{"id":"court_ctb_2032_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2032,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS
Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | DEFENDANTS
Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and China Golden
Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited | | | | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166, (212) 318-6000
Attn: Douglass Barron | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | | | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
x
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□
□
Debtor
U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□
□
Creditor
Other
x
□
Trustee | | | | | | |\n| CAUSE OF
ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OFCAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES
INVOLVED) Declaratory Judgment that Golden Spring is the Debtor's alter ego and ordering turnover of Golden Spring's assets
to Trustee; Declaratory Judgment that Debtor is equitable owner of Golden Spring and/or its assets and ordering turnover of
ownership of Golden Spring and/or its assets to Trustee; Avoidance of actual fraudulent transfer asserted in the alternative to first
and second claims. Including sections 541, 542, 544, 550, and New York Debtor and Creditor Law section 276. | | | | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
x
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
□
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
□
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
□
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
□
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
□
65-Dischargeability - other
FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief | | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h)
FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | □
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
□
X
72-Injunctive relief – other
FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
□
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
□
x
91-Declaratory judgment | | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
Other
□
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
□
X
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | | | | |\n| □
x
Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | □
Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | | | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint
Other Relief Sought
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relieve as set forth above. | Demand \\$ | | | | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | | | | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | 22-50073 (JAM) | | | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | | | |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport Division | Julie A. Manning | | | | |\n| | | RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | | | | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | | |\n| July 25, 2023 | | Douglass Barron | | | | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | | | | | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| ---------------------------------------------------------------- | x | | | | | |\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,
Plaintiff,
v. | x
:
:
:
:
Adv. Proceeding No. [
]
:
:
:
July 25, 2023
: | | | | | |\n| GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD
and CHINA GOLDEN SPRING GROUP
(HONG KONG) LIMITED, | :
:
: | | | | | |\n| Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
x | | | | | |\n\n## **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 541, 542, AND 544 OF BANKRUPTCY CODE SEEKING (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD. IS ALTER EGO OF DEBTOR, 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 defendants: (a) Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\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(\"Golden Spring\") and (b) China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited (\"China Golden Spring,\" together with Golden Spring, the \"Defendants\"). In support of this Complaint, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee brings this Complaint to remedy one of the Debtor's most obvious \"shell games\": the Debtor's use of Golden Spring, a \"family office\" under his control, to fund the Debtor's extravagant lifestyle and keep valuable assets out of the reach of creditors.\n\n2. As further discussed below, Golden Spring is the alter ego of the Debtor and the Debtor is the equitable owner of Golden Spring and/or its assets. Golden Spring's assets (including claims it holds) or the value of such assets should be brought into the Debtor's chapter 11 estate. Among other things, the Debtor formed Golden Spring with the assistance of his counsel at Williams & Connolly LLP and funded Golden Spring through other companies under his control. Although the Debtor made the decision not to sign any corporate documents on behalf of Golden Spring, advisors (such as the Debtor's counsel in 2015, Williams & Connolly LLP, and the Debtor's subsequent counsel during 2018-2020, Hodgson Russ LLP) and employees of Golden Spring all understood the Debtor to be the person exercising control over the entity. In fact, Golden Spring has been managed and staffed by the Debtor's employees, most notably Yvette Wang and Max Krasner. Ms. Wang, Golden Spring's president, even testified that in her role as president of Golden Spring her job was to look after the Debtor's interests. Moreover, not only did the Debtor use Golden Spring's address at 162 E. 64th Street in New York City as his personal address, a myriad of the Debtor's shell companies also share Golden Spring's address. In essence, the core purpose for the existence of Golden Spring is to hold assets for the Debtor and pay his expenses, rendering the company a key part of the\n\nDebtor's arrangement for living a life of luxury while at the same time asserting to this Court that he was effectively judgment proof.\n\n3. Based on these facts, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code declaring that (i) Golden Spring is an alter ego of the Debtor, and that (ii) Golden Spring and/or its assets are equitably owned by the Debtor.\n\n4. Finally, in the alternative, assuming Golden Spring is neither an alter ego of nor equitably owned by the Debtor, the Trustee asserts an actual fraudulent transfer claim against Golden Spring, pursuant to Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law and sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, in connection with the transfer of of the Debtor's funds to Golden Spring in 2015, as discussed in greater detail below.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n6. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a). Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n#### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. 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\n8. Golden Spring is a Delaware corporation.\n\n9. China Golden Spring is a Hong Kong corporation that is the purported sole shareholder of Golden Spring.\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n# **I. Background: Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n10. As the Court is by now well aware, the Debtor is a prolific user of shell\n\ncompanies, purportedly owned by family members or business subordinates, to shield his assets\n\nand activities from creditors. The Debtor's \"shell game\" has allowed him to continue to deny\n\nownership of assets, refuse to pay debts, and—until his recent arrest by the FBI—live a life of\n\nluxury. Indeed, in addition to Golden Spring, the Court is already familiar with numerous of\n\nthese entities, including:\n\n- a. **HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\")**, purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo (the \"Debtor's Daughter\"), and used by the Debtor to hold title to the *Lady May* yacht, which this Court and Justice Ostrager ruled was beneficially owned by the Debtor.2 The Court also recently ruled HK USA to be the Debtor's alter ego.3\n- b. **Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\")**, purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife, and used by the Debtor to hold title to the Debtor's mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut.4\n- c. **Whitecroft Shore Limited and Anton Development Limited**, entities purportedly owned by the Debtor's Daughter and used by the Debtor to hold title to the Debtor's Bombardier Global XRS private jet.5\n\n 2 *Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, at 31 (Adv. Proc. No. 22005003, Mar. 30, 2023) [Docket No. 177] (\"the issue of Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of the Lady is decisive as to the First Counterclaim and the identical issue was necessarily decided by Justice Ostrager in the Final Contempt Decision, which found by clear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May\"). 3\n\n*Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim*, at 35 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, May 18, 2023) [Docket No. 221] (\"HK USA is the alter ego of the Individual Debtor.\"). 4\n\nThe 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 order 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]. 5\n\nThese two companies, along with eight other companies purportedly owned by the Debtor's Daughter, are the subject of adversary proceeding 23-05008. *See 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* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, May 16, 2023) [Docket No. 1].\n\n- d. **HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., and Lexington Property, Inc. (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\")**, each of which is purportedly owned (a) 99.9999% by a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") company purportedly owned by the Debtor's personal assistant, Yvette Wang and (b) 0.0001% by a long-time employee of the Debtor, Anthony DiBattista.6 The HCHK Entities were used by the Debtor to, among other things, run his media operations and hold title to significant assets, including over \\$38 million in cash.\n- e. **Taurus Fund, LLC**, purportedly managed by the Debtor's bodyguard and chauffer, Scott Barnett, and used by the Debtor to hold title to his mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey.\n- f. **Ace Decade Limited (\"Ace Decade\")**, which this Court found was beneficially owned by the Debtor.7 The Court also found that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade's nominee owner, Yvette Wang.8 The Trustee has since learned that Yvette Wang, while the Ace Decade proceedings were ongoing (but after the Court found, on November 17, 2022, that the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade as of the February 15, 2022 petition date9 ), transferred the stock of Ace Decade that she nominally owned to an individual located in Switzerland (who, upon information and belief, is another associate of the Debtor).\n- g. **Gettr, GFashion, GMusic, GClubs, GNews, and GEdu (the \"G-Series Entities\"), New Federal State of China (\"NFSC\"), and Rule of Law Foundation (\"ROLF\")**, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, which this Court found were controlled by the Debtor,10 led by the Debtor,11 and/or served \"the purposes of . . . and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.12 The Court also found that the members of these entities and organizations were \"personally loyal to the Debtor.\"13\n\n6 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against these entities in adversary proceeding 23-05013, in connection with which the Court entered a temporary restraining order on June 12, 2023. *See Order Granting in Part Emergency* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, June 12, 2023) [Docket No. 18]. 7\n\n*Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* ¶ 1 (Jan. 24, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1372] (the \"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\"). 8\n\nCorp. Governance Contempt ¶ 4.\n\n9 *See* Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion ¶ 1 (Nov. 17, 2022) [Main Case Docket\n\nNo. 1110]. 10 PI Decision ¶ 3 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\"). 11 *Id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya.\"). 12 *Id.* (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"). 13 Id.\n\n11. Two other entities relevant to the allegations contained herein are HK\n\nInternational Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\") and Eastern Profit Corporation\n\n(\"Eastern Profit\"), both of which were controlled by the Debtor at all relevant times as his alter\n\negos.\n\n- a. **HK International** is a Hong Kong entity, purportedly owned by the Debtor's Daughter, that formerly held title to the *Lady May* prior to transferring it for no consideration to HK USA in April of 2020.\n\t- i. As discussed in more detail in the Trustee's counterclaims against HK USA, the Debtor transferred HK International to his assistant, Natasha Qu (Qu Guo Jiao), in October 2014 for no consideration, subject to a trust agreement which provided that Ms. Qu was to operate the company for the Debtor's benefit and according to his instructions. Thus, after October 2014, the Debtor beneficially owned and controlled HK International despite Ms. Qu's nominal ownership.\n\t- ii. According to the Hong Kong police, HK International was effectively controlled by the Debtor, used by the Debtor to funnel money to a number of other Debtor-controlled entities in investment projects related to the Hong Kong stock exchange, and received all its funds from other Debtorcontrolled companies.14\n\t- iii. A court order issued in Hong Kong on October 18, 2018, titled the Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere (the \"Hong Kong Restraint Order\") identified HK International as the purported holder of a bank account that was \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.15\n- b. **Eastern Profit** is another Hong Kong entity, purportedly owned by the Debtor's Daughter,16 that Judge Liman of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, in his 2021 decision in the case of *Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC* (the \"Liman Decision\"), found to be, \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.17\n\t- i. As discussed in the Liman Decision, Eastern Profit was, prior to 2017, owned by Han Chunguang18 (upon information and belief, the Debtor's\n\n14 Ex. 1, Wing Affirm. ¶¶ 48, 51, 57, 62, 158. The two Kwok-controlled entities that were the sources of funding for HK USA were Alfonso Global Limited and Alfa Global Ventures Limited. 15 Ex. 2, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 16.\n\n16 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at \\*1 (Debtor's Daughter \"is now the owner and sole director of Eastern.\"). 17 *Id.* at \\*1. 18 Upon information and belief, Han Chunguang's name is also spelled \"Han Changuang.\"\n\ndriver, bodyguard, and cook),19 who transferred purported ownership of Eastern Profit to the Debtor's Daughter for no apparent consideration in 2017.20\n\n- ii. Judge Liman observed that, analogously to HK USA and other shell companies, Eastern Profit's location \"was in the offices of [the Debtor's] family company in Hong Kong and its sole director was [the Debtor's] daughter.\"21\n- iii. According to testimony elicited at the hearing held in connection with the Liman Decision, the Debtor introduced Mr. Han Chunguang (the purported owner of Eastern Profit) as his cook, referring to him as \"Little Han.\"22\n- iv. According to Hong Kong police, Eastern Profit received all its funds from other Debtor-controlled companies.23\n- v. The Hong Kong Restraint Order identified Eastern Profit as the purported holder of a bank account that was \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.24\n- 12. The entities discussed above comprise the tip of the iceberg. According to the\n\nUnited States Government, the Debtor and his co-defendants William Je and Yvette Wang\n\n\"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different*\n\n 19 Han Chunguang's name was spelled (incorrectly, upon information and belief) \"Han Changhui\" in Judge Liman's published decision. Han Chunguang is listed on the Hong Kong Restraint Order as an individual whose bank accounts were subject to the Debtor's control. *See* Ex. 1, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3,\n\nRespondent 25. 20Liman Decision at \\*7 (\"Although . . . Han was the ostensible owner of Eastern, it has now been transferred to [the Debtor's Daughter] but Han could not testify that he received anything in exchange. Eastern is a shell for [the Debtor] and his family.\") (internal citations omitted). *Id.* at \\*1 (\"Prior to 2017, the owner and sole director of Eastern was an individual named Han [Chunguang] ('Han'). In 2017, Han transferred ownership and control to [the Debtor's Daughter] who was a friend of Han's and who is now the owner and sole director of Eastern.\"). 21 *Id.* at \\*7. 22 *See* Ex. 3, Trial Tr. at 768:4-12, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL)\n\n(S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 368 (April 22, 2021). *See also* Ex. 4, Trial Tr. at 142:12-19, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 362 (April 19, 2021) (Debtor introduced Yan Ping Wang as his servant and assistant: \"Q. Did he introduce [Ms. Wang] in any way -- let me ask you this. What did he introduce her as? A. Well, originally as his assistant. Q. Did he say anything else about what she did for him? A. He said that she did, you know, what personal assistants do and -- but he sent her from the room.\"); Ex. 61, Trial Tr. at 248-249, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 364 (April 20, 2021) (\"Q. Did [the Debtor] come to introduce [Ms. Wang] at a particular meeting at some point? A. At the first meeting, he just referred to her as like a servant. In the second\n\nmeeting, he introduced her as his assistant.\"). 23 Ex. 1 Wing Affirm. ¶ 158. The two Debtor-controlled entities that were the sources of funding for Eastern were\n\nAlfonso Global Limited and Alfa Global Ventures Limited. 24 Ex. 2, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 16.\n\nentities or individuals to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.205 In sum, while this Complaint focuses on Golden Spring, the Trustee believes that context regarding the Debtor's wide-ranging strategy of using shell companies to shield assets from creditors will assist the Court in understanding the Trustee's position. The Trustee expressly reserves his rights to pursue actions asserting claims against other entities at the appropriate time.\n\n## II. Golden Spring is Alter Ego of and Equitably Owned by Debtor\n\n## A. Golden Spring Formed at Debtor's Direction for Debtor's Purposes\n\n13. Golden Spring was incorporated in Delaware and registered to do business in New York in March of 2015,20 coinciding with the Debtor's relocation to New York in January 2015 27\n\n14. The Debtor's counsel who assisted the Debtor in forming Golden Spring was\n\n\n\n25 See Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release (the \"USAO Memorandum\"), at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief (the \"G-Club Reply\") (June 23, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1934].\n\n26 See Ex. 5, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint ¶ 33, Ace Decade Holdings, Ltd. v. UBS AG, Index No. 623315/2015 (Feb. 5, 2016) [NYSCEF Doc. No. 27] (\"Kwok UBS Affidavit\")\n\n27 Id. ¶ 30. 28 21 29 30 31\n\n\n\n\n\n### i. Debtor's Initial Funding of Golden Spring in 2015\n\n18. The Debtor admitted that he provided the initial funding for Golden Spring by injecting funds into Golden Spring from an account he controlled at UBS. According to the Debtor's affidavit filed with the New York state court in connection with his 2015 lawsuit against UBS, in April 2015 the Debtor's bankers at UBS \"assisted [the Debtor] with setting up Golden Spring New York by transferring funds from one of [the Debtor's] accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JPMorgan Chase bank account in New York.'735\n\n| 19. | | | | | |\n|-----|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n35 Ex. 5, Kwok UBS Affidavit ¶ 36. 36 37 38\n\nii. Debtor's Funding of Golden Spring Subsequent to 2015 20. Upon information and belief, Golden Spring receives no funding other than from other\n\nKwok-controlled entities.\n\n# C. Advisors and Employees Identified Debtor as Person Exercising Control Over Golden Spring\n\n21. No one familiar with the Debtor and Golden Spring doubted that the Debtor was\n\nthe person who exercised control over Golden Spring (despite the Debtor's son's purported\n\nownership of Golden Spring's ostensible parent company, China Golden Spring).\n\n\n\nupon information and belief, the Debtor was the decision-maker with respect to matters such as\n\n\n\nthe hiring and firing of Golden Spring employees. This state of affairs represents a complete lack of corporate formalities given that the individuals in positions of formal corporate management at Golden Spring, such as Yvette Wang, were subordinate to the Debtor who acted as ultimate decision-maker.\n\n\n\nD. Golden Spring's Function to Hold Debtor's Assets and Pay Expenses\n\n25.\n\noffice\" was to hold his assets and pay his expenses. Golden Spring was thus a critical part of the\n\n\n\nDebtor's arrangement for living a life of luxury while at the same time asserting that he was\n\neffectively judgment proof, as exemplified by the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities filed in this\n\nChapter 11 Case, where the Debtor claimed to hold assets of \\$3,850.00.50 The examples of\n\nGolden Spring functioning in this way are legion. Among others:\n\n- a. Golden Spring has been paying the Debtor's personal living expenses since 2015.51 These expenses include security/bodyguards, transportation, clothing, and other items.52 For example, the Debtor testified that if he desired to buy a pair of shoes, he would arrange for Golden Spring to pay for it.53\n- b. The Debtor travelled in a Maybach automobile purportedly owned by Golden Spring. 54 Indeed, insurance documents in the possession of the Trustee indicate that Golden Spring has purportedly owned multiple luxury vehicles for use by the Debtor.55\n- c. Golden Spring paid numerous of the Debtor's legal fees, including through litigation funding agreements\n- d. Golden Spring paid the expenses associated with the Debtor's yacht, the Lady May,5 as well as the maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment.58\n- e. The Debtor intended to use Golden Spring as lender in connection with an \\$8 million DIP loan proposed in the Debtor's motion filed on March 22, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 117]. A large portion of this loan was slated to be used for\n\nThese funding agreements were patently designed to\n\nensure that valuable litigation recoveries would never be legally held by the Debtor and thereby exposed to his creditors\n\n50 See Official Form 106, at 5 (Mar. 9, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n51 See Ex. 29, Tr. of 341 Meeting of Creditors, Apr. 6, 2022, In re Kwork, Case 22-50073, at 85:17-19, 86:9-12.\n\n32 Id. 30:18-23. These expenses were reflected in the Monthly Operating Reports filed by the Debtor for February 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 120]. March 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 242]. and April 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 423], which report an aggregate amount of \\$351,081 paid by a \"third party for the benefit of the estate.\"\n\nરું રેજે Ex. 29, Tr. of 341 Meeting of Creditors, at 52-53.\n\nટેવ Id., at 56:7-20.\n\nરેર See Ex. 30, Golden Spring's Policy Notice by AIG, at 2.\n\n 56\n\n57 See Complaint for Declaratory Relief T 24 (Apr. 11, 2022) [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 1].\n\n58 See Ex. 35, Tr. of 341 Meeting of Creditors, Dec. 18, 2020, In re Genever Holdings, LLC, Case No. 20-12411-JLG, at 21-22, 31-32.\n\npaying the Debtor's then-bankruptcy counsel at Brown Rudnick and numerous of the Debtor's proposed \"ordinary course\" professionals.\n\n26. Notably, though Golden Spring as proposed DIP lender was represented in this Chapter 11 Case by counsel, Golden Spring essentially disappeared after the appointment of the Trustee, failing to respond to the Trustee's Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoena and eventually being held in contempt by this Court.59\n\n## E. Golden Spring Managed and Staffed by Debtor's Employees\n\n27. Golden Spring's initial directors when the company was established in March 2015 were Qu Guo Jiao (i.e., Natasha Qu) and Yan Feng Sun,60 who also served as the initial president/treasurer and secretary of the company, respectively (the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, was initially Executive Vice President). Natasha Qu was the Debtor's executive assistant and was placed by him as nominal owner of numerous entities, including perhaps most notably HK International, the entity that once owned the Lady May, which company she transferred to the Debtor's Daughter for no consideration in June 2017. Yan Feng Sun was another employee of the Debtor who, upon information and belief, the Debtor placed (also in March 2015) as nominal equity holder of his shell company Globalist International Limited.62\n\n28. Golden Spring's president in more recent years, including at the time the Debtor filed his chapter 11 petition, was Yvette Wang, who also served as one of the company's\n\n59 Given Golden Spring's non-compliance with its discovery obligations, the Trustee is unable at this time to determine with precision the value of Golden Spring's assets, and the Trustee's investigation remains ongoing.\n\n60 61\n\n62 Globalist International Limited is one of the entities that the Trustee has asserted to be property of the estate in connection with adversary proceeding number 23-05008.\n\n63\n\ndirectors (along with the Debtor's son). This Court has already ruled that \"[t]he Debtor has control over Ms. Wang\" and that he \"has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his behalf to purchase properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\"64 Ms. Wang has served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Saraca Media Group, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., Greenwich Land, LLC, and Genever Holdings LLC.65 The Trustee in his investigation has learned that Ms. Wang was widely known to be the Debtor's personal assistant. When asked at his deposition whether Ms. Wang was his employee, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.66\n\n29. On March 15, 2023, Ms. Wang was arrested in connection with charges that she had, among other things, conspired with the Debtor in connection with his criminal fraud and money-laundering activities. According to the U.S. Government, Ms. Wang played an \"instrumental role\" in the Debtor's fraud scheme as his \"trusted chief of staff who is tasked with managing operations at even those entities with which she has no formal affiliation.\"67\n\n30. In addition, employees of Golden Spring have included, among others:\n\n64 Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\n65 Ex. 38, Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang ¶ 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2018) [Docket No. 182] (\"I am the President of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., and in that capacity serve as an administrator for the interests of [the Debtor] and his family.\"); Ex. 39, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (rendering Ms. Wang signatory); Ex. 40, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated August 31, 2020; Ex. 41, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated December 4, 2020; Ex. 42, ; Ex. 43, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 44, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 45, Complaint ¶ 9a, *United States v. Wang*, No. 1:23-mj-02007-UA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023)\n\n[Docket No. 1] (\"Wang was an Executive Director of GTV\"); *Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2* ¶ 1, (Case No. 22-50592, Oct. 12, 2020) [Docket No. 1]; Ex. 46, Greenwich Land, LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated January 19, 2021. 66 Ex. 47, Ho Wan Kwok Dep. Tr., dated March 2, 2023, at 33:11-13.\n\n67 Ex. 48, United States Letter in Opposition to Yvette Wang's Motion for Bond, at 18, *U.S. v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette*,*\"* (Mar. 29, 2023) [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, Docket No. 10].\n\n- a. Max Krasner, who, in addition to his work as a Golden Spring employee, has also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as employee, officer and/or authorized signatory of Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), Rule of Law Foundation, and the HCHK Entities. 68 When the Debtor was asked at his deposition whether Mr. Krasner was his employee and agent, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination. 69\n- b. Daniel Podhaskie, who, in addition to his work as a Golden Spring employee (general counsel), also served as the Debtor's personal attorney and corporate representative of Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation. In addition, Mr. Podhaskie served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as officer and/or authorized signatory for Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, and Hudson Diamond NY LLC.10 When the Debtor was asked at his deposition whether Mr. Podhaskie was his employee and agent, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.11\n- c. Anthony DiBattista, who, in addition to his work as a Golden Spring employee, also served the Debtor as a corporate officer of GTV, GFashion, G-Club, and the HCHK Entities. When the Debtor was asked at his deposition whether Mr. DiBattista was his employee, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.12\n\n: Ex. 39. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (reflecting Mr. Krasner as the vice president); Ex. 49, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019; : Ex. 51. Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020; Ex. 52, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Foundation (Form 990, Page 7, listing Max Krasner as \"President, Treasurer ); Ex. 53, Email by and among Max Krasner, Anthony DiBattista and attorneys from Marcum on the HCHK 2022 Bank Statements in January 2023.\n\n69 Ex. 47, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 34:6-20.\n\n70 See, e.g.\n\n; Ex. 55. Application for Authority of Lamp Capital LLC, dated Sept. 11, 2020 filed with the State of New York (signed by Podhaskie); Ex. 51, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020; Ex. 56, Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated December 4, 2020; Ex. 57, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, dated January 4, 2021; Ex. 41, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting; Ex. 58, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond NY LLC, dated January 4, 2021.\n\n71 Ex. 47, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 34:6-20.\n\n72 Ex. 47, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 86:13-18.\n\n31. Furthermore, upon information and belief, other individuals employed officially or unofficially at Golden Spring have included, among others, Han (\"Hank\") Chunguang,73 Joe Wang,74 Bernardo Enriquez,75 and Alex Hadjicharalambous,76 each of which have had roles at different entities controlled by the Debtor.\n\n32. Golden Spring, like the Debtor, his children, and many other entities controlled by the Debtor such as GTV and Saraca, was also represented by Aaron A. Mitchell.77 And Golden Spring's general counsel during the early stages of the Chapter 11 Case, Melissa Francis, also represented the Debtor individually.78\n\n## **F. Golden Spring's Identity of Interests With Debtor**\n\n33. The degree to which Golden Spring shared an identity of interests with the Debtor was such that it was at all relevant times essentially an extension of his person, as has been revealed by the Debtor and his associates. For example, Yvette Wang testified on multiple instances that in her capacity as president of Golden Spring she \"serve[d] as an administrator for *the interests of [the Debtor]* and his family.\"79 And in correspondence with the seller of a Connecticut mansion the Debtor viewed (but did not ultimately purchase), Ms. Wang wrote that\n\n 73 Mr. Han is a long-standing bodyguard and/or chauffeur of the Debtor who has served the Debtor as, among numerous other roles, as nominal owner of Debtor-controlled entities including Eastern Profit Corporation, Anton Development Limited, and Rosy Acme Ventures Limited, and director and officer of Saraca Media Group Inc. 74 Mr. Wang has also served as VP of Technology of HCHK Technologies.\n\n75 Mr. Enriquez has also worked at the HCHK Entities and served as Treasurer of Lamp Capital LLC. 76 Mr. Hadjicharalambous has also worked at the HCHK Entities, G-Club, and Freedom Media Ventures Ltd. 77 Despite being represented by Aaron Mitchell as counsel, Golden Spring was held in contempt by this Court\n\n(along with Lamp Capital LLC), based on its failure to comply with Rule 2004 subpoenas. *See Order Holding*\n\n*Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court* (Apr. 26, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1709]. 78 *See Motion of Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorization (I) Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the Ordinary Course, (II) Payment of Prepetition Claims, and (III) Granting Related Relief* (Mar. 22,\n\n2022) [Main Case Docket No. 119]. 79 *See* Ex. 59, Yvette Wang Oct. 11, 2018 Dep. Tr. at 46:20-23 (\"Q: I'm asking you whether or not you serve as an administrator for Mr. Kwok's interests? A: Yes.\") (emphasis added). *See also* Ex. 38, May 15, 2018 Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (ECF 182) at ¶ 1. (\"I am the President of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., and in that capacity serve as an administrator for the interests of [the Debtor] and his family.\").\n\nGolden Spring was \"a family office based in Manhattan\" and that \"we take care of Miles and his family's business, projects and assets in the US.\" Ms. Wang concluded by writing: \"On behalf of Miles, thank you again for having this beautiful home to him, all the best.\"80\n\n34. It is also worth noting that the Debtor has used Golden Spring's address at 162 E. 64th Street, shared with a plethora of other of his controlled entities, as his own personal address. A recent case in point is from his chapter 11 petition, wherein, when asked \"where you live,\" the Debtor wrote the name and address of Golden Spring at 162 E. 64th Street.81\n\n#### **G. Parent Company China Golden Spring Controlled By Debtor**\n\n35. China Golden Spring, the Hong Kong entity ostensibly owned by the Debtor's son that is Golden Spring's corporate parent, is yet another company controlled at all relevant times by the Debtor. Upon information and belief, at the time Golden Spring was established, the Debtor ran China Golden Spring through his employee Natasha Qu. The Hong Kong Restraint Order identified China Golden Spring as one of a number of entities whose bank accounts were \"subject to the effective control of the Debtor.\"82 Other entities so identified in the Hong Kong Restraint Order include HK International (which formerly held title to the *Lady May*), Anton Development Limited (which formerly held title to the Debtor's Bombardier jet), and Eastern Profit, among others.\n\n#### **H. Debtor Asserted Fifth Amendment Regarding Control Over Golden Spring**\n\n36. The Debtor has asserted the Fifth Amendment on multiple occasions when questioned regarding his control over Golden Spring. At his March 2, 2023 deposition, the Debtor testified as follows:\n\n80*See* Ex. 60, Yvette Wang's Email to Louise Camuto on Jul. 11, 2019. 81 *See* Ho Wan Kwok's Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, at 2 (Feb. 15, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 1]. 82 Ex. 2, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 22.\n\nBY MR. LUFT: Q. Mr. Kwok, all assets owned by GoldenꞏSpring belong to you, correct? MR. ROMNEY: Object to the form. A. The Fifth. BY MR. LUFT: Q. Mr. Kwok, you control Golden Springs Limited, correct? A. The Fifth. Q. Mr. Kwok, you have control of all assetsꞏof Golden Spring, correct? A. The Fifth. 83\n\n37. Subsequently, in the Debtor's sworn declaration dated May 11, 2023, the Debtor was asked to \"State that you have control over Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.,\" and responded: \"I assert my Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and decline to answer.\"84\n\n38. Similarly, the Debtor also asserted the Fifth Amendment when questioned\n\nregarding his control over China Golden Spring.85\n\n# **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Golden Spring is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Golden Spring's Assets to Trustee)**\n\n39. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38.\n\n40. Delaware law applies to the alter ego claim because Golden Spring is a Delaware\n\nentity.86\n\n41. Under Delaware's two-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil, a court\n\napplying Delaware's alter ego analysis to the Debtor's relationship with Golden Spring will\n\nfocus on (1) whether the Debtor and Golden Spring operated as a single economic unit and (2)\n\n83*See* Ex. 47, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 26:19-24. 84 *Debtor's Sworn Declaration Regarding Responses to Particular Questions*, ¶ 124, Ex. 1 of the HCHK Complaint [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No .1], filed June 8, 2023 (\"Kwok Declaration\"). 85 Kwok Declaration ¶ 92.\n\n86 *See, e.g.*, *Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar*, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021) (\"[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.\").\n\nwhether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether the Debtor and Golden Spring operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether Golden Spring was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor.87 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"88\n\n42. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over Golden Spring such that Golden Spring had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. Golden Spring is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. Golden Spring was formed at the Debtor's direction for the Debtor's purposes;\n- b. Golden Spring was funded by the Debtor and had no independent source of funds or capitalization;\n- c. Golden Spring's advisors and employees identified the Debtor as the person exercising control over Golden Spring;\n- d. Golden Spring's function has been to hold the Debtor's assets and pay his expenses;\n- e. Golden Spring was managed and staffed by the Debtor's employees;\n- f. Golden Spring shared complete identity of interests with Debtor;\n- g. Golden Spring's parent company, China Golden Spring, was at all relevant times controlled by the Debtor; and\n- h. The Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding his control over Golden Spring.\n\n87 *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third Circuit considers in determining whether a corporation operated as a single economic entity, which notably would not include whether the relevant individual is a shareholder of the entity, but would include \"gross undercapitalization; failure to observe corporate formalities . . . [and] whether the corporation is merely a facade.\"). 88 *Id.* at 471.\n\n43. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n44. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Golden Spring was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Golden Spring at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Golden Spring at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Golden Spring to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Golden Spring and/or Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Golden Spring and/or Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n45. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38.\n\n46. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Golden Spring is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Golden\n\nSpring and/or its assets.89\n\n47. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n89 *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n48. Because Golden Spring was equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over Golden Spring, and/or the assets of Golden Spring, were, following the Petition Date, property of the Estate.\n\n49. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Golden Spring purportedly held by China Golden Spring, and/or the assets of Golden Spring, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Golden Spring, and/or the assets of Golden Spring, to the Trustee.\n\n### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Avoidance of Actual Fraudulent Transfer) (Asserted in the Alternative to First and Second Claims)**\n\n50. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38.\n\n51. In the alternative, in the event that Golden Spring is ruled to not be the alter ego of or equitably owned by the Debtor, the Trustee asserts actual fraudulent transfer claim against Golden Spring pursuant to Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law,90 made applicable by section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, in connection with the 2015 Transfer\n\nto Golden Spring.\n\n52. 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.91 A claim of actual intent to defraud under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code requires allegations that the\n\n90 This was the New York statute effective on the date of the transfer. 91 *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 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019).\n\ndebtor-transferor made a transfer or incurred an obligation with \"actual intent\" to \"hinder, delay or defraud\" a past or future creditor.92\n\n53. S \"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. \"\"93\n\nExamples 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 of 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.94\n\n54.\n\n\n\nevents.\n\n92 In re Integrity Graphics, Inc., 623 B.R. 21, 29-30 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020).\n\n93 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\n94 In re Jie Xiao, 608 B.R. at 157.\n\n55. Under this fact pattern, for no\n\nconsideration.\n\n56. Moreover, the facts discussed in this Complaint demonstrate numerous of the\n\nbadges of fraud commonly associated with fraudulent transfers. These include, among others:\n\n- d) \"Concealing facts.\" The Debtor has denied his funding of Golden Spring. For example, when asked at his Section 341 meeting of creditors whether he had \"ever funded Golden Spring New York in any way,\" he responded \"no.\"95\n- e) \"An unconscionable discrepancy in consideration received in exchange for the value of the property transferred.\" The 2015 Transfer resulted in the Debtor transferring without receiving any consideration in return.\n- f) \"Creating a closely-held corporation for property receipt\" and \"closeness in relationship between the parties.\" Golden Spring, the recipient of the was controlled by the Debtor.\n- g) \"Retaining the property in question for benefit or use.\" Upon information and belief, the Debtor used the transferred to Golden Spring for himself given that, as discussed herein, the purpose of Golden Spring was to hold the Debtor's assets and pay for his expenses.\n\n57. The Debtor's fraudulent conduct in this instance is consistent with his *modus*\n\n*operandi* of using shell companies to hold assets out of the reach of creditors.\n\n58. 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\n59. At all relevant times, the Debtor's creditors would have had no reason to suspect that the 2015 Transfer had occurred.\n\n60. Accordingly, assuming that the relief requested in the First Claim is not granted,\n\nthe Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to the Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor\n\n 95 Ex. 29, Tr. of 341 Meeting of Creditors, at 35:25-36:2.\n\nLaw, sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) avoiding the 2015 Transfer, and (2) ordering Golden Spring to pay 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: (a) at all times Golden Spring was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Golden Spring any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Golden Spring at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Golden Spring to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Golden Spring purportedly held by China Golden Spring, and/or the assets of Golden Spring, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Golden Spring, and/or the assets of Golden Spring, to the Trustee;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to the Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law, sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) avoiding the 2015 Transfer, and (2) ordering Golden Spring to pay to the Trustee, which order shall constitute a money judgment against Golden Spring;\n\n4. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n5. 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: July 25, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglass Barron*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"B1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\n（背面说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告\nLuc A. Despins（Luc A. Despins），第 11 章受托人 被告\nGolden Spring (New York) Ltd.（Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司）及 China Golden\nSpring Group (Hong Kong) Limited（China Golden Spring Group（香港）有限公司）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址和电话号码）\nPaul Hastings LLP（Paul Hastings LLP），200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166，(212) 318-6000\n收件人：Douglass Barron（Douglass Barron） 律师\n（如已知）\n当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\nx\n□ 受托人 当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□\n□\n债务人\n美国受托人/破产管理人\n□\n□\n债权人\n其他\nx\n□\n受托人\n诉讼\n事由\n（简要陈述诉讼事由，包括所涉全部美国法条）确认判决，确认 Golden Spring 为债务人的另一自我，并命令将 Golden Spring 的资产移交给受托人；确认判决，确认债务人是 Golden Spring 及/或其资产的衡平法所有人，并命令将 Golden Spring 及/或其资产的所有权移交给受托人；作为第一项和第二项请求的备选主张，撤销实际欺诈性转让。包括第 541、542、544、550 条以及《纽约州债务人和债权人法》第 276 条。\n诉讼性质\n（最多为五（5）个方框编号，以主要诉讼事由为 1，第一个备选诉讼事由为 2，第二个备选诉讼事由为 3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 金钱/财产追偿\n□\nx\n11-金钱/财产追偿 - §542 财产移交\n□\n12-金钱/财产追偿 - §547 优先受偿\n□\n13-金钱/财产追偿 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14-金钱/财产追偿 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的效力、优先顺位或范围\n□\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的效力、优先顺位或范围 FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n□\n61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，故意和恶意损害\n□\n63-可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n64-可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养除外）\n□\n65-可免责性 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□\n31-批准出售破产财产及共同所有人的财产 - §363(h)\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n41-对免责提出异议/撤销免责 - §727(c),(d),(e) □\n71-禁令救济 – 实施中止\n□\nX\n72-禁令救济 – 其他\nFRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后顺位\n□\n81-债权或权益的劣后顺位\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51-撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□\nx\n91-确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□\n66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税款债权\n□\n62-可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67-可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（下一栏续） FRBP 7001(10) 移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01-对移送的请求或诉讼事由作出裁定\n其他\n□\nSS-SIPA 案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n□\nX\n02-其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n□\nx\n如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选 □\n如主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如在起诉书中要求陪审团审判，请勾选\n请求的其他救济\n如上所述的确认判决和禁令救济。 请求金额 \\$\nB1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由产生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名 破产案件编号\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 22-50073 (JAM)\n案件待决地区 分院办事处 法官姓名\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） Bridgeport Division（布里奇波特分院） Julie A. Manning（Julie A. Manning）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序待决地区 分院办事处 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n日期 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nJuly 25, 2023 Douglass Barron（Douglass Barron）\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖范围内设立一个“财产集合”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产集合范围极广，且法院管辖权范围极广，可能会就该财产集合的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能发生有关债务人免责的诉讼。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写并提交表格 1040，即《对抗程序封面页》，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 在提交过程中获取表格 1040 中的信息。）填写完成后，封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记官需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制有关法院活动的必要统计报告。\n\n封面页及其中所载信息不能替代或补充法律、《破产程序规则》或法院地方法规要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。封面页在很大程度上不言自明，必须由原告的律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的起诉书均须向书记官另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉书中所列原告和被告的姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏为原告、第二栏为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中请求的美元金额。\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，必须由该律师事务所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------- x\n关于： :\n:\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:\n（合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（Luc A. Despins），第 11 章\n受托人，\n原告，\n诉 x\n\n对抗程序编号 [\n]\n:\n:\n:\nJuly 25, 2023\n\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD\n（Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司）\n及 CHINA GOLDEN SPRING GROUP\n(HONG KONG) LIMITED（China Golden Spring Group\n（香港）有限公司）， :\n\n被告。\n\nx\n依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条，由 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）财产集合的第 11 章受托人提起的起诉书，请求：（I）确认判决，确认 GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD.（Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司）为债务人的另一自我；及（II）相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（Luc A. Despins）以在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”或“Kwok”）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，对被告提出本对抗起诉书（以下简称“起诉书”）：(a) Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\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，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings LLC）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings Corporation）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（Paul Hastings LLP），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins（Luc A. Despins），作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财产集合的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n（以下简称“Golden Spring”）及 (b) China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited（以下简称“China Golden Spring”，与 Golden Spring 合称“被告”）。受托人支持本起诉书，陈述如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提出本起诉书，旨在纠正债务人最明显的“空壳把戏”之一：债务人利用其控制下的“家族办公室”Golden Spring，为债务人的奢靡生活方式提供资金，并使有价值资产不受债权人追索。\n\n2. 如下文进一步论述，Golden Spring 是债务人的另一自我，且债务人是 Golden Spring 及/或其资产的衡平法所有人。Golden Spring 的资产（包括其持有的债权）或该等资产的价值应被纳入债务人的第 11 章财产集合。除其他事项外，债务人在 Williams & Connolly LLP（Williams & Connolly LLP）律师的协助下设立 Golden Spring，并通过其控制下的其他公司为 Golden Spring 提供资金。尽管债务人决定不代表 Golden Spring 签署任何公司文件，顾问（例如债务人在 2015 年的律师 Williams & Connolly LLP，以及债务人在 2018-2020 年期间后续聘请的律师 Hodgson Russ LLP（Hodgson Russ LLP））和 Golden Spring 的员工均了解，债务人是对该实体行使控制权的人。事实上，Golden Spring 一直由债务人的员工管理和配备人员，其中最显著的是 Yvette Wang（Yvette Wang）和 Max Krasner（Max Krasner）。Golden Spring 的总裁 Wang 女士甚至作证称，在其担任 Golden Spring 总裁的职位中，她的工作是照顾债务人的利益。此外，债务人不仅将 Golden Spring 位于纽约市 162 E. 64th Street 的地址用作其个人地址，债务人的众多空壳公司也共用 Golden Spring 的地址。本质上，Golden Spring 存在的核心目的在于为债务人持有资产并支付其开支，使该公司成为债务人在向本法院主张其实际上无可供执行财产的同时过着奢华生活之安排的关键组成部分。\n\n3. 基于这些事实，受托人请求法院依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条作出裁定，确认：(i) Golden Spring 是债务人的另一自我；且 (ii) Golden Spring 及/或其资产由债务人在衡平法上所有。\n\n4. 最后，作为备选主张，如 Golden Spring 既非债务人的另一自我，亦非由债务人在衡平法上所有，则受托人就如下文更详细论述的债务人于 2015 年向 Golden Spring 转让债务人资金一事，依据《纽约州债务人和债权人法》第 276 条及《破产法》第 544 和 550 条，对 Golden Spring 主张实际欺诈性转让请求权。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n5. 本法院依据 28 U.S.C. §1334(b) 对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n6. 本对抗程序已依据 28 U.S.C. §157(a) 移交本法院审理。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本法院为适当审判地。\n当事人\n\n7. 受托人依据本法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令[主案件案卷编号 523]，担任第 11 章案件的第 11 章受托人。\n\n8. Golden Spring 是一家 Delaware（特拉华州）公司。\n\n9. China Golden Spring 是一家 Hong Kong（香港）公司，并为 Golden Spring 名义上的唯一股东。\n事实\nI. 背景：债务人大量使用空壳公司\n\n10. 如本法院现已充分知悉，债务人大量使用名义上由家庭成员或商业下属所有的空壳公司，以使其资产和活动免受债权人追索。债务人的“空壳把戏”使其得以继续否认对资产的所有权、拒绝偿还债务，并且——直至其最近被 FBI 逮捕——过着奢华生活。事实上，除 Golden Spring 外，本法院已熟悉这些实体中的众多实体，包括：\n\na. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”），据称由债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）（“债务人之女”）所有，并由债务人用于持有 Lady May 号游艇的所有权；本院和 Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）均裁定该游艇由债务人实益拥有。2 本院最近还裁定 HK USA 为债务人的另一个自我。3\n\nb. Greenwich Land, LLC（“Greenwich Land”），据称由债务人的妻子所有，并由债务人用于持有其位于康涅狄格州格林威治的豪宅的所有权。4\n\nc. Whitecroft Shore Limited 和 Anton Development Limited，据称由债务人之女所有，并由债务人用于持有其 Bombardier Global XRS 私人飞机的所有权。5\n\n2 支持准许部分简易判决动议之口头裁定的补充裁决备忘录，第31页（对抗性程序案号 22005003，Mar. 30, 2023）[案卷编号 177]（“个人债务人对 Lady 的实益所有权及控制权问题，对于第一项反诉具有决定性意义；Ostrager 法官已在最终藐视法庭裁决中必然裁定了同一问题，该裁决以明确且令人信服的证据认定个人债务人实益拥有并控制 Lady May”）。3\n\n准许就第二项反诉作出部分简易判决之动议的裁决备忘录及命令，第35页（对抗性程序案号 22-05003，May 18, 2023）[案卷编号 221]（“HK USA 是个人债务人的另一个自我。”）。4\n\n受托人已在对抗性程序 23-05005 中针对该实体寻求另一个自我判决；就此，本院针对 Greenwich Land LLC 和债务人的妻子作出了判决前救济及临时限制令。参见部分准许紧急单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令（对抗性程序案号 23-05005，Mar. 28, 2023）[案卷编号 14]；准许第11章受托人修订后的单方判决前救济申请的命令（对抗性程序案号 23-05005，Mar. 28, 2023）[案卷编号 15]。5\n\n该两家公司连同据称由债务人之女所有的另外八家公司，系对抗性程序 23-05008 的对象。参见第11章 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产受托人就以下事项提出的起诉书：(I) 依据《破产法典》第541、542及544条以及《破产程序规则》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；及 (Ii) 相关救济（对抗性程序案号 23-05008，May 16, 2023）[案卷编号 1]。\n\nd. HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc. 和 Lexington Property, Inc.（合称“HCHK 实体”），各实体据称由：(a) 一家据称由债务人的私人助理 Yvette Wang（王雁平）所有的英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）公司持有 99.9999%；及 (b) 债务人的长期雇员 Anthony DiBattista 持有 0.0001%。6 除其他事项外，债务人利用 HCHK 实体经营其媒体业务，并持有重大资产的所有权，包括超过 \\$38 million 的现金。\n\ne. Taurus Fund, LLC，据称由债务人的保镖兼司机 Scott Barnett 管理，并由债务人用于持有其位于新泽西州 Mahwah 的豪宅的所有权。\n\nf. Ace Decade Limited（“Ace Decade”），本院认定其由债务人实益拥有。7 本院还认定，债务人控制并雇用了 Ace Decade 的名义所有人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）。8 受托人此后获悉，在 Ace Decade 程序进行期间（但在本院于 November 17, 2022 认定债务人自 February 15, 2022 申请日之日起排他性地实益拥有并控制 Ace Decade 之后9），Yvette Wang 将其名义持有的 Ace Decade 股份转让给了一名位于瑞士的个人（据知情及信赖，该个人为债务人的另一名关联人士）。\n\ng. Gettr、GFashion、GMusic、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu（“G 系列实体”）、New Federal State of China（“NFSC”）和 Rule of Law Foundation（“ROLF”），以及其他据称独立的实体和组织；本院认定该等实体和组织由债务人控制，10 由债务人领导，11 和/或服务于债务人的“目的……并作为其商业工具”。12 本院还认定，这些实体和组织的成员“在个人上忠于债务人。”13\n\n6 受托人已在对抗性程序 23-05013 中针对该等实体寻求另一个自我判决；就此，本院于 June 12, 2023 作出了临时限制令。参见部分准许紧急单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令（对抗性程序案号 23-05013，June 12, 2023）[案卷编号 18]。7\n\n准许认定债务人藐视公司治理命令之动议的命令 ¶ 1（Jan. 24, 2023）[主案案卷编号 1372]（“公司治理藐视法庭命令”）。8\n\n公司治理藐视法庭命令 ¶ 4。\n\n9 参见关于部分解决受托人藐视法庭动议的命令 ¶ 1（Nov. 17, 2022）[主案案卷编号 1110]。10 初步禁令裁决 ¶ 3（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group 和一个关联实体‘GTV’。”）。11 同上 ¶ 7（“债务人是 The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya 的领导人。”）。12 同上（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和 Himalaya 服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员在个人上忠于债务人。”）。13 同上。\n\n11. 与本案所载指控有关的另外两个实体是 HK International Funds Investments Limited（“HK International”）和 Eastern Profit Corporation（“Eastern Profit”）；两者在所有相关期间均作为债务人的另一个自我而受债务人控制。\n\na. HK International 是一家香港实体，据称由债务人之女所有；其曾在 April of 2020 将 Lady May 无偿转让给 HK USA 之前持有该游艇的所有权。\n\ni. 如受托人针对 HK USA 提出的反诉中所作更详细的论述，债务人于 October 2014 无偿将 HK International 转让给其助理 Natasha Qu（Qu Guo Jiao，曲郭娇），但须受一项信托协议约束；该协议规定 Qu 女士须为债务人的利益并依照其指示经营该公司。因此，在 October 2014 之后，尽管 Qu 女士为名义所有人，债务人仍实益拥有并控制 HK International。\n\nii. 根据香港警方的说法，HK International 实际上由债务人控制；债务人利用该公司向其他若干由其控制的实体输送资金，以开展与香港证券交易所有关的投资项目；该公司的全部资金均来自其他由债务人控制的公司。14\n\niii. 香港于 October 18, 2018 发布的一项法院命令，题为《禁止在香港及其他地区处分资产的限制令》（“香港限制令”），将 HK International 确认为一个银行账户的据称持有人，该账户“受债务人的有效控制”。15\n\nb. Eastern Profit 是另一家香港实体，据称由债务人之女所有，16 美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York）Liman 法官（Judge Liman）在其于 2021 年作出的 Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC 案裁决（“Liman 裁决”）中认定，该实体“实质上是”债务人的一家空壳公司。17\n\ni. 如 Liman 裁决所述，Eastern Profit 在 2017 年之前由 Han Chunguang 所有，18（据知情及信赖，其为债务人的司机、保镖和厨师），19 后者于 2017 年在未见任何明显对价的情况下，将 Eastern Profit 的据称所有权转让给债务人之女。20\n\nii. Liman 法官指出，与 HK USA 及其他空壳公司类似，Eastern Profit 的所在地“位于[债务人]家族公司在香港的办公室内，其唯一董事为[债务人]的女儿。”21\n\niii. 根据在与 Liman 裁决有关的听证会上获得的证词，债务人将 Han Chunguang 先生（Eastern Profit 的据称所有人）介绍为其厨师，并称其为“小韩”。22\n\niv. 根据香港警方的说法，Eastern Profit 的全部资金均来自其他由债务人控制的公司。23\n\nv. 香港限制令将 Eastern Profit 确认为一个银行账户的据称持有人，该账户“受债务人的有效控制”。24\n\n12. 上述实体只是冰山一角。根据美国政府的说法，债务人与其共同被告 William Je 和 Yvette Wang“利用以至少 80 个不同实体或个人名义持有的大约超过 500 个账户，清洗了超过 \\$1 billion 的欺诈所得。205 总而言之，尽管本起诉书聚焦于 Golden Spring，受托人认为，关于债务人利用空壳公司向债权人隐匿资产这一广泛策略的背景，将有助于本院理解受托人的立场。受托人明确保留在适当时候对其他实体提起主张请求权的诉讼的权利。\n\nII. Golden Spring 是债务人的另一个自我，并由债务人衡平法上拥有\n\nA. Golden Spring 按债务人的指示，为债务人的目的而设立\n\n13. Golden Spring（金泉）于2015年3月在 Delaware（特拉华州）注册成立，并获准在 New York（纽约州）开展业务，20 与债务人于2015年1月迁居纽约的时间相一致。27\n\n14. 协助债务人成立 Golden Spring 的债务人律师是\n\n25 参见美利坚合众国关于反对被告 Yanping Wang（王燕平）提出审前释放动议的法律备忘录（“USAO Memorandum”），第29页，作为 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）对 G Club Operations LLC 提出的针对受托人强制履行义务动议及相关救济请求补充异议的答复（“G-Club Reply”）之附件B（June 23, 2023）[Main Case Docket No. 1934]。\n\n26 参见证据5，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）为支持原告反对被告驳回起诉状动议而提交的宣誓书，第33段，Ace Decade Holdings, Ltd. v. UBS AG（瑞银集团），Index No. 623315/2015 (Feb. 5, 2016) [NYSCEF Doc. No. 27]（“Kwok UBS Affidavit”）。\n\n27 同上，第30段。28 21 29 30 31\n\n一、债务人于2015年对 Golden Spring 的初始注资\n\n18. 债务人承认，其通过将其控制的 UBS 账户中的资金注入 Golden Spring，为 Golden Spring 提供了初始资金。根据债务人在其于2015年针对 UBS 提起的纽约州诉讼中向纽约州法院提交的宣誓书，2015年4月，债务人在 UBS 的银行人员“通过将[债务人]在 UBS 的一个账户中的资金转入 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）的 JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）纽约银行账户，协助[债务人]设立 Golden Spring New York。”35\n\n19.\n\n35 证据5，Kwok UBS Affidavit，第36段。36 37 38\n\n二、债务人在2015年后对 Golden Spring 的注资\n\n20. 据所知并据相信，Golden Spring 除从其他由 Kwok 控制的实体获得资金外，未获得任何其他资金。\n\nC. 顾问及雇员确认债务人为对 Golden Spring 行使控制权的人\n\n21. 熟悉债务人及 Golden Spring 的人无人怀疑，债务人是对 Golden Spring 行使控制权的人（尽管债务人的儿子声称拥有 Golden Spring 表面母公司 China Golden Spring（中国金泉）的所有权）。\n\n据所知并据相信，债务人是就 Golden Spring 雇员的聘用和解雇等事项作出决定的人。鉴于 Golden Spring 内担任正式公司管理职务的人员，如 Yvette Wang（王雁平），均从属于作为最终决策者的债务人，此种情形表明公司形式完全缺失。\n\nD. Golden Spring 持有债务人资产并支付费用的职能\n\n25.\n\n“办公室”的职能是持有其资产并支付其费用。因此，Golden Spring 是债务人在主张其实际上无法执行判决的同时维持奢华生活安排的关键组成部分；这一点可由本 Chapter 11 Case（第11章案件）中提交的资产和负债清单得到例证，其中债务人声称其持有 $3,850.00 的资产。50 Golden Spring 以这种方式运作的例子不胜枚举。其中包括：\n\na. 自2015年以来，Golden Spring 一直支付债务人的个人生活费用。51 这些费用包括安保／保镖、交通、服装及其他项目。52 例如，债务人作证称，如其想购买一双鞋，他会安排由 Golden Spring 支付。53\n\nb. 债务人乘坐一辆据称由 Golden Spring 拥有的 Maybach（迈巴赫）汽车。54 事实上，受托人持有的保险文件显示，Golden Spring 据称拥有多辆供债务人使用的豪华车辆。55\n\nc. Golden Spring 支付了债务人的多项律师费，包括通过诉讼融资协议支付。\n\nd. Golden Spring 支付了与债务人游艇 Lady May（“五月花女士”号）有关的费用，56 以及与 Sherry Netherland Apartment（雪莉内德兰公寓）有关的维护费。58\n\ne. 债务人拟在其于 March 22, 2022 提交的动议中，将 Golden Spring 用作拟议 $8 million DIP loan 的贷款人 [Main Case Docket No. 117]。该贷款的很大一部分原计划用于支付债务人当时在 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的破产律师以及债务人拟聘用的众多“日常业务过程”专业人士的费用。这些融资协议显然旨在确保有价值的诉讼追偿款永远不会由债务人在法律上持有，从而不会暴露于其债权人面前。\n\n50 参见 Official Form 106，第5页 (Mar. 9, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 78]。\n\n51 参见证据29，341债权人会议记录，Apr. 6, 2022，In re Kwork，Case 22-50073，第85:17-19页、第86:9-12页。\n\n32 同上，第30:18-23页。这些费用反映于债务人就 February 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 120]、March 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 242]及 April 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 423]提交的月度经营报告中；该等报告显示，为“遗产利益”由“第三方”支付的总额为 $351,081。\n\n53 证据29，341债权人会议记录，第52-53页。\n\n54 同上，第56:7-20页。\n\n55 参见证据30，AIG（美国国际集团）出具的 Golden Spring 保单通知，第2页。\n\n57 参见确认性救济起诉状，第24段 (Apr. 11, 2022) [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 1]。\n\n58 参见证据35，341债权人会议记录，Dec. 18, 2020，In re Genever Holdings, LLC，Case No. 20-12411-JLG，第21-22页、第31-32页。\n\n26. 值得注意的是，尽管作为拟议 DIP 贷款人的 Golden Spring 在本 Chapter 11 Case 中由律师代理，但在受托人获任后，Golden Spring 基本上销声匿迹，未回应受托人依据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004（《破产程序规则》第2004条）发出的传票，并最终被本院裁定藐视法庭。59\n\nE. Golden Spring 由债务人的雇员管理及配备人员\n\n27. Golden Spring 于2015年3月成立时的初始董事为 Qu Guo Jiao（郭国娇，即 Natasha Qu）和 Yan Feng Sun（孙艳凤），60 二人分别还担任该公司的初始总裁／财务主管和秘书（债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）最初担任执行副总裁）。Natasha Qu 是债务人的行政助理，且由债务人安排担任众多实体的名义所有人，其中或许最值得注意的是 HK International（香港国际），该实体曾拥有 Lady May；她于2017年6月无偿将该公司转让给债务人的女儿。Yan Feng Sun 是债务人的另一名雇员；据所知并据相信，债务人亦于2015年3月安排其担任其空壳公司 Globalist International Limited（环球国际有限公司）的名义股权持有人。62\n\n28. Golden Spring 在较近年间的总裁，包括债务人提交其第11章申请时的总裁，是 Yvette Wang；她还担任该公司的董事之一（与债务人的儿子一同担任）。本院已裁定，“债务人对 Wang 女士具有控制权”，且其“已雇用 Yvette Wang 数年，并指示她代表其采取行动，包括指示她代表其购买诸如 Sherry-Netherland apartment（雪莉—内德兰公寓）等房产。”64 Wang 女士还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Limited、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、GTV Media Group, Inc.、Greenwich Land, LLC 及 Genever Holdings LLC 的高级职员和／或授权签字人。65 受托人在调查中获悉，Wang 女士被广泛认为是债务人的个人助理。在其证言记录中被问及 Wang 女士是否为其雇员时，债务人援引其《宪法第五修正案》反自证其罪权利。66\n\n29. 于 March 15, 2023，Wang 女士因被指控从事多项行为而被逮捕，其中包括与债务人共谋参与其刑事欺诈及洗钱活动。根据美国政府的说法，Wang 女士作为债务人“受信任的幕僚长”，在债务人的欺诈计划中发挥了“关键作用”；其职责是“管理甚至与其并无正式隶属关系的实体的运营”。67\n\n30. 此外，Golden Spring 的雇员还包括：\n\n64 公司治理藐视法庭命令，第4段。\n\n65 证据38，Yan Ping Wang 宣誓书，第1段，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2018) [Docket No. 182]（“我是 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 的总裁，并以该身份担任[债务人]及其家人利益的管理人。”）；证据39，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，无会议独资成员同意书，日期为 July 17, 2019（授权 Wang 女士签字）；证据40，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，无会议独资成员同意书，日期为 August 31, 2020；证据41，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，无会议独资成员同意书，日期为 December 4, 2020；证据42；证据43，Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name，日期为 March 14, 2020；证据44，Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name，日期为 March 14, 2020；证据45，起诉状，第9a段，United States v. Wang，No. 1:23-mj-02007-UA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023) [Docket No. 1]（“Wang 曾任 GTV 的执行董事”）；债务人根据 Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2（地方法院破产规则第1007-2条）作出的声明，第1段，(Case No. 22-50592, Oct. 12, 2020) [Docket No. 1]；证据46，Greenwich Land, LLC，无会议独资成员同意书，日期为 January 19, 2021。\n\n66 证据47，Ho Wan Kwok 证言记录，日期为 March 2, 2023，第33:11-13页。\n\n67 证据48，美国关于反对 Yvette Wang 保释动议的函件，第18页，U.S. v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a “Yvette,” (Mar. 29, 2023) [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, Docket No. 10]。\n\na. Max Krasner，除作为 Golden Spring 雇员工作外，还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC 的母公司）、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）及 HCHK Entities 的雇员、高级职员和／或授权签字人。68 在其证言记录中被问及 Krasner 先生是否为其雇员和代理人时，债务人援引其《宪法第五修正案》反自证其罪权利。69\n\nb. Daniel Podhaskie，除作为 Golden Spring 雇员（总法律顾问）工作外，还担任债务人的个人律师，以及 Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的公司代表。此外，Podhaskie 先生还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC 的母公司）、Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC 及 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 的高级职员和／或授权签字人。10 在其证言记录中被问及 Podhaskie 先生是否为其雇员和代理人时，债务人援引其《宪法第五修正案》反自证其罪权利。11\n\nc. Anthony DiBattista，除作为 Golden Spring 雇员工作外，还担任 GTV、GFashion、G-Club 及 HCHK Entities 的公司高级职员，为债务人服务。在其证言记录中被问及 DiBattista 先生是否为其雇员时，债务人援引其《宪法第五修正案》反自证其罪权利。12\n\n证据39，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），唯一成员非会议同意书，日期为July 17, 2019（反映Krasner先生担任副总裁）；证据49，Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），唯一成员非会议同意书，日期为July 17, 2019；证据51，Lamp Capital, LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）有限责任公司协议，日期为September 8, 2020；证据52，Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）的CHAR 500表格（Form 990，第7页，将Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）列为“总裁、司库”）；证据53，Max Krasner、Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）与来自Marcum（马库姆）的律师就HCHK 2022 Bank Statements于January 2023进行的电子邮件往来。\n\n69 证据47，Kwok（郭文贵）证言笔录，第34:6-20页。\n\n70 例如，见；证据55，Lamp Capital LLC向纽约州提交的授权申请，日期为Sept. 11, 2020（由Podhaskie签署）；证据51，Lamp Capital, LLC有限责任公司协议，日期为September 8, 2020；证据56，Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC，唯一成员非会议同意书，日期为December 4, 2020；证据57，Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波达斯基）辞去Hudson Diamond Holding LLC总裁职务，日期为January 4, 2021；证据41，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，唯一成员非会议同意书；证据58，Daniel Podhaskie辞去Hudson Diamond NY LLC总裁职务，日期为January 4, 2021。\n\n71 证据47，Kwok证言笔录，第34:6-20页。\n\n72 证据47，Kwok证言笔录，第86:13-18页。\n\n31. 此外，根据所知及信赖，正式或非正式受雇于Golden Spring（金泉）的其他个人包括但不限于Han (“Hank”) Chunguang（韩春光）、73 Joe Wang（乔·王）、74 Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯）、75及Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯），76他们各自在债务人控制的不同实体中担任过职务。\n\n32. Golden Spring与债务人、其子女以及债务人控制的许多其他实体（如GTV和Saraca）一样，也由Aaron A. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）代理。77 而Golden Spring在Chapter 11 Case（第11章案件）早期阶段的总法律顾问Melissa Francis（梅利莎·弗朗西斯）也曾单独代理债务人。78\nF. Golden Spring与债务人的利益同一性\n\n33. Golden Spring与债务人共享利益同一性的程度，以至于在所有相关时间内，其实质上均为债务人个人的延伸，正如债务人及其关联人士所揭示的那样。例如，Yvette Wang（王雁平）多次证称，其以Golden Spring总裁身份“担任[债务人]及其家人的利益管理人。”79 在与债务人曾查看（但最终未购买）的一栋Connecticut（康涅狄格州）豪宅卖方的通信中，王女士写道：\n\n73 Han先生是债务人的长期保镖和/或司机，除众多其他职务外，其曾作为债务人控制实体（包括Eastern Profit Corporation（东方利润公司）、Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司）及Rosy Acme Ventures Limited（罗西·阿克米风险投资有限公司））的名义所有人，以及Saraca Media Group Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）的董事和高级职员，为债务人服务。74 Wang先生还曾担任HCHK Technologies的技术副总裁。\n\n75 Enriquez先生还曾任职于HCHK Entities，并担任Lamp Capital LLC的司库。76 Hadjicharalambous先生还曾任职于HCHK Entities、G-Club和Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.（自由媒体风险投资有限公司）。77 尽管由Aaron Mitchell作为律师代理，Golden Spring仍因未遵守Rule 2004传票而被本法院（连同Lamp Capital LLC）裁定藐视法庭。见《裁定Golden Spring及Lamp Capital藐视法庭的命令》(Apr. 26, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1709]。78 见债务人关于作出命令以授权(I)聘用并支付在日常经营中使用的专业人士、(II)支付破产申请前债权、及(III)给予相关救济的动议 (Mar. 22, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 119]。79 见证据59，Yvette Wang Oct. 11, 2018证言笔录，第46:20-23页（“问：我是在问你，你是否担任Kwok先生利益的管理人？答：是。”）（强调为后加）。另见证据38，Yan Ping Wang（王雁平）在PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (ECF 182)中作出的May 15, 2018宣誓书，第1段。（“我是Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）的总裁，并以该身份担任[债务人]及其家人利益的管理人。”）。\n\nGolden Spring是“一家位于Manhattan（曼哈顿）的家族办公室”，并且“我们负责Miles及其家人在美国的业务、项目和资产。”王女士最后写道：“我代表Miles，再次感谢您为他保留这栋美丽的住宅，谨致最良好祝愿。”80\n\n34. 还应注意的是，债务人将Golden Spring位于162 E. 64th Street、并与其控制的众多其他实体共用的地址，作为其个人地址。其第11章破产申请即为近期例证：当被问及“您住在哪里”时，债务人填写了Golden Spring在162 E. 64th Street的名称及地址。81\nG. 由债务人控制的母公司China Golden Spring\n\n35. China Golden Spring（中国金泉）是Golden Spring的公司母公司，该香港实体表面上由债务人的儿子所有，但在所有相关时间内同样由债务人控制。根据所知及信赖，在Golden Spring成立时，债务人通过其雇员Natasha Qu（娜塔莎·曲）经营China Golden Spring。Hong Kong Restraint Order（香港限制令）将China Golden Spring列为若干实体之一，其银行账户“受债务人的有效控制。”82 Hong Kong Restraint Order中被如此认定的其他实体包括HK International（其此前拥有Lady May号游艇的所有权）、Anton Development Limited（其此前拥有债务人Bombardier喷气机的所有权）及Eastern Profit等。\nH. 债务人就其对Golden Spring的控制援引第五修正案\n\n36. 债务人在就其对Golden Spring的控制受到询问时，多次援引第五修正案。在其March 2, 2023证言中，债务人作证如下：\n\n80 见证据60，Yvette Wang于Jul. 11, 2019致Louise Camuto（路易丝·卡穆托）的电子邮件。81 见Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的Official Form 101 Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy，第2页 (Feb. 15, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 1]。82 证据2，Hong Kong Restraint Order第3段，被申请人22。\n\n由LUFT先生：问：Kwok先生，Golden Spring拥有的所有资产均属于您，对吗？ROMNEY先生：对提问形式提出异议。答：第五修正案。由LUFT先生：问：Kwok先生，您控制Golden Springs Limited，对吗？答：第五修正案。问：Kwok先生，您控制Golden Spring的所有资产，对吗？答：第五修正案。83\n\n37. 随后，在债务人日期为May 11, 2023的经宣誓声明中，债务人被要求“说明您对Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.拥有控制权”，其答复为：“我援引United States Constitution（美国宪法）赋予我的第五修正案权利，并拒绝回答。”84\n\n38. 同样，债务人在被问及其对China Golden Spring的控制时，也援引了第五修正案。85\n第一项请求\n（确认Golden Spring为债务人的另我，并命令向受托人移交Golden Spring的资产）\n\n39. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至38段所载指控。\n\n40. Delaware（特拉华州）法律适用于另我请求，因为Golden Spring是特拉华州实体。86\n\n41. 根据特拉华州刺破公司面纱的两项检验标准，法院在对债务人与Golden Spring之间关系适用特拉华州另我分析时，将侧重于：(1)债务人与Golden Spring是否作为单一经济单位运营；以及(2)\n\n83 见证据47，Kwok证言笔录，第26:19-24页。84 债务人关于对特定问题答复的经宣誓声明，第124段，HCHK Complaint（HCHK起诉状）证据1 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No .1]，提交于June 8, 2023（“Kwok Declaration”）。85 Kwok Declaration第92段。\n\n86 例如，见Universitas Education, LLC（环球教育有限责任公司）v. Benistar（贝尼斯塔），No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at *7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021)（“[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.”）。\n\n是否存在整体性的不公正或不公平因素。在确定债务人与Golden Spring是否作为单一经济单位运营时，适用特拉华州法律的法院将考虑若干因素，包括但不限于Golden Spring是否资本充足、是否遵守公司形式要件，以及其是否为债务人的幌子。87 该“因素清单并非穷尽，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性。”88\n\n42. 债务人对Golden Spring行使了控制权和支配权，以至于Golden Spring不存在独立于债务人的存在，且债务人利用公司形式实施欺诈和不公。Golden Spring是债务人的另我，理由包括：\n\na．Golden Spring系依债务人的指示，为债务人的目的而设立；\n\nb．Golden Spring由债务人提供资金，且没有独立的资金来源或资本；\n\nc．Golden Spring的顾问和雇员确认债务人是对Golden Spring行使控制权的人；\n\nd．Golden Spring的职能一直是持有债务人的资产并支付其开支；\n\ne．Golden Spring由债务人的雇员管理和配备人员；\n\nf．Golden Spring与债务人共享完全的利益同一性；\n\ng．Golden Spring的母公司China Golden Spring在所有相关时间内均由债务人控制；以及\n\nh．债务人就其对Golden Spring的控制援引了第五修正案。\n\n87 Blair（布莱尔）v. Infineon Tech., AG（英飞凌科技股份公司），720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出第三巡回法院在确定公司是否作为单一经济实体运营时所考虑的因素，值得注意的是，该等因素不包括有关个人是否为该实体的股东，但包括“严重资本不足；未遵守公司形式要件……[以及]公司是否仅为幌子。”）。88 同上，第471页。\n\n43. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可在行使其权利时寻求受托人在此请求的救济。\n\n44. 因此，受托人根据Bankruptcy Code（破产法）第541、542及544条，请求作出裁决：(1) 宣告：(a) Golden Spring在所有时间均为债务人的另我；(b) Golden Spring在债务人February 15, 2022申请日之前任何时间持有的任何及所有资产均构成债务人的财产；及(c) Golden Spring自债务人February 15, 2022第11章破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的任何及所有资产，已构成并且视情况构成债务人第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令向受托人移交Golden Spring的任何及所有资产。\n第二项请求\n（确认债务人为Golden Spring及/或其资产的衡平所有人，并命令向受托人移交Golden Spring及/或其资产的所有权）\n\n45. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至38段所载指控。\n\n46. 上述证明Golden Spring为债务人另我的同一事实，也支持债务人为Golden Spring及/或其资产的衡平所有人的结论。89\n\n47. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可在行使其权利时寻求受托人在此请求的救济。\n\n89 Freeman（弗里曼）v. Complex Computing Co., Inc.（复杂计算公司），119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并且如同[其]资产仅由其本人管理一般行事。”）（强调为后加）。\n\n48. 由于 Golden Spring（金泉）在衡平法上由债务人所有，故在申请日之后，对 Golden Spring 的所有权及公司控制权，和/或 Golden Spring 的资产，均属于破产财产。\n\n49. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第541、542及544条，请求裁定：(1) 宣告由 China Golden Spring（中国金泉）名义上持有的 Golden Spring 所有权权益，和/或 Golden Spring 的资产，属于债务人的第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Golden Spring 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，和/或 Golden Spring 的资产，交予受托人。\n\n第三项请求\n（撤销实际欺诈性转让）（作为第一项和第二项请求的备选主张）\n\n50. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至38段所载的指控。\n\n51. 作为备选，如裁定 Golden Spring 并非债务人的另一个自我，亦非在衡平法上由债务人所有，则受托人就2015年向 Golden Spring 作出的转让，依据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条及经《破产法》第544条适用的规定，对 Golden Spring 提出实际欺诈性转让请求。\n\n52. 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》第548条进行的分析相同。91 根据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条提出实际欺诈意图的请求，要求主张债务人转让人以“实际意图”作出转让或承担义务，以“阻碍、拖延或欺诈”现有或将来的债权人。92\n\n90. 这是转让日期当时有效的纽约州法规。91. In re Combes, 382 B.R. 186, 193-94 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008)（“根据《破产法》第548条和根据纽约州法律，对债务人意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈的分析相同。”）。此类请求所涉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 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019)。\n\n53. “鉴于在证明实际意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈方面存在困难，当事人可以依赖‘欺诈迹象’，即‘与欺诈性转让如此普遍相关的情形，以致其存在会产生意图推定的情形。’”93\n\n“欺诈迹象”的例子包括但不限于：(1) 隐瞒事实和虚假借口；(2) 就所转让财产价值所获得的对价存在显失公平的不相称；(3) 设立由少数人控制的公司以接收财产；(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) 转让人和受让人在转让前后双方的财务状况；(7) 资不抵债或财务困难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“如此紧密同化”的不同公司实体，是另一项欺诈迹象。94\n\n54. 事件。\n\n92. In re Integrity Graphics, Inc., 623 B.R. 21, 29-30 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020)。\n\n93. 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)（“鉴于这一现实，法院认为，可从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当事人就该处所的占有、管理和控制所作出的行为和行动。”）（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n94. In re Jie Xiao, 608 B.R. 第157页。\n\n55. 在该事实模式下，未获得任何对价。\n\n56. 此外，本起诉状中所述事实表明存在多项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• d) “隐瞒事实。”债务人否认其对 Golden Spring 的出资。例如，在其根据第341条举行的债权人会议上被问及是否“曾以任何方式向 Golden Spring New York 出资”时，他回答“没有”。95\n\n• e) “就所转让财产价值所获得的对价存在显失公平的不相称。”2015年转让导致债务人在未获得任何对价作为回报的情况下作出转让。\n\n• f) “设立由少数人控制的公司以接收财产”以及“当事人之间关系密切。”2015年转让的受让人 Golden Spring 由债务人控制。\n\n• g) “为利益或使用而保留所涉财产。”据悉并相信，债务人将转让给 Golden Spring 的财产供其本人使用，因为如本文所述，Golden Spring 的目的在于持有债务人的资产并支付其费用。\n\n57. 债务人在本案中的欺诈行为，与其利用空壳公司持有资产以使债权人无法追及的惯常做法相一致。\n\n58. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。此等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本起诉状中请求的救济。\n\n59. 在所有相关期间，债务人的债权人均无理由怀疑2015年转让已经发生。\n\n60. 因此，假定第一项请求所请求的救济未获准，受托人依据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条及《破产法》第544和550条，请求裁定：(1) 撤销2015年转让；以及 (2) 命令 Golden Spring 向受托人支付。\n\n95. 证据29，第341条债权人会议记录，第35:25-36:2页。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求，依据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出命令：(1) 宣告：(a) Golden Spring 在任何时候均为债务人的另一个自我；(b) Golden Spring 在债务人2022年2月15日申请日之前任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Golden Spring 自债务人于2022年2月15日提交第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视情况而定，过去和现在均构成债务人的第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Golden Spring 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；\n\n2. 就第二项请求，依据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出命令：(1) 宣告由 China Golden Spring 名义上持有的 Golden Spring 所有权权益，和/或 Golden Spring 的资产，属于债务人的第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Golden Spring 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，和/或 Golden Spring 的资产，交予受托人；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，依据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条及《破产法》第544和550条作出命令：(1) 撤销2015年转让；以及 (2) 命令 Golden Spring 向受托人支付，该命令应构成针对 Golden Spring 的金钱判决；\n\n4. 本案产生的合理律师费、成本和费用；以及\n\n5. 法院认为在该等情形下公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n［本页其余部分有意留白］\n\n日期：July 25, 2023\n地点：Connecticut（康涅狄格州）New Haven（纽黑文）\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）\n\nAvram E. Luft（埃夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（pro hac vice 待决）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（pro hac vice 待决）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York（纽约州）, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（pro hac vice 待决）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","HCHK","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Despins","GTV","Himalaya","Saraca","Paul Hastings","Yanping Wang","Miles Guo","William Je","GETTR","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":362,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":364,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":368,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9306,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:14:43"}