{"id":"court_ctb_2440_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2440,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"NOTICE","filed_date":"2023-12-18","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: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| --------------------------------------------------------x | --- | |\n\n# **NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE IN CONNECTION WITH DECEMBER 18, 2023 STATUS CONFERENCE REGARDING MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY FILED BY ALLEGED CUSTOMERS OF HIMALAYA EXCHANGE IN DEBTOR'S CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby provides notice that, on December 14, 2023, Mr. Bradford Geyer, counsel purportedly representing customers of the Himalaya Exchange, (i) filed a reply brief (the \"Reply\"), attached hereto (without its exhibits) as **Exhibit A**, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the \"Criminal Court\") in support of his clients' motion for return of property, and (ii) sent to counsel to the Trustee a letter (the \"Geyer Letter\"), attached hereto as **Exhibit B**, 2 threatening to file a motion for relief from stay in this Court \"to remove any and all issues related in any way to my clients as investors or depositers [*sic*] with the Himalaya Exchange and the Exchange itself from the bankruptcy case and lift the\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n2 The Geyer Letter was also attached by movants as an exhibit to the Reply filed in the Criminal Court.\n\nstay.\" 3 The Trustee intends to respond to certain arguments in the Reply through a filing in the Criminal Court and reserves all rights in response to both the Reply and Mr. Geyer's letter. In particular, the Trustee believes the lift-stay motion threatened in the Geyer Letter would have no merit and reserves all rights with respect thereto as well as with respect to any costs incurred in responding to any such motion. The Trustee further notes that, to the extent Mr. Geyer appears on behalf of his clients in this Court, he will need to identify his clients (which he has not done to date) in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 (and, of course, if Mr. Geyer has concerns with publicly disclosing his clients' identities, the Trustee is willing to confer with him to address such confidentiality concerns).\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank*]\n\n3 *See* Geyer Letter ¶ 6.\n\nDated: December 18, 2023 New York, New York 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*and*\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) 318-6000 [aviluft@paulhastings.com](mailto: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*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
:
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on December 18, 2023, the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n| Dated:
December
18, 2023 | LUC A. DESPINS, |\n|--------------------------------|--------------------|\n| New Haven, Connecticut | 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\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n**Reply**\n\n# **IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK**\n\n# **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant**\n\n **-v-**\n\n**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,\"**\n\n**KIN MING JE, a/k/a \"William Je,\" and**\n\n**YANPING WANG, a/k/a \"Yvette,\"**\n\n**Defendants.,**\n\n## **Defendant.**\n\nCriminal No.: 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n **REPLY OF THIRD PARTY CUSTOMERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED BY COMPLAINANT**\n\nCustomers of the Himalaya Exchange, by and through undersigned counsel, Bradford L. Geyer, Esq., whose investments in the Exchange have been seized as actions ancillary to the core criminal prosecution in this case, hereby file this REPLY to the Government's letter objection, in support of their Motion for the Return of Property Seized by the Complainant, United States of America.\n\n# **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n| I. | The Big Picture: Himalaya Exchange Thrown In As An After-Thought | 4 |\n|------|------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| II. | Parallel Chapter 11 Bankruptcy In Connecticut And Objection Here | 3 |\n| III. | Lack Of Jurisdiction Over The Himalaya Exchange | 6 |\n| IV. | Points Of Clarification: | 8 |\n\n| V. | Purported Customers Assertion: | 10 |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------|----|\n| VI. | Customer Data Safety Concerns: | 13 |\n| VII. | Doj's Responsibility For Customer Safety: | 18 |\n| VIII. | Data Protection And Legal Obligations: | 18 |\n| IX. | Hamalaya Exchange Not Part Of Bankruptcy Estate | 19 |\n| X. | Allegations Of Indictment Paragraph 21: | 32 |\n\nUndersigned counsel now represents in excess of 3,539 customers of the Himalaya Exchange (\"the Exchange\"), who hold Himalaya Dollar (HDO) and Himalaya Coin (HCN) cryptocurrency (\"Petitioners\"), [1](#page-33-0) but who have been prevented by the actions of the DOJ and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York from withdrawing their investments into hard currency removed from the Exchange, creating a total loss of their investment funds.\n\nUndersigned counsel addresses and replies to the Government's response to the Motion for Return of Property, dated December 7, 2023 [2](#page-33-0) (Attachment A - ECF 188) that counsel received without any discernible effort to engage in a meet-and-confer process after learning about the filing via Twitter.\n\n1 Undersigned counsel estimates represented Exchange customers will continue to increase as word of mouth reaches other victims who until now have never received notification from the Government about their funds being seized and it becomes clear that our intentions are authentic and genuine. Among the challenges that exist, many Exchange customers are fearful and ironically assume the U.S. government action may be a stalking horse for other governments.\n\n2 In light of the Government's Response, we will seek leave to amend the motion and proposed order for relief. The Government's Response confirms the need for this Court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction in this matter. The petitioners have no adequate remedy at law to protect their confidentiality and to ensure the return of their seized assets without the hardships outlined in their Motion that will be caused by extreme delay. See .\" De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)(\" (1) the movant has \"no adequate remedy at law\", and (2) \"the equities favor the exercise of jurisdiction.\" ) The petitioners require the Court's supervision over the actions of federal law enforcement officials.\" Id. at 382 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988) and Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)).\n\nThe U.S. Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") purports to be protecting the undersigned counsel's clients against being defrauded through the solution of the DOJ itself seizing counsel's clients' funds and depriving them of their investments. Thus, the DoJ is causing the harm they purport to be seeking to avoid. The DOJ is involved in conversion of counsel's client's investment funds into U.S. Treasury funds.\n\nThe DoJ's actions in this Court and others place the Honorable Presiding Judge in the uncomfortable position of likely causing a total loss of the funds of at least 3,539 investors and thousands of other investors, in the name of protecting them. The black eye to this Court that is developing of a total loss of the investment of those to be protected, which the DoJ is creating, is caused by directly seizing counsel's client's funds in the form of the Himalaya Exchange's reserve funds.\n\nIn addition to the loss of HDO stable coin funds, which is pegged 1:1 by the USD cash reserve, currently seized by the DoJ, counsel's clients have already incurred a substantial devaluation of \\$136M of their HCN trading coin value as a result of the seizure. Taking into account the price before seizure and the current price of the HCN, the difference is a \\$136M devaluation loss that clearly qualifies under Article 3 to approach this Honorable Court. This only relates to the current represented customers. If the HDO stable coin reserve is not restored to counsel's clients and the HCN value ends up at zero then the total loss/damages will amount to an estimated \\$329,737,812 exclusive of reserves. Undersigned counsel's clients hold both HDO coin and HCN coin balances. Therefore, the longer the delay in the resolution of repayment the greater the loss is likely to be to counsel's clients. If this is left as suggested by the DoJ until after the trial where the forfeiture procedure commences there is serious risk of irreparable harm to counsel's clients. If the HCN crashes to zero they will have lost all of their investment. The\n\nDoJ seemed to ignore this issue in their Response and fail to acknowledge the possible draconian consequences that are likely to flow from their ill-informed seizure.\n\n## **THE BIG PICTURE: HIMALAYA EXCHANGE THROWN IN AS AN AFTER-THOUGHT TO UNRELATED PROSECUTION**\n\nThe allegations in the indictment lodged with this Court concern various actions by Kwok and Je.\n\nThe Himalya Exchange, is a company organized and resident in the British Virgin Islands (\"BVIs\"), a country which became independent of the British Crown around 1850. Under the U.S.A.'s diplomatic positions and treaties and the Caribbean Basin Initiative, the U.S. Government is committed to respecting the sovereignty, independence, and importance of smaller countries like the BVIs.\n\nFurthermore, the indictment confesses that the Himalaya Exchange was created and is operated now under \"foreign based companies.\" Therefore, the Himalaya Exchange is not a U.S. company, but a company of the British Virgin Islands, an independent sovereign country. And the DOJ admits that it in turn is operated by \"foreign based companies.\"\n\nNot only is the Himalaya Exchange thrown into this mix as an after-thought, but it is distinctly different in that the U.S. Government has no jurisdiction over the Exchange. We have a complex series of many transactions involving many companies, and then the Exchange was simply pulled in for no discernible reason.\n\nThe only slender thread by which there is an attempt to bring the Exchange into this case at all are vague and legally unfounded concepts.\n\nThe indictment neither explicitly nor implicitly alleges any hint of wrongdoing by the Himalaya Exchange itself or any of the undersigned's clients.\n\nCuriously, the DOJ describes the Himalaya Exchange in the past tense. In fact, the Exchange is still operating, yet without the ability to redeem digital currency for hard currency because the DOJ is holding the reserve funds seized from the Exchange. Why the DOJ views the Exchange in the past tense is curious. Is this an awareness that the DOJ itself planned to kill off the Himalaya Exchange?\n\n## **PARALLEL CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY IN CONNECTICUT AND OBJECTION HERE**\n\nI also acknowledge the involvement of Bankruptcy Counsel representing the Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins and have enclosed a letter addressed to the same counsel today (Attachment B). The updated Motion for Return of Property, aims to streamline the issues, economize judicial resources, and prevent the creation of an ethical cloud over the criminal case.\n\nAdditionally, I raise concerns about potential compromises to counsel's client's confidentiality due to the Chinese connections of the Bankruptcy attorneys to its Chinese office (Attachment C : ECF 561). This is of great concern.\n\nThe Paul Hastings letter filed on behalf of Luc Despins (Attachment D -ECF 189 without notice or any meet-and-confer effort-) asserts that counsel's customer motion implicates property of the chapter 11 estate and claims that relief granted by the Honorable Court would violate the automatic stay. The bankruptcy is in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut.\n\nIt should be noted that the Trustee Luc Despins in the Connecticut Chapter 11 proceeding, although not speaking for himself but only through counsel at Paul Hastings who are not appointed as Trustees, is clearly engaged in massive \"churning\" of this case, requesting that\n\ncounsel's clients and others pay Despins' fees and expenses of **which he has made claims already in excess of \\$21 million**. Thus, it appears that those who are supposed to be protected by this case are in fact being plucked like chickens. The massive number of filings in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case and enormous fees and expenses being requested are no doubt likely to be paid out of customer funds if the Trustee oversees any fund distribution and are further reasons for concern by this Court. Please see the astronomical fees claimed by the trustee to date (Attachment E) and the highlighted text suggesting that the trustee has an concerning interest in counsel's clients' funds (Attachment E1)..\n\n### **LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE**\n\nIn this case here in this Court and in the Chapter 11 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, the DOJ is suffering from several major mistakes.\n\nThe Himalaya Exchange is based in the British Virgin Islands. It has no connection with the United States of America. The governing documents forbid any transaction with any U.S. resident or any person transacting on behalf of or as trustee or agent for any such person.\n\nTherefore, the DOJ has no jurisdiction over the Himalya Exchange or counsel's clients as they never committed any act or omission that would create U.S. jurisdiction.\n\nThere are no allegations that the Himalaya Exchange committed any act or omission that would create U.S. jurisdiction. While the indictment seems to be written to induce assumptions, none of the activities of the Himalaya Exchange took place within U.S. jurisdiction. If a Manhattan-based stock advisor recommended in his investment newsletter investing in biodiesel projects in the Bahamas, that would be the advisor's action. Being mentioned by a U.S. person would not be an act by the Bahamian company within the United States. By prohibiting any\n\ntransaction with the United States, the Himalaya Exchange makes clear that there is no jurisdiction by the United States of America and that the Exchange has been designed to prevent any jurisdiction of the U.S. Government over any of the Exchange's activities.\n\nTherefore, the DOJ has no jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange or counsel's clients. Indeed, in Paragraph 11 of the indictment (which we assume the DOJ wrote for the Grand Jury to sign), the DoJ writes\n\n#### **\"… Kwok held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\"**\n\nTherefore, the DoJ admits that nothing Kwok did or alleged against Kwok has any relevance to the Himalaya Exchange either as to its involvement in any fraud by Kwok, as any instrumentality of Kwok.\n\nInstead, the indictment confusingly and vaguely attempts to combine unrelated issues of Hon Wan Kwok (Miles Guo) and King Ming Je, to obscure and inter-mingle matters that do not apply to the Himalaya Exchange.\n\nFurthermore, while admitting that only Je has any relevance to the Himalaya Exchange, the DOJ through paragraph 11 of the indictment alleges that the Himalaya Exchange was\n\n## **\"founded and operated through various entities he [Je] owned, which were based abroad.\"**\n\nTherefore, the DOJ admits that at all times it knew and knows now that the Himalaya Exchange is outside of the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Not only are there no facts to bring the Himalaya Exchange within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, or the DOJ or SEC, but even the parent companies of the Exchange are \"based abroad.\"\n\nIn paragraph 11, the indictment vaguely makes obscure references to the idea that other Kwok / Guo entities had \"purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange.\"\n\nHowever, one does not describe any ownership relationship as a \"business relationship.\" A \"business relationship\" implies a lack of ownership and a lack of direct control, but instead an arm's length free-market transaction.\n\nFurthermore, of course there is nothing illegal or potentially illegal about a \"business relationship.\" And the nature of this comment is unexplained. Did the Exchange buy office supplies or left-over office furniture unwanted by other companies?\n\nNevertheless, the Himalaya Exchange is under the jurisdiction of the British Virgin Isles.\n\n#### **POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:**\n\nA second major mistake, related, of the DOJ's actions is failing to investigate that the roughly \\$335 million to \\$609 million (per the indictment's numbers) which the DOJ admits that it seized is beneficially owned by counsel's clients and other customers of the Exchange and is held in trust for counsel's clients and other customers. Using the indictment's numbers supplied by the DOJ, the indictment recites that DOJ seized \\$335 million from the Himalaya Exchange but then says DOJ later seized \\$274 million from both the Himalaya Exchange and G|Clubs together, without clarifying how much was seized from the Himalaya Exchange rather than from G|Clubs. Therefore, the indictment is unclear about the seizure from the Himalaya Exchange alone, but the Forfeiture bill of particulars (ECF 38 Attachment F) indicates a total of \\$302,081,718.48 for all Himalaya related accounts.\n\nThe DOJ has at every stage confused the Himalaya Exchange's funds as if they were the funds of the criminal Defendants in this case, Kwok and Je. The funds seized by the DOJ are the reserve funds guaranteeing counsel's clients' investment in the HDO digital currency.\n\nStrangely, the indictment tries to twist the reality that the reserve funds seized by DOJ are beneficially owned by counsel's clients and held in trust on their behalf into a basis for fraud.\n\nThis is no different from the fractional reserves of a bank to protect depositors, except that here the reserves are 100% of redemption value, not partial or fractional reserves.\n\nIf bank examiners observed that a bank was secured by \\$500 million in fractional reserves, then seized those reserves, forcing the bank into insolvency, they could not plausibly claim that the bank's promises to depositors were originally fraudulent because the government later seized the bank reserves, causing the problem.\n\nBy seizing the reserve fund of the Himalaya Exchange, the DOJ has destroyed the investments it is purporting to protect. Undersigned counsel's clients are incapable of converting their crypto currency investments into hard money by redeeming the digital HDO \"coins\" from the reserve fund. Thus, holders of the coins can trade HCN coins, but cannot withdraw their profit of those trades received in HDO into U.S. dollars and remove their money.\n\nThe DOJ attempts to hint at customer redemption being a false promise. In fact, based on the financial information provided, counsel's clients received a total of \\$26,772,727.65 in redemption to date into their own named bank accounts (redeeming HDO back into USD into their account). This is for the clients I represent and does not include other customers, therefore this figure is likely to be higher. This genuine and functioning process of redemption was interrupted only by the DOJ seizing the reserve fund from which redemptions are made.\n\nNow, however, the funds held in trust as reserves and pledged to investors like counsel's clients has been stolen from them and deposited in the U.S. Treasury instead. The Exchange has therefore not been able to redeem any money back to their customers as the reserve has been taken.\n\nWhile there may be some cause to ensure that the reserve funds will be used exclusively for their intended purpose of funding redemptions of investors wanting to withdraw their funds from the Exchange, perhaps putting a non-bankruptcy trustee in control of those funds, is one thing that cannot happen: The DOJ cannot engage in conversion of client funds for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury and the churning of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Further comments are made in relation to this below.\n\n### **PURPORTED CUSTOMERS ASSERTION:**\n\nBoth the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Trustee have insinuated the presence of alleged customers, suggesting that the customers implicated in the motion are fictional. This assertion is unequivocally rejected and, to say the least, deeply unsettling.[3](#page-33-0) Both entities claim to be safeguarding victims in distinct ways, and their entire proceedings hinge on this assumption. However, both have initiated a strategy to undermine the legitimate claims of actual victims. This strongly indicates their true motive, which is to seize and retain these funds through any available means. The anticipated approach would involve cooperation to promptly return these\n\n3 If the trustee has a concerning focus on my clients' money, the Government has a concerning focus on the iden�ty of my clients and we are asking this Honorable Court for assistance. The meet and confer, that was par�ally described correctly if it should have been described at all, and which lasted 42 minutes following the government being provided with a dra� of the filing, suggested a lack of concern about the sensi�vity of the personal informa�on. How personal informa�on is shared about my \"purported\" clients is a mater of great concern since the US Department of Jus�ce has proved a poor steward of personal informa�on even of its own employees. ECF 186 FN10. Here its likely the CCP government en�ty that compromised millions of clearance files of DOJ employees may have an even keener interest in Exchange customers iden��es. I can't state this more clearly: exchanging informa�on and repatria�ng the funds through the wrong procedure imperils my clients.\n\nfunds to victims as proposed in the motion, and avoiding the depletion of their funds through administrative and trustee fees. Instead, they have opted for a narrative that accuses victims of falsehoods and cite legal technicalities and case law to justify their inaction. None of these arguments hold any merit upon examination and do not offer reasonable justifications for their conduct.\n\nThe creation of a smokescreen to divert attention from the core facts should be approached with extreme caution. No compelling reasons supported by actual evidence have been provided to justify withholding these funds. In a case of this nature, one would expect the prosecuting authority to adopt an approach that aids and expedites assistance to victims with methods which do not engage depleting those Funds with extortionate admin or legal fees . However, they have taken an adversarial stance inconsistent with their professed commitment to protecting victims.\n\nThe problem in this circumstance and the motion filed by the undersigned's clients and the issue before the Court is the improper seizure of the reserve fund. The DOJ must release the entire Himalaya Exchange reserve fund as a whole.\n\nIt is really no concern of this Court or the DOJ how the Himalaya Exchange conducting regular business according to its business obligations and legal governing documents carries out its normal business of redeeming digital coin from that reserve fund. The claim before the Court is that the reserve fund was improperly seized and should be returned to the custody of the Exchange operating under the laws and authority of the British Virgin Islands' Government.\n\nOtherwise, the DOJ would have to recreate the function of the Exchange in processing individual redemptions of digital coins to many thousands of Exchange customers. That is what the Exchange does. We are not asking the DOJ to go into the cryptocurrency business.\n\nTherefore, it is unnecessary for the DOJ or this Court to concern itself with the identity of the depositors / investors who have a claim against the reserve fund. Maybe the DOJ might conceivably have an interest in whether any of the depositors / investors in digital coin at the Himalaya Exchange are actually the same persons as the Defendants whom the DOJ is prosecuting or their agents. But that would not justify any of the DOJ's actions or the seizure of the reserve fund. The DOJ cannot seize an entire bank and impoverish 99.99999% of its depositors on the mere possibility that 2 of the depositor accounts might belong to people they are prosecuting. The focus can only be on the actual Defendants, not everyone else.\n\nIn fact, however, questions about the Exchange customers are easily answered and laid to rest – without waiving of course jurisdictional objections. But the insinuations lose sight of the situation. The issue is that the DOJ had no authority to seize the reserve funds in the first place, nor does it have the right to interrogate individual Exchange customers.\n\nEnclosed is a letter from Candey, an independent legal firm appointed by the Exchange, confirming their commitment to overseeing the selection of an independent forensic accounting firm (Attachment G). This firm will conduct an audit to verify the authenticity of the Himalaya account number (\"HID\") provided by counsel's clients upon retaining legal services against the Himalaya Exchange database and verify records exist for them. This report will be ready on December 21 2003 and will be filed with the Court. Similar to a bank account number, this HID is unique to each customer account and was a requisite when consenting to the legal retainer for\n\nrepresentation. It cannot be arbitrarily generated and is known exclusively to the Himalaya account holder.\n\nA comprehensive list of HIDs, completing the consent form for the Exchange to release their financial information, has been submitted to the Exchange along with the requested information for each customer, which had been received prior to the filing of the motion . Simultaneously, counsel's clients have submitted five (5) interim victim witness statements during this period. [Himalaya Customer Statements \\(Subtitles\\) -](http) YouTube . This will in due course be followed proper affidavits and other information needed. These are a small group who at great risk have put themselves forward to be representatives of fellow customers, many of whom are counsel's clients. This is the normal course followed in class actions. The victims should not have to face procedural hurdles outside the norm in a case where they risk serious harm.\n\n#### **CUSTOMER DATA SAFETY CONCERNS:**\n\nIn response to heightened concerns regarding the security of customer data, the Exchange was requested to furnish an illustrative instance underscoring these apprehensions. As part of the compliance protocol, customers undergo ID verification and an AI facial recognition process facilitated by the independent service provider, Jumio. An alarming Jumio photograph was discovered within a customer's application, revealing potential threats directed at an individual attempting to register using her details. The attached image depicts a man brandishing a knife behind a woman applying for a customer account, prompting serious concerns about customer safety.\n\nThis unsettling discovery serves as compelling evidence of the extent to which suspicious actors are willing to go in an attempt to masquerade as genuine customers. Moreover, it raises awareness of the potential threats faced by Chinese dissidents in various scenarios. If these actors are willing to resort to such extremes for onboarding, it begs the question of the potential risks when they identify the actual customers on the Exchange. The responsibility of the Department of Justice (DoJ) is called into question, considering the serious harm to individuals that could result from any leaked data. The presented evidence is a tangible example, indicating that the fears expressed by counsel's clients are not mere exaggerations but genuine concerns. The urgency of the situation prompts reflection on whether the DoJ will recognize the gravity of the issue before irreparable damage occurs.\n\n\n\n\n\n| | User Details | |\n|--|--------------|--|\n| | | |\n\n| ID | 11efb5eb-0127-4cb5-abed-4ec501c3f5bd | ENABLED | |\n|----------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------|--|\n| DATE CREATED | Sunday, February 6, 2022 | APPROVED | |\n| DISPLAY NAME | | DELETED | |\n| USER TYPE | V
Individual | LOCKED OUT | |\n| FIRST/MIDDLE NAME | | STOP DEPOSITS | |\n| LAST NAME | | STOP TRADING | |\n| FULL NAME | | STOP
WITHDRAWALS | |\n| BIRTH DATE | | FORCED TO
CHANGE PASS | |\n| E-MAIL
ADDRESS/USERNAME | mail.com | 2-FACTOR
AUTHENTICATION | |\n| MOBILE PHONE | | ONLINE | |\n| ADDRESS LINE 1 | | ABLE TO ACCESS
API KEYS | |\n| ADDRESS LINE 2 | | | |\n| RESIDENCE COUNTRY | >
Tawan | | |\n| CITY | | | |\n| STATE | Flease Select State V | | |\n| POST CODE | | | |\n| CITIZENSHIP COUNTRY | >
Taiwan | | |\n| ID DOCUMENT NUMBER | | | |\n| COMMENTS | 11 | | |\n| LAST COMMENT BY | | | |\n| FAILED LOGIN ATTEMPTS O | | | |\n\n| | 16 |\n|--|----|\n\n| Home > Users > Risk Scoring:
Risk Scoring: | | mail.com
@gmail.com
the state the state of the same of the state of the states of the states and | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|--|\n| | | Profile WhiteListed IPs Risk Scoring Security Question
Supporting Documents | | |\n| INTERNAL ID | HRSMJMT | | | |\n| MANUALRISKSCORE | | Sava | | |\n| TOTAL RISK SCORE | | | | |\n| RISK LEVEL | | | | |\n| COMPLYADVANTAGE
HITS | | | | |\n| COMPLYADVANTAGE
UNK | ComplyAdvantage Link | | | |\n| VERIFICATION
APPLICATION STATUS | Pending | | | |\n| CATEGORY | | | Save & Inform User | |\n| NUMBER OF ATTEMPT TO
JUMIO | Reset | | | |\n\n| DATE & TIME | FULL NAME | | ROLE | |\n|---------------------|---------------|---------------|------|--|\n| 216/2022 2:54:46 AM | Auto (System) | Auto (System) | | |\n\n| QUESTION SORT ORDER | QUESTION | ANSWER |\n|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|\n| 10 | Place of birth | |\n| 11 | Citizenship on the document | Talwan |\n| 12 | Please tell us about your current employment status. | |\n| 13 | Please tell us about your occupation or business activity. | |\n| 14 | Please tell us about business you may conduct in other country(s) besides where you
are registered for tax purposes? | |\n| 15 | Is your individual activity or business registered or conducted in preferential tax zone
(for instance, free economic zone, offshore jurisdiction)? | |\n| ા ક | Please tell us about your annual turnover, in individual or business activity, which is
handled in cash. | |\n| 17 | Please tell us about your annual turnover, in individual or business activity, which is
handled in cryptocurrency. | |\n| 18 | Please tell us about your source(s) of income funds. Select more than one box if
necessary. | |\n| 19 | Please tell us about your source(s) of wealth? Select more than one box if necessary. | |\n| 20 | Please select the service(s) you plan to use. Select more than one box if necessary. | |\n| 21 | How much do you plan to deposit per year (USD and crypto combined)? | |\n| 22 | Please tell us which countries the funds will be received and/or transferred from. | |\n| 23 | Let us know what your level of experience is with cryptocurrency trading? Please select
one: | |\n\n# **DOJ'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR CUSTOMER SAFETY:**\n\nThe DOJ needs to consider these safety concerns seriously rather than suggesting the existence of false customers due to nondisclosure of full names. The unique Himalaya account number (HID) will be disclosed when there are safeguards in place as suggested. Each unique HID is linked to a genuine customer/real person holding a Himalaya Exchange account. After seizing assets and placing customers at high risk, the DOJ has a responsibility to safeguard individuals potentially at risk due to their actions.[4](#page-33-0)\n\n## **DATA PROTECTION AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS:**\n\nThe Exchange emphasized to me that by providing this image to me as requested by counsel's clients that it does not waive any obligations under data protection, legal requirements, privilege, or any other legal rights it holds. This disclosure aims to enhance understanding of the real threats faced by innocent victims. Proper legal procedures must be followed to request any additional material or customer information.\n\nIn addition to the Government's response (ECF 188 Attachment A) and the Bankruptcy Trustee's lawyer which was filed immediately after in this Court (ECF 189 Attachment D), the Trustee also seems to have filed a motion in the bankruptcy court in Connecticut on December 8,\n\n4 [Atorney General Guidelines for Vic�m and Witness Assistance, 2022 Edi�on | Office for Vic�ms of Crime](http) [\\(ojp.gov\\)](http) Privacy Considera�ons for Vic�ms and Witnesses page 5.\n\n2023 (ECF 2425 Attachment H), raising different reasons and omitting the implication of chapter\n\n11 property or violation of an automatic stay. The Trustee's motion emphasizes the leadership of\n\nthe Debtor over Himalaya Exchange entities and ongoing reviews of the Motion's impact on the\n\nchapter 11 case:\n\n\"As the Court will recall, the Court previously found, in connection with its order granting a preliminary injunction against the Debtor and certain related parties, that Himalaya Exchange and various other affiliated Himalaya entities are \"all under the leadership of the Debtor\" and \"business vehicles for the Debtor.\" The Trustee also notes that numerous proofs of claims have been filed in this chapter 11 case asserting claims based on \"investments\" in or with Himalaya Exchange.\n\nThe Trustee is reviewing the Motion and evaluating next steps. Given that the Motion, if granted, would interfere with the administration of this chapter 11 case, including as it relates to the resolution of claims and the distribution of estate property, the Trustee is available the Court's discretion, to the extent the Court wishes to schedule a status conference on this matter.\" (footnotes omitted) [5](#page-33-0)\n\n# **HAMALAYA EXCHANGE NOT PART OF BANKRUPTCY ESTATE**\n\nThe Bankruptcy trustee lacks the authority and jurisdiction to intervene in the motion\n\npresented by the undersigned counsel in this esteemed Court, and their request should be rejected\n\nfor the following reasons:\n\na) After a thorough review of the bankruptcy case dockets no such judgment referred to has been found declaring that the Himalaya Exchange or the stable coin reserve funds, initially held in trust by the Himalaya Exchange for its customers and now seized by the DoJ, are part of the Chapter 11 estate.\n\n5 Atachment H (ECF 2425 Trustee Mo�on For Return)\n\n- b) If these assets were indeed part of the Chapter 11 estate, there is no order from the Bankruptcy Court, as evident from the docket or presented to this Court, confirming this status.\n- c) There is no evidence or any proper reasoning that any of counsel's clients or the motion itself would interfere with the administration of the chapter 11 estate. Serious complaints will be raised if it is asserted that any of them have engaged or attempted to engage in any conduct or that this motion in anyway amounts to interference to the Trustee or the DoJ. These Victims have a right to be fairly heard and have due process of their motion without being targeted and tarnished with historic events related to the injunction. All of counsel's clients are located outside of the U.S and have exercised their right to claim their legitimate money by instructing a Lawyer and have not warranted any suggestion of interference. It is their money and they have legal right to claim it back. There is no justified reason for this assertion to be made and again highlights the bold stance made by this Trustee based on running a narrative to divert the fact there is no real proper basis for his interference in their claim.\n- d) During a recent hearing concerning the Mawah Mansion, the Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins expressed his intention to administer the Exchange funds seized by the DoJ, as highlighted in the attached transcript (ECF 2174 Attachment I; pages 24-29). Regardless of the wisdom behind allowing the bankruptcy attorney to administer the funds, it is evident that he currently lacks the authority to manage these funds, and there is no indication that the funds are part of the Estate. The representations made to this Court in the Paul Hastings\n\nletter appear to be misleading and inaccurate. This is further supported by the fact that the motion to the Bankruptcy Court does not reference the Exchange, its assets, or customer funds as part of the chapter 11 estate.\n\n- e) So there are also serious concerns after the comments made by the trustee in relation to obtaining access to the entire amount of the seizure in the criminal case and acting as receiver and using the blueprint of the Mawah Mansions to obtain more money for the estate. It is very clear from the narrative of the document that he seems to be persuading the court that he can act as the receiver of the DOJ seized funds and bring those funds into the bankruptcy court for administration.\n- f) This narrative raises serious concerns about a trustee charging substantial fees, claiming that these fees are derived from the sale of the house namely \\$1m will be part of the estate and the house is being sold to assist the Department of Justice (DOJ) in securing and liquidating real property. The trustee suggests that this action is necessary due to the difficulty the DOJ would face in seizing the property. Additionally, there is open discussion in court about funds from a criminal case that are irrelevant to the estate's jurisdiction. It is crucial to emphasize that counsel's client's funds do not belong to the estate, and there seems to be a premeditated effort to create questionable circumstances with motives aimed at implying a connection to Kwok.\n- g) The comments made by the trustee in this docket are evidently prejudicial and detrimental to the victims' claims. The trustee discusses that the Bankruptcy Court and him can decide on who has a claim and who is a victim, bearing in\n\nmind he has no involvement in the criminal trial or any of the evidence. In effect he want to indirectly be allowed to decide which facts he wants to take into account in this assessments without any proper safe guards and requirements of actual evidence. His indication that counsel's clients'Fund could be distributed to other creditors is highly inappropriate in itself in a case of this nature where each customer has a easily identifiable accounts and balances in order to distribute the funds distribution of client funds poses significant risks of loss to extortionate legal fees and other third parties lacking legal rights to these funds.\n\n- h) The improper seizure of counsel's client's funds, specifically the Mawah Mansions, and other funds seized by the Government, is directly linked to the ongoing criminal case. This Court not only possesses the necessary authority but also the capability to address the administration and distribution of these seizures. The DOJ has permitted the trustee to intervene in matters exclusive to this case by either remaining silent and taking no action and all or claiming priorityOver Himalaya exchange reserve funds to that of the Trustee. The Trustee's strategic plan, formulated well before any adverse jury finding, raises serious concerns about diverting funds from innocent victims based on a perceived connection to Kwok, creating a prejudicial situation. The Trustee's apprehension about this motion or counsel's clients interfering with the Ch11 Estate adds further cause for concern.\n- i) We respectfully request the Court's intervention to prevent the trustee from interfering with the seizures in this case.\n- j) Furthermore, Luc Despins would face a conflict of interest in administering counsel's client's funds without their or undersigned counsel's consent. The unique statutory authority of a bankruptcy trustee requires consent in other contexts. Regardless of the perspective, the funds held by the Exchange were in trust for clients as beneficiaries and do not fall within the estate.\n- k) The primary concern before this esteemed Court is the return of legitimate Customer Funds. This money does not belong to Kwok, who is the subject of the the chapter 11 estate. The estate lacks the authority or legal basis to claim ownership or administer the funds. The ownership, control, or leadership of the Himalaya Exchange has no bearing on these customer reserve funds.\n- l) Please refer to audit reports and the balance of the seizures from the Himalaya accounts (Attachments J and K). These audit reports confirm customer stable coin reserve funds held in trust by the Himalaya Exchange for the HDO, of which counsel's clients are the owners. The petitioners are the beneficiaries of this trust, and only the customers have the legal right to claim this money. The DOJ seizure related to the Himalaya Exchange accounts appears to comprise of the HDO stable coin reserves, and the best evidence suggests that all the money belongs to counsel's clients. It is unclear how these funds were used as instrumentalities of the crimes. These funds essentially remain in these accounts until HDO is redeemed, and the customers are paid in US dollars by financial institutions.\n- m) Before the seizure, customers regularly redeemed their HDO, and the funds for these redemptions were paid from the stable coin reserve held by the Exchange.\n\nRegardless of the perspective, this money does not constitute part of the Exchange's assets, property, or revenue. The Exchange has no ownership rights, proprietary claims, or the right to use the money for any purpose other than redeeming it upon the customer's request. Customers purchased HDO as a stable coin backed by USD \\$1: 1 x HDO.\n\n- n) The Exchange's governing rules also indicate that a reserve of hard currency would be held by the Exchange for every HDO sold, hence the hard currency equivalent. Customers essentially purchased a product comprising HDO backed by a hard currency cash reserve, and the product is the cryptocurrency coin attached to the reserve.\n- o) The DOJ's seizure from the Himalaya account seizures is just short of the stable coin reserve total indicated in the audit reports. The last audit report was conducted just weeks before the seizure. The best evidence suggests that all the money of which counsel's clients are beneficiaries is there, maintained by the Exchange in properly safeguarded accounts, and it is not clear how these funds were used as instrumentalities of the crimes. These funds essentially remain in these accounts until HDO is redeemed, and the customers are paid in US dollars by financial institutions.\n- p) At its core, the primary theory of this case is simple: like any asset that serves as security for a loan or obligation, the funds seized by the DOJ are not free and clear. They are pledged to counsel's clients and held in trust for the benefit of the Himalaya Exchange depositors, investors, and customers. These funds guarantee counsel's client's rights to redeem their digital coins, convert them\n\ninto hard currency, and withdraw their investments as normal banking funds or currency.\n\nq) Importantly, recent regulations worldwide promote setting stable coin reserves at 100%, as evident from the funds seized and the total reserve indicated in the audit report, confirming the reserve being held by the Exchange in proper bank accounts at 100%. An example of that development in regulation can be found at [http](http)[1693986077.](http) Therefore, the DOJ and the Chapter 11 Trustee have made the serious mistake of confusing the reserve fund held by the Exchange as being *profit* owned by the criminal Defendants as their personal funds rather than a reserve fund for the benefit of investors like counsel's clients.\n\nThe trustee lacks jurisdiction to assert that these funds fall within the Chapter 11 estate, even if it were determined that the Himalaya Exchange is part of it, which it is not. The funds seized by the DOJ do not belong to the estate any more than a bank would have proprietary rights over money deposited by its customers. Therefore, the motion has been appropriately filed in the correct court and forum, and there are no grounds for it to be considered within the Chapter 11 estate or that it violates an automatic stay. Consequently, the trustee's motion should be denied.\n\n> a) It is a matter of serious concern that the trustee has referenced an unrelated injunction application concerning different matters to assert that the Exchange and its customers (i.e., the clients represented by\n\nundersigned counsel) are under the leadership of Miles Guo. Undersigned counsel denies this claim, representing customers who reject this farfetched fabrication, that the motion is potentially crafted to cause interference. It is submitted that this appears to be the motivation of the Trustee rather than innocent victims.\n\n- b) As an illustrative example, Dr. Martin Luther King was the acknowledged leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, yet it did not imply that Dr. King had command, control, ownership, influence, or a financial stake in the operations of any specific Baptist Church considering itself part of the civil rights movement.\n- c) Leadership in a freedom and liberty movement does not constitute evidence, nor does it imply any form of ownership, over customer stable coin funds held in trust by the Exchange, for which the customers are the sole legal beneficiaries. No other party worldwide has the right to claim, use, or distribute these funds.\n- d) However, the DOJ proceeded to confiscate these funds from counsel's clients without any prior notice or explanation. This action is unrelated to the actions or conduct of these customers, and suggesting that innocent victims of DOJ seizures, residing outside the U.S., would interfere with the administration of the Chapter 11 estate is not only a manipulative use of facts to create a false illusion of interference but is also defamatory towards these victims. It appears that the trustee is attempting to infer conduct that is the subject of a historic injunction\n\nand historic acts alleged by others and applying that as a basis or evidence that will or likely will interfere. These victims have the right to be heard and make their motion, and the focus should be on the trustee's interference in this motion, not on the innocent victims themselves.\n\n- e) The customers bringing forth this Motion have not engaged in any acts or actions that warrant such accusations and public defamation (the filings are publicly available) in this manner.\n- f) They have followed the proper legal procedures and engaged legal representation, as is their right, to receive due process without being subjected to such conduct. The Trustee's application and the representations made by the DoJ in their reply strongly suggest an attempt to prevent the court from hearing this Motion by using strategic false tactics, reflecting not only impropriety but also collusion between them. The DoJ, with the ability to assert priority over the seized funds, remains silent, allowing this course of events to continue, which benefits their case\n- g) Examination of the case dockets indicates that the Trustee has repeatedly employed this rhetoric in relation to other defendants, seemingly confident that the Court will accept it at face value and assume that Exchange customers, including those represented by undersigned counsel, have or will engage in similar actions.\n- h) Even if these assertions were true, they do not constitute grounds for the Court to reject hearing the motion. The claim that this motion amounts\n\nto interference lacks substance and legal standing. The Trustee lacks a declaration that the Exchange and its Customer funds form part of the estate, and the possession of the funds lies with the DOJ. The Court is urged to scrutinize this matter carefully and not allow innocent victims to be subjected to such defamatory behavior. The Trustee has not presented any evidence to suggest that Himalaya Exchange customers, particularly those represented in this motion, have engaged in any acts warranting suspicion or accusation of interference.\n\n- i) They have the right to make the motion, be heard, and claim their money. It is reprehensible to characterize this, along with other suggestions, as interference.\n- j) They are victims of the seizure seeking the return of their money, which is their investment in the Exchange and is not within the ownership rights of the Trustee's estate.\n\nConsidering this conduct, the Trustee exhibits clear bias and prejudice against the Exchange customers and is not suitable to administer any Exchange funds.\n\nAdditional concerns include the potential distribution of customer money to other creditors first and the allocation of their money towards the Trustee's legal fees. This is evidence in the comments made in the Bankruptcy Court referred to above.\n\nEach customer's claim to the seized funds is traceable to their HDO balance on the Exchange, and only they should receive this money back. The Trustee and DoJ representations of distribution are inappropriate and indicate the transfer of one victim's easily identifiable money\n\nto another. This conduct is distasteful, manipulative, and an abuse of the court process, attempting to unfairly tarnish this innocent group of customers.\n\nThis Court possesses the authority to handle these funds, and the Trustee brings no added value or process aside from claiming fees and depleting Customer Funds.\n\nThe reliance on received claims lacks merit, as those claims can easily be presented to this Court and addressed accordingly.\n\nThe customer Motion suggests a more secure and cost-effective way to ensure the protection of customer funds from depletion with minimal deductions.\n\nAs a result of the seizures the DoJ would have obtained bank records from the bank holding the Exchanges reserves. The DoJ likely has access to bank records and KYC information for a vast number of customers, with evidence of customer deposits and hard currency redemptions in the Exchange bank statements. This information supports the customer's motion and shows the DOJ is aware there are numerous genuine customers. This against the backdrop of the representations about \"purported\" customers falls short of reasonable nor does it reflect any empathy.\n\nExamining the history of this Trustee and claimed legal fees raises further concerns. There appears to be a no-notice hearing where \\$37 million in funds belonging to the Exchange, loaned to another party as security until the return of a yacht, were accepted by the Court and the Trustee as security. The boat was returned, yet the security was not released. Once the boat was returned, the Trustee changed tact and then claimed that the third party Company was an alter ego of Miles Guo and, therefore, the loaned money now belonged to the Estate. The Court granted the application, and the estate received the entirety of the security funds. [6](#page-33-0) Immediately\n\n6 Atachment G1\n\nafterward, the trustee applied for legal fees and was granted approximately \\$11 million in legal fees out of the \\$37M money belonging to the Exchange and counsel's clients.\n\nDuring the legal proceedings, the Trustee asserted that the Exchange could pursue damages against him in case of future disputes. While the merits of these motions are not explicitly argued or evaluated, there is a reasonable basis to express apprehension regarding the conduct involved. Specifically, concerns arise when an agreement designates the Funds as a security, and later, the Company receiving these funds becomes part of the estate. Instead of repaying the loan, the estate allows the trustee to assert a \\$11 million claim for his legal fees, encompassing his initial fees since commencement hence an inference this conduct was adopted to claim his legal fees as there was no money in the estate to pay them This matter is brought to attention, particularly because a similar action has now commenced in relation to Himalaya Exchange customer funds, raising legitimate concerns about the potential change in status of customer money under the Trustee's administration.\n\nThe concern is substantiated and supported by statements made during the hearing, as referenced in the transcript (Attachment I) where the trustee indicates that the Bankruptcy process will determine who has a valid claim and who is considered a victim. Such conduct is a cause for serious concern. To further support this argument, it is noted that, even at that juncture, the Trustee did not assert that the Exchange and its customer funds were part of the estate. The docket notes, which are voluminous, have not been included in this communication but can be provided upon request.\n\nNo notice of any of these proceedings was given to the Exchange or its customers to contest. The trustee then collaborated with the DoJ to sell the Mahwah mansion detailed in the indictment and agreed to a stipulation with the DoJ to sell the house, retaining \\$1 million in fees\n\nfor doing so, with the remainder placed in escrow to be distributed and decided between them later. This is contested by the Taurus Fund, the actual owner of the house.\n\nThere appears to be no pressing reason to sell the house other than the advantage of the trustee receiving fees. While the merits of the above occurrences are not argued, this is raised to provide examples illustrating a clear running theme of the Trustee claiming exorbitant legal fees and depleting estate assets. This fact is relevant to the customer funds, which he now wants to claim. Additionally, he recently presented a bill to the Court for millions in legal fees before moving on to the customer action. There is a genuine fear that customers will receive nothing back if this matter is passed to the Trustee, placing them at the bottom of a list of legal fees and other creditors being paid first.\n\nBoth the trustee and DOJ suggest the customers are purported customers, implying that the customers are not genuine. This is denied and is a highly inappropriate allegation leveled against counsel representing them, suggesting collusion with the Exchange to fabricate the entire motion. Please refer to the link of a video provided by some customers sharing their stories. The Exchange lawyers have also provided a letter confirming that the Exchange has instructed them to oversee an independent forensic accounting and audit firm to audit the list of customers making this motion. A report will be provided and filed by December 21st 2023.\n\nThere are serious concerns about the delay in customers getting their funds returned. Customers hold two types of assets: HDO, the stable coin, and HCN, the trading coin. The current seizures relate to the HDO stable coin reserve. Some customers have balances of both, and some only have balances of HCN. In any case, they can only realize any value from their HCN by selling it and receiving HDO. If the HCN value drops to zero, they lose their entire asset. Currently, the HCN asset is devalued by \\$136 million. This is the total HCN balance by the\n\ncurrent customers taking action, accounting for the depreciation in price from the coin price on the date prior to seizure to the current average fluctuating price. If something is not done soon there is a real risk of irreparable harm resulting in substantial losses to counsel's client and other customers.\n\nThe timing of the bankruptcy trustee's submission that customer funds fall within the Chapter 11 estate, only when a motion is filed by customers to claim their funds, is also highly suspicious.\n\nConsidering that this indication has never been made to this Court before, no application has been filed in the Bankruptcy Court despite awareness of the Exchange for a substantial period, and the fact that he acknowledged the Exchange could claim damages regarding him taking legal fees, it strongly implies that there was no suggestion the Exchange and its customer funds formed part of the estate until the customer motion was filed.\n\nThis action appears not to be bona fide and does not align logically. There is a strong suspicion that the Trustee has filed these motions to claim more legal fees and assist the DoJ in derailing the motion, preventing investors like counsel's clients from being protected.\n\n#### **ALLEGATIONS OF INDICTMENT PARAGRAPH 21:**\n\nIncredibly, the DOJ-drafted indictment argues in paragraph 21 that \"Moreover, unlike cryptocurrencies, HCN could not be traded for, or converted into, other currencies.\" But the DOJ itself seized the reserve fund by which the digital coins could be converted into other currencies. It is the DOJ's improper actions that are the reason that the investors are being prevented from redeeming their coins into U.S. dollars.\n\nIn paragraph 22 of the DOJ-written indictment, the DOJ offers a word salad stew.\n\nHaving already admitted that Kwok had no role with the Himalaya Exchange in paragraph 11, and claiming that the Exchange was operated by \"foreign based\" companies by Je without specifics, the DOJ then tries to sell us on the idea that Kwok (with no control over the Exchange) and Je transferred \\$37 million to buy a yacht that Kwok had already bought.\n\nAlthough this explanation is opaque, at worst the implication of this would be that the Exchange would be the new owner of the yacht as a tangible investment. From the Court dockets there was a clear agreement that this was a security until the boat was retuned and a Court order made to that effect. Once it did return the Trustee decided to claim that the boat company who received the loan was in fact the alter ego of Kwok and therefore the money belonged to the estate. The Court made an order against its own previous order where it accepted the \\$37M was third party money , which was always held in an escrow account and not an account belonging to the Trust and or estate.\n\nHowever, during this discussion, the DOJ effectively admits that the Exchange Funds were in fact independent of any other business entity of the defendants. It is admitted that the Exchange as an independent entity loaned money to a Kwok entity, secured by a valuable asset. Dated: December 15, 2023 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n/s/ Jamie Scher Jamie Scher NY 2488435 Myer and Scher LLP 377B South Oyster Bay Road Plainview, NY 118013 Jamie@myerandscher.com (516) 713-0655\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby cer�fy that on December 15, 2023, a true and accurate copy of the forgoing was electronically filed and served through the ECF system of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S. 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n| Atachment | Descrip�on of Annex | Title/Relevant Cita�on/Page
Number |\n|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| Atachment A | Government response to the Mo�on
for Return of Property (7 Dec 2023) | (ECF 188) -
Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT
Document 188 |\n| | | Page 1 and Page 2 |\n| Atachment B | Leter in reply to the trustee
objec�ons to the mo�on for the
return of property –
Brad Geyar. | n/a |\n| Atachment C | The Debters Mo�on for relief from
order Appoin�ng Luc Despins. | (DOC 561
) -
Case 22-50073
(JAM)
Doc 561 |\n| Atachment D | Bankruptcy Trustee's lawyer (Paul
Has�ngs
leter) filed on behalf of Luc
Despins on 8 Dec 2023 | (ECF
189) -
Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT |\n| Atachment E | Luc Despins/ Paul Hastings fees and
Expenses. | Case 22-50073 Doc 2256
Pg 3
Onwards |\n| Atachment E1 | Transcript (highlighted)
August 29, 2023 | (ECF 151-3) Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT |\n| Atachment F | Governments Forfeiture Bill of
Particulars | (ECF 38) -
Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT
Document 38 |\n| Atachment G | Letter from Candeys Solicitors
December 12, 2023 | |\n| Atachment G1 | Transcript
June 29, 2023 | Case 22-50073 Doc 1985 |\n| Atachment H | Bankruptcy counsel represen�ng
Chapter 11 trustee Luc Despins | (ECF 2425) -
Case 22-50073 Doc
2425 |\n| Atachment I | Transcript
August 29, 2023 | (ECF 2174) -
Case 22-50073 Doc
2174 |\n| Atachment J | Aramino Audit
December 20, 2021 | Pages 24-
29 |\n| Atachment K | Aramino Audit
August 10, 2022 | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2440 Filed 12/18/23 Entered 12/18/23 09:17:11 Page 41 of 52\n\n# **Exhibit B**\n\n**Letter**\n\n\n\nNick A. Bassett, Esq. December 14, 2023 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Email: [nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com](mailto:nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com)\n\nDear Mr. Bassett:\n\nI have received a copy of your filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut and letter to Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\nBefore proceeding with public pleadings and filings I thought I would write to you by letter and consult and ask for your client's position. I do not mean that this letter or other communication might not at some point become public as part of a filing. What I do mean is that perhaps Luc Despins and others might discuss these matters to reach agreement on some issues before proceeding to motions. I believe that in several of these contexts we are encouraged or required to minimize the burden on the Courts' time by determining what issues a court might need to resolve and what can be resolved without court time.\n\n1. Initially, I am not sure in what role I am addressing you as Luc Despin's counsel. As Bankruptcy Trustee, Luc Despins is responsible to manage the bankruptcy estate under Chapter 11 of the bankrupt petitioner (or involuntary petitioner), report to the Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut, and carry out the duties of the Trustee as are standard or ordered by the Court. As I understand it, Luc Despins is applying for a\n\n\n\nshocking, astronomical sum of money for his fees. Therefore, presumably he is qualified to do this work of Trustee if only for a tiny fraction of the fees that he has requested. Therefore, I do not understand why the Trustee is not speaking for himself, or why I or others should not be addressing the Trustee directly. A Trustee is entitled to consult and receive legal advice, but it is different for counsel for the Trustee to speak or communicate in place of the Trustee. I am beginning here but I believe in the future I will be interacting with the Trustee as Trustee. Please help with some guidance as to your role.\n\n- 2. Also, in a court transcript Luc Despins argues that he will participate not only as the Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee but will also participate in court proceedings in an indictment against Ho Wan Kwok. I believe this would be a disqualifying conflict of interest. Has Mr. Despins obtained agreement to represent my clients' interests in any case related to these matters? It is clear law that a trustee has a fiduciary duty to everyone according to their legal rights and roles. By operation of law, the bankruptcy trustee may seek resolutions that balance the rights of all creditors and claimants. However, in other courts and other contexts, Mr. Despins is not authorized to speak for my clients and they do not consent to it.\n- 3. Third, unfortunately, it is exceedingly well-known and well-documented that no Western company can do business in China without surrendering any and all\n\n\n\nproprietary, intellectual, or other rights to the Republic of China government. I understand that Paul Hastings has an office in China. While that is probably a good thing in general, the extensive research of many involving Chinese government practices suggest that Paul Hastings would be required to disclose all information about my clients to the Chinese Communist Party and/or the government of the Republic of China, to the extent that Paul Hastings itself becomes aware of such information. This of course is not a frivolous question but in this case a very serious, real-world concern. Can you advise if Paul Hastings believes that it should continue to be involved in this case?\n\n- 4. Except to the extent that the Himalaya exchange is a separate business that has nothing to do with the rest of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy, my clients object to any and all distributions of any fees or repayment of expenses to Mr. Despins, his counsel, or others related to the bankruptcy. If other aspects of Kwok's businesses or activities justify the payment of fees or expenses, I express no opinion on that as long as none of the funds come from my clients funds.\n- 5. I am sure that you and Mr. Despins must be aware by now that the Himalaya Exchange is separate and apart from any other business or financial activities of Ho Wan Kwok. May I reach agreement with you and Mr. Despins that my clients and the Himalya Exchange have no relationship with Bankruptcy Case No. 22-50073\n\n\n\n(JAM) and the Trustee will promptly remove any issues relating to the Himalaya Exchange or the claims of its investors and depositors – many of whom are my clients and it is likely that upon learning of these events all of them will be my clients?\n\n6. If any and all issues relating to the Himalaya Exchange are not severed voluntarily by the Trustee from Bankruptcy Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) and any other case, as legally and financially distinct and unrelated to the affairs of Ho Wan Kwok, I will cause through locally-licensed counsel, possibly *pro hac vice* myself, a Motion for Relief from Stay to remove any and all issues related in any way to my clients as investors or depositers with the Himalya Exchange and the Exchange itself from the bankruptcy case and lift the stay.\n\nMay I put you down as consenting to such a motion? You will understand by now that (a) Ho Wan Kwok does not own the Himalaya Exchange or the funds in\n\n> it. The funds held by the Exchange are \"reserve funds\" like the reserves of a traditional bank (but at 100% of value, not a fractional reserve).\n\n(b) The inclusion of matters related to the Himalaya Exchange and my clients was apparently premised on the idea that Kwok controls the funds of the Exchange. But he does not.\n\n\n\n- (c) My clients as depositers or investors in crypto currency have a superior claim on any and all funds held by the Exchange, both as to the reserve funds and as to funds for operating exchanges necessary to protect their investments.\n- (d) My clients and all crypto currency / digital currency clients of the Himalaya Exchange – as a separate business from Kwon's other activities – have what may loosely be described as right to sell back their digital coins to the Himalaya Exchange. The funds held by the Himalaya Exchange are required reserves to protect my client's right to resell their coins back to the Exchange. This is actually very technical in terms of a \"stable coin\" arrangement, which is required. This is a matter of regulation and contract to ensure stability in the digital currency. But in very simple terms it may be thought of as my clients have a right to sell their coins back to the Himalaya Exchange and receive U.S. dollars withdrawn in return.\n- (e) Therefore, the reserve funds which Luc Despins proposes to administer as part of the bankruptcy estate are owned primarily by my clients. Those funds are not part of the bankruptcy estate.\n\n\n\n- (f) Therefore, none of the funds of the Himalya Exchange are available to Ho Wan Kwok but are pledged to my clients. The Exchange holds those funds as *trustee* to my clients.\n- (g) Therefore, the Chapter 11 Trustee has no claim on any funds or property of the Himalaya Exchange. Possibly funds in excess of that needed to redeem all outstanding crypto currency digital coins as required by the investment contracts could be different. But to the extent that the Exchange is deprived of the funds needed to operate, the Exchange would crash as an operating business and my clients and others would suffer a total loss. So even funds more than just the reserves are under a claim to my clients.\n- (h) A Motion for Relief from the Stay is proper just like a mortgage company whose loan is secured by a house or building will routinely and reflexively receive a relief from the stay because the real estate is uniquely pledged as collateral to ensure repayment of the loan.\n- (i) This may be analogized to an apartment complex or chain of apartment buildings which receives security deposits from tenants.\n\n\n\nThose security deposits are pledged to be repaid to the tenants, and are not the property of the apartment complex or rental company. They may not be seized by a creditor or treated as the company's property in a bankruptcy. The security deposits must be accounted for separately as the property of the tenants. This is true even though the renter must jump through some hoops to receive a security deposit back.\n\n- (j) Therefore, I trust you will consent to a motion for relief from stay regarding all funds and matters relating to the Himalaya Exchange, at least with regard to all reserve funds equal to the redemption value of all issued digital coins assuming – as regulation in this type of business requires – all investors including my clients all demanded redemption of their digital coins. If the Trustee seeks to administer any funds in excess of the reserve funds needed to redeem 100% of all digital coins, this could not invade the operating funds necessary to protect my clients' investment by keeping the Exchange operating.\n- 7. I trust that the Trustee will agree that there has been no wrongdoing or allegation of wrong doing by any of the investors in the Himalayan Exchange such as my clients, certainly not with regard to U.S. law?\n\n\n\n- 8. Will you agree that the Trustee's obligation is primarily to my clients and other investors in the Himalaya Exchange, who have done nothing wrong? (Note above I mentioned the conflict of interest in the Trustee representing my clients is any other context, in any other court. One must acknowledge that by statute the Trustee is authorized to maximize and vindicate the interests of all interested persons, so the bankruptcy case itself is an exception where the Trustee does need to think about what best vindicates all of the persons involved. However, that would not authorize the Trustee to participate on behalf of my clients in any other capacity or case.)\n- 9. I trust that you and the Trustee understand and agree that the U.S. Government has no jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange. The Himalaya Exchange has no activity in the United States of America. Indeed, the client agreement prohibits any member from the United States:\n\n# **SCHEDULE 5 HIMALAYA EXCHANGE TERMS AND CONDITIONS**\n\nThese Exchange Terms and Conditions (hereinafter \"Himalaya Exchange Agreement\" or \"Himalaya Exchange Conditions\") supplement the General Conditions and are applicable to the use of the crypto asset exchange platform (the \"Himalaya Exchange\") operated and provided by Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. These terms apply to each electronic form or contract executed by Users and/or Members who use the Himalaya Exchange, unless expressly stipulated otherwise in the Contractual Documentation. To the extent there is a conflict between the Himalaya Exchange Agreement and the General Conditions, the\n\n\n\nterms of this Himalaya Exchange Agreement will prevail and to the extent there is a conflict between the Himalaya Exchange Agreement and the applicable Jurisdiction Conditions, the Jurisdiction Conditions shall prevail. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the General Conditions or the Product Conditions. **NO PERSON LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES OR ACTING FOR THE ACCOUNT OR BENEFIT OF ANY U.S. PERSONS (AS SUCH TERMS ARE DEFINED IN REGULATIONS UNDER THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED); OR U.S. CITIZEN (AS DEFINED IN 8 U.S.C. SUBCHAPTER III); OR U.S. PERSON (AS DEFINED IN 17 C.F.R S230.902(K)) MAY BECOME A MEMBER, USER OR OTHERWISE ACCESS THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE.**\n\nAnd the agreement further requires that:\n\n## **1.4 Jurisdictional Restrictions**\n\nBy your use of any of the Site, the Products, or the Services, you represent and warrant that such use is legal for you, including by virtue of the laws in your local jurisdiction, and you agree that you will not use a Site, the Products or the Services if such use is prohibited or otherwise violates the laws of the country, state, province, or other jurisdiction in which you reside or of which you are a citizen. In particular, you agree that you are not a \"U.S. person\" as such term is defined in Regulation S under the Securities Act, a U.S. Citizen (as defined in 8 U.S.C Subchapter III), a U.S. Person (as defined in 17 C.F.R s230.902(K)) or otherwise located in the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not using or accessing the Site, the Products, or the Services on behalf of or for the account or benefit of such persons.\n\n# **HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER TERRORISM FINANCING POLICY (AML/CTF) POLICY**\n\n**3. Jurisdictions** *[where -- sic]* **the Exchange does not provide services:**\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n\n\nAfghanistan, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, USA, Canada, Japan.\n\n- 10. I am sure you are aware that none of my clients are U.S. citizens nor U.S. lawful permanent residents, nor have they had any financial transactions in the United States of America or under the jurisdiction of any aspect of the United States of America.\n- 11. Therefore, I am sure you will agree that neither the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the U.S. Department of Justice have any jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange or any of my clients or their funds or any financial interests or transactions relating to the Exchange.\n- 12. May I understand that you (Luc Despins) will consent to a motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to dismiss any issue relating to the Himalaya Exchange due to lack of subject matter, *in personam*, or *in rem* jurisdiction of the United States of America over these matters?\n\n\n\n13. I trust that Luc Despins will not request any fees or expense reimbursement regarding any issues or funds of the Himalaya Exchange because legally the Himalaya Exchange could never have been part of the bankruptcy case to being with.\n\n> Very truly yours, FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC By: \\_/s/ Brad Geyer\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Bradford L. Geyer, Esq. Bradford.Geyer@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856-607-5708)","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人， ：\n：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n： （合并管理）\n--------------------------------------------------------x ---\n第11章受托人就据称为喜马拉雅交易所客户之人士在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院审理中的债务人刑事诉讼中提出的返还财产动议，于2023年12月18日举行的状态会议所发通知\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）作为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第11章案件中的受托人（“受托人”），特此通知：于2023年12月14日，据称代表喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）客户的律师Bradford Geyer（布拉德福德·盖耶）先生，(i) 在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（“刑事法院”）提交了一份答复状（“答复状”），其副本（不含附件）作为附件A随附于此，以支持其客户提出的返还财产动议；以及(ii) 向受托人律师发送了一封信函（“Geyer函”），该函作为附件B随附于此。2 该函威胁将在本法院提出解除自动中止动议，“将以任何方式与本人客户作为喜马拉雅交易所投资者或存款人 [原文如此] 以及该交易所本身有关的任何及所有问题从破产案件中移除，并解除该中止。”\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及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，作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n2 动议人亦将Geyer函作为附件附于提交给刑事法院的答复状中。\n\n3 受托人拟通过向刑事法院提交文件，回应答复状中的某些论点，并保留对答复状及Geyer先生信函作出回应的一切权利。尤其是，受托人认为，Geyer函中威胁提出的解除自动中止动议毫无依据，并保留与此有关的一切权利，以及就回应任何此类动议所产生的任何费用保留一切权利。受托人进一步指出，如Geyer先生在本法院代表其客户出庭，则其须依照《联邦破产程序规则》第2019条明确其客户身份（迄今其尚未明确）；当然，如Geyer先生对公开披露其客户身份有所顾虑，受托人愿意与其协商，以处理该等保密顾虑。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白]\n\n3 见Geyer函第6段。\n\n日期：2023年12月18日 纽约州纽约市 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（艾弗拉姆·E·拉夫特）（获准临时出庭）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准临时出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6000\n[aviluft@paulhastings.com]\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准临时出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人， ：\n：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n： （合并管理）\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，前述文件已于2023年12月18日以电子方式提交。根据法院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统的运作，本次提交的通知已通过电子邮件发送给上述标题第11章案件的所有当事人；对于如《电子提交通知》所示无法接受电子提交的任何人士，则通过邮件送达。当事人可通过法院的CM/ECF系统查阅本次提交文件。\n\n日期：\n2023年\n12月18日 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文市 第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及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，作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n附件A\n\n答复状\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n美利坚合众国，申诉方\n\n -v-\n\nHO 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”，\n\nKIN MING JE（金明杰），又名“William Je”，以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王燕平），又名“Yvette”，\n\n被告。\n被告。\n\n刑事案号：23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n喜马拉雅交易所第三方客户就其返还申诉方扣押财产动议所提交的答复状\n\n喜马拉雅交易所客户经由其下列签署律师Bradford L. Geyer（布拉德福德·L·盖耶）出庭，其在该交易所的投资作为本案核心刑事检控的附属行动而被扣押，特此提交本答复状，以回应政府的异议信函，并支持其提出的返还申诉方美利坚合众国扣押财产的动议。\n\n目录\n\nI. 整体情况：喜马拉雅交易所被作为与案件无关检控的事后补充纳入 4\n\nII. 康涅狄格州并行第11章破产程序及本案中的异议 3\n\nIII. 对喜马拉雅交易所缺乏管辖权 6\n\nIV. 澄清事项： 8\n\nV. 据称客户的主张： 10\n\nVI. 客户数据安全顾虑： 13\n\nVII. 司法部对客户安全的责任： 18\n\nVIII. 数据保护及法律义务： 18\n\nIX. 喜马拉雅交易所不属于破产财产 19\n\nX. 起诉书第21段的指控： 32\n\n下列签署律师现代表超过3,539名喜马拉雅交易所（“交易所”）客户，该等客户持有Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元，HDO）及Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币，HCN）加密货币（“申请人”），[1] 但纽约南区司法部及检察官的行为使其无法将投资提取为从交易所转出的硬通货，从而导致其投资资金全部损失。\n\n下列签署律师就政府于2023年12月7日作出的对返还财产动议的答复[2]（附件A - ECF 188）作出回应和答复；律师在通过Twitter获悉该提交文件后收到该答复，但政府显然未作任何努力启动会面协商程序。\n\n下列签署律师估计，随着口口相传传至其他迄今从未收到政府关于其资金被扣押通知的受害者，且我方意图真实且诚恳变得明朗，所代表的交易所客户人数将继续增加。现存挑战之一是，许多交易所客户感到恐惧，且具有讽刺意味地认为美国政府的行动可能是其他政府的先行安排。\n\n2 鉴于政府的答复，我方将寻求许可修改该动议及拟议救济命令。政府的答复证实本法院有必要在本事项中行使其衡平管辖权。申请人没有充分的法律救济途径，以在不承受其动议中所述因极端拖延将造成的困难的情况下，保护其保密性并确保返还其被扣押资产。见De Almeida v. United States, 459 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir. 2006)（“(1) 动议人‘没有充分的法律救济途径’，且(2)‘衡平考量支持行使管辖权。’”）申请人需要法院监督联邦执法官员的行动。”同上，第382页（省略内部引号）（援引Floyd v. United States, 860 F.2d 999, 1003 (10th Cir. 1988)及Hunsucker v. Phinney, 497 F.2d 29, 34 (5th Cir. 1974)）。\n\n美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice，“DOJ”）声称正在保护下列签署律师的客户免遭诈骗，而其解决方法却是DOJ本身扣押律师客户的资金并剥夺其投资。因此，司法部正在造成其声称试图避免的损害。司法部参与将律师客户的投资资金转换为美国财政部资金。\n\n司法部在本法院及其他法院的行动，使尊敬的主审法官处于一个尴尬境地：其很可能以保护至少3,539名投资者及数千名其他投资者之名，导致其资金全部损失。司法部正在造成的、由本应受到保护者的投资全部损失所导致的本法院声誉受损，系由其直接以喜马拉雅交易所储备金的形式扣押律师客户资金所致。\n\n除司法部目前扣押、由美元现金储备按1:1锚定的HDO稳定币资金损失外，律师的客户因该扣押已产生其$136M HCN交易币价值的大幅贬值。考虑到扣押前价格及HCN目前价格，差额为$136M的贬值损失，显然符合第3条规定，可向本尊敬的法院提出请求。这仅涉及目前所代表的客户。如HDO稳定币储备未恢复给律师客户，且HCN价值最终归零，则总损失/损害将估计达$329,737,812，不包括储备金。下列签署律师的客户同时持有HDO币和HCN币余额。因此，偿还解决方案拖延越久，律师客户可能遭受的损失就越大。如按司法部建议，将此事留待审判后没收程序开始时再处理，则律师客户将面临不可弥补损害的严重风险。如HCN跌至零，其将失去全部投资。司法部似乎在其答复中忽略该问题，且未承认其欠缺充分了解的扣押可能造成的严厉后果。\n\n整体情况：喜马拉雅交易所被作为与案件无关检控的事后补充纳入\n\n提交给本法院的起诉书中的指控，涉及Kwok（郭文贵）及Je（金明杰）的各种行为。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所是一家在英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands，“BVIs”）注册并驻设的公司；该国于约1850年脱离英国王室而独立。根据美国的外交立场、条约及加勒比海盆地倡议，美国政府承诺尊重诸如英属维尔京群岛等小国的主权、独立性及重要性。\n\n此外，起诉书承认，Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）是在“foreign based companies（外国公司）”之下设立，并且现由其运营。因此，喜马拉雅交易所并非一家美国公司，而是一家英属维尔京群岛公司的公司，英属维尔京群岛是一个独立主权国家。而美国司法部（DOJ）承认，其反过来由“foreign based companies（外国公司）”运营。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所不仅作为事后补充被纳入其中，而且其显然不同之处在于，美国政府对该交易所没有管辖权。我们面对的是涉及众多公司的复杂、多项交易系列，而后该交易所仅因无从辨明的理由被拉入其中。\n\n试图将该交易所纳入本案的唯一微弱线索，是一些含糊且缺乏法律依据的概念。\n\n起诉书既未明示也未默示指称喜马拉雅交易所本身或以下签名律师任何客户有任何不当行为的丝毫迹象。\n\n耐人寻味的是，DOJ以过去时态描述喜马拉雅交易所。事实上，该交易所仍在运营，但由于DOJ持有从该交易所扣押的储备资金，其无法将数字货币赎回为硬通货。DOJ为何以过去时态看待该交易所，令人费解。这是否表明DOJ本身计划扼杀喜马拉雅交易所？\n\n康涅狄格州的并行第11章破产程序及本案中的异议\n\n我亦确认代表第11章受托人Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）的破产律师参与其中，并于今日随函附上一封致同一律师的信函（附件B）。更新后的返还财产动议旨在简化争点、节约司法资源，并防止在刑事案件上蒙上伦理阴影。\n\n此外，我对破产律师与其中国办公室之间的中国关联可能损害律师客户保密性表示关切（附件C：ECF 561）。此事令人极为担忧。\n\nPaul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）代表Luc Despins提交的信函（附件D - ECF 189，未经通知或任何协商努力 -）主张，律师客户的动议涉及第11章破产财产，并称本法庭准予的救济将违反自动中止。该破产案件在美国康涅狄格地区破产法院（U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut）进行。\n\n应当指出，康涅狄格州第11章程序中的受托人Luc Despins，虽非亲自发言，而仅通过Paul Hastings的律师发言，后者并未被任命为受托人，却显然正在对本案进行大规模“反复操作”，要求律师的客户及其他人支付Despins的费用和开支，而其已提出的请求超过$21 million。因此，看来本应受本案保护的人实际上正被像鸡一样拔毛。第11章破产案件中大量的提交文件以及请求的巨额费用和开支，如受托人监督任何资金分配，无疑很可能从客户资金中支付，这也是本法庭进一步关切的理由。请参阅受托人迄今主张的天文数字般费用（附件E），以及表明受托人对律师客户资金具有令人担忧利益的高亮文本（附件E1）。\n\n对喜马拉雅交易所缺乏管辖权\n\n在本法庭的本案以及美国康涅狄格地区破产法院的第11章案件中，DOJ存在数项重大错误。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所位于英属维尔京群岛。其与美利坚合众国没有任何关联。管理文件禁止与任何美国居民，或代表任何该等人士、或作为任何该等人士的受托人或代理人进行交易。\n\n因此，DOJ对喜马拉雅交易所或律师的客户没有管辖权，因为他们从未实施任何会产生美国管辖权的作为或不作为。\n\n没有任何指称称喜马拉雅交易所实施了任何会产生美国管辖权的作为或不作为。尽管起诉书似乎旨在诱导作出假设，喜马拉雅交易所的任何活动均未发生在美国管辖范围内。如果一名驻曼哈顿的股票顾问在其投资通讯中建议投资巴哈马的生物柴油项目，那将是该顾问的行为。被美国人提及，并不构成该巴哈马公司在美国境内的行为。通过禁止与美国进行任何交易，喜马拉雅交易所明确表明，美利坚合众国不存在管辖权，并且该交易所的设计旨在防止美国政府对该交易所任何活动拥有任何管辖权。\n\n因此，DOJ对喜马拉雅交易所或律师的客户没有管辖权。事实上，在起诉书第11段（我们假定由DOJ为大陪审团起草并供其签署）中，DOJ写道：\n“……Kwok（郭文贵）在Himalaya Exchange未担任任何正式职务或头衔。”\n\n因此，DOJ承认，Kwok所做或被指控针对Kwok的任何事情，与喜马拉雅交易所均无任何关联，无论就其参与Kwok实施的任何欺诈而言，还是作为Kwok的任何工具而言。\n\n相反，起诉书混乱且含糊地试图将Hon Wan Kwok（Miles Guo）（郭文贵）与King Ming Je（闫明）无关的问题结合起来，以模糊并混杂不适用于喜马拉雅交易所的事项。\n\n此外，尽管承认只有Je与喜马拉雅交易所有任何关联，DOJ仍通过起诉书第11段指称，喜马拉雅交易所是\n“通过其[Je]拥有并设在国外的各种实体设立和运营的。”\n\n因此，DOJ承认，其在任何时候均知道且现在仍知道，喜马拉雅交易所位于美利坚合众国管辖范围之外。不仅没有任何事实可将喜马拉雅交易所置于本法庭、康涅狄格州破产法院、DOJ或美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的管辖范围内，甚至该交易所的母公司也“based abroad（设在国外）”。\n\n在第11段中，起诉书含糊地提及，其他Kwok / Guo实体与喜马拉雅交易所有“purported business relationships（所谓商业关系）”。\n\n然而，没有人会将任何所有权关系描述为“商业关系”。“商业关系”意味着不存在所有权和直接控制，而是独立交易的自由市场交易。\n\n此外，当然，“商业关系”并无任何违法或可能违法之处。且该评论的性质未获解释。该交易所是否购买了其他公司不需要的办公用品或剩余办公家具？\n\n尽管如此，喜马拉雅交易所受英属维尔京群岛管辖。\n\n澄清要点：\n\nDOJ行为中第二项相关的重大错误，是未调查DOJ承认其扣押的大约$335 million至$609 million（根据起诉书中的数字）由律师的客户及交易所其他客户享有实益所有权，并为律师的客户及其他客户以信托方式持有。根据DOJ提供并载于起诉书的数字，起诉书称DOJ从喜马拉雅交易所扣押$335 million，但随后又称DOJ从喜马拉雅交易所和G|Clubs合计扣押$274 million，却未澄清其中从喜马拉雅交易所而非G|Clubs扣押的金额。因此，起诉书对仅从喜马拉雅交易所的扣押情况并不明确，但没收特别清单（ECF 38 附件F）显示，所有与喜马拉雅有关账户的总额为$302,081,718.48。\n\nDOJ在每一个阶段都混淆了喜马拉雅交易所的资金，仿佛其为本案刑事被告Kwok和Je的资金。DOJ扣押的资金是保证律师客户投资HDO数字货币的储备资金。\n\n奇怪的是，起诉书试图将DOJ扣押的储备资金由律师客户享有实益所有权且代表其以信托方式持有这一事实，歪曲为欺诈的依据。\n\n这与银行为保护存款人所持有的部分准备金没有区别，唯一区别在于，此处的储备金为赎回价值的100%，而非部分或比例准备金。\n\n如果银行审查人员观察到一家银行由$500 million的比例准备金保障，随后扣押该等准备金，迫使该银行资不抵债，则他们无法貌似合理地主张，该银行对存款人的承诺原本属于欺诈，因为政府后来扣押了银行准备金，从而造成问题。\n\nDOJ通过扣押喜马拉雅交易所的储备基金，已经摧毁了其声称要保护的投资。以下签名律师的客户无法通过从储备基金赎回数字HDO“coins（币）”，将其加密货币投资转换为硬通货。因此，持币人可以交易HCN币，但无法将该等交易中以HDO获得的利润提取为美元并取走其资金。\n\nDOJ试图暗示客户赎回属于虚假承诺。事实上，根据所提供的财务信息，律师的客户迄今已赎回合计$26,772,727.65，存入以其本人名义开立的银行账户（将HDO赎回为USD并存入其账户）。该数额仅针对我所代表的客户，不包括其他客户，因此该数字很可能更高。这一真实且正常运作的赎回程序，仅因DOJ扣押了用于进行赎回的储备基金而中断。\n\n然而，现在以储备金形式为律师客户等投资者以信托方式持有并向其质押的资金，已从他们手中被窃取，转而存入美国财政部。由于储备金已被取走，该交易所因此未能向其客户赎回任何资金。\n\n尽管可能有某些理由确保储备资金将仅用于其预定目的，即为希望从交易所提取资金的投资者提供赎回资金，例如由一名非破产受托人控制该等资金，但有一件事不能发生：DOJ不能为了美国财政部的利益及第11章受托人的反复操作而侵占客户资金。下文就此作进一步评论。\n\n所谓客户的主张：\n\n美国司法部（DOJ）和受托人均暗示存在所谓客户，并称动议所涉客户是虚构的。该主张被明确驳回，而且至少可以说，极其令人不安。[3] 两个实体均声称以不同方式保护受害人，其整个程序均以这一假设为基础。然而，两者均已开始采取策略，以削弱真实受害人的合法请求。这强烈表明其真正动机，即通过任何可用手段扣押并保留这些资金。预期的做法将包括合作，以迅速返还这些\n\n3 如果受托人对我当事人的资金有令人担忧的关注，政府对我当事人的身份有令人担忧的关注，我们请求本院予以协助。会面与协商，即使本应被描述，也只是被部分正确地描述，并且在政府收到提交文件草稿后持续了42分钟，这表明其对个人信息敏感性缺乏关注。如何共享有关我“所谓”当事人的个人信息，是一项极受关注的事项，因为美国司法部（US Department of Justice）甚至已被证明是其自身雇员个人信息的不良管理者。ECF 186 FN10。在此，曾泄露数百万份司法部雇员安全审查档案的中国共产党（CCP）政府实体，可能对交易所客户身份具有更强烈的兴趣。我无法再更清楚地说明：通过错误程序交换信息并汇回资金，会危及我的当事人。\n\n如动议所建议的那样向受害人返还资金，并避免其资金因行政及受托人费用而被耗尽。相反，他们选择了一种叙事方式，指控受害人作出虚假陈述，并援引法律技术性问题和判例法来为其不作为辩解。这些论点经审查均毫无依据，也未能为其行为提供合理的正当理由。\n\n对于为转移对核心事实注意力而制造烟幕的做法，应极为谨慎地对待。并无任何由实际证据支持的有力理由被提出，以证明扣留该等资金具有正当性。在此类案件中，人们会期待检察机关采取有助于并加快协助受害人的方式，而不会通过高额行政费用或法律费用耗尽该等资金。然而，他们采取了与其所宣称保护受害人的承诺不一致的对抗性立场。\n\n在此情形下，及本签署人当事人提出的动议和本院面临的问题，是准备金被不当扣押。司法部必须完整释放Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的全部准备金。\n\n本院或司法部确实无须关心喜马拉雅交易所如何依据其商业义务和适用的法律文件经营正常业务，并从该准备金中赎回数字货币。提交本院的主张是，该准备金被不当扣押，应归还给依英属维尔京群岛政府法律和授权运营的交易所保管。\n\n否则，司法部将不得不重建交易所的功能，即为数千名交易所客户处理个别数字货币赎回。这正是交易所所做之事。我们并未要求司法部进入加密货币业务。\n\n因此，司法部或本院无须关心对准备金享有请求权的存款人／投资者的身份。或许，司法部可以设想地对喜马拉雅交易所数字货币存款人／投资者中是否有人实际与司法部正在起诉的被告或其代理人为同一人感兴趣。但这并不能证明司法部的任何行为或对准备金的扣押具有正当性。司法部不能仅因两个存款账户可能属于其正在起诉的人员，便扣押整个银行并使99.99999%的存款人陷于贫困。关注点只能是实际被告，而非其他所有人。\n\n然而，事实上，关于交易所客户的问题很容易得到回答并消除疑虑——当然并不放弃管辖权异议。但这些暗示忽视了实际情况。问题在于，司法部一开始就无权扣押准备金，也无权讯问个别交易所客户。\n\n随附的是由交易所任命的独立律师事务所Candey（康迪）出具的一封信，确认其承诺监督选定一家独立法务会计师事务所（附件G）。该事务所将进行审计，以便根据喜马拉雅交易所数据库核实在聘请法律服务时由代理律师当事人提供的喜马拉雅账户号码（“HID”）的真实性，并核实是否存在其记录。该报告将于December 21 2003准备就绪，并将提交本院。与银行账号类似，该HID对每一客户账户均属唯一，并且是在同意为\n\n代理而聘请法律服务时所必需的。其不能被任意生成，并且仅为喜马拉雅账户持有人所知。\n\n一份完整的HID清单以及客户同意交易所披露其财务信息的同意书，已连同每位客户所要求的信息提交给交易所，而该等信息已在动议提交前收到。同时，在此期间，代理律师当事人已提交五（5）份临时受害人证人陈述。[Himalaya Customer Statements \\(Subtitles\\) -] YouTube。随后将适时提交适当的宣誓书及其他所需信息。他们是一小群冒着极大风险挺身而出、作为其他客户代表的人，其中许多人是代理律师的当事人。这是集体诉讼中通常遵循的程序。在一个他们面临严重伤害风险的案件中，受害人不应被迫面对超出常规的程序障碍。\n客户数据安全关切：\n\n为回应对客户数据安全日益加剧的关切，已要求交易所提供一个说明该等忧虑的示例。作为合规流程的一部分，客户接受由独立服务提供商Jumio（Jumio）协助进行的身份核验和人工智能面部识别程序。在一名客户的申请中发现了一张令人警觉的Jumio照片，显示有人可能对一名试图使用其资料注册的个人构成威胁。所附图像显示，一名男子在一名申请客户账户的女子身后挥舞刀具，引发对客户安全的严重关切。\n\n这一令人不安的发现构成有力证据，表明可疑行为者为冒充真实客户愿意采取何种程度的行动。此外，这也使人关注中国异见人士在各种情形下可能面临的威胁。如果这些行为者为完成开户注册愿意诉诸如此极端的手段，那么一旦他们识别出交易所的实际客户，潜在风险为何，便值得追问。鉴于任何泄露的数据都可能给个人造成严重伤害，司法部（Department of Justice，DoJ）的责任受到质疑。所呈证据是一个有形例证，表明代理律师当事人表达的担忧并非无端夸大，而是真实的关切。情势的紧迫性促使人思考，司法部是否会在不可挽回的损害发生之前认识到该问题的严重性。\n\n用户详情\n\nID 11efb5eb-0127-4cb5-abed-4ec501c3f5bd 已启用\n\n创建日期 Sunday, February 6, 2022 已批准\n显示名称 已删除\n用户类型 V\n个人 已锁定\n名字／中间名 停止存款\n姓氏 停止交易\n全名 停止\n提现\n出生日期 强制\n更改密码\n电子邮件\n地址／用户名 mail.com 双因素\n认证\n手机 在线\n地址第1行 能够访问\nAPI 密钥\n地址第2行\n居住国家 >\nTawan\n城市\n州 Flease Select State V\n邮政编码\n国籍国家 >\nTaiwan\n身份证件号码\n备注 11\n最后备注人\n登录失败次数 O\n首页 > 用户 > 风险评分：\n风险评分： mail.com\n@gmail.com\n州、州、相同的州、州、各州、各州以及\n\n资料 白名单IP地址 风险评分 安全问题\n支持文件\n内部ID HRSMJMT\n手动风险评分 保存\n总风险评分\n风险等级\nCOMPLYADVANTAGE\n命中\nCOMPLYADVANTAGE\n未知 ComplyAdvantage 链接\n核验\n申请状态 待处理\n类别 保存并通知用户\n尝试次数\nJUMIO 重置\n\n日期及时间 全名 角色\n\n216/2022 2:54:46 AM 自动（系统） 自动（系统）\n\n问题排序号 问题 答案\n\n10 出生地\n11 证件上的国籍 Talwan\n12 请告知我们您目前的就业状态。\n13 请告知我们您的职业或商业活动。\n14 请告知我们，除您为税务目的登记所在国家外，您可能在哪些其他国家开展业务？\n15 您的个人活动或业务是否在优惠税区\n（例如，自由经济区、离岸司法管辖区）登记或开展？\nા ક 请告知我们您的个人或商业活动中以现金处理的年度营业额。\n17 请告知我们您的个人或商业活动中以加密货币处理的年度营业额。\n18 请告知我们您的收入资金来源。必要时可选择多个选项。\n19 请告知我们您的财富来源。必要时可选择多个选项。\n20 请选择您计划使用的服务。必要时可选择多个选项。\n21 您计划每年存入多少金额（美元和加密货币合计）？\n22 请告知我们资金将从哪些国家收取和／或转出。\n23 请告知我们您在加密货币交易方面的经验水平？请选择\n一项：\n司法部对客户安全的责任：\n\n司法部需要认真考虑这些安全关切，而不是因未披露全名而暗示存在虚假客户。在落实所建议的保障措施后，将披露唯一的喜马拉雅账户号码（HID）。每一唯一HID均对应一名持有喜马拉雅交易所账户的真实客户／真实人员。在扣押资产并使客户面临高风险后，司法部有责任保护因其行为而可能处于风险中的个人。[4]\n数据保护和法律义务：\n\n交易所向我强调，其应代理律师当事人的请求向我提供该图像，并不放弃其在数据保护、法律要求、特权或其享有的任何其他法律权利下的任何义务。本次披露旨在增进对无辜受害人所面临真实威胁的理解。请求任何额外材料或客户信息，必须遵循适当法律程序。\n\n除政府的回应（ECF 188 Attachment A）及破产受托人的律师在本院随后立即提交的文件（ECF 189 Attachment D）外，受托人似乎还于December 8在康涅狄格州破产法院提交了一项动议，\n\n4 [Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, 2022 Edition Office for Victims of Crime] [\\(ojp.gov\\)] 受害人和证人隐私考量，第5页。\n\n2023（ECF 2425 Attachment H），提出不同理由，并省略了第\n\n11章财产或违反自动中止的含义。受托人的动议强调\n\n债务人对喜马拉雅交易所实体的领导地位，以及对该动议对\n\n第11章案件影响的持续审查：\n\n“如本院所记得，本院先前在作出对债务人及某些关联方授予初步禁令的命令时认定，喜马拉雅交易所及多个其他关联喜马拉雅实体“均处于债务人的领导之下”，且为“债务人的商业工具”。受托人还指出，已有大量债权证明在本第11章案件中提交，主张基于对喜马拉雅交易所的或与喜马拉雅交易所进行的“投资”的请求权。\n\n受托人正在审阅该动议并评估下一步措施。鉴于该动议如获准，将干扰本第11章案件的管理，包括与债权的处理及遗产财产分配有关的事项，若本院希望就此事安排一次状态会议，受托人将听候本院酌定。”（省略脚注）[5]\n\n喜马拉雅交易所不属于破产财产\n\n破产受托人无权亦无管辖权介入由下列签名律师向本尊敬法院提出的动议，其请求应基于以下理由予以驳回：\n\na) 经全面审查破产案件案卷，未发现任何所提及的判决书宣告 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）或该交易所最初为其客户以信托方式持有、现被 DoJ（司法部）扣押的稳定币储备资金，属于第11章遗产。\n\n5 附件 H（ECF 2425 受托人返还动议）\n\nb) 即使该等资产确实属于第11章遗产，从案卷中或向本院提交的材料中均未显示有破产法院命令确认该等地位。\n\nc) 没有证据或任何适当理由表明任何律师客户或该动议本身会干扰第11章遗产的管理。若有人主张其中任何一人已从事或试图从事任何行为，或主张该动议以任何方式构成对受托人或 DoJ 的干扰，将提出严正申诉。这些受害人有权获得公平陈述的机会，并就其动议获得正当程序，而不应因与禁令有关的历史事件而成为目标并遭受污名化。所有律师客户均位于美国境外，并已通过委托律师行使其主张合法资金的权利，且其行为不应引发任何干扰的暗示。这是他们的资金，他们有合法权利要求返还。没有正当理由作出该等主张，而这再次突显该受托人所采取的大胆立场，其通过构建一种叙事来转移这样一个事实：其干预他们的请求并无真正适当的依据。\n\nd) 在近期有关 Mawah Mansion（马瓦大厦）的听证会上，第11章受托人 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）表示其有意管理被 DoJ 扣押的交易所资金，所附庭审记录对此予以强调（ECF 2174 附件 I；第24-29页）。无论允许破产律师管理该等资金是否明智，显然其目前无权管理该等资金，且没有迹象表明该等资金属于遗产。Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）函件向本院所作陈述似乎具有误导性且不准确。破产法院的动议未提及交易所、其资产或客户资金属于第11章遗产，这一事实进一步支持上述观点。\n\ne) 因此，在受托人就获取刑事案件中全部扣押金额并作为接管人行事，以及利用 Mawah Mansions（马瓦大厦）的蓝图为遗产取得更多资金所发表的意见之后，也存在严重关切。从该文件的叙事内容可清楚看出，他似乎正在说服法院，使其能够作为 DoJ 扣押资金的接管人行事，并将该等资金移交破产法院管理。\n\nf) 该叙事引发严重关切，即受托人收取高额费用，并主张该等费用源于房屋出售，即 $1m 将成为遗产的一部分，且房屋正被出售以协助 Department of Justice（司法部，DOJ）确保并变现不动产。受托人暗示，由于 DOJ 在扣押该财产时将面临困难，该行动具有必要性。此外，法院还公开讨论来自与遗产管辖权无关的刑事案件的资金。必须强调，律师客户的资金不属于遗产，而且似乎存在一种蓄意努力，以制造可疑情形，其动机旨在暗示与 Kwok（郭文贵）存在关联。\n\ng) 受托人在本案卷中发表的意见显然对受害人的请求具有偏见性和不利影响。受托人讨论称，破产法院及其本人可以决定谁拥有请求权以及谁是受害人，尽管其并未参与刑事审判或任何证据事项。实际上，他希望被间接允许在没有任何适当保障及实际证据要求的情况下，决定在该等评估中希望考虑哪些事实。他表示律师客户的资金可能被分配给其他债权人，这本身在此类案件中极不适当；在该类案件中，每名客户均有易于识别的账户和余额，而分配客户资金会造成重大风险，即资金可能损失于勒索性的律师费用及其他对该等资金不具合法权利的第三方。\n\nh) 对律师客户资金的不当扣押，特别是 Mawah Mansions（马瓦大厦）以及政府扣押的其他资金，与正在进行的刑事案件直接相关。本院不仅拥有处理该等扣押之管理和分配所必需的权力，也具备该能力。DOJ 通过保持沉默并完全不采取行动，或主张其对 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）储备资金的优先权高于受托人，已允许受托人介入本案专属事项。受托人在任何不利陪审团认定之前即制定的战略计划，引发严重关切：其基于被认为与 Kwok（郭文贵）存在关联而转移无辜受害人的资金，从而造成偏颇情形。受托人担忧该动议或律师客户会干扰第11章遗产，也进一步引发关切。\n\ni) 我们谨请本院介入，以防止受托人干扰本案中的扣押事项。\n\nj) 此外，如 Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）未经其本人或下列签名律师同意而管理律师客户的资金，将面临利益冲突。破产受托人独特的法定权限在其他情形下需要取得同意。无论从何种角度看，交易所持有的资金均是为作为受益人的客户以信托方式持有，且不属于遗产。\n\nk) 本尊敬法院面临的主要关切是返还合法客户资金。该等资金不属于 Kwok（郭文贵），后者是第11章遗产的对象。遗产无权或无法律依据主张资金所有权或管理该等资金。Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的所有权、控制权或领导层与该等客户储备资金无关。\n\nl) 请参阅来自 Himalaya 账户的审计报告及扣押余额（附件 J 和 K）。该等审计报告确认，Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）为 HDO 以信托方式持有客户稳定币储备资金，而律师客户为该等资金的所有人。申请人是该信托的受益人，且只有客户享有主张该等资金的合法权利。DOJ 对与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）相关账户的扣押，似乎包括 HDO 稳定币储备，且最佳证据表明所有资金均属于律师客户。目前尚不清楚该等资金如何被用作犯罪工具。该等资金实质上一直保留于该等账户中，直至 HDO 被赎回，并由金融机构以美元向客户付款。\n\nm) 在扣押之前，客户定期赎回其 HDO，而用于该等赎回的资金由交易所持有的稳定币储备支付。\n\n无论从何种角度看，该等资金均不构成交易所资产、财产或收入的一部分。交易所不享有该等资金的任何所有权、产权主张，或将该等资金用于依客户请求赎回以外任何用途的权利。客户购买 HDO，作为由 USD $1: 1 x HDO 支持的稳定币。\n\nn) 交易所的管理规则亦表明，交易所将就每一枚已售 HDO 持有硬通货储备，因此具有相应的硬通货等值额。客户实质上购买的是由硬通货现金储备支持的 HDO 产品，而该产品即为附属于该储备的加密货币。\n\no) DOJ 从 Himalaya 账户中扣押的资金略低于审计报告所载稳定币储备总额。最后一份审计报告在扣押前仅数周作出。最佳证据表明，所有律师客户作为受益人享有的资金均在其中，由交易所存放于妥善保管的账户中，且尚不清楚该等资金如何被用作犯罪工具。该等资金实质上一直保留于该等账户中，直至 HDO 被赎回，并由金融机构以美元向客户付款。\n\np) 从根本上说，本案的主要理论很简单：如同作为贷款或债务担保的任何资产一样，DOJ 扣押的资金并非不附任何负担。该等资金已质押给律师客户，并为 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的存款人、投资者和客户的利益以信托方式持有。该等资金保障律师客户赎回其数字货币、将其转换为硬通货，以及作为正常银行资金或货币提取其投资的权利。\n\nq) 重要的是，世界各地近期法规提倡将稳定币储备设定为100%，从被扣押的资金及审计报告中所示储备总额可以看出，该等情况确认交易所将100%的储备存放于适当的银行账户中。该监管发展的一个示例可见于 [http][1693986077.]。因此，DOJ 和第11章受托人犯下严重错误，将交易所持有的储备资金混同为由刑事被告作为其个人资金拥有的利润，而非为律师客户等投资者利益而设的储备资金。\n\n受托人无管辖权主张该等资金属于第11章遗产，即使认定 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）属于该遗产，而事实上并非如此。DOJ 扣押的资金不属于遗产，正如银行不会对其客户存入的资金享有所有权权利一样。因此，该动议已在正确法院和适当审理地妥为提出，不存在任何理由认为其应在第11章遗产内审理，或认为其违反自动停止。因此，受托人的动议应予驳回。\n\na) 受托人援引一项涉及不同事项的无关禁令申请，以主张交易所及其客户（即由下列签名律师代表的客户）受 Miles Guo（郭文贵）领导，此事令人严重关切。下列签名律师代表拒绝该牵强捏造说法的客户，并否认该主张，即该动议可能是为造成干扰而拟定。兹陈述，这似乎是受托人的动机，而非无辜受害人的动机。\n\nb) 作为说明性示例，Dr. Martin Luther King（马丁·路德·金博士）是20世纪60年代民权运动公认的领袖，但这并不意味着金博士对任何自认为属于民权运动的特定 Baptist Church（浸礼会教堂）的运作拥有指挥、控制、所有权、影响力或经济利益。\n\nc) 在自由与自由权利运动中的领导地位并不构成证据，也不意味着对由交易所（Exchange）以信托方式持有、且客户为唯一合法受益人的客户稳定币资金拥有任何形式的所有权。世界上任何其他一方均无权主张、使用或分配这些资金。\n\nd) 然而，DOJ（美国司法部）在未事先通知或解释的情况下，继续从代理律师的客户处没收了这些资金。该行为与这些客户的行为或举止无关，并且声称居住在美国境外的 DOJ 扣押的无辜受害者将干扰第11章破产财产的管理，不仅是通过操纵事实制造干扰的虚假表象，也构成对这些受害者的诽谤。受托人似乎试图推断属于一项历史性禁令及他人所指称的历史性行为之标的的行为，并将其作为将会或很可能会造成干扰的依据或证据。这些受害者有权陈述意见并提出其动议，重点应是受托人对本动议的干扰，而不是无辜受害者本身。\n\ne) 提出本动议的客户并未从事任何足以以此方式受到此类指控和公开诽谤的行为或举动（相关提交文件可公开查阅）。\n\nf) 他们已遵循适当的法律程序，并依其权利聘请法律代表，以在不受到此类行为对待的情况下获得正当程序。受托人的申请以及 DOJ 在其答复中作出的陈述强烈表明，其试图通过策略性虚假手段阻止法院审理本动议，这不仅反映出不当行为，也反映出双方之间的串通。DOJ 有能力就被扣押资金主张优先权，却保持沉默，允许该事态继续发展，从而有利于其案件。\n\ng) 对案件卷宗的审查表明，受托人曾多次针对其他被告采用此种措辞，似乎确信法院会不加审查地接受该说法，并假定交易所客户，包括由下方签名代理律师代表的客户，已经或将会从事类似行为。\n\nh) 即使这些主张属实，也不构成法院拒绝审理该动议的理由。称该动议构成干扰的说法缺乏实质内容和法律依据。受托人并无声明证明交易所及其客户资金构成破产财产的一部分，而该等资金由 DOJ 占有。敦请法院仔细审查此事，不要允许无辜受害者遭受此类诽谤性行为。受托人未提出任何证据表明 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的客户，特别是本动议所代表的客户，曾从事任何足以引起怀疑或受到干扰指控的行为。\n\ni) 他们有权提出动议、获得陈述机会并主张其款项。将此连同其他暗示定性为干扰，是应受谴责的。\n\nj) 他们是寻求返还其款项的扣押受害者；该款项是其在交易所的投资，并不属于受托人破产财产的所有权范围。\n\n鉴于该等行为，受托人对交易所客户表现出明显的偏见和成见，不适合管理任何交易所资金。\n\n其他关切包括，客户资金可能首先被分配给其他债权人，以及其资金被用于支付受托人的律师费。上述所提及的破产法院评论即为此证据。\n\n每位客户对被扣押资金的请求权均可追溯至其在交易所的 HDO 余额，且仅应由其获得返还该款项。受托人和 DOJ 关于分配的陈述并不适当，并表明将一名受害者可轻易识别的资金转移给另一名受害者。此类行为令人反感、具有操纵性，并且滥用法院程序，试图不公平地损害这组无辜客户的声誉。\n\n本院有权处理这些资金，而受托人除主张费用及耗减客户资金外，并未带来任何额外价值或程序。\n\n对已收到请求权的依赖缺乏依据，因为这些请求权可轻易提交至本院并据此处理。\n\n客户动议提出了一种更安全且更具成本效益的方式，以在扣减最少的情况下确保客户资金免于耗减。\n\n由于扣押，DOJ 应已从持有交易所储备金的银行取得银行记录。DOJ 很可能可取得大量客户的银行记录和 KYC 信息，交易所银行对账单中亦有客户存款和硬通货赎回的证据。该信息支持客户的动议，并表明 DOJ 知悉存在大量真实客户。在有关“所谓”客户的陈述背景下，这既不符合合理标准，也未体现任何同理心。\n\n审查该受托人的历史及其所主张的律师费，引发进一步关切。似乎曾举行一场未通知的听证会，其中属于交易所的 $37 million 资金被借给另一方，作为在游艇返还之前的担保；法院和受托人接受该资金作为担保。该船已被返还，但担保并未解除。该船返还后，受托人改变策略，继而主张该第三方 Company（公司）是 Miles Guo（郭文贵）的另一个自我，因此借出的资金现属于破产财产。法院准许该申请，破产财产获得了全部担保资金。[6] 随后，\n\n6 附件 G1\n\n受托人申请律师费，并获准从属于交易所及代理律师客户的 $37M 资金中获得约 $11 million 的律师费。\n\n在法律程序期间，受托人主张，交易所如在未来发生争议，可以向其追偿损害赔偿。尽管并未明确论证或评估这些动议的是非曲直，但有合理依据对所涉行为表示担忧。具体而言，当一项协议将资金指定为担保，之后接收该等资金的公司成为破产财产的一部分时，即会引发关切。破产财产并未偿还贷款，而是允许受托人主张 $11 million 的律师费请求权，其中包括其自程序开始以来的初始费用，因此可推断该行为是为主张其律师费而采取，因为破产财产中没有资金支付该等费用。特别提请注意此事，是因为现已就 Himalaya Exchange 客户资金启动类似行动，从而对客户资金在受托人管理下可能发生的地位变化产生正当关切。\n\n该关切得到听证会期间所作陈述的证实和支持，如记录文本（附件 I）所述，受托人在其中表示，破产程序将决定谁拥有有效请求权以及谁被视为受害者。此类行为令人严重关切。为进一步支持该论点，应指出，即使在当时，受托人也未主张交易所及其客户资金构成破产财产的一部分。卷宗记录数量庞大，未附于本通信，但可应要求提供。\n\n交易所或其客户均未收到任何有关该等程序的通知以提出异议。受托人随后与 DOJ 合作出售起诉书中详述的 Mahwah mansion（马瓦豪宅），并与 DOJ 达成一项出售该房屋的约定，为此保留 $1 million 费用，其余款项存入托管账户，日后由双方决定并分配。该事项受到 Taurus Fund（Taurus 基金）——该房屋的实际所有人——的争议。\n\n除受托人获得费用的利益外，似乎没有紧迫理由出售该房屋。尽管并未论证上述事件的是非曲直，提出这些事项是为了提供例证，说明受托人一贯主张过高律师费并耗减破产财产资产的明确模式。该事实与其现欲主张的客户资金有关。此外，在转向客户行动之前，其最近向法院提交了数百万美元律师费的账单。确有真实担忧，即如将此事交由受托人处理，客户将无法获得任何返还，因为他们将被置于律师费及其他优先受偿债权人的清单末位。\n\n受托人和 DOJ 均称客户为所谓客户，暗示客户并不真实。对此予以否认；对代表他们的代理律师提出该等高度不当指控，暗示其与交易所串通捏造整个动议。请参阅部分客户提供、分享其经历的视频链接。交易所律师还提供了一封信，确认交易所已指示其监督一家独立的法务会计和审计公司，对提出本动议的客户名单进行审计。报告将于 December 21st 2023 前提供并提交。\n\n客户取回其资金的延迟引发严重关切。客户持有两类资产：稳定币 HDO 和交易币 HCN。目前的扣押涉及 HDO 稳定币储备金。一些客户同时持有两者余额，另一些仅持有 HCN 余额。无论如何，他们只能通过出售 HCN 并取得 HDO 来实现 HCN 的任何价值。如果 HCN 价值降至零，他们将失去全部资产。目前，HCN 资产已贬值 $136 million。这是当前采取行动的客户所持 HCN 余额总额，计入从扣押前一日的币价至当前平均波动价格的价格贬值。如不尽快采取措施，确有造成不可弥补损害的真实风险，从而给代理律师的客户及其他客户带来重大损失。\n\n破产受托人仅在客户提交动议主张其资金时才提出客户资金属于第11章破产财产，其时机亦高度可疑。\n\n鉴于此前从未向本院作出此种表示，尽管其已知悉交易所很长一段时间，却未向破产法院提交任何申请，并且其曾承认交易所可以就其收取律师费向其主张损害赔偿，这强烈表明，在客户动议提交之前，并无任何说法认为交易所及其客户资金构成破产财产的一部分。\n\n该行动似乎并非善意，也不符合逻辑。强烈怀疑受托人已提交这些动议，以主张更多律师费并协助 DOJ 阻挠该动议，阻止如代理律师客户般的投资者获得保护。\n\n起诉书第21段的指控：\n\n令人难以置信的是，DOJ 起草的起诉书在第21段主张：“此外，与加密货币不同，HCN 不能交易为或兑换为其他货币。”但 DOJ 本身扣押了可使数字币兑换为其他货币的储备基金。正是 DOJ 的不当行为，导致投资者无法将其币赎回为美元。\n\n在由 DOJ（美国司法部）撰写的起诉书第 22 段中，DOJ 提出了一锅杂乱无章的文字拼盘。\n\nDOJ 已在第 11 段承认 Kwok（郭文贵）与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）没有任何关系，并在未作具体说明的情况下声称该交易所由 Je 通过“foreign based”公司经营，随后又试图使我们相信，Kwok（对该交易所没有控制权）和 Je 转移了 \\$37 million，以购买 Kwok 已经买下的一艘游艇。\n\n尽管这一解释晦涩不明，但最坏情况下，其含义将是该交易所作为一项有形投资而成为该游艇的新所有人。根据法院案卷，存在一项明确协议，即在该船被归还之前，该船属于担保物，并且法院已作出具有该效力的命令。该船归还后，受托人决定主张，收到该笔贷款的船舶公司实际上是 Kwok 的另一个自我，因此该款项属于破产财产。法院作出了一项与其先前命令相抵触的命令；其先前命令曾接受 \\$37M 属于第三方资金，该资金始终存放于一个托管账户中，而非属于信托和/或破产财产的账户。\n\n然而，在此讨论中，DOJ 实际上承认，交易所资金事实上独立于被告的任何其他商业实体。其承认，作为独立实体的交易所向一家 Kwok 实体提供了贷款，并以一项有价值资产作为担保。日期：December 15, 2023 谨此提交\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，PHV NJ 022751991\nSuite 141\nRoute 130 S. 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\n[Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com]\n(856) 607-5708\n\n/s/ Jamie Scher\nJamie Scher，NY 2488435\nMyer and Scher LLP\n377B South Oyster Bay Road\nPlainview, NY 118013\nJamie@myerandscher.com\n(516) 713-0655\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于 December 15, 2023，前述文件的一份真实准确副本已通过 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）的 ECF 系统以电子方式提交并送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，PHV NJ 022751991\nSuite 141\nRoute 130 S. 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\n[Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com]\n(856) 607-5708\n\n附件编号 附件说明 标题/相关引证/页码\n\n附件 A 政府对返还财产动议的答复\n(7 Dec 2023) (ECF 188) -\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nDocument 188\nPage 1 and Page 2\n\n附件 B 对受托人就返还财产动议所提异议的回复函——\nBrad Geyer。 n/a\n\n附件 C 债务人请求解除任命 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）之命令的动议。 (DOC 561) -\nCase 22-50073\n(JAM)\nDoc 561\n\n附件 D 破产受托人的律师（Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）函件），代表 Luc Despins 于 8 Dec 2023 提交 (ECF 189) -\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n附件 E Luc Despins/Paul Hastings 的费用及支出。 Case 22-50073 Doc 2256\nPg 3\nOnwards\n\n附件 E1 笔录（已突出显示）\nAugust 29, 2023 (ECF 151-3) Case 1:23-cr-00118-AT\n\n附件 F 政府没收事项说明书 (ECF 38) -\nCase 1:23-cr-00118-AT\nDocument 38\n\n附件 G Candeys Solicitors（Candeys 律师事务所）的函件\nDecember 12, 2023\n\n附件 G1 笔录\nJune 29, 2023 Case 22-50073 Doc 1985\n\n附件 H 代表 Chapter 11 受托人 Luc Despins 的破产律师 (ECF 2425) -\nCase 22-50073 Doc\n\n附件 I 笔录\nAugust 29, 2023 (ECF 2174) -\nCase 22-50073 Doc\n\n附件 J Aramino Audit（Aramino 审计）\nDecember 20, 2021 Pages 24-\n\n附件 K Aramino Audit（Aramino 审计）\nAugust 10, 2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2440 Filed 12/18/23 Entered 12/18/23 09:17:11 Page 41 of 52\n\n证据 B\n\n函件\n\nNick A. Bassett, Esq.（尼克·A·巴塞特律师） December 14, 2023\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nEmail: [nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com]\n\n尊敬的 Bassett 先生：\n\n我已收到您向 U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格区联邦破产法院）提交的文件副本，以及您致 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官的信函。\n\n在继续进行公开诉状和提交文件之前，我认为应当以信函形式致函您，进行协商并询问贵方当事人的立场。我并非指本函或其他通信在某个时候不会作为提交文件的一部分而公开。我的意思是，Luc Despins 和其他人或许可以在继续提出动议之前讨论这些事项，以就某些问题达成一致。我认为，在若干此类情形中，我们受到鼓励或被要求通过确定法院可能需要解决哪些问题以及哪些问题可以在不占用法院时间的情况下解决，来尽量减轻法院时间的负担。\n\n1. 首先，我不确定我是以何种身份将您称为 Luc Despins 的律师。作为破产受托人，Luc Despins 负责根据破产申请人（或非自愿申请人）的 Chapter 11 管理破产财产，向康涅狄格州破产法院报告，并履行通常由受托人履行或由法院命令其履行的职责。据我理解，Luc Despins 正在为其费用申请一笔\n\n令人震惊、数额惊人的款项。因此，可以推定，即使只收取其所请求费用中的极小部分，他也具备从事该受托人工作的资格。因此，我不理解为何受托人不亲自发言，或者为何我或他人不应直接向受托人提出意见。受托人有权咨询并获得法律意见，但受托人的律师代替受托人发言或沟通则是不同的。我从此处开始，但我相信今后我将以受托人身份与该受托人交涉。请就您的角色提供一些指导。\n\n2. 此外，在一份法庭笔录中，Luc Despins 主张，他不仅将作为 Chapter 11 破产受托人参与，还将参与针对 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的起诉书所涉法庭程序。我认为这将构成使其丧失资格的利益冲突。Despins 先生是否已获得同意，以在与这些事项相关的任何案件中代表我方当事人的利益？明确的法律规定，受托人根据每个人的法律权利和角色对所有人负有受信义务。根据法律的实施，破产受托人可以寻求在所有债权人和请求权人的权利之间取得平衡的解决方案。然而，在其他法院及其他情形中，Despins 先生无权代表我方当事人发言，他们也不同意如此。\n\n3. 第三，遗憾的是，众所周知且有充分记录表明，任何西方公司若不向 Republic of China（中华民国）政府交出任何及所有专有权、知识产权或其他权利，便无法在中国开展业务。我了解到 Paul Hastings 在中国设有办事处。虽然总体而言这可能是一件好事，但许多涉及中国政府做法的广泛研究表明，在 Paul Hastings 自身获悉有关信息的范围内，Paul Hastings 将被要求向 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）和/或 Republic of China 政府披露有关我方当事人的全部信息。当然，这并非一个无关紧要的问题，而是在本案中一个非常严重、现实世界中的关切。您能否告知，Paul Hastings 是否认为其应继续参与本案？\n\n4. 除非 Himalaya Exchange 是一家与 Chapter 11 破产其余部分毫无关系的独立企业，否则我方当事人反对向 Despins 先生、其律师或与破产有关的其他人支付任何及所有费用或偿还支出。若 Kwok 的企业或活动的其他方面证明支付费用或支出具有正当性，只要资金均不来自我方当事人的资金，我对此不发表意见。\n\n5. 我确信，您和 Despins 先生至今必定已知悉，Himalaya Exchange 独立于 Ho Wan Kwok 的任何其他商业或金融活动。我能否与您和 Despins 先生达成一致，即我方当事人和 Himalya Exchange 与 Bankruptcy Case No. 22-50073\n\n(JAM) 不存在关系，并且受托人将迅速移除与 Himalaya Exchange 或其投资者和存款人的请求权有关的任何事项——其中许多人是我方当事人，并且很可能在得知这些事件后，他们所有人都将成为我方当事人？\n\n6. 如果受托人不自愿将与 Himalaya Exchange 有关的任何及所有问题，从 Bankruptcy Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) 及任何其他案件中分离出来，将其视为在法律和财务上有别且与 Ho Wan Kwok 的事务无关，我将通过获得当地执业许可的律师，可能由我本人以 pro hac vice 身份，提出一项解除自动中止动议，将以任何方式与作为 Himalya Exchange 投资者或存款人的我方当事人以及交易所本身有关的任何及所有问题从破产案件中移除，并解除中止。\n\n我是否可以将您记为同意该动议？您现在将理解，(a) Ho Wan Kwok 并不拥有 Himalaya Exchange 或其中的资金。其中由交易所持有的资金是“储备资金”，类似于传统银行的准备金（但为价值的 100%，而非部分准备金）。\n\n(b) 将与 Himalaya Exchange 及我方当事人有关的事项纳入其中，显然是基于 Kwok 控制交易所资金这一想法。但他并不控制。\n\n(c) 我方作为加密货币存款人或投资者的当事人，对于交易所持有的任何及所有资金均享有优先请求权，无论是对于储备资金，还是对于为保护其投资所必需的运营交易所资金。\n\n(d) 我方当事人及 Himalaya Exchange 的所有加密货币/数字货币客户——作为独立于 Kwok 其他活动的业务——拥有可概括描述为将其数字币售回 Himalaya Exchange 的权利。Himalaya Exchange 持有的资金是为保障我方当事人将其币售回交易所的权利所需的准备金。这实际上涉及“稳定币”安排所要求的非常技术性的事项。这是为确保数字货币稳定性而设的监管和合同事项。但简单而言，可以将其理解为我方当事人有权将其币售回 Himalaya Exchange，并获得可提取的 U.S. dollars 作为回报。\n\n(e) 因此，Luc Despins 拟作为破产财产一部分管理的储备资金主要归我方当事人所有。这些资金并非破产财产的一部分。\n\n(f) 因此，Himalya Exchange 的任何资金均不供 Ho Wan Kwok 使用，而是质押给我方当事人。该交易所以受托人身份为我方当事人持有该等资金。\n\n(g) 因此，Chapter 11 受托人对 Himalaya Exchange 的任何资金或财产不享有请求权。超过根据投资合同赎回所有未偿加密货币数字币所需金额的资金，可能有所不同。但在交易所被剥夺运营所需资金的范围内，该交易所将作为经营企业崩溃，我方当事人及其他人将遭受全部损失。因此，即使是超出储备金的资金，也受制于我方当事人的请求权。\n\n(h) 解除自动中止动议是适当的，正如贷款由房屋或建筑物担保的抵押贷款公司通常会例行且自然地获得解除中止，因为该不动产被专门质押为担保物，以确保贷款偿还。\n\n(i) 这可以类比为一个从租户处收取保证金的公寓综合体或连锁公寓楼。\n\n该等保证金被质押用于返还给租户，并非公寓综合体或出租公司的财产。它们不得被债权人扣押，也不得在破产中被视为公司的财产。保证金必须作为租户财产单独核算。即使租户必须经过一些程序才能取回保证金，这一点仍然成立。\n\n（j）因此，我相信，对于与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有关的所有资金和事项，至少就相当于假设所有投资者（包括我的客户）均要求赎回其数字币时所有已发行数字币赎回价值的全部准备金而言，您将同意提出解除自动中止的动议——正如该类型业务的监管规定所要求的那样。如果受托人寻求管理超出赎回全部数字币所需准备金的任何资金，则该等管理不得侵占为维持交易所运营、从而保护我客户投资所必需的运营资金。\n\n7. 我相信，受托人将同意，Himalayan Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的任何投资者（例如我的客户）均不存在不当行为，亦未被指控存在不当行为，尤其是就美国法律而言，不是吗？\n\n8. 您是否同意，受托人的义务主要是对我的客户及 Himalaya Exchange 的其他投资者承担，而他们并未做错任何事情？（请注意，上文我提及了在任何其他情形、任何其他法院中，受托人代表我的客户所存在的利益冲突。必须承认，根据法定规定，受托人获授权最大化并维护所有利害关系人的利益，因此破产案件本身属于例外情形，在该情形中，受托人确实需要考虑如何最有效地维护所有相关人员的利益。然而，这并不授权受托人以任何其他身份或在任何其他案件中代表我的客户参与。）\n\n9. 我相信，您和受托人理解并同意，美国政府对 Himalaya Exchange 不具有任何管辖权。Himalaya Exchange 在美利坚合众国境内没有任何活动。事实上，客户协议禁止任何来自美国的成员：\n\n附表5 HIMALAYA EXCHANGE 条款与条件\n\n本交易所条款与条件（以下简称“Himalaya Exchange Agreement（喜马拉雅交易所协议）”或“Himalaya Exchange Conditions（喜马拉雅交易所条件）”）补充一般条件，并适用于使用由 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）运营和提供的加密资产交易平台（“Himalaya Exchange”）。除非合同文件中另有明确规定，本条款适用于使用 Himalaya Exchange 的用户和/或成员所签署的每一份电子表格或合同。如 Himalaya Exchange Agreement 与一般条件之间存在冲突，则以本 Himalaya Exchange Agreement 的条款为准；如 Himalaya Exchange Agreement 与适用的司法管辖区条件之间存在冲突，则以司法管辖区条件为准。本协议中未另行定义的术语，应具有一般条件或产品条件中赋予其的含义。位于美国境内的任何人士，或为任何美国人士的账户、利益而行事的任何人士（该等术语定义见经修订的《1933年美国证券法》项下法规）；或美国公民（定义见 8 U.S.C. SUBCHAPTER III）；或美国人士（定义见 17 C.F.R S230.902(K)），均不得成为成员、用户或以其他方式访问 HIMALAYA EXCHANGE。\n\n该协议还进一步规定：\n\n1.4 司法管辖限制\n\n您使用任何网站、产品或服务，即表示并保证该等使用对您而言合法，包括依据您所在地司法管辖区的法律合法；并且您同意，如该等使用被您居住或具有国籍的国家、州、省或其他司法管辖区的法律所禁止或以其他方式违反该等法律，您将不会使用网站、产品或服务。特别是，您同意，您并非《证券法》Regulation S 所定义的“美国人士”、美国公民（定义见 8 U.S.C Subchapter III）、美国人士（定义见 17 C.F.R s230.902(K)），亦并非位于美国或受美国管辖的任何领土内，且并非代表或为该等人士的账户或利益使用或访问网站、产品或服务。\n\nHIMALAYA EXCHANGE 反洗钱及反恐怖主义融资政策（AML/CTF）政策\n\n3. 交易所不提供服务的司法管辖区［其中——原文如此］：\n\n＊ ＊ ＊\n\n阿富汗、朝鲜民主主义人民共和国（DPRK）、伊朗、伊拉克、巴基斯坦、叙利亚、索马里、尼日利亚、美国、加拿大、日本。\n\n10. 我确信您知悉，我的客户均非美国公民或美国合法永久居民，亦未在美利坚合众国境内或在美利坚合众国任何方面的管辖范围内进行过任何金融交易。\n\n11. 因此，我确信您将同意，U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）、U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）、U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）和 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）均对 Himalaya Exchange、我的任何客户、其资金，或与该交易所有关的任何金融权益或交易不具有任何管辖权。\n\n12. 我是否可以理解，您（Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯））将同意在美国破产法院提出动议，因美利坚合众国对此等事项缺乏事项管辖权、对人管辖权或对物管辖权，而驳回与 Himalaya Exchange 有关的任何问题？\n\n13. 我相信，Luc Despins 不会就 Himalaya Exchange 的任何问题或资金请求任何费用或开支补偿，因为从法律上讲，Himalaya Exchange 从一开始就不可能成为该破产案件的一部分。\n\n谨致敬意，FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC（FormerFedsGroup.Com有限责任公司）\n签署人：/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer, Esq.（布拉德福德·L·盖耶，律师）\nBradford.Geyer@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856-607-5708)","key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Kwok","Despins","Je","Geyer","Luc Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Guo","Miles Guo","CIPA","forfeiture","Bradford Geyer","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","William Je","Torres","Analisa Torres","CCP","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":38,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":151,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":188,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":189,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":561,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1985,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2174,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2425,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":12689,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-18","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:34:34"}