{"id":"court_ctb_1797_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1797,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| ,QVWUXFWLRQVRQ5HYHUVH | &RXUW8VH2QO\\ | | | |\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | | |\n| Luc
A.
Despins,
as
Chapter
11
Trustee | Mei
Guo | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS )LUP1DPH\\$GGUHVVDQG7HOHSKRQH1R
Paul
Hastings
LLP,
200
Park
Avenue,
New
York,
New
York
10166,
Attn:
Douglass
Barron,
Tel:
212-318-6000 | ATTORNEYS,I.QRZQ
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC, 105 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068; Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., 10 Middle St.,
15th Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06851 | | | |\n| PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\ | PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\ | | | |\n| 867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ | Ƒ | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| 'HEWRU | 'HEWRU | | | |\n| Ƒ | 867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| &UHGLWRU | Ƒ | | | |\n| Ƒ | &UHGLWRU | | | |\n| 2WKHU | 2WKHU | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| 7UXVWHH | 7UXVWHH | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
:5,7(\\$%5,()67\\$7(0(172)&\\$86(2)\\$&7,21,1&/8',1*\\$//8667\\$787(6,192/9('
First Claim: Declaration that the Bombardier Proceeds are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; Second Claim (in the
alternative): Avoidance of Postpetition Transfer, pursuant to Bk. Code secs. 549/550; Third Claim (in the alternative): Avoidance
of Actual Fraudulent Transfer, pursuant to N.Y. Debtor & Creditor Law sec. 276 and Bk. Code secs. 544/550; and Fourth Claim:
Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of BVI Shell Companies, pursuant to Bk. Code secs. 541/542/544. | | | | |\n| | NATURE OF SUIT
1XPEHUXSWRILYHER[HVVWDUWLQJZLWKOHDGFDXVHRIDFWLRQDVILUVWDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVVHFRQGDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVHWF | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†WXUQRYHURISURSHUW\\
Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†SUHIHUHQFH
Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†IUDXGXOHQWWUDQVIHU
Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\RWKHU
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DZLOOIXODQGPDOLFLRXVLQMXU\\
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DVWXGHQWORDQ
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGLYRUFHRUVHSDUDWLRQREOLJDWLRQ
RWKHUWKDQGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\RWKHU | | | |\n| Ƒ | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief | | | |\n| 9DOLGLW\\SULRULW\\RUH[WHQWRIOLHQRURWKHULQWHUHVWLQSURSHUW\\ | Ƒ | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property | ,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±LPSRVLWLRQRIVWD\\ | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| \\$SSURYDORIVDOHRISURSHUW\\RIHVWDWHDQGRIDFRRZQHU†K | ,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±RWKHU | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| 2EMHFWLRQUHYRFDWLRQRIGLVFKDUJH†FGH | 6XERUGLQDWLRQRIFODLPRULQWHUHVW | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| 5HYRFDWLRQRIFRQILUPDWLRQ | 'HFODUDWRU\\MXGJPHQW | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†D\\$SULRULW\\WD[FODLPV | 'HWHUPLQDWLRQRIUHPRYHGFODLPRUFDXVH | | | |\n| Ƒ | Other | | | |\n| 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIDOVHSUHWHQVHVIDOVHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ | Ƒ | | | |\n| DFWXDOIUDXG | 666,3\\$&DVH±86&††DDDet.seq. | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIUDXGDVILGXFLDU\\HPEH]]OHPHQWODUFHQ\\ | 2WKHUHJRWKHUDFWLRQVWKDWZRXOGKDYHEHHQEURXJKWLQVWDWHFRXUW | | | |\n| (continued next column) | LIXQUHODWHGWREDQNUXSWF\\FDVH | | | |\n| Ƒ | Ƒ | | | |\n| &KHFNLIWKLVFDVHLQYROYHVDVXEVWDQWLYHLVVXHRIVWDWHODZ | &KHFNLIWKLVLVDVVHUWHGWREHDFODVVDFWLRQXQGHU)5&3 | | | |\n| Ƒ &KHFNLIDMXU\\WULDOLVGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW
2WKHU5HOLHI6RXJKW
Declaratory
relief
as
set
forth
above. | 'HPDQG | | | |\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------------------------|--------------|--|\n| 1\\$0(2)'(%725 | | %\\$1.5837&<&\\$6(12 | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | 22-50073 (JAM) | | |\n| ',675,&7,1:+,&+&\\$6(,63(1',1* | | ',9,6,212)),&( | 1\\$0(2)-8'*( | |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport | Manning, J. | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| 3/\\$,17,))
'()(1'\\$17 | | | \\$'9(56\\$5< | |\n| | | | 352&((',1*12 | |\n| | | | | |\n| ',675,&7,1:+,&+\\$'9(56\\$5<,63(1',1* | | ',9,6,212)),&( | 1\\$0(2)-8'*( | |\n| | | | | |\n| 6,*1\\$785(2)\\$77251(<253/\\$,17,)) | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| /s/ Patrick R. Linsey | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| '\\$7( | | 35,171\\$0(2)\\$77251(<253/\\$,17,)) | | |\n| May
16,
2023 | | Douglass
Barron | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\n7KHILOLQJRIDEDQNUXSWF\\FDVHFUHDWHVDQ³HVWDWH´XQGHUWKHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHEDQNUXSWF\\FRXUWZKLFKFRQVLVWVRI DOORIWKHSURSHUW\\RIWKHGHEWRUZKHUHYHUWKDWSURSHUW\\LVORFDWHG%HFDXVHWKHEDQNUXSWF\\HVWDWHLVVRH[WHQVLYHDQGWKH MXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHFRXUWVREURDGWKHUHPD\\EHODZVXLWVRYHUWKHSURSHUW\\RUSURSHUW\\ULJKWVRIWKHHVWDWH7KHUHDOVRPD\\EH ODZVXLWVFRQFHUQLQJWKHGHEWRU¶VGLVFKDUJH,IVXFKDODZVXLWLVILOHGLQDEDQNUXSWF\\FRXUWLWLVFDOOHGDQDGYHUVDU\\ SURFHHGLQJ\n\n\\$SDUW\\ILOLQJDQDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJPXVWDOVRPXVWFRPSOHWHDQGILOH)RUPWKH\\$GYHUVDU\\3URFHHGLQJ &RYHU6KHHWXQOHVVWKHSDUW\\ILOHVWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJHOHFWURQLFDOO\\WKURXJKWKHFRXUW¶V&DVH0DQDJHPHQW(OHFWURQLF &DVH)LOLQJV\\VWHP&0(&)&0(&)FDSWXUHVWKHLQIRUPDWLRQRQIRUPDVSDUWRIWKHILOLQJSURFHVV:KHQ FRPSOHWHGWKHFRYHUVKHHWVXPPDUL]HVEDVLFLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJ7KHFOHUNRIFRXUWQHHGVWKH LQIRUPDWLRQWRSURFHVVWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJDQGSUHSDUHUHTXLUHGVWDWLVWLFDOUHSRUWVRQFRXUWDFWLYLW\\\n\n7KHFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGRQLWGRQRWUHSODFHRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJV RURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\\ODZWKH%DQNUXSWF\\5XOHVRUWKHORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KHFRYHUVKHHWZKLFKLVODUJHO\\VHOI H[SODQDWRU\\PXVWEHFRPSOHWHGE\\WKHSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\\RUE\\WKHSODLQWLIILIWKHSODLQWLIILVQRWUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DQ DWWRUQH\\\\$VHSDUDWHFRYHUVKHHWPXVWEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKHFOHUNIRUHDFKFRPSODLQWILOHG\n\n**Plaintiffs** DQG**Defendants.**\\*LYHWKHQDPHVRIWKHSODLQWLIIVDQGGHIHQGDQWVH[DFWO\\DVWKH\\DSSHDURQWKHFRPSODLQW\n\n**Attorneys.**\\*LYHWKHQDPHVDQGDGGUHVVHVRIWKHDWWRUQH\\VLINQRZQ\n\n**Party**&KHFNWKHPRVWDSSURSULDWHER[LQWKHILUVWFROXPQIRUWKHSODLQWLIIVDQGWKHVHFRQGFROXPQIRUWKHGHIHQGDQWV\n\n**Demand.** (QWHUWKHGROODUDPRXQWEHLQJGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW\n\n**Signature.**7KLVFRYHUVKHHWPXVWEHVLJQHGE\\WKHDWWRUQH\\RIUHFRUGLQWKHER[RQWKHVHFRQGSDJHRIWKHIRUP,IWKH SODLQWLIILVUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DODZILUPDPHPEHURIWKHILUPPXVWVLJQ,IWKHSODLQWLIILVSURVHWKDWLVQRWUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DQ DWWRUQH\\WKHSODLQWLIIPXVWVLJQ\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | | x | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1 | | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
v. | Plaintiff, | x
:
:
:
:
:
: | Adv. Proceeding No. [
] |\n| MEI GUO, | Defendant. | :
:
:
:
:
: | May 16, 2023 |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | | x | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK FOR (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 541, 542, AND 544 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 7001, THAT PROPERTY HELD BY MEI GUO IS PROPERTY OF ESTATE AND (II) RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Mei Guo, stating as follows:\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#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to recover valuable property of the Debtor, held by or in the name of Mei Guo, that should be turned over to the Trustee and incorporated into the Debtor's chapter 11 estate for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n2. First, the Trustee seeks to recover the proceeds of the unauthorized postpetition sale of the Debtor's private jet. As of the filing of the Debtor's chapter 11 petition on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor was the beneficial owner of a Bombardier Global XRS private jet with serial number 9189 (the \"Bombardier\"), held in the name of Whitecroft Shore Limited (\"Whitecroft\"), a shell company nominally owned by his daughter, Mei Guo. According to the testimony of Mei Guo at her January 20, 2023 deposition, the Bombardier was sold in the summer of 2022 for over \\$10 million to a party whose name Mei Guo could not remember.2 Mei Guo testified she held these funds through a third party, whose name she did not know.\n\n3. As discussed further below, despite Whitecroft's nominal title to the Bombardier, the Debtor beneficially owned the Bombardier at all relevant times, including at the time of its sale. The Debtor's asset protection strategy here—the holding of a valuable asset in a shell company nominally owned by his daughter—is identical to the method the Debtor employed to beneficially own the Lady May yacht while claiming it belonged to his daughter.\n\n4. Because the Bombardier was beneficially owned by the Debtor at the time of its sale, it was property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate. The proceeds of the sale are also property of the estate pursuant to section 541(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code (defining as property of estate all \"[p]roceeds, product, offspring, rents, or profits of or from property of the estate\"). Based on\n\n2 The Trustee reserves all his rights in connection with asserting avoidance actions against the transferee of the Bombardier.\n\nthese facts, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that the proceeds of the sale of the Bombardier (the \"Bombardier Proceeds\") held by Mei Guo constitute property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (2) ordering Mei Guo to surrender the Bombardier Proceeds or the value thereof to the Trustee, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo.\n\n5. The Trustee also asserts, in the first alternative, that, even assuming the Bombardier Proceeds are not currently property of the estate, the Bombardier Proceeds were property of the estate and were transferred to Mei Guo following the Bombardier's sale, which constituted an unauthorized post-petition transfer of estate property under section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks an alternative ruling, pursuant to sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, ordering Mei Guo to surrender the Bombardier Proceeds or the value thereof to the Trustee, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo.\n\n6. The Trustee further asserts, in the second alternative, that, even assuming Mei Guo was the beneficial owner of the Bombardier (directly or indirectly) at the time of its sale, she received such beneficial ownership through an actual fraudulent transfer by the Debtor. Specifically, on June 27, 2017, the Debtor transferred his ownership interest in the entity that at that time held title to the Bombardier, Anton Development Limited (\"Anton Development\"), to Mei Guo for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding his creditors. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks an alternative ruling, pursuant to Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law and sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, ordering Mei Guo to surrender to the Trustee the value of Anton Development at the time it was transferred to her on June 27, 2017, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo.\n\n7. Finally, the Trustee separately asserts that Mei Guo is the nominal holder of a number of entities incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) that are beneficially owned by the Debtor (the \"BVI Shell Companies\").3 These BVI Shell Companies are comprised of:\n\n- a. Whitecroft;\n- b. Allied Capital Global Limited;\n- c. Creative Apex Investments Limited;\n- d. Crystal Breeze Investments Limited;\n- e. Elite Well Global Limited;\n- f. Globalist International Limited;\n- g. Infinite Increase Limited, Infinitum Developments Limited;\n- h. Noble Fame Global Limited; and\n- i. Rosy Acme Ventures Limited.\n- 8. As discussed further below, Mei Guo is a mere nominee owner of the BVI Shell\n\nCompanies on behalf of the Debtor, while the Debtor is their true beneficial owner. The Trustee seeks a ruling that Mei Guo's ownership interests in the BVI Shell Companies belong to the chapter 11 estate and that they be turned over to the Trustee.4\n\n 3 At this time, because Mei Guo and the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment to refuse to disclose their assets, it is not clear which assets, if any, are currently held by the BVI Shell Companies. The Trustee notes that, even if the BVI Shell Companies do not hold valuable physical assets, their assets may include claims that could be monetized for the benefit of the estate once the Trustee takes control of these entities. 4\n\nThe Trustee also has claims pending against Mei Guo in adversary proceeding 22-05003 (the \"HK USA Adversary Proceeding\"), and the Court previously granted the Trustee preliminary injunctive relief therein by restraining Mei Guo from transferring or otherwise dissipating her assets. The relief sought in this Complaint makes it critical that such injunctive relief remain in place. Given that Mei Guo has previously moved to terminate the injunction in the HK USA Adversary Proceeding (which motion was denied without prejudice), and may do so again, the Trustee may seek similar relief in connection with the allegations made in this Complaint.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n10. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a).\n\n## **THE PARTIES**\n\n11. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n12. Mei Guo is the Debtor's daughter and the purported owner of the BVI Shell Companies. Mei Guo testified in her January 2023 deposition that she held the Bombardier Proceeds at the time of the deposition.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n#### **I. Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n13. As the Court is well aware, the Debtor is a prolific user of shell companies, purportedly owned by family members or business subordinates, to shield his assets and activities from creditors. The Debtor's \"shell game\" has allowed him to continue to deny ownership of assets, refuse to pay debts, and—until his recent arrest by the FBI—live a life of luxury.\n\n14. Among other examples, shell companies purportedly owned by the Debtor's son (Lamp Capital LLC and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.) have paid the Debtor's living expenses and legal fees; a shell company purportedly owned by Mei Guo (Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited (\"HK USA\")) has held title to the Debtor's yacht, the *Lady May*\n\n(which the Court ruled was property of the estate despite its nominal ownership by HK USA);5 and another shell company purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife (Greenwich Land LLC) holds title to the Debtor's Connecticut residence.6 The Debtor also claims that his apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel is held in trust for the benefit of yet another shell company purportedly owned by his son (Bravo Luck Limited).7\n\n15. Moreover, this Court has already found that numerous purportedly independent entities and organizations involved in the Debtor's recent social media and protest campaign against Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund (\"PAX\") and the Trustee were controlled by the Debtor,8 led by the Debtor,9 or served \"the purposes of . . . and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.10 This Court separately found, in its order holding the Debtor in contempt for violating the Court's corporate governance order, that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and, through it, Dawn State Limited), and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee owner, Yvette Wang.11\n\n5 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against HK USA in adversary proceeding 22-05003, in connection with which the Court entered a prejudgment remedy and preliminary injunction orders against Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited and Mei Guo. *See Order Granting Trustee's Application for Prejudgment Remedy* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Mar. 17, 2023, Docket No. 140); *Order Granting Trustee's*\n\n*Motion for Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Mar. 17, 2023, Docket No. 142). 6 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against this entity in adversary proceeding 23-05005, in connection with which the Court entered a prejudgment remedy and temporary restraining orders against Greenwich Land LLC and the Debtor's wife. *See Order Granting in Part Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023, Docket No. 14); *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Application for Ex Parte Prejudgment Remedy* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023, Docket No. 15). 7\n\nThe Trustee has challenged Bravo Luck Limited's asserted interest in the Sherry Netherland apartment in his *Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling that Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code* (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Feb. 28, 2023, Docket No. 40). 8\n\nPI Decision, ¶ 3 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\"). 9\n\n*Id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya.\"). 10 *Id.* (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor,\n\nserve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"). 11 *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order*, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372) (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n16. Similarly, immediately prior to the filing of the Debtor's chapter 11 case in February 2022, in the Debtor's pre-petition litigation against PAX in New York state court (the \"State Court Action\"), Justice Ostrager found that it was the Debtor's practice to use shell companies to shield his assets from creditors.12 Justice Ostrager also found that the Lady May yacht was beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor, despite title to the yacht being nominally held by HK USA, purportedly owned by Mei Guo.\n\n17. Previously, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found, in a decision issued in 2021, that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited (\"Eastern Profit\"), another company purportedly held by the Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.13 The Debtor's counsel in connection with the litigation before Judge Liman, Hodgson Russ LLP, has also testified that the Debtor controlled Eastern Profit.\n\n18. Relatedly, a confidential witness declaration filed by the Trustee under seal at Docket No. 1327 (the \"Confidential Witness Declaration\") and incorporated by reference as an exhibit in support of this Complaint, establishes, among other things\n\n\n\n12 Ex. 1, February 9, 2022 Decision and Order, at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181 (the \"Final Contempt Decision\"). 13 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at \\*1,\n\n(S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021) (the \"Liman Decision\").\n\n\n\n| 21. | | | |\n|-----|--|----------------------|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | Upon information and | |\n\n22. Upon information and belief, at the time of the transfer of formal ownership of the Bombardier to Anton Development, Anton Development was nominally owned by the Debtor's bodyguard, Han Chunguang.\n\n23. On June 27, 2017, while Anton Development held title to the Bombardier, Han Chunguang transferred his purported ownership of Anton Development to Mei Guo for consideration of HK \\$1.00. This amount represented a substantially undervalued price for Anton Development given that at the time Anton Development held title to the Bombardier (and potentially other valuable assets as well).\n\n24. Anton Development, registered in Hong Kong, is a shell company of the Debtor. Among other things:\n\n- a. Upon information and belief, Anton Development was controlled by the Debtor.\n- b. Upon information and belief, the Debtor placed certain of his employees, and, later, his daughter Mei Guo, as the directors of Anton Development.\n- c. Upon information and belief, the Debtor placed his assistant (Natasha Qu) and his bodyguard (Han Chunguang) as Anton Development's account signatories.\n- d. Upon information and belief, Anton Development's bank accounts at DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited were controlled by the Debtor.\n- e. Upon information and belief, the assets of Anton Development were, effectively, the Debtor's assets.\n\n25. Notably, Mei Guo obtained title to Anton Development on the exact same day (June 27, 2017) she received the nominal ownership of Debtor shell companies Eastern Profit (from Han Chunguang) and Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\") (from Natasha Qu) for consideration of HK \\$1.00. Indeed, the history of Anton Development—its ownership by the Debtor's bodyguard, Mr. Han, and subsequent transfer from Mr. Han to Mei Guo for HK \\$1.00 on June 27, 2017—is nearly identical to that of Eastern Profit, which, as noted above, was found by Judge Liman to be a shell company of the Debtor.\n\n26. In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Anton Development, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of [his] daughter but that [he] actually own[s] and control[s].\" In response, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.\n\n- **C. Bombardier Transferred from Anton Development to Whitecroft**\n- 27. Upon information and\n\nbelief, Whitecroft provided no material consideration in exchange for the Bombardier.\n\n28. Whitecroft is a BVI entity incorporated on February 2, 2018, with an address at 49th Floor Bank of China Tower Garden Road Central Hong Kong.16 Upon information and belief, this address has been used by the Debtor and other Debtor-affiliated individuals and entities, including Natasha Qu, Han Chunguang, Bravo Luck Limited, and Leading Shine Limited. Mei Guo has at all relevant times been the sole member and director of Whitecroft.17 Upon information and belief, Whitecroft never had any business other than that of holding the Bombardier and never had any material assets other than the Bombardier.\n\n29. In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Whitecroft, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you\n\n16*See* Ex. 5, Whitecroft Shore Limited Written Resolution, dated April 4, 2018, at 1. 17 Ex. 6, Whitecroft register of directors (LSE0000105); Ex. 7, Whitecroft register of members (LSE0000106).\n\nactually own and control.\" In response, he asserted his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination.\n\n## **III. Sale of Bombardier for Over \\$10 Million in Summer of 2022**\n\n30. At her deposition on January 20, 2023, Mei Guo testified that in the summer of 2022 the Bombardier was sold for over \\$10 million (i.e., the Bombardier Proceeds) to a party whose name Mei Guo could not remember. Mei Guo further testified that the Bombardier Proceeds were (at least as of the time of her deposition) held by her through a third party whose name she did not remember. Thus, if Mei Guo's testimony is accurate in this respect, the Bombardier Proceeds were transferred to Mei Guo following the sale.\n\n#### **IV. Bombardier Was Beneficially Owned by Debtor**\n\n31. Abundant evidence demonstrates that, despite being nominally owned by shell companies, the Bombardier was at all times controlled and beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\n### **A. Debtor Financed Purchase of Bombardier**\n\n32. The Debtor, not Mei Guo, was the individual who financed the purchase of the\n\nBombardier,\n\n.\n\n18\n\n33. Mei Guo could not have financed the purchase of the Bombardier. Mei Guo, born in 1989, would have been nineteen or twenty years old when the Bombardier was purchased in 2009. Indeed, Mei Guo testified that she traveled on the Bombardier with her family as a teenager.19 It is implausible that Mei Guo had the financial wherewithal to finance the purchase of the Bombardier herself.\n\n18*See* Ex. 3, 19 *See* Ex. 8, Mei Guo Deposition Transcript, dated January 20, 2023 (\"Mei Guo Deposition Transcript\") at 73:22-74:6 (\"Q: Is it a plane you had traveled on with family? A: When I was a kid back in China, I traveled with my family on it a lot; Q: How old were you then? A: I was a teenager.\")\n\n| 20 | See id. 49:15-21. | |\n|----|-------------------|---------|\n| 21 | See Ex. 9, | Ex. 10, |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| 22 | See Ex. 12, | |\n| 23 | See Ex. 13, | |\n\n| 37. |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| 38. Later, in September of 2018, at a time when the Debtor was being advised by |\n| Hodgson Russ with respect to corporate and litigation matters, |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| 24
Ex. 11
25 |\n| See Ex. 14,
26
Ex. 15,
27
See, e.g., Ex. 16,
28
See Ex. 17, |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n## **C. Debtor Boasted About Owning Private Jets**\n\n41. Similarly, the Bombardier was one of the private planes the Debtor referenced in a 2017 *Vice News* interview in which he boasted that he owned \"two private jets.\"33 As noted above, the Debtor owned two airplanes at the time, the Bombardier and the larger Airbus.\n\n# **D. Debtor Asserts Fifth Amendment When Questioned About Bombardier**\n\n42. In his deposition on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether \"you placed your asset Bombardier Global XRS . . . a plane, with the serial number 9189, into Whitecroft Shore Limited.\" The Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment in response.34 The Debtor was then asked whether despite this plane being listed under the name of Whitecroft Shore Limited, he was the beneficial owner and controller of the plane. Again, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.35\n\n## **V. Debtor Control of BVI Shell Companies**\n\n### **A. Whitecroft**\n\n43. As noted above, Whitecroft is a BVI entity incorporated on February 2, 2018, with an address at the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower, Garden Road, Central Hong Kong.36 Upon information and belief, this address has been used by the Debtor and other Debtoraffiliated individuals and entities, including Natasha Qu, Han Chunguang, Bravo Luck Limited, and Leading Shine Limited. Mei Guo has at all relevant times been the sole member and director\n\n33 *See* VICE News, \"Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption*,* YouTube\" (original air date on HBO, Nov. 15, 2017), http (In this video, the Debtor describes various of his assets, including the Sherry Netherland Apartment (\"I buy the apartment\"), the Lady May (\"my yacht\"), the \"most luxurious apartment in London,\" \"two private jets,\" and \"hundreds of race cars.\" The Debtor also comments on his great wealth generally, stating, \"I have the wealthy life that everyone in the world dreams about,\" and \"I don't have any material needs anymore.\"). 34 Ex. 18, Ho Wan Kwok Deposition Transcript dated March 2, 2023 (\"Debtor's Deposition Transcript\") at 91:20-\n\n23. 35 *See id.* at 91:24-92:4. 36 *See* Ex. 5, Whitecroft Shore Limited Written Resolution, dated April 4, 2018, at 1.\n\nof Whitecroft.37 Upon information and belief, Whitecroft never had any business other than that of holding the Bombardier and never had any material assets other than the Bombardier—the Debtor's private jet beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\n#### **B. Other BVI Shell Companies**\n\n44. In addition to Whitecroft, Mei Guo has also identified herself as the purported beneficial owner of a series of other BVI entities that are, in reality, owned and controlled by the Debtor. With respect to each of these entities: (i) the entity was, upon information and belief, previously held in the name of one of the Debtor's employees; (ii) the entity is, upon information and belief, a shell company of the Debtor; (iii) the entity's bank account was, upon information and belief, controlled by the Debtor; and (iv) when questioned about his control of the entity, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. More specifically:\n\na. **Allied Capital Global Limited (\"Allied\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in\n\nFebruary 2015 that, upon information and belief, as of March 2015, had as its sole purported equity holder and director an individual named Su Yan, who was an employee of the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Allied was used as a shell company by the Debtor in connection with a share placement fraud scheme that took place in 2015 related to the Debtor's purchase of securities of Haitong Securities Company Limited on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Upon information and belief, Natasha Qu, the Debtor's assistant, served as the authorized signatory for Allied's bank accounts until May 2015, when she was replaced by the Debtor's employee, Yu Yong, and his bodyguard, Han Chunguang. Upon information and belief, Allied's bank account at China Minsheng Banking\n\n37 Ex. 6, Whitecroft register of directors (LSE0000105); Ex. 7, Whitecroft register of members (LSE0000106).\n\nCorp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch, was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the purported \"beneficial owner\" of Allied.38 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Allied, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in response to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.39\n\nb. **Creative Apex Investments Limited (\"Creative\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in October 2014 that, upon information and belief, as of March 2015, had Natasha Qu, the Debtor's assistant, as its sole purported equity holder and director. Upon information and belief, Creative was used as a shell company by the Debtor in connection with a share placement fraud scheme that took place in 2015 related to the Debtor's purchase of securities of Haitong Securities Company Limited on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Upon information and belief, Natasha Qu served as the authorized signatory for Creative's bank accounts until May 2015, when she was replaced by the Debtor's employee, Yu Yong, and his bodyguard, Han Chunguang. Upon information and belief, Creative's bank account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch, was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the purported beneficial owner of Creative.40 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Creative, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in\n\n38*See* Ex. 19, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Allied Capital Global Limited. 39 Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7\n\n40 *See* Ex. 20, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Creative Apex Investments.\n\nresponse to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination.41\n\n- c. **Crystal Breeze Investments Limited (\"Crystal\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in February 2015 that, upon information and belief, as of March 2015, had as its sole purported equity holder and director an individual named Sun Ailing, who was an employee of the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Crystal was used as a shell company by the Debtor in connection with a share placement fraud scheme that took place in 2015 related to the Debtor's purchase of securities of Haitong Securities Company Limited on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Upon information and belief, Natasha Qu, the Debtor's assistant, served as the authorized signatory for Crystal's bank accounts until May 2015, when she was replaced by the Debtor's employee, Yu Yong, and his bodyguard, Han Chunguang. Upon information and belief, Crystal's bank account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch, was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the purported \"beneficial owner\" of Crystal.42 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Crystal, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in response to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.43\n- d. **Elite Well Global Limited (\"Elite Well\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in February 2015 that, upon information and belief, as of March 2015, had as its sole\n\n41 Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7.\n\n42*See* Ex. 21, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Crystal Breeze Investments Limited. 43 Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7\n\npurported equity holder and director an individual named Sun Li, who was an employee of the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Elite Well was used as a shell company by the Debtor in connection with a share placement fraud scheme that took place in 2015 related to the Debtor's purchase of securities of Haitong Securities Company Limited on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Upon information and belief, Natasha Qu, the Debtor's assistant, served as the authorized signatory for Elite Well's bank accounts until May 2015, when she was replaced by the Debtor's employee, Yu Yong, and his bodyguard, Han Chunguang. Upon information and belief, Elite Well's bank account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch, was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the purported \"beneficial owner\" of Elite Well.44 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Elite Well, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in response to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination.45\n\ne. **Globalist International Limited (\"Globalist\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in February 2015 that, as of March 2015, had as its sole purported equity holder and director an individual named Sun Yanfeng, who was an employee of the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Globalist was used as a shell company by the Debtor in connection with a share placement fraud scheme that took place in 2015 related\n\n44*See* Ex. 22, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Elite Well Global Limited. 45 Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7\n\nto the Debtor's purchase of securities of Haitong Securities Company Limited on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Upon information and belief, Natasha Qu, the Debtor's assistant, served as the authorized signatory for Globalist's bank accounts until May 2015, when she was replaced by the Debtor's employee, Yu Yong, and his bodyguard, Han Chunguang. Upon information and belief, Globalist's bank account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch, was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the purported \"beneficial owner\" of Globalist.46 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Globalist, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in response to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.47\n\nf. **Infinitum Developments Limited (\"Infinitum\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in February 2015 that, as of March 2015, had as its sole purported equity holder and director an individual named Niu Runze, who was an employee of the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Infinitum was used as a shell company by the Debtor in connection with a share placement fraud scheme that took place in 2015 related to the Debtor's purchase of securities of Haitong Securities Company Limited on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Upon information and belief, Natasha Qu, the Debtor's assistant, served as the authorized signatory for Infinitum's bank accounts until May 2015, when she was replaced by the Debtor's employee, Yu Yong, and\n\n46*See* Ex. 23, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Globalist International Limited. 47 Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7\n\nhis bodyguard, Han Chunguang. Upon information and belief, Infinitum's bank account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch, was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the purported \"beneficial owner\" of Infinitum.48 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Infinitum, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in response to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.49\n\ng. **Noble Fame Global Limited (\"Noble Fame\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in February 2015 that, as of March 2015, had as its sole purported equity holder and director an individual named Ren Meizi, who was an employee of the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Noble Fame was used as a shell company by the Debtor in connection with a share placement fraud scheme that took place in 2015 related to the Debtor's purchase of securities of Haitong Securities Company Limited on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Upon information and belief, Natasha Qu, the Debtor's assistant, served as the authorized signatory for Noble Fame's bank accounts until May 2015, when she was replaced by the Debtor's employee, Yu Yong, and his bodyguard, Han Chunguang. Upon information and belief, Noble Fame's bank account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch, was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the purported \"beneficial owner\" of\n\n48*See* Ex. 24, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Infinitum Developments Limited. 49 Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7.\n\nNoble Fame.50 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether Noble Fame, among other entities, was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in response to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.51\n\nh. **Rosy Acme Ventures Limited (\"Rosy Acme\")** is a BVI entity incorporated in May 2014 that, upon information and belief, as of October 2014, had Han Chunguang, the Debtor's bodyguard, as its sole purported equity holder, director, and account signatory. Upon information and belief, Rosy Acme is a shell company controlled by the Debtor that the Debtor used to execute fund transfers on his behalf. In addition, upon information and belief, Rosy Acme's account at China Construction Bank (Asia) Corporation Limited was controlled by the Debtor. On July 4, 2017, Mei Guo signed BVI due diligence forms identifying herself as the beneficial owner of Rosy Acme.52 In his deposition, taken on March 2, 2023, the Debtor was asked whether, among other entities, Rosy Acme was an asset \"held in the name of your daughter but that you actually own and control,\" in response to which the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination.53\n\n## **VI. Mei Guo's Deposition Testimony**\n\n45. Mei Guo, though purporting to own the BVI Shell Companies, has, according to her own testimony, very little knowledge about them or involvement with them, further\n\n50*See* Ex. 25, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Allied Capital Global Limited. 51 Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7.\n\n52 Ex. 27, Vistra Due Diligence Form – Noble Fame Global Limited. *See also* Ex. 26, Rosy Acme Ventures Limited Register of Members. 53 *See* Ex. 18, Debtor's Deposition Transcript at 49:15-50:7.\n\ndemonstrating that she holds such entities merely as the nominee for their real owner, the Debtor. For example, at her deposition held in January 2023, Mei Guo testified that, with the exception of HK USA, she did not remember how many entities she owned,54 what their names were,55 or who established them.56 She also testified that the decision to transfer the entities to her was a decision made by herself and two of her uncles whose names she did not know.57\n\n46. At her deposition, Mei Guo initially testified that the only asset owned by her entities was the *Lady May.* Later, after being pressed further, she admitted that Whitecroft had held the Bombardier and sold it in the summer of 2022. As noted above, Mei Guo testified that the Bombardier was sold to a party whose name she could not remember, in exchange for the Bombardier Proceeds.58 Mei Guo further claimed that she was the owner of the Bombardier Proceeds, though she did not know where they were being held.59 According to Mei Guo, the Bombardier Proceeds were held by her through a third party whose identity she did not know, but if she needed the funds, she could ask her brother.60\n\n#### **VII. Mei Guo Refuses to Disclose Assets**\n\n47. Following her deposition, on March 13, 2023, Mei Guo filed a declaration in which she stated that she \"contacted ACASS, the outside company that assisted with the sale of airplane referenced during my deposition\" regarding documents responsive to the Trustee's document requests.61 Mei Guo failed to produce such documents or provide any other\n\n54 Ex. 8, Mei Guo Deposition Transcript at 60:16-22 (Q: \"[H]ow many entities do you believe that you own other than Hong Kong International USA? A: I don't remember.\"). 55 *Id.* at 61:4-6. (Q: \"What are their names?\", A: \"I can't remember now.\"). 56 *Id.* at 63:3-5 (Q: \"Who were they established by?\", A: \"I don't remember.\"). 57 *Id.* at 66-1-13 (Q: \"Specifically, which people made the decision…to transfer these companies that did not have\n\nassets and operations to your ownership?\", A: \"My uncles and also myself.\"). 58 *Id.* at 70:16-19 (Q: \"Who did you sell the plane to?\", A: \"I can't remember the party's name that I sold it to.\"). 59 Ex. 8, Mei Guo Deposition Transcript at 71:19-72:14 (Q: \"And once you sold it, where did those \\$10 million in\n\nfunds go?\", A: \"Now it's at somewhere with a third party.\"). 60 *Id.*\n\n61 *Declaration of Mei Guo* (Mar. 13, 2023, Docket No. 1543), ¶ 56.\n\ninformation. In response to the Court's order in the HK USA Adversary Proceeding requiring that Mei Guo disclose her assets [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Mar. 17, 2023, Docket No. 142], Mei Guo filed a declaration of counsel stating that \"Ms. Guo would, at this time, invoke her privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.\" [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Mar. 27, 2023, Docket No. 173-1].\n\n### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Beneficially Owned Bombardier and Ordering Turnover of Bombardier Proceeds or Value Thereof to Trustee)**\n\n48. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-47.\n\n49. As discussed in more detail above, the Bombardier was beneficially owned by the Debtor. Among other things, the Debtor paid for the Bombardier and held it in shell companies he controlled: (i) Head Win Group, held in the Debtor's name; (ii) Anton Development, held in the name of the Debtor's bodyguard, Han Chunguang, and later in the name of his daughter, Mei Guo; and (iii) Whitecroft, held in the name of Mei Guo. In addition, the Debtor's counsel at Williams & Connolly and later Hodgson Russ handled legal issues related to the Bombardier pursuant to the instructions of the Debtor and his representatives. Among other things, Williams & Connolly advised the Debtor in connection with disputes and negotiations with airplane management companies related to the Bombardier, and Hodgson Russ advised the Debtor in connection with the Debtor's proposal to transfer the Bombardier from Anton Development to another entity. Communications produced by these law firms make clear that everyone involved understood the Bombardier to belong to the Debtor. The Debtor even boasted in a television interview regarding his ownership of the Bombardier and, when asked in his March 2023 deposition about his ownership of the Bombardier, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment in response.\n\n50. To the extent Mei Guo or shell companies held title to the Bombardier, they did so in name only, with the Debtor acting at all times as the plane's true beneficial owner.\n\n51. Because the Bombardier was beneficially owned by the Debtor, it was property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, and the proceeds of its sale following the Petition Date constitute property of the estate pursuant to section 541(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code (defining as property of estate all \"[p]roceeds, product, offspring, rents, or profits of or from property of the estate\").\n\n52. Based on these facts and circumstances, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that the proceeds of the sale of the Bombardier (the \"Bombardier Proceeds\") held by Mei Guo constitute property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (2) ordering Mei Guo to surrender the Bombardier Proceeds or the value thereof to the Trustee, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo.62\n\n### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Avoidance of Postpetition Transfer) (Asserted in the Alternative to First Claim)**\n\n53. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-47.\n\n54. In the alternative, if the Court does not rule in favor of the Trustee in connection with the First Claim, the Trustee asserts that the Bombardier constituted property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate at the time of its sale in the summer of 2022 in exchange for the Bombardier Proceeds. After the sale, the Bombardier Proceeds were transferred to the Debtor's daughter (the \"2022 Transfer\"), who stated in her deposition that she owned such proceeds. This post-petition transfer of the Bombardier Proceeds is avoidable pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code\n\n62 The Trustee reserves all his rights in connection with asserting avoidance actions against the transferee of the Bombardier once the transferee's identity has been ascertained.\n\nbecause the Bombardier was owned the Debtor, the Bombardier Proceeds were property of the estate, and the transfer of the Bombardier Proceeds to Mei Guo was not authorized by the Court.\n\n55. Because the transfer of the Bombardier Proceeds is avoidable pursuant to section 549, the Bombardier Proceeds or the value thereof may be recovered by the Trustee under section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n56. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) avoiding the 2022 Transfer and (2) ordering Mei Guo to surrender the Bombardier Proceeds or the value thereof to the Trustee, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo.\n\n## **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Avoidance of Actual Fraudulent Transfer) (Asserted in the Alternative to First Claim or Second Claim)**\n\n57. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-47.\n\n58. In the alternative, assuming that the Court does not rule in favor of the Trustee in connection with the First Claim or the Second Claim, the Trustee asserts an actual fraudulent transfer claim against Mei Guo pursuant to Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law,63 made applicable by section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, based on the transfer of Anton Development to Mei Guo on June 27, 2017.\n\n- 59. More specifically, as supported by the facts plead herein:\n\t- a. Prior to June 27, 2017, Anton Development was beneficially owned by the Debtor through his bodyguard, Han Chunguang.\n\n63 This was the governing New York statute on the date of the transfer.\n\n- b. Thus, prior to June 27, 2017, the Debtor beneficially owned Anton Development and, with it, the Bombardier to which Anton Development then held title.\n- c. On June 27, 2017, Anton Development was transferred to Mei Guo for consideration of HK \\$1.00 (the \"2017 Transfer\").\n\n60. The 2017 Transfer is a fraudulent transfer under New York law. Pursuant to section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, the value of Anton Development at the time of its transfer may be recovered from Mei Guo as transferee of such value.\n\n61. The analysis of a debtor's intent to hinder, delay, or defraud under New York law is identical to the analysis under section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.64 A claim of actual intent to defraud under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code requires allegations that the debtor-transferor made a transfer or incurred an obligation with \"actual intent\" to \"hinder, delay or defraud\" a past or future creditor.65\n\n62. \"Because of the difficulty in proving actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud in making its case, a party can rely on the 'badges of fraud,' which are 'circumstances so commonly associated with fraudulent transfers that their presence gives rise to an inference of intent.'\"66\n\n63. Examples of 'badges of fraud' include, *inter alia*: (1) concealing facts and false pretenses; (2) an unconscionable discrepancy in consideration received in exchange for the value\n\n64 *In re Combes*, 382 B.R. 186, 193-94 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008) (\"The analysis of the debtor's intent to hinder, delay, or defraud under [section] 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and under New York law is identical.\"). The debtor-transferor's intent is at issue in such claims, not the transferee's. *In re LXEng LLC*, 607 B.R. 67, 91\n\n(Bankr. D. Conn. 2019). 65 *In re Integrity Graphics, Inc.*, 623 B.R. 21, 29-30 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020). 66 *In re Jie Xiao*, 608 B.R. 126, 157 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019); *see also In re Andersen*, 166 B.R. 516, 529 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994) (\"In recognition of that reality, courts have held that fraudulent intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the transfer. Indirect evidence of fraud may consist of the circumstances of the transfer and the conduct and action of the parties to the alleged fraudulent transfer with respect to the possession, management and control of the premises.\") (emphasis added).\n\nof the property transferred; (3) creating a closely-held corporation for property receipt; (4) closeness in relationship between the parties; (5) retaining the property in question for benefit or use; (6) the financial condition of the transferor and transferee both before and after the transfer(s); (7) repeated patterns or cumulative effect of courses of conduct post-insolvency or financial troubles; and (8) the timeline of events. . . The transfer of property to a spouse is a 'classic' badge of fraud. . . . Asset shifting to different corporate entities wholly owned or 'so closely assimilated' by the debtor is an additional badge of fraud.67\n\n64. Facts discussed in this Amended Complaint demonstrate numerous of the badges of fraud commonly associated with fraudulent transfers. These include, among others:\n\n- a. \"Concealing facts.\" The Debtor and Mei Guo have both failed to provide information regarding the Bombardier and Anton Development and subsequently asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questioning by the Trustee.\n- b. \"An unconscionable discrepancy in consideration received in exchange for the value of the property transferred.\" In the 2017 Transfer, Mei Guo received Anton Development, which was the holder of the Bombardier (an aircraft that five years later was sold for over \\$10 million) along with other assets, for HK \\$1.00.\n- c. \"Closeness in relationship between the parties.\" The Debtor and his daughter, Mei Guo, have a close father-daughter relationship.\n- d. \"Retaining the property in question for benefit or use.\" Following the 2017 Transfer, the Debtor still treated the asset of Anton Development, the Bombardier,\n\n67 *In re Jie Xiao*, 608 B.R. at 157.\n\nas his own. The Debtor continued to use the Bombardier and provided instructions to his counsel with respect to the transfer of the Bombardier.\n\n65. The Debtor's fraudulent conduct in this instance is consistent with his *modus operandi*, as found by Justice Ostrager, of using shell companies to hold assets out of the reach of creditors.\n\n66. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought in this Complaint by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n67. At all relevant times, the Debtor's creditors would have had no reason to suspect that the 2017 Transfer had occurred or that the Debtor had used the 2017 Transfer to effectuate a fraudulent transfer.\n\n68. Accordingly, assuming that the relief requested in the First Claim is not granted, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law, and sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, ordering Mei Guo to surrender to the Trustee the value of Anton Development at the time it was transferred to her on June 27, 2017, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo.\n\n## **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of BVI Shell Companies and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Mei Guo BVI Entities to Trustee)**\n\n69. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-47.\n\n70. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor at all relevant times remained in control the BVI Shell Companies, despite their nominal ownership by Mei Guo.\n\n71. One of the BVI Shell Companies is Whitecroft, whose only business, upon information and belief, was that of owning the Bombardier—the private jet beneficially owned by the Debtor. Moreover, Whitecroft's address is at the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower, Garden Road, Central Hong Kong, an address used by the Debtor and other Debtor-affiliated individuals and entities, and Mei Guo has at all relevant times been the sole member and director of Whitecroft.\n\n72. With respect to the other BVI Shell Companies identified in the Complaint, Mei Guo has also identified herself as the purported beneficial owner of each of these entities, each of which, upon information and belief, (i) was previously held in the name of one of the Debtor's employees; (ii) is a shell company of the Debtor; (iii) had a bank account controlled by the Debtor. In addition, when questioned about his control of these entities, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.\n\n73. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that Mei Guo was a mere nominee or \"bare trustee,\" considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in a company only for the benefit of the party that controls the company as the company's true beneficial owner—here, Kwok. *See e.g.*, *IRC v Silverts Ltd,* [1951] Ch 521, CA (describing bare trustee of shares in a company as a \"mere name or 'dummy' for the true owner\").\n\n74. Therefore, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that the ownership interests in the BVI Shell Companies purportedly held by Mei Guo are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate and (2) ordering the surrender of such ownership interests, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that the Bombardier Proceeds are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (2) ordering Mei Guo to surrender the Bombardier Proceeds or the value thereof to the Trustee, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, ordering Mei Guo to surrender the Bombardier Proceeds or the value thereof to the Trustee, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law, and sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, ordering Mei Guo to surrender to the Trustee the value of Anton Development at the time it was transferred to her on June 27, 2017, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Mei Guo;\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that the ownership interests in the BVI Shell Companies purportedly held by Mei Guo are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate and (2) ordering the surrender of such ownership interests and all related rights of corporate control to the Trustee;\n\n5. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: May 16, 2023 New York, New York LUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /s/ *Douglass Barron* Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.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\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"对抗程序封面页 对抗程序编号\n\n背面说明 仅供法院使用\n原告 被告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），作为第 11 章受托人 Mei Guo（郭美）\n律师 律所名称、地址及电话号码\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue，New York，New York 10166，收件人：Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦），电话：212-318-6000 律师，如已知\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（奇耶萨·沙希尼安和贾恩托马西律师事务所），105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, NJ 07068；Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），10 Middle St.，\n15th Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06851\n当事人 仅勾选一项 当事人 仅勾选一项\n美国受托人/破产管理人 □\n□ □\n债务人 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产管理人\n□ □\n债权人 □\n□ 债权人\n其他 其他\n□ □\n受托人 受托人\n诉因\n简要陈述诉因，包括所涉及的全部美国法典\n第一项请求：确认 Bombardier 款项系债务人第 11 章财产；第二项请求（备选）：依据《破产法典》第 549/550 条撤销申请提交后转让；第三项请求（备选）：依据《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 276 条及《破产法典》第 544/550 条撤销实际欺诈性转让；第四项请求：依据《破产法典》第 541/542/544 条，作出确认判决，认定债务人为英属维尔京群岛空壳公司的实际受益所有人。\n诉讼性质\n最多勾选五项，从主要诉因开始列为第一项，备选诉因列为第二项，依此类推\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追索金钱/财产\n□\n追索金钱/财产——移交财产\n□\n追索金钱/财产——优先权\n□\n追索金钱/财产——欺诈性转让\n□\n追索金钱/财产——其他\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围 FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n□\n可免责性——家庭扶养\n□\n可免责性——故意及恶意损害\n□\n可免责性——学生贷款\n□\n可免责性——离婚或分居义务，但家庭扶养义务除外\n□\n可免责性——其他\n□ FRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围 □\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产 禁令救济——施加停止令\n□ □\n批准出售遗产财产及共同所有人权益 禁令救济——其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责 FRBP 7001(8) 请求权或权益的劣后\n□ □\n对免责提出异议/撤销免责 请求权或权益的劣后\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□ □\n撤销确认 确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性 FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□ □\n可免责性——优先税务请求权 对已移送请求权或诉因的裁定\n□ 其他\n可免责性——虚假借口、虚假陈述或实际欺诈 □\n666,3案件——86&††DDDet.seq.\n□ □\n可免责性——作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃 其他本应在州法院提起、但与破产案件无关的诉讼\n（续见下一栏） □\n□\n如本案涉及实质性州法争议，请勾选 如主张本案为依据 FRCP 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如起诉状请求陪审团审判，请勾选\n请求的其他救济\n如上所述的确认性救济。 请求\n\n本对抗程序所产生的破产案件\n\n债务人名称 破产案件编号\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 22-50073 (JAM)\n案件审理地区 分部办事处 法官姓名\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） Bridgeport（布里奇波特） Manning, J.（曼宁法官）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告\n被告 对抗\n程序编号\n\n对抗程序审理地区 分部办事处 法官姓名\n\n原告律师签名\n\n/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\n\n日期 原告律师印刷姓名\nMay 16, 2023 Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院的管辖范围内设立一项“遗产”，该遗产由债务人的全部财产组成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产遗产范围广泛，且法院管辖权极为广泛，因此可能会有涉及遗产财产或财产权利的诉讼。还可能有涉及债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填妥并提交《对抗程序封面页》表格，除非该方通过法院的案件管理电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。CM/ECF 在提交过程中收集表格中的信息。填妥后，封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息来处理对抗程序，并编制有关法院活动所需的统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求的诉状或其他文书的提交和送达。封面页大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写；如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写。每份提交的起诉状均须另行向书记员提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。准确列明原告和被告的姓名，须与其在起诉状中的名称完全一致。\n\n律师。如已知，列明律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。在第一栏为原告勾选最适当的选项，并在第二栏为被告勾选最适当的选项。\n\n请求。填写起诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，则该事务所的一名成员必须签署。如原告为自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则原告必须签署。\n\n美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n布里奇波特分部\n\n------------------------------------------------------ x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1 ：\n：\n： 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n： （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章\n受托人，\n诉 原告， x\n\n： 对抗程序编号 [\n]\nMEI GUO（郭美）， 被告。 ：\n\n： May 16, 2023\n------------------------------------------------------ x\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）遗产第 11 章受托人起诉状，请求：(I) 依据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条及《破产规则》第 7001 条作出确认判决，确认由 MEI GUO（郭美）持有的财产属于遗产财产；以及 (II) 相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的第 11 章案件（以下简称“第 11 章案件”）中获任命的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，针对被告 Mei Guo（郭美）提交本对抗程序起诉状（以下简称“起诉状”），陈述如下：\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（税务识别号码末四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码末四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，以 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产受托人身份收件（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以追回由 Mei Guo（郭美）持有或以其名义持有的债务人有价值财产；该等财产应移交给受托人，并纳入债务人的第 11 章遗产，以惠及债务人的债权人。\n\n2. 首先，受托人寻求追回债务人私人飞机在申请提交后未经授权出售所得的款项。截至债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第 11 章破产申请之日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人系一架序列号为 9189 的 Bombardier Global XRS 私人飞机（以下简称“Bombardier”）的受益所有人。该飞机登记在 Whitecroft Shore Limited（以下简称“Whitecroft”）名下；Whitecroft 是一家名义上由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）拥有的空壳公司。根据 Mei Guo 于 January 20, 2023 证言录取中的证词，Bombardier 于 2022 年夏季以超过 $10 million 的价格出售给一名 Mei Guo 无法记起姓名的当事人。2 Mei Guo 证称，她通过一名姓名不详的第三方持有该等资金。\n\n3. 如下文进一步所述，尽管 Whitecroft 对 Bombardier 享有名义所有权，但债务人在所有相关期间内均为 Bombardier 的受益所有人，包括其出售时。债务人在此采取的资产保护策略——将有价值资产置于一家名义上由其女儿拥有的空壳公司名下——与债务人用以受益拥有 Lady May 游艇、同时声称该游艇属于其女儿的方法完全相同。\n\n4. 由于 Bombardier 在出售时由债务人受益拥有，其属于债务人第 11 章遗产的财产。根据《破产法典》section 541(a)(6)，出售所得款项亦属于遗产财产（该条将“遗产财产的任何［p］roceeds、product、offspring、rents 或 profits”界定为遗产财产）。基于\n\n2 受托人保留其就针对 Bombardier 受让人提出撤销诉讼所享有的一切权利。\n\n上述事实，受托人依据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告由 Mei Guo（郭美）持有的 Bombardier 出售所得款项（以下简称“Bombardier 款项”）构成债务人第 11 章遗产的财产，应由受托人管理；以及 (2) 命令 Mei Guo 向受托人交出 Bombardier 款项或其价值，该命令将构成针对 Mei Guo 的个人金钱判决。\n\n5. 受托人还以第一备选请求主张，即使假定 Bombardier 款项目前并非遗产财产，Bombardier 款项曾为遗产财产，且在 Bombardier 出售后被转让给 Mei Guo（郭美），该转让构成《破产法典》第 549 条规定的未经授权的申请提交后遗产财产转让。因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第 549 和 550 条请求作出备选裁定，命令 Mei Guo 向受托人交出 Bombardier 款项或其价值，该命令将构成针对 Mei Guo 的个人金钱判决。\n\n6. 受托人进一步以第二备选请求主张，即使假定 Mei Guo（郭美）在 Bombardier 出售时是其受益所有人（直接或间接），其系通过债务人的实际欺诈性转让取得该等受益所有权。具体而言，债务人于 June 27, 2017 将其在当时持有 Bombardier 所有权的实体 Anton Development Limited（以下简称“Anton Development”）中的所有权权益转让给 Mei Guo，目的在于阻碍、拖延或欺诈其债权人。因此，受托人依据《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 276 条及《破产法典》第 544 和 550 条请求作出备选裁定，命令 Mei Guo 向受托人交出 Anton Development 于 June 27, 2017 转让给她时的价值，该命令将构成针对 Mei Guo 的个人金钱判决。\n\n7. 最后，受托人另行主张，Mei Guo（郭美）是多家在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，BVI）注册成立、由债务人受益拥有的实体（以下简称“BVI 空壳公司”）的名义持有人。3 该等 BVI 空壳公司包括：\n\na. Whitecroft；\n\nb. Allied Capital Global Limited；\n\nc. Creative Apex Investments Limited；\n\nd. Crystal Breeze Investments Limited；\n\ne. Elite Well Global Limited；\n\nf. Globalist International Limited；\n\ng. Infinite Increase Limited、Infinitum Developments Limited；\n\nh. Noble Fame Global Limited；以及\n\ni. Rosy Acme Ventures Limited。\n\n8. 如下文进一步所述，Mei Guo（郭美）仅为代表债务人持有 BVI 空壳公司的名义所有人，而债务人则是其真正的受益所有人。受托人请求作出裁定，确认 Mei Guo 在 BVI 空壳公司中的所有权权益属于第 11 章遗产，并命令将其移交给受托人。4\n\n3. 此时，由于 Mei Guo（郭美）和债务人援引《宪法第五修正案》以拒绝披露其资产，目前尚不清楚英属维尔京群岛（BVI）空壳公司（BVI Shell Companies）目前持有哪些资产（如有）。受托人指出，即使 BVI 空壳公司并不持有有价值的实物资产，其资产亦可能包括债权；一旦受托人取得对这些实体的控制权，该等债权可予变现，以使破产财产受益。4\n\n受托人亦在对抗程序 22-05003（“HK USA 对抗程序”）中对 Mei Guo 提出尚待审理的请求，而法院此前已在该程序中准许受托人的初步禁令救济，限制 Mei Guo 转让或以其他方式耗散其资产。本起诉状所请求的救济，使得该等禁令救济继续有效至关重要。鉴于 Mei Guo 此前曾提出动议，要求终止 HK USA 对抗程序中的禁令（该动议在不妨碍再次提出的情况下被驳回），且其可能再次提出该等动议，受托人可能就本起诉状所作指控寻求类似救济。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n9. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)，对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n10. 本对抗程序已根据 28 U.S.C. §157(a) 移送本法院。\n\n当事人\n\n11. 受托人根据法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令 [Main Case Docket No. 523]，担任 Chapter 11 Case（第 11 章案件）中的第 11 章受托人。\n\n12. Mei Guo 是债务人的女儿，且被称为 BVI 空壳公司的所有人。Mei Guo 在其 January 2023 证言录取中作证称，于证言录取时其持有庞巴迪（Bombardier）出售所得款项（Bombardier Proceeds）。\n\n事实\n\nI. 债务人广泛使用空壳公司\n\n13. 如本法院所熟知，债务人广泛使用据称由家庭成员或商业下属所有的空壳公司，以使其资产及活动免受债权人追索。债务人的“空壳游戏”使其得以继续否认资产所有权、拒绝偿还债务，并且——直至其近期被 FBI 逮捕——过着奢华生活。\n\n14. 例如，据称由债务人之子所有的空壳公司 Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）和 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）已支付债务人的生活费用和律师费；据称由 Mei Guo 所有的空壳公司 Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited（香港国际投资〈美国〉有限公司，“HK USA”）持有债务人游艇 Lady May（梅夫人号）的所有权\n\n（尽管 HK USA 名义上拥有该游艇，本法院裁定该游艇属于破产财产）；5 另一个据称由债务人妻子所有的空壳公司 Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）持有债务人在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）住所的所有权。6 债务人还主张，其位于 Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉荷兰酒店）的公寓系为另一家据称由其儿子所有的空壳公司 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃幸运有限公司）之利益而以信托方式持有。7\n\n15. 此外，本法院已认定，参与债务人近期针对 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，“PAX”）及受托人的社交媒体和抗议活动的众多据称独立的实体和组织，均受债务人控制，8 由债务人领导，9 或服务于债务人的目的并作为债务人的商业载体。10 本法院还在其因债务人违反法院公司治理命令而认定其藐视法庭的命令中认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（以及通过该公司 Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司））的受益所有人，且债务人控制并雇用 Ace Decade Limited 的名义所有人 Yvette Wang（王悦）。11\n\n5. 受托人在对抗程序 22-05003 中寻求针对 HK USA 的替身判决；就此，法院已对 Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited 和 Mei Guo 作出判决前救济及初步禁令命令。参见《准许受托人判决前救济申请之命令》(Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Mar. 17, 2023, Docket No. 140)；《准许受托人初步禁令动议之命令》(Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Mar. 17, 2023, Docket No. 142)。\n\n6. 受托人在对抗程序 23-05005 中寻求针对该实体的替身判决；就此，法院已对 Greenwich Land LLC 和债务人妻子作出判决前救济及临时限制令。参见《部分准许单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议之命令》(Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023, Docket No. 14)；《准许第 11 章受托人经修订的单方判决前救济申请之命令》(Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023, Docket No. 15)。\n\n7. 受托人在其《针对 Bravo Luck 和 Qiang Guo（郭强）的经修订对抗起诉状中，对 Bravo Luck 的据称信托协议请求：（I）宣告该协议无效；及（II）备位地，根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 276 条——经《破产法典》第 544 条适用——裁定债务人为 Bravo Luck 和 Qiang Guo 实施了欺诈性转让》中，对 Bravo Luck Limited 就 Sherry Netherland 公寓所主张的权益提出异议 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Feb. 28, 2023, Docket No. 40)。\n\n8. PI Decision, ¶ 3（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及一个相关实体 ‘GTV’。”）。\n\n9. 同上，¶ 7（“债务人是 The Whistleblower Movement（吹哨人运动）、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导者。”）。\n\n10. 同上（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和 Himalaya 服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业载体，其成员个人上忠于债务人。”）。\n\n11. 《准许要求认定债务人藐视公司治理命令的动议之命令》，¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372)（“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”）。\n\n16. 同样，在债务人于 February 2022 提交第 11 章案件之前不久，在债务人于纽约州法院对 PAX 提起的申请前诉讼（“州法院诉讼”）中，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）认定，债务人的惯例是使用空壳公司以保护其资产免受债权人追索。12 奥斯特拉格法官还认定，尽管游艇的所有权名义上由据称属于 Mei Guo 的 HK USA 持有，Lady May 游艇的受益所有权及控制权属于债务人。\n\n17. 此前，Southern District of New York（纽约南区）United States District Court（美国联邦地区法院）的 Judge Liman（利曼法官）在其于 2021 作出的裁定中认定，另一家据称由债务人之女持有的公司 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司，“Eastern Profit”）“实质上是”债务人的一家空壳公司。13 债务人就利曼法官审理的诉讼所聘请的律师 Hodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）亦已作证称，债务人控制 Eastern Profit。\n\n18. 相关地，受托人以密封方式提交于 Docket No. 1327 的一份保密证人声明（“保密证人声明”），并作为支持本起诉状的证据以引用方式并入，其中确立了除其他事项外\n\n12. Ex. 1, February 9, 2022 Decision and Order, at 1, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181（“Final Contempt Decision”）。\n\n13. Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at *1, (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021)（“Liman Decision”）。\n\n21. 根据所获信息及\n\n22. 根据所获信息和信念，在 Bombardier 的正式所有权转让给 Anton Development（安东开发公司）时，Anton Development 名义上由债务人的保镖 Han Chunguang（韩春光）所有。\n\n23. 于 June 27, 2017，在 Anton Development 持有 Bombardier 所有权期间，Han Chunguang 以 HK $1.00 的对价，将其据称对 Anton Development 的所有权转让给 Mei Guo。鉴于当时 Anton Development 持有 Bombardier（以及可能的其他有价值资产），该金额构成对 Anton Development 的严重低估价格。\n\n24. 注册于 Hong Kong（香港）的 Anton Development 是债务人的一家空壳公司。其中：\n\na. 根据所获信息和信念，Anton Development 受债务人控制。\n\nb. 根据所获信息和信念，债务人安排其若干雇员，以及其后其女儿 Mei Guo，担任 Anton Development 的董事。\n\nc. 根据所获信息和信念，债务人安排其助理 Natasha Qu（屈娜塔莎）和其保镖 Han Chunguang 作为 Anton Development 的账户签字人。\n\nd. 根据所获信息和信念，Anton Development 在 DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited（星展银行〈香港〉有限公司）的银行账户受债务人控制。\n\ne. 根据所获信息和信念，Anton Development 的资产实际上是债务人的资产。\n\n25. 值得注意的是，Mei Guo 取得 Anton Development 所有权的同一天（June 27, 2017），其以 HK $1.00 的对价取得了债务人空壳公司 Eastern Profit 的名义所有权（由 Han Chunguang 转让）及 Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司，“HK International”）的名义所有权（由 Natasha Qu 转让）。事实上，Anton Development 的历史——由债务人的保镖 Han 先生所有，以及其后于 June 27, 2017 由 Han 先生以 HK $1.00 转让给 Mei Guo——与 Eastern Profit 的历史几乎完全相同；如上所述，利曼法官认定 Eastern Profit 是债务人的一家空壳公司。\n\n26. 在于 March 2, 2023 录取的证言中，债务人被问及，Anton Development 等实体是否属于“以[其]女儿名义持有、但由[其]实际拥有和控制”的资产。债务人答复时援引其《宪法第五修正案》不得自证其罪的权利。\n\nC. Bombardier 从 Anton Development 转让至 Whitecroft\n\n27. 根据所获信息和信念，Whitecroft 未就 Bombardier 支付任何实质性对价。\n\n28. Whitecroft 是一家 BVI 实体，于 February 2, 2018 注册成立，地址为 49th Floor Bank of China Tower Garden Road Central Hong Kong。16 根据所获信息和信念，该地址曾被债务人及其他与债务人关联的个人和实体使用，包括 Natasha Qu、Han Chunguang、Bravo Luck Limited 和 Leading Shine Limited（领耀有限公司）。在所有相关时期，Mei Guo 一直是 Whitecroft 的唯一成员和董事。17 根据所获信息和信念，Whitecroft 除持有 Bombardier 外从未从事任何业务，且除 Bombardier 外从未拥有任何实质性资产。\n\n29. 在于 March 2, 2023 录取的证言中，债务人被问及，Whitecroft 等实体是否属于“以你女儿名义持有、但由你\n\n16. 参见 Ex. 5, Whitecroft Shore Limited Written Resolution, dated April 4, 2018, at 1。\n\n17. Ex. 6, Whitecroft register of directors (LSE0000105); Ex. 7, Whitecroft register of members (LSE0000106)。\n\n实际拥有和控制”的资产。债务人答复时援引其《宪法第五修正案》不得自证其罪的权利。\n\nIII. 于 2022 年夏季以超过 $10 million 出售 Bombardier\n\n30. 在其 January 20, 2023 的证言录取中，Mei Guo 作证称，Bombardier 于 2022 年夏季以超过 $10 million 的价格出售给一方当事人（即 Bombardier Proceeds），但 Mei Guo 不记得该方的名称。Mei Guo 进一步作证称，Bombardier Proceeds（至少截至其证言录取时）由其通过一名其不记得姓名的第三方持有。因此，如 Mei Guo 在此方面的证言属实，则 Bombardier Proceeds 在出售后被转让给 Mei Guo。\n\nIV. Bombardier 的受益所有权属于债务人\n\n31. 大量证据表明，尽管 Bombardier 名义上由空壳公司所有，其始终受债务人控制，且其受益所有权始终属于债务人。\n\nA. 债务人为购买 Bombardier 提供资金\n\n32. 为购买\n\nBombardier 提供资金的个人是债务人，而非 Mei Guo，\n\n。\n\n33. Mei Guo（郭美）不可能为购买Bombardier（庞巴迪）提供资金。Mei Guo出生于1989年，2009年购买Bombardier时，她应为十九岁或二十岁。事实上，Mei Guo作证称，她十几岁时曾与家人乘坐Bombardier出行。19 Mei Guo本人具备为购买Bombardier提供资金的财力，难以令人置信。\n\n18 见 Ex. 3，19 见 Ex. 8，Mei Guo（郭美）于 January 20, 2023 作出的证言笔录（“Mei Guo证言笔录”）第73:22-74:6页（“问：这是您曾与家人乘坐过的飞机吗？答：我小时候在中国，经常和家人乘坐它出行；问：那时您多大？答：我当时是青少年。”）\n\n20 见同上，第49:15-21页。\n\n21 见 Ex. 9，Ex. 10，\n\n22 见 Ex. 12，\n\n23 见 Ex. 13，\n\n37.\n\n38. 后来，于2018年9月，当时债务人正就公司事务及诉讼事务接受Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的法律意见，\n\nEx. 11\n\n见 Ex. 14，\n\nEx. 15，\n\n例如，见 Ex. 16，\n\n见 Ex. 17，\n\nC. 债务人吹嘘拥有私人飞机\n\n41. 同样，Bombardier是债务人在2017年Vice News（Vice新闻）采访中提及的私人飞机之一；其在该采访中吹嘘称自己拥有“两架私人飞机”。33 如上所述，债务人当时拥有两架飞机，即Bombardier和较大的Airbus（空中客车）。\n\nD. 债务人在被问及Bombardier时援引第五修正案\n\n42. 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及“您是否将您的资产Bombardier Global XRS……一架序列号为9189的飞机，置入Whitecroft Shore Limited（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）名下。”债务人答复时援引第五修正案。34 随后，债务人被问及，尽管该飞机登记在Whitecroft Shore Limited名下，他是否为该飞机的受益所有人和控制人。债务人再次主张其第五修正案权利。35\n\nV. 债务人对英属维尔京群岛（BVI）空壳公司的控制\n\nA. Whitecroft\n\n43. 如上所述，Whitecroft是一家于 February 2, 2018 在BVI注册成立的实体，地址位于香港中环花园道中国银行大厦49楼。36 根据所知信息及相信，该地址一直被债务人及其他与债务人有关联的个人和实体使用，包括Natasha Qu（曲娜塔莎）、Han Chunguang（韩春光）、Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃幸运有限公司）和Leading Shine Limited（领先辉耀有限公司）。在所有相关期间，Mei Guo一直是Whitecroft的唯一成员和董事。\n\n33 见 VICE News（Vice新闻），“Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption（流亡中国亿万富翁利用YouTube发动反腐战争），YouTube”（HBO原始播出日期：Nov. 15, 2017），http（在该视频中，债务人描述了其多项资产，包括Sherry Netherland Apartment（谢里·内瑟兰公寓）（“我买了这套公寓”）、Lady May（“我的游艇”）、“伦敦最豪华的公寓”、“两架私人飞机”及“数百辆赛车”。债务人还就其巨额财富总体评论道：“我拥有全世界每个人都梦想拥有的富裕生活”，以及“我已不再有任何物质需求。”）。34 Ex. 18，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言笔录（“债务人证言笔录”）第91:20-\n\n23页。35 见同上，第91:24-92:4页。36 见 Ex. 5，Whitecroft Shore Limited于 April 4, 2018 作出的书面决议，第1页。\n\nWhitecroft的唯一成员和董事。37 根据所知信息及相信，Whitecroft除持有Bombardier外从未从事任何业务，且除Bombardier——由债务人受益所有的债务人私人飞机——外，从未拥有任何重大资产。\n\nB. 其他BVI空壳公司\n\n44. 除Whitecroft外，Mei Guo还自称为一系列其他BVI实体的所谓受益所有人，而这些实体实际上由债务人所有和控制。就每一该等实体而言：(i) 根据所知信息及相信，该实体此前由债务人的一名雇员名义持有；(ii) 根据所知信息及相信，该实体是债务人的空壳公司；(iii) 根据所知信息及相信，该实体的银行账户由债务人控制；以及 (iv) 在被问及其对该实体的控制时，债务人主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。具体而言：\n\na. Allied Capital Global Limited（联合资本环球有限公司，简称“Allied”）是一家于 February 2015 在BVI注册成立的实体；根据所知信息及相信，截至 March 2015，其唯一的名义股权持有人和董事是一名名为Su Yan（苏燕）的人士，该人士是债务人的雇员。根据所知信息及相信，Allied被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项发生于2015年的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited（海通证券股份有限公司）证券有关。根据所知信息及相信，债务人的助理Natasha Qu一直担任Allied银行账户的授权签字人，直至 May 2015，后由债务人的雇员Yu Yong（于勇）及其保镖Han Chunguang接替。根据所知信息及相信，Allied在China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行）的银行账户由债务人控制。于 July 4, 2017，Mei Guo在BVI尽职调查表格上签字，自称为Allied的所谓“受益所有人”。38 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及，Allied及其他实体是否属于“以您女儿名义持有、但实际上由您所有和控制”的资产；债务人答复时主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。39\n\n37 Ex. 6，Whitecroft董事登记册（LSE0000105）；Ex. 7，Whitecroft成员登记册（LSE0000106）。\n\nCorp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行）的银行账户由债务人控制。于 July 4, 2017，Mei Guo在BVI尽职调查表格上签字，自称为Allied的所谓“受益所有人”。38 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及，Allied及其他实体是否属于“以您女儿名义持有、但实际上由您所有和控制”的资产；债务人答复时主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。39\n\nb. Creative Apex Investments Limited（创意顶峰投资有限公司，简称“Creative”）是一家于 October 2014 在BVI注册成立的实体；根据所知信息及相信，截至 March 2015，其唯一的名义股权持有人和董事是债务人的助理Natasha Qu。根据所知信息及相信，Creative被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项发生于2015年的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited证券有关。根据所知信息及相信，Natasha Qu一直担任Creative银行账户的授权签字人，直至 May 2015，后由债务人的雇员Yu Yong及其保镖Han Chunguang接替。根据所知信息及相信，Creative在China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch的银行账户由债务人控制。于 July 4, 2017，Mei Guo在BVI尽职调查表格上签字，自称为Creative的所谓受益所有人。40 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及，Creative及其他实体是否属于“以您女儿名义持有、但实际上由您所有和控制”的资产，\n\n38 见 Ex. 19，Vistra（卓佳）尽职调查表——Allied Capital Global Limited。39 Ex. 18，债务人证言笔录，第49:15-50:7页。\n\n40 见 Ex. 20，Vistra尽职调查表——Creative Apex Investments。\n\n债务人答复时主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。41\n\nc. Crystal Breeze Investments Limited（晶风投资有限公司，简称“Crystal”）是一家于 February 2015 在BVI注册成立的实体；根据所知信息及相信，截至 March 2015，其唯一的名义股权持有人和董事是一名名为Sun Ailing（孙爱玲）的人士，该人士是债务人的雇员。根据所知信息及相信，Crystal被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项发生于2015年的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited证券有关。根据所知信息及相信，债务人的助理Natasha Qu一直担任Crystal银行账户的授权签字人，直至 May 2015，后由债务人的雇员Yu Yong及其保镖Han Chunguang接替。根据所知信息及相信，Crystal在China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch的银行账户由债务人控制。于 July 4, 2017，Mei Guo在BVI尽职调查表格上签字，自称为Crystal的所谓“受益所有人”。42 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及，Crystal及其他实体是否属于“以您女儿名义持有、但实际上由您所有和控制”的资产；债务人答复时主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。43\n\nd. Elite Well Global Limited（精英环球有限公司，简称“Elite Well”）是一家于 February 2015 在BVI注册成立的实体；根据所知信息及相信，截至 March 2015，其唯一的名义股权持有人和董事是一名名为Sun Li（孙丽）的人士，该人士是债务人的雇员。根据所知信息及相信，Elite Well被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项发生于2015年的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited证券有关。根据所知信息及相信，债务人的助理Natasha Qu一直担任Elite Well银行账户的授权签字人，直至 May 2015，后由债务人的雇员Yu Yong及其保镖Han Chunguang接替。根据所知信息及相信，Elite Well在China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch的银行账户由债务人控制。于 July 4, 2017，Mei Guo在BVI尽职调查表格上签字，自称为Elite Well的所谓“受益所有人”。44 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及，Elite Well及其他实体是否属于“以您女儿名义持有、但实际上由您所有和控制”的资产；债务人答复时主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。45\n\n41 Ex. 18，债务人证言笔录，第49:15-50:7页。\n\n42 见 Ex. 21，Vistra尽职调查表——Crystal Breeze Investments Limited。43 Ex. 18，债务人证言笔录，第49:15-50:7页。\n\n名义股权持有人和董事是一名名为Sun Li的人士，该人士是债务人的雇员。根据所知信息及相信，Elite Well被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项发生于2015年的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited证券有关。根据所知信息及相信，债务人的助理Natasha Qu一直担任Elite Well银行账户的授权签字人，直至 May 2015，后由债务人的雇员Yu Yong及其保镖Han Chunguang接替。根据所知信息及相信，Elite Well在China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch的银行账户由债务人控制。于 July 4, 2017，Mei Guo在BVI尽职调查表格上签字，自称为Elite Well的所谓“受益所有人”。44 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及，Elite Well及其他实体是否属于“以您女儿名义持有、但实际上由您所有和控制”的资产；债务人答复时主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。45\n\ne. Globalist International Limited（全球主义者国际有限公司，简称“Globalist”）是一家于 February 2015 在BVI注册成立的实体，截至 March 2015，其唯一的名义股权持有人和董事是一名名为Sun Yanfeng（孙艳峰）的人士，该人士是债务人的雇员。根据所知信息及相信，Globalist被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项发生于2015年的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited证券有关。\n\n44 见 Ex. 22，Vistra尽职调查表——Elite Well Global Limited。45 Ex. 18，债务人证言笔录，第49:15-50:7页。\n\n与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited证券有关。根据所知信息及相信，债务人的助理Natasha Qu一直担任Globalist银行账户的授权签字人，直至 May 2015，后由债务人的雇员Yu Yong及其保镖Han Chunguang接替。根据所知信息及相信，Globalist在China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch的银行账户由债务人控制。于 July 4, 2017，Mei Guo在BVI尽职调查表格上签字，自称为Globalist的所谓“受益所有人”。46 在其于 March 2, 2023 作出的证言中，债务人被问及，Globalist及其他实体是否属于“以您女儿名义持有、但实际上由您所有和控制”的资产；债务人答复时主张其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。47\n\nf. Infinitum Developments Limited（无限发展有限公司，简称“Infinitum”）是一家于 February 2015 在BVI注册成立的实体，截至 March 2015，其唯一的名义股权持有人和董事是一名名为Niu Runze（牛润泽）的人士，该人士是债务人的雇员。根据所知信息及相信，Infinitum被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项发生于2015年的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买Haitong Securities Company Limited证券有关。根据所知信息及相信，债务人的助理Natasha Qu一直担任Infinitum银行账户的授权签字人，直至 May 2015，后由债务人的雇员Yu Yong及其保镖Han Chunguang接替。\n\n46 参见证据23，Vistra 尽职调查表——Globalist International Limited（环球国际有限公司）。47 证据18，债务人宣誓证词笔录，第49:15-50:7页。\n\n其保镖 Han Chunguang（韩春光）。据悉并相信，Infinitum 在 China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行）的银行账户由债务人控制。2017年7月4日，Mei Guo（郭美）签署了英属维尔京群岛尽职调查表，将自己列为 Infinitum 的名义“实益拥有人”。48 在于2023年3月2日进行的宣誓证词中，债务人被问及，包括 Infinitum 在内的实体是否属于“以你女儿名义持有、但实际由你拥有和控制”的资产；对此，债务人援引了《美国宪法第五修正案》规定的反对自证其罪权利。49\n\ng. Noble Fame Global Limited（诺布尔名誉环球有限公司，以下简称“Noble Fame”）是一家于2015年2月成立的英属维尔京群岛实体；截至2015年3月，其唯一名义股权持有人和董事为 Ren Meizi（任美子），即债务人的一名雇员。据悉并相信，Noble Fame 被债务人用作空壳公司，涉及一项于2015年发生的股份配售欺诈计划，该计划与债务人在香港证券交易所购买 Haitong Securities Company Limited（海通证券股份有限公司）的证券有关。据悉并相信，债务人的助理 Natasha Qu（曲娜塔莎）在2015年5月之前担任 Noble Fame 银行账户的授权签字人，之后由债务人的雇员 Yu Yong（于勇）及其保镖 Han Chunguang（韩春光）接替。据悉并相信，Noble Fame 在 China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd., Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行）的银行账户由债务人控制。2017年7月4日，Mei Guo（郭美）签署了英属维尔京群岛尽职调查表，将自己列为\n\n48 参见证据24，Vistra 尽职调查表——Infinitum Developments Limited（无限发展有限公司）。49 证据18，债务人宣誓证词笔录，第49:15-50:7页。\n\nNoble Fame 的名义“实益拥有人”。50 在于2023年3月2日进行的宣誓证词中，债务人被问及，包括 Noble Fame 在内的实体是否属于“以你女儿名义持有、但实际由你拥有和控制”的资产；对此，债务人援引了《美国宪法第五修正案》规定的反对自证其罪权利。51\n\nh. Rosy Acme Ventures Limited（罗西阿克米风险投资有限公司，以下简称“Rosy Acme”）是一家于2014年5月成立的英属维尔京群岛实体；据悉并相信，截至2014年10月，其唯一名义股权持有人、董事和账户签字人为债务人的保镖 Han Chunguang（韩春光）。据悉并相信，Rosy Acme 是由债务人控制的一家空壳公司，债务人曾通过该公司代表其本人执行资金转账。此外，据悉并相信，Rosy Acme 在 China Construction Bank (Asia) Corporation Limited（中国建设银行（亚洲）股份有限公司）的账户由债务人控制。2017年7月4日，Mei Guo（郭美）签署了英属维尔京群岛尽职调查表，将自己列为 Rosy Acme 的实益拥有人。52 在于2023年3月2日进行的宣誓证词中，债务人被问及，Rosy Acme 是否与其他实体一样属于“以你女儿名义持有、但实际由你拥有和控制”的资产；对此，债务人援引了《美国宪法第五修正案》规定的反对自证其罪权利。53\n\nVI. Mei Guo（郭美）的宣誓证词\n\n45. 尽管 Mei Guo 声称拥有这些英属维尔京群岛空壳公司，但根据其本人证词，她对这些公司知之甚少，也极少参与其事务，这进一步表明，她仅作为这些实体实际所有人，即债务人的名义持有人而持有该等实体。例如，在其于2023年1月进行的宣誓证词中，Mei Guo 证称，除 HK USA 外，她不记得自己拥有多少实体，54 不记得它们的名称，55 也不记得是谁设立了它们。56 她还证称，将这些实体转让给她的决定是由她本人及两名她不知道姓名的叔叔作出的。57\n\n46. 在其宣誓证词中，Mei Guo 起初证称，其实体拥有的唯一资产是 Lady May。后来，在受到进一步追问后，她承认 Whitecroft 曾持有 Bombardier，并于2022年夏季将其出售。如上所述，Mei Guo 证称，Bombardier 被出售给一方她不记得其名称的人，以换取 Bombardier 出售所得款项。58 Mei Guo 进一步声称，她是 Bombardier 出售所得款项的所有人，但她不知道该等款项存放在何处。59 根据 Mei Guo 所述，Bombardier 出售所得款项由一名她不知道身份的第三方代其持有，但如她需要该等资金，她可以询问其兄弟。60\n\nVII. Mei Guo（郭美）拒绝披露资产\n\n47. 在其宣誓证词之后，2023年3月13日，Mei Guo 提交了一份声明，其中称其“就协助出售我在宣誓证词中提及的飞机的外部公司 ACASS，与其联系，以获取回应受托人文件请求的文件”。61 Mei Guo 未能提交该等文件，亦未提供任何其他信息。为回应法院在 HK USA 对抗程序中作出的、要求 Mei Guo 披露其资产的命令［Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Mar. 17, 2023, Docket No. 142］，Mei Guo 提交了一份律师声明，称“Guo 女士目前将根据《美国宪法第五修正案》援引其反对自证其罪的特权。”［Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Mar. 27, 2023, Docket No. 173-1］。\n\n第一项请求\n（确认债务人实益拥有 Bombardier，并命令向受托人交付 Bombardier 出售所得款项或其价值）\n\n48. 受托人重复并再次主张第1至47段所载的指称。\n\n49. 如上文更详细讨论，债务人实益拥有 Bombardier。除其他事项外，债务人支付了 Bombardier 的价款，并通过其控制的空壳公司持有该飞机：(i) Head Win Group，由债务人名义持有；(ii) Anton Development，先由债务人的保镖 Han Chunguang（韩春光）名义持有，后由其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）名义持有；以及 (iii) Whitecroft，由 Mei Guo 名义持有。此外，债务人在 Williams & Connolly（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所）及其后在 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的律师，均按照债务人及其代表的指示处理与 Bombardier 有关的法律问题。除其他事项外，Williams & Connolly 就与 Bombardier 有关的飞机管理公司争议和谈判向债务人提供建议；Hodgson Russ 则就债务人拟将 Bombardier 从 Anton Development 转让给另一实体一事向债务人提供建议。该等律师事务所提交的通信表明，所有参与人员均理解 Bombardier 属于债务人。债务人甚至在一次电视采访中吹嘘其对 Bombardier 的所有权；在其2023年3月的宣誓证词中被问及其对 Bombardier 的所有权时，债务人以援引《第五修正案》作答。\n\n50. 即使 Mei Guo 或空壳公司持有 Bombardier 的所有权登记，该等持有亦仅为名义持有，债务人始终是该飞机真正的实益所有人。\n\n51. 因为 Bombardier 由债务人实益拥有，其属于债务人第11章破产财产；而其在申请日后出售所得款项，根据《破产法》第541(a)(6)条构成破产财产（该条将“破产财产的或源自破产财产的［p］收益、产品、孳息、租金或利润”界定为破产财产）。\n\n52. 基于上述事实和情形，受托人请求法院根据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出裁定：(1) 确认由 Mei Guo 持有的 Bombardier 出售所得款项（“Bombardier Proceeds”）构成应由受托人管理的债务人第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令 Mei Guo 向受托人交付 Bombardier Proceeds 或其价值，该命令将构成针对 Mei Guo 的个人金钱判决。62\n\n第二项请求\n（撤销申请日后转让）（作为第一项请求的备位主张）\n\n53. 受托人重复并再次主张第1至47段所载的指称。\n\n54. 作为备位主张，如法院未就第一项请求作出有利于受托人的裁定，受托人主张，Bombardier 在2022年夏季被出售以换取 Bombardier Proceeds 时，构成债务人第11章破产财产。出售后，Bombardier Proceeds 被转让给债务人的女儿（“2022年转让”），其在宣誓证词中称自己拥有该等款项。根据《破产法》第549条，该项申请日后对 Bombardier Proceeds 的转让可被撤销，\n\n62 一旦查明 Bombardier 受让人的身份，受托人保留就针对该受让人提起撤销诉讼所享有的一切权利。\n\n因为 Bombardier 为债务人所有，Bombardier Proceeds 属于破产财产，且将 Bombardier Proceeds 转让给 Mei Guo 未获法院授权。\n\n55. 因 Bombardier Proceeds 的转让可根据第549条撤销，受托人可依据《破产法》第550条追偿 Bombardier Proceeds 或其价值。\n\n56. 因此，受托人请求法院根据《破产法》第549及550条作出裁定：(1) 撤销2022年转让；以及 (2) 命令 Mei Guo 向受托人交付 Bombardier Proceeds 或其价值，该命令将构成针对 Mei Guo 的个人金钱判决。\n\n第三项请求\n（撤销实际欺诈性转让）（作为第一项请求或第二项请求的备位主张）\n\n57. 受托人重复并再次主张第1至47段所载的指称。\n\n58. 作为备位主张，假设法院未就第一项请求或第二项请求作出有利于受托人的裁定，受托人基于2017年6月27日将 Anton Development 转让给 Mei Guo 一事，根据由《破产法》第544条适用的《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条，63 对 Mei Guo 主张实际欺诈性转让请求。\n\n59. 更具体而言，如本诉状所述事实所支持：\n\na. 在2017年6月27日之前，债务人通过其保镖 Han Chunguang（韩春光）实益拥有 Anton Development。\n\n63 这是转让日期适用的纽约州法律。\n\nb. 因此，在2017年6月27日之前，债务人实益拥有 Anton Development，及其当时持有所有权登记的 Bombardier。\n\nc. 2017年6月27日，Anton Development 以 HK $1.00 的对价转让给 Mei Guo（“2017年转让”）。\n\n60. 2017年转让根据纽约州法律构成欺诈性转让。根据《破产法典》第550条，可向作为该等价值受让人的Mei Guo（郭美）追偿Anton Development（安通发展）在转让时的价值。\n\n61. 根据纽约州法律，对债务人意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈的分析，与根据《破产法典》第548条进行的分析相同。64 根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条提出实际欺诈意图主张，要求指称债务人—转让人以“实际意图”进行转让或承担义务，以“阻碍、拖延或欺诈”既有或未来债权人。65\n\n62. “由于在举证时证明实际阻碍、拖延或欺诈意图存在困难，一方当事人可以依赖‘欺诈迹象’，即‘与欺诈性转让如此普遍相关，以至于其存在足以引发意图推定的情形’。”66\n\n63. “欺诈迹象”的例子包括但不限于：(1) 隐瞒事实及虚假借口；(2) 就所转让财产的价值所获对价存在显失良心的不相称；\n\n64 In re Combes, 382 B.R. 186, 193-94 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008)（“根据《破产法典》第548条及根据纽约州法律，对债务人意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈的分析相同。”）。在此类主张中，争议的是债务人—转让人的意图，而非受让人的意图。In re LXEng LLC, 607 B.R. 67, 91\n\n(Bankr. D. Conn. 2019). 65 In re Integrity Graphics, Inc., 623 B.R. 21, 29-30 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020). 66 In re Jie Xiao, 608 B.R. 126, 157 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019)；另见 In re Andersen, 166 B.R. 516, 529 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1994)（“鉴于该现实，法院认定可根据转让周围的情形推定欺诈意图。欺诈的间接证据可以包括转让的情形，以及被指称的欺诈性转让各方就该不动产的占有、管理和控制所作的行为和举动。”）（强调为后加）。\n\n(3) 为接收财产而设立封闭式公司；(4) 当事人之间关系密切；(5) 为利益或使用而保留所涉财产；(6) 转让前后转让人与受让人的财务状况；(7) 破产或财务困境后反复出现的模式或行为过程的累积效果；以及 (8) 事件时间线。……向配偶转让财产是“典型”的欺诈迹象。……将资产转移至由债务人全资拥有或“如此紧密关联”的不同公司实体，是另一项欺诈迹象。67\n\n64. 本修正起诉状中所述事实表明，存在众多通常与欺诈性转让相关的欺诈迹象。其中包括但不限于：\n\n- a. “隐瞒事实。”债务人和Mei Guo（郭美）均未能提供有关Bombardier（庞巴迪）和Anton Development（安通发展）的信息，随后在回应受托人的询问时援引其《宪法第五修正案》免于自证其罪的权利。\n- b. “就所转让财产的价值所获对价存在显失良心的不相称。”在2017年转让中，Mei Guo（郭美）以HK \\$1.00获得Anton Development（安通发展）；该公司持有Bombardier（庞巴迪）以及其他资产，而该飞机五年后以超过\\$10 million的价格出售。\n- c. “当事人之间关系密切。”债务人与其女儿Mei Guo（郭美）之间具有密切的父女关系。\n- d. “为利益或使用而保留所涉财产。”2017年转让后，债务人仍将Anton Development（安通发展）的资产Bombardier（庞巴迪）视为其自身财产，\n\n67 In re Jie Xiao, 608 B.R. at 157.\n\n债务人继续使用Bombardier（庞巴迪），并就Bombardier（庞巴迪）的转让向其律师提供指示。\n\n65. 本案中债务人的欺诈行为与Ostrager法官所认定的其惯常做法一致，即利用空壳公司持有资产，使资产不受债权人追索。\n\n66. 在所有相关期间，债务人均对一名或多名债权人负债。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求本起诉状中受托人所请求的救济。\n\n67. 在所有相关期间，债务人的债权人均无理由怀疑2017年转让已经发生，或债务人已利用2017年转让实施欺诈性转让。\n\n68. 因此，假定第一项主张所请求的救济未获准予，受托人根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条及《破产法典》第544和550条，请求作出裁定，命令Mei Guo（郭美）向受托人交出Anton Development（安通发展）于2017年6月27日转让给她时的价值，该裁定将构成针对Mei Guo（郭美）的个人金钱判决。\n第四项主张\n（确认债务人为BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司）的真正实益所有人，并命令向受托人移交Mei Guo（郭美）BVI实体的所有权）\n\n69. 受托人重述并再次主张第1-47段所载指称。\n\n70. 本文所述事实表明，尽管BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司）的名义所有人为Mei Guo（郭美），债务人在所有相关期间仍控制该等公司。\n\n71. BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司）之一为Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特），据知情及确信，其唯一业务是拥有Bombardier（庞巴迪）——由债务人实益拥有的私人飞机。此外，Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）的地址位于香港中环花园道中国银行大厦49楼；该地址由债务人及其他与债务人关联的个人和实体使用，而Mei Guo（郭美）在所有相关期间一直是Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）的唯一成员及董事。\n\n72. 对于起诉状中确认的其他BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司），Mei Guo（郭美）亦自称为各该实体的表面实益所有人；据知情及确信，每一实体均：(i) 先前登记于债务人的一名雇员名下；(ii) 是债务人的空壳公司；(iii) 拥有由债务人控制的银行账户。此外，当被问及其对该等实体的控制时，债务人援引其《宪法第五修正案》免于自证其罪的权利。\n\n73. 根据BVI法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：Mei Guo（郭美）仅为名义持有人或“裸受托人”，其被视为仅为控制该公司、作为该公司真正实益所有人的一方持有公司所有权权益的法定所有权——本案中即Kwok（郭文贵）。例如，见 IRC v Silverts Ltd, [1951] Ch 521, CA（将公司股份的裸受托人描述为真正所有人的“仅具名义者或‘傀儡’”）。\n\n74. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 确认由Mei Guo（郭美）表面持有的BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司）所有权权益属于债务人第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将该等所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利移交给受托人。\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于前述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项主张，根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条作出裁定，(1) 确认Bombardier Proceeds（庞巴迪出售收益）属于由受托人管理的债务人第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令Mei Guo（郭美）向受托人交出Bombardier Proceeds（庞巴迪出售收益）或其价值，该裁定将构成针对Mei Guo（郭美）的个人金钱判决；\n\n2. 就第二项主张，根据《破产法典》第549及550条作出裁定，命令Mei Guo（郭美）向受托人交出Bombardier Proceeds（庞巴迪出售收益）或其价值，该裁定将构成针对Mei Guo（郭美）的个人金钱判决；\n\n3. 就第三项主张，根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条及《破产法典》第544和550条作出裁定，命令Mei Guo（郭美）向受托人交出Anton Development（安通发展）于2017年6月27日转让给她时的价值，该裁定将构成针对Mei Guo（郭美）的个人金钱判决；\n\n4. 就第四项主张，根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条作出裁定，(1) 确认由Mei Guo（郭美）表面持有的BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司）所有权权益属于债务人第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将该等所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利移交给受托人；\n\n5. 本案发生的合理律师费、成本及开支；以及\n\n6. 法院在该等情形下认为公正、适当或符合衡平原则的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分故意留白]\n\n日期：May 16, 2023 纽约州纽约市 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A. 德斯平斯）第11章受托人\n\n代表：/s/ Douglass Barron\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E. 卢夫特）（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6000\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A. 巴塞特）（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S. 斯卡尔卡）（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R. 林赛）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Himalaya","Miles Guo","GTV","Saraca"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":9212,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:41:29"}