{"id":"court_sdny_1604_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1604,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 1604","summary_zh":"对抗诉讼起诉书 —— 第11章破产案相关，康州破产法院案号 22-50073，ECF 1604（2023年3月27日）。第11章破产受托人 Luc A. Despins 起诉 Greenwich Land LLC 和成员 Hing Chi Ngok，主张 Greenwich Land 系债务人替身实体，要求法院宣布并下令交出其全部资产；同时主张 Ngok 持有的 Greenwich Land 成员权益属债务人破产产业，要求交出该权益及相关公司控制权。","summary_en":"Adversary Proceeding Complaint —— Related to Chapter 11 bankruptcy case No. 22-50073, Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, ECF 1604 (filed March 27, 2023). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins sues Greenwich Land, LLC and member Hing Chi Ngok, asserting that Greenwich Land is an alter ego of the Debtor and seeking court declaration and orders for turnover of all its assets; also seeks declaration that Ngok's membership interest in Greenwich Land constitutes property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate and orders for surrender of such interest and related corporate control.","body_en":"| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
&RXUW8VH2QO\\ | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| ,QVWUXFWLRQVRQ5HYHUVH | | | |\n| | | | |\n| PLAINTIFFS | DEFENDANTS | | |\n| Luc
A.
Despins,
Chapter
11
Trustee | Greenwich
Land,
LLC
and
Hing
Chi
Ngok | | |\n| | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS )LUP1DPH\\$GGUHVVDQG7HOHSKRQH1R | ATTORNEYS,I.QRZQ | | |\n| Paul Hastings LLP (c/o Douglass Barron), 200 Park Avenue | Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. (c/o Evan S. Goldstein), 3225 | | |\n| New York, New York 10166, douglassbarron@paulhastings.com | Asylum Street - 20th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103,
egoldstein@uks.com | | |\n| PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\ | PARTY &KHFN2QH%R[2QO\\ | | |\n| 867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ
Ƒ
'HEWRU
Ƒ | Ƒ
Ƒ
'HEWRU
867UXVWHH%DQNUXSWF\\\\$GPLQ | | |\n| Ƒ
&UHGLWRU
Ƒ
2WKHU | Ƒ
Ƒ
&UHGLWRU
2WKHU | | |\n| Ƒ
7UXVWHH | Ƒ
7UXVWHH | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION | :5,7(\\$%5,()67\\$7(0(172)&\\$86(2)\\$&7,21,1&/8',1*\\$//8667\\$787(6,192/9(' | | |\n| First Claim, an order declaring that: at all times Greenwich Land was an alter ego of the Debtor and ordering the turnover | | | |\n| of any and all of Greenwich Land's assets to the Trustee; Second Claim, an order declaring that the membership interest | | | |\n| in Greenwich Land purportedly held by the Defendant Ngok to be property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate and ordering
the surrender of such membership interest and all related rights of corporate control, to the Trustee. | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT | | | |\n| 1XPEHUXSWRILYHER[HVVWDUWLQJZLWKOHDGFDXVHRIDFWLRQDVILUVWDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVVHFRQGDOWHUQDWLYHFDXVHDVHWF | | | |\n| | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
Ƒ | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
Ƒ | | |\n| 5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†WXUQRYHURISURSHUW\\
Ƒ | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW
Ƒ | | |\n| 5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†SUHIHUHQFH
Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\†IUDXGXOHQWWUDQVIHU | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DZLOOIXODQGPDOLFLRXVLQMXU\\
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DVWXGHQWORDQ | | |\n| Ƒ
5HFRYHU\\RIPRQH\\SURSHUW\\RWKHU | Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DGLYRUFHRUVHSDUDWLRQREOLJDWLRQ | | |\n| FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien | RWKHUWKDQGRPHVWLFVXSSRUW
Ƒ | | |\n| Ƒ
9DOLGLW\\SULRULW\\RUH[WHQWRIOLHQRURWKHULQWHUHVWLQSURSHUW\\ | 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\RWKHU | | |\n| FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
Ƒ | | |\n| Ƒ
\\$SSURYDORIVDOHRISURSHUW\\RIHVWDWHDQGRIDFRRZQHU†K | ,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±LPSRVLWLRQRIVWD\\
Ƒ | | |\n| | ,QMXQFWLYHUHOLHI±RWKHU | | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
Ƒ
2EMHFWLRQUHYRFDWLRQRIGLVFKDUJH†FGH | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
Ƒ | | |\n| | 6XERUGLQDWLRQRIFODLPRULQWHUHVW | | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
Ƒ
5HYRFDWLRQRIFRQILUPDWLRQ | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
Ƒ | | |\n| | 'HFODUDWRU\\MXGJPHQW | | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
Ƒ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action | | |\n| 'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†D\\$SULRULW\\WD[FODLPV
Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIDOVHSUHWHQVHVIDOVHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ | Ƒ
'HWHUPLQDWLRQRIUHPRYHGFODLPRUFDXVH | | |\n| DFWXDOIUDXG | Other | | |\n| Ƒ
'LVFKDUJHDELOLW\\†DIUDXGDVILGXFLDU\\HPEH]]OHPHQWODUFHQ\\ | Ƒ
666,3\\$&DVH±86&††DDDet.seq. | | |\n| (continued next column) | Ƒ
2WKHUHJRWKHUDFWLRQVWKDWZRXOGKDYHEHHQEURXJKWLQVWDWHFRXUW | | |\n| Ƒ
&KHFNLIWKLVFDVHLQYROYHVDVXEVWDQWLYHLVVXHRIVWDWHODZ | LIXQUHODWHGWREDQNUXSWF\\FDVH
Ƒ
&KHFNLIWKLVLVDVVHUWHGWREHDFODVVDFWLRQXQGHU)5&3 | | |\n| Ƒ &KHFNLIDMXU\\WULDOLVGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW | 'HPDQG | | |\n| 2WKHU5HOLHI6RXJKW | | | |\n| Declaratory
relief
pursuant
to
541,
542,
and
544
of
the
Bankruptcy
Code | | | |\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------|---------------------------------------|----------------|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | | |\n| Ho Wan Kwok | | 22-50073 (JAM) | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| Connecticut | | Bridgeport | Manning, J. | | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY | | |\n| | | | PROCEEDING NO. | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| /s/ Douglass Barron | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | |\n| | | Douglass Barron | | | |\n| Mar. 27, 2023 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n### INSTRUCTIONS\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CMECF). (CMECF captures the information on form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\nPlaintiffs and Defendants. Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\nAttorneys. Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\nParty. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the second column for the defendants.\n\nDemand. Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\nSignature. This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | | x | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|------------------|-------------------------|---|\n| In re: | | :
: | Chapter 11 | |\n| et al.,1
HO WAN KWOK, | | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| | Debtors. | :
:
: | (Jointly Administered) | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE, | | x
:
:
: | | |\n| v. | Plaintiff, | :
:
:
: | Adv. Proceeding No. [ | ] |\n| GREENWICH
LAND,
HING CHI NGOK, | LLC
and | :
: | March 27, 2023 | |\n| ------------------------------------------------------ | Defendants. | :
:
:
x | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK SEEKING (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT GREENWICH LAND LLC IS ALTER EGO OF DEBTOR, AND (II) RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendant Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich\n\nLand\"), stating as follows:\n\n 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to remedy another of the Debtor's attempts to use a shell company under his control, while nominally held by a family member, to keep one of his valuable assets out of the reach of creditors.\n\n2. The shell company here is Greenwich Land, the family member, Hing Chi Ngok, the Debtor's wife2 and Greenwich Land's purported owner. The valuable property includes the Debtor's residence in Greenwich, Connecticut, purchased in 2020 for \\$4.6 million.\n\n3. As will be discussed herein, Greenwich Land is the Debtor's alter ego or, in the alternative, is equitably owned by, the Debtor. In either case, its assets or the value of such assets should be brought into the Debtor's chapter 11 estates. Among other things, Greenwich Land was managed by the Debtor's agents and/or employees, and was funded by the Debtor's other shell companies. Greenwich Land even shares a New York City address at 162 E 64th St. with the Debtor and his other shell companies. The Debtor uses Greenwich Land's asset, the Taconic Road Property, as his residence, and Greenwich Land pays the Debtor's associated residential expenses. Moreover, it was the Debtor who orchestrated and controlled Greenwich Land's real estate transactions, not Defendant Ngok, who testified at her deposition that, despite being the sole purported member of Greenwich Land, she knew nothing about Greenwich Land, its assets, or its operations.\n\n4. The Trustee is therefore entitled to a ruling that Greenwich Land's assets, and/or Greenwich Land itself, belong to the chapter 11 estate and should be turned over to the Trustee.\n\n 2 While this complaint refers to Defendant Ngok as the Debtor's wife, the Debtor has disclosed that there is no marriage certificate documenting the relationship, and the Trustee reserves his rights to contest the couple's status in connection with assertions of marital privilege or other issues. *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) Docket No. 77 (\"SOFA\") at 11.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n6. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a).\n\n### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n8. Greenwich Land is a Delaware limited liability company with an address at 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065.\n\n9. Hing Chi Ngok (\"Defendant Ngok\") is the Debtor's wife and the purported sole member of Greenwich Land.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n10. As discussed further below, numerous facts establish that Greenwich Land is an alter ego of (or equitably owned by) the Debtor and used by the Debtor to shield his multimillion dollar residence in Greenwich, Connecticut (the \"Taconic Road Property\") from creditors.\n\n11. The Debtor's control over Greenwich Land is part and parcel of the Debtor's prolific use of shell companies purportedly owned by family members or business subordinates to shield his assets and activities from creditors. The Debtor's shell game has allowed him to continue to deny ownership of assets, refuse to pay debts, and—until his recent arrest by the FBI—live a life of luxury.\n\n3\n\n12. Among other examples, shell companies purportedly owned by the Debtor's son (Lamp Capital LLC and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.) have paid his living expenses and legal fees, a shell company purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter (Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited) has held title to the Debtor's yacht,3 and another shell company purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter (Whitecroft Shore Limited) has held title to the Debtor's private jet. 4 Meanwhile, the Debtor claims that his apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel is held in trust for the benefit of yet another shell company purportedly owned by his son (Bravo Luck Limited). The Debtor also controls numerous other entities, including, among many others, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. and Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. (purported nonprofit entities founded by the Debtor), 6 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC and its subsidiary Hudson Diamond NY LLC (purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter), and Leading Shine NY Limited (purportedly owned by Yvette Wang).8\n\n13. This Court has already found that numerous purportedly independent entities and organizations involved in the Debtor's recent social media and protest campaign against PAX\n\n3 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against this entity in adversary proceeding 22-05003, in connection with which the Court recently entered a prejudgment remedy and preliminary injunction orders against Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited and Mei Guo. See Order Granting Trustee's Application for Prejudgment Remedy (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 140); Order Granting Trustee's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 142).\n\n4 See Ex. 1 Mei Guo Dep. Tr. at 68:16-24, 74:12-19 (\"Q. Do any of the companies that you control have as an asset an airplane? . . . A . · It has happened. . . . Q. And you don't recall which of your entities held that plane . . . ? A. I can't remember the full name. I think it's probably Whiteraft.\"); Ex. 2, Whitecroft Shore Limited Register of Members; Declaration of Mei Guo in Response to Contempt & Sanctions Order; ¶ 56 (Docket No. 1543). At her deposition in January 2023, Mei Guo stated that the airplane had been sold for \\$10 million, which funds were being held for her by a third party whose name she did not know. See Ex. 1 Mei Guo Dep. Tr. at 71:12-73.9.\n\n5 The Trustee has challenged Bravo Luck Limited's asserted interest in the Sherry Netherland apartment in his Amended Adversary Complaint Against Bravo Luck And Qiang Guo Seeking (I) Invalidation Of Purported Trust Agreement In Favor Of Bravo Luck And, (II) In Alternative, Ruling That Debtor Effectuated Fraudulent Transfer In Favor Of Bravo Luck And Qiang Guo Pursuant To Section 276 Of New York Debtor And Creditor Law, Made Applicable By Section 544 of Bankruptcy Code (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Docket No. 40).\n\nQ Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting In Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ¶ 1 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 133) (the \"PI Decision\").s\n\n7\n\n8\n\n4\n\nand the Trustee were controlled by the Debtor,9 lead by the Debtor,10 or served \"the purposes of . . . and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.11 This Court separately found, in its order holding the Debtor in contempt for violating the Court's corporate governance order, that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and, through it, Dawn State Limited), and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee owner, Yvette Wang.12\n\n14. Similarly, immediately prior to the filing of the Debtor's chapter 11 case in February 2022, in the Debtor's pre-petition litigation against Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund (\"PAX\") in New York state court (the \"State Court Action\"), Justice Ostrager found that it was the Debtor's practice to use shell companies to shield his assets from creditors.13 Justice Ostrager also found that the Lady May yacht was beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor, despite title to the yacht being formally held by Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter.\n\n15. Previously, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found, in a decision issued in 2021, that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, another company purportedly held by the Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor. 14 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited was one of numerous entities whose financial accounts were identified by a 2018 Hong Kong court order to be \"subject to the effective control\" of the Debtor.15\n\n 9 PI Decision, ¶ 3 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n10 PI Decision ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya.\"). 11 *Id.* (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor,\n\nserve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"). 12 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1,4 (Docket No. 1372)\n\n("Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n13 Ex. 5, February 9, 2022 Decision and Order, at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181 (the \"Final Contempt Decision\"). 14 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631 at \\*1.\n\n15 Ex. 6, Hong Kong Restraint Order, pp 7-18.\n\n16. Relatedly, a confidential witness declaration filed by the Trustee under seal at Docket No. 1327 and incorporated by reference as an exhibit in support of this Complaint, establishes, among other things\n\n17. Most recently, on March 15, 2023, the Debtor was arrested in connection with multiple charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.16 The related criminal indictment filed by the Unites States Attorney against the Debtor (the \"Criminal Indictment\") states that the Debtor was \"the leader of, and directed\"17 a scheme in which, among other things, the Debtor and his co-defendant William Je transferred money \"into and through more than approximately 500 accounts held in the names of at least 80 different entities or individuals.\"18 The Criminal Indictment identifies some of the entities and organizations used in the scheme, such as \"GTV, GCLUBS, GMUSIC, GFASHION, and the Himalaya Exchange\" as \"instrumentalities\" used to perpetuate fraud and exploit the Debtor's followers, allowing the Debtor and Je to \"enrich themselves, their family members and their co-conspirators, and to fund [the Debtor's] extravagant lifestyle.\"19 For example, the Criminal Indictment states that G-Club\n\n16 See Ex. 7, Criminal Indictment of Ho Wan Kwok, filed Mar. 6, 2023. (A related criminal complaint was also filed separately against the Debtor's employee, Yvette Wang, based on her participation in the Debtor's criminal scheme. Wang has been charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud, and the making of an unlawful transaction.) *See* Ex. 8, Complaint against Yanping Wang a/k/a/ \"Yvette\", filed March 10, 2023 (the \"Criminal Complaint\"). 17 Criminal Indictment ¶ 6. 18 *Id.* ¶ 3.\n\n19 *Id.* ¶ 2.\n\nfunds were used to purchase for the Debtor, among other things, a \\$26.5 million mansion in New Jersey (along with \\$13 million of related renovations and furnishings).20 In addition, paragraph 13.e.ii of the Criminal Indictment states that approximately \\$5 million in the proceeds of fraudulently solicited loans from members of the Debtor's Himalaya Farm organizations were transferred to an entity \"owned by [the Debtor's] spouse.\"21 That entity is, upon information and belief, Greenwich Land.22\n\n18. In sum, while this Complaint focuses on Greenwich Land, and the Trustee does not yet seek relief against other entities, the Trustee believes that context regarding the Debtor's wide-ranging strategy of using shell companies to shield assets from creditors will assist the Court in understanding the Trustee's position with respect to Greenwich Land. Of course, the Trustee also expressly reserves his rights to pursue actions asserting claims against each of those other entities at the appropriate time.\n\n# B. Formation of Greenwich Land with Assistance of Debtor's Counsel\n\n19. Greenwich Land was formed on July 3, 2019.\n\n20. In addition to its work with respect to Greenwich Land, Hodgson Russ was counsel to the Debtor, his family members, his close associates, and his shell companies in connection with numerous matters, including, among others: 24\n\n#### 23 24\n\n20 Id. ¶15.\n\n21 Id. ¶ 13 .e.ii.\n\n22 The Criminal Complaint also discusses the efforts to which the Debtor and his accomplices will go in order to move assets out of the reach of law enforcement authorities, detailing an unsuccessful attempt by the Debtor's accomplice, William Je, to move \\$46 million from the United Arab Emirates to keep these funds outside of the reach of federal law enforcement. Id. ¶23.\n\n\n\n# **C. Greenwich Land Managed by the Debtor's Employees and/or Agents**\n\n21. According to the Greenwich Land corporate documents, only three individuals other than Defendant Ngok have served as officers of Greenwich Land—Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, and Daniel Podhaskie. Each of these individuals was, at all relevant times, an employee and/or agent of the Debtor.\n\n> a. **Yvette Wang:** The Court has already ruled that \"[t]he Debtor has control over Ms. Wang\" and that he \"has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his behalf to purchase properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\"25 Ms. Wang has served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Golden\n\n 25 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order ¶ 4 [Docket No. 1372].\n\nSpring, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Saraca Media Group, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., and Genever Holdings LLC.26 On March 15, 2023, Ms. Wang was arrested in connection with charges that she had, among other things, conspired with the Debtor to commit wire fraud and securities fraud. On the same day, Magistrate Judge Parker ordered Ms. Wang to be subject to home detention and that she have no contact with the Debtor or other co-conspirators outside presence of counsel.27\n\nb. **Max Krasner:** Mr. Krasner is an employee of Golden Spring who has also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as officer and/or authorized signatory of Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), and Rule of Law Foundation.28\n\n 26 Ex. 11, 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.\"); Ex. 12, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (rendering Ms. Wang signatory) (HR0010121); Ex. 13, Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, (HR0020577); Ex. 14, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, (HR0039240); Ex. 15, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 16, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Criminal Complaint ¶ 9a (\"Wang was an Executive Director of GTV\"); *Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2* ¶ 1, *In re Genever Holdings LLC*, Case No. 22-50592-JAM (Bankr. Conn.) (Docket No. 1).\n\n27 Ex. 17, Wang Criminal Case, Docket No. 3.\n\n28 Ex. 12, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (reflecting Mr. Krasner as the vice president) (HR0010135); Ex. 18, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (HR0010171); Ex. 19, GTV Media Group Cert. of Incorporation, dated April 17, 2020; Ex. 20, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020; Ex. 21, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Foundation (Form 990, Page 7, listing Max Krasner as \"President, Treasurer, Director\").\n\nc. Daniel Podhaskie. Mr. Podhaskie was formerly the Debtor's personal attorney, as well as general counsel to Golden Spring and corporate representative of Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation.29 In addition, Mr. Podhaskie served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as officer and/or authorized signatory for Lamp Capital LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, and Hudson Diamond NY LLC 30\n\n22. Below is a chart showing the tenure and position of Defendant Ngok, Ms. Wang, Mr. Krasner, and Mr. Podhaskie as Greenwich Land officers, as reflected in the Greenwich Land corporate documents reviewed by the Trustee's counsel:\n\n| Individual | Position | Tenure |\n|-------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------|\n| | | |\n| Defendant Ngok | President | 7/3/19 - 7/26/22 |\n| Vice President
Yvette Wang | | 7/3/19 - 9/9/20; |\n| | | 1/19/21 - 7/26/22 |\n| Yvette Wang | Signing Officer | 7/11/19-9/9/20; |\n| | | 1/19/21 - 7/26/22 |\n| Daniel Podhaskie | Vice President | 9/9/20 - 1/19/21 |\n| | | |\n| Daniel Podhaskie | Signing Officer | 9/9/20 - 1/19/21 |\n| | | |\n| Max Krasner | Vice President | 7/11/19 - 11/5/22 |\n| | | |\n\n29 See, e.g., Ex. 22, 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.\"); Ex. 23, Podhaskie Dep. Tr. at 8:8-9:1 (Podhaskie appearing as corporate representative of Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation).\n\n30 See, e.g., Ex. 24, Application for Authority of Lamp Capital LLC, dated Sept. 11, 2020 filed with the State of New York (signed by Podhaskie); Ex. 20, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020; Ex. 25, Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting (HR0039238); Ex. 26, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (HR0039239); Ex. 14, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, (HR0039240); Ex. 27, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond NY LLC (HR0039242);\n\n23. As shown above, on July 26, 2022, shortly after the appointment of the Trustee on July 8, 2022, both Defendant Ngok and Yvette Wang resigned from their positions at Greenwich Land, leaving Mr. Krasner as the only remaining officer.\n\n24. Subsequently, on November 5, 2022, Mr. Krasner resigned from his position at Greenwich Land. 31 According to Greenwich Land's November 8, 2022 response to the Trustee's Rule 2004 subpoena, Mr. Krasner \"served as the primary contact for Greenwich Land\" and \"is the sole officer of and sole custodian of records for Greenwich Land.\" 32\n\n25. **Upon information and belief, Greenwich Land has had no officers or other personnel since Mr. Krasner's resignation on November 5, 2022**.\n\n26. The Trustee has attempted to serve Mr. Krasner with a subpoena at multiple locations, thus far, unsuccessfully, and believes that Mr. Krasner is avoiding service.\n\n### **D. Defendant Ngok Not Involved In Management of Greenwich Land**\n\n27. Defendant Ngok, though purportedly the sole member and owner of Greenwich Land and formerly Greenwich Land's president, has had no involvement in the management of Greenwich Land and has no knowledge regarding the company, its assets, or its operations. Among other things, at her deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004 (\"Rule 2004\"), Defendant Ngok testified that she:\n\n31 Ex. 28, Greenwich Land, LLC's Objections and Responses to Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination at 2.\n\n32 *Id.*\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n### E. Greenwich Land Uses Same Address as Other Debtor Shell Companies\n\n- 28. 9 Greenwich Land uses 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, as its address. 47\n- 29. Jo 162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself. 48 his\n\ncounsel Aaron Mitchell, 49 and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including:\n\n- Golden Spring50 a.\n- HK USA 51 b.\n- c. GTV Media Group, Inc. 52\n- d. Saraca Media Group, Inc. 53\n- e. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC54\n- f. Hudson Diamond NY LLC55\n- g. Rule of Law Foundation56\n\n### 46\n\n- 48 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n- 49 Ex. 32, Consent to Change Attorney, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NY SCEF Doc. No. 338.\n- 50 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n- 51 Ex. 33, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019.\n- 52 Ex. 34, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV Media Group Inc.\n- 53 Ex. 35, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results.\n- 54 Ex. 36, Hudson Diamond NY LLC fact sheet from Hodgson Russ (showing 162 E 64th St. as LLC address).\n\n56 Ex. 37, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.\n\n47 See, e.g., Ex. 31, Greenwich Land Employer Identification Number Application.\n\n55 Id. (showing 162 E 64th St. as Hudson Diamond Holding address).\n\nh. Rule of Law Society 57\n\n## F. Debtor Orchestrated and Controlled Greenwich Land Transactions\n\n31. Upon information and belief, Greenwich Land's principal assets since its formation have consisted of (i) the Ferncliff Road Property, purchased in September 2019 for \\$1.37 million and sold in April 2022, during the Debtor's chapter 11 case, for \\$2.2 million; and (i) the Taconic Road Property, purchased in February 2020 for \\$4.6 million and still held by Greenwich Land as of the date of this Complaint.\n\n32. Greenwich Land's purchase and sale of the Femcliff Road Property and Greenwich Land's purchase of the Taconic Road Property were orchestrated and controlled by the Debtor (and not Greenwich Land's purported owner, Defendant Ngok).\n\n# a. Debtor Orchestrated and Controlled Purchase and Sale of Ferncliff Road Property\n\n33. Greenwich Land's counsel in connection with the August 2019 purchase and April 2022 sale of the Ferncliff Road Property was the law firm of Whitman Breed Abbot & Morgan (\"Whitman Breed\"). The August 2019 retention letter regarding Whitman Breed's representation of Greenwich Land with respect to the purchase of the Ferncliff Road Property\n\n28\n\n57 Ex. 21, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.\n\nwas signed by Max Krasner, on behalf of the Debtor's shell company Golden Spring.59 Whitman Breed also represented Golden Spring and shell company Hudson Diamond NY LLC in connection with certain other potential real estate purchases that did not close.\n\n34. The Whitman Breed attorney handling these matters, Margaret Conboy, testified at her deposition pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 that, among other things, she understood her real client, and the individual making decisions in connection with these real property transactions, to be the Debtor.\n\n35. More particularly, Ms. Conboy testified, among other things, that:\n\na. She never spoke to, does not know the name of, and has never had any communications with Defendant Ngok, and she is not aware of ever having been given instructions from someone else on behalf of Defendant Ngok.60\n\nb. She referred to the Debtor as her client. 61\n\nc. She was advised periodically that the Debtor was the individual making\n\nthe decisions with respect to property transactions.62\n\n 59 Ex. 38, Letter regarding Whitman Breed's representation of Greenwich Land, dated Aug. 16, 2019. Golden Spring's role was described by Yvette Wang in July 2019 as follows: \"Golden Spring NY Ltd, as a family office based in Manhattan, we take care of Miles' and his family's business, projects and assets in the US.\" Ex.\n\n39, Email from Yvette Wang, dated July 11, 2019. 60 *See* Ex. 40, Tr. Conboy Deposition Feb. 21, 2023 at 79:13-80:3 (\"Q.· · Did you ever speak with Mrs. Kwok? A.· · No. Q.· · Do you know the name of Mr. Kwok's wife? A.· · I have no idea, no. Q.· · Have you ever had\n\nany communications with her? A.· · No.\"). 61 *See id.* at 21:15-23 (referencing an email from Conboy to Kevin Walsh, Q: \"You start off: 'Kevin, my client, the Chinese billionaire.' Is that a reference to your client being Mr. Kwok?\" A: \"Yeah\"); *id.* at 21:24-22:7 (Q: \"[T]hen you go on, you say 'the seller accepted his offer of \\$35 million. And then, furthermore, he is meeting with architects. He has an idea of what is involved in building on the parcel.' The \"he\" and the \"his\" there are Mr. Kwok, correct?\" A: \"Yes\"). Conboy alleges she learned that the Debtor was a billionaire of Chinese descent through Google. *Id.* at 16:19-25.\n\n62 *See id.* at 55:15-18 (Q: \"So to be clear, you were advised periodically that Mr. Kwok was making decisions with regard to properties, correct?\" A: \"Correct.\").\n\n- d. She was never told that any other individual apart from the Debtor was making decisions with respect to property transactions.63\n- e. She understood the Debtor to be the relevant individual accepting and/or making offers in connection with property transactions. 64\n- f. In her representation of Greenwich Land (as well as Golden Spring and Hudson Diamond NY LLC), the only individual she dealt with was Max Krasner,65 whom she understood to be working on behalf of the Debtor.66\n- 36. In addition to the above, the key transaction documents related to the purchase\n\nand sale of the Ferncliff Road Property were signed on behalf of Greenwich Land by Mr.\n\nKrasner, whom Ms. Conboy understood to be working on the Debtor's behalf.\n\n# **b. Debtor Orchestrated and Controlled Purchase of Taconic Road Property**\n\n37. Whitman Breed did not represent Greenwich Land in connection with the purchase of the Taconic Road Property due to a conflict. Whitman Breed represented the sellers of the property. Greenwich Land was represented with respect to this transaction by another law\n\nfirm.\n\n 63 *See* Ex. 40, Tr. Conboy Deposition Feb. 21, 2023 at 87:25-88:12 (Q: \"Were you ever told that there was any decision maker other than Mr. Kwok in connection with real estate transactions related to the work you were doing for Golden Spring, Greenwich Land, or Hudson Diamond?\" A: \"I was never told who was making the decisions on any of them . . . except in the e-mails, whatever was sent to me, but that was it.\" Q: \"And in those e-mails, the only person referenced was Miles Kwok, correct?\" A: \"Correct\").\n\n64 *See id.* at 35-36:24-3 (Q: \"Did Mr. Kwok ever become interested in potentially purchasing a property at 32 Chateau Ridge?\" A: \"Yes.\"); *id.* at 36:4-12 (Q: \"What do you recall about [Chateau Ridge] and that attempted purchase?\" A: \"I recall that he put in an offer. The offer was accepted. We did our normal due diligence, and he -- he never signed a contract. We were working on a contract and he never signed the contract -- well, not he but the LLC never signed the contract and so nothing came -- it was never purchased.\").\n\n65 *See id.* at 48:8-10.\n\n66 *See id.* at 16:8-10 (Q: \"Did you understand that Mr. Krasner was working on behalf of Mr. Kwok?\" A: \"Yes, and the family.\").\n\n38. Regardless, the evidence makes clear that the Debtor also orchestrated and controlled Greenwich Land's purchase of the Taconic Road Property.\n\n39. First, though Ms. Conboy did not represent Greenwich Land in this transaction, her testimony regarding Greenwich Land is still relevant—she testified that the Debtor was the only decision-maker she was aware of with respect to Greenwich Land (as well as Golden Spring and Hudson Diamond NY LLC), meaning, by extension, he was the decision-maker with respect to Greenwich Land's purchase of the Ferncliff Road Property.\n\n40. As with the Ferncliff Road Property, the key transaction documents with respect to the purchase of the Taconic Road Property were all signed by Max Krasner, the Debtor's agent and/or employee.\n\n41. Moreover, Greenwich Land's real estate broker in connection with the purchase of the Taconic Road Property, Emile DeNeree stated in an August 2020 email to Ms. Whitman and Mr. Krasner that the Taconic Road Residence was \"*bought by Miles* [i.e., the Debtor] *under Greenwich Land*.\" 67 In other words, Greenwich Land was nothing more than a vehicle for the Debtor to buy Connecticut real estate. The Trustee fully expects to obtain corroborating testimony in connection with this adversary proceeding.\n\n### **G. Greenwich Land and Its Properties Funded by Other Debtor Shell Companies**\n\n42. Upon information and belief, Greenwich Land produces no income of its own, and Greenwich Land has at all times been funded by other Debtor shell companies, including with respect to its purchases of real property.\n\n 67 *See* Ex. 41, Email from Emile DeNeree, dated Aug. 19, 2020 (\"the sellers for 373 Taconic which was bought by Miles under Greenwich Land.\") [WBAM\\_001017]; Ex. 40, Tr. Conboy Deposition Feb. 21, 2023 at 85:17-22 (Q: \"as the broker for the buyer, he's telling you that the house was bought by Mr. Kwok under the name of Greenwich Land, correct?\" A: \"Right\").\n\n\n\n\n\n46. According to paragraph 13.e.ii of the Criminal Indictment, approximately \\$5 million in the proceeds of fraudulently solicited loans from members of the Debtor's Himalaya Farm organizations were transferred to an entity \"owned by [the Debtor's] spouse.\" [2] Upon information and belief, the entity referenced in paragraph 13.e.ii of the Criminal Indictment is Greenwich Land.\n\n### H. Debtor Uses Greenwich Land's Asset As His Residence\n\n47. Upon information and belief, the Taconic Road Property is Greenwich Land's principal asset following the April 2022 sale of the Ferncliff Road Property.\n\n48. The Debtor uses the Taconic Road Property as his residence.\n\n49. The Debtor has declared to this Court: \"I currently reside in Greenwich, Connecticut, at 373 Taconic Road, with my wife of 37 years, Hing Chi Ngok. We moved from an apartment at the Sherry-Netherland in New York to the current address in Connecticut in March 2020 \"73\n\n### I. Greenwich Land Pays Debtor's Residential Expenses\n\n50. The Debtor has used Greenwich Land to pay expenses associated with his residence at the Taconic Road Property. For example, Greenwich Land paid for the Taconic Road Property's insurance, 4 utilities, 5 repairs and maintenance, 6 expenses that the Debtor took into account when disclosing third party payments made for his benefit in his monthly operating\n\n72 Ex. 7, Criminal Indictment ¶ 13.e.ii.\n\n73 Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions ¶ 6 [Docket No. 107].\n\n74 Ex. 46, Expenses Paid on Behalf of Ho Wan Kwok for the Period of March 1, 2022 - March 31, 2022, at PDF 6 (\\$28,275.29 payment to Erich Courant & Co).\n\n75 Id. at PDF 21 (\\$4,122.14 to Gault Energy).\n\n76 Id. at PDF 18 (multiple payments to Roto-Rooter, Terminix, etc.).\n\nreports filed with the Court. Greenwich Land made these payments from its own bank account or accounts, as well as from a Lamp Capital \"Greenwich Land Sub Account.\"711\n\n# J. Debtor Has Used Greenwich Land to Shield Assets from Creditors\n\n51. As the Court is aware, the Debtor has claimed that he has de minimis assets and that he does not own, directly or indirectly, any of the luxurious residences in which he spends his time, including the Taconic Road Property. By claiming not to own the house in which he resides (and which he used to justify the commencement of his chapter 11 case in this district), the Debtor intended that that its value not be included in his chapter 11 estate.\n\n52. Similarly, the Debtor also used Greenwich Land to shield the Ferncliff Road Property and its sale proceeds from creditors. The Debtor did not disclose Greenwich Land's ownership of the Ferncliff Road Property, or the sale of the property for \\$2.2 million in April 2022 (while the Debtor was in chapter 11). Moreover, the Ferncliff Road Property sale occurred despite the fact that Greenwich Land remained subject to a restraining notice, served by PAX on May 10, 2022 in connection with the State Court Action, which notified Greenwich Land, among other things, that \"we understand [the Debtor] may have direct, indirect, or beneficial ownership in, or the right or ability to direct or control, you and your assets,\" and that \"you are hereby forbidden to make or suffer any sale, assignment or transfer of, or any interference with, any property in which [the Debtor] has an interest, except as provided in [New York Civil Practice Law and Rules] § 5222(b).\"78\n\n\n\n71 Id. at PDF 6 (listing payment type as \"ACH Debit from Lamp Capital (Greenwich Land Sub Account)\").\n\n78 Ex. 47, Restraining Notice and Affidavit of Service.\n\n# K. Debtor Pleads Fifth Amendment\n\n54. On March 2, 2023, the Debtor was deposed in connection with the adversary proceeding styled HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC v. Ho Wan Kwok, Adv. Proc. 22-05003. When asked whether he was the beneficial owner and controller of Greenwich Land, the Debtor pled his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.80 The Debtor also pled Fifth Amendment protection when asked whether the actions of Greenwich Land were taken at his direction.81\n\n### L. Other Alter Ego Characteristics of HK USA\n\n55. Greenwich Land is the alter ego of the Debtor, as evidenced by the following characteristics, among others:\n\n- a. Greenwich Land has no business other than holding the Taconic Road Property, and all its funds are derived from other Debtor shell companies.\n- b. Greenwich Land has no directors, officers, or employees, (and even in the past when it had officers, these were employees and/or agents of the Debtor).\n\n80 Ex. 48, Tr. Kwok Deposition Mar. 2, 2023 at 96:17-20 (Q: \"Mr. Kwok, I'm going to ask you again, you are the beneficial owner and control Greenwich Land LLC, correct?\" A. \"The Fifth\").\n\n81 Id. at 86-87:24-5 (Q: \"Mr. Kwok, all actions taken by Daniel Podhaskie relating to Golden Spring, Leading Shine Limited, Saraca Media Group, Greenwich Land, LLC, Rule of Law Society, and the Sherry-Netherland apartment were all taken at your direction, correct?\" A: \"The Fifth\").\n\n- c. Upon information and belief Greenwich Land files no tax returns (it did not produced any tax returns to the Trustee),\n- d. Given its lack of any officers or representatives with any knowledge of the company, Greenwich Land cannot observe corporate formalities and its prior observance of certain formalities through the production of corporate resolutions was a facade given that Greenwich Land's officers were at all times all employees and/or agents of the Debtor. Upon information and belief, Greenwich Land has kept no minutes of meetings discussing or recording its corporate affairs.\n- e. The Debtor uses Greenwich Land's principal asset, the Taconic Road Property, as his residence. Greenwich Land pays the Debtor's expenses in connection with residence there.\n- 56. J The Debtor has wrongfully and unjustly used his alter ego relationship with\n\nGreenwich Land to, among other things, cause Greenwich Land to hold assets for the Debtor's use and benefit, while purporting to keep such assets outside the reach of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n# FIRST CLAIM\n\n# (Declaratory Judgment that Greenwich Land is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Greenwich Land's Assets to Trustee)\n\n57. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraph 1-56.\n\n58. Delaware law applies to the alter ego/veil piercing claim because Greenwich Land is a Delaware entity.83\n\n83 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\n59. 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 Greenwich Land will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and Greenwich Land operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether entities operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether Greenwich Land was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor.84 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"85\n\n60. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over Greenwich Land such that Greenwich Land had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. Greenwich Land is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. Greenwich Land was managed by the Debtor's agents and/or employees, who comprised, with Defendant Ngok, all the officers of Greenwich Land (which currently has no officers at all).\n- b. The purported owner of Greenwich Land, Defendant Ngok, knows nothing about Greenwich Land and was never meaningfully involved in its affairs.\n\n 84 *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\n85 *Id.* at 471.\n\n- c. Greenwich Land uses the same address as the Debtor and his other shell companies.\n- d. Greenwich Land and its assets were funded by other Debtor shell companies.\n- e. The Debtor was the decision-maker directing Greenwich Land's purchases and sales of real estate, as recognized by the attorneys and brokers working on such transactions, who took direction from the Debtor through his agent and/or employee Max Krasner.\n- f. The Debtor uses Greenwich Land's principal asset as his residence and Greenwich Land pays the Debtor's expenses in connection with his residence there.\n\n61. 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\n62. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Greenwich Land was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Greenwich Land at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Greenwich Land at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of Greenwich Land's assets to the Trustee.\n\n### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Greenwich Land and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Greenwich Land to Trustee)**\n\n63. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-56.\n\n64. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Greenwich Land is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Greenwich Land. 86\n\n65. 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\n66. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the membership interest in Greenwich Land purportedly held by Defendant Ngok 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### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Greenwich Land was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Greenwich Land at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Greenwich Land at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present constituted and\n\n 86 *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\nconstitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of Greenwich Land's assets to the Trustee; and\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order (1) declaring that the membership interest in Greenwich Land purportedly held by the Defendant Ngok 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\n3. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n4. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: March 27, 2023 New York, New York LUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /s/ *Douglass Barron*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"对手诉讼封面表 对手诉讼案号\n仅供法院使用\n背面载有填写说明\n\n原告 被告\nLuc A. Despins（第11章受托人）\nGreenwich Land, LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）及 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）\n\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码） 律师（如已知）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）（转交 Douglass Barron），200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166, douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\nUpdike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.（转交 Evan S. Goldstein），3225 Asylum Street - 20th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103, egoldstein@uks.com\n\n当事人类型（仅勾选一项） 当事人类型（仅勾选一项）\n美国受托人/破产行政官\n债务人\n债权人\n其他\n受托人\n\n诉讼事由（简要陈述诉讼事由，包括所涉所有美国制定法条款）\n第一项主张：请求作出命令，宣布 Greenwich Land（格林威治土地公司）在所有时候均为债务人的人格混同替身（alter ego），并命令将格林威治土地公司的任何及全部资产移交予受托人；第二项主张：请求作出命令，宣布被告岳庆芝据称持有的格林威治土地公司成员权益属于债务人第11章破产财产，并命令将该成员权益及所有相关公司控制权移交予受托人。\n\n诉讼性质\n（在最多五个方框内按首要诉由标为1、第一备选诉由标为2、第二备选诉由标为3等依序编号）\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回款项/财产\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n追回款项/财产——财产移交\n可免责性——家庭抚养费\n追回款项/财产——偏颇性清偿\n追回款项/财产——欺诈性转让\n可免责性——故意和恶意损害\n可免责性——助学贷款\n追回款项/财产——其他\n可免责性——家庭抚养费以外的离婚或分居债务\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先权或范围\n留置权或财产其他权益的有效性、优先权或范围\n可免责性——其他\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准财产出售\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n批准出售破产财产及共同所有人的财产——§ 363(h)\n禁令救济——实施中止令\n禁令救济——其他\nFRBP 7001(4) – 异议/撤销免责\n异议/撤销免责——§ 727(c),(d),(e)\nFRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益劣后\n债权或权益劣后\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n撤销确认\nFRBP 7001(9) 确认之诉判决\n确认之诉判决\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\nFRBP 7001(10) 移送诉讼之裁定\n可免责性——§ 523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权\n可免责性——§ 523(a)(2) 虚假托辞、虚假陈述、实际欺诈\n移送的权利主张或诉由之裁定\n其他\n可免责性——§ 523(a)(4) 欺诈（作为受托人）、侵占、盗窃\nSS/SIPAA 案件——11 U.S.C. §§ 741 et seq.\n（接下栏）\n其他（例如若非与破产案件相关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n若本案涉及州法实体问题，请勾选\n若主张依据 FRCP 23 提起集体诉讼，请勾选\n若起诉书中请求陪审团审判，请勾选\n索赔金额\n寻求的其他救济\n依据《破产法典》第 105、541、542 及 544 条寻求确认之诉救济\n\n产生本对手诉讼的破产案件\n债务人姓名 破产案号\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 22-50073 (JAM)\n案件审理所在地区 分部办公室 法官姓名\nDistrict of Connecticut（康涅狄格区） Bridgeport（布里奇波特） Manning 法官\n关联对手诉讼（如有）\n原告 被告 对手诉讼案号\n对手诉讼审理所在地区 分部办公室 法官姓名\n律师（或原告）签名\n/s/ Douglass Barron\n日期 律师（或原告）正楷姓名\nDouglass Barron\n2023年3月27日\n\n填写说明\n\n破产案件的申请在破产法院管辖下创设了一个由债务人所有财产（不论财产位于何处）组成的「破产财产」（estate）。由于破产财产范围极广且法院管辖权十分宽泛，可能会产生关于破产财产财产权利的诉讼。也可能会产生关于债务人免责的诉讼。如果在破产法院提起此类诉讼，该诉讼即称为对手诉讼（adversary proceeding）。\n\n提起对手诉讼的当事人还必须填写并提交 Form 1040 即对手诉讼封面表，除非该当事人通过法院的案件管理/电子案件立案系统（CMECF）以电子方式提交对手诉讼。（CMECF 在立案过程中会采集 Form 1040 上的信息。）填写完毕后，封面表汇总了对手诉讼的基本信息。法院书记官需要这些信息来处理对手诉讼并准备法院活动所需的统计报告。\n\n封面表及其包含的信息并不取代或补充法律、破产规则或法院地方规则所要求的诉状或其他文书的提交与送达。封面表大部分内容一目了然，必须由原告律师（若原告无律师代理，则由原告本人）填写。每提交一份起诉书，必须向书记官提交一份单独的封面表。\n\n原告与被告。准确填写起诉书上所载的原告和被告姓名/名称。\n\n律师。提供律师的姓名和地址（如已知）。\n\n当事人类型。原告请在第一栏中勾选最合适的一个方框，被告请在第二栏中勾选。\n\n索赔金额。输入起诉书中索赔的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面表必须由记录在案的律师在表格第二页的方框内签名。若原告由律所代理，必须由该律所的成员签名。若原告为亲自诉讼（pro se），即未聘请律师代理，则必须由原告本人签名。\n\n美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分部\n\n关于：\n第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，1\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n（合并审理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（第11章受托人），\n原告，\n诉\n对手诉讼案号：[ ]\nGREENWICH LAND, LLC 及 HING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝），\n被告。\n2023年3月27日\n\n郭文贵破产财产第11章受托人请求 (I) 作出宣告 GREENWICH LAND LLC 系债务人的人格混同替身的确认之诉判决，及 (II) 相关救济的起诉书\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（「债务人」或「郭」）的第11章案件（「第11章案件」）中获任命的第11章受托人（「受托人」）身份，针对被告 Greenwich Land, LLC（「格林威治土地公司」）提起本对手诉讼起诉书（「起诉书」），陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（亦称为 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）及 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok（仅用于接收通知及通信联络目的）。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对手诉讼，旨在纠正债务人的又一次企图：即利用一个由其控制、名义上由家庭成员持有的空壳公司，使其一项有价值的资产脱离债权人的追索范围。\n\n2. 涉案的空壳公司为 Greenwich Land，涉案家庭成员为 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝），即债务人的妻子2兼 Greenwich Land 的据称所有人。该高价值财产包括债务人位于康涅狄格州格林威治（Greenwich, Connecticut）的住所，该住所于 2020 年以 460 万美元购入。\n\n3. 正如本文所将论述的，Greenwich Land 是债务人的另我（alter ego），或者退一步而言，为债务人衡平法上所有（equitably owned）。无论属于何种情况，其资产或该等资产的价值均应并入债务人的第 11 章破产财产。除其他事项外，Greenwich Land 由债务人的代理人和/或雇员管理，并由债务人的其他空壳公司提供资金。Greenwich Land 甚至与债务人及其其他空壳公司共用位于 162 E 64th St. 的纽约市地址。债务人将 Greenwich Land 的资产即 Taconic Road Property（塔科尼克路房产）用作其住所，而 Greenwich Land 支付债务人的相关居住费用。此外，正是债务人策划并控制了 Greenwich Land 的房地产交易，而非被告 Ngok；Ngok 在宣誓录供（deposition）中作证称，尽管其据称为 Greenwich Land 的唯一成员，但她对 Greenwich Land、其资产或其运营一无所知。\n\n4. 因此，受托人有权获得一项裁定，认定 Greenwich Land 的资产和/或 Greenwich Land 本身属于第 11 章破产财产，并应移交予受托人。\n\n2 尽管本起诉状将被告 Ngok 称为债务人的妻子，但债务人已披露并无记录该关系的结婚证书，受托人保留在涉及主张夫妻特权或其他问题时对该二人身份提出异议的权利。参见《关于债务人资产与负债附表及财务状况说明书的全球说明以及限制、方法和免责声明声明》（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) Docket No. 77（“SOFA”）第 11 页。\n\n管辖权与审判地\n\n5. 依据 28 U.S.C. §1334(b)，本法院对本附随诉讼（adversary proceeding）享有对诉讼标的的管辖权（subject matter jurisdiction）。\n\n6. 依据 28 U.S.C. §157(a)，本附随诉讼已移送至本法院。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 依据本法院于 July 8, 2022 作出的命令 [Main Case Docket No. 523]，受托人为本第 11 章案件中的第 11 章受托人。\n\n8. Greenwich Land 是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，地址位于 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York 10065。\n\n9. Hing Chi Ngok（“被告 Ngok”）为债务人的妻子，也是 Greenwich Land 的据称唯一成员。\n\n事实\n\nA. 债务人大量使用空壳公司\n\n10. 如下文进一步论述，大量事实证明 Greenwich Land 是债务人的另我（或由债务人衡平法上所有），并被债务人用于向债权人隐匿其位于康涅狄格州格林威治价值数百万美元的住所（“Taconic Road Property”）。\n\n11. 债务人对 Greenwich Land 的控制，是债务人大量使用据称由家庭成员或业务下属所有的空壳公司以向债权人隐匿其资产和活动的不可分割的一部分。债务人的空壳把戏使其能够继续否认对资产的所有权、拒绝偿还债务，并在其最近被 FBI（联邦调查局）逮捕之前一直过着奢华的生活。\n\n12. 除其他例证外，据称由债务人之子所有的空壳公司（Lamp Capital LLC 以及 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.）已支付其生活费用和律师费；据称由债务人之女所有的空壳公司（Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited）持有债务人游艇的产权3；另一家据称由债务人之女所有的空壳公司（Whitecroft Shore Limited）持有债务人私人飞机的产权。4 与此同时，债务人声称其位于雪莉荷兰酒店（Sherry Netherland Hotel）的公寓是为据称由其子所有的又一家空壳公司（Bravo Luck Limited）的利益而信托持有。5 债务人还控制着许多其他实体，其中包括 Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金）和 Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治社会）（由债务人创立的据称非营利实体）6、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 及其子公司 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（据称由债务人之女所有），以及 Leading Shine NY Limited（据称由 Yvette Wang［王雁平］所有）8 等诸多实体。\n\n13. 本法院已经认定，参与债务人近期针对 PAX（太盟亚洲机会基金）及受托人的社交媒体和抗议活动的众多据称独立的实体和组织均受到债务人的控制9、由债务人领导10，或服务于债务人的“目的……并作为其商业工具”。11 本法院在认定债务人因违反法院公司治理命令而构成藐视法庭的命令中另行认定，债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（并进而包括 Dawn State Limited）的实益所有人（beneficial owner），且债务人控制并雇用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义所有人 Yvette Wang。12\n\n3 受托人已在第 22-05003 号附随诉讼中对该实体寻求另我判决，本法院近期在该诉讼中针对 Hong Kong International Investments (USA) Limited 和 Mei Guo 作出了判决前救济命令和初步禁令命令。参见《准予受托人判决前救济申请的命令》（Order Granting Trustee's Application for Prejudgment Remedy）(Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 140)；《准予受托人初步禁令动议的命令》（Order Granting Trustee's Motion for Preliminary Injunction）(Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Docket No. 142)。\n\n4 参见 Ex. 1 Mei Guo 宣誓录供记录第 68:16-24、74:12-19 页（“问：你控制的公司中是否有将飞机作为资产的？……答：发生过。……问：而且你不记得是你的哪家实体持有该飞机了……？答：我记不得全称。我想可能是 Whiteraft。”）；Ex. 2，Whitecroft Shore Limited 成员名册；《Mei Guo 就藐视法庭与制裁命令所作的答复声明》；第 56 段 (Docket No. 1543)。在 2023 年 1 月的宣誓录供中，Mei Guo 陈述称该飞机已以 1000 万美元售出，该等资金正由一个她不知道名字的第三方代其持有。参见 Ex. 1 Mei Guo 宣誓录供记录第 71:12-73.9 页。\n\n5 受托人已在其《针对 Bravo Luck 及 Qiang Guo 的经修改附随起诉状》（寻求 (I) 确认有利于 Bravo Luck 的据称信托协议无效，以及 (II) 退一步而言，依据由破产法典第 544 条适用的《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 276 条，裁定债务人完成了有利于 Bravo Luck 及 Qiang Guo 的欺诈性转让）中，对 Bravo Luck Limited 主张的对雪莉荷兰公寓的权益提出质疑 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05027, Docket No. 40)。\n\n6 《准予部分初步禁令动议的经更正裁决备忘录》，第 1 段 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 133)（“初步禁令裁决”）。\n\n14. 同样，在 2022 年 2 月债务人申请第 11 章破产前夕，在债务人于纽约州法院针对 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund（“PAX”）提起的申请前诉讼（“州法院诉讼”）中，Ostrager 法官认定，使用空壳公司向债权人隐匿其资产是债务人的惯用做法。13 Ostrager 法官还认定，尽管 Lady May（梅女士号）游艇的产权形式上由据称由债务人之女所有的 Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited 持有，但该游艇由债务人实益所有并控制。\n\n15. 此前，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）的 Liman 法官在 2021 年作出的一项裁决中认定，据称由债务人之女持有的另一家公司 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited 对债务人而言“实质上是一家空壳公司”。14 依据 2018 年香港法院的一份命令，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited 是其金融账户被认定为“处于债务人的实际控制之下”的众多实体之一。15\n\n9 初步禁令裁决，第 3 段（“债务人亦控制 Saraca Media Group 以及一家关联实体‘GTV’”）。\n\n10 初步禁令裁决第 7 段（“债务人是爆料革命、新中国联邦、法治基金和喜马拉雅的领导者。”）。11 同上（“爆料革命、新中国联邦、法治基金、G系列和喜马拉雅服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，且其成员效忠于债务人个人。”）。12 《准予认定债务人违反公司治理命令构成藐视法庭的动议的命令》，第 1、4 段 (Docket No. 1372)（“公司治理藐视法庭命令”）。\n\n13 Ex. 5，February 9, 2022 裁决与命令，第 1 页，PAX v. Kwok，Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NYSCEF Doc. No. 1181（“最终藐视法庭裁决”）。14 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC，No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL)，2021 WL 2554631 第 *1 页。\n\n15 Ex. 6，香港限制令，第 7-18 页。\n\n16. 相关地，受托人在 Docket No. 1327 处作保密封存归档并作为支持本起诉状的证物通过援引并入的一份保密证人声明证明了（除其他事项外）\n\n17. 最近，在 March 15, 2023，债务人因涉嫌证券欺诈、电汇欺诈和洗钱等多项指控被捕。16 联邦检察官（United States Attorney）针对债务人提起的刑事起诉书（“刑事起诉书”）指出，债务人是一个计划的“领导者并予以指挥”17，在该计划中，除其他事项外，债务人与其同案被告 William Je（余建明）将资金转移“进入并通过以至少 80 个不同实体或个人的名义持有的 500 多个账户”。18 刑事起诉书将该计划中使用的部分实体和组织（例如“GTV、GCLUBS、GMUSIC、GFASHION 和喜马拉雅交易所”）认定为用于进行欺诈和利用债务人追随者的“工具”，使债务人和 Je 能够“使他们自己、其家庭成员及其共谋者发财，并资助[债务人的]奢侈生活方式”。19 例如，刑事起诉书指出，G-Club\n\n16 参见 Ex. 7，Ho Wan Kwok 刑事起诉书，于 Mar. 6, 2023 归档。（针对债务人的雇员 Yvette Wang，亦基于其参与债务人的犯罪计划而单独提起了相关的刑事起诉状。Wang 被指控犯有电汇欺诈、证券欺诈、共谋实施电汇欺诈和证券欺诈，以及进行非法交易罪。）参见 Ex. 8，针对 Yanping Wang（又名“Yvette”）的起诉状，于 March 10, 2023 归档（“刑事起诉状”）。17 刑事起诉书第 6 段。18 同上第 3 段。\n\n19 同上第 2 段。\n\n资金被用于为债务人购买（除其他物品外）一座位于新泽西州价值 2650 万美元的豪宅（以及价值 1300 万美元的相关翻修和家具）。20 此外，刑事起诉书第 13.e.ii 段指出，通过欺诈手段向债务人的喜马拉雅农场组织成员索要的贷款收益中，约有 500 万美元被转入一个“由[债务人的]配偶所有”的实体。21 根据知情与合理确信（information and belief），该实体为 Greenwich Land。22\n\n18. 综上所述，尽管本起诉状侧重于 Greenwich Land，且受托人目前尚未针对其他实体寻求救济，但受托人认为，有关债务人利用空壳公司向债权人隐匿资产的广泛策略的背景情况，将有助于本法院理解受托人关于 Greenwich Land 的立场。当然，受托人亦明确保留在适当时间提起诉讼针对上述各其他实体主张权利的权利。\n\nB. 在债务人律师协助下设立 Greenwich Land\n\n19. Greenwich Land 于 July 3, 2019 设立。\n\n20. 除了针对 Greenwich Land 的工作外，Hodgson Russ 还在涉及诸多事项中担任债务人、其家庭成员、其亲密合伙人及其空壳公司的法律顾问，其中包括：24\n\n23 24\n\n20 同上第 15 段。\n\n21 同上第 13.e.ii 段。\n\n22. 《刑事起诉状》（Criminal Complaint）还论述了债务人及其同谋为将资产转移出执法机关管辖范围所付出的努力，详细说明了债务人的同谋William Je（余建明）企图从阿拉伯联合酋长国转移4600万美元但未遂的过程，其目的系使这些资金脱离联邦执法机关的控制。同上，第23段。\n\nC. 由债务人的雇员及/或代理人管理的Greenwich Land\n\n21. 根据Greenwich Land（格林威治土地公司）的公司文件，除被告Ngok（岳庆芝）外，仅有三人曾担任Greenwich Land的高级管理人员——Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Max Krasner以及Daniel Podhaskie。这三人中的每一个人，在所有相关时间内，均为债务人的雇员及/或代理人。\n\na. Yvette Wang：本法院此前已裁定“债务人对Wang女士具有控制权”，且其“已雇佣Yvette Wang数年，并指示其代表自己采取行动，包括指示其代表自己购买物业，例如Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰）公寓。”25 Wang女士还以众多其他角色为债务人提供服务，包括作为Golden Spring（金泉公司）、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Limited、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、GTV Media Group, Inc.以及Genever Holdings LLC的高级管理人员及/或授权签署人。26 2023年3月15日，Wang女士因被指控（除其他事项外）与债务人共谋实施电汇欺诈和证券欺诈而被捕。同日，Parker治安法官裁定对Wang女士实行居家监禁，并在无律师在场的情况下不得与债务人或其他共谋者有任何接触。27\n\n25 批准对债务人违反公司治理命令追究民事藐视法庭责任动议的裁定（Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order）第4段 [案卷号 1372]。\n\nb. Max Krasner：Krasner先生是Golden Spring的雇员，其同样以众多其他角色为债务人提供服务，包括作为Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC的母公司）以及Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）的高级管理人员及/或授权签署人。28\n\n26 证据11，PAX诉Kwok案，案号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院）（ECF 182），2018年5月15日Yan Ping Wang宣誓书第1段（“我是Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.的总裁，并以该身份作为[债务人]及其家族利益的管理人”）；证据12，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，2019年7月17日唯一成员未开会一致同意书（使Wang女生成为签署人）（HR0010121）；证据13，Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC，唯一成员未开会一致同意书（HR0020577）；证据14，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，唯一成员未开会一致同意书（HR0039240）；证据15，喜马拉雅币（Himalaya Coin）假定名称证书，日期为2020年3月14日；证据16，喜马拉雅美元（Himalaya Dollar）假定名称证书，日期为2020年3月14日；《刑事起诉状》第9a段（“Wang曾是GTV的执行董事”）；依据《地方破产规则 1007-2》作出的《债务人声明书》第1段，In re Genever Holdings LLC案，案号 22-50592-JAM（康涅狄格州破产法院）（案卷号 1）。\n\n27 证据17，Wang刑事案，案卷号 3。\n\n28 证据12，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，2019年7月17日唯一成员未开会一致同意书（载明Krasner先生为副总裁）（HR0010135）；证据18，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，2019年7月17日唯一成员未开会一致同意书（HR0010171）；证据19，GTV Media Group公司成立证书，日期为2020年4月17日；证据20，Lamp Capital, LLC有限责任公司协议，日期为2020年9月8日；证据21，Rule of Law Foundation的CHAR 500表格（990表格第7页，将Max Krasner列为“总裁、财务主管、董事”）。\n\nc. Daniel Podhaskie：Podhaskie先生此前曾是债务人的个人律师，兼任Golden Spring的总法律顾问以及Genever Holdings LLC和Genever Holdings Corporation的公司代表。29 此外，Podhaskie先生还以众多其他角色为债务人提供服务，包括作为Lamp Capital LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC的母公司）、Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC以及Hudson Diamond NY LLC的高级管理人员及/或授权签署人。30\n\n22. 如下所示为一份图表，载明信托受托人律师审阅的Greenwich Land公司文件中所反映的被告Ngok、Wang女士、Krasner先生及Podhaskie先生担任Greenwich Land高级管理人员的任期与职位：\n人员 职务 任期\n被告Ngok 总裁 7/3/19 - 7/26/22\nYvette Wang 副总裁 7/3/19 - 9/9/20；1/19/21 - 7/26/22\nYvette Wang 签署官员 7/11/19 - 9/9/20；1/19/21 - 7/26/22\nDaniel Podhaskie 副总裁 9/9/20 - 1/19/21\nDaniel Podhaskie 签署官员 9/9/20 - 1/19/21\nMax Krasner 副总裁 7/11/19 - 11/5/22\n\n29 参见，例如，证据22，2022年4月6日第341条债权人电话会议笔录第79:2-3行（债务人陈述Podhaskie“曾是Golden Spring的律师和我的私人律师”）；证据23，Podhaskie宣誓证词笔录第8:8-9:1行（Podhaskie作为Genever Holdings LLC和Genever Holdings Corporation的公司代表出庭）。\n\n30 参见，例如，证据24，2020年9月11日向纽约州提交的Lamp Capital LLC授权申请书（由Podhaskie签署）；证据20，Lamp Capital, LLC有限责任公司协议，日期为2020年9月8日；证据25，Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC，唯一成员未开会一致同意书（HR0039238）；证据26，Daniel Podhaskie辞去Hudson Diamond Holding LLC总裁职务的辞呈（HR0039239）；证据14，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，唯一成员未开会一致同意书（HR0039240）；证据27，Daniel Podhaskie辞去Hudson Diamond NY LLC总裁职务的辞呈（HR0039242）。\n\n23. 如上所示，在2022年7月8日任命信托受托人后不久的2022年7月26日，被告Ngok与Yvette Wang双双辞去了在Greenwich Land的职务，使Krasner先生成为仅存的高级管理人员。\n\n24. 随后，于2022年11月5日，Krasner先生辞去了其在Greenwich Land的职务。31 根据Greenwich Land于2022年11月8日对受托人依据第2004条规则所发传票的答复，Krasner先生“曾担任Greenwich Land的主要联系人”，且“是Greenwich Land的唯一高级管理人员及唯一记录保管人”。32\n\n25. 据信息与知悉，自Krasner先生于2022年11月5日辞职以来，Greenwich Land一直没有任何高级管理人员或其他工作人员。\n\n26. 信托受托人已尝试在多处地点向Krasner先生送达传票，迄今均未成功，并认为Krasner先生正在逃避送达。\n\nD. 被告Ngok未参与Greenwich Land的管理\n\n27. 被告Ngok虽然名义上是Greenwich Land的唯一成员和所有者且曾任Greenwich Land总裁，但从未参与Greenwich Land的管理，对该公司、其资产或其运营一无所知。在依据《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure）第2004条（“第2004条规则”）作出的宣誓证词中，被告Ngok除其他事项外作证称她：\n\n31 证据28，Greenwich Land, LLC对第2004条规则调查传票的异议及答复第2页。\n\n32 同上。\n\nE. Greenwich Land使用与其他债务人壳公司相同的地址\n\n28. Greenwich Land使用纽约州纽约市东64街162号（162 East 64th Street, New York, New York）作为其地址。47\n\n29. 纽约市东64街162号一直被债务人本人、48 其律师Aaron Mitchell、49 以及债务人的多家壳公司用作地址，其中包括：\n\na. Golden Spring 50\nb. HK USA 51\nc. GTV Media Group, Inc. 52\nd. Saraca Media Group, Inc. 53\ne. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 54\nf. Hudson Diamond NY LLC 55\ng. Rule of Law Foundation 56\nh. Rule of Law Society（法治社会） 57\n\n47 参见，例如，证据31，Greenwich Land雇主身份识别号申请书。\n\n48 债务人破产申请书 [案卷号 1]。\n\n49 证据32，同意更换律师书，PAX诉Kwok案，案号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF文件号 338。\n\n50 债务人破产申请书 [案卷号 1]。\n\n51 证据33，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC有限责任公司协议，日期为2019年4月1日。\n\n52 证据34，OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记注册搜索结果对GTV Media Group Inc.的检索结果。\n\n53 证据35，Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY纽约州公司登记注册搜索结果。\n\n54 证据36，Hodgson Russ出具的Hudson Diamond NY LLC情况说明书（显示东64街162号为LLC地址）。\n\n55 同上（显示东64街162号为Hudson Diamond Holding地址）。\n\n56 证据37，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.的CHAR 500表格。\n\n57 证据21，Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.的CHAR 500表格。\n\nF. 债务人策划并控制了Greenwich Land的交易\n\n31. 据信息与知悉，Greenwich Land自成立以来的主要资产包括：(i) Ferncliff Road（芬克利夫路）物业，于2019年9月以137万美元购入，并于2022年4月（在债务人破产法第11章案件审理期间）以220万美元售出；以及(ii) Taconic Road（塔科尼克路）物业，于2020年2月以460万美元购入，且截至本起诉状提交之日仍由Greenwich Land持有。\n\n32. Greenwich Land对Ferncliff Road物业的购买与出售，以及Greenwich Land对Taconic Road物业的购买，均由债务人一手策划并控制（而非由Greenwich Land的名义所有者被告Ngok控制）。\n\na. 债务人策划并控制了Ferncliff Road物业的购买和出售\n\n33. Greenwich Land在2019年8月购买以及2022年4月出售Ferncliff Road物业期间的代理律师事务所为Whitman Breed Abbot & Morgan律所（“Whitman Breed”）。关于Whitman Breed代表Greenwich Land处理购买Ferncliff Road物业事宜的2019年8月聘用函，系由Max Krasner代表债务人的壳公司Golden Spring签署。59 Whitman Breed还在若干其他未完成交割的潜在不动产购买交易中代表了Golden Spring和壳公司Hudson Diamond NY LLC。\n\n34. 经办这些事务的Whitman Breed律师Margaret Conboy在依据《破产规则》第2004条进行的宣誓证词中除其他事项外作证称，她明白她的真正客户、以及就这些不动产交易作出决定的人是债务人。\n\n35. 更具体而言，Conboy女士除其他事项外作证称：\n\na. 她从未与被告Ngok交谈过、不知道其姓名，且从未与被告Ngok进行过任何沟通，并且她不知道曾有人代表被告Ngok向其下达过指示。60\n\nb. 她将债务人称为她的客户。61\n\nc. 她被定期告知，债务人才是就物业交易作出决定的人。62\n\n59 证据38，关于Whitman Breed代表Greenwich Land的信函，日期为2019年8月16日。Yvette Wang在2019年7月对Golden Spring的角色描述如下：“Golden Spring NY Ltd作为一家设在曼哈顿的家族办公室，我们负责照料Miles（郭文贵）及其家族在美国的业务、项目和资产。”证据39，Yvette Wang发送的电子邮件，日期为2019年7月11日。\n\n60 参见证据40，2023年2月21日Conboy宣誓证词笔录第79:13-80:3行（“问：您是否曾与Kwok太太交谈过？答：没有。问：您知道Kwok先生妻子的名字吗？答：我完全不知道，不知道。问：您是否曾……”）\n\n与她有任何沟通？答：……没有。」）。61 见同上，第 21:15-23 行（提及康博伊发给凯文·沃尔什［Kevin Walsh］的一封电子邮件，问：「你开头写道：『凯文，我的客户，那位中国亿万富翁。』这是指你的客户是郭先生吗？」答：「是的」）；同上，第 21:24-22:7 行（问：「接着你继续写道，『卖家接受了他 3500 万美元的出价。而且，他正在与建筑师会面。他对在这块地皮上建造涉及的事项心中有数。』这里的『他』和『他的』指的是郭先生，对吗？」答：「是的」）。康博伊声称她是通过谷歌（Google）得知债务人是一位华裔亿万富翁。同上，第 16:19-25 行。\n\n62 见同上，第 55:15-18 行（问：「所以澄清一下，你被定期告知郭先生在就物业做出决定，对吗？」答：「对。」）。\n\n- d. 从未有人告诉过她除债务人以外的任何其他人就物业交易做出决定。63\n- e. 她的理解是，债务人就是与物业交易相关的接受和/或提出报价的相关个人。64\n- f. 在其代表格林威治土地公司（Greenwich Land）（以及金泉公司［Golden Spring］和哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司［Hudson Diamond NY LLC］）期间，她打交道的唯一人员是马克斯·克拉斯纳（Max Krasner）65，她的理解是克拉斯纳代表债务人工作。66\n- 36. 除上述内容外，与购买和出售芬克利夫路物业（Ferncliff Road Property）相关的关键交易文件均由克拉斯纳先生代表格林威治土地公司签署，康博伊女士理解克拉斯纳先生是代表债务人工作。\n\nb. 债务人策划并控制购买塔科尼克路物业\n\n37. 由于存在利益冲突，惠特曼布里德律师事务所（Whitman Breed）未在购买塔科尼克路物业（Taconic Road Property）一事中代表格林威治土地公司。惠特曼布里德律师事务所代表该物业的卖家。格林威治土地公司在此项交易中由另一家律师事务所代表。\n\n63 见证据 40，2023 年 2 月 21 日康博伊证词笔录第 87:25-88:12 行（问：「在与你为金泉公司、格林威治土地公司或哈德逊钻石公司所做工作相关的房地产交易中，是否曾有人告诉你存在除郭先生之外的任何决策者？」答：「从未有人告诉我他们中任何一个的决策者是谁……除了在电子邮件中，无论发给我什么，但仅此而已。」问：「而在那些电子邮件中，唯一被提及的人是迈尔斯·郭［Miles Kwok］，对吗？」答：「对」）。\n\n64 见同上，第 35-36:24-3 行（问：「郭先生是否曾对可能购买城堡岭 32 号［32 Chateau Ridge］的一处物业产生兴趣？」答：「是的。」）；同上，第 36:4-12 行（问：「关于［城堡岭］以及那次购买尝试，你记得什么？」答：「我记得他提出了报价。报价被接受了。我们进行了正常的尽职调查，而他——他从未签署合同。我们当时正在拟定合同，而他从未签署合同——嗯，不是他，而是有限责任公司从未签署合同，所以毫无结果——该物业从未被购买。」）。\n\n65 见同上，第 48:8-10 行。\n\n66 见同上，第 16:8-10 行（问：「你的理解是克拉斯纳先生代表郭先生工作吗？」答：「是的，还有他的家人。」）。\n\n38. 无论如何，证据清楚表明，债务人同样策划并控制了格林威治土地公司对塔科尼克路物业的购买。\n\n39. 首先，尽管康博伊女士在此项交易中并未代表格林威治土地公司，但她关于格林威治土地公司的证词仍然具有相关性——她作证称，就格林威治土地公司（以及金泉公司和哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）而言，债务人是她所知晓的唯一决策者，这意味着顺理成章地，他就是格林威治土地公司购买芬克利夫路物业的决策者。\n\n40. 与芬克利夫路物业一样，购买塔科尼克路物业的关键交易文件均由债务人的代理人和/或雇员马克斯·克拉斯纳签署。\n\n41. 此外，格林威治土地公司在购买塔科尼克路物业时的房地产经纪人埃米尔·德内雷（Emile DeNeree）在 2020 年 8 月给惠特曼女士和克拉斯纳先生的电子邮件中表示，塔科尼克路住宅是「由迈尔斯［即债务人］以格林威治土地公司名义购买的」。67 换言之，格林威治土地公司不过是债务人购买康涅狄格州房地产的工具。受托人完全预期能在此附随诉讼中获得佐证证词。\n\nG. 格林威治土地公司及其物业由债务人的其他壳公司提供资金\n\n42. 依据知悉与相信，格林威治土地公司自身不产生任何收入，且格林威治土地公司一直以来均由债务人的其他壳公司提供资金，包括就其购买不动产而言。\n\n67 见证据 41，埃米尔·德内雷发出的日期为 2020 年 8 月 19 日的电子邮件（「塔科尼克 373 号的卖家，该物业由迈尔斯以格林威治土地公司名义购买。」）［WBAM_001017］；证据 40，2023 年 2 月 21 日康博伊证词笔录第 85:17-22 行（问：「作为买方的经纪人，他告诉你这栋房子是郭先生以格林威治土地公司的名义购买的，对吗？」答：「对」）。\n\n46. 根据刑事起诉书（Criminal Indictment）第 13.e.ii 段，从债务人的喜马拉雅农场组织成员处欺诈性招募贷款所得款项中，有约 500 万美元被转入一家「由［债务人的］配偶拥有」的实体。72 依据知悉与相信，刑事起诉书第 13.e.ii 段提及的实体即为格林威治土地公司。\n\nH. 债务人将格林威治土地公司的资产用作其居所\n\n47. 依据知悉与相信，在 2022 年 4 月出售芬克利夫路物业之后，塔科尼克路物业是格林威治土地公司的主要资产。\n\n48. 债务人将塔科尼克路物业用作其居所。\n\n49. 债务人已向本法院声明：「我目前与我结婚 37 年的妻子岳庆芝（Hing Chi Ngok）居住在康涅狄格州格林威治塔科尼克路 373 号。我们于 2020 年 3 月从纽约雪梨荷兰酒店（Sherry-Netherland）的一套公寓搬至目前的康涅狄格州地址」73\n\nI. 格林威治土地公司支付债务人的居住费用\n\n50. 债务人曾使用格林威治土地公司支付与其在塔科尼克路物业居住相关的费用。例如，格林威治土地公司支付了塔科尼克路物业的保险费74、公用事业费75、维修及维护费76，债务人在向法院提交的月度运营报告中披露为他的利益支付的第三方款项时考虑了这些费用。格林威治土地公司从其自有的一个或多个银行账户，以及从灯塔资本（Lamp Capital）「格林威治土地子账户」中支付了这些款项。71\n\n72 证据 7，刑事起诉书第 13.e.ii 段。\n\n73 郭浩云先生支持第 11 章案件及若干动议的声明第 6 段［案卷号 107］。\n\n74 证据 46，代表郭浩云支付的费用（期间为 2022 年 3 月 1 日至 2022 年 3 月 31 日），第 PDF 6 页（向埃里希·库兰特公司［Erich Courant & Co］支付 28,275.29 美元）。\n\n75 同上，第 PDF 21 页（向高尔特能源公司［Gault Energy］支付 4,122.14 美元）。\n\n76 同上，第 PDF 18 页（向罗托管道疏通公司［Roto-Rooter］、特米尼克斯灭虫公司［Terminix］等多家公司支付款项）。\n\n71 同上，第 PDF 6 页（将付款类型列为「来自灯塔资本［格林威治土地子账户］的 ACH 借记」）。\n\nJ. 债务人曾使用格林威治土地公司向债权人隐匿资产\n\n51. 正如法院所知，债务人曾声称其拥有极微量资产（de minimis assets），且其并未直接或间接拥有其在其中度过时间的任何豪华居所，包括塔科尼克路物业。通过声称不拥有其居住的房屋（且他曾用该房屋来证明其在本司法管辖区启动第 11 章案件的合理性），债务人意图使其价值不被纳入其第 11 章破产财产中。\n\n52. 同样，债务人还使用格林威治土地公司向债权人隐匿芬克利夫路物业及其出售收益。债务人未披露格林威治土地公司对芬克利夫路物业的所有权，也未披露该物业在 2022 年 4 月以 220 万美元出售一事（当时债务人正处于第 11 章程序中）。此外，芬克利夫路物业的出售发生在该事实之下：格林威治土地公司仍受一项限制通知（restraining notice）的约束，该通知由太盟（PAX）于 2022 年 5 月 10 日就州法院诉讼送达，该通知告知格林威治土地公司（除其他事项外）「我们获悉［债务人］可能直接、间接或实质性拥有您及您的资产，或拥有指示或控制您及您的资产的权利或能力」，并且「特此禁止您进行或容许任何出售、转让或让与［债务人］拥有权益的任何财产，或对此类财产进行任何干涉，但［纽约州民事诉讼法与规则］§ 5222(b) 规定的情况除外。」78\n\n78 证据 47，限制通知及送达宣誓书。\n\nK. 债务人主张第五修正案权利\n\n54. 2023 年 3 月 2 日，债务人在名为香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司（HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC）诉郭浩云（Ho Wan Kwok），附随诉讼案号 22-05003 的附随诉讼中接受了证词取证。当被问及他是否是格林威治土地公司的实益拥有人和控制人时，债务人主张了其反对自证其罪的第五修正案权利。80 当被问及格林威治土地公司的行为是否是在其指示下进行时，债务人同样主张了第五修正案的保护。81\n\nL. 香港美国公司的其他另我特征\n\n55. 格林威治土地公司是债务人的另我（alter ego），除其他特征外，由以下特征证明：\n\n- a. 格林威治土地公司除了持有塔科尼克路物业外没有其他业务，且其全部资金均来源于债务人的其他壳公司。\n- b. 格林威治土地公司没有董事、高级职员或雇员（即便过去曾有高级职员，这些人也是债务人的雇员和/或代理人）。\n\n80 证据 48，2023 年 3 月 2 日郭证词笔录第 96:17-20 行（问：「郭先生，我再问你一次，你是格林威治土地有限责任公司的实益拥有人并控制该公司，对吗？」答：「第五修正案」）。\n\n81 同上，第 86-87:24-5 行（问：「郭先生，丹尼尔·波德哈斯基［Daniel Podhaskie］就金泉公司、领先阳光有限公司［Leading Shine Limited］、萨拉卡媒体集团［Saraca Media Group］、格林威治土地有限责任公司、法治社会［Rule of Law Society］以及雪梨荷兰酒店公寓采取的所有行动，都是在你的指示下采取的，对吗？」答：「第五修正案」）。\n\n- c. 依据知悉与相信，格林威治土地公司不提交纳税申报表（其未向受托人出示任何纳税申报表）。\n- d. 鉴于其缺乏任何对公司有任何了解的高级职员或代表，格林威治土地公司无法遵守公司形式要求，且其此前通过出具公司决议而对某些形式要求的遵守只是一种表象，因为格林威治土地公司的高级职员自始至终都是债务人的雇员和/或代理人。依据知悉与相信，格林威治土地公司未保存任何讨论或记录其公司事务的会议纪要。\n- e. 债务人将格林威治土地公司的主要资产塔科尼克路物业用作其居所。格林威治土地公司支付债务人与在该处居住相关的费用。\n- 56. 债务人错误且不当地利用其与格林威治土地公司的另我关系，除其他事项外，致使格林威治土地公司为债务人的使用和利益持有资产，同时企图将此类资产置于债务人的债权人触及范围之外。\n\n第一项主张\n（请求确认判决宣告格林威治土地公司是债务人的另我并命令向受托人移交格林威治土地公司的资产）\n\n57. 受托人重述并重申第 1 至 56 段中包含的主张。\n\n58. 特拉华州法律适用于另我/刺破公司面纱主张，因为格林威治土地公司是一家特拉华州实体。83\n\n83 参见例如 Universitas Education, LLC 诉 Benistar，2021 WL 965794，第 *7 页（康涅狄格区联邦地区法院 2021 年 3 月 15 日）（「［因为［被告］在特拉华州注册成立，我必须适用特拉华州法律来判定其是否可能因反向刺破公司面纱责任而受到另我主张的约束。」）。\n\n59. 根据Delaware（特拉华州）关于揭开公司面纱的两分法检验标准，法院在将特拉华州的另一个自我分析适用于Debtor（债务人）与Greenwich Land（格林威治土地公司）的关系时，将重点关注：(1) 债务人与格林威治土地公司是否作为一个单一经济实体运作；以及 (2) 是否存在总体上的不公正或不公平因素。在判定实体是否作为一个单一经济实体运作时，适用特拉华州法律的法院会考量多项因素，其中包括但不限于格林威治土地公司是否资本充足、是否遵守公司形式要件，以及是否为债务人的幌子。84 该“考量因素清单并非详尽无遗，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性意义。”85\n\n60. 债务人对格林威治土地公司实施了控制与支配，以至于格林威治土地公司脱离债务人便不具有独立存在性，且债务人利用公司形式实施了欺诈与不公正行为。格林威治土地公司是债务人的另一个自我，原因包括但不限于：\n\n- a. 格林威治土地公司由债务人的代理人和/或雇员管理，他们与Defendant Ngok（被告岳）共同构成了格林威治土地公司的全部高级管理人员（该公司目前根本没有任何高级管理人员）。\n- b. 格林威治土地公司名义上的所有者，即被告岳，对格林威治土地公司一无所知，且从未实质性地参与其事务。\n\n 84 Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出Third Circuit（第三巡回法院）在判定一家公司是否作为单一经济实体运作时所考量的因素，值得注意的是，该等因素不包括相关个人是否为该实体的股东，但会包括“严重资本不足；未能遵守公司形式要件……[以及]该公司是否仅是一个幌子。”）。\n\n85 同上，第471页。\n\n- c. 格林威治土地公司使用与债务人及其其他空壳公司相同的地址。\n- d. 格林威治土地公司及其资产由债务人的其他空壳公司提供资金。\n- e. 债务人是指导格林威治土地公司买卖房地产的决策者，从事该等交易的律师和经纪人对此均予认可，他们通过债务人的代理人和/或雇员Max Krasner（麦克斯·克拉斯纳）接受债务人的指示。\n- f. 债务人将格林威治土地公司的主要资产作为其住所使用，且格林威治土地公司支付与债务人在此居住相关的费用。\n\n61. 在所有相关时间内，债务人均负有一名或多名债权人的债务。该等债权人本可在行使其债权人权利时寻求Trustee（受托人）在此所寻求的救济。\n\n62. 因此，受托人依据Bankruptcy Code（《破产法典》）第541条、第542条和第544条寻求一项裁决：(1) 宣告：(a) 格林威治土地公司在所有时间内均是债务人的另一个自我；(b) 格林威治土地公司在债务人于2022年2月15日提出破产申请之日前的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) 格林威治土地公司自债务人于2022年2月15日提出chapter 11（第11章）破产申请之日起至目前的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产，均已构成且在适用的情况下构成债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将格林威治土地公司的任何及全部资产移交给受托人。\n\n第二项主张\n（请求确认判决宣告债务人为格林威治土地公司的衡平法所有权人并命令将格林威治土地公司的所有权移交给受托人）\n\n63. 受托人重申并重新主张第1-56段中所包含的指控。\n\n64. 上文所讨论的用于确立格林威治土地公司是债务人的另一个自我的相同事实，亦支持债务人是格林威治土地公司的衡平法所有权人这一结论。86\n\n65. 在所有相关时间内，债务人均负有一名或多名债权人的债务。该等债权人本可在行使其债权人权利时寻求受托人在此所寻求的救济。\n\n66. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第541条、第542条和第544条寻求一项裁决：(1) 宣告被告岳据称持有的格林威治土地公司的成员权益属于债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将该等成员权益以及所有相关的公司控制权向受托人交出。\n\n请求救济\n\n鉴于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 针对第一项主张，作出命令 (1) 宣告：(a) 格林威治土地公司在所有时间内均是债务人的另一个自我；(b) 格林威治土地公司在债务人于2022年2月15日提出破产申请之日前的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产，均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) 格林威治土地公司自债务人于2022年2月15日提出第11章破产申请之日起至目前的任何时间所持有的任何及全部资产，均已构成\n\n 86 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该法团]行使了相当大的权力……以至于完全无视公司形式，且行事如同[其]资产完全由其一人管理一样。”）（强调为后加）。\n\n且在适用的情况下构成债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将格林威治土地公司的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；以及\n\n2. 针对第二项主张，作出命令 (1) 宣告被告岳据称持有的格林威治土地公司的成员权益属于债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将该等成员权益以及所有相关的公司控制权向受托人交出；\n\n3. 判给在本诉讼中发生的合理律师费、诉讼费和开支；以及\n\n4. 判给法院在相关情况下认为公正、适当或公平的其他及进一步的救济。\n\n[本页余下部分特意留空]\n\n日期：2023年3月27日 纽约州纽约市 LUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯）第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获特准出庭） Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获特准出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获特准出庭） PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":8183,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:14:21"}