{"id":"court_ctb_2164_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2164,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"LETTER","filed_date":null,"title":"EXHIBIT A ![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **EXHIBIT A**\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n11 TIMES SQUARE, 34TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10036\n\n**EMIL BOVE**  ebove@csglaw.com (O) 212.324.7265\n\nSeptember 1, 2023\n\nVia ECF The Honorable Analisa Torres U.S. District Judge Southern District of New York\n\n## **Re: United States v. Yanping Wang, et al., No. 23 Cr. 118 (AT)**\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nDefendant Yanping Wang respectfully submits this letter joining in the August 30, 2023 motion by co-defendant Ho Wan Kwok to stay proceedings in *In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.*, No. 22- 50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.) pending resolution of this case. As noted by Mr. Kwok, a stay is necessary to protect the integrity of these proceedings and because of recent developments in the bankruptcy proceedings. Ms. Wang adopts Mr. Kwok's arguments, and respectfully submits that a stay is appropriate for the additional reasons set forth below.\n\n*Fifth Amendment.* Like Mr. Kwok, Ms. Wang is a criminal defendant facing serious charges of, among other things, securities fraud and money laundering, which are based on allegations that overlap significantly with the claims that the Trustee is pressing in the bankruptcy case. (*See* Dkt. No. 131, Kwok Mem. at 17, 24). As a result, even though Ms. Wang is not the debtor in the bankruptcy, she is a potential non-party witness in many of the matters the Trustee is pursuing. The bankruptcy proceedings therefore present Fifth Amendment concerns and risks of related prejudice that are personal to Ms. Wang and that imperil her constitutional rights. *See, e.g.*, *In re Kowalski*, 633 B.R. 822, 827 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2021) (\"[I]t is important to note that a non-party witness, like anyone else, is entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment.\"); *In re Zinnel*, No. 12 Civ. 1541, 2013 WL 2449546, at \\*6 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2013) (finding stay appropriate where, *inter alia*, \"it is conceivable that [civil] discovery may touch on the Fifth Amendment rights of witnesses who are not parties to the bankruptcy appeal but who may be targets of the criminal investigation\"); *In re Garsia*, No. 09-22233, 2011 WL 1045295, at \\*5 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2011) (finding stay appropriate where, *inter alia*, \"certain witnesses for the Defendant may also seek Fifth Amendment protections, further limiting [the Defendant's] ability to disprove the fraud allegations\"). For example notwithstanding the obvious Fifth Amendment implications—on July 21, 2023, counsel to the Trustee inquired about deposing Ms. Wang in connection with an adversarial proceeding related to the Chapter 11 case, *Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al.*, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn.). Moreover, the bankruptcy court has suggested that Ms. Wang's status as a criminal defendant subject to pretrial detention is not sufficient to obviate the need to seek to collect documents from her. (*See* Dkt. No. 2036 at 5, *In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.*, No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_14.jpeg)\n\n(Bankr. D. Conn. July 28, 2023) (\"[W]hile Ms. Wang is presently detained pending trial, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC did not establish that it cannot contact her – through counsel if necessary.\")). As a result—and, once again, notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment implications counsel for third parties in adversarial proceedings such as *HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al.* have contacted the undersigned in an effort to obtain documents from Ms. Wang. To the extent Ms. Wang possesses responsive materials, the requests implicate, at minimum, her act-of-production privilege. Because Ms. Wang is not the debtor, the bankruptcy court's application of the requiredrecords doctrine does not apply to her. (*See* Dkt. No. 131, Kwok Mem. at 8-9).\n\n*Attorney-Client Privilege.* Although Ms. Wang does not control Mr. Kwok's attorney-client privilege, Ms. Wang faces prejudice from the Trustee's overbroad and unnecessary waivers of Mr. Kwok's privilege with respect to subjects that are relevant to this case.\n\nOf significance . . . is the fact that the Trustee and the Debtors are in an adversarial relationship. As a consequence, the Trustee's assumption of the Debtor's attorneyclient privilege could potentially cause the Debtors a great deal of harm, as the Trustee's sole purpose for seeking to waive the Debtors' attorney-client privilege is to use that information directly against them. (*i.e.*, to revoke the Debtors' bankruptcy discharge). Furthermore, when one also considers that such information could potentially be used against the Debtors if they are ultimately prosecuted for criminal violations of the Bankruptcy Code, the potential for harm against the Debtors becomes particularly acute.\n\n*In re Miller*, 247 B.R. 704, 710 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2000); *In re Bame*, 251 B.R. 367, 377 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000) (\"As to . . . questions . . . going to activities giving rise to potential criminal prosecution, the balance would probably tip in favor of sustaining assertion of the privilege, in which case the trustee would have the opportunity to raise the crime-fraud exception to the privilege.\"). For example, the bankruptcy court's September 2022 privilege-waiver order states that the Trustee controls \"any interests\" of Mr. Kwok \"in any common interest or joint defense privilege alleged to be held with other parties.\" (Dkt. No. 130-12, Kwok Ex. 12 at 2 ¶ 2). The privilegewaiver order does not afford Ms. Wang an opportunity to be heard in connection with privilege waivers that could prejudice her in this case. (*See id.* at 4-5 at ¶¶ 7-8).\n\nThe Trustee is currently seeking to serve a Rule 2004 subpoena on Victor Cerda, an attorney who has participated in a joint-defense meeting with Ms. Wang, presumably to obtain evidence for use in the bankruptcy case and its related adversarial proceedings. (*See* Dkt. No. 125-1). The Trustee's efforts to obtain otherwise-privileged materials could result in a situation where the prosecutors have access to materials that they ordinarily would not be permitted to obtain. *See*  Justice Manual § 9-13.410 (\"Because of the potential effects upon an attorney-client relationship that may result from the issuance of a subpoena to an attorney for information relating to the\n\nattorney's representation of a client, the Department exercises close control over such subpoenas\"), *available at* http\n\n*Brady and Spoliation*.The prosecutors' agreement with the Trustee relating to the liquidation of the Mahwah Facility implicates Ms. Wang's due process rights and the prosecutors' obligations to make exculpatory evidence available to the defense. Specifically, evidence from the Mahwah Facility will undercut the prosecutors' claim that the proceeds of the GTV offering were used at the Facility in a manner inconsistent with the offering documents. (*See* Dkt. No. 131, Kwok Mem. at 20). In a \"Stipulation\" bearing this Court's caption—but not its approval—the prosecutors agreed (1) to \"not oppose\" the Trustee's \"effort[s]\" to \"obtain control of and/or sell\" the Mahwah Facility; (2) to \"execute promptly any documents which may be required to convey clear title to the [Mahwah Facility] and complete the sale of the [Mahwah Facility]\"; and (3) to permit the Trustee to deduct from sale proceeds \"any costs of seizure, maintenance, marketing and sale of the Subject Property, including legal fees of Paul Hastings . . . .\" (Dkt. No. 130-5, Kwok Ex. 5 at 22, 24 ¶¶ 1, 3, 6). The July 13, 2023 \"stipulation\" is the product of \"extensive\" negotiations between the prosecutors and the Trustee. (*Id.* at 7 ¶ 12, 8 ¶ 14). However, \"the Government's loss of evidence may deprive a defendant of the right to a fair trial.\" *United States v. Rahman*, 189 F.3d 88, 139 (2d Cir. 1999). \"[T]he only way to protect *Brady* material before the defendant requests it is to require the government to safeguard potentially exculpatory evidence.\" *United States v. Bakhtiar*, 994 F.2d 970, 975 (2d Cir. 1993).2 Indeed, the day after the Trustee notified the bankruptcy judge of Mr. Kwok's stay motion, the bankruptcy judge modified the preliminary injunction concerning the Mahwah Facility to further restrict access to the Facility. (*See* Dkt. No. 2158, *In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.*, No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Aug. 30, 2023); Dkt. No. 58, *Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al.*, No. 23-5017 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Aug. 31, 2023)). Accordingly, a stay is necessary in order to prevent evidence at the Mahwah Facility from being lost or destroyed.\n\n*Forfeiture and Restitution.* The Trustee's operations in the bankruptcy proceedings are rapidly depleting assets and property that one would expect the prosecutors to seek to preserve in the event that forfeiture or restitution becomes appropriate in this case. Even the bankruptcy judge has characterized these expenses as a \"heavy cost\" and \"enormous.\" *In re: Kwok*, No. 22-50073 (JAM), 2023 WL 4772420, at \\*18 (Bankr. D. Conn. July 26, 2023). And \"there are creditors in these Chapter 11 cases that are not alleged fraud victims.\" *Id.* at \\*19. Under these circumstances, it\n\n<sup>1</sup> Under Section 9-13.410, federal prosecutors are required to obtain approval from the Assistant Attorney General or a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to issue a subpoena to an attorney, and the \"principles\" that are relevant to such approval include: \"The information sought shall not be protected by a valid claim of privilege.\"\n\n<sup>2</sup> *Accord Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States*, 204 F.R.D. 277, 285 (E.D. Va. 2001) (\"The destruction of evidence can lead to manifest unfairness and injustice, for it increases the risk of an erroneous decision on the merits of the underlying cause of action and can increase the costs of litigation as parties attempt to reconstruct the destroyed evidence or to develop other evidence that may be less persuasive, less accessible or both.\").\n\nis not clear why the prosecutors and the Trustee are as \"aligned\" as they appear to be. (Dkt. No. 130-5, Kwok Ex. 5 at 5 ¶ 6).\n\nHaving elsewhere touted the seizure of \"\\$634 million from 21 different bank accounts,\"3 the prosecutors have elected not to seize other assets that are tied up in the bankruptcy and subject to extensive fees based on the Trustee's activities. In *HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al.*, the Trustee is seeking to bring more than \\$35 million into the bankruptcy estate, and he acknowledges that the funds are related to this case. (*See, e.g.*, Dkt. No. 23-5013 ¶¶ 4, 39, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 8, 2023)). As noted, the prosecutors have also consented to the Trustee's fees being paid from the proceeds of any sale of the Mahwah Facility rather than preserving important evidence at the property, which the prosecutors have alleged is forfeitable. (*See* Dkt. No. 19 ¶ 55(v); Dkt. No. 38 ¶ w).\n\nThe prosecutors' decision to permit the Trustee to proceed against assets that could be subject to forfeiture and restitution, and to incur the attendant costs, is not consistent with the tone of their \"Motion For Victim Rights.\" (*See* Dkt. No. 10). In 2009, the same U.S. Attorney's Office opposed the imposition of a bankruptcy trustee in connection with an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Bernard Madoff on the basis that \"[t]he movants . . . suggest incorrectly that a bankruptcy action is the appropriate forum for the marshalling and distribution of assets to victims of the fraud.\" (Dkt. No. 50 at 2, *SEC v. Madoff, et al.*, No. 08 Civ. 10791 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2009); *see also id.* (\"Under the well-established relation-[b]ack doctrine, the Government's interest in forfeitable property vests at the time of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture . . . .\")). The Office argued that \"the motion, if granted, would risk detracting from recovery to victims because funds otherwise available for return to victims by way of forfeiture would unnecessarily be used to pay the fees of a bankruptcy trustee.\" (*Id.* at 1; *see also id.* at 5 (arguing that imposition of a trustee \"would both drain fees from the total recovery available to the victims of this offense and delay the recovery of victim funds . . .\")). The Office had it right in 2009, and these principles further support a stay of the bankruptcy proceedings.\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n<sup>3</sup> DOJ, Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" Arrested For Orchestrating Over \\$1 Billion Dollar Fraud Conspiracy (Mar. 15, 2023), http\n\nIn sum, Ms. Wang joins Mr. Kwok's motion for a stay of the proceedings in *In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al.*, Dkt. No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.). Such a stay is necessary and appropriate, under the All Writs Act and the Court's inherent supervisory authority, for the reasons set forth herein, in Mr. Kwok's motion papers, and in the prosecutors' letter seeking a stay in *SEC v. Kwok*, No. 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.). (*See* Dkt. No. 130-7).\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/\n\n Emil Bove Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC\n\n> Alex Lipman Lipman Law PLLC\n\n *Attorneys for Yanping Wang*\n\nCc: Counsel of Record (Via ECF)","body_zh":"附件 A\n\n11 TIMES SQUARE, 34TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10036\n\nEMIL BOVE  ebove@csglaw.com (O) 212.324.7265\n\n2023年9月1日\n\n通过 ECF\n尊敬的 Analisa Torres\n美国联邦地区法官\nSouthern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）\n事由：United States v. Yanping Wang, et al., 案号 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的 Torres 法官：\n\n被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）谨以此函加入共同被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于 2023年8月30日 提出的动议，请求在本案审结前，中止 In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al., 案号 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn.)（康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）中的诉讼程序。正如郭先生所指出，鉴于破产程序中的最新进展，为维护本诉讼程序的完整性，中止程序是必要的。王女士采纳郭先生的论点，并谨提出以下额外理由，说明中止程序是适当的。\n\n《第五修正案》。与郭先生一样，王女士作为刑事被告人，面临着证券欺诈和洗钱等严重指控，而这些指控所依据的事实，与破产受托人（Trustee）在破产案件中主张的索赔存在显著重合。（见 Dkt. No. 131，郭文贵陈述书第 17、24 页）。因此，尽管王女士并非破产案中的债务人，但她是破产受托人所推进的许多事项中的潜在非当事人证人。因此，破产程序带来了关乎王女士个人且危及她宪法权利的《第五修正案》顾虑以及相关损害风险。参见，例如，In re Kowalski, 633 B.R. 822, 827 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2021)（“必须指出的是，非当事人证人与任何人一样，享有《第五修正案》的保护。”）；In re Zinnel, No. 12 Civ. 1541, 2013 WL 2449546, at *6 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2013)（认定中止程序是适当的，其中除其他理由外，“可以预见的是，[民事]证据开示可能会触及并非破产上诉当事人但可能是刑事调查目标的证人的《第五修正案》权利”）；In re Garsia, No. 09-22233, 2011 WL 1045295, at *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2011)（认定中止程序是适当的，其中除其他理由外，“被告的某些证人也可能寻求《第五修正案》的保护，从而进一步限制[被告]反驳欺诈指控的能力”）。例如——尽管存在显而易见的《第五修正案》牵涉——2023年7月21日，破产受托人的法律顾问就与破产法第 11 章案件相关的对抗性诉讼 Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al., 对抗性诉讼案号 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn.) 对王女士进行宣誓取证一事进行了询问。此外，破产法院曾表示，王女士作为处于审前羁押状态的刑事被告人身份，不足以免除向她调取文件的必要性。（见 Dkt. No. 2036 第 5 页，In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al., 案号 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. July 28, 2023)（“虽然王女士目前处于审前羁押状态，但 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 并未证明其无法与她取得联系——如有必要，可通过其律师联系。”））。因此——且再次重申，尽管存在《第五修正案》牵涉——HCHK Technologies, Inc. 等对抗性诉讼中的第三方律师已与下述署名人联系，试图从王女士处获取文件。在王女士持有应答材料的范围内，这些请求至少涉及了她的“出示行为特权”（act-of-production privilege）。由于王女士不是债务人，破产法院对“法定记录原则”（required-records doctrine）的适用对她并不适用。（见 Dkt. No. 131，郭文贵陈述书第 8-9 页）。\n\n律师-委托人保密特权。虽然王女士并不掌管郭先生的律师-委托人保密特权，但破产受托人就与本案相关的主题对郭先生的特权进行了过宽且不必要的弃权，使王女士面临受到损害的风险。\n\n重要的是……破产受托人与债务人之间处于对抗关系这一事实。因此，破产受托人承担债务人的律师-委托人特权可能会对债务人造成极大的伤害，因为破产受托人寻求放弃债务人的律师-委托人特权的唯一目的就是直接利用该信息对付债务人（即撤销债务人的破产免责）。此外，若再考虑到如果债务人最终因违反《破产法典》的刑事犯罪而遭到起诉，该等信息可能会被用于对付债务人，那么对债务人造成伤害的可能性就变得格外严峻。\n\nIn re Miller, 247 B.R. 704, 710 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2000)；In re Bame, 251 B.R. 367, 377 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2000)（“至于……涉及引起潜在刑事起诉活动的问题……利益权衡可能会倾向于支持主张特权，在这种情况下，破产受托人将有机会对特权提出犯罪-欺诈例外（crime-fraud exception）。”）。例如，破产法院 2022年9月 的特权弃权命令规定，破产受托人控制郭先生“在被指控与其他方共同拥有的任何共同利益或共同抗辩特权中的任何权益”。（Dkt. No. 130-12，郭文贵证据 12 第 2 页第 2 段）。该特权弃权命令并未向王女士提供就可能在本案中对其造成损害的特权弃权发表意见的机会。（见同上，第 4-5 页第 7-8 段）。\n\n破产受托人目前正试图向律师 Victor Cerda 送达 Rule 2004 传票，该律师曾参与过与王女士的共同抗辩会议，其目的推测是为了获取用于破产案件及其相关对抗性诉讼的证据。（见 Dkt. No. 125-1）。破产受托人获取本应受特权保护的材料的企图，可能会导致检方接触到按常规不被允许获取的材料的情形。参见 Justice Manual（《司法部司法手册》）§ 9-13.410（“由于向律师发出传票索取有关该律师代理客户的信息可能会对律师-委托人关系造成潜在影响，司法部对此类传票实行严格控制”），可查阅 http\n\nBrady 规则与证据毁损。检方与破产受托人就清算 Mahwah 设施（Mahwah Facility）达成的协议，牵涉到王女士的正当程序权利以及检方向辩方提供开脱罪责证据的义务。具体而言，来自 Mahwah 设施的证据将削弱检方关于 GTV 招股所得款项在设施中的使用方式与招股文件不符的指控。（见 Dkt. No. 131，郭文贵陈述书第 20 页）。在附有本法院案头抬头——但未经本法院批准——的一份“约定”（Stipulation）中，检方同意：(1)“不反对”破产受托人“获取对 Mahwah 设施的控制权和/或出售”该设施的“努力”；(2)“及时签署转让[Mahwah 设施]无可争议所有权及完成[Mahwah 设施]出售可能所需的任何文件”；以及 (3) 允许破产受托人从出售所得中扣除“扣押、维护、营销和出售标的财产的任何费用，包括 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的律师费……”（Dkt. No. 130-5，郭文贵证据 5 第 22、24 页第 1、3、6 段）。这份 2023年7月13日 的“约定”是检方与破产受托人之间“广泛”谈判的产物。（同上，第 7 页第 12 段，第 8 页第 14 段）。然而，“政府灭失证据可能会剥夺被告获得公平审判的权利。”United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 139 (2d Cir. 1999)。“在被告提出请求之前保护 Brady 材料的唯一方法，就是要求政府妥善保管潜在的开脱罪责证据。”United States v. Bakhtiar, 994 F.2d 970, 975 (2d Cir. 1993)。2 事实上，在破产受托人向破产法官告知郭先生的中止动议的次日，破产法官便修改了关于 Mahwah 设施的初步禁令，进一步限制对该设施的进入。（见 Dkt. No. 2158, In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al., 案号 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Aug. 30, 2023)；Dkt. No. 58, Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al., 案号 23-5017 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Aug. 31, 2023)）。因此，为了防止 Mahwah 设施中的证据灭失或被毁损，中止程序是必要的。\n\n没收与赔偿。破产受托人在破产程序中的操作正在迅速消耗资产和财产，而在本案可能涉及没收或赔偿的情况下，人们本会期望检方去寻求保全这些资产和财产。连破产法官也将这些费用描述为“沉重的代价”和“数额巨大”。In re: Kwok, 案号 22-50073 (JAM), 2023 WL 4772420, at *18 (Bankr. D. Conn. July 26, 2023)。并且“在这些第 11 章案件中，存在并非被指控的欺诈受害者的债权人。”同上，at *19。在这些情况下，\n\n1 根据第 9-13.410 条，联邦检察官向律师发出传票须获得助理司法部长或刑事司副助理司法部长的批准，与此类批准相关的“原则”包括：“所寻求的信息不得受有效的特权主张所保护。”\n\n2 亦见 Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States, 204 F.R.D. 277, 285 (E.D. Va. 2001)（“毁灭证据可能导致显失公平和不公，因为它增加了对基础诉由实体问题作出错误判决的风险，并且随着当事人试图重构被毁灭的证据或开发其他可能说服力较弱、较难获取或两者兼具的证据，会增加诉讼成本。”）。\n\n尚不清楚为何检方与破产受托人表现得如表面上那般“步调一致”。（Dkt. No. 130-5，郭文贵证据 5 第 5 页第 6 段）。\n\n检方虽在其他地方大肆宣扬从“21 个不同银行账户中扣押了 6.34 亿美元”，3 却选择不扣押其他被卷入破产程序且因破产受托人的活动而产生巨额费用的资产。在 HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. 案中，破产受托人正试图将超过 3500 万美元纳入破产财产，并且他承认这些资金与本案有关。（参见，例如，Dkt. No. 23-5013 第 4、39 段，对抗性诉讼案号 23-05013 (Bankr. D. Conn. June 8, 2023)）。如前所述，检方还同意从出售 Mahwah 设施的任何收益中支付破产受托人的费用，而不是保全该房产上的重要证据，而检方曾指控该房产是应予没收的。（见 Dkt. No. 19 第 55(v) 段；Dkt. No. 38 第 w 段）。\n\n检方允许受托人针对可能被没收和用于赔偿的资产采取行动并产生相应费用的决定，与其「受害者权利动议」（参见 Dkt. No. 10）的基调不一致。2009年，同一个 U.S. Attorney's Office（美国联邦检察官办公室）在针对 Bernard Madoff（伯纳德·麦道夫）的非自愿破产申请中，反对指派破产受托人，理由是「动议提出人……错误地认为破产诉讼是对欺诈受害者归集和分配资产的适当场所。」（Dkt. No. 50 at 2, SEC v. Madoff, et al., No. 08 Civ. 10791 (S.D.N.Y. [纽约南区联邦地区法院] Apr. 10, 2009)；另见同上（「根据确立已久的回溯原则，政府在应予没收财产中的权益自引起没收的犯罪行为发生之时起即已确立……」））。该检察官办公室主张，「该动议如果获得批准，将面临削减受害者受偿金额的风险，因为本可通过没收途径返还给受害者的资金，将被不必要地用于支付破产受托人的费用。」（同上 at 1；另见同上 at 5（主张指派受托人「既会从本案受害者可获得的受偿总额中抽走费用，又会延误受害者资金的挽回……」））。该办公室在2009年的主张是正确的，并且这些原则进一步支持中止破产程序。\n\n* * *\n\n3 DOJ（美国司法部）, Ho Wan Kwok, a/k/a \"Miles Guo,\" Arrested For Orchestrating Over $1 Billion Dollar Fraud Conspiracy (Mar. 15, 2023), http\n\n总之，Wang（王）女士加入 Kwok（郭）先生在 In re Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Dkt. No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. [康涅狄格区联邦破产法院]) 案中提出的中止诉讼程序动议。根据 All Writs Act（《所有令状法》）及本法院固有的监督权力，基于本文件、郭先生的动议文件以及检方在 SEC v. Kwok, No. 23 Civ. 2200 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.) 案中请求中止的信函中所阐述的理由，此类中止是必要且适当的。（参见 Dkt. No. 130-7）。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/\n\nEmil Bove\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC\n\nAlex Lipman\nLipman Law PLLC\n\nYanping Wang（王雁平）的代理律师\n\n抄送：记录在案的律师（通过 ECF）","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","forfeiture","Yanping Wang","HCHK","Guo","Despins","Torres","Brady","Miles Guo","Analisa Torres","GTV","Paul Hastings","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":10,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":19,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":22,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":23,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":38,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":50,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":58,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":125,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":130,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":131,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2036,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2158,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2095,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:05:08"}