{"id":"court_ctb_2829_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2829,"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| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
NATURE OF SUIT | | | |\n| (Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
□
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
□
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
□
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
□
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
□
65-Dischargeability - other | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
□
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
□
72-Injunctive relief – other | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
□
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
□
91-Declaratory judgment | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
Other
□
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
□
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | |\n\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.
PUTNAM'S LANDSCAPING LLC,
----------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
:
Defendant.
:
: | x
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ]
February 13, 2024
x |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANC AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, 549, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, AND 276**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Putnam's Landscaping LLC (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover: (a) transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case, and (b) transfers of property of the Chapter 11 Case and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter-ego shell companies, Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), and Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$146,643.96 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter-ego shell companies, HCHK Property Management Inc. (\"HCHK Property\"), Greenwich Land, and Lamp Capital, transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$685,996.14 to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n5. Because these postpetition transfers of estate property were not authorized by the Court or under the Bankruptcy Code, they are subject to avoidance and recovery under sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n8. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 2 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. The Defendant is a Connecticut limited liability company with an address at 1 Good Hill Road, Weston, Connecticut, 06883.\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n#### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n12. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\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\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\". The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVT\") replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFC\") and became effective on April 4, 2020 and applies to transfers made or obligations incurred on or after April 4, 2020. With respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUFC and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278.\n\nliabilities.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 Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, and HCHK Property.\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\n#### **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n15. Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, and HCHK Property, 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\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n4 There is a pending motion for summary judgment to determine that Greenwich Land is the alter ego of Debtor in the adversary proceeding *Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5005 (the \"Greenwich Land A.P.\"), Docket No. 78). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Greenwich Land A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5005, Docket No. 1).\n\nDefault has entered against HCHK Property 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 Property 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\nThe Court has entered judgment to the effect that Lamp Capital was the Debtor's alter ego. *See Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\"), Docket No. 66). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Lamp Capital A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23- 5023, Docket No. 1).\n\nby the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets—while concealing his property from creditors.\n\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 adversary proceedings the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.5\n\n17. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from other Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n## **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n18. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and through it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.6\n\n5 These include the following adversary proceedings: (i) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]; (vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [Adv. Proc. 23- 05018]; and (vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023].\n\n6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\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 owned 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 post-\n\n7 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n8 *Id*. at ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.\").\n\n9 *Id*. (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\n10 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\njudgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n22. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Greenwich Land, HCHK Property, and Lamp Capital, 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\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\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\n26. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, and HCHK Property 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 prepetition transfers at issue in this Complaint.\n\n#### **D. Debtor's Shell Game and Fraud Continues Postpetition**\n\n28. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, and HCHK Property, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n29. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, with blatant disregard for the Bankruptcy Court and his obligations under the Bankruptcy Code, continued to effectuate transfers through numerous alter-ego shell companies, including, without limitation, Lamp Capital, Greenwich Land, and HCHK Property.\n\n30. None of these postpetition transfers were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court nor were such transfers authorized under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **E. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n31. The Transfers (as defined herein) at issue in this Complaint were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were all made through the Debtor's alter-ego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n32. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many creditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n33. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor faces multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n34. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n35. The Defendant is a full-service landscape, maintenance, and design/build firm that provides maintenance, masonry, pool design and installation primarily operating in Fairfield County, Connecticut at \"over 1,000 of the area's most stunning properties.\"14\n\n36. The Transfers at issue here were part of the Debtor's practice of dissipating his assets through spending on luxury goods and services. This spending on luxury items was particularly egregious considering that the Debtor was dissipating the proceeds of his frauds.\n\n37. Even while the Debtor claimed to be penniless to his creditors, he simultaneously used his luxurious lifestyle as a marketing tool to promote his fraudulent schemes. Among the many examples of this strategy was the Debtor's \"Hcoin to the Moon\" music video, in which the Debtor flaunts extravagant personal property—including yachts, sports cars, suits, cigars, and home furnishings—to promote investment in one of his fraudulent cryptocurrency ventures.15\n\n38. This further reflects the Debtor's fraudulent intent with respect to the Transfers.\n\n14 *See http\n\n15 *See* http (last visited Jan. 25, 2024). The Debtor published this music video on YouTube in December of 2021, roughly two months prior to the Petition Date.\n\n### **F. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n39. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell companies, Greenwich Land and Lamp Capital, 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\n40. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell companies, Lamp Capital, Greenwich Land, and HCHK Property, 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\n41. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfers (collectively,\n\nthe \"Transfers\"), the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n42. 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\n43. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n44. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor through his alter egos, Greenwich Land and Lamp Capital, 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 an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n46. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to 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\n47. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter egos, Greenwich Land and Lamp Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n49. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n50. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n51. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n52. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter-ego shell companies, Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, and HCHK Property.\n\n53. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n54. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n55. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n56. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n57. 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, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$146,643.96 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$146,643.96 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 Postpetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$685,996.14 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\n4. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\nDated: February 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\n# **SCHEDULE B**\n\n# **FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面表\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\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码） 律师\n（如已知）\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n\n诉因\n（简要说明诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n\n诉讼性质\n（最多编号五（5）个方框，以主要诉因为 1，第一备选诉因为 2，第二备选诉因为 3，依此类推。）\n\nFRBP 7001(1) – 金钱/财产追回\n□\n11—金钱/财产追回—§542 财产交还\n□\n12—金钱/财产追回—§547 优先受偿\n□\n13—金钱/财产追回—§548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14—金钱/财产追回—其他\n\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先顺位或范围\n□\n21—留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先顺位或范围 FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n□\n61—可免责性—§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n68—可免责性—§523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n□\n63—可免责性—§523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n64—可免责性—§523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养除外）\n□\n65—可免责性—其他\n\nFRBP 7001(3) – 财产出售批准\n□\n31—批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产—§363(h) FRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n□\n71—禁令救济—施加中止\n□\n72—禁令救济—其他\n\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n41—对免责提出异议/撤销免责—§727(c),(d),(e) FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益劣后\n□\n81—债权或权益劣后\n\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51—撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□\n91—确认判决\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□\n66—可免责性—§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权\n□\n62—可免责性—§523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67—可免责性—§523(a)(4)，受托人身份欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏） FRBP 7001(10) 移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01—对已移送的请求或诉因作出裁定\n\n其他\n□\nSS-SIPA 案件—15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n□\n02—其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的\n其他诉讼）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选 □ 如主张本案为 FRCP 23 规定的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如起诉书中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 \\$\n请求的其他救济\n\nB1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由产生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名 破产案件编号\n案件待决地区 分院办事处 法官姓名\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序待决地区 分院办事处 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n日期 律师（或原告）正楷姓名\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下设立一个“财产集合”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该财产位于何处。由于破产财产范围广泛，且法院管辖权十分广泛，可能会就该财产集合的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能会发生有关债务人免责的诉讼。如在破产法院提起此类诉讼，即称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格 1040，即《对抗程序封面表》，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF 在提交过程中会获取表格 1040 中的信息。）填写完成后，该封面表概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记官需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制法院活动所需的统计报告。\n\n封面表及其中所载信息并不取代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面表大体上不言自明，必须由原告的律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的起诉书均须向书记官另行提交一份封面表。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉书中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。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中所请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面表必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，该事务所的一名成员必须签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则原告必须签署。\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）布里奇波特分院（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第 11 章\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），第 11 章\n受托人，\n诉\nPUTNAM'S LANDSCAPING LLC（普特南园林绿化有限责任公司），\n\n原告，\n\n被告。\n:\n: x\n\n对抗程序编号 [ ]\n2024 年 2 月 13 日\nx\n\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 544、548、549 及 550 条以及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 273、274 及 276 条寻求撤销及追回欺诈性转让和申请后转让以及相关救济的起诉书\n\nLuc A. Despins 以获指定担任 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，提起本\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）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产集合的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n对抗起诉书（“起诉书”），针对被告 Putnam's Landscaping LLC（“被告”）提出如下陈述：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回：(a) 本第 11 章案件开始前债务人财产的转让，以及 (b) 未经破产法院或《美国法典》第 11 编（“破产法典”）授权的第 11 章案件财产转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其替身空壳公司 Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital”）和 Greenwich Land LLC（“Greenwich Land”），在申请日（定义如下）之前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了 \\$146,643.96 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“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，且该等转让系为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出。\n\n4. 在申请日后，债务人通过其替身空壳公司 HCHK Property Management Inc.（“HCHK Property”）、Greenwich Land 和 Lamp Capital，向作为初始受让人的被告转让了合计 \\$685,996.14 的资金。\n\n5. 由于该等破产财产的申请后转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，故该等转让可依据《破产法典》第 549 条和第 550 条予以撤销及追回。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 本对抗程序已依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移交本院审理。\n\n8. 本案所请求救济的法定依据包括《破产法典》第 544、548、549 及 550 条，以及《纽约债务人与债权人法》第 273、274 及 276 条 2，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人系依据破产法院于 2022 年 7 月 8 日作出的命令，在第 11 章案件中担任第 11 章受托人[案件编号 22-50073（“主案件”）案卷编号 523]。\n\n10. 被告是一家康涅狄格州有限责任公司，地址为 1 Good Hill Road, Weston, Connecticut, 06883。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第 11 章案件\n\n11. 债务人于 2022 年 2 月 15 日（“申请日”）向美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（“破产法院”）自愿提交了根据《破产法典》第 11 章寻求救济的申请，从而启动本第 11 章案件。\n\n12. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，美国受托人办公室在本第 11 章案件中指定了无担保债权人正式委员会。尚未指定审查员。\n\n13. 债务人于 2022 年 3 月向破产法院提交的破产财产清单称，其拥有 \\$3,850 的资产，并产生了数亿美元的\n\n2 此后，所有对《纽约债务人与债权人法》的法定引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law”。《纽约统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVT”）取代了《纽约统一欺诈性转让法》（“NYUFC”），于 2020 年 4 月 4 日生效，并适用于在 2020 年 4 月 4 日当日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。对于 2020 年 4 月 4 日之前的转让，受托人在本诉讼中依据 NYUFC 及 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第 273、273a、275、276 及 278 条寻求救济。\n\n负债。3 虽然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替身空壳公司持有和/或转让的财产，包括 Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital 和 HCHK Property。\n\n14. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，破产法院作出决策备忘录及命令[主案件案卷编号 465]，指示美国受托人在第 11 章案件中指定第 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。2022 年 7 月 8 日，破产法院作出命令，批准 Luc A. Despins 在第 11 章案件中担任受托人[主案件案卷编号 523]。\n\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital 和 HCHK Property 是债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多替身空壳公司之一。4 多年来，债务人一直策划一场“空壳游戏”，利用一个错综复杂的空壳公司网络；该等公司名义上由家庭成员、副手和/或下属所有，但实际上受其控制\n\n3 《资产和负债清单》，第 1 页[主案件案卷编号 78]。\n\n4 在对抗程序 Despins v. Greenwich Land, LLC（对抗程序编号 23-5005（“Greenwich Land A.P.”），案卷编号 78）中，目前存在一项待决的即决判决动议，以确定 Greenwich Land 是债务人的替身。受托人在此援引并入受托人在 Greenwich Land A.P. 中提交的起诉书（对抗程序编号 23-5005，案卷编号 1）。\n\n在 Despins（德斯平斯）诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）等案（对抗程序案号 23-5013（以下简称“HCHK Entities A.P.”），卷宗编号 139）中，已对 HCHK Property（HCHK地产）作出缺席判决；该对抗程序除其他事项外，请求确认判决，认定 HCHK Property 是债务人的另一个自我。受托人在此通过援引纳入其在 HCHK Entities A.P. 中提交的起诉书（对抗程序案号 23-5013，卷宗编号 1）。\n\n法院已作出判决，认定 Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）是债务人的另一个自我。见 Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）等案（对抗程序案号 23-5023（以下简称“Lamp Capital A.P.”），卷宗编号 66）。受托人在此通过援引纳入其在 Lamp Capital A.P. 中提交的起诉书（对抗程序案号 23-5023，卷宗编号 1）。\n\n由债务人所为。这一障眼法使债务人能够使用、花费和/或转移数百万美元的现金及其他资产，同时向债权人隐匿其财产。\n\n16. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第 11 章案件中提起多项对抗程序，以便除其他事项外，确认债务人的空壳公司是其另一个自我，和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；在若干对抗程序中，破产法院已准予该等救济。5\n\n17. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属和/或下属持有的空壳公司，(ii) 使用来自其他由债务人控制实体的现金购买的资产，和/或无对价转让给空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转让的资产，以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中受益，并对该等资产享有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n18. 除受托人对抗程序中处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）的受益所有人（并通过该公司成为 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司）的受益所有人），且债务人控制并雇用 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（王燕平）。6\n\n5 该等对抗程序包括：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人诉 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人诉 Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人诉 Mei Guo（郭美）案 [对抗程序案号 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人诉 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人诉 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（金泉（纽约）有限公司）案 [对抗程序案号 23-05018]；以及 (vii) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人诉 Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）等案 [对抗程序案号 23-05023]。\n\n6 准许动议以裁定债务人藐视公司治理命令的命令，第¶¶ 1、4 段（Jan. 24, 2023，卷宗编号 1372（以下简称“公司治理藐视命令”）。\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（新中国联邦）和 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他声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，并作为其商业工具”。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（东方收益有限公司）——该实体最初由债务人的一名厨师所有，后转让给债务人的女儿——实质上是债务人的一家空壳公司。10\n\n21. 债务人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，以下简称“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，以下简称“纽约法院”）对债务人提起诉讼，案号 652077/2017（以下简称“PAX 案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。February 3, 2021，PAX 从纽约法院获得针对债务人的 $116,402,019.57 判决（以下简称“PAX 判决”）。PAX 试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行 PAX 判决，其中包括 Lady May——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为其儿子设立信托持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗纽约法院命令，最终导致债务人被处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n7 经更正的部分准许初步禁令动议的裁决备忘录，第¶ 3 段（对抗程序案号 22-05032，January 13, 2023（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及相关实体‘GTV’。”）。\n\n8 同上，第¶ 7 段（“债务人是 The Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n9 同上。（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和 Himalaya 服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员个人忠于债务人。”）。\n\n10 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n22. 债务人还将其另一个自我，包括 Greenwich Land、HCHK Property 和 Lamp Capital，作为个人小金库，用于资助其本人及其家人已习惯的奢靡生活方式，同时将资产隐匿于这些另一个自我中以逃避债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得追偿。债务人通过这些另一个自我实施的转让，实施了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n23. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以偿还其负债，且其奢靡生活方式由其家人通过名义上由家人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. In March 2023，债务人被逮捕，并因包括电信欺诈、证券欺诈和洗钱在内的联邦刑事指控，在审判前持续被羁押。\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约 500 多个账户，洗白超过 $1 billion 的欺诈所得。”13\n\n11 就债务人请求作出临时和最终 DIP 命令的动议举行的听证会：(I) 授权债务人获得无担保、次级的申请后融资，及 (II) 安排临时和最终听证会，及 (III) 准予相关救济（主案，April 27, 2022）\n\n12 见脚注 3\n\n13 见美国在反对被告 Yanping Wang（王燕平）审前释放动议的法律备忘录，第 29 页；该备忘录作为附件 B 附于第 11 章受托人对 G Club Operations LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司）就受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求所提出补充异议的答复中（June 23, 2023，主案卷宗编号 1934）。\n\n26. 在申请日之前的任何时候，债务人另一个自我的财产，包括 Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital 和 HCHK Property，均为债务人的财产。\n\n27. 在与本案有关的任何时候，债务人在 New York, New York 开展业务，包括指示本起诉书所涉的申请前转让。\n\nD. 债务人的障眼法和欺诈在申请后持续进行\n\n28. 截至申请日，债务人通过其另一个自我持有的全部财产，包括 Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital 和 HCHK Property，均成为第 11 章财产的一部分。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n29. 在申请日之后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其在《破产法》项下的义务，继续通过众多作为其另一个自我的空壳公司实施转让，包括但不限于 Lamp Capital、Greenwich Land 和 HCHK Property。\n\n30. 该等申请后转让均未经破产法院授权，亦未获《破产法》授权。\n\nE. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n31. 本起诉书所涉的转让（定义见下文）系为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出，因为该等转让均通过作为债务人障眼法一部分运营的债务人另一个自我空壳公司作出。\n\n32. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以便隐匿和耗散数百万美元的资产，同时向其众多债权人虚假声称其贫困。债务人声称身无分文，同时却大肆挥霍，以维持其本人、其家人及亲密同伴的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n33. 债务人隐匿和耗散的资产包括其从加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害人处获得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）待决刑事案件中面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱及敲诈勒索指控。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此方式隐匿和耗散其资产，将不会剩余足够资产偿还其债权人——包括其欺诈行为的众多受害人。因此，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。\n\n35. 被告是一家提供全方位服务的景观、维护和设计/建造公司，提供维护、砌筑、泳池设计及安装服务，主要在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Fairfield County（费尔菲尔德县）“该地区逾 1,000 处最令人惊叹的房产”开展业务。14\n\n36. 本案所涉转让是债务人通过购买奢侈品和服务耗散其资产这一做法的一部分。鉴于债务人耗散的是其欺诈所得，在奢侈品上的该等支出尤为恶劣。\n\n37. 即使债务人向其债权人声称身无分文，其同时也将其奢靡生活方式作为营销工具，以推广其欺诈计划。这一策略的众多例证之一，是债务人的“Hcoin to the Moon”音乐视频；债务人在其中炫耀奢华的个人财产——包括游艇、跑车、西装、雪茄和家居陈设——以推广对其一项欺诈性加密货币业务的投资。15\n\n38. 这进一步反映出债务人就该等转让所具有的欺诈意图。\n\n14 见 http\n\n15 见 http（最后访问日期为 Jan. 25, 2024）。债务人在 December of 2021 于 YouTube 发布该音乐视频，约在申请日前两个月。\n\nF. 向被告作出的转让\n\n39. 在申请日之前，债务人使用其作为另一个自我的空壳公司 Greenwich Land 和 Lamp Capital，或以其他方式，向被告转让债务人的财产（统称“申请前转让”），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\n40. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Lamp Capital、Greenwich Land 和 HCHK Property，或以其他方式，向被告转让财产的一部分（统称“申请后转让”），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 B。\n\n41. 在申请前转让及申请后转让（统称“转让”）发生时，债务人对债务人财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n42. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n\n（根据《破产法》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条及第 550(a) 条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n43. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n44. 破产申请前转让系债务人通过其另我实体Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）及Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n45. 债务人在实施破产申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他外，体现于：\n\na. 破产申请前转让系利用作为另我实体的空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 破产申请前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 破产申请前转让是债务人“障眼法”的一部分，债务人为隐匿和保护资产，借助其控制的家庭成员及其他得力助手和下属实施该等转让；\n\nd. 破产申请前转让通过使债务人在不使其财产受其债权人追索的情况下从其欺诈行为中获益，进一步促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 破产申请前转让通过使债务人在不使其财产受其债权人追索的情况下从其欺诈行为中获利，进一步促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人正受到诉讼，包括PAX（帕克斯）在PAX案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n46. 根据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条，受托人可撤销破产申请前转让；根据《破产法》第550(a)条，受托人可予追回。\n第二项请求\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273、274及276条和《破产法》第544(b)及550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n47. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n48. 破产申请前转让系债务人通过其另我实体Greenwich Land及Lamp Capital作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n49. 债务人在实施破产申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他外，体现于：\n\na. 破产申请前转让系利用作为另我实体的空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 破产申请前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 破产申请前转让是债务人“障眼法”的一部分，债务人为隐匿和保护资产，借助其控制的家庭成员及其他得力助手和下属实施该等转让；\n\nd. 破产申请前转让通过使债务人在不使其财产受其债权人追索的情况下从其欺诈行为中获益，进一步促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 破产申请前转让通过使债务人在不使其财产受其债权人追索的情况下从其欺诈行为中获利，进一步促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人正受到诉讼，包括PAX在PAX案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n50. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)、274及276条以及《破产法》第544(b)条，受托人可撤销破产申请前转让；根据《破产法》第550(a)条，受托人可予追回。\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法》第549及550(a)条撤销并追回未经授权的破产申请后转让的请求）\n\n51. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至42段所载指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n52. 破产申请后转让系债务人向被告作出，包括通过其作为另我实体的空壳公司Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital及HCHK Property（HCHK房地产）作出。\n\n53. 破产申请后转让发生于破产申请日之后。\n\n54. 破产申请后转让未经破产法院或《破产法》授权。\n\n55. 破产申请后转让构成未经授权转让债务人第11章破产财产中的财产。\n\n56. 根据《破产法》第549(a)条，破产申请后转让可予撤销。\n\n57. 根据《破产法》第550(a)条，受托人有权向被告追回破产申请后转让，或其价值，并加计至付款之日的利息及本案费用。\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\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，宣告根据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条撤销金额不少于$146,643.96的破产申请前转让；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销该等破产申请前转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产之利益，向被告追回破产申请前转让，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，宣告根据《破产法》第544(b)条及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(2)、274及276条撤销金额不少于$146,643.96的破产申请前转让；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销该等破产申请前转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law第276条及《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产之利益，向被告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，(a) 作出命令，宣告根据《破产法》第549条撤销金额不少于$685,996.14的破产申请后转让；以及(b) 作出命令，责令撤销该等破产申请后转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产之利益，向被告追回破产申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 向受托人裁定自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止，按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院可根据情形认定为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：February 13, 2024，New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS 第11章受托人\n\n代表：/s/ Douglas Skalka\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n(203) 781-2847\n\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\n\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人律师\n附件A\n\n密封提交\n附件B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","HCHK","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":4859,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:44:39"}