Filed With Or Submitted To Court: Unless otherwise agreed by the Producing Party, all Designated Material filed with the Court, and all portions of pleadings, motions, or other papers filed with the Court that disclose Highly Confidential or Confidential Material, shall be filed under seal in accordance with the Federal Rules, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, and the individual practice rules of the Court, except that a Party may, at its option, file redacted pleadings containing the Designated Material so long as such portions of the pleadings concerning the Designated Material have been redacted, and such redacted pleading is also filed pursuant to Local Rule 9077-1. If the sealing of these materials is challenged by any party, the Producing Party shall bear the burden of defending such sealing. The filing of any materials under seal pursuant to this paragraph shall not be construed as an admission that the materials are entitled to confidentiality under this Protective Order or under applicable law and shall not waive any party's rights to challenge such designation or sealing at a later time.\n\n14. Use of Discovery Material in Open Court: The limitations on disclosure in this Order shall not apply to any Discovery Materials offered or otherwise used by any Party at trial or any hearing held in open court except as provided in this paragraph. Whenever practicable, as part of any pretrial conference or any meet and confer regarding the use of exhibits in any evidentiary hearing, or if not practicable prior to the use of any Designated Material at trial or any hearing to be held in open court, counsel for any Party who desires to offer or use such Designated Material at trial or any hearing to be held in open court shall meet and confer in good faith with the Producing Party to discuss ways to redact the Designated Material so that the material may be offered or otherwise used by any party, in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules. If the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute related to such Designated Material, the Producing Party shall bear the burden of requesting appropriate relief from the Court. Until the Court rules on such an issue, the Designated Material shall continue to be treated according to its designation and in accordance with the terms of this Order.\n\n#### **Depositions and Rule 2004 Examinations**\n\n15. Deposition and Rule 2004 Examination Testimony - Manner Of Designation: In the case of depositions, if counsel for a Party believes that a portion of the testimony given at a deposition should be Designated Material of such Party, such testimony may be designated as appropriate by: (a) stating so orally on the record and requesting that only the relevant portion(s)\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 13 of 24\n\nof testimony is so designated; or (b) providing written notice within ten (10) days of the Party's receipt of the final transcript from the court reporter that only the relevant portion(s) of such transcript or recording of a deposition thereof is so designated, except in the event that a hearing on related issues is scheduled to occur within ten (10) days of receipt of the final transcript, in which case the foregoing ten (10) day period will be reduced to five (5) business days. Where a hearing or pleading deadline on related issues is scheduled to occur in such close proximity to a deposition that a five business day period is not practical, the entirety of the transcript shall be designated as Designated Material for purposes of use at the hearing or with the pleading and the ten (10) day period described above shall then apply for further designation. Until expiration of the aforesaid designation period, as applicable, following receipt of the final transcript by the Parties, all deposition transcripts and recordings shall be considered and treated as Highly Confidential unless otherwise specified by counsel to any Party on the record at the deposition.\n\n16. Designated Material Used As Exhibits During Depositions: Nothing in Paragraph 15 shall apply to or affect the confidentiality designations on Discovery Material entered as exhibits at depositions.\n\n17. Witness Review of Deposition Testimony: Nothing in Paragraph 15 hereof shall preclude the witness from reviewing his or her deposition transcript.\n\n18. Presence of Persons During Deposition Testimony: When Designated Material is elicited during a deposition, persons not entitled to receive such information under the terms of this Order shall, upon request, be excluded from the portion of the deposition so designated. After such exclusion from the portion of any deposition containing Designated Material, if such persons wish to receive written or other recordings of the deposition testimony containing Designated Material, such persons must become a Party to this Order.\n\n19. Responsibilities And Obligations Of Court Reporters: In the event that testimony is designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential, the court reporter, who shall first have agreed\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 14 of 24\n\nto abide by the terms of this paragraph, shall be instructed to include on the cover page of each such transcript the legend, \"This transcript portion contains information subject to a Protective Order and shall be used only in accordance therewith,\" and each page of the transcript shall include the legend \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential,\" as appropriate. If the deposition is recorded, the recording shall also be subject to the same level of confidentiality as the transcript and include the legend \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential,\" as appropriate, if any portion of the transcript itself is so designated. The questioning Party at any deposition shall, prior to the commencement of the deposition, request that the court reporter agree to maintain the confidentiality of all Designated Material introduced at the deposition. Each questioning attorney at a deposition shall distribute copies of Designated Material used as exhibits only to those Parties permitted to receive said Designated Material in accordance with the terms of this Order.\n\n#### **General Provisions**\n\n20. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or ordered by the Court, all deadlines and time periods herein shall be computed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006.\n\n21. This Order is a procedural device intended to protect Discovery Materials designated as Designated Material. Nothing in this Order shall affect any Party's rights or obligations unrelated to the confidentiality of Discovery Materials.\n\n22. For the purposes of this Order, \"writing\" shall include electronic mail.\n\n23. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver or relinquishment by any Party of any objection, including, but not limited to, any objection concerning the alleged confidentiality or proprietary nature of any documents, information, or data requested by a Party; any right to object to any discovery request; any right to object to the admissibility of evidence on any ground; any right to seek any further protective order; or any right to seek relief from the Court or any other applicable court from any provision of this Order by application on notice on any grounds.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 15 of 24\n\n24. Unauthorized Disclosure Of Designated Material: In the event of a disclosure by a Receiving Party of Designated Material to persons or entities not authorized by this Order to receive such Designated Material, the Receiving Party making the unauthorized disclosure shall, upon learning of the disclosure: immediately notify the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made that the disclosure contains Designated Materialsubject to this Order; immediately make reasonable efforts to recover or destroy the disclosed Designated Material as well as preclude further dissemination or use by the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made; and immediately notify the Producing Party of the identity of the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made, the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, and the steps taken to recover or destroy the disclosed Designated Material and ensure against further dissemination or use thereof. Disclosure of Designated Material other than in accordance with the terms of this Order may subject the disclosing person to such sanctions and remedies as the Court may deem appropriate.\n\n25. Manner Of Objecting To Designated Material: If any Receiving Party objects to the designation of any Designated Material, the Receiving Party shall first raise the objection with the Producing Party in writing, and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve any dispute respecting the terms or operation of this Order. The Receiving Party may seek relief from the Court if the Receiving Party and the Producing Party cannot resolve their dispute. Until the Court rules on such an issue, the Designated Material shall continue to be treated according to its designation. Upon motion, the Court may order the removal of the \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" designation from any Discovery Material so designated that is subject to the provisions of this Order.\n\n26. Timing Of Objections To Designated Material: A Receiving Party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of a \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" designation at the time made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. The failure of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 16 of 24\n\nany Party to challenge the designation by a Producing Party of Discovery Materials as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" during the discovery period shall not be a waiver of that Party's right to object to such designation at an evidentiary hearing or at trial.\n\n27. Production Of Privileged Discovery Material: Pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, if a Producing Party inadvertently produces materials that the Producing Party later claims in good faith should not have been produced because of a privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, or other protection, such as work-product protection, the production of that material shall not be deemed to constitute the waiver of any applicable privileges or protections. In such circumstances, when the Producing Party becomes aware that privileged or protected material was produced, it must notify the Receiving Party and request, at the Producing Party's election, either the return or the destruction of the produced material. Within three (3) business days after receiving such notification, the Receiving Party shall, as instructed, return or destroy and confirm destruction of all such produced material, including all copies, notes, and/or summaries thereof in any Receiving Party work product. The Receiving Party shall not use the contents of such material for any purpose, including in connection with any effort seeking to compel production of the produced material. The Receiving Partymust take reasonable steps to retrieve the produced material if the Receiving Party disclosed it before being notified. Such return or destruction and confirmation of destruction shall not preclude the Receiving Party from seeking to compel production of the produced material for reasons other than its production. Moreover, this Order shall not prevent any Party from challenging the designation of such material as privileged or protected and moving to compel production of allegedly privileged or protected documents.\n\n28. Challenging Privilege Determinations: The Receiving Party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of privilege determinations at the time asserted, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. If the Receiving Party wishes to challenge one or\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 17 of 24\n\nmore of the privilege designations made by the Producing Party, the Parties shall first meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute concerning any challenged privilege designations. If the Parties are unable to agree on the appropriateness of one or more privilege designations, the Party challenging the privilege designations may present such dispute to the Court. Neither Party shall contend that the meet and confer process set forth in this paragraph constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product for any document claimed to be protected from disclosure. Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Order, no provision herein, including this paragraph 28, shall supplant or supersede any provision set forth\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 18 of 24\n\nin that certain *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information,* [Docket No. 856].\n\n29. Use Of Non-Discovery Material: To the extent that any Party has documents or information that would otherwise constitute Discovery Material that (i) are received or become available to a Party through lawful means and on a non-confidential basis not in violation of an obligation of confidentiality to any other person; (ii) were independently developed by suchParty without violating its obligations hereunder; or (iii) are published or become publicly available in a manner that is not in violation of this Order or of any obligation of confidentiality to any other person, including a Party (collectively \"Non-Discovery Material\"), nothing in this Ordershall limit a Party's ability to use Non-Discovery Material for any purpose, including in a deposition, hearing, trial, or otherwise in connection with any Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n30. Continuing Applicability Of Confidentiality Agreement And Protective Order: The provisions of this Order shall survive the final termination of the Disputes and the Debtor's emergence from bankruptcy for any retained Discovery Material. The final termination of the Disputes and the Debtor's emergence from bankruptcy shall not relieve counsel or other persons obligated hereunder from their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of Discovery Material pursuant to this Order, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order.\n\n31. Amendment Of Confidentiality Agreement And Protective Order: Upon good cause shown, and on notice to all Parties, any Party may move to amend the provisions of this Order at any time or a Producing Party and the Trustee may jointly agree by written stipulation, subject to further order of the Court if applicable, to amend the provisions of the Order with respect to Discovery Material produced by that Producing Party.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-1 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 19 of 24\n\n32. Disclosure Of Discovery Material In Other Proceedings: Any Receiving Party that may be subject to a motion or other form of legal process or any regulatory process, demand, or request seeking the disclosure of a Producing Party's Discovery Material: (i) shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the Producing Party (unless such notice is prohibited by applicable law) to enable it to have an opportunity to appear and be heard on whether that information should be disclosed; and (ii) in the absence of a court order preventing such legally required disclosure, the Receiving Party shall be permitted to disclose only that portion of the information that islegally required to be disclosed and shall inform in writing any person to whom such information is so disclosed of the confidential nature of such information.\n\n33. Use Of Discovery Material By Producing Party: Nothing in this Order affects the right of any Producing Party to use or disclose its own Discovery Material in any way. Such disclosure, other than publicly filing its own Discovery Material, will not waive the protections of this Order and, subject to Paragraph 29, will not otherwise entitle other Parties, non-Parties, or their attorneys to use or disclose such Discovery Material in violation of this Order.\n\n34. Obligations Of Parties: Nothing herein shall relieve a Party of its obligations under the Federal Rules, Bankruptcy Rules, Local Rules, or under any future stipulations and orders, regarding the production of documents or the making of timely responses to Discovery Requests in connection with any Dispute.\n\n35. Advice Of Counsel: Nothing herein shall prevent or otherwise restrict counsel from rendering advice to their clients in connection with the Disputes and, in the course thereof, relying on examination of Discovery Material; provided, however, that in rendering such advice and otherwise communicating with such clients, counsel shall not make specific disclosure of any information in any manner that is inconsistent with the restrictions or procedures set forth herein\n\n36. Prior Agreements: The provisions and requirements of this Order shall provide the exclusive means for the exchange and use of Designated Material produced in connection with any Disputes.\n\n37. Enforcement: The provisions of this Order constitute an Order of this Court and violations of the provisions of this Order are subject to enforcement and the imposition of legal sanctions in the same manner as any other Order of the Court.\n\n38. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 107(c)(3), the United States Trustee has a presumptive statutory right of full access to any information and/or document filed on the docket or submitted to the Court in this case, and consistent therewith the United States Trustee reserves all rights to seek access to any documents submitted or filed underseal. The United States Trustee shall comply with the obligations of 11 U.S.C. § 107(c)(3)(B).\n\n**IT IS SO ORDERED** at Bridgeport, Connecticut this \\_\\_\\_\\_ day of \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024.\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n**Declaration**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| | x | |\n|--------------|---|----------------------------|\n| | : | |\n| In re: | : | Chapter
11 |\n| | : | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | : | Case No. 22-50073
(JAM) |\n| | : | |\n| Debtor.1 | : | |\n| | : | |\n| | x | |\n\n# **DECLARATION OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nI, declare under penalty of perjury (this \"Declaration\") that: 1. My address is 2. My present employer is \\_ . 3. My present occupation or job description is . 4. I hereby certify and agree that I have read and understand the terms of the Protective Order (the \"Order\") entered on , 2022 in *In re: Ho Wan Kwok*, Case No. 22- 50073 (JAM), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Declaration have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Order. I further certify that I will not use Designated Material for any purpose other than the Chapter 11 Case or a Dispute related to the Chapter 11 Case, and will not disclose or cause Designated Material to be disclosed for any purpose other than the Chapter 11 Case or a Dispute related to the Chapter 11 Case, and will not disclose or\n\ncause Designated Material to be disclosed to anyone not expressly permitted by the Order\n\n1 Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\nto receive Designated Material, unless required to disclose or cause Designated Material to be disclosed under foreign law, but only after making reasonable efforts to comply with foreign law consistent with the Order. I agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Order.\n\n- 5. I understand that I am to retain in confidence from all individuals not expressly permitted to receive Designated Material, whether at home or at work, all copies of any Designated Material, and that I will carefully maintain such materials in a manner consistent with the Order. I acknowledge that the return or destruction of Designated Material shall not relieve me from any other continuing obligations imposed upon me by the Order.\n- 6. I acknowledge and agree that I am aware that by receiving Designated Material:\n\t- a. I may be receiving material nonpublic information about companies that issue securities; and\n\t- b. There exist laws, including federal securities laws, that may restrict or prohibit the sale or purchase of securities of such companies as a result of the receipt of such information.\n\n7. Istipulate to the jurisdiction of this Court solely with respect to the provisions of the Order.\n\nDate:\n\nSignature:","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","Despins","Luc Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6099,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-05-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-05-29","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:26"},{"id":"court_ctb_4448_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4448,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2025-05-29","title":"Exhibit 2 Modified Protective Order (redline)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **Exhibit 2**\n\n**Modified Protective Order (redline)**\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| | x | | |\n|--------------|---|-------------|----------------------------|\n| | : | | |\n| In re: | | :
: | Chapter
11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | | : | Case No. 22-50073
(JAM) |\n| Debtor.1 | | :
:
: | Re: ECF No.
874 |\n| | x | | |\n\n#### **MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nThis Protective Order (\"Order\") is entered into by and among: (a) Luc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's estate (the \"Trustee\"), and (b) any other persons or entities who become bound by this Order by signifying their assent through execution of **Exhibit A** hereto. Each of the persons or entities identified in the foregoing clauses (a) and (b) shall be referred to herein individually as a \"Party,\" and collectively as the \"Parties.\"2This Order is being entered pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 107(b) and Rule 9018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), and, as applicable, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 7026 and 9014 and Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n1 Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n2The designation of a \"Party\" is for purposes of reference in this Order only.\n\n#### **Recitals**\n\nWHEREAS, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code, U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), in this Court (the case commenced by such petition, the \"Chapter 11 Case\"); and there are, or may be, judicial or other proceedings before this Court and other courts, tribunals, or judicial bodies, including in foreign jurisdictions, including but not limited to investigations, contested matters, adversary proceedings, and other disputes and litigation (each a \"Dispute\" and, collectively, the \"Disputes\") arising under the\n\nBankruptcy Code or arising in or relating to the Chapter 11 Case;\n\nWHEREAS, the Court authorized the appointment of the Trustee by granting the United States Trustee's application for an order approving the appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104(d);\n\nWHEREAS, the Parties have sought or may seek certain Discovery Material (as defined below) from one another with respect to one or more Disputes, including through informal or formal requests, Rule 2004 notices or motions, or service of document requests, interrogatories, depositions, subpoenas, and other discovery requests (collectively, the \"Discovery Requests\") as provided by the Federal Rules, the Bankruptcy Rules, and the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Local Rules\"); and\n\nWHEREAS, the Parties anticipate that there are certain persons or entities other than the Parties hereto that may also propound or be served with Discovery Requests in connection with one or more Disputes during the course of the Chapter 11 Case;\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, to facilitate and expedite the production, exchange, and treatment\n\nof Discovery Material and to protect Discovery Material that a Party seeks to maintain as Confidential Material or Highly Confidential Material (as those terms are defined below), it is\n\nhereby agreed, and, upon Court approval, it is hereby ORDERED that the following terms will govern any requests for and production and handling of Discovery Material (as defined below):\n\n#### **Scope of Order**\n\n1. This Order governs the disclosure or exchange of all information and documents in connection with this Chapter 11 Case and related Disputes before this Court, by a Party (each a \"Producing Party\"), to any other Party (each a \"Receiving Party\"), formally or informally, either\n\nprior to or after the filing of a contested matter or adversary proceeding, in connection with an exchange of exhibits in advance of a hearing, and/or in response to or in connection with any Discovery Requests, including, without limitation, deposition testimony (whether based upon oral examination or written questions); interrogatories; answers to interrogatories; requests for admission; responses to requests for admission; documents, information, and things produced as well as any and all copies, abstracts, digests, notes, summaries, and excerpts thereof (collectively referred to as \"Discovery Material\"). Discovery Material includes hard copy documents and electronically stored information contemplated by the Bankruptcy Rules, and the Federal Rules, including but not limited to, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, data, or data compilations stored in any medium, testimony, exhibits, discovery responses, and all other mediums of expression.\n\n2. This Order does not affect, amend or modify any existing confidentiality agreements or protective orders applicable to any Producing Party and/or Receiving Party, and nothing in this Order shall constitute a waiver of any rights under such agreements or orders.\n\n3. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Order—including the fact that a party is a Party to this Order—entitles or is intended to entitle any Party or non-Party to any Discovery Material for any purpose, including in connection with any Dispute.\n\n4. Subject to a Producing Party's rights under Paragraphs 9, 10 and 18 of hereof, upon the consent of the Trustee, any non-Party that executes Exhibit A and delivers a copy to the Trustee shall be treated as a Party to this Order with all rights and obligations of the signatory Parties hereto. For the further avoidance of any doubt, reference to becoming a \"Party\" upon execution of Exhibit A is for the purposes of this Order only and not intended to reflect any agreement as to such party's status as a litigant.\n\n#### **Designating Discovery Material**\n\n5. Any Producing Party may designate Discovery Material as \"Confidential Material\" or \"Highly Confidential Material\" (any such designated Discovery Material, \"Designated Material\") in accordance with the following provisions:\n\n> (a) Confidential Material: A Producing Party may designate Discovery Material as \"Confidential\" ifsuch Producing Party reasonably believes that: (i) such Discovery Material (A) constitutes or contains nonpublic proprietary or confidential technical, business, financial, personal, or other information of a nature that should be protected under the Bankruptcy Rules or the Federal Rules or (B) is subject by law or by contract to a legally protected right of privacy; or (ii) the Producing Party (A) is under a preexisting obligation to a third party to treat such Discovery Material as confidential or (B) has been reasonably requested by another Party or non-Party to so designate such Discovery Material on the groundsthatsuch other Party or non- Party considers such Discovery Material to contain information that is confidential or proprietary to such Party or non-Party.\n\n- (b) Highly Confidential Material: A Producing Party may designate Discovery Material as \"Highly Confidential\" if such Producing Party reasonably believes (or with respect to documents received from another person, has been reasonably advised by such other person) that such Discovery Material is of such a nature that a risk of personal safety, identity theft, or competitive injury would be created if such Discovery Material were disclosed to persons other than those identified in Paragraph 10 of this Order, such as addresses or other sensitive personal identifiable information, trade secrets, sensitive financial or business information, or material prepared by a Party's industry advisors, financial advisors, accounting advisors, experts, or its consultants (and their respective staff). Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, account statements, ACH and wire transfer records, check copies, and similar records created by financial institutions to memorialize account balances and transactions (collectively, 'Bank Statements') do not pose a risk of personal safety, identity theft, or competitive injury sufficient to warrant the heightened restrictions applicable to Discovery Material designated 'Highly Confidential.' Absent further order of the Court, Bank Statements shall not be designated as 'Highly Confidential' under this Order.\n- (c) Designation By Another Party: Any Party may designate any Discovery Material as Confidential or Highly Confidential in accordance with paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b), whether or not that Party is the one which originally disclosed or exchanged the Discovery Material, and in such event, the designating Party shall be a Producing Party with respect to that\n\nDiscovery Material.\n\n(d) Undesignated Material: Subject to the rights and obligations of the Parties under Paragraphs 7, 8 and 34 of this Order, no Party shall have any obligation or duty to maintain as confidential or prevent from disclosure any Discovery Material that is not Designated Material (\"Undesignated Material\"), unless that Party has actual knowledge that the subject of the Discovery Material has been previously designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to this Order or any other protective order.\n\n6. Manner of Designating Discovery Material: Where reasonably practicable, any Designated Material shall be designated by the Producing Party as such by marking each such page \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" as applicable. Such markings should not obliterate or obscure the content of the material that is produced. Where marking of every page of such materials is not reasonably practicable, such as with certain native file documents, a Producing Party may designate material as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" by informing the Receiving Party in a clear and conspicuous manner at the time of production of such material that it is \"Confidential\" or \"HighlyConfidential,\" such as by including such designation in the filename and/or the produced Relativity (or other document review platform) load file, if applicable. Discovery Material produced prior to the execution of this Order pursuant to an agreement that such Discovery Material would be treated as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" shall be treated as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" pursuant to this Order notwithstanding such Discovery Material not bearing such markings.\n\n7. Late Designation of Discovery Material: The failure to designate particular Discovery Material as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" at the time of production shall not operate to waive a Producing Party's right to later designate such Discovery Material as\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-2 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 9 of 25\n\nDesignated Material or later apply another designation pursuant to this Order (\"Misdesignated Material\"). At such time, arrangements will be made for the destruction of the Misdesignated Material or for the return to the Producing Party of all copies of the Misdesignated Material and for the substitution, where appropriate, of properly labeled copies of such Discovery Material. Upon receipt of replacement copies of such Misdesignated Material with the proper designation, the Receiving Party or Parties shall take all reasonable steps to return or destroy all previously produced copies of such Misdesignated Material. If requested by the Producing Party, a Receiving Party shall verify in writing that it has taken all reasonable steps to return or destroy such Misdesignated Material. No Party shall be deemed to have violated this Order if, prior to notification of any later designation, such Discovery Material was disclosed or used in any manner consistent with its original designation but inconsistent with its later designation. Once suchlater designation has been made, however, any Discovery Material shall be treated in accordance with that later designation; provided, however, that if the material that was not designated has been, at the time of the later designation, previously publicly filed with a court, no Party shall be bound by such later designation except to the extent determined by the Court upon motion of the Party that failed to make the designation.\n\n#### **Use and Disclosure of Confidential or Highly Confidential Material**\n\n8. General Limitations On Use And Disclosure Of All Discovery Material: All Discovery Materialshall be used by the Trustee in carrying out his duties and responsibilities under the Bankruptcy Code and the appointment order in this case and/or by other Receiving Parties solely in this Court for the purposes of a Dispute or the Chapter 11 Case, andincluding a Dispute in a foreign jurisdiction, but not for any other purpose or in any other forum,, including any other litigation or judicial proceedings that are not a Dispute and are not related to this Chapter 11 Case, or any business, competitive, governmental, commercial, or administrative purpose or\n\nfunction.\n\n9. Confidential Material: Confidential Material, and any and all information contained therein, may be given, shown, made available to, or communicated only to the following:\n\n- (a) the Trustee;\n- (b) any Party who has signed Exhibit A and delivered a copy thereof to the Trustee; and\n- (c) any Party to a Dispute in a foreign jurisdiction whom the Trustee has requested sign Exhibit A, subject to the Trustee seeking entry of a protective order in such foreign jurisdiction that is consistent with this Order and substantially similar hereto, to the extent allowable under foreign law; and\n- (d) (c) any other persons specified in Paragraph 10 below.\n\n10. Highly Confidential Material: Highly Confidential Material, and any and all information contained therein, may be given, shown, made available to, or communicated only to the following:\n\n- (a) counsel, and staff working under the express direction of such counsel,for:\n\t- i. the Trustee;\n\t- ii. the Creditor's Committee;\n\t- iii. any Party who has signed Exhibit A and delivered a copy to the Trustee; and\n\t- iv. any Party to a Dispute in a foreign jurisdiction whom the Trustee has requested sign Exhibit A, subject to the Trustee seeking entry of a protective order in such foreign jurisdiction that is consistent\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-2 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 11 of 25\n\nwith this Order and substantially similar hereto, to the extent allowable under foreign law; and\n\n- (b) professionals retained under Sections 328 and 1103 of the Bankruptcy Code, and industry advisors, financial advisors, accounting advisors, experts, and consultants (and their respective staff) that are retained by the signatories to this Order or by a Party who has signed Exhibit A in connection with the Disputes or this Chapter 11 Case;\n- (c) any person who is indicated on the face of a document to have been an author, addressee, or copy recipient thereof, an actual or intended recipient thereof, or in the case of meeting minutes, an attendee of the meeting;\n- (d) any adverse witness during the course of a deposition where counsel questioning the witness reasonably believes that questioning the witness regarding the document is necessary and that doing so would not cause competitive or personal harm, provided that the relevant section of the deposition transcript is itself designated as Highly Confidential, the witness is not permitted to retain a copy of the document, and the relevant deposition exhibit is designated as Highly Confidential, and subject to paragraph 12;\n- (e) outside photocopying, graphic production services, or litigation support services, as necessary for use in connection with a Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case;\n- (f) court reporters, stenographers, or videographers who record deposition or other testimony in connection with a Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case;\n- (g) the Court, a foreign court, tribunal, and/or judicial body, its officers, and\n\nclerical staff in any judicial proceeding that may result from a Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case;\n\n- (h) any mediators and their staffs retained in connection with a Dispute or these this Chapter 11 Case; and\n- (i) any other person or entity with respect to whom the Producing Party may consent in writing or on the record at a deposition.\n\n11. Designated Material To Be Disclosed Only In Accordance With Paragraphs 9 and 10: Highly Confidential Material, and any and all information contained therein, shall not be given, shown, made available to, disclosed, or communicated in any way, except to those people provided in Paragraph 10 of this Order. Confidential Material, and the substantive information contained therein, shall not be given, shown, made available to, disclosed, or communicated in any way, except to those people provided in Paragraph 9 of this Order.\n\n12. Prerequisite to Disclosure of Designated Material: Before any person or their representative identified in Paragraph 10(b), 10(d), 10(h) or 10(i) hereof is given access to Designated Material, such person or their representative shall be provided with a copy of this Order and shall execute Exhibit A annexed hereto. Each such executed Exhibit A shall be retained in the files of counsel for the Party who gave access to the Designated Material to the person who was provided such access. A copy of such executed Exhibit A for representatives identified in Paragraphs 10(a)(ii), 10(d), 10(h) and 10(i), but not for representatives identified in Paragraph 10(b), shall be provided to the Producing Party. Such executed Exhibit A for representatives identified in Paragraph 10(b) shall not be subject to disclosure under the Federal Rules or the Bankruptcy Rules unless a showing of good cause is made and the Court so orders. For the avoidance of doubt, an Exhibit A may be executed on behalf of an organization for any representative identified in Paragraph 10(b) rather than requiring each relevant individual at that\n\norganization to execute Exhibit A.\n\n13. Sealing of Designated Material Filed With Or Submitted To Court: Unless otherwise agreed by the Producing Party, all Designated Material filed with the Court, and all portions of pleadings, motions, or other papers filed with the Court that disclose Highly Confidential or Confidential Material, shall be filed under seal in accordance with the Federal Rules, the BankruptcyRules, the Local Rules, and the individual practice rules of the Court, except that a Party may, at its option, file redacted pleadings containing the Designated Material so long as such portions of the pleadings concerning the Designated Material have been redacted, and such redacted pleading is also filed pursuant to Local Rule 9077-1. If the sealing of these materials is challenged by any party, the Producing Party shall bear the burden of defending such sealing. The filing of any materials under seal pursuant to this paragraph shall not be construed as an admission that the materials are entitled to confidentiality under this Protective Order or under applicable law and shall not waive any party's rights to challenge such designation or sealing at a latertime.\n\n14. Use of Discovery Material in Open Court: The limitations on disclosure in this Order shall not apply to any Discovery Materials offered or otherwise used by any Party at trial or any hearing held in open court except as provided in this paragraph. Whenever practicable, as part of any pretrial conference or any meet and confer regarding the use of exhibits in any evidentiary hearing, or if not practicable prior to the use of any Designated Material at trial or any hearing to be held in open court, counsel for any Party who desires to offer or use such Designated Material at trial or any hearing to be held in open court shall meet and confer in good faith with the Producing Party to discuss ways to redact the Designated Material so that the material may be offered or otherwise used by any party, in accordance with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules. If the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute related to such Designated Material, the Producing Party shall bear the burden of requesting appropriate relief from the Court.\n\nUntil the Court rules on such an issue, the Designated Material shall continue to be treated according to its designation and in accordance with the terms of this Order.\n\n#### **Depositions and Rule 2004 Examinations**\n\n15. Deposition and Rule 2004 Examination Testimony - Manner Of Designation: In the case of depositions, if counsel for a Party believes that a portion of the testimony given at a deposition should be Designated Material of such Party, such testimony may be designated as appropriate by: (a) stating so orally on the record and requesting that only the relevant portion(s) of testimony is so designated; or (b) providing written notice within ten (10) days of the Party's receipt of the final transcript from the court reporter that only the relevant portion(s) of such transcript or recording of a deposition thereof is so designated, except in the event that a hearing on related issues is scheduled to occur within ten (10) days of receipt of the final transcript, in which case the foregoing ten (10) day period will be reduced to five (5) business days. Where a hearing or pleading deadline on related issues is scheduled to occur in such close proximity to a deposition that a five business day period is not practical, the entirety of the transcript shall be designated as Designated Material for purposes of use at the hearing or with the pleading and the ten (10) day period described above shall then apply for further designation. Until expiration of the aforesaid designation period, as applicable, following receipt of the final transcript by the Parties, all deposition transcripts and recordings shall be considered and treated as Highly Confidential unless otherwise specified by counsel to any Party on the record at the deposition.\n\n16. Designated Material Used As Exhibits During Depositions: Nothing in Paragraph 15 shall apply to or affect the confidentiality designations on Discovery Material entered as exhibits at depositions.\n\n17. Witness Review of Deposition Testimony: Nothing in Paragraph 15 hereof shall preclude the witness from reviewing his or her deposition transcript.\n\n18. Presence of Persons During Deposition Testimony: When Designated Material is elicited during a deposition, persons not entitled to receive such information under the terms of this Order shall, upon request, be excluded from the portion of the deposition so designated. After such exclusion from the portion of any deposition containing Designated Material, if such persons wish to receive written or other recordings of the deposition testimony containing Designated Material, such persons must become a Party to this Order.\n\n19. Responsibilities And Obligations Of Court Reporters: In the event that testimony is designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential, the court reporter, who shall first have agreed to abide by the terms of this paragraph, shall be instructed to include on the cover page of each such transcript the legend, \"This transcript portion contains information subject to a Protective Order and shall be used only in accordance therewith,\" and each page of the transcriptshall include the legend \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential,\" as appropriate. If the deposition is recorded, the recording shall also be subject to the same level of confidentiality as the transcript and include the legend \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential,\" as appropriate, if any portion of the transcript itself is so designated. The questioning Party at any deposition shall, prior to the commencement of the deposition, request that the court reporter agree to maintain the confidentiality of all Designated Material introduced at the deposition. Each questioning attorney at a deposition shall distribute copies of Designated Material used as exhibits only to those Parties permitted to receive said Designated Material in accordance with the terms of this Order.\n\n#### **General Provisions**\n\n20. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or ordered by the Court, all deadlines and time periods herein shall be computed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006.\n\n21. This Order is a procedural device intended to protect Discovery Materials designated as Designated Material. Nothing in this Order shall affect any Party's rights or\n\nobligations unrelated to the confidentiality of Discovery Materials.\n\n22. For the purposes of this Order, \"writing\" shall include electronic mail.\n\n23. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver or relinquishment by any Party of any objection, including, but not limited to, any objection concerning the alleged confidentiality or proprietary nature of any documents, information, or data requested by a Party; any right to object to any discovery request; any right to object to the admissibility of evidence on any ground; any right to seek any further protective order; or any right to seek relief from the Court or any other applicable court from any provision of this Order by application on notice on any grounds.\n\n24. Unauthorized Disclosure Of Designated Material: In the event of a disclosure by a Receiving Party of Designated Material to persons or entities not authorized by this Order to receive such Designated Material, the Receiving Party making the unauthorized disclosure shall, upon learning of the disclosure: immediately notify the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made that the disclosure contains Designated Materialsubject to this Order; immediatelymake reasonable efforts to recover or destroy the disclosed Designated Material as well as preclude further dissemination or use by the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made; and immediately notify the Producing Party of the identity of the person or entity to whom the disclosure was made, the circumstances surrounding the disclosure, and the steps taken to recover or destroy the disclosed Designated Material and ensure against further dissemination or use thereof. Disclosure of Designated Material other than in accordance with the terms of this Order may subject the disclosing person to such sanctions and remedies as the Court may deem appropriate.\n\n25. Manner Of Objecting To Designated Material: If any Receiving Party objects to the designation of any Designated Material, the Receiving Party shall first raise the objection with the Producing Party in writing, and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve any dispute respecting\n\nthe terms or operation of this Order. The Receiving Party may seek relief from the Court if the Receiving Party and the Producing Party cannot resolve their dispute. Until the Court rules on such an issue, the Designated Material shall continue to be treated according to its designation. Upon motion, the Court may order the removal of the \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" designation from any Discovery Material so designated that is subject to the provisions of this Order.\n\n26. Timing Of Objections To Designated Material: A Receiving Party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of a \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" designation at the time made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. The failure of any Party to challenge the designation by a Producing Party of Discovery Materials as \"Confidential\" or \"Highly Confidential\" during the discovery period shall not be a waiver of that Party's right to object to such designation at an evidentiary hearing or at trial.\n\n27. Production Of Privileged Discovery Material: Pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, if a Producing Party inadvertently produces materials that the Producing Party later claims in good faith should not have been produced because of a privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, or other protection, such as work-product protection, the production of that material shall not be deemed to constitute the waiver of any applicable privileges or protections. In such circumstances, when the Producing Party becomes aware that privileged or protected material was produced, it must notify the Receiving Party and request, at the Producing Party's election, either the return or the destruction of the produced material. Within three (3) business days after receiving such notification, the Receiving Party shall, as instructed, return or destroy and confirm destruction of all such produced material, including all copies, notes, and/or summaries thereof in any Receiving Party work product. The Receiving Party shall not use the contents ofsuch material for any purpose, including in connection\n\nwith any effort seeking to compel production of the produced material. The Receiving Partymust take reasonable steps to retrieve the produced material if the Receiving Party disclosed it before being notified. Such return or destruction and confirmation of destruction shall not preclude the Receiving Party from seeking to compel production of the produced material for reasons other than its production. Moreover, this Order shall not prevent any Party from challenging the designation of such material as privileged or protected and moving to compel production of allegedly privileged or protected documents.\n\n28. Challenging Privilege Determinations: The Receiving Party shall not be obliged to challenge the propriety of privilege determinations at the time asserted, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. If the Receiving Party wishes to challenge one or more of the privilege designations made by the Producing Party, the Parties shall first meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute concerning any challenged privilege designations. If the Parties are unable to agree on the appropriateness of one or more privilege designations, the Party challenging the privilege designations may present such dispute to the Court. Neither Party shall contend that the meet and confer process set forth in this paragraph constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product for any document claimed to be protected from disclosure. Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Order, no provision herein, including this paragraph 28, shall supplant or supersede any provision set forth\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 4448-2 Filed 05/29/25 Entered 05/29/25 16:32:28 Page 19 of 25\n\nin that certain *Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information,* [Docket No. 856].\n\n29. Use Of Non-Discovery Material: To the extent that any Party has documents or information that would otherwise constitute Discovery Material that (i) are received or become available to a Party through lawful means and on a non-confidential basis not in violation of an obligation of confidentiality to any other person; (ii) were independently developed by suchParty without violating its obligations hereunder; or (iii) are published or become publicly available in a manner that is not in violation of this Order or of any obligation of confidentiality to any other person, including a Party (collectively \"Non-Discovery Material\"), nothing in this Ordershall limit a Party's ability to use Non-Discovery Material for any purpose, including in a deposition, hearing, trial, or otherwise in connection with any Dispute or this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n30. Continuing Applicability Of Confidentiality Agreement And Protective Order: The provisions of this Order shall survive the final termination of the Disputes and the Debtor's emergence from bankruptcy for any retained Discovery Material. The final termination of the Disputes and the Debtor's emergence from bankruptcy shall not relieve counsel or other persons obligated hereunder from their responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of Discovery Material pursuant to this Order, and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order.\n\n31. Amendment Of Confidentiality Agreement And Protective Order: Upon good cause shown, and on notice to all Parties, any Party may move to amend the provisions of this Order at any time or a Producing Party and the Trustee may jointly agree by written stipulation, subject to further order of the Court if applicable, to amend the provisions of the Order with respect to Discovery Material produced by that Producing Party.\n\n32. Disclosure Of Discovery Material In Other Proceedings: Any Receiving Party that may be subject to a motion or other form of legal process or any regulatory process, demand, or request seeking the disclosure of a Producing Party's Discovery Material: (i) shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify the Producing Party (unless such notice is prohibited by applicable law) to enable it to have an opportunity to appear and be heard on whether that information should be disclosed; and (ii) in the absence of a court order preventing such legally required disclosure, the Receiving Party shall be permitted to disclose only that portion of the information that islegally required to be disclosed and shall inform in writing any person to whom such information is so disclosed of the confidential nature of such information.\n\n33. Use Of Discovery Material By Producing Party: Nothing in this Order affects the right of any Producing Party to use or disclose its own Discovery Material in any way. Such disclosure, other than publicly filing its own Discovery Material, will not waive the protections of this Order and, subject to Paragraph 29, will not otherwise entitle other Parties, non-Parties, or their attorneys to use or disclose such Discovery Material in violation of this Order.\n\n34. Obligations Of Parties: Nothing herein shall relieve a Party of its obligations under the Federal Rules, Bankruptcy Rules, Local Rules, or under any future stipulations and orders, regarding the production of documents or the making of timely responses to Discovery Requests in connection with any Dispute.\n\n35. Advice Of Counsel: Nothing herein shall prevent or otherwise restrict counsel from rendering advice to their clients in connection with the Disputes and, in the course thereof, relying on examination of Discovery Material; provided, however, that in rendering such advice and otherwise communicating with such clients, counsel shall not make specific disclosure of any information in any manner that is inconsistent with the restrictions or procedures set forth herein\n\n36. Prior Agreements: The provisions and requirements of this Order shall provide the exclusive means for the exchange and use of Designated Material produced in connection with any Disputes.\n\n37. Enforcement: The provisions of this Order constitute an Order of this Court and violations of the provisions of this Order are subject to enforcement and the imposition of legal sanctions in the same manner as any other Order of the Court.\n\n38. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 107(c)(3), the United States Trustee has a presumptive statutory right of full access to any information and/or document filed on the docket or submitted to the Court in this case, and consistent therewith the United States Trustee reserves all rights to seek accessto any documentssubmitted or filed underseal. The United States Trustee shall comply with the obligations of 11 U.S.C. § 107(c)(3)(B).\n\n**IT IS SO ORDERED** at Bridgeport, Connecticut this \\_\\_\\_\\_ day of \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024.\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n**Declaration**\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| | x | | |\n|--------------|---|---|----------------------------|\n| | : | | |\n| In re: | | : | Chapter
11 |\n| | | : | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | | : | Case No. 22-50073
(JAM) |\n| | | : | |\n| Debtor.1 | | : | |\n| | | : | |\n| | x | | |\n\n## **DECLARATION OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY PROTECTIVE ORDER**\n\nI, declare under penalty of perjury (this \"Declaration\") that: 1. My address is 2. My present employer is \\_ . 3. My present occupation or job description is . 4. I hereby certify and agree that I have read and understand the terms of the Protective Order (the \"Order\") entered on , 2022 in *In re: Ho Wan Kwok*, Case No. 22- 50073 (JAM), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Declaration have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Order. I further certify that I will not use Designated Material for any purpose other than the Chapter 11 Case or a Dispute related to the Chapter 11 Case, and\n\nwill not disclose or cause Designated Material to be disclosed for any purpose other than the Chapter 11 Case or a Dispute related to the Chapter 11 Case, and will not disclose or cause Designated Material to be disclosed to anyone not expressly permitted by the Order\n\n1 Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\nto receive Designated Material, unless required to disclose or cause Designated Material to be disclosed under foreign law, but only after making reasonable efforts to comply with foreign law consistent with the Order. I agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Order.\n\n- 5. I understand that I am to retain in confidence from all individuals not expressly permitted to receive Designated Material, whether at home or at work, all copies of any Designated Material, and that I will carefully maintain such materials in a manner consistent with the Order. I acknowledge that the return or destruction of Designated Material shall not relieve me from any other continuing obligations imposed upon me by the Order.\n- 6. I acknowledge and agree that I am aware that by receiving Designated Material:\n\t- a. I may be receiving material nonpublic information about companies that issue securities; and\n\t- b. There exist laws, including federal securities laws, that may restrict or prohibit the sale or purchase of securities of such companies as a result of the receipt of such information.\n\n7. Istipulate to the jurisdiction of this Court solely with respect to the provisions of the Order.\n\nDate:\n\nSignature:","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Miles Guo","Despins","Luc Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6055,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-05-29 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-05-29","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:24:26"}]