{"id":"court_ctb_2158_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2158,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-08-30","title":"EXHIBIT C (Declaration in Support of Motion) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK","summary_zh":"支持动议的证据声明（Sidhardha Kamaraju 声明）—— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2158-1（2023-08-30立案）。该文件系债务人律师向纽约南区联邦法院刑事案（1:23-cr-00118）提交的中止破产程序动议的随附声明及12份附件证据，包含拟定中止裁定、藐视法庭与调查命令、和解动议、听证笔录及律师-委托人特权同意令等材料。","summary_en":"Exhibit (Declaration of Sidhardha Kamaraju in support of debtor's motion to stay bankruptcy cases) — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2158-1 (filed 2023-08-30). This document submitted in the debtor's SDNY criminal case (1:23-cr-00118) includes attorney Kamaraju's declaration and 12 attached exhibits, such as a proposed stay order, prior contempt and examination orders, settlement motions, hearing transcripts, and a consent order regarding attorney-client privilege.","body_en":"#### 200\n\n# **EXHIBIT C (Declaration in Support of Motion)**\n\n# **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n*Plaintiff,*\n\nv.\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\n*Defendant*.\n\n# **FILED PARTIALLY UNDER SEAL**\n\nCase No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n**DECLARATION OF SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU ACCOMPANYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER AND WRIT STAYING BANKRUPTCY CASES**\n\nI, SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU, hereby declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, as follows: 1. I am a partner at the law firm Pryor Cashman LLP and counsel for Defendant Ho Wan Kwok in the above-captioned matter. I submit this declaration upon my personal knowledge in support of Defendant's Motion for an Order and Writ Staying Bankruptcy Cases.\n\n2. A Proposed Order and Writ granting Defendant's Motion is attached hereto as **Exhibit 1**.\n\n3. A true and correct copy of the Memorandum of Decision and Order Holding Individual Debtor in Contempt of Court and Denying Motion for Stay of Order Compelling Production dated July 26, 2023, and issued in the bankruptcy cases captioned *In re Ho Wan Kwok*, Case No. 22-50073(JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn) (Jointly Administered) (the \"Bankruptcy Cases\"), is attached hereto as **Exhibit 2**.\n\n4. A true and correct copy of the Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Examination of Ho Wan Kwok and Production of Documents filed on July 28, 2022 in the Bankruptcy Cases is attached hereto as **Exhibit 3**.\n\n5. True and correct copies of photographs attached as exhibits to the Complaint in the Bankruptcy Case adversary proceeding captioned *Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC et al.*, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) (the \"Mahwah Proceeding\"), are attached hereto as **Exhibit 4**.\n\n6. A true and correct copy of Luc A. Despins', as trustee in the Bankruptcy Case (the \"Trustee\"), Motion for Approval of Settlement with United States of America filed in the Mahwah proceeding on August 14, 2023, which attaches as Exhibit 1 a settlement agreement between the Trustee and the United States of America dated July 13, 2023, is attached hereto as **Exhibit 5**.\n\n7. A true and correct copy of an email chain, excluding attachments, between and among Will Farmer, Nicholas Bassett and Avi Luft, counsel for the Trustee in the Bankruptcy Cases, and James Moriarty, Aaron Romney, and Eriz Henzy, counsel for Mr. Kwok in the Bankruptcy Case, beginning July 31, 2023 and ending August 17, 2023, is attached hereto as **Exhibit 6**.\n\n8. A true and correct copy of the government's April 28, 2023 letter motion to stay the parallel proceeding brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission captioned *SEC v. Kwok*, 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.), is attached hereto as **Exhibit 7**.\n\n9. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of a December 12, 2022 hearing in the Bankruptcy Cases is attached hereto as **Exhibit 8**.\n\n10. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of a May 2, 2023 hearing in the Bankruptcy Cases is attached hereto as **Exhibit 9.**\n\n11. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of an August 14, 2023 hearing in the Mahwah Proceeding is attached hereto as **Exhibit 10.**\n\n12. A true and correct copy of an August 14, 2023 letter from Eric Henzy to the Honorable Julie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge, is attached hereto as **Exhibit 11**.\n\n13. A true and correct copy of a Consent Order Regarding Control of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection Related to Rule 2004 Subpoenaed Documents and Information, dated September 14, 2022, is attached hereto as **Exhibit 12**.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on August 30, 2023.\n\nSidhardha Kamaraju *Counsel for Defendant Ho Wan Kwok*\n\n# **Exhibit 1**\n\n# **UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\n*Plaintiff,*\n\nv.\n\nCase No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\n#### **[PROPOSED] ORDER & WRIT**\n\nHO WAN KWOK,\n\n*Defendant*.\n\n#### ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:\n\nUpon Defendant Ho Wan Kwok's Motion for a Writ Staying Bankruptcy Cases, the Declaration of Sidhardha Kamaraju dated August 30, 2023, together will all exhibits annexed thereto, all prior papers and proceedings heretofore had herein, and pursuant to the Court's inherent supervisory authority and authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court finds and orders as follows:\n\n1. The bankruptcy cases captioned *In re Ho Wan Gwok, et al.*, Case No. 22- 50073(JAM) (Bank. D. Conn.) (Jointly Administered), including the jointly administered proceedings captioned *In re Genever Holdings Corp.*, Case No. 22-50542(JAM) (Bank. D. Conn.), and *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 22-50592(JAM) (Bank. D. Conn.), and all related adversary proceedings<sup>1</sup> (collectively, the \"Bankruptcy Cases\"), concern issues that overlap in significant respects with the issues in the above-captioned criminal proceeding.\n\n2. Given the overlap between this criminal proceeding and the Bankruptcy Cases, and the substantial risk that permitting the Bankruptcy Cases to continue will violate Mr. Kwok's\n\n<sup>1</sup> A list identifying the related adversary proceedings is attached to this Order as Schedule A.\n\nconstitutional right against self-incrimination and to exculpatory evidence, the Court finds that staying the Bankruptcy Cases during the pendency of this criminal proceeding is necessary to preserve Mr. Kwok's constitutional rights and ability to effectively mount a defense.\n\n- 3. Therefore, pursuant to the Court's inherent supervisory authority and its authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:\n\t- a. the Bankruptcy Cases are STAYED pending the resolution of this proceeding, including all appeals as of right;\n\t- b. a copy of this order shall be filed with the Bankruptcy Court within five (5) days of the date of this order; and\n\t- c. a copy of this order shall be served on Luc Despins, Esq., the chapter 11 trustee of the Bankruptcy Cases, by email and Federal Express Overnight Delivery.\n\n#### SO ORDERED:\n\nDated: New York, New York \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023.\n\n> THE HON. ANALISA TORRES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\n### **Related Adversary Proceedings**\n\n| Case Name                                                                                                           | Case<br>Number | Judge                 | Bankruptcy<br>Court |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|---------------------|\n| HK International Funds Investments<br>(USA) Limited, v. Despins                                                     | 22-ap-05003    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Cheng v. Kwok                                                                                                       | 22-ap-05010    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Ma v. Kwok                                                                                                          | 22-ap-05011    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity<br>Fund L.P. v. Kwok                                                              | 22-ap-05012    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Wu et al v. Kwok                                                                                                    | 22-ap-05013    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Meng et al v. Kwok                                                                                                  | 22-ap-05014    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Nunberg v. Kwok                                                                                                     | 22-ap-05017    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Zhang et al v. Kwok et al                                                                                           | 22-ap-05018    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Despins et al v. Bravo Luck Limited<br>et al                                                                        | 22-ap-05027    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity<br>Fund L.P. v. Kwok                                                              | 22-ap-05032    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity<br>Fund L.P. et al v. Ho Wan et al                                                | 22-ap-05034    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Genever Holdings LLC et al v. Kwok<br>et al                                                                         | 23-ap-05002    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee<br>v. Greenwich Land, LLC et al                                                 | 23-ap-05005    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Genever Holdings LLC v. AIG<br>Property Casualty Company                                                            | 23-ap-05007    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee<br>v. Guo                                                                       | 23-ap-05008    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| U.S. Bank National Association, as<br>escrow agent v. HK International<br>Funds Investments (USA) Limited et<br>al. | 23-ap-05012    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Despins et al v. HCHK Technologies,<br>Inc. et al                                                                   | 23-ap-05013    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n\n| Case Name                                                                       | Case<br>Number | Judge                 | Bankruptcy<br>Court |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------|---------------------|\n| Despins et al v. Taurus Fund LLC et<br>al                                       | 23-ap-05017    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Despins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee<br>v. Golden Spring (New York) LTD et<br>al | 23-ap-05018    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n| Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings<br>LLC                                         | 22-bk-50073    | Hon. Julie A. Manning | D. Conn.            |\n\n# **Exhibit 2**\n\n### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n ) )\n\n)\n\nIn re: ) Chapter 11 ) Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, *et al.*, ) (Jointly Administered)\n\nDebtors. ) Re: ECF Nos. 1453 and 1649\n\n#### **APPEARANCES**\n\nLuc A. Despins (argued) Avram E. Luft G. Alexander Bongartz Douglass Barron Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nDouglass S. Skalka Patrick R. Linsey Neubert, Pepe & Montieth 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n\nand\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (argued) Paul Hastings LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036\n\n*Counsel for Movant and Cross-Respondent Mr. Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee for the Estate of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok*\n\nStephen R. Cook Brown Rudnick LLP 2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor Irvine, California 92612\n\nand\n\nStephen A. Best (argued) Brown Rudnick LLP 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005\n\nEric Henzy (argued) James M. Moriarty Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\nand\n\nWilliam Baldiga (argued) Brown Rudnick LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n*Counsel for Respondent and Cross-Movant Mr. Ho Wan Kwok, Debtor1*\n\n# **MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER HOLDING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND DENYING MOTION FOR STAY OF ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION**\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n# **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nBefore the Court are the Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Debtor Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court (the \"Contempt Motion\"), (ECF No. 14532 ), filed by Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") for the bankruptcy estate (the \"Estate\") of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\"), and the Motion for a Limited Stay of Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance (the \"Stay Motion,\" and together with the Contempt Motion, each a \"Cross-Motion\" and, collectively, the \"Cross-Motions\"), (ECF No. 1649), filed by the Individual Debtor. The Trustee seeks to hold the Individual Debtor in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance (the \"Order Compelling Production\"). (ECF No. 1353.) The Individual Debtor cross-moves to stay the Order Compelling Production in light of the criminal action *United States v. Kwok*, Case No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.) (the \"Criminal Action\") pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Criminal Court\"). For\n\n<sup>1</sup> The attorneys at Brown Rudnick LLP have withdrawn their appearances since these matters were argued. (ECF No. 2034.)\n\n<sup>2</sup> Various pleadings and orders discussed in this memorandum of decision were omnibus in nature. For the sake of clarity and coherence, the titles of pleadings and orders have been set forth only insofar as they concern the parties before the Court on the instant matters.\n\nthe reasons stated below, the Court holds the Individual Debtor in civil contempt of court and denies the Stay Motion.\n\n#### **II. BACKGROUND**\n\nThe Individual Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in this Court on February 15, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) The Individual Debtor's case is jointly administered with two affiliated corporate Chapter 11 cases. (ECF Nos. 970 and 1141.) For the reasons set forth therein, on June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order appointing a Chapter 11 trustee. (ECF No. 465.) *In re Kwok*, 640 B.R. 514 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022). On July 8, 2022, Mr. Despins was appointed as the Trustee. (ECF No. 523.)\n\nOn July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed the Motion for 2004 Examination of the [Individual] Debtor, (ECF No. 636), which motion the Court granted, (ECF No. 757), on August 16, 2022. On August 19, 2022, the Individual Debtor was served with the Rule 2004 subpoena. (*See, e.g.*, ECF No. 1650 ¶ 7.) On October 28, 2022, the Trustee filed a Motion for Order Compelling Individual Debtor to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena (the \"Motion to Compel\"). (ECF No. 1046.) On November 14, 2022, the Individual Debtor filed an objection to the Motion to Compel. (ECF No. 1090.) On November 30, 2022, a hearing was held on the Motion to Compel. The Court took the Motion to Compel under advisement. On January 20, 2023,3 the Court entered the Order Compelling Production. (ECF No. 1353.)\n\n<sup>3</sup> Between November 16, 2022, and January 13, 2023, the Court was engaged with matters in an adversary proceeding related to these Chapter 11 cases styled *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund v. Kwok (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), Adv. P. No. 22-05032 (JAM) (Bankr D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023) (hereinafter the \"Social Media/Protest Adversary\"). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3), the Court was required to address the matters in that adversary proceeding \"at the earliest possible time, taking precedence over all other matters except hearings on older matters of the same character.\"\n\nOn February 7, 2023, the Individual Debtor filed a declaration in response to the Order Compelling Production (the \"Declaration\"). (ECF No. 1444 Ex. A.) In the Declaration, the Individual Debtor stated under penalty of perjury that he invoked his \"rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, including under the act of production doctrine[,] with respect to the Subpoena dated August 17, 2022, in its entirety, including all requests for documents and information set forth therein.\" (*Id.* Ex. A.) On February 10, 2023, the Trustee filed the Contempt Motion, arguing that (i) the Individual Debtor needed to show cause why his invocation of the Fifth Amendment was proper and why he should not be held in contempt of court; (ii) even if the Individual Debtor's invocation was proper, he needed to assert it in response to each request for documents and information; and (iii) the Declaration did not comply with the Order Compelling Production because it did not detail the efforts undergone to search for documents and information responsive to the subpoenas. (ECF No. 1453.) On March 7, 2023, a hearing was held on the Contempt Motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court set a briefing schedule on the issues raised by the Contempt Motion.\n\nOn March 15, 2023, at the start of an evidentiary hearing in a related adversary proceeding, the Individual Debtor's counsel informed the Court that an indictment against the Individual Debtor had been unsealed in the Criminal Action and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the \"FBI\") had arrested the Individual Debtor earlier that morning. On March 22, 2023, the Court granted the Individual Debtor's motion for an extension of time to respond to the Contempt Motion. (ECF No. 1585.)\n\nOn April 10, 2023, the Individual Debtor filed an objection to the Contempt Motion. (ECF No. 1650.) The Individual Debtor's objection argues that he has complied with the Order Compelling Production because he has properly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-\n\nincrimination. (*Id.*) Contemporaneously, the Individual Debtor, through his counsel in the Criminal Action appearing in these Chapter 11 cases as his special (criminal) counsel, filed the Stay Motion. (ECF No. 1649.) The Stay Motion argues that to preserve the Individual Debtor's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, this Court must stay the Order Compelling Production pending resolution of the Criminal Action. (*Id.*) On April 14, 2023, the Trustee filed a reply to the objection to the Contempt Motion. (ECF No. 1670.) On April 19, 2023, the Trustee filed an objection to the Stay Motion. (ECF No. 1680.)\n\nOn April 20, 2023, a hearing was held on the Cross-Motions. At the conclusion of argument, the Trustee and the Individual Debtor seemingly reached a consensual resolution of the Cross-Motions. However, on April 24, 2023, the parties filed competing proposed orders. (ECF Nos. 1698, 1699.) On April 27, 2023, a Status Conference on the Cross-Motions was held to discuss the competing orders. The parties agreed to proceed consensually where they could agree, but expressed disagreement as to the terms of the previous agreement. On May 1, 2023, the Court entered a consent order requiring the Individual Debtor to make individual invocations of his Fifth Amendment right to each of two-hundred two (202) questions posed by the Trustee. (ECF No. 1740.) Also on that date, the Individual Debtor filed a supplemental pleading in support of his interpretation of the April 20th agreement. (ECF No. 1737.)\n\nOn May 2, 2023, a second hearing was held on the Cross-Motions resulting in an impasse as to the terms of the April 20th agreement. The Trustee argued that the parties had agreed the Individual Debtor would file a motion in the Criminal Action seeking permission to share the prosecution's production to him with the Trustee, provided the Trustee complied with protective orders and other confidentiality orders and use restrictions issued in the Criminal Action. The Individual Debtor argued that the parties had agreed that the Individual Debtor would seek,\n\npotentially by motion, to have the prosecution agree to produce documents simultaneously to the Individual Debtor and the Trustee, provided the Trustee complied with protective orders and other confidentiality orders and use restrictions issued in the Criminal Action. Citing the impasse, the Court concluded it had to rule on the Cross-Motions. However, the Individual Debtor's bankruptcy counsel asked the Court to wait before ruling on the Cross-Motions to allow the Individual Debtor time to appreciate the nature of the prosecution's production to him in the Criminal Action.\n\nGiven the serious nature of the issues involved, the Court waited. On June 13, 2023, a final hearing was held on the Cross-Motions. The Court inquired whether the parties had made any progress toward a consensual resolution of the Cross-Motions. The parties reported that the Individual Debtor had prepared a supplemental declaration (the \"Supplemental Declaration\"), wherein he invoked the Fifth Amendment on an individuated basis to each of the Trustee's questions. (*See Despins ex rel. Kwok v. HCHK Techs., Inc. (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 8, 2023), ECF No. 1 Ex. 1.) Beyond the Supplemental Declaration, however, the parties reported that the impasse remained and asked the Court to rule on the Cross-Motions. The Court took the Cross-Motions under advisement.\n\nThe Cross-Motions are ripe for decision.\n\n#### **III. JURISDICTION**\n\nThe United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). This Court has authority to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and the Order of Reference of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dated September 21, 1984. The instant proceedings are statutorily core proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The Court concludes its exercise of\n\njurisdiction is not precluded by Constitutional concerns. *Cf. Stern v. Marshall*, 564 U.S. 462, 487–99 (2011). Moreover, the Trustee and the Individual Debtor have impliedly consented to this Court entering a final order on the Cross-Motions by filing dispositive motions without contesting this Court's authority to enter a final order. *See Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif*, 575 U.S. 665, 686 (2015) (holding that parties may consent to entry of a final order by bankruptcy courts notwithstanding the holding in *Stern*); *True Traditions, LC v. Wu*, 552 B.R. 826, 838 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (holding that implied consent is given by filing a dispositive motion).\n\nVenue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n#### **IV. DISCUSSION4**\n\nThe Cross-Motions present serious issues. The Trustee seeks to hold the Individual Debtor in contempt for failure to comply with the Order Compelling Production. The Individual Debtor argues that the invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is compliance and must be protected by a stay of the Order Compelling Production. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination does not apply under the specific facts and circumstances before the Court. Therefore, the Court holds the Individual Debtor in contempt of court and denies the Stay Motion.\n\n#### **A. Is the Individual Debtor in civil contempt of court?**\n\nThe Court first considers whether the Individual Debtor is in contempt of court for failure to comply with the Order Compelling Production. This Court has the power to hold parties in contempt of court under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020. *Taggart v. Lorenzen ex*\n\n<sup>4</sup> The following constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which is made applicable to contested matters by Rule 9014(c).\n\n*rel. Brown*, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); *PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel)*, 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); *Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.)*, 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(1) and 37(b)(2)(A)(vii), made applicable by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 and D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1) and 2004-1(a), provide further authority to hold parties in contempt of an order compelling production of discovery materials.\n\nContempt may be sought to \"'coerce the defendant into compliance'\" with a court order or to \"'compensate the complainant for losses'\" resulting from noncompliance with a court order. *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *United States v. United Mine Workers*, 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947)). A finding of civil contempt requires that \"(1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.\" *King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.*, 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995). The contemnor must also (4) have notice of the relevant order. *Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512.\n\n#### **1. Is the Order Compelling Compliance clear and unambiguous?**\n\nAn order is clear and unambiguous where \"'there is [no] *fair ground of doubt* as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.'\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1801 (citing *Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor*, 113 U.S. 609 (1885)). A court generally applies an objective standard – a \"party's subjective belief that she was complying with an order ordinarily will not insulate her from civil contempt if that belief was objectively unreasonable.\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1802 (citing *McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co.*, 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949) (\"The absence of wilfulness [sic] does not relieve from civil contempt.\")). Nevertheless, a party's bad faith may justify \"placing 'the burden of any uncertainty in the decree . . . on [the] shoulders' of the party\n\nwho violated the court order,\" and \"a party's good faith, even where it does not bar civil\n\ncontempt, may help to determine an appropriate sanction.\" *Taggart*, 139 S. Ct. at 1802 (citing\n\n*McComb*, 336 U.S. at 192–93 and *Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A.*, 481 U.S.\n\n787, 801 (1987)).\n\nThe Order Compelling production states, in pertinent part, the following:\n\n**ORDERED:** The Objection is **OVERRULED** as it relates to discovery requests directed to the [Individual] Debtor except as to the requests that seek documents dated earlier than June 1, 2014, and to the requests that seek the [Individual] Debtor's passport(s), to which extent the Objection is **SUSTAINED**, without prejudice to the Trustee to seek documents dated earlier than June 1, 2014, and the [Individual] Debtor's passport(s) at a later date as the investigation proceeds upon cause shown. The [Individual] Debtor shall, by 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2023, search for and produce to the Trustee:\n\n(i) documents responsive to the Trustee's requests dated June 1, 2014, or later, unless a particular request specifies a different time period that does not begin before June 1, 2014;\n\n(ii) documents responsive to the Trustee's requests as to both assets he acknowledges he owns and assets allegedly belonging to persons or entities other than the [Individual] Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities; and\n\n(iii) documents responsive to the Trustee's requests that are within his custody, possession, or control, including without limitation documents in the files of his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors, unless such documents have already been produced by his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors but without consideration of any potential future production by his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors;\n\nand it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** The [Individual] Debtor shall, by 5:00 p.m. on February 7, 2023, file on the docket of this case a sworn declaration describing in detail the document collection, search, and review actions taken by him and his counsel in response to the subpoena, including without limitation a detailed description of the processes that he and his counsel performed to:\n\n(i) identify all of the [Individual] Debtor's electronic devices; all online document repositories to which he has access; all social media, email, and other accounts associated with electronic documents; all bank accounts and related\n\naccount statements; and all other potential sources of responsive hard copy and electronic documents that may exist; and\n\n(ii) search the foregoing sources for responsive documents, including without limitation for documents responsive to the requests related to expenses or money transfers, to assets or financial or business transactions or records related to the [Individual] Debtor's family or associated entities, and to business interests associated with the [Individual] Debtor . . .\n\n(ECF No. 1353.) The Individual Debtor did not raise any argument in pleadings or during oral argument that there is \"a fair ground of doubt\" as to the meaning of the Order Compelling Production.5 The Court concludes the Order Compelling Production is clear and unambiguous as it relates to the Individual Debtor.6\n\n# **2. Did the Individual Debtor comply with the Order Compelling Production?**\n\nRegarding the second element, the Trustee must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor has not complied with the Order Compelling Production. *King*, 65 F.3d at 1058. The Trustee argues that because (i) the Individual Debtor has failed to produce documents or records and (ii) the Individual Debtor has failed to file a declaration identifying potential sources of documents or records as well as the efforts undertaken to search those sources, the Individual Debtor has not complied with the Order Compelling Production.\n\nIn response, the Individual Debtor makes two arguments. First, the Individual Debtor argues that it is impossible for him to comply because he is presently being detained pending trial without the possibility of pre-trial release. Second, the Individual Debtor argues that the\n\n<sup>5</sup> The Individual Debtor argues that there is a fair ground of doubt as to whether the Individual Debtor could invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to the Order Compelling Production. The Court considers this argument below in the discussion of whether the Individual Debtor has diligently attempted to comply with the Order Compelling Production.\n\n<sup>6</sup> The Court has previously held that the Order Compelling Production is clear and unambiguous as to other parties. (*See* ECF No. 1537.)\n\n\"act of production\" doctrine permits him to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination in response to requests for the production of documents and records. On this basis, the Individual Debtor asserts that he has complied with the Order Compelling Production.\n\n#### **i. Is it impossible for the Individual Debtor to comply?**\n\nWhile the Individual Debtor is correct that \"[a] long recognized defense to a civil contempt citation is the cited individual's inability to comply with the court's order,\" *United States v. Wendy*, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978), and that the proper time to assess impossibility of compliance is at the time of issuing the ruling on contempt, *United States v. Rylander*, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983), the Court concludes compliance remains possible for the Individual Debtor. While it is true that the prosecution has seized documents and records of the Individual Debtor in connection with the Criminal Action, the Individual Debtor has not established that (a) all of his documents and records have been seized and (b) he has no additional copies of the seized records. Moreover, based on the statements of his counsel, the Court understands the prosecution's production to the Individual Debtor in the Criminal Action should begin soon – if it has not already. While it is (i) likely that the Trustee would have to become a signatory to and comply with confidentiality requirements and use restrictions in the Criminal Action and (ii) possible that production to the Trustee may be opposed by the prosecution or not allowed by the Criminal Court, it is not impossible for the Individual Debtor to petition the Criminal Court to allow production to the Trustee. Although, the Individual Debtor is presently detained pending trial, his attorneys are not. The Individual Debtor may produce documents through his attorneys and/or other agents. Therefore, it is not impossible for the Individual Debtor to comply with the Order Compelling Production.\n\n11\n\n#### **ii. Has the Individual Debtor properly invoked the Fifth Amendment?**\n\n#### **a. Does the act of production doctrine apply?**\n\nThe Individual Debtor's argument that he has complied with the Order Compelling Production relies on the \"act of production\" doctrine. In *Fisher v. United States*, which held that the act of production at issue in that case was not protected by the Fifth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court nevertheless held that\n\nThe act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena nevertheless has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced. Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer. It also would indicate the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena.\n\n425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976); *see United States v. Hubbell*, 530 U.S. 27, 36–37 (2000). In *Fisher*, the Supreme Court held the test to determine if the act of production could be protected by the Fifth Amendment is whether the \"tacit averments\" involved in the act of production are both \"testimonial\" and \"incriminating\" under prevailing Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. 425 U.S. at 410–11. In particular, the Supreme Court expressed concern regarding tacit averments as to: (i) the existence of the documents or records; (ii) the producing party's possession or control over the documents or records; and (iii) the producing party's belief that the documents and records were those requested by the subpoena. *Id.* The act of production doctrine does not protect the testimonial and incriminating contents of documents – it only protects testimonial and incriminating *production*. *Id.*; *Hubbell*, 530 U.S. at 40–41.\n\nUnder binding precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the act of production *may* entail testimonial tacit averments \"(1) 'if the existence and location of the subpoenaed papers are unknown to the government'; or (2) where production would 'implicitly authenticate' the documents.\" *United States v. Doe (In re Grand Jury Subpoena)*, 1\n\nF.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993) (hereinafter \"*Grand Jury 1993*\") (citing *United States v. Fox*, 721 F.2d 32, 36 (2d Cir.1983)). If the Trustee can show (1) the existence and location; and (2) the authenticity of the documents is a \"foregone\" conclusion or already established by other evidence, then the production is not protected by the Fifth Amendment. *Grand Jury 1993*, 1 F.3d at 93. Moreover, even if the tacit averments involved in production are testimonial under *Fox*, the Individual Debtor must also establish that revealing the existence, location, or authenticity of the documents or records is incriminating. *See Hoffman v. United States*, 341 U.S. 479, 486–87 (1951); *Fox*, 721 F.2d at 40; *In re Schick*, 215 B.R. 4, 9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997); *cf. Martin-Trigona v. Belford (In re Martin-Trigona)*, 732 F.2d 170, 176 (2d Cir. 1984).\n\nThe Individual Debtor's burden to establish that the act of production is testimonial and incriminating is less than a normal burden of proof: \"To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.\" *Hoffman*, 341 U.S. at 486–87. In determining whether the Individual Debtor may invoke the Fifth Amendment, the Court must use its \"personal perception of the peculiarities of the case\" as much as factual support submitted by the Individual Debtor. *Id.* at 487. The act of production is incriminating if it could be \"a link in the chain of evidence\" used to prosecute the Individual Debtor. *Id.* at 486.\n\nThe Individual Debtor argues that producing documents and records under compulsion of the Order Compelling Production would be testimonial because the production could be construed as a tacit averment that he beneficially owns and/or controls various entities and assets and that he has authority over various persons. Such tacit averments, the Individual Debtor argues, would be incriminating because the present Criminal Action and an alleged investigation\n\ninto bankruptcy crimes involve allegations about the Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of entities and/or assets and the Individual Debtor's authority and/or control over certain individuals.\n\nThe Trustee raises numerous objections to the Individual Debtor's argument. The Trustee's primary objection is that the \"required records\" doctrine applies and is an exception to the act of production doctrine. In support of this argument, the Trustee asserts that the Individual Debtor, as a debtor in bankruptcy, cannot properly invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid production of documents and records relating to his financial affairs, assets, and liabilities as required by the Bankruptcy Code – whether or not the act of production is testimonial and incriminating. The Trustee's required records argument involving the Individual Debtor's duties in his bankruptcy case will be addressed below. The Court will first address the Trustee's various objections as to whether the Individual Debtor has met his burden of proof to show that compliance with the Order Compelling Production would be both testimonial and incriminating.\n\n#### *The Supplemental Declaration*\n\nThe Individual Debtor and the Trustee have reached a resolution regarding one of the Trustee's objections. Before the Contempt Motion was filed and the hearings on it were held, the Individual Debtor's Declaration made a blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Trustee argued that this was improper because (a) such a blanket assertion did not evidence that the Individual Debtor had properly considered each of the Trustee's requests before invoking the Fifth Amendment; and (b) these Chapter 11 cases are civil proceedings, meaning that the Individual Debtor's invocation of the Fifth Amendment may, under proper circumstances, be admitted as evidence. However, the Individual Debtor has since provided the Supplemental Declaration pursuant to a consent order, wherein he answers each\n\nquestion posed by the Trustee on an individual basis and asserts his Fifth Amendment right in response to each of the two-hundred two (202) questions. Although the Individual Debtor has now properly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to the Trustee's specific questions, issues related to the production of documents remain.\n\n#### *Pre-indictment invocation of the Fifth Amendment*\n\nOne of the Trustee's remaining objections to the Individual Debtor's proof of compliance with the Order Compelling Production is unpersuasive. The Trustee argues that the Individual Debtor was in contempt before the unsealing of the indictment against him and cannot now invoke the Fifth Amendment in light of the Criminal Action to avoid being held in contempt. However, the Individual Debtor is correct that the Fifth Amendment may be invoked prior to the commencement of a criminal action. *See United States v. Miranti*, 253 F.2d 135, 139 (2d Cir. 1958) (allowing a witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment where there was only a slight *possibility* of prosecution). Just as the Individual Debtor could assert his Fifth Amendment right during the evidentiary hearing in December 2022 and during his March 2023 deposition, he could do so in February 2023 so long as he had \"reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer\" and his Fifth Amendment right was otherwise applicable. *Hoffman*, 341 U.S. at 486.\n\n#### *Documents in possession of the prosecution*\n\nA second argument of the Trustee also fails. The Trustee argues that there is no harm to the Individual Debtor because the prosecution is already in possession of his documents and records. The Trustee is correct insofar as the existence and location of these documents is known and, hence, the first prong of the *Fox* test fails. *Grand Jury 1993*, 1 F.3d at 93. Nevertheless, whether the act of producing the Individual Debtor's documents and records\n\nalready in the possession of the prosecution would result in authenticating those documents and records remains an issue. *Id.* The Individual Debtor is concerned that his act of production would authenticate the documents. The Court has not seen these documents and records. Nor has the Trustee. The Court recognizes the Trustee is in a difficult position because he is not a party to the Criminal Action. Nevertheless, the Trustee has not shown that it would be a foregone conclusion that the documents and records are authentic. Therefore, under the second prong of the *Fox* test, the tacit averment as to the authenticity of the documents and records in the possession of the prosecution may be testimonial. *Id.*\n\nMoreover, because the documents and records seized by the prosecution may be used in the Criminal Action to prosecute the Individual Debtor, the Court finds the Individual Debtor's argument that his implicit authentication of those documents and records could be \"a link in the chain of evidence\" used to prosecute him is persuasive. *Hoffman*, 341 U.S. at 486. Therefore, unless the Trustee can show that it would be a foregone conclusion that the documents and records are authentic, the act of production doctrine applies to the documents held by the prosecution, unless an exception to the doctrine applies.\n\n#### *Documents not in the possession of the prosecution*\n\nThe Individual Debtor argues that the entire universe of documents and records the Order Compelling Production compels him to produce have been seized by the prosecution. The Court does not agree and, therefore, continues its discussion. As the Trustee contends, the blanket assertion that the Individual Debtor has no documents or records in his possession, custody, or control because he is now incarcerated is not convincing. The FBI apparently seized many documents, records, and electronic devices at the Individual Debtor's residences despite previous representations that the Individual Debtor maintained almost no documents, records, and devices.\n\nSimilarly, the Trustee is correct that there is no evidentiary basis to support the contention that there are no records within the Individual Debtor's possession, custody, or control that are not already among the documents and records seized by the prosecution. Given past descriptions of the efforts – or, as the case may be, the lack thereof – conducted by the Individual Debtor's counsel, the Individual Debtor has not established that a reasonably diligent search occurred. (*See* Order Compelling Production ¶ 9.) For both of these reasons, the Court concludes that the Individual Debtor has not established that all potentially responsive documents and records have been seized by the prosecution.\n\nAs to documents and records that were not seized by the prosecution, the Trustee has not shown that the location, existence, or authenticity of these documents is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, if the Individual Debtor establishes that they are incriminating, the act of production doctrine would apply. *Fox*, 721 F.2d at 36. The Trustee argues that the Individual Debtor has not met his burden to establish that the requested documents and records are incriminating. The Trustee is correct that even with the Supplemental Declaration, the Individual Debtor has not established that each requested production would be incriminating.\n\nNevertheless, the Court is mindful of the lessened burden the Individual Debtor must meet. The Court is also mindful that it must rely on its own perception of the facts and circumstances of these Chapter 11 cases and related adversary proceedings. *Hoffman*, 341 U.S. at 486–87. Moreover, as the Individual Debtor's counsel notes, \"[t]he privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.\" *Id.* at 486. However, the Court's \"personal perception of the peculiarities of the case\" includes the observation that the Individual Debtor\n\nhas obstructed lawful inquiry into his assets, liabilities, and financial affairs in addition to his avowed desire to avoid self-incrimination. *Id.* at 487. (*See, e.g.*, Social Media/Protest Adversary, ECF No. 133.)\n\nThe indictment in the Criminal Action is not alone sufficient for the Individual Debtor to meet his burden with respect to the documents and records that the prosecution has *not* seized. The indictment alleges fraud going back to approximately 2018, whereas many of the assets of interest to the Trustee thus far – that certain yacht, the Lady May; the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel; the Ace Decade Holdings Limited cause of action – were allegedly acquired prior to 2018. While some of these assets, *e.g.*, the Lady May, are discussed in the indictment, the Court cannot, with its \"personal perception of the peculiarities of the case\" and the Individual Debtor's scant evidentiary showing, hold that the Individual Debtor has sufficiently supported his blanket assertion of the Fifth Amendment on the basis of the Criminal Action. *Id.* at 487. The Individual Debtor has not established that all of his assets, liabilities, and financial affairs relate to the alleged fraud or may somehow present a \"link in the chain of evidence\" regarding the alleged fraud. *Id.* at 486.\n\nIn support of his argument that he has complied with the Order Compelling Production, the Individual Debtor also presented a subpoena directed at the Trustee relating to an alleged investigation into potential bankruptcy crimes committed in these Chapter 11 cases. (ECF No. 1719, at \\*80:20–81:8.) As noted above, it does not matter if prosecution due to this investigation is likely when determining if production of the documents is incriminating. *Miranti*, 253 F.2d at 139.\n\nTitle 18 of the United States Code, sections 152, 156, 157, 1519, and 3284 set forth crimes related to the concealment of assets in a bankruptcy case. Sections 152, 156, 157, and\n\n1519 require knowing, intentional, or fraudulent acts. Section 3284 requires \"concealment.\" The tacit averments that the Individual Debtor has possession or control over documents or records responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena and that such documents or records are authentic are not themselves incriminating because they do not establish that the Individual Debtor knowingly, intentionally, or fraudulently withheld assets – or documents and records pertaining to assets – from the Estate. Debtors routinely mistakenly overlook assets and liabilities and amend their statements and schedules and/or update their disclosures.\n\nNevertheless, the Court must consider whether such tacit averments are a \"link in the chain of evidence\" regarding a potential prosecution of the Individual Debtor for concealment of his assets from the Trustee, this Court, and his creditors. *Hoffman*, 341 U.S. at 486. The Trustee alleges that the Individual Debtor has a multitude of business interests and should have commensurate documents and records. While the Individual Debtor denies these allegations, it is the Court's \"personal perception of the peculiarities of the case,\" on the basis of prior findings of this and other courts, that the Individual Debtor has at least *some* business interests beyond those he presently admits. *See Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYCEF No. 1181; *E. Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, Case No. 18-cv-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021). (*See* ECF No. 1110; *HK Int'l Funds Invs. (USA) Ltd., LLC v. Despins ex rel. Kwok (In re Kwok)*, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), Adv. P. No. 22-05003 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. May 18, 2023), ECF Nos. 177, 221; Social Media/Protest Adversary, ECF No. 133 ¶ 7.) The Court perceives that the Individual Debtor's production may be similarly expansive to the production at issue in *Hubbell*. *See* 530 U.S. at 40–43. Even though *Hubbell* was a case involving immunity granted to a party where the scope of the production was known and the burden had shifted to the\n\nprosecution, it *may* be similarly necessary for the Individual Debtor \"to make extensive use of 'the contents of his own mind' in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena\" and essentially create a map of his assets, liabilities, and business interests. *See id.* at 43. Regarding the alleged investigation into bankruptcy crimes, such a map may aid in discovery of evidence of knowledge, intent, or fraud. Using its perception of the specific facts and circumstances of these Chapter 11 cases and related adversary proceedings, the Court finds that such admissions could be links in the chain of evidence because they could have a \"derivative use.\" *See id.* at 41–43.\n\n#### *The Individual Debtor's production is testimonial and incriminating*\n\nFor the above reasons, the Court concludes that production in compliance with the Order Compelling Production would be testimonial and incriminating both with regards to the documents in the possession of the prosecution and the documents that have not been seized by the prosecution. *See Fisher*, 425 U.S. at 410–11. The Court notes, however, that the evidentiary record to date is not strong. If in the future the Trustee can (i) show that the location, existence, and authenticity of any document is a foregone conclusion; (ii) establish with regard to any document or category of documents that the Individual Debtor has not met his burden; or (iii) establish that he already has a map of the Individual Debtor's assets, liabilities, and business interests with respect to any documents or category of documents, this finding may be revisited upon a proper motion.\n\n#### **b. Does the 'required records' exception apply?**\n\nAlthough the act of production doctrine applies, that does not end the Court's analysis or necessarily determine the result of the Contempt Motion. As noted above, the Trustee's primary argument is that the required records doctrine applies on the specific facts and circumstances\n\nbefore the Court and presents an exception to the act of production doctrine. The Trustee therefore argues that it does not matter whether the act of production doctrine would allow the Individual Debtor to properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to the Order Compelling Production because the required records exception applies in this case.\n\nIn support of his argument, the Trustee relies on *Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight*, 493 U.S. 549 (1990). In *Bouknight*, the Supreme Court restated and reaffirmed the existence of the required records doctrine post-*Fisher*. 493 U.S. at 555–59. Under the required records doctrine, \"the Fifth Amendment privilege may not be invoked to resist compliance with a regulatory regime constructed to effect the State's public purposes unrelated to the enforcement of its criminal laws.\" *Id.* at 556; *see Grosso v. United States*, 390 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1968) (articulating factors to consider regarding required records doctrine); *Shapiro v. United* States, 335 U.S. 1, 32 (1948) (originating the required records doctrine).\n\nThe Individual Debtor asserts *Bouknight* does not describe an exception to the act of production doctrine set forth in *Fisher* and that the required records doctrine does not provide for the compelled testimonial and incriminating production of documents and records. The Individual Debtor's assertion contradicts the clear text of *Bouknight* which states:\n\nThe possibility that a production order will compel testimonial assertions that may prove incriminating does not, in all contexts, justify invoking the privilege to resist production. Even assuming that this limited testimonial assertion is sufficiently incriminating and \"sufficiently testimonial for purposes of the privilege,\" Bouknight may not invoke the privilege to resist the production order because she has assumed custodial duties related to production and because production is required as part of a noncriminal regulatory regime.\n\n*Bouknight*, 493 U.S. at 555–56 (discussing *Fisher*) (internal citations omitted). In addition to the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit has also clearly rejected the Individual Debtor's assertion:\n\n\"[T]he required records doctrine is an exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege. As such, it necessarily overrides the privilege in instances in which the privilege would otherwise apply. *Fisher* was not concerned with required records and nothing in its analysis could be construed as weakening the required records exception.\"\n\n*United States v. Doe (In re Grand Jury Subpoena)*, 741 F.3d 339, 346 (2d Cir. 2013) (hereinafter \"*Grand Jury 2013*\") (quoting *Doe v. United States (In re Doe)*, 711 F.2d 1187, 1192–93 (2d Cir. 1983)). Indeed, the Second Circuit has emphatically stated \"[t]his Court has twice explicitly rejected the idea that the required records exception has been abrogated by the act of production doctrine.\" *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 346. This binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent makes clear that the required records doctrine is an exception to the act of production doctrine.7 Therefore, if the required records exception applies in this case, the Individual Debtor has failed to comply with the Order Compelling Production regardless of the conclusion that such production would be testimonial and incriminating.\n\nIn determining whether the required records doctrine applies, the Second Circuit turns to the *Grosso* factors. *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 345. In *Grosso*, the Supreme Court applied the following factors: \"[F]irst, the purposes of the United States' inquiry must be essentially regulatory; second, information is to be obtained by requiring the preservation of records of a kind which the regulated party has customarily kept; and third, the records themselves must have assumed 'public aspects' which render them at least analogous to public documents.\" 390 U.S.\n\n<sup>7</sup> The Individual Debtor observes that one of the cases cited by the Trustee, *In re Ross*, 156 B.R. 272, 279 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1993), both found the production of the requested documents to be insufficiently testimonial and found that the required records doctrine applied. From this observation, the Individual Debtor concluded that the latter holding required the former. The Court concludes otherwise. The court in *Ross*, like many courts – particularly lower courts subject to review, advanced multiple bases for its conclusion that the debtor in that case could not properly invoke the Fifth Amendment. 156 B.R. at 281 (\"Fifth, *even if the act of production involved here was both testimonial and incriminating*, the nature of chapter 7 as a regulatory regime directed toward society as a whole, and not toward inherently suspect criminal classes, renders the act of production outside the protection of the Fifth Amendment.\") (emphasis added).\n\nat 67–68. Here, the Trustee is seeking documents and records that the Order Compelling Production holds relate to \"the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the [Individual Debtor], or to any matter which may affect the administration of the [Estate].\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b). Hence, the Individual Debtor is obligated to produce the documents and records the Trustee seeks under sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4). Therefore, the issue is whether the documents and records the Individual Debtor is obligated to produce under sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) are required records under the *Grosso* test.\n\n#### *What is the purpose of Bankruptcy Code sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4)?*\n\nIn determining whether the first factor supports application of the required records doctrine, a court must consider whether the relevant \"legislation is not 'directed at the public at large' and concerns 'an area permeated with criminal statutes.'\" *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 347 (citing *Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Bd.*, 382 U.S. 70, 79 (1965)); *see Marchetti v. United States*, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968); *Haynes v. United States*, 390 U.S. 85, 99 (1968). A court must make this determination as to the specific statutory sections at issue, rather than in reference to the entire surrounding statutory context. *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 348 (citing *California v. Byers*, 402 U.S. 424, 430 (1971)).\n\nSection 521 of the Bankruptcy Code is titled \"Debtor's duties.\" Sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) provide, respectively, that, where a bankruptcy trustee is serving in the case, as here, a debtor must cooperate with the trustee in the performance of the trustee's duties and must surrender to the trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to property of the estate.\n\nSection 109 of the Bankruptcy Code allows individuals or entities to file for bankruptcy under Chapters 7, 11, 11 Subchapter V, 12, or 13. In proceedings under Chapters 7, 12, and 13\n\nas well as Chapter 11 Subchapter V, a bankruptcy trustee is automatically appointed upon the commencement of the case. 11 U.S.C. §§ 701, 702, 1183, 1202, 1302. Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases are the most common among the general public and always involve a bankruptcy trustee to whom the debtor owes obligations under sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4).\n\nWhile in a Chapter 11 case the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee is an extraordinary remedy, *see* 11 U.S.C. § 1112, the effect of this extraordinary relief is that a dispossessed Chapter 11 debtor has the same obligations under sections 521(a)(3) and 521(a)(4) as a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 debtor. By operation of law, upon filing a Chapter 11 case a debtor is automatically deemed to be a debtor-in-possession and assumes the role of a bankruptcy trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a). However, a debtor in a Chapter 11 case may be 'dispossessed' of the estate through appointment of a bankruptcy trustee \"for cause,\" provided it is in the best interest of the creditors and the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1).\n\nChapter 11 is distinct because it is designed for debtors with complex business interests, assets, and liabilities, such as large corporations and high net worth individuals. *See* H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 220 (1977). As such, Chapter 11 is guided by three basic presumptions: (i) debtors with substantial business interests and operations have more value as a continuing economic entity than divided up and liquidated, (ii) debtors with complex financial affairs, assets, and liabilities are better equipped than an appointed trustee to manage their own affairs for the benefit of creditors, and (iii) allowing debtors with substantial business interests and operations to reorganize preserves the interests of debtors, owners, employees, etc. in addition to the interests of creditors. *See id.* Ultimately, however, Chapter 11 is properly used wherever its specific provisions maximize the distribution to creditors. *See Toibb v. Radloff*, 501 U.S. 157, 163–64 (1991). Many of the enumerated examples of \"cause\" to appoint a bankruptcy trustee –\n\nor dismiss the case or convert the case to a proceeding under Chapter 7 – involve the rebuttal of the presumptions listed above or the debtor-in-possession's failure to comply with its obligations to manage the estate for the benefit of creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4); *see* 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 1112.04[6][b]–[k] (16th ed. 2023).\n\nWhen one is appointed, the bankruptcy trustee is the representative of the debtor's estate. 11 U.S.C. § 323. The purpose of sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) is to enable the bankruptcy trustee to administer the debtor's bankruptcy estate in accordance with the bankruptcy trustee's duties. *See* 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, 1116, 1183, 1202, 1302; 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 521.15[5], 521.16. The administration of the bankruptcy estate requires the debtor's disclosure, surrender, and cooperation with the trustee because a case in bankruptcy is an all-encompassing action intended to equitably and finally resolve, adjust, or reorganize myriad debtor-creditor relationships. *See, e.g.*, 11 U.S.C. §§ 704(a)(5) (\"The trustee shall . . . examine proofs of claims and object to the allowance of any claim that is improper . . ..\"), 704(a)(7) (\"The trustee shall . . . furnish such information concerning the estate and the estate's administration as is requested by a party in interest . . .\"), 704(a)(8) (\"The trustee shall . . . file with the court, with the United States trustee, and with any governmental unit charged with responsibility for collection or determination of any tax arising out of such operations, periodic reports and summaries of the operation of such business . . ..\"), 1106(a)(3) (\"A trustee shall . . . investigate the acts, conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the debtor, the operation of the debtor's business and the desirability of the continuance of such business, and other matters relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan . . ..\"); 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1116.01 (\"The trustee's investigation and reporting duties provide a mechanism for full disclosure of the debtor's state of\n\naffairs so as to enable parties in interest to protect their rights and obtain the successful reorganization of the debtor.\").\n\nA debtor's failure to fulfill its obligations to (i) cooperate with the trustee, (ii) disclose financial affairs, assets, and liabilities, and (iii) surrender property of the bankruptcy estate and records relating thereto severely impedes a trustee's ability to administer the estate. *See United States v. Stone*, 282 F. 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1960) (\"[T]he very purpose of the statement of affairs is to give dependable information without need of going further.\") (upholding conviction in criminal action prosecuting debtor for bankruptcy crimes related to failure to properly disclose loan information on statement of financial affairs in proceeding under former Bankruptcy Act). This failure causes expense and delay to the estate's creditors which are cognizable injuries. *See Andrews v. McCarron (In re Vincent Andrews Mgmt. Corp.)*, 414 B.R. 1, 7 (D. Conn. 2009).\n\nFurthermore, the broad and extraordinary nature of much of the relief provided by the Bankruptcy Code is premised upon proper disclosure and notice. *See, e.g.*, 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1) (defining adequate information for the disclosure statement that must be served before plan solicitation may commence); *Till v. SCS Credit Corp.*, 541 U.S. 465, 475 n. 12 (2004) (finding that the \"Bankruptcy Code's extensive disclosure requirements reduce the risk that the debtor has significant undisclosed obligations,\" undergirding a court's \"authority to modify the number, timing, or amount of the installment payments from those set forth in the debtor's original contract\"); *In re Motors Liquidation Co.*, 829 F.3d 135, 158–61 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that failure to properly serve undisclosed known creditors with a sale motion rendered a sale order unenforceable against the creditors). A trustee, as the bankruptcy estate's representative, is the party tasked with; in the first instance, seeking much of this relief for: (i) the benefit of the estate, *Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub*, 471 U.S. 343, 352\n\n(1985); and (ii) the debtor who may receive, upon exiting the gauntlet, a \"fresh start,\" *see Grogan v. Garner*, 498 U.S. 279, 286 (1991).\n\nThe Court concludes that sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) are targeted at the general public. Bankruptcy trustees are automatically appointed in a wide range of cases. The duty to disclose and surrender property and records to the trustee is essential to the fundamental and required administrative duties of the trustee and the exercise of the trustee's powers under the bankruptcy code.\n\nThe remaining issue is whether sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) are concerned with an area \"permeated with criminal statutes.\" *Albertson*, 382 U.S. at 79. Title 18, sections 151 *et sequitur*, 1519, and 3284 of the United States Code criminalize certain actions taken in relation to proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code. Among these \"bankruptcy crimes\" are several related to the concealment of assets of the bankruptcy estate to protect them from distribution to the estate's creditors. The issue before the Court is not, however, whether certain failures to fulfill a debtor's duty under sections 521(a)(3) and (4) leave a debtor vulnerable to criminal prosecution, but rather whether sections 521(a)(3) and (4) are \"directed at a 'selective group inherently suspect of criminal activities.'\" *Marchetti*, 390 U.S. at 57.\n\nIn *Grosso* and *Marchetti*, the problem was not the criminal laws enforcing the statutory requirement to file tax returns, which are akin to the bankruptcy crimes enumerated above. *Grosso*, 390 U.S. at 64–65; *see Marchetti*, 390 U.S. at 57. Rather, in both cases the Supreme Court determined that the requirement to file a federal wagering tax return squarely targeted conduct already criminalized by state law, namely gambling. *Grosso*, 390 U.S. at 64–65; *Marchetti*, 390 U.S. at 57. At issue in *Albertson* was the requirement that members of the Communist Party of America personally register with the Subversive Activities Control Board.\n\n382 U.S. at 77–78. Affiliation with the Communist Party was criminalized at the time. *Id.* In *Haynes*, the issue was a requirement that persons who obtained firearms *other than in the normal course* – which the Supreme Court observed would be mostly persons acquiring firearms illegally – register their firearms. 390 U.S. at 95–97.\n\nThe facts before the Supreme Court in *Grosso*, *Marchetti*, *Albertson*, and *Haynes* are each dissimilar to the instant facts. First, all of those cases involved the creation of a new record rather than the production of existing documents and records. *Haynes*, 390 U.S. at 95–97; *Grosso*, 390 U.S. at 64–65; *Marchetti*, 390 U.S. at 57; *Albertson*, 382 U.S. at 77–78. More importantly, the routine administration of a bankruptcy case does not as a matter of course implicate criminal activity. The administration of the estate is intended to be separate from issues of criminal liability. *Compare* 11 U.S.C. §§ 323 (the trustee is the party to sue and be sued on behalf of the estate with regards to civil litigation), 362(a)(1) (generally, civil actions against the debtor or the estate are stayed by the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition) *with*  11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1) (criminal actions against the debtor are not stayed by the commencement of a case under Title 11). Debtors are generally not exposed to criminal liability for the disclosures they are required to make in their bankruptcy cases. The intent of disclosure requirements in bankruptcy proceedings is to lay bare *civil liability* to allow for the equitable and final resolution of all claims against the debtor. *See Byers*, 402 U.S. at 430–31 (finding that, while the California Vehicle Code involved some criminal statutes, \"it was not intended to facilitate criminal convictions but to promote the satisfaction of civil liabilities arising from automobile accidents\" and holding that the required records exception applied).\n\nTherefore, the purpose of sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) is \"essentially regulatory,\" which supports the applicability of the required records exception to the production of documents by\n\nthe Individual Debtor compelled by the Order Compelling Production. *Grosso*, 390 U.S. at 67– 68.\n\n#### *Are the purported required records customarily kept?*\n\nAs to the second factor, whether the purportedly required records are customarily kept, the Trustee is seeking, *e.g.*, financial and banking records, money transfer records, records relating to the Individual Debtor's business interests, etc. As the Second Circuit observed with respect to foreign bank account information, common sense dictates that persons and entities retain basic financial transaction and account information in order to manage their affairs and access their accounts. *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 350 (citing *M.H. v. United States (In re Grand Jury Investigation)*, 648 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Court finds this is especially true regarding individuals and entities with complex financial affairs, assets, and liabilities. Pointedly, the Second Circuit went on to say that although \"some individuals engaged in wrongdoing are advised not to keep even this basic information[,] . . . [w]e decline to look at the custom of only the miscreants . . ..\" *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 350. Therefore, the Court concludes that the records required by sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) are \"customarily kept.\" *Grosso*, 390 U.S. at 67–68.\n\n#### *Did the purported required records assume 'public aspects?'*\n\nAs to the third factor, whether the purportedly required records have assumed 'public aspects,' the question is whether the overall regulatory context of section 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) – requires the particular records be kept. *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 351–52.\n\nThe Bankruptcy Code requires disclosure both at the outset of a case and as a case proceeds. Section 521(a)(1) requires any debtor – including the Individual Debtor – to file a list of creditors, statement of financial affairs, and schedules of, *inter alia*, the debtor's assets,\n\nliabilities, income, and expenses. *See* 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 521.06[3][a] (\"The schedule is a statement of *all* property, both *real* and personal, within the broad definition of property of the estate under section 541(a), which includes 'all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.'\"), 521.06[3][b] (\"The scheduling of interests in property, both real and personal, is a very important duty.\"), 521.09 (\"The purpose of the requirement of filing a statement of financial affairs is to furnish the trustee and creditors with detailed information about the debtor's financial condition, thereby saving the expense and long and protracted examination for the purpose of soliciting information.\"). Section 341 requires any debtor to submit to an examination conducted by a trustee, in which its creditors may participate. *See* 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 341.01.\n\nRegarding Chapter 11 in particular, section 1107 provides that while a Chapter 11 debtor is a debtor-in-possession, such a debtor, as a fiduciary of the bankruptcy estate, would have many of the same disclosure obligations of a trustee discussed above, including reporting requirements. *See* 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 1107.02[3]–[4]. A debtor's failure to properly disclose financial affairs, assets, and liabilities in a Disclosure Statement required to be filed in connection with a Chapter 11 Plan would prevent confirmation of that plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1125; *see* 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 1125.02 (\"Disclosure is the pivotal concept in reorganization practice under the Bankruptcy Code.\") (citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 226–31 (1977)), 1125.02[2]. Failures to make appropriate disclosures can and do constitute cause to convert a Chapter 11 reorganization case to a Chapter 7 liquidation case, dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, or appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(f); *see* 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[6][f].\n\nMuch like the mother in *Bouknight*, the Individual Debtor assumed these obligations upon voluntarily commencing his Chapter 11 case, submitting himself to the *in personam*  jurisdiction of this Court, and submitting all of his legal and equitable interests in property – \"wherever located and by whomever held\" – to the *in rem* jurisdiction of this Court. 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); *Bouknight*, 493 U.S. at 559 (\"Bouknight submitted to the routine operation of the regulatory system and agreed to hold Maurice in a manner consonant with the State's regulatory interests and subject to inspection by BCDSS.\"). Moreover, as in *Bouknight*, where the mother was required to produce her child to the Baltimore City Department of Social Services upon cause shown, the Bankruptcy Code requires the Individual Debtor to produce documents and records relating to property of the estate to the Trustee, because cause was shown to appoint a trustee. 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(a)(4), 1112; *Bouknight*, 493 U.S. at 555–56. Because the Individual Debtor voluntarily filed his Chapter 11 case and became a debtor-in-possession, he assumed a bankruptcy trustee's duties to manage the Estate for the benefit of its creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a). The Individual Debtor was a custodian of the Estate and its books and records while a debtor-in-possession. *See Bouknight*, 493 U.S. at 555–56. Although his status as a debtor-inpossession ended upon the appointment of the Trustee, his resultant obligation to provide information to the Trustee did not.\n\nThe Court concludes that the records required to be produced by the Individual Debtor pursuant to sections 521(a)(3) and (a)(4) have assumed \"public aspects\" because the Individual Debtor's case is a voluntary Chapter 11 case and because the specific facts and circumstances of these Chapter 11 cases and related adversary proceedings support this conclusion. *See Bouknight*, 493 U.S. at 555–56; *Grosso*, 390 U.S. at 67–68.\n\n31\n\n#### *The 'required records' exception applies*\n\nAll three factors of the *Grosso* test support the applicability of the required records exception to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination under the specific facts and circumstances before the Court. 390 U.S. at 67–68; *see Bouknight*, 493 U.S. at 555–56; *Grand Jury 2013*, 741 F.3d at 345; *Ross*, 156 B.R. at 279–81; *In re Fairbanks*, 135 B.R. 717, 730–33 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1991).\n\nApplication of the required records exception is also supported by Supreme Court precedent relating to the former Bankruptcy Act. *In re Harris*, 221 U.S. 274 (1911) (holding Fifth Amendment did not protect a debtor from producing its books and records to the receiver in bankruptcy). *Bouknight*, in upholding the required records exception post-*Fisher*, cited *Harris*  approvingly as an example of the required records doctrine, confirming the continuing vitality of *Harris* today despite the evolution of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence since *Harris* was decided. *Bouknight*, 439 U.S. at 556–57; *see Fisher*, 425 U.S. 411–13 (discussing *Harris* without calling into question its holding); *see also Cohen v. de la Cruz*, 523 U.S. 213, 221 (1998) (holding that precedent under the Bankruptcy Act is not displaced unless there is a clear indication that Congress intended to do so); *Ross*, 156 B.R. at 279; 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 344.03[4] (\"[I]t is doubtful that a debtor, as opposed to other witnesses, may successfully refuse to turn over the property, books and records that every debtor under the Code is required to surrender to the trustee on the basis that this 'act of production' might itself tend to incriminate.\"); *but see Butcher v. Bailey*, 753 F.2d 465, 468 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding, pre-*Bouknight* and in an *involuntary* Chapter 7 case rather than a voluntary Chapter 11 case, that *Harris* was no longer good law after *Fisher* and section 521 did not require the production of documents to which the act of production doctrine applied).\n\nThe Individual Debtor objects that, nevertheless, *Harris* and the required records exception do not reach Rule 2004 subpoenas under *McCarthy v. Arndstein*. 266 U.S. 34 (1924). However, the Supreme Court in *Arndstein* distinguished its prior opinion in *Harris* on the basis that *Harris* concerned the surrender of documents and records and *Arndstein* concerned the issue of compelled *testimony*. 266 U.S. at 41–42. The Trustee is not objecting to the Individual Debtor answering interrogatories or questions during deposition or in-court testimony by invoking the Fifth Amendment. Instead, the Trustee is objecting to the Individual Debtor invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to requests for the production of documents and records. Therefore, *Arndstein* is inapposite.\n\nThe Court concludes that, both under an analysis of the *Grosso* factors and by application of Supreme Court precedent under the Bankruptcy Act, the required records exception applies.\n\n#### **iii. The Individual Debtor did not comply with the Order Compelling Production**\n\nFor all of the above reasons, the Court concludes that (i) it is not impossible for the Individual Debtor to comply with the Order Compelling Production and (ii) under the required records exception, the Individual Debtor may not properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to the Order Compelling Production. Therefore, the Trustee has established by clear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor has not complied with the Order Compelling Production.\n\n### **3. Did the Individual Debtor diligently attempt to comply with the Order Compelling Production?**\n\nThe Trustee must also establish that the Individual Debtor did not diligently attempt to comply in a reasonable manner with the Order Compelling Production. *King*, 65 F.3d at 1058. The Trustee argues that the Individual Debtor has made no attempt to comply with the Order Compelling Production. In response, the Individual Debtor argues that there is a fair ground of\n\ndoubt as to whether the Individual Debtor could properly assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that the Declaration and Supplemental Declaration represent his good faith efforts to comply with the Order Compelling Production.\n\nThe Individual Debtor's operative mistake is a mistake of law – not fact. Namely, the Individual Debtor has mistakenly concluded that the required records exception to the act of production doctrine does not apply and that he may invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to the Order Compelling Production. For the reasons stated above, whether producing each document or record would factually be testimonial and incriminating does not affect the outcome.\n\nGenerally, absent a requirement of willfulness or intention, mistake of law is not a defense to civil liability. *Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA*, 559 U.S. 573, 583–85 (2010). As noted above, \"[t]he absence of wilfulness [sic] does not relieve from civil contempt.\" *McComb*, 336 U.S. at 191. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Individual Debtor's mistake of law is not a defense to civil contempt. *Cf. Yellin v. United States*, 374 U.S. 109, 123 (1963) (holding mistake of law was no defense to contempt of Congress); *United States v. Remini*, 967 U.S. 754, 758 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding mistake of law was no defense to criminal contempt of court). This conclusion accords with the Supreme Court's observation in *Taggert*  that \"a party's good faith, *even where it does not bar civil contempt*, may help to determine an appropriate sanction.\" 139 S. Ct. at 1802 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Trustee has established that the Individual Debtor did not diligently attempt to comply with the Order Compelling Production.\n\n34\n\n#### **4. Did the Individual Debtor have notice of the Order Compelling Production?**\n\nThe final element of civil contempt is notice of the relevant order. *Gravel*, 6 F.4th at 512. The Declaration admits the Individual Debtor had notice of the Order Compelling Production. (ECF No. 1444 Ex. A.) This element of civil contempt has been established.\n\n#### **5. The Individual Debtor is in civil contempt of court**\n\nAll four elements having been established, the Contempt Motion is granted. The Court holds the Individual Debtor in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with the Order Compelling Production. As set forth in the decretal paragraphs below, the Individual Debtor will be afforded the opportunity to purge himself of contempt. In light of the serious nature of the circumstances facing the Individual Debtor and the good faith shown in answering the Trustee's two-hundred two (202) questions in his Supplemental Declaration, the Court will provide the Individual Debtor with ample time to purge himself of contempt. *Taggert*, 139 S. Ct. at 1802. However, if the Individual Debtor does not purge himself of contempt, the Trustee may request appropriate sanctions.\n\nThe Individual Debtor's counsel are reminded that \"[c]ounsel have an obligation, as officers of the court, to assist in the discovery process by making diligent, good-faith responses to legitimate discovery requests.\" *McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles*, 894 F.2d 1482, 1486 (5th Cir. 1990). To that end, the Individual Debtor's counsel are further reminded that this Court has already found that \"counsel to the [Individual Debtor and others] has not established that they were sufficiently diligent under the circumstances.\" (Order Compelling Production ¶ 9.) The Individual Debtor was ordered to comply with the Order Compelling Production at or before 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2023, but did not do so. \"[N]either\n\n[counsel] nor [a party has] a unilateral right to decide whether or when to comply with discovery demands.\" *535 Broadway Assocs. v. Com. Corp. of Am.*, 159 B.R. 403, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).\n\nThe Individual Debtor and his counsel are to take reasonable and diligent steps, whether or not this Court has articulated those steps directly, to bring the Individual Debtor into compliance with the Order Compelling Production. As the Individual Debtor's counsel has stated on the record, reasonable steps include filing a motion in the Criminal Court seeking to allow production to the Trustee of documents and records produced to the Individual Debtor by the prosecution which are responsive to the Rule 2004 subpoena, subject to the Trustee abiding by whatever conditions the Criminal Court may impose. In seeking to purge himself of contempt, the Individual Debtor would be acting under compulsion of the Order Compelling Production and, therefore, not waiving any Fifth Amendment right by moving in the Criminal Court to produce to the Trustee. *See Bouknight*, 493 U.S. at 561–62. In considering any sanctions motion, the Court will consider the diligence with which the Individual Debtor seeks relief in the Criminal Court.\n\n#### **B. Should the Order Compelling Production be stayed?**\n\nHaving ruled on the Contempt Motion, the Court turns to the Stay Motion. The Individual Debtor argues that the Order Compelling Production must be stayed pending the end of the Criminal Action in order to preserve the Individual Debtor's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In response, the Trustee argues that there is no basis to impose a stay of the Order Compelling Production and that such a stay would substantially injure the Trustee.\n\nThe Court first notes that while the Stay Motion was filed by the Individual Debtor and seems to only concern the Individual Debtor, the attached proposed order would stay the Order Compelling Production entirely, including the decretal paragraphs relevant to the Individual\n\nDebtor's daughter, Ms. Mei Guo, and the Individual Debtor's adjudged corporate *alter ego*, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC. To the extent that the Stay Motion seeks relief as to these additional parties, the Court denies the Stay Motion.\n\nTurning to the merits, the Court must determine whether to stay the Order Compelling Production within its sound discretion. *Kashi v. Grastos*, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986). There is no strict requirement that a court stay civil proceedings due to pending criminal proceedings. *United States v. Kordel*, 397 U.S. 1 (1970); *Kashi*, 790 F.2d at 1057. In considering whether to stay civil proceedings in light of criminal proceedings, courts consider, *inter alia*:\n\n1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest.\n\n*Trs. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc.*, 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).\n\nThe Court first considers the private interests of the Estate in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to the Estate caused by delay. There is substantial prejudice to the Estate and the Individual Debtor's creditors in staying the Order Compelling Production. As discussed above, a debtor's disclosure of his financial affairs, assets, and liabilities is fundamental in bankruptcy proceedings. The Estate continues to incur enormous expense and delay because the Individual Debtor has not cooperated with and has instead obstructed the Trustee's investigation. Pursuant to section 521, the Trustee should have had all documents and records relating to the Individual Debtor's financial affairs, assets, liabilities, businesses, etc. immediately following his appointment more than a year ago. Instead, the Trustee has had to\n\nidentify other appropriate subpoena targets, issue countless subpoenas, and engage in ceaseless motion practice. While the Trustee's efforts have substantially benefitted the Estate, the Estate has also borne a heavy cost on account of these efforts.\n\nMoreover, these heavy costs are incurred in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding. It is likely that there already is not enough money to satisfy the claims of creditors, and creditors are losing the time value of their ultimate recovery due to the ongoing, incomplete investigation into the Individual Debtor's affairs. 11 U.S.C. §§ 726(a)(5), 1129(a)(7)(A)(ii). Furthermore, Congress has determined that the ultimate goal of a Chapter 11 case – confirmation of a plan – must occur within a specified timeframe. *See* 11 U.S.C. §§ 1106(a)(5), 1121(a), 1121(d). Delay in confirmation of a plan, which must provide for the ultimate realization of creditor's claims, results in substantial injury to creditors and the Estate. *See Andrews*, 414 B.R. at 7. The Trustee should not be forced to operate without the Individual Debtor's required cooperation and disclosures. *See Stone*, 282 F.2d at 553.\n\nThe Court next considers the private interests and burden on the Individual Debtor. There is no cognizable interest in delaying or obstructing these lawful bankruptcy proceedings. There is also no cognizable burden on the Individual Debtor to comply with the Order Compelling Production. For the reasons stated above, he cannot properly invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Moreover, in upholding the required records exception post-*Fisher*, the Supreme Court in *Bouknight* noted that\n\nThe State's regulatory requirement in the usual case may neither compel incriminating testimony nor aid a criminal prosecution, but the Fifth Amendment protections are not thereby necessarily unavailable to the person who complies with the regulatory requirement after invoking the privilege and subsequently faces prosecution.\n\n493 U.S. at 561–62; *but see Johnson v. United States*, 228 U.S. 457 (1913) (holding, pre-*Fisher*, that books and records produced under *Harris* could be used in a criminal proceeding).\n\nNext the Court considers the status of the pending criminal inquiries and the interest of the Criminal Court. There are two pending criminal inquiries to consider: the Criminal Action and the alleged investigation into bankruptcy crimes. The Individual Debtor has been indicted in the Criminal Action. There has been no evidence submitted to the Court that he has been indicted regarding any investigation into bankruptcy crimes. These Chapter 11 cases and related adversary proceedings do overlap with the Criminal Action – (a) many of the Individual Debtor's creditors are also his alleged victims in the Criminal Action, (b) some of the Individual Debtor's purported assets were alleged to have been bought with proceeds of the fraud alleged in the Criminal Action, and (c) some of the Individual Debtor's purported affiliates and corporate *alter egos* are alleged to be involved in the fraud alleged in the Criminal Action – but at the same time, there are incongruities – (d) there are creditors in these Chapter 11 cases that are not alleged fraud victims, (e) there are purported assets of the Estate that were purchased prior to the alleged fraud, and (f) there are purported affiliates and *alter egos* of the Individual Debtor *not* alleged to be involved in the fraud. However, any issue implicated by any investigation into bankruptcy crimes are directly related to these Chapter 11 cases.\n\nThe Court concludes this Order does not substantially interfere with the Criminal Court's interest in the orderly administration of the Criminal Action. The Individual Debtor raises the specter that requiring the Individual Debtor to produce documents to the Trustee would damage the prosecution's case against him and cause litigation about evidence in the Criminal Court. This argument is unpersuasive. The Individual Debtor producing documents and records under compulsion in these proceedings does not change the reality that the prosecution apparently already possesses voluminous evidence. While, as the Individual Debtor argues, the prosecution *may* not be allowed to use the Individual Debtor's production to the Trustee as evidence of the\n\nIndividual Debtor's control over or the authenticity of documents and records already in the prosecution's possession, the Individual Debtor's argument describes the *status quo*. Moreover, the Criminal Court will review and determine any motion to produce to the Trustee documents and records from the prosecution's production to the Individual Debtor.\n\nRegarding any investigation into bankruptcy crimes, because (a) there is no evidence that the Individual Debtor has been indicted and (b) there is no evidence that there are proceedings in relation to it in any court, the Court concludes that the interests of any such investigation should be given less weight. As stated above, the Bankruptcy Code does not exist for the purpose of creating bankruptcy crimes. It exists for the purpose of equitably and finally resolving, adjusting, and reorganizing the assets, liabilities, and financial affairs of a debtor for the benefit of all creditors and, ultimately, the debtor itself. It is not proper to hobble the Trustee's investigation into the affairs, assets, and liabilities of the Individual Debtor for the benefit of some speculative prosecution of the Individual Debtor for bankruptcy crimes. Bankruptcy crimes are an enforcement mechanism to promote proper disclosure in bankruptcy proceedings. If the Individual Debtor complies with the Order Compelling Production, he would remedy the harm the bankruptcy crimes exist to prevent, while also allowing these Chapter 11 cases to be administered appropriately.\n\nFinally, the Court concludes that the public's interest in \"the expeditious administration of bankruptcy cases is impaired by obstructing a trustee's efforts to collect, liquidate and distribute assets to creditors of the estate.\" *In re MGL Corp.*, 262 B.R. 324, 330 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001). The public has an interest in a well-functioning bankruptcy system. It benefits the economy, debtors, and creditors. Obstruction of that process and efforts at dilation of that process are not in the public interest. Moreover, as set forth above, the production of documents\n\nand records by the Individual Debtor in accordance with the Order Compelling Production does not offend the Fifth Amendment.\n\nHaving considered the equities, the Court concludes within its sound discretion that a stay\n\nof the Order Compelling Production is not warranted. Accordingly, the Stay Motion is denied.\n\n# **C. Should monetary sanctions enter for discovery abuse?**\n\nFinally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C), made applicable by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37 and D.\n\nConn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1) and 2004-1(a), provides\n\n(C) *Payment of Expenses.* Instead of or in addition to the orders above, the court must order the disobedient party, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.\n\nUnder the specific facts and circumstances, the Court concludes an award of expenses is not warranted at this time.\n\n### **V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER**\n\nFor the reasons stated above, the Court (A) holds the Individual Debtor in civil contempt of Court for failure to comply with the Order Compelling Production, and (B) denies the Stay Motion and declines in its sound discretion to stay the Order Compelling Production pending the resolution of the Criminal Action. Accordingly, it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED:** The Court holds Mr. Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Individual Debtor\") in civil\n\ncontempt of court for failure to comply with the Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance (the \"Order Compelling Production\"), ECF No. 1353; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** Should the Individual Debtor fail to purge himself of contempt by failing to bring himself into full compliance with the Order Compelling Production on or before September 29, 2023, Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\")\n\nfor the bankruptcy estate (the \"Estate\") of the Individual Debtor, may move for whatever sanctions are appropriate; and it is further\n\n**ORDERED:** The Motion for a Limited Stay of Order Granting in Part Motion to\n\nCompel Compliance (the \"Stay Motion\"), ECF No. 1649, is **DENIED**.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 26th day of July, 2023.\n\n![](_page_51_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n# **Exhibit 3**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x           |                         |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                 | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                           | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.1                                               | :<br>:<br>: |                         |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x           |                         |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ENTRY OF ORDER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2004 AND LOCAL RULE 2004-1 AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF HO WAN KWOK AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS**\n\n Luc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's estate (the \"Trustee\"), by and through his proposed undersigned counsel, Paul Hastings LLP, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004(a) (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1 (the \"Local Rules\"), hereby applies (the \"Application\" or \"Motion\") to conduct the examination of Ho Wan Kwok (\"Debtor\"), in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Case\"). **Please take notice that the deadline to object to this Application is August 5, 2022, and in the absence of a timely filed objection, the proposed order filed herewith (the \"Proposed Order\") may enter without further notice and hearing.** In support of his Application, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n 1 Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. In authorizing the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee, the Court recognized that one of the trustee's key objectives would be to conduct an \"effective investigation of the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs.\" (*See* ECF. No. 465, at 14, hereinafter referred to as the \"Trustee Order\"). Such an investigation is imperative in this case to explore, among other things, the glaring inconsistency between the Debtor's assertion in his schedules that he owns assets valued at only \\$3,850 and the fact that he nevertheless has access to significant funds and resources, including for the purpose of paying his counsel in this case, and has for years lived a lavish and luxurious lifestyle as a self-proclaimed billionaire. The Trustee needs to conduct, as expeditiously as possible, an extensive, comprehensive investigation into the Debtor's financial affairs to determine whether, despite the contents of his schedules, there may be significant assets—in the form of real and personal property, equity ownership in other legal entities, litigation claims, and other property interests—that constitute property of the estate.\n\n2. This Motion for Rule 2004 discovery—which is one of several the Trustee intends to file at the outset of his investigation—seeks an examination of the Debtor and the production of documents that could relate to potential assets of the estate. The New York Supreme Court has already determined that the Debtor has engaged in efforts to hide his wealth through a network of shell companies and otherwise, and numerous news reports and other evidence support this conclusion. Good cause therefore exists for the Trustee to seek extensive documents and testimony from the Debtor regarding his assets and affairs, including without limitation his sources of income and funding, his relationships with various affiliated entities and parties, and his business interests across the world. The Trustee respectfully requests entry of an order in the form set forth in **Exhibit A** hereto authorizing such an investigation.\n\n#### **PROCEDURAL POSTURE**\n\n3. On March 19, 2022 the United States Trustee filed a Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, in the alternative, a Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee. (*See* ECF No. 102).\n\n4. On April 6, 2022, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") filed a Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case, or in the alternative, Joinder to the United States Trustee's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee. (*See* ECF No. 183).\n\n5. On June 15, 2022, this Court issued the Trustee Order.\n\n6. The Trustee Order held, in relevant part that, \"[w]hen balanced against dismissal or conversion, the complexity of the Debtor's financial affairs and lack of independent managerial oversight in this case warrants the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee who can investigate, identify, and locate the Debtor's assets for the benefit of creditors and the estate\" and further held that \"[t]he Chapter 11 trustee shall perform all of the duties set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1106.\" (*See id.* at 15-16, 18).\n\n7. The Trustee Order further held that \"[t]he appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee will also allow for the effective investigation of the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs\" and \"allow[] the Chapter 11 trustee to investigate the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs and to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Stipulated Order.\" (*See id.* at 14, 18).\n\n8. On July 7, 2022, a Notice of Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee was filed by the Office of the United States Trustee appointing Luc Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee of the Debtor's estate. (*See* ECF No. 514).\n\n#### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n#### **I. Petition and Debtor's Schedules**\n\n9. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n10. The Debtor's schedules list aggregate unsecured claims in the amount of approximately \\$374 million (*See* ECF No. 78, at 1, hereinafter referred to as the \"Debtor's Schedules\"). The asserted \\$254 million claim of PAX is the largest single claim identified among the Debtor's scheduled unsecured claims. (*See id.*, Attached Schedule F). The Debtor's Schedules also list a secured claim in an unknown amount purportedly belonging to Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), an entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo (the \"Son\" or \"Qiang\"), allegedly secured by \"[c]ertain claims and recoveries thereto,\" and asserted to have arisen in connection with a \"Litigation Funding Agreement.\" (*See id.*, Attached Schedule D).\n\n11. Despite evidence from prior proceedings demonstrating the Debtor's lavish lifestyle and luxurious accommodations, the Debtor's Schedules list assets of only \\$3,850.2 (*See id.* at 3-7). The Debtor contends that he earns no income, and that his expenses are paid for by Golden Spring (*See id.* at 1; *see also* ECF No. 107 at ¶17, hereinafter referred to as the \"Debtor's Declaration\").\n\n#### **II. Potential Assets Owned or Controlled by Debtor Not Identified in Schedules**\n\n12. Despite the Debtor's contentions in his Schedules, reports suggest he may own and control significant real and personal property assets in New York and Connecticut, among other locations, the title of which is held by business entities affiliated with the Debtor. Reports further suggest that the Debtor also has a financial interest in myriad for-profit and purported not-for profit\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Debtor has scheduled certain assets with unknown values, including disputed unregistered copyrights and litigation claims. (*See id.*, at 6).\n\nentities. The Debtor has been found to display a pattern of manipulating ownership among those various business entities to hide assets, especially through entities owned by family members. (*See*  Decision + Order on Motion, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Ho Wan Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 9, 2022), at 1, hereinafter referred to as the \"Final Contempt Order\" (finding that Debtor engaged \"in efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" and had \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\")).3\n\n#### *a. Controlled Related Entities*\n\n13. Although a thorough investigation is necessary to identify all the various entities over which the Debtor may have ownership or control, the Trustee has reason to believe, based on publicly available information, including findings by other courts, that the Debtor has an extensive network of shell companies he uses to pursue business interests and store his wealth.\n\n14. For example, in June 2021, a \\$1 million dollar judgment was awarded to Eastern Profit Corporation Limited (\"Eastern Profit\"), an entity allegedly controlled by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo (\"Daughter\" or \"Mei\"), in a breach of contract action against Strategic Vision US LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (*See* ECF No. 77 at 12-13; *see also Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116334, at \\*98 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021), hereinafter referred to as the \"Eastern Profit Lawsuit\"). In its Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law issued in connection with the Eastern Profit Lawsuit, the District Court found that Eastern Profit was \"in essence, a shell corporation for\" the Debtor. (*See* the Eastern Profit Lawsuit at \\*4).\n\n<sup>3</sup> The Final Contempt Order is attached as Exhibit A to the *Objection Of Chapter 11 Trustee to Debtor's Motion For Relief From Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee* [Docket No. 575].\n\n15. Other entities that the Debtor potentially controls include: (i) Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\"), an entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's Son (*see* Debtor's Declaration, ¶ 33); (ii) Genever Holding LLC (\"Genever NY\"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"), whose equity is held by the Debtor in his individual capacity (*see id.*); (iii) Golden Spring, an entity purportedly controlled by the Debtor's Son (*see id.*, ¶ 17); (iv) Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land\"), an entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's purported wife, Hing Chi Ngok (\"Wife\" or \"Hing\") (*see id.*); (v) Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\"), an entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's Son (*see id.*, ¶ 51); and (vi) HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), an entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's Daughter (*see id.*, ¶ 33).\n\n16. The Debtor has stated that these above-listed entities, perhaps along with others, fund the lavish lifestyle the Debtor flaunts to the media and on social media. (*See, e.g.*, *id.*, ¶ 17 (stating that his Son, through Golden Spring, \"provides for [the Debtor's] needs\"); *id.*, ¶ 23 (contending that his Daughter owns the *Lady May*, a luxury yacht allegedly purchased in 2015 for £41 million, and that his Son provides for *Lady May's* maintenance); and *id.*, ¶ 51 (noting that his Son, through Lamp, funded a \\$1 million retainer for the Debtor's initial chapter 11 bankruptcy counsel). The Debtor does not explain, however, how these entities derive their income or what consideration, if any, he provides to these entities in exchange for the funding they provide him.\n\n#### *b. Real and Personal Assets Potentially Owned or Controlled by Debtor*\n\n17. In addition to this opaque network of controlled related entities, there are extensive real and personal assets—which the Debtor himself has bragged about owning to the media—that may also be property of the estate.\n\n18. For example, when asked in a 2017 interview whether he had any regrets over how\n\nhe has fought his campaign against the Chinese Communist Party, the Debtor said:\n\nI have absolutely no regrets for what I have done over the past nine months. I have the *wealthy life that everyone in the world dreams about*. I have the *biggest house in Hong Kong*, thousands of square meters. I have the *most luxurious apartment in London*. I have the *biggest place in Beijing*. I *have more than 10 properties in Pangu*. I have *two private jets*. I have the *most advanced yachts*. I have *hundreds of race cars*. I have *an apartment like this in New York*. I don't have any material needs anymore.\n\n(*See, e.g.,* Vice News, Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage A War On Corruption, YOUTUBE, at 6:38-7:07 (Nov. 15 2017) (emphasis added) (available at http), hereinafter referred to as the \"Vice News Interview\")).<sup>4</sup> Notably, the Debtor has never offered a credible explanation of what has become of these assets, or any proceeds from them – a central question the Trustee believes will be answered through this 2004 examination.\n\n19. Consistent with the Debtor's own admissions, other courts have already found that certain assets are effectively owned by the Debtor, despite his newfound contentions to the contrary in this Case.\n\n20. **The** *Lady May*. Following an evidentiary hearing to determine who held beneficial ownership of the *Lady May*, the New York Supreme Court found the Debtor beneficially owns and controls the *Lady May*. (Final Contempt Order at 9 (\"The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that [Debtor] holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May.\")). Specifically, the court, after considering all of the evidence, including lengthy testimony from the Debtor's daughter and three other witnesses presented by counsel for HK USA on behalf of the Debtor, found that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants'\n\n<sup>4</sup> This quote was spoken by the Debtor in Chinese and translated into English by Vice News.\n\nwitnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\" (Final Contempt Order at 4). The court went on to state that \"[i]n short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and controls the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect\" and that, \"[n]ot only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\" (*Id.* at 6-8).5\n\n21. **The Sherry Netherland Hotel Property**. The Debtor may similarly own and control a condominium in the Sherry Netherland Hotel in Manhattan, allegedly purchased in 2015 for approximately \\$70 million (the \"Condominium\"). The Debtor maintains that the Condominium is owned by Genever NY, and that Genever NY holds the Condominium in trust for his Son through Bravo Luck. (*See* Debtor's Declaration, ¶ 33). As noted, *supra*, Genever NY is itself owned by Genever BVI, an entity owned by the Debtor. (*See id.*).\n\n22. Similar to the *Lady May*, the Condominium became subject to prepetition litigation in the separate chapter 11 bankruptcy that Genever NY filed in October 2020 in the Southern District of New York before the Honorable James L. Garrity Jr. (*See* Case No. 20-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)). In that chapter 11 case, Genever NY and PAX entered into an agreement pursuant to which the Condominium will be sold and proceeds placed into escrow and distributed only upon further order of Judge Garrity. (*See* Second Am. and Restated Settlement Agreement, *In re Genever Holdings, LLC,* No. 20-12411, (ECF 131-1, ¶5(g))). The agreement also provided, among other things, that it would not prejudice the rights of the parties to proceed with litigation\n\n<sup>5</sup> On March 1, 2022, PAX filed a Motion for Entry of an Order Confirming the Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (ECF No. 57) (the \"PAX Stay Motion\"). The PAX Stay Motion was resolved pursuant to a stipulated order pursuant to which, among other conditions, HK USA agreed to return the *Lady May* to the United States, securing this obligation through the placement \\$37 million in an escrow account. (*See* ECF No. 299). The *Lady May* was returned to the navigable waters of Connecticut in early July 2022.\n\ncommenced by PAX against Bravo Luck and the Debtor in the British Virgin Islands, which challenges Bravo Luck's alleged beneficial ownership of the Condominium. (*Id.* ¶7(b)).\n\n23. The Trustee also has reason to believe that a security deposit in an amount of\n\napproximately \\$2 million may also remain in connection with the Condominium's acquisition.\n\n(*See* ECF No. 77 at 7).\n\n24. **Other Real and Personal Property**. In addition to the foregoing, the Debtor has\n\nfrequently referenced other significant real and personal property assets that he or his immediate\n\nfamily members own and control. For example:\n\n- The Debtor maintains that his Wife, through Greenwich Land, owns the Debtor's residential property located at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831. (*See*  Debtor's Declaration, ¶¶ 6, 17). Greenwich Land may also hold ownership rights to another residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 33 Ferncliff Rd.<sup>6</sup>\n- The Debtor has declared that he owns \"billions\" of \"funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong\" which were frozen in 2019 by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance. (*See* Debtor's Declaration, ¶ 17).\n- The Debtor is also a co-plaintiff in litigation in the United Kingdom that involves claims of approximately \\$500 million.<sup>7</sup>\n- As noted above, in a 2017 interview, the Debtor bragged of owning, among other things, (i) the \"biggest house in Hong Kong,\" (ii) the \"most luxurious apartment in London,\" (iii) the \"biggest place in Beijing,\" (iv) \"more than 10 properties in Pangu,\" (v) two private jets,8 and (vi) \"hundreds of race cars.\"9\n\n 6 (*See Supplemental Memorandum of Law of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Addressing the Alternatives of Dismissal, Conversion or the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee*, at 3 [ECF No. 408] (noting \"other potential assets of the estate are two properties in Greenwich, Connecticut (373 Taconic Rd. and 33 Ferncliff Rd.)\n\nwhich [Debtor] claims are owned by [Greenwich Land].\")). 7 *See* Approved Judgment dated February 9, 2022, *Kwok Ho Wan & Ors v UBS*, Cl-2020-000345, High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court, ¶ 30(i) (\"The principal claim is for some US\\$495 million.\").\n\n<sup>8</sup> According to a press report, one of these private jets bears tail number T7-GQM. *See* \"Steve Bannon's Use of Private Jet Linked to Chinese Businessman Could Violate Campaign Finance Law,\" ProPublica, dated Feb. 26, 2020, (available at http) (last visited July 25, 2022).\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See* Vice News Interview at 6:38-7:07.\n\nThe proposed examination will help determine whether—and likely confirm—that these various property interests are property of the estate.\n\n# *c. Debtor's Potential Financial Interests in For-Profit and Purported Not-For Profit Business Entities*\n\n25. In addition to the real and personal property assets that the Debtor may own or control through business entities owned by his family members, the Debtor may also have significant financial or ownership interests (or liabilities) in both for-profit and alleged not-for profit business entities that may provide substantial value to the estate and creditors.\n\n26. For instance, it is reported that the Debtor has a financial interest in Gettr USA, Inc. (\"Gettr\"), a conservative social media platform. (*See* Will Sommer, Adam Rawnsley, A. Suebsaeng, *Trumpworld App Is Bankrolled by Fugitive Chinese Billionaire,* THE DAILY BEAST, http\n\nbillionaire?ref=home (July 5, 2021, 12:19 PM) (last visited July 20, 2022) (reporting that \"sites associated with the billionaire have suggested that Gettr is [Debtor's] brainchild,\" and attributing to a host on GTV, \"a media outlet that serves as a mouthpiece for [Debtor],\" the observation that Gettr was \"'the concentration of [Debtor]'s whole lifework',\" and adding that \"[Debtor] had come up with the idea for Gettr's logo, a torch.\"); *see also* The New York Times: Sway, *Best Of: Jason Miller*, at 30:15-30:35 (July 18, 2022) (downloaded using Apple Podcasts) (When asked who is funding Gettr, Gettr CEO Jason Miller responded, \"We have multiple international investment funds that are putting into this . . . . The family foundation of Miles Kwok is one of the initial funders, one of the initial sponsors of this. There's been over \\$50 million that's [been] put in the\n\nplatform so far. [We] have somewhere [near] \\$25-\\$30 million range that we currently have in the bank.\")).10\n\n27. It has also been reported that Gettr's pay stubs list the same address as the \"Himalaya Embassy,\" a property leased in Manhattan's Upper East Side, that is also associated with the New Federal State of China (the \"NFSC\"), a proclaimed \"government in exile dedicated to overthrow the [Chinese Communist Party]\" created by the Debtor and Steve Bannon, former chief strategist to former President Donald J. Trump. (*See* Dan Friedman, *A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued. The weird, wild, and scary tale of Miles Guo*, Mother Jones (March-April 2022 Issue) (last visited July 21, 2022), http).\n\n28. The Debtor also reportedly owns or controls a \"web of more than 60 commercial, nonprofit, and online groups\" collectively referred to as the \"whistleblower movement.\" (*See id.*). At least two of these nonprofits—the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation—are said to fund the NFSC. (*See id.*). It has been reported that as of summer 2021 the Rule of Law Society and Rule of Law Foundation had \"combined receipts of about \\$15 million.\" (*Id.*).\n\n29. The Debtor's alleged \"web\" of for-profit and not-for profit commercial interests may also include entities or brands such as (i) \"GCoin,\" a cryptocurrency allegedly created by the Debtor to serve as a monetary currency for NFSC; (ii) \"GFashion,\" a clothing line designed by the Debtor; (iii) \"GMusic,\" a music platform that promotes the Debtor's videos; (iv) \"GClubs,\" a membership service which provides \"'concierge customer service' and special access to [Debtor's] fashion collections, music releases, and an annual GSummit\"; (v) \"GTV,\" a Chinese-language\n\n<sup>10</sup> Shortly after this exchange, Miller was careful to distinguish the \"family foundation of Miles Kwok\" with Miles Kwok, himself, saying, \"Mr. Kwok doesn't have any direct financial investment in Gettr,\" instead calling the Debtor an \"ally\" to Gettr. (*See id.* at 30:51-31:11).\n\nvideo platform; (vi) \"GNews,\" a news website that \"runs articles summarizing [Debtor's] pronouncements.\";11 (vii) Saraca Media Group Inc., the parent company of *GNews* that also reportedly paid Mr. Bannon at least \\$1 million in consulting fees in May 2018; and (viii) the Himalaya Supervisory Organization, which oversees a number of online chat groups that promote and idolize the Debtor, and which offered members of those chat groups \"various mechanisms\" to send the Debtor money, including through a loan program which allegedly \"promised eventual repayment with interest and a chance to invest at a discount in other [Debtor] ventures\" and through stock purchases of GTV. (*See id.*). It is alleged that the GTV stock opportunity raised \\$114 million and that the loan program raised \"at least \\$90 million.\" (*See id.*).\n\n30. These are just certain of the business interests and entities that either the Debtor has boasted about, or that have been reported in the media to date. It stands to reason that the Debtor may be affiliated with numerous other entities whose assets, liabilities and financial interests may be critical to the Trustee's administration of the Debtor's Estate.\n\n31. Because the Debtor may be the true owner of the aforementioned assets and interests, among other potentially unknown assets and interests, it is critical that the Trustee examine and investigate fully the Debtor's estate assets, including the role that his family members, their business entities and other third parties, including the law firms representing the Debtor and his affiliated family entities, have with regards to the Debtor's financial positioning.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n32. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue to hear this Application is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n<sup>11</sup> *See id.*\n\n33. This Application is a core proceeding pursuant to, *inter alia*, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (F).\n\n#### **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n34. The Trustee seeks entry of an order, in substantially the form of the Proposed Order, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004(a) and Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1, authorizing the Trustee to conduct the examination of the Debtor.\n\n# **BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n35. Pursuant to Rule 2004(a), on application of a party in interest, the Court may order the examination of any person or entity. The scope of an examination authorized under Rule 2004 is exceedingly broad and may relate to the \"acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the Debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the Debtor's estate.\" Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b).\n\n36. \"The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a party in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Group Ltd.*, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This includes revealing the nature and extent of the estate and in discovering assets of the debtor that may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed. *See In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996). *See also In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (\"Legitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations include discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" (internal quotation and citation omitted)).\n\n37. In the declaration he submitted on March 20, 2022 in support of the filing of this case, the Debtor represented that among the purposes for filing his chapter 11 case were \"to … (b) afford stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate [his] assets, liabilities, and financial affairs, given what [he] perceive[d] to be misunderstandings in that regard; [and] (c) establish what assets are estate property and, in turn, available for distribution to holders of allowed claims . . . .\" (Debtor's Declaration, ¶ 3). The investigation the Trustee seeks to perform is directly relevant to these stated purposes in that it will help the Trustee identify the Debtor's assets and liabilities in order to make distributions to creditors.\n\n38. The areas for initial inquiry pursuant to the requested examination of the Debtor are readily apparent. Based on all the facts and evidence discussed above—including the Debtor's own numerous public statements and past findings by other courts—the Trustee has already identified various corporate entities and real and personal property assets of the Debtor that may provide significant value to the estate. The Trustee needs, however, the investigative tools afforded by Rule 2004 to further establish the true ownership of these assets and to explore other potential assets about which the Trustee does not yet have knowledge.\n\n39. The Trustee requests that, in furtherance of his examination, the Court direct the Debtor to provide documentation to the Trustee's counsel, as requested in the form annexed hereto as **Exhibit B** and made a part hereof (the \"Proposed Subpoena\"), within thirty (30) days of the service of a subpoena, substantially similar in form and substance to the Proposed Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee. These requests seek documents and communications related to, among other things, (i) the specific assets and property interests discussed herein (*e.g.*, the *Lady May*, 12 the Condominium, the Greenwich properties, and the\n\n<sup>12</sup> The *Lady May* is among the topics and potential estate assets with respect to which the Trustee seeks discovery. The Trustee submits that such discovery is appropriate pursuant to Rule 2004 even though an adversary proceeding\n\nvarious other homes, private jets, and other assets the Debtor has boasted about); (ii) the Debtor's interests in and relationships with other individuals, corporate entities and nonprofits, which may be a source of the Debtor's wealth; and (iii) the Debtor's communications with his counsel and other advisors, including communications with such advisors regarding corporate governance issues and the Debtor's finances and property interests.\n\n40. As to this latter category of document requests, bankruptcy courts routinely provide for Rule 2004 discovery against professional firms when the discovery may identify and aid the recovery of assets for the benefit of the estate and creditors. *See, e.g., In re Bame,* 251 B.R. 367 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000) (finding trustee's request to waive privilege of individual debtor and seek discovery from prepetition advisors compelling when requested to recover assets); *In re Horvath*, No. 13-34137, 2015 WL 2195060 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio May 7, 2015) (discovery related to claims on schedule of assets permissible from individual debtor because trustee sought to potentially increase the value of debtor's estate). Any assertion by the Debtor that the attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges may obstruct the Trustee's investigation into communications with counsel are without merit, because the \"Trustee now controls any attorney-client privilege or attorney work product to the extent it relates to the identification of assets, liabilities or the financial state of the Debtor's estate.\" *In re Tarkington,* No. 10-00012-8-JRL, 2010 WL 1416813, at \\*3 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2010) (\"trustee's waiver of [individual debtor's] attorney-client\n\nwith respect to the ownership of the *Lady May* is presently pending. The Trustee's proposed discovery related to the *Lady May* relates to the overall pattern of conduct by the Debtor to evade his creditors and is therefore broader than discovery that will likely be sought in the adversary proceeding. It is also more efficient for all parties for the Trustee to take this discovery now given that the Trustee is otherwise seeking Rule 2004 discovery from the same parties on other topics—it would be inefficient for the Trustee to have to take discovery from these same parties twice. Moreover, this is not the classic situation where an adversary plaintiff, through Rule 2004, seeks to undermine the protections provided by the Bankruptcy Rules governing discovery in adversary proceedings. Finally, given the procedural posture of the adversary proceeding, the Trustee may not be able to obtain discovery in that proceeding at present. The Trustee needs its Rule 2004 discovery now, however, to adequately protect and preserve potential assets of the estate.\n\nprivilege is valid to the extent that questions asked during the examination pertain to the administration of estate property\"); *see also In re Klein*, No. 2:11-BK-12718RN, 2013 WL 6253819, at \\*13 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013) (chapter 11 trustee controls privilege between debtor and his former counsel upon appointment).\n\n41. The Trustee submits that the facts set forth above constitute sufficient cause for the Court to order the examination of, and production of documents from, the Debtor pursuant to Rule 2004(a). The Debtor himself is a necessary source of information and documents to help the Trustee uncover the Debtor's estate's true assets. The Debtor's examination and response to document requests would be the first step in \"afford[ing] stakeholders an efficient opportunity to investigate [his] assets.\" (Debtor's Declaration, ¶ 3).\n\n42. Authorization of this Application is critical for the Trustee to fulfill the duties contemplated in the Trustee Order effectively, including specifically his mandate to \"locate the Debtor's assets for the benefit of creditors and the estate\" and \"investigate the Debtor's assets, liabilities, and financial affairs.\" (*See* Trustee Order at 15-16, 18). No party in interest, including the Debtor, shall suffer undue prejudice upon the granting of the relief sought in this Application.\n\n43. In the event the relief requested by the Trustee is granted, the Trustee shall issue the appropriate subpoenas to compel deposition attendance and/or production of documents at the Rule 2004 examination in the form of the Proposed Subpoena. Further, it is respectfully requested that the Rule 2004 deposition examination be held at the law offices of Paul Hastings LLP, counsel for the Trustee, located at 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 on not less than seven (7) days written notice or at such other time and location as the parties may otherwise agree.\n\n#### **NO PRIOR REQUEST**\n\n44. No prior application for the relief requested herein has been made.\n\n# **OBJECTION DEADLINE**\n\n45. The deadline to object to this Application is **August 5, 2022**, and in the absence\n\nof a timely filed objection, the Proposed Order may enter without further notice and hearing.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court grant this Application and enter the Proposed Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a), directing the examination of Ho Wan Kwok, and directing the production of certain documents as set forth in the Requests for Production of Documents attached to the Proposed Subpoena, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.\n\nDated: July 28, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(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\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*Proposed counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n**Exhibit A – Proposed Order**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                            |  |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|--|\n|                                                             | :                            |  |\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>Chapter 11              |  |\n|                                                             | :                            |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                | :<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n|                                                             | :                            |  |\n| Debtor.13                                                   | :                            |  |\n|                                                             | :                            |  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x                            |  |\n|                                                             |                              |  |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S APPLICATION FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATION OF HO WON KWOK**\n\nUpon consideration of the Application seeking an order authorizing a Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 examination of Ho Won Kwok (\"Debtor\") (the \"Application\", ECF No. \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_), filed by Luc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's estate (the \"Applicant\"), after notice and a hearing, see 11 U.S.C. § 102(1), it appearing that cause exists to grant the requested relief as conditioned hereafter; it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**: The Rule 2004 Motion is granted as set forth below.\n\n**ORDERED**: Paul Hastings LLP and Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C., as proposed counsel for the Trustee, are hereby authorized to sign a Subpoena, in a form substantially similar to the Subpoena attached to the Rule 2004 Motion as Exhibit B, and to serve the Subpoena along with a copy of this Order in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 2004 requiring examination and the production of documents by the Debtor.\n\n**ORDERED**: The Debtor is hereby directed to produce all documents within 30 days of the service of the Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee. To the extent the Debtor does not produce any documents requested in the Subpoena on the basis of some privilege, the Debtor is hereby directed to produce the Trustee with a privilege log that comports with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e), within 30 days of service of the Subpoena, or such other time as agreed upon by the Trustee.\n\n**ORDERED**: The Debtor is hereby directed to ensure that that all documents and other information, including without limitation in any electronic format, requested in the Subpoena or otherwise relevant to the Debtor, his business, assets, liabilities, financial condition, or this Chapter\n\n<sup>13</sup> Although the Debtor's legal name is Ho Wan Kwok, he is also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases. The last four digits of the Debtor's taxpayer identification number are 9595.\n\n11 case, are properly maintained, are available for production, inspection and copying, are not destroyed.\n\n**ORDERED**: Paul Hastings LLP and Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C., as proposed counsel for the Trustee, are hereby authorized, without further order of this Court, to take the testimony of the Debtor by examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 at the offices of Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, or at such other place that is mutually acceptable to the parties, on a date acceptable to the Trustee, which, at the election of the Trustee, shall be not less than 14 calendar days after the production of documents by the Debtor in compliance with the Subpoena and this Order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004, and such examination shall continue from day to day until completed.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2022\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n**Exhibit B – Subpoena and Document Requests**\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ District of \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Connecticut\n\nIn re \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nCase No. \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Ho Wan Kwok 22-50073\n\nDebtor\n\nChapter \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 11\n\n# **SUBPOENA FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATION**\n\nTo: **\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_** Ho Wan Kwok\n\n*(Name of person to whom the subpoena is directed)*\n\n *Testimony:* **YOU ARE COMMANDED** to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at an examination under Rule 2004, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. A copy of the court order authorizing the examination is attached.\n\n| PLACE                                                            | DATE AND TIME |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|\n| Paul Hastings LLP<br>200 Park Avenue<br>New York, New York 10166 |               |\n\nThe examination will be recorded by this method: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ court reporter/stenographer\n\n *Production:* You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the examination the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material:\n\n#### See Requests for Production of Documents, attached hereto.\n\nThe following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016, are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and 45(g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nDate: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ August \\_\\_, 2022\n\nCLERK OF COURT\n\nOR\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ *Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk* \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ *Attorney's signature* Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\n\nThe name, address, email address, and telephone number of the attorney representing *(name of party)* \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: Luc Despins, Ch. 11 Trustee\n\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.; Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.; 195 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com; 203-821-2000\n\n#### **Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena**\n\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or the inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of this subpoena must be served on each party before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\n#### **Requests for Production of Documents**\n\n# **I. INSTRUCTIONS**\n\n1. Unless otherwise indicated, the requests for documents set forth below, (the \"Requests,\" and each, a \"Request\"), must be responded to separately and specifically. Each Request shall be answered fully unless it is in good faith objected to, in which event the reason for Your objection shall be stated in detail, as set forth below. If an objection pertains only to a portion of a Request, or a word, phrase or clause contained within it, You are required to state Your objection to that portion only and to respond to the remainder of the Requests.\n\n2. Electronically stored information must be produced in accordance with the\n\nfollowing instructions:\n\n- a. Images. Black and white images must be 300 DPI Group IV single-page TIFF files. Color images must be produced in JPEG format. File names cannot contain embedded spaces or special characters (including the comma). Folder names cannot contain embedded spaces or special characters (including the comma). All TIFF image files must have a unique file name, i.e. Bates number. Images must be endorsed with sequential Bates numbers in the lower right corner of each image. The number of TIFF files per folder should not exceed 1000 files. Excel spreadsheets should have a placeholder image named by the Bates number of the file.\n- b. Image Load File\n\t- a. Concordance® Data File. The data file (.DAT) contains all of the fielded information that will be loaded into the Concordance® database. The first line of the .DAT file must be a header row identifying the field names. The .DAT file must use the following Concordance® default delimiters: Comma ASCII character (020) Quote þ ASCII character (254). Date fields should be provided in the format: mm/dd/yyyy. Date and time fields must be two separate fields. If documents includes imaged emails and attachments, the attachment fields must be included to preserve the parent/child relationship between an email and its attachments. An OCRPATH field must be included to provide the file path and name of the extracted text file on the produced storage media. The text file must be named after the FIRSTBATES. Do not include the text in the .DAT file. For Documents with native files, a LINK field must be included to provide the file path and\n\nname of the native file. The native file must be named after the FIRSTBATES.\n\n- b. Concordance Image® OR Opticon Cross-Reference File. The image crossreference file (.LOG or .OPT) links the images to the database records. It should be a comma-delimited file consisting of seven fields per line with a line in the cross-reference file for every image in the database with the following format: ImageID,VolumeLabel,ImageFilePath,DocumentBreak,FolderBreak,Box Break,PageCoun.\n- c. Document Text. Text must be produced as separate text files, not as fields within the .DAT file. The full path to the text file (OCRPATH) should be included in the .DAT file. It is recommended document level ANSI text files, named per the FIRSTBATES/Image Key. Extracted text files must be in a separate folder, and the number of text files per folder should not exceed 1,000 files. There should be no special characters (including commas in the folder names). Text files must be provided on a document level.\n- d. Native Production for Certain File Types. File types that reasonably require viewing in their native format for a full understanding of their content and meaning must be produced in native format. These include, but are not limited to, spreadsheets, spreadsheet-like files (Microsoft Excel, comma separated values, tab separated values, etc.), Microsoft PowerPoint or other special presentation files, database files, and audio/visual files. Provide an image of a Bates numbered slip sheet indicating the presence of a native file, and include the path to the native as a field in the .dat file. Name the produced native file with the Bates number corresponding to the slip sheet for the file. Group native files within incrementally named \"NATIVE\" directories, separate from images directories.\n- e. De-duplication. Produce a single copy of each electronic document for which exact duplicates exist. For email messages, consolidate duplicates based on MD5 hash generated from the BCC, Body, CC, From, IntMsgID, To, and Attach properties. For email attachments and standalone electronic files, consolidate duplicates based on MD5 hash of the entire file.\n- f. Metadata. Produce extracted metadata for each document in the form of a Concordance compliant load file (.dat). The first line of the .DAT file must be a header row identifying the field names. The .DAT file must use the following Concordance default delimiters: Comma , ASCII character (020) Quote þ ASCII character (254)\n\nDate fields should be provided in the format: mm/dd/yyyy. Date and time fields must be two separate fields. Required metadata listed below:\n\n| Field Name   | Sample Data               | Description                                                 |\n|--------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| FIRSTBATES   | EDC0000001                | First Bates number of native file document/email            |\n| LASTBATES    | EDC0000001                | Last Bates number of native file document/email             |\n|              |                           | **The LASTBATES field should be populated                   |\n|              |                           | for single page                                             |\n| ATTACHRANGE  | EDC0000001<br>-           | Bates number of the first page of the parent                |\n|              | EDC0000015                | document to the Bates number of the last page of            |\n|              |                           | the last attachment \"child\" document                        |\n| BEGATTACH    | EDC0000001                | First Bates number of attachment range                      |\n| ENDATTACH    | EDC0000015                | Last Bates number of attachment range                       |\n| CUSTODIAN    | Smith, John               | Email: Mailbox where the email resided                      |\n|              |                           | Native: Name of the individual or department                |\n|              |                           | from whose files the document originated                    |\n| FROM         | John Smith                | Email: Sender                                               |\n|              |                           | Native: Author(s) of document                               |\n|              |                           | **semi-colon should be used to separate                     |\n|              |                           | multiple entries                                            |\n| TO           | Coffman, Janice; LeeW     | Recipient(s)                                                |\n|              | [mailto:LeeW@MSN.com]     | **semi-colon should be used to separate multiple            |\n|              |                           | entries                                                     |\n| CC           | Frank Thompson [mailto:   | Carbon copy recipient(s)                                    |\n|              | frank_Thompson@cdt.com]   | **semi-colon should be used to separate                     |\n|              |                           | multiple entries                                            |\n| BCC          | John Cain                 | Blind carbon copy recipient(s)                              |\n|              |                           | **semi-colon should be used to separate                     |\n|              |                           | multiple entries                                            |\n| SUBJECT      | Board Meeting Minutes     | Email: Subject line of the email Native: Title              |\n|              |                           | of document (if available)                                  |\n| FILE_NAME    | BoardMeetingMinutes.docx  | Native: Name of the original native file,                   |\n|              |                           | including extension                                         |\n| DATE_SENT    | 10/12/2010                | Email: Date the email was sent                              |\n|              |                           | Native: (empty)                                             |\n| TIME_SENT/   | 07:05 PM GMT              | Email: Time the email was sent/ Time zone in                |\n| TIME_ZONE    |                           | which the emails were standardized                          |\n| TIME_ZONE    | GMT                       | The<br>time<br>zone<br>in<br>which<br>the<br>emails<br>were |\n|              |                           | standardized during conversion.                             |\n| LINK         | >EDC0000001.msg | Hyperlink to the email or native file document              |\n|              |                           | **The linked file must be named per the                     |\n|              |                           | FIRSTBATES number                                           |\n|              |                           |                                                             |\n| FILE_EXTEN   | MSG                       | The file type extension                                     |\n|              |                           | representing                                                |\n|              |                           | the Email or                                                |\n| AUTHOR       | John<br>Smith             | Email: (empty)                                              |\n|              |                           | Native: Author of the document                              |\n| DATE_CREATED | 10/10/2010                | Email: (empty)                                              |\n|              |                           | Native: Date the document was created                       |\n\n| TIME_CREATED | 10:25 AM                  | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|--------------|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|\n|              |                           | Native: Time the document was created           |\n|              |                           | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n|              |                           | be combined with the DATE_CREATED field         |\n| DATE_MOD     | 10/12/2010                | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Date the document was last modified     |\n| TIME_MOD     | 07:00 PM                  | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Time the document was last modified     |\n|              |                           | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n|              |                           | be combined with the DATE_MOD field             |\n| DATE_ACCESSD | 10/12/2010                | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Date the document was last accessed     |\n| TIME_ACCESSD | 07:00 PM                  | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              |                           | Native: Time the document was last accessed     |\n|              |                           | **This data must be a separate field and cannot |\n|              |                           | be combined with the DATE_ACCESSD field         |\n| FILE_SIZE    | 5,952                     | Size of native file document/email in KB        |\n| PGCOUNT      | 1                         | Number of pages in native file document/email   |\n| PATH         |   | Email: (empty)                                  |\n|              | Agenda.doc                | Native: Path where native file document was     |\n|              |                           | stored including original file name.            |\n| INTFILEPATH  | Personal Folders\\Deleted  | Email: original location of email including     |\n|              | Items\\Board Meeting       | original file name.                             |\n|              | Minutes.msg               | Native: (empty)                                 |\n| INTMSGID     | <000805c2c71b\\$75977050\\$ | Email: Unique Message ID Native: (empty)        |\n|              | cb8306d1@MSN>             |                                                 |\n| MD5HASH      | d131dd02c5e6eec4693d9a0   | MD5 Hash value of the document.                 |\n|              | 698aff95c                 |                                                 |\n|              | 2fcab58712467eab4004583e  |                                                 |\n|              | b8fb7f89                  |                                                 |\n| OCRPATH      | TEXT/001/EDC0000001.txt   | Path to extracted text of the native file       |\n\n3. Each Request operates and should be construed independently and, unless otherwise indicated, no Request limits the scope of any other Request.\n\n4. All Documents are to be produced as kept in the usual course of business or are to be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in these Requests.\n\n5. Each Request contained herein extends to all Documents: (a) in Your possession, custody, or control; or (b) in the possession, custody, or control of anyone acting on Your behalf,\n\nincluding Your counsel or other representatives and advisors. Each Document shall be produced in its entirety.\n\n6. If You are requested to produce a Document that is no longer in Your possession, custody, or control, then Your response must (a) describe in detail the nature of the document and its contents; (b) identify the person(s) who prepared or authored the Document (and, if applicable, the Person(s) to whom the Document was sent); (c) identify the date on which the document was prepared or created; (d) state whether such Document (i) is missing or lost, (ii) has been destroyed, (iii) has been transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily, to others, or (iv) was otherwise disposed of; (e) state the reason for, and the facts and circumstances surrounding, such disposition; (f) identify the Persons who authorized such disposition; (g) identify the date or approximate date of such disposition; (h)state when the Document was most recently in Your possession, custody or control; and (i) identify the Person, if any, presently in possession, custody, or control of such Document.\n\n7. If You are requested to produce a Document that has been destroyed, then Your response must state, in addition to the information required by the preceding Instruction: (a) the reason for the Document's destruction; (b) the identity of the Person who destroyed the Document; and (c) the identity of the Person who directed that the Document be destroyed.\n\n8. If You claim that a requested Document is privileged or attorney work-product, then Your response must: (a) state (i) a description of the Document adequate to support Your contention that the Document is privileged, (ii) the title of the Document, (iii) the date of the Document, (iv) the author of the Document, (v) the addressee of the Document, (vi) the identity of each Person who received or saw the original or any draft, copy, or reproduction of the Document, (vii) whether the Document itself, or any information contained or referred to in the Document is in the possession, custody, or control of any other Persons, and if so, the identity of\n\nsuch Persons, as well as a statement addressing how the information came into their possession, (viii) the claim of privilege under which the Document is withheld, and (ix) all of the circumstances upon which You will rely to support such claim of privilege; and (b) produce a privilege log containing all of the information requested in Part (a) of this Instruction for each Document withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege in accordance with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e).\n\n9. Document Request as to which a claim of privilege or work product is not made, responsive documents should be provided in full.\n\n10. If a portion of an otherwise responsive Document contains information subject to a claim of privilege, only that portion of the Document subject to the claim of privilege shall be deleted or redacted from the Document following the instructions above, and the rest shall be produced.\n\n11. The Requests are continuing in nature. You are hereby instructed to (a) supplement or correct any responses later learned to be incomplete or incorrect immediately upon learning that a prior response was incomplete or incorrect; and (b) produce any additional Documents that are called for under the\n\n12. If a Document is in a language other than English, You should provide that Document. If a Document is in a language other than English, and an English translation exists, You should provide both Documents.\n\n13. All references to Entities includes all affiliates thereof.\n\n14. All references to individual names include all alternative names, aliased, or nicknames.\n\n15. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, the period of time covered by the Document Requests is the period from February 5, 2012 to the date responses to the Document Requests are due.\n\n#### **II. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION**\n\n16. The use of (a) any singular noun shall be construed to include the plural, and vice versa, and (b) a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all othertenses.\n\n17. The terms (a) \"and\" and \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of any request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope, and (b) \"each\" and \"any\" shall be deemed to include and encompass the words \"every\" and \"all.\"\n\n#### **III. DEFINITIONS**\n\nThe definitions supplied by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c) and the rules of construction supplied by D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d), as incorporated by D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1(a), shall apply to the Document Requests. In addition, the following terms used in these Document Requests shall have the following meanings:\n\n1. \"You\" or \"Your\" or \"Yourself\" or \"Debtor\" means and refers to Ho Wan Kwok (a/k/a Miles Kwok, Miles Guo, Guo Wengui, Guo Haoyun, 郭文贵, or any other alias), together with any of his employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf.\n\n2. \"Debtor's Son\" means Qiang Guo (a/k/a Mileson Kwok, 郭强, or any other alias), together with any of his employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on his behalf.\n\n3. \"Debtor's Daughter\" means Mei Guo (a/k/a Mei Gui, 郭美, or any other alias), together with any of her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\n\n4. \"Debtor's Purported Wife\" means Hing Chi Ngok (a/k/a Hing Chi Ng, a/k/a Yue Qingzhi, 岳庆芝, or any other alias), together with any of her employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on her behalf.\n\n5. \"Debtor's Family\" means, collectively, the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor.\n\n6. \"Associated Individuals\" means, individually and collectively, all individuals that (1) hold, control, have custody over, or discretion over assets owned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have been employees, directors, or otherwise are affiliated with one or more Associated Entities, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. Such Associated Individuals shall include, but are not limited to: Daniel Podhaskie, Jason Miller, Steve Bannon, Karin Maistrello, Melissa Francis, William Gertz, Arethusa Forsyth, Glenn Mellor, Jennifer Mercurio, Eduardo Eurnekian, Han Chunguang (a/k/a 韩春光), Qu Guojiao (a/k/a Qu Guo Jiao, 屈国姣), Guo Lijie (a/k/a 郭丽杰), Zhang Wei (a/k/a 张伟\\*), Lihong Wei Lafrenz (a/k/a Sara Wei, 魏丽红), Hao Haidong (a/k/a 郝海东), Ross Heinemeyer, Max Krasner, Kyle Bass, Melissa Mendez, Ya Li (a/k/a 李娅), Dinggang Wang (a/k/a 王定刚), An Hong (a/k/a 安红), Yvette Wang (a/k/a Yanping Wang, Yan Ping Wang, 王雁平), Fiona Yu, Je Kin Ming (a/k/a William Je, Yu Jianming, 余建明\n\n), Yaz Qingua, and Lao Jiang (a/k/a Jiang Yunfu, Jiang Yunfu Be, 姜云浮).\n\n7. \"Associated Entities\" means, individually and collectively, all organizations or Entities of any type that (1) have been owned, controlled, or invested in by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have an interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any assets owned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing. Such Associated Entities shall include, but are not limited to: 7 Nod Hill LLC, AAGV Limited, ACA Investment Management Limited, ACA Capital Group Limited, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, AI Group Holdings Inc., Alfa Global Ventures Limited, Alfonso Global Limited, Allied Capital Global Limited, Alpine Fiduciaries SA, Anton Development Limited, Assets Sino Limited, Auspicious Coast Limited, Beijing Pangu Investment Co., Beijing Pangu Investment Co. Ltd., Beijing Pangu Investment Inc., Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited, Bravo Luck Limited, BSA Strategic Fund I, China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) Limited, Chuang Xin Limited, Crane Advisory Group LLC, Creative Apex Investments Limited, Crystal Breeze Investments Limited, Dawn State Limited, Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, Elite Well Global Limited, Empire Growth Holdings, G Club Operations LLC, G Fashion LLC, G News LLC, GETTR USA, Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever Holdings LLC, GFASHION MEDIA GROUP INC., GFNY, Inc., Globalist International Limited, GNews Media Group Inc., Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., Greenwich Land LLC, Guo Media, GTV Media Group, Inc., Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc., Head Win Group Limited, Henan Yuda, Himalaya Embassy, Himalaya Exchange, Himalaya Federal Reserve, Himalaya Supervisory Organization, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC, Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited, Infinite Increase Limited, Infinitum Developments Limited, Insight Phoenix Fund, Lamp Capital LLC, Leading Shine Limited, Leading Shine NY Limited, Long Gate Limited, Next Tycoon Investments Limited, New\n\nFederal State of China (a/k/a NFSC), Noble Fame Global Limited, Rosy Acme Ventures Limited, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc., Rule of Law Fund, Rule of Law Society, Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., G-Translators PTY LTD, Saraca Media Group, Inc., Shiny Ace Ltd., Shiny Times Holdings Ltd., Spirit Charter Investment Limited, Stevenson, Wong & Co., Voice of Guo Media, Inc., Well Origin Ltd., World Century Limited, Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited, Whitecroft Shore Limited, and ZIBA Limited.\n\n8. \"Including\" or any variant thereof means \"including without limitation.\"\n\n9. \"And\" and \"or\" mean \"and/or,\" and shall be construed both conjunctively as well as disjunctively in order to maximize their scope.\n\n10. \"Any\" and \"all\" and \"each\" mean \"each and every.\"\n\n11. \"Each\" and \"every\" mean \"each and every.\"\n\n12. \"Third Party\" means a Person or Entity other than Yourself.\n\n13. \"Transfer\" shall have the meaning given to it by section 101(54) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n14. \"Document\" means any information or thing within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and includes, without limitation, each and every written, recorded, or graphic matter of any kind, type, nature, or description that is or has been in Your Possession, Custody or Control, including all printed and electronic copies of electronic mail, computer files maintained in electronic form, electronic communication, text message, social media post, tweet, meta-data, correspondence, memoranda, tapes, stenographic or handwritten notes, written forms of any kind, charts, blueprints, drawings, sketches, graphs, plans, articles, specifications, diaries, letters, telegrams, photographs, minutes, contracts, agreements, surveys, computer printouts, data\n\ncompilations of any kind, telexes, facsimiles, voice messages, invoices, order forms, checks, drafts, statements, credit memos, reports, position reports, summaries, indices, books, ledgers, notebooks, schedules, transparencies, recordings, catalogs, advertisements, promotional materials, films, video tapes, audio tapes, CDs, computer disks, brochures, pamphlets, punchcards, time-slips, Tweets, social media posts, or any written or recorded materials of any other kind, and all meta-data thereof, however stored (whether in tangible or electronic form), recorded, produced, or reproduced, and also including but not limited to, drafts or copies of any of the foregoing that contain any notes, comments, or markings of any kind not found on the original documents or that are otherwise not identical to the original documents.\n\n15. \"Person(s)\" means an individual, corporation, proprietorship, partnership, association, or any other Entity. \"Person\" also includes any agent, representatives, or expert, including but not limiting to, attorneys or financial advisors.\n\n16. \"Entity\" means any natural Person, corporation, partnership, subsidiary, sole proprietorship, firm, board, joint venture, association, agency, authority, commission or other business entity or juristic Person, as well as any affiliate, agent, parent including but not limited to legal counsel, financial advisors, or any other representative.\n\n17. \"Regarding\" means concerning, describing, comprising, referring to, related to, supporting, favoring, opposing, bolstering, detracting from, located in, considered in connection with, bearing on, evidencing, indicating, reporting on, recording, alluding to, responding to, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, in relation to, discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing constituting, and being.\n\n18. \"Relating to,\" \"relate(s) to\" or \"related to,\" when referring to any given subject matter, means, without limitation, any document that constitutes, comprises, involves, contains,\n\nembodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers directly or indirectly to, or is in any way relevant to the particular subject matter identified.\n\n19. \"Communication(s)\" means, in the broadest possible sense, and without limitation, any transmittal of information or knowledge (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). Communication(s) further refers to all conversations, agreements, inquiries, or replies, whether in person, by telephone, in writing, or by means of electronic transmittal devices, and includes, but is not limited to, all correspondence, emails, recordings, transmittal slips, memoranda, telephone communications, voice messages, telegrams, telefaxes, telecopies, telexes, instant messages, chats, text messages, telephonic notes, or notes transmitted internally or with third parties.\n\n20. \"Asset(s)\" means any item that can be used to produce positive economic value, including but not limited to any resource with economic value that is owned, controlled or is for the benefit of an entity, that is expected to provide a future benefit, including but not limited to, all real and personal property, intangible property, investments, rights to invest or to future revenue, cash, bank accounts, commodities, securities, claims, total or partial control of an entity, and prospective economic opportunities\n\n#### **IV. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED**\n\n1. All documents regarding any income or Asset of the Debtor, the Debtor's estate, or of an Associated Entity.\n\n2. Documents sufficient to show all entities or Assets that the Debtor or the Debtor's Estate holds or has ever held a legal, economic, or beneficial interest in, or total or partial control of, at any time from January 1, 2011 through the present.\n\n3. For any Asset identified in response to Request No. 2 in which the Debtor asserts he or the Debtor's Estate no longer holds such an interest, all Documents relating to the disposition of that Asset, including but not limited to, when the Debtor relinquished his interest, to whom, for what value, and if the Debtor has had any use of or other interaction with the Asset since the moment he asserts he or the Debtor's Estate no longer retained an interest.\n\n4. All Documents regarding the Associated Entities, including but not limited to their corporate structure, Assets, incorporation information, officers and directors, business purpose, and relationship to the Debtor or to any member of the Debtor's Family.\n\n5. All Documents regarding the *Lady May*; the Sherry Netherland Hotel / Condominium; the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 373 Taconic Rd.; the residential property located in Greenwich, Connecticut at 33 Ferncliff Rd.; the residential property located in Wilton, Connecticut at 354 Nod Hill Rd.; and any financial interest that the Debtor or the Debtor's estate possesses in any Associated Entity.\n\n6. All Documents related to the purported Declaration of Trust and Agreement, dated February 17, 2015, entered into by the Debtor, as Trustee, Genever Holdings Corporation, and Genever Holdings LLC, in favor of Bravo Luck Limited, as beneficiary.\n\n7. All Documents regarding any balance sheet, bank statement, account statement, financial statement, statement of account, wire transfer instructions and/or confirmation, proof of funds, certificate of deposit, certificate of holdings, investment portfolio summary, or similar document relating to the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, an Associated Entity, or an Associated Individual, including without limitation all Documents sufficient to show all Transfers to any of the foregoing.\n\n8. All Documents regarding any credit cards used by You, including without limitation monthly statements or other Documents sufficient to show all purchases, payments, and other transactions related thereto.\n\n9. All Documents related to any investments or trading by the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity, in or around July 2020, or at any other time, in crude oil futures or any similar commodity, including without limitation Communications with Jiang Yunfu Be regarding any such investments or trading.\n\n10. All Communications between You and, either, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Individual, agent, employee, or individual acting on Your behalf, related to any business transaction relating to the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family or the Associated Entities.\n\n11. All communications with counsel for the Debtor's Family or the Associated Entities.\n\n12. All communications with Qu Guo Jiao regarding any Assets, liabilities, financial interests, economic health, financial statements of the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Entity.\n\n13. All communications with Daniel Podhaskie regarding any Assets, liabilities, financial interests, economic health, financial statements of the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Entity.\n\n14. All Documents regarding any gifts, benefits or loans, to, from or on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, the Associated Entities, or the Associated Individuals, including but not limited to, the amounts of such gifts, benefits, or loans, the\n\npurposes for which such gifts, benefits, or loans were used, when the gifts, benefits, or loans were provided, the terms of repayment for any loans, all representations and warranties made in connection with any loans, the interest rate on any loans, and all evidence of payments of any loans.\n\n15. All Documents concerning any trust or similar instrument set up by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or Associated Entities, including but not limited to Documents showing when the trust(s) was created, by whom it was created, to whose benefit it was created, and the corpus of the trust.\n\n16. Tax returns for the Debtor, each Individual member of the Debtor's Family, and any Associated Entity from the years 2014 to the present.\n\n17. All Documents related to any sale, acquisition, disposition, purchase, investment, contribution, gift, extension of credit, loan, or Transfer involving the Debtor, the Debtor's Family, or any Associated Entity.\n\n18. All Documents related to any obligation, claim, liability, or debt associated with any legal dispute involving the Debtor, including but not limited to those relating to any litigation before any local, state, federal, or international body, whether an administrative body, court, panel, or alternative dispute resolution entity, and those related to the action before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court, styled *Kwok Ho Wan & Ors v UBS*, Cl-2020-000345, including those related to the basis for Your claim in such action.\n\n19. All Documents related to that certain U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission *Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order,* Release No. 10979/September\n\n13, 2021, entered in Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-20537, *In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc.,* including but not limited to those regarding the sources of funds for all payments to legal counsel to the respondent-Associated Entities subject to that administrative proceeding, the sources of funds for all payments of fines, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and/or civil penalties paid to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to such order, and those regarding the manner of payment used by respondent-Associated Entities to satisfy the obligations of such order.\n\n20. All Documents regarding the place, property, or location the Debtor resides in or inhabits, including but not limited to the location of such place or property; when and how often the Debtor is there; who owns or controls the place or property; who funds any expenses or payments related to the place or property; any terms relating to the Debtor's use of the property; and anyone else who is authorized to use the property.\n\n21. All Documents regarding the Debtor's use of any Assets belonging to, controlled by, or whose complete or partial ownership is held by the Debtor's Family, an Associated Individual, or an Associated Entity.\n\n22. All Documents regarding any Entity that the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, the Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity holds any interest or investment in, including but not limited to the nature and value of that interest or investment; any proceeds or benefits from the entity that the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, or the Associated Entity receives; and all Documents relating to any financial reporting or data relating to such Entity, including but not limited to all books and records, financial statement or tax Documents.\n\n23. All Documents regarding any investment or business dealing made by, with, or on behalf of the Debtor or the Debtor's Family, on the one hand, and any Associated Entity, on the other hand.\n\n24. All Documents regarding the \"billions\" of \"funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong\" which were frozen in 2019 by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance. (*See* ECF N0. 107 at ¶17).\n\n25. All Documents regarding each of the Assets the Debtor claimed to own during a 2017 interview with Vice News, including but not limited to, the \"two private jets,\" the \"most advanced yachts,\" and the \"hundreds of race cars.\" (*See* Vice News Interview at 6:38-7:07 (Nov. 15 2017) (when asked whether he had any regrets over how he has fought his campaign against China, the Debtor said, \"I have absolutely no regrets for what I have done over the past nine months. I have the wealthy life that everyone in the world dreams about. I have the biggest house in Hong Kong, thousands of square meters. I have the most luxurious apartment in London. I have the biggest place in Beijing. I have more than 10 properties in Pangu. I have two private jets. I have the most advanced yachts. I have hundreds of race cars. I have an apartment like this in New York. I don't have any material needs anymore.\")). 14\n\n26. All Documents related to any income, revenue, Assets or advertisement revenue generated from the YouTube channel(s) possessed or controlled by the Debtor, the Debtor's Estate, Debtor's Family, or an Associated Entity.\n\n27. Documents sufficient to show the identity, name, length of employment, and salary for each and every employee of the Associated Entities.\n\n<sup>14</sup> This quote was spoken by Debtor in Chinese and translated into English by Vice News.\n\n28. All Documents related to any aircraft owned, controlled, or used by You, including without limitation the aircraft bearing tail number T7-GQM and any other aircraft registered in the Republic of San Marino, including without limitation copies of all registration documents and flight manifests showing flights taken by such aircraft and the individuals onboard such flights.\n\n29. All passports or similar Documents authorizing cross-border travel issued by any sovereign state, nation, city-state, or autonomous region to You, including but not limited to any expired or unused Documents, and all pages of such passports or similar Documents.\n\n30. All Documents related to any pledges of Assets of any Associated Entity, including Bravo Luck Limited, to any other Entity.\n\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| PROOF OF SERVICE<br>(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |                                                                            |\n| I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any): ______________________________________________<br>on (date) __________ .                                                                                                                                                                                                              |                                                                            |\n| I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: ____________________________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |                                                                            |\n| ___________________________________________________________________________________________________<br>__________________________________ on (date) ___________________ ; or                                                                                                                                                                               |                                                                            |\n| I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: ____________________________________________________________<br>___________________________________________________________________________________________________                                                                                                                                            |                                                                            |\n| Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the<br>witness the fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of \\$ _______________________ .<br>My fees are \\$ _________ for travel and \\$_________ for services, for a total of \\$_________ . |                                                                            |\n| I declare under penalty of perjury<br>that this information is true and correct.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |                                                                            |\n| Date: _______________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |                                                                            |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | ________________________________________________<br>Server's signature     |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | ________________________________________________<br>Printed name and title |\n|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | ________________________________________________<br>Server's address       |\n\nAdditional information concerning attempted service, etc.:\n\n#### **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13) (made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Rule 9016, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure)**\n\n#### **(c) Place of compliance.**\n\n*(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition.* A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:\n\n(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or\n\n(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person\n\n(i) is a party or a party's officer; or\n\n(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.\n\n#### *(2) For Other Discovery.* A subpoena may command:\n\n(A) production of documents, or electronically stored information, or things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and\n\n(B) inspection of premises, at the premises to be inspected.\n\n#### **(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.**\n\n*(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.* A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\n\n#### *(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.*\n\n*(A) Appearance Not Required.* A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.\n\n*(B) Objections*. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises — or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:\n\n(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.\n\n(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance.\n\n#### *(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.*\n\n*(A) When Required.* On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:\n\n(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits\n\nspecified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no\n\nexception or waiver applies; or\n\n(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. *(B) When Permitted.* To protect a person subject to or affected by a\n\nsubpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:\n\n(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information; or\n\n(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a party.\n\n*(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative.* In the circumstances described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified conditions if the serving party:\n\n(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n\n(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\n\n#### **(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.**\n\n*(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.* These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:\n\n*(A) Documents.* A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n\n*(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.* If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\n\n*(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form.* The person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.\n\n*(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information.* The person responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\n\n#### *(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.*\n\n*(A) Information Withheld.* A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:\n\n(i) expressly make the claim; and\n\n(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\n\n*(B) Information Produced.* If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information under seal to the court for the district where compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.\n\n… **(g) Contempt.** The court for the district where compliance is required – and also, after a motion is transferred, the issuing court – may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.\n\nFor access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.                                                     | :      |                         |\n|                                                             | :      |                         |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n\n#### **NOTICE OF OBJECTION DEADLINE**\n\nLuc Despins, as the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee to the Debtor's Estate (the \"Applicant\"), has filed an Application for Rule 2004 Examination of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Rule 2004 Examination\") with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut. Notice is hereby given that any objection or response to the Rule 2004 Examination must be filed with the Court no later than August 5, 2022, in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a) and 9014 and Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c).<sup>1</sup> In the absence of a timely filed objection, the proposed order regarding the Rule 2004 Examination *may* enter without further notice and hearing, see 11 U.S.C. section 102(1).\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut for HO WON KWOK\n\nDated: July 28, 2022 LUC DESPINS, as appointed Chapter 11 Trustee\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Patrick 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<sup>1</sup> Although objections to a Rule 2004 application are due seven days after filing under the Local Rules, the Trustee submits that a one-day extension of the objection deadline is appropriate given that some notice parties will not be served with the Application until Friday, July 29, 2022.\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\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*Proposed counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **Exhibit 4**\n\n[Filed Under Seal]\n\n# **Exhibit 5**\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------- | x                                 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| In re:                                                   | :<br>Chapter 11                   |\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,<br>1                                | :<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)      |\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| Debtor.                                                  | :<br>(Jointly Administered)       |\n| -------------------------------------------------------  | x                                 |\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee,                      | :<br>Adv. Proceeding No. 23-05017 |\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| Plaintiff,                                               | :                                 |\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| v.                                                       | :                                 |\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| TAURUS FUND LLC,                                         | :                                 |\n| SCOTT BARNETT, as trustee of TAURUS                      | :                                 |\n| FUND LLC, and                                            | :                                 |\n| TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC, as trustee                        | :                                 |\n| of TAURUS FUND LLC,                                      | :                                 |\n|                                                          | :                                 |\n| Defendants.                                              | :                                 |\n| -------------------------------------------------------  | x                                 |\n\n# **MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9019, FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), plaintiff in the above-captioned adversary proceeding (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"), hereby submits this\n\n<sup>1</sup> 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 and the Genever Debtor 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\nmotion (the \"Motion\"),2 pursuant to Rule 9019(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Rule 9019-1(a) of the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut (the \"Local Rules\"), for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\") approving the *Stipulation Between Chapter 11 Trustee and United States of America* (the \"Settlement Agreement\"), attached as **Exhibit 1** to the Proposed Order, reached between (a) the Trustee and (b) the United States of America (the \"Government\" and, together with the Trustee, the \"Parties\"3 ), represented by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (\"USAO-SDNY\"). In support of this Motion, the Trustee respectfully represent as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Parties have reached an agreement to resolve certain potentially complex issues raised both in this Adversary Proceeding and in the Government's ongoing criminal case against the Debtor currently being heard before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [Case No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)] (the \"Criminal Case\"), with respect to the Debtor's Mahwah Mansion.\n\n2. The Mahwah Mansion has become a target for both the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case (and related Adversary Proceeding) and the Government in the Criminal Case because, while the Trustee seeks a ruling that the Mahwah Mansion is property of the Debtor's estate so that it can be sold and its proceeds distributed to the Debtor's creditors, the Government alleges\n\n<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok Seeking, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 541, 542, and 544, (I) Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Mahwah Mansion and that such Property Is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1] (the \"Complaint\"). 3\n\nReferences herein to the \"Parties\" and the \"Trustee,\" include the respective attorneys, advisors, and/or professionals of the Parties, as applicable.\n\nthat the Mahwah Mansion is subject to forfeiture because it was purchased with the proceeds of the Debtor's alleged criminal schemes, and that its value should be distributed to the victims of such crimes as restitution.\n\n3. Of course, given the nature of the Debtor's activities, there is likely significant overlap between creditors who have filed proofs of claims (to the extent they have allowed claims) against the chapter 11 estate for whom the Trustee acts as fiduciary and the victims for whom the Government seeks to provide restitution.\n\n4. Complicating matters even further are the different tools that the Trustee and the Government have in their respective toolkits. The Trustee is already empowered to collect estate assets such as the Mahwah Mansion and to liquidate them for the benefit of the estate, after which the value of such assets can be distributed to holders of allowed claims pursuant to a chapter 11 plan. In furtherance thereof, the Trustee sought, and the Court granted, the setting of a bar date for creditors to file claims. Indeed, more than 1200 creditors have filed claims, many of which raise of the same or similar facts as the basis of their claims as were alleged in the Indictment. The Government, on the other hand, must obtain a conviction in the Criminal Case before it can obtain a forfeiture order that would allow it to distribute proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion to victims as part of a remission/restitution process outside the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n5. The interaction between bankruptcy law and criminal law in a case like this can, therefore, be a source of disputes between a trustee and the Government. Indeed, this is not the first time that these types of issues have arisen in cases where individual debtors have been prosecuted for fraud or other crimes and, on past occasions, these issues have resulted in some cases in extensive and expensive litigation between bankruptcy trustees and the Government,\n\nsomething that the Trustee obviously hopes to avoid here. *See United States v. Rothstein (In re Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, P.A.)*, 717 F.3d 1205, 1206 (11th Cir. 2013) (involving protracted dispute between chapter 11 trustee and Government regarding whether funds in certain bank accounts were proceeds of criminal conduct subject to forfeiture).\n\n6. Despite these complexities and potential sources of controversy, the Trustee and the Government are aligned both on the need to obtain control of and liquidate the Debtor's assets as quickly and efficiently as possible and the distribution of such assets to the Debtor's \"victims.\"<sup>4</sup> With that in mind, the Trustee and the Government negotiated the Settlement Agreement, which effectuates a preliminary resolution to the issues surrounding the Mahwah Mansion. Critically, the Settlement Agreement5 will ensure that any proceeds from an eventual sale of the Mahwah Mansion by the Trustee (if the Trustee prevails in the Adversary Proceeding) are used first to pay the estate's expenses (including reasonable legal fees related to the Adversary Proceeding) in connection with taking control of and selling the Mahwah Mansion, so that the estate will not be out of pocket even if future discussions between the Trustee and the Government regarding the distribution of sale proceeds of the Mahwah Mansion do not lead to a favorable settlement from the point of view of the estate. The Trustee and the Government also agreed in the Settlement Agreement that \\$1 million of the proceeds of the Mahwah Mansion (over and above actual expenses, including attorney's fees) will be distributed to creditors of the chapter 11 estate with allowed claims who are also victims of the Debtor in the Criminal Case. In other words, the Mahwah Mansion will (if the Trustee prevails in the Adversary Proceeding)\n\n 4 The issue of exactly what types of creditors that are holders of allowed claims are \"victims\" or not \"victims\" of the Debtor in the Criminal Case can be highly subjective, and the Trustee is hopeful that it is one of the topics that he will be able to resolve in future discussions with the Government. 5\n\nTo the extent of any inconsistencies between the description of the Settlement Agreement in this Motion and the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Settlement Agreement shall control.\n\nnot only fund the Adversary Proceeding but will be the source of tangible cash distributions to creditors. The Settlement Agreement provides this guaranteed benefit to the chapter 11 estate while resolving any potential disputes between the Trustee and the Government in this Adversary Proceeding and providing that the parties will discuss distribution issues in any potential restitution/remission process at a later date, in the event the Government secures a final conviction in the Criminal Case and a forfeiture order with respect to the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n7. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b).\n\n8. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n9. The bases for the relief requested herein are Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a) and Local Rule 9019-1(a).\n\n#### **BACKGROUND**\n\n10. On or about March 29, 2023, pursuant to a Superseding Indictment (the \"Indictment\"),6 the Government charged the Debtor, together with other defendants, with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering (Count One); wire fraud (Counts Two, Four, Six, and Eight); securities fraud (Counts Three, Five, and Seven); money laundering (Counts Nine and Ten); and unlawful monetary transactions (Count Eleven).\n\n<sup>6</sup> A copy of the Indictment is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**. A previous version of the Indictment was made public on March 15, 2023 (the \"Initial Indictment\"). The Indictment is largely similar to the Initial Indictment except that it adds charges against the Debtor's co-defendant, Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" that were not included in the Initial Indictment, which focused on charges against the Debtor and Kin Ming Je, a/k/a \"William Je.\"\n\n11. The Indictment included forfeiture allegations with respect to, among other things, the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n12. On or about June 28, 2023, the Trustee advised the Government that he had concluded, after extensive analysis, that, among other things, the Mahwah Mansion is equitably owned by the Debtor and, therefore, is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate. The Trustee also advised the Government of his intention to seek interim injunctive relief with respect to the Mahwah Mansion and to sell the Mahwah Mansion in the event this Court issues a ruling declaring the Mahwah Mansion to be property of the estate. The Trustee and the Government engaged in extensive good-faith discussions regarding issues related to the Mahwah Mansion and the Adversary Proceeding. As a result of these discussions, the Parties were able to successfully negotiate the Settlement Agreement. The Parties executed the Settlement Agreement on July 13, 2023.7\n\n13. On July 11, 2023, the Trustee commenced the Adversary Proceeding, in which the Trustee seeks orders:\n\n- declaring that: (a) the Debtor is the equitable owner of the Mahwah Mansion, and (b) that the Mahwah Mansion is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee; and (2) ordering Taurus Fund (and/or Scott Barnett and Taurus Management, as trustees of Taurus Fund) to turn over the Mahwah Mansion or its value and the fixtures and personal property in the Mahwah Mansion to the Trustee;\n- declaring that: (a) at all times the Debtor is the equitable owner of Taurus Fund; (b) any and all assets held by Taurus Fund 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 Taurus Fund 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\n\n<sup>7</sup> The descriptions in this Motion of the events leading to the execution of the Settlement Agreement or factors considered in the context of such settlement are solely those of the Trustee and do not purport to represent the Government's views.\n\nturnover of Taurus Fund and any and all of Taurus Fund's assets to the Trustee; and\n\n declaring that: (a) at all times Taurus Fund was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all assets held by Taurus Fund 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 Taurus Fund 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 Taurus Fund's assets to the Trustee.\n\n# **SETTLEMENT**\n\n14. The Parties have engaged in extensive good faith discussions with respect to the\n\nMahwah Mansion. As a result of these discussions, the Parties reached the Settlement\n\nAgreement in order to resolve complex issues related to the Mahwah Mansion. The key\n\nprovisions of the Settlement Agreement are as follows:\n\n- a. **Government Will Not Oppose Trustee in Adversary Proceeding:** Under the Settlement Agreement, the Government has agreed not to oppose any of the Trustee's claims or requests for relief in the Adversary Proceeding, or any effort by the Trustee to obtain control of and/or sell the Mahwah Mansion. *See*  Settlement Agreement ¶ 1.\n- b. **Use of Mahwah Mansion Proceeds to Pay Estate Expenses:** Under the Settlement Agreement, the costs of taking control of and selling the Mahwah Mansion, including Paul Hastings' legal fees, as well as \\$1 million to be used for the payment of holders of allowed claims in the Chapter 11 Case that are victims of the Debtor, will be paid first from the proceeds of the sale of Mahwah Mansion. The Settlement Agreement thus guarantees that the Adversary Proceeding will benefit the estate, even if none of the net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion end up being distributed to holders of allowed claims in the Chapter 11 Case as part of the Government's contemplated restitution and remission process, essentially guaranteeing that some portion of the value of the Mahwah Mansion will go to estate creditors, and eliminating the possibility that the estate could pay the cost of obtaining control of and selling the Mahwah Mansion but see all the value thereof made part of the Criminal Case and its forfeiture process. *See* Settlement Agreement ¶ 3.\n- c. **Escrow of Net Proceeds of Sale of Mahwah Mansion:** Under the Settlement Agreement, only the net proceeds of the sale of the Mahwah Mansion (after payment of the estate's expenses, described in paragraph 3 of the Settlement Agreement, and \\$1 million to be used for the payment of holders of allowed\n\nclaims in the Chapter 11 Case) will be held in escrow pending the resolution of the Criminal Case and its forfeiture process. *See* Settlement Agreement ¶ 2.8\n\n- d. **Post-Forfeiture Negotiations Regarding Distribution of Net Proceeds:** The Settlement Agreement provides for future discussions between the Trustee and the Government regarding the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of the Mahwah Mansion if an order of forfeiture is entered in the Criminal Case, allowing the Parties to address those issues and any potential disputes about those issues later, consistent with the goal of the Parties to not have these issues become a source of contention in connection with this Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee's intention to seek to handle distributions to victims is based on precedent from past cases where bankruptcy trustees negotiated agreements with the Government to exercise such a role.9 *See* Settlement Agreement ¶ 4.\n- e. **Reservation of Rights**: Consistent with the goal of the Parties to address other distribution issues later, in the event of a final conviction and forfeiture order, the Parties have reserved their rights with respect to issues related to the distribution of the net proceeds from the disposition of the Mahwah Mansion, in the event the Trustee's discussions with the Government do not lead to a settlement. *See*  Settlement Agreement ¶ 5.\n\n# **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n15. By this Motion, the Plaintiffs seek entry of an order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule\n\n9019(a) approving the Settlement Agreement in its entirety and authorizing the Parties to enter\n\ninto and implement the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms thereof.\n\n# **BASIS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n# **I. Standard for Approving the Settlement Agreement**\n\n16. To approve a compromise and settlement under Bankruptcy Rule 9019, a\n\nbankruptcy court should find that the compromise and settlement is fair and equitable,\n\nreasonable, and in the best interests of the debtor's estate. *See, e.g.*, *Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v.*\n\n 8 The escrow requirement will no longer apply, in the event of a final acquittal of the Debtor or his co-defendants, in which case the Government would be unable to initiate a restitution/remission process for crime victims; and the remaining proceeds funds would then be available for distribution by the Trustee in connection with the Chapter 11 Case. 9\n\n*See e.g. Order Authorizing James Berman, Trustee, to Serve as Temporary Receiver for the United States of America*, *In re Goldberg*, Case No. 09-23370 (ASD) (Bankr. D. Conn. 2011), [Docket No. 424].\n\n*Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Chi. (In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.),* 156 B.R. 414, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 1993.), *aff'd*, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); *In re Enron Corp.,* No. 02 Civ. 8489(AKH), 2003 WL 230838, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2003). The decision to approve a particular settlement lies within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court. *See Nellis v. Shugrue*, 165 B.R. 115, 122-23 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).\n\n17. Importantly, the \"settlement need not be the best that the debtor could have obtained.\" *In re Adelphia Commc'ns Corp.*, 327 B.R. 143, 159 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing *In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co.*, 596 F.2d 1102, 1114 (3d Cir. 1979)). Instead, the court needs only \"canvass the issues and see whether the settlement falls below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness.\" *Id.* (citing *In re W.T. Grant Co.*, 699 F.2d 599, 608 (2d Cir. 1983)).In deciding whether a particular settlement falls within the \"range of reasonableness,\" courts consider the following factors:\n\n> (1) the balance between the litigation's possibility of success and the settlement's future benefits; (2) the likelihood of complex and protracted litigation, \"with its attendant expense, inconvenience, and delay\" . . . ; (3) the \"paramount interests of the creditors,\" including each affected class's relative benefits \"and the degree to which creditors either do not object to or affirmatively support the proposed settlement\"; (4) whether other parties in interest support the settlement; (5) the \"competency and experience of counsel\" supporting, and \"[t]he experience and knowledge of the bankruptcy court judge\" reviewing, the settlement; (6) \"the nature and breadth of releases to be obtained by officers and directors\"; and (7) \"the extent to which the settlement is the product of arm's length bargaining.\"\n\n*Motorola, Inc. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors* (*In re Iridium Operating LLC*), 478\n\nF.3d 452, 462 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (\"*Iridium*\").\n\n#### **II. Settlement Agreement Should Be Approved**\n\n18. The Settlement Agreement is an excellent outcome for the chapter 11 estate and, by extension, the creditors of the Debtor's estate, and it is a fair and reasonable compromise under the circumstances and in light of the applicable *Iridium* factors.\n\n19. The benefits to the estate from the Settlement Agreement are significant. Critically, the Settlement Agreement will ensure that any proceeds from an eventual sale of the Mahwah Mansion by the Trustee (if the Trustee prevails in the Adversary Proceeding) are used first to pay the estate's expenses (including legal fees related to the Adversary Proceeding) in connection with taking control of and selling the Mahwah Mansion, so that the estate will not be out of pocket even if future discussions between the Trustee and the Government regarding the distribution of sale proceeds of the Mahwah Mansion do not lead to a favorable settlement from the point of view of the estate. The Trustee and the Government also agreed in the Settlement Agreement that \\$1 million of the proceeds of the Mahwah Mansion (over and above actual expenses, including attorney's fees) will be distributed to creditors of the chapter 11 estate with allowed claims who are also victims of the Debtor. In other words, the Mahwah Mansion will (if the Trustee prevails in the Adversary Proceeding) not only fund the Adversary Proceeding but will be the source of tangible cash distributions to creditors.\n\n20. In addition, the Settlement Agreement, among other things, ensures that the Adversary Proceeding will not be delayed by any disputes between the Trustee and the Government, pushing back any thorny issues regarding how funds are distributed in a restitution/remission process to the future, to be discussed by the Parties in the event of a final conviction and order of forfeiture (as is appropriate given that trial in the Criminal Case is\n\npresently scheduled to begin on April 8, 2024, at it is therefore unknown at this time whether the Debtor or his co-defendants will be convicted).\n\n21. The Settlement Agreement easily meets all the relevant *Iridium* factors, providing significant immediate and future benefits to the estate and its creditors, in particular, by ensuring that the estate will benefit from any sale by the Trustee of the Mahwah Mansion and eliminating the possibility of any disputes between the Parties in the context of the Adversary Proceeding. The Settlement Agreement was reached between the Trustee and the Government, with each side assisted by experienced counsel and negotiating at arms' length.\n\n22. Put simply, the Settlement Agreement is a positive development for the chapter 11 estate, and the Trustee believes the Settlement Agreement satisfies Bankruptcy Rule 9019 and should be approved.\n\n#### **NOTICE**\n\n23. Notice of this Motion will be given to (i) the United States Trustee; (ii) the Debtor; (iii) the official committee of unsecured creditors; (iv) the Defendants; (v) by electronic filing utilizing the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system, to all appearing parties who utilize the CM/ECF system; and (vi) any party who requested notice in these chapter 11 cases, but is unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. The Trustee submits that, under the circumstances, no other or further notice is required.\n\n#### **NO PREVIOUS REQUEST**\n\n24. No previous request for the relief sought herein has been made by the Trustee to this or any other court.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank*.]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the\n\nProposed Order granting the relief requested in the Motion and such other relief as is just and\n\nproper.\n\nDated: August 14, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglass Barron*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 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\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*\n\n# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------- | x                                      |\n|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|\n|                                                          | :                                      |\n| In re:                                                   | :<br>Chapter 11                        |\n|                                                          | :                                      |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,<br>1                                | :<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)           |\n|                                                          | :                                      |\n| Debtor.                                                  | :<br>(Jointly Administered)            |\n| -------------------------------------------------------  | x                                      |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee,                      | :<br>:<br>Adv. Proceeding No. 23-05017 |\n|                                                          | :                                      |\n| Plaintiff,                                               | :                                      |\n|                                                          | :                                      |\n| v.                                                       | :                                      |\n|                                                          | :                                      |\n| TAURUS FUND LLC,                                         | :                                      |\n| SCOTT BARNETT, as trustee of TAURUS                      | :                                      |\n| FUND LLC, and                                            | :                                      |\n| TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC, as trustee                        | :                                      |\n| of TAURUS FUND LLC,                                      | :                                      |\n|                                                          | :                                      |\n| Defendants.                                              | :                                      |\n| -------------------------------------------------------  | x                                      |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 9019, MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE REGARDING SETTLEMENT WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**\n\nUpon the Motion,2 of Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the Chapter 11 Trustee (the\n\n\"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan\n\nKwok (the \"Debtor\"), for entry of an order, approving a settlement agreement between the\n\n<sup>1</sup> 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 and the Genever Debtor 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<sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Order have the meanings set forth in the Motion.\n\nTrustee and the Government, as more fully described in the Motion; and the Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; and this matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); and due and sufficient notice having been given under the particular circumstances and it appears that no other or further notice need be provided; and the relief requested being a reasonable exercise of the Trustee's business judgment consistent with his duties and in the best interests of the Debtor's estate and creditors; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is **ORDERED THAT**:\n\n1. The Motion is GRANTED.\n\n2. All objections to the Motion, if any, that have not been withdrawn, waived or settled, and all reservations of rights included therein, are overruled.\n\n3. The settlement agreement, attached as **Exhibit 1** hereto (the \"Settlement Agreement\"), is approved pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019.\n\n4. The Trustee is authorized, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, to execute, deliver, implement, and fully perform any and all obligations, instruments, documents and papers and to take any and all actions reasonably necessary or appropriate to consummate the settlement reflected in the Settlement Agreement and to perform any and all obligations contemplated therein immediately upon entry of this Order.\n\n5. This Order shall be effective and enforceable immediately upon entry pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), and the Trustee shall have unfettered use of the Settlement Payment when received.\n\n6. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from or related to this Order and to the Settlement Agreement.\n\n# **EXHIBIT 1**\n\n**Settlement Agreement**\n\n| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT<br>SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK<br>-----------------<br>--------<br>-<br>-<br>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,        | ----<br>-  | --<br>X    |                         |  |  |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| -v.-<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\"<br>a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\"<br>a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\"<br>a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\"<br>a/k/a \"The Principal,\" |            |            | Sl 23 Cr. 118 (AT)      |  |  |\n| Defendant.                                                                                                                                   |            |            |                         |  |  |\n| ---------<br>-----<br>------<br>---<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-                                                                                 | ----<br>-- | X          |                         |  |  |\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION                                                             |            |            |                         |  |  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x<br>In re:                                                                            |            | Chapter 11 |                         |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al., 1                                                                                                                       |            |            | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |  |\n\nDebtors.\n\n**------------------------------------------------------x**\n\n<sup>(</sup>Jointly Administered)\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in the 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### **STIPULATION BETWEEN CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA**\n\nWHEREAS, on or about March 29, 2023, Ho Wan Kwok, a debtor in the abovecaptioned chapter 11 cases (the \"Defendant\"), was charged, together with other defendants, by the United States of America (the \"Government\"), represented by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (\"USAO-SDNY\"), before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"District Court\"), in eleven counts of a twelve-count Superseding Indictment, S 1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (the \"Indictment\"), with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, bank fraud and money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3 71 (Count One); wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (Counts Two, Four, Six, and Eight); securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-5 (Counts Three, Five, and Seven); money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2) (Counts Nine and Ten); and unlawful monetary transactions, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 (Count Eleven);\n\nWHEREAS, the Indictment included a forfeiture allegation as to Counts One through Eight of the Indictment, seeking forfeiture to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), of any and all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of the offenses charged in Counts One through Eight of the Indictment, including but not limited to, the following property:\n\n> All that lot or parcel of land, together with its buildings, appurtenances, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and\n\neasements, located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430, Parcel No. 3300021-03-00001-02 and described as Lot Number: 1.02 Block: 21.03 District: 33 City, Municipality, Township: MAHWAH TWP\n\n(the \"Subject Property\");\n\nWHEREAS, on or about February 15, 2022, the Defendant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, *In Re Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings LLC,* 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. Conn.) (the \"Bankruptcy Case\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\");\n\nWHEREAS, on or about June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court directed the appointment of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee and thereafter Luc A. Despins, Esq. was appointed as the trustee for the Bankruptcy Case (the \"Trustee\");\n\nWHEREAS, on or about June 28, 2023, the Trustee advised the Government that\n\nhe had concluded, after extensive analysis, that, among other things, the Subject Property is equitably owned by the Defendant and, therefore, is property of the Defendant's chapter 11 estate;\n\nWHEREAS, the Trustee is prepared to commence an adversary proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court, *Despins v. Taurus Fund* (the \"Adversary Proceeding\"), seeking, among other things:\n\n> (1) an order from the Bankruptcy Court (a) declaring that the Defendant is the equitable owner of the Subject Property and that the Subject Property is property of the Defendant's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (b) ordering the turnover of the Subject Property to the Trustee;\n\n> (2) an order from the Bankruptcy Court (a) declaring that (i) at all times the Defendant was the equitable owner of the entity that holds title to the Subject Property, Taurus Fund LLC (\"Taurus Fund\"); (ii) any and all assets held by Taurus Fund, including the Subject\n\nProperty, are property of the Defendant's chapter 11 estate; and (b) ordering the turnover of Taurus Fund and any and all of Taurus Fund's assets, including the Subject Property, to the Trustee;\n\n(3) an order from the Bankruptcy Court (a) declaring that (i) at all times Taurus Fund was an alter ego of the Defendant; (ii) any and all assets held by Taurus Fund, including the Subject Property, constitute property of the Defendant's chapter 11 estate; and (b) ordering the turnover of any and all of Taurus Fund's assets to the Trustee;\n\nWHEREAS, upon entry of any of the orders listed in subparagraphs (1)-(3) above\n\nby the Bankruptcy Court, the Subject Property would be deemed to be an asset held directly or indirectly by the Defendant's chapter 11 estate;\n\nWHEREAS, the Trustee will also seek, in the context of the Adversary Proceeding,\n\ninterim relief from the Bankruptcy Court to obtain control over the Subject Property (the \"Interim\n\nRelief') pending a definitive ruling by the Bankruptcy Court with respect to the claims asserted\n\nby the Trustee in the Adversary Proceeding;\n\nWHEREAS, the Trustee intends, in the event the Bankruptcy Court issues a ruling\n\npursuant to which the Subject Property is deemed to be an asset held directly or indirectly by the Defendant's chapter 11 estate, to sell the Subject Prope1iy; and\n\nWHEREAS, the Government has agreed not to oppose the relief to be sought by the Trustee in the Adversary Proceeding, or any effort by the Trustee to obtain control of and/or sell the Subject Property;\n\nNOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between United States of America, by its attorney Damian Williams, United States Attorney,\n\nJuliana Murray, Micah Fergenson, and Ryan Finkel, of counsel, and the Trustee and his counsel, Paul Hastings LLP, that:\n\n1. The Government shall not oppose any of the Trustee's claims or requests for relief in the Adversary Proceeding, or any effort by the Trustee to obtain control of and/or sell the Subject Property;\n\n2. In the event the Subject Property is sold pursuant to an order entered in the Bankruptcy Case, the Trustee agrees that the net proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property shall be held in escrow pending the resolution of this criminal matter and will serve as a substitute *res* for the Subject Property (the \"Substitute *Res\")* in the above-captioned criminal case, with all claims and defenses of the Government applicable to the Subject Property, including any other action that may be brought by the Government for forfeiture of the Subject Property, to apply instead to, and be payable only from, the Substitute *Res.* Further, any claims or interests attached to or secured by the Subject Property shall be transferred to the Substitute *Res* and be satisfied, if at all, only from the Substitute *Res.* In the event that the Defendant is acquitted pursuant to a final order, or the entry of a forfeiture order is denied pursuant to a final order, the escrow requirement contained in this paragraph shall become automatically null and void.\n\n3. The net proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property will include all moneys realized from the sale of the Subject Property, except for the following which will be deducted from the sale proceeds: any costs of seizure, maintenance, marketing and sale of the Subject Property, including legal fees of Paul Hastings incurred in the Adversary Proceeding or as a consequence of the Adversary Proceeding, and expenses to ensure safekeeping and custody of the Subject Property (including security service at or around the premises), storage, or sale of the\n\nSubject Property, all as allowed by the Bankruptcy Court; any outstanding mortgages; real estate commissions and/or fees; any other real estate, property, transfer, association or other tax, which is due and owing at the time of the sale; insurance costs; escrow fees; title fees and county transfer fees; as well as a deemed expense of \\$1,000,000, which shall be used to satisfy claims of holders of allowed claims in the Bankruptcy Case that are victims of the Debtor.\n\n4. In the event of the entry of an order of forfeiture in this criminal matter that includes the Subject Property, the Trustee and the Government shall negotiate in good faith with respect to the distribution of the net proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property to victims of the conduct charged in the Indictment (who may be holders of allowed claims in the Bankruptcy Case) and to holders of allowed claims in the Bankruptcy Case. At present, the USAO-SDNY anticipates requesting from the Department of Justice's Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section that any assets forfeited in this criminal matter be distributed to victims of the conduct charged in the Indictment through the remission/restoration process. The Trustee intends to seek the Government's consent, as part of any such remission/restoration process, to handle the distribution of net proceeds from the Subject Property to victims (who may be holders of allowed claims in the Bankruptcy Case) and holders of allowed claims in the Bankruptcy Case, as determined and allowed by the Bankruptcy Court, and the Government has explained that it is not in a position, at this time, to consent to such proposal, absent the obtaining of certain regulatory approvals which may not be obtained at this time.\n\n5. In the event the Government and the Trustee do not reach an agreement with respect to the distribution of the net proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property, all rights of the Government and the Trustee are reserved.\n\n6. In furtherance of a sale of the Subject Property, the Government agrees to execute promptly any documents which may be required to convey clear title to the Subject Property and complete the sale of the Subject Property.\n\n7. Each party to this Stipulation shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees.\n\n8. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which\n\nshall be deemed an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed the complete Stipulation. PDF copies shall be treated as originals.\n\n*[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]*\n\nof 200\n\nDated: New York, New York July 13, 2023\n\nSTIPULATED TO:\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney Southern District of New York United States of America\n\nBy: ~-~~ / LIANA MURRAY <sup>o</sup> MICAH FERGENSON RYAN FINKEL Assistant United States Attorneys One Saint Andrews Plaza New York, New York 10007 (212) 637-2314/2190/6612\n\nCHAPTER *9* BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE\n\nBy *fo,---t* **~M---7**\n\nLUC A. DESP!N,ESQ. Trustee\n\nBy:\n\nS E. BA:RRON , ESQ. TINGS LLP Attorney for the Trustee\n\n7/13/2023\n\nDate\n\nDate ,\n\nDate I 1\n\n# **EXHIBIT B**\n\n**Superseding Indictment**\n\n#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nV.\n\nHO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\"\n\nKINMINGJE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and\n\nYANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"\n\nDefendants.\n\n# **ORIGINAL** <sup>1</sup>\n\n#### **INDICTMENT**\n\nSl 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n# **COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, Securities Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Money Laundering)**\n\nThe Grand Jury charges:\n\n#### **Overview**\n\n1. From at least in or about 2018 through at least in or about March 2023, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, conspired to defraud thousands of victims of more than approximately \\$1 billion, including victims located in the Southern District of New York. KWOK, JE, WANG, and their co-conspirators operated through a series of complex fraudulent and fictitious businesses and investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated\n\nentities, which allowed the defendants and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and misappropriate victim funds.\n\n2. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, took advantage of KWOK's prolific online presence and hundreds of thousands of online followers to solicit investments in various entities and programs by promising outsized financial returns and other benefits. The entities and programs used in the scheme included those known as GTV, GICLUBS, GIMUSIC, GIFashion, and the Himalaya Exchange, among others. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK, JE, and WANG well knew, the entities were instrumentalities that KWOK, JE, and WANG created and used to perpetrate their fraud and exploit KWOK's followers. The scheme allowed KWOK, JE, and WANG to enrich themselves, their family members, and their co-conspirators, and to fund KWOK's extravagant lifestyle.\n\n3. As part of the scheme, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, laundered hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud proceeds. To conceal the illegal source of the funds, KWOK, JE, and WANG transferred, and directed the transfer of, money into and through more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of at least 80 different entities or individuals. Hundreds of millions of dollars of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds were transferred, either directly or indirectly, to bank accounts in the United States, Bahamas, and United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\"), among other places, and held in the name of companies owned or otherwise controlled by JE.\n\n'v\n\n4. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, used more than approximately \\$300 million of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds for their and their families' benefit. For example, KWOK used fraudulently-obtained victim money to purchase, fund, or finance a \\$26.5 million purchase of an approximately 50,000-square-foot mansion in New Jersey for KWOK and his family; luxury vehicles, including an approximately \\$3.5 million Ferrari for one ofKWOK's close family members (\"Relative-I\"); an approximately \\$37 million luxury yacht that was used by KWOK and his family and purchased in the name of one ofKWOK's close family members (\"Relative-2\"); a piano valued at approximately \\$140,000; an approximately \\$36,000 mattress; and a \\$100 million investment in a high-risk hedge fund for the ultimate benefit of Relative-I, among other things. For his part, among other things, JE transferred at least \\$10 million of the fraud proceeds into his and his spouse's personal bank accounts.\n\n5. HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, operated the scheme for years, and continued to do so at least through at least March 2023. They did so, among other things, by continually adapting the scheme's means and methods to evade the enforcement of investorprotection, anti-money laundering, and bankruptcy laws in the United States, and by retaliating against individual victims who complained or demanded the return of invested funds.\n\n#### **Relevant Persons and Entities**\n\n6. At all relevant times, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, was the leader of, and directed, the scheme.\n\na. KWOK is an exiled Chinese businessman who fled to the United States in or about 2015 and purchased a penthouse apartment at a New York City hotel for approximately \\$67.5 million. Starting at least in or about 2017, KWOK, who then purported to be a billionaire, garnered a substantial online following. KWOK granted numerous media interviews and posted on social media, claiming to advance a movement against the Chinese Communist Party.\n\nb. In or about 2018, KWOK founded two purported nonprofit organizations, namely, the Rule of Law Foundation and the Rule of Law Society. The Rule of Law Society's website lists KWOK as its \"founder, a promot[e]r, and a spokesperson.\" Both organizations feature photographs of KWOK on their websites. KWOK used the nonprofit organizations to amass followers who were aligned with his purported campaign against the Chinese Communist Party and who were also inclined to believe KWOK's statements regarding investment and moneymaking opportunities. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK well knew, he and others provided false and materially misleading information to promote these \"opportunities\" and to defraud KWOK's followers and other victims.\n\n7. At all relevant times, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, was a dual citizen of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom who principally resided in the United Kingdom, while traveling to the United States and elsewhere. JE owned and operated numerous companies and investment vehicles central to the scheme and served as its financial architect and key money launderer.\n\n8. At all relevant times, Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, was a citizen of China who principally resided in New York, New York and has had a close relationship with HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant. In particular, WANG has worked for KWOK and KWOK's family for several years, since at least in or about 2018, and has operated as a \"chief of staff' for KWOK. In that capacity, WANG has held titles in a variety of entities that were instrumentalities of the fraud described herein. For example, WANG has served as the President, Treasurer, and Secretary of entities that purportedly managed KWOK's money.\n\n9. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\") was a corporation based in New York, New York. Relative-I was its ultimate beneficial owner.\n\n10. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") was a purported news-focused social media platform based in New York, New York. GTV was functionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, although KWOK held no formal position or title at GTV. KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, likewise held no formal position or title at GTV, but in fact exercised control over its finances. Saraca was the parent company of GTV. YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, was an \"Executive Director\" of GTV.\n\n11. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, G Club Operations, LLC (\"GICLUBS\") \\_was a purported membership organization based in Puerto Rico and in New York, New York. GICLUBS was functionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, although KWOK held no formal position or title at GICLUBS. KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\"\n\nthe defendant, likewise held no formal position or title at GICLUBS, but in fact exercised control over its finances. .\n\n12. At certain times relevant to this Indictment, the \"Himalaya Exchange\" was a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" that KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, founded and operated through various entities he owned, which were based abroad. Entities functionally owned and controlled by HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, such as GICLUBS and GIFashion, had purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange. KWOK promoted the Himalaya Exchange and claimed to be the designer of its purported cryptocurrency, although KWOK held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n#### **The Fraud**\n\n#### *The GTV Private Placement*\n\n13. Between in or about April 2020 and in or about June 2020, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained more than \\$400 million in victim funds through an illegal private stock offering related to GTV (the \"GTV Private Placement\").\n\na. On or about April 21, 2020, KWOK posted, and caused to be posted, a video on social media announcing the unregistered offering of GTV common stock via a private placement. In that video, KWOK described, in substance and in part, the investment terms for the GTV Private Placement, and directed people to contact him, via a mobile messaging application, with any questions about the GTV Private Placement. The video and GTV Private Placement\n\nmaterials-including the written \"Confidential Information Memorandum\" (the \"PPM\"), Subscription Agreement, and Investment Procedure Guidelines-were transmitted to thousands of potential investors, including those in the Southern District of New York, via mobile messaging applications, social media, and text messages.\n\nb. The PPM promoted GTV as the \"first ever platform which will combine the power of citizen journalism and social news with state-of-the-'art technology, big data, artificial intelligence, block-chain technology and real-time interactive communication.\"\n\nc. According to the PPM' s metadata, JE was the \"author\" of the PPM. The PPM disclosed the terms of the GTV Private Placement and identified KWOK as GTV's \"Sponsor and Adviser.\" According to the PPM, among other GTV materials, neither KWOK nor JE held any formal management position with GTV. Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendant, was identified in the PPM as an \"Executive Director\" of GTV.\n\nd. The PPM also contained the following representations, in substance and in part, among others:\n\n1. The GTV Private Placement was for investors who were \"interested in evaluating an opportunity to invest capital into GTV;\"\n\nii. GTV planned to use the proceeds raised from the GTV Private Placement \"to expand and strengthen the business;\" and\n\n111. The PPM included a chart itemizing the \"contemplated use of proceeds\" raised from the GTV Private Placement:\n\n| Acquisition of companies to strengthen and grow<br>GTV |                 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|\n| Upgrade of GTV technology and security                 | Approximate 10% |\n| Marketing                                              | Approximate 8%  |\n| Working capital                                        | Approximate 7%  |\n| Other                                                  | Approximate 5%  |\n| Total                                                  | 100%            |\n\ne. Between on or about April 20, 2020 and on or about June 2, 2020, approximately \\$452 million worth ofGTV common stock was purportedly sold to more than 5,500 investors located in the United States, including in the Southern District of New York, and abroad. Investors participated in the GTV Private Placement based, in part, on the belief that their money would be invested into GTV to develop and grow that business, as the PPM promised.\n\nf. The vast majority of the proceeds derived from investors in the GTV Private Placement were not used to develop and grow the GTV business, but instead were deposited directly into bank accounts held in the name of Saraca, GTV's parent company, which is beneficially owned by Relative-I.\n\ng. The GTV Private Placement was not made pursuant to a registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\"). Rather, the offering was purportedly made pursuant to SEC regulations that permit the sale of unregistered securities subject to limitations on the type of investors to whom the securities are offered and the manner in which their investments may be solicited. To evade these limitations, however, KWOK, and others\n\nunder his control, used at least one intermediary entity to purchase GTV stock on behalf of pools of investors who did not qualify to participate in the GTV Private Placement.\n\nh. In or about early June 2020, and only days after the GTV Private Placement closed, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators, misappropriated approximately \\$100 million raised from investors in the GTV Private Placement and directed that those funds be placed with a high-risk hedge fund (\"Fund-I \") for the benefit of Saraca and its ultimate beneficial owner, Relative-I. This transaction was contrary to the PPM's representations to prospective GTV investors about how investments in GTV would be used. Indeed, the \\$100 million investment into Fund-I was not made for the benefit of GTV, but rather for the benefit of Saraca. The victims who supplied the \\$100 million invested into Fund-I did not own any shares of Saraca. Ultimately, the investment into Fund-I lost approximately \\$30 million in value.\n\ni. After directing \\$100 million of GTV victim funds into Fund-I, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant, continued to promote GTV using false and misleading representations.\n\n#### *The Farm Loan Program*\n\n14. Beginning in or about June 2020-the same month that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and their co-conspirators misappropriated money from the GTV Private Placement for the benefit of Saraca and Relative-I-KWOK, JE, and their co-conspirators fraudulently obtained more than approximately\n\n\\$150 million in victim funds through the \"Himalaya Farm Alliance.\" The Himalaya Farm Alliance, which KWOK organized and promoted, was a collective of informal groups ( each known as a \"Farm\") located in various cities around the world. KWOK, JE, and others working on their behalf and at their direction, obtained these funds by making further misrepresentations to the investors in the GTV Private Placement and fraudulently soliciting further investments, this time in the form of \"loans\" to a Farm, and promising that such loans would be convertible into GTV common stock at a conversion rate of one share per dollar loaned (the \"Farm Loan Program\").\n\na. Starting in or about June 2020, domestic banks that held accounts used to process the funds raised through the GTV Private Placement began to freeze and close GTVassociated bank accounts because, among other reasons, the accounts had received dozens of large incoming wire transfers, some of which referenced an unregistered stock offering.\n\nb. These bank account closures frustrated the ability of KWOK, JE, and their co-conspirators to collect proceeds from victims seeking to invest in GTV.\n\nc. On or about July 22, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK promoted the Farm Loan Program. According to KWOK and those working on his behalf, individuals seeking to invest (or reinvest) in GTV could participate in the Farm Loan Program.\n\nd. After launching the Farm Loan Program, KWOK continued to promote GTV and to falsely represent the value of GTV. For example, on or about August 2, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK falsely stated, in substance and part, \"How much is GTV? .. . a market value of2 billion US dollars.\"<sup>1</sup>In truth and in fact, and as KWOK well knew, GTV's market value was far less because, among other things, GTV was a new business that generated no revenue.\n\n<sup>1</sup>All statements attributed herein to KWOK have been translated from Mandarin to English, unless otherwise noted.\n\ne. Thousands of victims \"loaned\" money to the Farms by sending money to bank accounts controlled by the Farms (and not GTV). According to the \"Loan Agreements,\" which the Farms frequently did not countersign, these funds were to be used for a Farm's \"general working capital purposes.\"\n\nf. KWOK and JE misappropriated funds that were raised through the Farm Loan Program. For example:\n\ni. Approximately \\$20 million was transferred to Relative-I, approximately \\$950,000 of which was used to pay for flight crew services on a private jet;\n\nii. Approximately \\$5 million was transferred to an entity owned by KWOK's spouse;\n\niii. Approximately \\$2.3 million was used to cover maintenance expenses associated with an approximately 145-foot luxury yacht worth approximately \\$37 million, nominally owned by Relative-2 and used by KWOK; and\n\niv. Approximately \\$10 million was transferred to personal bank accounts in the name of JE and/or JE's spouse.\n\n#### GICLUBS\n\n15. While making misrepresentations regarding the Farm Loan Program, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, fraudulently induced KWOK's followers to transfer additional funds to a purported online membership club called GICLUBS. From at least in or about October 2020 through at least\n\nin or about March 2023, KWOK, JE, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$250 million in victim funds through GICLUBS.\n\na. Starting at least on or about June 20, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK promoted and encouraged individuals to purchase what KWOK referred to as a \"G Club . . . membership card.\"\n\nb. Formally launched in or about October 2020, GICLUBS claimed, on its website, to be \"an exclusive, high-end membership program offering a full spectrum of services\" and \"a gateway to carefully curated world-class products, services and experiences.\"\n\nc. To join GICLUBS, a member was required to make a one-time payment to purchase a \"membership,\" in addition to an annual membership fee. The cost of the membership varied based on the membership tier selected by the prospective member: Tier 5 Membership cost \\$50,000; Tier 4 Membership cost \\$40,000; Tier 3 Membership cost \\$30,000; Tier 2 Membership cost \\$20,000; and Tier 1 Membership cost \\$10,000.\n\nd. On or about July 5, 2021 , in a video distributed via social media, KWOK stated, in substance and in part, that there were \"25,000 [GICLUBS] member[s] ... \\$100 million dollars, the cash [in] the bank account. Then we have the 111 million ... [who] want to join.\" By contrast, GICLUBS internal documents reflected approximately 5,900 active members as of in or about August 2021.\n\ne. In truth and in fact, and as KWOK and JE well knew, GICLUBS provided nothing close to \"a full spectrum of services\" and \"experiences\" to its members. Despite collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in purported membership fees, GICLUBS maintained a relatively small number of employees and provided its members few to no discemable membership benefits. Indeed, GICLUBS did not even make good on prizes it offered members for participating in\n\ncontests. On or about February 14, 2021, GICLUBS held a webcast and sweepstakes during which members were promised luxury prizes. On at least one occasion, instead of providing a BMW to a member who purportedly won a sweepstakes, GI CLUBS claimed to the member that the member had requested that the value of the BMW be applied toward an upgrade from a Tier 1 GICLUBS Membership to a Tier 4 GICLUBS Membership and partially credited toward annual membership fees for the next three years. As of on or about March 8, 2021-months after GICLUBS launched and began to collect \"membership\" fees-GICLUBS did not have a business plan or a board of directors.\n\nf. **KWOK** and JE also used GICLUBS as a mechanism to continue fraudulent private placement offerings. KWOK, and others known and unknown, told KWOK's online followers that their purchase of GICLUBS memberships would entitle them to stock in KWOKaffiliated entities, such as GTV and GIFashion.\n\ni. In a conversation regarding GICLUBS membership funds on or about May 4, 2021 , JE stated, in substance and in part, that \"first of all, [prospective members] are buying the GICLUBS membership, but they are expecting they would probably receive some shares, you know, on, on, on the future GTV, I think this is their expectation.\"\n\nii. On or about July 30, 2021, KWOK stated in a video distributed via social media, in substance and in part, \"Some of the comrades in arms asked, ' [ w ]ill I still get a free stock offer when I buy a GICLUBS membership?' 100%. Because I said that I have to promise that anyone who buys G-Club membership before September 17 must be allotted shares, which is exactly the same. Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use your money to buy G-Club before September 17, G-Club and the stock shares. You'll get both.\"\n\ng. KWOK, JE, and others known and unknown, asked investors to purchase multiple memberships in GICLUBS, enabling KWOK and JE to increase the amount of money solicited. In this regard, the GICLUBS website stated, in substance and in part, that members with multiple memberships would \"receive additional benefits\" when, in truth and in fact, and as KWOK and JE well knew, multiple memberships did not provide members with additional benefits.\n\n16. All told, investors purchased hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of GI CLUBS memberships. However, most of this money did not fund the business of GICLUBS. Rather, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, misappropriated a substantial portion of the funds victims had paid GICLUBS for \"memberships,\" using, among other things, a complex web of entities and bank accounts to do so. For example:\n\na. GICLUBS funds, which had been funneled through bank accounts in other entities' names, were used to pay personal expenses for KWOK and his family, including luxury purchases of an approximately \\$2.6 million yacht and luxury automobiles that together cost more than \\$5 million.\n\nb. In or about November 2021 , JE directed approximately \\$26.5 million of GICLUBS funds, which ·had been funneled through bank accounts in other entities' names, toward the purchase of KWOK's 50,000 square foot New Jersey mansion.\n\nc. JE directed the transfer of an additional \\$13 million of GICLUBS membership payments to an escrow account. The funds were subsequently used to pay for extravagant renovations to KWOK's New Jersey mansion, including to a wing for Relative-I and\n\nto a wing for Relative-2, and to purchase various furniture and decorative items including, among other items, Chinese and Persian rugs worth approximately \\$978,000, a \\$62,000 television, and a \\$53,000 fireplace log cradle holder.\n\nd. On or about August 5, 2021 , JE directed the transfer of approximately \\$1 .1 million consisting of GICLUBS membership payments into a bank account that JE controlled.\n\ne. GICLUBS used membership fees to purchase luxury automobiles, including a custom-built Bugatti sports car for approximately \\$4.4 million. While the car's signed purchase agreement listed GICLUBS as the customer, the initial specifications documentation for the custom-built car named Relative-I as the customer. Relative-I had no official position with GICLUBS.\n\n#### *The Himalaya Exchange*\n\n17. From at least in or about April 2021 through at least in or about March 2023, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$262 million in victim funds through the Himalaya Exchange, a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" accessible on the internet. The Himalaya Exchange included a purported stablecoin called the Himalaya Dollar (\"HDO\" or \"H Dollar\") and a trading coin called Himalaya Coin (\"HCN\" or \"H Coin\"). The Himalaya Exchange claimed that the \"stablecoin\" was a digital asset with a fixed l-to-\\$1 value backed by reserves, and that the \"trading coin\" was a cryptocurrency with valuation based on supply and demand. JE was the founder and Chairman of the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n18. In videos distributed via social media, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the defendant,\n\ntrumpeted the prospects and valuation of the Himalaya Exchange and both HCN and HDO, which he publicly described as cryptocurrencies. For example, in a video posted on the Internet on or about October 20, 2021 , KWOK falsely stated the following, among other things, and in substance and in part:\n\na. \"I am talking about your H Coins, 'Brother Seven' *[i.e.,* KWOK] designed it .... [I]t has the attribute of currency, why? It has 20% gold. Awesome[.] [I]t was born as currency on the first day, so it has value and it is linked to gold ... clear gold directly. No matter how much it raises, 20% will turn into gold.\"\n\nb. \"If the H Coin is worthless, [the issuer of H coin] can sell all 20% of the gold, exchange it to you, and become your money. Or take all the value of 20% gold and ask everyone to unify it and make it yours.\"\n\nc. \"If anyone loses money, I can say that I will compensate 100%. I give you 100%. Whoever loses money, I will bear it.\"\n\nd. \"I can sell the H Coin in the market in one minute and get it back to my H Dollar, and back to your fiat money unit. ... [A]nd you can buy anything immediately.\"\n\n19. The initial coin offering ofHCN and HDO occurred on or about November 1, 2021. HCN began trading at 10 cents and, within approximately two weeks, the Himalaya Exchange website claimed that each HCN purportedly was worth approximately 27 HDO *(i.e.,* \\$27), which represented a 26,900% increase in value. That is, approximately two weeks after the initial coin offering, the Himalaya Exchange website indicated that HCN purportedly had an approximately \\$27 billion valuation.\n\n20. At the time of the Himalaya Exchange launch, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" the\n\ndefendant, marketed HCN to his online followers and others. For example, on or about November 1, 2021-the day of the initial coin offering-KWOK released an official music video for an original song called \"HCoin To the Moon\" via social media. The phrase \"to the moon\" is popularly associated with cryptocurrencies and implies a sharp increase in value. The music video depicted KWOK in various luxurious locations and depicted imagery of gold and wealth.\n\n21. At times, including following the Himalaya Exchange launch, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, misleadingly marketed the Himalaya Exchange. For example, in or about June 2022, JE attempted to create the impression that a €3,561,127 purchase of a Ferrari (the \"Ferrari\") from a particular auction house was completed with HDO. JE stated, in substance and in part, that he was \"extremely pleased that [a] buyer decided to purchase [a] world-class car using HDO.\" Contrary to JE' s claim, the Ferrari was not purchased using HDO. In truth and in fact, and as JE well knew, a Himalaya Exchange employee sent the auction house an international bank wire to cover the cost of the Ferrari, while also processing a corresponding \"transaction\" on the Himalaya Exchange to create the false appearance that the purchase had taken place using HDO. JE's statement was also misleading in that, among other things, the unidentified \"buyer\" of the Ferrari was, in fact, Relative-I.\n\n22. Contrary to representations of HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, HCN and HDO could not be traded anywhere other than (purportedly) on the Himalaya Exchange. Moreover, unlike cryptocurrencies, HCN could not be traded for, or converted into, other currencies. HCN purportedly could be traded for only HDO ( and only on the Himalaya Exchange), and HDO purportedly only could be converted to or from fiat currency ( and only on the Himalaya Exchange).\n\na. Indeed, the HDO and HCN Whitepapers, available on the Himalaya Exchange website, provided in fine print that, contrary to KWOK's representations, HCN and HDO were not cryptocurrencies. Rather, according to the HCN Whitepaper, the \"operation of the Himalaya Exchange and associated applications and infrastructure will be facilitated through the use of 'Credits.\"' Those credits (i) could \"only be used on the Himalaya Exchange or within the Himalaya Ecosystem,\" and (ii) did \"not carry any right to require their exchange for fiat currency or crypto-assets.\" Moreover, while Himalaya Exchange members could request to exchange their \"HDO\" credits for an equivalent payment in U.S. dollars, the HDO Whitepaper stated that the Himalaya Exchange had the \"discretion\" to deny any such request.\n\n23. In or about April 2022, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, arranged for the transfer of approximately \\$37 million in Himalaya Exchange funds from a Himalaya Exchange bank account to a particular escrow account. The \\$3 7 million was structured as a purported \"loan\" to cover the cost of a luxury yacht that KWOK had previously purchased and used, which yacht was then-owned by an entity held in the name of Relative-2.\n\n# *Government Seizure of Fraud Proceeds*\n\n24. On or about September 20, 2022 and September 21, 2022, U.S. authorities served judicially-authorized seizure warrants on several domestic banks, and subsequently seized approximately \\$335 million of proceeds from bank accounts held in the names of Himalaya Exchange entities and other entities associated with HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants. Following the September 2022 judicially authorized\n\nseizures, JE attempted to transfer approximately \\$46 million from domestic bank accounts associated with the Himalaya Exchange, which had not yet been seized by the United States, to a bank account in the UAE that JE controlled.\n\na. Within approximately two days of the first judicially authorized seizures of Himalaya Exchange-related funds, on or about September 22, 2022, JE contacted the management of a domestic bank that held Himalaya Exchange bank accounts. JE sought to implement a wire transfer, which he and a Himalaya Exchange executive claimed to the domestic bank was needed to effectuate a \"redemption\" from HDO to U.S. dollars for an unnamed \"VIP\" *(i.e.,* very important client of the Himalaya Exchange).\n\nb. In subsequent communications with the domestic bank, JE revealed that the VIP was, in fact, JE himself. JE provided the domestic bank with documents reflecting two purported HCN sales by JE on or about September 22, 2022-totaling 46 million HDO, which JE was attempting to \"convert\" into \\$46 million. JE twice emphasized to the domestic bank's management, in substance and in part, that the \\$46 million transfer needed to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\"\n\n25. On or about October 16, 2022, pursuant to a judicially authorized warrant, U.S. authorities seized an additional approximately \\$274 million of proceeds from several Himalaya Exchange and GICLUBS accounts at the domestic bank from which JE requested the \\$46 million transfer.\n\na. As a result of the judicially-authorized seizures, U.S. authorities seized more than approximately \\$634 million of fraud proceeds, including approximately \\$278 million from bank accounts held in the names of the Himalaya Exchange entities, including accounts that purported to hold its HDO cash reserves.\n\nb. Following the seizures, the Himalaya Exchange website continued to represent that HDO was backed by a \"Reserve consisting of USD and cash-equivalent assets\" when, in truth and in fact, it was not.\n\nc. Despite the seizure of the Himalaya Exchange' s cash reserves, the purported price ofHCN had not suddenly and sharply declined through the date ofthis Indictment.\n\n#### **STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS**\n\n26. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, ( 1) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; (2) securities fraud, in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff, and Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-5; (3) bank fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344; (4) international promotional money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A); and (5) international concealment money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i).\n\n27. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent\n\npretenses, representations, and promises, would and did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG agreed to obtain victims' money by causing materially false information and misrepresentations to be transmitted over interstate wires, in connection with the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, GICLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n28. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG agreed to fraudulently induce investors to participate in the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, and GICLUBS by providing materially false and misleading information and representations in connection with purported shares of GTV common stock and purported companies affiliated with GTV.\n\n2 9. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/ a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, knowingly would and did execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 20, and to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, and other property owned by, and under the custody and control of, such a financial institution, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344, to wit, KWOK, JE,,and WANG agreed to participate in a scheme to mislead U.S. financial institutions through false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and documents, in connection with the GTV Private Placement, the Farm Loan Program, GICLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange, in order to obtain money of, or under the custody and control of, at least one financial institution.\n\n30. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on specified unlawful activity, to wit, the offenses alleged in Counts Two through Eight of this Indictment in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section l 956(a)(2)(A)(i).\n\n31. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempted to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, knowing that the monetary instrument and funds involved in the transportation, transmission, and transfer represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and knowing that such transportation, transmission, and transfer is designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit, the offenses alleged in Counts Two through Eight of this Indictment, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i).\n\n#### Overt Acts\n\n32. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its illegal objects, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:\n\na. On or about April 21 , 2020, KWOK posted, and caused to be posted, a video on social media announcing the unregistered offering of GTV stock via the GTV Private Placement.\n\nb. On or about June 5, 2020, WANG, while located in the Southern District of New York, authorized a wire transfer of \\$100 million from Saraca to Fund-1.\n\nc. On or about July 22, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK promoted the Farm Loan Program.\n\nd. On or about August 2, 2020, in a video distributed via social media, KWOK stated, in substance and part, \"How much is GTV? ... a market value of 2 billion US dollars.\"\n\ne. On or about May 28, 2021 , JE transferred approximately \\$13 million from a bank account in the UAE that JE controlled to a bank account held by an entity (owned by Relative-2) at a particular bank in New York, New York.\n\nf. On or about July 30, 2021 , in a video distributed via social media, **KWOK**  stated, in substance and in part, \"Some of the comrades in arms asked, ' [ w ]ill I still get a free stock offer when I buy a G-Clubs membership?' 100%. Because I said that I have to promise that [to] anyone who buys G-Clubs membership before September 17 [they] must be allotted shares, which is exactly the same. Because we said that anyone can choose whether to use your money to buy G-Clubs before September 17, G-Clubs and the stock shares. You'll get both.\"\n\ng. On or about August 5, 2021 , JE directed the transfer of approximately \\$1.1 million consisting of funds victims had sent to GICLUBS in exchange for \"memberships\" to a bank account that JE controlled.\n\nh. On or about October 20, 2021 , in a video distributed via social media, KWOK stated, in substance and in part, that KWOK \"designed\" HCN, that \"[n]o matter how much it raises, 20% will tum into gold,\" and that \"[i]f anyone loses money\" on HCN, \"I can say that I will compensate 100%.\"\n\n1. On or about September 22, 2022, JE texted a U.S. bank's management, in substance and in part, that a \\$46 million transfer to a JE-controlled bank account in the UAE needed to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\"\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n# **COUNT TWO (Wire Fraud - GTV Private Placement)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n33 . The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n34. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021 , in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG conducted the GTV Private Placement to sell GTV stock and fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n# **COUNT THREE (Securities Fraud - GTV Private Placement)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n35. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n36. From at least in or about April 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021 , in the Southern District ofNew York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.lOb-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG conducted the GTV Private Placement to sell GTV stock and obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n# **COUNT FOUR (Wire Fraud - Farm Loan Program)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n3 7. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n38. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOW AN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted the Farm Loan Program to fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n# **COUNT FIVE (Securities Fraud-Farm Loan Program)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n39. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n40. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a security registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240. lOb-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted the Farm Loan Program to obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, including regarding, among other things, the value of GTV, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n# **COUNT SIX (Wire Fraud - GICLUBS)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n41. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n42. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOW AN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, KWOK and JE promoted and marketed GICLUBS to fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n### **COUNT SEVEN (Securities Fraud-GICLUBS)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n43. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n44. From at least in or about June 2020 up to and including at least in or about March 2021 , in the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, willfully and knowingly, directly and indirectly, by use of a means and instrumentality of interstate commerce and of the mails, and of a facility of a national securities exchange, used and employed, in connection with the purchase and sale of a\n\nsecurity registered on a national securities exchange and any security not so registered, a manipulative and deceptive device and contrivance, in violation of Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.l0b-5, by (a) employing a device, scheme and artifice to defraud; (b) making an untrue statement of material fact and omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which it was made, not misleading; and ( c) engaging in an act, practice and course of business which operated and would operate as a fraud and deceit upon a person, to wit, KWOK and JE promoted and marketed G\\CLUBS to obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, including regarding, among other things, the value of GTV, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n> (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.1 0b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n### **COUNT EIGHT (Wire Fraud-The Himalaya Exchange)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n45. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n46. From at least in or about April 2021 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HOW AN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, knowingly having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, and television communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings,\n\nsigns, signals, pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to wit, **KWOK** and JE operated the Himalaya Exchange to fraudulently obtain money from victims through false statements and misrepresentations, which scheme was furthered through electronic communications and monetary transfers to and from the Southern District of New York and elsewhere.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n#### **COUNT NINE (International Promotional Money Laundering)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n4 7. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n48. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on specified unlawful activity, to wit, **KWOK** and JE directed and made international transfers of funds into, out of, and through the United States, with the intent to promote the fraud offenses in Counts Two through Eight of the Indictment.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(A) and 2.)\n\n# **COUNT TEN (International Concealment Money Laundering)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n49. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n50. From at least in or about 2018 up to and including at least in or about March 2023, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" and KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendants, did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to transport, transmit, and transfer, a monetary instrument and funds from a place in the United States to and through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from and through a place outside the United States, knowing that the monetary instrument and funds involved in the transportation, transmission, and transfer represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, and knowing that such transportation, transmission, and transfer was designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, namely, the fraud offenses alleged in Counts Two through Eight of this Indictment, to wit, KWOK and JE conducted international financial transactions into, and out of, and through the United States involving fraud proceeds, including, among other transactions, transactions involving bank accounts held in the names of entities nominally owned by other individuals and by entities not overtly associated with the defendants, in order to conceal the ownership, control, and/or receipt of the proceeds of the fraud and the illegal nature and source of such proceeds.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) and 2.)\n\n# **COUNT ELEVEN (Unlawful Monetary Transactions)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n\\\n\n51. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n52. On or about June 5, 2020, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, within the United States, knowingly engaged and attempted to engage in a monetary transaction, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(£)(1), in criminally derived property of a value greater than \\$10,000 that was derived from specified unlawful activity, to wit, KWOK, JE, and WANG made, and directed others to make, a wire transfer of approximately \\$100 million derived from the offenses charged in Counts Two and Three to Fund-1.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.)\n\n#### **COUNT TWELVE (Obstruction of Justice)**\n\nThe Grand Jury further charges:\n\n53. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.\n\n54. From at least on or about September 20, 2022 through the date of the filing of this Indictment, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" the defendant, corruptly obstructed, influenced, and impeded an official proceeding and attempted so to do, to wit, JE attempted to transfer money to the UAE, beyond the jurisdiction of\n\nthe United States, to impede and interfere with a federal grand jury investigation in the Southern District of New York of the offenses alleged in Counts One through Eleven of this Indictment, and proceedings before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning the seizure and forfeiture of criminally derived proceeds.\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2) and 2.)\n\n#### **FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS**\n\n55. As a result of committing the offenses alleged in Counts One through Eight of this Indictment, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) and Title 28 United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all property, real and personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of proceeds traceable to the commission of said offenses and, and the following specific property:\n\na. \\$64,826.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037713 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nb. \\$75,000,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037705 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nl\n\nc. \\$467,343.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037754 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nd. \\$89,992,861.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042770 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\ne. \\$1 ,683,077.40 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042762 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nf. \\$85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\ng. \\$48,230,709.62 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090030288 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Investment Management\" Ltd., seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nh. \\$1 ,800,000.00 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090037739 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\ni. \\$85,899,889.20 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 5090042853 at Silvergate Bank held in the name of \"Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nj. \\$4,643,744.70 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000590 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\nk. \\$14,599,257.25 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 7801000254 at FV Bank held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 20, 2022;\n\n1. \\$11,538,579.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10103-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"G Club International Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\nm. \\$10,008,284.04 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBil 0133-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\nn. \\$3,090,856.54 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10137-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\no. \\$272,350,313.76 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10138-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023 ;\n\np. \\$310,594.31 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10139-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya\n\nInternational Financial Group Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023;\n\nq. \\$1 ,187,278.87 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10171-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.,\" seized by the Government between on or about October 16, 2022 and on or about March 10, 2023 ;\n\nr. \\$43,782.71 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10172-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"G Fashion International Limited,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\ns. \\$161 ,809.47 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number MBI10183-0000 at Mercantile Bank International held in the name of \"Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.,\" seized by the Government on or about October 16, 2022;\n\nt. \\$2,745,377.75 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 9878904409 at Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. held in the name of \"GETTR USA, Inc.,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nu. \\$9,899,659.19 in United States currency formerly on deposit in Account Number 157525208185 at US Bank held in the name of \"G Fashion,\" seized by the Government on or about September 18, 2022;\n\nv. All that lot or parcel of land, together with its buildings, appurtenances, improvements, fixtures, attachments, and easements, located at 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430, Parcel No. 3300021-03-00001-02 and described as Lot Number: 1.02 Block: 21.03 District: 33 City, Municipality, Township: MAHWAH TWP\n\nw. A Bugatti Chiron Super Sport, bearing Vehicle Identification Number VF9SW3V3XNM795047;\n\nx. A Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roads, bearing Vehicle Identification Number ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393;\n\ny. A Rolls Royce Phantom EWB, bearing Vehicle Identification Number SCA TT8C08MU206445;\n\nz. A 46m 2014 Feadship superyacht \"Lady May\" (ex Como), bearing IMO Number 112359, MMSI Number 319059500, and Callsign ZGDQ9;\n\naa. A Bosendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539 piano with custom bench, purchased for approximately \\$140,938.69;\n\nbb. A Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon Bed with Nightstands, Ebony Veneer, Brass, Velvet, purchased for approximately \\$31,413.71;\n\ncc. A Hastens 2000T md mattress, purchased for approximately \\$36,590.00;\n\ndd. A Hastens 2000T sf mattress, purchased for approximately \\$36,210.00;\n\nee. A Wembe watch storage box, purchased for approximately \\$59,392.91;\n\nff. A Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98\" QLED Smart TV - 8K, purchased for approximately \\$62,787.54;\n\ngg. A Louis XV Style French Ormolu-Mounted Mahogany Commode by Joseph Emmanuel Zweiner;\n\nhh. A \"K'ang Hsi\" extension table in etched and patinated pewter and bronze with hand-painted enamel colors by Philip & Kelvin La Verne, purchased for approximately \\$180,000.00; and\n\nii. A \"Punto '83\" table in stainless steel with mesh tabletop with adjustable height and adjustable petals by Gabriella Crespi, Italy 1982, purchased for approximately \\$180,000.00.\n\n(a) through (ii), collectively, the \"Specific Property.\"\n\n56. As a result of committing the money laundering offenses alleged in Counts One, Nine, Ten and Eleven of this Indictment, HO WAN KWOK, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" a/k/a \"Miles Kwok,\" a/k/a \"Guo Wengui,\" a/k/a \"Brother Seven,\" a/k/a \"The Principal,\" KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and Y ANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\" the defendants, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(l), any and all property, real and personal, involved in said offense, or any property traceable to such property, including but not limited to a sum of money in United States currency representing the amount of property involved in said offense and the Specific Property.\n\n#### **Substitute Assets Provision**\n\n57. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:\n\n- a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;\n- b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;\n- c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;\n- d. has been substantially diminished in value; or\n\ne. has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty;\n\nit is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21 , United States Code, Section 853(p) and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c ), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property.\n\n> (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981 and 982; Title 21 , United States Code, Section 853; and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.)\n\n\\\n\n- J:k--;\\_~\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\ns\\,)''f eQ. ¼~ )~(,... ~' **L\\..** 1 ..)\\_ND\"! CT°M <c:.N1 *!50*\n\n# **Exhibit 6**\n\n[Filed Under Seal]\n\n# **Exhibit 7**\n\n![](_page_167_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*United States Attorney Southern District of New York*\n\n*The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007*\n\nApril 28, 2023\n\n**BY ECF**\n\nThe Honorable Paul G. Gardephe United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007\n\nRe: *Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ho Wan Kwok et al.*, 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG)\n\nDear Judge Gardephe:\n\nPursuant to Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, the Government respectfully submits this letter seeking to intervene in the above-captioned case (the \"SEC Civil Action\") in order to seek a complete stay of this matter until the completion of the trial or other disposition in a parallel criminal case, *United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al.*, S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (the \"Criminal Case\"). The Criminal Case arises from the same operative facts as this proceeding. Defendants Ho Wan Kwok and G Club Operations LLC, and Relief Defendant Mei Guo, consent to a complete stay of the SEC Civil Action, 1 and the SEC takes no position. An initial conference in this matter is currently set to take place on June 15, 2023 at 11:00 a.m.\n\nIf this case were to proceed, there would be a risk of significant interference with the Criminal Case. A complete stay would prejudice no party that has appeared in the SEC Civil Action; would prevent the circumvention of important statutory limitations on criminal discovery; and would preserve the Court's resources, because many of the issues presented by the SEC Civil Action may be resolved in the Criminal Case. In these and similar circumstances, courts in this Circuit frequently grant stays of parallel civil proceedings. *See, e.g.*, *S.E.C. v. El-Khouri*, No. 19 Civ. 9744 (LAP), 2021 WL 601652 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2021); *S.E.C. v. Carroll*, No. 19 Civ. 7199 (AT), 2020 WL 1272287 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2020); *SEC v. Wey*, 15 Civ. 7116 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016); *SEC v. Durante et al.*, 15 Civ. 9874 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016); *SEC v. Shkreli, et al.*, 15 Civ. 7175 (KAM), 2016 WL 1122029, at \\*2-7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2016); *SEC v. One or More Unknown Purchasers of Securities of Global Indus., Ltd.*, No. 11 Civ. 6500 (RA), 2012 WL 5505738, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2012).\n\n<sup>1</sup> Defendant Kin Ming Je (a/k/a \"William Je\") has not yet appeared in this case; counsel for Je advised that Je takes no position on the Government's request. Defendant Mountains of Spices LLC (d/b/a \"New York Farm\") would oppose a stay on discovery, because it indicated that it intends to move to \"sever\" itself as a defendant, but it noted that—should the Court be inclined to issue a stay—Mountains of Spices would request a complete stay. Relief Defendants Qiang Guo (a/k/a \"Mileson Guo\"), Hing Chi Ngok, and Sin Ting Rong have not yet appeared in this case.\n\n# **Background**\n\nThe parallel Criminal Case arises out of the same underlying events as this action. On March 15, 2023, the original Indictment in the Criminal Case was unsealed, charging Ho Wan Kwok and Kin Ming Je with, *inter alia*, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering; wire fraud; securities fraud; and money laundering; arising from their operation of a scheme to defraud thousands of victims of more than \\$1 billion using a series of complex fraudulent businesses and fictitious investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated entities controlled by Kwok. Kwok was arrested by the FBI on March 15, 2023; Je remains at large and is believed to be in the United Arab Emirates. Also on March 15, 2023, the SEC filed the SEC Civil Action against Kwok and Je (among others).\n\nAs alleged in both the Criminal Case and the SEC Civil Action, from at least in or about April 2020 through March 2023, Kwok and Je engaged in scheme to defraud investors in the United States and throughout the world through fraudulent investment opportunities involving interrelated entities, which allowed Kwok, Je, and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and misappropriate victim funds. (S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT), Dkt. 19 (\"Indict.\") ¶¶ 1-5; 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG), Dkt. 1 (\"Compl.\") ¶¶ 1, 2). Both the Criminal Case and the SEC Civil Action allege the following:\n\n- Kwok and Je launched an unregistered offering of common stock in a media company that Kwok founded called GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\"), which raised approximately \\$452 million. (Indict. ¶¶ 10, 13; Compl. ¶¶ 3, 54.) Both cases further allege that Kwok and Je claimed that the GTV private placement funds would be used for GTV's operations and business development, but that Kwok and Je instead misappropriated the investor funds, including through a \\$100 million transfer for the benefit of a company owned by Qiang Guo. (Indict. ¶¶ 13, 32; Compl. ¶¶ 3, 40-41, 45-46, 48, 56.)\n- Kwok solicited further investments in GTV common stock through a convertible loan program operated by the so-called Himalaya Farm Alliance, a collective comprised of informal groups of Chinese expatriates purportedly dedicated to advancing the Chinese pro-democracy movement. (Indict. ¶ 14; Compl. ¶ 78.) Both cases further allege that Kwok and Je misappropriated a substantial portion of the more than \\$150 million raised through the convertible loan program for their and their families' benefit. (Indict. ¶ 14; Compl. ¶¶ 83, 86-93.)\n- Kwok solicited investment in a purported membership concierge service called G|CLUBS (or G Club Operations LLC) and that Kwok represented that purchasing a G|CLUBS membership would entitle the purchaser to shares of GTV or G|Fashion stock. (Indict. ¶ 15; Compl. ¶¶ 94-96, 134.) Both cases further allege that G Club Operations LLC sold at least \\$250 million in G|CLUBS memberships to investors, much of which Kwok misappropriated for the purchase of, among other item, luxury automobiles and a \\$26.5 million mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey for the benefit of Kwok and his family. (Indict. ¶¶ 15-16; Compl. ¶¶ 98, 104.)\n- Kwok made false and misleading statements to investors regarding GTV's valuation and the trading price of GTV stock. (Indict. ¶¶ 14; Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 74, 94.)\n\nof 200\n\n• Kwok and Je solicited investment in fraudulent cryptocurrency through the Himalaya Exchange, a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" that offered a purported trading coin (Himalaya Coin, or HCN) and a purported stablecoin (Himalaya Dollar, or HDO). (Indict. ¶¶ 17-21; Compl. ¶¶ 107-113.) Both cases further allege that Kwok and Je fraudulently obtained more than \\$260 million in investor funds through the Himalaya Exchange. (Indict. ¶ 17; Compl. ¶ 127.)\n\n#### **Legal Standards**\n\nRule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (\"FRCP\") provides for the intervention of parties in civil lawsuits either by right or by permission of the court. \"[C]ourts in this Circuit have routinely allowed federal or state prosecutors to intervene in civil litigation in order to seek a stay of discovery.\" *SEC v. Treadway*, No. 04 Civ. 3464 (VM), 2005 WL 713826, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2005).\n\nThis Court has the inherent power to stay a civil proceeding in the interests of justice pending the completion of the parallel criminal trial. *See Kashi v. Gratsos*, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986) (\"[A] court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings . . . when the interests of justice seem . . . to require such action.\") (internal citations and quotations omitted). \"'[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.'\" *Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc.*, 676 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting *Landis v. N. Am. Co.*, 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In evaluating whether to grant such a stay, courts in this Circuit consider: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; (2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (5) the interest of the court; and (6) the public interest. *Treadway*, 2005 WL 713826, at \\*2-\\*3 (quoting *In re Worldcom, Inc. Secs. Litig.*, 2002 WL 31729501, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002)); *see also Volmar Distrib., Inc. v. New York Post Co.*, 152 F.R.D. 36, 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). \"Balancing these factors is a case-by-case determination.\" *Volmar Distrib.*, 152 F.R.D. at 39. Application of each of these factors here weighs in favor of the stay sought by the Government, with defendant Kwok's consent.\n\n#### **Argument**\n\nThe Government should be permitted to intervene under FRCP 24(b) because the Criminal Case involves claims and defenses that share common questions of law and fact with this case. Given the effect that this civil proceeding would have on the Criminal Case and the similarity of claims and facts between the parallel proceedings, the Government respectfully submits that its application would satisfy both the standard for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) and permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2).\n\nThe Court should also grant the motion seeking to stay discovery in this case, for the reasons outlined below.\n\nof 200\n\n# 1. The Extent of Overlap\n\nThe Criminal Case and the SEC Civil Action involve nearly identical facts and issues, weighing heavily in favor of a stay. \"Courts have consistently recognized [the overlap of issues] as a particularly significant factor.\" *Shkreli*, 2016 WL 1122029, at \\*4. *See, e.g.*, *Volmar Distrib.*, 152 F.R.D. at 39; *Parker v. Dawson*, 2007 WL 2462677, at \\*4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2007) (same). Here, as described above, the Criminal Case and this case involve the same scheme involving the same entities (GTV, the Himalaya Farm Alliance convertible loan program, G|CLUBS, and the Himalaya Exchange), and similar facts, witnesses, and issues.\n\n# 2. The Status of the Criminal Case\n\nThe status of the criminal case also weighs in favor of a stay. The defendant Kwok has already been indicted and the Government will produce voluminous Rule 16 discovery upon entry of a protective order. \"The weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment.\" *In re Par Pharm., Inc. Secs. Litig.*, 133 F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). As the Court explained in *Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund, et al. v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc.*: \"A stay of a civil case is most appropriate when a party to the civil case has already been indicted for the same conduct for two reasons: first, the likelihood that a defendant may make incriminating statements is greatest after an indictment has issued, and second, the prejudice to the plaintiffs in the civil case is reduced since the criminal case will likely be quickly resolved.\" 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); *see SEC v. Tuzman*, No. 15 Civ. 7057 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2016), Dkt. No. 43 at 3 (noting that an indictment normally weighs heavily in favor of a stay absent particular facts indicting that the criminal case may not be resolved expeditiously); *Shkreli*, 2016 WL 1122029, at \\*4.\n\n# 3. The Plaintiff's Interests\n\nThe SEC has indicated that it takes no position on a stay. Therefore, there can be no argument that there would be prejudice to the plaintiff by staying this action. *See Shkreli*, 2016 WL 1122029, at \\*5 (citing cases).\n\n# 4. The Defendants' Interests\n\nAs noted above, Kwok and G Club Operations consent through counsel to a complete stay of this action. Moreover, a stay will prevent Kwok (who is a defendant in the Criminal Case) from having to choose between asserting his Fifth Amendment rights during civil discovery and thereby being prejudiced in the SEC Civil Action or asserting those rights and thereby being prejudiced in the Criminal Case. *See Shkreli*, 2016 WL 1122029, at \\*3 n. 3 (\"[C]riminal defendants frequently seek stays in parallel civil enforcement proceedings, often due to an adverse inference that can arise from a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.\"). Accordingly, the defendants will not be prejudiced by a stay.\n\n# 5. The Court's Interests\n\nConsiderations of judicial economy also weigh in favor of granting a stay. Issues common to both cases can be resolved in the Criminal Case, thereby simplifying and streamlining the SEC Civil Action. *See SEC v. Abraaj Inv. Mgmt. Ltd.*, No. 19 Civ. 3244 (AJN), 2019 WL 6498282, at\n\nof 200\n\n\\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2019) (\"A stay of the civil action while the criminal case moves forward would avoid a duplication of efforts and a waste of judicial time and resources.\") (internal quotation and citation omitted); *SEC v. Contorinis*, 2012 WL 512626, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) (\"Courts in this district have consistently found that a defendant convicted of securities fraud in a criminal proceeding is collaterally estopped from relitigating the underlying facts in a subsequent civil proceeding.\"); *SEC v. One or More Unknown Purchasers of Secs. of Global Indus.*, 2012 WL 5505738, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2012) (\"[T]he Civil Case is likely to benefit to some extent from the Criminal Case no matter its outcome.\").\n\n# 6. The Public Interest\n\nThe Government and the public have an important interest in ensuring that civil discovery is not used to circumvent the restrictions that pertain to criminal discovery. Courts recognize this as an important factor that weighs in favor of a stay of parallel civil proceedings. *See, e.g., SEC v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC*, 2003 WL 554618, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2003) (in context of request for civil stay of discovery due to pending criminal investigation, \"[t]he principal concern with respect to prejudicing the government's criminal investigation is that its targets might abuse civil discovery to circumvent limitations on discovery in criminal cases\"); *Phillip Morris Inc. v. Heinrich*, 1996 WL 363156, at \\*19 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996) (without a stay, defendants \"may have an opportunity to gain evidence to which they are not entitled under criminal discovery rules\"); *SEC v. Town of Ramapo*, No. 16 Civ. 2779 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2016), Dkt. 90 at 38 (\"There's a public interest in criminal defendants not gaining discovery via a civil case that they wouldn't otherwise have because of the obvious risk that evidence or testimony could be tailored . . . . Congress passed the Jencks Act and it passed Section 3500 because it was concerned generally about that problem in every case. And the rationale behind the Jencks Act would be undermined if criminal defendants would use the civil process to gain information to which they would not otherwise be entitled.\").\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the Government should be permitted to intervene in this case, and the Court should stay this proceeding until the resolution of the Criminal Case.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney\n\nBy:\n\n Juliana N. Murray Ryan B. Finkel Micah F. Fergenson Assistant United States Attorneys (212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\nCc: All Counsel of Record (by ECF)\n\n# **Exhibit 8**\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n|    | 848                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |\n| 1  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |  |  |  |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Overrule your objection.<br>Continue,                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |\n| 3  | counsel.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | BY MR. WACHEN:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Q.<br>So --                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |  |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>I don't know if there -- I think you                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 7  | answered that question?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |  |  |  |\n| 8  | MR. WACHEN:<br>Did --                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |\n| 9  | THE WITNESS:<br>Thank you.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |\n| 10 | MR. WACHEN:<br>-- did you finish your answer?                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah, I think that -- that answer,                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |\n| 12 | you're done, you should ask another question.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |\n| 13 | MR. WACHEN:<br>Okay.<br>Yeah.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |  |  |  |\n| 14 | BY MR. WACHEN:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q.<br>And what was your response to having received that                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | email with a proposed agreement?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |\n| 17 | A.<br>We decided to -- that we were -- we were sitting                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n| 18 | and listening.<br>And if -- you know, and we would comply with                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |\n| 19 | the agreement, and we were going to sit and listen, even                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | though there were numerous red flags.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Q.<br>And the meeting was on the 17th of November,                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |\n| 22 | right?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A.<br>Correct, November 17th.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Q.<br>And who was at the meeting?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |\n| 25 | A.<br>So the was me, Aaron Mitchell, Nicholas Bassett,                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n|    | 849                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |\n| 1  | the Trustee, my client Mr. Kwok, and a translator.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Where was it?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |\n| 3  | A.<br>It was at Brown Rudnick.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |\n| 4  | Q.<br>In New York City, right?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |\n| 5  | A.<br>In New York City, I'm sorry.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Did you take notes during the meeting?                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 7  | A.<br>I did.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |\n| 8  | Q.<br>Do you still have those notes?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |  |\n| 9  | A.<br>I do.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |\n| 10 | Q.<br>And how did the meeting proceed?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Your Honor, I'm going to object                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 12 | to -- as we objected --                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |  |  |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>We can't hear you, Mr. Bassett.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:<br>I apologize.<br>For the record, Your                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |  |  |\n| 15 | Honor, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |\n| 16 | trustee.<br>I'm going to raise the same objection that I raised                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 17 | last week, when counsel attempted to inquire into the                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  |  |\n| 18 | substance of the meeting that occurred on the 17th.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |\n| 19 | Not only has counsel established that it took                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |\n| 20 | place for the purpose of having settlement discussions, but                                                                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |\n| 21 | counsel has now acknowledged that he and everyone else in                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |\n| 22 | attendance signed an NDA agreeing not to disclose the content                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |\n| 23 | of the meeting.<br>I think it's entirely inappropriate for them                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |\n| 24 | to disregard that all together, and to use it for a purpose                                                                                                                                                                                                               |  |  |\n| 25 | that suits their position in this matter.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |\n\n| of 200 |\n|--------|\n|        |\n\n| 1  | Mr. Despins say at the meeting, and he's getting a narrative    |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | response and is presumably is going to describe the entire      |\n| 3  | meeting, I don't see how that could possibly be consistent      |\n| 4  | with the ruling Your Honor just gave.                           |\n| 5  | MR. WACHEN:<br>Well --                                          |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Wachen, you need to ask the                   |\n| 7  | question about -- maybe the way to ask it is to say, Mr.        |\n| 8  | Despins testified that he said X, is that what you heard Mr.    |\n| 9  | Despins say?                                                    |\n| 10 | MR. WACHEN:<br>Well, unfortunately, Your Honor, I               |\n| 11 | don't have Mr. Despins testimony in front --                    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>I understand, but you've got notes,               |\n| 13 | you know what -- you asked the questions, you know what --      |\n| 14 | you know what he said.<br>In general you know what he said.     |\n| 15 | MR. WACHEN:<br>I know what he said in general, yes.             |\n| 16 | Okay.                                                           |\n| 17 | BY MR. WACHEN:                                                  |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Did Mr. Despins mention Al Capone at the meeting?         |\n| 19 | A.<br>He did.                                                   |\n| 20 | Q.<br>And what did he say about Al Capone?                      |\n| 21 | A.<br>He said was that -- he asked my -- Mr. Kwok if he         |\n| 22 | knew who Al Capone was, the gangster.<br>And he said, you know, |\n| 23 | he went to jail for tax evasion.<br>And there was a series of   |\n| 24 | statements that that led to by the Trustee.<br>The first, with  |\n| 25 | respect to the whole implied tax issue, was to state that he    |\n\nof 200\n\n863\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 knows that there's this theory -- the -- he, meaning the Trustee -- knows that there's this theory that the friends and supporters of Mr. Kwok are supporting him financially. And then, he said, I hope that they, or you, have declared that in the United States. He then proceeded to say that you, Miles, are - have stated proudly that you have earned \\$500,000 of consulting fees from one of these companies. And again, he said, you know, I assume that you've paid income tax or\n\n10 11 12 you've declared that. He immediately made the point that I speak to the IRS and the SEC on a weekly basis, and you better settle because soon it's going to be too late.\n\n13 14 15 And so, that, among other statements that were made by the Trustee -- we were perceiving that as, you know, the threatening, intimidating behavior on his part.\n\n16 17 Q. Did he -- did he say at some point at the meeting, pay me \\$250 million?\n\n18 19 20 21 A. Yes, he said, pay me \\$250 million. Just to -- in terms of the proposal, he described the proposal as -- to Miles, you know, you keep the UBS claim, you keep the share --\n\n22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Hold on, stop. I said I didn't want to hear about the terms and conditions of a settlement, so I don't want to hear that. That's not where we're going. MR. WACHEN: Okay, Your Honor.\n\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n|               | of 200<br>866                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1             | Q.<br>And what was -- what was your reaction to his                                                                                                                                                                                            |  |  |  |  |\n| 2             | request to pay him \\$250 million?<br>Without -- without going                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3             | into the terms of a proposal?                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4             | A.<br>Livid.<br>I was very upset, distraught.                                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5             | Q.<br>And why was that?                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 6             | A.<br>It deviated greatly from what was -- what I                                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |  |\n| 7             | believed a global settlement that was nearly imminent the day                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8             | before.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |  |  |  |  |\n| 9             | Q.<br>And do you know how Mr. Kwok perceived that                                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |  |\n| 10            | statement by Mr. Despins, pay me \\$250 million?                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n| 11            | MR. BASSETT:<br>Objection.<br>Calls for speculation.                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 12            | Calls for hearsay.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |\n| 13            | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 14            | BY MR. WACHEN:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 15            | Q.<br>At some point, did you respond to Mr. Despins in                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |\n| 16            | his -- in his statement, pay me \\$250 million?                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 17            | A.<br>Yes, I did.<br>There was two phases.<br>There was one                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 18            | in the presence of everyone, and then there was a separate,                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 19            | where I came back into the conference room, after showing my                                                                                                                                                                                   |  |  |  |  |\n| 20            | client, and the translator, and Attorney Mitchell out and had                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21            | a response.<br>So --                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 22            | Q.<br>Let's take them one at a time.                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |  |\n| 23            | A.<br>Okay.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |  |\n| 24            | Q.<br>So what did you say in the room when everybody was                                                                                                                                                                                       |  |  |  |  |\n| 25            | there?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |  |\n|               |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |  |  |  |\n\nof 200\n\n| 1  | A.<br>So my immediate response was -- I actually                |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | responded to the threat that the Trustee was going to lock      |\n| 3  | Mr. Kwok out of his apartment.<br>That was the first response I |\n| 4  | had, which came right after the \\$250 million demand.<br>And I  |\n| 5  | told him that that was illegal, he couldn't do that.<br>And he  |\n| 6  | said he was going to do it.                                     |\n| 7  | But then, I accused him of -- I said it was                     |\n| 8  | outrageous, there was no legitimate basis for it, you know,     |\n| 9  | and at some point, I said that it was extortion.<br>I either    |\n| 10 | said that with everybody or separately after I had shown out    |\n| 11 | those other individuals and confronted Nick and Luc.            |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Okay.<br>So at some point the other -- Mr. Kwok, the      |\n| 13 | translator, Mr. Mitchell left?                                  |\n| 14 | A.<br>Right.<br>I showed them out at the door, and I            |\n| 15 | decided to go back and confront Attorney Bassett and the        |\n| 16 | Trustee.                                                        |\n| 17 | Q.<br>And what -- what did you say at that point?               |\n| 18 | A.<br>So I -- as I said, again, it was a lot of -- I            |\n| 19 | mean, I was very upset because again, I thought we were there   |\n| 20 | after months and months, and he was blowing it all up.<br>And   |\n| 21 | at one point I said that Miles -- and when I said Miles, I'm    |\n| 22 | referring to his -- the support that he gets.<br>I said, Miles  |\n| 23 | is never going to pay the \\$250 million, and the Trustee said,  |\n| 24 | he will when he's about to go to jail.                          |\n| 25 | Q.<br>And you stated that you thought that this was             |\n\n# **Exhibit 9**\n\nHO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\*\n\n\\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\*\n\n|       | of 200                                                                           |  |\n|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|       | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |  |\n| In Re | *<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)<br>*                                                |  |\n\n| HOLDINGS CORPORATION,           | * |                         |              |\n|---------------------------------|---|-------------------------|--------------|\n|                                 | * |                         |              |\n| Debtor.                         | * |                         |              |\n|                                 |   |                         |              |\n|                                 | * |                         |              |\n| GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, et al., * |   | Adv. Proc.              | No. 23-05002 |\n|                                 | * |                         |              |\n| Plaintiffs,                     | * |                         |              |\n| v.                              | * | Bridgeport, Connecticut |              |\n|                                 | * | May 2, 2023             |              |\n|                                 | * |                         |              |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,            | * |                         |              |\n|                                 | * |                         |              |\n| Defendants.                     | * |                         |              |\n|                                 | * |                         |              |\n|                                 |   |                         |              |\n\n#### TRANSCRIPT OF\n\n| #1362                                         | MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH BK RULE 2004       |  |  |  |\n|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n|                                               | SUBPOENA BY UBS AG                                  |  |  |  |\n| #1495                                         | INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION OF CHAPT. 11   |  |  |  |\n|                                               | TRUSTEE AND HIS COUNSEL, PAUL HASTINGS, LLP, FOR    |  |  |  |\n|                                               | REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD FROM       |  |  |  |\n|                                               | JULY 8, 2022 THROUGH OCTOBER, 2022                  |  |  |  |\n| #1669                                         | APPLICATION TO EMPLOY ENGINEERING OPERATIONS AND    |  |  |  |\n|                                               | CERTIFICATION SERVICES, LLC AS EXPERT/CONSULTANT    |  |  |  |\n| #1674                                         | INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION/ALLOWANCE      |  |  |  |\n|                                               | AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES FOR NEUBERT, PEPE    |  |  |  |\n|                                               | AND MONTEITH                                        |  |  |  |\n| #1704                                         | AMENDED ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE             |  |  |  |\n|                                               | PRETRIAL CONFERENCE #1 COMPLAINT 91(DECLARATORY     |  |  |  |\n|                                               | JUDGMENT)                                           |  |  |  |\n|                                               | BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING               |  |  |  |\n|                                               | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE                      |  |  |  |\n|                                               |                                                     |  |  |  |\n|                                               |                                                     |  |  |  |\n|                                               |                                                     |  |  |  |\n|                                               | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, |  |  |  |\n| transcript produced by transcription service. |                                                     |  |  |  |\n|                                               |                                                     |  |  |  |\n|                                               |                                                     |  |  |  |\n|                                               |                                                     |  |  |  |\n|                                               |                                                     |  |  |  |\n\n **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023<br>12                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 1  | transcript is very clear as to what transpired and what the                                                                                                                                                                                                               |\n| 2  | agreement was.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |\n| 3  | I, you know, don't want to do that -- you know,                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 4  | spend too much of the Court's time, but starting on page 113                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n| 5  | of the transcript, lines 10 through 15.<br>Mr. Best --                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Give me a second to get there, please.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.<br>Sorry.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>113?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yeah.<br>113.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Lines what?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>10 through 15.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go ahead.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>This is Mr. Best addressing the                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 14 | Court.<br>\"What they<br>-- what the problem which we need to                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n| 15 | figure out is the Southern District has a protective order                                                                                                                                                                                                                |\n| 16 | or the use of that information.<br>I don't know how that can                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n| 17 | be worked out with Your Honor and with counsel, but that                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |\n| 18 | will come up whether it's directly to the Department of                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |\n| 19 | Justice or through us, meaning that they would produce,                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |\n| 20 | they, the defendant, would produce to us documents.\"<br>So                                                                                                                                                                                                                |\n| 21 | that's the teeing up of the issue.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| 22 | Then I go next to page 123, lines 7 through 14. So                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| 23 | page 123, lines 17 through 14.<br>This is where I address the                                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| 24 | court, and I said, \"But the defendant, he has standing in                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 25 | that court to say you know what, Judge -- criminal judge, we                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n\n|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|---------------------------|\n|                                |                                                 |                                                    |                                                                          |             |                           |\n\n|    | of 200                                                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023<br>13                                |\n| 1  | would like a modification to the protective order, and that    |\n| 2  | modification would be that we,\" this is again the defendant,   |\n| 3  | \"can provide to the Trustee, Chapter 11 Trustee, copies of     |\n| 4  | the documents that the Government gave us or gives us.<br>This |\n| 5  | court, Your Honor, could direct the debtor to seek such a      |\n| 6  | modification of the protective order.<br>This is my proposal.\" |\n| 7  | Then page 139, lines 7 through 19. So page 139,                |\n| 8  | lines 7 through 19.<br>Again, Mr. Best addressing the Court.   |\n| 9  | And it's more lines 13 through 19.<br>\"But we are in agreement |\n| 10 | in principle that's subject to the U.S. Department of          |\n| 11 | Justice and really most importantly the District Court Judge   |\n| 12 | agreeing to the disclosure of it.<br>I'm sure with many        |\n| 13 | limitations or qualifications that we won't stand in the way   |\n| 14 | of that.<br>The discussion really is what's the best way?      |\n| 15 | How's the best way to accomplish that?\"                        |\n| 16 | Then page 140, lines 4 through 6.<br>Again, Mr. Best           |\n| 17 | addressing the Court.<br>\"There's a concern from the U.S.      |\n\n Trustee's counsel,\" I guess that's a misnomer, it was -- is the Trustee's counsel, that they don't have standing in the Southern District for the subpoena. I don't care how we get home. There are multiple ways of doing that.\"\n\n And then lower down on that page, still page 140, lines 20 to 23. Again, Mr. Best. \"And so I want the help - - to help the Court explore this and then help the Court in fashioning an order that -- or a ruling or you don't -- or\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023<br>14                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 1  | you don't -- I mean, I don't even know if you need to assure                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n| 2  | ruling, but I'd like clarity on the way forward.\"                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |\n| 3  | And then page 141, lines 10 through 15.<br>This is                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| 4  | where I address the court and I say, \"And so what should                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |\n| 5  | happen is that I think the Court,\" meaning Your Honor,                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |\n| 6  | \"should enter an order saying that the debtor is directed to                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n| 7  | seek a modification of any applicable protective order in                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 8  | the criminal case to allow the Chapter 11 Trustee access to                                                                                                                                                                                                               |\n| 9  | the document produced by the Government to the debtor.\"                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |\n| 10 | Couldn't be clearer.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |\n| 11 | Then on page 143, or sorry, the bottom of 142,                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |\n| 12 | line 25, and the top of 143, lines 1 and 2.<br>Mr. Best, \"I'm                                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| 13 | fine with counsel proposing a draft order that we look at                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 14 | and get to Your Honor if that's the easiest way of doing                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |\n| 15 | it.\"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |\n| 16 | And then on lines, same page, 143, lines 7 through                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| 17 | 9.<br>\"So that I think there's an agreement to be -- to abide                                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| 18 | by.<br>If the Southern District allows to use the information                                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| 19 | subject to a protective order, them being part of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |\n| 20 | protective order.<br>There's no mention that it has to come                                                                                                                                                                                                               |\n| 21 | directly from the Department of Justice to us.\"                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 22 | Then, even the Court, although that was cut off,                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |\n| 23 | this is on page 146, I was trying to correct the statement                                                                                                                                                                                                                |\n| 24 | that had been made, but on top of 146, it says the Court,                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 25 | \"The debtor will seek, but then share with you,\" meaning                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |\n\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023<br>15                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 1  | with the Trustee, once their -- once their -- it's not --                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 2  | it's cut off because Your Honor's -- I said \"correct\".<br>But                                                                                                                                                                                                             |\n| 3  | basically what you were saying is that once they get the                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |\n| 4  | documents from the DOJ they'll share with you, the Trustee.                                                                                                                                                                                                               |\n| 5  | Page 149, lines 9 through 11.<br>I believe this is                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |\n| 6  | the Court, nope, yeah, it is the Court.<br>\"There's an                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |\n| 7  | agreement.<br>We're going to proceed with that agreement.<br>I'm                                                                                                                                                                                                          |\n| 8  | going to hold Mr. Best and Mr. Despins to that agreement.\"                                                                                                                                                                                                                |\n| 9  | Then I go to page 149, 14 through 18.<br>\"The Court:                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |\n| 10 | All I would say about what you just said is that when you                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 11 | say see your client, I understand -- I understand you have                                                                                                                                                                                                                |\n| 12 | to see your client.<br>But you've agreed that your client's                                                                                                                                                                                                               |\n| 13 | not going to oppose this.<br>Mr. Best:<br>I agree.\"                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |\n| 14 | And so that's all I would cover, Your Honor.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n| 15 | There was never any discussion by Mr. Best saying, oh, we                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 16 | can't, we can't turn over anything to them, it has to come                                                                                                                                                                                                                |\n| 17 | from the Department of Justice directly to the Trustee.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |\n| 18 | The reason they're proposing that, Your Honor, I                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |\n| 19 | want to be very direct about this, is because that would                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |\n| 20 | never happen.<br>The DOJ is never going to produce anything to                                                                                                                                                                                                            |\n| 21 | us.<br>We don't exist in their court.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |\n| 22 | So they're proposing something that essentially                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n| 23 | defeats what we're trying to do, when, in fact, you know,                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |\n| 24 | they said, oh, we have no problems with getting you the                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |\n| 25 | documents.<br>You just need to get them from the DOJ.<br>But                                                                                                                                                                                                              |\n|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# **Exhibit 10**\n\nof 200\n\n|                                                                                                                                                                                        | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT<br>BRIDGEPORT DIVISION                                                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| In Re                                                                                                                                                                                  | *<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |  |  |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER<br>HOLDINGS CORPORATION,                                                                                                                                       | *<br>*<br>*<br>*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  |  |  |\n| Debtor.                                                                                                                                                                                | *                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,                                                                                                                                                                        | *<br>Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017<br>*                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |  |  |\n| Plaintiff,                                                                                                                                                                             | *<br>Bridgeport, Connecticut<br>*<br>August 14, 2023<br>*                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |\n| v.                                                                                                                                                                                     | *<br>*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n| TAURUS FUND, LLC, et al.,                                                                                                                                                              | *<br>*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n| Defendants.                                                                                                                                                                            | *<br>*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |  |  |  |\n| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                                                                                                                                                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |\n| TRANSCRIPT OF EX PARTE MOTION FOR<br>TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION<br>BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING<br>UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE<br>APPEARANCES: |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |\n| For the Plaintiff:                                                                                                                                                                     | NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.<br>AVRAM E. LUFT, ESQ.<br>Paul Hastings, LLP<br>200 Park Avenue<br>New York, NY<br>10166<br>DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ.<br>DENNIS M. CARNELLI, ESQ.<br>Neubert Pepe & Monteith, P.C.<br>195 Church Street<br>New Haven, CT<br>06510 |  |  |  |\n| Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript<br>produced by transcription service.                                                                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |\n| Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.<br>4 Research Drive, Suite 402<br>Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992                                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |  |  |\n\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n|                                                                                                                                                                               | Luc Despins - Direct - Bassett<br>85                          |  |  |  |\n| 1                                                                                                                                                                             | exhibit binder to what is marked as Trustee Exhibit 13.       |  |  |  |\n| 2                                                                                                                                                                             | MR. BASSETT:<br>And if we could similarly have the            |  |  |  |\n| 3                                                                                                                                                                             | courtroom deputy please pull that exhibit up on the screen,   |  |  |  |\n| 4                                                                                                                                                                             | that would be much appreciated.<br>Please scroll up to the    |  |  |  |\n| 5                                                                                                                                                                             | first page.<br>Thank you.<br>Thank you.<br>And go back to the |  |  |  |\n| 6                                                                                                                                                                             | other page.                                                   |  |  |  |\n| 7                                                                                                                                                                             | BY MR. BASSETT:                                               |  |  |  |\n| 8                                                                                                                                                                             | Q<br>Trustee Despins, do you recognize what appears here as   |  |  |  |\n| 9                                                                                                                                                                             | Trustee Exhibit 13?                                           |  |  |  |\n| 10                                                                                                                                                                            | A<br>Yes, I do.                                               |  |  |  |\n| 11                                                                                                                                                                            | Q<br>What do you understand this to be?                       |  |  |  |\n| 12                                                                                                                                                                            | A<br>It's the inside pocket of one of I believe 29 suits      |  |  |  |\n| 13                                                                                                                                                                            | that were found by the FBI when they did the search,          |  |  |  |\n| 14                                                                                                                                                                            | executed search warrant, at the Mahwah mansion on March       |  |  |  |\n| 15                                                                                                                                                                            | 15th.                                                         |  |  |  |\n| 16                                                                                                                                                                            | Q<br>How did you get a copy of this picture?                  |  |  |  |\n| 17                                                                                                                                                                            | A<br>The Department of Justice prosecution of Mr. Kwok is     |  |  |  |\n| 18                                                                                                                                                                            | led by an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Juliana Murray, who -- I   |  |  |  |\n| 19                                                                                                                                                                            | called her in early July to get pictures of what the FBI had  |  |  |  |\n| 20                                                                                                                                                                            | found at the mansion when they executed their search          |  |  |  |\n| 21                                                                                                                                                                            | warrant, and she provided numerous pictures, and we selected  |  |  |  |\n| 22                                                                                                                                                                            | I guess, you know, ten best of and that would be one of       |  |  |  |\n| 23                                                                                                                                                                            | them.                                                         |  |  |  |\n| 24                                                                                                                                                                            | Q<br>So Ms. Murray is the person you spoke to?                |  |  |  |\n| 25                                                                                                                                                                            | A<br>Correct.                                                 |  |  |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                                               |                                                               |  |  |  |\n\n# **Exhibit 11**\n\nof 200\n\n![](_page_190_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_191_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n# **Exhibit 12**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |                         |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| In re:                                                 | : | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                           | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| Debtor.                                                | : | Re: ECF No. 777         |\n|                                                        | : |                         |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | x |                         |\n\n# **CONSENT ORDER REGARDING CONTROL OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION RELATED TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION**\n\nUpon the motion (the \"Motion\") of Mr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), for the entry of an order (this \"Order\"), pursuant to sections 323, 521, 541, and 1108 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), and the Court's orders granting the Trustee's motions for examination pursuant to Rule 2004, (a) confirming that the Trustee owns and controls the attorney-client privilege, work product protection and other privileges on issues related to the Debtor's assets and financial affairs and the administration of his estate, (b) directing that the Discovery Recipients not withhold documents from the Trustee on account of any such privileges in responding to the Rule 2004 Subpoenas,<sup>1</sup> or attempt to assert any such privileges that are properly owned by the Trustee and (c) granting related relief, all as more fully set forth in the Motion; and this Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion and the relief requested\n\n<sup>1</sup> Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Motion.\n\ntherein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the *Standing Order of Reference* from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (as amended); and consideration of the Motion and the relief requested therein being a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); and venue being proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Motion, as modified herein, is in the best interest of the Estate, its creditors, and all parties in interest; and due and sufficient notice of the Motion having been given under the particular circumstances; and it appearing that no other or further notice need be given; and upon all of the proceedings had before this Court; and the Trustee and the Debtor having consented to the relief entered herein and any other objections to the relief requested herein having been withdrawn or overruled on the merits; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED THAT:\n\n1. The Motion is granted to the extent set forth herein.\n\n2. The Trustee has exclusive control of any attorney-client privilege or work product protection that could otherwise be asserted by the Debtor or his counsel under any applicable law (including, without limitation, any interests of the Debtor in any common interest or joint defense privilege alleged to be held with other parties) (each, a \"Trustee Privilege\" and, together, the \"Trustee Privileges\") concerning (i) assets (including actual or potential causes of action) that (A) are or were held by the Debtor, (B) are or were held by others that the Trustee is investigating pursuant to the Rule 2004 Subpoenas for purposes of determining whether they hold or may have information about assets in which the Debtor holds or may have held an interest, or (C) otherwise relate to, or could be brought into, the Debtor's estate,<sup>2</sup> (ii) the Debtor's\n\n<sup>2</sup> Forms of the Rule 2004 Subpoenas, including document requests, were attached to the Trustee's 2004 Motions as follows: as to the Debtor 2004 Motion, Exhibit B; as to the Professionals 2004 Motion, Exhibits C-1\n\nfinancial condition (including, without limitation, liabilities of the estate), or (iii) activities related to the administration of the estate (including, without limitation, the preparation of schedules and the preparation of the *Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions* to the extent the Declaration or preparation of the Declaration relates to assets, liabilities or the financial status associated with the Debtor or the Debtor's estate) during the period between the petition date and the issuance of the order appointing the Trustee on July 8, 2022 (topics (i) through (iii), collectively, the \"Investigation Topics\").\n\n3. Neither the Debtor nor his counsel (based on instructions from the Debtor or any person acting on behalf of the Debtor), nor any other examinee, is entitled to withhold any of the documents and information requested in the attachments to the Rule 2004 subpoenas on the basis of any Trustee Privileges concerning the Investigation Topics. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to preclude the Debtor from asserting any rights set forth in paragraph 7.\n\n4. Nothing herein shall prevent the Debtor from asserting any and all privileges concerning legal matters unrelated to the Investigation Topics, such as unrelated criminal allegations or the Debtor's asylum application (other than documents related to the litigation styled as *Guo Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC*, Case No. 19-cv-03195 (D. D.C.) that relate to the merits of the legal malpractice action, as distinguished from the merits of the Debtor's asylum application, subject to the balancing test incorporated herein, which does not relate to the substance of the asylum application). The Trustee and the Debtor reserve all rights with respect to any privileges claimed over such other matters.\n\nthrough C-14; and as to the Third-Party Motion, Exhibits C-1 through C-19. They are incorporated herein by reference.\n\n5. To the extent the Trustee receives documents or information from the Debtor or his counsel or other advisors relating to facts, allegations, or issues arising in adversary proceedings against the Debtor asserting non-dischargeability, the Trustee will (i) not share such documents and information with the plaintiffs in such adversary proceedings, and (ii) keep such documents and information confidential as required by any confidentiality stipulation or protective order to be entered in this case.\n\n6. For the avoidance of doubt, it is presumed that the Trustee has exclusive control over all post-petition documents and files in the possession or control of Brown Rudnick LLP and Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. in connection with their representation of the Debtor in this case, subject to the terms set forth in paragraph 7.\n\n7. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the extent the Debtor believes in good faith that particular documents or information that are covered by a Trustee Privilege and that concern the Investigation Topics could result in personal harm to the Debtor if disclosed to the Trustee, then (i) the Debtor's counsel shall, within 10 days of the applicable production deadline, subject to the right to make a motion in good faith to the Court for a reasonable extension of time, log all such documents in accordance with the requirements of D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) and/or identify all such non-documentary information in a manner necessary to support the claim of privilege including with sufficient information to prima facie identify the basis for asserting the potential for personal harm,<sup>3</sup> and (ii) either party may file a motion with the Court to have the question of control of the privilege over any logged documents or other\n\n<sup>3</sup> Consistent with applicable discovery rules, the Debtor may withhold from production (using appropriate redactions as necessary) only that portion of such document or information that is subject to the Debtor's claim of privilege and good-faith belief regarding personal harm; all other portions of such document or information must be produced to the Trustee.\n\ninformation adjudicated on an expedited basis, and the Debtor may request that the Court, in making such decision, undertake a further balancing analysis in accordance with applicable case law. For purposes of this paragraph, \"expedited basis\" shall require a response to any motion within eight days, and any reply within four days thereafter; the Court shall then either rule on the papers or hold a hearing on the motion at its earliest convenience. The Court may as part of its consideration of any such motion require the production of logged documents and information to the Court for *in camera* inspection. For the avoidance of doubt, that the disclosure of the documents or information in question could result in the Trustee identifying potential assets of the estate, or could constitute evidence relating to the ownership or control of assets by the Debtor, shall not constitute a \"personal harm to the Debtor\" sufficient to withhold documents or information pursuant to this paragraph, regardless of any position or opinion of the Debtor regarding the ownership or control of such assets.\n\n8. For purposes of this order only, the term \"control\" as used herein with respect to any Trustee Privilege shall mean that the Trustee is able to review, access, and otherwise use all documents and information subject to such privilege in carrying out his duties and responsibilities in this case, including without limitation in prosecuting actions to recover property of the estate; provided, however, the Trustee shall not be entitled to waive any Trustee Privilege (for example, by disclosing privileged documents or information in open court or on any public docket or by sharing such documents or information with a third party) absent the Debtor's written consent or further order of the Court, and all filings by the Trustee containing or describing documents or information covered by a Trustee Privilege shall be filed under seal. The parties reserve all their respective rights as to any future request by the Trustee to waive a\n\nTrustee Privilege. Any such request to waive a Trustee Privilege may be made by motion on an expedited basis in accordance with the procedures described in paragraph 7.\n\n9. Nothing herein shall be construed to impact, one way or another, the Debtor or the Debtor's counsel's rights, whatever they may be, to assert whatever privileges the Debtor may have under the laws of the United Kingdom in the litigation styled *Kwok Ho Wan v. UBS AG,*  Claim No. CL-2020-000345 (High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Commercial Court).\n\n10. Nothing herein shall be construed to impact the Debtor's 5th Amendment Privilege under the United States Constitution.\n\n11. Neither the Debtor nor his counsel (based on instructions from the Debtor or any person acting on behalf of the Debtor), nor any other examinee, shall interfere with, hinder, or delay the Trustee's exercise of the authority under this Order.\n\n12. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude the Trustee or the Debtor, including through their respective counsel, from disputing the application of this Order to particular documents or information.\n\n13. The Trustee is authorized and empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted in this Order.\n\n14. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.\n\n15. The terms and conditions of this consent Order constitute the complete, exclusive and fully integrated statement of the Order. As such, it is the sole expression of the parties' consensual agreement and the terms of the Order.\n\n16. This Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or\n\nrelated to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.\n\nDated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 14th day of September, 2022.","body_zh":"C号证物（支持动议的声明）\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n被告。\n部分密封提交\n\nCase No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n\nSIDHARDHA KAMARAJU（悉达多·卡马拉朱）就被告要求作出中止破产案件的命令及令状所提动议随附的声明\n\n本人，SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU，现根据 28 U.S.C. § 1746 声明如下：1. 本人系 Pryor Cashman LLP（普赖尔·卡什曼律师事务所）合伙人，并担任上述案件中被告 Ho Wan Kwok 的律师。本人基于个人所知提交本声明，以支持被告要求作出中止破产案件的命令及令状的动议。\n\n2. 随附本声明作为证物1的是准予被告动议的拟议命令及令状。\n\n3. 随附本声明作为证物2的是一份真实、准确的副本，内容为日期为 July 26, 2023、在题为 In re Ho Wan Kwok, Case No. 22-50073(JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn) (Jointly Administered) 的破产案件（下称“破产案件”）中作出的《认定个人债务人藐视法庭及驳回中止强制提交命令动议的决定备忘录及命令》。\n\n4. 随附本声明作为证物3的是一份真实、准确的副本，内容为第11章受托人于 July 28, 2022 在破产案件中提交的、要求根据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004 和 Local Rule 2004-1 作出命令，授权对 Ho Wan Kwok 进行审查并提交文件的动议。\n\n5. 随附本声明作为证物4的是作为题为 Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC et al., Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) 的破产案件对抗程序（下称“Mahwah 程序”）中起诉状证物附具的照片之真实、准确副本。\n\n6. 随附本声明作为证物5的是 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以破产案件受托人（下称“受托人”）身份于 August 14, 2023 在 Mahwah 程序中提交的、请求批准与 United States of America 达成和解的动议之真实、准确副本；该动议作为证物1附具了一份受托人与 United States of America 于 July 13, 2023 签订的和解协议。\n\n7. 随附本声明作为证物6的是一组电子邮件往来（不包括附件）的真实、准确副本，该等电子邮件由破产案件中受托人的律师 Will Farmer（威尔·法默）、Nicholas Bassett（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）和 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），以及破产案件中 Kwok 先生的律师 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）、Aaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼）和 Eriz Henzy（埃里兹·亨齐）之间及相互发送，自 July 31, 2023 开始，至 August 17, 2023 结束。\n\n8. 随附本声明作为证物7的是政府于 April 28, 2023 提交的信函动议之真实、准确副本，该动议请求中止由 United States Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）提起的、题为 SEC v. Kwok, 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.) 的平行程序。\n\n9. 随附本声明作为证物8的是破产案件中 December 12, 2022 听证会记录摘录的真实、准确副本。\n\n10. 随附本声明作为证物9的是破产案件中 May 2, 2023 听证会记录摘录的真实、准确副本。\n\n11. 随附本声明作为证物10的是 Mahwah 程序中 August 14, 2023 听证会记录摘录的真实、准确副本。\n\n12. 随附本声明作为证物11的是 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）于 August 14, 2023 致 United States Bankruptcy Judge（美国破产法官）Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）的一封信之真实、准确副本。\n\n13. 随附本声明作为证物12的是日期为 September 14, 2022 的《关于与根据 Rule 2004 传票要求提交的文件和信息有关的律师—客户特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意命令》之真实、准确副本。\n\n本人在伪证处罚的约束下声明，上述内容真实、准确。\n\n于 August 30, 2023 签署。\n\nSidhardha Kamaraju\n被告 Ho Wan Kwok 的律师\n\n证物1\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nCase No. 1:23-CR-118-1 (AT)\n［拟议］命令及令状\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n\n被告。\nANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯），地区法官：\n\n鉴于被告 Ho Wan Kwok 要求发出中止破产案件令状的动议、Sidhardha Kamaraju 日期为 August 30, 2023 的声明及其所附全部证物、本案此前提交的全部文件和进行的全部程序，并根据本院固有监督权及《全令状法》28 U.S.C. § 1651 所赋予的权限，本院认定并命令如下：\n\n1. 题为 In re Ho Wan Gwok, et al., Case No. 22-50073(JAM) (Bank. D. Conn.) (Jointly Administered) 的破产案件，包括共同管理的题为 In re Genever Holdings Corp., Case No. 22-50542(JAM) (Bank. D. Conn.) 和 In re Genever Holdings LLC, Case No. 22-50592(JAM) (Bank. D. Conn.) 的程序，以及所有相关对抗程序1（统称“破产案件”），涉及与上述刑事程序中的争议在重要方面重叠的问题。\n\n2. 鉴于本刑事程序与破产案件之间存在重叠，且允许破产案件继续进行将有重大风险侵犯 Kwok 先生免于自证其罪及获得无罪证据的宪法权利，本院认定，在本刑事程序审理期间中止破产案件，对于维护 Kwok 先生的宪法权利及其有效进行辩护的能力属必要之举。\n\n1. 本命令附表A附有识别相关对抗程序的清单。\n\n3. 因此，根据本院固有监督权及《全令状法》28 U.S.C. § 1651 所赋予的权限，本院特此命令如下：\n\na. 破产案件在本程序得到解决之前予以中止，包括所有依法当然提起的上诉；\n\nb. 本命令副本应于本命令日期起五（5）日内提交破产法院；以及\n\nc. 本命令副本应通过电子邮件和 Federal Express Overnight Delivery（联邦快递隔夜送达）送达破产案件第11章受托人 Luc Despins, Esq.\n\n特此命令：\n\n日期：New York, New York ____________________, 2023.\n\nTHE HON. ANALISA TORRES\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE（美国联邦地区法官）\n\n附表A\n相关对抗程序\n\n案件名称　案件编号　法官　破产法院\n\nHK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司）诉 Despins　22-ap-05003　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nCheng（程）诉 Kwok　22-ap-05010　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nMa（马）诉 Kwok　22-ap-05011　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwok　22-ap-05012　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nWu et al（吴等）诉 Kwok　22-ap-05013　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nMeng et al（孟等）诉 Kwok　22-ap-05014　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nNunberg（农伯格）诉 Kwok　22-ap-05017　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nZhang et al（张等）诉 Kwok et al　22-ap-05018　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nDespins et al 诉 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃幸运有限公司）et al　22-ap-05027　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 诉 Kwok　22-ap-05032　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. et al 诉 Ho Wan et al　22-ap-05034　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nGenever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）et al 诉 Kwok et al　23-ap-05002　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nDespins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）et al　23-ap-05005　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nGenever Holdings LLC 诉 AIG Property Casualty Company（AIG 财产意外保险公司）　23-ap-05007　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nDespins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Guo（郭）　23-ap-05008　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nU.S. Bank National Association（美国银行全国协会），作为 escrow agent（托管代理人）诉 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited et al　23-ap-05012　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nDespins et al 诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）et al　23-ap-05013　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\n\n案件名称　案件编号　法官　破产法院\n\nDespins et al 诉 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）et al　23-ap-05017　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nDespins, Luc A., Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Golden Spring (New York) LTD（黄金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）et al　23-ap-05018　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\nHo Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings LLC　22-bk-50073　Hon. Julie A. Manning　D. Conn.\n\n证物2\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n）\n\n关于：）第11章）Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，）（共同管理）\n\n债务人。）关于：ECF Nos. 1453 and 1649\n\n出庭律师\n\nLuc A. Despins（出庭辩论）\nAvram E. Luft\nG. Alexander Bongartz\nDouglass Barron\nPaul Hastings LLP（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nDouglass S. Skalka\nPatrick R. Linsey\nNeubert, Pepe & Montieth（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（出庭辩论）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n\n动议方及交叉被申请人 Luc A. Despins 先生的律师，后者为 Ho Wan Kwok 先生破产财产的第11章受托人\n\nStephen R. Cook\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor\nIrvine, California 92612\n\n以及\n\nStephen A. Best（出庭辩论）\nBrown Rudnick LLP\n601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600\nWashington, DC 20005\n\nEric Henzy（出庭辩论）\nJames M. Moriarty\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n以及\n\nWilliam Baldiga（出庭辩论）\nBrown Rudnick LLP\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n被申请人及交叉动议方 Ho Wan Kwok 先生（债务人1）的律师\n\n认定个人债务人藐视法庭及驳回中止强制提交命令动议的决定备忘录及命令\n\nJulie A. Manning，美国破产法官\n\n一、引言\n\n本院审理的是 Luc A. Despins 先生以 Ho Wan Kwok 先生（下称“个人债务人”）的破产财产（下称“财产”）第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份提交的《要求说明为何不应认定债务人藐视法庭的命令动议》（下称“藐视法庭动议”）（ECF No. 14532），以及个人债务人提交的《部分准予要求遵从动议的命令之有限中止动议》（下称“中止动议”；其与藐视法庭动议合称时，各称“交叉动议”，统称“交叉动议”）（ECF No. 1649）。受托人请求认定个人债务人因未遵从《部分准予要求遵从动议的命令》（下称“强制提交命令”）而构成民事藐视法庭。（ECF No. 1353。）个人债务人则基于 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）（下称“刑事法院”）正在审理的刑事案件 United States v. Kwok, Case No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.)（下称“刑事案件”），交叉提出动议，请求中止强制提交命令。基于下述理由，本院认定个人债务人构成民事藐视法庭，并驳回中止动议。\n\n1. Brown Rudnick LLP 的律师已在这些事项经辩论后撤回其出庭代理。（ECF No. 2034。）\n\n2. 本决定备忘录所讨论的各种诉状和命令具有综合性质。为清楚和连贯起见，诉状和命令的标题仅在其与本院当前审理事项中当事人有关的范围内列出。\n\n二、背景\n\n个人债务人于 February 15, 2022 在本院提出自愿第11章破产申请。（ECF No. 1。）个人债务人的案件与两个关联公司第11章案件共同管理。（ECF Nos. 970 and 1141。）基于其中所述理由，本院于 June 15, 2022 作出指定第11章受托人的决定备忘录及命令。（ECF No. 465。）In re Kwok, 640 B.R. 514 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2022)。July 8, 2022，Despins 先生被指定为受托人。（ECF No. 523。）\n\n2022年7月28日，受托人提交了对[个人]债务人进行2004审查的动议（Motion for 2004 Examination of the [Individual] Debtor），（ECF No. 636），法院于2022年8月16日准许了该动议，（ECF No. 757）。2022年8月19日，个人债务人获送达Rule 2004传票。（参见，例如，ECF No. 1650 ¶ 7。）2022年10月28日，受托人提交了要求个人债务人遵从Rule 2004传票的强制命令动议（Motion for Order Compelling Individual Debtor to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena，以下简称“强制动议”）。（ECF No. 1046。）2022年11月14日，个人债务人对强制动议提出异议。（ECF No. 1090。）2022年11月30日，法院就强制动议举行听证会。法院将强制动议留待审议。2023年1月20日，3法院作出强制提交命令（Order Compelling Production）。（ECF No. 1353。）\n\n3 2022年11月16日至2023年1月13日期间，法院忙于处理与这些Chapter 11案件相关、案名为Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）v. Kwok（郭文贵）（In re Kwok（郭文贵）），Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), Adv. P. No. 22-05032 (JAM) (Bankr D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023)（以下简称“社交媒体/抗议对抗程序”）的对抗程序中的事项。根据Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3)，法院须“在最早可能的时间”处理该对抗程序中的事项，并且该等事项“优先于所有其他事项，但同一性质的较早事项听证会除外”。\n\n2023年2月7日，个人债务人针对强制提交命令提交声明（以下简称“声明”）。（ECF No. 1444 Ex. A。）在声明中，个人债务人在伪证处罚的约束下陈述，其就“日期为2022年8月17日的传票整体，包括其中载列的所有文件和信息请求”，援引其“依据美国宪法第五修正案（5th Amendment to the United States Constitution）享有的权利，包括依据提交行为原则（act of production doctrine）享有的权利[，]”。（同上，Ex. A。）2023年2月10日，受托人提交藐视法庭动议（Contempt Motion），主张：(i) 个人债务人须说明其援引第五修正案为何适当，以及为何不应被认定为藐视法庭；(ii) 即使个人债务人的援引适当，其亦须针对每一项文件和信息请求分别提出该项援引；以及(iii) 声明不符合强制提交命令，因为其未详述为查找响应传票的文件和信息所作的努力。（ECF No. 1453。）2023年3月7日，法院就藐视法庭动议举行听证会。听证会结束时，法院就藐视法庭动议提出的问题设定了书面陈述时间表。\n\n2023年3月15日，在相关对抗程序的证据听证会开始时，个人债务人的律师告知法院，针对个人债务人的起诉书已在刑事诉讼（Criminal Action）中解封，且联邦调查局（Federal Bureau of Investigation，以下简称“FBI”）已于当日早些时候逮捕个人债务人。2023年3月22日，法院准许个人债务人延长答复藐视法庭动议期限的动议。（ECF No. 1585。）\n\n2023年4月10日，个人债务人对藐视法庭动议提出异议。（ECF No. 1650。）个人债务人的异议主张，其已遵从强制提交命令，因为其已适当援引其不自证其罪的第五修正案权利。（同上。）同时，个人债务人通过其在刑事诉讼中的律师——该律师以其特别（刑事）律师身份在这些Chapter 11案件中出庭——提交了中止动议（Stay Motion）。（ECF No. 1649。）中止动议主张，为保护个人债务人不自证其罪的第五修正案权利，本法院必须中止强制提交命令，直至刑事诉讼解决。（同上。）2023年4月14日，受托人就对藐视法庭动议的异议提交答复。（ECF No. 1670。）2023年4月19日，受托人对中止动议提出异议。（ECF No. 1680。）\n\n2023年4月20日，法院就交叉动议（Cross-Motions）举行听证会。在辩论结束时，受托人与个人债务人似乎就交叉动议达成一致解决方案。然而，2023年4月24日，各方提交了相互竞争的拟议命令。（ECF Nos. 1698, 1699。）2023年4月27日，法院就交叉动议举行状态会议，以讨论相互竞争的命令。各方同意在能够达成一致之处依一致方式推进，但就先前协议的条款表示存在分歧。2023年5月1日，法院作出同意命令，要求个人债务人就受托人提出的二百零二（202）个问题中的每一项，分别援引其第五修正案权利。（ECF No. 1740。）同日，个人债务人提交补充书面陈述，以支持其对4月20日协议的解释。（ECF No. 1737。）\n\n2023年5月2日，法院就交叉动议举行第二次听证会，双方就4月20日协议的条款陷入僵局。受托人主张，各方已同意个人债务人将向刑事诉讼提交动议，请求准许其与受托人共享控方已向其提交的材料，前提是受托人遵守刑事诉讼中作出的保护令及其他保密命令和使用限制。个人债务人主张，各方已同意个人债务人将寻求——可能通过动议——使控方同意同时向个人债务人和受托人提交文件，前提是受托人遵守刑事诉讼中作出的保护令及其他保密命令和使用限制。鉴于该僵局，法院认为其必须就交叉动议作出裁决。然而，个人债务人的破产律师请求法院在就交叉动议作出裁决前等待，以使个人债务人有时间了解控方在刑事诉讼中向其提交材料的性质。\n\n鉴于所涉问题的严重性，法院予以等待。2023年6月13日，法院就交叉动议举行最终听证会。法院询问各方在就交叉动议达成一致解决方案方面是否取得任何进展。各方报告称，个人债务人已准备一份补充声明（以下简称“补充声明”），其在该声明中就受托人的每一项问题分别援引第五修正案。（参见Despins（德斯平）ex rel. Kwok（郭文贵）v. HCHK Techs., Inc.（HCHK科技公司）(In re Kwok（郭文贵）), Case No. 22-50073, Adv. P. No. 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 8, 2023), ECF No. 1 Ex. 1。）然而，除补充声明外，各方报告称僵局仍然存在，并请求法院就交叉动议作出裁决。法院将交叉动议留待审议。\n\n交叉动议已具备裁决条件。\n\nIII. 管辖权\n\nUnited States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区法院）根据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)对本事项享有管辖权。本法院根据28 U.S.C. § 157(a)及United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区法院）于1984年9月21日作出的移送命令（Order of Reference），有权审理并裁决本事项。本程序属于法定核心程序。28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)。法院认定，其行使管辖权未受宪法问题排除。参见Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 487–99 (2011)。此外，受托人与个人债务人通过提交终局性动议且未对本法院作出终局命令的权限提出异议，已默示同意本法院就交叉动议作出终局命令。参见Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 686 (2015)（裁定尽管Stern案有此裁决，各方仍可同意由破产法院作出终局命令）；True Traditions, LC v. Wu, 552 B.R. 826, 838 (N.D. Cal. 2015)（裁定提交终局性动议即构成默示同意）。\n\n根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408和1409，本地区为适当审理地。\n\nIV. 讨论4\n\n交叉动议提出了严重问题。受托人请求因个人债务人未遵从强制提交命令而认定其藐视法庭。个人债务人主张，援引其不自证其罪的第五修正案权利即构成遵从，且该权利必须通过中止强制提交命令予以保护。基于下述理由，法院认定，在本法院审理的具体事实和情形下，不自证其罪的第五修正案权利不适用。因此，法院认定个人债务人藐视法庭，并驳回中止动议。\n\nA. 个人债务人是否构成民事藐视法庭？\n\n法院首先审议个人债务人是否因未遵从强制提交命令而构成藐视法庭。本法院依据11 U.S.C. § 105(a)和Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9020，有权认定当事人藐视法庭。Taggart v. Lorenzen ex rel. Brown, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801 (2019); PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Sensenich ex rel. Gravel (In re Gravel), 6 F.4th 503, 512 (2d Cir. 2021); Mar. Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chauteaugay Corp.), 920 F.2d 183, 187 (2d. Cir. 1990)。Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(1)和37(b)(2)(A)(vii)，经D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37以及D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1)和2004-1(a)适用，进一步授权法院认定当事人藐视要求提交证据开示材料的命令。\n\n4 下文构成法院根据Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure第7052条作出的事实认定和法律结论；该条经第9014(c)条适用于争议事项。\n\n可请求认定藐视法庭，以“强制被告遵从”法院命令，或“补偿申诉人因未遵从法院命令所遭受的损失”。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801（引述United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947)）。认定民事藐视法庭须满足：(1) 被藐视者未遵从的命令清晰明确；(2) 未遵从的证据清楚且有说服力；以及(3) 被藐视者未以合理方式勤勉尝试遵从。King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995)。被藐视者还必须(4)知悉相关命令。Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512。\n\n1. 强制遵从命令是否清晰明确？\n\n如“对于被告行为的不当性不存在合理疑义”，则命令清晰明确。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1801（引述Cal. Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609 (1885)）。法院通常适用客观标准——“一方当事人主观上相信其正在遵从命令，如该信念客观上不合理，通常不会使其免于民事藐视法庭”。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1802（引述McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949)（“缺乏故意[sic]并不免除民事藐视法庭责任。”））。尽管如此，一方当事人的恶意可证明将“命令中任何不确定性的负担……置于违反法院命令一方的肩上”具有正当性，而“一方当事人的善意，即使并不排除民事藐视法庭，亦可有助于确定适当的制裁”。Taggart, 139 S. Ct. at 1802（引述McComb, 336 U.S. at 192–93和Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 801 (1987)）。\n\n强制提交命令的相关部分载明如下：\n\n兹命令：就针对[个人]债务人的证据开示请求而言，该异议予以驳回；但对于寻求日期早于 June 1, 2014 的文件之请求，以及寻求[个人]债务人护照的请求，该异议予以支持。在受托人证明有正当理由的情况下，受托人不妨碍在调查推进过程中于日后寻求日期早于 June 1, 2014 的文件及[个人]债务人的护照。[个人]债务人应于 January 31, 2023 下午 5:00 前，检索并向受托人提交：\n\n(i) 对受托人关于日期为 June 1, 2014 或之后的请求作出回应的文件，但特定请求规定了不早于 June 1, 2014 起算的不同期间的除外；\n\n(ii) 对受托人关于其承认拥有的资产，以及据称属于[个人]债务人以外的个人或实体的资产之请求作出回应的文件，包括但不限于其家庭成员及关联实体的资产；以及\n\n(iii) 对受托人请求作出回应、且处于其保管、占有或控制之下的文件，包括但不限于其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问档案中的文件，除非该等文件已由其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问提交，但不考虑其现任或前任律师及其他代理人和顾问未来可能作出的任何提交；\n\n并进一步\n\n兹命令：[个人]债务人应于 February 7, 2023 下午 5:00 前，在本案案卷中提交一份经宣誓的声明，详细说明其本人及其律师为回应传票而采取的文件收集、检索和审查行动，包括但不限于详细说明其本人及其律师为进行下列事项所实施的程序：\n\n(i) 确定[个人]债务人的所有电子设备；其可访问的所有在线文件存储库；与电子文件相关联的所有社交媒体、电子邮件及其他账户；所有银行账户及相关\n\n账户对账单；以及可能存在的所有其他潜在的、包含回应性纸质文件和电子文件的来源；以及\n\n(ii) 在前述来源中检索回应性文件，包括但不限于回应与费用或资金转移有关的请求、与[个人]债务人家庭或关联实体的资产或财务或商业交易或记录有关的请求，以及与[个人]债务人有关联的商业权益有关的请求的文件。 . .\n\n(ECF No. 1353.) [个人]债务人未在书面陈述或口头辩论中提出任何论点，主张对于强制提交命令的含义存在“合理疑义”。5 法院认定，就[个人]债务人而言，强制提交命令明确且不存在歧义。6\n\n2. [个人]债务人是否遵守了强制提交命令？\n\n关于第二项要件，受托人必须以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[个人]债务人未遵守强制提交命令。King, 65 F.3d at 1058. 受托人主张，由于(i) [个人]债务人未能提交文件或记录，且(ii) [个人]债务人未能提交一份声明，以识别文件或记录的潜在来源以及为检索该等来源所作的努力，[个人]债务人未遵守强制提交命令。\n\n作为回应，[个人]债务人提出两项论点。第一，[个人]债务人主张，其无法遵守该命令，因为其目前正被审前羁押，且不可能获得审前释放。第二，[个人]债务人主张，\n\n5 [个人]债务人主张，对于[个人]债务人是否可以针对强制提交命令援引其《第五修正案》免于自证其罪的权利，存在合理疑义。法院将在下文讨论[个人]债务人是否已勤勉尝试遵守强制提交命令时审议该论点。\n\n6 法院此前已裁定，就其他当事人而言，强制提交命令明确且不存在歧义。(See ECF No. 1537.)\n\n“提交行为”原则允许其针对要求提交文件和记录的请求援引其《第五修正案》免于自证其罪的权利。在此基础上，[个人]债务人主张其已遵守强制提交命令。\n\ni. [个人]债务人是否不可能遵守？\n\n尽管[个人]债务人正确指出，“对于民事藐视法庭裁定，一项长期获得承认的抗辩是被裁定者无能力遵守法院命令”，United States v. Wendy, 575 F.2d 1025, 1030 (2d Cir. 1978)，且评估无法遵守的适当时点是在作出藐视法庭裁决之时，United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983)，法院认定，[个人]债务人仍有可能遵守。虽然确实检方已就刑事诉讼扣押了[个人]债务人的文件和记录，但[个人]债务人未证明：(a) 其所有文件和记录均已被扣押；以及(b) 其没有被扣押记录的额外副本。此外，根据其律师的陈述，法院理解，在刑事诉讼中，检方向[个人]债务人作出的提交应很快开始——如果尚未开始。尽管(i) 受托人很可能必须成为刑事诉讼中保密要求和使用限制的签署方并予以遵守，且(ii) 向受托人提交材料可能遭检方反对，或不获刑事法院允许，[个人]债务人仍非不可能向刑事法院申请准许向受托人提交材料。尽管[个人]债务人目前正被审前羁押，其律师并未被羁押。[个人]债务人可以通过其律师和/或其他代理人提交文件。因此，[个人]债务人并非不可能遵守强制提交命令。\n\nii. [个人]债务人是否适当援引了《第五修正案》？\n\na. 提交行为原则是否适用？\n\n[个人]债务人关于其已遵守强制提交命令的论点，依赖于“提交行为”原则。在 Fisher v. United States 一案中，该案裁定其中所涉的提交行为不受《第五修正案》保护；然而，United States Supreme Court（美国联邦最高法院）仍裁定：\n\n尽管如此，依传票提交证据的行为本身具有沟通层面，完全独立于所提交文件的内容。遵守传票即默示承认所要求文件的存在，以及纳税人对其的占有或控制。该行为还将表明纳税人相信该等文件即为传票所描述的文件。\n\n425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976); see United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36–37 (2000). 在 Fisher 一案中，最高法院裁定，判断提交行为是否可受《第五修正案》保护的标准，是提交行为所涉的“默示断言”是否依现行《第五修正案》判例法同时具有“证言性”和“自证其罪性”。425 U.S. at 410–11. 特别是，最高法院对以下事项的默示断言表示关切：(i) 文件或记录的存在；(ii) 提交方对文件或记录的占有或控制；以及(iii) 提交方相信文件和记录即为传票所要求的文件。Id. 提交行为原则不保护文件中具有证言性和自证其罪性的内容——其仅保护具有证言性和自证其罪性的提交行为。Id.; Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 40–41.\n\n根据 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）具有约束力的先例，提交行为可能包含具有证言性的默示断言：“(1) ‘如果政府不知道被传唤文件的存在和所在地’；或(2) 提交将‘默示认证’该等文件的情形。”United States v. Doe (In re Grand Jury Subpoena), 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993) (hereinafter “Grand Jury 1993”) (citing United States v. Fox, 721 F.2d 32, 36 (2d Cir.1983)). 如果受托人能够证明：(1) 文件的存在和所在地；以及(2) 文件的真实性，均为“不言自明”的结论，或已由其他证据证明，则该提交行为不受《第五修正案》保护。Grand Jury 1993, 1 F.3d at 93. 此外，即使提交所涉的默示断言根据 Fox 一案具有证言性，[个人]债务人还必须证明，披露文件或记录的存在、所在地或真实性具有自证其罪性。See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486–87 (1951); Fox, 721 F.2d at 40; In re Schick, 215 B.R. 4, 9 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997); cf. Martin-Trigona v. Belford (In re Martin-Trigona), 732 F.2d 170, 176 (2d Cir. 1984).\n\n[个人]债务人证明提交行为具有证言性和自证其罪性的负担低于通常证明标准：“为维持该特权，只需从问题的含义以及提问所处的情境中显见，对该问题作出回应性回答，或说明为何无法回答，可能具有危险性，因为可能导致有害的披露。”Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486–87. 在判断[个人]债务人能否援引《第五修正案》时，法院必须运用其“对本案特殊情况的个人认识”，其程度不亚于[个人]债务人提交的事实支持材料。Id. at 487. 如果提交行为可能成为用于起诉[个人]债务人的“证据链中的一环”，则该提交行为具有自证其罪性。Id. at 486.\n\n[个人]债务人主张，根据强制提交命令被强制提交文件和记录将具有证言性，因为该提交可被理解为默示断言：其对各实体和资产享有实益所有权和/或控制权，以及其对各个人拥有权限。该等默示断言，[个人]债务人主张，具有自证其罪性，因为当前的刑事诉讼及一项据称针对破产罪行的调查\n\n涉及关于[个人]债务人对实体和/或资产享有实益所有权和控制权，以及[个人]债务人对某些个人拥有权限和/或控制权的指控。\n\n受托人对[个人]债务人的论点提出了多项异议。受托人的主要异议是，“法定记录”原则适用，且该原则构成对提交行为原则的例外。为支持该论点，受托人主张，[个人]债务人作为破产程序中的债务人，不能适当援引《第五修正案》以避免提交《破产法》所要求的、与其财务状况、资产和负债有关的文件和记录——无论提交行为是否具有证言性和自证其罪性。下文将处理受托人关于[个人]债务人在其破产案件中所负义务的法定记录论点。法院将首先处理受托人就[个人]债务人是否已满足其证明负担，以证明遵守强制提交命令将同时具有证言性和自证其罪性所提出的各项异议。\n\n补充声明\n\n个人债务人与受托人已就受托人提出的一项异议达成解决方案。在藐视法庭动议提出并就其举行听证会之前，个人债务人的声明对其《第五修正案》不得自证其罪权利作出了笼统主张。受托人主张此举不当，因为：(a) 此种笼统主张未表明个人债务人在援引《第五修正案》之前已适当地逐项考虑受托人的每一项请求；且 (b) 本第11章案件属于民事程序，这意味着在适当情形下，个人债务人对《第五修正案》的援引可被采纳为证据。然而，个人债务人此后已根据一项合意命令提交补充声明，其中他就受托人提出的每一项问题分别作答，并就二百零二 (202) 项问题中的每一项主张其《第五修正案》权利。尽管个人债务人现已就受托人的具体问题适当地援引其《第五修正案》权利，但与文件提交有关的问题仍然存在。\n\n起诉书公布前对《第五修正案》的援引\n\n受托人对个人债务人证明其遵守《强制提交命令》所提出的剩余异议之一缺乏说服力。受托人主张，个人债务人在针对其的起诉书解封之前即已构成藐视法庭，现不能鉴于刑事诉讼而援引《第五修正案》以避免被认定构成藐视法庭。然而，个人债务人正确地指出，可在刑事诉讼开始之前援引《第五修正案》。见 United States v. Miranti, 253 F.2d 135, 139 (2d Cir. 1958)（准许证人在仅存在轻微被起诉可能性时援引《第五修正案》）。正如个人债务人可在2022年12月的证据听证会期间及其2023年3月的证言录取期间主张其《第五修正案》权利一样，只要其具有“合理理由担心直接回答会带来危险”，且其《第五修正案》权利在其他方面适用，其也可在2023年2月如此主张。Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486.\n\n控方持有的文件\n\n受托人的第二项论点同样不能成立。受托人主张，个人债务人并未受到损害，因为控方已持有其文件和记录。就这些文件的存在及所在地已为人所知而言，受托人是正确的，因此 Fox 检验的第一项要件不成立。Grand Jury 1993, 1 F.3d at 93. 然而，提交控方已持有的个人债务人文件和记录这一行为是否会导致对该等文件和记录进行认证，仍是一个问题。Id. 个人债务人担心其提交行为会认证这些文件。法院未见过这些文件和记录。受托人也未见过。法院认识到，受托人处于困难境地，因为其并非刑事诉讼的一方。然而，受托人未能证明这些文件和记录的真实性已属必然结论。因此，根据 Fox 检验的第二项要件，关于控方持有的文件和记录真实性的默示陈述可能具有证言性质。Id.\n\n此外，由于控方扣押的文件和记录可能在刑事诉讼中被用于起诉个人债务人，法院认为个人债务人的下述论点具有说服力：其对该等文件和记录的默示认证可能成为用于起诉他的“证据链中的一环”。Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486. 因此，除非受托人能够证明这些文件和记录的真实性已属必然结论，否则提交行为原则适用于控方持有的文件，除非该原则存在适用的例外。\n\n控方未持有的文件\n\n个人债务人主张，《强制提交命令》要求其提交的全部文件和记录均已被控方扣押。法院不同意，因此继续讨论。如受托人所主张，个人债务人以其现已被监禁为由笼统声称其不占有、保管或控制任何文件或记录，缺乏说服力。尽管此前曾陈述个人债务人几乎不保存任何文件、记录和设备，FBI 显然仍在个人债务人的住所扣押了许多文件、记录和电子设备。\n\n同样，受托人正确地指出，没有证据基础支持如下主张：个人债务人占有、保管或控制的记录中，不存在任何尚未包含在控方扣押的文件和记录中的记录。鉴于过去对个人债务人律师所进行的努力——或视情况而言，未进行努力——的描述，个人债务人未能证明已进行了合理勤勉的搜索。（见《强制提交命令》¶ 9。）基于这两项理由，法院认定个人债务人未能证明所有可能对请求作出回应的文件和记录均已被控方扣押。\n\n对于控方未扣押的文件和记录，受托人未能证明该等文件的所在地、存在性或真实性已属必然结论。因此，如个人债务人证明其具有自证其罪性质，提交行为原则即应适用。Fox, 721 F.2d at 36. 受托人主张，个人债务人未能履行其证明所请求文件和记录具有自证其罪性质的举证责任。受托人正确地指出，即使有补充声明，个人债务人仍未能证明每一项被请求提交的材料均会具有自证其罪性质。\n\n然而，法院注意到个人债务人须满足的举证责任较低。法院亦注意到，其必须依赖自己对本第11章案件及相关对抗程序之事实和情形的判断。Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486–87. 此外，如个人债务人的律师所指出，“[该]特权不仅延及其本身可支持依据联邦刑事法规作出有罪判决的回答，也同样涵盖那些能够提供起诉主张该特权者犯有联邦罪行所需证据链中一环的回答。”Id. at 486. 然而，法院对“案件特殊情形的个人判断”包括以下观察：除其明确表示希望避免自证其罪外，个人债务人还妨碍了对其资产、负债及财务事务的合法调查。Id. at 487.（例如，见 Social Media/Protest Adversary, ECF No. 133。）\n\n刑事诉讼中的起诉书本身不足以使个人债务人就控方未扣押的文件和记录履行其举证责任。起诉书指控的欺诈行为可追溯至约2018年，而迄今为止受托人关注的许多资产——该游艇 Lady May（梅夫人号）；Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）的公寓；Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）的诉因——据称均在2018年之前取得。尽管其中部分资产，例如 Lady May，已在起诉书中讨论，法院不能基于其对“案件特殊情形的个人判断”以及个人债务人有限的证据陈述，认定个人债务人已基于刑事诉讼充分支持其对《第五修正案》的笼统主张。Id. at 487. 个人债务人未能证明其所有资产、负债及财务事务均与所指控的欺诈有关，或可能以某种方式构成关于所指控欺诈的“证据链中的一环”。Id. at 486.\n\n为支持其已遵守《强制提交命令》的主张，个人债务人还提交了一份向受托人发出的传票，该传票涉及对在本第11章案件中实施的潜在破产犯罪所进行的据称调查。（ECF No. 1719, at \\*80:20–81:8。）如上所述，在确定提交文件是否具有自证其罪性质时，因该调查而被起诉是否可能并不重要。Miranti, 253 F.2d at 139.\n\n《美国法典》第18编第152、156、157、1519及3284条规定了与破产案件中隐匿资产有关的犯罪。第152、156、157及1519条要求具有明知、故意或欺诈行为。第3284条要求“隐匿”。个人债务人占有或控制对 Rule 2004 subpoena（规则2004传票）作出回应的文件或记录，以及该等文件或记录真实的默示陈述，本身并不具有自证其罪性质，因为其并未证明个人债务人明知、故意或欺诈地向破产财产隐瞒了资产——或与资产有关的文件和记录。债务人经常因错误而遗漏资产和负债，并修改其陈述和清单及/或更新其披露。\n\n然而，法院必须考虑，该等默示陈述是否构成关于可能因向受托人、本院及其债权人隐瞒资产而起诉个人债务人的“证据链中的一环”。Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486. 受托人主张，个人债务人拥有大量商业权益，且应具有相应的文件和记录。尽管个人债务人否认这些指控，但根据本院及其他法院先前的认定，法院对“案件特殊情形的个人判断”是，个人债务人至少拥有一些超出其目前承认范围的商业权益。见 Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYCEF No. 1181; E. Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, Case No. 18-cv-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).（见 ECF No. 1110; HK Int'l Funds Invs. (USA) Ltd., LLC v. Despins ex rel. Kwok（郭文贵） (In re Kwok), Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), Adv. P. No. 22-05003 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. May 18, 2023), ECF Nos. 177, 221; Social Media/Protest Adversary, ECF No. 133 ¶ 7。）法院认为，个人债务人的提交范围可能与 Hubbell 案中争议的提交同样广泛。见 530 U.S. at 40–43. 尽管 Hubbell 是一宗涉及向一方授予豁免权、提交范围已知且举证责任已转移至控方的案件，但个人债务人也可能同样有必要“在识别回应传票请求的数百份文件时广泛运用‘其本人思想的内容’”，并实质上制作一份其资产、负债及商业权益的地图。见 id. at 43. 就所称对破产犯罪的调查而言，该地图可能有助于发现关于明知、故意或欺诈的证据。法院根据其对本第11章案件及相关对抗程序具体事实和情形的判断，认定该等承认可能构成证据链中的一环，因为其可能具有“派生使用”。见 id. at 41–43.\n\n个人债务人的提交具有证言性和自证其罪性质\n\n基于上述理由，法院认定，无论就检方持有的文件，还是就检方尚未扣押的文件而言，遵从《强制提交命令》（Order Compelling Production）进行提交均具有证言性和自证其罪性。见 Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410–11。然而，法院指出，迄今为止的证据记录并不充分。若日后受托人能够：(i) 证明任何文件的所在地、存在性和真实性均属既定事实；(ii) 就任何文件或某类文件证明个别债务人未能履行其举证责任；或 (iii) 证明其就任何文件或某类文件已掌握个别债务人的资产、负债和商业利益情况，本认定可经适当动议予以重新审议。\n\nb. “法定记录”例外是否适用？\n\n尽管提交行为原则适用，但这并不终结法院的分析，也不必然决定《藐视法庭动议》（Contempt Motion）的结果。如上所述，受托人的主要论点是，法定记录原则适用于法院面前的具体事实和情形，并构成提交行为原则的一项例外。因此，受托人主张，无论提交行为原则是否允许个别债务人针对《强制提交命令》适当援引其第五修正案反自证其罪权利，均无关紧要，因为本案适用法定记录例外。\n\n为支持其论点，受托人援引巴尔的摩市社会服务局（Baltimore City Department of Social Services）诉布奈特（Bouknight）, 493 U.S. 549 (1990)。在 Bouknight 案中，最高法院（Supreme Court）在 Fisher 案后重申并确认了法定记录原则的存在。493 U.S. at 555–59。根据法定记录原则，“不得援引第五修正案特权，以拒绝遵从为实现州与执行其刑法无关的公共目的而建立的监管制度。”Id. at 556；见 Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1968)（阐明就法定记录原则应考虑的因素）；Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 32 (1948)（创设法定记录原则）。\n\n个别债务人主张，Bouknight 并未描述 Fisher 所确立的提交行为原则的一项例外，且法定记录原则并不允许强制提交具有证言性和自证其罪性的文件和记录。个别债务人的主张与 Bouknight 的明确文字相矛盾，该案载明：\n\n提交命令可能迫使作出可能证明具有自证其罪性的证言性陈述，并非在所有情形下均足以证明可以援引该特权以抗拒提交。即使假定这一有限的证言性陈述具有充分的自证其罪性，并且“就该特权而言具有充分的证言性”，布奈特亦不得援引该特权以抗拒提交命令，因为她已承担与提交有关的保管职责，且提交是非刑事监管制度的一部分所要求的。\n\nBouknight, 493 U.S. at 555–56（讨论 Fisher）（省略内部引文）。除最高法院外，第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）也明确否定了个别债务人的主张：\n\n“[T]法定记录原则是第五修正案特权的一项例外。因此，在原本适用该特权的情形下，该原则必然优先于该特权。Fisher 并未涉及法定记录，且其分析中没有任何内容可被解释为削弱法定记录例外。”\n\nUnited States v. Doe (In re Grand Jury Subpoena), 741 F.3d 339, 346 (2d Cir. 2013)（以下简称“Grand Jury 2013”）（引自 Doe v. United States (In re Doe), 711 F.2d 1187, 1192–93 (2d Cir. 1983)）。事实上，第二巡回上诉法院明确表示，“[t]本院已两次明确否定法定记录例外已被提交行为原则废止这一观点。”Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 346。该等具有约束力的最高法院和第二巡回上诉法院判例明确表明，法定记录原则是提交行为原则的一项例外。7 因此，如本案适用法定记录例外，则无论该等提交是否具有证言性和自证其罪性，个别债务人均未遵从《强制提交命令》。\n\n在确定法定记录原则是否适用时，第二巡回上诉法院采用 Grosso 因素。Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 345。在 Grosso 案中，最高法院采用以下因素：“[F]首先，美国调查的目的必须本质上属于监管性质；其次，须通过要求保存受监管方惯常保存的一类记录来获取信息；第三，记录本身必须具有‘公共属性’，使其至少可类比于公共文件。”390 U.S.\n\n7 个别债务人指出，受托人援引的案件之一，In re Ross, 156 B.R. 272, 279 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1993)，既认定被要求提交的文件证言性不足，又认定法定记录原则适用。基于此观察，个别债务人得出结论，后一项裁定以前一项裁定为必要前提。法院得出不同结论。Ross 案法院与许多法院一样——特别是受审查约束的下级法院——就其认定该案债务人不能适当援引第五修正案提出了多项依据。156 B.R. at 281（“第五，即使本案所涉提交行为同时具有证言性和自证其罪性，第7章作为一项面向整个社会、而非面向本质上可疑的犯罪群体的监管制度，其性质使该提交行为不受第五修正案保护。”）（强调部分为后加）。\n\nat 67–68。在此，受托人寻求的文件和记录，是《强制提交命令》认定与“[个别债务人]的行为、活动或财产，或其负债和财务状况，或可能影响[破产财产]管理的任何事项”有关的文件和记录。Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)。因此，个别债务人根据 sections 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 有义务提交受托人所寻求的文件和记录。因此，争议在于，个别债务人根据 sections 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 有义务提交的文件和记录，是否属于 Grosso 标准下的法定记录。\n\n《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）sections 521(a)(3) 和 521(a)(4) 的目的是什么？\n\n在确定第一项因素是否支持适用法定记录原则时，法院必须考虑相关“立法是否并非‘针对广大公众’，以及是否涉及‘刑事法规密集的领域’。”Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 347（引自 Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 382 U.S. 70, 79 (1965)）；见 Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968)；Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 99 (1968)。法院必须就争议所涉的具体法条作出该项判断，而非参照其周围的整个法定背景。Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 348（引自 California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 430 (1971)）。\n\n《破产法典》第521条标题为“债务人的义务”。sections 521(a)(3) 和 521(a)(4) 分别规定，如本案一样，在案件中有破产受托人履职时，债务人必须配合受托人履行受托人的职责，并须向受托人交出全部破产财产及与破产财产有关的任何已记录信息，包括账簿、文件、记录和文书。\n\n《破产法典》第109条允许个人或实体根据第7章、第11章、第11章V分章、第12章或第13章申请破产。在第7章、第12章、第13章以及第11章V分章程序中，案件开始时即自动任命破产受托人。11 U.S.C. §§ 701, 702, 1183, 1202, 1302。第7章和第13章案件在普通公众中最为常见，且始终涉及破产受托人，债务人对该受托人负有 sections 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 规定的义务。\n\n尽管在第11章案件中任命破产受托人是一项非常救济，见 11 U.S.C. § 1112，但该非常救济的效果是，被剥夺管理权的第11章债务人与第7章或第13章债务人一样，承担 sections 521(a)(3) 和 521(a)(4) 规定的义务。依法，债务人在提交第11章案件后，自动被视为占有中债务人，并承担破产受托人的角色。11 U.S.C. § 1107(a)。但是，在符合债权人和破产财产最佳利益的前提下，第11章案件中的债务人可因“事由”通过任命破产受托人而被“剥夺”对破产财产的管理权。11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)。\n\n第11章具有独特性，因为其是为拥有复杂商业利益、资产和负债的债务人而设计，例如大型公司和高净值个人。见 H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 220 (1977)。因此，第11章受三项基本推定指导：(i) 拥有重大商业利益和经营活动的债务人，作为持续经营的经济实体，比被分割和清算具有更高价值；(ii) 拥有复杂财务事务、资产和负债的债务人，比被任命的受托人更适于为债权人的利益管理其自身事务；以及 (iii) 允许拥有重大商业利益和经营活动的债务人重整，除保护债权人的利益外，亦保护债务人、所有人、雇员等的利益。见同上。不过，归根结底，只要第11章的具体规定能够最大化对债权人的分配，即可适当适用第11章。见 Toibb v. Radloff, 501 U.S. 157, 163–64 (1991)。任命破产受托人的许多列举“事由”——\n\n或驳回案件或将案件转换为第7章程序——涉及对上述推定的推翻，或占有中债务人未能履行其为债权人利益管理破产财产的义务。11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)；见 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 1112.04[6][b]–[k] (16th ed. 2023)。\n\n在受任时，破产受托人是债务人破产财产的代表。11 U.S.C. § 323。第 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 条的目的，是使破产受托人能够依照其职责管理债务人的破产财产。见 11 U.S.C. §§ 704, 1106, 1116, 1183, 1202, 1302；4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 521.15[5], 521.16。破产财产的管理要求债务人披露、交付并与受托人合作，因为破产案件是一项包罗万象的程序，旨在公平且最终地解决、调整或重组无数债务人与债权人之间的关系。见，例如，11 U.S.C. §§ 704(a)(5)（“受托人应当……审查债权证明，并对任何不当债权的核准提出异议……”），704(a)(7)（“受托人应当……提供利益相关方所要求的有关破产财产及其管理的信息……”），704(a)(8)（“受托人应当……向法院、美国受托人以及任何负责征收或确定因该等经营活动产生之税款的政府单位，提交该企业经营情况的定期报告和摘要……”），1106(a)(3)（“受托人应当……调查债务人的行为、操守、资产、负债和财务状况，债务人企业的经营情况及继续经营该企业的可取性，以及与本案或制定计划有关的其他事项……”）；7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1116.01（“受托人的调查和报告职责提供了一种机制，以便充分披露债务人的事务状况，使利益相关方能够保护其权利并实现债务人的成功重组。”）。\n\n债务人未履行以下义务：（i）与受托人合作；（ii）披露财务事务、资产和负债；以及（iii）交付破产财产及相关记录，将严重妨碍受托人管理破产财产的能力。见 United States v. Stone, 282 F. 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1960)（“[T]he very purpose of the statement of affairs is to give dependable information without need of going further.”）（维持在刑事诉讼中对债务人的定罪；该债务人因未能在根据原《破产法》进行的程序中于财务状况说明书上适当披露贷款信息而被追诉破产罪行）。该等未履行给破产财产的债权人造成费用和延误，属于可认定的损害。见 Andrews v. McCarron (In re Vincent Andrews Mgmt. Corp.), 414 B.R. 1, 7 (D. Conn. 2009)。\n\n此外，《破产法典》所提供的大量广泛且非常规的救济，均以适当披露和通知为前提。见，例如，11 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)（界定在可以开始征集计划表决前必须送达的披露声明所应包含的充分信息）；Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 475 n. 12 (2004)（认定“《破产法典》广泛的披露要求降低了债务人存在重大未披露义务的风险”，从而支撑法院“修改债务人原合同所规定的分期付款次数、时间或金额的权力”）；In re Motors Liquidation Co., 829 F.3d 135, 158–61 (2d Cir. 2016)（认定未向已知但未披露的债权人适当送达出售动议，使出售命令对该等债权人不可执行）。受托人作为破产财产的代表，首先负有寻求大量该等救济的职责，以便：（i）为破产财产的利益，Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 352 (1985)；以及（ii）为债务人的利益，债务人在历经考验后可能获得“重新开始”，见 Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 286 (1991)。\n\n本院认定，第 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 条针对的是一般公众。破产受托人在广泛类别的案件中自动获任。向受托人披露并交付财产和记录的义务，对于受托人的基本且必要的管理职责，以及受托人行使《破产法典》赋予的权力，均不可或缺。\n\n剩余问题是，第 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 条是否涉及一个“充斥刑事法规”的领域。Albertson, 382 U.S. at 79。《美国法典》第 18 编第 151 条及以下条款、第 1519 条和第 3284 条，将在《破产法典》下程序中采取的某些行为规定为犯罪。这些“破产罪行”包括数项与隐匿破产财产资产有关的罪行，隐匿的目的在于保护该等资产不被分配给破产财产的债权人。然而，本院面临的问题并非未能履行债务人在第 521(a)(3) 和 (4) 条下的某些义务是否会使债务人易受刑事追诉，而是第 521(a)(3) 和 (4) 条是否“针对‘一个本质上涉嫌从事犯罪活动的选择性群体’”。Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 57。\n\n在 Grosso 和 Marchetti 中，问题并非强制提交纳税申报表这一法定要求所对应的刑法——该等刑法类似于上述列举的破产罪行。Grosso, 390 U.S. at 64–65；见 Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 57。相反，在这两案中，最高法院认定，提交联邦博彩税申报表的要求直接针对已被州法规定为犯罪的行为，即赌博。Grosso, 390 U.S. at 64–65；Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 57。Albertson 中所涉问题，是要求美国共产党（Communist Party of America）的成员亲自向颠覆活动管制委员会（Subversive Activities Control Board）登记。\n\n382 U.S. at 77–78。当时，与共产党存在关联已被规定为犯罪。Id. 在 Haynes 中，所涉问题是一项要求以非正常途径取得枪支者——最高法院指出，其中大多数将是非法取得枪支者——登记其枪支的规定。390 U.S. at 95–97。\n\n最高法院在 Grosso、Marchetti、Albertson 和 Haynes 中审理的事实均与本案事实不同。首先，所有这些案件均涉及创建新记录，而非提交既有文件和记录。Haynes, 390 U.S. at 95–97；Grosso, 390 U.S. at 64–65；Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 57；Albertson, 382 U.S. at 77–78。更重要的是，破产案件的常规管理并不当然涉及犯罪活动。破产财产的管理旨在与刑事责任问题相分离。比较 11 U.S.C. §§ 323（就民事诉讼而言，受托人是代表破产财产提起诉讼和应诉的一方）, 362(a)(1)（通常，对债务人或破产财产提起的民事诉讼因自愿破产申请的提交而中止）与 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1)（针对债务人的刑事诉讼不因根据第 11 编启动案件而中止）。债务人通常不会因其在破产案件中被要求作出的披露而承担刑事责任。破产程序中披露要求的目的，是揭示民事责任，以便公平且最终地解决针对债务人的全部债权。见 Byers, 402 U.S. at 430–31（认定尽管《加利福尼亚州车辆法典》涉及某些刑事法规，“其目的并非促进刑事定罪，而是促进清偿因汽车事故产生的民事责任”，并裁定所要求记录例外适用）。\n\n因此，第 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 条的目的“本质上具有监管性质”，这支持将所要求记录例外适用于个人债务人根据强制提交命令被迫提交文件的情形。Grosso, 390 U.S. at 67–68。\n\n所称应要求保存的记录是否属于通常保存的记录？\n\n就第二项因素而言，即所称应要求保存的记录是否通常保存，受托人寻求的包括财务和银行记录、资金转移记录、与个人债务人商业权益有关的记录等。例如，第二巡回上诉法院就外国银行账户信息指出，常识表明，个人和实体会保留基本的金融交易和账户信息，以管理其事务并访问其账户。Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 350（引用 M.H. v. United States (In re Grand Jury Investigation), 648 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011)）。本院认定，对于财务事务、资产和负债复杂的个人和实体而言，这一点尤为如此。第二巡回上诉法院特别进一步指出，尽管“从事不当行为的某些个人被建议甚至不要保留这些基本信息[,]……[w]e decline to look at the custom of only the miscreants……”Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 350。因此，本院认定，第 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 条所要求的记录“通常被保存”。Grosso, 390 U.S. at 67–68。\n\n所称应要求保存的记录是否具有“公共属性”？\n\n就第三项因素而言，即所称应要求保存的记录是否具有“公共属性”，问题在于第 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 条的整体监管背景是否要求保存特定记录。Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 351–52。\n\n《破产法典》要求在案件开始时及案件进行过程中均进行披露。第 521(a)(1) 条要求任何债务人——包括个人债务人——提交债权人名单、财务状况说明书以及包括债务人资产、负债、收入和支出在内的清单。见 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 521.06[3][a]（“该清单是对第 541(a) 条下破产财产广义定义所涵盖的一切不动产和动产的说明，其中包括‘截至案件启动时债务人对财产享有的所有法定或衡平权益。’”）, 521.06[3][b]（“列示不动产和动产权益是一项非常重要的义务。”）, 521.09（“要求提交财务状况说明书的目的，是向受托人和债权人提供有关债务人财务状况的详细信息，从而节省为取得信息而进行冗长且旷日持久审查的费用。”）。第 341 条要求任何债务人接受由受托人进行的审查，其债权人可以参与该审查。见 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 341.01。\n\n特别就第 11 章而言，第 1107 条规定，在第 11 章债务人属于占有中的债务人期间，该债务人作为破产财产的受托人，承担上述受托人的许多相同披露义务，包括报告要求。见 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 1107.02[3]–[4]。债务人未能在与第 11 章计划相关而必须提交的披露声明中适当披露财务事务、资产和负债，将阻止该计划获得确认。11 U.S.C. § 1125；见 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶¶ 1125.02（“披露是《破产法典》下重组实践的关键概念。”）（引用 H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 226–31 (1977)）, 1125.02[2]。未作出适当披露能够且确实构成理由，以将第 11 章重组案件转换为第 7 章清算案件，驳回第 11 章破产案件，或任命第 11 章受托人。11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(f)；见 7 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 1112.04[6][f]。\n\n如同 Bouknight 案中的母亲一样，个人债务人在自愿启动其 Chapter 11 案件、接受本院的属人管辖，并将其对财产所享有的全部法定及衡平权益——“无论位于何处、由何人持有”——置于本院的对物管辖之下时，即承担了这些义务。11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 559（“Bouknight 接受了监管体系的常规运行，并同意以符合州监管利益的方式持有 Maurice，且接受 BCDSS 的检查。”）。此外，如同在 Bouknight 案中，母亲在有正当理由证明时被要求向 Baltimore City Department of Social Services 提交其子女一样，《破产法》要求个人债务人向受托人提交与破产财产有关的文件和记录，因为已有正当理由任命受托人。11 U.S.C. §§ 521(a)(4), 1112; Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 555–56。由于个人债务人自愿提起其 Chapter 11 案件并成为占有中的债务人，他承担了破产受托人的职责，即为债权人的利益管理破产财产。11 U.S.C. § 1107(a)。个人债务人在作为占有中的债务人期间，是破产财产及其账簿和记录的保管人。见 Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 555–56。尽管其占有中的债务人身份在受托人获任命后终止，但其由此产生的向受托人提供信息的义务并未终止。\n\n本院认定，个人债务人根据第 521(a)(3) 和 (a)(4) 条须提交的记录，因个人债务人的案件系自愿 Chapter 11 案件，且因这些 Chapter 11 案件及相关对抗程序的具体事实和情形支持该结论，已具有“公共属性”。见 Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 555–56; Grosso, 390 U.S. at 67–68。\n\n“必备记录”例外适用\n\nGrosso 检验的三个要素均支持：在本院审理的具体事实和情形下，将必备记录例外适用于第五修正案禁止自证其罪的权利。390 U.S. at 67–68; 见 Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 555–56; Grand Jury 2013, 741 F.3d at 345; Ross, 156 B.R. at 279–81; In re Fairbanks, 135 B.R. 717, 730–33 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1991)。\n\n最高法院关于原《破产法》的判例也支持适用必备记录例外。In re Harris, 221 U.S. 274 (1911)（裁定第五修正案并不保护债务人免于向破产接管人提交其账簿和记录）。Bouknight 在 Fisher 之后维持必备记录例外时，赞同地援引 Harris 作为必备记录原则的一个例子，确认尽管自 Harris 作出判决以来第五修正案判例法已经演变，Harris 至今仍然有效。Bouknight, 439 U.S. at 556–57; 见 Fisher, 425 U.S. 411–13（讨论 Harris 而未对其裁决提出质疑）；另见 Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 221 (1998)（裁定除非有明确迹象表明国会有意如此，否则《破产法》下的判例不被取代）；Ross, 156 B.R. at 279; 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 344.03[4]（“[I]t is doubtful that a debtor, as opposed to other witnesses, may successfully refuse to turn over the property, books and records that every debtor under the Code is required to surrender to the trustee on the basis that this ‘act of production’ might itself tend to incriminate.”）；但见 Butcher v. Bailey, 753 F.2d 465, 468 (6th Cir. 1985)（在 Bouknight 之前，并且是在非自愿 Chapter 7 案件而非自愿 Chapter 11 案件中，裁定 Harris 在 Fisher 之后已不再是有效法律，且第 521 条并不要求提交适用提交行为原则的文件）。\n\n个人债务人提出异议称，尽管如此，根据 McCarthy v. Arndstein，Harris 和必备记录例外并不适用于 Rule 2004 传票。266 U.S. 34 (1924)。然而，最高法院在 Arndstein 中以 Harris 涉及交出文件和记录，而 Arndstein 涉及被强制作证的问题为由，将其先前在 Harris 中的意见加以区分。266 U.S. at 41–42。受托人并未反对个人债务人援引第五修正案拒绝回答书面质询，或拒绝在证言录取期间或庭审中回答问题。相反，受托人反对个人债务人就提交文件和记录的请求援引第五修正案。因此，Arndstein 不适用。\n\n本院认定，无论依据对 Grosso 要素的分析，还是通过适用最高法院在《破产法》下的判例，必备记录例外均适用。\niii. 个人债务人未遵守强制提交命令\n\n基于上述所有理由，本院认定：(i) 个人债务人遵守强制提交命令并非不可能；且 (ii) 根据必备记录例外，个人债务人不得就强制提交命令适当地援引其第五修正案禁止自证其罪的权利。因此，受托人已通过清楚且令人信服的证据证明，个人债务人未遵守强制提交命令。\n3. 个人债务人是否曾勤勉地尝试遵守强制提交命令？\n\n受托人还必须证明，个人债务人未以合理方式勤勉地尝试遵守强制提交命令。King, 65 F.3d at 1058。受托人主张，个人债务人未作出任何遵守强制提交命令的尝试。作为回应，个人债务人主张，对于其是否可以适当地援引其第五修正案禁止自证其罪的权利存在合理疑义，并且该声明和补充声明体现了其为遵守强制提交命令所作的善意努力。\n\n个人债务人的关键错误是法律错误，而非事实错误。即，个人债务人错误地认定必备记录例外不适用于提交行为原则，并且其可以就强制提交命令援引第五修正案。基于上述理由，提交每一份文件或记录在事实上是否具有证言性质及自证其罪性质，并不影响结果。\n\n通常，在不要求故意或意图的情况下，法律错误不能构成民事责任的抗辩。Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573, 583–85 (2010)。如上所述，“缺乏故意[原文如此]并不能免除民事藐视法庭责任。”McComb, 336 U.S. at 191。因此，本院认定，个人债务人的法律错误不能构成对民事藐视法庭的抗辩。参见 Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109, 123 (1963)（裁定法律错误不能构成对国会藐视的抗辩）；United States v. Remini, 967 U.S. 754, 758 (2d Cir. 1992)（裁定法律错误不能构成对刑事藐视法庭的抗辩）。该结论符合最高法院在 Taggert 中的意见，即“即使一方当事人的善意不能阻却民事藐视法庭，其仍可能有助于确定适当的制裁。”139 S. Ct. at 1802（强调系后加）。因此，受托人已证明个人债务人未勤勉地尝试遵守强制提交命令。\n\n4. 个人债务人是否知悉强制提交命令？\n\n民事藐视法庭的最后一个要素是知悉相关命令。Gravel, 6 F.4th at 512。该声明承认个人债务人知悉强制提交命令。(ECF No. 1444 Ex. A.) 民事藐视法庭的该要素已经确立。\n5. 个人债务人构成民事藐视法庭\n\n四个要素均已确立，准许藐视法庭动议。本院认定个人债务人因未遵守强制提交命令而构成民事藐视法庭。如以下命令性段落所述，个人债务人将获给予消除其藐视状态的机会。鉴于个人债务人面临情形的严重性质，以及其在补充声明中回答受托人的二百零二 (202) 个问题所显示的善意，本院将给予个人债务人充足时间以消除其藐视状态。Taggert, 139 S. Ct. at 1802。然而，如个人债务人未消除其藐视状态，受托人可请求适当制裁。\n\n特此提醒个人债务人的代理律师：“作为法院官员，律师有义务通过对正当的证据开示请求作出勤勉、善意的回应，协助证据开示程序。”McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482, 1486 (5th Cir. 1990)。为此，进一步提醒个人债务人的代理律师，本院已认定，“[个人债务人及其他人的代理律师]未证明其在该等情形下已充分勤勉。”（强制提交命令 ¶ 9。）个人债务人被命令于 2023 年 1 月 31 日下午 5:00 时或之前遵守强制提交命令，但其未如此行事。“[代理律师]和[当事人]均无权单方面决定是否或何时遵守证据开示要求。”*535 Broadway Assocs. v. Com. Corp. of Am.*, 159 B.R. 403, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)。\n\n个人债务人及其代理律师应采取合理且勤勉的步骤，无论本院是否已直接阐明该等步骤，以使个人债务人遵守强制提交命令。正如个人债务人的代理律师已在记录中陈述，合理步骤包括向刑事法院提出动议，请求允许向受托人提交检方交付给个人债务人的、对 Rule 2004 传票具有回应性的文件和记录，但以受托人遵守刑事法院可能施加的任何条件为限。个人债务人为消除其藐视状态而行事时，将是在强制提交命令的强制下行事，因此，其向刑事法院申请向受托人提交文件，并不放弃任何第五修正案权利。见 Bouknight, 493 U.S. at 561–62。在审议任何制裁动议时，本院将考虑个人债务人为在刑事法院寻求救济所付出的勤勉程度。\nB. 是否应中止强制提交命令？\n\n在对藐视法庭动议作出裁定后，本院转而审理中止动议。个人债务人主张，为保全个人债务人第五修正案禁止自证其罪的权利，强制提交命令必须中止至刑事诉讼结束。作为回应，受托人主张，没有理由中止强制提交命令，且该中止将对受托人造成实质性损害。\n\n本院首先指出，尽管中止动议由个人债务人提出，且似乎仅涉及个人债务人，所附的拟议命令将全面中止强制提交命令，包括与个人债务人的女儿 Ms. Mei Guo（郭梅）以及被认定为个人债务人公司替身的 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 有关的命令性段落。在中止动议就这些额外当事人寻求救济的范围内，本院驳回中止动议。\n\n转向实体问题，本院必须在其合理酌处权范围内确定是否中止强制提交命令（Order Compelling Production）。Kashi v. Grastos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986)。法院并无严格要求必须因刑事程序尚在进行而中止民事程序。United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970); Kashi, 790 F.2d at 1057。在考虑是否鉴于刑事程序而中止民事程序时，法院会考虑包括但不限于以下因素：\n\n1）刑事案件中的争议与民事案件中提出的争议重叠的程度；2）案件的状态，包括被告是否已被起诉；3）原告迅速推进程序的私人利益，与延迟对原告造成的损害之间的权衡；4）被告的私人利益及其负担；5）法院的利益；以及6）公共利益。\n\nTrs. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).\n\n本院首先考虑破产财团迅速推进程序的私人利益，并与延迟对破产财团造成的损害进行权衡。中止强制提交命令将对破产财团和个人债务人的债权人造成重大损害。如上所述，债务人披露其财务状况、资产和负债，是破产程序中的根本性事项。由于个人债务人未与受托人合作，反而阻碍受托人的调查，破产财团持续承受巨大的费用和延误。根据第521条，受托人在一年多前获任后本应立即取得与个人债务人的财务状况、资产、负债、业务等有关的全部文件和记录。相反，受托人不得不\n\n确定其他适当的传票对象、发出无数传票，并持续不断地进行动议程序。虽然受托人的努力已使破产财团获得重大益处，但破产财团也因这些努力承担了沉重成本。\n\n此外，这些沉重成本是在破产程序的背景下产生的。很可能已经没有足够的资金来满足债权人的债权，而且由于对个人债务人事务的持续且未完成的调查，债权人正在损失其最终受偿的时间价值。11 U.S.C. §§ 726(a)(5), 1129(a)(7)(A)(ii)。此外，国会已确定，第11章案件的最终目标——确认计划——必须在规定期限内实现。See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1106(a)(5), 1121(a), 1121(d)。确认计划的延迟，而该计划必须规定债权人债权的最终实现，会对债权人和破产财团造成重大损害。See Andrews, 414 B.R. at 7。不应迫使受托人在缺乏个人债务人所需合作和披露的情况下开展工作。See Stone, 282 F.2d at 553.\n\n本院继而考虑个人债务人的私人利益及其负担。延迟或阻碍这些合法的破产程序不存在可认知的利益。个人债务人遵守强制提交命令也不存在可认知的负担。基于上述理由，他不能适当地援引其第五修正案反对自证其罪的权利。此外，在Fisher之后维持必备记录例外时，最高法院在Bouknight案中指出：\n\n在通常情况下，州的监管要求可能既不强迫作出可能使人入罪的证言，也不协助刑事追诉，但第五修正案的保护并不会因此必然无法适用于在援引该特权后遵守监管要求、并随后面临追诉的人。\n\n493 U.S. at 561–62; but see Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457 (1913)（在Fisher之前裁定，根据Harris提交的账簿和记录可以在刑事程序中使用）。\n\n随后，本院考虑尚在进行的刑事调查的状态以及刑事法院的利益。有两项尚在进行的刑事调查需要考虑：刑事案件和所称针对破产犯罪的调查。个人债务人已在刑事案件中被起诉。没有向本院提交任何证据表明他因任何针对破产犯罪的调查而被起诉。这些第11章案件及相关对抗程序确实与刑事案件存在重叠——（a）个人债务人的许多债权人也是刑事案件中所称的其受害人；（b）个人债务人的部分据称资产被指称系以刑事案件中所称欺诈的所得购买；以及（c）个人债务人的部分据称关联方和公司人格替身被指称参与了刑事案件中所称的欺诈——但同时也存在不一致之处——（d）这些第11章案件中的债权人中有人并非所称欺诈受害人；（e）破产财团的据称资产中有些是在所称欺诈发生前购买；以及（f）个人债务人的据称关联方和人格替身中有人未被指称参与该欺诈。然而，任何针对破产犯罪的调查所涉及的任何问题，均与这些第11章案件直接相关。\n\n本院认定，本命令并未实质性干扰刑事法院对刑事案件进行有序管理的利益。个人债务人提出一种担忧，即要求个人债务人向受托人提交文件将损害控方对其提起的案件，并在刑事法院引发有关证据的诉讼。该论点没有说服力。个人债务人在本程序中被强制提交文件和记录，并不会改变控方显然已拥有大量证据这一事实。尽管如个人债务人所主张，控方可能不被允许将个人债务人向受托人提交的材料作为以下事项的证据：\n\n个人债务人对控方已持有的文件和记录的控制权，或该等文件和记录的真实性，但个人债务人的论点描述的是现状。此外，刑事法院将审查并裁定任何要求控方向受托人提交控方向个人债务人所作提交中所含文件和记录的动议。\n\n就任何针对破产犯罪的调查而言，由于（a）没有证据表明个人债务人已被起诉，且（b）没有证据表明任何法院中存在与此相关的程序，本院认定应对任何此类调查的利益给予较低权重。如上所述，《破产法》并非为制造破产犯罪而存在。其目的在于，为全体债权人以及最终债务人自身的利益，公平且终局性地解决、调整和重组债务人的资产、负债和财务状况。为使对个人债务人因破产犯罪而进行的某些推测性追诉受益，而妨碍受托人对个人债务人的事务、资产和负债进行调查，并不适当。破产犯罪是一种执行机制，旨在促进破产程序中的适当披露。若个人债务人遵守强制提交命令，他将补救破产犯罪所旨在防止的损害，同时也使这些第11章案件得以得到适当管理。\n\n最后，本院认定，公共利益在于，“阻碍受托人为破产财团债权人收集、变现和分配资产的努力，将损害对破产案件的迅速管理。”In re MGL Corp., 262 B.R. 324, 330 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001)。公众有权期待一个运作良好的破产制度。该制度有益于经济、债务人和债权人。阻碍该程序及拖延该程序的努力不符合公共利益。此外，如上所述，个人债务人依照强制提交命令提交文件\n\n和记录，并不违反第五修正案。\n\n经权衡衡平因素，本院认定，在其合理酌处权范围内，中止\n\n强制提交命令并无必要。因此，中止动议被驳回。\nC. 是否应当因滥用证据开示而作出金钱制裁？\n\n最后，经D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37以及D.\n\nConn. Bankr. L.R. 1001-1(a)(1)和2004-1(a)适用的Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)规定：\n\n（C）费用支付。法院可以代替或在作出上述命令之外，命令不服从命令的一方、向该方提供意见的律师，或二者共同支付因该不服从行为所致的合理费用，包括律师费，除非该不服从行为具有实质正当理由，或其他情形使费用裁定不公正。\n\n根据具体事实和情形，本院认定目前不宜裁定费用。\nV. 结论及命令\n\n基于上述理由，本院（A）因个人债务人未遵守强制提交命令而裁定其构成民事藐视法庭，及（B）驳回中止动议，并在其合理酌处权范围内拒绝在刑事案件解决前中止强制提交命令。因此，特此\n\n命令：本院因Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生（“个人债务人”）未遵守部分准许强制遵守动议的命令（“强制提交命令”），ECF No. 1353，而裁定其构成民事\n\n藐视法庭；并进一步\n\n命令：若个人债务人未能于2023年9月29日或之前通过使其自身完全遵守强制提交命令而消除其藐视法庭状态，则Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯）先生以第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份\n\n代表个人债务人的破产财团（“破产财团”），可申请任何适当制裁；并进一步\n\n命令：部分准许强制遵守动议的命令之有限中止动议（“中止动议”），ECF No. 1649，予以驳回。\n\n于2023年7月26日作于康涅狄格州布里奇波特。\n附件3\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 布里奇波特分庭\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1　:\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n第11章受托人依据《破产规则》第2004条及地方法则第2004-1条申请作出命令，授权审查HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）并提交文件的动议\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）作为获任命的债务人破产财团第11章受托人（“受托人”），通过其拟聘任的下列签署律师Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），根据《联邦破产程序规则》第2004(a)条（“破产规则”）及《地方法院破产规则》第2004-1条（“地方法则”），特此申请（“申请”或“动议”）在上述标题所示第11章案件（“本案”）中对Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）进行审查。请注意，对本申请提出异议的截止日期为2022年8月5日；如未及时提交异议，随附提交的拟议命令（“拟议命令”）可在无需进一步通知和听证的情况下生效。为支持其申请，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 尽管债务人的法定姓名为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），但其亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名。债务人纳税人识别号码的后四位为9595。\n初步陈述\n\n1. 在授权任命第11章受托人时，法院确认，受托人的一项关键目标将是对“债务人的资产、负债及财务事务进行有效调查”。（见 ECF. No. 465，第14页，以下称“受托人任命命令”）。在本案中，此类调查势在必行，以探究包括以下事项在内的问题：债务人在其财产清单中声称其仅拥有价值 $3,850 的资产，与其仍可获得大量资金和资源（包括用于支付其在本案中律师费用的资金和资源）这一事实之间存在的明显不一致；以及其多年来作为自称的亿万富翁过着奢靡豪华生活这一事实。受托人需要尽快对债务人的财务事务进行广泛、全面的调查，以确定尽管其财产清单载明的内容如此，是否仍可能存在构成破产财产的重大资产——包括不动产和动产、对其他法人实体的股权所有权、诉讼请求权及其他财产权益。\n\n2. 本项依据 Rule 2004 提出的证据开示动议——系受托人拟在其调查开始时提出的数项动议之一——请求对债务人进行审查，并要求其提交可能与破产财产的潜在资产有关的文件。New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）已经认定，债务人曾通过空壳公司网络及其他方式试图隐匿其财富；大量新闻报道及其他证据亦支持该结论。因此，受托人有充分理由就债务人的资产及事务向其请求广泛的文件和证言，包括但不限于其收入及资金来源、其与各关联实体及当事人的关系，以及其遍及全球的商业权益。受托人谨请求法院作出与本文件附件 A 所载格式一致的命令，授权进行该等调查。\n\n程序状态\n\n3. 2022年3月19日，United States Trustee（美国受托人）提交了要求任命审查员的命令动议，或作为替代请求，提交了要求任命第11章受托人的命令动议。（见 ECF No. 102）。\n\n4. 2022年4月6日，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）提交了驳回第11章案件的动议，或作为替代请求，加入美国受托人要求任命第11章受托人的命令动议。（见 ECF No. 183）。\n\n5. 2022年6月15日，本院作出了受托人任命命令。\n\n6. 受托人任命命令在相关部分认定：“与驳回或转换程序相比，债务人财务事务的复杂性以及本案中缺乏独立管理监督，证明有必要任命一名第11章受托人，以便为债权人和破产财产的利益调查、识别和查找债务人的资产”；并进一步认定，“第11章受托人应履行 11 U.S.C. § 1106 规定的全部职责。”（见同上，第15-16页、第18页）。\n\n7. 受托人任命命令进一步认定：“任命第11章受托人还将有助于对债务人的资产、负债和财务事务进行有效调查”，并将“使第11章受托人能够调查债务人的资产、负债和财务事务，并确保遵守《约定命令》的规定。”（见同上，第14页、第18页）。\n\n8. 2022年7月7日，Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）提交了任命第11章受托人的通知，任命 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯潘）为债务人破产财产的第11章受托人。（见 ECF No. 514）。\n\n事实背景\n\n一、申请书及债务人的财产清单\n\n9. 2022年2月15日（“申请日”），债务人根据《美国法典》第11编第11章（“破产法典”）提交了自愿破产救济申请书。\n\n10. 债务人的财产清单列明无担保债权总额约为 $374 million（见 ECF No. 78，第1页，以下称“债务人的财产清单”）。PAX 主张的 $254 million 债权，是债务人财产清单所列无担保债权中金额最大的单项债权。（见同上，所附附表 F）。债务人的财产清单还列明一项金额不明的有担保债权，据称属于 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”），该实体据称由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）（“儿子”或“郭强”）所有；该债权据称由“[c]ertain claims and recoveries thereto”担保，并主张系因“诉讼融资协议”而产生。（见同上，所附附表 D）。\n\n11. 尽管先前程序中的证据显示债务人过着奢靡生活并享有豪华住所，债务人的财产清单仅列明 $3,850 的资产。2（见同上，第3-7页）。债务人主张其没有任何收入，其费用由 Golden Spring 支付（见同上，第1页；另见 ECF No. 107，第 ¶17 段，以下称“债务人声明”）。\n\n二、债务人拥有或控制但未在财产清单中列明的潜在资产\n\n12. 尽管债务人在其财产清单中作出上述主张，报道表明其可能在纽约州、康涅狄格州及其他地点拥有并控制重大不动产和动产资产，而该等资产的所有权登记在与债务人关联的商业实体名下。报道还表明，债务人亦在众多营利性及声称为非营利性实体中拥有财务权益。债务人被认定呈现出在各该商业实体之间操纵所有权以隐匿资产的模式，尤其是通过由家庭成员拥有的实体。（见 Decision + Order on Motion, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 9, 2022)，第1页，以下称“最终藐视法庭命令”（认定债务人“试图通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、可信赖的密友和家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人”，并且其“将资产藏匿于公司实体和家庭成员构成的迷宫之中。”））。3\n\n2 债务人在财产清单中列明了若干价值不明的资产，包括存在争议的未注册版权和诉讼请求权。（见同上，第6页）。\n\na. 受控制的关联实体\n\n13. 尽管需要进行彻底调查以识别债务人可能拥有所有权或控制权的所有不同实体，受托人基于公开可得的信息（包括其他法院的认定），有理由相信债务人拥有一个广泛的空壳公司网络，其利用该网络从事商业活动并储存其财富。\n\n14. 例如，2021年6月，在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦地区法院）审理的 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（“Eastern Profit”）诉 Strategic Vision US LLC（战略远景美国有限责任公司）违约合同诉讼中，据称由债务人女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）（“女儿”或“郭美”）控制的实体 Eastern Profit 获判 $1 million 判决。（见 ECF No. 77，第12-13页；另见 Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116334, at *98 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021)，以下称“Eastern Profit 诉讼”）。地区法院在就 Eastern Profit 诉讼作出的事实认定及法律结论中认定，Eastern Profit“实质上是”债务人的“一家空壳公司”。（见 Eastern Profit 诉讼，at *4）。\n\n3 最终藐视法庭命令作为附件 A 附于 Objection Of Chapter 11 Trustee to Debtor's Motion For Relief From Order Appointing Luc A. Despins as Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 575]。\n\n15. 债务人可能控制的其他实体包括：(i) Bravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”），据称由债务人的儿子所有的实体（见债务人声明，第 ¶ 33 段）；(ii) Genever Holding LLC（“Genever NY”），Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）的全资子公司，其股权由债务人以个人身份持有（见同上）；(iii) Golden Spring，据称由债务人的儿子控制的实体（见同上，第 ¶ 17 段）；(iv) Greenwich Land LLC（“Greenwich Land”），据称由债务人据称的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（“妻子”或“Hing”）所有的实体（见同上）；(v) Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp”），据称由债务人的儿子所有的实体（见同上，第 ¶ 51 段）；以及 (vi) HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”），据称由债务人的女儿所有的实体（见同上，第 ¶ 33 段）。\n\n16. 债务人已表示，上述实体（或许还包括其他实体）为债务人向媒体及在社交媒体上炫耀的奢靡生活提供资金。（例如，见同上，第 ¶ 17 段（称其儿子通过 Golden Spring“满足[债务人]的需要”）；同上，第 ¶ 23 段（主张其女儿拥有 Lady May（一艘据称于2015年以 £41 million 购得的豪华游艇），且其儿子负责 Lady May 的维护）；以及同上，第 ¶ 51 段（指出其儿子通过 Lamp 为债务人最初的第11章破产律师支付了 $1 million 的预付律师费）。然而，债务人未解释这些实体如何获得其收入，或其为换取该等实体向其提供的资金而向其提供了何种对价（如有）。\n\nb. 债务人可能拥有或控制的不动产及动产资产\n\n17. 除这一不透明的受控制关联实体网络外，还存在大量不动产及动产资产——债务人本人曾向媒体吹嘘其拥有该等资产——其也可能构成破产财产。\n\n18. 例如，在2017年的一次采访中，当被问及其如何开展反对中国共产党的运动是否令其感到遗憾时，债务人称：\n\n对于过去九个月所做的一切，我绝对不后悔。我拥有全世界人人都梦想拥有的富裕生活。我在香港有最大的房子，数千平方米。我在伦敦有最豪华的公寓。我在北京有最大的房产。我在盘古有10多处房产。我有两架私人飞机。我有最先进的游艇。我有数百辆赛车。我在纽约也有这样的一套公寓。我已经没有任何物质需求了。\n\n（例如，见 Vice News, Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage A War On Corruption, YOUTUBE, at 6:38-7:07 (Nov. 15 2017)（着重号为后加）（available at http），以下称“Vice News 采访”）。4 值得注意的是，债务人从未就这些资产或其任何收益的去向提出可信解释——受托人认为，这一核心问题将通过本次 2004 审查得到解答。\n\n19. 与债务人自己的承认一致，其他法院已经认定，尽管债务人在本案中提出了相反的新近主张，某些资产实际上归债务人所有。\n\n20. Lady May。在为确定谁拥有 Lady May 的受益所有权而举行证据听证后，纽约州最高法院认定债务人受益性地拥有并控制 Lady May。（最终藐视法庭命令，第9页（“证据清楚且令人信服地表明，[债务人]对 Lady May 持有受益权益并控制 Lady May。”））。具体而言，法院在审查全部证据后，包括债务人的女儿及 HK USA 律师代表债务人提出的其他三名证人的长篇证言，认定“听证会上从被告人口中取得的证言”\n\n4 此引文由债务人以中文说出，并由 Vice News 翻译成英文。\n\n证人的证词清楚且令人信服地表明，Kwok（郭文贵）实益拥有并控制Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇），并且对本院及司法程序抱有极端蔑视。”（最终藐视法庭命令，第4页）。法院继而指出，“简言之，Guo女士关于其拥有并控制Lady May的证词在任何方面均不可信”，并且，“Kwok不仅控制该游艇，看来他还提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇之人。”（同上，第6-8页）。5\n\n21. Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉荷兰酒店）房产。债务人可能同样拥有并控制位于Manhattan（曼哈顿）Sherry Netherland Hotel的一套公寓，据称该公寓于2015年以约$70 million购得（“该公寓”）。债务人主张，该公寓由Genever NY所有，且Genever NY通过Bravo Luck为其儿子以信托形式持有该公寓。（参见债务人声明，第33段）。如上所述，Genever NY本身由Genever BVI所有，而Genever BVI为债务人所有的实体。（参见同上）。\n\n22. 与Lady May类似，该公寓亦成为Genever NY于2020年10月在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）、James L. Garrity Jr.法官阁下面前提起的独立第11章破产案件中申请前诉讼的标的。（参见案件编号20-12411 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)）。在该第11章案件中，Genever NY与PAX达成协议，据此该公寓将被出售，所得款项将存入托管账户，且仅在Garrity法官进一步命令后方可分配。（参见第二次修订及重述和解协议，In re Genever Holdings, LLC, No. 20-12411, (ECF 131-1, ¶5(g))）。该协议还规定，除其他事项外，该协议不损害各方继续进行诉讼的权利。\n\n5. 2022年3月1日，PAX提交了关于作出命令确认自动停止不适用的动议，或备选地，根据《破产法》第362(d)(2)条解除自动停止的动议（ECF No. 57）（“PAX停止动议”）。PAX停止动议根据一项协议裁定得到解决，据此，除其他条件外，HK USA同意将Lady May返还美国，并通过将$37 million存入托管账户以担保该义务。（参见ECF No. 299）。Lady May于2022年7月初被返还至Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的通航水域。\n\n该诉讼由PAX在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）针对Bravo Luck及债务人提起，对Bravo Luck据称就该公寓享有的实益所有权提出质疑。（同上，第7(b)段）。\n\n23. 受托人亦有理由相信，与该公寓的购置有关，可能仍留有约$2 million的保证金。\n\n（参见ECF No. 77，第7页）。\n\n24. 其他不动产及动产。除上述外，债务人经常提及由其本人或其直系家庭成员拥有并控制的其他重大不动产及动产资产。例如：\n\n债务人主张，其妻子通过Greenwich Land拥有债务人位于373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831的住宅房产。（参见债务人声明，第6、17段）。Greenwich Land还可能拥有位于Greenwich, Connecticut的另一处住宅房产，即33 Ferncliff Rd.6\n\n债务人曾声明，其拥有于2019年被High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance（香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭）冻结的“billions”之“资金和财产，包括香港的不动产”。（参见债务人声明，第17段）。\n\n债务人还是United Kingdom（英国）一宗诉讼的共同原告，该诉讼涉及约$500 million的请求权。7\n\n如上所述，在2017年的一次访谈中，债务人吹嘘其拥有的财产包括：(i) 香港“最大的房子”，(ii) 伦敦“最豪华的公寓”，(iii) 北京“最大的地方”，(iv) “Pangu（盘古）超过10处房产”，(v) 两架私人飞机，8以及(vi)“数百辆赛车”。9\n\n6. （参见无担保债权人正式委员会关于驳回、转换或指定第11章受托人之替代方案的补充法律备忘录，第3页[ECF No. 408]（指出“破产财产的其他潜在资产是位于Greenwich, Connecticut的两处房产（373 Taconic Rd.和33 Ferncliff Rd.），债务人声称该等房产由Greenwich Land所有。”））。\n\n7. 参见2022年2月9日核准判决，Kwok Ho Wan & Ors v UBS, Cl-2020-000345, High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法院），第30(i)段（“主要请求为约US$495 million。”）。\n\n8. 根据一篇新闻报道，其中一架私人飞机的机尾编号为T7-GQM。参见“Steve Bannon's Use of Private Jet Linked to Chinese Businessman Could Violate Campaign Finance Law,” ProPublica, dated Feb. 26, 2020, (available at http) (last visited July 25, 2022)。\n\n9. 参见Vice News采访，6:38-7:07。\n\n拟议的询问将有助于确定——并很可能确认——该等不同财产权益是否属于破产财产。\nc. 债务人在营利性及声称非营利性商业实体中的潜在财务权益\n\n25. 除债务人可能通过其家庭成员所有的商业实体拥有或控制的不动产及动产资产外，债务人还可能在营利性及据称非营利性商业实体中拥有重大财务或所有权权益（或负债），该等权益或负债可能为破产财产及债权人提供重大价值。\n\n26. 例如，据报道，债务人在Gettr USA, Inc.（“Gettr”）中拥有财务权益，该公司为一个保守派社交媒体平台。（参见Will Sommer、Adam Rawnsley、A. Suebsaeng，《Trumpworld App Is Bankrolled by Fugitive Chinese Billionaire》，THE DAILY BEAST，http\n\nbillionaire?ref=home（July 5, 2021, 12:19 PM）（last visited July 20, 2022）（报道称，“与该亿万富翁有关联的网站曾表示Gettr是债务人的创意”，并将GTV一名主持人的说法归于其名下；GTV是“作为债务人喉舌的媒体机构”，该主持人称Gettr是“‘债务人整个毕生工作的集中体现’”，并补充称，“债务人提出了Gettr标识即火炬的创意。”）；另参见The New York Times: Sway, Best Of: Jason Miller, 30:15-30:35（July 18, 2022）（使用Apple Podcasts下载）（当被问及谁在资助Gettr时，Gettr首席执行官Jason Miller回答：“我们有多个国际投资基金正在向此项目投入资金……Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的家族基金会是该项目最初的资助者之一、最初的赞助者之一。迄今已有超过$50 million投入该\n\n平台。截至目前，我们银行中有约$25-$30 million。”））。10\n\n27. 另有报道称，Gettr的工资单所列地址与“Himalaya Embassy（喜马拉雅大使馆）”相同，该处为租赁于Manhattan Upper East Side（曼哈顿上东区）的房产，亦与New Federal State of China（“NFSC”，新中国联邦）有关；NFSC是债务人与Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）共同创建、自称为“致力于推翻[Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）]的流亡政府”的组织，Bannon曾任前总统Donald J. Trump（唐纳德·J·特朗普）的首席战略师。（参见Dan Friedman，《A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued. The weird, wild, and scary tale of Miles Guo》，Mother Jones（March-April 2022 Issue）（last visited July 21, 2022），http）。\n\n28. 另有报道称，债务人拥有或控制由“超过60个商业、非营利及在线团体”组成的“网络”，统称为“whistleblower movement（爆料运动）”。（参见同上）。据称，其中至少两个非营利组织——Rule of Law Society（法治协会）和Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）——为NFSC提供资金。（参见同上）。据报道，截至2021年夏季，Rule of Law Society和Rule of Law Foundation“合计收入约为$15 million。”（同上）。\n\n29. 债务人据称由营利性及非营利性商业权益构成的“网络”还可能包括以下实体或品牌：(i) “GCoin”，一种据称由债务人创建、作为NFSC货币使用的加密货币；(ii) “GFashion”，由债务人设计的服装系列；(iii) “GMusic”，推广债务人视频的音乐平台；(iv) “GClubs”，一种会员服务，提供“‘礼宾客户服务’以及对债务人时装系列、音乐发行及年度GSummit的特别访问权”；(v) “GTV”，一个中文\n\n视频平台；(vi) “GNews”，一个“刊载概述债务人声明的文章”的新闻网站；11 (vii) Saraca Media Group Inc.，GNews的母公司，据称还于2018年5月向Bannon先生支付至少$1 million的咨询费；以及(viii) Himalaya Supervisory Organization（喜马拉雅监督组织），该组织监管若干推广及崇拜债务人的在线聊天群，并向这些聊天群成员提供“各种机制”以向债务人汇款，包括通过一项贷款计划；据称该计划“承诺最终连本带息偿还，并有机会以折扣价投资于债务人的其他项目”，以及通过购买GTV股票。（参见同上）。据称，GTV股票发行机会筹集了$114 million，且该贷款计划筹集了“至少$90 million。”（参见同上）。\n\n30. 上述仅为债务人曾吹嘘拥有，或迄今媒体报道过的部分商业权益及实体。合乎逻辑的是，债务人可能与众多其他实体存在关联，而该等实体的资产、负债及财务权益可能对受托人管理债务人的破产财产至关重要。\n\n31. 由于债务人可能是上述资产和权益以及其他可能未知资产和权益的真实所有人，受托人充分审查和调查债务人的破产财产资产至关重要，包括其家庭成员、其家庭成员的商业实体及其他第三方——包括代理债务人及其关联家庭实体的律师事务所——在债务人财务状况方面所起的作用。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n32. 本院根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334对审理本申请享有管辖权。根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本院为审理本申请的适当审判地。\n\n11. 参见同上。\n\n33. 本申请为核心程序，依据包括但不限于28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (F)。\n请求的救济\n\n34. 受托人请求根据Bankruptcy Rule 2004(a)及Local Bankruptcy Rule 2004-1作出一项实质上采用拟议命令形式的命令，授权受托人对债务人进行询问。\n请求救济的依据\n\n35. 根据Rule 2004(a)，经利害关系方申请，法院可命令对任何个人或实体进行询问。根据Rule 2004获授权询问的范围极为广泛，可涉及“债务人的行为、举止或财产，或债务人的负债及财务状况，或可能影响债务人破产财产管理的任何事项。”Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(b)。\n\n36. “Rule 2004 审查的目的，是协助利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围、揭示资产、审查交易并评估是否发生不当行为。”In re Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., 2018 WL 4006324, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（省略内部引述和引证）。这包括揭示破产财产的性质和范围，以及发现债务人可能故意或非故意隐匿的资产。见 In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)。另见 In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（“Rule 2004 审查的正当目标包括发现资产、审查交易，以及确定是否发生不当行为。”（省略内部引述和引证））。\n\n37. 债务人在为支持提起本案而于 March 20, 2022 提交的声明中表示，提起其 chapter 11 案件的目的包括“……（b）鉴于[其]认为在该等事项上存在误解，给予利害关系人有效机会调查[其]资产、负债和财务事务；[以及]（c）确定哪些资产属于破产财产，从而可供向获准债权持有人分配……。”（债务人声明，第 3 段）。受托人寻求进行的调查与这些既定目的直接相关，因为该调查将有助于受托人识别债务人的资产和负债，以便向债权人进行分配。\n\n38. 根据所请求对债务人进行的审查而开展初步调查的领域显而易见。基于上文讨论的所有事实和证据——包括债务人本人多次公开声明以及其他法院过去作出的认定——受托人已识别出债务人的多家法人实体以及不动产和动产资产，这些资产可能为破产财产提供重大价值。然而，受托人需要 Rule 2004 所赋予的调查工具，以进一步确定这些资产的真实所有权，并探究受托人目前尚不知悉的其他潜在资产。\n\n39. 为推进其审查，受托人请求法院命令债务人在传票送达后 thirty (30) 日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，按随附于本申请并构成本申请一部分的 Exhibit B 所附表格（“拟议传票”）中所要求的方式，向受托人的律师提供与拟议传票形式和实质大致相同的文件。这些请求寻求与以下事项有关的文件和通信，其中包括：(i) 本文讨论的特定资产和财产权益（例如，Lady May、12 the Condominium、Greenwich 房产，以及债务人曾夸耀拥有的各种其他住宅、私人飞机和其他资产）；(ii) 债务人在其他个人、法人实体和非营利组织中的权益及其与该等主体的关系，该等主体可能是债务人财富的来源；以及 (iii) 债务人与其律师及其他顾问之间的通信，包括与该等顾问就公司治理问题以及债务人的财务和财产权益进行的通信。\n\n40. 就后一类文件请求而言，当有关取证可能识别并有助于为破产财产和债权人的利益追回资产时，破产法院通常准许针对专业机构进行 Rule 2004 取证。见，例如，In re Bame, 251 B.R. 367 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000)（认定当请求旨在追回资产时，受托人要求放弃个人债务人的特权并向破产申请前顾问寻求取证的请求具有说服力）；In re Horvath, No. 13-34137, 2015 WL 2195060 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio May 7, 2015)（因受托人寻求可能增加债务人破产财产的价值，故允许从个人债务人处取得与资产清单中债权有关的证据）。债务人如主张律师—客户特权或其他适用特权可能阻碍受托人对其与律师通信的调查，均无依据，因为“受托人现控制任何律师—客户特权或律师工作成果特权，但仅限于其与识别债务人破产财产的资产、负债或财务状况有关的范围。”In re Tarkington, No. 10-00012-8-JRL, 2010 WL 1416813, at *3 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2010)（“受托人对[个人债务人]律师—客户特权的放弃，在审查期间提出的问题涉及破产财产管理的范围内有效”）；另见 In re Klein, No. 2:11-BK-12718RN, 2013 WL 6253819, at *13 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013)（chapter 11 受托人在获任后控制债务人与其前律师之间的特权）。\n\n12 Lady May 属于受托人寻求取证的事项和潜在破产财产资产之一，即使目前就 Lady May 的所有权已有对抗程序待决，受托人仍主张根据 Rule 2004 进行该等取证是适当的。受托人拟议的与 Lady May 有关的取证，涉及债务人为逃避其债权人而实施的整体行为模式，因此其范围比可能将在该对抗程序中寻求的取证更广。鉴于受托人正就其他事项向同一批当事人寻求 Rule 2004 取证，由受托人现在进行该等取证对所有当事人而言也更有效率——若受托人必须向同一批当事人进行两次取证，将是低效的。此外，这并非对抗程序原告通过 Rule 2004 寻求削弱《破产规则》就对抗程序取证所提供保护的典型情形。最后，鉴于该对抗程序的程序状态，受托人目前可能无法在该程序中取得取证。然而，受托人现在需要其 Rule 2004 取证，以充分保护和保全破产财产的潜在资产。\n\n41. 受托人主张，上述事实构成法院根据 Rule 2004(a) 命令对债务人进行审查并由债务人提交文件的充分理由。债务人本人是帮助受托人查明债务人破产财产真实资产所必需的信息和文件来源。对债务人的审查及其对文件请求的回应，将是“给予利害关系人有效机会调查[其]资产”的第一步。（债务人声明，第 3 段）。\n\n42. 批准本申请对于受托人有效履行《受托人命令》所设想的职责至关重要，特别包括其“为债权人和破产财产的利益查找债务人资产”以及“调查债务人的资产、负债和财务事务”的授权。（见《受托人命令》第 15-16、18 页）。批准本申请所请求的救济，不会对包括债务人在内的任何利害关系方造成不当损害。\n\n43. 如批准受托人所请求的救济，受托人应按拟议传票的形式发出适当传票，以强制出席 Rule 2004 审查中的证言录取和/或提交文件。此外，谨请求 Rule 2004 证言审查在受托人律师 Paul Hastings LLP 的律师事务所举行，该所位于 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，并应至少提前 seven (7) 日发出书面通知，或在当事人另行同意的其他时间和地点举行。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n44. 此前未就本申请所请求的救济提出申请。\n\n异议期限\n\n45. 对本申请提出异议的期限为 August 5, 2022；如未及时提交异议，拟议裁定可在无需进一步通知和听证的情况下生效。\n\n【本页其余部分特意留白】\n\n因此，受托人谨请求法院批准本申请，并根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2004(a) 作出拟议裁定，命令对 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）进行审查，并命令按照附于拟议传票的文件提交请求所载内容提交若干文件，以及给予法院认为公正且适当的其他和进一步救济。\n\n日期：July 28, 2022　LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　CHAPTER 11 受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（ct29437）　NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（pro hac vice 待决）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（pro hac vice 待决）Douglass Barron（pro hac vice 待决）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\nChapter 11 受托人的拟议律师\n\nExhibit A – 拟议裁定\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州联邦地区）BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　：\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。13　：\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n【拟议】准许 CHAPTER 11 受托人就 HO WON KWOK 进行 RULE 2004 审查之申请的裁定\n\n经审议，由 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）以债务人破产财产获任命的 Chapter 11 受托人身份（“申请人”）提出的、请求作出授权对 Ho Won Kwok（“债务人”）进行 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 审查的申请（“申请”，ECF No. ______），经通知和听证，见 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)，现认定存在理由按如下条件准许所请求的救济；兹\n\n命令：如下所述，准许该 Rule 2004 动议。\n\n命令：Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）和 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）作为受托人的拟议律师，特此获授权签署与作为 Exhibit B 附于 Rule 2004 动议的传票在形式上大致相同的传票，并根据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004，向债务人送达该传票及本裁定副本，要求债务人接受审查并提交文件。\n\n命令：债务人特此被命令在传票送达后 30 日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，提交全部文件。如债务人基于某项特权而未提交传票所请求的任何文件，债务人特此被命令在传票送达后 30 日内，或在受托人同意的其他期限内，向受托人提供一份符合 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(2)、经 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9016 适用以及 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) 规定的特权清单。\n\n命令：债务人特此被命令确保传票所请求的或以其他方式与债务人、其业务、资产、负债、财务状况或本 Chapter 11 案件有关的所有文件和其他信息，包括但不限于任何电子格式的信息，均得到妥善保存，可供提交、检查和复制，且不被销毁。\n\n13 尽管债务人的法定姓名为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），其亦称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名。债务人纳税人识别号码的最后四位为 9595。\n\n兹命令：Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）及 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）作为受托人的拟任律师，现获授权，无需本院进一步命令，即可根据《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条，在 Paul Hastings LLP 位于 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 的办公室，或在双方均可接受的其他地点，对债务人进行第2004条规则项下的询问以取得证言；询问日期应为受托人可接受的日期，并应由受托人选择，且不得早于债务人依照传票及本命令、根据《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条提交文件后14个日历日；该询问应逐日持续进行，直至完成。\n\n日期：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2022\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法官\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n附件B——传票及文件出示请求\n\n美国破产法院\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 康涅狄格州地区 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n关于 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n案号：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）22-50073\n\n债务人\n\n章节 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 11\n第2004条规则询问传票\n\n致：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Ho Wan Kwok\n\n（传票所指向之人员姓名）\n\n证言：兹命令你在下述时间、日期和地点出席，根据《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条接受询问并作证。随附授权该询问的法院命令副本。\n\n地点　日期和时间\n\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n询问将通过以下方式记录：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 法院记录员/速记员\n\n出示：你或你的代理人还必须携带下列文件、电子存储信息或物品参加询问，并必须允许对该材料进行查验、复制、测试或抽样：\n见随附的文件出示请求。\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条的下列规定，经《联邦破产程序规则》第9016条规定适用于破产案件，随附于后——有关履行地点的第45(c)条；有关作为受传票约束人员之保护的第45(d)条；以及有关你回应本传票之义务及不履行该义务可能后果的第45(e)条和第45(g)条。\n\n日期：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ August \\_\\_, 2022\n\n法院书记员\n\n或\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 书记员或副书记员签名 \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 律师签名 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\n\n代表（当事人姓名）\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ 并签发或请求本传票的律师姓名、地址、电子邮箱地址及电话号码如下：Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人\n\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.; Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.; 195 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510 plinsey@npmlaw.com; 203-821-2000\n\n向签发或请求本传票之人员的通知\n\n如本传票命令在审判前出示文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或查验场所，则必须在向传票所指向人员送达之前，向每一方送达通知及本传票副本。《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(a)(4)条。\n\n文件出示请求\n\nI. 指示\n\n1. 除非另有说明，下列文件出示请求（统称“请求”，单称“一项请求”）必须分别且具体地予以答复。除非基于诚信提出异议，否则每项请求均应得到完整答复；如提出异议，应按下文所述详细说明你提出异议的理由。如异议仅涉及一项请求的一部分，或其中包含的一个词语、短语或条款，你仅须说明对该部分的异议，并答复其余请求。\n\n2. 电子存储信息必须按照以下指示出示：\n\na. 图像。黑白图像必须为300 DPI Group IV 单页 TIFF 文件。彩色图像必须以 JPEG 格式出示。文件名不得含有嵌入式空格或特殊字符（包括逗号）。文件夹名称不得含有嵌入式空格或特殊字符（包括逗号）。所有 TIFF 图像文件必须具有唯一的文件名，即 Bates 编号。每张图像右下角必须标注连续的 Bates 编号。每个文件夹中的 TIFF 文件不得超过1000个。Excel 电子表格应具有以该文件的 Bates 编号命名的占位图像。\n\nb. 图像加载文件\n\na. Concordance® 数据文件。数据文件（.DAT）包含将加载至 Concordance® 数据库的全部字段化信息。.DAT 文件的第一行必须为标明字段名称的标题行。.DAT 文件必须使用下列 Concordance® 默认分隔符：逗号 ASCII 字符（020）引号 þ ASCII 字符（254）。日期字段应采用以下格式提供：mm/dd/yyyy。日期和时间字段必须为两个单独字段。如文件包括已生成图像的电子邮件及附件，则必须包括附件字段，以保留电子邮件与其附件之间的父/子关系。必须包括 OCRPATH 字段，以提供所出示存储介质上提取文本文件的文件路径和名称。文本文件必须以 FIRSTBATES 命名。不得在 .DAT 文件中包括文本。对于具有原生文件的文件，必须包括 LINK 字段，以提供原生文件的文件路径和名称。原生文件必须以 FIRSTBATES 命名。\n\nb. Concordance Image® 或 Opticon 交叉引用文件。图像交叉引用文件（.LOG 或 .OPT）将图像链接至数据库记录。该文件应为以逗号分隔的文件，每行由七个字段组成，数据库中的每张图像在交叉引用文件中均应有一行，格式如下：ImageID,VolumeLabel,ImageFilePath,DocumentBreak,FolderBreak,Box Break,PageCount。\n\nc. 文件文本。文本必须作为单独的文本文件出示，而不得作为 .DAT 文件内的字段。文本文件的完整路径（OCRPATH）应包括在 .DAT 文件中。建议提供按 FIRSTBATES/Image Key 命名的文件级 ANSI 文本文件。提取的文本文件必须置于单独的文件夹中，每个文件夹中的文本文件不得超过1,000个。文件夹名称中不得有特殊字符（包括逗号）。文本文件必须按文件级别提供。\n\nd. 特定文件类型的原生格式出示。为充分理解其内容和含义而合理需要以原生格式查看的文件类型，必须以原生格式出示。这些文件包括但不限于电子表格、类似电子表格的文件（Microsoft Excel、逗号分隔值、制表符分隔值等）、Microsoft PowerPoint 或其他特殊演示文件、数据库文件以及音频/视频文件。应提供一张带有 Bates 编号的分隔页图像，表明原生文件的存在，并将原生文件路径作为字段包括在 .dat 文件中。所出示的原生文件应以与该文件分隔页相对应的 Bates 编号命名。应将原生文件归入按递增方式命名的“NATIVE”目录中，并与图像目录分开。\n\ne. 去重。对于存在完全重复件的每一电子文件，仅出示一份副本。对于电子邮件，应根据由 BCC、Body、CC、From、IntMsgID、To 和 Attach 属性生成的 MD5 哈希值合并重复件。对于电子邮件附件及独立电子文件，应根据整个文件的 MD5 哈希值合并重复件。\n\nf. 元数据。以符合 Concordance 要求的加载文件（.dat）形式，出示每份文件的提取元数据。.DAT 文件的第一行必须为标明字段名称的标题行。.DAT 文件必须使用下列 Concordance 默认分隔符：逗号 , ASCII 字符（020）引号 þ ASCII 字符（254）\n\n日期字段应采用以下格式提供：mm/dd/yyyy。日期和时间字段必须为两个单独字段。以下列出所需元数据：\n\n字段名称　示例数据　说明\n\nFIRSTBATES　EDC0000001　原生文件文件/电子邮件的第一个 Bates 编号\nLASTBATES　EDC0000001　原生文件文件/电子邮件的最后一个 Bates 编号\nLASTBATES 字段应针对单页填写\nATTACHRANGE　EDC0000001　父文件第一页的 Bates 编号至最后一个附件“子”文件最后一页的 Bates 编号\n-　EDC0000015\nBEGATTACH　EDC0000001　附件范围的第一个 Bates 编号\nENDATTACH　EDC0000015　附件范围的最后一个 Bates 编号\nCUSTODIAN　Smith, John　电子邮件：该电子邮件所在的邮箱\n原生文件：文件来源的个人或部门名称\nFROM　John Smith　电子邮件：发件人\n原生文件：文件作者\n多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nTO　Coffman, Janice; LeeW　收件人\n[mailto:LeeW@MSN.com]　多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nCC　Frank Thompson [mailto:　抄送收件人\nfrank_Thompson@cdt.com]　多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nBCC　John Cain　密送收件人\n多个条目之间应使用分号分隔\nSUBJECT　Board Meeting Minutes　电子邮件：电子邮件主题行 原生文件：文件标题（如有）\nFILE_NAME　BoardMeetingMinutes.docx　原生文件：原始原生文件的名称，包括扩展名\nDATE_SENT　10/12/2010　电子邮件：电子邮件发送日期\n原生文件：（空）\nTIME_SENT/　07:05 PM GMT　电子邮件：电子邮件发送时间/电子邮件被标准化所采用的时区\nTIME_ZONE\nTIME_ZONE　GMT　在转换过程中电子邮件被标准化所采用的时区。\nLINK　>EDC0000001.msg　电子邮件或原生文件文件的超链接\n所链接文件必须按 FIRSTBATES 编号命名\n\nFILE_EXTEN　MSG　表示电子邮件或原生文件的文件类型扩展名\nAUTHOR　John Smith　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件作者\nDATE_CREATED　10/10/2010　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件创建日期\n\nTIME_CREATED　10:25 AM　电子邮件：（空）\n\n原生文件：文件创建时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，不得与 DATE_CREATED 字段合并\nDATE_MOD　10/12/2010　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后修改日期\nTIME_MOD　07:00 PM　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后修改时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，不得与 DATE_MOD 字段合并\nDATE_ACCESSD　10/12/2010　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后访问日期\nTIME_ACCESSD　07:00 PM　电子邮件：（空）\n原生文件：文件最后访问时间\n该数据必须为单独字段，不得与 DATE_ACCESSD 字段合并\nFILE_SIZE　5,952　原生文件文件/电子邮件的大小，以 KB 计\nPGCOUNT　1　原生文件文件/电子邮件的页数\nPATH　电子邮件：（空）\nAgenda.doc　原生文件：存储原生文件文件的路径，包括原始文件名。\nINTFILEPATH　Personal Folders\\Deleted　电子邮件：电子邮件的原始位置，包括原始文件名。\nItems\\Board Meeting　原生文件：（空）\nMinutes.msg\nINTMSGID　<000805c2c71b\\$75977050\\$　电子邮件：唯一邮件 ID 原生文件：（空）\ncb8306d1@MSN>\nMD5HASH　d131dd02c5e6eec4693d9a0　文件的 MD5 哈希值。\n698aff95c\n2fcab58712467eab4004583e\nb8fb7f89\nOCRPATH　TEXT/001/EDC0000001.txt　原生文件提取文本的路径\n\n3. 各项请求均独立适用并应独立解释；除非另有说明，任何一项请求均不限制任何其他请求的范围。\n\n4. 所有文件均应按其在通常业务过程中保存的方式提供，或应按照与本请求所列类别相对应的方式加以组织和标注。\n\n5. 本文所载每项请求均延及以下所有文件：(a) 由您占有、保管或控制的文件；或 (b) 由任何代表您行事的人占有、保管或控制的文件，包括您的律师或其他代表及顾问。每份文件均应完整提供。\n\n6. 如要求您提供的文件已不再由您占有、保管或控制，则您的答复必须：(a) 详细说明该文件的性质及其内容；(b) 指明编制或撰写该文件的人员（以及，如适用，接收该文件的人员）；(c) 指明该文件编制或创建的日期；(d) 说明该文件是否 (i) 遗失或丢失，(ii) 已被销毁，(iii) 已自愿或非自愿转移给他人，或 (iv) 以其他方式处置；(e) 说明该等处置的理由，以及围绕该等处置的事实和情形；(f) 指明授权该等处置的人员；(g) 指明该等处置的日期或大致日期；(h) 说明该文件最后一次由您占有、保管或控制的时间；以及 (i) 指明目前占有、保管或控制该文件的人员（如有）。\n\n7. 如要求您提供的文件已被销毁，则除前述指示所要求的信息外，您的答复还必须说明：(a) 销毁该文件的理由；(b) 销毁该文件的人员身份；以及 (c) 指示销毁该文件的人员身份。\n\n8. 如您主张所请求的文件享有特权或属于律师工作成果，则您的答复必须：(a) 说明 (i) 足以支持您关于该文件享有特权之主张的文件描述，(ii) 文件标题，(iii) 文件日期，(iv) 文件作者，(v) 文件收件人，(vi) 收到或查看过该文件原件或任何草稿、副本或复制件的每一人员身份，(vii) 该文件本身或该文件中所载或提及的任何信息是否由任何其他人员占有、保管或控制；如是，则说明该等人员身份，并说明该等信息如何由其取得，(viii) 据以拒绝提供该文件的特权主张，以及 (ix) 您将据以支持该等特权主张的所有情形；以及 (b) 就根据 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) 基于特权主张而拒绝提供的每份文件，提供一份特权清单，其中载明本指示第 (a) 部分所要求的全部信息。\n\n9. 对于未提出特权或工作成果主张的文件请求，应完整提供响应性文件。\n\n10. 如一份原本具有响应性的文件的一部分包含受特权主张约束的信息，则仅应按照上述指示从该文件中删除或遮盖受特权主张约束的部分，其余部分应予提供。\n\n11. 各项请求具有持续性。现指示您：(a) 一旦得知先前答复不完整或不正确，立即补充或更正任何后来发现不完整或不正确的答复；以及 (b) 提供根据下述规定所要求的任何补充文件。\n\n12. 如文件使用英语以外的语言，您应提供该文件。如文件使用英语以外的语言，且存在英文译本，您应同时提供两份文件。\n\n13. 对实体的所有提及均包括其所有关联方。\n\n14. 对个人姓名的所有提及均包括所有替代姓名、别名或昵称。\n\n15. 除非另有明确说明，文件请求所涵盖的期间为自 February 5, 2012 起至文件请求答复到期之日止。\n\nII. 解释规则\n\n16. (a) 使用任何单数名词，应解释为包括复数，反之亦然；以及 (b) 使用任何时态的动词，应解释为使用该动词的所有其他时态。\n\n17. (a) “and”和“or”应视必要情况分别作连词性或选择性解释，以使任何请求的范围涵盖本可能被解释为不在其范围内的所有答复；以及 (b) “each”和“any”应视为包括并涵盖“every”和“all”二词。\n\nIII. 定义\n\nD. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(c) 所规定的定义，以及经 D. Conn. Bankr. L.R. 2004-1(a) 纳入的 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(d) 所规定的解释规则，均适用于文件请求。此外，本文件请求中使用的下列术语具有如下含义：\n\n1. “您”或“您的”或“您本人”或“债务人”系指 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Miles Kwok、Miles Guo、Guo Wengui、Guo Haoyun，或任何其他别名），连同其任何雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n2. “债务人之子”系指 Qiang Guo（郭强，亦称 Mileson Kwok，或任何其他别名），连同其任何雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n3. “债务人之女”系指 Mei Guo（郭美，亦称 Mei Gui，或任何其他别名），连同其任何雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n4. “债务人声称的妻子”系指 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝，亦称 Hing Chi Ng、Yue Qingzhi，或任何其他别名），连同其任何雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。\n\n5. “债务人家属”统称债务人、债务人之子、债务人之女、债务人声称的妻子，以及与债务人有任何其他亲属关系者。\n\n6. “关联个人”单独及共同系指以下所有个人：(1) 持有、控制、保管或对债务人或债务人家属所拥有、控制或享有的资产具有处置决定权者；或 (2) 曾为一个或多个关联实体的雇员、董事，或以其他方式与一个或多个关联实体有关联者，连同前述任何人员各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。该等关联个人包括但不限于：Daniel Podhaskie、Jason Miller、Steve Bannon、Karin Maistrello、Melissa Francis、William Gertz、Arethusa Forsyth、Glenn Mellor、Jennifer Mercurio、Eduardo Eurnekian、Han Chunguang（韩春光）、Qu Guojiao（屈国姣，亦称 Qu Guo Jiao）、Guo Lijie（郭丽杰）、Zhang Wei（张伟*）、Lihong Wei Lafrenz（魏丽红，亦称 Sara Wei）、Hao Haidong（郝海东）、Ross Heinemeyer、Max Krasner、Kyle Bass、Melissa Mendez、Ya Li（李娅）、Dinggang Wang（王定刚）、An Hong（安红）、Yvette Wang（王雁平，亦称 Yanping Wang、Yan Ping Wang）、Fiona Yu、Je Kin Ming（余建明，亦称 William Je、Yu Jianming）、Yaz Qingua，以及 Lao Jiang（姜云浮，亦称 Jiang Yunfu、Jiang Yunfu Be）。\n\n7. “关联实体”单独及共同系指以下所有类型的组织或实体：(1) 曾由债务人或债务人家属拥有、控制或投资的组织或实体；或 (2) 对债务人或债务人家属所拥有、控制或享有的任何资产直接或间接拥有权益的组织或实体，连同前述任何实体各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或任何代表其行事之人。该等关联实体包括但不限于：7 Nod Hill LLC、AAGV Limited、ACA Investment Management Limited、ACA Capital Group Limited、Ace Decade Holdings Limited、AI Group Holdings Inc.、Alfa Global Ventures Limited、Alfonso Global Limited、Allied Capital Global Limited、Alpine Fiduciaries SA、Anton Development Limited、Assets Sino Limited、Auspicious Coast Limited、Beijing Pangu Investment Co.、Beijing Pangu Investment Co. Ltd.、Beijing Pangu Investment Inc.、Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Limited、Bravo Luck Limited、BSA Strategic Fund I、China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) Limited、Chuang Xin Limited、Crane Advisory Group LLC、Creative Apex Investments Limited、Crystal Breeze Investments Limited、Dawn State Limited、Eastern Profit Corporation Limited、Elite Well Global Limited、Empire Growth Holdings、G Club Operations LLC、G Fashion LLC、G News LLC、GETTR USA、Genever Holdings Corporation、Genever Holdings LLC、GFASHION MEDIA GROUP INC.、GFNY, Inc.、Globalist International Limited、GNews Media Group Inc.、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.、Greenwich Land LLC、Guo Media、GTV Media Group, Inc.、Hamilton Capital Holdings Inc.、Head Win Group Limited、Henan Yuda、Himalaya Embassy、Himalaya Exchange、Himalaya Federal Reserve、Himalaya Supervisory Organization、HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited LLC、Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited、Infinite Increase Limited、Infinitum Developments Limited、Insight Phoenix Fund、Lamp Capital LLC、Leading Shine Limited、Leading Shine NY Limited、Long Gate Limited、Next Tycoon Investments Limited、New Federal State of China（中国新联邦州，亦称 NFSC）、Noble Fame Global Limited、Rosy Acme Ventures Limited、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc.、Rule of Law Fund、Rule of Law Society、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.、G-Translators PTY LTD、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、Shiny Ace Ltd.、Shiny Times Holdings Ltd.、Spirit Charter Investment Limited、Stevenson, Wong & Co.、Voice of Guo Media, Inc.、Well Origin Ltd.、World Century Limited、Worldwide Opportunity Holdings Limited、Whitecroft Shore Limited，以及 ZIBA Limited。\n\n8. “包括”或其任何变体，意为“包括但不限于”。\n\n9. “and”和“or”意为“and/or”，并应同时作连词性及选择性解释，以最大限度扩大其范围。\n\n10. “any”、“all”和“each”意为“每一及全部”。\n\n11. “each”和“every”意为“每一及全部”。\n\n12. “第三方”系指您本人以外的人员或实体。\n\n13. “转让”具有《破产法》section 101(54) 赋予该词的含义。\n\n14. “文件”系指属于 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 范围内的任何信息或物品，并包括但不限于由您占有、保管或控制的、目前或曾经存在的各种、各类、各种性质或描述的每一书面、记录或图形材料，包括电子邮件的所有印刷和电子副本、以电子形式保存的计算机文件、电子通信、短信、社交媒体帖子、推文、元数据、通信函件、备忘录、磁带、速记或手写笔记、任何种类的书面表格、图表、蓝图、图纸、草图、曲线图、计划、文章、规格说明、日记、信函、电报、照片、会议记录、合同、协议、调查、计算机打印输出、数据\n\n各种类型的汇编材料、电传、传真、语音留言、发票、订购单、支票、汇票、对账单、贷项通知单、报告、头寸报告、摘要、索引、书籍、分类账、笔记本、日程表、投影片、录音、目录、广告、宣传材料、电影、录像带、录音带、CD、计算机磁盘、宣传册、小册子、穿孔卡、工时单、推文、社交媒体帖子，或任何其他类型的书面或录制材料，以及其所有元数据，无论以何种方式存储（无论为有形形式或电子形式）、记录、制作或复制，并且还包括但不限于上述任何材料的草稿或副本，如其中包含原始文件中未见的任何类型的注释、评论或标记，或其在其他方面与原始文件不一致。\n\n15. “个人”系指个人、公司、独资企业、合伙企业、协会或任何其他实体。“个人”还包括任何代理人、代表或专家，包括但不限于律师或财务顾问。\n\n16. “实体”系指任何自然人、公司、合伙企业、子公司、独资企业、商号、董事会、合资企业、协会、机构、机关、委员会或其他商业实体或法人，以及任何关联方、代理人、母公司，包括但不限于法律顾问、财务顾问或任何其他代表。\n\n17. “关于”系指涉及、描述、构成、提及、与之有关、支持、有利于、反对、加强、减损、位于、结合考虑、影响、证明、表明、报告、记录、暗指、回应、与之相连、评论、就其而言、关于、与之有关、讨论、显示、描述、反映、分析、构成及属于。\n\n18. “与……有关”、“涉及”或“相关”，在指任何特定事项时，系指但不限于构成、包含、涉及、载有、体现、反映、识别、陈述、直接或间接提及，或以任何方式与所识别的特定事项相关的任何文件。\n\n19. “通信”系指以最广泛可能的意义且不受限制地传递任何信息或知识（以事实、观点、询问或其他形式）。通信还指所有谈话、协议、询问或答复，无论是当面、通过电话、书面方式，或借助电子传输设备，并包括但不限于所有函件、电子邮件、录音、传输单、备忘录、电话通信、语音留言、电报、传真、影印传真、电传、即时消息、聊天、短信、电话记录，或在内部或与第三方之间传送的记录。\n\n20. “资产”系指可用于产生正向经济价值的任何项目，包括但不限于由某一实体拥有、控制或为其利益而持有，并预期可提供未来利益的任何具有经济价值的资源，包括但不限于所有不动产和动产、无形财产、投资、投资权或未来收益权、现金、银行账户、商品、证券、债权、对实体的全部或部分控制权，以及预期经济机会。\n\nIV. 应提交的文件\n\n1. 有关债务人、债务人的财产或任何关联实体的任何收入或资产的所有文件。\n\n2. 足以显示债务人或债务人的财产自 January 1, 2011 至今任何时候持有或曾持有任何法律、经济或受益权益，或全部或部分控制权的所有实体或资产的文件。\n\n3. 对于就第 2 项请求所识别的任何资产，如债务人主张其本人或债务人的财产不再持有该等权益，则提交与该资产处置有关的所有文件，包括但不限于债务人何时放弃其权益、向何人放弃、以何种价值放弃，以及自其主张本人或债务人的财产不再保有权益之时起，债务人是否曾使用该资产或与该资产发生任何其他互动。\n\n4. 有关关联实体的所有文件，包括但不限于其公司结构、资产、注册成立信息、高级管理人员和董事、商业目的，以及其与债务人或债务人家庭任何成员的关系。\n\n5. 有关 Lady May（梅夫人号）；Sherry Netherland Hotel / Condominium（雪莉·荷兰酒店／公寓）；位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林尼治）373 Taconic Rd. 的住宅物业；位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林尼治）33 Ferncliff Rd. 的住宅物业；位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Wilton（威尔顿）354 Nod Hill Rd. 的住宅物业；以及债务人或债务人的财产在任何关联实体中拥有的任何财务权益的所有文件。\n\n6. 与债务人作为受托人、Genever Holdings Corporation（吉纳维尔控股公司）及 Genever Holdings LLC（吉纳维尔控股有限责任公司）于 February 17, 2015 签订、以 Bravo Luck Limited（博瑞福有限公司）为受益人的所谓《信托声明及协议》有关的所有文件。\n\n7. 有关债务人、债务人的财产、债务人的家庭、关联实体或关联个人的任何资产负债表、银行对账单、账户对账单、财务报表、账户结单、电汇指示及／或确认、资金证明、存款证明、持有证明、投资组合摘要或类似文件的所有文件，包括但不限于足以显示向前述任何一方作出的所有转移的所有文件。\n\n8. 有关您使用的任何信用卡的所有文件，包括但不限于月度对账单或足以显示与此有关的所有购买、付款及其他交易的其他文件。\n\n9. 与债务人、债务人的家庭或关联实体于 July 2020 前后或任何其他时间就原油期货或任何类似商品所作的任何投资或交易有关的所有文件，包括但不限于与 Jiang Yunfu Be（贝江云富）就任何此类投资或交易进行的通信。\n\n10. 您与债务人的家庭或任何关联个人、代理人、雇员或代表您行事的个人之间，就与债务人、债务人的财产、债务人的家庭或关联实体有关的任何商业交易进行的所有通信。\n\n11. 与债务人家庭或关联实体的律师之间的所有通信。\n\n12. 与 Qu Guo Jiao（曲国蛟）就债务人、债务人的家庭或任何关联实体的任何资产、负债、财务权益、经济状况或财务报表进行的所有通信。\n\n13. 与 Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）就债务人、债务人的家庭或任何关联实体的任何资产、负债、财务权益、经济状况或财务报表进行的所有通信。\n\n14. 有关向债务人、债务人的财产、债务人的家庭、关联实体或关联个人提供、从其取得或代表其提供的任何赠与、利益或贷款的所有文件，包括但不限于该等赠与、利益或贷款的金额；该等赠与、利益或贷款的使用目的；提供该等赠与、利益或贷款的时间；任何贷款的偿还条件；就任何贷款作出的所有陈述与保证；任何贷款的利率；以及任何贷款付款的所有证据。\n\n15. 有关由债务人、债务人的财产、债务人的家庭或关联实体设立、代表其设立或为其利益而设立的任何信托或类似文书的所有文件，包括但不限于显示该等信托何时设立、由何人设立、为谁的利益设立，以及信托本金的文件。\n\n16. 债务人、债务人家庭的每位个人成员及任何关联实体自 2014 年至今的纳税申报表。\n\n17. 与涉及债务人、债务人的家庭或任何关联实体的任何出售、取得、处置、购买、投资、出资、赠与、授信、贷款或转移有关的所有文件。\n\n18. 与债务人所涉任何法律争议相关的任何义务、请求权、责任或债务有关的所有文件，包括但不限于与在任何地方、州、联邦或国际机构之前的任何诉讼有关的文件，无论该机构为行政机构、法院、合议庭或替代性争议解决实体，以及与在 England and Wales High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court（英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法院）审理的 Kwok Ho Wan & Ors v UBS, Cl-2020-000345 案有关的文件，包括与您在该案中主张的依据有关的文件。\n\n19. 与该项 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）根据《1933 年证券法》第 8A 条作出的《启动停止及终止程序、作出认定并施加停止及终止命令的命令》、Release No. 10979/September 13, 2021，有关的所有文件；该命令载于行政程序档案号 3-20537，即 In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒集团公司）及 Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭媒体之声公司）案，包括但不限于有关向该行政程序中的被申请关联实体的法律顾问支付所有款项的资金来源、根据该命令向美国证券交易委员会支付的所有罚款、追缴款、判决前利息及／或民事罚款的资金来源，以及有关被申请关联实体用于履行该命令义务的付款方式的文件。\n\n20. 有关债务人居住或居留的地点、物业或场所的所有文件，包括但不限于该等地点或物业的位置；债务人何时及多久在那里；谁拥有或控制该场所或物业；谁资助与该场所或物业有关的任何费用或付款；与债务人使用该物业有关的任何条件；以及任何其他获授权使用该物业的人。\n\n21. 有关债务人使用任何属于、由其控制，或其全部或部分所有权由债务人的家庭、关联个人或关联实体持有的资产的所有文件。\n\n22. 有关债务人、债务人的财产、债务人的家庭或关联实体持有任何权益或投资的任何实体的所有文件，包括但不限于该等权益或投资的性质及价值；债务人、债务人的财产或关联实体从该实体获得的任何收益或利益；以及与该实体有关的任何财务报告或数据有关的所有文件，包括但不限于所有账簿和记录、财务报表或税务文件。\n\n23. 有关一方为债务人或债务人的家庭，另一方为任何关联实体的，由、与或代表债务人或债务人的家庭作出的任何投资或商业交易的所有文件。\n\n24. 有关 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance（香港特别行政区高等法院原讼法庭）于 2019 年冻结的“数十亿”美元“资金和财产，包括位于 Hong Kong（香港）的房地产”的所有文件。（见 ECF N0. 107，第 ¶17 段。）\n\n25. 关于债务人在2017年接受 Vice News 采访期间声称拥有的各项资产的所有文件，包括但不限于“two private jets”、“most advanced yachts”以及“hundreds of race cars”。（见 Vice News Interview 第6:38-7:07分钟（Nov. 15 2017）（当被问及其以何种方式开展反华运动是否令其感到后悔时，债务人称：“对于我在过去九个月所做的一切，我绝对不后悔。我拥有全世界每个人都梦想拥有的富裕生活。我在香港拥有最大的房子，数千平方米。我在伦敦拥有最豪华的公寓。我在北京拥有最大的住所。我在盘古拥有超过10处房产。我有两架私人飞机。我有最先进的游艇。我有数百辆赛车。我在纽约有一套像这样的公寓。我不再有任何物质需求。”）。14\n\n26. 与由债务人、债务人遗产、债务人家庭成员或关联实体拥有或控制的 YouTube 频道所产生的任何收入、收益、资产或广告收入有关的所有文件。\n\n27. 足以显示各关联实体每一名雇员的身份、姓名、受雇期限及薪酬的文件。\n\n14 该引文由债务人以中文作出，并由 Vice News 译为英文。\n\n28. 与由您拥有、控制或使用的任何航空器有关的所有文件，包括但不限于尾号为 T7-GQM 的航空器，以及在 Republic of San Marino（圣马力诺共和国）注册的任何其他航空器，包括但不限于所有登记文件副本及飞行清单，该等飞行清单显示该等航空器所执行的航班及该等航班上的人员。\n\n29. 任何主权国家、国家、城邦或自治区向您签发的、授权跨境旅行的所有护照或类似文件，包括但不限于任何已过期或未使用的文件，以及该等护照或类似文件的所有页面。\n\n30. 与任何关联实体（包括 Bravo Luck Limited）的资产向任何其他实体提供的任何质押有关的所有文件。\n\n送达证明\n（除非 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 要求，否则本节不应向法院提交。）\n本人于（日期）__________ 收到向以下人员（个人姓名及职务，如有）：______________________________________________ 发出的本传票。\n本人通过以下方式向被指定人员交付副本以送达本传票：____________________________________\n\n__________________________________，于（日期）___________________；或\n本人未执行本传票即予退回，原因是：____________________________________________________________\n\n除非该传票代表 United States（美国）或其官员或代理人发出，本人亦已向证人支付一天出席费用及法律允许的里程费，金额为 \\$ _______________________。\n本人的旅费为 \\$ _________，服务费为 \\$_________，合计为 \\$_________。\n本人在伪证罪处罚下声明\n该等信息真实且正确。\n日期：_______________\n\n送达人员签名\n\n正楷姓名及职务\n\n送达人员地址\n\n有关尝试送达等的补充信息：\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)、(d)、(e) 和 (g)（Effective 12/1/13）（依 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 第9016条适用于破产案件）\n(c) 履行地点。\n\n(1) 审判、听证或证言录取。传票仅可按如下方式命令某人出席审判、听证或证言录取：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或定期亲自从事商业活动地点的100英里范围内；或\n\n(B) 在该人居住、受雇或定期亲自从事商业活动所在州内，如该人\n\n(i) 是当事人或当事人的高级职员；或\n\n(ii) 被命令出席审判且不会产生重大费用。\n(2) 其他证据开示。传票可命令：\n\n(A) 在该人居住、受雇或定期亲自从事商业活动地点100英里范围内的地点提交文件、电子存储信息或物品；以及\n\n(B) 在拟检查的不动产处检查该不动产。\n(d) 对受传票约束之人的保护；执行。\n\n(1) 避免不当负担或费用；制裁。负责签发及送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，避免对受传票约束之人施加不当负担或费用。要求履行的地区法院必须执行该义务，并对未遵守者的当事人或律师施加适当制裁，制裁可包括损失的收入及合理的律师费。\n(2) 命令提交材料或准许检查。\n\n(A) 无须出席。被命令提交文件、电子存储信息或有形物品，或准许检查不动产的人，无须亲自出席提交或检查地点，除非同时被命令出席证言录取、听证或审判。\n\n(B) 异议。被命令提交文件或有形物品，或准许检查的人，可向传票中指定的当事人或律师送达书面异议，反对检查、复制、测试或抽样全部或部分材料，或反对检查不动产，或反对以请求的形式提交电子存储信息。异议必须在指定履行时间届满前或传票送达后14日内（以较早者为准）送达。提出异议后，适用下列规则：\n\n(i) 送达传票的当事人可随时在通知被命令人的情况下，向要求履行的地区法院提出动议，请求作出强制提交或检查的命令。\n\n(ii) 仅可依命令所指示的方式要求实施该等行为，且该命令必须保护并非当事人或当事人高级职员的人，使其免于因履行而产生的重大费用。\n(3) 撤销或修改传票。\n\n(A) 必须撤销或修改的情形。经及时动议，要求履行的地区法院必须撤销或修改具有下列情形的传票：\n\n(i) 未给予合理的履行时间；(ii) 要求某人在超出 Rule 45(c) 规定的地域限制之外履行；(iii) 要求披露享有特权或受其他保护的事项，且不适用任何例外或弃权；或\n\n(iv) 对某人施加不当负担。(B) 可以撤销或修改的情形。为保护受传票约束或受其影响之人，要求履行的地区法院可依动议撤销或修改要求下列事项的传票：\n\n(i) 披露商业秘密或其他保密的研究、开发或商业信息；或\n\n(ii) 披露未经聘用的专家的意见或信息，而该等意见或信息并未描述争议中的具体事件，且源于该专家未受任何当事人请求所进行的研究。\n\n(C) 以规定条件作为替代。在 Rule 45(d)(3)(B) 所述情形下，如送达传票的当事人：\n\n(i) 证明对该证言或材料具有重大需要，且若非承受不当困难即无法以其他方式满足该需要；并且\n\n(ii) 确保被传唤之人将获得合理补偿，\n\n法院可不撤销或修改传票，而命令在规定条件下出席或提交。\n(e) 回应传票的义务。\n\n(1) 提交文件或电子存储信息。下列程序适用于提交文件或电子存储信息：\n\n(A) 文件。回应要求提交文件的传票之人，必须按照文件在正常业务过程中保存的方式提交，或必须对文件进行整理和标注，使其对应于请求中的类别。\n\n(B) 未指定电子存储信息提交形式。如传票未指定电子存储信息的提交形式，回应人必须以其通常保存的形式，或以合理可用的形式提交。\n\n(C) 电子存储信息仅以一种形式提交。回应人无须以一种以上形式提交同一电子存储信息。\n\n(D) 不可合理访问的电子存储信息。回应人无须对其认定因不当负担或费用而不可合理访问的来源中的电子存储信息提供证据开示。在提出强制证据开示动议或保护令动议时，回应人必须证明该信息因不当负担或费用而不可合理访问。如作出该证明，若请求方在考虑 Rule 26(b)(2)(C) 的限制后证明具有正当理由，法院仍可命令对该等来源进行证据开示。法院可为该证据开示规定条件。\n(2) 主张特权或保护。\n\n(A) 被扣留的信息。根据该信息享有特权或作为审判准备材料受到保护的主张而扣留被传唤信息的人必须：\n\n(i) 明确提出该主张；并且\n\n(ii) 以一种在不披露特权或受保护信息本身的情况下足以使当事人评估该主张的方式，说明被扣留文件、通信或有形物品的性质。\n\n(B) 已提交的信息。如为回应传票而提交的信息受到特权主张或作为审判准备材料受保护的主张，提出该主张之人可将该主张及其依据通知任何收到该信息的当事人。收到通知后，当事人必须立即返还、隔离或销毁所指定的信息及其持有的任何副本；在该主张得到解决前不得使用或披露该信息；如该当事人在收到通知前已披露该信息，必须采取合理措施予以追回；并可立即向要求履行的地区法院密封提交该信息，以裁定该主张。提交该信息之人必须保存该信息，直至该主张得到解决。\n\n…… (g) 藐视法庭。要求履行的地区法院——并且在动议被移送后，签发法院亦可——可对已被送达但无正当理由不遵守传票或与之相关命令的人以藐视法庭论处。\n\n有关传票材料，见 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013)\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　:\n:　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n异议截止日期通知\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯潘斯）作为债务人遗产指定的 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）（“申请人”），已向 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）提交关于对 Ho Wan Kwok 进行 Rule 2004 Examination（第2004条审查）（“Rule 2004 Examination”）的申请。现通知，根据 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(a) 和 9014 以及 Local Bankr. R. 2004-1(c)，对 Rule 2004 Examination 提出的任何异议或答复必须不迟于 August 5, 2022 向法院提交。1 如未及时提交异议，关于 Rule 2004 Examination 的拟议命令可在不再另行通知和听证的情况下作出，见 11 U.S.C. section 102(1)。\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut，代表 HO WON KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n日期：July 28, 2022　LUC DESPINS（吕克·德斯潘斯），作为指定 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛） Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 尽管根据地方法则，对 Rule 2004 申请提出异议的期限为提交后七日，但受托人认为，鉴于部分通知对象直至 2022年7月29日星期五才会收到该申请，一日的异议期限延期是适当的。\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\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·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, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的拟聘律师\n附件4\n\n[密封提交]\n附件5\n\n美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n--------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n1　：\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。　：\n（合并管理）\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，　：\n对抗程序案号 23-05017\n\n原告，　：\n\n诉　：\n\nTAURUS FUND LLC（Taurus基金有限责任公司），　：\nSCOTT BARNETT（斯科特·巴尼特），作为 TAURUS　：\nFUND LLC 的受托人，以及　：\nTAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC（Taurus管理有限责任公司），作为　：\nTAURUS FUND LLC 的受托人，　：\n\n被告。　：\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n第11章受托人根据《破产程序规则》第9019条提出的、请求批准与美利坚合众国达成和解的动议\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（下称“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（下称“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份，作为上述标题所列对抗程序（下称“对抗程序”）的原告，现根据《联邦破产程序规则》（下称“破产规则”）第9019(a)条及《康涅狄格联邦地区美国破产法院地方法则》（下称“地方法则”）第9019-1(a)条，提出本动议（下称“本动议”），2 请求作出一项实质上采用本动议所附附件A（下称“拟议命令”）格式的命令，批准第11章受托人与美利坚合众国之间的协议（下称“和解协议”）。该和解协议作为拟议命令的附件1附后，由(a)受托人及(b)美利坚合众国（下称“政府”，并与受托人合称“双方”3 ）达成，后者由 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）United States Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）（“USAO-SDNY”）代理。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他化名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人及 Genever 债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n2 本文中使用但未定义的首字母大写术语，应具有《第11章受托人为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产提交的起诉状》中所载含义；该起诉状根据《破产法典》第541、542和544条，请求：(I) 宣告债务人为马瓦庄园的衡平所有人，且该财产属于遗产财产；及 (II) 相关救济 [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1]（下称“起诉状”）。\n\n3 本文中对“双方”和“受托人”的提及，视情况包括双方各自的律师、顾问和/或专业人士。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 双方已达成协议，以解决本对抗程序及政府在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）United States District Court（美国联邦地区法院）目前正在审理的、针对债务人的持续刑事案件 [Case No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)]（下称“刑事案件”）中提出的某些可能复杂的问题，该等问题涉及债务人的 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）。\n\n2. 马瓦庄园已成为第11章案件（及相关对抗程序）中受托人和刑事案件中政府双方的目标，因为受托人寻求裁定马瓦庄园属于债务人遗产的财产，以便出售该庄园并将其收益分配给债务人的债权人；而政府则主张，马瓦庄园应予没收，因为其系以债务人被指控的犯罪计划所得收益购买，其价值应作为赔偿分配给该等犯罪的受害人。\n\n3. 当然，鉴于债务人活动的性质，已就第11章遗产提交债权证明、且其债权获准许的债权人（如有）——受托人作为其受托人的对象——与政府寻求向其提供赔偿的受害人之间，很可能存在重大重叠。\n\n4. 使问题进一步复杂化的是，受托人和政府在各自工具箱中拥有不同的工具。受托人已获授权收集诸如马瓦庄园的遗产资产，并为遗产利益将其变现，之后可根据第11章计划将该等资产的价值分配给获准许债权的持有人。为此，受托人申请并获本院批准，设定债权人提交债权的截止日期。事实上，已有超过1200名债权人提交债权，其中许多债权所依据的事实与起诉书中所指控的事实相同或相似。另一方面，政府必须先在刑事案件中取得有罪判决，方能取得没收命令；该命令将使其能够在第11章案件之外的宽免/赔偿程序中，将出售马瓦庄园的收益分配给受害人。\n\n5. 因此，在此类案件中，破产法与刑法的相互作用可能成为受托人与政府之间争议的来源。事实上，这并非此类问题首次出现在个人债务人因欺诈或其他犯罪而被起诉的案件中；在过去，该等问题在某些案件中已导致破产受托人与政府之间进行广泛且昂贵的诉讼，而这显然是受托人希望在本案中避免的结果。见 United States v. Rothstein (In re Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, P.A.), 717 F.3d 1205, 1206 (11th Cir. 2013)（涉及第11章受托人与政府之间就某些银行账户中的资金是否为应予没收的犯罪行为收益而进行的长期争议）。\n\n6. 尽管存在这些复杂性和潜在争议来源，受托人与政府对于有必要尽快且高效地控制和变现债务人资产，以及将该等资产分配给债务人的“受害人”，4 均持一致立场。鉴此，受托人与政府协商达成和解协议，该协议对围绕马瓦庄园的问题作出初步解决。关键的是，和解协议5 将确保，受托人最终出售马瓦庄园所得的任何收益（如受托人在对抗程序中胜诉）首先用于支付遗产为控制及出售马瓦庄园所发生的费用（包括与对抗程序相关的合理律师费），以确保即使受托人与政府日后就马瓦庄园出售收益的分配进行讨论，且该等讨论未能从遗产角度达成有利和解，遗产亦不会自行承担费用。受托人与政府还在和解协议中约定，马瓦庄园收益中的 $1 million（高于实际费用，包括律师费）将分配给第11章遗产中债权获准许且同时为刑事案件中债务人受害人的债权人。换言之，马瓦庄园将（如受托人在对抗程序中胜诉）不仅为对抗程序提供资金，而且将成为向债权人作出实际现金分配的来源。和解协议在解决本对抗程序中受托人与政府之间任何潜在争议的同时，为第11章遗产提供该项保证利益，并规定若政府在刑事案件中取得最终有罪判决及就马瓦庄园取得没收命令，双方将在日后讨论任何潜在赔偿/宽免程序中的分配问题。\n\n4 对于持有获准许债权的债权人中究竟哪些类型属于或不属于刑事案件中债务人的“受害人”，可能具有高度主观性；受托人希望此为其可在日后与政府的讨论中解决的议题之一。\n\n5 如本动议对和解协议的描述与和解协议的条款和条件之间存在任何不一致，应以和解协议的条款为准。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n7. 本院根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦地区美国联邦地区法院）的移送常设命令，对审理本动议具有管辖权。这是 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 所称的核心程序。\n\n8. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本地区为适当审判地。\n\n9. 本文所请求救济的依据为《破产规则》第9019(a)条及地方法则第9019-1(a)条。\n\n背景\n\n10. 于 2023年3月29日或前后，根据一份 Superseding Indictment（下称“起诉书”），6 政府指控债务人与其他被告共同犯有电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈及洗钱共谋罪（罪名项一）；电信欺诈罪（罪名项二、四、六及八）；证券欺诈罪（罪名项三、五及七）；洗钱罪（罪名项九及十）；及非法货币交易罪（罪名项十一）。\n\n6 起诉书副本作为附件B附后。起诉书的先前版本于 2023年3月15日公开（下称“最初起诉书”）。起诉书与最初起诉书大体相似，但增加了针对债务人共同被告 Yanping Wang（又名“Yvette”）的指控；最初起诉书未包含该等指控，而是侧重于针对债务人及 Kin Ming Je（又名“William Je”）的指控。\n\n11. 起诉书包括有关马瓦庄园等财产的没收主张。\n\n12. 于 2023年6月28日或前后，受托人告知政府，经广泛分析后，其得出结论认为，除其他事项外，马瓦庄园由债务人享有衡平所有权，因此属于债务人第11章遗产的财产。受托人还告知政府，其拟就马瓦庄园寻求临时禁令救济，并在本院作出裁定宣告马瓦庄园属于遗产财产的情况下出售马瓦庄园。受托人与政府就与马瓦庄园及对抗程序有关的问题进行了广泛的善意讨论。由于这些讨论，双方得以成功协商达成和解协议。双方于 2023年7月13日签署和解协议。7\n\n13. 于 2023年7月11日，受托人启动对抗程序，在该程序中，受托人请求作出下列命令：\n\n- 声明：(a) 债务人始终为 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）的衡平所有人；以及 (b) Mahwah Mansion 属于债务人第11章破产财产，应由受托人管理；以及 (2) 命令 Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）（及/或作为 Taurus Fund 受托人的 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）和 Taurus Management（Taurus管理公司））向受托人交付 Mahwah Mansion 或其价值，以及 Mahwah Mansion 内的固定装置和动产；\n- 声明：(a) 债务人始终为 Taurus Fund 的衡平所有人；(b) Taurus Fund 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请之日前任何时间持有的任何及所有资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Taurus Fund 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第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，视具体情形而定，曾经并且构成债务人第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令\n\n7 本动议中对促成和解协议签署的事件或在该和解背景下所考虑因素的描述，仅为受托人的描述，并不意图代表政府的观点。\n\n向受托人交付 Taurus Fund 及 Taurus Fund 的任何及所有资产；以及\n\n声明：(a) Taurus Fund 始终为债务人的另一自我；(b) Taurus Fund 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请之日前任何时间持有的任何及所有资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Taurus Fund 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第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，视具体情形而定，曾经并且构成债务人第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付 Taurus Fund 的任何及所有资产。\n\n和解\n\n14. 各方已就 Mahwah Mansion 进行了广泛的善意讨论。由于这些讨论，各方达成了和解协议，以解决与 Mahwah Mansion 有关的复杂问题。和解协议的主要条款如下：\n\na. 政府不会在对抗程序中反对受托人：根据和解协议，政府已同意不反对受托人在对抗程序中提出的任何请求或救济请求，亦不反对受托人为取得 Mahwah Mansion 的控制权及/或出售 Mahwah Mansion 所作的任何努力。见和解协议 ¶ 1。\n\nb. 使用 Mahwah Mansion 的收益支付破产财产费用：根据和解协议，取得 Mahwah Mansion 控制权和出售 Mahwah Mansion 的费用，包括 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的律师费，以及用于向第11章案件中获准债权持有人付款的 \\$1 million（该等持有人系债务人的受害人），将首先从出售 Mahwah Mansion 的收益中支付。因此，即使 Mahwah Mansion 出售所得的任何净收益最终均未作为政府拟议的赔偿和返还程序的一部分分配给第11章案件中的获准债权持有人，和解协议仍保证对抗程序将使破产财产受益，实质上保证 Mahwah Mansion 的部分价值将归于破产财产债权人，并消除了破产财产可能支付取得 Mahwah Mansion 控制权和出售 Mahwah Mansion 的费用，却看到其全部价值均被纳入刑事案件及其没收程序的可能性。见和解协议 ¶ 3。\n\nc. Mahwah Mansion 出售净收益的托管：根据和解协议，只有出售 Mahwah Mansion 的净收益（在支付破产财产费用，即和解协议第3段所述费用，以及用于向第11章案件中获准债权持有人付款的 \\$1 million 后）将被托管，等待刑事案件及其没收程序的解决。见和解协议 ¶ 2.8\n\nd. 没收后关于净收益分配的协商：和解协议规定，如刑事案件中作出没收裁定，受托人与政府将就 Mahwah Mansion 出售净收益的分配进行后续讨论，使各方能够在之后处理该等问题以及关于该等问题的任何潜在争议，这符合各方不希望该等问题成为与本对抗程序有关的争议来源的目标。受托人拟寻求处理对受害人的分配，系基于既往案件的先例；在该等案件中，破产受托人与政府协商达成协议，以履行该等角色。9 见和解协议 ¶ 4。\n\ne. 权利保留：为与各方在之后处理其他分配问题的目标保持一致，如作出最终有罪判决和没收裁定，若受托人与政府的讨论未能达成和解，各方就与 Mahwah Mansion 处置所得净收益分配有关的问题保留其权利。见和解协议 ¶ 5。\n\n请求的救济\n\n15. 受托人通过本动议，请求根据 Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a) 作出裁定，全面批准和解协议，并授权各方依其条款订立和实施和解协议。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\nI. 批准和解协议的标准\n\n16. 为根据 Bankruptcy Rule 9019 批准和解及和解协议，破产法院应认定该和解及和解协议公平且衡平、合理，并符合债务人破产财产的最佳利益。参见，例如，Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. of Chi. (In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.), 156 B.R. 414, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 1993.), aff'd, 17 F.3d 600 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); In re Enron Corp., No. 02 Civ. 8489(AKH), 2003 WL 230838, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2003). 批准特定和解协议的决定属于破产法院的合理裁量范围。见 Nellis v. Shugrue, 165 B.R. 115, 122-23 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).\n\n17. 重要的是，“和解协议不必是债务人本可获得的最佳和解协议。”In re Adelphia Commc'ns Corp., 327 B.R. 143, 159 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 596 F.2d 1102, 1114 (3d Cir. 1979)). 相反，法院仅需“审视争议问题，并判断该和解协议是否低于合理性范围内的最低点。”Id. (citing In re W.T. Grant Co., 699 F.2d 599, 608 (2d Cir. 1983)). 在决定特定和解协议是否处于“合理性范围”内时，法院考虑以下因素：\n\n（1）诉讼成功可能性与和解协议未来利益之间的平衡；（2）复杂且旷日持久诉讼的可能性，“及其伴随的费用、不便和延误”……；（3）“债权人的首要利益”，包括每一受影响类别的相对利益，“以及债权人不反对或积极支持拟议和解协议的程度”；（4）其他利害关系方是否支持该和解协议；（5）支持该和解协议的“律师的胜任能力和经验”，以及审查该和解协议的“破产法院法官的经验和知识”；（6）“高管和董事将获得的免责的性质和范围”；以及（7）“该和解协议在多大程度上是独立交易谈判的产物。”\n\nMotorola, Inc. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors (In re Iridium Operating LLC), 478 F.3d 452, 462 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted) (“Iridium”).\n\nII. 应批准和解协议\n\n18. 和解协议对第11章破产财产以及延伸而言对债务人破产财产的债权人而言，是一项极佳结果；在该等情形下并根据适用的 Iridium 因素，该和解协议是一项公平合理的和解。\n\n19. 和解协议为破产财产带来的利益重大。关键在于，和解协议将确保，受托人最终出售 Mahwah Mansion 所得的任何收益（如受托人在对抗程序中胜诉）首先用于支付破产财产为取得 Mahwah Mansion 控制权和出售 Mahwah Mansion 而产生的费用（包括与对抗程序有关的律师费），从而即使受托人与政府日后就 Mahwah Mansion 出售收益分配所进行的讨论未能从破产财产的角度达成有利和解，破产财产亦无需自掏腰包。受托人与政府还在和解协议中同意，Mahwah Mansion 收益中的 \\$1 million（除实际费用，包括律师费外）将分配给第11章破产财产中持有获准债权且亦为债务人受害人的债权人。换言之，Mahwah Mansion 将（如受托人在对抗程序中胜诉）不仅为对抗程序提供资金，而且将成为向债权人进行实际现金分配的来源。\n\n20. 此外，和解协议尤其确保对抗程序不会因受托人与政府之间的任何争议而延误，并将有关资金如何在赔偿/返还程序中分配的任何棘手问题推迟至将来，在作出最终有罪判决和没收裁定时由各方讨论（考虑到刑事案件目前定于 April 8, 2024 开始审理，而目前尚不知债务人或其共同被告是否将被定罪，此种安排是适当的）。\n\n21. 和解协议显然满足所有相关 Iridium 因素，为破产财产及其债权人提供重大即时和未来利益，尤其是确保破产财产将受益于受托人对 Mahwah Mansion 的任何出售，并消除各方在对抗程序背景下发生任何争议的可能性。和解协议由受托人与政府达成，双方均有经验丰富的律师协助，并以独立交易方式进行谈判。\n\n22. 简言之，和解协议是第11章破产财产的积极进展，受托人认为和解协议符合 Bankruptcy Rule 9019，应予批准。\n\n通知\n\n23. 本动议的通知将送达：(i) United States Trustee（美国受托人）；(ii) 债务人；(iii) 无担保债权人正式委员会；(iv) 被告；(v) 通过法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统向所有使用 CM/ECF 系统的出庭当事人进行电子提交；以及 (vi) 任何在该等第11章案件中请求通知、但如电子提交通知所示无法接受电子提交的当事人。受托人主张，在此情形下，无需其他或进一步通知。\n\n此前未提出请求\n\n24. 受托人此前未向本法院或任何其他法院提出本案所请求救济的任何请求。\n\n［本页剩余部分故意留白。］\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨此请求作出以下裁定\n\n准予动议所请求救济及其他公正且适当救济的拟议命令。\n\n日期：August 14, 2023　LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘斯），New Haven, Connecticut　CHAPTER 11 受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特，获准以特别许可出庭）　Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦，获准以特别许可出庭）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP　200 Park Avenue　New York, New York 10166　(212) 318-6079　aviluft@paulhastings.com　douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴西特，获准以特别许可出庭）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP　2050 M Street NW　Washington, D.C., 20036　(202) 551-1902　nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛，ct29437）　NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.　195 Church Street, 13th Floor　New Haven, Connecticut 06510　(203) 781-2847　plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\nChapter 11 受托人的代理律师\n\n附件 A\n\n拟议命令\n\n美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n\n布里奇波特分部\n\n--------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\nChapter 11\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n1　：\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。　：\n（联合管理）\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯潘斯），Chapter 11 受托人，　：\n：\n对抗程序案号：23-05017\n\n原告，　：\n\n诉　：\n\nTAURUS FUND LLC，　：\nSCOTT BARNETT（斯科特·巴尼特），作为 TAURUS　：\nFUND LLC 的受托人，以及　：\nTAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC，作为 TAURUS　：\nFUND LLC 的受托人，　：\n\n被告。　：\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n[拟议] 命令：根据《破产程序规则》第 9019 条批准 Chapter 11 受托人关于与美利坚合众国和解的动议\n\n兹审理 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘斯）以其作为上述标题所示 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）Chapter 11 案件（“Chapter 11 案件”）中获任命的 Chapter 11 受托人（“受托人”）的身份提出的动议，\n2 请求作出一项命令，批准受托人与政府之间的和解协议，具体内容详见该动议；且本院依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 对审理该动议及其中请求的救济具有管辖权；且本事项属于 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) 所称的核心程序；且鉴于在具体情形下已给予适当且充分的通知，并认为无需提供其他或进一步通知；且所请求的救济是受托人依其职责并为债务人财产及债权人最佳利益而作出的合理商业判断；且经适当审议并有充分理由，据此命令如下：\n\n1. 准许该动议。\n\n2. 对该动议提出的所有未被撤回、放弃或和解的异议（如有），以及其中包含的所有权利保留，均予驳回。\n\n3. 随附于本命令并作为附件 1 的和解协议（“和解协议”），根据《破产程序规则》第 9019 条予以批准。\n\n4. 受托人获授权，根据《破产程序规则》第 9019 条，在本命令录入后立即签署、交付、执行并全面履行任何及一切义务、文书、文件和材料，并采取合理必要或适当的一切行动，以完成和解协议所反映的和解，并履行其中设想的任何及一切义务。\n\n5. 本命令应根据《破产程序规则》第 6004(h) 条于录入后立即生效并可执行，受托人在收到和解款项后可不受限制地使用该款项。\n\n6. 本院保留管辖权，以审理和裁定因本命令及和解协议产生或与其相关的一切事项。\n\n附件 1\n\n和解协议\n\n美国联邦地区法院\n纽约南区\n\n美利坚合众国，　----\n\nX\n\n诉\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n又名 “Miles Guo（郭文贵），”\n又名 “Miles Kwok（郭文贵），”\n又名 “Guo Wengui（郭文贵），”\n又名 “Brother Seven（七哥），”\n又名 “The Principal（主公），”　S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n被告。\n\n--　X\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区\n布里奇波特分部\n\n关于：　Chapter 11\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n1　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（联合管理）\n\n1 Chapter 11 案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo（郭文贵）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘斯），作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\nCHAPTER 11 受托人与美利坚合众国之间的约定\n\n鉴于，约于 March 29, 2023，上述标题所示 Chapter 11 案件中的债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“被告”）与其他被告一同，由美利坚合众国（“政府”）通过纽约南区联邦检察官办公室（“USAO-SDNY”）代表，在纽约南区美国联邦地区法院（“地区法院”）依据一份含十二项罪名的替代起诉书 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)（“起诉书”）中的十一项罪名被起诉，罪名包括：违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 的电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈及洗钱共谋罪（第一项罪名）；违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 的电信欺诈罪（第二、第四、第六及第八项罪名）；违反 Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff；Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5 的证券欺诈罪（第三、第五及第七项罪名）；违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2) 的洗钱罪（第九及第十项罪名）；以及违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 的非法货币交易罪（第十一项罪名）；\n\n鉴于，起诉书就起诉书第一项至第八项罪名包含一项没收指控，寻求依据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C) 和 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c)，将构成或源自可追溯至实施起诉书第一项至第八项罪名所指控犯罪所得收益的任何及一切不动产和动产没收给美利坚合众国，包括但不限于以下财产：\n\n位于 675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430，地块编号 3300021-03-00001-02，并描述为地块编号：1.02，街区：21.03，区：33，城市、市镇、乡镇：MAHWAH TWP 的全部土地或地块，以及其建筑物、附属物、改良物、固定装置、附着物和地役权\n\n（“标的财产”）；\n\n鉴于，约于 February 15, 2022，被告在康涅狄格州联邦地区美国破产法院（“破产法院”）提起 Chapter 11 破产程序，In Re Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵） and Genever Holdings LLC, 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. Conn.)（“破产案件”）；\n\n鉴于，约于 June 15, 2022，破产法院指示任命一名 Chapter 11 破产受托人，此后 Luc A. Despins, Esq.（吕克·A·德斯潘斯律师）被任命为破产案件的受托人（“受托人”）；\n\n鉴于，约于 June 28, 2023，受托人告知政府，其经广泛分析后得出结论，除其他事项外，标的财产由被告享有衡平法上的所有权，因此属于被告 Chapter 11 财产；\n\n鉴于，受托人准备在破产法院提起对抗程序，Despins v. Taurus Fund（“对抗程序”），寻求包括以下在内的救济：\n\n（1）破产法院作出一项命令，(a) 宣告被告是标的财产的衡平法所有人，且标的财产属于由受托人管理的被告 Chapter 11 财产；以及 (b) 命令将标的财产移交给受托人；\n\n（2）破产法院作出一项命令，(a) 宣告 (i) 被告在任何时候均是持有标的财产所有权的实体 Taurus Fund LLC（“Taurus Fund”）的衡平法所有人；(ii) Taurus Fund 持有的任何及一切资产，包括标的财产，均属于被告 Chapter 11 财产；以及 (b) 命令将 Taurus Fund 以及 Taurus Fund 的任何及一切资产，包括标的财产，移交给受托人；\n\n（3）破产法院作出一项命令，(a) 宣告 (i) Taurus Fund 在任何时候均是被告的另一个自我；(ii) Taurus Fund 持有的任何及一切资产，包括标的财产，构成被告 Chapter 11 财产；以及 (b) 命令将 Taurus Fund 的任何及一切资产移交给受托人；\n\n鉴于，破产法院一旦作出上文第（1）至（3）项所列任何命令，标的财产将被视为由被告 Chapter 11 财产直接或间接持有的资产；\n\n鉴于，受托人还将在对抗程序中向破产法院寻求临时救济，以在破产法院就受托人在对抗程序中提出的请求作出最终裁定之前取得对标的财产的控制权（“临时救济”）；\n\n鉴于，如破产法院作出裁定，根据该裁定标的财产被视为由被告 Chapter 11 财产直接或间接持有的资产，受托人拟出售标的财产；以及\n\n鉴于，政府已同意不反对受托人在对抗程序中寻求的救济，或受托人为取得对标的财产的控制权和/或出售标的财产所作的任何努力；\n\n因此，兹由美利坚合众国通过其律师、美国联邦检察官 Damian Williams（达米安·威廉斯）、代理律师 Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）、Micah Fergenson（迈卡·弗格森）和 Ryan Finkel（瑞安·芬克尔），以及受托人及其代理律师 Paul Hastings LLP，共同约定并同意如下：\n\n1. 政府不得反对受托人在对抗程序中提出的任何请求或救济请求，亦不得反对受托人为取得对标的财产的控制权和/或出售标的财产所作的任何努力；\n\n2. 如标的财产根据破产案件中作出的命令被出售，受托人同意，标的财产出售所得净收益应在本刑事事项解决前由第三方托管，并将作为上述标题所示刑事案件中标的财产的替代物（“替代物”）；政府对标的财产适用的所有请求权和抗辩，包括政府可能为没收标的财产而提起的任何其他诉讼，均应改为适用于替代物，且仅可从替代物中支付。此外，附着于或由标的财产担保的任何请求权或权益，应转移至替代物，并且如获满足，亦仅可从替代物中获得满足。如被告根据最终命令被宣告无罪，或根据最终命令驳回没收命令的作出，本段所载的第三方托管要求应自动失效。\n\n3. 出售涉案不动产所得的净收益将包括出售涉案不动产所实现的全部款项，但应从销售收益中扣除以下款项：扣押、维护、营销和出售涉案不动产的任何费用，包括 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）在对抗程序中产生的或因对抗程序而产生的律师费，以及为确保涉案不动产安全保管和占有（包括在该处所内或周边提供的安保服务）、存储或出售所产生的费用，均以破产法院准许者为限；任何未偿还的抵押贷款；房地产佣金和／或费用；在出售时到期应付的任何其他房地产税、财产税、转让税、协会税或其他税款；保险费用；托管费用；产权费用及县级转让费用；以及视为费用的 $1,000,000，该款项应用于清偿破产案件中获准债权持有人中属于债务人受害人的债权。\n\n4. 如在本刑事案件中作出包括涉案不动产的没收命令，受托人与政府应就向起诉书所指控行为的受害人（其可能为破产案件中的获准债权持有人）以及破产案件中的获准债权持有人分配出售涉案不动产所得净收益一事进行善意协商。目前，USAO-SDNY（纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）预计将请求司法部洗钱和资产追回科，通过宽免／返还程序，将在本刑事案件中被没收的任何资产分配给起诉书所指控行为的受害人。受托人拟作为任何该等宽免／返还程序的一部分，寻求政府同意由其处理向受害人（其可能为破产案件中的获准债权持有人）及破产案件中的获准债权持有人分配涉案不动产净收益，具体以破产法院认定并准许者为准；政府已说明，目前其无法同意该提议，除非获得某些监管批准，而该等批准目前可能无法取得。\n\n5. 如政府与受托人未能就出售涉案不动产所得净收益的分配达成协议，政府和受托人的一切权利均予保留。\n\n6. 为促成出售涉案不动产，政府同意迅速签署为转让涉案不动产的无瑕疵产权并完成出售涉案不动产所可能需要的任何文件。\n\n7. 本协议的各方应各自承担其费用和律师费。\n\n8. 本协议可签署多份副本，每份均应视为正本，全部副本合并后应视为完整的协议。PDF 副本应视为正本。\n\n[本页其余部分故意留白。]\n\n共 200 页\n\n日期：New York, New York，July 13, 2023\n\n同意如下：\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\nUnited States of America（美利坚合众国）\n\n签署人：LIANA MURRAY（莉亚娜·默里）\nMICAH FERGENSON（迈卡·弗格森）\nRYAN FINKEL（瑞安·芬克尔）\nAssistant United States Attorneys（助理美国联邦检察官）\nOne Saint Andrews Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n(212) 637-2314/2190/6612\n\nCHAPTER 9 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE（第 9 章破产受托人）\n\n签署人：\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平斯，律师）\nTrustee（受托人）\n\n签署人：\n\nS. E. BARRON, ESQ.（S. E. 巴伦，律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\nAttorney for the Trustee（受托人律师）\n\n7/13/2023\n\n日期\n\n日期\n\n日期\n\n附件 B\n\n替代起诉书\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT（美国联邦地区法院）\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK（纽约南区）\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA（美利坚合众国）\n\n诉\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo（郭文贵）”，又名 “Miles Kwok（郭文贵）”，又名 “Guo Wengui（郭文贵）”，又名 “Brother Seven（七哥）”，又名 “The Principal（主公）”，\n\nKIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je（威廉·叶）”，以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette（伊薇特）”，\n\n被告人。\n\n原始\n起诉书\n\nS1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n第一项罪名\n（共谋实施电信欺诈、证券欺诈、银行欺诈及洗钱）\n\n大陪审团指控如下：\n\n概述\n\n1. 自至少约 2018 年起至至少约 March 2023 年止，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette”，即被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，共谋欺诈数千名受害人，涉案金额超过约 $1 billion，其中包括位于 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的受害人。KWOK（郭文贵）、JE（叶金明）、WANG（王雁平）及其共谋者通过一系列复杂、欺诈性及虚构的企业和投资机会运作，该等企业和投资机会关联数十个相互关联的实体，使被告人及其共谋者得以招揽、洗白及侵占受害人资金。\n\n2. HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette”，即被告人及其共谋者，利用 KWOK（郭文贵）广泛的网络影响力及数十万名网络追随者，通过承诺异常高的财务回报及其他利益，招揽对各种实体和项目的投资。该计划中使用的实体和项目包括被称为 GTV、GICLUBS、GIMUSIC、GIFashion 和 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）等。在事实真相上，且正如 KWOK、JE 和 WANG 明知，该等实体是 KWOK、JE 和 WANG 创设并用于实施其欺诈及利用 KWOK 追随者的工具。该计划使 KWOK、JE 和 WANG 得以使其本人、家属及共谋者获利，并资助 KWOK 奢靡的生活方式。\n\n3. 作为该计划的一部分，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette”，即被告人及其共谋者，洗白了数亿美元的欺诈所得。为掩盖该等资金的非法来源，KWOK、JE 和 WANG 将款项转入并经由至少 80 个不同实体或个人名下持有的超过约 500 个账户转移，并指示他人进行该等转移。该欺诈计划所得的数亿美元被直接或间接转入位于美国、Bahamas（巴哈马）及 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国，“UAE”）等地的银行账户，并以 JE 所拥有或以其他方式控制的公司名义持有。\n\n4. HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je”，即被告人，将该欺诈计划所得中超过约 $300 million 的款项用于其本人及家属利益。例如，KWOK 使用以欺诈手段取得的受害人资金，为 KWOK 及其家属购买、出资或融资购置一栋位于 New Jersey（新泽西州）、约 50,000 平方英尺、购买价格为 $26.5 million 的豪宅；豪华车辆，包括为 KWOK 一名近亲属（“Relative-I”）购置的一辆价值约 $3.5 million 的 Ferrari（法拉利）；一艘价值约 $37 million 的豪华游艇，该游艇由 KWOK 及其家属使用，并以 KWOK 一名近亲属（“Relative-2”）的名义购买；一架价值约 $140,000 的钢琴；一张价值约 $36,000 的床垫；以及为 Relative-I 最终利益而对一只高风险对冲基金作出的 $100 million 投资，等等。就 JE 而言，除其他事项外，其将至少 $10 million 的欺诈所得转入其本人及其配偶的个人银行账户。\n\n5. HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette”，即被告人及其共谋者，多年来实施该计划，并至少持续实施至至少 March 2023 年。除其他方式外，他们不断调整该计划的手段和方法，以规避美国投资者保护、反洗钱及破产法律的执行，并对投诉或要求返还投资资金的个别受害人实施报复。\n\n相关人员和实体\n\n6. 在所有相关期间内，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，即被告人，是该计划的领导者并指挥该计划。\n\na. KWOK 是一名流亡的中国商人，其于约 2015 年逃往美国，并以约 $67.5 million 购得位于 New York City（纽约市）一家酒店的一套顶层公寓。自至少约 2017 年起，当时自称为亿万富翁的 KWOK 获得了大量网络追随者。KWOK 接受了大量媒体采访，并在社交媒体上发帖，声称推进一场反对 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党的）运动。\n\nb. 于约 2018 年，KWOK 成立了两个自称为非营利组织的机构，即 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）和 Rule of Law Society（法治协会）。Rule of Law Society 的网站将 KWOK 列为其“创始人、倡导者及发言人”。两个组织的网站均展示了 KWOK 的照片。KWOK 利用该等非营利组织聚集了与其所声称的反对中国共产党运动立场一致的追随者，该等追随者也倾向于相信 KWOK 关于投资和赚钱机会的陈述。在事实真相上，且正如 KWOK 明知，其本人及他人为推广这些“机会”并欺诈 KWOK 的追随者及其他受害人，提供了虚假且具有重大误导性的信息。\n\n7. 在所有相关期间内，KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je”，即被告人，是 Hong Kong（香港）和 United Kingdom（英国）的双重公民，主要居住于英国，同时前往美国及其他地区。JE 拥有并经营众多对该计划至关重要的公司和投资工具，并担任其财务架构师及关键洗钱者。\n\n8. 在所有相关期间内，YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette”，即被告人，是一名中国公民，主要居住于 New York, New York，并与 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，即被告人，关系密切。具体而言，自至少约 2018 年起，WANG 已为 KWOK 及其家属工作数年，并担任 KWOK 的“幕僚长”。以该身份，WANG 在作为本文所述欺诈工具的各类实体中担任职务。例如，WANG 曾担任据称管理 KWOK 资金的实体的总裁、财务主管和秘书。\n\n9. 在与本起诉书相关的某些期间内，Saraca Media Group, Inc.（“Saraca”）是一家总部位于 New York, New York 的公司。Relative-I 是其最终实益拥有人。\n\n10. 在与本起诉书相关的某些期间内，GTV Media Group, Inc.（“GTV”）是一个总部位于 New York, New York、据称以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台。尽管 KWOK 在 GTV 未担任任何正式职位或头衔，但 GTV 在实质上由 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，即被告人所有和控制。KIN MING JE（叶金明），又名 “William Je”，即被告人，同样未在 GTV 担任任何正式职位或头衔，但事实上控制其财务。Saraca 是 GTV 的母公司。YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette”，即被告人，是 GTV 的“执行董事”。\n\n11. 在与本起诉书相关的某些时期，G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司，以下简称“GICLUBS”）是一家声称设在 Puerto Rico（波多黎各）及 New York, New York（纽约州纽约市）的会员组织。HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，被告人，实质上拥有并控制 GICLUBS，尽管 KWOK 在 GICLUBS 并未担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔。KIN MING JE（又名“William Je”），被告人，同样未在 GICLUBS 担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，但事实上行使了对其财务的控制权。\n\n12. 在与本起诉书相关的某些时期，“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”是一个声称的加密货币“生态系统”，KIN MING JE（又名“William Je”），被告人，通过其拥有的设于境外的多个实体创立并运营该生态系统。由 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，被告人，实质上拥有和控制的实体，例如 GICLUBS 和 GIFashion（GI时尚），声称与 Himalaya Exchange 存在业务关系。KWOK 推广 Himalaya Exchange，并声称自己是其声称的加密货币的设计者，尽管 KWOK 在 Himalaya Exchange 并未担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔。\n\n欺诈\n\nGTV 私募发行\n\n13. 在约 2020 年 4 月至约 2020 年 6 月期间，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE（又名“William Je”）及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，通过与 GTV 有关的非法私募股票发行（以下简称“GTV 私募发行”）欺诈性取得了超过 \\$400 million 的受害人资金。\n\na. 约于 2020 年 4 月 21 日，KWOK 在社交媒体上发布并促使他人发布了一段视频，宣布通过私募方式非注册发行 GTV 普通股。在该视频中，KWOK 实质上并在部分内容中描述了 GTV 私募发行的投资条款，并指引人们通过移动通信应用程序就 GTV 私募发行的任何问题与其联系。该视频及 GTV 私募发行材料——包括书面“Confidential Information Memorandum（保密信息备忘录）”（以下简称“PPM”）、Subscription Agreement（认购协议）及 Investment Procedure Guidelines（投资程序指引）——经由移动通信应用程序、社交媒体和短信发送给数千名潜在投资者，其中包括位于 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的投资者。\n\nb. PPM 将 GTV 宣传为“首个将公民新闻和社交新闻的力量与最先进技术、大数据、人工智能、区块链技术及实时互动通信相结合的平台。”\n\nc. 根据 PPM 的元数据，JE 是 PPM 的“作者”。PPM 披露了 GTV 私募发行的条款，并将 KWOK 确定为 GTV 的“发起人和顾问”。根据 PPM 及其他 GTV 材料，除其他事项外，KWOK 和 JE 均未在 GTV 担任任何正式管理职务。YANPING WANG（又名“Yvette”），被告人，在 PPM 中被确定为 GTV 的“执行董事”。\n\nd. PPM 还作出了包括下列内容在内的陈述，实质上并在部分内容中如下：\n\ni. GTV 私募发行面向“有意评估向 GTV 投入资本的机会”的投资者；\n\nii. GTV 计划将通过 GTV 私募发行筹集的所得款项“用于扩展和加强业务”；以及\n\niii. PPM 包含一张表格，逐项列示通过 GTV 私募发行筹集资金的“拟议用途”：\n\n收购公司以加强和发展\nGTV\n\n升级 GTV 技术和安全性　约 10%\n市场营销　约 8%\n营运资本　约 7%\n其他　约 5%\n总计　100%\n\ne. 在约 2020 年 4 月 20 日至约 2020 年 6 月 2 日期间，价值约 \\$452 million 的 GTV 普通股声称被出售给位于美国（包括纽约南区）及境外的超过 5,500 名投资者。投资者参与 GTV 私募发行，部分基于其相信其资金将如 PPM 所承诺的那样投资于 GTV，以发展和壮大该业务。\n\nf. 从 GTV 私募发行投资者取得的绝大部分所得款项并未用于发展和壮大 GTV 业务，而是直接存入以 Saraca（萨拉卡）名义持有的银行账户。Saraca 是 GTV 的母公司，由 Relative-I（亲属-I）实益拥有。\n\ng. GTV 私募发行并非依据向 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会，以下简称“SEC”）提交的注册声明作出。相反，该发行声称依据 SEC 规章作出，该等规章允许在对获发售证券的投资者类型及可招揽其投资的方式加以限制的条件下出售非注册证券。然而，为规避这些限制，KWOK 及其他受其控制的人员，使用至少一个中介实体代表不具备参与 GTV 私募发行资格的投资者群体购买 GTV 股票。\n\nh. 约于 2020 年 6 月初，即 GTV 私募发行结束后仅数日，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE（又名“William Je”）及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，被告人及其共谋者，侵吞了从 GTV 私募发行投资者筹集的约 \\$100 million，并指示将该等资金存入一家高风险对冲基金（以下简称“Fund-I”），以惠及 Saraca 及其最终实益拥有人 Relative-I。该交易与 PPM 向潜在 GTV 投资者所作的有关 GTV 投资将如何使用的陈述相违背。事实上，对 Fund-I 的 \\$100 million 投资并非为了 GTV 的利益，而是为了 Saraca 的利益。提供投入 Fund-I 的 \\$100 million 的受害人并不拥有任何 Saraca 的股份。最终，对 Fund-I 的投资损失了约 \\$30 million 的价值。\n\ni. 在将 \\$100 million 的 GTV 受害人资金投入 Fund-I 后，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，被告人，继续使用虚假和误导性陈述推广 GTV。\n\n农场贷款计划\n\n14. 自约 2020 年 6 月起——即 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，和 KIN MING JE（又名“William Je”），被告人及其共谋者，为 Saraca 和 Relative-I 的利益侵吞 GTV 私募发行资金的同一个月——KWOK、JE 及其共谋者通过“Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）”欺诈性取得了超过约 \\$150 million 的受害人资金。由 KWOK 组织和推广的 Himalaya Farm Alliance，是由位于世界各地城市的非正式团体组成的集合体（每个团体均称为一个“Farm（农场）”）。KWOK、JE 及其他代表其行事并按其指示行事的人员，通过向 GTV 私募发行的投资者作出进一步虚假陈述，并欺诈性招揽进一步投资，取得了该等资金；此时，该等投资的形式为向某一农场提供“贷款”，并承诺该等贷款可按每出借 1 美元兑换 1 股 GTV 普通股的兑换比例转换为 GTV 普通股（以下简称“农场贷款计划”）。\n\na. 自至少约 2020 年 6 月起，持有用于处理通过 GTV 私募发行筹集资金的账户的美国境内银行，开始冻结和关闭与 GTV 有关的银行账户，原因包括该等账户收到数十笔大额汇入电汇，其中部分提及非注册股票发行。\n\nb. 这些银行账户关闭妨碍了 KWOK、JE 及其共谋者收取寻求投资于 GTV 的受害人的所得款项。\n\nc. 约于 2020 年 7 月 22 日，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 推广农场贷款计划。根据 KWOK 及代表其行事的人员所述，寻求投资（或再投资）于 GTV 的个人可参与农场贷款计划。\n\nd. 在推出农场贷款计划后，KWOK 继续推广 GTV，并继续虚假陈述 GTV 的价值。例如，约于 2020 年 8 月 2 日，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 实质上并在部分内容中虚假陈述：“GTV 值多少？……市值为 2 billion US dollars。”事实上，且如 KWOK 明知，GTV 的市值远低于此，因为除其他事项外，GTV 是一家没有产生收入的新企业。\n\n1 除非另有说明，此处归于 KWOK 的所有陈述均已从普通话译为英语。\n\ne. 数千名受害人通过向由农场（而非 GTV）控制的银行账户汇款，向农场“出借”资金。根据农场经常未予副署的“Loan Agreements（贷款协议）”，该等资金将用于某一农场的“一般营运资本用途”。\n\nf. KWOK 和 JE 侵吞了通过农场贷款计划筹集的资金。例如：\n\ni. 约 \\$20 million 被转给 Relative-I，其中约 \\$950,000 被用于支付私人飞机的机组人员服务费用；\n\nii. 约 \\$5 million 被转给由 KWOK 的配偶拥有的实体；\n\niii. 约 \\$2.3 million 被用于支付与一艘价值约 \\$37 million、长约 145 英尺、名义上由 Relative-2（亲属-2）拥有并由 KWOK 使用的豪华游艇有关的维护费用；以及\n\niv. 约 \\$10 million 被转入以 JE 和／或 JE 的配偶名义开立的个人银行账户。\n\nGICLUBS\n\n15. 在就农场贷款计划作出虚假陈述的同时，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”、又名“Miles Kwok”、又名“Guo Wengui”、又名“Brother Seven”、又名“The Principal”，和 KIN MING JE（又名“William Je”），被告人，以及其他已知和未知人员，欺诈性诱使 KWOK 的追随者向一家声称名为 GICLUBS 的在线会员俱乐部转移额外资金。自至少约 2020 年 10 月至至少约 2023 年 3 月期间，KWOK、JE 及其他已知和未知人员通过 GICLUBS 欺诈性取得了超过约 \\$250 million 的受害人资金。\n\na. 自至少约 2020 年 6 月 20 日起，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 推广并鼓励个人购买其称为“G Club……会员卡”的产品。\n\nb. GICLUBS 于约 2020 年 10 月正式推出，其在网站上声称自己是“一项独家、高端会员计划，提供全方位服务”，并且是“通往经过精心甄选的世界级产品、服务和体验的门户”。\n\nc. 要加入 GICLUBS，会员除支付年度会员费外，还必须一次性付款购买“会员资格”。会员资格的费用根据潜在会员选择的会员等级而不同：第 5 级会员资格费用为 \\$50,000；第 4 级会员资格费用为 \\$40,000；第 3 级会员资格费用为 \\$30,000；第 2 级会员资格费用为 \\$20,000；第 1 级会员资格费用为 \\$10,000。\n\nd. 约于 2021 年 7 月 5 日，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 实质上并在部分内容中表示，存在“25,000 名 [GICLUBS] 会员……\\$100 million dollars，银行账户中的现金。然后我们有 111 million……[人]想要加入。”相比之下，GICLUBS 内部文件显示，截至约 2021 年 8 月，活跃会员约为 5,900 名。\n\ne. 事实上，并且如 KWOK 和 JE 明知，GICLUBS 所提供给其会员的服务和“体验”远远谈不上“全方位服务”。尽管收取了数亿美元所谓的会员费，GICLUBS 仅维持相对少量的员工，向其会员提供的可辨识会员权益微乎其微，甚至没有。事实上，GICLUBS 甚至未能兑现其向参加竞赛的会员提供的奖品。于 2021 年 2 月 14 日前后，GICLUBS 举办了一场网络直播和抽奖活动，期间向会员承诺提供豪华奖品。至少有一次，GICLUBS 没有向据称赢得抽奖活动的会员提供一辆 BMW，而是向该会员声称，该会员曾要求将该 BMW 的价值用于将其 GICLUBS Tier 1 会员资格升级为 GICLUBS Tier 4 会员资格，并部分抵扣未来三年的年度会员费。截至 2021 年 3 月 8 日前后——即 GICLUBS 启动并开始收取“会员”费用数月后——GICLUBS 尚无商业计划或董事会。\n\nf. KWOK 和 JE 还将 GICLUBS 用作继续进行欺诈性私募发行的机制。KWOK 以及其他已知和未知人员向 KWOK 的网络追随者称，购买 GICLUBS 会员资格将使其有权获得与 KWOK 关联的实体（如 GTV 和 GIFashion）的股票。\n\ni. 在于 2021 年 5 月 4 日前后就 GICLUBS 会员资金进行的一次谈话中，JE 实质上并部分地表示：“首先，[潜在会员]是在购买 GICLUBS 会员资格，但他们预期自己将来可能会获得一些股份，你知道，未来 GTV 的一些股份，我认为这是他们的预期。”\n\nii. 于 2021 年 7 月 30 日前后，KWOK 在一段通过社交媒体发布的视频中实质上并部分地表示：“一些战友问：‘我购买 GICLUBS 会员资格时，是否仍会获得免费的股票发行？’百分之百。因为我说过，我必须承诺，任何在 9 月 17 日前购买 G-Club 会员资格的人都必须获配股份，这完全一样。因为我们说过，任何人都可以选择在 9 月 17 日前用你们的钱购买 G-Club、G-Club 和股票股份。你们将两者兼得。”\n\ng. KWOK、JE 以及其他已知和未知人员要求投资者购买多个 GICLUBS 会员资格，使 KWOK 和 JE 能够增加所募集的资金数额。在这方面，GICLUBS 网站实质上并部分地称，拥有多个会员资格的会员将“获得额外权益”，而事实上，并且如 KWOK 和 JE 明知，多个会员资格并未向会员提供额外权益。\n\n16. 总而言之，投资者购买了价值数亿美元的 GICLUBS 会员资格。然而，其中大部分资金并未用于资助 GICLUBS 的业务。相反，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（叶劲明），又名 “William Je”，和其他已知及未知人员，侵吞了受害人向 GICLUBS 支付的“会员”费用中的很大一部分，并通过复杂的实体和银行账户网络等方式实施该侵吞行为。例如：\n\na. 经由以其他实体名义开立的银行账户转移的 GICLUBS 资金，被用于支付 KWOK 及其家人的个人开支，包括购买一艘约 $2.6 million 的豪华游艇及合计成本超过 $5 million 的豪华汽车。\n\nb. 于 2021 年 11 月前后，JE 指示将约 $26.5 million 的 GICLUBS 资金——该等资金经由以其他实体名义开立的银行账户转移——用于购买 KWOK 在新泽西州面积为 50,000 平方英尺的宅邸。\n\nc. JE 指示将额外 $13 million 的 GICLUBS 会员付款转入一个托管账户。该等资金随后被用于支付对 KWOK 新泽西州宅邸进行的奢华翻修费用，包括为 Relative-I（亲属-1）设置的一翼和为 Relative-2（亲属-2）设置的一翼，以及购买各类家具和装饰物品，其中包括价值约 $978,000 的中国和波斯地毯、一台 $62,000 的电视机和一个 $53,000 的壁炉柴架。\n\nd. 于 2021 年 8 月 5 日前后，JE 指示将约 $1.1 million 的 GICLUBS 会员付款转入一个由 JE 控制的银行账户。\n\ne. GICLUBS 使用会员费购买豪华汽车，包括一辆价值约 $4.4 million 的定制 Bugatti 跑车。尽管该汽车已签署的购买协议将 GICLUBS 列为客户，但该定制汽车的初始规格文件将 Relative-I 列为客户。Relative-I 未在 GICLUBS 担任任何正式职务。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所\n\n17. 自至少 2021 年 4 月前后至至少 2023 年 3 月前后，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（叶劲明），又名 “William Je”，和其他已知及未知人员，通过喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）欺诈性获取了超过约 $262 million 的受害人资金；该交易所是一个可通过互联网访问的所谓加密货币“生态系统”。喜马拉雅交易所包括一种所谓的稳定币，称为喜马拉雅元（Himalaya Dollar，“HDO”或“H Dollar”），以及一种交易币，称为喜马拉雅币（Himalaya Coin，“HCN”或“H Coin”）。喜马拉雅交易所声称，该“稳定币”是一种由储备金支持、价值固定为 1-to-$1 的数字资产，而该“交易币”是一种估值基于供求关系的加密货币。JE 是喜马拉雅交易所的创始人兼主席。\n\n18. 在通过社交媒体发布的视频中，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，大肆宣传喜马拉雅交易所及 HCN 和 HDO 两者的前景和估值；其曾公开将二者描述为加密货币。例如，于 2021 年 10 月 20 日前后发布在互联网上的一段视频中，KWOK 作出了以下虚假陈述，其中包括实质上和部分地：\n\na. “我说的是你们的 H Coins，‘Brother Seven’［即 KWOK］设计了它……它具有货币属性，为什么？它有 20% 的黄金。太棒了［。］它从第一天起就作为货币诞生，因此它有价值，并且与黄金挂钩……直接清晰的黄金。无论它上涨多少，20% 都将变成黄金。”\n\nb. “如果 H Coin 毫无价值，[H Coin 的发行人]可以出售全部 20% 的黄金，兑换给你们，成为你们的钱。或者取出全部 20% 黄金的价值，要求所有人统一将其归给你们。”\n\nc. “如果任何人亏钱，我可以说我将赔偿 100%。我给你们 100%。无论谁亏钱，我来承担。”\n\nd. “我可以在一分钟内在市场上卖出 H Coin，将其换回我的 H Dollar，再换回你们的法定货币单位……［而且］你们可以立即购买任何东西。”\n\n19. HCN 和 HDO 的首次代币发行发生于 2021 年 11 月 1 日前后。HCN 开始交易时价格为 10 cents，并且在约两周内，喜马拉雅交易所网站声称每枚 HCN 据称价值约 27 HDO（即 $27），即价值增长 26,900%。也就是说，在首次代币发行约两周后，喜马拉雅交易所网站显示 HCN 据称估值约为 $27 billion。\n\n20. 在喜马拉雅交易所启动时，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，向其网络追随者及其他人推销 HCN。例如，于 2021 年 11 月 1 日前后——即首次代币发行之日——KWOK 通过社交媒体发布了一首名为 “HCoin To the Moon” 的原创歌曲的官方音乐视频。“to the moon”一语通常与加密货币相关联，并暗示价值急剧上升。该音乐视频描绘 KWOK 身处多个奢华场所，并展示黄金和财富的画面。\n\n21. 在某些时候，包括在喜马拉雅交易所启动之后，被告 KIN MING JE（叶劲明），又名 “William Je”，以误导性方式推销喜马拉雅交易所。例如，于 2022 年 6 月前后，JE 试图制造这样的印象：从某一特定拍卖行购买一辆价值 €3,561,127 的 Ferrari（“该 Ferrari”）是使用 HDO 完成的。JE 实质上并部分地表示，其“极为高兴［一名］买家决定使用 HDO 购买［一辆］世界级汽车”。与 JE 的说法相反，该 Ferrari 并非使用 HDO 购买。事实上，并且如 JE 明知，一名喜马拉雅交易所员工向该拍卖行发送了一笔国际银行电汇，以支付该 Ferrari 的成本，同时还在喜马拉雅交易所处理了一笔相应的“交易”，从而造成该购买行为是使用 HDO 进行的虚假表象。JE 的陈述还具有误导性，原因包括该 Ferrari 身份不明的“买家”事实上是 Relative-I（亲属-1）。\n\n22. 与被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（叶劲明），又名 “William Je”，和其他已知及未知人员的陈述相反，HCN 和 HDO 除了在喜马拉雅交易所（据称）以外，不能在任何其他地方交易。此外，与加密货币不同，HCN 不能交易为或兑换为其他货币。HCN 据称只能交易为 HDO（且仅能在喜马拉雅交易所交易），而 HDO 据称只能兑换为或由法定货币兑换而来（且仅能在喜马拉雅交易所兑换）。\n\na. 事实上，喜马拉雅交易所网站上提供的 HDO 和 HCN 白皮书以小字规定，与 KWOK 的陈述相反，HCN 和 HDO 并非加密货币。相反，根据 HCN 白皮书，“喜马拉雅交易所及相关应用程序和基础设施的运营将通过使用‘Credits’来促进。”该等积分（i）“只能在喜马拉雅交易所或喜马拉雅生态系统内使用”，且（ii）“不附带要求将其兑换为法定货币或加密资产的任何权利”。此外，尽管喜马拉雅交易所会员可以请求将其“HDO”积分兑换为等值的美元付款，HDO 白皮书称喜马拉雅交易所拥有拒绝任何该等请求的“酌处权”。\n\n23. 于 2022 年 4 月前后，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（叶劲明），又名 “William Je”，安排将约 $37 million 的喜马拉雅交易所资金从一个喜马拉雅交易所银行账户转入某一特定托管账户。该 $37 million 被安排为一笔所谓“贷款”，用于支付 KWOK 先前购买和使用的一艘豪华游艇的成本；该游艇当时由一个以 Relative-2（亲属-2）名义持有的实体所有。\n\n政府扣押欺诈所得\n\n24. 于 2022 年 9 月 20 日前后及 2022 年 9 月 21 日前后，美国当局向数家境内银行送达了经司法授权的扣押令，随后从以喜马拉雅交易所实体及与被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，以及 KIN MING JE（叶劲明），又名 “William Je”相关的其他实体名义持有的银行账户中，扣押了约 $335 million 的所得。在 2022 年 9 月经司法授权的扣押之后，JE 试图将约 $46 million 从与喜马拉雅交易所相关、尚未被美国扣押的境内银行账户转至一个由 JE 控制的阿联酋银行账户。\n\na. 在首次经司法授权扣押与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）相关资金后约两天内，即于 2022 年 9 月 22 日前后，JE 联系了一家持有 Himalaya Exchange 银行账户的境内银行的管理层。JE 试图执行一笔电汇；他与一名 Himalaya Exchange 高管向该境内银行声称，该电汇是为一名未具名的“VIP”（即 Himalaya Exchange 的重要客户）将 HDO“赎回”为美元所必需。\n\nb. 在随后与该境内银行的沟通中，JE 透露该 VIP 实际上就是 JE 本人。JE 向该境内银行提供了文件，显示 JE 于 2022 年 9 月 22 日前后进行了两笔所谓的 HCN 销售，合计 4600 万 HDO；JE 当时正试图将其“兑换”为 $46 million。JE 两次向该境内银行的管理层强调，其实质内容及部分表述为，该笔 $46 million 的转账必须在“今天完成，否则毫无意义”。\n\n25. 于 2022 年 10 月 16 日前后，根据经司法授权的搜查令，美国当局从该境内银行的数个 Himalaya Exchange 和 GICLUBS（GICLUBS）账户中，额外扣押了约 $274 million 的所得款项；JE 曾要求从这些账户中转出 $46 million。\n\na. 因该等经司法授权的扣押，美国当局扣押了超过约 $634 million 的欺诈所得，其中包括从以 Himalaya Exchange 实体名义持有的银行账户中扣押的约 $278 million，包括声称持有其 HDO 现金储备的账户。\n\nb. 扣押后，Himalaya Exchange 网站仍继续表示，HDO 由“由美元及现金等价资产组成的储备金”支持，而事实上并非如此。\n\nc. 尽管 Himalaya Exchange 的现金储备被扣押，截至本起诉书之日，HCN 的所谓价格并未突然且大幅下跌。\n\n法定指控\n\n26. 自至少约 2018 年起至至少约 2023 年 3 月止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE（金明杰），又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，即各被告，连同其他已知及未知人员，故意且明知地相互结合、共谋、结成同盟并达成协议，实施针对美国的犯罪，即：(1) 违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 的电信欺诈；(2) 违反 Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff，以及 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5 的证券欺诈；(3) 违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344 的银行欺诈；(4) 违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A) 的国际促进型洗钱；以及 (5) 违反 Title 18, United States Code Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) 的国际隐匿型洗钱。\n\n27. 该共谋的一部分及其目的在于，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即各被告，连同其他已知及未知人员，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和诡计，以及通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺获取金钱和财产，将会且确实通过州际及国际商业中的有线电、无线电和电视通信，传输并促使传输文字、标志、信号、图像和声音，以执行该等计划和诡计，违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343，即，KWOK、JE 和 WANG 同意通过促使有关 GTV Private Placement（GTV 私募配售）、Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）、GICLUBS 和 Himalaya Exchange 的重大虚假信息和虚假陈述经州际电信传输，取得受害人的金钱。\n\n28. 该共谋的另一部分及其目的在于，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即各被告，连同其他已知及未知人员，故意且明知地，直接或间接地，通过使用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，以及全国性证券交易所的设施，就在全国性证券交易所登记的证券及任何未如此登记证券的买卖，使用和运用操纵性和欺骗性的手段与诡计，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，其方式为：(a) 使用欺诈性手段、计划和诡计；(b) 作出对重大事实的不实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使所作陈述在作出时的情形下不具误导性所必需的重大事实；以及 (c) 从事已构成及将构成对某人实施欺诈和欺骗的行为、做法和业务过程，即，KWOK、JE 和 WANG 同意通过就所谓 GTV 普通股股份及所谓与 GTV 关联的公司提供重大虚假和误导性的信息及陈述，欺诈性地诱使投资者参与 GTV Private Placement、Farm Loan Program 和 GICLUBS。\n\n29. 该共谋的另一部分及其目的在于，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即各被告，连同其他已知及未知人员，明知地将会且确实实施并企图实施一项欺诈金融机构的计划和诡计，该金融机构定义见 Title 18, United States Code, Section 20；并通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述和承诺，获取该金融机构拥有的以及处于该金融机构保管和控制之下的金钱、资金、信贷、资产、证券及其他财产，违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344，即，KWOK、JE 和 WANG 同意参与一项计划，通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述和文件，就 GTV Private Placement、Farm Loan Program、GICLUBS 和 Himalaya Exchange 误导美国金融机构，以取得至少一家金融机构的金钱，或处于至少一家金融机构保管或控制之下的金钱。\n\n30. 该共谋的另一部分及其目的在于，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即各被告，连同其他已知及未知人员，将会且确实运输、传送和转移，并企图运输、传送和转移货币工具和资金，从美国境内某地至并经由美国境外某地，以及从并经由美国境外某地至美国境内某地，意图促进特定非法活动的实施，即本起诉书第二项至第八项罪名中指控的犯罪，违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A)(i)。\n\n31. 该共谋的另一部分及其目的在于，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即各被告，连同其他已知及未知人员，将会且确实运输、传送和转移，并企图运输、传送和转移货币工具和资金，从美国境内某地至并经由美国境外某地，以及从并经由美国境外某地至美国境内某地，明知该等运输、传送和转移所涉货币工具和资金代表某种形式非法活动的所得，并明知该等运输、传送和转移的全部或部分设计目的在于隐瞒和掩饰特定非法活动所得的性质、地点、来源、所有权和控制权，即本起诉书第二项至第八项罪名中指控的犯罪，违反 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(B)(i)。\n\n外显行为\n\n32. 为推进该共谋并实现其非法目的，HO WAN KWOK，又名“Miles Guo”，又名“Miles Kwok”，又名“Guo Wengui”，又名“Brother Seven”，又名“The Principal”，KIN MING JE，又名“William Je”，以及 YANPING WANG，又名“Yvette”，即各被告，连同其他已知及未知人员，在纽约南区及其他地区实施了下列外显行为，其中包括：\n\na. 于 2020 年 4 月 21 日前后，KWOK 在社交媒体上发布并促使发布一段视频，宣布通过 GTV Private Placement 进行未注册的 GTV 股票发行。\n\nb. 于 2020 年 6 月 5 日前后，WANG 在纽约南区境内时，授权将 $100 million 从 Saraca（萨拉卡）电汇至 Fund-1（基金1号）。\n\nc. 于 2020 年 7 月 22 日前后，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 推广了 Farm Loan Program。\n\nd. 于 2020 年 8 月 2 日前后，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 的实质内容及部分表述为：“GTV 值多少钱？……市值为 20 亿美元。”\n\ne. 于 2021 年 5 月 28 日前后，JE 将约 $13 million 从 JE 控制的位于 UAE 的一个银行账户，转移至由一个实体（由 Relative-2 所有）在纽约州纽约市某特定银行持有的银行账户。\n\nf. 于 2021 年 7 月 30 日前后，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 的实质内容及部分表述为：“一些战友问，‘当我购买 G-Clubs 会员资格时，我还能获得免费股票发行吗？’百分之百。因为我说过，我必须承诺，任何在 9 月 17 日之前购买 G-Clubs 会员资格的人都必须获配股份，完全一样。因为我们说过，任何人都可以选择在 9 月 17 日前用你的钱购买 G-Clubs、G-Clubs 和股票股份。你将两者兼得。”\n\ng. 于 2021 年 8 月 5 日前后，JE 指示将约 $1.1 million 转移至 JE 控制的一个银行账户；该款项由受害人支付给 GICLUBS 以换取“会员资格”。\n\nh. 于 2021 年 10 月 20 日前后，在一段通过社交媒体传播的视频中，KWOK 的实质内容及部分表述为，KWOK“设计了”HCN，“无论它上涨多少，20% 都会变成黄金”，并且“如果有人在 HCN 上亏钱”，“我可以说我将赔偿 100%。”\n\ni. 于 2022 年 9 月 22 日前后，JE 向一家美国银行的管理层发送短信，其实质内容及部分表述为，向 JE 控制的位于 UAE 的一个银行账户转账 $46 million 必须在“今天完成，否则毫无意义。”\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)\n\n第二项罪名（电信欺诈—GTV 私募配售）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n33. 本起诉书第 1 段至第 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，如同在此完整列明。\n\n34. 自至少约在 April 2020 起至至少约在 March 2021 止（包括该期间），在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，以及 Y ANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“ Yvette ”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和手段，并通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺取得金钱和财产，为实施该计划和手段之目的，经由州际和对外贸易中的有线电、无线电和电视通信，传输并促使传输文字、标志、信号、图像和声音；具体而言，郭文贵、闫明杰和王雁平实施 GTV 私募配售，以出售 GTV 股票，并通过虚假陈述和不实陈述欺诈性地从受害人处取得金钱；该计划通过往来于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第三项罪名（证券欺诈——GTV 私募配售）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n35. 本起诉书第 1 至 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n36. 自至少约在 April 2020 起至至少约在 March 2021 止（包括该期间），在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，以及 Y ANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“ Yvette ”，故意且明知，直接及间接地，利用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，以及全国性证券交易所的设施，就在全国性证券交易所登记的证券及任何未如此登记的证券的买卖，使用和运用操纵性及欺骗性的装置和诡计，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 使用旨在欺诈的装置、计划和手段；(b) 作出对重要事实的不真实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使已作出的陈述在作出该陈述的情形下不致产生误导所必需的重要事实；以及 (c) 从事对任何人构成并将构成欺诈和蒙骗的行为、做法及业务过程；具体而言，郭文贵、闫明杰和王雁平实施 GTV 私募配售，以出售 GTV 股票，并通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处取得金钱；该计划通过往来于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n第四项罪名（电信欺诈——农场贷款计划）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n37. 本起诉书第 1 至 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n38. 自至少约在 June 2020 起至至少约在 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和手段，并通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺取得金钱和财产，为实施该计划和手段之目的，经由州际和对外贸易中的有线电、无线电和电视通信，传输并促使传输文字、标志、信号、图像和声音；具体而言，郭文贵和闫明杰实施农场贷款计划，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述欺诈性地从受害人处取得金钱；该计划通过往来于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第五项罪名（证券欺诈——农场贷款计划）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n39. 本起诉书第 1 至 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n40. 自至少约在 June 2020 起至至少约在 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，故意且明知，直接及间接地，利用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，以及全国性证券交易所的设施，就在全国性证券交易所登记的证券及任何未如此登记的证券的买卖，使用和运用操纵性及欺骗性的装置和诡计，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 使用旨在欺诈的装置、计划和手段；(b) 作出对重要事实的不真实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使已作出的陈述在作出该陈述的情形下不致产生误导所必需的重要事实；以及 (c) 从事对任何人构成并将构成欺诈和蒙骗的行为、做法及业务过程；具体而言，郭文贵和闫明杰实施农场贷款计划，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处取得金钱，包括但不限于关于 GTV 价值的陈述；该计划通过往来于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n第六项罪名（电信欺诈——GICLUBS）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n41. 本起诉书第 1 至 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n42. 自至少约在 June 2020 起至至少约在 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和手段，并通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺取得金钱和财产，为实施该计划和手段之目的，经由州际和对外贸易中的有线电、无线电和电视通信，传输并促使传输文字、标志、信号、图像和声音；具体而言，郭文贵和闫明杰推广和营销 GICLUBS，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述欺诈性地从受害人处取得金钱；该计划通过往来于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第七项罪名（证券欺诈——GICLUBS）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n43. 本起诉书第 1 至 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n44. 自至少约在 June 2020 起至至少约在 March 2021 止（包括该期间），在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，故意且明知，直接及间接地，利用州际商业和邮政的手段及工具，以及全国性证券交易所的设施，就在全国性证券交易所登记的证券及任何未如此登记的证券的买卖，使用和运用操纵性及欺骗性的装置和诡计，违反 Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5，方式为：(a) 使用旨在欺诈的装置、计划和手段；(b) 作出对重要事实的不真实陈述，并遗漏陈述为使已作出的陈述在作出该陈述的情形下不致产生误导所必需的重要事实；以及 (c) 从事对任何人构成并将构成欺诈和蒙骗的行为、做法及业务过程；具体而言，郭文贵和闫明杰推广和营销 GICLUBS，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述从受害人处取得金钱，包括但不限于关于 GTV 价值的陈述；该计划通过往来于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\n\n(Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78j(b) & 78ff; Title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)\n\n第八项罪名（电信欺诈——Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所））\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n45. 本起诉书第 1 至 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n46. 自至少约在 April 2021 起至至少约在 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，明知已设计并意图设计一项欺诈计划和手段，并通过虚假和欺诈性的借口、陈述及承诺取得金钱和财产，为实施该计划和手段之目的，经由州际和对外贸易中的有线电、无线电和电视通信，传输并促使传输文字、标志、信号、图像和声音；具体而言，郭文贵和闫明杰运营喜马拉雅交易所，以通过虚假陈述和不实陈述欺诈性地从受害人处取得金钱；该计划通过往来于纽约南区及其他地区的电子通信和资金转移得到推进。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.)\n\n第九项罪名（国际促进型洗钱）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n47. 本起诉书第 1 至 25 段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n48. 自至少约在 2018 起至至少约在 March 2023 止（包括该期间），在纽约南区及其他地区，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名“ Miles Guo ”，又名“ Miles Kwok ”，又名“ Guo Wengui ”，又名“ Brother Seven ”，又名“ The Principal ”，以及 KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名“ William Je ”，将并企图将货币工具和资金从美国境内某地运送、传输和转移至及经由美国境外某地，并从及经由美国境外某地运送、传输和转移至美国境内某地，意图促进特定非法活动的实施；具体而言，郭文贵和闫明杰指示并实施资金进出美国及经由美国的国际转移，意图促进起诉书第二至第八项罪名所列的欺诈罪行。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(A) and 2.)\n\n第十项罪名（国际隐匿型洗钱）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n49. 本起诉书第1至25段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n50. 自至少约2018年起至至少约2023年3月止，在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又称“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“Brother Seven”及“The Principal”，以及KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又称“William Je”，明知所涉货币工具和资金代表某种形式非法活动的收益，仍将货币工具和资金从美国境内某地运输、传送和转移至美国境外某地及经由美国境外某地，并企图如此运输、传送和转移；且明知该等运输、传送和转移全部或部分旨在隐瞒和掩饰特定非法活动收益的性质、地点、来源、所有权及控制权，具体而言，即本起诉书第二项至第八项罪名所指控的欺诈犯罪；即，KWOK和JE使用欺诈收益进行涉及流入、流出及经由美国的国际金融交易，包括但不限于涉及以其他个人名义持有的实体以及与被告无公开关联的实体名下银行账户的交易，以隐瞒该欺诈收益的所有权、控制权和/或收取情况，以及该等收益的非法性质和来源。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) and 2.)\n\n第十一项罪名（非法货币交易）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n51. 本起诉书第1至25段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n52. 于约2020年6月5日，在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又称“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“Brother Seven”及“The Principal”，KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又称“William Je”，以及YANPING WANG（王雁平），又称“Yvette”，在美国境内，明知而从事并企图从事《美国法典》第18编第1957(f)(1)条所界定的货币交易，所涉源自特定非法活动的犯罪所得财产价值超过$10,000；即，KWOK、JE和WANG使用源自第二项和第三项罪名所指控犯罪的约$100 million，并指示他人使用该款项，向Fund-1（基金-1）进行电汇。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.)\n\n第十二项罪名（妨碍司法）\n\n大陪审团进一步指控：\n\n53. 本起诉书第1至25段所载指控在此重述并再次主张，犹如在此完整列明。\n\n54. 自至少约2022年9月20日起至本起诉书提交之日止，在Southern District of New York（纽约南区）及其他地区，被告KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又称“William Je”，腐败地妨碍、影响和阻碍正式程序，并企图如此行事；即，JE企图将资金转移至美国管辖范围之外的UAE（阿拉伯联合酋长国），以阻碍和干扰Southern District of New York（纽约南区）联邦大陪审团对本起诉书第一项至第十一项罪名所指控犯罪的调查，以及United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）就扣押和没收犯罪所得收益进行的程序。\n\n(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2) and 2.)\n\n没收指控\n\n55. 作为实施本起诉书第一项至第八项罪名所指控犯罪的结果，被告HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又称“Miles Guo”、“Miles Kwok”、“Guo Wengui”、“Brother Seven”及“The Principal”，KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又称“William Je”，以及YANPING WANG（王雁平），又称“Yvette”，应根据《美国法典》第18编第981(a)(1)(C)条及第28编第2461(c)条，向美国没收构成或源自可追溯至实施所述犯罪的收益的任何及全部不动产和动产，包括但不限于代表可追溯至实施所述犯罪之收益数额的一笔美元款项，以及下列特定财产：\n\na. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090037713、以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$64,826.87美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nb. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090037705、以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$75,000,000.00美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nc. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090037754、以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$467,343.00美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nd. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090042770、以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$89,992,861.75美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\ne. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090042762、以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$1,683,077.40美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nf. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090042853、以“Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$85,899,889.20美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\ng. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090030288、以“Hamilton Investment Management” Ltd.（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）名义持有的$48,230,709.62美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nh. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090037739、以“Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$1,800,000.00美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\ni. 原存于Silvergate Bank（银门银行）账户号码5090042853、以“Hamilton Opportunity Funds SPC”（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）名义持有的$85,899,889.20美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nj. 原存于FV Bank（FV银行）账户号码7801000590、以“Himalaya International Reserves, Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）名义持有的$4,643,744.70美元，于约2022年9月20日被政府扣押；\n\nk. 原存于FV Bank（FV银行）账户号码7801000254、以“Himalaya International Clearing, Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）名义持有的$14,599,257.25美元，于约2022年9月20日被政府扣押；\n\nl. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10103-0000、以“G Club International Ltd.”（G Club国际有限公司）名义持有的$11,538,579.87美元，于约2022年10月16日被政府扣押；\n\nm. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10133-0000、以“Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）名义持有的$10,008,284.04美元，于约2022年10月16日至约2023年3月10日期间被政府扣押；\n\nn. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10137-0000、以“Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.”（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）名义持有的$3,090,856.54美元，于约2022年10月16日至约2023年3月10日期间被政府扣押；\n\no. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10138-0000、以“Himalaya International Reserves Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）名义持有的$272,350,313.76美元，于约2022年10月16日至约2023年3月10日期间被政府扣押；\n\np. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10139-0000、以“Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.”（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）名义持有的$310,594.31美元，于约2022年10月16日至约2023年3月10日期间被政府扣押；\n\nq. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10171-0000、以“Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.”（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）名义持有的$1,187,278.87美元，于约2022年10月16日至约2023年3月10日期间被政府扣押；\n\nr. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10172-0000、以“G Fashion International Limited”（G Fashion国际有限公司）名义持有的$43,782.71美元，于约2022年10月16日被政府扣押；\n\ns. 原存于Mercantile Bank International（国际商业银行）账户号码MBI10183-0000、以“Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd.”（喜马拉雅货币清算有限公司）名义持有的$161,809.47美元，于约2022年10月16日被政府扣押；\n\nt. 原存于Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.（制造商和交易商信托公司）账户号码9878904409、以“GETTR USA, Inc.”（GETTR美国公司）名义持有的$2,745,377.75美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nu. 原存于US Bank（美国银行）账户号码157525208185、以“G Fashion”（G时尚）名义持有的$9,899,659.19美元，于约2022年9月18日被政府扣押；\n\nv. 位于675 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430的全部地块或土地包，包括其建筑物、附属物、改良设施、固定装置、附着物及地役权；地块编号为3300021-03-00001-02，描述为：Lot Number: 1.02 Block: 21.03 District: 33 City, Municipality, Township: MAHWAH TWP；\n\nw. 一辆Bugatti Chiron Super Sport（布加迪Chiron Super Sport），车辆识别号码为VF9SW3V3XNM795047；\n\nx. 一辆Lamborghini Aventador SVJ Roadster（兰博基尼Aventador SVJ Roadster），车辆识别号码为ZHWUN6ZD2MLA10393；\n\ny. 一辆Rolls Royce Phantom EWB（劳斯莱斯幻影加长轴距版），车辆识别号码为SCATT8C08MU206445；\n\nz. 一艘2014年建造的46米Feadship（斐帝星）超级游艇“Lady May”（原名Como），IMO号码为112359，MMSI号码为319059500，呼号为ZGDQ9；\n\naa. 一架Bosendorfer 185VC Porsche #49539钢琴，配定制琴凳，购置价格约为$140,938.69；\n\nbb. 一张Railis Design Iceland Contemporary Poseidon Bed with Nightstands, Ebony Veneer, Brass, Velvet（Railis Design冰岛当代Poseidon床，配床头柜、乌木饰面、黄铜和天鹅绒），购置价格约为$31,413.71；\n\ncc. 一张Hastens 2000T md床垫，购置价格约为$36,590.00；\n\ndd. 一张Hastens 2000T sf床垫，购置价格约为$36,210.00；\n\nee. 一个Wembe手表收纳盒，购置价格约为$59,392.91；\n\nff. 一台Samsung Q900 Series QN98Q900RBF 98\" QLED Smart TV - 8K（三星Q900系列QN98Q900RBF 98英寸QLED智能电视—8K），购置价格约为$62,787.54；\n\ngg. 一件由Joseph Emmanuel Zweiner制作的路易十五风格法国镀金铜饰桃花心木五斗柜；\n\nhh. 一张由Philip & Kelvin La Verne制作的“K'ang Hsi”延展桌，材质为蚀刻并经氧化处理的白镴和青铜，配手绘珐琅彩，购置价格约为$180,000.00；以及\n\nii. 一张由Gabriella Crespi制作的“Punto '83”不锈钢桌，配可调高度网状桌面及可调花瓣，意大利，1982年，购置价格约为$180,000.00。\n\n(a)至(ii)项合称“特定财产”。\n\n56. 因实施本起诉书第一、九、十及十一罪名项所指控的洗钱犯罪，被告 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），又名 “Miles Guo”，又名 “Miles Kwok”，又名 “Guo Wengui”，又名 “Brother Seven”，又名 “The Principal”，KIN MING JE（闫明杰），又名 “William Je”，以及 Y ANPING WANG（王雁平），又名 “Yvette”，应根据 Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(l)，向美国没收涉及该等犯罪的任何及全部不动产和动产，或可追溯至该等财产的任何财产，包括但不限于以美元计的一笔款项，该款项代表涉及该等犯罪的财产价值以及特定财产。\n\n替代资产条款\n\n57. 如上述任何应没收财产因被告的任何作为或不作为而：\n\na. 经尽职调查后仍无法查明；\n\nb. 已转让、出售给或存放于第三人；\n\nc. 已被置于本院管辖范围之外；\n\nd. 价值已大幅减少；或\n\ne. 已与其他财产混合，且无法在无困难的情况下分割；\n\n则美国拟根据 Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p) 和 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461 ( c )，请求没收被告价值相当于上述应没收财产的任何其他财产。\n\n（Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981 and 982；Title 21, United States Code, Section 853；以及 Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461。）\n\n\\\n\n- J:k--;\\_~\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n美国联邦检察官\n\ns\\,)''f eQ. ¼~ )~(,... ~' L\\.. 1 ..)\\_ND\"! CT°M <c:.N1 !50\n\n附件 6\n\n[密封提交]\n附件 7\n\nUnited States Attorney（美国联邦检察官）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\n\nApril 28, 2023\n\n通过 ECF\n\nThe Honorable Paul G. Gardephe（保罗·G·加德菲法官）\nUnited States District Court（美国联邦地区法院）\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区）\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\n事由：Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，23 Civ. 2200 (PGG)\n\n尊敬的 Gardephe 法官：\n\n根据阁下的个别诉讼规则，政府谨提交本函，请求介入上述案件（以下简称“SEC 民事诉讼”），以寻求在一宗平行刑事案件 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al., S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)（以下简称“刑事案件”）审判完成或以其他方式处置之前，全面中止本案。该刑事案件源于与本程序相同的实施事实。被告 Ho Wan Kwok 和 G Club Operations LLC，以及救济被告 Mei Guo，同意全面中止 SEC 民事诉讼，1 而 SEC 不持立场。本案目前定于 June 15, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. 举行初步会议。\n\n若本案继续进行，将存在对刑事案件造成重大干扰的风险。全面中止不会损害任何已在 SEC 民事诉讼中出庭的当事人；将防止规避刑事证据开示的重要法定限制；并将节约本院资源，因为 SEC 民事诉讼提出的许多争议可能在刑事案件中得到解决。在此等及类似情形下，本巡回区法院经常准许中止平行民事程序。参见，例如，S.E.C. v. El-Khouri, No. 19 Civ. 9744 (LAP), 2021 WL 601652 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2021); S.E.C. v. Carroll, No. 19 Civ. 7199 (AT), 2020 WL 1272287 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2020); SEC v. Wey, 15 Civ. 7116 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016); SEC v. Durante et al., 15 Civ. 9874 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016); SEC v. Shkreli, et al., 15 Civ. 7175 (KAM), 2016 WL 1122029, at \\*2-7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2016); SEC v. One or More Unknown Purchasers of Securities of Global Indus., Ltd., No. 11 Civ. 6500 (RA), 2012 WL 5505738, at \\*3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2012)。\n\n1 被告 Kin Ming Je（闫明杰），又名 “William Je”，尚未在本案中出庭；Je 的律师表示，Je 对政府的请求不持立场。被告 Mountains of Spices LLC，以 “New York Farm” 名义经营，将反对中止证据开示程序，因为其表示拟申请将其自身作为被告“分案审理”，但其指出，如本院倾向于作出中止命令，Mountains of Spices 将请求全面中止。救济被告 Qiang Guo（郭强），又名 “Mileson Guo”，Hing Chi Ngok 和 Sin Ting Rong 尚未在本案中出庭。\n\n背景\n\n平行刑事案件源于与本案相同的基础事件。March 15, 2023，刑事案件中的原始起诉书被解封，指控 Ho Wan Kwok 和 Kin Ming Je 等人犯有串谋实施电信欺诈、银行欺诈和洗钱；电信欺诈；证券欺诈；以及洗钱罪；该等指控源于其经营一项欺诈计划，利用一系列复杂的欺诈性企业和虚构投资机会，连接由 Kwok 控制的数十个相互关联实体，从数千名受害人处骗取超过 \\$1 billion。Kwok 于 March 15, 2023 被 FBI 逮捕；Je 仍然在逃，并据信身在 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国）。同样在 March 15, 2023，SEC 对 Kwok 和 Je（以及其他人）提起 SEC 民事诉讼。\n\n如刑事案件和 SEC 民事诉讼中均指称，自至少约 April 2020 至 March 2023，Kwok 和 Je 通过涉及相互关联实体的欺诈性投资机会，在美国及世界各地实施了一项欺诈投资者的计划，该计划使 Kwok、Je 及其共同谋划人得以招揽、洗白及侵吞受害人资金。(S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT), Dkt. 19 (\"Indict.\") ¶¶ 1-5; 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG), Dkt. 1 (\"Compl.\") ¶¶ 1, 2)。刑事案件和 SEC 民事诉讼均指称如下：\n\nKwok 和 Je 发起了对 Kwok 创立的一家媒体公司 GTV Media Group, Inc.（“GTV”）普通股的未注册发行，筹集了约 \\$452 million。(Indict. ¶¶ 10, 13; Compl. ¶¶ 3, 54.) 两案还均指称，Kwok 和 Je 声称 GTV 私募资金将用于 GTV 的运营和业务发展，但 Kwok 和 Je 反而侵吞了投资者资金，包括通过一笔为 Qiang Guo 所有公司利益而进行的 \\$100 million 转账。(Indict. ¶¶ 13, 32; Compl. ¶¶ 3, 40-41, 45-46, 48, 56.)\n\nKwok 通过所谓 Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）运营的一项可转换贷款计划，招揽对 GTV 普通股的进一步投资；该联盟是由据称致力于推动中国民主运动的中国侨民非正式团体组成的集合体。(Indict. ¶ 14; Compl. ¶ 78.) 两案还均指称，Kwok 和 Je 为其本人及家属利益，侵吞了通过该可转换贷款计划筹集的超过 \\$150 million 中的很大一部分。(Indict. ¶ 14; Compl. ¶¶ 83, 86-93.)\n\nKwok 招揽投资一项名为 G|CLUBS（或 G Club Operations LLC）的所谓会员礼宾服务，并称购买 G|CLUBS 会员资格将使购买者有权获得 GTV 或 G|Fashion 股票。(Indict. ¶ 15; Compl. ¶¶ 94-96, 134.) 两案还均指称，G Club Operations LLC 向投资者出售了至少 \\$250 million 的 G|CLUBS 会员资格，其中大部分被 Kwok 侵吞，用于购买包括豪华汽车和位于 New Jersey（新泽西州）Mahwah 的一座价值 \\$26.5 million 的豪宅等物品，以供 Kwok 及其家人受益。(Indict. ¶¶ 15-16; Compl. ¶¶ 98, 104.)\n\nKwok 就 GTV 的估值及 GTV 股票交易价格向投资者作出虚假和误导性陈述。(Indict. ¶¶ 14; Compl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 74, 94.)\n\n共 200 页\n\nKwok 和 Je 通过 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）招揽对欺诈性加密货币的投资；该交易所是一个所谓加密货币“生态系统”，提供一种所谓交易币（Himalaya Coin，或 HCN）和一种所谓稳定币（Himalaya Dollar，或 HDO）。(Indict. ¶¶ 17-21; Compl. ¶¶ 107-113.) 两案还均指称，Kwok 和 Je 通过 Himalaya Exchange 欺诈性取得超过 \\$260 million 的投资者资金。(Indict. ¶ 17; Compl. ¶ 127.)\n\n法律标准\n\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）（“FRCP”）第 24 条规定，当事人可依权利或经法院许可介入民事诉讼。“本巡回区法院一贯允许联邦或州检察官介入民事诉讼，以寻求中止证据开示。”SEC v. Treadway, No. 04 Civ. 3464 (VM), 2005 WL 713826, at \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2005)。\n\n本院拥有固有权力，为司法公正利益而在平行刑事审判完成前中止民事程序。参见 Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986)（“如司法公正利益似乎要求采取此种行动，法院可自行裁量决定中止民事程序……”）（省略内部引文和引述）。 “‘中止程序的权力附随于每一法院固有的权力，即以节约其自身、律师和诉讼当事人的时间和精力的方式控制其案卷中案件处置的权力。’”Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2012)（引自 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)）。在评估是否准许该等中止时，本巡回区法院考虑：(1) 刑事案件中的争议与民事案件所提出争议的重叠程度；(2) 案件状态，包括被告是否已被起诉；(3) 原告迅速推进程序的私人利益，与因延迟对原告造成的损害相权衡；(4) 被告的私人利益及其负担；(5) 法院的利益；以及 (6) 公共利益。Treadway, 2005 WL 713826, at \\*2-\\*3（引自 In re Worldcom, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2002 WL 31729501, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002)）；另见 Volmar Distrib., Inc. v. New York Post Co., 152 F.R.D. 36, 39 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)。“对这些因素的权衡须逐案确定。”Volmar Distrib., 152 F.R.D. at 39。在本案中，适用各项因素均支持政府在被告 Kwok 同意的情况下所请求的中止。\n\n论证\n\n应根据 FRCP 24(b) 准许政府介入，因为刑事案件涉及的主张和抗辩与本案具有共同的法律和事实问题。鉴于本民事程序将对刑事案件产生的影响，以及平行程序之间主张和事实的相似性，政府谨陈，其申请同时符合 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) 规定的依权利介入标准，以及 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2) 规定的许可介入标准。\n\n本院还应基于下述理由，准许请求中止本案证据开示的动议。\n\n共 200 页\n\n1. 重叠程度\n\n刑事案件和 SEC 民事诉讼涉及几乎完全相同的事实和争议，这强烈支持中止。“法院一贯将［争议的重叠］视为一个尤为重要的因素。”Shkreli, 2016 WL 1122029, at \\*4。参见，例如，Volmar Distrib., 152 F.R.D. at 39；Parker v. Dawson, 2007 WL 2462677, at \\*4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2007)（同上）。如上所述，刑事案件和本案涉及同一计划及相同实体（GTV、Himalaya Farm Alliance 可转换贷款计划、G|CLUBS 和 Himalaya Exchange），以及相似的事实、证人和争议。\n\n2. 刑事案件的状态\n\n刑事案件的状态亦支持中止。被告 Kwok（郭文贵）已被起诉，政府将在保护令作出后提供大量 Rule 16 证据开示材料。“本巡回区的权威意见表明，当刑事调查已发展至起诉阶段时，法院将中止民事程序。”In re Par Pharm., Inc. Secs. Litig., 133 F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)。正如法院在 Trustees of Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund, et al. v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc. 一案中所解释：“当民事案件的一方已因同一行为被起诉时，中止民事案件最为适当，理由有二：第一，起诉书签发后，被告作出可能使其入罪的陈述的可能性最大；第二，由于刑事案件很可能迅速得到解决，民事案件原告所受的不利影响减少。”886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); see SEC v. Tuzman, No. 15 Civ. 7057 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2016), Dkt. No. 43 at 3（指出，除非存在表明刑事案件可能无法迅速解决的特定事实，否则起诉书通常强烈支持中止）; Shkreli, 2016 WL 1122029, at *4。\n\n3. 原告的利益\n\nSEC（美国证券交易委员会）表示其对中止不持立场。因此，不能认为中止本案会对原告造成不利影响。See Shkreli, 2016 WL 1122029, at *5（援引案件）。\n\n4. 被告的利益\n\n如上所述，Kwok 和 G Club Operations（G Club 运营公司）通过律师同意全面中止本案。此外，中止将避免 Kwok（其为刑事案件中的被告）必须在民事证据开示期间主张其《第五修正案》权利、从而在 SEC 民事诉讼中受到不利影响，或者主张该等权利、从而在刑事案件中受到不利影响之间作出选择。See Shkreli, 2016 WL 1122029, at *3 n. 3（“刑事被告经常在平行民事执法程序中寻求中止，通常是因为一方援引《第五修正案》反对自证其罪的特权可能导致不利推定。”）。因此，中止不会使被告受到不利影响。\n\n5. 法院的利益\n\n司法经济的考量亦支持准予中止。两个案件共同涉及的问题可在刑事案件中得到解决，从而简化并精简 SEC 民事诉讼。See SEC v. Abraaj Inv. Mgmt. Ltd., No. 19 Civ. 3244 (AJN), 2019 WL 6498282, at\n\n第 200 页\n\n*3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2019)（“在刑事案件推进期间中止民事诉讼，将避免重复工作以及司法时间和资源的浪费。”）（省略内部引文和援引）; SEC v. Contorinis, 2012 WL 512626, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012)（“本区法院一贯认定，在刑事程序中被判犯有证券欺诈罪的被告，在后续民事程序中被禁止通过争议排除再次争辩其基础事实。”）; SEC v. One or More Unknown Purchasers of Secs. of Global Indus., 2012 WL 5505738, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2012)（“无论刑事案件结果如何，民事案件均可能在一定程度上受益于刑事案件。”）。\n\n6. 公共利益\n\n政府和公众对于确保民事证据开示不被用于规避适用于刑事证据开示的限制，具有重要利益。法院认为，这是支持中止平行民事程序的重要因素。See, e.g., SEC v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC, 2003 WL 554618, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2003)（在因尚待进行的刑事调查而请求中止民事证据开示的情形中，“就损害政府刑事调查而言，主要担忧是其调查对象可能滥用民事证据开示，以规避刑事案件中对证据开示的限制”）; Phillip Morris Inc. v. Heinrich, 1996 WL 363156, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 1996)（若无中止，被告“可能有机会取得其无权依刑事证据开示规则获得的证据”）; SEC v. Town of Ramapo, No. 16 Civ. 2779 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2016), Dkt. 90 at 38（“公众利益在于，刑事被告不应通过民事案件获得其原本因显而易见的证据或证言可能被量身定制的风险而无法取得的证据开示……国会通过《Jencks Act》并通过 Section 3500，是因为其普遍关注每一个案件中的该等问题。若刑事被告利用民事程序取得其原本无权获得的信息，《Jencks Act》背后的理由将受到破坏。”）。\n\n* * *\n\n基于上述理由，应准许政府介入本案，且法院应中止本程序，直至刑事案件得到解决。\n\n谨此提交，\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）\n美国联邦检察官\n\n代表：\n\nJuliana N. Murray（朱莉安娜·N·默里）  Ryan B. Finkel（瑞安·B·芬克尔）  Micah F. Fergenson（迈卡·F·弗格森）\n助理美国联邦检察官\n(212) 637-2314 / 6612 / 2190\n\n抄送：全体登记在案律师（通过 ECF）\n证据附件 8\n\n1　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n2　法庭：\n驳回你的异议。\n继续，\n\n3　律师。\n\n4　由 WACHEN 先生发问：\n\n5　问：\n那么——\n\n6　法庭：\n我不知道是否——我认为你\n\n7　已经回答了那个问题？\n\n8　WACHEN 先生：\n是否——\n\n9　证人：\n谢谢。\n\n10　WACHEN 先生：\n——你回答完了吗？\n\n11　法庭：\n是的，我认为那个——那个回答，\n\n12　你已经说完了，你应当问另一个问题。\n\n13　WACHEN 先生：\n好的。\n是的。\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n14　由 WACHEN 先生发问：\n\n15　问：\n你收到那封附有拟议协议的\n\n16　电子邮件后，作何反应？\n\n17　答：\n我们决定——我们当时——我们当时坐下来\n\n18　听取意见。并且，如果——你知道，我们会遵守\n\n19　该协议，我们会坐下来听取意见，即使\n\n20　其中存在许多危险信号。\n\n21　问：\n会议是在 11 月 17 日举行的，\n\n22　对吗？\n\n23　答：\n正确，11 月 17 日。\n\n24　问：\n谁参加了会议？\n\n25　答：\n参加的有我、Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）、Nicholas Bassett（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）、\n\n1　受托人、我的客户 Kwok 先生，以及一名翻译。\n\n2　问：\n在哪里举行？\n\n3　答：\n在 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）。\n\n4　问：\n在纽约市，对吗？\n\n5　答：\n在纽约市，抱歉。\n\n6　问：\n你在会议期间做笔记了吗？\n\n7　答：\n做了。\n\n8　问：\n你还保留着那些笔记吗？\n\n9　答：\n保留着。\n\n10　问：\n会议是如何进行的？\n\n11　BASSETT 先生：\n法官阁下，我要提出异议\n\n12　——正如我们提出过异议——\n\n13　法庭：\n我们听不见你说话，Bassett 先生。\n\n14　BASSETT 先生：\n抱歉。为记录在案，\n\n15　法官阁下，我是来自 Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett，代表\n\n16　受托人。我将提出与我\n\n17　上周提出的相同异议，当时律师试图询问\n\n18　17 日举行会议的实质内容。\n\n19　律师不仅已确定该会议是为进行\n\n20　和解讨论而举行的，而且律师现已承认，他和所有其他\n\n21　出席者均签署了一份保密协议，约定不得披露会议\n\n22　内容。\n\n23　我认为，他们完全无视这一点，\n\n24　并将其用于符合其在本案中立场的目的，\n\n25　是完全不适当的。\n\n第 200 页\n\n1　Despins 先生在会议上说了什么，而他正在获得一项叙述性\n\n2　回答，并且推定将描述整个\n\n3　会议，我看不出这怎么可能与法官阁下刚刚作出的裁定\n\n4　相一致。\n\n5　WACHEN 先生：\n嗯——\n\n6　法庭：\nWachen 先生，你需要问\n\n7　那个问题——或许提问的方式是说，Despins\n\n8　先生作证称他说了 X，你是否听到 Despins 先生说了\n\n9　这句话？\n\n10　WACHEN 先生：\n遗憾的是，法官阁下，我没有把\n\n11　Despins 先生的证词带在面前——\n\n12　法庭：\n我明白，但你有笔记，\n\n13　你知道什么——你问过那些问题，你知道什么——\n\n14　你知道他说了什么。总体而言，你知道他说了什么。\n\n15　WACHEN 先生：\n我总体上知道他说了什么，是的。\n\n16　好的。\n\n17　由 WACHEN 先生发问：\n\n18　问：\nDespins 先生在会议中提到 Al Capone（阿尔·卡彭）了吗？\n\n19　答：\n提到了。\n\n20　问：\n他就 Al Capone 说了什么？\n\n21　答：\n他说的是——他问我的——Kwok 先生是否\n\n22　知道黑帮分子 Al Capone 是谁。他说，你知道，\n\n23　他因逃税入狱。受托人随后作出了一系列\n\n24　陈述。第一项，就整个暗示的税务问题而言，是说他\n\n25　——\n\n第 200 页\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 知道存在这样一种理论——他，也就是受托人——知道存在这样一种理论，即 Kwok 先生的朋友和支持者在经济上支持他。然后，他说，我希望他们，或者你，已在美国申报该事项。随后他又说，Miles，你曾自豪地表示，你从这些公司中的一家获得了 $500,000 的咨询费。而且，他再次说，你知道，我假定你已经缴纳所得税或者\n\n10 11 12 已经申报该事项。他立即指出，我每周都与 IRS 和 SEC 谈话，而你最好和解，因为很快就太迟了。\n\n13 14 15 因此，对于受托人作出的上述陈述以及其他陈述，我们认为那是他方面具有威胁性、恐吓性的行为。\n\n16 17 问：他是否——他在会议期间是否曾在某个时候说过，付给我 $250 million？\n\n18 19 20 21 答：是的，他说，付给我 $250 million。只是——就该提案而言，他将该提案描述为——对 Miles 而言，你保留 UBS 索赔，你保留股份——\n\n22 23 24 25 法庭：等一下，停下。我说过我不想听和解的条款和条件，所以我不想听这个。这不是我们要讨论的方向。WACHEN 先生：好的，法官阁下。\n\n第 200 页\n\n1　问：\n在不涉及提案条款的情况下，\n\n2　他要求你向他支付 $250 million 时，你的反应\n\n3　是什么？\n\n4　答：\n愤怒。我非常不安，心烦意乱。\n\n5　问：\n为什么？\n\n6　答：\n这与我所认为的、在前一天几乎\n\n7　即将达成的全面和解有很大偏离。\n\n8\n\n9　问：\n你是否知道 Kwok 先生如何理解\n\n10　Despins 先生所说“付给我 $250 million”这句话？\n\n11　BASSETT 先生：\n异议。要求推测。\n\n12　要求传闻证据。\n\n13　法庭：\n异议成立。\n\n14　由 WACHEN 先生发问：\n\n15　问：\n在某个时候，你是否回应了 Despins 先生\n\n16　所说“付给我 $250 million”这句话？\n\n17　答：\n是的，我回应了。分为两个阶段。有一次\n\n18　是在所有人在场时，另一次是单独的，\n\n19　我让我的客户、翻译和 Mitchell 律师离开后，\n\n20　回到会议室并作出回应。因此——\n\n21　问：\n我们逐一讨论。\n\n22　答：\n好的。\n\n23　问：\n那么，所有人都在场时，你在房间里说了什么？\n\n24\n\n25\n\n第 200 页\n\n1　答：\n那么，我的即时回应是——实际上我\n\n2　对受托人将把 Kwok 先生逐出其公寓的威胁作出了回应。这是我在 $250 million 要求提出后立即作出的首次回应。我告诉他那是违法的，他不能那样做。他说他会那样做。\n\n但是，随后我指控他——我说那很令人愤慨，毫无正当依据，而且，在某个时候，我说那是敲诈。我是在所有人都在场时说的，或者是在我送走其他那些人并与 Nick 和 Luc 对质之后单独说的。\n\n问：好的。那么在某个时候，其他人——Kwok 先生、译员、Mitchell 先生离开了？\n\n答：对。我在门口送他们离开，然后决定回去与 Bassett 律师和受托人对质。\n\n问：那么——那么当时你说了什么？\n\n答：如我所说，又是很多——我的意思是，我当时非常愤怒，因为我再次认为，我们经过数月之后到了那里，而他却把一切都毁了。在某个时候，我说 Miles——而我说 Miles 时，是指他获得的支持。我说，Miles 永远不会支付 $250 million，而受托人说：“他快要入狱时就会支付。”\n\n问：而你称你认为这是\n\n证物 9\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）和 GENEVER\n\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n共 200 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n关于　*\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司），　*\n\n*\n债务人。　*\n\n*\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司）等，　*　Adv. Proc. No. 23-05002\n*\n原告，　*\n诉　*　Bridgeport, Connecticut\n*　May 2, 2023\n*\nHO WAN KWOK 等，　*\n*\n被告。　*\n*\n\n庭审记录\n\n#1362　要求遵守 BK RULE 2004 的强制执行动议\n\nUBS AG（瑞银集团）传票\n#1495　关于 CHAPT. 11 受托人及其律师 PAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的临时报酬申请，以及报销自\nJULY 8, 2022 至 OCTOBER, 2022 期间费用的申请\n#1669　聘请 ENGINEERING OPERATIONS AND\nCERTIFICATION SERVICES, LLC（工程运营与认证服务有限责任公司）作为专家/顾问的申请\n#1674　关于 NEUBERT, PEPE\nAND MONTEITH（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰斯律师事务所）报酬/许可及费用报销的临时申请\n#1704　关于设定状态会议的修订命令\n审前会议 #1 起诉状 91（确认判决）\n在下列法官面前审理：\nTHE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING（尊敬的朱莉·A·曼宁法官）\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE（美国破产法官）\n\n庭审程序以电子录音记录，\n庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司） 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023\n\n庭审记录对于发生了什么以及协议内容非常明确。\n\n我，您知道，不想那样做——您知道，占用法庭太多时间，但请从庭审记录第 113 页第 10 至 15 行开始。Best 先生——\n\n法庭：请给我一点时间找到该处。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。抱歉。\n\n法庭：113？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。113。\n\n法庭：哪几行？\n\nDESPINS 先生：第 10 至 15 行。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nDESPINS 先生：这是 Best 先生向法庭陈述。“我们——我们需要解决的问题是，Southern District of New York（纽约南区）对该信息的使用设有保护令。我不知道如何与法官阁下及律师解决这个问题，但无论是直接向 Department of Justice（司法部）提出，还是通过我们提出，这个问题都会出现；也就是说，他们会提供，被告会向我们提供文件。”因此，这就是提出该问题。\n\n然后我转到第 123 页第 7 至 14 行。也就是说，第 123 页第 7 至 14 行。这是我向法庭陈述之处，我说：“但被告，他有资格在该法庭说，您知道，法官——刑事法官，我们希望修改保护令，而该修改将是我们”，这里再次指被告，“可以向受托人、第 11 章受托人提供政府已向我们提供或将向我们提供的文件副本。法官阁下，本法庭可以命令债务人寻求对保护令作此类修改。这是我的提议。”\n\n然后是第 139 页第 7 至 19 行。也就是说，第 139 页第 7 至 19 行。再次是 Best 先生向法庭陈述。而且更确切地说是第 13 至 19 行。“但是，我们原则上达成一致，但须以 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）以及实际上最重要的是 District Court Judge（地区法院法官）同意披露为条件。我相信会有许多限制或限定，我们不会阻碍此事。真正的讨论是，什么是最佳方式？如何以最佳方式完成此事？”\n\n然后是第 140 页第 4 至 6 行。再次是 Best 先生向法庭陈述。“U.S. Trustee's counsel（美国受托人律师）方面存在一个担忧”，我想这是一个不当称谓，当时是——现在也是受托人的律师，他们对于 Southern District 的传票没有诉讼资格。我不在乎我们如何达成目标。有多种方式可以做到。”\n\n然后在该页下方，仍是第 140 页，第 20 至 23 行。再次是 Best 先生。“因此，我希望协助——协助法庭审查此事，然后协助法庭拟定一项命令——或者裁决，或者您不——或者\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023\n\n您不——我的意思是，我甚至不知道您是否需要作出裁决，但我希望明确下一步的方向。”\n\n然后是第 141 页第 10 至 15 行。这是我向法庭陈述之处，我说：“因此，应当发生的是，我认为法庭”，即法官阁下，“应当作出一项命令，命令债务人寻求对刑事案件中任何适用保护令的修改，以允许第 11 章受托人获取政府向债务人提供的文件。”\n\n再清楚不过了。\n\n然后在第 143 页，或者抱歉，第 142 页底部第 25 行，以及第 143 页顶部第 1 和第 2 行。Best 先生：“如果这是最简单的做法，我同意律师提出一份命令草案，供我们审阅并提交给法官阁下。”\n\n然后是在同一页第 143 页第 7 至 9 行。“因此，我认为有一项应当遵守的协议。如果 Southern District 允许在保护令约束下使用该信息，他们成为保护令的当事方。完全没有提到该信息必须由 Department of Justice 直接向我们提供。”\n\n然后，甚至法庭，尽管那部分被截断了，这是在第 146 页，我当时试图纠正已作出的陈述，但第 146 页顶部载明法庭说：“债务人将寻求，但随后与你们共享”，即\n\nHo Wan Kwok - May 2, 2023\n\n与受托人共享，一旦他们——一旦他们——不是——该处被截断了，因为法官阁下的——我说“纠正”。但基本上您所说的是，一旦他们从 DOJ 获得文件，他们将与您，即受托人，共享。\n\n第 149 页第 9 至 11 行。我相信这是法庭，不，是的，是法庭。“存在一项协议。我们将依照该协议进行。我将要求 Best 先生和 Despins 先生遵守该协议。”\n\n然后我转到第 149 页第 14 至 18 行。“法庭：对于你刚才所说的话，我唯一要说的是，当你说见你的委托人时，我理解——我理解你必须见你的委托人。但你已同意你的委托人不会反对这一点。Best 先生：我同意。”\n\n因此，法官阁下，这就是我要陈述的全部内容。Best 先生从未说过，哦，我们不能，我们不能向他们交出任何东西，必须由 Department of Justice 直接交给受托人。\n\n法官阁下，他们提出该方案的原因，我想对此非常直接地说，是因为那永远不会发生。DOJ 永远不会向我们提供任何东西。我们在他们的法庭中并不存在。\n\n因此，他们提出的方案实质上挫败了我们试图做的事，而事实上，您知道，他们说，哦，我们不反对把文件给你们。你们只需要从 DOJ 获得文件。但是\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n证物 10\n\n共 200 页\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于　*\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK 和 GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION，　*\n*\n*\n*\n债务人。　*\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平），　*\nAdv. Proc. No. 23-05017\n*\n原告，　*\nBridgeport, Connecticut\n*\nAugust 14, 2023\n*\n诉　*\n*\nTAURUS FUND, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等，　*\n*\n被告。　*\n*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n临时限制令及初步禁令单方动议\n庭审记录\n在下列法官面前审理：\nTHE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE\n\n出庭律师：\n代表原告：　NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\nAVRAM E. LUFT, ESQ.（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特律师）\nPaul Hastings, LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY\n\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡律师）\nDENNIS M. CARNELLI, ESQ.（丹尼斯·M·卡内利律师）\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, P.C.\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT\n\n庭审程序以电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\nLuc Despins - 直接询问 - Bassett\n\n证物册中标记为受托人证物 13 的部分。\n\nBASSETT 先生：如果我们也可以请法庭书记员将该证物调到屏幕上，我们将不胜感激。请向上滚动至第一页。谢谢。谢谢。请返回另一页。\n\nBASSETT 先生询问：\n\n问：Despins 受托人，您是否认得此处显示的受托人证物 13？\n\n答：是的，我认得。\n\n问：您认为这是什么？\n\n答：这是我相信是 FBI 在 3 月 15 日于 Mahwah 庄园执行搜查令时发现的 29 套西装之一的内侧口袋。\n\n问：您如何获得这张照片的副本？\n\n答：Department of Justice 对 Kwok 先生的刑事检控由 Assistant U.S. Attorney（美国助理检察官）Juliana Murray（朱莉安娜·默里）负责——我在 7 月初打电话给她，索取 FBI 在执行搜查令时于该庄园发现物品的照片，她提供了大量照片，我们选出了，我想，十张最佳照片，而这将是其中之一。\n\n问：所以 Murray 女士是与您交谈的人？\n\n答：正确。\n\n证物 11\n\n共 200 页\n\n证物 12\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院） DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区） BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:　第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK，　:　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。　:　关于：ECF No. 777\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于与 RULE 2004 传唤文件和信息相关的律师—委托人特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意命令\n\n经 Luc A. Despins 先生以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”）第 11 章案件中获任命的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）的身份提出动议（“该动议”），请求根据 United States Code（“Bankruptcy Code”）第 11 编第 323、521、541 及 1108 条、Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（“Bankruptcy Rules”）Rule 2004，以及本法庭准许受托人根据 Rule 2004 提出审查动议的命令，作出一项命令（“本命令”），以：(a) 确认受托人拥有并控制与债务人资产及财务事务、以及其破产财产管理有关问题的律师—委托人特权、工作成果保护及其他特权，(b) 指示 Discovery Recipients（证据开示接收方）在回应 Rule 2004 Subpoenas 时，不得以任何此类特权为由对受托人扣留文件，1 亦不得试图主张任何适当归受托人所有的此类特权，以及 (c) 准许相关救济，所有内容均如该动议中更详尽载明；且本法庭对审理该动议及所请求的救济具有管辖权\n\n1 本文未定义的大写术语具有其在该动议中所赋予的含义。\n\n其中；依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 以及 United States District Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格联邦地区法院）的移送常设命令（经修订），本院对该事项具有管辖权；并且，对该动议及其中所请求救济的审议，构成根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) 进行的核心程序；并且，根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本院为适格审判地；并且，本院已认定，经本文修订的该动议所请求救济符合破产财产、其债权人及所有利害关系方的最佳利益；并且，鉴于具体情况，已就该动议发出适当且充分的通知；并且，似无须发出任何其他或进一步通知；并且，基于本院此前进行的所有程序；并且，受托人与债务人已同意本文所作出的救济，且对本文所请求救济提出的任何其他异议均已撤回或经实体审理予以驳回；并且，经适当审议且有充分理由，现特此命令如下：\n\n1. 该动议在本文所述范围内予以准许。\n\n2. 对于涉及以下事项的任何律师—委托人保密特权或工作成果保护，凡债务人或其律师可根据任何适用法律另行主张者（包括但不限于债务人在据称与其他方共同持有的任何共同利益特权或联合辩护特权中享有的任何权益），受托人享有排他性控制权（每项均称为“一项受托人特权”，合称“受托人特权”）：(i) 资产（包括实际或潜在的诉因），该等资产：(A) 由债务人持有或曾由债务人持有；(B) 由他人持有或曾由他人持有，而受托人正根据 Rule 2004 Subpoenas（第2004条传票）对其进行调查，以确定其是否持有或可能持有关于债务人享有或可能曾享有权益的资产的信息；或 (C) 以其他方式与债务人的破产财产有关，或可能被纳入债务人的破产财产；2 (ii) 债务人的财务状况（包括但不限于破产财产的负债）；或 (iii) 在申请日与 2022年7月8日作出指定受托人的命令期间，与破产财产管理有关的活动（包括但不限于编制清单，以及编制 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生支持第11章案件及若干动议的声明，但以该声明或其编制与债务人或债务人破产财产相关的资产、负债或财务状况有关为限）（第 (i) 至 (iii) 项合称“调查事项”）。\n\n2 第2004条传票的格式，包括文件请求，作为附件附于受托人的2004动议中，具体如下：就债务人2004动议而言，为附件 B；就专业人士2004动议而言，为附件 C-1 至 C-14；就第三方动议而言，为附件 C-1 至 C-19。该等附件通过援引纳入本文。\n\n3. 债务人或其律师（基于债务人或代表债务人行事的任何人的指示），或任何其他受询问人，均无权以涉及调查事项的任何受托人特权为由，拒绝提供第2004条传票附件中所请求的任何文件和信息。尽管有前述规定，本段任何内容均不得解释为禁止债务人主张第7段规定的任何权利。\n\n4. 本文任何内容均不得阻止债务人就与调查事项无关的法律事项主张任何及全部特权，例如无关的刑事指控或债务人的庇护申请（但与名为 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）v. Clark Hill, PLC，Case No. 19-cv-03195 (D. D.C.) 的诉讼有关、且涉及法律过失诉讼实体问题而非债务人庇护申请实体问题的文件除外；该等文件受本文纳入的利益衡量测试约束，而该测试不涉及庇护申请的实质内容）。受托人与债务人保留就该等其他事项所主张的任何特权享有的一切权利。\n\n5. 如受托人从债务人、其律师或其他顾问处取得与针对债务人提起、主张债务不得免责的对抗程序中产生的事实、指控或争议有关的文件或信息，受托人将：(i) 不与该等对抗程序中的原告分享该等文件和信息；以及 (ii) 按照本案将作出的任何保密约定或保护令的要求，对该等文件和信息予以保密。\n\n6. 为免生疑义，推定受托人对 Brown Rudnick LLP 和 Verdolino & Lowey, P.C. 在本案中代理债务人时所持有或控制的全部申请后文件及档案享有排他性控制权，但须遵守第7段规定的条款。\n\n7. 尽管本文有任何相反规定，如债务人善意认为，受一项受托人特权保护且涉及调查事项的特定文件或信息，如向受托人披露，可能对债务人造成个人损害，则：(i) 债务人的律师应在适用的提交截止日期后10日内，依照 D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e) 的要求，对所有该等文件制作特权日志，及／或以支持特权主张所必需的方式识别所有该等非文件性信息，包括提供足以初步确定主张可能造成个人损害之依据的信息；3 并且 (ii) 任一方均可向本院提出动议，要求就任何已列入特权日志的文件或其他信息的特权控制权问题进行加速裁决，且债务人可请求本院在作出该项决定时，根据适用判例法进行进一步的利益衡量分析。就本段而言，“加速”应要求在八日内对任何动议作出答复，并在其后四日内提交任何回复；本院随后应仅依据书面材料作出裁决，或在其最早方便时就该动议举行听证。本院在审议任何该等动议时，可要求向本院提交已列入特权日志的文件和信息以供不公开审查。为免生疑义，相关文件或信息的披露可能导致受托人识别破产财产的潜在资产，或可能构成与债务人对资产的所有权或控制权有关的证据，不论债务人对该等资产的所有权或控制权持何种立场或意见，均不构成足以根据本段拒绝提供文件或信息的“对债务人的个人损害”。\n\n3 与适用的证据开示规则一致，债务人仅可拒绝提供该等文件或信息中受其特权主张及其关于个人损害的善意信念所涵盖的部分（必要时使用适当的删节）；该等文件或信息的所有其他部分均必须提供给受托人。\n\n8. 仅就本命令而言，本文中就任何受托人特权所使用的“控制”一词，是指受托人能够在履行其在本案中的职责和责任时审阅、获取及以其他方式使用受该等特权保护的全部文件和信息，包括但不限于提起追回破产财产的诉讼；但前提是，未经债务人书面同意或本院进一步命令，受托人无权放弃任何受托人特权（例如，通过在公开法庭或任何公开案卷中披露受特权保护的文件或信息，或与第三方分享该等文件或信息），且受托人提交的任何包含或描述受一项受托人特权保护的文件或信息的文件，均应密封提交。各方保留就受托人今后任何要求放弃一项受托人特权所享有的各自一切权利。任何该等放弃一项受托人特权的请求，均可依照第7段所述程序，以加速方式通过动议提出。\n\n9. 本文任何内容均不得解释为以任何方式影响债务人或债务人的律师根据英国法律，在名为 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）v. UBS AG，Claim No. CL-2020-000345 (High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院商务与财产法院商事法庭）) 的诉讼中主张债务人可能享有的任何特权的权利，无论该等权利为何。\n\n10. 本文任何内容均不得解释为影响债务人根据 United States Constitution（美国宪法）享有的第五修正案特权。\n\n11. 债务人或其律师（基于债务人或代表债务人行事的任何人的指示），或任何其他受询问人，均不得干扰、阻碍或延迟受托人行使本命令项下的权限。\n\n12. 本文任何内容均不得解释为禁止受托人或债务人，包括通过其各自律师，就本命令对特定文件或信息的适用性提出争议。\n\n13. 授权并赋予受托人采取一切必要行动，以落实本命令所授予的救济。\n\n14. 本命令的条款和条件应于其录入后立即生效并可执行。\n\n15. 本同意命令的条款和条件构成本命令完整、排他且完全整合的陈述。因此，其为当事人协商一致协议及本命令条款的唯一表达。\n\n16. 本院应保留对因实施、解释和执行本命令而产生或与之相关的一切事项的管辖权。\n\n签署于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Bridgeport（布里奇波特），2022年9月14日。","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","GTV","Himalaya","CIPA","Despins","Miles Guo","Himalaya Exchange","William Je","Kin Ming Je","Paul Hastings","forfeiture","Farm Loan","GETTR","Saraca","Yanping Wang","Luc Despins","Murray","Kamaraju","Chinese Communist Party","Fergenson","Finkel","Torres","Analisa Torres","HCHK","Jencks","Pryor Cashman","853(p)","Crime Victim","RICO"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":19,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":24,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":42,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":43,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":57,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":102,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":111,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":130,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":183,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":299,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":408,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":514,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":636,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":757,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":777,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1046,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1090,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1110,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1353,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1444,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1453,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1537,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1585,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1649,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1650,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1670,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1680,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1719,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1737,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1740,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1775,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2034,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2035,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":54106,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-30 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-30","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:28:12"}