{"id":"court_ctb_4090_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4090,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-02-13","title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFFS
Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | DEFENDANTS
Ya Li | | | |\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
✔
CAUSE OF ACTION | □ Debtor
□ Creditor
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Other
✔
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED) | | |\n| COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544,
548, 549 AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, 276 AND 278 | | | | |\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) | □
Other
□
□ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law
✔ | | □ 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 13, 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. [ ]
:
: |\n| YA LI, | | :
:
February 13, 2025
:
: |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | Defendant. | :
:
x |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, 549 AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 276 AND 278**\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\namended adversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant, Ya Li (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover: (a) transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case; and (b) transfers of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate after the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter ego shell companies, Golden Spring (New York) Limited (\"Golden Spring\"), Rule of Law Foundation III Inc. (\"Rule of Law\") and Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca Media\" and together with Golden Spring, Rule of Law, the \"Relevant Alter Egos\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$137,080.62 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant, the initial transferee of the funds.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor perpetrated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors. Alternatively, these transfers were constructively fraudulent, because they were made when the Debtor was insolvent, and the Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in consideration thereof.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter ego shell company, Rule of Law, transferred funds in the amount of \\$80,000.00 to the Defendant, the initial transferee of the funds.\n\n5. Because these postpetition transfers of estate property were unauthorized, they are subject to avoidance and recovery under sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n2\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n8. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548, 549 and 550 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\") and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 276 and 2782 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n## **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. The Defendant is an individual with an address at 18 Brabham Drive, Mill Park, Victoria 3082, Australia.\n\n# **FACTS**\n\n# **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. 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\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\". The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVTA\") replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFCA\") within the N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law, taking effect on April 4, 2020 and applying to transfers made or obligations incurred on or after that date. With respect to transfers that occurred on or after April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUVTA and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), and 276 (as these statutes existed at the time of the transfers) and, with respect to transfers that occurred prior to April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUFCA and N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 276 and 278 (as these statutes existed at the time of the transfers).\n\nDistrict of Connecticut (the \"Court\" or the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n12. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n13. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.3 While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter ego shell companies, including the Relevant Alter Egos.\n\n14. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n### **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n15. The Relevant Alter Egos are 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\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\nassets—much of which the Debtor obtained through his fraudulent investment and cryptocurrency schemes—while concealing this property of this creditors.\n\n16. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several such adversary proceedings the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.4\n\n17. The Court has entered judgment to the effect that Golden Spring is the Debtor's alter ego and that its property, prior to the Petition Date, was property of the Debtor. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018 (the \"Golden Spring A.P.\"), Docket No. 35 (the \"Golden Spring Judgment\"). The Golden Spring Judgment is final and no longer subject to appeal. The Trustee refers to and incorporates herein his Complaint filed in the Golden Spring A.P. (Golden Spring A.P., Docket No. 1) and the Golden Spring Judgment.\n\n18. The Trustee is pursuing this or substantially similar relief with respect to Rule of Law and Saraca Media in *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249] (the \"Omnibus A.P.\"). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein his Complaint filed in the Omnibus A.P. (Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1).\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. Lamp Capital LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]; (vii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. AA Global Ventures Limited,* et al. [Adv. Proc. 24-05322]; and (viii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bouillor Holdings Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311].\n\n19. 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\n20. 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\n21. 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\n22. 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 Debtor's chauffeurs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.9\n\n23. 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\n24. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including the Relevant Alter Egos as personal piggy-banks, 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\n25. 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\n26. 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\n27. 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\n28. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including the Relevant Alter Egos, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n29. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the prepetition transfers 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. Debtor's Shell Game and Fraud Continues Postpetition**\n\n30. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including the Relevant Alter Egos, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n31. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, with blatant disregard for the Bankruptcy Court and his obligations under the Bankruptcy Code, continued to perpetrate transfers through numerous alter ego shell companies, including, without limitation, Rule of Law.\n\n32. None of these postpetition transfers were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court nor were such transfers authorized under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **E. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n33. The Transfers (as defined herein) at issue in this Complaint were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were all made through the Debtor's alter ego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n34. 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\n35. 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\n36. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n#### **F. Tolling of Avoidance Claims**\n\n37. 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\n38. 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\n39. 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\n40. 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\n41. The Trustee has acted diligently in investigating and pursuing the claims asserted in this Complaint.\n\n42. In light of, among other things, the extraordinary obstruction that the Trustee has faced in conducting his diligent investigation, the balance of the equities strongly favors equitable tolling of any statutes of limitations applicable to the claims asserted herein.\n\n# **G. Transfers to Defendants**\n\n43. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter ego shell companies including the Relevant Alter Egos, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant, (collectively, the \"Prepetition Transfers\") including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n44. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through shell companies including Rule of Law, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\n## See **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n45. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfers (collectively, the \"Transfers\"), the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n46. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n## **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n47. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-46 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through the Relevant Alter Egos, or otherwise, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n49. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the\n\nPrepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\n- a. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using alter-ego shell companies;\n- b. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n- c. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\n- e. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\t- f. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n50. The Prepetition Transfers are 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 Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 276 and 278, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n51. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-46 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n52. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through the Relevant Alter Egos, or otherwise, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n53. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in perpetrating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using alter-ego shell companies;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n54. The Prepetition Transfers that occurred prior to April 4, 2020 are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 276 and 278 (NYUFCA) as these statutes existed at the time of such transfers, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n55. The Prepetition Transfers that occurred on or after April 4, 2020 are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276 (NYUVTA) as these statutes existed at the time of such transfers, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a)**\n\n56. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-46 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n57. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, Rule of Law.\n\n58. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n59. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n60. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n61. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n62. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\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 Transfers in an amount not less than \\$137,080.62 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$137,080.62 are avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and, with respect to transfers on and after April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), and 276(NYUVTA), and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 276 and 278(NYUFCA); (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 276(NYUVTA) and 278(NYUFCA) and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfers to the Defendant in an amount not less than \\$80,000.00 are avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfer be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition Transfer, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n4. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: February 13, 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 4090 Filed 02/13/25 Entered 02/13/25 11:35:00 Page 21 of 22\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL\n\n# **SCHEDULE B**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL","body_zh":"B1040（FORM 1040）（12/15）\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\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人 被告\nYa Li（李娅）\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码）\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、佩佩与蒙蒂斯专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13 Floor, New Haven, CT 06510\n203-781-2847 律师\n（如已知）\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n✔\n诉因 □ 债务人\n□ 债权人\n□ 受托人 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 其他\n✔\n（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、549和550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、274、276和278条，请求撤销及追回欺诈性转让和申请后转让并请求相关救济的起诉书\n\n诉讼性质\n（自主要诉因起按1编号，第一替代诉因为2，第二替代诉因为3，依此类推，最多编号五（5）个方框。）\n\nFRBP 7001(1)——追回金钱/财产\n□\n11——追回金钱/财产——§542 财产交还\n□\n12——追回金钱/财产——§547 偏颇清偿\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\n\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 □\n□\n□\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(6)——可免责性（续）\n61——可免责性——§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n68——可免责性——§523(a)(6)，故意及恶意损害\n63——可免责性——§523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n64——可免责性——§523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养除外）\n65——可免责性——其他\n\nFRBP 7001(3)——批准出售财产\n□\n31——批准出售破产财产及共同所有人财产——§363(h) FRBP 7001(7)——禁令救济\n□\n71——禁令救济——施加停止令\n□\n72——禁令救济——其他\n\nFRBP 7001(4)——对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n41——对免责提出异议/撤销免责——§727(c),(d),(e) FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的劣后\n□\n81——债权或权益的劣后\n\nFRBP 7001(5)——撤销确认\n□\n51——撤销确认 □ FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n91——确认判决\n\nFRBP 7001(6)——可免责性\n□\n66——可免责性——§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税务债权\n□\n62——可免责性——§523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、\n实际欺诈\n□\n67——可免责性——§523(a)(4)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏） □\n其他\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n01——对被移送的债权或诉因作出裁定\nSS——SIPA案件——15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n02——其他（例如，如与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选\n✔ □ 如主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如起诉书中要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 \\$\n请求的其他救济\n\nB1040（FORM 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 分院办事处 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Douglas S. Skalka\n日期\nFebruary 13, 2025 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\nDouglas S. Skalka\n\n说明\n\n提交破产案件将产生一项受破产法院管辖的“破产财产”，该财产由债务人的全部财产构成，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财产范围广泛且法院管辖权广泛，可能会就破产财产或其财产权利发生诉讼。也可能存在涉及债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗程序。\n\n提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在提交过程中获取表格1040所载信息。）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》或法院地方法规要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面页大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告无律师代理，则由原告填写）。每一份已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。请准确列明起诉书中所载的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请列明律师姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写起诉书中请求的美元金额。\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，须由该所成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则须由原告签署。\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n：\n第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等人， ：\n：\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， ：\nx\n\n对抗程序编号 [ ]\n：\n：\nYA LI（李娅）， ：\n：\nFebruary 13, 2025\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- 被告。 ：\n：\nx\n\n第11章受托人依据《破产法典》第544、548、549和550条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、276和278条，请求撤销及追回欺诈性转让和申请后转让并请求相关救济的起诉书\n\nLuc A. Despins，以其作为在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）的身份，提交本\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人的 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n经修订的对抗起诉书（以下简称“起诉书”），起诉被告 Ya Li（李娅）（以下简称“被告”），陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回：(a) 在本第11章案件开始前对债务人财产作出的转让；以及 (b) 在本第11章案件开始后对债务人第11章破产财产作出的、未经破产法院或《美国法典》第11编（以下简称“破产法典”）授权的财产转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（以下简称“Golden Spring”）、Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.（以下简称“Rule of Law”）及 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（以下简称“Saraca Media”，并与 Golden Spring、Rule of Law 合称“相关另我实体”），在申请日（如下文定义）前向作为该等资金初始受让人的被告转让了金额为 \\$137,080.62 的资金。\n\n3. 该等转让构成实际欺诈，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳把戏”的一部分实施，且作出该等转让的意图是阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人。或者，该等转让构成推定欺诈，因为其作出时债务人已无力偿债，且债务人未就此获得合理等值对价。\n\n4. 在申请日后，债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Rule of Law，向作为该等资金初始受让人的被告转让了金额为 \\$80,000.00 的资金。\n\n5. 由于该等对破产财产的申请后转让未经授权，故其可依《破产法典》第549和550条予以撤销和追回。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序享有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 本对抗程序已依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移交本院审理。\n\n8. 本文所请求救济的法定依据包括《美国法典》第11编（以下简称“破产法典”）第544、548、549和550条，以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273、276和2782条，或任何其他适用的州法同等规定。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 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 作出的命令任命 [案件编号 22-50073（以下简称“主案件”）案卷编号 523]。\n\n10. 被告为个人，其地址为 18 Brabham Drive, Mill Park, Victoria 3082, Australia。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n11. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格州地区美国破产法院）（以下简称“本院”或“破产法院”）根据《破产法典》第11章提交自愿救济申请（以下简称“申请日”），从而启动第11章案件。\n\n2 下文中对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用均称为“《纽约州债务人与债权人法》”。《纽约州统一可撤销交易法》（以下简称“NYUVTA”）取代了《纽约州债务人与债权人法》中的《纽约州统一欺诈性转让法》（以下简称“NYUFCA”），于 April 4, 2020 生效，并适用于在该日期当日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。对于在 April 4, 2020 当日或之后发生的转让，受托人在本诉讼中依据 NYUVTA 和《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273(a)(1)及276条（以该等法条于转让时的规定为准）请求救济；对于在 April 4, 2020 之前发生的转让，受托人在本诉讼中依据 NYUFCA 和《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276及278条（以该等法条于转让时的规定为准）请求救济。\n\n12. 于 March 21, 2022，Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）在本第11章案件中任命了无担保债权人正式委员会。尚未任命审查员。\n\n13. 债务人于 March 2022 向破产法院提交的破产财产清单称，其拥有 \\$3,850 的资产，并承担了数亿美元的负债。3 虽然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持有和/或转让的财产，其中包括相关另我实体。\n\n14. 于 June 15, 2022，破产法院作出一份裁决备忘录及命令 [Main Case Docket No. 465]，指示美国受托人任命一名第11章受托人负责本第11章案件。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 为本第11章案件的受托人 [Main Case Docket No. 523]。\n\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. 相关另我实体是债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多另我空壳公司中的一部分。多年来，债务人策划了一场“空壳游戏”，利用由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的错综复杂的空壳公司网络。这场空壳游戏使债务人得以使用、支出和/或转移数百万美元现金及其他资产——其中大部分是债务人通过其欺诈性投资和加密货币计划取得的——同时向其债权人隐匿该等财产。\n\n3 《资产与负债清单》，第1页 [Main Case Docket No. 78]。\n\n16. 自受任以来，受托人已在本第11章案件中提起多项对抗程序，除其他事项外，以确定债务人的空壳公司系其另我实体，和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；在若干该等对抗程序中，破产法院已准予该等救济。4\n\n17. 法院已作出判决，认定 Golden Spring（黄金之泉）系债务人的另我实体，且其在申请日之前的财产属于债务人的财产。(Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018 (the \"Golden Spring A.P.\"), Docket No. 35 (the \"Golden Spring Judgment\"). Golden Spring 判决书已生效，且不再受上诉影响。受托人援引并将其在 Golden Spring A.P. 中提交的起诉状 (Golden Spring A.P., Docket No. 1) 以及 Golden Spring 判决书并入本文。\n\n18. 就 Rule of Law（法治）和 Saraca Media（娑罗媒体）而言，受托人正在 Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]（以下简称“Omnibus A.P.”）中寻求本项或实质相似的救济。受托人通过援引将其在 Omnibus A.P. 中提交的起诉状 (Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1) 并入本文。\n\n4 除 Omnibus A.P. 外，受托人正在寻求或已获得该等救济的对抗程序包括： (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（梅国） [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. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]；(vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. AA Global Ventures Limited, et al. [Adv. Proc. 24-05322]；以及 (viii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bouillor Holdings Limited, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311]。\n\n19. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属和/或下属持有的空壳公司；(ii) 使用来自其他债务人控制实体的现金购置的资产，和/或无对价转让给空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转让的资产；以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中获益，并对其享有控制和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人所实施的行为\n\n20. 除受托人对抗程序中所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（十年王牌有限公司）的受益所有人（并通过该公司成为 Dawn State Limited（黎明州有限公司）的受益所有人），且债务人控制并利用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）。5\n\n21. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（G实体）（Gettr（盖特尔）、G Fashion（G时尚）、G Music（G音乐）、GClubs（G俱乐部）、GNews（G新闻）和 GEdu（G教育））、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他表面上独立的实体和组织，均由债务人控制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载体”。8\n\n22. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 Liman 法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）——一家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的实体——“实质上是”债务人的一家空壳公司。9\n\n5 《准予关于认定债务人藐视公司治理命令之动议的命令》，第1、4段 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\"))。\n\n6 《经更正的部分准予初步禁令动议的裁决备忘录》，第3段 (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（吹哨人运动）、NFSC、ROLF 和 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n8 同上（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries 和 Himalaya 服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业载体，其成员对债务人个人忠诚。”）。\n\n23. 债务人为阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一，即 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（“PAX”）（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙）的追偿工作，不遗余力。于 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”）对债务人提起诉讼，Index No. 652077/2017（以下简称“PAX 案件”），请求就应付款项作出判决。于 February 3, 2021，PAX 获得纽约法院针对债务人的 $116,402,019.57 判决（以下简称“PAX 判决”）。PAX 试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行 PAX 判决——包括 Lady May（梅夫人号），债务人谎称该游艇归其女儿所有；以及债务人在 Manhattan（曼哈顿）的豪华公寓，债务人谎称该公寓由信托为其儿子持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗纽约法院命令，最终导致其被处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n24. 债务人还将其另我实体，包括相关另我实体，用作个人钱袋，在向其债权人隐匿该等另我实体中的资产、并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得清偿的同时，为其本人及其家人已习惯的奢华生活方式提供资金。债务人通过这些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\n25. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以清偿其负债，且其奢华生活方式由其家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业提供资金。10 债务人仅申报了 $3,850 的资产。11\n\n26. 于 March 2023，债务人被联邦当局逮捕并被无保羁押。于 July 16, 2024，在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 进行审判后，债务人被判犯有九项重罪罪名，即敲诈勒索共谋、共谋实施电信诈骗和银行诈骗、洗钱共谋、共谋实施证券欺诈、与 Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）有关的电信诈骗、与 Farm Loan Program 有关的证券欺诈、与 G|CLUBS 有关的电信诈骗、与 G|CLUBS 有关的证券欺诈，以及与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有关的电信诈骗。\n\n27. 美国政府在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约500多个账户，清洗逾 $1 billion 的欺诈所得。”12\n\n28. 债务人另我实体的财产，包括相关另我实体，在申请日之前的任何时候均属于债务人的财产。\n\n29. 在与本文有关的所有期间，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 《关于债务人请求作出临时及最终 DIP 命令的动议之听证会：(I) 授权债务人获得无担保、次级的申请后融资；(II) 安排临时及最终听证会；以及 (III) 准予相关救济》(Main Case, April 27, 2022)。\n\n11 见注3。\n\n12 见《美利坚合众国反对被告 Yanping Wang（王燕平）审前释放动议的法律备忘录》第29页，该备忘录作为附件B附于《第11章受托人对 G Club Operations LLC 就受托人强制履行之动议及相关救济请求提出的补充异议的答复》(June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934)。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳游戏及欺诈在申请后持续进行\n\n30. 截至申请日，债务人通过其另我实体持有的全部财产，包括相关另我实体，均成为第11章破产财产。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n31. 申请日后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其根据《破产法》承担的义务，继续通过众多另我空壳公司实施转让，包括但不限于 Rule of Law。\n\n32. 该等申请后转让均未经破产法院授权，亦未根据《破产法》获得授权。\n\nE. 以阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人为目的实施的转让\n\n33. 本起诉状所涉的转让（定义见本文）系为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而实施，原因在于该等转让均系通过债务人的另我空壳公司实施，而该等公司作为债务人空壳游戏的一部分运作。\n\n34. 债务人故意以该种方式安排其财务事务，以便隐匿并耗散数百万美元的资产，同时向其众多债权人虚假宣称自己贫困。债务人一面声称身无分文，一面却大肆挥霍，以维持其本人、其家庭成员及亲密关联人的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n35. 债务人隐匿并耗散的资产包括其从其加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划受害人处获得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 审理的一宗刑事案件中，被判犯有多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索罪名。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\n36. 债务人明知并意图通过以该种方式隐匿和耗散其资产，将不会剩余足够资产偿还其债权人——包括其诸多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，该等转让必然系为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人而实施。\n\nF. 撤销请求的时效中止\n\n37. 于 February 15, 2024，法院作出《部分准予延长期限动议的裁决备忘录及命令》 [Main Case Docket No. 2921]（以下简称“时效中止命令”），其中法院根据 Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)，将《破产法》第108、546和549条规定的受托人提起撤销诉讼的期限延长至并包括 August 15, 2024。\n\n38. 在中止时效命令中，法院认定，自申请日以来，债务人除其他事项外，提交了不完整或不准确的财产清单及财务状况说明，未向受托人提供账簿和记录，并以其他方式未能与受托人合作，所有这些行为均公然无视其根据《破产法》作为债务人所负的义务。（中止时效命令第14页。）\n\n39. 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阻碍了受托人的调查，法院作出“至少八项命令，认定……债务人、其女儿[Mei] Guo，以及据称由……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”的命令，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，是非同寻常的”（同上），并且，面对该等阻碍，受托人的调查“已尽到超过合理程度的勤勉”（同上，第17页）。自2024年2月以来，受托人已提起超过280起对立诉讼程序。（参见主案卷宗，概述。）\n\n40. 2024年8月14日，法院作出准许延长受托人提起撤销诉讼期限的第二次动议的命令[主案卷宗编号3417]（“第二次中止时效命令”），将《破产法》第108、546及549条规定的受托人提起撤销诉讼的期限进一步延长至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进行该调查所展现的勤勉（第二次中止时效命令第2-3页）。\n\n41. 受托人已勤勉地调查并追究本起诉状中主张的请求权。\n\n42. 鉴于包括受托人在进行其勤勉调查时所面临的非同寻常阻碍在内的情况，衡平因素的权衡强烈支持对适用于本案所主张请求权的任何诉讼时效进行衡平中止。\n\nG. 向被告的转移\n\n43. 在申请日之前，债务人通过包括相关替身实体在内的其替身空壳公司，或以其他方式，将债务人的财产转移给被告（合称“申请日前转移”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n参见随附并构成本文件一部分的附件A。\n\n44. 在申请日之后，债务人通过包括法治（Rule of Law）在内的空壳公司，或以其他方式，将破产财团的财产转移给被告（合称“申请日后转移”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n参见随附并构成本文件一部分的附件B。\n\n45. 在申请日前转移和申请日后转移（合称“转移”）发生时，债务人对债务人破产财团的债权人负有未清偿债务。\n\n46. 被告是该等转移的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求权\n（依据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)及550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转移的请求权）\n\n47. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至46段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n48. 申请日前转移由债务人通过相关替身实体或以其他方式作出，其实际意图是阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人。\n\n49. 债务人在实施申请日前转移时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，可由包括以下事项在内的事实证明：\n\na. 申请日前转移系利用替身空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请日前转移被向债务人的债权人隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转移系债务人“空壳把戏”的一部分，在其家庭成员及其所控制的其他得力助手和下属的协助下实施，意图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请日前转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，同时不使其财产受到债权人追索，进一步助长了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在申请日前转移发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括PAX（PAX）在PAX案件中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在申请日前转移发生时，债务人已无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n50. 申请日前转移可由受托人依据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条予以撤销，并可依据《破产法》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n第二项请求权\n（依据纽约州债务人与债权人法第273(a)(1)、276及278条，以及《破产法》第544(b)及550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转移的请求权）\n\n51. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至46段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n52. 申请日前转移由债务人通过相关替身实体或以其他方式作出，其实际意图是阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人。\n\n53. 债务人在实施申请日前转移时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，可由包括以下事项在内的事实证明：\n\na. 申请日前转移系利用替身空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请日前转移被向债务人的债权人隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转移系债务人“空壳把戏”的一部分，在其家庭成员及其所控制的其他得力助手和下属的协助下实施，意图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请日前转移通过使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，同时不使其财产受到债权人追索，进一步助长了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在申请日前转移发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括PAX在PAX案件中对其提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在申请日前转移发生时，债务人已无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n54. 对于发生在2020年4月4日之前的申请日前转移，受托人可依据该等转移发生时有效的纽约州债务人与债权人法第276及278条（NYUFCA）以及《破产法》第544(b)条予以撤销，并可依据《破产法》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n55. 对于发生在2020年4月4日当日或之后的申请日前转移，受托人可依据该等转移发生时有效的纽约州债务人与债权人法第273(a)(1)及276条（NYUVTA）以及《破产法》第544(b)条予以撤销，并可依据《破产法》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n第三项请求权\n（依据《破产法》第549及550(a)条撤销并追回未经授权的申请日后转移的请求权）\n\n56. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至46段所载指控，如同在此完整载明。\n\n57. 申请日后转移由债务人向被告作出，包括通过其替身空壳公司法治作出。\n\n58. 申请日后转移发生于申请日之后。\n\n59. 申请日后转移未经破产法院或《破产法》授权。\n\n60. 申请日后转移构成未经授权转移债务人第11章破产财团财产的行为。\n\n61. 申请日后转移可依据《破产法》第549(a)条予以撤销。\n\n62. 根据《破产法》第550(a)条，受托人有权向被告追回申请日后转移，或由受托人选择追回其价值，另加自转移之日起至付款之日止的利息以及本案费用。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求权而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$137,080.62的申请日前转移依据《破产法》第548(a)(1)(A)条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请日前转移；以及(c) 依据《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财团的利益向被告追回申请日前转移，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求权而言，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$137,080.62的申请日前转移依据《破产法》第544(b)条予以撤销；就发生于2020年4月4日当日或之后的转移，依据纽约州债务人与债权人法第273(a)(1)及276条（NYUVTA）予以撤销；就发生于2020年4月4日之前的转移，依据纽约州债务人与债权人法第276及278条（NYUFCA）予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请日前转移；以及(c) 依据纽约州债务人与债权人法第276条（NYUVTA）和第278条（NYUFCA）以及《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财团的利益向被告追回申请日前转移，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求权而言，作出命令，(a) 宣告金额不少于\\$80,000.00的向被告作出的申请日后转移依据《破产法》第549条予以撤销；(b) 指示撤销申请日后转移；以及(c) 依据《破产法》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财团的利益向被告追回申请日后转移，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 向受托人裁定自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院在具体情形下认为公正、适当或合乎衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白]\n\n日期：2025年2月13日 康涅狄格州纽黑文\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\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n案件22-50073 文件4090 提交日期02/13/25 录入日期02/13/25 11:35:00 第21页，共22页\n\n附件A\n\n密封提交\n\n附件B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Saraca","Himalaya","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","HCHK","GTV","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":395,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5404,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-02-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-02-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:09:53"}