{"id":"court_ctb_2724_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2724,"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 | Miller Motorcars 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)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ 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
(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
□ | 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| 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property
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) | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
Other
□
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
□
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR | | 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| /s/ Douglas S. Skalka | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | |\n| | | Douglas S. Skalka | | |\n| February 11, 2024 | | | | |\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|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| :
Debtors.
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
:
Defendant.
:
: | x
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ]
February 11, 2024
x |\n| | 1
et al.,
:
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
MILLER MOTORCARS, INC.
----------------------------------------------------------- |\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\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 Miller Motorcars, 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 \\$294,306.00 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as the initial transferee.\n\n3. This transfer was 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 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n# **THE PARTIES**\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 in this action under the NYUFC and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278.\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 Connecticut corporation with an address and place of business at 342 West Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830.\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, 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\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 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 LLC.\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 Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\nTrustee. 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 one 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.\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 adversary proceedings the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.5\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 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\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\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\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\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 led by the Debtor8 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.9\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 the Debtor's chefs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.10\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,\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\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\nPAX 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 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.12\n\n22. 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\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\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\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 Transfer (as defined herein).\n\n#### **D. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n26. The Transfer at issue in this Complaint was 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\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\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\ncriminal 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 and specialty automotive dealer that markets and sells luxury branded motor vehicles such as Aston Martin, Alfa Romeo, Bentley, Ferrari, Maserati, and Rolls-Royce.\n\n31. The Transfer at issue here was 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\n\n33. This further reflects the Debtor's fraudulent intent with respect to the Transfers.\n\n14 *See* http (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. Transfer to the Defendant**\n\n34. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell companies including Lamp Capital, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (the \"Transfer\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n35. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n36. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfer.\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\n37. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-36 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n38. The Transfer was 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, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nTransfer is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Transfer was effectuated using alter-ego shell companies;\n\nb. The Transfer was concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Transfer was effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the\n\naid 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 Transfer 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 Transfer 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 Transfer, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n40. The Transfer is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(i)(A) of the\n\nBankruptcy 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 Transfer was 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\nTransfer is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Transfer was effectuated using alter-ego shell companies;\n- b. The Transfer was concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n- c. The Transfer was effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the\n\naid 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 Transfer 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 Transfer 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 Transfer, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n44. The Transfer is 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### **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 Transfer in an amount not less than \\$294,306.00 is avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the 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\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that (a) the Transfer in an amount not less than \\$294,306.00 is 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 Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfer, 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 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**\n\n# **FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面表\n（背面附说明） 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 Miller Motorcars Inc（米勒汽车公司）\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码） 律师\n（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、佩佩与蒙蒂思专业公司）\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 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n诉讼原因 （简要说明诉讼原因，包括涉及的所有美国法令）\n第11章受托人依据《破产法》第544、548及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条，\n寻求撤销及追回欺诈性转让和相关救济的诉状\n诉讼性质\n（最多给五（5）个方框编号，从主要诉讼原因编号为1、第一个备选诉讼原因编号为2、第二个备选诉讼原因编号为3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追收金钱/财产\n□\n11-追收金钱/财产 - §542 财产返还\n□\n12-追收金钱/财产 - §547 优先受偿\n□\n13-追收金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14-追收金钱/财产 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先顺位或范围\n□ FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n□\n61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n68-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□\n64-可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养除外）\n□\n65-可免责性 - 其他\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先顺位或范围\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□\n31-批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产 - §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\n□\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) 确认判决\n□\n91-确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□\n66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权\n□\n62-可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67-可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏） FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01-对移送债权或诉讼原因的裁定\n其他\n□\nSS-SIPA案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n□\n02-其他（例如，如与破产案件无关原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 □ 如主张本案为根据FRCP 23提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如诉状请求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求 $ \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\n对抗程序审理地区 分院办事处 法官姓名\n\n律师（或原告）签名\n\n/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\n\n日期 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nDouglas S. Skalka\nFebruary 11, 2024\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件即设立由破产法院管辖的“破产财产”，该破产财产由债务人的全部财产构成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产范围广泛且法院管辖权广泛，可能会就破产财产或其财产权利发生诉讼。也可能发生与债务人免责有关的诉讼。如在破产法院提起该等诉讼，则称为对抗程序。\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》，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF作为提交程序的一部分采集表格1040中的信息。）完成后，该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封面表及其中所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产程序规则》或法院地方法规所要求的诉状或其他文件的提交和送达。该封面表大致不言自明，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。准确填写诉状中所载的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如知悉，请填写律师姓名和地址。\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。在诉状中填写所请求的美元金额。\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，必须由该所成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n： 第11章\n：\n： 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n：\n债务人。\n： （合并管理）\n\n原告，\n\n被告。\n：\n： x\n对抗程序案号：[ ]\nFebruary 11, 2024\nx\n\n等，\n：\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章\nMILLER MOTORCARS, INC.（米勒汽车公司）\n\n第11章受托人依据《破产法》第544、548及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条寻求撤销及追回欺诈性转让和相关救济的诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以获任命管理Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，针对被告Miller Motorcars, Inc.（米勒汽车公司）（“被告”）提交本对抗诉状（“诉状”），陈述如下：\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及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\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$294,306.00资金。\n\n3. 该等转让构成实际欺诈，因为债务人作为其“空壳把戏”的一部分实施该等转让，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而作出。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n4. 本法院根据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n5. 本对抗程序已根据28 U.S.C. § 157(a)移交本法院审理。\n\n6. 本案所请求救济的法定依据包括《美国法典》第11编（“破产法”）第544、548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同等规定。\n\n当事人\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《纽约州统一欺诈性让与法》（“NYUFC”），并于April 4, 2020生效，适用于在April 4, 2020当日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。对于April 4, 2020之前的转让，受托人在本诉讼中根据NYUFC及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、273a、275、276及278条寻求救济。\n\n7. 受托人系根据破产法院于July 8, 2022作出的命令，在第11章案件中担任第11章受托人[Case No. 22-50073（“主案件”）Docket No. 523]。\n\n8. 被告是一家康涅狄格州公司，其地址及营业地点为342 West Putnam Avenue, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n9. 债务人于February 15, 2022在United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院）（“破产法院”）根据《美国法典》第11编第11章（“破产法”）提交自愿救济申请（“申请日”），从而启动上述标题所列第11章案件（“第11章案件”）。\n\n10. 于March 21, 2022，美国受托人办公室在本第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会。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财产清单声称，其拥有$3,850资产并负有数亿美元债务。3 虽然债务人的确负债累累，但其财产清单未披露由其众多另我空壳公司（包括Lamp Capital LLC）持有和/或转让的债务人财产。\n\n12. 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。\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页[主案件Docket No. 78]。\n\n于July 8, 2022，法院作出命令，批准任命Luc A. Despins为第11章案件的受托人[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\n13. Lamp Capital是债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多另我空壳公司之一。4 多年来，债务人策划了一场“空壳把戏”，利用由家族成员、亲信和/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。这场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。\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，确认债务人的空壳公司是其另我，和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；并且在数项对抗程序中，破产法院已经准予该等救济。5\n\n15. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由近亲和/或下属持有的、受债务人控制的空壳公司；(ii) 以来自其他受债务人控制实体的现金购买和/或无对价转让给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，并对该等资产拥有控制权和支配权。\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 v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023（“Lamp Capital A.P.”），Docket No. 66）。受托人在此援引其于 Lamp Capital A.P. 中提交的起诉状（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1）。\n\n5. 这些包括以下对抗程序：(i) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘），Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司）等 [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins，Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等 [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.（HCHK科技公司）等 [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）等 [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 等 [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延及／或欺诈债权人所实施的行为\n\n16. 除受托人对抗程序中所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人为 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并经由该公司为 Dawn State Limited（晨州有限公司））的受益所有人，并且债务人控制和使用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（王月婷）。6\n\n17. 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），以及其他名义上独立的实体和组织，均受债务人控制，7 由债务人领导，8 及／或“服务于……债务人的宗旨，并作为债务人的商业工具”。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（东方利益有限公司）——该实体最初由债务人的一名厨师拥有，后转让给债务人的女儿——“实质上是”为债务人设立的空壳公司。10\n\n19. 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，以下简称“PAX”）的追偿工作，煞费苦心。2017年，\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\n7 Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及关联实体‘GTV’。”)。\n\n8 同上，第 ¶ 7 段（“债务人是 The Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n9 同上（“爆料革命、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和喜马拉雅服务于债务人的宗旨，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员在个人层面忠于债务人。”）。\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\nPAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院，以下简称“纽约法院”）对债务人提起诉讼，案号为 Index No. 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 自纽约法院取得针对债务人的判决，金额为 \\$116,402,019.57（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（“五月花”号游艇），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其儿子持有。债务人在判决后程序中藐视纽约法院命令，最终导致其被处以 \\$134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n20. 债务人还将包括 Lamp Capital 在内的其另我实体用作个人钱袋，在这些另我实体中隐匿资产以躲避债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得清偿，同时为其本人及家人习以为常的奢华生活提供资金。债务人通过这些另我实体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，其资产不足以清偿其债务，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\n22. 2023年3月，债务人被逮捕，并在因电信欺诈、证券欺诈和洗钱等联邦刑事指控受审前持续被羁押。\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 见注3\n\n23. 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500多个账户，对超过 \\$1 billion 的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”13\n\n24. 在申请日之前的任何时候，债务人的另我实体（包括 Lamp Capital）的财产均为债务人的财产。\n\n25. 在与本案有关的所有期间，债务人在纽约州纽约市开展业务，包括指示本案所定义的转移。\n\nD. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转移\n\n26. 本起诉状所涉转移系出于阻碍、拖延及／或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出，因为该等转移均通过债务人作为其掩人耳目安排的一部分而运营的另我空壳公司作出。\n\n27. 债务人故意以此种方式安排其财务事务，以便在向其众多债权人虚假宣称贫困的同时，隐匿并耗散数百万美元资产。债务人声称身无分文，同时却大肆支出，为其本人、家人及密切关联人士维持亿万富翁的生活方式。\n\n28. 债务人隐匿并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 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 审理中的刑事案件中面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索指控。见 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n29. 债务人知悉并意图通过以此种方式隐匿和耗散其资产，将不会留存足够资产以偿还其债权人——包括其诸多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，该等转移必然是出于阻碍、拖延及／或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出。\n\n30. 被告是一家豪华及特种汽车经销商，营销和销售 Aston Martin（阿斯顿·马丁）、Alfa Romeo（阿尔法·罗密欧）、Bentley（宾利）、Ferrari（法拉利）、Maserati（玛莎拉蒂）和 Rolls-Royce（劳斯莱斯）等豪华品牌机动车。\n\n31. 本案所涉转移是债务人通过购买奢侈品和服务耗散其资产之做法的一部分。鉴于债务人耗散的是其欺诈所得，对奢侈品的该等支出尤其恶劣。\n\n32. 即使债务人向其债权人声称身无分文，其同时仍将其奢华生活方式作为营销工具，以推广其欺诈计划。该策略的诸多例子之一是债务人的“Hcoin to the Moon”音乐视频，债务人在该视频中炫耀包括游艇、跑车、西装、雪茄和家居陈设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. 这进一步反映了债务人就该等转移所具有欺诈意图。\n\n14 见 http（最后访问于 Jan. 25, 2024）。债务人于2021年12月在 YouTube 上发布该音乐视频，约在申请日前两个月。\n\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 在内的其另我空壳公司或以其他方式，向被告转移债务人的财产（以下简称“转移”），包括但不限于如下财产：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附件A。\n\n35. 在转移时，债务人对债务人财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n36. 被告是该转移的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n（根据 Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a) 撤销并追偿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，如同在此完整列明。\n\n38. 债务人通过其另我 Lamp Capital 作出该转移，具有阻碍、拖延及／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n39. 债务人在实施该转移时阻碍、拖延及／或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其可由以下事实证明：\n\na. 该转移系利用另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该转移对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该转移是债务人“掩人耳目安排”的一部分，在债务人控制的家人及其他副手和下属协助下实施，旨在隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获益，而不使其财产受债权人追索，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受债权人追索，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在转移时，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. 在转移时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n40. 该转移可由受托人根据 Bankruptcy Code section 548(a)(i)(A) 撤销，并可根据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a) 追偿。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 276，以及 Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a) 撤销并追偿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，如同在此完整列明。\n\n42. 债务人通过其另我公司 Lamp Capital 作出该转移，具有阻碍、拖延及／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n43. 债务人在实施该转移时阻碍、拖延及／或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其可由以下事实证明：\n\na. 该转移系利用另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该转移对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该转移是债务人“掩人耳目安排”的一部分，在债务人控制的家人及其他副手和下属协助下实施，旨在隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获益，而不使其财产受债权人追索，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受债权人追索，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在该项转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括 PAX（PAX）在 PAX 案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在该项转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n44. 根据《纽约债务与债权法》sections 273(a)(1)、274 和 276，以及《破产法》section 544(b)，受托人可撤销该项转让；并可根据《破产法》section 550(a) 予以追回。\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，（a）作出命令，宣告金额不少于 \\$294,306.00 的该项转让根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A) 予以撤销；（b）作出命令，指令撤销该项转让；以及（c）根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产的利益，从被告处追回该项转让，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（a）金额不少于 \\$294,306.00 的该项转让根据《破产法》section 544(b) 及《纽约债务与债权法》sections 273(a)(2)、274 和 276 予以撤销；（b）作出命令，指令撤销该项转让；以及（c）根据《纽约债务与债权法》section 276 及《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产的利益，从被告处追回该项转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 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裁定判决前利息；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[本页其余部分特意留白]\n\n日期：February 11, 2024 New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平）第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡）________*________* Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616） Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思专业公司） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com 第 11 章受托人代理律师\n\n附件 A\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","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":4341,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:29:52"}