{"id":"court_sdny_1649_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":1649,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 1649","summary_zh":"破产程序动议——郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）康涅狄格州破产法院 In re Ho Wan Kwok 案（Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)）文件 ECF #1649（2023年4月10日提交）。郭文贵的刑事辩护律师团队（Brown Rudnick LLP）请求法院对此前责令其遵守破产受托人 Luc Despins 所发 Rule 2004 传票、须就其对多个关联实体的控制情况作出说明的1月20日裁定给予有限中止，理由是履行该裁定要求其披露的信息可能损害其在纽约南区刑事案（United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118）中援引宪法第五修正案不自证其罪特权、进行有效辩护的权利。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy-case motion — filed in the chapter 11 proceeding In re Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), District of Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 22-50073 (JAM), ECF #1649 (filed April 10, 2023). Kwok's criminal-defense counsel (Brown Rudnick LLP) asked the bankruptcy court for a limited stay of its January 20, 2023 order compelling compliance with Rule 2004 subpoenas from Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins regarding Kwok's control over various entities, arguing compliance would jeopardize his Fifth Amendment privilege and defense in the related SDNY criminal case, United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, 1:23-cr-00118.","body_en":"# UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n : In re : Chapter 11 : HO WAN KWOK, et al.<sup>1</sup> :\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_:\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n: Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nDebtors. : (Jointly Administered)\n\n# DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR A LIMITED STAY OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 SUBPOENA\n\n Debtor Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\"), hereby respectfully moves (the \"Motion\") for the entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to section 105 of title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\"), staying this Court's Order Granting in Part Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas dated January 20, 2023 (the \"January 20 Order\") on a limited basis to preserve the Debtor's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (the \"Fifth Amendment\"). In support of this Motion, the Debtor respectfully represents as follows:\n\n# PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n1. The Debtor was indicted on March 6, and on March 15 he was arrested and detained in connection with alleged wide-ranging, grievous, and consequential federal crimes. The United States has alleged that the Debtor has engaged in a years-long conspiracy to defraud\n\n<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 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\ninvestors—many of whom have asserted claims in these chapter 11 cases—that has resulted in alleged losses amounting to \\$1 billion. The gravamen of the government's allegations is that, as \"The Principal,\" the Debtor directed and controlled a host of entities to perpetuate a series of fraudulent schemes, allegations that in many respects mirror many of the allegations asserted in this case by the Chapter 11 Trustee in support of the discovery and other relief he has sought before this Court.\n\n2. The Debtor has the Constitutional right to a full and fair opportunity to defend against these charges. Critical to his Constitutional protections is the Debtor's rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which enshrines the right of an individual to not bear witness against himself.\n\n3. In these chapter 11 proceedings, prior to the unsealing of that indictment and the Debtor's arrest and detention, this Court ordered the Debtor to respond to the Trustee's request for documents relating to entities and individuals purportedly under the Debtor's \"control.\" Compliance with this Court's directive necessarily would require the Debtor to communicate beyond the mere act of producing the documents—whether, among other things, he believes the various entities and individuals are under the Debtor's \"control.\" This directive would require the Debtor to choose between compliance with that order and the Debtor's ability to assert his privilege against self-incrimination, and his ability to fully and fairly defend himself against the criminal charges.\n\n4. Accordingly, the Debtor hereby respectfully requests a limited stay of the January 20 Order as necessary and appropriate to protect the Debtor's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and to otherwise afford him a full and fair opportunity to defend against the charges leveled against him.\n\n### BACKGROUND\n\n### A. Pending Criminal Proceedings\n\n6. On March 15, 2023, a twelve-count indictment was unsealed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging the Debtor and King Ming Je (\"Mr. Je\") with various federal crimes.2 The Debtor was arrested by federal law enforcement authorities on March 15, 2023, and remains in federal custody.\n\n7. On March 29, 2023, the government filed a Superseding Indictment, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Superseding Indictment names Yanping Wang (\"Ms. Wang\") as an additional co-defendant. The government alleges that the Debtor, Mr. Je, and Ms. Wang \"conspired to defraud thousands of victims of more than approximately \\$1 billion.\" [Ex. B at ¶1.] The government further alleges that Debtor, Mr. Je, and Ms. Wang \"operated through a series of complex fraudulent and fictious businesses and investment opportunities that connected dozens of interrelated entities, which allowed the defendants and their co-conspirators to solicit, launder, and misappropriate victim funds.\" [Id.]\n\n8. The government has made direct allegations against the Debtor and his alleged coconspirators in connection with this Chapter 11 proceeding, stating that they \"operated the scheme for years\" by \"continually adapting the scheme's means and methods to evade the enforcement of investor-protection, anti-money laundering, and bankruptcy laws in the United States . . . .\" [Id. at ¶5.]\n\n9. The government further alleges that the Debtor \"was the leader of, and directed, the scheme.\" [Ex. B at ¶ 6.] Throughout the Superseding Indictment, the government alleges that the Debtor controlled various entities and individuals. For example, the government alleges that the\n\n<sup>2</sup> See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al., Case Number S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\nDebtor \"functionally owned and controlled\" GTV Media Group, Inc., \"although [Debtor] held no formal position or title\" in that entity. [Ex. B at ¶ 10.] Furthermore, the government alleges that G|Clubs \"was functionally owned and controlled by [the Debtor] although [the Debtor] held no formal position or title at G|Clubs.\" [Id. at ¶11.] The government also alleges that \"[e]ntities functionally owned and controlled by [the Debtor], such as G|Clubs and G|Fashion, had purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange . . .\" and that the Debtor \"claimed to be the designer of its purported cryptocurrency, although [the Debtor] held no formal position or title at the Himalaya Exchange.\" [Id. at ¶12.] In allegations of \"control\" that mirror those made by the Trustee, the government alleges that the Debtor \"directed\" that \"\\$100 million raised from investors\" be transferred into a hedge fund. [Id. at ¶13h.] The government further alleges that this transfer was made by Ms. Wang (at the Debtor's direction). [Id. at ¶32b.]\n\n### B. The Trustee's Investigation\n\n10. On February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), the Debtor filed his voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered its Order Granting Appointment Of Chapter 11 Trustee (Doc. No. 523), appointing Luc Despins as the Chapter 11 trustee in this case (the \"Trustee\").\n\n11. On July 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his i) Motion for 2004 Examination of the Debtor (Doc. No. 636), ii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Legal and Financial Advisors to the [Individual] Debtor (Doc. No. 637), and iii) Omnibus Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee For Entry of Order Under Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 Authorizing Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with the Debtor (Doc. No. 638) (collectively the \"July Rule 2004 Exam Motions\").\n\n12. On August 5, 2022, the Debtor filed his Limited Objection to Rule 2004 Motions (Doc. No. 703) to preserve certain rights, including the right to assert objections to the requests for the production of documents that would be served with the subpoena attached to the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions after the subpoena was actually served. By orders dated August 16, 2022, this Court granted the July Rule 2004 Exam Motions.\n\n### C. The Rule 2004 Subpoena\n\n13. The Debtor was served with a Rule 2004 subpoena (the \"Rule 2004 Subpoena\") on August 19, 2022. The Debtor served timely objections to the document requests attached to that Subpoena, asserting objections to certain of the enumerated Instructions and Definitions included with the requests for production, as well as objections to certain of the requests for production.\n\n14. The Rule 2004 Subpoena contains thirty requests for the production of documents, of which twenty include demands for documents relating to \"Associated Individuals\" and/or \"Associated Entities.\" [See Rule 2004 Subpoena, passim.]\n\n15. An Associated Individual is defined, in relevant part, as \"individually and collectively, all individuals that (1) hold, control, have custody over, or discretion over assets owned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have been employees, directors, or otherwise affiliated with one or more Associated Entities, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.\" [Id.] The definition of Associated Individuals includes twenty-seven individuals, which would seem to include the alleged criminal co-conspirators and co-defendants, Ms. Wang and Mr. Je.\n\n16. An Associated Entity is defined, in relevant part, as \"individually and collectively, all organizations or Entities of any type that (1) have been owned, controlled, or invested in by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family; or (2) have an interest, whether directly or indirectly, in any assets\n\nowned, controlled, or enjoyed by the Debtor or the Debtor's Family, together with the respective employees, agents, counsel, advisors, or anyone acting on behalf of any of the foregoing,\" [Id.] The definition of Associated Entity includes seventy-seven entities, including the following entities listed in the Superseding Indictment: GTV Media Group, Inc., G|Club Operations, LLC, G|MUSIC, Himalaya Exchange, Saraca Media Group, Inc., Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc., Rule of Law Fund, Rule of Law Society, Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., and related entities.\n\n17. The Debtor agreed to produce, and through his professionals and former professionals did produce, the vast majority of documents requested by the Trustee in the requests for production. The Debtor objected to the production of certain categories of documents, primarily documents related to the assets of his \"family,\" which the Trustee defined to include \"the Debtor, the Debtor's Son, the Debtor's Daughter, and the Debtor's Purported Wife, and any other familial relation to the Debtor.\"\n\n18. On October 28, 2022, the Trustee filed his Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Compelling Individual Debtor, [and Others] to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas (Doc. No. 1046) (the \"Motion to Compel\").\n\n19. On November 14, 2022 the Debtor (and others) filed their Joint Objection of the Debtor, Mei Guo, and HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC to Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas (Doc. No. 1090). This Court held a hearing on the Motion to Compel on November 30, 2022.\n\n20. The Court entered the January 20 Order. As it relates to the Debtor, the January 20 Order required that the Debtor produce the following:\n\na. \"documents responsive to the Trustee's requests dated June 1, 2014 or later;\"\n\n- b. \"documents responsive to the Trustee's requests as to both assets he acknowledges he owns and assets belonging to persons or entities other than the Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities;\" and\n- c. \"documents responsive to the Trustee's requests that are within his custody, possession, or control, including without limitation documents in the files of his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors, unless such documents have already been produced by his current or former counsel and other agents and advisors but without consideration of any future potential production by his current or former counsel and other agents or advisors.\" [January 20 Order, Doc. No. 1353 at p. 4.]\n- 21. The Order further demanded that the Debtor file, by 5:00 p.m. on February 7, 2023,\n\na sworn declaration concerning, inter alia, efforts to locate and review responsive documents. [Id.\n\nat p. 4-5.]\n\n# D. The Debtor Invokes the Fifth Amendment\n\n22. The Debtor's counsel thereafter informed the Trustee's counsel that the Debtor is\n\nasserting his rights under the Fifth Amendment, including any rights under the act of production\n\ndoctrine, and on February 7, 2023, the Debtor filed a sworn declaration stating:\n\nI am the Debtor in the above-captioned Chapter 11 case and am in receipt of the Court's order on the Trustee' s Motion to Compel, dated January 20, 2023, Doc. No . 1353. I hereby invoke my rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, including under the act of production doctrine, with respect to the Subpoena dated August 17, 2022, in its entirety, including all requests for documents and information set forth therein.\n\nFebruary 7, 2023, Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok Concerning Invocation of Fifth Amendment\n\nPrivilege in Regard to Rule 2004 Discovery (Exhibit A to Doc. No. 1444).\n\n23. On February 10, 2023, the Trustee filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause why\n\nDebtor [and others] should not be held in Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Order\n\nCompelling Compliance with Rule 2004 Subpoenas and Sanctioned for such Contempt (Doc. No.\n\n1453). The Trustee's Motion challenges the Individual Debtor's invocation of his Fifth\n\nAmendment privilege in response to the Motion to Compel Order and seeks to hold the Debtor in contempt.\n\n24. On February 13, 2023, this Court issued its Order Granting In Part Motion for Order to Appear and Show Cause Why the Court Should not Hold the HK Parties in Contempt of Court (the \"February 13 Order\" (Doc. No. 1455)). The February 13 Order stated that the Court would set a briefing schedule on the Debtor's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege at the conclusion of the mediation. Id., at 2. Following the completion of the mediation, on March 7, 2023, this Court held a status conference on a number of matters.3 During the status conference the Court ordered the Debtor to respond to the Order to Show Cause by March 28, 2023. The Debtor's time to respond to the Order to Show Cause was subsequently extended to April 10, 2023.\n\n### RELIEF REQUESTED\n\n25. The Debtor respectfully seeks, pursuant to section 105 the Bankruptcy Code, the entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, staying this Court's January 20 Order on a limited basis to the extent necessary to preserve Debtor's Constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, rather than seek a stay of the entire bankruptcy case, the relief sought herein is limited to relieving the Debtor from further compliance with the January 20 Order pending resolution of the parallel criminal proceedings.\n\n26. This limited relief is appropriate for several reasons. First, while the Debtor has already produced a number of documents, such as his personal tax returns, the Debtor is now incarcerated, and the government has seized what it views as all of the Debtor's records and\n\n<sup>3</sup> The Debtor was indicted the prior day, although neither the Court nor the Debtor was aware of that fact. The Debtor now understands that the Trustee had been in regular contact with the Government as to the possibility of the criminal charges, but the Debtor does not know whether the Trustee knew at that time that the indictment had been actually issued the day before.\n\ndevices. The Debtor therefore does not have responsive documents in his possession and cannot produce anything further, at least in the foreseeable future.\n\n27. Second, the only portion of the requests still at issue relate to those documents that the Trustee alleges are held by other entities or individuals, but within the Debtor's \"control.\" As explained below, the production of such documents is necessarily testimonial and compliance would require waiver of the Debtor's Constitutional rights. Nor can the Debtor provide a declaration attesting to his efforts to locate and review responsive documents where the very production of those documents would impact his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination—there is simply no testimony for him to provide consistent with exercise of his Constitutional rights.\n\n28. Therefore, a limited stay relieving the Debtor of further compliance with the order is necessary and legally warranted. Courts have found limited stays similar to the stay requested herein appropriate. See, e.g., Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116, 119-20 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (stay found appropriate where defendants sought a limited stay of discovery pending the outcome of a criminal investigation, and not a stay of the entire civil case). For example, in O'Connell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. (In re Julmice), defendants in an adversary proceeding were indicted in a parallel criminal proceeding. 458 B.R. 657, 664 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011). To protect the defendants' Fifth Amendment rights, which would have been prejudiced if the defendants were required to defend the adversary proceeding while the criminal charges were pending, the court found that a limited stay was warranted. For the reasons and on the basis of the authorities discussed below, such a stay should be ordered here, too.\n\n### BASIS FOR RELIEF\n\n29. In general, a court has discretion to stay a civil action during the pendency of a criminal action if justice so requires. United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27 (1970). To prevail on a motion for a stay, a defendant need show only that the continuation of the civil proceeding will unduly prejudice him or interfere with his constitutional rights. Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels, Int'l Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 575–576 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).\n\n# A. The January 20 Order Prejudices Debtor's Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination\n\n30. Here, further enforcement of the January 20 Order at this time, pending the resolution of the criminal charges, will severely and unduly prejudice the Debtor's constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment declares in part: \"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....\" U.S. Const. Amend. V. The privilege may be invoked whether the answer would itself support a criminal conviction or where the answer would furnish a link in the chain of evidence required to prosecute. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Importantly, the disclosure need not be an element of the crime to preclude disclosure—it merely must tend to incriminate the witness. United States v. St. Pierre, 132 F.2d 837, 838 (2d Cir.1942) (emphasis added). The privilege applies where the declarant has reasonable cause to fear the consequences of an answer. Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486.\n\n31. The compelled production of documents may implicate Fifth Amendment concerns. An individual may assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid producing documents if the act of producing the documents would tend to incriminate him. Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). The doctrine operates to prevent an individual from being compelled to furnish evidence against themselves by the very act of producing documents. In brief, \"[t]he act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena . . . has communicative\n\naspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced. Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the person subpoenaed. It would also indicate the person's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena.\" Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 (citations and quotations omitted).\n\n32. That act of production doctrine squarely applies here: where the heart of the criminal indictment is that the Debtor is alleged to have control over many other persons and entities, the Debtor will and does dispute that contention, and the Trustee seeks the Debtor here to cause those persons and entities to do certain things. Accordingly, compliance with the January 20 Order would require the Debtor to effectively waive his Fifth Amendment privilege. The January 20 Order requires the Debtor to produce documents in response to the Requests in the Rule 2004 Subpoena relating to \"assets allegedly belonging to persons or entities other than the Debtor, including without limitation his family members and associated entities.\" [Id.] Finally, the January 20 Order directs the Debtor to turn over the files of his \"current or former counsel and other agents and advisors\" to the extent those files include documents responsive to the requests. [Id.]\n\n33. However, nearly every one of the requests in the Rule 2004 Subpoena requires the Debtor to communicate his belief, and then to act on such belief, as to whether or not the entities or individuals referenced in the Subpoena are within his \"control.\" Several of the entities listed in the Rule 2004 Subpoena, and at least two individuals, are specifically named in the Superseding Indictment as individuals or entities over whom the Debtor had \"control.\" Compliance with the January 20 Order would force the Debtor to take positions and make admissions inconsistent with his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination – precisely what the Constitution prohibits.\n\n34. Importantly, the government has alleged a years-long and pervasive \"fraud.\" Further, the government may yet supersede its indictment again. As such, even as to those entities and individuals listed in the Rule 2004 Subpoena but not in the Superseding Indictment, the Debtor has a reasonable apprehension of incrimination, and invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege as to those entities and individuals as well.\n\n## B. A Limited Stay of the January 20 Order is Appropriate here to Preserve Debtor's Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination\n\n35. Courts regularly grant stays of civil proceedings pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings. In re Par Pharmaceutical, 133 F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (\"[t]he weight of authority in this Circuit indicates that courts will stay a civil proceeding when the criminal investigation has ripened into an indictment\"); see also Wheling v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 1979) (civil discovery stayed until \"all threat of criminal liability ended\"). It is well-settled that a court has the discretion to impose a stay to preclude prejudice to a defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege. Kashi v. Gratos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986). \"Courts are afforded this discretion because the denial of a stay could impair a party's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, extend criminal discovery beyond the limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), expose the defense's theory to the prosecution in advance of trial, or otherwise prejudice the criminal case.\" See Trustee of Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1138-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted).\n\n36. A court will balance the following factors when determining whether to stay a civil proceeding pending resolution of a criminal action: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in\n\nproceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the courts; and (6) the public interest. Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139; Hicks v. City of New York, 268 F. Supp. 2d 238, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). As set forth in greater detail below, all of the factors warrant the imposition of a limited stay of the January 20 Order.\n\n### i. Overlap Between the Criminal Case and the Rule 2004 Subpoena\n\n37. The first factor is the \"most important factor\" to be considered in determining whether it is appropriate to stay civil litigation related to a pending criminal matter. See Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139. This is so because \"self-incrimination is more likely if there is a significant overlap\" between the criminal and non-criminal proceedings. Id.\n\n38. Here, as set forth above, the core allegations in the Superseding Indictment are allegations of control with respect to entities and individuals that are directly identical to the admissions sought by way of the Rule 2004 Subpoena – precisely the heart of the Trustee's asserted grounds for relief against the Debtor. This is especially true now where the Debtor himself has no access to any of his own books and records, all of which have been seized. There is significant overlap between the Trustee's claims and those in the Superseding Indictment. For example, the Rule 2004 Subpoena assumes the Debtor's control of both of his co-defendants—an allegation identical to that in the Superseding Indictment that the Debtor is the \"The Principal\" and the leader of the alleged conspiracy. Furthermore, at least ten of the entities listed in the Rule 2004 Subpoena as entities over which the Debtor has control are entities specifically mentioned in the Superseding Indictment as entities by which the Debtor perpetuated the alleged fraud. Here, compliance with the January 20 Order directly hits at the truth or falsity of the\n\nallegations in the Superseding Indictment because of the existing \"significant overlap.\" Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139.\n\n39. The Debtor understands that the Trustee is in constant communication and working cooperatively with the prosecutors and law enforcement in the criminal proceedings. As set forth above, a stay is critically important where proceeding with the non-criminal proceeding would \"extend criminal discovery beyond the limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b) or expose the defense's theory to the prosecution in advance of trial, or otherwise prejudice the criminal case.\" See Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139 (citations omitted). Here, where there is significant overlap between the Trustee's claims and the criminal allegations, and where the Trustee is cooperating and acting in concert with prosecutors and federal law enforcement agencies, the risk of self-incrimination is heightened, and a stay is warranted.\n\n### ii. Status of the Criminal Case\n\n40. Furthermore, a civil proceeding generally will be stayed if, as here, the defendant has been indicted. Hicks, 268 F.Supp.2d at 242. Specifically, \"the likelihood that a defendant may make incriminating statement is greatest after an indictment has issued, and ... the prejudice to the plaintiffs in the civil case is reduced since the criminal case will likely be quickly resolved due to Speedy Trial Act considerations.\" Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139. With respect to this factor, courts consider the strain on the defendant's resources from having to simultaneously defend multiple actions, as well as the risk of exposing the defense's theory to the prosecution in advance of trial. See, e.g., Am. Express Bus. Fin. Corp. v. RW Prof'l Leasing Servs. Corp., 225 F.Supp.2d 263, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). Here, the Debtor has been indicted in the Southern District of New York, and must now expend scarce resources to defend overlapping claims in\n\nmultiple fora. As a practical matter, the Debtor is incarcerated with severe limits on his ability to even confer with his attorneys, to make or receive calls, or to otherwise meaningfully participate in any efforts to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoena. A stay of the January 20 Order will enable the Debtor to focus on preparing his defense against the criminal charges against him.\n\n### iii. The Prejudice to the Trustee in Connection with a Limited Stay\n\n41. Here, there is little to no prejudice to the Trustee in connection with a stay of the January 20 Order. In connection with the criminal proceedings, all or virtually all the assets that are alleged by the Trustee to be possibly assets of the chapter 11 estate have been seized by federal law enforcement authorities. The Debtor has no access to any of them, never mind the ability to dissipate them. As such, it is unlikely that these proceedings will advance in any meaningful way until the resolution of the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Debtor respectfully asserts that the Trustee will not be prejudiced by a limited stay of the January 20 Order.\n\n### iv. The Interests of, and Burden on, the Debtor\n\n42. Here, as set forth above, the interests of the Debtor in a stay of the January 20 Order are immense. The allegations against the Debtor are serious, his very life and liberty are at stake, and the Debtor has a compelling interest in securing his freedom from the threat of life in prison. The burden on him here is similarly grave: he is forced to either be held in contempt of this Court for invoking his Constitutional privilege to not bear witness against himself; or to comply with the January 20 Order and waive his constitutional right, greatly handicapping his defense of these serious criminal charges as a result. This factor weighs heavily in favor of a limited stay of the January 20 Order.\n\n### v. The Interests of the Court and of the Public\n\n43. Here, the court and public would benefit from a limited stay of the January 20 Order because, as set forth above, the interests of judicial efficiency favor a resolution of the criminal proceedings in advance of this proceeding. Specifically, courts have found that where criminal prosecution is not merely conjectural, and defendants have been indicted and face trial imminently, judicial efficiency weighs in favor of granting a stay. See Transworld, 886 F.Supp. at 1140 (explaining that \"resolution of the criminal case may increase the possibility of settlement of the civil case\").\n\n44. Nor would the public interest be harmed by the stay. As set forth above, the Debtor is seeking a limited stay of the January 20 Order, rather than the entire bankruptcy case, and in any event, in light of the criminal case, the assets at issue in the bankruptcy case have been or will likely by seized and frozen. As such, the public interest will not be harmed by the limited stay of the January 20 Order. Furthermore, a stay of the January 20 Order would promote due process by affording the Debtor and full and fair opportunity to defend the criminal charges against him.\n\n### CONCLUSION\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Debtor respectfully requests the entry of an order staying the January 20 Order, and relieving the Debtor of the obligation to produce any documents or to submit any declaration in further connection with the January 20 Order.\n\nDated: April 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter Dylan P. Kletter (ct28197) Brown Rudnick LLP 185 Asylum Street, 38th Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Tel: (860) 509-6500 Fax: (860) 509-6501 Email: dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen R. Cook (pro hac vice pending) 2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor Irvine, California 92612 Tel: (949) 752-7100 Fax: (949) 252-1514 Email scook@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen A. Best (pro hac vice pending) 601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 536-1737 Fac : (219) 938-2937 Email: sbest@brownrudnick.com\n\nSPECIAL (CRIMINAL DEFENSE) COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR HO WAN KWOK\n\n### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on this 10th day of April, 2023, a copy of foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分院）\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人1\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。（合并审理）\n\n债务人请求对准许部分强制执行第 2004 条传票动议之裁定予以有限中止的动议\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（以下简称“债务人”）谨此依据《美国法典》第 11 编（以下简称《破产法典》）第 105 条提出动议（以下简称“本动议”），请求本院作出基本形式如本动议附件 A 所示的裁定（以下简称“拟议裁定”），在有限范围内中止本院于 2023 年 1 月 20 日作出的《准许部分强制执行第 2004 条传票动议之裁定》（以下简称“1 月 20 日裁定”），以维护债务人在《美利坚合众国宪法第五修正案》（以下简称《第五修正案》）项下的权利。为支持本动议，债务人谨陈述如下：\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 债务人于 3 月 6 日被提起公诉，并于 3 月 15 日因涉嫌广泛、严重且影响重大的联邦犯罪而被逮捕并拘留。美国政府指控债务人参与了一场长达数年、诈骗投资者的共谋——其中许多投资者已在本第 11 章案件中提出索赔——该共谋据称造成了高达 10 亿美元的损失。政府指控的核心实质在于，债务人作为“主谋”，指使并控制了大量实体以推行一系列欺诈计划；在诸多方面，这些指控与本案第 11 章破产受托人为支持其向本院寻求证据开示及其他救济所提出的多项指控如出一辙。\n\n1 本第 11 章案件中的各债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 及 Miles Kwok，以及其他化名）（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 转交 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财团受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅用于通知与联络目的）。\n\n2. 债务人享有对上述指控进行充分且公平抗辩的宪法权利。对债务人的宪法保护而言，至关重要的是其在《美国宪法第五修正案》项下的权利，该修正案确立了个人不得自证其罪的权利。\n\n3. 在本第 11 章程序中，在该起诉书解封以及债务人被逮捕和拘留之前，本院曾命令债务人答复受托人关于调取据称由债务人“控制”的实体及个人相关文件的请求。服从本院的指令必然要求债务人做出超出单纯提供文件行为之外的意思表示——其中包括他是否认为相关实体和个人处于债务人的“控制”之下。该指令将迫使债务人在服从该裁定与债务人主张其反对自证其罪特权之间、以及在其对刑事指控进行充分且公平抗辩的能力之间作出选择。\n\n4. 因此，债务人谨此请求在保护债务人《第五修正案》反对自证其罪特权所必要且适当的范围内，对 1 月 20 日裁定予以有限中止，并在其他方面赋予其对其面临的指控进行充分且公平抗辩的机会。\n\n背景\n\nA. 待决刑事诉讼\n\n6. 2023 年 3 月 15 日，United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）解封了一份包含十二项罪名项的起诉书，指控债务人与 King Ming Je（余建明，以下简称“Je 先生”）犯有多项联邦罪行。2 债务人于 2023 年 3 月 15 日被联邦执法当局逮捕，目前仍处于联邦羁押之中。\n\n7. 2023 年 3 月 29 日，政府提交了一份附于本动议附件 B 的替代起诉书。该替代起诉书将 Yanping Wang（王雁平，以下简称“Wang 女士”）列为追加共同被告。政府指控债务人、Je 先生与 Wang 女士“共谋诈骗数千名受害者逾约 10 亿美元”。[附件 B 第 1 段。] 政府进一步指控债务人、Je 先生与 Wang 女士“通过一系列复杂的欺诈性与虚构业务及投资机会进行运作，这些业务与机会将数十个相互关联的实体串联起来，使各被告及其共谋者得以招揽、清洗并侵吞受害者资金”。[同上。]\n\n8. 政府就本第 11 章程序对债务人及其据称的共谋者提出了直接指控，称他们“通过不断调整该计划的手段与方法，以规避美国投资者保护法、反洗钱法以及破产法的执行，从而将该计划运作了数年之久……”。[同上第 5 段。]\n\n9. 政府进一步指控债务人“是该计划的领导者并指挥了该计划”。[附件 B 第 6 段。] 在整份替代起诉书中，政府指控债务人控制了多个实体和个人。例如，政府指控\n\n2 参见正在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok et al. 案，案件编号 S1 23 Cr. 118 (AT)。\n\n债务人对 GTV Media Group, Inc.“在实质上拥有并控制”，“尽管[债务人]在该实体中未担任任何正式职位或头衔”。[附件 B 第 10 段。] 此外，政府指控 G|Clubs“在实质上由[债务人]拥有并控制，尽管[债务人]在 G|Clubs 未担任任何正式职位或头衔”。[同上第 11 段。] 政府还指控“[由债务人]在实质上拥有并控制的实体，例如 G|Clubs 和 G|Fashion，与 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）存在据称的业务关系……”，且债务人“声称是其据称的加密货币的设计者，尽管[债务人]在 Himalaya Exchange 未担任任何正式职位或头衔”。[同上第 12 段。] 在与受托人所作指控如出一辙的“控制”指控中，政府指控债务人“指示”将“向投资者筹集的 1 亿美元”转入一家对冲基金。[同上第 13h 段。] 政府进一步指控该笔转账系由 Wang 女士（在债务人指示下）完成。[同上第 32b 段。]\n\nB. 受托人的调查\n\n10. 2022 年 2 月 15 日（以下简称“申请日”），债务人根据《破产法典》第 11 章提交了自愿救济申请书。2022 年 7 月 8 日，本院作出了《准许指定第 11 章受托人之裁定》（文件编号 523），指定 Luc Despins 为本案的第 11 章受托人（以下简称“受托人”）。\n\n11. 2022 年 7 月 28 日，受托人提交了：i) 《关于对债务人进行第 2004 条询问的动议》（文件编号 636）、ii) 《第 11 章受托人请求依据破产规则第 2004 条及本地规则第 2004-1 条作出授权就[个人]债务人的各类法律与财务顾问进行证据开示之裁定的综合动议》（文件编号 637），以及 iii) 《第 11 章受托人请求依据破产规则第 2004 条及本地规则第 2004-1 条作出授权就与债务人关联的各类实体及个人进行证据开示之裁定的综合动议》（文件编号 638）（统称“7 月第 2004 条询问动议”）。\n\n12. 2022 年 8 月 5 日，债务人提交了《对第 2004 条动议的有限异议》（文件编号 703）以保留特定权利，包括在传票实际送达后，对随附于 7 月第 2004 条询问动议所附传票的文件提供请求提出异议的权利。通过 2022 年 8 月 16 日的各项裁定，本院准许了 7 月第 2004 条询问动议。\n\nC. 第 2004 条传票\n\n13. 债务人于 2022 年 8 月 19 日获送达一份第 2004 条传票（以下简称“第 2004 条传票”）。债务人对该传票所附的文件请求及时送达了异议，对文件提供请求中所列的部分操作指引与定义提出了异议，并对部分文件提供请求提出了异议。\n\n14. 第 2004 条传票包含三十项文件提供请求，其中二十项包含调取与“关联个人”及/或“关联实体”相关文件的要求。[参见第 2004 条传票，各处。]\n\n15. “关联个人”在相关部分被定义为“单独及共同指满足以下条件的所有个人：(1) 持有、控制、保管或处置由债务人或债务人家族拥有、控制或享用的资产；或 (2) 曾经是一个或多个关联实体的雇员、董事或以其他方式与其关联，以及上述任何一方各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表其行事的任何人”。[同上。] 关联个人的定义包含二十七名个人，其中似乎包括据称的刑事共谋者及共同被告 Wang 女士和 Je 先生。\n\n16. “关联实体”在相关部分被定义为“单独及共同指满足以下条件的所有类型的组织或实体：(1) 曾经由债务人或债务人家族拥有、控制或投资；或 (2) 直接或间接在由债务人或债务人家族\n\n拥有、控制或享用的任何资产中享有权益，以及上述任何一方各自的雇员、代理人、律师、顾问或代表其行事的任何人”。[同上。] 关联实体的定义包含七十七个实体，其中包括替代起诉书中列出的以下实体：GTV Media Group, Inc.、G|Club Operations, LLC、G|MUSIC、Himalaya Exchange、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、Rule of Law Foundation IV, Inc.、Rule of Law Fund、Rule of Law Society、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. 及相关实体。\n\n17. 债务人同意提供、并通过其专业人士及前专业人士实际提供了受托人在文件提供请求中所调取的大部分文件。债务人对提供特定类别的文件提出了异议，主要是与其“家族”资产相关的文件，受托人将该家族定义为包括“债务人、债务人之子、债务人之女以及债务人据称的妻子，以及与债务人的任何其他亲属关系者”。\n\n18. 2022 年 10 月 28 日，受托人提交了《第 11 章受托人请求作出强制个人债务人[及其他人]服从第 2004 条传票之裁定的动议》（文件编号 1046）（以下简称“强制执行动议”）。\n\n19. 2022 年 11 月 14 日，债务人（及其他人）提交了《债务人、Mei Guo（郭美）及 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 对第 11 章受托人强制执行第 2004 条传票动议的联合异议》（文件编号 1090）。本院于 2022 年 11 月 30 日就强制执行动议举行了听证会。\n\n20. 法院作出了 1 月 20 日裁定。就涉及债务人的部分而言，1 月 20 日裁定要求债务人提供以下内容：\n\na. “响应受托人日期为 2014 年 6 月 1 日或之后请求的文件；”\n\n- b. “就受托人有关他承认属于自己所有的财产，以及属于债务人以外之个人或实体的财产（包括但不限于其家庭成员及关联实体）的请求所作出的应答文件；”以及\n\n- c. “就受托人的请求所作出的、处于其保管、占有或控制之下的应答文件，包括但不限于其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问的案卷中的文件，除非该等文件已由其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问提供，但无需考虑其现任或前任律师以及其他代理人或顾问在未来可能进行的任何提供。”[1月20日命令，Doc. No. 1353，第4页。]\n\n- 21. 该命令进一步要求债务人于2023年2月7日下午5:00前提交一份宣誓声明，说明（除其他事项外）为查找和审查应答文件所作出的努力。[出处同上，第4-5页。]\n\nD. 债务人援引第五修正案\n\n22. 债务人的律师随后通知受托人的律师，债务人正在主张其在第五修正案（Fifth Amendment）下的权利，包括在文件提供行为原则（act of production doctrine）下的任何权利；并且在2023年2月7日，债务人提交了一份宣誓声明，声明如下：\n\n我是上述标题所示第11章案件中的债务人，并且已收到本法院于2023年1月20日就受托人强制作为动议作出的命令（Doc. No. 1353）。关于2022年8月17日的传票整体，包括其中所列出的所有文件和信息请求，本人特此援引美利坚合众国宪法第五修正案赋予本人的权利，包括在文件提供行为原则下的权利。\n\n2023年2月7日，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生关于就《破产程序规则》第2004条取证援引第五修正案特权的声明（Doc. No. 1444 之附件 A）。\n\n23. 2023年2月10日，受托人提交了一项动议，申请发出说明理由令，要求说明为何不应判定债务人[及其他人]因未遵守强制执行第2004条传票的命令而构成蔑视法庭罪，并就该等蔑视法庭行为予以制裁（Doc. No. 1453）。受托人的动议对个人债务人针对强制作为动议命令援引其第五修正案特权提出质疑，并请求判定债务人蔑视法庭。\n\n24. 2023年2月13日，本法院发布了《关于部分批准要求出庭并说明为何法院不应判定HK各方蔑视法庭的命令之动议的命令》（“2月13日命令”（Doc. No. 1455））。2月13日命令指出，法院将在调解结束时就债务人主张其第五修正案特权确定书面答辩日程。出处同上，第2页。调解完成后，本法院于2023年3月7日就若干事项举行了案件进展听证会。3 在案件进展听证会期间，法院命令债务人在2023年3月28日之前对说明理由令作出答复。随后，债务人对说明理由令作出答复的期限被延长至2023年4月10日。\n\n请求的救济\n\n25. 债务人依据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第105条，恭请法院作出一项形式实质上与本申请附件 A 相同的命令，在保留债务人根据第五修正案所享有的宪法权利所必需的范围内，有限度地中止执行本法院的1月20日命令。具体而言，本申请所寻求的救济并非请求中止整个破产案件，而是仅限于在平行的刑事诉讼程序解决之前，免除债务人进一步遵守1月20日命令的义务。\n\n26. 给予此项有限救济是适当的，理由有以下几点。首先，尽管债务人已经提供了若干文件（例如其个人纳税申报单），但债务人目前已被羁押，且政府已扣押了其认为属于债务人的全部记录和\n\n3 债务人已于前一天被起诉（indictment），尽管法院和债务人当时均不知晓该事实。债务人目前得知，受托人一直就提出刑事指控的可能性与政府保持经常联系，但债务人不知道受托人当时是否知晓起诉书实际上已于前一天发布。\n\n设备。因此，债务人并未占有应答文件，且至少在可预见的未来无法进一步提供任何文件。\n\n27. 其次，各项请求中唯一仍存在争议的部分，涉及受托人指称由其他实体或个人持有但属于债务人“控制”之下的文件。如下文所述，提供此类文件必然具有证言性质，且履行该要求将导致债务人被迫放弃其宪法权利。此外，在提供这些文件本身即会影响其不自证其罪的第五修正案特权的情况下，债务人亦无法提供宣誓声明以证明其为查找和审查应答文件所作出的努力——在行使其宪法权利的前提下，他根本无法提供任何证言。\n\n28. 因此，免除债务人进一步遵守该命令的有限中止是必要的，且具有法律依据。各法院均认定，与本申请所请求的中止类似的有限中止是适当的。参见，例如 Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116, 119-20 (E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区联邦地区法院） 1985)（在被告寻求在刑事调查得出结果之前有限中止证据开示程序、而非中止整个民事案件的情况下，法院认定中止是适当的）。例如，在 O'Connell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. (In re Julmice) 一案中，附随诉讼程序中的被告在平行的刑事诉讼程序中被起诉。458 B.R. 657, 664 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.（纽约东区联邦破产法院） 2011)。为保护被告的第五修正案权利（若要求被告在刑事指控悬而未决期间对附随诉讼进行抗辩，该权利将受到损害），法院认定有限中止是有正当理由的。基于下文讨论的理由和法律依据，本案中亦应裁定给予此类中止。\n\n救济依据\n\n29. 一般而言，如果司法公正有此要求，法院有权在刑事诉讼进行期间酌情决定中止民事诉讼。United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27 (1970)。要在中止动议中胜诉，被告仅需证明民事诉讼程序的继续进行将对其造成不当损害或干涉其宪法权利。Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels, Int'l Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 575–576 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院） 2001)。\n\nA. 1月20日命令损害了债务人不自证其罪的第五修正案特权\n\n30. 在本案中，在刑事指控解决之前，目前进一步执行1月20日命令将严重且不当地损害债务人不自证其罪的宪法特权。第五修正案部分规定：“任何人……在任何刑事案件中不得被强迫自证其罪……”《美国宪法第五修正案》。无论回答本身是否会支持刑事定罪，抑或回答是否会提供起诉所需证据链中的一环，均可援引该特权。Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)。重要的是，披露的内容无需构成犯罪构成要件即可排除披露——它只需具有使证人自证其罪的倾向即可。United States v. St. Pierre, 132 F.2d 837, 838 (2d Cir.（联邦第二巡回上诉法院）1942)（重点为后加）。只要声明人有合理的理由对回答的后果产生恐惧，该特权即适用。Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486。\n\n31. 强迫提供文件可能会涉及第五修正案的关切。如果提供文件的行为本身具有使个人自证其罪的倾向，该个人可以主张其不自证其罪的第五修正案权利以拒绝提供文件。Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976)。该原则的作用在于防止个人因提供文件的行为本身而被强迫提供针对其自身的证据。简而言之，“应传票要求提供证据的行为……本身即具有传意性，这完全独立于所提供文书的内容。服从传票即默示承认了所要求文书的存在，以及传票送达对象对文书的占有或控制。这也表明该人认为该等文书即是传票中所描述的文书。”Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410（引用及引文省略）。\n\n32. 该文件提供行为原则完全适用于本案：刑事起诉书的核心指控在于指称债务人对许多其他个人和实体拥有控制权，债务人将且确实对该主张提出异议，而受托人在本案中试图让债务人促使这些个人和实体实施某些行为。因此，遵守1月20日命令将要求债务人实质上放弃其第五修正案特权。1月20日命令要求债务人就第2004条传票中有关“据称属于债务人以外之个人或实体的财产（包括但不限于其家庭成员及关联实体）”的请求提供应答文件。[出处同上。] 最后，1月20日命令指示债务人移交其“现任或前任律师以及其他代理人和顾问”的案卷，只要这些案卷包含对请求具有应答性的文件。[出处同上。]\n\n33. 然而，第2004条传票中的几乎每一项请求，都要求债务人就传票中提及的实体或个人是否在其“控制”之下表达其认知，并随后依据该认知采取行动。第2004条传票中列出的若干实体以及至少两名个人，在替代起诉书（Superseding Indictment）中被明确指名为债务人对其拥有“控制权”的个人或实体。遵守1月20日命令将迫使债务人采取与其不自证其罪的第五修正案特权不相容的立场并作出不相容的承认——而这恰恰是宪法所禁止的。\n\n34. 重要的是，政府指控存在长达数年且普遍存在的“欺诈”。此外，政府可能还会再次追加替代起诉。因此，即使对于第2004条传票中列出但未在替代起诉书中列出的实体和个人，债务人亦存在合理的归罪顾虑，并同样对这些实体和个人援引其第五修正案特权。\n\nB. 在本案中对1月20日命令给予有限中止以维护债务人不自证其罪的第五修正案特权是适当的\n\n35. 法院通常会在平行的刑事诉讼程序解决之前准予中止民事诉讼程序。In re Par Pharmaceutical, 133 F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)（“本巡回区的权威判例表明，当刑事调查已成熟至提起起诉时，法院将中止民事诉讼”）；亦见 Wheling v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir.（联邦第五巡回上诉法院） 1979)（民事证据开示被中止直至“所有刑事责任威胁消除”）。法院拥有酌处权实施中止以防止被告的第五修正案特权受到损害，这一点已是不争的定论。Kashi v. Gratos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986)。“赋予法院此项酌处权，是因为拒绝中止可能会损害当事人不自证其罪的第五修正案特权、将刑事证据开示扩大至超出《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第16(b)条所规定的限度、在开庭审理前向控方暴露辩方理论，或以其他方式对刑事案件造成不利影响。”参见 Trustee of Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1138-39 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)（引文省略）。\n\n36. 法院在决定是否中止民事诉讼程序以待刑事诉讼解决时，将权衡以下因素：(1) 刑事案件中的争议焦点与民事案件中所呈现争议焦点的重叠程度；(2) 刑事案件的状态，包括被告是否已被大陪审团起诉（indicted）；(3) 原告迅速推进诉讼的个人利益与因迟延给原告造成的损害之间的权衡；(4) 被告的个人利益和负担；(5) 法院的利益；以及 (6) 公共利益。Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139; Hicks v. City of New York（希克斯诉纽约市案）, 268 F. Supp. 2d 238, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)（纽约东区）。如下文更详尽所述，所有因素均支持对 1月20日裁定（January 20 Order）实施有限中止。\n\ni. 刑事案件与第2004条传票（Rule 2004 Subpoena）之间的重叠\n\n37. 第一项因素是确定中止与待决刑事事项相关的民事诉讼是否适当时所应考量的“最重要因素”。参见 Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139。这是因为，如果刑事与非刑事诉讼程序之间“存在重大重叠，则更有可能导致自证其罪”。同上。\n\n38. 在本案中，如上所述，一份替代起诉书（Superseding Indictment）中的核心指控是关于对各实体及个人的控制权指控，这与通过第2004条传票所谋求获得的自认直接完全一致——而这恰恰是受托人（Trustee）主张针对债务人（Debtor）给予救济的核心理由。在债务人本人无法获取其自身的任何账簿和记录（这些账簿和记录已全部被查封没收）的当下，情况尤为如此。受托人的主张与替代起诉书中的指控之间存在重大重叠。例如，第2004条传票推定债务人控制其两名共同被告——该指控与替代起诉书中关于债务人系被指控共谋的“主犯（The Principal）”及头目指控完全一致。此外，第2004条传票中列为债务人控制下的实体中，至少有十家实体在替代起诉书中被明确提及为债务人据以实施涉嫌欺诈的实体。在本案中，鉴于现存的“重大重叠”，遵守1月20日裁定将直接触及替代起诉书中指控的真实性或虚假性。Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139。\n\n39. 债务人获悉，受托人正与刑事诉讼程序中的检察官和执法部门保持经常性沟通并进行协作。如上所述，如果推进非刑事诉讼程序将会“将刑事证据开示扩大至超出《联邦刑事诉讼规则》（Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure）第16(b)条规定的限度，或在审判前将辩方的辩护理论暴露给检方，或在其他方面对刑事案件造成损害”，则中止诉讼至关重要。参见 Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139（援引判例略）。在本案中，鉴于受托人的主张与刑事指控之间存在重大重叠，且受托人正在与检察官及联邦执法机构合作并协同行动，自证其罪的风险增加，因此应当准予中止。\n\nii. 刑事案件的状态\n\n40. 此外，如果（如本案中）被告已被起诉，民事诉讼程序通常将被中止。Hicks, 268 F.Supp.2d at 242。具体而言，“在起诉书签发后，被告作出自罪陈述的可能性最大，并且……由于《快速审判法》（Speedy Trial Act）的考量，刑事案件可能会迅速得到解决，因此民事案件中原告所受到的损害会有所减少”。Transworld, 886 F. Supp. at 1139。针对这一因素，法院会考量被告因不得不同时应对多起诉讼而对其资源造成的压力，以及在审判前将辩护理论暴露给检方的风险。参见例如 Am. Express Bus. Fin. Corp. v. RW Prof'l Leasing Servs. Corp.（美国运通商业金融公司诉RW专业租赁服务公司案）, 225 F.Supp.2d 263, 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)。在本案中，债务人已在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）被起诉，目前必须耗费稀缺的资源在多个法庭应对重叠的主张。从实际情况来看，债务人目前处于羁押监禁状态，甚至连与其律师会见、拨打或接听电话、或以其他方式实质性参与配合遵守第2004条传票的任何工作，其能力都受到严重限制。中止1月20日裁定将使债务人能够集中精力准备针对其刑事指控的辩护。\n\niii. 有限中止对受托人造成的损害\n\n41. 在本案中，中止1月20日裁定对受托人造成的损害微乎其微或几乎不存在。针对刑事诉讼程序，受托人主张可能属于第11章破产财团（chapter 11 estate）的所有或几乎所有资产，均已被联邦执法当局扣押没收。债务人无法接触其中的任何资产，更不用说有能力挥霍处置它们。因此，在刑事诉讼程序解决之前，这些诉讼程序不太可能取得任何实质性进展。相应地，债务人恭敬地主张，受托人不会因有限中止1月20日裁定而遭受损害。\n\niv. 债务人的利益与负担\n\n42. 在本案中，如上所述，债务人在中止1月20日裁定方面具有极其重大的利益。针对债务人的指控性质严重，其生命与自由正处于危急关头，且债务人在确保其免受终身监禁威胁的自由方面享有极其迫切的利益。他在此承受的负担同样沉重：他被迫面临两难境地——要么因行使宪法赋予的不自证其罪的特权而被本法院裁定为藐视法庭；要么遵守1月20日裁定并放弃其宪法权利，进而严重阻碍其对这些严重刑事指控的辩护。这一因素极大地支持对1月20日裁定予以有限中止。\n\nv. 法院与公众的利益\n\n43. 在本案中，法院和公众将受益于对1月20日裁定的有限中止，因为如上所述，司法效率利益有利于在推进本案诉讼程序之前先行解决刑事诉讼程序。具体而言，法院认定，当刑事起诉并非仅为推测性，且被告已被起诉并即将面临审判时，司法效率支持准予中止。参见 Transworld, 886 F.Supp. at 1140（解释称“刑事案件的解决可能会增加民事案件达成和解的可能性”）。\n\n44. 中止也不会损害公共利益。如上所述，债务人谋求的是对1月20日裁定的有限中止，而非整个破产案件的中止；无论如何，鉴于刑事案件的存在，破产案件中涉及的资产已经或可能将被扣押和冻结。因此，有限中止1月20日裁定不会损害公共利益。此外，中止1月20日裁定将通过向债务人提供充分且公正的机会以就针对其的刑事指控进行辩护，从而促进正当法律程序。\n\n结论\n\n基于上述理由，债务人恭敬地请求作出命令，中止1月20日裁定，并免除债务人就1月20日裁定进一步提供任何文件或提交任何声明的义务。\n\n日期：2023年4月10日\n恭敬提交，\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter\nDylan P. Kletter（ct28197）\nBrown Rudnick LLP（布朗鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n185 Asylum Street, 38th Floor\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n电话：(860) 509-6500\n传真：(860) 509-6501\n电子邮箱：dkletter@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen R. Cook（特许出庭待决）\n2211 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor\nIrvine, California 92612\n电话：(949) 752-7100\n传真：(949) 252-1514\n电子邮箱：scook@brownrudnick.com\n\nStephen A. Best（特许出庭待决）\n601 13th Street, NW, Suite 600\nWashington, DC 20005\n电话：(202) 536-1737\n传真：(219) 938-2937\n电子邮箱：sbest@brownrudnick.com\n\n债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）之特别（刑事辩护）代理律师\n\n送达证书\n\n我谨此证明，于2023年4月10日，上述文书之副本已通过电子方式归档。此归档通知将通过本法院电子归档系统运作以电子邮件方式发送给各方当事人，或按照电子归档通知上的指示，通过邮寄方式发送给任何无法接受电子归档的人员。各方当事人可通过本法院 CM/ECF 系统查阅此份归档文件。\n\n/s/ Dylan P. Kletter","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5143,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:43:06"}