{"id":"court_ctb_4318_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4318,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":null,"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
WALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP | | | | | |\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,
v. | :
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
: | x | Adv. Proceeding No. 25-[ | ] |\n| WALDEN MACHT HARAN &
WILLIAMS LLP, | :
:
: | | April 14, 2025 | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :
Defendant.
:
: | x | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273 AND 276**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n## **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter ego shell company Lexington Property and Staffing LLC (\"Lexington\"), transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$166,237.15 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\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n5. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n6. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273 and 2762 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law.\"\n\n## **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n8. The Defendant is a New York limited liability partnership with an address and place of business at 250 Vesey Street, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10281.\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n9. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\" or the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n10. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n11. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.3 While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter ego shell companies, including Lexington.\n\n12. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\ntrustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n## **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n13. Lexington is among the numerous alter ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors. For years, the Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members, lieutenants, and/or subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets—while concealing his property from creditors.\n\n14. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several such adversary proceedings the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.4\n\n15. The 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.\n\n4 Adversary proceedings in which the Trustee is seeking or has obtained such relief include, in addition to 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 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\n23-5013 (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\n16. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from other Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n### **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n17. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and through it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.5\n\n18. The Bankruptcy Court has also found that the \"G Entities\" (Gettr, G Fashion, G Music, GClubs, GNews and GEdu), the New Federal State of China and the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled by the Debtor6 , led by the Debtor7 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.8\n\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\n19. Prior to the Petition Date, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, an entity originally owned by one of the Debtor's chauffeurs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.9\n\n20. The Debtor has gone to great lengths to hinder and delay the collection efforts of one of his largest creditors, *i.e.*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"). In 2017, PAX sued the Debtor in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the \"New York Court\"), Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"PAX Case\"), seeking judgment for monies owed. On February 3, 2021, PAX obtained a judgment from the New York Court against the Debtor in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\"). PAX sought to enforce the PAX Judgment by levying the Debtor's assets—including the Lady May, which the Debtor falsely claimed was owned by his daughter, and the Debtor's luxury apartment in Manhattan, which the Debtor falsely claimed was held in trust for the Debtor's son. The Debtor's defiance of New York Court orders in postjudgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n21. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including 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\n9 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n22. The Debtor has testified before the Bankruptcy Court that he has insufficient assets to pay his liabilities and that his luxurious lifestyle is funded by his family through businesses nominally held by family members.10 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.11\n\n23. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested by federal authorities and held without bail. On July 16, 2024, following a trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Debtor was convicted of nine felony counts, *i.e.*, racketeering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud in connection with the Farm Loan Program, securities fraud in connection with the Farm Loan program, wire fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, securities fraud in connection with G|CLUBS, and wire fraud in connection with the Himalaya Exchange.\n\n24. In its criminal indictment of the Debtor, the United States Government asserted that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"12\n\n25. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including Lexington, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n26. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the prepetition 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. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n27. 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\n28. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many creditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n29. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor was convicted of multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 395] (July 18, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n30. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n31. 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\n8\n\n32. The Defendant is a law firm that represented Saraca Media Group, Inc. and GTV Media Group, Inc. in connection with the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation of the Debtor's fraudulent securities scheme.\n\n33. The Debtor intentionally used the Defendant's services to conceal his fraudulent conduct, thus allowing the Debtor to continue orchestrating his financial shell game and operating various other fraudulent schemes.\n\n34. 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.\n\n## **E. Transfers to Defendant**\n\n35. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell companies including Lexington, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n36. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n37. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n**F. Stipulated Tolling Orders and Extension Orders**\n\n38. 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. 4171].\n\n39. 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## **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\n40. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-39 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n41. The Transfers were made by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, Lexington, or otherwise, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n42. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Transfers were effectuated using an alter ego shell company;\n\nb. The Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The 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 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 Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX\n\nin the PAX Case; and\n\nf. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n43. The 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(a)(1) and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n44. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-39 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n45. The Transfers were made by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, Lexington, or otherwise, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n46. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Transfers were effectuated using an alter ego shell company;\n\nb. The Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The 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 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 Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX\n\nin the PAX Case; and\n\nf. At the time of the Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n47. The Transfers that occurred on or after April 4, 2020 are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276 as these statutes existed at the time of such Transfers, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **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 \\$166,237.15 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 Transfers in an amount not less than \\$166,237.15 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 Transfers be set aside; (b) an order directing that the Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n4. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n12\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","body_zh":"B1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n对抗诉讼封面页\n（背面说明） 对抗诉讼编号\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\nWALDEN MACHT HARAN & WILLIAMS LLP（沃尔登·马赫特·哈兰与威廉姆斯律师事务所）\n律师（律所名称、地址和电话号码）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡），Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13 Floor, New Haven, CT 06510\n203-781-2847 律师\n（如已知）\n当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国\n受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n✔ □ 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\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，请求依据《破产法》第 544、548、549 和 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》\n第 273 和 276 条，撤销并追回欺诈性转让及申请提交后转让，并请求相关救济\n\n诉讼性质\n（从主导诉因作为 1 开始，第一替代诉因为 2，第二替代诉因为 3，依此类推，最多编号五（5）个方框。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 金钱/财产追偿\n□\n11—金钱/财产追偿—§542 财产移交\n□\n12—金钱/财产追偿—§547 优先受偿转让\n□\n✔\n13—金钱/财产追偿—§548 欺诈性转让\n□\n✔\n14—金钱/财产追偿—其他\n\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的效力、优先顺位或范围\n□\n21—留置权或其他财产权益的效力、优先顺位或范围 □\n□\n□\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n61—可免责性—§523(a)(5)，家庭扶养义务\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（家庭扶养义务除外）\n65—可免责性—其他\n\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准出售财产\n□\n31—批准出售破产财团及共同所有人财产—§363(h) FRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n□\n71—禁令救济—施加中止\n□\n72—禁令救济—其他\n\nFRBP 7001(4) – 对免责提出异议/撤销免责\n□\n41—对免责提出异议/撤销免责—§727(c),(d),(e) □ FRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益的次位\n81—债权或权益的次位\n\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51—撤销确认 □ FRBP 7001(9) 确认判决\n91—确认判决\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□\n66—可免责性—§523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权\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） □\n其他\n□\n□ FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n01—对被移送债权或诉因的裁定\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□ 如果本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选\n✔ □ 如果主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如果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\n\nB1040（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗诉讼所产生的破产案件\n\n债务人姓名\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 破产案件编号\n22-50073\n案件审理地区\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） 分院办事处\nBridgeport（布里奇波特） 法官姓名\nJulie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）\n相关对抗诉讼（如有）\n原告 被告 对抗\n诉讼编号\n对抗诉讼审理地区 分院办事处 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）姓名正楷\nPatrick R. Linsey\n说明\n\n提交破产案件将产生由破产法院管辖的“破产财团”，其包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围广泛且法院管辖权十分宽泛，可能会就破产财团的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能会发生有关债务人免责的诉讼。如该等诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗诉讼。\n\n提起对抗诉讼的一方还必须填写并提交表格 1040，即《对抗诉讼封面页》，但该方通过法院案件管理/电子案件提交系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提交对抗诉讼的除外。（CM/ECF 在提交程序中获取表格 1040 所载信息。）填写完成后，封面页概述对抗诉讼的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗诉讼并编制所要求的法院活动统计报告。\n\n封面页及其所载信息并不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规则所要求的诉状或其他文书的提交和送达。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。请准确填写诉状中载明的原告和被告姓名。\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。请填写诉状中请求的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面页必须由登记在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签署。如原告由律师事务所代理，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\n美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第 11 章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），\n等， ：\n： 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。\n：\n： （合并管理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章\n受托人，\n诉 ：\n：\n：\n：\n原告，\n：\n：\n： x 对抗诉讼编号 25-[ ]\nWALDEN MACHT HARAN &\nWILLIAMS LLP（沃尔登·马赫特·哈兰与\n威廉姆斯律师事务所）， ：\n：\n： April 14, 2025\n\n被告。\n：\n： x\n\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产法》第 544、548 和 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273 和 276 条请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及相关救济的诉状\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）中获任命的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份，提起本\n\n1 本第 11 章案件的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他化名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）（税务识别号码后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins，作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团的受托人（仅用于通知和通信）。\n\n对抗诉状（“诉状”），针对被告 Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP（“被告”），陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗诉讼，以撤销并追回本第 11 章案件开始前对债务人财产进行的转让。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Lexington Property and Staffing LLC（列克星敦物业与人力配置有限责任公司）（“Lexington”），在申请日（定义见下文）前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了合计 \\$166,237.15 的资金。\n\n3. 该等转让构成实际欺诈，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，且该等转让的作出意图在于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n4. 本法院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗诉讼具有事项管辖权。\n\n5. 本对抗诉讼已依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移交本法院审理。\n\n6. 本案所请求救济的法定依据包括《破产法》第 544、548 和 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273 和 276 条2，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n\n2 以下对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用将简称为“《纽约州债务人与债权人法》”。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 受托人是第 11 章案件中的第 11 章受托人，依据破产法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令获任命[案件编号 22-50073（“主案件”）案卷编号 523]。\n\n8. 被告是一家纽约州有限责任合伙企业，其地址及营业地点为 250 Vesey Street, 27th Floor, New York, NY 10281。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第 11 章案件\n\n9. 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》第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请（“申请日”），从而启动第 11 章案件。\n\n10. 于 March 21, 2022，美国受托人办公室在本第 11 章案件中任命了无担保债权人官方委员会。尚未任命审查员。\n\n11. 债务人于 March 2022 向破产法院提交的破产财产清单声称，其拥有 \\$3,850 的资产并承担了数亿美元的负债。3 尽管债务人的确负债累累，但其财产清单未披露由其众多另我空壳公司（包括 Lexington）持有和/或转让的债务人财产。\n\n12. 于 June 15, 2022，破产法院作出决定备忘录和命令[主案件案卷编号 465]，指示美国受托人任命一名第 11 章\n\n3 资产和负债清单，第 1 页[主案件案卷编号 78]。\n\n受托人参与第 11 章案件。根据该命令，美国受托人选定 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）担任受托人。于 July 8, 2022，破产法院作出命令，批准任命 Luc A. Despins 为第 11 章案件的受托人[主案件案卷编号 523]。\n\nB. 债务人使用空壳公司及受托人的对抗诉讼\n\n13. Lexington 是债务人用于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的众多另我空壳公司之一。多年来，债务人一直策划一场“空壳游戏”，利用由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。该空壳游戏使债务人得以使用、支出和/或转让数百万美元现金及其他资产，同时向债权人隐匿其财产。\n\n14. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第 11 章案件中提起多项对抗诉讼，以便除其他事项外，确认债务人的空壳公司是其另我，和/或确认该等公司及其资产在衡平法上归债务人所有；破产法院已在数项该等对抗诉讼中准予该等救济。4\n\n15. 法院已作出判决，认定 Lexington 是债务人的另我，且其在申请日前的财产属于债务人的财产。（对抗诉讼编号\n\n4 除HCHK Entities A.P.外，受托人正在寻求或已获得该等救济的对抗程序包括：(i) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘），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〕有限公司等），等 [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins，Chapter 11 Trustee诉 Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治地产有限责任公司），等 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins，Chapter 11 Trustee诉 Mei Guo（梅国）[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（黄金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）[Adv. Proc. 23-05018]；(vi) Luc A. Despins，Chapter 11 Trustee诉 Lamp Capital LLC（兰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（Bouillor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全球创投有限公司），等 [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322]。\n\n23-5013（“HCHK Entities A.P.”），Docket No. 296（“Lexington Judgment”）。Lexington Judgment为终局判决，且不再可上诉。受托人援引并将其在HCHK Entities A.P.中提交的起诉书（HCHK Entities A.P., Docket No. 1）及Lexington Judgment并入本文。\n\n16. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由近亲和/或下属持有的、受债务人控制的空壳公司；(ii) 使用来自其他受债务人控制实体的现金购置的资产，和/或无偿转让给空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转让的资产；以及 (iii) 债务人从该等资产中获益，并对该等资产拥有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人而实施的行为\n\n17. 除受托人对抗程序所处理的事项外，破产法院还认定，债务人是Ace Decade Limited（艾斯十年有限公司）（及通过该公司持有的Dawn State Limited〔黎明州有限公司〕）的受益所有人，且债务人控制并利用了Ace Decade Limited的名义股东Yvette Wang（王悦）。5\n\n18. 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）和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\n5 准许动议、认定债务人藐视《公司治理命令》的命令，第1、4段（Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372（“Corp. Governance Contempt Order”））。\n\n6 经更正的部分准许初步禁令动议的裁决备忘录，第3段（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023（“债务人还控制Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）及相关实体‘GTV’”））。\n\n7 同上，第7段（“债务人是The Whistleblower Movement（吹哨人运动）、NFSC、ROLF和Himalaya（喜马拉雅）的领导人。”）。\n\n8 同上。（“The Whistleblower Movement、NFSC、ROLF、GSeries和Himalaya服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，其成员对债务人个人忠诚。”）。\n\n19. 在申请日之前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（纽约南区联邦地区法院）的Liman法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（东方利润有限公司）——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”债务人的一家空壳公司。9\n\n20. 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有限合伙企业）（“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）（“New York Court”）提起针对债务人的诉讼，Index No. 652077/2017（“PAX Case”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX从New York Court取得针对债务人的$116,402,019.57判决（“PAX Judgment”）。PAX试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行PAX Judgment——包括Lady May，债务人虚假声称该游艇由其女儿所有；以及债务人在曼哈顿的豪华公寓，债务人虚假声称该公寓为其儿子而以信托方式持有。债务人在判决后程序中违抗New York Court命令，最终导致债务人被处以$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n21. 债务人还将其替身实体，包括Lexington，作为个人钱袋使用，为其本人及其家人习以为常的奢华生活方式提供资金，同时将资产藏匿于这些替身实体中以逃避其债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得追偿。债务人通过这些替身实体实施的转让延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n9 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n22. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以清偿其负债，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 债务人仅列报$3,850的资产。11\n\n23. 2023年3月，债务人被联邦当局逮捕并不得保释。2024年7月16日，在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York进行审判后，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有关的电信欺诈、与Farm Loan Program有关的证券欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的电信欺诈、与G|CLUBS有关的证券欺诈，以及与Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有关的电信欺诈。\n\n24. 美国政府在针对债务人的刑事起诉书中主张，债务人及其共同被告“利用以至少80个不同实体或个人名义持有的500多个账户，清洗逾$1 billion的欺诈所得。”12\n\n25. 债务人替身实体的财产，包括Lexington，在申请日之前的任何时候均为债务人的财产。\n\n26. 在本文所涉的所有相关期间内，债务人在纽约州纽约市开展业务，包括指挥本起起诉书所涉的申请前转让。\n\n10 关于债务人请求作出临时及最终DIP命令的动议之听证会，该等命令：(I) 授权债务人获得无担保、次级的申请后融资；(II) 安排临时及最终听证会；以及 (III) 授予相关救济（Main Case, April 27, 2022）\n\n11 见注3\n\n12 见United States of America反对被告Yanping Wang（王艳萍）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（G Club运营有限责任公司）就受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求所提出补充异议的答复（June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934）。\n\nD. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转让\n\n27. 本起起诉书所涉转让具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图，原因在于该等转让均通过作为债务人空壳游戏一部分运营的债务人替身空壳公司作出。\n\n28. 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穷困的同时，隐匿和耗散数百万美元的资产。债务人声称自己一贫如洗，同时却大量支出，为其本人、其家庭成员及密切关联人士维持亿万富翁的生活方式。\n\n29. 债务人隐匿和耗散的资产包括其从加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害人处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在United States District Court for the Southern District of New York待决的一宗刑事案件中，被判多项重罪欺诈、洗钱及敲诈勒索罪名成立。见 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 395] (July 18, 2024 S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n30. 债务人知悉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，该等转让必然具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图。\n\n31. 债务人建立和维持其空壳游戏的能力——其涉及由众多替身实体构成的错综复杂网络——除其他事项外，取决于专业机构提供的服务。\n\n32. 被告是一家律师事务所，其曾就Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）对债务人证券欺诈计划的调查，代理Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团股份有限公司）和GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团股份有限公司）。\n\n33. 债务人故意利用被告的服务来隐瞒其欺诈行为，从而使债务人得以继续策划其财务空壳游戏并实施其他各种欺诈计划。\n\n34. 向被告作出的转让构成对此类服务的付款，因而进一步具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图。\n\nE. 向被告作出的转让\n\n35. 在申请日之前，债务人通过包括Lexington在内的其替身空壳公司，或以其他方式，向被告转让了债务人的财产（统称“Transfers”），包括但不限于如下：\n\n见随附并构成本文件组成部分的SCHEDULE A。\n\n36. 在作出转让时，债务人对其破产财产的债权人负有未清偿义务。\n\n37. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\nF. 约定中止时效命令及延长期限命令\n\n38. 受托人与被告已达成一系列约定命令，且法院已予批准，中止受托人提起本诉讼的任何时限；最近一次中止期限至并包括2025年4月15日 [Main Case Docket No. 4171]。\n\n39. 法院还作出命令，将《破产法典》第108、546和549条规定的受托人提起撤销诉讼的任何适用时限延长至并包括2025年8月15日 [Main Case Docket Nos. 2921, 3417, 4106]。\n\n第一项请求\n\n（根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)及550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求）\n\n40. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至39段所载指控，如同在本文中完整列明。\n\n41. 该等转让由债务人作出，包括通过其替身空壳公司Lexington，或以其他方式作出，且具有实际阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图。\n\n42. 债务人在实施该等转让时具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，可从下列事项等得到证明：\n\na. 该等转让系通过替身空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该等转让被隐瞒于债务人的债权人；\n\nc. 该等转让作为债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分实施，并借助债务人的家庭成员及其所控制的其他亲信和下属，以图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该等转让使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在作出该等转让时，债务人正被起诉，包括被PAX在PAX Case中起诉；以及\n\nf. 在作出该等转让时，债务人无力清偿债务或资本不足。\n\n43. 于2020年2月15日或之后发生的转让，根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条可由受托人撤销，并可根据《破产法典》第550(a)条追回。\n\n第二项请求\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276以及《破产法典》第544(b)和550(a)条，请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让）\n\n44. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至39段所载的指控，如同在此全文载明。\n\n45. 债务人作出该等转让，包括通过其另我空壳公司Lexington（列克星敦）或以其他方式作出该等转让，具有阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n46. 债务人在实施该等转让时意图阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈其债权人的事实，尤其体现在：\n\na. 该等转让系通过一家另我空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 该等转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 该等转让是债务人“空壳把戏”的一部分，债务人在其控制的家庭成员及其他亲信和下属的协助下实施该等转让，意图隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 该等转让使债务人能够从其欺诈行为中获利，而不使其财产受到债权人追索，从而进一步促成债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在该等转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括由PAX（PAX）在PAX案中提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在该等转让发生时，债务人无清偿能力或资本不足。\n\n47. 于2020年4月4日或之后发生的转让，根据该等转让发生时有效的N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276以及《破产法典》第544(b)条，可由受托人撤销，并可根据《破产法典》第550(a)条追回。\n\n救济请求\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，宣告不少于$166,237.15的破产申请前转让根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销破产申请前转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产的利益，从被告处追回破产申请前转让，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，宣告不少于$166,237.15的转让根据《破产法典》第544(b)条及N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276予以撤销；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销该等转让；(b) 作出命令，责令撤销该等转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 276及《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人财产的利益，从被告处追回该等转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 判给受托人自本起诉状提交之日起至本案判决之日止按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n4. 法院认为在该等情形下公正、适当或符合衡平原则的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：April 14, 2025\nNew Haven, CT\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人\n\n代理人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂斯专业公司）\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\n附表A\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Je","Ho Wan Kwok","HCHK","Guo","Himalaya","GTV","Saraca","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":395,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":4420,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:28:05"}