{"id":"court_ctb_1649_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1649,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"INDICTMENT","filed_date":"2023-01-20","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION : In re : Chapter 11 : HO WAN KWOK, et al.1 :\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n: Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors. : (Jointly Administered)\n\n# DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR A LIMITED STAY OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA\n\n Debtor Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby respectfully moves (the \"Motion\") for the entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to section 105 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), staying this Court's Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas dated January 20, 2023 (the \"January 20 Order\") on a limited basis to preserve the Debtor's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (the \"Fifth Amendment\"). In support of this Motion, the Debtor respectfully represents as follows:\n\n# PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n1. The Debtor was indicted on March 6, and on March 15 he was arrested and detained in connection with alleged wide-ranging, grievous, and consequential federal crimes. The United States has alleged that the Debtor has engaged in a years-long conspiracy to defraud\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 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\ninvestors—many of whom have asserted claims in these chapter 11 cases—that has resulted in alleged losses amounting to \\$1 billion. The gravamen of the government's allegations is that, as \"The Principal,\" the Debtor directed and controlled a host of entities to perpetuate a series of fraudulent schemes, allegations that in many respects mirror many of the allegations asserted in this case by the Chapter 11 Trustee in support of the discovery and other relief he has sought before this Court.\n\n2. The Debtor has the Constitutional right to a full and fair opportunity to defend against these charges. Critical to his Constitutional protections is the Debtor's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which enshrines the right of an individual to not bear witness against himself.\n\n3. In these chapter 11 proceedings, prior to the unsealing of that indictment and the Debtor's arrest and detention, this Court ordered the Debtor to respond to the Trustee's request for documents relating to entities and individuals purportedly under the Debtor's \"control.\" Compliance with this Court's directive necessarily would require the Debtor to communicate beyond the mere act of producing the documents—whether, among other things, he believes the various entities and individuals are under the Debtor's \"control.\" This directive would require the Debtor to choose between compliance with that order and the Debtor's ability to assert his privilege against self-incrimination, and his ability to fully and fairly defend himself against the criminal charges.\n\n4. Accordingly, the Debtor hereby respectfully requests a limited stay of the January 20 Order as necessary and appropriate to protect the Debtor's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and to otherwise afford him a full and fair opportunity to defend against the charges leveled against him.\n\n### BACKGROUND\n\n### A. Pending Criminal Proceedings\n\n6. On March 15, 2023, a twelve-count indictment was unsealed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging the Debtor and King Ming Je (\"Mr. Je\") with various federal crimes.2 The Debtor was arrested by federal law enforcement authorities on March 15, 2023, and remains in federal custody.\n\n7. On March 29, 2023, the government filed a Superseding Indictment, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Superseding Indictment names Yanping Wang (\"Ms. Wang\") as an additional co-defendant. The government alleges that the Debtor, Mr. Je, and Ms. Wang \"conspired to defraud thousands of victims of more than approximately \\$1 billion.\" [Ex. B at ¶1.] The government further alleges that Debtor, Mr. Je, and Ms. Wang \"operated through a series of complex fraudulent and fictious businesses and investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated entities, which allowed the defendants and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and misappropriate victim funds.\" [Id.]\n\n8. The government has made direct allegations against the Debtor and his alleged coconspirators in connection with this Chapter 11 proceeding, stating that they \"operated the scheme for years\" by \"continually adapting the scheme's means and methods to evade the enforcement of investor-protection, anti-money laundering, and bankruptcy laws in the United States . . . .\" [Id. at ¶5.]\n\n9. The government further alleges that the Debtor \"was the leader of, and directed, the scheme.\" [Ex. B at ¶ 6.] Throughout the Superseding Indictment, the government alleges that the Debtor controlled various entities and individuals. For example, the government alleges that the\n\n2 See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al., Case Number S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\nDebtor \"functionally owned and controlled\" GTV Media Group, Inc., \"although [Debtor] held no formal position or title\" in that entity. [Ex. B at ¶ 10.] Furthermore, the government alleges that G|Clubs \"was functionally owned and controlled by [the Debtor] although [the Debtor] held no formal position or title at G|Clubs.\" [Id. at ¶11.] The government also alleges that \"[e]ntities functionally owned and controlled by [the Debtor], such as G|Clubs and G|Fashion, had purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange . . .\" and that the Debtor \"claimed to be the designer of its purported cryptocurrency, although [the Debtor] held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\" [Id. at ¶12.] In allegations of \"control\" that mirror those made by the Trustee, the government alleges that the Debtor \"directed\" that \"\\$100 million raised from investors\" be transferred into a hedge fund. [Id. at ¶13h.] The government further alleges that this transfer was made by Ms. Wang (at the Debtor's direction). [Id. at ¶32b.]\n\n### B. The Trustee's Investigation\n\n10. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 523), appointing Luc Despins as the Chapter 11 trustee in this case (the \"Trustee\").\n\n11. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his i) Motion for 2004 Examination of the Debtor (Doc. No. 636), ii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the [Individual] Debtor (Doc. No. 637), and iii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with the Debtor (Doc. No. 638) (collectively the \"July Rule 2004 Exam Motions\").\n\n12. On August 5, 2022, the Debtor filed his Limited Objection to Rule 2004 Motions (Doc. No. 703) to preserve certain rights, including the right to assert objections to the requests for the production of documents that would be served with the subpoena attached to the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions after the subpoena was actually served. By orders dated August 16, 2022, this Court granted the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions.\n\n### C. The Rule 2004 Subpoena\n\n13. The Debtor was served with a Rule 2004 subpoena (the \"Rule 2004 Subpoena\") on August 19, 2022. The Debtor served timely objections to the document requests attached to that Subpoena, asserting objections to certain of the enumerated Instructions and Definitions included with the requests for production, as well as objections to certain of the requests for production.\n\n14. The Rule 2004 Subpoena contains thirty requests for the production of documents, of which twenty include demands for documents relating to \"Associated Individuals\" and/or \"Associated Entities.\" [See Rule 2004 Subpoena, passim.]\n\n15. An Associated Individual is defined, in relevant part, as \"individually and collectively, all individuals that (1) hold, control, have custody over, or discretion over assets owned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have been employees, directors, or otherwise affiliated with one or more Associated Entities, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.\" [Id.] The definition of Associated Individuals includes twenty-seven individuals, which would seem to include the alleged criminal co-conspirators and co-defendants, Ms. Wang and Mr. Je.\n\n16. An Associated Entity is defined, in relevant part, as \"individually and collectively, all organizations or Entities of any type that (1) have been owned, controlled, or invested in by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have an interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any assets\n\nowned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing,\" [Id.] The definition of Associated Entity includes seventy-seven entities, including the following entities listed in the Superseding Indictment: GTV Media Group, Inc., G|Club Operations, LLC, G|MUSIC, Himalaya Exchange, Saraca Media Group, Inc., Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc., Rule of Law Fund, Rule of Law Society, Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., and related entities.\n\n17. The Debtor agreed to produce, and through his professionals and former professionals did produce, the vast majority of documents requested by the Trustee in the requests for production. The Debtor objected to the production of certain categories of documents, primarily documents related to the assets of his \"family,\" which the Trustee defined to include \"the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor.\"\n\n18. On October 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling Individual Debtor, [and Others] to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas (Doc. No. 1046) (the \"Motion to Compel\").\n\n19. On November 14, 2022 the Debtor (and others) filed their Joint Objection of the Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC to Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas (Doc. No. 1090). This Court held a hearing on the Motion to Compel on November 30, 2022.\n\n20. The Court entered the January 20 Order. As it relates to the Debtor, the January 20 Order required that the Debtor produce the following:\n\na. \"documents responsive to the Trustee's requests dated June 1, 2014 or later;\"\n\n- b. \"documents responsive to the Trustee's requests as to both assets he acknowledges he owns and assets belonging to persons or entities other than the Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities;\" and\n- c. \"documents responsive to the Trustee's requests that are within his custody, possession, or control, including without limitation documents in the files of his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors, unless such documents have already been produced by his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors but without consideration of any future potential production by his current or former counsel and other agents or advisors.\" [January 20 Order, Doc. No. 1353 at p. 4.]\n- 21. The Order further demanded that the Debtor file, by 5:00 p.m. on February 7, 2023,\n\na sworn declaration concerning, inter alia, efforts to locate and review responsive documents. [Id.\n\nat p. 4-5.]\n\n# D. The Debtor Invokes the Fifth Amendment\n\n22. The Debtor's counsel thereafter informed the Trustee's counsel that the Debtor is\n\nasserting his rights under the Fifth Amendment, including any rights under the act of production\n\ndoctrine, and on February 7, 2023, the Debtor filed a sworn declaration stating:\n\nI am the Debtor in the above-captioned Chapter 11 case and am in receipt of the Court's order on the Trustee' s Motion to Compel, dated January 20, 2023, Doc. No . 1353. I hereby invoke my rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, including under the act of production doctrine, with respect to the Subpoena dated August 17, 2022, in its entirety, including all requests for documents and information set forth therein.\n\nFebruary 7, 2023, Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok Concerning Invocation of Fifth Amendment\n\nPrivilege in Regard to Rule 2004 Discovery (Exhibit A to Doc. No. 1444).\n\n23. On February 10, 2023, the Trustee filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause why\n\nDebtor [and others] should not be held in Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Order\n\nCompelling Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas and Sanctioned for such Contempt (Doc. No.\n\n1453). The Trustee's Motion challenges the Individual Debtor's invocation of his Fifth\n\nAmendment privilege in response to the Motion to Compel Order and seeks to hold the Debtor in contempt.\n\n24. On February 13, 2023, this Court issued its Order Granting In Part Motion for Order to Appear and Show Cause Why the Court Should not Hold the HK Parties in Contempt of Court (the \"February 13 Order\" (Doc. No. 1455)). The February 13 Order stated that the Court would set a briefing schedule on the Debtor's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege at the conclusion of the mediation. Id., at 2. Following the completion of the mediation, on March 7, 2023, this Court held a status conference on a number of matters.3 During the status conference the Court ordered the Debtor to respond to the Order to Show Cause by March 28, 2023. The Debtor's time to respond to the Order to Show Cause was subsequently extended to April 10, 2023.\n\n### RELIEF REQUESTED\n\n25. The Debtor respectfully seeks, pursuant to section 105 the Bankruptcy Code, the entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, staying this Court's January 20 Order on a limited basis to the extent necessary to preserve Debtor's Constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, rather than seek a stay of the entire bankruptcy case, the relief sought herein is limited to relieving the Debtor from further compliance with the January 20 Order pending resolution of the parallel criminal proceedings.\n\n26. This limited relief is appropriate for several reasons. First, while the Debtor has already produced a number of documents, such as his personal tax returns, the Debtor is now incarcerated, and the government has seized what it views as all of the Debtor's records and\n\n3 The Debtor was indicted the prior day, although neither the Court nor the Debtor was aware of that fact. The Debtor now understands that the Trustee had been in regular contact with the Government as to the possibility of the criminal charges, but the Debtor does not know whether the Trustee knew at that time that the indictment had been actually issued the day before.\n\ndevices. The Debtor therefore does not have responsive documents in his possession and cannot produce anything further, at least in the foreseeable future.\n\n27. Second, the only portion of the requests still at issue relate to those documents that the Trustee alleges are held by other entities or individuals, but within the Debtor's \"control.\" As explained below, the production of such documents is necessarily testimonial and compliance would require waiver of the Debtor's Constitutional rights. Nor can the Debtor provide a declaration attesting to his efforts to locate and review responsive documents where the very production of those documents would impact his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination—there is simply no testimony for him to provide consistent with exercise of his Constitutional rights.\n\n28. Therefore, a limited stay relieving the Debtor of further compliance with the order is necessary and legally warranted. Courts have found limited stays similar to the stay requested herein appropriate. See, e.g., Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116, 119-20 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (stay found appropriate where defendants sought a limited stay of discovery pending the outcome of a criminal investigation, and not a stay of the entire civil case). For example, in O'Connell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. (In re Julmice), defendants in an adversary proceeding were indicted in a parallel criminal proceeding. 458 B.R. 657, 664 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011). To protect the defendants' Fifth Amendment rights, which would have been prejudiced if the defendants were required to defend the adversary proceeding while the criminal charges were pending, the court found that a limited stay was warranted. For the reasons and on the basis of the authorities discussed below, such a stay should be ordered here, too.\n\n### BASIS FOR RELIEF\n\n29. In general, a court has discretion to stay a civil action during the pendency of a criminal action if justice so requires. United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27 (1970). To prevail on a motion for a stay, a defendant need show only that the continuation of the civil proceeding will unduly prejudice him or interfere with his constitutional rights. Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels, Int'l Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 575–576 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n# A. The January 20 Order Prejudices Debtor's Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination\n\n30. Here, further enforcement of the January 20 Order at this time, pending the resolution of the criminal charges, will severely and unduly prejudice the Debtor's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment declares in part: \"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....\" U.S. Const. Amend. V. The privilege may be invoked whether the answer would itself support a criminal conviction or where the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence required to prosecute. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Importantly, the disclosure need not be an element of the crime to preclude disclosure—it merely must tend to incriminate the witness. United States v. St. Pierre, 132 F.2d 837, 838 (2d Cir.1942) (emphasis added). The privilege applies where the declarant has reasonable cause to fear the consequences of an answer. Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486.\n\n31. The compelled production of documents may implicate Fifth Amendment concerns. An individual may assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid producing documents if the act of producing the documents would tend to incriminate him. Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). The doctrine operates to prevent an individual from being compelled to furnish evidence against themselves by the very act of producing documents. In brief, \"[t]he act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena . . . has communicative\n\naspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced. Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the person subpoenaed. It would also indicate the person's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena.\" Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 (citations and quotations omitted).\n\n32. That act of production doctrine squarely applies here: where the heart of the criminal indictment is that the Debtor is alleged to have control over many other persons and entities, the Debtor will and does dispute that contention, and the Trustee seeks the Debtor here to cause those persons and entities to do certain things. Accordingly, compliance with the January 20 Order would require the Debtor to effectively waive his Fifth Amendment privilege. The January 20 Order requires the Debtor to produce documents in response to the Requests in the Rule 2004 Subpoena relating to \"assets allegedly belonging to persons or entities other than the Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities.\" [Id.] Finally, the January 20 Order directs the Debtor to turn over the files of his \"current or former counsel and other agents and advisors\" to the extent those files include documents responsive to the requests. [Id.]\n\n33. However, nearly every one of the requests in the Rule 2004 Subpoena requires the Debtor to communicate his belief, and then to act on such belief, as to whether or not the entities or individuals referenced in the Subpoena are within his \"control.\" Several of the entities listed in the Rule 2004 Subpoena, and at least two individuals, are specifically named in the Superseding Indictment as individuals or entities over whom the Debtor had \"control.\" Compliance with the January 20 Order would force the Debtor to take positions and make admissions inconsistent with his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination – precisely what the Constitution prohibits.\n\n34. Importantly, the government has alleged a years-long and pervasive \"fraud.\" Further, the government may yet supersede its indictment again. As such, even as to those entities and individuals listed in the Rule 2004 Subpoena but not in the Superseding Indictment, the Debtor has a reasonable apprehension of incrimination, and invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege as to those entities and individuals as well.\n\n## B. A Limited Stay of the January 20 Order is Appropriate here to Preserve Debtor's Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination\n\n35. Courts regularly grant stays of civil proceedings pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings. In re Par Pharmaceutical, 133 F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (\"[t]he weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment\"); see also Wheling v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 1979) (civil discovery stayed until \"all threat of criminal liability ended\"). It is well-settled that a court has the discretion to impose a stay to preclude prejudice to a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege. Kashi v. Gratos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986). \"Courts are afforded this discretion because the denial of a stay could impair a party's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, extend criminal discovery beyond the limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), expose the defense's theory to the prosecution in advance of trial, or otherwise prejudice the criminal case.\" See Trustee of Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1138-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted).\n\n36. A court will balance the following factors when determining whether to stay a civil proceeding pending resolution of a criminal action: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in\n\nproceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the courts; and (6) the public interest. Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139; Hicks v. City of New York, 268 F. Supp. 2d 238, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). As set forth in greater detail below, all of the factors warrant the imposition of a limited stay of the January 20 Order.\n\n### i. Overlap Between the Criminal Case and the Rule 2004 Subpoena\n\n37. The first factor is the \"most important factor\" to be considered in determining whether it is appropriate to stay civil litigation related to a pending criminal matter. See Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139. This is so because \"self-incrimination is more likely if there is a significant overlap\" between the criminal and non-criminal proceedings. Id.\n\n38. Here, as set forth above, the core allegations in the Superseding Indictment are allegations of control with respect to entities and individuals that are directly identical to the admissions sought by way of the Rule 2004 Subpoena – precisely the heart of the Trustee's asserted grounds for relief against the Debtor. This is especially true now where the Debtor himself has no access to any of his own books and records, all of which have been seized. There is significant overlap between the Trustee's claims and those in the Superseding Indictment. For example, the Rule 2004 Subpoena assumes the Debtor's control of both of his co-defendants—an allegation identical to that in the Superseding Indictment that the Debtor is the \"The Principal\" and the leader of the alleged conspiracy. Furthermore, at least ten of the entities listed in the Rule 2004 Subpoena as entities over which the Debtor has control are entities specifically mentioned in the Superseding Indictment as entities by which the Debtor perpetuated the alleged fraud. Here, compliance with the January 20 Order directly hits at the truth or falsity of the\n\nallegations in the Superseding Indictment because of the existing \"significant overlap.\" Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139.\n\n39. The Debtor understands that the Trustee is in constant communication and working cooperatively with the prosecutors and law enforcement in the criminal proceedings. As set forth above, a stay is critically important where proceeding with the non-criminal proceeding would \"extend criminal discovery beyond the limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b) or expose the defense's theory to the prosecution in advance of trial, or otherwise prejudice the criminal case.\" See Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139 (citations omitted). Here, where there is significant overlap between the Trustee's claims and the criminal allegations, and where the Trustee is cooperating and acting in concert with prosecutors and federal law enforcement agencies, the risk of self-incrimination is heightened, and a stay is warranted.\n\n### ii. Status of the Criminal Case\n\n40. Furthermore, a civil proceeding generally will be stayed if, as here, the defendant has been indicted. Hicks, 268 F.Supp.2d at 242. Specifically, \"the likelihood that a defendant may make incriminating statement is greatest after an indictment has issued, and ... the prejudice to the plaintiffs in the civil case is reduced since the criminal case will likely be quickly resolved due to Speedy Trial Act considerations.\" Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139. With respect to this factor, courts consider the strain on the defendant's resources from having to simultaneously defend multiple actions, as well as the risk of exposing the defense's theory to the prosecution in advance of trial. See, e.g., Am. Express Bus. Fin. Corp. v. RW Prof'l Leasing Servs. Corp., 225 F.Supp.2d 263, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). Here, the Debtor has been indicted in the Southern District of New York, and must now expend scarce resources to defend overlapping claims in\n\nmultiple fora. As a practical matter, the Debtor is incarcerated with severe limits on his ability to even confer with his attorneys, to make or receive calls, or to otherwise meaningfully participate in any efforts to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoena. A stay of the January 20 Order will enable the Debtor to focus on preparing his defense against the criminal charges against him.\n\n### iii. The Prejudice to the Trustee in Connection with a Limited Stay\n\n41. Here, there is little to no prejudice to the Trustee in connection with a stay of the January 20 Order. In connection with the criminal proceedings, all or virtually all the assets that are alleged by the Trustee to be possibly assets of the chapter 11 estate have been seized by federal law enforcement authorities. The Debtor has no access to any of them, never mind the ability to dissipate them. As such, it is unlikely that these proceedings will advance in any meaningful way until the resolution of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Debtor respectfully asserts that the Trustee will not be prejudiced by a limited stay of the January 20 Order.\n\n### iv. The Interests of, and Burden on, the Debtor\n\n42. Here, as set forth above, the interests of the Debtor in a stay of the January 20 Order are immense. The allegations against the Debtor are serious, his very life and liberty are at stake, and the Debtor has a compelling interest in securing his freedom from the threat of life in prison. The burden on him here is similarly grave: he is forced to either be held in contempt of this Court for invoking his Constitutional privilege to not bear witness against himself; or to comply with the January 20 Order and waive his constitutional right, greatly handicapping his defense of these serious criminal charges as a result. This factor weighs heavily in favor of a limited stay of the January 20 Order.\n\n### v. The Interests of the Court and of the Public\n\n43. Here, the court and public would benefit from a limited stay of the January 20 Order because, as set forth above, the interests of judicial efficiency favor a resolution of the criminal proceedings in advance of this proceeding. Specifically, courts have found that where criminal prosecution is not merely conjectural, and defendants have been indicted and face trial imminently, judicial efficiency weighs in favor of granting a stay. See Transworld, 886 F.Supp. at 1140 (explaining that \"resolution of the criminal case may increase the possibility of settlement of the civil case\").\n\n44. Nor would the public interest be harmed by the stay. As set forth above, the Debtor is seeking a limited stay of the January 20 Order, rather than the entire bankruptcy case, and in any event, in light of the criminal case, the assets at issue in the bankruptcy case have been or will likely by seized and frozen. As such, the public interest will not be harmed by the limited stay of the January 20 Order. Furthermore, a stay of the January 20 Order would promote due process by affording the Debtor and full and fair opportunity to defend the criminal charges against him.\n\n### CONCLUSION\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Debtor respectfully requests the entry of an order staying the January 20 Order, and relieving the Debtor of the obligation to produce any documents or to submit any declaration in further connection with the January 20 Order.\n\nDated: April 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter Dylan P. Kletter (ct28197) Brown Rudnick LLP 185 Asylum Street, 38th Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Tel: (860) 509-6500 Fax: (860) 509-6501 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen R. Cook (pro hac vice pending) 2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor Irvine, California 92612 Tel: (949) 752-7100 Fax: (949) 252-1514 Email scook@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen A. Best (pro hac vice pending) 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 536-1737 Fac : (219) 938-2937 Email: sbest@brownrudnick.com\n\nSPECIAL (CRIMINAL DEFENSE) COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR HO WAN KWOK\n\n### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on this 10th day of April, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. 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 as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭\n\n：关于：第11章：HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人1：\n\n________________________________________________________________________:\n\n________________________________________________________________________\n\n：案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。 ：（合并管理）\n债务人请求有限暂缓部分准许强制遵守规则2004传票动议的命令之动议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）现此恭请法院根据《美国法典》第11编第105条（“《破产法》”），作出实质上采用随附本动议附件A所载形式的命令（“拟议命令”），有限暂缓本院于 January 20, 2023 作出的部分准许强制遵守规则2004传票动议的命令（“January 20命令”），以维护债务人依据《美国宪法》第五修正案（“第五修正案”）享有的权利。为支持本动议，债务人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 债务人于 March 6 被起诉，并于 March 15 因被指控实施范围广泛、性质严重且影响重大的联邦犯罪而被逮捕和羁押。美国政府指称，债务人参与了一项历时多年的欺诈投资者共谋——其中许多投资者已在这些第11章案件中提出债权——据称造成的损失达 $1 billion。政府指控的核心是，债务人作为“主要负责人”，指挥和控制众多实体实施一系列欺诈计划；该等指控在许多方面与第11章受托人为支持其在本院寻求的取证及其他救济而在本案中提出的诸多指控相一致。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他别名）（税务识别号末四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号末四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2. 债务人享有获得充分且公正机会以针对这些指控进行辩护的宪法权利。其宪法保障的关键在于债务人依据美国宪法第五修正案享有的权利，该修正案确立了个人不被迫作不利于己之证言的权利。\n\n3. 在本第11章程序中，在该起诉书解封以及债务人被逮捕和羁押之前，本院命令债务人答复受托人提出的、关于据称由债务人“控制”的实体和个人的文件请求。遵守本院的指令必然要求债务人作出超出单纯提交文件行为之外的陈述——包括但不限于其是否认为各有关实体和个人受债务人“控制”。该指令将要求债务人在遵守该命令与债务人主张其免于自证其罪特权的能力，以及其针对刑事指控进行充分和公正辩护的能力之间作出选择。\n\n4. 因此，债务人现此恭请有限暂缓 January 20命令，此举为保护债务人依据第五修正案享有的免于自证其罪特权所必需且适当，并以其他方式使其获得充分和公正的机会，针对向其提出的指控进行辩护。\n\n背景\n\nA. 待决刑事程序\n\n6. 于 March 15, 2023，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦地区法院）解封了一份包含十二项罪名的起诉书，指控债务人和 King Ming Je（“Je先生”）犯有多项联邦罪行。2 债务人于 March 15, 2023 被联邦执法机关逮捕，目前仍被联邦羁押。\n\n7. 于 March 29, 2023，政府提交了一份取代起诉书，作为本动议附件B随附。该取代起诉书将 Yanping Wang（“Wang女士”）列为另一名共同被告。政府指称，债务人、Je先生和Wang女士“共谋诈骗数千名受害者，金额超过约 $1 billion。”[附件B，第¶1段。] 政府进一步指称，债务人、Je先生和Wang女士“通过一系列复杂的欺诈性和虚构性业务及投资机会开展活动，该等业务及投资机会连接了数十个相互关联的实体，使被告及其共同共谋者得以招揽、洗钱和侵占受害人资金。”[同上。]\n\n8. 政府就本第11章程序直接对债务人及其被指控的共同共谋者提出指控，称其通过“不断调整该计划的手段和方法，以规避美国投资者保护、反洗钱和破产法律的执行……”，从而“经营该计划多年”。[同上，第¶5段。]\n\n9. 政府进一步指称，债务人“是该计划的领导者，并指挥该计划。”[附件B，第¶6段。] 在整份取代起诉书中，政府指称债务人控制多个实体和个人。例如，政府指称，债务人“事实上拥有并控制”GTV Media Group, Inc.，尽管“[债务人]在该实体中未担任任何正式职位或职务”。[附件B，第¶10段。] 此外，政府指称，G|Clubs“事实上由[债务人]拥有和控制，尽管[债务人]在G|Clubs未担任任何正式职位或职务。”[同上，第¶11段。] 政府还指称，“事实上由[债务人]拥有和控制的实体，如G|Clubs和G|Fashion，与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）存在所谓业务关系……”并且债务人“自称为其所谓加密货币的设计者，尽管[债务人]在喜马拉雅交易所未担任任何正式职位或职务。”[同上，第¶12段。] 在与受托人所作指控相呼应的关于“控制”的指控中，政府指称，债务人“指示”将“从投资者筹集的 $100 million”转入一家对冲基金。[同上，第¶13h段。] 政府进一步指称，该笔转账由Wang女士（依债务人指示）作出。[同上，第¶32b段。]\n\nB. 受托人的调查\n\n10. 于 February 15, 2022（“申请日”），债务人根据《破产法》第11章提交了自愿救济申请。于 July 8, 2022，本院作出准许指定第11章受托人的命令（Doc. No. 523），指定 Luc Despins（Luc·德斯潘斯）为本案第11章受托人（“受托人”）。\n\n11. 于 July 28, 2022，受托人提交了：i) 债务人接受2004审查的动议（Doc. No. 636）；ii) 第11章受托人请求根据《破产规则》2004和地方法规则2004-1作出命令，授权就个人债务人的各法律及财务顾问进行取证的综合动议（Doc. No. 637）；以及iii) 第11章受托人请求根据《破产规则》2004和地方法规则2004-1作出命令，授权就与债务人有关联的各实体和个人进行取证的综合动议（Doc. No. 638）（统称“July规则2004审查动议”）。\n\n12. 于 August 5, 2022，债务人提交了对规则2004动议的有限异议（Doc. No. 703），以保留某些权利，包括在随附于July规则2004审查动议的传票实际送达后，对该传票所附文件提交请求提出异议的权利。经日期为 August 16, 2022 的命令，本院准许了July规则2004审查动议。\n\nC. 规则2004传票\n\n13. 债务人于 August 19, 2022 收到一份规则2004传票（“规则2004传票”）。债务人及时对该传票所附文件提交请求提出异议，对文件提交请求所载的某些列明指示和定义，以及某些文件提交请求本身提出异议。\n\n14. 规则2004传票包含三十项文件提交请求，其中二十项要求提交与“关联个人”和/或“关联实体”有关的文件。[见规则2004传票，全文。]\n\n15. “关联个人”的相关定义为：“单独及共同指所有符合以下情形的个人：(1) 持有、控制、保管债务人或债务人家庭所拥有、控制或享有的资产，或对该等资产享有酌处权；或(2) 曾为一个或多个关联实体的雇员、董事或以其他方式与之有关联，以及前述各方各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表前述任何一方行事的任何人。”[同上。] 关联个人的定义包括二十七名个人，其中似乎包括被指控的刑事共同共谋者和共同被告Wang女士及Je先生。\n\n16. “关联实体”的相关定义为：“单独及共同指所有符合以下情形的任何类型组织或实体：(1) 曾由债务人或债务人家庭拥有、控制或投资；或(2) 对债务人或债务人家庭所拥有、控制或享有的任何资产直接或间接享有权益，以及前述各方各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表前述任何一方行事的任何人，”[同上。] 关联实体的定义包括七十七个实体，包括取代起诉书中列出的以下实体：GTV Media Group, Inc.、G|Club Operations, LLC、G|MUSIC、Himalaya Exchange、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc.、Rule of Law Fund、Rule of Law Society、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.及相关实体。\n\n17. 债务人同意提交，并且确实通过其专业人士及前专业人士提交了受托人在文件提交请求中所要求的绝大多数文件。债务人反对提交某些类别的文件，主要是与其“家庭”资产有关的文件；受托人将其“家庭”定义为包括“债务人、债务人的儿子、债务人的女儿及债务人所谓的妻子，以及与债务人具有任何其他家庭关系的人”。\n\n18. 于 October 28, 2022，受托人提交了第11章受托人请求作出命令，强制个人债务人[及其他人]遵守规则2004传票的动议（Doc. No. 1046）（“强制动议”）。\n\n19. 于 November 14, 2022，债务人（及其他人）提交了债务人、Mei Guo（郭梅）和 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 对第11章受托人强制遵守规则2004传票动议的联合异议（Doc. No. 1090）。本院于 November 30, 2022 就强制动议举行听证。\n\n20. 本院作出January 20命令。就债务人而言，January 20命令要求债务人提交下列文件：\n\na. “对受托人日期为 June 1, 2014 或之后的请求作出回应的文件；”\n\nb. “对受托人就其承认拥有的资产以及属于债务人以外人士或实体的资产所提出的请求作出回应的文件，包括但不限于其家庭成员及关联实体的资产；”以及\n\nc. “对受托人提出的、在其保管、占有或控制范围内的请求作出回应的文件，包括但不限于其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问档案中的文件，除非该等文件已由其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问提交，但不考虑其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人或顾问未来可能作出的任何提交。”[January 20 Order, Doc. No. 1353 at p. 4.]\n\n21. 该命令还要求债务人于2023年2月7日下午5:00前提交一份经宣誓的声明，其中包括其寻找和审阅回应性文件所作的努力。[同上，第4–5页。]\n\nD. 债务人援引第五修正案\n\n22. 此后，债务人的律师告知受托人的律师，债务人正在主张其根据第五修正案享有的权利，包括其根据文件提交行为原则享有的任何权利；并且，2023年2月7日，债务人提交了一份经宣誓的声明，称：\n\n我是上述标题Chapter 11案件中的债务人，且已收到法院于2023年1月20日就受托人的强制履行动议作出的命令，Doc. No. 1353。本人特此就2022年8月17日的传票整体援引本人根据《美国宪法》第五修正案享有的权利，包括根据文件提交行为原则享有的权利，涵盖其中列明的所有文件和信息请求。\n\n2023年2月7日，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生关于在Rule 2004调查中援引第五修正案特权的声明（Doc. No. 1444的附件A）。\n\n23. 2023年2月10日，受托人提交了一项动议，请求作出说明理由命令，要求债务人[及其他人]说明为何不应因未遵守强制遵守Rule 2004传票的命令而被认定藐视法庭，并因此类藐视行为受到制裁（Doc. No. 1453）。受托人的动议对个人债务人针对强制履行命令所援引的第五修正案特权提出异议，并请求认定债务人藐视法庭。\n\n24. 2023年2月13日，本院作出《部分准许要求出庭并说明法院为何不应认定HK各方藐视法庭的动议的命令》（“February 13 Order”（Doc. No. 1455））。February 13 Order载明，法院将在调解结束后，就债务人主张第五修正案特权事项设定书面陈述时间表。同上，第2页。调解完成后，2023年3月7日，本院就若干事项举行了一次状态会议。3 在状态会议期间，法院命令债务人于2023年3月28日前对说明理由命令作出回应。债务人对说明理由命令作出回应的期限随后延长至2023年4月10日。\n\n请求的救济\n\n25. 债务人谨此根据《破产法》第105条，请求作出一项命令，其形式实质上如随附的附件A所示，在为维护债务人根据第五修正案享有的宪法权利所必需的范围内，有限中止本院的January 20 Order。具体而言，本文请求的救济并非寻求中止整个破产案件，而是仅限于在平行刑事程序解决之前免除债务人进一步遵守January 20 Order的义务。\n\n26. 此项有限救济基于若干理由是适当的。首先，尽管债务人已提交若干文件，例如其个人纳税申报表，但债务人目前被监禁，且政府已扣押其认为属于债务人的全部记录和设备。因此，债务人并不占有回应性文件，且至少在可预见的将来无法进一步提交任何文件。\n\n3 债务人于前一日被起诉，但法院和债务人均不知晓该事实。债务人现了解到，受托人一直就可能提出刑事指控一事与政府保持定期联系，但债务人不知道受托人当时是否知悉起诉书实际上已于前一日签发。\n\n27. 其次，仍有争议的请求仅涉及受托人主张由其他实体或个人持有、但处于债务人“控制”之下的文件。如以下所述，提交该等文件必然具有证言性质，而遵守命令将要求债务人放弃其宪法权利。债务人也无法提交一份声明，证明其寻找和审阅回应性文件所作的努力，因为提交该等文件本身将影响其第五修正案不自证其罪特权——在行使其宪法权利的前提下，他根本无法提供任何证言。\n\n28. 因此，有限中止该命令、免除债务人进一步遵守该命令的义务，既属必要，也有法律依据。法院已认定，与本文请求的中止类似的有限中止是适当的。参见，例如，Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116, 119-20 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)（被告请求在刑事调查结果出来前有限中止证据开示，而非中止整个民事案件时，认定中止适当）。例如，在O'Connell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. (In re Julmice)案中，对抗程序中的被告在平行刑事程序中被起诉。458 B.R. 657, 664 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011)。为保护被告根据第五修正案享有的权利——若在刑事指控待决期间要求被告应诉该对抗程序，该等权利将受到损害——法院认定有限中止具有正当性。基于下文讨论的理由和法律依据，本案亦应作出此类中止命令。\n\n救济依据\n\n29. 通常，如正义需要，在刑事诉讼待决期间，法院有权酌情中止民事诉讼。United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27 (1970)。为使中止动议获得支持，被告仅需证明继续进行民事程序将对其造成不当损害，或干扰其宪法权利。Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels, Int'l Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 575–576 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)。\n\nA. January 20 Order损害债务人根据第五修正案享有的不自证其罪特权\n\n30. 本案中，在刑事指控解决之前于此时进一步执行January 20 Order，将严重且不当地损害债务人享有的不自证其罪宪法特权。第五修正案部分规定：“任何人……不得在任何刑事案件中被强迫作不利于自己的证人……”U.S. Const. Amend. V. 无论回答本身会支持刑事定罪，还是会提供起诉所需证据链中的一环，均可援引该特权。Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)。重要的是，披露内容不必构成犯罪的要件方可阻止披露——其仅须具有使证人负罪的倾向。United States v. St. Pierre, 132 F.2d 837, 838 (2d Cir.1942)（着重号为原文所加）。当声明人有合理理由担心回答的后果时，该特权适用。Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486.\n\n31. 被强制提交文件可能引发第五修正案问题。如果提交文件这一行为本身可能使个人负罪，个人可以主张其第五修正案不自证其罪权利，以避免提交文件。Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)。该原则旨在防止个人仅因提交文件这一行为而被强迫提供不利于自身的证据。简言之，“为回应传票而提交证据的行为……本身具有沟通性方面，完全独立于所提交文件的内容。遵守传票默示承认被要求文件的存在，以及被传唤人占有或控制该等文件。该行为还将表明该人相信该等文件即为传票所述的文件。”Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410（引文和引述省略）。\n\n32. 文件提交行为原则在此明确适用：刑事起诉书的核心指控是债务人被指控控制众多其他人士和实体，债务人将会且确实对此主张提出异议，而受托人在此寻求让债务人促使该等人士和实体实施某些行为。因此，遵守January 20 Order将要求债务人实际上放弃其第五修正案特权。January 20 Order要求债务人就Rule 2004传票中的请求提交文件，该等请求涉及“据称属于债务人以外人士或实体的资产，包括但不限于其家庭成员和关联实体。”[同上。]最后，January 20 Order指示债务人交出其“现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问”的档案，但以该等档案包含对请求作出回应的文件为限。[同上。]\n\n33. 然而，Rule 2004传票中的几乎每一项请求均要求债务人表明其信念，然后根据该信念采取行动，以确定传票所提及的实体或个人是否处于其“控制”之下。Rule 2004传票中列出的若干实体以及至少两名个人，在Superseding Indictment中被明确列为债务人对其拥有“控制”的个人或实体。遵守January 20 Order将迫使债务人采取立场并作出与其第五修正案不自证其罪特权不一致的承认——这正是宪法所禁止的。\n\n34. 重要的是，政府指控存在持续多年且广泛的“欺诈”。此外，政府仍可能再次提交补充起诉书。因此，即使对于Rule 2004传票中列出但未列入Superseding Indictment的实体和个人，债务人亦有合理的负罪担忧，并就该等实体和个人援引其第五修正案特权。\n\nB. 为维护债务人根据第五修正案享有的不自证其罪特权，在此有限中止January 20 Order是适当的\n\n35. 法院经常在平行刑事程序解决之前中止民事程序。In re Par Pharmaceutical, 133 F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y.1990)（“本巡回区的权威观点表明，当刑事调查已发展为起诉时，法院将中止民事程序”）；另见Wheling v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 1979)（中止民事证据开示，直至“所有刑事责任威胁终结”）。已确立的是，法院有权酌情实施中止，以避免损害被告的第五修正案特权。Kashi v. Gratos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986)。“法院被赋予此项酌处权，是因为拒绝中止可能损害一方当事人根据第五修正案享有的不自证其罪特权，使刑事证据开示超出Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)规定的界限，在审判前向控方暴露辩方的理论，或者以其他方式损害刑事案件。”见Trustee of Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1138-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)（引文省略）。\n\n36. 法院在决定是否中止民事程序以等待刑事诉讼的解决时，将权衡以下因素：(1) 刑事案件中的争议与民事案件中提出的争议之间的重叠程度；(2) 刑事案件的状态，包括被告是否已被起诉；(3) 原告迅速推进程序的私人利益，与因延误对原告造成的损害相权衡；(4) 被告的私人利益及其负担；(5) 法院的利益；以及 (6) 公共利益。Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139；Hicks v. City of New York, 268 F. Supp. 2d 238, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)。如下文更详细阐述，所有因素均支持对1月20日命令实施有限中止。\n\ni. 刑事案件与规则2004传票之间的重叠\n\n37. 第一项因素是在确定是否适宜中止与未决刑事事项有关的民事诉讼时应当考虑的“最重要因素”。见 Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139。这是因为，刑事程序与非刑事程序之间存在重大重叠时，“自证其罪更有可能发生”。同上。\n\n38. 如上所述，取代性起诉书中的核心指控，是关于对实体及个人实施控制的指控；该等指控与通过规则2004传票所寻求的承认直接相同——恰恰构成受托人针对债务人所主张救济理由的核心。鉴于债务人本人现无法取得其任何账簿和记录，且该等资料均已被扣押，情况尤其如此。受托人的请求与取代性起诉书中的指控之间存在重大重叠。例如，规则2004传票假定债务人控制其两名共同被告——该指控与取代性起诉书中债务人系“The Principal”且为所称共谋领导者的指控完全相同。此外，规则2004传票中列为债务人控制下实体的至少十个实体，在取代性起诉书中被特别提及为债务人借以实施所称欺诈的实体。在此，由于现有的“重大重叠”，遵从1月20日命令直接涉及取代性起诉书中指控的真伪。Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139。\n\n39. 债务人了解，受托人正与刑事程序中的检察官及执法部门持续沟通并合作开展工作。如上所述，如继续进行非刑事程序将“使刑事证据开示超出《联邦刑事诉讼规则》16(b)规定的限制，或在审判前向控方暴露辩方理论，或以其他方式损害刑事案件”，则中止至关重要。见 Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139（引文略）。在此，鉴于受托人的请求与刑事指控之间存在重大重叠，且受托人与检察官及联邦执法机构合作并协调行动，自证其罪的风险加剧，因此应当中止。\n\nii. 刑事案件的状态\n\n40. 此外，如本案所示，被告已被起诉时，民事程序通常将被中止。Hicks, 268 F.Supp.2d at 242。具体而言，“起诉书发布后，被告作出不利己陈述的可能性最大，且……由于《快速审判法》的考量，刑事案件可能会迅速解决，故对民事案件原告的损害有所减轻。”Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139。就该因素而言，法院会考虑被告必须同时应对多项诉讼对其资源造成的压力，以及在审判前向控方暴露辩方理论的风险。见，例如，Am. Express Bus. Fin. Corp. v. RW Prof'l Leasing Servs. Corp., 225 F.Supp.2d 263, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)。在此，债务人已在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）被起诉，现必须投入稀缺资源，在多个审理场所应对相互重叠的请求。实际上，债务人正被羁押，其与律师会面、拨打或接听电话，或以其他方式有意义地参与任何遵从规则2004传票工作的能力均受到严重限制。中止1月20日命令将使债务人能够专注于准备对针对其的刑事指控进行辩护。\n\niii. 有限中止对受托人造成的损害\n\n41. 在此，中止1月20日命令对受托人造成的损害极小或不存在。就刑事程序而言，受托人主张可能属于第11章破产财产的全部或几乎全部资产，均已被联邦执法机关扣押。债务人无法取得其中任何资产，更遑论耗散该等资产。因此，在刑事程序解决之前，这些程序不太可能以任何有意义的方式推进。据此，债务人谨此主张，有限中止1月20日命令不会损害受托人。\n\niv. 债务人的利益及其负担\n\n42. 在此，如上所述，债务人在中止1月20日命令方面的利益极为重大。针对债务人的指控严重，其生命和自由本身岌岌可危，债务人对于免受终身监禁威胁具有强烈利益。其在此承担的负担同样严重：其要么因援引不被迫作不利己证言的宪法特权而被本院以藐视法庭论处；要么遵从1月20日命令并放弃其宪法权利，从而严重妨碍其对该等严重刑事指控的辩护。该因素强烈支持有限中止1月20日命令。\n\nv. 法院及公众的利益\n\n43. 在此，法院和公众均将受益于对1月20日命令的有限中止，因为如上所述，司法效率的利益支持在本程序之前先行解决刑事程序。具体而言，法院已认定，在刑事追诉并非仅属推测、被告已被起诉且即将受审的情形下，司法效率支持准予中止。见 Transworld, 886 F.Supp. at 1140（解释称，“刑事案件的解决可能增加民事案件达成和解的可能性”）。\n\n44. 该中止亦不会损害公共利益。如上所述，债务人寻求的是有限中止1月20日命令，而非中止整个破产案件；无论如何，鉴于刑事案件，破产案件所涉资产已经或很可能将被扣押和冻结。因此，有限中止1月20日命令不会损害公共利益。此外，中止1月20日命令将通过给予债务人充分且公平的机会就针对其的刑事指控进行辩护，从而促进正当程序。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，债务人谨请求作出一项命令，中止1月20日命令，并免除债务人就1月20日命令进一步提交任何文件或声明的义务。\n\n日期：April 10, 2023 谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter\nDylan P. Kletter\n(ct28197)\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n185 Asylum Street, 38th Floor\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n电话：(860) 509-6500\n传真：(860) 509-6501\n电子邮件：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen R. Cook\n(pro hac vice pending)\n2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor\nIrvine, California 92612\n电话：(949) 752-7100\n传真：(949) 252-1514\n电子邮件：scook@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen A. Best\n(pro hac vice pending)\n601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600\nWashington, DC 20005\n电话：(202) 536-1737\n传真：(219) 938-2937\n电子邮件：sbest@brownrudnick.com\n\n债务人HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）的特别（刑事辩护）律师\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于2023年4月10日，上述文件副本已以电子方式提交。根据本院电子提交系统的运作，本次提交的通知将通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人；对于无法接受电子提交的任何人士，则将按电子提交通知所示通过邮件发送。当事人可通过本院的CM/ECF系统查阅本次提交。\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","CIPA","Despins","GTV","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","Yanping Wang","Saraca","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5143,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:47:11"}