{"id":"court_ctb_4418_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":4418,"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
SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA LLC | | | |\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
✔ | 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)
Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee Seeking Avoidance and Recovery of Fraudulent Transfers and Postpetition Transfers
and Related Relief Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 544, 548, 549, and 550 and New York Debtor & Creditor Law
Sections 273, 276, and 278 | | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
✔
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
✔
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
□
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
□
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
□
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
□
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
□
65-Dischargeability - other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
□
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
□
72-Injunctive relief – other | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
□
81-Subordination of claim or interest | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
□
91-Declaratory judgment | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
Other
□
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
□
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | | | |\n| □ Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law
✔ | □ Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | | | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING
Connecticut | | DIVISION OFFICE
Bridgeport | NAME OF JUDGE
Julie A. Manning | | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
/s/ Patrick R. Linsey | | | | | |\n| DATE
May 15, 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| HO WAN KWOK, | 1
et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
v. | -----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, | x
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: | Adv. Proceeding No. [ ]
May 15, 2025 |\n| SCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA LLC, | | :
: | |\n| | Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
x | |\n| | | | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, 549, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 276, AND 278**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Schulman Bhattacharya LLC (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover (a) transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case; and (b) transfers of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate after the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter ego shell companies, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd (\"Golden Spring\") and Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$1,629,805.84 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 companies Golden Spring, ACA Capital Group Ltd (\"ACA Capital\"), Hamilton Investment Management Ltd (\"Hamilton Investment\"), and H Reserve Management Limited (\"H Reserve,\" and together with Golden Spring, Lamp Capital, ACA Capital, and Hamilton Investment, collectively, the \"Relevant Alter Egos\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$779,497.69 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, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 276 and 2782 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. The Defendant is a Maryland domestic limited liability company with an address and place of business at 6116 Executive Blvd Suite 425, North Bethesda, MD 20852.\n\n# **FACTS**\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law.\" The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVTA\") has replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFCA\") within the N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law, taking effect on April 4, 2020, and applying to transfers made or obligations incurred on or after that date. With respect to transfers that occurred on or after April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUVTA and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273 and 276 (as these statutes existed at the time of the transfers), and, with respect to transfers that occurred prior to April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUFCA and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 276 and 278 (as these statutes existed at the time of the transfers).\n\n## **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Court\" or \"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 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. The Relevant Alter Egos are 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\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 (Main Case, Docket No. 78).\n\nsubordinates, 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 such adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.4\n\n17. The Court has entered judgment to the effect that Golden Spring is the Debtor's alter ego and that its property, prior to the Petition Date, was property of the Debtor, and upon the Petition Date became property of the estate (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018 (the \"Golden Spring A.P.\"), Docket No. 35 (the \"Golden Spring Judgment\")). The Golden Spring Judgment is final and no longer subject to appeal. The Trustee refers to and incorporates herein his Complaint filed in the Golden Spring A.P. (Golden Spring A.P., Docket No. 1) and the Golden Spring Judgment.\n\n18. The Court has likewise entered judgment to the effect that Lamp Capital is the Debtor's alter ego and that its property, prior to the Petition Date, was property of the Debtor, and upon the Petition Date became property of the estate (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023 (the \"Lamp Capital A.P.\"), Docket No. 66 (the \"Lamp Capital Judgment\")). The Trustee refers to and incorporates\n\n4 Adversary proceedings in which the Trustee is seeking or has obtained such relief include, in addition to the Golden Spring A.P., the Lamp Capital A.P., the Omnibus A.P. and the Second Omnibus A.P. are: (i) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo* [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc.*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]; and (vi) *Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Bouillor Holdings Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-5311].\n\nherein his Complaint filed in the Lamp Capital A.P. (Lamp Capital A.P., Docket No. 1) and the Lamp Capital Judgment.\n\n19. The Trustee is pursuing the same or substantially similar relief with respect to ACA Capital and Hamilton Investment in *Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24- 05249] (the \"Omnibus A.P.\") and with respect to H Reserve in *Despins v. AA Global Ventures Limited*, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 24-05322] (the \"Second Omnibus A.P.\"). The Trustee refers to and incorporates herein his Complaint filed in the Omnibus A.P. (Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1) and his Complaint filed in the Second Omnibus A.P. (Second Omnibus A.P., Docket No. 1).\n\n20. 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\n21. 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\n22. 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\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\n23. 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\n24. 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) (the \"Eastern Profit Case\"), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n25. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including the Relevant Alter Egos, as personal piggy-banks, funding the lavish lifestyle to which he and his family had become accustomed, while concealing assets in these alter egos from his creditors and hindering and delaying creditors from recoveries on their claims. The transfers that the Debtor effectuated through these alter egos perpetuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n26. 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\n27. 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\n28. 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\n29. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including the Relevant Alter Egos, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n30. 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\n31. 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\n32. 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\n33. 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\n34. 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\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\n35. 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\n36. 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\n37. 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\n38. 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\n39. The Defendant is a law firm with a long history of representing the Debtor and associated entities and individuals, including William Je (\"Mr. Je\"), the Debtor's indicted criminal co-conspirator (who is currently a fugitive from justice). The Government has alleged that Mr. Je was the Debtor's *de facto* banker and played a key role in the Debtor's money laundering operations.\n\n40. Specifically, for years prior to the Petition Date, the Defendant represented the Debtor and related parties in litigation across the country—including securities claims, defamation suits, and other civil actions. This included defending the Debtor against claims by investors asserting they were defrauded by the Debtor's schemes.\n\n41. The Defendant also represented Mr. Je in the Eastern Profit Case and thus would have known about Judge Liman's findings that (a) Eastern Profit was the Debtor's shell company; and (b) funds transferred pursuant to a purported loan agreement signed by William Je on behalf of ACA Capital were not a legitimate loan but rather were, in fact, a gift.13\n\n42. The Debtor intentionally utilized the Defendant's services to conceal and prolong his fraudulent shell game, including, without limitation, by defending claims asserted by investors in the Debtor's GTV scheme.\n\n43. The Transfers to the Defendant include payment for such services and thus were further intended to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n#### **F. Stipulated Tolling Orders and Extension Orders**\n\n44. 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 May 16, 2025 [Main Case Docket No. 4115].\n\n45. 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\n13 Schulman has continued to represent Mr. Je, even since he was indicted and a warrant was issued for his arrest, including in connection with proceedings in this Chapter 11 Case.\n\n### **G. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n46. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, 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\n47. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell companies, Golden Spring, ACA Capital, Hamilton Investment, and H Reserve, or otherwise, transferred property of\n\nthe Debtor's chapter 11 estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"),\n\nincluding, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n48. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfers (collectively,\n\nthe \"Transfers\"), the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n49. 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\n50. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n51. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, including through Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, 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 alter-ego shell companies;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n53. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n#### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n## **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 276 and 278, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n54. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n55. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell companies, Golden Spring and Lamp Capital, or otherwise, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n56. 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 alter ego shell companies;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n57. The Prepetition Transfers that occurred prior to April 4, 2020 are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 276 and 278 (NYUFCA) as these statutes existed at the time of such transfers, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n58. The Prepetition Transfers that occurred on or after April 4, 2020 are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1) and 276 (NYUVTA) as these statutes existed at the time of such transfers, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n59. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-49 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n60. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through Golden Spring, ACA Capital, Hamilton Investment, and H Reserve.\n\n61. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n62. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n63. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n64. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n65. 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*[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.]*\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,619,805.84 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$1,629,805.84 are avoided pursuant to section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and, with respect to transfers on and after April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), and 276 (NYUVTA), and, with respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 276 and 278 (NYUFCA); (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 276 (NYUVTA) and 278 (NYUFCA) and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$779,497.69 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\n\nthe circumstances.\n\nDated: May 15, 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\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\nSCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司）\n律师（律所名称、地址和电话号码）\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）、Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林西）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13楼，New Haven, CT 06510\n203-781-2847 律师\n（如知悉）\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✔ 当事人（仅勾选一个方框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产\n管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n✔\n□ 受托人\n诉因\n（简要陈述诉因，包括所涉全部美国法条）\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 544、548、549 及 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273、276 及 278 条，请求撤销及追回欺诈性转让和申请提交后转让并寻求相关救济的诉状\n诉讼性质\n（最多为五（5）个方框编号，以主要诉因为 1，第一个替代诉因为 2，第二个替代诉因为 3，依此类推。）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产\n□\n11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产交付\n□\n12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 优先性转让\n□\n✔\n13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n□\n✔\n14-追回金钱/财产 - 其他\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先顺位或范围\n□\n21-留置权或其他财产权益的有效性、优先顺位或范围 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)，故意和恶意损害\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（家庭扶养除外）\n□\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) 债权或权益劣后\n□\n81-债权或权益劣后\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□\n51-撤销确认 FRBP 7001(9) 确认之诉\n□\n91-确认之诉\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)，受托人欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（续下栏） FRBP 7001(10) 对移送诉讼的裁定\n□\n01-对被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，与破产案件无关时本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n□ 如本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选\n✔ □ 如主张本案为依据 FRCP 23 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 如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（表格 1040）（12/15）\n\n本对抗程序所源自的破产案件\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） 分庭办公地\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 分庭办公地 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n日期\nMay 15, 2025 律师（或原告）姓名正楷\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“破产财团”，其中包括债务人的全部财产，无论该等财产位于何处。由于破产财团范围极广且法院管辖权极为广泛，可能会就破产财团的财产或财产权利发生诉讼。也可能发生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除非当事人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，提交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。（CM/ECF 在提交过程中获取表格 1040 中的信息。）填写完成后，该封面页概述对抗程序的基本信息。法院书记员需要该等信息以处理对抗程序并编制关于法院活动的必要统计报告。\n\n该封面页及其中所载信息不替代或补充法律、《破产规则》或法院地方法规要求提交和送达的诉状或其他文件。该封面页大部分内容不言自明，必须由原告律师填写（如原告未由律师代理，则由原告填写）。每一份提交的诉状均须向书记员单独提交一份封面页。\n\n原告和被告。请准确填写诉状中所列原告和被告的姓名。\n\n律师。如知悉，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。\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n\n关于： ：\n： 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），1\n等， ：\n： 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 ：\n：\n： （合并管理）\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章\n受托人，\n诉 -----------------------------------------------------------\n原告， x\n\n： 对抗程序编号 [ ]\nMay 15, 2025\nSCHULMAN BHATTACHARYA LLC（舒尔曼·巴塔查里亚有限责任公司）， ：\n\n被告。\n\nx\n\n第 11 章受托人依据《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、276 及 278 条，请求撤销及追回欺诈性转让和申请提交后转让并寻求相关救济的诉状\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（以下简称“第 11 章案件”）中获任命的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，提起本\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP，200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，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（以下简称“诉状”），针对被告 Schulman Bhattacharya LLC（以下简称“被告”），陈述如下：\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗程序，以撤销并追回：(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 章破产财团财产的转让，且该等转让未经破产法院或《美国法典》第 11 编（以下简称“破产法典”）授权。\n\n2. 债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd（以下简称“Golden Spring”）和 Lamp Capital LLC（以下简称“Lamp Capital”），在申请提交日前向作为初始受让人的被告转让了 $1,629,805.84 的资金。\n\n3. 该等转让构成实际欺诈，因为债务人将其作为其“空壳把戏”的一部分予以实施，并且该等转让旨在阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人的债权人。\n\n4. 在申请提交日（定义见下文）后，债务人通过其另我空壳公司 Golden Spring、ACA Capital Group Ltd（以下简称“ACA Capital”）、Hamilton Investment Management Ltd（以下简称“Hamilton Investment”）及 H Reserve Management Limited（以下简称“H Reserve”，并与 Golden Spring、Lamp Capital、ACA Capital 和 Hamilton Investment 合称“相关另我实体”），向作为初始受让人的被告转让了 $779,497.69 的资金。\n\n5. 由于该等申请提交后对破产财团财产的转让未经法院或《破产法典》授权，故其可依据《破产法典》第 549 及 550 条予以撤销并追回。\n管辖权和审判地\n\n6. 本院根据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗程序具有事项管辖权。\n\n7. 本对抗程序已依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移交本院审理。\n\n8. 本文所请求救济的法定依据包括《破产法典》第 544、548 及 550 条，以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273、276 及 2782 条，或任何其他适用的州法对应规定。\n当事人\n\n9. 受托人系本第 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 [Case No. 22-50073（以下简称“主案”）Docket No. 523] 获任命。\n\n10. 被告是一家马里兰州境内有限责任公司，其地址及营业地为 6116 Executive Blvd Suite 425, North Bethesda, MD 20852。\n事实\n\n2 下文中，所有对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的法定引用均称为“N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law.”。《纽约州统一可撤销交易法》（“NYUVTA”）已取代《纽约州统一欺诈性让与法》（“NYUFCA”）中所含的《纽约州债务人与债权人法》规定，并于 April 4, 2020 生效，适用于在该日或之后作出的转让或承担的义务。对于在 April 4, 2020 当日或之后发生的转让，受托人在本诉讼中依据 NYUVTA 及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273 和 276 条（以转让发生时该等法规的内容为准）寻求救济；对于在 April 4, 2020 之前发生的转让，受托人在本诉讼中依据 NYUFCA 及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 276 和 278 条（以转让发生时该等法规的内容为准）寻求救济。\nA. 第 11 章案件\n\n11. 债务人于 February 15, 2022 在 United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦破产法院）依据《破产法典》第 11 章提交自愿救济申请（以下简称“申请提交日”），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官方委员会。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声称，其拥有 $3,850 的资产，并承担数亿美元的负债。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（包括相关另我实体）持有和/或转让的债务人财产。\n\n14. 2022年6月15日，法院作出一份决定备忘录及命令[主案卷宗编号465]，指示United States Trustee（美国受托人）在第11章案件中任命一名第11章受托人。根据该命令，美国受托人选定Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平）担任受托人。2022年7月8日，法院作出命令，批准任命吕克·A·德斯平担任第11章案件的受托人[主案卷宗编号523]。\n\nB. 债务人利用空壳公司及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. 相关另我实体是债务人为欺诈其债权人而使用的众多另我空壳公司之一。多年来，债务人精心策划了一场“空壳公司游戏”，利用由家庭成员和下属³名义持有、但实际上由债务人控制的复杂空壳公司网络。该空壳公司游戏使债务人得以使用、花费和转移数百万美元的现金及其他资产，同时向债权人隐瞒其财产。\n\n3 资产与负债清单，第1页（主案，卷宗编号78）。\n\n16. 自获任命以来，受托人已在第11章案件中提起若干对抗程序，以实现包括确立债务人的空壳公司为其另我实体及/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；在其中若干对抗程序中，破产法院已准许该等救济。⁴\n\n17. 法院已作出判决，认定Golden Spring（金泉）为债务人的另我实体，其在申请日之前的财产属于债务人，并于申请日成为破产财团财产（对抗程序案号23-5018（“Golden Spring 对抗程序”），卷宗编号35（“Golden Spring 判决书”））。Golden Spring 判决书已具终局性，且不再可上诉。受托人援引并通过引用纳入其在Golden Spring 对抗程序中提交的起诉状（Golden Spring 对抗程序，卷宗编号1）及Golden Spring 判决书。\n\n18. 法院同样已作出判决，认定Lamp Capital（兰普资本）为债务人的另我实体，其在申请日之前的财产属于债务人，并于申请日成为破产财团财产（对抗程序案号23-5023（“Lamp Capital 对抗程序”），卷宗编号66（“Lamp Capital 判决书”））。受托人援引并通过引用纳入其在Lamp Capital 对抗程序中提交的起诉状（Lamp Capital 对抗程序，卷宗编号1）及Lamp Capital 判决书。\n\n4 除Golden Spring 对抗程序、Lamp Capital 对抗程序、综合对抗程序及第二综合对抗程序外，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（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）等[对抗程序案号22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）等[对抗程序案号23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Mei Guo（郭美）[对抗程序案号23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）等[对抗程序案号23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Taurus Fund LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等[对抗程序案号23-05017]；及(vi) Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯平），第11章受托人诉Bouillor Holdings Limited（布伊约控股有限公司）等[对抗程序案号24-5311]。\n\n19. 受托人正在Despins v. ACA Capital Group Ltd（德斯平诉ACA资本集团有限公司）等[对抗程序案号24-05249]（“综合对抗程序”）中，就ACA Capital（ACA资本）和Hamilton Investment（汉密尔顿投资）寻求相同或实质上类似的救济，并在Despins v. AA Global Ventures Limited（德斯平诉AA全球创投有限公司）等[对抗程序案号24-05322]（“第二综合对抗程序”）中，就H Reserve（H储备）寻求该等救济。受托人援引并通过引用纳入其在综合对抗程序中提交的起诉状（综合对抗程序，卷宗编号1），以及其在第二综合对抗程序中提交的起诉状（第二综合对抗程序，卷宗编号1）。\n\n20. 这些诉讼中的事实模式一贯包括：(i) 由近亲家庭成员及/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得，及/或无对价转移至空壳实体以及在空壳实体之间转移的资产；以及(iii) 债务人从该等资产中获益，并对其拥有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债权人所实施的行为\n\n21. 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）（及通过该公司持有的Dawn State Limited（晨州有限公司））的受益所有人，且债务人控制并利用Ace Decade Limited的名义股东Yvette Wang（王悦）。⁵\n\n22. 破产法院还认定，“G Entities”（G实体）（Gettr（盖特尔）、G Fashion（G时尚）、G Music（G音乐）、GClubs（G俱乐部）、GNews（G新闻）及GEdu（G教育））、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）和Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会），以及其他表面上独立的实体和组织，均由债务人控制⁶、由债务人领导⁷，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违反公司治理命令的裁定，第¶¶ 1、4段（2023年1月24日，卷宗编号1372（“公司治理藐视法庭裁定”）。\n\n6 部分准许初步禁令动议的更正决定备忘录，第¶ 3段（对抗程序案号22-05032，2023年1月13日（“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，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，充当债务人的商业工具，其成员个人效忠于债务人。”）。\n\n23. 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）——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\n24. 债务人竭尽全力阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）（“PAX”）的追偿工作。2017年，PAX在Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）（“纽约法院”）提起诉讼，案卷编号652077/2017（“PAX案件”），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021年2月3日，PAX从纽约法院取得针对债务人的判决，金额为\\$116,402,019.57（“PAX判决书”）。PAX试图通过扣押债务人的资产来执行PAX判决书——包括Lady May（梅夫人号），债务人虚假声称其归债务人的女儿所有；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债务人的儿子以信托方式持有。债务人在判决后程序中藐视纽约法院命令的行为，最终导致债务人被处以\\$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n9 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL)（“Eastern Profit案件”）, 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021)。\n\n25. 债务人还将其另我实体，包括相关另我实体，用作个人小金库，为其本人及其家人已习惯的奢侈生活提供资金，同时将资产隐藏在这些另我实体中以逃避债权人，并阻碍和拖延债权人就其债权获得清偿。债务人通过这些另我实体实施的转移延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n26. 债务人已在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以清偿其负债，且其奢华生活方式由其家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业提供资金。¹⁰ 债务人仅申报了\\$3,850的资产。¹¹\n\n27. 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，在纽约南区联邦地区法院审判后，债务人被判犯有九项重罪，即敲诈勒索共谋罪、电信欺诈及银行欺诈共谋罪、洗钱共谋罪、证券欺诈共谋罪、与Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）有关的电信欺诈罪、与Farm Loan program有关的证券欺诈罪、与G|CLUBS有关的电信欺诈罪、与G|CLUBS有关的证券欺诈罪，以及与Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有关的电信欺诈罪。\n\n28. 美国政府在对债务人提起的刑事起诉书中主张，债务人及其共同被告“利用至少80个不同实体或个人名下持有的约500多个账户，洗钱逾\\$1 billion的欺诈所得。”¹²\n\n10 关于债务人请求作出临时和最终DIP命令的动议的听证会，该命令：(I) 授权债务人取得无担保、次级的申请后融资；及(II) 安排临时和最终听证会；及(III) 准予相关救济（主案，2022年4月27日）。\n\n11 见脚注3。\n\n29. 债务人的另我实体的财产，包括相关另我实体，在申请日之前的任何时候均属于债务人的财产。\n\n30. 在与本案有关的任何时候，债务人均在New York, New York（纽约州纽约市）开展业务，包括指示转移（定义见下文）。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳公司游戏及欺诈在申请后仍在继续\n\n31. 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章破产财团财产。见11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n32. 申请日后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其根据《破产法》所负的义务，继续通过众多另我空壳公司实施转移，包括但不限于相关另我实体。\n\n33. 这些申请后转移均未获破产法院授权，亦未根据《破产法》获得授权。\n\nE. 为阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而作出的转移\n\n34. 本起诉状所涉转移（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，原因在于该等转移是通过作为债务人空壳公司游戏一部分而运营的债务人另我空壳公司作出的。\n\n12 见美利坚合众国就被告Yanping Wang（王艳萍）的审前释放动议提交的反对法律备忘录，第29页，该备忘录作为附件B附于第11章受托人就G Club Operations LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）对受托人强制履行动议及相关救济请求所提补充异议的答复（2023年6月23日，主案卷宗编号1934）。\n\n35. 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资产。债务人声称自己身无分文，却同时大肆花费，以维持其本人、家人及密切关联人士的亿万富翁生活方式。\n\n36. 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受害人处取得的资金。由于该等行为，债务人在纽约南区联邦地区法院审理中的刑事案件中，已被判犯有多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和敲诈勒索罪名。见United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（美利坚合众国诉郭文贵），案号1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 395] (July 18, 2024 S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n37. 债务人知道并意图通过以该方式隐匿和耗散其资产，使得不再有足够资产可偿还其债权人——包括其众多欺诈行为的受害人。因此，这些转移必然是为阻碍、拖延及/或欺诈债务人的债权人而作出的。\n\n38. 债务人建立并维持其空壳公司游戏的能力——该游戏涉及由众多另我实体组成的错综复杂网络——除其他事项外，取决于专业公司的服务。\n\n39. 被告（Defendant）是一家长期代理债务人及关联实体和个人的律师事务所，其中包括William Je（叶简明）（“Je先生”），即债务人被起诉的刑事共谋者（目前在逃）。政府已指称，Je先生是债务人的实际银行家，并在债务人的洗钱活动中发挥了关键作用。\n\n40. 具体而言，在申请日之前的多年间，被告在全国各地的诉讼中代理债务人及相关当事人——包括证券索赔、诽谤诉讼及其他民事诉讼。这包括就投资者提出的、称其遭债务人计划欺诈的索赔为债务人进行抗辩。\n\n41. 被告还在Eastern Profit案件（Eastern Profit Case）中代理Je先生，因此应当知悉Liman法官（Judge Liman）的认定，即：(a) Eastern Profit（东利）是债务人的空壳公司；以及(b) William Je代表ACA Capital（ACA资本）签署的所谓贷款协议项下转移的资金并非合法贷款，而实际上是一项赠与。13\n\n42. 债务人故意利用被告提供的服务，以隐瞒并延续其欺诈性空壳游戏，包括但不限于就债务人GTV计划中的投资者所提出的索赔进行抗辩。\n\n43. 向被告作出的转让包括对此类服务的付款，因而亦意图阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈债务人的债权人。\n\nF. 约定时效中止裁定及延长期间裁定\n\n44. 受托人与被告已达成、且法院已批准一系列约定裁定，中止受托人提起本诉讼的任何时限，最近一次中止至并包括May 16, 2025 [主案卷宗编号4115]。\n\n45. 法院还已作出裁定，将《破产法典》第108、546及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August 15, 2025 [主案卷宗编号2921、3417、4106]。\n\n13 Schulman（舒尔曼）持续代理Je先生，即使在其被起诉并已签发逮捕令后亦然，包括就本第11章案件中的程序提供代理。\n\nG. 向被告作出的转让\n\n46. 在申请日之前，债务人通过Golden Spring（金泉）和Lamp Capital（蓝普资本），或以其他方式，向被告转让了债务人的财产（“申请日前转让”），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\n47. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司Golden Spring、ACA Capital、Hamilton Investment（汉密尔顿投资）和H Reserve（H储备），或以其他方式，向被告转让了债务人第11章破产财产的财产（合称“申请后转让”），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B。\n\n48. 在作出申请日前转让及申请后转让（合称“转让”）时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿债务。\n\n49. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项请求权\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权）\n\n50. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载指控，如同在本文件中完整列明。\n\n51. 申请日前转让由债务人作出，包括通过Golden Spring和Lamp Capital作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n52. 债务人在实施申请日前转让时阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，体现于：\n\na. 申请日前转让系通过替身空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请日前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转让系债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，并在债务人家属及其控制的其他亲信和下属协助下实施，意在隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请日前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，从而促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在申请日前转让时，债务人正面临诉讼，包括PAX（PAX）在PAX案件（PAX Case）中提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在申请日前转让时，债务人无力清偿债务或资本不足。\n\n53. 受托人可根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条撤销申请日前转让，并可根据《破产法典》第550(a)条追回该等转让。\n\n第二项请求权\n（根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)、276及278条，以及《破产法典》第544(b)及550(a)条撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的请求权）\n\n54. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载指控，如同在本文件中完整列明。\n\n55. 申请日前转让由债务人作出，包括通过其替身空壳公司Golden Spring和Lamp Capital作出，或以其他方式作出，且具有阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n56. 债务人在实施申请日前转让时阻碍、拖延和／或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，体现于：\n\na. 申请日前转让系通过替身空壳公司实施；\n\nb. 申请日前转让对债务人的债权人予以隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请日前转让系债务人“空壳游戏”的一部分，并在债务人家属及其控制的其他亲信和下属协助下实施，意在隐匿和保护资产；\n\nd. 申请日前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，从而促进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 在申请日前转让时，债务人正面临诉讼，包括PAX在PAX案件中提起的诉讼；以及\n\nf. 在申请日前转让时，债务人无力清偿债务或资本不足。\n\n57. 于April 4, 2020之前发生的申请日前转让，可由受托人依据转让发生时有效的N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第276及278条（NYUFCA）以及《破产法典》第544(b)条撤销，并可依据《破产法典》第550(a)条追回。\n\n58. 于April 4, 2020当日或之后发生的申请日前转让，可由受托人依据转让发生时有效的N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)及276条（NYUVTA）以及《破产法典》第544(b)条撤销，并可依据《破产法典》第550(a)条追回。\n\n第三项请求权\n（根据《破产法典》第549及550(a)条撤销并追回未经授权的申请后转让的请求权）\n\n59. 受托人重述并再次主张第1至49段所载指控，如同在本文件中完整列明。\n\n60. 申请后转让由债务人向被告作出，包括通过Golden Spring、ACA Capital、Hamilton Investment和H Reserve作出。\n\n61. 申请后转让发生于申请日之后。\n\n62. 申请后转让未经破产法院或《破产法典》授权。\n\n63. 申请后转让构成对债务人第11章破产财产财产的未经授权转让。\n\n64. 申请后转让可根据《破产法典》第549(a)条予以撤销。\n\n65. 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，或由受托人选择追回其价值，并加计至付款之日的利息及本诉讼费用。\n\n[本页其余部分故意留白。]\n\n救济请求\n\n因此，基于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项请求权，(a) 作出裁定，宣告金额不少于$1,619,805.84的申请日前转让根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条予以撤销；(b) 作出裁定，命令撤销申请日前转让；以及(c) 根据《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产之利益向被告追回申请日前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n2. 就第二项请求权，(a) 作出裁定，宣告金额不少于$1,629,805.84的申请日前转让根据《破产法典》第544(b)条予以撤销；对于于April 4, 2020当日或之后发生的转让，根据N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law第273(a)(1)及276条（NYUVTA）予以撤销；对于于April 4, 2020之前发生的转让，根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第276及278条（NYUFCA）予以撤销；(b) 作出裁定，命令撤销申请日前转让；以及(c) 根据N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law第276条（NYUVTA）和第278条（NYUFCA）及《破产法典》第550(a)(1)条，为债务人破产财产之利益向被告追回申请日前转让，或由受托人选择追回其价值；\n\n3. 就第三项请求权，作出裁定，(a) 宣告金额不少于$779,497.69的申请后转让根据《破产法典》第549条予以撤销；以及(b) 作出裁定，命令撤销申请后转让；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. 向受托人裁定自提交本起诉状之日起至本案判决之日止按最高法定利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院在该等情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：May 15, 2025 New Haven, CT LUC A. DESPINS（LUC A. DESPINS），第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey Douglas S. Skalka（ct00616） Patrick R. Linsey（ct29437） NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com 第11章受托人代理律师\n\n附表A\n\n密封提交\n\n附表B\n\n密封提交","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","Himalaya","William Je","GTV","Farm Loan","Miles Guo","Yanping Wang","HCHK","Saraca","Himalaya Exchange","GETTR","Paul Hastings","Pro Se","pro se"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":395,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":5461,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:02:41"}