{"id":"court_ctb_2820_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2820,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2024-02-13","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 | Oasis Tech 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 and postpetition transfers
and related relief pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 544,547,548,549, and 550 and New York Debtor and Creditor
Law Sections 273, 274, and 276 | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT | | | | |\n| (Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property | | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued) | | |\n| □
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□ | □
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
□ | | | |\n| 12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□ | 68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
□ | | | |\n| 13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
14-Recovery of money/property - other | 63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
□
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation | | | |\n| | | (other than domestic support) | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□ | □
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
□
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay | | | |\n| □
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | □ | 72-Injunctive relief – other | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge | | | | |\n| □
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | □ | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | |\n| | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | □ | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment | | |\n| | | 91-Declaratory judgment | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□ | | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action | | |\n| 66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, | □ | 01-Determination of removed claim or cause | | |\n| actual fraud | Other | | | |\n| □
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny | □ | SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq. | | |\n| (continued next column) | □ | 02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court | | |\n| | | if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n**B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | 22-50073 (JAM) | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport | Julie A. Manning | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | |\n| /s/ Douglas S. Skalka | | | | |\n| DATE
February 13, 2024 | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
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| :
1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al.,
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| :
Debtors.
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
:
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
:
TRUSTEE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
: | x
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ]
February 13, 2024 |\n| OASIS TECH LIMITED.,
: | |\n| :
Defendant.
:
:
----------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS, 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 Oasis Tech Limited (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 companies, HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\"), Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (\"Lexington\") G Club International Limited (\"GClub\"), and Rule of Law Foundation III Inc. (\"Rule of Law\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$1,982,593.74 prior to the Petition Date 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. 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\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter ego shell company, Rule of Law, transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$470,000.00 to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n2\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 Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Court\" or \"Bankruptcy Code\") and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 2762 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. The Defendant is a New Zealand corporation with an address and place of business at 151 Marua Road, Mount Wellington, 1051 New Zealand.\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 §§273, 273-a, 274, 275, 276 and 278.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. 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\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\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, Lexington, Rule of Law, and GClub.\n\n14. 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\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n### **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n15. HCHK Technologies, Lexington, Rule of Law, and GClub are among 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\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\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 and Lexington are each the alter egos of the Debtor. A motion to set aside the default is currently pending. (Docket no. 172). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the HCHK Entities A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1).\n\nThe Trustee has or will imminently commence an adversary proceeding against G Club and Rule of Law, which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that G Club and Rule of Law were the alter egos of the Debtor. The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in such adversary proceeding.\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\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 by 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\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 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\n22. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including HCHK Technologies, Lexington, Rule of Law, and GClub, 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\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\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, Lexington, Rule of Law and GClub, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n27. 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. 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, Lexington, GClub, and Rule of Law, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\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\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, Rule of Law.\n\n30. None of these postpetition transfers were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court nor were such transfers authorized under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **E. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n31. The Transfers at issue in this Complaint were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were all made through the Debtor's 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\n9\n\n35. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell companies including HCHK Technologies, Lexington, GClub, and Rule of Law, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n36. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell company, Rule of Law, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n37. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfers (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 egos, GClub, Lexington, HCHK Technologies, and Rule of Law, 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\n- a. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using alter ego shell companies;\n- b. 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)(1)(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 shell companies, GClub, Lexington, HCHK Technologies, and Rule of Law, 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 Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using alter ego shell companies;\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 Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(B) 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 Debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n49. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n50. At the time of the Prepetition 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\n51. At the time of the Prepetition 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\n52. The Prepetition 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\n53. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n54. The Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n55. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or the Debtor became insolvent as a result of the Prepetition Transfers.\n\n56. At the time of the Prepetition 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\n57. At the time of the Prepetition 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\n58. The Prepetition 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#### **FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n59. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n60. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, Rule of Law.\n\n61. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n62. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n63. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n64. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n65. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,982,593.74 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, an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,982,593.74 are avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,982,593.74 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) 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\n4. On the Fourth Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,982,593.74 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\n\nat 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. On the Fifth Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Postpetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$470,000.00 are avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n6. 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\n7. 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 13, 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**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2820 Filed 02/13/24 Entered 02/13/24 15:03:20 Page 22 of 22\n\n### **SCHEDULE B**\n\n**FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（FORM 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 Oasis Tech Ltd（绿洲科技有限公司）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址和电话号码） 律师\n（如已知）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡），Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church St. 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510\n(203)781-2847\n当事人（仅勾选一项） 当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人 □ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他 □ 债权人 □ 其他\nX\n□ 受托人 □ 受托人\n诉讼原因 （请简要说明诉讼原因，包括所涉及的所有美国法条）\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、547、548、549和550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》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相关救济的起诉状\n诉讼性质\n（从主诉讼原因为1、第一备选诉讼原因为2、第二备选诉讼原因为3等开始，最多填写五（5）项）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产 FRBP 7001(6) – 债务可免除性（续）\n□\n11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产返还\n□ □\n61-债务可免除性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 优先受偿\n□ 68-债务可免除性 - §523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n□\n13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14-追回金钱/财产 - 其他 63-债务可免除性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n64-债务可免除性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的效力、优先权或范围\n□ □\n65-债务可免除性 - 其他\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的效力、优先权或范围\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产 FRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n□\n71-禁令救济 – 施加中止\n□\n31-批准出售破产财团财产及共同所有人财产 - §363(h) □ 72-禁令救济 – 其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免债提出异议/撤销免债\n□\n41-对免债提出异议/撤销免债 - §727(c),(d),(e) □ FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后受偿\n81-债权或权益的劣后受偿\n\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51-撤销确认 □ FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n91-确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 债务可免除性\n□ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n66-债务可免除性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税款债权\n□\n62-债务可免除性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、 □ 01-对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n实际欺诈 其他\n□\n67-债务可免除性 - §523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃 □ SS-SIPA案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n（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）\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\n\nB1040（FORM 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由发生的破产案件\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 法官姓名\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） Bridgeport（布里奇波特） Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序审理地区 分院 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\n日期\nFebruary 13, 2024 律师（或原告）正楷姓名\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“破产财团”，该财团由债务人的所有财产构成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围极广，且法院管辖权极为广泛，可能会就破产财团的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能存在有关债务人免债的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格1040，即《对抗程序封面页》，但该方通过法院案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）电子提交对抗程序的除外。（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不能代替或补充法律、《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。封面页大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每提交一份起诉状，必须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉状中所载的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。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中签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该事务所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于：\n: 第11章\n:\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人，\n: 案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n:\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: x\n对抗程序编号：[ ]\nFebruary 13, 2024\nOASIS TECH LIMITED.（绿洲科技有限公司），\n\n被告。\n:\n:\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、548、549和550条及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274和276条请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让、申请日后转让及相关救济的起诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins以其在Ho Wan Kwok（以下简称“债务人”或“Kwok”）的第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，提交本\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和Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财团的受托人（仅供通知和通信之用）。\n\n对抗起诉状（以下简称“起诉状”），针对被告Oasis Tech Limited（以下简称“被告”）提出如下陈述：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回本第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HCHK Technologies, Inc.（以下简称“HCHK Technologies”）、Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（以下简称“Lexington”）、G Club International Limited（以下简称“GClub”）及Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.（以下简称“Rule of Law”），在申请日之前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为\\$1,982,593.74的资金。\n\n3. 该等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，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。或者，该等转让构成推定欺诈性转让，因为其作出时债务人已无偿债能力，且债务人未就此获得合理等值对价。\n\n4. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其另我空壳公司Rule of Law，向作为初始受让人的被告转让了合计\\$470,000.00的资金。\n\n5. 由于该等破产财团财产的申请日后转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，其可根据《破产法典》第549和550条予以撤销和追回。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 本院根据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\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《美国法典》第11编（以下简称“法院”或“破产法典”）第544、548、549和550条以及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 2762，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人系第11章案件中的第11章受托人，依据破产法院于July 8, 2022作出的命令获任命[Case No. 22-50073（以下简称“主案件”）Docket No. 523]。\n\n10. 被告是一家新西兰公司，其地址及营业地位于151 Marua Road, Mount Wellington, 1051 New Zealand。\n\n2 此后，所有对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的法条引用均称为“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债务。对于April 4, 2020之前的转让，受托人在本诉讼中依据NYUFC和N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law §§273, 273-a, 274, 275, 276 and 278请求救济。\n事实\nA. 第11章案件\n\n11. 债务人于February 15, 2022（以下简称“申请日”）在United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）根据《美国法典》第11编第11章（以下简称“破产法典”）提交自愿救济申请，从而启动上述标题所列第11章案件（以下简称“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正式委员会。未任命审查员。\n\n13. 债务人于March 2022向破产法院提交的破产财产清单声称，其拥有\\$3,850的资产，并负有数亿美元的债务。3 尽管债务人确实负债累累，其财产清单却未披露由其众多另我空壳公司持有和/或转让的债务人财产，包括HCHK Technologies、Lexington、Rule of Law和GClub。\n\n14. 于June 15, 2022，破产法院作出裁决备忘录及命令[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，破产法院作出命令，批准任命Luc A. Despins为第11章案件的受托人[主案件Docket No. 523]。\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页[主案件Docket No. 78]。\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（HCHK 技术公司）、Lexington（莱克星顿）、Rule of Law（法治）和 GClub（G 俱乐部）均为债务人用于阻碍、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”，利用由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人能够使用、支出和/或转移数百万美元现金及其他资产。\n\n16. 自其获任以来，受托人已在第 11 章案件中提起多项对抗程序，以实现包括确认债务人的空壳公司系其另我和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有在内的目的；破产法院已在若干该等对抗程序中准予此类救济。5\n\n4 在对抗程序 Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al（对抗程序编号 23-5013（“HCHK Entities A.P.”），案卷编号 139）中，已对 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington 作出缺席裁定；该对抗程序寻求的救济包括确认 HCHK 和 Lexington 各自均为债务人的另我的确认判决。目前，一项撤销缺席裁定的动议正在审理中。（案卷编号 172）。受托人通过援引将其在 HCHK Entities A.P. 中提交的起诉状（对抗程序编号 23-5023，案卷编号 1）纳入本文。\n\n受托人已经或即将对 G Club 和 Rule of Law 提起对抗程序；该对抗程序寻求的救济包括确认 G Club 和 Rule of Law 曾为债务人的另我的确认判决。受托人通过援引将其在该对抗程序中提交的起诉状纳入本文。\n\n5 该等对抗程序包括如下程序：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），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 [对抗程序编号 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人 v. Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司），等 [对抗程序编号 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人 v. Mei Guo（梅国）[对抗程序编号 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人 v. HCHK Technologies, Inc.，等 [对抗程序编号 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人 v. Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司），等 [对抗程序编号 23- 05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人 v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited（黄金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）[对抗程序 23-05018]；以及 (vii) Luc A. Despins，第 11 章受托人 v. Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司），等 [对抗程序 23-05023]。\n\n17. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由近亲家庭成员和/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置的资产和/或无对价转移至空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转移的资产，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。\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n18. 除受托人对抗程序中处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人为 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并通过该公司为 Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司））的受益所有人，且债务人控制并使用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（王伊薇）。6\n\n19. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu）、New Federal State of China（中国新联邦国）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，并作为债务人的商业工具”。9\n\n20. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 Liman 法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）这一实体最初\n\n6 准予动议、裁定债务人藐视公司治理命令的命令，第 ¶¶ 1、4 段（Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372（“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”）。\n\n7 经更正的部分准予初步禁令动议的决定备忘录，第 ¶ 3 段（对抗程序编号 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（吹哨人运动）、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导者。”）。\n\n9 同上。（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和 Himalaya 服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员在个人层面忠于债务人。”）。\n\n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. 债务人不遗余力地阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一，即 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）的追偿工作。2017 年，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）提起针对债务人的诉讼，案号 652077/2017（“PAX 案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。February 3, 2021，PAX 自纽约法院取得针对债务人的 $116,402,019.57 判决（“PAX 判决”）。PAX 试图通过查封债务人的资产来执行 PAX 判决——包括 Lady May（梅夫人号），债务人虚假声称该游艇由其女儿所有；以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人虚假声称该公寓由信托为债务人的儿子持有。债务人在判决后程序中拒不遵守纽约法院命令，最终导致其被处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n22. 债务人还将其另我，包括 HCHK Technologies、Lexington、Rule of Law 和 GClub，用作个人钱袋，为其本人及家人已习惯的奢靡生活提供资金，同时将资产隐藏于该等另我中以逃避债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得追偿。债务人通过该等另我实施的转移延续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\n23. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以偿还债务，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 债务人仅在财产清单中列报 $3,850 的资产。12\n\n24. 2023 年 3 月，债务人被捕，并在其因包括电信欺诈、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\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超过约 500 个账户，洗白超过 $1 billion 的欺诈所得。”13\n\n26. 债务人的另我，包括 HCHK Technologies、Lexington、Rule of Law 和 GClub 的财产，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n27. 在与本文有关的所有期间内，债务人在 New York, New York 开展业务，包括指示转移（定义见本文）。\nD. 债务人的空壳游戏和欺诈在申请后仍持续进行\n\n28. 截至申请日，债务人通过其另我持有的全部财产，包括 HCHK Technologies、Lexington、GClub 和 Rule of Law，均成为第 11 章破产财产。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n11 关于债务人申请作出临时及最终 DIP 命令的听证会：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资，及 (II) 安排临时及最终听证会，及 (III) 准予相关救济（主案件，April 27, 2022）\n\n12 见注 3\n\n13 见美国在反对被告 Yanping Wang（王艳萍）审前释放动议的法律备忘录第 29 页，该备忘录作为证据 B 附于第 11 章受托人就 G Club Operations LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司）补充反对受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求所作答复（June 23, 2023, 主案件案卷编号 1934）。\n\n29. 申请日后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其在《破产法》下的义务，继续通过众多另我空壳公司实施转移，包括但不限于 Rule of Law。\n\n30. 该等申请后转移均未经破产法院授权，亦未根据《破产法》获得授权。\nE. 意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转移\n\n31. 本起诉状所涉转移，均通过作为债务人空壳游戏一部分运营的债务人另我空壳公司作出，因此系意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出。\n\n32. 债务人故意以此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。债务人声称自己一贫如洗，却同时大肆支出，为其本人、家庭成员及亲密关联人士维持亿万富翁的生活方式。\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受害者处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 正在审理的一宗刑事案件中面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索指控。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\n34. 债务人明知并意图通过以该方式隐匿和耗散其资产，将不会有足够资产剩余以偿还其债权人——包括其欺诈行为的众多受害者。因此，该等转移必然系意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出。\nF. 向被告作出的转移\n\n35. 在申请日之前，债务人利用其另我空壳公司，包括 HCHK Technologies、Lexington、GClub 和 Rule of Law，或以其他方式，向被告转移债务人的财产（合称“申请前转移”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见附于本文并构成本文一部分的附表 A。\n\n36. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Rule of Law，或以其他方式，向被告转移破产财产（合称“申请后转移”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见附于本文并构成本文一部分的附表 B。\n\n37. 在申请前转移和申请后转移（合称“转移”）发生时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n38. 被告为该等转移的初始受让人。\n第一项请求\n（根据《破产法》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条和第 550(a) 条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转移的请求）\n\n39. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 38 段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n40. 申请前转移由债务人通过其另我 GClub、Lexington、HCHK Technologies 和 Rule of Law 作出，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n41. 债务人在实施申请前转移时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，体现于包括以下事项：\n\na. 申请前转移系利用另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请前转移对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转移作为债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，在债务人的家庭成员以及其控制的其他亲信和下属协助下实施，意图隐匿并保护资产；\n\nd. 审前转让通过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，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 审前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在审前转让时，债务人正面临诉讼，其中包括PAX（PAX）在PAX案件中的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在审前转让时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n42. 根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条，审前转让可由受托人撤销；并根据《破产法典》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273、274及276条，以及《破产法典》第544(b)及550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n43. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至38段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n44. 债务人通过其另一自我空壳公司GClub（GClub）、Lexington（Lexington）、HCHK Technologies（HCHK Technologies）及Rule of Law（Rule of Law），以阻碍、延误及/或欺诈其债权人为实际意图，作出了审前转让。\n\n45. 债务人在实施审前转让时阻碍、延误及/或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其可由以下事实证明：\n\na. 审前转让系通过另一自我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 审前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 审前转让系债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，在其控制的家庭成员、其他亲信及下属的协助下实施，旨在隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 审前转让通过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，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 审前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在审前转让时，债务人正面临诉讼，其中包括PAX在PAX案件中的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在审前转让时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n46. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)、274及276条和《破产法典》第544(b)条，审前转让可由受托人撤销；并根据《破产法典》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(B)及550(a)条撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n47. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至38段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n48. 债务人就审前转让获得的对价低于合理等值。\n\n49. 在审前转让时，债务人已资不抵债，或因审前转让而变得资不抵债。\n\n50. 在审前转让时，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，而债务人所保留的任何财产构成不合理地过少的资本。\n\n51. 在审前转让时，债务人意图承担，或相信其将承担，在该等债务到期时超出其偿付能力的债务。\n\n52. 审前转让构成欺诈性转让，根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(B)条可由受托人撤销，并根据《破产法典》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n第四项请求\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(2)、274及276条，以及《破产法典》第544(b)及550(a)条撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n53. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至38段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n54. 债务人未就审前转让获得合理等值的对价。\n\n55. 在审前转让时，债务人已资不抵债，或债务人因审前转让而变得资不抵债。\n\n56. 在审前转让时，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，而债务人所保留的任何财产构成不合理地过少的资本。\n\n57. 在审前转让时，债务人意图承担，或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\n58. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(2)、274及276条和《破产法典》第544(b)条，审前转让可由受托人撤销；并根据《破产法典》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n第五项请求\n（根据《破产法典》第549及550(a)条撤销并追回未经授权的申请后转让的请求）\n\n59. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至38段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n60. 债务人向被告作出了申请后转让，其中包括通过其另一自我空壳公司Rule of Law作出的转让。\n\n61. 申请后转让发生于申请日之后。\n\n62. 申请后转让未经破产法院或《破产法典》授权。\n\n63. 申请后转让构成对债务人第11章财产的未经授权转让。\n\n64. 根据《破产法典》第549(a)条，申请后转让可予撤销。\n\n65. 根据《破产法典》第550(a)条，受托人有权向被告追回申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值，加计截至付款日的利息及本案费用。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于$1,982,593.74的审前转让根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销审前转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回审前转让，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$1,982,593.74的审前转让根据《破产法典》第544(b)条及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)、274及276条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销审前转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第276条及《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回审前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于$1,982,593.74的审前转让根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(B)条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销审前转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回审前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 就第四项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于$1,982,593.74的审前转让根据《破产法典》第544(b)条及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(2)、274及276条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销审前转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law第276条及《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回审前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n5. 就第五项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于$470,000.00的申请后转让根据《破产法典》第549条予以撤销；以及(b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请后转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n6. 自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止，按法定最高利率裁定受托人获得判决前利息；以及\n\n7. 法院在此情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白]\n\n日期：February 13, 2024 New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（LUC A. DESPINS）第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglas Skalka\nDouglas S. Skalka（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人律师\n\n附表A\n\n密封提交\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2820 Filed 02/13/24 Entered 02/13/24 15:03:20 Page 22 of 22\n\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":5512,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-02-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-02-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:29:59"}