{"id":"court_ctb_2576_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2576,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
,QVWUXFWLRQVRQ5HYHUVH","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
,QVWUXFWLRQVRQ5HYHUVH | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
&RXUW8VH2QO\\ | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | | |\n| Luc
A.
Despins,
Chapter
11
Trustee | Defeng Cao | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS
)LUP1DPH\\$GGUHVVDQG7HOHSKRQH1R | ATTORNEYS,I.QRZQ | | | |\n| Paul Hastings LLP (c/o Avram E. Luft), 200 Park Avenue New
York, New York 10166, aviluft@paulhastings.com | Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP (c/o Katherine E. Mateo)
1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019
kmateo@olshanlaw.com | | | |\n| PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\
867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ
Ƒ
'HEWRU
Ƒ
Ƒ
&UHGLWRU
Ƒ
2WKHU
Ƒ
7UXVWHH | Ƒ
'HEWRU
Ƒ
&UHGLWRU
Ƒ
7UXVWHH | PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\
Ƒ
867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ
Ƒ
2WKHU | | |\n| CAUSE OF
ACTION
:5,7(\\$%5,()67\\$7(0(172)&\\$86(2)\\$&7,21,1&/8',1*\\$//8667\\$787(6,192/9('
Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of the Motorcycles and Ordering Turnover of Motorcycles to Trustee pursuant
to Sections 541, 542 and 544; Avoidance of Transfers of Motorcycles as Unauthorized Post-petition Transfers Pursuant to
Bankruptcy Code Sections 549 and 550; Avoidance of Transfers of Land Rover Defender and Dodge Ram as Actually Fraudulent
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 548(a)(1)(A). Avoidance of Transfers of Land Rover Defender and Dodge Ram as Actually
Fraudulent Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 544(b) and Section 25:2-25 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes; Recovery of
Avoided Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 550 | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT | | | | |\n| 1XPEHUXSWRILYHER[HVVWDUWLQJZLWKOHDGFDXVHRIDFWLRQDVILUVWDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVVHFRQGDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVHWF | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property | | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued) | | |\n| Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†WXUQRYHURISURSHUW\\
Ƒ | Ƒ
Ƒ | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW | | |\n| 5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†SUHIHUHQFH
Ƒ | Ƒ | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DZLOOIXODQGPDOLFLRXVLQMXU\\ | | |\n| X
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†IUDXGXOHQWWUDQVIHU
Ƒ
X
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\RWKHU | Ƒ | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DVWXGHQWORDQ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGLYRUFHRUVHSDUDWLRQREOLJDWLRQ
RWKHUWKDQGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
Ƒ
9DOLGLW\\SULRULW\\RUH[WHQWRIOLHQRURWKHULQWHUHVWLQSURSHUW\\ | Ƒ | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\RWKHU | | |\n| | | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
Ƒ | Ƒ
,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±LPSRVLWLRQRIVWD\\ | | | |\n| \\$SSURYDORIVDOHRISURSHUW\\RIHVWDWHDQGRIDFRRZQHU†K | Ƒ | ,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±RWKHU | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
Ƒ
2EMHFWLRQUHYRFDWLRQRIGLVFKDUJH†FGH | Ƒ | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
6XERUGLQDWLRQRIFODLPRULQWHUHVW | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
Ƒ
5HYRFDWLRQRIFRQILUPDWLRQ | Ƒ | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
'HFODUDWRU\\MXGJPHQW | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†D\\$SULRULW\\WD[FODLPV
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIDOVHSUHWHQVHVIDOVHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ | Ƒ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
'HWHUPLQDWLRQRIUHPRYHGFODLPRUFDXVH | | |\n| DFWXDOIUDXG
Ƒ | Other
Ƒ | | | |\n| 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIUDXGDVILGXFLDU\\HPEH]]OHPHQWODUFHQ\\
(continued next column) | Ƒ | 666,3\\$&DVH±86&††DDDet.seq.
2WKHUHJRWKHUDFWLRQVWKDWZRXOGKDYHEHHQEURXJKWLQVWDWHFRXUW | | |\n| Ƒ
&KHFNLIWKLVFDVHLQYROYHVDVXEVWDQWLYHLVVXHRIVWDWHODZ | Ƒ | LIXQUHODWHGWREDQNUXSWF\\FDVH
&KHFNLIWKLVLVDVVHUWHGWREHDFODVVDFWLRQXQGHU)5&3 | | |\n| Ƒ &KHFNLIDMXU\\WULDOLVGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW | 'HPDQG | | | |\n| 2WKHU5HOLHI6RXJKW | | | | |\n| Declaratory
relief
pursuant
to
541,
542,
and
544
of
the
Bankruptcy
Code | | | | |\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|--------------|--|\n| 1\\$0(2)'(%725 | | %\\$1.5837&<&\\$6(12 | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | 22-50573 (JAM) | | |\n| ',675,&7,1:+,&+&\\$6(,63(1',1* | | ',9,6,212)),&( | 1\\$0(2)-8'*( | |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport | Manning, J. | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| 3/\\$,17,)) | '()(1'\\$17 | | \\$'9(56\\$5< | |\n| | | | 352&((',1*12 | |\n| | | | | |\n| ',675,&7,1:+,&+\\$'9(56\\$5<,63(1',1* | | ',9,6,212)),&( | 1\\$0(2)-8'*( | |\n| | | | | |\n| 6,*1\\$785(2)\\$77251(<253/\\$,17,)) | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| /s/ Avram E. Luft | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| '\\$7( | | 35,171\\$0(2)\\$77251(<253/\\$,17,)) | | |\n| | | Avram E. Luft | | |\n| February 6, 2024 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n## **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\n7KHILOLQJRIDEDQNUXSWF\\FDVHFUHDWHVDQ³HVWDWH´XQGHUWKHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHEDQNUXSWF\\FRXUWZKLFKFRQVLVWVRI DOORIWKHSURSHUW\\RIWKHGHEWRUZKHUHYHUWKDWSURSHUW\\LVORFDWHG%HFDXVHWKHEDQNUXSWF\\HVWDWHLVVRH[WHQVLYHDQGWKH MXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHFRXUWVREURDGWKHUHPD\\EHODZVXLWVRYHUWKHSURSHUW\\RUSURSHUW\\ULJKWVRIWKHHVWDWH7KHUHDOVRPD\\EH ODZVXLWVFRQFHUQLQJWKHGHEWRU¶VGLVFKDUJH,IVXFKDODZVXLWLVILOHGLQDEDQNUXSWF\\FRXUWLWLVFDOOHGDQDGYHUVDU\\ SURFHHGLQJ\n\n\\$SDUW\\ILOLQJDQDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJPXVWDOVRPXVWFRPSOHWHDQGILOH)RUPWKH\\$GYHUVDU\\3URFHHGLQJ &RYHU6KHHWXQOHVVWKHSDUW\\ILOHVWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJHOHFWURQLFDOO\\WKURXJKWKHFRXUW¶V&DVH0DQDJHPHQW(OHFWURQLF &DVH)LOLQJV\\VWHP&0(&)&0(&)FDSWXUHVWKHLQIRUPDWLRQRQIRUPDVSDUWRIWKHILOLQJSURFHVV:KHQ FRPSOHWHGWKHFRYHUVKHHWVXPPDUL]HVEDVLFLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJ7KHFOHUNRIFRXUWQHHGVWKH LQIRUPDWLRQWRSURFHVVWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJDQGSUHSDUHUHTXLUHGVWDWLVWLFDOUHSRUWVRQFRXUWDFWLYLW\\\n\n7KHFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGRQLWGRQRWUHSODFHRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJV RURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\\ODZWKH%DQNUXSWF\\5XOHVRUWKHORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KHFRYHUVKHHWZKLFKLVODUJHO\\VHOI H[SODQDWRU\\PXVWEHFRPSOHWHGE\\WKHSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\\RUE\\WKHSODLQWLIILIWKHSODLQWLIILVQRWUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DQ DWWRUQH\\\\$VHSDUDWHFRYHUVKHHWPXVWEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKHFOHUNIRUHDFKFRPSODLQWILOHG\n\n**Plaintiffs** DQG**Defendants.**\\*LYHWKHQDPHVRIWKHSODLQWLIIVDQGGHIHQGDQWVH[DFWO\\DVWKH\\DSSHDURQWKHFRPSODLQW\n\n**Attorneys.**\\*LYHWKHQDPHVDQGDGGUHVVHVRIWKHDWWRUQH\\VLINQRZQ\n\n**Party**&KHFNWKHPRVWDSSURSULDWHER[LQWKHILUVWFROXPQIRUWKHSODLQWLIIVDQGWKHVHFRQGFROXPQIRUWKHGHIHQGDQWV\n\n**Demand.** (QWHUWKHGROODUDPRXQWEHLQJGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW\n\n**Signature.**7KLVFRYHUVKHHWPXVWEHVLJQHGE\\WKHDWWRUQH\\RIUHFRUGLQWKHER[RQWKHVHFRQGSDJHRIWKHIRUP,IWKH SODLQWLIILVUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DODZILUPDPHPEHURIWKHILUPPXVWVLJQ,IWKHSODLQWLIILVSURVHWKDWLVQRWUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DQ DWWRUQH\\WKHSODLQWLIIPXVWVLJQ\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------- | x | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|-------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,
1 | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor. | :
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee, | x
:
:
: | Adv. Proceeding [•] |\n| Plaintiff, | : | |\n| v. | :
:
: | |\n| DEFENG CAO, | : | |\n| Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
x | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 541, 542, 544, 548, 549, AND 550, (I) SEEKING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT DEBTOR IS EQUITABLE OWNER OF CERTAIN MOTORCYCLES AND THAT SUCH PROPERTY IS PROPERTY OF ESTATE THAT MUST BE TURNED OVER TO CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE, (II) TO AVOID TRANSFER OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND (III) RECOVERY OF TRANSFERRED MOTOR VEHICLES**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\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 and the Genever Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Defeng Cao (\"Cao\" or the \"Defendant\") and states as follows:\n\n## **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee brings this Complaint to recover six separate vehicles that, while nominally held by Cao, were fraudulently transferred to Cao, or alternatively, are equitably owned by the Debtor. The vehicles include four motorcycles (three Harley Davidsons and one BMW and, together, the \"Motorcycles\"), a Land Rover Defender (the \"Defender\"), and a Dodge Ram Pickup Truck (the \"Ram\" and, together with the Motorcycles and the Defender, the \"Vehicles\").\n\n2. Cao is the long-term boyfriend of the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo. He has lived with the Debtor and his family, and refers to the Debtor and his wife as Mom and Dad. Cao describes himself as an employee of the Debtor, and allegedly continues to receive a no-show salary from one of the Debtor's China-based companies even though he has been in the United States since 2017. Effectively Cao is family, and like the rest of the Debtor's family, the Debtor has placed assets in Cao's name to shield them from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n3. The Motorcycles are currently parked at the Mahwah Mansion, and prior to that were at the Debtor's Taconic Road home, where they were ridden by the Debtor, not Cao.\n\n4. Cao's only professed basis to claim ownership of the Motorcycles is that he holds (or held) legal title to all four Motorcycles because the Debtor had them registered in Cao's name. Cao did not select them, purchase them, or use them, and his name is on the title only because the Debtor's agents told him to sign the title documents.\n\n5. The Debtor was, and remains, the equitable owner of the Motorcycles at all relevant times and, as such, they are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (i) declaring that the Debtor is the equitable owner of the Motorcycles and that the Motorcycles are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee, and (ii) ordering Cao to endorse title of the Motorcycles to the Trustee.\n\n6. Alternatively, the Trustee asserts that the Motorcycles were property of the estate and were fraudulently transferred to Cao after the petition date without the authorization of the Bankruptcy Code or this Court. The Trustee, therefore, seeks a ruling avoiding these transfers under section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code and requiring Cao to transfer to the Trustee the greater of either the Motorcycles, or their value at the time they were transferred to Cao.\n\n7. The Trustee separately asserts that, prior to the petition date, the Defender and the Ram were intentionally and fraudulently transferred to Cao by the Debtor, as part of the Debtor's pattern and overall scheme of hiding assets from his creditors. The Trustee seeks a ruling (i) avoiding these transfers under both section 548 and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and (ii) requiring Cao to transfer to the Trustee the greater of either the Defender and the Ram, or their value at the time they were transferred to Cao.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a). Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n## **PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n10. Defeng Cao is an individual with a principal place of residence at 88 Regent Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. He also maintains a residence at 492 Broome Street, New York, New York.\n\n11. On October 20, 2023, the Trustee took the Bankruptcy Rule 2004 deposition of Cao.2\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n## **I. Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies and Nominal Owners**\n\n12. The Debtor uses a seemingly inexhaustible stream of shell companies,\n\npurportedly owned by family members or business subordinates, and nominal owners to shield his assets and activities from creditors. The Debtor's \"shell game\" has allowed him to continue to deny ownership of his assets and refuse to pay his debts. Indeed, the Court is already familiar with numerous of these entities and individuals, including:\n\n> HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, the Debtor used HK USA to hold title to the Lady May yacht, which this Court and Justice Ostrager ruled\n\n2 *See Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Fifth Supplemental Omnibus Motion for 2004 Examinations* [Main Case Docket No. 1891].\n\nwas beneficially owned by the Debtor.3 The Court also found HK USA to be the Debtor's alter ego.4\n\n- Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\"). Purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife, the Debtor used Greenwich Land to hold title to his personal residence, a mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut (the \"Taconic Road Mansion\").5\n- Taurus Fund, LLC. Purportedly managed by the Debtor's bodyguard and driver, Scott Barnett, the Debtor used this entity to hold title to another mansion used as his personal residence, a 50,000 square foot property in Mahwah, New Jersey (the \"Mahwah Mansion\").6\n- HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., and Lexington Property, Inc. (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\"). Each of the HCHK entities is purportedly owned (a) 99.9999% by a British Virgin Islands company purportedly owned by the Debtor's personal assistant, Yvette Wang and (b) 0.0001% by a long-time employee of the Debtor, Anthony DiBattista. The HCHK Entities were used by the Debtor to, among other things, run his media operations and hold title to significant assets, including over \\$38 million in cash.7\n- Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\") and China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited (\"China Golden Spring\"). Purportedly owned by the\n\n3 *Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, at 31 (Adv. Proc. No. 22005003, Mar. 30, 2023) [Docket No. 177] (\"the issue of Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of the Lady is decisive as to the First Counterclaim and the identical issue was necessarily decided by Justice Ostrager in the Final Contempt Decision, which found by clear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May\").\n\n4 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim*, at 35 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, May 18, 2023) [Docket No. 221] (\"HK USA is the alter ego of the Individual Debtor.\").\n\n5 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against this entity in adversary proceeding 23-05005, in connection with which the Court entered a prejudgment remedy and temporary restraining order against Greenwich Land LLC and the Debtor's wife. *See Order Granting in Part Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 14]; *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Application for Ex Parte Prejudgment Remedy* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 15].\n\n6 *See Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok Seeking, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 541, 542, and 544, (I) Declaratory Judgment That Debtor is Equitable Owner of Mahwah Mansion and that Such Property is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017, July 11, 2023) [Docket No. 1].\n\n7 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against these entities in adversary proceeding 23-05013, in connection with which the Court entered a temporary restraining order on June 12, 2023. *See Order Granting in Part Emergency* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, June 12, 2023) [Docket No. 18].\n\nDebtor's son, the Debtor uses Golden Spring as a \"family office\" to fund his lifestyle. Golden Spring exists to hold assets for the Debtor and pay his expenses. It has received funding from at least five separate entities controlled by the Debtor, and no funding from any other source.8 The Court has entered a default judgment finding, among other things, that Golden Spring is an alter-ego of the Debtor.9\n\n- Lamp Capital LLC. Another entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's son, this entity has paid the Debtor's living expenses and legal fees.10 The Court has entered a default judgment finding, among other things, that Lamp Capital LLC is an alter-ego of the Debtor.11\n- Han Chunguang. The Debtor's bodyguard, driver, and cook, the Debtor has used Mr. Han to hold multiple entities, including Anton Development Limited, Rosy Acme Limited, and Eastern Profit Corporation.\n- 13. The entities discussed above comprise the proverbial \"tip of the iceberg.\"\n\nAccording to the United States Government, the Debtor and his co-defendants William Je and\n\nYvette Wang \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80*\n\n*different entities* or individuals to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"12\n\n8 *See Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate Of Ho Wan Kwok Pursuant to Sections 541, 542, and 544 of Bankruptcy Code Seeking (I) Declaratory Judgment That Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. is Alter Ego of Debtor, and (II) Related Relief* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018, July 25, 2023) [Docket No. 1].\n\n9 *See Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment Against Golden Spring (New York) Ltd and China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018, Dec. 4, 2023) [Docket No. 35].\n\n10 *See Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok Pursuant to Sections 541, 542, and 544 of Bankruptcy Code Seeking (I) Declaratory Judgment that Each of Lamp Capital LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, and Leading Shine NY Ltd. is Alter Ego of Debtor, and (II) Related Relief* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023, Oct. 26, 2023) [Docket No. 1] (the \"Lamp Capital Complaint\").\n\n11 *See Default Judgment in Favor Of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok on First and Second Claims of his Complaint Against Lamp Capital LLC and Infinity Treasury Management Inc.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023, Feb. 1, 2024) [Docket No. 66].\n\n12 *See Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release* (the \"USAO Memorandum\"), at 29, attached as Exhibit B to the *Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief* (June 23, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1934].\n\n14. In sum, while this Complaint focuses on the Vehicles, the Trustee believes that context regarding the Debtor's wide-ranging strategy of using nominal owners to shield assets from creditors will assist the Court in understanding the Trustee's position. The Trustee also expressly reserves all rights to pursue actions asserting claims against other entities or individuals.\n\n## **II. Cao's Close Relationship With Debtor's Family**\n\n15. Cao is deeply intertwined with the Debtor's affairs, both personally and through his purported employment.\n\n16. Cao has personal ties to the Debtor. He is in a long-term romantic relationship with Mei Guo, and refers to an apartment in her name as his residence. He considers himself part of the Debtor's family, Cao vacations with the family (including as a passenger on the Debtor's private jet), and claims that the Defender and the Ram are in his possession because of his close personal relationship to the Debtor's family.\n\n17. According to an affidavit Cao submitted in September 2017 in the New York Supreme Court, Cao is employed by the Debtor. In fact, Cao testified that he came to the United States to work for Mr. Kwok.\n\n18. Cao also asserts that he oversaw construction and renovation at the Mahwah Mansion and that, even though he does not do any work for them since arriving in the United States in 2017, he continues to draw a salary from Beijing Zenith Holdings Co. and/or Beijing Pangu Investment Co., both of which are affiliated with the Debtor.\n\n19. 13 Greenwich Land,\n\npurportedly nominally owned by the Debtor's wife, holds title to the Taconic Road Mansion (as\n\ndefined herein) and is the subject of an alter ego complaint brought by the Trustee.\n\n# **III. The Vehicles**\n\n- 20. The four Motorcycles are:\n\t- A 2021 Harley Davidson with a NJ license plate 5JKE7 and VIN number 1HD1TBH1XMB957197;\n\t- A 2021 Harley Davidson with a NJ license plate 5JKE8 and VIN number 1HD1TEH1XMB956441;\n\t- A 2021 Harley Davidson with a NJ license plate 5JKE9 and VIN number 1HD1FBC10MB661233; and\n\t- A 2022 BMW with a NJ license plate 5JKF1 and VIN number WB10L4303N6F02046.\n- 21. As of October 31, 2023, each of the Motorcycles was registered to Cao.14\n- 22. As of the date hereof, each of the Motorcycles was located at the Mahwah\n\n## Mansion.\n\n- 23. The other Vehicles are:\n\t- A 2020 Land Rover Defender with a NJ license plate D44RYR and VIN number SALE97EU5L2024926; and\n\n13 *See* Ex. 1 .\n\n14 *See* Ex. 2, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Registration Documents for 2021 Harley Davidson with a NJ license plate 5JKE7 and the VIN number 1HD1TBH1XMB957197 registered to Defeng Cao; Ex. 3, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Registration Documents for 2021 Harley Davidson with a NJ license plate 5JKE8 and the VIN number 1HD1TEH1XMB956441 registered to Defeng Cao; Ex. 4, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Registration Documents for 2021 Harley Davidson with a NJ license plate 5JKE9 and the VIN number 1HD1FBC10MB661233 registered to Defeng Cao; Ex. 5, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Registration Documents for 2022 BMW with a NJ license plate 5JKF1 and the VIN number WB10L4303N6F02046 registered to Defeng Cao. The Motorcycles were registered on October 6, 2022, which registration expired on October 31, 2023. The Trustee is not aware whether the registration was renewed.\n\n-\n-\n\nUpon information and belief, this took place on or around October 6, 2022, the date which title to each of the four Motorcycles was issued to Cao.\n\n30. Cao has never ridden any of the Motorcycles, nor does he recall if he ever insured them.\n\n31. Cao admits that, other than signing the title papers, he has no basis to claim ownership.\n\n### **V. Debtor Is True Owner of Motorcycles**\n\n32. The Debtor has full beneficial ownership and control over the Motorcycles.\n\n33. Upon information and belief, \"Max\"—who arranged for Cao to sign the title papers—is Max Krasner.\n\n34. Max Krasner is deeply intertwined in the Debtor's affairs and served the Debtor in numerous roles. He is or has been an employee of Golden Spring, and employee, officer and/or authorized signatory of Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), Rule of Law Foundation, and the HCHK Entities.18\n\n35. The actual use and control of the Motorcycles is consistent with the Debtor being the true equitable owner.\n\n18 Ex. 12, Greenwich Land, LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated January 19, 2021; Ex. 13, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (reflecting Mr. Krasner as the vice president); Ex. 14, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019; Ex. 15, GTV Media Group Cert. of Incorporation, dated April 17, 2020; Ex. 16, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020; Ex. 17, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Foundation (Form 990, Page 7, listing Max Krasner as \"President, Treasurer, Director\"); Ex. 18, Email by and among Max Krasner, Anthony DiBattista and attorneys from Marcum on the HCHK 2022 Bank Statements in January 2023.\n\n44. Cao asserts that the Defender and the Ram were both gifted to him by the Debtor's son, Mileson Guo. Upon information and belief, however, the actual source of any funds used to purchase the Defender and Ram to transfer to Cao, was the Debtor.\n\n45. Cao, who (as noted above) considers himself part of the Debtor's family and is connected to the Debtor's various enterprises, is not aware that Mileson has ever done any work.\n\n46. The Debtor has repeatedly used Mileson as a false front to hide his own assets and purchases, including by installing him as the nominal owner of Lamp Capital, Bravo Luck, and Golden Spring.\n\n47. Upon information, the Debtor's son has no independent source of income or assets, apart from assets controlled by the Debtor.\n\n48. Upon information and belief, any funds used to purchase the Defender and the Ram were controlled and transferred at the ultimate direction of the Debtor.\n\n49. The purchase and transfer of the Land Defender and the Dodge Ram was a transfer to Cao of the Debtor's assets for no consideration, all as part of the Debtor's overall scheme to hide his assets and defraud his creditors.\n\n## **First Claim**\n\n## **Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of the Motorcycles and Ordering Turnover of Motorcycles to Trustee**\n\n50. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49.\n\n51. New Jersey law applies to the equitable ownership claim, because the Motorcycles are titled, registered, and located in New Jersey.21\n\n52. A debtor has an equitable interest in property upon one or more of the following grounds: (1) the debtor's funds were used to acquire the property; (2) the debtor represented that he had an interest in the property or used the property to obtain credit; or (3) they involved property that was once owned by the debtor and then transferred to a third party (usually in the face of creditor pressure).22 A debtor is the equitable owner of property if there is a pattern and practice of fraudulent behaviors, including funding the purchase of properties and placing title to the properties in the name of third parties while maintaining *de facto* control and ownership.23\n\n53. The Debtor, directly or through his agents, arranged for Cao, another of the Debtor's employees who also has a close personal and familial relationship, to take title to four Motorcycles that Cao admits he did not buy, has never ridden, and has not insured.\n\n54. The Motorcycles have always been kept at one of the Debtor's family residences. The Debtor, unlike Cao, has ridden at least one of the Motorcycles, and has been pictured and videoed riding one of the Motorcycles that is the subject of this Complaint.\n\n55. The Debtor at all times has been the Motorcycles' true beneficial owner.\n\n21 *See Kartzman v. Beiman (In re Beiman)*, No. 15-10488 (JKS), 2018 WL 6978705, \\*3 (Bankr. D.N.J. Mar.19, 2018) (providing that in bankruptcy cases, state law generally determines what interest, if any, a debtor has in property) (citing *O'Dowd v. Trueger (In re O'Dowd)*, 233 F.3d 197, 202 (3d Cir. 2000); *see also Butner v. United States*, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979) (noting that property interests are created and defined by state law).\n\n22 *In re Beiman*, 2018 WL 6978705, at \\*4.\n\n23 *In re NJ Affordable Homes Corp.*, No. 05-60442 (DHS), 2006 WL 2128624, \\*8 (Bankr. D.N.J. June 29, 2006) (holding that the mere fact that title to a property is in the name of a third party does not mean that the debtor does not have an equitable interest in the property, however speculative that interest may be, to make it property of the bankruptcy estate).\n\n56. Because the Motorcycles are equitably owned by the Debtor, they are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate. Based on these facts and circumstances, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (i) declaring that the Motorcycles constitute property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (ii) ordering Cao to surrender the Motorcycles to the Trustee.\n\n## **Second Claim**\n\n## **Avoidance of Transfers of Motorcycles As Unauthorized Post-petition Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 549 (Asserted in the Alternative to First Claim)**\n\n57. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49.\n\n58. Section 549 of the of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property that occurs after the commencement of the case and is not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code or by the Bankruptcy Court.\n\n59. Upon information and belief, the Motorcycles were property of the estate because the Debtor was the equitable owner of the Motorcycles and/or because the Motorcycles were purchased by the Debtor (or one of his agents or alter egos).\n\n60. Upon information and belief, the Motorcycles were transferred to Cao on October 6, 2022, which is after the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022.\n\n61. The transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code or by this Court.\n\n62. Therefore, the Trustee is entitled to a ruling, pursuant to sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, (i) avoiding the transfers of the Motorcycles and (ii) ordering Cao to surrender the Motorcycles or the value thereof to the Trustee, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Cao.\n\n## **Third Claim**\n\n# **(Avoidance of Transfers of Land Rover Defender and Dodge Ram As Actually Fraudulent Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 548(a)(1)(A))**\n\n63. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49.\n\n64. Section 548(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property made (i) within two years prior to the filing of the petition and (ii) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the debtor's creditors.\n\n65. Upon information and belief, the Defender was transferred to Cao at the\n\nbeginning of 2021, which is within two years of the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022.\n\n66. Upon information and belief, the Ram, which is a model year 2021, was also transferred to Cao within two years of the Debtor's petition date.\n\n67. These transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors because (i) they are part of, and consistent with, the Debtor's pattern of hiding his assets among various shell companies and/or family members and associates and demonstrate numerous other indicia of fraud, including, but not limited to, (ii) they were transfers to insiders, (iii) that were concealed, (iv) and were for no consideration.\n\n68. Therefore, the Trustee is entitled to avoid these transfers pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **Fourth Claim**\n\n## **(Avoidance of Transfers of Land Rover Defender and Dodge Ram As Actually Fraudulent Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 544(b) and Section 25:2-25 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes)**\n\n69. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49.\n\n70. Section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides the Debtors' estates, and now Trustee as the representative thereof, with the ability to avoid transfers or obligations that would be avoidable under applicable non-bankruptcy law.\n\n71. Pursuant to section 25:2-25 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes, a transfer is fraudulent as to, and can be avoided by, a present or future creditor of the transferor if the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor. Section 25:2-26 provides a non-exhaustive list of factors which may considering in determining actual intent, and section 25:2-31 requires that a cause of action under section 25:2-25(a)(1) be brought within four years of the transfer or, if later, not later than one year after the transfer was discovered by the claimant.\n\n72. The transfers of the Defender and the Ram were made less than four years ago.\n\n73. These transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors within the meaning of section 25:2-26 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes because (i) they are part of, and consistent with, the Debtor's pattern of hiding his assets among various shell companies and/or family members and associates and demonstrate numerous other indicia of fraud, including, but not limited to, (ii) they were transfers to insiders, (iii) that were concealed, (iv) and were for no consideration.\n\n74. Therefore, the Trustee is entitled to avoid these transfers pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and section 25:2-25 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes.\n\n## **Fifth Claim**\n\n### **(Recovery of Avoided Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 550)**\n\n75. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49.\n\n76. Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that, if a transfer is avoided under section 544, 548, or 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee may recover for the estate the transferred property or the value of such property from (i) the initial transferee of such transfer or the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made or (ii) the immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferees.\n\n77. Cao is the initial transferee of the Motorcycles.\n\n78. Cao is the initial transferee of the Defender and the Ram.\n\n79. The Trustee, therefore, is entitled to the return of the greater of either the Vehicles or their value at the time they were transferred Cao.\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code: (1) declaring that (a) the Debtor is the equitable owner of the Motorcycles and (b) that the Motorcycles are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, to be administered by the Trustee; and (2) ordering Defeng Cao to turn over the Motorcycles to the Trustee.\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code, avoiding the transfers of the Motorcycles as an unauthorized post-petition transfer;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, avoiding the transfers of the Land Rover Defender and the Dodge Ram as actually fraudulent.\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, an order, pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code in conjunction with section 25:2-25 of the New Jersey Revised Statutes, avoiding the transfers of the Land Rover Defender and the Dodge Ram as actually fraudulent.\n\n5. On the Fifth Claim, an order, pursuant to section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, requiring Defeng Cao to transfer to the Trustee the Vehicles, or their value at the time they were transferred to Cao, whichever is greater, which order will constitute a personal money judgment against Cao.\n\n6. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action.\n\n7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\nDated: February 6, 2024 New York, New York LUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /*s*/ *Avram E. Luft*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Shlomo Maza (*pro hac vice* motion forthcoming) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com shlomomaza@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\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*","body_zh":"对抗程序封面页\n背面说明 对抗程序编号\n仅供法院使用\n\n原告 被告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人 Defeng Cao（曹德峰）\n\n律师\n律师事务所名称、地址和电话号码 律师，若已知\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）（转交 Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）），200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166，aviluft@paulhastings.com Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP（奥尔尚·弗罗姆·沃洛斯基律师事务所）（转交 Katherine E. Mateo（凯瑟琳·E·马特奥））\n1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019\nkmateo@olshanlaw.com\n\n当事人 仅勾选一个方框\n美国受托人/破产管理人\n□\n债务人\n□\n□\n债权人\n□\n其他\n□\n受托人 □\n债务人\n□\n债权人\n□\n受托人 当事人 仅勾选一个方框\n□\n美国受托人/破产管理人\n□\n其他\n\n诉因\n简要陈述诉因，包括所涉全部美国法令\n确认债务人为摩托车的衡平所有人并命令根据第541、542和544条将摩托车交付给受托人的确认判决；根据《破产法典》第549和550条，撤销摩托车转让，作为未经授权的申请后转让；根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条，撤销 Land Rover Defender（路虎卫士）和 Dodge Ram（道奇公羊）的转让，作为实际欺诈性转让。根据《破产法典》第544(b)条及《新泽西州修订法典》第25:2-25条，撤销 Land Rover Defender 和 Dodge Ram 的转让，作为实际欺诈性转让；根据《破产法典》第550条追回已撤销的转让。\n\n诉讼性质\n编号，最多五个方框：首要诉因列为第一项替代诉因，第二项替代诉因列为第二项，以此类推。\n\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产 FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n□\n追回金钱/财产——交付财产\n□ □\n□ 可免责性——家庭扶养义务\n追回金钱/财产——优先权\n□ □ 可免责性——故意及恶意伤害\nX\n追回金钱/财产——欺诈性转让\n□\nX\n追回金钱/财产——其他 □ 可免责性——学生贷款\n可免责性——离婚或分居义务，非家庭扶养义务\n\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围\n□\n留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围 □ 其他可免责性\n\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□ □\n禁令救济——实施中止令\n批准出售遗产财产及共同所有人财产 □ 禁令救济——其他\n\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n对免责提出异议/撤销免责 □ FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后顺位\n债权或权益的劣后顺位\n\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n撤销确认 □ FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n确认判决\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□\n可免责性——优先税款债权\n□\n可免责性——虚假借口、虚假陈述 □ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n实际欺诈\n□ 其他\n□\n可免责性——受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续于下一栏） □ 666，第3条案件——28 U.S.C. § 158(d) Det. seq.\n其他，例如本可在州法院提起的诉讼\n□\n如本案涉及州法实质性争议，请勾选 □ 如与破产案件无关\n如主张本案为根据 FRCP 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如起诉书中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额\n请求的其他救济\n根据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求确认性救济\n\n本对抗程序所源自的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名 破产案件编号\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 22-50573 (JAM)\n\n案件审理地区 分院 法官姓名\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） Bridgeport（布里奇波特） Manning, J.（曼宁法官）\n\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗程序编号\n\n对抗程序审理地区 分院 法官姓名\n\n原告律师签名\n\n/s/ Avram E. Luft\n\n日期 原告律师印刷体姓名\nAvram E. Luft\nFebruary 6, 2024\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下形成一项“遗产”，其包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产遗产范围如此广泛，且法院的管辖权如此宽泛，可能会就遗产的财产或财产权利提起诉讼。还可能存在有关债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交《对抗程序封面页》表格，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。CM/ECF 在提交过程中收集表格中的信息。填写完成后，封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该信息以处理对抗程序并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息不取代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。封面页大体上不言自明，必须由原告律师填写；如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写。每份提交的起诉书均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。准确填写原告和被告在起诉书中所列的姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。为原告在第一栏勾选最适当的方框，并为被告在第二栏勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中所请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由表格第二页方框内所列的记录在案律师签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，该律师事务所的一名成员必须签署。如原告为自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则原告必须签署。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格州联邦地区）BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分院）\n\n-------------------------------------------------------- x\n\nIn re: ：\n： 第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n1 ：\n： 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n： （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人， x\n：\n：\n： 对抗程序 [•]\n原告， ：\n诉 ：\n\nDEFENG CAO（曹德峰）， ：\n被告。\n\nx\n\n第11章受托人代表 HO WAN KWOK 遗产根据《破产法典》第541、542、544、548、549和550条提出的起诉书，（I）请求确认债务人为特定摩托车的衡平所有人，且该等财产属于遗产财产，必须交付第11章受托人；（II）撤销机动车辆转让；以及（III）追回已转让的机动车辆\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中指定的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，提起本\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 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（Genever控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）。受托人及 Genever 债务人的邮寄地址为 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（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n对抗性起诉书（“起诉书”），针对被告 Defeng Cao（“Cao”或“被告”），并陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本起诉书，以追回六辆独立车辆；该等车辆虽名义上由 Cao 持有，但已被欺诈性转让给 Cao，或者，作为替代主张，其衡平所有人为债务人。该等车辆包括四辆摩托车（三辆 Harley Davidson（哈雷戴维森）和一辆 BMW（宝马），合称“摩托车”）、一辆 Land Rover Defender（“Defender”）和一辆 Dodge Ram Pickup Truck（“Ram”，与摩托车及 Defender 合称“车辆”）。\n\n2. Cao 是债务人之女 Mei Guo（郭梅）的长期男友。他曾与债务人及其家人共同居住，并称债务人及其妻子为妈妈和爸爸。Cao 自称为债务人的雇员，并据称继续从债务人一家位于中国的公司领取挂名薪酬，尽管他自2017年以来一直在美国。实际上，Cao 是家庭成员，并且与债务人的其他家庭成员一样，债务人已将资产置于 Cao 名下，以使其免受债务人债权人的追索。\n\n3. 摩托车目前停放在 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园），此前停放于债务人在 Taconic Road（塔科尼克路）的住宅；摩托车由债务人而非 Cao 驾驶。\n\n4. Cao 主张拥有摩托车的唯一声称依据是：由于债务人将四辆摩托车登记在 Cao 名下，他持有（或曾持有）全部四辆摩托车的法定所有权。Cao 未选择、购买或使用这些摩托车，他的姓名仅因债务人的代理人要求其签署所有权文件而列于所有权凭证上。\n\n5. 在所有相关期间，债务人曾经且仍然是摩托车的衡平所有人，因此，摩托车属于债务人第11章遗产的财产。因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求裁定：(i) 宣告债务人为摩托车的衡平所有人，且摩托车属于由受托人管理的债务人第11章遗产财产；以及 (ii) 命令 Cao 将摩托车的所有权背书转让给受托人。\n\n6. 作为替代主张，受托人主张摩托车属于遗产财产，并在申请日后未经《破产法典》或本法院授权而被欺诈性转让给 Cao。因此，受托人请求根据《破产法典》第549条作出裁定，撤销该等转让，并要求 Cao 向受托人转让摩托车或其转让给 Cao 时的价值，以较高者为准。\n\n7. 受托人另行主张，在申请日前，债务人故意且欺诈性地将 Defender 和 Ram 转让给 Cao，作为债务人向其债权人隐匿资产的模式及总体计划的一部分。受托人请求裁定：(i) 根据《破产法典》第548条和第544条撤销该等转让；以及 (ii) 要求 Cao 向受托人转让 Defender 和 Ram，或其转让给 Cao 时的价值，以较高者为准。\n\n管辖权与审理地\n\n8. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。本对抗程序已根据 28 U.S.C. §157(a) 移交本法院审理。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本法院为适当审理地。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人根据本法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令 [主案卷编号 523]，担任第11章案件中的第11章受托人。\n\n10. Defeng Cao 是一名个人，其主要居住地位于 88 Regent Street, Jersey City, New Jersey。他还在 492 Broome Street, New York, New York 保有一处住所。\n\n11. 于 October 20, 2023，受托人对 Cao 进行了《破产规则》2004规定的讯问。2\n\n事实\n\nI. 债务人对空壳公司和名义所有人的大量使用\n\n12. 债务人利用看似取之不尽的空壳公司，\n\n据称由家庭成员或业务下属所有，以及名义所有人，来保护其资产和活动免受债权人追索。债务人的“空壳把戏”使其得以继续否认拥有其资产并拒绝偿还其债务。事实上，本法院已经熟悉众多该等实体和个人，包括：\n\n> HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”）。据称由债务人之女 Mei Guo 所有，债务人利用 HK USA 持有 Lady May yacht（Lady May游艇）的所有权；本法院和 Ostrager 法官裁定，该游艇\n\n2 见《准许第11章受托人第五次补充综合动议以进行2004审查的命令》[主案卷编号 1891]。\n\n由债务人实益所有。3 本法院还认定 HK USA 为债务人的另一个自我。4\n\n— Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）（“Greenwich Land”）。据称由债务人的妻子所有，债务人利用 Greenwich Land 持有其个人住所的所有权，即位于康涅狄格州格林尼治的一栋豪宅（“Taconic Road Mansion”）。5\n\n— Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）。据称由债务人的保镖兼司机 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）管理，债务人利用该实体持有另一处用作其个人住所的豪宅的所有权，即位于新泽西州 Mahwah（马瓦）的一处 50,000 平方英尺房产（“Mahwah Mansion”）。6\n\n— HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK 物业管理公司）及 Lexington Property, Inc.（列克星敦物业公司）（以下统称“HCHK Entities”）。据称，各 HCHK 实体由以下人士持有：(a) 99.9999% 由一家据称归债务人的私人助理 Yvette Wang（王雁平）所有的英属维尔京群岛公司持有；及 (b) 0.0001% 由债务人的长期雇员 Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）持有。债务人利用 HCHK Entities，除其他事项外，经营其媒体业务并持有重大资产的所有权，包括超过 \\$38 million 的现金。7\n\n— Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）（“Golden Spring”）及 China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited（中国金泉集团〈香港〉有限公司）（“China Golden Spring”）。据称由\n\n3 支持准许部分即决判决动议之口头裁决的补充裁定备忘录，第 31 页（对抗程序案号 22005003，Mar. 30, 2023）[案卷编号 177]（“个人债务人对 Lady 的受益所有权及控制权问题，对于第一项反诉具有决定性意义；而 Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）已在最终藐视法庭裁定中就该相同问题作出必要认定，该裁定以明确且令人信服的证据认定，个人债务人受益所有并控制 Lady May”）。\n\n4 准许就第二项反诉作出部分即决判决之动议的裁定备忘录及命令，第 35 页（对抗程序案号 22-05003，May 18, 2023）[案卷编号 221]（“HK USA 是个人债务人的另一个自我。”）。\n\n5 受托人已在对抗程序 23-05005 中对该实体寻求人格混同判决；就该程序，法院已对 Greenwich Land LLC 及债务人的妻子作出判决前救济和临时限制令。参见部分准许单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令（对抗程序案号 23-05005，Mar. 28, 2023）[案卷编号 14]；准许第 11 章受托人经修正的单方判决前救济申请的命令（对抗程序案号 23-05005，Mar. 28, 2023）[案卷编号 15]。\n\n6 参见第 11 章 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产受托人依据《破产法》Sections 541、542 和 544 提起的诉状，请求：(I) 确认判决，确认债务人为 Mahwah Mansion 的衡平法所有人，且该财产属于破产财产；及 (II) 相关救济（对抗程序案号 23-05017，July 11, 2023）[案卷编号 1]。\n\n7 受托人已在对抗程序 23-05013 中对该等实体寻求人格混同判决；就该程序，法院于 June 12, 2023 作出临时限制令。参见部分准许紧急单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令（对抗程序案号 23-05013，June 12, 2023）[案卷编号 18]。\n\n债务人的儿子所有，债务人将 Golden Spring 用作“家族办公室”，为其生活方式提供资金。Golden Spring 的存在目的在于为债务人持有资产并支付其费用。其已从至少五个由债务人控制的不同实体获得资金，且未从任何其他来源获得资金。8 法院已作出缺席判决，其中除其他事项外认定 Golden Spring 是债务人的另一个自我。9\n\n— Lamp Capital LLC（灯资本有限责任公司）。该实体据称亦由债务人的儿子所有，已支付债务人的生活费用和律师费。10 法院已作出缺席判决，其中除其他事项外认定 Lamp Capital LLC 是债务人的另一个自我。11\n\n— Han Chunguang（韩春光）。债务人的保镖、司机和厨师，债务人曾利用韩先生持有多个实体，包括 Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司）、Rosy Acme Limited（罗西阿克米有限公司）及 Eastern Profit Corporation（东方利润公司）。\n\n— 13. 上述实体只是众所周知的“冰山一角”。\n\n根据 United States Government（美国政府）的说法，债务人及其共同被告 William Je（杰威廉）和\n\nYvette Wang“利用以至少 80 个不同实体或个人名义持有的约 500 多个账户，对超过 \\$1 billion 的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”12\n\n8 参见第 11 章 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人依据《破产法》Sections 541、542 和 544 提起的诉状，请求：(I) 确认判决，确认 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 是债务人的另一个自我；及 (II) 相关救济（对抗程序案号 23-05018，July 25, 2023）[案卷编号 1]。\n\n9 参见准许第 11 章 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人请求对 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd 及 China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited 作出缺席判决之动议的命令（对抗程序案号 23-05018，Dec. 4, 2023）[案卷编号 35]。\n\n10 参见第 11 章 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人依据《破产法》Sections 541、542 和 544 提起的诉状，请求：(I) 确认判决，确认 Lamp Capital LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）及 Leading Shine NY Ltd.（领先光辉纽约有限公司）中的每一实体均为债务人的另一个自我；及 (II) 相关救济（对抗程序案号 23-05023，Oct. 26, 2023）[案卷编号 1]（“Lamp Capital Complaint”）。\n\n11 参见就其针对 Lamp Capital LLC 及 Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限财资管理公司）的诉状第一项及第二项请求，作出有利于第 11 章 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人的缺席判决（对抗程序案号 23-05023，Feb. 1, 2024）[案卷编号 66]。\n\n12 参见 United States of America（美利坚合众国）反对被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）审前释放动议的法律备忘录（“USAO Memorandum”），第 29 页，作为附件 B 附于第 11 章受托人对 G Club Operations LLC（G Club 运营有限责任公司）就受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求所提补充异议的答复（June 23, 2023）[主案案卷编号 1934]。\n\n14. 总而言之，尽管本诉状聚焦于该等车辆，受托人认为，有关债务人利用名义所有人使资产免受债权人追索的广泛策略的背景，将有助于法院理解受托人的立场。受托人还明确保留对其他实体或个人提起主张请求权之诉讼的一切权利。\n\nII. Cao（曹德峰）与债务人家族的密切关系\n\n15. Cao 无论在个人层面还是通过其据称的雇佣关系，均与债务人的事务密切交织。\n\n16. Cao 与债务人有私人关系。他与 Mei Guo（郭梅）保持长期恋爱关系，并称一套登记在她名下的公寓为其住所。他认为自己是债务人家族的一员，Cao 与该家族一同度假（包括作为债务人私人飞机上的乘客），并主张 Defender 和 Ram 由其占有，是因为其与债务人家族的密切私人关系。\n\n17. 根据 Cao 于 September 2017 在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）提交的一份宣誓书，Cao 受雇于债务人。事实上，Cao 作证称，他来到美国是为 Kwok 先生工作。\n\n18. Cao 还主张，他监督了 Mahwah Mansion 的建设和翻新；并主张，尽管自 2017 年抵达美国以来未为其工作，他仍持续从 Beijing Zenith Holdings Co.（北京泽尼思控股公司）和/或 Beijing Pangu Investment Co.（北京盘古投资公司）领取薪水，两者均与债务人有关联。\n\n19. 13 Greenwich Land，\n\n据称名义上由债务人的妻子所有，持有 Taconic Road Mansion（定义见本文件）的所有权，并且是受托人提起的一项人格混同诉状的标的。\n\nIII. 该等车辆\n\n20. 四辆摩托车为：\n\n一辆 2021 Harley Davidson（哈雷戴维森），NJ 车牌号为 5JKE7，VIN 号码为 1HD1TBH1XMB957197；\n\n一辆 2021 Harley Davidson，NJ 车牌号为 5JKE8，VIN 号码为 1HD1TEH1XMB956441；\n\n一辆 2021 Harley Davidson，NJ 车牌号为 5JKE9，VIN 号码为 1HD1FBC10MB661233；及\n\n一辆 2022 BMW（宝马），NJ 车牌号为 5JKF1，VIN 号码为 WB10L4303N6F02046。\n\n21. 截至 October 31, 2023，每辆摩托车均登记在 Cao 名下。14\n\n22. 截至本文件日期，每辆摩托车均位于 Mahwah Mansion。\n\n23. 其他车辆为：\n\n一辆 2020 Land Rover Defender（路虎卫士），NJ 车牌号为 D44RYR，VIN 号码为 SALE97EU5L2024926；及\n\n13 参见证据 1。\n\n14 参见证据 2，New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission（新泽西州机动车委员会）关于一辆 2021 Harley Davidson 的登记文件，该车 NJ 车牌号为 5JKE7、VIN 号码为 1HD1TBH1XMB957197，登记在 Defeng Cao（曹德峰）名下；证据 3，New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission 关于一辆 2021 Harley Davidson 的登记文件，该车 NJ 车牌号为 5JKE8、VIN 号码为 1HD1TEH1XMB956441，登记在 Defeng Cao 名下；证据 4，New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission 关于一辆 2021 Harley Davidson 的登记文件，该车 NJ 车牌号为 5JKE9、VIN 号码为 1HD1FBC10MB661233，登记在 Defeng Cao 名下；证据 5，New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission 关于一辆 2022 BMW 的登记文件，该车 NJ 车牌号为 5JKF1、VIN 号码为 WB10L4303N6F02046，登记在 Defeng Cao 名下。该等摩托车于 October 6, 2022 登记，该登记于 October 31, 2023 到期。受托人不知道该登记是否已续期。\n\n据悉并相信，此事发生于 October 6, 2022 前后，即四辆摩托车中每一辆的所有权证书均签发给 Cao 之日。\n\n30. Cao 从未骑过任何一辆摩托车，且不记得自己是否曾为其投保。\n\n31. Cao 承认，除签署所有权文件外，他没有任何依据主张所有权。\n\nV. 债务人是摩托车的实际所有人\n\n32. 债务人对该等摩托车享有完全的受益所有权和控制权。\n\n33. 据悉并相信，安排 Cao 签署所有权文件的“Max”是 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。\n\n34. Max Krasner 与债务人的事务密切交织，并以众多身份为债务人服务。他现在或曾经是 Golden Spring 的雇员，以及 Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC 的母公司）、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）及 HCHK Entities 的雇员、高管和/或获授权签字人。18\n\n35. 该等摩托车的实际使用和控制情况，与债务人作为真正的衡平法所有人相一致。\n\n18 证据 12，Greenwich Land, LLC，无会议单一成员同意书，日期为 January 19, 2021；证据 13，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，无会议单一成员同意书，日期为 July 17, 2019（载明 Krasner 先生为副总裁）；证据 14，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，无会议单一成员同意书，日期为 July 17, 2019；证据 15，GTV Media Group（GTV 媒体集团）公司注册证书，日期为 April 17, 2020；证据 16，Lamp Capital, LLC 有限责任公司协议，日期为 September 8, 2020；证据 17，Rule of Law Foundation 的 CHAR 500 表格（Form 990，第 7 页，列明 Max Krasner 为“总裁、司库、董事”）；证据 18，Max Krasner、Anthony DiBattista 与 Marcum（马库姆）的律师之间就 HCHK 2022 年银行对账单于 January 2023 往来的电子邮件。\n\n44. Cao 主张，Defender 和 Ram 均由债务人的儿子 Mileson Guo（郭美森）赠与其。然而，据悉并相信，用于购买 Defender 和 Ram 并转让给 Cao 的任何资金的实际来源是债务人。\n\n45. Cao（如上所述）认为自己是债务人家族的一员，并与债务人的各项企业有关联；他不知道 Mileson 曾做过任何工作。\n\n46. 债务人一再利用 Mileson 作为虚假门面来隐藏自己的资产和购买行为，包括将其安置为 Lamp Capital、Bravo Luck（幸运布拉沃）及 Golden Spring 的名义所有人。\n\n47. 据悉，除由债务人控制的资产外，债务人的儿子没有独立的收入或资产来源。\n\n48. 根据所知及所信，用于购买Defender和Ram的任何资金均由债务人最终控制并指示转移。\n\n49. Land Rover Defender（路虎卫士）和Dodge Ram（道奇Ram）的购买及转让，系债务人将其资产无对价转让给Cao（曹德锋），均为债务人整体计划的一部分，旨在隐匿其资产并欺诈其债权人。\n\n第一项请求\n确认债务人为摩托车的衡平所有人，并命令向受托人交付摩托车\n\n50. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载的指控。\n\n51. 新泽西州法律适用于衡平所有权请求，因为该等摩托车的产权登记、注册及所在地均在新泽西州。21\n\n52. 债务人基于以下一项或多项理由对财产享有衡平权益：(1) 债务人的资金被用于取得该财产；(2) 债务人表示其对该财产享有权益，或利用该财产获得信贷；或 (3) 该等财产曾由债务人拥有，随后转让给第三方（通常是在面临债权人压力的情况下）。22 如果存在欺诈行为的模式和惯例，包括为购买财产提供资金、将财产产权置于第三方名下，同时维持事实上的控制权和所有权，则债务人为该财产的衡平所有人。23\n\n53. 债务人直接或通过其代理人，安排Cao——债务人的另一名雇员，其亦与债务人有密切的个人及家庭关系——取得四辆摩托车的产权；Cao承认其并未购买、从未骑乘且未投保该等摩托车。\n\n54. 该等摩托车一直停放在债务人的一处家庭住所。与Cao不同，债务人至少骑乘过其中一辆摩托车，并曾被拍照和录像显示其骑乘本起诉状所涉的一辆摩托车。\n\n55. 债务人始终是该等摩托车的真实受益所有人。\n\n21 参见 Kartzman v. Beiman (In re Beiman), No. 15-10488 (JKS), 2018 WL 6978705, *3 (Bankr. D.N.J. Mar.19, 2018)（规定在破产案件中，州法律通常决定债务人对财产享有何种权益（如有））（引用 O'Dowd v. Trueger (In re O'Dowd), 233 F.3d 197, 202 (3d Cir. 2000)；另参见 Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55 (1979)（指出财产权益由州法律创设和界定））。\n\n22 In re Beiman, 2018 WL 6978705, at *4.\n\n23 In re NJ Affordable Homes Corp., No. 05-60442 (DHS), 2006 WL 2128624, *8 (Bankr. D.N.J. June 29, 2006)（裁定，仅因财产产权登记在第三方名下，并不意味着债务人对该财产不享有衡平权益；无论该权益可能多么推测性，其均足以使该财产成为破产财产）。\n\n56. 由于该等摩托车由债务人衡平所有，其属于债务人第11章破产财产。基于该等事实和情形，受托人请求依据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出裁定：(i) 宣告该等摩托车构成由受托人管理的债务人第11章破产财产；及 (ii) 命令Cao向受托人交付该等摩托车。\n\n第二项请求\n根据《破产法》第549条撤销作为未经授权的破产申请后转让的摩托车转让（作为第一项请求的备选主张）\n\n57. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载的指控。\n\n58. 《破产法》第549条规定，受托人可以撤销在案件启动后发生、且未经《破产法》或破产法院授权的任何债务人财产权益转让。\n\n59. 根据所知及所信，该等摩托车属于破产财产，因为债务人为该等摩托车的衡平所有人，和/或因为该等摩托车由债务人（或其代理人或另一个自我）购买。\n\n60. 根据所知及所信，该等摩托车于October 6, 2022转让给Cao，该日期晚于债务人的申请日February 15, 2022。\n\n61. 该等转让未经《破产法》或本院授权。\n\n62. 因此，受托人有权依据《破产法》第549及550条获得裁定：(i) 撤销该等摩托车的转让；及 (ii) 命令Cao向受托人交付该等摩托车或其价值，该命令将构成对Cao作出的个人金钱判决。\n\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条撤销作为实际欺诈性转让的Land Rover Defender和Dodge Ram转让）\n\n63. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载的指控。\n\n64. 《破产法》第548(a)(1)条规定，受托人可以撤销债务人财产权益的任何转让，该转让：(i) 在提交申请前两年内作出；并且 (ii) 具有阻碍、拖延或欺诈债务人债权人的实际意图。\n\n65. 根据所知及所信，Defender于2021年初转让给Cao，处于债务人申请日February 15, 2022之前两年内。\n\n66. 根据所知及所信，作为2021年车型的Ram亦于债务人申请日前两年内转让给Cao。\n\n67. 该等转让具有阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人的实际意图，因为：(i) 其构成债务人将其资产隐匿于各类空壳公司和/或家庭成员及关联人之中的行为模式的一部分，并与该模式一致，且显示出众多其他欺诈迹象，包括但不限于：(ii) 其系向内部人的转让，(iii) 该等转让被隐瞒，以及 (iv) 该等转让无对价。\n\n68. 因此，受托人有权依据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条撤销该等转让。\n\n第四项请求\n（根据《破产法》第544(b)条和《新泽西州修订法典》第25:2-25条撤销作为实际欺诈性转让的Land Rover Defender和Dodge Ram转让）\n\n69. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载的指控。\n\n70. 《破产法》第544(b)条赋予债务人的破产财产，以及现作为其代表的受托人，撤销依适用的非破产法可撤销的转让或债务的权力。\n\n71. 根据《新泽西州修订法典》第25:2-25条，如转让具有阻碍、拖延或欺诈债务人任何债权人的实际意图，则该转让对于转让人的现有或未来债权人而言构成欺诈，并可由其撤销。第25:2-26条列出确定实际意图时可考虑的非穷尽性因素，第25:2-31条要求根据第25:2-25(a)(1)条提起的诉因须在转让后四年内提出，或者，如更晚，则不得晚于权利主张人发现该转让后一年。\n\n72. Defender和Ram的转让均于四年以内作出。\n\n73. 该等转让在《新泽西州修订法典》第25:2-26条的含义内具有阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人的实际意图，因为：(i) 其构成债务人将其资产隐匿于各类空壳公司和/或家庭成员及关联人之中的行为模式的一部分，并与该模式一致，且显示出众多其他欺诈迹象，包括但不限于：(ii) 其系向内部人的转让，(iii) 该等转让被隐瞒，以及 (iv) 该等转让无对价。\n\n74. 因此，受托人有权依据《破产法》第544(b)条及《新泽西州修订法典》第25:2-25条撤销该等转让。\n\n第五项请求\n（根据《破产法》第550条追回已撤销的转让）\n\n75. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载的指控。\n\n76. 《破产法》第550条规定，如一项转让根据《破产法》第544、548或549条被撤销，受托人可为破产财产向下列主体追回所转让的财产或该财产的价值：(i) 该转让的初始受让人，或为该转让利益而作出的实体；或 (ii) 该等初始受让人的直接或间接受让人。\n\n77. Cao是该等摩托车的初始受让人。\n\n78. Cao是Defender和Ram的初始受让人。\n\n79. 因此，受托人有权取得该等车辆或其转让给Cao时的价值中较高者的返还。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 对第一项请求，依据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出命令：(1) 宣告：(a) 债务人为该等摩托车的衡平所有人；及 (b) 该等摩托车属于由受托人管理的债务人第11章破产财产；及 (2) 命令Defeng Cao（曹德锋）向受托人交付该等摩托车。\n\n2. 对第二项请求，依据《破产法》第549条作出命令，撤销作为未经授权的破产申请后转让的该等摩托车转让；\n\n3. 对第三项请求，依据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条作出命令，撤销作为实际欺诈性转让的Land Rover Defender和Dodge Ram转让。\n\n4. 对第四项请求，依据《破产法》第544(b)条并结合《新泽西州修订法典》第25:2-25条作出命令，撤销作为实际欺诈性转让的Land Rover Defender和Dodge Ram转让。\n\n5. 对第五项请求，依据《破产法》第550条作出命令，要求Defeng Cao向受托人转让该等车辆，或其转让给Cao时的价值，以较高者为准，该命令将构成对Cao作出的个人金钱判决。\n\n6. 本案产生的合理律师费、成本及费用。\n\n7. 法院在该等情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分故意留白。]\n\n日期：February 6, 2024\n纽约州纽约市\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Avram E. Luft\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nShlomo Maza（所罗门·马扎）（pro hac vice出庭动议即将提出）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6000\naviluft@paulhastings.com\nshlomomaza@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n及\n\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.（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Guo","Despins","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","William Je","GTV","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5446,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:01:51"}