{"id":"court_ctb_2923_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2923,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2024-02-15","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,
1 | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.
------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
(Jointly Administered)
x |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee, | :
:
Adv. Proceeding 24-_________ |\n| Plaintiff, | :
:
February 15,
2024 |\n| v. | :
:
: |\n| HING CHI NGOK, MEI GUO, QIANG
GUO, WILLIAM JE, YVETTE WANG,
XUEBING WANG, MAX KRASNER,
CHUNGUANG HAN, YONGBING
ZHANG, AARON MITCHELL, RULE OF
LAW FOUNDATION III, INC., GTV
MEDIA GROUP, INC., SARACA MEDIA
GROUP, INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY
LLC, G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC,
BRAVO LUCK LIMITED, GREENWICH
LAND LLC, CRANE ADVISORY GROUP
L.L.C., G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC, GS
SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC., GYPSY
MEI FOOD SERVICES LLC, HCHK
TECHNOLOGIES INC., LEXINGTON
PROPERTY AND STAFFING,
HAMILTON OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC,
HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, TAURUS | :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: |\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 and the Genever Debtor 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\nFUND LLC, TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC, LEADING SHINE NY LTD., ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED, RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III, INC., RULE OF LAW SOCIETY IV, INC., HAMILTON PE FUND SP, HAMILTON DIGITAL ASSETS FUND SP, HIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING PTY. LTD, HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED, HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD., VICTOR CERDA, ANA C. IZQUIERDO-HENN, HAITHAM KHALED, JESSICA MASTROGIOVANNI, ALEX HADJICHARALAMBOUS, BEILE LI, ANTHONY DIBATTISTA, GLADYS CHOW, SCOTT BARNETT, HAORAN HE, HSIN SHIH YU, LIMARIE REYES MOLINARIS, NICHOLAS SAVIO, QIDONG XIA, YAN CHUN LIU, XUEBING WANG, ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED, GETTR USA, INC., G CLUB INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, GNEWS MEDIA GROUP INC. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL CLEARING LTD., HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDINGS LLC, LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC, O.S.C. ORBIT SERVICE COMPANY LLC, and SAVIO LAW LLC Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x\n\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\n**COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE RACKETEERING INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT AND CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE RACKETEERING INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this adversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against the defendants identified below as parties to this action (collectively, the \"Defendants\") and states as follows:\n\n### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee brings this Complaint to recover damages suffered by the Debtor's creditors as a result of an extensive, years' long racketeering conspiracy involving multiple fraudulent schemes facilitated by the Defendants in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act of 1970 (\"RICO\").\n\n2. As the Court well knows, the Debtor is a self-proclaimed Chinese dissident, who, prior to his bankruptcy filing on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), long claimed on social media and elsewhere to be a billionaire with access to nearly unlimited resources. This action relates to how the Debtor and his co-conspirators were able to amass vast amounts of money and then, through widespread criminal conduct, use it to enrich themselves while hiding it from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n3. As alleged herein, since at least 2015, the Debtor and the Defendants have operated a racketeering enterprise (the \"Kwok Enterprise\") through an extensive worldwide network of shell companies with the goal of enriching the Debtor, his family members, and his close associates, while concealing the true nature and extent of the Debtor's wealth from his creditors and preventing them from being repaid. As a result, the Debtor and those close to him have enjoyed all the trappings and luxury of a billionaire's lifestyle—from private jets, to luxury super yachts, to \\$10,000 suits, to multiple palatial residences, and much, much more—while the Debtor's\n\ncreditors, who over the years have amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in claims against him, have been left with nothing.\n\n4. Chief among the Debtor's creditors is Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"), which, as of 2015, held a claim of approximately \\$50 million against the Debtor under a personal guarantee (the \"2011 Personal Guarantee\") of a loan to one of the Debtor's companies. In or around April 2017, PAX filed suit against the Debtor in New York state court to recover on the 2011 Personal Guarantee and, in September 2020, obtained summary judgment on the debt, which by then had increased to approximately \\$115 million, due to the accrual of interest. Meanwhile, other creditors have asserted serious and material claims against the Debtor related to, among other things, defamation and sexual assault. In or around September 2017, one such creditor, Rui Ma, filed suit against the Debtor in New York seeking approximately \\$20 million in damages on various tort claims. Other creditors based in China also commenced litigation against the Debtor in the United States as early as 2017, alleging that the Debtor had left them holding the proverbial \"bag\" in China.\n\n5. In addition to the Debtor's huge debts owed to creditors, another key part of the backdrop for the Kwok Enterprise (but not part of the enterprise itself) is a series of fraudulent money-raising schemes beginning in approximately 2020, which the Debtor and others used to further enrich the Debtor and fund his extravagant lifestyle. To support these schemes, the Debtor and his supporters first developed and distributed, primarily through social media, a compelling (and false) narrative in which the Debtor both flaunted his enviable lifestyle and pledged to lead a sociopolitical movement to \"take down\" the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\"). The Debtor and others then used this narrative to attract investments or donations from their victims, who often consisted of members of the Chinese diaspora aligned with the Debtor's purported anti-CCP cause and/or persons who were impressed (and fooled) by the Debtor's boasts of immeasurable wealth.\n\n6. These money-raising schemes, which collectively defrauded victims of hundreds of millions of dollars, included soliciting sham investments in a purported cash-for-stock loan program (the Farm Loan Program),2 encouraging the purchase of \"memberships\" in a lifestyle club based on the false promise of member benefits (G-Club), and creating a fake cryptocurrency and related exchange platform (the Himalaya Exchange). While the victims were promised returns on their investments—whether in the form of interest payments, membership benefits, support for political causes, or otherwise—the Debtor and the other participants in the schemes fraudulently diverted the proceeds for their own personal gain.\n\n7. Against the backdrop of both his creditors' claims and the Debtor's fraudulent money-raising initiatives, the Debtor and his co-conspirator Defendants established the Kwok Enterprise for the purpose of concealing and shielding the Debtor's vast wealth—including both the proceeds of the investment schemes and assets the Debtor acquired independent of those schemes—from his creditors. The Debtor and his co-conspirator Defendants have accomplished this goal by creating a complex, worldwide network of interconnected shell companies and bank accounts that they use to both launder money (to conceal its fraudulent origin) and hold title to assets—such as the Debtor's luxury yacht, the \"Lady May\" (pictured below), his private Bombardier jet, and his many homes, including his nearly 50,000 square foot mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey (pictured below, the \"Mahwah Mansion\")—under the veil of corporate separateness. In reality, these shell companies, which are typically nominally owned by one of the Debtor's\n\n2 Capitalized terms not defined in this Preliminary Statement have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the remainder of the Complaint.\n\nfamily members or close associates, are shams that exist solely to hide valuable assets and perpetuate the fraud.\n\n![](_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n8. The Kwok Enterprise's efforts to conceal the Debtor's assets were successful for a number of years. In 2021, however, the Kwok Enterprise's fraud started to unravel, at least in part, when PAX sought to collect on its judgment in the New York litigation by attempting to seize the \"Lady May\" yacht on the basis that it belonged to the Debtor and not to the shell company nominally owned by his daughter (a Defendant in this action) that held title to it. After a trial in early February 2022, the New York court agreed with PAX that the Lady May belonged to the Debtor and found that the Debtor and those close to him had engaged in a \"shell game\" to hide the yacht and other assets from creditors. Because the Debtor had, despite ample opportunity to do so, failed to return the Lady May to Connecticut, the New York court imposed a daily contempt fine on the Debtor, which, by the time of trial, had ballooned to \\$134 million.\n\n9. Unable to pay the New York judgment or the contempt fine without revealing the true location and extent of the Debtor's assets, the Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators had no choice but to deploy the next phase of their fraudulent scheme: filing a bankruptcy case in this Court on February 15, 2022, in which the Debtor falsely claimed to have only approximately \\$3,800 in assets to his name. The goal of the bankruptcy filing was for the Debtor to obtain the protection of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay to prevent PAX from continuing its judgmentenforcement efforts in New York litigation, while giving the Debtor an opportunity to consensually restructure his debts under a chapter 11 plan that could keep hidden the true nature and extent of his vast wealth and its fraudulent origins. This strategy eventually backfired, however, when the Trustee was appointed in July 2022 to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Debtor's affairs and pursue litigation to bring assets into the estate.\n\n10. In response to the Trustee's appointment, the Defendant-members of the Kwok Enterprise have undertaken (and continue to undertake) numerous actions to obstruct the administration of the chapter 11 case and impede the Trustee's investigation and litigation efforts. These actions include, without limitation, lying under oath, refusing to produce documents and information to the Trustee in response to validly issued subpoenas and Court orders, filing frivolous lawsuits in other courts, and organizing an unprecedented worldwide harassment and intimidation campaign specifically designed to interfere with the Trustee's investigation and force him to resign. The objective of the Debtor and his co-conspirator Defendants who have engaged in these activities remains the same as it was at the outset of their fraudulent schemes: to conceal their fraud and prevent the Debtor's creditors from reaching his assets.\n\n11. Although the Debtor is and has been the mastermind behind the Kwok Enterprise, the co-conspirator Defendants have knowingly played a key role, collectively and cohesively, in directing, facilitating, and directly participating in the enterprise's various schemes for the Debtor's and their benefit. The Defendants and other non-party participants, who conspired and acted in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise, broadly consist of (i) the Debtor, (ii) sham entities secretly owned and controlled by the Debtor, including entities funding the fraudulent scheme and entities holding assets or operating as front entities, (iii) individuals, including Kwok's family members, acting as nominees for these sham entities and engaging in additional misconduct, (iv) professionals facilitating the design and operation of the scheme, including lawyers and financial advisors, and (v) individuals otherwise participating in the scheme in various capacities, including employees of the sham entities and Kwok's followers, among others.\n\n12. As described in detail below, the Defendants have committed a host of predicate criminal acts in carrying out the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent schemes. These criminal acts include, among others, bank fraud, wire fraud, and violations of anti-money laundering laws. They also include bankruptcy fraud and obstruction of justice, including in particular numerous instances of obstruction of justice designed to interfere with the chapter 11 process.\n\n13. These and other actions of the Defendants in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise have substantially harmed the Debtor's creditors by depriving them of access to substantial assets of the Debtor that should be available to satisfy their claims. The Debtor's creditors have further been harmed as a result of the substantial legal fees and other costs the Trustee has been forced to incur as a result of the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent concealment of the Debtor's assets and their obstruction of the chapter 11 case. The Trustee is entitled to treble damages from the Defendants based on this harm caused to the creditors of the estate.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n14. The Trustee brings this Complaint under 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 544, 550 and other applicable law.\n\n15. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b) because this adversary proceeding arises under title 11 of the United States Code and arises in and is related to these chapter 11 cases, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because this adversary proceeding arises under the laws of the United States, including 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and seeks recovery for injuries by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.\n\n16. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a).\n\n17. To the extent that this Court does not have authority to enter final judgment on the claims asserted in this adversary proceeding, the Trustee consents to the issuance and entry of a final judgment or order by this Court.\n\n18. Venue of this adversary proceeding is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1409.\n\n#### **PARTIES AND OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS**\n\n19. The Trustee is the duly appointed chapter 11 trustee of the Debtor's estate pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 10 of 139\n\n20. Ho Wan Kwok, the Debtor (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases), is an individual debtor who alleges to live at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831. The Debtor is currently incarcerated in Brooklyn, New York while awaiting trial on criminal racketeering and fraud charges the United States filed against him and his co-conspirators Defendants Yvette Wang and William Je.\n\n21. Defendant Hing Chi Ngok (a/k/a Hing Chi Ng, a/k/a Yue Qingzhi) is the Debtor's purported spouse who resides in Greenwich, Connecticut. Ngok has nominally owned and held titles in a variety of entities that were part of the Kwok Enterprise and instrumentalities of the fraud described herein.\n\n22. Defendant Mei Guo (a/k/a Mei Gui) is the Debtor's daughter and lives in New York City. Mei Guo has nominally owned and held titles in a variety of entities that were part of the Kwok Enterprise and instrumentalities of the fraud described herein.\n\n23. Defendant Qiang Guo (a/k/a/ Mileson Kwok) is the Debtor's son and lives in London, England. Qiang Guo has nominally owned and held titles in a variety of entities that were part of the Kwok Enterprise and instrumentalities of the fraud described herein. Upon information and belief, Defendant Qiang Guo traveled to the United States during times relevant to the allegations in this action. He also purposefully directed his actions toward the United States in a manner that caused harm to the Debtor's creditors in the United States.\n\n24. Defendant Yanping Wang (a/k/a Yvette Wang, a/k/a Y. Wang) (\"Yvette Wang\") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was a citizen of China principally residing in New York City. Yvette Wang has worked for the Debtor and his family for several years, since at least in or about 2018, and has essentially operated as the \"chief of staff\" for the Debtor and the Kwok Enterprise. Defendant Yvette Wang is currently incarcerated in Brooklyn while awaiting trial\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 11 of 139\n\nregarding criminal racketeering and fraud charges the United States filed against her and her coconspirators the Debtor and Defendant William Je.\n\n25. Defendant Kin Ming Je (a/k/a William Je, a/k/a Yu Jianming a/k/a W. Je) (\"William Je\") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was a dual citizen of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom who principally resided in the United Kingdom, while often traveling to the United States and elsewhere. Defendant William Je has been charged by the United States with criminal racketeering and fraud alongside the Debtor and Defendant Yvette Wang. Defendant Je remains at large and is believed to be currently located in the United Arab Emirates. Defendant Je purposefully directed his actions toward the United States in a manner that caused harm to the Debtor's creditors in the United States.\n\n26. Defendant Aaron Mitchell is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and is the Debtor's personal attorney and has represented (individually and through his law firm, Lawall & Mitchell LLC) numerous of the Debtor's shell companies, essentially acting as the in-house general counsel for the Kwok Enterprise. Mr. Mitchell has served the Debtor as a member of the board of directors of GTV Media Group, Inc., prior to his resignation in April 2023. Mr. Mitchell has been intimately involved in numerous of the Debtor's major activities and transactions, including the GTV Private Placement (as defined herein), the collection of funds from the Debtor's followers through the sale of G Club memberships,\n\n Mr. Mitchell has also, upon information and belief, assisted the Debtor in coordinating the opening of foreign bank accounts for the Debtor's shell companies. In addition, Mr. Mitchell has used the address of the Debtor and numerous of his shell companies at 162 E. 64th Street in New York as his law firm address. He resides in New Jersey.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 12 of 139\n\n27. Defendant Alex Hadjicharalambous is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served the Debtor as, among other things, Financial Controller of G Club Operations, as well as holding positions at certain of the HCHK Entities and Golden Spring. Mr. Hadjicharalambous was also, among other things, a bank account signatory for G Fashion LLC, G Music LLC, and G Club Operations LLC. Mr. Hadjicharalambous resides in New York.\n\n28. Defendant Beile Li has been found by the Court to be an associate of the Debtor and certain of the Defendants. The Court also found that Beile Li actively participated in the harassment campaign against the Trustee both outside of the Trustee's residence and at entrance of Paul Hastings office at Grand Central Terminal in New York, which were enjoined by this Court pursuant to the Court's PAX PI Order. Li is also among the plaintiffs in the frivolous, now-dismissed lawsuits filed in November 2022 against the Trustee by a group of the Debtor's supporters, which falsely accused the Trustee as being an agent of the Chinese government.\n\n29. Defendant Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn (\"Defendant Izquierdo\") is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and served as general counsel to G-Club Operations LLC throughout the course of the G-Club Scheme. She resides in Puerto Rico.\n\n30. Defendant Anthony DiBattista is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and has served in a variety of roles at different Debtor-controlled entities. Mr. DiBattista has served the Debtor as an employee of Golden Spring, minority owner and corporate officer of the HCHK Entities, and corporate officer, authorized signatory, and high level employee of GTV, among other shell entities. Mr. DiBattista resides in New York.\n\n31. Defendant Chunguang Han (a/k/a \"Hank\" Chunguang) is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and is the Debtor's household employee and chef, as confirmed by recent testimony of the Debtor's wife. The Debtor has placed Han Chunguang in\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 13 of 139\n\nnumerous positions within the Debtor's network of shell companies, including as the former nominal owner of Eastern Profit Corporation, Anton Development, and Rosy Acme Ventures Limited.3 Among other roles, Han Chunguang has also served the Debtor as corporate officer and account signatory of Saraca and numerous BVI-registered entities that are the subjects of the Bombardier Adversary Proceeding. He resides in New York.\n\n32. Defendant David Fallon is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant.\n\n33. Defendant Gladys Chow is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served as a purported project manager at Defendant HCHK Technologies, an entity functionally owned by the Debtor. She resides in New York.\n\n34. Defendant Scott Barnett is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and has served as the Debtor's bodyguard and chauffer. Upon information and belief, he resides in New York or New Jersey.\n\n35. Defendant Haoran He is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and is believed to be a purported real estate developer residing in the United Kingdom who serves the Debtor as nominal (indirect) owner of the G-Club Entities, as discussed herein. Upon information and belief, Haoran He is a strawman of the Debtor who was selected by the Debtor to be the nominal owner of these entities precisely so as to avoid the regulatory and other scrutiny that would arise if the entities were placed in the name of the Debtor or one of his family members. He resides in the United Kingdom.\n\n3 Rosy Acme Ventures Limited is one of the BVI entities that is the subject of the Bombardier Adversary Proceeding.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 14 of 139\n\n36. Defendant Haitham Khaled is an individual and is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served as a financial advisor to the Debtor and the Kwok Enterprise, directing the establishment of banking relationships within the United States and abroad. Defendant Khaled also was the owner of Crane Advisory Group LLC, a one-time licensed New York money-transmitter entity. He resides in New York.\n\n37. Defendant Hsin Shih Yu is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant. Hsin Shih Yu is has played a prominent role in Protests (as defined below) and litigation against the Trustee. He resides in Taiwan.\n\n38. Defendant Jessica Mastrogiovanni is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served the Debtor in multiple roles including as general counsel of GTV and as corporate officer and authorized signatory of GTV and Saraca. She also served in an inhouse legal role at G Club Operations and G Club International.\n\n39. Defendant Limarie Reyes Molinaris (\"Defendant Reyes\") is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served as the putative CEO of G-Club Operations LLC. She resides in Puerto Rico.\n\n40. Defendant Max Krasner is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and was employed by the Debtor in roles at Golden Spring and the HCHK Entities, as well as numerous other positions. Defendant Krasner served as an officer and authorized signatory of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), and Rule of Law Foundation. Mr. Krasner has assisted the Debtor, at the Debtor's behalf and at the Debtor's direction, with, among other things, the purchase of real property in Greenwich, Connecticut titled to Greenwich Land LLC, arrangements for the movement and maintenance of the yacht the Lady May,\n\nresides in New York.\n\n41. Defendant Nicholas Savio is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and served as a legal advisor to various Debtor-owned shell entities. He resides in New Jersey.\n\n42. Defendant Qidong Xia is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant. Qidong Xia played a prominent role in harassment and intimidation campaign against the Trustee. He resides in New York.\n\n43. Defendant Victor Cerda is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and served as a legal advisor to various Debtor-owned shell entities. He resides in New York.\n\n44. Defendant Yongbing Zhang is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and was employed by the Debtor as his personal counsel and also served the Debtor, as, among other things, a Director of Rule of Law Foundation\n\nAmong other things, Mr. Zhang took a\n\nleading role in the harassment and intimidation campaign against the Trustee that resulted in the Court issuing a preliminary injunction against the Debtor, including by personally participating in the campaign in front of the Trustee's home. Mr. Zhang also was involved in filing complaints against the Trustee, PAX, and PAX's counsel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Those complaints falsely accused the Trustee, PAX, and PAX's counsel of being agents of the Chinese Communist Party (the \"FARA Litigation\"), in connection with which Mr. Zhang was sanctioned under Rule 11 multiple times. The Court has become particularly\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 16 of 139\n\nfamiliar with Mr. Zhang based on his role in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding, in which context the Court found, among other things, that Mr. Zhang was the leader of the purported HCHK Creditors' Committee and that Mr. Zhang is involved in filing frivolous lawsuits to hinder the Trustee's work in this case for the perceived benefit of the Individual Debtor. In addition, upon information and belief, the Debtor arranged for Mr. Zhang to \"win\" a Lamborghini vehicle as part of a sweepstakes event designed to promote the G-Club Scheme. He resides in Illinois.\n\n45. Defendant Yan Chun Liu is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant. Yan Chun Liu played a prominent role in the harassment and intimation campaign against the Trustee. She resides in Canada.\n\n46. Defendant Xuebing Wang is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and has been at various times among the most prominent lieutenants of the Debtor in his New Federal State of China and Himalaya Global Alliance organizations. Defendant Xuebing Wang has also played a prominent role in the harassment and intimidation campaign against the Trustee. He resides in New Zealand.\n\n47. Defendant ACA Capital Group Limited (\"ACA Capital\") is a Hong Kong company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity. The Debtor used ACA Capital to, among other things, transfer funds to his other shell entities, including Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, Golden Spring, Saraca, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY, among others, as well as to fund legal and other expenses, including \\$9 million provided to Golden Spring in connection with the DIP financing proposed by the Debtor in March 2022 in his individual chapter 11 case.\n\n48. Defendant Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\") is a British Virgin Islands company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity. The Debtor used Bravo Luck to, among other things, transfer funds for the Debtor to purchase his yacht, the Lady May, and his apartment at the Sherry\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 17 of 139\n\nNetherland Hotel, and through which the Debtor provided the funds used to establish his alter ego Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. The nominal owner of Bravo Luck is the Debtor's son, Defendant Qiang Guo.\n\n49. Defendant Crane Advisory Group LLC (\"Crane\") is a New York limited liability company and was a licensed money transmitter in New York.\n\n50. Defendant Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") is a Delaware limited liability company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity (as defined herein). Although nominally-owned by the Debtor's wife, Defendant Hing Chi Ngok, Greenwich Land is functionally owned by the Debtor.\n\n51. Defendant GS Security Solutions Inc. (\"GS Security\") is a New York corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity (as defined herein). Defendant Scott Barnett is the nominal owner of GS Security.\n\n52. Defendant GETTR USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and is the entity that operates the alternative social media platform, GETTR.\n\n53. Defendant G Club International Limited (\"G-Club BVI\" or \"G-Club International\") is a British Virgin Islands company that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity (as defined herein) and is the parent company G Club Operations LLC.\n\n54. Defendant G Club Operations LLC (\"G-Club PR\" or \"G-Club\") is a Puerto Rico limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and was the principal operating entity that purported to offer membership services to the victims of the G-Club Scheme but in reality fraudulently accepted the member-victims' funds and transferred those funds on to other Debtor-controlled entities to further the purposes of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 18 of 139\n\n55. Defendant GNews Media Group Inc. (\"GNews\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity.\n\n56. Defendant GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and was the wholly-owned subsidiary of Saraca (as defined below), a purported media company.\n\n57. Defendant Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC (\"Gypsy Mei Food\") is a Delaware limited liability company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity, nominally owned by the Debtor's daughter, Defendant Mei Guo.\n\n58. Defendant Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (including its segregated portfolios) is a Cayman Islands segregated portfolio company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Debtor used to, among other things, fund the purchase of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n59. Defendant HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal and disguise the fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program from the Debtor's creditors and member-victims.\n\n60. Defendant HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal and disguise the fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program from the Debtor's creditors and member-victims, among other unlawful conduct.\n\n61. Defendant Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI) (d/b/a Himalaya Exchange) (the \"Himalaya Exchange\") is a British Virgin Islands company that is alleged herein to be a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 19 of 139\n\nBusiness-Front Entity that the Debtor used to operate his purported cryptocurrency business, the \"Himalaya Exchange,\" which the Debtor used to, among other things, fund the \\$37 million placed into escrow in connection with the return of the Lady May to the United States.\n\n62. Defendant Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty. Ltd is an Australian entity.\n\n63. Defendant Himalaya International Financial Group Limited is a BVI entity.\n\n64. Defendant Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd. (\"Holy City\") is a British Virgin Islands corporation that is nominally owned by Defendant Yvette Wang.\n\n65. Defendant Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity that members of the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal the Debtor's assets from his creditors.\n\n66. Defendant Hudson Diamond NY LLC is a New York limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity and is a nominal subsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC.\n\n67. Defendant Lawall & Mitchell, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and is the law firm of Defendant Aaron Mitchell.\n\n68. Defendant Leading Shine NY Limited (\"Leading Shine NY\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity and is nominally owned by the Debtor's daughter, Defendant Mei Guo.\n\n69. Defendant Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. (\"Lexington Property\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal and disguise the fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program from the Debtor's creditors and member-victims, among other unlawful conduct.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 20 of 139\n\n70. Defendant O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC (\"Orbit Service\") is a Connecticut limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity.\n\n71. Defendant Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. (\"Rule of Law Foundation\") is a Delaware nonprofit corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity. Rule of Law Foundation is nominally owned (indirectly) by Defendant Yvette Wang, the Debtor's chief of staff, and criminal fraud and racketeering co-defendant, through a holding company she nominally owns, Seven Mission Group LLC.\n\n72. Defendant Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. (\"Rule of Law Society\" and, together with Rule of Law Foundation, the \"Rule of Law Entities\") is a Delaware nonprofit corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity. Rule of Law Society is also nominally owned (indirectly) by Defendant Yvette Wang, through Seven Mission Group LLC. The Rule of Law Entities were used by the Kwok Enterprise to fraudulently obtain purported charitable and/or political funding for anti-CCP causes from the Debtor's followers, only to use such ill-gotten funds to further the Kwok Enterprise's purposes, including enriching the Debtor, his family, and associates, and, among other things, bankrolling harassment and intimidation activities against the Trustee on behalf of the Debtor.\n\n73. Defendant Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and purported media company that is the parent of GTV.\n\n74. Defendant Taurus Fund, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity and is purportedly managed by Defendant Scott Barnett, and was used by the Kwok Enterprise to hold title to the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 21 of 139\n\n75. Defendant Savio Law LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and the law firm of Defendant Nicholas Savio.\n\n76. Defendant Taurus Management LLC is a New Mexico limited liability company and a manager of Taurus Fund LLC, the nominal title-holder of the Mahwah Mansion, along with Defendant Scott Barnett.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n### **I. Investment Schemes Forming Backdrop for Kwok Enterprise**\n\n77. The Debtor is an \"exiled Chinese businessman who fled to the United States in or about 2015.\" 4 Prior to his arrival in the United States, the Debtor had accumulated or obtained access to considerable wealth by a variety of known and unknown means. Upon information and belief, the Debtor had acquired hundreds of millions of dollars in assets that he beneficially owned or controlled. At the same time, he had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities to creditors, including without limitation a debt of approximately \\$50 million (at the time) owed to PAX under a loan guaranteed by the Debtor, which was not repaid by the underlying obligor.\n\n78. In or around late 2014, the Debtor fled China after, upon information and belief, having been warned by well-connected associates in the CCP that security authorities in China and Hong Kong would soon seek his arrest. Shortly thereafter, in or around early 2015, the Government of the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\") reportedly charged the Debtor with multiple crimes, including corruption, and seized or attempted to seize his PRC assets (the \"PRC Seizures\"), including real property, securities, and funds in bank accounts. In or around 2015, the Debtor arrived in the United States.\n\n4 *See* Superseding Criminal Indictment of Ho Wan Kwok and Kin Ming Je, *United States v. Kwok et al.*, 23 Cr. 118, filed Mar. 6, 2023 [ECF No. 215] (the \"Superseding Indictment\"), ¶ 9(a).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 22 of 139\n\n79. Upon information and belief, by the time of his arrival in the United States, the Debtor had lost access to some, but not all, of his assets as a result of, among other things, the PRC Seizures. Accordingly, beginning in or around 2018, to obtain new capital to continue funding his and his family members' and associates' lavish lifestyles, and to protect against the possibility his existing assets might be discovered by creditors, the Debtor and others devised a series of fraudulent schemes to raise money from unwitting investors.\n\n80. Specifically, the Debtor and certain of his close family members, advisors, and business associates defrauded thousands of victims of more than approximately \\$1 billion, including victims in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Germany, the PRC, and other nations throughout the world. These schemes, which form part of the Superseding Indictment against the Debtor, are discussed herein because they provide relevant background for the formation of the Kwok Enterprise, but they do not themselves form part of the Kwok Enterprise as alleged herein, and the Trustee does not allege that the schemes themselves were predicate acts.\n\n81. According to the Superseding Indictment, the Debtor's and his co-conspirators' investment schemes involved several interrelated parts, including fundraising activities involving the GTV Private Placement (as defined below), the Farm Loan Program (as defined below), the G Club membership program, and the Himalaya Exchange (as defined below).\n\nA. GTV Private Placement\n\n82. GTV, a Delaware corporation, was a purported news-focused social media platform based in New York City. GTV was functionally owned and controlled by the Debtor despite the fact the Debtor held no formal position or title at GTV.\n\n83. Between in or about April 2020 and in or about July 2020, the Debtor, with the assistance of various co-conspirators, fraudulently obtained more than \\$485 million in victim funds\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 23 of 139\n\nthrough an illegal private stock offering related to GTV (the \"GTV Private Placement\") and a related offering of a purported digital asset security that was referred to as either G-Coins or G-Dollars (the \"GTV Coin Offering\").\n\n84. As a result of the GTV Private Placement and GTV Coin Offering, whose proceeds were commingled, the Debtor and others are alleged to have defrauded more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United States, through approximately July 2020. 5\n\nB. Farm Loan Program\n\n85. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, beginning in or about June 2020—the Debtor and his co-conspirators fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$150 million in victim funds through the \"Himalaya Farm Alliance.\"6\n\n86. The Himalaya Farm Alliance, which the Debtor, among others, organized and promoted, was a collective of informal groups (each known as a \"Farm\") located in various cities throughout the world. The Debtor and others working on his behalf and at his direction obtained these funds by making further misrepresentations to the investor-victims in the GTV Private Placement and fraudulently soliciting further investments, this time in the form of purported \"loans\" to a Farm, and promising that such loans would be convertible into GTV common stock at a conversion rate of one share per dollar loaned (the \"Farm Loan Program\").7\n\n87. As a result of the Debtor's alleged promotion of the Farm Loan Program through misrepresentations, thousands of victims \"loaned\" money to the Farms by sending money to bank\n\n5 *See In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc.,* Administrative Proceeding No. 3-20537 (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) (Order Instituting Cease and Desist Proceedings).\n\n6 *See* Superseding Indictment ¶ 17.\n\n7 *Id.*\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 24 of 139\n\naccounts controlled by the Farms (and not GTV).8 According to the \"Loan Agreements,\" which the Farms rarely countersigned, these funds were to be used for a Farm's \"general working capital purposes.\" In reality, the Debtor and his co-conspirators allegedly misappropriated funds that were raised through the Farm Loan Program for their own benefit.\n\nC. G Club Operations, LLC\n\n88. G-Club was a purported membership organization based in Puerto Rico and in New York City that claimed to provide its \"members\" with luxury experiences, access to the Debtor, and ancillary benefits regarding the Debtor's other business opportunities. G-Club was launched in or about October 2020. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, in truth and in reality, G-Club was a world-wide fraudulent scheme designed to enrich the Debtor that provided no discernable benefits to its \"members.\" Rather, \"members\" paid various membership fees to G-Club to obtain certain \"tiers\" or status's within the purported organization, with each alleged \"tier\" providing greater benefits (there were none) to the member, but costing more money as well. The \"members'\" contributions were ultimately transferred from G-Club to G-Club BVI or other locations where they could be used to enrich the Debtor, his family, and his associates.\n\n89. G-Club was functionally and beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor, although the Debtor held no formal executive position at G-Club. The Debtor \"officially\" provided consulting services for G-Club and held titles as spokesperson, key host and promotional contact.\n\n90. The Debtor and his co-conspirators allegedly obtained more than approximately \\$250 million9 through the G-Club membership scheme from would-be members. Contrary to the representations being made to such members, G-Club provided nothing remotely resembling \"a\n\n8 *See* Superseding Indictment ¶ 17(e).\n\n9 *See id.* ¶ 18.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 25 of 139\n\nfull spectrum of services\" and \"experiences\" to its unwitting member-victims. 10 Nor did members receive additional benefits they were promised. Instead, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the G-Club membership scheme was used to enrich the Debtor and his associates.\n\n### D. Himalaya Exchange\n\n91. The \"Himalaya Exchange\" is another vehicle the Debtor and his coconspirators allegedly used to defraud investor-victims. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Himalaya Exchange was a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" (and not itself a legal entity) that William Je founded and operated through various entities located abroad which he nominally owned, but which the Debtor controlled and beneficially owned.11 Additional entities beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor had purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange.12 The Superseding Indictment alleges that, from at least in or about April 2021 through at least in or about March 2023, the Debtor and William Je fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$262 million in investor-victim funds through the Himalaya Exchange, which they used for their own benefit.13\n\n# **II. General Scope and Purpose of Kwok Enterprise**\n\n92. At the same time the Debtor amassed his considerable wealth, through the abovedescribed schemes and otherwise, he had also incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities to creditors, including without limitation a debt of approximately \\$50 million (as of 2015) owed\n\n12 *Id.*\n\n13 *Id.* ¶ 19.\n\n10 *See* Superseding Indictment ¶ 18(e).\n\n11 *See id.* ¶ 15.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 26 of 139\n\nto PAX under a loan guaranteed by the Debtor. As time went on, the Debtor's creditors became increasingly aggressive in seeking payment on their claims, including by pursuing litigation.\n\n93. For example, on or about April 18, 2017, PAX filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the \"New York Court\"), for breach of contract against the Debtor regarding the 2011 Personal Guarantee and amounts owing thereunder (the \"PAX Litigation\"). On September 15, 2020, the New York Court granted partial summary judgment in PAX's favor on its claim, and PAX thereafter undertook efforts to enforce that judgment by, among other things, seeking discovery of the Debtor's assets and financial affairs.\n\n94. Similarly, on or about September 11, 2017, creditor Rui Ma filed a verified complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking damages of not less than \\$20 million for battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims against the Debtor and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., the Debtor's \"family office\" and slush fund, arising from allegations that the Debtor mentally abused and sexually assaulted Rui Ma on multiple occasions during her employment with the Debtor, including in the state of New York (the \"Ma Litigation\"). *See generally* Claim 2-1, [Main Case No. 22-50073].\n\n95. PAX and Rui Ma were just two of many of the Debtor's creditors who had either commenced litigation against him or were otherwise taking action to enforce their claims. With the walls closing in around him, the Debtor and those close to him had to ensure that he kept his assets hidden from his creditors at all costs.\n\n96. The mechanism used to hide the Debtor's assets from his creditors was the Kwok Enterprise. The Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators had previously formed the Kwok Enterprise as early as 2015, when, as described below, certain of the Defendants, including shell\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 27 of 139\n\ncompanies and the Debtor's family members, began concealing the Debtor's assets to avoid paying his debts, which by that time were already in excess of \\$50 million, at a minimum.\n\n97. The Kwok Enterprise's activities evolved over time, but its purpose remained the same. In addition to hiding assets from creditors, such as PAX, Rui Ma, and others, the Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators utilized the Kwok Enterprise's shell companies and other participants to fraudulently conceal the origins of the above-described fraudulent investment schemes, through money laundering and otherwise. Further, once this bankruptcy case began, the Kwok Enterprise added obstruction of justice and bankruptcy fraud to its repertoire, with the goal of interfering with this chapter 11 case and impeding the Trustee's investigation.\n\n98. The Kwok Enterprise's participants have consisted of the following general categories of entities and individuals, among others:\n\n- a. \"Funding Entities\" that were used by the Kwok Enterprise, including the Debtor, other Defendants, and co-conspirators, as cash management or \"slush fund\" entities, and which transferred substantial sums to various entities and individuals to enrich the Debtor and his family, including by funding the Debtor's luxurious, billionairelifestyle, paying expenses and funding opulent purchases, providing money to maintain the Debtor's appearance as a successful entrepreneur who victims should invest with, and otherwise hiding and concealing the Debtor's assets from his creditors. The Funding Entities included, among others:\n\t- i. Defendant Bravo Luck,\n\t- ii. Golden Spring,\n\t- iii. Defendant Leading Shine,\n\t- iv. Defendants Hudson Diamond Holding LLC and Hudson Diamond NY LLC (together, the \"Hudson Entities\"), and\n\t- v. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. and Lamp Capital.\n- b. \"Asset-Holding Entities\" that were used by the Kwok Enterprise, including the Debtor, other Defendants, and co-conspirators, to hold specific assets for the benefit of the Debtor and his family, such that not only would the Debtor's assets be concealed and possibly beyond the reach of his creditors, but such assets would also\n\nbe available to the Debtor to demonstrate his purported wealth and business acumen, and maintain the Debtor's billionaire-image, allowing the Kwok Enterprise to promote the Debtor's purported investments and business lines to investor-victims; such entities included, among others:\n\n- i. Defendants Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, a Cayman Islands segregated portfolio company; and its thirteen segregated portfolios, including Hamilton SA Fund SP; Fortress Digital Assets Fund SP; Taurus Fund SP; Hamilton Delphi Fund SP; Hamilton Mars Fund SP; Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class A; Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class B; Hamilton PE Fund SP; Hamilton FX Fund SP; Hamilton Diversified Trading Fund SP; Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP; Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class A; Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class B (together, the \"Hamilton Entities\");\n- ii. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC;\n- iii. Defendants HCHK Technologies, HCHK Property, Lexington Property (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\"), and Holy City;\n- iv. Defendant Greenwich Land; and\n- v. Defendant Gypsy Mei Food.\n- c. \"Business-Front Entities\" that were used by the Kwok Enterprise, including the Debtor, other Defendants, and co-conspirators, to conceal the Debtor's assets from creditors and pass-through fraudulently obtained funds for the benefit of the Debtor, his family, and associates, while nominally being operating media, real estate, technology, and social media enterprises, but functionally being owned and controlled by the Debtor to further the Kwok Enterprise, including, among others:\n\t- i. Defendant GETTR USA, Inc., G Fashion International Limited, GFNY Inc., GF Italy LLC, and Defendant GNews Media Group, Inc.;\n\t- ii. Defendant GS Security Solutions Inc.;\n\t- iii. Defendant O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC;\n\niv.Defendants GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc.;\n\nv. Defendants G Club Operations LLC and G Club International Limited (BVI) (together, the \"G-Club Entities\"); Defendant Crane Advisory Group LLC.; G Club HoldCo I LLC; Jovial Century International Limited; G Fashion Hold Co. B Limited; Stichting Duurzame (Netherlands);\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 29 of 139\n\n- vi. Defendants Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI) (d/b/a Himalaya Exchange); Defendant Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (BVI); Himalaya International Payments Ltd (BVI); Himalaya International Reserves Limited (BVI); Defendant Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd (Australia); Major Lead International Limited (BVI); Perfect Company Ltd. (BVI); Stichting Gewelf (Netherlands);\n- vii. Defendants the Rule of Law Entities; and\n- viii. The Himalaya Farm Alliance and the Himalaya Farm Loan Program\n- d. \"Nominee Participants\" consisting of individual members of the Debtor's family and inner circle, including his children and closest business associates, who acted as purported nominal owners, executives, directors, employees and/or appointees of entities the Debtor functionally and beneficially controlled and which knowingly participated in the Kwok Enterprise, including:\n\t- i. Defendants Hing Chi Ngok, the Debtor's wife; Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, and Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son; and\n\t- ii. Defendants William Je, Yvette Wang, Haoran He, Max Krasner, Scott Barnett, Anthony DiBattista, Chunguang Han, and Defeng Cao.\n- e. \"Professional Participants\" consisting of legal advisors that did more than provide ordinary legal services to the Debtor, Defendants, and co-conspirators. Rather, such legal professionals and other Defendants and co-conspirators, as alleged herein, had knowledge of and directly participated in the conduct at the heart of the Kwok Enterprise's various fraudulent schemes and unlawful activities. Such individuals include Defendants Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell LLC, Victor Cerda, Savio Law LLC, Nicholas Savio, and Yongbing Zhang.\n\nf. \"Additional Participants\" consisting of financial advisors, agents, employees, and other individuals acting on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor's family, other Defendants, or on behalf of other co-conspirators, such that those individuals did more than provide ordinary business services to the Debtor, Defendants, and coconspirators. Rather, oftentimes in the course of their employment by Defendants and/or the Debtor or co-conspirators, such individuals, as alleged herein, had knowledge of and directly participated in the conduct at the heart of the Kwok Enterprise's various fraudulent schemes and unlawful activities. Such individuals include Defendants Alex Hadjicharalambous, Limarie Reyes Molinaris, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, David Fallon, Ehsan Masud, Gladys Chow, Hsin Shih Yu, Xuebing Wang, Yan Chun Liu, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, and Qidong Xia.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 30 of 139\n\n99. The specific activities and transactions these individuals and entities engaged in for the purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and enriching the Debtor and his family are described in detail throughout this Complaint.\n\n### **III. Diverting, Transferring and Concealing Assets and Fraud Proceeds**\n\n100. The Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators used the Kwok Enterprise and its web of shell companies to both (i) disguise the origins of certain of the Debtor's assets, including in particular the proceeds of the fraudulent investment schemes described above, and (ii) conceal all of the Debtor's material assets and keep them beyond the reach of the Debtor's creditors.\n\nA. Concealment and Diversion of G-Club Fraud Proceeds\n\n101. The Debtor and many of the Defendants went to great lengths to conceal the G-Club fraud and to divert its proceeds to individuals and entities within the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n### *G-Club and Rest of Kwok Enterprise Face Banking Problems*\n\n102. From the outset, G-Club's fraudulent nature gave rise to significant difficulties maintaining banking relationships with FDIC-insured domestic financial institutions. This led to uncomfortable questions and caused the Kwok Enterprise, including many of the Defendants, to go to great lengths to conceal the fraudulent source of the G-Club funds.\n\n![](_page_29_Picture_8.jpeg)\n\n| | 139 | | |\n|--|-----|--|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 31 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 32 of 139\n\n| the | | | |\n|-----|--|--|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 33 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 34 of 139\n\n *G-Clubs Member-Victims' Funds Used to Enrich Debtor, His Family, and Associates* 117. The Defendants also used G-Club funds to purchase valuable assets for the Debtor and hide them in shell companies where they could not be found by creditors. 139\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2923 | Filed 02/15/24 | Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 | Page 36 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| | | 139 | | |\n\n| 139 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| Defendant Je and |\n| others made sure G-Club funds were laundered in other ways to benefit the Debtor and the Kwok
Enterprise. |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 37 of\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 38 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 39 of 139\n\n| facilitate
their fraud occurred either by email or phone using interstate wires.
Himalaya Exchange Helped Divert and Disguise Fraudulently Obtained
Funds | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n132. In addition, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment, Defendant Je sought to transfer large sums of the Himalaya Exchange's money to an account he controlled abroad for the purpose of avoiding its imminent seizure by the United States government. Specifically, in September 2022, Defendant Je attempted to transfer approximately \\$46 million from domestic bank accounts associated with the Himalaya Exchange—accounts that had not yet been seized to a bank account in the UAE that he controlled.14\n\n133. Within approximately two days of the first judicially authorized seizures of Himalaya Exchange-related funds, on or about September 22, 2022, Defendant Je asked the management of a domestic bank that held Himalaya Exchange bank accounts to execute a wire transfer, which he and a Himalaya Exchange executive misrepresented to the domestic bank was needed for the benefit of a \"VIP\" client of the Himalaya Exchange.15 In later communications with the domestic bank, Defendant Je revealed that the VIP was, in fact, Je himself. Je provided the domestic bank with documents purporting to show two HCN sales by Je on or about September 22, 2022—totaling 46 million HDO—which Je was hoping to \"convert\" into \\$46 million in fiat currency. Je twice emphasized to the domestic bank's employees that the \\$46 million transfer needed to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\"16\n\n16 *Id.*\n\n14 Superseding Indictment ¶ 21.\n\n15 *Id.* ¶ 21 (a).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 41 of 139\n\n### B. Role of Rule of Law Entities in Fraudulent Schemes\n\n134. In order to keep the Debtor's and his co-conspirator's fraudulent schemes hidden, it was important for the Debtor and the other members of the Kwok Enterprise to take efforts to legitimize their outward appearances to the general public. To that end, in or about 2018, the Debtor founded two purported nonprofit organizations, Defendants the Rule of Law Entities, which trumpeted the Debtor's supposed mission to put an end to the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n135. The Debtor used these nonprofit organizations to accumulate followers who were aligned with his alleged policy objectives in China and were attracted to his supposed success as a business person, and, therefore, would be interested in potential business opportunities with the Debtor or donating money to support his political views (the \"Rule of Law Scheme\").\n\n136. The Debtor used the Rule of Law Entities to obtain donations from supporters in the United States and throughout the world. The Rule of Law Entities later fraudulently diverted millions of dollars of these donations to shell companies and other Defendants in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's ultimate objectives.\n\n![](_page_40_Figure_5.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_41_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n### C. Further Use of Shell Companies to Launder Funds and Conceal Assets\n\n139. The Debtor and Defendants William Je, Yvette Wang, Krasner, DiBattista, and Mitchell, among others, regularly transferred funds within the Kwok Enterprise, typically using the Defendant Funding Entities, Asset-Holding Entities, and Business-Front Entities, for the purpose of laundering those funds and to benefit of the Debtor, his family, and his associates, by disguising the money movements as \"loans,\" \"dividends,\" or \"investments.\"\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 42 of 139\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 43 of 139\n\n140. To create the infrastructure necessary for these activities, the Debtor installed, or directed others in the Kwok Enterprise to install for his benefit, titular executives and/or nominal owners at entities within the Kwok Enterprise, including many of the Defendants, while such entities were, in reality, beneficially owned and/or controlled by the Debtor. The use of nominal owners to conceal the Debtor's vast wealth and defraud creditors has long been a practice of the Kwok Enterprise, including before he arrived in the United States in or around 2015.\n\n141. One such individual who has served as a nominal owner of Debtor entities and is familiar with the Debtor's practices in this regard is nonparty Qu Guo Jiao (a/k/a Natasha Qu) (\"Ms. Qu\"), a trusted business associate of the Debtor. Ms. Qu had worked as an accounting manager and executive assistant for the Debtor and/or entities he controlled from between in or around 2002 to September 2017. Ms. Qu was responsible for, among other things, managing accounting and financial matters for various entities controlled by the Debtor and providing assistance to the Debtor in his personal and business affairs. Ms. Qu's duties, and actions she took at the Debtor's direction, included managing inter-company wire transfers and similar transactions.\n\n142. During the time Ms. Qu worked for the Debtor between in or around 2002 to September 2017, the Debtor frequently used agreements to functionally and beneficially retain control of various companies that were nominally owned in the name of the Debtor's family members and/or associates. Other employees and/or associates of the Debtor who purportedly (and nominally) owned companies controlled by the Debtor included, among others, Defendants Yvette Wang, Han Chunguang (the Debtor's bodyguard and family chef), Anthony DiBattista, and Max Krasner. These individuals, like Ms. Qu, had no financial or beneficial interest in the entities they nominally owned.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 44 of 139\n\n143. Just as the Debtor had used Ms. Qu from in or around 2002 to 2017, he continued to work with co-conspirator Defendants from the time of his arrival in the U.S. in 2015 to the present to expand his shell game and harm creditors by hiding his assets. Through the use of these shell entities and the dummy figureheads at such corporate entities, the Kwok Enterprise sought to protect the Debtor's wealth.\n\n144. The shell entities (and dummy figureheads at such entities, *i.e.,* the Nominee Participants and Professional Participants) that the Kwok Enterprise, with the assistance of numerous individual Defendants, used to protect the Debtor's wealth were more or less organized in three categories, with some entities potentially fitting into multiple categories: (a) slush-fund and cash management entities (*i.e.,* the Funding Entities); (b) entities used to acquire and hold assets (*i.e.,* the Asset-Holding Entities); and (c) entities that claimed to be operating businesses but in reality simply protected the Debtor's wealth (*i.e.,* the Business-Front Entities). Examples of entities in each such category are discussed in turn.\n\n#### *1. Slush-Fund and Cash Management Entities*\n\n#### *Golden Spring New York Ltd.*\n\n145. Golden Spring was incorporated in Delaware and registered to do business in New York in March of 2015, coinciding with the Debtor's relocation to New York in January 2015. Golden Spring's nominal corporate parent was Defendant China Golden Spring, which was, in turn, nominally owned by Defendant Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son. Despite such nominal\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 45 of 139\n\nownership, Golden Spring was nothing more than an alter ego for the Debtor, and this Court has already issued a judgment to that effect.17\n\n146. The Debtor created Golden Spring because he needed a domestic company to acquire cars and engage in other activities—including leasing office space, acquiring furnishings for that office space and for his home, and engaging staff—in the United States. In this way, Golden Spring served as the Debtor's domestic \"family office.\"\n\n147. While the Debtor directed the formation of Golden Spring for his own benefit, he made the decision to shield himself by having someone else sign corporate organizational documents for Golden Spring so he could avoid having his name appear on corporate documents that would have been part of the public record. This allowed the Debtor to attempt to hide his assets at Golden Spring from creditors, including PAX and others.\n\n148. At all relevant times, Golden Spring had no independent source of funding; it was funded by the Debtor through entities he controlled, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding. Indeed, the Debtor provided the initial funding for Golden Spring by\n\n![](_page_44_Figure_5.jpeg)\n\n17 Because Golden Spring has been found to be the Debtor's alter ego, such that all assets of Golden Spring belong to the chapter 11 estate, the Trustee has not named Golden Spring as a Defendant herein. Golden Spring was, however, an integral member of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n150. No one familiar with the Debtor and Golden Spring doubted that the Debtor was the person who exercised control over Golden Spring (despite Defendant Qiang Guo's nominal ownership of Golden Spring's ostensible parent company, Defendant China Golden Spring). Indeed,\n\n151. As the Debtor's \"family office,\" Golden Spring's functions were to hold his assets, pay his expenses, and conceal such assets from his creditors. Golden Spring was thus a critical part of the Kwok Enterprise that allowed the Debtor to live a life of luxury while at the same time asserting that he was effectively judgment proof, as exemplified by the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities filed in this Chapter 11 Case, where the Debtor claimed to hold assets of \\$3,850.00.19 The examples of Golden Spring functioning in this way are legion. Among others:\n\n- a. Golden Spring has been paying the Debtor's personal living expenses since 2015. These expenses include security/bodyguards, transportation, clothing, and other items. For example, the Debtor testified that if he desired to buy a pair of shoes, he would arrange for Golden Spring to pay for it.\n- b. The Debtor travelled in a Maybach automobile purportedly owned by Golden Spring. Indeed, insurance documents in the possession of the Trustee indicate that Golden Spring has purportedly owned multiple luxury vehicles for use by the Debtor.\n- c. Golden Spring paid numerous of the Debtor's legal fees, including through litigation funding agreements\n\nThis litigation\n\nfunding scheme is another mechanism by which the Debtor and conspiring Defendants sought to harm the Debtor's creditors, ensuring that even if his estate recovered on a cause of action, the Kwok Enterprise would be enriched but any recovery might be beyond the reach of creditors.\n\n19 *See* Official Form 106, at 5 (Mar. 9, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n- d. Golden Spring paid the expenses associated with the Debtor's yacht, the Lady May, as well as the maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment.\n- e. The Debtor intended to use Golden Spring as lender in connection with an \\$8 million DIP loan proposed in the Debtor's motion filed on March 22, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 117]. A large portion of this loan was slated to be used for paying the Debtor's then-bankruptcy counsel at Brown Rudnick and numerous of the Debtor's proposed \"ordinary course\" professionals.\n\n152. Notably, although Golden Spring as proposed DIP lender was represented in this Chapter 11 Case by counsel, Golden Spring essentially disappeared after the appointment of the Trustee, failing to respond to the Trustee's Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoena and eventually being held in contempt by this Court.\n\n153. Golden Spring's employees and managers were well-known members of the Kwok Enterprise, including some of the Defendants. Golden Spring's initial directors when the company was established in March 2015 were Ms. Qu and Yan Feng Sun, who also served as the initial president/treasurer and secretary of the company, respectively. Defendant Qiang Guo was initially Executive Vice President. In more recent years, Golden Spring's president, including at the time the Debtor filed his chapter 11 petition, was Defendant Yvette Wang, who also served as one of the company's directors (along with Defendant Qiang Guo).\n\n154. This Court has already ruled that \"[t]he Debtor has control over Ms. Wang\" and that he \"has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his behalf to purchase properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\" 20 Defendant Wang has served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Defendants Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Saraca, GTV, Greenwich Land, and\n\n20 Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\nGenever Holdings LLC. Defendant Wang was widely known to be the Debtor's personal assistant and, along with Defendant Aaron Mitchell, acted as critical advisors to the Kwok Enterprise on all operational decisions. Defendant Wang has testified on multiple instances that in her capacity as president of Golden Spring she served as an administrator for the interests of the Debtor and his family.\n\n- 155. In addition, employees of Golden Spring have included, among others:\n\t- a. Defendant Max Krasner, who, in addition to his work as a Golden Spring employee, has also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as employee, officer and/or authorized signatory of Defendants Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), Rule of Law Foundation, and the HCHK Entities.\n\t- b. Defendant Anthony DiBattista, who, in addition to his work as a Golden Spring employee, also served the Debtor as a corporate officer of Defendants GTV, GFashion, G-Club, and the HCHK Entities.\n- 156. Upon information and belief, other individuals employed officially or unofficially\n\nat Golden Spring have included, among others, Defendants Han (\"Hank\") Chunguang21 and Alex\n\nHadjicharalambous,22 each of which have had roles at different entities controlled by the Debtor.\n\n157. Golden Spring, like the Debtor, his defendant children, and many other entities\n\ncontrolled by the Debtor such as GTV and Saraca, used Defendant Aaron Mitchell as its outside\n\nlegal counsel. 23 Golden Spring's general counsel during the early stages of the Chapter 11 Case\n\nwas Melissa Francis, who also represented the Debtor individually.\n\n 21 Defendant Han is a long-standing bodyguard and/or chauffeur of the Debtor who has served the Debtor as, among numerous other roles, as nominal owner of Debtor-controlled entities including Eastern Profit, Anton Development, and Rosy Acme Ventures Limited, and director and officer of Saraca.\n\n22 Defendant Hadjicharalambous has also worked at the HCHK Entities, G-Club, and Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.\n\n23 Despite being represented by Aaron Mitchell as counsel, Golden Spring was held in contempt by this Court (along with Lamp Capital LLC), based on its failure to comply with Rule 2004 subpoenas. *See Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court* (Apr. 26, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1709].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 49 of 139\n\n158. China Golden Spring, the Hong Kong entity ostensibly owned by the Debtor's son that is Golden Spring's corporate parent, is yet another company controlled at all relevant times by the Debtor. Upon information and belief, at the time Golden Spring was established, the Debtor ran China Golden Spring through his employee, Ms. Qu.\n\n159. Accordingly, throughout its existence, including after the Debtor filed his bankruptcy case, Golden Spring was an integral part of the Kwok Enterprise used to fund the Debtor's luxurious lifestyle while concealing the Debtor's ownership of Golden Spring and its assets. All of the Defendants described above who held positions with or took action on behalf of Golden Spring furthered the purposes of the Kwok Enterprise's first and overarching scheme defrauding the Debtor's creditors by concealing the Debtor's assets in shell companies like Golden Spring. Each such defendant agreed and was aware that it would take acts on behalf of Golden Spring notwithstanding such defendant's knowledge that Golden Spring, and its assets, was functionally and beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\n### *Leading Shine NY Ltd.*\n\n160. Defendant Leading Shine NY was formed in Delaware on January 3, 2019, and registered to do business in New York in January 2019. Leading Shine NY is another shell entity that was beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor at all relevant times and that knowingly agreed to serve an important role in the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n161. Leading Shine NY has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding. In particular, Leading Shine NY has received funding from Debtor-controlled entities, including, among others, Defendants\n\nUpon information and belief,\n\nLeading Shine NY received no funding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities that lack\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 50 of 139\n\noperations and themselves are only funded by the Debtor's assets, including the proceeds of the GTV scheme, the G-Club scheme, the Farm Loan Program, and the Himalaya Exchange. Leading Shine NY and Defendants agreed and knowingly directed the Kwok Enterprise to transfer fraudulently obtained monies between and among each other to pay the Debtor's expenses, enrich him, his family, and his associates, and conceal the nature and control of such funds from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n162. Leading Shine NY was actively involved in the movement of money to other shell companies controlled by the Debtor,\n\n![](_page_50_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_50_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n166. As discussed further herein, Leading Shine NY's only documented activities consisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Leading Shine NY did nothing other than receive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank accounts, and pay for the Debtor's expenses such that the Debtor could maintain an image as a successful billionaire and convince unwitting investor-victims or member-victims to contribute their money to the various Kwok Enterprise fraud schemes discussed herein.\n\n# *Lamp Capital LLC*24\n\n167. Lamp Capital was formed in Delaware on September 4, 2020, and registered to do business in New York on September 14, 2020. Lamp Capital's sole member is Infinity Treasury Management, of which Defendant Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son, is the purported sole shareholder.\n\n24 Lamp Capital LLC has been found to be the Debtor's alter ego and is a non-party to this action.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 52 of 139\n\n168. Prior to June 10, 2021, Daniel Podhaskie served as sole director, president, and treasurer of Infinity Treasury Management, the sole member of Lamp Capital. Mr. Podhaskie was also an authorized signatory for Lamp Capital.\n\n169. On June 10, 2021, Defendant Max Krasner replaced Daniel Podhaskie as sole director and president of Infinity Treasury Management. Krasner was an agent of the Debtor. Krasner acted on the Debtor's behalf and worked for the Debtor as a subordinate to Defendant Yvette Wang. Krasner was a Golden Spring employee who also served in roles at numerous other Debtor shell companies, including serving as an employee, officer and/or authorized signatory of Defendants Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holding, Hudson Diamond NY, Rule of Law Foundation, and one or more of the HCHK Entities.\n\n170. Lamp Capital has been funded by the Debtor through entities he controls.\n\n![](_page_51_Figure_4.jpeg)\n\n25 Lamp Capital used 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, as its address. 162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself, defendant Aaron Mitchell, and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including Golden Spring, HK USA, GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, and Rule of Law Foundation\n\n171. The Debtor used Lamp Capital to pay his expenses and keep assets concealed from\n\nhis creditors, which rendered Lamp Capital a critical part of the Kwok Enterprise. The examples\n\nof Lamp Capital helping to conceal the Debtor's finances and fuel his and his family members'\n\nluxurious lifestyles are numerous. Among others:\n\n- a. Lamp Capital paid the \\$1 million retainer of the Debtor's initial bankruptcy counsel, Brown Rudnick.\n- b. Lamp Capital paid numerous of the Debtor's legal fees and expenses associated with litigation involving the Debtor, including to the Debtor's law firms such as Lawall & Mitchell, LLC, The Casper Firm, The Francis Firm PLLC, Baker Hostetler LLP, Hodgson Russ, Schulman Bhattacharya LLC, and Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP, and Clayman & Rosenberg LLP. Lamp Capital has also made numerous payments of the Debtor's fees owed to other providers of legal or expert witness services such as Veritext, US Legal Support Inc., Roy D. Simon, and William Bradley Wendel.\n- c. Lamp Capital paid expenses associated with the Debtor's yacht, the Lady May, as well as the maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment.\n\n![](_page_52_Figure_8.jpeg)\n\nd. Lamp Capital has also made numerous payments to ACASS Canada Ltd. (\"ACASS\"), Wings Insurance Agency Inc., and SAAM Verspieren Group, in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Debtor's private jet, the Bombardier Global XRS (which is subject to another adversary proceeding filed by the Trustee against Mei Guo).\n\ne. Lamp Capital made multiple transfers to the Bento for Business accounts of Debtorcontrolled companies, from which pre-paid Bento debit cards were issued to the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 54 of 139\n\nDebtor's family members and associates and used on spending to support the Debtor's luxurious lifestyle.\n\nf. Lamp Capital has paid the Mar-a-Lago Club on behalf of the Debtor in connection with the membership there held in his name.\n\n172. As discussed further herein, defendant Lamp Capital's only documented activities consisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Lamp Capital did nothing other than receive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank accounts, and pay for the Debtor's expenses.\n\n### *Individual Defendants' Involvement in Movement of Funds*\n\n173. As discussed herein, numerous of the individual Defendants assisted the foregoing shell companies and other entities in the Kwok Enterprise in moving and concealing the Debtor's funds, including those he raised from fraudulent investment activities. In addition, many of the individual Defendants themselves made or received numerous transfers using their own bank accounts, often in transactions involving other Defendants or shell companies. Examples of such transfers are listed in Schedule 1 hereto. Upon information and belief, some or all of these transfers involve monies belonging to the Debtor and/or that constitute proceeds of his fraudulent schemes.\n\n### *2. Shell Entities for Acquiring and Holding Assets*\n\n### *Bravo Luck, Eastern Profit, and HK International*\n\n174. Bravo Luck is a shell company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. In January and February 2015, the Debtor and his son each owned 50% of Bravo Luck on paper.\n\n175. At that time, Bravo Luck held an account (the \"Bravo Luck Account\") with UBS AG (\"UBS\"). On January 23, 2015, two Debtor shell companies, HK International Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\") and Defendant Eastern Profit Corporation (\"Eastern Profit\"), transferred \\$150 million and \\$370 million, respectively, to the Bravo Luck Account to,\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 55 of 139\n\namong other things, fund and conceal the Debtor's purchase of a luxury apartment and yacht, as described further below. Prior to those transfers, that account held approximately \\$20,000.\n\n176. The \\$520 million transferred into the Bravo Luck Account was nothing more than the Debtor transferring money from one \"pocket\" to another, as he controlled both HK International and Eastern Profit.\n\n177. HK International was incorporated by the Debtor on October 2, 2006. HK International was effectively controlled by the Debtor, used by the Debtor to funnel money to a number of other Debtor-controlled entities in investment projects related to the Hong Kong stock exchange, and received all its funds from other Debtor-controlled companies\n\n178. The Debtor remained HK International's sole shareholder and director through October 14, 2014, when he transferred his interest to Ms. Qu for no consideration. On October 14, 2014, Ms. Qu also signed a Declaration of Trust providing that she held the shares of HK International as trustee, with the Debtor as the beneficiary, and that Ms. Qu would exercise rights in connection with the shares at the Debtor's direction. The Debtor, therefore, continued to beneficially own and control HK International despite Ms. Qu's nominal ownership.\n\n179. Defendant Eastern Profit is another shell company of the Debtor incorporated in Hong Kong. Eastern Profit was the subject of findings by Judge Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, including that Eastern is \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.\n\n180. Among other things, in 2015, when it transferred \\$370 million to Bravo Luck, Eastern Profit was nominally owned by Han Chunguang, the Debtor's driver, bodyguard and cook, whom the Debtor referred to as \"Little Han\" and introduced as his cook. Mr. Han would later transfer his purported ownership of Eastern Profit to the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, in exchange\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 56 of 139\n\nfor HK\\$1.00. This transfer was made on June 27, 2017, which is the same day that Ms. Qu (acting as trustee for the Debtor) \"sold\" HK International to the Debtor's daughter, also for HK\\$1.00.\n\n181. On February 21, 2015, another shell company of the Debtor, Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever US\"), executed a contract of sale with respect to a penthouse apartment overlooking Manhattan (the \"Sherry Netherland Apartment\").26 Genever US has one member, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). At the time of the purchase of the Sherry Netherland Apartment, the Debtor was the sole shareholder of Genever US. Bravo Luck served as the funding source for the purchase.\n\n182. Even after the contract of sale was executed, the sale of the Sherry Netherland Apartment still had to be approved by the Board of Directors of the Sherry Netherland Hotel. On March 3, 2015, the Board of Directors met to consider the purchase application submitted in connection with the property, and determined that it did not have sufficient financial information and \"additional due diligence is required by the Board, including but not limited to obtaining financial information regarding [the Debtor].\"\n\n![](_page_55_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\n26 The Sherry Netherland Apartment technically consists of multiple units located on the 18th floor of the Sherry Netherland Hotel that, for ease of reference, will be referred to collectively as the Sherry Netherland Apartment.\n\n![](_page_56_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_56_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n184. Approximately two months later, on May 26, 2015, the Debtor purportedly sold his 50% ownership interest in Bravo Luck to his son for \\$1.00. Nonetheless, the Debtor (and not his son) used the Sherry Netherland Apartment as a residence from 2015 until in or around March 2023 when he was apprehended by federal law enforcement while at his Sherry Netherland Apartment. The Debtor, Defendant Qiang Guo, and Defendant Bravo Luck all intentionally took these actions to conceal the Debtor's ultimate beneficial ownership of the Sherry Netherland Apartment and keep it from creditors.\n\n185. The Debtor also used Bravo Luck to hide his purchase the Lady May, a 150-foot luxury yacht.\n\n186. Between October 10, 2014 and June 27, 2017, Ms. Qu, the Debtor's then-executive assistant and accounting manager, was the nominal sole shareholder and director of HK International, having received \"ownership\" from the Debtor in a \"shielding\" transfer that involved no consideration. During this time period, all material actions that Ms. Qu took in her capacity as sole shareholder and director of HK International were taken upon the request and instruction of the Debtor. For example, if the Debtor asked or instructed Ms. Qu to sign a document in her capacity as sole shareholder and director of HK International, she did so without discussion, including with respect to the purchase of the Lady May in February 2015.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 58 of 139\n\n187. On February 23, 2015—or approximately two weeks before the purchase (with funds wired from Bravo Luck) of the Sherry Netherland Apartment—HK International purchased the Lady May for €28,000,000 (or approximately \\$32,000,00027) from Apsley Yachts Limited.\n\n188. Also on February 23, 2015, Bravo Luck transferred no less than €25,000,000 to a representative of Apsley Yachts Limited. This transfer was made pursuant to a wire transfer form signed by the Debtor for the purpose of enabling HK International to buy the Lady May.\n\n189. As noted above, HK International was always controlled by the Debtor. Even after 2014, when he transferred his shares to Ms. Qu, the Debtor remained the beneficial owner and Ms. Qu could exercise rights in connection with the shares only at the Debtor's direction.\n\n190. This structure remained in place until June 27, 2017, when Ms. Qu purportedly transferred ownership of HK International to the Debtor's daughter, Defendant Mei Guo for HK\\$1.00.\n\n191. Approximately two years later, on April 1, 2019, the Defendant Mei Guo formed HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), of which she was the sole member. That same month, HK International transferred the Lady May to HL USA for no consideration.\n\n192. The Debtor, the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, HK USA, HK International, and Bravo Luck all took these actions to conceal the Debtor's ultimate beneficial ownership of the Lady May and keep it from his creditors.\n\n193. This Court has since determined that HK USA was the alter ego of the Debtor and, thus, the Lady May belonged to the chapter 11 estate.\n\n### *Greenwich Land*\n\n194. Defendant Greenwich Land is a Delaware limited liability company formed on July 3, 2019. Greenwich Land operated out of 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York. Only three individuals other than Defendant Ngok have served as officers of Greenwich Land—Defendants Yvette Wang and Max Krasner, and Daniel Podhaskie. Each of these individuals has occupied numerous positions at Debtor-controlled entities.\n\n195. Agents of Greenwich Land committed numerous unlawful acts, including opening bank accounts under false pretenses and knowingly using interstate wires, in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's purposes of concealing the Debtor's wealth and defrauding his creditors, and furthering the various frauds advanced by the Kwok Enterprise. Greenwich Land and its nominal owner, Defendant Hing Chi Ngok, generate no income or revenue from any operations of Greenwich Land, and it was otherwise funded only from fraudulently obtained monies collected by the Kwok Enterprise as a result of the fraudulent schemes detailed herein.\n\n196. Although certain Defendants have claimed that Greenwich Land's business consisted merely of owning real property,\n\n in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and disguise the nature and ownership of fraudulently obtained monies obtained through the GTV fraud scheme, the G-Club fraud scheme, the Farm Loan Program, and the Himalaya Exchange fraud scheme.\n\n| | 139 | |\n|--|-----|---|\n| | | |\n| | | ) |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 60 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 61 of 139\n\nin violation of the March 28, 2023 temporary restraining order28 and May 26, 2023 preliminary injunction29 prohibiting such dissipation of Greenwich Land's assets.\n\n202. Moreover, each of Defendants\n\nat all relevant times between October 26, 2020 and July 31, 2023 that Greenwich Land had no operations, income, or ability to generate monies absent receipt of funds from other co-conspirators and members of the Kwok Enterprise. Each of Defendants\n\n at all relevant times between October 26, 2020 and July 31, 2023 that the funds transferred by Greenwich Land to the Bento debit card accounts of each Defendant was in fact the product of unlawful activity and each knowingly furthered the Kwok Enterprise's purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors by obtaining such Bento debit card accounts under false pretenses given such accounts would knowingly be funded with the proceeds of the Debtor's fraudulent schemes.\n\n203.\n\n28 Adv. No. 23-05005, Docket No. 14.\n\n29 Adv. No. 23-05005*,* Docket No. 53.\n\n![](_page_61_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_61_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n Greenwich Land knowingly made and received such transfers in fraudulently obtained property—the monies of investor-victims of the GTV fraud—and such transfers made by Greenwich Land and received by it were designed to conceal and disguise the nature, source, and control of the proceeds of the GTV fraud, which funds were ultimately controlled by the Debtor. This is an example of the shell game that the Debtor directs and uses to defraud creditors and conceal his assets, causing considerable harm to the Trustee and the Debtor's creditors.\n\n204.\n\nsum, upon information and belief, Savio Law LLC is a\n\nrepresentative of the Debtor.\n\n30 The principal of Savio Law LLC is or was Nicholas F. Savio. Mr. Savio currently practices with Lawall & Mitchell, the law firm of the Debtor's general counsel, Aaron Mitchell. Previously, Mr. Savio and Mr. Mitchell were colleagues at the law firm of Cohen & Howard, L.L.P., where they represented the Debtor in litigation before the federal district court in New Jersey. S\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 63 of 139\n\n205. One of the real properties that Greenwich Land purchased and later sold is the residential property located at 33 Ferncliff Road (the \"Ferncliff Property\"). The Debtor controlled the purchase, use, and sale of the Ferncliff Property, and another Debtor-controlled defendant entity, Hudson Diamond NY LLC was used for the Debtor's purchase and sale of the Ferncliff Property.\n\n206. Hudson Diamond NY is a Debtor shell company purportedly owned by defendant Mei Guo through Hudson Diamond Holding.\n\n![](_page_62_Picture_3.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_63_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n31 A schedule of such transactions is attached hereto as \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_.\n\n| 211. | |\n|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| 213. | Thus, these payments were clearly made
for the Debtor's personal benefit. |\n| | Specifically: |\n| a. | Hudson
Diamond NY executed such transfer in interstate commerce using U.S. wires and,
having no operations or ability to fund itself, with knowledge that such funds were
unlawfully obtained and transferred in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's
scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors; |\n| b. | . Greenwich |\n| | Land executed such transfer in interstate commerce using U.S. wires and, having
no operations or ability to fund itself, with knowledge that such funds were
unlawfully obtained and transferred in furtherance of the
Kwok Enterprise's
scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors; |\n| c. | at a U.S. bank. Saraca executed such transfer in interstate commerce using U.S.
wires and, having no operations or ability to fund itself, with knowledge that such
funds were unlawfully obtained and transferred in furtherance of the Kwok
Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors; |\n\n![](_page_65_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n216. Hudson Diamond NY was another entity created on behalf of the Debtor for the purported purpose of acquiring real property.\n\n![](_page_66_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n218. Hudson Diamond NY has been funded by the Debtor through entities he controls. Like so many other entities he owned and controlled, the Kwok Enterprise used Hudson Diamond NY to keep assets of the Debtor from creditors while using such assets to maintain the Debtor's lavish billionaire image, such that he could market himself and the Kwok Enterprise to investorvictims as an individual and organization worth trusting and investing with.\n\n219. Defendant Hudson Diamond NY has received funding from numerous Debtorcontrolled entities, including, among others, Upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY receives no funding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities. ACA\n\nCapital executed all such transfers in furtherance of the foregoing frauds and in furtherance of the\n\nKwok Enterprise's purpose of concealing and disguising the nature and control of such fraudulent proceeds.\n\n220. Defendant Hudson Diamond NY was created by the Debtor primarily to acquire real property. Specifically, the Debtor has used Hudson Diamond NY to fund real estate purchases under the name of his shell company, Greenwich Land, purportedly held in the name of the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\nHaving no funding mechanism of its own, Hudson Diamond NY had knowledge that such transfer was in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme and purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and concealing the nature and control of proceeds such as the funds it transferred to Greenwich Land. b. no ability to generate monies of its own, and having received such funds from Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land had knowledge that such transfer was in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme and purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and concealing the nature and control of proceeds such as the funds it transferred to Whitman Breed. . Having no ability to generate monies of its own, and having received such funds from Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land had knowledge that such transfer was in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme and purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and concealing the nature and control of proceeds such as the funds it transferred to Whitman Breed. 221. During her deposition, Mei Guo, purported sole member of Hudson Diamond\n\nHolding, the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY, asserted her rights under the Fifth\n\nAmendment when asked whether her father, the Debtor,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 69 of 139\n\n222. During her deposition, Mei Guo, purported sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding, the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY, asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment when asked whether her father, the Debtor,\n\n![](_page_68_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\n224. Bank records show that, apart from funding real estate transactions, the Debtor also used Hudson Diamond NY to transfer millions of dollars to other shell companies, including, for example, as well as to transfer funds to his daughter, Mei Guo, and his wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\n225. In addition, upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY owned one of the Debtor's Rolls Royce luxury automobiles.\n\n226. As discussed further herein, defendant Hudson Diamond NY's only documented activities consisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Hudson Diamond NY did nothing other than participate in the Kwok Enterprise by receiving funding from other Debtorcontrolled companies, holding cash in bank accounts (in addition to holding the Debtor's Rolls Royce and potentially other assets), and paying for the Debtor's expenses.\n\n228. In addition, Mei Guo invoked the Fifth Amendment in testimony before this Court when asked, among other things, whether Hudson Diamond NY was created at the Debtor's direction to acquire real property and whether the Debtor at all times has controlled Hudson Diamond NY and its assets.\n\n### *The Hamilton Entities*\n\n229. Integral to monetizing the G-Clubs fraud for the benefit of the Debtor and his family and associates were the \"Hamilton Entities\" an umbrella of investment vehicles that were funded with investor-victims' contributions to G-Clubs such that the Kwok Enterprise could (a) preserve G-Clubs' purported and preferential \"membership organization\" tax status in Puerto Rico (as opposed to G-Clubs being an investment entity for tax purposes) while (b) enriching the Debtor, his family, and his associates through the transfer of member-victims' monies to Debtor-controlled entities that could purchase assets (and conceal them from the Debtor's creditors).\n\n230. Defendant David Fallon, at the direction of the Debtor, Defendant Qiang Guo, and Defendant William Je, was the primary operating employee of the Hamilton Entities, misleading the Hamilton Entities' fund administrators, NAV Fund Administration Group, and papering \"subscriptions\" and other faux investments in the Hamilton Entities for the benefit of the Kwok Enterprise and the Debtor.\n\n![](_page_70_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n232.\n\n. Defendant David Fallon made all such\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 72 of 139\n\ncommunications foreign wires, either by phone or e-mail, and willfully engaged with the bank under fraudulent pretenses.\n\n#### *The Taurus Entities and the Mahwah Mansion*\n\n233. In furtherance of the G-Club fraud and by using the Hamilton Entities to conceal the fraud and benefit the Debtor, his family, and associates, on December 16, 2021 (the \"Purchase Date\"), Defendant Taurus Fund SP, a segregated portfolio company of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, either directly or indirectly through Taurus Fund LLC (\"Taurus Fund\"), purchased an approximately 50,000 square foot New Jersey estate, the Mahwah Mansion, from Crocker Mansion Estate LLC for approximately \\$26.5 million. The deed was recorded on the same date at Bergen County, New Jersey. As discussed below, the purchase of the Mahwah Mansion was in fact an extension of the G-Club fraud executed by the Debtor and his co-conspirators.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 73 of 139\n\n![](_page_72_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n234. Taurus Fund was formed in Nevada on December 16, 2021, the same date as the Purchase Date.\n\n235. Besides the Mahwah Mansion, Taurus Fund also holds title to a Bösendorfer grand piano designed by F.A. Porsche (the \"Porsche Piano\"), which is believed to be valued at over \\$250,000. The Porsche Piano was previously located at the Debtor's GSeries offices at 3 Columbus Circle in New York City.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 74 of 139\n\n![](_page_73_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n236. Taurus Fund is managed by (i) the Debtor's chauffeur and/or bodyguard Defendant Scott Barnett and (ii) Defendant Taurus Management LLC. Defendant Taurus Fund, however, is owned by Taurus Fund SP, a purported segregated portfolio of Defendant Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC.\n\n237. Defendant Scott Barnett is the Debtor's chauffeur and/or bodyguard, and Barnett continues to be employed by and actively work for the Debtor. In fact, on June 20, 2023, in an email to the Trustee, Aaron A. Romney, the Debtor's counsel, notified the Trustee that \"*Scott Barnett, who worked security for Mr. Kwok at the Sherry [Netherland], will be picking up [certain] boxes*\" from the Sherry Netherland containing the Debtor's and his family members' clothes and personal effects. Barnett is also listed as a covered driver under an insurance policy issued by AIG to Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., one of the Debtor's many shell companies. Barnett has also been paid by at least two other shell companies, Greenwich Land, LLC, and Lexington Property.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 75 of 139\n\n238. Taurus Fund's other listed manager, Taurus Management LLC, was formed on December 15, 2021, one day before the Purchase Date, as a limited liability company in the State of New Mexico. Despite being a New Mexico entity, Taurus Management shares the same address as Taurus Fund in Nevada at 6628 Sky Pointe Drive, Suite 129-1071, Las Vegas, NV 89131.\n\n239. Although Taurus Fund held nominal title to the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor had full beneficial ownership and control over the property until his arrest on March 15, 2023.\n\n240. The Debtor's residence at, and his equitable ownership of, the Mahwah Mansion was revealed in the initial indictment against him containing multiple charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. 32 The initial indictment identified the Mahwah Mansion as one of the Debtor's luxury residences in the United States, along with his apartment at the Sherry-Netherland and his residence in Greenwich, Connecticut.\n\n241. Constructed in 1907, the castle-styled Mahwah Mansion, located within 25 miles of New York City, is described as one of the world's most magnificent and rare estates. The mansion has 21 bedrooms, more than 19 bathrooms, a great hall, library, tea room, formal dining room, restaurant-style kitchen, movie theater, billiard room, indoor lap pool with spa, massage room, wine room, game room, gym, outdoor pool with cabana, majestic gardens with two fountains, tennis court, 8-car garage, and rare wood, stone work and craftsmanship throughout the castle. Additionally, the Mahwah Mansion has its own Wikipedia page and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997.\n\n242. The grandeur and lavishness of the Mahwah Mansion is consistent with the Debtor's preference for extravagant residences, just like the \\$70 million Sherry Netherland apartment and the Debtor's multi-million dollar residence in Connecticut.\n\n32 *Cf.* Superseding Indictment.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 76 of 139\n\n243. In sum, the Debtor decided to purchase the Mahwah Mansion on December 16, 2021, two months prior to the Debtor's voluntary filing of chapter 11 petition on February 15, 2022, and while he owed huge debts to creditors, including a judgment of approximately \\$115 million to PAX. He also decided to hide his purchase and equitable ownership of the Mahwah Mansion (which, unsurprisingly, is not listed on the Debtor's schedules of assets and liabilities), which would have remained hidden if not for the criminal indictment by the U.S. government on March 15, 2023.\n\n244. Despite Taurus Fund's nominal title to the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor directed and was personally involved in the purchase of and renovations to the mansion, using money that was under his control—the ill-gotten monies sent by member-victims to G-Club.\n\n![](_page_75_Picture_3.jpeg)\n\n| 139 | |\n|-----|--|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 77 of\n\n![](_page_77_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 78 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 79 of 139\n\n![](_page_79_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\ndecorative items, such as Chinese and Persian rugs worth approximately \\$978,000, a \\$62,000\n\ntelevision, a \\$53,000 fireplace log cradle holder, a \\$59,000 watch storage box, and a \\$35,000 mattress.\n\n### *3. Purported Operating Entities Concealing Debtor's Wealth and Assets.*\n\n258. The Debtor also utilized faux business organizations to transfer fraudulently obtained proceeds throughout the Kwok Enterprise and among his family and associates to prevent creditors from obtaining recoveries against him.\n\n# *The HCHK Entities*\n\n259. Defendants HCHK Technologies, HCHK Property, and Lexington Property are all entities owned by Holy City. Notably, Defendant Yvette Wang is the (nominal) 99.9999% owner of Holy City, Defendant Anthony DiBattista is the nominal 0.0001% owner of Holy City, but the Debtor is the functional and beneficial owner of Holy City and all of its subsidiaries.\n\n260. Along with Defendant Yvette Wang, Defendant DiBattista is also a long-standing employee of the Debtor, serving in various roles at different Debtor-controlled companies. Defendant DiBattista was employed at Golden Spring, and has served the Debtor as a corporate officer of GTV, GFashion, and G-Clubs.\n\n261. In addition to Defendant DiBattista, key personnel of the HCHK Entities are former employees or officers of the Debtor's \"family office,\" Golden Spring. These other Golden Spring personnel who moved to the HCHK Entities include Defendant Max Krasner, Joe Wang, Bernardo Enriquez, and Defendant Alex Hadjicharalambous. Upon information and belief, the HCHK Entities are merely a continuation of Golden Spring with new corporate letterhead. Other HCHK personnel include Elliott Dordick, an individual this Court found to be an employee of Gettr,33 an entity that is part of the umbrella of \"G-Series\" entities which this Court found \"serve the purposes\n\n33 PI Decision ¶ 13.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 82 of 139\n\nof the Debtor\" and \"serve as business vehicles for the Debtor.\"34 As the Court may recall, Mr. Dordick was involved in the Debtor's harassment campaign against the Trustee and PAX.\n\n262. The HCHK Entities are not independent businesses that simply happen to have done business with entities linked to the Debtor. They are Business-Front Entities—affiliates of the Debtor's G-Series entities that, together with such entities, comprised a one cog in the Kwok Enterprise controlled by the Debtor and dedicated to promoting the Debtor's interests, enriching the Debtor, his family, and associates, concealing the Debtor's assets and wealth from creditors, and maintaining the Debtor's billionaire lifestyle and image as a successful entrepreneur and investor.\n\n263. The HCHK Entities' business was located at 3 Columbus Circle, in New York City, where HCHK Property and Lexington Property sublet office space. This is the location where associates of the Debtor, acting at the Debtor's behest, filmed videos in support of the Debtor, including videos in late 2022 calling for harassment against the Trustee, PAX, and their counsel. These activities led to the Court's issuance of its preliminary injunction decision [Docket No. 133 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032] where the Court found, among other things, that the Debtor controlled the G-Series entities. Upon information and belief, these videos attacking the Trustee and PAX were produced using the video and electronic equipment disclosed as purported assets of HCHK Technologies in connection with certain attempted New York state court assignment proceedings.\n\n264. Documents produced by the HCHK Entities' accounting firm, Marcum LLP, (\"Marcum\") show the degree to which the HCHK Entities and the G-Series Entities operated as an element of the Kwok Enterprise on behalf of the Debtor. Among other things, the documents show that Marcum had no doubt who controlled the HCHK Entities and G-Series Entities.\n\n34 PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n265. The role of the HCHK Entities was, among other things, to serve as a \"piggy bank\" for the Debtor's businesses. It was for this reason that Marcum's engagement letter provided that Marcum would provide services to Lexington Property \"and Affiliates,\" and Marcum was explicitly tasked with preparing not only the tax returns of the HCHK Entities, but also those of other Debtor-controlled entities as well, including GFashion and GTV. Similarly, Marcum classified HCHK Technologies' assets to include bank accounts corresponding to Gettr, GFashion, and \"FMV\" (an acronym that, upon information and belief, refers to another Debtor-controlled company, Freedom Media Ventures). This \"piggy bank\" role is consistent with the schedule of assets filed with respect to HCHK Technologies, which discloses accounts receivable of \\$12,559,423.06. Upon information and belief, these accounts receivable include obligations purportedly owed to HCHK Technologies by G-Series entities or other companies controlled by the Debtor and that are co-conspirators and members of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n266. For example, Defendant HCHK Technologies on multiple occasions willfully and knowingly transmitted material wire communications, including wire transfers of monies fraudulently obtained from investor-victims and/or member-victims of the Kwok Enterprise's various frauds, to conceal the Debtor's assets and wealth from his creditors and to pay the expenses of the Debtor and his family and associates, in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors:\n\n![](_page_82_Figure_3.jpeg)\n\nhis family and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of HCHK Technologies.\n\n is the management company for the Lady May, which Justice Ostrager and this Court ruled was the Debtor's yacht. Upon information and belief at all relevant times HCHK Technologies knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and his family and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of HCHK Technologies.\n\nc.\n\nb.\n\n. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this payment was to purchase a new private plane for the Debtor, the Cirrus SF50 jet that has been cited in filings in connection with the Debtor's criminal case. Upon information and belief at all relevant times HCHK Technologies knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and his family and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of HCHK Technologies.\n\n267. Moreover, Lexington Property, though ostensibly only in the business of subleasing\n\noffice space, on multiple occasions willfully and knowingly transmitted material wire communications, including wire transfers of monies fraudulently obtained from investor-victims and/or member-victims of the Kwok Enterprise's various frauds, to conceal the Debtor's assets and wealth from his creditors and to pay the expenses of the Debtor and his family and associates, in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors. For example:\n\n- a. Notwithstanding that Defendant Mitchell testified under penalty of perjury that he at no time has provided legal services to Lexington Property:\n\t- i.\n\n Upon information and belief at all relevant times Lexington Property knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and Defendant Mitchell, a known associate of the Debtor and member of the Kwok Enterprise, and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of Lexington Property.\n\nii.\n\n Upon information and belief at all relevant times Lexington Property knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and Defendants Mitchell and Lawall & Mitchell LLC, co-conspirators of the Debtor and members of the Kwok Enterprise, and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of Lexington Property.\n\niii. Upon information and belief at all relevant times Lexington Property knew that such payment was in furtherance of the Himalaya Exchange fraudulent scheme and was made for the benefit of the Debtor and the Kwok Enterprise and was not a legitimate expense, obligation, or investment of Lexington Property.\n\n268. Lexington Property also knowingly received proceeds of the Kwok Enterprise's Farm Loan Program fraudulent scheme, and dissipated those proceeds, which were criminally derived property, through further financial transactions, including using U.S. wires in interstate commerce to transfer fraudulently obtained funds, with the intent to promote the Farm Loan Program fraudulent scheme and the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and conceal the nature and ownership of the Debtor's assets. For example:\n\n![](_page_84_Figure_4.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 86 of 139\n\n![](_page_85_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n269. HCHK Property was also a critical cog in the Kwok Enterprise's Farm Loan Program fraud scheme. , it both knowingly received fraudulently obtained funds from the Farm Loan Program scheme, and further transferred such funds to further that scheme and the Kwok Enterprise's efforts to conceal the nature and ownership of such funds from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n Upon receiving such funds, HCHK Property, like so many other defendants and co-conspirators, further transferred the funds to other defendants and co-conspirators controlled by the Debtor, knowingly furthering the Farm Loan Program fraud, enriching the Debtor, and defrauding the Debtor's creditors by concealing the nature and ownership of the fraudulently obtained funds. For example:\n\n![](_page_85_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 87 of 139\n\n![](_page_86_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n270. The funds transferred by HCHK Property in the above three financial transactions, and in similar financial transactions conducted by HCHK Property, were fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program. HCHK Property knowingly transferred such ill-gotten proceeds of the Farm Loan Program to Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton M&A Fund SP to enrich the Debtor, his family, and his associates, further the Farm Loan Program scheme, and defraud the Debtor's creditors by disguising and concealing the nature and ownership of the transferred funds.\n\n271. Further, the Defendants and co-conspirators who received such fraudulently obtained proceeds from HCHK Property did so knowing that HCHK Property was a shell entity owned by the Debtor; it had no means of earning or raising such vast sums of money other than through Kwok Enterprise fraudulent schemes such as the Farm Loan Program; and in fact the monies such Defendants and co-conspirators received from HCHK Property had been unlawfully taken from victims of the Farm Loan Program. For example,\n\n![](_page_86_Figure_4.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_87_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n273. In pleadings filed in connection with its criminal prosecution against the Debtor and Defendants Yvette Wang and William Je, the U.S. Government has alleged, among other things:\n\n- a. HCHK Technologies is a \"Kwok controlled company that . . . sent employees to the [United Arab Emirates] earlier this year to establish bank accounts that, as Kwok claimed, would be beyond the 'long-arm jurisdiction' of the United States.\" These employees \"spent more than approximately six weeks in the UAE, apparently to assist in moving Kwok's and [William] Je's operations abroad.\"\n- b. Gettr and HCHK Technologies are \"Kwok- and [William] Je-controlled companies that are funded, in part, using fraud proceeds.\" Gettr \"is a social media company that Kwok controls through a series of shell companies,\" and \"Gettr and the HCHK entities . . . operate out of the same office location.\"\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 89 of 139\n\n- c. \"Photographs of annotated documents located inside a folder in [Defendant Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appear to reflect, in substance and in part, certain transactions and balances for six bank accounts held in the names of HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property Management . . . GFNY, Inc. (i.e., GFashion), and GF Italy (i.e., GFashion Italy).\"\n- d. \"A photograph of another document located inside the folder in [Defendant Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appears to reflect, in sum and in substance, that [Defendant Yvette Wang] signed payroll expenses associated with various Kwok-controlled entities . . . . The document further indicates how certain payroll expenses were to be allocated among affiliated entities, including HCHK.\"\n\n#### **IV. Obstructing and Interfering with the Bankruptcy Process**\n\n274. The Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors came to a head in February 2021, when PAX obtained a judgment of \\$116 million against the Debtor for breach of contract in the NY Action and sought to enforce that judgment against the Debtor's assets.\n\n275. In connection with such enforcement efforts, the NY Court found that the Debtor engaged \"in efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" and had \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"35 The NY Court determined specifically that the Lady May yacht was an asset of the Debtor and imposed a \\$134 million contempt fine on the Debtor for removing the yacht from U.S. waters and failing to return it.\n\n276. The Debtor had no way to satisfy the PAX judgment or pay the contempt fine without accessing his hidden assets and revealing the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent shell game. Accordingly, the Debtor was desperate to stop the NY Action to prevent PAX from making further headway in its efforts to enforce the judgment and fine.\n\n35 *See* Decision + Order on Motion, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Ho Wan Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 9, 2022), at 1.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 90 of 139\n\n277. Faced with this predicament, the Debtor and various of his Defendant coconspirators decided they had no choice but to execute on the final phase of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud creditors: the filing of a chapter 11 petition in this Court to both (i) immediately stay the NY Action and (ii) give the Debtor an opportunity to try to resolve the claims of PAX and other creditors through a consensual deal that would keep the fraud hidden.\n\n#### A. Initial Failure to Disclose Assets to Bankruptcy Court\n\n278. The Debtor filed his chapter 11 petition on February 15, 2022. As required by the Bankruptcy Code, his schedules and statement of financial affairs (collectively, the \"Schedules\") were filed a few weeks later.\n\n279. Despite the voluminous public evidence demonstrating the Debtor's vast wealth, the Debtor's Schedules reported that the total value of the Debtor's property was \\$3,850.00, as compared to unsecured claims of \\$373,803,498.09, over \\$250 million of which consisted of the claims of PAX, with the remainder including numerous claims related to, among other things, alleged securities fraud, defamation, and sexual assault.\n\n280. The Schedules failed to reveal the hundreds of millions of dollars (at a minimum) of assets the Debtor held in the nominal names of the Defendants and the other individuals and shell companies who formed the Kwok Enterprise, as discussed in detail above. One particularly glaring omission from the Schedules was any mention of the Lady May being an asset of the Debtor despite the NY Court having recently reached that conclusion in the NY Action.\n\n281. The Debtor did not create the Schedules or otherwise prepare for his bankruptcy filing by himself, but rather he had the assistance and cooperation of his counsel, including Defendant Aaron Mitchell. As discussed elsewhere herein, Mitchell served as the Debtor's longtime personal counsel and close advisor in numerous affairs relevant to the Kwok Enterprise. He\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 91 of 139\n\ncoordinated closely with the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel in trying to \"sell\" the Debtor's story to the Court,\n\n Mitchell thus played an important role in helping the Debtor and his bankruptcy counsel prepare the fraudulent Schedules. Mitchell allowed the Schedules to be filed with the Court, despite knowing they were false, for the purpose of defrauding the Court and the Debtor's creditors.\n\n282. The Debtor's efforts to fraudulently conceal his true finances from the Court continued as the chapter 11 case progressed. For example, approximately two months after the Petition Date, the Debtor, with, upon information and belief, the assistance of Defendant Aaron Mitchell, orchestrated the filing of the HK USA Proceeding on April 11, 2022, in which Defendant Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, caused HK USA to falsely claim that the Lady May belonged to HK USA and was not property of the estate.\n\n283. The HK USA Proceeding was designed to uphold the fiction portrayed by the Schedules that the Lady May was not already owned by the Debtor and to create a scenario in which Defendant Mei Guo could \"contribute\" the Lady May to the estate as consideration for creditors under a proposed chapter 11 plan. The Debtor, his advisors (including Defendant Mitchell), and Defendant Mei Guo knew the allegations in the HK USA Proceeding were false, but they allowed it to be filed anyway to perpetuate the fraud and further the Debtor's exit strategy. The Court would later agree with the Trustee that the Lady May is and always has been estate property, but not until after substantial resources were expended litigating the issue.36\n\n36 *See Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Partial Summary Judgment* [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 172] (as amended) and *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim* [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 221].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 92 of 139\n\n284. Further fraudulent concealment also occurred on or about April 28, 2022, in response to PAX's motion for relief from the automatic stay to continue the enforcement of its judgment in the NY Action as against the Lady May and other assets of the Debtor. In a last-ditch effort to avoid stay relief, the Debtor agreed to post a bond in the amount of \\$37 million, which Defendants Mei Guo, William Je, and Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. conspired with the Debtor to fund to further the scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and keep his assets hidden. These Defendants disguised the \\$37 million that provided to HK USA at Defendant Mei Guo's request as a purported \"loan,\" even though it was in reality no such thing, and even though the funds were, in fact, property beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor. Again, these actions were taken to obstruct and delay the case and the Trustee's investigation and to hide assets from creditors.\n\n#### B. Obstruction By Impeding Trustee's Work and Violating Court Orders\n\n285. Eventually, the Debtor's representation of his financial affairs was questioned by the office of the United States Trustee (the \"UST\"), who moved for the appointment of an examiner or in the alternative, a chapter 11 trustee. The UST noted the Debtor's pre-petition history of avoiding creditors and asserting the Fifth Amendment in response to questions about his financial dealing. The UST was deeply concerned with the Debtor's \"artificial self-created 'poverty'\" and inability and/or unwillingness to recognize and accept his obligations to provide accurate financial information to meet his obligations as a debtor in possession.37 Ultimately, the Court granted the relief sought by the UST and the Trustee was appointed to investigate the financial affairs of the Debtor.38\n\n37 United States Trustee's Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, In the Alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 102].\n\n38 Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 523].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 93 of 139\n\n286. After his appointment, the Trustee immediately began his investigation into the Debtor's financial affairs while the Debtor and his co-conspirators continued to misrepresent those affairs and to obstruct and interfere with the Trustee's investigation in nearly every way possible, with the objective of insulating the Debtor's assets from his creditors.\n\n### *1. Failure to Comply With Corporate Governance Rights Order*\n\n287. Shortly after the Trustee's appointment, on August 10, 2022, the Court entered an order (the \"Corporate Governance Rights Order\") confirming that the Debtor, as required by the Bankruptcy Code, must \"cooperate with the Trustee to enable the Trustee to perform his duties\" and \"surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records and papers relating to property of the estate.\"39\n\n288. One of the Debtor's shell companies subject to the Corporate Governance Rights Order was Ace Decade, which the Debtor had used to make an investment with UBS and later commence litigation against UBS with respect to such investment. Despite requirements of the Corporate Governance Rights Order, the Debtor refused to transfer his shares in Ace Decade to the Trustee or provide the Trustee with any corporate documents regarding Ace Decade or its wholly owned subsidiary Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\"), even though the Debtor attested on multiple occasions that he owned Ace Decade and that Ace Decade wholly owned Dawn State.\n\n39 Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 105, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 761].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 94 of 139\n\n289. On October 4, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion (the \"Corporate Governance Contempt Motion\") for an order holding the Debtor in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order.40\n\n290. On November 17, 2022, the Court entered an order (the \"Partial Resolution Order\") partially resolving the Corporate Governance Contempt Motion, holding, among other things, that (i) the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade on the Petition Date and prior to the date of the Trustee's appointment, (ii) Defendant Yvette Wang is not and has never been a beneficial owner of the shares in Ace Decade, and (iii) but for the Trustee's appointment and his rights under the Bankruptcy Code and the Corporate Governance Rights Order, the Debtor would still exclusively beneficially own and control Ace Decade.41\n\n291. Prior to the entry of Partial Resolution Order, counsel to the Trustee emailed a copy of the proposed form of Partial Resolution order to Mr. Alex Lipman, who the Trustee understands acted as counsel for Defendant Yvette Wang at the time, and on Ace Decade c/o Trident Trust Company (B.V.I.) Limited (\"Trident\") in the BVI, which was the registered agent for Ace Decade in the BVI.\n\n292. On January 24, 2023, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 1372] (the \"Contempt Order\") holding the Debtor in contempt of the Corporate Governance Rights Order. The Court held, among other things, that the Debtor was obligated to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order and surrender to the Trustee Ace Decade, his ownership in Ace Decade and related documents, and the Debtor had the ability to do so, but did not.42\n\n40 Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order [Docket No. 913].\n\n41 Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion [Docket No. 1110]\n\n42 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, at 6-7, 14-15 [Docket No. 1372].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 95 of 139\n\n293. In addition, the Contempt Order found that (i) Defendant Yvette Wang is the nominee owner of Ace Decade for the benefit of the Debtor, (ii) the Debtor has control over Defendant Wang, including because the Debtor has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his behalf to purchase properties, and (iii) notwithstanding such control, the Debtor failed to cause Defendant Wang to turn over the shares in Ace Decade to the Trustee.43\n\n294. After the Contempt Order, the Trustee learned that on or around January 3, 2023, Defendant Wang transferred her nominal ownership in the sole share in Ace Decade to Rui Hao (the \"Ace Decade Transfer\") based, in particular, on the disclosures provided from Trident of the most recent corporate documents for Ace Decade upon Trustee's application with the BVI court, which was approved. The Ace Decade Transfer was made without notice to or consent of the Trustee and was in violation of the Corporate Governance Rights Order.\n\n295. Given, among other things, her close relationship to the Debtor and integral role in the Kwok Enterprise, Defendant Wang was fully aware at the time of the Ace Decade Transfer that it was property of the estate pursuant to Court order. By initiating the transfer anyway, she knowingly and intentionally (i) acted corruptly to obstruct and impede the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation for the purpose of concealing the Debtor's assets from the estate, (ii) transferred the share, which was worth more than \\$5000, in foreign commerce knowing it had been converted from the estate in violation of the Corporate Governance Rights Order and the Contempt Order, and (iii) upon information and belief, facilitated the transfer using U.S. wires for the purpose of defrauding the Debtor's estate.\n\n43 *Id.* at 4, 15.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 96 of 139\n\n296. The Trustee filed an adversary complaint against Ace Decade, Yvette Wang and Rui Hao44 to, among other things, avoid the Ace Decade Transfer as it was made in violation of the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code and was an unauthorized postpetition transfer of estate property. The adversary proceeding remains pending.\n\n#### *2. Violations of Rule 2004 Orders*\n\n297. The Trustee has filed fifteen separate Rule 2004 motions seeking discovery from numerous individuals and entities, including several Defendants and co-conspirators. The Court entered orders granting each of the Rule 2004 motions (the \"Rule 2004 Orders\") allowing the Trustee to receive discovery from numerous entities and individuals including, among others, the Debtor and many of the Defendants.\n\n298. Despite the Court's Rule 2004 Orders, many of the Defendants failed to comply with the Rule 2004 subpoenas to avoid providing information that could potentially further uncover the fraudulent scheme. The Debtor was held in contempt of court45 for failing to comply with the Rule 2004 subpoenas, as were the following Defendants and non-parties: Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Lamp Capital LLC46; GTV and Saraca47; Hudson Diamond NY LLC 48; Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC49; G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., G-\n\n44 Adv. Proc. No. 23-05028.\n\n45 *See* Memorandum of Decision and Order Holding Individual Debtor in Contempt of Court and Denying Motion for Stay of Order Compelling Production [Docket No. 2035]\n\n46 *See* Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court [Docket No. 1709].\n\n47 *See* Order Granting Motion to Hold GTV Media Group, Inc. and Saraca Media, Inc. in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas [Docket No. 2093].\n\n48 *See* Order Granting in Part Motion for Entry of Order Holding Hudson Diamond NY LLC in Civil Contempt of Court [Docket No. 2009].\n\n49 *See* Order Holding Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in Contempt [Docket No. 2545].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 97 of 139\n\nFashion LLC, GNews LLC, New York MOS Himalaya LLC, Crane Advisory Group LLC, and Maywind Trading LLC.50\n\n299. By failing to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas and related Court orders, the foregoing Defendants knowingly and intentionally acted to obstruct and impede the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation for the purpose of concealing the Debtor's assets.\n\n# *3. Violation of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Greenwich Land Adversary Proceeding*\n\n300. On March 23, 2023, the Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding51 against Defendants Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok, the Debtor's wife, seeking a declaratory judgment that Greenwich Land, which is purportedly owned by Hing Chi Ngok, is the alter ego of the Debtor or, in the alterative, is equitably owned by the Debtor.\n\n301. On March 27, 2023, the Trustee filed an *ex parte* motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the \"Greenwich PI Motion\") freezing certain assets of Defendants Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok.\n\n302. On March 28, 2023, the Court granted the Greenwich PI Motion, in part, temporarily restraining and enjoining Defendants Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok, and their respective agents, from encumbering, transferring, alienating, dissipating or assigning any of their property or assets, among other things. On May 26, 2023, the Court entered a preliminary injunction extending such relief (the \"Greenwich PI\").\n\n303. Notwithstanding the Greenwich PI, between March 28, 2023 and July 31, 2023, approximately \\$34,000 was spent from Defendant Greenwich Land's account in violation of the\n\n50 *See* Order Granting in Part Motion for Entry of Order Holding Non-Responding Parties in Civil Contempt of Court [Docket No. 1892].\n\n51 Adv. Proc. No. 23-5005.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 98 of 139\n\nGreenwich PI. This spending was carried out by, among others, Defendants Ngok, Chunguang Han, and Krasner for goods and services for their own personal benefit. Such Defendants knowingly and intentionally spent such funds using U.S. wires for the purpose of concealing the Debtor's assets from the estate's creditors and to disguise the true source of the funds.\n\n304. Defendant Ngok, who purported to own and control Greenwich Land, allowed such spending to occur. Each of Defendants Ngok, Chunguang Han, and Krasner was aware of the Greenwich PI and knowingly and intentionally violated it for the purpose of obstructing and impeding the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation and fraudulently concealing assets from the estate.\n\n## C. Additional Fraudulent Omissions and Misrepresentations Made in Connection with Debtor's Bankruptcy Case\n\n305. The Debtor and several Defendants continuously submitted false documents and information to the Trustee and Court in an attempt to keep the fraudulent scheme under wraps and to obstruct and impede the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation.\n\n306. Defendants Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo. Defendants Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck each filed proofs of claim in these jointly administered cases, asserting ownership of, or a financial claim with respect to, the Debtor's apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel. Among other things, the proofs of claim rely on a purported trust agreement dated February 17, 2015. As the Trustee has explained in detail in numerous pleadings, that \"trust agreement\" is a forged and backdated agreement that was fabricated to hide the true ownership of the apartment—a scheme the Debtor, Qiang Guo, and Bravo Luck attempted to continue even after the Genever entities and the Debtor himself filed their chapter 11 cases. The estate ultimately incurred more than \\$1 million in fees to defend these spurious claims asserted by Defendants Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 99 of 139\n\n307. Defendant Hing Chi Ngok. Defendant Ngok, the Debtor's wife, has asserted that she owns and controls Greenwich Land. She also claimed that she \"picked out\" the Ferncliff Property purchased by Greenwich Land in February of 2020 and testified (at her January 5, 2023 Rule 2004 examination) that the Debtor had no involvement with Greenwich Land's purchase of the Taconic Road Property. Yet, Defendant Ngok has also testified, among other things, that she did not know if she requested that Hudson Diamond NY transfer \\$1.5 million to Greenwich Land (which was used to purchase the Ferncliff Property) and, tellingly, was unable to recognize a photo of the Ferncliff Property. Moreover, her testimony that the Debtor had no involvement with the purchase of the Taconic Road Property was directly contradicted by the detailed testimony of Mr. de Neree, the buyer-side real estate broker for the sale.\n\n308. Defendant Mei Guo. Almost immediately after the filing of her father's chapter 11 case, Defendant Mei Guo caused HK USA (of which she was the sole shareholder) to file the above-described an adversary proceeding asserting ownership of the Lady May yacht. In the complaint, HK USA asserts that \"Ms. Guo, directly and through her representatives, is solely responsible for directing the Lady May's operations and movements.\" As discussed above and at length in the Trustee's counterclaims, this statement had already been found to be false by Judge Ostrager of the New York Supreme Court, who found that Mei Guo's testimony \"that she owns and controls the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect.\" Mei Guo also repeatedly asserted, including under penalty of perjury, that HK USA's only asset was the Lady May—but, when confronted with facts discovered by the Trustee, ultimately conceded that HK USA also owned another boat, the Lady May II.\n\n309. Additionally, in the HK USA Proceeding she commenced, Mei Guo submitted certain pictures and screenshots of her personal cell phone. Yet, in her opposition to the Trustee's\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 100 of 139\n\nmotion to enforce a Rule 2004 request, Mei Guo's counsel submitted a declaration stating that Mei Guo had not used a \"smart phone\" since 2017. When confronted with this contradiction, Mei Guo asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment.\n\n310. Mei Guo also committed perjury with regards to the proceeds of the sale of a Bombardier private jet. In an adversary proceeding brought by the Trustee, Mei Guo testified that she had sold the Bombardier for more than \\$10 million to buyer whose name she did not recall and that, while she was the \"owner\" of the proceeds, she did not recall where the proceeds were located and could not access them.52 This was a falsehood.\n\n311. The Trustee would later receive documents proving Mei Guo had extensive correspondence with an entity named JNFX regarding the proceeds, making clear that Mei Guo, at the time of her deposition on the subject, did know who was holding the proceeds and that she was able to control the disposition of the funds.53 Mei Guo had previously intentionally failed to disclose the location of the sale proceeds for the purpose of obstructing and impeding the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation and to conceal the Debtor's assets from the estate.\n\n312. More recently, this court has found that \"Ms. Guo has made contradictory statements under oath.\"54\n\n313. Defendant Aaron Mitchell. Defendant Mitchell testified under oath in Court on July 18, 2023 that he does not \"believe [the Debtor] has any business dealings,\" and that he had never seen the Debtor \"do any of that [i.e., investing or owning a business] at any of the companies we've mentioned.\" This testimony under oath was false in light of Defendant Mitchell's\n\n52 *See* Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, ¶ 16 [Adv. Proc. 23-05008, Docket No. 91].\n\n53 *Id.* ¶ 17.\n\n54 *See* Order Holding Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in Contempt at 9 [Docket No. 2545].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 101 of 139\n\ninvolvement in the Kwok Enterprise and his intimate knowledge of the Debtor's finances and affairs. For example, as detailed above, Mitchell was intimately involved in detailed conversations relating to the Debtor's business dealings with G-Club, the opening of bank accounts at domestic financial institutions and abroad in furtherance of the G-Club scheme and others, and his efforts to have G-Club funds transferred to other shell entities for fraudulent purposes. Thus, Mitchell could not have truthfully stated to the Court in his testimony that the Debtor had no business dealings.\n\n314. Moreover, Defendant Mitchell directly participated in furthering the Kwok Enterprise's purposes within the Debtor's chapter 11 case through his efforts to conceal the Debtor's significant assets.\n\n![](_page_100_Picture_3.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_101_Figure_0.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_101_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\nlatter—an individual directing extensive and elaborate frauds, schemes, and financial transactions to defraud his creditors. Yet, Defendant Mitchell continued to actively and directly participate in furthering the Kwok Enterprise, including throughout these chapter 11 cases.\n\n#### D. Intimidation and Harassment Campaign Directed at Trustee and Others\n\n318. The Debtor and his supporters, including the Defendants, opposed the Trustee's appointment and sought to have it overturned by the Court on multiple occasions. When those\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 103 of 139\n\nefforts failed, the Debtor and a number of the Defendants resorted to harassment to intimidate, influence, and interfere with the Trustee's work and the bankruptcy's progression. The harassment was consistent with the Debtor's past pattern and practice of attempting to intimidate through similar tactics anyone who challenged the Debtor and sought to expose his wrongful conduct.\n\n319. Almost immediately after the Trustee's appointment, the Debtor began posting on social media to hinder the Trustee's investigation and obstruct the bankruptcy process. The Debtor has over 1 million followers on his social media platforms, such as YouTube, GTV, X (formerly known as Twitter), and Gettr. For example, in a July 10, 2022 post on Gettr, the Debtor called the Trustee a \"scumbag\" and a \"garbage lawyer,\" and falsely proclaimed that the Trustee's firm receives 50% of its revenue from Communist China. Later, on July 19, 2022, the @Miles Gettr account posted a statement about the Trustee stating the following: \"Please spread the words about the revelations of the CCP military intelligence and the truths about the trustee of my bankruptcy case. All the U.S. DOJ officials and lawyers from various law firms who want to deport me and harm me will be sent to prison. I have the most unique voice in the world because almost every part of my body that can voice has been tortured by the CCP.\"\n\n320. These posts were just the beginning. As the Trustee's investigation developed, the Debtor, his Defendant co-conspirators and other followers engaged in an increasingly aggressive and outright dangerous online attack consisting of false and harassing statements aimed at the Trustee and creditors of the Debtor, namely PAX, and their respective law firms and lawyers, as well as the Trustee's family members. The Debtor and his followers engaged in this attack as a method of intimidation to deter the Trustee from acting in accordance with his statutory duties and PAX from pursuing its claims. The online posts ended up revealing the home and office addresses of the Trustee, the Trustee's relatives' home addresses, the New York office address of Paul\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 104 of 139\n\nHastings LLP, the home addresses of the PAG Chairman's family members; the New York office address of PAX's counsel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.\n\n321. In addition to the online harassment campaign, the Debtor and his followers, including many of the Defendants, carried out worldwide protests outside the homes and places of business of the Trustee and his relatives and of PAX's owners and their relatives. The protests also occurred outside the offices of the Trustee's and PAX's counsel. At these protests, which were often broadcasted online, protesters displayed posters and shouted the same types of harassing statements being made online.\n\n322. The numerous vile, disgusting, and defamatory statements and images made and displayed as part of the online and physical protest and harassment campaign have already been the subject of orders of this Court and will not be fully recounted herein. For purposes of this Complaint, however, it is important to note that several Defendants took part in the campaign in an attempt to influence, intimidate, and impede the Trustee's investigation. For example:\n\n- Defendant Shih Hsin Yu's X account is @jackson66368924 and between at least November 22, 2022 and December 29, 2022, the X account @jackson66368924 made numerous posts about protests against the Trustee and the Trustee's counsel occurring at Grand Central Station in New York City and outside the Trustee's home in Greenwich, Connecticut. The posts include various edited images of the Trustee and others, e.g., with a hammer and sickle emblazoned on their foreheads or wearing Nazi uniforms. The posts discuss, among other things, proceedings in this Court, preferred outcomes on appeal, and desires regarding the Trustee.\n- Defendant Yan Chun Liu has posted repeatedly and numerously on social media, including on Gettr and X, defamatory pictures of the Trustee, support of the protests, and pictures of the protests against the Trustee, his counsel, and Paul Hastings LLP.\n- On or about November 21, 2022, Defendant Qidong Xia posted on his Gettr account (@changdaobrother) threatening the Trustee stating \"the rest of your life will be spent in fear.\" Later, on or about November 24, 2022, Qidong Xia posted on Gettr encouraging Kwok's followers to join the Protest.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 105 of 139\n\n Between November 28, 2022 and December 6, 2022, Defendant Xuebing Wang was posting online multiple times a day to support the Protest against the Trustee and Paul Hastings LLP. Additionally, in a video posted on January 1, 2023 by the @20minfocus Gettr account, Xuebing Wang is recorded speaking to protestors picketing outside the Trustee's home in Greenwich, Connecticut. According to his remarks, he was speaking on January 1, 2023. He discusses meetings in \"New York\" at \"the 3C office\" with other members of \"the alliance\" and the \"ironblooded group\" and his desire to \"visit these comrades on the front line.\" He tells the picketers that the Trustee will be imprisoned and will \"feel our strength.\"\n\n323. Upon information and belief, the harassment campaign was funded by the Defendant Rule of Law Entities.55 Indeed, on November 26, 2022, the Debtor appeared in a YouTube video and acknowledged that protest-related expenses are being funded by ROLF. In the video, the Debtor explains that, through ROLF, \"[w]e have been helping fellow fighters with legal issues, printing anti-communism materials, and materials about CCP's military intelligence, all types of materials.\" The Trustee is also in possession of bank records showing that the Rule of Law Entities routinely funded past similar protests ostensibly directed at purported supporters of the Chinese Communist Party, which the Trustee and PAX were falsely alleged to be.\n\n324. On or about December 8, 2023, Defendant ROLF transferred \\$200,000.00 to protester Beile Li, which was, upon information and belief, for his lead role in the harassment campaign in which he intentionally sought to impede the Trustee's investigation.\n\n325. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Rule of Law Entities funded the protests and harassment campaign for the purpose of intimidating, impeding, and influencing the Trustee and the chapter 11 case.\n\n55 *Eastern Profit Corp., Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, Case No. 18-cv-2185 (S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2021). Trial Tr. at 782:3–7 (testimony that Defendant Guo paid dozens of protestors to demonstrate outside of Fu's house for weeks, forcing Fu to eventually move out of the house); *see also* Dan Friedman, A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued, Mother Jones (March/April 2022, issue) http (Kwok \"promised to pay protesters generally \\$200 per day\" for previous protests).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 106 of 139\n\n326. In response to the protests and threats, PAX filed a complaint against the Debtor for injunctive relief along with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent the Debtor and his associates from engaging in the harassment. The Trustee joined in support of PAX. The Court granted PAX's motion and entered the temporary restraining order (the \"TRO\")56 restraining the intimidation campaign.\n\n327. The Court held that without the TRO, \"imminent irreparable harm to both the Estate and to the integrity of the bankruptcy process is likely.\"57 Specifically, the Court found that because the conduct was threatening and defamatory, it was not protected speech and that if the TRO did not issue, the \"safety of the Trustee and PAG's chairman and that of their current or former spouses, children, and counsel, will interfere with the Trustee's investigation into potential assets of the Estate\" and \"continuing harassment may deter witnesses from assisting with the Trustee's investigation or deter creditors from filing claims.\"58 The Court also found that the TRO was required to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process because \"intimidation of the Trustee, a court officer . . . and interested parties 'embarrass[es], burden[s], delay[s] or otherwise impede[s] the reorganization proceedings.'\"59\n\n328. Despite the Court's TRO, which the Debtor had notice of, the Debtor and his followers continued with their harassment campaign in violation of the TRO.\n\n329. On January 13, 2023, the Court entered a memorandum of decision granting the preliminary injunction (the \"PI Decision\").60 In the PI Decision, made several findings of fact\n\n56 Order Granting Application Temporary Restraining Order, [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 26].\n\n57 TRO at 4.\n\n58 *Id*. at 4-5.\n\n59 *Id*. at 5.\n\n60 Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 133.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 107 of 139\n\nincluding that, among others, \"ROLF, and Himalaya are involved in the protests\"61 and \"serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"62\n\n330. In addition to violating the Court's orders, the harassment campaign engaged in by many of the Defendants, including those identified above, constituted criminal obstruction of justice designed to intimidate, influence, and impede the Trustee, who is an officer of the Court. The participants in the harassment also violated 18 U.S.C. § 1507, which prohibits picketing outside the building or residence occupied by a court officer for the purpose of obstructing justice and influencing the court officer's performance of his duties.\n\n# E. Frivolous and Meritless Filing of Proofs of Claims as Tactic to Interfere with Bankruptcy Case and Trustee's Investigation\n\n331. The Debtor and certain Defendant co-conspirators also attempted to influence the bankruptcy claims process by intimidating creditors into not filing claims and encouraging followers to file non-meritorious claims for the purpose of increasing the costs of the chapter 11 case and interfering with its administration.\n\n332. On January 6, 2023, Qiu Yu (\"Ms. Yu\") filed two proofs of claim in the Debtor's chapter 11 case. Shortly thereafter, the Debtor began making malicious and/or harassing statements on social media directed at Ms. Yu, including the following:\n\n On January 10, 2023, the Debtor, on a Gettr live broadcast (the \"January 10 Broadcast\"), publicly threatened investors who filed claims in these chapter 11 cases, including, specifically, Ms. Yu. Among other things, during the January 10 Broadcast, the Debtor made the following statement: \"Every person who reports their case must show up in court. Everything you said will be published, including everything about you. Let's see.\"\n\n61 PI Decision ¶ 6.\n\n62 PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 108 of 139\n\n- On January 10, 2023, Gettr account @OXVDESIGN posted that Ms. Yu listed herself as a creditor in the case, and posted a picture of Ms. Yu with text reading \"Yu Qiu (nickname is Gong Zu) went to the bankruptcy court in Connecticut, USA and joined the list of creditors using a \\$5000 claim (and) help Luc vilify the Whistleblower Revolution.\"\n- On January 10, 2023, Gettr account @piaochanghai posted an image of Ms. Yu's German Identity Card stating \"expose another little bastard discord called Gong Zu, real name Yu Qiu, fellow fighters dig it up, heard that (she) is very close to Dai Jian Feng. Any fellow fighter know (her)?\"\n- 333. On January 10, 2023, an article was posted to the website of Defendant GNews, an\n\nentity founded and controlled by the Debtor, suggesting the Debtor's followers file non-\n\nmeritorious claims. It stated the following:\n\nMr. Guo suggested that all the comrades could register because they had invested in GTV, but GTV was pseudo-classed as a fraudulent case and the SEC investigated it, so the money invested by the comrades had been withheld from the SEC, and the comrades were looking for money from the SEC, but in the bankruptcy case, the comrades could register as creditors of Mr. Guo. accept the registration of other comrades. *If all the comrades go to register, they will make up the majority of the creditors, then the money Mr. Guo earned will be distributed to the comrades, which Mr. Guo is very willing to do. In addition war buddies as the majority can initiate the ownership of lady may ship and the 18th floor, is also the majority will be given to the hands of war buddies, such a way of handling, all happy***. 63** In addition, after the registration of creditors, is to testify in court, some can not get a visa to come to the United States of war, can have a reasonable reason to come to the United States, if you do not want to leave, you can apply for political asylum on the spot. We can legally use the law to solve the problem.\n\n334. As a result, the Debtor's supporters filed numerous claims, many without support\n\nor documentation.\n\n335. On January 13, 2023, the Debtor posted on the @MilesGuo GETTR account that\n\nPaul Hastings was launching a \"creditor registration operation\" suggesting that his followers\n\n63 *See* Mr. Guo's wisdom: war veterans can all go to register creditors in bankruptcy cases, GNews (January 25, 2023, 17:38 p.m.), http (last accessed January 25, 2023) (emphasis added).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 109 of 139\n\nshould file bogus claims with the Court and that doing so could result in them becoming billionaires.64\n\nF. Frivolous Lawsuits in Southern District of New York to Intimidate Trustee\n\n336. On November 28, 2022, certain of the Debtor's followers, including Defendants Beile Li and Linwan Feng, commenced a proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Caproni, J.), (the \"SDNY Court\") styled *An v. Despins*, No. 22- CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023). In *An v. Despins*, Defendants Li and Feng falsely alleged the Trustee and Paul Hastings LLP are agents of the CCP or PRC.\n\n337. Defendant Yongbing Zhang, who has served as the Debtor's personal counsel in the past and who, upon information and belief, has been visiting the Debtor in prison while he awaits trial in his criminal case, represented Defendants Li and Feng in *An v. Despins*.\n\n338. Judge Caproni dismissed the complaint in *An v. Despins* for lack of standing and pursuant to Rule 11 sanctioned Defendants Li, Feng, and Zhang because it concluded that their \"papers reveal that their true preoccupation is with Mr. Kwok and trying to 'defend' him by harassing those perceived to be his adversaries\" and that the lawsuit was \"just another part of a campaign of misbehavior designed to vex Defendants, most likely by frustrating [the Trustee's] ability to perform his duties as trustee.\"65\n\n339. With respect to Defendant Zhang, Judge Caproni found:\n\nYongbing Zhang . . . appears in numerous photos of NFSC-led protests circulating on social media, including a post on NFSC's Gettr account from November 20, 2022 showing Zhang picketing at the house of [a family member of the Trustee] . . . and holding a sign calling the trustee an \"A-List Scumbag.\" […] Zhang also appeared in photos with Kwok from June 4, 2022 at the NFSC Second Anniversary party. 66[. . .]\n\n64 *See* @MilesGuo, GETTR (Jan. 13, 2023, 10:45 AM), http (last accessed January 15, 2023).\n\n65 *An v. Despins*, No. 22-CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832, at \\*12-\\*13.\n\n66 *Id.* at 13-14.\n\nPlaintiff and his counsel Zhang are affiliated with Kwok and sympathetic to him and his interests. [. . .]\n\nPlaintiff's counsel has engaged in repeated frivolous litigation in this Court and the District of Maryland. […] These cases are unmistakably directed at parties and lawyers, who are either involved in Kwok's bankruptcy or in the PAX litigation. They contain similar allegations and similarly frivolous claims. The inescapable conclusion is that Zhang and Freeth are targeting those with interests opposed to Kwok's with the aim of chilling what they perceive as advocacy against him.\n\n[Additional evidence] adds force to the Court's finding that sanctions are necessary and should be applied against Plaintiff's counsel. […]\n\nThe Court finds that Zhang, alongside Freeth, is responsible for the violations of Rule 11 detailed in this Opinion and Order.67\n\n340. A similar lawsuit was filed on January 13, 2023, by Junwu Gong against Stuart M.\n\nSarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, and others, in the United States District Court for the Southern\n\nDistrict of New York (Liman, J.) in the civil action styled *Gong v. Sarnoff,* No. 23-cv-343 (LJL),\n\n2023 WL 5372473 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023). Defendant Yongbing Zhang also represented Junwu\n\nGong in that case. Judge Liman found the action was initiated not to redress injury \"but to harass Moving Defendants because of their representation of a client in litigation against Kwok and to deter others from doing the same. Plaintiff and his counsel Zhang are affiliated with Kwok and sympathetic to him and his interests.\" Further, Judge Liman said \"if there is any doubt of the harassing purpose of this lawsuit, the history of lawsuits Zhang . . .have filed in this Court and elsewhere against PAX, persons associated with PAX, PAX's counsel, and those assisting the Bankruptcy Court settles that doubt.\"68\n\n67 *Id.* at 30-33, 35 n. 11\n\n68 *Gong v. Sarnoff*. No. 23-cv-343 (LJL), 2023 WL 5372473, at \\*30-\\*32 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 111 of 139\n\n341. The foregoing frivolous lawsuits were filed by their plaintiffs, including Defendant Beile Li, and Defendant Zhang for the purpose of intimidating, impeding, and influencing the Trustee and his investigation and obstructing the chapter 11 case more generally.\n\n342. In addition, Defendant Zhang separately sought to impede the Trustee's investigation and obstruct the chapter 11 case by directing the actions of certain purported creditors of the Defendant HCHK Entities who sought to intervene in the Trustee's adversary proceeding against the HCHK Entities. The Court eventually found, following an evidentiary hearing, that the purported creditors' claims were meritless and denied their intervention request, finding in the process that the creditors had either falsified documents supporting their alleged claims or that their testimony was otherwise not credible.69\n\n### **V. Injury Resulting from Fraudulent Scheme**\n\n343. The creditors of the Debtor's estate have been substantially harmed by the predicate acts constituting the Kwok Enterprise's years-long fraud and money-laundering scheme. As discussed above, the goal of the Kwok Enterprise was to hide the Debtor's wealth and ensure that it is not made available for distribution to his creditors.\n\n344. To date, except to the extent the Trustee has succeeded in his litigation efforts, the Kwok Enterprise's scheme has worked, as it has led to the Debtor's estate being deeply insolvent on paper, meaning that the creditors of the estate who have asserted hundreds of millions of dollars in claims against the estate stand to receive only minimal recoveries. Thus, the estate has suffered substantial direct damages from the Defendants' wrongful conduct.\n\n69 Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Intervene and Motion to Clarify Temporary Restraining Order [Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 239].\n\n345. In addition to depriving creditors of recoveries, the Defendants' conduct described herein has caused the estate to incur tens of millions of dollars in professional fees and other costs and expenses to unravel the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent scheme and recover assets that should have been listed on the Schedules from the beginning of the case. These legal fees, costs, and expense thus represent additional damages for which Defendants are liable.\n\n### **CLAIMS FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **COUNT 1**\n\n# **Violation of Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Against All Defendants)**\n\n346. The Trustee restates and re-alleges paragraphs 1-345 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.\n\n347. Each Defendant is a person capable of holding a beneficial or legal interest in property and, accordingly, each is a \"person\" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).\n\n348. As alleged below, each Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by agreeing to and conducting and participating in the conduct of the Kwok Enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and for the unlawful purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and enriching the Debtor, his family, and his associates, at the expense of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n### **Kwok RICO Enterprise**\n\n349. The Defendants, together with their known and unknown co-conspirators, form an association-in-fact for a common and continuing purpose of formulating and implementing a common scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors for the enrichment of the Debtor, his family,\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 113 of 139\n\nand other co-conspirators, through a pattern of fraud, misrepresentations, deceit, and corruption (*i.e*., the Kwok Enterprise).\n\n350. The Kwok Enterprise constitutes an \"enterprise\" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), and it was or is engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce.\n\n351. The common purpose of the Kwok Enterprise came into existence as early as approximately 2015, when the Debtor and other co-conspirators implemented a scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors by exploiting a web of sham entities and concealing the Debtor's assets for the benefit of the Debtor and his co-conspirators.\n\n352. Each of the Defendants were employed by or associated with the Kwok Enterprise, and each conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the Kwok Enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering.\n\n353. The Kwok Enterprise has an ascertainable structure independent from the pattern of racketeering activity in which the Defendants engage.\n\n354. The repeated and continuous violations of federal criminal law alleged in this Complaint constitute a \"pattern of racketeering activity\" in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.\n\n355. The Defendants are central and controlling figures in the RICO Enterprise, and have directed others to take actions necessary to accomplish the overall aims of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n#### **Pattern of Racketeering**\n\n356. The Defendants conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the RICO Enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and (5), consisting of multiple acts of racketeering that are interrelated, not isolated, and\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 114 of 139\n\nperpetrated for the same or similar purposes by the same persons (the \"RICO Pattern\"), described in the prior paragraphs and as further described below.\n\n357. The racketeering activity in which the Defendants engaged in violation of 18\n\nU.S.C. § 1962(c) consisted, *inter alia*, of:\n\n- a. Multiple acts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.SC § 1343;\n- b. Multiple acts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344;\n- c. Multiple acts violating of National Stolen Property Act of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315;\n- d. Multiple acts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957;\n- e. Multiple acts of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1507 and 1512; and\n- f. Multiple acts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152.\n\n358. Each Defendant had the specific intent to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and to commit each underlying predicate act alleged.\n\n359. Each of the Defendants committed at least two predicate acts of racketeering. The acts of racketeering were not isolated; rather, they were related in that they had the same or similar purpose and result, participants, victims, and/or method of commission. Further, the acts of racketeering were continuous, and remain ongoing, spanning the period from at least in or around 2015 to the present (the \"Relevant Period\").\n\n360. Specifically, the Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of at least the following predicate acts:\n\n### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 –Wire Fraud**\n\n**(Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Alex Hadjicharalambous, David Fallon, Haitham Khaled, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, Bravo Luck, Greenwich Land LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, David Fallon, Saraca Media Group, Inc., ACA Capital Group Ltd., Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,**\n\n# **Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Leading Shine NY Limited, Lexington Property and Staffing, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC)**\n\n361. The RICO Pattern included several acts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.\n\n362. The Defendants voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to execute transfers of the Debtor's assets and property, including unlawfully obtained property, to conceal such assets from the Debtor's creditors during and after the Relevant Period, including without limitation, the transfers described below and in Appendix A.\n\n363. In furtherance of the fraudulent schemes, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Alex Hadjicharalambous, David Fallon, Haitham Khaled, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, Greenwich Land LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, David Fallon, Saraca Media Group, Inc., ACA Capital Group Ltd., Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Leading Shine NY Limited, and Lexington Property and Staffing willfully and knowingly transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and/or sounds by means of wire communications in interstate or foreign commerce.\n\n364. The wire activity supporting such fraudulent scheme included monetary wire transfers, shipments of assets, telephone and electronic communications, and other documents and communications.\n\n365. The use of interstate and international wires to perpetrate the activity and to connect the racketeering conspiracy was foreseeable.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 116 of 139\n\n366. Qiang Guo voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 112, 114-116.\n\n367. William Je voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraph 124.\n\n368. Yvette Wang voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 107-113.\n\n369. Aaron Mitchell voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 107-113, 244-249.\n\n370. Max Krasner voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 118.\n\n371. Alex Hadjicharalambous voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 103, 104, 112, 120, 122 and 123.\n\n372. David Fallon voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 229-231.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 117 of 139\n\n373. Haitham Khaled voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 103, 104, 107-110, 112-116 and 244.\n\n374. Jessica Mastrogiovanni voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 103-105.\n\n375. Greenwich Land LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 194-211, 218.\n\n376. Hudson Diamond NY LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 170, 212 and 218.\n\n377. Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 110, 111, 113, 122 and 123.\n\n378. Saraca Media Group, Inc. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 149, 213, and 219.\n\n379. G-Club Operations LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 127.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 118 of 139\n\n380. GS Security Solutions voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 270 and 271.\n\n381. ACA Capital Group Ltd. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 105, 201, 217, and 266.\n\n382. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, including its segregated portfolios such as Hamilton PE Fund SP and Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 108- 110, 229-232, 246-257, and 269-270.\n\n383. HCHK Technologies, Inc. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 265 and 272.\n\n384. HCHK Property Management, Inc. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 268, 269 and 271.\n\n385. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraph 266.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 119 of 139\n\n386. Leading Shine NY Limited voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 162, 163 and 165.\n\n387. Lexington Property and Staffing voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 266 and 267.\n\n388. Accordingly, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Alex Hadjicharalambous, David Fallon, Haitham Khaled, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, GS Security Systems, Greenwich Land LLC, G-Club Operations LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, Saraca Media Group, Inc. ACA Capital Group Ltd., Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Lexington Property and Staffing, and Lawall & Mitchell, LLC committed numerous violations of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.\n\n389. The violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 directly and proximately caused injury to the creditors of the Debtor by unjustifiably and irrevocably depleting the assets of the estate in the amount of such transfers and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees substantially greater than would otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for their benefit.\n\n#### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. § 1344 – Bank Fraud**\n\n### **(Mei Guo, Yvette Wang, David Fallon)**\n\n390. The RICO Pattern included numerous acts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 120 of 139\n\n391. Mei Guo, Yvette Wang, and David Fallon knowingly executed or attempted to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution and/or to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.\n\n392. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 214, *inter alia*, Mei Guo and Yvette Wang knowingly executed a scheme and/or artifice by opening bank accounts under false pretenses.\n\n393. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 228-230, *inter alia*, David Fallon knowingly executed a scheme and/or artifice by opening a bank account under false pretenses.\n\n394. Accordingly, there were numerous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which directly and proximately caused injury to the creditors of the Debtor's estate and property by aiding in the facilitation of the fraudulent scheme and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees substantially greater than would otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n**Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315 – Violations of National Stolen Property Act**\n\n# **(Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Xuebing Wang, Greenwich Land LLC, GS Security Solutions, Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Lexington Property and Staffing, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., Saraca Media Group)**\n\n395. The RICO Pattern included several violations of the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315.\n\n396. Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Xuebing Wang, Greenwich Land LLC, GS Security Solutions, Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 121 of 139\n\nProperty Management, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Lexington Property and Staffing, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., and Saraca Media Group willfully and knowingly transported, transmitted, or transferred in interstate or foreign commerce—or received, possessed, concealed, stored, bartered, sold, disposed of, or pledged as security for a loan—goods, wares, merchandise, securities, or money that crossed an interstate or international boundary after being stolen, converted, or taken by fraud.\n\n397. In many cases, these Defendants transferred goods or money across interstate or international boundaries.\n\n398. In many cases, these Defendants received, possessed, concealed, stores, sold, and/or disposed of assets that crossed an interstate or international boundary.\n\n399. For each transfer, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Xuebing Wang, Greenwich Land LLC, GS Security Solutions, Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Lexington Property and Staffing, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., and Saraca Media Group knew that the funds involved had been stolen, converted, or taken by fraud.\n\n400. Each transfer involved money or property having a value of \\$5,000 or more.\n\n401. Accordingly, there were numerous violations of the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315, which directly and proximately caused injury to the creditors of the Debtor's estate and property by impairing the Trustee's ability to recover the value of the transfers and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees substantially greater than\n\nwould otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n# **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 – Money Laundering**\n\n# **((Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Bravo Luck Limited, Saraca Media Group, Greenwich Land LLC, G-Club Operations LLC, GS Security Solutions Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, HCHK Technologies Inc., HCHK Property Management, Lexington Property and Staffing, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Taurus Fund LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., ACA Capital Group Limited, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.)**\n\n402. The RICO Pattern included numerous acts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957.\n\n403. Each fraudulent transaction referenced below supported and furthered the fraudulent scheme, at a minimum to conceal the source and destination of the unlawfully obtained funds by layering and cleansing money to make it difficult to trace and/or converting illegal funds into seemingly legitimate assets for the benefit of the Debtor and his co-conspirators and to defraud creditors.\n\n404. Each fraudulent transaction described herein was conducted knowing that the property involved represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, namely violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1343, 1344, 1503, 1512, 1519, 2314 and/or 2315 which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of such unlawful activity as alleged throughout this Complaint with the intent to promote the carrying on of said specified unlawful activity in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise and, knowing and having reason to know that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, all as alleged elsewhere in this Complaint.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 123 of 139\n\n405. Accordingly, each transfer constituted, involved, or was the result of specified unlawful activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7).\n\n406. Each transfer involved a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than \\$10,000 and derived from specified unlawful activity.\n\n407. Each Defendant knew that the monies involved in the fraudulent transactions were criminally derived from the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity.\n\n408. Each Defendant knew that each fraudulent transfer was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds from the acts of wire fraud.\n\n409. Hing Chi Ngok conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-201, 206, 208, 211.\n\n410. Mei Guo conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-201, 205.\n\n411. Qiang Guo conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 112, 114-116, 181-183.\n\n412. William Je conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 124, 137, and 139.\n\n413. Yvette Wang conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 139,154.\n\n414. Aaron Mitchell conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 244-249.\n\n415. Chunguang Han conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 192, 195, 198, 201 and 208.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 124 of 139\n\n416. Max Krasner conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-201, 208.\n\n417. ACA Capital Group Limited conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 201, 217, and 266.\n\n418. Greenwich Land LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-212.\n\n419. Crane Advisory Group L.L.C. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraph 243.\n\n420. Bravo Luck Limited conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 173-191.\n\n421. Saraca Media Group conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 149, 213, and 219.\n\n422. G-Club Operations LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 103-128, 130-131, 231- 232, and 245-257.\n\n423. GS Security Solutions Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 270 and 271.\n\n424. Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraph 210.\n\n425. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, including its segregated portfolios such as Hamilton PE Fund SP and Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, conducted the series of financial\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 125 of 139\n\ntransactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 108-110, 229-232, 246-257, and 269-270.\n\n426. HCHK Technologies Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 258-272.\n\n427. HCHK Property Management conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 258-272.\n\n428. Lexington Property and Staffing conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 266 and 267.\n\n429. Hudson Diamond NY LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 170, 204, 205, 212-227.\n\n430. Taurus Fund LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 233-243.\n\n431. Leading Shine NY Ltd. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 149, 160-166.\n\n432. Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 136, 137.\n\n433. Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 136, 138.\n\n434. The violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957 directly and proximately caused injury to the Debtor's estate by impairing the Trustee's ability to recover the value of the transfers for creditors and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees\n\nsubstantially greater than would otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for their benefit.\n\n### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519 – Obstruction of Justice**\n\n# **(Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Qiang Guo, Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, Chunguang Han, Yongbing Zhang, Aaron Mitchell, Beile Li, Yan Chun Liu, Qidong Xia, Xuebing Wang, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, G-Club US Operations LLC, Bravo Luck)**\n\n435. The RICO Pattern included more than one act of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1507, 1512, and 1519.\n\n436. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 289-295, among others, Yvette Wang endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice by violating the Corporate Governance Rights Order in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n437. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 296-298, among others, GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, and G-Club US Operations LLC corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice by withholding information, including documents, thereby failing to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas and violating the Court's Rule 2004 Orders in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n438. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 299-303, among others, Hing Chi Ngok, Max Krasner, and Chunguang Han corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice by violating the Greenwich TRO and Greenwich PI in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme\n\n439. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 322 and 324, among others the Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, as alleged in more detail above, by engaging, supporting and/or funding false and harassing online materials as a method of intimidation to\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 127 of 139\n\ndeter the Trustee from acting in accordance with his statutory duties. Moreover, based on the same allegations, the Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.\n\n440. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 335-341, among others, Yongbing Zhang, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, filing frivolous lawsuits. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Yongbing Zhang corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.\n\n441. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Beile Li, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a harassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Beile Li corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n442. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Yan Chun Liu, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a harassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Yan Chun Liu corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n443. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Qidong Xia, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 128 of 139\n\nharassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Qidong Xia corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n444. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Xuebing Wang, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a harassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Xuebing Wang corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n445. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 281-283, 307-311, among others, Mei Guo corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding, including the Chapter 11 Case, by, as alleged in more detail above, knowingly and intentionally making material misstatements, misrepresentations, and omissions under penalty of perjury in connection with the Chapter 11 Case concerning the Debtors' financial affairs, the Debtor's and their own relationship with the Asset-Holding Entities and Funding Entities. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Mei Guo endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n446. Based on the allegation set forth in paragraph 280-282, 312-315, among others, Aaron Mitchell corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding, including the Chapter 11 Case, by, as alleged in more detail above, knowingly and intentionally making material misstatements, misrepresentations, and omissions under penalty of perjury in connection with the Chapter 11 Case concerning the Debtors' financial affairs, and/or endeavored to\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 129 of 139\n\ninfluence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n447. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 305, among others, Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck knowingly falsified a record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of the Chapter 11 Case. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n448. Accordingly, Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Yvette Wang, Qiang Guo, Yongbing Zhang, Chunguang Han, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, G-Club US Operations LLC and Bravo Luck committed acts of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519, which directly and proximately caused injury to the estate by, among other things, impairing the Trustee's ability to investigate the assets of Kwok and causing Kwok's estate to incur substantial professional fees and expenses related to the obstruction, which directly impacts all creditors.\n\n#### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. § 152 – Bankruptcy Fraud**\n\n## **(Mei Guo, Hing Chi Ngok, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Bravo Luck and Greenwich Land LLC)**\n\n449. The RICO Pattern included more than one act of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152.\n\n450. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 307-311 of this Complaint, Mei Guo knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false oaths or accounts in or relation to the Chapter 11 Case, as demonstrated by the following actions, which are alleged in more detail above, among others:\n\n- a. Mei Guo made false statements under penalty of perjury regarding the ownership of the Lady May yacht.\n- b. Mei Guo made false statements in a declaration regarding her use and ownership of a smart phone.\n- c. Mei Guo committed perjury with regards to the proceeds of the sale of a Bombardier private jet.\n\n451. Based on those same allegations, Mei Guo knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n452. Moreover, based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 281-283, and 308 of this Complaint, Mei Guo fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States Trustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including, among others, the following assets and/or related proceeds, as alleged in more detail above: the Lady May and the Bombardier jet\n\n453. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 306 of this Complaint, Hing Chi Ngok knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false oaths or accounts in or relation to the Chapter 11 Case , including by (i) her assertion that she took certain actions in relation to the Ferncliff Property purchased by Greenwich Land, which was contradicted by the fact she was unable to recognize what the Ferncliff Property looked like; and (ii) her statement the Debtor had no involvement with Greenwich Land's purchase of the Taconic Road Property, which was contradicted by the detailed testimony of Mr. de Neree, the buyer-side real estate broker for the sale of the Taconic Road Property.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 131 of 139\n\n454. Based on those same allegations, Hing Chi Ngok knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n455. Moreover, based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 204-208 of this Complaint, Hing Chi Ngok and Greenwich Land LLC knowingly and fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States Trustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including, among others, the assets and/or related proceeds from the sale of the Ferncliff Property.\n\n456. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 305 of this Complaint, Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck, each knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false oaths or accounts in or relation to the Chapter 11 Case, including by submitting proofs of claim that rely on a purported trust agreement that is a forged and backdated agreement.\n\n457. Based on those same allegations, Qiang Guo knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n458. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 139 of this Complaint, William Je knowingly and fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States Trustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including, among others, the assets held in Defendant and/or co-conspirator entities and transfers of fraudulently obtained property.\n\n459. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 286-295 of this Complaint, Yvette Wang knowingly and fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 132 of 139\n\nTrustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including through, among others, the Ace Decade Transfer.\n\n460. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 312 of this Complaint, Aaron Mitchell, knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case related to the Debtor's affairs.\n\n461. Accordingly, these Defendants committed acts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, which directly and proximately caused injury to the estate by, among other things, impairing the Trustee's ability to investigate and recover the assets belonging to the Debtor's estate and causing the estate to incur substantial professional fees and expenses related to the investigation of information these Defendants failed to disclose and actively endeavored to conceal, destroy, or otherwise render unavailable for use in connection with the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n### **Continuity of the RICO Pattern**\n\n462. The Defendants' violations of law as set forth herein, each of which directly and proximately injured the Debtor's creditors, constituted a continuous course of conduct in the United States beginning no later than 2015 and continuing through the filing of this Complaint, which has been intended to defraud creditors through false representations, fraud, deceit, and other improper and unlawful means, for the benefit of the Debtor and his co-conspirators.\n\n463. Additionally, the Defendants' violations of law as set forth herein poses a threat of continuing criminal activity.\n\n464. Accordingly, the violations were a part of pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and (5).\n\n#### **COUNT 2**\n\n# **Conspiracy to Violate the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Against All Defendants)**\n\n465. The Trustee restates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through [ ] of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.\n\n466. Each Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by agreeing to join, participate in, or support a conspiracy under which one or more persons would conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (the \"RICO Conspiracy\").\n\n467. In particular, each Defendant was a knowing, willing, and active participant in the Kwok Enterprise and its affairs, and each of the Defendants shared a common purpose, namely, the orchestration, planning, preparation, and execution of the fraudulent scheme of transferring and dispersing the Debtor's property, including fraudulently obtained funds, through a web of sham entities for the benefit of the Debtor and other co-conspirators and to conceal such property and funds from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n468. The participation and agreement of each of Defendant was necessary to allow the commission of this scheme.\n\n469. Each Defendant knew about and agreed to facilitate the Kwok Enterprise by way of the acts in which he or she engaged as alleged herein and/or through explicit agreement amongst some or all of the Defendants. Evidence of an agreement among the Defendants is particularly within the knowledge and control of each Defendant.\n\n470. Each Nominee Participant Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. Each Nominee Participant Defendant acted as purported nominal owners, executives, directors, employees and/or appointees of entities the Debtor functionally and beneficially controlled, including certain of the Asset-Holding Entities, Funding Entities, and Business-Front Entities that were used to facilitate the fraudulent scheme.\n- b. Each Nominee Participant Defendant had knowledge of and facilitated and authorized the unlawful endeavors with respect to the Asset-Holding Entities, Funding Entities, and Business-Front Entities they were purported nominal owners, executives, directors, employees and/or appointees of by engaging in the unlawful conduct described above.\n- 471. Each Asset-Holding Entity's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy\n\nis demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. The Debtor enjoys complete control over each Asset-Holding Entity directly or through his dominance and control over the Nominee Participants.\n- b. The Nominee Participants associated with the Asset-Holding Entity's directly participated in the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent scheme.\n- c. Each Asset-Holding Entity had knowledge of and directly engaged in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise by engaging in millions of dollars in fraudulent import and export transactions with the Funding Entities and Business-Front Entities during to further the fraudulent scheme to enrich the Debtor, his family and other co-conspirators and defraud creditors.\n- d. Each Asset-Holding Entity was established and operated for the sole purpose of furthering the fraudulent scheme to enrich the Debtor, his family and other coconspirators and defraud creditors.\n- 472. Each Business-Front Entity's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy\n\nis demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. Each Business-Front Entity had knowledge of and facilitated and directly engaged in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise by concealing the Debtor's assets from creditors and passing-through unlawfully obtained funds for the benefit of the Debtor, his family, and associates, while nominally being operating media, real estate, technology, and social media enterprises, but functionally being owned and controlled by the Debtor to further the Kwok Enterprise.\n- 473. Each Professional Participant Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO\n\nConspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the Professional\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 135 of 139\n\nParticipant Defendants' knowledge of and direct engagement in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise as detailed herein, including, *inter alia*, transferring or receiving fraudulentlyobtained assets and/or orchestrating such transactions.\n\n474. Each Additional Participant Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, Additional Participant Defendants' had knowledge of and direct engagement in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise as detailed herein, including, *inter alia*, their fraudulent activity and/or other acts taken in support of, and to further, the fraudulent scheme.\n\n475. Each Funding Entity Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. The Debtor enjoys complete control over each Funding Entity Defendants directly or through his dominance and control over the Nominee Participants.\n- b. Each Funding Entity Defendant had knowledge of and facilitated and directly engaged in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise by transferring substantial sums to various entities and individuals to enrich the Debtor, his family and other co-conspirators.\n- c. Each Funding Entity Defendant was established for the sole purpose of furthering the fraudulent scheme to enrich the Debtor, his family and other co-conspirators and defraud creditors.\n\n476. By and through each of the Defendants' business and/or personal relationships with one another, their close coordination with one another in the affairs of the Kwok Enterprise, and involvement in the Debtor's fraudulent scheme, each Defendant knew the nature of the Kwok Enterprise and each Defendant knew that the Kwok Enterprise extended beyond each Defendant's individual role.\n\n477. Each Defendant engaged in the acts as alleged herein, knowing of at least the general contours of the conspiracy, with the intent to further or facilitate the Kwok Enterprise. The\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 136 of 139\n\nparticipation and agreement of each Defendant was necessary to allow the commission of this pattern of racketeering activity. All Defendants played key roles and directly participated in the racketeering activity because they all had knowledge of the unlawful scheme and given their authority and discretion over the conduct and affairs of various Defendant entities and themselves, the scheme would not have been allowed to continue without their consent and active encouragement and participation.\n\n478. To the extent any one or more of the entity Defendants (*i.e.* the Funding Entities, Asset-Holding Entities, Business-Front Entities, and certain Professional Participants) are not directly liable for conspiring to violate RICO's substantive provisions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), they are vicariously liable for the Section 1962(d) violations of other individual Defendants to the extent an individual Defendant committed a predicate act within the scope of those individuals' employment, officership, or directorship position at or agency relationship with an entity Defendant. The predicate acts alleged to have been committed herein were each committed in furtherance of a scheme intended to and which did in fact benefit the Debtor, his family, and his associates by concealing and disguising the nature and ownership of assets of the Debtor through shell entities and a scheme to defraud creditors. Accordingly, such entity Defendant(s) are vicariously liable for the RICO violations of certain individual Defendants as alleged herein.\n\n479. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' RICO Conspiracy, the pattern of racketeering activity through which they agreed the affairs of the RICO Enterprise would be conducted, and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the Debtor's creditors have been harmed.\n\n480. The Debtor's estate continues to be deprived of monies that should contribute to recoveries for the Debtor's creditors, as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing violations\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 137 of 139\n\nof 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), as it continues to be deprived of monies that belong to the estate. As alleged herein, absent Defendants' willfully criminal conduct, the recoveries the Debtor's creditors may receive as a result of the Trustee's efforts, if any, would be materially greater. The damages to the Debtor's creditors include, but are not limited to, the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, the Trustee was forced to expend from the estate as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and in order to recover the property and assets unlawfully concealed and disguised by the Defendants, including as a result of Defendants' preand post-bankruptcy unlawful conduct.\n\n481. It was a foreseeable, natural, direct, and intended consequence of Defendants' scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and conceal the ownership and nature of the Debtor's assets that the Trustee would have to incur more professional fees to recover the Debtor's assets, if identifiable and recoverable notwithstanding Defendants' unlawful conduct, and, thus, recoveries for the Debtor's creditors, if any, would be materially reduced. There are no independent factors that account for the injuries to the Debtor's creditors caused by the Defendants' unlawful conduct, nor are those injuries in any way derivative of any injury to any other entity or individual. No immediate victim is better situated than the Trustee to sue—and indeed the Defendants' misconduct has been brought to light by the Trustee's efforts, as well as those of the U.S. Department of Justice—nor is there any risk of duplicative recoveries by plaintiffs removed at different levels of injury from the violations.\n\n482. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the Trustee is entitled to recover treble damages, together with the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Trustee prays for relief and judgment as follows:\n\n- (a) General and compensatory damages according to proof at trial;\n- (b) Treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);\n- (c) Necessary and appropriate injunctive relief, including an injunction requiring the Defendants to cease and desist from all of the foregoing unlawful conduct;\n- (d) Disgorgement of all moneys received by Defendants as a result of their unlawful activities;\n- (d) An award of the Trustee's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);\n- (e) Prejudgment interest; and\n- (f) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: February 15, 2024 New York, New York\n\nLUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /*s*/ *Douglass Barron*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 [aviluft@paulhastings.com](mailto:aviluft@paulhastings.com) douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.70 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n70 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. serves as the Trustee's exclusive counsel for all allegations regarding and counts asserted against GTV in this complaint.","body_zh":"美国破产法院康涅狄格地区布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：　：\n\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n1　：\n：\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n\n（合并管理）\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，　：\n：\n对抗程序 24-_________\n原告，　：\n：\n2月15日，\n\n诉　：\n\nHING CHI NGOK（欣奇·恩戈克）、MEI GUO（郭梅）、QIANG\nGUO（郭强）、WILLIAM JE（威廉·杰）、YVETTE WANG（伊薇特·王）、\nXUEBING WANG（王雪冰）、MAX KRASNER（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、\nCHUNGUANG HAN（韩春光）、YONGBING\nZHANG（张永兵）、AARON MITCHELL（亚伦·米切尔）、RULE OF\nLAW FOUNDATION III, INC.（法治基金会III公司）、GTV\nMEDIA GROUP, INC.（GTV媒体集团公司）、SARACA MEDIA\nGROUP, INC.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND NY\nLLC（纽约哈德逊钻石有限责任公司）、G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC（G俱乐部美国运营有限责任公司）、\nBRAVO LUCK LIMITED（布拉沃幸运有限公司）、GREENWICH\nLAND LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）、CRANE ADVISORY GROUP\nL.L.C.（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）、G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）、GS\nSECURITY SOLUTIONS INC.（GS安保解决方案公司）、GYPSY\nMEI FOOD SERVICES LLC（吉普赛梅食品服务有限责任公司）、HCHK\nTECHNOLOGIES INC.（HCHK科技公司）、LEXINGTON\nPROPERTY AND STAFFING（莱克星顿房地产与人力服务）、\nHAMILTON OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）、\nHUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC（纽约哈德逊钻石有限责任公司）、TAURUS　：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他化名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人及 Genever 债务人的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（保尔·哈斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人（仅用于通知和通信之目的）。\n\nFUND LLC（基金有限责任公司）、TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC（金牛座管理有限责任公司）、LEADING SHINE NY LTD.（领先光辉纽约有限公司）、ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED（ACA资本集团有限公司）、RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III, INC.（法治基金会III公司）、RULE OF LAW SOCIETY IV, INC.（法治协会IV公司）、HAMILTON PE FUND SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金SP）、HAMILTON DIGITAL ASSETS FUND SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金SP）、HIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING PTY. LTD（喜马拉雅货币清算有限公司）、HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）、HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.（圣城香港创投有限公司）、VICTOR CERDA（维克托·塞尔达）、ANA C. IZQUIERDO-HENN（安娜·C·伊斯基耶多-亨恩）、HAITHAM KHALED（海瑟姆·哈立德）、JESSICA MASTROGIOVANNI（杰西卡·马斯特罗焦万尼）、ALEX HADJICHARALAMBOUS（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）、BEILE LI（李贝乐）、ANTHONY DIBATTISTA（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）、GLADYS CHOW（周格拉迪斯）、SCOTT BARNETT（斯科特·巴内特）、HAORAN HE（何浩然）、HSIN SHIH YU（余欣诗）、LIMARIE REYES MOLINARIS（利马里·雷耶斯·莫利纳里斯）、NICHOLAS SAVIO（尼古拉斯·萨维奥）、QIDONG XIA（夏启东）、YAN CHUN LIU（刘艳春）、XUEBING WANG（王雪冰）、ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED（ACA资本集团有限公司）、GETTR USA, INC.（GETTR美国公司）、G CLUB INTERNATIONAL LIMITED（G俱乐部国际有限公司）、GNEWS MEDIA GROUP INC.（GNEWS媒体集团公司）、HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL CLEARING LTD.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDINGS LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）、O.S.C. ORBIT SERVICE COMPANY LLC（O.S.C.轨道服务公司有限责任公司）及 SAVIO LAW LLC（萨维奥律师事务所有限责任公司），被告。　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：　：\n\n第11章受托人就违反《受敲诈勒索影响和腐败组织法》以及共谋违反《受敲诈勒索影响和腐败组织法》请求损害赔偿的诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins，以在 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，针对下文列明的本案被告（合称“被告”）提起本对抗程序诉状（以下简称“诉状”），并陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本诉状，以追偿债务人债权人因被告协助实施的、违反《1970年受敲诈勒索影响和腐败组织法》（“RICO”）的广泛、持续多年的多项欺诈计划所构成的有组织犯罪阴谋而遭受的损害赔偿。\n\n2. 如本院所熟知，债务人是一名自称的中国异议人士，在其于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请（以下简称“申请日”）之前，长期在社交媒体及其他场合声称自己是拥有几乎无限资源的亿万富翁。本案涉及债务人及其共谋者如何能够聚敛巨额资金，继而通过广泛的犯罪行为利用该等资金使其自身获利，同时对债务人的债权人隐瞒该等资金。\n\n3. 如本诉状所称，自至少2015年以来，债务人和被告通过遍布全球的空壳公司网络经营一个有组织犯罪企业（以下简称“Kwok企业”），旨在使债务人、其家庭成员及其密切关联人获利，同时向其债权人隐瞒债务人财富的真实性质和规模，并阻止债权人获得偿付。因此，债务人及其密切关联人享尽亿万富翁生活方式的一切排场和奢华——从私人飞机、豪华超级游艇、$10,000西装，到多处宫殿式住所，及其他诸多奢侈享受——而债务人的债权人多年来对其累积了数亿美元的债权，却一无所获。\n\n4. 债务人的主要债权人是 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”）。截至2015年，PAX根据债务人为其一家公司所获贷款提供的个人担保（以下简称“2011年个人担保”），对债务人享有约$50 million的债权。约于2017年4月，PAX在纽约州法院起诉债务人，要求根据2011年个人担保获得清偿；于2020年9月，PAX就该债务取得简易判决，因利息累积，该债务届时已增至约$115 million。与此同时，其他债权人亦就包括诽谤和性侵害在内的事项，对债务人提出严重且实质性的债权。约于2017年9月，其中一名债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）在纽约起诉债务人，基于多项侵权请求约$20 million的损害赔偿。其他以中国为基地的债权人也早在2017年就在美国对债务人提起诉讼，称债务人在中国让他们成了“接盘者”。\n\n5. 除债务人对债权人所负的巨额债务外，Kwok企业背景的另一关键部分（但并非该企业本身）是一系列始于约2020年的欺诈性筹资计划，债务人及其他人利用该等计划进一步使债务人获利并资助其奢靡的生活方式。为支持这些计划，债务人及其支持者首先主要通过社交媒体编造并传播了一种引人入胜的（但虚假的）叙事，在该叙事中，债务人既炫耀其令人艳羡的生活方式，又承诺领导一场社会政治运动以“推翻”中国共产党（以下简称“CCP”）。债务人及其他人随后利用该叙事从受害人处吸引投资或捐款；受害人通常包括认同债务人所声称的反CCP事业的华人侨民成员，和/或被债务人关于其无法估量的财富的吹嘘所打动（并欺骗）的人士。\n\n6. 这些筹资计划合计欺骗受害人达数亿美元，包括招揽对一项声称以现金换股票的贷款计划（Farm Loan Program）的虚假投资，2 鼓励购买一间生活方式俱乐部基于虚假会员权益承诺所提供的“会员资格”（G-Club），以及创建一种虚假加密货币及其相关交易平台（Himalaya Exchange）。尽管向受害人承诺了其投资回报——无论以利息支付、会员权益、对政治事业的支持或其他形式——债务人及该等计划的其他参与者仍欺诈性地将所得款项转作其个人利益。\n\n7. 在其债权人的债权和债务人的欺诈性筹资活动这一双重背景下，债务人及其被告共谋者成立Kwok企业，目的在于向债务人的债权人隐瞒并屏蔽债务人的巨额财富——包括投资计划所得款项以及债务人独立于该等计划取得的资产。债务人及其被告共谋者通过创建一个复杂、全球性的相互关联空壳公司及银行账户网络实现该目标；他们利用该网络洗钱（以掩盖其欺诈性来源），并以法人独立性为掩护，名义持有资产产权——例如债务人的豪华游艇“Lady May”（如下图所示）、其私人 Bombardier（庞巴迪）飞机，以及其众多住宅，包括其位于新泽西州 Mahwah（马瓦）、面积近50,000平方英尺的豪宅（如下图所示，以下简称“Mahwah Mansion”）。实际上，这些通常由债务人的一名家庭成员或密切关联人名义拥有的空壳公司，均为仅为隐藏有价值资产并延续欺诈而存在的幌子。\n\n2 本初步陈述中未定义的大写术语，具有本诉状其余部分赋予该等术语的含义。\n\n8. Kwok企业隐瞒债务人资产的努力多年来取得成功。然而，于2021年，Kwok企业的欺诈行为开始败露，至少部分原因是PAX试图在纽约诉讼中执行其判决；PAX试图扣押“Lady May”游艇，理由是该游艇属于债务人，而不属于名义上由其女儿（本案被告）拥有、并持有该游艇产权的空壳公司。在2022年2月初的审判后，纽约法院同意PAX的意见，即Lady May属于债务人，并认定债务人及其密切关联人采取了“空壳障眼法”，以向债权人隐藏该游艇及其他资产。由于债务人尽管有充分机会却未能将Lady May送回康涅狄格州，纽约法院对债务人处以按日计的藐视法庭罚款；截至审判时，该罚款已飙升至$134 million。\n\n9. 由于若不披露债务人资产的真实所在地和规模，便无法支付纽约判决或藐视法庭罚款，债务人及其被告共谋者别无选择，只能实施其欺诈计划的下一阶段：于 February 15, 2022 在本院提交破产案件，在该案件中，债务人虚假声称其名下仅有约$3,800的资产。提交破产申请的目的是让债务人获得《破产法》自动中止的保护，以阻止PAX继续其在纽约诉讼中的判决执行工作，同时给予债务人机会，依据一项第11章计划经协商重组其债务，该计划能够继续隐瞒其巨额财富的真实性质和规模及其欺诈性来源。然而，当受托人于2022年7月获任命，对债务人的事务进行全面调查并提起诉讼将资产纳入破产财产时，该策略最终适得其反。\n\n10. 为回应受托人的任命，Kwok企业中的被告成员已采取（并持续采取）众多行动，以阻挠第11章案件的管理，并妨碍受托人的调查和诉讼工作。这些行动包括但不限于：在宣誓后作伪证，拒绝依照有效签发的传票及本院命令向受托人提供文件和信息，在其他法院提起毫无根据的诉讼，以及组织一场史无前例、专门旨在干扰受托人调查并迫使其辞职的全球性骚扰和恐吓活动。债务人及参与这些活动的被告共谋者的目标，与其欺诈计划开始时的目标仍然相同：掩盖其欺诈行为，并阻止债务人的债权人取得其资产。\n\n11. 尽管债务人一直是且目前仍是 Kwok Enterprise（郭文贵企业集团）的幕后主使，但共同共谋的被告明知而集体、协调一致地在指挥、促成及直接参与该企业为债务人及其自身利益而实施的各项计划中发挥了关键作用。被告及其他非当事方参与者共谋并为推进 Kwok Enterprise 而采取行动，广义上包括：(i) 债务人；(ii) 由债务人秘密拥有和控制的虚假实体，包括为欺诈计划提供资金的实体以及持有资产或充当幌子实体的实体；(iii) 作为这些虚假实体的名义持有人并从事其他不当行为的个人，包括 Kwok 的家庭成员；(iv) 促成该计划设计和运作的专业人士，包括律师和财务顾问；以及 (v) 以各种身份参与该计划的个人，包括虚假实体的雇员和 Kwok 的追随者等。\n\n12. 如下文详述，被告在实施 Kwok Enterprise 的欺诈计划过程中实施了大量构成前提的犯罪行为。这些犯罪行为包括但不限于银行欺诈、电信欺诈以及违反反洗钱法律的行为。还包括破产欺诈和妨碍司法，其中尤其包括多起旨在干扰第 11 章程序的妨碍司法行为。\n\n13. 被告为推进 Kwok Enterprise 而采取的这些及其他行为，通过剥夺债务人债权人获得本应可用于清偿其债权的大量债务人资产的机会，已对其造成重大损害。由于 Kwok Enterprise 对债务人资产的欺诈性隐匿及其对第 11 章案件的妨碍，受托人被迫承担大量律师费及其他费用，债务人的债权人亦因此受到进一步损害。受托人有权基于对破产财团债权人造成的该等损害，向被告请求三倍损害赔偿。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n14. 受托人依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105、544、550 及其他适用法律提起本起诉状。\n\n15. 本法院根据 28 U.S.C. §1334(b) 对本事项具有管辖权，因为本对立程序根据《美国法典》第 11 编产生，并在该等第 11 章案件中产生且与其有关；本法院亦根据 28 U.S.C. § 1331 和 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 具有管辖权，因为本对立程序依据美国法律产生，包括 18 U.S.C. § 1962，并就因违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962 而造成的损害寻求赔偿。\n\n16. 本对立程序已根据 28 U.S.C. §157(a) 移送本法院。\n\n17. 如本法院无权就本对立程序中主张的请求作出终局判决，受托人同意由本法院作出并登记终局判决或命令。\n\n18. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1409，本对立程序的审判地在本地区适当。\n\n当事方及其他相关实体和个人\n\n19. 受托人系根据本法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令正式任命的债务人破产财团第 11 章受托人 [主案件卷宗编号 523]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 10 页，共 139 页\n\n20. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），即债务人（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名），系一名个人债务人，其称居住于 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831。债务人目前被羁押于纽约州布鲁克林，正等待就美国针对其及其共同共谋被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）和 William Je（余建明）提出的刑事敲诈勒索和欺诈指控受审。\n\n21. 被告 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志玉）（又名 Hing Chi Ng，又名 Yue Qingzhi）系债务人的自称配偶，居住于康涅狄格州格林威治。Ngok 名义上拥有并持有多家实体的所有权，该等实体属于 Kwok Enterprise，且是本案所述欺诈活动的工具。\n\n22. 被告 Mei Guo（郭美）（又名 Mei Gui）系债务人的女儿，居住于纽约市。Mei Guo 名义上拥有并持有多家实体的所有权，该等实体属于 Kwok Enterprise，且是本案所述欺诈活动的工具。\n\n23. 被告 Qiang Guo（郭强）（又名 Mileson Kwok）系债务人的儿子，居住于英国伦敦。Qiang Guo 名义上拥有并持有多家实体的所有权，该等实体属于 Kwok Enterprise，且是本案所述欺诈活动的工具。根据所获信息及确信，被告 Qiang Guo 在与本案指控相关的期间曾前往美国。他还故意将其行为指向美国，其方式对美国境内债务人的债权人造成了损害。\n\n24. 被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）（又名 Yvette Wang，又名 Y. Wang）（“Yvette Wang”）系一名个人，在所有相关期间均为主要居住于纽约市的中国公民。自至少约 2018 年起，Yvette Wang 已为债务人及其家人工作多年，并实质上担任债务人和 Kwok Enterprise 的“幕僚长”。被告 Yvette Wang 目前被羁押于布鲁克林，正等待就美国针对其及其共同共谋者债务人和被告 William Je 提出的刑事敲诈勒索和欺诈指控受审。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 11 页，共 139 页\n\n25. 被告 Kin Ming Je（余建明）（又名 William Je，又名 Yu Jianming，又名 W. Je）（“William Je”）系一名个人，在所有相关期间均为同时拥有香港和英国国籍、主要居住于英国的人士，同时经常前往美国及其他地区。被告 William Je 已与债务人和被告 Yvette Wang 一同被美国以刑事敲诈勒索和欺诈罪名起诉。被告 Je 仍然在逃，据信目前位于阿拉伯联合酋长国。被告 Je 故意将其行为指向美国，其方式对美国境内债务人的债权人造成了损害。\n\n26. 被告 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为专业参与者，且其为债务人的个人律师，并曾代表债务人的众多空壳公司（以个人身份及通过其律师事务所 Lawall & Mitchell LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）），实质上担任 Kwok Enterprise 的内部总法律顾问。在其于 April 2023 辞职之前，Mitchell 先生曾作为 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）董事会成员为债务人服务。Mitchell 先生深度参与债务人的多项重大活动和交易，包括 GTV 私募配售（定义见下文）、通过出售 G Club（G 俱乐部）会员资格向债务人的追随者募集资金。\n\n根据所获信息及确信，Mitchell 先生还曾协助债务人为其空壳公司协调开立境外银行账户。此外，Mitchell 先生将债务人及其众多空壳公司位于纽约 162 E. 64th Street 的地址用作其律师事务所地址。他居住于新泽西州。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 12 页，共 139 页\n\n27. 被告 Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为额外参与者，并曾担任债务人的 G Club Operations（G 俱乐部运营公司）财务总监等职务，以及在若干 HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）和 Golden Spring（黄金泉）担任职务。Hadjicharalambous 先生还曾担任 G Fashion LLC（G 时尚有限责任公司）、G Music LLC（G 音乐有限责任公司）和 G Club Operations LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司）等实体的银行账户签字人。他居住于纽约。\n\n28. 本法院已认定被告 Beile Li（李贝勒）系债务人及若干被告的关联人。本法院还认定，Beile Li 积极参与了针对受托人的骚扰活动，该等活动发生在受托人住所外以及纽约 Grand Central Terminal（大中央车站）Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）办公室入口处，并已由本法院根据本法院的 PAX PI 命令予以禁止。Li 还是债务人支持者团体于 November 2022 针对受托人提起的、现已被驳回的无理诉讼中的原告之一，该等诉讼虚假指控受托人系中国政府的代理人。\n\n29. 被告 Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn（安娜·C.·伊斯基耶多-亨恩）（“被告 Izquierdo”）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为专业参与者，并在 G-Club Scheme（G 俱乐部计划）期间一直担任 G-Club Operations LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司）的总法律顾问。她居住于波多黎各。\n\n30. 被告 Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为名义参与者，并曾在不同的债务人控制实体中担任多种职务。DiBattista 先生曾以 Golden Spring 的雇员、HCHK Entities 的少数股东及公司高级管理人员，以及 GTV 的公司高级管理人员、获授权签字人和高级雇员等身份为债务人服务，此外还曾在其他空壳实体中任职。DiBattista 先生居住于纽约。\n\n31. 被告 Chunguang Han（韩春光）（又名“Hank” Chunguang）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为名义参与者，且其为债务人的家务雇员和厨师，债务人之妻最近的证词已证实该事实。债务人已安排 Han Chunguang 在债务人空壳公司网络内担任多个职位，包括曾作为 Eastern Profit Corporation（东方利润公司）、Anton Development（安东发展公司）和 Rosy Acme Ventures Limited（Rosy Acme 风险投资有限公司）的前名义所有人。3 除其他职务外，Han Chunguang 还曾担任 Saraca（萨拉卡）及众多在英属维尔京群岛注册、作为 Bombardier Adversary Proceeding（庞巴迪对立程序）标的的实体的公司高级管理人员和账户签字人。他居住于纽约。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 13 页，共 139 页\n\n32. 被告 David Fallon（大卫·法伦）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为额外参与者。\n\n33. 被告 Gladys Chow（格拉迪斯·周）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为额外参与者，并曾在被告 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技公司）担任自称项目经理，该实体实质上由债务人拥有。她居住于纽约。\n\n34. 被告 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为专业参与者，并曾担任债务人的保镖和司机。根据所获信息及确信，他居住于纽约或新泽西州。\n\n35. 被告 Haoran He（何浩然）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为名义参与者，据信其为居住于英国的自称房地产开发商，并如本起诉状所述，作为 G-Club Entities（G 俱乐部实体）的名义（间接）所有人为债务人服务。根据所获信息及确信，Haoran He 系债务人的代名人，债务人选择其作为这些实体的名义所有人，正是为了避免若将该等实体登记在债务人或其家庭成员名下将会引起的监管和其他审查。他居住于英国。\n\n3 Rosy Acme Ventures Limited 是作为 Bombardier Adversary Proceeding 标的的英属维尔京群岛实体之一。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 14 页，共 139 页\n\n36. 被告 Haitham Khaled（海萨姆·哈立德）系一名个人，本起诉状称其为额外参与者，并曾担任债务人和 Kwok Enterprise 的财务顾问，指导在美国境内及境外建立银行业务关系。被告 Khaled 还曾是 Crane Advisory Group LLC（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）的所有人，该实体曾一度持有纽约州汇款业务牌照。他居住于纽约。\n\n37. 被告 Hsin Shih Yu 为一名个人，据称在本案中系附加参与者。Hsin Shih Yu 在针对受托人的抗议活动（定义见下文）和诉讼中发挥了显著作用。其居住于台湾。\n\n38. 被告 Jessica Mastrogiovanni 为一名个人，据称在本案中系附加参与者，并曾以多种职务为债务人服务，包括担任 GTV 的总法律顾问，以及 GTV 和 Saraca 的公司高级管理人员及获授权签字人。其还曾在 G Club Operations 和 G Club International 担任内部法律职务。\n\n39. 被告 Limarie Reyes Molinaris（以下简称“被告 Reyes”）为一名个人，据称在本案中系附加参与者，并曾担任 G-Club Operations LLC 名义上的首席执行官。其居住于波多黎各。\n\n40. 被告 Max Krasner 为一名个人，据称在本案中系名义参与者，并曾受雇于债务人，在 Golden Spring 和 HCHK Entities 任职，以及担任众多其他职务。被告 Krasner 曾担任 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC 的母公司）和 Rule of Law Foundation 的高级管理人员及获授权签字人。Krasner 先生代表债务人并依债务人指示，曾协助债务人处理包括以 Greenwich Land LLC 名义购置位于康涅狄格州格林尼治的不动产、安排 Lady May 号游艇的转移及维护等事项。其居住于纽约。\n\n41. 被告 Nicholas Savio 为一名个人，据称在本案中系专业参与者，并曾担任多家债务人所有空壳实体的法律顾问。其居住于新泽西州。\n\n42. 被告 Qidong Xia 为一名个人，据称在本案中系附加参与者。Qidong Xia 在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中发挥了显著作用。其居住于纽约。\n\n43. 被告 Victor Cerda 为一名个人，据称在本案中系专业参与者，并曾担任多家债务人所有空壳实体的法律顾问。其居住于纽约。\n\n44. 被告 Yongbing Zhang 为一名个人，据称在本案中系专业参与者，并曾受雇于债务人担任其个人律师，且还曾以包括担任 Rule of Law Foundation 董事在内的身份为债务人服务。除其他事项外，Zhang 先生在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中发挥了主导作用，该活动导致法院对债务人发出初步禁令，其中包括其亲自在受托人住所前参与该活动。Zhang 先生还参与在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）United States District Court（美国联邦地区法院）对受托人、PAX 及 PAX 的律师提起申诉。这些申诉虚假指控受托人、PAX 及 PAX 的律师系中国共产党的代理人（“FARA Litigation”），就此，Zhang 先生多次依据 Rule 11 受到制裁。法院因 Zhang 先生在 HCHK Adversary Proceeding（HCHK 对抗程序）中的作用而对其尤为熟悉；在该程序中，法院除其他事项外认定，Zhang 先生是所谓 HCHK Creditors' Committee（HCHK 债权人委员会）的领导人，并且 Zhang 先生参与提起无理诉讼，以阻碍受托人在本案中的工作，从而为其所认定的个人债务人利益服务。此外，据了解和相信，债务人安排 Zhang 先生作为旨在推广 G-Club Scheme（G-Club 计划）的抽奖活动的一部分“赢得”一辆 Lamborghini（兰博基尼）汽车。其居住于伊利诺伊州。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 16 of 139\n\n45. 被告 Yan Chun Liu 为一名个人，据称在本案中系附加参与者。Yan Chun Liu 在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中发挥了显著作用。其居住于加拿大。\n\n46. 被告 Xuebing Wang 为一名个人，据称在本案中系附加参与者，并曾在不同时期属于债务人在其 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）和 Himalaya Global Alliance（喜马拉雅全球联盟）组织中最显著的副手之列。被告 Xuebing Wang 还在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中发挥了显著作用。其居住于新西兰。\n\n47. 被告 ACA Capital Group Limited（以下简称“ACA Capital”）是一家香港公司，据称在本案中系资金提供实体。债务人曾使用 ACA Capital，除其他事项外，向其其他空壳实体转移资金，包括 Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital、Golden Spring、Saraca、Hudson Diamond NY 和 Leading Shine NY 等，并用于支付法律及其他费用，包括在债务人于 2022 年 3 月其个人 chapter 11（第 11 章）案件中提出的 DIP financing（占有债务人融资）相关事项中向 Golden Spring 提供的 \\$9 million。\n\n48. 被告 Bravo Luck Limited（以下简称“Bravo Luck”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，据称在本案中系资金提供实体。债务人曾使用 Bravo Luck，除其他事项外，为债务人购买其游艇 Lady May 号及其位于 Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里-尼德兰酒店）的公寓转移资金，并通过该公司提供资金以设立其另我 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd。Bravo Luck 的名义所有人为债务人的儿子、被告 Qiang Guo。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 17 of 139\n\n49. 被告 Crane Advisory Group LLC（以下简称“Crane”）是一家纽约有限责任公司，并曾是在纽约获许可的汇款机构。\n\n50. 被告 Greenwich Land LLC（以下简称“Greenwich Land”）是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，据称在本案中系资产持有实体（定义见本案文书）。尽管 Greenwich Land 名义上由债务人的妻子、被告 Hing Chi Ngok 所有，但其实际上由债务人所有。\n\n51. 被告 GS Security Solutions Inc.（以下简称“GS Security”）是一家纽约公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体（定义见本案文书）。被告 Scott Barnett 是 GS Security 的名义所有人。\n\n52. 被告 GETTR USA, Inc. 是一家特拉华州公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体，并且是运营替代性社交媒体平台 GETTR 的实体。\n\n53. 被告 G Club International Limited（以下简称“G-Club BVI”或“G-Club International”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体（定义见本案文书），并且是 G Club Operations LLC 的母公司。\n\n54. 被告 G Club Operations LLC（以下简称“G-Club PR”或“G-Club”）是一家波多黎各有限责任公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体，并曾是向 G-Club Scheme（G-Club 计划）的受害人表面上提供会员服务的主要运营实体，但实际上欺诈性地收取会员受害人的资金，并将该等资金转移给其他由债务人控制的实体，以推进 Kwok Enterprise（郭文贵企业集团）的目的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 18 of 139\n\n55. 被告 GNews Media Group Inc.（以下简称“GNews”）是一家特拉华州公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体。\n\n56. 被告 GTV Media Group, Inc.（以下简称“GTV”）是一家特拉华州公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体，并且是 Saraca（定义见下文）的一家全资子公司；Saraca 是一家名义上的媒体公司。\n\n57. 被告 Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC（以下简称“Gypsy Mei Food”）是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，据称在本案中系资产持有实体，名义上由债务人的女儿、被告 Mei Guo 所有。\n\n58. 被告 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（包括其独立投资组合）是一家开曼群岛独立投资组合公司，据称在本案中系资产持有实体，债务人曾使用该实体，除其他事项外，为购买 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）提供资金。\n\n59. 被告 HCHK Property Management, Inc.（以下简称“HCHK Property”）是一家特拉华州公司，据称在本案中系资产持有实体，Kwok Enterprise 曾使用该实体向债务人的债权人及会员受害人隐瞒和掩饰 Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）欺诈所得收益。\n\n60. 被告 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（以下简称“HCHK Technologies”）是一家特拉华州公司，据称在本案中系资产持有实体，Kwok Enterprise 曾使用该实体向债务人的债权人及会员受害人隐瞒和掩饰 Farm Loan Program 的欺诈所得收益，以及从事其他违法行为。\n\n61. 被告 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI)（以 Himalaya Exchange 名义经营）（以下简称“Himalaya Exchange”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体，债务人曾使用该实体经营其名义上的加密货币业务“Himalaya Exchange”，并曾使用该业务，除其他事项外，为与 Lady May 号返回美国有关的 \\$37 million 托管资金提供资金。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 19 of 139\n\n62. 被告 Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty. Ltd 是一家澳大利亚实体。\n\n63. 被告 Himalaya International Financial Group Limited 是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n64. 被告 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd.（以下简称“Holy City”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，名义上由被告 Yvette Wang 所有。\n\n65. 被告 Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC 是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，据称在本案中系资金提供实体，Kwok Enterprise 的成员曾使用该实体向债务人的债权人隐瞒债务人的资产。\n\n66. 被告 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 是一家纽约有限责任公司，据称在本案中系资金提供实体，并且是 Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC 的名义子公司。\n\n67. 被告 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 是一家新泽西州有限责任公司，据称在本案中系专业参与者，并且是被告 Aaron Mitchell 的律师事务所。\n\n68. 被告 Leading Shine NY Limited（以下简称“Leading Shine NY”）是一家特拉华州公司，据称在本案中系资金提供实体，名义上由债务人的女儿、被告 Mei Guo 所有。\n\n69. 被告 Lexington Property and Staffing Inc.（以下简称“Lexington Property”）是一家特拉华州公司，据称在本案中系资产持有实体，Kwok Enterprise 曾使用该实体向债务人的债权人及会员受害人隐瞒和掩饰 Farm Loan Program 的欺诈所得收益，以及从事其他违法行为。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 20 of 139\n\n70. 被告 O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC（以下简称“Orbit Service”）是一家康涅狄格州有限责任公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体。\n\n71. 被告 Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（以下简称“Rule of Law Foundation”）是一家特拉华州非营利公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体。Rule of Law Foundation 名义上由债务人的幕僚长、刑事欺诈和敲诈勒索案件共同被告 Yvette Wang 经由其名义上拥有的控股公司 Seven Mission Group LLC 间接所有。\n\n72. 被告 Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（以下简称“Rule of Law Society”，并与 Rule of Law Foundation 合称“Rule of Law Entities”）是一家特拉华州非营利公司，据称在本案中系业务幌子实体。Rule of Law Society 亦名义上由 Yvette Wang 经由 Seven Mission Group LLC 间接所有。Kwok Enterprise 曾使用 Rule of Law Entities，从债务人的追随者处欺诈性地获取据称用于反中国共产党的慈善和／或政治资金，却将该等非法取得的资金用于推进 Kwok Enterprise 的目的，包括使债务人、其家人及关联人士获益，并且除其他事项外，代表债务人为针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动提供资金。\n\n73. 被告 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）（“Saraca”）是一家特拉华州公司，本案中被指称为商业门面实体及名义上的媒体公司，并且是 GTV（GTV）的母公司。\n\n74. 被告 Taurus Fund, LLC（托罗斯基金有限责任公司）是一家内华达州有限责任公司，本案中被指称为资产持有实体，且据称由被告 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）管理，并被郭文贵企业用于持有 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）的产权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 21 页，共 139 页\n\n75. 被告 Savio Law LLC（萨维奥律师事务所有限责任公司）是一家新泽西州有限责任公司，本案中被指称为专业参与者，并且是被告 Nicholas Savio（尼古拉斯·萨维奥）的律师事务所。\n\n76. 被告 Taurus Management LLC（托罗斯管理有限责任公司）是一家新墨西哥州有限责任公司，并与被告 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）一同担任 Taurus Fund LLC（托罗斯基金有限责任公司）的管理人；后者为 Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）的名义产权持有人。\n\n背景\n\n一、构成郭文贵企业背景的投资计划\n\n77. 债务人是一名“于 2015 年前后逃往美国的流亡中国商人”。4 在抵达美国之前，债务人通过各种已知及未知方式积累了大量财富，或取得了对该等财富的支配权。根据现有信息和信念，债务人已取得其享有实益所有权或控制权的数亿美元资产。同时，他对债权人承担了数亿美元负债，包括但不限于一笔由债务人担保、因基础债务人未予偿还而欠 PAX（PAX）约 \\$50 million（当时）的债务。\n\n78. 于 2014 年末前后，债务人在获悉中共中关系密切的同僚警告后逃离中国；根据现有信息和信念，该警告称，中国及香港的安全机关将很快寻求逮捕他。此后不久，于 2015 年初前后，中华人民共和国政府（“PRC”）据报道以包括腐败在内的多项罪名指控债务人，并扣押或试图扣押其在 PRC 的资产（“PRC 扣押行动”），包括不动产、证券及银行账户内的资金。于 2015 年前后，债务人抵达美国。\n\n4 参见 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Kin Ming Je（闫立刚）的替代刑事起诉书，United States v. Kwok et al.（美国诉郭文贵等），23 Cr. 118，提交于 Mar. 6, 2023 [ECF No. 215]（“替代起诉书”），¶ 9(a)。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 22 页，共 139 页\n\n79. 根据现有信息和信念，截至抵达美国时，债务人因包括 PRC 扣押行动在内的事项而失去了对其部分但非全部资产的支配权。因此，自 2018 年前后开始，为获得新资本以继续资助其本人及其家庭成员和关联人士的奢侈生活方式，并防范其现有资产可能被债权人发现，债务人及其他人设计了一系列欺诈计划，从不知情的投资者处筹集资金。\n\n80. 具体而言，债务人及其某些近亲属、顾问和商业伙伴从数千名受害人处欺诈取得了超过约 \\$1 billion，其中包括美国、英国、日本、澳大利亚、德国、PRC 以及世界其他国家的受害人。该等计划构成针对债务人的替代起诉书的一部分，因其为郭文贵企业的形成提供相关背景，故在此予以论述；但如本案所指称，该等计划本身并不构成郭文贵企业的一部分，且受托人并未指称该等计划本身构成前置行为。\n\n81. 根据替代起诉书，债务人及其共谋者的投资计划涉及若干相互关联的部分，包括与 GTV 私募发行（定义如下）、农场贷款计划（定义如下）、G Club（G 俱乐部）会员计划及 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）（定义如下）有关的筹资活动。\n\nA. GTV 私募发行\n\n82. GTV（GTV）是一家特拉华州公司，是一家总部位于纽约市、名义上以新闻为重点的社交媒体平台。尽管债务人在 GTV 未担任任何正式职务或拥有任何正式头衔，但 GTV 在实际功能上由债务人拥有及控制。\n\n83. 在 2020 年 4 月前后至 2020 年 7 月前后期间，债务人在多名共谋者协助下，通过与 GTV 有关的非法私募股票发行（“GTV 私募发行”）以及相关的名义数字资产证券发行（被称为 G-Coins 或 G-Dollars（“GTV 币发行”）），以欺诈手段取得了超过 \\$485 million 的受害人资金。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 23 页，共 139 页\n\n84. 由于 GTV 私募发行及 GTV 币发行的所得款项被混同，债务人及其他人被指称截至约 2020 年 7 月，通过该等发行欺诈了超过 5,000 名投资者，其中包括美国境内的个人。5\n\nB. 农场贷款计划\n\n85. 如替代起诉书所指称，自 2020 年 6 月前后开始，债务人及其共谋者通过“Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）”以欺诈手段取得了超过约 \\$150 million 的受害人资金。6\n\n86. Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）由债务人等人组织及推广，是由位于世界各地不同城市的非正式团体组成的集合体（每个团体称为一个“Farm（农场）”）。债务人及其他代表其行事并受其指示之人，通过对 GTV 私募发行中的投资者受害人作出进一步虚假陈述，并以欺诈手段招揽进一步投资而取得该等资金；该等投资此次采取向农场提供名义“贷款”的形式，并承诺该等贷款可按每出借一美元转换一股 GTV 普通股的转换比例转换为 GTV 普通股（“农场贷款计划”）。7\n\n87. 由于债务人被指称通过虚假陈述推广农场贷款计划，数千名受害人通过向农场控制的银行账户（而非 GTV）汇款，向农场“出借”资金。8 根据农场极少副署的“贷款协议”，该等资金将用于农场的“一般营运资金用途”。事实上，债务人及其共谋者被指称为其自身利益侵占了通过农场贷款计划筹集的资金。\n\n5 参见 In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc.（关于 GTV Media Group, Inc. 事项）、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）及 Voice of Guo Media, Inc.（郭之声媒体公司），Administrative Proceeding No. 3-20537（U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会））（启动停止及终止程序的命令）。\n\n6 参见替代起诉书 ¶ 17。\n\n7 同上。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 24 页，共 139 页\n\nC. G Club Operations, LLC（G 俱乐部运营有限责任公司）\n\n88. G-Club（G 俱乐部）是一个名义上的会员组织，总部设于波多黎各及纽约市，声称向其“会员”提供奢华体验、接触债务人的机会，以及与债务人其他商业机会有关的附带利益。G-Club 于 2020 年 10 月前后推出。正如替代起诉书所指称，实际上，G-Club 是一项旨在使债务人获利的全球性欺诈计划，未向其“会员”提供任何可识别的利益。相反，“会员”向 G-Club 支付各种会员费，以取得该名义组织内的特定“等级”或身份，每一项被指称的“等级”均向会员提供更大的利益（实际上并无任何利益），但也需支付更多资金。“会员”的出资最终从 G-Club 转移至 G-Club BVI（G 俱乐部英属维尔京群岛）或其他地点，在该等地点可被用于使债务人、其家人及其关联人士获利。\n\n89. G-Club 在实际功能上及实益上由债务人拥有及控制，尽管债务人在 G-Club 未担任任何正式管理职务。债务人为 G-Club“正式”提供咨询服务，并拥有发言人、主要主持人及推广联络人的头衔。\n\n90. 债务人及其共谋者被指称通过 G-Club 会员计划，从拟加入者处取得了超过约 \\$250 million9。与向该等会员作出的陈述相反，G-Club 并未向其不知情的会员受害人提供任何稍可称作“全方位服务”及“体验”的内容。10 会员亦未获得其被承诺的额外利益。相反，如替代起诉书所指称，G-Club 会员计划被用于使债务人及其关联人士获利。\n\nD. Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）\n\n91. “Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”是债务人及其共谋者被指称用于欺诈投资者受害人的另一工具。如替代起诉书所指称，Himalaya Exchange 是一个名义上的加密货币“生态系统”（其本身并非法律实体），由 William Je（闫立刚）通过其名义拥有的位于境外的多个实体创立及经营，但该等实体由债务人控制并由债务人实益拥有。11 其他由债务人实益拥有及控制的实体与 Himalaya Exchange 存在名义上的商业关系。12 替代起诉书指称，自至少 2021 年 4 月前后起至至少 2023 年 3 月前后止，债务人及 William Je 通过 Himalaya Exchange 以欺诈手段取得了超过约 \\$262 million 的投资者受害人资金，并将该等资金用于其自身利益。13\n\n二、郭文贵企业的一般范围及目的\n\n92. 在债务人通过上述计划及其他方式积累大量财富的同时，他亦对债权人承担了数亿美元负债，包括但不限于截至 2015 年、在一笔由债务人担保的贷款项下欠 PAX 约 \\$50 million 的债务。随着时间推移，债务人的债权人为寻求其债权的支付而变得日益积极，包括通过提起诉讼。\n\n12 同上。\n\n13 同上 ¶ 19。\n\n10 参见替代起诉书 ¶ 18(e)。\n\n11 参见同上 ¶ 15。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 26 页，共 139 页\n\n93. 例如，于 2017 年 4 月 18 日前后，PAX 就 2011 Personal Guarantee（2011 年个人保证）及据此应付的款项，以违约为由在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York（纽约州纽约县最高法院）（“纽约法院”）对债务人提起诉状（“PAX 诉讼”）。2020 年 9 月 15 日，纽约法院就 PAX 的诉请作出有利于 PAX 的部分简易判决，此后 PAX 采取措施执行该判决，其中包括寻求对债务人资产及财务状况进行证据开示。\n\n94. 同样，于 2017 年 9 月 11 日前后，债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York（纽约州纽约县最高法院）提交经核实的起诉状，就包括殴打、袭击及故意造成精神损害在内的诉请，向债务人及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）——债务人的“家族办公室”和小金库——索赔不少于 \\$20 million；该诉讼源于以下指控：债务人在 Rui Ma 受雇于债务人期间，多次对其实施精神虐待和性侵，其中包括在纽约州实施的行为（“Ma 诉讼”）。概见债权申报 2-1，[主案件编号 22-50073]。\n\n95. PAX 和 Rui Ma 只是债务人众多债权人中的两名；这些债权人或已对其提起诉讼，或正以其他方式采取行动执行其债权。在压力日益逼近之际，债务人及其身边之人必须不惜一切代价确保其资产对债权人保持隐匿。\n\n96. 用于向债权人隐匿债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）资产的机制是 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）。债务人及其被告同谋者此前最早于 2015 年组建了郭氏企业集团，当时，如下文所述，包括空壳公司及债务人家庭成员在内的某些被告开始隐匿债务人的资产，以避免偿还其债务；至当时，该等债务至少已超过 $50 million。\n\n97. 郭氏企业集团的活动随时间推移而演变，但其目的始终未变。除向包括 PAX（帕克斯）、Rui Ma（马蕊）及其他人在内的债权人隐匿资产外，债务人及其被告同谋者还利用郭氏企业集团的空壳公司及其他参与者，通过洗钱及其他方式，欺诈性地隐瞒上述欺诈性投资计划的来源。此外，本破产案件开始后，郭氏企业集团又将妨碍司法和破产欺诈纳入其手段，目的是干扰本第 11 章案件并阻碍受托人的调查。\n\n98. 郭氏企业集团的参与者包括但不限于以下一般类别的实体和个人：\na. 被郭氏企业集团使用的“资金实体”，包括债务人、其他被告及同谋者，作为现金管理或“秘密资金”实体，向各类实体和个人转移巨额资金，以使债务人及其家属获益，包括为债务人的奢华亿万富翁生活方式提供资金、支付开支及资助奢侈购买、提供资金以维持债务人作为受害人应与之投资的成功企业家的形象，以及以其他方式向其债权人隐藏和隐匿债务人的资产。资金实体包括但不限于：\ni. 被告 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）；\nii. Golden Spring（金泉）；\niii. 被告 Leading Shine（领耀）；\niv. 被告 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）和 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）（合称“Hudson Entities（哈德逊实体）”）；以及\nv. Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限财政管理公司）和 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）。\nb. 被郭氏企业集团使用的“资产持有实体”，包括债务人、其他被告及同谋者，用于为债务人及其家属持有特定资产，从而不仅隐匿债务人的资产并可能使其超出债权人的追索范围，而且该等资产亦可供债务人用于展示其所称财富和商业才能，并维持债务人的亿万富翁形象，使郭氏企业集团得以向投资者受害人推销债务人所称的投资和业务领域；该等实体包括但不限于：\ni. 被告 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金 SPC），一家开曼群岛分隔投资组合公司；及其十三个分隔投资组合，包括 Hamilton SA Fund SP（汉密尔顿 SA 基金 SP）；Fortress Digital Assets Fund SP（堡垒数字资产基金 SP）；Taurus Fund SP（金牛基金 SP）；Hamilton Delphi Fund SP（汉密尔顿德尔斐基金 SP）；Hamilton Mars Fund SP（汉密尔顿火星基金 SP）；Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class A（汉密尔顿并购基金 SP A 类）；Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class B（汉密尔顿并购基金 SP B 类）；Hamilton PE Fund SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金 SP）；Hamilton FX Fund SP（汉密尔顿外汇基金 SP）；Hamilton Diversified Trading Fund SP（汉密尔顿多元化交易基金 SP）；Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金 SP）；Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class A（汉密尔顿数字资产基金 SP A 类）；Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class B（汉密尔顿数字资产基金 SP B 类）（合称“Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）”）；\nii. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）；\niii. 被告 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技）、HCHK Property（HCHK 地产）、Lexington Property（莱辛顿地产）（统称“HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）”）以及 Holy City（圣城）；\niv. 被告 Greenwich Land（格林威治地产）；以及\nv. 被告 Gypsy Mei Food（吉普赛梅食品）。\nc. 被郭氏企业集团使用的“商业门面实体”，包括债务人、其他被告及同谋者，用于向债权人隐匿债务人的资产，并为债务人、其家属及关联人士的利益转移欺诈所得资金；该等实体名义上为经营中的媒体、房地产、技术和社交媒体企业，但实际上由债务人所有和控制，以推进郭氏企业集团，包括但不限于：\ni. 被告 GETTR USA, Inc.（GETTR 美国公司）、G Fashion International Limited（G 时尚国际有限公司）、GFNY Inc.（GFNY 公司）、GF Italy LLC（GF 意大利有限责任公司）以及被告 GNews Media Group, Inc.（GNews 媒体集团公司）；\nii. 被告 GS Security Solutions Inc.（GS 安保解决方案公司）；\niii. 被告 O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC（O.S.C. 轨道服务公司有限责任公司）；\niv. 被告 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）和 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）；\nv. 被告 G Club Operations LLC（G Club 运营有限责任公司）和 G Club International Limited (BVI)（G Club 国际有限公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉）（合称“G-Club Entities（G-Club 实体）”）；被告 Crane Advisory Group LLC（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）；G Club HoldCo I LLC（G Club 控股 I 有限责任公司）；Jovial Century International Limited（乔维尔世纪国际有限公司）；G Fashion Hold Co. B Limited（G 时尚控股 B 有限公司）；Stichting Duurzame (Netherlands)（杜尔扎梅基金会〈荷兰〉）；\nvi. 被告 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI)（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉）（以 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）名义经营）；被告 Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (BVI)（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉）；Himalaya International Payments Ltd (BVI)（喜马拉雅国际支付有限公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉）；Himalaya International Reserves Limited (BVI)（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉）；被告 Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd (Australia)（喜马拉雅货币清算有限公司〈澳大利亚〉）；Major Lead International Limited (BVI)（美杰国际有限公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉）；Perfect Company Ltd. (BVI)（完美公司有限公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉）；Stichting Gewelf (Netherlands)（赫维尔夫基金会〈荷兰〉）；\nvii. 被告 Rule of Law Entities（法治实体）；以及\nviii. Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）和 Himalaya Farm Loan Program（喜马拉雅农场贷款计划）。\nd. 由债务人家庭成员和核心圈子中的个人组成的“名义参与者”，包括其子女及最亲密的商业伙伴；该等人员担任债务人实际和受益控制的实体的表面名义所有人、高管、董事、雇员和/或受任人，并明知而参与郭氏企业集团，包括：\ni. 被告 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳），债务人的妻子；Mei Guo（郭梅），债务人的女儿；以及 Qiang Guo（郭强），债务人的儿子；以及\nii. 被告 William Je（威廉·杰）、Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）、Haoran He（何浩然）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）、Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）、Chunguang Han（韩春光）和 Defeng Cao（曹德丰）。\ne. 由向债务人、被告及同谋者提供超出一般法律服务范围的法律顾问组成的“专业参与者”。相反，如本诉状所述，该等法律专业人士及其他被告和同谋者知悉并直接参与了郭氏企业集团各种欺诈计划和非法活动核心中的行为。该等个人包括被告 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、Lawall & Mitchell LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）、Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）、Savio Law LLC（萨维奥律师事务所有限责任公司）、Nicholas Savio（尼古拉斯·萨维奥）和 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）。\nf. 由代表债务人、债务人家属、其他被告或其他同谋者行事的财务顾问、代理人、雇员及其他个人组成的“其他参与者”，因此该等个人向债务人、被告及同谋者提供的服务超出一般商业服务范围。相反，该等个人在受被告和/或债务人或同谋者雇用期间，常常如本诉状所述，知悉并直接参与了郭氏企业集团各种欺诈计划和非法活动核心中的行为。该等个人包括被告 Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）、Limarie Reyes Molinaris（利马丽·雷耶斯·莫利纳里斯）、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn（安娜·C.·伊斯基耶多-亨）、David Fallon（大卫·法伦）、Ehsan Masud（埃桑·马苏德）、Gladys Chow（格拉迪斯·周）、Hsin Shih Yu（余欣诗）、Xuebing Wang（王雪冰）、Yan Chun Liu（刘彦春）、Jessica Mastrogiovanni（杰西卡·马斯特罗焦瓦尼）和 Qidong Xia（夏启东）。\n\n99. 本诉状详细说明了这些个人和实体为欺诈债务人的债权人并使债务人及其家属获益而从事的具体活动和交易。\n\nIII. 转移、让与和隐匿资产及欺诈所得\n\n100. 债务人及其被告同谋者利用郭氏企业集团及其空壳公司网络，以同时：(i) 掩饰债务人某些资产的来源，尤其是上述欺诈性投资计划的所得；以及 (ii) 隐匿债务人的所有重大资产，并使其超出债务人债权人的追索范围。\n\nA. 隐匿和转移 G-Club 欺诈所得\n\n101. 债务人及许多被告竭尽全力隐匿 G-Club 欺诈，并将其所得转移给郭氏企业集团内的个人和实体。\n\nG-Club 及郭氏企业集团其余部分面临银行业务问题\n\n102. 从一开始，G-Club 的欺诈性质就导致其难以维持与由联邦存款保险公司（Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC）承保的境内金融机构之间的银行业务关系。这引发了令人不安的疑问，并使包括许多被告在内的郭氏企业集团竭尽全力隐瞒 G-Club 资金的欺诈性来源。\n\nG-Club 成员受害人的资金被用于使债务人、其家属及关联人士获益\n\n117. 被告还使用 G-Club 资金为债务人购买有价值的资产，并将其隐藏在空壳公司中，使债权人无法发现。\n\n被告 William Je 及其他人确保以其他方式洗钱 G-Club 资金，以使债务人和郭氏企业集团获益。\n\n为便利其欺诈而进行的通信，要么通过电子邮件，要么通过电话，使用了州际电信线路。\n\n喜马拉雅交易所协助转移和掩饰欺诈所得资金\n\n132. 此外，如替代起诉书所述，被告 William Je 试图将喜马拉雅交易所的大笔资金转移至其在境外控制的账户，以避免该等资金即将被美国政府扣押。具体而言，于 2022 年 9 月，被告 William Je 试图将约 $46 million 从与喜马拉雅交易所相关的境内银行账户——尚未被扣押的账户——转移至其控制的位于阿联酋的银行账户。14\n\n133. 在对与喜马拉雅交易所相关资金的首次经司法授权扣押后约两日内，即于 2022 年 9 月 22 日前后，被告 William Je 要求持有喜马拉雅交易所银行账户的一家境内银行管理层执行电汇转账；其与一名喜马拉雅交易所高管向该境内银行虚假陈述，该转账是为喜马拉雅交易所的一名“VIP”客户之利益所必需。15 在其后与该境内银行的通信中，被告 William Je 披露，该 VIP 实际上正是其本人。Je 向该境内银行提供文件，声称显示其于 2022 年 9 月 22 日前后进行了两笔 HCN 销售——总计 46 million HDO——并希望将其“转换”为 $46 million 法定货币。Je 两次向该境内银行的雇员强调，$46 million 的转账必须“今天完成，否则毫无意义。”16\n\n16 同上。\n\n14 替代起诉书 ¶ 21。\n\n15 同上 ¶ 21 (a)。\n\nB. 法治实体在欺诈计划中的作用\n\n134. 为使债务人及其同谋者的欺诈计划保持隐蔽，债务人及郭氏企业集团其他成员必须努力使其对公众展现的外在形象合法化。为此，于 2018 年前后，债务人成立了两个所谓的非营利组织，即被告法治实体，其大力宣扬债务人所谓终结中国共产党的使命。\n\n135. 债务人利用这些非营利组织积累追随者；这些追随者既认同其在中国所宣称的政策目标，又被其作为商人的所谓成功所吸引，因此会对与债务人开展潜在商业机会或捐款支持其政治观点感兴趣（“法治计划”）。\n\n136. 债务人利用法治实体从美国及世界各地的支持者处获得捐款。法治实体随后为推进郭氏企业（Kwok Enterprise）的最终目标，将其中数百万美元捐款欺诈性地转移至空壳公司及其他被告。\nC. 进一步利用空壳公司洗钱及隐匿资产\n\n139. 债务人及被告 William Je（威廉·杰）、Yvette Wang（王雁）、Krasner（克拉斯纳）、DiBattista（迪巴蒂斯塔）和 Mitchell（米切尔）等人，经常在郭氏企业内部转移资金，通常使用被告资金实体、资产持有实体和业务门面实体，目的是洗白该等资金，并通过将资金流动伪装为“贷款”“股息”或“投资”，使债务人、其家人及其关联人士获益。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 42 页，共 139 页\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 43 页，共 139 页\n\n140. 为建立开展该等活动所必需的基础设施，债务人在郭氏企业内的实体中安排，或指示郭氏企业内其他人为其利益安排，挂名高管和／或名义所有人，其中包括许多被告；而该等实体实际上由债务人实益拥有和／或控制。利用名义所有人隐匿债务人的巨额财富并欺诈债权人，长期以来一直是郭氏企业的做法，包括在其于 2015 年前后抵达美国之前。\n\n141. 曾担任债务人实体名义所有人且熟悉债务人在此方面做法的一名人士，是非当事人 Qu Guo Jiao（曲国娇，亦称 Natasha Qu（娜塔莎·曲））（“曲女士”），即债务人信赖的商业伙伴。曲女士自 2002 年前后至 2017 年 9 月期间，曾担任债务人和／或其控制实体的会计经理及行政助理。曲女士负责的事项包括管理债务人控制的各实体的会计和财务事务，以及协助债务人处理其个人和商业事务。曲女士的职责，以及其依债务人指示采取的行动，包括管理公司间电汇及类似交易。\n\n142. 在曲女士于 2002 年前后至 2017 年 9 月期间为债务人工作的期间，债务人经常使用协议，以在功能上及实益上保留对多家公司的控制；该等公司名义上由债务人的家庭成员和／或关联人士持有。其他据称（且名义上）拥有债务人控制公司的债务人员工和／或关联人士包括被告 Yvette Wang（王雁）、Han Chunguang（韩春光，债务人的保镖兼家庭厨师）、Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）和 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）等人。这些人士与曲女士一样，对其名义持有的实体不享有任何财务或实益权益。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 44 页，共 139 页\n\n143. 正如债务人在 2002 年前后至 2017 年期间利用曲女士一样，自其于 2015 年抵达美国之时起至今，他继续与作为共谋者的被告合作，通过隐匿其资产来扩大其空壳把戏并损害债权人。郭氏企业通过使用这些空壳实体及该等公司实体中的傀儡挂名负责人，试图保护债务人的财富。\n\n144. 郭氏企业在众多个人被告的协助下，为保护债务人财富而使用的空壳实体（及该等实体中的傀儡挂名负责人，即名义参与人和专业参与人），大致分为三类，部分实体可能同时属于多个类别：(a) 储备金及现金管理实体（即资金实体）；(b) 用于购置和持有资产的实体（即资产持有实体）；以及 (c) 声称经营业务、但实际上仅仅保护债务人财富的实体（即业务门面实体）。以下依次讨论每一类别实体的示例。\n1. 储备金及现金管理实体\nGolden Spring New York Ltd.（金泉纽约有限公司）\n\n145. Golden Spring（金泉）于 2015 年 3 月在 Delaware（特拉华州）注册成立，并登记在 New York（纽约州）开展业务，与债务人于 2015 年 1 月迁居纽约的时间相吻合。Golden Spring 名义上的母公司为被告 China Golden Spring（中国金泉），而该公司又名义上由被告 Qiang Guo（郭强）、债务人的儿子持有。尽管存在该等名义上的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 45 页，共 139 页\n\n所有权，Golden Spring 不过是债务人的另一个自我，本院已就此作出判决书。17\n\n146. 债务人设立 Golden Spring，是因为他需要一家境内公司在美国购置车辆并从事其他活动——包括租赁办公场所、为该办公场所和其住所购置家具，以及雇用员工。通过这种方式，Golden Spring 充当债务人在境内的“家族办公室”。\n\n147. 虽然债务人指示为其自身利益设立 Golden Spring，但他决定通过让他人签署 Golden Spring 的公司组织文件来保护自己，从而避免其姓名出现在本应属于公开记录一部分的公司文件中。这使债务人得以试图向包括 PAX（PAX）及其他人在内的债权人隐匿其在 Golden Spring 的资产。\n\n148. 在所有相关期间，Golden Spring 没有独立的资金来源；其资金由债务人通过其控制的实体提供，若无该等资金，该公司将不会拥有资本。事实上，债务人通过\n\n17 由于 Golden Spring 已被认定为债务人的另一个自我，因此 Golden Spring 的所有资产均属于第 11 章破产财产，受托人未在本案中将 Golden Spring 列为被告。然而，Golden Spring 是郭氏企业不可或缺的成员。\n\n150. 熟悉债务人和 Golden Spring 的人，无人怀疑债务人是对 Golden Spring 行使控制权的人（尽管被告 Qiang Guo 名义上拥有 Golden Spring 表面母公司、被告 China Golden Spring 的所有权）。事实上，\n\n151. 作为债务人的“家族办公室”，Golden Spring 的职能是持有其资产、支付其费用，并向其债权人隐匿该等资产。因此，Golden Spring 是郭氏企业的关键组成部分，使债务人能够过上奢华生活，同时声称其实际上不受判决执行；这一点可见于本第 11 章案件中提交的资产和负债清单，债务人在其中声称持有 $3,850.00 的资产。19 Golden Spring 以这种方式运作的例子不胜枚举，其中包括：\n\na. Golden Spring 自 2015 年以来一直支付债务人的个人生活费用。这些费用包括安保／保镖、交通、服装及其他项目。例如，债务人作证称，如其想购买一双鞋，他会安排由 Golden Spring 付款。\n\nb. 债务人乘坐一辆据称由 Golden Spring 拥有的 Maybach（迈巴赫）汽车。事实上，受托人持有的保险文件表明，Golden Spring 据称拥有多辆供债务人使用的豪华车辆。\n\nc. Golden Spring 支付了债务人的大量律师费，包括通过诉讼资助协议支付的律师费。\n\n该诉讼资助计划是债务人与共谋被告试图损害债务人债权人的另一种机制，确保即使其破产财产因诉因获得追偿，郭氏企业仍将获益，而任何追偿款可能超出债权人的可及范围。\n\n19 参见 Official Form 106（官方表格 106），第 5 页（Mar. 9, 2022）[主案卷宗编号 78]。\n\nd. Golden Spring 支付了与债务人的游艇 Lady May（“五月花女士”号）有关的费用，以及与 Sherry Netherland Apartment（谢里-荷兰公寓）有关的维护费。\n\ne. 债务人拟在其于 March 22, 2022 提交的动议中，将 Golden Spring 用作与一笔 $8 million DIP 贷款有关的贷款人[主案卷宗编号 117]。该贷款的很大一部分原计划用于支付债务人当时在 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的破产律师，以及债务人提出的众多“日常业务过程”专业人士的费用。\n\n152. 值得注意的是，尽管作为拟议 DIP 贷款人的 Golden Spring 在本第 11 章案件中由律师代理，但在受托人获任命后，Golden Spring 实际上销声匿迹，未回应受托人依据 Bankruptcy Rule 2004（破产规则 2004）发出的传票，并最终被本院认定藐视法庭。\n\n153. Golden Spring 的雇员和管理人员均为郭氏企业中众所周知的成员，其中包括部分被告。该公司于 2015 年 3 月设立时，Golden Spring 的首任董事为曲女士和 Yan Feng Sun（孙艳凤）；二人还分别担任公司的首任总裁／司库和秘书。被告 Qiang Guo 起初担任执行副总裁。近年来，Golden Spring 的总裁——包括债务人提交其第 11 章破产申请时——为被告 Yvette Wang；其还担任公司董事之一（与被告 Qiang Guo 共同担任）。\n\n154. 本院已裁定，“[债务人]控制王女士”，且其“已雇用 Yvette Wang 数年，并指示其代表其采取行动，包括指示其代表其购买诸如 Sherry-Netherland apartment（谢里-荷兰公寓）等房产。”20 被告 Wang 还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任被告 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited（领耀纽约有限公司）、Saraca（萨拉卡）、GTV（GTV）、Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）和\n\n20 公司治理藐视法庭命令，第 4 段。\n\nGenever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）的高级管理人员和／或授权签字人。被告 Wang 被普遍认为是债务人的私人助理，并与被告 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）一道，就所有运营决策担任郭氏企业的重要顾问。被告 Wang 曾多次作证称，其作为 Golden Spring 总裁，系为债务人及其家人的利益担任管理人。\n\n155. 此外，Golden Spring 的雇员包括但不限于：\n\na. 被告 Max Krasner，除担任 Golden Spring 雇员外，其还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任被告 Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限金库管理公司，Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）的母公司）、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）和 HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）的雇员、高级管理人员和／或授权签字人。\n\nb. 被告 Anthony DiBattista，除担任 Golden Spring 雇员外，其还担任被告 GTV、GFashion（G时尚）、G-Club（G俱乐部）和 HCHK Entities 的公司高级管理人员，为债务人服务。\n\n156. 据了解并相信，其他正式或非正式受雇于 Golden Spring 的人士包括但不限于被告 Han（“Hank”）Chunguang（韩春光）21 和 Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）22；二人均在债务人控制的不同实体中担任过职务。\n\n157. Golden Spring 与债务人、其作为被告的子女，以及债务人控制的许多其他实体（如 GTV 和 Saraca）一样，使用被告 Aaron Mitchell 作为其外部\n\n法律顾问。23 Golden Spring 在 Chapter 11 Case 早期阶段的总法律顾问\n\n是 Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯），其亦单独代表债务人。\n\n21 被告 Han（韩春光）是债务人的长期保镖和/或司机，除众多其他职务外，其还曾担任由债务人控制的实体（包括 Eastern Profit（东方利润）、Anton Development（安东发展）及 Rosy Acme Ventures Limited（Rosy Acme Ventures 有限公司））的名义所有人，以及 Saraca（萨拉卡）的董事和高级职员。\n\n22 被告 Hadjicharalambous（哈吉查拉兰布斯）亦曾在 HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）、G-Club（G 俱乐部）及 Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.（自由媒体创投有限公司）任职。\n\n23 尽管由 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）担任法律顾问代理，Golden Spring 因未遵守 Rule 2004 subpoenas（规则 2004 传票）而被本院（连同 Lamp Capital LLC（Lamp Capital 有限责任公司））裁定藐视法庭。见 Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court (Apr. 26, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1709]。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 49 of 139\n\n158. China Golden Spring（中国 Golden Spring）是一家表面上由债务人之子所有、作为 Golden Spring 母公司的香港实体，且在所有相关期间均为另一家由债务人控制的公司。据所知及确信，在 Golden Spring 成立时，债务人通过其雇员 Qu 女士经营 China Golden Spring。\n\n159. 因此，在其整个存续期间，包括在债务人提交破产案件之后，Golden Spring 一直是 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）的组成部分，被用于资助债务人的奢华生活方式，同时隐瞒债务人对 Golden Spring 及其资产的所有权。上述在 Golden Spring 任职或代表 Golden Spring 采取行动的所有被告，均推进了 Kwok Enterprise 首项且总体性的计划；该计划通过将债务人的资产隐匿于诸如 Golden Spring 的空壳公司中，欺诈债务人的债权人。每一该等被告均同意并知悉，其将代表 Golden Spring 采取行动，尽管该被告知悉 Golden Spring 及其资产在实质上和受益权上均归债务人所有。\nLeading Shine NY Ltd.（领盛纽约有限公司）\n\n160. 被告 Leading Shine NY（领盛纽约）于 January 3, 2019 在 Delaware（特拉华州）成立，并于 January 2019 登记在 New York（纽约州）开展业务。Leading Shine NY 是另一家在所有相关期间由债务人受益所有并控制的空壳实体，且其明知并同意在 Kwok Enterprise 中发挥重要作用。\n\n161. Leading Shine NY 的全部资金均由债务人通过其控制的实体提供；若无该等资金，其本不会拥有任何资本。尤其是，Leading Shine NY 曾从债务人控制的实体获得资金，其中包括但不限于被告\n\n据所知及确信，\n\nLeading Shine NY 未从任何债务人控制的其他实体以外的来源获得资金；该等实体没有业务运营，其自身仅由债务人的资产提供资金，包括 GTV scheme（GTV 计划）、G-Club scheme（G 俱乐部计划）、Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）及 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的所得。Leading Shine NY 与被告同意并明知地指使 Kwok Enterprise 在彼此之间转移欺诈取得的款项，以支付债务人的开支，使债务人、其家人及其关联人士获益，并向债务人的债权人隐瞒该等资金的性质和控制权。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 50 of 139\n\n162. Leading Shine NY 积极参与将资金转移至债务人控制的其他空壳公司，\n\n166. 如本文进一步所述，Leading Shine NY 仅有记载的活动包括持有债务人的资产及支付其开支。Leading Shine NY 除从其他债务人控制的公司接收资金、在银行账户中持有现金及支付债务人的开支外，未从事其他任何活动，从而使债务人能够维持成功亿万富翁的形象，并说服不知情的投资者受害人或成员受害人为本文所述的各项 Kwok Enterprise 欺诈计划投入资金。\nLamp Capital LLC（Lamp Capital 有限责任公司）24\n\n167. Lamp Capital 于 September 4, 2020 在 Delaware 成立，并于 September 14, 2020 登记在 New York 开展业务。Lamp Capital 的唯一成员为 Infinity Treasury Management（无限资金管理公司），被告 Qiang Guo（郭强）、即债务人之子，是该公司的名义唯一股东。\n\n24 Lamp Capital LLC 已被认定为债务人的另一个自我，且并非本案当事人。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 52 of 139\n\n168. 在 June 10, 2021 之前，Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波达斯基）担任 Infinity Treasury Management 的唯一董事、总裁及财务主管；Infinity Treasury Management 是 Lamp Capital 的唯一成员。Podhaskie 先生亦为 Lamp Capital 的授权签字人。\n\n169. 于 June 10, 2021，被告 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）接替 Daniel Podhaskie，担任 Infinity Treasury Management 的唯一董事及总裁。Krasner 是债务人的代理人。Krasner 代表债务人行事，并作为被告 Yvette Wang（王雁）下属为债务人工作。Krasner 是 Golden Spring 的雇员，亦在债务人的众多其他空壳公司担任职务，包括担任被告 Greenwich Land（格林威治地产）、Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）、Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约）、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）以及一个或多个 HCHK Entities 的雇员、高级职员和/或授权签字人。\n\n170. Lamp Capital 由债务人通过其控制的实体提供资金。\n\n25 Lamp Capital 使用 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 作为其地址。162 East 64th Street 曾被债务人本人、被告 Aaron Mitchell 以及债务人的多家空壳公司用作地址，包括 Golden Spring、HK USA（香港美国）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司）、Saraca、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）及 Rule of Law Foundation\n\n171. 债务人利用 Lamp Capital 支付其开支并向其债权人隐匿资产，这使 Lamp Capital 成为 Kwok Enterprise 的关键组成部分。Lamp Capital 协助隐瞒债务人的财务状况并维持其及其家庭成员奢华生活方式的事例众多。其中包括：\n\na. Lamp Capital 支付了债务人最初的破产法律顾问 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的 \\$1 million 预付费用。\n\nb. Lamp Capital 支付了债务人涉及诉讼的大量法律费用和开支，包括支付给债务人的律师事务所，如 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）、The Casper Firm（卡斯珀律师事务所）、The Francis Firm PLLC（弗朗西斯律师事务所 PLLC）、Baker Hostetler LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）、Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）、Schulman Bhattacharya LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司）、Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP（甘弗·肖尔·利兹与佐德勒律师事务所）及 Clayman & Rosenberg LLP（克莱曼与罗森伯格律师事务所）。Lamp Capital 还多次支付债务人应付给其他法律或专家证人服务提供者的费用，例如 Veritext（维瑞泰克斯特）、US Legal Support Inc.（美国法律支持公司）、Roy D. Simon（罗伊·D·西蒙）及 William Bradley Wendel（威廉·布拉德利·温德尔）。\n\nc. Lamp Capital 支付了与债务人的游艇 Lady May（梅女士号）有关的开支，以及与 Sherry Netherland Apartment（谢里内德兰公寓）有关的维护费用。\n\nd. Lamp Capital 还就债务人私人飞机 Bombardier Global XRS（庞巴迪环球 XRS）的运营和维护，向 ACASS Canada Ltd.（ACASS 加拿大有限公司）（“ACASS”）、Wings Insurance Agency Inc.（翼保险代理公司）及 SAAM Verspieren Group（SAAM Verspieren 集团）多次付款；该飞机是受托人针对 Mei Guo（郭美）提起的另一宗对立程序的标的。\n\ne. Lamp Capital 向债务人控制公司的 Bento for Business 账户进行了多笔转账；该等账户据此向债务人的家庭成员和关联人士发放预付 Bento 借记卡，并用于支持债务人奢华生活方式的消费。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 54 of 139\n\nf. Lamp Capital 代表债务人就以其名义持有的 Mar-a-Lago Club（海湖庄园俱乐部）会员资格向该俱乐部付款。\n\n172. 如本文进一步所述，被告 Lamp Capital 仅有记载的活动包括持有债务人的资产及支付其开支。Lamp Capital 除从其他债务人控制的公司接收资金、在银行账户中持有现金及支付债务人的开支外，未从事其他任何活动。\n个别被告参与资金转移\n\n173. 如本文所述，众多个别被告协助前述空壳公司及 Kwok Enterprise 中的其他实体转移并隐匿债务人的资金，包括其通过欺诈性投资活动筹集的资金。此外，许多个别被告自身亦使用其个人银行账户进行或接收了多笔转账，该等交易往往涉及其他被告或空壳公司。该等转账的例子列于本文件所附 Schedule 1（附表 1）。据所知及确信，其中部分或全部转账涉及属于债务人的款项和/或构成其欺诈计划所得的款项。\n2. 用于取得和持有资产的空壳实体\nBravo Luck（鸿运）、Eastern Profit 及 HK International（香港国际）\n\n174. Bravo Luck 是一家在 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册成立的空壳公司。于 January 和 February 2015，债务人与其儿子在名义上各自拥有 Bravo Luck 的 50%。\n\n175. 当时，Bravo Luck 在 UBS AG（瑞银集团）开立了一个账户（“Bravo Luck Account”）。于 January 23, 2015，两家债务人空壳公司 HK International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）（“HK International”）及被告 Eastern Profit Corporation（东方利润公司）（“Eastern Profit”）分别向 Bravo Luck Account 转入 \\$150 million 和 \\$370 million，以便除其他事项外，为债务人购买豪华公寓和游艇提供资金并隐瞒该等购买，如下文进一步所述。在该等转账之前，该账户内约有 \\$20,000。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 55 of 139\n\n176. 转入 Bravo Luck Account 的 \\$520 million，不过是债务人将资金从一个“口袋”转移至另一个“口袋”，因为其同时控制 HK International 和 Eastern Profit。\n\n177. HK International 由债务人于 October 2, 2006 注册成立。HK International 实际由债务人控制，债务人利用其向多家其他债务人控制的实体输送资金，用于与 Hong Kong stock exchange（香港证券交易所）相关的投资项目，并且其全部资金均来自其他债务人控制的公司\n\n178. 债务人一直是 HK International 的唯一股东和董事，直至 October 14, 2014，其于该日无偿将其权益转让给 Qu 女士。于 October 14, 2014，Qu 女士还签署了一份 Declaration of Trust（信托声明），规定其作为受托人持有 HK International 的股份，债务人为受益人，并且 Qu 女士将依债务人的指示行使与该等股份有关的权利。因此，尽管 Qu 女士为名义所有人，债务人仍持续受益所有并控制 HK International。\n\n179. 被告 Eastern Profit 是债务人在 Hong Kong（香港）注册成立的另一家空壳公司。Eastern Profit 是 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）Liman 法官认定事项的对象，其中包括认定 Eastern 实质上是债务人的“一家空壳公司”。\n\n180. 除其他事项外，于 2015 年其向 Bravo Luck 转入 \\$370 million 时，Eastern Profit 的名义所有人为 Han Chunguang（韩春光），即债务人的司机、保镖和厨师；债务人称其为“小韩”，并介绍其为自己的厨师。Han 先生随后以 HK\\$1.00 将其对 Eastern Profit 的名义所有权转让给债务人的女儿 Mei Guo。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 56 of 139\n\n该转让于 June 27, 2017 作出；同日，Qu 女士（作为债务人的受托人行事）亦以 HK\\$1.00 将 HK International“出售”给债务人的女儿。\n\n181. 2015年2月21日，债务人的另一家空壳公司，Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司，以下简称“Genever US”），就一套俯瞰曼哈顿的顶层公寓（以下简称“Sherry Netherland Apartment（雪莉荷兰公寓）”）签署了一份销售合同。26 Genever US只有一名成员，即Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司，以下简称“Genever BVI”）。在购买Sherry Netherland Apartment时，债务人是Genever US的唯一股东。Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运公司）担任该购买的资金来源。\n\n182. 即使在签署销售合同后，Sherry Netherland Apartment的出售仍须获得Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪莉荷兰酒店）董事会的批准。2015年3月3日，董事会举行会议，审议就该房产提交的购买申请，并认定其未获得充分的财务信息，且“董事会需要进行额外的尽职调查，包括但不限于取得有关[债务人]的财务信息。”\n\n26 从技术上讲，Sherry Netherland Apartment由位于Sherry Netherland Hotel第18层的多个单元组成；为便于引用，统称为Sherry Netherland Apartment。\n\n184. 约两个月后，即2015年5月26日，债务人据称以\\$1.00将其在Bravo Luck中的50%所有权权益出售给其儿子。然而，自2015年起至2023年3月前后其在Sherry Netherland Apartment被联邦执法人员逮捕时止，债务人（而非其儿子）一直将Sherry Netherland Apartment用作住所。债务人、被告Qiang Guo（郭强）及被告Bravo Luck均故意采取这些行动，以隐瞒债务人对Sherry Netherland Apartment的最终实益所有权，并使其免受债权人追索。\n\n185. 债务人还利用Bravo Luck隐瞒其购买Lady May（一艘150英尺豪华游艇）一事。\n\n186. 在2014年10月10日至2017年6月27日期间，Qu女士（屈女士）——债务人当时的行政助理兼会计经理——为HK International（香港国际公司）的名义唯一股东及董事；其通过一项不涉及任何对价的“遮蔽性”转让，自债务人处取得“所有权”。在此期间，Qu女士以HK International唯一股东及董事身份采取的所有重大行动，均是应债务人的要求及指示而作出。例如，如债务人要求或指示Qu女士以HK International唯一股东及董事身份签署文件，她便不经讨论即予签署，包括于2015年2月购买Lady May一事。\n\n案件22-50073，文件2923，提交日期02/15/24，录入日期02/15/24 20:00:33，第58页，共139页\n\n187. 2015年2月23日——即购买Sherry Netherland Apartment约两周前（其购买资金由Bravo Luck电汇）——HK International以€28,000,000（或约\\$32,000,00027）向Apsley Yachts Limited（阿普斯利游艇有限公司）购买Lady May。\n\n188. 同于2015年2月23日，Bravo Luck向Apsley Yachts Limited的一名代表转移了不少于€25,000,000。该转移系依据债务人为使HK International购买Lady May而签署的一份电汇表格作出。\n\n189. 如上所述，HK International始终由债务人控制。即使在2014年其将股份转让给Qu女士后，债务人仍为实益所有人，而Qu女士仅可依债务人的指示行使与该等股份有关的权利。\n\n190. 该结构一直维持至2017年6月27日，届时Qu女士据称以HK\\$1.00将HK International的所有权转让给债务人的女儿、被告Mei Guo（郭美）。\n\n191. 约两年后，即2019年4月1日，被告Mei Guo设立HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司，以下简称“HK USA”），其为该公司的唯一成员。同月，HK International无偿将Lady May转让给HL USA。\n\n192. 债务人、债务人的女儿Mei Guo、HK USA、HK International及Bravo Luck均采取这些行动，以隐瞒债务人对Lady May的最终实益所有权，并使其免受其债权人追索。\n\n193. 本院此后认定，HK USA系债务人的另一个自我，因此，Lady May属于第11章破产财产。\n\nGreenwich Land\n\n194. 被告Greenwich Land（格林威治土地公司）是一家于2019年7月3日成立的特拉华州有限责任公司。Greenwich Land的运营地址为纽约州纽约市东64街162号。除被告Ngok（鄂克）外，Greenwich Land仅有三人曾担任高级职员——被告Yvette Wang（王悦）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）及Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）。上述每人均曾在债务人控制的实体中担任多个职位。\n\n195. Greenwich Land的代理人实施了多项违法行为，包括以虚假借口开设银行账户及明知故犯地使用州际电汇；该等行为旨在促进Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）隐瞒债务人财富及欺诈其债权人的目的，并推进Kwok Enterprise所实施的各种欺诈行为。Greenwich Land及其名义所有人、被告Hing Chi Ngok（鄂庆）均未从Greenwich Land的任何经营活动中产生收入或收益，其资金来源亦仅为Kwok Enterprise因本文详述的欺诈计划而收取的欺诈所得款项。\n\n196. 尽管某些被告声称Greenwich Land的业务仅包括持有不动产，\n\n为促进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人，并掩饰通过GTV欺诈计划、G-Club欺诈计划、农场贷款计划及喜马拉雅交易所欺诈计划取得的欺诈所得款项的性质及所有权。\n\n）\n\n案件22-50073，文件2923，提交日期02/15/24，录入日期02/15/24 20:00:33，第60页，共\n\n案件22-50073，文件2923，提交日期02/15/24，录入日期02/15/24 20:00:33，第61页，共139页\n\n违反了禁止如此耗散Greenwich Land资产的2023年3月28日临时限制令28及2023年5月26日初步禁令29。\n\n202. 此外，各被告\n\n在2020年10月26日至2023年7月31日期间的所有相关时间，Greenwich Land均无经营活动、收入或在未从Kwok Enterprise的其他共谋者及成员处接收资金的情况下产生款项的能力。各被告\n\n在2020年10月26日至2023年7月31日期间的所有相关时间，均知悉Greenwich Land向各被告的Bento借记卡账户转移的资金实际上系违法活动的产物；并且，各被告均明知其以虚假借口取得该等Bento借记卡账户——鉴于其明知该等账户将由债务人欺诈计划的所得款项注资——从而推进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人的目的。\n\n203.\n\n28 对抗程序案号23-05005，案卷编号14。\n\n29 对抗程序案号23-05005*,* 案卷编号53。\n\nGreenwich Land明知作出及接收了该等涉及欺诈所得财产的转移——即GTV欺诈中投资者受害人的款项——而Greenwich Land作出及接收的该等转移，旨在隐瞒及掩饰最终由债务人控制的GTV欺诈所得款项的性质、来源及控制权。这是债务人指挥并利用的一种空壳腾挪手法，用以欺诈债权人并隐匿其资产，对受托人及债务人的债权人造成重大损害。\n\n204.\n\n总之，根据所知及相信，Savio Law LLC（萨维奥律师事务所）是\n\n债务人的代表。\n\n30 Savio Law LLC的负责人现在或曾经是Nicholas F. Savio（尼古拉斯·F·萨维奥）。Savio先生目前在Lawall & Mitchell（劳沃尔和米切尔律师事务所）执业，该所为债务人总法律顾问Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）所属的律师事务所。此前，Savio先生和Mitchell先生曾为Cohen & Howard, L.L.P.（科恩和霍华德有限责任合伙律师事务所）的同事；在该所期间，他们曾在新泽西州联邦地区法院的诉讼中代理债务人。S\n\n案件22-50073，文件2923，提交日期02/15/24，录入日期02/15/24 20:00:33，第63页，共139页\n\n205. Greenwich Land购买后又出售的一处不动产，是位于33 Ferncliff Road（芬克利夫路33号）的住宅房产（以下简称“Ferncliff Property（芬克利夫房产）”）。债务人控制了Ferncliff Property的购买、使用和出售；另一被债务人控制的被告实体Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）被用于债务人购买及出售Ferncliff Property。\n\n206. Hudson Diamond NY是一家债务人空壳公司，据称由被告Mei Guo通过Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股公司）拥有。\n\n31 此类交易的明细表附于本文件，载于__________。\n\n211.\n\n213. 因此，这些付款显然是为债务人的个人利益而作出的。具体而言：\n\na. Hudson Diamond NY使用美国电汇，在州际商业中执行该等转移；其既无经营活动亦无自行筹资能力，却明知该等资金系违法取得，并为促进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人的计划而转移；\n\nb. Greenwich Land使用美国电汇，在州际商业中执行该等转移；其既无经营活动亦无自行筹资能力，却明知该等资金系违法取得，并为促进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人的计划而转移；\n\nc. 在一家美国银行。Saraca（萨拉卡公司）使用美国电汇，在州际商业中执行该等转移；其既无经营活动亦无自行筹资能力，却明知该等资金系违法取得，并为促进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人的计划而转移；\n\n216. Hudson Diamond NY是代表债务人设立的另一实体，据称目的为取得不动产。\n\n218. Hudson Diamond NY由债务人通过其控制的实体提供资金。与其拥有和控制的众多其他实体一样，Kwok Enterprise利用Hudson Diamond NY使债务人的资产免受债权人追索，同时利用该等资产维持债务人奢华的亿万富翁形象，从而使其能够向投资者受害人推销其自身及Kwok Enterprise，塑造为值得信赖并值得投资的个人和组织。\n\n219. 被告Hudson Diamond NY已从众多债务人控制实体获得资金，其中包括，除其他外，根据所知及相信，Hudson Diamond NY除来自其他债务人控制实体的资金外，不接收任何其他资金。ACA Capital（ACA资本公司）为促进前述欺诈行为，并为促进Kwok Enterprise隐瞒及掩饰该等欺诈所得款项的性质及控制权的目的，执行了所有该等转移。\n\n220. 被告Hudson Diamond NY主要由债务人设立，以取得不动产。具体而言，债务人曾利用Hudson Diamond NY，以其空壳公司Greenwich Land的名义，为据称登记在债务人妻子Hing Chi Ngok名下的房地产购买提供资金。\n\nHudson Diamond NY自身并无筹资机制，且明知该等转移是为促进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人，以及隐瞒其向Greenwich Land转移的资金等所得款项的性质及控制权的计划和目的而作出的。b. Greenwich Land自身无产生款项的能力，且已从Hudson Diamond NY收到该等资金，故其知悉该等转移是为促进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人，以及隐瞒其向Whitman Breed（惠特曼·布里德）转移的资金等所得款项的性质及控制权的计划和目的而作出的。Greenwich Land自身无产生款项的能力，且已从Hudson Diamond NY收到该等资金，故其知悉该等转移是为促进Kwok Enterprise欺诈债务人债权人，以及隐瞒其向Whitman Breed转移的资金等所得款项的性质及控制权的计划和目的而作出的。221. 在其证言录取过程中，Mei Guo，即据称为Hudson Diamond唯一成员的人，\n\nHolding（控股公司）——自称为Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）唯一成员的她，在被问及其父亲，即债务人，时援引了《美国宪法第五修正案》赋予的权利\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 69 页，共 139 页\n\n222. 在其证言录取过程中，Mei Guo（郭美）——自称为Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股公司）唯一成员、并自称为Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）唯一成员的她，在被问及其父亲，即债务人，时援引了《美国宪法第五修正案》赋予的权利，\n\n224. 银行记录显示，除为房地产交易提供资金外，债务人还利用Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）向其他空壳公司转移数百万美元，包括例如，也向其女儿Mei Guo（郭美）及其妻子Hing Chi Ngok（邢志玉）转移资金。\n\n225. 此外，据悉并相信，Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）拥有债务人的一辆Rolls Royce（劳斯莱斯）豪华汽车。\n\n226. 如下文进一步论述，被告Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）仅有的记录在案活动，是持有债务人的资产并支付其费用。Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）除通过从其他由债务人控制的公司获得资金、在银行账户中持有现金（除持有债务人的Rolls Royce（劳斯莱斯）汽车及可能的其他资产外），以及支付债务人的费用，而参与Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）外，未从事任何其他活动。\n\n228. 此外，Mei Guo（郭美）在本法院作证时，在被问及包括Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）是否依债务人指示设立以取得不动产，以及债务人是否始终控制Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）及其资产等问题时，援引了《美国宪法第五修正案》。\n\nHamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）\n\n229. 对于为债务人及其家属和关联人士的利益将G-Clubs（G俱乐部）欺诈所得变现而言，至关重要的是“Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）”——一组投资工具；该等工具以投资者受害人对G-Clubs（G俱乐部）的出资提供资金，使Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）能够：(a) 维持G-Clubs（G俱乐部）在Puerto Rico（波多黎各）所声称享有的优惠“会员组织”税务地位（而非在税务上将G-Clubs（G俱乐部）视为投资实体），同时(b) 通过将会员受害人的资金转移至由债务人控制、可购买资产（并将其向债务人的债权人隐匿）的实体，使债务人、其家属及其关联人士获益。\n\n230. 被告David Fallon（大卫·法伦）依债务人、被告Qiang Guo（郭强）及被告William Je（杰威廉）的指示，担任Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）的主要运营雇员，误导Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）的基金管理人NAV Fund Administration Group（NAV基金管理集团），并为Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）及债务人的利益，将Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）中的“认购”及其他虚假投资制作成书面文件。\n\n232.\n\n. 被告David Fallon（大卫·法伦）通过电话或电子邮件作出所有该等通信及境外电汇，并故意以欺诈性借口与该银行往来。\n\nTaurus Entities（托罗斯实体）及Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）\n\n233. 为推进G-Club（G俱乐部）欺诈，并利用Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）隐匿该欺诈行为及使债务人、其家属和关联人士获益，2021年12月16日（“购买日”），被告Taurus Fund SP（托罗斯基金SP）——Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）的一个独立投资组合公司——直接或间接通过Taurus Fund LLC（托罗斯基金有限责任公司）（“Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）”），以约\\$26.5 million向Crocker Mansion Estate LLC（克罗克豪宅地产有限责任公司）购得一处约50,000平方英尺的新泽西庄园，即Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）。契据于同日在New Jersey（新泽西州）Bergen County（卑尔根县）登记。如以下所述，购买Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）实际上是债务人及其共同密谋者实施的G-Club（G俱乐部）欺诈的延伸。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 73 页，共 139 页\n\n234. Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）于2021年12月16日在Nevada（内华达州）成立，与购买日为同一日。\n\n235. 除Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）外，Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）还持有一架由F.A. Porsche（F.A.保时捷）设计的Bösendorfer（三角钢琴）所有权，该钢琴（“Porsche Piano（保时捷钢琴）”）据信价值超过\\$250,000。Porsche Piano（保时捷钢琴）此前位于债务人在New York City（纽约市）3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号）的GSeries（G系列）办公室。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 74 页，共 139 页\n\n236. Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）由(i)债务人的司机和/或保镖、被告Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特），以及(ii)被告Taurus Management LLC（托罗斯管理有限责任公司）管理。然而，被告Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）由Taurus Fund SP（托罗斯基金SP）所有，后者是被告Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）声称设立的独立投资组合。\n\n237. 被告Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）是债务人的司机和/或保镖，Barnett（巴尼特）仍受雇于债务人并积极为其工作。实际上，2023年6月20日，债务人的律师Aaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）在一封发给受托人的电子邮件中通知受托人：“Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）曾在Sherry [Netherland]（谢里[内德兰]）为Kwok先生提供安保服务，其将从Sherry Netherland（谢里内德兰）取走[若干]箱子”，箱内装有债务人及其家属的衣物和个人物品。Barnett（巴尼特）还被列为AIG（美国国际集团）向Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）——债务人众多空壳公司之一——签发的保险单项下的承保驾驶员。Barnett（巴尼特）还至少由另外两家空壳公司Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）及Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）支付过报酬。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 75 页，共 139 页\n\n238. Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）列示的另一名管理人Taurus Management LLC（托罗斯管理有限责任公司），于购买日前一天，即2021年12月15日，在New Mexico（新墨西哥州）成立为有限责任公司。尽管Taurus Management（托罗斯管理公司）是一家新墨西哥州实体，其与Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）在内华达州共用相同地址：6628 Sky Pointe Drive, Suite 129-1071, Las Vegas, NV 89131。\n\n239. 尽管Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）名义上持有Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）的所有权，但在债务人于2023年3月15日被捕前，债务人对该不动产拥有完全的实益所有权和控制权。\n\n240. 对债务人提出的最初起诉书中载有多项证券欺诈、电信欺诈及洗钱指控，该起诉书披露了债务人在Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）的居住情况及其对该豪宅享有的衡平法所有权。32 该最初起诉书将Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）列为债务人在美国的一处豪华住所，连同其位于Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰）的公寓及其位于Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的住所。\n\n241. 建于1907年的城堡式Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）坐落于距New York City（纽约市）25英里以内，被描述为世界上最宏伟、最罕见的庄园之一。该豪宅拥有21间卧室、超过19间浴室、一个大厅、图书馆、茶室、正式餐厅、餐厅式厨房、电影院、台球室、带水疗设施的室内健身泳池、按摩室、酒窖、游戏室、健身房、带凉亭的室外泳池、带两座喷泉的壮丽花园、网球场、可停放8辆汽车的车库，以及遍布整座城堡的珍稀木材、石工和工艺。此外，Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）有其专属Wikipedia（维基百科）页面，并于1997年被列入National Register of Historic Places（国家史迹名录）。\n\n242. Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）的宏伟与奢华，与债务人偏好奢华住所相一致，正如价值\\$70 million的Sherry Netherland（谢里内德兰）公寓及债务人在Connecticut（康涅狄格州）价值数百万美元的住所一样。\n\n32 参见Superseding Indictment（替代起诉书）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 76 页，共 139 页\n\n243. 总之，债务人于2021年12月16日决定购买Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅），此时距离债务人于2022年2月15日自愿提交第11章破产申请尚有两个月，且其对包括PAX在内的债权人负有巨额债务，其中包括对PAX约\\$115 million的判决书。其还决定隐匿其购买Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）及对其享有的衡平法所有权（不出所料，该豪宅未列入债务人的资产负债表），若非美国政府于2023年3月15日提出刑事起诉书，该等事项本将继续被隐匿。\n\n244. 尽管Taurus Fund（托罗斯基金）名义上持有Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）的所有权，债务人仍指挥并亲自参与了购买及翻修该豪宅，所使用的资金受其控制——即会员受害人向G-Club（G俱乐部）支付的非法所得资金。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 77 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 78 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 79 页，共 139 页\n\n装饰物品，例如价值约\\$978,000的中国及波斯地毯、一台\\$62,000的电视机、一件\\$53,000的壁炉柴架、一只\\$59,000的手表收纳箱，以及一张\\$35,000的床垫。\n\n3. 隐匿债务人财富和资产的声称运营实体。\n\n258. 债务人还利用虚假商业组织，在Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）内以及在其家属和关联人士之间转移欺诈取得的收益，以防止债权人向其追偿。\n\nHCHK Entities（HCHK实体）\n\n259. 被告HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）、HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）及Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）均为Holy City（圣城公司）所有的实体。值得注意的是，被告Yvette Wang（王伊薇）是Holy City（圣城公司）名义上的99.9999%所有人，被告Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）是Holy City（圣城公司）名义上的0.0001%所有人，但债务人是Holy City（圣城公司）及其所有子公司的实际及实益所有人。\n\n260. 除被告Yvette Wang（王伊薇）外，被告DiBattista（迪巴蒂斯塔）也是债务人的长期雇员，曾在不同的债务人控制公司担任各种职务。被告DiBattista（迪巴蒂斯塔）曾受雇于Golden Spring（金泉公司），并曾作为GTV、GFashion及G-Clubs（G俱乐部）的公司高管为债务人服务。\n\n261. 除被告DiBattista（迪巴蒂斯塔）外，HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的关键人员均为债务人“家族办公室”Golden Spring（金泉公司）的前雇员或高管。这些转至HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的其他Golden Spring（金泉公司）人员包括被告Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Joe Wang（王乔）、Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯）及被告Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）。据悉并相信，HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）仅是Golden Spring（金泉公司）换用新公司抬头后的延续。其他HCHK人员包括Elliott Dordick（埃利奥特·多迪克），本法院认定其为Gettr（盖特尔）的雇员，33 后者属于“G-Series（G系列）”实体体系的一部分，本法院认定该等实体“服务于\n\n33 初步禁令裁定第13段。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 登记日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 82 页，共 139 页\n\n债务人的目的”并“作为债务人的商业工具”。34 如本法院可能记得，Dordick先生参与了债务人针对受托人和PAX的骚扰行动。\n\n262. HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）并非恰好与债务人关联实体有业务往来的独立企业。它们是Business-Front Entities（业务门面实体）——债务人G-Series（G系列）实体的关联方；其与该等实体共同构成由债务人控制的Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）中的一个齿轮，致力于促进债务人的利益、使债务人及其家属和关联人士获益、向债权人隐匿债务人的资产和财富，并维持债务人的亿万富翁生活方式及其作为成功企业家和投资者的形象。\n\n263. HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的营业地点位于New York City（纽约市）3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环3号），HCHK Property（HCHK地产公司）及Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）在此转租办公空间。该地点是债务人的关联人士按债务人指示拍摄支持债务人的视频之处，其中包括在2022年末呼吁骚扰受托人、PAX及其律师的视频。这些活动导致本法院作出其初步禁令裁定[对抗程序案号22-05032中案卷编号133]，其中本法院认定，包括债务人控制G-Series（G系列）实体在内的事实。据悉并相信，这些攻击受托人及PAX的视频，是使用HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）在某些拟议的纽约州法院转让程序中披露为其声称资产的视频和电子设备制作的。\n\n264. HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的会计师事务所 Marcum LLP（马库姆有限责任合伙企业）（“Marcum”）出具的文件显示，HCHK实体和 G-Series Entities（G系列实体）在多大程度上作为 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）的组成部分代表债务人运营。除其他事项外，该等文件显示，Marcum 对于谁控制 HCHK实体和G系列实体毫无疑问。\n\n34 PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n265. HCHK实体的作用之一是充当债务人企业的“钱袋子”。正因如此，Marcum 的业务约定书规定，Marcum 将向 Lexington Property（莱克星顿地产）“及其关联方”提供服务；Marcum 还被明确委托不仅编制HCHK实体的纳税申报表，还编制其他由债务人控制的实体的纳税申报表，包括 GFashion（郭时尚）和 GTV。类似地，Marcum 将 HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）的资产分类为包括与 Gettr（盖特尔）、GFashion 和“FMV”对应的银行账户（FMV 是一个缩写，据知悉和相信，指另一家由债务人控制的公司 Freedom Media Ventures（自由媒体创投））。这一“钱袋子”作用与就HCHK科技公司提交的资产清单一致，该清单披露应收账款为 $12,559,423.06。据知悉和相信，该等应收账款包括G系列实体或其他由债务人控制、且为郭氏企业集团共谋者及成员的公司据称应付给HCHK科技公司的债务。\n\n266. 例如，被告 HCHK Technologies 曾多次故意且明知地传输实质性电汇通信，包括转移从郭氏企业集团各项欺诈中的投资者受害人和/或成员受害人处欺诈取得的资金，以向债务人的债权人隐瞒债务人的资产和财富，并支付债务人及其家人和关联人士的费用，从而推进郭氏企业集团欺诈债务人债权人的计划：\n\n其家人，并非HCHK科技公司的合法费用或义务。\n\n其为 Lady May（梅夫人号）的管理公司，Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）和本院已裁定该船为债务人的游艇。据知悉和相信，在所有相关期间，HCHK科技公司知道该等付款系为债务人及其家人的利益而支付，并非HCHK科技公司的合法费用或义务。\n\nc.\n\nb.\n\n。据知悉和相信，该笔付款的目的是为债务人购买一架新的私人飞机，即在与债务人刑事案件有关的提交文件中被提及的 Cirrus SF50 jet（西锐SF50喷气机）。据知悉和相信，在所有相关期间，HCHK科技公司知道该等付款系为债务人及其家人的利益而支付，并非HCHK科技公司的合法费用或义务。\n\n267. 此外，Lexington Property 虽表面上仅从事办公空间转租业务，却曾多次故意且明知地传输实质性电汇通信，包括转移从郭氏企业集团各项欺诈中的投资者受害人和/或成员受害人处欺诈取得的资金，以向债务人的债权人隐瞒债务人的资产和财富，并支付债务人及其家人和关联人士的费用，从而推进郭氏企业集团欺诈债务人债权人的计划。例如：\n\n- a. 尽管被告 Mitchell（米切尔）在伪证罪处罚的约束下作证称，其从未向Lexington Property提供法律服务：\n\n- i.\n\n据知悉和相信，在所有相关期间，Lexington Property 知道该等付款系为债务人和被告米切尔的利益而支付；米切尔是债务人的已知关联人士及郭氏企业集团成员；该等付款并非Lexington Property的合法费用或义务。\n\nii.\n\n据知悉和相信，在所有相关期间，Lexington Property 知道该等付款系为债务人、被告米切尔以及 Lawall & Mitchell LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）的利益而支付；该等主体是债务人的共谋者及郭氏企业集团成员；该等付款并非Lexington Property的合法费用或义务。\n\niii. 据知悉和相信，在所有相关期间，Lexington Property 知道该等付款是为推进 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）欺诈计划而作出，系为债务人和郭氏企业集团的利益而支付，并非Lexington Property的合法费用、义务或投资。\n\n268. Lexington Property 还明知地收取了郭氏企业集团 Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）欺诈计划的所得，并通过进一步的金融交易耗散该等作为犯罪所得财产的款项，包括在州际商业中使用美国电汇转移欺诈取得的资金，意图推进农场贷款计划欺诈计划以及郭氏企业集团欺诈债务人债权人并隐瞒债务人资产性质和所有权的欺诈计划。例如：\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 86 页，共 139 页\n\n269. HCHK Property（HCHK地产）也是郭氏企业集团农场贷款计划欺诈计划中的关键一环。其既明知地收取了来自农场贷款计划的欺诈取得资金，又进一步转移该等资金，以推进该计划及郭氏企业集团向债务人的债权人隐瞒该等资金性质和所有权的努力。\n\n在收到该等资金后，HCHK地产与许多其他被告和共谋者一样，进一步将资金转移给其他由债务人控制的被告和共谋者，明知地推进农场贷款计划欺诈，使债务人获益，并通过隐瞒欺诈取得资金的性质和所有权来欺诈债务人的债权人。例如：\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 87 页，共 139 页\n\n270. HCHK地产在上述三项金融交易以及其进行的类似金融交易中转移的资金，均为农场贷款计划的欺诈取得所得。HCHK地产明知地将该等农场贷款计划的不法所得转移给 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）、Hamilton M&A Fund SP（汉密尔顿并购基金SP），以使债务人、其家人和关联人士获益，推进农场贷款计划，并通过掩饰和隐瞒所转移资金的性质和所有权来欺诈债务人的债权人。\n\n271. 此外，从HCHK地产收取该等欺诈取得所得的被告和共谋者，明知HCHK地产是债务人拥有的空壳实体；除通过农场贷款计划等郭氏企业集团欺诈计划外，其没有其他获得或筹集如此巨额资金的手段；并且事实上，该等被告和共谋者从HCHK地产收到的资金是从农场贷款计划受害人处非法取得的。例如，\n\n273. 在美国政府就债务人及被告 Yvette Wang（王雁）和 William Je（叶威廉）提起的刑事诉讼所提交的诉状中，美国政府除其他事项外指称：\n\n- a. HCHK Technologies 是“一家由 Kwok 控制的公司，该公司……于今年早些时候派遣员工前往[阿拉伯联合酋长国]开设银行账户，而据 Kwok 声称，该等账户将不受美国‘长臂管辖权’的约束。”这些员工“在阿联酋停留了约六周以上，显然是为了协助将 Kwok 和[William] Je 的业务转移至国外。”\n\n- b. Gettr 和HCHK Technologies 是“由 Kwok 和[William] Je 控制、部分以欺诈所得资助的公司。”Gettr“是一家 Kwok 通过一系列空壳公司控制的社交媒体公司”，而且“Gettr 和HCHK实体……在同一办公地点运营。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 89 页，共 139 页\n\n- c. “在[被告 Yvette Wang]公寓内其手提包中的一个文件夹里发现的带有批注文件的照片，表面上在实质内容和部分内容上反映了以 HCHK Technologies、HCHK Property Management（HCHK物业管理）、GFNY, Inc.（即GFashion）和 GF Italy（即GFashion Italy）名义持有的六个银行账户的某些交易和余额。”\n\n- d. “在[被告 Yvette Wang]公寓内其手提包中的文件夹里发现的另一份文件的照片，表面上总体和实质上反映，[被告 Yvette Wang]签署了与多家由 Kwok 控制的实体相关的工资费用……该文件还表明，某些工资费用应如何在关联实体之间分配，包括HCHK。”\n\nIV. 妨碍和干扰破产程序\n\n274. 郭氏企业集团欺诈债务人债权人的计划在2021年2月达到高潮，当时 PAX（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）在 NY Action（纽约诉讼）中就违约获得对债务人 $116 million 的判决书，并寻求对债务人的资产执行该判决书。\n\n275. 就该等执行努力而言，NY Court（纽约州法院）认定，债务人从事“通过将其大量个人资产停放于一系列公司、受信任的知己和家庭成员名下，以逃避和欺骗其债权人的努力”，并且“将其资产隐藏在由公司实体和家庭成员构成的迷宫中。”35 纽约州法院具体认定，Lady May游艇是债务人的资产，并因债务人将该游艇移出美国水域且未将其返还，对债务人处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n276. 债务人若不动用其隐藏资产并揭露郭氏企业集团的欺诈性障眼法，便无法清偿PAX判决书或支付藐视法庭罚款。因此，债务人迫切希望阻止纽约诉讼，以防PAX在执行该判决书和罚款的努力中取得进一步进展。\n\n35 参见 Decision + Order on Motion, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业） v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 9, 2022), at 1.\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交 02/15/24 录入 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 90 页，共 139 页\n\n277. 面对此种困境，债务人及其数名被告共谋者决定，除执行郭氏企业集团欺诈债权人计划的最后阶段外别无选择：向本院提交第11章申请，以同时（i）立即中止纽约诉讼，以及（ii）给予债务人通过一项协商一致的交易尝试解决PAX及其他债权人债权的机会，从而使该欺诈行为继续被隐瞒。\n\nA. 初次未向破产法院披露资产\n\n278. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交其第11章申请。按照《破产法典》的要求，其财产清单和财务状况说明书（统称“附表”）于数周后提交。\n\n279. 尽管存在大量公开证据证明债务人拥有巨额财富，债务人的附表却申报债务人财产总价值为 $3,850.00，而无担保债权为 $373,803,498.09，其中超过 $250 million 为PAX的债权，其余包括众多与据称证券欺诈、诽谤和性侵害等事项有关的债权。\n\n280. 如上文详述，附表未披露债务人以被告以及构成郭氏企业集团的其他个人和空壳公司名义持有的至少数亿美元资产。附表中一项尤其明显的遗漏是，未提及Lady May是债务人的资产，尽管纽约州法院最近已在纽约诉讼中作出该项认定。\n\n281. 债务人并非自行制作附表或以其他方式准备其破产申请，而是得到了其律师的协助与配合，其中包括被告 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）。如本文件其他部分所述，Mitchell 长期担任债务人的个人律师，并在与 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）相关的众多事务中担任其亲密顾问。他与债务人的破产律师密切协调，试图向法院“推销”债务人的说法。因此，Mitchell 在协助债务人及其破产律师编制欺诈性附表方面发挥了重要作用。尽管明知附表虚假，Mitchell 仍允许向法院提交该等附表，目的在于欺诈法院及债务人的债权人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 于 02/15/24 提交，于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 91 页，共 139 页\n\n282. 随着第 11 章案件的推进，债务人继续试图向法院欺诈性隐瞒其真实财务状况。例如，在申请日约两个月后，债务人在据悉并相信有被告 Aaron Mitchell 协助的情况下，策划于 April 11, 2022 提交 HK USA Proceeding（HK USA 程序）；在该程序中，被告 Mei Guo（郭美）、债务人的女儿，使 HK USA（美国香港公司）虚假主张 Lady May（“五月女士”号）属于 HK USA，而非破产财产。\n\n283. HK USA 程序旨在维持附表所描绘的虚构情形，即 Lady May 并非已由债务人所有，并制造一种情形，使被告 Mei Guo 可根据拟议的第 11 章计划，将 Lady May 作为给予债权人的对价而“贡献”给破产财产。债务人、其顾问（包括被告 Mitchell）及被告 Mei Guo 明知 HK USA 程序中的指控虚假，却仍允许提交该程序，以延续欺诈并推进债务人的退出策略。法院后来同意受托人的意见，即 Lady May 现在及始终均为破产财产，但这发生在为争讼该问题耗费大量资源之后。36\n\n36 参见 Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）for Partial Summary Judgment [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 172]（经修订）以及 Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 221]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 于 02/15/24 提交，于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 92 页，共 139 页\n\n284. 在或约于 April 28, 2022，为回应 PAX（PAX）提出的解除自动中止动议，以继续执行其在 NY Action（纽约诉讼）中针对 Lady May 及债务人其他资产的判决，亦发生了进一步的欺诈性隐瞒。为作最后一搏以避免解除中止，债务人同意提供金额为 \\$37 million 的保证金；被告 Mei Guo、William Je（威廉·杰）及 Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）与债务人共谋出资，以进一步实施欺诈债务人债权人并隐匿其资产的计划。这些被告将其应被告 Mei Guo 请求向 HK USA 提供的 \\$37 million 伪装成所谓“贷款”，尽管该款项实际上并非贷款，且该资金事实上是由债务人实益拥有并控制的财产。再次，这些行为旨在阻挠和拖延案件及受托人的调查，并向债权人隐匿资产。\n\nB. 通过妨碍受托人工作及违反法院命令实施阻挠\n\n285. 最终，美国受托人办公室（the “UST”）对债务人有关其财务事务的陈述提出质疑，并提出动议，要求指定审查员，或备选地指定第 11 章受托人。UST 指出，债务人在申请前具有规避债权人的历史，并且在被问及其财务交易时援引第五修正案。UST 对债务人“人为自我造成的‘贫困’”以及其无法和/或不愿承认并接受其作为占有中的债务人有义务提供准确财务信息以履行其义务，深表关切。37 最终，法院准许了 UST 所请求的救济，并指定受托人调查债务人的财务事务。38\n\n37 United States Trustee's Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, In the Alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 102]。\n\n38 Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 523]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 于 02/15/24 提交，于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 93 页，共 139 页\n\n286. 受托人获指定后，立即开始调查债务人的财务事务；与此同时，债务人及其共同谋划者继续歪曲该等事务，并几乎以一切可能方式阻挠和干扰受托人的调查，目的在于使债务人的资产免受其债权人追索。\n\n1. 未遵守公司治理权利命令\n\n287. 受托人获指定后不久，August 10, 2022，法院作出一项命令（以下简称“公司治理权利命令”），确认债务人依《破产法》要求必须“与受托人合作，使受托人能够履行其职责”，并“向受托人交出全部破产财产及任何记录的信息，包括但不限于与破产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录和文书”。39\n\n288. 受公司治理权利命令约束的债务人空壳公司之一是 Ace Decade（艾斯十年公司）；债务人曾利用该公司向 UBS（瑞银集团）进行投资，后又就该投资对 UBS 提起诉讼。尽管公司治理权利命令有所要求，债务人拒绝将其在 Ace Decade 的股份转让给受托人，也拒绝向受托人提供有关 Ace Decade 或其全资子公司 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司，以下简称“Dawn State”）的任何公司文件，尽管债务人曾多次证明其拥有 Ace Decade，且 Ace Decade 全资拥有 Dawn State。\n\n39 Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 105, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 761]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 于 02/15/24 提交，于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 94 页，共 139 页\n\n289. October 4, 2022，受托人提出一项动议（以下简称“公司治理藐视法庭动议”），请求作出命令，以债务人未遵守公司治理权利命令为由认定其构成民事藐视法庭。40\n\n290. November 17, 2022，法院作出一项命令（以下简称“部分解决命令”），对公司治理藐视法庭动议作出部分解决，其中认定，除其他事项外，(i) 在申请日及受托人获指定之日前，债务人独家实益拥有并控制 Ace Decade，(ii) 被告 Yvette Wang（王雁）不是且从未是 Ace Decade 股份的实益所有人，以及 (iii) 若非受托人获指定以及其根据《破产法》和公司治理权利命令享有的权利，债务人仍将独家实益拥有并控制 Ace Decade。41\n\n291. 在作出部分解决命令之前，受托人的律师通过电子邮件向 Alex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）先生发送了拟议部分解决命令文本的副本；受托人知悉，Lipman 当时担任被告 Yvette Wang 的律师。受托人还将该副本发送给位于英属维尔京群岛（BVI）的 Ace Decade，转交 Trident Trust Company (B.V.I.) Limited（特里登信托公司〈英属维尔京群岛〉有限公司，以下简称“Trident”）；Trident 是 Ace Decade 在 BVI 的注册代理人。\n\n292. January 24, 2023，法院作出一项命令 [Docket No. 1372]（以下简称“藐视法庭命令”），认定债务人藐视公司治理权利命令。法院认定，除其他事项外，债务人有义务遵守公司治理权利命令，并向受托人交出 Ace Decade、其在 Ace Decade 的所有权及相关文件；债务人有能力这样做，却未这样做。42\n\n40 Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order [Docket No. 913]。\n\n41 Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion [Docket No. 1110]\n\n42 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, at 6-7, 14-15 [Docket No. 1372]。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 于 02/15/24 提交，于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 95 页，共 139 页\n\n293. 此外，藐视法庭命令认定：(i) 被告 Yvette Wang 为债务人的利益而作为 Ace Decade 的名义所有人，(ii) 债务人对被告 Wang 具有控制权，包括因为债务人已雇用 Yvette Wang 数年，并指示其代表债务人采取行动，包括指示其代表债务人购买物业，以及 (iii) 尽管具有该等控制权，债务人未促使被告 Wang 将 Ace Decade 的股份交付给受托人。43\n\n294. 藐视法庭命令作出后，受托人获悉，基于 Trident 在受托人向 BVI 法院提出申请并获批准后所提供的 Ace Decade 最新公司文件中所作的披露，被告 Wang 于或约于 January 3, 2023 将其对 Ace Decade 唯一股份的名义所有权转让给 Rui Hao（睿昊）（以下简称“Ace Decade 转让”）。该 Ace Decade 转让未经通知受托人或取得其同意，并违反了公司治理权利命令。\n\n295. 鉴于其与债务人的密切关系及其在 Kwok Enterprise 中发挥的不可或缺作用等因素，被告 Wang 在进行 Ace Decade 转让时完全知悉，根据法院命令，该股份属于破产财产。尽管如此，其启动该转让，系明知且故意：(i) 为向破产财产隐匿债务人资产之目的，以腐败方式行事，阻挠和妨碍第 11 章案件及受托人的调查；(ii) 明知该股份价值超过 \\$5000，且其已违反公司治理权利命令及藐视法庭命令被从破产财产中非法转移，仍在对外贸易中转让该股份；以及 (iii) 据悉并相信，为欺诈债务人的破产财产之目的，利用美国电汇协助完成该转让。\n\n43 同上，第 4、15 页。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 于 02/15/24 提交，于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 96 页，共 139 页\n\n296. 受托人对 Ace Decade、Yvette Wang 和 Rui Hao 提起对抗性诉讼。44 其目的包括撤销 Ace Decade 转让，因为该转让违反《破产法》规定的自动中止，且属于未经授权的申请后破产财产转让。该对抗性程序仍在审理中。\n\n2. 违反 Rule 2004（规则 2004）命令\n\n297. 受托人已提出十五项单独的 Rule 2004 动议，向众多个人和实体寻求证据开示，其中包括数名被告及共同谋划者。法院作出命令准许每一项 Rule 2004 动议（以下简称“Rule 2004 命令”），允许受托人从众多实体和个人获得证据开示，其中包括债务人及多名被告。\n\n298. 尽管法院作出 Rule 2004 命令，许多被告未遵守 Rule 2004 传票，以避免提供可能进一步揭露该欺诈计划的信息。债务人因未遵守 Rule 2004 传票而被认定藐视法庭。45 下列被告及非当事人亦被认定藐视法庭：Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）和 Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）46；GTV（GTV）和 Saraca（萨拉卡）47；Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）48；Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）49；G-Club US Operations LLC（G-Club 美国运营有限责任公司）、G-Club US Operations, Inc.（G-Club 美国运营公司）、G-\n\n44 对抗程序案号 23-05028。\n\n45 参见《认定个人债务人藐视法庭并驳回暂缓执行强制交付命令动议的决定备忘录及命令》[Docket No. 2035]\n\n46 参见《认定 Golden Spring（黄金之春）和 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）藐视法庭的命令》[Docket No. 1709]。\n\n47 参见《准许动议，认定 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团股份有限公司）和 Saraca Media, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒股份有限公司）因未遵守 Rule 2004 传票而构成民事藐视法庭的命令》[Docket No. 2093]。\n\n48 参见《部分准许动议，作出认定 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）构成民事藐视法庭命令的命令》[Docket No. 2009]。\n\n49 参见《认定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）藐视法庭的命令》[Docket No. 2545]。\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 97 页，共 139 页\n\nFashion LLC（时尚有限责任公司）、GNews LLC（GNews有限责任公司）、New York MOS Himalaya LLC（纽约 MOS 喜马拉雅有限责任公司）、Crane Advisory Group LLC（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）和 Maywind Trading LLC（五月风贸易有限责任公司）。50\n\n299. 由于未遵守 Rule 2004 传票及相关法院命令，上述被告明知且故意地实施行为，以阻挠和妨碍第11章案件及受托人的调查，目的在于隐匿债务人的资产。\n\n3. 违反 Greenwich Land 对抗程序中的初步禁令和临时限制令\n\n300. 2023年3月23日，受托人对被告 Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）和 Hing Chi Ngok（吴庆志）、即债务人的妻子，提起对抗程序51，请求作出确认判决，确认名义上由 Hing Chi Ngok 所有的 Greenwich Land 是债务人的另一个自我，或者作为替代请求，确认其衡平法上归债务人所有。\n\n301. 2023年3月27日，受托人提交了单方临时限制令和初步禁令动议（下称“Greenwich PI 动议”），请求冻结被告 Greenwich Land 和 Hing Chi Ngok 的特定资产。\n\n302. 2023年3月28日，法院部分准许 Greenwich PI 动议，临时限制并禁止被告 Greenwich Land 和 Hing Chi Ngok 及其各自代理人等对其任何财产或资产设定负担、转让、让与、耗散或转移。2023年5月26日，法院作出初步禁令，延续该等救济（下称“Greenwich PI”）。\n\n303. 尽管有 Greenwich PI，2023年3月28日至2023年7月31日期间，约 $34,000 从被告 Greenwich Land 的账户中支出，违反了\n\n50 参见《部分准许动议，作出认定未回应方构成民事藐视法庭命令的命令》[Docket No. 1892]。\n\n51 对抗程序案号 23-5005。\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 98 页，共 139 页\n\nGreenwich PI。该等支出由包括被告 Ngok、Chunguang Han（韩春光）和 Krasner（克拉斯纳）在内的人员实施，用于为其个人利益购买商品和服务。该等被告明知且故意地通过美国电汇支出该等资金，目的在于向破产财产的债权人隐匿债务人的资产，并掩饰资金的真实来源。\n\n304. 被告 Ngok，其自称拥有并控制 Greenwich Land，允许该等支出发生。被告 Ngok、Chunguang Han 和 Krasner 各自均知悉 Greenwich PI，并为阻挠和妨碍第11章案件及受托人的调查，以及欺诈性地向破产财产隐匿资产，而明知且故意地违反该禁令。\n\nC. 与债务人破产案件相关的其他欺诈性遗漏和虚假陈述\n\n305. 债务人及数名被告持续向受托人和法院提交虚假文件和信息，企图掩盖该欺诈计划，并阻挠和妨碍第11章案件及受托人的调查。\n\n306. 被告 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）和 Qiang Guo（郭强）。被告 Qiang Guo 和 Bravo Luck 分别在这些合并管理案件中提交债权证明，主张对债务人在 Sherry Netherland Hotel（谢里荷兰酒店）的公寓享有所有权或财务请求权。除其他事项外，该等债权证明依据一份日期为 February 17, 2015 的所谓信托协议。正如受托人已在多份诉状中详细说明的，该“信托协议”是一份伪造并倒签日期的协议，系为隐匿该公寓的真实所有权而捏造——即使在 Genever entities（Genever 实体）和债务人本人提交其第11章案件后，债务人、Qiang Guo 和 Bravo Luck 仍试图继续实施该计划。破产财产最终为抗辩被告 Bravo Luck 和 Qiang Guo 提出的这些虚假债权而支出逾 $1 million 的费用。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 99 页，共 139 页\n\n307. 被告 Hing Chi Ngok。被告 Ngok，即债务人的妻子，主张其拥有并控制 Greenwich Land。她还声称，她“挑选了”由 Greenwich Land 于 February of 2020 购买的 Ferncliff Property（芬克利夫房产），并作证称（在其 January 5, 2023 的 Rule 2004 审查中），债务人没有参与 Greenwich Land 对 Taconic Road Property（塔科尼克路房产）的购买。然而，被告 Ngok 还作证称，除其他事项外，她不知道自己是否曾要求 Hudson Diamond NY 向 Greenwich Land 转移 $1.5 million（该笔款项用于购买 Ferncliff Property），并且值得注意的是，她无法辨认 Ferncliff Property 的照片。此外，她关于债务人未参与购买 Taconic Road Property 的证言，与该交易买方房地产经纪人 de Neree 先生的详细证言直接矛盾。\n\n308. 被告 Mei Guo（郭美）。在其父亲的第11章案件提交后几乎立即，被告 Mei Guo 促使 HK USA（美国香港公司）（她是其唯一股东）提起上述对抗程序，主张拥有 Lady May yacht（Lady May 游艇）。在起诉状中，HK USA 主张，“Guo 女士直接并通过其代表全权负责指挥 Lady May 的运营和航行。”如上所述及受托人反诉中详细论述的，纽约州最高法院的 Ostrager 法官已认定该陈述为虚假；该法官认定，Mei Guo 关于“她拥有并控制 Lady May”的证言“在任何方面均不可信”。Mei Guo 还一再主张，包括在伪证处罚的约束下主张，HK USA 的唯一资产为 Lady May——但在面对受托人发现的事实时，最终承认 HK USA 还拥有另一艘船，即 Lady May II。\n\n309. 此外，在其提起的 HK USA 程序中，Mei Guo 提交了其个人手机的某些照片和截图。然而，在其反对受托人的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 100 页，共 139 页\n\n执行 Rule 2004 请求动议时，Mei Guo 的律师提交声明称，自 2017 年以来 Mei Guo 未曾使用过“智能手机”。在被指出这一矛盾后，Mei Guo 援引了第五修正案赋予她的权利。\n\n310. Mei Guo 还就出售一架 Bombardier（庞巴迪）私人飞机的收益作伪证。在受托人提起的对抗程序中，Mei Guo 作证称，她以逾 $10 million 的价格将该 Bombardier 出售给一名其不记得姓名的买方；并称，尽管她是该收益的“所有人”，但她不记得收益所在地点，且无法取得该等收益。52 这是一项虚假陈述。\n\n311. 受托人后来收到文件，证明 Mei Guo 就该收益与名为 JNFX 的实体有大量往来通信，清楚表明在就该事项接受证言时，Mei Guo 知道是谁持有该收益，并且能够控制该等资金的处置。53 Mei Guo 此前故意未披露出售收益的所在地，目的在于阻挠和妨碍第11章案件及受托人的调查，并向破产财产隐匿债务人的资产。\n\n312. 更近时，本院已认定，“Guo 女士曾在宣誓后作出相互矛盾的陈述。”54\n\n313. 被告 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。被告 Mitchell 于 2023年7月18日在法院宣誓作证称，他不“认为[债务人]有任何商业交易”，并称他从未见过债务人在“我们提到的任何公司”从事“任何此类[即，投资或拥有企业]活动”。鉴于被告 Mitchell 对 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）的参与及其对债务人财务和事务的深入了解，该宣誓证言为虚假。例如，如上所详述，Mitchell 深度参与了有关债务人与 G-Club（G俱乐部）的商业交易、为推进 G-Club 计划及其他计划而在国内金融机构和境外开设银行账户，以及其将 G-Club 资金转移至其他空壳实体以实施欺诈目的之努力的详细讨论。因此，Mitchell 不可能在其证言中如实向法院陈述债务人没有任何商业交易。\n\n52 参见原告支持简易判决动议的法律备忘录，第 16 段 [对抗程序 23-05008，Docket No. 91]。\n\n53 同上，第 17 段。\n\n54 参见《认定 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 藐视法庭的命令》，第 9 页 [Docket No. 2545]。\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 101 页，共 139 页\n\n其参与 Kwok Enterprise 以及其对债务人财务和事务的深入了解。例如，如上所详述，Mitchell 深度参与了有关债务人与 G-Club 的商业交易、为推进 G-Club 计划及其他计划而在国内金融机构和境外开设银行账户，以及其将 G-Club 资金转移至其他空壳实体以实施欺诈目的之努力。因此，Mitchell 不可能在其证言中如实向法院陈述债务人没有任何商业交易。\n\n314. 此外，被告 Mitchell 通过其隐匿债务人重大资产的努力，直接参与推进了债务人第11章案件中 Kwok Enterprise 的目的。\n\n后者——一个指挥广泛且复杂的欺诈、计划和金融交易以欺骗其债权人的个人。然而，被告 Mitchell 仍持续积极且直接地参与推进 Kwok Enterprise，包括在这些第11章案件期间。\n\nD. 针对受托人及其他人的恐吓和骚扰活动\n\n318. 债务人及其支持者，包括被告，反对任命受托人，并多次试图请求法院推翻该任命。当这些\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 103 页，共 139 页\n\n努力失败后，债务人和数名被告转而采取骚扰手段，以恐吓、影响和干扰受托人的工作及破产程序的推进。该等骚扰符合债务人过去一贯的模式和做法，即通过类似手段试图恐吓任何对债务人提出质疑并寻求揭露其不当行为的人。\n\n319. 在受托人获任命后几乎立即，债务人即开始在社交媒体上发帖，以阻碍受托人的调查并妨碍破产程序。债务人在其 YouTube、GTV、X（原称 Twitter）和 Gettr 等社交媒体平台上拥有逾 1 million 名关注者。例如，在 2022年7月10日于 Gettr 发布的一则帖子中，债务人称受托人为“混蛋”和“垃圾律师”，并虚假宣称受托人的律师事务所 50% 的收入来自中国共产党。随后，在 2022年7月19日，@Miles Gettr 账户发布了一份有关受托人的声明，内容如下：“请传播有关中共军事情报披露的信息以及有关我破产案件受托人的真相。所有想要驱逐我、伤害我的美国司法部官员以及来自各律师事务所的律师都将被送进监狱。我拥有世界上最独特的声音，因为我身体中几乎每一个能够发声的部位都曾遭受中共酷刑。”\n\n320. 这些帖子仅仅是开始。随着受托人调查的开展，债务人、其被告共谋者及其他追随者发起了一场日益激烈且公然危险的网络攻击，其中包括针对受托人和债务人债权人，即PAX，以及其各自律师事务所和律师、受托人家庭成员的虚假及骚扰性言论。债务人及其追随者实施该等攻击，是作为恐吓手段，以阻止受托人依照其法定职责行事，并阻止PAX追诉其债权。网络帖子最终披露了受托人的家庭和办公地址、受托人亲属的家庭地址、Paul Hastings LLP（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的纽约办公地址、PAG主席家庭成员的家庭地址；以及PAX律师O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦文律师事务所）的纽约办公地址。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 104 页，共 139 页\n\n321. 除网络骚扰活动外，债务人及其追随者（包括许多被告）还在世界各地于受托人及其亲属、PAX所有人及其亲属的住所和营业场所外举行抗议。抗议活动还发生在受托人律师和PAX律师的办公地点外。在这些通常被在线直播的抗议中，抗议者展示海报并高喊与网络上所发表的相同类型的骚扰性言论。\n\n322. 作为网络及实体抗议和骚扰活动一部分而作出和展示的大量恶毒、令人厌恶及诽谤性的言论和图像，已成为本院命令的对象，故不在本文中予以完整重述。然而，就本起诉状而言，须指出的是，数名被告参与该活动，意图影响、恐吓和妨碍受托人的调查。例如：\n\n— 被告Shih Hsin Yu（余世新）的X账户为@jackson66368924；至少在2022年11月22日至2022年12月29日期间，X账户@jackson66368924发布了大量关于在纽约市大中央车站及康涅狄格州格林尼治受托人住所外举行的反对受托人及其律师的抗议活动的帖子。这些帖子包含受托人及其他人的多种经编辑图像，例如其额头上印有锤子和镰刀，或者身穿纳粹制服。帖子尤其讨论了本院的程序、上诉中所希望取得的结果，以及关于受托人的愿望。\n\n— 被告Yan Chun Liu（刘彦春）多次在社交媒体上发布内容，包括在Gettr和X上发布受托人的诽谤性图片、对抗议活动的支持，以及针对受托人、其律师和保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的抗议活动图片。\n\n— 大约在2022年11月21日，被告Qidong Xia（夏启东）在其Gettr账户（@changdaobrother）上发帖威胁受托人，称“你的余生将在恐惧中度过。”其后，大约在2022年11月24日，Qidong Xia在Gettr上发帖，鼓励Kwok（郭文贵）的追随者加入抗议活动。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 105 页，共 139 页\n\n— 在2022年11月28日至2022年12月6日期间，被告Xuebing Wang（王学兵）每天多次在线发帖，支持针对受托人和保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的抗议活动。此外，在Gettr账户@20minfocus于2023年1月1日发布的一段视频中，录有Xuebing Wang向在康涅狄格州格林尼治受托人住所外纠察的抗议者讲话。根据其言论，他是在2023年1月1日讲话。他谈及与“联盟”和“铁血组”的其他成员在“纽约”“3C办公室”举行的会议，以及他希望“探望前线这些战友”的愿望。他告诉纠察者，受托人将被监禁，并将“感受到我们的力量”。\n\n323. 根据所获信息和相信，该骚扰活动由被告法治实体资助。55 确实，2022年11月26日，债务人在一段YouTube视频中出镜，并承认与抗议有关的费用正由ROLF资助。在视频中，债务人解释说，通过ROLF，“[我]们一直在帮助战友处理法律问题，印制反共材料以及有关CCP军事情报的材料，各类材料。”受托人还持有银行记录，显示法治实体经常资助过去针对据称支持中国共产党的人员的类似抗议活动，而受托人和PAX被错误指称为该等人员。\n\n324. 大约在2023年12月8日，被告ROLF向抗议者Beile Li（李贝乐）转账\\$200,000.00；根据所获信息和相信，该款项是为其在骚扰活动中担任主导角色而支付，其在该活动中故意试图妨碍受托人的调查。\n\n325. 根据所获信息和相信，被告法治实体资助抗议和骚扰活动，目的是恐吓、妨碍和影响受托人及第11章案件。\n\n55 Eastern Profit Corp., Ltd.（东方利润有限公司） v. Strategic Vision US LLC（美国战略愿景有限责任公司）, Case No. 18-cv-2185 (S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2021). Trial Tr. at 782:3–7（证词称，被告Guo向数十名抗议者付款，使其连续数周在Fu住所外示威，迫使Fu最终搬离该住所）；另见Dan Friedman（丹·弗里德曼）, A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued, Mother Jones (March/April 2022, issue) http（Kwok“承诺通常为先前抗议活动中的抗议者每天支付\\$200”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 106 页，共 139 页\n\n326. 为回应抗议和威胁，PAX对债务人提起诉讼，请求禁令救济，并同时提出临时限制令动议，以阻止债务人及其同伙实施骚扰。受托人加入并支持PAX。本院准许PAX的动议，并作出临时限制令（“TRO”）56，以限制该恐吓活动。\n\n327. 本院认定，如无TRO，“破产财产及破产程序完整性均很可能遭受迫在眉睫且不可弥补的损害。”57 具体而言，本院认定，由于该等行为具有威胁性和诽谤性，故不属于受保护言论；并且如不签发TRO，“受托人和PAG主席及其现任或前任配偶、子女和律师的安全，将干扰受托人对破产财产潜在资产的调查”，并且“持续的骚扰可能阻止证人协助受托人的调查，或阻止债权人提出债权申报。”58 本院还认定，为保护破产程序的完整性，TRO属必要，因为“对作为法院官员的受托人……及利害关系方的恐吓，会‘使重整程序难堪、增加负担、延误或以其他方式妨碍重整程序。’”59\n\n328. 尽管债务人已获知本院的TRO，债务人及其追随者仍继续实施骚扰活动，违反了TRO。\n\n329. 2023年1月13日，本院作出决定备忘录，准许初步禁令（“PI决定”）。60 在PI决定中，本院作出数项事实认定，其中包括：“ROLF和Himalaya参与抗议活动”61，以及其“服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员在个人上忠于债务人。”62\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 107 页，共 139 页\n\n330. 除违反本院命令外，许多被告（包括上述人员）实施的骚扰活动还构成旨在恐吓、影响和妨碍作为法院官员的受托人的刑事妨害司法行为。参与骚扰者还违反了18 U.S.C. § 1507，该条禁止为妨害司法并影响法院官员履行职责，而在法院官员所占用建筑物或住所外进行纠察。\n\nE. 作为干预破产案件及受托人调查策略而提出轻率且毫无依据的债权证明申报\n\n331. 债务人及某些被告共谋者还试图通过恐吓债权人不提出债权申报，并鼓励追随者提出毫无依据的债权申报，来影响破产债权程序，目的是增加第11章案件的成本并干扰其管理。\n\n332. 2023年1月6日，Qiu Yu（余秋，下称“Yu女士”）在债务人的第11章案件中提交两份债权证明。此后不久，债务人开始在社交媒体上发表针对Yu女士的恶意和/或骚扰性言论，包括以下内容：\n\n2023年1月10日，债务人在一次Gettr直播（“1月10日直播”）中，公开威胁在这些第11章案件中提出债权申报的投资者，其中具体包括Yu女士。尤其是，在1月10日直播中，债务人作出如下陈述：“每个报告其案件的人都必须出庭。你所说的一切都会被公开，包括有关你的一切。走着瞧。”\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2923 提交于 02/15/24 登记于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 108 页，共 139 页\n\n— 2023年1月10日，Gettr账户@OXVDESIGN发帖称Yu女士在案件中将自己列为债权人，并发布Yu女士的照片，附有如下文字：“Yu Qiu（昵称为Gong Zu）前往美国康涅狄格州破产法院，以\\$5000债权加入债权人名单，（并）协助Luc诋毁爆料革命。”\n\n— 2023年1月10日，Gettr账户@piaochanghai发布Yu女士德国身份证的图像，称：“揭露另一个名叫Gong Zu的小混蛋，真名Yu Qiu，战友们把她挖出来了，听说（她）与Dai Jian Feng关系很近。有战友认识（她）吗？”\n\n333. 2023年1月10日，一篇文章被发布在被告GNews的网站上；GNews是由债务人创办并控制的实体。该文章建议债务人的追随者提出毫无依据的债权申报。其内容如下：\n\nGuo先生建议所有战友都可以登记，因为他们投资了GTV，但GTV被伪归类为一起欺诈案件，SEC对此进行了调查，因此战友投资的资金被SEC扣留，战友正向SEC索要资金，但在破产案件中，战友可以登记为Guo先生的债权人。接受其他战友的登记。*如果所有战友都去登记，他们将构成债权人的多数，那么Guo先生赚取的钱将分配给战友，这正是Guo先生非常愿意做的。此外，作为多数的战友可以启动Lady May号游艇和第18层的所有权，多数也将交到战友手中；以此方式处理，皆大欢喜*。63 此外，在债权人登记后，即可在法庭作证；一些无法获得签证来美国的战友，可以有合理理由来美国；如果不想离开，可以当场申请政治庇护。我们可以合法运用法律解决问题。\n\n334. 因此，债务人的支持者提出了大量债权申报，其中许多没有支持依据或文件。\n\n335. 2023年1月13日，债务人在@MilesGuo GETTR账户上发帖称，保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所正在发起一项“债权人登记行动”，暗示其追随者\n\n63 见郭先生的智慧：退伍军人都可以去破产案件中登记债权人，GNews（January 25, 2023, 17:38 p.m.），http（最后访问于 January 25, 2023）（着重号系原文所加）。\n案号 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 登记 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 109 页，共 139 页\n\n应向法院提交虚假的债权申报，而这样做可能使他们成为亿万富翁。64\n\nF. 在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）提起无理诉讼以恐吓受托人\n\n336. 2022年11月28日，债务人的某些追随者，包括被告 Beile Li（李贝乐）和 Linwan Feng（冯林菀），在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）（Caproni 法官）（以下简称“SDNY Court（纽约南区法院）”）提起了一项程序，案名为 An v. Despins，No. 22-CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023)。在 An v. Despins 一案中，被告李贝乐和冯林菀虚假指称，受托人及 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）系 CCP（中国共产党）或 PRC（中华人民共和国）的代理人。\n\n337. 被告 Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵）曾担任债务人的私人律师，并且根据信息和信念，在债务人等待其刑事案件审判期间一直在监狱探视债务人；张勇兵在 An v. Despins 一案中代理被告李贝乐和冯林菀。\n\n338. Caproni 法官以缺乏诉讼资格为由驳回了 An v. Despins 一案的起诉状，并依据 Rule 11 对被告李贝乐、冯林菀和张勇兵予以制裁，原因是其认定他们“提交的文件表明，他们真正关注的是 Kwok 先生（郭文贵），并试图通过骚扰那些被认为是其对手的人来‘为’他辩护”，且该诉讼“只是旨在骚扰被告的一项不当行为运动的另一部分，最有可能是通过妨碍[受托人]履行其受托人职责的能力。”65\n\n339. 关于被告张勇兵，Caproni 法官认定：\n\nYongbing Zhang（张勇兵）……出现在社交媒体上传播的多张由 NFSC 主导的抗议活动照片中，包括 NFSC 的 Gettr 账户于 November 20, 2022 发布的一则帖子，该帖子显示张勇兵在[受托人一名家庭成员]的住所前纠察……并举着一块称该受托人为“A-List Scumbag”的标牌。[…] 张勇兵还出现在 Kwok（郭文贵）于 June 4, 2022 出席 NFSC 第二周年派对时与其合影的照片中。66[……]\n\n64 见 @MilesGuo，GETTR（Jan. 13, 2023, 10:45 AM），http（最后访问于 January 15, 2023）。\n\n65 An v. Despins, No. 22-CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832, at \\*12-\\*13。\n\n66 同上，第 13-14 页。\n\n原告及其律师张勇兵与 Kwok（郭文贵）有关联，并同情其及其利益。[……]\n\n原告的律师在本院及 District of Maryland（马里兰地区）反复提起无理诉讼。[…] 这些案件显然针对的是参与 Kwok（郭文贵）破产案或 PAX 诉讼的当事人和律师。它们包含相似的指称和同样无理的请求。不可避免的结论是，张勇兵和 Freeth（弗里思）正针对与 Kwok（郭文贵）利益相对立者，其目的在于压制他们所认为的针对他的倡导行为。\n\n[补充证据]进一步支持本院的认定，即有必要对原告律师实施制裁。[…]\n\n本院认定，张勇兵与弗里思共同应对本意见和命令中详述的 Rule 11 违反行为负责。67\n\n340. 2023年1月13日，Junwu Gong（龚俊武）在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）（Liman 法官）提起了类似诉讼，被告为 Stuart M. Sarnoff（斯图尔特·M.·萨诺夫）、O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈律师事务所）及其他人，该民事诉讼案名为 Gong v. Sarnoff，No. 23-cv-343 (LJL), 2023 WL 5372473 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023)。被告张勇兵亦在该案中代理龚俊武。Liman 法官认定，该诉讼并非为救济损害而提起，“而是为了因提出动议的被告在针对 Kwok（郭文贵）的诉讼中代理一名客户而骚扰他们，并阻止他人作出同样行为。原告及其律师张勇兵与 Kwok（郭文贵）有关联，并同情其及其利益。”此外，Liman 法官称，“如果对本诉讼的骚扰目的尚有任何疑问，则 Zhang……在本院及其他地方针对 PAX、与 PAX 有关联的人士、PAX 的律师以及协助破产法院者提起的诉讼历史，足以消除该疑问。”68\n\n67 同上，第 30-33 页，第 35 页注 11。\n\n68 Gong v. Sarnoff, No. 23-cv-343 (LJL), 2023 WL 5372473, at \\*30-\\*32 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023)。\n案号 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 登记 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 111 页，共 139 页\n\n341. 上述无理诉讼由其原告，包括被告李贝乐，以及被告张勇兵提起，目的在于恐吓、妨碍和影响受托人及其调查，并更广泛地阻挠第 11 章案件。\n\n342. 此外，被告张勇兵另行通过指挥被告 HCHK Entities（HCHK 实体）的某些自称债权人的行为，试图妨碍受托人的调查并阻挠第 11 章案件；该等自称债权人曾试图介入受托人针对 HCHK 实体提起的对抗程序。经证据听证后，本院最终认定该等自称债权人的债权请求毫无根据，并驳回其介入请求；本院在此过程中认定，该等债权人要么伪造了支持其所称债权的文件，要么其证言在其他方面不可信。69\n\nV. 欺诈计划造成的损害\n\n343. 构成 Kwok Enterprise（郭文贵企业）多年欺诈和洗钱计划之前置犯罪行为，已对债务人破产财产的债权人造成重大损害。如上所述，郭文贵企业的目标是隐藏债务人的财富，并确保该等财富不会被用于向其债权人分配。\n\n344. 截至目前，除受托人在其诉讼努力中已取得成功的范围外，郭文贵企业的计划已然奏效，因为该计划导致债务人的破产财产在账面上深度资不抵债，这意味着已就该破产财产提出数亿美元债权请求的破产财产债权人仅可能获得极少的清偿。因此，破产财产因被告的不当行为遭受了重大直接损害。\n\n69 驳回介入动议及澄清临时限制令动议的决定备忘录和命令 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 239]。\n\n345. 除剥夺债权人的清偿外，本文所述被告的行为还导致破产财产产生数千万美元的专业费用及其他成本和开支，用于揭露郭文贵企业的欺诈计划，并追回本应自案件开始时即列入附表的资产。因此，该等律师费、成本和开支构成被告应负责任的额外损害。\n\n救济请求\n\n罪名项 1\n\n违反 Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act（受敲诈勒索活动影响及腐败组织法）18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)（针对全体被告）\n\n346. 受托人重述并再次主张本起诉状第 1 至 345 段，如同在此完整载明。\n\n347. 每名被告均为能够持有财产受益权益或法定权益的人，因此，每名被告均属于 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c) 所称的“人”。\n\n348. 如下所述，每名被告均通过同意并实施及参与实施郭文贵企业事务的管理，并通过一系列敲诈勒索活动，以欺诈债务人债权人并使债务人、其家人及其关联人员以债务人债权人为代价获得不法利益为非法目的，违反了 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)。\n\n郭文贵 RICO 企业\n\n349. 被告与其已知及未知共谋者共同构成一个事实联合体，其共同且持续的目的，是制定并实施一项共同计划，通过一系列欺诈、虚假陈述、欺骗和腐败行为，欺诈债务人的债权人，以使债务人、其家人、\n案号 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 登记 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 113 页，共 139 页\n\n及其他共谋者获益（即郭文贵企业）。\n\n350. 郭文贵企业构成 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) 所称的“企业”，并且其从事或曾从事影响州际和对外贸易的活动，且其活动影响了州际和对外贸易。\n\n351. 郭文贵企业的共同目的最早约于 2015 年形成，当时债务人与其他共谋者通过利用一个虚假实体网络并隐匿债务人的资产，为债务人及其共谋者谋取利益，实施了一项欺诈债务人债权人的计划。\n\n352. 每名被告均受雇于或关联于郭文贵企业，并且每名被告均直接或间接地通过一系列敲诈勒索活动实施或参与实施郭文贵企业事务的管理。\n\n353. 郭文贵企业具有可识别的、独立于被告所从事的一系列敲诈勒索活动之外的组织结构。\n\n354. 本起诉状所称对联邦刑法的反复且持续违反，构成违反 RICO，18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. 的“一系列敲诈勒索活动”。\n\n355. 被告是 RICO 企业中的核心控制人物，并指示他人采取实现郭文贵企业总体目标所必需的行动。\n\n敲诈勒索活动模式\n\n356. 被告直接或间接地通过一系列敲诈勒索活动实施或参与实施 RICO 企业事务的管理；该等活动由 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and (5) 界定，包含多项相互关联而非孤立、由相同人员为相同或类似目的实施的敲诈勒索行为（以下简称“RICO 模式”），如前述各段及下文进一步所述。\n案号 22-50073 文书 2923 提交 02/15/24 登记 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 114 页，共 139 页\n\n357. 被告从事的、违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 的敲诈勒索活动，尤其包括：\n\na. 多项违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的电信欺诈行为；\n\nb. 多项违反 18 U.S.C. § 1344 的银行欺诈行为；\n\nc. 多项违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315 的 National Stolen Property Act（国家赃物法）行为；\n\nd. 多项违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 的洗钱行为；\n\ne. 多项违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1507 and 1512 的妨碍司法行为；以及\n\nf. 多项违反 18 U.S.C. § 152 的破产欺诈行为。\n\n358. 每名被告均具有违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 并实施每一项所称基础前置行为的特定故意。\n\n359. 每名被告均实施了至少两项敲诈勒索前置行为。该等敲诈勒索行为并非孤立；相反，它们相互关联，因为其具有相同或类似的目的和结果、参与者、受害人和/或实施方式。此外，该等敲诈勒索行为具有持续性，且仍在持续，自至少约 2015 年至今持续发生（以下简称“相关期间”）。\n\n360. 具体而言，被告从事了一系列敲诈勒索活动，至少包括下列前置行为：\n\n前置行为：18 U.S.C. § 1343 — 电信欺诈\n\n（Qiang Guo（郭强）、William Je（威廉·杰）、Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）、Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）、David Fallon（戴维·法伦）、Haitham Khaled（海塞姆·哈立德）、Jessica Mastrogiovanni（杰西卡·马斯特罗焦瓦尼）、Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn（安娜·C.·伊斯基耶多-亨）、David Fallon、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团股份有限公司）、ACA Capital Group Ltd.（ACA 资本集团有限公司）、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金 SPC）、Hamilton PE Fund SP（汉密尔顿 PE 基金 SP）、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金 SP）、HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK 物业管理公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited（领耀纽约有限公司）、Lexington Property and Staffing（列克星敦物业与人力配置）、Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司））\n\n361. RICO 模式包括数项违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的电信欺诈行为。\n\n362. 被告自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项犯罪计划，以实施对债务人资产和财产（包括非法取得的财产）的转移，从而在相关期间内及之后向债务人的债权人隐匿该等资产，包括但不限于下文及附录 A 所述的转移。\n\n363. 为推进该等欺诈计划，Qiang Guo（郭强）、William Je（杰威廉）、Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）、Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）、David Fallon（大卫·法伦）、Haitham Khaled（海赛姆·哈立德）、Jessica Mastrogiovanni（杰西卡·马斯特罗焦瓦尼）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn（安娜·C·伊斯基耶多-亨）、David Fallon、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）、ACA Capital Group Ltd.（ACA 资本集团有限公司）、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金 SPC）、Hamilton PE Fund SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金 SP）、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金 SP）、HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK 物业管理公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited（领先闪耀纽约有限公司）及 Lexington Property and Staffing（列克星敦房地产与人力服务）故意且明知地通过州际或对外商业中的电信通信传送，或促使传送，书面文件、标志、信号、图像和/或声音。\n\n364. 支持该等欺诈计划的电信活动包括资金电汇、资产运输、电话及电子通信，以及其他文件和通信。\n\n365. 为实施该等活动及连接该敲诈勒索共谋而使用州际及国际电信通信，是可以预见的。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2923，提交日期 02/15/24，录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 116 页，共 139 页\n\n366. Qiang Guo 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 112、114-116 段所述的活动。\n\n367. William Je 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 124 段所述的活动。\n\n368. Yvette Wang 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 107-113 段所述的活动。\n\n369. Aaron Mitchell 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 107-113、244-249 段所述的活动。\n\n370. Max Krasner 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 118 段所述的活动。\n\n371. Alex Hadjicharalambous 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 103、104、112、120、122 及 123 段所述的活动。\n\n372. David Fallon 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 229-231 段所述的活动。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2923，提交日期 02/15/24，录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 117 页，共 139 页\n\n373. Haitham Khaled 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 103、104、107-110、112-116 及 244 段所述的活动。\n\n374. Jessica Mastrogiovanni 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 103-105 段所述的活动。\n\n375. Greenwich Land LLC 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 194-211、218 段所述的活动。\n\n376. Hudson Diamond NY LLC 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 170、212 及 218 段所述的活动。\n\n377. Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 110、111、113、122 及 123 段所述的活动。\n\n378. Saraca Media Group, Inc. 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 149、213 及 219 段所述的活动。\n\n379. G-Club Operations LLC（G-Club 运营有限责任公司）自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 127 段所述的活动。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2923，提交日期 02/15/24，录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 118 页，共 139 页\n\n380. GS Security Solutions（GS 安全解决方案）自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 270 及 271 段所述的活动。\n\n381. ACA Capital Group Ltd. 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 105、201、217 及 266 段所述的活动。\n\n382. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（包括其独立投资组合，例如 Hamilton PE Fund SP 及 Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP）自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 108-110、229-232、246-257 及 269-270 段所述的活动。\n\n383. HCHK Technologies, Inc. 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 265 及 272 段所述的活动。\n\n384. HCHK Property Management, Inc. 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 268、269 及 271 段所述的活动。\n\n385. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 266 段所述的活动。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2923，提交日期 02/15/24，录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 119 页，共 139 页\n\n386. Leading Shine NY Limited 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 162、163 及 165 段所述的活动。\n\n387. Lexington Property and Staffing 自愿且故意地谋划并参与了一项或多项在相关期间内欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 266 及 267 段所述的活动。\n\n388. 因此，Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang、Aaron Mitchell、Max Krasner、Alex Hadjicharalambous、David Fallon、Haitham Khaled、Jessica Mastrogiovanni、GS Security Systems（GS 安全系统）、Greenwich Land LLC、G-Club Operations LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、ACA Capital Group Ltd.、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, LLC（HCHK 物业管理有限责任公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited、Lexington Property and Staffing 及 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 多次违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343，实施了电信欺诈。\n\n389. 对 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的违反，因以该等转移的金额不当且不可逆转地耗减破产财产的资产，而直接且近因地对债务人的债权人造成损害；并最终导致债务人的破产财产承担的专业费用大幅高于为债权人利益追回破产财产原本所必需的费用。\n\n前提行为：18 U.S.C. § 1344——银行欺诈\n(Mei Guo（郭梅）、Yvette Wang、David Fallon)\n\n390. RICO 模式包括多项违反 18 U.S.C. § 1344 的银行欺诈行为。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2923，提交日期 02/15/24，录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 120 页，共 139 页\n\n391. Mei Guo、Yvette Wang 及 David Fallon 明知地实施或企图实施一项计划或诡计，以欺诈金融机构，和/或通过虚假或欺诈性的借口、陈述或承诺，取得由金融机构拥有或由其保管或控制的任何金钱、资金、信贷、资产、证券或其他财产。\n\n392. 除其他事项外，根据第 214 段所载指控，Mei Guo 及 Yvette Wang 通过以虚假借口开设银行账户，明知地实施了一项计划和/或诡计。\n\n393. 除其他事项外，根据第 228-230 段所载指控，David Fallon 通过以虚假借口开设一个银行账户，明知地实施了一项计划和/或诡计。\n\n394. 因此，存在多项违反 18 U.S.C. § 1344 的行为，该等行为通过协助促成该欺诈计划，直接且近因地对债务人破产财产及财产的债权人造成损害；并最终导致债务人的破产财产承担的专业费用大幅高于为债务人债权人利益追回破产财产原本所必需的费用。\n\n前提行为：18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315——违反《国家赃物法》\n(Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang、Xuebing Wang（王学兵）、Greenwich Land LLC、GS Security Solutions, Inc.（GS 安全解决方案公司）、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC（吉普赛梅食品服务有限责任公司）、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.（领先闪耀纽约有限公司）、Lexington Property and Staffing、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会 III 公司）、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治协会 IV 公司）、Saraca Media Group)\n\n395. RICO 模式包括数项违反《国家赃物法》18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315 的行为。\n\n396. Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang、Xuebing Wang、Greenwich Land LLC、GS Security Solutions, Inc.、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2923，提交日期 02/15/24，录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 121 页，共 139 页\n\nProperty Management, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、Lexington Property and Staffing、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. 及 Saraca Media Group，故意且明知地在州际或对外商业中运输、传送或转移——或者收受、持有、隐匿、储存、以物易物、出售、处分或作为贷款担保质押——在被盗窃、侵占或以欺诈方式取得后跨越州际或国际边界的货物、商品、商品、证券或金钱。\n\n397. 在许多情况下，这些被告跨越州际或国际边界转移货物或金钱。\n\n398. 在许多情况下，这些被告收受、持有、隐匿、储存、出售和/或处分了跨越州际或国际边界的资产。\n\n399. 对于每一笔转账，Qiang Guo（郭强）、William Je（杰威廉）、Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）、Xuebing Wang（王雪冰）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）、GS Security Solutions, Inc.（GS安保解决方案公司）、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC（吉普赛梅餐饮服务有限责任公司）、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC）、Hamilton PE Fund SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金SP）、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金SP）、HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Leading Shine NY Ltd.（领耀纽约有限公司）、Lexington Property and Staffing（列克星敦物业与人事服务公司）、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会III公司）、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治协会IV公司）及Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡传媒集团）均知悉所涉资金系被盗、侵占或通过欺诈取得。\n\n400. 每笔转账均涉及价值 \\$5,000 或以上的金钱或财产。\n\n401. 因此，存在多项违反National Stolen Property Act（《国家盗窃财产法》）18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315 的行为，该等行为通过损害受托人追回转账价值的能力，直接且近因地对债务人遗产及财产的债权人造成损害，并最终导致债务人遗产产生的专业费用远高于为债务人债权人的利益追回遗产财产原本所必需的费用。\n\n前置行为：18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 – 洗钱\n（Hing Chi Ngok（昂志岳）、Mei Guo（郭梅）、Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang、Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Bravo Luck Limited（百乐运有限公司）、Saraca Media Group、Greenwich Land LLC、G-Club Operations LLC（G-Club运营有限责任公司）、GS Security Solutions Inc.、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC、HCHK Technologies Inc.、HCHK Property Management、Lexington Property and Staffing、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA资本集团有限公司）、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.）\n\n402. RICO模式包括多项违反18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 的洗钱行为。\n\n403. 下文所述的每项欺诈性交易均支持并推进了该欺诈计划，至少是通过分层和清洗资金以隐瞒非法取得资金的来源和去向，使其难以追踪，和/或将非法资金转换为表面合法的资产，以使债务人及其共谋者获益并欺诈债权人。\n\n404. 本文所述的每项欺诈性交易均在明知所涉财产代表某种形式非法活动所得收益的情况下进行，即违反18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1343, 1344, 1503, 1512, 1519, 2314 和/或 2315 的行为；事实上，该等交易涉及本起诉状全文所指称的该等非法活动所得收益，意图促进所述特定非法活动的实施，以推进Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）；并且明知且有理由知悉，该等交易全部或部分旨在隐瞒或掩饰特定非法活动所得收益的性质、地点、来源、所有权或控制权，均如本起诉状其他部分所述。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 123 页，共 139 页\n\n405. 因此，每笔转账均构成、涉及或系18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)所称特定非法活动的结果。\n\n406. 每笔转账均涉及价值超过 \\$10,000 且源自特定非法活动的犯罪所得财产金钱交易。\n\n407. 每名被告均知悉，欺诈性交易中所涉款项系源自某种形式非法活动所得收益的犯罪所得。\n\n408. 每名被告均知悉，每笔欺诈性转让全部或部分旨在隐瞒或掩饰电信欺诈行为所得收益的性质、地点、来源、所有权或控制权。\n\n409. Hing Chi Ngok实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第193-201、206、208、211段所载指控。\n\n410. Mei Guo实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第193-201、205段所载指控。\n\n411. Qiang Guo实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第112、114-116、181-183段所载指控。\n\n412. William Je实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第124、137和139段所载指控。\n\n413. Yvette Wang实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第139、154段所载指控。\n\n414. Aaron Mitchell实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第244-249段所载指控。\n\n415. Chunguang Han（韩春光）实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第192、195、198、201和208段所载指控。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 124 页，共 139 页\n\n416. Max Krasner实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第193-201、208段所载指控。\n\n417. ACA Capital Group Limited实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第201、217和266段所载指控。\n\n418. Greenwich Land LLC实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第193-212段所载指控。\n\n419. Crane Advisory Group L.L.C.（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第243段所载指控。\n\n420. Bravo Luck Limited实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第173-191段所载指控。\n\n421. Saraca Media Group实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第149、213和219段所载指控。\n\n422. G-Club Operations LLC实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第103-128、130-131、231-232和245-257段所载指控。\n\n423. GS Security Solutions Inc.实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第270和271段所载指控。\n\n424. Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第210段所载指控。\n\n425. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC，包括其独立投资组合，例如Hamilton PE Fund SP和Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP，实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第108-110、229-232、246-257和269-270段所载指控。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 125 页，共 139 页\n\n426. HCHK Technologies Inc.实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第258-272段所载指控。\n\n427. HCHK Property Management实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第258-272段所载指控。\n\n428. Lexington Property and Staffing实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第266和267段所载指控。\n\n429. Hudson Diamond NY LLC实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第170、204、205、212-227段所载指控。\n\n430. Taurus Fund LLC实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第233-243段所载指控。\n\n431. Leading Shine NY Ltd.实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第149、160-166段所载指控。\n\n432. Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第136、137段所载指控。\n\n433. Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.实施了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第136、138段所载指控。\n\n434. 违反18 U.S.C. §§ 1956和1957的行为，通过损害受托人为债权人追回转账价值的能力，直接且近因地对债务人遗产造成损害，并最终导致债务人遗产产生的专业费用远高于为其利益追回遗产财产原本所必需的费用。\n\n前置行为：18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519 – 妨害司法\n（Hing Chi Ngok、Mei Guo、Qiang Guo、Yvette Wang、Max Krasner、Chunguang Han、Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）、Aaron Mitchell、Beile Li（李贝乐）、Yan Chun Liu（刘彦春）、Qidong Xia（夏启东）、Xuebing Wang、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团公司）、Saraca Media, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、G-Club US Operations LLC（G-Club美国运营有限责任公司）、Bravo Luck）\n\n435. RICO模式包括一项以上违反18 U.S.C. §§ 1503、1507、1512和1519的妨害司法行为。\n\n436. 根据包括第289-295段所载指控在内的指控，Yvette Wang通过违反Corporate Governance Rights Order（公司治理权利命令）以推进该欺诈计划，试图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n437. 根据包括第296-298段所载指控在内的指控，GTV Media Group, Inc.、Saraca Media, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC及G-Club US Operations LLC通过扣留信息，包括文件，因而未遵守Rule 2004 Subpoenas（Rule 2004传票）并违反法院的Rule 2004 Orders（Rule 2004命令），以推进该欺诈计划，腐败地试图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n438. 根据包括第299-303段所载指控在内的指控，Hing Chi Ngok、Max Krasner及Chunguang Han通过违反Greenwich TRO（Greenwich临时限制令）及Greenwich PI（Greenwich初步禁令）以推进该欺诈计划，腐败地试图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n439. 根据包括第322和324段所载指控在内的指控，Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.通过从事、支持和/或资助虚假及骚扰性的在线材料，作为恐吓手段以阻止受托人依其法定职责行事，如上文更详细所述，腐败地试图影响、恐吓或妨碍本院官员，包括受托人。此外，基于相同指控，Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.腐败地试图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 提交日期 02/15/24 录入日期 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 127 页，共 139 页\n\n440. 根据包括第335-341段所载指控在内的指控，Yongbing Zhang通过提起无理诉讼，如上文更详细所述，腐败地试图影响、恐吓或妨碍本院官员，包括受托人，履行其职责。此外，基于相同指控，Yongbing Zhang腐败地试图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n441. 根据第317-329段所载指控，Beile Li通过在受托人住所及营业地点外开展纠察和骚扰活动，如上文更详细所述，腐败地试图影响、恐吓或妨碍本院官员，包括受托人，履行其职责。此外，基于相同指控，Beile Li腐败地试图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以及受托人履行其公务职责。\n\n442. 基于第317-329段所载的指称，Yan Chun Liu（刘彦春）以不正当方式企图通过如上文更详细指称的、在受托人住所和营业地点外开展纠察及骚扰活动，影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的一名工作人员（包括受托人）履行其职责。此外，基于相同的指称，Yan Chun Liu以不正当方式企图影响、妨碍或阻碍司法的正当实施以及受托人履行其公务职责。\n\n443. 基于第317-329段所载的指称，Qidong Xia（夏启东）以不正当方式企图通过如上文更详细指称的、在受托人住所和营业地点外开展纠察及骚扰活动，影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的一名工作人员（包括受托人）履行其职责。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2923，提交于 02/15/24，录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 128 页，共 139 页\n\n此外，基于相同的指称，Qidong Xia以不正当方式企图影响、妨碍或阻碍司法的正当实施以及受托人履行其公务职责。\n\n444. 基于第317-329段所载的指称，Xuebing Wang（王学兵）以不正当方式企图通过如上文更详细指称的、在受托人住所和营业地点外开展纠察及骚扰活动，影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的一名工作人员（包括受托人）履行其职责。此外，基于相同的指称，Xuebing Wang以不正当方式企图影响、妨碍或阻碍司法的正当实施以及受托人履行其公务职责。\n\n445. 基于包括第281-283段、第307-311段在内的所载指称，Mei Guo（郭梅）以不正当方式通过如上文更详细指称的、就债务人的财务状况、债务人与其本人同资产持有实体及资金提供实体之间的关系，在与第11章案件有关的、受伪证罪处罚约束的情形下明知且故意作出重大虚假陈述、失实陈述及遗漏，妨碍、影响或阻碍了一项正式程序，包括第11章案件。此外，基于相同的指称，Mei Guo为推进该欺诈计划而企图影响、妨碍或阻碍司法的正当实施。\n\n446. 基于包括第280-282段、第312-315段在内的所载指称，Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）以不正当方式通过如上文更详细指称的、就债务人的财务状况，在与第11章案件有关的、受伪证罪处罚约束的情形下明知且故意作出重大虚假陈述、失实陈述及遗漏，妨碍、影响或阻碍了一项正式程序，包括第11章案件，及／或为推进该欺诈计划而企图影响、妨碍或阻碍司法的正当实施。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2923，提交于 02/15/24，录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 129 页，共 139 页\n\n447. 基于包括第305段在内的所载指称，Qiang Guo（郭强）和 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）明知地伪造了一项记录、文件或有形物体，意图妨碍、阻碍或影响对第11章案件的调查或正当管理。此外，基于相同的指称，Qiang Guo和Bravo Luck以不正当方式企图为推进该欺诈计划而影响、妨碍或阻碍司法的正当实施。\n\n448. 因此，Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）、Mei Guo、Yvette Wang（王雁）、Qiang Guo、Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）、Chunguang Han（韩春光）、Aaron Mitchell、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会III公司）、GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）、Saraca Media, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、G-Club US Operations LLC（G-Club美国运营有限责任公司）及Bravo Luck实施了违反18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519的妨害司法行为，该等行为直接且近因地对破产财产造成损害，包括削弱受托人调查Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）资产的能力，并使郭文贵的破产财产承担与该妨害行为有关的大额专业费用和开支，从而直接影响所有债权人。\n\n前置行为：18 U.S.C. § 152 – 破产欺诈\n（Mei Guo、Hing Chi Ngok、Qiang Guo、William Je（叶威廉）、Yvette Wang、Aaron Mitchell、Bravo Luck及Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司））\n\n449. 该RICO模式包括一项以上违反18 U.S.C. § 152的破产欺诈行为。\n\n450. 基于本起诉状包括第307-311段在内的所载指称，Mei Guo在第11章案件中或与其有关地，明知且欺诈性地作出一项或多项虚假宣誓或陈述，如下列行为所示，其中包括上文更详细指称的行为：\n\n- a. Mei Guo就Lady May游艇的所有权，在受伪证罪处罚约束的情形下作出虚假陈述。\n- b. Mei Guo在一份声明中就其对一部智能手机的使用和所有权作出虚假陈述。\n- c. Mei Guo就出售一架Bombardier私人飞机的所得实施伪证。\n\n451. 基于相同的指称，Mei Guo在第11章案件中或与其有关地，明知且欺诈性地作出一项或多项虚假声明、证明、核验或受伪证罪处罚约束的陈述。\n\n452. 此外，基于本起诉状包括第281-283段及第308段在内的所载指称，Mei Guo以欺诈方式向债权人、United States Trustee（美国受托人）、受托人及本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括如上文更详细指称的下列资产及／或相关所得：Lady May及Bombardier喷气机。\n\n453. 基于本起诉状包括第306段在内的所载指称，Hing Chi Ngok在第11章案件中或与其有关地，明知且欺诈性地作出一项或多项虚假宣誓或陈述，包括：（i）其声称其就由Greenwich Land购买的Ferncliff Property（芬克利夫房产）采取了某些行动，但该说法与其无法辨认Ferncliff Property外观这一事实相矛盾；以及（ii）其陈述债务人未参与Greenwich Land购买Taconic Road Property（塔科尼克路房产），但该陈述与Mr. de Neree（德内雷先生）——Taconic Road Property出售交易中代表买方的房地产经纪人——所作的详细证词相矛盾。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2923，提交于 02/15/24，录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 131 页，共 139 页\n\n454. 基于相同的指称，Hing Chi Ngok在第11章案件中或与其有关地，明知且欺诈性地作出一项或多项虚假声明、证明、核验或受伪证罪处罚约束的陈述。\n\n455. 此外，基于本起诉状包括第204-208段在内的所载指称，Hing Chi Ngok和Greenwich Land LLC明知且欺诈性地向债权人、美国受托人、受托人及本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括Ferncliff Property出售所得的资产及／或相关所得等。\n\n456. 基于本起诉状包括第305段在内的所载指称，Qiang Guo和Bravo Luck均在第11章案件中或与其有关地，明知且欺诈性地作出一项或多项虚假宣誓或陈述，包括提交以一份伪造且倒签日期的所谓信托协议为依据的债权证明。\n\n457. 基于相同的指称，Qiang Guo在第11章案件中或与其有关地，明知且欺诈性地作出一项或多项虚假声明、证明、核验或受伪证罪处罚约束的陈述。\n\n458. 基于本起诉状包括第139段在内的所载指称，William Je明知且欺诈性地向债权人、美国受托人、受托人及本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括由被告及／或共同谋划者实体持有的资产以及对以欺诈方式取得的财产所作的转移等。\n\n459. 基于本起诉状包括第286-295段在内的所载指称，Yvette Wang明知且欺诈性地向债权人、美国受托人、受托人及本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括通过Ace Decade Transfer（艾斯十年转让）等方式。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2923，提交于 02/15/24，录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33，第 132 页，共 139 页\n\n460. 基于本起诉状包括第312段在内的所载指称，Aaron Mitchell在第11章案件中或与其有关地，就债务人的事务，明知且欺诈性地作出一项或多项虚假声明、证明、核验或受伪证罪处罚约束的陈述。\n\n461. 因此，这些被告实施了违反18 U.S.C. § 152的破产欺诈行为，该等行为直接且近因地对破产财产造成损害，包括削弱受托人调查和追回属于债务人破产财产的资产的能力，并使该破产财产承担与调查这些被告未披露且积极企图隐瞒、毁坏或以其他方式使其无法用于第11章案件的信息有关的大额专业费用和开支。\n\nRICO模式的持续性\n\n462. 如本案所述，被告违反法律的行为均直接且近因地损害了债务人的债权人，构成自不晚于2015年开始并持续至提交本起诉状期间在美国进行的持续行为过程，其目的在于通过虚假陈述、欺诈、欺骗及其他不当和非法手段，为债务人及其共同谋划者的利益欺骗债权人。\n\n463. 此外，如本案所述，被告违反法律的行为对持续犯罪活动构成威胁。\n\n464. 因此，该等违法行为构成18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and (5)项下的敲诈活动模式的一部分。\n\n罪名项2\n共谋违反《受敲诈影响和腐败组织法》18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)（针对所有被告）\n\n465. 受托人重述并再次主张本起诉状第1段至第[ ]段，如同在此完整载明。\n\n466. 各被告均因同意加入、参与或支持一项共谋而违反18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)；根据该共谋，一人或多人将通过敲诈活动模式经营或参与经营某一企业的事务，违反18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)（“RICO共谋”）。\n\n467. 特别是，各被告均为Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）及其事务中知情、自愿且积极的参与者，并且各被告具有共同目的，即为债务人及其他共同谋划者的利益，通过由虚假实体构成的网络，对债务人的财产（包括以欺诈方式取得的资金）进行安排、规划、筹备、执行转移和分散的欺诈计划，并向债务人的债权人隐瞒该等财产和资金。\n\n468. 各被告的参与和同意对于实施该计划均属必要。\n\n469. 各被告均知悉并同意通过其如本案所指称的所实施行为，及／或通过部分或全部被告之间的明确协议，促成Kwok Enterprise。被告之间存在协议的证据尤其为各被告所知悉并由其控制。\n\n470. 各名义参与者被告同意加入并支持RICO共谋，可由下列事项证明或从中推断，包括：\n\na. 每一被提名参与人被告均作为债务人实际控制并享有受益权的实体的名义所有人、高管、董事、雇员和/或受任人行事，包括被用于促成该欺诈计划的某些资产持有实体、资助实体和业务门面实体。\n\nb. 每一被提名参与人被告均知悉，并通过实施上述违法行为，促成和授权了其作为名义所有人、高管、董事、雇员和/或受任人的资产持有实体、资助实体和业务门面实体所涉违法活动。\n\n471. 各资产持有实体同意加入并支持 RICO 共谋的事实，除其他事项外，可由下列事实证明或推断：\n\na. 债务人直接通过其对各资产持有实体的完全控制，或通过其对被提名参与人的支配和控制，享有对各资产持有实体的完全控制。\n\nb. 与资产持有实体相关的被提名参与人直接参与了 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）的欺诈计划。\n\nc. 每一资产持有实体均知悉并直接参与了 Kwok Enterprise 的违法活动，方式是与资助实体和业务门面实体进行数百万美元的欺诈性进出口交易，以推进使债务人、其家人及其他共谋者获益并欺诈债权人的欺诈计划。\n\nd. 每一资产持有实体均仅为推进使债务人、其家人及其他共谋者获益并欺诈债权人的欺诈计划而设立和运营。\n\n472. 各业务门面实体同意加入并支持 RICO 共谋的事实，除其他事项外，可由下列事实证明或推断：\n\na. 每一业务门面实体均知悉、促成并直接参与了 Kwok Enterprise 的违法活动，方式是在名义上经营媒体、房地产、技术和社交媒体企业的同时，为债务人、其家人及关联人士的利益隐匿债务人的资产并转手划拨非法取得的资金；但在实际功能上，该等实体由债务人拥有和控制，以推进 Kwok Enterprise。\n\n473. 各专业参与人被告同意加入并支持 RICO 共谋的事实，除其他事项外，可由本文详述的专业参与人被告对 Kwok Enterprise 违法活动的知悉及直接参与加以证明或推断，包括但不限于转移或收受欺诈取得的资产和/或策划该等交易。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 于 02/15/24 提交 于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 135 页，共 139 页\n\n474. 各其他参与人被告同意加入并支持 RICO 共谋的事实，除其他事项外，可由本文详述的其他参与人被告对 Kwok Enterprise 违法活动的知悉及直接参与加以证明或推断，包括但不限于其欺诈活动和/或为支持及推进该欺诈计划而采取的其他行为。\n\n475. 各资助实体被告同意加入并支持 RICO 共谋的事实，除其他事项外，可由下列事实证明或推断：\n\na. 债务人直接通过其对各资助实体被告的完全控制，或通过其对被提名参与人的支配和控制，享有对各资助实体被告的完全控制。\n\nb. 每一资助实体被告均知悉、促成并直接参与了 Kwok Enterprise 的违法活动，方式是向各实体和个人转移大额款项，以使债务人、其家人及其他共谋者获益。\n\nc. 每一资助实体被告均仅为推进使债务人、其家人及其他共谋者获益并欺诈债权人的欺诈计划而设立。\n\n476. 通过各被告之间的业务和/或个人关系、其在 Kwok Enterprise 事务中的密切协调，以及其参与债务人的欺诈计划，各被告均知悉 Kwok Enterprise 的性质，且各被告均知悉 Kwok Enterprise 的范围超出了各被告各自的个人角色。\n\n477. 各被告在至少知悉该共谋总体轮廓的情况下，实施本文所指控的行为，意图推进或促成 Kwok Enterprise。各被告的参与和同意对于实施该敲诈勒索活动模式是必要的。所有被告均发挥了关键作用并直接参与了敲诈勒索活动，因为其均知悉该违法计划；鉴于其对各被告实体及其自身行为和事务所拥有的权力和裁量权，若无其同意、积极鼓励和参与，该计划不可能得以持续。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 于 02/15/24 提交 于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 136 页，共 139 页\n\n478. 如一个或多个实体被告（即资助实体、资产持有实体、业务门面实体及某些专业参与人）并不因共谋违反 RICO 的实体性规定而直接就违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 承担责任，则在个别被告以其在某一实体被告处担任雇员、高级职员或董事的职位，或与该实体被告之间的代理关系范围内实施前置行为的范围内，该等实体被告应就其他个别被告违反第 1962(d) 条的行为承担替代责任。本文被指称实施的每一前置行为，均系为推进一项旨在并实际通过空壳实体及欺诈债权人的计划，隐匿和掩饰债务人资产的性质及所有权，从而使债务人、其家人及其关联人士获益的计划而实施。因此，该等实体被告应如本文所指控，就某些个别被告的 RICO 违法行为承担替代责任。\n\n479. 由于被告的 RICO 共谋、其同意据以开展 RICO 企业事务的敲诈勒索活动模式，以及违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 的行为，债务人的债权人已直接且近因地受到损害。\n\n480. 由于前述违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 的行为，债务人财产继续被剥夺本应有助于债务人债权人获得清偿的款项，因为其持续被剥夺属于该财产的款项。如本文所指控，若非被告故意实施犯罪行为，债务人的债权人因受托人努力而可能获得的清偿（如有）将显著更多。债务人债权人的损失包括但不限于：受托人因前述违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 的行为，以及为追回被告非法隐匿和掩饰的财产和资产而被迫从该财产中支出的成本和费用，包括律师费，以及因被告破产前和破产后的违法行为而产生的成本和费用。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2923 于 02/15/24 提交 于 02/15/24 20:00:33 登记 第 137 页，共 139 页\n\n481. 被告欺诈债务人债权人并隐匿债务人资产的所有权和性质的计划，所可预见、自然、直接且预期的后果是，受托人为追回债务人的资产将不得不产生更多专业费用；即使该等资产不顾被告的违法行为仍可被识别和追回，债务人债权人的清偿（如有）也将显著减少。对于因被告违法行为而给债务人债权人造成的损害，不存在任何独立因素可予解释，该等损害亦绝非源于对任何其他实体或个人造成的任何损害。没有任何直接受害人比受托人更适宜提起诉讼——事实上，被告的不当行为正是通过受托人以及 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）的努力才得以揭露——且也不存在处于不同损害层级的原告就该等违法行为获得重复赔偿的风险。\n\n482. 根据 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)，受托人有权获得三倍损害赔偿，以及本案诉讼费用和合理的律师费及成本。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，受托人请求法院作出如下救济和判决：\n\n（a）根据审判中的证据判给一般损害赔偿和补偿性损害赔偿；\n\n（b）根据 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 判给三倍损害赔偿；\n\n（c）判给必要且适当的禁令性救济，包括要求被告停止并终止上述全部违法行为的禁令；\n\n（d）追缴被告因其违法活动所收取的全部款项；\n\n（d）根据 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 判给受托人合理的律师费、成本和费用；\n\n（e）判决前利息；以及\n\n（f）法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：February 15, 2024，New York, New York（纽约州纽约市）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯）\n第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron\n\nAvram E. Luft（埃夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准临时出庭）\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准临时出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6000\n[aviluft@paulhastings.com]\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准临时出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）（ct00616）\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思专业公司）70\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第 11 章受托人的律师\n\n70 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思专业公司）系受托人就本起诉状中针对 GTV（GTV）提出的所有指控及罪名项的专属律师。","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","CIPA","HCHK","GTV","Je","Himalaya","RICO","Saraca","William Je","GETTR","Farm Loan","Himalaya Exchange","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","CCP","Paul Hastings","Chinese Communist Party","Miles Guo","Kin Ming Je","Yanping Wang"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":33356,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-02-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-02-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:46:49"}