{"id":"court_ctb_4063_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4063,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-02-12","title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS
Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | DEFENDANTS
CyGlass Inc | | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
Douglas S. Skalka, Patrick R. Linsey
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church Street, 13 Floor, New Haven, CT 06510
203-781-2847 | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee
✔ | □ Debtor
□ Creditor
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Other
✔ | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, AND 550 AND NEW YORK
DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273 AND 276 | | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
✔
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
✔
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
□
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
□
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
□
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
□
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
□
65-Dischargeability - other | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
□
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
□
72-Injunctive relief – other | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
□
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
□
91-Declaratory judgment | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
Other
□
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
□
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law
✔ | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok | | 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/ Douglas S. Skalka | | | | | | |\n| DATE
February 12, 2025 | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
Douglas S. Skalka | | | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------|\n| In re: | | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
v. | Plaintiff, | x
:
:
:
:
:
:
: | Adv. Proceeding No. 25-[
] |\n| CYGLASS INC,
----------------------------------------------------------- | Defendant. | :
:
:
:
:
x | February 12, 2025 |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273 AND 276**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant CyGlass Inc (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n## **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover a transfer of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter ego shell company, Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd (\"Hamilton Capital\"), transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$171,214.64 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n3. This transfer was actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated it as part of his \"shell game,\" and it was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n# **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n5. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n6. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548, and 550 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273 and 2762 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law.\"\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n8. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with an address and place of business at 305 Foster Street, Suite 200, Hayward, California 94541.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n9. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\" or the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n10. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n11. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.3 While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter ego shell companies, including Hamilton Capital.\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\ntrustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n# **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n13. Hamilton Capital is among the numerous alter ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors. For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members, lieutenants, and/or subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets—while concealing his property from creditors.\n\n14. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several such adversary proceedings the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.4\n\n15. The Trustee is pursuing this or substantially similar relief with respect to Hamilton Capital in *Despins v. AA Global Ventures Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322] (the \"Omnibus\n\n4 Adversary proceedings in which the Trustee is seeking or has obtained such relief include, in addition to the Omnibus A.P.,: (i) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc.*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]; (vi) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited* [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]; (vii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]; (viii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bouillor Holdings Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311]; and (ix) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. ACA Capital Group Ltd*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249].\n\nA.P.\"). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein his Complaint filed in the Omnibus A.P. (Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1).\n\n16. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from other Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n## **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n17. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and through it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.5\n\n18. The Bankruptcy Court has also found that the \"G Entities\" (Gettr, G Fashion, G Music, GClubs, GNews and GEdu), the New Federal State of China and the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled by the Debtor6 , led by the Debtor7 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.8\n\n19. Prior to the Petition Date, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, an entity originally\n\n5 *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order*, para. 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\")).\n\n6 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, para. 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\")).\n\n7 *Id*. at para 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.\").\n\n8 *Id*. (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\nowned by one of the Debtor's chauffeurs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.9\n\n20. The Debtor has gone to great lengths to hinder and delay the collection efforts of one of his largest creditors, *i.e.*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"). In 2017, PAX sued the Debtor in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the \"New York Court\"), Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"PAX Case\"), seeking judgment for monies owed. On February 3, 2021, PAX obtained a judgment from the New York Court against the Debtor in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\"). PAX sought to enforce the PAX Judgment by levying the Debtor's assets—including the Lady May, which the Debtor falsely claimed was owned by his daughter, and the Debtor's luxury apartment in Manhattan, which the Debtor falsely claimed was held in trust for the Debtor's son. The Debtor's defiance of New York Court orders in postjudgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n21. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Hamilton Capital, as personal piggybanks, funding the lavish lifestyle to which he and his family had become accustomed, while concealing assets in these alter egos from his creditors and hindering and delaying creditors from recoveries on their claims. The transfers that the Debtor effectuated through these alter egos perpetuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n9 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n22. The Debtor has testified before the Bankruptcy Court that he has insufficient assets to pay his liabilities and that his luxurious lifestyle is funded by his family through businesses nominally held by family members.10 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.11\n\n23. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested by federal authorities and held without bail. On July 16, 2024, following a trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Debtor was convicted of nine felony counts, *i.e.*, racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud in connection with the Farm Loan Program, securities fraud in connection with the Farm Loan program, wire fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, securities fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, and wire fraud in connection with the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n24. In its criminal indictment of the Debtor, the United States Government asserted that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"12\n\n25. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Hamilton Capital, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n26. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the prepetition transfer at issue in this Complaint.\n\n10 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n11 *See* n.3\n\n12 *See* Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for Related Relief (June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934).\n\n## **D. Transfer Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n27. The Transfer at issue in this Complaint was made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were all made through the Debtor's alterego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n28. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many creditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n29. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor was convicted of multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 395] (July 18, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n30. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n### **E. Tolling of Avoidance Claims**\n\n31. 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\n\nin Sections 108, 546, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions through and including August 15, 2024.\n\n32. In the Tolling Order, the Court found that since the Petition Date, the Debtor has, among other things, filed incomplete or inaccurate schedules and statements of financial affairs, failed to provide books and records to the Trustee, and otherwise failed to cooperate with the Trustee, all in flagrant disregard for his obligations as a debtor under the Bankruptcy Code. (Tolling Order at p. 14.).\n\n33. The Debtor's family members and other individuals and entities associated with him have likewise obstructed the Trustee's investigation, as evidenced by the Court's entry of \"at least eight orders holding the … Debtor, his daughter, [Mei] Guo, and entities allegedly controlled by the … Debtor in contempt for failure to turn over assets and discovery abuse.\" (*Id.* at p. 15.). The Court found the \"noncompliance with this Court's orders in these jointly administered chapter 11 cases, is extraordinary\" (*id.*), and that, in the face of such obstruction, the Trustee's investigation has been \"more than reasonably diligent.\" (*id.* at p. 17). Since February 2024, the Trustee has filed more than 280 adversary proceedings. (*See* Main Docket, generally)*.*\n\n34. On August 14, 2024, the Court entered its *Order Granting Second Motion for Extension of Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions* [Main Case Docket No. 3417] (the \"Second Tolling Order\"), further extending the time limitations set forth in Sections 108, 546, and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code for the Trustee to commence avoidance actions through February 15, 2025, and noting the continued obstacles to the Trustee's investigation and the Trustee's diligence in conducting same (Second Tolling Order at pp. 2-3).\n\n35. The Trustee has acted diligently in investigating and pursuing the claims asserted in this Complaint.\n\n36. In light of, among other things, the extraordinary obstruction that the Trustee has faced in conducting his diligent investigation, the balance of the equities strongly favors equitable tolling of any statutes of limitations applicable to the claims asserted herein.\n\n### **F. Transfer to Defendant**\n\n37. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell company including Hamilton Capital, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Transfer\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n38. At the time of the Transfer, the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n39. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Prepetition Transfer.\n\n## **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfer Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n40. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-39 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n41. The Prepetition Transfer was made by the Debtor through his alter ego, Hamilton Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n42. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nPrepetition Transfer is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Prepetition Transfer was effectuated using an alter ego shell company;\n- b. The Prepetition Transfer was concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfer was effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. At the time of the Prepetition Transfer, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n43. The Prepetition Transfer that occurred on or after February 15, 2020 is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfer pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273 and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n44. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-39 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n45. The Prepetition Transfer was made by the Debtor, through his alter ego, Hamilton Capital, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n46. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nPrepetition Transfer is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Transfer was effectuated using an alter ego shell company;\n- b. The Transfer was concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfer was effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfer furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfer, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfer, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n47. The Prepetition Transfer is avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfer in an amount not less than \\$171,214.64 is avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfer in an amount not less than \\$171,214.64 is avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n4. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\nDated: February 12, 2025 New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglas S. Skalka* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4063 Filed 02/12/25 Entered 02/12/25 16:46:33 Page 17 of 17\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL","body_zh":"B1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面表\n（背面附说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人 被告\nCyGlass Inc（赛格拉斯公司）\n律师（律所名称、地址和电话号码）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡），Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13 Floor, New Haven, CT 06510\n203-781-2847 律师\n（如已知）\n当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n✔ □ 债务人\n□ 债权人\n□ 受托人 当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 其他\n✔\n诉因\n（简要说明诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 544、548 及 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273 及 276 条，请求撤销及追回欺诈性转让并寻求相关救济的起诉状\n诉讼性质\n（最多给五（5）个方框编号，以主要诉因为 1、第一备选诉因为 2、第二备选诉因为 3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产\n□\n11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 返还财产\n□\n12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 偏颇性清偿\n□\n✔\n13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n✔\n14-追回金钱/财产 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围\n□\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先权或范围 FRBP 7001(6) – 可解除性（续）\n□\n61-可解除性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养费\n□\n68-可解除性 - §523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n□\n63-可解除性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n64-可解除性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养费除外）\n□\n65-可解除性 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□\n31-批准出售破产财团及共同所有人的财产 - §363(h) FRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n□\n71-禁令救济 – 实施中止\n□\n72-禁令救济 – 其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免除债务提出异议/撤销免除债务\n□\n41-对免除债务提出异议/撤销免除债务 - §727(c),(d),(e) FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益劣后\n□\n81-债权或权益劣后\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51-撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n□\n91-确认判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可解除性\n□\n66-可解除性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税款债权\n□\n62-可解除性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67-可解除性 - §523(a)(4)，作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏） FRBP 7001(10) 移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01-对移送的请求或诉因作出裁定\n其他\n□\nSS-SIPA 案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\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□ 如本案涉及州法实体争议，请勾选\n✔ □ 如主张本案为根据 FRCP 23 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如在起诉状中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\nB1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由发生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 破产案件编号\n22-50073\n案件审理地区\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） 分院办事处\nBridgeport（布里奇波特） 法官姓名\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n关联对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序审理地区 分院办事处 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\n日期\nFebruary 12, 2025 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nDouglas S. Skalka\n说明\n\n提交破产案件即在破产法院管辖下形成“破产财团”，该财团由债务人的全部财产构成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围广泛，且法院管辖权宽泛，可能会就破产财团的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能发生涉及债务人债务免除的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，即称为对抗程序。\n\n提起对抗程序的一方还必须填写并提交表格 1040，即《对抗程序封面表》，但该方通过法院案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗程序的除外。（CM/ECF 在提交过程中获取表格 1040 中的信息。）填写完毕后，该封面表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要求的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面表及其中所载信息不替代或补充法律、《破产程序规则》或法院地方法规所要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面表大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每提交一份起诉状，均必须向书记员另行提交一份封面表。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉状中所列原告和被告的姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面表必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该所成员签署。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: 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， :\n: 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n:\n: （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章\n受托人，\n诉 原告， x\n\n: 对抗程序编号 25-[\n]\nCYGLASS INC（赛格拉斯公司），\n----------------------------------------------------------- 被告。 :\n\nx February 12, 2025\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 544、548 及 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273 及 276 条，请求撤销及追回欺诈性转让并寻求相关救济的起诉状\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，提起本\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（又名 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n对被告 CyGlass Inc（赛格拉斯公司）（“被告”）提起本对抗起诉状（“起诉状”），陈述如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回债务人在本第 11 章案件开始前对其财产作出的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Hamilton Capital Holding Ltd（“Hamilton Capital”），在申请日（定义如下）之前向作为初始受让人的被告转让合计金额为 $171,214.64 的资金。\n\n3. 该项转让属于实际欺诈性转让，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，且作出该项转让的意图是阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人。\n管辖权及审判地\n\n4. 本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序享有事项管辖权。\n\n5. 本对抗程序已根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移交本院审理。\n\n6. 本文所请求救济的法定依据包括《美国法典》第 11 编（“破产法典”）第 544、548 及 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273 及 2762 条，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n\n2 以下对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law.”\n当事人\n\n7. 受托人系第 11 章案件中的第 11 章受托人，依据破产法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令获任命[案件编号 22-50073（“主案件”）案卷编号 523]。\n\n8. 被告是一家 Delaware（特拉华州）公司，其地址及营业地点为 305 Foster Street, Suite 200, Hayward, California 94541。\n事实\nA. 第 11 章案件\n\n9. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院）（“本院”或“破产法院”）自愿提交依据《破产法典》第 11 章请求救济的申请（“申请日”），从而启动第 11 章案件。\n\n10. 于 March 21, 2022，美国受托人办公室在本第 11 章案件中任命了一个无担保债权人正式委员会。尚未任命审查员。\n\n11. 债务人于 March 2022 向破产法院提交的破产财产清单主张其拥有 $3,850 的资产，并产生数亿美元的负债。3 尽管债务人确实负债累累，但其财产清单未披露债务人通过其众多另我空壳公司（包括 Hamilton Capital）持有和/或转让的财产。\n\n12. 于 June 15, 2022，破产法院作出裁判备忘录及命令[主案件案卷编号 465]，指示美国受托人在第 11 章案件中任命一名第 11 章\n\n3 《资产和负债清单》，第 1 页[主案件案卷编号 78]。\n\n受托人。根据该命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任受托人。于 July 8, 2022，破产法院作出命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）为第 11 章案件的受托人[主案件案卷编号 523]。\nB. 债务人使用空壳公司及受托人的对抗程序\n\n13. Hamilton Capital 是债务人用于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的众多另我空壳公司之一。多年来，债务人策划了一场“空壳游戏”，利用名义上由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属所有、但实际由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人能够使用、支出和/或转让数百万美元现金及其他资产，同时向债权人隐匿其财产。\n\n14. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第 11 章案件中提起多项对抗程序，其中包括确立债务人的空壳公司系其另我和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；且在若干该等对抗程序中，破产法院已准予该等救济。4\n\n15. 受托人正在 Despins v. AA Global Ventures Limited, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322]（“综合\n\n4 除综合对抗程序（Omnibus A.P.）外，受托人正在寻求或已获得此类救济的对抗程序包括：(i) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）等案 [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治地产有限责任公司）等案 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Mei Guo（郭美）案 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK技术公司）等案 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等案 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Golden Spring (New York) Limited（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）案 [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；(vii) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）等案 [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]；(viii) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Bouillor Holdings Limited（布伊约控股有限公司）等案 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311]；以及 (ix) Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉ACA Capital Group Ltd（ACA资本集团有限公司）等案 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]。\n\nA.P.）。受托人特此援引并入其在综合对抗程序中提交的起诉状（Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1）。\n\n16. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯涉及：(i) 由近亲和/或下属持有的、受债务人控制的空壳公司；(ii) 使用来自其他受债务人控制实体的现金购买，和/或无对价转让给空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转让的资产；以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中获益，并对其享有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人所实施的行为\n\n17. 除受托人对抗程序所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人系Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并通过该公司控制Dawn State Limited（曙光州有限公司））的实际受益所有人，且债务人控制并使用了Ace Decade Limited的名义股东Yvette Wang（王雁平）。5\n\n18. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（G实体）（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews及GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他声称独立的实体和组织，均受债务人控制6、由债务人领导7，和/或“服务于……债务人的目的，并作为债务人的商业工具”。8\n\n19. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的Liman法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方收益有限公司）这一实体在转让给债务人的女儿之前，最初由债务人的一名司机所有，实质上是债务人的“一家空壳公司”。9\n\n5 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, para. 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\"))。\n\n6 Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction, para. 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\"))。\n\n7 同上，第7段（“债务人是The Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）、NFSC、ROLF及Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n8 同上（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries及Himalaya服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员个人上忠于债务人。”）。\n\n20. 债务人为阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙企业，简称“PAX”）的追偿工作，已不遗余力。2017年，PAX在Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院，以下简称“纽约法院”）提起针对债务人的诉讼，Index No. 652077/2017（以下简称“PAX案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX从纽约法院取得针对债务人的\\$116,402,019.57判决（以下简称“PAX判决”）。PAX寻求通过扣押债务人的资产来执行PAX判决，其中包括Lady May（梅夫人号），债务人谎称该游艇由其女儿所有；以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人谎称该公寓为其儿子设立信托而持有。债务人在判决后程序中藐视纽约法院命令的行为，最终导致债务人被处以\\$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n21. 债务人还将其另我实体，包括Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本），作为个人钱袋使用，在将资产隐匿于该等另我实体中以躲避其债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得追偿的同时，为其本人及家人业已习惯的奢靡生活提供资金。债务人通过该等另我实体实施的转让延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n9 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021)。\n\n22. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以清偿其负债，其奢华生活方式由家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业提供资金。10 债务人仅申报\\$3,850的资产。11\n\n23. 2023年3月，债务人被联邦当局逮捕并被无保释羁押。2024年7月16日，经United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）审判后，债务人被判九项重罪罪名成立，即：敲诈勒索共谋、实施电信欺诈和银行欺诈共谋、洗钱共谋、实施证券欺诈共谋、与Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）有关的电信欺诈、与Farm Loan Program有关的证券欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的电信欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的证券欺诈，以及与Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有关的电信欺诈。\n\n24. 美国政府在针对债务人的刑事起诉书中主张，债务人及其共同被告“利用以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的500多个账户，对超过\\$1 billion的欺诈所得进行洗钱”。12\n\n25. 债务人的另我实体的财产，包括Hamilton Capital，在申请日前任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n26. 在与本案有关的所有期间内，债务人在New York, New York（纽约州纽约市）开展业务，包括指示实施本起诉状所涉的申请前转让。\n\n10 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\n11 见注3\n\n12 见Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release第29页，作为附件B附于第11章受托人就G Club Operations LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司）对受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求提出的补充异议所作答复（June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934）。\n\nD. 意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人的转让\n\n27. 本起诉状所涉转让系出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出，原因在于该等转让均通过债务人的另我空壳公司作出，该等公司作为债务人空壳把戏的一部分运营。\n\n28. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以便隐匿及耗散数百万美元资产，同时向其众多债权人虚假声称自己贫困。债务人声称身无分文，却同时大肆花费，以维持其本人、家庭成员及亲密同伴的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n29. 债务人隐匿及耗散的资产包括其从加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害人处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的一宗刑事案件中，被判多项重罪欺诈、洗钱及敲诈勒索罪名成立。见United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 395] (July 18, 2024 S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n30. 债务人明知并意图通过以此方式隐匿及耗散其资产，将不会有足够资产剩余以偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈受害人。因此，该等转让必然是出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出。\n\nE. 撤销权请求的时效中止\n\n31. 2024年2月15日，法院作出其Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion to Extend Deadlines [Main Case Docket No. 2921]（“时效中止命令”），其中法院依据Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)，将《破产法典》第108、546及549条规定的受托人提起撤销权诉讼的期限延长至2024年8月15日（含当日）。\n\n32. 法院在时效中止命令中认定，自申请日以来，债务人除其他事项外，提交了不完整或不准确的财产清单和财务状况说明，未向受托人提供账簿和记录，并以其他方式未与受托人合作，所有这些行为均公然无视其作为《破产法典》规定之债务人的义务。（Tolling Order at p. 14.）\n\n33. 与债务人有关的家庭成员及其他个人和实体同样妨碍了受托人的调查，法院已作出“至少八项命令，认定……债务人、其女儿、[Mei] Guo（[郭]美）及据称受……债务人控制的实体，因未移交资产及滥用证据开示程序而构成藐视法庭”，即为明证。（同上，第15页。）法院认定，“在这些合并管理的第11章案件中不遵守本法院命令的情形，是异常的”（同上），并认定面对该等阻碍，受托人的调查“一直不仅仅是合理勤勉的”。（同上，第17页。）自2024年2月以来，受托人已提起超过280项对抗程序。（一般参见Main Docket。）\n\n34. 2024年8月14日，法院作出其Order Granting Second Motion for Extension of Deadline for Trustee to File Avoidance Actions [Main Case Docket No. 3417]（“第二份时效中止命令”），进一步将《破产法典》第108、546及549条规定的受托人提起撤销权诉讼的期限延长至2025年2月15日，并指出受托人调查所持续面临的障碍，以及受托人在进行该等调查时的勤勉（Second Tolling Order at pp. 2-3）。\n\n35. 受托人已勤勉调查并追索本起诉状中主张的请求权。\n\n36. 鉴于包括受托人在进行其勤勉调查时所面临的异常阻碍在内的因素，衡平利益的权衡强烈支持对本案所主张请求权适用的任何时效期间予以衡平法时效中止。\n\nF. 向被告的转让\n\n37. 在申请日前，债务人通过其另我空壳公司，包括Hamilton Capital，或以其他方式，将债务人的财产转让给被告（统称“转让”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表A。\n\n38. 在转让时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n39. 被告系申请前转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求权\n\n（依据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)及550(a)条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n40. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至39段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n41. 申请前转让由债务人通过其另我实体Hamilton Capital作出，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n42. 债务人在实施申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，表现在：\n\na. 破产申请前转让系通过一个另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 破产申请前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 破产申请前转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，在其控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属的协助下实施，旨在隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 破产申请前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，从而进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，其中包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n43. 于 2020年2月15日当日或之后发生的破产申请前转让，可由受托人根据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条予以撤销，并可根据《破产法典》第 550(a) 条予以追回。\n\n第二项主张\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273 and 276，以及 Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a)，请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n44. 受托人重述并再次主张第 1 至 39 段所载的指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n45. 破产申请前转让由债务人通过其另我 Hamilton Capital（汉密尔顿资本）作出，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n46. 债务人在实施破产申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，尤其可由以下事实证明：\n\na. 该转让系通过一个另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 破产申请前转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，在其控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属的协助下实施，旨在隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 破产申请前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中受益，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，从而进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 破产申请前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，从而进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，其中包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在破产申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n47. 破产申请前转让可由受托人根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276 以及 Bankruptcy Code section 544(b) 予以撤销，并可根据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a) 予以追回。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白。]\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项主张而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于 $171,214.64 的破产申请前转让根据 Bankruptcy Code section 548(a)(1)(A) 已被撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销该破产申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产利益，向被告追回该转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项主张而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于 $171,214.64 的破产申请前转让根据 Bankruptcy Code section 544(b) 及 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276 已被撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销该破产申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276 及 Bankruptcy Code section 550(a)(1)，为债务人财产利益，向被告追回该破产申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 向受托人裁定自本起诉状提交之日起至本案判决之日止，按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n4. 法院在具体情况下认为公正、适当或符合衡平原则的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：February 12, 2025，New Haven, CT\n\nLUC A. DESPINS 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第 11 章受托人代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4063 Filed 02/12/25 Entered 02/12/25 16:46:33 Page 17 of 17\n\n附件 A\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","HCHK","GTV","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":395,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4563,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-02-12 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-02-12","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:32:51"}