{"id":"court_ctb_2696_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2696,"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 | | Eficens Systems LLC | | |\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)
□ 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) | | |\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 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
□
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 | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
□
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) | □
Other
□
□ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
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 | | 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| | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
/s/ Douglas S. Skalka
DATE
PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
February 11, 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\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | 1 | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
:
(Jointly Administered)
: |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
:
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
:
TRUSTEE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
:
EFICENS SYSTEMS LLC
:
Defendant.
: | | x
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ]
February 11, 2024
: |\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\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, 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 Eficens Systems LLC (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 under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter-ego shell companies, HCHK Technologies Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\") and Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. (\"Lexington\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$125,664.00 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 company, Lexington, transferred funds in the amount of \\$34,480.00 to the Defendant, as the 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, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 2 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 Georgia limited liability company with an address and place of business at 5400 Laurel Springs Parkway, Suite #603, Suwanee, Georgia 30024.\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 \"Court\" or \"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\n2 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 under 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 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 HCHK Technologies 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. HCHK Technologies and Lexington are two of the numerous alter ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors.4 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\n.\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n4 Default has entered against HCHK Technologies and 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 HCHK Technologies and Lexington were the alter egos 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\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 such adversary proceedings the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.5\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\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 Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled\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\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\nby the Debtor7 , led by the Debtor8 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.9\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\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\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\n22. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including HCHK Technologies 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 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.12\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\n\n26. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including HCHK Technologies and Lexington, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n11 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 HCHK Technologies and Lexington, became property of the Debtor's 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, 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 (as defined herein) 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 alter-ego 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\n## **F. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n35. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell companies, HCHK Technologies and Lexington, 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\n36. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell company, Lexington, transferred property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfer\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\n# See **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n37. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfer (collectively, the \"Transfers\"), the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n38. 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\n39. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n40. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor through his alter ego, HCHK Technologies and Lexington, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n41. 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\n42. 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\n43. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n44. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter ego, HCHK Technologies and Lexington, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n45. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nPrepetition 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\n46. 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 Transfer pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n47. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Postpetition Transfer was made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter-ego shell company, Lexington.\n\n49. The Postpetition Transfer occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n50. The Postpetition Transfer was not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n51. The Postpetition Transfer constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n52. The Postpetition Transfer is avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy\n\nCode.\n\n53. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfer, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\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 \\$125,664.00 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 \\$125,664.00 are avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 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 Transfer in an amount not less than \\$34,480.00 is avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition Transfer, 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\n5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\nDated: February 11, 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 plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **SCHEDULE A FILED UNDER SEAL**\n\n## **SCHEDULE B**\n\n**FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\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 Eficens Systems LLC（埃菲森斯系统有限责任公司）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址及电话号码） 律师（如知悉）\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、佩佩和蒙蒂斯职业公司）\n195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n(203)781-2847\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诉因 （简要陈述诉因，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、549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和申请日后转让及获得相关救济的起诉状\n案件性质\n（自主要诉因起编号为1，第一备选诉因为2，第二备选诉因为3，依此类推，最多勾选五（5）个方框。）\nFRBP 7001(1)－追回金钱/财产\n□\n11－追回金钱/财产－§542 财产返还\n□\n12－追回金钱/财产－§547 优先受偿\n□\n13－追回金钱/财产－§548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14－追回金钱/财产－其他\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\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（家庭扶养除外）\n65－可免责性－其他\nFRBP 7001(3)－批准出售财产\n□\n31－批准出售破产财团及共同所有人的财产－§363(h) FRBP 7001(7)－禁令救济\n□\n71－禁令救济－施加中止\n□\n72－禁令救济－其他\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\n81－债权或权益的劣后\nFRBP 7001(5)－撤销确认\n□\n51－撤销确认 □ FRBP 7001(9) 确认之诉\n91－确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6)－可免责性\n□\n66－可免责性－§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税款债权\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（续见下一栏） □\n其他\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n01－对移送债权或诉因的裁定\nSS－SIPA案件－15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\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□ 如起诉状中请求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\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 破产案件案号\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） 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分院办事处 法官姓名\n\n对抗程序审理地区\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\n日期\n律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nFebruary 11, 2024\nDouglas S. Skalka\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下设立一个“破产财团”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围如此广泛且法院管辖权如此宽泛，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。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，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将表格1040上的信息作为提交程序的一部分予以收集。）填写完成后，封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记官需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其中所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《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。该封面页在很大程度上不言自明，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）。每份提交的起诉状均须向书记官另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请按照起诉状中所载的原告和被告姓名准确填写。\n\n律师。如知悉，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方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起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：\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人，1 ：\n：\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章\n：\n受托人，\n：\n：\n原告，\n：\n诉\n：\n：\n：\nEFICENS SYSTEMS LLC（埃菲森斯系统有限责任公司）\n：\n被告。\n： x\n对抗程序案号 [ ]\nFebruary 11, 2024\n\nx\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、548、549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和申请日后转让及获得相关救济的起诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其作为在Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，针对被告Eficens Systems LLC（“被告”）提交本对抗起诉状（“起诉状”），陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（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（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财团的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\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章破产财团财产作出的、未经破产法院根据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）授权的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其替身空壳公司HCHK Technologies Inc.（“HCHK Technologies”）和Lexington Property and Staffing Inc.（“Lexington”），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$125,664.00的资金。\n\n3. 这些转让构成实际欺诈性转让，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳把戏”的一部分实施，并且其作出时具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图。\n\n4. 申请日后，债务人通过其替身空壳公司Lexington，向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为$34,480.00的资金。\n\n5. 由于这些对破产财团财产的申请日后转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，因此可根据《破产法典》第549和550条予以撤销和追回。\n\n管辖权和审理地\n\n6. 本院根据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、548、549和550条以及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第273、274和276条2，或任何其他适用的州法同等规定。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人是第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”）Docket No. 523]获任命。\n\n10. 被告是一家佐治亚州有限责任公司，地址及营业地点为5400 Laurel Springs Parkway, Suite #603, Suwanee, Georgia 30024。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n11. 债务人于February 15, 2022向美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院（“法院”或“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（“申请日”），从而开始第11章案件。\n\n12. 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官方委员会。尚未任命审查员。\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《纽约统一欺诈性让与法》（“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，受托人根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law §§273,273-a, 274, 275, 276 and 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资产，并已产生数亿美元债务。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替身空壳公司（包括HCHK Technologies和Lexington）持有和/或转让的财产。\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担任受托人。于July 8, 2022，法院作出命令，批准Luc A. Despins在第11章案件中担任受托人[主案件Docket No. 523]。\n\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. HCHK Technologies和Lexington是债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多替身空壳公司中的两家。4 多年来，债务人策划了一场“空壳把戏”，运用由名义上由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属拥有、但实际上由债务人控制的空壳公司构成的复杂网络。这一空壳把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，同时向债权人隐瞒其财产。\n\n。\n\n3 资产和负债明细表，第1页 [主案卷宗编号 78]。\n\n4 在对立诉讼 Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al（Despins 诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 等案）（对立诉讼程序编号 23-5013（“HCHK Entities A.P.”），卷宗编号 139）中，已对 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技公司）和 Lexington（莱克星顿）作出缺席登记；该对立诉讼除其他事项外，请求作出确认判决，确认 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington 是债务人的另我实体。受托人在此援引并入受托人在 HCHK Entities A.P. 中提交的起诉状（对立诉讼程序编号 23-5013，卷宗编号 1）。\n\n16. 自获任以来，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，以确立债务人的空壳公司系其另我实体，和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；在其中若干对立诉讼中，破产法院已准予该等救济。5\n\n17. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯涉及：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属和/或下属持有的空壳公司；(ii) 以来自其他债务人控制实体的现金购置，和/或在空壳实体之间无偿转移的资产；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\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n18. 除受托人对立诉讼中所处理的事项外，破产法院已认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并通过其为 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）。6\n\n19. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（G Entities，即 Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu）、New Federal State of China（中国新联邦国家）和 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，并作为其商业载体”。9\n\n5 其中包括以下对立诉讼：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）, Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人） v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo（郭美） [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（金牛基金有限责任公司）, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited（黄金泉（纽约）有限公司） [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；以及 (vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]。\n\n6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order（准许因违反公司治理命令而裁定债务人藐视法庭之动议的命令）, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\")).\n\n20. 在破产申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（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. 债务人竭尽全力阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，简称“PAX”）的追偿努力。2017年，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院，以下简称“纽约法院”）起诉债务人，案号 652077/2017（以下简称“PAX 案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX 自纽约法院获得针对债务人的 $116,402,019.57 判决（以下简称“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（贵妇五月号），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系为其儿子以信托形式持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗纽约法院命令，最终导致其被处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n7 Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction（部分准许初步禁令动议的经更正决定备忘录）, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团） and a related entity 'GTV'\")).\n\n8 Id. at ¶ 7 (“The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya（喜马拉雅）.”).\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（东方利润有限公司诉战略远景美国有限责任公司）, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n22. 债务人还将其另我实体，包括 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington，用作个人钱袋，在将资产隐匿于这些另我实体中、使债权人无法追偿其债权，并阻碍和拖延债权人获得债权清偿的同时，为其本人及其家人已习惯的奢华生活提供资金。债务人通过这些另我实体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，其资产不足以偿还其负债，且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 债务人仅申报 $3,850 的资产。12\n\n24. 2023年3月，债务人被逮捕，现正因包括电信欺诈、证券欺诈和洗钱在内的联邦刑事指控等待审判而被羁押。\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. 债务人另我实体的财产，包括 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington 的财产，在破产申请日前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n11 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（关于债务人请求作出临时和最终 DIP 命令之动议的听证会：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的破产申请后融资；(II) 安排临时和最终听证会；以及 (III) 准予相关救济） (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n12 见注释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. 在与本案相关的所有期间内，债务人在纽约州纽约市经营业务，包括指示实施本起诉状所涉的破产申请日前转让。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳游戏和欺诈在破产申请后继续进行\n\n28. 截至破产申请日，债务人通过其另我实体持有的所有财产，包括 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington，均成为债务人第11章破产财产。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n29. 在破产申请日后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其在 Bankruptcy Code（破产法典）下的义务，继续通过众多另我空壳公司实施转让，包括但不限于 Lexington。\n\n30. 这些破产申请日后转让均未经破产法院授权，亦未获破产法典授权。\n\nE. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n31. 本起诉状所涉的转让（定义见本文件，以下简称“转让”）均通过债务人作为其空壳游戏一部分运营的另我空壳公司作出，故其作出目的在于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人。\n\n32. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以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。债务人声称身无分文，却同时大量支出，以维持其本人、家人及亲密关联人的亿万富翁生活方式。\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的受害人处取得的资金。因该等行为，债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）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（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\n34. 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，这些转让必然是出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出。\n\nF. 向被告作出的转让\n\n35. 在破产申请日之前，债务人利用其另我空壳公司 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington，向被告转让债务人的财产（统称“破产申请日前转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件组成部分的附表A。\n\n36. 在破产申请日后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Lexington，向被告转让债务人第11章破产财产的财产（统称“破产申请日后转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件组成部分的附表B。\n\n37. 在破产申请日前转让和破产申请日后转让（统称“转让”）作出时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n38. 被告为该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n（根据破产法典第548(a)(1)(A)条和第550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n39. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至38段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n40. 债务人通过其另我实体 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington 作出的破产申请日前转让，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n41. 除其他事项外，债务人在实施破产申请日前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，体现在：\n\na. 破产申请日前转让是利用另我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 破产申请日前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 破产申请日前转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，并在债务人的家庭成员及其控制的其他亲信和下属协助下实施，以图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 破产申请日前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈中获益，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，从而进一步助长了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 破产申请日前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈中牟利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，从而进一步助长了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在破产申请日前转让作出时，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. 在破产申请日前转让作出时，债务人无力清偿债务或资本不足。\n\n42. 受托人可依破产法典第548(a)(i)(A)条撤销破产申请日前转让，并可依破产法典第550(a)条追回该等转让。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273、274和276条，以及破产法典第544(b)条和第550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n43. 受托人重申并再次主张第1-38段所载指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n44. 申请破产前转让系债务人通过其作为另我实体的空壳公司HCHK Technologies（HCHK 技术公司）和Lexington（列克星敦）作出，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n45. 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，由包括但不限于下列事实表明：\n\na. 申请破产前转让系通过一家作为另我实体的空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请破产前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请破产前转让是债务人“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游戏，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行为中获益而不使其财产受债权人追索，进一步促成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行为中获利而不使其财产受债权人追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请破产前转让发生时，债务人正被提起诉讼，其中包括PAX（PAX）在PAX案件中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在申请破产前转让发生时，债务人已无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n46. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276以及《破产法》section 544(b)，受托人可撤销申请破产前转让，并可根据《破产法》section 550(a)予以追回。\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法》sections 549 and 550(a)请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请破产后转让）\n\n47. 受托人重申并再次主张第1-38段所载指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n48. 申请破产后转让系债务人向被告作出，包括通过其作为另我实体的空壳公司Lexington作出。\n\n49. 申请破产后转让发生于申请日之后。\n\n50. 申请破产后转让未经破产法院或《破产法》授权。\n\n51. 申请破产后转让构成对债务人第11章财产的不当转让。\n\n52. 根据《破产法》section 549(a)，申请破产后转让可予撤销。\n\n53. 根据《破产法》section 550(a)，受托人有权向被告追回申请破产后转让或其价值，并追回截至付款之日的利息及本案费用。\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，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于$125,664.00的申请破产前转让根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A)予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销申请破产前转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人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. 就第二项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于$125,664.00的申请破产前转让根据《破产法》section 544(b)及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销申请破产前转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276及《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人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. 就第三项请求，作出命令，(a) 宣告金额不少于$34,480.00的申请破产后转让根据《破产法》section 549予以撤销；以及(b) 作出命令，指令撤销申请破产后转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人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. 自本起诉状提交之日起至本案判决之日止，按最高法定利率向受托人判给判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院在具体情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：February 11, 2024 New 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\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\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\n\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的代理律师\n附表A：密封提交\n附表B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["HCHK","Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","GTV","Saraca","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4742,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:21:03"}