{"id":"court_sdny_202_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"23-cr-00118","doc_number":202,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-12-11","title":"1(202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com December 19, 2023","summary_zh":"破产受托人对'返还财产动议'的回应函——美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，SDNY 1:23-cr-00118 ECF #202（2023年12月11日提交）。代表康涅狄格州破产法院指定的第11章破产受托人 Luc Despins 的 Paul Hastings 律所（Nicholas Bassett）致函 Torres 法官，就喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）自称客户方提出的第41(g)条返还财产动议及其后续答辩状表态：受托人对政府扣押行为本身及该动议是否应获支持均不表态，但主张被扣资金可能属于破产遗产财产，要求法院在受托人有机会向破产法院寻求救济前，不予放行涉案资金。","summary_en":"Letter response to the motion for return of property, submitted on behalf of the chapter 11 trustee — United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), SDNY 1:23-cr-00118, ECF No. 202 (filed 2023-12-11). Paul Hastings LLP (Nicholas Bassett), representing Luc Despins, the chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee appointed in the Connecticut bankruptcy court, writes to Judge Torres addressing the Rule 41(g) motion brought by purported Himalaya Exchange customers and their reply brief. The Trustee takes no position on the propriety of the seizure or the merits of the motion, but argues the seized funds may be property of the bankruptcy estate and asks the court not to authorize release of the funds until the Trustee has had an opportunity to seek relief in the bankruptcy court.","body_en":"1(202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\nDecember 19, 2023\n\nHon. Analisa Torres United States District Court Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312\n\nRe: *United States v. Kwok, et al*, 1:23-cr-118 (AT)\n\nDear Judge Torres:\n\nWe represent Luc Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") in the chapter 11 bankruptcy case of defendant Ho Wan Kwok pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"). Pursuant to the Court's order dated December 11, 2023 (Dkt. 190), the Trustee respectfully submits this letter in response to the Motion for Return of Property, dated December 6, 2023 (Dkt. 186 (\"Motion\")), filed by certain purported \"customers\" (\"Movants\") of the \"Himalaya Exchange,\"1 and Movants' reply brief in support thereof (Dkt. 198 (\"Reply\")).\n\nThe Trustee takes no position on the propriety of the Government's seizure of the funds at issue or on whether Movants are entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). The Trustee submits this response because he believes the seized funds allegedly belonging to customers of the Himalaya Exchange may, in fact, be property of the chapter 11 estate. Accordingly, to the extent this Court were to consider granting the Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court not authorize the release of the funds to Movants until after the Trustee has had the opportunity to move the Bankruptcy Court for injunctive relief to prevent such release and/or to have the funds transferred to the chapter 11 estate.\n\nTo be clear, the Trustee is sympathetic to all victims and creditors of Mr. Kwok—including those who purportedly made investments in the Himalaya Exchange; however, there must be an organized process for repaying such parties only after their claims have been vetted by the appropriate court. If the funds at issue are released prematurely to Movants, who allegedly consist of thousands of unnamed customers of the Himalaya Exchange spread across the world, it may become practically impossible for the Trustee to recover the funds thereafter, thus irreparably harming the chapter 11 estate.\n\n# **Motion Must Be Viewed In Larger Context of Chapter 11 Case**\n\nA brief summary of the history surrounding Mr. Kwok's bankruptcy is necessary to fully appreciate the relief sought by the Motion and the risks it poses to the chapter 11 estate. In short, Movants are not operating on a blank slate. The Trustee has previously found that other parties advancing positions\n\n 1 The Trustee is aware of various entities owned and controlled by William Je with the name \"Himalaya\" in them, but is not aware of a legal entity called the \"Himalaya Exchange.\" For ease of reference, this letter will use the term \"Himalaya Exchange\" as well.\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 2\n\nsimilar to Movants are, in fact, acting at the direction of Mr. Kwok and his associates. Thus, although the Trustee's investigation remains ongoing, he cannot help but have serious concerns regarding the Motion.\n\nMr. Kwok filed his chapter 11 petition in February 2022 after his largest creditor, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund (\"PAX\"), sought to enforce against him two judgments (one for breach of contract and one for civil contempt) totaling more than \\$250 million following years'-long litigation before Justice Ostrager in New York state court. Justice Ostrager found that Mr. Kwok had engaged in \"efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" and that this \"scheme\" enabled Mr. Kwok, a \"self-declared multibillionaire,\" to \"assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle.\"2 Justice Ostrager was not the first judge to reach this conclusion. Previously, Judge Liman in this District found that another company purportedly held by Mr. Kwok's daughter was, \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for Mr. Kwok that allowed him to keep assets from his creditors.3\n\nIn light of these prior judicial findings, it was perhaps no surprise that, upon commencing his chapter 11 case, Mr. Kwok claimed to have a mere \\$3,850 in assets to his name. Thankfully, neither the Bankruptcy Court nor Mr. Kwok's creditors took this representation at face value, and, in July 2022, the Trustee was appointed to investigate Mr. Kwok's financial affairs to determine the true extent of his wealth, including by commencing litigation against his family members, business associates, and shell companies to demonstrate that assets nominally held by such parties are, in reality, property of the estate. So far, the Trustee's efforts have been quite successful: the Trustee has recovered more than \\$100 million in assets (including Mr. Kwok's palatial, full-floor residence at the Sherry Netherland hotel and the luxury yacht he now admits was his all along4) for the benefit of Mr. Kwok's creditors, including victims of his crimes.\n\nAlthough Movants purport to complain about the fees the Trustee has incurred in conducting his investigation, it is Mr. Kwok's shell game—and the recalcitrance and obstruction by his family members and associates in the chapter 11 case—that has made the Trustee's work so difficult and expensive. The challenges the Trustee has faced have been well-documented in the Government's prior filings in this case. In addition to having to litigate against parties who are helping Mr. Kwok hide assets:\n\n- the Trustee and his counsel, together with PAX and its counsel, were the targets of in-person protests and online harassment for their work in the case. Following an evidentiary hearing in December 2022, the Bankruptcy Court found that the persons behind this activity were acting at the direction of Mr. Kwok and issued an injunction;\n- targets of the Trustee's investigation have repeatedly ignored subpoenas or otherwise failed to satisfy their discovery obligations, forcing the Trustee to file numerous motions to compel and motions for discovery sanctions, which were mostly granted by the Bankruptcy Court;\n\n 2 Decision and Order, at 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022), NYSECF Doc No. 1181.\n\n<sup>3</sup> *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL), 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n<sup>4</sup> *Ho Wan Kwok's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Renewed Motion for Pretrial Release*, at 8, Dkt. No. 178 (\"He no longer has access to a yacht and a jet as both those assets have been sold\").\n\n![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 3\n\n- Mr. Kwok and/or individuals acting at his direction instructed their followers across the world to flood the Bankruptcy Court docket with inflated proofs of claim (regardless of their merit) for the purpose of saddling enormous administrative burdens on the Trustee and materially increasing his legal fees; and\n- lawyers with ties to Mr. Kwok have commenced frivolous litigation in this District against the Trustee and PAX, and their respective counsel, for which they have recently been sanctioned for their conduct. In issuing one sanctions opinion in litigation against PAX's counsel, Judge Liman observed that the lawyer who commenced the litigation, despite claiming that his clients' claims had no connection to Mr. Kwok, (i) participated at the protests of the Trustee and PAX, (ii) was affiliated with Mr. Kwok and sympathetic to his interests, and (iii) commenced the litigation \"with the aim of chilling advocacy against\" Mr. Kwok.5 Judge Caproni issued a similar sanctions decision against the lawyers in litigation against the Trustee and his law firm.6\n\nWhether in connection with the foregoing issues or otherwise, the common pattern the Trustee has seen before and during the chapter 11 case in the Bankruptcy Court and elsewhere is the following: purportedly independent persons or parties assert claims or seek relief, claiming that although they may be sympathetic to Mr. Kwok's political causes, they have no official relationship with him and seek relief solely on their own behalf. But as the Trustee has discovered time and time again, and has demonstrated in the Bankruptcy Court, these parties are usually not who they seem. Rather, after discovery and vetting by the Trustee and the court, it is invariably revealed that the party or parties seeking relief have deep-rooted connections to Mr. Kwok and are in fact doing his bidding.\n\n## **Motion Follows Same Pattern as Other Filings by Mr. Kwok's Associates, and Trustee Believes Funds In Question May Be Property of Chapter 11 Estate**\n\nAlthough not an issue for this Court to decide, the Trustee believes that Movants—like many parties before them—may very well be receiving direction from Mr. Kwok or his proxies, and the funds they seek to recover may rightfully be property of the estate. The Trustee bases this position on, among other things, the Bankruptcy Court's finding in its December 2022 preliminary injunction ruling in response to the protests and harassment against the Trustee and PAX that *Himalaya Exchange is among a group of entities that \"serve[s] the purposes of the Debtor, serve[s] as [a] business vehicle[] for the Debtor, and [its] members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"*7 The purported nominal leader of the Himalaya Exchange is Mr. Kwok's alleged co-conspirator, William Je, who allegedly lent Mr. Kwok's daughter \\$37 million early in the bankruptcy case through an entity named Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. in an effort to help her keep Mr. Kwok's luxury yacht (which the Trustee subsequently established was property of the estate) away from his creditors. Mr. Kwok's daughter affectionately called Mr. Je \"Uncle William\" in her testimony.\n\nMoreover, the Trustee has recently learned that a prominent supporter of the Debtor nicknamed \"Little Sarah\"—who, among other things, has referred to Mr. Kwok as \"Uncle Guo,\" has dined with him at his\n\n<sup>5</sup> Opinion and Order, at 13-14, *Gong v. Sarnoff*, No. 23-cv-343 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023), Dkt. No. 72.\n\n<sup>6</sup> Opinion & Order, at 4 n.3, *An et al., v. Despins et al.*, No. 22-cv-10062 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023), Dkt. No. 29; *see also An, et al. v. Shan*, 22-cv-10060 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023) (Judge Carter issuing sanctions in litigation against PAX principals).\n\n<sup>7</sup> *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* ¶ 7, *In re Kwok*, No. 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. Jan. 13, 2023), Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Dkt. No. 133.\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 4\n\nluxury New York City apartment, has sailed on one of his yachts, and participated in the protests—used her social media account to introduce investors in the Himalaya Exchange to Mr. Geyer so he could seek purported relief on their behalf in exchange for a one percent commission on fees recovered.8 As noted above, this tactic and practice of Mr. Kwok's followers mobilizing as purported claimants is one Defendant Kwok has employed, and the Trustee has seen, before.\n\nMovants' suggestion that they have no relationship to Mr. Kwok and that the exchange funds cannot possibly be property of the estate is untethered from both the facts and the law. Among Movants' flawed legal positions is their attempt to analogize the Himalaya Exchange to a bank holding customer deposits, contending that such deposits are not the bank's property.9 But this statement is wrong, because a bank *does* own the deposits, with its depositors holding unsecured claims against the bank. The same may very well be true with any alleged customer funds in the Himalaya Exchange. Indeed, among the \\$1.2 billion in claims that have been asserted against Mr. Kwok in the Bankruptcy Court to date are many claims allegedly held by the exact types of Himalaya Exchange customers Movants purport to represent. This tends to undermine the notion that the funds Movants seek to recover are not estate property.\n\n### **Bankruptcy Court Must Be Given Opportunity to Rule on Whether Alleged Customer Funds Are Property of Chapter 11 Estate to Be Administered in Bankruptcy Case**\n\nTo reiterate, the Trustee is not asking this Court to consider whether funds deposited with the Himalaya Exchange are property of the estate. The Trustee provides the foregoing background and discussion solely to emphasize the critical importance of this Court not releasing the funds to Movants before the Bankruptcy Court has the opportunity to fully vet Movants' arguments and consider any claim the Trustee may bring that the funds Movants seek to recover are property of the chapter 11 estate.10\n\nThe Trustee is sympathetic to Movants' position to the extent they hold legitimate claims for moneys they may have invested in the Himalaya Exchange. But the Trustee owes duties to *all* of Mr. Kwok's legitimate creditors, not to any one creditor or group of creditors, and therefore the Trustee must do everything in his power to ensure that Mr. Kwok's assets and liabilities are administered through an orderly process that treats all creditors fairly in accordance with the law. Movants offer no valid reason for this Court or the Bankruptcy Court to abandon such a process.\n\nMovants raise the strawman argument that neither court has jurisdiction \"over the Himalaya Exchange,\" but this statement is plainly incorrect. Pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, property of a\n\n10 Similarly, the Court also need not consider at this time the consequences of this Court eventually entering an order of forfeiture with respect to the funds. As the Government has noted, in situations where forfeited funds or other property are claimed to be property of a bankruptcy estate, a receiver (who is also the chapter 11 trustee) is typically appointed to administer the distribution of such property. *See* Government Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel, at 21-23, Dkt. No. 160 (discussing examples of bankruptcy trustees appointed as forfeiture receivers to oversee administration of forfeited funds). The appointment of a receiver in this case is an issue that need not be decided at this time.\n\n<sup>8</sup> *See* @littlesarah, GETTR (Aug. 9, 2023), http (last visited December 18, 2023).\n\n<sup>9</sup> *See* Reply, at 25, Dkt. No. 198 (\"The funds seized by the DOJ do not belong to the estate any more than a bank would have proprietary rights over money deposited by its customers\").\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres December 19, 2023 Page 5\n\nchapter 11 estate consists of \"all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case\" \"*wherever located and by whomever held*.\" 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (emphasis added); *In re DeFlora Lake Dev. Assocs*., Inc., 571 B.R. 587, 593 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (bankruptcy court has \"exclusive jurisdiction\" to determine what constitutes property of bankruptcy estate); *see also* 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e)(1) (addressing exclusive jurisdiction over assets of bankruptcy estate). The Bankruptcy Court thus clearly has jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange funds at issue to the extent Mr. Kwok has an interest in such funds, which the Trustee believes may very well be the case based on both recent history and his ongoing investigation.\n\nAccordingly, for all of these reasons, to the extent the Court were to consider granting the Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests that it not authorize the release of the funds until after the Trustee has had the opportunity to seek appropriate relief in the Bankruptcy Court.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Nicholas A. Bassett\n\nNicholas A. Bassett of PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n\nNAB","body_zh":"1(202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n2023年12月19日\n\nHon. Analisa Torres（阿娜丽莎·托雷斯法官）\nUnited States District Court（美国联邦地区法院）\nDaniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse（丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉美国法院大楼）\n500 Pearl St.\nNew York, NY 10007-1312\n\n关于：United States v. Kwok, et al.（美国 诉 郭案），1:23-cr-118 (AT)\n\n尊敬的托雷斯法官：\n\n我们代表Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），其身份为被告Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）在United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区联邦破产法院，下称“破产法院”）审理中的第11章破产案的第11章受托人（下称“受托人”）。依据本法院2023年12月11日的裁定（Dkt. 190），受托人谨此提交本信函，以回应“Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）”1的某些声称的“客户”（下称“动议人”）于2023年12月6日提交的《要求返还财产的动议》（Dkt. 186，下称“《动议》”），以及动议人支持该动议的答辩状（Dkt. 198，下称“《答辩状》”）。\n\n受托人对政府扣押涉案资金的妥当性，或动议人是否有权根据《联邦刑事诉讼规则》第41(g)条获得救济，不持立场。受托人提交本答复是因为他认为，被扣押的、据称属于喜马拉雅交易所客户的资金，实际上可能是第11章破产财团的财产。因此，如果本法院考虑批准该《动议》，受托人谨请求法院在受托人有机会向破产法院申请禁令救济以阻止该等发放、和/或将资金移交给第11章破产财团之前，不要批准将资金发放给动议人。\n\n需要明确的是，受托人同情郭先生的所有受害者和债权人——包括那些据称向喜马拉雅交易所进行投资的人；然而，必须有一个有条不紊的程序，只有在相关当事人的主张经过适当法院审查后才能对其进行偿付。如果涉案资金过早地发放给动议人——据称由分散在世界各地的成千上万名匿名的喜马拉雅交易所客户组成——受托人此后在实际操作中可能根本无法追回这些资金，从而对第11章破产财团造成不可挽回的损害。\n\n必须在第11章破产案件的更大背景下审视该动议\n\n为了充分理解《动议》所寻求的救济及其对第11章破产财团构成的风险，有必要简要概述围绕郭先生破产案的历史。简而言之，动议人并非白手起家。受托人此前曾发现，其他提出与动议人相似立场的\n\n1 受托人知晓由William Je（余建明）拥有并控制的名称中带有“Himalaya”的各实体，但不知道有名为“Himalaya Exchange”的法人实体。为便于引用，本信函亦将使用“Himalaya Exchange”一词。\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres\n2023年12月19日\n第2页\n\n当事人，实际上是在郭先生及其同伙的指示下行事。因此，尽管受托人的调查仍在进行中，但他不得不对该《动议》产生严重的担忧。\n\n郭先生是在其最大债权人Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunities Fund（太盟亚洲机会基金，下称“PAX”）在New York（纽约）州法院的Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官面前进行了长达数年的诉讼后，试图对其执行两项总额超过2.5亿美元的判决（一项为违约判决，一项为民事蔑视法庭判决）之后，于2022年2月提出第11章破产申请的。奥斯特拉格法官认定，郭先生曾“通过将自己巨额的个人资产存放在一系列公司、受信赖的亲信和家庭成员名下，企图避开并欺骗其债权人”，并且这一“骗局”使得郭先生这位“自称的多亿万富翁”得以“声称自己没有资产，尽管他生活奢华”。2 奥斯特拉格法官并不是第一位得出这一结论的法官。此前，本区的Liman（利曼）法官认定，另一家据称由郭先生女儿持有的公司，对郭先生而言“本质上是一家空壳公司”，使其能够向债权人隐匿资产。3\n\n鉴于这些先前的司法认定，郭先生在启动其第11章破产程序时声称自己名下仅有3,850美元的资产，或许并不令人意外。值得庆幸的是，破产法院和郭先生的债权人都没有把这一陈述信以为真；2022年7月，受托人被任命调查郭先生的财务状况以确定其财富的真实规模，包括对他的家庭成员、商业伙伴和空壳公司提起诉讼，以证明名义上由这些当事人持有的资产在现实中属于破产财团的财产。到目前为止，受托人的努力取得了相当大的成功：受托人已追回超过1亿美元的资产（包括郭先生在雪莉荷兰酒店豪华的整层住宅，以及他现在承认一直属于他的豪华游艇4），以造福郭先生的债权人，包括其罪行的受害者。\n\n尽管动议人声称对受托人在进行调查时产生的费用有所不满，但正是郭先生的空壳把戏——以及其家庭成员和同伙在第11章破产案中的顽固不化和阻挠——使得受托人的工作变得如此困难和昂贵。受托人所面临的挑战在政府本案此前的法庭文件中已有充分记录。除了不得不对协助郭先生隐匿资产的当事人提起诉讼外：\n\n- 受托人及其律师，连同PAX及其律师，因在本案中的工作而成为现场抗议和网络骚扰的目标。在2022年12月举行证据听证会后，破产法院认定这些活动背后的个人是在郭先生的指示下行事的，并发布了禁令；\n- 受托人调查的对象一再忽视传票或未能履行其开示义务，迫使受托人提交了多项强制开示动议和开示制裁动议，这些动议大部分得到了破产法院的批准；\n\n2 裁决与裁定，第1页，PAX v. Kwok，索引号 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022年2月9日），NYSECF 文件号 1181。\n\n3 Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC，编号 18-CV-2185 (LJL)，2021 WL 2554631，第*1页（S.D.N.Y. 2021年6月22日）。\n\n4 《郭文贵支持其重新申请审前释放动议的法律备忘录》，第8页，Dkt. No. 178（“他不再能使用游艇和私人飞机，因为这两项资产均已被出售”）。\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres\n2023年12月19日\n第3页\n\n- 郭先生和/或在其指示下行事的个人指示其遍布全球的追随者，用虚高的债权证明（无论其是否有理据）淹没破产法院的案卷卷宗，目的是给受托人强加巨大的行政负担并大幅增加其律师费；以及\n- 与郭先生有关联的律师在本区对受托人和PAX及其各自的代理律师提起了无理缠诉，他们最近因其行为受到了制裁。在针对PAX律师的诉讼中发布的一份制裁意见书中，利曼法官指出，提起诉讼的律师尽管声称其客户的主张与郭先生没有任何关联，但该律师(i)参加了针对受托人和PAX的抗议活动，(ii)与郭先生有关联并同情其利益，并且(iii)提起该诉讼是“为了打压针对郭先生的维权辩护”。5 Caproni（卡普罗尼）法官在针对受托人及其所在律师事务所的诉讼中对这些律师做出了类似的制裁决定。6\n\n无论是在上述问题中还是在其他情况下，受托人在破产法院及其他地方的第11章案件之前和期间看到的共同模式如下：据称独立的个人或当事人提出主张或寻求救济，声称虽然他们可能同情郭先生的政治诉求，但与他没有任何官方关系，并且仅仅是代表自己寻求救济。但正如受托人屡次发现并在破产法院所证实的那样，这些当事人通常并不是他们表面看起来的那样。相反，经过受托人和法院的开示和审查后，毫无例外地揭示出寻求救济的一方或多方与郭先生有着深厚的联系，并且实际上是在听从他的指令行事。\n\n该动议遵循郭先生同伙提交的其他文件的相同模式，且受托人认为涉案资金可能是第11章破产财团的财产\n\n尽管这不是本法院需要裁决的问题，但受托人认为，动议人——就像他们之前的许多当事人一样——极有可能是在接受郭先生或其代理人的指示，而他们试图追回的资金可能正当属于破产财团的财产。受托人的这一立场依据的是（除其他事项外）破产法院在2022年12月针对针对受托人和PAX的抗议及骚扰所作出的初步禁令裁定中的认定，即喜马拉雅交易所属于“服务于债务人的目的、充当债务人的商业工具，且其成员对债务人保持个人效忠”的实体群体之一。7 喜马拉雅交易所据称的名义领导人是郭先生被指控的同案共谋者William Je，据称他在破产案早期通过名为Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）的实体向郭先生的女儿借款3700万美元，企图帮助她从郭先生的债权人手中保住郭先生的豪华游艇（受托人随后证明该游艇属于破产财团财产）。郭先生的女儿在作证时亲昵地称余先生为“William叔叔”。\n\n此外，受托人最近得知，债务人的一位绰号为“Little Sarah（小斯基/小萨拉）”的知名支持者——该人除其他事项外，曾称郭先生为“郭叔”，曾与他在\n\n5 意见与裁定，第13-14页，Gong v. Sarnoff，编号 23-cv-343 (S.D.N.Y. 2023年8月22日)，Dkt. No. 72。\n\n6 意见与裁定，第4页注3，An et al., v. Despins et al.，编号 22-cv-10062 (S.D.N.Y. 2023年8月2日)，Dkt. No. 29；另见 An, et al. v. Shan，22-cv-10060 (S.D.N.Y. 2023年9月25日)（Carter（卡特）法官在针对PAX负责人的诉讼中作出制裁）。\n\n7 《准予部分初步禁令动议的更正判决备忘录》第7段，In re Kwok，编号 22-50073 (JAM) (Bankr. D. Conn. 2023年1月13日)，Adv. Proc. 编号 22-05032，Dkt. No. 133。\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres\n2023年12月19日\n第4页\n\n其纽约市的豪华公寓中共进晚餐，曾在他的一艘游艇上航行，并参与了抗议活动——利用其社交媒体账户将喜马拉雅交易所的投资者介绍给Geyer（盖耶）先生，以便他能够代表他们寻求所谓的救济，以换取追回费用百分之一的佣金。8 如上所述，郭先生的追随者动员起来充当所谓索赔人的这种策略和做法，是被告郭先生曾经使用过、受托人也曾见识过的。\n\n动议人主张其与Kwok先生（郭文贵）毫无关联且交易所资金绝不可能属于破产财产，这一说法完全脱离了事实和法律。动议人有缺陷的法律立场之一，是试图将Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）类比为持有客户存款的银行，并主张此类存款不属于银行财产。9 但这一说法是错误的，因为银行确实拥有存款的所有权，而储户对银行享有无担保债权。喜马拉雅交易所内任何声称的客户资金极有可能也是如此。事实上，迄今为止在破产法院向郭先生主张的12亿美元债权中，有许多正是由动议人声称代表的同类喜马拉雅交易所客户所持有的。这往往会削弱动议人所主张的、其寻求追回的资金不属于破产财产的观点。\n\n必须给予破产法院裁定涉案客户资金是否属于在破产案件中管理的第11章破产财产的机会\n\n重申一次，受托人并未要求本法院审理存放在喜马拉雅交易所的资金是否属于破产财产。受托人提供上述背景和讨论，纯粹是为了强调在本法院让破产法院有机会充分审查动议人的论点并审理受托人可能提出的动议人寻求追回的资金属于第11章破产财产的主张之前，本法院不向动议人发放资金的关键重要性。10\n\n就动议人对其可能已向喜马拉雅交易所投资的款项持有合法债权而言，受托人对动议人的立场表示理解。但受托人对郭先生的所有合法债权人均负有职责，而非对任何单一债权人或债权人群体负责，因此受托人必须尽其所能，确保郭先生的资产和负债通过有序的程序进行管理，该程序依法公平对待所有债权人。动议人并未提供任何正当理由让本法院或破产法院放弃该程序。\n\n动议人提出了一个稻草人论点，即两个法院对“喜马拉雅交易所”均无管辖权，但这一陈述显然是不正确的。根据《破产法典》第541条，第11章破产财产包括债务人在案件开始时“无论位于何处且由何人持有”的“对财产享有的所有法定或衡平法权益”。11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)（强调为后加）；In re DeFlora Lake Dev. Assocs., Inc., 571 B.R. 587, 593 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)（破产法院对确定何为破产财产享有“专属管辖权”）；另见 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e)(1)（关于对破产财产资产的专属管辖权）。因此，只要郭先生对涉案资金享有权益，破产法院对涉案的喜马拉雅交易所资金就显然具有管辖权，而受托人根据近期历史和其正在进行的调查认为，情况极有可能确是如此。\n\n10 同样，本法院目前也无需考虑本法院最终就该等资金作出没收命令的后果。正如政府所指出的，在被没收的资金或其他财产被主张为破产财产的情况下，通常会指定一名破产管理人（同时也是第11章受托人）来管理该等财产的分配。参见《政府反对强制执行动议的备忘录》，第21-23页，Dkt. No. 160（讨论了破产受托人被指定为没收破产管理人以监督被没收资金管理的先例）。在本案中指定破产管理人是一个目前无需决定的问题。\n\n8 参见 @littlesarah, GETTR (Aug. 9, 2023), http (last visited December 18, 2023).\n\n9 参见《答复书》，第25页，Dkt. No. 198（“DOJ（美国司法部）扣押的资金不属于破产财产，正如银行对其客户存入的资金不享有所有权一样”）。\n\nHonorable Analisa Torres 2023年12月19日 第5页\n\n因此，基于所有这些理由，如果本法院考虑准许该动议，受托人谨请求本法院在受托人有机会向破产法院寻求适当救济之前，不批准发放该等资金。\n\n谨此提交，\n\n/s/ Nicholas A. Bassett\n\nNicholas A. Bassett，来自 PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n\nNAB","key_entities":["Kwok","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Torres","Analisa Torres","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","William Je","GETTR","forfeiture","Guo","Geyer","Luc Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":29,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":72,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":133,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":160,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":178,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":186,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":190,"court":"SDNY"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"SDNY"}],"word_count":2512,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-12-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-12-11","updated_at":"2026-08-23 07:30:41"}