{"id":"court_ctb_531_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":531,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"DECLARATION","filed_date":null,"title":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg) 55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\nJuly 11, 2022\n\nMs. Holley L. Claiborn Office of the Unites States Trustee Giaimo Federal Building E-Mail: holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n# **Ref: In Re: Kwok Ho Wan – 22-50073 Request for Information**\n\nDear Ms. Claiborn:\n\nOn behalf of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), we write requesting additional information from the U.S. Trustee's Office regarding the conflict process applied to the originally nominated trustee, Mr. Joseph Whitley, and details on how the decision was reached by the UST (\"UST\") to withdraw his nomination. We would also like to understand how this process is the same or differs with the process being applied to the subsequently recommended and approved trustee, Mr. Luc A. Despins of Paul Hastings, in light of his omission on his sworn Declaration of Disinterestedness that his firm represented the parent company of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund (\"PAX\"), the largest creditor in this matter, within the last five years. Finally, we would truly appreciate understanding how the U.S. Trustee, in light of the information previously presented by the debtor as well as information available to the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrating that the Debtor is a high-level political target of the authoritarian ruling Chinese Communist Party, believes that the trustee of a firm with a significant presence in China and Hong Kong and which has done significant business representing Chinese-controlled state entities, can remain a neutral and disinterested party with the ability to avoid undue influence and interference from the Government of China.\n\nThis information is being requested in light of the recent unusual sequence of events that raise concerns over the UST's handling of the trustee appointing process in this matter:\n\n### **The U.S. Trustee's Unexplained Delay in Nominating a Trustee to this Matter**\n\nShortly after the Debtor filed his bankruptcy petition, the UST filed a motion which included seeking the appointment of a trustee. On June 15, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order directing the UST to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. This order came after months of hearings in this matter and was not sudden or unexpected. The Debtor provided the UST with its feedback on the appointment with no delay. Inexplicably, the UST did not submit a Trustee\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\nfor approval until June 30, 2022. During this period, the UST did not request any further feedback from the Debtor. No explanation for the delay in appointing a Trustee has been provided. Unfortunately, it appears the UST in its haste to overcome its own deliberation delays subsequently changed its policies in vetting trustees, including with the one eventually appointed, to the detriment of the Debtor.\n\nAmong the information we are seeking related to this event is information on who was involved in this process; which, if any, offices outside of the UST were involved in, apprised of, or consulted in the appointment process; what potential trustees were considered; who if anyone recommended the two trustees presented to the Court; and the reasons for not appointing a trustee shortly after the Judge entered her order.\n\n## **The U.S. Trustee's Unusual Action to Withdraw its Appointment of Mr. Whitley**\n\nOn June 30, 2022, just before the 4th of July weekend, the UST in light of its excessive delays in appointing a trustee for this matter, filed a motion for an expedited hearing for the Court to approve Mr. Whitley as the trustee. This motion was granted on the same day it was filed with an expedited hearing scheduled on July 5, 2022. Just hours before the expedited hearing was to begin and with no advance notice to the Debtor (and possibly all parties), the UST took the unusual action of unilaterally withdrawing its Notice of Appointment of a trustee and its request for Court approval of the proposed appointment. At the hearing, the Bankruptcy Judge pointed out the unusual nature of this action by the UST and questioned the UST legal authority to do so. The UST did not provide a detailed explanation for this rash action at the hearing nor was Mr. Whitley called to explain the conflict to all parties and the Court. The UST simply swept Mr. Whitley away from the Debtor, the parties, and the public.\n\nAmong the information the Debtor is requesting related to this event is: information regarding the deciding official and the decision process for filing the withdrawal of the appointment of Mr. Whitley; who and what departments were apprised or consulted in this decision; the parties involved in making the decision to withdraw the appointment; the timing and manner in which the UST became aware of the potential conflict, including the party that initially raised the conflict with the UST, if any, over the July 4th holiday weekend; what specifically was the conflict that caused the UST to withdraw Mr. Whitley's appointment; and information on whether Mr. Whitley personally represented the party creating the conflict.\n\n#### **Inappropriate and Prejudicial Questions Re. Debtor Presented to Trustee Candidates**\n\nWe have reason to believe that the UST posed unfounded and highly prejudicial questions to prospective trustee nominees regarding the prospect of the Debtor \"fleeing\" the United States despite it being public knowledge and part of the record in this matter that Debtor is in the United States pending political asylum protection. Cleary, if this is true, this would be\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\ncompletely prejudicial and undermine the process to date of selecting a trustee for this matter. Further, it would demonstrate an inherent and inappropriate bias within the UST against the Debtor. The Debtor would like a clear reply from the UST whether such a question, scenario, and/or inference of the Debtor fleeing the U.S. was presented, discussed, or raised in any manner with trustee candidates, including the trustee who was ultimately appointed. Further, we would like to know what other questions regarding the debtor were presented to trustee candidates and ask that all records pertaining to the vetting of trustee candidates be preserved.\n\n## **The U.S. Trustee's Process for Vetting Conflicts and Disinterestedness**\n\nOn July 7, two days following the UST's unilateral withdrawal of Mr. Whitley's appointment due to a conflict, the UST appointed Mr. Luc A. Despins of the law firm Paul Hastings as trustee. As with Mr. Whitley, Mr. Despins presented a sworn Declaration of Disinterestedness under penalty of perjury in which he declared that he requested his firm, Paul Hastings, to conduct a conflict check of all interested parties in addition to \"researching information about affiliates of listed entities\". The Debtor further assumes that after the embarrassing withdrawal of Mr. Whitley's appointment that the UST would apply a sufficient vetting process to determine if Mr. Despins was a disinterested party and not subject to conflict.\n\nUnfortunately, it came as no surprise to the Debtor when the UST and the appointed trustee attempted to address a significant omission on his sworn \"Declaration of Disinterestedness\" during the hearing the UST was seeking the Court's approval of his appointment. At that hearing, both the UST and Mr. Despins indicated that they had just learned that morning that the appointed trustee's firm performed work for the parent company of this matter's largest creditor - Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund. Specifically, it is publicly reported that the trustee's firm performed legal work surrounding a \\$671M take-over bid by parent company Pacific Alliance Group (\"PAG\") Real Estate. Details of this relation are publicly available on a *Law 360* on-line article titled *\"Paul Hastings-Led PAG Makes \\$671M Bid For Spring REIT,\"*.\n\nThe debtor is seeking information on the process and standards applied by the UST to verify the sworn declarations of both trustees appointed in this matter and assess whether they were in fact disinterested parties. If a shortened and expedited vetting process of Mr. Despins was applied in comparison to Mr. Whitley, please advise us of the basis for this decision and identify who made this decision. Further, in light of the admission made by Mr. Despins regarding the omission on his sworn declaration, we are seeking information on how the UST is viewing and applying this information in relation to the conflict of Mr. Whitley's firm that served as the basis for the U.S. Trustee. Finally, we would like an explanation as to why the UST did not take a similar action of unilaterally withdrawing Mr. Despins' appointment upon learning of the additional information regarding his firm's representation of the main creditor's parent company and instead allowed the appointment to be approved. Based on the arguments\n\n![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\npresented by the UST in a July 5th hearing, the UST was emphatic that it has full discretion to unilaterally withdraw an appointment prior to approval by the Court and takes its obligation to vet potential candidates seriously. It appears to the Debtor that a different legal and operational approach was applied by the UST with the second appointed trustee and he seeks an understanding as to why.\n\n# **The U.S. Trustee's Dismissal of the Debtor's Verified Concerns Regarding His and His Family's Persecution by China Through Its Selection of a Trustee from a Firm with Strong Professional Ties to China/Hong Kong and State Controlled Agencies**\n\nThe UST's summary dismissal of the Debtor's established concerns regarding his and his family's persecution by China is shown in its appointment of a trustee from a firm with strong professional ties to not only China and China-controlled Hong Kong, but which also has extensively represented state-controlled entities. This appointment raises significant concerns with the Debtor regarding potential conflicts, interference by China, and whether the appointed trustee and his law firm can operate impartially without undue interference from China and its ruling authoritarian Communist Party. This would not be the first time the UST has dismissed these concerns. Earlier in the proceedings, the Debtor was surprised by the UST's insistence that he present proof that China in fact had issued a Red Notice against him, particularly since she could not find it on INTERPOL's public website. This request from a U.S. Department of Justice employee is both an indicator of lack of any neutrality towards the Debtor but also humorous since the U.S. Department of Justice, of which the UST is part of, maintains the INTERPOL records (including the majority that are not publicly posted) which it is seeking. Further, information from a 2017 public Congressional record supporting the existence of a Red Notice as well as the Chinese government's persecution and attacks against the Debtor was presented. During hearings in this matter and Debtor interviews, the Debtor's concerns regarding China were repeatedly expressed and additional information regarding China's efforts to have the Debtor unlawfully extradited or deported back to China were presented. For example, information was presented that a U.S. Department of Justice Headquarters Official was indicted and pled guilty for acting as an agent of China and among other things secretly meeting with China's Ambassador to the U.S. to discuss the Debtor's extradition. Further, information was presented regarding several high-ranking Republican Party officials being indicted or sued by the Justice Department for among other things, meeting with President Trump and communicating with the U.S. Attorney General, the National Security Agency, and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Secretary to discuss the Debtor's illegal rendition to China. Just last month, another individual was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for participating in this China-financed scheme against the Debtor while the FBI Director Wray last week publicly stated that China was the \"biggest long-term threat\" to the U.S. The Debtors concerns\n\n![](_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\nregarding China are legitimate and well-founded and not based on fantasy as the UST may seem to believe or imply.\n\nShockingly, and despite all of this information, the UST - a component of the U.S Department of Justice - appointed out of all the hundreds of firms in the United States a trustee from a firm with a strong office presence in China, strong professional ties to Chinese-controlled agencies and companies, and definitively subject to undue pressure and influence from China. The Debtor has highlighted and it is public record that one of his prior law firms was hacked by the Chinese Government on account of its representation of Debtor and forced to withdraw from his representation. Further, the UST as part of the Department of Justice should be well aware that the Department recently sued Mr. Steven Wynn, the billionaire owner of lucrative casinos in China-controlled Macau, for participating in the illegal China-funded scheme targeting the Debtor. The Department of Justice noted in this suit that the Chinese Government gained Mr. Wynn's participation in the scheme, which included meeting with President to discuss the Debtor's unlawful rendition, out of Mr. Wynn's desire to protect his Macau casino licenses worth millions in annual revenue. Frankly, the U.S. Trustees decision flies in the face of significant corroborated information supporting the Debtor's fears and will naturally lead to a lack of confidence in the process as well as unwarranted stress to the Debtor and his family, several who have been jailed and tortured by China.\n\nThe Debtor would like to understand why the UST, a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, does not believe these concerns and selected a trustee whose firm has significant ties to China/Hong Kong and is vulnerable to influence by China's government– a decision that flies in the face of actions and statements made by its colleagues in the FBI, Criminal Division, and National Security division. The Debtor requests information as to the UST's analysis and weight applied to Debtor's persecution by China and fears of China's retribution as well as what, if any, consideration was given to the trustee's firm's ties to China and Chinese-controlled entities. The Debtor would also appreciate any representations by the trustee and his firm.\n\n#### **Conclusion**\n\nUnderstandably, the combination of unusual, arguably shocking, and ambiguous circumstances surrounding the UST's appointment of a trustee in Debtor's matter raises valid concerns by the Debtor of impartiality and confidence in the process. The Debtor wishes to understand these issues with your input and information in order to make a sound determination with respect to the current trustee's assertion under oath of disinterestedness; the impartiality of the U.S. Trustee's actions; and the ability of relevant parties to remain neutral in this process.\n\nWe recognize the Court's concerns regarding the delays caused by the UST in selecting a trustee and would appreciate a quick response to our request along with any relevant documents or\n\n![](_page_5_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\n*55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400*\n\n *T: (973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com*\n\ncommunications regarding the above matters that your office may possess. In the absence of information surrounding these recent delays and events overseen by your office, the Debtor will have no alternative but to formally seek information regarding the appointed trustee and the entire trustee selection process which may in turn further delay the administration of the estate. The Debtor is in support of a quick administration of the estate and has acted accordingly to date. However, he will not sacrifice his rights to an impartial process to speed up a process delayed by the UST's mishandling of the trustee process. We will also be preliminarily notifying the Court of our concerns and this written request for information. Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this request.\n\nVery truly yours,\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Mitchell Aaron A. Mitchell","body_zh":"55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400\n\n电话：(973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com\n\n2022年7月11日\n\n致：Holley L. Claiborn 女士\n美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）\nGiaimo Federal Building\n电邮：holley.l.claiborn@usdoj.gov\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n案由：关于 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案 – 22-50073 信息调取请求\n\n尊敬的 Claiborn 女士：\n\n我们谨代表 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，以下简称“债务人”）致信，就最初提名的受托人 Joseph Whitley 先生所适用的利益冲突审查程序，以及美国受托人（United States Trustee，以下简称“UST”）作出撤回其提名决定的具体细节，向美国受托人办公室调取进一步信息。鉴于随后获得推荐并获批准的受托人——来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Luc A. Despins 先生，在其经宣誓的《无利害关系声明书》中隐瞒了其律所在过去五年内曾代表本案最大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，以下简称“PAX”）的母公司这一事实，我们亦希望了解对其实施的审查程序与上述程序有何异同。最后，鉴于债务人此前提交的信息以及美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）所掌握的信息已证明债务人系威权统治政党中国共产党的高级别政治目标，我们恳切希望了解，美国受托人何以认为一家在中国大陆和香港拥有重大业务存在、且曾代表中国控制的国有实体开展大量业务的律所的受托人，能够保持中立和无利害关系实体的身份，并有能力避免来自中国政府的不当影响与干预。\n\n鉴于近期发生的一系列异常事件引发了对 UST 在本案中处理受托人指定程序的关切，特此请求获取上述信息：\n美国受托人在本案提名受托人过程中未作解释的延误\n\n在债务人提交破产申请后不久，UST 提出了一项包含请求指定受托人在内的动议。2022年6月15日，破产法院（Bankruptcy Court）下达裁定，责令 UST 指定一名第11章受托人。该裁定是在本案进行了数月听证后作出的，绝非事出突然或出乎意料。债务人毫不拖延地向 UST 提供了关于该项指定的反馈意见。令人费解的是，UST 直到2022年6月30日才提交受托人人选\n\n55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400\n\n电话：(973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com\n\n以待批准。在此期间，UST 未向债务人索取任何进一步反馈。对于指定受托人方面的延误，未提供任何解释。遗憾的是，UST 似乎为了仓促弥补其自身的审议延误，随后改变了审查受托人（包括最终获指定的人选）的政策，从而损害了债务人的利益。\n\n我们就该事件寻求的信息包括：谁参与了该程序；UST 以外是否有任何机构参与、知悉或咨询了该指定程序，若有，具体是哪些机构；曾考虑过哪些潜在的受托人人选；是谁（如有）向法院推荐了提交给法院的两位受托人；以及在法官下达裁定后不久未能及时指定受托人的原因。\n美国受托人撤回对 Whitley 先生指定的异常举动\n\n2022年6月30日，正值7月4日独立日假期周末前夕，鉴于其在本案指定受托人方面的过度延误，UST 提出了一项要求法院批准 Whitley 先生担任受托人的加急听证动议。该动议在提交当日即获准，加急听证定于2022年7月5日举行。就在加急听证即将开始前数小时，在未向债务人（可能也未向所有当事方）发出任何事先通知的情况下，UST 采取了单方面撤回其指定受托人通知以及撤回要求法院批准拟议指定的请求这一异常举动。在听证会上，破产法官指出了 UST 此举的异常性质，并质疑 UST 采取该行动的法定职权。UST 在听证会上并未对这一草率举动给出详细解释，也未传唤 Whitley 先生向所有当事方及法院说明利益冲突情况。UST 只是简单地将 Whitley 先生从债务人、各当事方及公众视线中排除。\n\n债务人就该事件请求调取的信息包括：关于就提交撤回 Whitley 先生指定的决定官员及决策程序的信息；在做出该决定过程中知悉或被咨询的人员和部门；参与做出撤回指定决定的当事方；UST 知悉潜在利益冲突的时间和方式，包括在7月4日假期周末期间最初向 UST 提出利益冲突的一方（如有）；导致 UST 撤回 Whitley 先生指定的具体利益冲突是什么；以及有关 Whitley 先生个人是否曾代表引发利益冲突的一方的信息。\n向受托人候选人提出的涉及债务人的不当且具偏见的提问\n\n我们有理由相信，UST 曾就债务人“潜逃”美国的可能性向拟议受托人候选人提出了毫无根据且极具偏见的问题，尽管债务人身处美国等待政治庇护保护这一事实是众所周知的公开信息，也是本案记录的一部分。显然，若属实，这将是\n\n55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400\n\n电话：(973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com\n\n完全带有偏见的，并破坏了迄今为止为本案选任受托人的程序。此外，这将表明 UST 内部对债务人存在固有的、不当的偏见。债务人希望 UST 给出明确答复：是否曾以任何方式向受托人候选人（包括最终获指定的受托人）提出、讨论或提及有关债务人潜逃美国的此类问题、设想和/或推论。此外，我们希望了解向受托人候选人提出了哪些关于债务人的其他问题，并要求妥善保存与审查受托人候选人有关的所有记录。\n美国受托人审查利益冲突和无利害关系的程序\n\n7月7日，即 UST 因利益冲突单方面撤回 Whitley 先生指定的两天后，UST 指定了来自 Paul Hastings 律师事务所的 Luc A. Despins 先生担任受托人。与 Whitley 先生一样，Despins 先生提交了一份在伪证处罚规定下的经宣誓《无利害关系声明书》，在声明中他声明已要求其所在的 Paul Hastings 律所对所有利害关系方进行利益冲突审查，并“对所列实体的关联方信息进行调查”。债务人进一步推测，在 Whitley 先生令人尴尬的撤回指定之后，UST 会实施充分的审查程序，以确定 Despins 先生是否属于无利害关系方且不存在利益冲突。\n\n令人遗憾但并不出乎债务人预料的是，在 UST 寻求法院批准其指定的听证会上，UST 和获指定的受托人试图对其经宣誓的《无利害关系声明书》中的重大遗漏作出解释。在听证会上，UST 和 Despins 先生均表示，他们是在当天早上才得知获指定的受托人所在的律所曾为本案最大债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund 的母公司提供法律服务。具体而言，公开报道显示，受托人所在的律所曾围绕母公司 Pacific Alliance Group（太盟投资集团，以下简称“PAG”）Real Estate 一项价值 671M 美元的收购要约开展法律服务。关于该关系的细节已在 Law 360 上题为《Paul Hastings-Led PAG Makes $671M Bid For Spring REIT》（普衡助力太盟出资 671M 美元竞购春泉产业信托）的在线文章中公开。\n\n债务人正在寻求有关 UST 为核实本案中指定的两位受托人的宣誓声明并评估其是否确为无利害关系方所适用的程序和标准的信息。如果与 Whitley 先生相比，对 Despins 先生适用了简化和加急的审查程序，请告知我们作出该决定的依据并指出作出该决定的人员。此外，鉴于 Despins 先生就其宣誓声明中的遗漏所作出的承认，我们正在寻求有关 UST 如何看待并将该信息应用于作为美国受托人处理依据的 Whitley 先生所在律所利益冲突方面的信息。最后，我们希望得到解释，为何 UST 在得知关于 Despins 先生所在律所代表主要债权人母公司的补充信息后，没有采取类似的单方面撤回 Despins 先生指定的行动，反而允许该指定获得批准。根据论据\n\n55 Madison Avenue, Suite 400\n\n电话：(973) 285-3280 aaron@lmesq.com\n\n在7月5日的听证会上，UST 曾强调其拥有在法院批准前单方面撤回指定的完全裁量权，并严肃对待其审查潜在候选人的职责。在债务人看来，UST 对第二位获指定的受托人适用了不同的法律和操作方法，债务人寻求了解其原因。\n美国受托人通过选任来自与中国/香港及国家控制机构有着密切专业渊源的律所的受托人，从而漠视债务人关于其本人及家人遭受中国迫害的经核实关切\n\nUST（美国受托人）对债务人关于其本人及家人遭受中国迫害的既定担忧予以断然驳回，这体现在其任命了一名来自某律师事务所的受托人，该所不仅与中国及中国控制的香港有着深厚的专业联系，而且还曾广泛代表国家控制的实体。这一任命引发了债务人的重大关切，涉及潜在冲突、中国方面的干预，以及被任命的受托人及其所在律师事务所是否能够在不受中国及其执政的专制共产党不当干预的情况下公正履职。这并非UST首次驳回这些担忧。在诉讼程序早期，债务人对于UST坚持要求其出具中国事实上对其发布了红色通缉令（Red Notice）的证据感到震惊，尤其是因为她在INTERPOL（国际刑警组织）的公开网站上查不到该通缉令。这一来自U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）雇员的要求，不仅表明其对债务人缺乏任何中立性，而且显得十分荒谬，因为UST所属的美国司法部本身就掌管着其所索要的国际刑警组织记录（包括绝大部分未公开发布的记录）。此外，还提交了来自2017年国会公开记录的信息，该记录证实了红色通缉令的存在以及中国政府对债务人的迫害与攻击。在本案听证会以及债务人面谈期间，反复表达了债务人关于中国的担忧，并提交了关于中国企图将债务人非法引渡或驱逐回中国的进一步信息。例如，所提交的信息显示，一名美国司法部总部官员因充当中国代理人并（除其他事项外）秘密会见中国驻美大使商讨引渡债务人一事而被起诉（indicted）并认罪答辩（pled guilty）。此外，所提交的信息还涉及数名共和党高层官员因（除其他事项外）会见Trump（特朗普）总统并与美国司法部长、National Security Agency（国家安全局）以及美国国土安全部长沟通商讨将债务人非法引渡遣返至中国一事，而被司法部起诉或起诉控告。就在上个月，另一人因参与针对债务人的这项由中国资助的计划而被美国司法部起诉，而FBI（联邦调查局）局长Wray（雷）上周公开表示中国是美国的“最大长期威胁”。债务人关于中国的担忧是合法且有充分根据的，并非如UST似乎认为或暗示的那样基于凭空想象。\n\n令人震惊的是，尽管掌握了所有这些信息，作为美国司法部下属机构的UST，却在全美数百家律所中任命了一名来自某律师事务所的受托人，而该所在中国设有重要办事机构，与中国控制的机构和公司有着深厚的专业联系，并且明确面临来自中国的不当压力和影响。债务人已强调且公开记录在案的是，他此前聘请的一家律师事务所因代表债务人而遭到中国政府黑客攻击，并被迫退出对他的代理。此外，UST作为司法部的一部分应当十分清楚，司法部近期起诉了在受中国控制的澳门拥有盈利丰厚赌场的亿万富翁Steven Wynn（史蒂芬·永利）先生，指控其参与针对债务人的非法由中国资助的计划。司法部在该起诉讼中指出，中国政府促使永利先生参与该计划（其中包括会见总统以商讨非法引渡遣返债务人），是因为永利先生希望保护其每年价值数百万收入的澳门赌场牌照。坦率地说，美国受托人的决定公然违背了支持债务人担忧的大量确凿信息，自然会导致对该程序缺乏信任，并给债务人及其家人带来无端的精神压力，其数名家人曾被中国监禁和折磨。\n\n债务人希望了解，为何作为美国司法部下属机构的UST不相信这些担忧，反而选择了一名其所在律所与中国/香港有着重大联系且容易受到中国政府影响的受托人——这一决定公然违背了其在联邦调查局、Criminal Division（刑事司）以及National Security division（国家安全司）的同行所采取的行动和发表的声明。债务人要求获取有关UST对债务人遭受中国迫害及担忧中国报复所作的分析和赋予的权重的信息，以及是否考虑了该受托人所在律所与中国及中国控制实体的联系（如有考虑）。债务人也将感谢受托人及其律所所作的任何陈述。\n\n结论\n\n可以理解的是，围绕UST在债务人案件中任命受托人所出现的极不寻常、可以说是令人震惊且模棱两可的种种情况，引发了债务人对该程序的公正性及信任度的正当关切。债务人希望借助贵方的意见和信息来理解这些问题，以便就现任受托人经宣誓作出的无利害关系（disinterestedness）主张、美国受托人行为的公正性以及相关各方在此程序中保持中立的能力作出合理判断。\n\n我们理解法院对于UST在选择受托人方面所造成的延误的关切，并将感谢贵方对我们的请求作出快速答复，并提供贵方可能持有的关于上述事项的任何相关文件或通信。如果缺乏围绕近期这些延误及由贵方负责监督的事件的信息，债务人将别无选择，只能就所任命的受托人及整个受托人选任程序正式寻求信息，而这反过来可能会进一步延误破产财产（estate）的管理。债务人支持迅速管理破产财产，并且迄今为止已依此行事。然而，他不会以牺牲自身获得公正程序的权利为代价，来加速推进一项因UST对受托人程序处置不当而延误的程序。我们亦将初步向法院通报我们的担忧以及本次书面索取信息的请求。感谢您的合作以及对此请求的关注。\n\n此致，\n\n/s/ Aaron A. Mitchell Aaron A. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）","key_entities":["Despins","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Kwok","Je","Guo","Ho Wan Kwok","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2590,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:19:03"}