{"id":"court_ctb_2637_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2637,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | | | |\n| Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | | Restoration Hardware, Inc | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
Douglas S. Skalka, Patrick R. Linsey
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510
(203)781-2847 | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | □ Debtor
□ Creditor
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Other | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee seeking avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers and
postpetition transfers and related relief pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 544,548,549, and
550 and New York Debtor and Creditor Law Sections 273, 274, and 276 | | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | □
□
□
□
□ | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
65-Dischargeability - other
FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | □
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
□
72-Injunctive relief – other | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
□
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
□
91-Declaratory judgment | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
Other
□
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
□
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | | |\n\n**B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 (JAM) | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING
Connecticut | | DIVISION OFFICE
Bridgeport | NAME OF JUDGE
Julie A. Manning | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,[1](#page-2-0)\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nAdv. Proceeding No. [ ]\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nFebruary 10, 2024\n\nRESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., HING CHI NGOK, MAX KRASNER, and MEI GUO,\n\n Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------- x\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, 549, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, 276, AND 277**\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\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendants Restoration Hardware, Inc.\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 the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n(\"Restoration Hardware\") and Hing Chi Ngok (\"Ngok\"), Max Krasner (\"Krasner\"), and Mei Guo (\"Guo\") (collectively the \"Beneficiary Defendants\"), and jointly with Restoration Hardware, the \"Defendants\"), stating as follows:\n\n### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover: (a) transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case; and (b) transfers of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate after the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter-ego shell company, Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$106,444.13 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to and/or for the benefit of Restoration Hardware as initial transferee.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors. Alternatively, these transfers were constructively fraudulent, because they were made when the Debtor was insolvent, and the Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in consideration thereof.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter-ego shell companies, Greenwich Land and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$30,781.37 to and/or for the benefit of Restoration Hardware as initial transferee.\n\n5. Because these postpetition transfers of estate property were not authorized by the Court or under the Bankruptcy Code, they are subject to avoidance and recovery under sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n8. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 547, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, 276, and 277[2](#page-4-0) or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. Restoration Hardware is a Delaware corporation with an address at 15 Koch Road, Corta Madera, California 94925.\n\n11. Ngok is an individual residing at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831.\n\n 2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\". The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVT\") replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFC\") and became effective on April 4, 2020 and applies to transfers made or obligations incurred on or after April 4, 2020. With respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUFC and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278.\n\n12. Guo is an individual residing at 492 Broome Street, Apartment 3, New York, NY 10013.\n\n13. Krasner is an individual residing at 6 Thornley Pl, Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n#### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n14. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n15. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n16. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.[3](#page-5-0) While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter-ego shell companies, including Greenwich Land and Golden Spring.\n\n17. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n 3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n### **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n18. Greenwich Land and Golden Spring are among the numerous alter-ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors.[4](#page-6-0) For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members, lieutenants, and/or subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets—while concealing his property from creditors.\n\n19. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter-egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.[5](#page-6-1)\n\n20. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from\n\n 4 There is a pending motion for summary judgment to determine that Greenwich Land is the alter ego of the Debtor in the adversary proceeding *Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5005 (the \"Greenwich Land A.P.\"), Docket No. 78). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Greenwich Land A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5005, Docket No. 1).\n\nOn December 4, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court entered a default judgment (the \"Judgment\") against Golden Spring, among others, finding that, at all times, Golden Spring prior to the Petition Date constituted property of the Debtor and that any and all assets held by Golden Spring at any time after the Petition Date are property of the Debtor's estate. *Despins v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., et al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018) (the \"Golden Spring A.P.\"), Docket No. 35). The Trustee incorporates the Judgment by reference herein.\n\n5 These include the following adversary proceedings: (i) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]; (vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [Adv. Proc. 23- 05018]; and (vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023].\n\nother Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n### **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n21. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and through it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.[6](#page-7-0)\n\n22. The Bankruptcy Court has also found that the \"G Entities\" (Gettr, G Fashion, G Music, GClubs, GNews and GEdu), the New Federal State of China and the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled by the Debtor[7](#page-7-1) , led by the Debtor[8](#page-7-2) and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.[9](#page-7-3)\n\n23. Prior to the Petition Date, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, an entity originally owned by one of the Debtor's chefs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.[10](#page-7-4)\n\n 6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n7 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n8 *Id*. at ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.\").\n\n9 *Id*. (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\n10 *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\n24. The Debtor has gone to great lengths to hinder and delay the collection efforts of one of his largest creditors, *i.e.*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"). In 2017, PAX sued the Debtor in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the \"New York Court\"), Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"PAX Case\"), seeking judgment for monies owed. On February 3, 2021, PAX obtained a judgment from the New York Court against the Debtor in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\"). PAX sought to enforce the PAX Judgment by levying the Debtor's assets—including the Lady May, which the Debtor falsely claimed was owned by his daughter, and the Debtor's luxury apartment in Manhattan, which the Debtor falsely claimed was held in trust for the Debtor's son. The Debtor's defiance of New York Court orders in postjudgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n25. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Greenwich Land and Golden Spring, as personal piggy-banks, funding the lavish lifestyle to which he and his family had become accustomed, while concealing assets in these alter egos from his creditors and hindering and delaying creditors from recoveries on their claims. The transfers that the Debtor effectuated through these alter egos perpetuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n26. The Debtor has testified before the Bankruptcy Court that he has insufficient assets to pay his liabilities and that his luxurious lifestyle is funded by his family through businesses nominally held by family members.[11](#page-8-0) The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.[12](#page-8-1)\n\n 11 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n12 *See* n.3\n\n27. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested and remains confined pending his trial on federal criminal charges of, among other things, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.\n\n28. In its criminal indictment of the Debtor, the United States Government asserts that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"[13](#page-9-0)\n\n29. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Greenwich Land, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n30. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the prepetition transfers at issue in this Complaint.\n\n### **D. Debtor's Shell Game and Fraud Continues Postpetition**\n\n31. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including Greenwich Land and Golden Spring, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n32. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, with blatant disregard for the Bankruptcy Court and his obligations under the Bankruptcy Code, continued to effectuate transfers through numerous alter-ego shell companies, including, without limitation, Greenwich Land and Golden Spring.\n\n 13 *See* Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release at 29, attached as Exhibit B in 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\n33. None of these postpetition transfers were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court nor were such transfers authorized under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **E. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n34. The Transfers at issue in this Complaint were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were all made through the Debtor's alterego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n35. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many creditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n36. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor faces multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n37. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n38. Among the practices of the Debtor's shell game was the issuance of debit cards funded by the Debtor's assets owned through his alter egos (the \"Debit Cards\"). The Debit Cards were issued to the Beneficiary Defendants, as well as other members of the Debtor's immediate\n\nfamily, the Debtor's personal employees, and the Debtor's subordinates who assisted in the conduct of his financial affairs (*e.g.*, Yanping Wang).\n\n39. All of the foregoing persons were either complicit or actively participated in the Debtor's shell game, including by serving as nominal owners and/or holding other positions in the Debtor's alter ego shell companies.\n\n40. The Debtor permitted the Beneficiary Defendants to use the Debit Cards to enrich themselves and to dissipate property held through the Debtor's shell companies.\n\n41. The transfers to Restoration Hardware which are at issue in this case were in part effectuated through the use of these Debit Cards by the Beneficiary Defendants (the \"Beneficial Transfers\").\n\n42. Restoration Hardware provides luxury home furnishings in a gallery setting with an interior design studio and private client presentation rooms.\n\n43. The Transfers at issue here were part of the Debtor's practice of dissipating his assets through spending on luxury goods and services. This spending on luxury items was particularly egregious considering that the Debtor was dissipating the proceeds of his frauds.\n\n44. Even while the Debtor claimed to be penniless to his creditors, he simultaneously used his luxurious lifestyle as a marketing tool to promote his fraudulent schemes. Among the many examples of this strategy was the Debtor's \"Hcoin to the Moon\" music video, in which the Debtor flaunts extravagant personal property—including yachts, sports cars, suits, cigars, and home furnishings—to promote investment in one of his fraudulent cryptocurrency ventures.[14](#page-11-0)\n\n45. This further reflects the Debtor's fraudulent intent with respect to the Transfers.\n\n 14 *See* (last visited Jan. 25, 2024). The Debtor published this music video on YouTube in December of 2021, roughly two months prior to the Petition Date.\n\n#### **F. Investigation and Transfers to Restoration Hardware**\n\n46. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell company Greenwich Land, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to and/or for the benefit of Restoration Hardware (collectively, the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n47. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell companies, Greenwich Land and Golden Spring, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to and/or for the benefit of Restoration Hardware (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n48. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfers (collectively,\n\nthe \"Transfers\"), the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n49. Restoration Hardware was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n50. The Beneficiary Defendant were the individuals for whose benefit the Transfers were made.\n\n#### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n## **(Claim Against Restoration Hardware to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n51. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n52. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor through his alter ego, Greenwich Land, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n53. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case;\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized; and\n\nh. The Prepetition Transfers were made to and/or for the benefit of Restoration Hardware.\n\n54. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(i)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim Against Restoration Hardware to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, 276, and 277 and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n55. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n56. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter ego, Greenwich Land, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n57. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case;\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized; and\n\nh. The Prepetition Transfers were made to and/or for the benefit of Restoration Hardware.\n\n58. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, 276, and 277 and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim Against Restoration Hardware to Avoid and Recover Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550(a))**\n\n59. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n60. The Debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n61. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n62. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction, for which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n63. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor intended to incur or believed he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debts matured.\n\n64. The Prepetition Transfers constitute fraudulent transfers and are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim Against Restoration Hardware to Avoid and Recover Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274, 276, and 277 and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n65. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n66. The Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n67. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or the Debtor became insolvent as a result of the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n68. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n69. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debt matured.\n\n70. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274, 276, and 277 and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Claim Against Restoration Hardware to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n71. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n72. The Postpetition Transfers were made to and/or for the benefit of Restoration Hardware by the Debtor, including through his alter-ego shell companies, Greenwich Land and Golden Spring.\n\n73. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n74. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n75. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n76. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n77. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof, from the Restoration Hardware plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\n\n### **SIXTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Claim Against Beneficiary Defendants to Recover Transfers for the Benefit of the Beneficiary Defendants Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 550(a))**\n\n78. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-50 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n79. The Beneficiary Defendants were the parties for whose benefit the Beneficial Transfers were made because such transfers enabled the Beneficiary Defendants to make purchases of goods or services from Restoration Hardware using Debit Cards for their own personal benefit.\n\n80. Specifically, the Beneficiary Defendants received benefits in the amounts of in the amounts of \\$16,727,27 for Ngok, \\$43,634.83 for Krasner, and \\$9,832.05 for Guo, as a result of their Restoration Hardware purchases.\n\n81. To the extent that the Beneficial Transfers are avoided, without waiver of the Trustee's claims to recover the value from Restoration Hardware, the Beneficial Transfers are recoverable against Ngok, Hadjicharalambous, Enriquez, Han, and Guo.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\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, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$106,444.13 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$106,444.13 are avoided pursuant to Section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276 and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$106,444.13 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, an order declaring that (a) the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$106,444.13 are avoided pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections\n\n273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n5. On the Fifth Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$30,781.37 are avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n6. On the Sixth Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Beneficial Transfers are recoverable by the Trustee pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and (b) recovery of the Beneficial Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, in the amounts of \\$16,727,27 for Ngok, \\$43,634.83 for Krasner, and \\$9,832.05 for Guo, for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n7. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n8. 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 10, 2024 New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 [dskalka@npmlaw.com](mailto:dskalka@npmlaw.com) [plinsey@npmlaw.com](mailto:plinsey@npmlaw.com) *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\n### **FILED UNDER SEAL**\n\n# **SCHEDULE B**\n\n### **FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（FORM 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\n（背面附有说明） 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 Restoration Hardware, Inc.（Restoration Hardware公司）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址及电话号码）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡），Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n(203)781-2847 律师\n（如已知）\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人 □ 债务人\n□ 债权人\n□ 受托人 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 其他\n\n诉因\n（简要说明诉因，包括所涉及的所有美国法条）\n第11章受托人提起的诉状，请求依据《破产法典》第544、548、549及\n550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条，撤销并追回欺诈性转让及\n申请后转让，并请求相关救济\n\n诉讼性质\n（最多为五（5）个方框编号，以主要诉因编号为1、第一个备选诉因编号为2、第二个备选诉因编号为3，依此类推。）\n\nFRBP 7001(1) – 金钱/财产追回\n□\n11-金钱/财产追回 - §542 财产返还\n□\n12-金钱/财产追回 - §547 优先权转让\n□\n13-金钱/财产追回 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14-金钱/财产追回 - 其他\n\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围\n□\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围 □\n□\n□\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养义务\n68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n63-可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n64-可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\n65-可免责性 - 其他\n\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□\n31-批准出售破产财产及共同所有人的财产 - §363(h) □\n71-禁令救济 – 实施中止\n□\n72-禁令救济 – 其他\n\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n41-对免责提出异议/撤销免责 - §727(c),(d),(e) FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后顺位\n□\n81-债权或权益的劣后顺位\n\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51-撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□\n91-确认判决\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□\n66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权\n□\n62-可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67-可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续下栏） FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01-对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n\n其他\n□\nSS-SIPA案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n□\n02-其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体争议，请勾选 □ 如主张本案为依据FRCP 23提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如在诉状中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\n\nB1040（FORM 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由以发生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 破产案件编号\n22-50073 (JAM)\n案件审理地区\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） 分院办公室\nBridgeport（布里奇波特） 法官姓名\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序审理地区 分院办公室 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n日期 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\n说明\n\n提交破产案件将在破产法院管辖下产生一个“财产集合”，其由债务人的全部财产构成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产集合范围极广且法院管辖权十分广泛，可能会就财产集合的财产或财产权利产生诉讼。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第1040号表格，即对抗程序封面页，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作为提交程序的一部分获取第1040号表格中的信息。）填妥后，该封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制有关法院活动的必要统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规则所要求的诉状或其他文件的提交和送达。该封面页大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告没有律师代理，则由原告填写）。每提交一份诉状，均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确列明原告和被告的姓名，与其在诉状中所列姓名一致。\n\n律师。如已知，请列明律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告、在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填入诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，则必须由该律师事务所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，[1]\n\n第11章\n\n案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并管理）\n\n对抗程序编号 [ ]\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nFebruary 10, 2024\n\nRESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.（RESTORATION HARDWARE公司）、HING CHI NGOK（吴兴志）、MAX KRASNER（马克斯·克拉斯纳）及MEI GUO（郭梅），\n\n被告。----------------------------------------------------- x\n\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、548、549及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274、276及277条，请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及申请后转让，并请求相关救济的诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其作为在Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）的身份，针对被告Restoration Hardware, Inc.（以下简称“Restoration Hardware”）提出本对抗诉状（以下简称“诉状”）。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅供通知及通信之用）。\n\n（“Restoration Hardware”）以及Hing Chi Ngok（“Ngok”）、Max Krasner（“Krasner”）及Mei Guo（“Guo”）（合称“受益被告”，并与Restoration Hardware合称“被告”）提出本诉状，陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回：(a) 本第11章案件开始前对债务人财产作出的转让；以及(b) 本第11章案件开始后对债务人第11章财产集合的财产作出的、未经破产法院授权或未经《美国法典》第11编（以下简称“破产法典”）授权的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司Greenwich Land, LLC（以下简称“Greenwich Land”），在申请日（定义如下）前向作为初始受让人的Restoration Hardware转让了金额为$106,444.13的资金，及/或为其利益转让了该等资金。\n\n3. 该等转让属于实际欺诈性转让，因为债务人作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施了该等转让，且该等转让是出于阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出的。作为备选，该等转让属于推定欺诈性转让，因为该等转让作出时债务人已无力偿债，且债务人未因此获得合理等值的对价。\n\n4. 在申请日后，债务人通过其另我空壳公司Greenwich Land及Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（以下简称“Golden Spring”），向作为初始受让人的Restoration Hardware转让了合计金额为$30,781.37的资金，及/或为其利益转让了该等资金。\n\n5. 由于该等对财产集合财产作出的申请后转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，故其可根据《破产法典》第549及550条予以撤销并追回。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 本法院根据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 本对抗程序已根据28 U.S.C. § 157(a)移交本法院审理。\n\n8. 本文所请求救济的法定依据包括《破产法典》第544、547、548、549及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274、276及277条[2]，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人系第11章案件中的第11章受托人，其依据破产法院于July 8, 2022作出的命令获任命[案件编号22-50073（以下简称“主案”）案卷编号523]。\n\n10. Restoration Hardware是一家特拉华州公司，地址为15 Koch Road, Corta Madera, California 94925。\n\n11. Ngok系居住于373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06831的个人。\n\n2 此后对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law”。《纽约州统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVT”）取代《纽约州统一欺诈性让与法》（“NYUFC”），并于April 4, 2020生效，适用于在April 4, 2020当日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。对于April 4, 2020之前的转让，受托人在本案中依据NYUFC及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、273a、275、276及278条请求救济。\n\n12. Guo系居住于492 Broome Street, Apartment 3, New York, NY 10013的个人。\n\n13. Krasner系居住于6 Thornley Pl, Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733的个人。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n14. 债务人于February 15, 2022在United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院）（以下简称“破产法院”）根据《破产法典》第11章自愿提交救济申请（以下简称“申请日”），从而启动第11章案件。\n\n15. 于March 21, 2022，美国受托人办公室在本第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会。未任命审查员。\n\n16. 债务人于March 2022向破产法院提交的破产财产清单称，其拥有$3,850的资产，并产生了数亿美元的负债。[3] 债务人确实负债累累，但其财产清单未披露债务人通过其众多另我空壳公司持有及/或转让的财产，包括Greenwich Land和Golden Spring。\n\n17. 2022年6月15日，法院作出备忘录裁定及命令[主案卷宗编号 465]，指示美国受托人任命一名第11章受托人处理第11章案件。根据该命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A.·德斯平斯）担任受托人。2022年7月8日，法院作出命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins 担任第11章案件的受托人[主案卷宗编号 523]。\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页[主案卷宗编号 78]。\n\nB. 债务人使用空壳公司及受托人提起的对立诉讼\n\n18. Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地公司）和 Golden Spring（黄金泉公司）属于债务人为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多自我替身空壳公司。[4] 多年来，债务人一直策划一场“空壳游戏”，利用由其家庭成员、亲信及/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的错综复杂的空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人能够使用、支出及/或转移数百万美元现金和其他资产，同时向债权人隐匿其财产。\n\n19. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第11章案件中提起多项对立诉讼，除其他事项外，旨在确认债务人的空壳公司系其自我替身及/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；在其中若干案件中，破产法院已经给予该等救济。[5]\n\n20. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属及/或下属持有的空壳公司，(ii) 以来自其他由债务人控制的实体的现金购置的资产，及/或在空壳实体之间无对价转移的资产，以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中受益，并对其享有控制权和支配权。\n\n4 在对立诉讼 Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC（对立程序编号 23-5005（“Greenwich Land 对立程序”），卷宗编号 78）中，尚有一项待决的简易判决动议，以确定 Greenwich Land 是否为债务人的自我替身。受托人通过引用方式将其在 Greenwich Land 对立程序中提交的起诉状（对立程序编号 23-5005，卷宗编号 1）纳入本文。\n\n2023年12月4日，破产法院对 Golden Spring 等作出缺席判决（“该判决”），认定在申请日之前的任何时候，Golden Spring 均构成债务人的财产；且 Golden Spring 在申请日之后任何时候持有的任何及全部资产均为债务人破产财产的一部分。Despins v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., et al.（对立程序编号 23-05018）（“Golden Spring 对立程序”），卷宗编号 35）。受托人通过引用方式将该判决纳入本文。\n\n5 该等对立诉讼包括：(i) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；以及 (vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n21. 除受托人对立诉讼中所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并通过该公司为 Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司））的受益所有人，且债务人控制并利用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（王燕平）。[6]\n\n22. 破产法院还认定，“G实体”（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）和 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他名义上独立的实体和组织，均由债务人控制[7]、由债务人领导[8]及/或“服务于……债务人的目的并作为债务人的商业工具”。[9]\n\n23. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦地区法院）的 Liman 法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）——该实体最初由债务人的一名厨师所有，后转让给债务人的女儿——“实质上是”债务人的“一家空壳公司”。[10]\n\n6 准许以违反公司治理命令为由认定债务人藐视法庭的动议之命令，第¶¶ 1、4段（2023年1月24日，卷宗编号 1372（“公司治理藐视法庭命令”）。\n\n7 部分准许初步禁令动议的经更正备忘录裁定，第¶ 3段（对立程序编号 22-05032，2023年1月13日（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及相关实体‘GTV’”）。\n\n8 同上，第¶ 7段（“债务人是 The Whistleblower Movement（吹哨人运动）、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n9 同上（“吹哨人运动、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和喜马拉雅服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员对债务人个人忠诚。”）。\n\n10 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\n24. 债务人不遗余力地阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一，即 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）的追偿工作。2017年，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）起诉债务人，案卷索引号 652077/2017（“PAX案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX 获得纽约法院针对债务人的 \\$116,402,019.57 判决（“PAX判决”）。PAX 试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行 PAX 判决，包括 Lady May（梅夫人号）——债务人虚假声称该游艇由其女儿所有——以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓——债务人虚假声称该公寓为其儿子以信托方式持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗纽约法院命令，最终导致债务人被处以 \\$134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n25. 债务人还将其自我替身，包括 Greenwich Land 和 Golden Spring，当作个人小金库，在将资产隐匿于这些自我替身中、使债权人无法就其债权获得追偿并阻碍和拖延债权人的同时，为其本人和家人已习惯的奢华生活方式提供资金。债务人通过这些自我替身实施的转移延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n26. 债务人曾在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以偿还其负债，其奢华生活方式由家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业提供资金。[11] 债务人仅申报了 \\$3,850 的资产。[12]\n\n11 关于债务人请求作出临时及最终 DIP 命令的听证会：(I) 授权债务人获得无担保、从属于其他债务的申请后融资；(II) 安排临时及最终听证会；及 (III) 给予相关救济（主案，2022年4月27日）\n\n12 见注3\n\n27. 2023年3月，债务人被逮捕，并在联邦刑事指控的审判前持续被羁押；该等指控包括电信欺诈、证券欺诈和洗钱等罪名。\n\n28. 美国政府在针对债务人的刑事起诉书中主张，债务人及其共同被告“利用以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的超过约500个账户，洗白超过 \\$1 billion 的欺诈所得。”[13]\n\n29. 债务人的自我替身所持有的财产，包括 Greenwich Land，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n30. 在与本文有关的所有时间内，债务人在纽约州纽约市从事经营活动，包括指示实施本起诉状所涉申请前转移。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳游戏及欺诈行为在申请后持续进行\n\n31. 截至申请日，债务人通过其自我替身持有的全部财产，包括 Greenwich Land 和 Golden Spring，均成为第11章破产财产的一部分。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n32. 在申请日之后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其在《破产法》下的义务，继续通过众多自我替身空壳公司实施转移，包括但不限于 Greenwich Land 和 Golden Spring。\n\n13 见美利坚合众国就被告 Yanping Wang 的审前释放动议提交的反对法律备忘录，第29页，该备忘录作为附件B附于第11章受托人就 G Club Operations LLC 对受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求所提补充异议作出的答复中（2023年6月23日，主案卷宗编号 1934）。\n\n33. 该等申请后转移均未经破产法院授权，亦未获《破产法》授权。\n\nE. 以阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人为意图作出的转移\n\n34. 本起诉状所涉转移均意图阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人的债权人，原因在于其均是通过债务人的自我替身空壳公司作出的，该等空壳公司作为债务人空壳游戏的一部分而运营。\n\n35. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以便在向其众多债权人虚假声称贫困的同时，隐匿并耗散数百万美元资产。债务人声称一无所有，却同时大肆支出，为其本人、家庭成员及亲密伙伴维持亿万富翁式的生活方式。\n\n36. 债务人隐匿和耗散的资产包括其从加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害人处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在纽约南区美国联邦地区法院待决的一宗刑事案件中面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索指控。见 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n37. 债务人明知并意图通过以此方式隐匿和耗散其资产，将不会剩余足够资产偿还其债权人——包括其欺诈行为的众多受害人。因此，这些转移必然是以阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人债权人为意图作出的。\n\n38. 债务人空壳游戏的做法之一，是发行以债务人通过其自我替身拥有的资产提供资金的借记卡（“借记卡”）。借记卡被发给受益被告，以及债务人的其他直系亲属、债务人的私人雇员和协助其处理财务事务的下属（例如 Yanping Wang）。\n\n39. 前述所有人员要么共谋，要么积极参与债务人的空壳游戏，包括担任债务人自我替身空壳公司的名义所有人及/或担任其他职务。\n\n40. 债务人允许受益被告使用借记卡，使其自身获益并耗散通过债务人空壳公司持有的财产。\n\n41. 本案所涉向 Restoration Hardware（复原硬件公司）作出的转移，部分是由受益被告使用该等借记卡实施的（“受益转移”）。\n\n42. Restoration Hardware 以画廊式环境提供豪华家居用品，并设有室内设计工作室和私人客户展示室。\n\n43. 本案所涉转让是债务人通过购买奢侈品和服务耗散其资产这一做法的一部分。鉴于债务人正在耗散其欺诈所得，该等奢侈品消费尤为恶劣。\n\n44. 即使债务人向其债权人声称自己身无分文，他同时仍将其奢华生活方式作为营销工具，以推销其欺诈计划。该策略的众多例子之一，是债务人的“Hcoin to the Moon”音乐视频，债务人在该视频中炫耀游艇、跑车、西装、雪茄和家居陈设等奢侈个人财产，以推广对其一项欺诈性加密货币项目的投资。[14]\n\n45. 这进一步反映了债务人就该等转让所具有欺诈意图。\n\n14 参见（最后访问于 Jan. 25, 2024）。债务人于2021年12月在YouTube上发布该音乐视频，约在申请日之前两个月。\n\nF. 对 Restoration Hardware（RH家居）的调查及转让\n\n46. 在申请日之前，债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产），或以其他方式，向 Restoration Hardware 转让债务人的财产，和/或为 Restoration Hardware 的利益转让债务人的财产（合称“申请日前转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表A。\n\n47. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Greenwich Land 和 Golden Spring（黄金之春），或以其他方式，向 Restoration Hardware 转让破产财产，和/或为 Restoration Hardware 的利益转让破产财产（合称“申请日后转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表B。\n\n48. 在申请日前转让和申请日后转让（合称“该等转让”）发生时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n49. Restoration Hardware 是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n50. 受益被告是为其利益作出该等转让的个人。\n\n第一项请求\n（依据《破产法》sections 548(a)(1)(A)和550(a)，针对 Restoration Hardware 请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n51. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至50段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n52. 申请日前转让由债务人通过其另我 Greenwich Land 作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n53. 债务人在实施申请日前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其由下列事实表明：\n\na. 申请日前转让是通过一家另我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请日前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，债务人在其控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属的协助下实施该等转让，意图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请日前转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈中受益，同时不使其财产受制于其债权人的追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请日前转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈中获利，同时不使其财产受制于其债权人的追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中对其提起的诉讼；\n\ng. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足；以及\n\nh. 申请日前转让是向 Restoration Hardware 作出和/或为其利益作出的。\n\n54. 受托人可依据《破产法》section 548(a)(i)(A)撤销申请日前转让，并可依据《破产法》section 550(a)追回该等转让。\n\n第二项请求\n（依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, 276, and 277 以及《破产法》sections 544(b) and 550(a)，针对 Restoration Hardware 请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n55. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至50段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n56. 申请日前转让由债务人通过其另我 Greenwich Land 作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n57. 债务人在实施申请日前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其由下列事实表明：\n\na. 申请日前转让是通过一家另我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请日前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，债务人在其控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属的协助下实施该等转让，意图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请日前转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈中受益，同时不使其财产受制于其债权人的追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请日前转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈中获利，同时不使其财产受制于其债权人的追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中对其提起的诉讼；\n\ng. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足；以及\n\nh. 申请日前转让是向 Restoration Hardware 作出和/或为其利益作出的。\n\n58. 受托人可依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, 276, and 277 以及《破产法》section 544(b)撤销申请日前转让，并可依据《破产法》section 550(a)追回该等转让。\n\n第三项请求\n（依据《破产法》sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550(a)，针对 Restoration Hardware 请求撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让）\n\n59. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至50段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n60. 债务人就申请日前转让所取得的对价低于合理等值。\n\n61. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人无清偿能力，或因申请日前转让而变得无清偿能力。\n\n62. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人正在从事或即将从事某项业务或交易，而债务人所保留的任何财产构成不合理地少量的资本。\n\n63. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或相信其将承担，到期时超出其清偿能力的债务。\n\n64. 申请日前转让构成欺诈性转让，受托人可依据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(B)予以撤销，并可依据《破产法》section 550(a)予以追回。\n\n第四项请求\n（依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274, 276, and 277 以及《破产法》sections 544(b) and 550(a)，针对 Restoration Hardware 请求撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让）\n\n65. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至50段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n66. 债务人就申请日前转让未取得合理等值对价。\n\n67. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人无清偿能力，或债务人因申请日前转让而变得无清偿能力。\n\n68. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人正在从事或即将从事某项业务或交易，而债务人所保留的任何财产构成不合理地少量的资本。\n\n69. 在申请日前转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或相信或合理地应当相信其将承担，到期时超出其清偿能力的债务。\n\n70. 受托人可依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274, 276, and 277 以及《破产法》section 544(b)撤销申请日前转让，并可依据《破产法》section 550(a)追回该等转让。\n\n第五项请求\n（依据《破产法》sections 549 and 550(a)，针对 Restoration Hardware 请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请日后转让）\n\n71. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至50段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n72. 申请日后转让由债务人向 Restoration Hardware 作出和/或为其利益作出，包括通过其另我空壳公司 Greenwich Land 和 Golden Spring 作出。\n\n73. 申请日后转让发生在申请日之后。\n\n74. 申请日后转让未经破产法院或《破产法》授权。\n\n75. 申请日后转让构成未经授权转让债务人第11章破产财产。\n\n76. 申请日后转让可依据《破产法》section 549(a)予以撤销。\n\n77. 依据《破产法》section 550(a)，受托人有权从 Restoration Hardware 追回申请日后转让，或其价值，并有权取得截至付款日的利息及本案诉讼费用。\n\n第六项请求\n（依据《破产法》section 550(a)，针对受益被告请求追回为受益被告利益作出的转让）\n\n78. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至50段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n79. 受益被告是为其利益作出受益性转让的当事人，因为该等转让使受益被告能够使用借记卡从 Restoration Hardware 购买商品或服务，供其个人受益。\n\n80. 具体而言，受益被告因其在 Restoration Hardware 的购买而获得如下金额的利益：Ngok（诺克）为$16,727,27，Krasner（克拉斯纳）为$43,634.83，Guo（郭）为$9,832.05。\n\n81. 如受益性转让被撤销，在不放弃受托人向 Restoration Hardware 追回其价值的请求权的前提下，可向 Ngok、Hadjicharalambous（哈吉查拉兰布斯）、Enriquez（恩里克斯）、Han（韩）和 Guo 追回受益性转让。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留空。]\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，(a) 作出裁定，宣告金额不少于$106,444.13的申请日前转让依据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A)予以撤销；(b) 作出裁定，命令撤销申请日前转让；以及 (c) 依据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产的利益，从被告处追回申请日前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 对第二项请求，(a) 作出裁定，宣告金额不少于$106,444.13的申请日前转让依据《破产法》Section 544(b)和 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276，以及就 April 4, 2020 之前的转让而言，依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278，予以撤销；(b) 作出裁定，命令撤销申请日前转让；以及 (c) 依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 276 和《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产的利益，从被告处追回申请日前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，(a) 一项裁定，宣告金额不少于 $106,444.13 的申请前转让依据《破产法》第 548(a)(1)(B) 条予以撤销；(b) 一项命令，指示撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 依据《破产法》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人遗产的利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 就第四项请求，一项裁定，宣告 (a) 金额不少于 $106,444.13 的申请前转让依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 予以撤销，并且，就 2020 年 4 月 4 日之前的转让而言，依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278 予以撤销；(b) 一项命令，指示撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 依据 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 和《破产法》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人遗产的利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n5. 就第五项请求，一项命令，(a) 宣告金额不少于 $30,781.37 的申请后转让依据《破产法》第 549 条予以撤销；以及 (b) 一项命令，指示撤销申请后转让；以及 (c) 依据《破产法》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人遗产的利益，向被告追回申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n6. 就第六项请求，一项命令，(a) 宣告受益转让可由受托人依据《破产法》第 550(a) 条追回；以及 (b) 依据《破产法》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人遗产的利益，向被告追回受益转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值，其中 Ngok（恩戈克）为 $16,727.27，Krasner（克拉斯纳）为 $43,634.83，Guo（郭）为 $9,832.05；\n\n7. 自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止，按最高法定利率判给受托人判决前利息；以及\n\n8. 法院在此情况下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n【本页其余部分有意留白】\n\n日期：2024 年 2 月 10 日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n第 11 章受托人\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林齐）\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林齐）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\n[dskalka@npmlaw.com]\n[plinsey@npmlaw.com]\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\n\n附表 A\n密封提交\n\n附表 B\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Guo","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Yanping Wang","Himalaya","Miles Guo","HCHK","GTV","Saraca","GETTR","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":6044,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:35:46"}