{"id":"court_ctb_876_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":876,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"UNKNOWN","filed_date":"2022-09-24","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -----------------------------------------------------------                                                                                               | x                                                     |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re:                                                                                                                                                    | :<br>:<br>Chapter 11                                  |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                                                                                                                              | :<br>:<br>Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)                     |\n| Debtor.                                                                                                                                                   | :<br>:                                                |\n| -----------------------------------------------------x-----<br>HK International Funds Investments<br>(USA) Limited, LLC<br>Plaintiff<br>v.<br>Ho Wan Kwok | :<br>:<br>:<br>Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05003<br>:<br>: |\n| Defendant                                                                                                                                                 | :<br>September 23, 2022<br>:                          |\n| -----------------------------------------------------x<br>Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins<br>Counter-Plaintiff<br>v.                                    | :<br>:<br>:<br>:<br>:                                 |\n| HK International Funds Investments<br>(USA) Limited, LLC, and Mei Guo<br>Counter-Defendants.<br>-------------------------------------------------------x  | :<br>:<br>:                                           |\n\n# **CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS**\n\nMr. Luc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), files this answer (the \"Answer\") to the complaint (the \"Complaint\") filed by HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\") [Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1] and asserts the counterclaims set forth herein (the \"Counterclaims\").\n\n#### **ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES**\n\n#### **I. SPECIFIC ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS**\n\nTo the extent a response is required to the statements and allegations contained in the first three unnumbered paragraphs of the Complaint under the heading entitled \"Summary of HK USA's Cause of Action,\" the Trustee denies those statements and allegations except to the extent they are admitted in response to the Complaint's numbered allegations, as follows.\n\n1. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. To the extent paragraph 1 of the Complaint implies that HK USA is an independent legal entity, the Trustee denies that allegation because HK USA is the alter ego of the Debtor, for the reasons discussed in the Trustee's Counterclaims.\n\n2. The Trustee admits that HK USA is nominally the registered owner of the Lady May; however, the Trustee denies that such registered ownership status means that the Lady May is not property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n3. The Trustee admits that Ms. Mei Guo (the \"Debtor's Daughter\") is the Debtor's daughter and that she lives in the United States. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny HK USA's allegations regarding the Debtor's Daughter's immigration proceedings or issues with the Chinese government or CCP, and on that basis denies such allegations. The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.\n\n4. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies such allegations.\n\n5. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies such allegations.\n\n6. The Trustee admits the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 3 of 70 Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 3 of 70\n\n7. The Trustee admits that the Complaint purports to seek the relief described in paragraph 7 of the Complaint but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to such relief.\n\n8. The Trustee admits that the Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding.\n\n9. The Trustee admits that the Court has jurisdiction to determine what property constitutes property of the estate.\n\n10. The Trustee admits that this is a core proceeding.\n\n11. The Trustee admits that venue is proper in this Court.\n\n12. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegation in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies such allegation.\n\n13. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to know whether \"Ms. Qu was a trusted business partner of Ms. Guo's older brother, Qiang, Guo,\" and on that basis denies such allegation. The Trustee further denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint.\n\n14. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.\n\n15. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies such allegations.\n\n16. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.\n\n17. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.\n\n18. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies such allegations.\n\n19. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies such allegations.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 4 of 70 Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 4 of 70\n\n20. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies such allegations.\n\n21. The Trustee admits that ownership of HK International was transferred to the Debtor's Daughter on June 27, 2017. The Trustee denies that it was Ms. Qu who transferred such ownership and also denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint.\n\n22. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny that HK International's only asset when it was transferred to the Debtor's daughter was the Lady May, and on that basis denies such allegation. The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.\n\n23. The Trustee admits the allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint.\n\n24. The Trustee admits that Golden Spring and Lamp Capital paid expenses associated with the Lady May and that HK USA has never held a bank account. The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint.\n\n25. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint.\n\n26. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 26 with respect to the Lady May's traditional or typical movements, and on that basis denies such allegations. The Trustee further denies the allegations in the last two sentences of paragraph 26 asserting that HK USA's representatives directed the Lady May's movements and that the Debtor lacked authority to give such directions.\n\n27. The Trustee is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny that the Lady May often hosts guests, and on that basis denies such allegation. The Trustee denies the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 27 of the Complaint.\n\n28. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 5 of 70 Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 5 of 70\n\n29. The Trustee admits that PAX obtained summary judgment against the Debtor on September 15, 2020, and the State Court's decision speaks for itself. The Trustee admits that neither HK USA nor Ms. Guo is a named party to the litigation in front of Justice Ostrager (the \"State Court Action\").\n\n30. The Trustee admits that PAX obtained the order referenced in paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and such order speaks for itself.\n\n31. The Trustee admits that NY CPLR § 5229 states that \"[i]n any court, before a judgment is entered, upon motion of the party in whose favor a verdict or decision has been rendered, the trial judge may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon him after judgment.\" The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.\n\n32. The Trustee admits that the State Court issued a contempt order on March 16, 2021, and such order speaks for itself. The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint.\n\n33. The Trustee admits that the State Court entered a final order of contempt against the Debtor on February 9, 2022, and such order speaks for itself.\n\n34. The Trustee admits the Debtor's Daughter testified as a witness before the State Court and that she was not a named party to the litigation. The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.\n\n35. The Trustee admits that PAX filed the referenced motion on March 1, 2022, and such motion speaks for itself.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 6 of 70 Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 6 of 70\n\n36. The Trustee admits that PAX has commenced certain legal proceedings that relate to the Lady May. The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint.\n\n37. The Trustee admits that PAX contended in the State Court that the Lady May is a critical asset of the Debtor's estate. The Trustee denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.\n\n38. The Trustee admits that there is a dispute between HK USA, the Trustee, and other parties concerning the Debtor's and HK USA's interest in the Lady May and that the resolution of such dispute will impact the administration of this case.\n\n39. The Trustee incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-38 of the Complaint.\n\n40. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint.\n\n41. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint.\n\n42. The Trustee denies the allegations in paragraph 42 of the Complaint.\n\n#### **II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE**\n\n1. HK USA's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata.\n\n2. HK USA's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands or *in pari delicto*.\n\n3. HK USA's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of setoff and recoupment.\n\n### **COUNTERCLAIMS**\n\n### **III. NATURE OF COUNTERCLAIMS**\n\n1. The issues relevant to this action extend well beyond the narrow question of\n\nwhether HK USA should be held to be the owner of the Lady May, which the Trustee contests based on, among other things, the preclusive effect of rulings made by Justice Ostrager of the New York Supreme Court (the \"State Court\") in his decision of February 9, 2022 (the \"Final Contempt Decision\").<sup>1</sup>\n\n2. Beyond the Trustee's defenses to the Complaint, the Trustee holds a series of affirmative claims against HK USA based on HK USA's well-documented role as one of a large number of shell companies used by the Debtor to protect his assets from creditors.\n\n3. First, HK USA is an alter ego of the Debtor, and this Court should issue a declaratory judgment to that effect. Justice Ostrager already found that HK USA is a shell company the Debtor used to protect assets from his creditors and that the Debtor \"beneficially owns and controls\" <sup>2</sup> HK USA's only asset: the Lady May. Justice Ostrager's conclusions are supported by voluminous evidence in the record showing that HK USA is a mere instrumentality of the Debtor, with no independent existence. Among other things, HK USA has no income, bank account, directors, officers, or employees, and, upon information and belief, it has never observed corporate formalities. At all relevant times, HK USA was under-capitalized, and its expenses (including its legal fees) have been paid for by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Lamp Capital LLC, entities purportedly owned by the Debtor's son that also pay for the Debtor's attorneys' fees and living expenses (enabling him to claim that he has no assets of his own while living a life of extreme luxury). HK USA has also shared an address with the Debtor and other Debtor-linked entities. Based on these and the other facts discussed herein, the Trustee seeks an order declaring that HK USA is the Debtor's alter ego pursuant to sections 541 and 544 of the\n\n<sup>1</sup> Ex. 1, February 9, 2022 Decision and Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181.\n\n<sup>2</sup> Final Contempt Decision at 4.\n\nBankruptcy Code and that, therefore, all of the property of HK USA, including the \\$37 million deposited into escrow and/or rights related thereto under the applicable escrow agreement, is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n4. Second, for the same reasons that HK USA is the Debtor's alter ego, the Debtor, and not the Debtor's Daughter, is the equitable owner of HK USA. Therefore, HK USA is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n5. Third, assuming the Court does not rule that HK USA is an alter ego of or equitably owned by the Debtor, the Trustee asserts that HK USA was the recipient of an actual fraudulent transfer by the Debtor consisting of the value of the Lady May and/or the funds used to purchase the Lady May. Therefore, the Trustee seeks, as alternative relief, the return of the Lady May or its value to the Debtor's chapter 11 estate pursuant to New York's fraudulent conveyance statute and sections 544, 548, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n6. Finally, again assuming the Court does not rule that HK USA is an alter ego of or equitably owned by the Debtor, the Trustee asserts a negligence claim against HK USA based on HK USA having taken and kept the Lady May overseas in violation of court orders, causing the Debtor to incur a \\$134 million contempt fine.\n\n### **IV. FACTS**\n\n### **A. Debtor's Shell Game**\n\n7. As established in the State Court Action, the Debtor's *modus operandi* for years has been to use family members and shell companies to shield his assets from creditors. Justice Ostrager accurately referred to the Debtor's asset protection strategy as a \"shell game\" numerous times in hearings and written decisions and orders in the State Court Action.\n\n8. The Debtor's shell game has allowed him to continue, up to this day, to (1) refuse to pay his debts; (2) enjoy all the benefits of massive wealth, such as yachts, private planes, and\n\nluxury cars and lodging; (3) spend millions of dollars on the attorneys' fees necessary to litigate against PAX, the Trustee, and numerous other parties; and (4) engage in his daily business of peddling disinformation, conspiracy theories, and cryptocurrency schemes.<sup>3</sup>\n\n9. The aspect of the Debtor's shell game most critical to this adversary proceeding (i.e., the Debtor's use of HK USA to shield the Lady May from creditors), *is only one example* of the Debtor's massive abuse of the corporate form to judgment-proof himself and keep creditors at bay. The Debtor has, upon information and belief, established numerous, potentially hundreds, of entities (including many in off-shore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\")), that he uses to hold or transfer property so that he can avoid liability and protect assets from creditors. The Debtor's use of these shell companies makes it impossible to believe he is truly a pauper dependent on family charity, a position that is insulting to the intelligence of the Court and all parties in interest.\n\n10. Certain of the Debtor's important shell companies include, in addition to HK\n\nUSA:\n\n- a) **Golden Spring (New York) Ltd (\"Golden Spring\")**. Golden Spring is a Delaware entity that pays the Debtor's expenses so the Debtor can live in luxury while claiming to own no assets and earn no income.\n\t- (1) Purportedly owned indirectly by the Debtor's Son,<sup>4</sup> Golden Spring was established and funded by the Debtor through a\n\n<sup>3</sup> *See, e.g.*, Friedman, Dan. \"A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued.\" *Mother Jones*, March – April 2022, http Whalen, Jeanne, et al. \"Chinese Businessman with Links to Steve Bannon Is Driving Force for a Sprawling Disinformation Network, Researchers Say.\" *The Washington Post*, 17 May 2021, http Hui, Echo, and Hagar Cohen. \"After John Left a Conspiracy-Sharing Group, the Billionaire Founder Told Followers He 'Deserved to Die'.\" *ABC News*, 1 Nov. 2020, http\n\n<sup>4</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 2, Wang Dep. Tr. at 18:17-18 (testimony that Golden Spring 100% owned by China Golden Spring (Hong Kong)); 17:3-4 (describing the Debtor's Son as owner of \"Golden Spring\").\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 10 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 10 of 70\n\n70\n\ntransfer of funds from one of his accounts in Hong Kong to the account of Golden Spring in New York in 2015.<sup>5</sup>\n\n- (2) A court order issued in Hong Kong on October 18, 2018, the Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal of Assets In Hong Kong and Elsewhere (the \"Hong Kong Restraint Order), identified Golden Spring's parent company, China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited, as one of a number of entities whose bank accounts were \"subject to the effective control of the Debtor.\"<sup>6</sup>\n- (3) The Debtor has testified that Golden Spring has been paying his living expenses since 2015.<sup>7</sup> Golden Spring has also been paying the fees of the Debtor's counsel and millions of dollars of maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment, among other payments.\n- (4) Golden Spring's president, Yan Ping (\"Yvette\") Wang (\"Ms. Wang\") has testified that Golden Spring is the Debtor's \"family office.\" <sup>8</sup> She has also testified that in her capacity as president of Golden Spring she \"serve[d] as an administrator for *the interests of [the Debtor]* and his family.\"<sup>9</sup>\n- (5) At the same deposition, Ms. Wang could not identify a single person who worked at Golden Spring prior to February 2018, except for the Debtor's personal chauffeur, nor could she identify any business purpose of Golden\n\n<sup>5</sup> In a 2016 affidavit filed in the New York Supreme Court in connection with Ace Decade's litigation against UBS, the Debtor stated that Golden Spring was established \"by transferring funds from one of my accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JPMorgan Chase bank account in New York.\" Ex. 3, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan, dated February 5, 2016, in *Ace Decade Holdings Limited vs. UBS AG*, Index No. 653316/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) at ¶ 36.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Ex. 93, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 22.\n\n<sup>7</sup> *See* Ex. 4, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 85:17-19. *See also* Ex. 5, Letter from Melissa M. Carvalho, dated February 1, 2021 at ¶ 8. (\"Mr. Kwok responds that his expenses during the relevant time period have been paid for by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.\").\n\n<sup>8</sup> Ex. 6, Wang Dep. Tr. at 20:10-16 (Q: \"What business is Golden Spring Hong Kong in? A: Family office. Q: Whose family? A: The Guo family. Q: Mr. Kwok's family? A: Yes.).\n\n<sup>9</sup> *Id.* at 46:20-23 (\"Q: I'm asking you whether or not you serve as an administrator for Mr. Kwok's interests? A: Yes.\") (emphasis added). *See also* Ex. 7, May 15, 2018 Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang in *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (ECF 182) at ¶ 1. (\"I am the President of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., and in that capacity serve as an administrator for the interests of [the Debtor] and his family.\").\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 11 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 11 of 70 70\n\n> Spring other than that of serving as the Debtor's \"family office\" and starting the Debtor's social media platform.<sup>10</sup>\n\n- (6) During the State Court Action, Golden Spring's counsel appeared at depositions for the Debtor, and the Debtor's counsel represented Ms. Wang, president of Golden Spring, in connection with her deposition.<sup>11</sup>\n- (7) Golden Spring's address at 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065 has been used as the address of the Debtor and numerous affiliated entities, including HK USA and Greenwich Land LLC.<sup>12</sup>\n- (8) Ms. Wang, president of Golden Spring, is the authorized signatory on official documents filed with courts and administrative agencies by multiple shell companies. 13\n- b) **Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\").** Lamp Capital is a Delaware entity, <sup>14</sup> purportedly owned by the Debtor's son,<sup>15</sup> that also contributes to the payment of the Debtor's expenses so that he can maintain his lifestyle while claiming to own no assets and earn no income.\n\t- (1) Lamp Capital's sole member is Infinity Treasury Management, Inc., <sup>16</sup> of which the Debtor's Son is the purported sole shareholder, the Debtor's associate Max Krasner is director and officer, <sup>17</sup> and the Debtor's associate Daniel Podhaskie is a former director and officer.<sup>18</sup>\n\n<sup>13</sup> *See e.g.*, Ex. 9, Verified Complaint, *Genever Holdings, LLC v. Sherry-Netherland, Inc.*, 16-cv-06246 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016), ECF No. 1; Ex. 10, Saraca Media Group Certificates of Assumed Name, dated May 14, 2020.\n\n<sup>14</sup> *See* Ex. 17, Certificate of Incorporation of Lamp Capital LLC, dated Sept. 4, 2020.\n\n<sup>10</sup> *See* Ex. 6, Wang Dep. Tr. at 39:20–40:8.\n\n<sup>11</sup> *See* Ex. 8, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 8:8-9 (\"Karin Maistrello, Golden Spring, for Defendant\"); Ex. 6, Wang Dep. Tr. At 6:9-10 (Jillian Searles identified by Ms. Wang as her attorney after entering an appearance \"for defendant Kwok Ho Wan\").\n\n<sup>12</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 20, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019; Ex. 54, Greenwich Land LLC Real Property Tax Assessor Record, dated July 15, 2021.\n\n<sup>15</sup> Ex. 4, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditor, at 50:6-7.\n\n<sup>16</sup> Ex. 92, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020.\n\n<sup>17</sup> *See* Ex. 55. Mr. Krasner's other roles have included, among others, serving as representative of Greenwich Land in connection with certain property transactions, as incorporator of GTV Media Group, Inc. (a subsidiary of Saraca), and as president, treasurer, and director of the Rule of Law Foundation III Inc., a purported nonprofit entity linked to the Debtor. *See* Ex. 11, Greenwich Land Warranty Deed, dated April 26, 2022; Ex. 12, GTV Media Group\n\n- (2) Mr. Podhaskie is or was an authorized signatory for Lamp Capital.<sup>19</sup>\n- (3) Corporate filings related to Lamp Capital LLC were handled by Hodgson Russ LLP, counsel to the Debtor in the State Court Action.<sup>20</sup>\n- (4) Lamp Capital purportedly \"loaned\" the Debtor \\$1 million, which was then remitted directly to Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\"), the Debtor's former bankruptcy counsel, as a retainer.<sup>21</sup>\n- c) **Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land\").** Greenwich Land, a Delaware entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife, owns the Debtor's residence on Taconic Road (the \"Taconic Road Residence\") in Greenwich, Connecticut.\n\t- (1) Greenwich Land was organized in 2019 by a partner at the law firm of Hodgson Russ, which at the time represented the Debtor in the State Court Action. 22\n\t- (2) In February 18, 2020, \\$2 million was transferred from Saraca Media Group Inc. (\"Saraca\") (an entity purportedly\n\n<sup>19</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 15, Application for Authority of Lamp Capital LLC, dated Sept. 11, 2020 filed with the State of New York (signed by Podhaskie).\n\n<sup>20</sup> *Id.*\n\nCertificate of Incorporation, dated April 17, 2020; Ex. 13, Rule of Law Foundation III Inc. Certificate of Incorporation, dated January 11, 2019.\n\n<sup>18</sup> *See* Ex. 55. Mr. Podhaskie's other roles have included, among others, serving as the Debtor's personal attorney, general counsel to Golden Spring, and corporate representative for purposes of Rule 30(b)(6) with respect to Genever US and Genever BVI. *See e.g.*, Ex. 4, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 79:2-3 (debtor stating that Podhaskie \"used to be Golden Spring attorney and my personal attorney.\"); *see* Ex. 14, Podhaskie Dep. Tr. at 8:8-9:1 (Podhaskie appearing as corporate representative of Genever US and Genever BVI (each defined below)).\n\n<sup>21</sup> *See* Application of the Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor, Docket No. 86, at ¶ 17; Ex. 4, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 49: 22-24. At his April 6, 2022 Section 341 meeting, the Debtor testified that this loan was not in writing and that he did not know the terms of the loan, why the money had been lent, or what the source of the money was. *Id.* at 49-51.\n\n<sup>22</sup> Hodgson Russ attorneys also assisted the Debtor with, among other things, the formations of Saraca and Lamp Capital, as well as other corporate filings on behalf of Golden Spring. *See* Ex. 16, Saraca Media Group Inc. Certificate of Incorporation, dated May 31, 2018 (signed by Courtney Scanlon); Ex. 17, Certificate of Incorporation of Lamp Capital LLC, dated September 4, 2020 (signed by Valerie E. Stevens); Ex. 18, Biennial Statement of Golden Spring, filed October 16, 2018 (signed by Courtney Scanlon).\n\nowned by the Debtor's Son<sup>23</sup>) to Greenwich Land in connection with the purchase the Taconic Road Residence.\n\n- (3) On or about April 26, 2022, in a transfer that was never disclosed to this Court, Greenwich Land sold a second property, on Ferncliff Road in Cos Cob, Connecticut, which it had previously owned. 24 The authorized signatory for Greenwich Land on the warranty deed in connection with the transfer is Max Krasner, who, as noted above, is an associate of the Debtor with a number of roles at Debtoraffiliated entities. 25\n- (4) Greenwich Land's address at 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065 has been used as the address of the Debtor and numerous affiliated entities, including Golden Spring and HK USA.<sup>26</sup>\n- d) **Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"**) and **Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever US\")**. Genever BVI is a BVI corporation of which the Debtor was the sole registered shareholder (prior to the Trustee obtaining control over such shares), and Genever BVI is the sole member of Genever US. Genever US holds title to the Debtor's apartment in the Sherry-Netherland Hotel (the \"Sherry Netherland Apartment\").\n\t- (1) The Debtor has described Genever BVI and Genever US (the \"Genever Entities\") as special purpose vehicles.<sup>27</sup>\n\t- (2) In the State Court Action, PAX asserted that Genever BVI and Genever US were alter egos of the Debtor.<sup>28</sup>\n\n<sup>23</sup> Ex. 4, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 108:12-13 (\"Who owns Saraca? A. My Son.\").\n\n<sup>24</sup> Ex. 11, Greenwich Land Warranty Deed, dated April 26, 2022.\n\n<sup>25</sup> *Id. See* FN 18. At the Debtor's first 341 meeting, counsel for the United States Trustee, Holley Claiborne, asked the Debtor twice who Mr. Krasner was, and the Debtor first said he did not know, then failed to respond. Ex. 19, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated March 21, 2022 at 51:7-12. When Ms. Claiborne asked the Debtor to answer the question, the Debtor's counsel Mr. Baldiga conferred with the Debtor despite Ms. Claiborne stating that she \"would rather he would answer the question before you make a confer.\" *Id.* at 13:18. The Debtor then said he had difficulty with English names and that he did know a \"Max\" at Golden Spring though not his last name. *Id.* at 51-52.\n\n<sup>26</sup> *See, e.g.*, Initial Petition (defined below); Ex. 20, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019.\n\n<sup>27</sup> *See* Global Notes and Statements of Limitations, Methodology, and Disclaimers Regarding the Debtor's Schedules of Assets and Liabilities and Statement of Financial Affairs, (March 9, 2022) ECF No. 77 (\"SOFA\") at 4.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 14 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 14 of 70 70\n\n- (3) On October 24, 2020, Genever US commenced its chapter 11 case in the U.S Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in front of Judge Garrity, with a petition signed by Ms. Wang (president of Golden Spring).<sup>29</sup>\n- (4) The Debtor listed himself as the \"Applicant\" on his Sherry-Netherland purchase application,<sup>30</sup> he submitted letters that recommended himself personally to the Board,<sup>31</sup> and he represented that he had an \"ownership interest\" in the Sherry Netherland Apartment. 32\n- e) **Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\").** Bravo Luck is a BVI entity purportedly owned by the Debtor's Son.<sup>33</sup> Bravo Luck has asserted that it is the beneficial owner of the Genever Entities, and/or the Sherry Netherland Apartment. The Debtor has used Bravo Luck and its beneficial ownership claim not only to provide himself a penthouse apartment he can claim is not his own, but also to contest and delay prepetition efforts of PAX to enforce its pre-petition judgment against the Sherry Netherland Apartment, as well as to challenge the Trustee's recent efforts to seek corporate control over Genever BVI.\n\t- (1) Upon information and belief, the Debtor used Bravo Luck's UBS AG bank account (Account #371236) (the \"Bravo Luck UBS Account\") to fund the purchases of the Lady May and Sherry Netherland Apartment in 2015, processed pursuant to wire transfer forms signed by the Debtor.<sup>34</sup>\n\t- (2) The Hong Kong Restraint Order identified the Bravo Luck UBS Account as a bank account that, while purportedly held by Bravo Luck, was \"subject to the effective control\"\n\n<sup>31</sup> *Id.* at 23, 25-26.\n\n<sup>28</sup> Ex. 56, August 2, 2021 Reply Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.'S Motion For A Turnover Order Against Defendant Miles Kwok And Appointment Of A Receiver, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 899 at 2.\n\n<sup>29</sup> Ex. 57, Petition, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1, at 4.\n\n<sup>30</sup> *See* Ex. 53, Sherry Netherlands Purchase Application, at 19.\n\n<sup>32</sup> Ex. 7, Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang in *PAX v. Kwok*, at ¶ 2.\n\n<sup>33</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 21, BVI Affidavit of Qiang Guo, dated December 29, 2021.\n\n<sup>34</sup> Escobar, Pepe, et al. \"Exclusive: The Fugitive Who Tried to Spark a US-China War.\" The Unz Review, 5 Aug. 2022, http\n\nof the Debtor.<sup>35</sup> Indeed, the Debtor could access the account by himself.<sup>36</sup>\n\n- (3) The Debtor held 50% of the equity of Bravo Luck between January and May 2015, an ownership interest the Debtor allegedly obtained and then returned to the Debtor's Son for no consideration.<sup>37</sup>\n- (4) Bravo Luck's assertions of beneficial ownership of Genever BVI, Genever US, and the Sherry Netherland Apartment are based on a purported trust agreement dated February 17, 2015 (the \"Purported Trust Agreement\"), the validity and enforceability of which are highly questionable for numerous reasons.\n- (5) Among other things, the Purported Trust Agreement was responsive to numerous document requests served by PAX during the State Court Action, yet was not disclosed to PAX during that discovery process, which ended in September 2018, seven months prior to the Debtor's disclosure of the Purported Trust Agreement to PAX for the first time in April 2019.<sup>38</sup>\n- (6) The Purported Trust Agreement purports to place the Sherry Netherland Apartment in trust, but is dated February 17, 2015, before the submission of the application to purchase the Sherry Netherland Apartment or the purchase of the apartment.<sup>39</sup>\n- (7) In a 2016 lawsuit in the SDNY, Kwok stated that he is the sole shareholder of Genever NY and a resident in the Sherry Netherland Apartment, and he further alleged that\n\n<sup>35</sup> Ex. 93, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 21.\n\n<sup>36</sup> Ex. 58, Stevenson Wong Letter, at 2 (Bravo Luck UBS Account, \"is operated by either the [the Debtor] or [the Debtor's Son] signing solely and . . . is able to be accessed by either of them signing solely.\")\n\n<sup>37</sup> *See id.* at 2.\n\n<sup>38</sup> Ex. 22, Email from Jillian Searles of Hodgson Russ LLP disclosing Purported Trust Agreement, dated April 22, 2019.\n\n<sup>39</sup> *See* Ex. 22, Email disclosing Purported Trust Agreement; Ex. 53, Sherry Netherlands Closing Documents and Purchase Application, at 1-8, 19-21.\n\nhe personally suffered damages as a result of the actions of the Sherry Netherland cooperative with respect thereto.<sup>40</sup>\n\n- f) **Eastern Profit Corporation (\"Eastern\").** Eastern is a Hong Kong entity, purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter,<sup>41</sup> that Judge Liman of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, in his 2021 decision in the case of *Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*  (the \"Liman Decision\"), found to be, \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor<sup>42</sup> allegedly used to \"protect his confidentiality and anonymity.\"<sup>43</sup>\n\t- (1) Judge Liman observed that, at the time Eastern entered into its January 2018 agreement with Strategic Vision US LLC (the agreement which was the subject of the Liman Decision), Eastern was \"essentially a defunct entity\" with \"no assets other than . . . \\$80,000 frozen in a Hong Kong bank account,\" and \"no operations and no employees.\" Further, analogously to HK USA and other shell companies, Eastern's location \"was in the offices of [the Debtor's] family company in Hong Kong and its sole director was Guo's daughter.\"<sup>44</sup>\n\t- (2) The subject of the Liman Decision was a January 2018 agreement, purportedly between Eastern and Strategic Vision US LLC (the \"Strategic Vision Agreement\"), that was signed on behalf of Eastern by Yvette Wang (president of Golden Spring). But Ms. Wang did not sign her own name, instead she forged the signature of another associate of the Debtor's, Han Changhui, who had purportedly owned Eastern prior to transferring purported ownership of Eastern to the Debtor's Daughter for no apparent consideration in 2017.<sup>45</sup>\n\n<sup>42</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>44</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>40</sup> *See* Ex. 9, Verified Complaint at ¶¶ 123-143, *Genever Holdings, LLC v. Sherry-Netherland, Inc.*, 16-cv-06246 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016), ECF No. 1.\n\n<sup>41</sup> *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at \\*1.\n\n<sup>43</sup> *Id.* at \\*7 (\"During negotiations, Guo requested that, to protect his confidentiality and anonymity, he would not sign or be a party to the Agreement but that a separate entity would sign and be a party.\").\n\n<sup>45</sup> *Id.* at \\*7 (\"Although . . . Han [the Debtor's associate] was the ostensible owner of Eastern, it has now been transferred to [the Debtor's Daughter] but Han could not testify that he received anything in exchange. Eastern is a shell for [the Debtor] and his family.\") (internal citations omitted). *Id.* at \\*1 (\"Prior to 2017, the owner and sole\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 17 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 17 of 70 70\n\n- (3) Judge Liman also found that testimony from Ms. Wang and Mr. Han with respect to Mr. Han's role in connection with the Strategic Agreement was \"an after-the fact creation to make it appear that Eastern was an entity, separate from Guo.\"<sup>46</sup>\n- (4) Judge Liman inferred, with respect to the Strategic Agreement, that \"[the Debtor] told Wang to provide the name Eastern to Strategic and to sign Han's name to the Agreement. If there was any conversation between Wang and Han, it was perfunctory, to confirm the arrangement that *[the Debtor] had already made and directed*.\" 47\n- (5) According to testimony elicited at the hearing held in connection with the Liman Decision, the Debtor introduced Mr. Han (the purported owner of Eastern) as his cook, referring to him as \"Little Han,\"<sup>48</sup> and introduced Ms. Wang as his servant and assistant.<sup>49</sup> There was also testimony that Ms. Wang described the Debtor as her \"boss.\"<sup>50</sup>\n\n<sup>46</sup> Liman Decision at \\*7.\n\n<sup>47</sup> *Id.* (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>48</sup> Ex. 27, Trial Tr. at 768:4-12, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 368 (April 22, 2021).\n\n<sup>49</sup> Ex. 28, Trial Tr. at 142:12-19, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 362 (April, 19, 2021) (\"Q. Did he introduce [Ms. Wang] in any way -- let me ask you this. What did he introduce her as? A. Well, originally as his assistant. Q. Did he say anything else about what she did for him? A. He said that she did, you know, what personal assistants do and -- but he sent her from the room.\"). Ex. 29, Trial Tr. at 248-249, *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 362 (April, 19, 2021) (\"Q. Did [the Debtor] come to introduce [Ms. Wang] at a particular meeting at some point? A. At the first meeting, he just referred to her as like a servant. In the second meeting, he introduced her as his assistant.\").\n\n<sup>50</sup> Ex. 28, Trial Tr. 142-143 (\"Okay. Now, I'm going to ask you what Yvette Wang told you about her role. So what did Yvette Wang tell you was her role with respect to this contract? A. Well, first of all, she said: Guo is my boss. I am project manager, and I will be handling this project moving forward.\"); *id.* (\"Did she have any name for Guo or any term she used to describe him? Yes. She called him chief. She gave him some military ranks. She called him the boss.\").\n\ndirector of Eastern was an individual named Han Changhui ('Han'). In 2017, Han transferred ownership and control to Guo's daughter, Guo Mei, who was a friend of Han's and who is now the owner and sole director of Eastern.\").\n\n- (6) The Hong Kong Restraint Order identified Eastern Profit as the purported holder of a bank account that was \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.<sup>51</sup>\n- g) **Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\")**. Saraca is a Delaware entity, purportedly owned by the Debtor's Son,<sup>52</sup> that the Debtor has used to engage in, among other things, the sale of purported cryptocurrencies.\n\t- (1) Saraca shares the same address as Golden Spring,<sup>53</sup> and Golden Spring's president, Ms. Wang, is an authorized signatory on Saraca official documents.<sup>54</sup>\n\t- (2) Saraca transferred funds to Greenwich Land immediately prior to Greenwich Land's purchase of the Debtor's residence on Taconic Road;\n\t- (3) Saraca is the registered owner with the United States Patent and Trademarks Office of the marks \"Miles Kwok,\" \"Miles Guo,\" and \"Guo Wengui.\"<sup>55</sup>\n\t- (4) In September 2021, the Securities and Exchange Commission (\"SEC\") issued a cease and desist order ordering that Saraca and its subsidiary GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") cease violations of the securities laws in connection with purported sales of GTV stock and G-Coin and G-Dollar cryptocurrencies, which had \"raised approximately \\$487 million from more than 5,000 individuals.\"<sup>56</sup> The Office of the Attorney General of the\n\n<sup>51</sup> Ex. 93, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 16.\n\n<sup>52</sup> Ex. 4, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 108:12-13 (\"Q: Who owns Saraca? A: My son.\").\n\n<sup>53</sup> *See* Ex. 10, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results.\n\n<sup>54</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 25, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020 and Ex. 26, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020.\n\n<sup>55</sup> Ex. 23, United States Patent and Trademark Office Registry Pages for Miles Guo, Miles Kwok, Guo Wengui, and Guo Media.\n\n<sup>56</sup> *See In the Matter of Gtv Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc., Respondents*, Release No. 10979, 2021 WL 4149064, at ¶ 1, 5 (Sept. 13, 2021) (finding that companies that GTV, Saraca, and Voice of Guo Media, Inc. violated the Securities Act in connection with \"solicit[ing] thousands of individuals to invest in an offering of GTV common stock\" and \"solicit[ing] individuals to invest in their offering of a digital asset security that was referred to as either G-Coins or G-Dollars,\" thus allowing these companies to \"collectively raise[] approximately \\$487 million from more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United States, through approximately July 2020\").\n\nState of New York took similar action against Saraca and GTV. 57\n\n- (5) Saraca is also involved in the Debtor's more recent cryptocurrency scheme of promoting and selling \"Himalaya Coin\" and \"Himalaya Dollar\" (also known as \"H-Coin\" or \"H-Dollar\").\n- (6) Saraca registered \"Himalaya Coin\" and \"Himalaya Dollar\" as its assumed names in the State of New York, using filings signed by Ms. Wang, *president of Golden Spring.***<sup>58</sup>**  Upon information and belief, revenues from the sale of Himalaya cryptocurrency are transferred from customers to Saraca.\n- h) **Ace Decade Holdings Limited (\"Ace Decade\").** Ace Decade is a BVI entity the Debtor acquired to use as an intermediary entity in connection with the failed 2015 securities transaction that generated the Debtor's lawsuits against UBS. The Debtor used Ace Decade to avoid disclosure requirements that would have arisen had the Debtor purchased the securities directly.<sup>59</sup>\n\t- (1) The Debtor acquired Ace Decade in November 10, 2014 and on the same day appointed one of his employees, Yu Yong (\"Ms. Yu\") as the sole director and nominee shareholder.<sup>60</sup>\n\t- (2) The Debtor allegedly appointed Ms. Yu to these roles based on the alleged advice of his banker at UBS, who suggested the use of an intermediary entity to avoid disclosure requirements.<sup>61</sup>\n\n<sup>57</sup> Ex. 24, Assurance of Discontinuance, Assurance No. 21-062, *In the Matter of Investigation by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York*, *of GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc*.\n\n<sup>58</sup> *See* Ex. 25, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name; Ex. 26, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name.\n\n<sup>59</sup> Ex. 3, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan at ¶¶ 13-14 (\"UBS advised that . . . if I invested through Ace Decade directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings [and] advised that if I invested through an intermediary entity, with the intermediary entity holding legal title to the Shares, no such disclosure would be required.\").\n\n<sup>60</sup> Ex. 30, Particular of Claims, *Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS*, Cl-2020-000345, ¶ 24, High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court, dated September 23, 2020 (\"UK Complaint\").\n\n<sup>61</sup> *Id.* at ¶ 24 (\"Ace Decade was acquired on 10 November 2014 by Mr Kwok for the purpose of acting as the said investment vehicle. On the same day, on the advice of Mr Wong, an employee of Mr Kwok, Ms Yu Yong (\"Ms Yu\") became its nominee shareholder and director.\").\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 20 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 20 of 70 70\n\n- (3) The Hong Kong Restraint Order identified Ace Decade as the purported holder of a bank account that was \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.<sup>62</sup>\n- i) **Well Origin Limited (\"Well Origin\").** Well Origin is a BVI entity owned by the Debtor that was formed as a \"special purpose vehicle\" to own a private jet, an Airbus 319 (the \"Aircraft\"). 63\n\t- (1) In 2014, Well Origin entered into a \\$50 million loan agreement with UBS AG (\"UBS\") to \"refinance the Aircraft purchase price\" as well as a related aircraft mortgage agreement.<sup>64</sup> In addition, the Debtor entered into a related guarantee agreement with UBS. UBS was also granted a security interest in Well Origin's shares.<sup>65</sup>\n\t- (2) Subsequently, UBS foreclosed on its security interest in the shares of Well Origin, took control of Well Origin, and notified the Debtor that it was going to sell the Aircraft.<sup>66</sup>\n\t- (3) In an action filed in February of 2019, the Debtor sought to enjoin the sale, asserting that he was the \"*Aircraft's true beneficial owner,*\" <sup>67</sup> and that the Aircraft was \"unique,\" \"personal,\" and \"specific to him.<sup>68</sup> The court rejected the\n\n<sup>63</sup> Ex. 31, Petition at ¶ 7, *Kwok How Wan v. UBS AG, et al.*, Index No. 152025/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) Doc. No. 1. The capacity of a normal airline A319 is approximately 150 passengers.\n\n<sup>64</sup> *Id.* ¶¶14-16.\n\n<sup>65</sup> *Id.* ¶ 15.\n\n<sup>66</sup> *Id.* ¶¶ 22-24.\n\n<sup>67</sup> Ex. 39, Memorandum Of Law In Support Of His Request For A Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction at 2, *Kwok v. USB AG et al*, Index No. 152025/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 15 (February 25, 2019) (\"Moreover, *the Aircraft's true beneficial owner – Kwok* – has been an outspoken critic of the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") and Kwok has personally exposed massive corruption within the CCP that has resulted in the Chinese government and CCP stopping at no expense to seize any property and asset either directly or indirectly related to Kwok.\"). *See also id.* at 1 (\"UBS, in blatant contravention of the terms of the mortgage, is wrongfully trying to sell the Aircraft without properly notifying *Kwok -- the Aircraft's beneficial owner*, and guarantor on a loan related to the Aircraft -- of the potential sale.').\n\n<sup>68</sup> *Id.* at 2 (\"Kwok will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted to stay the sale of the aircraft as *the Aircraft is unique to Kwok* -- he personally worked with the designer on the outfitting of the Aircraft and was comprehensively involved in the Aircraft's particular design and specification\"); *Id.* at 6-7 (\"If UBS is permitted to move forward with the sale despite their defective notice and without providing Kwok an accounting, Kwok will permanently lose the Aircraft that *is personal and specific to him*, for which money damages cannot and will not suffice.\").\n\n<sup>62</sup> Ex. 93, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 18.\n\nDebtor's request for an injunction, pointing out that the Debtor was asserting rights under an aircraft mortgage agreement that he had not signed.<sup>69</sup>\n\n- (4) With respect to Well Origin, the Debtor looked past the corporate form and asserted he was the true beneficial owner of the Aircraft because it suited him to do so (given that UBS had taken control of Well Origin).\n- j) **Numerous Other Shell Companies**: It is likely that the entities discussed in these counterclaims comprise only a small part of what are reportedly hundreds of shell companies controlled by the Debtor.<sup>70</sup> The reported existence of such a large number of shell companies is supported by the fact that in the Hong Kong Restraint Order the Debtor was determined to effectively control financial accounts purportedly held by over two dozen entities and individuals, including certain of the entities already mentioned herein. 71\n- 11. In sum, while these Counterclaims are designed to focus on HK USA and the\n\nLady May, and the Trustee does not at this time seek relief against other entities, the Trustee\n\nbelieves that context regarding the Debtor's wide-ranging strategy of using shell companies to\n\nshelter assets from creditors will assist the Court in understanding the Trustee's position.\n\n# **B. Debtor's Formation, Ownership, and Purported Transfer of HK International Prior to Acquisition of Lady May**\n\n12. On October 3, 2006, the Debtor incorporated a Hong Kong entity called Hong\n\nKong International Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\").<sup>72</sup>\n\n<sup>69</sup> Ex. 32, Order at 3, *Kwok v. USB AG et al*, Index No. 152025/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 17 (February 26, 2019) (\"Petitioner's sole contractual connection to the aircraft is vis-à-vis a written guarantee of the non-party mortgagor's obligations which are collateralized via the aircraft.\").\n\n<sup>70</sup> Escobar, Pepe, et al. \"Exclusive: The Fugitive Who Tried to Spark a US-China War.\" The Unz Review, 5 Aug. 2022, http (\"[The Debtor] set up more than 100 companies in Hong Kong, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, the British Virgin Islands, and the Cayman Islands.\").\n\n<sup>71</sup> Ex. 93, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3.\n\n<sup>72</sup> Ex. 34, HK Intl. Funds Investments Ltd. Memorandum and Articles of Association, dated October 3, 2006.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 22 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 22 of 70 70\n\n13. The Debtor was HK International's sole shareholder and director through October 10, 2014.<sup>73</sup>\n\n14. On October 10, 2014, the Debtor transferred his interest in HK International to an individual named Qu Guo Jiao (a/k/a Natasha Qu) (\"Ms. Qu\"). 74\n\n15. As found by Justice Ostrager, \"Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family.\"<sup>75</sup> In fact, the Hong Kong Restraint Order listed Ms. Qu as one of several individuals whose bank accounts were \"subject to the effective control of\" the Debtor.<sup>76</sup>\n\n16. Upon information and belief, on October 10, 2014, in connection with the October 10, 2014 transfer, Ms. Qu signed an undisclosed Declaration of Trust (the \"HK International Declaration of Trust\") that identified Ms. Qu as the \"Trustee\" and the Debtor as the \"Beneficiary.\"<sup>77</sup>\n\n17. Upon information and belief, the undisclosed HK International Declaration of Trust stated, among other things, that the Debtor \"authorized and requested\" Ms. Qu to \"hold in the name of [the Debtor] shares in [HK International],\" that such shares \"now standing in the books of the Company registered in the name of [Ms. Qu] do not belong to [Ms. Qu] but to [the\n\n<sup>75</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>73</sup> *See* Ex. 35, HK Intl. Funds Investments Ltd. Annual Return, dated November 26, 2007.\n\n<sup>74</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 4 (Justice Ostrager stating, in reference to this transaction, that testimony before him \"established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to [Ms. Qu] for no consideration.\").\n\n<sup>76</sup> Ex. 93, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 3.\n\n<sup>77</sup> Escobar, Pepe, et al. \"Exclusive: The Fugitive Who Tried to Spark a US-China War.\" The Unz Review, 5 Aug. 2022, http\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 23 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 23 of 70 70\n\nDebtor],\"<sup>78</sup> that Ms. Qu would hold the shares as nominee and in trust for the Debtor, and that Ms. Qu would exercise rights in connection with the shares at the Debtor's direction.<sup>79</sup>\n\n18. Accordingly, after October 10, 2014, the Debtor continued to beneficially own HK International pursuant to the undisclosed Declaration of Trust.\n\n19. The Hong Kong Restraint Order lists HK International as one of the entities whose bank accounts were \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.<sup>80</sup>\n\n### **C. Purchase of Lady May in February 2015**\n\n20. On February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for €28,000,000 (or approximately \\$32,000,000<sup>81</sup>) from Apsley Yachts Limited (the \"Seller\"). 82\n\n21. Upon information and belief, on February 23, 2015, Bravo Luck, the Debtor's shell company, transferred from the Bravo Luck UBS Account no less than €25,200,000 of the funds used to purchase the Lady May to a representative of the Seller, pursuant to a wire transfer form signed by the Debtor.<sup>83</sup> Upon information and belief, the funds held by Bravo Luck Limited in the Bravo Luck UBS Account (and used to purchase, among other things, the Lady May) were transferred to Bravo Luck, directly or indirectly, by the Debtor.\n\n<sup>78</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>79</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>80</sup> Ex. 93, Hong Kong Restraint Order ¶ 3, Respondent 19.\n\n<sup>81</sup> The Lady May's Bill of Sale, dated February 23, 2015, lists a purchase of price of €28,000,000.00, which, multiplied by the applicable exchange rate on February 23, 2015 (of 1.1333 dollars per euro), equals \\$31,732,400.00.\n\n<sup>82</sup> Ex. 36, Sale documents in connection with the sale of the Lady May, at 1; *see also* Ex. 37, February 2, 2022 Evidentiary Hr. Tr. at 45:22–25, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n<sup>83</sup> Escobar, Pepe, et al. \"Exclusive: The Fugitive Who Tried to Spark a US-China War.\" The Unz Review, 5 Aug. 2022, http\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 24 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 24 of 70 70\n\n22. On the same day on which the Lady May was purchased, Tommy Cheung and Stephen Wong, Managing Directors at the UBS AG Hong Kong Branch, wrote in a letter in support of the Debtor's application to purchase the Sherry Netherland Apartment that the Debtor, \"has been a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012 and during this time [the Debtor] has had a satisfactory banking relationship with us. At 18 Feb. 2015, the funds involved in this banking relationship is not less than USD \\$400,000,000.<sup>84</sup> Upon information and belief, the \"personal investment company\" of the Debtor referenced in this letter is Bravo Luck.\n\n23. The Bravo Luck UBS Account held approximately \\$490 million as of March 3, 2022, shortly after the purchase of the Lady May. 85\n\n24. As of February 23, 2015, 50% of the equity of Bravo Luck Limited was held by the Debtor, and the remaining 50% was held by the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo (the \"Debtor's Son\").<sup>86</sup> As explained in a March 4, 2015 letter written by the Debtor's counsel in Hong Kong, Stevenson, Wong & Co., at that time, Bravo Luck was \"legally and beneficially owned as to 50%\" by the Debtor and the Debtor's Son respectively and the Bravo Luck UBS Account, \"is operated by either the [the Debtor] or [the Debtor's Son] signing solely and . . . is able to be accessed by either of them signing solely.\"<sup>87</sup>\n\n<sup>84</sup> Ex. 78, Letter from USB AG HK, dated Feb 23, 2015, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 14-64 (\"the funds involved in this banking relationship is not less than USD400, 000,000\").\n\n<sup>85</sup> Ex. 82, UBS Special Report, dated March 2015, at 3-5.\n\n<sup>86</sup> Ex. 38, Instrument of Transfer, dated May 12, 2015, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 758; Ex. 33, Bravo Luck Limited Register of Members, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 14-58. *See* Ex. 21, BVI Affidavit of Qiang Guo at ¶ 31 (\"The legal ownership of Bravo Luck was changed for a limited period of approximately four months between 26 January 2015 and 12 May 2015, whereby I transferred 50% legal ownership of Bravo Luck to the [Debtor]\").\n\n<sup>87</sup> Ex. 58, Stevenson Wong Letter, at 2.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 25 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 25 of 70 70\n\n25. As stated in the Final Contempt Decision, \"there is no evidence that [the Debtor's Son] was involved with the corporate transactions leading to\" HK International's acquisition of the Lady May. 88 Accordingly, upon information and belief, the Debtor, not his son, used his shell company Bravo Luck to substantially fund the purchase price of the Lady May.\n\n26. That the Debtor caused Bravo Luck, a shell company he controlled, to fund the purchase of the Lady May is consistent with his testimony to this Court that, as of December of 2014, he had \\$1 billion at his disposal.<sup>89</sup>\n\n# **D. 2017 Transfer of Ownership of HK International from Ms. Qu to Debtor's Daughter for HK\\$1.00**\n\n27. On June 27, 2017, Ms. Qu and the Debtor's Daughter executed an instrument of transfer pursuant to which Ms. Qu purportedly transferred the ownership of HK International to the Debtor's Daughter for consideration of HK\\$1.00 (the \"2017 Transfer\"). <sup>90</sup> At the time of the transfer, the Lady May, HK International's asset, was worth far more than \\$1.00—at least tens of millions of dollars.\n\n28. Upon information and belief, the 2017 Transfer occurred at the Debtor's direction while the undisclosed HK International Declaration of Trust was effective—meaning that the Debtor continued to beneficially own HK International at the time of the transfer. 91\n\n<sup>88</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 5 (noting that Debtor's Daughter's acknowledged in her testimony \"that her bother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht [through HK International]\").\n\n<sup>89</sup> Ex. 66, Tr. of Proceedings, dated April 27, 2022 at 173: 1-3 (\"Q: Mr. Kwok, isn't it true that in November or December of 2014, you had \\$1 billion at your disposal? A: Yes.\").\n\n<sup>90</sup> *See* Ex. 36, Sale documents in connection with the sale of the Lady May, at 4 (Instrument of Transfer).\n\n<sup>91</sup> Escobar, Pepe, et al. \"Exclusive: The Fugitive Who Tried to Spark a US-China War.\" The Unz Review, 27 Aug. 2022, http\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 26 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 26 of 70 70\n\n29. Upon information and belief, at the time of the 2017 Transfer, both the Debtor and the Debtor's Daughter were residents of New York, the Debtor having moved to New York on January 9, 2015, <sup>92</sup> and the Debtor's Daughter having moved to the United States on May 16, 2017.<sup>93</sup> Upon information and belief, the Debtor's Daughter has been a resident of the state of New York since arriving to the United States.\n\n### **E. Transfer of Lady May to HK USA**\n\n30. On April 1, 2019, HK USA, a Delaware entity, was formed with the Debtor's Daughter as \"the sole member of the company.\"<sup>94</sup>\n\n31. HK USA's LLC agreement lists the Debtor's Daughter's address as 781 5th\n\nAvenue, the Sherry Netherland Apartment. 95 HK USA's LLC agreement also lists the principal\n\noffice of HK USA as 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065. 96 This is an address\n\nthat has been used by the Debtor himself (including on his original chapter 11 petition filed on\n\nFebruary 15, 2022), <sup>97</sup> as well as by a number of Debtor-related entities, including Greenwich\n\nLand, Golden Spring, GTV Media Group Inc., and Saraca Media Group Inc. <sup>98</sup> It was also, for a\n\n<sup>95</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>96</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>92</sup> Ex. 3, Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan at ¶ 30 (\"On January 9, 2015 . . . I moved to New York.\"). *See also* Ex. 19, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors at 27:3-5 (\"Q: Mr. Kwok, how long have you lived in the United States? A: Nearly seven years.\").\n\n<sup>93</sup> Complaint, *HK Int'l Funds Investments (USA) Ltd., LLC v. Kwok, et al.* (Adv. Proceeding No. 22-05003) at ¶ 20 (\"On May 16, 2017, Ms. Guo departed for the United States. . . . She has remained in the United States ever since and is currently seeking political asylum here.\").\n\n<sup>94</sup> Ex. 20, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019.\n\n<sup>97</sup> Voluntary Petition, Docket No. 1, at 2; Ex. 40, Casper Law Firm invoices (addressed to Kwok at 162 East 64th Street Address).\n\n<sup>98</sup> *See* Ex. 54, Real Property Tax Assessor Record of Greenwich Land LLC, dated July 15, 2021; Affidavit of Service, Docket No. 767; Ex. 67, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV Media Group Inc.; Ex. 10, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY results.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 27 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 27 of 70 70\n\ntime, the address of the Debtor's counsel, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC. 99\n\n32. In April 2020, the Lady May was transferred from HK International to HK USA for no apparent consideration. 100\n\n33. Upon information and belief, neither the Debtor's Son nor the Debtor's Daughter\n\nhave ever held gainful employment outside of the Debtor's shell companies.\n\n# **F. Alter Ego Characteristics of HK USA**\n\n34. HK USA is the alter ego of the Debtor, as evidenced by the following\n\ncharacteristics (applicable during the entire time period relevant to the Counterclaims), among\n\nothers:\n\n- a) HK USA had no source of income, and all of HK USA's expenses were paid for by shell companies Golden Spring and Lamp Capital.<sup>101</sup>\n- b) HK USA had no directors, officers, or employees.<sup>102</sup>\n- c) HK USA did not file tax returns.<sup>103</sup>\n- d) HK USA had no bank account and was not otherwise capitalized.<sup>104</sup>\n- e) HK USA kept no documents.<sup>105</sup>\n\n<sup>100</sup> Ex. 41, Mei Guo Affidavit at ¶ 11, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162 (\"On or about April 17, 2020, I transferred ownership of the Lady May from HK International to HK [USA].\").\n\n<sup>101</sup> *See, e.g.*, Complaint ¶ 24, Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1 (\"The Lady May's expenses were previously funded through [Golden Spring]. Now they are funded by Lamp Capital.\"); Ex. 69, Letter from L. Vartan, dated May 4, 2021 (\"In connection with its representation [of HK USA], the firm has received payments from Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Lamp Capital LLC.\"); Ex. 42, Letter from L Vartan, dated June 7, 2021 (\"I can confirm that all expenses for the Lady May yacht, including staff, crew, and maintenance, are paid by Golden Spring New York.\").\n\n<sup>102</sup> Ex. 42, Letter from L. Vartan (\"HK International has no directors, officers, or employees; has no dedicated email server or e-mail suffix; does not file tax returns; and has no bank account and is not otherwise 'capitalized.'\").\n\n<sup>103</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>99</sup> *See* Ex. 68, Consent to Change Attorney, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 338.\n\n<sup>104</sup> *Id. See also, e.g.*, Complaint ¶ 24, Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1 (\"At no time since [the Debtor's Daughter] owned the Lady May through HK International and/or HK USA has either entity ever held a bank account.\").\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 28 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 28 of 70 70\n\nf) HK USA's only purported asset was the Lady May, which, as discussed below, was preclusively found to be beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor. 106\n\n35. The Debtor has wrongfully and unjustly used its alter ego relationship with HK\n\nUSA to, among other things, cause HK USA to hold assets for the Debtor's use and benefit,\n\nwhile purporting to keep such assets outside the reach of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n# **G. PAX's Claim and Litigation Against Debtor**\n\n36. As determined by the State Court,<sup>107</sup> during the entire time period relevant to the Counterclaims, the Debtor was personally indebted to Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\") pursuant to a 2011 personal guarantee (the \"2011 Personal Guarantee\") with respect to amounts owing in connection with a loan made by PAX to one of the Debtor's business entities in 2008 (the \"PAX Claim\").<sup>108</sup> Between April 2013 and June 2015, the Debtor and PAX were parties to a Deed of Settlement under which it was contemplated that the PAX Claim would no longer be due and owing if certain conditions occurred. These conditions did not occur, and the PAX Deed of Settlement was terminated in June of 2015.<sup>109</sup>\n\n<sup>108</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>109</sup> *Id.* at 7.\n\n<sup>105</sup> Ex. 43, Tr. at 9, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 898 (PAX's counsel stating that \"what Mr. Vartan did tell us is that HK [USA] has no employees, no officers, no directors, no bank account, no documents, no nothing. It's not a real company. I said, 'Mr. Vartan, where are the documents?' You know what he told me, Judge? 'Golden Spring has them'\"). In this transcript, the term \"HK International\" was used to refer to HK USA.\n\n<sup>106</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 42, Letter from L. Vartan (HK USA's \"sole asset is the Lady May Yacht\").\n\n<sup>107</sup> Ex. 44, Decision and Order, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 549 (\"the Court finds Kwok liable for breach of the 2011 Personal Guarantee.\").\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 29 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 29 of 70 70\n\n37. On April 18, 2017, PAX filed a complaint in the State Court asserting the Debtor's liability in connection with the PAX Claim under a theory of breach of contract related to the 2011 Personal Guarantee.<sup>110</sup>\n\n38. On April 18, 2019, PAX amended its complaint to include Genever US and Genever BVI as defendants and to assert that such entities' corporate veils should be pierced and that they should be held jointly and severally liable for the Debtor's breach of contract.\n\n39. On September 15, 2020, PAX prevailed on its motion seeking summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against the Debtor. <sup>111</sup> PAX's veil-piercing claims against Genever US and Genever BVI remained pending. On February 3, 2021, the State Court entered an order awarding PAX a judgment in connection with its breach of contract claim in the amount of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\").<sup>112</sup>\n\n40. On September 25, 2020, PAX filed a motion in the State Court seeking a restraining order pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law & Rule (\"CPLR\") 5229, alleging, among other things, that the Debtor would \"take steps to dissipate his assets or otherwise frustrate the judgment in this case\" (the \"CPLR Motion\").<sup>113</sup>\n\n41. On September 30, 2020, the State Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining the Debtor from, among other things, \"making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest.\"<sup>114</sup>\n\n<sup>110</sup> *See* Ex. 45, Complaint, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 2.\n\n<sup>111</sup> *See* Ex. 44, Decision and Order. An appeal of this decision is pending.\n\n<sup>112</sup> Ex. 46, Judgment, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 716.\n\n<sup>113</sup> Ex. 47, Memorandum of Law in Support of PAX's CPLR 5229 Motion and Request for TRO at 5, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 576.\n\n<sup>114</sup> Ex. 48, Decision and Order on Motion, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 591.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 30 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 30 of 70 70\n\n42. On October 15, 2020, the State Court held a hearing with respect to PAX's CPLR\n\nMotion and the Debtor's opposition thereto. At the hearing, Justice Ostrager stated, among other\n\nthings, in comments directed at the Debtor and his counsel:\n\n- a) \"The Court believes . . . that Mr. Kwok has attempted to mislead the Court. The Court believes that Mr. Kwok is, as the plaintiff contends, playing a shell game with his assets, and has violated if not the letter of court orders, the spirit of court orders.\"<sup>115</sup>\n- b) \"[W]e are not going to have any more shell games. Wherever these assets are held, they are going to remain held where they presently reside, and if it's determined that the entities that are presently listed as the owners of the assets are the alter ego of Mr. Kwok or are wholly dominated and controlled by Mr. Kwok, those assets will be made available to satisfy any judgment that the plaintiff recovers.\"<sup>116</sup>\n- c) \"The intent here which is very clear and specific is that in this 2017 case in which there's been a great deal of gamesmanship, a great deal of dissembling, and some flagrant disregard of court orders, I want to know if any transaction is going to take place in which Mr. Kwok is the guiding hand that's something other than an ordinary course of business transaction.\"<sup>117</sup>\n- d) \"[O]rders of the Court are either flaunted or exceedingly liberally interpreted, and . . . intentional or unintentional misstatements that have misled the Court have been made to the Court.\"<sup>118</sup>\n- 43. On the same day, October 15, 2020, the State Court entered an order (the\n\n\"October 2020 Restraining Order\") providing that the Debtor \"*and/or the registered owners* of\n\n(1) the Residence at the Sherry Netherland Hotel and (2) the yacht, 'the Lady May' are restrained\n\nfrom making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with those assets.\"<sup>119</sup>\n\n<sup>118</sup> *Id.* at 26.\n\n<sup>115</sup> Ex. 49, Tr. at 21:13-16, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 647.\n\n<sup>116</sup> *Id.* at. 22:7-14.\n\n<sup>117</sup> *Id.* at 24: 8-14.\n\n<sup>119</sup> Ex. 50, Decision and Order at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 630 (emphasis added).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 31 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 31 of 70 70\n\n44. The October 2020 Restraining Order applied to HK USA because it was the registered owner of the Lady May.\n\n#### **H. Violation of State Court Restraining Order and Contempt Order**\n\n45. The October 2020 Restraining Order was violated almost immediately upon its entry. As the State Court would later find, arrangements were made for \"the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas.\" 120 The Lady May was then moved to Europe in October 2021,<sup>121</sup> where it would remain until its return to the United States pursuant to the Lady May Stipulation (defined below) entered in this Court. 122\n\n46. During a State Court hearing held on November 12, 2020 before the State Court, counsel to the Debtor, John Siegal, stated that due to the Lady May being registered in the British Virgin Islands, <sup>123</sup> it would have to return there for licensing purposes.<sup>124</sup> Justice Ostrager responded by stating that any such voyage would require relief from the October 2020 Restraining Order: \"You will have to make that application on papers. I don't know anything about the requirement that an asset that has been restrained in the United States should be allowed to go to the British Virgin Islands\" where it could \"become[] potentially unavailable for [PAX] to levy upon.\" 125 Following Justice Ostrager's rejection of a further intervention by\n\n<sup>125</sup> *Id.* at 13:19-24, 14:4-8.\n\n<sup>120</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 2.\n\n<sup>121</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 5 (\"[I]n October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021\").\n\n<sup>122</sup> *See Stipulated Order Compelling Hk International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC To Transport And Deliver That Certain Yacht, The \"*Lady May*\"* Docket No. 299.\n\n<sup>123</sup> Here, Mr. Siegal confused the British Virgin Islands with the Lady May's correct place of registration in the Cayman Islands.\n\n<sup>124</sup> Ex. 52, Tr. at 13:9-18, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 691.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 32 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 32 of 70 70\n\nAaron Mitchell, at the time acting as counsel to the Genever Entities,<sup>126</sup> Mr. Siegel then\n\nacknowledged that \"[w]e understand the Court's directive.\"<sup>127</sup>\n\n47. On November 18, 2020, in a letter filed with the State Court, counsel to PAX\n\nreported the following information with respect to the Lady May:\n\nBased on publicly available information, which we accessed at MarineTraffic.com . . . we understand that the yacht departed Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on November 1, 2020, and, as of today, is located in the Bahamas at or near Old Fort Bay, Nassau. In fact, it appears that the yacht was already out of the jurisdiction on November 12, 2020, when Mr. Siegal (presumably carrying out Mr. Kwok's instructions) asked Justice Ostrager if Mr. Kwok could send the yacht out of the jurisdiction. This is particularly concerning given Mr. Kwok's history of making misrepresentations throughout this litigation. 128\n\n48. On December 24, 2020, PAX filed a motion seeking that the Debtor be held in\n\ncontempt based on the Lady May having left the jurisdiction.<sup>129</sup>\n\n49. On March 17, 2021, the State Court issued a decision and order holding the\n\nDebtor in contempt (the \"March 2021 Contempt Order\") and stating, among other things, the\n\nfollowing:\n\nThe Court has reviewed the extensive submissions of the parties in connection with PAX's motion to hold Kwok in contempt. *Passing the issue of whether any of Mr. Kwok's attorneys have violated the Code of Professional Conduct, it is clear that there has been an intolerable amount of gamesmanship, dissembling, and deceit in proceedings before this Court relating to the whereabouts and ownership of the yacht \"Lady May.\"*\n\n<sup>126</sup> *Id.* at 14:9-14 (Mr. Mitchell has appeared in other capacities in relation to the Debtor, including filing a letter before this Court as the Debtor's personal counsel. *See* Objection to the appointment of the Mr. Despins as Trustee, Docket No. 531).\n\n<sup>127</sup> *Id.* at 15:5-6. Later, at the State Court hearing held on July 21, 2022, Mr. Siegel stated that during this colloquy at the November 21, 2020 hearing, \"unbeknownst to me, . . . the vessel was no longer in the United States.\" Ex. 43, July 21, 2021 Tr. at 18:21-23. Justice Ostrager responded by stating: \"If you choose to -- if you, counsel, choose to be an instrumentality of gamesmanship and defiance of Court orders, that's your decision.\" *Id.* at 19: 2-4.\n\n<sup>128</sup> Ex. 59, Letter from Melissa M. Carvalho of Baker & Hostetler LLP, dated November 18, 2020, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 692 (internal citations omitted).\n\n<sup>129</sup> Ex. 60, December 24, 2020 Notice of Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 688.\n\nThe defendant claims that the yacht was removed from the jurisdiction of this Court for \"ordinary course\" \"winter maintenance\" *notwithstanding restraints imposed on the movement of the yacht by the Court. Rather than catalogue the many \"shell games\" defendant Kwok has engaged in with the assistance of counsel who should know better, the Court grants the motion for contempt to the following extent: For every day that the yacht is outside the jurisdiction of this Court after May 15, 2021, defendant Kwok will be fined \\$500,000.* The other restraints relating to the ownership and control of the yacht remain in place.<sup>130</sup>\n\n# **I. Failure to Return Lady May and Subsequent Contempt Fines**\n\n50. Though the March 2021 Contempt Order provided for the accrual of contempt\n\nfines of \\$500,000 per day after May 15, 2021, that date came and went and the Lady May\n\nremained outside of the United States. In fact, the Lady May would not return to the United\n\nStates until early July 2022.\n\n51. On May 27, 2021, the State Court held a hearing in connection with PAX's efforts\n\nto obtain documents in discovery from Golden Spring. At that hearing, Justice Ostrager made\n\nthe following comments with respect to the Debtor and his related entities.\n\n- a) \"Mr. Kwok is incurring \\$500,000 per day in contempt penalties. I understand that Mr. Kwok believes that these court proceedings are a game of evasion -- that he wants to play.\"<sup>131</sup>\n- b) \"Mr. Kwok has exhausted the Court's patience with his antics.\"<sup>132</sup>\n- c) \"Mr. Kwok leads a rather extravagant lifestyle, [yet] purports to have zero assets whatsoever.\"<sup>133</sup>\n\n<sup>133</sup> *Id.* at 10:2-3.\n\n<sup>130</sup> Ex. 61, Decision and Order on Motion at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 728 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>131</sup> Ex. 62, May 27, 2021 Tr. at 9:1-3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 833.\n\n<sup>132</sup> *Id.* at 9:23-24.\n\n- d) \"Mr. Kwok flaunts the Court's orders at will.\"<sup>134</sup>\n- e) \"Mr. Kwok has apparently no concern for the \\$500,000 a day sanction for flagrantly violating prior orders of the Court with respect to the boat that [Golden Spring] is paying to maintain and transport.\"<sup>135</sup>\n- f) \"[PAX's counsel] has been pursuing enforcement of a judgment for years now, and it's been my misfortune to have to have presided over these many, many, many motions and hearings, none of which are producing the results that the Court has ordered because Mr. Kwok directly or indirectly through his companies ignores Court orders.\" 136\n- 52. On July 8, 2021, PAX filed a motion (the \"Final Contempt Motion\") in the State\n\nCourt seeking a final contempt order against the Debtor in connection with the ongoing violation of the March 2021 Contempt Order.<sup>137</sup>\n\n53. On July 19, 2021, together with the filing of the Debtor's opposition to the Final\n\nContempt Motion (which opposed the motion on the basis that the Debtor did not own the Lady\n\nMay and sought a stay pending the appeal of the March 2021 Contempt Order), counsel to HK\n\nUSA, attorney Lee Vartan, filed an \"Affirmation\" in opposition to the Final Contempt Motion\n\n(the \"Vartan Affirmation\"). <sup>138</sup> The Vartan Affirmation asserted, among other things, that HK\n\nUSA was the owner of the Lady May and that HK USA's \"property interests are being affected\n\nby\" the Final Contempt Motion.<sup>139</sup>\n\n<sup>139</sup> *Id.* ¶ 4.\n\n<sup>134</sup> *Id.* at 16:8-9.\n\n<sup>135</sup> *Id.* at 17:1-5.\n\n<sup>136</sup> Ex. 62, May 27, 2021 Tr. at 18:1-6.\n\n<sup>137</sup> Ex. 63, Memorandum of Law in Support of PAX's Motion for a Final Order of Civil Contempt, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 857.\n\n<sup>138</sup> *See* Ex. 90, Vartan Affirmation , dated July 19, 2021, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 867.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 35 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 35 of 70 70\n\n54. On July 21, 2021, the State Court held a preliminary hearing on the Final\n\nContempt Motion, at which hearing Mr. Vartan appeared as counsel for HK USA, purportedly for the purpose of protecting HK USA's alleged property interest in the Lady May. 140 At the\n\nhearing, Justice Ostrager made the following comments, among others:\n\n- a) \"I don't believe that [PAX's counsel] has met -- met his burden on the record that's presently before the Court for a final court order of civil contempt, because there is an issue about the ownership of the ship, although it would seem that [PAX's counsel] has made more than a prima facie showing that all of these entities that allegedly control the ship are controlled by Mr. Kwok.\"<sup>141</sup>\n- b) \"Mr. Kwok is proceeding at his own peril by orchestrating the voyages of this ship to everywhere and anywhere other than the territorial waters of the United States.\"<sup>142</sup>\n- c) \"Let's be clear about Let's be clear about one thing: The Court issued an order directing that the boat not be removed from the territorial waters of the United States, upon an application from representatives of Mr. Kwok, or entities that he controlled, to remove the boat from the territorial waters of the United States. That order was disregarded by Mr. Kwok and/or the entities that he controls. That is a contempt of the Court.\"<sup>143</sup>\n- d) \"If this wasn't gamesmanship and this wasn't flaunting of the Court's orders, and if this wasn't a transparent shell game that Mr. Kwok is engaged in, the boat would be in the territorial waters of the United States and we would resolve the issue of the boat's ownership.\"<sup>144</sup>\n- e) \"[PAX's counsel] has made more than a prima facie showing that Mr. Kwok controls all of these entities, over the course of multiple hearings, and that Mr. Kwok is in contempt, and his entities are in contempt of prior orders of the Court.\"<sup>145</sup>\n\n<sup>140</sup> Ex. 43, July 21, 2021 Tr. at 3:19-20.\n\n<sup>141</sup> *Id.* at 13:15-23.\n\n<sup>142</sup> *Id.* at 14:1-4.\n\n<sup>143</sup> *Id.* at 16:25-17:10.\n\n<sup>144</sup> *Id.* at 17:15-20.\n\n<sup>145</sup> Ex. 43, July 21, 2021 Tr. at 17:21-25.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 36 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 36 of 70 70\n\n- f) \"There can't be any dispute that Mr. Kwok and the entities he controlled were restrained from moving that boat from the territorial waters of the United States. And, in defiance of those orders and subsequent orders, the boat remains outside the territorial waters of the United States. And sooner or later the wheels of justice, which grind exceedingly slowly, will resolve the issue.\"<sup>146</sup>\n- 55. On November 9, 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate\n\nDivision, First Judicial Department (the \"Appellate Division\"), issued an order on the Debtor's\n\nappeal of the March 2021 Contempt Order. The Appellate Division stated as follows:\n\nThe motion court acted within its discretion in holding defendant in civil contempt, *as plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiffs rights* (see El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]; Judiciary Law S 753).\n\nContrary to defendant's argument, the court did not commit a procedural defect under Judiciary Law 9 770 because it did not issue a final order of contempt. Further, the evidence shows that the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing (see e.g. Ruesch v Ruesch, 106 AD3d 976, 977 [2d Dept 2013]). The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.<sup>147</sup>\n\n# **J. Final Contempt Hearing and Participation by HK USA**\n\n56. On February 2, 2022, the State Court held its final evidentiary hearing with\n\nrespect to the Final Contempt Motion (the \"Final Contempt Hearing\"). Mr. Vartan again\n\nappeared at the Final Contempt Hearing as counsel to HK USA and also for the Debtor's\n\nDaughter.<sup>148</sup>\n\n<sup>146</sup> *Id.* at 19:8-15.\n\n<sup>147</sup> Ex. 75, *Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021) (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>148</sup> Ex. 37, February 2, 2022 Evidentiary Hr. Tr. at 37:7-9 (\"The first several witnesses are witnesses for [HK USA], the owner of the vessel. And Lee Vartan will be presenting those witnesses for cross-examination.\"); *Id.* at 37:25- 38:1 (\"Lee Vartan on behalf of Mei Guo'). *See also* Ex. 64, Joint Appearance Sheet for February 2, 2022 Hearing at 3, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1119 (listing Mr. Vartan as \"counsel for HK International.\").\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 37 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 37 of 70 70\n\n57. At the beginning of the Final Contempt Hearing, Mr. Siegal, counsel for the Debtor, informed the court that \"[t]he first several witnesses are witnesses for [HK USA], the owner of the vessel. And Lee Vartan will be presenting those witnesses for crossexamination.\"<sup>149</sup> Consistent with that explanation, Mr. Vartan proceeded to present four witnesses<sup>150</sup> (all but one of the witnesses offered on behalf of the defense<sup>151</sup>) and make evidentiary objections<sup>152</sup> in defending these witnesses before \"turn[ing] things back over to Mr. Siegal\" shortly before the conclusion of the hearing.<sup>153</sup>\n\n58. In connection with the Final Contempt Hearing, the Debtor's Daughter testified that \"she directed the Lady May's itinerary\"<sup>154</sup> and that \"it was [her] decision for the boat to travel from New York to Florida in October 2020, not [her] father's decision.\"<sup>155</sup> According to the Debtor's Daughter: \"I was aware . . . of the [March 2021 Contempt Order] requiring the Lady May to return to New York in May 2021. However, . . . I did not want the boat to travel to New York, and, after consulting with counsel, directed instead that it proceed to Europe . . . . that decision was mine alone, not my father's.\"<sup>156</sup>\n\n<sup>152</sup> *See, e.g.*, *id.* at 45:9-12; 58:7-11; 60:18-20.\n\n<sup>153</sup> *Id.* at 96:13-16.\n\n<sup>154</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 5.\n\n<sup>155</sup> *See* Ex. 41, January 28, 2022 Mei Guo Affidavit at ¶ 19 (\"It was my decision for the boat to travel from New York to Florida in October 2020, not my father's decision.\").\n\n<sup>149</sup> Ex. 37, February 2, 2022 Evidentiary Hr. Tr. at 37:7-9.\n\n<sup>150</sup> These witnesses were: (1) the Debtor's Daughter; (2) Momchil Ivanov, current captain of the Lady May, (3) Craig Heaslop, former captain of the Lady May, and (4) Russell Stockil, yacht management director for Yachtzoo (the yacht management company for the Lady May).\n\n<sup>151</sup> The sole witness offered by the Debtor was Aaron Mitchell, his attorney. Ex. 37, February 2, 2022 Evidentiary Hr. Tr. at 96:15-18.\n\n<sup>156</sup> *Id.* ¶ 20 (\"I was aware, through my counsel, of the Court's Order requiring the Lady May to return to New York in May 2021. However, given that I am the owner of the Lady May, and that neither HK USA nor I is a party to this action, I did not want the boat to travel to New York, and, after consulting with counsel, directed instead that it\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 38 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 38 of 70 70\n\n59. The Debtor himself did not testify in connection with the Final Contempt Hearing. On multiple occasions previously, the Debtor had asserted the Fifth Amendment in response to PAX's discovery requests.<sup>157</sup> In the Final Contempt Decision, Justice Ostrager ruled that the Debtor's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination \"in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May,\" entitled PAX to an adverse inference against the Debtor.<sup>158</sup>\n\n60. On February 9, 2022, Justice Ostrager issued his Final Contempt Decision imposing a contempt fine against the Debtor of \\$134 million<sup>159</sup> and noting that the State Court was prepared to enforce timely payment through the \"exercise its full authority\" under New York's Judiciary Law § 753, which, among other things, provided the State Court with the power to imprison the Debtor for failure to pay the fine.<sup>160</sup>\n\n61. The Final Contempt Decision contained numerous findings of the State Court, including, among others, the following:\n\n> a) The Debtor had made \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members.\"<sup>161</sup>\n\n<sup>158</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 9.\n\n<sup>159</sup> The Trustee reserves his rights with respect to the plan treatment of PAX's claims.\n\nproceed to Europe as had been long-planned at significant expense. Again, that decision was mine alone, not my father's.\").\n\n<sup>157</sup> Ex. 65, Letter from Melissa M. Carvalho of Baker & Hostetler LLP, dated March 11, 2021; Ex. 70, Email from Stuart Sarnoff to Melissa Carvalho, dated Nov. 10, 2021.\n\n<sup>160</sup> *See* Judiciary Law § 753A (\"court of record has power to punish, by fine and imprisonment, or either, a neglect or violation of duty, or other misconduct, by which a right or remedy of a party to a civil action or special proceeding, pending in the court may be defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced\").\n\n<sup>161</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 1.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 39 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 39 of 70 70\n\n- b) The Debtor, \"who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"<sup>162</sup>\n- c) The Debtor's use of corporate entities to shield assets from creditors was a \"scheme\" that had \"enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\"<sup>163</sup>\n- d) The Debtor \"exercised dominion and control over\" the Lady May.<sup>164</sup>\n- e) \"The testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\"<sup>165</sup>\n- f) Based on the evidence in connection with the purchase of the Lady May \"a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds which were used to purchase the yacht.\"<sup>166</sup>\n- g) \"Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction.\" 167\n- h) Testimony of the Debtor's Daughter \"that she owns and controls the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect.\"<sup>168</sup>\n- i) The Debtor's Daughter \"introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\"<sup>169</sup>\n\n<sup>163</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>164</sup> *Id.* at 2.\n\n<sup>165</sup> *Id.* at 7.\n\n<sup>167</sup> *Id.* at 5.\n\n<sup>168</sup> *Id.* at 6-7.\n\n<sup>169</sup> *Id.* at 7.\n\n<sup>162</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>166</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 4.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 40 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 40 of 70 70\n\n- j) \"The machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case.\"<sup>170</sup>\n- k) \"Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\"<sup>171</sup>\n- l) \"The evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May.\" 172\n- 62. In concluding his decision, Justice Ostrager commented that \"if billionaire\n\nlitigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United\n\nStates while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law.\"<sup>173</sup>\n\n# **K. Debtor Continues His Shell Game in This Chapter 11 Case**\n\n63. In response to the issuance of the Final Contempt Decision, <sup>174</sup> on February 15,\n\n2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor commenced this Chapter 11 Case by filing his chapter 11\n\npetition [Main Case Docket No. 1] (the \"Initial Petition\") and Official Form 104, titled \"For\n\nIndividual Chapter 11 Cases: List of Creditors Who Have the 20 Largest Unsecured Claims\n\nAgainst You *and Are Not Insiders*\" [Main Case Docket No. 4] (the \"Top 20 Creditors List\")\n\n(emphasis added).\n\n<sup>173</sup> *Id.* at 9.\n\n<sup>170</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>171</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 8.\n\n<sup>172</sup> *Id.* at 8.\n\n<sup>174</sup> *See, e.g*., Ex. 19, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors at 15:21-16:1 (\"[I]n mid-February in my second trial . . . I was given a fine of \\$120 million and I was ordered to pay it off within five days. So without any choices - so I filed bankruptcy application at Connecticut state and Chapter 11.\"). The Debtor has appealed the Final Contempt Decision.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 41 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 41 of 70 70\n\n64. Throughout the chapter 11 case, the Debtor has continued his shell game of using shell companies and family members to plead poverty while living in the lap of luxury.\n\n65. In the Debtor's Initial Petition, his amended chapter 11 petition filed on February 23, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 19] (the \"Amended Petition\" and, together with the Initial Petition, the (\"Petitions\")), the Debtor, among other things, failed to disclose that his affiliate, Genever US, was the debtor in a pending chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York that had been commenced on October 12, 2020. <sup>175</sup> In response to the Petitions' instruction to disclose, \"Where you live,\" the Debtor stated \"c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd\" and inserted Golden Spring's address.<sup>176</sup> The Debtor also listed shell companies Golden Spring and Lamp Capital as the only holders of undisputed claims on his Top 20 Creditors List and amended versions thereof [Docket Nos. 10, 20].\n\n### **i. Debtor Denies Holding Assets or Earning Income**\n\n66. On March 9, 2022, the Debtor filed his schedules [Main Case Docket No. 78] (the \"Schedules\") and statement of financial affairs [Main Case Docket No. 77] (\"SOFA\"). These documents in particular, along with their associated global notes (the \"Global Notes\") attached to the SOFA, help encapsulate how the Debtor has played his shell game in this Chapter 11 Case. Among other things:\n\n<sup>175</sup> Initial Petition at 3 (Petition Item 10).\n\n<sup>176</sup> *Id.* at 2 (Petition Item 5).\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 42 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 42 of 70 70\n\n- a) Despite voluminous public evidence of the Debtor's wealth, including court documents signed by the Debtor under penalty of perjury,<sup>177</sup> the Schedules reported that the total value of the Debtor's property was *\\$3,850.00*, as compared with scheduled unsecured claims of \\$373,803,498.09, over \\$250 million of which consisted of the claims of PAX, with the remainder including numerous claims by plaintiffs in litigation relating to accusations of securities fraud, defamation, and sexual assault.\n- b) The Debtor scheduled \\$0.00 of income, stating that: \"the Debtor does receive support funded by family and companies controlled by family for housing, household and living expenses. None of the funding related to housing, household or living expenses is subject to any claim by the funding source and all housing, household and living expense funding is without any agreement or expectation to be repaid.\"\n- c) The Debtor scheduled \\$0.00 of expenses, stating that: \"all expenses of any kind including housing, household and living, are funded by third party family members or by companies they control. The Debtor has no expenses for which he is personally liable.\"\n- d) The Debtor scheduled Golden Spring (his \"family office\") as holder of *secured claims* against the Debtor of an unknown value based on certain litigation funding agreements. As noted above, the Debtor had previously listed Golden Spring as holder of *unsecured claims* on his Top 20 Creditors List.\n\n<sup>177</sup> *See* Ex. 30, Particular of Claims at ¶ 1 (describing Debtor as \"high net worth individual\"). *See also* Rolfoundation Rule of Law Fund Live 2020/07/22 Mr. Guo Wengui live.\" YouTube, July 22, 2020,\n\nhttp (\"Everyone knows that a while ago, I advised to my family fund and our collaboration fund, and based on my decision, (we) purchased oil futures. Everyone knows that (we) made almost less than a little less than \\$30 billion. At the time I told them, if money is made, 90% (of the profits) belong to you; if money is lost, all belongs to me. Then all went in and 1 billion barrels (of oil futures) were bought. Now the 1 billion barrels made a profit of \\$30 billion, and I made at least \\$3 billion, right?\") (based on informal translation from Chinse audio); *See* VICE News, \"Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption*,* YouTube\" (original air date on HBO, Nov. 15, 2017),\n\n<http> (In this video, the Debtor describes various of his assets, including the Sherry Netherland Apartment (\"I buy the apartment\"), the Lady May (\"my yacht\"), the \"most luxurious apartment in London,\" \"two private jets,\" and \"hundreds of race cars\". The Debtor also comments on his great wealth generally, stating, \"I have the wealthy life that everyone in the world dreams about,\" and \"I don't have any material needs anymore.\").\n\n- e) In his SOFA, the Debtor listed a number of parties as creditors who had received transfers within the ninety days preceding the Petition Date, *thus admitting that the Debtor, and not another party, had paid these creditors*. 178 It appears, however, that at least some of these payments were made by Golden Spring and/or Lamp Capital, thereby confirming that the Debtor uses these entities as part of his shell game.\n- f) The Debtor stated he had \"use and occupancy\" of the Taconic Road Residence that was owned by Greenwich Land, an LLC whose sole member is the Debtor's spouse. The Debtor stated that \"related costs and expenses associated with the Residence are paid directly by family and family-controlled enterprises.\" Relatedly, the Debtor denied holding legal title to any household goods and furnishings, electronics, or collectibles.\n- g) The Debtor stated he had \"access to\" the Sherry Netherland Apartment and disclosed his ownership of Genever BVI, Genever BVI's ownership of Genever US, and Genever US's ownership of the apartment. However, the Debtor took the position that he held his equity in Genever BVI in trust for Bravo Luck, owned by the Debtor's Son, and asserted that Bravo Luck funded the purchase of the apartment using funds that \"came from entities owned or controlled by the Debtor's son and not from the Debtor.\"\n- h) The Debtor stated he \"has use of automobiles, including luxury automobiles and motorcycles\" but that he \"has no legal title to any vehicle of any type,\" and that \"costs and expenses associated with such vehicles are provided for directly by family and family-controlled enterprises.\"\n- i) The Debtor continued to assert that the Lady May was owned by HK USA and refused to schedule the Lady May as an asset on the grounds that he had appealed the Final Contempt Decision.\n- j) The Debtor stated that the Hong Kong Restraint Order had frozen \"HK\\$3.7 million of funds alleged to belong to the Debtor\" and \"[a]s much as billions more of funds and property, including real estate in Hong Kong, of individuals and entities purportedly subject to the Debtor's 'effective control.'\" The Debtor stated that \"[d]ue to the freezing/seizure of these assets, the Debtor does not include them in his estate,\" despite the fact that the Hong Kong Restraint Order does not necessarily divest the Debtor of ownership of these assets.\n- 67. Elaborating on the story of the Debtor's alleged individual poverty amidst family\n\nopulence, the Debtor stated in his declaration filed on March 20, 2022 that:\n\n<sup>178</sup> *See* SOFA, at 21 (response to question 6 \"[d]uring the 90 days before you filed for bankruptcy, did **you** pay any creditor a total of \\$600 or more\").\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 44 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 44 of 70 70\n\nMy family, and particularly my son, provides for my needs. Prior to the Petition Date, my son's family office [Golden Spring] purchased, among many other things, my clothing, food, and sundries. I do not have access to a Golden Spring credit card or to a Golden Spring bank account. My family retains ownership of nearly everything I use, aside from my clothing and mobile phones.<sup>179</sup>\n\n68. According to the Debtor, \"Justice Ostrager, PAX, and perhaps others believe I have greater financial wherewithal than is reflected here and in my Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs. The wealth they believe is mine, however, actually belongs to my son, daughter, wife, and extended family, not me.\"<sup>180</sup>\n\n# **ii. Shell Game Funds Chapter 11 Case and Lifestyle**\n\n69. Throughout the Chapter 11 Case, the Debtor has continued to play his shell game to ensure that, despite his condition as a chapter 11 debtor claiming no assets or income, he can continue to live a luxurious lifestyle and benefit from expensive legal representation.\n\n70. For example, Lamp Capital paid the \\$1 million retainer of the Debtor's initial\n\nbankruptcy counsel, Brown Rudnick. <sup>181</sup> The Debtor's Son then paid the \\$100,000 retainer of the\n\nDebtor's subsequent bankruptcy counsel, Zeisler & Zeisler, *which simultaneously serves as*\n\n# *counsel to the Debtor's Daughter and HK USA.*\n\n71. Meanwhile, Golden Spring, Lamp Capital, and Greenwich Land have funded the Debtor's extravagant lifestyle. These expenses from the beginning of the Chapter 11 Case are\n\n<sup>180</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>179</sup> Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions, Docket No. 107 at ¶ 17.\n\n<sup>181</sup> This payment was made using the proceeds of a purported \\$1 million loan from Lamp Capital to the Debtor that were remitted directly from Lamp Capital to Brown Rudnick. *See* Application of the Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor, Docket No. 86, at ¶ 17; Ex. 4, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 49: 22-24. At his April 6, 2022 Section 341 meeting, the Debtor testified that this loan was not in writing and that he did not know the terms of the loan, why the money had been lent, or what the source of the money was. *Id.* at 49-51.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 45 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 45 of 70 70\n\nreflected in the monthly operating reports filed by the Debtor for February 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 120], March 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 242], and April 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 423], which report an aggregate amount of **\\$351,081** paid by a \"third party for the benefit of the estate.\"\n\n72. Similarly, the Debtor relied on Golden Spring as lender in connection with an \\$8 million DIP loan proposed in the Debtor's motion filed on March 22, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 117]. This loan would have been made to the estate on an unsecured basis, subordinated to the claims of the Debtor's pre-petition creditors, and without any administrative or priority repayment rights. *Id.* Nevertheless, the record makes clear that the Debtor intended to use a significant amount of the funds to pay the professional fees of Brown Rudnick, counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors (the \"Committee\"), and numerous proposed \"ordinary course\" professionals that included, among others, the law firm of Melissa Francis, *Golden Spring's general counsel*. 182\n\n73. The Debtor used HK USA's only asset, the Lady May, as a bargaining chip to offer to his creditors in exchange for broad plan releases. On April 10, 2022, the Debtor filed a proposed chapter 11 plan [Main Case Docket No. 197] (the \"Proposed Plan\"). Among other things, the Proposed Plan contemplated that HK USA would donate the Lady May (for no apparent consideration) to a creditor's trust for the benefit of holders of allowed claims, and that broad releases would be extended to the Debtor, Golden Spring and HK USA (together referred\n\n<sup>182</sup> *See* Annex 1 to *Motion of Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing (I) Employment and Payment of Professionals Utilized in the Ordinary Course, (II) Payment of Prepetition Claims, and (III) Granting Related Relief* [Main Case Docket No. 119].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 46 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 46 of 70 70\n\nto as the \"Plan Funders\"), and \"all individuals and entities affiliated with the Plan Funders\" (i.e., the Debtor's entire network of shell companies and individual family members). 183\n\n74. The Debtor's counsel would emphasize the Debtor's role in arranging for DIP financing and the donation of the Lady May as contemplated in the Proposed Plan, stating to the Court that the Debtor \"arranged\" the DIP loan and \"obtained a commitment as set forth . . . in the proposed plan, to have a boat costing \\$37 million contributed to creditors as set forth therein.\"<sup>184</sup>\n\n**iii. HK USA Agrees to Return Lady May and Pay \\$37 Million Into Escrow**\n\n75. On March 1, 2022, PAX filed a motion seeking an order confirming the inapplicability of the automatic stay or, in the alternative, relief from stay, in connection with the contempt fine awarded to PAX under the Final Contempt Decision [Main Case Docket No. 57] (the \"PAX Stay Motion\"). The Debtor's objection to the PAX Stay Motion argued that the Debtor did not own or control the Lady May.\n\n76. On April 11, 2022, the day after the filing of the Proposed Plan, HK USA filed a statement [Main Case Docket No. 203] (the \"HK USA Statement\") asserting that it consented to the entry of a proposed order compelling HK USA to transport and deliver the Lady May back to Connecticut from Europe, thus, according to HK USA, mooting the PAX Stay Motion. Also on April 11, 2022, HK USA commenced this Adversary Proceeding in which it seeks a declaration that HK USA, and not the Debtor's estate, is the owner of the Lady May.\n\n77. At the April 13, 2022 hearing (the \"April 13 Hearing\") in connection with the PAX Stay Motion, the Court asked HK USA's counsel, Mr. Kindseth, a number of pointed\n\n<sup>183</sup> Proposed Plan Art I.A.74 (defining \"Plan Funders\" as Golden Spring and HK USA); Art I.A.75 (defining \"Plan Funder Related Parties\" as \":all individuals and entities affiliated with the Plan Funder\"); Art I.A.90 (defining \"Released Parties\" to include, among others \"collectively, the Debtor, the Plan Funders, the Plan Funder Related Parties\").\n\n<sup>184</sup> Ex. 66, April 27, 2022 Tr. at 218:12, 18-20.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 47 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 47 of 70 70\n\nquestions regarding HK USA's proposal, including \"why don't you just post a bond?\"<sup>185</sup> Mr. Kindseth responded by stating that he did not \"know if my client has the funds available to post the bond\" and that \"my client's sole asset is the boat.\"<sup>186</sup>\n\n78. The Court also addressed this Adversary Proceeding, stating, \"I'm not going to make a finding over who owns the boat. *Justice Ostrager already did that.* If you don't like that, then you go fight that back in New York court.\"<sup>187</sup> The Court's statement was also highly relevant to the PAX Stay Motion, because the Debtor's objection thereto was based completely on the notion that the Debtor did not own or control the Lady May*.*\n\n79. Shortly after the Court's comment, Mr. Baldiga of Brown Rudnick, the Debtor's then-counsel, asked the Court for a 15-minute recess to discuss with the Debtor \"the solution [the Court] did posit . . . the possibility of a bond.\"<sup>188</sup> Following this recess, Mr. Kindseth, counsel to HK USA (and not, at that time, counsel to the Debtor) reported to the Court that his client \"intends and is committed then instead to post cash equal to the cost of the boat, about \\$37 million.\"<sup>189</sup>\n\n80. In sum, shortly after the Court's comments suggesting that ownership of the Lady May would not be re-litigated and that consequently PAX's Stay Motion would likely be granted and HK USA's claims to ownership of the Lady May rejected, *the Debtor* proposed the payment of a bond in connection with *HK USA's* proposed return of the Lady May to Connecticut. Soon\n\n<sup>187</sup> *Id.* at 55:19-22.\n\n<sup>185</sup> Ex. 76, April 13, 2022 Hr. Tr. at 51:8.\n\n<sup>186</sup> *Id.* at 51:10-11*.*\n\n<sup>188</sup> *Id.* at 62:22-23.\n\n<sup>189</sup> *Id.* at 86:21-23.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 48 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 48 of 70 70\n\nthereafter, HK USA*,* which had shortly before claimed to hold no assets other than the Lady May, had \\$37 million in cash at its disposal.\n\n81. Based on HK USA's offer of a \\$37 million bond, the Court adjourned the hearing on the PAX Stay Motion. Following a subsequent hearing on April 18, 2022 at which the parties discussed the nature of the contemplated \\$37 million payment, the Debtor, PAX, the Committee, and creditors Rui Ma and Zheng Wu reached an agreement to settle the PAX Stay Motion. Under the agreement, HK USA would be required to return the Lady May to Connecticut, with the performance of this obligation to be secured by the deposit of \\$37 million into escrow by HK USA, to be released back to HK USA only upon the return of the Lady May and the satisfaction of certain other conditions.<sup>190</sup> The agreement was announced to the Court at the April 27, 2022 hearing and memorialized in a stipulated order that was submitted to the Court on April 29, 2022 and entered the same day [Main Case Docket No. 299] (the \"Lady May Stipulation\"). 191\n\n82. The Lady May Stipulation constitutes a settlement under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019, with respect to which creditors were not given notice with an opportunity to object. As this Court has noted, the Trustee is not a party to the Lady May Stipulation.<sup>192</sup> Although the Lady May Stipulation was entered into while both (a) the UST's motion seeking appointment of an examiner or chapter 11 trustee and (b) PAX's motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 Case (each discussed in more detail below) were pending, the Lady May\n\n<sup>190</sup> Lady May Stipulation ¶5(i)(\"in the event this Court determines that HK USA satisfied the Certification Conditions then HK USA may provide a copy of the HK USA Certification to the Escrow Agent in accordance with the Escrow Agreement whereupon the Escrow Agent shall immediately release and transfer the Escrow Funds to HK USA in accordance with the Escrow Agreement\").\n\n<sup>191</sup> *See* Docket No. 294.\n\n<sup>192</sup>*See, e.g.*, Ex. 89, Aug. 30, 2022 Tr. at 18:6-9 (\"[O]bviously the trustee -- the trustee was not a party to any of this. He was not in the case when the parties agreed to forego a hearing on relief from stay and a ruling on relief from stay.\").\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 49 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 49 of 70 70\n\nStipulation only contemplated the possibility that the Chapter 11 Case would be dismissed, and did not address the eventuality that a chapter 11 trustee would be appointed.<sup>193</sup>\n\n#### **iv. HK USA Obtains \\$37 Million From Another Debtor-Linked Company**\n\n83. Though not disclosed prior to the approval of the Lady May Stipulation, in subsequent court pleadings, HK USA revealed that the source of the \\$37 million HK USA paid into escrow was a loan extended to HK USA by BVI-registered entity called Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (\"Himalaya Financial\").\n\n84. Based on HK USA's document production to the Trustee, Himalaya Financial's April 19, 2022 loan agreement with HK USA (the \"Himalaya Loan Agreement\") was only executed by the Debtor's Daughter for HK USA, but not executed by any representative of Himalaya Financial.<sup>194</sup> Notably, the Himalaya Loan Agreement purports to grant to Himalaya Financial a security interest in the Lady May, <sup>195</sup> though a separate side letter agreement (the \"Himalaya Side Letter\"), also dated April 19, 2022, provides that the Himalaya Loan Agreement \"will no longer be deemed to be secured against the Yacht\" and that HK USA \"will instead provide a personal guarantee.\"<sup>196</sup> Based on HK USA's document production to the Trustee, the Himalaya Side Letter was only signed by the Debtor's Daughter, not by Himalaya Financial. The personal guarantee from HK USA required by the Himalaya Side Letter was in fact supplied by the Debtor's Daughter herself (not HK USA) and is also dated April 19, 2022.<sup>197</sup>\n\n<sup>193</sup> See Lady May Stipulation ¶ 9 (discussing effectiveness of Lady May Stipulation \"[i]n the event this Court enters an order dismissing this bankruptcy case\").\n\n<sup>194</sup> *See* Ex. 79, Himalaya Loan Agreement, dated April 19, 2022, at 13.\n\n<sup>195</sup> *Id.* at 4.3 (\"The Total Facility Amount shall be secured against the Yacht and all other asset of the Company, directly or indirectly, and shall take priority agaist [sic] all other liabilities or debts claimed against the Borrower.\").\n\n<sup>196</sup> Ex. 80, Side Letter agreement to Himalaya Loan Agreement, dated April 19, 2022, at 1.3 (a)-(b).\n\n<sup>197</sup> *See* Ex. 81, Guaranty Agreement, dated April 19, 2022, at 1, 4 (signed by the Debtor's Daughter).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 50 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 50 of 70 70\n\n85. The Himalaya Loan Agreement provides, among other things, that \"[s]ubject to the provisions of this agreement, [HK USA] shall repay the Loan in full on demand and in any case upon the return of the yacht to the U.S. or within six months of the date of this Agreement, whichever is sooner.\" 198\n\n86. While the Trustee is currently seeking additional discovery regarding Himalaya Financial, the facts of which the Trustee is aware at the time of the filing of these Counterclaims demonstrate that Himalaya Financial is owned and/or controlled by the Debtor. For example:\n\n- a) The proposal to post a bond in connection with the return of the Lady May to the United States came from *the Debtor's counsel*, and was arranged by the Debtor in an amount of \\$37 million very soon after HK USA had announced that its only asset was the Lady May, meaning that HK USA could not have posted a bond in any amount without an immediate infusion of funds.\n- b) Based on HK USA's document production, the Himalaya Loan Agreement and Himalaya Side Letter were not signed by Himalaya Financial. Upon information and belief, Himalaya Financial has not declared a default under the Himalaya Loan Agreement despite payment being due upon the return of the Lady May to the United States, which occurred in early July 2022.\n- c) According to documents in the possession of the Trustee, Himalaya Financial was represented in connection with its loan to HK USA by the law firm of Berkeley Rowe, which was previously used by the Debtor's Son as his address on the proof of claim filed by the Debtor's Son in the Genever US chapter 11 case.<sup>199</sup>\n- d) According to documents in the possession of the Trustee, Himalaya Financial was not originally slated to be the lender of the \\$37,000,000, but was a replacement, at the last moment, for ACA Capital Group Limited (\"ACA\"), a Hong Kong entity with numerous links to the Debtor. Hong Kong public corporate filings (of the kind that are not publicly available for a BVI company like Himalaya Financial) establish that ACA's sole\n\n<sup>198</sup> Ex. 79, Himalaya Loan Agreement, dated April 19, 2022, at 13.\n\n<sup>199</sup> *See* Ex. 71, Proof of Claim 3-1, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-JLG (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).\n\npurported shareholder, William Je,<sup>200</sup> and at least a number of its directors and officers, are well-known associates of the Debtor.<sup>201</sup>\n\n- e) ACA has a history of gifting funds to the Debtor under the guise of purported loans*.*In the Liman Decision, Judge Liman found that ACA had given a gift of \\$1 million to Eastern Profit Corporation, despite the contention that these funds were provided as a loan and the existence of a document that purported to be a loan agreement.<sup>202</sup> During the related litigation, Strategic Vision US LLC had suggested that the Debtor was the source of the funds gifted to Eastern, however Judge Liman did not make a finding on that issue.<sup>203</sup>\n- f) ACA Capital contributed to the payment of the Debtor's legal fees in connection with the State Court Action.<sup>204</sup>\n- g) Himalaya Financial plays a key role in the Debtor's latest cryptocurrency venture as the purported issuer of \"Himalaya Coin,\" which, along with the related \"Himalaya Dollar,\" purportedly issued by Himalaya Financial Reserves Limited, has been heavily promoted by the Debtor and the\n\n<sup>203</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>200</sup> *See* Ex. 72, ACA Capital Group Limited Articles of Association, dated December 30, 2014 at 3 (identifying Je Kin Ming (alias of William Je) as sole shareholder). Documents filed in the Genever chapter 11 case further provide an address for William Je that is identical to the address on South Bay Road in Hong Kong used by the Debtor and the Debtor's Son in corporate documents related to Genever BVI. *See* Ex. 74, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 14-62, at p. 6 of 23; Ex. 33, Bravo Luck Limited Register of Members. At the trial related to the Liman Decision in *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd.*, a witness named Sasha Gong testified at trial on April 22, 2021 that the Debtor had introduced her to Mr. Je and described Mr. Je as \"my money man.\" Ex. 27, Tr. at 774:24-775:1 (\"Was he formally introduced to you? A. Yes. Mr. Guo introduced him to me that -- jokingly, that \"He's my money man. Anything ask him about money.\"). In addition, at this trial the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment multiple times when questioned regarding William Je. *See id.* at Tr. 691: 24-25 (\"Q. Who is William Je? A. The Fifth Amendment.\"); *Id.* at 692:24-693:1 (Q: \"And [Mr. Je] sends money to places when you ask him to do so, doesn't he? A: The Fifth Amendment. I'm invoking the Fifth Amendment.\"); *Id.* at 695: 5-7 (\"And you introduced William Je to close associates as your money man, haven't you? A. The Fifth Amendment.\").\n\n<sup>201</sup> *See* Ex. 72, ACA Capital Group Limited Articles of Association, at 3 (identifying Je Kin Ming (alias of William Je) as sole shareholder); Ex. 77, ACA Capital Group Ltd. Change in Particulars of Company Secretary and Director, dated April 1, 2017, at 3 (signed by Fiona Yu); Ex. 51, ACA Capital Group Ltd. Annual Return, dated Jan. 6, 2019, at 4 (listing Karin Maistrello as director).\n\n<sup>202</sup> *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd.*, 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*41 (\"The source of the funds sent by ACA is unknown to the Court and was not the subject of testimony. But regardless of whether those funds are ultimately traceable to Guo as Strategic suggested or are independent from him, the Court finds that they were a gift on behalf of Eastern (and Guo) and not provided out of any obligation.\").\n\n<sup>204</sup> Ex. 73, Letter from Kevin M. Kearney of Hodgson Russ LLP, dated April 7, 2021 at 2, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 766 (Noting that payments to Hodgson Russ were made by Golden Spring as well as ACA Capital and a third Debtor-linked entity, Ziba Limited).\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 52 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 52 of 70 70\n\nDebtor's various websites and social media accounts.<sup>205</sup> Both cryptocurrencies are sold on the \"Himalaya Exchange\" website.<sup>206</sup> The Debtor's Himalaya cryptocurrency operation and his other online schemes have resulted in numerous allegations of fraud against the Debtor and his associates.\n\n- h) Numerous entities and organizations reportedly controlled by the Debtor are named \"Himalaya.\" These include, the Himalaya Embassy, Himalaya Federal Reserve, and Himalaya Supervisory Organization, as well as many others.<sup>207</sup>\n- i) \"Himalaya Coin,\" the name of the cryptocurrency issued by Himalaya Financial, as well as the name of the related \"Himalaya Dollar\" cryptocurrency, are assumed names registered in the state of New York by Saraca Media Group, Inc., the shell company used by the Debtor for, among other things, his cryptocurrency ventures.\n- j) Saraca's certificates of assumed name for \"Himalaya Coin\" and \"Himalaya Dollar\" filed with the State of New York were signed by Yvette Wang,<sup>208</sup> who is also *the president of Golden Spring*. 209\n\n<sup>206</sup> *See* \"Himalaya Exchange,\" Himalaya Exchange, Sept. 22, 2022, http\n\n<sup>207</sup> *See, e.g.*, Friedman, Dan. \"A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued.\" *Mother Jones*, March – April 2022, http (\"The [New Federal State of China] has what Guo calls the *Himalaya Embassy*, located in a leased building on Manhattan's Upper East Side that houses other Guo concerns. Navarro, a veteran China hawk, has signed on as a supposed 'international ambassador.' Guo has even created a monetary system, based on a cryptocurrency dubbed GCoin; it's issued through an entity called the *Himalaya Federal Reserve*.\").\n\n<sup>205</sup> *See* \"Whitepaper Himalaya Coin\" Himalaya Exchange, Apr. 2021,\n\nhttp at 2 (describing Himalaya Coin as \"issued and managed by Himalaya Financial Group Limited\" and Himalaya Dollar as \"issued and managed by Himalaya International Reserves Limited\"); Song, Zijia. \"Himalaya Coin Loved by Exiled Billionaire and Steve Bannon Soars.\" *Bloomberg.com*, Bloomberg, 12 Nov. 2021, http billion-token-loved-by-exiled-billionaire-and-steve-bannon; \"Miles Guo - Hcoin to the Moon (Official Video).\" *YouTube*, 10 Dec. 2021, http \"*Our Trillion Currency Empire EP3-1 Professional Interpretation of Himalaya Coin White Paper by Industry Investors*.\", G-News Taiwan, 27 May 2021, http Guo, Miles. \"The Himalaya Coin Is Fully Involved in the Establishment of the New Quantum Computing Standards…\" *GETTR*, June 8, 2022, http (\"The Himalaya Dollar is the only real stablecoin, and the Himalaya Coin is the best volatile digital coin.\"); Guo, Miles. \"The Himalaya Coin Is and Will Always Be the Most Stable Digital Currency in the World...\" *GETTR*, April 3, 2022, http (\"The Himalaya Coin is and will always be the most stable digital currency in the world\").\n\n<sup>208</sup> Ex. 25, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name at 1 and Ex. 26, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name at 1.\n\n<sup>209</sup> Ex. 2, Wang Dep. Tr. at 42:20-23.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 53 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 53 of 70 70\n\nk) Documents in the Trustee's possession suggest that funds used to purchase Himalaya Coin and/or Himalaya Dollar cryptocurrency are paid directly to Saraca doing business as Himalaya Coin and/or Himalaya Dollar.\n\n87. As of the date of the filing of these Counterclaims, the \\$37 million paid into escrow by HK USA pursuant to the Lady May Stipulation remains deposited in an escrow account at U.S. Bank, a financial institution with branches in Connecticut, pursuant to an escrow agreement between HK USA, the official committee of unsecured creditors, and U.S. Bank (the \"Escrow Agreement\").\n\n88. The funds deposited pursuant to the Escrow Agreement and/or rights thereto under the Escrow Agreement (collectively, the \"Escrowed Funds\"), are property of HK USA.\n\n89. The Lady May arrived in the waters of Connecticut in early July 2022 and remains there as of the date of the filing of these Counterclaims.\n\n### **v. Debtor Seeks Dismissal of Chapter 11 Case**\n\n90. On March 19, 2022, the UST filed a motion for the appointment of an examiner or chapter 11 trustee [Main Case Docket No. 102] (the \"Trustee Motion\"), arguing, among other things, that it was \"in the best interests of creditors and the estate to appoint an examiner or a trustee because the Debtor, a public figure and self-proclaimed billionaire . . . claims that he has no regular income and virtually no assets yet seemingly has access to significant funds.\"<sup>210</sup>\n\n91. On April 6, 2022, PAX Filed a motion to dismiss the Debtor's case, or, in the alternative, a partial joinder to the Trustee Motion [Main Case Docket No. 183] (the \"Motion to Dismiss\") in which it pointed out, among other things, that the Debtor's \"*modus operandi* is to part, shield and secrete his assets through family members and shell companies.\"<sup>211</sup>\n\n<sup>210</sup> *UST's Motion for an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, In the Alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee*, Docket No. 102, at 1.\n\n<sup>211</sup> *PAX's Motion to Dismiss Chapter 11 Case Or, In The Alternative, Partial Joinder To United States Trustee's Motion For An Order Directing The Appointment Of A Chapter 11 Trustee*, Docket No. 183, ¶ 2.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 54 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 54 of 70 70\n\n92. On May 11, 2022, the Debtor filed notice of his consent to the dismissal of the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 344] (the \"Consent to Dismissal\") and withdrew his DIP motion, which at the time was still pending. In his Consent to Dismissal, the Debtor stated that, while he had \"obtained the commitment of\" Golden Spring to provide DIP financing and had \"arranged for a very substantial asset owned by his daughter, the Lady May yacht with a likely value in excess of \\$30 million\" to be made available for liquidation for the benefit of creditors, due to litigation by PAX and the UST, the Debtor was \"buckling under the weight\" of professional fees and Golden Spring \"had withdrawn its commitment to fund\" the Chapter 11 case.<sup>212</sup>\n\n#### **vi. HK USA Acts In Concert with Debtor and Golden Spring**\n\n93. Fittingly given its status as the Debtor's alter ego, HK USA's actions in this Chapter 11 Case have been taken in concert with those of the Debtor and the Debtor's \"family office,\" Golden Spring. For example, as demonstrated by email records in the possession of the Trustee:\n\n- a) Retention of Zeisler & Zeisler to represent HK USA and the Debtor's Daughter was arranged by the Debtor and/or his counsels, Aaron Mitchell (Lawall & Mitchell) and William Baldiga (Brown Rudnick), with Stephen Kindseth of Zeisler & Zeisler submitting his retention agreement to Mr. Mitchell for his review and for signature by the Debtor's Daughter. 213\n- b) When concerned about the delayed payment of his retainer, Mr. Kindseth inquired with the Debtor's counsel, Robert Stark, of Brown Rudnick.<sup>214</sup>\n\n<sup>212</sup> *Debtor's Consent to Dismissal of Case*, Docket No. 344, ¶¶ 4, 6.\n\n<sup>213</sup> *See* Ex. 83, Email from Stephen Kindseth, dated April 1, 2022.\n\n<sup>214</sup> *See* Ex. 84, Email from Stephen Kindseth, dated April 4, 2022 (\"Robert, just following up about the retainer since you offered. I did not receive it today which is slightly disconcerting. If you could find out about its status that would be great. I have put a lot of time in this already with my partner and there's some obviously critical timing issues this week.\").\n\n- c) Email correspondence related to the preparation of the April 11, 2022 HK USA Statement typically included the Debtor's personal attorney, Aaron Mitchell and Golden Spring representative Max Krasner. 215\n- d) Email correspondence between Mr. Kindseth and Craig Jalbert (of the Debtor's proposed financial advisor, Verdolino & Lowey), and between Jeffrey Jonas of Brown Rudnick and Mr. Kindseth and Mr. Jalbert, regarding arrangements to escrow the \\$37 million paid pursuant to the Lady May Stipulation included Melissa Francis, Golden Spring's general counsel.<sup>216</sup>\n- e) The Debtor's attorney Mr. Mitchell responded to inquiries from the Debtor's Brown Rudnick attorneys regarding the status of the wire of the \\$37 million that was to be deposited into escrow.<sup>217</sup>\n\n# **vii. Debtor Fails to Respond to HK USA's Complaint**\n\n94. May 13, 2022 was the deadline for the Debtor to file an answer in this Adversary\n\nProceeding. The Debtor failed to file an answer or request an extension of this deadline.\n\n95. Subsequently, the Debtor's counsel Mr. Henzy has clarified that in connection\n\nwith this Adversary Proceeding:\n\n\"[The Debtor's] position is that HK [USA] owns the boat so [the Debtor and HK USA] are not adverse. He does not believe that he owns the boat. He does not believe that it's property of the bankruptcy estate. I'll say that unequivocally on the record. So I don't see how they can be adverse if they take the same position.\"<sup>218</sup>\n\n<sup>215</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 85, Email from Russell Stockil to Stephen Kindseth, CCing Max Krasner, dated April 6, 2022, providing information regarding the Lady May \"further to request from Family Office [i.e., Golden Spring]\"); Ex. 86, Email from Stephen Kinseth to Russell Stockil, CCing Max Krasner and Aaron Mitchell, dated April 9, 2022.\n\n<sup>216</sup> *See, e.g.*, Ex. 87, Email from Stephen Kindseth to Craig Jalbert, CCing Melissa Francis, dated April 17, 2022; email from Jeffrey Jonas to Stephen Kindseth and Craig Jalbert, CCing Melissa Francis, dated April 18, 2022.\n\n<sup>217</sup> Ex. 88, Email from Aaron Mitchell, dated April 18, 2022 (\"There is a \\$37M wire that was sent last week. It should clear by now, or soon. Getting wire confirmation.\").\n\n<sup>218</sup> *See* Ex. 91, August 1, 2022 Hr. Tr. at 39:3-8.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 56 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 56 of 70 70\n\n#### **viii. Court Orders Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee**\n\n96. On May 24, 2022, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether to dismiss the Chapter 11 Case or appoint a chapter 11 Trustee, and on June 15, 2022, the Court issued its decision ordering the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee [Main Case Docket No. 465] (the \"Trustee Appointment Decision\").\n\n97. In the Trustee Appointment Decision the Court found, among other things, that the \"Debtor has demonstrated he can obtain millions of dollars in funds, including the \\$8,000,000.00 that was the subject of the DIP Motion,\" and that the Debtor's Proposed Plan had provided for \"the transfer of title to the Lady May to a creditor trustee for the benefit of all creditors.\"<sup>219</sup>\n\n98. The Court also noted the arguments of creditors that the Debtor had \"engaged in multilayer transactions involving complicated corporate structures like Golden Spring, Genever Holdings, Lamp Funding, and HK [USA] that make it difficult to identify and locate the Debtor's assets.\"<sup>220</sup> This \"complexity of the Debtor's financial affairs and lack of independent managerial oversight in this case warrants the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee who can investigate, identify, and locate the Debtor's assets for the benefit of creditors and the estate.\" 221\n\n# **ix. Debtor Attempts to Frustrate Trustee's Investigation and Administration of Estate to Protect Shell Game From Scrutiny**\n\n99. Since the appointment of the Trustee on July 8, 2022, the Debtor has, despite his duty to cooperate with the Trustee under section 521(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, engaged in a\n\n<sup>219</sup> Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and Granting Joinder to Motion for Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee (June 15, 2022), Docket No. 465, at 13.\n\n<sup>220</sup> *Id.* at 15.\n\n<sup>221</sup> *Id.* at 16.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 57 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 57 of 70 70\n\ntireless effort to stymie the Trustee's administration of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate and investigation of the Debtor's assets and financial condition. Among other things, the Debtor has:\n\n- a) Sought relief from the order appointing the Trustee;\n- b) Opposed the retention of the Trustee's counsel;\n- c) Opposed the Trustee's corporate governance motion;\n- d) Opposed the Trustee's discovery efforts; and\n- e) Appealed the Court's rulings that denied the Debtor's motion for relief from the order appointing the trustee and granted the Trustee's corporate governance motion.\n\n100. In sum, since the Trustee's appointment, hundreds of hours have been devoted to dealing with the Debtor's \"obstruct[ion] [of] the administration of this estate.\"<sup>222</sup>\n\n101. In conjunction with the Debtor's filings before this Court that opposed the appointment of the Trustee and the retention of the Paul Hastings based on alleged influence of the Chinese government or Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\") over Paul Hastings, the Debtor also launched a stream of online diatribes against the Trustee, his counsel, PAX, PAX's counsel, the UST, the Department of Justice, and the entire chapter 11 process.<sup>223</sup>\n\n102. Relatedly, the Debtor has stated that he \"firmly believe[s] the CCP is\n\norchestrating the PAX case.\"<sup>224</sup> Indeed, in a 2018 deposition undertaken by counsel to PAX in\n\nconnection with the attachment of assets and veil piercing issues, the Debtor accused PAX's\n\n<sup>222</sup> Ex. 89, Aug. 30, 2022 Tr.at 94:19-95:2 (\"[A]ll the arguments that you have made has been to stop the trustee from trying to do what the trustee is going to do. If you don't like what the trustee does, then you can sue him. You can do that. There's a remedy. You have a remedy. You can sue him. But you are now obstructing the administration of this estate that all the other creditors have been waiting to have administered.\").\n\n<sup>223</sup> *See* PAX's Statement to Debtor's Rule 60(b) Motion & Retention Application, Docket No. 618, at ¶ 10.\n\n<sup>224</sup> Docket 107.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 58 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 58 of 70 70\n\nattorneys of being agents of the CCP, <sup>225</sup> and, when presented with to an audio recording evidencing his ownership of the Lady May, the Debtor *covered his ears* and refused to listen, alleging that \"[t]his is all communist\" and threatening suicide. 226\n\n103. Thus, in addition to the Debtor's pattern of using the shell game to defraud creditors, the Debtor also has a pattern of accusing parties attempting to investigate his assets of collusion of with the CCP. In this respect, the Debtor uses his reputation as an anti-CCP activist to protect his shell game from scrutiny and maintain his lifestyle while creditors go unpaid.\n\n### **L. Claim of IRS**\n\n104. On August 10, 2022, the IRS filed a proof of claim [POC 12-1] against the\n\nDebtor.\n\n# **FIRST COUNTERCLAIM**\n\n## **(Lady May Is Property of the Debtor)**\n\n105. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 7-104.\n\n106. In the Final Contempt Decision, Justice Ostrager found that the Debtor\n\n\"beneficially owns and controls the Lady May.\"<sup>227</sup>\n\n107. Justice Ostrager's finding with respect to the Debtor's ownership of the Lady May\n\nwas preclusive in effect and HK USA is collaterally estopped from contesting that issue.\n\n<sup>225</sup> Ex. 8, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 21:8-13 (\"I think you guys [PAX's counsel] are a bunch of thugs. I think you are just mafia. You're working for the communists. You're doing threats and racketeering. The whole world knows what you're doing. You're helping the mafia. You're destroying a good person. I don't need to pay any attention to you at all.\").\n\n<sup>226</sup> *Id.* at 60:20-61:2 (\"THE WITNESS: I refuse to listen. I'm not going to listen. Q: Sorry, Mr. Kwok, were you covering your ears? A: This is all communist. Everything here is all communist. Unless you prove this is not communist, then I will listen.\"); 61:14-20 (\"I have a sensation of committing suicide if you're going play that. This is communist. Very simple. There is like a number of place that the communist that have been proven by the FBI to be fake. So you want me to commit suicide? Are you here to kill me?\").\n\n<sup>227</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 7.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 59 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 59 of 70 70\n\n108. New York issue preclusion law is applicable here given that the findings in the Final Contempt Decision were made by a New York Court.\n\n109. Under New York law, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue when: (a) the identical issue necessarily was decided in the prior action and is decisive of the present action, and (b) the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. *Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v. GTR Source, LLC*, 988 F.3d 634, 642 (2d Cir. 2021) (applying New York law).\n\n110. Both of these conditions apply here. The issue of the Debtor's ownership and control of the Lady May was necessarily decided by Justice Ostrager. In fact, the Appellate Division expressly asked Justice Ostrager to resolve it, leading to the Final Contempt Hearing and the issuance of the Final Contempt Decision shortly thereafter.<sup>228</sup> Moreover, HK USA had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the ownership issue before Justice Ostrager, even though HK USA was not a named party to the State Court Action. This is because HK USA was in privity with the Debtor, who was a party to the State Court Action. HK USA and the Debtor were (and are) completely aligned on the ownership issue: both took the position that HK USA, and not the Debtor, was the true owner of the Lady May. In addition, HK USA was an active participant at the Final Contempt hearing; its counsel introduced and defended the testimony of four out of the five witnesses called on behalf of the Debtor.\n\n111. Based on the above, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541 and 542 of the Bankruptcy Code (1) declaring that the Lady May is property of the Debtor's chapter 11\n\n<sup>228</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision (quoting *Pac. All. Asia [Opportunity](http)) Fund L.P. v. Wan*, 153 N.Y.S.3d 862, 863 (App. Div. [2021\\)\\)](http)) (\"The motion court is instructed to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties.\").\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 60 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 60 of 70 70\n\nestate to be administered by the Trustee and (2) ordering the surrender of the Lady May to the Trustee.\n\n# **SECOND COUNTERCLAIM**\n\n# **(Alter Ego)**\n\n112. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 7-104.\n\n113. Because HK USA is a Delaware entity, Delaware law applies to the alter ego/veil piercing claim.<sup>229</sup>\n\n114. Under Delaware's two-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil, a court applying Delaware's alter ego analysis to the Debtor's relationship with HK USA will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and HK USA operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. With regard to the former, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether HK USA was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor.<sup>230</sup> This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"<sup>231</sup> However, the common theme, which \"must always be present,\" is an \"an overall element of fraud, injustice, or unfairness.\"<sup>232</sup> To that end, a number of courts have explained that control over, and/or ownership of, the property or assets of the allegedly separate entity is evidence that the entity is\n\n<sup>229</sup> *See e.g. Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar*, 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021) (\"[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.\").\n\n<sup>230</sup> *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third Circuit considers in determining whether a corporation operated as a single economic entity, which notably would not include whether the relevant individual is a shareholder of the entity, but would include \"gross undercapitalization; failure to observe corporate formalities . . . [and] whether the corporation is merely a facade.\").\n\n<sup>231</sup> *Blair v. Infineon Tech.*, 720 F. Supp.2d at 471.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 61 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 61 of 70 70\n\nreally the alter ego of the controlling party.<sup>233</sup>\n\n115. The facts alleged herein establish that HK USA is an alter ego of the Debtor. Critically, as Justice Ostrager found, HK USA's only purported asset, the Lady May*,* was beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor. This finding by Justice Ostrager is binding on HK USA, which was present during, participated in, and was in privity with the Debtor during the State Court Action, under the doctrines of collateral estoppel and/or *res judicata*.\n\n116. Moreover, both Justice Ostrager's decision and the overall record of documents and testimony in prepetition litigation and in this Chapter 11 Case demonstrate conclusively that HK USA was one of the Debtor's shell companies used as part of a comprehensive effort to shield assets from creditors and plead poverty while living in the lap of luxury. The Debtor even used HK USA as the potential funder of his chapter 11 plan, through the contemplated donation of the Lady May to a creditor's trust in exchange for broad releases for the Debtor and his shell companies and family members.\n\n117. HK USA also has all the classic hallmarks of an alter ego shell company: among other things, at all relevant times it had no source of income, did not pay its own expenses (which were funded by Golden Spring), had no directors, officers, or employees, did not file tax\n\n<sup>233</sup> *See ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp*., 396 B.R. 278, 320 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (debtor and its subsidiary operated as a single economic unit in part because the \"dividends from [subsidiary's] only asset went directly to [debtor], its dominant shareholder, which had total control of the funds\"); *Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela*, 333 F. Supp. 3d 380, 396 (D. Del. 2018), *aff'd and remanded*, 932 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2019) (allegedly separate instrumentality would be considered an alter ego if the controlling entity had extensive control of the instrumentality, including if it \"uses the instrumentality's property as it its own\"). *See also Ashley v. Ashley,* 393 A.2d 637, 641 (Pa. 1978*)* (\"We have said that whenever one in control of a corporation uses that control, or uses the corporate assets, to further his or her own personal interests, the fiction of the separate corporate identity may properly be disregarded.\") (emphasis added); *In re B.L. Jennings, Inc*., 373 B.R. 742, 759 n. 10 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Jun. 12, 2007) (\"partnerships and other business entities may also be found to be the 'alter egos' of those in control or dominion over their assets\") (emphasis added); *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc.,* 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] ... to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage and distribute\" was \"appropriately viewed as [an] equitable owner for veil-piercing purposes\") (internal citation omitted) (as modified) (emphasis added).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 62 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 62 of 70 70\n\nreturns, had no bank accounts and was not otherwise capitalized, and kept no documents. HK USA's address was used by the Debtor's other shell companies and the Debtor himself.\n\n118. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n119. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that HK USA's property, including the Lady May and the Escrowed Funds, is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (2) ordering the surrender of the Lady May and the Escrowed Funds to the Trustee.\n\n### **THIRD COUNTERCLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaration that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of HK USA and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of HK USA to Trustee)**\n\n120. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 7-104.\n\n121. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that HK USA is an alter ego of the Debtor also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of HK USA.<sup>234</sup>\n\n122. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n123. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the membership interest in HK USA purportedly held by the Debtor's Daughter is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate and (2) ordering the surrender of such membership interest and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee.\n\n<sup>234</sup> *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n#### **FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM**\n\n# **(Avoidance of Actual Fraudulent Transfer) (Asserted in the alternative to the First, Second, and Third Counterclaims)**\n\n124. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 7-104.\n\n125. As described in the First, Second, and Third Counterclaims, the Trustee seeks a judgment in this Adversary Proceeding that the Lady May is property of the estate and that HK USA is the alter ego of or equitably owned by the Debtor and, thus, all of HK USA's property or HK USA itself is property of the estate. In the alternative, in the event that the Lady May is not property of the estate or that HK USA is not the alter ego of or beneficially owned by the Debtor, the Trustee asserts a claim of actual fraudulent transfer against HK USA pursuant to (1) Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law, <sup>235</sup> made applicable by section 544 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (2) section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n126. A claim of actual intent to defraud under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code requires allegations that the debtor-transferor made a transfer or incurred an obligation with \"actual intent\" to \"hinder, delay or defraud\" a past or future creditor.<sup>236</sup> \"The analysis of the debtor's intent to hinder, delay, or defraud under [section] 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and under New York law is identical.\"<sup>237</sup>\n\n127. \"Because of the difficulty in proving actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud in making its case, a party can rely on the 'badges of fraud,' which are 'circumstances so\n\n<sup>235</sup> This was the New York statute effective on the date of the 2017 Transfer.\n\n<sup>236</sup> *In re Integrity Graphics, Inc.*, 623 B.R. 21, 29-30 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020).\n\n<sup>237</sup> *In re Combes*, 382 B.R. 186, 193-94 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008); The debtor-transferor's intent is at issue in such claims, not the transferee's. *In re LXEng LLC*, 607 B.R. 67, 91 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019).<sup>237</sup>\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 64 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 64 of 70 70\n\ncommonly associated with fraudulent transfers that their presence gives rise to an inference of intent.'\"<sup>238</sup>\n\n128. Examples of 'badges of fraud' include, *inter alia*: (1) concealing facts and false pretenses; (2) an unconscionable discrepancy in consideration received in exchange for the value of the property transferred; (3) creating a closely-held corporation for property receipt; (4) closeness in relationship between the parties; (5) retaining the property in question for benefit or use; (6) the financial condition of the transferor and transferee both before and after the transfer(s); (7) repeated patterns or cumulative effect of courses of conduct post-insolvency or financial troubles; and (8) the timeline of events. . . The transfer of property to a spouse is a 'classic' badge of fraud. . . . Asset shifting to different corporate entities wholly owned or 'so closely assimilated' by the debtor is an additional badge of fraud.\"<sup>239</sup>\n\n- 129. The facts discussed herein establish the following sequence of events\n\t- a) Between October 2014 and June 27, 2017, ownership of HK International was held by one of the Debtor's associates, Qu Guo Jiao (\"Ms. Qu\") through the undisclosed HK International Declaration of Trust for the benefit of the Debtor, who remained beneficial owner of HK International.\n\t- b) On February 23, 2015, HK International became owner of the *Lady May*.\n\t- c) The funds used to purchase the Lady May were transferred by the Debtor to Bravo Luck Limited, an entity registered in the British Virgin Islands and in which the Debtor, at the time, held a 50% ownership interest, with the remaining 50% held by the Debtor's son, and then by Bravo Luck Limited to the seller (the \"2015 Transfer\").\n\t- d) On June 27, 2017, ownership of HK International was transferred to the Debtor's daughter *for no consideration* (the \"2017 Transfer\").\n\t- e) In 2019, HK USA was formed.\n\n<sup>238</sup> *Jie Xiao*, 608 B.R. 126, 157 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019).\n\n<sup>239</sup> *In re Jie Xiao*, 608 B.R. at 157.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 65 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 65 of 70 70\n\nf) In April 2020, the *Lady May* was transferred from HK International to HK USA *for no consideration* (the \"2020 Transfer\").\n\n130. This sequence of events, established both by the voluminous record set forth in the Counterclaims and by the preclusive findings made by Justice Ostrager in his Final Contempt Decision, shows that, from the moment he first sought to purchase the Lady May, the Debtor engaged in a series of intentional transactions as part of his comprehensive efforts to judgmentproof himself by placing his valuable assets with shell companies or family members.\n\n131. First, in 2015, the Debtor used his shell company Bravo Luck Limited, an entity he controlled and shared with his son, to fund the purchase of the Lady May on behalf of HK International, an entity that one of the Debtor's associates (Ms. Qu) held in trust, through the undisclosed HK International Declaration of Trust, for the Debtor's benefit. That the funds used to purchase the Lady May came from the Debtor is supported by Justice Ostrager's finding that \"there is no evidence that [the Debtor's Son] was involved with the corporate transactions leading to\" HK International's acquisition of the Lady May,\"<sup>240</sup> and that the facts presented supported the \"reasonable inference [] that Kwok provided the funds to HK International] which were used to purchase the yacht.\"<sup>241</sup> Second, in 2017 the Debtor, for no consideration, transferred HK International itself to his daughter. Third, and finally, in 2020, the Debtor caused HK International—again for no consideration—to transfer the Lady May to HK USA. All three of these transactions were clearly part of the Debtor's comprehensive effort to judgment-proof himself by placing his valuable assets with shell companies or family members.\n\n132. On these facts, there are two separate fraudulent transfers by the Debtor. The most obvious is the 2017 Transfer, pursuant to which the Debtor caused HK International—\n\n<sup>240</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 5.\n\n<sup>241</sup> Ex. 1, Final Contempt Decision at 4.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 66 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 66 of 70 70\n\nwhich he beneficially owned at the time pursuant to the undisclosed HK International Declaration of Trust—to be transferred to his daughter for no consideration. Given the lack of any consideration, as well as the extensive evidence and findings by Justice Ostrager that the Debtor has repeatedly engaged in efforts to shelter his assets from creditors, the 2017 Transfer is avoidable as an actual fraudulent transfer. *See In re Jie Xiao*, 608 B.R. 126, 157–58 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019) (finding actual fraud where \"[t]he Debtor had one paramount goal: to leave himself and LXEng judgment-proof while channeling their assets to his wife, children, and extended family. His willingness to channel, transfer, and distribute those monies reveals his conscious intention and design.\").\n\n133. In the alternative, in the event the Court were to determine (despite the clear evidence to the contrary) that the Debtor did not hold a beneficial interest in HK International at the time of the 2017 Transfer, then the 2015 Transfer is avoidable as an actual fraudulent transfer. As noted above, the funds that allowed HK International to purchase the Lady May in 2015 came from the Debtor, using his shell company Bravo Luck. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Debtor did not own HK International at that time, then he effectively gifted the funds necessary to purchase the Lady May to HK International for no consideration. Such a transfer fits neatly into the Debtor's fraudulent shell game and is avoidable for that reason\n\n134. Because at least one of these transfers is avoidable, the Trustee may recover the Lady May or its value from HK USA, either because HK USA is a subsequent transferee liable under section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, or because the transactions in 2015, 2017, and 2020 can be collapsed into one transaction under the collapsing doctrine.\n\n135. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors'\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 67 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 67 of 70 70\n\nrights.\n\n136. Accordingly, assuming that the relief requested in first or second counterclaim is not granted, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to the Section 276 of the New York Debtor and Creditor Law and sections 544, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, that the Lady May or the value of the Lady May be surrendered to the Trustee.\n\n### **FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM**\n\n# **(Negligence) (Asserted in the alternative to the Second and Third Counterclaims)**\n\n137. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 7-104.\n\n138. As described in the Second and Third Counterclaims, the Trustee seeks a judgment in this Adversary Proceeding that HK USA is the alter ego of or equitably owned by the Debtor and, thus, all of HK USA's property or HK USA itself is property of the estate. In the alternative, in the event HK USA is not the alter ego of or beneficially owned by the Debtor, the Trustee holds a negligence claim against HK USA.\n\n139. The elements of a negligence claim under New York law are: \"(i) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (ii) breach of that duty; and (iii) injury substantially caused by that breach.\"<sup>242</sup> Moreover, \"all persons have a common-law duty to exercise ordinary care and skill to refrain from injuring others.\"<sup>243</sup>\n\n140. Here, in the event HK USA is not an alter ego of the Debtor, HK USA owed a duty to the Debtor to exercise ordinary care and skill to refrain from injuring him. Nevertheless, despite the fact that HK USA's sole member, the Debtor's daughter, was aware of Justice\n\n<sup>242</sup> *Lombard v. Booz–Allen & Hamilton, Inc.,* 280 F.3d 209, 215 (2d Cir.2002) (citing *Merino v. New York City Transit Auth.,* 218 A.D.2d 451, 639 N.Y.S.2d 784 (1st Dep't 1996)).\n\n<sup>243</sup> *Guido v. 1114 6th Ave. Co*., 2015 WL 1055074, at \\*15 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 10, 2015).\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 68 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 68 of 70 70\n\nOstrager's orders, applicable to HK USA, restraining the movement of the Lady May and imposing daily penalties for the failure to return the Lady May to the United States, HK USA nevertheless moved the Lady May Overseas and kept it there until July 2022. This was a violation of HK USA's duty of care and caused the Debtor to incur a contempt fine of \\$134 million pursuant to the Final Contempt Decision.\n\n141. Thus, the Debtor as of the Petition Date held a negligence claim against HK USA which became property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code and which the Trustee now asserts against HK USA.\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 Counterclaim, an order (1) declaring that the Lady May is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (2) ordering the surrender of the Lady May to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Counterclaim, an order (1) declaring that HK USA's property, including the Lady May and the Escrowed Funds, is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate to be administered by the Trustee and (2) ordering the surrender of the Lady May and the Escrowed Funds to the Trustee;\n\n3. On the Third Counterclaim, an order (1) declaring that the membership interest in HK USA purportedly held by the Debtor's Daughter is property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate and (2) ordering the surrender of such membership interest and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee;\n\n4. On the Fourth Counterclaim, an order ruling, pursuant to the Section 276 of the\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 69 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 69 of 70 70\n\nNew York Debtor and Creditor Law and sections 544, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code, that the Lady May or the value of the Lady May be surrendered to the Trustee;\n\n- 5. On the Fifth Counterclaim, damages in the amount of no less than \\$134 million;\n- 6. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n- 7. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable\n\nunder the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: September 23, 2022 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Patrick R. Linsey*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　:\n:\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。　:\n\n-----------------------------------------------------x-----\nHK International Funds Investments\n(USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）\n原告\n诉\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）　:\n:\n:\n对抗程序案号：22-05003\n:\n:\n被告　:\nSeptember 23, 2022\n\n第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）\n反诉原告\n诉　:\n\nHK International Funds Investments\n(USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭美）\n反诉被告。\n-------------------------------------------------------x　:\n\n第11章受托人的答辩及反诉\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）先生以获委任管理 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）第11章案件（以下简称“第11章案件”）的第11章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）身份，就 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（以下简称“HK USA”）提交的起诉状（以下简称“起诉状”）[Adv. Proc. Docket No. 1]提交本答辩（以下简称“答辩”），并提出本文件所载反诉（以下简称“反诉”）。\n\n答辩及积极抗辩\n\nI. 具体承认及否认\n\n就起诉状题为“HK USA诉因概要”项下前三个未编号段落所载陈述及指控，如要求作出答复，受托人否认该等陈述及指控，但以下文就起诉状编号指控所作答复中承认的范围为限。\n\n1. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第1段所载指控的知识或信息。就起诉状第1段暗示HK USA为独立法律实体而言，受托人否认该项指控，因为基于受托人反诉中所述理由，HK USA系债务人的另我。\n\n2. 受托人承认，HK USA名义上是 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）的登记所有人；但受托人否认，该等登记所有权身份意味着 Lady May 不属于债务人第11章破产财产。\n\n3. 受托人承认，Mei Guo（郭美）女士（以下简称“债务人之女”）为债务人之女，且居住于美国。对于HK USA有关债务人之女移民程序或与中国政府或 CCP（中国共产党）有关问题的指控，受托人不具有足以承认或否认该等指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。受托人否认起诉状第3段中的其余指控。\n\n4. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第4段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。\n\n5. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第5段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。\n\n6. 受托人承认起诉状第6段所载指控。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 3 页，共 70 页 案号 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 3 页，共 70 页\n\n7. 受托人承认，起诉状声称寻求起诉状第7段所述救济，但否认原告有权获得该等救济。\n\n8. 受托人承认，本院对本对抗程序享有管辖权。\n\n9. 受托人承认，本院有管辖权裁定何种财产构成破产财产。\n\n10. 受托人承认，本案属于核心程序。\n\n11. 受托人承认，本院为适格审理地。\n\n12. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第12段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该项指控。\n\n13. 受托人不具有足以知悉“Qu（瞿）女士是否为 Guo（郭）女士之兄 Qiang Guo（郭强）的可信赖商业伙伴”的知识或信息，并据此否认该项指控。受托人进一步否认起诉状第13段中的其余指控。\n\n14. 受托人否认起诉状第14段所载指控。\n\n15. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第15段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。\n\n16. 受托人否认起诉状第16段所载指控。\n\n17. 受托人否认起诉状第17段所载指控。\n\n18. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第18段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。\n\n19. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第19段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 4 页，共 70 页 案号 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 4 页，共 70 页\n\n20. 受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第20段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。\n\n21. 受托人承认，HK International 的所有权于 June 27, 2017 转让给债务人之女。受托人否认由 Qu 女士转让该等所有权，并否认起诉状第21段中的其余指控。\n\n22. 对于HK International 被转让给债务人之女时其唯一资产是否为 Lady May，受托人不具有足以承认或否认的知识或信息，并据此否认该项指控。受托人否认起诉状第22段中的其余指控。\n\n23. 受托人承认起诉状第23段所载指控。\n\n24. 受托人承认，Golden Spring（纽约）有限公司及 Lamp Capital LLC（蓝普资本有限责任公司）支付了与 Lady May 有关的费用，且HK USA从未持有银行账户。受托人否认起诉状第24段中的其余指控。\n\n25. 受托人否认起诉状第25段所载指控。\n\n26. 对于 Lady May 的通常或典型活动情况，受托人不具有足以承认或否认起诉状第26段所载指控的知识或信息，并据此否认该等指控。受托人进一步否认第26段最后两句所载指控，即HK USA的代表指挥 Lady May 的活动，以及债务人无权发出该等指示。\n\n27. 对于 Lady May 是否经常接待宾客，受托人不具有足以承认或否认的知识或信息，并据此否认该项指控。受托人否认起诉状第27段第二句所载指控。\n\n28. 受托人否认起诉状第28段所载指控。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 5 页，共 70 页 案号 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 5 页，共 70 页\n\n29. 受托人承认，PAX（PAX）于 September 15, 2020 获得针对债务人的简易判决，州法院的裁决本身已说明其内容。受托人承认，HK USA和 Guo 女士均非 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官审理的诉讼（以下简称“州法院诉讼”）中的列名当事人。\n\n30. 受托人承认，PAX获得了起诉状第30段所提及的命令，该命令本身已说明其内容。\n\n31. 受托人承认，NY CPLR § 5229规定：“[i]n any court, before a judgment is entered, upon motion of the party in whose favor a verdict or decision has been rendered, the trial judge may order examination of the adverse party and order him restrained with the same effect as if a restraining notice had been served upon him after judgment.”受托人否认起诉状第31段中的其余指控。\n\n32. 受托人承认，州法院于 March 16, 2021 作出藐视法庭命令，该命令本身已说明其内容。受托人否认起诉状第32段中的其余指控。\n\n33. 受托人承认，州法院于 February 9, 2022 对债务人作出最终藐视法庭命令，该命令本身已说明其内容。\n\n34. 受托人承认，债务人之女在州法院作为证人作证，且其并非该诉讼中的列名当事人。受托人否认起诉状第34段中的其余指控。\n\n35. 受托人承认，PAX于 March 1, 2022 提交了所提及的动议，该动议本身已说明其内容。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 6 页，共 70 页 案号 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 6 页，共 70 页\n\n36. 受托人承认，PAX已启动与 Lady May 有关的若干法律程序。受托人否认起诉状第36段中的其余指控。\n\n37. 受托人承认，PAX在州法院主张 Lady May 为债务人破产财产的一项关键资产。受托人否认起诉状第37段中的其余指控。\n\n38. 受托人承认，HK USA、受托人及其他当事人之间就债务人和HK USA在 Lady May 中的权益存在争议，且该争议的解决将影响本案的管理。\n\n39. 受托人以引用方式并入其对起诉状第1至38段的答复。\n\n40. 受托人否认起诉状第40段所载指控。\n\n41. 受托人否认起诉状第41段所载指控。\n\n42. 受托人否认起诉状第42段所载指控。\n\nII. 积极抗辩\n\n1. HK USA的请求全部或部分受到禁止反言和/或既判力原则的阻却。\n\n2. HK USA的请求全部或部分受到不洁之手原则或同等过错原则的阻却。\n\n3. HK USA的请求全部或部分受到抵销及追偿原则的阻却。\n\n反诉\n\nIII. 反诉的性质\n\n1. 与本案相关的问题远超于HK USA是否应被认定为 Lady May 所有人的狭窄问题；受托人对此提出争议，理由包括纽约州最高法院（以下简称“州法院”）Ostrager法官在其 February 9, 2022 裁决（以下简称“最终藐视法庭裁决”）中所作裁定的排他效力。1\n\n2. 除受托人对起诉状提出的抗辩外，受托人还对HK USA持有一系列积极请求，其依据是HK USA有充分文件记载的作用：作为债务人为保护其资产免受债权人追索而使用的大量空壳公司之一。\n\n3. 首先，HK USA是债务人的另我，本院应就此作出确认判决。Ostrager法官已认定，HK USA是债务人用于保护资产免受债权人追索的空壳公司，且债务人“实益拥有并控制”2 HK USA的唯一资产：Lady May。Ostrager法官的结论得到案卷中大量证据的支持，该等证据显示HK USA只是债务人的工具，不具有独立存在。除其他事项外，HK USA没有收入、银行账户、董事、高级管理人员或雇员，并且根据所知及所信，其从未遵守公司形式。于所有相关期间，HK USA资本不足，其费用（包括律师费）均由 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）及 Lamp Capital LLC 支付；该等实体据称由债务人之子拥有，亦支付债务人的律师费及生活费用（使其得以在过着极度奢华生活的同时声称自己没有资产）。HK USA还与债务人及其他与债务人有关联的实体共用地址。基于该等事实及本文件所述其他事实，受托人根据第541条及第544条寻求作出命令，宣告HK USA为债务人的另我。\n\n1 证据1，2022年2月9日裁定及命令，PAX v. Kwok，案号652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），NYSCEF文件编号1181。\n\n2 最终藐视法庭裁决，第4页。\n\n《破产法典》，因此，HK USA的全部财产，包括存入第三方托管账户的$37 million及/或根据适用第三方托管协议与之相关的权利，均属于债务人第11章破产财产。\n\n4. 第二，基于HK USA为债务人替身实体的相同理由，债务人而非债务人的女儿，是HK USA的衡平所有人。因此，根据《破产法典》第541条，HK USA属于债务人第11章破产财产。\n\n5. 第三，假设法院未裁定HK USA为债务人的替身实体或由债务人衡平所有，受托人主张，HK USA是债务人实施的实际欺诈性转让的受让人，该转让包括Lady May的价值及/或用于购买Lady May的资金。因此，受托人作为替代救济，请求根据纽约州欺诈性转让法规及《破产法典》第544、548和550条，将Lady May或其价值返还至债务人第11章破产财产。\n\n6. 最后，再次假设法院未裁定HK USA为债务人的替身实体或由债务人衡平所有，受托人基于HK USA违反法院命令将Lady May带往并留置于境外，致使债务人被处以$134 million藐视法庭罚款，对HK USA提出过失请求。\nIV. 事实\nA. 债务人的空壳游戏\n\n7. 如州法院诉讼（State Court Action）所确认，债务人多年来的惯用手法一直是利用家庭成员和空壳公司，以使其资产免受债权人追索。奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）在州法院诉讼的听证会以及书面裁决和命令中，多次准确地将债务人的资产保护策略称为“空壳游戏”。\n\n8. 债务人的空壳游戏使其得以直至今日继续：（1）拒绝偿还其债务；（2）享受巨额财富带来的一切利益，例如游艇、私人飞机以及\n\n豪华汽车和住宿；（3）花费数百万美元支付为对抗PAX、受托人及众多其他当事人而进行诉讼所必需的律师费；以及（4）从事其日常业务，即兜售虚假信息、阴谋论和加密货币骗局。3\n\n9. 与本对抗性程序最为相关的债务人空壳游戏的方面（即债务人利用HK USA使Lady May免受债权人追索），只是债务人大规模滥用公司形式、使自己免于判决执行并使债权人无法追索的一个例子。据所知及所信，债务人已设立众多、可能达数百家的实体（包括许多位于英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands，简称“BVI”）等离岸法域的实体），其利用这些实体持有或转移财产，从而逃避责任并保护资产免受债权人追索。债务人对这些空壳公司的使用，使人无法相信其确实是一个依赖家庭慈善供养的穷人；该立场侮辱了法院及所有利害关系人的智力。\n\n10. 除HK USA外，债务人的某些重要空壳公司包括：\n\n- a) Golden Spring (New York) Ltd（Golden Spring）。Golden Spring是一家特拉华州实体，其支付债务人的开支，使债务人得以在声称不拥有任何资产且没有收入的同时过着奢华生活。\n\n\t- (1) Golden Spring据称由债务人的儿子间接持有，4 由债务人通过\n\n3 参见，例如，Friedman, Dan. “一名在逃中国大亨遇到了Steve Bannon。虚假信息的混乱随之而来。”《Mother Jones》，2022年3月至4月，http；Whalen, Jeanne, 等。“研究人员称，与Steve Bannon有联系的中国商人是一张庞大虚假信息网络背后的推动力。”《The Washington Post》，2021年5月17日，http；Hui, Echo，和Hagar Cohen。“John离开一个分享阴谋论的群组后，这名亿万富翁创始人告诉追随者他‘罪该死’。”《ABC News》，2020年11月1日，http。\n\n4 参见，例如，证据2，Wang证词笔录，第18:17-18页（证言称Golden Spring由China Golden Spring (Hong Kong) 100%持有）；第17:3-4页（将债务人的儿子描述为“Golden Spring”的所有人）。\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，提交于09/24/22，录入于09/24/22 18:59:04，第10页；案件22-05003，文件36，提交于09/23/22，录入于09/23/22 18:53:41，第10页，共70页\n于2015年从其在香港的一个账户向Golden Spring在纽约的账户转移资金而设立并注资。5\n\n- (2) 香港于2018年10月18日作出的法院命令，即《禁止在香港及其他地区处分资产的限制令》（以下简称“香港限制令”），将Golden Spring的母公司China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited列为若干实体之一，这些实体的银行账户“受债务人的有效控制”。6\n\n- (3) 债务人已证实，自2015年以来，Golden Spring一直支付其生活开支。7 除其他付款外，Golden Spring还一直支付债务人律师的费用，以及与Sherry Netherland Apartment相关的数百万美元维护费。\n\n- (4) Golden Spring总裁Yan Ping (“Yvette”) Wang（王燕萍女士）已证实，Golden Spring是债务人的“家族办公室”。8 她还证实，其以Golden Spring总裁身份，“担任[债务人]及其家人的利益管理人”。9\n\n- (5) 在同一证言录取中，王女士无法指出2018年2月之前除债务人的私人司机外任何一名在Golden Spring工作的人员，也无法指出Golden\n\n5 在Ace Decade就其针对UBS的诉讼向纽约州最高法院提交的一份2016年宣誓书中，债务人表示，Golden Spring是“通过将资金从我在UBS的一个账户转入Golden Spring New York在纽约的JPMorgan Chase银行账户”而设立的。证据3，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）宣誓书，日期为2016年2月5日，于Ace Decade Holdings Limited vs. UBS AG，案号653316/2015（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），第36段。\n\n6 证据93，香港限制令，第3段，被申请人22。\n\n7 参见证据4，电话举行的341债权人会议笔录，日期为2022年4月6日，第85:17-19页。另参见证据5，Melissa M. Carvalho（梅利莎·M·卡瓦略）函，日期为2021年2月1日，第8段。“Kwok先生答复称，其在相关期间的开支由Golden Spring (New York) Ltd支付。”\n\n8 证据6，Wang证词笔录，第20:10-16页（问：“Golden Spring Hong Kong从事何种业务？答：家族办公室。问：哪个家族？答：郭家。问：Kwok先生的家族？答：是。”）。\n\n9 同上，第46:20-23页（“问：我是在问你是否担任Kwok先生利益的管理人？答：是。”）（着重号为原文所加）。另参见证据7，Yan Ping Wang于2018年5月15日在PAX v. Kwok，案号652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.）（ECF 182）中提交的宣誓书，第1段。“我是Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.的总裁，并以该身份担任[债务人]及其家人的利益管理人。”\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，提交于09/24/22，录入于09/24/22 18:59:04，第11页；案件22-05003，文件36，提交于09/23/22，录入于09/23/22 18:53:41，第11页，共70页\n\n> Spring除担任债务人的“家族办公室”以及启动债务人的社交媒体平台以外的任何业务目的。10\n\n- (6) 在州法院诉讼期间，Golden Spring的律师出席了债务人的证言录取，而债务人的律师在与其证言录取有关的事项中代理Golden Spring总裁王女士。11\n\n- (7) Golden Spring位于162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065的地址，曾被用作债务人及众多关联实体的地址，包括HK USA和Greenwich Land LLC。12\n\n- (8) Golden Spring总裁王女士是多家空壳公司向法院和行政机构提交的正式文件中的获授权签字人。13\n\n- b) Lamp Capital LLC（Lamp Capital）。Lamp Capital是一家特拉华州实体，14 据称由债务人的儿子持有，15 其亦为债务人开支的支付提供资金，使其得以在声称不拥有任何资产且没有收入的同时维持其生活方式。\n\n\t- (1) Lamp Capital的唯一成员是Infinity Treasury Management, Inc.，16 债务人的儿子据称为该公司的唯一股东，债务人的关联人Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）为董事和高级职员，17 债务人的关联人Daniel Podhaskie（丹尼尔·波德哈斯基）则为前任董事和高级职员。18\n\n13 参见例如，证据9，经核实的起诉书，Genever Holdings, LLC v. Sherry-Netherland, Inc.，16-cv-06246（S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016），ECF No. 1；证据10，Saraca Media Group假定名称证书，日期为2020年5月14日。\n\n14 参见证据17，Lamp Capital LLC公司注册证书，日期为2020年9月4日。\n\n10 参见证据6，Wang证词笔录，第39:20–40:8页。\n\n11 参见证据8，Kwok证词笔录，第8:8-9页（“Karin Maistrello（卡琳·迈斯特雷洛），Golden Spring，代表被告”）；证据6，Wang证词笔录，第6:9-10页（Jillian Searles（吉莉安·瑟尔斯）在以“代表被告Kwok Ho Wan”出庭后，被王女士指认为其律师）。\n\n12 参见，例如，证据20，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC有限责任公司协议，日期为2019年4月1日；证据54，Greenwich Land LLC不动产税评估官记录，日期为2021年7月15日。\n\n15 证据4，电话举行的341债权人会议笔录，第50:6-7页。\n\n16 证据92，Lamp Capital, LLC有限责任公司协议，日期为2020年9月8日。\n\n17 参见证据55。除其他职务外，Krasner先生还曾在若干不动产交易中担任Greenwich Land的代表、担任GTV Media Group, Inc.（Saraca的子公司）的发起人，以及担任Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.（一家据称与债务人有关联的非营利实体）的总裁、司库和董事。参见证据11，Greenwich Land保证契据，日期为2022年4月26日；证据12，GTV Media Group\n\n- (2) Podhaskie先生是或曾是Lamp Capital的获授权签字人。19\n\n- (3) 与Lamp Capital LLC有关的公司申报事项由Hodgson Russ LLP办理，该律所在州法院诉讼中担任债务人的律师。20\n\n- (4) Lamp Capital据称向债务人“出借”$1 million，随后该笔款项被直接汇给Brown Rudnick LLP（Brown Rudnick），即债务人此前的破产律师，作为预付聘用费。21\n\n- c) Greenwich Land LLC（Greenwich Land）。Greenwich Land是一家据称由债务人妻子持有的特拉华州实体，拥有债务人位于康涅狄格州格林尼治Taconic Road的住所（以下简称“Taconic Road住所”）。\n\n\t- (1) Greenwich Land于2019年由Hodgson Russ律师事务所的一名合伙人设立；该律师事务所当时在州法院诉讼中代理债务人。22\n\n\t- (2) 2020年2月18日，$2 million从Saraca Media Group Inc.（Saraca）（一家据称\n\n19 参见，例如，Lamp Capital LLC向纽约州提交的授权申请书，日期为2020年9月11日（由Podhaskie签署）。\n\n20 同上。\n\n公司注册证书，日期为2020年4月17日；证据13，Rule of Law Foundation III Inc.公司注册证书，日期为2019年1月11日。\n\n18 参见证据55。除其他职务外，Podhaskie先生还曾担任债务人的私人律师、Golden Spring的总法律顾问，并就Genever US和Genever BVI（均定义见下文）担任Rule 30(b)(6)项下的公司代表。参见例如，证据4，电话举行的341债权人会议笔录，日期为2022年4月6日，第79:2-3页（债务人称Podhaskie“曾是Golden Spring的律师和我的私人律师”）；参见证据14，Podhaskie证词笔录，第8:8-9:1页（Podhaskie以Genever US和Genever BVI的公司代表身份出庭（均定义见下文））。\n\n21 见债务人关于申请作出命令以授权聘用并留用 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）担任债务人律师的申请，案卷编号 86，第 ¶ 17 段；证据 4，2022年4月6日债权人电话 341 会议记录，第 49: 22-24 页。在其 2022年4月6日根据第 341 条举行的会议上，债务人作证称，该笔贷款并无书面文件，且其不知道贷款条款、出借该款项的原因或款项来源。同上，第 49-51 页。\n\n22 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的律师还协助债务人办理了包括设立 Saraca（萨拉卡）和 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）在内的事项，以及代表 Golden Spring（黄金泉）办理其他公司备案。见证据 16，Saraca Media Group Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团股份有限公司）公司注册证书，日期为 2018年5月31日（由 Courtney Scanlon（考特尼·斯坎伦）签署）；证据 17，Lamp Capital LLC（兰普资本有限责任公司）公司注册证书，日期为 2020年9月4日（由 Valerie E. Stevens（瓦莱丽·E·史蒂文斯）签署）；证据 18，Golden Spring 两年期声明，于 2018年10月16日提交（由 Courtney Scanlon 签署）。\n\n由债务人之子拥有23）的财产转让给 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地），该转让与购买 Taconic Road Residence（塔科尼克路住宅）有关。\n\n(3) 于 2022年4月26日前后，在一项从未向本院披露的转让中，Greenwich Land 出售了其先前拥有的第二处房产，该房产位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Cos Cob（科斯科布）的 Ferncliff Road（芬克利夫路）。24 与该转让有关的担保契约上，Greenwich Land 的授权签字人为 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）；如上所述，他是债务人的关联人，并在债务人关联实体中担任多个职务。25\n\n(4) Greenwich Land 位于 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065 的地址，曾被用作债务人及众多关联实体的地址，包括 Golden Spring 和 HK USA（香港美国公司）。26\n\nd) Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings Corporation，“Genever BVI”）和 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings LLC，“Genever US”）。Genever BVI 是一家 BVI 公司，债务人曾是其唯一登记股东（在受托人取得该等股份控制权之前），且 Genever BVI 是 Genever US 的唯一成员。Genever US 持有债务人在 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-内瑟兰酒店）的公寓（以下简称“Sherry Netherland Apartment”）的产权。\n\n(1) 债务人将 Genever BVI 和 Genever US（以下简称“Genever Entities”）描述为特殊目的实体。27\n\n(2) 在 State Court Action（州法院诉讼）中，PAX 主张 Genever BVI 和 Genever US 是债务人的另我。28\n\n23 证据 4，2022年4月6日债权人电话 341 会议记录，第 108:12-13 页（“谁拥有 Saraca？答：我儿子。”）。\n\n24 证据 11，Greenwich Land 担保契约，日期为 2022年4月26日。\n\n25 同上。见脚注 18。在债务人的第一次 341 会议上，美国受托人律师 Holley Claiborne（霍莉·克莱伯恩）两次询问债务人 Krasner 先生是谁，债务人先称不知道，随后未作答复。证据 19，2022年3月21日债权人电话 341 会议记录，第 51:7-12 页。当 Claiborne 女士要求债务人回答该问题时，尽管 Claiborne 女士表示她“宁愿他在你们商议之前回答问题”，债务人的律师 Baldiga 先生仍与债务人商议。同上，第 13:18 页。债务人随后称其对英文姓名有困难，并称其认识 Golden Spring 的一名“Max”，但不知道其姓氏。同上，第 51-52 页。\n\n26 例如，见初始申请书（定义见下文）；证据 20，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）有限责任公司协议，日期为 2019年4月1日。\n\n27 见关于债务人资产和负债清单及财务状况说明的全球说明及限制、方法论和免责声明，（2022年3月9日）ECF No. 77（“SOFA”），第 4 页。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 14 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 14 of 70 70\n\n(3) 于 2020年10月24日，Genever US 在 Judge Garrity（加里蒂法官）面前，向 U.S Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区破产法院）提起其第 11 章案件，申请书由 Wang 女士（Golden Spring 总裁）签署。29\n\n(4) 债务人在其 Sherry-Netherland 购买申请中将自己列为“申请人”，30 其提交了向董事会亲自推荐自己的信函，31 并声明其在 Sherry Netherland Apartment 中拥有“所有权权益”。32\n\ne) Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck Limited，“Bravo Luck”）。Bravo Luck 是一家 BVI 实体，据称由债务人之子拥有。33 Bravo Luck 主张其为 Genever Entities 和/或 Sherry Netherland Apartment 的实益所有人。债务人利用 Bravo Luck 及其关于实益所有权的主张，不仅为自己提供了一套其可主张并非其所有的顶层公寓，而且还对 PAX 在申请破产前执行其针对 Sherry Netherland Apartment 的破产申请前判决的努力提出异议并加以拖延，以及对受托人近期寻求取得 Genever BVI 公司控制权的努力提出质疑。\n\n(1) 根据所获信息及信念，债务人使用 Bravo Luck 在 UBS AG（瑞银集团）开立的银行账户（账户 #371236）（以下简称“Bravo Luck UBS Account”）为 2015年购买 Lady May（五月夫人号）及 Sherry Netherland Apartment 提供资金，该等款项系依债务人签署的电汇表格处理。34\n\n(2) Hong Kong Restraint Order（香港限制令）将 Bravo Luck UBS Account 确认为一个银行账户，尽管该账户据称由 Bravo Luck 持有，但“受债务人的有效控制”\n\n31 同上，第 23、25-26 页。\n\n28 证据 56，原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）支持其针对被告 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的移交令动议及指定接管人动议的答复法律备忘录，日期为 2021年8月2日，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 899，第 2 页。\n\n29 证据 57，申请书，In re Genever Holdings LLC，Case No. 20-12411-jlg (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)，ECF No. 1，第 4 页。\n\n30 见证据 53，Sherry Netherlands 购买申请书，第 19 页。\n\n32 证据 7，Yan Ping Wang（王雁平）在 PAX v. Kwok 一案中的宣誓书，第 ¶ 2 段。\n\n33 例如，见证据 21，Qiang Guo（郭强）的 BVI 宣誓书，日期为 2021年12月29日。\n\n34 Escobar, Pepe, et al. “独家：试图引发美中战争的逃亡者。”The Unz Review，2022年8月5日，http\n\n的账户。35 事实上，债务人可自行进入该账户。36\n\n(3) 债务人在 2015年1月至5月期间持有 Bravo Luck 50% 的股权；据称债务人无偿取得该所有权权益后，又将其返还给债务人之子。37\n\n(4) Bravo Luck 对 Genever BVI、Genever US 及 Sherry Netherland Apartment 享有实益所有权的主张，基于一份据称日期为 2015年2月17日的信托协议（以下简称“Purported Trust Agreement”）；该协议的有效性和可执行性因众多原因而极具疑问。\n\n(5) 除其他事项外，Purported Trust Agreement 属于 PAX 在州法院诉讼期间送达的多项文件请求所要求提供的文件，但在该取证程序中并未向 PAX 披露；该取证程序于 2018年9月结束，而债务人直至 2019年4月才首次向 PAX 披露 Purported Trust Agreement，相隔七个月。38\n\n(6) Purported Trust Agreement 据称将 Sherry Netherland Apartment 置入信托，但其日期为 2015年2月17日，早于提交购买 Sherry Netherland Apartment 的申请或购买该公寓。39\n\n(7) 在 SDNY（纽约南区）于 2016年提起的一宗诉讼中，Kwok 称其为 Genever NY 的唯一股东，并居住于 Sherry Netherland Apartment；其还主张，其本人因 Sherry Netherland cooperative（雪莉-内瑟兰合作社）就此采取的行动而遭受损害。40\n\n35 证据 93，Hong Kong Restraint Order 第 ¶ 3 段，被申请人 21。\n\n36 证据 58，Stevenson Wong（史蒂文森·黄）函件，第 2 页（Bravo Luck UBS Account，“可由[债务人]或[债务人之子]任一方单独签署操作，并且……可由任一方单独签署进入。”）。\n\n37 见同上，第 2 页。\n\n38 证据 22，Hodgson Russ LLP 的 Jillian Searles（吉莉安·瑟尔斯）披露 Purported Trust Agreement 的电子邮件，日期为 2019年4月22日。\n\n39 见证据 22，披露 Purported Trust Agreement 的电子邮件；证据 53，Sherry Netherlands 交割文件及购买申请书，第 1-8、19-21 页。\n\nf) Eastern Profit Corporation（Eastern Profit Corporation，“Eastern”）。Eastern 是一家香港实体，据称由债务人之女拥有，41 美国纽约南区联邦地区法院的 Judge Liman（利曼法官）在其于 2021年作出的 Eastern Profit Corp. v. Strategic Vision US LLC（以下简称“Liman Decision”）裁决中认定，该实体“本质上是”债务人的一家空壳公司，42 据称被用于“保护其保密性和匿名性”。43\n\n(1) Liman 法官指出，在 Eastern 于 2018年1月与 Strategic Vision US LLC（战略愿景美国有限责任公司）订立协议时（该协议为 Liman Decision 的审理对象），Eastern“实质上是一个已停止运营的实体”，其“除……被冻结在香港银行账户中的 \\$80,000 外，没有其他资产”，并且“没有业务活动，也没有雇员”。此外，与 HK USA 和其他空壳公司类似，Eastern 的所在地“位于[债务人]在香港的家族公司的办公室内，其唯一董事为 Guo 的女儿。”44\n\n(2) Liman Decision 的审理对象是一份据称于 2018年1月由 Eastern 与 Strategic Vision US LLC 签订的协议（以下简称“Strategic Vision Agreement”），该协议由 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）（Golden Spring 总裁）代表 Eastern 签署。但 Wang 女士并未签署自己的姓名，而是伪造了债务人的另一名关联人 Han Changhui（韩长辉）的签名；Han 据称在 2017年无明显对价地将 Eastern 的据称所有权转让给债务人之女之前曾据称拥有 Eastern。45\n\n42 同上。\n\n44 同上。\n\n40 见证据 9，经核实的起诉状，第 ¶¶ 123-143 段，Genever Holdings, LLC v. Sherry-Netherland, Inc.，16-cv-06246 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016)，ECF No. 1。\n\n41 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC，No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL)，2021 WL 2554631 at *1。\n\n43 同上，at *7（“在谈判期间，Guo 要求，为保护其保密性和匿名性，其不会签署该协议或成为该协议的一方，而将由一个单独实体签署并成为该协议的一方。”）。\n\n45 同上，at *7（“尽管……Han［债务人的关联人］是 Eastern 的名义所有人，但现已将其转让给［债务人之女］，但 Han 无法证明其获得了任何交换对价。Eastern 是［债务人］及其家人的空壳。”）（省略内部引文）。同上，at *1（“在 2017年之前，所有人及唯一\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 17 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 17 of 70 70\n\n(3) Liman 法官还认定，Wang 女士和 Han 先生就 Han 先生与 Strategic Agreement 有关的角色所作的证词，是“一种事后编造，旨在使 Eastern 看似为一个独立于 Guo 的实体”。46\n\n(4) Liman 法官就 Strategic Agreement 推断：“[债务人]指示 Wang 向 Strategic 提供 Eastern 这一名称，并在协议上签署 Han 的姓名。即使 Wang 与 Han 之间存在任何交谈，也只是例行公事，用以确认[债务人]已经作出并指示的安排。”47\n\n(5) 根据在与 Liman Decision 有关的听证会上取得的证词，债务人将 Han 先生（Eastern 的据称所有人）介绍为其厨师，称其为“小韩”，48 并将 Wang 女士介绍为其佣人和助理。49 另有证词称，Wang 女士将债务人称为其“老板”。50\n\n46 Liman Decision，at *7。\n\n47 同上（强调系后加）。\n\n48 证据 27，审判记录，第 768:4-12 页，Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC，No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 368 (April 22, 2021)。\n\n49 证据28，审判记录，第142:12-19页，Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd.（东方盈利有限公司）诉 Strategic Vision US LLC（战略远见美国有限责任公司），No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 362 (April, 19, 2021)（“问：他是否以任何方式介绍了[王女士]——我这样问您吧。他把她介绍为什么？答：嗯，最初是作为他的助理。问：他是否还说了她为他做什么？答：他说她做的，就是个人助理通常做的事情，而且——但他让她离开了房间。”）。证据29，审判记录，第248-249页，Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd.（东方盈利有限公司）诉 Strategic Vision US LLC（战略远见美国有限责任公司），No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y) ECF No. 362 (April, 19, 2021)（“问：[债务人]是否曾在某次特定会议上介绍[王女士]？答：在第一次会议上，他只是称她像是一名仆人。在第二次会议上，他介绍她是他的助理。”）。\n\n50 证据28，审判记录，第142-143页（“好的。现在，我要问您王雁平告诉您关于她职责的事情。那么，王雁平告诉您，就这份合同而言，她的职责是什么？答：嗯，首先，她说：郭是我的老板。我是项目经理，今后我将负责处理这个项目。”）；同上（“她是否对郭有任何称呼，或使用任何术语来描述他？有。她称他为首长。她给了他一些军衔。她称他为老板。”）。\n\nEastern的董事是一名名为Han Changhui（韩长晖）的人士（“Han”）。2017年，Han将所有权和控制权转让给郭的女儿Guo Mei（郭梅），后者是Han的朋友，现为Eastern的所有者及唯一董事。”）。\n\n（6）香港限制令将Eastern Profit列为一个银行账户的名义持有人，该账户“受债务人的有效控制”。51\n\ng）Saraca Media Group, Inc.（Saraca媒体集团公司）（“Saraca”）。Saraca是一家特拉华州实体，据称由债务人的儿子所有，52 债务人曾利用该实体从事包括出售据称的加密货币在内的活动。\n\n（1）Saraca与Golden Spring（黄金之泉）共用同一地址，53 而Golden Spring的总裁王女士是Saraca正式文件的获授权签字人。54\n\n（2）Saraca在Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）购买债务人在Taconic Road的住所之前，紧接着向Greenwich Land转移了资金；\n\n（3）Saraca是在United States Patent and Trademarks Office（美国专利商标局）登记的“Miles Kwok”、“Miles Guo”和“Guo Wengui”商标的注册所有人。55\n\n（4）2021年9月，Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）（“SEC”）发布停止及终止令，命令Saraca及其子公司GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）（“GTV”）停止与据称出售GTV股票及G-Coin和G-Dollar加密货币有关的违反证券法行为；该等销售“从5,000多名个人筹集了约$487 million”。56 State of New York（纽约州）Attorney General（总检察长）办公室亦对Saraca和GTV采取了类似行动。57\n\n51 证据93，香港限制令，第3段，被申请人16。\n\n52 证据4，电话债权人341会议记录，日期为April 6, 2022，第108:12-13页（“问：谁拥有Saraca？答：我儿子。”）。\n\n53 参见证据10，Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记册检索结果。\n\n54 参见，例如，证据25，Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）使用名称证明书，日期为March 14, 2020；及证据26，Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元）使用名称证明书，日期为March 14, 2020。\n\n55 证据23，United States Patent and Trademark Office（美国专利商标局）关于Miles Guo、Miles Kwok、Guo Wengui和Guo Media的登记页。\n\n56 参见Gtv Media Group, Inc.、Saraca Media Group, Inc.及Voice of Guo Media, Inc.事项，被申请人，Release No. 10979, 2021 WL 4149064, at ¶ 1, 5 (Sept. 13, 2021)（认定GTV、Saraca及Voice of Guo Media, Inc.因“招揽数千名个人投资于GTV普通股发行”及“招揽个人投资于其被称为G-Coins或G-Dollars的数字资产证券发行”而违反《证券法》，从而使这些公司“截至approximately July 2020，通过包括美国个人在内的5,000多名投资者，共同筹集了约$487 million”）。\n\n（5）Saraca还参与债务人近期推广和出售“Himalaya Coin”和“Himalaya Dollar”（亦称“H-Coin”或“H-Dollar”）的加密货币计划。\n\n（6）Saraca在纽约州将“Himalaya Coin”和“Himalaya Dollar”登记为其使用名称，所用申报文件由王女士签署，王女士为Golden Spring的总裁。58 基于所获信息及信念，出售Himalaya加密货币所得的收入由客户转入Saraca。\n\nh）Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）（“Ace Decade”）。Ace Decade是一家英属维尔京群岛实体，债务人为将其作为中介实体，用于与导致债务人对UBS提起诉讼的未能完成的2015年证券交易相关事项而收购该实体。债务人利用Ace Decade规避了若由债务人直接购买证券本应产生的披露要求。59\n\n（1）债务人于November 10, 2014收购Ace Decade，并于同日任命其一名雇员Yu Yong（于勇女士）（“Ms. Yu”）为唯一董事及代名股东。60\n\n（2）据称，债务人根据其在UBS的银行家的建议任命Ms. Yu担任这些职务；该银行家建议使用中介实体以规避披露要求。61\n\n57 证据24，终止保证，保证编号21-062，关于Letitia James（莱蒂希娅·詹姆斯）、纽约州总检察长对GTV Media Group, Inc.及Saraca Media Group, Inc.进行调查事项。\n\n58 参见证据25，Himalaya Coin使用名称证明书；证据26，Himalaya Dollar使用名称证明书。\n\n59 证据3，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）宣誓书，第13-14段（“UBS建议……如果我通过Ace Decade直接投资，适用的披露要求将要求提交某些文件[并且]建议，如果我通过中介实体投资，由该中介实体持有股份的法定所有权，则无需作出该等披露。”）。\n\n60 证据30，诉讼请求详情，Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）等诉UBS，Cl-2020-000345，第24段，High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court（英格兰和威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法院），日期为September 23, 2020（“英国起诉状”）。\n\n61 同上，第24段（“Ace Decade由Kwok先生于10 November 2014收购，目的在于作为上述投资工具。同日，根据Wong先生的建议，Kwok先生的一名雇员Yu Yong女士（‘Ms Yu’）成为其代名股东及董事。”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04登记，第20页；案件 22-05003 文件36于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41登记，第20页，共70页 70\n\n（3）香港限制令将Ace Decade列为一个银行账户的名义持有人，该账户“受债务人的有效控制”。62\n\ni）Well Origin Limited（维尔起源有限公司）（“Well Origin”）。Well Origin是一家由债务人拥有的英属维尔京群岛实体，其作为“特殊目的载体”成立，以拥有一架私人喷气机，即一架Airbus 319（空客319）（“该飞机”）。63\n\n（1）2014年，Well Origin与UBS AG（瑞银集团）（“UBS”）订立了一份$50 million贷款协议，以“对飞机购买价进行再融资”，并订立了一份相关的飞机抵押协议。64 此外，债务人与UBS订立了一份相关保证协议。UBS亦获授Well Origin股份上的担保权益。65\n\n（2）此后，UBS对其在Well Origin股份上的担保权益进行了止赎，取得了对Well Origin的控制权，并通知债务人其将出售该飞机。66\n\n（3）在2019年2月提起的一项诉讼中，债务人寻求禁止该出售，主张其为“该飞机的真正实益所有人”，67 且该飞机“独特”、“个人专属”并且“专门属于他”。68 法院驳回了债务人提出禁令的请求，并指出债务人正在根据一份其未签署的飞机抵押协议主张权利。69\n\n63 证据31，申请书，第7段，Kwok How Wan（郭文贵）诉UBS AG等，Index No. 152025/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) Doc. No. 1。一架普通航空公司A319的载客量约为150名乘客。\n\n64 同上，第14-16段。\n\n65 同上，第15段。\n\n66 同上，第22-24段。\n\n67 证据39，支持其临时限制令及初步禁令请求的法律备忘录，第2页，Kwok（郭文贵）诉USB AG等，Index No. 152025/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 15 (February 25, 2019)（“此外，该飞机的真正实益所有人——Kwok——一直是中国政府和中国共产党（‘CCP’）的直言批评者，而Kwok亲自揭露了中共内部的大规模腐败，致使中国政府和中共不惜一切代价扣押任何与Kwok直接或间接相关的财产和资产。”）。另见同上，第1页（“UBS公然违反抵押协议条款，错误地试图出售该飞机，且未适当通知Kwok——该飞机的实益所有人及与该飞机有关贷款的保证人——可能的出售事宜。”）。\n\n68 同上，第2页（“如果未获初步禁令以暂停出售该飞机，Kwok将遭受不可弥补的损害，因为该飞机对Kwok而言是独特的——他亲自与设计师合作进行该飞机的内部装配，并全面参与该飞机的具体设计和规格制定”）；同上，第6-7页（“如果UBS尽管存在瑕疵通知且未向Kwok提供账目，仍获准继续出售，Kwok将永久失去该架对其个人专属的飞机，而金钱赔偿不能也不会足够。”）。\n\n62 证据93，香港限制令，第3段，被申请人18。\n\n（4）就Well Origin而言，债务人无视公司形式，并主张其为该飞机的真正实益所有人，因为这样做符合其利益（鉴于UBS已取得对Well Origin的控制权）。\n\nj）众多其他空壳公司：这些反诉中讨论的实体很可能仅是据报道由债务人控制的数百家空壳公司中的一小部分。70 据报道存在如此大量空壳公司的事实，得到香港限制令所支持；该命令认定债务人有效控制了据称由二十多个实体和个人持有的金融账户，其中包括本文件中已经提及的某些实体。71\n\n11. 总而言之，尽管这些反诉旨在聚焦HK USA和Lady May，且受托人目前并不寻求针对其他实体的救济，但受托人认为，关于债务人利用空壳公司为资产遮蔽债权人的广泛策略的背景，将有助于法院理解受托人的立场。\n\nB. 债务人在收购Lady May之前对HK International的设立、所有权及据称转让\n\n12. 于October 3, 2006，债务人成立了一家名为Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）（“HK International”）的香港实体。72\n\n69 证据32，裁定，第3页，Kwok（郭文贵）诉USB AG等，Index No. 152025/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 17 (February 26, 2019)（“申请人与该飞机唯一的合同联系，是通过一份关于非当事抵押人义务的书面保证；该等义务以该飞机作为担保。”）。\n\n70 Escobar, Pepe等人。“独家：试图引发美中战争的逃亡者。”The Unz Review，5 Aug. 2022，http（“[债务人]在香港、中国、英国、美国、英属维尔京群岛和开曼群岛设立了100多家公司。”）。\n\n71 证据93，香港限制令，第3段。\n\n72 证据34，HK Intl. Funds Investments Ltd.组织章程大纲及章程细则，日期为October 3, 2006。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04登记，第22页；案件 22-05003 文件36于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41登记，第22页，共70页 70\n\n13. 债务人于2014年10月10日之前一直是HK International（HK国际）的唯一股东和董事。73\n\n14. 2014年10月10日，债务人将其在HK International中的权益转让给一名名为Qu Guo Jiao（郭娟娇，又名Natasha Qu）的人士（“Qu女士”）。74\n\n15. 如Ostrager法官所认定，“Qu女士是Kwok（郭）家族值得信赖的商业伙伴。”75 事实上，Hong Kong Restraint Order（香港限制令）将Qu女士列为若干名其银行账户“受债务人有效控制”的个人之一。76\n\n16. 根据所获信息及确信，2014年10月10日，就2014年10月10日的转让而言，Qu女士签署了一份未披露的信托声明（“HK International信托声明”），其中将Qu女士列为“受托人”，并将债务人列为“受益人”。77\n\n17. 根据所获信息及确信，未披露的HK International信托声明除其他事项外载明，债务人“授权并请求”Qu女士“以[债务人]的名义持有[HK International]的股份”，该等“现登记于公司账簿中[Qu女士]名下的股份不属于[Qu女士]，而属于[债务人]”，78 Qu女士将作为债务人的代名人并为债务人信托持有该等股份，且Qu女士将依债务人的指示行使与该等股份有关的权利。79\n\n75. 同上。\n\n73. 见附件35，HK Intl. Funds Investments Ltd.（HK国际基金投资有限公司）年度申报表，日期为2007年11月26日。\n\n74. 附件1，《最终藐视法庭裁决》第4页（Ostrager法官就该交易指出，其面前的证词“证明，2014年Kwok将HK International的100%权益无偿转让给[Qu女士]。”）。\n\n76. 附件93，Hong Kong Restraint Order（香港限制令）第3段，答辩人3。\n\n77. Escobar, Pepe等，《独家报道：试图引发美中战争的逃犯》。《The Unz Review》，2022年8月5日，http\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，提交日期09/24/22，录入日期09/24/22 18:59:04；第23页，案件22-05003，文件36，提交日期09/23/22，录入日期09/23/22 18:53:41；第23页，共70页。\n\n18. 因此，2014年10月10日之后，债务人依据未披露的信托声明继续实益拥有HK International。\n\n19. Hong Kong Restraint Order（香港限制令）将HK International列为其银行账户“受债务人有效控制”的实体之一。80\n\nC. 2015年2月购置Lady May（“梅女士”号）\n\n20. 2015年2月23日，HK International以€28,000,000（或约\\$32,000,00081）从Apsley Yachts Limited（“卖方”）购得Lady May。82\n\n21. 根据所获信息及确信，2015年2月23日，债务人的空壳公司Bravo Luck（瑞运）根据债务人签署的电汇表格，从Bravo Luck UBS账户向卖方的一名代表转移了不少于€25,200,000的、用于购买Lady May的资金。83 根据所获信息及确信，Bravo Luck Limited在Bravo Luck UBS账户中持有的资金（并用于购买包括Lady May在内的资产）由债务人直接或间接转移给Bravo Luck。\n\n78. 同上。\n\n79. 同上。\n\n80. 附件93，Hong Kong Restraint Order（香港限制令）第3段，答辩人19。\n\n81. 日期为2015年2月23日的Lady May卖据载明购买价格为€28,000,000.00，按2015年2月23日适用汇率（每欧元1.1333美元）计算，等于\\$31,732,400.00。\n\n82. 附件36，与出售Lady May有关的销售文件，第1页；另见附件37，2022年2月2日证据听证会记录，第45:22–25页，PAX v. Kwok，索引号652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF文件编号1179。\n\n83. Escobar, Pepe等，《独家报道：试图引发美中战争的逃犯》。《The Unz Review》，2022年8月5日，http\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，提交日期09/24/22，录入日期09/24/22 18:59:04；第24页，案件22-05003，文件36，提交日期09/23/22，录入日期09/23/22 18:53:41；第24页，共70页。\n\n22. 在购得Lady May的同日，UBS AG Hong Kong Branch（瑞银集团香港分行）的董事总经理Tommy Cheung和Stephen Wong在一封支持债务人申请购买Sherry Netherland Apartment（Sherry Netherland公寓）的信中写道，债务人“自2012年7月起通过一家个人投资公司成为本行客户，在此期间，[债务人]与本行保持了令人满意的银行业务关系。截至2015年2月18日，该银行业务关系涉及的资金不少于USD \\$400,000,000。84 根据所获信息及确信，该信中提及的债务人的“个人投资公司”是Bravo Luck。\n\n23. 截至2022年3月3日，即购买Lady May后不久，Bravo Luck UBS账户持有约\\$490 million。85\n\n24. 截至2015年2月23日，Bravo Luck Limited的50%股权由债务人持有，剩余50%由债务人的儿子Qiang Guo（郭强，“债务人的儿子”）持有。86 如债务人的香港律师Stevenson, Wong & Co.（史蒂文森、黄律师事务所）在2015年3月4日所写信函中所解释，当时，Bravo Luck“在法律上和实益上分别由债务人及债务人的儿子各拥有50%”，且Bravo Luck UBS账户“可由[债务人]或[债务人的儿子]任一人单独签署操作，并且……可由任一人单独签署访问。”87\n\n84. 附件78，USB AG HK来函，日期为2015年2月23日，In re Genever Holdings LLC，案件编号20-12411-jlg（纽约南区破产法院），ECF编号14-64（“该银行业务关系涉及的资金不少于USD400, 000,000”）。\n\n85. 附件82，UBS特别报告，日期为2015年3月，第3-5页。\n\n86. 附件38，转让文书，日期为2015年5月12日，PAX v. Kwok，索引号652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF文件编号758；附件33，Bravo Luck Limited成员登记册，In re Genever Holdings LLC，案件编号20-12411-jlg（纽约南区破产法院），ECF编号14-58。见附件21，Qiang Guo的英属维尔京群岛宣誓书第31段（“Bravo Luck的法定所有权在2015年1月26日至2015年5月12日期间约四个月的有限期间内发生变更，据此，我将Bravo Luck的50%法定所有权转让给了[债务人]”）。\n\n87. 附件58，Stevenson Wong来函，第2页。\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，提交日期09/24/22，录入日期09/24/22 18:59:04；第25页，案件22-05003，文件36，提交日期09/23/22，录入日期09/23/22 18:53:41；第25页，共70页。\n\n25. 如《最终藐视法庭裁决》所述，“没有证据表明[债务人的儿子]参与了导致”HK International取得Lady May的公司交易。88 因此，根据所获信息及确信，债务人而非其儿子利用其空壳公司Bravo Luck，为Lady May购买价的大部分提供了资金。\n\n26. 债务人使其控制的空壳公司Bravo Luck为购买Lady May提供资金，与其向本院作出的证词一致：截至2014年12月，他可支配\\$1 billion。89\n\nD. Qu女士于2017年以HK\\$1.00向债务人的女儿转让HK International的所有权\n\n27. 2017年6月27日，Qu女士与债务人的女儿签署了一份转让文书，据此Qu女士据称以HK\\$1.00的对价将HK International的所有权转让给债务人的女儿（“2017年转让”）。90 转让时，Lady May这一HK International的资产远远价值超过\\$1.00——至少价值数千万美元。\n\n28. 根据所获信息及确信，2017年转让是在债务人指示下、未披露的HK International信托声明仍然有效期间发生的——这意味着债务人在转让时仍实益拥有HK International。91\n\n88. 附件1，《最终藐视法庭裁决》第5页（指出债务人的女儿在其证词中承认，“在她[通过HK International]取得游艇之前发生的任何转让中，她的兄弟均未参与。”）。\n\n89. 附件66，庭审记录，日期为2022年4月27日，第173:1-3页（“问：Kwok先生，2014年11月或12月时，您有\\$1 billion可供支配，这是否属实？答：是。”）。\n\n90. 见附件36，与出售Lady May有关的销售文件，第4页（转让文书）。\n\n91. Escobar, Pepe等，《独家报道：试图引发美中战争的逃犯》。《The Unz Review》，2022年8月27日，http\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，提交日期09/24/22，录入日期09/24/22 18:59:04；第26页，案件22-05003，文件36，提交日期09/23/22，录入日期09/23/22 18:53:41；第26页，共70页。\n\n29. 根据所获信息及确信，在2017年转让时，债务人与债务人的女儿均为纽约居民；债务人已于2015年1月9日搬至纽约，92 债务人的女儿已于2017年5月16日搬至美国。93 根据所获信息及确信，债务人的女儿自抵达美国以来一直是纽约州居民。\n\nE. 将Lady May转让给HK USA（HK美国）\n\n30. 2019年4月1日，HK USA这一特拉华州实体成立，债务人的女儿为“该公司的唯一成员”。94\n\n31. HK USA的LLC协议将债务人的女儿地址列为781 5th Avenue，即Sherry Netherland公寓。95 HK USA的LLC协议还将HK USA的主要办事处列为162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065。96 该地址曾由债务人本人使用（包括在其于2022年2月15日提交的最初第11章申请中），97 亦曾由多个与债务人有关的实体使用，包括Greenwich Land（格林威治土地）、Golden Spring（金泉）、GTV Media Group Inc.（GTV媒体集团公司）和Saraca Media Group Inc.（Saraca媒体集团公司）。98 该地址也曾一度是债务人律师Lawall & Mitchell, LLC的地址。99\n\n95. 同上。\n\n96. 同上。\n\n92. 附件3，Kwok Ho Wan的宣誓书第30段（“2015年1月9日……我搬至纽约。”）。另见附件19，电话债权人341会议记录，第27:3-5页（“问：Kwok先生，您在美国居住多久了？答：将近七年。”）。\n\n93. 诉状，HK Int'l Funds Investments (USA) Ltd., LLC v. Kwok, et al.（对抗程序编号22-05003）第20段（“2017年5月16日，Guo女士前往美国……此后她一直留在美国，目前正在此申请政治庇护。”）。\n\n94. 附件20，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）有限责任公司协议，日期为2019年4月1日。\n\n97. 自愿申请，案卷编号1，第2页；附件40，Casper Law Firm（Casper律师事务所）发票（寄送给位于162 East 64th Street地址的Kwok）。\n\n98. 见附件54，Greenwich Land LLC不动产税评估员记录，日期为2021年7月15日；送达宣誓书，案卷编号767；附件67，GTV Media Group Inc.的OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记搜索结果；附件10，Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY结果。\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，提交日期09/24/22，录入日期09/24/22 18:59:04；第27页，案件22-05003，文件36，提交日期09/23/22，录入日期09/23/22 18:53:41；第27页，共70页。\n\n32. 2020年4月，Lady May在无明显对价的情况下由HK International转让给HK USA。100\n\n33. 根据所获信息及确信，债务人的儿子和债务人的女儿均从未在债务人的空壳公司以外从事有报酬的工作。\n\nF. HK USA作为债务人另我实体的特征\n\n34. HK USA是债务人的另我实体，除其他事项外，以下特征证明了这一点（该等特征在与反诉相关的整个期间均适用）：\n\na) HK USA没有收入来源，HK USA的所有费用均由空壳公司Golden Spring和Lamp Capital（灯资本）支付。101\n\nb) HK USA没有董事、高管或雇员。102\n\nc) HK USA未提交纳税申报表。103\n\nd) HK USA没有银行账户，亦未以其他方式获得资本注入。104\n\ne) HK USA未保存任何文件。105\n\n100. 附件41，Mei Guo宣誓书第11段，PAX v. Kwok，索引号652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF文件编号1162（“2020年4月17日前后，我将Lady May的所有权从HK International转让给HK [USA]。”）。\n\n101 参见，例如，起诉状第24段，敌对程序案卷编号1（“Lady May号此前的费用由[Golden Spring]提供资金。现由Lamp Capital提供资金。”）；证据69，L. Vartan于May 4, 2021出具的信函（“就其[对HK USA的]代理而言，该律所已收到Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.和Lamp Capital LLC的付款。”）；证据42，L. Vartan于June 7, 2021出具的信函（“我可以确认，Lady May号游艇的所有费用，包括员工、船员和维护费用，均由Golden Spring New York支付。”）。\n\n102 证据42，L. Vartan的信函（“HK International没有董事、高级管理人员或雇员；没有专用电子邮件服务器或电子邮件后缀；不提交纳税申报表；且没有银行账户，也未以其他方式获得‘资本化’。”）。\n\n103 同上。\n\n99 参见证据68，更换律师同意书，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 338。\n\n104 同上。另参见，例如，起诉状第24段，敌对程序案卷编号1（“自[债务人的女儿]通过HK International和/或HK USA拥有Lady May号以来，任何一个实体从未持有银行账户。”）。\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04登记；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41登记；第28页，共70页。\n\nf) HK USA唯一声称拥有的资产是Lady May号；如下文所述，该游艇已被排他性地认定由债务人实益拥有并控制。106\n\n35. 债务人不当且不公正地利用其与HK USA之间的另我关系，除其他外，使HK USA为债务人的使用和利益持有资产，同时声称将该等资产置于债务人债权人的追索范围之外。\n\nG. PAX对债务人的债权及诉讼\n\n36. 如州法院所认定，107 在与反诉相关的整个期间内，债务人根据其于2011年作出的个人保证（“2011年个人保证”），就PAX于2008年向债务人的一个商业实体发放贷款所欠款项，个人负有对Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业，以下简称“PAX”）的债务（“PAX债权”）。108 在April 2013与June 2015之间，债务人与PAX均为一份和解契据的当事方；根据该契据，如发生某些条件，则PAX债权将不再到期应付。该等条件未发生，PAX和解契据于June 2015终止。109\n\n108 同上。\n\n109 同上，第7页。\n\n105 证据43，庭审记录第9页，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 898（PAX的律师陈述：“Vartan先生确实告诉我们的是，HK [USA]没有雇员、没有高级管理人员、没有董事、没有银行账户、没有文件，什么都没有。它不是一家真实的公司。我说，‘Vartan先生，文件在哪里？’您知道他怎么对我说的吗，法官？‘Golden Spring持有这些文件。’”）。在该庭审记录中，“HK International”一词被用于指称HK USA。\n\n106 参见，例如，证据42，L. Vartan的信函（HK USA的“唯一资产是Lady May号游艇”）。\n\n107 证据44，裁定及命令，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 549（“法院认定Kwok应就违反2011年个人保证承担责任。”）。\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04登记；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41登记；第29页，共70页。\n\n37. 于April 18, 2017，PAX在州法院提起起诉状，根据与2011年个人保证有关的违约理论，主张债务人应就PAX债权承担责任。110\n\n38. 于April 18, 2019，PAX修改其起诉状，将Genever US和Genever BVI列为被告，并主张应揭开该等实体的公司面纱，且其应对债务人的违约承担连带责任。\n\n39. 于September 15, 2020，PAX就其针对债务人的违约请求所提出的简易判决动议获得胜诉。111 PAX针对Genever US和Genever BVI的揭开公司面纱请求仍在审理中。于February 3, 2021，州法院作出命令，就PAX的违约请求判给PAX金额为$116,402,019.57的判决（“PAX判决”）。112\n\n40. 于September 25, 2020，PAX向州法院提出动议，请求依据New York Civil Practice Law & Rule（“CPLR”）5229发布限制令，并主张，除其他外，债务人将“采取措施耗散其资产，或以其他方式妨碍本案判决的执行”（“CPLR动议”）。113\n\n41. 于September 30, 2020，州法院作出临时限制令，限制债务人，除其他外，“对其享有权益的任何财产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰。”114\n\n110 参见证据45，起诉状，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 2。\n\n111 参见证据44，裁定及命令。该裁定的上诉正在审理中。\n\n112 证据46，判决书，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 716。\n\n113 证据47，支持PAX的CPLR 5229动议及临时限制令请求的法律备忘录，第5页，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 576。\n\n114 证据48，关于动议的裁定及命令，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 591。\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04登记；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41登记；第30页，共70页。\n\n42. 于October 15, 2020，州法院就PAX的CPLR动议及债务人对此提出的反对举行听证会。在听证会上，Ostrager法官除其他外，在针对债务人及其律师的评论中表示：\n\na) “法院认为……Kwok先生曾试图误导法院。法院认为，正如原告所主张，Kwok先生正在就其资产玩弄空壳游戏；即使未违反法院命令的文字规定，也违反了法院命令的精神。”115\n\nb) “我们不会再容忍任何空壳游戏。无论这些资产由何处持有，它们都将继续留在其目前所在地；如果认定目前列为这些资产所有人的实体是Kwok先生的另我，或者完全由Kwok先生支配和控制，则这些资产将可用于满足原告获得的任何判决。”116\n\nc) “此处非常明确和具体的意图是，在这宗2017年案件中，已经出现大量的策略性操作、大量的掩饰，以及一些对法院命令的公然漠视；我想知道，是否将发生任何由Kwok先生主导、且并非正常营业过程中的交易。”117\n\nd) “法院命令要么被蔑视，要么被极为宽松地解释，而且……已经向法院作出了故意或非故意的、误导法院的虚假陈述。”118\n\n43. 于同日，即October 15, 2020，州法院作出命令（“2020年October限制令”），规定债务人“和/或下列资产的登记所有人：(1) Sherry Netherland Hotel的住宅，以及(2)游艇‘Lady May号’，不得对该等资产进行或促成任何出售、让与、转让或干扰。”119\n\n118 同上，第26页。\n\n115 证据49，庭审记录第21:13-16页，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 647。\n\n116 同上，第22:7-14页。\n\n117 同上，第24:8-14页。\n\n119 证据50，裁定及命令，第1页，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 630（强调系新增）。\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04登记；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41登记；第31页，共70页。\n\n44. 2020年October限制令适用于HK USA，因为其是Lady May号的登记所有人。\n\nH. 违反州法院限制令及藐视法庭命令\n\n45. 2020年October限制令在作出后几乎立即即遭违反。如州法院后来所认定，已作出安排，使“Lady May号于October 2020初航行至Florida，并随后前往Bahamas。”120 随后，Lady May号于October 2021被移至Europe，121 并将在该处停留，直至根据本法院作出的Lady May号协议命令（定义见下文）返回United States。122\n\n46. 在于November 12, 2020于州法院举行的听证会上，债务人的律师John Siegal表示，由于Lady May号在British Virgin Islands登记，123 为许可目的，该游艇必须返回该地。124 Ostrager法官回应称，任何此类航行均须获得2020年October限制令的救济：“你必须通过书面申请提出该请求。我不了解任何要求，允许一项在United States已被限制处分的资产前往British Virgin Islands的规定”，在该地，该资产可能“使[PAX]无法对其进行执行”。125 在Ostrager法官驳回当时担任Genever Entities律师的Aaron Mitchell进一步介入后，126 Siegel先生随即确认：“我们理解法院的指示。”127\n\n125 同上，第13:19-24、14:4-8页。\n\n120 证据1，最终藐视法庭裁定，第2页。\n\n121 证据1，最终藐视法庭裁定，第5页（“[I]n October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021”）。\n\n122 参见协议命令，强制Hk International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC运输并交付特定游艇“Lady May”，Docket No. 299。\n\n123 此处，Siegal先生将British Virgin Islands与Lady May号正确的登记地Cayman Islands混淆了。\n\n124 证据52，庭审记录第13:9-18页，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵），Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF Doc. No. 691。\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04登记；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41登记；第32页，共70页。\n\nAaron Mitchell当时担任Genever Entities的律师，126 Ostrager法官拒绝其进一步介入后，Siegel先生随即确认：“我们理解法院的指示。”127\n\n47. 于November 18, 2020，在提交给州法院的一封信中，PAX的律师就Lady May号报告了以下信息：\n\n根据我们通过MarineTraffic.com获取的公开可得信息……我们了解到，该游艇于November 1, 2020离开Florida州Fort Lauderdale，截至今日，位于Bahamas的Nassau Old Fort Bay或其附近。事实上，游艇似乎在November 12, 2020时已经离开该司法管辖区；当时Siegal先生（推定系执行Kwok先生的指示）向Ostrager法官询问Kwok先生是否可以将游艇送出该司法管辖区。鉴于Kwok先生在本诉讼过程中作出虚假陈述的历史，这一点尤其令人担忧。128\n\n48. 于December 24, 2020，PAX提出动议，请求因Lady May号已离开该司法管辖区而认定债务人藐视法庭。129\n\n49. 于March 17, 2021，州法院作出认定债务人藐视法庭的裁定及命令（“2021年March藐视法庭命令”），并除其他外载明如下：\n\n法院已审阅双方就PAX请求认定Kwok藐视法庭的动议所提交的大量材料。暂且不论Kwok先生的任何律师是否违反《职业行为守则》的问题，很明显，在本法院进行的、有关“Lady May号”游艇所在地及所有权的程序中，存在令人无法容忍的大量策略性操作、掩饰和欺骗。\n\n126 同上，第14:9-14页（Mitchell先生曾以其他身份参与与债务人有关的事项，包括作为债务人的个人律师向本法院提交信函。参见反对任命Despins先生为受托人的异议，Docket No. 531）。\n\n127 同上，第15:5-6页。其后，在2022年7月21日举行的州法院听证会上，Siegel先生（西格尔）称，在2020年11月21日听证会上的该次法庭问答中，“我当时并不知道，……该船已不在美国境内。”证据43，2021年7月21日庭审记录，第18:21-23页。Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格）回应称：“如果你选择——如果你，律师，选择成为玩弄程序和蔑视法院命令的工具，那是你的决定。”同上，第19:2-4页。\n\n128 证据59，Baker & Hostetler LLP的Melissa M. Carvalho（梅丽莎·M·卡瓦略）于2020年11月18日出具的函件，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 692（省略内部引文）。\n\n129 证据60，2020年12月24日针对被告Kwok（郭文贵）的藐视法庭命令动议通知，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 688。\n\n被告声称，游艇因“正常业务过程中的”“冬季维护”而被移出本院管辖范围，尽管法院已对该游艇的移动施加限制。与其罗列被告Kwok在本应更知分寸的律师协助下所进行的诸多“障眼法”，本院在以下范围内准许藐视法庭动议：自2021年5月15日后，游艇每在本院管辖范围外停留一日，被告Kwok将被处以$500,000罚款。与游艇所有权和控制权有关的其他限制仍然有效。130\n\nI. 未能使Lady May（Lady May号）返回及后续藐视法庭罚款\n\n50. 尽管2021年3月藐视法庭命令规定，自2021年5月15日起，每日累计$500,000的藐视法庭罚款，但该日期已过，Lady May仍在美国境外。事实上，Lady May直到2022年7月初才返回美国。\n\n51. 2021年5月27日，州法院就PAX为从Golden Spring（金泉）获取证据开示文件所作的努力举行听证会。在该听证会上，Ostrager法官就债务人及其关联实体发表了以下评论。\n\n- a) “Kwok先生每日正在产生$500,000的藐视法庭罚金。我理解Kwok先生认为这些法院程序是一场规避游戏——是他想要玩的游戏。”131\n- b) “Kwok先生的把戏已经耗尽了法院的耐心。”132\n- c) “Kwok先生过着相当奢华的生活方式，[但]声称自己完全没有任何资产。”133\n\n133 同上，第10:2-3页。\n\n130 证据61，动议裁决及命令，第2页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 728（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n131 证据62，2021年5月27日庭审记录，第9:1-3页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 833。\n\n132 同上，第9:23-24页。\n\n- d) “Kwok先生随意藐视法院命令。”134\n- e) “Kwok先生显然毫不在意因公然违反本院先前有关该船的命令而被处以每日$500,000的制裁；Golden Spring正在支付该船的维护和运输费用。”135\n- f) “[PAX的律师]多年来一直在寻求执行一项判决书，而不幸的是，我不得不主持这些许多、许多、许多的动议和听证会；由于Kwok先生直接或通过其公司间接无视法院命令，这些动议和听证会均未产生法院所命令的结果。”136\n\n52. 2021年7月8日，PAX向州法院提出动议（“最终藐视法庭动议”），请求就持续违反2021年3月藐视法庭命令一事，对债务人作出最终藐视法庭命令。137\n\n53. 2021年7月19日，在提交债务人对最终藐视法庭动议的反对意见的同时（该反对意见以债务人并不拥有Lady May为由反对该动议，并请求在对2021年3月藐视法庭命令提起上诉期间中止执行），HK USA（美国HK）的律师Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）提交了一份反对最终藐视法庭动议的“宣誓陈述”（“Vartan宣誓陈述”）。138 Vartan宣誓陈述尤其主张，HK USA是Lady May的所有人，且HK USA的“财产权益正受到”最终藐视法庭动议的影响。139\n\n139 同上，第4段。\n\n134 同上，第16:8-9页。\n\n135 同上，第17:1-5页。\n\n136 证据62，2021年5月27日庭审记录，第18:1-6页。\n\n137 证据63，支持PAX提出最终民事藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 857。\n\n138 见证据90，Vartan宣誓陈述，日期为2021年7月19日，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 867。\n\n案件22-50073 文件876-1 于09/24/22提交 于09/24/22录入 18:59:04 第35页；案件22-05003 文件36 于09/23/22提交 于09/23/22录入 18:53:41 第35页，共70页中的第35页\n\n54. 2021年7月21日，州法院就最终藐视法庭动议举行初步听证会；在该听证会上，Vartan先生以HK USA的律师身份出庭，据称目的是保护HK USA就Lady May所主张的财产权益。140 在听证会上，Ostrager法官作出了包括以下内容在内的评论：\n\n- a) “我不认为，就目前提交本院的记录而言，[PAX的律师]已经——已经履行了取得最终民事藐视法庭命令的举证责任，因为该船的所有权存在争议；尽管看来[PAX的律师]已作出超过表面证据标准的证明，表明所有这些据称控制该船的实体均受Kwok先生控制。”141\n- b) “Kwok先生通过策划该船前往美国领海以外的任何地方的航行，正在自行承担风险。”142\n- c) “让我们澄清一件事：法院曾作出命令，指示不得将该船移出美国领海；该命令是在Kwok先生或其控制实体的代表申请将该船移出美国领海后作出的。该命令被Kwok先生和/或其控制的实体无视。这构成对法院的藐视。”143\n- d) “如果这不是玩弄程序，不是蔑视法院命令，也不是Kwok先生从事的明显障眼法，那么该船本会在美国领海内，我们也会解决该船所有权问题。”144\n- e) “[PAX的律师]在多次听证过程中，已作出超过表面证据标准的证明，表明Kwok先生控制所有这些实体，并且Kwok先生及其实体均藐视本院先前的命令。”145\n\n140 证据43，2021年7月21日庭审记录，第3:19-20页。\n\n141 同上，第13:15-23页。\n\n142 同上，第14:1-4页。\n\n143 同上，第16:25-17:10页。\n\n144 同上，第17:15-20页。\n\n145 证据43，2021年7月21日庭审记录，第17:21-25页。\n\n案件22-50073 文件876-1 于09/24/22提交 于09/24/22录入 18:59:04 第36页；案件22-05003 文件36 于09/23/22提交 于09/23/22录入 18:53:41 第36页，共70页中的第36页\n\n- f) “毫无争议的是，Kwok先生及其控制的实体被限制不得将该船移出美国领海。而且，蔑视这些命令及后续命令的是，该船仍然停留在美国领海外。迟早，推进得极为缓慢的正义之轮将解决这一问题。”146\n\n55. 2021年11月9日，纽约州最高法院上诉分庭第一司法部门（“上诉分庭”）就债务人对2021年3月藐视法庭命令的上诉作出命令。上诉分庭陈述如下：\n\n动议法院在认定被告构成民事藐视法庭时行使了其自由裁量权，因为原告以明确且令人信服的证据证明，被告违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该违反行为损害了原告的权利（见El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 26 NY3d 19, 29 [2015]；Judiciary Law § 753）。\n\n与被告的主张相反，法院并未因未作出最终藐视法庭命令而在Judiciary Law § 770下构成程序瑕疵。此外，证据表明，每日$500,000的罚款旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭行为；尽管其获准两个月时间完成此事，但他并未显示出任何这样做的意愿（例如，见Ruesch v Ruesch, 106 AD3d 976, 977 [2d Dept 2013]）。动议法院被指示继续进行证据听证，以解决有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚。147\n\nJ. 最终藐视法庭听证会及HK USA的参与\n\n56. 2022年2月2日，州法院就最终藐视法庭动议举行最终证据听证会（“最终藐视法庭听证会”）。Vartan先生再次以HK USA的律师身份，并代表债务人的女儿出席最终藐视法庭听证会。148\n\n146 同上，第19:8-15页。\n\n147 证据75，Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n148 证据37，2022年2月2日证据听证会庭审记录，第37:7-9页（“前几名证人是[HK USA]即该船所有人的证人。Lee Vartan将提交这些证人接受交叉询问。”）；同上，第37:25-38:1页（“Lee Vartan代表Mei Guo（郭美）。”）。另见证据64，2022年2月2日听证会联合出庭登记表，第3页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 1119（将Vartan先生列为“HK International（HK International）的律师”）。\n\n案件22-50073 文件876-1 于09/24/22提交 于09/24/22录入 18:59:04 第37页；案件22-05003 文件36 于09/23/22提交 于09/23/22录入 18:53:41 第37页，共70页中的第37页\n\n57. 在最终藐视法庭听证会开始时，债务人的律师Siegal先生（西格尔）告知法院：“前几名证人是[HK USA]即该船所有人的证人。Lee Vartan将提交这些证人接受交叉询问。”149 与该说明一致，Vartan先生继而提交了四名证人150（除一名外均为代表辩方提出的证人151），并在为这些证人辩护时提出证据异议152，直至听证会结束前不久“将事情交还给Siegal先生”。153\n\n58. 就最终藐视法庭听证会而言，债务人的女儿作证称，“她指示Lady May的航行路线”154，并称“该船于2020年10月从纽约前往佛罗里达，是[她]的决定，而不是[她]父亲的决定。”155 债务人的女儿称：“我知悉……[2021年3月藐视法庭命令]要求Lady May于2021年5月返回纽约。然而，……我不希望该船前往纽约，并且在咨询律师后，转而指示该船前往欧洲……。该决定仅由我作出，并非我父亲作出。”156\n\n152 例如，见同上，第45:9-12页；第58:7-11页；第60:18-20页。\n\n153 同上，第96:13-16页。\n\n154 证据1，最终藐视法庭裁决，第5页。\n\n155 见证据41，2022年1月28日Mei Guo宣誓书，第19段（“该船于2020年10月从纽约前往佛罗里达，是我的决定，而不是我父亲的决定。”）。\n\n149 证据37，2022年2月2日证据听证会庭审记录，第37:7-9页。\n\n150 这些证人为：(1) 债务人的女儿；(2) Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫），Lady May的现任船长；(3) Craig Heaslop（克雷格·希斯洛普），Lady May的前任船长；以及(4) Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔），Yachtzoo（Yachtzoo）的游艇管理总监，Yachtzoo为Lady May的游艇管理公司。\n\n151 债务人提出的唯一证人为其律师Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。证据37，2022年2月2日证据听证会庭审记录，第96:15-18页。\n\n156 同上，第20段（“我通过我的律师知悉，本院命令 Lady May（Lady May号游艇）于2021年5月返回纽约。然而，鉴于我是 Lady May 的所有人，且 HK USA 和我均非本案当事人，我不希望该船前往纽约，因此在咨询律师后，我指示其按长期计划、耗费巨资前往欧洲。再次说明，该决定完全由我作出，并非由我父亲作出。”）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 38 页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 38 页，共 70 页\n\n59. 债务人本人未就最终藐视法庭听证会作证。此前，债务人曾多次针对 PAX 的证据开示请求援引《第五修正案》。157 在最终藐视法庭裁定中，Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）裁定，债务人针对 PAX 的判决后证据开示、包括针对 Lady May 的具体请求，援引其《第五修正案》所规定的反对自证其罪权利，使 PAX 有权对债务人作出不利推定。158\n\n60. 2022年2月9日，Ostrager 法官作出其最终藐视法庭裁定，对债务人处以 $134 million 的藐视法庭罚款159，并指出州法院准备依据纽约《司法法》第 § 753 条“行使其全部权力”以强制及时付款；该条除其他事项外，赋予州法院在债务人未支付罚款时监禁债务人的权力。160\n\n61. 最终藐视法庭裁定载有州法院作出的众多认定，其中包括以下认定：\n\na) 债务人曾“通过将其大量个人资产存放于一系列公司、受信任的亲信及家庭成员名下，作出逃避和欺骗其债权人的努力。”161\n\n158 证据附件 1，最终藐视法庭裁定，第 9 页。\n\n159 受托人保留其就 PAX 债权在计划中处理方式所享有的权利。\n\n157 证据附件 65，Baker & Hostetler LLP 的 Melissa M. Carvalho（梅利莎·M·卡瓦略）2021年3月11日的函件；证据附件 70，Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）致 Melissa Carvalho（梅利莎·卡瓦略）2021年11月10日的电子邮件。\n\n160 参见《司法法》第 § 753A 条（“记录法院有权以罚款、监禁或两者并用的方式，惩处怠于履行职责、违反职责或其他不当行为；该等行为可能使在该法院待决的民事诉讼或特别程序中一方当事人的权利或救济落空、受损、受阻或受不利影响”）。\n\n161 证据附件 1，最终藐视法庭裁定，第 1 页。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 39 页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 39 页，共 70 页\n\nb) 债务人“自称为亿万富翁，已将其资产隐藏于错综复杂的公司实体及家庭成员之中。”162\n\nc) 债务人利用公司实体保护资产免受债权人追索的行为，是一项“计划”，该计划“使 Kwok（郭文贵）得以在其过着奢华生活方式的同时声称自己没有资产。”163\n\nd) 债务人“对”Lady May“行使支配权和控制权。”164\n\ne) “在听证会上由被告方证人亲口作出的证言，清楚且令人信服地证明，Kwok 实益拥有并控制 Lady May，并且对本院及司法程序抱有彻底蔑视。”165\n\nf) 根据与购买 Lady May 有关的证据，“合理的推定是 Kwok 提供了用于购买该游艇的资金。”166\n\ng) “在本院于2020年9月30日作出限制令之后，Lady May 于2020年10月被送往佛罗里达州，继而送往巴哈马维修，随后于2021年10月被派往意大利，据称系依 Golden Spring（Golden Spring公司）指示。Guo 女士（郭女士）承认，她知悉本院于2020年9月30日作出的限制令，以及本院随后于2021年3月16日作出的命令，该命令要求将 Lady May 返还至本院管辖范围。”167\n\nh) 债务人女儿关于“她拥有并控制 Lady May”的证言“在任何方面均不足采信。”168\n\ni) 债务人女儿“未提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使支配权和控制权，亦未提供任何证据证实其取得 Lady May 的占有，除非将其视为一种手段，以保护 Lady May 免遭其父亲债权人的扣押。”169\n\n163 同上。\n\n164 同上，第 2 页。\n\n165 同上，第 7 页。\n\n167 同上，第 5 页。\n\n168 同上，第 6-7 页。\n\n169 同上，第 7 页。\n\n162 同上。\n\n166 证据附件 1，最终藐视法庭裁定，第 4 页。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 40 页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 40 页，共 70 页\n\nj) “Kwok 就 Lady May 所策划的这场障眼法所涉及的种种诡计，与本诉讼待决五年以来 Kwok 所采取的其他一切逃避性及藐视法庭行为如出一辙；这正是本案案卷中有 1,180 项登记的原因。”170\n\nk) “Kwok 对 Lady May 所享有的远不止实益权益。Kwok 不仅控制该游艇，看来他还提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享用该游艇的人。”171\n\nl) “证据清楚且令人信服地证明，Kwok 持有并控制 Lady May 的实益权益。”172\n\n62. 在其裁定结论部分，Ostrager 法官评论道：“若亿万富翁诉讼当事人可以一方面寻求利用纽约及美国其他地区的法院程序，另一方面明知且故意违反法院命令，则法治将不复存在。”173\n\nK. 债务人在本 Chapter 11 案件中继续其障眼法\n\n63. 针对最终藐视法庭裁定的作出，174 债务人于2022年2月15日（“申请日”）通过提交其 chapter 11 申请书[主案案卷编号 1]（“初始申请书”）及官方表格 104——题为“个人 Chapter 11 案件：对你享有20项最大无担保债权且非内部人的债权人名单”[主案案卷编号 4]（“前20名债权人名单”）（着重号为原文所加）——启动本 Chapter 11 案件。\n\n173 同上，第 9 页。\n\n170 同上。\n\n171 证据附件 1，最终藐视法庭裁定，第 8 页。\n\n172 同上，第 8 页。\n\n174 例如，参见证据附件 19，电话债权人 341 会议记录，第 15:21-16:1 页（“[我]在2月中旬的第二次审判中……被处以 $120 million 的罚款，并被命令在五天内缴清。因此我别无选择——所以我在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）州提交了破产申请和 Chapter 11。”）。债务人已对最终藐视法庭裁定提起上诉。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 41 页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 41 页，共 70 页\n\n64. 在整个 chapter 11 案件期间，债务人持续利用空壳公司和家庭成员玩弄其障眼法，即在过着极尽奢华生活的同时声称自己贫困。\n\n65. 在债务人的初始申请书、其于2022年2月23日提交的经修正 chapter 11 申请书[主案案卷编号 19]（“经修正申请书”，并与初始申请书合称“申请书”）中，债务人除其他事项外，未披露其关联方 Genever US（Genever US公司）为纽约南区联邦地区法院（Southern District of New York）一宗待决 chapter 11 案件的债务人，该案于2020年10月12日启动。175 对于申请书要求披露“你的居住地”的指示，债务人填写“c/o Golden Spring (New York) Ltd”，并填入 Golden Spring 的地址。176 债务人还在其前20名债权人名单及其经修正版本[案卷编号 10、20]中，将空壳公司 Golden Spring 和 Lamp Capital（Lamp Capital公司）列为其无争议债权的唯一持有人。\n\ni. 债务人否认持有资产或取得收入\n\n66. 2022年3月9日，债务人提交其财产清单[主案案卷编号 78]（“财产清单”）及财务状况说明书[主案案卷编号 77]（“SOFA”）。这些文件，特别是连同其附于 SOFA 的相关总体说明（“总体说明”），有助于概括债务人在本 Chapter 11 案件中如何玩弄其障眼法。除其他事项外：\n\n175 初始申请书，第 3 页（申请书项目 10）。\n\n176 同上，第 2 页（申请书项目 5）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 于 09/24/22 提交 于 09/24/22 18:59:04 登记 第 42 页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 18:53:41 登记 第 42 页，共 70 页\n\na) 尽管有大量关于债务人财富的公开证据，包括债务人在伪证处罚约束下签署的法院文件，177 财产清单记载债务人财产总价值为 $3,850.00，而所列无担保债权为 $373,803,498.09，其中超过 $250 million 为 PAX 的债权，其余包括与证券欺诈、诽谤和性侵犯指控有关诉讼中原告提出的众多债权。\n\nb) 债务人列报收入为 $0.00，并称：“债务人确实获得由家庭成员及家庭成员控制的公司提供资金的住房、家居及生活费用支持。与住房、家居或生活费用有关的任何资金均不受资金来源方任何债权的约束，且全部住房、家居及生活费用资金均不存在须予偿还的任何协议或预期。”\n\nc) 债务人列报费用为 $0.00，并称：“包括住房、家居及生活费用在内的一切费用，均由第三方家庭成员或其控制的公司提供资金。债务人没有任何由其个人承担责任的费用。”\n\nd) 债务人将 Golden Spring（其“家族办公室”）列为基于若干诉讼融资协议、金额不明的对债务人享有担保债权的持有人。如上所述，债务人此前已在其前20名债权人名单中将 Golden Spring 列为无担保债权持有人。\n\n177 参见证据附件 30，债权明细，第 1 段（将债务人描述为“高净值个人”）。另参见 Rolfoundation Rule of Law Fund Live 2020/07/22 Mr. Guo Wengui live.，YouTube，2020年7月22日，http（“大家都知道，不久前我建议我的家族基金和我们的合作基金，并基于我的决定，（我们）购买了石油期货。大家都知道，（我们）赚了差不多略少于 $30 billion。当时我告诉他们，如果赚钱，90%（利润）归你们；如果亏钱，全部归我。然后所有人都投入其中，并购买了10亿桶（石油期货）。现在这10亿桶获利 $30 billion，而我至少赚了 $3 billion，对吧？”）（基于对中文音频的非正式翻译）；参见 VICE News（VICE新闻），“Exiled Chinese Billionaire Uses YouTube to Wage a War on Corruption, YouTube”（首次于 HBO 播出日期为2017年11月15日），（在该视频中，债务人描述了其各项资产，包括 Sherry Netherland Apartment（Sherry Netherland公寓）（“我买了这套公寓”）、Lady May（“我的游艇”）、“伦敦最豪华的公寓”、“两架私人飞机”以及“数百辆赛车”。债务人还就其巨额财富总体评论称：“我拥有全世界每个人都梦想拥有的富裕生活”，以及“我再也没有任何物质需求了。”）。\n\n- e) 债务人在其 SOFA（财务状况说明）中将若干方列为债权人，称其在申请日之前九十日内曾向该等债权人进行转让，因此承认是债务人而非其他方支付了这些债权人。178 然而，看来其中至少部分付款是由 Golden Spring 和/或 Lamp Capital 支付的，从而证实债务人将这些实体作为其障眼法的一部分使用。\n- f) 债务人称，其对由 Greenwich Land 所有的 Taconic Road Residence 享有“使用和居住”权；Greenwich Land 是一家 LLC，其唯一成员为债务人的配偶。债务人称，“与该住宅相关的成本和费用由家庭及家庭控制的企业直接支付。”与此相关，债务人否认对任何家居用品和陈设、电子产品或收藏品持有法定所有权。\n- g) 债务人称其“可使用” Sherry Netherland Apartment，并披露其拥有 Genever BVI、Genever BVI 拥有 Genever US，以及 Genever US 拥有该公寓。然而，债务人主张其为 Bravo Luck 以信托方式持有其在 Genever BVI 中的股权，Bravo Luck 由债务人的儿子所有；并声称 Bravo Luck 使用“来自债务人儿子拥有或控制的实体，而非来自债务人”的资金为购买该公寓提供资金。\n- h) 债务人称其“使用汽车，包括豪华汽车和摩托车”，但其“对任何类型的任何车辆均不享有法定所有权”，且“与该等车辆相关的成本和费用由家庭及家庭控制的企业直接承担。”\n- i) 债务人继续主张 Lady May 由 HK USA 所有，并以其已对最终藐视法庭裁决提出上诉为由，拒绝将 Lady May 列为资产。\n- j) 债务人称，Hong Kong Restraint Order 冻结了“据称属于债务人的 HK$3.7 million 资金”以及“据称受债务人‘有效控制’的个人和实体所拥有的、更多高达数十亿的资金和财产，包括位于香港的房地产。”债务人称，“由于这些资产被冻结/扣押，债务人未将其列入其破产财产”，尽管 Hong Kong Restraint Order 未必剥夺债务人对这些资产的所有权。\n\n- 67. 债务人在其于 March 20, 2022 提交的声明中进一步阐述了其所谓在家庭富足中个人贫困的说法，称：\n\n178 见 SOFA，第 21 页（对问题 6 的答复：“[在]您申请破产之前的 90 日内，您是否向任何债权人支付了合计 \\$600 或以上的款项”）。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 44 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 44 of 70 70\n\n我的家庭，尤其是我的儿子，满足我的需要。在申请日之前，我儿子的家族办公室 [Golden Spring] 除购买许多其他物品外，还购买了我的衣物、食品和日用品。我无法使用 Golden Spring 的信用卡或 Golden Spring 的银行账户。除我的衣物和手机外，我的家庭保留对我所使用的几乎所有物品的所有权。179\n\n68. 据债务人所称，“Ostrager 法官、PAX，以及或许其他人认为，我拥有比此处及我的财产清单和财务状况说明中所反映的更强的财力。然而，他们认为属于我的财富，实际上属于我的儿子、女儿、妻子和大家庭成员，而非我本人。”180\n\nii. 障眼法为第 11 章案件及生活方式提供资金\n\n69. 在整个第 11 章案件期间，债务人持续施展其障眼法，以确保尽管其作为一名主张没有资产或收入的第 11 章债务人，仍能够继续过奢华的生活，并从昂贵的法律代理中获益。\n\n70. 例如，Lamp Capital 支付了债务人最初的破产代理律师 Brown Rudnick 的 \\$1 million 预付聘金。181 随后，债务人的儿子支付了债务人后续破产代理律师 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 \\$100,000 预付聘金；该律所同时担任债务人的女儿及 HK USA 的代理律师。\n\n180 同上。\n\n179 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）关于支持第 11 章案件及若干动议的声明，卷宗编号 107，第 ¶ 17 段。\n\n181 该笔付款使用了据称由 Lamp Capital 向债务人提供的 \\$1 million 贷款所得，该等款项由 Lamp Capital 直接汇付给 Brown Rudnick。见《债务人申请作出裁定，授权聘用及留任 Brown Rudnick LLP 作为债务人代理律师》，卷宗编号 86，第 ¶ 17 段；证据 4，2022 年 April 6 日电话债权人 341 会议记录，第 49 页：22-24 行。在其 2022 年 April 6 日第 341 条会议上，债务人证称，该贷款并无书面文件，且其不知道贷款条款、出借该笔资金的原因，或该资金的来源。同上，第 49-51 页。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/24/22 18:59:04 Page 45 of Case 22-05003 Doc 36 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 45 of 70 70\n\n71. 与此同时，Golden Spring、Lamp Capital 和 Greenwich Land 为债务人的奢侈生活方式提供了资金。自第 11 章案件开始以来的这些费用，反映于债务人就 February 2022 [主案卷宗编号 120]、March 2022 [主案卷宗编号 242] 和 April 2022 [主案卷宗编号 423] 提交的月度经营报告中；该等报告显示，由“一名第三方为破产财产利益”支付的款项合计为 \\$351,081。\n\n72. 同样，债务人在其于 March 22, 2022 提交的动议 [主案卷宗编号 117] 中，就拟议的 \\$8 million DIP 贷款将 Golden Spring 作为贷款人。该贷款将以无担保方式向破产财产提供，其受制于债务人申请前债权人的债权，且不享有任何管理费用或优先偿还权利。同上。然而，记录清楚表明，债务人意图将该等资金中的很大一部分用于支付 Brown Rudnick、无担保债权人官方委员会（“委员会”）的代理律师，以及众多拟议“正常经营过程”专业人士的专业费用；其中包括 Golden Spring 的总法律顾问 Melissa Francis 所在的律师事务所。182\n\n73. 债务人将 HK USA 的唯一资产 Lady May 用作谈判筹码，向其债权人提出，以换取广泛的计划免责。April 10, 2022，债务人提交了一份拟议第 11 章计划 [主案卷宗编号 197]（“拟议计划”）。除其他事项外，拟议计划设想，HK USA 将把 Lady May（未见明显对价）捐赠给为获准债权持有人利益而设立的债权人信托，且将向债务人、Golden Spring 和 HK USA（合称“计划出资方”）以及“与计划出资方有关联的所有个人和实体”（即债务人的全部空壳公司网络及个人家庭成员）给予广泛免责。183\n\n74. 债务人的代理律师强调债务人在安排 DIP 融资以及按拟议计划所设想捐赠 Lady May 方面的作用，向法院表示，债务人“安排了”DIP 贷款，并“如……拟议计划所述，取得了一项承诺，使一艘价值 \\$37 million 的船只按其中规定捐赠给债权人。”184\n\niii. HK USA 同意返还 Lady May 并将 \\$37 million 支付至托管账户\n\n75. March 1, 2022，PAX 提交了一项动议，请求作出裁定，确认自动中止不适用；或作为替代请求，解除自动中止；该动议涉及根据最终藐视法庭裁决判给 PAX 的藐视法庭罚款 [主案卷宗编号 57]（“PAX 暂停效力动议”）。债务人对 PAX 暂停效力动议的异议主张，债务人并不拥有或控制 Lady May。\n\n76. April 11, 2022，即提交拟议计划的翌日，HK USA 提交了一份声明 [主案卷宗编号 203]（“HK USA 声明”），称其同意作出一项拟议命令，强制 HK USA 将 Lady May 从欧洲运回并交付至 Connecticut；因此，据 HK USA 所称，PAX 暂停效力动议已无实际争议。同样在 April 11, 2022，HK USA 启动了本对立程序，请求作出宣告，确认 Lady May 的所有人是 HK USA，而非债务人的破产财产。\n\n77. 在与 PAX 暂停效力动议有关的 April 13, 2022 听证会（“April 13 听证会”）上，法院就 HK USA 的提议向 HK USA 的代理律师 Kindseth 先生提出若干尖锐问题，包括“你们为什么不直接提供保证金？”185 Kindseth 先生答复称，他“不知道我的当事人是否有可用于提供保证金的资金”，且“我的当事人的唯一资产就是这艘船。”186\n\n183 拟议计划第 I.A.74 条（将“计划出资方”界定为 Golden Spring 和 HK USA）；第 I.A.75 条（将“计划出资方关联方”界定为“：与计划出资方有关联的所有个人和实体”）；第 I.A.90 条（将“获免责方”界定为包括但不限于“合称债务人、计划出资方、计划出资方关联方”）。\n\n184 证据 66，April 27, 2022 庭审记录，第 218 页：12、18-20 行。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 876-1 Filed 09/24/22 Entered 09/23/22 18:53:41 Page 47 of 70 70\n\n78. 法院还谈及本对立程序，并称：“我不会就谁拥有这艘船作出认定。Ostrager 法官已经作出了该认定。如果你们不喜欢，就回纽约法院去争。”187 法院的该表述对于 PAX 暂停效力动议亦高度相关，因为债务人对该动议的异议完全基于债务人并不拥有或控制 Lady May 这一主张。\n\n79. 在法院作出该评论后不久，债务人当时的代理律师 Brown Rudnick 的 Baldiga 先生请求法院休庭 15 分钟，以便与债务人讨论“[法院]的确提出的解决方案……提供保证金的可能性。”188 休庭后，HK USA 的代理律师 Kindseth 先生（当时并非债务人的代理律师）向法院报告，其当事人“打算并承诺改为提供相当于该船成本的现金，约 \\$37 million。”189\n\n80. 总而言之，在法院评论表明不会重新审理 Lady May 的所有权问题，因而 PAX 的暂停效力动议很可能会获准、HK USA 对 Lady May 所有权的主张将被驳回后不久，债务人就 HK USA 拟议将 Lady May 返还 Connecticut 一事提出支付保证金。此后不久，HK USA——其不久前曾声称除 Lady May 外不持有任何资产——便有 \\$37 million 现金可供支配。\n\n81. 基于 HK USA 提出提供 $37 million 担保的要约，本院延期审理 PAX 中止动议。随后，在 2022年4月18日举行的听证会上，各方讨论了拟议支付 $37 million 的性质；债务人、PAX、委员会以及债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）和 Zheng Wu（吴征）达成协议，以解决 PAX 中止动议。根据该协议，HK USA 须将 Lady May（“梅女士”号游艇）送回 Connecticut（康涅狄格州），而该义务的履行由 HK USA 将 $37 million 存入托管账户作为担保；该款项仅在 Lady May 被送回且满足其他若干条件后，方可返还给 HK USA。190 该协议于 2022年4月27日的听证会上向本院宣布，并载入一项于 2022年4月29日提交本院并于同日登记的协议裁定 [主案案卷编号 299]（“Lady May 协议”）。191\n\n82. Lady May 协议构成根据《联邦破产程序规则》第9019条达成的和解，但未向债权人发出通知并给予其提出异议的机会。如本院所指出，受托人并非 Lady May 协议的一方。192 尽管 Lady May 协议是在以下两项动议均尚待裁决期间订立的：(a) UST（美国受托人）要求指定审查员或 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人的动议，及 (b) PAX 要求驳回 Chapter 11 案件的动议（两者均在下文作更详细讨论），但 Lady May 协议仅预见 Chapter 11 案件可能被驳回，并未涉及会指定 Chapter 11 受托人的情形。193\n\n190 见 Lady May 协议第5(i)段（“如本院认定 HK USA 已满足证明条件，则 HK USA 可根据托管协议向托管代理人提供 HK USA 证明文件的副本，届时托管代理人应根据托管协议立即向 HK USA 解除并转移托管资金。”）。\n\n191 见案卷编号 294。\n\n192 例如，见证据 89，2022年8月30日庭审记录，第18:6-9页（“[显]然，受托人——受托人并非其中任何事项的一方。在各方同意不就解除中止举行听证会及不就解除中止作出裁决时，他尚未参与本案。”）。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 876-1，提交于 09/24/22，登记于 09/24/22 18:59:04，第49页；案件 22-05003，文件 36，提交于 09/23/22，登记于 09/23/22 18:53:41，第49页，共70页 70\n\niv. HK USA 从另一家与债务人有关联的公司获得 $37 Million\n\n83. 虽然在 Lady May 协议获批准前未予披露，但 HK USA 在其后提交的法院文书中透露，其存入托管账户的 $37 million 的来源，是 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册实体 Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司，简称“Himalaya Financial”）向 HK USA 提供的一笔贷款。\n\n84. 根据 HK USA 向受托人提供的文件，Himalaya Financial 于 2022年4月19日与 HK USA 签订的贷款协议（“Himalaya 贷款协议”）仅由债务人之女代表 HK USA 签署，未由 Himalaya Financial 的任何代表签署。194 值得注意的是，Himalaya 贷款协议声称向 Himalaya Financial 授予 Lady May 的担保权益，195 然而另一份同样日期为 2022年4月19日的附函协议（“Himalaya 附函”）规定，Himalaya 贷款协议“将不再被视为以该游艇作为担保”，且 HK USA“将改为提供个人保证”。196 根据 HK USA 向受托人提供的文件，Himalaya 附函仅由债务人之女签署，未由 Himalaya Financial 签署。Himalaya 附函所要求由 HK USA 提供的个人保证，实际上由债务人之女本人（而非 HK USA）提供，且日期亦为 2022年4月19日。197\n\n193 见 Lady May 协议第9段（讨论“[如]本院作出驳回本破产案件的裁定”时 Lady May 协议的效力）。\n\n194 见证据 79，Himalaya 贷款协议，日期为 2022年4月19日，第13页。\n\n195 同上，第4.3条（“总融资金额应以该游艇及公司直接或间接拥有的所有其他资产作为担保，并应优先于针对借款人主张的所有其他债务或欠款。”）。\n\n196 证据 80，Himalaya 贷款协议附函协议，日期为 2022年4月19日，第1.3(a)-(b)条。\n\n197 见证据 81，保证协议，日期为 2022年4月19日，第1、4页（由债务人之女签署）。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 876-1，提交于 09/24/22，登记于 09/24/22 18:59:04，第50页；案件 22-05003，文件 36，提交于 09/23/22，登记于 09/23/22 18:53:41，第50页，共70页 70\n\n85. Himalaya 贷款协议尤其规定：“在遵守本协议条款的前提下，[HK USA] 应在接获要求时全额偿还贷款，并且无论如何，应于游艇返还美国时或本协议日期起六个月内（以较早者为准）全额偿还贷款。”198\n\n86. 虽然受托人目前正就 Himalaya Financial 寻求进一步证据开示，但受托人在提交本反诉时所知悉的事实表明，Himalaya Financial 由债务人拥有和/或控制。例如：\n\na) 与将 Lady May 送回美国相关的提供担保提议，来自债务人的律师，并由债务人在 HK USA 宣布其唯一资产为 Lady May 后不久安排为 $37 million；这意味着，若无即时注入资金，HK USA 不可能提供任何金额的担保。\n\nb) 根据 HK USA 提供的文件，Himalaya 贷款协议及 Himalaya 附函均未由 Himalaya Financial 签署。基于信息和信念，尽管 Lady May 于 2022年7月初被送回美国时付款即已到期，Himalaya Financial 并未根据 Himalaya 贷款协议宣布违约。\n\nc) 根据受托人持有的文件，就其向 HK USA 提供贷款一事，Himalaya Financial 由 Berkeley Rowe（伯克利·罗律师事务所）律师事务所代理；债务人之子此前在 Genever US Chapter 11 案件中提交的债权申报中，曾将该律师事务所用作其地址。199\n\nd) 根据受托人持有的文件，Himalaya Financial 原本并非 $37,000,000 的出贷方，而是在最后时刻取代 ACA Capital Group Limited（ACA 资本集团有限公司，简称“ACA”）的替代者；ACA 是一家与债务人有众多关联的 Hong Kong（香港）实体。香港公开公司备案记录（不同于 Himalaya Financial 此类 BVI 公司无法公开取得的记录）表明，ACA 唯一自称的股东 William Je（叶健明）200 以及至少若干名董事和高级管理人员，均为债务人广为人知的关联人士。201\n\ne) ACA 过去曾以所谓贷款为幌子向债务人赠与资金。在 Liman Decision（利曼裁决）中，Judge Liman（利曼法官）认定，尽管有人主张该等资金系作为贷款提供，且存在一份声称为贷款协议的文件，ACA 仍向 Eastern Profit Corporation（东方利润公司）赠与了 $1 million。202 在相关诉讼中，Strategic Vision US LLC（美国战略愿景有限责任公司）曾表示，债务人是赠与 Eastern 的资金来源；然而，利曼法官并未就该问题作出认定。203\n\nf) ACA Capital 曾为债务人在 State Court Action（州法院诉讼）中产生的律师费支付款项。204\n\ng) Himalaya Financial 在债务人最新的加密货币项目中发挥关键作用，作为“Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）”的自称发行人；该币与由 Himalaya Financial Reserves Limited（喜马拉雅金融储备有限公司）自称发行的相关“Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元）”一道，已由债务人及债务人的各个网站和社交媒体账户大力推广。205 两种加密货币均在“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”网站出售。206 债务人的喜马拉雅加密货币业务及其其他在线项目，已导致针对债务人及其关联人士的多项欺诈指控。\n\nh) 据报道，由债务人控制的众多实体和组织均以“Himalaya”为名。这些包括 Himalaya Embassy（喜马拉雅大使馆）、Himalaya Federal Reserve（喜马拉雅联邦储备）和 Himalaya Supervisory Organization（喜马拉雅监督组织），以及许多其他实体和组织。207\n\ni) “Himalaya Coin”——即 Himalaya Financial 发行的加密货币名称——以及相关“Himalaya Dollar”加密货币的名称，均为 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）在 New York（纽约州）登记的商业名称；Saraca Media Group, Inc. 是债务人用于其加密货币项目等事项的空壳公司。\n\nj) Saraca 向 New York 州提交的“Himalaya Coin”和“Himalaya Dollar”商业名称证书，均由 Yvette Wang（王雁）208 签署；Yvette Wang 亦为 Golden Spring（黄金之春）的总裁。209\n\n198 证据 79，Himalaya 贷款协议，日期为 2022年4月19日，第13页。\n\n199 见证据 71，债权申报 3-1，In re Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings LLC 破产案），案号 20-12411-JLG（纽约南区美国破产法院）。\n\n203 同上。\n\n200 见证据 72，ACA Capital Group Limited 公司章程，日期为 2014年12月30日，第3页（确认 Je Kin Ming，即 William Je 的别名，为唯一股东）。在 Genever Chapter 11 案件中提交的文件还载明 William Je 的地址，该地址与债务人及债务人之子在与 Genever BVI 有关的公司文件中使用的香港 South Bay Road（南湾道）地址相同。见证据 74，In re Genever Holdings LLC，案号 20-12411-jlg（纽约南区美国破产法院），ECF 编号 14-62，第6页，共23页；证据 33，Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）成员名册。在 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. 的 Liman 裁决相关审判中，名为 Sasha Gong（龚莎莎）的证人于 2021年4月22日出庭作证称，债务人曾将她介绍给 Je 先生，并称 Je 先生是“我的理财人”。证据 27，庭审记录，第774:24-775:1页（“问：他是否被正式介绍给你？答：是。郭先生向我介绍他时——开玩笑地说，‘他是我的理财人。任何有关钱的事都问他。’”）。此外，在该审判中，就 William Je 受到询问时，债务人多次援引第五修正案。见同上，庭审记录第691:24-25页（“问：William Je 是谁？答：第五修正案。”）；同上，第692:24-693:1页（问：“而且，[Je 先生]会在你要求他这样做时向各处汇款，不是吗？”答：“第五修正案。我援引第五修正案。”）；同上，第695:5-7页（“而且，你曾向密切关联人士将 William Je 介绍为你的理财人，不是吗？”答：“第五修正案。”）。\n\n201 见证据 72，ACA Capital Group Limited 公司章程，第3页（确认 Je Kin Ming，即 William Je 的别名，为唯一股东）；证据 77，ACA Capital Group Ltd. 公司秘书及董事资料变更，日期为 2017年4月1日，第3页（由 Fiona Yu（余菲奥娜）签署）；证据 51，ACA Capital Group Ltd. 年度申报表，日期为 2019年1月6日，第4页（列 Karin Maistrello（卡琳·迈斯特雷洛）为董事）。\n\n202 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd., 2021 WL 2554631, at *41（“本院不知 ACA 汇出的资金来源，且其并非证词的主题。但无论该等资金最终是否如 Strategic 所称可追溯至 Guo（郭文贵），或与其独立无关，本院认定其系代表 Eastern（及 Guo）作出的赠与，而非基于任何义务提供。”）。\n\n204 证据 73，Hodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯有限责任合伙律师事务所）的 Kevin M. Kearney（凯文·M·卡尼）所发函件，日期为 2021年4月7日，第2页，PAX v. Kwok（PAX 诉郭文贵），索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 文件编号 766（指出向 Hodgson Russ 支付的款项由 Golden Spring、ACA Capital 及另一与债务人有关联的实体 Ziba Limited（兹巴有限公司）支付）。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 876-1，提交于 09/24/22，登记于 09/24/22 18:59:04，第52页；案件 22-05003，文件 36，提交于 09/23/22，登记于 09/23/22 18:53:41，第52页，共70页 70\n\n206 见“Himalaya Exchange”，Himalaya Exchange，2022年9月22日，http\n\n207 参见，例如，Friedman, Dan. 《一名逃亡的中国大亨会见了 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）。随后发生了一场错误信息的混乱。》Mother Jones（《琼斯母亲》），2022年3月至4月，http（“[New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）]设有 Guo（郭文贵）所称的 Himalaya Embassy（喜马拉雅大使馆），该机构位于曼哈顿上东区一栋租赁建筑内，郭的其他关联机构亦设于该处。作为资深对华鹰派人士的 Navarro（纳瓦罗）已同意担任所谓的‘国际大使’。郭甚至还创建了一套货币体系，以一种名为 GCoin（G币）的加密货币为基础；该货币由名为 Himalaya Federal Reserve（喜马拉雅联邦储备银行）的实体发行。”）。\n\n205 参见《Whitepaper Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币白皮书）》Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所），2021年4月，http，第2页（将 Himalaya Coin（喜马拉雅币）描述为“由 Himalaya Financial Group Limited（喜马拉雅金融集团有限公司）发行和管理”，并将 Himalaya Dollar（喜马拉雅元）描述为“由 Himalaya International Reserves Limited（喜马拉雅国际储备有限公司）发行和管理”）；Song, Zijia. 《受到流亡亿万富翁和 Steve Bannon 青睐的 Himalaya Coin 飙升。》Bloomberg.com（彭博社网站），Bloomberg（彭博社），2021年11月12日，http billion-token-loved-by-exiled-billionaire-and-steve-bannon；《Miles Guo（郭文贵）— Hcoin to the Moon（H币直上月球）（官方视频）。》YouTube，2021年12月10日，http；《我们的万亿货币帝国 EP3-1：行业投资者对喜马拉雅币白皮书的专业解读。》G-News Taiwan（G新闻台湾），2021年5月27日，http；Guo, Miles. 《喜马拉雅币全面参与建立新的量子计算标准……》GETTR，2022年6月8日，http（“喜马拉雅元是唯一真正的稳定币，喜马拉雅币是最好的波动型数字货币。”）；Guo, Miles. 《喜马拉雅币现在和将来始终是世界上最稳定的数字货币……》GETTR，2022年4月3日，http（“喜马拉雅币现在和将来始终是世界上最稳定的数字货币。”）。\n\n208 证物25，Himalaya Coin 假定名称证书，第1页；以及证物26，Himalaya Dollar 假定名称证书，第1页。\n\n209 证物2，Wang（王）证言笔录，第42页第20–23行。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 提交于 09/24/22 登记于 09/24/22 18:59:04 第53页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 18:53:41 第53页，共70页 70\n\nk) 受托人持有的文件表明，用于购买 Himalaya Coin 和/或 Himalaya Dollar 加密货币的资金，直接支付给以 Himalaya Coin 和/或 Himalaya Dollar 名义营业的 Saraca（萨拉卡）。\n\n87. 截至提交本反诉之日，HK USA（HK美国）根据 Lady May Stipulation（Lady May 约定）支付至托管账户的 $37 million，仍依照 HK USA、无担保债权人正式委员会与 U.S. Bank（美国合众银行）之间的托管协议（下称“托管协议”），存放于 U.S. Bank 在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）设有分支机构的托管账户中。\n\n88. 根据托管协议存入的资金和/或其在托管协议项下的权利（统称“托管资金”），均为 HK USA 的财产。\n\n89. Lady May 于2022年7月初抵达 Connecticut 水域，并截至提交本反诉之日仍停留于该处。\n\nv. 债务人请求驳回第11章案件\n\n90. 2022年3月19日，UST（美国受托人）提交了一项请求任命审查员或第11章受托人的动议 [主案卷宗编号102]（下称“受托人动议”），其主张包括，任命审查员或受托人“最符合债权人和破产财产的利益，因为债务人作为公众人物和自称的亿万富翁……声称其没有固定收入且几乎没有资产，却似乎可以获得大量资金。”210\n\n91. 2022年4月6日，PAX（PAX）提交了一项请求驳回债务人案件的动议，或作为备选方案，部分加入受托人动议 [主案卷宗编号183]（下称“驳回动议”），其中指出，债务人的“惯常做法是通过家庭成员和空壳公司转移、隐匿和秘密藏匿其资产。”211\n\n210 UST 请求发布命令指示任命审查员的动议，或作为备选方案，请求发布命令指示任命第11章受托人的动议，卷宗编号102，第1页。\n\n211 PAX 请求驳回第11章案件的动议，或作为备选方案，部分加入美国受托人请求发布命令指示任命第11章受托人的动议，卷宗编号183，第2段。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 提交于 09/24/22 登记于 09/24/22 18:59:04 第54页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 18:53:41 第54页，共70页 70\n\n92. 2022年5月11日，债务人提交了其同意驳回第11章案件的通知 [主案卷宗编号344]（下称“同意驳回”），并撤回了其当时仍待决的 DIP 动议。债务人在其同意驳回中称，尽管其已“获得”Golden Spring（黄金泉）提供 DIP 融资的承诺，并已“安排将其女儿拥有的一项价值很可能超过 $30 million 的重大资产，即 Lady May 游艇，提供清算以使债权人受益”，但由于 PAX 和 UST 提起的诉讼，债务人正“在”专业费用的重压下“支撑不住”，且 Golden Spring“已撤回其为”第11章案件“提供资金的承诺”。212\n\nvi. HK USA 与债务人及 Golden Spring 共同行动\n\n93. 鉴于 HK USA 作为债务人另一个自我的地位，适当地说，其在本第11章案件中的行动均与债务人及债务人的“家族办公室”Golden Spring 的行动协调一致。例如，正如受托人持有的电子邮件记录所示：\n\na) 聘请 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所）代表 HK USA 及债务人的女儿，是由债务人和/或其律师 Aaron Mitchell（Lawall & Mitchell（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所））及 William Baldiga（Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所））安排的；Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞斯）将其聘用协议提交给 Mitchell 先生审阅，并供债务人的女儿签署。213\n\nb) Kindseth 先生对其预付律师费延迟支付感到担忧时，曾向债务人的律师 Robert Stark（罗伯特·斯塔克）询问；Stark 就职于 Brown Rudnick。214\n\n212 债务人同意驳回案件，卷宗编号344，第4、6段。\n\n213 参见证物83，Stephen Kindseth 的电子邮件，日期为2022年4月1日。\n\n214 参见证物84，Stephen Kindseth 的电子邮件，日期为2022年4月4日（“Robert，既然你主动提出协助，我只是跟进一下预付律师费的情况。我今天没有收到款项，这让我有些不安。如果你能查明其状态，那就太好了。我和我的合伙人已经为此投入了很多时间，而且本周显然存在一些至关重要的时间问题。”）。\n\nc) 与编制2022年4月11日 HK USA 声明有关的电子邮件往来，通常包括债务人的私人律师 Aaron Mitchell 以及 Golden Spring 代表 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。215\n\nd) Kindseth 先生与 Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）（债务人拟聘财务顾问 Verdolino & Lowey（维尔多利诺与洛伊）的人员）之间，以及 Brown Rudnick 的 Jeffrey Jonas（杰弗里·乔纳斯）与 Kindseth 先生及 Jalbert 先生之间，就托管根据 Lady May Stipulation 支付的 $37 million 所作安排的电子邮件往来，包括 Golden Spring 的总法律顾问 Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯）。216\n\ne) 债务人的律师 Mitchell 先生回复了债务人的 Brown Rudnick 律师就拟存入托管账户的 $37 million 电汇状况提出的询问。217\n\nvii. 债务人未对 HK USA 的起诉状作出答复\n\n94. 2022年5月13日是债务人在本对抗程序中提交答辩状的截止日期。债务人未提交答辩状，也未请求延长该截止日期。\n\n95. 此后，债务人的律师 Henzy（亨齐）先生已澄清，就本对抗程序而言：\n\n“[债务人]的立场是，HK [USA] 拥有该船，因此[债务人与 HK USA]之间并非对立。他不认为自己拥有该船。他不认为该船属于破产财产。我将在记录中明确无误地说明这一点。因此，如果他们采取相同立场，我看不出他们如何能够彼此对立。”218\n\n215 参见，例如，证物85，Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）致 Stephen Kindseth 的电子邮件，抄送 Max Krasner，日期为2022年4月6日，其中根据“家族办公室[即 Golden Spring]的请求”提供有关 Lady May 的信息；证物86，Stephen Kinseth 致 Russell Stockil 的电子邮件，抄送 Max Krasner 和 Aaron Mitchell，日期为2022年4月9日。\n\n216 参见，例如，证物87，Stephen Kindseth 致 Craig Jalbert 的电子邮件，抄送 Melissa Francis，日期为2022年4月17日；Jeffrey Jonas 致 Stephen Kindseth 和 Craig Jalbert 的电子邮件，抄送 Melissa Francis，日期为2022年4月18日。\n\n217 证物88，Aaron Mitchell 的电子邮件，日期为2022年4月18日（“上周已发送一笔 $37M 电汇。现在或很快应当会完成清算。正在取得电汇确认。”）。\n\n218 参见证物91，2022年8月1日听证笔录，第39页第3–8行。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 876-1 提交于 09/24/22 登记于 09/24/22 18:59:04 第56页；案件 22-05003 文件 36 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 18:53:41 第56页，共70页 70\n\nviii. 法院命令任命第11章受托人\n\n96. 2022年5月24日，法院就应驳回第11章案件还是任命第11章受托人的问题举行了证据听证会；2022年6月15日，法院发布决定，命令任命一名第11章受托人 [主案卷宗编号465]（下称“受托人任命决定”）。\n\n97. 法院在受托人任命决定中认定，其中包括，债务人“已证明其能够获得数百万美元的资金，包括作为 DIP 动议标的的 $8,000,000.00”，并且债务人拟议计划规定“将 Lady May 的所有权转移给一名债权人受托人，以使所有债权人受益。”219\n\n98. 法院还注意到债权人的主张，即债务人“参与了涉及 Golden Spring、Genever Holdings（杰内弗控股）、Lamp Funding（兰普融资）和 HK [USA] 等复杂公司结构的多层交易，使得识别和定位债务人的资产变得困难。”220 债务人财务事务的这一“复杂性，以及本案中缺乏独立管理监督，证明有必要任命一名第11章受托人，以便为债权人和破产财产的利益调查、识别和定位债务人的资产。”221\n\nix. 债务人试图阻挠受托人对破产财产的调查和管理，以保护空壳操作免受审查\n\n99. 自2022年7月8日任命受托人以来，债务人尽管依《破产法典》第521(a)(3)条负有与受托人合作的义务，却一直不遗余力地阻挠受托人管理债务人的第11章破产财产以及调查债务人的资产和财务状况。其中，债务人：\n\na) 请求免除任命受托人的命令；\n\nb) 反对聘请受托人的律师；\n\nc) 反对受托人的公司治理动议；\n\nd) 反对受托人的证据开示工作；以及\n\ne) 对法院驳回债务人请求免除任命受托人命令的动议、并准许受托人公司治理动议的裁定提起上诉。\n\n100. 总而言之，自任命受托人以来，已投入数百小时处理债务人“对本破产财产管理的阻挠”。222\n\n101. 在债务人向本法院提交的、反对任命受托人及反对聘请 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的文件中，债务人声称中国政府或 Chinese Communist Party（CCP）（中国共产党）对 Paul Hastings 具有影响力；与此同时，债务人还在网上连续发表抨击受托人、其律师、PAX、PAX 的律师、UST、Department of Justice（司法部）以及整个第11章程序的长篇激烈言论。223\n\n102. 与此相关，债务人称其“坚信中共（CCP）正在策划PAX（PAX）案件。”224 事实上，在PAX律师就资产扣押及揭开公司面纱问题进行的2018年证言录取中，债务人指控PAX的律师是中共的代理人，225 并且，当向其出示证明其拥有Lady May（Lady May号游艇）的录音时，债务人捂住耳朵并拒绝聆听，声称“[这]全都是共产主义”，并以自杀相威胁。226\n\n222. 证据89，2022年8月30日庭审记录第94:19-95:2页（“[你]提出的所有论点，都是为了阻止受托人尝试履行受托人将要履行的职责。如果你不喜欢受托人所做的事情，那么你可以起诉他。你可以这样做。有救济途径。你有救济途径。你可以起诉他。但是，你现在正在阻碍对本破产财产的管理，而所有其他债权人一直在等待该破产财产得到管理。”）。\n\n223. 参见PAX就债务人的Rule 60(b)动议及聘任申请所作的陈述，案卷编号618，第¶ 10段。\n\n224. 案卷107。\n\n案件22-50073 文书876-1 已提交09/24/22 已录入09/24/22 18:59:04 第58页；案件22-05003 文书36 已提交09/23/22 已录入09/23/22 18:53:41 第58页，共70页。\n\n103. 因此，除债务人利用空壳游戏欺诈债权人的一贯模式外，债务人还一贯指控试图调查其资产的当事人与中共勾结。在这方面，债务人利用其反中共活动人士的声誉，保护其空壳游戏免受审查，并维持其生活方式，而债权人却未获清偿。\n\nL. IRS的债权申报\n\n104. 2022年8月10日，IRS（美国国税局）针对债务人提交了债权申报[POC 12-1]。\n\n第一项反诉请求\n（Lady May系债务人的财产）\n\n105. 受托人重申并再次主张第7至104段所载的指控。\n\n106. 在最终藐视法庭裁定中，Ostrager法官（Ostrager）认定债务人“实益拥有并控制Lady May。”227\n\n107. Ostrager法官关于债务人拥有Lady May的认定具有排除效力，HK USA（HK USA）受争点排除原则约束，不得对该问题提出争议。\n\n225. 证据8，Kwok（郭）证言记录第21:8-13页（“我认为你们这些人[PAX的律师]是一群暴徒。我认为你们就是黑手党。你们在为共产党工作。你们在进行威胁和敲诈勒索。全世界都知道你们在做什么。你们在帮助黑手党。你们在毁掉一个好人。我根本不需要理会你们。”）。\n\n226. 同上，第60:20-61:2页（“证人：我拒绝听。我不会听。问：抱歉，Kwok先生，您刚才是在捂着耳朵吗？答：这全都是共产主义。这里的一切都是共产主义。除非你证明这不是共产主义，否则我才会听。”）；第61:14-20页（“如果你们要播放那个，我就有自杀的冲动。这是共产主义。非常简单。有好几个地方，共产党已被联邦调查局证明是假的。所以你们想让我自杀吗？你们是来杀我的吗？”）。\n\n227. 证据1，最终藐视法庭裁定，第7页。\n\n案件22-50073 文书876-1 已提交09/24/22 已录入09/24/22 18:59:04 第59页；案件22-05003 文书36 已提交09/23/22 已录入09/23/22 18:53:41 第59页，共70页。\n\n108. 鉴于最终藐视法庭裁定中的认定由纽约州法院作出，此处适用纽约州争点排除法。\n\n109. 根据纽约州法律，在以下情形下，争点排除原则禁止对某一问题再次诉讼：(a) 该相同问题在先前诉讼中已被必要地裁决，且对本案具有决定性；以及(b) 被禁止就该问题再次诉讼的一方，在先前诉讼中曾有充分且公平的机会就该问题进行诉讼。Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v. GTR Source, LLC, 988 F.3d 634, 642 (2d Cir. 2021)（适用纽约州法律）。\n\n110. 此处两项条件均适用。债务人对Lady May的所有权和控制权问题已由Ostrager法官必要地裁决。事实上，上诉庭（Appellate Division）明确要求Ostrager法官解决该问题，从而促成了最终藐视法庭听证，并于其后不久作出最终藐视法庭裁定。228 此外，尽管HK USA并非州法院诉讼（State Court Action）的具名当事人，HK USA仍有充分且公平的机会在Ostrager法官面前就所有权问题进行诉讼。这是因为HK USA与债务人具有密切关系，而债务人是州法院诉讼的当事人。HK USA与债务人在所有权问题上的立场完全一致（且现在仍然一致）：双方均主张，Lady May的真正所有人是HK USA，而非债务人。此外，HK USA积极参与最终藐视法庭听证；其律师提出并辩护了代表债务人传唤的五名证人中的四名证人的证言。\n\n111. 基于上述，受托人根据《破产法典》第541条和第542条请求裁定：(1) 宣告Lady May属于债务人第11章破产财产，由受托人管理；以及(2) 命令将Lady May交付给受托人。\n\n228. 证据1，最终藐视法庭裁定（引用Pac. All. Asia [Opportunity] Fund L.P. v. Wan, 153 N.Y.S.3d 862, 863 (App. Div. [2021])）（“指示审理该动议的法院进行证据听证，以解决有关该游艇所有权及控制权的争议，并评定适当的处罚。”）。\n\n案件22-50073 文书876-1 已提交09/24/22 已录入09/24/22 18:59:04 第60页；案件22-05003 文书36 已提交09/23/22 已录入09/23/22 18:53:41 第60页，共70页。\n\n第二项反诉请求\n（人格混同）\n\n112. 受托人重申并再次主张第7至104段所载的指控。\n\n113. 由于HK USA是特拉华州实体，特拉华州法律适用于人格混同／揭开公司面纱请求。229\n\n114. 根据特拉华州关于揭开公司面纱的两要件测试，法院在对债务人与HK USA之间关系适用特拉华州人格混同分析时，将着重考察：(1) 债务人与HK USA是否作为一个单一经济单位运作；以及(2) 是否存在整体上的不公正或不公平因素。就前者而言，适用特拉华州法律的法院将考虑多项因素，其中包括HK USA是否获得充分资本化、是否遵守公司形式要件，以及其是否为债务人的幌子。230 该“因素清单并非穷尽，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性。”231 然而，“必须始终存在”的共同主题是“整体上的欺诈、不公正或不公平因素。”232 为此，多家法院已说明，对被主张为独立实体的实体之财产或资产拥有控制权和／或所有权，是该实体实际上是控制方替身实体的证据。233\n\n229. 参见，例如，Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar, 2021 WL 965794, at *7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021)（“由于[被告]在特拉华州注册成立，我必须适用特拉华州法律，以裁定其是否可能因反向揭开公司面纱责任而受到人格混同请求的追究。”）。\n\n230. Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出第三巡回法院在确定一家公司是否作为单一经济实体运作时所考虑的因素；特别值得注意的是，该等因素不包括有关个人是否为该实体的股东，但包括“严重资本不足；未遵守公司形式要件……[以及]该公司是否仅仅是一个幌子。”）。\n\n231. Blair v. Infineon Tech., 720 F. Supp.2d at 471。\n\n案件22-50073 文书876-1 已提交09/24/22 已录入09/24/22 18:59:04 第61页；案件22-05003 文书36 已提交09/23/22 已录入09/23/22 18:53:41 第61页，共70页。\n\n115. 本文所主张的事实表明，HK USA是债务人的替身实体。关键在于，如Ostrager法官所认定，HK USA唯一声称的资产Lady May由债务人实益拥有并控制。根据争点排除和／或既判力原则，该项由Ostrager法官作出的认定对HK USA具有约束力；HK USA在州法院诉讼期间出席并参与了诉讼，且与债务人具有密切关系。\n\n116. 此外，Ostrager法官的裁定，以及破产申请前诉讼和本第11章案件中的整体文件及证言记录，均确凿表明，HK USA是债务人的空壳公司之一，被用作一项全面计划的一部分，以向债权人隐匿资产，并在过着奢靡生活的同时声称贫困。债务人甚至将HK USA作为其第11章计划的潜在资金提供者，即拟将Lady May捐赠给债权人信托，以换取对债务人、其空壳公司及其家庭成员的广泛免责。\n\n117. HK USA还具备替身空壳公司的所有典型特征：其中包括，在所有相关期间，其没有收入来源，不支付自身费用（该等费用由Golden Spring（Golden Spring）提供资金），没有董事、高管或雇员，未提交纳税申报表，没有银行账户，也未以其他方式获得资本化，并且未保存任何文件。HK USA的地址被债务人的其他空壳公司及债务人本人使用。\n\n233. 参见ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp., 396 B.R. 278, 320 (S.D. Tex. 2008)（债务人及其子公司作为一个单一经济单位运作，部分原因是“[子公司]唯一资产产生的股息直接流向其占支配地位的股东[债务人]，后者对资金拥有完全控制权”）；Crystallex Int'l Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 333 F. Supp. 3d 380, 396 (D. Del. 2018), aff'd and remanded, 932 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2019)（如果控制实体对该机构拥有广泛控制权，包括其“将该机构的财产当作自己的财产使用”，则该被主张为独立的机构将被视为替身实体）。另参见Ashley v. Ashley, 393 A.2d 637, 641 (Pa. 1978)（“我们曾表示，只要控制公司的一方利用该控制权，或利用公司资产，来促进其自身个人利益，即可适当地不予理会公司独立身份这一法律拟制。”）（强调添加）；In re B.L. Jennings, Inc., 373 B.R. 742, 759 n. 10 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Jun. 12, 2007)（“合伙企业及其他商业实体也可能被认定为控制或支配其资产者的‘替身实体’”（强调添加）；Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并仿佛[其]资产仅由其本人管理和处分般行事”，因此“适宜被视为为揭开公司面纱目的的衡平所有人”）（内部引文省略）（经修改）（强调添加）。\n\n案件22-50073 文书876-1 已提交09/24/22 已录入09/24/22 18:59:04 第62页；案件22-05003 文书36 已提交09/23/22 已录入09/23/22 18:53:41 第62页，共70页。\n\n118. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可在行使其权利时寻求受托人于此请求的救济。\n\n119. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第541条、第542条和第544条请求裁定：(1) 宣告HK USA的财产，包括Lady May及托管资金（Escrowed Funds），属于债务人第11章破产财产，由受托人管理；以及(2) 命令将Lady May及托管资金交付给受托人。\n\n第三项反诉请求\n（宣告债务人为HK USA的衡平所有人，并命令将HK USA的所有权交付给受托人）\n\n120. 受托人重申并再次主张第7至104段所载的指控。\n\n121. 上文所述的、证明HK USA是债务人替身实体的相同事实，也支持债务人是HK USA衡平所有人的结论。234\n\n122. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在此所请求的救济。\n\n123. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541、542及544条，请求裁定：(1) 宣告据称由债务人的女儿持有的HK USA（HK USA）成员权益属于债务人第11章破产财产；以及(2) 命令将该成员权益及所有相关的公司控制权移交给受托人。\n\n234 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该公司]……行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，并且仿佛[其]资产仅由其本人管理。”）（着重号系后加）。\n\n第四项反诉请求\n（实际欺诈性转让的撤销）（作为第一、第二及第三项反诉请求的备选主张）\n\n124. 受托人重述并再次主张第7至104段所载的指称。\n\n125. 如第一、第二及第三项反诉请求所述，受托人在本对抗程序中请求作出判决，认定Lady May（Lady May号游艇）属于破产财产，并认定HK USA系债务人的另一个自我，或由债务人享有衡平法上的所有权，因而HK USA的全部财产或HK USA本身属于破产财产。作为备选，如Lady May不属于破产财产，或HK USA并非债务人的另一个自我，亦非由债务人实益所有，受托人依据：(1) 经《破产法典》第544条适用的《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条；235及(2)《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条，对HK USA主张实际欺诈性转让请求权。\n\n126. 根据《破产法典》第548(a)(1)(A)条主张实际欺诈意图，须指称债务人—转让人以“实际意图”作出转让或承担债务，以“阻碍、拖延或欺诈”现有或未来债权人。236 “根据《破产法典》第548条及纽约州法律，对债务人阻碍、拖延或欺诈之意图的分析是相同的。”237\n\n127. “由于在证明实际阻碍、拖延或欺诈意图方面存在困难，当事人可以依赖‘欺诈标志’，即‘与欺诈性转让如此普遍相关，以致其存在会引起对意图的推断的情形。’”238\n\n235 这是2017年转让之日有效的纽约州法律。\n\n236 In re Integrity Graphics, Inc., 623 B.R. 21, 29-30 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020).\n\n237 In re Combes, 382 B.R. 186, 193-94 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2008)；在此类请求中，争议的是债务人—转让人的意图，而非受让人的意图。In re LXEng LLC, 607 B.R. 67, 91 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019).237\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04录入，第64页；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41录入，第64页，共70页中的第64页。\n\n128. “欺诈标志”的例子包括，除其他外：(1) 隐瞒事实及虚假借口；(2) 就所转让财产的价值而言，所获对价存在令人难以接受的不相称；(3) 设立一家封闭式公司以接收财产；(4) 当事人之间关系密切；(5) 为利益或使用而保留涉案财产；(6) 转让前后转让人和受让人的财务状况；(7) 无力偿债或财务困境后行为过程的反复模式或累积效果；以及(8) 事件时间线。……向配偶转让财产是“典型”的欺诈标志。……将资产转移至由债务人完全拥有或“如此密切同化”的不同公司实体，是另一项欺诈标志。”239\n\n129. 本文所讨论的事实确立了以下事件顺序：\n\na) 自2014年10月至2017年6月27日期间，HK International（HK International）的所有权由债务人的一名关联人Qu Guo Jiao（瞿国娇，以下简称“瞿女士”）根据未披露的HK International信托声明，为债务人的利益持有；债务人仍为HK International的实益所有人。\n\nb) 2015年2月23日，HK International成为Lady May的所有人。\n\nc) 用于购买Lady May的资金，由债务人转移给Bravo Luck Limited（Bravo Luck Limited），该实体注册于英属维尔京群岛，且债务人当时持有其50%的所有权权益，其余50%由债务人的儿子持有；随后，Bravo Luck Limited将该等资金转移给卖方（以下简称“2015年转让”）。\n\nd) 2017年6月27日，HK International的所有权无偿转移给债务人的女儿（以下简称“2017年转让”）。\n\ne) 2019年，HK USA成立。\n\n238 Jie Xiao, 608 B.R. 126, 157 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019).\n\n239 In re Jie Xiao, 608 B.R. at 157.\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04录入，第65页；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41录入，第65页，共70页中的第65页。\n\nf) 2020年4月，Lady May从HK International无偿转移至HK USA（以下简称“2020年转让”）。\n\n130. 该事件顺序既由反诉请求中载明的大量记录所确立，也由Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）在其最终藐视法庭裁决中作出的具有排除效力的认定所确立；该顺序表明，自债务人首次寻求购买Lady May之时起，其即实施了一系列有意交易，作为其通过将有价值资产置于空壳公司或家庭成员名下使自身免于判决执行的综合努力的一部分。\n\n131. 首先，2015年，债务人利用其与儿子共同控制和持有的空壳公司Bravo Luck Limited，代表HK International为购买Lady May提供资金；HK International由债务人的一名关联人（瞿女士）根据未披露的HK International信托声明为债务人的利益而信托持有。用于购买Lady May的资金来自债务人，这一点得到奥斯特拉格法官认定的支持： “没有证据表明[债务人的儿子]参与了导致”HK International取得Lady May的“公司交易”，240 且所呈事实支持“[郭文贵]向HK International提供了用于购买该游艇的资金”这一“合理推论”。241 其次，2017年，债务人无偿将HK International本身转移给其女儿。第三，最后，2020年，债务人使HK International再次无偿将Lady May转移给HK USA。上述三项交易均明显构成债务人通过将有价值资产置于空壳公司或家庭成员名下使自身免于判决执行的综合努力的一部分。\n\n132. 根据这些事实，债务人实施了两项独立的欺诈性转让。最明显的是2017年转让，债务人据此使HK International——其当时根据未披露的HK International信托声明享有实益所有权的实体——无偿转移给其女儿。鉴于不存在任何对价，以及奥斯特拉格法官作出的广泛证据和认定表明债务人反复试图将其资产置于债权人追索范围之外，2017年转让作为实际欺诈性转让可以被撤销。参见 In re Jie Xiao, 608 B.R. 126, 157–58 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2019)（认定存在实际欺诈，其中“[债务人]有一个至高无上的目标：使其本人和LXEng免于判决执行，同时将其资产转移给其妻子、子女及大家庭成员。他愿意将该等资金转移、让与和分配，显示出其有意识的意图和计划。”）。\n\n133. 作为备选，如法院认定（尽管存在相反的明确证据）债务人在2017年转让时并未持有HK International的实益权益，则2015年转让作为实际欺诈性转让可以被撤销。如上所述，使HK International得以于2015年购买Lady May的资金来自债务人，其使用了自己的空壳公司Bravo Luck。为论证起见，假定债务人当时并不拥有HK International，则其实际上无偿将购买Lady May所需的资金赠与HK International。该等转让恰好符合债务人的欺诈性空壳操作，并因此可以被撤销。\n\n134. 因至少一项该等转让可以被撤销，受托人可以从HK USA追回Lady May或其价值，理由是HK USA为根据《破产法典》第550(a)条承担责任的后续受让人，或者因为2015年、2017年及2020年的交易可根据合并交易原则合并为一项交易。\n\n135. 在所有相关期间，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可行使其权利，寻求受托人在此所请求的救济。\n\n案件22-50073，文件876-1，于09/24/22提交，于09/24/22 18:59:04录入，第67页；案件22-05003，文件36，于09/23/22提交，于09/23/22 18:53:41录入，第67页，共70页中的第67页。\n\n136. 因此，假定第一项或第二项反诉请求中所请求的救济未获准许，受托人依据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条及《破产法典》第544、548及550条，请求裁定将Lady May或Lady May的价值移交给受托人。\n\n第五项反诉请求\n（过失）（作为第二项及第三项反诉请求的备选主张）\n\n137. 受托人重述并再次主张第7至104段所载的指称。\n\n138. 如第二项及第三项反诉请求所述，受托人在本对抗程序中请求作出判决，认定HK USA系债务人的另一个自我，或由债务人享有衡平法上的所有权，因而HK USA的全部财产或HK USA本身属于破产财产。作为备选，如HK USA并非债务人的另一个自我，亦非由债务人实益所有，受托人对HK USA享有过失请求权。\n\n139. 根据纽约州法律，过失请求权的构成要件为：“(i) 被告对原告负有义务；(ii) 违反该义务；以及(iii) 该违约实质性地造成损害。”242 此外，“所有人均负有普通法义务，即行使通常的注意和技能，以避免伤害他人。”243\n\n140. 在本案中，如HK USA并非债务人的另一个自我，HK USA即对债务人负有行使通常注意和技能以避免伤害其的义务。然而，尽管HK USA的唯一成员，即债务人的女儿，知悉奥斯特拉格法官适用于HK USA的命令，该等命令限制Lady May的移动，并因未将Lady May返还美国而每日施加罚款，HK USA仍将Lady May移至海外，并使其停留在那里直至2022年7月。该行为违反了HK USA的注意义务，并导致债务人根据最终藐视法庭裁决承担$134 million的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n141. 因此，截至申请日，债务人对 HK USA（美国HK）享有一项过失索赔请求权；该请求权根据《破产法典》第541条成为债务人第11章破产财产的一部分，现由受托人向美国HK主张。\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. 就第一项反诉请求，作出一项命令：（1）宣告 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）属于债务人第11章破产财产，应由受托人管理；以及（2）命令将“梅夫人”号交付给受托人；\n\n2. 就第二项反诉请求，作出一项命令：（1）宣告美国HK的财产，包括“梅夫人”号及托管资金，属于债务人第11章破产财产，应由受托人管理；以及（2）命令将“梅夫人”号及托管资金交付给受托人；\n\n3. 就第三项反诉请求，作出一项命令：（1）宣告据称由债务人的女儿持有的美国HK成员权益属于债务人第11章破产财产；以及（2）命令将该成员权益及所有相关公司控制权交付给受托人；\n\n4. 就第四项反诉请求，作出一项命令，根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第276条及《破产法典》第544、548及550条，裁定将“梅夫人”号或“梅夫人”号的价值交付给受托人；\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 876-1 提交于 09/24/22 登记于 09/24/22 18:59:04 第 69 页；案件 22-05003 文书 36 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 18:53:41 第 69 页，共 70 页 70\n\n5. 就第五项反诉请求，赔偿金额不低于 \\$134 million；\n\n6. 本诉讼中发生的合理律师费、诉讼费用及支出；以及\n\n7. 法院在具体情形下认为公正、适当或衡平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分特意留白]\n\n日期：September 23, 2022  LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯潘斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut  第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437)  NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂斯律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）(pro hac vice)  PAUL HASTINGS LLP（宝盛律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）(pro hac vice) Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）(pro hac vice) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com\n\n第11章受托人的代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Himalaya","Guo","Je","Saraca","GTV","CCP","William Je","GETTR","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Himalaya Exchange","Paul Hastings","Miles Guo","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":14,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":36,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":182,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":362,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":368,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":26179,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-09-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-09-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:19:18"}