{"id":"court_ctb_2642_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2642,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2024-02-10","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 | Phillips Nizer LLP | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | | |\n| Douglas S. Skalka, Patrick R. Linsey
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510
(203)781-2847 | | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only) | PARTY (Check One Box Only) | | | |\n| □ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin | □ Debtor
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin | | | |\n| □ Creditor
□ Other | □ Creditor
□ Other | | | |\n| □ Trustee | □ Trustee | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION | (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) | | | |\n| Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee seeking avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers, preferential 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 | | | | |\n| (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
□ | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
□ | | | |\n| 11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□ | 61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
□ | | | |\n| 12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer | 68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
□
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan | | | |\n| □
14-Recovery of money/property - other | □
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation | | | |\n| | (other than domestic support) | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | □
65-Dischargeability - other | | | |\n| | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□ | □
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay | | | |\n| 31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | □
72-Injunctive relief – other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest | | | |\n| □
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | □
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment | | | |\n| □
51-Revocation of confirmation | □
91-Declaratory judgment | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action | | | |\n| □
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims | □
01-Determination of removed claim or cause | | | |\n| □
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, | | | | |\n| actual fraud
□ | Other
□ | | | |\n| 67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny | SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
□
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court | | | |\n| (continued next column) | 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\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | 22-50073 (JAM) | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport | Julie A. Manning | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY | |\n| | | | PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| | | | | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\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\nDebtors.\n\nChapter 11\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nAdv. Proceeding No. [ ]\n\nv.\n\nFebruary 10, 2024\n\nPHILLIPS NIZER LLP,\n\nDefendant.\n\n----------------------------------------------------- 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, AND 276**\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\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\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Phillips Nizer LLP (the \"Defendant\"), 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, Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$118,332.85 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant 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.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter ego shell companies, Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. (\"Lexington\") and Lamp Capital, transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$72,538.03 to the Defendant 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\n2\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, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 [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. The Defendant is a New York limited liability partnership with an address at 485 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, 10017.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. 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\n12. 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\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 §§273, 273-a, 274, 275, 276 and 278.\n\n13. 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, Lamp Capital and Lexington.\n\n14. 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### **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n15. Lamp Capital and Lexington are among the numerous alter ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors.[4](#page-5-1) 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\n\n 3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n4 The Court has entered judgment to the effect that Lamp Capital was the Debtor's alter ego. *See Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\"), Docket No. 66). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Lamp Capital A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1).\n\nDefault has entered against Lexington in the adversary proceeding *Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013 (the \"HCHK Entities A.P.\"), Docket No. 139), which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Lexington was the alter ego of the Debtor. The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the HCHK Entities A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23- 5013, Docket No. 1).\n\nshell 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\n16. 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-6-0)\n\n17. 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 other 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\n18. 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-6-1)\n\n19. 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\n\n 5 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\n6 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\nFoundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled by the Debtor[7](#page-7-0) , led by the Debtor[8](#page-7-1) and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.[9](#page-7-2)\n\n20. 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-7-3)\n\n21. 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\n 7 *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\n22. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Lamp Capital and Lexington, 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\n23. 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\n24. 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\n25. 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-8-2)\n\n26. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Lamp Capital and Lexington, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\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\n13 *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\n27. 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\n28. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including Lamp Capital, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n29. 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, Lamp Capital and Lexington.\n\n30. 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\n31. 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\n32. 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\n33. 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\n34. 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\n35. The Debtor's ability to establish and maintain his shell game—which involved a tangled web of numerous alter-ego entities—depended upon, among other things, services provided by professional firms.\n\n36. The Defendant is a law firm that represented the Debtor's alter ego, Lamp Capital, in the PAX Case.\n\n#### **F. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n37. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell companies, Lamp Capital, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n38. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell companies, Lamp Capital and Lexington, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n39. 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\n40. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n#### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n41. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-40 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n42. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor through his alter ego, Lamp Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n43. 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; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n10\n\n44. 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 to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n45. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-40 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n46. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter ego, Lamp Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n47. 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; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n48. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276, 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 to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n49. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-40 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n50. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, Lexington.\n\n51. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n52. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n53. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n54. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n55. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\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 \\$118,332.85 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 \\$118,332.85 are avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276; (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, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$72,538.03 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\n4. 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\n14\n\n5. 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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2642 Filed 02/10/24 Entered 02/10/24 15:05:34 Page 20 of 20\n\n### **SCHEDULE B**\n\n**FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面表\n（说明见背面） 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 Phillips Nizer LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽有限责任合伙企业）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址和电话号码） 律师\n（如已知）\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、佩佩及蒙蒂思专业公司）\n195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n(203)781-2847\n当事人（仅勾选一项） 当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人 □ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他 □ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人 □ 受托人\n诉因 （简要陈述诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第11章受托人根据《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及276条，请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让、偏颇性转让及申请后转让，并请求相关救济的起诉状\n诉讼性质\n（自主要诉因起作为第1项、第一备选诉因作为第2项、第二备选诉因作为第3项，依此类推，最多编号五（5）项。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产\n□ FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n□\n11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产返还\n□ 61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 偏颇性转让\n□\n13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让 68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n□\n63-可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n14-追回金钱/财产 - 其他 □\n64-可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\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 □\n65-可免责性 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□ □\n71-禁令救济 – 施加中止\n31-批准出售破产财团财产及共同所有人财产 - §363(h) □\n72-禁令救济 – 其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责 FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后\n□\n41-对免责提出异议/撤销免责 - §727(c),(d),(e) □\n81-债权或权益的劣后\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□\n51-撤销确认 □\n91-确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性 FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税务债权 □\n01-对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n□\n62-可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□ 其他\n□\n67-可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃 SS-SIPA 案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n□\n02-其他（例如，若与破产案件无关，本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼\n（续见下一栏） ）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选 □ 如主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如在起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（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由产生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名 破产案件编号\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 22-50073 (JAM)\n案件审理地区 分院办公室 法官姓名\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） Bridgeport（布里奇波特） Julie 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\n对抗程序审理地区 分院办公室 法官姓名\n\n律师（或原告）签名\n\n日期 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下设立一项“破产财团”，该财团由债务人的全部财产构成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围广泛且法院管辖权十分宽泛，可能会就破产财团的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能发生有关债务人免责的诉讼。此类诉讼如在破产法院提起，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表格1040，即《对抗程序封面表》，除非该方通过法院案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF 在提交过程中采集表格1040中的信息。）填写完成后，封面表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封面表及其所载信息并不取代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求的诉状或其他文件的提交和送达。该封面表大体不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每一份提交的起诉状均须向书记员另行提交一份封面表。\n\n原告和被告。准确填写原告和被告在起诉状中所示的姓名。\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选项，并为被告在第二栏勾选最适当的选项。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。该封面表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，必须由该所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，原告必须签署。\n美国康涅狄格州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，[1]\n\n债务人。\n\n第11章\n\n案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n（合并管理）\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对抗程序编号 [ ]\n\n诉\n\n2024年2月10日\n\nPHILLIPS NIZER LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽有限责任合伙企业），\n\n被告。\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章受托人根据《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及276条，请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让和申请后转让及请求相关救济的起诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以获任命担任 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（下称“第11章案件”）第11章受托人（下称“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（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）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，转交 Luc A. Despins，以 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人身份收件（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n对抗起诉状（下称“起诉状”），针对被告 Phillips Nizer LLP（下称“被告”）提出如下陈述：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，请求撤销并追回：(a) 在本第11章案件开始前对债务人财产作出的转让；及 (b) 在本第11章案件开始后对债务人第11章破产财团财产作出的、未经破产法院或《美国法典》第11编（下称“破产法典”）授权的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其自我替身空壳公司 Lamp Capital LLC（下称“Lamp Capital”），在申请日（定义见下文）之前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了 \\$118,332.85 的资金。\n\n3. 这些转让构成实际欺诈，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，并且该等转让是出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图作出的。\n\n4. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其自我替身空壳公司 Lexington Property and Staffing Inc.（下称“Lexington”）和 Lamp Capital，向作为初始受让人的被告转让了合计 \\$72,538.03 的资金。\n\n5. 由于这些对破产财团财产的申请后转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，根据《破产法典》第549及550条，该等转让可予撤销和追回。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序拥有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)，本对抗程序已移交本院审理。\n\n8. 本案所请求救济的法定依据包括《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及276条 [2]，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人系第11章案件中的第11章受托人，系根据破产法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令获任命 [Case No. 22-50073（下称“主案件”）Docket No. 523]。\n\n10. 被告是一家纽约有限责任合伙企业，地址为 485 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, 10017。\n事实\nA. 第11章案件\n\n11. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）（下称“破产法院”）提交了根据《破产法典》第11章请求救济的自愿申请（下称“申请日”），从而启动第11章案件。\n\n12. 于 March 21, 2022，Office of the United States Trustee（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。尚未任命审查员。\n\n2 下文中对《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”）取代了《纽约州统一欺诈性转让法》（“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，受托人在本诉讼中根据 NYUFC 及 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law §§273, 273-a, 274, 275, 276 和 278 请求救济。\n\n13. 债务人于 March 2022 向破产法院提交的破产财产清单声称，其拥有 \\$3,850 的资产，并已产生数亿美元的负债。[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自我替身空壳公司持有和/或转让的财产，包括 Lamp Capital 和 Lexington。\n\n14. 于 June 15, 2022，法院作出决定备忘录及命令 [主案件 Docket No. 465]，指示美国受托人在第11章案件中任命一名第11章受托人。根据该命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任受托人。于 July 8, 2022，法院作出命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）为第11章案件中的受托人 [主案件 Docket No. 523]。\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. Lamp Capital 和 Lexington 是债务人用以阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的众多自我替身空壳公司中的两家。[4] 多年来，债务人一直策划一场“空壳游戏”，利用由家庭成员、亲信和/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。这\n\n4. 法院已作出判决，认定 Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）系债务人的另我。见 Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Lamp Capital LLC 等案（对抗程序案号 23-5023（“Lamp Capital A.P.”），案卷编号 66）。受托人通过援引方式纳入其在 Lamp Capital A.P. 中提交的起诉状（对抗程序案号 23-5023，案卷编号 1）。\n\n在对抗程序 Despins（德斯平斯）诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）等案（对抗程序案号 23-5013（“HCHK Entities A.P.”），案卷编号 139）中，Lexington（列克星敦）已被作出缺席判决；该对抗程序除其他事项外，请求作出宣告性判决，确认 Lexington 系债务人的另我。受托人通过援引方式纳入其在 HCHK Entities A.P. 中提交的起诉状（对抗程序案号 23-5013，案卷编号 1）。\n\n该空壳操作使债务人得以使用、支出和／或转移数百万美元现金及其他资产——同时向债权人隐匿其财产。\n\n16. 自其获任以来，受托人已在第11章案件中提起多项对抗程序，除其他事项外，以确认债务人的空壳公司系其另我，和／或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；在其中数起程序中，破产法院已授予该等救济。[5]\n\n17. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属和／或下属持有的空壳公司；(ii) 使用来自其他债务人控制实体的现金购买的资产，和／或无对价转让给空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转让的资产；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\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n18. 除受托人对抗程序中所处理的事项外，破产法院已认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并通过该公司成为 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司））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（王悦特）。[6]\n\n19. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他声称独立的实体和组织，均受债务人控制[7]、由债务人领导[8]，和／或“服务于……债务人的目的并作为其商业工具”。[9]\n\n5 该等对抗程序包括：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人诉 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Mei Guo（梅国）案 [对抗程序案号 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（黄金泉（纽约）有限公司）案 [对抗程序案号 23-05018]；以及 (vii) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Lamp Capital LLC 等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05023]。\n\n6 批准以违反公司治理命令为由认定债务人藐视法庭之动议的命令，第 ¶¶ 1、4 段（Jan. 24, 2023，案卷编号 1372（“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”））。\n\n20. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）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\n21. 债务人为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，不遗余力。2017年，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“New York Court”）提起针对债务人的诉讼，案号 652077/2017（“PAX Case”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX 从纽约法院获得针对债务人的 \\$116,402,019.57 判决（“PAX Judgment”）。PAX 试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行 PAX 判决——其中包括 Lady May，债务人虚假声称该资产由其女儿所有；以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人虚假声称该公寓由信托为债务人的儿子持有。债务人在判决后程序中蔑视纽约法院命令的行为，最终导致其被处以 \\$134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n7 部分批准初步禁令动议的更正决定备忘录，第 ¶ 3 段（对抗程序案号 22-05032，January 13, 2023（“The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity ‘GTV’”））。\n\n8 同上，第 ¶ 7 段（“The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.”）。\n\n9 同上。（“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\n22. 债务人还将其另我，包括 Lamp Capital 和 Lexington，作为个人钱罐使用，为其本人及其家人已习惯的奢华生活方式提供资金，同时将资产隐匿于这些另我之中以躲避其债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得清偿。债务人通过这些另我实施的转让延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n23. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以清偿其负债，其奢华生活方式由其家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业提供资金。[11] 债务人仅在资产清单中列报 \\$3,850 的资产。[12]\n\n24. 2023年3月，债务人被逮捕，并仍在等待就包括电信欺诈、证券欺诈及洗钱在内的联邦刑事指控受审期间被羁押。\n\n25. 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约500多个账户，对超过 \\$1 billion 的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”[13]\n\n26. 债务人的另我财产，包括 Lamp Capital 和 Lexington 的财产，在申请日前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n11 关于债务人请求作出临时及最终 DIP 命令之动议的听证会：(I) 授权债务人获得无担保、次级的申请后融资，及 (II) 安排临时及最终听证会，及 (III) 授予相关救济（主案，April 27, 2022）\n\n12 见注释3\n\n13 见美利坚合众国反对被告 Yanping Wang（王艳萍）审前释放动议的法律备忘录，第29页，作为附件B附于第11章受托人对 G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）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中（June 23, 2023，主案件卷编号 1934）。\n\n27. 在与本案有关的所有期间，债务人在 New York, New York 经营业务，包括指示本起诉状所涉的申请前转让。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳操作和欺诈在申请后仍在继续\n\n28. 截至申请日，债务人通过其另我持有的全部财产，包括 Lamp Capital，均成为第11章破产财团的财产。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n29. 申请日后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其根据《破产法》所负的义务，继续通过众多另我空壳公司实施转让，包括但不限于 Lamp Capital 和 Lexington。\n\n30. 这些申请后转让均未经破产法院授权，亦未获《破产法》授权。\n\nE. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n31. 本起诉状所涉转让，均系通过作为债务人空壳操作一部分而运营的债务人另我空壳公司作出，因此系为阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出。\n\n32. 债务人故意以该种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。债务人一面声称身无分文，一面为维持其本人、其家庭成员及亲密关联人士的亿万富翁生活方式而大肆消费。\n\n33. 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受害人处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 正在审理的一宗刑事案件中，面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱及敲诈勒索指控。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\n34. 债务人明知并意图使其以该种方式隐匿和耗散资产后，将不会留有足够资产偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，这些转让必然是为阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出。\n\n35. 债务人建立并维持其空壳操作的能力——该操作涉及众多另我实体构成的错综复杂网络——除其他事项外，取决于专业机构所提供的服务。\n\n36. 被告是一家律师事务所，曾在 PAX Case 中代理债务人的另我 Lamp Capital。\n\nF. 向被告作出的转让\n\n37. 在申请日前，债务人使用其另我空壳公司、Lamp Capital 或以其他方式，向被告转让债务人的财产（统称“Prepetition Transfers”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件组成部分的附表 A。\n\n38. 在申请日后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Lamp Capital 和 Lexington，或以其他方式，向被告转让破产财团财产（统称“Postpetition Transfers”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件组成部分的附表 B。\n\n39. 在 Prepetition Transfers 和 Postpetition Transfers（统称“Transfers”）作出时，债务人对债务人财产的债权人负有未清偿债务。\n\n40. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n\n（根据《破产法》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条及第 550(a) 条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n41. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至40段所载指控，如同在本文件中完整载明。\n\n42. Prepetition Transfers 系债务人通过其另我 Lamp Capital，以实际阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的意图作出。\n\n43. 债务人在实施 Prepetition Transfers 时阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，可由下列事实证明：\n\na. Prepetition Transfers 系使用另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. Prepetition Transfers 对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. Prepetition Transfers 系作为债务人“空壳操作”的一部分，在债务人的家庭成员及其控制的其他助手和下属协助下实施，以图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. Prepetition Transfers 通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获益，同时不使其财产处于其债权人可追及的范围内，进一步促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请破产前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请破产前转让时，债务人正被起诉，包括由 PAX（帕克斯）在 PAX Case（PAX案）中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在申请破产前转让时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n44. 受托人可依据 Bankruptcy Code section 548(a)(i)(A) 撤销申请破产前转让，并可依据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a) 予以追回。\n\n第二项诉请\n（依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273、274 和 276，以及 Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) 和 550(a)，请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n45. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至40段所载的指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n46. 债务人通过其另我公司 Lamp Capital（兰普资本），以实际意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人，作出了申请破产前转让。\n\n47. 债务人实施申请破产前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，可由以下事项等予以证明：\n\na. 申请破产前转让系通过一家作为另我的空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请破产前转让被隐瞒于债务人的债权人；\n\nc. 申请破产前转让是债务人“空壳把戏”的一部分，并在债务人控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属的协助下实施，意图隐瞒和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请破产前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中受益，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请破产前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请破产前转让时，债务人正被起诉，包括由 PAX 在 PAX 案中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在申请破产前转让时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n48. 受托人可依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1)、274 和 276，以及 Bankruptcy Code section 544(b) 撤销申请破产前转让，并可依据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a) 予以追回。\n\n第三项诉请\n（依据 Bankruptcy Code sections 549 和 550(a)，请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请破产后转让）\n\n49. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至40段所载的指称，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n50. 债务人向被告作出了申请破产后转让，包括通过其作为另我的空壳公司 Lexington（莱克星顿）作出该等转让。\n\n51. 申请破产后转让发生于破产申请日之后。\n\n52. 申请破产后转让未经破产法院或 Bankruptcy Code 授权。\n\n53. 申请破产后转让构成对债务人第11章破产财产的未经授权转让。\n\n54. 申请破产后转让可依据 Bankruptcy Code section 549(a) 撤销。\n\n55. 根据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a)，受托人有权向被告追回申请破产后转让，或其价值，并加计至付款日的利息及本案费用。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\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. 就第一项诉请，(a) 作出命令，宣告依据 Bankruptcy Code section 548(a)(1)(A) 撤销金额不少于 $118,332.85 的申请破产前转让；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请破产前转让；以及 (c) 依据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请破产前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项诉请，(a) 作出命令，宣告依据 Bankruptcy Code section 544(b) 及 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1)、274 和 276，撤销金额不少于 $118,332.85 的申请破产前转让；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请破产前转让；以及 (c) 依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 276 及 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请破产前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项诉请，作出命令，(a) 宣告依据 Bankruptcy Code section 549 撤销金额不少于 $72,538.03 的申请破产后转让；以及 (b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请破产后转让；以及 (c) 依据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请破产后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 判给受托人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计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院认为在该等情形下公正、适当或符合衡平原则的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白]\n\n日期：February 10, 2024\nNew Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n(203) 781-2847\n\n[dskalka@npmlaw.com]\n\n[plinsey@npmlaw.com]\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n附表A\n\n以密封方式提交\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2642 Filed 02/10/24 Entered 02/10/24 15:05:34 Page 20 of 20\n\n附表B\n\n以密封方式提交","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","GTV","Saraca","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4973,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-02-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-02-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:59:36"}