{"id":"court_ctb_2671_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2671,"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 | Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc. | | | | |\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 and related relief pursuant
to Bankruptcy Code Sections 544,548, 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
□ | 68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
□ | | | | |\n| 13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
14-Recovery of money/property - other | 63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
□
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
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | □
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
□ | | | | |\n| | | 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 | | | | | |\n| □
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□ | | | | |\n| □
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, | | 01-Determination of removed claim or cause | | | |\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. | | | | |\n| (continued next column) | □ | 02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court | | | |\n| | | 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
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| February 10, 2024 | | Douglas S. Skalka | | |\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\nChapter 11\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*.,[1](#page-2-0)\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\nMERCEDES-BENZ MANHATTAN, INC.,\n\nDefendant.\n\n# ------------------------------------------------------ **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, AND 276**\n\nx\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 Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc. (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n## **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter-ego shell company, Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\") transferred funds in the amount of \\$192,754.58 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\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n5. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a).\n\n6. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548 and 550 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 [2](#page-3-0) or any other applicable state law equivalents.\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\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. 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\n8. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with an address at 770 11th Avenue, New York, New York 10019.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n9. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (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 above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\").\n\n10. On March 21, 2002, 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\n11. 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-4-0) While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and transferred through his many alter-ego shell companies, including Lamp Capital.\n\n12. 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\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 (Main Case, Docket No. 78).\n\nChapter 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\n13. Lamp Capital is among the numerous alter-ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors. [4](#page-5-0) For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members and/or known 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\n14. 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-5-1)\n\n15. 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 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\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\n16. 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-6-0)\n\n17. 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-6-1) , led by the Debtor[8](#page-6-2) and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.[9](#page-6-3)\n\n18. 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 Debtor's chauffeurs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.[10](#page-6-4)\n\n 6 *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order,* para.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*, para. 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 para. 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\n19. 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\n20. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Lamp Capital, as personal piggybanks, 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\n21. 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-7-0) The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.[12](#page-7-1)\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\n22. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested and remains confined pending his on federal criminal charges of, among other things, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.\n\n23. 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-8-0)\n\n24. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Lamp Capital, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n25. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the Transfers.\n\n### **D. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n26. 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\n27. 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\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\n28. 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\n29. 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\n30. The Defendant is a luxury vehicle dealership located in Manhattan complete with indoor new car and certified pre-owned showrooms and a lifestyle collection boutique featuring apparel and accessories.\n\n31. 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\n32. 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-9-0)\n\n33. 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### **E. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n34. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through shell companies including Lamp Capital, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n35. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n36. 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 §§ 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n37. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n38. The 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\n39. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, or and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n- b. The Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n- c. The Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with\n\nthe 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 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 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 Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n40. The 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\n41. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n42. The Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter ego company, 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\n\nTransfers is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n- b. The Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The 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 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 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 Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n44. The 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*[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, an order declaring that the Transfers in an amount not less than \\$192,754.58 are avoided pursuant to Section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the 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, an order declaring that the Transfers in an amount not less than \\$192,754.58 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 Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the 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. 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\n4. 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/*\\_\\_Douglas Skalka\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_* 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**","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面表\n（背面说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告 被告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人 Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc.（梅赛德斯-奔驰曼哈顿公司）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址及电话号码） 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、佩佩和蒙泰思专业公司）\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 （简要说明诉因，包括所涉全部美国法令）\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、548和550条以及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第273、274和276条，请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及获得相关救济的起诉书\n诉讼性质\n（从主要诉因作为第1项、第一替代诉因作为第2项、第二替代诉因作为第3项等开始，最多编号五（5）项）\n\nFRBP 7001(1)－追回金钱/财产 FRBP 7001(6)－可解除性（续）\n□\n11－追回金钱/财产－§542 财产交付\n□ □\n61－可解除性－§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n12－追回金钱/财产－§547 优先受偿\n□ 68－可解除性－§523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n□\n13－追回金钱/财产－§548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14－追回金钱/财产－其他 63－可解除性－§523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n64－可解除性－§523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\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 □\n65－可解除性－其他\n\nFRBP 7001(7)－禁令救济\n\nFRBP 7001(3)－批准出售财产\n□\n31－批准出售破产财团财产及共同所有人财产－§363(h) □\n71－禁令救济－施加停止令\n□\n72－禁令救济－其他\n\nFRBP 7001(4)－反对/撤销解除\n□ FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的次位\n41－反对/撤销解除－§727(c),(d),(e) □ 81－债权或权益的次位\n\nFRBP 7001(5)－撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□\n51－撤销确认 □ 91－确认判决\n\nFRBP 7001(6)－可解除性\n□\n66－可解除性－§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权 FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n□\n62－可解除性－§523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、 01－对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n实际欺诈 其他\n□\n67－可解除性－§523(a)(4)，作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃 □\nSS－SIPA案件－15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n（续下一栏） □ 02－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□ 如起诉书请求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\n\nB1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所源自的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名 破产案件编号\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 22-50073 (JAM)\n案件审理地区 分院办事处 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对抗程序审理地区 分院办事处 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n日期 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nFebruary 10, 2024 Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件即产生由破产法院管辖的“破产财团”，其包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围广泛且法院管辖权宽泛，可能就破产财团的财产或财产权利产生诉讼。也可能存在有关债务人债务解除的诉讼。此类诉讼如在破产法院提起，称为对抗程序。\n\n提起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》，但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的除外。（CM/ECF在提交程序中采集表格1040上的信息。）填妥后，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法院活动所需的统计报告。\n\n封面表及其中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提交和送达的诉状或其他文书。该封面表大体上不言自明，必须由原告的律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的起诉书均须向书记员另行提交一份封面表。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉书中载明的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的一项，在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的一项。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面表必须由记录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\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n第11章\n\n----------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，[1]\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\nMERCEDES-BENZ MANHATTAN, INC.（梅赛德斯-奔驰曼哈顿公司），\n\n被告。\n\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、548和550条以及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第273、274和276条，请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及获得相关救济的起诉书\n\nx\n\nLuc A. Despins以其在Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，对被告Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc.（“被告”）提起本对抗起诉书（“起诉书”），陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo和Miles Kwok，以及诸多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）和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Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财团受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回在本第11章案件开始前对债务人财产作出的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司Lamp Capital LLC（“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金额为$192,754.58的资金。\n\n3. 该等转让属于实际欺诈性转让，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，且作出该等转让的意图是阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n4. 本院根据28 U.S.C. §1334(b)对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n5. 本对抗程序已根据28 U.S.C. §157(a)移送本院审理。\n\n6. 本文所请求救济的法定依据包括《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）第544、548和550条，以及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第273、274和276条[2]或任何其他适用的同等州法。\n\n2 下文中对《纽约债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law”。《纽约统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVT”）取代了《纽约统一欺诈性让与法》（“NYUFC”），于April 4, 2020生效，并适用于在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和N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law §§273, 273-a, 274, 275, 276 and 278寻求救济。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 受托人系第11章案件中的第11章受托人，依据破产法院于July 8, 2022作出的命令[Case No. 22-50073（“主案件”）案卷编号523]获任命。\n\n8. 被告是一家Delaware（特拉华州）公司，地址为770 11th Avenue, New York, New York 10019。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n9. 债务人于February 15, 2022（“申请日”）在United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）（“破产法院”）根据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）第11章自愿提交救济申请，从而启动上述标题所示第11章案件（“第11章案件”）。\n\n10. 于March 21, 2002，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\n11. 债务人于March 2022向破产法院提交的破产清单称，其拥有$3,850的资产，并产生了数亿美元的负债。[3] 虽然债务人确实负债累累，但其清单未披露债务人通过其众多另我空壳公司（包括Lamp Capital）持有和转让的财产。\n\n12. 于June 15, 2022，本院作出决定备忘录及命令[主案件案卷编号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担任受托人。于July 8, 2022，本院作出命令，批准任命Luc A. Despins担任第11章案件的受托人[主案件案卷编号523]。\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页（主案件，案卷编号78）。\n\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n13. Lamp Capital是债务人用于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的众多另我空壳公司之一。[4] 多年来，债务人一直策划一场“空壳游戏”，利用由家庭成员和/或已知下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人能够使用、支出和/或转让数百万美元现金及其他资产，同时向债权人隐匿其财产。\n\n14. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第11章案件中提起多项对抗程序，以便除其他事项外，确立债务人的空壳公司系其另我和/或此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，破产法院已准予该等救济。[5]\n\n15. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯涉及：(i) 由近亲和/或下属持有的债务人控制的空壳公司，(ii) 使用以下现金购买的资产\n\n4 法院已作出判决，认定 Lamp Capital 为债务人的另一个自我。参见 Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.（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将受托人在 Lamp Capital A.P. 中提交的起诉书（对抗程序案号 23-5023，案卷编号 1）并入本文。\n\n5 这些对抗程序包括如下案件：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第 11 章受托人诉 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）等 [对抗程序案号 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人诉 Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）等 [对抗程序案号 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）[对抗程序案号 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）等 [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 [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）[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 [对抗程序案号 23-05023]。\n\n其他由债务人控制的实体，和/或在空壳实体之间无对价转移，以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中受益，并对其拥有控制权和支配权。\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n16. 除受托人对抗程序中所涉及的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并通过该公司成为 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（王悦薇）。[6]\n\n17. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（G 实体）（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他表面上独立的实体和组织，均由债务人控制[7]，由债务人领导[8]，和/或“服务于……债务人的目的，并作为债务人的商业载体”。[9]\n\n18. 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（东方盈利有限公司）——该实体最初由债务人的一名司机所有，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 准许动议并裁定债务人藐视公司治理命令的命令，第 1、4 段（Jan. 24, 2023，Docket No. 1372（“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”）。\n\n7 部分准许初步禁令动议的决定备忘录更正本，第 3 段（对抗程序案号 22-05032，January 13, 2023（“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。（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和 Himalaya 服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业载体，其成员个人忠于债务人。”）。\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\n19. 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”）以 Index No. 652077/2017（“PAX 案件”）起诉债务人，请求就所欠款项作出判决。February 3, 2021，PAX 从纽约法院取得针对债务人的 $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由信托为债务人的儿子持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗纽约法院命令的行为，最终导致债务人被处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n20. 债务人还将其另一个自我，包括 Lamp Capital，作为个人钱袋使用，为其本人及其家人已习惯的奢侈生活方式提供资金，同时将资产隐藏在这些另一个自我中以逃避其债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得清偿。债务人通过这些另一个自我实施的转移，延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n21. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其没有足够资产偿还其负债，且其奢侈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] 债务人仅申报了 $3,850 的资产。[12]\n\n11 关于债务人请求作出临时和最终 DIP 命令的听证会，该命令：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资；(II) 安排临时和最终听证会；以及 (III) 给予相关救济（主案，April 27, 2022）\n\n12 参见注 3\n\n22. March 2023，债务人被逮捕，并因包括电信欺诈、证券欺诈和洗钱在内的联邦刑事指控而在审判前继续被羁押。\n\n23. 美国政府在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超过 500 个账户，对超过 $1 billion 的欺诈所得进行洗钱”。[13]\n\n24. 债务人的另一个自我的财产，包括 Lamp Capital，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n25. 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，包括指示该等转移。\nD. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转移\n\n26. 本起诉书所涉转移均是通过债务人作为其空壳把戏一部分而运营的另一个自我空壳公司作出的，因而具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图。\n\n27. 债务人故意以这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，隐匿和耗散数百万美元资产。债务人声称自己身无分文，却同时大肆花费，以维持其本人、家人及亲密同事的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n13 参见 United States of America（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，该备忘录作为附件 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）补充反对受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求的答复中（June 23, 2023，主案件卷编号 1934）。\n\n28. 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获得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院审理中的刑事案件中面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱及敲诈勒索指控。参见 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（美利坚合众国诉郭文贵）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n29. 债务人明知并意图通过以该方式隐匿和耗散其资产，将不会留下足够资产偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈受害人。因此，该等转移必然是出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出的。\n\n30. 被告是一家位于曼哈顿的豪华汽车经销商，设有室内新车和认证二手车展厅，以及销售服装和配饰的生活方式系列精品店。\n\n31. 本案所涉转移是债务人通过购买奢侈商品和服务来耗散其资产这一做法的一部分。考虑到债务人正在耗散其欺诈所得，该等奢侈品支出尤为恶劣。\n\n32. 即使债务人向其债权人声称自己身无分文，他仍同时将其奢侈生活方式作为营销工具，以推广其欺诈计划。这一策略的众多例子之一是债务人的“Hcoin to the Moon”音乐视频，债务人在其中炫耀包括游艇、跑车、西装、雪茄和家居用品在内的奢华个人财产，以推广对其一项欺诈性加密货币项目的投资。[14]\n\n33. 这进一步反映出债务人就该等转移所具有欺诈意图。\n\n14 参见（最后访问于 Jan. 25, 2024）。债务人于 December 2021 在 YouTube 上发布该音乐视频，约在申请日前两个月。\nE. 向被告作出的转移\n\n34. 在申请日之前，债务人通过包括 Lamp Capital 在内的空壳公司或以其他方式，向被告转移了债务人的财产（统称“转移”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n参见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表 A。\n\n35. 在作出该等转移时，债务人对债务人财产的债权人负有未清偿债务。\n\n36. 被告是该等转移的初始受让人。\n第一项请求\n（根据《破产法典》§§ 548(a)(1)(A) 和 550(a) 撤销并追回实际欺诈性转移的请求）\n\n37. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 36 段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n38. 债务人通过其另一个自我 Lamp Capital 作出该等转移时，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n39. 债务人在实施该等转移时阻碍、拖延或和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，可由包括下列事项在内的事实证明：\n\na. 该等转移是利用一个另一个自我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 该等转移对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该等转移是作为债务人“空壳把戏”的一部分实施的，并在债务人控制的家人及其他亲信和下属的协助下，试图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该等转移通过使债务人从其欺诈中获益，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，进一步助长了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该等转移通过使债务人从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，进一步助长了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在作出该等转移时，债务人正被起诉，包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在作出该等转移时，债务人无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n40. 受托人可依据《破产法典》第 548(a)(i)(A) 条撤销该等转移，并可依据《破产法典》第 550(a) 条追回该等转移。\n第二项请求\n（根据《纽约债务人与债权人法》sections 273、274 和 276，以及《破产法典》sections 544(b) 和 550(a) 撤销并追回实际欺诈性转移的请求）\n\n41. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 36 段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n42. 债务人通过其另一个自我公司 Lamp Capital 作出该等转移时，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n43. 债务人在实施该等转移时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，可由包括下列事项在内的事实证明：\n\na. 该等转移是利用一个另一个自我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 该等转移对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该等转移是作为债务人“空壳把戏”的一部分实施的，并在债务人控制的家人及其他亲信和下属的协助下，试图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该等转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获益，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该等转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在该等转移发生时，债务人正面临诉讼，其中包括PAX在PAX案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在该等转移发生时，债务人已无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n44. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)、274和276条以及《破产法》第544(b)条，该等转移可由受托人撤销；并可根据《破产法》第550(a)条予以追回。\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. 就第一项请求，作出命令，宣告金额不少于$192,754.58的该等转移依据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销该等转移；以及(c) 根据《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产利益，由被告向受托人返还该等转移或由受托人选择返还其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求，作出命令，宣告金额不少于$192,754.58的该等转移依据《破产法》第544(b)条及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)、274和276条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销该等转移；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第276条和《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产利益，由被告向受托人返还该等转移，或由受托人选择返还其价值；\n\n3. 裁定自本起诉状提交之日起至本案判决之日止，按法定最高利率向受托人支付判决前利息；以及\n\n4. 法院认为在该等情形下公正、适当或衡平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（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/__Douglas Skalka________\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\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附件A\n\n密封提交\n\n英语","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","HCHK","GTV","Saraca","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4487,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:43:04"}