{"id":"court_ctb_3431_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3431,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"title":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ,QVWUXFWLRQVRQ5HYHUVH | &RXUW8VH2QO\\ |\n| | |\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS |\n| Luc
A.
Despins,
Chapter
11
Trustee | Bouillor
Holdings
Limited,
Qiang
Guo,
Mei
Guo, |\n| | New
Dynamic
Development
Limited |\n| ATTORNEYS )LUP1DPH\\$GGUHVVDQG7HOHSKRQH1R | ATTORNEYS,I.QRZQ |\n| Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. (c/o Patrick R. Linsey), 195 | For Mei Guo: Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (c/o Lee Vartan), 105
Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068, (973)530-2107, |\n| Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, (203)
781-2847, plinsey@npmlaw.com | lvartan@csglaw.com. For Qiang Guo: Arethusa Forsyth, arethusaf@proton.me |\n| PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\ | PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\ |\n| Ƒ
'HEWRU
Ƒ
867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ | Ƒ
Ƒ
'HEWRU
867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ |\n| Ƒ
&UHGLWRU
Ƒ
2WKHU | Ƒ
Ƒ
&UHGLWRU
2WKHU |\n| Ƒ
7UXVWHH | Ƒ
7UXVWHH |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION | :5,7(\\$%5,()67\\$7(0(172)&\\$86(2)\\$&7,21,1&/8',1*\\$//8667\\$787(6,192/9(' |\n| First Claim, an order declaring that Debtor is the true beneficial owner of Bouillor and its assets (including Cyprus Apartment) and | |\n| ordering turnover of ownership and assets of Bouillor to Trustee; Second Claim, an order declaring that Debtor is the true beneficial | |\n| owner of New Dynamic and its assets; Third Claim, in alternative to First Claim, the Funding Transfer is avoidable by Trustee as to the
entirety of the Funding Transfer from Defendant Qiang Guo, and as to \\$3.9 million of the Funding Transfer from Defendant Bouillor. | |\n| | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT | |\n| 1XPEHUXSWRILYHER[HVVWDUWLQJZLWKOHDGFDXVHRIDFWLRQDVILUVWDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVVHFRQGDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVHWF | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued) |\n| Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†WXUQRYHURISURSHUW\\
Ƒ | Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW
Ƒ |\n| 5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†SUHIHUHQFH
Ƒ | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DZLOOIXODQGPDOLFLRXVLQMXU\\
Ƒ |\n| 5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†IUDXGXOHQWWUDQVIHU
Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\RWKHU | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DVWXGHQWORDQ
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGLYRUFHRUVHSDUDWLRQREOLJDWLRQ |\n| | RWKHUWKDQGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
Ƒ
9DOLGLW\\SULRULW\\RUH[WHQWRIOLHQRURWKHULQWHUHVWLQSURSHUW\\ | Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\RWKHU |\n| | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
Ƒ | Ƒ
,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±LPSRVLWLRQRIVWD\\ |\n| \\$SSURYDORIVDOHRISURSHUW\\RIHVWDWHDQGRIDFRRZQHU†K | Ƒ
,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±RWKHU |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest |\n| Ƒ
2EMHFWLRQUHYRFDWLRQRIGLVFKDUJH†FGH | Ƒ
6XERUGLQDWLRQRIFODLPRULQWHUHVW |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment |\n| Ƒ
5HYRFDWLRQRIFRQILUPDWLRQ | Ƒ
'HFODUDWRU\\MXGJPHQW |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action |\n| Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†D\\$SULRULW\\WD[FODLPV | Ƒ
'HWHUPLQDWLRQRIUHPRYHGFODLPRUFDXVH |\n| Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIDOVHSUHWHQVHVIDOVHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ | |\n| DFWXDOIUDXG
Ƒ | Other
Ƒ |\n| 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIUDXGDVILGXFLDU\\HPEH]]OHPHQWODUFHQ\\ | 666,3\\$&DVH±86&††DDDet.seq.
Ƒ
2WKHUHJRWKHUDFWLRQVWKDWZRXOGKDYHEHHQEURXJKWLQVWDWHFRXUW |\n| (continued next column) | LIXQUHODWHGWREDQNUXSWF\\FDVH |\n| Ƒ
&KHFNLIWKLVFDVHLQYROYHVDVXEVWDQWLYHLVVXHRIVWDWHODZ | Ƒ
&KHFNLIWKLVLVDVVHUWHGWREHDFODVVDFWLRQXQGHU)5&3 |\n| Ƒ &KHFNLIDMXU\\WULDOLVGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW | 'HPDQG |\n| 2WKHU5HOLHI6RXJKW | |\n| Declaratory
relief
pursuant
to
sections
541,
542,
and | 544
of
the
Bankruptcy
Code |\n\n| | | BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | |\n|-------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------|\n| 1\\$0(2)'(%725 | | %\\$1.5837&<&\\$6(12 | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | | 22-50573 (JAM) |\n| ',675,&7,1:+,&+&\\$6(,63(1',1* | | ',9,6,212)),&( | 1\\$0(2)-8'*( |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport | Manning, J. |\n| | | RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | |\n| 3/\\$,17,)) | '()(1'\\$17 | | \\$'9(56\\$5< |\n| | | | 352&((',1*12 |\n| | | | |\n| ',675,&7,1:+,&+\\$'9(56\\$5<,63(1',1* | | ',9,6,212)),&( | 1\\$0(2)-8'*( |\n| | | | |\n| 6,*1\\$785(2)\\$77251(<253/\\$,17,)) | | | |\n| | | | |\n| /s/ 'RXJODVV%DUURQ | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| '\\$7( | | 35,171\\$0(2)\\$77251(<253/\\$,17,)) | |\n| | | Patrick
R.
Linsey | |\n| Aug.
15,
2024 | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\n7KHILOLQJRIDEDQNUXSWF\\FDVHFUHDWHVDQ³HVWDWH´XQGHUWKHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHEDQNUXSWF\\FRXUWZKLFKFRQVLVWVRI DOORIWKHSURSHUW\\RIWKHGHEWRUZKHUHYHUWKDWSURSHUW\\LVORFDWHG%HFDXVHWKHEDQNUXSWF\\HVWDWHLVVRH[WHQVLYHDQGWKH MXULVGLFWLRQRIWKHFRXUWVREURDGWKHUHPD\\EHODZVXLWVRYHUWKHSURSHUW\\RUSURSHUW\\ULJKWVRIWKHHVWDWH7KHUHDOVRPD\\EH ODZVXLWVFRQFHUQLQJWKHGHEWRU¶VGLVFKDUJH,IVXFKDODZVXLWLVILOHGLQDEDQNUXSWF\\FRXUWLWLVFDOOHGDQDGYHUVDU\\ SURFHHGLQJ\n\n\\$SDUW\\ILOLQJDQDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJPXVWDOVRPXVWFRPSOHWHDQGILOH)RUPWKH\\$GYHUVDU\\3URFHHGLQJ &RYHU6KHHWXQOHVVWKHSDUW\\ILOHVWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJHOHFWURQLFDOO\\WKURXJKWKHFRXUW¶V&DVH0DQDJHPHQW(OHFWURQLF &DVH)LOLQJV\\VWHP&0(&)&0(&)FDSWXUHVWKHLQIRUPDWLRQRQIRUPDVSDUWRIWKHILOLQJSURFHVV:KHQ FRPSOHWHGWKHFRYHUVKHHWVXPPDUL]HVEDVLFLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJ7KHFOHUNRIFRXUWQHHGVWKH LQIRUPDWLRQWRSURFHVVWKHDGYHUVDU\\SURFHHGLQJDQGSUHSDUHUHTXLUHGVWDWLVWLFDOUHSRUWVRQFRXUWDFWLYLW\\\n\n7KHFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGRQLWGRQRWUHSODFHRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJV RURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\\ODZWKH%DQNUXSWF\\5XOHVRUWKHORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KHFRYHUVKHHWZKLFKLVODUJHO\\VHOI H[SODQDWRU\\PXVWEHFRPSOHWHGE\\WKHSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\\RUE\\WKHSODLQWLIILIWKHSODLQWLIILVQRWUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DQ DWWRUQH\\\\$VHSDUDWHFRYHUVKHHWPXVWEHVXEPLWWHGWRWKHFOHUNIRUHDFKFRPSODLQWILOHG\n\n**Plaintiffs** DQG**Defendants.**\\*LYHWKHQDPHVRIWKHSODLQWLIIVDQGGHIHQGDQWVH[DFWO\\DVWKH\\DSSHDURQWKHFRPSODLQW\n\n**Attorneys.**\\*LYHWKHQDPHVDQGDGGUHVVHVRIWKHDWWRUQH\\VLINQRZQ\n\n**Party**&KHFNWKHPRVWDSSURSULDWHER[LQWKHILUVWFROXPQIRUWKHSODLQWLIIVDQGWKHVHFRQGFROXPQIRUWKHGHIHQGDQWV\n\n**Demand.** (QWHUWKHGROODUDPRXQWEHLQJGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW\n\n**Signature.**7KLVFRYHUVKHHWPXVWEHVLJQHGE\\WKHDWWRUQH\\RIUHFRUGLQWKHER[RQWKHVHFRQGSDJHRIWKHIRUP,IWKH SODLQWLIILVUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DODZILUPDPHPEHURIWKHILUPPXVWVLJQ,IWKHSODLQWLIILVSURVHWKDWLVQRWUHSUHVHQWHGE\\DQ DWWRUQH\\WKHSODLQWLIIPXVWVLJQ\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------------
x | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|\n| :
In re:
: | Chapter 11 |\n| :
1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al.,
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| :
Debtors.
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
:
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
:
TRUSTEE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
: | Adv. Proceeding No. [
] |\n| :
BOUILLOR HOLDINGS LIMITED,
:
QIANG GUO, MEI GUO, NEW DYNAMIC
:
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
: | |\n| :
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
x | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK, PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 541, 542, AND 544, SEEKING (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT BOUILLOR HOLDINGS LIMITED AND CYPRUS APARTMENT ARE PROPERTY OF ESTATE AND (II) OTHER RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\n| | | chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" | | | or \"Kwok\"), files
this |\n|--|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|---------------------------|\n|--|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|---------------------------|\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendants Bouillor Holdings Limited, Qiang\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\nGuo, Mei Guo, and New Dynamic Development Limited (together the \"Defendants\"). In support of this Complaint, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n# **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. By this Complaint, the Trustee seeks to, among other things, recover the Debtor's luxurious high-rise apartment at number 23-03 in the \"One Limassol\" building in Limassol, Cyprus (the \"Cyprus Apartment\"), held in the name of Bouillor Holdings Limited (\"Bouillor\"), a Cyprus entity nominally owned by Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son. Images of the One Limassol building, the tallest building in Cyprus, are set forth below:\n\n![](_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg)\n\n![](_page_3_Picture_5.jpeg)\n\n2. Like other shell companies and assets the Debtor has hidden from his creditors by placing them under the nominal ownership of family members and close associates, Bouillor and the Cyprus Apartment, despite being nominally owned by the Debtor's son, are, in reality, beneficially owned by the Debtor and constitute property of the estate that should be turned over to the Trustee for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors (the \"Bouillor Ownership Claim\").\n\n3. Moreover, as detailed further below, the Debtor funded the purchase of the Cyprus Apartment using other shell companies, in particular New Dynamic Development Limited (\"New Dynamic\"), a Hong Kong entity nominally owned at the time by the Debtor's employee, Natasha Qu. This Court has already found that New Dynamic funded the maintenance of the Debtor's Bombardier jet and\n\n> . [2](#page-4-0) Further, as the Court will\n\nrecall,\n\n. In 2017, nominal ownership of New Dynamic was transferred from Natasha Qu to the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, and New Dynamic was subsequently dissolved in 2021. Notably, the 2017 transfer of New Dynamic to Mei Guo occurred on the same date, June 27, 2017, as the transfer to Mei Guo of other shell companies the Court is familiar with, such as Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\") (which held title to the *Lady May* prior to the yacht being transferred to HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited (\"HK USA\")), Anton Development Limited (which held title to the Debtor's Bombardier private jet prior to the aircraft being transferred to Whitecroft Shore Limited\n\n2 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment,* ¶¶ 14-15 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126].\n\n(\"Whitecroft\")), and Eastern Profit Corporation (which Judge Liman of the District Court of the Southern District of New York found to be a shell company of the Debtor). Given these and other facts related to New Dynamic, the Trustee seeks a ruling that New Dynamic and its assets were beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\n4. In the alternative to the Bouillor Ownership Claim, the Trustee asserts an alternative claim that the transfer of funds by New Dynamic and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\") to Qiang Guo to purchase the Cyprus Apartment, which resulted in Bouillor acquiring title to the Cyprus Apartment, was an actual fraudulent transfer by the Debtor that is avoidable and recoverable by the Trustee pursuant to the New York Debtor Creditor Law and section 544(b) of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and recoverable pursuant to section 550(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n6. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a). Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n## **PARTIES**\n\n7. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523]\n\n8. Bouillor is a Cyprus entity nominally owned by Qiang Guo.\n\n9. Qiang Guo is the Debtor's son.\n\n10. New Dynamic is Hong Kong entity nominally owned by Mei Guo.\n\n11. Mei Guo is the Debtor's daughter.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n#### **I. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies**\n\n12. As the Court is well aware, the Trustee has filed numerous pleadings detailing the Debtor's scheme of using shell companies, nominally owned by family members or business subordinates, that in reality are his alter egos and equitably or beneficially owned by him, to launder money, conceal his business dealings, and hide his valuable assets from creditors.\n\n13. The Trustee has already brought litigation, that remains pending or in which the Trustee has prevailed, asserting alter ego and equitable ownership claims (or similar claims under applicable law, which shall be defined herein, together with alter ego and equitable ownership claims, as \"Alter Ego Claims\") with respect to numerous of the Debtor's shell companies and/or their purported assets (the \"Alter Ego Complaints\"). [3](#page-6-0) Thus far, the Trustee has prevailed on Alter Ego Claims with respect to a number of entities, including HK USA, which held title to the Debtor's *Lady May* yacht; Whitecroft, which held title to the Debtor's Bombardier private jet; Golden Spring and Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), which the Debtor used as funding vehicles; Greenwich Land LLC, which the Debtor used to hold title to real property in Connecticut; and HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., and Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. The Trustee has also prevailed on his claims that the *Lady May* yacht and the Bombardier private jet were, in fact, owned by the Debtor and thus property of the estate.\n\n3 The Alter Ego Complaints are comprised of the Trustee's complaints filed *Despins v. Greenwich Land LLC et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005], *Despins v. Mei Guo* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008], *Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013], *Despins v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05017], *Despins v. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018], *Despins v. Lamp Capital LLC et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023], and *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd., et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 24- 05249], as well as the Trustee's counterclaims filed in *HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC v. Despins* [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003].\n\n14. With respect to Qiang Guo, one of the Alter Ego Complaints[4](#page-7-0) asserts Alter Ego Claims with respect to, among other entities, K Legacy Ltd. (\"K Legacy\"), a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") entity nominally owned by Qiang Guo that holds title to the Debtor's luxury apartment in London, as well as with respect to Leading Shine Limited (\"Leading Shine BVI\"), a BVI entity nominally owned by Qiang Guo that holds title to the Debtor's mansion in Hong Kong. In addition, the Trustee has filed a complaint against Qiang Guo and 56 other defendants seeking damages for violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and conspiracy to violate the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (the \"RICO Complaint\").[5](#page-7-1) Rather than repeat the allegations set forth in the Alter Ego Complaints and RICO Complaint here, the Trustee incorporates by reference the allegations set forth therein.\n\n15. In addition, the Trustee has commenced over 270 adversary proceedings seeking the avoidance of fraudulent and post-petition transfers made by the Debtor through his shell companies (the \"Avoidance Litigation\"). The Avoidance Litigation includes adversary proceedings against Qiang Guo seeking the avoidance and recovery of over \\$90 million in transfers to Qiang Guo and/or transfers to other parties for his benefit.\n\n#### **II. Debtor's Criminal Case**\n\n16. On March 15, 2023, United States federal authorities arrested the Debtor and his assistant Yvette Wang on fraud and money-laundering charges. Also on March 15, 2023, United Kingdom law enforcement in London, working in partnership with U.S. authorities, attempted to arrest the Debtor's financial advisor, William Je, in connection with the same criminal charges.\n\n4 *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd. et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249] (the \"First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint\").\n\n5 The RICO Complaint was filed in connection with *Despins v. Ngok, et al.* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05273].\n\n17. The U.S. Government alleged that, in the period between 2018 and 2023, the Debtor lead, with the assistance of his co-defendants William Je and Yvette Wang, a massive billion-dollar fraud and money-laundering scheme as part of which the Debtor and his codefendants systematically raised money from the Debtor's online followers for a series of purported investment schemes, laundered the funds through a vast network of shell companies and bank accounts, and then used such funds for their own personal benefit and to perpetuate their fraudulent schemes. Among other things, the U.S. Government alleged that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of at least 80 different entities or individuals\" to launder fraud proceeds[6](#page-8-0) and that \"[h]undreds of millions of dollars of the fraudulent scheme's proceeds were transferred, either directly or indirectly, to bank accounts in the United States, the Bahamas, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\"), among other places.\"[7](#page-8-1)\n\n18. In addition to fraud and money-laundering charges, the U.S. Government's operative indictment accuses the Debtor and his co-defendants of a criminal racketeering conspiracy in violation of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (the \"Criminal RICO Charge\"). The Criminal RICO Charge asserted that the Debtor is the leader of a criminal enterprise (the \"Kwok Enterprise\") \"operated through a series of complex fraudulent and fictitious businesses and investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated entities, which allowed the defendants and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and misappropriate\n\n6 *See Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release* (the \"USAO Memorandum\"), 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\n7 Superseding Indictment, *United States v. Kwok et al.*, 1:23-cr-00118 (the \"Criminal Case\"), Doc No. 307, filed April 24, 2024, ¶ 4 (the \"Superseding Indictment\").\n\nvictim funds.\"[8](#page-9-0) The U.S. Government has named dozens of entities as allegedly part of the Kwok Enterprise,[9](#page-9-1) many of which the Bankruptcy Court has already ruled to be alter egos of the Debtor (such as Golden Spring and Lamp Capital), while others remain subject to the Trustee's pending Alter Ego Claims. In connection with its investigation of the Debtor, the U.S. Government seized bank accounts held in the name of various entities forming part of the Kwok Enterprise and holding over \\$630 million.\n\n19. The Debtor's criminal trial commenced on May 22, 2024, and resulted in the Debtor being found guilty on multiple counts, including the Criminal RICO Charge, money laundering, and wire fraud, per the jury's verdict reached on July 16, 2024.\n\n## **III. Debtor's Use of His Son, Qiang Guo, to Hold His Entities and Assets**\n\n20. The Debtor has frequently used his son, Defendant Qiang Guo, nominal owner of Defendant Bouillor, as a straw man nominal owner of the Debtor's companies and assets.\n\n21. This Court has already ruled that two entities nominally owned by the Debtor's son, Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, are actually the Debtor's alter egos and equitably owned by the Debtor. The First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint asserts Alter Ego Claims with respect to a number of other entities nominally owned by the Debtor's son, including K Legacy, Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\"), China Golden Spring Group, Leading Shine Limited (\"Leading Shine BVI\"), and Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\").\n\n22. The Trustee's claims concerning K Legacy, Leading Shine BVI, and Bravo Luck demonstrate the Debtor's pattern of using companies nominally owned by his son to effectuate his control over real estate in multiple jurisdictions.\n\n8 Superseding Indictment, ¶ 1.\n\n9 *Id*., ¶ 3a.\n\n23. K Legacy, as discussed more fully in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, holds title to the Debtor's luxurious London apartment (the \"London Apartment\"), purchased by the Debtor in 2016 for £33 million using funds derived from another of the Debtor's shell companies, Anton Development Limited. Based on reports that the London Apartment was being shown for sale, the Trustee sought and obtained, on March 28, 2024, an injunction from the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice, Virgin Islands, Commercial Division (the \"BVI Court\") requiring that the Trustee and his counsel be given advanced notice of any attempts to transfer either the London Apartment or the shares of K Legacy (the \"BVI Preliminary Injunction\"). Subsequently, on April 18, 2024, the BVI Court entered an order continuing the BVI Injunction (the \"BVI Injunction Continuance Order\") until further order of the BVI Court.[10](#page-10-0)\n\n24. Leading Shine BVI, as discussed more fully in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Action, holds title to the Debtor's residence located at South Bay Road in Hong Kong, which was purchased in 2011 for approximately HK \\$880 million, or US \\$112.9 million.\n\n25. Bravo Luck, as discussed more fully in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, was an instrument of the Debtor's legal strategy with respect to the Sherry Netherland apartment. As the Court will recall, Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo argued that Genever Holdings LLC held the Sherry Netherland apartment in trust for Bravo Luck's benefit pursuant to a purported trust agreement, and the Trustee asserted claims that, among other things, this purported trust agreement was a forgery. Subsequently, the Court approved a settlement agreement between the\n\n10 The BVI Preliminary Injunction and BVI Injunction Continuance Order are attached as exhibits to the *Notice of Chapter 11 Trustee Providing Update with Respect to British Virgin Islands Proceedings, as Related to K Legacy Ltd. and London Apartment* [Main Case Docket No. 3161].\n\nTrustee and Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo under which Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo abandoned their rights and claims related to the Sherry Netherland apartment.\n\n26. Upon information and belief, Qiang Guo has never held gainful employment outside of the Debtor's shell companies and has no source of wealth other than the Debtor. At the Debtor's deposition in March 2023, when asked whether all assets held in the name of Qiang Guo were really assets of his estate, the Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment.[11](#page-11-0)\n\n### **IV. Qiang Guo's Receipt of Transfers**\n\n27. In addition to serving the Debtor as a straw man holder of foreign properties, Qiang Guo has also received voluminous transfers of funds or other assets from the Debtor.\n\n28. The Avoidance Litigation includes an adversary proceeding against Qiang Guo seeking the avoidance and recovery of over \\$90 million in transfers to Qiang Guo as an initial transferee.[12](#page-11-1) Other adversary proceedings in the Avoidance Litigation seek the avoidance of transfers made to other parties (including the vendors of private aircraft and luxury vehicles) for Qiang Guo's benefit. Notably, one of the transfers that is the subject of such adversary proceedings was the purchase by the Debtor, through a shell company, of a Cirrus propeller aircraft that was then nominally owned by Qiang Guo, and which was subsequently sold in early March 2024, a clear example of the dissipation of potential estate property. Relatedly, in its April 3, 2024 summary judgment decision holding that the Bombardier jet as well as Whitecroft were beneficially owned by the Debtor, this Court found that Whitecroft attempted to have over\n\n11 *See* Ho Wan Kwok Dep. Tr., at 47:10-13, March 2, 2023 (the \"Debtor's March Depo.\"), attached as Exhibit 13 to the adversary complaint in the Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding.\n\n12 The Avoidance Litigation complaint filed against Qiang Guo [Docket No. 1 in Adv. Proc. No. 24-05238] is incorporated by reference herein.\n\n\\$12 million in proceeds of the October 2022 sale of the Bombardier jet wired to Qiang Guo at an account at Kyrgyz-Swiss Bank.[13](#page-12-0)\n\n29. Further, the U.S. Government in its criminal case filings has referred to the Debtor's son as \"Relative-1\" and alleged that the Debtor's son is the recipient of millions of dollars of fraudulently obtained funds.[14](#page-12-1) The U.S. Government has also alleged, among other things, that the Debtor's son (also known as \"Mileson\") was a co-conspirator and agent of his father, the Debtor.[15](#page-12-2) Notably, the court overseeing the Debtor's criminal trial found that \"the Government has met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Mileson was a member of several of the charged conspiracies,\" thus allowing into evidence Qiang Guo's statements as an exception to the hearsay rule for co-conspirator statements, observing that \"Mileson's role within the alleged conspiracies was multifaceted.\"[16](#page-12-3)\n\n### **V. Formation of Bouillor**\n\n30. Between 2015 and 2023, the Debtor and Qiang Guo were represented by the Cyprus law firm of Christodoulos G. Vassiliades & Co. LLC, (\"CGV\"). The Debtor and Qiang Guo were introduced to CGV by the United Kingdom law firm of Mishcon de Reya LLP (\"Mishcon\"), the same law firm that, among other things, assisted the Debtor in the purchase of the London Apartment.\n\n31. Bouillor was formed on October 16, 2015 with the assistance of CGV. On the same date, Mediterranean Nominees Limited entered into a Declaration of Trust to hold 1,000 ordinary shares in Bouillor as nominee of and trustee for Qiang Guo, who was identified in\n\n13 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment,* ¶ 42 [Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05008, Docket No. 126].\n\n14 Superseding Indictment, ¶¶ 5, 17(f)(i).\n\n15 The Government's Motion *in Limine*, Criminal Case Doc No. 273, at 7-8.\n\n16 *See* Order, Criminal Case Doc No. 388, at 7.\n\ncorporate documents as the purported ultimate beneficial owner of Bouillor. More recently, the shares in Bouillor held by Mediterranean Nominees Limited were transferred to Peritas Directors Limited, which was appointed as director of Bouillor on November 21, 2023, and, subsequently, on March 13, 2024, Peritas Directors Limited transferred the shares in Bouillor to Qiang Guo, who, on the same date, became the sole director and secretary of Bouillor. As such, as of March 13, 2024, Qiang Guo is the sole direct shareholder of Bouillor and Bouillor's director and secretary. Moreover, as of March 13, 2024, the registered address for Bouillor is the same address as the Cyprus Apartment.\n\n32. Despite Qiang Guo being named as the beneficial owner and/or shareholder of Bouillor, the entity was at all relevant times controlled and dominated by the Debtor, who was its true beneficial owner.\n\n33. Bouillor was formed for the purpose of holding title to the Cyprus Apartment.\n\n34. Upon information and belief, the Cyprus Apartment has been at all relevant times Bouillor's only material asset.\n\n### **VI. Purchase of Cyprus Apartment**\n\n35. On November 13, 2015, a month after its formation, Bouillor entered into an agreement with Pafilia Property Developers Ltd (the \"Seller\") to purchase the Cyprus Apartment, a three-bedroom apartment on the 27th floor (23rd residential floor) at apartment number 23-03 in the One Limassol building located at Neapolis Quarter, Limassol, Cyprus.[17](#page-13-0) On the same day, CGV transferred €3.57 million to the Seller as consideration under the agreement.\n\n17 At the time the agreement was entered into, One Limassol, the Cyprus Apartment building, had not yet been constructed; however, the agreement provided that the Cyprus Apartment would be turned over to Bouillor once construction was completed, which subsequently occurred in 2021 according to the One Limassol website. *See* http\n\n36. The immediate source of the funds paid by CGV to the Seller in connection with the purchase of the Cyprus Apartment was a savings account ending 2627 at JPMorgan Chase in New York (together with the linked checking account ending 3657, the \"NY Chase Account\") under the name of Qiang Guo, from which account \\$3,899,747.13 was transferred to a CGV client account on November 11, 2015 (the \"Cyprus Transfer\").\n\n37. The NY Chase Account, although under the name of Qiang Guo, was controlled by the Debtor, and the funds therein were the Debtor's funds. Indeed, the NYC Chase Account was used to pay for numerous expenses of the Debtor, such as the fees of his counsel at Williams & Connolly LLP, Paul Weiss Rifkin Wharton & Garrison, LLP, and Wasserman Mancini & Chang PC.\n\n38. Upon information and belief, all the funds held in the NY Chase Account at the time of the \\$3.9 million Cyprus Transfer can be sourced to the accounts of other shell companies controlled by the Debtor, from whence such funds were transferred into the NY Chase Account.\n\n39. Indeed, using a \"last in, first out\" tracing analysis, the entirety of the \\$3.9 million Cyprus Transfer can be traced to two transfers totaling approximately \\$6 million into the NY Chase Account from Debtor-controlled companies:\n\n> i. On October 14, 2015, shortly prior to the Cyprus Transfer, the NY Chase Account received a foreign remittance credit of 27 million Hong Kong Dollars (or approximately \\$3.5 million). .\n\nii. On May 19, 2015, the NY Chase Account received a \\$2.5 million transfer from Golden Spring, which this Court has already ruled to be the Debtor's alter ego.\n\n#### **VII. Debtor's Ownership of New Dynamic and Its Assets**\n\n40. New Dynamic, the source, upon information and belief, of most of the funds used to purchase the Cyprus Apartment, was at all relevant times controlled by the Debtor. Moreover, all assets of New Dynamic, including all bank accounts of New Dynamic, were at all relevant times controlled by the Debtor and were the Debtor's property.\n\n41. Numerous facts demonstrate that New Dynamic was controlled by the Debtor.\n\n42. This Court has already found that New Dynamic funded the maintenance of the Debtor's Bombardier jet and that it was identified by the Debtor's accountants as an offshore company held by the Debtor.[18](#page-15-0)\n\n43. New Dynamic's corporate documents establish that the sole shareholder of New Dynamic between May 2008 and April 2015 was Shiny Times Holdings Limited, an entity of which the Debtor was the sole director and shareholder. From April 2015 to June 2017, the sole shareholder of New Dynamic was Natasha Qu, the Debtor's employee.[19](#page-15-1) On June 27, 2017, Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, became the sole shareholder of New Dynamic, and she would remain sole shareholder until New Dynamic was dissolved in 2021.[20](#page-15-2) In addition, the Debtor was also the sole director of New Dynamic between May 2008 and April 2015, at which point Natasha Qu, the Debtor's employee, became the company's sole director before being replaced in that role by Mei Guo on June 27, 2017.\n\n19\n\n.\n\n18 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment,* ¶¶ 14-15 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126]\n\n20 As established in other Alter Ego Complaints, June 27, 2017 was also the date on which Mei Guo became the sole shareholder of a number of other Debtor shell companies such as HK International, Anton Development Limited, and Eastern Profit Corporation.\n\n44. The Debtor funded New Dynamic using transfers from his other shell companies, including . As discussed more fully in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Debtor used Bravo Luck Limited to fund a number of high value purchases in 2015, including the *Lady May* and the Sherry Netherland apartment. . In addition,\n\n), the company used by the Debtor to hold title to his Bombardier private jet prior to the Bombardier being transferred to Anton Development Limited in 2016.[21](#page-16-0)\n\n45. The Debtor also used New Dynamic to transfer funds to the Debtor and his family members on numerous occasions. For example:\n\n![](_page_16_Figure_4.jpeg)\n\n21 *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment,* ¶ 5 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126]. Head Win was, among other things, represented by the Debtor to be a \"Single Purpose Company with the only purpose of holding the aircraft.\" *Id.* at 13, ¶ 7.\n\n22 *See Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for (I) Declaratory Judgment, Pursuant to Sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7001, that Property Held by Mei Guo Is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 1].\n\nvi. This Court found that New Dynamic paid no less than \\$318,000.00 to ACASS Canada for invoices issued to Head Win for operating and managing the Debtor's Bombardier jet in 2016.[23](#page-17-0)\n\n| | | This Court has ruled that Ace Decade is beneficially |\n|--|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|\n| | owned by the Debtor.24 | |\n\nix. . In the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Trustee has alleged that China Golden Spring, parent of the Debtor's alter ego Golden Spring, is beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\nx. .\n\n46. The Debtor represented\n\nThe Court has found that accountants employed by the Debtor\n\nidentified New Dynamic as an offshore company held by the Debtor.[25](#page-17-2)\n\n47. New Dynamic used the same address at 49/F Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong\n\nas was used by the Debtor and numerous of his other shell companies, as discussed more fully in\n\nthe First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint. Correspondence to New Dynamic was addressed to the\n\nDebtor at that address.\n\n#### **VIII. In Alternative, New Dynamic Transfer Was Actual Fraudulent Transfer**\n\n48. In this Complaint, the Trustee has asserted in the first instance that all the money that funded the purchase of the Cyprus Property was controlled by and property of the Debtor,\n\n23 *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment,* ¶ 15 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126].\n\n24 *Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion*, ¶ 1 [Case No. 22-50073, Docket No. 1110].\n\n25 *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment,* ¶ 16 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126].\n\nregardless of whether the accounts holding such funds were under the name of Qiang Guo, New Dynamic, Golden Spring, or another of the Debtor's shell companies.\n\n49. Further, even if one were to assume that Bouillor and Qiang Guo were independent of the Debtor and that neither Bouillor nor the Cyprus Apartment is the Debtor's property, the purchase of the Cyprus Apartment involved the transfer of the Debtor's property to or for the benefit of an insider for which the Debtor received no consideration in return. Bouillor and Qiang Guo also benefited from transfers of funds that were transferred to and from the NY Chase Account in the United States.\n\n50. A diagram showing the transfers described herein is set forth below—\"Step 1\" is the funding of Qiang Guo's NY Chase Account, \"Step 2\" is the Cyprus Transfer, i.e., the transfer of \\$3.9 million to the Debtor's Cyprus law firm, CGV, and \"Step 3\" is the payment to the Seller.\n\n![](_page_18_Figure_4.jpeg)\n\n51. Assuming that Qiang Guo and his NY Chase Account were independent of the Debtor, Step 1—the transfers of approximately \\$6 million from and Golden Spring to Qiang Guo's NY Chase Account (together, the \"Funding Transfer\") represents a transfer from the Debtor to Qiang Guo for no consideration. Moreover, \\$3.9 million of the \\$6\n\nmillion represents a transfer to Qiang Guo for the benefit of Bouillor (since the \\$3.9 million is the amount of the Cyprus Transfer used to purchase the Cyprus Apartment for Bouillor).\n\n52. The Funding Transfer was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as it was made through the Debtor's shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n### **IX. Tolling Order**\n\n53. 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\n54. 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.[26](#page-19-0)\n\n55. 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.\"[27](#page-19-1) The Court found the \"noncompliance with this Court's orders in these jointly administered\n\n26 Tolling Order, at 14.\n\n27 *Id.* at 15.\n\nchapter 11 cases, is extraordinary,\" [28](#page-20-0) and that, in the face of such obstruction, the Trustee's investigation has been \"more than reasonably diligent.\" [29](#page-20-1)\n\n56. On August 14, 2024, the Court entered its *Order Granting Second Motion for Extension of Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* [Main Case Docket No. 3417] (the \"Second Tolling Order\"), further extending the time limitations set forth in Sections 108, 546, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions through February 15, 2025, and noting the continued obstacles to the Trustee's investigation and the Trustee's diligence in conducting same. [30](#page-20-2)\n\n57. The Trustee has acted diligently in investigating and pursuing the claims asserted in this Complaint.\n\n58. 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## **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Bouillor and Its Assets (Including Cyprus Apartment) and Ordering Turnover of Ownership and Assets (Including Cyprus Apartment) of Bouillor to Trustee**\n\n59. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-58.\n\n60. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor at all relevant times remained in control of Bouillor. Among other things, the Debtor's Cyprus counsel assisted in the formation of Bouillor, Bouillor was nominally owned by the Debtor's son (who the Debtor\n\n28 Tolling Order, at 15.\n\n29 *Id.* at 17.\n\n30 Second Tolling Order, at 2-3.\n\nused as a strawman to hold numerous of his assets), and Bouillor's only material asset was purchased for Bouillor with the Debtor's funds.\n\n61. Under Cyprus law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Qiang Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee or \"bare trustee,\" considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Bouillor only for the benefit of the Debtor; and (b) Bouillor has been at all relevant times a mere nominee or \"bare trustee,\" considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name (including the Cyprus Apartment) only for the benefit of the Debtor.\n\n62. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors, including Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund (\"PAX\"). Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights. The United States Internal Revenue Service is a creditor of the Debtor.\n\n63. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Bouillor purportedly held by Qiang Guo, and the assets of Bouillor, including the Cyprus Apartment, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Bouillor, and the assets of Bouillor, including the Cyprus Apartment, to the Trustee.\n\n### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n## **Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of New Dynamic and Its Assets**\n\n64. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-58.\n\n65. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor at all relevant times remained in control of New Dynamic. Among other things, the Debtor placed his employee Natasha Qu and his daughter, Mei Guo, as New Dynamic's nominal owners and directors, New Dynamic was funded by other Debtor shell companies, New Dynamic transferred funds to the Debtor, his son, and other of his shell entities, and New Dynamic used the same address as the Debtor.\n\n66. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Natasha Qu and Mei Guo were at all relevant times mere nominees or \"bare trustees,\" considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in New Dynamic only for the benefit of the Debtor; and (b) New Dynamic was at all relevant times a mere nominee or \"bare trustee,\" considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor.\n\n67. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors, including Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund (\"PAX\"). Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n68. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code declaring that the ownership interests in New Dynamic purportedly held by Mei Guo and the assets of New Dynamic were at all relevant times property of the Debtor.\n\n#### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n## **(Avoidance of Actual Fraudulent Transfer) (Asserted in Alternative to First Claim)**\n\n69. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-58.\n\n70. The Funding Transfer was made by the Debtor, using the Debtor's funds nominally held by his shell companies, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n71. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating\n\nthe Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\n- i. The Funding Transfer was effectuated using one or more shell companies;\n- ii. The Funding Transfer was concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n- iii. The Funding Transfer was effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n- iv. The Funding Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n- v. The Debtor received no consideration in exchange for the Funding Transfer;\n- vi. The Funding Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors; and\n- vii. At the time of the Funding Transfer, the Debtor was indebted, including to PAX.\n- 72. The Funding Transfer is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred.\n\nLaw sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable (a) as to the entirety of the Funding Transfer, from Defendant Qiang Guo; and (b) as to \\$3.9 million of the Funding Transfer, from Defendant Bouillor pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\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, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the\n\nBankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Bouillor purportedly held by Qiang Guo, and the assets of Bouillor, including the Cyprus Apartment, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2)\n\nordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Bouillor, and the assets of Bouillor, including the Cyprus Apartment, to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, declaring that the ownership interests in New Dynamic purportedly held by Mei Guo, and the assets of New Dynamic, were at all relevant times property of the Debtor.\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order declaring that the Funding Transfer in an amount of not less than \\$6 million is avoided pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278[31](#page-24-0); (b) recovery of (i) the entirety of the Funding Transfer or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from Defendant Qiang Guo; and (ii) \\$3.9 million of the Funding Transfer or the value thereof from Defendant Bouillor 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\n4. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\n31 This was the governing New York statute on the date of the New Dynamic Transfer.\n\nDated: August 15, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nDouglas 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\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"对抗程序封面表　对抗程序编号\n\n背面说明　仅供法院使用\n\n原告　被告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人　Bouillor Holdings Limited（布伊约尔控股有限公司）、Qiang Guo（郭强）、Mei Guo（郭梅）、New Dynamic Development Limited（新动力发展有限公司）\n\n律师　律所名称、地址及电话号码　律师（如已知）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）（转 Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）），195 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068, (973)530-2107, plinsey@npmlaw.com　Mei Guo的代理律师：Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC（基耶萨、沙希尼安及詹托马西律师事务所）（转 Lee Vartan（李·瓦坦）），105 Church Street, 13th Floor, New Haven, Connecticut 06510, (203) 781-2847，lvartan@csglaw.com。Qiang Guo的代理律师：Arethusa Forsyth（阿雷图萨·福赛思），arethusaf@proton.me\n\n当事人　仅勾选一个方框　当事人　仅勾选一个方框\n□ 债务人　□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产管理人　□ 美国受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人　□ 债权人\n□ 其他　□ 其他\n□ 受托人　□ 受托人\n\n诉因　就诉因作简要说明，包括所涉全部美国法令\n第一项请求：请求作出裁定，宣告债务人为Bouillor及其资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓）的真正受益所有人，并命令将Bouillor的所有权及资产交付给受托人；第二项请求：请求作出裁定，宣告债务人为New Dynamic及其资产的真正受益所有人；第三项请求：作为第一项请求的备选，请求裁定受托人可撤销被告Qiang Guo所收取的全部资金转让，以及被告Bouillor所收取的资金转让中的\\$3.9 million。\n\n诉讼性质\n编号：最多填写五个方框，先填主要诉因，再填第一备选诉因、第二备选诉因，依此类推。\nFRBP 7001(1) – 金钱/财产追回　FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n□ 金钱/财产追回——财产交付　□ 可免责性——家庭扶养义务\n□ 金钱/财产追回——偏颇清偿　□ 可免责性——故意及恶意损害\n□ 金钱/财产追回——欺诈性转让　□ 可免责性——学生贷款\n□ 金钱/财产追回——其他　□ 可免责性——离婚或分居义务，非家庭扶养义务\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围\n□ 留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围　□ 可免责性——其他\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\nFRBP 7001(3) – 财产出售批准\n□ 禁令救济——实施中止　□ 破产财产及共同所有人财产出售的批准——§363(h)\n□ 禁令救济——其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责　FRBP 7001(8) – 请求权或权益的劣后\n□ 对免责提出异议/撤销免责——§§727(c)、(d)、(e)　□ 请求权或权益的劣后\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认　FRBP 7001(9) – 确认判决\n□ 撤销确认　□ 确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性　FRBP 7001(10) – 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□ 可免责性——优先税款请求权　□ 对被移送请求权或诉因的裁定\n□ 可免责性——虚假借口、虚假陈述、实际欺诈\n□ 其他\n□ 可免责性——作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃　11 U.S.C. 案件——28 U.S.C. § 1334\n□ 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（续下一栏）\n□ 如本案涉及州法的实质性争议，请勾选　□ 如主张本案为依据FRCP提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如起诉书中要求陪审团审判，请勾选　请求金额\n请求的其他救济\n依据《破产法》第541、542及544条请求确认性救济\n\n本对抗程序所涉的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名　破产案件编号\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）　22-50573 (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）　Manning, J.（曼宁法官）\n\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告　被告　对抗程序编号\n\n对抗程序审理地区　分院/办事处　法官姓名\n\n原告律师签名\n\n/s/ Douglas Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）\n\n日期　原告律师印刷体姓名\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nAug. 15,\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件即在破产法院管辖下设立“破产财产”，其由债务人无论位于何处的全部财产构成。由于破产财产范围广泛且法院管辖权广泛，可能存在涉及破产财产或其财产权利的诉讼。也可能存在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《对抗程序封面表》，除非该方通过法院案件管理电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。CM/ECF在提交过程中收集表格上的信息。填妥后，封面表概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记官需要该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封面表及其中所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或地方法院规则要求提交及送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面表大致不言自明，必须由原告律师填写；如原告无律师代理，则由原告填写。每一份提交的起诉书均须另行向书记官提交一份封面表。\n\n原告和被告。准确列出原告和被告在起诉书中所示的姓名。\n\n律师。列出律师的姓名和地址，如已知。\n\n当事人。在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。在起诉书中填入所请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面表必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，则该所成员必须签署。如原告自行诉讼，即无律师代理，则原告必须签署。\n\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\nx\n\n关于：\n：　第11章\n：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n：　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n：\n债务人。\n：\n：　（联合管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章\n：\n受托人，\n：\n：\n原告，\n：\n诉\n：　对抗程序编号 [ ]\n：\nBOUILLOR HOLDINGS LIMITED（布伊约尔控股有限公司），\n：\nQIANG GUO（郭强）、MEI GUO（郭梅）、NEW DYNAMIC\n：\nDEVELOPMENT LIMITED（新动力发展有限公司）\n：\n被告。\n\nx\n\n第11章受托人代表HO WAN KWOK破产财产依据《破产法》第541、542及544条提起的起诉书，请求：（一）确认判决，确认BOUILLOR HOLDINGS LIMITED及塞浦路斯公寓属于破产财产；及（二）其他救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以获任命担任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，对被告Bouillor Holdings Limited（布伊约尔控股有限公司）、Qiang Guo（郭强）、Mei Guo（郭梅）及New Dynamic Development Limited（新动力发展有限公司）（合称“被告”）提起本对抗起诉书（“起诉书”）。为支持本起诉书，受托人陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人通过本起诉书，尤其请求追回债务人在塞浦路斯利马索尔“One Limassol”大厦23-03号的豪华高层公寓（“塞浦路斯公寓”）。该公寓登记在Bouillor Holdings Limited（“Bouillor”）名下；Bouillor是一家塞浦路斯实体，名义上由债务人之子Qiang Guo（郭强）所有。下文载有塞浦路斯最高建筑“One Limassol”大厦的图片：\n\n2. 与债务人通过将其置于家庭成员及亲密同事名义所有权之下来向债权人隐匿的其他空壳公司和资产一样，Bouillor及塞浦路斯公寓尽管名义上由债务人之子所有，实际上由债务人受益所有，构成应为债务人债权人利益而交付给受托人的破产财产（“Bouillor所有权请求”）。\n\n3. 此外，如下文进一步详述，债务人使用其他空壳公司，特别是New Dynamic Development Limited（“New Dynamic”）为塞浦路斯公寓的购买提供资金。New Dynamic是一家香港实体，当时名义上由债务人的雇员Natasha Qu（娜塔莎·瞿）所有。本院已认定，New Dynamic为债务人Bombardier（庞巴迪）喷气式飞机的维护提供资金，并且\n\n> . [2] 此外，正如本院将会记得，\n\n。2017年，New Dynamic的名义所有权由Natasha Qu转让给债务人之女Mei Guo（郭梅），而New Dynamic随后于2021年解散。值得注意的是，2017年将New Dynamic转让给Mei Guo的日期，与将本院熟悉的其他空壳公司转让给Mei Guo的日期相同，均为2017年6月27日；该等公司包括Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（“HK International”）（该公司在游艇转让给HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（“HK USA”）之前持有Lady May的所有权）、Anton Development Limited（该公司在飞机转让给Whitecroft Shore Limited（“Whitecroft”）之前持有债务人Bombardier私人飞机的所有权），以及Eastern Profit Corporation（纽约南区联邦地区法院的Liman法官认定其为债务人的空壳公司）。鉴于与New Dynamic有关的这些及其他事实，受托人请求裁定New Dynamic及其资产由债务人受益所有。\n\n2 部分准许简易判决动议的裁决备忘录及命令，第¶¶ 14-15段 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126]。\n\n4. 作为Bouillor所有权请求的备选，受托人主张一项备选请求：New Dynamic及Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”）向Qiang Guo转让资金以购买塞浦路斯公寓，致使Bouillor取得塞浦路斯公寓的所有权，该资金转让系债务人作出的实际欺诈性转让，受托人可依据纽约债务人债权人法及《美国法典》第11编第544(b)条（“破产法”）撤销并追回，并可依据《破产法》第550(b)条追回。\n\n管辖权及审判地\n\n5. 本院依据28 U.S.C. §1334(b)对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n6. 本对抗程序依据28 U.S.C. §157(a)移交本院审理。依据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本院为适当审判地。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 受托人依据本院于July 8, 2022作出的命令担任第11章案件的第11章受托人 [Main Case Docket No. 523]。\n\n8. Bouillor是一家名义上由Qiang Guo所有的塞浦路斯实体。\n\n9. Qiang Guo是债务人之子。\n\n10. New Dynamic是一家名义上由Mei Guo所有的香港实体。\n\n11. Mei Guo是债务人之女。\n\n事实\n\n一、债务人对空壳公司的使用\n\n12. 正如本院十分清楚，受托人已提交多份诉状，详述债务人利用名义上由家庭成员或业务下属所有、实际为其另一个自我且由其衡平或受益所有的空壳公司的计划，以洗钱、隐瞒其商业交易，并向债权人隐藏其有价值的资产。\n\n13. 受托人已就债务人的众多空壳公司和/或其名义资产提起诉讼；该等诉讼目前尚待审理，或受托人已在其中胜诉，并主张另我及衡平法上的所有权请求权（或适用法律项下的类似请求权；该等类似请求权与另我及衡平法上的所有权请求权在本文中统称为“另我请求权”）（以下简称“另我起诉状”）。[3] 迄今为止，受托人已就若干实体的另我请求权胜诉，包括：持有债务人 Lady May 游艇所有权的 HK USA（HK USA公司）；持有债务人 Bombardier 私人飞机所有权的 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）；债务人用作融资工具的 Golden Spring（金泉）和 Lamp Capital LLC（Lamp Capital有限责任公司）；债务人用以持有康涅狄格州不动产所有权的 Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）；以及 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK技术公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理公司）和 Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（列克星敦物业和人事公司）。受托人还已就其主张胜诉，即 Lady May 游艇和 Bombardier 私人飞机实际上由债务人所有，因此属于破产财产。\n\n3 另我起诉状包括受托人提交的以下起诉状：Despins（德斯潘）诉 Greenwich Land LLC 等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]，Despins 诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]，Despins 诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc. 等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]，Despins 诉 Taurus Fund LLC 等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]，Despins 诉 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018]，Despins 诉 Lamp Capital LLC 等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05023]，以及 Despins 诉 ACA Capital Group Ltd. 等 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]，以及受托人在 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）诉 Despins 一案中提出的反诉 [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]。\n\n14. 关于 Qiang Guo（郭强），其中一份另我起诉状[4] 就包括 K Legacy Ltd.（K Legacy有限公司）在内的实体主张另我请求权；K Legacy 是一家名义上由郭强拥有的 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛，以下简称“BVI”）实体，持有债务人在伦敦的豪华公寓的所有权。该起诉状还就 Leading Shine Limited（Leading Shine有限公司，以下简称“Leading Shine BVI”）主张另我请求权；Leading Shine BVI 是一家名义上由郭强拥有的 BVI 实体，持有债务人在香港的豪宅的所有权。此外，受托人已对郭强及其他56名被告提起起诉状，要求就违反 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act（反勒索及腐败组织法）及共谋违反 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 的行为获得损害赔偿（以下简称“RICO起诉状”）。[5] 受托人不在此重复另我起诉状和 RICO 起诉状中载明的指控，而是通过援引将其中载明的指控纳入本文。\n\n15. 此外，受托人已启动270多项对抗程序，请求撤销债务人通过其空壳公司作出的欺诈性及申请日后转让（以下简称“撤销诉讼”）。撤销诉讼包括针对郭强的对抗程序，请求撤销并追回向郭强转让的和/或为其利益向其他方转让的逾 $90 million 款项。\n\nII. 债务人的刑事案件\n\n16. On March 15, 2023，美国联邦当局以欺诈和洗钱罪名逮捕债务人及其助理 Yvette Wang（王雁平）。同于 March 15, 2023，伦敦的 United Kingdom（英国）执法机构与美国当局合作，试图就相同刑事罪名逮捕债务人的财务顾问 William Je（威廉·杰）。\n\n4 Despins 诉 ACA Capital Group Ltd. 等 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]（以下简称“第一份综合另我起诉状”）。\n\n5 RICO 起诉状系与 Despins 诉 Ngok（吴）等一案有关而提交 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05273]。\n\n17. 美国政府指称，在 2018 and 2023 期间，债务人在其共同被告 William Je 和 Yvette Wang 的协助下，领导了一项规模庞大的数十亿美元欺诈和洗钱计划；作为该计划的一部分，债务人及其共同被告系统性地从债务人的网络追随者处为一系列所谓投资计划筹集资金，通过由大量空壳公司和银行账户组成的网络清洗该等资金，随后将该等资金用于其自身个人利益并维持其欺诈计划。除其他事项外，美国政府指称，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”清洗欺诈所得[6]，并且“该欺诈计划所得的数亿美元被直接或间接转入美国、巴哈马、瑞士和 United Arab Emirates（阿拉伯联合酋长国，以下简称“UAE”）等地的银行账户。”[7]\n\n18. 除欺诈和洗钱罪名外，美国政府的现行起诉书还指控债务人及其共同被告构成违反 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 的刑事敲诈勒索共谋罪（以下简称“刑事 RICO 指控”）。刑事 RICO 指控称，债务人系一个犯罪企业（以下简称“Kwok Enterprise（郭企业）”）的首脑，该企业“通过一系列复杂的欺诈性及虚构性企业和投资机会运作，该等企业和投资机会将数十个相互关联的实体联系起来，使被告及其共谋者得以招揽、清洗和侵占\n\n6 参见《美利坚合众国就被告 Yanping Wang 的审前释放动议提出反对的法律备忘录》（以下简称“USAO备忘录”），第29页，作为《第11章受托人就 G Club Operations LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司）针对受托人强制执行动议及相关救济请求的补充异议所提交答复》的附件B（June 23, 2023）[Main Case Docket No. 1934]。\n\n7 Superseding Indictment, United States v. Kwok et al., 1:23-cr-00118（以下简称“刑事案件”）, Doc No. 307, filed April 24, 2024, ¶ 4（以下简称“替代起诉书”）。\n\n受害人资金。”[8] 美国政府已指称数十个实体据称构成 Kwok Enterprise 的一部分，[9] 其中许多实体已被破产法院裁定为债务人的另我实体（例如 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital），而其他实体仍受制于受托人尚待审理的另我请求权。结合其对债务人的调查，美国政府扣押了以构成 Kwok Enterprise 一部分的多个实体名义持有且存有逾 $630 million 的银行账户。\n\n19. 债务人的刑事审判于 May 22, 2024 开始，并根据陪审团于 July 16, 2024 作出的裁决，债务人被判多项罪名成立，包括刑事 RICO 指控、洗钱和电信欺诈。\n\nIII. 债务人利用其儿子 Qiang Guo 持有其实体和资产\n\n20. 债务人经常利用其儿子、被告 Bouillor（布伊约尔）的名义所有人郭强，作为债务人公司和资产的代持名义所有人。\n\n21. 本院已裁定，名义上由债务人之子拥有的两个实体 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital，实际上是债务人的另我实体，并由债务人享有衡平法上的所有权。第一份综合另我起诉状就名义上由债务人之子拥有的其他若干实体主张另我请求权，包括 K Legacy、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca媒体集团公司，以下简称“Saraca”）、China Golden Spring Group（中国金泉集团）、Leading Shine Limited（Leading Shine有限公司，以下简称“Leading Shine BVI”）以及 Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck有限公司，以下简称“Bravo Luck”）。\n\n22. 受托人关于 K Legacy、Leading Shine BVI 和 Bravo Luck 的请求权表明，债务人存在利用名义上由其儿子拥有的公司，在多个司法辖区对不动产实施控制的模式。\n\n8 替代起诉书，¶ 1。\n\n9 同上，¶ 3a。\n\n23. 如第一份综合另我起诉状中更详细讨论，K Legacy 持有债务人在伦敦的豪华公寓（以下简称“伦敦公寓”）的所有权；债务人于 2016 以 £33 million 购入该公寓，所用资金来自债务人的另一家空壳公司 Anton Development Limited（安东开发有限公司）。鉴于有报道称伦敦公寓正在展示出售，受托人于 March 28, 2024 向 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, High Court of Justice, Virgin Islands, Commercial Division（东加勒比最高法院、维尔京群岛高等法院商业庭，以下简称“BVI法院”）申请并获得禁令，要求在任何试图转让伦敦公寓或 K Legacy 股份的行为之前，向受托人及其律师发出事先通知（以下简称“BVI临时禁令”）。随后，于 April 18, 2024，BVI法院作出裁定，将 BVI 禁令继续维持至 BVI法院另行作出裁定为止（以下简称“BVI禁令延续裁定”）。[10]\n\n24. 如第一份综合另我诉讼中更详细讨论，Leading Shine BVI 持有债务人位于香港 South Bay Road（南湾道）住所的所有权；该住所于 2011 以约 HK $880 million，即 US $112.9 million 购入。\n\n25. 如第一份综合另我起诉状中更详细讨论，Bravo Luck 是债务人就 Sherry Netherland apartment（Sherry Netherland公寓）所采取法律策略的工具。正如本院将会记得，Bravo Luck 和郭强主张，Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）根据一份所谓信托协议，为 Bravo Luck 的利益以信托方式持有 Sherry Netherland 公寓；受托人则主张，包括该所谓信托协议系伪造在内的请求权。随后，本院批准了受托人与 Bravo Luck 及郭强之间的一项和解协议，据此 Bravo Luck 和郭强放弃了其与 Sherry Netherland 公寓有关的权利和请求权。\n\n10 BVI临时禁令和 BVI禁令延续裁定作为《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》的附件提交 [Main Case Docket No. 3161]。\n\n26. 根据信息和信念，郭强从未在债务人的空壳公司之外从事有报酬的工作，且除债务人外不存在其他财富来源。在债务人于 March 2023 接受证言录取时，当被问及以郭强名义持有的全部资产是否确为其破产财产的资产时，债务人援引了 Fifth Amendment（美国宪法第五修正案）。[11]\n\nIV. 郭强收受的转让\n\n27. 除作为债务人境外不动产的代持人外，郭强还从债务人处收受了大量资金或其他资产转让。\n\n28. 撤销诉讼包括针对郭强的一项对抗程序，请求撤销并追回以郭强作为初始受让人向其作出的逾 $90 million 转让。[12] 撤销诉讼中的其他对抗程序请求撤销为郭强利益而向其他方作出的转让，包括向私人飞机和豪华车辆供应商作出的转让。值得注意的是，该等对抗程序所涉的一项转让，是债务人通过一家空壳公司购买了一架 Cirrus 螺旋桨飞机，随后名义上由郭强拥有，而该飞机之后于 March 2024 初出售，这清楚地表明潜在破产财产已被耗散。相关地，本院在其 April 3, 2024 的简易判决裁定中认定 Bombardier 喷气式飞机以及 Whitecroft 均由债务人实益拥有，并认定 Whitecroft 曾试图将 October 2022 出售 Bombardier 喷气式飞机所得的逾 $12 million 汇至郭强在 Kyrgyz-Swiss Bank（吉尔吉斯—瑞士银行）开立的账户。[13]\n\n29. 此外，美国政府在其刑事案件提交文件中将债务人的儿子称为“亲属-1”，并指称债务人的儿子收受了数百万美元欺诈所得资金。[14] 美国政府还指称，除其他事项外，债务人的儿子（亦称“Mileson”）是其父亲即债务人的共谋者和代理人。[15] 值得注意的是，负责审理债务人刑事案件的法院认定，“政府已履行其举证责任，以优势证据证明 Mileson 是数项被指控共谋罪的成员”，因此准许将郭强（Qiang Guo）的陈述作为共谋者陈述这一传闻规则例外而纳入证据，并指出“Mileson 在所指称共谋中的作用是多方面的”。[16]\n\nV. Bouillor（布伊约尔）的设立\n\n30. 2015年至2023年期间，债务人和郭强由塞浦路斯律师事务所 Christodoulos G. Vassiliades & Co. LLC（“CGV”）代理。债务人和郭强由英国律师事务所 Mishcon de Reya LLP（“Mishcon”）介绍给 CGV；Mishcon 亦是曾协助债务人购买伦敦公寓的同一律师事务所。\n\n31. Bouillor 于2015年10月16日在 CGV 的协助下设立。同日，Mediterranean Nominees Limited（地中海代名人有限公司）签署了一份信托声明，作为郭强的代名人和受托人持有 Bouillor 的1,000股普通股；郭强在公司文件中被列为 Bouillor 的名义最终受益所有人。最近，Mediterranean Nominees Limited 所持 Bouillor 股份被转让给 Peritas Directors Limited（佩里塔斯董事有限公司）；该公司于2023年11月21日被任命为 Bouillor 的董事，随后于2024年3月13日，Peritas Directors Limited 将 Bouillor 的股份转让给郭强，郭强于同日成为 Bouillor 的唯一董事和秘书。因此，截至2024年3月13日，郭强是 Bouillor 的唯一直接股东，并担任 Bouillor 的董事和秘书。此外，截至2024年3月13日，Bouillor 的注册地址与塞浦路斯公寓的地址相同。\n\n32. 尽管郭强被列为 Bouillor 的受益所有人和/或股东，但在所有相关期间，该实体均由债务人控制和支配，债务人才是其真正的受益所有人。\n\n33. Bouillor 的设立目的是持有塞浦路斯公寓的产权。\n\n34. 根据所获信息和信念，塞浦路斯公寓在所有相关期间一直是 Bouillor 唯一的重大资产。\n\nVI. 购买塞浦路斯公寓\n\n35. 2015年11月13日，即设立一个月后，Bouillor 与 Pafilia Property Developers Ltd（“卖方”）签订协议，购买位于塞浦路斯利马索尔 Neapolis Quarter 的 One Limassol 大楼内23-03号公寓，该公寓位于第27层（住宅第23层），为一套三居室公寓。[17] 同日，CGV 根据该协议向卖方支付 €3.57 million 作为对价。\n\n17. 在签订该协议时，One Limassol（即塞浦路斯公寓所在大楼）尚未建成；但该协议规定，待建设完成后，塞浦路斯公寓将交付给 Bouillor。根据 One Limassol 网站，该建设随后于2021年完成。见 http\n\n36. CGV 就购买塞浦路斯公寓向卖方支付款项的直接资金来源，是郭强名下位于纽约的 JPMorgan Chase 银行、尾号为2627的储蓄账户（连同关联的尾号为3657的支票账户，合称“纽约 Chase 账户”）；2015年11月11日，\\$3,899,747.13 从该账户转入 CGV 客户账户（“塞浦路斯转账”）。\n\n37. 尽管纽约 Chase 账户登记在郭强名下，但该账户由债务人控制，其中资金为债务人的资金。事实上，纽约 Chase 账户被用于支付债务人的大量开支，例如其在 Williams & Connolly LLP、Paul Weiss Rifkin Wharton & Garrison, LLP 和 Wasserman Mancini & Chang PC 的律师费用。\n\n38. 根据所获信息和信念，在 \\$3.9 million 塞浦路斯转账时，纽约 Chase 账户中持有的全部资金均可追溯至债务人控制的其他空壳公司的账户，该等资金由该等账户转入纽约 Chase 账户。\n\n39. 事实上，运用“后进先出”的资金追踪分析，全部 \\$3.9 million 塞浦路斯转账均可追溯至债务人控制的公司向纽约 Chase 账户转入的两笔款项，合计约 \\$6 million：\n\ni. 2015年10月14日，即塞浦路斯转账前不久，纽约 Chase 账户收到一笔27 million Hong Kong Dollars（约 \\$3.5 million）的境外汇款入账。.\n\nii. 2015年5月19日，纽约 Chase 账户收到 Golden Spring（黄金泉）转入的 \\$2.5 million；本院已裁定 Golden Spring 为债务人的另我。\n\nVII. 债务人对 New Dynamic（新动力）及其资产的所有权\n\n40. 根据所获信息和信念，作为购买塞浦路斯公寓所用大部分资金来源的 New Dynamic，在所有相关期间均由债务人控制。此外，New Dynamic 的全部资产，包括 New Dynamic 的所有银行账户，在所有相关期间均由债务人控制，并且属于债务人的财产。\n\n41. 大量事实表明，New Dynamic 由债务人控制。\n\n42. 本院已认定，New Dynamic 为债务人的 Bombardier 飞机维护提供资金，并且债务人的会计师将其列为债务人持有的一家离岸公司。[18]\n\n43. New Dynamic 的公司文件表明，2008年5月至2015年4月期间，New Dynamic 的唯一股东为 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（闪亮时代控股有限公司），该实体的唯一董事和股东为债务人。2015年4月至2017年6月期间，New Dynamic 的唯一股东为债务人的雇员 Natasha Qu（曲娜塔莎）。[19] 2017年6月27日，债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）成为 New Dynamic 的唯一股东，并一直担任唯一股东，直至 New Dynamic 于2021年解散。[20] 此外，2008年5月至2015年4月期间，债务人亦是 New Dynamic 的唯一董事；其后，债务人的雇员 Natasha Qu 成为该公司的唯一董事，直至2017年6月27日由 Mei Guo 接任该职务。.\n\n18. 部分准予简易判决动议的裁决备忘录及命令，第¶¶ 14-15段 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126]\n\n20. 如其他另我起诉状所确立，2017年6月27日也是 Mei Guo 成为债务人其他数家空壳公司的唯一股东之日，例如 HK International、Anton Development Limited 和 Eastern Profit Corporation。\n\n44. 债务人通过其其他空壳公司的转账为 New Dynamic 提供资金，包括。正如在第一份综合另我起诉状中更充分讨论的，债务人利用 Bravo Luck Limited 为2015年的多项高价值购买提供资金，包括 Lady May 和 Sherry Netherland 公寓。. 此外，\n\n），该公司由债务人用于在 Bombardier 飞机于2016年转让给 Anton Development Limited 之前持有其 Bombardier 私人飞机的产权。[21]\n\n45. 债务人还多次利用 New Dynamic 向债务人及其家庭成员转移资金。例如：\n\n21. 见部分准予简易判决动议的裁决备忘录及命令，第¶ 5段 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126]。除其他事项外，Head Win 被债务人称为“一家单一目的公司，其唯一目的为持有该飞机。”同上，第13页，第¶ 7段。\n\n22. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产第11章受托人就以下事项提出的起诉状：(I) 根据《破产法》Sections 541、542 和 544以及 Bankruptcy Rule 7001，请求作出确认判决，确认由 Mei Guo 持有的财产属于破产财产；以及 (II) 相关救济 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 1]。\n\nvi. 本院认定，2016年，New Dynamic 向 ACASS Canada 支付了不少于 \\$318,000.00，用于支付开给 Head Win 的、有关运营和管理债务人 Bombardier 飞机的发票。[23]\n\n本院已裁定 Ace Decade（王牌十年）由债务人受益所有。24\n\nix. . 在第一份综合另我起诉状中，受托人指称，China Golden Spring（中国黄金泉）——债务人另我 Golden Spring 的母公司——由债务人受益所有。\n\nx. .\n\n46. 债务人表示\n\n本院已认定，债务人雇用的会计师\n\n将 New Dynamic 列为债务人持有的一家离岸公司。[25]\n\n47. New Dynamic 使用的地址为香港中国银行大厦49/F，\n\n该地址亦为债务人及其众多其他空壳公司所使用的地址，正如\n\n第一份综合另我起诉状中更充分讨论的。寄给 New Dynamic 的信函均寄送至该地址的债务人。\nVIII. 备选主张：New Dynamic 转让构成实际欺诈性转让\n\n48. 在本起诉状中，受托人首先主张，用于购买塞浦路斯房产的全部资金均由债务人控制，并且属于债务人的财产，\n\n23. 见部分准予简易判决动议的裁决备忘录及命令，第¶ 15段 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126]。\n\n24. 关于部分解决受托人藐视法庭动议的命令，第¶ 1段 [Case No. 22-50073, Docket No. 1110]。\n\n25. 见部分准予简易判决动议的裁决备忘录及命令，第¶ 16段 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126]。\n\n无论持有该等资金的账户登记在郭强、New Dynamic、Golden Spring 或债务人其他任何空壳公司名下。\n\n49. 此外，即使假定 Bouillor 和郭强独立于债务人，且 Bouillor 和塞浦路斯公寓均非债务人的财产，购买塞浦路斯公寓仍涉及将债务人的财产转让给内部人或为内部人的利益而转让，而债务人未获得任何对价。Bouillor 和郭强亦从在美国境内转入纽约 Chase 账户及从该账户转出的资金转移中受益。\n\n50. 下文列示了显示本文件所述转账的图示——“步骤1”是为郭强的纽约 Chase 账户注资，“步骤2”是塞浦路斯转账，即向债务人的塞浦路斯律师事务所 CGV 转账 \\$3.9 million，“步骤3”是向卖方付款。\n\n51. 假定郭强及其纽约 Chase 账户独立于债务人，步骤1——从和 Golden Spring 向郭强的纽约 Chase 账户转入约 \\$6 million（合称“注资转让”）——构成债务人在无对价情况下向郭强作出的转让。此外，\\$6 million 中的 \\$3.9 million 构成向郭强作出的、为 Bouillor 利益的转让（因为 \\$3.9 million 是用于为 Bouillor 购买塞浦路斯公寓的塞浦路斯转账金额）。\n\n52. 注资转让系为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出，因为该转让是通过债务人作为其空壳公司骗局一部分运营的空壳公司作出的。\n\nIX. 时效中止命令\n\n53. 2024年2月15日，本院作出《部分准予延长期限动议的裁决备忘录及命令》[Main Case Docket No. 2921]（“时效中止命令”）。该命令中，本院根据 Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)，将《破产法》sections 108、546 和 549规定的受托人提起撤销诉讼的期限延长至并包括2024年8月15日。\n\n54. 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，已提交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，并且在其他方面未与受托人合作，所有这些行为均公然无视其作为《破产法典》项下债务人的义务。[26]\n\n55. 债务人的家庭成员以及与其有关联的其他个人和实体同样妨碍了受托人的调查，法院作出“至少八项命令，认定……债务人、其女儿郭美（Mei Guo）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”即为明证。[27] 法院认定，在这些联合管理的第11章案件中，“不遵守本法院命令的情况是非同寻常的”，[28] 并且面对该等妨碍，受托人的调查“一直极其勤勉”。[29]\n\n26 时效中止命令，第14页。\n\n27 同上，第15页。\n\n56. 2024年8月14日，法院作出准许受托人延长提起撤销之诉期限的第二项动议的命令[主案卷宗编号3417]（“第二份时效中止命令”），将《破产法典》第108、546和549条规定的受托人提起撤销之诉的期限进一步延长至2025年2月15日，并指出受托人调查持续面临的障碍以及受托人在进行该等调查时的勤勉。[30]\n\n57. 受托人在调查和追诉本起诉状所主张的请求方面一直勤勉行事。\n\n58. 鉴于受托人在进行其勤勉调查时所面临的非同寻常的妨碍等情况，衡平因素的权衡强烈支持对适用于本案所主张请求的任何诉讼时效实行衡平法时效中止。\n\n第一项请求\n\n确认债务人为布耶尔（Bouillor）及其资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓）的实际实益所有人，并命令将布耶尔的所有权及资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓）交付给受托人\n\n59. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至58段所载的指控。\n\n60. 本文所载事实表明，在所有相关期间，债务人始终控制布耶尔。除其他事项外，债务人的塞浦路斯律师协助设立布耶尔，布耶尔名义上由债务人的儿子郭强（Qiang Guo）所有（债务人曾将其作为挂名人持有其众多资产），且布耶尔唯一的重要资产系使用债务人的资金为布耶尔购置。\n\n28 时效中止命令，第15页。\n\n29 同上，第17页。\n\n30 第二份时效中止命令，第2-3页。\n\n61. 根据塞浦路斯法律，该等事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) 郭强在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人或“消极受托人”，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有布耶尔所有权权益的法律所有权；以及(b) 布耶尔在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人或“消极受托人”，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓）所有权权益的法律所有权。\n\n62. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务，包括太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund，“PAX”）。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在此请求的救济。美国国税局（United States Internal Revenue Service）为债务人的债权人。\n\n63. 因此，受托人请求法院依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出裁定：(1) 宣告郭强声称持有的布耶尔所有权权益，以及布耶尔的资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓），在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将布耶尔的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及布耶尔的资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓），交付给受托人。\n\n第二项请求\n\n确认债务人为新动力（New Dynamic）及其资产的实际实益所有人\n\n64. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至58段所载的指控。\n\n65. 本文所载事实表明，在所有相关期间，债务人始终控制新动力。除其他事项外，债务人将其雇员屈娜塔莎（Natasha Qu）及其女儿郭美列为新动力的名义所有人和董事，新动力由债务人的其他空壳公司提供资金，新动力向债务人、其儿子及其其他空壳实体转移资金，且新动力与债务人使用相同地址。\n\n66. 根据香港法律，该等事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) 屈娜塔莎和郭美在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人或“消极受托人”，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有新动力所有权权益的法律所有权；以及(b) 新动力在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人或“消极受托人”，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产所有权权益的法律所有权。\n\n67. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务，包括太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金（Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund，“PAX”）。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在此请求的救济。\n\n68. 因此，受托人请求法院依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出裁定，宣告郭美声称持有的新动力所有权权益及新动力的资产在所有相关期间均为债务人的财产。\n\n第三项请求\n\n（撤销实际欺诈性转让）（作为第一项请求的备选主张）\n\n69. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至58段所载的指控。\n\n70. 资金转移系由债务人使用其空壳公司名义持有的债务人资金作出，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n71. 债务人在实施申请前转移时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，可由下列事实证明：\n\ni. 资金转移通过一个或多个空壳公司实施；\n\nii. 资金转移对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\niii. 资金转移作为债务人“空壳把戏”的一部分实施，意图隐瞒和庇护资产；\n\niv. 资金转移通过使债务人在不使其财产处于债权人追索范围内的情况下从其欺诈中获益，进一步促成债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nv. 债务人未因资金转移获得任何对价；\n\nvi. 资金转移通过使债务人在不使其财产处于债权人追索范围内的情况下从其欺诈中获利，进一步促成债务人的欺诈行为；以及\n\nvii. 在资金转移时，债务人负有债务，包括对PAX负有债务。\n\n72. 受托人可依据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276，以及《破产法典》第544(b)条撤销资金转移，并可追回：(a) 自被告郭强处追回全部资金转移；以及(b) 依据《破产法典》第550(a)条，自被告布耶尔处追回资金转移中的$3.9 million。\n\n请求救济\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，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告郭强声称持有的布耶尔所有权权益，以及布耶尔的资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓），在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将布耶尔的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及布耶尔的资产（包括塞浦路斯公寓），交付给受托人；\n\n2. 就第二项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令，宣告郭美声称持有的新动力所有权权益及新动力的资产在所有相关期间均为债务人的财产。\n\n3. 就第三项请求，作出命令，宣告金额不少于$6 million的资金转移依据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278[31]被撤销；(b) 为债务人破产财产的利益追回：(i) 由受托人选择，自被告郭强处追回全部资金转移或其价值；以及(ii) 依据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 276及《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，自被告布耶尔处追回资金转移中的$3.9 million或其价值；\n\n4. 在本诉讼中产生的合理律师费、成本和费用；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[本页其余部分特意留白]\n\n31 此系新动力转移发生之日适用的纽约州法规。\n\n日期：August 15, 2024　卢克·A·德斯平斯（LUC A. DESPINS），康涅狄格州纽黑文　第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\n道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡（Douglas S. Skalka）（ct00616）\n帕特里克·R·林赛（Patrick R. Linsey）（ct29437）\n诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思专业公司（NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\n尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特（Nicholas A. Bassett）（pro hac vice pending）\n保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（PAUL HASTINGS LLP）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\n道格拉斯·巴伦（Douglass Barron）（pro hac vice pending）\n保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（PAUL HASTINGS LLP）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的律师","key_entities":["Guo","Je","Despins","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","RICO","HCHK","Paul Hastings","William Je","Saraca","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":7021,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:06:28"}