{"id":"court_sdny_198_3","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":198,"sub_number":3,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"EXHIBIT B ![](_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg)","summary_zh":"第三方权益异议信 —— 美国诉何万国案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #198。律师Bradford L. Geyer代表Himalaya Exchange已认证用户，向破产托管人及其律师事务所（Paul Hastings）提出异议，涉及利益冲突、管辖权问题、费用争议，并主张Himalaya Exchange为独立实体，应从破产程序中移除；含Himalaya Exchange服务条款摘录说明其地理限制政策。","summary_en":"Third-Party Objection Letter — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok, SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #198. Attorney Bradford L. Geyer, on behalf of verified Himalaya Exchange users, objects to involvement of bankruptcy trustee and counsel (Paul Hastings) in matters affecting customer assets, raising conflicts of interest, jurisdictional challenges, and fee disputes; argues Himalaya Exchange is a separate entity that should be removed from bankruptcy proceedings; includes Himalaya Exchange's terms of service showing geographic access restrictions.","body_en":"## EXHIBIT B\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n3 Page 2 of 12\n- (856) 607-5708\n- (888) 686-8346\n- info@FormerFedsGroup.com\n- www.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nDecember 10, 2023\n\nNick A. Bassett, Esq. December 10, 2023 PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Email: [nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com](mailto:nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com)\n\nDear Mr. Bassett:\n\nI have received a copy of your filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut and letter to Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.\n\nBefore proceeding with public pleadings and filings I thought I would write to you by letter and consult and ask for your client's position. I do not mean that this letter or other communication might not at some point become public as part of a filing. What I do mean is that perhaps Luc Despins and others might discuss these matters to reach agreement on some issues before proceeding to motions. I believe that in several of these contexts we are encouraged or required to minimize the burden on the Courts' time by determining what issues a court might need to resolve and what can be resolved without court time.\n\n1. Initially, I am not sure in what role I am addressing you as Luc Despin's counsel. As Bankruptcy Trustee, Luc Despins is responsible to manage the bankruptcy estate under Chapter 11 of the bankrupt petitioner (or involuntary petitioner), report to the Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut, and carry out the duties of the Trustee as are standard or ordered by the Court. As I understand it, Luc Despins is applying for a\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n- (856) 607-5708- (888) 686-8346- info@FormerFedsGroup.co\n\nshocking, astronomical sum of money for his fees. Therefore, presumably he is qualified to do this work of Trustee if only for a tiny fraction of the fees that he has requested. Therefore, I do not understand why the Trustee is not speaking for himself, or why I or others should not be addressing the Trustee directly. A Trustee is entitled to consult and receive legal advice, but it is different for counsel for the Trustee to speak or communicate in place of the Trustee. I am beginning here but I believe in the future I will be interacting with the Trustee as Trustee. Please help with some guidance as to your role.\n\n- 2. Also, in a court transcript Luc Despins argues that he will participate not only as the Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee but will also participate in court proceedings in an indictment against Ho Wan Kwok. I believe this would be a disqualifying conflict of interest. Has Mr. Despins obtained agreement to represent my clients' interests in any case related to these matters? It is clear law that a trustee has a fiduciary duty to everyone according to their legal rights and roles. By operation of law, the bankruptcy trustee may seek resolutions that balance the rights of all creditors and claimants. However, in other courts and other contexts, Mr. Despins is not authorized to speak for my clients and they do not consent to it.\n- 3. Third, unfortunately, it is exceedingly well-known and well-documented that no Western company can do business in China without surrendering any and all\n\n![](_page_3_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nproprietary, intellectual, or other rights to the Republic of China government. I understand that Paul Hastings has an office in China. While that is probably a good thing in general, the extensive research of many involving Chinese government practices suggest that Paul Hastings would be required to disclose all information about my clients to the Chinese Communist Party and/or the government of the Republic of China, to the extent that Paul Hastings itself becomes aware of such information. This of course is not a frivolous question but in this case a very serious, real-world concern. Can you advise if Paul Hastings believes that it should continue to be involved in this case?\n\n- 4. Except to the extent that the Himalaya exchange is a separate business that has nothing to do with the rest of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy, my clients object to any and all distributions of any fees or repayment of expenses to Mr. Despins, his counsel, or others related to the bankruptcy. If other aspects of Kwok's businesses or activities justify the payment of fees or expenses, I express no opinion on that as long as none of the funds come from my clients funds.\n- 5. I am sure that you and Mr. Despins must be aware by now that the Himalaya Exchange is separate and apart from any other business or financial activities of Ho Wan Kwok. May I reach agreement with you and Mr. Despins that my clients and the Himalya Exchange have no relationship with Bankruptcy Case No. 22-50073\n\n![](_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n23 Page 5 of 12\n- (856) 607-5708\n- (888) 686-8346\n- info@FormerFedsGroup.com\n- www.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n(JAM) and the Trustee will promptly remove any issues relating to the Himalaya Exchange or the claims of its investors and depositors – many of whom are my clients and it is likely that upon learning of these events all of them will be my clients?\n\n6. If any and all issues relating to the Himalaya Exchange are not severed voluntarily by the Trustee from Bankruptcy Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) and any other case, as legally and financially distinct and unrelated to the affairs of Ho Wan Kwok, I will cause through locally-licensed counsel, possibly *pro hac vice* myself, a Motion for Relief from Stay to remove any and all issues related in any way to my clients as investors or depositers with the Himalya Exchange and the Exchange itself from the bankruptcy case and lift the stay.\n\nMay I put you down as consenting to such a motion? You will understand by now that (a) Ho Wan Kwok does not own the Himalaya Exchange or the funds in\n\n> it. The funds held by the Exchange are \"reserve funds\" like the reserves of a traditional bank (but at 100% of value, not a fractional reserve).\n\n(b) The inclusion of matters related to the Himalaya Exchange and my clients was apparently premised on the idea that Kwok controls the funds of the Exchange. But he does not.\n\n![](_page_5_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n-\n- (c) My clients as depositers or investors in crypto currency have a superior claim on any and all funds held by the Exchange, both as to the reserve funds and as to funds for operating exchanges necessary to protect their investments.\n- (d) My clients and all crypto currency / digital currency clients of the Himalaya Exchange – as a separate business from Kwon's other activities – have what may loosely be described as right to sell back their digital coins to the Himalaya Exchange. The funds held by the Himalaya Exchange are required reserves to protect my client's right to resell their coins back to the Exchange. This is actually very technical in terms of a \"stable coin\" arrangement, which is required. This is a matter of regulation and contract to ensure stability in the digital currency. But in very simple terms it may be thought of as my clients have a right to sell their coins back to the Himalaya Exchange and receive U.S. dollars withdrawn in return.\n- (e) Therefore, the reserve funds which Luc Despins proposes to administer as part of the bankruptcy estate are owned primarily by my clients. Those funds are not part of the bankruptcy estate.\n\n![](_page_6_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n- (f) Therefore, none of the funds of the Himalya Exchange are available to Ho Wan Kwok but are pledged to my clients. The Exchange holds those funds as *trustee* to my clients.\n- (g) Therefore, the Chapter 11 Trustee has no claim on any funds or property of the Himalaya Exchange. Possibly funds in excess of that needed to redeem all outstanding crypto currency digital coins as required by the investment contracts could be different. But to the extent that the Exchange is deprived of the funds needed to operate, the Exchange would crash as an operating business and my clients and others would suffer a total loss. So even funds more than just the reserves are under a claim to my clients.\n- (h) A Motion for Relief from the Stay is proper just like a mortgage company whose loan is secured by a house or building will routinely and reflexively receive a relief from the stay because the real estate is uniquely pledged as collateral to ensure repayment of the loan.\n- (i) This may be analogized to an apartment complex or chain of apartment buildings which receives security deposits from tenants.\n\n![](_page_7_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n23 Page 8 of 12\n- (856) 607-5708\n- (888) 686-8346\n- info@FormerFedsGroup.com\n- www.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nThose security deposits are pledged to be repaid to the tenants, and are not the property of the apartment complex or rental company. They may not be seized by a creditor or treated as the company's property in a bankruptcy. The security deposits must be accounted for separately as the property of the tenants. This is true even though the renter must jump through some hoops to receive a security deposit back.\n\n- (j) Therefore, I trust you will consent to a motion for relief from stay regarding all funds and matters relating to the Himalaya Exchange, at least with regard to all reserve funds equal to the redemption value of all issued digital coins assuming – as regulation in this type of business requires – all investors including my clients all demanded redemption of their digital coins. If the Trustee seeks to administer any funds in excess of the reserve funds needed to redeem 100% of all digital coins, this could not invade the operating funds necessary to protect my clients' investment by keeping the Exchange operating.\n- 7. I trust that the Trustee will agree that there has been no wrongdoing or allegation of wrong doing by any of the investors in the Himalayan Exchange such as my clients, certainly not with regard to U.S. law?\n\n![](_page_8_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n-\n- 8. Will you agree that the Trustee's obligation is primarily to my clients and other investors in the Himalaya Exchange, who have done nothing wrong? (Note above I mentioned the conflict of interest in the Trustee representing my clients is any other context, in any other court. One must acknowledge that by statute the Trustee is authorized to maximize and vindicate the interests of all interested persons, so the bankruptcy case itself is an exception where the Trustee does need to think about what best vindicates all of the persons involved. However, that would not authorize the Trustee to participate on behalf of my clients in any other capacity or case.)\n- 9. I trust that you and the Trustee understand and agree that the U.S. Government has no jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange. The Himalaya Exchange has no activity in the United States of America. Indeed, the client agreement prohibits any member from the United States:\n\n## **SCHEDULE 5 HIMALAYA EXCHANGE TERMS AND CONDITIONS**\n\nThese Exchange Terms and Conditions (hereinafter \"Himalaya Exchange Agreement\" or \"Himalaya Exchange Conditions\") supplement the General Conditions and are applicable to the use of the crypto asset exchange platform (the \"Himalaya Exchange\") operated and provided by Himalaya International Clearing Ltd. These terms apply to each electronic form or contract executed by Users and/or Members who use the Himalaya Exchange, unless expressly stipulated otherwise in the Contractual Documentation. To the extent there is a conflict between the Himalaya Exchange Agreement and the General Conditions, the\n\n![](_page_9_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n(856) 607-5708\n(888) 686-8346\n\ninfo@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\nterms of this Himalaya Exchange Agreement will prevail and to the extent there is a conflict between the Himalaya Exchange Agreement and the applicable Jurisdiction Conditions, the Jurisdiction Conditions shall prevail. Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the General Conditions or the Product Conditions. **NO PERSON LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES OR ACTING FOR THE ACCOUNT OR BENEFIT OF ANY U.S. PERSONS (AS SUCH TERMS ARE DEFINED IN REGULATIONS UNDER THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED); OR U.S. CITIZEN (AS DEFINED IN 8 U.S.C. SUBCHAPTER III); OR U.S. PERSON (AS DEFINED IN 17 C.F.R S230.902(K)) MAY BECOME A MEMBER, USER OR OTHERWISE ACCESS THE HIMALAYA EXCHANGE.**\n\nAnd the agreement further requires that:\n\n## **1.4 Jurisdictional Restrictions**\n\nBy your use of any of the Site, the Products, or the Services, you represent and warrant that such use is legal for you, including by virtue of the laws in your local jurisdiction, and you agree that you will not use a Site, the Products or the Services if such use is prohibited or otherwise violates the laws of the country, state, province, or other jurisdiction in which you reside or of which you are a citizen. In particular, you agree that you are not a \"U.S. person\" as such term is defined in Regulation S under the Securities Act, a U.S. Citizen (as defined in 8 U.S.C Subchapter III), a U.S. Person (as defined in 17 C.F.R s230.902(K)) or otherwise located in the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not using or accessing the Site, the Products, or the Services on behalf of or for the account or benefit of such persons.\n\n## **HIMALAYA EXCHANGE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER TERRORISM FINANCING POLICY (AML/CTF) POLICY**\n\n**3. Jurisdictions** *[where -- sic]* **the Exchange does not provide services:**\n\n\\* \\* \\*\n\n![](_page_10_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nAfghanistan, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, USA, Canada, Japan.\n\n- 10. I am sure you are aware that none of my clients are U.S. citizens nor U.S. lawful permanent residents, nor have they had any financial transactions in the United States of America or under the jurisdiction of any aspect of the United States of America.\n- 11. Therefore, I am sure you will agree that neither the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the U.S. Department of Justice have any jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange or any of my clients or their funds or any financial interests or transactions relating to the Exchange.\n- 12. May I understand that you (Luc Despins) will consent to a motion in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to dismiss any issue relating to the Himalaya Exchange due to lack of subject matter, *in personam*, or *in rem* jurisdiction of the United States of America over these matters?\n\n![](_page_11_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n13. I trust that Luc Despins will not request any fees or expense reimbursement regarding any issues or funds of the Himalaya Exchange because legally the Himalaya Exchange could never have been part of the bankruptcy case to being with.\n\n> Very truly yours, FormerFedsGroup.Com LLC By: \\_/s/ Brad Geyer\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ Bradford L. Geyer, Esq. Bradford.Geyer@FormerFedsGroup.Com (856-607-5708)","body_zh":"证物 B\n\n第 2 页，共 12 页\n- (856) 607-5708\n- (888) 686-8346\n- info@FormerFedsGroup.com\n- www.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n2023年12月10日\n\nNick A. Bassett（尼克·A·巴塞特）律师 2023年12月10日 PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 2050 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 电子邮件：nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n尊敬的巴塞特先生：\n\n我已收到您向 U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）提交的文件，以及致 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）Analisa Torres（安娜丽莎·托雷斯）法官的信函副本。\n\n在进行公开答辩和提交文件之前，我认为应当先致信与您协商，并询问贵方当事人的立场。我并不是说这封信或其他通信日后绝不会作为归档文件的一部分而公开。我的意思是，在提起动议之前，Luc Despins（卢克·德斯宾斯）等人或许可以就这些事项进行讨论，以便就某些问题达成一致。我认为，在其中的若干背景下，我们受到鼓励或被要求通过确定法院可能需要解决哪些问题以及哪些问题可以在不占用法院时间的情况下予以解决，来最大限度地减少对法院时间的负担。\n\n1. 首先，我不确定我以何种身份与作为德斯宾斯代理律师的您进行沟通。作为破产受托人（Bankruptcy Trustee），德斯宾斯负责根据破产申请人（或非自愿申请人）的《破产法》第11章管理破产财产，向康涅狄格区破产法院汇报，并履行受托人的标准职责或法院命令规定的职责。据我了解，德斯宾斯正在申请\n\n- (856) 607-5708 - (888) 686-8346 - info@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n一笔令人震惊的天文数字般的费用。因此，想必他完全有资格胜任这项受托人工作，即使费用仅占他所要求的一小部分。因此，我不明白为什么受托人自己不出面发声，或者为什么我或其他人不应当直接与受托人沟通。受托人有权咨询并获取法律意见，但受托人的代理律师代替受托人发言或沟通则是另一回事。我在此先行致信，但我相信今后我将直接与受托人以其受托人身份进行交涉。请就您的角色提供一些指引。\n\n2. 此外，在一份法庭庭审记录中，德斯宾斯主张他不仅将作为第11章破产受托人参与，还将参与针对 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的起诉书（indictment）的法庭诉讼程序。我认为这构成了应当取消资格的利益冲突。德斯宾斯先生是否已获得同意在与这些事项相关的任何案件中代表我方委托人的利益？法律明确规定，受托人根据所有人的法定权利和角色对他们负有信义义务（fiduciary duty）。根据法律规定，破产受托人可以寻求平衡所有债权人和索赔人权利的解决方案。然而，在其他法院和其他语境下，德斯宾斯先生未获授权代表我方委托人发言，我方委托人也不同意这一点。\n\n3. 第三，遗憾的是，众所周知且有据可查的是，任何西方公司在中国开展业务，都不得不放弃并向中华民国（Republic of China）政府交出任何及所有\n\n专有、知识产权或其他权利。据我了解，普衡在中国设有办事处。虽然总体而言这可能是一件好事，但许多涉及中国政府行径的广泛研究表明，一旦普衡自身获知有关我方委托人的此类信息，普衡将被要求向中国共产党和/或中华民国政府披露我方委托人的全部信息。这当然不是一个毫无根据的问题，而是在本案中一个非常严肃、现实的关切。您能否告知，普衡是否认为其应当继续参与本案？\n\n4. 除非喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）是一项与第11章破产案其余部分毫无关联的独立业务，否则我方委托人反对向德斯宾斯先生、其代理律师或与破产相关的其他人分配任何费用或报销开支。如果郭文贵业务或活动的其他方面证明支付费用或开支是合理的，只要没有任何资金来自我方委托人的资金，我对对此不发表意见。\n\n5. 我确信您和德斯宾斯先生现在一定已经意识到，喜马拉雅交易所完全独立于郭文贵的任何其他业务或财务活动。我是否可以与您及德斯宾斯先生达成协议，确认我方委托人及喜马拉雅交易所与破产案案号 22-50073 (JAM) 没有任何关系，\n\n第 5 页，共 12 页\n- (856) 607-5708\n- (888) 686-8346\n- info@FormerFedsGroup.com\n- www.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n且受托人将迅速排除与喜马拉雅交易所或其投资者及存款人的索赔相关的任何问题——其中许多人是我方委托人，而且在得知这些事件后很可能他们所有人都会成为我方委托人？\n\n6. 如果受托人未能自愿将涉及喜马拉雅交易所的任何及所有问题从破产案案号 22-50073 (JAM) 及任何其他案件中剥离出来（鉴于其在法律和财务上均与郭文贵的事物截然不同且无关），我将通过当地持牌律师，或可能由我本人申请特许出庭（pro hac vice），提起一份中止救济动议（Motion for Relief from Stay），将与作为喜马拉雅交易所投资者或存款人的我方委托人以及该交易所本身相关的任何及所有问题从破产案件中排除，并解除中止令。\n\n我是否可以将贵方列为同意此类动议？您现在应该明白：(a) 郭文贵并不拥有喜马拉雅交易所或其中的资金。\n\n交易所持有的资金属于“准备金”，类似于传统银行的准备金（但是按价值的100%计，而非部分准备金）。\n\n(b) 将与喜马拉雅交易所及我方委托人相关的事项纳入其中，显然是基于郭文贵控制交易所资金这一设想。但他并未控制。\n\n(c) 我方委托人作为加密货币的存款人或投资者，对交易所持有的任何及所有资金均享有优先受偿权，这既涉及准备金，也涉及保护其投资所必需的交易所运营资金。\n\n(d) 我方委托人以及喜马拉雅交易所的所有加密货币/数字货币客户——作为独立于郭文贵其他活动的业务——享有可粗略描述为向喜马拉雅交易所售回其数字代币的权利。喜马拉雅交易所持有的资金是必要的准备金，用以保障我方委托人将其代币售回交易所的权利。在强制要求的“稳定币”安排方面，这实际上涉及非常专业的技术问题。这是确保数字货币稳定性的监管和合同问题。但用非常简单的话来说，可以理解为我方委托人有权将其代币售回喜马拉雅交易所，并取回美元作为回报。\n\n(e) 因此，德斯宾斯提议作为破产财产一部分予以管理的准备金，主要归我方委托人所有。这些资金不属于破产财产。\n\n(f) 因此，喜马拉雅交易所的资金均不可供郭文贵使用，而是质押给我方委托人的。交易所作为我方委托人的受托人（trustee）持有这些资金。\n\n(g) 因此，第11章受托人对喜马拉雅交易所的任何资金或财产均无主张权利。投资合同要求的赎回所有流通数字代币所需资金之外的盈余资金可能另当别论。但若交易所被剥夺运营所需资金，该交易所作为运营实体将会崩溃，我方委托人及其他人将遭受全盘损失。因此，甚至超出准备金的部分资金也在我方委托人的权利主张之下。\n\n(h) 提起中止救济动议是正当合理的，正如贷款以房屋或建筑物为抵押的抵押贷款公司通常且自然会获得中止救济一样，因为该不动产被特别质押作为确保偿还贷款的抵押品。\n\n(i) 这可以类比为从租户处收取押金的公寓大楼或连锁公寓楼。\n\n第 8 页，共 12 页\n- (856) 607-5708\n- (888) 686-8346\n- info@FormerFedsGroup.com\n- www.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n这些押金已承诺退还给租户，不属于公寓大楼或租赁公司的财产。在破产程序中，它们不能被债权人扣押，也不能被视为公司的财产。押金必须作为租户的财产单独核算。即使租户必须经过若干繁琐程序才能拿回押金，情况依然如此。\n\n(j) 因此，我相信您会同意就涉及喜马拉雅交易所的所有资金和事项提出中止救济动议，至少对于等于所有已发行数字代币赎回价值的全部准备金而言是如此——正如该类业务的监管规定所要求的那样，假设包括我方委托人在内的所有投资者均要求赎回其数字代币。如果受托人试图管理超出赎回100%数字代币所需准备金之外的任何资金，这绝不能侵占通过维持交易所运营来保护我方委托人投资所必需的运营资金。\n\n7. 我相信受托人会同意，喜马拉雅交易所的任何投资者（如我方委托人）均未有任何不当行为，亦未受到任何不当行为指控，在涉及美国法律方面当然更是如此？\n\n8. 您是否同意受托人的首要义务是针对我方委托人以及喜马拉雅交易所的其他投资者，而他们并未做错任何事？（请注意，我上文提到了受托人在任何其他语境、任何其他法院代表我方委托人所存在的利益冲突。必须承认，根据成文法，受托人获授权最大化并维护所有利害关系人的利益，因此破产案件本身是一个例外，受托人确实需要考虑如何最大程度维护所有相关人员的利益。然而，这并不能授权受托人以任何其他身份或在任何其他案件中代表我方委托人参与。）\n\n9. 我相信您和受托人理解并同意，美国政府对喜马拉雅交易所没有管辖权。喜马拉雅交易所在美利坚合众国境内没有任何业务活动。事实上，客户协议禁止任何来自美国的人员成为会员：\n\n附表 5 喜马拉雅交易所条款与条件\n\n本交易所条款与条件（以下简称“喜马拉雅交易所协议”或“喜马拉雅交易所条件”）是对一般条件的补充，适用于由 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）运营和提供的加密资产交易平台（即“喜马拉雅交易所”）的使用。除非合同文件中另有明确规定，本条款适用于使用喜马拉雅交易所的用户和/或会员所签署的每份电子表格或合同。如果喜马拉雅交易所协议与一般条件之间存在冲突，\n\n(856) 607-5708\n(888) 686-8346\n\ninfo@FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n.FormerFedsGroup.com\n\n本 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）协议的条款应具有约束力，且若喜马拉雅交易所协议与适用的管辖区条件之间存在冲突，则以管辖区条件为准。本文中未另行定义的术语应具有一般条件或产品条件中赋予它们的含义。位于美国境内的任何人员，或为任何美国人士的账户或利益行事的任何人员（定义见经修订的 United States Securities Act of 1933《1933年美国证券法》项下的法规）；或美国公民（定义见 8 U.S.C. 第 III 分章）；或美国人士（定义见 17 C.F.R. § 230.902(k)），均不得成为喜马拉雅交易所的会员、用户或以其他方式访问喜马拉雅交易所。\n\n并且该协议进一步要求：\n\n1.4 管辖区限制\n\n您使用本网站、产品或服务的任何部分，即表示您陈述并保证此类使用对您而言是合法的，包括依据您当地管辖区的法律，并且您同意，如果使用本网站、产品或服务在您居住或作为其公民的国家、州、省或其他管辖区的法律下被禁止或以其他方式构成违法，您将不会使用本网站、产品或服务。特别是，您同意您不是《证券法》Regulation S（S 条例）中所定义的“美国人士”、美国公民（定义见 8 U.S.C. 第 III 分章）、美国人士（定义见 17 C.F.R. § 230.902(k)），亦不位于美国境内或受美国管辖的任何领土内，并且未代表此类人员或为了此类人员的账户或利益而使用或访问本网站、产品或服务。\n\nHIMALAYA EXCHANGE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AND COUNTER TERRORISM FINANCING POLICY (AML/CTF) POLICY（喜马拉雅交易所反洗钱与反恐融资政策）\n\n3. 本交易所不提供服务的管辖区[原文如此]：\n\n* * *\n\n阿富汗、朝鲜民主主义人民共和国（DPRK）、伊朗、伊拉克、巴基斯坦、叙利亚、索马里、尼日利亚、美国、加拿大、日本。\n\n10. 我确信您知晓，我的客户均不是美国公民，也不是美国合法永久居民，且他们均未在美利坚合众国境内或在美利坚合众国任何方面的管辖下进行过任何金融交易。\n\n11. 因此，我确信您会同意，U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）、U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）、U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission（美国证券交易委员会）或 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）均对喜马拉雅交易所、我的任何客户、其资金或与该交易所相关的任何财务利益或交易没有任何管辖权。\n\n12. 我是否可以理解为，您（Luc Despins）将同意在美国破产法院提出的一项动议，即因美利坚合众国对这些事项缺乏标的管辖权、in personam（对人管辖权）或 in rem（对物管辖权）而驳回与喜马拉雅交易所相关的任何事项？\n\n13. 我相信 Luc Despins 不会就喜马拉雅交易所的任何问题或资金要求任何费用或开支报销，因为从法律上讲，喜马拉雅交易所自始至终绝不可能成为该破产案的一部分。\n\n谨启，\nFormerFedsGroup.Com LLC\n签署人：/s/ Brad Geyer\nBradford L. Geyer，律师\nBradford.Geyer@FormerFedsGroup.Com\n(856-607-5708)","key_entities":["Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Despins","Kwok","Luc Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings","Geyer","Je","CIPA","Torres","Analisa Torres","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":2480,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:29:56"}