{"id":"court_ctb_3767_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3767,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- |          | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      |          | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK,<br>et al.,                                |          | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                             | Debtors. | :<br>:<br>: | (Jointly Administered)  |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------  |          | x           |                         |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S (I) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SEVENTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL OMNIBUS RULE 2004 MOTION AND (II) OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the above-captioned chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby submits this reply (the \"Reply\") in further support of the Trustee's *Seventeenth Supplemental Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Additional Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor and Additional Relevant Banks* [ECF No. 3594] (the \"Rule 2004 Motion\") and in response to the *Amended Notice of Opposition to \"Seventeenth Supplemental Omnibus Motion\" for Further Discovery and Cross Motion to Quash Subpoena* [ECF No. 3649] (collectively, the \"Opposition\" or the \"Opp. Memo\") filed by Bofang Investment LLC (\"Bofang\") and Feibo Jiang (\"Jiang\") (collectively, the \"Objectors\"). Further to his Reply, the Trustee respectfully states the following:\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and 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\n### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. The Trustee has broad authority under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 to investigate matters—including those involving nonparty individuals and entities—relevant to the Chapter 11 Case and potential assets of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate (the \"Estate\"). Indeed, courts have approvingly described this authority as providing for a trustee to undertake a \"fishing expedition\" in search of Estate claims and other assets.\n\n2. In this Chapter 11 Case, the Trustee has made good use of this authority to obtain documents and information from hundreds of third parties; many of which, knowingly or not, played some role in the Debtor's long-running shell game. Often, the Trustee has obtained valuable information from or relating to nonparties that claimed or that superficially appeared to have little or no connection to the Debtor or his interests—but, in fact, were involved in the Debtor's financial dealings and in possession of Estate assets and/or information relevant to the existence or whereabouts of such assets.\n\n3. These Objectors are precisely the types of individuals and entities that the Trustee has authority to examine under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, because the Trustee knows that they are connected to the Debtor and his financial affairs. Both Objectors have transferred money to the Debtor via his alter egos and are closely associated with Debtor-related entities and individuals. As such, both may have documents and information that will aid the Trustee as he further unravels the Debtor's tangled financial affairs and pursues additional Estate assets. Accordingly, the Rule 2004 Motion should be granted, and the Opposition should be overruled.\n\n## **BACKGROUND**\n\n4. On September 30, 2024, the Trustee filed the Rule 2004 Motion requesting\n\n2\n\nauthority to obtain discovery pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") from, among other examinees, the Objectors, by issuing subpoenas substantially in the form as those attached to the Rule 2004 Motion as Exhibits C-5 and C-7. These forms of subpoena are also attached hereto as **Exhibits 1 and 2**.\n\n5. The Objectors are connected to the Debtor and his financial affairs in many ways. For this reason, they are properly subject to examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004.\n\n6. Bofang is a limited liability company that has transferred millions of dollars to various alter egos of the Debtor and other Debtor-associated entities, including but not limited to, HCHK Property Management Inc. (\"HCHK Property\"), HCHK Technologies, and GFNY Inc. (\"GFNY\"). (*See* Rule 2004 Motion, p. 4.) Jiang is an individual who has been a member of at least one Debtor-associated entity and who has personally transferred over \\$1,000,000.00 to the Debtor's alter egos and associated entities, including Saraca Media Group, Inc. (*See id*., pp. 4-5.)\n\n7. During the Debtor's criminal trial, the criminal court admitted into evidence (as exhibit GXWA21) a photograph taken in the government's search of Debtor's co-defendant and co-conspirator Yvette Wang of documents that appear to record the following transactions:\n\n- On March 6, 2023, Bofang transferred \\$500,000 to \"HCHK Tech Seacoast\"\n- On March 6, Jiang transferred \\$500,000 to \"HCHK Tech Seacoast\"\n- On March 10, 2023, Bofang transferred \\$600,000 to GFNY, Inc.\n\nGXWA21 is attached hereto as **Exhibit 3**. A stipulation between the United States Government and the Debtor authenticating and admitting this photograph into evidence in the Debtor's criminal trial is attached hereto as **Exhibit 4**.\n\n8. The Trustee understands that Ms. Wang's documents reflect transfers between the Objectors and the Debtor made through the Debtor's alter egos, in light of, among other things, the following facts:\n\n3\n\na) HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\") is an alter ego of the Debtor. *See Amended Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction* [Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05013, ECF No. 297] (the \"HCHK Judgment\");\n\nb) GFNY is a defendant and alter ego target in the \"Omnibus Alter Ego\" adversary proceeding styled as *Despins v. ACA Capital Grp. Ltd.,* et al. (Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249); and\n\nc) Seacoast National Bank is a bank at which the Debtor (through his alter egos, specifically including HCHK Technologies) conducted banking activity. *See Mtn. of Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling Seacoast Natl. Bank to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena* [ECF No. 2342]; *Order Compelling Seacoast Natl. Bank to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoena* [ECF No. 2406].\n\n9. Both of the Objectors were also listed as \"investors\" on a \"Master Service List\"\n\ncirculated in connection with New York state court assignment-for-the-benefit-of-creditors proceedings commenced as to the HCHK Entities.<sup>2</sup> The Objectors are listed as using a common email address on this Master Service List, *i.e.*, mosfoundation2064@gmail.com. The Trustee reasonably understands \"MOS\" to refer to \"Mountains of Spices,\" the name of a Himalaya Farm based in New York.<sup>3</sup> As the Court has previously found, Himalaya Farms \"serve the purposes of\n\n<sup>2</sup> The Master Service List is attached hereto as **Exhibit 5**. The \"HCHK Entities\" are: HCHK Technologies, HCHK Property, and Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. The Court has found that the HCHK Entities were alter egos of the Debtor at all times, and the Court has permanently enjoined the defendants in Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05013 \"and any party acting in concert with them\" from commencing or continuing the assignment proceedings. *See* HCHK Judgment.\n\n<sup>3</sup> As alleged by the U.S. Government, \"Mountains of Spices LLC (d/b/a New York Farm)\" is part of the \"interrelated and overlapping entities that form the G Enterprise\" (Superseding Indictment, *U.S.A. v. Ho Wan Kwok* (S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cr-00118-AT ECF No. 307), ¶3a, attached hereto as **Exhibit 6**). The U.S. District Judge presiding over the Debtor's criminal case has found that Qidong Xia served as leader of the Mountain of Spices Farm and Yongbing Zhang was the \"legal group leader\" of the same farm. Both Mr. Xia and Mr. Zhang were found to be co-conspirators of the Debtor for purpose of admitting their statements under the hearsay exception at the trial. *See* Order Admitting Certain Statements of Coconspirators, *U.S.A. v. Ho Wan Kwok* (S.D.N.Y. 1:23 cr-00118-AT ECF No. 388), attached hereto as **Exhibit 7**. The criminal court further found that the Debtor \"selected each of these individuals (including Xia and Zhang) to lead their respective Farms and in turn, they carried out his instructions in managing the Alliance.\" *Id.* at 8. Notably, counsel for the Objectors who signed their Opposition to the Rule 2004 Motion, *i.e.*, Richard N. Freeth, was also co-counsel to or otherwise coordinated with Mr. Zhang in litigation against the Trustee and his law firm and against counsel for creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund (\"PAX\") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which various plaintiffs falsely accused the Trustee and PAX's counsel of being agents of the Chinese Communist Party. After dismissing these claims as frivolous, at least two U.S. District Judges sanctioned Mr. Freeth under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. *See e.g*., Op. & Order at 4, n.3, *An v. Despins*, 22-cv-10062 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023) [ECF\n\nthe Debtor, serve as business vehicle for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\" (*See* Memorandum of Decision, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok*, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, ECF No. 133, ¶¶ 4, 7.)\n\n10. In addition, Jiang is listed as a member of HGA Property Operation LLC (\"HGA Property\"), a company formed by and managed by Ms. Qin Li, a close associate and supporter of the Debtor.<sup>4</sup> Documents in the Trustee's possession show that, after its formation in April 2023, HGA Property paid expenses relating to the Debtor's mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey (the \"Mahwah Mansion\"), including utilities, maintenance, security services, and property taxes.\n\n11. On October 7, 2024, the Objectors filed their Opposition. The Objectors did not request to meet and confer with the Trustee prior to filing their Opposition. *See* D. Conn. Local Civ. R. 37 (incorporated pursuant to D. Conn. Local R. Bankr. P. 2004-1(a)) (requiring parties to meet and confer before prosecuting discovery disputes).\n\n#### **ARGUMENT**\n\n12. As discussed in the Rule 2004 Motion, the scope of discovery under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 is exceedingly broad. *See also In re Parikh*, 397 B.R. 518, 525-526 (\"A Rule 2004 examination has been likened to a 'fishing expedition,' the scope of which is broad. The primary purpose of allowing broad discovery in Rule 2004 examinations is to expedite the locating of assets of the estate.\" (internal citation omitted)). \"The purpose of a Rule 2004 examination is to assist a\n\nNo. 29] (the \"First Sanctions Decision\"); Op. & Order at 36, *Gong v. Sarnoff*, 23-cv-343 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023) [ECF No. 72] (the \"Second Sanctions Decision\").\n\n<sup>4</sup> Upon information and belief, Ms. Li, is a prominent supporter of the Debtor and has worked for the Debtor at GNews, the Debtor's media platform. Ms. Li has also participated in the protest activities against the Trustee and Paul Hastings LLP both in front of the Trustee's residence and at Grand Central Terminal in New York (*See e.g*., Himalaya Global Alliance, @GlobalAlliance, GETTR (Dec. 10, 2022), http (showing Ms. Li and others protesting in front of Trustee's residence). Attached hereto as **Exhibit 8** are corporate filings with the State of New Jersey that include June 20, 2023 amendments to the HGA Property, LLC Certificate of Formation, which list Jiang as a \"member\" and Ms. Li as the company's president.\n\nparty in interest in determining the nature and extent of the bankruptcy estate, revealing assets, examining transactions and assessing whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" *In re Transmar Commodity Group Ltd.*, 2018 WL 4006324, at \\*4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted). This includes revealing the nature and extent of the estate and in discovering assets of the debtor that may have been intentionally or unintentionally concealed. *See In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.*, 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996); s*ee also In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC*, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016) (\"Legitimate goals of Rule 2004 examinations include discovering assets, examining transactions, and determining whether wrongdoing has occurred.\" (internal quotation and citation omitted)).\n\n13. Considering the Objectors' close ties to the Debtor, his financial affairs, his alter egos, and his personal and business associates, the Objectors' activities are well within the bounds of a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoena and may well reveal information relevant to claims or other assets of the Estate. Indeed, the Trustee is aware of and has appended to this Reply photographic evidence indicating transfers by the Objectors to the Debtor via his alter egos, as well as evidence suggesting that the Objectors are involved with the Debtor's Himalaya Farm operations as well as an entity that funded the Debtor's Mahwah Mansion.\n\n14. The Objectors contend that the subpoenas that the Trustee requests to issue are overly broad and unduly burdensome.<sup>5</sup> However, they fail to explain why or present evidence to that effect. (*See* Opposition, p. 2, ¶ 1.) And contrary to the Objectors' inaccurate statement that the Trustee has issued \"discovery demands totaling 122 pages,\" (*id.*), the subpoenas that the Trustee has requested to issue to the Objectors are each a mere seventeen pages in length, of which the eight categories of documents to be produced are contained within two pages. *See* Ex. 1, 2.\n\n<sup>5</sup> Because the Rule 2004 Motion remains pending, the Trustee has not yet issued the subpoenas to the Objectors, and thus the request by the Objectors that the subpoenas be \"quashed\" is inapposite.\n\n15. The Objectors also submit the purported statement of Jiang claiming no connection to the Debtor whatsoever, which is neither sworn nor signed. *See* Opposition, Ex. A. In light of the evidence submitted herewith of the Objectors' involvement with the Debtor and his associates, the representations in this unsigned statement and in the Opposition are, at best, misleading. It is also significant that the Opposition does not disclose any legitimate business activities or operations for Bofang, a corporate entity.\n\n16. The Objectors also ignore the \"exceptionally broad\" scope of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery, which, indeed, many courts have expressly likened to a \"fishing expedition.\" *See Despins v. Lamp Cap. LLC (In re Ho Wan Kwok)*, 2024 Bankr. LEXIS 2095, \\*11 (Bankr. D. Conn. March 6, 2024) (\"Rule 2004 discovery is exceptionally broad to serve this purpose; it is broader than discovery permitted in adversary proceedings.\"); *In re Rafsky*, 300 B.R. 152, 153 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003) (\"Examinations under Rule 2004 are allowed for the 'purpose of discovering assets and unearthing frauds' and have been compared to a 'fishing expedition.'\").\n\n17. The Trustee is plainly justified in seeking discovery relating to the Objectors due to their connections with the Debtor and his associates and financial affairs. Among other things, the Objectors' transfers of no less than \\$1.6 million to the Debtor via his HCHK Technologies and GFNY alter egos, and Jiang's involvement in an entity used to fund expenses of the Debtor's Mahwah Mansion, strongly suggest that the Objectors have documents or information concerning claims and assets that may be property of the Estate.\n\n18. The Objectors raise the issue of the location of Subpoena compliance, claiming that they are located more than 100 miles from the place of compliance listed on the Subpoena. If the Court grants the Trustee's Rule 2004 Motion, the Trustee will issue subpoenas to the Objectors containing compliance locations within 100 miles of their residence or place of business.\n\n7\n\n19. As for the Objectors' request that the Court impose sanctions against the Trustee, this request is wholly without merit and is also ironic considering the Objectors' failure to meet and confer with the Trustee as required by this Court's rules, *see ¶* 11 *supra*, and their counsel's history of incurring sanctions for harassing the Debtor's adversaries with frivolous litigation.<sup>6</sup>\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n<sup>6</sup> *See* First Sanctions Decision at 12-13 (noting that plaintiffs' \"true preoccupation [in suing the Trustee and his law firm] is with [the Debtor] and trying to 'defend' him by harassing those perceived to be his adversaries\" and that Mr. Freeth \"has a pattern of bringing meritless FARA claims against [the Debtor's] adversaries\"); Second Sanctions Decision at 28-34 (noting that \"if there is any doubt of the harassing purpose of this lawsuit, the history of lawsuits Zhang and Freeth have filed in this Court and elsewhere against PAX, persons associated with PAX, PAX's counsel, and those assisting the Bankruptcy Court settles that doubt.\").\n\nWHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Trustee asks the Court to grant his Rule 2004\n\nMotion, overrule the Opposition, and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: November 1, 2024 New Haven, Connecticut\n\n### 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\n\n*and*\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 alexbongartz@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                      | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK<br>et al.,                                      | :<br>:      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1                                                   | :<br>:<br>: | Jointly Administered    |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n\n## **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on the date hereof the foregoing was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties to the above-captioned chapter 11 case able to receive electronic notice by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\") system, or (within one business day) by U.S. Mail to any parties unable to receive electronic notice. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\n| Dated: November 1, 2024 | Luc A. Despins, as Chapter 11 Trustee   |\n|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|\n| New Haven, Connecticut  |                                         |\n|                         | By:<br>/s/ Patrick R. Linsey            |\n|                         | Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616)             |\n|                         | Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437)             |\n|                         | NEUBERT,<br>PEPE<br>&<br>MONTEITH, P.C. |\n|                         | 195 Church Street, 13th Floor           |\n|                         | New Haven, Connecticut 06510            |\n|                         | (203) 781-2847                          |\n|                         | dskalka@npmlaw.com                      |\n|                         | plinsey@npmlaw.com                      |\n|                         | Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee      |\n\n<sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格区 布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n: 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n等人， :\n: 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n:\n: （合并审理）\n---------------------------------------------------------- x\n第 11 章受托人 (I) 支持第十七次补充综合破产规则第 2004 条动议之答复，以及 (II) 反对撤销传票动议之答辩\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其在上述标题所示的 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（下称“债务人”）第 11 章破产案件（下称“第 11 章案件”）中获任命的第 11 章受托人（下称“受托人”）身份，特此提交本答复（下称“答复”），以进一步支持受托人提交的《第 11 章受托人根据破产规则第 2004 条及本地规则第 2004-1 条请求作出准予就与债务人关联的其他实体与个人以及其他相关银行进行证据开示的裁定的第十七次补充综合动议》[ECF No. 3594]（下称“破产规则第 2004 条动议”），并回应由 Bofang Investment LLC（下称“Bofang”）和 Feibo Jiang（下称“Jiang”）（合称“异议人”）提交的《对进一步证据开示“第十七次补充综合动议”的修正反对通知书及撤销传票的交叉动议》[ECF No. 3649]（合称“反对意见”或“反对备忘录”）。受托人进一步陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及其他诸多别名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 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 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知与沟通目的）。\n初步陈述\n\n1. 根据《破产规则》第 2004 条，受托人拥有广泛的权力对与本第 11 章案件及债务人第 11 章破产财产（下称“破产财产”）潜在资产相关的事项——包括涉及非当事方个人和实体的事项——进行调查。事实上，法院曾赞许性地将这种权力描述为允许受托人开展搜寻破产财产索赔权及其他资产的“摸底调查”。\n\n2. 在本第 11 章案件中，受托人充分利用了该项权力，从数百个第三方获取了文件和信息；其中许多第三方无论知情与否，都在债务人长期运作的“皮包公司骗局”中扮演了某种角色。通常情况下，受托人从声称或表面上看似与债务人或其利益几乎没有或毫无关联的非当事方处，获取了有价值的信息，或者获取了与之相关的有价值信息——但事实上，这些非当事方参与了债务人的财务交易，并占有破产财产资产，和/或掌握着与此类资产的存在或下落相关的信息。\n\n3. 这些异议人正是受托人有权根据《破产规则》第 2004 条进行调查的个人和实体类型，因为受托人知晓他们与债务人及其财务事务存在关联。两名异议人均曾通过债务人的化身向债务人转移资金，并与债务人相关的实体和个人存在密切联系。因此，双方都可能掌握有助于受托人进一步理清债务人错综复杂的财务事务并追索额外破产财产资产的文件和信息。据此，应准予该破产规则第 2004 条动议，并应驳回该反对意见。\n背景\n\n4. 2024年9月30日，受托人提交了破产规则第 2004 条动议，请求\n依据《联邦破产诉讼规则》（下称“《破产规则》”）第 2004 条，通过发出大体上与该破产规则第 2004 条动议后附证物 C-5 和 C-7 格式相同的传票，从包括异议人在内的受调查人处获取证据开示。这些传票格式亦作为证物 1 和证物 2 随附于本文件。\n\n5. 异议人以多种方式与债务人及其财务事务产生关联。出于这一原因，他们理应接受根据《破产规则》第 2004 条进行的调查。\n\n6. Bofang 是一家有限责任公司，已向债务人的多个化身及其他与债务人相关的实体转移了数百万美元，包括但不限于 HCHK Property Management Inc.（下称“HCHK Property”）、HCHK Technologies 以及 GFNY Inc.（下称“GFNY”）。（见破产规则第 2004 条动议第 4 页。）Jiang 是一名个人，曾为至少一家与债务人相关的实体的成员，并曾亲自向债务人的化身及关联实体转移超过 1,000,000.00 美元，其中包括 Saraca Media Group, Inc.。（见同上第 4-5 页。）\n\n7. 在债务人的刑事审判期间，刑事法院采纳了一张照片作为证据（作为证物 GXWA21），该照片拍摄于政府搜查债务人的共同被告兼共谋人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）的过程中发现的文件，这些文件似乎记录了以下交易：\n\n- 2023年3月6日，Bofang 向“HCHK Tech Seacoast”转账 500,000 美元\n- 3月6日，Jiang 向“HCHK Tech Seacoast”转账 500,000 美元\n- 2023年3月10日，Bofang 向 GFNY, Inc. 转账 600,000 美元\n\nGXWA21 作为证物 3 随附于本文件。美国政府与债务人之间就债务人刑事审判中鉴真并采纳该照片作为证据的协议书，作为证物 4 随附于本文件。\n\n8. 鉴于（除其他事项外）以下事实，受托人认为王女士的文件反映了异议人与债务人之间通过债务人的化身进行的转账：\na) HCHK Technologies, Inc.（下称“HCHK Technologies”）是债务人的化身。见《经修正的缺席判决书与永久禁令》[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, ECF No. 297]（下称“HCHK 判决书”）；\n\nb) GFNY 是以 Despins v. ACA Capital Grp. Ltd., et al.（Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249）为案由提起的“综合化身”对抗性诉讼中的被告和化身目标；以及\n\nc) Seacoast National Bank（海岸国家银行）是债务人（通过其化身，具体包括 HCHK Technologies）进行银行业务活动的银行。见《受托人请求作出强令 Seacoast Natl. Bank 遵守破产规则第 2004 条传票的裁定的动议》[ECF No. 2342]；《强令 Seacoast Natl. Bank 遵守破产规则第 2004 条传票的裁定》[ECF No. 2406]。\n\n9. 两位异议人亦作为“投资者”被列入一份在针对 HCHK 实体提起的纽约州法院为债权人利益转让程序中传阅的“主送达清单”上。2 在该主送达清单上，异议人被列为使用一个共同的电子邮件地址，即 mosfoundation2064@gmail.com。受托人合理认为“MOS”系指“Mountains of Spices（香草山）”，即一家位于纽约的喜马拉雅农场的名称。3 正如法院此前所认定的，喜马拉雅农场“服务于\n\n2 该主送达清单作为证物 5 随附于本文件。“HCHK 实体”系指：HCHK Technologies、HCHK Property 以及 Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.。法院已认定 HCHK 实体始终是债务人的化身，并且法院已永久禁止对抗性诉讼第 23-05013 号中的被告“以及与他们协同行动的任何当事方”启动或继续进行该转让程序。见 HCHK 判决书。\n\n3 正如美国政府所指控的，“Mountains of Spices LLC (d/b/a New York Farm)（香草山有限责任公司，商号为纽约农场）”是“构成 G 企业的相互关联且重叠的实体”的一部分（《替代起诉书》，U.S.A. v. Ho Wan Kwok（S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cr-00118-AT ECF No. 307），¶3a，作为证物 6 随附于本文件）。审理债务人刑事案件的美国联邦地区法官已认定 Qidong Xia 担任香草山农场的负责人，Yongbing Zhang 担任该农场的“法务组长”。Xia 先生和 Zhang 先生均被认定为债务人的共谋人，以便在审判中依据传闻证据例外规则采纳其陈述。见《采纳共谋人某些陈述的裁定》，U.S.A. v. Ho Wan Kwok（S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cr-00118-AT ECF No. 388），作为证物 7 随附于本文件。刑事法院进一步认定，债务人“挑选了所有这些个人（包括 Xia 和 Zhang）来领导各自的农场，而他们反过来在管理联盟时执行了他的指示。”同上，第 8 页。值得注意的是，签署对破产规则第 2004 条动议的反对意见的异议人律师，即 Richard N. Freeth，在 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区美国联邦地区法院）针对受托人及其律师事务所，以及针对债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，下称“PAX”）的律师的诉讼中，亦曾作为共同代理律师或以其他方式与 Zhang 先生协同配合，在该诉讼中，多名原告诬称受托人和 PAX 的律师为中国共产党的代理人。在以毫无根据为由驳回这些主张后，至少有两名美国联邦地区法官依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 11 条对 Freeth 先生实施了制裁。见例如《意见书与裁定》第 4 页脚注 3，An v. Despins, 22-cv-10062 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023) [ECF\n\n债务人的目的，充当债务人的商业工具，且其成员对债务人个人效忠。”（见《裁判备忘录》，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, ECF No. 133, ¶¶ 4, 7。）\n\n10. 此外，Jiang 被列为 HGA Property Operation LLC（下称“HGA Property”）的成员，该公司由债务人的亲密伙伴兼支持者 Qin Li（李晴）女士设立并管理。4 受托人掌握的文件显示，在 2023年4月 成立后，HGA Property 支付了与债务人位于新泽西州马瓦市的豪宅（下称“马瓦豪宅”）相关的费用，包括公用事业费、维护费、安保服务费和财产税。\n\n11. 2024年10月7日，异议人提交了其反对意见。在提交反对意见之前，异议人并未请求与受托人进行磋商。见《康涅狄格区本地民事规则》第 37 条（根据《康涅狄格区本地破产诉讼规则》第 2004-1(a) 条并入适用）（要求当事方在进行证据开示争议诉讼前先行磋商）。\n论证\n\n12. 如破产规则第 2004 条动议中所述，《破产规则》第 2004 条下的证据开示范围极其宽泛。另见 In re Parikh, 397 B.R. 518, 525-526（“第 2004 条调查被比作‘摸底调查’，其范围十分宽泛。在第 2004 条调查中允许进行宽泛证据开示的主要目的是加速查找破产财产的资产。”（引文省略））。“第 2004 条调查的目的在于协助\n\nNo. 29]（下称“第一项制裁裁定”）；《意见书与裁定》第 36 页，Gong v. Sarnoff, 23-cv-343 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023) [ECF No. 72]（下称“第二项制裁裁定”）。\n\n4 据悉，Li 女士是债务人的重要支持者，并曾为债务人在其媒体平台 GNews 工作。Li 女士还曾在受托人住所门前以及纽约大中央车站参与针对受托人和 Paul Hastings LLP 的抗议活动（见例如 Himalaya Global Alliance, @GlobalAlliance, GETTR (Dec. 10, 2022), http（显示 Li 女士及其他人在受托人住所前抗议））。作为证物 8 随附于本文件的是向新泽西州提交的公司备案文件，其中包括 2023年6月20日 对 HGA Property, LLC 设立证书的修正案，该文件将 Jiang 列为“成员”，将 Li 女士列为公司总裁。\n\n利害关系方确定破产财产的性质和范围、查明资产、审查交易以及评估是否发生不当行为。」In re Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., 2018 WL 4006324, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)（省略内部引文和引证）。这包括查明破产财产的性质和范围，以及发现债务人可能被故意或非故意隐匿的资产。参见 In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 27-28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996)；另见 In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 562 B.R. 614, 626 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016)（「第 2004 条调查的正当目标包括发现资产、审查交易以及确定是否发生不当行为。」（省略内部引文和引证））。\n\n13. 鉴于异议人与Debtor（债务人）、其财务事务、其另我实体（alter egos）及其个人和商业关联方的密切关系，异议人的活动完全在Bankruptcy Rule 2004（《破产程序规则》第 2004 条）传票的范围之内，并很可能揭示与破产财产的索赔或其他资产相关的信息。事实上，Trustee（受托人）知悉并将表明异议人通过债务人的另我实体向债务人转账的照片证据附于本回复，以及表明异议人参与了债务人的Himalaya Farm（喜马拉雅农场）运营以及为债务人的Mahwah Mansion（马鞍豪宅）提供资金的实体的证据。\n\n14. 异议人主张受托人请求发出的传票过于宽泛且造成不当负担。5 然而，他们未能解释原因或就此提出证据。（参见异议书，第 2 页，第 1 段。）并且与异议人声称受托人发出了「总计 122 页的证据开示要求」的不实陈述相反（同上），受托人请求向异议人发出的传票每份仅有十七页长，其中要求出示的八类文件包含在两页之内。参见附件 1、2。\n\n5 鉴于第 2004 条动议仍处于待决状态，受托人尚未向异议人发出传票，因此异议人要求「撤销」传票的请求是不适用的。\n\n15. 异议人还提交了一份所谓的Jiang（蒋）声称与债务人没有任何关联的声明，该声明既未宣誓也未签名。参见异议书，附件 A。鉴于随附提交的表明异议人与债务人及其关联方有牵连的证据，该份未签名声明及异议书中的陈述往最好里说也是具有误导性的。同样重要的是，异议书未披露Bofang（博芳）这一公司实体的任何合法商业活动或运营。\n\n16. 异议人还忽视了《破产程序规则》第 2004 条证据开示「异常广泛」的范围，事实上，许多法院明确将其比作「摸底调查（fishing expedition）」。参见 Despins v. Lamp Cap. LLC (In re Ho Wan Kwok), 2024 Bankr. LEXIS 2095, *11 (Bankr. D. Conn. March 6, 2024)（「第 2004 条证据开示异常广泛以服务于这一目的；它比对抗性程序中允许的证据开示更宽泛。」）；In re Rafsky, 300 B.R. 152, 153 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2003)（「根据第 2004 条进行的调查是被允许用于『发现资产和揭露欺诈的目的』，并被比作『摸底调查』。」）。\n\n17. 鉴于异议人与债务人及其关联方和财务事务的关联，受托人寻求与异议人相关的证据开示显然是有充分理由的。除其他事项外，异议人通过债务人的HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技）和GFNY另我实体向债务人转账不少于 160 万美元，以及蒋参与了用于资助债务人马鞍豪宅开支的实体，这些都强烈表明异议人持有关于可能属于破产财产的索赔和资产的文件或信息。\n\n18. 异议人提出了传票遵从地点的问题，声称他们所在地距离传票上列出的遵从地点超过 100 英里。如果法院准许受托人的第 2004 条动议，受托人将向异议人发出载明在其住所或营业地点 100 英里范围内的遵从地点的传票。\n\n19. 至于异议人要求法院对受托人实施制裁的请求，该请求完全没有依据，而且考虑到异议人未能按照本院规则的要求与受托人进行磋商（参见上文第 11 段），以及其代理律师曾因以无理诉讼骚扰债务人的对手而受到制裁的历史，该请求也显得颇具讽刺意味。6\n\n[本页以下部分特意留白。]\n\n6 参见《第一份制裁决定》第 12-13 页（指出原告[在起诉受托人及其律师事务所时]「真正关注的是[债务人]，并试图通过骚扰那些被视为其对手的人来『为他辩护』」，以及Freeth先生「有对[债务人]的对手提起毫无依据的FARA索赔的惯常做法」）；《第二份制裁决定》第 28-34 页（指出「如果对本案诉讼的骚扰目的有任何疑问，Zhang和Freeth在本院及其他地方针对PAX、与PAX相关的人员、PAX的代理律师以及协助破产法院的人员提起的诉讼历史消除了这一疑问。」）。\n\n据此，基于前述理由，受托人请求法院准许其第 2004 条动议，驳回异议，并给予法院认为公正和适当的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2024年11月1日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\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\n以及\n\nG. Alexander Bongartz（特别出庭准入）\nDouglass Barron（特别出庭准入）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\nalexbongartz@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（特别出庭准入）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n案件：\nChapter 11（第 11 章）\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\nDebtors（债务人）。1\n联合审理\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE（送达证明书）\n\n下述署名人特此证明，于本文件载明之日，上述文件已完成电子归档。本归档通知已通过法院的电子归档（「CM/ECF」）系统以电子邮件方式发送给上述第 11 章案件中能够接收电子通知的所有各方，或（在一个工作日内）通过美国邮政以平信方式寄送给任何无法接收电子通知的各方。各方可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次归档文件。\n\n日期：2024年11月1日\n康涅狄格州纽黑文\n\nLuc A. Despins，作为第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：\n/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 章受托人之代理律师\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称为郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和通讯目的）。","key_entities":["Je","HCHK","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Paul Hastings","Guo","Himalaya","Miles Guo","GETTR","Saraca","Chinese Communist Party","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":72,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":297,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":307,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":388,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2342,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2406,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3594,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3649,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":3135,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:39:03"}