{"id":"court_ctb_3926_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3926,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2024-12-23","title":"B104 (FORM 104) (/) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B104 (FORM 104) (/)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | | |\n| Luc
A.
Despins,
Chapter
11
Trustee | See
Schedule
1 | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS (If Known) | | | |\n| Paul
Hastings
LLP,
200
Park
Avenue | See
Schedule
2 | | | |\n| New
York,
NY
10166,
212-318-6000 | | | | |\n| PARTY
(Check One Box Only) | PARTY
(Check One Box Only) | | | |\n| Ƒ
Debtor
Ƒ
U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin | Ƒ
Ƒ
Debtor
U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin | | | |\n| Ƒ
Creditor
Ƒ
Other
■ | Ƒ
Ƒ
Creditor
Other | | | |\n| Ƒ
Trustee | Ƒ
Trustee | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION (WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) | | | | |\n| Declaratory Judgment pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 541, 542, and 544 that certain Defendants are the
Debtor's alter egos and ordering turnover of their assets to Trustee; Declaratory Judgment pursuant to Bankruptcy
Code sections 541, 542, and 544 that Debtor is equitable/beneficial owner of certain Defendants and/or their assets
and ordering turnover of ownership of those entities and their assets to Trustee. | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT | | | | |\n| (Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued) | | | |\n| Ƒ
■
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
Ƒ | Ƒ
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
Ƒ | | | |\n| 12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
Ƒ | 68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
Ƒ | | | |\n| 13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
Ƒ
14-Recovery of money/property - other | 63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
Ƒ
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation | | | |\n| | (other than domestic support) | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
Ƒ
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | Ƒ
65-Dischargeability - other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief | | | |\n| Ƒ
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | Ƒ
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
Ƒ | | | |\n| | 72-Injunctive relief – other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
Ƒ | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest | | | |\n| 41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | Ƒ
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment | | | |\n| Ƒ
51-Revocation of confirmation | Ƒ
■
91-Declaratory judgment | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability | | | | |\n| Ƒ
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
Ƒ
01-Determination of removed claim or cause | | | |\n| Ƒ
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation, | | | | |\n| actual fraud
Ƒ | Other
Ƒ | | | |\n| 67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny | SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
Ƒ
■
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court | | | |\n| (continued next column) | if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | |\n| Ƒ
Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law | Ƒ
Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | |\n| Ƒ
Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n| Declaratory
relief
regarding
alter
ego
and
equitable
and/or
beneficial
ownership | | | | |\n\n**B104 (FORM 104) (/), Page 2**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok, et al. | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING
Connecticut | | DIVISION OFFICE
Bridgeport | NAME OF JUDGE
Julie A. Manning | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
/s/
Douglass
E.
Barron | | | | |\n| DATE
December
23,
2024 | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
Douglass
E.
Barron | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 104, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 104 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n### **SCHEDULE I**\n\nAA Global Ventured Limited, AAGV Limited, Alzarro Enterprises Ltd., Ampleforth Capital Ltd., Anton Development Limited, Assets Sino Limited, Auspicious Coast Limited, BSA Capital Management Limited, BSA Strategic Fund I, Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited, Crane Advisory Group LLC, Delta Konsult Limited, Eagle Eye Investments Limited, Feibo Jiang, Fiesta Investment Ltd., Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited, Gold Perfect Limited, Group Dynasty Limited, GS Security Solutions Inc., Guang Hong Limited, H Reserve Management Limited, Haitham Khaled, Haoran He, Head Win Group Limited, HGA Property Operation LLC, Hing Chi Ngok, Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited,\n\nHong Kong International Funds Investments Limited,\n\nHudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.\n\nInfinity Treasury Management Inc.\n\nInsight Phoenix Fund,\n\nJoincorp International Limited,\n\nJoy Chance Holdings Limited,\n\nKesen Yang,\n\nKun Ma,\n\nKingdom Rich Limited,\n\nLe Qiao,\n\nLichun Guo,\n\nLihong Guo,\n\nLong Gate Limited,\n\nMax Krasner,\n\nMei Guo,\n\nNew Federal State Corporation,\n\nNew Miracle Limited,\n\nPacific King Investment Limited,\n\nPhoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited,\n\nQiang Guo,\n\nQin Li,\n\nRich Group Development Limited,\n\nRising Sun Capital Ltd.,\n\nRiver Valley Operations LLC,\n\nSail Victory Limited,\n\nScott Barnett,\n\nStrong Country Holdings Group Limited,\n\nThousand Stars Company Limited,\n\nWencun Guo,\n\nXinfang Zhang,\n\nYan Su,\n\nYumei Hao\n\nZhang Wei,\n\nZongchao Yue.\n\n### **SCHEDULE II**\n\n#### **Crane Advisory Group**\n\nJon-Jorge Aras, Esq. Warren Law Group 14 Penn Plaza, 9th Floor New York NY 10122 212-580-2303 jj@warren.law\n\nDavid Rosenfield, Esq. Warren Law Group 14 Penn Plaza, 9th Floor New York NY 10122 212-580-2303 drosenfield@warren.law\n\n#### **Scott Barnett & GS Security Solutions Inc.**\n\nAaron Romney Lax & Neville, LLP 2425 Post Road Suite 200 Southport, CT 06890-1267 Tel.: (646) 328-1566 Fax: (212) 566-4531 aromney@laxneville.com\n\nBarry R. Lax, Esq. Lax & Neville, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 696-1999 Fax: (212) 490-3332 blax@laxneville.com\n\nRobert J. Grand, Esq. Lax & Neville, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 696-1999 Fax: (212) 490-3332 rgrand@laxneville.com\n\nRobert R. Miller, Esq. Lax & Neville, LLP\n\n350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 696-1999 Fax: (212) 490-3332 rmiller@laxneville.com\n\n### **Hing Chi Ngok**\n\nChristopher J. Major, Esq. Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC 125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 655-3500 cjm@msf-law.com\n\nAustin D. Kim, Esq. Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC 125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 655-3500 adk@msf-law.com\n\n#### **Infinity Treasury Management Inc.**\n\nBarry R. Lax, Esq. Lax & Neville, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 696-1999 Fax: (212) 490-3332 blax@laxneville.com\n\nRobert J. Grand, Esq. Lax & Neville, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 696-1999 Fax: (212) 490-3332 rgrand@laxneville.com\n\nRobert R. Miller, Esq. Lax & Neville, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4640 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 696-1999 Fax: (212) 490-3332 rmiller@laxneville.com\n\n## **Max Krasner**\n\nRonald Ian Chorches Law Offices of Ronald I. Chorches 82 Wolcott Hill Road - 2nd. Flr. Suite 2 Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-563-3955 860-513-1577 (fax) ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net\n\n# **Mei Guo**\n\nStephen M. Kindseth ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 368-4234 Fax: (203) 368-5485 skindseth@zeislaw.com\n\nJames M. Moriarty ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 368-4234 Fax: (203) 368-5485 jmoriarty@zeislaw.com\n\n# **Qiang Guo**\n\nArethusa Forsyth arethusaf@proton.me\n\n# **River Valley Operations LLC**\n\nRoss G. Fingold Stokesbury & Fingold, LLC 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 204 Farmington, CT 06032 (860)606-1709 rfingold@lawssf.com\n\nMichael T. Conway Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP 747 Third Ave., 16th Floor Fifth Floor\n\nNew York, NY 10017 917-242-1597 212-430-8062 (fax) mconway@lpgmlaw.com\n\n# **Yumei Hao**\n\nRoss G. Fingold Stokesbury & Fingold, LLC 10 Waterside Drive, Suite 204 Farmington, CT 06032 (860)606-1709 rfingold@lawssf.com\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| et al.,1
HO WAN KWOK, | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors. | :
:
(Jointly Administered) |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
: |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE, | :
: |\n| | :
Adv. Proceeding No. [
] |\n| Plaintiff,
v. | :
: |\n| | : |\n| AA GLOBAL VENTURES LIMITED, AAGV
LIMITED, ALZARRO ENTERPRISES LTD., | :
: |\n| AMPLEFORTH CAPITAL LTD, ANTON | : |\n| DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, ASSETS SINO
LIMITED, AUSPICIOUS COAST LIMITED, BSA | :
: |\n| CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED, BSA | : |\n| STRATEGIC FUND I, CANADIAN AGRI
PRODUCT
MONETARY INVESTMENTS LIMITED, | :
: |\n| CRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC, DELTA | : |\n| KONSULT LIMITED, EAGLE EYE
INVESTMENTS
LIMITED, FEIBO JIANG, FIESTA INVESTMENT | :
: |\n| LTD., GLORY ASIA (H.K.) LIMITED, GOLD | : |\n| PERFECT LIMITED, GROUP DYNASTY LIMITED, | : |\n| GS SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC., GUANG HONG
LIMITED, H RESERVE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, | :
: |\n| HAITHAM KHALED, HAORAN HE, HEAD WIN | : |\n| GROUP LIMITED, HGA PROPERTY OPERATION
LLC,
HING CHI NGOK, HOLY CITY HONG KONG | :
: |\n| VENTURES LIMITED, HONG KONG | : |\n| INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS | : |\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\nLIMITED, HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDINGS, INC., INFINITY TREASURY MANAGEMENT INC., INSIGHT PHOENIX FUND, JOINCORP INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, JOY CHANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, KESEN YANG, KUN MA, KINGDOM RICH LIMITED, LE QIAO, LICHUN GUO, LIHONG GUO, LONG GATE LIMITED, MAX KRASNER, MEI GUO, NEW FEDERAL STATE CORPORATION, NEW MIRACLE LIMITED, PACIFIC KING INVESTMENT LIMITED, PHOENIX CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (CAYMAN) LIMITED, QIANG GUO, QIN LI, RICH GROUP DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, RISING SUN CAPITAL LTD., RIVER VALLEY OPERATIONS LLC, SAIL VICTORY LIMITED, SCOTT BARNETT, STRONG COUNTRY HOLDINGS GROUP LIMITED, THOUSAND STARS COMPANY LIMITED, WENCUN GUO, XINFANG ZHANG, YAN SU, YUMEI HAO, ZHANG WEI, and ZONGCHAO YUE, : : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : : :\n\nDefendants.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------- : x\n\n# **SECOND 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 CERTAIN ENTITIES ARE ALTER EGOS OF DEBTOR AND (II) RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against the above-captioned defendants (collectively, the\n\n\"Defendants\"). In support of this Complaint, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n# **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze\n\nof corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he\n\nhas no assets despite his lavish lifestyle,\" wrote Justice Ostrager of the Supreme Court of the\n\nState of New York in his final contempt decision issued on February 9, 2022 in litigation brought\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 12 of 130\n\nby Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") against the Debtor.[2](#page-11-0) Justice Ostrager found that the Debtor had played a \"shell game\"—\"a game of evasion\" involving \"machinations\" \"to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\" Justice Ostrager imposed a \\$134 million contempt fine against the Debtor, triggering the filing of the Debtor's bankruptcy petition on February 15, 2022. But the Debtor's efforts to hide his assets continued, in spite of the Chapter 11 Case and the Debtor's criminal conviction and prosecution, and the Trustee has diligently sought to unravel the Debtor's shell game to this day.\n\n2. This Complaint follows in the footsteps of the *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 Certain Entities Are Alter Egos of Debtor and (II) Related Relief* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249, Docket No. 1] (the \"First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint\"), the *Amended 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 Certain Entities Are Alter Egos of Debtor and (II) Related Relief* [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249, Docket No. 106] (the \"Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint\"), and the other complaints filed by the Trustee asserting Alter Ego Claims (as defined below) that have resulted thus far in numerous orders adjudging entities to be the Debtor's alter egos and/or to be beneficially or equitably owned, together with their assets, by the Debtor.\n\n3. The Trustee's continued investigation, together with new information made public during the Debtor's criminal trial (which, on July 16, 2024, resulted in a federal jury finding the Debtor guilty on racketeering, conspiracy, fraud, and money laundering charges), now allows the\n\n2 *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181 (the \"Final Contempt Decision\").\n\nTrustee to assert Alter Ego Claims with respect to numerous additional entities that, despite\n\nbeing nominally separate from the Debtor, are dominated and controlled by him.\n\n4. The distinct entities with respect to which this Complaint asserts Alter Ego\n\nClaims (the \"Debtor Entities,\" and each a \"Debtor Entity\") are[3](#page-12-0) :\n\n- a. **Crane Advisory Group LLC** (**\"Crane\")**, a company organized in New York, nominally held by Haitham Khaled, that the Debtor used, among other things, to assist in opening bank accounts for various of the Debtor's shell companies and to facilitate the collection of G Club membership funds from the Debtor's supporters.\n- b. **GS Security Solutions Inc. (\"GS Security\")**, an entity organized in New York and nominally owned by the Debtor's bodyguard, Scott Barnett, which the Debtor has used to hold title to multiple luxury vehicles and provide transportation and security services for himself and his family members.\n- c. **HGA Property Operation LLC (\"HGA Property Operation\")**, an entity organized in New Jersey and nominally held by the Debtor's supporters Qin Li and Feibo Jiang. The Debtor used HGA Property Operation, among other things, to maintain his mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey (the \"Mahwah Mansion\") and employ his chef, Han Chunguang, as well as numerous employees of the Debtor's alter ego HCHK Property (as defined below).\n- d. The **Haoran He Entities,** comprised of **Rising Sun Capital Ltd.** (**\"Rising Sun Capital\")**, and **Fiesta Investment Ltd. (\"Fiesta Investment\")**, entities organized in the United Kingdom and nominally held by Haoran He (collectively, the **\"Haoran He Entities\"**), whom the Debtor used as the straw man owner of his G Club Entities, including G Club International Limited (\"G Club International\") and G Club Operations LLC (\"G Club Operations,\" and together with G Club International, the \"G Club Entities\")). Testimony from the Criminal Trial indicates that Haoran He has a longstanding friendship with the Debtor's son dating to their time as students together. One witness at the Criminal Trial testified that she understood Haoran He to be part of the Debtor's family. The Haoran He Entities were used by the Debtor, among other things, to funnel money from his G Club scheme to the Debtor's son.\n\n3 The Trustee asserts Alter Ego Claims herein with respect to certain entities that are also defendants in other actions commenced by the Trustee asserting avoidance claims against such defendants pursuant to sections 544, 548, and/or 549 of the Bankruptcy Code (the \"Avoidance Claims\"). The Trustee asserts the Alter Ego Claims herein in the alternative to the Avoidance Claims and reserves all his rights with respect to both his Alter Ego Claims and Avoidance Claims based upon further progress in the Trustee's investigation.\n\n- e. The **UAE Entities**, comprised of **Thousand Stars Company Limited (\"Thousand Stars\"), Delta Konsult Limited (\"Delta Konsult\"), and H Reserve Management Ltd. (\"H Reserve Management\")**, entities organized in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (\"ADGM\"), in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (collectively, the \"**UAE Entities\"**). The Debtor has used the UAE Entities in order to, among other things, continue his G Club and Himalaya Exchange schemes and activities overseas in reaction to the investigation and prosecution of the Debtor by the United States Government.\n- f. **River Valley Operations LLC (\"River Valley\")**, an entity organized in Indiana, and nominally owned by Yumei Hao, a prominent supporter of the Debtor and member of the Debtor's New Federal State of China (\"NFSC\") and of the Debtor's Iron Blood Group of the Himalaya Global Alliance organizations (the \"Iron Blood Group\"). Upon information and belief, Yumei Hao is in charge of the finance department of the Debtor's Himalaya Global Alliance organizations. The Debtor used River Valley to transfer funds to and from other entities he controlled and to pay for such entities' expenses, as well as to transfer funds to his daughter and prominent supporters.\n- g. **Ampleforth Capital Ltd.** (**\"Ampleforth Capital**\"), an entity organized in the BVI and nominally owned, upon information and belief, by Kun (\"Kevin\") Ma, a prominent supporter of the Debtor and member of the NFSC and Iron Blood Group. The Debtor used Ampleforth Capital to funnel money from his supporters to Himalaya International Clearing Limited (**\"Himalaya International Clearing\"**), a company controlled by the Debtor that is one of the companies named as a defendant in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n- h. Certain holding companies (the **\"Debtor Holding Companies\"**) whose sole purpose was to hold ownership interests in companies that have already been adjudged to be, or that the Trustee has already alleged to be, alter egos of and/or beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor.\n- i. Numerous shell companies incorporated in Hong Kong, BVI, and other offshore jurisdictions (the \"**Hong Kong Shell Companies**,\" \"**BVI Shell Companies**,\" and \"**Other Shell Companies**\" respectively), at which the Debtor's family members, employees, controlled companies, or other agents served as nominal shareholders and/or directors and that the Debtor used to engage in financial transactions and/or hold assets on his behalf.\n- 5. Based on the facts set forth below, the Trustee seeks rulings pursuant to sections\n\n541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code declaring that each Debtor Entity is an alter ego of\n\nand equitably owned by the Debtor (or similar relief under applicable law).\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.\n\n§157(a). Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n### **PARTIES**\n\n8. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the\n\nCourt's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n- 9. AA Global Ventures Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 10. AAGV Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 11. Alzarro Enterprises Ltd. is a BVI entity.\n- 12. Ampleforth Capital Ltd is a BVI entity.\n- 13. Anton Development Limited is the nominal owner of AA Global Ventures\n\n### Limited.\n\n- 14. Assets Sino Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 15. Auspicious Coast Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 16. BSA Capital Management Limited is the nominal owner of BSA Strategic Fund I.\n- 17. BSA Strategic Fund I is a Cayman Islands entity.\n- 18. Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 19. Crane Advisory Group LLC is a New York entity.\n- 20. Delta Konsult Limited is an ADGM entity.\n- 21. Eagle Eye Investments Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 22. Feibo Jiang is a nominal owner of HGA Property Operation LLC.\n- 23. Fiesta Investment Ltd. is a United Kingdom entity.\n- 24. Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 25. Gold Perfect Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 26. Group Dynasty Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 27. GS Security Solutions Inc. is a New York entity.\n- 28. Guang Hong Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 29. H Reserve Management Limited is an ADGM entity.\n- 30. Haitham Khaled is the nominal owner of Crane Advisory Group LLC.\n- 31. Haoran He is the nominal owner of Fiesta Investment Ltd., Rising Sun Capital\n\nLtd., and Thousand Stars Company Limited.\n\n- 32. Head Win Group Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 33. HGA Property Operation LLC is a New Jersey entity.\n- 34. Hing Chi Ngok, the Debtor's wife, is the nominal owner of Gold Perfect Limited,\n\nGroup Dynasty Limited, Joy Chance Holdings Limited, and Pacific King Investment Limited.\n\nHing Chi Ngok is also the nominal 5% owner of Strong Country Holdings Group Limited.\n\n- 35. Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 36. Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 37. Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. is a BVI entity.\n- 38. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. is a Delaware entity.\n- 39. Insight Phoenix Fund is a Cayman Islands entity.\n- 40. Joincorp International Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n\n41. Joy Chance Holdings Limited is a Hong Kong entity and is the nominal owner of New Miracle Limited.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 17 of 130\n\n- 42. Kesen Yang is the nominal owner of Eagle Eye Investments Limited.\n- 43. Kun (\"Kevin\") Ma is the nominal owner of Ampleforth Capital Ltd.\n- 44. Kingdom Rich Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 45. Le (\"Ingrid\") Qiao is the nominal owner of H Reserve Management Limited.\n- 46. Lichun Guo is the nominal owner of Auspicious Coast Limited.\n- 47. Lihong Guo is the nominal owner of Assets Sino Limited.\n- 48. Long Gate Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 49. Max Krasner is the nominal owner of Long Gate Limited.\n- 50. Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, is the nominal owner of AAGV Limited,\n\nJoincorp International Limited, and Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited.\n\n- 51. New Federal State Corporation is a Nevis entity and is the nominal owner of Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited.\n\t- 52. New Miracle Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n\t- 53. Pacific King Investment Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n\n54. Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited is the nominal owner of Insight Phoenix Fund.\n\n55. Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son, is the nominal owner of Alzarro Enterprises Ltd, Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited, Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., Infinity Treasury Management Inc., Kingdom Rich Limited, and Sail Victory Limited. Qiang Guo is also the nominal 95% owner of Strong Country Holdings Group Limited.\n\n56. Qin Li is a nominal owner of HGA Property Operation LLC.\n\n- 57. Rich Group Development Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n- 58. Rising Sun Capital Ltd. is a United Kingdom entity.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 18 of 130\n\n59. River Valley Operations LLC is an Indiana entity.\n\n- 60. Sail Victory Limited is a BVI entity.\n- 61. Scott Barnett is the nominal owner of GS Security Solutions Inc.\n\n62. Strong Country Holdings Group Limited is a Hong Kong entity.\n\n63. Thousand Stars Company Limited (formerly G Clubs ME Limited) is an ADGM\n\nentity.\n\n64. Wencun Guo (a/k/a Man Chuen Kwok) is the nominal owner Guang Hong\n\nLimited.\n\n65. Xinfang (\"Sarah\") Zhang is the nominal owner of Delta Konsult Limited.\n\n66. Yan Su is the nominal owner of Rich Group Development Limited.\n\n67. Yumei Hao is the nominal owner of River Valley Operations LLC.\n\n68. Zhang Wei is the nominal owner of Head Win Group Limited.\n\n69. Zongchao Yue is the nominal owner of Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n#### **I. Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n70. As discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, incorporated by reference herein, the Debtor is a prolific user of shell companies, nominally owned by family members or business subordinates, to conceal and shield his assets and activities from creditors. The Debtor's \"shell game\" has allowed him to continue to deny ownership of assets, refuse to pay debts, and—until his arrest by the FBI and subsequent criminal conviction—live a life of extreme luxury.\n\n71. The Trustee has been steadily unraveling the Debtor's shell game and has already asserted claims alleging that numerous shell companies are the Debtor's alter egos and/or that\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 19 of 130\n\nsuch shell companies and their assets are beneficially owned by the Debtor, or similar claims under applicable law (collectively, the \"Alter Ego Claims\"). Numerous actions commenced by the Trustee in this regard (the \"Alter Ego Actions\") have resulted in rulings in the Trustee's favor on his Alter Ego Claims (the \"Alter Ego Rulings\"), while several of the Alter Ego Actions remain pending.\n\n72. For example, prior to the filing of the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Court had already issued Alter Ego Rulings with respect to HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited (\"HK USA\"), Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\"), Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), and Ace Decade Limited (\"Ace Decade\").\n\n73. Subsequent to the filing of the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Court issued Alter Ego Rulings with respect to Whitecroft Shore Limited (\"Whitecroft\"), HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\"), HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\"), Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc. (\"Lexington Property\" and together with HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property, the \"HCHK Entities\"), Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land\"), and K Legacy Ltd. (\"K Legacy\"). The Trustee's Alter Ego Actions with respect to Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"HDNY\"), Leading Shine NY Limited (\"Leading Shine NY\"), and Taurus Fund LLC (\"Taurus Fund\") remain pending, as does the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, which asserts Alter Ego Claims with respect to numerous different entities organized in the United States, British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\"), Hong Kong, and other jurisdictions, including among others entities prominently involved in the Debtor's purported membership club (G Club) and cryptocurrency (Himalaya Exchange) schemes. [4](#page-18-0)\n\n4 In addition to the Trustee's Alter Ego Claims, the Trustee has also asserted claims that various assets nominally owned by the Debtor's shell companies or family members were in fact owned by the Debtor, resulting in rulings that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of, among other things, his *Lady May* yacht, Bombardier private jet, and various luxury motorcycles. *See Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral*\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 20 of 130\n\n74. As noted in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Debtor has spent at least the last ten years creating shell companies to hide and move his assets out of creditors' reach, and these shell companies tend to exhibit a number of similar characteristics, such as: (a) nominal ownership of an entity by someone with a close relationship to the Debtor, such as a family member, employee or devoted follower; (b) the lack of observance of corporate formalities including through the siphoning of assets for personal use; (c) the entity holding title to an asset beneficially owned by the Debtor; (d) the entity being formed at the direction of the Debtor; (e) the entity providing funding for the Debtor's expenses; (f) the entity being staffed by employees of the Debtor; (g) the entity sharing an office address with the Debtor and other entities associated with the Debtor; and (h) the entity having no independent business purpose (other than to own and hold assets of and for the Debtor) or source of funds (other than the Debtor). As discussed further herein, numerous of the Debtor Entities that are the subject of this Complaint share, if not all of these characteristics, enough of them so as to make apparent the Debtor's domination and control over such entities. Moreover, the Debtor Entities cannot be viewed in a vacuum, but must be assessed in light of an established pattern of behavior whereby the Debtor places loyal individuals in charge of purportedly independent companies to administer vast sums of money and execute multi-million-dollar transactions for the benefit of himself and his family.\n\n#### **A. Trustee's Avoidance Actions and Civil RICO Complaint**\n\n75. In addition to the Alter Ego Claims asserted by the Trustee, the Trustee has commenced hundreds of adversary proceedings seeking the avoidance of fraudulent and post-\n\n*Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 177; *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment*, Adv. Proc. No. 23- 05008, Docket No. 126; *Memorandum of Decision Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings*, Adv. Proc. No. 24-05001, Docket No. 33.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 21 of 130\n\npetition transfers made by the Debtor through his alter ego shell companies (the \"Avoidance Litigation\"), seeking in excess of \\$600 million in recoveries.\n\n76. Separately, the Trustee has filed a complaint against 57 defendants, including the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, and the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, seeking damages for violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and conspiracy to violate the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (the \"Civil RICO Complaint\").[5](#page-20-0) In the Civil RICO Complaint, the Trustee has alleged with particularity that the Debtor created and managed a complex criminal enterprise to conspire and act with (among others) numerous of his shell companies and their nominal owners to intentionally (i) use those entities as a means of engaging in criminal activity to enrich the Debtor and (ii) do so in such a way as to hide the Debtor's misbegotten assets from his creditors. The Debtor's use of these shell companies to enact his scheme, while concealing the badges of ownership and control of the entities holding and managing his assets, is a bedrock pillar of the Debtor's illicit enterprise.\n\n#### **B. Debtor's Criminal Case**\n\n77. On March 15, 2023, United States federal authorities arrested the Debtor and 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, and executed a judicially authorized search of Je's London residence. Since then, William Je has not returned to the United Kingdom and remains a fugitive believed to be in the United Arab Emirates (\"UAE\").\n\n5 The Civil RICO Complaint was filed in connection with *Despins v. Ngok, et al.*, Adv. Proc. No. 24-05273, which is currently stayed.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 22 of 130\n\n78. The U.S. Government alleged that, in the period between 2018 and 2023, the Debtor devised and led, 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 co-defendants 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 contended 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-21-0) 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 UAE, among other places.\"[7](#page-21-1)\n\n79. In addition to fraud and money-laundering charges, the U.S. Government's indictment accused 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 victim funds.\"[8](#page-21-2) The U.S. Government named dozens of entities as part of the Kwok Enterprise,[9](#page-21-3)\n\n\n\n6 *Superseding Indictment* ¶ 4, Criminal Case Docket No. 307. Reference to \"Criminal Case Docket No. \\_\\_\" mean and refer to items on the docket of *United States v. Kwok et al.*, No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y).. 7 *Id*.\n\n8 *Id*. ¶ 1.\n\n9 *Id*. ¶ 3a.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 23 of 130\n\nmany of which have already been made the subject of pending Alter Ego Claims or with respect to which the Court has issued Alter Ego Rulings. Notably, the U.S. Government highlighted the participation of several of the Debtor's family members in the Debtor's billion-dollar fraud, including the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, who was referred to by the U.S. Government as an unindicted co-conspirator and agent of the Debtor. [10](#page-22-0)\n\n80. 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\n81. The Debtor's criminal trial (the \"Criminal Trial\") commenced on May 22, 2024 and resulted in the Debtor being found guilty on multiple counts, including racketeering, conspiracy, fraud and money laundering, per the jury's verdict reached on July 16, 2024. The Criminal Trial resulted in a large amount of information regarding the Debtor's shell companies being made public, including trial exhibits and the testimony of individuals connected to the Debtor's shell companies. These individuals included Scott Barnett, the Debtor's bodyguard and driver, who testified regarding his role at Taurus Fund, the company holding title to the Debtor's mansion in Mahwah New Jersey; Ya Li, a former high-ranking supporter of the Debtor, who testified regarding, among other things, her role as director of the parent company to the HCHK Entities; and Haitham Khaled, the nominal owner of Crane, who testified in connection with his role working for the Debtor and the Debtor's control over G Club Operations LLC and its funds. As discussed further below with respect to particular Debtor Entities, information brought to light during the Criminal Trial has provided the basis for many of the allegations made in this Complaint regarding the nature of the Debtor's control over his shell companies and his\n\n10 *See* The Government's Motions *in Limine*, at 8, Criminal Case Docket No. 273.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 24 of 130\n\nrelationships with the individuals who nominally owned these entities and managed them on his behalf.\n\n82. At the Criminal Trial, the Debtor's own defense counsel essentially confirmed the basic key fact that the Trustee has been pressing for over two years—that (consistent with his public depictions of himself) the Debtor is in reality a wealthy and powerful tycoon, and that the image the Debtor presented in his bankruptcy schedules as a pauper with less than \\$4,000.00 was pure fiction. Putting the lie to the Debtor's obvious and repeated misrepresentations to this Court, the Debtor's criminal counsel stated at his trial, among other things, that the Debtor was actually a wealthy businessman who built a massive business enterprise. Indeed, the Debtor's counsel acknowledged during the Criminal Trial that the Debtor had purchased the mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey nominally owned by Taurus Fund. [11](#page-23-0)\n\n### **C. Key Individuals**\n\n83. The Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint discussed in detail the network of family members, employees, and loyal lieutenants who took instruction from the Debtor and acted as the Debtor's agents on his behalf in connection with the operation of his shell companies. These individuals, who served on the Debtor's behalf as, among other things, nominal owners, authorized signatories, directors, officers, and key employees of his various shell companies, included the Debtor's children.\n\n84. Numerous of these individuals discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint reappear in this Complaint acting on the Debtor's behalf in purported ownership and/or management roles with respect to the Debtor Entities. These reappearing key individuals\n\n11 Crim. Trial Tr., at 5441:5-9 (asking Scott Barnett whether he was \"surprised when Mr. Guo purchased that property [*i.e.*, the Mahwah Mansion]\").\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 25 of 130\n\ninclude, among others, Qiang (\"Mileson\") Guo (the Debtor's son),[12](#page-24-0) Mei Guo (the Debtor's daughter), Hing Chi Ngok (the Debtor's wife), William Je (the Debtor's financial advisor, agent and co-criminal defendant),[13](#page-24-1) Yvette Wang (the Debtor's chief of staff and convicted co-criminal defendant),[14](#page-24-2) Natasha Qu (the Debtor's former executive assistant), Han Chunguang (the Debtor's chef), Max Krasner (the Debtor's employee), Scott Barnett (the Debtor's bodyguard), as well as various other family friends and relatives of the Debtor, such as Haoran He, and Zhang Wei, purportedly the husband of one of the Debtor's nieces. Upon information and belief, each of the Debtor's son, the Debtor's daughter, and the Debtor's wife has never had gainful employment outside of the Debtor's shell companies and has no source of wealth other than from the Debtor.\n\n85. This Complaint also introduces a number of the Debtor's other family members, employees, and lieutenants who, although not discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, play leading \"strawman\" roles in connection with the Debtor Entities discussed herein. These individuals include one of the Debtor's brothers, another of the Debtor's nieces, the Debtor's sister-in-law, several employees of the Debtor, including Haitham Khaled of Crane\n\n12 The U.S. Government alleged that the Debtor's son was a co-conspirator and agent of his father and that he was the recipient of millions of dollars of fraudulently obtained funds. *See* The Government's Motion *in Limine,* at 7-8, Criminal Case Docket No. 273, and The Government's Letter, at 4, Criminal Case Docket No. 382. Notably, the court overseeing the Debtor's criminal trial (the \"Criminal Court\") 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 coconspirator statements, observing that \"Mileson's role within the alleged conspiracies was multifaceted.\" *See*\n\nOrder, at 7, Criminal Case Docket No. 388. 13 Statements of William Je, the Debtor's criminal co-defendant, were also allowed into evidence by the Criminal Court as coconspirator statements. *See Order,* at 6, Criminal Case Docket No. 388 (\"The Government established by at least a preponderance of the evidence that Je was chiefly responsible for laundering the proceeds of the charged fraud schemes, implicating him as a coconspirator.\").\n\n14 On May 3, 2024, prior to the commencement of the Debtor's Criminal Trial, Yvette Wang, the Debtor's criminal co-defendant, pled guilty with respect to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. *See* Exhibit A to *Notice of Chapter 11 Trustee Updating Parties in Interest with Respect to Debtor's Criminal Proceedings Pending in United States District Court for Southern District of New York*, Main Case Docket No. 3169.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 26 of 130\n\nwho handled banking transactions on the Debtor's behalf, and several prominent supporters of the Debtor involved in his NFSC organization.[15](#page-25-0) These supporters include a number of individuals involved in the Debtor's activities in the UAE, where the Debtor began to move his activities in the period leading up to his arrest in response to the Government's investigation (which included bank account seizures beginning in September 2022). Such individuals include Yumei Hao, her husband Kun (\"Kevin\") Ma, Le (\"Ingrid\") Qiao, Kangdi Wang, and Xinfang (\"Sarah\") Zhang, who, upon information and belief, are (or at one time were) members of the Iron Blood Group. The Criminal Court has found that the Iron Blood Group \"consisted of the core, highest level leaders of the Himalaya Alliance\" and \"[g]roup members managed the Alliance, were selected by [the Debtor], and followed his directives.\"[16](#page-25-1) Each of Yumei Hao, Kevin Ma, Ingrid Qiao, Kangdi Wang, and Sarah Zhang is alleged herein to be an agent of the Debtor who acted on his behalf.\n\n#### **II. Debtor Entities Are Alter Egos of and Equitably or Beneficially Owned by Debtor**\n\n86. As discussed further herein, the Trustee is entitled to Alter Ego Rulings with respect to each of the Debtor Entities based on the Debtor's control and domination over these entities and their assets. The Debtor Entities that are the subject of this Complaint exhibit many of the same characteristics that the Trustee has alleged with respect to entities as to which the Court has already issued Alter Ego Rulings or for which Alter Ego Claims remain pending. For example, numerous of these entities, at all relevant times, were controlled by the Debtor through family members and employees, served the Debtor's purposes, and were operated out of the\n\n15 The Court has found that the Debtor \"is the leader\" of the NFSC, along with various other entities and organizations \"which serve the purposes of\" the Debtor, \"serve as business vehicles for\" the Debtor, and whose \"members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\" *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* ¶ 7, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 133 (the \"PI Decision\").\n\n16 *See* Order, n.4, Criminal Case Docket No. 388.\n\nDebtor's offices.\n\n# **A. Crane**\n\n87. Crane is a New York entity formed in 2020, nominally owned by its sole member,\n\nMr. Haitham Khaled.\n\n- 88. At the Debtor's Criminal Trial, Mr. Khaled, testified, among other things, that:\n\t- a. Mr. Khaled worked for Saraca, GTV, Yvette Wang and the Debtor. In his work for Yvette Wang and the Debtor, he was \"in charge of banking relationships\" and of \"opening bank accounts for various entities and individuals.\"[17](#page-26-0) As part of his employment, he lied to banks to \"make sure that accounts get opened and stay open.\"[18](#page-26-1)\n\t- b. Yvette Wang interviewed Mr. Khaled at 162 E. 64th Street in New York City, where she told him she worked for \"the big boss principal.\"[19](#page-26-2) After his interview with Yvette Wang, he conducted a video call with the Debtor, whom Yvette Wang referred to as the \"boss\"; Yvette Wang told Khaled that whether he would work for the Debtor would depend on whether the Debtor liked him and approved of his work.[20](#page-26-3)\n\t- c. He received his employment offer letter from Saraca, dated July 10, 2020, and the letter said he would be \"VP of banking relations and strategy at Saraca Media Group, Inc., and its subsidiary entities.\"[21](#page-26-4) Initially, GTV paid Mr. Khaled's salary, and subsequently it was paid by Lexington Property.[22](#page-26-5)\n\t- d. Mr. Khaled's office was located at 162 E. 64th Street, and his direct manager was Yvette Wang. Some of the other companies that operated out of the 162 E. 64th Street location were Golden Spring, Rule of Law Foundation, and GTV, and the Debtor also worked out of an office on the top floor of the same townhouse. Mr. Khaled and others at the 162 E. 64th Street office reported to Yvette Wang, but the Debtor was the \"top boss,\" and \"everybody needed to be either working or busy with something,\" when the Debtor was present.[23](#page-26-6)\n\t- e. Mr. Khaled created Crane within the first month of his employment, and testified that the idea to establish Crane \"was [a] combination\" between Yvette Wang,\n\n17 Crim. Trial Tr., at 1902.\n\n18 *Id.*, at 1903.\n\n19 *Id*.*,* at 1918.\n\n20 *Id*.*,* at 1923-24; *see also* Government's Criminal Trial exhibit, GXBR399 (Government Criminal Trial exhibits are publicly available upon request from Press Office of U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York).\n\n21 *Id.*\n\n22 Crim. Trial Tr., at 1936.\n\n23 *Id*., at 1941.\n\nVictor Cerda (the Debtor's counsel), and himself, with the initial purpose of Crane being to apply for a bank license, acquire a bank, or set up an online digital bank.\n\n- f. Crane was a single member LLC with Mr. Khaled as its only member. Following Crane's establishment, Mr. Khaled continued to be paid by Lexington and his employment contract continued to be with Saraca. He had an assistant with a Crane email address who was also paid by Lexington.[24](#page-27-0)\n- g. While Crane nominally had an office address at One World Trade Center, this was merely a virtual office, as Khaled continued to work out of 162 E. 64th Street. Similar virtual office addresses were established for Lexington, G Club, G Music, G News, and G Fashion. The reason for setting up these virtual addresses was to deceptively disassociate these companies from negative publicity related to GTV, Saraca, and Golden Spring and the SEC's investigation of GTV and Saraca. [25](#page-27-1)\n- h. Mr. Khaled set up bank accounts for Golden Spring, Hudson Diamond NY, Lamp Capital, and Greenwich Land, which entities paid the expenses of the Debtor's family.[26](#page-27-2)\n- i. Mr. Khaled represented to banks that he was merely \"a consultant to these [G series] entities.\"[27](#page-27-3) However, \"Crane was related to these entities, and [Khaled] was working for these entities.\"[28](#page-27-4)\n- j. In March and April of 2021, Crane received approximately \\$100 million in payments for G Club membership fees. The funds were transferred to G Club's bank account, and a portion was transferred to an attorney who represented G Club. The Debtor controlled the money Crane received for G Club and thus the Debtor had a financial interest in such funds.[29](#page-27-5)\n- k. On multiple occasions, Mr. Khaled made representations to banks that the Debtor was merely a spokesperson and brand ambassador of G Club and other G series entities such as G Fashion, G Music, and G News, and that the promoters of the G series entities \"are hired only to promote and bring in subscribers…they are not owners nor are they in management positions.\"[30](#page-27-6) However, such representations were false, because the Debtor \"was involved with the creation of the companies and the day-to-day operations.\"[31](#page-27-7) Mr. Khaled did not reveal the Debtor's true\n\n24 *Id.*, at 1936, 1942, 1943.\n\n25 *Id.*, at 1949.\n\n26 *Id.*, at 1959. In addition, according to exhibits presented in connection with the trial, Mr. Khaled also was involved in opening or attempting open bank accounts for G Club, Jovial Century, Lexington Property, and the Rule of Law Foundation. 27 *Id.*, at 1990. 28 *Id.*\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n29 *Id*., at 2211. 30 *See e.g.*, Government Criminal Trial exhibits GXSW2027, GXSW2040, GXSW2042.\n\n31 Crim. Trial Tr., at 1977.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 29 of 130\n\nrole to the banks because that would \"jeopardize the possibility\" of opening an account.[32](#page-28-0)\n\n89. Mr. Khaled's testimony makes clear that Crane had no separate existence apart from the entities that have already been subject to Alter Ego Rulings or pending Alter Ego Claims, such as Golden Spring, Lexington Property, Lamp Capital, Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond NY, G Club Operations, and others. Mr. Khaled was simply another of the Debtor's employees working together with Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, and other Debtor employees from the Debtor's office at 162 E. 64th Street, and his nominal ownership of Crane was merely an aspect of his employment in furtherance of the Debtor's fraudulent scheme. That employment consisted of opening bank accounts and moving millions of dollars in funds at the Debtor's behest. Those funds, as demonstrated by bank records and other criminal trial exhibits, included, among others, the funds transferred from G Club members to Crane, then to the Debtor's counsel Lawall & Mitchell LLC, and then to Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, before eventually being used to purchase the Debtor's Mahwah Mansion. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to Crane.\n\n### **B. GS Security**\n\n90. GS Security is an entity organized in New York and nominally owned by the Debtor's bodyguard, Scott Barnett.\n\n- 91. At the Debtor's Criminal Trial, Mr. Barnett testified, among other things, that:\n\t- a. Mr. Barnett began to work for Golden Spring in October of 2020, and part of his work for Golden Spring was guarding the Debtor.[33](#page-28-1) Subsequently, Mr. Barnett's employer was switched from Golden Spring to Lamp Capital, and, later, to HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property. Mr. Barnett worked for the Debtor from October 2020 through March 2023. Mr. Barnett's \"immediate boss\" was\n\n32 *Id*., at 1977-78.\n\n33 *Id.*, at 5416.\n\nYvette Wang, and Mr. Barnett reported to her and Anthony DiBattista.[34](#page-29-0) In addition, Mr. Barnett at times referred to the Debtor as \"principal\" and \"boss.\"[35](#page-29-1)\n\n- b. Mr. Barnett was the Debtor's head of security and his bodyguard. He provided security for the Debtor at the Sherry Netherland apartment, the Mahwah Mansion, and the Debtor's home on Taconic Road in Greenwich, Connecticut (the \"Taconic Property\"). Mr. Barnett also acted as the Debtor's driver and assisted the Debtor in connection with the *Liberty* Yacht[36](#page-29-2) and the management of construction occurring at the Mahwah Mansion.[37](#page-29-3)\n- c. The Debtor had Mr. Barnett buy motorcycles for him, and at one point Mr. Barnett held title to five motorcycles which he testified he did not really own. At the time of the Criminal Trial, one of these motorcycles was still under Mr. Barnett's name.[38](#page-29-4)\n- d. Mr. Barnett testified as follows with respect to the Mahwah Mansion and Taurus Fund, the entity holding title to the Mahwah Mansion:\n\nQ. Mr. Barnett, do you know which entity bought the property that has been referred to as Mahwah?\n\n- A. Yes, Taurus Fund purchased the property.\n- Q. Did you have a role at the Taurus Fund?\n- A. I did not have a role at the Taurus Fund.\n- Q. Did you have a signatory role at the Taurus Fund?\n- A. Yes, I did. I was unaware of that; but yes, I did.\n- Q. And what was the signatory role that you had?\n\nA. Well, apparently, which I didn't find out until much later that I was the manager, one of the managers of that, of the fund.[39](#page-29-5)\n\n34 *Id.*, at 5481.\n\n35 *Id.*, at 5480. 36 *Id.*, at 5530. The *Liberty* was the \\$2 million Bering yacht held by G Fashion Hold Co B Limited, an entity subject to Alter Ego Claims asserted in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint. The yacht was sold in November 2022. 37 *Id.*, at 5448.\n\n\n\n38 This is the Ducati motorcycle that is the subject of the consent order declaring the motorcycle property of the estate and requiring Mr. Barnett to transfer title of the motorcycle to the Trustee. *See* Main Case Docket No. 3220. Title to the other four motorcycles (three Harley Davidsons and a BMW) were subsequently transferred from Scott Barnett to Defeng Cao, the boyfriend of Mei Guo. The Court has ruled that these four motorcycles were beneficially owned by the Debtor. *See Memorandum of Decision Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05001, Docket No. 33]. 39 *Id.*, at 5452-53.\n\n\n\n- e. Mr. Barnett explained that: \"[O]n paper they had me down as a manager [of Taurus Fund]. That wasn't my idea of what my job role was. So when they ask me to be a manager, I just thought they just meant to manage the property and install the security services. It wasn't to manage Taurus Fund because I would have no experience, nor would I undertake something like that.\"[40](#page-30-0) The paperwork Mr. Barnett signed related to Taurus Fund was given to him by the Debtor's counsel Aaron Mitchell.\n- f. One of the Debtor's counsel, Victor Cerda, provided funds to help Mr. Barnett pay for his legal counsel. In addition, Mr. Barnett established a GoFundMe page to raise money for his legal expenses, and Mr. Cerda, working with prominent Kwok supporter \"Long Island David,\" distributed the GoFundMe information to the Debtor's supporters, who donated tens of thousands of dollars to the GoFundMe page.\n- 92. Mr. Barnett further testified that he established GS Security with the \"permission\"\n\nof Yvette Wang, and that he discussed starting the company with Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, and Anthony DiBattista.[41](#page-30-1) GS Security was established as a separate company, according to Mr. Barnett, because \"you really need to have insurance due to certain liabilities for the client that you're protecting, God forbid something were to happen. If it's just either the client themselves or any other entity, they're liable. God forbid we had to put our hands on somebody or anything worse than that or even anything minor, any lawsuit would go directly to that company instead of to a properly insured security company.\"[42](#page-30-2)\n\n93. According to Mr. Barnett's testimony, GS Security's initial funding came from HCHK.[43](#page-30-3) GS Security was paid \\$650,000.00 by HCHK between December 2022 and February 2023. Those funds were used to purchase, among other things, two BMW vehicles that cost approximately \\$165,000 each, and which were used to transport the Debtor and Yvette Wang.\n\n40 *Id.*, at 5514.\n\n41 *Id.*, at 5482.\n\n42 *Id.*, at 5413-14.\n\n43 *Id.*, at 5413.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 32 of 130\n\n94. GS Security has been funded by the Debtor through his alter ego HCHK Property. As alleged in an adversary proceeding complaint filed by the Trustee, and consistent with the testimony of Mr. Barnett, GS Security received no less than \\$650,000.00 after the Petition Date from HCHK Property, the subject of an Alter Ego Ruling. GS Security was further funded by the Debtor's supporters, who paid Mei Guo's security bills to GS Security.\n\n95. GS Security's current largest client is Mei Guo. Previously its largest client was the Debtor. Upon information and belief, GS Security has no clients other than the Debtor and his family and associates. GS Security received \\$500,000.00 from individuals or companies that were not its clients to pay for security services for Mei Guo and legal fees incurred by Mr. Barnett and GS Security. Mr. Barnett stated: \"I just give an invoice to Mei, and then she has whatever, pay[] the invoice.\"[44](#page-31-0)\n\n96. In addition,\n\n97. In summary, similar to Crane, GS Security provides another example of a company that is independent of the Debtor in name only. GS Security was formed by one of the Debtor's employees, Scott Barnett, in consultation with the Debtor's agent Yvette Wang and counsel Victor Cerda, to provide security services for the Debtor and his family; GS Security was then funded by the Debtor through his alter ego HCHK Property or by funds directed to GS Security from the Debtor's supporters, in the same way the Debtor has funded other alter egos, like G Club Operations, by turning to his followers as a funding source; GS Security has no\n\n.\n\n44 *Id.*, at 5487.\n\nclients other than the Debtor and his family and associates; and\n\n. In addition, Scott Barnett is more than a typical employee; he has been used by the Debtor separately as the straw-man masking the Debtor's ownership of Taurus Fund and, hence, the Mahwah Mansion. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to GS Security.\n\n### **C. HGA Property**\n\n98. HGA Property filed its certificate of formation in New Jersey on April 19, 2023. Upon information and belief, \"HGA\" stands for \"Himalaya Global Alliance,\" one of the terms used to describe the world-wide network of the Debtor's supporters.[45](#page-32-0) At the time of its formation, the sole member of HGA Property was Ms. Qin Li, who is also listed on HGA Property's certificate of formation as the company's registered agent. Upon information and belief, Ms. Li is a prominent supporter of the Debtor who has worked for the Debtor at GNews, the Debtor's media platform. Ms. Li has also participated in the harassment against the Trustee and Paul Hastings LLP both in front of the Trustee's residence and at Grand Central Terminal in New York.[46](#page-32-1) On June 20, 2023, HGA Property filed a certificate of amendment to its certificate of formation that identified Qin Li as president and Feibo Jiang as member, with Qin Li remaining as a member and registered agent. Feibo Jiang is also, upon information and belief, a supporter of the Debtor and member of the Debtor's Himalaya Global Alliance and NFSC organizations.\n\n45 The Court has found that the Debtor is the leader of Himalaya Global Alliance, and that Himalaya Global Alliance \"serve[s] the purposes of the Debtor, serve[s] as business vehicle for the Debtor, and their members are\n\npersonally loyal to the Debtor. *See* PI Decision ¶ 7. 46 *See e.g*., Himalaya Global Alliance, @GlobalAlliance, GETTR (December 10, 2022), http (showing Qin Li, Qidong Xia (a/k/a Chang Dao Brother), and others protesting in front of Trustee's residence on November 26, 2022).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 34 of 130\n\n99. On May 10, 2023, HGA Property sent an offer letter to Han Chunguang, the Debtor's chef, offering to employ Han Chunguang as Communication Manager at an annual salary of \\$120,000.00. In addition, HGA Property paid the salaries of numerous individuals who, upon information and belief, were officially employees of HCHK Property, the Debtor's alter ego.\n\n100. Beginning in or around its formation in April 2023,[47](#page-33-0) HGA Property began paying for expenses relating to the Mahwah Mansion. Expenses paid by HGA Property included those related to utilities, maintenance, security services, and property taxes. HGA Property paid both GS Security, the entity nominally owned by Scott Barnett discussed above, as well as Hawk Eye Security, a new security company hired by Taurus Fund to comply with the Court's August 23, 2023 preliminary injunction order.\n\n101. HGA Property also paid for certain hotel expenses of Yongbing Zhang, the Debtor's attorney who, as the Court knows, helped orchestrate and was involved in the harassment against the Trustee and the frivolous litigation efforts against the Trustee, PAX's senior executive and PAX's counsel, including those related to Adversary Proceeding 23-05013 (the \"HCHK Adversary Proceeding\") as well as lawsuits in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for which he was sanctioned three separate times. [48](#page-33-1) As with Qiang Guo, William Je, and Yvette Wang, the Criminal Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to find that Mr. Zhang and other farm leaders were unindicted co-conspirators whose statements could\n\n47 It is no accident that HGA Property began funding Mahwah Mansion expenses in April 2023, the same month in which the HCHK Entities, which had previously funded various expenses related to the Mahwah Mansion, were assigned via deeds of assignment to Brian Hofmeister, as assignor (as more fully discussed in Trustee's pleadings filed in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding). 48 *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Intervene and Motion to Clarify Temporary*\n\n*Restraining Order*, at 14-16, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 239.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 35 of 130\n\nbe admitted into evidence under the co-conspirator statement exception to the hearsay rule.[49](#page-34-0) Specifically, the Criminal Court found Mr. Zhang to have directed another of the Debtor's supporters to sign a false affidavit to sue the Trustee (and to have threatened her when she refused to do so).[50](#page-34-1)\n\n102. In addition, HGA Property is the lessee of four storage units at Westy Self Storage in Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, which had previously been leased to Scott Barnett and Taurus Fund. More specifically, Taurus Fund began leasing two storage units on January 11, 2022, began leasing a third storage unit on April 5, 2022, and began leasing a fourth storage unit on May 1, 2022. Taurus Fund's tenancy of the four storage units was then transferred from Taurus Fund to Scott Barnett on April 18, 2023 and from Scott Barnett to HGA Property on April 27, 2023. The Trustee's counsel visited the four storage units and confirmed, among other things, that \"of the approximately 640 boxes we inspected and inventories, approximately 475 of them either (i) bear a Golden Spring label or (ii) otherwise bear handwritten annotations or contents relating directly to the Debtor.\"[51](#page-34-2) The circumstances related to these storage units were explained to the Court by the Trustee in a February 23, 2024 motion requesting turnover of their contents,[52](#page-34-3) resulting in an objection by Taurus Fund in which Taurus Fund acknowledged that two of the four storage units \"were utilized by an entity or entities other than Taurus Fund\" beginning in April 2022.[53](#page-34-4) On March 26, 2024, the Court issued an order requiring turnover to the Trustee of the contents of the two storage units not used by Taurus Fund. [54](#page-34-5)\n\n49 *See* Order, at 8-9, Criminal Case Docket No. 388.\n\n\n\n50 *Id.*, at 8. 51 *See Declaration of Luyi Song* ¶ 8, of *Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Order Enforcing Judgment and Requiring Turnover of Storage Unit Contents to Chapter 11 Estate*, Main Case Docket No. 2955.\n\n52 *Id*.\n\n53 *Limited Objection to The Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Order Enforcing Judgment and Requiring Turnover of Storage Unit Contents to Chapter 11 Estate* ¶ 5, Adv. Proc. 23-05018, Docket No. 43.\n\n54 *Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Order Enforcing Judgment and Requiring Turnover of Storage Unit Contents to Chapter 11 Estate,* Main Case Docket No. 3046.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 36 of 130\n\n103. HGA Property and Taurus Fund entered into a property management agreement dated October 17, 2023 (authored, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's counsel Aaron Mitchell), under which HGA Property would manage, maintain, and operate the Mahwah Mansion and would be compensated \\$3,000 per month in addition to reimbursement it would receive from Taurus Fund for expenses incurred in managing the Mahwah Mansion. Ms. Li signed the agreement on behalf of HGA Property as its purported owner, and Mr. Yong Qi signed on behalf of Taurus Fund as its purported authorized representative. Taurus Fund never disclosed this arrangement to the Court or to the Trustee, despite the prior entry of the Court's August 23, 2023 preliminary injunction order, which stated, among other things, that Taurus Fund and the other defendants in the Taurus Fund Alter Ego Action \"shall not transfer, encumber, move, dispose of, or in any way impair . . . any asset or property of Taurus Fund.[\"55](#page-35-0)\n\n104. HGA Property has produced invoices purportedly billed to Taurus Management (nominal owner of Taurus Fund) to seek reimbursement of expenses for, among other categories, \"repair and maintenance,\" \"warehouse rent,\" \"payroll,\" \"meals,\" \"contract labor,\" \"office expense,\" and \"utility,\" as well as payment of the \\$3,000 per month \"service fee\" under the management agreement with Taurus Fund. However, HGA Property has not produced any evidence that these expenses were ever reimbursed. Instead, the evidence demonstrates that HGA Property was funded by entities associated with the \"Himalaya Farm\" organizations of the Debtor's supporters.[56](#page-35-1)\n\n55 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, at 22-23, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017, Docket No. 47.\n\n56 The Court has found that, as with other Himalaya entities, the Debtor is the leader of Himalaya Farms, and that Himalaya Farms \"serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicle for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\" *See* PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 37 of 130\n\n105. HGA Property was dominated and controlled by the Debtor. His loyal followers were placed in nominal ownership of HGA Property. HGA Property then paid the Debtor's expenses for the Mahwah Mansion and a storage facility for the Debtor's property. The Debtor provided for the funding of HGA Property in a manner similar to the way he provided funding for G Club Operations or GS Security, by having his followers transfer funds to HGA Property so that its expenses (that is, the Debtor's expenses), would be covered. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to HGA Property.\n\n#### **D. Haoran He Entities**\n\n106. As discussed below, the function of the Haoran He Entities was to transfer the Debtor's funds to his son in the United Kingdom.[57](#page-36-0)\n\n#### **i. Fiesta Investment**\n\n107. Fiesta Investment was incorporated in the United Kingdom on August 5, 2019, initially under the name of Fiesta Property Developments Ltd., which changed its name to Fiesta Investment Ltd. on July 13, 2021.\n\n108. The nominal owner and sole director of Fiesta Investment, as well as its only known employee, is Haoran He, the individual used by the Debtor as the straw man owner of\n\n57 This was, of course, part of a larger trend. Indeed, the Trustee's avoidance action 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, and other Trustee adversary proceedings 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. More recently, 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 \\$12 million in proceeds of the October 2022 sale of the Bombardier jet wired to Qiang Guo at an account at Kyrgyz-Swiss Bank. *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment* ¶ 42, Adv. Proc. 23-05008, Docket No. 126.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 38 of 130\n\nnumerous entities with respect to which the Trustee has asserted Alter Ego Claims, as described in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, including among others G Club Operations and its sole member, G Club International. In addition to the information regarding Haoran He's connections to the Debtor, particularly his connections to the Debtor's son, that were presented in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, other information and testimony regarding Haoran He was presented in the Debtor's Criminal Trial, including testimony from prominent former Kwok supporter Ya Li that Haoran He was part of the Debtor's family and that the Debtor controlled Freedom Media Ventures Limited, a company nominally owned by Haoran He and of which Mr. He was sole director. Moreover, Haitham Khaled testified that, based on a conversation with Qiang Guo, he understood that Mr. He was only the ultimate beneficial owner of G Club \"on paper.\" Mr. Khaled also testified that it was the Debtor who directed what to do with G Club's funds.\n\n109. Fiesta Investment served as a vehicle for the Debtor to purchase for his son a \\$4 million Ferrari via a June 2021 consignment sale brokered by Ferrari Beverly Hills, a Ferrari dealership owned by a legal entity called Passione Rossa LLC. The Debtor's alter ego G Club Operations transferred approximately \\$13.7 million to Fiesta Investment in 2021, [58](#page-37-0) \\$10 million of which were transferred in January and February of 2021. In May 2021, Mileson emailed personnel at Ferrari that \"[t]he invoice company will be Fiesta property development\" in connection with the purchase of the Ferrari vehicle, which Ferrari personnel described to Mileson as \"your car.\"[59](#page-37-1) Fiesta Investment then transferred \\$4 million of those funds to Passione Rossa LLC on June 16, 2021. Communications and documents related to this consignment sale\n\n58 This transfer was papered over by a purported £10 million loan agreement in which Jovial Century International Limited, sole member of G Club International, was named as borrower and Fiesta Investment was named as recipient of the funds. Upon information and belief, this purported loan was never repaid. 59 GXUK95.\n\n\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 39 of 130\n\nidentify Qiang Guo as the buyer or \"new owner\" of the Ferrari, and it is Qiang Guo who made decisions regarding the details of the purchase such as the paint scheme and accessories of the vehicle and the delivery of the vehicle to Switzerland.[60](#page-38-0) As seen in the images below, Qiang Guo's choice of a grey color scheme, which he described as \"my colors,\" was matched by the design on his personalized helmet.[61](#page-38-1)\n\n![](_page_38_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n110. In addition to allowing G Club to purchase a \\$4 million Ferrari for Qiang Guo, Fiesta Investment also funneled no less than £240,000 to Qiang Guo's account at the Wise payment platform between January and November 2022. Fiesta Investment also transferred no less than £1 million to Rising Sun Capital. In addition, on June 24, 2021, Fiesta Investment transferred approximately £2.8 million to a solicitor account of Berkeley Rowe Limited, a law firm that the Court will recall was counsel to Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. in connection with its purported \\$37 million loan to HK USA as collateral for the return of the *Lady*\n\n60 *See* Government Criminal Trial exhibits, GXUK98 (showing Qiang Guo signing documents relating to purchase of Ferrari racing car as \"Purchaser\"), GXUK168 (email chains between Ferrari personnel and Qiang Guo about details of Ferrari racing car), GXUK108 (June 2021 email chain where Ferrari personnel wrote \"operations for the transfer of the FXXK car to Switzerland will begin as early as tomorrow morning per contract\"), and GXUK172 (Qiang Guo discussing rendering of racing suit and helmet in relation to purchase of Ferrari racing car).\n\n61 *See* Government Criminal Trial exhibits, GXUK127, GXUK128 (in email titled \"Re: FNE – FXX-K EVO 240860 – Call with Mileson Guo,\" Qiang Guo wrote to Matteo Gandini at Ferrari in response to Gandini's comments that car was cool that \"[y]es and I can't wait [t]o see in my colors.\").\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 40 of 130\n\n*May* to the United States. Berkeley Rowe has also represented ACA Capital Group Limited (\"ACA Capital\") and Bravo Luck Limited, each of which, together with Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd., are the subject of pending Alter Ego Claims in the Amended First Omnibus Complaint, and Berkeley Rowe has had its fees paid by entities such as the Debtor's alter ego Golden Spring as well as Leading Shine NY, the subject of another pending Alter Ego Claim.[62](#page-39-0)\n\n111. Based on these facts, it is clear that Fiesta Investment is just another company, like G Club Operations and G Club International, that is purportedly owned by Haoran He but acting as a node in a network of entities working to move funds from the Debtor's followers to the Debtor and his family members. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to Fiesta Investment.\n\n#### **ii. Rising Sun Capital**\n\n112. Rising Sun Capital was incorporated in the United Kingdom on October 26, 2017, and Haoran He became the nominal owner of Rising Sun Capital on May 18, 2020.\n\n113. The official address of Rising Sun Capital is 1053 Great West Road, Brentford, London (the \"Brentford Address\"). Until recently, Rising Sun Capital was the lessee of premises at the Brentford Address.\n\n62 The transfer of such a large sum to Berkeley Rowe is likely an indication that the Debtor has used Berkeley Rowe as the middleman to move money, pay expenses, make an investment, or purchase an asset. This would fit a pattern whereby the Debtor has used law firms as intermediaries in transactions. Examples of this practice include, among others, the 2016 purchase of the Debtor's apartment in London through the law firm of Mishcon de Reya, the 2016 purchase of an apartment in Cyprus through the law firm of Christodoulos G. Vassiliades & Co. LLC, the 2021 purchase of the Mahwah Mansion, in which funds flowed through the account of Lawall & Mitchell LLC, and the payment of millions of dollars of expenses for the renovation of the Mahwah Mansion through the law firm of Amy Buck, Esq. in 2021 and 2022.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 41 of 130\n\n114. Qiang Guo used the Brentford Address as his own address, and, upon information and belief, the Brentford Address was the location of Qiang Guo's \"'man cave' in Brentford,\" where Qiang Guo maintained a fleet of luxury vehicles.[63](#page-40-0) Upon information and belief, these vehicles included a part of the vast collection of \"hundreds of race cars\" that the Debtor—despite representing to this Court that he had less than \\$4,000—proudly claimed belonged to him.[64](#page-40-1) These vehicles are believed to include, among others, a 2016 Pagani Zonda (plate MON22A (UK)), a Ferrari Monza SP1 (plate V12GUO (UK)), a 2016 Ferrari LaFerrari (plate F1GUO (UK)) (visible in photo below on the left), and a McLaren P1 (plate P1GUO (UK)), along with other vehicles that can be glimpsed in the photos below.\n\n![](_page_40_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n115. Essentially, Rising Sun Capital operated as the Debtor's \"family office\" in the United Kingdom, where assistants and personal counsel to Qiang Guo were employed to work for \"Mileson Guo/Rising Sun Capital Ltd.\"[65](#page-40-2)\n\n116. Rising Sun Capital has been funded by the Debtor through his alter egos. As alleged in adversary proceeding complaints filed by the Trustee, Rising Sun Capital received no less than \\$3,723,302.12 prior to the Petition Date from Lamp Capital, the subject of an Alter Ego Ruling, and Leading Shine NY, the subject of an Alter Ego Claim. Rising Sun Capital also has\n\n63 *See* Government Criminal Trial exhibit, GXUK195.\n\n64 *See* VICE News, *Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption*, YouTube*,* at at 7:00 (original air date on HBO, Nov. 15, 2017), http\n\n65 See Government Criminal Trial exhibit, GXZ25 citing GXUK415.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 42 of 130\n\nreceived no less than \\$1 million from Fiesta Investment. In February 2021, when asked by a bank about Lamp Capital's transfers to Golden Spring and Rising Sun Capital, Daniel Podhaskie, a former employee of the Debtor, described that Lamp Capital \"acts as an advising firm for [Golden Spring] and [Rising Sun Capital],\" both of which are \"real estate holding companies\" and \"clients of ACA Capital Group.\"[66](#page-41-0) Podhaskie further explained that the transfers from Lamp Capital to Golden Spring and Rising Sun Capital were \"draw downs on their client accounts with ACA\" and that \"ACA requested that Lamp advanced these funds to Golden Spring and Rising Sun,\" noting that \"Lamp handles U.S. business relations for high net-worth individuals and families and pays bill on behalf of ACA clients.\"[67](#page-41-1) In reality, Lamp Capital—like Golden Spring, ACA Capital, and Rising Sun Capital—\"handled\" the \"business relations\" and \"paid bills on behalf of\" only one high net-worth individual: the Debtor and his family.\n\n117. Rising Sun Capital transferred no less than £150,000.00 to Qiang Guo's account at the Wise payment platform in March 2023.\n\n118. Rising Sun Capital exhibits numerous of the qualities of an alter ego of the Debtor. Though purportedly controlled by the Debtor's agent Haoran He, Rising Sun Capital was funded by the Debtor's alter ego Lamp Capital, transferred money to the Debtor's son, and rented and shared an office/garage with the Debtor's son. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to Rising Sun Capital.\n\n66 GXBR1517.\n\n67 *Id*.\n\n#### **E. UAE Entities**\n\n119. As discussed below, the function of the UAE entities was, among other things, to continue the Debtor's G Club and Himalaya Exchange schemes and activities overseas so that the Debtor could continue to profit from these schemes despite the United States Government's investigation into and subsequent arrest of the Debtor.\n\n120. The Debtor and his co-conspirator William Je have significant ties to the UAE, where William Je is believed to currently reside (the Debtor's son, Haoran He, and other associates of the Debtor are also believed to spend significant time in the UAE). Indeed, just one Abu Dhabi, UAE bank account alleged to be controlled by the Debtor has received over \\$100 million in proceeds from the Debtor's criminal fraud. The Debtor has held a UAE passport and at one time obtained more than a billion dollars from UAE sources that were transferred through the Debtor's shell companies such as Alfa Global Ventures Limited and Alfonso Global Ventures Limited to other Debtor-controlled companies and then spent on, among other things, high-value Debtor assets such as the *Lady May*, Sherry Netherland apartment, and the Debtor's London Apartment, among others.[68](#page-42-0)\n\n121. Indeed, in pleadings filed with the Criminal Court shortly after the Debtor's arrest, the Government reported that William Je \"remains at large and is likely in the UAE,\n\n68 Each of these assets is the subject of orders of this Court ruling such assets to property of the Debtor. *See Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 177 (finding Debtor beneficially owned *Lady May* yacht); *Order Granting, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and Genever Holdings Corporation Regarding Settlement with Bravo Luck Limited and Mileson Guo (a/k/a Qiang Guo and/or Guo Qiang)*, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Docket No. 118 (holding Genever Holdings LLC is full and exclusive owner of Sherry Netherland Apartment); and *Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Entry of Default Judgment Against K Legacy Ltd. and Qiang Guo*, Adv. Proc. No. 24- 05249, Docket No. 76 (finding K Legacy Ltd. and its assets including Apartment 6 and Apartment G3 at 5 Princes Gate, London, United Kingdom SW7 1QJ (the \"London Apartment\") are and were at all relevant times property of Debtor or Debtor's chapter 11 estate).\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 44 of 130\n\nwhere he and Kwok have access to substantial resources and fraud proceeds and are believed to be establishing the new operational and financial base of their fraudulent operations.\"[69](#page-43-0)\n\n122. As described in U.S. Government pleadings and other documents and evidence obtained by the Trustee, during the months leading up to the Debtor's arrest in March 2023, the Debtor made efforts to move his activities to Abu Dhabi in the UAE. The Debtor even boasted to his followers shortly before his arrest that HPay, a payment app related to the Himalaya Exchange was \"based in Abu Dhabi, the only offshore country that even Americans dare not touch,\" because it was a jurisdiction where funds would be secure \"against the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States.\"[70](#page-43-1) In addition, the Debtor's agent Yvette Wang participated in efforts to move activities to Abu Dhabi by instructing two of the Debtor's employees, Anthony DiBattista[71](#page-43-2) and Alex Hadjicharalambous[72](#page-43-3) to travel from the United States to Abu Dhabi where they spent over a month in early 2023 establishing an Abu Dhabi location for the Debtor's G Club scheme. Abu Dhabi is also where other associates of the Debtor have travelled or relocated since his arrest, including a number of members of the Debtor's Iron Blood Group. The Debtor's son spends months at a time in Abu Dhabi, as does Haoran He, who, among other things, has or had a bank account at Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank which has been used to pay purported payroll expenses of the Debtor's alter ego G Club Operations.\n\n123. The Debtor, through his agents, also made efforts to move significant assets to Abu Dhabi, and directed those activities with and through Yvette Wang from the United States.\n\n69 See Government's Letter, at 18, Criminal Case Docket No. 10 (filed March 29, 2023). 70 Government Criminal Trial Exhibit GXWA5.\n\n\n\n71 Mr. DiBattista has served the Debtor as an employee of Golden Spring, minority owner and corporate officer of the HCHK Entities, and corporate officer, authorized signatory, and/or high-level employee of GTV, GFashion\n\nMedia Group Inc., and G Fashion (CA). 72 Alex Hadjicharalambous served the Debtor as, among other things, an employee of the Debtor's alter egos G Club Operations LLC, GFashion Media Group Inc., and HCHK Technologies, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 45 of 130\n\nIndeed, as alleged in the Government's indictment and established by testimony in the Criminal Trial, within two days of the U.S. Government's first judicially authorized seizures of funds, William Je contacted the management of a U.S. domestic bank and attempted to implement a transfer of \\$46 million of Himalaya Exchange funds to a bank account of ACA Capital in Abu Dhabi. William Je insisted twice to the domestic bank representative that the transfer had to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\" The domestic bank representative testified at the Criminal Trial that Je's request \"felt uncomfortable. It appeared to be an attempt to move money outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.\" In addition, chat messages recovered by the U.S. Government between Yvette Wang and an individual the Government referred to as the \"HCHK Financial Controller\" or \"Controller\" show that:[73](#page-44-0)\n\n- a. On March 6, 2023, the Controller wrote to Yvette Wang: \"Notes: I was advised this morning; [another individual] came to me given feedback to boss on Daily . . . plus monthly writing a report to boss about the office and all moving parts and observation.\"\n- b. Approximately 20 minutes later, the Controller wrote to Yvette Wang: \"We have been approved FAB!!! / Account numbers tomorrow / Just opened another bank account NBF! Should have account numbers soon too.\"\n- c. Later that day, the Controller informed Yvette Wang that the entities were \"Moving money into ADCB [*i.e*., Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC]\" and sent a screenshot of what appears to be a bank account balance screen reflecting several incoming deposits of \\$750,000 into an account that had grown to approximately \\$8.25 million as of March 6, 2023. Approximately two hours later, the Controller sent Yvette Wang a screenshot of a UAE entity account at a fourth UAE financial institution, reflecting a balance of approximately 41,831,801 AED (UAE Dirham), or approximately \\$11,389,308 USD.\n- d. On March 7, 2023, Wang directed the Controller to secure funds associated with Himalaya Exchange, writing, in part: \"Stay calm, focus on what you can get from\n\n73 *See Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release*, at 28-29, Criminal Case Docket No. 89 (quoted bracketed texts in original). As explained by the U.S. Government, in the captured chat messages, \"boss\" refers to the Debtor, \"FAB\" refers to First Abu Dhabi Bank, and \"NFB\" refers to National Bank of Fujairah, the latter two being financial institutions located in the UAE.\n\nH Reserve's bank for now\" and indicating that she was \"working on adding [Controller] as an extra bank signer.\"\n\n- e. On March 9, 2023, Wang asked the Controller to \"pls find out the SWIFT code for FAB [*i.e*., First Abu Dhabi Bank] bank of [UAE entity]? I do have their IBAN here.\" The Controller provided the SWIFT code, and Yvette Wang responded, \"I'll use this one for the sender bank.\"\n- f. The next day, the Controller reported back to Wang: \"Good day lots of laughs a lot accomplished with [UAE entity] . . . / And gclubs.\"\n- g. On March 11, 2023, four days before her arrest by the FBI, Yvette Wang wrote to the Controller: \"I'm thinking: you probably better no[t] bring any uae devices back to us. Think about how to work as basic levels from here.\" Later that day, she added: \"Yes, I thinking you come back home with less info better, or even zero info from there. Including devices. / Advise [another individual who was in the UAE (\"Employee-1\")] the same my advice also pls.\"\n- 124. As discussed below each of the UAE Entities that are the subject of this\n\nComplaint have played a key role in the movement of the Debtor's schemes and activities to Abu Dhabi in the UAE. Thousand Stars, formerly known as G Clubs ME Limited, represents a continuation or branch of the Debtor's G Club scheme. H Reserve Management represents a continuation or branch of the Debtor's Himalaya Exchange scheme and operates HPay, the payment application linked to Himalaya Exchange. Finally, Delta Konsult, like the HCHK Entities, provides services to Thousand Stars and H Reserve Management as well as to potentially other Debtor-affiliated entities. The Debtor, through Yvette Wang and his other agents and associates, managed the UAE Entities from the United States.\n\n### **i. Thousand Stars**\n\n125. Thousand Stars is the current name of the entity formerly known as G Clubs ME Limited. Thousand Stars operates a branch, offshoot, or continuation of the Debtor's G Club membership scheme from Abu Dhabi, where it was established to avoid the regulatory scrutiny of United States authorities. As explained by the Debtor himself, Thousand Stars \"is a completely independent G|Club company established in Abu Dhabi, but it is also a G|Club of the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 47 of 130\n\nwhistleblowing revolution, and it has the same benefits and functions.\" In the words of a Debtor's close associate Fay Fay in February 2023 when introducing the Debtor's \"A10\" investment scheme (from which Thousand Stars received funding from the Debtor's supporters), \"GClubs is the core asset, so it moved to Abu Dhabi for operation.\"\n\n126. Thousand Stars was incorporated in the ADGM of Abu Dhabi, UAE. The nominal of owner of Thousand Stars is Haoran He, agent and family friend of the Debtor and his son and nominal owner of numerous other G Club and G Fashion entities. The director and account signatory of Thousand Stars is Kevin Ma, agent of and prominent supporter of the Debtor who also serves as the nominal owner of Ampleforth Capital (discussed below). Kevin Ma is also heavily involved together with his wife, Yumei Hao (another prominent supporter of the Debtor and member of the purported HCHK creditors' committee that guided efforts to stall the HCHK Adversary Proceeding) in operating River Valley (discussed below) on behalf of the Debtor. According to the testimony of Jesse Brown, the Debtor chose Kevin Ma to replace Brown as nominal \"strawman\" CEO of Himalaya Exchange. Other prominent supporters of the Debtor involved with Thousand Stars include Kangdi Wang, former director of Thousand Stars, whom, upon information and belief, is in charge of the finance department of the Debtor's Himalaya Global Alliance organizations together with Yumei Hao, Sarah Zhang, another former director of Thousand Stars, and Ingrid Qiao, former director and shareholder of Thousand Stars.\n\n127. Upon information and belief, Ingrid Qiao served as CEO of Thousand Stars while being employed at H Reserve Management, received instruction from the Debtor, who she referred to as \"boss,\" and fulfilled her role as CEO while being unfamiliar with Haoran He despite Haoran He's nominal ownership of most of the \"G Club\" entities. Upon information and belief, Ingrid Qiao was also involved in Yvette Wang's efforts to direct the movement of fraud\n\n38\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 48 of 130\n\nproceeds from prison. As alleged by the U.S. Government, weeks after Yvette Wang's arrest, in April 2023, Yvette Wang—from prison—directed an alleged co-conspirator to work with others to retrieve from a Manhattan PO Box under the name of G Club Operations checks worth approximately \\$7.1 million of fraud proceeds. According to additional evidence collected by the Government, Yvette Wang instructed this co-conspirator to have someone nicknamed \"Cherry Blossom\" \"authorize[] [Employee-1] [*i.e.*, a G-Club employee who had traveled to the UAE in 2023] to give the check to [3 Columbus Circle].\" Upon information and belief, \"Cherry Blossom\" is the nickname of Ingrid Qiao.\n\n128. In addition, upon information and belief, the Debtor's financial agent William Je and those working under him at the Hamilton and/or Himalaya Exchange Entities, such as Ehsan Masud and Georgette Adonis-Roberts, were also involved with Thousand Stars and the other UAE Entities.\n\n129. In early 2023, Alex Hadjicharalambous and Anthony DiBattista travelled to Abu Dhabi, UAE for an extended period in order to assist in the establishment of Thousand Stars' activities there, including by instructing Ingrid Qiao in the activities of G Club. Thousand Stars shares or has shared offices with the other UAE Entities.\n\n130. Thousand Stars has or had a bank account under its name at National Bank of Fujairah in the UAE that is, upon information and belief, controlled by the Debtor. Indeed,\n\n.\n\n131. Upon information and belief, the Debtor funded Thousand Stars through money that he solicited from his followers; these included one of his top lieutenants, Ya Li, who testified at the Criminal Trial that she had been instructed to send money raised as part of the Debtor's \"A10\" investment project to an Abu Dhabi bank account of G Clubs ME Limited (i.e., Thousand Stars). Notably, Ms. Li testified that she was initially instructed to send the money to GFNY, Inc., an alleged alter ego in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, and following the arrest of the Debtor and Yvette Wang, she was refunded the money she wired to GFNY, Inc. and was instructed to transfer the fund to G Clubs ME Limited's account in Abu Dhabi. Moreover, the Debtor's alter ego River Valley, discussed further below, an Indiana LLC, paid for numerous Abu Dhabi expenses, including for the leasing of luxury hotel rooms and office space, that were, upon information and belief, related to Thousand Stars and the other UAE Entities.\n\n132. In sum, agents of the Debtor served in nominal owner and director roles at Thousand Stars, the company shared an office with other Debtor-controlled companies, and the Debtor funded Thousand Stars. Moreover, agents of the Debtor travelled to Abu Dhabi at the direction of Yvette Wang to establish Thousand Stars' activities there as an offshoot or continuation of the Debtor's G Club scheme at exactly the moment when the Debtor was facing scrutiny from authorities in the United States leading up to his arrest. Given these circumstances and the Debtor's pattern and practice of conducting his affairs and holding his assets through alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to Thousand Stars.\n\n40\n\n#### **ii. H Reserve Management**\n\n133. H Reserve Management operates a branch, offshoot, or continuation of the Debtor's Himalaya Exchange cryptocurrency scheme, in particular the payment application known as \"HPay,\" from Abu Dhabi, where it was established to avoid the regulatory scrutiny of United States authorities. In the Debtor's own words in a live broadcast in June 2022, \"Himalaya Exchange will have other coins (Abu Dhabi coins), and free from the long arm of the dollar.\"\n\n134. H Reserve Management was incorporated in the ADGM of Abu Dhabi, UAE on September 2, 2022. The Debtor himself gave instructions regarding the establishment of H Reserve Management and conceived of the company's name. The initial sole director and shareholder of H Reserve Management was the Debtor' supporter Kevin Ma, who was replaced as shareholder by the Debtor's supporter Ingrid Qiao on February 21, 2023. The sole shareholder of H Reserve Management became Sarah Zhang, another prominent supporter of the Debtor, on April 4, 2023. Upon information and belief, Sarah Zhang referred to the Debtor as \"Uncle Guo,\" dined with him at his Sherry Netherland residence (along with Yumei Hao and another prominent supporter of the Debtor, Fay Fay), sailed on one of his yachts, and participated in the Debtor's protest activities. Another individual involved with H Reserve Management is the Debtor's employee Anthony DiBattista, who, upon information and belief, at one point served as a director of H Reserve Management.\n\n135. The Debtor, through Yvette Wang, managed affairs of H Reserve Management from the United States. For instance, as discussed above, on March 7, 2023, Yvette Wang instructed the HCHK Financial Controller to \"[s]tay calm, focus on what you can get from H Reserve's bank for now.\" Additional chat messages recovered by the U.S. Government from\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 51 of 130\n\nYvette Wang's devices show Kevin Ma reported to Yvette Wang regarding finances of the UAE Entities, and that Yvette Wang asked Kevin Ma to \"walk [her] through\" the reconciliation of \"the 8 million USD original funding to H Reserve.\"\n\n136. In addition, upon information and belief, the Debtor's financial agent William Je and those working under him at the Hamilton and/or Himalaya Exchange Entities, such as Ehsan Masud and Georgette Adonis-Roberts, were also involved with H Reserve Management and the other UAE Entities.\n\n137. H Reserve Management shares or has shared office space with the other UAE Entities.\n\n138. H Reserve Management has or had bank accounts under its name in the UAE at First Abu Dhabi Bank, WIO Bank (Abu Dhabi), and National Bank of Fujairah, and each account, upon information and belief, is controlled by the Debtor.\n\n139. H Reserve Management's business application submitted to the ADGM Registration Authority in August 2022 stated that the company would conduct \"management consultancy activities\" and \"other professional, scientific and technical activities.\" In a heavily redacted letter dated April 23, 2024 addressed to Sarah Zhang, the ADGM authorities explained that the ADGM Registrar had decided to cancel H Reserve Management's ADGM License because H Reserve Management had carried out \"business activities of software development for its client (\"Company A\"), over the period from around October 2022 to around June 2023 without obtaining the appropriate commercial licence.\" While the letter does not identify \"Company A,\" it appears that Company A is a reference to the Himalaya Exchange or a related company controlled by the Debtor. The ADGM Letter also notes, among other things, that employees of H Reserve Management \"were assigned to Company A and were primarily using\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 52 of 130\n\nCompany A email accounts and shared drive accounts,\" and that employees interviewed by ADGM identified H Reserve Management's software development activities as including, among other things, \"[d]evelopment of software for a mobile application-based payment solution,\" \"[d]evelopment of blockchain software related to managing accounts and wallets,\" and \"[d]evelopment of software to enable a new crypto currency system.\" Upon information and belief, these activities were all related to the Debtor's cryptocurrency scheme, the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n140. Consistent with the allegations above, the ADGM letter also noted that \"H Reserve Management had permitted two companies to occupy and operate from their ADGM Offices,\" a reference to H Reserve Management sharing office space with Thousand Stars and Delta Konsult, as discussed above.\n\n141. Indeed, according to a notice issued by ADGM to H Reserve Management in June 2023, in connection with the ADGM investigation into H Reserve Management's potential contraventions of certain ADGM regulations, ADGM requested, among other things, \"[c]opies of any and all documents evidencing H Reserve's dealing with or on behalf of Hamilton Capital, the Himalaya Exchange or any other related entities,\" and a complete forensic copy of all data stored on any computer and mobile device assigned to or used by, among others, William Je, Ehsan Masud, Georgette Adonis-Roberts.\n\n142. In addition, H Reserve Management was funded by the Debtor through his shell companies. In particular, millions of dollars were transferred from ACA Capital to the Debtor's alter ego River Valley, from which such funds were transferred to H Reserve Management. The Debtor's alter ego River Valley paid for numerous Abu Dhabi expenses, including for the leasing\n\n43\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 53 of 130\n\nof luxury hotel rooms and office space, that were, upon information and belief, expenses related to H Reserve Management and the other UAE Entities.\n\n![](_page_52_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\nOpportunity Fund SPC is another defendant subject to Alter Ego Claims in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n\n144. Moreover, Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd., a defendant in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, represented in its purported administration proceeding in the United Kingdom that one of its largest creditors is H Reserve Management, purportedly holding a claim of more than £3.2 million against Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. Other purported creditors of Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. include ACA Capital with a purported claim of more than £13.3 million and Hamilton Investment Management Ltd. with a purported claim of more than £17.6 million, both of which are also defendants in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint. Notably, River Valley (as discussed below) is also listed as a creditor to Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. As noted in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Trustee believes that Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.'s administration proceeding in the United Kingdom is an attempt to recycle funds and redistribute them to the Debtor, William Je, and associated entities by using the administration proceeding to \"cleanse\" such funds. As the Court will recall, the Debtor and his associates attempted a similar strategy to recycle and redistribute funds from the HCHK Entities that commenced a New York state assignment proceeding in April 2023, which the Trustee successfully sought to enjoin.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 54 of 130\n\n145. In sum, agents of the Debtor served in nominal owner and director roles at H Reserve Management, H Reserve Management shared an office with other Debtor-controlled companies, and the Debtor funded H Reserve Management. Moreover, agents of the Debtor travelled to Abu Dhabi at the direction of Yvette Wang to establish H Reserve Management's activities there as an offshoot or continuation of the Debtor's Himalaya Exchange scheme at exactly the moment when the Debtor was facing scrutiny from authorities in the United States in the period leading up to his arrest. Given these circumstances and the Debtor's pattern and practice of conducting his affairs and holding his assets through alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to H Reserve Management.\n\n#### **iii. Delta Konsult**\n\n146. Delta Konsult, incorporated in the ADGM, is another company established in Abu Dhabi's ADGM to avoid the regulatory scrutiny of United States authorities. Delta Konsult ostensibly provided services for the other UAE Entities, Thousand Stars and H Reserve Management. Although it is not yet clear what precise services these were, the Debtor has in the past designated certain alter ego entities to act as ostensible service providers for others, such as occurred with HCHK Technologies, which provided management and other services for numerous of the Debtor's alter egos, as discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n\n147. The same Debtor agents involved in the staffing of Thousand Stars and H Reserve Management have also staffed Delta Konsult. The current nominal shareholder of Delta Konsult is Sarah Zhang, and former shareholders of Delta Konsult include Anthony DiBattista and Kevin Ma. , was also involved in Delta Konsult's affairs, as was the Debtor's agent Yvette Wang. For instance, in the chat messages\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 55 of 130\n\nbetween Yvette Wang and Kevin Ma in March 2023, Ma reported to Yvette Wang: \"The \\$9 million (8 million + 1 million, I explained to you before) cover 3 things: H Reserve, Delta Konsult, and AD Reserve. Tony [*i.e*., Anthony DiBattista] possesses financial records of the first two.\" Later, Yvette Wang wrote: \"Can you pls clarify how the 8 million USD was deployed in which companies and which banks? I remember the 1 million in DK [*i.e*., Delta Konsult], that one is fine.\"\n\n148. Moreover, upon information and belief, in or around August 2023, Delta Konsult entered into a service agreement with G Music LLC (\"G Music\"), another alleged alter ego in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, such that Delta Konsult would provide various services to G Music, including: (i) finances and accounting, (ii) human resources, (iii) IT support, engineering, design, and software development, (iv) legal and advisory services, (v) real estate and facility management services, and (vi) payments of invoices. This showcases Delta Konsult's role as a replacement \"service company\" for HCHK Technologies,\n\n149. In addition, upon information and belief, the Debtor's financial agent William Je and those working under him at the Hamilton and/or Himalaya Exchange Entities, such as Ehsan Masud and Georgette Adonis-Roberts, were also involved in the affairs of Delta Konsult, and the other UAE Entities.\n\n150. Delta Konsult shares or has shared office space with the other UAE Entities.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 56 of 130\n\n151. Delta Konsult has or had bank accounts under its name at First Abu Dhabi Bank and Wio Bank in Abu Dhabi, and each account, upon information and belief, is controlled by the Debtor.\n\n152. The Debtor funded Delta Konsult by directing transfers of funds to Delta Konsult from one or more companies he controlled, including River Valley, discussed below. These funds included millions of dollars transferred from one or more banks in the United States to Delta Konsult's bank account at Wio Bank, another financial institution located in the UAE.\n\n153. In sum, agents of the Debtor served in nominal owner and director roles at Delta Konsult, and Delta Konsult shared an office with other Debtor-controlled companies, and Delta Konsult was funded through transfers from the Debtor's Himalaya Farm organizations. Given these circumstances and the Debtor's pattern and practice of conducting his affairs and holding his assets through alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to Delta Konsult.\n\n#### **F. River Valley**\n\n154. River Valley is an entity organized in Indiana that is nominally owned by Yumei Hao, a prominent supporter of the Debtor whose husband is Kevin Ma. The signatories on River Valley's bank accounts included Yumei Hao, Kevin Ma, and Rong Hu, another known supporter of the Debtor.\n\n155. River Valley's only discernible purpose was to launder money by receiving money from entities controlled by the Debtor and then transferring those funds to other entities controlled by the Debtor and to his family members to pay for the expenses of such entities and individuals.\n\n47\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 57 of 130\n\n156. In particular, the Debtor used River Valley to fund H Reserve Management and to pay Abu Dhabi expenses associated with the UAE Entities. On August 10, 2022, River Valley received a transfer of approximately \\$8 million from ACA Capital's account at First Abu Dhabi Bank into River Valley's account at Lake City Bank in the United States. River Valley subsequently transferred \\$4.5 million to H Reserve Management's bank accounts in the UAE and transferred millions more in the aggregate to the UAE to pay landlords, a luxury hotel, providers of consulting, IT, legal, and other services, and a BMW dealership. It is with respect to these transfers, upon information and belief, that Yvette Wang asked Kevin Ma to \"walk [her] through\" the reconciliation of \"the 8 million USD original funding to H Reserve\" and \"clarify how the 8 million USD was deployed in which companies and which banks.\"\n\n157. Indeed, the suspicious nature of these transfers of funds combined with unsatisfactory explanations provided by Yumei Hao and Kevin Ma caught the attention of compliance personnel at Lake City Bank as potential money laundering, and Lake City Bank closed River Valley's account in May 2023.\n\n158. In addition, River Valley paid certain expenses of the Debtor's alter ego GFNY, Inc. (one of the entities comprising the Debtor's G Fashion scheme), and provided funding to the Debtor's daughter, presumably to support her lifestyle and legal expenses. For example, on November 7, 2022, River Valley wired \\$100,000.00 from an account of River Valley at Bank of America to an account of Mei Guo at Citizens Bank. Mei Guo used these funds, among other things, to pay Zeisler & Zeisler \\$20,000.00 on December 8, 2022.\n\n159. River Valley received funds from Rule of Law Entities, and paid numerous leading supporters of the Debtor, including Leanne Li (purported G Fashion CEO), Chris Lee (one of the purported HCHK creditors' committee members), Yanming Wang (a prominent\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 58 of 130\n\nsupporter of the Debtor who has transferred funds to Mei Guo), as well as law firms in the BVI and the ADGM Registration Authority. During the period when the Debtor's followers were protesting at the residence and workplaces of the Trustee and his family, River Valley continued to receive funding from Rule of Law entities and then made numerous payments to individuals via Zelle transfers which, upon information and belief, were payments to protestors and reimbursement of expenses relating to protests against the Trustee.\n\n160. In addition, as mentioned above, River Valley is one of the purported creditors alongside other Debtor's alter egos including ACA Capital, Hamilton Investment Management Ltd., and H Reserve Management—of Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd. in its purported administration proceeding in the United Kingdom. According to Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd., River Valley purportedly holds a claim of approximately £360,000.\n\n161. In sum, River Valley was controlled by the Debtor's agents, funded by the Debtor, and transferred funds to entities controlled by the Debtor, to the Debtor's family members, and to pay expenses of such entities and/or individuals. Given these circumstances, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to River Valley.\n\n#### **G. Ampleforth Capital**\n\n162. Ampleforth Capital is an entity organized in the BVI and nominally owned, upon information and belief, by Kevin Ma. As discussed above, Kevin Ma is a prominent supporter of the Debtor and member of the Debtor's NFSC and Iron Blood Group who has, upon information and belief, assisted the Debtor in establishing overseas entities in the UAE.\n\n163.\n\n.\n\nMercantile Bank is based in Puerto Rico and is a domestic U.S. bank. In short, Ampleforth\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 59 of 130\n\nCapital opened at least one bank account in the United States. Upon information and belief, the Debtor controlled the account.\n\n164. Upon information and belief, and consistent with testimony at the Criminal Trial from a former supporter of the Debtor, Ya Li, the Debtor directed his followers to transfer funds to Ampleforth Capital as part of investment scams known as the A10 Project and A15 Project.\n\n![](_page_58_Figure_3.jpeg)\n\n166. Ampleforth again demonstrates the key traits of a Kwok alter ego. A loyal follower of the Debtor was placed in charge of Ampleforth, money was directed from the Debtor's followers to Ampleforth, and then Ampleforth transferred those funds to a Himalaya entity controlled by the Debtor. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to the Ampleforth.\n\n#### **H. Debtor Holding Companies**\n\n167. The Debtor Holding Companies consist of several entities whose sole purpose was, essentially, to hold ownership interests in companies with respect to which the Trustee has already obtained Alter Ego Rulings or asserted pending Alter Ego Claims. These entities have not engaged in any meaningful financial or business activity but have instead acted merely as\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 60 of 130\n\nmechanisms for the Debtor to hold formal legal title to, and exercise control over, his alter egos through individuals serving as his agents, including Qiang Guo and Yvette Wang. As such, the Trustee is entitled to Alter Ego Rulings with respect to the Debtor Holding Companies.\n\n168. The Debtor Holding Companies consist of the following entities:\n\n### **i. Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited**\n\n169. Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited (\"Holy City\"), is an entity organized in the BVI and currently nominally owned by a Nevis entity called New Federal State Corporation, which is, upon information and belief, controlled by the Debtor through one or more of his agents. Holy City was previously nominally owned by the Debtor's assistant and co-conspirator, Yvette Wang. As of June 2023 when the Trustee commenced the HCHK Adversary Proceeding, Yvette Wang remained the nominal owner of Holy City. Holy City was used by the Debtor to hold nominal ownership of 99.9999%[74](#page-59-0) of the HCHK Entities, which this Court has ruled were alter egos of the Debtor and equitably owned by the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Holy City engaged in no business activities or other actions other than to hold title to the HCHK Entities, commence the assignment proceeding of the HCHK Entities which was the subject of the HCHK Adversary Proceeding, and litigate against the Trustee in such adversary proceeding.\n\n170. Holy City was one of the Defendants in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding and defaulted on its obligation to respond to the Trustee's complaint. Holy City then appeared before the Court along with the HCHK Entities to litigate against the Trustee, including by seeking to set aside the entry of default in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding and to object to the Court's subsequent entry of a default judgment, which efforts were unsuccessful. Notably, in its decision\n\n74 The remaining 0.0001% of each HCHK Entity was nominally owned by the Debtor's employee, Anthony DiBattista.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 61 of 130\n\ndenying the motion of Holy City and the HCHK Entities (collectively, the \"HCHKV Entities\") to set aside the entry of default, the Court found the HCHKV Entities to have acted in bad faith based on the involvement of the Debtor's attorney, Yongbing Zhang, as the point of contact between the HCHKV Entities and their counsel.[75](#page-60-0)\n\n171. Filings in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding and testimony in the Debtor's criminal trial have also revealed, among other things, that the directors of HCHKV at the time it was litigating against the Trustee were Yvette Wang and two prominent supporters of the Debtor, Feng Zhu and Ya Li, the latter of whom was then in the process of resigning her position. Notably, Feng Zhu and Ya Li did not really direct HCHKV's litigation efforts, which were instead orchestrated by (unindicted co-conspirator) Yongbing Zhang on behalf of the Debtor. Ya Li subsequently testified at length as a government witness at the Criminal Trial, stating, among other things, that in April 2023 while in federal custody, Yvette Wang, through her counsel, instructed Ya Li to sign documents relating to the HCHK Entities' purported New York State assignment proceeding. Ms. Li also testified that Yongbing Zhang had asked her to sign a false affidavit in connection with the HCHK Adversary Proceeding.\n\n#### **ii. Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.**\n\n172. Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. (\"Hudson Diamond BVI\") is an entity organized in the BVI and nominally owned by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, who is also the sole director. Upon information and belief, Yvette Wang and Max Krasner coordinated the formation of Hudson Diamond BVI. Hudson Diamond BVI was used by the Debtor to hold nominal ownership of Saraca Media Group, Inc., which the Trustee has alleged in the Amended First\n\n75 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Default*, at 16-19, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 264.\n\nOmnibus Alter Ego Complaint to be an alter ego of and equitably owned by the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond BVI has engaged in no business activity or any other actions other than holding title to Saraca Media Group, Inc., and, for a brief period of time following the initial creation of Hudson Diamond NY, holding title to Hudson Diamond NY prior to transferring such ownership interest to Hudson Diamond Holding.\n\n#### **iii. Infinity Treasury Management Inc.**\n\n173. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (\"Infinity Treasury\") is an entity organized in Delaware and nominally owned by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo. Infinity Treasury was used by the Debtor to hold nominal ownership of Lamp Capital, which this Court has ruled was an alter ego of the Debtor and equitably owned by the Debtor.[76](#page-61-0) Upon information and belief, Infinity Treasury engaged in no business activities or other actions other than to hold title to Lamp Capital and to litigate against the Trustee in the Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding.\n\n174. The Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment when asked at his March 2023 deposition whether Infinity Treasury was one of a group of entities held in the name of his son but in fact owned and controlled by the Debtor.[77](#page-61-1)\n\n175. Infinity Treasury was one of the Defendants in the Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding and defaulted on its obligation to respond to the Trustee's complaint. Subsequently, Infinity Treasury appeared before the Court along with Lamp Capital to object to the Court's entry of a default judgment in the Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding, which objection was unsuccessful.[78](#page-61-2)\n\n76 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Default Judgment and Denying Cross-Motion to Set Aside Default*, Adv. Proc No. 23-05023, Docket No. 63.\n\n77 Debtor's March 2, 2023 Depo. Tr., at 54.\n\n78 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Default Judgment and Denying Cross-Motion to Set Aside Default*, Adv. Proc No. 23-05023, Docket No. 63.\n\n# **I. Hong Kong Shell Companies**\n\n176. The Debtor has controlled numerous entities organized in Hong Kong at which the Debtor's family members, employees, controlled companies, or other agents of the Debtor served as nominal shareholders and/or directors and that the Debtor used to engage in financial transactions and/or hold assets on his behalf, each as defined below (collectively, the \"Hong\n\n# Kong Shell Companies\").\n\n- a. **Strong Country Holdings Group Limited (\"Strong Country\")** is a Hong Kong entity that is nominally owned 95% by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, and 5% by the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok. The director of Strong Country is Max Krasner and the company secretary of Strong Country is Annie Lau Lai Chun, both employees of the Debtor, and the company's registered address is at 22 South Bay Road in Hong Kong, a property that is owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor. Strong Country was used by the Debtor to hold title to real property located at 19 Houhai Beiyan, Xicheng District, in Beijing China. Strong Country provided a security pledge in connection with the loan agreement whereby an entity called Roscalitar2 issued a loan to the Debtor (the \"Roscalitar Loan\") in exchange for pledges on numerous of the Debtor's assets, including among others Strong Country and Genever Holdings Corporation, parent company of Genever Holdings LLC, the entity that holds title to the Sherry Netherland apartment. As discussed in pleadings filed by the Trustee in connection with its litigation against Bravo Luck Limited related to the Sherry Netherland apartment, Genever Holdings Corporation's pledge to Roscalitar2 became a contentious issue during the Debtor's litigation against PAX when the Debtor for a period of time falsely asserted, based on this pledge, that the Sherry Netherland somehow was not subject to execution by PAX. [79](#page-62-0) Upon information and belief, the proceeds of the Roscalitar Loan included over \\$1 billion of funds transferred by Roscalitar2 to the Debtor's entities Alfa Global Ventures Limited and Alfonso Global Limited which were subsequently transferred to other Debtorcontrolled entities and used to purchase, among other things, assets such as the Sherry Netherland apartment, *Lady May* yacht, and the Debtor's London Apartment.\n- b. **Joincorp International Limited (\"Joincorp International\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, who also served as the company's sole\n\n79 *See Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling That Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code* ¶¶ 61-64, Adv. Proc No. 22- 05027, Docket No. 40.\n\ndirector.[80](#page-63-0) Upon information and belief, Joincorp International was used by the Debtor to establish one or more business ventures in Taiwan. According to the company's most recent annual return filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry, the company's records were kept at the same address on the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong that was used as an address by numerous other Debtor-controlled companies, as discussed in the Amended First Alter Ego Complaint.\n\n- c. **Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited (\"Canadian Agriproduct\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, who also served as the company's sole director. Canadian Agri-product's registered address is the 20 South Bay Road address of the Debtor's mansion in Hong Kong that is nominally owned by Leading Shine Limited, a company that is the subject of an Alter Ego Claim asserted in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint. The Debtor used Canadian Agri-product to hold title to various vehicles in Hong Kong, including a Toyota, a Maybach, and Land Rover.\n- d. **Eagle Eye Investments Limited (\"Eagle Eye Investments\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor' employee, Kesen Yang, who also served as the company's sole director. The Debtor used Eagle Eye Investments to, among other things, hold ownership of a company organized in the People's Republic of China (\"PRC\") called Eagle Eye (Zheng Zhou) Investments Service Co. Ltd.\n- e. **Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited (\"Glory Asia\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's family member, Zongchao Yue, who also served as the company's sole director. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Glory Asia to operate an oil business and to fund New Dynamic Development Limited, an entity that is the subject of an Alter Ego Claim pursuant to a separate complaint.\n- f. **Gold Perfect Limited (\"Gold Perfect\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok, who also served as the company's sole director. Gold Perfect was used by the Debtor to hold title to a separate PRC company of the same name. According to the company's most recent annual return filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry, the company's records were kept at the same address on the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong that was used as an address by numerous other Debtor-controlled companies, as discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n- g. **Group Dynasty Limited (\"Group Dynasty\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok, who also served as the company's sole director. Group Dynasty was used by the Debtor to hold title to a separate PRC company of the same name. According to the company's most recent annual return filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry, the company's records were kept at the\n\n80 As discussed in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint,\n\nsame address on the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong that was used as an address by numerous other Debtor-controlled companies, as discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n\n- h. **Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo. This is the entity that, as discussed in the First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint and in pleadings filed by the Trustee in Adversary Proceeding No. 22-05003 (the \"HK USA Adversary Proceeding\"), previously held title to the *Lady May* yacht. As the Court may recall, Natasha Qu transferred her purported ownership in HK International for no consideration to Mei Guo in June of 2017, and in April 2020, HK International transferred its purported ownership of the *Lady May* to HK USA for no consideration. Moreover, as discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint, the Debtor used HK International to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars between his shell companies. A portion of these funds was then used to purchase the *Lady May* in February 2015 (approximately € 25.2 million) and the Sherry Netherland apartment in March 2015 (approximately \\$70 million), as well as to fund the establishment of Golden Spring (\\$19 million).\n- i. **Kingdom Rich Limited (\"Kingdom Rich\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, who also served as the company's sole director. The Debtor used Kingdom Rich to hold title to his smaller yacht, the *Lady May II*, prior to the *Lady May II* being transferred to HK USA, which held title to the *Lady May II*, when it was discovered by the Trustee during the Debtor's bankruptcy case.\n- j. **New Miracle Limited** is nominally owned by Joy Chance Holdings Limited, a company that is nominally owned by the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok, who also served as one of the company's two directors, the other being the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used New Miracle Limited to make one or more investments in Taiwan. According to the company's most recent annual return filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry, the company's records were kept at the same address on the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong that was used as an address by numerous other Debtor-controlled companies, as discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n- k. **Pacific King Investment Limited (\"Pacific King\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok, who also served as the company's sole shareholder. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Pacific King to handle transactions related to the management of the crew of his private airplanes. According to the company's most recent annual return filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry, the company's records were kept at the same address on the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong that was used as an address by numerous other Debtor-controlled companies, as discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n- l. **Rich Group Development Limited (\"Rich Group\")** is nominally owned by the Debtor's employee, Yan Su, who also served as the company's sole shareholder. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Rich Group to enter into agreements related to construction projects in Beijing. According to the company's most recent annual return filed with the Hong Kong Companies Registry, the company's registered address is the same address on the 49th Floor of Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong that was used as an address by numerous other Debtor-controlled companies, as discussed in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint.\n- 177. Each of the Hong Kong Shell Companies shares the key traits of a company\n\ndominated and controlled by the Debtor: a pliant strawman, whether a family member, employee, or other subordinate is formally in charge, but the business purpose is entirely the Debtor's. Moreover, in each case, upon information and belief, these companies operate from the Debtor's offices, where lists of the companies have been kept by the Debtor's assistants (first Natasha Qu, and later Yvette Wang), making it clear that they are the Debtor's companies. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to each of the Hong Kong Shell Companies.\n\n#### **J. BVI Shell Companies**\n\n178. The Debtor has controlled numerous entities organized in the BVI at which the Debtor's family members, employees, controlled companies, or other agents of the Debtor served as nominal shareholders and/or directors and that the Debtor used to engage in financial transactions and/or hold assets on his behalf, each as defined below (the \"BVI Shell\n\nCompanies\").\n\na. **AA Global Ventures Limited (\"AA Global Ventures\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by Anton Development Limited (\"Anton Development\"), a company controlled by the Debtor and one of the companies subject to Alter Ego Claims in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint. Anton Development also served, according to BVI corporate documents, as director of AA Global Ventures. The Debtor used AA Global Ventures to hold\n\ntitle to AAGV, another BVI Shell Company (discussed below), prior to AAGV being placed under the nominal ownership of the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo.\n\n- b. **AAGV Limited** (\"**AAGV**\") is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, who served as the company's sole director. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used AAGV as a vehicle for investing in securities on the Hong Kong Stock market and transferring funds to Anton Development. In the October 5, 2018, Hong Kong Police report (the \"Hong Kong Police Report\") and October 23, 2018, Hong Kong restraint order (the \"Hong Kong Restraint Order\"), the assets of AAGV were identified as being subject to the Debtor's effective control.\n- c. **Assets Sino Limited (\"Assets Sino\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's niece, Lihong Guo, who served as the sole director. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Assets Sino as a vehicle to engage in transactions on the Hong Kong stock market. The Hong Kong Police Report states that, despite being director of Assets Sino, Lihong Guo did not operate the company's bank accounts, which were opened at the Debtor's instructions and controlled by the Debtor's assistant, Natasha Qu.\n- d. **Auspicious Coast Limited (\"Auspicious Coast\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's sister in-law, Lichun Guo. Lichun Guo and another debtor-controlled company, Next Tycoon Investments Limited (which was nominally owned by the Debtor's chef Han Chunguang) served as directors of Auspicious Coast. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Auspicious Coast as a vehicle to engage in transactions on the Hong Kong stock market. The Hong Kong Police Report states that, despite being director of Auspicious Coast, Lichun Guo did not operate the company's bank accounts, which were opened at the Debtor's instructions and controlled by the Debtor's assistant, Natasha Qu.\n- e. **Guang Hong Limited** (**\"Guang Hong\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's brother, Wencun Guo (a/k/a Man Chuen Kwok), who also served as the company's sole director. Guang Hong is identified in documents recovered by the FBI from Yvette Wang's apartment as an investment vehicle.\n- f. **Head Win Group Limited (\"Head Win\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's relative Zhang Wei, with Zhang Wei and the Debtor's employee Ren Meizi serving as directors of Head Win. Head Win was used by the Debtor to hold title to his Bombardier private jet prior to the Bombardier being transferred to Anton Development in 2016. As discussed in the Court's summary judgment decision in Adversary Proceeding No. 23-05008 (the \"Mei Guo Adversary Proceeding\"), Head Win was, among other things, represented by\n\nthe Debtor to be a \"Single Purpose Company with the only purpose of holding the aircraft.\"[81](#page-67-0)\n\n- g. **Joy Chance Holdings Limited (\"Joy Chance\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok, who also served as the company's sole director. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Joy Chance to hold title to New Miracle Limited, one of the Hong Kong Shell Companies discussed above, which, upon information and belief, the Debtor used to make one or more investments in Taiwan.\n- h. **Long Gate Limited (\"Long Gate\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's employee, Max Krasner. The company's director was the Debtor's relative Zhang Wei. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Long Gate as borrower under the Roscalitar Loan (discussed above).\n- i. **Sail Victory Limited (\"Sail Victory\")** is nominally owned, upon information and belief, by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, who served as the company's sole director. The Debtor used Sail Victory as a vehicle for making investments in the Reverence Capital Partners Fund, which account is now held in the name of Lamp Capital.[82](#page-67-1)\n- 179. As with the Hong Kong Shell Companies, each of the BVI Shell Companies\n\nshares the key traits of a company dominated and controlled by the Debtor: a pliant strawman, whether a family member, employee, or other subordinate, is formally in charge, but the business purpose is the Debtor's. Moreover, in each case, upon information and belief, these companies operate from the Debtor's offices, where lists of the companies have been kept by the Debtor's assistants (first Natasha Qu, and later Yvette Wang), making it clear that they are the Debtor's companies. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to each of the BVI Shell Companies.\n\n81 *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment* ¶ 7, Adv. Proc. No.\n\n23-05008, Docket No. 126. 82 *See Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Entry of Order Pursuant to Sections 105(a), 363(b), 541, and 542 of Bankruptcy Code Approving Liquidation of VCTR Shares, Distribution of Proceeds, and Related Relief*, Main Case Docket No. 3203.\n\n# **K. Other Off-Shore Shell Companies**\n\n180. The Debtor has controlled a number of entities organized in other offshore\n\njurisdictions at which the Debtor's family members, employees, controlled companies, or other\n\nagents of the Debtor served as nominal shareholders and/or directors and that the Debtor used to\n\nengage in financial transactions and/or hold assets on his behalf, each as defined below\n\n(collectively, the \"Other Shell Companies\").\n\n- a. **Alzarro Enterprises Ltd.** (\"**Alzarro**\") is an entity organized in Nevis that is, upon information and belief, nominally owned by the Debtor's Son, Qiang Guo, with Qiang Guo and Lam Teck Hua, an employee of the Debtor, serving as directors. Alzarro is borrower under a facility agreement with Blue Capital Limited, as lender, in connection with a \\$560 million loan (the \"Blue Capital Loan\"). The Debtor and Qiang Guo each are guarantors of the Blue Capital Loan, and pledges were provided under the facility agreement by Leading Shine Limited (BVI), an entity subject to Alter Ego Claims in the Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint and title holder to the Debtor's Hong Kong mansion, as well as Genever Holding Corporation, sole member of Genever Holding LLC, the title holder of the Sherry Netherland apartment. As discussed in pleadings filed by the Trustee in connection with its litigation against Bravo Luck Limited related to the Sherry Netherland apartment, Genever Holdings Corporation's pledge to Blue Capital became a contentious issue during the Debtor's litigation against PAX when the Debtor for a period of time falsely asserted, based on this pledge, that the Sherry Netherland somehow was not subject to execution by PAX.[83](#page-68-0)\n- b. **BSA Strategic Fund I (\"BSA Fund\")** is an entity organized in the Cayman Islands that is, upon information and belief, nominally owned by BSA Capital Management Limited. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used BSA Fund to engage in transactions on the Hong Kong stock exchange by collecting investments from a collection of other Debtor-controlled companies. According to the Hong Kong Restraint Order, BSA Fund's assets were effectively controlled by the Debtor.\n- c. **Insight Phoenix Fund** is an entity organized in the Cayman Islands that is, upon information and belief, nominally owned by Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited. Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Insight Phoenix Fund, to engage in transactions on the Hong Kong stock exchange by collecting\n\n83 *See Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling That Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code* ¶¶ 61-64, Adv. Proc No. 22- 05027, Docket No. 40.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 70 of 130\n\ninvestments from a collection of other Debtor-controlled companies. According to the Hong Kong Restraint Order, Insight Phoenix Fund's assets were effectively controlled by the Debtor.\n\n181. The Other Shell Companies were dominated and controlled by the Debtor.\n\nAlzarro presents a classic pattern with the Debtor's son serving as the pliant strawman at a company engaging in a transaction of the Debtor involving a pledge of the value of the Debtor's luxurious homes in Hong Kong and New York. For BSA Fund and Insight Phoenix Fund, strawman ownership is not yet confirmed, but these entities' assets are, based on a judgment of a court in Hong Kong, controlled by the Debtor. Indeed, the Debtor funded BSA Fund and Insight Phoenix Fund with his other companies so that they could invest in the Hong Kong stock market on his direction. Given these circumstances, and in light of the Debtor's track record in establishing alter ego shell companies, the Trustee is entitled to an Alter Ego Ruling with respect to each of the Other Shell Companies.\n\n#### **III. Tolling Order**\n\n182. 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\n183. 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.[84](#page-69-0)\n\n84 Tolling Order, at 14.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 71 of 130\n\n184. 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.\"[85](#page-70-0) The Court found that the \"noncompliance with this Court's orders in these jointly administered chapter 11 cases, is extraordinary,\"[86](#page-70-1) and that, in the face of such obstruction, the Trustee's investigation has been \"more than reasonably diligent.\"[87](#page-70-2)\n\n185. On August 14, 2024, the Court entered its *Order Granting Second Motion or Extension of Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* [Main Case Docket No. 3417] (the \"Second 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 and other actions on behalf of the estate, as well as for amending any pending complaints, through and including February 15, 2025.\n\n186. In the Second Tolling Order, the Court found that the Trustee has established cause exists under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b), which includes without limitation: (1) the pendency of the Debtor's criminal case, (2) the Debtor's ongoing contempt of court and failure to perform his statutory duties under Bankruptcy Code section 521, (3) other parties' ongoing contempt of court, (4) the complexity of the Debtor's financial affairs, (5) the Trustee's diligence in his investigation.[88](#page-70-3)\n\n187. The Trustee has acted diligently in investigating and pursuing the claims asserted in this Complaint.\n\n85 *Id.* at 15. 86 *Id.*\n\n\n\n87 *Id.* at 17. 88 Second Tolling Order, at 3.\n\n188. In light of, among other things, the extraordinary obstruction that the Trustee has\n\nfaced in conducting his diligent investigation, the balance of the equities strongly favors\n\nequitable tolling of any statutes of limitations applicable to the claims asserted herein.\n\n#### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Crane is Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Crane's Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 189. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 190. New York law applies to this alter ego claim because Crane is a New York\n\n# entity.[89](#page-71-0)\n\n- 191. Crane is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\t- a. Crane's nominal owner and manager was an agent of the Debtor, and his salary was paid by other companies controlled by the Debtor.\n\t- b. Crane used the same office as the Debtor and other Debtor shell companies.\n\t- c. Crane's only business was to create bank accounts and move money on behalf of the Debtor and his shell companies.\n\t- d. The Debtor controlled the funds in Crane's bank accounts.\n\n89 Under New York law, a party seeking an alter ego ruling must show \"(1) the alleged alter ego 'exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil.'\" *Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc*., 120 F. Supp. 3d 277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), *aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber,* 720 F. App'x 639 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd*., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y.2014)). The domination referenced in this first prong is determined based on considering ten equitable factors: \"(1) the absence of formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arm['s] length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own.\" *Id.* (quoting *Liberty* Synergistics, 50 F.Supp.3d at 296).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 73 of 130\n\n192. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n193. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Crane was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Crane at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Crane at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Crane to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Crane and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Crane and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n194. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n195. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Crane is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Crane and its assets.[90](#page-72-0)\n\n196. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n90 *See Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (equitable ownership established where defendant \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n197. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Crane, and the assets of Crane, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Crane, and the assets of Crane, to the Trustee.\n\n### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that GS Security is Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of GS Security's Assets to Trustee)**\n\n198. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n199. New York law applies to this alter ego claim because GS Security is a New York entity.[91](#page-73-0)\n\n200. GS Security is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. GS Security's nominal owner and manager was an agent of the Debtor.\n- b. GS Security's business was to provide security for the Debtor and his family.\n- c. GS Security's work was conducted at the Debtor's residences.\n- d. GS Security was funded by the Debtor through his shell companies and supporters.\n\n91 Under New York law, a party seeking an alter ego ruling must show \"(1) the alleged alter ego 'exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil.'\" *Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc*., 120 F. Supp. 3d 277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), *aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber,* 720 F. App'x 639 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd*., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y.2014)). The domination referenced in this first prong is determined based on considering ten equitable factors: \"(1) the absence of formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arm['s] length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own.\" *Id.* (quoting *Liberty* Synergistics, 50 F.Supp.3d at 296).\n\n201. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n202. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times GS Security was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by GS Security at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by GS Security at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of GS Security to the Trustee.\n\n#### **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of GS Security and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of GS Security and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n203. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n204. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that GS Security is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of GS Security and its assets.[92](#page-74-0)\n\n205. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n92 *See Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (equitable ownership established where defendant \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n206. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in GS Security, and the assets of GS Security, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in GS Security, and the assets of GS Security, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that HGA Property is Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of HGA Property's Assets to Trustee)**\n\n207. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n208. New Jersey law applies to this alter ego claim because HGA Property is a New Jersey entity.[93](#page-75-0)\n\n209. HGA Property is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\na. HGA Property's nominal owners and managers were agents of the Debtor.\n\n- b. The Debtor used HGA Property to manage his Mahwah Mansion property.\n- c. The Debtor used HGA Property to pay his expenses.\n- d. The Debtor funded HGA Property through his supporters.\n\n93 *State Cap. Title & Abstract Co. v. Pappas Bus. Servs*., LLC, 646 F. Supp. 2d 668, 679 (D.N.J. 2009) (\"In New Jersey, two elements must be shown to pierce the corporate veil: First, there must be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist. Second, the circumstances must indicate that adherence to the fiction of separate corporate existence would sanction a fraud or promote injustice… In determining whether a unity of interest and ownership exists under the first prong, the Third Circuit has applied six non-binding factors to guide this inquiry: [1] gross undercapitalization ... [2] \"failure to observe corporate formalities, non-payment of dividends, [3] the insolvency of the debtor corporation at the time, [4] siphoning of funds of the corporation by the dominant stockholder, [5] non-functioning of other officers or directors, absence of corporate records, and [6] the fact that the corporation is merely a facade for the operations of the dominant stockholder or stockholders. . . With respect to the second element, a plaintiff need not prove common law fraud but instead demonstrate that the defendants, via the corporate form, perpetrated a fraud, injustice, or the like, a less exacting standard.\") (internal citations omitted).\n\n210. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n211. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times HGA Property was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by HGA Property at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by HGA Property at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of HGA Property to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SIXTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of HGA Property and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of HGA Property and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n212. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n213. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that HGA Property is an alter ego\n\nof the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of HGA\n\nProperty and its assets.[94](#page-76-0)\n\n94 *See Kartzman v. Beiman (In re Beiman),* No. 15-10488 (JKS), 2018 WL 6978705, \\*4 (Bankr. D. N. J. Mar. 19, 2018) (Courts have found that debtor had equitable interest in property upon one or more of following grounds: (1) debtor's funds were used to acquire property; (2) debtor represented that he had interest in property or used property to obtain credit; or (3) they involved property that was once owned by debtor and then transferred to third party (usually in face of creditor pressure)); *In re NJ Affordable Homes Corp.*, No. 05-60442 (DHS), 2006 WL 2128624, \\*8 (Bankr. D.N.J. June 29, 2006) (finding debtor to be equitable owner of property under New Jersey law based on patterns and practices of debtor's fraudulent behaviors, where debtor, funding purchase of properties, placed title to properties in name of third parties while maintaining de facto control and ownership).\n\n214. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n215. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in HGA Property, and the assets of HGA Property, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in HGA Property, and the assets of HGA Property, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SEVENTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Thousand Stars and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Thousand Stars and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 216. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 217. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nThousand Stars and its assets.\n\n218. Among other things:\n\n- a. Thousand Stars was controlled by the Debtor through his agents.\n- b. The Debtor used Thousand Stars to operate his G Club scheme from Abu Dhabi.\n- c. Thousand Stars was funded by the Debtor.\n- 219. Under ADGM law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nHaoran He has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Thousand Stars only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Thousand Stars has been at all relevant times a mere\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 79 of 130\n\nnominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor.[95](#page-78-0)\n\n220. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n221. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of\n\nthe Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Thousand Stars and its assets are and were at all relevant\n\ntimes property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the\n\nsurrender of such assets, ownership interests in Thousand Stars, and all related rights of\n\ncorporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **EIGHTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of H Reserve Management and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of H Reserve Management and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n222. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n223. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of H\n\nReserve Management and its assets.\n\n224. Among other things:\n\n95 *See e.g.* Adv. Proc No. 23-05008 [Docket No. 126], at 30-31 (\"English common law recognizes that a legal owner may be a \"bare trustee\", holding an asset for the benefit and at the discretion of a beneficial owner who has complete control over the asset. *Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Silverts Ld.* [1951] 1 Ch 521 (EWCA) at 526 (Eng.); *Jenkins v. Walker (In re Blandy Jenkins' Estate)* [1917] 1 Ch 46; *Christie v. Ovington* (1875) 1 Ch. D. 279; Meaning of 'bare trustee', 92 HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND ¶ 194 (5th ed. 2019). The relationship between bare trustee and beneficial owner need not be formalized in writing and may be determined based on the facts and circumstances of the case. *Pleshakov v. Sky StreamCorporation* [2021] UKPC 15 [¶¶ 47–48]; *Tang v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners* [2019] UKFTT 81 (TC); *Purba v. Purba [*2000] 1 FLR 444 (EWCA) (Eng.).\"); *Prest v Petrodel* [2013] 2 AC 415 at [52] (resulting trust arose where individual improperly used an offshore structure to evade their liabilities); *Cobussen v Akbar* [2020] EWHC 2805 (QB) (resulting trust imposed to enforce a judgment against a London property, despite judgment debtor denying he held a beneficial interest in the property, where court concluded that judgment debtor funded purchase of property held through offshore company whose shareholder was instructed by judgment debtor).\n\n- a. H Reserve Management was controlled by the Debtor through his agents.\n- b. The Debtor used H Reserve Management to operate his Himalaya Exchange scheme from Abu Dhabi.\n- c. H Reserve Management was funded by the Debtor.\n\n225. Under ADGM law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Le (\"Ingrid\") Qiao has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in H Reserve Management only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) H Reserve Management has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor.[96](#page-79-0)\n\n226. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n227. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that H Reserve Management and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in H Reserve Management, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n# **NINTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Delta Konsult and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Delta Konsult and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n228. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n96 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 81 of 130\n\n229. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Delta Konsult and its assets.\n\n230. Among other things:\n\n- a. Delta Konsult was controlled by the Debtor through his agents.\n- b. The Debtor used Delta Konsult to operate his Himalaya Exchange and G Club schemes from Abu Dhabi.\n- c. Delta Konsult was funded by the Debtor.\n\n231. Under ADGM law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Xinfang (\"Sarah\") Zhang has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Delta Konsult only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Delta Konsult has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [97](#page-80-0)\n\n232. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n233. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Delta Konsult and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Delta Konsult, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n97 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n### **TENTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that River Valley is Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of River Valley's Assets to Trustee)**\n\n234. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n235. Indiana law applies to this alter ego claim because River Valley is an Indiana\n\nentity.[98](#page-81-0)\n\n236. River Valley is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. River Valley's nominal owner and account signatories were agents of the Debtor.\n- b. River Valley was funded by the Debtor.\n- c. River Valley transferred funds on behalf of the Debtor to the Debtor's family members and controlled companies.\n- 237. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such\n\ncreditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n238. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times River Valley was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by River Valley at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by River Valley at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11\n\n98 *See JMB Mfg., Inc. v. Child Craft, LLC*, 939 F. Supp. 2d 909, 918-19 (S.D. Ind. 2013) (\"The party seeking to pierce must show by a preponderance of evidence that the corporate form was so ignored, controlled, or manipulated that it was merely the instrumentality of another and that not piercing would constitute fraud or injustice. There are eight practices that most often result in a court deciding to disregard the corporate form: (1) undercapitalization; (2) absence of corporate records; (3) fraudulent representation by corporation shareholders or directors; (4) use of the corporation to promote fraud, injustice or illegal activities; (5) payment by the corporation of individual obligations; (6) commingling of assets and affairs; (7) failure to observe required corporate formalities; or (8) other shareholder acts or conduct ignoring, controlling, or manipulating the corporate form.\") (internal citations removed).\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 83 of 130\n\npetition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of River Valley to the Trustee.\n\n#### **ELEVENTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of River Valley and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of River Valley and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n239. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n240. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that River Valley is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of River Valley and its assets.[99](#page-82-0)\n\n241. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n242. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in River Valley, and the assets of River Valley, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in River Valley, and the assets of River Valley, to the Trustee.\n\n99 *See In re Miles*, 652 B.R. 320, 334-35 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2023) (addressing absence of Indiana authority on equitable ownership issue by applying \"federal common law five-factor test,\" under which \"(1) there is a close personal relationship between the nominee and the transferor; (2) the nominee paid little or no consideration for the property; (3) the parties placed the property in the name of the nominee in anticipation of collection activity; (4) the parties did not record the conveyance; and, (5) the transferor continues to exercise dominion and control over the property.\") (citing *United States v. Szaflarski*, 614 F. App'x 836, 838-39 (7th Cir. 2015) and *Paloian v. Dordevic (In re Dordevic)*, 67 F.4th 372 (7th Cir. 2023)).\n\n# **TWELFTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Fiesta Investment and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Fiesta Investment and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n243. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n244. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nFiesta Investment and its assets.\n\n- 245. Among other things:\n\t- a. Fiesta Investment was controlled by the Debtor through his agent.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Fiesta Investment to transfer funds to and purchase assets for his son.\n\t- c. The Debtor funded Fiesta Investment through his shell companies.\n- 246. Under English law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nHaoran He has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Fiesta Investment only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Fiesta Investment has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [100](#page-83-0)\n\n247. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n248. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Fiesta Investment and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2)\n\n100 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\nordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Fiesta Investment, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n# **THIRTEENTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Rising Sun Capital and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Rising Sun Capital and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 249. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 250. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nRising Sun Capital and its assets.\n\n- 251. Among other things:\n\t- a. Rising Sun Capital was controlled by the Debtor through his agent.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Rising Sun Capital to transfer funds to his son.\n\t- c. Rising Sun Capital shared an address with the Debtor's son.\n\t- d. The Debtor funded Rising Sun Capital through his shell companies.\n- 252. Under English law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nHaoran He has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Rising Sun Capital only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Rising Sun Capital has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [101](#page-84-0)\n\n253. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n101 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n254. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Rising Sun Capital and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Rising Sun Capital, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n### **FOURTEENTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Ampleforth Capital and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Ampleforth Capital and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n255. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n256. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Ampleforth Capital and its assets.\n\n257. Among other things:\n\na. Ampleforth Capital was controlled by the Debtor through his agent.\n\nb. The Debtor used Ampleforth Capital to transfer funds to his shell company.\n\nc. The Debtor funded Ampleforth Capital through his supporters.\n\n258. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Kun Ma (a/k/a Kevin Ma) has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Ampleforth Capital only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Ampleforth Capital has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [102](#page-85-0)\n\n102 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n259. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n260. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Ampleforth Capital and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Ampleforth Capital, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **FIFTEENTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Holy City and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Holy City and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n261. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n262. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nHoly City and its assets.\n\n263. Among other things:\n\n- a. Holy City was controlled by the Debtor through Yvette Wang and New Federal State Corporation.\n- b. The Debtor used Holy City to hold title to his alter egos, the HCHK Entities.\n- c. Holy City's only purpose is to hold title to the HCHK Entities and litigate against the Trustee.\n\n264. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nYvette Wang and New Federal State Corporation have been, as applicable, at all relevant times mere nominees, \"bare trustees,\" and/or trustees pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Holy City only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Holy City has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 88 of 130\n\nresulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [103](#page-87-0)\n\n265. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n266. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Holy City and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Holy City, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n# **SIXTEENTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Hudson Diamond BVI and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Hudson Diamond BVI and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 267. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 268. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nHudson Diamond BVI and its assets.\n\n- 269. Among other things:\n\t- a. Hudson Diamond BVI was controlled by the Debtor through his son, Qiang Guo.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Hudson Diamond BVI to hold title to his alter ego, the Saraca Media Group, Inc.\n\t- c. Hudson Diamond BVI only purpose is to hold title to Saraca Media Group, Inc.\n\n103 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 89 of 130\n\n270. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Qiang Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Hudson Diamond BVI only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Hudson Diamond BVI has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [104](#page-88-0)\n\n271. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n272. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Hudson Diamond BVI and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Hudson Diamond BVI, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SEVENTEENTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Infinity Treasury Is Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Infinity Treasury's Assets to Trustee)**\n\n273. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n274. Delaware law applies to this alter ego claim because Infinity Treasury is a\n\nDelaware entity.[105](#page-88-1)\n\n104 *See* note 96, *supra*. 105 Under Delaware's two-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil, a court applying Delaware's alter ego analysis to the Debtor's relationship with Infinity Treasury will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and Infinity Treasury operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether the Debtor and Infinity Treasury operated as a single economic unit, a court\n\n275. Infinity Treasury is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. The Debtor controlled Infinity Treasury through his son.\n- b. The Debtor used Infinity Treasury to hold title to his alter ego Lamp Capital.\n- c. Infinity Treasury's only purpose was to hold title to Lamp Capital and to litigate against the Trustee.\n\n276. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n277. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Infinity Treasury was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Infinity Treasury at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held Infinity Treasury at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Infinity Treasury to the Trustee.\n\n#### **EIGHTEENTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Infinity Treasury and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Infinity Treasury and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n278. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\napplying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether Infinity Treasury was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor. *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010). This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\" *Id.* at 471.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 91 of 130\n\n279. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Infinity Treasury is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Infinity Treasury and its assets.[106](#page-90-0)\n\n280. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n281. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Infinity Treasury, and the assets of Infinity Treasury, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Infinity Treasury, and the assets of Infinity Treasury, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **NINETEENTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Strong Country and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Strong Country and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 282. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 283. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nStrong Country and its assets.\n\n- 284. Among other things:\n\t- a. Strong Country was controlled by the Debtor through the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok and the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo.\n\n106 *See Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (equitable ownership established where defendant \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n- b. The Debtor used Strong Country hold title to real property in Beijing, China and pledged assets in connection with the Roscalitar Loan.\n- c. Strong Country was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n285. Under Hong Kong Law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Hing Chi Ngok and Qiang Guo have been at all relevant times mere nominees or \"bare trustees,\" considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Strong Country only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Strong Country has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [107](#page-91-0)\n\n286. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n287. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Strong Country and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Strong Country, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n# **TWENTIETH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Joincorp International and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Joincorp International and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n288. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188. 289. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nJoincorp International and its assets.\n\n107 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n290. Among other things:\n\n- a. Joincorp International was controlled by the Debtor through the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo.\n- b. The Debtor used Joincorp International to establish business ventures in Taiwan.\n- c. Joincorp International was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n291. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Mei Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in Joincorp International only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Joincorp International has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [108](#page-92-0)\n\n292. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n293. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Joincorp International and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Joincorp International, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n108 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n# **TWENTY-FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Canadian Agri-product and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Canadian Agri-product and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n294. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n295. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nCanadian Agri-product and its assets.\n\n- 296. Among other things:\n\t- a. Canadian Agri-product was controlled by the Debtor through the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Canadian Agri-product to hold title to motor vehicles.\n\t- c. Canadian Agri-product was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 297. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that\n\n(a) Qiang Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Canadian Agriproduct only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Canadian Agri-product has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [109](#page-93-0)\n\n298. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n299. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Canadian Agri-product and its assets are and were at all\n\n109 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\nrelevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Canadian Agri-product, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n# **TWENTY-SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Eagle Eye Investments and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Eagle Eye Investments and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 300. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 301. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nEagle Eye Investments and its assets.\n\n- 302. Among other things:\n\t- a. Eagle Eye Investments was controlled by the Debtor through the Debtor's employee, Kesen Yang.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Eagle Eye Investments to hold title to a PRC company.\n\t- c. Eagle Eye Investments was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n303. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Kesen Yang has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Eagle Eye Investments only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Eagle Eye Investments has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust\n\nconsidered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the\n\nbenefit of the Debtor. [110](#page-94-0)\n\n110 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n304. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n305. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Eagle Eye Investments and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Eagle Eye Investments, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n### **TWENTY-THIRD CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Glory Asia and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Glory Asia and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n306. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n307. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nGlory Asia and its assets.\n\n308. Among other things:\n\n- a. Glory Asia was controlled by the Debtor through the Debtor's family member, Zongchao Yue.\n- b. The Debtor used Glory Asia to operate an oil business and fund his shell company New Dynamic Development Limited.\n- c. Glory Asia was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n309. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that\n\n(a) Zongchao Yue has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee\n\npursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Glory Asia only\n\nfor the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Glory Asia has been at all relevant times a mere\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 97 of 130\n\nnominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [111](#page-96-0)\n\n310. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n311. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Glory Asia and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Glory Asia, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **TWENTY-FOURTH CLAM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Gold Perfect and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Gold Perfect and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n312. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n313. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Gold Perfect and its assets.\n\n- 314. Among other things:\n\t- a. Gold Perfect was controlled by the Debtor through the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Gold Perfect to hold title to a PRC company.\n\t- c. Gold Perfect was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 315. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that\n\n(a) Hing Chi Ngok has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee\n\n111 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 98 of 130\n\npursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Gold Perfect only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Gold Perfect has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [112](#page-97-0)\n\n316. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n317. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Gold Perfect and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Gold Perfect, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **TWENTY-FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Group Dynasty and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Group Dynasty and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 318. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 319. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nGroup Dynasty and its assets.\n\n- 320. Among other things:\n\t- a. Group Dynasty was controlled by the Debtor through the Debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Group Dynasty to hold title to a PRC company.\n\t- c. Group Dynasty was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n112 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 99 of 130\n\n321. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Hing Chi Ngok has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Group Dynasty only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Group Dynasty has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [113](#page-98-0)\n\n322. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n323. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Group Dynasty and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Group Dynasty, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **TWENTY-SIXTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of HK International and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of HK International and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n324. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n325. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of HK International and its assets.\n\n326. Among other things:\n\n113 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n- a. HK International was controlled by the Debtor through his daughter, Mei Guo.\n- b. The Debtor used HK International to hold title to the *Lady May* and move money on his behalf.\n- c. HK International was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n327. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Mei Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests HK International only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) HK International has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [114](#page-99-0)\n\n328. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n329. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that HK International and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in HK International, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **TWENTY-SEVENTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Kingdom Rich and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Kingdom Rich and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n330. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n114 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 101 of 130\n\n331. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Kingdom Rich and its assets.\n\n332. Among other things:\n\n- a. Kingdom Rich was controlled by the Debtor through his son, Qiang Guo.\n- b. The Debtor used Kingdom Rich to hold title to the *Lady May II*.\n- c. Kingdom Rich was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n333. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Qiang Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Kingdom Rich only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Kingdom Rich has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [115](#page-100-0)\n\n334. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n335. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Kingdom Rich and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Kingdom Rich, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n115 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n# **TWENTY-EIGHTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of New Miracle Limited and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of New Miracle Limited and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 336. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 337. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nNew Miracle Limited and its assets.\n\n- 338. Among other things:\n\t- a. New Miracle Limited was controlled by the Debtor through his shell company Joy Chance Holdings Limited.\n\t- b. The Debtor used New Miracle Limited to invest in Taiwan.\n\t- c. New Miracle Limited was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 339. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that\n\n(a) Joy Chance Holdings Limited has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests New Miracle Limited only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) New Miracle Limited has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [116](#page-101-0)\n\n340. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n341. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that New Miracle Limited and its assets are and were at all\n\n116 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\nrelevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in New Miracle Limited, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n### **TWENTY-NINTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Pacific King and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Pacific King and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n342. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n343. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nPacific King and its assets.\n\n344. Among other things:\n\n- a. Pacific King was controlled by the Debtor through his wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n- b. The Debtor used Pacific King to manage the crews of his private airplanes.\n- c. Pacific King was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n345. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that\n\n(a) Hing Chi Ngok has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Pacific King only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Pacific King has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [117](#page-102-0)\n\n346. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n117 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n347. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Pacific King and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Pacific King, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **THIRTIETH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Rich Group and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Rich Group and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n348. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n349. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Rich Group and its assets.\n\n- 350. Among other things:\n\t- a. Rich Group was controlled by the Debtor through his employee, Yan Su.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Rich Group to enter into agreements related to construction projects in Beijing.\n\t- c. Rich Group was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n351. Under Hong Kong law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Yan Su has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Rich Group only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Rich Group has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [118](#page-103-0)\n\n118 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n352. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n353. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Rich Group and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Rich Group, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n### **THIRTY-FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of AA Global Ventures and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of AA Global Ventures and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 354. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 355. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\n#### AA Global Ventures and its assets.\n\n- 356. Among other things:\n\t- a. AA Global Ventures was controlled by the Debtor through his shell company, Anton Development Limited.\n\t- b. The Debtor used AA Global Ventures to hold title to AAGV, another of his BVI Shell Companies.\n\t- c. AA Global Ventures was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 357. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nAnton Development Limited has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\"\n\nand/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests\n\nAA Global Ventures only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) AA Global Ventures has\n\nbeen at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 106 of 130\n\ntrust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [119](#page-105-0)\n\n358. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n359. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that AA Global Ventures and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in AA Global Ventures, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **THIRTY-SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of AAGV and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of AAGV and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n360. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n361. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of AAGV and its assets.\n\n- 362. Among other things:\n\t- a. AAGV was controlled by the Debtor through his daughter, Mei Guo.\n\t- b. The Debtor used AAGV as a vehicle to invest in securities in the Hong Kong stock market.\n\t- c. AAGV was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 363. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Mei\n\nGuo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a\n\n119 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 107 of 130\n\nresulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests AAGV only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) AAGV has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [120](#page-106-0)\n\n364. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n365. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that AAGV and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in AAGV, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **THIRTY-THIRD CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Assets Sino and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Assets Sino and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n366. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n367. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nAssets Sino and its assets.\n\n- 368. Among other things:\n\t- a. AAGV was controlled by the Debtor through his niece, Lihong Guo.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Assets Sino as a vehicle to invest in securities in the Hong Kong stock market.\n\t- c. Assets Sino was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n120 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 108 of 130\n\n369. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Lihong Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Assets Sino only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Assets Sino has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [121](#page-107-0)\n\n370. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n371. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Assets Sino and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Assets Sino, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **THIRTY-FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Auspicious Coast and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Auspicious Coast and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 372. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 373. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nAuspicious Coast and its assets.\n\n- 374. Among other things:\n\t- a. Auspicious Coast was controlled by the Debtor through his sister-in-law, Lichun Guo.\n\n121 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 109 of 130\n\n- b. The Debtor used Auspicious Coast as a vehicle to invest in securities in the Hong Kong stock market.\n- c. Auspicious Coast was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n375. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Lichun Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Auspicious Coast only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Auspicious Coast has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [122](#page-108-0)\n\n376. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n377. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Auspicious Coast and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Auspicious Coast, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n### **THIRTY-FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Guang Hong and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Guang Hong and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n378. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188. 379. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Guang Hong and its assets.\n\n122 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 110 of 130\n\n380. Among other things:\n\n- a. Guang Hong was controlled by the Debtor through his brother, Wencun Guo (a/k/a Man Chuen Kwok).\n- b. The Debtor used Guang Hong as an investment vehicle.\n- c. Guang Hong was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n381. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Wencun Guo (a/k/a Man Chuen Kwok) has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Guang Hong only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Guang Hong has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [123](#page-109-0)\n\n382. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n383. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Guang Hong and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Guang Hong, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n123 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## **THIRTY-SIXTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Head Win and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Head Win and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n384. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n385. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Head Win and its assets.\n\n386. Among other things:\n\na. Head Win was controlled by the Debtor through his relative, Zhang Wei.\n\nb. The Debtor used Head Win to hold title to his Bombardier private jet.\n\n- c. Head Win was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 387. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nZhang Wei has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Head Win only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Joy Chance has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [124](#page-110-0)\n\n388. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n389. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Head Win and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the\n\n124 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\nsurrender of such assets, ownership interests in Head Win, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n# **THIRTY-SEVENTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Joy Chance and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Joy Chance and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 390. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 391. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nJoy Chance and its assets.\n\n- 392. Among other things:\n\t- a. Joy Chance was controlled by the Debtor through his wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\t- b. The Debtor used Joy Chance to hold title to New Miracle Limited, one of his Hong Kong Shell Companies.\n\t- c. Joy Chance was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 393. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nHing Chi Ngok has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Joy Chance only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Joy Chance has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [125](#page-111-0)\n\n394. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n125 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n395. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Joy Chance and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Joy Chance, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n## **THIRTY-EIGHTH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Long Gate and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Long Gate and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n396. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n397. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Long Gate and its assets.\n\n398. Among other things:\n\n- a. Long Gate was controlled by the Debtor through his employee, Max Krasner.\n- b. The Debtor used Long Gate as a borrower under the Roscalitar Loan.\n- c. Long Gate was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n399. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nMax Krasner has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Long Gate only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Long Gate has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [126](#page-112-0)\n\n126 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n400. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n401. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Long Gate and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Long Gate, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **THIRTY-NINTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Sail Victory and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Sail Victory and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 402. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 403. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nSail Victory and its assets.\n\n404. Among other things:\n\n- a. Sail Victory was controlled by the Debtor through his son, Qiang Guo.\n- b. The Debtor used Sail Victory as a vehicle for making investments in the Reverence Capital Partners Fund.\n- c. Sail Victory was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 405. Under BVI law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nQiang Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Sail Victory only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Sail Victory has been at all relevant times a mere nominee,\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 115 of 130\n\n\"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [127](#page-114-0)\n\n406. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n407. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Sail Victory and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Sail Victory, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n### **FOURTIETH CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Alzarro and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Alzarro and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n408. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n\n409. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of Alzarro and its assets.\n\n410. Among other things:\n\n- a. Alzarro was controlled by the Debtor through his son, Qiang Guo.\n- b. The Debtor used Alzarro as a borrower under the Blue Capital Loan.\n- c. Alzarro was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n- 411. Under Nevis law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a)\n\nQiang Guo has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Alzarro only for the\n\n127 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 116 of 130\n\nbenefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Alzarro has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [128](#page-115-0)\n\n412. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n413. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Alzarro and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Alzarro, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n# **FOURTY-FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of BSA Fund and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of BSA Fund and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 414. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 415. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nBSA Fund and its assets.\n\n- 416. Among other things:\n\t- a. BSA Fund was controlled by the Debtor through BSA Capital Management Limited.\n\t- b. The Debtor used BSA Fund as a vehicle to engage in transactions on the Hong Kong stock exchange.\n\t- c. BSA Fund was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n128 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 117 of 130\n\n417. Under Cayman law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) BSA Capital Management Limited has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests BSA Fund only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) BSA Fund has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [129](#page-116-0)\n\n418. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n419. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that BSA Fund and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in BSA Fund, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n### **FORTY-SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is True Beneficial Owner of Insight Phoenix Fund and Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Insight Phoenix Fund and Its Assets to Trustee)**\n\n- 420. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-188.\n- 421. The facts set forth herein demonstrate that the Debtor is the beneficial owner of\n\nInsight Phoenix Fund and its assets.\n\n422. Among other things:\n\n129 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n- a. Insight Phoenix Fund was controlled by the Debtor through Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited.\n- b. The Debtor used Insight Phoenix Fund as a vehicle to engage in transactions on the Hong Kong stock exchange.\n- c. Insight Phoenix Fund was operated from the Debtor's offices.\n\n423. Under Cayman law, these facts and circumstances warrant the conclusion that (a) Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests Insight Phoenix Fund only for the benefit of the Debtor; and that (b) Insight Phoenix Fund has been at all relevant times a mere nominee, \"bare trustee,\" and/or trustee pursuant to a resulting trust considered to hold legal title to ownership interests in assets held under its name only for the benefit of the Debtor. [130](#page-117-0)\n\n424. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n425. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that Insight Phoenix Fund and its assets are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable, and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Insight Phoenix Fund, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n**WHEREFORE**, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n130 *See* note 96, *supra*.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 119 of 130\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Crane was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Crane any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Crane at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Crane to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Crane, and the assets of Crane, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Crane, and the assets of Crane, to the Trustee;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times GS Security was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by GS Security any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by GS Security at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of GS Security to the Trustee;\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in GS Security, and the assets of GS Security, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 120 of 130\n\ncorporate control in GS Security, and the assets of GS Security, to the Trustee;\n\n5. On the Fifth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times HGA Property was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by HGA Property any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by HGA Property at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of HGA Property to the Trustee;\n\n6. On the Sixth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in HGA Property, and the assets of HGA Property, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in HGA Property, and the assets of HGA Property, to the Trustee;\n\n7. On the Seventh Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Thousand Stars purportedly held by Haoran He, and the assets of Thousand Stars, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Thousand Stars, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n8. On the Eighth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in H Reserve Management purportedly held by Le Qiao, and the assets of H Reserve Management, are and were at all\n\n111\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 121 of 130\n\nrelevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in H Reserve Management, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n9. On the Ninth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Delta Konsult purportedly held by Xinfang Zhang, and the assets of Delta Konsult, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Delta Konsult, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n10. On the Tenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times River Valley was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by River Valley any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by River Valley at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of River Valley to the Trustee;\n\n11. On the Eleventh Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in River Valley, and the assets of River Valley, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in River Valley, and the assets of River Valley, to the Trustee;\n\n12. On the Twelfth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Fiesta Investment purportedly\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 122 of 130\n\nheld by Haoran He, and the assets of Fiesta Investment, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Fiesta Investment, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n13. On the Thirteenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Rising Sun Capital purportedly held by Haoran He, and the assets of Rising Sun Capital, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Rising Sun Capital, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n14. On the Fourteenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Ampleforth Capital purportedly held by Kun Ma, and the assets of Ampleforth Capital, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Ampleforth Capital, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n15. On the Fifteenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Holy City purportedly held by New Federal State Corporation, and the assets of Holy City, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Holy City, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n16. On the Sixteenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 123 of 130\n\nBankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Hudson Diamond BVI purportedly held by Qiang Guo, and the assets of Hudson Diamond BVI, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Hudson Diamond BVI, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n17. On the Seventeenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Infinity Treasury was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Infinity Treasury any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Infinity Treasury at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Infinity Treasury to the Trustee;\n\n18. On the Eighteenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Infinity Treasury, and the assets of Infinity Treasury, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Infinity Treasury, and the assets of Infinity Treasury, to the Trustee;\n\n19. On the Nineteenth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Strong Country purportedly held by Hing Chi Ngok and Qiang Guo, and the assets of Strong Country, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Strong Country, and all related rights of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 124 of 130\n\ncorporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n20. On the Twentieth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Joincorp International purportedly held by Mei Guo, and the assets of Joincorp International, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Joincorp International, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n21. On the Twenty-First Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Canadian Agri-product purportedly held by Qiang Guo, and the assets of Canadian Agri-product, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Canadian Agri-product, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n22. On the Twenty-Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Eagle Eye Investments purportedly held by Kesen Yang, and the assets of Eagle Eye Investments, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Eagle Eye Investments, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n23. On the Twenty-Third Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Glory Asia purportedly held by Zongchao Yue, and the assets of Glory Asia, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such\n\n115\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 125 of 130\n\nassets, ownership interests in Glory Asia, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n24. On the Twenty-Fourth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Gold Perfect purportedly held by Hing Chi Ngok, and the assets of Gold Perfect, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Gold Perfect, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n25. On the Twenty-Fifth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Group Dynasty purportedly held by Hing Chi Ngok, and the assets of Group Dynasty, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Group Dynasty, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n26. On the Twenty-Sixth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in HK International purportedly held by Mei Guo, and the assets of HK International, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in HK International, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n27. On the Twenty-Seventh Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Kingdom Rich purportedly held by Qiang Guo, and the assets of Kingdom Rich, are and were at all relevant times property\n\n116\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 126 of 130\n\nof the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Kingdom Rich, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n28. On the Twenty-Eighth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in New Miracle Limited purportedly held by Joy Chance Holdings Limited, and the assets of New Miracle Limited, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in New Miracle Limited, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n29. On the Twenty-Ninth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Pacific King purportedly held by Hing Chi Ngok, and the assets of Pacific King, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Pacific King, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n30. On the Thirtieth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Rich Group purportedly held by Yan Su, and the assets of Rich Group, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Rich Group, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n31. On the Thirty-First Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in AA Global Ventures purportedly held by Anton Development Limited, and the assets of AA Global Ventures, are and were at all\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 127 of 130\n\nrelevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in AA Global Ventures, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n32. On the Thirty-Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in AAGV purportedly held by Mei Guo, and the assets of AAGV, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in AAGV, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n33. On the Thirty-Third Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Assets Sino purportedly held by Lihong Guo, and the assets of Assets Sino, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Assets Sino, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n34. On the Thirty-Fourth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Auspicious Coast purportedly held by Lichun Guo, and the assets of Auspicious Coast, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Auspicious Coast, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n35. On the Thirty-Fifth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Guang Hong purportedly held by Wencun Guo (a/k/a Man Chuen Kwok), and the assets of Guang Hong, are and were at all\n\n118\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 128 of 130\n\nrelevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Guang Hong, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n36. On the Thirty-Sixth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Head Win purportedly held by Zhang Wei, and the assets of Head Win, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Head Win, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n37. On the Thirty-Seventh Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Joy Chance purportedly held by Hing Chi Ngok, and the assets of Joy Chance, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Joy Chance, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n38. On the Thirty-Eighth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Long Gate purportedly held by Max Krasner, and the assets of Long Gate, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Long Gate, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n39. On the Thirty-Ninth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Sail Victory purportedly held by Qiang Guo, and the assets of Sail Victory, are and were at all relevant times property of the\n\n119\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 129 of 130\n\nDebtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Sail Victory, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n40. On the Fortieth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Alzarro purportedly held by Qiang Guo, and the assets of Alzarro, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Alzarro, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n41. On the Forty-First Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in BSA Fund purportedly held by BSA Capital Management Limited, and the assets of BSA Fund, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in BSA Fund, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n42. On the Forty-Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Insight Phoenix Fund purportedly held by Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited, and the assets of Insight Phoenix Fund, are and were at all relevant times property of the Debtor or the Debtor's chapter 11 estate, as applicable; and (2) ordering the surrender of such assets, ownership interests in Insight Phoenix Fund, and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n43. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n44. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\nDated: December 23, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew York, New York CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglass Barron*\n\nDouglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 douglassbarron@paulhastings.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\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"B104（表格 104）（/）\n\n对抗程序封面页\n（背面说明）　对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告　被告\nLuc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人　见附表\n律师（律师事务所名称、地址和电话号码）　律师（如已知）\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），\nPark Avenue（公园大道）　见附表\n\nNew York（纽约），\nNY\n10166，212-318-6000\n当事人\n（仅勾选一个方框）　当事人\n（仅勾选一个方框）\n□\n债务人\n□\n美国受托人/破产管理人　□\n□\n债务人\n美国受托人/破产管理人\n□\n债权人\n□\n其他\n■　□\n□\n债权人\n其他\n□\n受托人　□\n受托人\n诉因（简要陈述诉因，包括所涉全部美国法典条款）\n根据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出确认判决，确认若干被告系债务人的另一个自我，并命令将其资产移交受托人；根据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出确认判决，确认债务人系若干被告和/或其资产的衡平/受益所有人，并命令将该等实体及其资产的所有权移交受托人。\n诉讼性质\n（最多编号五（5）个方框，以主要诉因为 1，第一个备选诉因为 2，第二个备选诉因为 3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追偿金钱/财产　FRBP 7001(6) – 债务可免责性（续）\n□\n■\n11-追偿金钱/财产 - §542 财产移交\n□　□\n61-债务可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养义务\n□\n12-追偿金钱/财产 - §547 优先受偿\n□\n68-债务可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，故意和恶意伤害\n□\n13-追偿金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n14-追偿金钱/财产 - 其他　63-债务可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n64-债务可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的效力、优先顺位或范围\n□\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的效力、优先顺位或范围　□\n65-债务可免责性 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产　FRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n□\n31-批准出售破产财团财产及共同所有人财产 - §363(h)　□\n71-禁令救济 – 实施中止\n□\n72-禁令救济 – 其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 异议/撤销免责\n□　FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益劣后\n41-对免责提出异议/撤销免责 - §727(c),(d),(e)　□\n81-债权或权益劣后\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认　FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□\n51-撤销确认　□\n■\n91-确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 债务可免责性\n□\n66-债务可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权　FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01-对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n□\n62-债务可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□　其他\n□\n67-债务可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃　SS-SIPA 案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n□\n■\n02-其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼\n（续见下一栏）　）\n□\n如本案涉及州法实体争议，请勾选　□\n如主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□\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关于另一个自我以及衡平和/或受益所有权的确认性救济\n\nB104（表格 104）（/），第 2 页\n\n本对抗程序所产生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等　破产案件编号\n22-50073\n案件审理地区\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州）　分院办公地点\nBridgeport（布里奇波特）　法官姓名\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告　被告　对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序审理地区　分院办公地点　法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/\nDouglass E. Barron（道格拉斯·E·巴伦）\n日期\nDecember 23, 2024　律师（或原告）印刷体姓名\nDouglass E. Barron（道格拉斯·E·巴伦）\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下设立一个“破产财团”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围广泛且法院管辖权十分宽泛，可能会就破产财团的财产或财产权产生诉讼。也可能会有涉及债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提起对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格 104，即《对抗程序封面页》，除非该方通过法院的案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序。（CM/ECF 在提交过程中采集表格 104 上的信息。）填写完成后，该封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规所要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。封面页大体上不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的起诉书均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉书中所列的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏为原告、在第二栏为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中所请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该事务所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n\n附表 I\n\nAA Global Ventures Limited（AA全球创业有限公司）、AAGV Limited（AAGV有限公司）、Alzarro Enterprises Ltd.（阿尔扎罗企业有限公司）、Ampleforth Capital Ltd.（安普尔福斯资本有限公司）、Anton Development Limited（安东开发有限公司）、Assets Sino Limited（华资有限公司）、Auspicious Coast Limited（吉祥海岸有限公司）、BSA Capital Management Limited（BSA资本管理有限公司）、BSA Strategic Fund I（BSA战略基金 I）、Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited（加拿大农产品货币投资有限公司）、Crane Advisory Group LLC（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）、Delta Konsult Limited（德尔塔咨询有限公司）、Eagle Eye Investments Limited（鹰眼投资有限公司）、Feibo Jiang（蒋飞波）、Fiesta Investment Ltd.（菲耶斯塔投资有限公司）、Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited（荣耀亚洲（香港）有限公司）、Gold Perfect Limited（金完美有限公司）、Group Dynasty Limited（集团王朝有限公司）、GS Security Solutions Inc.（GS安保解决方案公司）、Guang Hong Limited（广宏有限公司）、H Reserve Management Limited（H储备管理有限公司）、Haitham Khaled（海赛姆·哈立德）、Haoran He（何浩然）、Head Win Group Limited（领赢集团有限公司）、HGA Property Operation LLC（HGA物业运营有限责任公司）、Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）、Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited（圣城香港创投有限公司）、\n\nHong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）、\n\nHudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司）\n\nInfinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限财政管理公司）\n\nInsight Phoenix Fund（洞察凤凰基金）、\n\nJoincorp International Limited（联企国际有限公司）、\n\nJoy Chance Holdings Limited（乐机控股有限公司）、\n\nKesen Yang（杨克森）、\n\nKun Ma（马坤）、\n\nKingdom Rich Limited（富国有限公司）、\n\nLe Qiao（乔乐）、\n\nLichun Guo（郭立春）、\n\nLihong Guo（郭丽红）、\n\nLong Gate Limited（龙门有限公司）、\n\nMax Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、\n\nMei Guo（郭梅）、\n\nNew Federal State Corporation（新联邦州公司）、\n\nNew Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）、\n\nPacific King Investment Limited（太平洋王投资有限公司）、\n\nPhoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited（凤凰资本管理（开曼）有限公司）、\n\nQiang Guo（郭强）、\n\nQin Li（李琴）、\n\nRich Group Development Limited（富集团发展有限公司）、\n\nRising Sun Capital Ltd.（旭日资本有限公司）、\n\nRiver Valley Operations LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）、\n\nSail Victory Limited（扬帆胜利有限公司）、\n\nScott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）、\n\nStrong Country Holdings Group Limited（强国控股集团有限公司）、\n\nThousand Stars Company Limited（千星有限公司）、\n\nWencun Guo（郭文存）、\n\nXinfang Zhang（张新芳）、\n\nYan Su（苏燕）、\n\nYumei Hao（郝玉梅）\n\nZhang Wei（张伟）、\n\nZongchao Yue（岳宗朝）。\n\n附表 II\nCrane Advisory Group（克兰咨询集团）\n\nJon-Jorge Aras, Esq.（乔恩-豪尔赫·阿拉斯律师） Warren Law Group（沃伦律师集团） 14 Penn Plaza（宾夕法尼亚广场14号）, 9th Floor（9层） New York（纽约） NY 10122 212-580-2303 jj@warren.law\n\nDavid Rosenfield, Esq.（大卫·罗森菲尔德律师） Warren Law Group（沃伦律师集团） 14 Penn Plaza（宾夕法尼亚广场14号）, 9th Floor（9层） New York（纽约） NY 10122 212-580-2303 drosenfield@warren.law\nScott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）及 GS Security Solutions Inc.（GS安保解决方案公司）\n\nAaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼） Lax & Neville, LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所） 2425 Post Road（邮政路2425号） Suite 200（200室） Southport（绍斯波特）, CT 06890-1267 电话：(646) 328-1566 传真：(212) 566-4531 aromney@laxneville.com\n\nBarry R. Lax, Esq.（巴里·R·拉克斯律师） Lax & Neville, LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所） 350 Fifth Avenue（第五大道350号）, Suite 4640（4640室） New York（纽约）, NY 10118 电话：(212) 696-1999 传真：(212) 490-3332 blax@laxneville.com\n\nRobert J. Grand, Esq.（罗伯特·J·格兰德律师） Lax & Neville, LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所） 350 Fifth Avenue（第五大道350号）, Suite 4640（4640室） New York（纽约）, NY 10118 电话：(212) 696-1999 传真：(212) 490-3332 rgrand@laxneville.com\n\nRobert R. Miller, Esq.（罗伯特·R·米勒律师） Lax & Neville, LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所）\n\n350 Fifth Avenue（第五大道350号）, Suite 4640（4640室） New York（纽约）, NY 10118 电话：(212) 696-1999 传真：(212) 490-3332 rmiller@laxneville.com\nHing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）\n\nChristopher J. Major, Esq.（克里斯托弗·J·梅杰律师） Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC（迈斯特、锡利格及费因专业有限责任公司） 125 Park Avenue（公园大道125号）, 7th Floor（7层） New York（纽约）, NY 10017 电话：(212) 655-3500 cjm@msf-law.com\n\nAustin D. Kim, Esq.（奥斯汀·D·金律师） Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC（迈斯特、锡利格及费因专业有限责任公司） 125 Park Avenue（公园大道125号）, 7th Floor（7层） New York（纽约）, NY 10017 电话：(212) 655-3500 adk@msf-law.com\nInfinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限财政管理公司）\n\nBarry R. Lax, Esq.（巴里·R·拉克斯律师） Lax & Neville, LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所） 350 Fifth Avenue（第五大道350号）, Suite 4640（4640室） New York（纽约）, NY 10118 电话：(212) 696-1999 传真：(212) 490-3332 blax@laxneville.com\n\nRobert J. Grand, Esq.（罗伯特·J·格兰德律师） Lax & Neville, LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所） 350 Fifth Avenue（第五大道350号）, Suite 4640（4640室） New York（纽约）, NY 10118 电话：(212) 696-1999 传真：(212) 490-3332 rgrand@laxneville.com\n\nRobert R. Miller, Esq.（罗伯特·R·米勒律师） Lax & Neville, LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所） 350 Fifth Avenue（第五大道350号）, Suite 4640（4640室） New York（纽约）, NY 10118 电话：(212) 696-1999 传真：(212) 490-3332 rmiller@laxneville.com\nMax Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）\n\nRonald Ian Chorches（罗纳德·伊恩·乔切斯） Law Offices of Ronald I. Chorches（罗纳德·I·乔切斯律师事务所） 82 Wolcott Hill Road（沃尔科特山路82号）- 2nd. Flr. Suite 2（2层2号套房） Wethersfield（韦瑟斯菲尔德）, CT 06109 860-563-3955 860-513-1577（传真）ronchorcheslaw@sbcglobal.net\nMei Guo（郭梅）\n\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金塞思） ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒专业公司） 10 Middle Street（米德尔街10号）, 15th Floor（15层） Bridgeport（布里奇波特）, CT 06604 电话：(203) 368-4234 传真：(203) 368-5485 skindseth@zeislaw.com\n\nJames M. Moriarty（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂） ZEISLER & ZEISLER PC（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒专业公司） 10 Middle Street（米德尔街10号）, 15th Floor（15层） Bridgeport（布里奇波特）, CT 06604 电话：(203) 368-4234 传真：(203) 368-5485 jmoriarty@zeislaw.com\nQiang Guo（郭强）\n\nArethusa Forsyth（阿瑞修莎·福赛思） arethusaf@proton.me\nRiver Valley Operations LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）\n\nRoss G. Fingold（罗斯·G·芬戈尔德） Stokesbury & Fingold, LLC（斯托克斯伯里及芬戈尔德有限责任公司） 10 Waterside Drive（水滨大道10号）, Suite 204（204室） Farmington（法明顿）, CT 06032 (860)606-1709 rfingold@lawssf.com\n\nMichael T. Conway（迈克尔·T·康威） Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle LLP（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所） 747 Third Ave.（第三大道747号）, 16th Floor（16层） Fifth Floor（5层）\n\nNew York（纽约）, NY 10017 917-242-1597 212-430-8062（传真）mconway@lpgmlaw.com\nYumei Hao（郝玉梅）\n\nRoss G. Fingold（罗斯·G·芬戈尔德） Stokesbury & Fingold, LLC（斯托克斯伯里及芬戈尔德有限责任公司） 10 Waterside Drive（水滨大道10号）, Suite 204（204室） Farmington（法明顿）, CT 06032 (860)606-1709 rfingold@lawssf.com\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　：\n：\n第 11 章\n等，1\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　：\n：\n案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　：\n：\n（合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章\n受托人，　：\n\n对抗程序编号 [\n]\n原告，\n诉　：\n\nAA GLOBAL VENTURES LIMITED（AA全球创业有限公司）、AAGV\nLIMITED（AAGV有限公司）、ALZARRO ENTERPRISES LTD.（阿尔扎罗企业有限公司），　：\n\nAMPLEFORTH CAPITAL LTD（安普尔福斯资本有限公司）、ANTON　：\nDEVELOPMENT LIMITED（安东开发有限公司）、ASSETS SINO\nLIMITED（华资有限公司）、AUSPICIOUS COAST LIMITED（吉祥海岸有限公司）、BSA　：\n\nCAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED（BSA资本管理有限公司）、BSA　：\nSTRATEGIC FUND I（BSA战略基金 I）、CANADIAN AGRI\nPRODUCT\nMONETARY INVESTMENTS LIMITED（加拿大农产品货币投资有限公司），　：\n\nCRANE ADVISORY GROUP LLC（克兰咨询集团有限责任公司）、DELTA　：\nKONSULT LIMITED（德尔塔咨询有限公司）、EAGLE EYE\nINVESTMENTS\nLIMITED（鹰眼投资有限公司）、FEIBO JIANG（蒋飞波）、FIESTA INVESTMENT　：\n\nLTD.（菲耶斯塔投资有限公司）、GLORY ASIA (H.K.) LIMITED（荣耀　：\n亚洲（香港）有限公司）、GOLD\nPERFECT LIMITED（金完美有限公司）、GROUP DYNASTY LIMITED（集团王朝有限公司），　：\nGS SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC.（GS安保解决方案公司）、GUANG HONG\nLIMITED（广宏有限公司）、H RESERVE MANAGEMENT LIMITED（H储备管理有限公司），　：\n\nHAITHAM KHALED（海赛姆·哈立德）、HAORAN HE（何浩然）、HEAD WIN　：\nGROUP LIMITED（领赢集团有限公司）、HGA PROPERTY OPERATION\nLLC（HGA物业运营有限责任公司）、\nHING CHI NGOK（邢志岳）、HOLY CITY HONG KONG　：\n\nVENTURES LIMITED（圣城香港创投有限公司）、HONG KONG　：\nINTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS　：\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui（郭文贵）、Miles Guo（郭文贵）及 Miles Kwok（郭文贵），以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰内弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰内弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue（公园大道200号），New York（纽约），NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平斯），作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财团的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n有限公司（LIMITED）、Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司）、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限财务管理公司）、Insight Phoenix Fund（洞察凤凰基金）、Joincorp International Limited（Joincorp 国际有限公司）、Joy Chance Holdings Limited（欢乐机遇控股有限公司）、Kesen Yang（杨克森）、Kun Ma（马坤）、Kingdom Rich Limited（富国有限公司）、Le Qiao（乔乐）、Lichun Guo（郭丽春）、Lihong Guo（郭丽红）、Long Gate Limited（长龙门有限公司）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Mei Guo（郭梅）、New Federal State Corporation（新联邦州公司）、New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）、Pacific King Investment Limited（太平洋国王投资有限公司）、Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited（凤凰资本管理〔开曼〕有限公司）、Qiang Guo（郭强）、Qin Li（李琴）、Rich Group Development Limited（富裕集团发展有限公司）、Rising Sun Capital Ltd.（旭日资本有限公司）、River Valley Operations LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）、Sail Victory Limited（航帆胜利有限公司）、Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）、Strong Country Holdings Group Limited（强国控股集团有限公司）、Thousand Stars Company Limited（千星有限公司）、Wencun Guo（郭文存）、Xinfang Zhang（张新芳）、Yan Su（苏岩）、Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）、Zhang Wei（张伟）及 Zongchao Yue（岳宗超）：\n\n被告。\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------- : x\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）遗产第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542及544条提出的第二份起诉状，请求：（一）宣告确认特定实体为债务人的另我；及（二）相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，对上述被告（合称“被告”）提起本对抗程序起诉状（“本起诉状”）。为支持本起诉状，受托人陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. “自称为数十亿美元富豪的 Kwok，将其资产藏匿于由公司实体及家庭成员构成的迷宫之中。该计划使 Kwok 得以在其奢靡生活方式的情况下主张其没有任何资产。”纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court of the State of New York）Ostrager 法官在 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”）对债务人提起的诉讼中，于 February 9, 2022 作出的最终藐视法庭裁决中如此写道。[2] Ostrager 法官认定，债务人一直在玩“障眼法”——一种涉及“诡计”的“逃避游戏”，其目的在于“通过将其巨额个人资产寄放于一系列公司、受信赖的亲信及家庭成员名下，逃避并欺骗其债权人。”Ostrager 法官对债务人处以 \\$134 million 的藐视法庭罚金，从而触发债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请。然而，尽管存在第11章案件以及债务人的刑事定罪和刑事追诉，债务人隐藏资产的努力仍在继续，且受托人至今一直勤勉地寻求揭开债务人的障眼法。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 12 of 130\n\n2. 本起诉状承接《郭文贵遗产第11章受托人依据〈破产法典〉第541、542及544条提出的起诉状，请求：（一）宣告确认特定实体为债务人的另我；及（二）相关救济》[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249, Docket No. 1]（“第一份综合另我起诉状”）、《郭文贵遗产第11章受托人依据〈破产法典〉第541、542及544条提出的修正起诉状，请求：（一）宣告确认特定实体为债务人的另我；及（二）相关救济》[Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249, Docket No. 106]（“修正后的第一份综合另我起诉状”），以及受托人提出主张另我请求（定义如下）的其他起诉状；迄今为止，该等起诉状已导致作出多项裁定，认定相关实体为债务人的另我和/或连同其资产由债务人实益或衡平所有。\n\n3. 受托人持续进行的调查，加上债务人刑事审判期间公开的新信息（该审判于 July 16, 2024 导致联邦陪审团认定债务人的敲诈勒索、共谋、欺诈及洗钱指控成立），现使受托人能够就众多额外实体主张另我请求；尽管这些实体名义上独立于债务人，但均由债务人支配和控制。\n\n2 PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181（“最终藐视法庭裁决”）。\n\n4. 本起诉状就其主张另我请求的不同实体（“债务人实体”，各称“一债务人实体”）如下：[3]\n\na. Crane Advisory Group LLC（Crane 咨询集团有限责任公司）（“Crane”），一家在纽约设立、名义上由 Haitham Khaled（海瑟姆·哈立德）持有的公司；债务人使用该公司，除其他事项外，为债务人的各家空壳公司协助开立银行账户，并便利从债务人的支持者处收取 G Club 会员资金。\n\nb. GS Security Solutions Inc.（GS 安全解决方案公司）（“GS Security”），一家在纽约设立、名义上由债务人的保镖 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）拥有的实体；债务人曾使用该实体持有多辆豪华车辆的所有权，并为其本人及其家庭成员提供交通和安保服务。\n\nc. HGA Property Operation LLC（HGA 物业运营有限责任公司）（“HGA Property Operation”），一家在新泽西州设立、名义上由债务人的支持者 Qin Li（李琴）及 Feibo Jiang（蒋飞波）持有的实体。债务人使用 HGA Property Operation，除其他事项外，维护其位于新泽西州 Mahwah（马瓦）的宅邸（“Mahwah Mansion”），并雇佣其厨师 Han Chunguang（韩春光）及债务人另我 HCHK Property（定义如下）的众多雇员。\n\nd. Haoran He Entities（何昊然实体），由 Rising Sun Capital Ltd.（旭日资本有限公司）（“Rising Sun Capital”）及 Fiesta Investment Ltd.（嘉年华投资有限公司）（“Fiesta Investment”）组成；该等实体在英国设立，名义上由 Haoran He（何昊然）持有（合称“Haoran He Entities”）。债务人将 Haoran He 用作其 G Club Entities（G Club 实体）的名义所有人，包括 G Club International Limited（G Club 国际有限公司）（“G Club International”）及 G Club Operations LLC（G Club 运营有限责任公司）（“G Club Operations”，与 G Club International 合称“G Club Entities”）。刑事审判中的证词表明，Haoran He 与债务人的儿子自共同求学时期起即长期交好。刑事审判中的一名证人证称，她理解 Haoran He 属于债务人的家庭成员。债务人使用 Haoran He Entities，除其他事项外，将其 G Club 计划的资金转移给债务人的儿子。\n\n3. 受托人在此就若干实体主张另我请求；该等实体亦为受托人已提起的其他诉讼中的被告，受托人在该等诉讼中依据《破产法典》第544、548和/或549条对该等被告主张撤销请求（“撤销请求”）。受托人提出本案另我请求，作为撤销请求的替代主张，并保留其基于受托人调查进一步进展而就其另我请求及撤销请求享有的一切权利。\n\ne. UAE Entities（阿联酋实体），由 Thousand Stars Company Limited（千星有限公司）（“Thousand Stars”）、Delta Konsult Limited（德尔塔咨询有限公司）（“Delta Konsult”）及 H Reserve Management Ltd.（H 储备管理有限公司）（“H Reserve Management”）组成；该等实体在阿拉伯联合酋长国阿布扎比的 Abu Dhabi Global Market（阿布扎比全球市场）（“ADGM”）设立（合称“UAE Entities”）。债务人使用 UAE Entities，除其他事项外，为因应美国政府对债务人的调查和刑事追诉，在海外继续其 G Club 及 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）计划和活动。\n\nf. River Valley Operations LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）（“River Valley”），一家在印第安纳州设立、名义上由 Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）拥有的实体；Yumei Hao 是债务人的重要支持者，并为债务人的 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）（“NFSC”）及债务人的 Himalaya Global Alliance（喜马拉雅全球联盟）组织的 Iron Blood Group（铁血组）（“Iron Blood Group”）成员。根据信息和信念，Yumei Hao 负责债务人 Himalaya Global Alliance 组织的财务部门。债务人使用 River Valley 向其控制的其他实体转入和转出资金，并支付该等实体的费用，且向其女儿和重要支持者转移资金。\n\ng. Ampleforth Capital Ltd.（安普尔福斯资本有限公司）（“Ampleforth Capital”），一家在 BVI 设立、根据信息和信念名义上由 Kun（“Kevin”）Ma（马坤〔“凯文”〕）拥有的实体；Kun Ma 是债务人的重要支持者，并为 NFSC 和 Iron Blood Group 的成员。债务人使用 Ampleforth Capital 将其支持者的资金转入 Himalaya International Clearing Limited（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）（“Himalaya International Clearing”）；该公司由债务人控制，且是修正后的第一份综合另我起诉状中列名为被告的公司之一。\n\nh. 若干控股公司（“债务人控股公司”），其唯一目的在于持有已被裁定为或受托人已主张为债务人的另我和/或由债务人实益拥有及控制的公司的所有权权益。\n\ni. 在香港、BVI 及其他离岸司法管辖区注册成立的众多空壳公司（分别称为“香港空壳公司”、“BVI 空壳公司”及“其他空壳公司”）；债务人的家庭成员、雇员、受其控制的公司或其他代理人担任该等公司的名义股东和/或董事，且债务人使用该等公司代表其从事金融交易和/或持有资产。\n\n5. 基于下文所述事实，受托人请求根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条作出裁定，宣告每一债务人实体均为债务人的另我，并由债务人衡平所有（或根据适用法律给予类似救济）。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 根据 28 U.S.C. §1334(b)，本法院对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 根据 28 U.S.C. §157(a)，本对抗程序已移交本法院。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409，本法院为适当审判地。\n\n当事人\n\n8. 受托人根据本法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令 [Main Case Docket No. 523]，担任第11章案件中的第11章受托人。\n\n9. AA Global Ventures Limited（AA 全球创业有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n10. AAGV Limited（AAGV 有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n11. Alzarro Enterprises Ltd.（阿尔扎罗企业有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n12. Ampleforth Capital Ltd（安普尔福斯资本有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n13. Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司）是 AA Global Ventures Limited 的名义所有人。\n\n14. Assets Sino Limited（中资资产有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n15. Auspicious Coast Limited（吉祥海岸有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n16. BSA Capital Management Limited（BSA 资本管理有限公司）是 BSA Strategic Fund I（BSA 战略基金 I）的名义所有人。\n\n17. BSA Strategic Fund I 是一家开曼群岛实体。\n\n18. Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited（加拿大农产品货币投资有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n19. Crane Advisory Group LLC 是一家纽约实体。\n\n20. Delta Konsult Limited 是一家 ADGM 实体。\n\n21. Eagle Eye Investments Limited（鹰眼投资有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n22. Feibo Jiang 是 HGA Property Operation LLC 的名义所有人。\n\n23. Fiesta Investment Ltd. 是一家英国实体。\n\n24. Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited（荣耀亚洲〔香港〕有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n25. Gold Perfect Limited（完美黄金有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n26. Group Dynasty Limited（集团王朝有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n27. GS Security Solutions Inc. 是一家纽约实体。\n\n28. Guang Hong Limited（广鸿有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n29. H Reserve Management Limited 是一家 ADGM 实体。\n\n30. Haitham Khaled 是 Crane Advisory Group LLC 的名义所有人。\n\n31. Haoran He 是 Fiesta Investment Ltd.、Rising Sun Capital Ltd. 及 Thousand Stars Company Limited 的名义所有人。\n\n32. Head Win Group Limited（首胜集团有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n33. HGA Property Operation LLC 是一家新泽西州实体。\n\n34. Hing Chi Ngok（Ngok Hing Chi），债务人的妻子，是 Gold Perfect Limited、Group Dynasty Limited、Joy Chance Holdings Limited 及 Pacific King Investment Limited 的名义所有人。Hing Chi Ngok 亦是 Strong Country Holdings Group Limited 的名义 5% 所有人。\n\n35. Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited（圣城香港创业有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n36. Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n37. Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n38. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. 是一家特拉华州实体。\n\n39. Insight Phoenix Fund 是一家开曼群岛实体。\n\n40. Joincorp International Limited 是一家香港实体。\n\n41. Joy Chance Holdings Limited（卓越机会控股有限公司）是一家香港实体，且为 New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 17 页，共 130 页\n\n42. Kesen Yang（杨克森）是 Eagle Eye Investments Limited（鹰眼投资有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n43. Kun (\"Kevin\") Ma（马坤（“凯文”））是 Ampleforth Capital Ltd.（丰足资本有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n44. Kingdom Rich Limited（富国有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n45. Le (\"Ingrid\") Qiao（乔乐（“英格丽德”））是 H Reserve Management Limited（H储备管理有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n46. Lichun Guo（郭丽春）是 Auspicious Coast Limited（吉祥海岸有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n47. Lihong Guo（郭丽红）是 Assets Sino Limited（中资资产有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n48. Long Gate Limited（长龙门有限公司）是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n49. Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）是 Long Gate Limited 的名义所有人。\n\n50. 债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）是 AAGV Limited（AAGV有限公司）、Joincorp International Limited（联社国际有限公司）和 Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n51. New Federal State Corporation（新联邦州公司）是一家 Nevis 实体，且为 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited（圣城香港创投有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n52. New Miracle Limited 是一家香港实体。\n\n53. Pacific King Investment Limited（太平洋王投资有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n54. Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited（凤凰资本管理（开曼）有限公司）是 Insight Phoenix Fund（洞见凤凰基金）的名义所有人。\n\n55. 债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）是 Alzarro Enterprises Ltd（阿尔扎罗企业有限公司）、Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited（加拿大农产品货币投资有限公司）、Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司）、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限资金管理公司）、Kingdom Rich Limited 和 Sail Victory Limited（航胜有限公司）的名义所有人。Qiang Guo 还为 Strong Country Holdings Group Limited（强国控股集团有限公司）的名义 95% 所有人。\n\n56. Qin Li（李琴）是 HGA Property Operation LLC（HGA物业运营有限责任公司）的名义所有人。\n\n57. Rich Group Development Limited（富集团发展有限公司）是一家香港实体。\n\n58. Rising Sun Capital Ltd.（旭日资本有限公司）是一家英国实体。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 18 页，共 130 页\n\n59. River Valley Operations LLC（河谷运营有限责任公司）是一家 Indiana 实体。\n\n60. Sail Victory Limited 是一家 BVI 实体。\n\n61. Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）是 GS Security Solutions Inc.（GS安保解决方案公司）的名义所有人。\n\n62. Strong Country Holdings Group Limited 是一家香港实体。\n\n63. Thousand Stars Company Limited（千星有限公司，原名 G Clubs ME Limited（G俱乐部中东有限公司））是一家 ADGM 实体。\n\n64. Wencun Guo（郭文村，亦称 Man Chuen Kwok）是 Guang Hong Limited（广弘有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n65. Xinfang (\"Sarah\") Zhang（张新芳（“莎拉”））是 Delta Konsult Limited（德尔塔咨询有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n66. Yan Su（苏燕）是 Rich Group Development Limited 的名义所有人。\n\n67. Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）是 River Valley Operations LLC 的名义所有人。\n\n68. Zhang Wei（张伟）是 Head Win Group Limited（领赢集团有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n69. Zongchao Yue（岳宗超）是 Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited（荣耀亚洲（香港）有限公司）的名义所有人。\n\n事实\n\n一、债务人对空壳公司的大量使用\n\n70. 如经修订的第一份综合另我诉状所述（该诉状通过引用并入本文），债务人大量使用由家庭成员或业务下属名义持有的空壳公司，以向债权人隐瞒并屏蔽其资产及活动。债务人的“空壳游戏”使其得以继续否认对资产的所有权、拒绝偿还债务，并且——直至其被 FBI（联邦调查局）逮捕及随后被刑事定罪之前——过着极度奢华的生活。\n\n71. 受托人一直在逐步揭开债务人的空壳游戏，并已提出主张，称众多空壳公司是债务人的另我和/或该等空壳公司及其资产由债务人实益拥有，或依据适用法律提出类似主张（统称“另我主张”）。受托人就此提起的众多诉讼（“另我诉讼”）已就其另我主张作出有利于受托人的裁决（“另我裁决”），而若干另我诉讼仍在审理中。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 19 页，共 130 页\n\n72. 例如，在提交第一份综合另我诉状之前，法院已就 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（“HK USA”，香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（“Golden Spring”，金泉（纽约）有限公司）、Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital”，灯资本有限责任公司）及 Ace Decade Limited（“Ace Decade”，王牌十年有限公司）作出另我裁决。\n\n73. 在提交第一份综合另我诉状之后，法院就 Whitecroft Shore Limited（“Whitecroft”，怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）、HCHK Technologies, Inc.（“HCHK Technologies”，HCHK科技公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（“HCHK Property”，HCHK物业管理公司）、Lexington Property and Staffing, Inc.（“Lexington Property”，列克星敦物业与人力公司；与 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property 合称“HCHK Entities”，HCHK实体）、Greenwich Land LLC（“Greenwich Land”，格林尼治土地有限责任公司）及 K Legacy Ltd.（“K Legacy”，K传承有限公司）作出另我裁决。受托人就 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（“HDNY”，哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited（“Leading Shine NY”，领耀纽约有限公司）及 Taurus Fund LLC（“Taurus Fund”，金牛基金有限责任公司）提起的另我诉讼仍在审理中；经修订的第一份综合另我诉状亦仍在审理中，该诉状就众多在美国、British Virgin Islands（“BVI”，英属维尔京群岛）、香港及其他司法管辖区设立的不同实体提出另我主张，其中包括在债务人所谓会员俱乐部（G Club）和加密货币（Himalaya Exchange）计划中发挥显著作用的实体。[4]\n\n4 除受托人的另我主张外，受托人还主张，由债务人的空壳公司或家庭成员名义持有的各种资产实际上归债务人所有，因此作出了债务人为其 Lady May（“五月夫人”号）游艇、Bombardier（庞巴迪）私人飞机及各种豪华摩托车实益所有人的裁决。参见《支持准许部分简易判决动议之口头裁决的补充裁决备忘录》，对抗程序案号 22-05003，案卷编号 177；《部分准许简易判决动议的裁决备忘录及命令》，对抗程序案号 23-05008，案卷编号 126；《准许依诉状作出判决动议的裁决备忘录》，对抗程序案号 24-05001，案卷编号 33。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 20 页，共 130 页\n\n74. 如经修订的第一份综合另我诉状所述，债务人在至少过去十年间一直设立空壳公司，以隐匿并将其资产转移至债权人无法触及之处，而这些空壳公司通常具有若干相似特征，例如：(a) 由与债务人关系密切的人名义持有某实体，例如家庭成员、雇员或忠实追随者；(b) 未遵守公司形式要求，包括将资产抽取供个人使用；(c) 该实体持有由债务人实益拥有的资产的所有权；(d) 该实体依债务人的指示设立；(e) 该实体为债务人的开支提供资金；(f) 该实体由债务人的雇员配备人员；(g) 该实体与债务人及其他与债务人有关联的实体共用办公地址；以及 (h) 该实体没有独立的商业目的（除为债务人持有并保管资产之外），也没有资金来源（债务人除外）。如本文进一步所述，本诉状所涉的众多债务人实体即使并非具备全部这些特征，也具备足够多的特征，足以表明债务人对该等实体的支配及控制。此外，不能孤立地看待债务人实体，而必须结合一种既有行为模式予以评估：债务人安排忠实人士负责表面上独立的公司，以管理巨额资金并为其本人及家人的利益执行数百万美元交易。\n\nA. 受托人的撤销诉讼及民事 RICO 诉状\n\n75. 除受托人提出的另我主张外，受托人还提起了数百项对抗程序，寻求撤销债务人通过其另我空壳公司作出的欺诈性及破产申请后转移（“撤销诉讼”），寻求追回超过 $600 million。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 21 页，共 130 页\n\n76. 此外，受托人已对 57 名被告提起诉状，其中包括债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo 和债务人的女儿 Mei Guo，寻求就违反《受敲诈勒索活动影响的腐败组织法》及共谋违反《受敲诈勒索活动影响的腐败组织法》获得损害赔偿（“民事 RICO 诉状”）。[5] 在民事 RICO 诉状中，受托人具体主张，债务人设立并管理了一个复杂的犯罪企业，与（其中包括）众多空壳公司及其名义所有人共谋并共同行动，故意：(i) 将该等实体作为从事犯罪活动以使债务人获利的手段；以及 (ii) 以隐匿债务人不法所得资产使其债权人无法发现的方式实施该等活动。债务人利用这些空壳公司实施其计划，同时隐匿持有及管理其资产的实体之所有权和控制权标志，是债务人非法企业的基础支柱。\n\nB. 债务人的刑事案件\n\n77. 2023 年 3 月 15 日，美国联邦当局以欺诈和洗钱罪名逮捕债务人及 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）。同在 2023 年 3 月 15 日，伦敦的英国执法部门与美国当局合作，试图逮捕债务人的财务顾问 William Je（介文汲），并对 Je 位于伦敦的住所执行了经司法授权的搜查。此后，William Je 未返回英国，且仍为据信身处 United Arab Emirates（“UAE”，阿拉伯联合酋长国）的逃犯。\n\n5 民事 RICO 诉状系与 Despins v. Ngok, et al.（德斯潘斯诉恩戈克等案），对抗程序案号 24-05273 有关而提交，该案目前处于中止状态。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 22 页，共 130 页\n\n78. 美国政府主张，在 2018 年至 2023 年期间，债务人在其共同被告 William Je 和 Yvette Wang 的协助下，策划并领导了一项规模巨大的、涉及数十亿美元的欺诈及洗钱计划；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在线追随者处为一系列所谓投资计划筹集资金，通过庞大的空壳公司和银行账户网络洗白该等资金，继而将该等资金用于其个人利益并持续实施其欺诈计划。除其他事项外，美国政府称，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”洗白欺诈所得[6]，并称“该欺诈计划所得的数亿美元被直接或间接转移至包括美国、Bahamas（巴哈马）、Switzerland（瑞士）和 UAE 在内等地的银行账户”。[7]\n\n79. 除欺诈及洗钱罪名外，美国政府的起诉书还指控债务人及其共同被告构成违反《受敲诈勒索活动影响的腐败组织法》的有组织犯罪共谋罪（“刑事 RICO 指控”）。刑事 RICO 指控称，债务人是一个犯罪企业（“Kwok Enterprise”，郭氏企业）的领导人，该企业“通过一系列复杂的欺诈性和虚构性商业及投资机会运营，这些机会连接了数十个相互关联的实体，使被告及其共谋者得以招揽、洗白并侵吞受害人的资金。”[8] 美国政府将数十个实体列为 Kwok Enterprise 的组成部分，[9]\n\n6 替代起诉书第 4 段，刑事案件案卷编号 307。提及“刑事案件案卷编号 __”系指并意指 United States v. Kwok et al.（美国诉郭文贵等案），No. 1:23-cr-00118 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.) 案卷中的文件。\n\n7 同上。\n\n8 同上，第 1 段。\n\n9 同上，第 3a 段。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 23 页，共 130 页\n\n其中许多已成为待决另我主张的对象，或法院已就其作出另我裁定。尤其值得注意的是，美国政府强调了债务人的数名家庭成员参与债务人数十亿美元欺诈活动的情况，其中包括债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）；美国政府称其为未被起诉的共谋者及债务人的代理人。[10]\n\n80. 就其对债务人的调查而言，美国政府扣押了以构成 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业集团）一部分的各实体名义持有的银行账户，该等账户持有超过 $630 million。\n\n81. 债务人的刑事审判（“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，包括敲诈勒索活动、共谋、欺诈及洗钱。刑事审判使大量关于债务人空壳公司的信息公开，包括庭审证物以及与债务人空壳公司有关联人员的证言。这些人员包括债务人的保镖兼司机 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特），其就其在 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）中的职责作证；该公司名义上拥有债务人在 Mahwah, New Jersey（新泽西州马瓦）的豪宅；Ya Li（李亚），债务人的前高级支持者，其就包括其作为 HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）母公司董事的职责在内的事项作证；以及 Crane（克兰）的名义所有人 Haitham Khaled（海赛姆·哈立德），其就其为债务人工作所承担的职责，以及债务人对 G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）及其资金的控制作证。如以下就特定债务人实体进一步讨论，刑事审判中披露的信息构成了本起诉状中关于债务人对其空壳公司控制性质以及其与名义拥有并代表其管理该等实体之人员关系的诸多指控的基础。\n\n10 参见政府排除证据动议，第 8 页，刑事案件案卷编号 273。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 24 of 130\n\n82. 在刑事审判中，债务人自己的辩护律师实质上确认了受托人两年多来一直主张的基本关键事实——即（与其公开塑造的自我形象一致）债务人实际上是一名富有且有权势的大亨，而债务人在其破产财产清单中将自己描述为资产不足 $4,000.00 的贫困者，纯属虚构。债务人的刑事律师在其审判中陈述，除其他事项外，债务人实际上是一名建立了庞大商业帝国的富商，由此戳穿了债务人向本院作出的明显且反复的不实陈述。事实上，债务人的律师在刑事审判期间承认，债务人购买了由 Taurus Fund 名义拥有的位于 Mahwah, New Jersey 的豪宅。[11]\n\nC. 关键人员\n\n83. 经修订的第一份综合另我起诉状详细讨论了由家庭成员、雇员和忠实亲信组成的网络；该等人员接受债务人的指示，并就其空壳公司的运营代表债务人作为债务人的代理人行事。该等人员代表债务人担任其各个空壳公司的名义所有人、授权签字人、董事、高级职员及关键雇员等职务，其中包括债务人的子女。\n\n84. 经修订的第一份综合另我起诉状中讨论的许多人员再次出现在本起诉状中，就债务人实体的名义所有权和/或管理职务代表债务人行事。这些再次出现的关键人员包括但不限于 Qiang（“Mileson”）Guo（郭强）（债务人的儿子）、[12] Mei Guo（郭梅）（债务人的女儿）、Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）（债务人的妻子）、William Je（威廉·谢）（债务人的财务顾问、代理人及共同刑事被告）、[13] Yvette Wang（王雁）（债务人的幕僚长及已被定罪的共同刑事被告）、[14] Natasha Qu（娜塔莎·曲）（债务人的前行政助理）、Han Chunguang（韩春光）（债务人的厨师）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）（债务人的雇员）、Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）（债务人的保镖），以及债务人的各种其他家庭朋友和亲属，例如 Haoran He（何浩然）和 Zhang Wei（张伟），后者据称为债务人一名侄女的丈夫。基于所知所信，债务人的儿子、女儿和妻子均从未在债务人的空壳公司以外从事有报酬的工作，且除债务人外不存在其他财富来源。\n\n85. 本起诉状还介绍了债务人的其他若干家庭成员、雇员及亲信；尽管未在经修订的第一份综合另我起诉状中讨论，但其就本起诉状所述债务人实体发挥主要“人头”作用。这些人员包括债务人的一名兄弟、债务人的另一名侄女、债务人的嫂子或弟媳、债务人的数名雇员，包括代表债务人处理银行交易的 Crane 的 Haitham Khaled，以及参与其 NFSC 组织的债务人的数名显著支持者。[15] 这些支持者包括参与债务人在 UAE（阿联酋）活动的若干人员；债务人为应对政府的调查（包括自 September 2022 开始扣押银行账户），在其被捕前的一段时期内开始将其活动转移至该地。该等人员包括 Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）、其丈夫 Kun（“Kevin”）Ma（马昆）、Le（“Ingrid”）Qiao（乔乐）、Kangdi Wang（王康迪）以及 Xinfang（“Sarah”）Zhang（张新芳）；基于所知所信，他们是（或曾是）Iron Blood Group（铁血团）的成员。刑事法院认定，Iron Blood Group“由 Himalaya Alliance（喜马拉雅联盟）的核心最高层领导人组成”，且“[g]roup 成员管理该联盟，由[债务人]选定，并遵循其指示。”[16] 本起诉状指称 Yumei Hao、Kevin Ma、Ingrid Qiao、Kangdi Wang 及 Sarah Zhang 均为债务人的代理人，并代表其行事。\n\nII. 债务人实体是债务人的另我，且由债务人在衡平法上或作为受益人拥有\n\n86. 如本起诉状进一步讨论，基于债务人对该等实体及其资产的控制和支配，受托人有权就每一债务人实体获得另我裁定。本起诉状所涉债务人实体具有许多相同特征，而受托人已就具备该等特征的实体提出主张，且法院已就该等实体作出另我裁定或相关另我主张仍在待决。例如，在所有相关期间，众多该等实体均由债务人通过家庭成员和雇员控制，服务于债务人的目的，并从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n15 法院认定，债务人“是”NFSC 的领导人，连同服务于债务人目的、“作为债务人的商业工具”且其“成员在个人上忠于债务人”的各种其他实体和组织。部分准予初步禁令动议的更正决定备忘录 ¶ 7，Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032，Docket No. 133（“PI Decision”）。\n\n16 参见裁定，n.4，刑事案件案卷编号 388。\n\nA. Crane（克兰）\n\n87. Crane 是一家于 2020 年成立的纽约实体，名义上由其唯一成员 Haitham Khaled 先生拥有。\n\n88. 在债务人的刑事审判中，Khaled 先生除其他事项外作证称：\n\na. Khaled 先生曾为 Saraca（萨拉卡）、GTV、Yvette Wang 和债务人工作。在其为 Yvette Wang 和债务人工作的期间，他“负责银行关系”以及“为各实体和个人开立银行账户”。[17] 作为其雇佣关系的一部分，他向银行撒谎，以“确保账户得以开立并保持开放”。[18]\n\nb. Yvette Wang 在纽约市 162 E. 64th Street 面试 Khaled 先生，并在该处告诉他，她为“那位大老板委托人”工作。[19] 在接受 Yvette Wang 面试后，他与债务人进行了一次视频通话；Yvette Wang 称债务人为“老板”。Yvette Wang 告诉 Khaled，他是否将为债务人工作取决于债务人是否喜欢他并认可其工作。[20]\n\nc. 他收到了日期为 July 10, 2020 的 Saraca 工作录用信，信中称其将担任“Saraca Media Group, Inc. 及其子实体的银行关系及战略副总裁”。[21] 起初，GTV 支付 Khaled 先生的薪资，随后由 Lexington Property（列克星敦地产）支付。[22]\n\nd. Khaled 先生的办公室位于 162 E. 64th Street，其直接主管为 Yvette Wang。其他在 162 E. 64th Street 办公地点运营的公司包括 Golden Spring（金泉）、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）和 GTV，债务人也在同一栋联排别墅顶层的一间办公室办公。Khaled 先生及 162 E. 64th Street 办公室的其他人员均向 Yvette Wang 汇报，但债务人是“最高老板”，且债务人在场时，“每个人都必须工作或忙于某事”。[23]\n\ne. Khaled 先生在受雇后的第一个月内成立 Crane，并作证称，成立 Crane 的想法“是”Yvette Wang、Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）（债务人的律师）和他本人“共同”提出的，而 Crane 最初的目的是申请银行牌照、收购一家银行或设立一家线上数字银行。\n\n12 美国政府指称，债务人的儿子是其父亲的共谋者和代理人，并且是数百万美元欺诈所得资金的接收人。参见政府排除证据动议，第 7-8 页，刑事案件案卷编号 273，以及政府函件，第 4 页，刑事案件案卷编号 382。尤其值得注意的是，负责债务人刑事审判的法院（“刑事法院”）认定，“政府已满足其举证责任，证明优势证据表明 Mileson 是数项被控共谋罪的成员”，从而允许将 Qiang Guo 的陈述作为共谋者陈述的传闻规则例外证据，法院并指出，“Mileson 在被指称的共谋活动中的作用是多方面的。”参见裁定，第 7 页，刑事案件案卷编号 388。\n\n13 债务人的共同刑事被告 William Je 的陈述，也被刑事法院作为共谋者陈述准许作为证据。参见裁定，第 6 页，刑事案件案卷编号 388（“政府至少以优势证据证明，Je 主要负责清洗所控欺诈计划的收益，表明其为一名共谋者。”）。\n\n14 在债务人的刑事审判开始前的 May 3, 2024，债务人的共同刑事被告 Yvette Wang 就一项电信欺诈共谋罪名项及一项洗钱共谋罪名项作出有罪答辩。参见《就债务人在 United States District Court for Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）待决刑事程序向利害关系方更新情况的 Chapter 11 受托人通知》附件 A，主案件案卷编号 3169。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 26 of 130\n\n17 刑事审判庭审记录，第 1902 页。\n\n18 同上，第 1903 页。\n\n19 同上，第 1918 页。\n\n20 同上，第 1923-24 页；另参见政府刑事审判证物 GXBR399（政府刑事审判证物可向 U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦检察官办公室）新闻办公室申请公开获取）。\n\n21 同上。\n\n22 刑事审判庭审记录，第 1936 页。\n\n23 同上，第 1941 页。\n\nf. Crane（克兰）是一家单一成员有限责任公司，Khaled先生（哈立德）的唯一成员为其本人。Crane设立后，Khaled先生继续由Lexington（莱克星顿）支付报酬，其雇佣合同继续与Saraca（萨拉卡）签订。他有一名使用Crane电子邮件地址的助理，该助理亦由Lexington支付报酬。[24]\n\ng. 虽然Crane名义上在One World Trade Center（世贸中心一号楼）设有办公地址，但这仅是虚拟办公室，因为Khaled继续在162 E. 64th Street办公。Lexington、G Club（G俱乐部）、G Music（G音乐）、G News（G新闻）及G Fashion（G时尚）亦设立了类似的虚拟办公地址。设立这些虚拟地址的原因，是为了欺骗性地使这些公司与GTV、Saraca及Golden Spring（金泉）相关的负面宣传，以及美国证券交易委员会（SEC）对GTV和Saraca的调查脱离关联。[25]\n\nh. Khaled先生为Golden Spring、Hudson Diamond NY（纽约哈德逊钻石）、Lamp Capital（兰普资本）及Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）开设银行账户，该等实体支付了债务人家属的费用。[26]\n\ni. Khaled先生向银行表示，他仅是“这些[G系列]实体的顾问”。[27]然而，“Crane与这些实体有关联，并且[Khaled]正在为这些实体工作”。[28]\n\nj. 于2021年3月和4月，Crane收到约$100 million的G Club会员费付款。该等资金被转入G Club的银行账户，其中一部分被转给代表G Club的一名律师。债务人控制Crane为G Club收到的款项，因此债务人对该等资金享有财务权益。[29]\n\nk. Khaled先生多次向银行表示，债务人仅为G Club及其他G系列实体（如G Fashion、G Music和G News）的发言人和品牌大使，并且G系列实体的推广人员“仅受雇从事推广并吸引订阅者……他们既非所有者，亦不担任管理职位”。[30]然而，该等陈述不实，因为债务人“参与了这些公司的设立及日常运营”。[31]Khaled先生未向银行披露债务人的真实角色，因为这会“危及”开设账户的可能性。[32]\n\n24 同上，第1936、1942、1943页。\n\n25 同上，第1949页。\n\n26 同上，第1959页。此外，根据与审判有关而提交的证物，Khaled先生还参与为G Club、Jovial Century（欢悦世纪）、Lexington Property（莱克星顿地产）及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）开设或试图开设银行账户。27 同上，第1990页。28 同上。\n\n29 同上，第2211页。30 参见，例如，政府刑事审判证物GXSW2027、GXSW2040、GXSW2042。\n\n31 刑事审判庭审记录，第1977页。\n\n案件22-50073，文书3926，于12/23/24提交，于12/23/24 22:22:35录入，第29页，共130页\n\n89. Khaled先生的证词清楚表明，Crane除已受到另我裁定或存在待决另我主张的实体（如Golden Spring、Lexington Property、Lamp Capital、Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond NY、G Club Operations（G俱乐部运营）及其他实体）外，不具有独立存在。Khaled先生仅是债务人的另一名雇员，与Yvette Wang（王雁）、Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳）及其他债务人员工一道，在债务人位于162 E. 64th Street的办公室工作；其对Crane的名义所有权仅是其为推进债务人欺诈计划而受雇的一项内容。该项雇佣工作包括应债务人要求开设银行账户并转移数百万美元资金。正如银行记录及其他刑事审判证物所表明，该等资金包括但不限于由G Club会员转至Crane、继而转至债务人律师Lawall & Mitchell LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）、再转至Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金SPC），最终用于购买债务人的Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园）的资金。鉴于上述情况，并考虑到债务人设立另我空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就Crane取得另我裁定。\n\nB. GS Security（GS安保）\n\n90. GS Security是在纽约设立的实体，名义上由债务人的保镖Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）拥有。\n\n91. 在债务人的刑事审判中，Barnett先生除其他事项外证称：\n\na. Barnett先生于2020年10月开始为Golden Spring工作，其为Golden Spring所做工作的一部分是保护债务人。[33]其后，Barnett先生的雇主从Golden Spring变更为Lamp Capital，之后又变更为HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技）及HCHK Property（HCHK地产）。Barnett先生于2020年10月至2023年3月期间为债务人工作。Barnett先生的“直接上司”为Yvette Wang，其向她和Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）汇报。[34]此外，Barnett先生有时将债务人称为“principal”和“boss”。[35]\n\nb. Barnett先生是债务人的安保负责人及保镖。他在Sherry Netherland公寓、Mahwah Mansion及债务人位于康涅狄格州格林尼治Taconic Road的住所（“Taconic Property”）为债务人提供安保。Barnett先生还担任债务人的司机，并协助债务人处理Liberty Yacht（自由号游艇）[36]及Mahwah Mansion进行的建筑工程管理事宜。[37]\n\nc. 债务人让Barnett先生为其购买摩托车，Barnett先生一度持有五辆摩托车的所有权，但其证称这些摩托车实际上并不归其所有。在刑事审判时，其中一辆摩托车仍登记在Barnett先生名下。[38]\n\nd. 关于Mahwah Mansion及持有Mahwah Mansion所有权的实体Taurus Fund（金牛基金），Barnett先生证称如下：\n\n问：Barnett先生，您知道购买被称为Mahwah的该处房产的是哪个实体吗？\n\n答：是的，Taurus Fund购买了该处房产。\n\n问：您在Taurus Fund担任职务吗？\n\n答：我未在Taurus Fund担任职务。\n\n问：您在Taurus Fund担任签字人职务吗？\n\n答：是的，担任过。我对此并不知情；但我确实担任过。\n\n问：您担任的签字人职务是什么？\n\n答：嗯，显然，直到很久以后我才发现，我是该基金的一名经理，也就是其经理之一。[39]\n\n32 同上，第1977-78页。\n\n33 同上，第5416页。\n\nYvette Wang，并且Barnett先生向她和Anthony DiBattista汇报。[34]此外，Barnett先生有时将债务人称为“principal”和“boss”。[35]\n\ne. Barnett先生解释称：“[O]n paper they had me down as a manager [of Taurus Fund]. That wasn't my idea of what my job role was. So when they ask me to be a manager, I just thought they just meant to manage the property and install the security services. It wasn't to manage Taurus Fund because I would have no experience, nor would I undertake something like that。”[40]Barnett先生就Taurus Fund签署的文件由债务人的律师Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）交给他。\n\nf. 债务人的一名律师Victor Cerda（维克托·塞尔达）提供资金，协助Barnett先生支付其法律代理费用。此外，Barnett先生设立了GoFundMe众筹页面，为其法律费用筹款；Cerda先生与著名郭文贵支持者“Long Island David（长岛大卫）”合作，向债务人的支持者传播GoFundMe信息，该等支持者向该GoFundMe页面捐赠了数万美元。\n\n92. Barnett先生进一步证称，其经Yvette Wang的“许可”设立GS Security，并曾与Yvette Wang、Max Krasner和Anthony DiBattista讨论设立该公司。[41]据Barnett先生称，GS Security被设立为独立公司，是因为“you really need to have insurance due to certain liabilities for the client that you're protecting, God forbid something were to happen. If it's just either the client themselves or any other entity, they're liable. God forbid we had to put our hands on somebody or anything worse than that or even anything minor, any lawsuit would go directly to that company instead of to a properly insured security company。”[42]\n\n93. 根据Barnett先生的证词，GS Security的初始资金来自HCHK。[43]HCHK于2022年12月至2023年2月期间向GS Security支付$650,000.00。该等资金被用于购买包括两辆BMW（宝马）车辆在内的物品，每辆成本约为$165,000，且该等车辆被用于运送债务人和Yvette Wang。\n\n40 同上，第5514页。\n\n41 同上，第5482页。\n\n42 同上，第5413-14页。\n\n43 同上，第5413页。\n\n案件22-50073，文书3926，于12/23/24提交，于12/23/24 22:22:35录入，第32页，共130页\n\n94. GS Security一直由债务人通过其另我实体HCHK Property提供资金。正如受托人在所提起的对抗程序起诉状中所主张，并且与Barnett先生的证词一致，在申请日后，GS Security从作为另我裁定对象的HCHK Property收到不少于$650,000.00。GS Security还由债务人的支持者提供资金，该等支持者向GS Security支付郭美的安保账单。\n\n95. GS Security目前最大的客户是Mei Guo（郭美）。此前，其最大的客户是债务人。据所知并相信，GS Security除债务人及其家属和关联人士外没有其他客户。GS Security从并非其客户的个人或公司收到$500,000.00，用于支付郭美的安保服务及Barnett先生和GS Security产生的法律费用。Barnett先生称：“我只向Mei开具发票，然后她随便找谁支付该发票。”[44]\n\n96. 此外，\n\n97. 总而言之，与Crane类似，GS Security又是一个仅在名义上独立于债务人的公司的例子。GS Security由债务人的一名雇员Scott Barnett设立，并与债务人的代理人Yvette Wang及律师Victor Cerda协商，以为债务人及其家属提供安保服务；其后，GS Security由债务人通过其另我实体HCHK Property提供资金，或由债务人支持者指向GS Security的资金提供资金，方式与债务人通过将其追随者作为资金来源，为其他另我实体（如G Club Operations）提供资金的方式相同；GS Security没有\n\n。\n\n44 同上，第5487页。\n\n除债务人及其家属和关联人士以外的客户；并且\n\n。此外，Scott Barnett并非普通雇员；债务人还曾将其用作掩饰债务人对Taurus Fund及因此对Mahwah Mansion所有权的挂名人。鉴于上述情况，并考虑到债务人设立另我空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就GS Security取得另我裁定。\n\nC. HGA Property（HGA地产）\n\n98. HGA Property（HGA地产）于2023年4月19日在New Jersey（新泽西州）提交了其成立证书。根据所知和所信，“HGA”代表“Himalaya Global Alliance（喜马拉雅全球联盟）”，这是用于描述债务人支持者全球网络的术语之一。[45] HGA Property成立时，其唯一成员为Qin Li（李琴）女士；李琴女士亦在HGA Property的成立证书中被列为该公司的注册代理人。根据所知和所信，李琴女士是债务人的重要支持者，曾在债务人的媒体平台GNews（GNews）为债务人工作。李琴女士还参与了针对受托人和Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）的骚扰行为，该等行为发生于受托人住所前以及New York（纽约）Grand Central Terminal（大中央总站）。[46] 2023年6月20日，HGA Property提交了其成立证书修正证书，载明李琴为总裁、Feibo Jiang（姜飞波）为成员，而李琴继续担任成员及注册代理人。根据所知和所信，姜飞波亦为债务人的支持者，以及债务人的Himalaya Global Alliance和NFSC组织的成员。\n\n45 法院已认定，债务人是Himalaya Global Alliance的领导者，且Himalaya Global Alliance“服务于债务人的目的，充当债务人的商业工具，其成员对债务人个人忠诚。”见PI Decision ¶ 7。\n\n46 见，例如，Himalaya Global Alliance, @GlobalAlliance, GETTR (December 10, 2022), http（显示李琴、Qidong Xia（a/k/a Chang Dao Brother）（夏启东，又名“长岛哥”）及其他人于2022年11月26日在受托人住所前抗议）。\n\n案件22-50073 文件3926 提交日期12/23/24 录入日期12/23/24 22:22:35 第34页，共130页\n\n99. 2023年5月10日，HGA Property向债务人的厨师Han Chunguang（韩春光）发出要约函，提出以年薪\\$120,000.00聘用韩春光担任通讯经理。此外，HGA Property还支付了多名人员的薪酬；根据所知和所信，该等人员正式受雇于HCHK Property（HCHK地产），即债务人的另我实体。\n\n100. 自其于2023年4月前后成立之时起，[47] HGA Property开始支付与Mahwah Mansion（马瓦豪宅）有关的费用。HGA Property支付的费用包括与公用事业、维护、安保服务及房地产税有关的费用。HGA Property既向GS Security（GS安保）支付款项，该实体名义上由上文所述的Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）拥有；也向Hawk Eye Security（鹰眼安保）支付款项，后者是由Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）为遵守法院2023年8月23日的初步禁令命令而聘请的新安保公司。\n\n101. HGA Property还支付了Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）的某些酒店费用。张永兵是债务人的律师，正如法院所知，其协助策划并参与了针对受托人的骚扰，以及针对受托人、PAX（PAX）的高级管理人员和PAX律师的无理诉讼行为，包括与Adversary Proceeding 23-05013（“HCHK对抗程序”）有关的行为，以及在Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）提起的诉讼；就后者而言，他曾三次受到制裁。[48] 与Qiang Guo（郭强）、William Je（威廉·杰）和Yvette Wang（王伊薇）一样，Criminal Court（刑事法院）裁定，有充分证据认定张先生及其他农场领导人为未被起诉的共同谋划人，其陈述可以依据传闻规则中的共同谋划人陈述例外被采纳为证据。[49] 具体而言，刑事法院认定张先生曾指示债务人的另一名支持者签署虚假宣誓书以起诉受托人（并在该支持者拒绝时威胁她）。[50]\n\n47 HGA Property于2023年4月开始为Mahwah Mansion的费用提供资金并非偶然；同月，先前为与Mahwah Mansion有关的各项费用提供资金的HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）通过转让契据被转让给Brian Hofmeister（布赖恩·霍夫迈斯特）作为受让人（如受托人在HCHK对抗程序中提交的诉状所作的更详尽说明）。\n\n48 见Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Intervene and Motion to Clarify Temporary Restraining Order, at 14-16, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, Docket No. 239。\n\n案件22-50073 文件3926 提交日期12/23/24 录入日期12/23/24 22:22:35 第35页，共130页\n\n其陈述可以依据传闻规则中的共同谋划人陈述例外被采纳为证据。[49] 具体而言，刑事法院认定张先生曾指示债务人的另一名支持者签署虚假宣誓书以起诉受托人（并在该支持者拒绝时威胁她）。[50]\n\n102. 此外，HGA Property是位于New Jersey（新泽西州）Upper Saddle River（上萨德尔河）的Westy Self Storage（Westy自助仓储）内四个储物单元的承租人，该等储物单元此前租赁给Scott Barnett和Taurus Fund。具体而言，Taurus Fund于2022年1月11日开始租赁两个储物单元，于2022年4月5日开始租赁第三个储物单元，并于2022年5月1日开始租赁第四个储物单元。该四个储物单元的租赁权随后于2023年4月18日从Taurus Fund转移至Scott Barnett，并于2023年4月27日从Scott Barnett转移至HGA Property。受托人的律师到访了该四个储物单元并确认，除其他事项外，“在我们检查并清点的约640个箱子中，约475个箱子要么(i)带有Golden Spring（Golden Spring）标签，要么(ii)以其他方式带有与债务人直接相关的手写标注或内容。”[51] 受托人于2024年2月23日提出动议，请求交付该等储物单元的内容物，[52]并在该动议中向法院说明了与这些储物单元有关的情况；随后Taurus Fund提出异议，并在异议中承认，自2022年4月起，四个储物单元中的两个“由Taurus Fund以外的一个或多个实体使用”。[53] 2024年3月26日，法院作出命令，要求将并非由Taurus Fund使用的两个储物单元的内容物交付给受托人。[54]\n\n49 见Order, at 8-9, Criminal Case Docket No. 388。\n\n50 同上，at 8。\n\n51 见Luyi Song（宋路易）宣誓声明 ¶ 8，载于Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Order Enforcing Judgment and Requiring Turnover of Storage Unit Contents to Chapter 11 Estate, Main Case Docket No. 2955。\n\n52 同上。\n\n53 Limited Objection to The Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Order Enforcing Judgment and Requiring Turnover of Storage Unit Contents to Chapter 11 Estate ¶ 5, Adv. Proc. 23-05018, Docket No. 43。\n\n54 Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Order Enforcing Judgment and Requiring Turnover of Storage Unit Contents to Chapter 11 Estate, Main Case Docket No. 3046。\n\n案件22-50073 文件3926 提交日期12/23/24 录入日期12/23/24 22:22:35 第36页，共130页\n\n103. HGA Property与Taurus Fund签订了一份日期为2023年10月17日的物业管理协议（根据所知和所信，该协议由债务人的律师Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）起草）。根据该协议，HGA Property将管理、维护和运营Mahwah Mansion，并除获得Taurus Fund对其管理Mahwah Mansion所产生费用的偿还外，每月获得\\$3,000报酬。李琴女士以HGA Property声称的所有人身份代表该公司签署了该协议，Yong Qi（祁勇）先生则以Taurus Fund声称的授权代表身份代表该基金签署了该协议。尽管法院先前已作出2023年8月23日初步禁令命令，其中规定，除其他事项外，Taurus Fund及Taurus Fund另我诉讼中的其他被告“不得转让、设定负担、移动、处置或以任何方式损害……Taurus Fund的任何资产或财产”，[55]Taurus Fund从未向法院或受托人披露该安排。\n\n104. HGA Property已出示据称向Taurus Management（Taurus Fund的名义所有人）开具的发票，以寻求偿还包括“修理和维护”“仓储租金”“工资”“餐食”“合同劳务”“办公费用”和“公用事业”在内的各类费用，以及支付其与Taurus Fund所订管理协议项下每月\\$3,000的“服务费”。然而，HGA Property未出示任何证据证明该等费用曾获偿还。相反，证据表明，HGA Property由与债务人支持者的“Himalaya Farm（喜马拉雅农场）”组织有关联的实体提供资金。[56]\n\n55 Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction, at 22-23, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017, Docket No. 47。\n\n56 法院已认定，与其他Himalaya实体一样，债务人是Himalaya Farms（喜马拉雅农场）的领导者，且Himalaya Farms“服务于债务人的目的，充当债务人的商业工具，其成员对债务人个人忠诚。”见PI Decision ¶ 7。\n\n案件22-50073 文件3926 提交日期12/23/24 录入日期12/23/24 22:22:35 第37页，共130页\n\n105. HGA Property受债务人支配和控制。债务人的忠实追随者被安排作为HGA Property的名义所有人。HGA Property随后支付债务人就Mahwah Mansion及用于存放债务人财产的仓储设施所产生的费用。债务人以与其为G Club Operations（G Club运营公司）或GS Security提供资金相似的方式，为HGA Property提供资金，即让其追随者向HGA Property转移资金，以支付其费用（即债务人的费用）。鉴于上述情况，并考虑到债务人设立另我空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就HGA Property取得另我认定。\n\nD. Haoran He Entities（何昊然实体）\n\n106. 如下文所述，Haoran He实体的功能是将债务人的资金转移给其在United Kingdom（英国）的儿子。[57]\n\ni. Fiesta Investment（Fiesta投资）\n\n107. Fiesta Investment于2019年8月5日在英国注册成立，最初名称为Fiesta Property Developments Ltd.（Fiesta地产开发有限公司），并于2021年7月13日更名为Fiesta Investment Ltd.（Fiesta投资有限公司）。\n\n108. Fiesta Investment的名义所有人、唯一董事及其唯一已知雇员为Haoran He（何昊然），即债务人用作下列事项名义所有人的人员：\n\n57 当然，这是一种更大趋势的一部分。事实上，受托人的撤销诉讼包括针对郭强的对抗程序，寻求撤销并追回向郭强作出的、金额超过\\$90 million的转让；郭强是该等转让的初始受让人。受托人的其他对抗程序则寻求撤销为郭强利益而向其他当事方作出的转让，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，此类对抗程序所涉转让之一，是债务人通过一家空壳公司购买一架Cirrus（西锐）螺旋桨飞机，该飞机随后名义上由郭强拥有，并于2024年3月初被出售，这是潜在破产财产耗散的明显例证。更近时，在其2024年4月3日作出的简易判决裁定中，本法院认定Bombardier（庞巴迪）喷气机及Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）均由债务人实益拥有；本法院还认定，Whitecroft曾试图将2022年10月出售该庞巴迪喷气机所得款项中超过\\$12 million汇入郭强在Kyrgyz-Swiss Bank（吉尔吉斯—瑞士银行）的账户。见Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 42, Adv. Proc. 23-05008, Docket No. 126。\n\n案件22-50073 文件3926 提交日期12/23/24 录入日期12/23/24 22:22:35 第38页，共130页\n\n受托人已就众多实体主张另我责任主张，如修订后的第一份综合另我责任起诉书所述，其中包括但不限于G Club Operations（G Club运营公司）及其唯一成员G Club International（G Club国际公司）。除修订后的第一份综合另我责任起诉书中所载何浩然（Haoran He）与债务人，尤其是与债务人之子的关联信息外，债务人刑事审判中还出示了有关何浩然的其他信息和证词，其中包括郭文贵（Kwok）的著名前支持者李娅（Ya Li）的证词，即何浩然是债务人家庭的一员，且债务人控制Freedom Media Ventures Limited（自由媒体风险投资有限公司），该公司名义上由何浩然拥有，且何先生为其唯一董事。此外，海赛姆·哈立德（Haitham Khaled）作证称，根据其与郭强（Qiang Guo）的一次谈话，他理解何先生仅在“纸面上”是G Club的最终受益所有人。哈立德先生还作证称，是债务人指示如何处置G Club的资金。\n\n109. Fiesta Investment（嘉年华投资公司）为债务人通过由Ferrari Beverly Hills（比佛利山庄法拉利）撮合的2021年6月寄售交易，为其儿子购买一辆价值$4 million的Ferrari（法拉利）汽车提供了工具。Ferrari Beverly Hills是一家由名为Passione Rossa LLC（帕西奥内·罗萨有限责任公司）的法人实体拥有的法拉利经销商。债务人的另我实体G Club Operations于2021年向Fiesta Investment转移了约$13.7 million，其中[58] $10 million于2021年1月和2月转移。2021年5月，Mileson（郭强）就购买该法拉利汽车向法拉利人员发送电子邮件称：“发票公司将为Fiesta property development（Fiesta物业开发公司）”，法拉利人员向Mileson称该车辆为“你的车”。[59] 随后，Fiesta Investment于2021年6月16日从该等资金中向Passione Rossa LLC转移了$4 million。与该寄售交易相关的通信和文件\n\n58 该笔转移通过一份名义上的£10 million贷款协议予以掩饰，该协议中Jovial Century International Limited（欢悦世纪国际有限公司）（G Club International的唯一成员）被列为借款人，而Fiesta Investment被列为资金收款人。根据所知及确信，该名义贷款从未偿还。59 GXUK95。\n\n案件22-50073，文件3926，提交日期12/23/24，录入日期12/23/24 22:22:35，第39页，共130页\n\n将郭强确定为该法拉利汽车的买方或“新所有人”，且由郭强决定购买细节，例如车辆的涂装方案和配件，以及将车辆交付至瑞士。[60] 如下图所示，郭强选择的灰色配色方案，即其所称的“我的颜色”，亦与其个性化头盔上的设计相一致。[61]\n\n110. 除允许G Club为郭强购买一辆价值$4 million的法拉利汽车外，Fiesta Investment还于2022年1月至11月期间向郭强在Wise（Wise）支付平台的账户转入不少于£240,000。Fiesta Investment还向Rising Sun Capital（旭日资本）转入不少于£1 million。此外，2021年6月24日，Fiesta Investment向Berkeley Rowe Limited（伯克利·罗有限责任公司）的一个律师账户转入约£2.8 million；如本院所知，Berkeley Rowe Limited是一家律师事务所，曾就Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）向HK USA提供的名义$37 million贷款担任律师，该贷款作为返还Lady May（梅夫人号）的担保。Berkeley Rowe还曾代理ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA资本集团有限公司，以下简称“ACA Capital”）和Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限责任公司）；这两家公司与Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.均为修订后的第一份综合起诉书中待决另我责任主张的对象。Berkeley Rowe的费用由债务人的另我实体Golden Spring（金泉）以及作为另一项待决另我责任主张对象的Leading Shine NY（纽约领耀）等实体支付。[62]\n\n111. 基于上述事实，显而易见，Fiesta Investment与G Club Operations和G Club International一样，不过是另一家名义上由何浩然拥有、但充当实体网络节点的公司，该网络致力于将债务人追随者的资金转移给债务人及其家庭成员。鉴于这些情形，并考虑到债务人设立另我空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就Fiesta Investment获得另我责任裁定。\n\nii. Rising Sun Capital（旭日资本）\n\n112. Rising Sun Capital于2017年10月26日在英国注册成立，何浩然于2020年5月18日成为Rising Sun Capital的名义所有人。\n\n113. Rising Sun Capital的注册地址为1053 Great West Road, Brentford, London（“Brentford Address（布伦特福德地址）”）。直至最近，Rising Sun Capital一直是布伦特福德地址处房产的承租人。\n\n62 向Berkeley Rowe转移如此巨额款项，很可能表明债务人曾将Berkeley Rowe用作转移资金、支付费用、进行投资或购买资产的中间人。这符合一种模式，即债务人在交易中使用律师事务所作为中介。此类做法的例子包括但不限于：2016年通过Mishcon de Reya（米什康律师事务所）购买债务人在伦敦的公寓；2016年通过Christodoulos G. Vassiliades & Co. LLC（克里斯托杜洛斯·G·瓦西利亚德斯律师事务所）购买塞浦路斯的一套公寓；2021年购买Mahwah Mansion（马瓦庄园），其中资金经由Lawall & Mitchell LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）的账户流转；以及于2021年和2022年通过Amy Buck, Esq.（艾米·巴克律师）律师事务所支付数百万美元用于Mahwah Mansion翻修的费用。\n\n案件22-50073，文件3926，提交日期12/23/24，录入日期12/23/24 22:22:35，第41页，共130页\n\n114. 郭强将布伦特福德地址作为其本人地址，并且根据所知及确信，布伦特福德地址是郭强在布伦特福德的“‘男人洞穴’”所在地，郭强在那里保有一支豪华车辆车队。[63] 根据所知及确信，该等车辆包括债务人所拥有的大量“数百辆赛车”收藏中的一部分；尽管债务人向本院表示其拥有的资金不足$4,000，但其自豪地声称这些车辆属于其本人。[64] 据信，该等车辆包括但不限于一辆2016 Pagani Zonda（帕加尼·Zonda）（车牌MON22A (UK)）、一辆Ferrari Monza SP1（法拉利·蒙扎SP1）（车牌V12GUO (UK)）、一辆2016 Ferrari LaFerrari（法拉利LaFerrari）（车牌F1GUO (UK)）（见下图左侧）以及一辆McLaren P1（迈凯伦P1）（车牌P1GUO (UK)），以及可在下方照片中隐约看到的其他车辆。\n\n115. 实质上，Rising Sun Capital作为债务人在英国的“家族办公室”运作，郭强的助理和私人律师受雇为“Mileson Guo（郭强）/Rising Sun Capital Ltd.”工作。[65]\n\n116. Rising Sun Capital一直由债务人通过其另我实体提供资金。根据受托人在对抗程序中提交的起诉状，Rising Sun Capital在申请日之前从作为另我责任裁定对象的Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）及作为另我责任主张对象的Leading Shine NY收到不少于$3,723,302.12。Rising Sun Capital还从Fiesta Investment收到不少于$1 million。2021年2月，当一家银行询问Lamp Capital向Golden Spring和Rising Sun Capital的转账时，债务人的前雇员丹尼尔·波德哈斯基（Daniel Podhaskie）称，Lamp Capital“作为[Golden Spring]和[Rising Sun Capital]的顾问公司”，两者均为“房地产控股公司”及“ACA Capital Group（ACA资本集团）的客户”。[66] 波德哈斯基进一步解释称，Lamp Capital向Golden Spring和Rising Sun Capital的转账是“从其在ACA的客户账户中提款”，并称“ACA要求Lamp向Golden Spring和Rising Sun垫付这些资金”，同时指出，“Lamp负责高净值个人和家庭的美国业务关系，并代表ACA客户支付账单”。[67] 实际上，Lamp Capital与Golden Spring、ACA Capital和Rising Sun Capital一样，仅为一名高净值个人“处理”了“业务关系”并“代表其支付账单”：即债务人及其家庭。\n\n117. Rising Sun Capital于2023年3月向郭强在Wise支付平台的账户转入不少于£150,000.00。\n\n118. Rising Sun Capital具备债务人另我实体的众多特征。尽管名义上由债务人的代理人何浩然控制，Rising Sun Capital由债务人的另我实体Lamp Capital提供资金，向债务人的儿子转移资金，并与债务人的儿子租赁和共用一处办公室/车库。鉴于这些情形，并考虑到债务人设立另我空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就Rising Sun Capital获得另我责任裁定。\n\n66 GXBR1517。\n\n67 同上。\n\nE. 阿拉伯联合酋长国（UAE）实体\n\n119. 如下文所述，阿联酋实体的职能包括继续在海外开展债务人的G Club和Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）计划及活动，以便债务人尽管受到美国政府对其进行的调查及随后对其的逮捕，仍能继续从这些计划中获利。\n\n120. 债务人及其共谋者William Je（威廉·杰）与阿联酋有重大联系；据信William Je目前居住于阿联酋（债务人的儿子何浩然及债务人的其他关联人士也被认为在阿联酋停留大量时间）。事实上，仅一个被指称由债务人控制的阿联酋阿布扎比银行账户，就已收到超过$100 million的债务人刑事欺诈所得。债务人持有过阿联酋护照，并曾一度从阿联酋来源获得逾十亿美元，该等资金通过债务人的空壳公司，例如Alfa Global Ventures Limited（阿尔法环球创投有限公司）和Alfonso Global Ventures Limited（阿方索环球创投有限公司），转移给其他由债务人控制的公司，随后用于购买包括Lady May、Sherry Netherland apartment（雪莉·内瑟兰公寓）以及债务人的London Apartment（伦敦公寓）在内的高价值债务人资产。[68]\n\n121. 事实上，在债务人被捕后不久向Criminal Court（刑事法院）提交的诉状中，政府报告称William Je“仍然在逃，且很可能位于阿联酋，\n\n68 这些资产中的每一项均为本院命令的标的，该等命令裁定此等资产为债务人的财产。参见《支持准许部分简易判决动议之口头裁定的补充裁决备忘录》，对抗程序案号 22-05003，案卷编号 177（认定债务人享有 Lady May 游艇的受益所有权）；《依据破产规则 9019 准许第11章受托人、Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings公司）就与 Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck有限公司）及 Mileson Guo（郭强，亦称 Qiang Guo 和/或 Guo Qiang）达成和解所提动议的命令》，对抗程序案号 22-05027，案卷编号 118（认定 Genever Holdings LLC 为 Sherry Netherland Apartment（Sherry Netherland公寓）的完整且排他性所有人）；以及《准许 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）遗产第11章受托人就对 K Legacy Ltd.（K Legacy有限公司）及 Qiang Guo（郭强）作出缺席判决所提动议的命令》，对抗程序案号 24-05249，案卷编号 76（认定 K Legacy Ltd. 及其资产，包括位于 5 Princes Gate, London, United Kingdom SW7 1QJ 的 Apartment 6 和 Apartment G3（“伦敦公寓”），在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产）。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交日期 12/23/24 登记日期 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 44 页，共 130 页\n\n在该地，其与郭文贵可获得大量资源及欺诈所得，并被认为正在建立其欺诈活动新的运营和财务基地。”[69]\n\n122. 如美国政府的诉状及受托人获得的其他文件和证据所述，在债务人于 2023年3月被捕前的数月间，债务人曾努力将其活动转移至阿联酋的阿布扎比。债务人甚至在被捕前不久向其追随者吹嘘，与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）相关的支付应用程序 HPay“总部设在阿布扎比，这是唯一一个连美国人都不敢碰的离岸国家”，因为该司法管辖区中的资金将免受“美国的长臂管辖权”影响而得到保障。[70] 此外，债务人的代理人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）参与了将活动转移至阿布扎比的工作，她指示债务人的两名雇员 Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）[71] 和 Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）[72] 从美国前往阿布扎比；二人在 2023 年初于该地逗留一个多月，为债务人的 G Club（G俱乐部）计划建立阿布扎比据点。自债务人被捕以来，阿布扎比也是债务人的其他关联人员曾前往或迁居之地，其中包括债务人 Iron Blood Group（铁血组）的多名成员。债务人的儿子一次会在阿布扎比停留数月，Haoran He（何昊然）亦是如此；何昊然除其他事项外，在 Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank（阿布扎比商业银行）拥有或曾拥有一个银行账户，该账户曾被用于支付债务人另一自我实体 G Club Operations（G俱乐部运营公司）名义上的工资支出。\n\n123. 债务人还通过其代理人努力将重大资产转移至阿布扎比，并在美国与通过 Yvette Wang 指挥该等活动。\n\n69 参见《政府函件》，第 18 页，刑事案件案卷编号 10（于 March 29, 2023 提交）。70 政府刑事审判证物 GXWA5。\n\n71 DiBattista 先生曾作为 Golden Spring（黄金泉）的雇员、HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的少数股东及公司高级管理人员，以及 GTV、GFashion Media Group Inc.（GFashion媒体集团公司）和 G Fashion (CA) 的公司高级管理人员、授权签字人和/或高级雇员为债务人服务。72 Alex Hadjicharalambous 曾作为债务人的另一自我实体 G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）、GFashion Media Group Inc. 和 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）的雇员等，为债务人服务。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交日期 12/23/24 登记日期 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 45 页，共 130 页\n\n事实上，如政府起诉书所指控且刑事审判中的证词所证实，在美国政府首次经司法授权扣押资金后的两天内，William Je（杰威廉）联系了一家美国境内银行的管理层，并试图将 \\$46 million 的 Himalaya Exchange 资金转入 ACA Capital（ACA资本）在阿布扎比的银行账户。William Je 两次坚持向该境内银行代表表示，该转账必须在“今天完成，否则毫无意义。”该境内银行代表在刑事审判中证实，Je 的请求“令人感到不安。这似乎是在试图将资金转移到美国司法管辖区之外。”此外，美国政府从 Yvette Wang 与政府称为“HCHK Financial Controller（HCHK财务主管）”或“Controller（主管）”的个人之间恢复的聊天信息显示：[73]\n\na. 于 March 6, 2023，Controller 写给 Yvette Wang：“备注：我今天早上得知；[另一名个人]就向老板提供每日……反馈一事来找我……另加每月向老板撰写一份关于办公室、所有活动环节及观察情况的报告。”\n\nb. 大约 20 分钟后，Controller 写给 Yvette Wang：“我们获批 FAB 了！！！/ 明天有账户号码 / 刚刚又开了一个 NBF 银行账户！应该很快也会有账户号码。”\n\nc. 当日稍后，Controller 告知 Yvette Wang，该等实体正在“将资金转入 ADCB［即 Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC（阿布扎比商业银行公众股份公司）］”，并发送了一张看似为银行账户余额页面的截图，显示截至 March 6, 2023，向一个账户存入了数笔每笔 \\$750,000 的入账款项，该账户余额已增至约 \\$8.25 million。约两小时后，Controller 向 Yvette Wang 发送了一张阿联酋实体在第四家阿联酋金融机构的账户截图，显示余额约为 41,831,801 AED（UAE Dirham），即约 \\$11,389,308 USD。\n\nd. 于 March 7, 2023，Wang 指示 Controller 确保与 Himalaya Exchange 有关的资金安全，部分内容如下：“目前先保持冷静，集中处理你能从 H Reserve（H储备）的银行拿到的东西”，并表示她正在“安排将 [Controller] 加为额外的银行签字人。”\n\n73 参见《美利坚合众国反对被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）审前释放动议的法律备忘录》，第 28-29 页，刑事案件案卷编号 89（原文中带方括号的文字）。如美国政府所解释，在截获的聊天信息中，“boss（老板）”指债务人，“FAB”指 First Abu Dhabi Bank（第一阿布扎比银行），“NFB”指 National Bank of Fujairah（富查伊拉国家银行），后两者均为位于阿联酋的金融机构。\n\ne. 于 March 9, 2023，Wang 要求 Controller“请查一下 [阿联酋实体] 的 FAB［即 First Abu Dhabi Bank］银行的 SWIFT code。我这里有他们的 IBAN。”Controller 提供了 SWIFT code，Yvette Wang 回复：“我会将这个用于汇款银行。”\n\nf. 次日，Controller 向 Wang 报告：“早上好，很多笑声，和 [阿联酋实体] 完成了很多事情……/ 还有 gclubs。”\n\ng. 于 March 11, 2023，即在被 FBI（联邦调查局）逮捕前四天，Yvette Wang 写给 Controller：“我在想：你最好不要把任何 uae 设备带回给我们。想想如何从这里以最基础的层级开展工作。”当日稍后，她又补充道：“是的，我想你回家时带的信息越少越好，甚至从那里带回零信息。包括设备。/ 也请同样建议 [另一名在阿联酋的个人（“Employee-1”）]，这也是我的建议。”\n\n124. 如下文所述，本起诉状所涉的每一个 UAE Entities（阿联酋实体）均在将债务人的计划和活动转移至阿联酋阿布扎比的过程中发挥了关键作用。Thousand Stars（千星公司），原名 G Clubs ME Limited（G Clubs中东有限公司），代表债务人 G Club 计划的延续或分支。H Reserve Management（H储备管理公司）代表债务人 Himalaya Exchange 计划的延续或分支，并运营与 Himalaya Exchange 相连的支付应用程序 HPay。最后，Delta Konsult（德尔塔咨询公司）与 HCHK Entities 一样，为 Thousand Stars 和 H Reserve Management 以及可能的其他债务人关联实体提供服务。债务人通过 Yvette Wang 及其其他代理人和关联人员，在美国管理 UAE Entities。\n\ni. Thousand Stars（千星公司）\n\n125. Thousand Stars 是原名 G Clubs ME Limited 的实体目前使用的名称。Thousand Stars 在阿布扎比经营债务人 G Club 会员计划的一个分支、衍生机构或延续机构；该机构设立于此，是为规避美国当局的监管审查。正如债务人本人所解释，Thousand Stars“是一家在阿布扎比设立的、完全独立的 G|Club 公司，但它也是告密革命的 G|Club，并且具有相同的福利和功能。”债务人的亲密关联人 Fay Fay（菲菲）在 February 2023 介绍债务人的“A10”投资计划时（Thousand Stars 从债务人的支持者处获得该计划的资金），其表述为：“GClubs 是核心资产，因此转移至阿布扎比运营。”\n\n126. Thousand Stars 在阿联酋阿布扎比的 ADGM（阿布扎比全球市场）注册成立。Thousand Stars 的名义所有人为 Haoran He，其为债务人及其儿子的代理人和家庭朋友，也是众多其他 G Club 和 G Fashion 实体的名义所有人。Thousand Stars 的董事及账户签字人为 Kevin Ma（马凯文），其为债务人的代理人和重要支持者，亦担任 Ampleforth Capital（安普尔福斯资本，下文讨论）的名义所有人。Kevin Ma 还与其妻子 Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）密切参与代表债务人运营 River Valley（河谷公司，下文讨论）；Yumei Hao 是债务人的另一名重要支持者，也是引导拖延 HCHK Adversary Proceeding（HCHK对抗程序）工作的所谓 HCHK 债权人委员会成员。根据 Jesse Brown（杰西·布朗）的证词，债务人选择 Kevin Ma 替代 Brown，担任 Himalaya Exchange 名义上的“strawman（挂名人）”首席执行官。参与 Thousand Stars 的债务人其他重要支持者包括 Kangdi Wang（王康迪），其为 Thousand Stars 前董事；根据现有信息及信念，其与 Yumei Hao 一同负责债务人 Himalaya Global Alliance（喜马拉雅全球联盟）组织的财务部门；Sarah Zhang（张莎拉），另一名前 Thousand Stars 董事；以及 Ingrid Qiao（乔英格丽德），Thousand Stars 前董事及股东。\n\n127. 根据现有信息及信念，Ingrid Qiao 在受雇于 H Reserve Management 期间担任 Thousand Stars 的首席执行官，接受债务人的指示，并称其为“boss（老板）”；尽管 Haoran He 名义上拥有大部分“G Club”实体，她在履行首席执行官职责时却不熟悉 Haoran He。根据现有信息及信念，Ingrid Qiao 还参与了 Yvette Wang 从监狱中指挥转移欺诈所得的工作。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交日期 12/23/24 登记日期 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 48 页，共 130 页\n\n如美国政府所指控，在 Yvette Wang 被捕数周后，即 April 2023，Yvette Wang 从监狱中指示一名被指称的共谋者与他人合作，从位于曼哈顿、以 G Club Operations 名义设立的邮政信箱中取回价值约 \\$7.1 million 的欺诈所得支票。根据政府收集的其他证据，Yvette Wang 指示该共谋者让一名绰号为“Cherry Blossom（樱花）”的人“授权 [Employee-1]［即一名于 2023 年前往阿联酋的 G-Club 雇员］将支票交给 [3 Columbus Circle]。”根据现有信息及信念，“Cherry Blossom”是 Ingrid Qiao 的绰号。\n\n128. 此外，根据现有信息及信念，债务人的财务代理人 William Je 及在 Hamilton Entities（Hamilton实体）和/或 Himalaya Exchange Entities（喜马拉雅交易所实体）中受其指挥的人员，例如 Ehsan Masud（埃桑·马苏德）和 Georgette Adonis-Roberts（乔治特·阿多尼斯-罗伯茨），也参与了 Thousand Stars 及其他 UAE Entities 的事务。\n\n129. 于 2023 年初，Alex Hadjicharalambous 和 Anthony DiBattista 前往阿联酋阿布扎比并长期逗留，以协助在当地设立 Thousand Stars 的活动，其中包括指导 Ingrid Qiao 开展 G Club 的活动。Thousand Stars 与其他 UAE Entities 共用或曾共用办公场所。\n\n130. Thousand Stars（千星）在阿拉伯联合酋长国（UAE）的National Bank of Fujairah（富查伊拉国家银行）以其名义拥有或曾拥有一个银行账户；根据所知所信，该账户由债务人控制。事实上。\n\n131. 根据所知所信，债务人通过其向追随者募集的资金为Thousand Stars提供资金；其中包括其一名高级亲信Ya Li（李亚），其在刑事审判中作证称，她曾被指示将作为债务人“A10”投资项目一部分募集的资金汇至G Clubs ME Limited（G Clubs ME有限公司，即Thousand Stars）在阿布扎比的银行账户。值得注意的是，Li女士作证称，她最初被指示将资金汇至GFNY, Inc.（GFNY公司），该公司在《修订后的第一份综合另我起诉状》中被指称为替身实体；在债务人和Yvette Wang（王雁）被捕后，她汇给GFNY, Inc.的资金获退款，并被指示将该笔资金转至G Clubs ME Limited在阿布扎比的账户。此外，债务人的替身实体River Valley（河谷，下文将进一步讨论）是一家印第安纳州有限责任公司，其支付了多项阿布扎比费用，包括租赁豪华酒店客房和办公场所的费用；根据所知所信，该等费用与Thousand Stars及其他阿联酋实体有关。\n\n132. 综上，债务人的代理人在Thousand Stars担任名义所有人和董事职务，该公司与其他由债务人控制的公司共用办公场所，且债务人为Thousand Stars提供资金。此外，债务人的代理人依Yvette Wang的指示前往阿布扎比，在债务人正面临美国当局审查、临近被捕之际，将Thousand Stars在当地的业务设立为债务人G Club计划的衍生或延续。鉴于上述情形，以及债务人通过替身空壳公司经营其事务并持有其资产的一贯模式和做法，受托人有权就Thousand Stars获得替身实体裁定。\n\nii. H Reserve Management（H储备管理公司）\n\n133. H Reserve Management从阿布扎比运营债务人Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）加密货币计划的一个分支、衍生或延续，尤其是名为“HPay”的支付应用程序；该公司在阿布扎比设立，是为规避美国当局的监管审查。债务人在2022年6月的一次直播中亲口表示：“Himalaya Exchange将会有其他币种（阿布扎比币），并且不受美元长臂管辖。”\n\n134. H Reserve Management于September 2, 2022在阿拉伯联合酋长国阿布扎比的ADGM注册成立。债务人本人曾就H Reserve Management的设立作出指示，并构思了该公司的名称。H Reserve Management最初的唯一董事和股东为债务人的支持者Kevin Ma（马凯文）；February 21, 2023，债务人的支持者Ingrid Qiao（乔英格丽德）取代其成为股东。April 4, 2023，H Reserve Management的唯一股东变为Sarah Zhang（张莎拉），其亦为债务人的另一名重要支持者。根据所知所信，Sarah Zhang称债务人为“郭叔叔”，曾与其在Sherry Netherland（雪莉荷兰）住所共进晚餐（同席者包括Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）及债务人的另一名重要支持者Fay Fay（菲菲）），曾乘坐其一艘游艇航行，并参与债务人的抗议活动。另一名参与H Reserve Management事务的人员是债务人的雇员Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）；根据所知所信，其曾一度担任H Reserve Management的董事。\n\n135. 债务人通过Yvette Wang在美国管理H Reserve Management的事务。例如，如上所述，March 7, 2023，Yvette Wang指示HCHK财务总监“[b]保持冷静，暂时专注于你现在能从H Reserve的银行取得什么。”美国政府从Yvette Wang设备中恢复的其他聊天信息显示，Kevin Ma曾就阿联酋实体的财务情况向Yvette Wang汇报，且Yvette Wang要求Kevin Ma向其“逐步说明”“向H Reserve提供的8 million USD原始资金”的对账情况。\n\n136. 此外，根据所知所信，债务人的财务代理人William Je（谢威廉）以及在Hamilton和/或Himalaya Exchange实体中受其领导工作的人员，例如Ehsan Masud（埃桑·马苏德）和Georgette Adonis-Roberts（乔治特·阿多尼斯-罗伯茨），亦参与了H Reserve Management及其他阿联酋实体的事务。\n\n137. H Reserve Management与其他阿联酋实体共用或曾共用办公场所。\n\n138. H Reserve Management在阿联酋的First Abu Dhabi Bank（第一阿布扎比银行）、WIO Bank（Abu Dhabi）（WIO银行〔阿布扎比〕）和National Bank of Fujairah以其名义拥有或曾拥有银行账户；根据所知所信，各账户均由债务人控制。\n\n139. H Reserve Management于August 2022向ADGM注册局提交的业务申请称，该公司将从事“管理咨询活动”和“其他专业、科学及技术活动”。在一封日期为April 23, 2024、致Sarah Zhang且大幅删节的信函中，ADGM当局解释称，ADGM注册官已决定撤销H Reserve Management的ADGM许可证，因为H Reserve Management在大约October 2022至大约June 2023期间，在未取得适当商业许可证的情况下，为其客户（“Company A”）开展了“软件开发业务活动”。尽管该信函未指明“Company A”，但Company A似乎是指Himalaya Exchange或由债务人控制的一家关联公司。ADGM信函还特别指出，H Reserve Management的雇员“被派驻至Company A，并主要使用Company A的电子邮件账户和共享驱动器账户”，且接受ADGM访谈的雇员将H Reserve Management的软件开发活动认定为包括但不限于“[d]为基于移动应用程序的支付解决方案开发软件”、“[d]开发与管理账户和钱包有关的区块链软件”以及“[d]开发使新加密货币系统得以实现的软件”。根据所知所信，这些活动均与债务人的加密货币计划Himalaya Exchange有关。\n\n140. 与上述指控一致，ADGM信函还指出，“H Reserve Management曾允许两家公司占用并在其ADGM办公室运营”；如上所述，这是指H Reserve Management与Thousand Stars和Delta Konsult（德尔塔咨询）共用办公场所。\n\n141. 事实上，根据ADGM于June 2023向H Reserve Management发出的通知，就ADGM针对H Reserve Management可能违反某些ADGM法规所进行的调查而言，ADGM特别要求提供“[c]证明H Reserve与Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本）、Himalaya Exchange或任何其他关联实体进行交易或代表其进行交易的任何及所有文件副本”，以及存储于分配给或由William Je、Ehsan Masud、Georgette Adonis-Roberts等人使用的任何计算机和移动设备上的所有数据的完整取证副本。\n\n142. 此外，H Reserve Management由债务人通过其空壳公司提供资金。具体而言，数百万美元从ACA Capital（ACA资本）转至债务人的替身实体River Valley，继而从该实体转至H Reserve Management。债务人的替身实体River Valley支付了多项阿布扎比费用，包括租赁豪华酒店客房和办公场所的费用；根据所知所信，该等费用与H Reserve Management及其他阿联酋实体有关。\n\nOpportunity Fund SPC（机会基金SPC）是《修订后的第一份综合另我起诉状》中另一名受另我主张约束的被告。\n\n144. 此外，《修订后的第一份综合另我起诉状》中的被告Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）在其所谓的英国管理程序中表示，其最大债权人之一为H Reserve Management，据称该公司对Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.持有超过£3.2 million的债权。Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.的其他所谓债权人包括ACA Capital，据称其债权超过£13.3 million；以及Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司），据称其债权超过£17.6 million；两者亦均为《修订后的第一份综合另我起诉状》中的被告。值得注意的是，River Valley（如下文所述）亦被列为Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.的债权人。如《修订后的第一份综合另我起诉状》所述，受托人认为，Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.在英国的管理程序是一次试图通过利用该管理程序“洗白”该等资金、继而将其循环并重新分配给债务人、William Je及关联实体的行为。法院将会记得，债务人及其同伙曾尝试采用类似策略，对HCHK实体的资金进行循环和重新分配；该等实体于April 2023启动纽约州让与程序，受托人已成功申请禁止该程序。\n\n145. 综上，债务人的代理人在H Reserve Management担任名义所有人和董事职务，H Reserve Management与其他由债务人控制的公司共用办公场所，且债务人为H Reserve Management提供资金。此外，债务人的代理人依Yvette Wang的指示前往阿布扎比，在债务人于被捕前一段时期正面临美国当局审查之际，将H Reserve Management在当地的业务设立为债务人Himalaya Exchange计划的衍生或延续。鉴于上述情形，以及债务人通过替身空壳公司经营其事务并持有其资产的一贯模式和做法，受托人有权就H Reserve Management获得替身实体裁定。\n\niii. Delta Konsult（德尔塔咨询）\n\n146. Delta Konsult在ADGM注册成立，是另一家在阿布扎比ADGM设立、旨在规避美国当局监管审查的公司。Delta Konsult表面上为其他阿联酋实体Thousand Stars和H Reserve Management提供服务。尽管尚不清楚这些服务具体为何，但债务人过去曾指定某些替身实体作为其他实体表面上的服务提供商，例如HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）便曾为债务人的众多替身实体提供管理及其他服务，如《修订后的第一份综合另我起诉状》所述。\n\n147. 参与Thousand Stars和H Reserve Management人员配置的同一批债务人代理人，也参与了Delta Konsult的人员配置。Delta Konsult现任名义股东为Sarah Zhang，其前任股东包括Anthony DiBattista和Kevin Ma。亦参与了Delta Konsult的事务，债务人的代理人Yvette Wang亦然。例如，在March 2023 Yvette Wang与Kevin Ma之间的聊天信息中，Ma向Yvette Wang报告称：“该\\$9 million（8 million + 1 million，我之前向你解释过）涵盖三件事：H Reserve、Delta Konsult和AD Reserve。Tony［即Anthony DiBattista］持有前两者的财务记录。”随后，Yvette Wang写道：“你能否请说明8 million USD如何部署至哪些公司和哪些银行？我记得DK［即Delta Konsult］里的1 million，那一笔没问题。”\n\n148. 此外，根据所知及信念，于2023年8月前后，Delta Konsult（德尔塔咨询）与G Music LLC（G音乐有限责任公司）订立了一项服务协议；G Music是《第一份综合替身实体起诉状》中指称的另一替身实体。据此，Delta Konsult将向G Music提供各类服务，包括：(i) 财务和会计，(ii) 人力资源，(iii) IT支持、工程、设计和软件开发，(iv) 法律和咨询服务，(v) 房地产和设施管理服务，以及(vi) 发票付款。这表明Delta Konsult作为HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技）的替代“服务公司”所发挥的作用。\n\n149. 此外，根据所知及信念，债务人的财务代理人William Je（威廉·杰）以及在Hamilton和/或Himalaya Exchange Entities（喜马拉雅交易所实体）中受其领导工作的人员，例如Ehsan Masud（埃桑·马苏德）和Georgette Adonis-Roberts（乔治特·阿多尼斯-罗伯茨），也参与了Delta Konsult及其他UAE Entities（阿拉伯联合酋长国实体）的事务。\n\n150. Delta Konsult与其他阿拉伯联合酋长国实体共用或曾共用办公场所。\n案件22-50073，文件3926，提交于12/23/24，录入于12/23/24 22:22:35，第56页，共130页\n\n151. Delta Konsult在Abu Dhabi（阿布扎比）的First Abu Dhabi Bank（第一阿布扎比银行）和Wio Bank（Wio银行）以其名义开立或曾开立银行账户；根据所知及信念，每个账户均由债务人控制。\n\n152. 债务人通过指示将资金从其控制的一家或多家公司转入Delta Konsult，为Delta Konsult提供资金，其中包括下文讨论的River Valley（河谷）。该等资金包括从美国一家或多家银行向Delta Konsult在Wio Bank的银行账户转入的数百万美元；Wio Bank是另一家位于阿拉伯联合酋长国的金融机构。\n\n153. 总而言之，债务人的代理人在Delta Konsult担任名义所有人和董事职务，Delta Konsult与债务人控制的其他公司共用办公场所，并通过从债务人的Himalaya Farm（喜马拉雅农场）组织转入资金获得资助。鉴于这些情形以及债务人通过替身空壳公司经营其事务并持有其资产的一贯模式和做法，受托人有权就Delta Konsult获得替身实体裁定。\n\nF. River Valley（河谷）\n\n154. River Valley是在Indiana（印第安纳州）设立的实体，名义上由Yumei Hao（郝玉梅）所有；郝玉梅是债务人的一名重要支持者，其丈夫为Kevin Ma（马凯文）。River Valley银行账户的签字人包括郝玉梅、马凯文和Rong Hu（胡荣）；胡荣是债务人的另一名已知支持者。\n\n155. River Valley唯一可辨认的目的，是通过接收债务人控制的实体所支付的款项，继而将该等资金转给债务人控制的其他实体及其家庭成员，以支付该等实体和个人的费用，从而进行洗钱。\n\n案件22-50073，文件3926，提交于12/23/24，录入于12/23/24 22:22:35，第57页，共130页\n\n156. 特别是，债务人利用River Valley为H Reserve Management（H储备管理公司）提供资金，并支付与阿拉伯联合酋长国实体有关的阿布扎比费用。2022年8月10日，River Valley从ACA Capital（ACA资本）在First Abu Dhabi Bank的账户收取约\\$8 million，并将其转入River Valley在美国Lake City Bank（莱克城银行）的账户。此后，River Valley向H Reserve Management在阿拉伯联合酋长国的银行账户转入\\$4.5 million，并向阿拉伯联合酋长国合计转入更多数百万美元，以支付房东、一家豪华酒店、咨询、IT、法律及其他服务提供商，以及一家BMW（宝马）经销商的费用。根据所知及信念，正是就这些转账，Yvette Wang（王雁）要求马凯文“walk [her] through”对“the 8 million USD original funding to H Reserve”的核对，并“clarify how the 8 million USD was deployed in which companies and which banks.”\n\n157. 实际上，这些资金转移的可疑性质，加上郝玉梅和马凯文作出的不令人满意的解释，引起了Lake City Bank合规人员的注意，他们认为这可能构成洗钱；Lake City Bank于2023年5月关闭了River Valley的账户。\n\n158. 此外，River Valley支付了债务人的替身实体GFNY, Inc.（GFNY公司）的若干费用，该实体是构成债务人G Fashion（G时尚）计划的实体之一；River Valley还向债务人的女儿提供资金，推定用于维持其生活方式和支付法律费用。例如，2022年11月7日，River Valley从其在Bank of America（美国银行）的账户向Mei Guo（郭梅）在Citizens Bank（公民银行）的账户电汇\\$100,000.00。郭梅除其他用途外，还于2022年12月8日用该笔资金向Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）支付\\$20,000.00。\n\n159. River Valley从Rule of Law Entities（法治实体）收取资金，并向债务人的众多主要支持者付款，包括Leanne Li（李莲；自称的G Fashion首席执行官）、Chris Lee（李克里斯；自称的HCHK债权人委员会成员之一）、Yanming Wang（王延明；债务人的一名重要支持者，曾向郭梅转移资金），以及英属维尔京群岛的律师事务所和ADGM Registration Authority（阿布扎比全球市场注册局）。在债务人的追随者于受托人及其家人住所和工作场所进行抗议期间，River Valley持续从法治实体获得资金，继而通过Zelle（泽尔）转账向个人支付多笔款项；根据所知及信念，该等款项系向抗议者支付的款项，以及对与抗议受托人有关的费用的报销。\n\n案件22-50073，文件3926，提交于12/23/24，录入于12/23/24 22:22:35，第58页，共130页\n\n160. 此外，如上所述，River Valley与债务人的其他替身实体ACA Capital、Hamilton Investment Management Ltd.（汉密尔顿投资管理有限公司）和H Reserve Management一道，是Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）在英国所谓管理程序中的所谓债权人之一。根据Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd.的说法，River Valley据称持有约£360,000的债权。\n\n161. 总而言之，River Valley由债务人的代理人控制，由债务人提供资金，并向债务人控制的实体、债务人的家庭成员转移资金，且支付该等实体和/或个人的费用。鉴于这些情形，受托人有权就River Valley获得替身实体裁定。\n\nG. Ampleforth Capital（安普尔福斯资本）\n\n162. Ampleforth Capital是在BVI（英属维尔京群岛）设立的实体，根据所知及信念，名义上由马凯文所有。如上所述，马凯文是债务人的重要支持者，也是债务人的NFSC（新联邦国委员会）和Iron Blood Group（铁血组）成员；根据所知及信念，他曾协助债务人在阿拉伯联合酋长国设立境外实体。\n\n163.\n\n.\n\nMercantile Bank（商业银行）设于Puerto Rico（波多黎各），是一家美国境内银行。简言之，Ampleforth Capital至少在美国开立了一个银行账户。根据所知及信念，该账户由债务人控制。\n\n案件22-50073，文件3926，提交于12/23/24，录入于12/23/24 22:22:35，第59页，共130页\n\n164. 根据所知及信念，并与债务人的前支持者Ya Li（李亚）在刑事审判中所作证词一致，债务人指示其追随者向Ampleforth Capital转移资金，作为被称为A10 Project（A10项目）和A15 Project（A15项目）的投资骗局的一部分。\n\n166. Ampleforth再次显示出郭文贵替身实体的关键特征。一名忠实的债务人追随者被任命负责Ampleforth，债务人追随者的资金被引导至Ampleforth，随后Ampleforth将该等资金转给债务人控制的一个喜马拉雅实体。鉴于这些情形，并考虑到债务人设立替身空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就Ampleforth获得替身实体裁定。\n\nH. Debtor Holding Companies（债务人控股公司）\n\n167. 债务人控股公司由若干实体组成，其唯一目的实质上是持有若干公司的所有权权益；就该等公司，受托人已获得替身实体裁定或提出尚待裁决的替身实体请求。这些实体未从事任何有实质意义的财务或商业活动，而只是作为一种机制，使债务人能够通过担任其代理人的个人，包括Qiang Guo（郭强）和王雁，持有其替身实体的正式法定所有权并对其行使控制。因此，受托人有权就债务人控股公司获得替身实体裁定。\n\n168. 债务人控股公司由下列实体组成：\ni. Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited（圣城香港创投有限公司）\n\n169. Holy City Hong Kong Ventures Limited（“Holy City”）是在英属维尔京群岛设立的实体，目前名义上由一家名为New Federal State Corporation（新联邦国公司）的Nevis（尼维斯）实体所有；根据所知及信念，该实体由债务人通过其一名或多名代理人控制。Holy City此前名义上由债务人的助理及共谋者王雁所有。截至2023年6月受托人提起HCHK Adversary Proceeding（HCHK对抗程序）时，王雁仍是Holy City的名义所有人。债务人利用Holy City名义持有HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）99.9999%[74]的所有权；本院已裁定该等实体为债务人的替身实体，并由债务人享有衡平所有权。根据所知及信念，Holy City除持有HCHK实体的所有权、启动作为HCHK对抗程序标的的HCHK实体转让程序，以及在该对抗程序中与受托人进行诉讼外，未从事任何商业活动或其他行为。\n\n170. Holy City是HCHK对抗程序中的被告之一，且未履行就受托人的起诉状作出答复的义务，因而构成缺席。随后，Holy City与HCHK实体一同出庭与受托人进行诉讼，包括寻求撤销HCHK对抗程序中的缺席登记，并对本院随后作出的缺席判决提出异议，但这些努力均未成功。值得注意的是，本院在驳回Holy City和HCHK实体（统称“HCHKV Entities（HCHKV实体）”）关于撤销缺席登记的动议的裁定中，基于债务人的律师Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）作为HCHKV实体与其律师之间联络人的参与，认定HCHKV实体存在恶意行为。[75]\n\n74 每个HCHK实体其余0.0001%的所有权名义上由债务人的雇员Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）持有。\n案件22-50073，文件3926，提交于12/23/24，录入于12/23/24 22:22:35，第61页，共130页\n\n171. HCHK对抗程序中的提交文件和债务人刑事审判中的证词还披露，除其他事项外，HCHKV在与受托人进行诉讼时的董事为王雁，以及债务人的两名重要支持者Feng Zhu（朱峰）和李亚；后者当时正在辞去其职务。值得注意的是，朱峰和李亚并未真正指挥HCHKV的诉讼工作，该等工作实际上由（未被起诉的共谋者）张永兵代表债务人策划。李亚随后作为政府证人，在刑事审判中作了长篇证词，其中陈述，除其他事项外，2023年4月其被联邦羁押期间，王雁通过其律师指示李亚签署与HCHK实体所谓纽约州转让程序有关的文件。李女士还证称，张永兵曾要求她就HCHK对抗程序签署一份虚假宣誓书。\nii. Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司）\n\n172. Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.（“Hudson Diamond BVI”）是在英属维尔京群岛设立的实体，名义上由债务人的儿子郭强所有，郭强也是其唯一董事。根据所知及信念，王雁和Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）协调设立了Hudson Diamond BVI。债务人利用Hudson Diamond BVI名义持有Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）的所有权；受托人已在《修订后的第一份》中就该实体提出指称。\n\n75 《驳回撤销缺席动议的判决备忘录和命令》，第16-19页，对抗程序编号23-05013，案卷编号264。\n\n综合另我起诉书为债务人的另我人格，并由债务人享有衡平所有权。根据信息和信念，Hudson Diamond BVI（哈德逊钻石英属维尔京群岛）除持有Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团股份有限公司）的所有权，以及在Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）最初设立后短暂期间内、将该所有权权益转让给Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股公司）之前持有Hudson Diamond NY的所有权外，未从事任何商业活动或其他行为。\n\niii. Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（无限资金管理公司）\n\n173. Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（“Infinity Treasury”）是一家在Delaware（特拉华州）设立、名义上由债务人的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）所有的实体。债务人利用Infinity Treasury持有Lamp Capital（灯资本公司）的名义所有权；本院已裁定Lamp Capital为债务人的另我人格并由债务人享有衡平所有权。[76] 根据信息和信念，Infinity Treasury除持有Lamp Capital的所有权以及在Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding（灯资本对抗程序）中与受托人进行诉讼外，未从事任何商业活动或其他行为。\n\n174. 在2023年3月的证言录取中，当被问及Infinity Treasury是否属于一组登记在其儿子名下、但实际上由债务人拥有和控制的实体时，债务人援引了美国宪法第五修正案。[77]\n\n175. Infinity Treasury是Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding中的被告之一，且未履行对受托人起诉书作出答复的义务。此后，Infinity Treasury与Lamp Capital一同出庭，就本院在Lamp Capital Adversary Proceeding中作出缺席判决提出异议，但该异议未获支持。[78]\n\n76 准许缺席判决动议并驳回撤销缺席交叉动议的决定备忘录及命令，Adv. Proc No. 23-05023，Docket No. 63。\n\n77 债务人2023年3月2日证言录取笔录，第54页。\n\n78 准许缺席判决动议并驳回撤销缺席交叉动议的决定备忘录及命令，Adv. Proc No. 23-05023，Docket No. 63。\n\nI. Hong Kong Shell Companies（香港空壳公司）\n\n176. 债务人控制了众多在Hong Kong（香港）设立的实体；债务人的家庭成员、雇员、受控公司或其他代理人在该等实体中担任名义股东和/或董事，且债务人利用该等实体代表其本人从事金融交易和/或持有资产，如下文分别界定（统称为“Hong Kong Shell Companies”）。\n\na. Strong Country Holdings Group Limited（强国控股集团有限公司，简称“Strong Country”）是一家香港实体，名义上由债务人的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）持有95%的权益，并由债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（石丽）持有5%的权益。Strong Country的董事为Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），公司秘书为Annie Lau Lai Chun（刘丽珍）；二人均为债务人的雇员，公司注册地址位于香港South Bay Road 22号，该房产根据信息和信念由债务人所有。债务人利用Strong Country持有位于China（中国）Beijing（北京）Xicheng District（西城区）Houhai Beiyan 19号的不动产所有权。Strong Country就一项贷款协议提供担保质押；根据该协议，一家名为Roscalitar2（Roscalitar2）的实体向债务人发放贷款（“Roscalitar Loan”），以换取对债务人众多资产的质押，其中包括Strong Country和Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）；后者为Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）的母公司，而Genever Holdings LLC持有Sherry Netherland apartment（雪莉荷兰公寓）的所有权。正如受托人在其针对Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）就Sherry Netherland apartment提起诉讼所提交的诉状中所述，在债务人与PAX（PAX）之间的诉讼中，Genever Holdings Corporation向Roscalitar2提供的质押成为一个有争议的问题；债务人在一段时间内基于该质押错误地主张，Sherry Netherland不知何故不受PAX强制执行的约束。[79] 根据信息和信念，Roscalitar Loan的款项包括Roscalitar2向债务人的实体Alfa Global Ventures Limited（阿尔法环球风险投资有限公司）和Alfonso Global Limited（阿方索环球有限公司）转移的逾$1 billion资金，该等资金随后被转移至其他由债务人控制的实体，并用于购买包括Sherry Netherland apartment、Lady May yacht（Lady May游艇）和债务人的London Apartment（伦敦公寓）在内的资产。\n\nb. Joincorp International Limited（卓因科普国际有限公司，简称“Joincorp International”）名义上由债务人的女儿Mei Guo（郭美）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一董事。[80] 根据信息和信念，债务人利用Joincorp International在Taiwan（台湾）设立一项或多项商业企业。根据该公司向Hong Kong Companies Registry（香港公司注册处）提交的最新周年申报表，该公司的记录保存在香港Bank of China Tower（中国银行大厦）49层的同一地址；正如Amended First Alter Ego Complaint（经修订的第一份综合另我起诉书）中所述，该地址被众多其他由债务人控制的公司用作地址。\n\nc. Canadian Agri-product Monetary Investments Limited（加拿大农产品货币投资有限公司，简称“Canadian Agri-product”）名义上由债务人的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一董事。Canadian Agri-product的注册地址为债务人在香港的豪宅South Bay Road 20号；该豪宅名义上由Leading Shine Limited（领耀有限公司）所有，该公司是First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint（第一份综合另我起诉书）中所提出的另我主张的对象。债务人利用Canadian Agri-product持有香港多辆车辆的所有权，包括一辆Toyota（丰田）、一辆Maybach（迈巴赫）和一辆Land Rover（路虎）。\n\nd. Eagle Eye Investments Limited（鹰眼投资有限公司，简称“Eagle Eye Investments”）名义上由债务人的雇员Kesen Yang（杨科森）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一董事。债务人利用Eagle Eye Investments，除其他事项外，持有一家在People's Republic of China（“PRC”，中华人民共和国）设立、名为Eagle Eye (Zheng Zhou) Investments Service Co. Ltd.（鹰眼〔郑州〕投资服务有限公司）的公司的所有权。\n\ne. Glory Asia (H.K.) Limited（荣耀亚洲〔香港〕有限公司，简称“Glory Asia”）名义上由债务人的家庭成员Zongchao Yue（岳宗超）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一董事。根据信息和信念，债务人利用Glory Asia经营石油业务并为New Dynamic Development Limited（新动力发展有限公司）提供资金；该实体是根据一份单独起诉书提出的另我主张的对象。\n\nf. Gold Perfect Limited（金完美有限公司，简称“Gold Perfect”）名义上由债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（石丽）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一董事。债务人利用Gold Perfect持有一家同名的独立PRC公司的所有权。根据该公司向Hong Kong Companies Registry（香港公司注册处）提交的最新周年申报表，该公司的记录保存在香港Bank of China Tower（中国银行大厦）49层的同一地址；正如Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，该地址被众多其他由债务人控制的公司用作地址。\n\ng. Group Dynasty Limited（集团王朝有限公司，简称“Group Dynasty”）名义上由债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（石丽）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一董事。债务人利用Group Dynasty持有一家同名的独立PRC公司的所有权。根据该公司向Hong Kong Companies Registry（香港公司注册处）提交的最新周年申报表，该公司的记录保存在香港Bank of China Tower（中国银行大厦）49层的同一地址；正如Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，该地址被众多其他由债务人控制的公司用作地址。\n\n80 如First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，\n\n同一地址位于香港Bank of China Tower（中国银行大厦）49层；正如Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，该地址被众多其他由债务人控制的公司用作地址。\n\nh. Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司，简称“HK International”）名义上由债务人的女儿Mei Guo（郭美）所有。正如First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint以及受托人在Adversary Proceeding No. 22-05003（“HK USA Adversary Proceeding”）中提交的诉状所述，该实体此前持有Lady May yacht的所有权。本院或许记得，Natasha Qu（瞿娜莎）于2017年6月无对价地将其声称拥有的HK International所有权转让给Mei Guo，并且于2020年4月，HK International无对价地将其声称拥有的Lady May所有权转让给HK USA（香港美国公司）。此外，正如Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，债务人利用HK International在其空壳公司之间转移数亿美元。其中一部分资金随后被用于在2015年2月购买Lady May（约€ 25.2 million），并在2015年3月购买Sherry Netherland apartment（约$70 million），以及为设立Golden Spring（$19 million）提供资金。\n\ni. Kingdom Rich Limited（富国有限公司，简称“Kingdom Rich”）名义上由债务人的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一董事。债务人在Lady May II（Lady May II游艇）转让给HK USA之前，利用Kingdom Rich持有其较小游艇Lady May II的所有权；HK USA在受托人于债务人的破产案件中发现该游艇时持有Lady May II的所有权。\n\nj. New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）名义上由Joy Chance Holdings Limited（喜机控股有限公司）所有；后者名义上由债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（石丽）所有，其亦担任该公司的两名董事之一，另一名董事为债务人的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）。根据信息和信念，债务人利用New Miracle Limited在Taiwan（台湾）进行一项或多项投资。根据该公司向Hong Kong Companies Registry（香港公司注册处）提交的最新周年申报表，该公司的记录保存在香港Bank of China Tower（中国银行大厦）49层的同一地址；正如Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，该地址被众多其他由债务人控制的公司用作地址。\n\nk. Pacific King Investment Limited（太平洋王投资有限公司，简称“Pacific King”）名义上由债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（石丽）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一股东。根据信息和信念，债务人利用Pacific King处理与其私人飞机机组人员管理有关的交易。根据该公司向Hong Kong Companies Registry（香港公司注册处）提交的最新周年申报表，该公司的记录保存在香港Bank of China Tower（中国银行大厦）49层的同一地址；正如Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，该地址被众多其他由债务人控制的公司用作地址。\n\nl. Rich Group Development Limited（富集团发展有限公司，简称“Rich Group”）名义上由债务人的雇员Yan Su（苏燕）所有，其亦担任该公司的唯一股东。根据信息和信念，债务人利用Rich Group订立与Beijing（北京）建设项目有关的协议。根据该公司向Hong Kong Companies Registry（香港公司注册处）提交的最新周年申报表，该公司的注册地址为香港Bank of China Tower（中国银行大厦）49层的同一地址；正如Amended First Omnibus Alter Ego Complaint中所述，该地址被众多其他由债务人控制的公司用作地址。\n\n177. 每一家Hong Kong Shell Companies均具有一家公司的关键特征\n\n由债务人支配和控制：一名顺从的挂名人，无论其为家庭成员、雇员或其他下属，在形式上负责管理，但经营目的完全属于债务人。此外，在每一情形中，根据现有信息和确信，这些公司均在债务人的办公室运营，债务人的助理（先是 Natasha Qu（瞿娜塔莎），后为 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特））一直在该处保存公司名单，明确表明它们是债务人的公司。鉴于这些情况，并考虑到债务人设立人格混同空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就每一家香港空壳公司获得人格混同裁定。\n\nJ. BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司）\n\n178. 债务人控制了众多在 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）注册成立的实体，债务人的家庭成员、雇员、受其控制的公司或其他代理人担任该等实体的名义股东和/或董事，且债务人利用该等实体代表其进行金融交易和/或持有资产，具体如下界定（以下简称“BVI Shell Companies（英属维尔京群岛空壳公司）”）。\n\na. AA Global Ventures Limited（AA环球创投有限公司，以下简称“AA Global Ventures”）据现有信息和确信由 Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司，以下简称“Anton Development”）名义持有；Anton Development 是一家由债务人控制的公司，也是经修订的第一份综合人格混同起诉状中人格混同主张所涉公司之一。根据 BVI 公司文件，Anton Development 还担任 AA Global Ventures 的董事。在 AAGV 被置于债务人之女 Mei Guo（郭梅）的名义所有之下前，债务人曾利用 AA Global Ventures 持有另一家 BVI 空壳公司 AAGV（如下文所述）的所有权。\n\nb. AAGV Limited（以下简称“AAGV”）据现有信息和确信由债务人之女 Mei Guo 名义持有，后者担任该公司的唯一董事。据现有信息和确信，债务人利用 AAGV 作为在香港股票市场投资证券及向 Anton Development 转移资金的工具。在 2018 年 10 月 5 日的香港警方报告（以下简称“Hong Kong Police Report（香港警方报告）”）及 2018 年 10 月 23 日的香港限制令（以下简称“Hong Kong Restraint Order（香港限制令）”）中，AAGV 的资产被认定为受债务人实际控制。\n\nc. Assets Sino Limited（中资资产有限公司，以下简称“Assets Sino”）据现有信息和确信由债务人的侄女 Lihong Guo（郭丽红）名义持有，后者担任唯一董事。据现有信息和确信，债务人利用 Assets Sino 作为在香港股票市场进行交易的工具。香港警方报告称，尽管 Lihong Guo 担任 Assets Sino 的董事，但其并未运营该公司的银行账户；该等账户系依债务人指示开立，并由债务人的助理 Natasha Qu 控制。\n\nd. Auspicious Coast Limited（吉祥海岸有限公司，以下简称“Auspicious Coast”）据现有信息和确信由债务人的嫂子或弟媳 Lichun Guo（郭丽春）名义持有。Lichun Guo 及另一家由债务人控制的公司 Next Tycoon Investments Limited（新大亨投资有限公司，该公司名义上由债务人的厨师 Han Chunguang（韩春光）持有）担任 Auspicious Coast 的董事。据现有信息和确信，债务人利用 Auspicious Coast 作为在香港股票市场进行交易的工具。香港警方报告称，尽管 Lichun Guo 担任 Auspicious Coast 的董事，但其并未运营该公司的银行账户；该等账户系依债务人指示开立，并由债务人的助理 Natasha Qu 控制。\n\ne. Guang Hong Limited（广鸿有限公司，以下简称“Guang Hong”）据现有信息和确信由债务人的兄弟 Wencun Guo（郭文存，亦称 Man Chuen Kwok）名义持有，后者还担任该公司的唯一董事。美国联邦调查局（FBI）从 Yvette Wang 的公寓中查获的文件将 Guang Hong 确认为投资工具。\n\nf. Head Win Group Limited（海德赢集团有限公司，以下简称“Head Win”）据现有信息和确信由债务人的亲属 Zhang Wei（张伟）名义持有，Zhang Wei 与债务人的雇员 Ren Meizi（任美子）担任 Head Win 的董事。2016 年 Bombardier（庞巴迪）私人飞机被转让给 Anton Development 之前，债务人曾利用 Head Win 持有该飞机的所有权。如法院在对抗程序案号 23-05008（以下简称“Mei Guo Adversary Proceeding（郭梅对抗程序）”）中作出的简易判决裁定所述，除其他事项外，债务人曾表示 Head Win 是“一家单一目的公司，其唯一目的为持有该飞机”。[81]\n\ng. Joy Chance Holdings Limited（喜机会控股有限公司，以下简称“Joy Chance”）据现有信息和确信由债务人的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志乐）名义持有，后者还担任该公司的唯一董事。据现有信息和确信，债务人利用 Joy Chance 持有上文所述香港空壳公司之一 New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）的所有权；债务人据现有信息和确信曾利用该公司在台湾进行一项或多项投资。\n\nh. Long Gate Limited（长门有限公司，以下简称“Long Gate”）据现有信息和确信由债务人的雇员 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）名义持有。该公司的董事为债务人的亲属 Zhang Wei。据现有信息和确信，债务人利用 Long Gate 作为 Roscalitar Loan（Roscalitar 贷款，上文已述）项下的借款人。\n\ni. Sail Victory Limited（航胜有限公司，以下简称“Sail Victory”）据现有信息和确信由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）名义持有，后者担任该公司的唯一董事。债务人利用 Sail Victory 作为对 Reverence Capital Partners Fund（Reverence Capital Partners 基金）进行投资的工具，该账户现以 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）名义持有。[82]\n\n179. 与香港空壳公司一样，每一家 BVI 空壳公司均具有由债务人支配和控制的公司所共有的关键特征：一名顺从的挂名人，无论其为家庭成员、雇员或其他下属，在形式上负责管理，但经营目的属于债务人。此外，在每一情形中，根据现有信息和确信，这些公司均在债务人的办公室运营，债务人的助理（先是 Natasha Qu，后为 Yvette Wang）一直在该处保存公司名单，明确表明它们是债务人的公司。鉴于这些情况，并考虑到债务人设立人格混同空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就每一家 BVI 空壳公司获得人格混同裁定。\n\n81 See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 7, Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Docket No. 126.\n\n82 See Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Entry of Order Pursuant to Sections 105(a), 363(b), 541, and 542 of Bankruptcy Code Approving Liquidation of VCTR Shares, Distribution of Proceeds, and Related Relief, Main Case Docket No. 3203.\n\nK. Other Off-Shore Shell Companies（其他离岸空壳公司）\n\n180. 债务人控制了若干在其他离岸司法管辖区注册成立的实体，债务人的家庭成员、雇员、受其控制的公司或其他代理人担任该等实体的名义股东和/或董事，且债务人利用该等实体代表其进行金融交易和/或持有资产，具体如下界定（以下统称“Other Shell Companies（其他空壳公司）”）。\n\na. Alzarro Enterprises Ltd.（阿尔扎罗企业有限公司，以下简称“Alzarro”）是一家在 Nevis（尼维斯）注册成立的实体，据现有信息和确信由债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo 名义持有，Qiang Guo 和债务人的雇员 Lam Teck Hua（林德华）担任董事。Alzarro 是 Blue Capital Limited（蓝资本有限公司）作为贷款人提供的一项 $560 million 贷款（以下简称“Blue Capital Loan（蓝资本贷款）”）有关融资协议项下的借款人。债务人和 Qiang Guo 均为 Blue Capital Loan 的保证人；Leading Shine Limited (BVI)（领盛有限公司〔英属维尔京群岛〕，经修订的第一份综合人格混同起诉状中人格混同主张所涉实体，且为债务人香港豪宅的产权持有人）以及 Genever Holding Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司，Genever Holding LLC 的唯一成员，后者为 Sherry Netherland apartment（雪莉·尼德兰公寓）的产权持有人）均根据该融资协议提供了质押。如受托人在其就 Sherry Netherland apartment 对 Bravo Luck Limited（幸运有限公司）提起的诉讼中提交的诉状所述，Genever Holdings Corporation 向 Blue Capital 作出的质押在债务人与 PAX 的诉讼中成为争议问题，因为债务人在一段时间内基于该质押作出虚假主张，称 Sherry Netherland 不知何故不受 PAX 强制执行的约束。[83]\n\nb. BSA Strategic Fund I（BSA 战略基金一号，以下简称“BSA Fund”）是一家在 Cayman Islands（开曼群岛）注册成立的实体，据现有信息和确信由 BSA Capital Management Limited（BSA 资本管理有限公司）名义持有。据现有信息和确信，债务人利用 BSA Fund 通过汇集其他由债务人控制的公司的投资，在香港证券交易所进行交易。根据香港限制令，BSA Fund 的资产受债务人实际控制。\n\nc. Insight Phoenix Fund（洞察凤凰基金）是一家在 Cayman Islands 注册成立的实体，据现有信息和确信由 Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited（凤凰资本管理〔开曼〕有限公司）名义持有。据现有信息和确信，债务人利用 Insight Phoenix Fund 通过汇集其他由债务人控制的公司的投资，在香港证券交易所进行交易。\n\n83 See Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation of Purported Trust Agreement in Favor of Bravo Luck and, (II) in Alternative, Ruling That Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer in Favor of Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo Pursuant to Section 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law, Made Applicable by Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code ¶¶ 61-64, Adv. Proc No. 22- 05027, Docket No. 40.\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3926，提交日期 12/23/24，录入日期 12/23/24 22:22:35，第 70 页，共 130 页\n\n根据香港限制令，Insight Phoenix Fund 的资产受债务人实际控制。\n\n181. 其他空壳公司由债务人支配和控制。Alzarro 呈现出一种典型模式：债务人的儿子担任顺从的挂名人，而该公司参与债务人的一项交易，该交易涉及以债务人在香港和纽约的豪宅价值作质押。对于 BSA Fund 和 Insight Phoenix Fund，挂名所有权尚未得到确认，但根据香港法院的一项判决，该等实体的资产受债务人控制。事实上，债务人以其其他公司为 BSA Fund 和 Insight Phoenix Fund 提供资金，以便它们按照其指示投资香港股票市场。鉴于这些情况，并考虑到债务人设立人格混同空壳公司的过往记录，受托人有权就每一家其他空壳公司获得人格混同裁定。\n\nIII. Tolling Order（时效中止命令）\n\n182. 2024 年 2 月 15 日，法院作出《部分准许延长期限动议的裁定及决定备忘录》[Main Case Docket No. 2921]（以下简称“Tolling Order（时效中止命令）”），其中法院依据 Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)，将 Bankruptcy Code Sections 108, 546, and 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\n183. 法院在时效中止命令中认定，自 Petition Date（申请日）起，除其他事项外，债务人提交了不完整或不准确的财产清单及财务状况声明，未向受托人提供账簿和记录，并且以其他方式未与受托人合作，均公然无视其作为 Bankruptcy Code（破产法）项下债务人的义务。[84]\n\n84 Tolling Order, at 14.\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3926，提交日期 12/23/24，录入日期 12/23/24 22:22:35，第 71 页，共 130 页\n\n184. 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[Mei] Guo（郭梅）以及据称由……债务人控制的实体，因未交付资产及滥用证据开示程序而构成藐视法庭”即为证明。[85] 法院认定，在这些合并管理的第11章案件中，“不遵守本法院命令的情形是非同寻常的”，[86]且面对该等妨碍，受托人的调查“一直不止于合理勤勉”。[87]\n\n185. 2024年8月14日，法院作出《关于准许延长受托人提起撤销诉讼期限的第二次动议或期限延长的命令 [主案卷宗编号 3417]》（以下简称“第二份时效中止命令”）。该命令中，法院根据《破产程序规则》9006(b)，将《破产法典》第108、546及549条规定的受托人为破产财产提起撤销诉讼及其他诉讼，以及修改任何待决起诉状的期限，延长至并包括2025年2月15日。\n\n186. 法院在第二份时效中止命令中认定，受托人已证明存在《破产程序规则》9006(b)规定的正当理由，包括但不限于：(1) 债务人刑事案件尚在审理；(2) 债务人持续藐视法庭，且未履行《破产法典》第521条规定的法定义务；(3) 其他当事人持续藐视法庭；(4) 债务人财务事项的复杂性；(5) 受托人在其调查中的勤勉。[88]\n\n187. 受托人在调查及追究本起诉状所主张的请求方面已勤勉行事。\n\n85 同上，第15页。86 同上。\n\n87 同上，第17页。88 第二份时效中止命令，第3页。\n\n188. 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因素，衡平考量明显支持对适用于本案所主张请求的任何诉讼时效实行衡平中止。\n\n第一项请求\n（确认判决：Crane（克兰）为债务人的另一个自我，并命令向受托人交付Crane的资产）\n\n189. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指称。\n\n190. 纽约州法律适用于该另一个自我请求，因为Crane是纽约州实体。[89]\n\n191. Crane是债务人的另一个自我，理由包括：\n\na. Crane名义上的所有人及管理人系债务人的代理人，其薪酬由债务人控制的其他公司支付。\n\nb. Crane与债务人及债务人的其他空壳公司共用同一办公场所。\n\nc. Crane唯一的业务是为债务人及其空壳公司设立银行账户和划转资金。\n\nd. 债务人控制Crane银行账户中的资金。\n\n89. 根据纽约州法律，寻求作出另一个自我裁定的一方必须证明：“(1) 被指称的另一个自我‘就涉案交易而言对公司行使了完全控制；且(2) 该等控制被用于实施欺诈或不法行为，从而损害了寻求刺破公司面纱的一方。’”Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber, 720 F. App'x 639 (2d Cir. 2017)（引自 Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y.2014)）。第一项要件中所指的控制，应根据对十项衡平因素的考量加以确定：“(1) 缺乏构成公司存续不可分割部分的手续及形式要件，即发行股票、选举董事、保存公司记录等；(2) 资本不足；(3) 资金是否出于个人而非公司目的被投入公司或从公司取出；(4) 所有权、高级职员、董事及人员的重叠；(5) 公司实体共用办公空间、地址和电话号码；(6) 被指称受控制公司所表现出的业务自主裁量程度；(7) 关联公司是否以独立交易原则与受控制公司进行交易；(8) 公司是否被视为独立的利润中心；(9) 集团内其他公司是否支付或担保受控制公司的债务；以及(10) 涉案公司是否拥有被其他公司如同其自有财产般使用的财产。”同上（引自 Liberty Synergistics, 50 F.Supp.3d，第296页）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 73 页，共 130 页\n\n192. 在所有相关期间内，债务人对一个或多个债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中请求的救济。\n\n193. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 确认：(a) Crane在任何时候均为债务人的另一个自我；(b) Crane在债务人2022年2月15日申请日之前任何时候持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及(c) Crane自债务人于2022年2月15日提出第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成且构成债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将Crane的任何及全部资产交付给受托人。\n\n第二项请求\n（确认判决：债务人为Crane及其资产的衡平所有人，并命令向受托人交付Crane及其资产的所有权）\n\n194. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指称。\n\n195. 上文讨论的、证明Crane为债务人另一个自我的相同事实，也支持债务人为Crane及其资产的衡平所有人的结论。[90]\n\n196. 在所有相关期间内，债务人对一个或多个债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中请求的救济。\n\n90. 参见 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]……行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并仿佛其资产仅由其本人管理一般行事”时，即可确立衡平所有权）（强调为原文所加）。\n\n197. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 确认Crane中的所有权权益及Crane的资产，在所有相关期间内，视具体情况而定，均为且曾为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将Crane中的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及Crane的资产，交付给受托人。\n\n第三项请求\n（确认判决：GS Security（GS安保）为债务人的另一个自我，并命令向受托人交付GS Security的资产）\n\n198. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指称。\n\n199. 纽约州法律适用于该另一个自我请求，因为GS Security是纽约州实体。[91]\n\n200. GS Security是债务人的另一个自我，理由包括：\n\na. GS Security名义上的所有人及管理人系债务人的代理人。\n\nb. GS Security的业务是为债务人及其家人提供安保服务。\n\nc. GS Security的工作在债务人的住所进行。\n\nd. GS Security由债务人通过其空壳公司及支持者提供资金。\n\n91. 根据纽约州法律，寻求作出另一个自我裁定的一方必须证明：“(1) 被指称的另一个自我‘就涉案交易而言对公司行使了完全控制；且(2) 该等控制被用于实施欺诈或不法行为，从而损害了寻求刺破公司面纱的一方。’”Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber, 720 F. App'x 639 (2d Cir. 2017)（引自 Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y.2014)）。第一项要件中所指的控制，应根据对十项衡平因素的考量加以确定：“(1) 缺乏构成公司存续不可分割部分的手续及形式要件，即发行股票、选举董事、保存公司记录等；(2) 资本不足；(3) 资金是否出于个人而非公司目的被投入公司或从公司取出；(4) 所有权、高级职员、董事及人员的重叠；(5) 公司实体共用办公空间、地址和电话号码；(6) 被指称受控制公司所表现出的业务自主裁量程度；(7) 关联公司是否以独立交易原则与受控制公司进行交易；(8) 公司是否被视为独立的利润中心；(9) 集团内其他公司是否支付或担保受控制公司的债务；以及(10) 涉案公司是否拥有被其他公司如同其自有财产般使用的财产。”同上（引自 Liberty Synergistics, 50 F.Supp.3d，第296页）。\n\n201. 在所有相关期间内，债务人对一个或多个债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中请求的救济。\n\n202. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 确认：(a) GS Security在任何时候均为债务人的另一个自我；(b) GS Security在债务人2022年2月15日申请日之前任何时候持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及(c) GS Security自债务人于2022年2月15日提出第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成且构成债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将GS Security的任何及全部资产交付给受托人。\n\n第四项请求\n（确认判决：债务人为GS Security及其资产的衡平所有人，并命令向受托人交付GS Security及其资产的所有权）\n\n203. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指称。\n\n204. 上文讨论的、证明GS Security为债务人另一个自我的相同事实，也支持债务人为GS Security及其资产的衡平所有人的结论。[92]\n\n205. 在所有相关期间内，债务人对一个或多个债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中请求的救济。\n\n92. 参见 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]……行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并仿佛其资产仅由其本人管理一般行事”时，即可确立衡平所有权）（强调为原文所加）。\n\n206. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 确认GS Security中的所有权权益及GS Security的资产，在所有相关期间内，视具体情况而定，均为且曾为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将GS Security中的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及GS Security的资产，交付给受托人。\n\n第五项请求\n（确认判决：HGA Property（HGA地产）为债务人的另一个自我，并命令向受托人交付HGA Property的资产）\n\n207. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指称。\n\n208. 新泽西州法律适用于该另一个自我请求，因为HGA Property是新泽西州实体。[93]\n\n209. HGA Property是债务人的另一个自我，理由包括：\n\na. HGA Property（HGA房地产）的名义所有人和管理人员均为债务人的代理人。\n\nb. 债务人利用HGA Property管理其Mahwah Mansion（马瓦宅邸）房产。\n\nc. 债务人利用HGA Property支付其费用。\n\nd. 债务人通过其支持者为HGA Property提供资金。\n\n93 State Cap. Title & Abstract Co. v. Pappas Bus. Servs., LLC, 646 F. Supp. 2d 668, 679 (D.N.J. 2009)（“在新泽西州，刺破公司面纱必须证明两个要件：第一，利益和所有权必须具有如此高度的一致性，以致公司与个人的独立人格已不复存在。第二，相关情形必须表明，恪守公司独立存在的拟制将纵容欺诈或助长不公……在确定第一项要件下是否存在利益和所有权的一致性时，第三巡回法院适用以下六项不具约束力的因素来指导该项审查：[1] 严重资本不足……[2] ‘未遵守公司形式要求、未支付股息，[3] 债务公司当时无力偿债，[4] 控股股东抽取公司资金，[5] 其他高级职员或董事不履职、缺乏公司记录，以及[6] 公司仅仅是控股股东或股东经营活动的幌子。……对于第二项要件，原告无需证明普通法上的欺诈，而应证明被告通过公司形式实施了欺诈、不公或类似行为；这是一项要求较低的标准。”）（省略内部引注）。\n\n210. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n211. 因此，受托人请求法院根据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出裁定：（1）宣告：(a) HGA Property在任何时候均为债务人的另一自我；(b) HGA Property在债务人于February 15, 2022提出破产申请之日前任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及(c) HGA Property自债务人于February 15, 2022提出chapter 11申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视情况而定，曾构成并且构成债务人chapter 11破产财产的一部分；以及（2）命令将HGA Property的任何及全部资产交付给受托人。\n\n第六项请求\n（宣告债务人为HGA Property及其资产的衡平所有人，并命令向受托人移交HGA Property及其资产的所有权）\n\n212. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n213. 上文所述、证明HGA Property为债务人另一自我的相同事实，也支持债务人为HGA Property及其资产的衡平所有人的结论。[94]\n\n94 参见Kartzman v. Beiman (In re Beiman), No. 15-10488 (JKS), 2018 WL 6978705, *4 (Bankr. D. N. J. Mar. 19, 2018)（法院认为，在下列一项或多项情形下，债务人对财产享有衡平权益：(1) 债务人的资金被用于取得该财产；(2) 债务人表示其对该财产享有权益，或者利用该财产取得信贷；或(3) 涉及曾由债务人拥有、后转让给第三方的财产（通常是在面临债权人压力时））；In re NJ Affordable Homes Corp., No. 05-60442 (DHS), 2006 WL 2128624, *8 (Bankr. D.N.J. June 29, 2006)（根据债务人欺诈行为的模式和做法，认定债务人为新泽西州法律下财产的衡平所有人；债务人为购买房产提供资金，将房产所有权登记在第三方名下，同时维持事实上的控制权和所有权）。\n\n214. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n215. 因此，受托人请求法院根据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出裁定：（1）宣告HGA Property的所有权权益以及HGA Property的资产，在所有相关期间，视情况而定，均为债务人或债务人chapter 11破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令向受托人移交HGA Property的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及HGA Property的资产。\n\n第七项请求\n（宣告债务人为Thousand Stars（千星）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交Thousand Stars及其资产的所有权）\n\n216. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n217. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为Thousand Stars及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n218. 其中包括：\n\na. Thousand Stars由债务人通过其代理人控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用Thousand Stars在Abu Dhabi（阿布扎比）运营其G Club计划。\n\nc. Thousand Stars由债务人提供资金。\n\n219. 根据ADGM法律，这些事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) Haoran He（何浩然）在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或归复信托项下被视为仅为债务人利益持有Thousand Stars所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；以及(b) Thousand Stars在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或归复信托项下被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有资产之所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[95]\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3926 于12/23/24提交 于12/23/24 22:22:35录入 第79页，共130页\n\n220. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n221. 因此，受托人请求法院根据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出裁定：（1）宣告Thousand Stars及其资产在所有相关期间，视情况而定，均为债务人或债务人chapter 11破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令向受托人移交该等资产、Thousand Stars的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权。\n\n第八项请求\n（宣告债务人为H Reserve Management（H储备管理）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交H Reserve Management及其资产的所有权）\n\n222. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n223. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为H Reserve Management及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n224. 其中包括：\n\n95 例如，参见Adv. Proc No. 23-05008 [Docket No. 126], at 30-31（“英国普通法承认，法定所有人可能是‘裸信托受托人’，为对资产享有完全控制权的受益所有人的利益并依其酌处持有资产。Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Silverts Ld. [1951] 1 Ch 521 (EWCA) at 526 (Eng.); Jenkins v. Walker (In re Blandy Jenkins' Estate) [1917] 1 Ch 46; Christie v. Ovington (1875) 1 Ch. D. 279; Meaning of ‘bare trustee’, 92 HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND ¶ 194 (5th ed. 2019)。裸信托受托人与受益所有人之间的关系无需以书面形式确定，可根据案件事实和情形予以认定。Pleshakov v. Sky StreamCorporation [2021] UKPC 15 [¶¶ 47–48]; Tang v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2019] UKFTT 81 (TC); *Purba v. Purba [*2000] 1 FLR 444 (EWCA) (Eng).”）；Prest v Petrodel [2013] 2 AC 415 at [52]（个人不当利用离岸架构逃避其债务时，产生归复信托）；Cobussen v Akbar [2020] EWHC 2805 (QB)（为执行一项有关伦敦房产的判决而设定归复信托；尽管判决债务人否认其对该房产享有受益权益，但法院认定该判决债务人为通过离岸公司持有的该房产购买提供资金，而该离岸公司的股东受该判决债务人指示）。\n\na. H Reserve Management由债务人通过其代理人控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用H Reserve Management在Abu Dhabi运营其Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）计划。\n\nc. H Reserve Management由债务人提供资金。\n\n225. 根据ADGM法律，这些事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) Le (“Ingrid”) Qiao（乔乐〔“英格丽德”〕）在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或归复信托项下被视为仅为债务人利益持有H Reserve Management所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；以及(b) H Reserve Management在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或归复信托项下被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有资产之所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[96]\n\n226. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n227. 因此，受托人请求法院根据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出裁定：（1）宣告H Reserve Management及其资产在所有相关期间，视情况而定，均为债务人或债务人chapter 11破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令向受托人移交该等资产、H Reserve Management的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权。\n\n第九项请求\n（宣告债务人为Delta Konsult及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交Delta Konsult及其资产的所有权）\n\n228. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n96 见上文注释96。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3926 于12/23/24提交 于12/23/24 22:22:35录入 第81页，共130页\n\n229. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为Delta Konsult及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n230. 其中包括：\n\na. Delta Konsult由债务人通过其代理人控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用Delta Konsult在Abu Dhabi运营其Himalaya Exchange和G Club计划。\n\nc. Delta Konsult由债务人提供资金。\n\n231. 根据ADGM法律，这些事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) Xinfang (“Sarah”) Zhang（张新芳〔“莎拉”〕）在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或归复信托项下被视为仅为债务人利益持有Delta Konsult所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；以及(b) Delta Konsult在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或归复信托项下被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有资产之所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[97]\n\n232. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n233. 因此，受托人请求法院根据《破产法》第541、542及544条作出裁定：（1）宣告Delta Konsult及其资产在所有相关期间，视情况而定，均为债务人或债务人chapter 11破产财产的财产；以及（2）命令向受托人移交该等资产、Delta Konsult的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权。\n\n97 见上文注释96。\n\n第十项请求\n（宣告River Valley（河谷）为债务人的另一自我，并命令向受托人移交River Valley的资产）\n\n234. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n235. Indiana（印第安纳州）法律适用于该另一自我请求，因为River Valley是印第安纳州实体。[98]\n\n236. River Valley是债务人的另一自我，理由包括：\n\na. River Valley（河谷公司）的名义所有人和账户签字人均为债务人的代理人。\nb. River Valley由债务人提供资金。\nc. River Valley代表债务人向债务人的家庭成员及其控制的公司转移资金。\n\n237. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可通过行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n238. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告：(a) River Valley在任何时候均为债务人的另一个自我；(b) River Valley在债务人2022年2月15日申请日之前任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及(c) River Valley自债务人于2022年2月15日提出第11章破产申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成并构成债务人第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将River Valley的任何及全部资产移交给受托人。\n\n98 参见 JMB Mfg., Inc.（JMB制造公司）诉 Child Craft, LLC（Child Craft有限责任公司），939 F. Supp. 2d 909, 918-19 (S.D. Ind. 2013)（“请求揭开公司面纱的一方必须以优势证据证明，公司形式被如此忽视、控制或操纵，以至于其仅为他人的工具，且不揭开公司面纱将构成欺诈或不公。最常导致法院决定不顾及公司形式的做法有八种：(1) 资本不足；(2) 缺乏公司记录；(3) 公司股东或董事作出欺诈性陈述；(4) 利用公司促进欺诈、不公或非法活动；(5) 公司支付个人债务；(6) 资产及事务混同；(7) 未遵守必要的公司形式要求；或(8) 其他忽视、控制或操纵公司形式的股东行为或做法。”）（内部引文删除）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 83 页，共 130 页\n\n请愿之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及全部资产，视具体情况而定，曾构成并构成债务人第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将River Valley的任何及全部资产移交给受托人。\n\n第十一项请求\n（宣告债务人为River Valley及其资产的衡平所有人，并命令将River Valley及其资产的所有权移交给受托人）\n\n239. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n240. 上述证明River Valley为债务人另一个自我的相同事实，也支持债务人为River Valley及其资产的衡平所有人的结论。[99]\n\n241. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可通过行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n242. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告River Valley的所有权权益及River Valley的资产，在所有相关期间，视具体情况而定，均为且曾为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将River Valley的所有权权益和相关公司控制权，以及River Valley的资产，交付给受托人。\n\n99 参见 In re Miles，652 B.R. 320, 334-35 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2023)（通过适用“联邦普通法五因素检验”，处理印第安纳州在衡平所有权问题上缺乏权威依据的情形；该检验包括：“(1) 名义持有人与转让人之间存在密切的个人关系；(2) 名义持有人为该财产支付很少或未支付对价；(3) 双方预期将发生追收活动而将财产置于名义持有人名下；(4) 双方未登记该项转让；以及，(5) 转让人继续对该财产行使支配权和控制权。”）（引自 United States v. Szaflarski，614 F. App'x 836, 838-39 (7th Cir. 2015) 和 Paloian v. Dordevic (In re Dordevic)，67 F.4th 372 (7th Cir. 2023)）。\n\n第十二项请求\n（宣告债务人为Fiesta Investment（嘉年华投资）及其资产的实际受益所有人，并命令将Fiesta Investment及其资产的所有权移交给受托人）\n\n243. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n244. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为Fiesta Investment及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n245. 除其他事项外：\na. Fiesta Investment由债务人通过其代理人控制。\nb. 债务人利用Fiesta Investment向其儿子转移资金并为其儿子购买资产。\nc. 债务人通过其空壳公司为Fiesta Investment提供资金。\n\n246. 根据英国法律，该等事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) Haoran He（何浩然）在所有相关期间均为仅为债务人利益持有Fiesta Investment所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人；以及(b) Fiesta Investment在所有相关期间均为仅为债务人利益持有其名下资产所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人。[100]\n\n247. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可通过行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n248. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Fiesta Investment及其资产，在所有相关期间，视具体情况而定，均为且曾为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Fiesta Investment的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n100 参见上文注释96。\n\n第十三项请求\n（宣告债务人为Rising Sun Capital（旭日资本）及其资产的实际受益所有人，并命令将Rising Sun Capital及其资产的所有权移交给受托人）\n\n249. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n250. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为Rising Sun Capital及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n251. 除其他事项外：\na. Rising Sun Capital由债务人通过其代理人控制。\nb. 债务人利用Rising Sun Capital向其儿子转移资金。\nc. Rising Sun Capital与债务人的儿子共用地址。\nd. 债务人通过其空壳公司为Rising Sun Capital提供资金。\n\n252. 根据英国法律，该等事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) Haoran He（何浩然）在所有相关期间均为仅为债务人利益持有Rising Sun Capital所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人；以及(b) Rising Sun Capital在所有相关期间均为仅为债务人利益持有其名下资产所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人。[101]\n\n253. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可通过行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n101 参见上文注释96。\n\n254. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Rising Sun Capital及其资产，在所有相关期间，视具体情况而定，均为且曾为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Rising Sun Capital的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第十四项请求\n（宣告债务人为Ampleforth Capital（安普尔福思资本）及其资产的实际受益所有人，并命令将Ampleforth Capital及其资产的所有权移交给受托人）\n\n255. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n256. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为Ampleforth Capital及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n257. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Ampleforth Capital由债务人通过其代理人控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用Ampleforth Capital向其空壳公司转移资金。\n\nc. 债务人通过其支持者为Ampleforth Capital提供资金。\n\n258. 根据BVI法律，该等事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) Kun Ma（马坤，亦称 Kevin Ma）在所有相关期间均为仅为债务人利益持有Ampleforth Capital所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人；以及(b) Ampleforth Capital在所有相关期间均为仅为债务人利益持有其名下资产所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人。[102]\n\n102 参见上文注释96。\n\n259. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可通过行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n260. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Ampleforth Capital及其资产，在所有相关期间，视具体情况而定，均为且曾为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Ampleforth Capital的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第十五项请求\n（宣告债务人为Holy City（圣城）及其资产的实际受益所有人，并命令将Holy City及其资产的所有权移交给受托人）\n\n261. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n262. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为Holy City及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n263. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Holy City由债务人通过Yvette Wang（王薇薇）和New Federal State Corporation（新联邦州公司）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用Holy City持有其另一个自我，即HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）的所有权。\n\nc. Holy City的唯一目的，是持有HCHK实体的所有权并对受托人提起诉讼。\n\n264. 根据BVI法律，该等事实和情形足以得出如下结论：(a) Yvette Wang（王薇薇）和New Federal State Corporation（新联邦州公司）在所有相关期间，视具体情况而定，均为仅为债务人利益持有Holy City所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人；以及(b) Holy City在所有相关期间均为仅为债务人利益持有其名下资产所有权权益法定所有权的单纯名义持有人、“名义受托人”和／或根据归复信托设立的受托人。[103]\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 88 页，共 130 页\n\n归复信托设立的受托人。[103]\n\n265. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可通过行使其权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n266. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Holy City及其资产，在所有相关期间，视具体情况而定，均为且曾为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Holy City的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第十六项请求\n（宣告债务人为Hudson Diamond BVI（哈德逊钻石BVI）及其资产的实际受益所有人，并命令将Hudson Diamond BVI及其资产的所有权移交给受托人）\n\n267. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n268. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是 Hudson Diamond BVI（哈德逊钻石英属维尔京群岛公司）及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n269. 其中包括：\n\na. Hudson Diamond BVI 由债务人通过其儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Hudson Diamond BVI 持有其另一个自我的 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）的所有权。\n\nc. Hudson Diamond BVI 的唯一目的，是持有 Saraca Media Group, Inc. 的所有权。\n\n103 见上文注释96。\n案号 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第89页，共130页\n\n270. 根据英属维尔京群岛法律，这些事实和情形足以得出以下结论：(a) Qiang Guo 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或依推定信托担任的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有 Hudson Diamond BVI 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Hudson Diamond BVI 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或依推定信托担任的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[104]\n\n271. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中所请求的救济。\n\n272. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定，(1) 宣告 Hudson Diamond BVI 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且曾属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交出该等资产、Hudson Diamond BVI 的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权。\n\n第十七项请求\n（确认 Infinity Treasury（无限财政公司）系债务人的另一个自我，并命令向受托人交付 Infinity Treasury 资产的确认判决书）\n\n273. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n274. 特拉华州法律适用于该另一个自我请求，因为 Infinity Treasury 是一家特拉华州实体。[105]\n\n104 见上文注释96。105 根据特拉华州刺破公司面纱的两要件检验标准，法院在对债务人与 Infinity Treasury 之间的关系适用特拉华州另一个自我分析时，将重点审查：(1) 债务人与 Infinity Treasury 是否作为单一经济单位运作；以及 (2) 是否存在总体上的不公正或不公平要素。在确定债务人与 Infinity Treasury 是否作为单一经济单位运作时，法院\n\n275. Infinity Treasury 是债务人的另一个自我，原因包括：\n\na. 债务人通过其儿子控制 Infinity Treasury。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Infinity Treasury 持有其另一个自我 Lamp Capital（兰普资本公司）的所有权。\n\nc. Infinity Treasury 的唯一目的，是持有 Lamp Capital 的所有权并对受托人提起诉讼。\n\n276. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中所请求的救济。\n\n277. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定，(1) 宣告：(a) Infinity Treasury 在所有期间均为债务人的另一个自我；(b) Infinity Treasury 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交破产申请之日前任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Infinity Treasury 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第11章破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，均已构成并构成（视具体情况而定）债务人的第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付 Infinity Treasury 的任何及全部资产。\n\n第十八项请求\n（确认债务人系 Infinity Treasury 及其资产的衡平所有人，并命令向受托人交付 Infinity Treasury 及其资产所有权的确认判决书）\n\n278. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n在适用特拉华州法律时，将考虑多项因素，包括但不限于 Infinity Treasury 是否资本充足、是否遵守公司形式要件，以及是否为债务人的幌子。Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)。该“因素清单并非穷尽，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性。”同上，第471页。\n案号 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 登记于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第91页，共130页\n\n279. 上文所讨论、证明 Infinity Treasury 是债务人另一个自我的相同事实，也支持债务人是 Infinity Treasury 及其资产衡平所有人的结论。[106]\n\n280. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中所请求的救济。\n\n281. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定，(1) 宣告 Infinity Treasury 的所有权权益及 Infinity Treasury 的资产在所有相关期间属于且曾属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交出 Infinity Treasury 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权，以及 Infinity Treasury 的资产。\n\n第十九项请求\n（确认债务人系 Strong Country（强国公司）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人交付 Strong Country 及其资产所有权的确认判决书）\n\n282. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n283. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是 Strong Country 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n284. 其中包括：\n\na. Strong Country 由债务人通过债务人的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（倪兴芝）及债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo 控制。\n\n106 见 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（当被告“对[该公司]行使相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并如同[其]资产仅由其本人管理一般行事”时，衡平所有权成立。）（强调系原文所加）。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Strong Country 持有位于中国北京的不动产的所有权，并就 Roscalitar Loan（罗斯卡利塔贷款）质押资产。\n\nc. Strong Country 在债务人的办公室运营。\n\n285. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出以下结论：(a) Hing Chi Ngok 和 Qiang Guo 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人或“裸受托人”，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有 Strong Country 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Strong Country 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或依推定信托担任的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[107]\n\n286. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中所请求的救济。\n\n287. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定，(1) 宣告 Strong Country 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且曾属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交出该等资产、Strong Country 的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权。\n\n第二十项请求\n（确认债务人系 Joincorp International（联合国际公司）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人交付 Joincorp International 及其资产所有权的确认判决书）\n\n288. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n289. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是 Joincorp International 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n107 见上文注释96。\n\n290. 其中包括：\n\na. Joincorp International 由债务人通过债务人的女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Joincorp International 在台湾设立商业企业。\n\nc. Joincorp International 在债务人的办公室运营。\n\n291. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出以下结论：(a) Mei Guo 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或依推定信托担任的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有 Joincorp International 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Joincorp International 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或依推定信托担任的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[108]\n\n292. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中所请求的救济。\n\n293. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定，(1) 宣告 Joincorp International 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且曾属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交出该等资产、Joincorp International 的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权。\n\n108 见上文注释96。\n\n第二十一项请求\n（确认债务人系 Canadian Agri-product（加拿大农产品公司）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人交付 Canadian Agri-product 及其资产所有权的确认判决书）\n\n294. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n295. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是 Canadian Agri-product 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n296. 其中包括：\n\na. Canadian Agri-product 由债务人通过债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo 控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Canadian Agri-product 持有机动车辆的所有权。\n\nc. Canadian Agri-product 在债务人的办公室运营。\n\n297. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出以下结论：(a) Qiang Guo 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或依推定信托担任的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有 Canadian Agri-product 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Canadian Agri-product 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或依推定信托担任的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[109]\n\n298. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中所请求的救济。\n\n299. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条请求作出裁定，(1) 宣告 Canadian Agri-product 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且曾属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交出该等资产、Canadian Agri-product 的所有权权益及一切相关公司控制权。\n\n109 见上文注释96。\n\n第二十二项请求\n（确认债务人系 Eagle Eye Investments（鹰眼投资公司）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人交付 Eagle Eye Investments 及其资产所有权的确认判决书）\n\n300. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n301. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是 Eagle Eye Investments 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n302. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Eagle Eye Investments（鹰眼投资）由债务人通过债务人的雇员 Kesen Yang（杨可森）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Eagle Eye Investments 持有一家中华人民共和国公司（PRC company）的所有权。\n\nc. Eagle Eye Investments 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n303. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Kesen Yang 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”（“bare trustee”）及／或依据归复信托（resulting trust）的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有 Eagle Eye Investments 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Eagle Eye Investments 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[110]\n\n110 见上文注释96。\n\n304. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n305. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 宣告 Eagle Eye Investments 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且一直属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付该等资产、Eagle Eye Investments 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权。\n\n第二十三项请求\n（宣告债务人为 Glory Asia（荣耀亚洲）及其资产的真正实益所有人，并命令将 Glory Asia 及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n306. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n307. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Glory Asia 及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n308. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Glory Asia 由债务人通过债务人的家庭成员 Zongchao Yue（岳宗超）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Glory Asia 经营石油业务，并为其空壳公司 New Dynamic Development Limited（新动态发展有限公司）提供资金。\n\nc. Glory Asia 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n309. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Zongchao Yue 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有 Glory Asia 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Glory Asia 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[111]\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3926，于 12/23/24 提交，于 12/23/24 22:22:35 登记，第 97 页，共 130 页\n\n310. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n311. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 宣告 Glory Asia 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且一直属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付该等资产、Glory Asia 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权。\n\n第二十四项请求\n（宣告债务人为 Gold Perfect（金臻）及其资产的真正实益所有人，并命令将 Gold Perfect 及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n312. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n313. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Gold Perfect 及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n314. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Gold Perfect 由债务人通过债务人的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Gold Perfect 持有一家中华人民共和国公司（PRC company）的所有权。\n\nc. Gold Perfect 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n315. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Hing Chi Ngok 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有 Gold Perfect 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Gold Perfect 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[112]\n\n111 见上文注释96。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3926，于 12/23/24 提交，于 12/23/24 22:22:35 登记，第 98 页，共 130 页\n\n316. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n317. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 宣告 Gold Perfect 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且一直属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付该等资产、Gold Perfect 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权。\n\n第二十五项请求\n（宣告债务人为 Group Dynasty（集团王朝）及其资产的真正实益所有人，并命令将 Group Dynasty 及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n318. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n319. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Group Dynasty 及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n320. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Group Dynasty 由债务人通过债务人的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Group Dynasty 持有一家中华人民共和国公司（PRC company）的所有权。\n\nc. Group Dynasty 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n112 见上文注释96。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3926，于 12/23/24 提交，于 12/23/24 22:22:35 登记，第 99 页，共 130 页\n\n321. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Hing Chi Ngok 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有 Group Dynasty 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Group Dynasty 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[113]\n\n322. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n323. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 宣告 Group Dynasty 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且一直属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付该等资产、Group Dynasty 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权。\n\n第二十六项请求\n（宣告债务人为 HK International（香港国际）及其资产的真正实益所有人，并命令将 HK International 及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n324. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n325. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 HK International 及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n326. 除其他事项外：\n\n113 见上文注释96。\n\na. HK International 由债务人通过其女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 HK International 持有 Lady May（“Lady May”号）并代表其转移资金。\n\nc. HK International 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n327. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Mei Guo 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有 HK International 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) HK International 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[114]\n\n328. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n329. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 宣告 HK International 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且一直属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付该等资产、HK International 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权。\n\n第二十七项请求\n（宣告债务人为 Kingdom Rich（富国）及其资产的真正实益所有人，并命令将 Kingdom Rich 及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n330. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n114 见上文注释96。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 3926，于 12/23/24 提交，于 12/23/24 22:22:35 登记，第 101 页，共 130 页\n\n331. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Kingdom Rich 及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n332. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Kingdom Rich 由债务人通过其儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Kingdom Rich 持有 Lady May II（“Lady May II”号）的所有权。\n\nc. Kingdom Rich 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n333. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Qiang Guo 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有 Kingdom Rich 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Kingdom Rich 在所有相关期间一直仅为名义持有人、“名义受托人”及／或依据归复信托的受托人，被视为仅为债务人的利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[115]\n\n334. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n335. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条请求裁定：(1) 宣告 Kingdom Rich 及其资产在所有相关期间属于且一直属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令向受托人交付该等资产、Kingdom Rich 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权。\n\n115 见上文注释96。\n\n第二十八项请求\n（宣告债务人为 New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）及其资产的真正实益所有人，并命令将 New Miracle Limited 及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n336. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n337. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 New Miracle Limited 及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n338. 除其他事项外：\n\na. New Miracle Limited 由债务人通过其空壳公司 Joy Chance Holdings Limited（乐昌控股有限公司）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 New Miracle Limited 在台湾投资。\n\nc. New Miracle Limited 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n339. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：\n\n(a) Joy Chance Holdings Limited（乐昌控股有限公司）在所有相关期间均仅为债务人的名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有 New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；且 (b) New Miracle Limited 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[116]\n\n340. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其自身权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n341. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告 New Miracle Limited 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第 11 章破产财产的财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、New Miracle Limited 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人。\n\n116 见上文注释 96。\n\n第二十九项请求\n（确认债务人为 Pacific King（太平洋王）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交 Pacific King 及其资产的所有权）\n\n342. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 188 段所载的指称。\n\n343. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Pacific King 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n344. 其中包括：\n\na. Pacific King 由债务人通过其妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（邢志玉）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Pacific King 管理其私人飞机的机组人员。\n\nc. Pacific King 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n345. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Hing Chi Ngok 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有 Pacific King 所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；且 (b) Pacific King 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[117]\n\n346. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其自身权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n117 见上文注释 96。\n\n347. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告 Pacific King 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第 11 章破产财产的财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Pacific King 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人。\n\n第三十项请求\n（确认债务人为 Rich Group（富裕集团）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交 Rich Group 及其资产的所有权）\n\n348. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 188 段所载的指称。\n\n349. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Rich Group 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n350. 其中包括：\n\na. Rich Group 由债务人通过其雇员 Yan Su（苏彦）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Rich Group 签订与北京建设项目相关的协议。\n\nc. Rich Group 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n351. 根据香港法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Yan Su 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有 Rich Group 所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；且 (b) Rich Group 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[118]\n\n118 见上文注释 96。\n\n352. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其自身权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n353. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告 Rich Group 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第 11 章破产财产的财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Rich Group 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人。\n\n第三十一项请求\n（确认债务人为 AA Global Ventures（AA环球创投）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交 AA Global Ventures 及其资产的所有权）\n\n354. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 188 段所载的指称。\n\n355. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 AA Global Ventures 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n356. 其中包括：\n\na. AA Global Ventures 由债务人通过其空壳公司 Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 AA Global Ventures 持有其另一家英属维尔京群岛空壳公司 AAGV（AAGV）的所有权。\n\nc. AA Global Ventures 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n357. 根据英属维尔京群岛法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Anton Development Limited 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有 AA Global Ventures 所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；且 (b) AA Global Ventures 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[119]\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 106 of 130\n\n358. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其自身权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n359. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告 AA Global Ventures 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第 11 章破产财产的财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、AA Global Ventures 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人。\n\n第三十二项请求\n（确认债务人为 AAGV 及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交 AAGV 及其资产的所有权）\n\n360. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 188 段所载的指称。\n\n361. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 AAGV 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n362. 其中包括：\n\na. AAGV 由债务人通过其女儿 Mei Guo（郭梅）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 AAGV 作为在香港股票市场投资证券的工具。\n\nc. AAGV 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n363. 根据英属维尔京群岛法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Mei Guo 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有 AAGV 所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；且 (b) AAGV 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[120]\n\n119 见上文注释 96。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 107 of 130\n\n364. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其自身权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n365. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告 AAGV 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第 11 章破产财产的财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、AAGV 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人。\n\n第三十三项请求\n（确认债务人为 Assets Sino（华资）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交 Assets Sino 及其资产的所有权）\n\n366. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 188 段所载的指称。\n\n367. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Assets Sino 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n368. 其中包括：\n\na. AAGV 由债务人通过其侄女 Lihong Guo（郭丽红）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用 Assets Sino 作为在香港股票市场投资证券的工具。\n\nc. Assets Sino 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n120 见上文注释 96。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 108 of 130\n\n369. 根据英属维尔京群岛法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Lihong Guo 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有 Assets Sino 所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；且 (b) Assets Sino 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[121]\n\n370. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其自身权利，寻求受托人在本案中所请求的救济。\n\n371. 因此，受托人依据《破产法》第 541、542 和 544 条请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告 Assets Sino 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第 11 章破产财产的财产（视具体情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Assets Sino 的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人。\n\n第三十四项请求\n（确认债务人为 Auspicious Coast（吉祥海岸）及其资产的真实受益所有人，并命令向受托人移交 Auspicious Coast 及其资产的所有权）\n\n372. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 188 段所载的指称。\n\n373. 本文所述事实表明，债务人为 Auspicious Coast 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n374. 其中包括：\n\na. Auspicious Coast 由债务人通过其嫂子或弟媳 Lichun Guo（郭丽春）控制。\n\n121 见上文注释 96。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3926 Filed 12/23/24 Entered 12/23/24 22:22:35 Page 109 of 130\n\nb. 债务人利用 Auspicious Coast 作为在香港股票市场投资证券的工具。\n\nc. Auspicious Coast 从债务人的办公室运营。\n\n375. 根据英属维尔京群岛法律，这些事实和情形足以得出结论：(a) Lichun Guo 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有 Auspicious Coast 所有权权益法定所有权的受托人；且 (b) Auspicious Coast 在所有相关期间均仅为名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益法定所有权的受托人。[122]\n\n376. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n377. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Auspicious Coast（吉祥海岸）及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Auspicious Coast的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第三十五项请求\n（确认债务人为Guang Hong（广宏）及其资产的真正实益所有人的判决，并命令将Guang Hong及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n378. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n379. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是Guang Hong及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n122 见上文注释96。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 于 12/23/24 提交，于 12/23/24 22:22:35 登记，第110页，共130页\n\n380. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Guang Hong由债务人通过其兄弟Wencun Guo（郭文存，亦称Man Chuen Kwok）控制。\n\nb. 债务人将Guang Hong用作投资工具。\n\nc. Guang Hong由债务人的办公室运营。\n\n381. 根据BVI（英属维尔京群岛）法律，这些事实和情况足以得出如下结论：(a) 在所有相关期间，Wencun Guo（亦称Man Chuen Kwok）一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有Guang Hong所有权权益的法定所有权；以及(b) 在所有相关期间，Guang Hong一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产所有权权益的法定所有权。[123]\n\n382. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n383. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Guang Hong及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Guang Hong的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n123 见上文注释96。\n\n第三十六项请求\n（确认债务人为Head Win（海德胜）及其资产的真正实益所有人的判决，并命令将Head Win及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n384. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n385. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是Head Win及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n386. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Head Win由债务人通过其亲属Zhang Wei（张伟）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用Head Win持有其Bombardier（庞巴迪）私人飞机的所有权。\n\nc. Head Win由债务人的办公室运营。\n\n387. 根据BVI法律，这些事实和情况足以得出如下结论：(a) 在所有相关期间，Zhang Wei一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有Head Win所有权权益的法定所有权；以及(b) 在所有相关期间，Joy Chance（卓运）一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产所有权权益的法定所有权。[124]\n\n388. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n389. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Head Win及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Head Win的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n124 见上文注释96。\n\n第三十七项请求\n（确认债务人为Joy Chance及其资产的真正实益所有人的判决，并命令将Joy Chance及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n390. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n391. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是Joy Chance及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n392. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Joy Chance由债务人通过其妻子Hing Chi Ngok（邢志岳）控制。\n\nb. 债务人利用Joy Chance持有New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）的所有权，该公司是其在香港的一家空壳公司。\n\nc. Joy Chance由债务人的办公室运营。\n\n393. 根据BVI法律，这些事实和情况足以得出如下结论：(a) 在所有相关期间，Hing Chi Ngok一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有Joy Chance所有权权益的法定所有权；以及(b) 在所有相关期间，Joy Chance一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产所有权权益的法定所有权。[125]\n\n394. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n125 见上文注释96。\n\n395. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Joy Chance及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Joy Chance的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第三十八项请求\n（确认债务人为Long Gate（长门）及其资产的真正实益所有人的判决，并命令将Long Gate及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n396. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n397. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是Long Gate及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n398. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Long Gate由债务人通过其雇员Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）控制。\n\nb. 债务人将Long Gate用作Roscalitar Loan（Roscalitar贷款）项下的借款人。\n\nc. Long Gate由债务人的办公室运营。\n\n399. 根据BVI法律，这些事实和情况足以得出如下结论：(a) 在所有相关期间，Max Krasner一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有Long Gate所有权权益的法定所有权；以及(b) 在所有相关期间，Long Gate一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产所有权权益的法定所有权。[126]\n\n126 见上文注释96。\n\n400. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n401. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Long Gate及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Long Gate的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第三十九项请求\n（确认债务人为Sail Victory（凯旋号）及其资产的真正实益所有人的判决，并命令将Sail Victory及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n402. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n403. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是Sail Victory及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n404. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Sail Victory由债务人通过其儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）控制。\n\nb. 债务人将Sail Victory用作对Reverence Capital Partners Fund（Reverence Capital Partners基金）进行投资的工具。\n\nc. Sail Victory由债务人的办公室运营。\n\n405. 根据BVI法律，这些事实和情况足以得出如下结论：(a) 在所有相关期间，Qiang Guo一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有Sail Victory所有权权益的法定所有权；以及(b) 在所有相关期间，Sail Victory一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产所有权权益的法定所有权。[127]\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 于 12/23/24 提交，于 12/23/24 22:22:35 登记，第115页，共130页\n\n406. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n407. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Sail Victory及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Sail Victory的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第四十项请求\n（确认债务人为Alzarro（阿尔扎罗）及其资产的真正实益所有人的判决，并命令将Alzarro及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n408. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n409. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是Alzarro及其资产的实益所有人。\n\n410. 除其他事项外：\n\na. Alzarro由债务人通过其儿子Qiang Guo控制。\n\nb. 债务人将Alzarro用作Blue Capital Loan（Blue Capital贷款）项下的借款人。\n\nc. Alzarro由债务人的办公室运营。\n\n411. 根据Nevis（尼维斯）法律，这些事实和情况足以得出如下结论：(a) 在所有相关期间，Qiang Guo一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有Alzarro所有权权益的法定所有权；以及(b) 在所有相关期间，Alzarro一直只是名义持有人、“裸受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任的受托人，被认为仅为债务人的利益而持有以其名义持有的资产所有权权益的法定所有权。[128]\n\n127 见上文注释96。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 于 12/23/24 提交，于 12/23/24 22:22:35 登记，第116页，共130页\n\n412. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。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\n413. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Alzarro及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章破产财产的财产（视情况而定）；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Alzarro的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权交付给受托人。\n\n第四十一项请求\n（确认债务人为BSA Fund及其资产的真正实益所有人的判决，并命令将BSA Fund及其资产的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n414. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n415. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是BSA Fund（BSA基金）及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n416. 除其他事项外：\n\na. 债务人通过BSA Capital Management Limited（BSA资本管理有限公司）控制BSA Fund。\n\nb. 债务人将BSA Fund 用作在香港证券交易所进行交易的工具。\n\nc. BSA Fund 在债务人的办公室运营。\n\n128 见上文注释96。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第117页，共130页\n\n417. 根据开曼法律，该等事实和情形足以得出以下结论：(a) BSA Capital Management Limited 在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任受托人，被视为仅为债务人利益持有BSA Fund 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) BSA Fund 在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任受托人，被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[129]\n\n418. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中请求的救济。\n\n419. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告BSA Fund 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、BSA Fund 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权。\n\n第四十二项请求\n（确认债务人为Insight Phoenix Fund（Insight Phoenix基金）及其资产的真正受益所有人的确认判决，并命令将Insight Phoenix Fund 及其资产的所有权移交受托人）\n\n420. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至188段所载的指控。\n\n421. 本文所述事实表明，债务人是Insight Phoenix Fund 及其资产的受益所有人。\n\n422. 除其他事项外：\n\n129 见上文注释96。\n\na. 债务人通过Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited（凤凰资本管理〈开曼〉有限公司）控制Insight Phoenix Fund。\n\nb. 债务人将Insight Phoenix Fund 用作在香港证券交易所进行交易的工具。\n\nc. Insight Phoenix Fund 在债务人的办公室运营。\n\n423. 根据开曼法律，该等事实和情形足以得出以下结论：(a) Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited 在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任受托人，被视为仅为债务人利益持有Insight Phoenix Fund 所有权权益的法定所有权；以及 (b) Insight Phoenix Fund 在所有相关期间仅为名义持有人、“裸信托受托人”和/或根据归复信托担任受托人，被视为仅为债务人利益持有以其名义持有的资产中所有权权益的法定所有权。[130]\n\n424. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在本文中请求的救济。\n\n425. 因此，受托人根据《破产法》第541、542和544条，请求作出裁定：(1) 宣告Insight Phoenix Fund 及其资产在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、Insight Phoenix Fund 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n130 见上文注释96。\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第119页，共130页\n\n1. 就第一项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告：(a) Crane（克兰）在任何时候均为债务人的另一自我；(b) Crane 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交申请之日前任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Crane 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均曾构成且现构成（视情况而定）债务人第11章财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将Crane 的任何及所有资产交付受托人；\n\n2. 就第二项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告Crane 中的所有权权益及Crane 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交Crane 中的所有权权益及相关的公司控制权，以及Crane 的资产；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告：(a) GS Security（GS证券）在任何时候均为债务人的另一自我；(b) GS Security 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交申请之日前任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) GS Security 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均曾构成且现构成（视情况而定）债务人第11章财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将GS Security 的任何及所有资产交付受托人；\n\n4. 就第四项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告GS Security 中的所有权权益及GS Security 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交GS Security 中的所有权权益及相关的公司控制权，以及GS Security 的资产；\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第120页，共130页\n\n5. 就第五项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告：(a) HGA Property（HGA物业）在任何时候均为债务人的另一自我；(b) HGA Property 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交申请之日前任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) HGA Property 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均曾构成且现构成（视情况而定）债务人第11章财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将HGA Property 的任何及所有资产交付受托人；\n\n6. 就第六项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告HGA Property 中的所有权权益及HGA Property 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交HGA Property 中的所有权权益及相关的公司控制权，以及HGA Property 的资产；\n\n7. 就第七项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告据称由Haoran He（何浩然）持有的Thousand Stars（千星）中的所有权权益及Thousand Stars 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、Thousand Stars 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权；\n\n8. 就第八项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告据称由Le Qiao（乔乐）持有的H Reserve Management（H储备管理）中的所有权权益及H Reserve Management 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、H Reserve Management 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权；\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第121页，共130页\n\n9. 就第九项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告据称由Xinfang Zhang（张新芳）持有的Delta Konsult（德尔塔咨询）中的所有权权益及Delta Konsult 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、Delta Konsult 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权；\n\n10. 就第十项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告：(a) River Valley（河谷）在任何时候均为债务人的另一自我；(b) River Valley 在债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交申请之日前任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) River Valley 自债务人于 February 15, 2022 提交第11章申请之日起至今任何时候持有的任何及所有资产，均曾构成且现构成（视情况而定）债务人第11章财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将River Valley 的任何及所有资产交付受托人；\n\n11. 就第十一项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告River Valley 中的所有权权益及River Valley 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交River Valley 中的所有权权益及相关的公司控制权，以及River Valley 的资产；\n\n12. 就第十二项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告据称由Haoran He 持有的Fiesta Investment（嘉年华投资）中的所有权权益及Fiesta Investment 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、Fiesta Investment 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权；\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交于 12/23/24 录入于 12/23/24 22:22:35 第122页，共130页\n\n13. 就第十三项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告据称由Haoran He 持有的Rising Sun Capital（旭日资本）中的所有权权益及Rising Sun Capital 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、Rising Sun Capital 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权；\n\n14. 就第十四项请求，根据《破产法》第541、542和544条作出裁定，(1) 宣告据称由Kun Ma（马坤）持有的Ampleforth Capital（安普尔福斯资本）中的所有权权益及Ampleforth Capital 的资产，在所有相关期间均为债务人或债务人第11章财产（视情况而定）的财产；以及 (2) 命令向受托人移交该等资产、Ampleforth Capital 中的所有权权益以及所有相关的公司控制权；\n\n15. 就第十五项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 New Federal State Corporation（新联邦州公司）持有的 Holy City（圣城公司）所有权权益，以及 Holy City 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Holy City 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n16. 就第十六项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交 12/23/24 登记 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 123 页，共 130 页\n\n(1) 宣告声称由 Qiang Guo（郭强）持有的 Hudson Diamond BVI（哈德逊钻石英属维尔京群岛公司）所有权权益，以及 Hudson Diamond BVI 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Hudson Diamond BVI 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n17. 就第十七项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告：(a) Infinity Treasury（无限财库公司）在任何时候均为债务人的另一个自我；(b) Infinity Treasury 在债务人 2022年2月15日申请日之前任何时间持有的一切资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Infinity Treasury 自债务人于 2022年2月15日提出第11章破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的一切资产，均已构成并且目前构成（视情况而定）债务人第11章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Infinity Treasury 的一切资产移交给受托人；\n\n18. 就第十八项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告 Infinity Treasury 的所有权权益及 Infinity Treasury 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将 Infinity Treasury 的所有权权益及相关公司控制权利，以及 Infinity Treasury 的资产，交付给受托人；\n\n19. 就第十九项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Hing Chi Ngok（鄂庆泽）和 Qiang Guo 持有的 Strong Country（强国公司）所有权权益，以及 Strong Country 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Strong Country 的所有权权益及所有相关的\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交 12/23/24 登记 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 124 页，共 130 页\n\n公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n20. 就第二十项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Mei Guo（郭梅）持有的 Joincorp International（联企国际公司）所有权权益，以及 Joincorp International 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Joincorp International 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n21. 就第二十一项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Qiang Guo 持有的 Canadian Agri-product（加拿大农产品公司）所有权权益，以及 Canadian Agri-product 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Canadian Agri-product 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n22. 就第二十二项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Kesen Yang（杨克森）持有的 Eagle Eye Investments（鹰眼投资公司）所有权权益，以及 Eagle Eye Investments 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Eagle Eye Investments 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n23. 就第二十三项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Zongchao Yue（岳宗超）持有的 Glory Asia（荣耀亚洲公司）所有权权益，以及 Glory Asia 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交 12/23/24 登记 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 125 页，共 130 页\n\n资产、Glory Asia 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n24. 就第二十四项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Hing Chi Ngok 持有的 Gold Perfect（完美黄金公司）所有权权益，以及 Gold Perfect 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Gold Perfect 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n25. 就第二十五项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Hing Chi Ngok 持有的 Group Dynasty（集团王朝公司）所有权权益，以及 Group Dynasty 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Group Dynasty 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n26. 就第二十六项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Mei Guo 持有的 HK International（香港国际公司）所有权权益，以及 HK International 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、HK International 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n27. 就第二十七项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Qiang Guo 持有的 Kingdom Rich（富裕王国公司）所有权权益，以及 Kingdom Rich 的资产，在所有相关期间\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交 12/23/24 登记 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 126 页，共 130 页\n\n均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Kingdom Rich 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n28. 就第二十八项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Joy Chance Holdings Limited（佳昌控股有限公司）持有的 New Miracle Limited（新奇迹有限公司）所有权权益，以及 New Miracle Limited 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、New Miracle Limited 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n29. 就第二十九项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Hing Chi Ngok 持有的 Pacific King（太平洋王者公司）所有权权益，以及 Pacific King 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Pacific King 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n30. 就第三十项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Yan Su（苏燕）持有的 Rich Group（富裕集团公司）所有权权益，以及 Rich Group 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Rich Group 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n31. 就第三十一项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Anton Development Limited（安东发展有限公司）持有的 AA Global Ventures（AA全球创投公司）所有权权益，以及 AA Global Ventures 的资产，在所有\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交 12/23/24 登记 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 127 页，共 130 页\n\n相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、AA Global Ventures 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n32. 就第三十二项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Mei Guo 持有的 AAGV 所有权权益，以及 AAGV 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、AAGV 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n33. 就第三十三项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Lihong Guo（郭丽红）持有的 Assets Sino（中资资产公司）所有权权益，以及 Assets Sino 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Assets Sino 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n34. 就第三十四项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Lichun Guo（郭丽春）持有的 Auspicious Coast（吉祥海岸公司）所有权权益，以及 Auspicious Coast 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Auspicious Coast 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n35. 就第三十五项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Wencun Guo（郭文村，亦称 Man Chuen Kwok）持有的 Guang Hong（广鸿公司）所有权权益，以及 Guang Hong 的资产，在所有\n案件 22-50073 文书 3926 提交 12/23/24 登记 12/23/24 22:22:35 第 128 页，共 130 页\n\n相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Guang Hong 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n36. 就第三十六项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Zhang Wei（张伟）持有的 Head Win（领赢公司）所有权权益，以及 Head Win 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Head Win 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n37. 就第三十七项请求，依据《破产法典》第541、542和544条作出命令：(1) 宣告声称由 Hing Chi Ngok 持有的 Joy Chance（佳昌公司）所有权权益，以及 Joy Chance 的资产，在所有相关期间均属于债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产（视情况而定）；以及 (2) 命令将该等资产、Joy Chance 的所有权权益及所有相关的公司控制权利交付给受托人；\n\n38. 就第三十八项请求而言，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544作出命令，(1) 宣告据称由Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）持有的Long Gate（长门）的所有权权益，以及Long Gate的资产，视情况而定，均为且在所有相关期间一直为债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Long Gate的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人；\n\n39. 就第三十九项请求而言，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544作出命令，(1) 宣告据称由Qiang Guo（郭强）持有的Sail Victory（航胜）的所有权权益，以及Sail Victory的资产，视情况而定，均为且在所有相关期间一直为债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Sail Victory的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人；\n\n40. 就第四十项请求而言，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544作出命令，(1) 宣告据称由Qiang Guo（郭强）持有的Alzarro（阿尔扎罗）的所有权权益，以及Alzarro的资产，视情况而定，均为且在所有相关期间一直为债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Alzarro的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人；\n\n41. 就第四十一项请求而言，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544作出命令，(1) 宣告据称由BSA Capital Management Limited（BSA资本管理有限公司）持有的BSA Fund（BSA基金）的所有权权益，以及BSA Fund的资产，视情况而定，均为且在所有相关期间一直为债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、BSA Fund的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人；\n\n42. 就第四十二项请求而言，根据《破产法》sections 541, 542, and 544作出命令，(1) 宣告据称由Phoenix Capital Management (Cayman) Limited（凤凰资本管理〈开曼〉有限公司）持有的Insight Phoenix Fund（洞察凤凰基金）的所有权权益，以及Insight Phoenix Fund的资产，视情况而定，均为且在所有相关期间一直为债务人或债务人的第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将该等资产、Insight Phoenix Fund的所有权权益及所有相关公司控制权移交给受托人；\n\n43. 本案产生的合理律师费、成本及费用；以及\n\n44. 法院在具体情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：December 23, 2024 LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew York, New York 第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron\n\nDouglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（待批准特别出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6000\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴西特）（待批准特别出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的代理律师","key_entities":["Guo","Je","HCHK","Himalaya","Kwok","Himalaya Exchange","William Je","Saraca","Ho Wan Kwok","RICO","CIPA","Despins","GTV","G Clubs","Paul Hastings","GETTR","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Himalaya Alliance","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":41365,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-12-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-12-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:05:10"}