{"id":"court_ctb_4315_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4315,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2025-04-14","title":"B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15) | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS
Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee | DEFENDANTS | FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ PC | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.)
Douglas S. Skalka, Patrick R. Linsey
Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.
195 Church Street, 13 Floor, New Haven, CT 06510
203-781-2847 | ATTORNEYS | (If Known) | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee
✔ | □ Debtor
□ Creditor
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Other
✔ | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee seeking avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers and 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| 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/ Patrick R. Linsey | | | | |\n| DATE
April 14, 2025 | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
Patrick R. Linsey | | |\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,
Plaintiff,
v. | x
:
:
:
:
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ]
:
:
:
April 14, 2025
: |\n| FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ PC, | :
: |\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 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 Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC (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 company, Lexington Property and Staffing Inc (\"Lexington\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$227,436.53 prior to the Petition Date 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 (as defined herein), the Debtor, through his alter-ego shell company Lexington, transferred funds in the amount of \\$160,246.57 to the Defendant as initial transferee.\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(a) 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 a New York professional service corporation with an address and place of business at 28 Liberty Street, 35th Floor, New York, New York, 10005.\n\n# **FACTS**\n\n#### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\" or \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the above-captioned chapter 11 case (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\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\".\n\nliabilities.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 Lexington.\n\n14. On June 15, 2022, the 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 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. Lexington is among the numerous alter-ego shell companies used by the Debtor to defraud his creditors. For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members and subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use, spend, and 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 the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.4\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 (Main Case, Docket No. 78).\n\n4 Adversary proceedings in which the Trustee is seeking or has obtained such relief include, in addition to the HCHK Entities 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. Lamp Capital LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]; (vii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n17. The Court has entered judgment to the effect that Lexington is the Debtor's alter ego and that its 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 \"Lexington Judgment\"). The Lexington 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 Lexington Judgment.\n\n18. 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\n19. 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\n20. 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\n\n*v. ACA Capital Group Ltd.*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]; (viii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bouillor Holdings Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311], and (ix) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. AA Global Ventures Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322].\n\n5 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\nby the Debtor,6 led by the Debtor7 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.8\n\n21. 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 owned by one of the Debtor's chefs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.9\n\n22. 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\n6 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, ¶ 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 ¶ 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\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\n23. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including Lexington, 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\n24. 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\n25. 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\n26. 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\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\nnames of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"12\n\n27. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Lexington, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n28. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the Transfers (as defined herein).\n\n### **D. Debtor's Shell Game and Fraud Continues Postpetition**\n\n29. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including Lexington, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n30. 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, Lexington.\n\n31. 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\n32. 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 made through the Debtor's alter-ego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n33. 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\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\ncreditors. 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\n34. 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 has been 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\n35. 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\n36. The Debtor's ability to establish and maintain his shell game—which involved a tangled web of numerous alter-ego entities—depended upon, among other things, services provided by professional firms.\n\n37. The Defendant is a law firm that represented GTV Media Group, Inc., an entity involved in one of the Debtor's securities fraud schemes. The Defendant's services included, without limitation, services related to the PAX Case.\n\n38. The Debtor intentionally utilized these services to hinder, delay, or otherwise interfere with PAX and other creditors (a) enforcing its claim and judgment against the Debtor and (b) exposing the Debtor's fraudulent shell game.\n\n39. The Transfers to the Defendant represented payment for such services and thus were further intended to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors. The Defendant\n\nreceived these Transfers via Lexington, which according to the Defendant was not the Defendant's client.\n\n#### **F. Stipulated Tolling Orders and Extension Orders**\n\n40. The Trustee and the Defendant have entered, and the Court has approved, a series of stipulated orders Tolling any time limitations for the Trustee to commence this action, most recently through and including April 15, 2025 [Main Case Docket No. 4049].\n\n41. The Court has also entered orders extending any applicable 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, 2025 [Main Case Docket Nos. 2921, 3417, 4106].\n\n### **G. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n42. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using Lexington, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof\n\n43. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell company, Lexington, or otherwise, transferred property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n44. 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\n45. 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\n46. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n47. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, including through Lexington, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n48. 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\n49. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section\n\n548(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), and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n50. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n51. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through Lexington, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n52. 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\n53. 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 Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n54. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n55. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through Lexington.\n\n56. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n57. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n58. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n59. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n60. 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#### **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 Transfers in an amount not less than \\$227,436.53 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 \\$227,436.53 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 Transfers in an amount not less than \\$160,246.57 are avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition 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\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: April 14, 2025 New Haven, CT LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **SCHEDULE A**\n\nFILED UNDER SEAL\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4315 Filed 04/14/25 Entered 04/14/25 16:36:41 Page 19 of 19\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（背面附说明） 对抗程序编号\n（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人 被告 FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ PC（法兰克福特·库尔尼特·克莱因与塞尔兹专业公司）\n律师（律师事务所名称、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 （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✔ □ 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诉因\n（简要说明诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第11章受托人提起的诉状，请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及申请后转让，并根据《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和276条请求相关救济\n诉讼性质\n（最多编号五（5）个方框，以主要诉因为1，第一备选诉因为2，第二备选诉因为3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1)－金钱/财产追回\n□\n11－金钱/财产追回－§542 财产交付\n□\n12－金钱/财产追回－§547 优先受偿\n□\n✔\n13－金钱/财产追回－§548 欺诈性转让\n□\n✔\n14－金钱/财产追回－其他\nFRBP 7001(2)－留置权的有效性、优先顺位或范围\n□\n21－留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先顺位或范围 □\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\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\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) 债权或权益从属\n81－债权或权益从属\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\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) 移送诉讼的裁定\n01－对移送的请求或诉因作出裁定\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✔ □ 如主张本案为根据 FRCP 23 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如在诉状中请求陪审团审判，请勾选 请求金额 $\n请求的其他救济\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） 分院办公室\nBridgeport（布里奇波特） 法官姓名\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n相关对抗程序（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n程序编号\n对抗程序审理地区 分院办公室 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n日期\nApril 14, 2025 律师（或原告）印刷体姓名\nPatrick R. Linsey\n说明\n\n提交破产案件会在破产法院管辖下设立一个“破产财产”，该财产由债务人的全部财产构成，无论该财产位于何处。由于破产财产范围如此广泛，且法院管辖权如此宽泛，可能会就破产财产或其财产权利发生诉讼。也可能发生有关债务人免责的诉讼。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 Form 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 Form 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该封面页及其所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产程序规则》或法院地方法规所要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面页大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告的律师填写（如原告无律师代理，则由原告填写）。每份提交的诉状均须向书记员另行提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写诉状中所载原告和被告的姓名。\n\n律师。如已知，请填写律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。请在第一栏中为原告勾选最适当的方框，并在第二栏中为被告勾选最适当的方框。\n\n请求金额。填写诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由记录在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，必须由该所的一名成员签署。如原告自行诉讼，即未由律师代理，则必须由原告签署。\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： :\n:\n第11章\n\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原告，\n诉 x\n\n对抗程序编号 [ ]\n:\n:\n:\nApril 14, 2025\n:\nFRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ PC（法兰克福特·库尔尼特·克莱因与塞尔兹专业公司）， :\n\n被告。\n\nx\n第11章受托人诉状：请求根据《破产法典》第544、548、549和550条及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第273和276条撤销并追回欺诈性转让和申请后转让及请求相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“债务人”或“Kwok”）第11章案件（“第11章案件”）中获任命的第11章受托人（“受托人”）身份，提交本\n\n1 本第11章案件的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号码后四位：8202）以及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产的受托人（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n对抗性诉状（“诉状”），针对被告 Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC（“被告”）提出如下陈述：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，请求撤销并追回：(a) 本第11章案件开始前对债务人财产的转让；以及 (b) 本第11章案件开始后对债务人第11章破产财产的转让，且该等转让未经破产法院批准或未经《美国法典》第11编（“破产法典”）授权。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Lexington Property and Staffing Inc（“Lexington”），于申请日之前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为 $227,436.53 的资金。\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“空壳游戏”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. 申请日之后（定义如下），债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Lexington，向作为初始受让人的被告转让了金额为 $160,246.57 的资金。\n\n5. 由于该等对破产财产的申请后转让未经法院批准或未经《破产法典》授权，故其可根据《破产法典》第549和550条予以撤销并追回。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 本院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 本对抗程序依据 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《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(a)和2762条，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人依据破产法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令，在第11章案件中担任第11章受托人 [案件编号 22-50073（“主案”）案卷编号 523]。\n\n10. 被告是一家纽约专业服务公司，其地址和营业地点为 28 Liberty Street, 35th Floor, New York, New York, 10005。\n事实\nA. 第11章案件\n\n11. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 在美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院（“法院”或“破产法院”）根据《破产法典》《美国法典》第11编第11章提交了自愿救济申请（“申请日”），从而启动上述标题所列第11章案件（“第11章案件”）。\n\n12. 于 March 21, 2022，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，并产生了数亿美元的\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\n负债。3 尽管债务人确实负债累累，但其财产清单未披露债务人通过其众多另我空壳公司（包括 Lexington）持有和/或转让的财产。\n\n14. 于 June 15, 2022，法院作出决定备忘录及命令 [主案件卷编号 465]，指示美国受托人在第11章案件中任命一名第11章受托人。依该命令，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，法院作出命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任第11章案件的受托人 [主案件卷编号 523]。\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. Lexington 是债务人用于欺诈其债权人的众多另我空壳公司之一。多年来，债务人策划了一场“空壳游戏”，使用由家庭成员和下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人能够使用、支出和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\n16. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第11章案件中提起多项对抗程序，以便除其他事项外，确认债务人的空壳公司系其另我和/或该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有，并且破产法院已在其中若干案件中准予该等救济。4\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第1页（主案，案卷编号 78）。\n\n4 除 HCHK Entities A.P.（HCHK 实体对抗程序）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（卢克·A·德斯潘斯）, Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）诉 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）等 [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Mei Guo（郭梅）[Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]；(v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Golden Spring (New York) Limited（黄金之泉（纽约）有限公司）[Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；(vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）等 [Adv. Proc. 23-05023]；(vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 ACA Capital Group Ltd.（ACA 资本集团有限公司）等 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05249]；(viii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 Bouillor Holdings Limited（布伊约控股有限公司）等 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311]；以及 (ix) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 诉 AA Global Ventures Limited（AA 环球创投有限公司）等 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322]。\n\n17. 法院已作出判决，认定 Lexington（列克星敦）为债务人的另我实体，且其在申请日之前的财产属于债务人的财产。(Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013，即“HCHK Entities A.P.”), Docket No. 296（下称“Lexington Judgment”）。Lexington Judgment 已为终局判决，且不再可上诉。受托人援引并纳入其在 HCHK Entities A.P. 中提交的起诉状（HCHK Entities A.P., Docket No. 1）及 Lexington Judgment。\n\n18. 该等诉讼中的事实模式一贯涉及：(i) 由债务人控制、由近亲属及/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，及/或在空壳实体之间无偿转移的资产；以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中受益并对其拥有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n19. 除受托人对抗程序中处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（并通过该公司成为 Dawn State Limited（道恩州有限公司））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（王悦）。5\n\n20. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（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）和 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他据称独立的实体和组织，均受债务人控制，6 由债务人领导7，及/或“服务于……债务人的目的并作为债务人的商业工具”。8\n\n5 《准许动议并认定债务人藐视公司治理命令的命令》，¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372（“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”）)。\n\n6 《经更正的部分准许初步禁令动议的决定备忘录》，¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023（“债务人还控制 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及一关联实体‘GTV’。”）)。\n\n7 同上，¶ 7（“债务人是 The Whistleblower Movement（爆料革命）、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，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员在个人上忠于债务人。”）。\n\n21. 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）——一家最初由债务人的一名厨师所有、后转让给债务人女儿的实体——“实质上是”债务人的一家“空壳公司”。9\n\n22. 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”）的追偿工作而竭尽所能。2017 年，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（下称“New York Court（纽约法院）”）提起诉讼，案号为 Index No. 652077/2017（下称“PAX Case”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。于 February 3, 2021，PAX 从纽约法院取得针对债务人的 $116,402,019.57 判决（下称“PAX Judgment”）。PAX 试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行 PAX Judgment——包括 Lady May（“梅夫人”号），债务人谎称该船由其女儿所有；以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人谎称该公寓为其儿子以信托方式持有。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 的藐视法庭罚金。\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\n23. 债务人还将其另我实体，包括 Lexington，作为私人提款机，用于资助其本人及其家人已习以为常的奢华生活方式，同时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。债务人通过该等另我实体实施的转移延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n24. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其没有足够资产偿还其负债，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示 $3,850 的资产。11\n\n25. 于 March 2023，债务人被联邦当局逮捕并被无保释羁押。于 July 16, 2024，在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院审判后，债务人被判九项重罪罪名成立，即：敲诈勒索共谋、实施电信欺诈和银行欺诈共谋、洗钱共谋、实施证券欺诈共谋、与 Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）有关的电信欺诈、与 Farm Loan Program 有关的证券欺诈、与 G|CLUBS 有关的电信欺诈、与 G|CLUBS 有关的证券欺诈，以及与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有关的电信欺诈。\n\n26. 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，对超过 $1 billion 的欺诈所得进行洗钱。”12\n\n10 关于债务人提出的临时和最终 DIP 命令动议的听证会，该动议请求：(I) 授权债务人获得无担保、次级的申请后融资；(II) 安排临时和最终听证会；以及 (III) 授予相关救济（主案，April 27, 2022）。\n\n11 见注3。\n\n27. 债务人另我实体的财产，包括 Lexington，在申请日之前的任何时候均属于债务人的财产。\n\n28. 在与本案相关的所有期间，债务人在 New York, New York（纽约州纽约市）开展业务，包括指示 Transfers（定义见下文）。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳游戏和欺诈在申请提交后仍在继续\n\n29. 截至申请日，债务人通过其另我实体持有的所有财产，包括 Lexington，均成为第11章破产财产。见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n30. 申请日后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其在 Bankruptcy Code（破产法）下的义务，继续通过众多另我空壳公司实施转移，包括但不限于 Lexington。\n\n31. 该等申请提交后的转移均未经破产法院授权，亦未获 Bankruptcy Code 授权。\n\nE. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转移\n\n32. 本起诉状中争议的 Transfers（定义见下文）系为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出，原因在于该等转移系通过债务人作为其空壳游戏组成部分经营的另我空壳公司作出。\n\n33. 债务人故意以此方式安排其财务事务，以便在向其众多债权人虚假声称贫困的同时，隐匿和耗散数百万美元的资产。债务人声称自己身无分文，同时却巨额支出，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\n34. 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获得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院审理的一起刑事案件中，已被判多项重罪欺诈、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\n35. 债务人知道并意图通过以此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——包括其众多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，该等转移必然是为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出。\n\n36. 债务人建立和维持其空壳游戏的能力——该游戏涉及由众多另我实体构成的错综复杂网络——尤其依赖于专业事务所提供的服务。\n\n37. 被告是一家律师事务所，其曾代理 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV 媒体集团公司），该实体参与了债务人的一项证券欺诈计划。被告提供的服务包括但不限于与 PAX Case 有关的服务。\n\n38. 债务人故意利用该等服务，以阻碍、拖延或以其他方式妨碍 PAX 及其他债权人：(a) 执行其对债务人的债权和判决；以及 (b) 揭露债务人的欺诈性空壳游戏。\n\n39. 向被告作出的 Transfers 是对该等服务的付款，因此亦旨在阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人的债权人。被告经由 Lexington 收到该等 Transfers，而据被告所述，Lexington 并非被告的客户。\n\nF. 约定的时效中止命令及延长期限命令\n\n40. 受托人与被告已达成且法院已批准一系列约定命令，中止受托人提起本案的任何期限限制，最近一次中止期限至并包括 April 15, 2025 [Main Case Docket No. 4049]。\n\n41. 法院还作出命令，将 Bankruptcy Code 第108、546和549条规定的、适用于受托人提起撤销之诉的任何期限限制延长至并包括 August 15, 2025 [Main Case Docket Nos. 2921, 3417, 4106]。\n\nG. 向被告作出的转移\n\n42. 在申请日之前，债务人使用 Lexington 或以其他方式向被告转移债务人的财产（下称“Prepetition Transfers”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附本文件并构成本文件一部分的附件A\n\n43. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 Lexington 或以其他方式向被告转移债务人第11章破产财产的财产（统称“Postpetition Transfers”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附本文件并构成本文件一部分的附件B。\n\n44. 在 Prepetition Transfers 和 Postpetition Transfers（统称“Transfers”）作出时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n45. 被告是 Transfers 的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求\n\n（根据 Bankruptcy Code 第548(a)(1)(A)和550(a)条提出的撤销并追回实际欺诈性转移请求）\n\n46. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至45段所载的指称，如同在此完整列明。\n\n47. 申请前转让由债务人作出，包括通过Lexington作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n48. 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，尤其可由以下事实证明：\n\na. 申请前转让系使用一个替身空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让系债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，并在债务人的家庭成员以及其控制的其他亲信和下属的协助下实施，以试图隐瞒和保护资产；\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，债务人正受到诉讼，包括PAX在PAX案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n49. 根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A)，受托人可撤销申请前转让；并根据《破产法》section 550(a)，可予追回。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)和276，以及《破产法》sections 544(b)和550(a)，请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n50. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至45段所载的指称，如同在此完整列明。\n\n51. 申请前转让由债务人通过Lexington作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n52. 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，尤其可由以下事实证明：\n\na. 申请前转让系使用一个替身空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让系债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，并在债务人的家庭成员以及其控制的其他亲信和下属的协助下实施，以试图隐瞒和保护资产；\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，债务人正受到诉讼，包括PAX在PAX案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已资不抵债或资本不足。\n\n53. 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1)和276，以及《破产法》section 544(b)，受托人可撤销申请前转让；并根据《破产法》section 550(a)，可予追回。\n\n第三项请求\n（根据《破产法》sections 549和550(a)，请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请后转让）\n\n54. 受托人重申并再次主张第1至45段所载的指称，如同在此完整列明。\n\n55. 申请后转让由债务人向被告作出，包括通过Lexington作出。\n\n56. 申请后转让发生于申请日之后。\n\n57. 申请后转让未经破产法院或《破产法》授权。\n\n58. 申请后转让构成对债务人第11章破产财产未经授权的转让。\n\n59. 根据《破产法》section 549(a)，申请后转让可予撤销。\n\n60. 根据《破产法》section 550(a)，受托人有权向被告追回申请后转让或其价值，并追回截至付款之日的利息及本案费用。\n\n请求救济\n\n因此，基于前述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求，(a) 作出命令，宣告金额不少于\\$227,436.53的转让根据《破产法》section 548(a)(1)(A)予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销申请前转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产之利益，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\\$227,436.53的申请前转让根据《破产法》section 544(b)及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1)和276予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，指令撤销申请前转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law section 276及《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产之利益，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\\$160,246.57的申请后转让根据《破产法》section 549予以撤销；(b) 指令撤销申请后转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法》section 550(a)(1)，为债务人破产财产之利益，向被告追回申请后转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n4. 向受托人判给自本起诉状提交之日起至本案判决之日止，按法定最高利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院在此情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：April 14, 2025\nNew Haven, CT\nLUC A. DESPINS，第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第11章受托人的代理律师\n\n附表A\n\n密封提交\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 4315 Filed 04/14/25 Entered 04/14/25 16:36:41 Page 19 of 19\n\n附表B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Guo","Himalaya","GTV","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":395,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4821,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-04-14 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-04-14","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:49:05"}