{"id":"court_ctb_4100_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4100,"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| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
NATURE OF SUIT | | | | |\n| (Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
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 | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\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) | | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | |\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| | :
: | Chapter 11 | |\n|------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| Debtors. | : | (Jointly Administered) | |\n| Plaintiff, | x
:
:
:
:
:
:
: | Adv. Proceeding No. 25-[ | ] |\n| Defendant. | :
:
:
:
: | February, 13, 2025 | |\n| | 1
et al.,
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 | -----------------------------------------------------------
x
:
:
:
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 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 Yan Yan Tsang (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, Leading Shine NY Ltd (\"Leading Shine\") and Lexington Property and Staffing Inc (\"Lexington Property\"), transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$30,240.46 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter ego shell company, Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (\"Himalaya International\" and, together with Leading Shine and Lexington Property, collectively, the \"Relevant Alter Egos\"), transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$99,900.00 to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n2\n\n5. Because these postpetition transfers of estate property were not authorized by the Court or under the Bankruptcy Code, they are subject to avoidance and recovery under sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\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 the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273 and 2762 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 1185 E. Putnam Ave., Apartment A, Riverside, Connecticut 06878.\n\n# **FACTS**\n\n# **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law.\"\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 District of Connecticut (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\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\ngame 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\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 Lexington Property is the Debtor's alter ego and that its/their property, prior to the Petition Date, was property of the Debtor. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013 (the \"HCHK Entities A.P.\"), Docket No. 296 (the \"HCHK Entities Judgment\"). The HCHK Entities Judgment is final and no longer subject to appeal. The Trustee refers to and incorporates herein his Complaint filed in the HCHK Entities A.P. (HCHK Entities A.P., Docket No. 1) and the HCHK Entities Judgment.\n\n18. The Trustee is pursuing the same or substantially similar relief with respect to Leading Shine in *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23- 05023] (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\") and with respect to Himalaya International in *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249] (the \"Omnibus A.P.\"). The Trustee refers to\n\n4 Adversary proceedings in which the Trustee is seeking or has obtained such relief include, in addition to the HCHK Entities A.P., Lamp Capital A.P. and 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. Taurus Fund LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]; (v) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited* [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]; (vi) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bouillor Holdings Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311], and (vii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. AA Global Ventures Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322].\n\nand incorporates herein his Complaints filed in the Lamp Capital A.P. (Lamp Capital A.P., Docket No. 1) and the Omnibus A.P. (Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1).\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 the 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 Himalaya International, 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 Himalaya International, 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 effectuate transfers through numerous alter ego shell companies, including, without limitation, the Relevant Alter Egos.\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 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 alterego 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 Defendant**\n\n43. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell companies including Lexington Property and Leading Shine, 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 his alter-ego shell companies, including Himalya International, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (the \"Postpetition Transfer\"), 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, including through his alter ego shell companies Lexington Property and Leading Shine, 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 Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter ego shell company;\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\n12\n\n50. The Prepetition Transfers that occurred on or after February 15, 2020 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 and 276, 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, including through his alter ego shell companies, Lexington Property and Leading Shine, 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 effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter ego shell company;\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 benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. 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\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n54. The Prepetition Transfers are 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### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfer pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n55. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-46 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n56. The Postpetition Transfer were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, Himalaya International.\n\n57. The Postpetition Transfer occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n58. The Postpetition Transfer were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n59. The Postpetition Transfer constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n60. The Postpetition Transfer are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n61. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfer, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\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 \\$30,240.46 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 the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$30,240.46 are 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 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 section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfer in an amount not less than \\$99,900.00 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\n\nTransfer, 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\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 4100 Filed 02/13/25 Entered 02/13/25 15:24:46 Page 19 of 20\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4100 Filed 02/13/25 Entered 02/13/25 15:24:46 Page 20 of 20\n\n### **SCHEDULE B**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL","body_zh":"B1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗程序封面页\n（背面附说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告 被告\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码） 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 当事人（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n诉讼原因\n（简要陈述诉讼原因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n诉讼性质\n（最多编号五（5）个方框，以主要诉讼原因为1、第一个备选诉讼原因为2、第二个备选诉讼原因为3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产\n□\n11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产移交\n□\n12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 偏颇清偿\n□\n13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\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) – 可免责性（续）\n□\n61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭扶养\n□\n68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，故意且恶意造成的损害\n□\n63-可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□\n64-可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务\n（家庭扶养义务除外）\n□\n65-可免责性 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准财产出售\n□\n31-批准出售破产财产及共同所有人的财产 - §363(h) FRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n□\n71-禁令救济 – 施加中止\n□\n72-禁令救济 – 其他\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\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)，作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续见下一栏） FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01-对移送债权或诉因的裁定\n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点，请勾选 □ 如主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如起诉状要求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\nB1040（表格1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所由以发生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名 破产案件编号\n案件待审地区 分部办事处 法官姓名\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序待审地区 分部办事处 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n日期 律师（或原告）正楷姓名\n说明\n\n提交破产案件即在破产法院管辖下设立“财产集合”，其中包括债务人无论位于何处的全部财产。由于破产财产集合范围极广，且法院管辖权极为广泛，可能会就该财产集合的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能存在涉及债务人免责的诉讼。如在破产法院提起该等诉讼，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作为提交程序的一部分收集表格1040上的信息。）填写完毕后，该封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该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封面页及其所含信息，并不替代或补充法律、《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。该封面页大体上不言自明，必须由原告的律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每一份提交的起诉状均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写起诉状中所列原告和被告的姓名。\n\n律师。请填写律师的姓名和地址，如已知。\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。填写起诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由在案律师在表格第二页的方框中签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，则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\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n： 第11章\n\n： Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ： （合并管理）\n原告， x\n\n： Adv. Proceeding No. 25-[ ]\n被告。 ：\n：\n：\n：\n： February, 13, 2025\n\n等，\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A.·德斯平斯），第11章 -----------------------------------------------------------\nx\n\nx\n第11章受托人起诉状：依破产法典第544、548、549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和申请日后转让及相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A.·德斯平斯）以其作为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）第11章案件（下称“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）的身份，就本案向被告 Yan Yan Tsang（曾燕燕，下称“被告”）提起本对抗程序起诉状（下称“起诉状”），陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码末四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码末四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，收件人为 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 财产集合受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销及追回：（a）本第11章案件开始前对债务人财产作出的转让；以及（b）本第11章案件开始后对债务人第11章财产集合财产作出的、未经破产法院或《美国法典》第11编（下称“破产法典”）授权的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Leading Shine NY Ltd（领耀纽约有限公司，下称“Leading Shine”）和 Lexington Property and Staffing Inc（列克星敦物业与人力服务公司，下称“Lexington Property”），在申请日（定义见下文）前向被告作出合计金额为 $30,240.46 的资金转让，被告为首次受让人。\n\n3. 该等转让属于实际欺诈性转让，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。\n\n4. 申请日后，债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司，下称“Himalaya International”，并与 Leading Shine 和 Lexington Property 合称“相关另我实体”），向被告作出合计金额为 $99,900.00 的资金转让，被告为首次受让人。\n\n5. 因该等对财产集合财产的申请日后转让未经法院或破产法典授权，根据破产法典第549条及第550条，该等转让可被撤销及追回。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)，本院对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)，本对抗程序已移交本院审理。\n\n8. 本案请求救济的法定依据包括破产法典第544、548、549及550条，以及 New York Debtor & Creditor Law（纽约州债务人与债权人法）第273条和第276条²，或任何其他适用的州法等同规定。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 根据破产法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令 [Case No. 22-50073（下称“主案件”）Docket No. 523]，受托人为第11章案件中的第11章受托人。\n\n10. 被告为个人，其地址为 1185 E. Putnam Ave., Apartment A, Riverside, Connecticut 06878。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第11章案件\n\n2 此后，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\n11. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦破产法院，下称“破产法院”）依据破产法典第11章提交自愿破产救济申请（下称“申请日”），从而启动第11章案件。\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清单声称，其拥有 $3,850 资产，并产生了数亿美元的负债。³ 尽管债务人确实负债累累，但其清单未披露债务人通过其众多另我空壳公司，包括相关另我实体，持有和/或转让的财产。\n\n14. 于 June 15, 2022，破产法院作出备忘录决定及命令 [主案件 Docket No. 465]，指示美国受托人在第11章案件中任命第11章受托人。根据该命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins 为受托人。于 July 8, 2022，破产法院作出命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins 为第11章案件的受托人 [主案件 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. 相关另我实体属于债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人而使用的众多另我空壳公司。多年来，债务人策划了一场“空壳把戏”，利用由家庭成员、副手和/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。该空壳把戏使债务人能够使用、花费和/或转让数百万美元现金及其他资产——同时向债权人隐瞒其财产。\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页 [主案件 Docket No. 78]。\n\n16. 自获任命以来，受托人在第11章案件中提起多项对抗程序，以实现包括确认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内的目的；在其中数项对抗程序中，破产法院已准予该等救济。⁴\n\n17. 本院已作出判决，认定 Lexington Property 是债务人的另我实体，且其/他们在申请日前的财产属于债务人的财产。（Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013（下称“HCHK Entities A.P.”），Docket No. 296（下称“HCHK Entities Judgment”）。HCHK Entities Judgment 已为终局判决，且不再可上诉。受托人援引并将其在 HCHK Entities A.P. 中提交的起诉状（HCHK Entities A.P., Docket No. 1）及 HCHK Entities Judgment 纳入本文。\n\n18. 受托人就Leading Shine（领盛）在Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]（“Lamp Capital A.P.”）中，以及就Himalaya International（喜马拉雅国际）在Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]（“Omnibus A.P.”）中，寻求相同或实质上类似的救济。受托人提及并将其在Lamp Capital A.P.中提交的起诉书（Lamp Capital A.P., Docket No. 1）以及在Omnibus A.P.中提交的起诉书（Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1）纳入本案。\n\n4 除HCHK Entities A.P.、Lamp Capital A.P.和Omnibus A.P.外，受托人正在寻求或已经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 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]；(v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；(vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bouillor Holdings Limited, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311]；以及(vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. AA Global Ventures Limited, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322]。\n\n19. 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) 以来自其他受债务人控制实体的现金购置的资产，和/或在空壳实体之间无对价转让的资产；以及(iii) 债务人从该等资产中受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\n20. 除受托人对抗程序中所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人系Ace Decade Limited（十年国际有限公司）的实益所有人（并通过该公司成为Dawn State Limited的实益所有人），且债务人控制并利用了Ace Decade Limited的名义股东Yvette Wang（王悦）。5\n\n21. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews和GEdu）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他表面上独立的实体和组织，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\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（东方盈利有限公司）——该实体最初由债务人的一名司机所有，后转让给债务人的女儿——“实质上”是债务人的“空壳公司”。9\n\n5 命令准许关于裁定债务人藐视公司治理命令的动议，para. 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”))。\n\n6 经更正的决定备忘录，部分准许初步禁令动议，para. 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (“债务人还控制Saraca Media Group及一关联实体‘GTV’”))。\n\n7 同上，para. 7（“债务人是The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF和Himalaya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，作为债务人的商业工具，并且其成员在个人上忠于债务人。”）。\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.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，L.P.）（“PAX”）的追偿工作，煞费苦心。2017年，PAX在Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）对债务人提起诉讼，Index No. 652077/2017（“PAX案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX自纽约法院取得针对债务人的\\$116,402,019.57判决（“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，债务人虚假声称该资产归其女儿所有；以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人虚假声称该公寓系为其儿子以信托方式持有。债务人在判决后程序中蔑视纽约法院命令的行为，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Himalaya International，作为个人金库使用，在将资产隐藏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，为其本人及其家人已习以为常的奢华生活方式提供资金。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\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 债务人仅在资产清单中列报\\$3,850的资产。11\n\n26. 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，在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理后，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有关的电信欺诈。\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超过约500个账户，对超过\\$1 billion的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”12\n\n28. 债务人的另我实体的财产，包括Himalaya International，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n29. 在与本案有关的所有期间，债务人在New York, New York开展业务，包括指挥本起诉书所涉的申请前转让。\n\n10 关于债务人提出作出临时及最终DIP命令的动议的听证会：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资；及(II) 安排临时及最终听证会；及(III) 准予相关救济（Main Case, April 27, 2022）\n\n11 见注释3\n\n12 见United States of America关于反对被告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Chapter 11 Trustee对G Club Operations LLC就受托人提出的强制履行动议及相关救济请求所提补充异议的答复（June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934）。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳公司把戏及欺诈在申请后仍在继续\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在《破产法》项下的义务，继续通过大量另我空壳公司实施转让，包括但不限于相关另我实体。\n\n32. 该等申请后转让均未获破产法院授权，亦未获《破产法》授权。\n\nE. 意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人的转让\n\n33. 本起诉书所涉转让均意图阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人，因其全部均通过作为债务人空壳公司把戏一部分运营的债务人另我空壳公司作出。\n\n34. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以在向其众多债权人虚假声称贫困的同时，隐匿并耗散数百万美元资产。债务人一面声称一贫如洗，一面大量支出，以维持其本人、其家庭成员及密切关联人士的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n35. 债务人隐匿和耗散的资产包括其从其加密货币、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（美国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\n36. 债务人知道并意图通过以该方式隐匿和耗散其资产，使剩余资产不足以清偿其债权人——包括其诸多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，该等转让必然是出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出。\n\nF. 撤销请求的时效中止\n\n37. 2024年2月15日，法院作出其部分准许延长期限动议的决定备忘录及命令[Main Case Docket No. 2921]（“中止命令”）。法院据此依Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)，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延长至并包括2024年8月15日。\n\n38. 法院在中止命令中认定，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陈述，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》项下债务人的义务。（Tolling Order at p. 14.）\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妨碍了受托人的调查，法院已作出“至少八项命令，裁定……债务人、其女儿、[Mei] Guo（郭美）以及被指称受……债务人控制的实体，因未移交资产及滥用证据开示程序而藐视法庭”，即为明证。（Id. at p. 15.）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行为，是非同寻常的”（id.），并认定，面对该等阻碍，受托人的调查“远不止于合理勤勉”。（id. at p. 17）自2024年2月以来，受托人已提起超过280项对抗程序。（See Main Docket, generally）。\n\n40. 2024年8月14日，法院作出其准许受托人第二次延长提起撤销诉讼期限动议的命令[Main Case Docket No. 3417]（“第二份中止命令”），进一步将《破产法》第108、546及549条规定的受托人提起撤销诉讼的期限延长至2025年2月15日，并指出受托人调查工作持续面临的障碍及受托人进行该调查的勤勉程度（Second Tolling Order at pp. 2-3）。\n\n41. 受托人一直勤勉地调查和追究本起诉书中主张的请求。\n\n42. 鉴于包括受托人在进行勤勉调查时所面临的非同寻常阻碍在内的诸多事项，衡平因素的权衡强烈支持对适用于本案所主张请求的任何时效期间实行衡平中止。\n\nG. 向被告作出的转让\n\n43. 在申请日之前，债务人通过包括 Lexington Property（莱克星顿地产）和 Leading Shine（领先光耀）在内的作为其另一自我的空壳公司，或以其他方式，向被告转让了债务人的财产（统称“申请前转让”），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\n44. 在申请日之后，债务人通过包括 Himalya International（喜马拉雅国际）在内的作为其另一自我的空壳公司，或以其他方式，向被告转让了破产财产（“申请后转让”），包括但不限于如下：见随附并构成本文件一部分的附表B。\n\n45. 在申请前转让和申请后转让（统称“转让”）发生时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿债务。\n\n46. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n（根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第548(a)(1)(A)条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n47. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至46段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n48. 债务人，包括通过其作为另一自我的空壳公司 Lexington Property 和 Leading Shine，实施申请前转让时具有阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n49. 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，以下事实足以证明：\n\na. 申请前转让是利用作为另一自我的空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，并在债务人控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属协助下实施，意图隐瞒和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请前转让通过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，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正遭受诉讼，包括 PAX（PAX）在 PAX 案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n50. 于2020年2月15日或之后发生的申请前转让，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第二项请求\n（根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273条和第276条，以及《破产法典》第544(b)条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n51. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至46段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n52. 债务人，包括通过其作为另一自我的空壳公司 Lexington Property 和 Leading Shine，实施申请前转让时具有阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n53. 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，以下事实足以证明：\n\na. 申请前转让是利用作为另一自我的空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让是债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，并在债务人控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属协助下实施，意图隐瞒和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请前转让通过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，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请前转让通过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，进一步促成了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正遭受诉讼，包括 PAX 在 PAX 案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\ng. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n54. 申请前转让可由受托人根据 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273(a)(1)条和第276条以及《破产法典》第544(b)条予以撤销，并可根据《破产法典》第550(a)条予以追回。\n\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法典》第549条和第550(a)条请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请后转让）\n\n55. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至46段所载的指控，如同在此完整列明。\n\n56. 债务人，包括通过其作为另一自我的空壳公司 Himalaya International（喜马拉雅国际），向被告作出了申请后转让。\n\n57. 申请后转让发生于申请日之后。\n\n58. 申请后转让未经破产法院（Bankruptcy Court）或《破产法典》授权。\n\n59. 申请后转让构成对债务人第11章破产财产的未经授权转让。\n\n60. 申请后转让可根据《破产法典》第549(a)条予以撤销。\n\n61. 根据《破产法典》第550(a)条，受托人有权向被告追回申请后转让或其价值，并加计至付款日的利息及本案费用。\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人恭请作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$30,240.46的申请前转让根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产的利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$30,240.46的申请前转让根据《破产法典》第544(b)条和 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第273(a)(1)条及第276条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据 N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law 第276条和《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产的利益，向被告追回申请前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求，作出命令，(a) 宣告金额不少于\\$99,900.00的申请后转让根据《破产法典》第549条予以撤销；以及 (b) 作出命令，指示撤销申请后转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产的利益，向被告追回申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 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\n5. 法院在具体情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：February 13, 2025 New Haven, CT（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（LUC 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.（NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH 专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人的代理律师\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4100 Filed 02/13/25 Entered 02/13/25 15:24:46 Page 19 of 20\n\n附表A\n\n密封提交\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4100 Filed 02/13/25 Entered 02/13/25 15:24:46 Page 20 of 20\n\n附表B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Himalaya","HCHK","Kwok","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","GTV","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":395,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5099,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-02-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-02-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:52:58"}