{"id":"court_ctb_3329_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3329,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-07-19","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"延长撤销权诉讼期限的补充动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #3329（2024-07-19立案）。第 11 章破产受托人 Luc A. Despins 申请延长原定于 2024 年 8 月 15 日截止的撤销权诉讼起诉期限，指出法务会计团队已追踪到 546 个关联账户中 122 亿美元流入和 91 亿美元流出，且受托人调查仍面临阻碍。","summary_en":"Supplemental Motion to Extend Avoidance Action Deadline — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #3329 (filed 2024-07-19). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins moves to further extend the August 15, 2024 deadline to file avoidance actions, noting ongoing forensic analysis by Kroll tracking $12.2 billion in inflows and $9.1 billion in outflows across 546 Kwok-related bank accounts.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n\n## **FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND AUGUST 15, 2024 DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this motion (the \"Motion\"), pursuant to section 105(a) of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and Rule 9006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), for an order, substantially in the form of the proposed order attached as **Exhibit 1** hereto (the \"Proposed Order\"), extending the Ordered Extension (as defined below) for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions. In support of the Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n# **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Six months ago, in February 2024, the Court granted the Trustee's motion and extended the limitations periods for the Trustee to file avoidance actions. At the time, the Court\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> 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 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\nfound that \"the Trustee has shown more than reasonable diligence in his efforts\" to unravel the intricacies of the Debtor's assets and financial affairs. As discussed below, that remains true today. The Trustee has continued to make significant progress, on both the litigation front and the discovery front. He has obtained rulings bringing valuable assets and entities into the estate; in many cases, those victories (especially alter ego rulings) lead to additional discovery that will, in turn, likely lead to further affirmative recoveries on behalf of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n2. The Trustee has also launched an extensive mediation process, in which over 50 parties (to-date) are participating. And, since entry of the Extension Order (as defined herein), the Trustee has (among other things) learned new information about, among other things, the Debtor's international activities and filed additional omnibus Rule 2004 motions and served additional subpoenas. The Trustee has also continued his forensic accounting analysis of the Debtor's vast shell game and his forensic accounting firm, Kroll, has identified an additional 207 Kwok-related bank accounts (bringing the total to approximately 546 accounts) and approximately 88,580 transactions in and out of these accounts. Kroll has also tracked approximately \\$12.2 billion coming in to, and \\$9.1 billion going out of, those accounts.\n\n3. When the Trustee filed his original Extension Motion, he explained that this case—which already presents the difficulties inherent in wading through the aftermath of a largescale, international, fraud—was further complicated by the significant, and unending, stream of impediments placed in the Trustee's way by the Debtor and his associates. As this Court well knows, those impediments include the Debtor's failure to provide the Trustee with any books and records and his (and his associates) failure to comply with multiple Court orders. Unfortunately, that has not changed. The Debtor has not changed course and suddenly decided\n\nto cooperate with the Trustee (as required by the Bankruptcy Code). Just the opposite, he and his associates have continued to actively attempt to derail and delay the Trustee's efforts.\n\n4. Another factor outside of the Trustee's control was the Debtor's recently completed criminal trial, which required the Trustee to curtail certain aspects of his investigation and recovery efforts. But the criminal trial has delayed the Trustee's investigation in other ways, as well. For one, over the course of the trial, the Trustee has learned important information that he had not learned in discovery, which information will lead to more stones for the Trustee to turn over and, hopefully, to more assets recovered for the estate. Additionally, the criminal trial has further demonstrated the extent of the Debtor's obstruction and dishonesty since he filed his voluntary chapter 11 case over two years ago.\n\n5. Ultimately, what was true in February remains true now: while the Trustee has continued to assemble many pieces of the puzzle, he has been unable to complete the puzzle. His investigation and recovery efforts have been impeded by factors outside his control, including the incredibly complex nature of this case, which complexity is exacerbated by the Debtor's obstructions.\n\n6. Equally true is that the relief requested herein remains vital. Absent an extension, the Trustee will be forced to litigate the limitations period on a one-off basis in a free-standing adversary proceeding with any potential defendant who raises the issue. This is not just difficult; it is likely impossible—the Trustee has already identified over 172,400 transfers. Moreover, the cost, both in time and dollars, would be astronomical, and would directly harm creditors. Finally, the uncertainty would put the Trustee—who has to defend all of his actions and has already had to defend a motion seeking his removal as well as other scurrilous accusations—in an untenable position moving forward.\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n7. On February 15, 2022, the Debtor filed with the Court a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\nOn March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the \"Committee\") in the Debtor's chapter 11 case.\n\n8. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [ECF No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order [ECF No. 523] appointing the Trustee.\n\n## **a. Extension Motion and Extension Order**\n\n9. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022, claimed only \\$3,850 in assets compared to hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.[2](#page-3-0) The Debtor asserted in the Bankruptcy Court that he was essentially penniless and that his luxurious homes, the Lady May yacht, and his other publicly flaunted trappings of wealth did not belong to him, but to companies purportedly owned by his family members.[3](#page-3-1) As several courts have now observed, the Debtor was able to maintain his opulent lifestyle while professing to own virtually no assets by constructing a vast maze of shell companies in which he hid his wealth in the names of family members and close associates.\n\n10. Since his appointment, the Trustee has been working diligently to identify and recover for the benefit of the estate the assets the Debtor has hidden and/or transferred. To that end, in accordance with the Court's directive, the Trustee has launched a complex and thorough investigation and litigation process, focusing on the Debtor's \"shell game\"—*i.e.*, his use of alter ego companies to hide his assets from creditors. Broadly speaking, the process has included (a)\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> *See* Schedules of Assets & Liabilities, at 1 [ECF No. 78].\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>3</sup> *See Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions* [ECF No. 107].\n\ndiscovery pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and (b) litigation to establish that certain entities are alter egos of the Debtor and/or recover specific property and assets.\n\n11. Locating and recovering the Debtor's assets has required the Trustee to retain attorneys in multiple jurisdictions, as well as other professionals, such as Kroll, LLC (\"Kroll\"), a forensic accounting firm with international reach. Unraveling the Debtor's maze of shell companies and tens of thousands of transactions (on its own, a hugely complex task) was further complicated and delayed by the efforts of the Debtor, his family members, and his associates to obstruct the Trustee's efforts at every turn. Accordingly, on January 18, 2024, the Trustee filed a motion to extend or toll certain statutes of limitations that would have expired on February 15, 2024 (the \"Extension Motion\")[.](#page-4-0)<sup>4</sup> The Extension Motion contained (and this Motion incorporates by reference) a detailed description of the Trustee's efforts and successes to that date, as well as the various obstruction efforts with which the Trustee had been forced to contend.\n\n12. On February 15, 2024, the Court issued an opinion and order granting the Extension Motion [Docket No. 2921] under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) [Docket No. 2921] (the \"Extension Order\"). The Court extended the Trustee's time to commence avoidance actions through August 15, 2024 (the \"Ordered Extension\"), and provided that such date is subject to further extension.\n\n## **b. Developments Since Extension Order**\n\n13. On March 4, 2024, the Trustee filed a motion seeking a stay of adversary proceeding and related relief [Docket No. 2975] because, as a practical matter, the Trustee had no choice but to stay certain aspects of his investigation given the impending (and now\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span><sup>4</sup> *See* Docket No. 2509, *Motion for Entry of Order Extending Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions Under Bankruptcy Code Sections 108, 546(a), and 549*.\n\ncompleted) criminal trial. As explained in the stay motion, the Trustee had filed approximately 270 adversary proceedings, as well as the Civil RICO Action and Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint. The Trustee requested a stay of the Civil RICO Action and Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint based on important case-management considerations and the concern that deposition of certain parties may have inadvertently interfered with the Government's prosecution in the Debtor's (at the time) upcoming criminal trial. Additionally, in response to the Trustee's complaints, particularly the Civil RICO Action and Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Debtor had renewed his motion for a global stay of the Chapter 11 Case, asserting that the Trustee's pursuit of those claims would interfere with his criminal defense rights. While the Trustee objected to the Debtor's motion for a global stay, he advised the criminal court that he would seek a more tailored stay, which would moot the Debtor's arguments.\n\n14. No party objected to the Trustee's motion and the Court entered the \"Stay Order\" on March 22, 2024.[5](#page-5-0) [Docket No. 3038]. Among other things, the Stay Order stayed the Civil RICO Action and the Omnibus Alter Ego Action through the conclusion of the Debtor's criminal trial (the \"Stay Period\") and provided that no depositions would occur pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 or in any adversary proceeding during the Stay Period.\n\n15. Because of the Stay Order, and the underlying criminal trial, the Trustee's investigation and litigation efforts have proceeded at a relatively measured pace during the Stay Period. Nonetheless, the Stay Order was not a global stay, and the Trustee has focused his efforts on those aspects of his investigation not subject to the Stay Order—and has made significant progress in those areas. For example:\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span><sup>5</sup> *See* Docket No. 3038, *Order Staying Adversary Proceedings and Granting Other Relief Pending Disposition of Criminal Proceeding*.\n\n- Since entry of the Extension Order, the Trustee has moved to liquidate certain assets[6](#page-6-0) and has moved forward with his efforts to obtain judgments and rulings that bring assets into the estate. [7](#page-6-1) Those efforts continue to be successful, and since the Extension Order the Trustee has obtained multiple rulings bringing valuable entities and assets into the estate, rulings that HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (together with HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., the \"HCHK Entities\"), and Greenwich Land LLC, are the Debtor's alter egos, and that Whitecroft Shore Limited and the Debtor's private Bombardier Jet were beneficially owned by the Debtor.[8](#page-6-2)\n- Since entry of the Extension Order, the Trustee has focused on the Debtor's assets in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the Trustee has gathered evidence regarding Debtor-controlled assets, including real property, bank accounts, and corporate entities, in multiple foreign jurisdictions. The Trustee successfully obtained an injunction from a BVI court related to K Legacy Ltd., the BVI entity holding title to the Debtor's apartment in London,[9](#page-6-3) and has continued his efforts to obtain control of the UK litigation launched against UBS by the Debtor, Ace Decade Holdings Limited, and Dawn State Limited.\n- Since entry of the Extension Order, the Trustee has filed three omnibus Rule 2004 discovery motions resulting in the issuance of 35 subpoenas, and commenced three new adversary proceedings.\n- Since entry of the Extension Order, the Trustee has collected over 20,000 documents, including through the production of documents in Rule 2004 discovery, accessing documents found in multiple storage facilities, and acquiring documents from law firms that represented the Debtor's alter egos pursuant to the Court's orders requiring the turnover of such entities' assets to the estate.\n- Since entry of the Extension Order, Kroll has continued its investigation and forensic analysis of the Debtor's vast shell game, and has identified an additional\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span><sup>6</sup> *See Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Entry of Order Pursuant To Sections 105(a), 363(b), 541, and 542 of Bankruptcy Code Approving Liquidation of VCTR Shares, Distribution of Proceeds, and Related Relief* and related order [Docket Nos. 3203 and 3265]; *Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Entry of Consent Order Regarding Transfer of Ownership of Ducati Motorcycle to Estate* and related order [Docket Nos. 3177 and 3220].\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span><sup>7</sup> *See, e.g.*, *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment Against HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc., Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd., Anthony DiBattista, Yvette Wang, and Brian Hofmeister, in His Capacity as Assignee* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 268]; *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendants K Legacy Ltd. and Qiang Guo* [Adv. Proc. No. 24- 05249, Docket No. 33]; *Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Count I and Count II of Complaint* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05001, Docket No. 19]; *Chapter 11 Trustee's Opposition to Defendant Weddle Law PLLC's Motion to Dismiss Complaint* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05188, Docket No. 17].\n\n<span id=\"page-6-2\"></span><sup>8</sup> *See Summary Judgment* [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 23-05005, Docket No. 134]; *Amended Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 297].\n\n<span id=\"page-6-3\"></span><sup>9</sup> *See Notice of Chapter 11 Trustee Providing Update with Respect to British Virgin Islands Proceedings, as Related to K Legacy Ltd. and London Apartment* [Docket No. 3161].\n\n207 Kwok-related bank accounts and approximately 88,580 transactions in and out of these accounts, resulting in cumulative totals for those numbers when including the pre-Extension Order period of 546 and 172,400, respectively. Kroll has also tracked approximately \\$12.2 billion coming in to, and \\$9.1 billion going out of, those accounts.\n\n- The Trustee has also obtained valuable information from monitoring the Debtor's criminal trial, which commenced on May 22, 2024 and resulted in the Debtor being found guilty on multiple counts per the jury's verdict reached on July 16, 2024. Examples of valuable information made public at the criminal trial include, among other things, testimony Scott Barnett, the Debtor's bodyguard and driver, regarding his role with respect to the Taurus Fund LLC, the company holding title to the Debtor's mansion in Mahwah New Jersey,[10](#page-7-0) and the testimony of Haitham Khaled, who worked for the Debtor in connection with the Debtor's banking operations, in connection with the Debtor's control over G Club Operations LLC and its funds.[11](#page-7-1) In addition to testimony, the criminal trial has generated a wealth of documentation in the form of trial exhibits, and the Trustee hopes to obtain more documents and information from the prosecution now that the main phase of the trial has concluded.\n- 16. In addition to adversary proceeding litigation, the Trustee also initiated efforts to\n\nresolve avoidance actions through mediation, successfully seeking the implementation of mediation procedures[12](#page-7-2) and commencing mediation discussions with approximately fifty avoidance action defendants, with the assistance of Judge Tancredi as mediator, pursuant to the Mediation Procedures Order.\n\n# **c. Debtor's Continued Obstruction Efforts**\n\n17. Since entry of the Extension Order, the Debtor and his associates have continued to oppose and obstruct the Trustee's efforts. For example, in an effort to obstruct the Trustee's ability to take control of and resolve the Debtor's litigation against UBS, the Debtor's associate holding the stock of Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\") recently appointed purported\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>10</sup> *See generally* July 8, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 5452-5542, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024).\n\n<span id=\"page-7-1\"></span><sup>11</sup> *See generally* June 11, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 2032-2064, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024).\n\n<span id=\"page-7-2\"></span><sup>12</sup> *See Order Directing Parties to Mediation, Appointing the Honorable James J. Tancredi as Mediator, and Amending Order Approving Procedures Applicable to Avoidance Claim Adversary Proceedings* [Docket No., 3163] (the \"Mediation Procedures Order\").\n\njoint provisional liquidators in the BVI (the \"Purported Liquidators\"), who have attempted to delay the entry of a default judgment order with respect to Ace Decade.[13](#page-8-0) Debtor-aligned parties have also attempted to delay the Trustee by, among other things, evading service,[14](#page-8-1) filing untimely challenges to entry of default judgment,[15](#page-8-2) and seeking stays pending appeal[16](#page-8-3) and the dismissal of adversary proceedings.[17](#page-8-4)\n\n# **d. Conclusion of Criminal Trial**\n\n18. The Debtor's criminal trial began on May 22, 2024; on July 16, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding the Debtor guilty on multiple criminal counts. Given the issuance of the jury's verdict, the Trustee anticipates that he will be engaged in significantly more investigation and litigation activity in the coming months.\n\n## **RELIEF SOUGHT**\n\n19. The Trustee requests entry of the Proposed Order extending the Extension Date six months, through and including February 15, 2025.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-0\"></span><sup>13</sup> *See Emergency Motion of the Joint Liquidators of Ace Decade Holdings Limited For (I) Extension of Time to Respond to Default Judgment Motion and (II) Postponement of July 9, 2024 Hearing on Motion* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05028, Docket No. 47].\n\n<span id=\"page-8-1\"></span><sup>14</sup> Discussed at ¶ 29 of the *Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Opposition to Emergency Motion of the Joint Liquidators Of Ace Decade Holdings Limited For (I) Extension of Time To Respond To Default Judgment Motion and (II) Postponement of July 9, 2024 Hearing On Motion* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05028, Docket No. 53, Exhibit A].\n\n<span id=\"page-8-2\"></span><sup>15</sup> *See HCHK Defendants' Motion Opposition to Trustee's Motion for Default Judgment* [Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05013, Docket No. 276];\n\n<span id=\"page-8-3\"></span><sup>16</sup> *See Motion for Stay Pending Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8007* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Docket No. 139]; *Motion to Stay Pending Appeal and Request to Expedite Consideration of the Motion*, *HCHK Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Despins*, 3:24-cv-01104-KAD (D. Conn. July 8, 2024), Docket No. 9; *Emergency Motion of Appellants Shih Hsin Yu, 1332156 B.C. Ltd. and GWGOPNZ Limited's for Stay Pending Appeal and Request to Expedite Consideration of the Motion*, *Yu et al. v. Despins*, 3:23-cv-01067- KAD (D. Conn. July 8, 2024), Docket No. 40.\n\n<span id=\"page-8-4\"></span><sup>17</sup> *See Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant Leading Shine NY Ltd.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023, Docket No. 76]; *Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motions to Dismiss* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023, Docket No. 87].\n\n## **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n20. In the Extension Order, the Court held that, as a matter of law, Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) authorizes a bankruptcy court to extend the statutes of limitations found in sections 108(a), 546(a), and 549(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. The question, therefore, \"is whether there is 'cause,' on the facts and circumstances before the Court,\" to do so.[18](#page-9-0) The Court found cause in connection with the original Extension Motion, and the Trustee submits there is cause to grant the instant Motion.\n\n## **I. Cause Exists Under Rule 9006(b) to Grant Trustee's Requested Extension**\n\n21. In the Extension Order, the Court found cause from the combination of (i) the Debtor's lack of cooperation and, indeed, active obstruction and (ii) the Trustee's diligence. The Trustee submits that both of those factors remain applicable.\n\n## **a. Trustee Has Acted Diligently**\n\n22. Taking the latter first, in the Extension Order, the Court \"conclude[d] that the Trustee has shown more than reasonable diligence in his efforts.\"[19](#page-9-1) The Trustee's efforts have not slackened since then.\n\n23. A bankruptcy trustee acts diligently if any delay is not self-inflicted. *Schmidt v. Twosons Corp. (In re Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC)*, No. 15-34287, 2022 WL 1589190, at \\*11 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 19, 2022) (noting extraordinary circumstance that supports equitable tolling \"derives from some external obstacle to timely filing beyond the plaintiff's control, not from self-inflicted delay\") (as modified) (internal quotation marks and references omitted);[20](#page-9-2) *see also In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. 784, 790-91\n\n<span id=\"page-9-0\"></span><sup>18</sup> Extension Order at 12.\n\n<span id=\"page-9-1\"></span><sup>19</sup> Extension Order at 17.\n\n<span id=\"page-9-2\"></span><sup>20</sup> *Black Elk Energy* dealt with equitable tolling, not cause under Rule 9006(b). However, the Court has already noted that there is overlap between the factual predicates that justify the application of the two doctrines. *See*\n\n(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013) (\"It is enough to say that the targets cannot credibly claim the Trustee's inability to complete her investigation is a result of any lack of diligence on her part.\"). Here, the Trustee's investigation and asset recovery assets have been delayed by events outside of his control and apart from the Debtor's obstruction (which, to be clear, also exists).\n\n24. Those outside factors are (i) the sheer volume of information the Trustee must to obtain and analyze, combined with the total lack of any books and records from the Debtor, and (ii) the Debtor's recently completed criminal trial. [21](#page-10-0)\n\ni. Volume of Information\n\n25. Even with the extra time since the Extension Order, the Trustee has not completed his factual investigation and analysis. To the contrary, the Trustee continues to discover new information almost daily, which information must be analyzed by the Trustee's forensic accountants and attorneys before any litigation can be commenced to actually recover an asset. As discussed above, this includes new information about the Debtor's international activities, information from the additional omnibus Rule 2004 motions, and new information identified by Kroll.\n\n26. Additionally, the Trustee has also obtained valuable information that was not previously public from monitoring the Debtor's criminal trial, which ended only days ago and which included 29 days of testimony and argument. For example, Scott Barnett, the Debtor's\n\nExtension Order at 13 (citing decisions regarding equitable tolling in context of determining whether cause exists under Rule 9006(b) to extend statutes of limitation).\n\n<span id=\"page-10-0\"></span><sup>21</sup> These two factors were the basis of the trustee's motion in *In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc.,* Case No.: 16- 20516-AJC. In that case, the trustee was investigation a \"multi-jurisdictional Ponzi scheme,\" and due to the nature and scope of the fraud the trustee was unable to complete her forensic accounting analysis or \"piece together all of the claims that the estate would have\" in two years. Another \"major impediment\" was that \"key witnesses and perpetrators\" were \"embroiled in several regulatory and criminal matters\" with the SEC, DOJ, and foreign counterparts. The court granted the motion, as well as several further extensions. *See In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc.*, No. 16-20516 (AJC) (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018) [ECF No. 198], *Transcript of Hearing May 10, 2018* (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018), and ECF Nos. 284 and 292 (motion and order). Relevant portions of the transcript, the motion, and the court's order, are attached as **Exhibit 2** hereto.\n\nbodyguard and driver, testified regarding his role with respect to the Taurus Fund LLC, the company holding title to the Debtor's mansion in Mahwah New Jersey. [22](#page-11-0) Similarly, Haitham Khaled, who worked for the Debtor in connection with the Debtor's banking operations, testified in connection with the Debtor's control over G Club Operations LLC and its funds.[23](#page-11-1) In addition to testimony, the criminal trial has generated a wealth of documents in the form of trial exhibits, (the Government alone submitted approximately 300 exhibits) and the Trustee hopes to obtain more documents and information from the prosecution now that the main phase of the trial has concluded.\n\n27. As was the case with the original Extension Motion, what the Trustee learns is very rarely, if ever, a standalone piece of information. Instead, everything the Trustee learns is, instead, just one piece in the puzzle, which each piece leading to another, to more stones for the Trustee to turn over, and revealing more assets hidden and/or transferred. *See In re ThermoView Indus., Inc.*, 381 B.R. at 227 (granting extension motion under Rule 9006(b) in \"an exceedingly complex case in which the Trustee has pursued and filed nearly 400 adversary proceedings\"); *see also In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.*, 501 B.R. 784, 790 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013) (\"The Court notes—as it has done many times in the past—that this case is unique. That is true not only of the facts of this case, but the legal issues as well. And the stakes are unquestionably high. There is over \\$1 billion in claims in this case, and the Trustee may be seeking to recover that much from the targets.\").\n\n<span id=\"page-11-0\"></span><sup>22</sup> *See generally* July 8, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 5452-5542, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024).\n\n<span id=\"page-11-1\"></span><sup>23</sup> *See generally* June 11, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 2032-2064, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024).\n\n## ii. Debtor's Criminal Trial\n\n28. The criminal trial has not only delayed the Trustee's investigation in the sense that it has revealed information that requires additional investigation, adding to the volume of information the Trustee must analyze. It has also delayed the Trustee's investigation in a very concrete fashion, as the pendency of the criminal trial, and the unopposed Stay Order, required the Trustee to curtail certain aspects of his investigation and recovery efforts. *See generally Collins v. Decker (In re Decker)*, No. 06-60886, 2011 WL 2174349, at \\*5 n. 5 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. June 1, 2011) (citation omitted) (\"pendency of other legal proceedings which prevent enforcement of the subject claim\" justify extending limitations period); *In re Dwek,* No. 07- 11757 (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) (\"[E]quitable tolling of the Statute of Limitations is appropriate here given the recent activities by the U.S. Attorney and the FBI in conducting their investigations. That has involved a lengthy delay of continued 2004 deposition of the Debtor, and that's beyond the control of the Trustee.\").[24](#page-12-0)\n\n## **b. Debtor's Obstruction and Lack of Cooperation**\n\n29. Courts find cause to extend limitations periods when a trustee is unable to make progress on discovery, especially in light of the debtor's obstruction. *See, e.g.*, *In re Int'l Admin. Servs. Inc*., 408 F.3d 689, 702 (11th Cir. 2005) (tolling statute of limitations based, in part, on debtor and defendant's attempts to interfere with trustee's investigation into asset diversion plan by hiding their activities and violating discovery requests).[25](#page-12-1)\n\n<span id=\"page-12-0\"></span><sup>24</sup> Hr'g Tr. at 9:10-17, *In re Dwek*, No. 07-11757 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) [ECF No. 3916], attached hereto as **Exhibit 3**.\n\n<span id=\"page-12-1\"></span><sup>25</sup> *See also Bender v. Mann (In re Bender)*, No. 02-00773-RTB, 2010 WL 6467681, at \\*9-10 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2010), *aff'd*, 480 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming lower court decision for equitable tolling where the debtor's obstruction \"stood in the way\" of the trustee's filing of an avoidance action and noting the \"case law is replete with examples where courts have allowed equitable tolling in response to obstructive behavior by a party\"); *Freeland v. CPA Warehouse (In re Livemercial Aviation Holding, LLC)*, 508 B.R. 58, 71(Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2014) (\"The Trustee's inability, despite due diligence, to obtain information/documentation highly material to the core of this case—for whatever reason caused Mathis' inability or failure to promptly produce or provide\n\n30. On the most basic level, the Debtor has an obligation to fulfill certain duties imposed on him by the Bankruptcy Code, including to cooperate with the Trustee. In the Extension Order, the Court noted that the Debtor's failure to do so has forced the Trustee \"to seek extensive and ongoing third party discovery,\" in an effort to obtain information, and understand the true extent of the Debtor's assets, that should have been provided directly by the Debtor (and/or his family members, associates, employees, followers, and associated entities).[26](#page-13-0)\n\n31. Nothing has changed. Neither the Debtor nor his family members, associates, and affiliated entities have had a change of heart and are now cooperating with the Trustee. As has been the case since his appointment, the Trustee has had to utilize discovery practice to obtain the information he needs to conduct his investigation. Even without active obstruction, therefore, the Debtor's lack of cooperation has delayed the Trustee's investigation, and constitutes cause under Rule 9006(b) to grant the instant Motion.[27](#page-13-1)\n\n32. To be clear, however, the Debtor and his associates *have* continued to actively obstruct and delay the Trustee's efforts. As noted above, the Trustee has been forced to address the continuing efforts to obstruct the Trustee's ability to take control of and resolve the Debtor's litigation against UBS and Debtor-aligned parties evading service, filing untimely challenges to entry of default judgment, and seeking stays pending appeal. The Trustee also recently filed a motion to preserve evidence based on the Trustee's discovery that non-parties are in possession\n\nit—amply supports the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling to this case in order to extend the limitation period of 11 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1)(A)\").\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span><sup>26</sup> Extension Order at 14-16. The Court also noted that the Debtor's failure \"to comply with his duties\" may even support a finding that the statutes of limitations \"have not even begun to run\" in the first place. *Id*. at 14.\n\n<span id=\"page-13-1\"></span><sup>27</sup> Other courts have similarly focused on a debtor's recalcitrance forcing a trustee to obtain third-party discovery. See *Ochs Charitable Remainder Trust v. Ochs (In re Ochs)*, 608 B.R. 252, 261–62 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2019) (pointing to, among others, the \"[Defendant's] obstruction of legitimate discovery, requiring the Court to intervene twice in the bankruptcy discovery disputes and rule against the Defendant both times; . . . his failure to provide a complete document production, requiring the Plaintiffs to direct discovery to several third-party financial institutions to obtain documents in 2019; and . . . when finally deposed after multiple delays, his vague and indefinite answers to questions under oath.\").\n\nof evidence, as well as a motion to seal to address the real concern that the Debtor or his associates would interfere with the preservation of that evidence.[28](#page-14-0)\n\n33. Finally, the recently completed criminal trial has further demonstrated the extent of the Debtor's obstruction and dishonesty, to both this Court and the Trustee. As noted above, the evidence at the trial revealed numerous facts previously unknown to the Trustee. Much of this information was information that the Bankruptcy Code obligated the Debtor to provide to the Trustee; as the Court has observed, the Debtor has routinely flaunted this obligation.\n\n34. But it is not simply that the Debtor did not provide the information. Instead, he (and his associates) repeatedly took positions in this case contrary to the positions taken, and information disclosed, in the criminal trial. For example, contrary to his protestations of poverty before this Court, the Debtor's criminal attorneys argued that he is a Chinese businessman that built a massive business enterprise. And, even though he and his associates have fought the Trustee at every turn in the Mahwah adversary proceeding, his counsel effectively admitted during questioning in the criminal trial that the Debtor had purchased the Mahwah Mansion. [29](#page-14-1)\n\n## **II. Trustee Reserves Rights Under Equitable Tolling and Other Equitable Doctrines**\n\n35. In the Extension Order, the Court held that equitable tolling does not apply prospectively. The Court, though, made clear that the Trustee may raise \"equitable tolling or other equitable arguments in response to a defense that an adversary proceeding commenced by the Trustee is time-barred.\"[30](#page-14-2) The Trustee reserves all rights accordingly.\n\n<span id=\"page-14-0\"></span><sup>28</sup> *See* Docket No. 3306.\n\n<span id=\"page-14-1\"></span><sup>29</sup> *See* July 8, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 5441:4-5, *United States v. Kwok*, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024) (\"[Debtor's Counsel] Q. Were you surprised when **[the Debtor] purchased that property**? [Mr. Scott Barnett] A. Yes.\") (emphasis added). Relevant portions of the transcript are attached as **Exhibit 4** hereto.\n\n<span id=\"page-14-2\"></span><sup>30</sup> Extension Order at 20.\n\n## **CONCLUSION**\n\n36. In *In re Fundamental Long Term Care*, the court explained that the \"only reason not to enlarge\" the limitations periods is if \"the Trustee is already in a position to bring all [his] avoidance actions.\" 501 B.R. at 791. And the Southern District of New York has explained that to \"act diligently is to demonstrate to the Court that one has not slept on his rights.\" *In re Ramsoomair*, No. 21-11215 (DSJ), 2022 WL 828307, at \\*6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022) (internal quotation marks and references omitted). For all the reasons detailed above, there can be no dispute that the Trustee has acted diligently and has not slept on his rights—and, even so, is not yet in position to bring all his avoidance actions. As such, the Motion should be granted.\n\n[*Remainder of page intentionally left blank.*]\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court\n\nenter the Proposed Order granting the relief requested herein and grant any other relief as the\n\nCourt considers proper.\n\nDated: July 19, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 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*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 18 of 60\n\n# **Exhibit 1**\n\n**Proposed Order**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.                                                    | :<br>:      | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE TO EXTEND AUGUST 15, 2024 DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS**\n\nUPON CONSIDERATION OF the *First Supplemental Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee to*\n\n*Extend August 15, 2024 Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* (the \"Motion\"), and\n\ngood cause having been shown, and the Court having considered any and all objections and other\n\nresponses to the Motion, and the Court finding that (i) there is good cause for the relief\n\nrequested, (ii) the Trustee has acted diligently, and (iii) the Motion has been served in\n\naccordance with the Court's prior Order granting the Notice Motion, and such notice is proper\n\nand sufficient under the circumstances and no other notice is required, and the relief provided\n\nherein being narrowly tailored to serve the foregoing purposes, it is by the Court, hereby\n\nORDERED, that the Motion is granted as set forth herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the time limitations set forth in 11 U.S.C. 108, 546, and 549 for the\n\nTrustee to commence avoidance actions and other actions on behalf of the estate, as well as for\n\n<span id=\"page-18-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> 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 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\namending any pending complaints, are extended through and including February 15, 2025, which date may be further extended; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that any party that has received notice, whether actual or constructive, of the Motion and did not object to the Motion has waived its right to assert a limitations period defense if ultimately named in an action that is timely brought under the terms of this Order; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Trustee is authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief granted herein; and it is further\n\nORDERED, that the Court shall retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related to the interpretation or implementation of this Order.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n# **Exhibit 2**\n\n|    |                                                      | Page 1 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|--------|\n| 1  | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT                       |        |\n|    | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA                         |        |\n| 2  | In Re:                                               |        |\n| 3  | PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL<br>Case No. 16-20516-AJC        |        |\n|    | INVESTMENTS, INC.,<br>Chapter 7                      |        |\n| 4  | PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME<br>(Jointly Administered)    |        |\n|    | FUND, LLC,<br>Case No. 16-20517-AJC                  |        |\n| 5  |                                                      |        |\n|    | Debtors.                                             |        |\n| 6  | _________________________________/                   |        |\n|    | MARIA YIP, as Trustee of                             |        |\n| 7  | Providence Financial Investments,                    |        |\n|    | Inc., and Providence Fixed Income                    |        |\n| 8  | Fund, LLC,                                           |        |\n| 9  | Plaintiff,                                           |        |\n| 10 | v.<br>Adv. No. 17-01156-AJC                          |        |\n| 11 | WILTON PEREZ and FINANCIAL                           |        |\n|    | ASSURANCE GROUP, INCORPORATED,                       |        |\n| 12 | a Puerto Rico corporation,                           |        |\n| 13 | Defendants.                                          |        |\n|    | _________________________________/                   |        |\n| 14 |                                                      |        |\n| 15 | ECF # 151, 153, 155, 156                             |        |\n| 16 | May 10, 2018                                         |        |\n| 17 | The above-entitled cause came on for                 |        |\n| 18 | hearing before the HONORABLE A. JAY CRISTOL, one of  |        |\n| 19 | the Judges of the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, in |        |\n| 20 | and for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, at 301 N.  |        |\n| 21 | Miami Avenue, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, on  |        |\n| 22 | Thursday, May 10, 2018, commencing at or about 11:00 |        |\n| 23 | a.m., and the following proceedings were had:        |        |\n| 24 | Transcribed from a digital recording by:             |        |\n|    | Helayne Wills, Court Reporter                        |        |\n| 25 |                                                      |        |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 23 of 60 Case 16-20516-LMI Doc 198 Filed 05/31/18 Page 2 of 30\n\n```\n\n1 APPEARANCES:\n2\n     AKERMAN LLP, by\n3 EYAL BERGER, ESQ.\n     LUIS R. CASAS, ESQ.,\n4 on behalf of Maria Yip, Chapter 7 Trustee\n5\n     BERGER SINGERMAN, P.A., by\n6 JAMES GASSENHEIMER, ESQ.,\n     Special litigation counsel on behalf of the\n7 Chapter 7 Trustee\n8\n     RAPPAPORT OSBORNE & RAPPAPORT, by\n9 JORDAN RAPPAPORT, ESQ.,\n     on behalf of Amanda Francis, John Abio and Abio\n10 Financial\n11\n     GENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A., by\n12 PAUL BATTISTA, ESQ.,\n     and\n13 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, by\n     ELLEN E. OBERWETTER, ESQ.,\n14 on behalf of Philip Bowers, Andrew Isham and\n     Alexander Adam\n15\n16 ALSO PRESENT:\n     ECRO - Electronic Court Reporting Operator\n17 MARIA YIP, Chapter 7 Trustee\n     MARCIE BOUR\n18 WILTON PEREZ (via telephone)\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n```\nPage 3 1 THE COURT: Providence Financial 2 Investments, Inc. It's reported that Jordan 3 Rappaport is out in telephone land. 4 MR. RAPPAPORT: Yes, Your Honor. Jordan 5 Rappaport, R-A-P-P-A-P-O-R-T, here representing John 6 Abio and Amanda Francis, and Abio Financial Group, 7 Inc. 8 THE COURT: And what is their position? 9 How are they related to the case? 10 MR. RAPPAPORT: Your Honor, there's an 11 omnibus motion to compromise controversy with my 12 clients. I'm here just observing. 13 THE COURT: Oh, I see. Okay. 14 And in the courtroom? 15 MR. BERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. 16 Eyal Berger, B-E-R-G-E-R, of the Akerman law firm, 17 representing the Chapter 7 Trustee, Maria Yip, for 18 the bankruptcy estates of Providence Financial 19 Investments, Inc. and Providence Fixed Income Fund, 20 LLC. With me at counsel table is my associate, Luis 21 Casas Meyer. 22 I'll let my client and co-counsel make 23 their own appearances. 24 MR. GASSENHEIMER: Good morning, Your 25 Honor. James Gassenheimer, G-A-S-S-E-N-H-E-I-M-E-R,\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\nPage 4 1 from Berger Singerman, as special litigation counsel 2 to the debtors. 3 THE COURT: And so -- to the debtors? 4 MR. GASSENHEIMER: Sorry, to the trustee. 5 THE COURT: To the trustee. I think 6 that's a little different representation. 7 Who else wishes to make an appearance? 8 MS. YIP: Good morning, Your Honor. Maria 9 Yip, Chapter 7 Trustee, and also in the courtroom is 10 Marcie Bour, B-O-U-R, with Yip Associates. 11 THE COURT: Very well. Other appearances? 12 MR. BATTISTA: Good morning, Your Honor. 13 I'm Paul Battista. My surname is spelled B as in 14 boy, A-T-T-I-S-T-A. I'm joined by my co-counsel, 15 Ellen Oberwetter from the Williams & Connolly firm. 16 Her surname is spelled O-B-E-R-W-E-T-T-E-R. 17 Yesterday Your Honor was kind enough to enter an 18 order admitting her pro hac vice to our court for 19 this matter. Thank you for that. 20 Judge, together we represent three 21 gentlemen by the name of Philip Bowers, B-O-W-E-R-S, 22 Andrew Isham, I-S-H-A-M, and Alexander Adam, 23 A-D-A-M. Those gentlemen have been appointed in an 24 insolvency proceeding in the -- by the World Court 25 in Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, over three\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\nPage 5 1 companies -- two companies, Providence Investment 2 Fund, PCC, Ltd., and Providence Investment 3 Management International, Ltd. Thank you. 4 THE COURT: Very well. Shall we start 5 with Court Paper 151? That's a motion to extend the 6 time to file actions under Sections 105, 546 and 7 549. That's Trustee's motion. 8 MR. BERGER: Yes, Your Honor, but if you 9 would -- it's been several months since I've been 10 before the Court, and I was hoping I could give the 11 Court a brief status of the case prior to going into 12 the motion. 13 THE COURT: Why don't you do that? 14 Have you been to Guernsey? 15 MR. BERGER: I have not been to Guernsey 16 yet, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: They have beautiful cows 18 there. 19 MR. BERGER: That's what I hear. 20 THE COURT: Guernsey and Jersey and Sark, 21 lovely set of islands. 22 MR. BERGER: I've only made it as far as 23 London, so I have not made it to Guernsey yet, Your 24 Honor. 25 As the Court might be familiar from the\n\n1 record in this case, this is a multi-jurisdictional 2 Ponzi scheme, perpetrated by at least three 3 individuals, Antonio Buzaneli, Jose Ordonez and 4 Julio Rivera. The scheme started here in Miami in 5 Key Biscayne, basically with the formation of the 6 parent entity of these two debtors. Then these two 7 debtors moved over to the United Kingdom in 8 Guernsey, and then thereafter it moved to various 9 locations in Asia.\n\n10 One of the difficulties, Your Honor, that 11 the trustee has had in administrating a 12 multi-jurisdictional Ponzi scheme is that a big 13 volume of key documents necessary to complete the 14 forensic accounting is located in a variety of 15 foreign jurisdictions that we have not had access 16 to.\n\n17 The other major impediment that we've had, 18 Your Honor, is that the key witnesses and the key 19 perpetrators of this Ponzi scheme have been 20 embroiled in several regulatory and criminal matters 21 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 22 counterpart in Guernsey, as well as the Department 23 of Justice. In fact, it's only recently, Your 24 Honor, that all three of the principals I just 25 mentioned finalized all of their plea agreements,\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\n1 and basically admit to the crimes that the DOJ 2 indicted them for.\n\n3 Without access to key documents and 4 without access to the key witnesses, it's been 5 difficult for us to piece together all of the claims 6 that the estate would have against various parties. 7 What Your Honor has seen in the various adversaries 8 filed before the Court, those are avoidance claims 9 and some other claims where we have the complete 10 records of transfers vis-a-vis the specific 11 transferee. We have not been able to complete that 12 forensic for a multitude of targets, because of the 13 key documents and key witnesses being located in 14 other jurisdictions.\n\n15 When the Trustee was appointed back in 16 July of 2016, one of the first things that the 17 Trustee did is, we reached out to the administrators 18 upon their appointment, Your Honor, in an effort to 19 do two things. One, create a discovery 20 collaboration between our two estates, and we did 21 that via executing a joint discovery agreement, 22 where we could exchange discovery and maintain its 23 confidentiality.\n\n24 And the second item was to collaborate 25 with the administrators for claims that the estates\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\n1 would potentially share against similar\n\n2 (unintelligible).\n\n3 We have spent, Your Honor, over 18 months, 4 through phone conferences, e-mails, basically trying 5 to get an agreement with the administrators, with 6 the other estates, to basically collaborate on these 7 shared claims, but as of the date of this hearing we 8 have not been able to get access to the 9 administrators' documents, their tracing analysis, 10 their forensics, and we have not been able to reach 11 an agreement on a collaboration between the two 12 estates.\n\n13 The motion -- several of the motions that 14 are teed up before Your Honor today are basically 15 seeking to preserve all of the estates' claims 16 against various third parties, and allow our 17 bankruptcy estates to basically move forward in the 18 most cost effective and efficient fashion against 19 targets located throughout the globe.\n\n20 With the Court's permission, I think that 21 it makes sense to take these motions out of order, 22 Your Honor.\n\n23 THE COURT: All right. Which one do you 24 want to go with?\n\n25 MR. BERGER: I believe that ECF 155, which\n\nPage 9 1 is a 9019 motion -- 2 THE COURT: That's a compromise of 3 controversy with John Abio and Abio Financial Group; 4 is that correct? 5 MR. BERGER: Correct. And Amanda Francis, 6 Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Oh, and Amanda Francis, who's 8 represented by Jordan Rappaport. So you have a 9 compromise there. 10 Mr. Rappaport, are you on board with 11 agreeing to approving the compromise? 12 MR. RAPPAPORT: Yes, Your Honor. That's 13 why I'm on the phone, to support the agreement. 14 THE COURT: Very well. Does anyone else 15 have an interest in that matter? 16 Then there being no objection, we'll grant 17 the motion. Who's going to draw that order? 18 MR. BERGER: Your Honor, we can draw that 19 order. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. RAPPAPORT: With that approval, Your 22 Honor, with your permission I'm going to -- 23 THE COURT: You're excused. Thank you, 24 Mr. Rappaport. 25 MR. RAPPAPORT: Thank you for your time,\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 31 of 60 Case 16-20516-LMI Doc 198 Filed 05/31/18 Page 30 of 30\n\n|    | Page 30                                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | CERTIFICATION                                       |\n| 2  |                                                     |\n| 3  | STATE OF FLORIDA:                                   |\n| 4  | COUNTY<br>OF<br>DADE:                               |\n| 5  |                                                     |\n| 6  | I, HELAYNE F. WILLS, Shorthand                      |\n| 7  | Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of  |\n| 8  | Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the        |\n| 9  | foregoing proceedings were taken by electronic      |\n| 10 | recording at the date and place as stated in the    |\n| 11 | caption hereto on Page 1; that the foregoing        |\n| 12 | computer-aided transcription is a true record of my |\n| 13 | stenographic notes taken from said electronic       |\n| 14 | recording.                                          |\n| 15 | WITNESS my hand this 18th day of May,               |\n| 16 | 2018.                                               |\n| 17 |                                                     |\n| 18 |                                                     |\n| 19 | ________________________________                    |\n|    | HELAYNE F. WILLS                                    |\n| 20 | Court Reporter and Notary Public                    |\n|    | In and For the State of Florida at Large            |\n| 21 | Commission No:<br>GG123092<br>Expires 8/2/2021      |\n| 22 |                                                     |\n| 23 |                                                     |\n| 24 |                                                     |\n| 25 |                                                     |\n|    |                                                     |\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION**\n\nPROVIDENCE FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS, INC., (Jointly Administered) PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME FUND, LLC, Case No. 16-20517-AJC Debtors.\n\nIN RE: Case No. 16-20516-AJC Chapter 7\n\n## **CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE'S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND THE 11 U.S.C. §§108, 546, AND 549 DEADLINES**\n\n/\n\nMaria Yip, the Chapter 7 Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Providence Financial Investments, Inc. and Providence Fixed Income Fund, LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code (*i.e.*, 11 U.S.C. §§101 *et seq*.) and Rule 9006(b), Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, files this Motion to extend the deadline to file avoidance actions under Section 546 of the Bankruptcy Code, and to extend the deadline to file all other actions on behalf of the estates pursuant to Section 108 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\nThe Trustee seeks to extend the Section 108, 546, 549 deadlines (the \"Deadlines\"), which currently all expire on January 28, 2019 by prior Court Order. The Trustee and her professionals, after determining that the Debtors' were utilized as part of a global Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors in the United States of over \\$70 million, have engaged in extensive litigation against the principals of Providence, individuals who sold worthless unregistered securities, net-winners of this scheme, and other entities and individuals that participated in the scheme.\n\nThe Trustee is seeking additional time to properly administer these estates because, *inter alia*: (1) of the global nature of the myriad of transfers at issue in this case, (2) the lack of\n\nprovided by section 108(b) as a permissible exercise of authority under section 105(a)); *See also In re 652 West 160th LLC*, 330 B.R. 455, 465 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005).\n\nThere is sufficient cause for the Court to enlarge the Section 108, 546, 549 statute of limitations period in these cases. The appropriate standard in this instance is the \"for cause\" analysis under Rule 9006, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. As the Court in *In re Fundamental Long Term Care,* stated:\n\n> It seems to the Court that the appropriate standard would be the \"for cause\" analysis under Rule 9006. The Trustee here seeks an enlargement of time before the period has expired (equitable tolling presumably comes into play after the limitations period has expired). And that was the analysis the Eleventh Circuit initially applied in *In re International Administrative Services,* before turning to the equitable tolling analysis in an abundance of caution. So there does not appear to be any reason not to apply the \"for cause\" analysis.\n\n501 B.R. at 789*.*\n\nIn these cases, the global and tangled web of transactions between the Debtors and over 96 other providence companies have made the tracing of funds a difficult and resource intensive task, especially when the Trustee, until recently, only had access to the Debtors' books and records and not the books and records of these other, mostly foreign entities. The difficulty of this task has been further exacerbated by the lack of any funds, until recently, in the estate.\n\nSince the Trustee filed her First Extension Request, the Trustee has engaged in extensive litigation against perpetrators and beneficiaries of the Providence Ponzi-Scheme. Currently there are pending adversary proceedings and actions, which could result in the Trustee acquiring information about other potential estate assets, additional subsequent transferees not previously known, and other potential litigation. Further, as a result of this litigation, limited funds have very recently come into the estate which could be utilized to take investigative actions that the estate was previously precluded from taking due to financial constraints.\n\nThe criminal proceedings against Antonio Buzaneli (\"Buzaneli\"), Jose Ordonez (\"Ordonez\"), and Julio Rivera (\"Rivera\"), the primary perpetrators of the Providence scheme, have, for the most part, been concluded. As of the date of this Motion, Buzaneli and Rivera have not been sentenced in their criminal proceedings, although it appears sentencing for both is looming. Ordonez, on January 23, 2019, was sentenced to 120 months in prison with 3 years of supervised release afterward.\n\nAdditionally the Trustee has obtained a Default Final Judgment against Buzaneli of \\$49,965,081.23 [Adv. No. 18-1309 ECF Nos. 15 and 16], settled with Rivera for the entry of a Consent Final Judgment of \\$49,965,081.23 [Adv. No. 18-1313, ECF Nos. 20 and 21], and settled with Ordonez, which approval is still pending, for the entry of another Consent Final Judgment of \\$49,965,081.23 [ECF No. 272]. The Trustee believes that once both civil and criminal proceedings against Buzaneli, Ordonez, and Rivera are resolved, all three will be more willing to cooperate with the Trustee's ongoing investigations.\n\nFinally, the administrative proceedings taking place in the United Kingdom/Guernsey in regards to Providence Investment Management International Limited and Providence Investment Funds PCC Limited, two foreign entities related to the Debtors, are still ongoing. Continued investigations and legal proceedings by the Joint Administration Managers in those proceedings could yield additional discovery as to the ultimate transferees of the Debtors' transfers that the Trustee does not currently possess.\n\nThe amount of time that Trustee seeks to extend the Deadlines (*i.e.*, six (6) months) is entirely reasonable and reflects a conservative extension of time by which the Trustee will be able complete her investigation given the relatively recent developments discussed in this Motion. The Trustee believes this will be the last extension requested. Accordingly, the Court\n\nshould grant this Motion and extend the Deadlines an additional six (6) months beyond the current January 28, 2019, deadline.\n\nWHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that this Court enter an order substantially in the form of the Order attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (i) Granting this Motion, (ii) extending the time in which to file the actions enumerated in 11 U.S.C. §§108, 546, and 549 an additional six (6) months up to and including July 28, 2019, and (iii) granting such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: January 25, 2019 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Eyal Berger Eyal Berger, Esq. Florida Bar Number: 0011069 Email: eyal.berger@akerman.com Luis R. Casas, Esq. Florida Bar Number: 0094222 Email: [luis.casasmeyer@akerman.com](mailto:luis.casasmeyer@akerman.com)\n\n**AKERMAN LLP**  Las Olas Centre II, Suite 1600 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2999 Phone: (954) 463-2700 Fax: (954) 463-2224\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was furnished on January 25,\n\n2019 to all parties receiving electronic notice via CM/ECF in this bankruptcy case.\n\n*/s/Eyal Berger* Eyal Berger, Esq.\n\n![](_page_35_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n# **ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 15, 2019.**\n\n**A. Jay Cristol, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION**\n\nPROVIDENCE FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS, INC., (Jointly Administered) PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME FUND, LLC, Case No. 16-20517-AJC Debtors.\n\nIN RE: Case No. 16-20516-AJC Chapter 7\n\n# **ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE'S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND THE 11 U.S.C. §§108, 546, AND 549 DEADLINES (ECF NO. 284)**\n\n/\n\nThe Court held a hearing on the Chapter 7 Trustee's Motion to Extend the 11 U.S.C. §§108, 546, and 549 on February 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m [ECF No. 284] (the \"Motion\"). The Court, having reviewed the Motion, having heard argument of counsel, having noted that no objections to the Motion were filed or raised at the hearing, and the Court finding that good cause exist for granting the relief sought, and having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby\n\n**ORDERS** as follows:\n\n## 1. The Motion is **GRANTED**.\n\n2. The time limitations set forth in 11 U.S.C. §§ 546, 108 and 549 for the commencement of avoidance actions and other actions on behalf of the estate, and thus the time for filing any actions subject to the time limitations of 11 U.S.C. §§ 546, 108 and 549, as well as for amending any pending complaints, are extended through and including **July 28, 2019**.\n\n3. The extension set forth in paragraph two (2) shall apply to the entire universe of potential defendants/targets.\n\n# # #\n\n## Submitted by:\n\nEyal Berger, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Las Olas Centre II, Suite 1600 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2999 Email: eyal.berger@akerman.com Phone: (954) 463-2700 Fax: (954) 463-2224\n\n*(Attorney Berger is directed to serve a conformed copy of this Order and to file a Certificate of Service with the Court).*\n\n# **Exhibit 3**\n\n| Case 07-11757-KCF<br>Case 22-50073 | Doc 3329<br>Doc 3916            | Filed 07/19/24<br>Filed 02/12/09<br>Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29<br>Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10<br>Page 39 of 60<br>Desc Main<br>Document<br>Page 1 of 85                  |   |\n|------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n|                                    |                                 |                                                                                                                                                                       | 1 |\n|                                    |                                 | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT<br>DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY                                                                                                              |   |\n| IN RE:                             |                                 | : Case No. 07-11757(KCF)                                                                                                                                              |   |\n|                                    | SOLOMON DWEK,<br>Debtor.        | :<br>: Trenton, New Jersey<br>: February 2, 2009<br>: 10:18 a.m.                                                                                                      |   |\n|                                    |                                 | TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING<br>BEFORE THE HONORABLE KATHRYN C. FERGUSON<br>UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE                                                            |   |\n|                                    | APPEARANCES:                    |                                                                                                                                                                       |   |\n|                                    | For the Debtor:                 | Broege, Neumann, Fischer &<br>Shaver, LLC<br>BY:<br>TIMOTHY P. NEUMANN, ESQ.<br>25 Abe Voorhees Drive<br>Manasquan, New Jersey<br>08736                               |   |\n|                                    | For the Chapter 11<br>Trustee:  | McCarter & English<br>BY:<br>JEFFREY T. TESTA, ESQ.<br>BRIAN L. BAKER, ESQ.<br>Four Gateway Center<br>100 Mulberry Street<br>Newark, New Jersey<br>07102              |   |\n|                                    | For the Creditors<br>Committee: | Duane Morris, LLP<br>BY:<br>WALTER J. GREENHALGH, ESQ.<br>744 Broad Street<br>Newark, New Jersey<br>07102-3889                                                        |   |\n|                                    | Audio Operator:                 | Geraldine Holley-Mack                                                                                                                                                 |   |\n|                                    | Transcriber:                    | Kathleen Connolly<br>COLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE<br>Certified Court Transcribers<br>P.O. BOX 1216<br>OCEAN GATE, NEW JERSEY 08740-1216<br>1-877-245-4876 |   |\n\nProceedings were electronically recorded, transcript produced by transcription.\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 40 of 60\n\nAPPEARANCES:\n\nFor HSBC Bank: Wolff & Samson, P.C. BY: KAREN L. GILMAN, ESQ. The Offices at Crystal Lake One Boland Drive West Orange, New Jersey 07052\n\n Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, LLP BY: ROBERT USADI, ESQ. 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005-1702\n\nFor Joseph Dwek, Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Mark Adjmi, Yeshuah, Leonard, P.A. LLC, Joseph Dwek Family BY: WARREN A. USATINE, ESQ. Limited Partnership: 25 Main Street\n\nFor Sun National Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. Bank: BY: DEIRDRE WOULFE PACHECO, ESQ.\n\nFor Jack Hakim and Stark & Stark\n\nFor Bob Nelson Shebell & Shebell, LLC\n\n90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095\n\nHackensack, New Jersey 07601\n\nAJH Investments: BY: JEFFREY S. POSTA, ESQ. P.O. Box 5315 Princeton, New Jersey 08534\n\nPlumbing & Heating: BY: DANIELLE S. CHANDONNET, ESQ. 1398 Highway 35 South Ocean, New Jersey 07712-3543\n\nFor Isaac Franco: King & Spalding, LLP BY: ARTHUR J. STEINBERG, ESQ. 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10076-4003\n\n> Wachtal & Masyr, LLP BY: DAVID YEGER, ESQ. 110 East 58th Street New York, New York 10022\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 41 of 60\n\n## **Colloquy 3**\n\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Come up on Dwek, please.       |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | All right.<br>May I have your appearances, please,         |\n| 3  | Counsel?                                                   |\n| 4  | MR. TESTA:<br>Good morning, Your Honor.                    |\n| 5  | Jeffrey Testa, McCarter & English, on behalf of the        |\n| 6  | Chapter 11 Trustee.                                        |\n| 7  | MR. BAKER:<br>Good morning, Your Honor.                    |\n| 8  | Brian Baker, McCarter & English, on behalf of the          |\n| 9  | Chapter 11 Trustee.                                        |\n| 10 | MR. GREENHALGH:<br>Your Honor, Walter Greenhalgh,          |\n| 11 | Duane Morris, counsel for the Creditors Committee.         |\n| 12 | MR. NEUMANN:<br>Timothy Neumann, Broege, Neumann,          |\n| 13 | Fischer & Shaver, for the Debtors.                         |\n| 14 | MS. GILMAN:<br>Karen Gilman, Wolff & Samson, on behalf     |\n| 15 | of HSBC Bank.                                              |\n| 16 | MR. USADI:<br>Robert Usadi, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel,      |\n| 17 | on behalf of HSBC Bank.                                    |\n| 18 | MR. USATINE:<br>Warren Usatine, Cole, Schotz, Meisel,      |\n| 19 | Forman & Leonard on behalf of Joseph Dwek, Mark Adjmi,     |\n| 20 | Yeshuah, LLC, and Joseph Dwek Family, Limited Partnership. |\n| 21 | MS. PACHECO:<br>Deirdre Pacheco, Wilentz, Goldman &        |\n| 22 | Spitzer, for Sun National Bank.                            |\n| 23 | MR. POSTA:<br>Good morning, Your Honor.                    |\n| 24 | Jeffrey Posta, Stark & Stark, for Jack Hakim and AJH       |\n| 25 | Investments on the Motion to toll time only.               |\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 42 of 60\n\n## **Colloquy 4**\n\n| 1  | MS. CHANDONNET:<br>Good morning.                               |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | Danielle Chandonnet from the firm Shebell & Shebell            |\n| 3  | on behalf of Bob Nelson Plumbing & Heating.<br>We did not file |\n| 4  | papers in this matter.                                         |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 6  | MR. STEINBERG:<br>Arthur Steinberg from King &                 |\n| 7  | Spalding on behalf of Isaac Franco.<br>And with me is David    |\n| 8  | Yeger from Wachtal & Masyr.                                    |\n| 9  | MR. YEGER:<br>Good morning, Your Honor.                        |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Thank you.                         |\n| 11 | There are three matters on the calendar this                   |\n| 12 | morning.<br>Let's go in -- and I also have a court call.       |\n| 13 | The Trustee wanted to participate by court call, as            |\n| 14 | well?                                                          |\n| 15 | MR. TESTA:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                 |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>We're obviously having a           |\n| 17 | problem with that.<br>We're working on it.                     |\n| 18 | All right.<br>Let's begin with the Motion for relief           |\n| 19 | from the stay, Bullet No. 3704.                                |\n| 20 | MR. BAKER:<br>Your Honor, with the consent of the              |\n| 21 | Movant, we can adjourn that for 30 days.                       |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>We can do March 2nd.      |\n| 23 | Next, I want to do the Order equitably tolling --              |\n| 24 | we're doing Dwek -- equitably tolling the time prescribed by   |\n| 25 | 546.                                                           |\n\n## **Motion/Baker/Response/Steinberg 5**\n\n| 1  | What I have is the Trustee's paper, an objection by             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | Isaac Franco, a limited objection by Jack Hakim, and support    |\n| 3  | by the Debtor.                                                  |\n| 4  | You want to take it from there, Mr. Testa?<br>Is                |\n| 5  | that --                                                         |\n| 6  | MR. BAKER:<br>I'll do it.                                       |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Baker.<br>Okay.                               |\n| 8  | MR. BAKER:<br>Your Honor, we don't have much to add to          |\n| 9  | the papers.<br>With respect to the objections, we think that    |\n| 10 | they should be overruled, but if the Court is not so inclined,  |\n| 11 | as long as the Trustee can preserve his argument later on to    |\n| 12 | assert that the statute, if applicable if additional Causes of  |\n| 13 | Action are brought, to raise the argument that the statute      |\n| 14 | should be equitably tolled.<br>But I don't know that we have to |\n| 15 | decide that today.                                              |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>Thank you.                 |\n| 17 | Anyone else in support of the Trustee's Motion?                 |\n| 18 | All right.<br>Opposition?                                       |\n| 19 | MR. STEINBERG:<br>Good morning, Your Honor.                     |\n| 20 | Isaac Franco filed an objection saying that if the              |\n| 21 | Trustee wants to equitably toll with regard to everybody else   |\n| 22 | in the world, that's fine.<br>But with regard to Mr. Franco, he |\n| 23 | sued Mr. Franco over a year ago in this case and that there's   |\n| 24 | a pending adversary proceeding to whatever extent he's allowed  |\n| 25 | to amend based on the complaint that was filed, that is fine.   |\n\n## **Response/Steinberg/Posta 6**\n\n| 1  | But he's had two years.<br>He decided that he had enough to     |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | bring a lawsuit against Mr. Franco a year ago.<br>And we don't  |\n| 3  | believe it's appropriate to extend with regard to Mr. Franco.   |\n| 4  | When you read the cases that the Trustee cites in               |\n| 5  | connection with equitable tolling, it's generally with regard   |\n| 6  | to whether the Defendant did something that would prevent the   |\n| 7  | Trustee from moving forward in this matter because the          |\n| 8  | Defendant engaged in dilatory tactics or was withholding        |\n| 9  | information.                                                    |\n| 10 | In this case, Isaac Franco has met with the Trustee             |\n| 11 | on a number of occasions, has responded to whatever requests    |\n| 12 | were made, was the subject of a deposition already in this      |\n| 13 | case, and we don't believe that there's any grounds to          |\n| 14 | equitably toll with respect to him.                             |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                               |\n| 16 | Mr. Posta?                                                      |\n| 17 | MR. POSTA:<br>Your Honor, on behalf of Jack Hakim and           |\n| 18 | AJH Investments, we filed a limited objection, which I'm sure   |\n| 19 | you reviewed.<br>Trying to be concise.<br>We filed an adversary |\n| 20 | proceeding in June of 2007, now over a year-and-a-half ago.     |\n| 21 | That adversary dealt with discharge, as well as claims to a     |\n| 22 | particular piece of property as a result of money that was put  |\n| 23 | up by Mr. Hakim and AJH Investments.<br>The discharge action    |\n| 24 | involves all of our transactions, which are very limited.       |\n| 25 | Dollar amounts are big, but the transactions were limited with  |\n\n## **Response/Posta 7**\n\nthe Debtor.\n\n In that adversary, shortly after we filed it, the Trustee filed the Motion to Preserve all Claims and Causes of Action relating to the underlying transactions, which are all of our transactions. That Motion has been carried since then, which is fine because we consented to it, and it's returnable in April, and there's a trial date at the end of April. I think the Motion is returnable perhaps the day before.\n\n My understanding was our issues with respect to preservation of actions and all of our, all Causes of Action going back and forth, are dealt with by the adversary and by that Motion. And now we have another Motion that's filed. Our simple position is that those issues are already before the Court, and we shouldn't be subject to this Motion which is yet another Motion dealing with the same subject matter. It's already covered.\n\n The transactions are limited, as we said. The Debtor has been available and certainly has participated in this case often to provide information to the Trustee. There's nothing specific as far as our client is concerned that I've seen where they can't get information. If there's more between the parties or they need additional time, you know, there's nothing before the Court to say that they need that.\n\nBut, essentially, this issue should be covered by\n\n## **Decision 8**\n\n what's already before the Court, and we shouldn't be subject to this Motion.\n\nThank you.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nAnybody else? All right.\n\n The Court has received two objections to the Trustee's Motion. The objections essentially say that the clients, their clients should not be singled out, and the Motion should not apply to them.\n\n No legal support is provided for that proposition. The Court is of the opinion that if it finds that cause exists to equitably toll the Statute of Limitation, then it applies across the board.\n\n Jack Hakim makes a sort of tangential point that his matter is scheduled for trial on April 29th and, therefore, the Federal Rules should govern the determination as to him, rather than this Motion.\n\n I can't agree with that proposition as a matter of law, but I'm not adjourning the scheduled trial based on this Motion. And the Trustee, it seems to me, would have a difficult time convincing the Court that an amendment of the complaint this close to the trial would be justified when a Trustee brings a Motion seeking an extension until February of 2010 to bring avoidance actions.\n\nThe relief sought by the Trustee has been granted by\n\n## **Decision 9**\n\n| 1  | other Courts under 105 and on an equitable tolling theory.      |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | And you can see International Administrative                    |\n| 3  | Services at 408 Fed. 3rd 689, or GI Holdings at                 |\n| 4  | 313 Bankruptcy Reporter 612.<br>Those Courts reason that 546 is |\n| 5  | a Statute of Limitation, rather than a Statute of Repose and,   |\n| 6  | therefore, it is subject to equitable tolling.                  |\n| 7  | Although this is not the typical situation in which             |\n| 8  | equitable tolling is granted, that is, it's not a situation     |\n| 9  | where the Defendant has fraudulently prevented the Plaintiff    |\n| 10 | from timely bringing his Cause of Action, the Court,            |\n| 11 | nonetheless, finds that equitable tolling of the Statute of     |\n| 12 | Limitations is appropriate here given the recent activities by  |\n| 13 | the U.S. Attorney and the FBI in conducting their               |\n| 14 | investigations.<br>That has involved a lengthy delay of         |\n| 15 | continued 2004 deposition of the Debtor, and that's beyond the  |\n| 16 | control of the Trustee.<br>Therefore, the Court is going to     |\n| 17 | grant the Motion.                                               |\n| 18 | All right.<br>Let's move on to the Motion to approve            |\n\n the settlement. This is the meatiest one today. I have the Trustee's moving papers. I have Sun National Bank's limited objection. I have Isaac Franco's objection. I have the Trustee's response. I have the Creditors Committee support; Mr. Franco's supplemental objection; support by Joseph Dwek and the Adjmi Group. I have a response by HSBC and a further response by the Debtor.\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 10 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 48 of 60\n\n## **Motion/Testa 10**\n\n That takes us up and through about 5:00 o'clock on Friday. Why doesn't Trustee's Counsel begin. MR. TESTA: Good morning, Your Honor. The Chapter 11 Trustee is very pleased to be before Your Honor today in what he views as the most significant achievement to date during the course of these cases. The Trustee has, as Your Honor has noted, filed a Motion on proper notice to all Creditors. He was compelled to file a response to certain statements that were made by Mr. Franco, a Defendant in an adversary action, whose claim has been challenged. We strongly believe that the settlement that we set before Your Honor falls below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness. We are prepared procedurally to present a proffer, if Your Honor would so like, or we can be much briefer and just highlight the main points of the settlement. THE COURT: Go ahead and do the proffer. MR. TESTA: Yes, Your Honor. If Mr. Stanziale were to testify today, he would testify as follows: Mr. Stanziale would testify that he is the duly- appointed, Chapter 11 Trustee of the Bankruptcy case of In Re: Solomon Dwek and all of its 74 jointly-administered cases. That prior to the bankruptcy proceeding, a State\n\n## **Decision 84**\n\n| 1  | MALE VOICE:<br>Thank you.                                 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | MR. BAKER:<br>Your Honor, we will submit a revised        |\n| 3  | form of Order that correctly shows Miss Pacheco's ordered |\n| 4  | paragraphs.                                               |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                       |\n| 6  | MR. BAKER:<br>Thank you.                                  |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                  |\n| 8  | MS. PACHECO:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                    |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>And, Counsel, I don't mean to rush you,     |\n| 10 | but I do have another matter that will probably take two  |\n| 11 | minutes when they've been waiting for two hours.          |\n| 12 | MR. BAKER:<br>Okay.                                       |\n| 13 | MALE VOICE:<br>Sorry.                                     |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                       |\n| 15 | MR. STANZIALE:<br>Thank you, Judge.                       |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Sure.                                       |\n| 17 | * * * * *                                                 |\n|    | I N D E X                                                 |\n|    | MOTION                                                    |\n|    | By Mr. B. Baker<br>5<br>Granted:<br>8                     |\n|    | RESPONSE                                                  |\n|    | By Mr. A. Steinberg<br>5                                  |\n|    | Mr. J. Posta<br>6                                         |\n|    |                                                           |\n\n#### Case 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 85 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 50 of 60\n\n**85**\n\n| MOTION |\n|--------|\n|--------|\n\n| By Mr. J. Testa      |  | 10    | Granted: | 78 |\n|----------------------|--|-------|----------|----|\n| RESPONSE             |  |       |          |    |\n| By Mr. W. Greenhalgh |  | 14/66 |          |    |\n| Mr. W. Usatine       |  | 15/55 |          |    |\n| Mr. R. Usadi         |  | 17    |          |    |\n| Mr. T. Neumann       |  | 17    |          |    |\n| Mr. A. Steinberg     |  | 18/71 |          |    |\n| Mr. C. Stanziale     |  | 52    |          |    |\n| Mr. J. Testa         |  | 70    |          |    |\n| Mr. B. Baker         |  | 70    |          |    |\n\n## CERTIFICATE:\n\n I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.\n\n\\s\\Kathleen Connolly Kathleen Connolly AOC #441 **COLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE**\n\nDated: February 11, 2009\n\n# **Exhibit 4**\n\n5285 O78VGUO1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 23 Cr. 118 (AT) MILES GUO, Defendant. Trial ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. July 8, 2024 9:00 a.m. Before: HON. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge -and a Jury-APPEARANCES DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MICAH F. FERGENSON RYAN B. FINKEL JUSTIN HORTON JULIANA N. MURRAY Assistant United States Attorneys SABRINA P. SHROFF Attorney for Defendant PRYOR CASHMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU MATTHEW BARKAN JOHN KILGARD ALSTON & BIRD LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: E. SCOTT SCHIRICK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 52 of 60\n\n O78VGUO1 Also Present: Isabel Loftus, Paralegal Specialist, USAO Robert Stout, Special Agent, FBI Jorge Salazar, Defense Paralegal Tuo Huang, Interpreter (Mandarin) Shi Feng, Interpreter (Mandarin) Yu Mark Tang, Interpreter (Mandarin) Barbara Robertson, Interpreter (Mandarin) Tuo Hung, Interpreter (Mandarin) Peter Ginsberg, Attorney for Witness Jianhu Yi Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 53 of 60\n\n5438 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 54 of 60\n\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                      |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>When you say signed out, were you ever given like a         |\n| 2  | sign-out sheet that someone would have to fill out to --          |\n| 3  | A.<br>That never came to fruition.<br>I was not having that.      |\n| 4  | Q.<br>You were not having that?                                   |\n| 5  | A.<br>No.                                                         |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you recall learning anything about a        |\n| 7  | Bugatti?                                                          |\n| 8  | A.<br>I remember hearing about it, but I didn't really have much  |\n| 9  | to do in regards to purchase or anything like that with it.       |\n| 10 | Do you know what it was for, whom it was bought?<br>Q.            |\n| 11 | A.<br>No, I don't.                                                |\n| 12 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, do you have any knowledge of an entity called  |\n| 13 | G/Clubs?                                                          |\n| 14 | A.<br>Yes, I know about it.                                       |\n| 15 | Q.<br>What is G/Clubs?                                            |\n| 16 | I can only tell you the way it was explained to me.<br>A.<br>It's |\n| 17 | basically a club that you paid for, almost like any type of       |\n| 18 | country club or anything, and you receive services for that,      |\n| 19 | whether it be -- I believe it was money off of clothing.<br>I     |\n| 20 | thought there was something about there were trips that you       |\n| 21 | could win or something like that.<br>I don't know the full extent |\n| 22 | of what it entailed.                                              |\n| 23 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, did you know anything about any boats while    |\n| 24 | you worked for Mr. Guo?                                           |\n| 25 | A.<br>Yes.                                                        |\n|    |                                                                   |\n\n5439 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 55 of 60\n\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Q.<br>What boats did you know about?                               |\n| 2  | A.<br>There was the -- the only boat that I had any dealings with  |\n| 3  | was, I believe it was the Lady May Two, and there was a boat       |\n| 4  | that came later that was called Liberty.                           |\n| 5  | Q.<br>What do you recall about the Liberty?                        |\n| 6  | A.<br>I don't know much about the purchase of the Liberty.<br>I    |\n| 7  | remember when we it actually arrived, it had massive amounts of    |\n| 8  | problems with it.<br>It was not very seaworthy.<br>And the only    |\n| 9  | reason I know that was from speaking to the captain of the boat    |\n| 10 | at that time.                                                      |\n| 11 | Q.<br>Did the fellow fighters or supporters use the Liberty?       |\n| 12 | A.<br>Yes.                                                         |\n| 13 | Q.<br>When?                                                        |\n| 14 | A.<br>It was different occasions to do broadcasting.<br>I couldn't |\n| 15 | tell you the dates.                                                |\n| 16 | Do you know somebody named Prince Li?<br>Q.                        |\n| 17 | A.<br>Yes, I do.                                                   |\n| 18 | Q.<br>Who was Prince Li or is Prince Li?                           |\n| 19 | A.<br>I don't know his official title.<br>To me he was kind of     |\n| 20 | almost what I would consider like a team lead for the              |\n| 21 | supporters.                                                        |\n| 22 | Q.<br>And did he take the Liberty out with the supporters?         |\n| 23 | A.<br>I believe so, yes.                                           |\n| 24 | Q.<br>Now, Mr. Barnett, are you familiar with a property called    |\n| 25 | Mahwah?                                                            |\n|    |                                                                    |\n\n5440 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 56 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct A. Yes. Q. Did you ever visit Mahwah? A. Yes, many times. Q. And when was your first visit to Mahwah? A. I don't believe I know the date, but it had to be early of 2022. I don't recall the date. Q. Was that before or after its purchase? A. I went there once before I believe it was purchased. I don't know the date it was actually purchased, but I believe I was there before. Q. Do you recall who you were there with? A. I was there with I believe -- well, I know it was Miles. I thought Yvette was there, and the owner of the Mahwah residence was there. I can't remember his name. Q. Did you ask Mr. Guo if he was going -- MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the leading, your Honor. MS. SHROFF: It's a question. Q. Did you ask Mr. Guo if he was going to buy that property? A. No, I did not ask him that, no. Q. Did Mr. Guo ever volunteer to you for whom he was buying that property? MR. FERGENSON: Objection to the hearsay. THE COURT: So, once again, this would be a yes or no or I don't know or I don't recall kind of a question. It's not a question where you repeat what you were told. You 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5441 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 57 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct understand? THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. THE COURT: Go ahead. A. Yes. Q. Were you surprised when Mr. Guo purchased that property? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. It just didn't seem like his type of property, but that's just my own personal take on it. Q. And why did it not seem like his type of property? A. I always felt that Mr. Guo like properties that had an intense amount of land. This was, in this particular property, even though it was on 12 acres, it was surrounded basically by a neighborhood. It wasn't very easily -- it wasn't easy to secure due to that problem. And for those reasons, it was very, very ornate. It just didn't seem like a property that I felt that something he would purchase. Q. Did Mr. Guo ever tell you whether the property was for him or for someone else? MR. FERGENSON: Objection. THE COURT: Here we go again. This is one of those questions where you can't say what he said. You can say yes, no, I don't recall. I don't know. THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. A. Yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5442 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 58 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett - Direct Q. Mr. Barnett, were you asked similar questions such as the ones I've just asked you by the government when you met with them during proffer sessions? MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. MS. SHROFF: Not these questions. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. A. I believe so, but I can't remember everything that I was asked. MS. SHROFF: Well, let's show him 006 again. MR. FERGENSON: Your Honor, we'll stipulate that we asked him about Mahwah just to speed things along. MS. SHROFF: Are they going to stipulate to what he said back? MR. FERGENSON: No, because it's hearsay. THE COURT: I don't think so. Q. When you met with the government and you were asked these questions, was your lawyer present? A. Yes, he was. Q. And after you answered all of their questions, did they accuse you of not telling the truth? A. Not to me, or at least not to my attorney, not that I know of. Q. And how many times did the government talk to you about these topics? MR. FERGENSON: Asked and answered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5443 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 59 of 60\n\n|    | O78BGUO4<br>Barnett - Direct                                        |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                            |\n| 2  | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, were you anticipating being a witness at this    |\n| 3  | trial for the United States Attorney's office?                      |\n| 4  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                        |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                            |\n| 6  | Q.<br>Were you told by the United States Attorney's office that     |\n| 7  | you would be called as a witness?                                   |\n| 8  | MR. FERGENSON:<br>Objection.                                        |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Sustained.                                            |\n| 10 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, when did I first reach out to you?               |\n| 11 | I believe it was after I received a subpoena to testify.<br>A.      |\n| 12 | Q.<br>I know, but when, this month, last month?                     |\n| 13 | A.<br>Last month, right, yeah, June I believe.                      |\n| 14 | Q.<br>You remember which week of June?                              |\n| 15 | A.<br>No, I don't.<br>I'm sorry.                                    |\n| 16 | Q.<br>Mr. Barnett, in all the times that you worked for Mr. Guo,    |\n| 17 | did he live at the Mahwah facility?                                 |\n| 18 | A.<br>No, he did not live there.<br>He stayed there, but he did not |\n| 19 | live there.                                                         |\n| 20 | Q.<br>What was the longest period of time that he ever stayed       |\n| 21 | there?                                                              |\n| 22 | A.<br>I believe about four or five days at most.                    |\n| 23 | Q.<br>And what did he do during those four or five days?            |\n| 24 | A.<br>Mostly he would broadcast for the most part.                  |\n| 25 | Q.<br>Did you ever see Mr. Guo's wife at Mahwah?                    |\n|    |                                                                     |\n\n5551 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 60 of 60\n\n| 1  | INDEX OF EXAMINATION           |\n|----|--------------------------------|\n| 2  | Examination of:<br>Page        |\n| 3  | LAI DAI                        |\n| 4  | Direct By Ms. Shroff5326       |\n| 5  | Cross By Mr. Horton<br>.5338   |\n| 6  | Redirect By Ms. Shroff5372     |\n| 7  | THOMAS BISHOP                  |\n| 8  | Direct By Mr. Kamaraju5381     |\n| 9  | Cross By Ms. Murray<br>.5396   |\n| 10 | Redirect By Mr. Kamaraju5409   |\n| 11 | Recross By Ms. Murray<br>.5410 |\n| 12 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT           |\n| 13 | Direct By Ms. Shroff5411       |\n| 14 | Cross By Mr. Fergenson5480     |\n| 15 | LEANNE LI                      |\n| 16 | Direct By Ms. Shroff5495       |\n| 17 | GERALD SCOTT BARNETT           |\n| 18 | Cross By Mr. Fergenson5506     |\n| 19 | Redirect By Ms. Shroff5535     |\n| 20 | DEFENDANT EXHIBITS             |\n| 21 | Exhibit No.<br>Received        |\n| 22 | 67061<br>.5420                 |\n| 23 | DX 60678A<br>.5475             |\n| 24 | DX Z-02<br>.5394               |\n| 25 | Stip 3<br>.5395                |\n|    |                                |","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）,\n等人，　:\n:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:\n:　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n第11章受托人关于延长受托人提起撤销诉讼的2024年8月15日截止日期的第一次补充动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘斯）以其在Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”）第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，通过其下列签署的律师，现依据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）第105(a)条及《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第9006条，提交本动议（“本动议”），请求作出一项裁定，其实质形式与作为本动议附件1附上的拟议裁定（“拟议裁定”）基本一致，以延长受托人提起撤销诉讼的命令延长期限（定义见下文）。为支持本动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 六个月前，即2024年2月，本院准予受托人的动议，并延长了受托人提起撤销诉讼的时效期间。当时，本院认定，“受托人在努力厘清债务人资产及财务事务的复杂情况方面，已表现出超过合理程度的勤勉。”如下文所述，该认定至今仍然成立。受托人在诉讼及取证两方面均持续取得重大进展。他已取得裁决，将有价值的资产及实体纳入破产财产；在许多情况下，这些胜诉结果（尤其是另我实体裁决）会带来额外取证，而额外取证继而很可能为债务人的债权人带来进一步的积极追偿。\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及其他众多别名）（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及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok破产财产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n2. 受托人亦已启动一项广泛的调解程序，截至目前已有50余方参与。此外，自作出延期命令（定义见本动议）以来，受托人已（除其他事项外）获悉有关债务人国际活动的新信息，并提交了额外的综合性规则2004动议及送达了额外传票。受托人还持续对债务人庞大的空壳公司操作进行法务会计分析；其法务会计师事务所Kroll, LLC（“Kroll”）已确认额外207个与Kwok相关的银行账户（使账户总数达到约546个）以及这些账户的约88,580笔资金流入及流出交易。Kroll还追踪到约$12.2 billion流入该等账户，以及约$9.1 billion从该等账户流出。\n\n3. 受托人提交其原延期动议时曾说明，本案——本已存在处理大规模国际欺诈后果所固有的困难——又因债务人及其关联人持续不断地为受托人设置重大障碍而进一步复杂化。正如本院所充分知悉，该等障碍包括债务人未向受托人提供任何账簿及记录，以及其本人（及其关联人）未遵守多项本院命令。遗憾的是，情况并未改变。债务人并未改变做法，突然决定与受托人合作（如破产法典所要求）。恰恰相反，他及其关联人继续积极试图破坏并拖延受托人的工作。\n\n4. 另一项不受受托人控制的因素是债务人最近完成的刑事审判，该审判要求受托人缩减其调查及追偿工作中的某些方面。然而，刑事审判也以其他方式延误了受托人的调查。其一，在审判过程中，受托人获悉了其在取证中尚未获悉的重要信息，该等信息将使受托人需要进一步调查，并有望为破产财产追回更多资产。此外，刑事审判进一步表明，自债务人在两年多前提交其自愿第11章申请以来，其阻挠行为及不诚信的程度。\n\n5. 归根结底，2月时成立的事实现在仍然成立：尽管受托人已持续拼凑出许多谜题碎片，但他仍无法完成整个谜题。他的调查及追偿工作受到其无法控制因素的阻碍，包括本案极其复杂的性质，而债务人的阻挠进一步加剧了该等复杂性。\n\n6. 同样成立的是，本动议所请求的救济仍至关重要。若不予延期，受托人将被迫在任何提出该问题的潜在被告所涉独立对抗性程序中，逐案就时效期间进行诉讼。这不仅困难；而且很可能不可能——受托人已确认超过172,400笔转移。此外，无论在时间还是金钱方面，其成本均将极其高昂，并将直接损害债权人。最后，这种不确定性将使受托人——其必须为其所有行为辩护，并且已经不得不为一项寻求将其免职的动议以及其他恶意指控进行辩护——在今后的工作中处于难以维持的境地。\n\n背景\n\n7. 2022年2月15日，债务人向本院提交了根据破产法典第11章申请救济的自愿申请书。\n\n2022年3月21日，美国受托人任命了债务人第11章案件的无担保债权人正式委员会（“委员会”）。\n\n8. 2022年6月15日，破产法院作出决定备忘录及命令[ECF No. 465]，指示美国受托人任命一名第11章受托人。2022年7月8日，破产法院作出命令[ECF No. 523]，任命受托人。\n\na. 延期动议及延期命令\n\n9. 债务人于2022年3月提交的破产财产清单显示，其资产仅为$3,850，而负债达数亿美元。[2] 债务人在破产法院主张，其实质上身无分文，其豪华住宅、Lady May游艇及其他其公开炫耀的财富标志并不属于他，而是属于据称由其家庭成员拥有的公司。[3] 正如若干法院现已指出，债务人通过构建一个庞大的空壳公司迷宫，将其财富隐藏于家庭成员及密切关联人的名下，从而在声称几乎不拥有任何资产的同时维持其奢华生活方式。\n\n10. 自获任命以来，受托人一直勤勉工作，以确认并为破产财产之利益追回债务人隐匿及／或转移的资产。为此，依照本院指示，受托人已启动一项复杂且全面的调查及诉讼程序，重点关注债务人的“空壳公司操作”——即其利用另我公司向债权人隐匿资产。概括而言，该程序包括(a)\n\n2 见资产及负债清单，第1页[ECF No. 78]。\n\n3 见Ho Wan Kwok先生为支持第11章案件及若干动议所作声明[ECF No. 107]。\n\n依据《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第2004条进行的取证，以及(b)旨在确认某些实体为债务人的另我实体及／或追回特定财产和资产的诉讼。\n\n11. 定位及追回债务人的资产，要求受托人在多个司法管辖区聘请律师，以及其他专业人士，例如具有国际业务范围的法务会计师事务所Kroll, LLC（“Kroll”）。厘清债务人的空壳公司迷宫及数以万计的交易（其本身已是一项极其复杂的任务），又因债务人、其家庭成员及其关联人每一步都试图阻挠受托人工作的行为而进一步复杂化和延误。因此，2024年1月18日，受托人提交动议，请求延长或中止原将于2024年2月15日届满的若干诉讼时效（“延期动议”）。4 延期动议载有（且本动议通过援引纳入）对受托人截至该日所作努力及所获成功的详细说明，以及受托人被迫应对的各种阻挠行为。\n\n12. 2024年2月15日，本院根据破产规则第9006(b)条作出意见书及命令，准予延期动议[Docket No. 2921] [Docket No. 2921]（“延期命令”）。本院将受托人提起撤销诉讼的期限延长至2024年8月15日（“命令延长期限”），并规定该日期可进一步延长。\n\nb. 延期命令后的进展\n\n13. 2024年3月4日，受托人提交动议，请求中止对抗性程序及相关救济[Docket No. 2975]，因为实际上，鉴于即将开始的（现已完成的）刑事审判，受托人别无选择，只能中止其调查的某些方面。如中止动议所述，受托人已提起约270项对抗性程序，以及民事RICO诉讼和综合性另我实体诉状。受托人基于重要的案件管理考量，以及对某些当事人的证言录取可能无意中干扰政府对债务人当时即将进行的刑事审判之起诉的担忧，请求中止民事RICO诉讼及综合性另我实体诉状。此外，针对受托人的诉状，尤其是民事RICO诉讼及综合性另我实体诉状，债务人重新提出其中止第11章案件的全面动议，主张受托人追诉该等请求将干扰其刑事辩护权利。尽管受托人反对债务人提出的全面中止动议，但他告知刑事法院，其将寻求一项更具针对性的中止，从而使债务人的论点失去意义。\n\n14. 没有任何当事人反对受托人的动议，本院于2024年3月22日作出“中止命令”。[5] [Docket No. 3038]。除其他事项外，中止命令中止民事RICO诉讼及综合性另我实体诉讼，直至债务人刑事审判结束（“中止期间”），并规定在中止期间内，不得依据破产规则第2004条或在任何对抗性程序中进行证言录取。\n\n15. 由于中止命令及相关刑事审判，受托人的调查及诉讼工作在中止期间以相对审慎的速度推进。尽管如此，中止命令并非全面中止，受托人已将工作重点放在其调查中不受中止命令约束的方面——并在该等方面取得重大进展。例如：\n\n5 见Docket No. 3038，刑事程序处理结果确定前中止对抗性程序及准予其他救济的命令。\n\n自延期命令作出以来，受托人已申请清算某些资产[6]，并推进其取得将资产纳入破产财产的判决和裁定的工作。[7] 该等工作持续取得成功；自延期命令作出以来，受托人已取得多项将有价值的实体和资产纳入破产财产的裁定，裁定HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理公司）、Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（莱克星顿物业和人力公司）（与HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc.合称“HCHK实体”）及Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）均为债务人的另一个自我，并裁定Whitecroft Shore Limited（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）及债务人的私人Bombardier Jet（庞巴迪喷气机）由债务人实益拥有。[8]\n\n自延期命令作出以来，受托人一直聚焦于债务人在外国司法管辖区的资产。例如，受托人已收集关于多个外国司法管辖区内由债务人控制的资产的证据，包括不动产、银行账户和公司实体。受托人已成功从BVI（英属维尔京群岛）法院取得与K Legacy Ltd.（K Legacy有限公司）有关的禁令，该公司为持有债务人伦敦公寓产权的英属维尔京群岛实体，[9]并持续努力取得对债务人、Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）及Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司）针对UBS（瑞银）提起的英国诉讼的控制权。\n\n自延期命令作出以来，受托人已提交三项综合性《规则2004》证据开示动议，导致发出35份传票，并提起三项新的对立程序。\n\n自延期命令作出以来，受托人已收集逾20,000份文件，包括通过《规则2004》证据开示中的文件提交、查阅在多个仓储设施中发现的文件，以及根据法院要求将该等实体资产移交破产财产的命令，从曾代理债务人另一个自我的律师事务所获取文件。\n\n自延期命令作出以来，Kroll（克罗尔）持续对债务人庞大的空壳游戏进行调查和法证分析，并额外识别出\n\n6 参见《第11章受托人根据《破产法典》第105(a)、363(b)、541及542条申请作出命令，批准清算VCTR股份、分配所得款项及给予相关救济的动议》及相关命令[Docket Nos. 3203 and 3265]；《第11章受托人关于将Ducati Motorcycle（杜卡迪摩托车）所有权转让予破产财产的同意命令申请》及相关命令[Docket Nos. 3177 and 3220]。\n\n7 例如，参见《Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产第11章受托人申请对HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.、Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd.（圣城香港创投有限公司）、Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）、Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）及以受让人身份行事的Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特）作出缺席判决的动议》[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 268]；《Ho Wan Kwok破产财产第11章受托人申请对被告K Legacy Ltd.及Qiang Guo（郭强）作出缺席判决的动议》[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249, Docket No. 33]；《第11章受托人就起诉状第一罪名项及第二罪名项申请依诉状作出判决的动议》[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05001, Docket No. 19]；《第11章受托人反对被告Weddle Law PLLC（韦德尔律师事务所）驳回起诉状动议的意见书》[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05188, Docket No. 17]。\n\n8 参见简易判决[Adv. Proc. Docket No. 23-05005, Docket No. 134]；经修订的缺席判决及永久禁令[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 297]。\n\n9 参见《第11章受托人就与K Legacy Ltd.及伦敦公寓有关的英属维尔京群岛程序提供最新情况的通知》[Docket No. 3161]。\n\n207个郭文贵相关银行账户以及进出该等账户的约88,580笔交易；如计入延期命令作出前期间，该等数字的累计总数分别为546个和172,400笔。Kroll还追踪到约$12.2 billion流入该等账户，以及约$9.1 billion从该等账户流出。\n\n受托人还通过监测债务人的刑事审判获得了有价值的信息。该刑事审判于May 22, 2024开始，并依据陪审团于July 16, 2024作出的裁决，债务人被判多项罪名项有罪。刑事审判中公开的有价值信息包括但不限于：债务人的保镖兼司机Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）就其与Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）有关的职责所作的证言；该公司持有债务人位于Mahwah New Jersey（新泽西州马瓦）豪宅的产权，[10]以及曾就债务人的银行业务为债务人工作的Haitham Khaled（海瑟姆·哈立德）就债务人对G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）及其资金的控制所作的证言。[11] 除证言外，刑事审判还以庭审证物的形式产生了大量文件；鉴于审判的主要阶段现已结束，受托人希望从检方获得更多文件和信息。\n\n16. 除对立程序诉讼外，受托人还着手通过调解解决撤销诉讼，成功申请实施调解程序[12]，并根据《调解程序命令》，在Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）担任调解人的协助下，与约五十名撤销诉讼被告启动调解讨论。\n\nc. 债务人持续阻挠的努力\n\n17. 自延期命令作出以来，债务人及其关联人士持续反对并阻挠受托人的工作。例如，为阻挠受托人取得控制权并解决债务人针对UBS的诉讼，持有Ace Decade Holdings Limited（“Ace Decade”）股份的债务人关联人士最近在BVI任命了自称的\n\n10 概参见July 8, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 5452-5542, United States v. Kwok（美国诉郭文贵）, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (Southern District of New York（纽约南区） July 8, 2024)。\n\n11 概参见June 11, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 2032-2064, United States v. Kwok, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)。\n\n12 参见《命令当事人进行调解、指定尊敬的James J. Tancredi（詹姆斯·J·坦克雷迪）法官担任调解人，以及修订批准适用于撤销请求对立程序的程序之命令》[Docket No., 3163]（“调解程序命令”）。\n\n共同临时清算人（“自称清算人”），其曾试图拖延就Ace Decade作出缺席判决命令。[13] 与债务人立场一致的当事人还曾试图通过包括逃避送达[14]、迟延提交对作出缺席判决的异议[15]、申请上诉期间中止执行[16]及驳回对立程序[17]等方式拖延受托人。\n\nd. 刑事审判结束\n\n18. 债务人的刑事审判于May 22, 2024开始；于July 16, 2024，陪审团作出裁决，认定债务人多项刑事罪名项有罪。鉴于陪审团裁决已经作出，受托人预计其将在未来数月从事显著更多的调查及诉讼活动。\n\n请求的救济\n\n19. 受托人请求作出拟议命令，将延期日期延长六个月，至并包括February 15, 2025。\n\n13 参见《Ace Decade Holdings Limited共同清算人关于(I)延长答复缺席判决动议的期限及(II)推迟July 9, 2024动议听证会的紧急动议》[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05028, Docket No. 47]。\n\n14 见《第11章受托人反对Ace Decade Holdings Limited共同清算人关于(I)延长答复缺席判决动议的期限及(II)推迟July 9, 2024动议听证会的紧急动议的经修订意见书》第29段[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05028, Docket No. 53, Exhibit A]。\n\n15 参见HCHK被告反对受托人缺席判决动议的动议[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 276]；\n\n16 参见根据《联邦破产程序规则》第8007条提出的上诉期间中止执行动议[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Docket No. 139]；上诉期间中止执行动议及请求加速审议该动议，HCHK Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Despins, 3:24-cv-01104-KAD (D. Conn. July 8, 2024), Docket No. 9；上诉人Shih Hsin Yu（余世欣）、1332156 B.C. Ltd.及GWGOPNZ Limited关于上诉期间中止执行及请求加速审议该动议的紧急动议，Yu et al. v. Despins, 3:23-cv-01067-KAD (D. Conn. July 8, 2024), Docket No. 40。\n\n17 参见代表被告Leading Shine NY Ltd.（领辉纽约有限公司）提出的驳回动议[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023, Docket No. 76]；驳回驳回动议的裁决备忘录及命令[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023, Docket No. 87]。\n\n请求救济的依据\n\n20. 在延期命令中，法院认为，作为法律问题，《破产程序规则》第9006(b)条授权破产法院延长《破产法典》第108(a)、546(a)及549(d)条规定的时效。因此，问题“是根据法院面前的事实和情形，是否存在‘事由’”这样做。[18] 法院就原延期动议认定存在事由，受托人主张批准本动议亦存在事由。\n\nI. 根据《规则》第9006(b)条，存在事由批准受托人所请求的延期\n\n21. 在延期命令中，法院认定以下两项因素的结合构成事由：(i)债务人缺乏合作，且实际上积极阻挠；以及(ii)受托人的勤勉。受托人主张，该两项因素仍然适用。\n\na. 受托人已勤勉行事\n\n22. 先论后者，法院在延期命令中“认定受托人在其工作中已显示出超过合理程度的勤勉”。[19] 此后，受托人的工作并未松懈。\n\n23. 如任何延误并非其自行造成，破产受托人即属勤勉行事。Schmidt v. Twosons Corp. (In re Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC), No. 15-34287, 2022 WL 1589190, at *11 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 19, 2022)（指出支持衡平时效中止的非常情形“源于原告控制范围之外、妨碍及时提交的某种外部障碍，而非自行造成的延误”）（经修订）（省略内部引号及引文）；[20]另参见In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. 784, 790-91\n\n18 延期命令第12页。\n\n19 延期命令第17页。\n\n20 Black Elk Energy涉及的是衡平时效中止，而非《规则》第9006(b)条下的事由。然而，法院已指出，证明适用两项原则的事实前提之间存在重叠。参见\n\n(Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013)（“只需指出，相关对象不能可信地主张受托人未能完成其调查是因其自身缺乏勤勉所致。”）。在本案中，受托人的调查及资产追回工作因其控制范围之外的事件而被延误，且除债务人的阻挠外（为明确起见，该等阻挠亦确实存在）。\n\n24. 该等外部因素包括：(i)受托人必须获取并分析的信息数量极其庞大，加之债务人完全未提供任何账簿和记录；以及(ii)债务人最近完成的刑事审判。[21]\n\ni. 信息量\n\n25. 即使自延期命令作出以来获得额外时间，受托人仍未完成其事实调查和分析。相反，受托人几乎每天都持续发现新信息；在可以启动任何实际追回资产的诉讼之前，该等信息必须由受托人的法证会计师和律师进行分析。如上所述，这包括有关债务人国际活动的新信息、来自额外综合性《规则2004》动议的信息，以及由Kroll识别出的新信息。\n\n26. 此外，受托人还通过监测债务人的刑事审判获得了此前未公开的宝贵信息；该审判仅在数日前结束，期间包括29天的证词和辩论。例如，Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）——债务人的保镖兼司机——就其与 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）的关系作证；该公司持有位于新泽西州马瓦的债务人豪宅的所有权。[22] 同样，Haitham Khaled（海赛姆·哈立德）曾就债务人的银行业务为债务人工作，并就债务人对 G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）及其资金的控制作证。[23] 除证词外，刑事审判还以庭审证物形式产生了大量文件（仅政府一方即提交了约300份证物）；现主审阶段已结束，受托人希望从检方取得更多文件和信息。\n\n延期命令第13页（援引关于在判断是否存在《规则》9006(b)项下延长时效期限的理由时适用衡平法中止的判决）。\n\n21 这两个因素是 In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc.（普罗维登斯金融投资公司案）, Case No.: 16-20516-AJC 中受托人提出动议的依据。在该案中，受托人正在调查一项“跨司法辖区的庞氏骗局”，且由于欺诈的性质和范围，受托人无法在两年内完成其法务会计分析，亦无法“整合破产财产可能拥有的所有请求权”。另一项“重大障碍”是，“关键证人和行为人”与 SEC、DOJ 及外国对应机构卷入了若干监管和刑事事项。法院批准了该动议，以及数项进一步延期。参见 In re Providence Fin. Invs., Inc., No. 16-20516 (AJC) (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018) [ECF No. 198]、Transcript of Hearing May 10, 2018 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 31, 2018)，以及 ECF Nos. 284 and 292（动议和命令）。庭审记录、该动议及法院命令的相关部分作为本文件附件2附后。\n\n27. 与最初的延期动议情形相同，受托人获知的信息即使曾经单独存在，也极为罕见。相反，受托人获知的一切都只是谜题中的一块；每一块都引向另一块，引出更多有待受托人查明的事项，并揭示更多被隐藏和/或转移的资产。参见 In re ThermoView Indus., Inc., 381 B.R. at 227（根据《规则》9006(b)，在“一宗极其复杂的案件中，受托人已追究并提起近400宗对抗程序”时批准延期动议）；另参见 In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 501 B.R. 784, 790 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2013)（“法院注意到——正如其过去多次所指出的——本案具有独特性。这不仅体现在本案事实方面，也体现在法律问题方面。而且，所涉利益无疑极为重大。本案中有逾$1 billion的请求权，受托人可能寻求向目标方追偿同等数额。”）。\n\n22 参见一般而言 July 8, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 5452-5542, United States（美国） v. Kwok（郭文贵）, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024)。\n\n23 参见一般而言 June 11, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 2032-2064, United States v. Kwok, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)。\n\nii. 债务人的刑事审判\n\n28. 刑事审判不仅以其披露了需要进一步调查的信息、增加了受托人必须分析的信息量这一意义上延误了受托人的调查。刑事审判的未决状态以及未经异议的中止命令还以极为具体的方式延误了受托人的调查，因为其要求受托人缩减其调查和追偿工作中的某些方面。参见一般而言 Collins v. Decker (In re Decker), No. 06-60886, 2011 WL 2174349, at *5 n. 5 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. June 1, 2011)（引文略）（“阻碍执行涉案请求权的其他法律程序的未决状态”足以证明延长时效期间有正当理由）；In re Dwek, No. 07-11757 (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009)（“鉴于美国检察官办公室和 FBI 近期开展调查的活动，在此适用诉讼时效的衡平法中止是适当的。这导致债务人持续进行的2004审查被长期延迟，而这超出了受托人的控制范围。”）。[24]\n\nb. 债务人的阻挠和不合作\n\n29. 当受托人无法在证据开示方面取得进展时，尤其是考虑到债务人的阻挠，法院会认定存在延长时效期间的理由。参见，例如，In re Int'l Admin. Servs. Inc., 408 F.3d 689, 702 (11th Cir. 2005)（部分基于债务人和被告试图通过隐瞒其活动并违反证据开示请求，干扰受托人对资产转移计划的调查，而中止诉讼时效）。[25]\n\n24 Hr'g Tr. at 9:10-17, In re Dwek, No. 07-11757 (KCF) (Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2009) [ECF No. 3916]，作为本文件附件3附后。\n\n25 另参见 Bender v. Mann (In re Bender), No. 02-00773-RTB, 2010 WL 6467681, at *9-10 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2010), aff'd, 480 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2012)（在债务人的阻挠“阻碍”受托人提起撤销诉讼的情况下，维持下级法院适用衡平法中止的裁定，并指出“判例中充满了法院因一方当事人的阻挠行为而允许适用衡平法中止的例子”）；Freeland v. CPA Warehouse (In re Livemercial Aviation Holding, LLC), 508 B.R. 58, 71(Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2014)（“受托人虽已尽到勤勉义务，却无法取得对本案核心具有高度重要性的信息/文件——无论何种原因导致 Mathis 无法或未能及时出示或提供该等信息/文件——均充分支持在本案中适用衡平法中止原则，以延长11 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1)(A)规定的时效期间。”）。\n\n30. 在最基本的层面上，债务人有义务履行《破产法》对其施加的若干职责，包括与受托人合作。在延期命令中，法院指出，债务人未能履行该等职责，迫使受托人为获取本应由债务人（和/或其家庭成员、关联人士、雇员、追随者及关联实体）直接提供的信息，并了解债务人资产的真实范围，“寻求广泛且持续的第三方证据开示”。[26]\n\n31. 情况并无变化。债务人及其家庭成员、关联人士和关联实体均未改变主意，现正与受托人合作。自其获任以来，受托人始终不得不利用证据开示程序取得开展调查所需的信息。因此，即使没有积极阻挠，债务人的不合作也已延误了受托人的调查，并构成《规则》9006(b)项下批准本动议的理由。[27]\n\n32. 然而，为免疑义，债务人及其关联人士仍在积极阻挠和拖延受托人的工作。如上所述，受托人被迫处理持续存在的下列行为：阻碍受托人接管和解决债务人针对 UBS（瑞银集团）的诉讼；与债务人立场一致的当事人规避送达、针对缺席判决的作出提出逾期异议，以及寻求在上诉期间中止执行。受托人最近还基于其发现非当事人持有证据而提出证据保全动议，并提出密封动议，以应对债务人或其关联人士可能干扰该等证据保全这一现实关切。[28]\n\n26 延期命令第14-16页。法院还指出，债务人未能“履行其职责”甚至可能支持认定相关诉讼时效“从一开始就尚未开始起算”。同上，第14页。\n\n27 其他法院同样关注债务人的不合作迫使受托人进行第三方证据开示。参见 Ochs Charitable Remainder Trust v. Ochs (In re Ochs), 608 B.R. 252, 261–62 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2019)（除其他事项外，指出“[被告]阻挠正当的证据开示，致使法院不得不两次介入破产证据开示争议，并且两次均作出对被告不利的裁定；……其未能完整出示文件，致使原告不得不在2019年向数家第三方金融机构发出证据开示以取得文件；以及……在多次延迟后最终接受宣誓询问时，其对问题作出的含糊且不确定的回答。”）。\n\n33. 最后，最近结束的刑事审判进一步向本法院和受托人证明了债务人阻挠和不诚实的程度。如上所述，庭审证据披露了受托人此前不知道的众多事实。这些信息中的很大一部分是《破产法》要求债务人向受托人提供的信息；正如法院所观察到的，债务人一贯公然无视该义务。\n\n34. 然而，问题并不只是债务人没有提供该等信息。相反，他（及其关联人士）在本案中反复采取与刑事审判中所采取的立场及披露的信息相反的立场。例如，与其在本法院面前声称自己贫困相反，债务人的刑事辩护律师主张，他是一名建立了庞大商业帝国的中国商人。而且，尽管他及其关联人士在马瓦对抗程序中处处与受托人对抗，但其律师在刑事审判的询问中事实上承认，债务人购买了马瓦豪宅。[29]\n\nII. 受托人保留其依据衡平法中止及其他衡平法原则所享有的权利\n\n35. 在延期命令中，法院裁定衡平法中止不具有前瞻性适用效力。然而，法院明确指出，受托人可以“针对一项抗辩提出衡平法中止或其他衡平法论点；该抗辩主张受托人提起的对抗程序已超过时效。”[30] 受托人相应保留一切权利。\n\n28 参见 Docket No. 3306。\n\n29 参见 July 8, 2024 Hr. Tr., at 5441:4-5, United States v. Kwok, No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024)（“[债务人的律师] 问：当[债务人]购买该房产时，您感到惊讶吗？[Scott Barnett] 答：是。”）（着重号为原文所加）。庭审记录的相关部分作为本文件附件4附后。\n\n30 延期命令第20页。\n\n结论\n\n36. 在 In re Fundamental Long Term Care 中，法院解释称，唯一“不应延长”时效期间的理由，是“受托人已能够提起所有[其]撤销诉讼”。501 B.R. at 791。Southern District of New York（纽约南区）亦解释称，“勤勉行事，就是向法院表明其并未怠于行使权利。”In re Ramsoomair, No. 21-11215 (DSJ), 2022 WL 828307, at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022)（省略内部引号和引文）。基于上述详述的一切理由，毫无争议的是，受托人已勤勉行事，并未怠于行使其权利——即便如此，其仍尚未能够提起其所有撤销诉讼。因此，应批准本动议。\n\n［本页其余部分特意留白。］\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求法院\n\n作出拟议命令，准予本文件所请求的救济，并给予法院认为适当的任何其他救济。\n\n日期：July 19, 2024                                    LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut                                 第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦，获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特，获准临时出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 18 of 60\n附件1\n\n拟议裁定\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国破产法院康涅狄格地区布里奇波特分院）\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等，　:\n:\n:　Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n:　（合并管理）\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n[拟议]裁定：准许第11章受托人提出的第一份补充动议，将受托人提起撤销诉讼的2024年8月15日期限延长\n\n经审议第11章受托人提出的将受托人提起撤销诉讼的2024年8月15日期限延长的第一份补充动议（以下简称“本动议”），并已证明存在正当理由，且本院已审议对本动议提出的任何及全部异议和其他答复，并认定：(i) 所请求的救济具有正当理由，(ii) 受托人已勤勉行事，及 (iii) 本动议已依照本院先前准许通知动议的命令完成送达，且在该等情形下，该通知适当且充分，无需其他通知；且本裁定所提供的救济经严格限定以服务于前述目的，故本院特此\n\n命令，本动议按本裁定所载内容获准；并进一步\n\n命令，11 U.S.C. 108、546及549规定的受托人代表财产提起撤销诉讼及其他诉讼的期限，以及\n\n1　本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）及Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC及Genever Holdings Corporation的邮寄地址为Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n修改任何未决起诉状的期限，均延长至并包括2025年2月15日，该日期可进一步延长；并进一步\n\n命令，任何已收到本动议通知（无论为实际通知或推定通知）且未对本动议提出异议的当事人，如最终被列为依据本裁定条款及时提起的诉讼中的被告，即放弃主张时效期间抗辩的权利；并进一步\n\n命令，本裁定的条款和条件自登记之时起立即生效并可执行；并进一步\n\n命令，授权受托人采取一切必要行动，以实现本裁定授予的救济；并进一步\n\n命令，本院对因解释或执行本裁定而产生或与之相关的所有事项保留管辖权。\n\n日期：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2024\n\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁），美国破产法院法官\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n附件2\n\n1　UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA（美国破产法院佛罗里达南区）\n2　关于：\n3　PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL（普罗维登斯金融）\nCase No. 16-20516-AJC\nINVESTMENTS, INC.（投资公司），\n第7章\n4　PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME（普罗维登斯固定收益）\n（合并管理）\nFUND, LLC（基金有限责任公司），\nCase No. 16-20517-AJC\n\n债务人。\n6　_________________________________/\nMARIA YIP（叶玛丽亚），作为\n7　Providence Financial Investments,\nInc.及Providence Fixed Income\n8　Fund, LLC的受托人，\n9　原告，\n10　诉\nAdv. No. 17-01156-AJC\n11　WILTON PEREZ（威尔顿·佩雷斯）及FINANCIAL\nASSURANCE GROUP, INCORPORATED（金融保证集团公司），\n12　一家波多黎各公司，\n13　被告。\n_________________________________/\n\n15　ECF # 151, 153, 155, 156\n16　May 10, 2018\n17　上述案件于\n18　HONORABLE A. JAY CRISTOL（尊敬的A. 杰伊·克里斯托尔）法官，即\n19　UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT法官之一，之前开庭审理，\n20　该法院位于SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA，地址为301 N.\n21　Miami Avenue, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida，于\n22　Thursday, May 10, 2018上午约11:00\n23　开始，并进行了以下程序：\n24　根据数字录音转录：\nHelayne Wills（海莱恩·威尔斯），法庭记录员\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 23 of 60 Case 16-20516-LMI Doc 198 Filed 05/31/18 Page 2 of 30\n\n1　出庭人员：\nAKERMAN LLP（阿克曼律师事务所），由\n3　EYAL BERGER（埃亚尔·伯杰）律师\n     LUIS R. CASAS（路易斯·R·卡萨斯）律师，\n4　代表第7章受托人Maria Yip\nBERGER SINGERMAN, P.A.（伯杰·辛格曼律师事务所），由\n6　JAMES GASSENHEIMER（詹姆斯·加森海默）律师，\n     代表第\n7　7章受托人的特别诉讼代理律师\nRAPPAPORT OSBORNE & RAPPAPORT（拉帕波特、奥斯本及拉帕波特律师事务所），由\n9　JORDAN RAPPAPORT（乔丹·拉帕波特）律师，\n     代表Amanda Francis（阿曼达·弗朗西斯）、John Abio（约翰·阿比奥）及Abio\n10　Financial（阿比奥金融）\nGENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A.（热那亚、乔布洛夫及巴蒂斯塔律师事务所），由\n12　PAUL BATTISTA（保罗·巴蒂斯塔）律师，\n     以及\n13　WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所），由\n     ELLEN E. OBERWETTER（艾伦·E·奥伯韦特）律师，\n14　代表Philip Bowers（菲利普·鲍尔斯）、Andrew Isham（安德鲁·伊舍姆）及\n     Alexander Adam（亚历山大·亚当）\n\n16　同时在场：\n     ECRO－电子法庭记录操作员\n17　MARIA YIP，第7章受托人\n     MARCIE BOUR（玛西·布尔）\n18　WILTON PEREZ（通过电话）\n\n第3页 1　法庭：Providence Financial 2 Investments, Inc.。据报Jordan 3 Rappaport正在电话线上。4　RAPPAPORT律师：是，法官阁下。Jordan 5 Rappaport，R-A-P-P-A-P-O-R-T，在此代表John 6 Abio、Amanda Francis及Abio Financial Group, 7 Inc.。8　法庭：他们的立场是什么？9　他们与本案有何关系？10　RAPPAPORT律师：法官阁下，有一项关于与我的 11 当事人和解争议的综合动议。我在此仅作旁听。12　法庭：哦，我明白了。好的。13　法庭：法庭内的人员呢？14　BERGER律师：早上好，法官阁下。15　Eyal Berger，B-E-R-G-E-R，来自Akerman律师事务所，16　代表第7章受托人Maria Yip，17　担任Providence Financial 18 Investments, Inc.及Providence Fixed Income Fund, 19 LLC破产财产的受托人。20　与我同坐在律师席的是我的同事Luis 21 Casas Meyer（路易斯·卡萨斯·迈耶）。22　我将让我的当事人及共同代理律师自行 23 出庭陈述。24　GASSENHEIMER律师：早上好，法官阁下。25　James Gassenheimer，G-A-S-S-E-N-H-E-I-M-E-R，\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.（乌埃莱特与莫尔丁法庭记录员公司）\n\n第4页 1　来自Berger Singerman，作为债务人的特别诉讼代理律师。2　法庭：那么——作为债务人的代理律师？3　GASSENHEIMER律师：抱歉，作为受托人的代理律师。4　法庭：作为受托人的代理律师。我认为5　那是略有不同的代理身份。6　还有谁希望出庭陈述？7　YIP女士：早上好，法官阁下。Maria 8　Yip，第7章受托人；法庭内还有9　Marcie Bour，B-O-U-R，来自Yip Associates（叶氏联合公司）。10　法庭：很好。还有其他出庭人员吗？11　BATTISTA律师：早上好，法官阁下。12　我是Paul Battista。我的姓氏拼作B，如13　boy中的B，A-T-T-I-S-T-A。与我一同出庭的是我的共同代理律师，14　来自Williams & Connolly律师事务所的Ellen Oberwetter。15　她的姓氏拼作O-B-E-R-W-E-T-T-E-R。16　昨天，法官阁下已惠予签发一项17　裁定，准许她就本事项在本院临时出庭。18　对此感谢您。19　法官阁下，我们共同代理20　三位名为Philip Bowers，B-O-W-E-R-S，21　Andrew Isham，I-S-H-A-M，及Alexander Adam，22　A-D-A-M的先生。23　这些先生已在——由24　盖恩西皇家法院在盖恩西辖区就三家\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\n第5页 1　公司——两家公司，即Providence Investment 2 Fund, PCC, Ltd.（普罗维登斯投资基金PCC有限公司）及Providence Investment 3 Management International, Ltd.（普罗维登斯国际投资管理有限公司）——的破产程序中获任命。谢谢。4　法庭：很好。我们是否从5　Court Paper 151开始？那是一项延长根据第6　105、546及7　549条提起诉讼期限的动议。那是受托人的动议。8　BERGER律师：是，法官阁下，但如果您允许——9　自我上次出庭以来已过去数月，10　我希望在讨论该动议之前，能向11　法庭简要说明本案的现状。12　法庭：那你就说明一下。13　你去过盖恩西吗？14　BERGER律师：我尚未去过盖恩西，15　法官阁下。16　法庭：那里有漂亮的奶牛。17　BERGER律师：我也是这么听说的。18　法庭：盖恩西、泽西和萨克，19　一组可爱的岛屿。20　BERGER律师：我只到过21　伦敦，因此我尚未去过盖恩西，22　法官阁下。23　正如法庭可能从本案的24　记录中所知，\n\n1　这是一个跨司法辖区的庞氏骗局，2　至少由三人实施，3　Antonio Buzaneli（安东尼奥·布扎内利）、Jose Ordonez（何塞·奥多涅斯）及4　Julio Rivera（胡利奥·里维拉）。该计划始于迈阿密，5　即Key Biscayne（基比斯坎），基本上始于6　这两名债务人的母实体的设立。随后，这两名7　债务人迁至英国属地8　盖恩西，其后又迁至亚洲各地。\n\n10　法官阁下，受托人在管理这一11　跨司法辖区庞氏骗局时遇到的困难之一是，12　完成法务会计所必需的大量13　关键文件位于多个14　我们尚无法获取的外国司法辖区。\n\n17　法官阁下，我们遇到的另一项主要障碍是，18　该庞氏骗局的关键证人和主要19　实施者卷入了数起由20　证券交易委员会、21　盖恩西的对应机构以及22　司法部处理的监管和刑事事项。事实上，直到最近，23　法官阁下，我刚才提到的三名主要人员才24　最终完成其所有认罪协议，\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\n1　并基本承认司法部2　在起诉书中指控他们所犯的罪行。\n\n3　由于无法获得关键文件，4　又无法接触关键证人，5　我们一直难以梳理出破产财产可能对各方6　享有的全部请求权。7　法官阁下在本院审理的各项对抗程序中8　所见的是撤销请求权，9　以及其他一些请求权；在这些请求权中，我们拥有针对特定受让人的10　完整转让记录。11　由于关键文件和关键证人位于12　其他司法辖区，我们无法针对许多目标13　完成该项法务分析。\n\n15　2016年7月受托人获任命时，16　受托人所做的首批事项之一是，17　法官阁下，我们在管理人获任命后与其取得联系，18　以期完成两件事。19　第一，在我们两个破产财产之间建立证据开示20　合作机制；我们通过签署联合证据开示协议21　实现了这一点，22　从而可以交换证据开示材料并维持其23　保密性。\n\n24　第二项是与管理人就两个破产财产可能25　共同享有的请求权开展合作。\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.\n\n1　我们可能共同享有的请求权\n\n2　（听不清）。\n\n3　法官阁下，我们已花费超过18个月，4　通过电话会议、电子邮件，基本上试图5　与管理人及其他破产财产达成协议，6　以便就这些共同请求权开展合作；但截至本次听证会之日，7　我们仍未能取得8　管理人的文件、其资金追踪分析及9　法务分析，10　也未能就两个破产财产之间的合作达成协议。\n\n13 该动议——今日提交阁下审理的若干动议——基本上旨在保全破产财产对各类第三方提出的全部请求权，并使我们的破产财产能够以最具成本效益和最高效率的方式，对位于全球各地的对象采取行动。\n\n20 经法院许可，阁下，我认为将这些动议不按原定顺序审理是合理的。\n\n23 法院：好的。你想先审理哪一项？\n\n25 伯格先生：我认为 ECF 155，即\n\n第 9 页 1 一项 9019 动议——2 法院：这是与 John Abio（约翰·阿比奥）和 Abio Financial Group（阿比奥金融集团）就争议达成和解；对吗？5 伯格先生：正确。还有 Amanda Francis（阿曼达·弗朗西斯），阁下。7 法院：哦，还有由 Jordan Rappaport（乔丹·拉帕波特）代理的阿曼达·弗朗西斯。因此，你们在那里有一项和解。10 拉帕波特先生，你是否同意批准该和解？12 拉帕波特先生：是的，阁下。这就是我在电话上的原因，以支持该协议。14 法院：很好。还有其他人对该事项具有利害关系吗？16 既然没有异议，我们将准许该动议。谁来起草该裁定？18 伯格先生：阁下，我们可以起草该裁定。20 法院：好的。21 拉帕波特先生：有了该批准，阁下，经您许可，我将——23 法院：你可以离席。谢谢你，拉帕波特先生。25 拉帕波特先生：感谢您拨冗，\n\n> (305) 358-8875 OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC.（OUELLETTE & MAULDIN 法庭记录公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3329 于 07/19/24 提交 于 07/19/24 17:45:29 登记 第 31 页，共 60 页 案件 16-20516-LMI 文书 198 于 05/31/18 提交 第 30 页，共 30 页\n\n1　证明\n\n3　佛罗里达州：\n4　戴德县：\n\n6　本人，HELAYNE F. WILLS（海莱恩·F·威尔斯），佛罗里达州全州速记记录员及公证人，特此证明：前述程序已于本文件第 1 页标题栏所述日期和地点通过电子录音记录；前述计算机辅助誊录文本系根据该电子录音制作的本人速记笔记的真实记录。\n\n15　谨于 2018 年 5 月 18 日签名为证。\n\n19　________________________________\nHELAYNE F. WILLS（海莱恩·F·威尔斯）\n20　法庭记录员及公证人\n佛罗里达州全州\n21　执照编号：\nGG123092\n有效期至 8/2/2021\n\n美国佛罗里达南区破产法院迈阿密分院\n\nPROVIDENCE FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS, INC.（普罗维登斯金融投资公司），（合并管理）PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME FUND, LLC（普罗维登斯固定收益基金有限责任公司），案件编号 16-20517-AJC 债务人。\n\n关于：案件编号 16-20516-AJC 第 7 章\n第 7 章受托人第二次申请延长 11 U.S.C. §§108、546 和 549 期限的动议\n\n/\n\nMaria Yip（叶玛丽亚）作为 Providence Financial Investments, Inc. 和 Providence Fixed Income Fund, LLC 破产财产的第 7 章受托人，通过其下列签署律师，并依据《破产法》第 105 条（即 11 U.S.C. §§101 et seq.）及《联邦破产程序规则》第 9006(b) 条，提出本动议，请求延长依据《破产法》第 546 条提起撤销诉讼的期限，并延长依据《破产法》第 108 条和第 549 条代表破产财产提起所有其他诉讼的期限。\n\n受托人请求延长第 108、546、549 条期限（以下简称“期限”）；根据此前法院裁定，该等期限目前均将于 January 28, 2019 届满。受托人及其专业人员在认定债务人被用作一项全球性庞氏骗局的一部分、该骗局诈骗美国投资者逾 $70 million 后，已针对 Providence 的主要负责人、出售无价值未注册证券的个人、该计划中的净获利者，以及参与该计划的其他实体和个人，进行了广泛诉讼。\n\n受托人寻求额外时间以妥善管理该等破产财产，原因包括但不限于：(1) 本案所涉众多转移具有全球性质，(2) 缺乏\n\n根据第 105(a) 条作为行使授权的允许方式而由第 108(b) 条规定）；另见 In re 652 West 160th LLC, 330 B.R. 455, 465 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)。\n\n在这些案件中，法院有充分理由延长第 108、546、549 条的诉讼时效期间。本案适用的适当标准是《联邦破产程序规则》第 9006 条规定的“有正当理由”分析。如 In re Fundamental Long Term Care 一案法院所述：\n\n法院认为，适当标准似应为第 9006 条规定的“有正当理由”分析。本案受托人在期间届满之前寻求延长期限（衡平停止推定于时效期间届满后适用）。这也是第十一巡回法院在 In re International Administrative Services 一案中最初采用的分析方法，之后出于审慎考虑转而进行衡平停止分析。因此，似乎没有理由不适用“有正当理由”分析。\n\n501 B.R. at 789*.*\n\n在这些案件中，债务人与其他逾 96 家 Providence 公司之间全球性且错综复杂的交易网络，使资金追踪成为一项困难且耗费资源的任务，尤其是受托人直至最近仅能取得债务人的账簿和记录，而不能取得这些其他大多位于外国实体的账簿和记录。直至最近破产财产中没有任何资金，更进一步加剧了该项任务的困难。\n\n自受托人提出第一次延长期限申请以来，受托人已对 Providence 庞氏骗局的实施者及受益人进行了广泛诉讼。目前尚有未决对抗程序及诉讼，可能使受托人取得有关其他潜在破产财产资产、先前未知的其他后手受让人及其他潜在诉讼的信息。此外，由于该等诉讼，破产财产最近才收到有限资金，可用于采取此前因财务限制而无法采取的调查行动。\n\n针对 Antonio Buzaneli（安东尼奥·布扎内利）、Jose Ordonez（何塞·奥多内斯）及 Julio Rivera（胡利奥·里维拉）——Providence 计划的主要实施者——的刑事程序大体上已经结束。截至本动议提出之日，布扎内利和里维拉尚未在其刑事程序中被判刑，尽管二人的判刑似乎已迫在眉睫。奥多内斯于 January 23, 2019 被判处 120 months 监禁，之后接受 3 years 的监督释放。\n\n此外，受托人已取得针对布扎内利的 $49,965,081.23 缺席终局判决书 [Adv. No. 18-1309 ECF Nos. 15 and 16]；已与里维拉和解，以作出金额为 $49,965,081.23 的同意终局判决书 [Adv. No. 18-1313, ECF Nos. 20 and 21]；并已与奥多内斯和解，相关批准仍在等待中，以作出另一份金额为 $49,965,081.23 的同意终局判决书 [ECF No. 272]。受托人认为，一旦针对布扎内利、奥多内斯和里维拉的民事及刑事程序均得到解决，三人将更愿意配合受托人正在进行的调查。\n\n最后，在英国/根西岛就 Providence Investment Management International Limited（普罗维登斯投资管理国际有限公司）及 Providence Investment Funds PCC Limited（普罗维登斯投资基金 PCC 有限公司）——两家与债务人相关的外国实体——进行的行政程序仍在进行中。这些程序中的联合行政管理人继续进行调查和法律程序，可能会产生有关债务人转移的最终受让人的额外证据开示，而受托人目前尚未持有该等信息。\n\n受托人寻求延长期限的时长（即 six (6) months）完全合理，鉴于本动议所述相对近期的发展，该期限反映了受托人为完成其调查所需的保守延长时间。受托人认为这将是所请求的最后一次延期。因此，法院\n\n应准许本动议，并将期限自当前 January 28, 2019 截止日期起额外延长 six (6) months。\n\n因此，受托人谨请求本法院作出与随附 Exhibit A 所附裁定基本一致的裁定：(i) 准许本动议，(ii) 将依据 11 U.S.C. §§108、546 和 549 提起所列诉讼的期限额外延长 six (6) months，直至并包括 July 28, 2019，及 (iii) 准予本法院认为公正和适当的进一步救济。\n\n日期：January 25, 2019 谨此提交，\n\n /s/ Eyal Berger\nEyal Berger（埃亚尔·伯格），Esq.\nFlorida Bar Number: 0011069\nEmail: eyal.berger@akerman.com\nLuis R. Casas（路易斯·R·卡萨斯），Esq.\nFlorida Bar Number: 0094222\nEmail: [luis.casasmeyer@akerman.com]\n\nAKERMAN LLP（阿克曼律师事务所）\nLas Olas Centre II, Suite 1600\n350 East Las Olas Boulevard\nFort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2999\nPhone: (954) 463-2700\nFax: (954) 463-2224\n\n送达证明\n\n本人特此证明，前述文件的真实副本已于 January 25,\n\n2019 通过 CM/ECF 向本破产案件中接收电子通知的所有当事人送达。\n\n/s/Eyal Berger\nEyal Berger（埃亚尔·伯格），Esq.\n\n于 February 15, 2019 在 Southern District of Florida（佛罗里达南区）裁定。\n\nA. Jay Cristol（A·杰伊·克里斯托尔），法官\n美国破产法院\n\n美国佛罗里达南区破产法院迈阿密分院\n\nPROVIDENCE FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS, INC.（普罗维登斯金融投资公司），（合并管理）PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME FUND, LLC（普罗维登斯固定收益基金有限责任公司），案件编号 16-20517-AJC 债务人。\n\n关于：案件编号 16-20516-AJC 第 7 章\n准许第 7 章受托人第二次申请延长 11 U.S.C. §§108、546 和 549 期限的动议的裁定（ECF NO. 284）\n\n/\n\n本法院于 February 13, 2019 at 10:30 a.m 就第 7 章受托人申请延长 11 U.S.C. §§108、546 和 549 期限的动议举行听证 [ECF No. 284]（以下简称“动议”）。本法院经审阅该动议，听取律师陈述，注意到未有人对该动议提出书面异议或在听证中提出异议，并认定有充分正当理由准予所请求的救济，且已在其他方面充分了解本案情况，特此\n\n裁定如下：\n\n1. 准许该动议。\n\n2. 11 U.S.C. §§ 546、108 和 549 所规定的、代表破产财产提起撤销诉讼及其他诉讼的期限，因而包括提交受 11 U.S.C. §§ 546、108 和 549 时限约束的任何诉讼以及修改任何未决起诉状的期限，均延长至并包括 July 28, 2019。\n\n3. 第二（2）段所规定的延期应适用于所有潜在被告/对象。\n\n提交人：\n\nEyal Berger（埃亚尔·伯格），Esq.\nAKERMAN LLP（阿克曼律师事务所）\nLas Olas Centre II, Suite 1600\n350 East Las Olas Boulevard\nFort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2999\nEmail: eyal.berger@akerman.com\nPhone: (954) 463-2700\nFax: (954) 463-2224\n\n（指示 Berger 律师送达本裁定的核准副本，并向法院提交送达证明。）\n\n附件 3\n\n案件 07-11757-KCF\n案件 22-50073　文书 3329\n文书 3916　于 07/19/24 提交\n于 02/12/09 提交\n于 07/19/24 17:45:29 登记\n于 02/12/09 17:28:10 登记\n\n主要文书说明\n\n美国新泽西地区破产法院\n\n关于：　：案件编号 07-11757(KCF)\nSOLOMON DWEK（所罗门·德韦克），\n债务人。　：\n：新泽西州特伦顿\n：February 2, 2009\n：10:18 a.m.\n\n动议听证会笔录\n\n审判长\n尊敬的 KATHRYN C. FERGUSON（凯瑟琳·C·弗格森）\n美国破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代理债务人：　Broege, Neumann, Fischer & Shaver, LLC（布罗伊格、诺伊曼、费舍尔与沙弗有限责任公司）\n代理律师：\nTIMOTHY P. NEUMANN（蒂莫西·P·诺伊曼），ESQ.\n25 Abe Voorhees Drive\nManasquan, New Jersey\n\n代理第 11 章\n受托人：　McCarter & English（麦卡特与英格利希律师事务所）\n代理律师：\nJEFFREY T. TESTA（杰弗里·T·泰斯塔），ESQ.\nBRIAN L. BAKER（布赖恩·L·贝克），ESQ.\nFour Gateway Center\n100 Mulberry Street\nNewark, New Jersey\n\n债权人委员会代理律师：\nDuane Morris, LLP（杜安·莫里斯律师事务所）\n代理人：\nWALTER J. GREENHALGH, ESQ.（沃尔特·J·格林哈尔）\n744 Broad Street\nNewark, New Jersey\n07102-3889\n录音操作员：Geraldine Holley-Mack（杰拉尔丁·霍利-麦克）\n速记员：Kathleen Connolly（凯瑟琳·康诺利）\nCOLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE（科尔转录与录音服务）\n认证法庭速记员\nP.O. BOX 1216\nOCEAN GATE, NEW JERSEY 08740-1216\n1-877-245-4876\n\n庭审程序以电子方式录制，笔录由速记转录制作。\nCase 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 40 of 60\n\n出庭人员：\n\nHSBC Bank（汇丰银行）代理律师：Wolff & Samson, P.C.（沃尔夫与萨姆森律师事务所）代理人：KAREN L. GILMAN, ESQ.（凯伦·L·吉尔曼）The Offices at Crystal Lake One Boland Drive West Orange, New Jersey 07052\n\nCahill, Gordon & Reindel, LLP（卡希尔、戈登与林德尔律师事务所）代理人：ROBERT USADI, ESQ.（罗伯特·乌萨迪）80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005-1702\n\nJoseph Dwek（约瑟夫·德维克）、Mark Adjmi（马克·阿杰米）、Yeshuah, LLC（耶舒阿有限责任公司）及Joseph Dwek Family Limited Partnership（约瑟夫·德维克家族有限合伙企业）代理律师：Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A.（科尔、肖茨、迈塞尔、福尔曼与伦纳德律师事务所）代理人：WARREN A. USATINE, ESQ.（沃伦·A·乌萨廷）25 Main Street\n\nSun National Bank（太阳国民银行）代理律师：Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A.（威伦茨、高盛与斯皮策律师事务所）代理人：DEIRDRE WOULFE PACHECO, ESQ.（迪尔德丽·沃尔夫·帕切科）\n\nJack Hakim（杰克·哈基姆）及AJH Investments（AJH投资公司）代理律师：Stark & Stark（斯塔克与斯塔克律师事务所）\n\nBob Nelson Plumbing & Heating（鲍勃·纳尔逊管道与供暖公司）代理律师：Shebell & Shebell, LLC（谢贝尔与谢贝尔有限责任公司）\n\n90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095\n\nHackensack, New Jersey 07601\n\nAJH Investments：代理人：JEFFREY S. POSTA, ESQ.（杰弗里·S·波斯塔）P.O. Box 5315 Princeton, New Jersey 08534\n\nPlumbing & Heating：代理人：DANIELLE S. CHANDONNET, ESQ.（丹妮尔·S·尚多内）1398 Highway 35 South Ocean, New Jersey 07712-3543\n\nIsaac Franco（艾萨克·弗朗科）代理律师：King & Spalding, LLP（金杜律师事务所）代理人：ARTHUR J. STEINBERG, ESQ.（阿瑟·J·斯坦伯格）1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10076-4003\n\nWachtal & Masyr, LLP（沃克塔尔与马西尔律师事务所）代理人：DAVID YEGER, ESQ.（大卫·耶格）110 East 58th Street New York, New York 10022\nCase 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 41 of 60\n法庭问答 3\n\n1　法庭：\n好的。\n请就德维克事项上前。\n\n2　好的。\n请各位律师说明身份，\n3　律师？\n4　TESTA先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n5　Jeffrey Testa（杰弗里·泰斯塔），McCarter & English（麦卡特与英格利希律师事务所），代表\n6　第11章受托人。\n7　BAKER先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n8　Brian Baker（布赖恩·贝克），McCarter & English，代表\n9　第11章受托人。\n10　GREENHALGH先生：\n法官阁下，Walter Greenhalgh，\n11　Duane Morris，债权人委员会代理律师。\n12　NEUMANN先生：\nTimothy Neumann（蒂莫西·诺伊曼），Broege, Neumann，\n13　Fischer & Shaver（布罗伊格、诺伊曼、费舍尔与谢弗律师事务所），代表债务人。\n14　GILMAN女士：\nKaren Gilman，Wolff & Samson，代表\n15　HSBC Bank。\n16　USADI先生：\nRobert Usadi，Cahill, Gordon & Reindel，\n17　代表HSBC Bank。\n18　USATINE先生：\nWarren Usatine，Cole, Schotz, Meisel、\n19　Forman & Leonard，代表Joseph Dwek、Mark Adjmi、\n20　Yeshuah, LLC，以及Joseph Dwek Family, Limited Partnership。\n21　PACHECO女士：\nDeirdre Pacheco，Wilentz, Goldman &\n22　Spitzer，代表Sun National Bank。\n23　POSTA先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n24　Jeffrey Posta，Stark & Stark，代表Jack Hakim及AJH\n25　Investments，仅就中止期间动议事项出庭。\nCase 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 42 of 60\n法庭问答 4\n\n1　CHANDONNET女士：\n早上好。\n\n2　Danielle Chandonnet，来自Shebell & Shebell律师事务所，\n3　代表Bob Nelson Plumbing & Heating。我们未就本事项提交\n4　书面材料。\n5　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n6　STEINBERG先生：\nArthur Steinberg，来自King &\n7　Spalding，代表Isaac Franco。与我一同出庭的是David\n8　Yeger，来自Wachtal & Masyr。\n9　YEGER先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n10　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n11　今天上午日程表上有三项事项。\n12　我们依次进行——我还有一位通过电话出庭的人。\n13　受托人也希望通过电话出庭，\n14　是吗？\n15　TESTA先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n16　法庭：\n好的。显然我们在此方面\n17　遇到问题。我们正在处理。\n18　好的。让我们从解除自动中止\n19　动议开始，第3704号事项。\n20　BAKER先生：\n法官阁下，经动议提出方同意，\n21　我们可以将其延期30天。\n22　法庭：\n好的。可以。我们定在3月2日。\n23　接下来，我要处理衡平法中止期间命令——\n24　我们正在处理德维克事项——依第546条规定的期间予以衡平法中止。\n25　动议／Baker／答复／Steinberg 5\n\n1　我手头有受托人的书面材料、Isaac Franco提出的异议、\n\n2　Jack Hakim提出的有限异议，以及债务人的支持意见。\n3　Testa先生，您要从这里开始吗？是否\n4　由您——\n5　BAKER先生：\n我来。\n6　法庭：\nBaker先生。好的。\n7　BAKER先生：\n法官阁下，我们没有太多内容需要补充\n8　书面材料。关于异议，我们认为\n9　应予驳回；但如法庭不倾向于如此裁定，\n10　只要受托人日后能够保留其主张即可，\n11　即如果该法规适用且提出额外诉因，\n12　受托人能够主张该法规\n13　应当依衡平法中止。但我认为我们不必\n14　今天作出决定。\n15　法庭：\n好的。可以。谢谢。\n16　还有其他人支持受托人的动议吗？\n17　好的。反对意见？\n18　STEINBERG先生：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n19　Isaac Franco提出异议称，如受托人希望就世界上其他所有人\n20　适用衡平法中止期间，尚可。但就Franco先生而言，\n21　受托人一年多以前已在本案中起诉Franco先生，并且有一项待决\n22　对抗程序；在其可获准根据已提交的起诉状进行修改的\n23　任何范围内，均无问题。\n24　答复／Steinberg／Posta 6\n\n1　但他已有两年时间。他认定自己拥有足以\n\n2　一年前对Franco先生提起诉讼的依据。我们不认为\n3　就Franco先生延长期间适当。\n4　当您阅读受托人援引的有关\n5　衡平法中止期间的案例时，通常涉及\n6　被告是否实施了某些行为，妨碍受托人推进本事项，\n7　因为被告采取拖延策略或隐瞒\n8　信息。\n9　在本案中，Isaac Franco曾多次与受托人会面，\n10　对提出的任何请求均作出回应，且已经是本案中\n11　一次证言录取的对象；我们认为没有任何理由\n12　就其适用衡平法中止期间。\n13　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n14　Posta先生？\n15　POSTA先生：\n法官阁下，代表Jack Hakim及\n16　AJH Investments，我们提出了有限异议，我相信\n17　您已审阅。尽量简要说明。我们于\n18　2007年6月提起了一项对抗程序，至今已超过一年半。\n19　该对抗程序涉及免责，以及因\n20　Hakim先生和AJH Investments提供资金而对某一特定财产提出的请求。\n21　该免责诉讼涉及我们的全部交易，而这些交易非常有限。\n22　金额很大，但交易与\n23　债务人之间的交易有限。\n24　答复／Posta 7\n\n在该对抗程序中，我们提交后不久，受托人即提交了一项动议，要求保全与基础交易有关的所有权利主张和诉因，而这些均为我们的全部交易。该动议此后一直延期审理，这没有问题，因为我们同意如此处理；该动议将于4月开庭审理，4月底有一个审判日期。我认为该动议或许在审判日前一天开庭审理。\n\n我的理解是，我们有关保全诉讼及我们全部、全部诉因相互往来的问题，均由该对抗程序及该动议处理。现在又提交了另一项动议。我们的简单立场是，这些问题已在法庭审理中，我们不应受本项动议约束；这又是一项涉及同一主题的动议。该问题已经涵盖在内。\n\n如我们所述，交易有限。债务人一直可供联系，并且当然经常参与本案，以向受托人提供信息。就我们的客户而言，我未见任何具体情况表明他们无法取得信息。如当事人之间还有其他事项，或其需要额外时间，您知道，法庭面前没有任何材料表明其需要这些时间。\n\n但是，实质上，该问题应由\n裁定 8\n\n法庭面前已有事项涵盖，我们不应受本项动议约束。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n还有其他人吗？好的。\n\n法庭已收到针对受托人动议的两项异议。异议实质上称，相关客户不应被单独挑出，该动议不应适用于他们。\n\n未就该主张提供法律依据。法庭认为，如其认定存在对时效期间予以衡平法中止的理由，则该中止应一体适用。\n\nJack Hakim提出了一项某种程度上附带的论点，即其事项定于4月29日审判，因此，应由联邦规则而非本项动议决定与其有关的事项。\n\n我不能在法律上同意该主张，但我不会基于本项动议延期开庭审理日期。而且，在我看来，如受托人提出一项动议，要求将提起撤销诉讼的期限延至2010年2月，受托人将很难说服法庭，在距离审判如此接近之时修改起诉状具有正当理由。\n\n受托人请求的救济已由\n裁定 9\n\n1　其他法院依据第105条及衡平法中止期间理论予以准许。\n\n2　您可参见International Administrative\n3　Services案，408 Fed. 3rd 689，或GI Holdings案，\n4　313 Bankruptcy Reporter 612。这些法院认为，第546条\n5　属于时效法规，而非除斥期间法规，因此，\n6　其适用衡平法中止期间。\n7　尽管这并非通常准许\n8　衡平法中止期间的情形，即并非被告通过欺诈方式\n9　阻止原告及时提起其诉因的情形，\n10　但鉴于美国检察官和联邦调查局近期\n11　开展调查的活动，法庭仍认定本案适宜对\n12　时效期间适用衡平法中止。\n13　该调查导致对债务人持续进行的2004规则证言录取\n14　长期延误，\n15　且该情况超出受托人的控制。因此，法庭将\n16　准许该动议。\n17　好的。让我们继续处理批准\n\n和解的动议。这是今天最重要的一项。我有受托人的动议材料。我有Sun National Bank的有限异议。我有Isaac Franco的异议。我有受托人的答复。我有债权人委员会的支持意见；Franco先生的补充异议；Joseph Dwek及Adjmi Group（阿杰米集团）的支持意见。我有HSBC的答复以及债务人的进一步答复。\nCase 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 10 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 48 of 60\n动议／Testa 10\n\n这使我们进行到周五约5:00。为何不由受托人律师开始。TESTA先生：早上好，法官阁下。第11章受托人非常高兴今日在法官阁下面前出庭，他认为这是在这些案件进程中迄今为止最重大的成就。正如法官阁下所指出的，受托人已向所有债权人适当通知后提交了一项动议。他被迫就对方当事人诉讼中的被告Franco先生所作的某些陈述提交答复，该被告的债权主张已受到质疑。我们坚信，提交给法官阁下的和解方案低于合理性范围的最低点。如法官阁下愿意，我们在程序上准备提出事实陈述，或者我们可以简要得多，仅强调和解的主要要点。法庭：继续提出事实陈述。TESTA先生：是，法官阁下。如Stanziale先生今日作证，他将作如下证言：Stanziale先生将证明，他是Solomon Dwek（所罗门·德维克）破产案件及其全部74个合并管理案件经正式任命的第11章受托人。在破产程序之前，一项州\n\n裁定 84\n\n1　男声：\n谢谢。\n\n2　BAKER先生：\n法官阁下，我们将提交一份修订后的\n3　命令格式文本，正确载明Pacheco女士所要求的\n4　段落。\n5　法庭：\n好的。\n6　BAKER先生：\n谢谢。\n7　法庭：\n谢谢。\n8　PACHECO女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n9　法庭：\n各位律师，我无意催促你们，\n10　但我还有另一事项，可能需要两\n11　分钟，而他们已经等候两小时了。\n12　BAKER先生：\n好的。\n13　男声：\n抱歉。\n14　法庭：\n好的。\n15　STANZIALE先生：\n谢谢，法官。\n16　法庭：\n当然。\n17　* * * * *\n\n索引\n\n动议\n由B. Baker先生提出\n\n准予：\n\n答复\n由A. Steinberg先生提出\n\nJ. Posta先生\nCase 07-11757-KCF Doc 3916 Filed 02/12/09 Entered 02/12/09 17:28:10 Desc Main Document Page 85 of 85 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 50 of 60\n\n动议\n\n由J. Testa先生提出　10　准予：　78\n\n答复\n由W. Greenhalgh先生提出　14/66\nW. Usatine先生　15/55\nR. Usadi先生　17\nT. Neumann先生　17\nA. Steinberg先生　18/71\nC. Stanziale先生　52\nJ. Testa先生　70\nB. Baker先生　70\n证明：\n\n兹证明，上述内容系上述案件程序电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n\\s\\Kathleen Connolly（凯瑟琳·康诺利） Kathleen Connolly AOC #441 COLE TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICE\n\n日期：February 11, 2009\n证据4\n\n5285 O78VGUO1 美利坚合众国地区法院 Southern District of New York（纽约南区） ------------------------------x 美利坚合众国，诉 23 Cr. 118 (AT) MILES GUO（郭文贵），被告人。审判 ------------------------------x New York, N.Y. July 8, 2024 9:00 a.m. 审判长：尊敬的ANALISA TORRES（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯）地区法官 及陪审团 出庭人员 DAMIAN WILLIAMS（达米安·威廉姆斯）纽约南区联邦检察官 办案人员：MICAH F. FERGENSON（迈卡·F·弗格森） RYAN B. FINKEL（瑞安·B·芬克尔） JUSTIN HORTON（贾斯汀·霍顿） JULIANA N. MURRAY（朱莉安娜·N·默里）助理联邦检察官 SABRINA P. SHROFF（萨布丽娜·P·施罗夫）被告人律师 PRYOR CASHMAN LLP（普赖尔·卡什曼律师事务所）被告人律师 办案人员：SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU（西达尔塔·卡马拉朱） MATTHEW BARKAN（马修·巴坎） JOHN KILGARD（约翰·基尔加德） ALSTON & BIRD LLP（奥尔斯顿与伯德律师事务所）被告人律师 办案人员：E. SCOTT SCHIRICK（E·斯科特·谢里克） 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 52 of 60\n\nO78VGUO1 出席人员：Isabel Loftus（伊莎贝尔·洛夫图斯），USAO律政专员 Robert Stout（罗伯特·斯托特），FBI特别探员 Jorge Salazar（豪尔赫·萨拉萨尔），辩方律政专员 Tuo Huang（黄拓），口译员（普通话） Shi Feng（冯石），口译员（普通话） Yu Mark Tang（唐宇·马克），口译员（普通话） Barbara Robertson（芭芭拉·罗伯逊），口译员（普通话） Tuo Hung（洪拓），口译员（普通话） Peter Ginsberg（彼得·金斯伯格），证人Jianhu Yi（易建湖）的律师 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 53 of 60\n\n5438 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 54 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett（巴尼特）—直接询问\n\n1　问：\n当你说登记取用时，你是否曾被给予一份\n2　由某人必须填写的登记取用表，以便——\n3　答：\n那从未实现。我不打算这样做。\n4　问：\n你不打算这样做？\n5　答：\n不是。\n6　问：\nBarnett先生，你是否记得得知过任何关于一辆\n7　Bugatti（布加迪）汽车的事情？\n8　答：\n我记得听说过，但我实际上没有参与其购买\n9　或与此相关的任何事情。\n10　问：\n你知道它是作何用途、为谁购买的吗？\n11　答：\n不知道。\n12　问：\nBarnett先生，你是否知道一个名为\n13　G/Clubs的实体？\n14　答：\n是的，我知道。\n15　问：\nG/Clubs是什么？\n16　答：\n我只能告诉你别人向我解释的方式。它\n17　基本上是一个你付费加入的俱乐部，几乎像任何一种\n18　乡村俱乐部之类的机构，你会因此获得服务，\n19　比如——我相信是购买服装时享有折扣。我\n20　以为有某种可以赢得旅行的安排或类似事项。\n21　我不知道其所涉及内容的全部范围。\n22　问：\nBarnett先生，在你为Guo先生工作期间，你是否知道任何\n23　船只的事情？\n24　答：\n是的。\n\n5439 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 55 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett—直接询问\n\n1　问：\n你知道哪些船只？\n2　答：\n有一艘——我唯一曾与之打过交道的船是，\n3　我相信是Lady May Two（梅夫人二号），后来还有一艘\n4　名为Liberty（自由号）的船。\n5　问：\n你记得关于Liberty的什么情况？\n6　答：\n我对购买Liberty一事知道不多。我\n7　记得它实际抵达时，存在大量\n8　问题。它并不十分适航。我之所以知道这一点，\n9　仅是因为与当时该船的船长交谈。\n10　问：\n战友或支持者是否使用Liberty？\n11　答：\n是。\n12　问：\n何时？\n13　答：\n是在不同场合进行播报。我无法\n14　告诉你日期。\n15　问：\n你认识一位名叫Prince Li（李王子）的人吗？\n16　答：\n是，我认识。\n17　问：\nPrince Li是谁，或者说Prince Li是什么人？\n18　答：\n我不知道他的正式头衔。对我来说，他有点\n19　近似于我会认为的\n20　支持者团队负责人。\n21　问：\n他是否带着支持者乘坐Liberty出海？\n22　答：\n我相信是的。\n23　问：\n现在，Barnett先生，你是否熟悉一处名为\n24　Mahwah（马瓦）的房产？\n25　答：\n\n5440 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 56 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett—直接询问 答：是。问：你曾到访Mahwah吗？答：是，多次。问：你首次到访Mahwah是在何时？答：我相信我不知道日期，但一定是在2022年初。我不记得日期。问：那是在其购买之前还是之后？答：我相信它被购买之前我去过一次。我不知道它实际购买的日期，但我相信我之前在那里。问：你记得当时和谁在一起吗？答：我当时和——我相信——嗯，我知道有Miles。我以为Yvette（伊薇特）也在那里，还有Mahwah住宅的业主在那里。我不记得他的名字。问：你是否问过Guo先生他是否打算——FERGENSON先生：反对，该问题具有诱导性，法官阁下。SHROFF女士：这是一个问题。问：你是否问过Guo先生他是否要购买那处房产？答：不，我没有问过他这个问题。问：Guo先生是否曾主动告诉你他为谁购买那处房产？FERGENSON先生：反对，传闻证据。法庭：因此，再次说明，这将是一个回答“是”或“否”或“我不知道”或“我不记得”一类的问题。这不是一个你重复别人告诉你的话的问题。你 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5441 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 57 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett—直接询问 明白吗？证人：是，法官阁下。法庭：继续。答：是。问：Guo先生购买那处房产时，你感到惊讶吗？答：是。问：为什么？答：它看起来不像是他会购买的那类房产，但这只是我个人的看法。问：为什么它看起来不像是他会购买的那类房产？答：我一直觉得Guo先生喜欢拥有大量土地的房产。这一特定房产虽然占地12 acres，但基本上被一个社区环绕。由于这个问题，它不容易——很难保障安全。并且出于这些原因，它非常、非常华丽。它看起来不像是我认为他会购买的房产。问：Guo先生是否曾告诉你，该房产是供他本人还是供他人使用？FERGENSON先生：反对。法庭：又来了。这是那种你不能说出他所说内容的问题。你可以说是、否、我不记得或我不知道。证人：是，法官阁下。答：是。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5442 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 58 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4 Barnett—直接询问 问：Barnett先生，在事实陈述会议期间你与政府会面时，政府是否曾向你提出与我刚刚问你的问题类似的问题？FERGENSON先生：已问已答。SHROFF女士：不是这些问题。法庭：驳回。你可以回答。答：我相信是，但我不记得他们问过我的一切。SHROFF女士：那么，再向他出示006。FERGENSON先生：法官阁下，为加快进程，我们愿意约定我们曾就Mahwah询问他。SHROFF女士：他们是否会约定他如何回答？FERGENSON先生：不会，因为那是传闻证据。法庭：我认为不会。问：当你与政府会面并被问及这些问题时，你的律师是否在场？答：是，他在场。问：在你回答完他们的所有问题之后，他们是否指控你没有讲真话？答：他们没有对我这样做，或者至少没有对我的律师这样做，据我所知没有。问：政府就这些事项与你谈过多少次？FERGENSON先生：已问已答。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n5443 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 59 of 60\n\nO78BGUO4\nBarnett—直接询问\n\n1　法庭：\n维持异议。\n2　问：\nBarnett先生，你是否预期会在本次审判中作为\n3　联邦检察官办公室的证人出庭？\n4　FERGENSON先生：\n反对。\n5　法庭：\n维持异议。\n6　问：\n联邦检察官办公室是否告诉你\n7　将传唤你作为证人？\n8　FERGENSON先生：\n反对。\n9　法庭：\n维持异议。\n10　问：\nBarnett先生，我首次联系你是在何时？\n11　答：\n我相信是在我收到出庭作证传票之后。\n12　问：\n我知道，但是什么时候，本月，还是上月？\n13　答：\n上个月，对，是的，我相信是June。\n14　问：\n你记得是June的哪一周吗？\n15　答：\n不记得。抱歉。\n16　问：\nBarnett先生，在你为Guo先生工作的所有时间里，\n17　他是否居住在Mahwah设施？\n18　答：\n不，他不住在那里。他曾住在那里，但并不\n19　居住在那里。\n20　问：\n他曾在那里停留的最长时间\n21　是多久？\n22　答：\n我相信最多约四或五天。\n23　问：\n在那四或五天中，他做什么？\n24　答：\n大多数时候，他主要会进行播报。\n25　问：\n你是否曾在Mahwah见过Guo先生的妻子？\n\n5551 Case 22-50073 Doc 3329 Filed 07/19/24 Entered 07/19/24 17:45:29 Page 60 of 60\n\n1　询问索引\n\n2　被询问人：\n页码\n3　LAI DAI（戴莱）\n4　由Shroff女士直接询问　5326\n5　由Horton先生交叉询问　.5338\n6　由Shroff女士再次直接询问　5372\n7　THOMAS BISHOP（托马斯·毕晓普）\n8　由Kamaraju先生直接询问　5381\n9　由Murray女士交叉询问　.5396\n10　由Kamaraju先生再次直接询问　5409\n11　由Murray女士再次交叉询问　.5410\n12　GERALD SCOTT BARNETT（杰拉尔德·斯科特·巴尼特）\n13　由Shroff女士直接询问　5411\n14　由Fergenson先生交叉询问　5480\n15　LEANNE LI（利安娜·李）\n16　由Shroff女士直接询问　5495\n17　GERALD SCOTT BARNETT（杰拉尔德·斯科特·巴尼特）\n18　由Fergenson先生交叉询问　5506\n19　由Shroff女士再次直接询问　5535\n20　被告人证据\n\n21　证据编号\n已接收\n22　67061\n.5420\n23　DX 60678A\n.5475\n24　DX Z-02\n.5394\n25　Stip 3\n.5395","key_entities":["Je","Guo","Kwok","Fergenson","Ho Wan Kwok","Shroff","HCHK","CIPA","Despins","RICO","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Kamaraju","Murray","Horton","Torres","Analisa Torres","Finkel","Pryor Cashman"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":151,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":155,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":272,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":284,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":465,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":523,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3916,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":14627,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-07-19 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-07-19","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:43:42"}