{"id":"court_ctb_2747_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2747,"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 | Premiere Accounting Solutions LTD | | | | |\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
x | | | | |\n| □ Trustee | □ Trustee | | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION | | (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) | | | |\n| Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee seeking avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers, preferential transfers, and
postpetition transfers and related relief pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 544,548 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
□ | □
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
□ | | | | |\n| 14-Recovery of money/property - other | | 64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien | (other than domestic support)
□
65-Dischargeability - other | | | | |\n| □
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
□ | | | | |\n| □
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
01-Determination of removed claim or cause | | | |\n| □
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, | | | | | |\n| actual fraud | Other | | | | |\n| □
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny | □ | □
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq. | | | |\n| (continued next column) | | 02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court | | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | | if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | |\n| | □ 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| February 12, 2024 | | | | | |\n| | Douglas S. Skalka | | | | |\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| In re: | :
: | | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
: | | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | :
Debtors.
:
: | | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
v. | :
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
: | x | Adv. Proceeding No. [ ] |\n| PREMIERE ACCOUNTING SOLUTIONS
LTD., | :
:
: | | February 12, 2024 |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :
Defendant.
: | x | |\n| | | | |\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 Premiere Accounting Solutions Ltd. (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, Lexington Property and Staffing LLC (\"Lexington\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$1,102,962.00 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as the initial transferee.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors. Alternatively, these transfers were constructively fraudulent, because they were made when the Debtor was insolvent, and the Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in consideration thereof.\n\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\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\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 New Zealand company located at 2a/96 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland, 1021, New Zealand.\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 Lexington.\n\nobligations 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\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy 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 Bankruptcy 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. Lexington 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\n4 Default has entered against Lexington in the adversary proceeding *Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013 (the \"HCHK Entities A.P.\"), Docket No. 139), which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Lexington is the alter ego of the Debtor. The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the HCHK Entities A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 1).\n\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\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\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 Debtor7 , 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\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\nowned 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, 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 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 effectuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\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\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\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 Lexington, 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 (as defined herein).\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 one of the Debtor's alter-ego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\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. 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 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\n#### **E. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n30. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell companies including Lexington, 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\n31. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n32. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n8\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\n33. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-32 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n34. The Transfers were made by the Debtor through his alter ego, Lexington, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n35. 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 alter-ego shell companies;\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 the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he\n\ncontrolled 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\n36. 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\n37. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-32 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n38. The Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter ego company, Lexington, 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\nTransfers is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Transfers were effectuated using 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 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 Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550(a))**\n\n41. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-32 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n42. The Debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Transfers.\n\n43. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.\n\n44. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction, for which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n45. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor intended to incur or believed he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debts matured.\n\n46. The Transfers constitute fraudulent transfers and are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n**(Claim to Avoid and Recover Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n47. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-32 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Transfers.\n\n49. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or the Debtor became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.\n\n50. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n51. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debt matured.\n\n52. The Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n12\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 Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,102,962.00 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, (a) an order declaring that (a) the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,102,962.00 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, (a) an order declaring that the Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,102,962.00 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) 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\n4. On the Fourth Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,102,962.00 are avoided pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 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\n5. 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\n6. 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 12, 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（FORM 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\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（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人 Premiere Accounting Solutions LTD（普瑞米尔会计解决方案有限公司）\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、佩佩与蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n(203)781-2847\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框） 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 □ 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\nx\n□ 受托人 □ 受托人\n诉因 （简要说明诉因，包括涉及的所有美国法条）\n第11章受托人根据《破产法》第544、548和\n550条以及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第273、274和276条，请求撤销并追收欺诈性转让、偏颇性转让及\n破产申请后转让，并请求相关救济的起诉状\n诉讼性质\n（从主要诉因作为第1项开始，依次将最多五（5）个方框编号；第一个备选诉因为第2项，第二个备选诉因为第3项，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1)——追收金钱/财产 FRBP 7001(6)——可免责性（续）\n□\n11——追收金钱/财产——§542 财产交付 □\n61——可免责性——§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养费\n□\n12——追收金钱/财产——§547 偏颇性转让\n□ □\n68——可免责性——§523(a)(6)，故意且恶意造成的损害\n13——追收金钱/财产——§548 欺诈性转让\n□ □\n63——可免责性——§523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n14——追收金钱/财产——其他 64——可免责性——§523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\nFRBP 7001(2)——留置权的有效性、优先顺位或范围 （家庭扶养费除外）\n□\n65——可免责性——其他\n□\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 FRBP 7001(7)——禁令救济\n□\n□\n31——批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产——§363(h) □ 71——禁令救济——施加中止\n72——禁令救济——其他\nFRBP 7001(4)——对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□ FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的从属\n41——对免责提出异议/撤销免责——§727(c),(d),(e) □ 81——债权或权益的从属\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\nFRBP 7001(6)——可免责性\n□\n66——可免责性——§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权 □ FRBP 7001(10) 被移送诉讼的裁定\n01——被移送债权或诉因的裁定\n□\n62——可免责性——§523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈 其他\n□\n67——可免责性——§523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃 □ □\nSS——SIPA案件——15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n（续见下一栏） 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 ）\n□ 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\n请求金额 \\$\n请求的其他救济\nB1040（FORM 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所源起的破产案件\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） 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）正楷姓名\nFebruary 12, 2024\nDouglas S. Skalka\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下设立一项“财产集合”，该集合包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产集合范围广泛且法院管辖权宽泛，可能会就该财产集合的财产或财产权利产生诉讼。也可能会有涉及债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格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在提交过程中获取表格1040中的信息。）填写完成后，封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面页大部分内容不言自明，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员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确列明起诉状中所载原告和被告的姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请列明律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。请填写起诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由表格第二页方框内的记录在案律师签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该律师事务所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等 ：\n： 案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n：\n： （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章\n受托人，\n诉 ：\n：\n：\n：\n原告，\n：\n：\n： x 对抗程序编号：[ ]\nPREMIERE ACCOUNTING SOLUTIONS\nLTD.（普瑞米尔会计解决方案有限公司）， ：\n：\n： February 12, 2024\n\n被告。\n： x\n\n第11章受托人根据《破产法》第544、548和550条及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第273、274和276条，请求撤销并追收欺诈性转让及相关救济的起诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其作为在Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“郭”）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Premiere Accounting Solutions Ltd.（“被告”）提交本对抗程序起诉状（“起诉状”），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，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号后四位：8202）以及Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok财产集合的受托人（仅供通知和通信之用）。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追收在本第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Lexington Property and Staffing LLC（“Lexington”），于申请日（定义如下）之前，向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为\\$1,102,962.00的资金。\n\n3. 该等转让系实际欺诈性转让，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，且其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。或者，该等转让系推定欺诈性转让，因为该等转让作出时债务人已无清偿能力，且债务人未获得合理等值的对价。\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等同规定。\n\n2 此后对《纽约债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用均称为“《纽约债务人与债权人法》”。《纽约统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVT”）取代《纽约统一欺诈性转让法》（“NYUFC”），并于April 4, 2020生效，适用于在该日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。就April 4, 2020之前的转让而言，受托人在本诉讼中依据NYUFC及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第273、273a、275、276和278条请求救济。\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作出的裁定[Case No. 22-50073（“主案件”）Docket No. 523]获任命。\n\n8. 被告是一家新西兰公司，地址位于2a/96 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland, 1021, New Zealand。\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（“破产法院”）根据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法”）第11章自愿提交救济申请（“申请日”），由此启动上述标题所列第11章案件（“第11章案件”）。\n\n10. 于March 21, 2022，Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）在本第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会。尚未任命审查员。\n\n11. 债务人于March 2022向破产法院提交的破产财产清单称，其拥有\\$3,850的资产，并已发生数亿美元的负债。3 尽管债务人确实负债累累，但其财产清单未披露债务人通过其众多另我空壳公司（包括Lexington）持有和/或转让的财产。\n\n3 《资产和负债清单》，第1页[主案件Docket No. 78]。\n\n12. 于June 15, 2022，破产法院作出决定备忘录和命令[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，破产法院作出裁定，批准任命Luc A. Despins为第11章案件中的受托人[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. Lexington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，债务人策划了一场“空壳游戏”，使用由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的错综复杂的空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人能够使用和支出和/或转让数百万美元现金及其他资产。\n\n14. 自其获任命以来，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为其另我和/或确认该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；且在数项对抗程序中，破产法院已批准该等救济。5\n\n4 在对抗程序 Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013（下称“HCHK Entities A.P.”），Docket No. 139）中，已对 Lexington（列克星敦）作出缺席判决；该对抗程序除其他事项外，寻求确认 Lexington 为债务人的另一个自我。受托人在此援引其在 HCHK Entities A.P. 中提交的起诉书（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 1）。\n\n5 这些对抗程序包括以下案件：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），Chapter 11 Trustee 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（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）, 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.（HCHK 技术公司）, 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（蓝普资本有限责任公司）, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]。\n\n15. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由近亲属和/或下属持有的、由债务人控制的空壳公司，(ii) 以来自其他由债务人控制实体的现金购买的资产和/或无对价转让至空壳实体以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获益并对其拥有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人所实施的行为\n\n16. 除受托人对抗程序中处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人为 Ace Decade Limited（王牌十年有限公司）（并通过其为 Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司））的受益所有人，并且债务人控制并使用 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（王悦）。6\n\n17. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（Gettr（盖特尔）、G Fashion（G 时尚）、G Music（G 音乐）、GClubs（G 俱乐部）、GNews（G 新闻）及 GEdu（G 教育））、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）和 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他据称独立的实体和组织，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——“实质上是一家”债务人的“空壳公司”。10\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（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\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.（太盟亚洲机会基金，L.P.）（“PAX”）的追偿工作而煞费苦心。2017年，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）起诉债务人，Index No. 652077/2017（“PAX 案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX 获得纽约法院对债务人作出的 $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（“五月女士”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是为债务人的儿子以信托方式持有。债务人在判决后程序中拒不遵守纽约法院命令，最终导致债务人被处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n20. 债务人还将其另一个自我，包括 Lexington，作为个人提款机，用于资助其本人及其家人已经习惯的奢侈生活方式，同时将资产隐匿于这些另一个自我中以躲避其债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得追偿。债务人通过这些另一个自我实施的转让，实施了债务人的欺诈计划。\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\n21. 债务人在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以偿付其负债，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助。11 债务人仅申报了 $3,850 的资产。12\n\n22. 2023年3月，债务人被逮捕，并在因包括电信欺诈、证券欺诈和洗钱在内的联邦刑事指控受审前持续被羁押。\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超过约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 Lexington，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n25. 在与本案有关的任何时候，债务人在纽约州纽约市开展业务，包括指示转让（定义见下文）。\n\nD. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n26. 本起诉书所涉转让，是为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出的，因为该等转让均通过债务人的另一个自我空壳公司之一作出，该等公司作为债务人空壳游戏的一部分运营。\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（王雁平）'s Motion for Pretrial Release at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司）'s Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief (June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934).\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声称贫困的同时，隐匿和耗散数百万美元的资产。债务人声称自己一贫如洗，同时却大肆挥霍，以维持其本人、其家庭成员和亲密同事的亿万富翁生活方式。\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 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 受理的一起刑事案件中面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索指控。See 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. 债务人明知并意图通过以此种方式隐匿和耗散其资产，使其剩余资产不足以偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈行为受害人。因而，该等转让必然是为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出的。\n\nE. 向被告作出的转让\n\n30. 在申请日之前，债务人通过其包括 Lexington 在内的另一个自我空壳公司，或以其他方式，将债务人的财产转让给被告（合称“转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表 A。\n\n31. 在转让时，债务人对债务人财产的债权人负有未清偿债务。\n\n32. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n（根据 Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a) 撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n33. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至32段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n34. 债务人通过其另一个自我 Lexington 作出该等转让，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n35. 债务人在实施该等转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，由以下事实表明：\n\na. 该等转让利用另一个自我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该等转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该等转让作为债务人的“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，并在债务人的家庭成员以及其所控制的其他亲信和下属的协助下，意图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该等转让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，推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该等转让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，推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在转让时，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. 在转让时，债务人无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n36. 受托人可依据 Bankruptcy Code section 548(a)(i)(A) 撤销该等转让，并可依据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a) 追回该等转让。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a) 撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n37. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至32段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n38. 债务人通过其另一个自我公司 Lexington 作出该等转让，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让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，由以下事实表明：\n\na. 该等转让利用另一个自我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该等转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该等转让作为债务人的“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，并在债务人的家庭成员以及其所控制的其他亲信和下属的协助下，意图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该等转让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，推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该等转让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，推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在转让时，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. 在转让时，债务人无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n40. 受托人可依据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276 及 Bankruptcy Code section 544(b) 撤销该等转让，并可依据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a) 追回该等转让。\n\n第三项请求\n（根据 Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550(a) 撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n41. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至32段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n42. 债务人就该等转让所获得的价值低于合理等值价值。\n\n43. 在该等转让发生时，债务人资不抵债，或者因该等转让而变得资不抵债。\n\n44. 在该等转让发生时，债务人正在从事某项业务或交易，或即将从事某项业务或交易，而债务人所剩余的任何财产均构成不合理地少的资本。\n\n45. 在该等转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或者相信其将承担，在该等债务到期时超出其偿付能力的债务。\n\n46. 该等转让构成欺诈性转让，可由受托人依据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(B) 条予以撤销，并可依据《破产法典》第 550(a) 条予以追回。\n\n第四项请求\n\n（依据《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 273(a)(2)、274 及 276 条以及《破产法典》第 544(b) 及 550(a) 条请求撤销及追回推定欺诈性转让）\n\n47. 受托人重复陈述并再次主张第 1 至 32 段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n48. 债务人就该等转让未获得合理等值价值。\n\n49. 在该等转让发生时，债务人资不抵债，或者债务人因该等转让而变得资不抵债。\n\n50. 在该等转让发生时，债务人正在从事某项业务或交易，或即将从事某项业务或交易，而债务人所剩余的任何财产均构成不合理地少的资本。\n\n51. 在该等转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或者相信或理应相信其将承担，在该等债务到期时超出其偿付能力的债务。\n\n52. 该等转让可由受托人依据《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 273(a)(2)、274 及 276 条以及《破产法典》第 544(b) 条予以撤销，并可依据《破产法典》第 550(a) 条予以追回。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\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. 就第一项请求而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于 $1,102,962.00 的该等转让依据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销该等转让；及 (c) 依据《破产法典》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人财产利益，从被告处追回该等转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于 $1,102,962.00 的破产申请前转让依据《破产法典》第 544(b) 条及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 273(a)(2)、274 及 276 条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销破产申请前转让；及 (c) 依据《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 276 条及《破产法典》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人财产利益，从被告处追回破产申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于 $1,102,962.00 的该等转让依据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(B) 条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销该等转让；及 (c) 依据《破产法典》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人财产利益，从被告处追回该等转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 就第四项请求而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于 $1,102,962.00 的该等转让依据《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 273(a)(2)、274 及 276 条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销该等转让；及 (c) 依据《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 276 条及《破产法典》第 550(a)(1) 条，为债务人财产利益，从被告处追回该等转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n5. 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；及\n\n6. 法院在此等情形下认为公正、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 12, 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、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\n\n附件 A\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","GTV","Saraca","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4993,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:07:22"}