{"id":"court_ctb_3215_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3215,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS
Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | | DEFENDANTS
McLaren Racing Limited | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
Douglas S. Skalka, Patrick R. Linsey
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church Street, 13 Floor, New Haven, CT 06510
203-781-2847 | ATTORNEYS | (If Known) | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee
✔ | □ Debtor
□ Creditor
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Other
✔ | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee seeking avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers and related relief pursuant to
Bankruptcy Code Sections 544, 548, and 550 and New York Debtor and Creditor Law Sections 273, 274, and 276 | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
✔
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
✔
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | □
□
□
□
□ | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
65-Dischargeability - other | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
□
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
□
72-Injunctive relief – other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
□
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | □ | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
91-Declaratory judgment | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | □
Other
□
□ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law
✔ | | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING
Connecticut | | DIVISION OFFICE
Bridgeport | NAME OF JUDGE
Julie A. Manning | | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
/s/ Patrick R. Linsey | | | | | |\n| DATE
May 28, 2024 | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
Patrick R. Linsey | | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| In re: | : | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
v.
MCLAREN RACING LIMITED,
----------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
:
:
:
:
Defendant.
:
: | x
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ]
May 28, 2024
x |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, AND 276**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant McLaren Racing Limited (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover a transfer of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter-ego shell company Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$676,250.00 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as the initial transferee.\n\n3. This transfer was actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated it as part of his \"shell game,\" and it was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors. Alternatively, this transfer was constructively fraudulent, because it was made when the Debtor was insolvent, and the Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in consideration thereof.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n5. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n6. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548 and 550 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 2 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\". The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVT\") replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFC\") and became effective on April 4, 2020 and applies to transfers made or\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n8. The Defendant is a United Kingdom private limited company with a registered office address of McLaren Technology Centre, Chertsey Road, Woking, Surrey, GU21 4YH.\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n9. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\").\n\n10. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n11. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.3 While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter-ego shell companies, including Lamp Capital.\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11\n\nobligations incurred on or after April 4, 2020. With respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUFC and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 273, 273a, 275, 276, and 278.\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\ntrustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n# **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n13. Lamp Capital is one of the numerous alter-ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors.4 For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members, lieutenants, and/or subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets.\n\n14. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.5\n\n15. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from\n\n4 The Court has entered judgment to the effect that Lamp Capital was the Debtor's alter ego. *See Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\"), Docket No. 66). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Lamp Capital A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1).\n\n5 These include the following adversary proceedings: (i) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05017]; (vi) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited* [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]; and (vii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.* [Adv. Proc. 23-05023].\n\nother Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n### **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n16. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and through it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.6\n\n17. The Bankruptcy Court has also found that the \"G Entities\" (Gettr, G Fashion, G Music, GClubs, GNews and GEdu), the New Federal State of China and the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled by the Debtor,7 led by the Debtor8 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.9\n\n18. Prior to the Petition Date, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, an entity originally owned by one of the Debtor's chefs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.10\n\n6 *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order,* ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n7 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n8 *Id*. at ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.\").\n\n9 *Id*. (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\n10 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n19. The Debtor has gone to great lengths to hinder and delay the collection efforts of one of his largest creditors, *i.e.*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"). In 2017, PAX sued the Debtor in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the \"New York Court\"), Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"PAX Case\"), seeking judgment for monies owed. On February 3, 2021, PAX obtained a judgment from the New York Court against the Debtor in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\"). PAX sought to enforce the PAX Judgment by levying the Debtor's assets—including the Lady May, which the Debtor falsely claimed was owned by his daughter, and the Debtor's luxury apartment in Manhattan, which the Debtor falsely claimed was held in trust for the Debtor's son. The Debtor's defiance of New York Court orders in postjudgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n20. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Lamp Capital, as personal piggybanks, funding the lavish lifestyle to which he and his family had become accustomed, while concealing assets in these alter egos from his creditors and hindering and delaying creditors from recoveries on their claims. The transfers that the Debtor effectuated through these alter egos perpetuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n21. The Debtor has testified before the Bankruptcy Court that he has insufficient assets to pay his liabilities and that his luxurious lifestyle is funded by his family through businesses nominally held by family members.11 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.12\n\n11 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n12 *See* n.3.\n\n22. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested and remains confined pending his trial on federal criminal charges of, among other things, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.\n\n23. In its criminal indictment of the Debtor, the United States Government asserts that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"13\n\n24. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Lamp Capital, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n25. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the Transfer (as defined herein).\n\n## **D. Transfer Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n26. The Transfer at issue in this Complaint was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as it was made through the Debtor's alter-ego shell company operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n27. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many creditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n13 *See* Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief (June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934).\n\n28. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor faces multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n29. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n30. The Defendant is a racing team competing in Formula 1, IndyCar, Formula E, Extreme E and eSports racing.\n\n31. The Transfer at issue here was part of the Debtor's practice of dissipating his assets through spending on luxury goods and services for himself and for his family members and associates. This spending on luxury items was particularly egregious considering that the Debtor was dissipating the proceeds of his frauds.\n\n32. Upon information and belief, the Transfer funded the purchase of one or more vehicles or vehicle-related services for the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, who is known to be an enthusiast of luxury \"supercars\" of the type operated by the Defendant and was located in the United Kingdom at or around the time of the Transfer.\n\n### **E. Tolling of Avoidance Claims**\n\n33. On February 15, 2024, the Court entered its *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion to Extend Deadlines* [Main Case Docket No. 2921] (the \"Tolling Order\"), in which the Court, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b), extended the time limitations set forth in Sections 108, 546, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions through and including August 15, 2024.\n\n34. In the Tolling Order, the Court found that since the Petition Date, the Debtor has, among other things, filed incomplete or inaccurate schedules and statements of financial affairs, failed to provide books and records to the Trustee, and otherwise failed to cooperate with the Trustee, all in flagrant disregard for his obligations as a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. (Tolling Order at p. 14.)\n\n35. The Debtor's family members and other individuals and entities associated with him have likewise obstructed the Trustee's investigation, as evidenced by the Court's entry of \"at least eight orders holding the … Debtor, his daughter, [Mei] Guo, and entities allegedly controlled by the … Debtor in contempt for failure to turn over assets and discovery abuse.\" (*Id.* at p. 15.) The Court found the \"noncompliance with this Court's orders in these jointly administered chapter 11 cases, is extraordinary\" (*id.*), and that, in the face of such obstruction, the Trustee's investigation has been \"more than reasonably diligent\" (*id.* at p. 17).\n\n36. The Trustee has investigated the claims in this Complaint diligently and asserted them as soon as possible.\n\n37. The Trustee has acted diligently in investigating and pursuing the claims asserted in this Complaint.\n\n38. In light of, among other things, the extraordinary obstruction that the Trustee has faced in conducting his diligent investigation, the balance of the equities strongly favors equitable tolling of any statutes of limitations applicable to the claims asserted herein.\n\n9\n\n# **F. Transfer to the Defendant**\n\n39. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell company Lamp Capital, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (the \"Transfer\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n40. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n41. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfer.\n\n## **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n42. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n43. The Transfer was made by the Debtor through his alter ego, Lamp Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n44. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nTransfer is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Transfer was effectuated using alter-ego shell companies;\n\nb. The Transfer was concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Transfer was effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the\n\naid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors and/or by causing valuable assets to be placed in the hands of the Debtor's family members;\n\ne. The Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n45. The Transfer is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(i)(A) of the\n\nBankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n46. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n47. The Transfer was made by the Debtor, through his alter ego shell company, Lamp Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n48. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nTransfer is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Transfer was effectuated using alter-ego shell companies;\n- b. The Transfer was concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n- c. The Transfer was effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the\n\naid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors and/or by causing valuable assets to be placed in the hands of the Debtor's family members;\n\ne. The Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n49. The Transfer is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(B) and 550(a))**\n\n50. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n51. The Debtor received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Transfer.\n\n52. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the Transfer.\n\n53. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction, for which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n54. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor intended to incur or believed he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debts matured.\n\n55. The Transfer constitutes a fraudulent transfer and is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and is recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n56. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n57. The Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Transfer.\n\n58. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or the Debtor became insolvent as a result of the Transfer.\n\n59. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor was engaged in a business or transaction, or was about to engage in a business or transaction which any property remaining with the Debtor was an unreasonably small amount of capital.\n\n60. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts that would be beyond his ability to pay as such debt matured.\n\n61. The Transfer is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and is recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Transfer in an amount not less than \\$676,250.00 is avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Transfer in an amount not less than \\$676,250.00 is avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278; (b) an order directing that the Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Transfer in an amount not less than \\$676,250.00 is avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Transfer in an amount not less than \\$676,250.00 is avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278; (b) an order directing that the Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n5. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n## [*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: May 28, 2024 New Haven, CT LUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /s/ *Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\n# **FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\n（背面说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人 被告\nMcLaren Racing Limited（迈凯伦赛车有限公司）\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡），Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙泰思职业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13 Floor, New Haven, CT 06510\n203-781-2847 律师 （如已知）\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n✔ □ 债务人\n□ 债权人\n□ 受托人 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 其他\n✔\n诉因\n（简要说明诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第544、548及550条和《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条，请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及取得相关救济的起诉状\n诉讼性质\n（从主要诉因作为1开始编号，至多勾选五（5）项；第一备选诉因为2，第二备选诉因为3，以此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1)－金钱/财产追偿\n□\n11－金钱/财产追偿－§542 财产返还\n□\n12－金钱/财产追偿－§547 优先受偿\n□\n✔\n13－金钱/财产追偿－§548 欺诈性转让\n□\n✔\n14－金钱/财产追偿－其他\nFRBP 7001(2)－留置权的效力、优先顺位或范围\n□\n21－留置权或其他财产权益的效力、优先顺位或范围 □\n□\n□\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(6)－可免责性（续）\n61－可免责性－§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养义务\n68－可免责性－§523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n63－可免责性－§523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n64－可免责性－§523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\n65－可免责性－其他\nFRBP 7001(3)－批准出售财产\n□\n31－批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产－§363(h) FRBP 7001(7)－禁令救济\n□\n71－禁令救济－施加中止\n□\n72－禁令救济－其他\nFRBP 7001(4)－异议/撤销免责\n□\n41－异议/撤销免责－§727(c)、(d)、(e) FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后\n□\n81－债权或权益的劣后\nFRBP 7001(5)－撤销确认\n□\n51－撤销确认 □ FRBP 7001(9) 确认之诉\n91－确认之诉\nFRBP 7001(6)－可免责性\n□\n66－可免责性－§523(a)(1)、(14)、(14A) 优先税款债权\n□\n62－可免责性－§523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67－可免责性－§523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏） □\n其他\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n01－对移送债权或诉因的裁定\nSS－SIPA 案件－15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n02－其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体性问题，请勾选\n✔ □ 如主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如起诉状请求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n寻求的其他救济\nB1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由发生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 破产案件编号\n22-50073\n案件审理地区\nConnecticut（康涅狄格地区） 分庭办事处\nBridgeport（布里奇波特） 法官姓名\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序审理地区 分庭办事处 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n日期\nMay 28, 2024 律师（或原告）印刷体姓名\nPatrick R. Linsey\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会产生一个受破产法院管辖的“财产集合”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产集合范围广泛且法院管辖权如此宽泛，可能会就该财产集合的财产或财产权发生诉讼。也可能会有涉及债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的当事人还必须填写并提交表格1040，即《对抗程序封面页》，除非该当事人通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF 会在提交过程中获取表格1040中的信息。）填写完成后，封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。封面页大部分不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每一份提交的起诉状均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请按起诉状中所列的原告和被告姓名准确填写。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉状中请求的金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由记录在案的律师在表格第二页的方框中签名。如原告由律师事务所代理，该所的一名成员必须签名。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则原告必须签名。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\n\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格地区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分庭）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： : 第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章\n受托人，\n诉\nMCLAREN RACING LIMITED（迈凯伦赛车有限公司），\n\n原告，\n\n被告。\n:\n: x\n对抗程序编号 [ ]\nMay 28, 2024\nx\n第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第544、548及550条和《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及取得相关救济的起诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins，以在 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，提起本\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP，200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人：Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产集合的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n对抗起诉状（“起诉状”），起诉被告 McLaren Racing Limited（“被告”），陈述如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回债务人在本第11章案件启动前对其财产所作的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其替身空壳公司 Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital”），在申请日（定义见下文）之前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为 $676,250.00 的资金。\n\n3. 该项转让属于实际欺诈，因为债务人作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施了该项转让，且该项转让是出于阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出。或者，该项转让属于推定欺诈，因为其作出时债务人已无清偿能力，且债务人未就此取得合理等值的对价。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n4. 本法院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序享有案件标的管辖权。\n\n5. 本对抗程序已依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移送至本法院。\n\n6. 本案所请求救济的法定依据包括《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）第544、548及550条，以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条 2 或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n\n2 下文中对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的所有法定引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law”。《纽约州统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVT”）取代了《纽约州统一欺诈性让与法》（“NYUFC”），并于 April 4, 2020 生效，适用于在该日或之后作出的转让或发生的债务。\n当事人\n\n7. 受托人根据破产法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的裁定，担任第11章案件中的第11章受托人 [Case No. 22-50073（“主案”）Docket No. 523]。\n\n8. 被告是一家英国私人有限公司，其注册办事处地址为 McLaren Technology Centre, Chertsey Road, Woking, Surrey, GU21 4YH。\n事实\nA. 第11章案件\n\n9. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格地区破产法院）依据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）第11章提交自愿救济申请（“申请日”），从而启动上述标题所示第11章案件（“第11章案件”）。\n\n10. 于 March 21, 2022，Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）在本第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人官方委员会。尚未任命审查员。\n\n11. 债务人于 March 2022 向破产法院提交的破产财产清单声称其拥有 $3,850 的资产，并已产生数亿美元的负债。3 尽管债务人确实负债累累，其财产清单未披露债务人通过其众多替身空壳公司，包括 Lamp Capital，所持有及/或转让的财产。\n\n12. 于 June 15, 2022，破产法院作出决定备忘录及裁定 [主案 Docket No. 465]，指示美国受托人任命一名第11章\n\n发生的债务。就 April 4, 2020 之前的转让而言，受托人在本诉讼中根据 NYUFC 及 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273、273a、275、276及278条寻求救济。\n\n3 资产及负债清单，第1页 [主案 Docket No. 78]。\n\n受托人处理第11章案件。根据该裁定，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins 担任受托人。于 July 8, 2022，破产法院作出裁定，批准任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章案件的受托人 [主案 Docket No. 523]。\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n13. Lamp Capital 是债务人为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多替身空壳公司之一。4 多年来，债务人策划了一场“空壳游戏”，利用由家属、亲信及/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的错综复杂的空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人得以使用、支出及/或转让数百万美元现金及其他资产。\n\n14. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第11章案件中提起若干对抗程序，以便除其他事项外，确认债务人的空壳公司是其替身及/或该等公司及其资产由债务人享有衡平所有权；且在若干对抗程序中，破产法院已准予该等救济。5\n\n15. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属和/或下属持有的空壳公司；(ii) 使用来自\n\n4. 本院已作出判决，认定 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）为债务人的另一个自我。参见 Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al.（Despins 诉 Lamp Capital LLC 等案）（对抗程序案号 23-5023（“Lamp Capital A.P.”），案卷编号 66）。受托人在此通过援引纳入受托人在 Lamp Capital A.P. 中提交的起诉状（对抗程序案号 23-5023，案卷编号 1）。\n\n5. 这些包括下列对抗程序：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人诉 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）等案［对抗程序案号 22-05003］；(ii) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）等案［对抗程序案号 23-05005］；(iii) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）案［对抗程序案号 23-05008］；(iv) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）等案［对抗程序案号 23-05013］；(v) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等案［对抗程序案号 23- 05017］；(vi) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（金泉〈纽约〉有限公司）案［对抗程序案号 23-05018］；以及 (vii) Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人诉 Lamp Capital LLC 等案［对抗程序案号 23-05023］。\n\n由其他债务人控制实体支付的现金购置的资产，和/或在空壳实体之间无对价转让的资产；以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中受益，并对该等资产拥有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人所实施的行为\n\n16. 除受托人对抗程序中处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（十年王牌有限公司）（并通过该公司成为 Dawn State Limited（曙光州有限公司））的受益所有人，且债务人控制并使用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（王悦）。6\n\n17. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（G实体）（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他表面上独立的实体和组织，均由债务人控制，7 由债务人领导，8 和/或“服务于……债务人的目的，并作为债务人的商业工具”。9\n\n18. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 Liman 法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方盈利有限公司）——该实体最初由债务人的一名厨师所有，后转让给债务人的女儿——实质上是债务人的“一家空壳公司”。10\n\n6. 关于准许动议、认定债务人藐视公司治理命令的裁定，第¶¶ 1、4段（Jan. 24, 2023，案卷编号 1372（“公司治理藐视法庭裁定”）。\n\n7. 经更正的部分准许初步禁令动议的决定备忘录，第¶ 3段（对抗程序案号 22-05032，January 13, 2023（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及一关联实体‘GTV’”）。\n\n8. 同上，第¶ 7段（“债务人是 The Whistleblower Movement（吹哨人运动）、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n9. 同上。（“吹哨人运动、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和喜马拉雅服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员对债务人个人忠诚。”）。\n\n10. Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC（东方盈利有限公司诉战略愿景美国有限责任公司案）, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n19. 债务人为阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一，即 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）的追偿工作，费尽心机。2017年，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）起诉债务人，案卷索引号 652077/2017（“PAX 案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX 从纽约法院获得针对债务人的 \\$116,402,019.57 判决（“PAX 判决”）。PAX 试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行 PAX 判决，包括 Lady May（五月女士号）——债务人谎称该资产由其女儿所有——以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓——债务人谎称该公寓以信托形式为债务人的儿子持有。债务人在判决后程序中藐视纽约法院命令，最终导致其承担 \\$134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n20. 债务人还将包括 Lamp Capital 在内的其另一个自我作为个人钱袋使用，为其本人及其家人已经习惯的奢华生活方式提供资金，同时将资产隐藏于该等另一个自我中，使其债权人无法发现，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得追偿。债务人通过该等另一个自我实施的转让延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n21. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以偿付其负债，且其奢华生活方式由其家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业提供资金。11 债务人仅在财产清单中列示 \\$3,850 的资产。12\n\n11. 关于债务人请求作出临时及最终 DIP 命令的动议的听证会：(I) 授权债务人获得无担保、次级的申请后融资，及 (II) 安排临时及最终听证会，及 (III) 给予相关救济（主案，April 27, 2022）\n\n12. 见脚注3。\n\n22. 2023年3月，债务人被逮捕，目前仍被羁押，等待就包括电信欺诈、证券欺诈及洗钱在内的联邦刑事指控受审。\n\n23. 美国政府在针对债务人的刑事起诉书中主张，债务人及其共同被告“利用以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的约500多个账户，对超过 \\$1 billion 的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”13\n\n24. 债务人的另一个自我（包括 Lamp Capital）的财产，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n25. 在与本案有关的任何时候，债务人均在纽约州纽约市从事商业活动，包括指示该转让（定义见下文）。\n\nD. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n26. 本起诉状所涉转让系出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出，因为该转让是通过债务人的另一个自我空壳公司作出的，该公司作为债务人空壳把戏的一部分运作。\n\n27. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以在向其众多债权人虚假宣称贫困的同时，隐匿并耗散数百万美元的资产。债务人声称自己一贫如洗，却同时大肆花费，以维持其本人、其家庭成员及亲密伙伴的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n13. 参见 United States of America（美利坚合众国）反对被告 Yanping Wang（王燕平）审前释放动议的法律备忘录，第29页，作为附件B附于第11章受托人对 G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）就受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求所提补充异议的答复中（June 23, 2023，主案件卷编号 1934）。\n\n28. 债务人隐匿和耗散的资产包括其从其加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害人处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 正在审理的一宗刑事案件中，面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱及敲诈勒索指控。参见 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（美利坚合众国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n29. 债务人明知并意图通过以此方式隐匿和耗散其资产，将不会剩余足够资产偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，该等转让必然是出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出的。\n\n30. 被告是一支参加 Formula 1、IndyCar、Formula E、Extreme E 及电子竞技赛车比赛的赛车队。\n\n31. 本案所涉转让是债务人通过为其本人、其家庭成员及其关联人购买奢侈品和服务而耗散其资产这一惯常做法的一部分。鉴于债务人耗散的是其欺诈所得，该等奢侈品支出尤为恶劣。\n\n32. 根据所知及所信，该转让为债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）购买一辆或多辆车辆或与车辆有关的服务提供资金。Qiang Guo 被知悉为被告所运营类型的豪华“超级跑车”的爱好者，并且在该转让发生时或前后位于 United Kingdom（英国）。\n\nE. 撤销请求的时效中止\n\n33. 2024年2月15日，本院作出其部分准许延长期限动议的决定备忘录及命令［主案件卷编号 2921］（“时效中止命令”）。本院在该命令中依据 Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)（破产规则9006(b)），将《破产法典》第108、546及549条规定的受托人提起撤销诉讼的期限延长至并包括2024年8月15日。\n\n34. 本院在时效中止命令中认定，自申请日以来，债务人除其他事项外，提交了不完整或不准确的财产清单及财务状况说明，未向受托人提供账簿和记录，并以其他方式未能与受托人合作，所有这些行为均公然无视其作为《破产法典》规定的债务人所负的义务。（时效中止命令第14页。）\n\n35. 债务人的家庭成员及其他与其有关联的个人和实体同样阻挠了受托人的调查，证据是本院作出了“至少八项命令，认定……债务人、其女儿［Mei］Guo 以及据称由……债务人控制的实体，因未移交资产及滥用证据开示程序而藐视法庭。”（同上，第15页。）本院认定，“在这些合并管理的第11章案件中不遵守本院命令的情形，属非同寻常”（同上），且面对该等阻挠，受托人的调查“一直具有超过合理程度的勤勉”（同上，第17页）。\n\n36. 受托人已勤勉调查本起诉状中的请求，并在能够尽早提出时即予提出。\n\n37. 受托人在调查和追究本起诉状中提出的请求时一直勤勉行事。\n\n38. 鉴于受托人在进行勤勉调查时所面对的非同寻常阻挠等情形，衡平因素的权衡强烈支持对适用于本案所主张请求的任何时效期间实行衡平中止。\n\nF. 向被告作出的转让\n\n39. 在申请日之前，债务人使用其另一个自我空壳公司 Lamp Capital，或以其他方式，向被告转让债务人的财产（“转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表A。\n\n40. 在该转让作出时，债务人对债务人财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n41. 被告是该转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n（根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)及550(a)条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n42. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至41段所载指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n43. 债务人通过其另一个自我 Lamp Capital 作出该转让时，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n44. 债务人在实施该转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，体现在：\n\na. 该转让是使用另一个自我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 该转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该转让是作为债务人的“空壳把戏”的一部分实施的，并在债务人的家庭成员及其所控制的其他亲信和下属的协助下，意图隐匿并遮蔽资产；\n\nd. 该转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获益，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，和/或通过使有价值的资产落入债务人的家庭成员之手，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在该转让发生时，债务人正被提起诉讼，包括PAX（PAX）在PAX案中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在该转让发生时，债务人无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n45. 根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A)，该转让可由受托人撤销，并可根据《破产法》section 550(a)予以追回。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273、274及276，以及《破产法》sections 544(b)及550(a)，请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n46. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至41段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n47. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司Lamp Capital（蓝普资本），以实际意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人而实施该转让。\n\n48. 债务人在实施该转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，可由包括但不限于以下事项证明：\n\na. 该转让系通过另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该转让被向债务人的债权人隐瞒；\n\nc. 该转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，债务人借助其家庭成员及其控制的其他亲信和下属，企图隐瞒和保护资产；\n\nd. 该转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获益，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，和/或通过使有价值的资产落入债务人的家庭成员之手，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 该转让通过使债务人得以从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受到其债权人追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在该转让发生时，债务人正被提起诉讼，包括PAX在PAX案中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在该转让发生时，债务人无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n49. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1)、274及276和《破产法》section 544(b)，该转让可由受托人撤销，并可根据《破产法》section 550(a)予以追回。\n\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法》sections 548(a)(1)(B)及550(a)，请求撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让）\n\n50. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至41段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n51. 债务人就该转让所取得的对价低于合理等值。\n\n52. 在该转让发生时，债务人无力偿债，或因该转让而陷入无力偿债状态。\n\n53. 在该转让发生时，债务人正在从事某项业务或交易，或即将从事某项业务或交易，而债务人保留的任何财产构成不合理地不足的资本。\n\n54. 在该转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或相信其将承担在该等债务到期时超出其偿付能力的债务。\n\n55. 该转让构成欺诈性转让，并可由受托人根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(B)撤销，且可根据《破产法》section 550(a)予以追回。\n\n第四项请求\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2)、274及276和《破产法》sections 544(b)及550(a)，请求撤销并追回推定欺诈性转让）\n\n56. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至41段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n57. 债务人未就该转让取得合理等值对价。\n\n58. 在该转让发生时，债务人无力偿债，或债务人因该转让而陷入无力偿债状态。\n\n59. 在该转让发生时，债务人正在从事某项业务或交易，或即将从事某项业务或交易，而债务人保留的任何财产构成不合理地不足的资本。\n\n60. 在该转让发生时，债务人意图承担，或相信或者合理应当相信其将承担在该等债务到期时超出其偿付能力的债务。\n\n61. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2)、274及276和《破产法》section 544(b)，该转让可由受托人撤销，并可根据《破产法》section 550(a)予以追回。\n\n【本页其余部分特意留白。】\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$676,250.00的该转让根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A)予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销该转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回该转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$676,250.00的该转让根据《破产法》section 544(b)及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2)、274及276予以撤销；对于2020年4月4日之前的转让，则根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273、273a、275、276及278予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销该转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276及《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回该转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$676,250.00的该转让根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(B)予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销该转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回该转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 就第四项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$676,250.00的该转让根据《破产法》section 544(b)及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2)、274及276予以撤销；对于2020年4月4日之前的转让，则根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273、273a、275、276及278予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销该转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276及《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产的利益，向被告追回该转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n5. 判给受托人自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n6. 法院在此情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n【本页其余部分特意留白】\n\n日期：May 28, 2024 New Haven, CT LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）第11章受托人\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com 第11章受托人代理律师\n\n附表A\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","HCHK","GTV","Saraca","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":215,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5174,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:59:27"}