{"id":"court_ctb_2473_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2473,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"NOTICE","filed_date":"2023-12-08","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| ------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1                                       | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x     |             |                         |  |\n\n# **NOTICE OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE REGARDING UPDATE WITH RESPECT TO 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\nBy notice dated December 8, 2023 [Docket No. 2425], Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), informed this Court and parties in interest that, on December 6, 2023, counsel purportedly representing 3,345 customers of the Himalaya Exchange<sup>2</sup> filed a motion (the \"Motion\") in the criminal case pending against the Debtor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT] (the \"Criminal Case\") seeking the return of property seize by the United States in connection with the Criminal Case.3\n\n 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<sup>2</sup> Himalaya Exchange is a British Virgin Island registered company named Himalaya International Clearing Limited.\n\n<sup>3</sup> Attached to the December 8, 2023 notice were copies of (a) the Motion [Criminal Case ECF No. 186] and (b) the response of the U.S. Department of Justice, dated December 7, 2023 [Criminal Case ECF No. 188].\n\nThe Trustee wishes to provide an update to the Court and parties in interest with respect\n\nto the Motion. In particular, attached hereto as **Exhibit A** and **Exhibit B**, respectively, are (a) a\n\ncopy of the Trustee's letter response to the Motion, dated December 19, 2023 [Criminal Case\n\nECF No. 202] and (b) a copy of the *Reply to Bankruptcy Trustee of Third Party Customers of the*\n\n*Himalaya Exchange on Their Motion for Return of Property Seized by Complainant*, dated\n\nDecember 26, 2023 [Criminal Case ECF No. 211].\n\nDated: December 27, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nDouglas 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*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------<br>x |             |                         |  |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|--|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |  |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1                                       | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |  |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |  |\n| ------------------------------------------------------x     |             |                         |  |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on December 27, 2023, the foregoing Notice was electronically filed. 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\nDated: December 27, 2023 By: */s/ G. Alexander Bongartz*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Avram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and 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**Trustee's Letter Response**\n\n1(202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\nDecember 19, 2023\n\nHon. Analisa Torres United States District Court Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\nRe: *United States v. Kwok, et al*, 1:23-cr-118 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe represent Luc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case of defendant Ho Wan Kwok pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"). Pursuant to the Court's order dated December 11, 2023 (Dkt. 190), the Trustee respectfully submits this letter in response to the Motion for Return of Property, dated December 6, 2023 (Dkt. 186 (\"Motion\")), filed by certain purported \"customers\" (\"Movants\") of the \"Himalaya Exchange,\"1 and Movants' reply brief in support thereof (Dkt. 198 (\"Reply\")).\n\nThe Trustee takes no position on the propriety of the Government's seizure of the funds at issue or on whether Movants are entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The Trustee submits this response because he believes the seized funds allegedly belonging to customers of the Himalaya Exchange may, in fact, be property of the chapter 11 estate. Accordingly, to the extent this Court were to consider granting the Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court not authorize the release of the funds to Movants until after the Trustee has had the opportunity to move the Bankruptcy Court for injunctive relief to prevent such release and/or to have the funds transferred to the chapter 11 estate.\n\nTo be clear, the Trustee is sympathetic to all victims and creditors of Mr. Kwok—including those who purportedly made investments in the Himalaya Exchange; however, there must be an organized process for repaying such parties only after their claims have been vetted by the appropriate court. If the funds at issue are released prematurely to Movants, who allegedly consist of thousands of unnamed customers of the Himalaya Exchange spread across the world, it may become practically impossible for the Trustee to recover the funds thereafter, thus irreparably harming the chapter 11 estate.\n\n#### **Motion Must Be Viewed In Larger Context of Chapter 11 Case**\n\nA brief summary of the history surrounding Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy is necessary to fully appreciate the relief sought by the Motion and the risks it poses to the chapter 11 estate. In short, Movants are not operating on a blank slate. The Trustee has previously found that other parties advancing positions\n\n 1 The Trustee is aware of various entities owned and controlled by William Je with the name \"Himalaya\" in them, but is not aware of a legal entity called the \"Himalaya Exchange.\" For ease of reference, this letter will use the term \"Himalaya Exchange\" as well.\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 2\n\nsimilar to Movants are, in fact, acting at the direction of Mr. Kwok and his associates. Thus, although the Trustee's investigation remains ongoing, he cannot help but have serious concerns regarding the Motion.\n\nMr. Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition in February 2022 after his largest creditor, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund (\"PAX\"), sought to enforce against him two judgments (one for breach of contract and one for civil contempt) totaling more than \\$250 million following years'-long litigation before Justice Ostrager in New York state court. Justice Ostrager found that Mr. Kwok had engaged in \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" and that this \"scheme\" enabled Mr. Kwok, a \"self-declared multibillionaire,\" to \"assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\"2 Justice Ostrager was not the first judge to reach this conclusion. Previously, Judge Liman in this District found that another company purportedly held by Mr. Kwok's daughter was, \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for Mr. Kwok that allowed him to keep assets from his creditors.3\n\nIn light of these prior judicial findings, it was perhaps no surprise that, upon commencing his chapter 11 case, Mr. Kwok claimed to have a mere \\$3,850 in assets to his name. Thankfully, neither the Bankruptcy Court nor Mr. Kwok's creditors took this representation at face value, and, in July 2022, the Trustee was appointed to investigate Mr. Kwok's financial affairs to determine the true extent of his wealth, including by commencing litigation against his family members, business associates, and shell companies to demonstrate that assets nominally held by such parties are, in reality, property of the estate. So far, the Trustee's efforts have been quite successful: the Trustee has recovered more than \\$100 million in assets (including Mr. Kwok's palatial, full-floor residence at the Sherry Netherland hotel and the luxury yacht he now admits was his all along4) for the benefit of Mr. Kwok's creditors, including victims of his crimes.\n\nAlthough Movants purport to complain about the fees the Trustee has incurred in conducting his investigation, it is Mr. Kwok's shell game—and the recalcitrance and obstruction by his family members and associates in the chapter 11 case—that has made the Trustee's work so difficult and expensive. The challenges the Trustee has faced have been well-documented in the Government's prior filings in this case. In addition to having to litigate against parties who are helping Mr. Kwok hide assets:\n\n- the Trustee and his counsel, together with PAX and its counsel, were the targets of in-person protests and online harassment for their work in the case. Following an evidentiary hearing in December 2022, the Bankruptcy Court found that the persons behind this activity were acting at the direction of Mr. Kwok and issued an injunction;\n- targets of the Trustee's investigation have repeatedly ignored subpoenas or otherwise failed to satisfy their discovery obligations, forcing the Trustee to file numerous motions to compel and motions for discovery sanctions, which were mostly granted by the Bankruptcy Court;\n\n 2 Decision and Order, at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYSECF Doc No. 1181.\n\n<sup>3</sup> *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n<sup>4</sup> *Ho Wan Kwok's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release*, at 8, Dkt. No. 178 (\"He no longer has access to a yacht and a jet as both those assets have been sold\").\n\n![](_page_6_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 3\n\n- Mr. Kwok and/or individuals acting at his direction instructed their followers across the world to flood the Bankruptcy Court docket with inflated proofs of claim (regardless of their merit) for the purpose of saddling enormous administrative burdens on the Trustee and materially increasing his legal fees; and\n- lawyers with ties to Mr. Kwok have commenced frivolous litigation in this District against the Trustee and PAX, and their respective counsel, for which they have recently been sanctioned for their conduct. In issuing one sanctions opinion in litigation against PAX's counsel, Judge Liman observed that the lawyer who commenced the litigation, despite claiming that his clients' claims had no connection to Mr. Kwok, (i) participated at the protests of the Trustee and PAX, (ii) was affiliated with Mr. Kwok and sympathetic to his interests, and (iii) commenced the litigation \"with the aim of chilling advocacy against\" Mr. Kwok.5 Judge Caproni issued a similar sanctions decision against the lawyers in litigation against the Trustee and his law firm.6\n\nWhether in connection with the foregoing issues or otherwise, the common pattern the Trustee has seen before and during the chapter 11 case in the Bankruptcy Court and elsewhere is the following: purportedly independent persons or parties assert claims or seek relief, claiming that although they may be sympathetic to Mr. Kwok's political causes, they have no official relationship with him and seek relief solely on their own behalf. But as the Trustee has discovered time and time again, and has demonstrated in the Bankruptcy Court, these parties are usually not who they seem. Rather, after discovery and vetting by the Trustee and the court, it is invariably revealed that the party or parties seeking relief have deep-rooted connections to Mr. Kwok and are in fact doing his bidding.\n\n## **Motion Follows Same Pattern as Other Filings by Mr. Kwok's Associates, and Trustee Believes Funds In Question May Be Property of Chapter 11 Estate**\n\nAlthough not an issue for this Court to decide, the Trustee believes that Movants—like many parties before them—may very well be receiving direction from Mr. Kwok or his proxies, and the funds they seek to recover may rightfully be property of the estate. The Trustee bases this position on, among other things, the Bankruptcy Court's finding in its December 2022 preliminary injunction ruling in response to the protests and harassment against the Trustee and PAX that *Himalaya Exchange is among a group of entities that \"serve[s] the purposes of the Debtor, serve[s] as [a] business vehicle[] for the Debtor, and [its] members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"*7 The purported nominal leader of the Himalaya Exchange is Mr. Kwok's alleged co-conspirator, William Je, who allegedly lent Mr. Kwok's daughter \\$37 million early in the bankruptcy case through an entity named Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. in an effort to help her keep Mr. Kwok's luxury yacht (which the Trustee subsequently established was property of the estate) away from his creditors. Mr. Kwok's daughter affectionately called Mr. Je \"Uncle William\" in her testimony.\n\nMoreover, the Trustee has recently learned that a prominent supporter of the Debtor nicknamed \"Little Sarah\"—who, among other things, has referred to Mr. Kwok as \"Uncle Guo,\" has dined with him at his\n\n<sup>5</sup> Opinion and Order, at 13-14, *Gong v. Sarnoff*, No. 23-cv-343 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023), Dkt. No. 72.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Opinion & Order, at 4 n.3, *An et al., v. Despins et al.*, No. 22-cv-10062 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023), Dkt. No. 29; *see also An, et al. v. Shan*, 22-cv-10060 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023) (Judge Carter issuing sanctions in litigation against PAX principals).\n\n<sup>7</sup> *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* ¶ 7, *In re Kwok*, No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023), Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Dkt. No. 133.\n\n![](_page_7_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 4\n\nluxury New York City apartment, has sailed on one of his yachts, and participated in the protests—used her social media account to introduce investors in the Himalaya Exchange to Mr. Geyer so he could seek purported relief on their behalf in exchange for a one percent commission on fees recovered.8 As noted above, this tactic and practice of Mr. Kwok's followers mobilizing as purported claimants is one Defendant Kwok has employed, and the Trustee has seen, before.\n\nMovants' suggestion that they have no relationship to Mr. Kwok and that the exchange funds cannot possibly be property of the estate is untethered from both the facts and the law. Among Movants' flawed legal positions is their attempt to analogize the Himalaya Exchange to a bank holding customer deposits, contending that such deposits are not the bank's property.9 But this statement is wrong, because a bank *does* own the deposits, with its depositors holding unsecured claims against the bank. The same may very well be true with any alleged customer funds in the Himalaya Exchange. Indeed, among the \\$1.2 billion in claims that have been asserted against Mr. Kwok in the Bankruptcy Court to date are many claims allegedly held by the exact types of Himalaya Exchange customers Movants purport to represent. This tends to undermine the notion that the funds Movants seek to recover are not estate property.\n\n#### **Bankruptcy Court Must Be Given Opportunity to Rule on Whether Alleged Customer Funds Are Property of Chapter 11 Estate to Be Administered in Bankruptcy Case**\n\nTo reiterate, the Trustee is not asking this Court to consider whether funds deposited with the Himalaya Exchange are property of the estate. The Trustee provides the foregoing background and discussion solely to emphasize the critical importance of this Court not releasing the funds to Movants before the Bankruptcy Court has the opportunity to fully vet Movants' arguments and consider any claim the Trustee may bring that the funds Movants seek to recover are property of the chapter 11 estate.10\n\nThe Trustee is sympathetic to Movants' position to the extent they hold legitimate claims for moneys they may have invested in the Himalaya Exchange. But the Trustee owes duties to *all* of Mr. Kwok's legitimate creditors, not to any one creditor or group of creditors, and therefore the Trustee must do everything in his power to ensure that Mr. Kwok's assets and liabilities are administered through an orderly process that treats all creditors fairly in accordance with the law. Movants offer no valid reason for this Court or the Bankruptcy Court to abandon such a process.\n\nMovants raise the strawman argument that neither court has jurisdiction \"over the Himalaya Exchange,\" but this statement is plainly incorrect. Pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, property of a\n\n10 Similarly, the Court also need not consider at this time the consequences of this Court eventually entering an order of forfeiture with respect to the funds. As the Government has noted, in situations where forfeited funds or other property are claimed to be property of a bankruptcy estate, a receiver (who is also the chapter 11 trustee) is typically appointed to administer the distribution of such property. *See* Government Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel, at 21-23, Dkt. No. 160 (discussing examples of bankruptcy trustees appointed as forfeiture receivers to oversee administration of forfeited funds). The appointment of a receiver in this case is an issue that need not be decided at this time.\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See* @littlesarah, GETTR (Aug. 9, 2023), http (last visited December 18, 2023).\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See* Reply, at 25, Dkt. No. 198 (\"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\").\n\n![](_page_8_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 5\n\nchapter 11 estate consists of \"all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case\" \"*wherever located and by whomever held*.\" 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (emphasis added); *In re DeFlora Lake Dev. Assocs*., Inc., 571 B.R. 587, 593 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (bankruptcy court has \"exclusive jurisdiction\" to determine what constitutes property of bankruptcy estate); *see also* 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e)(1) (addressing exclusive jurisdiction over assets of bankruptcy estate). The Bankruptcy Court thus clearly has jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange funds at issue to the extent Mr. Kwok has an interest in such funds, which the Trustee believes may very well be the case based on both recent history and his ongoing investigation.\n\nAccordingly, for all of these reasons, to the extent the Court were to consider granting the Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that it not authorize the release of the funds until after the Trustee has had the opportunity to seek appropriate relief in the Bankruptcy Court.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Nicholas A. Bassett\n\nNicholas A. Bassett of PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n\nNAB\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2473 Filed 12/27/23 Entered 12/27/23 09:44:37 Page 10 of 30\n\n# **Exhibit B**\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## Criminal No.: 23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\n **REPLY TO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THIRD PARTY CUSTOMERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED BY COMPLAINANT**\n\n# **REPLY TO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THIRD PARTY CUSTOMERS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ON THEIR MOTION FOR RETURNOF PROPERTY SEIZED BY COMPLAINANT**\n\nCustomers of the Himalaya Exchange, by and through undersigned counsel, Bradford L.\n\nGeyer, Esq., whose investments in the Exchange have been seized as actions ancillary to the core\n\ncriminal prosecution in this case, have filed a Motion for Intervention in support of their Motion\n\nfor the Return of Property Seized by the Complainant, United States of America.\n\nCounsel's clients filed a Motion for Return of Property, and the U.S. Department of\n\nJustice (\"DOJ\") filed a response opposing the procedural method of these Himalaya Exchange\n\ndepositors challenging the forfeiture (ECF 186). Counsel's clients filed a Reply to the DOJ\n\n(ECF 198) and Supplement (ECF 207-209).\n\nMeanwhile, the Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins, by counsel from the law firm of Paul Hastings also filed a response of his own (ECF 202). Counsel's clients file a brief Reply to the Trustee.\n\n## **I. INTRODUCTION**\n\nThe case at bar before the Court is a criminal prosecution by the Government against the named Defendants. However, as an ancillary side matter the Government has also seized various funds and property from various entities or people for related but varying reasons, alleging in forfeiture proceedings that such are the instrumentalities or proceeds of the crimes being prosecuted.\n\nTherefore, the forfeiture proceedings and the Intervenors' objections thereto are a separate matter from the core criminal prosecutions but have been included within the main criminal case, arising out of it. This forces us into some difficult procedures.\n\nInitially, the 3,539 Customers of the Himalaya Exchange represented by the undersigned counsel (there being other customers as well not currently counsel's clients) are confronted with the ungainly and awkward context in which the U.S. Department of Justice has combined a criminal prosecution of **HO WAN KWOK, KIN MING JE, and YANPING WANG,** apparently under various other alias names, with the forfeiture of funds from various people and entities in a \"seize first, investigate later\" approach.\n\nIt would have been less cumbersome for everyone if the DOJ had separated the criminal prosecution in one case from the forfeiture proceedings in another. Better still, it would have been better if the DOJ had completed the prosecution of Kwok, Je, and Wang to find out if they actually committed any crimes at all which might justify some or all of the asserted forfeitures.\n\nCounsel's 3,539 clients who are Himalaya Exchange customers are faced with intervening in a criminal case through no choice of their own. The matters should have been addressed separately in separate cases and probably should be severed now. But that was not the decision of the Himalaya customers.\n\n## **II. ARGUMENT**\n\n## **A. HIMALAYA EXCHANGE IS NOT PART OF THE CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ESTATE**\n\nLong before undersigned counsel's awareness of these matters or involvement, it appears that the Chapter 11 petition in bankruptcy was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut *by Kwok* as the Bankrupt Debtor seeking protection from the bankruptcy courts.\n\nHowever, to the best of counsel's understanding and knowledge, the Petitioner\n\n(Bankrupt, Debtor) did not name the Himalaya Exchange of the British Virgin Islands – an\n\nindependent country since 1850, following colonial occupation of the British Empire, as an asset\n\nor a going concern to be administered under Kwok's Chapter 11.\n\nThe Objection or Notice by the Trustee Luc Despins, by counsel, states that:\n\nAs 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\"3 and \"business vehicles for the Debtor.\"4\n\nHowever, except for the reality that \"leadership\" is a meaningless term in the law, this is clear error and is not possible. The \"Debtor\" here is HAN WO KWOK.\n\nThe U.S. Department of Justice and the Grand Jury it convened have formally found that:\n\nIn Paragraph 11 of the indictment (which we assume the DOJ wrote for the Grand Jury to sign), the Grand Jury found:\n\n## **\"… Kwok held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\"**\n\nThis raises the head-scratcher of what \"leadership\" means in a bankruptcy context. Furthermore, the Grand Jury found in paragraph 11 of the indictment that the Himalaya Exchange was\n\n## **\"founded and operated through various entities he [Je] owned, which were based abroad.\"**\n\nThus, this Court has mistakenly or by being given bad information assigned \"leadership\" (whatever that is in the law) to Kwok whom the Grand Jury has found to have no role in the Himalaya Exchange, when the Grand Jury has found that the Himalaya Exchange is controlled by \"various entities… which were based abroad\" operated by Je.\n\nNow, we don't know what various entities the Grand Jury identified, but in normal usage of English it would indicate more than a handful of entities. If the Himalaya Exchange were operated by a fair number of \"various entities\" abroad, that means that no one entity had dominance over the operations of the Himalaya Exchange. No one of these \"various entities\" could dictate operations of the Exchange. At least we have been offered nothing but inkblot tests inviting us to imagine things that have not been stated.\n\n## **B. CONFUSION OF ROLES**\n\nA Chapter 11 bankruptcy, of course, like a personal Chapter 13 bankruptcy, is aimed at sustaining and continuing the affected business or businesses with the hope that the business(es) will emerge from bankruptcy having paid off all or most debts to the extent possible. Therefore, it would be mistake to view these matters in terms of Kwok hiding assets from his creditors\n\nwhen a successful Chapter 11 process would be aimed at eventually paying all of those creditors back to the maximum extent achievable.[1](#page-14-0)\n\nThis is often pursued by the businesses continuing to operate. If the businesses cannot continue to operate than most likely a Chapter 7 bankruptcy would be appropriate or might emerge as the only viable alternative after an attempted Chapter 11 Reorganization\n\nOn Kwok's petition, Luc Despins was appointed by the Bankruptcy Court as the Chapter 11 Trustee. That Court entrusted Despins with the qualifications, capabilities, and diligence to administer the bankruptcy and what looked from the start like a fairly complex one at that.\n\nEveryone is entitled to consult an attorney. But despite billing \\$21 million submitted to the Bankruptcy Court, is he not qualified to be Trustee? Is the law firm of Paul Hastings actually the Trustee? Having noted this, counsel will address all further business directly to Luc Despins, which of course he can review with attorneys. Although he seems to be represented by counsel, Despins is also designated by statute as the authorized representative of the bankruptcy estate. The Trustee has greater responsibilities to act in his own name than the average person.\n\nThe Bankruptcy Court determined that \"The Trustee is an experienced bankruptcy professional.\" at Case 22-05003 Doc 247 Filed 06/26/23.\n\nTherefore, why should anyone be contacting the Trustee through the law firm of Paul Hastings? Why can't the Trustee administer the Chapter 11 without having the law firm do all of the Trustee's work? Counsel's clients are being bled dry first by the Trustee and then again by the Trustee's lawyers? And the Trustee has the effrontery to cast aspersions on the Himalaya Exchange and its customers.\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span>\n\n<sup>1</sup> http\n\nCounsel concludes that all parties should be dealing with the officially-appointed Trustee directly and keeping legal fees for advice to the Trustee to a minimum.\n\n## **C. IDENTITY OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE**\n\nCounsel for Luc Despins notes that he is not aware of an entity known as the Himalaya Exchange. The Himalaya Exchange--which both the DOJ and Trustee seems to have ignored – has no connection with United States jurisdiction and no one can be a member (investor, depositor) who is a U.S. person, U.S. resident, or anyone acting on behalf of any U.S. person or resident. This crucial fact may have been overlooked because the Trustee has not realized that there is a Himalaya Exchange has nothing to do with Kwok's Chapter 11.\n\nHowever, the Trustee has spent at least \\$21 million in legal fees and costs conducting investigations. It is inconceivable for him to suggest that he made no inquiries as to the Himalaya Exchange, including basics such as (a) what the Grand Jury found, (b) the home jurisdiction, and (c) the governing documents which are on the Exchange's website.\n\n## **D. TRUSTEE SEEKS TO CONVERT CHAPTER 11**\n\nThis circumstance in itself is questionable and clearly shows this set of events and objections have only arisen because his plan to try and act as a receiver and administer the funds is now being challenged. This of note being a different role to that of a chapter 11 trustee. It is very apparent that there are ongoing discussions with the trustee and the DOJ and indeed he references that he wishes to approach the DOJ at the bankruptcy hearing in August 2003 (Exhibit I Docket 198-12) to act as the receiver to administer the Funds. This makes no sense as if he could prove it to be belonging to the Chapter 11 estate then he would not need to act in any capacity as a receiver or refer to that before the Bankruptcy Judge. It is apparent that he knows\n\nthat this does not come within the Chapter 11 otherwise there would be no reference to him trying to speak to the DOJ to act as a receiver for the administration of these funds. He has no authority to simply step in and suggest he should undertake a role which has nothing to do with him. He's further not the appropriate person to be undertaking that role and there could be a clear conflict of interest as has occurred here where he now has changed tact in a very a short space of time highly correlated to the filing of this action and is now suggesting that this money belongs to Kwok and not only is it possibly part of the chapter 11 case but that this action somehow interferes with the administration of the chapter 11. This the conduct has been seen before by the trustee where he accepted the \\$37 million loan given to the boat company as a security for the boat and a court order was made to that effect and made no suggestion that this money was part of the Chapter 11 estate. As soon as the boat was returned he changed his stance and made an application that boat company was part of the Chapter 11 estate and therefore the money loaned to it belonged to the estate. He then proceeded to claim that \\$11 million in legal fees should first be settled out of the money loaned by the exchange. These issues are highlighted because the course of conduct raises significant concerns regarding the safeguarding of customer funds. His shifting stance doesn't appear to stem from any new findings but rather resembles a recurring strategy. The examples provided serve to underscore these growing concerns.\n\nThe Trustee could not in any view act in both the capacity as a trustee and a receiver of these funds. The receiver should not be in the position of the Trustee and must be impartial in assessing the claims on actual evidence and administering the return of the funds.\n\nHe has not addressed this point as it does not favor him and this is a serious concern and a conflict of interest on any given view of him attempting to act in a capacity as both. His conduct so far is not that of an impartial receiver as he seems to claim everything under the\n\n7\n\nchapter 11 estate without any evidence in support whilst incurring substantial legal fees. This cannot simply be ignored.\n\nWith the Mawah Mansion even where the DoJ as part of their case says that the house was allegedly bought from Gclub members fees, yet somehow he stipulates that the proceeds of an unproven fraud amount to money belonging to the alleged defendant and his estate should be awarded the proceeds of a crime to administer. If the DoJ case is correct then those Gclub member funds belong to those victims and on any view do not belong to Kwok, whether as an individual, as a Debtor-Petitioner, or officer of any entity. The Trustee is now attempting to do that with this customer money. It would be wholly unjust for the Court to allow this conduct to continue to affect the Himalaya customer funds.\n\nPlease note that questions or concerns about how things will be managed do not change the fact the funds belong to the Himalaya Exchange customers, either as their deposits and/or as the operating funds necessary to make the Exchange continue operation.\n\nOne question is whether the DOJ is up to the task of routinely handling restitution of victim's losses back to those victims and we are hopeful this answer will be in the resounding affirmative in the very near future.\n\n## **E. DEFENDANTS ROBBED THEMSELES?**\n\nThe Trustee, like the DOJ, are of the opinion that Kwok, Je, and Wang defrauded people. But whom? If the customers of the Himalaya Exchange are not genuine investors, then where did the money come from? Whom did the Defendants defraud if there are not close to 10,000 members / investors in the Himalaya Exchange, of which counsel represents 3,859 (and growing)?\n\nThe DOJ and Trustee would seem to be thinking that Kwok, Je, and Wang defrauded\n\nthemselves out of up to \\$609 million. If the customers of the Exchange were really just Kwok, Je, and Wang, then whom did they defraud? And if nobody, what are the grounds for seizure? Even more perplexingly, the money has not disappeared—its all intact.\n\n# **F. THE RESERVE FUNDS OF THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ARE NOT PART OF THE CHAPTER 11 ESTATE NOR DO THEY HAVE ANY RELATION TO ANY TRANSACTION ALLOWING FORFEITURE**\n\nLuc Despins, by counsel several times avers that the reserve funds of the Himalaya Exchange \"*may*\" be part of the Chapter 11 estate. This is a tacit admission that there has been as of yet no evidentiary showing or ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut concerning the funds of the Himalaya Exchange.\n\nAfter \\$21 million invoiced for the Trustee's work, with more invoices mentioned coming, and all of the resources of the Federal Government, there is no decision or basis for treating the funds as being under the administration of the Chapter 11 Trustee.\n\nThe Trustee asserts that the Bankruptcy Court must be given the opportunity to rule on whether alleged customer funds are the property of the Chapter 11 estate. Well, of course, that is true, but it comes quite late. It is unfortunate that this is split between a DOJ investigation and a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Even worse that we don't officially know yet if the Defendants are actually guilty of anything, at this stage in this case. But we do have at least \\$21 million worth of work by the Trustee with more invoices in the pipeline and the entire resources of the Federal Government. And yet, there is no evidence that the Himalaya Exchange reserve funds are directly or indirectly the property of the Bankrupt Kwok.\n\nThe Bankruptcy Court has an opportunity that it has not availed itself of. If there is no decision that the Himalaya Exchange funds constitute property of Kwok, how long do the innocent victims have to wait? The undersigned counsel's clients have suffered actual, realworld, sometimes life-changing harm. When is this opportunity to decide going to be employed?\n\nCounsel's clients invested funds intended for house purchases, children's college education, retirement, etc. The money seized by the DOJ is not just a number, but real people's lives.\n\nThe reserve fund should not be plundered for other purposes.\n\nRecall that the Chapter 11 case was opened by the Petition of Kwok. The indictment here in this case states about two times emphatically that Kwok has no title or role in the Himalaya Exchange. Therefore, based on the indictment we as of yet have no basis for seeing that the Himalaya Exchange's money is part of Kwok's Petition under Chapter 11. At most, the indictment claims that Je – not Kwok – set up the Exchange but also that the Exchange is operated by other foreign businesses outside of the United States, over which the United States of America has no legal jurisdiction.\n\n## **G. THE RESERVE FUNDS ARE HELD IN TRUST FOR DEPOSITORS**\n\nThe reserve funds that have been seized by the DOJ are held in trust for the Exchange's customers / depositors / investors. Therefore, the funds are an asset secured as collateral for the Exchange Customers. These funds are not on the same terms as just funds in an unsecured bank account. The reserve fund is held in trust by the Himalaya Exchange customers for the benefit of those customers. They are not owned free and clear by anyone else.\n\nThe Trustee argues that funds deposited with a bank are the property of the bank. But they are not. First, they are held in trust to the depositors and the bank – which often has \"trust\" in its name – is a fiduciary holding the funds for another. True, the fractional (less than 100%) reserve system in U.S. banks requires the bank to juggle funds and seek to satisfy all of its needs. But funds received from depositors are owned by the depositors particularly when those funds are held in trust at a 100% reserve rate until redeemed. Indeed, in any prosecution and even this one the bank balance shown in Kwok's depositor accounts in banks would be claimed by DOJ to be actual wealth of Kwok. The full amount deposited will be treated by DOJ as Kwok's property, even if secured in the bank by less than 100% reserves.\n\nMoreover, if a bank were to fail or struggle, the Government would intervene and manage the bank and funds held for the benefit of depositors first and foremost.\n\nSimilarly, a landlord of an apartment complex cannot take security deposits from 300 tenants and go on a world cruise with the security deposits. The deposits belong to the tenants, subject to conditions that they do not damage the apartment, clean it, etc., etc.\n\n## **H. GENUINE VS. CONTRIVED HIMALAYA EXCHANGE CUSTOMERS**\n\nThe Trustee, like the DOJ, clearly wants to tackle the entire Himalaya Exchange on the speculation that maybe some of the accounts are actually Kwok, Je, and/or Wang. But that is irrelevant even if it might be true. The genuine investors should not be pillaged on the mere possibility that in setting up the Exchange its architects held a few digital coins for themselves.\n\nThe suggestions of the Trustee amount to the inference that this court is not capable of doing the necessary checks involved--returning the funds back to the victims. This Court is the correct Court to administer these Funds—particularly in light of security and safety concerns- and it is fully competent to undertake that task. In the course of that task if any funds appear to be in the name of Kwok then those funds no doubt will be isolated and the Trustee can make a claim.\n\nThe suggestion of claiming Chapter 11 on the entire customer funds, even those traced to Je or Wang, has no legal basis and the Trustee has no jurisdiction as a trustee to interfere or\n\ninstigate an injunction or make any claims at this stage. For the court to allow interference from a trustee on these grounds is wholly unjust and further adds substantial legal cost for them to defend this now in addition in the Bankruptcy Court. The Trustee's suggested course is merely depleting funds, loss of customer assets and depreciation in value of the assets as indicated in the last motion. The trustee or the DOJ have failed to both address that these funds are linked to a stable coin and the effect of that reserve being depleted or lost affects the ability of the customers to sell their trading coin and retrieve any funds back. The Trustee has not addressed the point in relation to the catastrophic losses that will occur if these funds are nor restored or how he even contemplates minimizing that occurrence.\n\nRather, the criminal proceeding and the Chapter 11 Trustee would, at most, investigate Kwok, and not destroy the entire Exchange. Again, if the only people who invested in the Himalaya Exchange were Kwok, Je, and/or Yang, then whom did they defraud? Only themselves? As can be seen from the forensic report the accounts are real people, genuine investors, and innocent third parties. The Government must preserve the accounts and property of innocent, third parties.\n\nThe Trustee references the belief that the victims and creditors of Kwok have made investments in the Himalaya exchange. This still does not bring it within the Chapter 11 as the exchange is not owned by Mr. Kwok.\n\nAs can be seen from the recently served forensic review of the customers, see Exhibit F, that are represented that they are clearly real, they have been properly vetted and have ID and are real persons. This report being conducted by independent lawyers and forensic accountants, who have no affiliation to Counsel and or the exchange clearly show an independent review of the exchange database with a bank statements and financial records that these customers are real\n\nand have proper Exchange accounts and balances. These are not unnamed customers they are identified by their Himalaya account number HID for real safety concerns. The knife picture being a compelling piece of evidence now before the Court, trustee and DoJ. Although neither the trustee or DoJ comment on this but simply ignore it and carry on their repetitive non evidential stance of throwing unwarranted accusations.\n\nIn relation to the suggestion that Kwok has used thousands of customers worldwide to park his assets there is simply no evidence to show this occurred. The DOJ are in full possession of the banking evidence from the exchange's bank accounts. These clearly show these customers and many others depositing funds from their own accounts into the exchange and redeeming their money. It is inconceivable that this trustee is suggesting this stance in an effort to suddenly claim these under the Chapter 11. The DOJ needs to be held accountable for allowing or at the very least not responding and failing to correct this inference. This is not even part of the indictment case and if all the money does belong to Kwok then where is the fraud which is the whole basis of the indictment? Both the DOJ and the trustee seem to think that they can throw out these meritless assertions and that no one will notice that there is no actual evidence to support these claims. The Customer action has received from the exchange a compelling independent report by reputable forensic independent accountants overseen by independent lawyers verifying the centricity of this claim. This is actual evidence the court should take into account and not the assertions and analogies drawn by the trustee who is not even compassionate or ashamed in carrying out this course of conduct.\n\n## **I. MISAPPROPRIATION OF CUSTOMER FUNDS**\n\n13\n\nThere is also a real risk that other creditors will obtain the funds of these customers.\n\nThere are clear indications of that intention by the trustee in an August 2003 hearing (Exhibit I Docket 198-12). Heavy referencing to deciding who will be able to claim and who is a victim being left to this trustee who has already indicated serious prejudicial and defamatory comments by way of reference to the injunction and that somehow without any evidence whatsoever that these customers who are outside the United States have some connection to this historic conduct. These customers took no action direct or indirect against this Trustee for him to make these assertions and suggestions that properly instigated legal proceedings somehow is akin to the harassment outlined in the historic events which led to the injunction. In making these comments and applying this repeated commentary to innocent customers where there is no evidence of any harassment clearly shows a biased individual who is prepared to lodge unwarranted accusations to divert attention away from the proper legal basis upon which these claims have been made.\n\nThe justice being suggested by both the DOJ and the trustee amounts to unwarranted seizures, passage of a substantial time period prior to any return of funds, depletion of funds and claims being made by the trustee to further delay and have their funds given to others, not to mention imposition of exorbitant fees. Exchange customers should in no way be mixed with creditors of the Chapter 11 estate as they do not fall within this category and it would be wholly unfair and unjust to take money away from clearly identifiable victims' accounts and give that money to a creditor who has no right of claim. Further there is a concern that this creditor has serious links to China as does the trustee. The court may think these submissions are harsh however these people face that reality and this simply cannot be brushed under the carpet and ignored that there are connections with both the creditor and the trustee to China.\n\n14\n\n## **J. TRUSTEE'S FINDINGS ARE NOT DECISIONS OF A COURT**\n\nLuc Despins presents several of his beliefs, decisions, or conclusions as though they carry the weight of official court determinations and concrete evidence supporting those claims. While a Trustee indeed possesses distinct responsibilities that necessitate sound business judgments, it doesn't justify presenting all assertions based merely on speculation and past events concerning others. Such an approach seems designed to divert attention from the genuine issues and the legitimate legal reasons for intervention. None of the statements provided offer compelling evidence or logical justification. The Trustee's obligations, as defined by the statute, differ significantly from those of a mere observer. However, when these actions impact third-party rights or have a decisive influence on contested matters, the Trustee's beliefs and actions must be presented with genuine integrity and a solid foundation, which appears to be lacking in this instance.\n\n## **K. JUDICIAL SYSTEM RUNS ON PROOF, NOT STORIES OR GUESSES**\n\nLuc Despins also recites that judges previously found that Kwok had hidden assets from creditors. That would require actual facts showing where Kwok hid those assets. If as Despins argues Kwok can be proven to have hidden assets, that would require facts showing where those assets were hidden. Or at least some chain of transactions constituting proof. There is no hidden asset scenario in the customer motion. It is clear from the recent forensic review there is nothing of the sort. Therefore, these anecdotes are not relevant if those incidents do not show any substantial funds going from Kwok to the Himalaya Exchange. The DoJ have the banking evidence from the Himalaya Exchange bank accounts for months along with supporting compliance information and it has not raised any evidence of this kind.\n\nTherefore, if there is evidence that Kwok hid assets in other places – but no evidence of it being through the he Exchange – this does not help the Trustee's position.\n\nOwnership of the reserve funds must turn on facts, not suspicion.\n\nFurthermore, if like 10,000 other people, Kwok, had invested some of their own funds in Himalaya crypto-currency, on the same terms as thousands of other people, then this Court will establish that in the process of identifying which victims are due their money, those suspected funds if any would be held by the DoJ and the Trustee can then come in and claim that account if one exists. If one was to take the analogy of the Trustee, then no customers exist and thousands around the world are acting on the instruction of Kwok and all of their money from their own accounts somehow all belongs to Kwok and the chapter 11 estate. This is far from plausible on any given view. If the Exchange grew, their own investment in it might become more valuable. That could be true even with no personal control or influence over the Exchange. It is clear here that there are thousands of other customers and it is their investment that the trustee is trying to assert belongs to Kwok. This is categorically legalizing theft under the guise of a exercising his powers as a trustee. There is not even a remote link between the seized funds and Kwok and we will tie the source inextricably to my innocent exchange customers. One who is optimistic about Tesla Motors might share or even promote her vision for why it will grow even if she has no control or management role of any kind.\n\n## **L. OTHER ANECDOTES ARE ONLY SPECULATION**\n\nSimilarly, the Trustee raises suspicion that people might have sympathy for or support for Kwok. But that in itself tells us nothing. They would be very likely outraged by believing that the inspiration for several businesses they were interested in was being treated unfairly. It is a very bad idea to show up at an official's home to protest, but for someone to show up at a\n\ndemonstration does not require that they had ever had any contact with Kwok before. People can be motivated purely by what they perceive to be injustice with no personal relationship at all. And a protest can be their first involvement. To use this as a plausible legal basis for denying victims their money back not only has no proper logic let alone any proper legal basis, it's a fallacious argument.\n\n## **M. KWOK HAS NO CONTROL OVER HIMALAYA EXCHANGE**\n\nThe Trustee brushes aside the reality that neither this Court, the DOJ, nor the Bankruptcy Court has any jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange, which is a company in the British Virgin Islands. The indictment claims that Kwok has no control over the Exchange. It claims that Je has some leadership role through non-U.S. parent businesses.\n\nThe Trustee responds that the Chapter 11 Trustee has authority:\n\n\"Pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, property of a chapter 11 estate consists of \"all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case\" \"wherever located and by whomever held.\" 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (emphasis added).\"\n\nYes, but that is exactly the question. That is not an answer to the question.\n\nAgain, the DOJ's indictment avers that Kwok has no title or role or control over the\n\nHimalaya Exchange. The Trustee tacitly admits that there has been no ruling to the contrary.\n\nThe indictment asserts that the Himalaya Exchange is operated by non-U.S. foreign companies or entities. The Exchange has no offices or activities in the United States. Its membership agreements and governing documents forbid any U.S. person or resident or their agent from participating in the Exchange. This would include Kwok.\n\nIf we *speculate* that the Himalaya Exchange were holding (say) a hypothetical \\$300,000 of cryptocurrency for Kwok in his own individual trading account, of course Kwok's personal\n\ninvestment in the Exchange like any other customer would be Kwok's funds and might be subject to this case in forfeiture or distribution to creditors in the Chapter 11.\n\nHowever, Kwok would be forbidden by the governing documents of the Exchange from being a member (investor) or trading any coins or holding any coins there. The Exchange was specifically designed to not allow any contact with the United States or U.S. investors. Thus if Kwok is a U.S. resident, his membership in the Exchange would violate its terms.\n\nThe question is what about the other 9,997 investors in the Himalaya Exchange's cryptocurrency? Does Kwok have any \"legal or equitable interests?\" So far, all facts point to no. One would imagine that the DOJ would have figured that out before presenting the draft of the indictment to the Grand Jury for its signature. We should already know.\n\n## **III. CONCLUSION**\n\nCustomers of the Himalaya Exchange should be allowed to proceed with their Motion for Return of Property including what evidentiary showings and hearings both sides may need to present.\n\nAny allegations against Kwok should not be levied against innocent victims and it is very clear from these trusty submissions he is trying to suggest every angle he can in order to persuade the court that there is some insincerity in this genuine application. The proper course is for this court to hear and see the actual evidence that these customers are real and it is their own money and their own assets that are at stake. The customers deserve to have their evidence presented under this Court's supervision in a secure manner, without meritless and baseless interference from a trustee who has not an ounce of empathy for victims in this case.\n\nDated: December 26, 2023 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED\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/s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., Suite 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 [Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com](mailto:Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com) (856) 607-5708\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI hereby certify that on December 26, 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 Southern District of New York.\n\n> /s/ Brad Geyer Bradford L. Geyer, PHV pending NJ 022751991 Suite 141 Route 130 S., 303 Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Brad@FormerFedsGroup.","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分庭\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，1　:\n:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n:　（合并管理）\n\n第11章受托人关于所谓喜马拉雅交易所客户在债务人于纽约南区联邦地区法院审理中的刑事程序中提出返还财产动议的最新情况通知\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）作为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第11章案件中的受托人（“受托人”），于2023年12月8日发布通知[Docket No. 2425]，告知本院及利害关系方：2023年12月6日，据称代表喜马拉雅交易所2的3,345名客户的律师，在纽约南区联邦地区法院审理的针对债务人的刑事案件[Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT]（“刑事案件”）中提出一项动议（“该动议”），请求返还美国政府就该刑事案件扣押的财产。3\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及Miles Kwok，以及诸多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），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 喜马拉雅交易所是一家在英属维尔京群岛注册、名为Himalaya International Clearing Limited（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）的公司。\n\n3 随附于2023年12月8日通知的是：(a) 该动议的副本[Criminal Case ECF No. 186]；及(b) 美国司法部于2023年12月7日作出的答复副本[Criminal Case ECF No. 188]。\n\n受托人希望就该动议向本院及利害关系方提供最新情况。特别是，随附本文件作为附件A和附件B的，分别是：(a) 受托人于2023年12月19日就该动议作出的书面答复副本[Criminal Case ECF No. 202]；以及(b) 第三方喜马拉雅交易所客户就其请求返还投诉方扣押财产之动议向破产受托人提交的答复副本，日期为2023年12月26日[Criminal Case ECF No. 211]。\n\n日期：2023年12月27日 LUC A. DESPINS，第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨）（获准临时出庭） Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com alexbongartz@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙泰斯律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分庭\n\nx\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，1　:\n:　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n:　（合并管理）\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，前述通知已于2023年12月27日以电子方式提交。本院电子提交（“CM/ECF”）系统已通过电子邮件向上述标题所示第11章案件的所有当事人发送本次提交的通知；对于如电子提交通知所示无法接受电子提交的任何人，则通过邮寄方式送达。当事人可通过本院的CM/ECF系统查阅本次提交。\n\n日期：2023年12月27日 签署人：/s/ G. Alexander Bongartz\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（G. 亚历山大·邦加茨）（获准临时出庭） Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\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及Miles Kwok，以及诸多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），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受托人的书面答复\n\n1(202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n2023年12月19日\n\n尊敬的Analisa Torres（阿纳莉萨·托雷斯）法官 美国纽约南区联邦地区法院 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\n事由：United States v. Kwok, et al, 1:23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的Torres法官：\n\n我们代表Luc Despins，其作为被告Ho Wan Kwok在美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院（“破产法院”）审理中的第11章破产案件的第11章受托人（“受托人”）。根据本院于2023年12月11日作出的命令(Dkt. 190)，受托人谨就某些所谓“喜马拉雅交易所”1“客户”（“动议申请人”）于2023年12月6日提出的返还财产动议(Dkt. 186（“动议”）)，以及动议申请人为支持该动议提交的答复书状(Dkt. 198（“答复”）)，提交本函作为答复。\n\n受托人对于政府扣押涉案资金是否适当，或动议申请人是否有权根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》41(g)获得救济，不持立场。受托人提交本答复，是因为其认为，据称属于喜马拉雅交易所客户的被扣押资金实际上可能属于第11章遗产财产。因此，如本院考虑准许该动议，受托人谨请求本院在受托人有机会向破产法院申请禁令救济，以阻止该等发放和/或将该等资金转入第11章遗产之前，不批准向动议申请人发放该等资金。\n\n为明确起见，受托人同情Kwok先生的所有受害人和债权人——包括据称在喜马拉雅交易所进行投资的人；但是，只有在适格法院审查其债权之后，方可通过有序程序向该等当事人偿还款项。如涉案资金被过早发放给动议申请人，而动议申请人据称由遍布世界各地、数以千计的未具名喜马拉雅交易所客户组成，受托人其后实际上可能无法追回该等资金，从而对第11章遗产造成不可弥补的损害。\n\n该动议必须置于第11章案件的更大背景下审视\n\n有必要简要概述围绕Kwok先生破产的历史，方能充分理解该动议所寻求的救济及其对第11章遗产构成的风险。简言之，动议申请人并非在一张白纸上行事。受托人此前发现，提出与动议申请人类似立场的其他当事人实际上是在Kwok先生及其同伙的指示下行事。因此，尽管受托人的调查仍在进行中，其不得不对该动议抱有严重关切。\n\nKwok先生于2022年2月提出第11章申请，当时其最大债权人Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund（PAX）在纽约州法院Ostrager法官主持的历时数年的诉讼后，寻求对其执行两项判决书（一项关于违约，另一项关于民事藐视法庭），合计超过$250 million。Ostrager法官认定，Kwok先生曾通过“将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信任的密友及家庭成员名下”，从事“逃避和欺骗其债权人的行为”，且该“计划”使Kwok先生——一名“自称的亿万富翁”——得以“声称其没有资产，尽管其生活方式奢华”。2 Ostrager法官并非首位得出该结论的法官。此前，本辖区的Liman法官认定，据称由Kwok先生女儿持有的另一家公司“实质上是一家空壳公司”，供Kwok先生用以向其债权人隐匿资产。3\n\n鉴于先前的这些司法认定，Kwok先生在启动其第11章案件时声称其名下仅有$3,850资产，或许并不令人意外。所幸，破产法院和Kwok先生的债权人均未照单全收该陈述；2022年7月，受托人获任命调查Kwok先生的财务状况，以确定其财富的真实范围，包括对其家庭成员、商业伙伴及空壳公司提起诉讼，以证明名义上由该等当事人持有的资产实际上属于遗产财产。迄今为止，受托人的工作颇为成功：受托人已为Kwok先生的债权人——包括其犯罪行为的受害人——追回超过$100 million的资产（包括Kwok先生位于Sherry Netherland hotel的豪华整层住宅，以及其现已承认始终属于自己的豪华游艇4）。\n\n尽管动议申请人声称对受托人在开展调查中产生的费用提出抱怨，但正是Kwok先生的障眼法——以及其家庭成员和同伙在第11章案件中的不合作和阻挠——使受托人的工作如此困难且昂贵。受托人所面临的挑战已在政府先前于本案提交的文件中得到充分记载。除必须与协助Kwok先生隐匿资产的当事人进行诉讼外：\n\n- 受托人及其律师，以及PAX及其律师，因其在本案中的工作而成为现场抗议和网络骚扰的目标。经2022年12月的证据听证后，破产法院认定该等活动背后人员系在Kwok先生的指示下行事，并发布禁令；\n- 受托人调查的对象多次无视传票，或以其他方式未履行其证据开示义务，迫使受托人提出多项强制动议及证据开示制裁动议，而破产法院大多予以准许；\n\n2 Decision and Order, at 1, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYSECF Doc No. 1181.\n\n3 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n4 Ho Wan Kwok's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release, at 8, Dkt. No. 178（“他不再能够使用游艇和飞机，因为该两项资产均已被出售”）。\n\n尊敬的Analisa Torres法官 2023年12月19日 第3页\n\n• Kwok先生（郭文贵）和/或受其指使行事的个人指示其世界各地的追随者，以夸大的债权证明（无论其是否有根据）淹没破产法院的案卷，目的在于给受托人造成巨大的行政负担，并实质性增加其律师费用；以及\n• 与Kwok先生有关联的律师已在本辖区对受托人、PAX及其各自的律师提起轻率诉讼，且其近期已因其行为受到制裁。在针对PAX律师的诉讼中作出一项制裁意见时，Liman法官指出，提起该诉讼的律师尽管声称其客户的请求与Kwok先生无关，但其：（一）参与了针对受托人和PAX的抗议活动；（二）与Kwok先生有关联并同情其利益；以及（三）提起该诉讼“意在压制针对”Kwok先生的辩护。5 Caproni法官在针对受托人及其律师事务所的诉讼中，对该等律师作出了类似的制裁决定。6\n\n无论是否与前述问题有关，受托人在破产法院的第11章案件审理期间及之前，以及在其他地方所看到的共同模式如下：表面上独立的个人或当事人提出请求或寻求救济，声称尽管他们可能同情Kwok先生的政治事业，但其与他不存在正式关系，并且仅代表自身寻求救济。但是，正如受托人一次又一次发现并已在破产法院证明的那样，这些当事人通常并非表面所示。相反，在受托人和法院进行证据开示及审查后，总会揭示出寻求救济的一方或多方与Kwok先生存在根深蒂固的关联，且事实上是在奉其指令行事。\n\n该动议与Kwok先生关联人士的其他提交文件遵循相同模式，且受托人认为所涉资金可能属于第11章破产财产\n\n尽管这并非由本法院裁决的问题，受托人认为，动议人——如同此前的众多当事人一样——很可能正在接受Kwok先生或其代理人的指示，且其寻求收回的资金可能依法属于破产财产。受托人基于以下等事项采取该立场：破产法院在其2022年12月针对受托人和PAX的抗议及骚扰而作出的初步禁令裁定中认定，Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）属于一组实体之一，“服务于债务人的目的，充当债务人的商业工具，且其成员个人忠于债务人”。7 Himalaya Exchange名义上的领导人是Kwok先生被指控的共谋者William Je（闫明杰），据称其在破产案件早期通过一家名为Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）的实体向Kwok先生的女儿出借$37 million，试图帮助她使Kwok先生的豪华游艇（受托人随后证明该游艇属于破产财产）免受其债权人的追索。Kwok先生的女儿在其证词中亲切地称Je先生为“William叔叔”。\n\n此外，受托人最近获悉，一名绰号为“Little Sarah”的债务人知名支持者——其曾称Kwok先生为“Guo叔叔”、曾在其纽约市豪华公寓与其用餐、曾乘坐其一艘游艇航行，并参与了抗议活动——利用其社交媒体账户向Geyer先生介绍Himalaya Exchange的投资者，以便其代表他们寻求所谓救济，并就追回的费用收取百分之一的佣金。8 如上所述，Kwok先生的追随者作为所谓债权人动员起来的这种策略和做法，是被告Kwok曾采用且受托人此前已见过的做法。\n\n5 意见及命令，第13-14页，Gong v. Sarnoff, No. 23-cv-343 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023), Dkt. No. 72。\n\n6 意见及命令，第4页注3，An et al., v. Despins et al., No. 22-cv-10062 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023), Dkt. No. 29；另见An, et al. v. Shan, 22-cv-10060 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023)（Carter法官在针对PAX负责人的诉讼中作出制裁）。\n\n7 经更正的部分准许初步禁令动议之裁决备忘录 ¶ 7，In re Kwok, No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023), Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Dkt. No. 133。\n\n尊敬的Analisa Torres法官\nDecember 19, 2023\n第4页\n\n动议人声称其与Kwok先生不存在关系，且交易所资金不可能属于破产财产，这一主张既脱离事实，也脱离法律。动议人错误的法律立场之一，是试图将Himalaya Exchange类比为持有客户存款的银行，并主张该等存款不属于银行的财产。9 但该说法是错误的，因为银行确实拥有存款，而其存款人对银行持有无担保债权。Himalaya Exchange中任何据称的客户资金也很可能同样如此。事实上，迄今为止在破产法院针对Kwok先生提出的$1.2 billion债权中，许多债权据称由动议人声称代表的完全相同类型的Himalaya Exchange客户持有。这倾向于削弱动议人寻求收回的资金并非破产财产的说法。\n\n必须给予破产法院机会，以裁定据称的客户资金是否属于将在破产案件中管理的第11章破产财产\n\n重申一次，受托人并未请求本法院审议存入Himalaya Exchange的资金是否属于破产财产。受托人提供前述背景和论述，仅为强调在破产法院有机会充分审查动议人的论点，并审议受托人可能提出的、关于动议人寻求收回的资金属于第11章破产财产的任何请求之前，本法院不向动议人发放该等资金至关重要。10\n\n就动议人对其可能投资于Himalaya Exchange的资金持有合法债权而言，受托人同情其立场。但受托人对Kwok先生的所有合法债权人负有义务，而非对任何单一债权人或债权人团体负有义务，因此，受托人必须尽其所能，确保通过依法公平对待所有债权人的有序程序管理Kwok先生的资产和负债。动议人未提出任何有效理由，说明本法院或破产法院应放弃该程序。\n\n动议人提出稻草人论点，称两法院均不对“Himalaya Exchange”享有管辖权，但该说法显然不正确。根据《破产法》第541条，第11章破产财产包括“案件开始时债务人对财产享有的所有法定或衡平法上的权益”，“无论位于何处、由何人持有”。11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)（强调部分为原文所加）；In re DeFlora Lake Dev. Assocs., Inc., 571 B.R. 587, 593 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)（破产法院对确定何者构成破产财产享有“专属管辖权”）；另见28 U.S.C. § 1334(e)(1)（涉及对破产财产资产的专属管辖权）。因此，只要Kwok先生对所涉Himalaya Exchange资金享有权益，破产法院显然对该等资金享有管辖权；受托人基于近期历史及其正在进行的调查认为，这很可能是事实。\n\n因此，基于所有上述理由，如本法院考虑准许该动议，受托人谨请求其在受托人有机会向破产法院寻求适当救济之前，不授权发放该等资金。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Nicholas A. Bassett\n\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP的Nicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）\n\nNAB\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2473 Filed 12/27/23 Entered 12/27/23 09:44:37 Page 10 of 30\n附件B\n\n答复\n美国纽约南区联邦地区法院\n美利坚合众国，申诉人\n\n诉\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（闫明杰），又名“William Je”，以及\n\nYANPING WANG（王雁平），又名“Yvette”，\n\n被告。\n刑事案号：23 Cr. 118 (AT)\n\nHIMALAYA EXCHANGE第三方客户就其返还申诉人扣押财产之动议向破产受托人提交的答复\nHIMALAYA EXCHANGE第三方客户就其返还申诉人扣押财产之动议向破产受托人提交的答复\n\nHimalaya Exchange的客户，经由下列签署律师Bradford L. Geyer, Esq.代理，其在该交易所的投资已作为本案核心刑事起诉的附属行动被扣押，已提交介入动议，以支持其返还由申诉人美利坚合众国扣押财产的动议。\n\n律师的客户提交了返还财产动议，而美国司法部（“DOJ”）提交答复，反对这些Himalaya Exchange存款人对没收提出异议所采用的程序方式（ECF 186）。律师的客户向DOJ提交了答复（ECF 198）及补充文件（ECF 207-209）。\n\n与此同时，第11章受托人Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）也通过Paul Hastings律师事务所的律师提交了其自己的答复（ECF 202）。律师的客户现向受托人提交简要答复。\n\n一、引言\n\n本法院目前审理的案件，是政府针对具名被告提起的刑事起诉。然而，作为一项附属事项，政府还以相关但各不相同的理由，从各类实体或个人处扣押了各种资金和财产，并在没收程序中主张该等资金和财产属于所起诉犯罪的犯罪工具或收益。\n\n因此，没收程序及介入人对其提出的异议，是与核心刑事起诉分离的事项，但因其源自该刑事案件而被纳入主刑事案件。这使我们面临一些困难的程序。\n\n起初，下列签署律师所代表的Himalaya Exchange的3,539名客户（另有其他客户目前并非该律师的客户）所面对的，是美国司法部以“先扣押、后调查”的方式，将对HO WAN KWOK、KIN MING JE及YANPING WANG的刑事起诉——显然使用了各种其他化名——与对来自各类个人和实体的资金的没收相结合所形成的繁琐且尴尬的情形。\n\n如果 DOJ 将刑事检控与没收程序分别置于不同案件中处理，对所有人而言本会更不那么繁琐。更好的是，如果 DOJ 已完成对 Kwok（郭文贵）、Je（单婕）和 Wang（王雁）的检控，以查明他们是否确实实施了任何可能使所主张的部分或全部没收具有正当依据的犯罪行为，那就更好了。\n\n代理律师的 3,539 名作为 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）客户的当事人，在并非其自主选择的情况下，面临须介入一宗刑事案件。有关事项本应在不同案件中分别处理，并且现在可能应予分案。但这并非喜马拉雅交易所客户的决定。\n\nII. 论证\n\nA. 喜马拉雅交易所并非第 11 章破产财产的一部分\n\n早在署名律师知悉这些事项或参与其中之前，看来 Kwok 作为寻求破产法院保护的破产债务人，已向 U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦破产法院）提交了第 11 章破产申请。\n\n然而，据代理律师所能理解和知悉，申请人\n\n（破产人、债务人）并未将 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的喜马拉雅交易所——该地在大英帝国殖民占领后自 1850 年起成为独立国家——列为\n\nKwok 第 11 章破产程序下应管理的资产\n\n或持续经营实体。\n\n受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）通过其律师提交的异议或通知称：\n\n如法院所记得，法院此前曾在作出针对债务人及某些关联方的初步禁令命令时认定，喜马拉雅交易所及其他各关联喜马拉雅实体“均受债务人领导”3，且是“债务人的商业载体。”4\n\n然而，除“领导”在法律上是一个毫无意义的术语这一事实外，这显然是错误的，也不可能成立。此处的“债务人”是 HAN WO KWOK。\n\nU.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部，DOJ）及其召集的大陪审团已正式认定：\n\n在起诉书第 11 段中（我们假定 DOJ 撰写该段供大陪审团签署），大陪审团认定：\n“……Kwok 在喜马拉雅交易所未担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔。”\n\n这引出了在破产语境中“领导”究竟意味着什么这一令人困惑的问题。此外，大陪审团在起诉书第 11 段中认定，喜马拉雅交易所\n\n“由其 [Je] 拥有、设在境外的各种实体创立并运营。”\n\n因此，本院错误地，或者因获得错误信息，而将“领导”（无论其在法律上意味着什么）归于大陪审团认定在喜马拉雅交易所不具有任何角色的 Kwok；而大陪审团认定，喜马拉雅交易所由 Je 运营的“设在境外的各种实体”控制。\n\n目前，我们不知道大陪审团认定了哪些各种实体，但按照英语的通常用法，这将表明实体不只是寥寥几个。如果喜马拉雅交易所由境外数量相当多的“各种实体”运营，则意味着没有任何一个实体主导喜马拉雅交易所的运营。这些“各种实体”中的任何一个均无法决定交易所的运营。至少，除邀请我们想象未被陈述之事的墨迹测验外，未向我们提供任何其他内容。\n\nB. 角色混淆\n\n当然，第 11 章破产与个人第 13 章破产一样，旨在维持并持续经营受影响的企业，希望该企业或多个企业能够在尽可能偿还全部或大部分债务后脱离破产。因此，若成功的第 11 章程序旨在最终在可实现的最大范围内偿还所有债权人，[1] 则将这些事项理解为 Kwok 向其债权人隐匿资产将是错误的。\n\n这通常是通过让企业继续运营来实现的。如果企业无法继续经营，则第 7 章破产很可能适当，或者在尝试第 11 章重整之后可能成为唯一可行的替代方案。\n\n根据 Kwok 的申请，破产法院任命 Luc Despins 为第 11 章受托人。该法院将管理破产程序的资格、能力和勤勉托付给 Despins，而该破产程序从一开始看就相当复杂。\n\n人人都有权咨询律师。但尽管其向破产法院提交了 $21 million 的计费，他难道没有资格担任受托人吗？Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所）实际上是受托人吗？鉴于此，代理律师将直接向 Luc Despins 处理其后所有事务，而他当然可以与律师审阅这些事务。尽管 Despins 看来由律师代理，但其亦由法律指定为破产财产的授权代表。受托人以自己名义行事所承担的责任大于普通人。\n\n破产法院在 Case 22-05003 Doc 247 Filed 06/26/23 中认定：“受托人是一名经验丰富的破产专业人士。”\n\n因此，为什么任何人应通过 Paul Hastings 律师事务所联系受托人？为什么受托人不能在不让该律师事务所完成受托人全部工作的情况下管理第 11 章程序？代理律师的当事人先被受托人榨干，随后又被受托人的律师再次榨干？而受托人竟厚颜无耻地对喜马拉雅交易所及其客户横加指责。\n\n1 http\n\n代理律师得出结论，所有当事方均应直接与正式任命的受托人打交道，并将向受托人提供意见的法律费用维持在最低限度。\n\nC. 喜马拉雅交易所的身份\n\nLuc Despins 的律师指出，他不知道存在名为喜马拉雅交易所的实体。喜马拉雅交易所——DOJ 和受托人似乎均予以忽视——与美国管辖权毫无关联，且任何美国人、美国居民或代表任何美国人或居民行事之人均不得成为会员（投资者、存款人）。这一关键事实可能被忽略，因为受托人尚未认识到存在一个与 Kwok 的第 11 章程序毫无关系的喜马拉雅交易所。\n\n然而，受托人已花费至少 $21 million 的律师费和成本进行调查。他若称其未就喜马拉雅交易所作出任何查询，包括以下基本事项，将是不可思议的：(a) 大陪审团认定了什么，(b) 所属管辖区，以及 (c) 交易所网站上的管辖文件。\n\nD. 受托人寻求转换第 11 章程序\n\n这一情形本身就值得质疑，并清楚表明，此系列事件及异议仅仅是因为其试图担任接管人并管理该等资金的计划现正受到挑战而产生。这一点值得注意，因为该角色不同于第 11 章受托人的角色。显然，受托人与 DOJ 正在进行讨论；事实上，他提及希望在 August 2003 的破产庭审中接触 DOJ（Exhibit I Docket 198-12），以担任管理该等资金的接管人。这毫无意义，因为如果他能够证明该等资金属于第 11 章破产财产，他就无需以接管人身份行事，或在破产法官面前提及该事项。显然，他知道\n\n这并不属于第 11 章程序，否则不会提及其试图与 DOJ 交谈，以担任管理这些资金的接管人。他无权径直介入并建议其应承担与其无关的角色。他也不是承担该角色的适当人选，并且可能存在明显的利益冲突，正如本案中已经发生的那样：他在本案提起后极短时间内改变立场，该改变与本案的提起高度相关；他现在主张该等资金属于 Kwok，不仅可能属于第 11 章案件的一部分，而且本案以某种方式妨碍第 11 章程序的管理。受托人此前亦曾有此等行为：其接受了向船舶公司提供、以该船舶为担保的 $37 million 贷款，且法院为此作出命令；其未主张该等资金属于第 11 章破产财产。一旦船舶被返还，他即改变立场，并提出申请，称该船舶公司属于第 11 章破产财产，因此向其提供的贷款属于破产财产。随后，他主张应首先从交易所出借的资金中清偿 $11 million 的律师费。之所以强调这些问题，是因为这一行为过程引发了对客户资金保障的重大担忧。他不断改变的立场似乎并非源于任何新的发现，而更像是一种反复采用的策略。所提供的例子旨在凸显这些日益加深的担忧。\n\n无论从何种角度，受托人均不能同时以受托人和该等资金接管人的身份行事。接管人不应处于受托人的地位，且必须在依据实际证据评估权利主张及管理资金返还时保持公正。\n\n他未处理这一点，因为这对其不利；而就其试图同时以两种身份行事而言，这在任何角度看均构成严重关切和利益冲突。迄今为止，其行为并非其所声称的公正接管人的行为，因为其在没有任何证据支持的情况下，似乎将一切均主张为第 11 章破产财产，同时产生巨额律师费。这不能被简单忽视。\n\n就 Mawah Mansion（马瓦庄园）而言，即使 DOJ 在其案件中称该房屋据称由 Gclub 会员费购买，他却以某种方式规定，未经证实的欺诈所得应视为属于被指控被告的资金，并应将犯罪所得判给其破产财产管理。如果 DOJ 的案件正确，则该等 Gclub 会员资金属于那些受害人，且无论从何种角度均不属于 Kwok，无论其作为个人、债务人申请人，还是任何实体的高级人员。受托人现在正试图对这笔客户资金如此操作。若法院允许此类行为继续影响喜马拉雅交易所客户资金，将是完全不公正的。\n\n请注意，关于如何管理的疑问或担忧，并不改变该等资金属于喜马拉雅交易所客户这一事实，无论作为其存款和/或为使交易所继续运营所必需的运营资金。\n\n一个问题是，DOJ 是否有能力例行将受害人的损失以赔偿形式返还给受害人；我们希望在不久的将来答案将是响亮的肯定。\n\nE. 被告人抢劫了自己？\n\n受托人与 DOJ 一样，认为 Kwok、Je 和 Wang 欺诈了他人。但欺诈了谁？如果喜马拉雅交易所的客户并非真正的投资者，那么这些资金来自何处？如果喜马拉雅交易所中并无接近 10,000 名会员／投资者，而其中代理律师代理 3,859 名（且人数仍在增加），被告人又欺诈了谁？\n\nDOJ 和受托人似乎认为 Kwok、Je 和 Wang 从\n\n他们自己手中欺诈取得了最高达 $609 million。如果交易所客户实际上只是 Kwok、Je 和 Wang，那么他们欺诈了谁？如果没有人，他们扣押的依据是什么？更令人困惑的是，该等资金并未消失——全部仍完好无损。\n\nF. 喜马拉雅交易所的准备金并非第 11 章破产财产的一部分，亦与任何允许没收的交易无关\n\nLuc Despins（卢克·德斯潘斯）的代理律师多次声称，Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的储备金“可能”构成Chapter 11（第11章）破产财产的一部分。这是默示承认，截至目前，美国康涅狄格联邦地区破产法院（U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut）尚未就Himalaya Exchange的资金作出证据认定或裁决。\n\n在就受托人工作开具了$21 million的发票、并提及还有更多发票即将开具，以及动用联邦政府的全部资源之后，仍不存在将该等资金视为由Chapter 11受托人管理的裁决或依据。\n\n受托人主张，必须给予破产法院机会，就所称客户资金是否属于Chapter 11破产财产作出裁决。当然，这一点确实如此，但为时已晚。遗憾的是，此事被分割于DOJ（美国司法部）调查与Chapter 11破产程序之间。更糟糕的是，在本案现阶段，我们尚未正式知悉被告是否确实犯有任何罪行。但我们至少已有受托人价值$21 million的工作、更多尚在处理中的发票，以及联邦政府的全部资源。然而，并无证据表明Himalaya Exchange储备金直接或间接属于破产的Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n破产法院本有机会，但其并未利用该机会。如果并无裁决认定Himalaya Exchange资金构成Kwok的财产，无辜受害人还须等待多久？下列签名律师的客户遭受了实际、现实且有时改变人生的损害。何时才会利用这一作出裁决的机会？\n\n律师的客户投资的资金原本用于购房、子女大学教育、退休等。DOJ扣押的资金不只是一个数字，而是现实之人的生活。\n\n储备金不应被掠夺用于其他目的。\n\n请回顾，Chapter 11案件是由Kwok的申请开启的。本案的起诉书约两次明确指出，Kwok在Himalaya Exchange中不具有所有权或角色。因此，基于起诉书，截至目前我们没有依据认为Himalaya Exchange的资金属于Kwok在Chapter 11下的申请的一部分。至多，起诉书主张是Je（杰），而非Kwok，设立了该交易所，同时还称该交易所由美国境外的其他外国企业运营，而美利坚合众国对此不具有法律管辖权。\n\nG. 储备金为存款人以信托方式持有\n\n被DOJ扣押的储备金为交易所的客户／存款人／投资者以信托方式持有。因此，该等资金是为交易所客户提供担保的抵押资产。这些资金并非与无担保银行账户中的一般资金处于同等条件。储备金由Himalaya Exchange客户以信托方式持有，以使该等客户受益。该等资金不由任何其他人自由且无负担地所有。\n\n受托人主张，存入银行的资金属于银行财产。但事实并非如此。首先，该等资金以信托方式为存款人持有，而银行——其名称中通常含有“trust（信托）”——是为他人持有资金的受托人。诚然，美国银行的部分准备金（不足100%）制度要求银行调度资金并设法满足其所有需求。但从存款人处收到的资金属于存款人，尤其是在该等资金以100%准备金率信托持有直至赎回时。事实上，在任何刑事追诉中，包括本案，Kwok在银行中的存款人账户所显示的银行余额，均会被DOJ主张为Kwok的实际财富。DOJ会将全部存款金额视为Kwok的财产，即使该金额在银行中由不足100%的准备金担保。\n\n此外，如果一家银行倒闭或陷入困境，政府将介入并首先管理该银行以及为存款人利益持有的资金。\n\n同样地，公寓大楼的房东不能收取300名租户的保证金，然后携带保证金去环球巡游。保证金属于租户，但须以租户未损坏公寓、清洁公寓等条件为限。\n\nH. 真实与人为构造的HIMALAYA EXCHANGE客户\n\n受托人如同DOJ，显然希望基于推测处理整个Himalaya Exchange，即或许某些账户实际上属于Kwok、Je和／或Wang（王）。但即使这可能属实，也无关紧要。真正的投资者不应仅因设立交易所时其创建者为自身持有少量数字币的可能性而遭掠夺。\n\n受托人的建议等同于推断本法院无能力进行返还资金给受害人的必要核查。本法院是管理该等资金的适格法院——特别是鉴于安保和安全方面的关切——且完全有能力承担该项任务。在执行该项任务过程中，如有任何资金似乎以Kwok名义持有，则该等资金无疑将被隔离，受托人可以提出权利主张。\n\n就全部客户资金主张Chapter 11的建议，即使是可追溯至Je或Wang的资金，也没有法律依据；受托人作为受托人，在现阶段无管辖权进行干预、寻求禁令或提出任何主张。法院允许受托人以这些理由进行干预完全不公，并且除在破产法院进行抗辩之外，还会进一步增加他们就此进行抗辩的大量法律费用。受托人所建议的路径只会耗尽资金、造成客户资产损失以及如最近一项动议所示的资产贬值。受托人或DOJ均未处理以下问题：该等资金与一种稳定币相联系，以及该储备金被耗尽或损失会如何影响客户出售其交易币并取回任何资金的能力。受托人未处理如该等资金未获恢复将发生的灾难性损失，亦未说明其甚至如何设想将该等情形降至最低。\n\n相反，刑事程序和Chapter 11受托人至多应调查Kwok，而不是摧毁整个交易所。再次强调，如果Himalaya Exchange中唯一投资的人是Kwok、Je和／或Yang（杨），那么他们欺诈了谁？仅仅是他们自己吗？如法证报告所示，这些账户属于真实的人、真正的投资者及无辜第三方。政府必须保全无辜第三方的账户和财产。\n\n受托人提及一种看法，即Kwok的受害人和债权人已在Himalaya Exchange进行了投资。这仍不能使其纳入Chapter 11，因为该交易所并非Kwok先生所有。\n\n如近期送达的客户法证审查报告所示，见Exhibit F（证物F），其中所列客户显然是真实的，他们已得到适当审查，具有身份证明，并且是真实的人。该报告由与律师及／或交易所无关联的独立律师和法证会计师进行，明确显示对交易所数据库、银行对账单及财务记录的独立审查表明，这些客户真实存在，并拥有适当的交易所账户和余额。这些并非未具名客户；出于真正的安全关切，他们以其Himalaya账户号码HID予以识别。刀具照片现为提交至法院、受托人和DOJ面前的一项有力证据。尽管受托人和DOJ均未对此发表评论，而只是予以忽视，并继续其反复、无证据支持的立场，提出毫无根据的指控。\n\n关于Kwok利用全球数千名客户停放其资产的说法，根本没有证据表明此事曾发生。DOJ完全掌握交易所银行账户的银行证据。这些证据明确显示，这些客户及许多其他客户从其自身账户向交易所存入资金，并赎回其资金。难以想象该受托人竟试图以此立场突然在Chapter 11下对该等资金提出主张。应当追究DOJ的责任，因为其允许这种推断，或者至少未作出回应且未能纠正这种推断。这甚至不是起诉书案件的一部分；如果所有资金均属于Kwok，那么构成起诉书全部基础的欺诈又在哪里？DOJ和受托人似乎都认为，他们可以提出这些毫无根据的断言，而没有人会注意到并无实际证据支持这些主张。客户行动已从交易所获得一份有力的独立报告，该报告由受独立律师监督、享有声誉的独立法证会计师出具，核实了该项主张的核心性。这是法院应当考虑的实际证据，而非受托人的断言和类比；受托人在实施该等行为过程中甚至既无同情心也不感羞愧。\n\nI. 挪用客户资金\n\n还存在其他债权人将取得这些客户资金的现实风险。\n\n在August 2003的一次听证会上，受托人已明确显示其具有该等意图（Exhibit I Docket 198-12）。大量提及由该受托人决定谁能够提出主张以及谁是受害人；该受托人已通过提及禁令作出严重有偏见和诽谤性的评论，并且在毫无任何证据的情况下称，这些位于美国境外的客户与该历史行为存在某种联系。这些客户未曾针对该受托人采取任何直接或间接行动，使其可以作出这些断言和建议，即恰当提起法律程序竟不知何故等同于导致禁令的历史事件中所述的骚扰。作出这些评论并将这种反复评论适用于无辜客户，而并无任何骚扰证据，清楚表明这是一个有偏见的人，准备提出毫无根据的指控，以转移人们对提出这些主张所依据的适当法律基础的注意力。\n\nDOJ和受托人所建议的司法公正，等同于毫无根据的扣押、在任何资金返还之前经过大量时间、资金耗尽，以及受托人提出主张以进一步拖延并将其资金给予他人，更不用说施加高昂费用。交易所客户绝不应与Chapter 11破产财产的债权人混同，因为他们不属于该类别；从可明确识别的受害人账户中取走资金并将该资金交给无权提出主张的债权人，将完全不公平且不公正。此外，令人关切的是，该债权人与受托人一样，与中国存在严重关联。法院可能认为这些陈述严厉，然而这些人面临该等现实，且不能简单地掩盖并忽视债权人和受托人与中国均存在关联这一事实。\n\nJ. 受托人的认定并非法院裁决\n\nLuc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯）将其若干信念、决定或结论表述得仿佛其具有法院正式裁定及支持该等主张的具体证据的分量。虽然受托人确实承担需要作出健全商业判断的特定职责，但这并不能成为仅凭对他人的推测和过往事件而提出所有断言的正当理由。此种做法似乎旨在转移人们对真实争议问题及进行干预的正当法律理由的注意力。所提供的任何陈述均未提出令人信服的证据或合乎逻辑的理由。受托人的法定职责与单纯观察者的职责显著不同。然而，当该等行为影响第三方权利或对有争议事项产生决定性影响时，受托人的信念和行为必须以真正的诚信及坚实基础予以提出，而本案中似乎缺乏该等基础。\n\nK. 司法系统依赖证据，而非叙事或猜测\n\nLuc Despins还称，法官此前认定Kwok（郭文贵）曾向债权人隐匿资产。这将需要实际事实证明Kwok将该等资产藏于何处。若如Despins所主张，可以证明Kwok隐匿了资产，则需要事实证明该等资产藏于何处，或者至少需要构成证明的某一交易链。在客户动议中不存在隐匿资产的情形。近期法证审查清楚表明，不存在任何此类情况。因此，若该等事件并未显示有任何大额资金从Kwok流向Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），则这些轶事并不相关。DoJ（美国司法部）数月来一直持有Himalaya Exchange银行账户的银行证据以及支持性合规资料，但其并未提出任何此类证据。\n\n因此，若有证据表明Kwok在其他地方隐匿资产——但没有证据表明该等资产系通过该交易所隐匿——这并无助于受托人的立场。\n\n储备资金的所有权必须依据事实，而非怀疑。\n\n此外，若Kwok如同其他10,000人一样，以与数千名其他人相同的条件，将其部分自有资金投资于Himalaya crypto-currency（喜马拉雅加密货币），则本院将在确定哪些受害人应获得其款项的过程中认定，该等被怀疑的资金（如有）将由DoJ持有，而受托人届时可介入并对该账户（如存在）提出主张。若采纳受托人的类比，则不存在任何客户，世界各地数千人均系按照Kwok的指示行事，且其各自账户中的全部资金不知何故均属于Kwok及第11章破产财产。无论从何种角度看，这都远非合理。如果交易所增长，他们对其自身的投资可能变得更有价值。即使对交易所毫无个人控制或影响，这也可能成立。此处清楚可见，尚有数千名其他客户，而受托人正试图主张属于Kwok的正是他们的投资。这是在受托人行使其权限的幌子下，断然将盗窃合法化。被扣押资金与Kwok之间甚至不存在丝毫联系，我们将把资金来源不可分割地联系至我无辜的交易所客户。对Tesla Motors（特斯拉汽车）持乐观态度的人，即使不具有任何控制权或管理角色，也可能分享甚至宣传其关于Tesla Motors为何将会增长的见解。\n\nL. 其他轶事仅属猜测\n\n同样，受托人提出怀疑，认为人们可能对Kwok抱有同情或支持。但这本身并不能说明任何问题。若他们相信自己感兴趣的若干企业所受启发的来源正遭受不公平对待，他们极有可能感到愤慨。在官员住所前出现以示抗议是一个很糟糕的主意，但某人出现在示威活动中，并不要求其此前曾与Kwok有过任何接触。人们完全可能因其所感知到的不公正而受到激励，而根本不存在任何私人关系。抗议可能是他们的首次参与。将此作为拒绝受害人取回其款项的貌似合理的法律依据，不仅毫无适当逻辑，更遑论任何适当的法律依据；这是一项谬误论证。\n\nM. KWOK对HIMALAYA EXCHANGE不具有控制权\n\n受托人轻率地否认以下现实：本院、DOJ及Bankruptcy Court（破产法院）均对Himalaya Exchange这一位于British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）的公司不具有管辖权。起诉书主张Kwok对该交易所不具有控制权。其主张Je（杰）通过非美国母公司企业担任某种领导角色。\n\n受托人答称，第11章受托人具有如下权限：\n\n“根据《破产法》第541条，第11章破产财产包括‘案件开始时债务人在财产中享有的一切法定或衡平权益’，‘无论位于何处，也无论由何人持有。’11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)（强调为原文所加）。”\n\n是的，但这恰恰是问题所在。这并非对该问题的回答。\n\n再次，DOJ的起诉书声称Kwok对Himalaya Exchange不具有任何所有权、职务或控制权。受托人默认承认，并无相反裁定。\n\n起诉书主张Himalaya Exchange由非美国外国公司或实体运营。该交易所在美国没有办事处或活动。其会员协议及治理文件禁止任何美国人士、居民或其代理人参与该交易所。这将包括Kwok。\n\n如果我们推测Himalaya Exchange正为Kwok在其个人交易账户中持有（例如）假设的\\$300,000加密货币，那么当然，Kwok如同任何其他客户一样对该交易所作出的个人投资将属于Kwok的资金，并可能在本案中受到没收，或在第11章程序中向债权人分配。\n\n然而，交易所的治理文件将禁止Kwok成为会员（投资者）、交易任何币种或在该处持有任何币种。该交易所的特别设计目的在于不允许与美国或美国投资者发生任何接触。因此，若Kwok为美国居民，其在交易所的会员资格将违反其条款。\n\n问题在于，Himalaya Exchange加密货币的其余9,997名投资者如何？Kwok对其具有任何“法定或衡平权益”吗？迄今为止，所有事实均指向否定。可以想见，DOJ在将起诉书草案提交Grand Jury（大陪审团）签署之前本应已经查明此事。我们本应已经知晓。\n\nIII. 结论\n\n应当允许Himalaya Exchange的客户继续推进其返还财产动议，包括双方可能需要提出的证据证明及进行的听证。\n\n针对Kwok的任何指控不应加诸无辜受害人，而且从这些受托人提交的文件中可以非常清楚地看出，他正试图提出一切可能的角度，以说服法院认为这项真实申请存在某种不真诚之处。适当的做法是由本院听取并审查实际证据，以确认这些客户真实存在，且处于争议中的乃是他们自己的资金和资产。客户应有权在本院监督下以安全方式提出其证据，免受一名对本案受害人毫无同理心的受托人毫无根据且缺乏事实基础的干扰。\n\n日期：December 26, 2023　谨此提交\n\n/s/ Jamie Scher（杰米·谢尔）\nJamie Scher\nNY 2488435\nMyer and Scher LLP（迈尔与谢尔律师事务所）\n377B South Oyster Bay Road\nPlainview, NY 11803\nJamie@myerandscher.com\n(516) 713-0655\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer（布拉德·盖耶）\nBradford L. Geyer（布拉德福德·L·盖耶），PHV申请待决\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141\nRoute 130 S., Suite 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\n[Brad@FormerFedsGroup.Com]\n(856) 607-5708\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，于December 26, 2023，上述文件的真实、准确副本已通过U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的ECF系统以电子方式提交并送达。\n\n/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，PHV申请待决\nNJ 022751991\nSuite 141\nRoute 130 S., 303\nCinnaminson, NJ 08077\nBrad@FormerFedsGroup.com","key_entities":["Kwok","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Je","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","forfeiture","Luc Despins","Paul Hastings","Guo","Geyer","Torres","Analisa Torres","CIPA","Miles Guo","William Je","Yanping Wang","Kin Ming Je","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":29,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":72,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":160,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":178,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":188,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":190,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":202,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":207,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":211,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":247,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":9035,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-08 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-08","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:43:04"}