{"id":"court_sdny_1143_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1143,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 1143","summary_zh":"禁止令申请投诉 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）破产案，康州破产法院第11章案号22-50073 ECF #1143（2022年11月22日立案）。最大债权人太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金请求法院禁止债务人在网络上发布涉及基金员工、代理人及法院管理人家属的个人信息及骚扰性言论，指控债务人在社交媒体上刊登被告方住址及办公地并鼓动抗议。","summary_en":"Complaint for Injunctive Relief — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui, Miles Guo), Bankruptcy Case, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Chapter 11 case no. 22-50073, ECF No. 1143 (filed November 22, 2022). Largest creditor Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. seeks an injunction prohibiting debtor Ho Wan Kwok from publishing personal information of fund employees, representatives, and family members of the court-appointed trustee, and from posting harassing messages; Plaintiff alleges debtor posted home and office addresses on social media and encouraged protests.","body_en":"| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT |\n|--------------------------------|\n| DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT        |\n| BRIDGEPORT DIVISION            |\n\n| In re:                                                 |            | Chapter 11 Case No.            |\n|--------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------|\n| 1<br>HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                              |            | 22-50073<br>(JAM)              |\n| _____________________________________                  | Debtor.    | (Jointly Administered)         |\n| PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY<br>FUND, L.P.<br>vs. | Plaintiff. | Adv. Pro. No. 22-_______ (JAM) |\n| HO WAN KWOK,                                           | Defendant. | November 22, 2022              |\n\n## **COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF**\n\nPursuant to Rules 7001(7) and 7065 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and section 105(a) of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\" or \"Plaintiff\") brings this complaint against the defendant Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), seeking to enjoin the Debtor from publishing messages, videos, or other communications, on the Internet or otherwise, designed to harass or intimidate PAX, its employees, and its representatives—including by posting the home addresses of PAX's manager's Chairman and his family members, the Trustee and his family members, and the office addresses of counsel for PAX and Luc Despins, chapter\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span><sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (\"Kwok\" or the \"Individual Debtor\"), Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"), and Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) (\"Genever US\"). The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever BVI, and Genever US is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n11 trustee (the \"Trustee\")—or otherwise influencing the expeditious administration of these bankruptcy proceedings. In support thereof, PAX alleges as follows:\n\n### **INTRODUCTION**\n\n1. The Debtor's *modus operandi* is to utilize social media as a tool to harass and intimidate his adversaries as he attempts to evade the legal process—particularly when he faces the prospect of an unfavorable outcome. PAX (Kwok's largest creditor) and its counsel have long suffered the brunt of Kwok's antics, including Kwok's public accusations that PAX, its attorneys, and even the State Court judge overseeing the pre-petition litigation between PAX and Kwok, are operatives of the Chinese Communist Party (\"CCP\"). But in his latest gambit, Kwok has stooped to new lows, publishing to his 171,200 followers on the online social media platform Gettr the home and work addresses of the parties adverse to him, including that of the Chairman of PAX's manager Mr. Shan Weijian, PAX's counsel, the Trustee, the Trustee's law firm, *and their non-party family members*, along with a message urging his followers to stage protests outside these homes or offices for a minimum of 90 days.\n\n2. Kwok's outburst and his escalating threats come as the Trustee draws closer to securing Kwok's assets for the benefit of creditors and Kwok once again risks being held in contempt for failing to comply with this Court's corporate governance order. Kwok and his family members, business associates, and affiliated entities are facing motions to compel compliance with Rule 2004 discovery requests over Kwok's objection and the transfer to this Court of a Kwok-related chapter 11 proceeding that has been pending in the Southern District of New York. Unable to escape his own voluntary chapter 11—including its demands of transparency and procedural fairness—Kwok has voiced his frustrations online and manufactured a conspiracy designed to undermine and destabilize these bankruptcy proceedings.\n\n3. By targeting parties to the proceedings and their family members with false allegations and inciting protests outside their homes, Kwok has not only threatened to disrupt the orderly administration of these proceedings—he has compromised the safety and security of the targeted individuals. Moreover, his actions violate state and federal law, as described below.\n\n4. PAX seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Kwok from continuing his online campaign of harassment and intimidation, which, if left unabated, will continue to cause Mr. Shan and his family members; PAX's officers, employees, and counsel; and the Trustee, his family, and his counsel to fear for their physical safety, and threatens to disrupt the orderly administration of these chapter 11 proceedings.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding as Mr. Kwok's publications relate to the chapter 11 proceedings and are intended to be communicated to PAX and the Trustee to influence the administration of those proceedings.\n\n7. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7008, PAX consents to the entry of final orders or a final judgment by this Court in this adversary proceeding.\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n8. Plaintiff PAX is an investment fund organized as an exempted limited partnership under the laws of the Cayman Islands. PAX is the largest creditor in Kwok's chapter 11 proceedings by a significant amount.\n\n9. Defendant Kwok is a Chinese national domiciled in Connecticut and is the Debtor in chapter 11 proceeding *In re Ho Wan Kwok,* Case No. 55-bk-50073 before this Court.\n\n### **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n## **A. PAX obtained a \\$116 million judgment against Kwok in state court after Kwok failed to repay a loan.**\n\n10. Nearly eleven years ago, PAX signed a loan agreement with a Kwok-owned entity called Shiny Times. Kwok personally guaranteed that loan. Despite multiple repayment extensions and PAX's numerous attempts to settle the debt, Kwok has never repaid the loan.\n\n11. PAX sued Kwok for breach of the personal guarantee contract on April 18, 2017 in New York State Supreme Court. Following nearly four years of litigation, on February 3, 2021, PAX secured a judgment against Kwok for \\$116,402,019.57. PAX then \"undertook a year's-long effort to enforce [the] judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States.\" This was no small task because, as Justice Ostrager found, \"Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\" Kwok has yet to repay any of the \\$116,402,019.57 judgment, which accrued post-judgment interest at the rate of 9 percent per year.\n\n### **B. The state court found Kwok in contempt and ordered him to pay \\$134 million.**\n\n12. Part of PAX's effort to enforce the judgment involved Kwok's luxury superyacht, the Lady May. Although Kwok claims to have no assets, he has (at a minimum) beneficial ownership of the Lady May, purchased in 2015 for € 28 million. On September 30, 2020, Justice Ostrager issued a temporary restraining order preventing Kwok \"from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer or interference with any property in which he has an interest….\" Two weeks later, on October 15, 2020, Justice Ostrager specified that this restraint on Kwok included the Lady May. But unbeknownst to Justice Ostrager and PAX, the Lady May had already left New York for Florida on or about October 9. The yacht then went to the Bahamas, and finally to Europe.\n\n13. In response, PAX filed a contempt motion and on March 16, 2021, the court issued a conditional order of civil contempt directing Kwok or the boat's registered owner to return the Lady May to the court's jurisdiction by May 15, 2021, and imposing a \\$500,000 fine for every day thereafter that the yacht remained beyond its jurisdiction. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's order, finding that (i) PAX had \"established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok had] violated a lawful clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to [PAX's] rights…\"; and (ii) \"the daily fine of \\$500,000 was intended to strongly encourage [Kwok] to purge himself of the contempt.\" Accordingly, the First Department instructed Justice Ostrager to \"proceed with an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, and to assess appropriate penalties\" before issuing a final contempt order.\n\n14. Justice Ostrager held that evidentiary hearing on February 2, 2022. After hearing testimony from seven witnesses, Justice Ostrager concluded that \"[t]he testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of [Kwok]'s 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.\" The court further found that \"[n]ot 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.\" As a result, Justice Ostrager entered the February 9 order of contempt (the \"Contempt Order\"), which imposed a \\$134 million fine, based on the \"268 days,\" \"[a]s of February 7, 2022,\" that \"the Lady May ha[d] remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court.\"\n\n### **C. Rather than pay the fine, Kwok filed for bankruptcy.**\n\n15. Consistent with his past practice of flouting court orders, Kwok failed to pay the contempt fine. Instead, on February 15, 2022, Kwok filed for bankruptcy in this Court. Kwok's bankruptcy petition listed \\$50,001–\\$100,000 in assets—omitting the valuable Lady May entirely.\n\n16. On March 1, 2022, PAX filed a motion to confirm the inapplicability of the automatic stay with respect to the Contempt Order, arguing that the automatic stay—which is for honest, good-faith debtors—was not meant to shield debtors like Kwok from the consequences of defying court orders and assaulting the dignity of the judicial system. Faced with the prospect of this Court permitting post-petition enforcement of the Contempt Order, Kwok came to the negotiating table, and the parties filed a stipulated order compelling the return of the Lady May to Connecticut waters. The agreement required that an entity called HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited (\"HK USA\")—the purported technical owner of the Lady May deposit \\$37 million with an escrow agent to secure HK USA's return of the yacht to this jurisdiction, and to establish a reserve for all repairs necessary to restore the yacht to good working order.\n\n17. On March 21, 2022, the United States Trustee (\"UST\") moved for appointment of an examiner or chapter 11 trustee. On April 6, 2022, PAX moved to dismiss the case, or in the alternative, joined the UST's motion for appointment of a trustee. Faced with the prospect of a trustee or examiner investigating his assets, Kwok consented to PAX's motion to dismiss on May 11, 2022, citing PAX's reasonable discovery efforts (which he dubbed \"unrestrained legal warfare\") as a reason.\n\n### **D. This Court appointed a Trustee to oversee Kwok's assets.**\n\n18. This Court granted PAX's motion to appoint a trustee on June 15, 2022, and denied the motion to dismiss. On July 8, 2022, over Kwok's objection this Court entered an order appointing Luc Despins as Trustee.\n\n19. On August 10, 2022, the Court entered an order (the \"Corporate Governance Order\") granting the Trustee control over all of the Debtor's economic and corporate governance rights in Debtor-controlled entities and, directing the Debtor to \"cooperate with the Trustee to enable the Trustee to perform his duties\" and \"surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records, and papers relating to property of the estate.\"\n\n20. On August 16, 2022, the Court granted the Trustee's application for Rule 2004 discovery with respect to the Debtor, his legal and financial advisors, and entities and individuals affiliated with the Debtor. And, on October 28, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to compel the Debtor, his wife and daughter, his business associates and affiliated entities to comply with Rule 2004 orders and with the subpoenas issued by the Trustee.\n\n### **E. Kwok faces yet another contempt motion and additional discovery.**\n\n21. On October 4, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion asking the Court to hold the Debtor in civil contempt for failure to comply with the corporate governance order. On November 16, 2022, the Court held a hearing on this motion.\n\n22. On October 11, 2022, the Trustee brought an adversary complaint against Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo (Kwok's son) seeking relief from the Debtor's abuse of the corporate form to judgment-proof himself and keep his assets outside the reach of creditors.\n\n23. On November 8, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion for order setting bar dates for filing proofs of claim. On November 11, 2022, Kwok was deposed by the Trustee.\n\n24. On November 17, 2022, the Court entered an order directing joint administration of related chapter 11 cases, thereby transferring the bankruptcy proceedings of Genever Holdings, LLC—a Kwok entity that had filed for chapter 11 protection in the Southern District of New York—to this Court.\n\n# **F. With the case going poorly for Kwok, Kwok turns to his large social media following.**\n\n25. Over time, Kwok has amassed over 1 million followers across various digital and media platforms such as YouTube, GTV, Twitter, and Gettr. Kwok has a \"verified account\" on Gettr, as indicated by the red \"V\" next to his username, and posts several times a day to an audience of more than 171,000 Gettr followers.\n\n# **G. Kwok published information and harassing and defamatory statements about PAG's Chairman and his family, the Trustee and his family, and PAX's and the Trustee's counsel, urging his followers to protest at their homes or offices.**\n\n26. On November 16, 2022, Kwok reposted and pinned on Gettr, one of his primary social media outlets, a post by the \"Himalaya Global Alliance\" (originating from a Gettr account called \"NFSC Speaks\") urging supporters to protest at the addresses of \"known CCP operatives and sympathizers.\" The communication published (i) the home address of the Trustee; (ii) the home addresses or cities of residence for the Trustee's former spouse and his (iii) the New York office address of the Trustee's counsel, Paul Hastings LLP; (iv) the home addresses of the Chairman of PAG,[2](#page-7-0) Mr. Shan and his family members; and (v) the New York office address of PAX's counsel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span><sup>2</sup> PAG is PAX's manager.\n\n27. The \"NFSC\" in \"NFSC Speaks\" is the \"New Federal State of China,\" an organization co-founded by Mr. Kwok. Indeed, it was Kwok himself—along with Steve Bannon—who announced the launch of NSFC on social media and in online videos. In other words, the post Kwok pinned to his personal Gettr account came from an organization that he organized and is closely associated with him.\n\n28. The Debtor has also reposted on his Gettr page clips from a longer video recorded on November 16, 2022 (the \"November 16 Video\"), originally posted by NFSC Speaks, that contains numerous attacks against PAX and Mr. Shan (as well as the Trustee and the Trustee's law firm, Paul Hastings). The full November 16 Video, which can be viewed at\n\n, is replete with outrageous baseless and vexatious attacks against PAX and the Trustee:\n\n- a. accusing Mr. Shan of using \"money from both American and Chinese people…to enslave the Chinese people,\" and being a \"spy and a thief stealing pension funds\" for the Communist Party.\n- b. alleging that the Trustee is \"acting for the interest of the CCP,\" and repeatedly showing a photo of the Trustee together with the map of China, colored red with a prominent hammer and sickle.\n- c. further threatening the Trustee by saying that the NFSC movement and its followers will \"make sure every single person in your life . . . know[s] what you have done to the Chinese people . . . that those concentration camps were able to be built because of you.\"\n- d. threatening the Trustee by stating \"you have , right, I hope they are watching this,\" and promising to \"make sure they know they should be shameful of having a father like you.\"\n- e. calling the Trustee and PAX's counsel \"American traitors\" and \"enablers of evil\" who help build concentration camps on behalf of the CCP and whose \"hands are stained with Chinese people's blood,\" and comparing the Trustee and PAX's counsel to lawyers \"going after the Jews\" during the Holocaust.\n\n29. On November 18, 2022, Kwok reposted yet another video (the \"November 18 Video\") that again makes numerous baseless and outrageous attacks in an effort to intimidate the Trustee and PAX's counsel and the Trustee, including the following:\n\n- a. displaying pictures of the Trustee as well as PAX's attorneys (including Messrs. Sarnoff, Friedman, and Harbach) and accusing them of, among other things, being \"worse than a Nazi collaborator in World War Two.\"\n- b. threatening the Trustee and PAX's counsel by saying that, among other things, they will \"make sure every single person in your life . . . knows about the horrible things that you have done to the Chinese people.\"\n- c. displaying pictures of each of the Trustee's , identifying their names and employers, and, among other outrageous comments, claiming that \"your father [the Trustee] . . . is literally putting millions of Uighurs in concentration camps.\"\n- d. displaying pictures of PAX's attorneys, the Trustee, and the Trustee's together with a red map of China, with a prominent hammer and sickle.\n\n30. On November 18, 2022, PAX's counsel learned that several local police departments contacted Mr. Shan's family members to warn them that protests were imminent.\n\n31. On November 19, 2022, Kwok reposted another NFSC Speaks post, displaying four images: one of the Trustee edited to appear as if he is in Chinese military uniform, and one of each of the Trustee's ' LinkedIn profiles, identifying their employers. The caption alleges that the Trustee is \"aiding and abetting CCP . . . to persecute the Chinese people.\"\n\n32. Some of the NFSC posts, which the Debtor re-posted to his own Gettr page, included violent replies to NFSC's post. For example, one commenter on an NFSC post threatened that Mr. Shan's family \"will become the price of their father or husband's evil deeds. This is actually what it means 'wife sacrifice' as well as 'child sacrifice.'\"\n\n33. On November 20, 2022, a group of Debtor-aligned protestors gathered to protest outside the residences of: PAG's Chairman's family members, the Trustee, the Trustee's\n\nand the Trustee's , among others. The protesters standing outside the Trustee's home blocked traffic, distributed leaflets saying, among other things, that they were protesting against \"targeted racial and political persecution of Chinese Americans,\" and that:\n\nYour neighbor, Luc Albert Despins and his law firm Paul Hasting LLP are benefactors and enablers of the CCP's crimes against humanity, infiltration of the U.S. legal financial systems, and persecution of Chinese dissidents abroad. Despite the CCP's ongoing genocide in Xinjiang and its history of human rights abuses, Paul Hastings has acted on behalf of the CCP to hunt Chinese dissidents and to destroy the livelihood of Chinese freedom fighters.\n\n34. Further, the Trustee received reports that an NFSC representative threatened that the Trustee \"will live under horror for the rest of [his] life.\" Other actions relating to these protestors are detailed in the Trustee's November 21, 2022 pleading [ECF 1133] and incorporated by reference herein.\n\n35. The following day, November 21, 2022, protesters organized outside offices of O'Melveny & Myers LLP in New York City and in Washington, D.C. They held signs with pictures of O'Melveny attorneys (Mr. Sarnoff, Mr. Friedman, and Mr. Harbach) and O'Melveny's Chairman, declaring them operatives of the CCP. The signs also \"branded\" red hammers and sickles on the O'Melveny lawyers' foreheads. Protesters staged similar demonstrations outside the New York offices of Paul Hastings LLP, displaying defamatory signs containing pictures of the Trustee and his counsel, Mr. Bassett and Mr. Luft. One of the protesters in New York attempted to gain entry into Paul Hastings' interior office space by claiming, falsely, that he had a meeting scheduled with Mr. Bassett.\n\n36. Finally, during the November 21, 2022 status conference, this Court asked Kwok's counsel whether he could represent that Kwok would cease this pattern of conduct. Kwok's counsel responded \"no.\"\n\n### **H. Kwok's doxing follows a months-long smear campaign against PAX, the Trustee, and their respective representatives.**\n\n37. Although this may be the first time Kwok has published home addresses and other personal information about his legal adversaries' family members, it has long been Kwok's practice to stoke anger and vitriol amongst his followers by spreading falsehoods via his social media megaphone. For instance, in a July 8, 2022 post, Kwok accused PAX of committing fraud and colluding with the CCP regarding the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee in this bankruptcy.\n\n38. Likewise, in another July 8, 2022 post, Kwok declared that all attorneys and officials \"in collusion with PAG,\" PAX's manager, including a named former O'Melveny & Myers partner, will end up in jail.\n\n39. Moreover, in a July 10, 2022 post, Kwok called the Trustee a \"scumbag\" and a \"garbage lawyer,\" and falsely proclaimed that the Trustee's firm receives 50% of its revenue from Communist China.\n\n40. Kwok continued this improper pattern of conduct in a July 13, 2022 post that accused the Trustee of committing fraud in court and called on his followers to \"dig out all bankruptcy cases in which [the Trustee] acted as trustee, and all IPO deals and transactions that [the Trustee's firm] has represented on behalf of the CCP's companies.\"\n\n41. Again, in a July 17, 2022 post, Kwok accused specific lawyers representing PAX, by name, of colluding with the CCP.\n\n42. And, in a July 19, 2022 post, Kwok urged his \"fellow fighters\" to \"please spread the word[] about the revelations of the CCP military intelligence and truths about the trustee of my bankruptcy case.\" In the video attached to this post, Kwok falsely declared that a former O'Melveny partner's attorney license is \"being revoked for sure\" and stated that O'Melveny and Paul Hastings are \"evil.\"\n\n43. Given Kwok's considerable influence amongst his audience, these posts often draw thousands of \"likes,\" \"reposts\" and/or \"comments.\"\n\n### **CLAIM FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **COUNT ONE**\n\n### **(Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a))**\n\n44. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-43, which are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.\n\n45. Plaintiffs bring this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which provides that District Court may \"issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.\"\n\n46. Kwok has attempted to disrupt and manipulate the expedient administration of these bankruptcy proceedings through his Gettr posts.\n\n47. In addition, Kwok's actions violate 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-183(a)(3).\n\n48. 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) provides: \"Whoever—(2) with intent to\" \"harass\" or \"intimidate,\" \"uses … any interactive computer service\" \"to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to\" that person or their immediate family members and spouses or intimate partners, violates the federal stalking statute.\n\n49. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-183(a)(3), \"[a] person is guilty of harassment\" \"when with intent to harass, terrorize or alarm another person, and for no legitimate purpose, such person\" \"communicates or shares a photograph, video or words or engages in any other form of communication to a digital, electronic, online or other meeting space, in a manner likely to cause terror, intimidation or alarm.\"\n\n50. The Debtor has used the social media platform Gettr to harass and intimidate legal adversaries and their respective relatives, as well as other creditors or potential witnesses.\n\n51. Accordingly, an order under 18 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is warranted.\n\n### **CLAIM FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **COUNT TWO**\n\n### **(Order pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a))**\n\n52. Plaintiffs reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-43, which are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.\n\n53. Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that \"[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.\" 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).\n\n54. Kwok's latest outburst is specifically designed to frustrate the orderly progression of this case by harassing parties through social media. These acts undermine the Court's authority to oversee the fair and equitable administration of the bankruptcy case and instead, subvert the bankruptcy process by alienating and intimidating Kwok's largest creditor and the Trustee, as well as other creditors and potential witnesses.\n\n55. Accordingly, an order under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) is warranted.\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n**WHEREFORE,** Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Kwok and grant the following relief:\n\nA. That the Court restrain and enjoin the Defendant, Ho Wan Kwok, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and other persons in active concert or participation with the foregoing, from (i) publishing online the home addresses and other personal information about the Trustee, PAX's manager PAG Chairman Shan Weijian, PAX's or PAG's other officers and employees, and their respective relatives; (ii) posting false and harassing online materials about the Trustee, PAX's or PAG's officers or employees, counsel to the Trustee or PAX, and any of their respective relatives; and (iii) encouraging, inciting, suggesting, or directly or indirectly funding protests at the homes of the Trustee, PAX's or PAG's officers or employees, counsel to the Trustee or PAX, and any of their respective relatives;\n\n- B. That the Court order Defendant Kwok to remove all existing social media posts that (i) contain personal information about the Trustee, PAX or PAG officers or employees, counsel to the Trustee or PAX, and any of their respective relatives; and (ii) encourage, incite, or suggest protests, harassment, doxing, or similar conduct toward the Trustee, any PAX or PAG officers or employees, counsel to the Trustee or PAX, and any of their respective relatives.\n- C. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: November 22, 2022 Hartford, Connecticut\n\n## **Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.**\n\n*By: /s/ Patrick M. Birney* Patrick M. Birney (CT No. 19875) Annecca H. Smith (CT No. 31148) **ROBINSON & COLE LLP** 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8275 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: pbirney@rc.com asmith@rc.com\n\n-and-\n\nPeter Friedman (admitted *pro hac vice*) Stuart M. Sarnoff (admitted *pro hac vice*) **O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP** Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 Email: pfriedman@omm.com ssarnoff@omm.com","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT（美国破产法院）\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（康涅狄格区）\nBRIDGEPORT DIVISION（布里奇波特分部）\n\n关于： 第 11 章案件编号：\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 （合并审理）\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙） 对 对抗性程序编号 22-_______ (JAM)\n原告。\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， 被告。 2022年11月22日\n\n申请禁令救济之起诉状\n\n根据 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（《联邦破产诉讼规则》，简称“Bankruptcy Rules”）第 7001(7) 条和第 7065 条以及 United States Code（《美国法典》）第 11 编（即“Bankruptcy Code”，《破产法典》）第 105(a) 条，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（“PAX”或“原告”）针对被告 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“郭文贵”）提起本起诉状，请求禁止债务人在互联网上或其他渠道发布旨在骚扰或恐吓 PAX、其员工及其代表的信息、视频或其他通信——包括通过发布 PAX 管理人的主席及其家庭成员、受托人及其家庭成员的家庭住址，以及 PAX 的法律顾问和第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）Luc Despins 的办公地址——或以其他方式影响本破产程序的迅速审理。为此，PAX 陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（又名郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）（“郭文贵”或“个人债务人”）、Genever Holdings Corporation（“Genever BVI”）以及 Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）（“Genever US”）。受托人、Genever BVI 和 Genever US 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知和通信目的）。\n\n导言\n\n1. 债务人的惯用手法是利用社交媒体作为工具来骚扰和恐吓其对手，以企图逃避法律程序——特别是当他面临不利后果的前景时。PAX（郭文贵的最大债权人）及其法律顾问长期承受着郭文贵胡作非为的冲击，包括郭文贵公开指控 PAX、其代理律师、乃至负责审理 PAX 与郭文贵之间破产申请前诉讼的州法院法官是中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party，简称“CCP”）的特工。但在其最新的招数中，郭文贵更是堕落到了新的底线，在在线社交媒体平台 Gettr（盖特）上向其 171,200 名关注者公布了与其对立的各方的家庭和工作地址，包括 PAX 管理人的主席单伟建先生（Mr. Shan Weijian）、PAX 的法律顾问、受托人、受托人所在的律师事务所及其非当事人家庭成员的地址，并附上一则信息，敦促其关注者在这些住所或办公室外举行至少 90 天的抗议活动。\n\n2. 郭文贵的爆发及其不断升级的威胁发生之际，正值受托人即将为债权人的利益而锁定郭文贵的资产，且郭文贵因未能遵守本法院的公司治理命令而再次面临被裁定藐视法庭的风险。郭文贵及其家庭成员、商业伙伴和关联实体正面临着强制执行 Rule 2004 证据开示请求的动议（不顾郭文贵的异议），以及将一直挂起于 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的一项与郭文贵有关的第 11 章程序移送至本法院的动议。郭文贵无法摆脱自己自愿提起的第 11 章程序——包括其对透明度和程序公正的要求——因而在网上宣泄其沮丧情绪，并捏造了一场旨在破坏和动摇这些破产程序的阴谋。\n\n3. 郭文贵通过以虚假指控针对诉讼当事人及其家庭成员并在其住所外煽动抗议，不仅威胁破坏这些程序的有序审理——他还危及了被针对个人的安全与保障。此外，如下文所述，他的行为违反了州法和联邦法。\n\n4. PAX 寻求临时限制令及初步禁令，以禁止郭文贵继续进行其网络骚扰和恐吓活动；如果不予制止，该活动将继续导致单先生及其家庭成员；PAX 的管理人员、员工和法律顾问；以及受托人、其家人及其法律顾问对他们的人身安全感到恐惧，并威胁破坏这些第 11 章程序的有序审理。\n\n管辖权与审理地\n\n5. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334，本法院具有审理本对抗性程序的管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)，本程序属于核心程序。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，本区是合适的审理地。\n\n6. 本法院对本程序享有实质管辖权，因为郭文贵先生的发布内容与第 11 章程序相关，且意图传达给 PAX 和受托人以影响这些程序的审理。\n\n7. 根据 Bankruptcy Rule 7008，PAX 同意由本法院在本对抗性程序中作出最终命令或最终判决。\n\n当事人\n\n8. 原告 PAX 是一家根据开曼群岛法律设立的获豁免有限合伙形式的投资基金。PAX 是郭文贵第 11 章程序中的最大债权人，且金额显著领先。\n\n9. 被告郭文贵是一名定居于康涅狄格州的中国公民，且是本法院审理的案号为 55-bk-50073 的 In re Ho Wan Kwok 第 11 章破产程序中的债务人。\n\n事实背景\n\nA. 在郭文贵未能偿还贷款后，PAX 在州法院获得了针对郭文贵的 1.16 亿美元判决。\n\n10. 大约十一年前，PAX 与郭文贵拥有的一家名为 Shiny Times 的实体签署了一份贷款协议。郭文贵为该贷款提供了个人担保。尽管多次延期还款且 PAX 多次尝试结清该笔债务，但郭文贵从未偿还该贷款。\n\n11. 2017年4月18日，PAX 在 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）起诉郭文贵违反个人担保合同。经过近四年的诉讼，2021年2月3日，PAX 获得了针对郭文贵的 116,402,019.57 美元的判决。随后，PAX“开展了长达数年的执行判决的努力，首先是查明然后企图扣押郭文贵在美国的资产”。这绝非易事，因为正如 Justice Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）所认定，“郭文贵自称是亿万富翁，却将他的资产隐匿在迷宫般的公司实体和家庭成员之中”。郭文贵至今尚未偿还该 116,402,019.57 美元判决中的任何款项，该判决按每年 9% 的利率计收判决后利息。\n\nB. 州法院裁定郭文贵藐视法庭，并命令其支付 1.34 亿美元。\n\n12. PAX 为执行该判决所做努力的一部分涉及郭文贵的豪华超级游艇 Lady May（“梅号”）。尽管郭文贵声称自己没有任何资产，但他（至少）对在 2015 年以 28,000,000 欧元购买的“梅号”享有实益所有权。2020年9月30日，奥斯特拉格法官发布了一项临时限制令，阻止郭文贵“进行或促成对其享有权益的任何财产进行任何出售、让与、转让或干涉……”。两周后，于 2020年10月15日，奥斯特拉格法官明确指出，对郭文贵的这一限制包括“梅号”。但奥斯特拉格法官和 PAX 所不知的是，“梅号”早在 10月9日左右就已经离开纽约前往佛罗里达。该游艇随后前往巴哈马，最后前往欧洲。\n\n13. 对此，PAX 提出了藐视法庭动议，2021年3月16日，法院发布了一项民事藐视法庭附条件命令，责令郭文贵或该船的登记所有人于 2021年5月15日之前将“梅号”归还至法院管辖范围内，并在其后该游艇仍处于其管辖范围之外的每一天处以 500,000 美元的罚款。New York Appellate Division, First Department（纽约州上诉法院第一分部）一致维持了一审法院的命令，认定：(i) PAX 已“以明确且令人信服的证据证明，郭文贵违反了法院明确合法且为其所知悉的指令，且该违反行为损害了 PAX 的权利……”；以及 (ii) “每日 500,000 美元的罚款旨在强烈敦促郭文贵纠正其藐视法庭行为”。因此，第一分部指示奥斯特拉格法官在发布最终藐视法庭命令之前，“进行证据听证会，以解决关于游艇的所有权和控制权的争议，并评估适当的处罚”。\n\n14. 奥斯特拉格法官于 2022年2月2日举行了该证据听证会。在听取了七名证人的证词后，奥斯特拉格法官得出结论：“听证会上从郭文贵证人口中引出的证词明确且令人信服地证明，郭文贵实益拥有并控制‘梅号’，并且对本法院和司法程序抱有彻底的蔑视”。法院进一步认定，“郭文贵不仅控制着该游艇，而且看来是他提供了购买该游艇的资金，并且他是主要享受使用该游艇的人”。因此，奥斯特拉格法官于 2月9日作出了藐视法庭裁定（“藐视法庭裁定”），根据“截至 2022年2月7日”，“‘梅号’留在本法院管辖范围之外”的“268 天”，处以 1.34 亿美元的罚款。\n\nC. 郭文贵未支付罚款，反而申请了破产。\n\n15. 与其以往藐视法院命令的惯常做法一致，郭文贵未能支付藐视法庭罚款。相反，2022年2月15日，郭文贵在本法院申请了破产。郭文贵的破产申请书列出了 50,001 美元至 100,000 美元的资产——完全遗漏了价值不菲的“梅号”。\n\n16. 2022年3月1日，PAX 提出动议，请求确认自动中止对藐视法庭裁定不适用，理由是自动中止是针对诚实、善意的债务人的，并不旨在包庇像郭文贵这样无视法院命令并践踏司法系统尊严的债务人免受其后果。面对本法院可能允许在申请破产后继续执行藐视法庭裁定的前景，郭文贵走到了谈判桌前，双方提交了一份强制将“梅号”送回康涅狄格州水域的约定命令。该协议要求一家名为 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（“HK USA”）的实体——即“梅号”据称的技术所有人——向托管代理存入 37,000,000 美元，以确保 HK USA 将游艇归还至本管辖区域，并建立一项准备金，用于恢复游艇良好运行状态所需的所有维修。\n\n17. 2022年3月21日，United States Trustee（美国受托人，简称“UST”）动议指定审查员或第 11 章受托人。2022年4月6日，PAX 动议驳回该案，或者在退一步的情况下，加入 UST 要求指定受托人的动议。面对受托人或审查员调查其资产的前景，郭文贵于 2022年5月11日同意了 PAX 驳回案件的动议，并援引 PAX 合理的证据开示努力（他称之为“不受约束的法律战”）作为理由。\n\nD. 本法院指定了一名受托人来监督郭文贵的资产。\n\n18. 本法院于 2022年6月15日批准了 PAX 指定受托人的动议，并驳回了驳回案件的动议。2022年7月8日，本法院不顾郭文贵的异议，作出了指定 Luc Despins 为受托人的命令。\n\n19. 2022年8月10日，法院作出一项裁定（即《公司治理裁定》），授予受托人对债务人在受债务人控制的实体中所享有的全部经济权利及公司治理权利的控制权，并指示债务人“与受托人合作，以使受托人能够履行其职责”，以及“向受托人移交全部破产财产及任何记录信息，包括但不限于与破产财产相关的账簿、文件、记录和文书”。\n\n20. 2022年8月16日，法院批准了受托人就债务人、其法律与财务顾问以及与债务人关联的实体和个人进行《破产程序规则》第2004条项下证据开示的申请。并且，于2022年10月28日，受托人提出动议，强令债务人、其妻子和女儿、其商业合伙人及关联实体遵守第2004条裁定以及受托人签发的传票。\n\nE. Kwok（郭文贵）面临又一项藐视法庭动议及额外的证据开示。\n\n21. 2022年10月4日，受托人提出动议，请求法院以债务人未遵守公司治理裁定为由认定其构成民事藐视法庭。2022年11月16日，法院就该动议举行了听证会。\n\n22. 2022年10月11日，受托人对 Bravo Luck 及 Qiang Guo（郭强，郭文贵的儿子）提起对抗制诉讼起诉状，就债务人滥用公司形式使自身免受判决执行并将资产置于债权人无法触及范围之行为寻求救济。\n\n23. 2022年11月8日，受托人提出动议，请求作出设定债权申报截止日期的裁定。2022年11月11日，郭文贵接受了受托人的口供采录。\n\n24. 2022年11月17日，法院作出一项裁定，指示对相关第11章破产案件进行合并审理，从而将 Genever Holdings, LLC——一家曾在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）申请第11章破产保护的郭文贵关联实体——的破产程序移送至本法院。\n\nF. 随着案情对郭文贵愈发不利，郭文贵转而求助于其庞大的社交媒体粉丝群体。\n\n25. 随着时间的推移，郭文贵在诸如 YouTube、GTV、Twitter 以及 Gettr 等各种数字与媒体平台上积累了超过100万粉丝。郭文贵在 Gettr 上拥有“已认证账户”（其用户名旁边的红色“V”标志即是明证），并且每天向超过17.1万名 Gettr 粉丝发布数次内容。\n\nG. 郭文贵发布了关于 PAG 主席及其家人、受托人及其家人，以及 PAX 和受托人律师的信息以及骚扰性和诽谤性言论，煽动其粉丝前往其住所或办公室进行抗议。\n\n26. 2022年11月16日，郭文贵在其主要社交媒体阵地之一 Gettr 上转发并置顶了一条由“Himalaya Global Alliance（全球喜马拉雅联盟）”发布的帖子（源自名为“NFSC Speaks”的 Gettr 账户），煽动支持者前往“已知的中共特务和同情者”的地址抗议。该通讯内容公布了：(i) 受托人的家庭住址；(ii) 受托人前配偶及其家人的家庭住址或居住城市；(iii) 受托人代理律师事务所 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）的纽约办公室地址；(iv) PAG[2] 主席单先生及其家庭成员的家庭住址；以及 (v) PAX 代理律师事务所 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）的纽约办公室地址。\n\n2 PAG 是 PAX 的管理人。\n\n27. “NFSC Speaks”中的“NFSC”即“New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）”，是由郭文贵先生共同创立的组织。事实上，正是郭文贵本人——与 Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）一道——在社交媒体和网络视频中宣布成立了 NFSC。换言之，郭文贵置顶在其个人 Gettr 账户上的帖子来自一个由其组织且与其关系密切的机构。\n\n28. 债务人还在其 Gettr 页面上转发了录制于2022年11月16日的一段较长视频（即“11月16日视频”）的剪辑片段，该视频最初由 NFSC Speaks 发布，其中包含对 PAX 和单先生（以及受托人和受托人所属的普衡律师事务所）的大量攻击。该完整的11月16日视频充斥着对 PAX 和受托人的令人发指的、毫无事实根据的且无理纠缠的攻击：\n\n- a. 指控单先生利用“来自美国和中国人民的钱……奴役中国人民”，并指其是为共产党“盗窃养老基金的间谍和窃贼”。\n- b. 声称受托人“为中共利益服务”，并反复展示受托人与被涂成红色且带有醒目锤子和镰刀图案的中国地图合在一起的照片。\n- c. 进一步威胁受托人，称 NFSC 运动及其追随者将“确保你生活中的每一个人……都知道你对中国人民所做的一切……那些集中营能够建起来全都是因为你”。\n- d. 威胁受托人，称“你有家人，对吧，我希望他们正在看这个”，并承诺要“确保他们知道有你这样的父亲应该感到可耻”。\n- e. 称受托人和 PAX 的律师为“美国叛徒”和“邪恶的帮凶”，帮助中共建造集中营，且“手上沾满了中国人民的鲜血”，并将受托人和 PAX 的律师比作大屠杀期间“迫害犹太人”的律师。\n\n29. 2022年11月18日，郭文贵又转发了一段视频（即“11月18日视频”），该视频再次发起大量毫无事实根据且令人发指的攻击，企图恐吓受托人、PAX 的律师以及受托人，其中包括：\n\n- a. 展示受托人以及 PAX 律师（包括 Sarnoff、Friedman 和 Harbach 先生）的照片，并指控他们（除其他事项外）“比二战期间的纳粹勾结者还要恶劣”。\n- b. 威胁受托人和 PAX 的律师，称（除其他事项外）他们将“确保你生活中的每一个人……都知道你对中国人民所做的可怕行径”。\n- c. 展示受托人家人的照片，指明其姓名和雇主，并且（在其他骇人听闻的言论中）声称“你们的父亲[受托人]……简直就是把数百万维吾尔人关进集中营的凶手”。\n- d. 展示 PAX 律师、受托人及受托人家人的照片，并配以带有醒目锤子和镰刀图案的红色中国地图。\n\n30. 2022年11月18日，PAX 的律师获悉，数个地方警察局已联系单先生的家庭成员，提醒他们抗议活动迫在眉睫。\n\n31. 2022年11月19日，郭文贵转发了另一条 NFSC Speaks 的帖子，其中展示了四张图片：一张是受托人被修改成身穿中国军装样貌的图片，另外三张是受托人家人的 LinkedIn 个人资料图片，指明了他们的雇主。配文声称受托人“协助并教唆中共……迫害中国人民”。\n\n32. 债务人转发到其自己 Gettr 页面上的部分 NFSC 帖子中，包含对 NFSC 帖子的暴力回复。例如，一名评论者在一条 NFSC 帖子下威胁称，单先生的家人“将成为其父亲或丈夫恶行的代价。这实际上就是所谓的‘祭妻’和‘祭子’”。\n\n33. 2022年11月20日，一群与债务人结盟的抗议者聚集在 PAG 主席家庭成员、受托人以及受托人家人的住所外进行抗议。站在受托人家外的抗议者阻碍交通，散发传单，传单中（除其他内容外）宣称他们是在抗议“针对华裔美国人的种族和政治迫害”，并声称：\n\n你的邻居 Luc Albert Despins（吕克·阿尔伯特·德斯宾斯）及其所在的 Paul Hastings LLP 律师事务所是中共反人类罪行、渗透美国法律金融体系以及在海外迫害中国异见人士的资助者与帮凶。尽管中共在新疆持续进行种族灭绝并有着侵犯人权的历史，普衡律师事务所仍代表中共追捕中国异见人士，摧毁中国自由战士的生计。\n\n34. 此外，受托人收到的报告显示，一名 NFSC 代表威胁称受托人“余生都将生活在恐惧之中”。有关这些抗议者的其他行为在受托人于2022年11月21日提交的诉状[ECF 1133]中有详细说明，并在此援引并入本文。\n\n35. 次日，即2022年11月21日，抗议者在 O'Melveny & Myers LLP 位于纽约市和华盛顿特区的办公室外组织了活动。他们手举印有美迈斯律师（Sarnoff 先生、Friedman 先生和 Harbach 先生）及美迈斯主席照片的标语牌，宣称他们是中共特务。标语牌还在美迈斯律师的额头上“烙上”了红色的锤子和镰刀图案。抗议者在 Paul Hastings LLP 的纽约办公室外举行了类似的示威活动，展示含有受托人及其律师 Bassett 先生和 Luft 先生照片的诽谤性标语牌。纽约的一名抗议者试图进入普衡律师事务所的内部办公区域，谎称其与 Bassett 先生有预约会面。\n\n36. 最后，在2022年11月21日的案件进展会议期间，本法院询问郭文贵的律师能否保证郭文贵将停止此类行为模式。郭文贵的律师回答“不能”。\n\nH. 郭文贵的人肉搜索行为是在对 PAX、受托人及其各自代表进行了长达数月的抹黑行动之后发生的。\n\n37. 尽管这可能是郭文贵首次公开其法律对手家庭成员的家庭住址及其他个人信息，但通过其社交媒体扩音器散布虚假信息以在其追随者中煽动愤怒和恶毒情绪，长期以来一直是郭文贵的惯常做法。例如，在2022年7月8日的一条帖子中，郭文贵指控 PAX 在本破产案中就指定第11章破产受托人一事存在欺诈行为并与中共勾结。\n\n38. 同样，在2022年7月8日的另一条帖子中，郭文贵宣称所有“与 PAG（PAX 的管理人）勾结”的律师和官员，包括美迈斯律师事务所的一名前合伙人，最终都会被关进监狱。\n\n39. 此外，在2022年7月10日的一条帖子中，郭文贵称受托人为“人渣”和“垃圾律师”，并虚假宣称受托人所在的律师事务所50%的收入来自中共。\n\n40. 郭文贵在2022年7月13日的帖子中继续这种不当行为模式，指控受托人在法庭上进行欺诈，并号召其追随者“挖出[受托人]担任受托人的所有破产案件，以及[受托人所在的律师事务所]代表中共公司进行的所有 IPO 交易和业务”。\n\n41. 同样，在2022年7月17日的一条帖子中，郭文贵点名指控代表 PAX 的特定律师与中共勾结。\n\n42. 并且，在2022年7月19日的一条帖子中，郭文贵敦促他的“战友们”“请传播有关中共军事情报真相以及我破产案受托人真相的爆料”。在该帖子所附的视频中，郭文贵虚假宣称美迈斯前合伙人的律师执照“肯定会被吊销”，并称美迈斯和普衡是“邪恶的”。\n\n43. 鉴于郭文贵在其受众中的巨大影响力，这些帖子往往会吸引数以千计的“点赞”、“转发”和/或“评论”。\n\n救济请求\n\n第一项请求\n\n（依据 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 请求作出裁定）\n\n44. 原告重申第1段至第43段中包含的各项主张，其内容在此援引并入，如同在本文中完整陈述一样。\n\n45. 原告依据 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 提起本项主张，该条款规定地区法院可以“签发为其各自管辖权所必要或适当的一切令状”。\n\n46. 郭文贵企图通过其 Gettr 帖子扰乱并操纵这些破产程序的有效推进。\n\n47. 此外，Kwok（郭文贵）的行为违反了 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) 和 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-183(a)(3)。\n\n48. 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2) 规定：“任何人——(2) 意图”“骚扰”或“恐吓”，“使用……任何交互式计算机服务”“从事对该人造成重大精神痛苦，或使该人合理地对其本人或其直系亲属及配偶或亲密伴侣的死亡或严重人身伤害产生恐惧的一系列行为”，即违反联邦跟踪骚扰法规。\n\n49. 根据 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-183(a)(3)，“当某人意图骚扰、恐吓或惊吓他人，且无合法目的，通过可能引起恐慌、恐吓或惊吓的方式，向数字、电子、网络或其他会议空间传播或分享照片、视频或文字，或进行任何其他形式的交流时，该人即构成骚扰罪”。\n\n50. 债务人利用社交媒体平台 Gettr（盖特）骚扰和恐吓诉讼对手及其各自亲属，以及其他债权人或潜在证人。\n\n51. 因此，有理由依据 18 U.S.C. § 1651(a) 作出命令。\n\n诉讼请求\n\n第二项诉由\n\n（根据 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) 申请命令）\n\n52. 原告在此重申第 1 至 43 段中所载的指控，这些指控如同在此完全载明一样通过援引并入本文。\n\n53. 《破产法典》第 105(a) 条规定：“法院可以签发执行本编规定所必需或适当的任何命令、程序或判决。”11 U.S.C. § 105(a)。\n\n54. 郭文贵最近的爆发性言论是专门为了通过社交媒体骚扰当事各方，从而阻碍本案的有序推进。这些行为削弱了法院监督破产案件公平公正管理的权力，反而通过排挤和恐吓郭文贵的最大债权人和破产受托人，以及其他债权人和潜在证人，破坏了破产程序。\n\n55. 因此，有理由依据 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) 作出命令。\n\n求偿声明\n\n据此，原告恳请本法院作出有利于原告并对郭文贵不利的判决，并给予以下救济：\n\nA. 法院应禁止并制止被告 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、其管理人员、代理人、受雇人、雇员和律师，以及与上述人员积极串通或参与的其他人员：(i) 在网上发布有关受托人、PAX 的管理人 PAG（太盟投资集团）董事长 Shan Weijian（单伟建）、PAX 或 PAG 的其他管理人员和雇员及其各自亲属的住所地址和其他个人信息；(ii) 在网上发布有关受托人、PAX 或 PAG 的管理人员或雇员、受托人或 PAX 的律师以及他们各自亲属的虚假和骚扰性材料；以及 (iii) 鼓励、煽动、建议或直接或间接资助在受托人、PAX 或 PAG 的管理人员或雇员、受托人或 PAX 的律师以及他们各自亲属的住所举行的抗议活动；\n\nB. 法院应责令被告郭文贵删除所有现存的社交媒体帖子，这些帖子：(i) 包含有关受托人、PAX 或 PAG 管理人员或雇员、受托人或 PAX 的律师以及他们各自亲属的个人信息；以及 (ii) 鼓励、煽动或建议对受托人、任何 PAX 或 PAG 管理人员或雇员、受托人或 PAX 的律师以及他们各自亲属进行抗议、骚扰、人肉搜索（doxing）或类似行为。\n\nC. 法院认为公正且适当的其他救济。\n\n日期：2022年11月22日 康涅狄格州哈特福德\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick M. Birney\nPatrick M. Birney（康涅狄格州律师执照号：19875）\nAnnecca H. Smith（康涅狄格州律师执照号：31148）\nROBINSON & COLE LLP\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n电话：(860) 275-8275\n传真：(860) 275-8299\n电子邮件：pbirney@rc.com\nasmith@rc.com\n\n以及\n\nPeter Friedman（获准特别出庭）\nStuart M. Sarnoff（获准特别出庭）\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n电话：(212) 326-2000\n传真：(212) 326-2061\n电子邮件：pfriedman@omm.com\nssarnoff@omm.com","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4417,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:37:35"}