{"id":"court_ctb_3400_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3400,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2024-08-13","title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | | | |\n| Luc
A.
Despins,
Chapter
11
Trustee | ASCENTIQ | SOLUTIONS
LIMITED | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
Douglas S. Skalka, Patrick R. Linsey
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510
(203) 781-2847 | ATTORNEYS | (If Known) | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee
X | □ Debtor
□ Creditor
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Other | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION | | (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) | | | |\n| Complaint
of
Chapter
11
Trustee
seeking
avoidance
and
recovery
of
fraudulent
transfers
and
postpetition
transfers
and
related
relief
pursuant
to
bankruptcy
code
sections
544,
548,
549,
and
550
and
New
York
Debtor
&
Creditor
Law
Sections
273,
274,
and
276 | | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT | | | | | |\n| (Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
X
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
X
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | □
□
□
□
□ | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
65-Dischargeability - other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | □
□ | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
72-Injunctive relief – other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | □ | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | □ | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
91-Declaratory judgment | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | □
Other
□
□ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law
X | | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | | |\n| Ho
Wan
Kwok | | 22-50073
(JAM) | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport | Julie
A.
Manning | | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY | | |\n| | | | PROCEEDING NO. | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| /s/
Patrick
R.
Linsey | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | |\n| August
13,
2024 | | | Patrick
R.
Linsey | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n\nIn re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, *et al*., 1\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n:\n\nDebtors.\n\n(Jointly Administered)\n\nChapter 11\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nAdv. Proceeding No. [ ]\n\nAugust 13, 2024\n\nv.\n\nASCENTIQ SOLUTIONS LIMITED,\n\nDefendant.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, 549, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, AND 276**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Ascentiq Solutions Limited (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover: (a) transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case; and (b) transfers of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate after the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter-ego shell company Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. (\"Hamilton Capital\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$186,265.69 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as the initial transferee.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter ego shell company Hamilton Capital, transferred funds in the amount of \\$174,525.68 to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n5. Because these postpetition transfers of estate property were not authorized by the Court or under the Bankruptcy Code, they are subject to avoidance and recovery under sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n8. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 547, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 2 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n# **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. The Defendant is a United Kingdom private limited company with an address located at Office T31 103 Cranbrook Rad, Ilford, England, IG1 4PU.\n\n# **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\").\n\n12. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\". The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVT\") replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFC\") and became effective on April 4, 2020 and applies to transfers made or obligations incurred on or after April 4, 2020. With respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUFC and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278.\n\n13. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.3 While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter-ego shell companies, including Hamilton Capital.\n\n14. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n## **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n15. Hamilton Capital are among the numerous alter-ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors.4 For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members, lieutenants, and/or subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets.\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n4 On February 15, 2024, the Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against, among others, Hamilton Capital (*see Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd.,* et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249] (the \"Omnibus A.P.)), which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that this entity was the alter ego of the Debtor. The Trustee incorporates by reference herein the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Omnibus A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 24- 0249, Docket No. 1).\n\n16. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter-egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several such adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.5\n\n17. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from other Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n# **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n18. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and through it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.6\n\n19. The Bankruptcy Court has also found that the \"G Entities\" (Gettr, G Fashion, G Music, GClubs, GNews and GEdu), the New Federal State of China and the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled\n\n5 These include the following adversary proceedings: (i) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc.*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05017]; (vi) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited* [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]; (vii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]; and (viii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. ACA Capital Group Ltd.*, et al. [Adv. Proc. 24-05249].\n\n6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\nby the Debtor,7 led by the Debtor8 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.9\n\n20. Prior to the Petition Date, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, an entity originally owned by one of the Debtor's chefs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.10\n\n21. The Debtor has gone to great lengths to hinder and delay the collection efforts of one of his largest creditors, *i.e.*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"). In 2017, PAX sued the Debtor in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the \"New York Court\"), Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"PAX Case\"), seeking judgment for monies owed. On February 3, 2021, PAX obtained a judgment from the New York Court against the Debtor in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\"). PAX sought to enforce the PAX Judgment by levying the Debtor's assets—including the Lady May, which the Debtor falsely claimed was owned by his daughter, and the Debtor's luxury apartment in Manhattan, which the Debtor falsely claimed was held in trust for the Debtor's son. The Debtor's defiance of New York Court orders in postjudgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n7 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n8 *Id*. at ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.\").\n\n9 *Id*. (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\n10 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n22. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Hamilton Capital, as personal piggybanks, funding the lavish lifestyle to which he and his family had become accustomed, while concealing assets in these alter egos from his creditors and hindering and delaying creditors from recoveries on their claims. The transfers that the Debtor effectuated through these alter egos perpetuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n23. The Debtor has testified before the Bankruptcy Court that he has insufficient assets to pay his liabilities and that his luxurious lifestyle is funded by his family through businesses nominally held by family members.11 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.12\n\n24. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested by federal authorities and held without bail. On July 16, 2024, following a trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Debtor was convicted of nine felony counts, *i.e.*, racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud in connection with the Farm Loan Program, securities fraud in connection with the Farm Loan program, wire fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, securities fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, and wire fraud in connection with the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n25. In its criminal indictment of the Debtor, the United States Government asserted that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the\n\n11 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n12 *See* n.3.\n\nnames of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"13\n\n26. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Hamilton Capital, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n27. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the Transfers (as defined herein).\n\n# **D. Debtor's Shell Game and Fraud Continues Postpetition**\n\n28. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including Hamilton Capital, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n29. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, with blatant disregard for the Bankruptcy Court and his obligations under the Bankruptcy Code, continued to effectuate transfers through numerous alter ego shell companies, including, without limitation, Hamilton Capital.\n\n30. None of these postpetition transfers were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court nor were such transfers authorized under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# **E. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n31. The Transfers at issue in this Complaint were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were made through the Debtor's alter-ego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n32. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many\n\n13 *See* Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief (June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934).\n\ncreditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n33. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor has been convicted of multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 395] (July 18, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n34. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n### **F. Tolling of Avoidance Claims**\n\n35. On February 15, 2024, the Court entered its *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion to Extend Deadlines* [Main Case Docket No. 2921] (the \"Tolling Order\"), in which the Court, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b), extended the time limitations set forth in Sections 108, 546, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions through and including August 15, 2024.\n\n36. In the Tolling Order, the Court found that since the Petition Date, the Debtor has, among other things, filed incomplete or inaccurate schedules and statements of financial affairs, failed to provide books and records to the Trustee, and otherwise failed to cooperate with the Trustee, all in flagrant disregard for his obligations as a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. (Tolling Order at p. 14.).\n\n37. The Debtor's family members and other individuals and entities associated with him have likewise obstructed the Trustee's investigation, as evidenced by the Court's entry of \"at least eight orders holding the … Debtor, his daughter, [Mei] Guo, and entities allegedly controlled by the … Debtor in contempt for failure to turn over assets and discovery abuse.\" (*Id.* at p. 15.) The Court found the \"noncompliance with this Court's orders in these jointly administered chapter 11 cases, is extraordinary\" (*id.*), and that, in the face of such obstruction, the Trustee's investigation has been \"more than reasonably diligent\" (*id.* at p. 17).\n\n38. The Trustee has acted diligently in investigating and pursuing the claims asserted in this Complaint.\n\n39. In light of, among other things, the extraordinary obstruction that the Trustee has faced in conducting his diligent investigation, the balance of the equities strongly favors equitable tolling of any statutes of limitations applicable to the claims asserted herein.\n\n### **G. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n40. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell company Hamilton Capital, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n41. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell company Hamilton Capital, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (the \"Postpetition Transfer, and with the Prepetition Transfers, collectively the \"Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n42. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n43. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n# **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n44. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1- 43 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n45. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor through his alter ego, Hamilton Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n46. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors and/or by causing valuable assets to be placed in the hands of the Debtor's family members;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\n> g. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n47. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(i)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n48. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-43 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n49. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter ego company,\n\nHamilton Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n50. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nPrepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors and/or by causing valuable assets to be placed in the hands of the Debtor's family members;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n51. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n# **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n52. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-43 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n53. The Postpetition Transfer was made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, Hamilton Capital.\n\n54. The Postpetition Transfer occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n55. The Postpetition Transfer was not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n56. The Postpetition Transfer constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n57. The Postpetition Transfer is avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n58. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfer, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\n\n*[REMAINDER OF PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]*\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$186,265.69 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$186,265.69 are avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2), 274 and 276 and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278; (b) an order directing that the Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfer in an amount not less than \\$174,525.68 is avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n4. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under\n\nthe circumstances.\n\nDated: August 13, 2024 New Haven, CT LUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3400 Filed 08/13/24 Entered 08/13/24 11:59:36 Page 20 of 20\n\n# **SCHEDULE B**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\n（说明见背面）　对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告　被告\nLuc\nA.\nDespins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n第11章\n\n受托人　ASCENTIQ SOLUTIONS\nLIMITED（阿森提克解决方案有限公司）\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址和电话号码）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）、Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, CT 06510\n(203) 781-2847　律师　（如知悉）\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\nX　□ 债务人\n□ 债权人\n□ 受托人　当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 其他\n\n诉因　（简要说明诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第11章\n\n受托人\n依据\n《破产法典》\n第544、\n548、\n549\n及550条\n以及\n《纽约州债务人与债权人法》\n第273、\n274\n及276条，\n请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及申请破产后转让并给予相关救济的\n起诉书\n\n诉讼性质\n（最多编号五（5）个方框，以主要诉因为1，第一个备选诉因为2，第二个备选诉因为3，依此类推。）\n《联邦破产程序规则》7001(1)——金钱/财产的追回\n□\n11——金钱/财产的追回——第542条财产返还\n□\n12——金钱/财产的追回——第547条优先受偿\n□\nX\n13——金钱/财产的追回——第548条欺诈性转让\n□\nX\n14——金钱/财产的追回——其他\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》7001(2)——留置权的有效性、优先权或范围\n□\n21——留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围　□\n□\n□\n□\n□　《联邦破产程序规则》7001(6)——可免责性（续）\n61——可免责性——§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n68——可免责性——§523(a)(6)，故意及恶意伤害\n63——可免责性——§523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n64——可免责性——§523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\n65——可免责性——其他\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》7001(3)——批准出售财产\n□\n31——批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产——§363(h)　□\n□　《联邦破产程序规则》7001(7)——禁令救济\n71——禁令救济——实施中止\n72——禁令救济——其他\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》7001(4)——对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n41——对免责提出异议/撤销免责——§727(c),(d),(e)　□　《联邦破产程序规则》7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后\n81——债权或权益的劣后\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》7001(5)——撤销确认\n□\n51——撤销确认　□　《联邦破产程序规则》7001(9) 确认判决\n91——确认判决\n\n《联邦破产程序规则》7001(6)——可免责性\n□\n66——可免责性——§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税务债权\n□\n62——可免责性——§523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67——可免责性——§523(a)(4)，作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏）　□\n其他\n□\n□　《联邦破产程序规则》7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n01——对移送债权或诉因的裁定\nSS——SIPA案件——15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n02——其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选\nX　□ 如主张本案为依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》23条的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如在起诉书中请求陪审团审判，请勾选　请求 \\$\n\n请求的其他救济\n\nB1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由发生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名　破产案件编号\nHo\nWan\nKwok（郭文贵）　22-50073\n(JAM)\n\n案件审理地区　分院办事处　法官姓名\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）　Bridgeport（布里奇波特）　Julie\nA.\nManning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告　被告　对抗\n程序编号\n\n对抗程序审理地区　分院办事处　法官姓名\n\n律师（或原告）签名\n\n/s/\nPatrick\nR.\nLinsey\n\n日期　律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nAugust\n13,\n2024　Patrick\nR.\nLinsey\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下设立一项“财产集合”，其中包括债务人的所有财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产集合范围广泛且法院管辖权十分宽泛，可能会就该财产集合的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能会发生涉及债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提交对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格1040，即对抗程序封面页，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF将表格1040上的信息作为提交程序的一部分予以采集。）填写完成后，该封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产程序规则》或法院地方法规所要求的诉状或其他文件的提交及送达。该封面页大部分不言自明，必须由原告的律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的起诉书均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉书中所载的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如知悉，请填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中所请求的金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签名。如原告由律师事务所代理，该事务所的一名成员必须签名。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则原告必须签名。\n\n美国破产法院\n\n康涅狄格州地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，1\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\n：\n\n债务人。\n\n（合并管理）\n\n第11章\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n原告，\n\n对抗程序编号：[ ]\n\nAugust 13, 2024\n\n诉\n\nASCENTIQ SOLUTIONS LIMITED（阿森提克解决方案有限公司），\n\n被告。\n\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、548、549及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及申请破产后转让并给予相关救济的起诉书\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其获指定担任Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）第11章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，提起本\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（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（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（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，c/o Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok财产集合的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n对抗起诉书（“起诉书”），针对被告Ascentiq Solutions Limited（阿森提克解决方案有限公司）（“被告”）提出如下陈述：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回：(a) 于本第11章案件开始前转让的债务人财产；及(b) 于本第11章案件开始后转让的债务人第11章财产集合的财产，且该等转让未经破产法院授权，亦未根据《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）获得授权。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.（“Hamilton Capital”），于申请日（定义见下文）前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为\\$186,265.69的资金。\n\n3. 该等转让构成实际欺诈，因为债务人作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施该等转让，且该等转让系出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出。\n\n4. 申请日后，债务人通过其另我空壳公司Hamilton Capital，向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为\\$174,525.68的资金。\n\n5. 因为该等申请破产后对财产集合财产的转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，根据《破产法典》第549及550条，该等转让应予撤销并追回。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n6. 本院依据28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 本对抗程序已依据28 U.S.C. § 157(a)移交本院审理。\n\n8. 本文所请求救济的法定依据包括《破产法典》第544、547、548、549及550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274及276条2，或任何其他适用的州法同等规定。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人依据破产法院于July 8, 2022作出的命令[案件编号22-50073（“主案件”）卷宗编号523]，担任第11章案件中的第11章受托人。\n\n10. 被告是一家英国私人有限公司，地址为Office T31 103 Cranbrook Rad, Ilford, England, IG1 4PU。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n11. 债务人于February 15, 2022在United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州地区美国破产法院）（“破产法院”）依据《美国法典》第11编第11章（“破产法典”）提交自愿救济申请（“申请日”），由此启动上文所列标题的第11章案件（“第11章案件”）。\n\n12. 于March 21, 2022，United States Trustee办公室在本第11章案件中指定了一个无担保债权人正式委员会。尚未指定审查员。\n\n2 此后，所有对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的法条引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law”。《纽约州统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVT”）取代了《纽约州统一欺诈性让与法》（“NYUFC”），并于April 4, 2020生效，适用于在April 4, 2020当日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。就April 4, 2020之前的转让而言，受托人在本诉讼中根据NYUFC及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273、273a、275、276及278条寻求救济。\n\n13. 债务人于March 2022向破产法院提交的破产财产清单声称，其拥有\\$3,850的资产，并负有数亿美元的债务。3 虽然债务人的确债台高筑，但其财产清单未披露债务人通过其众多另我空壳公司（包括Hamilton Capital）持有和/或转让的财产。\n\n14. 于June 15, 2022，破产法院作出决定备忘录及命令[主案件卷宗编号465]，指示United States Trustee在第11章案件中指定一名第11章受托人。根据该命令，United States Trustee选定Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任受托人。于July 8, 2022，破产法院作出命令，批准指定Luc A. Despins担任第11章案件的受托人[主案件卷宗编号523]。\n\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. Hamilton Capital属于债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多另我空壳公司。4 多年来，债务人精心策划了一场“空壳游戏”，利用由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的错综复杂的空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人能够使用、支出和/或转让数百万美元现金及其他资产。\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页[主案卷宗编号78]。\n\n4 2024年2月15日，受托人对包括Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本）在内的各方提起了一项对抗程序（参见Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]（“综合对抗程序”）），该对抗程序除其他事项外，请求作出确认判决，确认该实体为债务人的另我。受托人通过援引将其在综合对抗程序中提交的受托人起诉状纳入本文（Adv. Proc. No. 24-0249, Docket No. 1）。\n\n16. 自受任以来，受托人在第11章案件中提起了多项对抗程序，除其他事项外，以确立债务人的空壳公司是其另我，和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；在其中数项对抗程序中，破产法院已准予该等救济。5\n\n17. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属和/或下属持有的空壳公司，(ii) 使用来自其他由债务人控制实体的现金购得的资产，和/或无对价转让给空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转让的资产，以及(iii) 债务人从该等资产中受益，并对该等资产享有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n18. 除受托人对抗程序所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是Ace Decade Limited（十年王牌有限公司）的受益所有人（并通过该公司成为Dawn State Limited（曙光州有限公司）的受益所有人），且债务人控制并使用了Ace Decade Limited的名义股东Yvette Wang（王悦）。6\n\n19. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews和GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）和Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他表面上独立的实体和组织，均由债务人控制\n\n5 其中包括以下对抗程序：(i) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘斯）, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo（郭美） [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；(vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]；以及(viii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. ACA Capital Group Ltd., et al. [Adv. Proc. 24-05249]。\n\n6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”).\n\n由债务人领导7和/或为债务人的“目的服务……并作为债务人的商业工具”。8\n\n20. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的Liman法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）——该实体最初由债务人的一名厨师所有，后转让给债务人的女儿——“实质上是一家”债务人的“空壳公司”。10\n\n21. 债务人不遗余力地阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一，即Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）的追偿努力。2017年，PAX在Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）起诉债务人，案号Index No. 652077/2017（“PAX案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX从纽约法院获得针对债务人的判决，金额为$116,402,019.57（“PAX判决”）。PAX试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行PAX判决——包括Lady May（梅夫人号），债务人虚假声称该游艇归其女儿所有；以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人虚假声称该公寓为其儿子以信托形式持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗纽约法院命令，最终导致其被处以$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n7 Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (“债务人还控制Saraca Media Group（娑罗媒体集团）和关联实体‘GTV’”）。\n\n8 同上，第7段（“债务人是The Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）、NFSC、ROLF和Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n9 同上（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries和Himalaya为债务人的目的服务，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员对债务人个人忠诚。”）。\n\n10 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n22. 债务人还将包括Hamilton Capital在内的其另我作为个人钱袋，用以资助他及其家人已经习惯的奢华生活方式，同时将资产隐匿于该等另我之中以躲避债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得清偿。债务人通过该等另我实施的转让延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n23. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以清偿债务，其奢华生活方式由其家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业提供资金。11 债务人仅列报$3,850的资产。12\n\n24. 2023年3月，债务人被联邦当局逮捕，并被无保释羁押。2024年7月16日，在纽约南区联邦地区法院审判后，债务人被判九项重罪罪名成立，即敲诈勒索共谋、实施电信欺诈和银行欺诈共谋、洗钱共谋、实施证券欺诈共谋、与Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）有关的电信欺诈、与Farm Loan Program有关的证券欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的电信欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的证券欺诈，以及与Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有关的电信欺诈。\n\n25. 在对债务人的刑事起诉书中，美国政府主张，债务人及其共同被告“利用以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的约500多个账户，对超过$1 billion的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”13\n\n11 Hearing on Debtor’s Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n12 参见注3。\n\n26. 在申请日之前的任何时候，债务人另我（包括Hamilton Capital）的财产均为债务人的财产。\n\n27. 在与本文有关的所有期间内，债务人在纽约州纽约市经营业务，包括指示转让（定义见下文）。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳游戏和欺诈在申请后持续进行\n\n28. 截至申请日，债务人通过其另我（包括Hamilton Capital）持有的全部财产均成为第11章破产财产。参见11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n29. 申请日后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其在《破产法》下的义务，继续通过众多另我空壳公司实施转让，包括但不限于Hamilton Capital。\n\n30. 该等申请后转让均未经破产法院授权，亦未获《破产法》授权。\n\nE. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n31. 本起诉状所涉转让系为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出，因为该等转让是通过作为债务人空壳游戏一部分运营的债务人另我空壳公司作出的。\n\n32. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以便隐匿和耗散数百万美元资产，同时向其众多债权人虚假声称贫困。债务人声称自己一贫如洗，同时却为自己、其家庭成员和密切关联人维持亿万富翁生活方式而大量支出。\n\n33. 债务人隐匿和耗散的资产包括其从其加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害者处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在纽约南区联邦地区法院待决的一起刑事案件中，已被判多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索罪名成立。参见United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 395] (July 18, 2024 S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n34. 债务人知悉并意图通过以该等方式隐匿和耗散其资产，不会有足够的剩余资产偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈行为的受害者。因此，该等转让必然是为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出的。\n\nF. 撤销请求的时效中止\n\n35. 2024年2月15日，法院作出Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion to Extend Deadlines [Main Case Docket No. 2921]（“时效中止命令”），其中法院根据Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)，将受托人提起撤销诉讼的《破产法》第108、546和549条规定的期限延长至2024年8月15日（含当日）。\n\n36. 在时效中止命令中，法院认定，自申请日以来，债务人除其他事项外，提交了不完整或不准确的财产清单和财务状况说明，未向受托人提供账簿和记录，并且以其他方式未与受托人合作，所有这些均公然无视其作为《破产法》下债务人的义务。（Tolling Order at p. 14.）\n\n37. 债务人的家庭成员以及与其关联的其他个人和实体同样阻碍了受托人的调查，法院作出的“至少八项命令”即为证明，该等命令认定“……债务人、其女儿、[Mei] Guo（郭美）以及据称由……债务人控制的实体，因未交付资产和滥用证据开示程序而藐视法庭。”（同上，第15页。）法院认定，“在这些合并管理的第11章案件中不遵守本院命令的行为，是非同寻常的”（同上），并且，面对该等阻碍，受托人的调查“一直是超过合理勤勉程度的”（同上，第17页）。\n\n38. 受托人在调查和追究本起诉状中主张的请求方面已勤勉行事。\n\n39. 鉴于除其他事项外，受托人在进行勤勉调查时所面对的非同寻常阻碍，衡平因素的权衡强烈支持对适用于本文所主张请求的任何时效进行衡平法时效中止。\n\nG. 向被告作出的转让\n\n40. 在申请日之前，债务人使用其另我空壳公司Hamilton Capital，或以其他方式，将债务人的财产转让给被告（“申请前转让”），包括但不限于如下所列：\n\n参见附于本文并构成本文一部分的附表A。\n\n41. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本），或以其他方式，向被告转让了破产财产（以下简称“申请日后转让”，其与申请日前转让合称“转让”），包括但不限于如下各项：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表 B。\n\n42. 在进行转让时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n43. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n（根据《破产法》sections 548(a)(1)(A)和550(a)请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n44. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至43段所载事实主张，如同在此完整载明。\n\n45. 债务人通过作为其另我的 Hamilton Capital，以实际意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的方式作出了申请日前转让。\n\n46. 债务人在实施申请日前转让时意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人，可由包括但不限于下列事实证明：\n\na. 申请日前转让系通过作为另我的空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请日前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转让是债务人为隐匿和保护资产，在其控制的家庭成员及其他副手和下属协助下实施的“空壳游戏”的一部分；\n\nd. 申请日前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获益，而不使其财产受债权人追索，和/或通过使有价值的资产落入债务人家庭成员之手，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请日前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受债权人追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请日前转让时，债务人正面临诉讼，包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在申请日前转让时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n47. 根据《破产法》section 548(a)(i)(A)，申请日前转让可由受托人撤销，并可根据《破产法》section 550(a)追回。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273、274和276，以及《破产法》sections 544(b)和550(a)请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n48. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至43段所载事实主张，如同在此完整载明。\n\n49. 债务人通过作为其另我的公司 Hamilton Capital，以实际意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的方式作出了申请日前转让。\n\n50. 债务人在实施申请日前转让时意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人，可由包括但不限于下列事实证明：\n\na. 申请日前转让系通过作为另我的空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请日前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转让是债务人为隐匿和保护资产，在其控制的家庭成员及其他副手和下属协助下实施的“空壳游戏”的一部分；\n\nd. 申请日前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获益，而不使其财产受债权人追索，和/或通过使有价值的资产落入债务人家庭成员之手，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请日前转让通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受债权人追索，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请日前转让时，债务人正面临诉讼，包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在转让时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n51. 根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1)、274和276，以及《破产法》section 544(b)，申请日前转让可由受托人撤销，并可根据《破产法》section 550(a)追回。\n\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法》sections 549和550(a)请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请日后转让）\n\n52. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至43段所载事实主张，如同在此完整载明。\n\n53. 债务人向被告作出了申请日后转让，包括通过作为其另我的空壳公司 Hamilton Capital 作出该转让。\n\n54. 申请日后转让发生于申请日之后。\n\n55. 申请日后转让未经破产法院或《破产法》授权。\n\n56. 申请日后转让构成对债务人第11章破产财产未经授权的转让。\n\n57. 根据《破产法》section 549(a)，申请日后转让可予撤销。\n\n58. 根据《破产法》section 550(a)，受托人有权向被告追回申请日后转让或其价值，并收取其自发生之日起至付款日止的利息以及本案费用。\n\n［本页其余部分特意留白］\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A)，金额不少于$186,265.69的申请日前转让已被撤销；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销该等转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产的利益，向被告追回该等转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告根据《破产法》section 544(b)和 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(2)、274和276，以及就2020年4月4日之前的转让而言，根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273、273a、275、276和278，金额不少于$186,265.69的申请日前转让已被撤销；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销该转让；以及 (c) 根据 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276和《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产的利益，向被告追回该等转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求而言，作出命令，(a) 宣告根据《破产法》section 549，金额不少于$174,525.68的申请日后转让已被撤销；以及 (b) 作出命令，责令撤销申请日后转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产的利益，向被告追回申请日后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 判给受托人自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院在该等情形下认为公正、适当或符合衡平原则的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：August 13, 2024\nNew Haven, CT\nLUC A. DESPINS 第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人的律师\n\n附表 A\n\n密封提交\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3400 Filed 08/13/24 Entered 08/13/24 11:59:36 Page 20 of 20\n\n附表 B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","HCHK","GTV","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":395,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5135,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-08-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-08-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:02:27"}