{"id":"court_ctb_2372_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2372,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- |          | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      |          | :<br>:<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                |          | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                             | Debtors. | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------  |          | x           |                         |\n\n# **OMNIBUS REPLY OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO (A) G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC LIMITED'S OBJECTION AND (B) SHIN HSIN, 1332156 B.C. LTD, GWGOPNZ LIMITED, AND JIE ZHANG'S OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S NINTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS RULE 2004 MOTION**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby submits this reply (the \"Reply\") in support of the Trustee's *Ninth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor and Entities Doing Business with Debtor* [ECF No. 2308] (the \"Ninth 2004 Motion\") and in response to the G Club Operations LLC's (\"G-Club\") *Objection* [ECF No. 2331] and Shin Hsin Yu (\"Mr. Yu\"), 1332156 B.C. LTD (\"1332156 B.C.\"), GWGOPNZ Limited (\"GWGOPNZ\"), and Jie Zhang's (\"Ms. Zhang\", together with Mr. Yu, 1332156 B.C., and GWGOPNZ collectively, the \"Proposed Intervenor Objectors\" and, together with G-Club, collectively, the \"Objectors\") *Objection* [ECF No. 2326] (collectively, the \"Objections\"). In Reply to the Objections, the Trustee\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, 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\nrespectfully states the following:\n\n## **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Ninth 2004 Motion requests authority to serve Rule 2004 subpoenas on entities and individuals associated with the Debtor, and on entities that have done business with the Debtor, in furtherance of the Trustee's continuing investigation of the Debtor's financial affairs. Among others, the Nine 2004 Motion properly requests authority to serve Andrew Childe (\"Mr. Childe\") with a Rule 2004 subpoena. The Trustee understands from his investigation that Mr. Childe serves as a director of certain G-Club-related entities and, as such, may have documents and information relating to the Debtor and his financial affairs and transactions. Accordingly, the Court should overrule G-Club's Objection.\n\n2. The Proposed Intervenor Objectors' Objection should likewise be overruled. The Ninth 2004 Motion does not seek any discovery from the Proposed Intervenor Objectors whatsoever. Rather, the Proposed Intervenor Objectors are merely listed as among the topics of document discovery sought by subpoenas that the Trustee intends to issue to third parties. Proceedings to date in Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05013 (the \"HCHK Adversary Proceeding\") and evidence submitted in connection with the pending *Motion to Intervene* demonstrate the Proposed Intervenor Objectors' connections to the Debtor and his finances such that they are properly included among the subject matter of the Trustee's Rule 2004 investigation.\n\n3. Because the Trustee's Ninth 2004 Motion properly seeks discovery to advance the Trustee's investigation of the Debtor's financial affairs, and because the Objections are without merit, the Court should overrule the Objections and grant the Ninth 2004 Motion.\n\n2\n\n#### **G-CLUB'S OBJECTION SHOULD BE OVERRULED**\n\n#### **Rule 2004 Investigation is Appropriate and Necessary as to Mr. Childe**\n\n4. In the Ninth 2004 Motion, the Trustee requests authority to serve Rule 2004 subpoenas on, among others, Mr. Childe. Notably, G-Club acknowledges in its Objection that Mr. Childe \"has been handling the day-to-day operations of\" G-Club for five months. (G-Club's Objection at ¶ 5.)\n\n5. Moreover, email correspondence that the Trustee obtained in his Rule 2004 investigation reflects that Mr. Childe was consulted as early as 2019 about providing services with respect to other Debtor-associated entities (*i.e.*, Alfonso Global Limited and Alfa Global Ventures Limited). This correspondence appears to have included a link to a news article discussing a freeze of the Debtor's and his daughter's assets in Hong Kong, which suggests that Mr. Childe may have information regarding the Debtor's assets and affairs. (A true and accurate copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as **Exhibit A**.)\n\n6. As discussed in the Ninth 2004 Motion, the scope of discovery under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is exceedingly broad. *See also In re Parikh*, 397 B.R. 518, 525-526 (\"A Rule 2004 examination has been likened to a 'fishing expedition,' the scope of which is broad. The primary purpose of allowing broad discovery in Rule 2004 examinations is to expedite the locating of assets of the estate.\"). Considering Mr. Childe's position running the affairs of G-Club, which the United States Government has alleged was a key player in the Debtor's criminal fraud<sup>2</sup> , service of a\n\n<sup>2</sup> As the Court is aware, the Debtor is charged with defrauding thousands of victims out of \"over \\$1 billion by using a series of fraudulent businesses and investment opportunities; misappropriating victims' funds by laundering those funds through approximately 500 bank accounts associated with at least eighty entities or individuals in several countries; and improperly using those funds to enrich themselves.\" *United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, No. 23-Cr.-118- 1 (AT), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69520, \\*2 (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 2023). The Government has alleged that while the Debtor was committing this fraud, the Debtor \"functionally owned and controlled\" G-Club—such that G-Club was a key player in the Debtor's criminal conduct. *See id.* at \\*3-\\*4. Prior to the unsealing of the Debtor's indictment, the Government seized hundreds of millions of dollars held by Debtor-associated shell companies including G-Club. *Id.*\n\nsubpoena on Mr. Childe is well within the permissible scope of Rule 2004 discovery.<sup>3</sup>\n\n7. G-Club assumes in its Objection that Mr. Childe should be treated as \"off limits\" from the Trustee's Rule 2004 investigation, because it alleges that Mr. Childe was hired to manage G-Club's affairs through a third-party firm that provides outside director services. To be clear, the Trustee does not seek to subpoena Mr. Childe because of the structure of his engagement with G-Club. Rather, the Trustee seeks to subpoena Mr. Childe because the Trustee reasonably believes that Mr. Childe, as the individual responsible for the management of G-Club (and potentially other Debtor-associated entities), is in possession of documents and information that will aid the Trustee's investigation of the Debtor's financial affairs.\n\n8. Moreover, G-Club's Objection should be subject to particular skepticism considering the months that G-Club spent stonewalling the Trustee's efforts to obtain compliance with the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena to G-Club. *See generally Order Granting Motion to Compel G-Club to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena* [ECF No. 1960]. This includes G-Club's prior denials to the Trustee of G-Club's association with the Debtor, following which G-Club was revealed to feature prominently in the Debtor's criminal indictment.\n\n9. Accordingly, the Court should overrule G-Club's Objection and grant the Ninth 2004 Motion.\n\n#### **PROPOSED INTERVENORS' OBJECTION SHOULD BE OVERRULED**\n\n10. Notably, the Ninth 2004 Motion does *not* request to issue Rule 2004 subpoenas to *any* of the Proposed Intervenor Objectors; it merely includes them as among the many topics of investigation in the Trustee's document requests attached to the subpoenas that the Trustee\n\n<sup>3</sup> G-Club's allegation that Mr. Childe assumed his role with the company after the Debtor's arrest, even if true, does not mean that Mr. Childe would not have documents and information that would aid the Trustee's investigation of the Debtor's financial affairs.\n\nproposes to serve on *other entities and individuals*. The Proposed Intervenor Objectors contend that the Trustee should be forbidden from seeking any information relating to them in his Rule 2004 investigation. Unsurprisingly, they provide no support for this meritless position.\n\n11. The Trustee is plainly justified in seeking discovery relating to the Proposed Intervenor Objectors due to their connection with the Debtor's, the Debtor's associates, and the Debtor's financial affairs.<sup>4</sup> These relationships are specifically discussed throughout the Trustee's sealed *Objection to Motion of Proposed Intervenors Shin Hsin Yu, 1332156 B.C. LTD, and GWGOPNZ Limited* [HCHK Adversary Proceeding ECF No. 119] (the \"Intervention Objection\"). The Trustee incorporates the facts set forth in his Intervention Objection into this Reply.\n\n12. With respect to 1332156 B.C., the Trustee understands that this entity was controlled by the Debtor through individuals who are members of the Debtor's Himalaya Farm organization branch based in British Columbia, Canada.<sup>5</sup> The corporate representative of 1332156 B.C. in connection with the Motion to Intervene was Yan Chun Liu (\"Ms. Liu\"), whose numerous connections to the Debtor, the Debtor's associates, and the Debtor's business affairs are discussed at length in paragraphs 32-35 of the Trustee's Intervention Objection. The Trustee understands that Ms. Liu directed millions of dollars to the Debtor's investment and/or cryptocurrency ventures (which are the subject of the Government's criminal case against the Debtor).<sup>6</sup>\n\n13. Similarly, the Trustee understands that the Debtor controls GWGOPNZ through individuals who are members of the Debtor's Himalaya Farm organization branch based in New\n\n<sup>4</sup> Of the Proposed Intervenor Objectors, Mr. Yu, 1332156 B.C., and GWGOPNZ have sought to intervene in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding, while Ms. Zhang is GWGOPNZ's designated corporate representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).\n\n<sup>5</sup> *See Omnibus Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee (I) in Support of Motion Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Regarding Settlement with Assignee of HCHK Entities Under New York Court Assignment Proceedings, and (II) in Response to Objections* [HCHK Adversary Proceeding ECF No. 45] (the \"9019 Reply\") at ¶ 8(c). <sup>6</sup> *See* 9019 Reply at ¶ 8(c), n. 20.\n\nZealand. <sup>7</sup> According to New Zealand's public records, the Director of GWGOPNZ is Xuebing Wang (\"Mr. Wang\"), a close associate of the Debtor. In January 2023, Mr. Wang visited protestors in front of the Trustee's home, at which time he praised the protestors of their efforts, awarded them prizes and expressed thanks on behalf of the \"Himalaya Alliance.\"<sup>8</sup>\n\n14. Mr. Yu is also properly included as a topic in the Trustee's Rule 2004 investigation. As part of his Motion to Intervene, Mr. Yu has (falsely) claimed to be a lender with respect to HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\"), which entity and its affiliates (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\") the Trustee understands to be the Debtor's alter egos. *See Order Granting in Part Emergency* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* [HCHK Adversary Proceeding ECF No. 18] at 10-13 (determining Trustee had, at minimum, established serious questions as to the merits of claims including that HCHK Entities were Debtor's alter egos or were beneficially owned by Debtor). Mr. Yu's connections to the Debtor are further discussed in sealed filings in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding.<sup>9</sup>\n\n15. As with Mr. Yu, Ms. Zhang, who served as GWGOPNZ's corporate representative, has apparent ties to the Debtor and entities associated with the Debtor. Ms. Zhang's deposition testimony (discussed in the Trustee's Intervention Objection at ¶¶ 23-24) reflects such ties.\n\n16. By arguing to prevent the Trustee from even mentioning them in his Rule 2004 document requests, the Proposed Intervenor Objectors seek to prevent the Trustee from uncovering what may be their further involvement in the Debtor's financial affairs—and thus additional information about property that may be property of the estate. This subject matter is at the core of\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* 9019 Reply at ¶ 8(b).\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See* Himalaya Alliance Committee Chairman Xuebing Wang visited protestors, YouTube, February 1, 2023, http\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See, e.g.,* Declaration of Avram E. Luft in Support of Trustee's Objection to Motion of Proposed Intervenors Shin Hsin Yu, 1332156 B.C. Ltd, and GWGOPNZ Limited to Intervene in Adversary Proceeding, Ex. P. at 87-11-15, 88:14-89:13 [Adv. Proc. 23-05013 ECF No. 123] (filed under seal).\n\nthat which is properly investigated through Rule 2004 discovery.\n\n17. The Court should thus overrule the Proposed Intervenor Objectors' Objection and grant the Trustee's Ninth 2004 Motion.<sup>10</sup>\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n<sup>10</sup> Unlike Mr. Yu's and Ms. Zhang's *Objection to Eighth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Relevant Banks* [ECF 2319] (the \"Yu/Zhang Objection\"), the Proposed Intervenor Objectors' Objection to the Ninth 2004 Motion does not include arguments with respect to notice or the \"pending proceeding\" doctrine. To the extent that the Proposed Intervenor Objectors seek to advance such arguments at a hearing on the Ninth 2004 Motion, the Trustee incorporates by reference his responses as to these arguments (including his discussion of the Court's prior orders rejecting such arguments) as set forth in his *Reply* to the Yu/Zhang Objection.\n\nWHEREFORE, because the Objections fail on the merits, the Court should overrule the\n\nObjections, grant the Ninth 2004 Motion, enter the proposed order filed therewith, and grant such\n\nother and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: November 26, 2023 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n## LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*  Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK et al.,                                         | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.11                                                  | :<br>:      | Jointly Administered    |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on November 26, 2023, the foregoing was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system, or (within one business day) by U.S. Mail to any parties unable to receive electronic notice. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n| Dated: November 26, 2023 | Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 Trustee |\n|--------------------------|---------------------------------------|\n| New Haven, Connecticut   |                                       |\n|                          | By:<br>/s/<br>Patrick R. Linsey       |\n|                          | Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616)           |\n|                          | Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437)           |\n|                          | NEUBERT,<br>PEPE &<br>MONTEITH, P.C.  |\n|                          | 195 Church Street, 13th Floor         |\n|                          | New Haven, Connecticut 06510          |\n|                          | (203) 781-2847                        |\n|                          | dskalka@npmlaw.com                    |\n|                          | plinsey@npmlaw.com                    |\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n<sup>11</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, Genever Holdings LLC, and 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# **EXHIBIT A**\n\n**(Feb. 26, 2019 Email to Andrew Childe,** *et al***., regarding Debtor-Associated Entities)**\n\n# **Andrew Willins**\n\n| From:    | Shaheba Levons <shaheba.levons@ffp.vg></shaheba.levons@ffp.vg> |\n|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Sent:    | 05 November 2020 14:59                                         |\n| To:      | Shaheba Levons                                                 |\n| Subject: | FW: Conflicts checking: New opportunity                        |\n\n**From:** Hadley Chilton **Sent:** Tuesday, 26 February 2019 6:27 pm **To:** Michael Pearson ; Andrew Childe ; Richard Lewis; Chris Rowland ; Stephen Briscoe **Subject:** Conflicts checking: New opportunity\n\nhttp\n\nPlease could you let me know if we have any conflicts in acting in respect of:\n\nAlfonso Global Limited\n\nAlfa Global Ventures Limited\n\nBest\n\nHadley J Chilton\n\nFFP\n\n#### www.FFP.vg\n\n+1284 542 6076\n\n**From:** Lauren Williamson <lauren.williamson@walkersglobal.com>\n\n**Sent:** Tuesday, February 26, 2019 6:19 pm\n\n**To:** Hadley Chilton\n\n**Cc:** Oliver Clifton; Matthew Cowman; Stephen Briscoe; Trecia Vanterpool-Durrant\n\n**Subject:** RE: EXTERNAL New opportunity\n\n## **External Email. Exercise Caution.**\n\nMany thanks Hadley","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区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）等，\n债务人。\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n（合并审理）\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n第 11 章受托人对 (A) G CLUB OPERATIONS LLC 的异议以及 (B) SHIN HSIN YU、1332156 B.C. LTD、GWGOPNZ LIMITED 和 JIE ZHANG 对第 11 章受托人第九次补充综合第 2004 条规则动议之异议的综合答辩\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其在上述 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人）第 11 章破产案件（“第 11 章案件”）中被任命的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，谨此提交本答辩（“答辩”），以支持受托人的《第 11 章受托人根据〈联邦破产诉讼规则〉第 2004 条及〈本地规则〉第 2004-1 条请求作出准许对与债务人关联的其他实体和个人及与债务人有业务往来的实体进行证据开示之命令的第九次补充综合动议》[ECF No. 2308]（“第九次 2004 动议”），并回应 G Club Operations LLC（“G-Club”）的异议 [ECF No. 2331] 以及 Shin Hsin Yu（余信新，下称“余先生”）、1332156 B.C. LTD（“1332156 B.C.”）、GWGOPNZ Limited（“GWGOPNZ”）和 Jie Zhang（张洁，下称“张女士”，与余先生、1332156 B.C. 及 GWGOPNZ 合称为“拟参加诉讼异议人”，并与 G-Club 合称为“异议人”）的异议 [ECF No. 2326]（合称“异议”）。在对异议的答辩中，受托人\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：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 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和联络）。\n\n谨陈词如下：\n初步陈述\n\n1. 第九次 2004 动议请求获得授权，向与债务人相关的实体和个人以及曾与债务人有业务往来的实体送达第 2004 条规则传票，以推进受托人对债务人财务状况的持续调查。除其他事项外，第九次 2004 动议适当地请求授权向 Andrew Childe（“Childe 先生”）送达第 2004 条规则传票。受托人从其调查中获悉，Childe 先生担任某些与 G-Club 相关的实体的董事，因此可能掌握与债务人及其财务事务和交易相关的档和信息。因此，法院应驳回 G-Club 的异议。\n\n2. 拟参加诉讼异议人的异议同样应予以驳回。第九次 2004 动议根本未向拟参加诉讼异议人寻求任何证据开示。相反，拟参加诉讼异议人仅仅是被列为受托人打算向第三方发出的传票所寻求的书证开示的主题之一。截至目前在第 23-05013 号对抗性程序（“HCHK 对抗性程序”）中的诉讼程序，以及就审理中的参加诉讼动议提交的证据，表明拟参加诉讼异议人与债务人及其财务状况存在关联，因而他们被正当地纳入受托人第 2004 条规则调查的主题范围之中。\n\n3. 由于受托人的第九次 2004 动议正当地寻求证据开示以推进受托人对债务人财务状况的调查，且由于各项异议均缺乏事实与法律依据，法院应当驳回异议并准许第九次 2004 动议。\n\n应当驳回 G-CLUB 的异议\n针对 CHILDE 先生进行第 2004 条规则调查是适当且必要的\n\n4. 在第九次 2004 动议中，受托人请求授权向包括 Childe 先生在内的人员送达第 2004 条规则传票。值得注意的是，G-Club 在其异议中承认 Childe 先生“已负责处理 G-Club 的日常运营”长达五个月。（G-Club 异议第 5 段。）\n\n5. 此外，受托人在其第 2004 条规则调查中获得的电子邮件往来记录反映出，早在 2019 年就曾就为其他与债务人关联的实体（即 Alfonso Global Limited 和 Alfa Global Ventures Limited）提供服务事宜向 Childe 先生进行过咨询。该往来信件似乎包含了一篇讨论冻结债务人及其女儿在香港资产的新闻报道的链接，这表明 Childe 先生可能掌握有关债务人资产和事务的信息。（该往来信件的真实准确副本作为附件 A 随附于此。）\n\n6. 如第九次 2004 动议中所述，〈联邦破产诉讼规则〉第 2004 条下的证据开示范围极其广泛。参见 In re Parikh, 397 B.R. 518, 525-526（“第 2004 条规则调查被比作‘摸底调查’，其范围广泛。在第 2004 条规则调查中允许广泛证据开示的主要目的是为了加快查明破产财产的资产。”）。考虑到 Childe 先生掌管 G-Club 事务的职位，而美国政府已指控 G-Club 是债务人刑事欺诈案中的关键参与者2，向 Childe 先生送达\n\n2 众所周知，债务人被指控“通过使用一系列欺诈性企业和投资机会，诈骗数千名受害者逾 10 亿美元；通过与几个国家的至少八十个实体或个人相关的约 500 个银行账户清洗这些资金以挪用受害人资金；并为了自身谋利而不当使用这些资金”。United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, No. 23-Cr.-118- 1 (AT), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69520, *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 2023)。政府指控称，在债务人实施该欺诈期间，债务人“在实质上拥有并控制了”G-Club——使得 G-Club 成为债务人犯罪行为的关键参与者。参见同上，第 *3-*4 页。在债务人的起诉书解封之前，政府扣押了包括 G-Club 在内的与债务人关联的空壳公司所持有的数亿美元。同上。\n\n传票完全属于第 2004 条规则证据开示的允许范围之内。3\n\n7. G-Club 在其异议中假定 Childe 先生应被视为受托人第 2004 条规则调查的“禁区”，因为其声称 Childe 先生是通过一家提供外部董事服务的第三方机构被聘用管理 G-Club 事务的。需要明确的是，受托人寻求向 Childe 先生发出传票并非因为他与 G-Club 的聘用架构。相反，受托人寻求向 Childe 先生发出传票，是因为受托人合理地认为，Childe 先生作为负责管理 G-Club（以及可能其他与债务人关联的实体）的个人，持有有助于受托人调查债务人财务状况的档和信息。\n\n8. 此外，考虑到 G-Club 曾花费数月时间阻挠受托人争取让 G-Club 遵从受托人第 2004 条规则传票的努力，G-Club 的异议应当受到格外审慎的怀疑。普遍参见《准许强迫 G-Club 遵从第 2004 条规则传票动议之命令》[ECF No. 1960]。这包括 G-Club 先前向受托人否认 G-Club 与债务人存在关联，而此后 G-Club 被揭露在债务人的刑事起诉书中占据突出位置。\n\n9. 因此，法院应当驳回 G-Club 的异议，并准许第九次 2004 动议。\n应当驳回拟参加诉讼人的异议\n\n10. 值得注意的是，第九次 2004 动议并未请求向任何拟参加诉讼异议人发出第 2004 条规则传票；该动议仅仅是将他们列入受托人拟向其他实体和个人送达的传票所附档调取请求中的众多调查主题之一。拟参加诉讼异议人主张，应禁止受托人在其第 2004 条规则调查中寻求与他们相关的任何信息。不出所料，他们为这一毫无根据的主张未提供任何依据。\n\n11. 鉴于拟参加诉讼异议人与债务人、债务人的关联人士以及债务人的财务事务存在关联，受托人寻求与拟参加诉讼异议人相关的证据开示显然是正当合理的。4 这些关联关系在受托人对拟参加诉讼人 Shin Hsin Yu、1332156 B.C. LTD 和 GWGOPNZ Limited 的动议所提交的封存异议 [HCHK 对抗性程序 ECF No. 119]（“参加诉讼异议”）中有详细论述。受托人将该参加诉讼异议中阐述的事实并入本答辩中。\n\n12. 关于 1332156 B.C.，受托人获悉该实体是由债务人通过其设在加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省的喜马拉雅农场组织分支机构的成员个人进行控制的。5 在参加诉讼动议中代表 1332156 B.C. 的公司代表为 Yan Chun Liu（刘艳春，下称“刘女士”），其与债务人、债务人关联人士及债务人商业事务的大量关联在受托人的参加诉讼异议第 32-35 段中均有详尽讨论。受托人获悉，刘女士曾将数百万美元导入债务人的投资和/或加密货币项目（这些项目正是政府对债务人刑事起诉指控的主题）。6\n\n13. 同样，受托人获悉，债务人通过其设在新西兰的喜马拉雅农场组织分支机构的成员个人来控制 GWGOPNZ。7 根据新西兰的公开记录，GWGOPNZ 的董事为 Xuebing Wang（王雪冰，下称“王先生”），系债务人的紧密关联人士。2023 年 1 月，王先生曾探访在受托人住所前的抗议者，当时他赞扬了抗议者的付出，向他们颁发了奖品，并代表“喜马拉雅联盟”表达了感谢。8\n\n14. 余先生同样作为主题被正当地纳入受托人的第 2004 条规则调查中。作为其参加诉讼动议的一部分，余先生（虚假地）声称自己是 HCHK Property Management, Inc.（“HCHK Property”）的出借人，受托人获悉该实体及其关联公司（合称“HCHK 实体”）系债务人的替身（alter egos）。参见《部分准许紧急单方申请临时限制令及初步禁令动议之命令》[HCHK 对抗性程序 ECF No. 18] 第 10-13 页（认定受托人至少对各项主张的实体胜诉可能性确立了实质性问题，包括 HCHK 实体系债务人的替身或由债务人实际拥有）。余先生与债务人的关联在 HCHK 对抗性程序的封存案卷中得到了进一步阐述。9\n\n3 G-Club 声称 Childe 先生是在债务人被捕后才在公司任职，即便属实，也不意味着 Childe 先生不掌握有助于受托人调查债务人财务状况的档和信息。\n\n4 在拟参加诉讼异议人中，余先生、1332156 B.C. 和 GWGOPNZ 已申请参加 HCHK 对抗性程序，而张女士则是根据〈联邦民事诉讼规则〉第 30(b)(6) 条指定的 GWGOPNZ 公司代表。\n\n5 参见《第 11 章受托人 (I) 支持根据〈破产规则〉第 9019 条就纽约法院转让程序下 HCHK 实体受让人达成和解之动议，以及 (II) 回应异议的综合答辩》[HCHK 对抗性程序 ECF No. 45]（“9019 答辩”）第 8(c) 段。6 参见 9019 答辩第 8(c) 段注 20。\n\n7 参见 9019 答辩第 8(b) 段。\n\n8 参见 9019 答辩第 8(b) 段。\n\n9 参见参加诉讼异议第 27-31 段。\n\n15. 与Mr. Yu（余先生）一样，曾担任GWGOPNZ Limited（GWGOPNZ有限公司）法人代表的Ms. Zhang（张女士），与债务人及与债务人相关的实体有着显而易见的联系。张女士的宣誓证词（在受托人的《干预异议书》第23-24段中有述）反映了此类联系。\n\n16. 拟干预异议人主张阻止受托人在其破产规则第2004条调取文件请求中提及他们，其目的是阻止受托人揭露他们可能进一步卷入债务人财务事务的情况——进而阻止揭露有关可能属于破产财产之财产的更多信息。该事项正是\n\n7 参见《第9019条答辩书》第8(b)段。\n\n8 参见《喜马拉雅联盟委员会主席王雪冰慰问抗议者》（Himalaya Alliance Committee Chairman Xuebing Wang visited protestors），YouTube，2023年2月1日，http\n\n9 参见，例如，Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）支持受托人反对拟干预人Shin Hsin Yu（余信新）、1332156 B.C. Ltd以及GWGOPNZ Limited（GWGOPNZ有限公司）干预附随诉讼之动议的异议的声明，附件P，第87:11-15页，第88:14-89:13页 [Adv. Proc. 23-05013 ECF No. 123]（封存提交）。\n\n应通过破产规则第2004条证据开示正当调查的核心内容。\n\n17. 因此，法院应驳回拟干预异议人的异议，并批准受托人的《第九次第2004条动议》。10\n\n[本页余下部分特意留白。]\n\n10 与余先生和张女士的《对第11章受托人依据破产规则第2004条及本地规则第2004-1条请求作出授权就更多相关银行进行证据开示的裁定的第八次补充综合动议的异议》[ECF 2319]（即“余/张异议”）不同，拟干预异议人对《第九次第2004条动议》的异议不包含有关通知或“待决诉讼”原则的抗辩理由。在拟干预异议人试图在《第九次第2004条动议》的听证会上提出此类抗辩的范围内，受托人通过引用并入其在《对余/张异议的答辩书》中就这些抗辩所作的回应（包括其对法院此前驳回此类抗辩的命令的讨论）。\n\n为此，鉴于各项异议在实体理由上不能成立，法院应当驳回各项\n\n异议，批准《第九次第2004条动议》，签署随附提交的拟定裁定，并授予\n\n法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2023年11月26日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\n第11章受托人LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯宾斯）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey  Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n美利坚合众国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人， :\n:\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。11 :\n: 联合审理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n送达证书\n\n下述签署人特此证明，于2023年11月26日，前述文件已通过电子方式提交。本提交件的通知已通过电子邮件发送给上述标题项下第11章案件中能够通过法院电子案件呈报（“CM/ECF”）系统接收电子通知的所有各方，或（在一个工作日内）通过美国邮政寄送给无法接收电子通知的任何各方。各方可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本提交件。\n\n日期：2023年11月26日 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯宾斯），以第11章受托人身份\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n签署人：\n/s/\nPatrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT,\nPEPE &\nMONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n11 本案第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok及其他多项化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（作为郭文贵破产财产受托人，仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n附件 A\n\n（2019年2月26日发给Andrew Childe等人的关于债务人相关实体的电子邮件）\n\nAndrew Willins\n\n发件人：Shaheba Levons <shaheba.levons@ffp.vg>\n\n发送时间：2020年11月05日 14:59\n收件人：Shaheba Levons\n主题：转发：利益冲突审查：新机会\n\n发件人：Hadley Chilton 发送时间：2019年2月26日 星期二 下午6:27 收件人：Michael Pearson ；Andrew Childe ；Richard Lewis；Chris Rowland ；Stephen Briscoe 主题：利益冲突审查：新机会\n\nhttp\n\n请告知我们在代表以下各方开展业务方面是否存在任何利益冲突：\n\nAlfonso Global Limited\n\nAlfa Global Ventures Limited\n\n祝好\n\nHadley J Chilton\n\nFFP\nwww.FFP.vg\n\n+1284 542 6076\n\n发件人：Lauren Williamson <lauren.williamson@walkersglobal.com>\n\n发送时间：2019年2月26日 星期二 下午6:19\n\n收件人：Hadley Chilton\n\n抄送：Oliver Clifton；Matthew Cowman；Stephen Briscoe；Trecia Vanterpool-Durrant\n\n主题：回复：外部 新机会\n\n外部邮件。请谨慎操作。\n\n非常感谢 Hadley","key_entities":["Je","HCHK","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Himalaya Alliance","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":18,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":45,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":119,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":123,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1960,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2308,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2319,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2326,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2331,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":2685,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:30:44"}