{"id":"court_sdny_2292_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":2292,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 2292","summary_zh":"破产对抗诉讼启动文件 —— 美国康州破产法院，Ho Wan Kwok等人破产案，案号22-50073，ECF 2292（2023年10月26日）。破产管理人Luc A. Despins代表破产财产对多个企业体及个人发起对抗诉讼，包括Lamp Capital LLC、Hudson Diamond等实体及Mei Guo、Yanping Wang等个人；主张被告为债务人代理人或持有属于破产财产的资产。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy adversary proceeding initiation document — United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut, Ho Wan Kwok bankruptcy case, Case No. 22-50073, ECF 2292 (October 26, 2023). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins filed adversary proceeding against multiple entities and individuals, including Lamp Capital LLC, Hudson Diamond entities, Mei Guo, and Yanping Wang; alleged defendants are alter egos of the debtor or hold property of the bankruptcy estate.","body_en":"#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET
(Instructions on Reverse) | | ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
(Court Use Only) | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| PLAINTIFFS
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE | DEFENDANTS
LAMP CAPITAL LLC, INFINITY TREASURY
MANAGEMENT INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, HUDSON
DIAMOND HOLDING LLC, LEADING SHINE NY LTD., MEI GUO, AND
YANPING, A/K/A \"YVETTE\", WANG, | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | |\n| Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166
Tel: 318-6000, Attn: Douglass Barron | | See Schedule 1 | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee
x | □
Debtor
□
Creditor
□
Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□
U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□
Other
x | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Lamp Capital's Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Ownership of Lamp Capital and/
or Its Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Hudson Diamond NY's Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of
Ownership of Hudson Diamond NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee. Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Leading Shine NY's Assets to Trustee.
Declaratory Judgment and Turnover of Ownership of Leading Shine NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee. | | | |\n| NATURE OF SUIT
(Number up to five (5) boxes starting with lead cause of action as 1, first alternative cause as 2, second alternative cause as 3, etc.) | | | |\n| FRBP 7001(1) – Recovery of Money/Property
□
x
11-Recovery of money/property - §542 turnover of property
□
12-Recovery of money/property - §547 preference
□
13-Recovery of money/property - §548 fraudulent transfer
□
14-Recovery of money/property - other
FRBP 7001(2) – Validity, Priority or Extent of Lien
□ | □
□
□
□
□ | FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability (continued)
61-Dischargeability - §523(a)(5), domestic support
68-Dischargeability - §523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury
63-Dischargeability - §523(a)(8), student loan
64-Dischargeability - §523(a)(15), divorce or separation obligation
(other than domestic support)
65-Dischargeability - other | |\n| 21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property
FRBP 7001(3) – Approval of Sale of Property
□
31-Approval of sale of property of estate and of a co-owner - §363(h) | □
□ | FRBP 7001(7) – Injunctive Relief
71-Injunctive relief – imposition of stay
72-Injunctive relief – other | |\n| FRBP 7001(4) – Objection/Revocation of Discharge
□
41-Objection / revocation of discharge - §727(c),(d),(e) | □ | FRBP 7001(8) Subordination of Claim or Interest
81-Subordination of claim or interest | |\n| FRBP 7001(5) – Revocation of Confirmation
□
51-Revocation of confirmation | □
x | FRBP 7001(9) Declaratory Judgment
91-Declaratory judgment | |\n| FRBP 7001(6) – Dischargeability
□
66-Dischargeability - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) priority tax claims
□
62-Dischargeability - §523(a)(2), false pretenses, false representation,
actual fraud
□
67-Dischargeability - §523(a)(4), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny
(continued next column) | □
Other
□
□ | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
SS-SIPA Case – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.
02-Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court
if unrelated to bankruptcy case) | |\n| □
Check if this case involves a substantive issue of state law
x | □ | Check if this is asserted to be a class action under FRCP 23 | |\n| □ Check if a jury trial is demanded in complaint | Demand \\$ | | |\n| Other Relief Sought | | | |\n\n#### **B1040 (FORM 1040) (12/15)**\n\n| BANKRUPTCY CASE IN WHICH THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ARISES | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| NAME OF DEBTOR
Ho Wan Kwok | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.
22-50073 | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| Connecticut | | Julie A. Manning | | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| | | ADVERSARY | | |\n| | | PROCEEDING NO. | | |\n| | | | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| /s/ Douglass Barron | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | Bridgeport
DEFENDANT
PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF)
Douglass Barron | | |\n\n#### **INSTRUCTIONS**\n\nThe filing of a bankruptcy case creates an \"estate\" under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court which consists of all of the property of the debtor, wherever that property is located. Because the bankruptcy estate is so extensive and the jurisdiction of the court so broad, there may be lawsuits over the property or property rights of the estate. There also may be lawsuits concerning the debtor's discharge. If such a lawsuit is filed in a bankruptcy court, it is called an adversary proceeding.\n\nA party filing an adversary proceeding must also must complete and file Form 1040, the Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet, unless the party files the adversary proceeding electronically through the court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system (CM/ECF). (CM/ECF captures the information on Form 1040 as part of the filing process.) When completed, the cover sheet summarizes basic information on the adversary proceeding. The clerk of court needs the information to process the adversary proceeding and prepare required statistical reports on court activity.\n\nThe cover sheet and the information contained on it do not replace or supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, the Bankruptcy Rules, or the local rules of court. The cover sheet, which is largely selfexplanatory, must be completed by the plaintiff's attorney (or by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is not represented by an attorney). A separate cover sheet must be submitted to the clerk for each complaint filed.\n\n**Plaintiffs** and **Defendants.** Give the names of the plaintiffs and defendants exactly as they appear on the complaint.\n\n**Attorneys.** Give the names and addresses of the attorneys, if known.\n\n**Party**. Check the most appropriate box in the first column for the plaintiffs and the second column for the defendants.\n\n**Demand.** Enter the dollar amount being demanded in the complaint.\n\n**Signature.** This cover sheet must be signed by the attorney of record in the box on the second page of the form. If the plaintiff is represented by a law firm, a member of the firm must sign. If the plaintiff is pro se, that is, not represented by an attorney, the plaintiff must sign.\n\n### SCHEDULE 1\n\nAttorney for Hudson Diamond Entities and Mei Guo c/o Aaron A. Romney Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: 203-368-4234\n\nAttorney for Yvette Wang c/o Alex Lipman Lipman Law PLLC 147 W. 25th St. 12th Fl New York, New York 10001 Tel: 212-401-0070\n\nc/o Emil Bove Blanche Law PLLC 99 Wall Street Suite 4460 New York, NY 10005 Tel: 212-716-1250\n\n| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION
----------------------------------------------------------------
x | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 | |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,1 | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) | |\n| Debtors. | :
:
(Jointly Administered)
: | |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
TRUSTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAMP CAPITAL LLC, INFINITY TREASURY
MANAGEMENT INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY
LLC, HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC,
LEADING SHINE NY LTD., MEI GUO, AND
YANPING, A/K/A \"YVETTE\", WANG,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------- | x
:
:
:
:
Adv. Proceeding No. [
]
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x | |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR ESTATE OF HO WAN KWOK PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 541, 542, AND 544 OF BANKRUPTCY CODE SEEKING (I) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT EACH OF LAMP CAPITAL LLC, HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, AND LEADING SHINE NY LTD. IS ALTER EGO OF DEBTOR, AND (II) RELATED RELIEF**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the\n\nchapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this\n\n¹ The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595), Genever Holdings LLC (last four digits of tax identification number: 8202) and Genever Holdings Corporation. The mailing address for the Trustee, Genever Holdings LLC, and the Genever Holdings Corporation is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\nadversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against defendants: (a) Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp Capital\"), (b) Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (\"Infinity Treasury Management\"), (c) Hudson Diamond NY LLC (\"Hudson Diamond NY\"), (d) Hudson Diamond Holding LLC (\"Hudson Diamond Holding\"), (e) Leading Shine NY Ltd. (\"Leading Shine NY\"), (f) Mei Guo, and (g) Yvette Wang (together with Lamp Capital, Infinity Treasury Management, Hudson Diamond NY, Hudson Diamond Holding, Leading Shine NY, and Mei Guo, the \"Defendants\"). In support of this Complaint, the Trustee states as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Debtor's pervasive use of shell companies to conceal his business dealings and hide his valuable assets from his creditors has been well-chronicled in these chapter 11 cases. This Complaint relates to the Debtor's use of three entities—Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY (together, the \"Alter Ego Defendants\")—as his personal slush funds to move millions between various shell companies and to pay his personal expenses, including his legal fees. The Trustee seeks a ruling that the Alter Ego Defendants are the Debtor's alter egos and that the Debtor equitably owns the Alter Ego Defendants and their assets.\n\n2. Despite the Debtor's efforts to distance himself from the Alter Ego Defendants on paper, the Debtor dominated and controlled the Alter Ego Defendants and their assets at all relevant times. Among other things, the Alter Ego Defendants were managed by the Debtor through his agents (including Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, and/or Daniel Podhaskie), were funded by other entities controlled by the Debtor, and were used to funnel money to other Debtor shell companies and family members and to pay a variety of the Debtor's personal expenses. In addition, one of the Alter Ego Defendants, Hudson Diamond NY, helped fund the purchase of\n\nthe Debtor's real property that he owned through Greenwich Land LLC. This entity also, upon information and belief, owned at least one of the Debtor's luxury vehicles.\n\n3. The Debtor has not denied these allegations. Rather, when asked about his ownership and control over the Alter Ego Defendants, the Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer the Trustee's questions. The Court can and should draw a negative inference against the Defendants from this testimony.\n\n4. Based on these and the other facts set forth below, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code declaring that (i) each of Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, and (ii) each of Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY and/or their assets are equitably owned by the Debtor.\n\n#### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b).\n\n6. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a). Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.\n\n#### **THE PARTIES**\n\n7. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n8. Lamp Capital is a Delaware limited liability company.\n\n9. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is the purported sole member of Lamp Capital.\n\n10. Hudson Diamond NY is a New York limited liability company.\n\n11. Hudson Diamond Holding is a Delaware limited liability company that is the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY.²\n\n12. Leading Shine NY is a Delaware corporation.\n\n13. Mei Guo is the Debtor's daughter. She has asserted that she is the beneficial owner of Leading Shine NY. She is also the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding.\n\n14. Yvette Wang is the Debtor's close associate and alleged co-conspirator in the criminal action pending against the Debtor and Ms. Wang in New York federal court. Ms. Wang has asserted that she is the beneficial owner of Leading Shine NY.\n\n#### **FACTS**\n\n#### **I. Background: Debtor's Prolific Use of Shell Companies**\n\n15. As the Court is by now well aware, the Debtor is a prolific user of shell companies, purportedly owned by family members or business subordinates, to shield his assets and activities from creditors. The Debtor's \"shell game\" has allowed him to continue to deny ownership of assets, refuse to pay debts, and—until his recent arrest by the FBI—live a life of luxury. Indeed, in addition to the Alter Ego Defendants, the Court is already familiar with numerous of these entities, including:\n\n> a. **HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\")**, purportedly owned by the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo and used by the Debtor to hold title to the *Lady May* yacht, which this Court and Justice Ostrager ruled was\n\n² In June 2023, Hudson Diamond NY's counsel Aaron Romney of Zeisler & Zeisler P.C. filed a motion to withdraw as counsel to Hudson Diamond NY, claiming to be unsure who the ultimate beneficial owner of the company was, despite corporate documents showing that Hudson Diamond NY's purported sole member was Hudson Diamond Holding and that Hudson Diamond Holding's purported sole member was Mei Guo, which motion was denied [Main Case Docket No. 2220]. In the court's decision denying withdrawal, the Court noted, among other things, that the exhibits presented by the Trustee \"seem to confirm that Ms. Guo had authority to retain [Attorney Romney] and Attorney Vartan because HD Holding is the sole member of HD NY.\" *Id.* at 5.\n\nbeneficially owned by the Debtor.3 The Court also ruled HK USA to be the Debtor's alter ego.4\n\n- b. **Greenwich Land, LLC (\"Greenwich Land\")**, purportedly owned by the Debtor's wife, and used by the Debtor to hold title to the Debtor's mansion in Greenwich, Connecticut.5\n- c. **Whitecroft Shore Limited and Anton Development Limited**, entities purportedly owned by Mei Guo and used by the Debtor to hold title to the Debtor's Bombardier Global XRS private jet.6\n- d. **HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., and Lexington Property, Inc. (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\")**, each of which is purportedly owned (a) 99.9999% by a British Virgin Islands (\"BVI\") company purportedly owned by the Debtor's personal assistant, Yvette Wang and (b) 0.0001% by a long-time employee of the Debtor, Anthony DiBattista.7 The HCHK Entities were used by the Debtor to, among other things, run his media operations and hold title to significant assets, including over \\$38 million in cash.\n- e. **Taurus Fund, LLC**, purportedly managed by the Debtor's bodyguard and chauffer, Scott Barnett, and used by the Debtor to hold title to his mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey.8\n\n 3 *Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment*, at 31 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Mar. 30, 2023) [Docket No. 177] (\"the issue of the Individual Debtor's beneficial ownership and control of the Lady May is decisive as to the First Counterclaim and the identical issue was necessarily decided by Justice Ostrager in the Final Contempt Decision, which found by\n\nclear and convincing evidence that the Individual Debtor beneficially owned and controlled the Lady May\"). 4 *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim*, at 35 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, May 18, 2023) [Docket No. 221] (\"HK USA is the alter ego of the Individual Debtor.\"). 5\n\nThe Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against this entity in adversary proceeding 23-05005, in connection with which the Court entered a prejudgment remedy and temporary restraining order against Greenwich Land LLC and the Debtor's wife. *See Order Granting in Part Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 14]; *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Amended Application for Ex Parte Prejudgment Remedy* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Mar. 28, 2023) [Docket No. 15]. 6\n\nThese two companies, along with other companies purportedly owned by Mei Guo, are subjects of adversary proceeding 23-05008. *See Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for (I) Declaratory Judgment, Pursuant to Sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7001, that Property Held by Mei Guo Is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, May 16, 2023) [Docket No. 1]. 7\n\nThe Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against these entities in adversary proceeding 23-05013, in connection with which the Court entered a temporary restraining order on June 12, 2023. *See Order Granting in Part Emergency* Ex Parte *Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013, June 12, 2023) [Docket No. 18]. 8\n\nThe Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against Taurus Fund LLC in adversary proceeding 23-05017, in connection with which the Court entered a preliminary injunction order on August 24, 2023. *See Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017, August 24, 2023) [Docket No. 47].\n\n- f. **Ace Decade Limited (\"Ace Decade\")**, which this Court found was beneficially owned by the Debtor.9 The Court also found that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade's nominee owner, Yvette Wang.10 The Trustee has since learned that Yvette Wang, while the Ace Decade proceedings were ongoing (but after the Court found, on November 17, 2022, that the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade as of the February 15, 2022 petition date11), transferred the stock of Ace Decade that she nominally owned to an individual located in Switzerland (who, upon information and belief, is another associate of the Debtor).\n- g. **Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring\")**, which is the Debtor's family office purportedly owned by the Debtor's son. Golden Spring was, among other things, funded by the Debtor, used by the Debtor to hold his assets and pay his expenses, and managed and staffed by the Debtor's employees.12\n- h. **Gettr, GFashion, GMusic, GClubs, GNews, and GEdu (the \"G-Series Entities\"), New Federal State of China (\"NFSC\"), and Rule of Law Foundation (\"ROLF\")**, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, which this Court found were controlled by the Debtor,13 led by the Debtor,14 and/or served \"the purposes of . . . and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.15 The Court also found that the members of these entities and organizations were \"personally loyal to the Debtor.\"16\n- 16. These entities are the tip of the iceberg. According to the United States\n\nGovernment, the Debtor and his co-defendants William Je and Yvette Wang \"utilized more than\n\n⁹ *Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order* ¶ 1 (Jan. 24, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1372] (the \"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\"). 10 Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\n¹¹ *See Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion* ¶ 1 (Nov. 17, 2022) [Main Case Docket\n\nNo. 1110]. 12 The Trustee has sought an alter ego judgment against Golden Spring in adversary proceeding 23-05018, in connection with which the clerk of the court has entered defaults against Golden Spring, *see Entry of Default* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018, Sept. 20, 2023) [Docket No. 17], and against its purported parent company China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited. *See Entry of Default* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018, Oct. 17, 2023)\n\n^[Docket No. 20]. 13 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction* ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No.\n\n^22-05032, Jan. 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\"). 14 *Id.* ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, and Himalaya.\"). 15 *Id.* (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor,\n\nserve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"). 16 *Id.*\n\napproximately 500 accounts held in the names of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"17\n\n17. In sum, while this Complaint focuses on Lamp Capital, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY, the context regarding the Debtor's wide-ranging strategy of using shell companies to shield assets from creditors is highly relevant. The Trustee reserves his rights to pursue additional actions against other entities at the appropriate time.\n\n### **II. Lamp Capital Is Alter Ego of and Equitably Owned by Debtor**\n\n### **A. Lamp Capital Formed by Debtor Through His Counsel**\n\n18. Lamp Capital was formed in Delaware on September 4, 2020,18 and registered to do business in New York on September 14, of 2020.19 Lamp Capital's sole member is Infinity Treasury Management, of which Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son, is the purported sole shareholder.20\n\n19. The Debtor's counsel who assisted the Debtor in forming Lamp Capital was Hodgson Russ LLP (\"Hodgson Russ\"). Valerie Stevens, a partner at Hodgson Russ, signed Lamp Capital's certificate of formation as \"Organizer.\"21 Hodgson Russ also handled corporate filings related to Lamp Capital's authorization to do business in New York state.²²\n\n 17 *See Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release* (the \"USAO Memorandum\"), at 29, attached as Exhibit B in the Reply of Chapter 11 Trustee to G Club Operations LLC's Supplemental Objection to Trustee's Motion to Compel and Request for\n\nRelated Relief (the \"G-Club Reply\") (June 23, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1934]. 18 Ex. 1, Certificate of Formation of Lamp Capital LLC, attached as Ex. B to the Affidavit of Bernardo Enriquez in Support of Non-Party Lamp Capital's Motion to Quash or Modify, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund*\n\n*L.P. v. Kwok et al*., Index No. 652077/2017, NYSCEF Doc. No. 936, Nov 5, 2021 (the \"Enriquez Affidavit\"). 19 Ex. 2, Application for Authority of Lamp Capital LLC, dated Sept. 11, 2020, filed with the State of New York,\n\nattached as Ex. C to Enríquez Affidavit. 20 Ex. 3, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital LLC, attached as Ex. D to Enriquez Affidavit. 21 Ex. 1, Certificate of Formation of Lamp Capital LLC.\n\n²² Ex. 2, Application for Authority of Lamp Capital LLC.\n\n20. In addition to its work with respect to Lamp Capital, Hodgson Russ was counsel to the Debtor, his family members, his close associates, and his shell companies in comection with numerous matters, including, among others:23\n\n![](_page_10_Figure_2.jpeg)\n\n#### B. Lamp Capital Managed by Debtor Through Debtor's Agents\n\n21. 9 Prior to June 10, 2021, Daniel Podhaskie served as sole director, president, and treasurer of Infinity Treasury Management, the sole member of Lamp Capital.24 Mr. Podhaskie was also an authorized signatory for Lamp Capital who, among other things, opened bank accounts on Lamp Capital's behalf.25\n\n22. Mr. Podhaskie was, at all relevant times, an agent of the Debtor. Mr. Podhaskie acted on the Debtor's behalf. He served as the Debtor's personal attorney and as general counsel of Golden Spring, another one of the Debtor's shell companies. He also served as a corporate representative of Genever Holdings LLC and Genever Holdings Corporation, entities owned by\n\n²³ Ex. 4.\n\n²⁴ Ex. 5, Unanimous Written Consent in Lieu of Special Meeting of Sole Shareholder of Infinity Treasury Management, Inc., attached as Ex. F to Enriquez Affidavit.\n\n²⁵ Ex. 6, Account Agreement for Lamp Capital LLC with The Bank of Princeton for the account ending 0389, dated Sept. 10, 2020; Ex. 7, Account Agreements for Lamp Capital LLC with The Bank of Princeton for the accounts ending 0306, 0322, and 0314 dated Sept. 15, 2020.\n\nthe Debtor. Mr. Podhaskie served the Debtor in numerous other roles as well, including as officer and/or authorized signatory for Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holding, and Hudson Diamond NY 26 When the Debtor was asked at his deposition whether Mr. Podhaskie was his employee and agent, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.27\n\n23. On June 10, 2021, Max Krasner replaced Mr. Podhaskie as sole director and president of Infinity Treasury Management. Like Mr. Podhaskie, Mr. Krasner was an agent of the Debtor. Mr. Krasner acted on the Debtor's behalf and worked for the Debtor as a subordinate to Yvette Wang. Mr. Krasner was a Golden Spring employee who also served in roles at numerous other Debtor shell companies, including serving as an employee, officer and/or authorized signatory of Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holding, Hudson Diamond NY, Rule of Law Foundation, and one or more of the HCHK Entities.28 When asked at his deposition whether Mr. Krasner was his employee and agent, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.29\n\n24. With respect to Yvette Wang, this Court has already ruled that \"[t]he Debtor has control over Ms. Wang\" and that he \"has employed Yvette Wang for several years, and has directed her to take actions on his behalf, including directing her to act on his behalf to purchase\n\n²⁶ See. e.g.\n\nEx. 9, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated December 4, 2020; Ex. 10, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, dated January 4, 2021; Ex. 11, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting; Ex. 12, Daniel Podhaskie resignation as President of Hudson Diamond NY LLC, dated January 4, 2021.\n\n²⁷ Ex. 13, Ho Wan Kwok Dep. Tr., dated March 2, 2023, at 86:14-18.\n\n²⁸ Ex. 14, Ex. 15. Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (reflecting Mr. Krasner as the vice president); Ex. 16. Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019; Ex. 18, Limited Liability Company Agreement of Lamp Capital, LLC, dated September 8, 2020; Ex. 19, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Foundation (Form 990, Page 7, listing Max Krasner as \"President, Treasurer. Director\"); Ex. 20, Email by and among Max Krasner, Anthony DiBattista and attorneys from Marcum on the HCHK 2022 Bank Statements in January 2023.\n\n²⁹ Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr. at 34:6-20.\n\nproperties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\"30 Apart from her role at Hudson Diamond NY, Ms. Wang has also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Golden Spring, Greenwich Land, Leading Shine NY, Saraca, GTV Media Group, Inc., Ace Decade Limited, and Genever Holdings LLC.31 Ms. Wang was widely known to be the Debtor's personal assistant. When asked at his deposition whether Ms. Wang was his employee, the Debtor asserted his Fifth Amendment rights.32\n\n25. On March 15, 2023, Ms. Wang was arrested in connection with charges that she had, among other things, conspired with the Debtor in connection with his alleged criminal fraud and money-laundering activities. According to the U.S. Government, Ms. Wang played an \"instrumental role\" in the Debtor's fraud scheme as his \"trusted chief of staff who is tasked with managing operations at even those entities with which she has no formal affiliation.\"33\n\n# **C. Lamp Capital Funded by Debtor**\n\n26. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Lamp Capital has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls and would have had no capitalization absent such funding.\n\n³⁰ Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\n³¹ Ex. 21, Affidavit of Yan Ping Wang ¶ 1, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2018) [Docket No. 182] (\"I am the President of Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., and in that capacity serve as an administrator for the interests of [the Debtor] and his family.\"); Ex. 15, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019 (rendering Ms. Wang signatory); Ex. 22, Ex. 23, Himalaya Coin Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 24, Himalaya Dollar Certificate of Assumed Name, dated March 14, 2020; Ex. 25, Complaint ¶ 9a, *United States v. Wang*, No. 1:23-mj-02007-UA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2023) [Docket No. 1] (\"Wang was an Executive Director of GTV\"); Ex. 84, Particular of Claims, *Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS*, Cl-2020-000345, at 38, High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court, dated September 23, 2020 (\"UK Complaint\") (signed by Yvette Wang on behalf of Ace Decade); *Debtor's Declaration Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2* ¶ 1, (Case No. 22-50592, Oct. 12, 2020) [Docket No. 1]; Ex. 14, Greenwich Land, LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated\n\nJanuary 19, 2021. 32 Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 33:11-13.\n\n³³ Ex. 26, United States Letter in Opposition to Yvette Wang's Motion for Bond, at 18, *U.S. v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette*,*\"* (Mar. 29, 2023) [Case No. 1:23-cr-00118-AT, Docket No. 10].\n\n27. Lamp Capital has received funding from numerous other Debtor-controlled entities. Among other things, Lamp Capital received transfers of at least\n\n34 at least \\$9 million from Greenwich Land, 35 at least \\$9 million from\n\nACA Capital,36 and at least \\$5 million from Savio Law LLC.37 Upon information and belief,\n\nLamp Capital received no funding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities.\n\n# D. Lamp Capital Used Same Address as Other Debtor Shell Companies\n\n28. Lamp Capital used 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, as its address. 38\n\n162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself,39 his counsel Aaron\n\nMitchell,40 and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including Golden Spring,41 HK\n\n| 34 | Ex. 59. | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| | x. 60.
x. 61 | |\n| | | and Ex. |\n| | 62, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for December 2021 (showing another transfer from Hudson Diamond | |\n| | NY of approximately \\$500,000 on December 21, 2021). | |\n\n- 35 Ex. 63, Lamp Capital November 2020 account statement at The Bank of Princeton (showing a transfer of \\$9 million from an account ending 0199 to Lamp Capital's account ending 0389). See also Ex. 64, Greenwich Land, LLC November 2020 account statement at The Bank of Princeton (showing a transfer of \\$9 million from its account ending 0199 to an account ending 0389).\n- 36 Ex. 65, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for November 2021 (showing an approximately \\$2 million transfer from ACA Capital on November 17, 2021); Ex, 62 (showing a transfer of approximately \\$2 million from ACA Capital on December 6, 2021); Ex. 6, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for January 2022 (showing an approximately \\$2 million transfer from ACA Capital on January 26, 2022); and Ex. 67, Lamp Capital Dime Bank statement for February 2022 (showing a \\$3 million transfer from ACA Capital on February 16, 2022). As the Court may recall from the Trustee's counterclaims filed in his litigation with HK USA, ACA Capital is a Hong Kong entity that has numerous links to the Debtor and is purportedly owned by the Debtor's criminal codefendant, William Je. See Chapter 11 Trustee's Answer and Counterclaims, Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, Dkt. No. 36 at ¶ 86(d). When asked at his March 2, 2023 deposition whether he had beneficial ownership or exclusive control of ACA Capital, the Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment. See Ex. 13, Kwok Depo Tr., at 73:23-74:11. See also Ex. 33, Debtor's Swom Declaration, ¶ 62 (asserting Fifth Amendment regarding control over ACA Capital).\n- 37 Ex. 68, Lamp Capital account statement at The Bank of Princeton for October 2020 (showing a transfer of \\$5 million from Savio Law LLC on October 15, 2020). Savio Law firm of attorney Nicholas Savio (now employed at the firm of the Debtor's attorney Aaron Mitchell, LLC). See LinkedIn profile of Nicholas Savio, at http and profile of Nick Savio, of counsel at Lawall & Mitchell, at http\n- 38 See e.g., Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York).\n- 39 See Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Main Case Docket No. 1].\n- 40 Ex. 27, Consent to Change Attorney, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 338.\n- 41 Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Main Case Docket No. 1].\n\nUSA,42 GTV Media Group, Inc.,43 Saraca,44 Hudson Diamond Holding,45 Hudson Diamond NY LLC,46 and Rule of Law Foundation.47\n\n# **E. Debtor Used Lamp Capital to Pay His Expenses**\n\n29. The Debtor used Lamp Capital to pay his expenses. In fact, Lamp Capital was a\n\ncritical part of the Debtor's arrangement for living a life of luxury while at the same time\n\nasserting that he was effectively judgment proof, as exemplified by the Schedules of Assets and\n\nLiabilities filed in this Chapter 11 Case, where the Debtor claimed to hold assets of \\$3,850.00.48\n\nThe examples of Lamp Capital functioning in this way are legion. Among others:\n\n- a. Lamp Capital paid the \\$1 million retainer of the Debtor's initial bankruptcy counsel, Brown Rudnick LLP (\"Brown Rudnick\").49\n- b. Lamp Capital paid numerous of the Debtor's legal fees and expenses associated with litigation involving the Debtor, including to the Debtor's law firms such as Lawall & Mitchell, LLC, The Casper Firm, The Francis Firm PLLC, Baker Hostetler LLP, Hodgson Russ, Schulman Bhattacharya LLC, and Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP, and Clayman & Rosenberg LLP.50 Lamp Capital has\n\n 42 Ex. 28, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC,\n\ndated April 1, 2019. 43 Ex. 29, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV\n\nMedia Group Inc. 44 Ex. 30, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results. 45 Ex. 31, Hudson Diamond NY LLC fact sheet from Hodgson Russ (showing 162 E 64th St. as LLC address). 46 *Id.* (showing 162 E 64th St. as Hudson Diamond Holding address). 47 Ex. 32, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.\n\n⁴⁸*See* Official Form 106, at 5 (Mar. 9, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 78]. 49 This payment was made using the proceeds of a purported \\$1 million loan from Lamp Capital to the Debtor that were remitted directly from Lamp Capital to Brown Rudnick. *See Application of the Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor* ¶ 17, [Main Case Docket No. 86]; Ex. 46, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 49: 22-24. At his April 6, 2022 Section 341 meeting, the Debtor testified that this loan was not in writing and that he did not\n\nknow the terms of the loan, why the money had been lent, or what the source of the money was. *Id.* at 49-51. 50 See e.g., Ex. 56, check from Lamp Capital to U.S. Legal Support, Inc. on January 12, 2022; Ex. 94, check from Lamp Capital to The Francis Firm PLLC on January 11 2022; Ex. 95, check from Lamp Capital to Schuman Bhattacharya, LLC on November 17, 2021; Ex. 96, check from Lamp Capital to The Casper Firm on January 26, 2022; Ex. 97, check from Lamp Capital to Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP on October 13, 2021; Ex. 98, check from Lamp Capital to Roy D. Simmon on October 28, 2021; Ex. 99, check from Lamp Capital to Veritext on October 13, 2021; Ex 100, check from Lamp Capital to Baker Hostetler LLP on December 27, 2021; Ex. 101, check from Lamp Capital to Lawall & Mitchell on November 17, 2021; Ex. 102, check from Lamp Capital to Clayman & Rosenberg LLP on January 11, 2022; Ex. 103, check from Lamp Capital to Hodgson Russ on November 12, 2021; Ex. 104, check from Lamp Capital to William Bradley Wendel on November 10, 2021.\n\nalso made numerous payments of the Debtor's fees owed to other providers of legal or expert witness services such as Veritext, US Legal Support Inc., Roy D. Simon, and William Bradley Wendel.51\n\n- c. Lamp Capital paid expenses associated with the Debtor's yacht, the *Lady May*, 52 as well as the maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment.53 Lamp Capital has also made numerous payments to ACASS Canada Ltd., Wings Insurance Agency Inc., and SAAM Verspieren Group,54 in connection with the operation and maintenance of the Debtor's private jet, the Bombardier Global XRS (which is subject to another adversary proceeding filed by the Trustee against Mei Guo).\n- d. Lamp Capital made multiple transfers to the Bento for Business accounts of Debtor-controlled companies,55 from which pre-paid Bento debit cards were issued to the Debtor's family members and associates and used on spending to support the Debtor's luxurious lifestyle.56\n- e. Lamp Capital has paid the Mar-a-Lago Club on behalf of the Debtor in connection with the membership there held in his name.57\n\n# **F. Lamp Capital Had No Business Other Than to Hold Debtor's Property and/or Pay His Expenses**\n\n30. As discussed further herein, Lamp Capital's only documented activities consisted\n\nof holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Lamp Capital did nothing other than\n\n 51 *Id*. Upon information and belief, Lamp Capital paid certain of these legal fees pursuant to purported litigation funding agreements under which no proceeds of successful litigation by the Debtor would have ever become the\n\nDebtor's property, but would instead be paid directly to Golden Spring. 52 Ex. 65 (showing a transfer of approximately \\$290,000 to Yachtzoo Yacht Management LLC on November 18, 2021); Ex. 66 (showing an approximately \\$245,000 transfer to Yachtzoo on January 26, 2022); Ex. 70, Lamp Capital Dime Bank account statement for February 2022 (showing a transfer of approximately \\$460,000 to Yachtzoo on February 23, 2022); and Ex. 68 (showing a transfer of \\$272, 525 to Moran Yacht Management Inc.\n\non October 29, 2020). 53 *See e.g*., Ex. 75, a check from Lamp Capital's account at Dime Bank to the Sherry-Netherland Inc. on March 3,\n\n²⁰²² for \\$2,020.71. 54 *See e.g*., Ex. 71, Lamp Capital Dime Bank March 2022 statement (showing a transfer of approximately \\$18,000 to Wings Insurance Agency on March 3, 2022, and \\$46,880 to SAAM Verspieren Group on March 10, 2020). Ex., 72, Lamp Capital Dime Bank account statement for account ending 6250 for January 2022 (showing a transfer of \\$117,428.82 to ACASS Canada Ltd.); Ex. 73, Lamp Capital Dime Bank account statement for account ending 6250 for November 2021 (showing two transfers of approximately \\$615,000 to ACASS Canada\n\nLtd.) 55 *See e.g*., Ex. 72 (showing three transfers to Bento for a total of \\$150,000); Ex. 73 (showing two transfers of a\n\ntotal of \\$10,000 transfer to Bento) 56 *See Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Summary Judgment with Respect to Alter Ego and Equitable Ownership Claims* ¶¶ 7-12, in the adversary proceeding\n\nagainst Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005, Doc No. 78]. 57 *See e.g.*, Ex. 74, a check from Lamp Capital's account at Dime Bank to the Mar-a-lago Club on December 6, 2021 for \\$300 on behalf of the Debtor (memo of the check identifies the Debtor with a member ID).\n\nreceive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank accounts, and pay for the Debtor's expenses.58\n\n# **G. Debtor Asserted Fifth Amendment Regarding Control Over Lamp Capital**\n\n31. The Debtor has asserted the Fifth Amendment on multiple occasions when questioned regarding his control over Lamp Capital. At his March 2, 2023 deposition, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked:\n\n- a. whether he was the equitable owner of Lamp Capital;\n- b. whether he was the beneficial owner of Lamp Capital;\n- c. whether he had exclusive control over Lamp Capital; and\n- d. whether he had exclusive control over the assets of Lamp Capital.59\n- 32. In the Debtor's sworn declaration dated May 11, 2023, the Debtor again invoked\n\nthe Fifth Amendment when asked whether he controlled Lamp Capital. 60\n\n33. Similarly, the Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding his control over the\n\nparent company of Lamp Capital, Infinity Treasury Management.61\n\n### **III. Hudson Diamond NY Is Alter Ego of and Equitably Owned by Debtor**\n\n### **A. Hudson Diamond NY Formed by Debtor Through Debtor's Counsel**\n\n34. 62\n\n62 *See* Ex. 34,\n\n 58 Lamp Capital failed to produce any documents in connection with Rule 2004 discovery and, on April 26, 2023, this Court found Lamp Capital to be in civil contempt of Court for failing to comply with or respond to the Trustee's Rule 2004 discovery subpoenas [Main Case Docket No. 1709]. Given Lamp Capital's noncompliance with its discovery obligations, the Trustee is unable at this time to determine with precision the\n\nvalue of Lamp Capital's assets, and the Trustee's investigation remains ongoing. 59 *See* Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 27:22-28:3, 28:10-29:20. 60 *See* Ex. 33, Debtor's Sworn Declaration Regarding Responses to Particular Questions, ¶ 154. 61 Ex. 13, Kwok Depo. Tr., at 54:4-13,\n\n.63 During her deposition, Mei Guo asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment with respect to whether the Debtor installed her as the nominal sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding.64\n\n| 35. | | |\n|-----|-------|--|\n| | | |\n| | ર્ણ્ટ | |\n\n36. Hudson Diamond NY was another entity created on behalf of the Debtor for the purpose of acquiring real property. References to the \"principal\" in correspondence related to Hudson Diamond and produced to the Trustee by the Debtor's counsel, Hodgson Russ, were references to the Debtor.\n\n### B. Hudson Diamond Managed by Debtor Through Debtor's Agents\n\n37. authorized signatories of Hudson Diamond NY, as well as its purported sole member Hudson Diamond Holding.69\n\n70 38.\n\nYvette Wang also signed an \"Exclusive Right to Represent Buyer Agreement\" on behalf of\n\n63 Ex. 35,\n\n⁶⁴ Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr., Sep 13, 2023, at 26:4-7.\n\n⁶⁵ Ex. 34,\n\n⁶⁶ Ex. 37, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated August 31, 2020; Ex. 9, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated December 4, 2020;\n\n⁶⁷ Id .; see also Ex. 16, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019.\n\n⁶⁸ See Ex. 16, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Consent of Sole Member Without a Meeting, dated July 17, 2019.\n\nక్ర See, e.g., id. 70 See e.g., Ex. 91, 92. Ex. 93,\n\nHudson Diamond with Emile de Neree, the real estate broker who assisted the Debtor in the purchase of the Taconic Property. 71\n\n39. As discussed above, each of Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, and Daniel Podhaskie were at all relevant times agents of the Debtor.\n\n# C. Hudson Diamond NY Funded by the Debtor\n\n40. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times Hudson Diamond NY has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding.\n\n41. Hudson Diamond NY has received funding from numerous other Debtor-\n\ncontrolled entities, including, among others, 12 and\n\n.73 Upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY receives no\n\nfunding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities.\n\n# H. Hudson Diamond NY Used Same Address as Other Debtor Shell Companies\n\n42.\n\n.74 162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself, 5 his counsel\n\nAaron Mitchell, 16 and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including: Golden Spring, 7 HK\n\n⁷¹ Ex. 38, Exclusive Right to Represent Buyer Agreement (containing the Debtor's name, \"Miles Guo\" on the bottom right comer of every page of the document near the line for inserting the buyer's initials). See also Ex. 39, Emile de Neree August 24, 2023 Depo. Tr.\n\n⁷² Ex. 40. 73 Ex. 76, 74 Ex. 41.\n\n⁷⁵ Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\n⁷⁶ Ex. 27, Consent to Change Attorney, PAX v. Kvok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NYSCEF Doc. No. 338.\n\n⁷⁷ Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\nUSA,78 GTV Media Group, Inc.,79 Saraca,80 Hudson Diamond Holding,81 Lamp Capital,82 and Rule of Law Foundation.83\n\n#### **D. Debtor Used Hudson Diamond NY for His Real Estate Transactions**\n\n43. Hudson Diamond NY was created by the Debtor to acquire real property. To that end, the law firm of Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan LLC (\"Whitman Breed\") was engaged by Hodgson Russ to represent Hudson Diamond NY, as well as Greenwich Land LLC, in connection with the Debtor's purchase or contemplated purchase of real estate in Connecticut.84\n\n44. Whitman Breed partner Margaret Conboy has testified, among other things, that as part of her representation of Hudson Diamond NY and Greenwich Land, she referred to the Debtor as her client,85 received instructions from Max Krasner,86 and was advised on multiple occasions that the Debtor was making decisions,87 including as to the acceptance of offers,88 the selection of furniture,89 and whether to move forward on any potential property purchase.90\n\n45. The Debtor has used Hudson Diamond NY to fund real estate purchases under the name of his shell company, Greenwich Land, purportedly held in the name of the Debtor's wife,\n\n-\n-\n\n⁷⁸ Ex. 28, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019. 79 Ex. 29, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV\n\nMedia Group Inc. 80 Ex. 30, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results. 81 Ex. 42,\n\n⁸² *See e.g.*, Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York). 83 Ex. 32, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.\n\n⁸⁴ Ex. 43, 85 Ex. 45, Margaret Conboy Sept. 12, 2023 Depo. Tr. at 33:12-23, 33:25-34:4, and 37:13-38:1. *See also* Ex. 46, and Ex. 77, email between Margaret Conboy and Kevin Walsh on Oct. 3, 2019. 86 *Id.* at 51:16-25, 66:22-25. 87 *Id.*, at 51:16-25, 52:19-53:22. 88 *See e.g.*, Ex. 46, Email between Margaret Conboy and Robert Mowbray on January 22, 2019. 89 *See e.g.,* Ex. 47, Email between Louise Camuto and Yvette Wang, copying Max Krasner, Karin Maistrello, on\n\nJuly 12, 2019. 90 *See, e.g.*, Ex. 45, Margaret Conboy Sept. 12, 2023 Depo. Tr. at 52:2-10 (\"Q. What he's saying specifically to\n\nyou is: I just spoke with Miles, and he advised the team he will not move forward on this property. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And you understood that Miles is reference to Miles Kwok? A. Yes.\").\n\n![](_page_20_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n46. D During her deposition, Mei Guo, purported sole member of Hudson Diamond\n\nHolding, the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY, asserted her rights under the Fifth\n\n| Amendment when asked whether her father, the Debtor, |\n|------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| તેરિ |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n\nવેર See Ex. 50.\n\n⁹¹ This payment was made using the proceeds of a purported \\$1 million loan from Lamp Capital to the Debtor that were remitted directly from Lamp Capital to Brown Rudnick. See Application of the Debtor for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Employment and Retention of Brown Rudnick LLP as Counsel for the Debtor. Docket No. 86, at ¶ 17; Ex. 48, Tr. of Telephonic 341 Meeting of Creditors, dated April 6, 2022 at 49: 22-24. At his April 6, 2022 Section 341 meeting, the Debtor testified that this loan was not in writing and that he did not know the terms of the loan, why the money had been lent, or what the source of the money was. Id. at 49-51.\n\n⁹² Ex. 49.\n\nਹੇਤੇ See Ex. 50, at GREE000195.\n\n⁹⁴ Ex. 49.\n\n⁹⁶ Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr. at 65:12-21, 67:6-25, and 69:24-70:5.\n\n![](_page_21_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n| | 102 | | |\n|-----------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | 49. The Debtor has used the Taconic Property as his residence, 103 | |\n| | | | |\n| | | 104 | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 97 | Ex. 51 | ; Ex. 85. | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 08 | Ex. 51. | | |\n| 09
100 | | See Ex. 52, at GREE000330. | |\n| 101 | Ex. 51. | | |\n| | Ex. 51. | | |\n| | | 102 Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr. at 65:12-21, 67:6-25, and 69:24-70:5. | |\n| | 107 . | 103 Declaration of Mr. Ho Wan Kwok in Support of the Chapter 11 Case and Certain Motions ¶ 6 [Docket No.
104 Ex. 53, at 80:23-81:13; see also Id., at 75:21-24, 76:5-15. | |\n\n# E. Debtor Used Hudson Diamond NY to Transfer Money to Other Debtor-Controlled Shell Companies and Family Members\n\n50. Bank records show that, apart from funding real estate transactions, the Debtor\n\nalso used Hudson Diamond NY to transfer millions of dollars to other shell companies,\n\n105 ,106 and 107 as well as including, for example,\n\nto transfer funds to his daughter, Mei Guo, and his wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\n51. In addition, upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY owned one of the\n\nDebtor's Rolls Royce luxury automobiles. 108\n\n# I. Hudson Diamond NY Had No Business Other Than to Hold Debtor's Property and/or Pay His Expenses\n\n52. As discussed further herein, Hudson Diamond NY's only documented activities\n\nconsisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Hudson Diamond NY did\n\nnothing other than receive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank\n\naccounts (in addition to holding the Debtor's Rolls Royce and potentially other assets), and pay\n\nfor the Debtor's expenses. 109\n\n# F. Debtor and Mei Guo Asserted Fifth Amendment Regarding Control Over Hudson Diamond NY and Its Sole Member Hudson Diamond Holding\n\n53. The Debtor has asserted the Fifth Amendment when questioned regarding his\n\ncontrol over Hudson Diamond NY and its sole member Hudson Diamond Holding. At his\n\n| 105 | Ex. 59 | |\n|-----|---------|---------|\n| 106 | Ex. 78, | |\n| | | Ex. 79, |\n| 107 | Ex. 79 | |\n\n108 Ex. 54, AIG Automobile Declarations Page for Hudson Diamond NY.\n\n109 Hudson Diamond NY was found to be in civil contempt of Court for failing to comply with or respond to the Trustee's Rule 2004 discovery subpoenas [Main Case Docket No. 2009]. Given Hudson Diamond NY's noncompliance with its discovery obligations, the Trustee is unable at this time to determine with precision the value of Hudson Diamond's assets, and the Trustee's investigation remains ongoing.\n\nMarch 2, 2023 deposition, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment right when asked whether he owns and controls all assets of Hudson Diamond Holding and Hudson Diamond NY.110\n\n54. Similarly, during her deposition, Mei Guo, purported sole member of Hudson Diamond Holding, the purported sole member of Hudson Diamond NY, asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment with respect to whether the Debtor owned and controlled Hudson Diamond NY and directed transfers of its money. 111\n\n55. In addition, Mei Guo invoked the Fifth Amendment in testimony before this Court when asked, among other things, whether Hudson Diamond NY was created at the Debtor's direction to acquire real property112 and whether the Debtor at all times has controlled Hudson Diamond NY and its assets, 113\n\n### IV. Leading Shine NY Is Alter Ego of and Equitably Owned by Debtor\n\n### A. Leading Shine NY Managed by Debtor Through Debtor's Agents\n\n56. Juleading Shine NY was formed in Delaware on January 3, 2019, 114 and registered to do business in New York in January 2019.115\n\n![](_page_23_Figure_7.jpeg)\n\n116 Ex. 56\n\n117 Compare Ex. 56,\n\nwith Ex. 82,\n\n¹¹⁰ See Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 49:15-50:22.\n\n¹¹¹ Ex. 36, Mei Guo Depo. Tr. at 40:17-44:17, 68:13-21, 74:15-75:20.\n\n¹¹² Ex. 55, August 22, 2023 Hearing Tr. in In re Ho Wan Kwok at 65:18-23.\n\n¹¹³ Id. at 25:10-24.\n\n¹¹⁴ Ex. 80, Certificate of Incorporation of Leading Shine NY.\n\n¹¹⁵ Ex. 81, Application for Authority of Leading Shine NY.\n\n58.\n\n118 See Ex. 56.\n\nMr. Han has served as, among other things, the purported equity holder of Debtor shell companies Eastern Profit Corporation Limited and Anton Development Limited. 119\n\n### B. Leading Shine NY Funded by Debtor\n\n59. At all relevant times, Leading Shine NY has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding.\n\n60. Leading Shine NY has received funding from numerous other Debtor-controlled\n\n121 122 entities, including, among others, and from other Kwok-controlled entities.\n\n# C. Leading Shine NY Used Same Address as Other Debtor Shell Companies\n\n61. Jul Leading Shine NY used 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, as its\n\naddress.124 162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself,125 his counsel\n\n| | See Complaint of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for (1) Declaratory Judgment, Pursuant to |\n|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 7001, That Property Held by Mei Guo |\n| | is Property of Estate and (II) Related Relief, ¶ 21-25 Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Doc No. 1]. |\n| 120 | Ex. 89. |\n| | Ex. 90. |\n| | |\n| 121 | See e.g., Ex. 79, |\n| | |\n| 122 | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n124 See e.g., Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York).\n\n¹²⁵ Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\nAaron Mitchell, 126 and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including: Lamp Capital, 127 Golden Spring,128 HK USA,129 GTV Media Group, Inc.,130 Saraca,131 Hudson Diamond Holding, 132 Hudson Diamond NY, 133 and Rule of Law Foundation. 134\n\n# D. Debtor Used Leading Shine NY to Transfer Money to Other Debtor-Controlled Shell Companies\n\n# 62. Jul Leading Shine NY was actively involved in the movement of money to other shell\n\ncompanies controlled by the Debtor. For example, Leading Shine NY has transferred funds to\n\n137 an 136 and Golden Spring, 135\n\nentity purportedly owned by Mei Guo that received \\$875,000 from the postpetition sale of the\n\nFerncliff Property.138\n\n# E. Debtor Used Leading Shine NY to Pay His Expenses\n\n| 10
UJI | |\n|-----------|--|\n| | |\n| | |\n\n¹²⁶ Ex. 27, Consent to Change Attorney, PAX v. Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), NY SCEF Doc. No. 338.\n\n¹²⁷ See e.g., Ex. 69, Lamp Capital's Certificate of Beneficial Owner(s) at Dime Bank (identifying the physical business address of Lamp Capital to be at 162 E 64th Street, New York).\n\n¹²⁸ Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition [Docket No. 1].\n\n¹²⁹ Ex. 28, Limited Liability Company Agreement of HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, dated April 1, 2019.\n\n¹³⁰ Ex. 29, OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results registration search results for GTV Media Group Inc.\n\n¹³¹ Ex. 30, Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY New York State corporate registry search results.\n\n¹³² Ex. 31, Hudson Diamond NY LLC fact sheet from Hodgson Russ (showing 162 E 64th St. as LLC address).\n\n¹³³ Id. (showing 162 E 64th St. as Hudson Diamond Holding address).\n\n¹³⁴ Ex. 32, CHAR 500 Form of Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.\n\n¹³⁵ Ex. 105, Golden Spring's account statement at Santander for July - September 2020 (showing over \\$2 million in transfers from Leading Shine).\n\n¹³⁶ Ex. 85, Ex. 44.\n\n¹³⁷ See, e.g. Ex. 87,\n\n¹³⁸ See Local Rule 56(a) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Trustee's Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 18 [Adv. Proc. 23-05005, Doc No. 79].\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\nAs the Court will recall, a Berkeley Rowe attorney even attempted to provide testimony in support of HK USA at the March 15, 2023 hearing in the adversary proceeding with respect to HK USA, which request the Court denied.141 Berkeley Rowe also appears to have assisted the Debtor's son, Qiang Guo, in connection with the submission of his proof of claim in the Genever Holdings LLC chapter 11 case, given that Qiang Guo used Berkeley Rowe as his personal address on his proof of claim form.142\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_3.jpeg)\n\n¹⁴⁰ Id. (transfer of \\$39,527.55).\n\n¹⁴¹ See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Leave to Supplement HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, and Mei Guo's Witness and Exhibit List (Adv. Proc. 22-05003) [Docket No. 136].\n\n¹⁴² See Proof of Claim 3-1, In re Genever Holdings LLC, Case No. 22-50592.\n\n¹⁴³ See Ex. 87,\n\n¹⁴⁴ See Ex. 88, Motion for Relief from Order Denying Pre-Trial Releases, at 20, United States v. Kwok, No. 23-6421 (2d Cir. May 5, 2023) [Docket No. 6.1].\n\n### **J. Leading Shine NY Had No Business Other Than to Hold Debtor's Property and/or Pay His Expenses**\n\n66. As discussed further herein, Leading Shine NY's only documented activities consisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Leading Shine NY did nothing other than receive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank accounts, and pay for the Debtor's expenses.145\n\n# **F. Debtor Asserted Fifth Amendment Regarding Control Over Leading Shine NY.**\n\n67. The Debtor has asserted the Fifth Amendment on multiple occasions when questioned regarding his control over Leading Shine NY. During his March 2, 2023 deposition, when asked whether he controlled and owned Leading Shine NY, the Debtor invoked the Fifth Amendment.146\n\n68. In the Debtor's sworn declaration dated May 11, 2023, the Debtor again invoked\n\nthe Fifth Amendment when asked whether he controlled Leading Shine NY.¹⁴⁷\n\n### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n# **(Declaratory Judgment that Lamp Capital is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Lamp Capital's Assets to Trustee)**¹⁴⁸\n\n69. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n 145 Leading Shine NY failed to respond to or produce any documents in connection with Trustee's Rule 2004 discovery subpoenas. Given Leading Shine NY's non-compliance with its discovery obligations, the Trustee is unable at this time to determine with precision the value of Leading Shine NY's assets and the Trustee's\n\ninvestigation remains ongoing. 146 *See* Ex. 13, Kwok Dep. Tr., at 49:15-50:22. 147 Ex. 33, Debtor's Sworn Declaration Regarding Responses to Particular Questions, ¶ 158. 148 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Lamp Capital and/or its purported sole member, Infinity Treasury Management, as applicable.\n\n70. Delaware law applies to this alter ego claim because Lamp Capital is a Delaware entity.149\n\n71. Under Delaware's two-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil, a court applying Delaware's alter ego analysis to the Debtor's relationship with Lamp Capital will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and Lamp Capital operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether the Debtor and Lamp Capital operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether Lamp Capital was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor.150 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"151\n\n72. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over Lamp Capital such that Lamp Capital had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. Lamp Capital is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. Lamp Capital was formed by the Debtor through his counsel.\n- b. Lamp Capital was managed by the Debtor through his agents.\n- c. Lamp Capital was funded by the Debtor.\n- d. Lamp Capital used same address as other Debtor shell companies.\n- e. The Debtor used Lamp Capital to pay his expenses.\n\n¹⁴⁹ *See, e.g.*, *Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar*, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021) (\"[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.\"). 150 *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third\n\nCircuit considers in determining whether a corporation operated as a single economic entity, which notably would not include whether the relevant individual is a shareholder of the entity, but would include \"gross undercapitalization; failure to observe corporate formalities . . . [and] whether the corporation is merely a facade.\"). 151 *Id.* at 471.\n\n- f. Lamp Capital had no business other than to hold the Debtor's property and/or pay his expenses.\n- g. The Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding his control over Lamp Capital.\n\n73. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n74. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Lamp Capital was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Lamp Capital at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Lamp Capital at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Lamp Capital to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n### **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Lamp Capital and/or Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Lamp Capital and/or Its Assets to Trustee)**¹⁵²\n\n75. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n76. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Lamp Capital is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Lamp Capital and/or its assets.153\n\n¹⁵² This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Lamp Capital and/or its purported sole member, Infinity\n\nTreasury Management, as applicable. 153 *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\n77. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n78. Because Lamp Capital was equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over Lamp Capital, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, were, following the Petition Date, property of the Estate.\n\n79. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Lamp Capital purportedly held by Infinity Treasury Management, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Lamp Capital, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n### **(Declaratory Judgment that Hudson Diamond NY is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Hudson Diamond NY's Assets to Trustee)**¹⁵⁴\n\n80. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n81. New York law applies to this alter ego claim because Hudson Diamond NY is a New York entity.155\n\n82. Under New York law, a party seeking an alter ego ruling must show \"(1) the alleged alter ego 'exercised complete domination over the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong that injured the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil.'\" *Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc.,* 120 F. Supp. 3d\n\n¹⁵⁴ This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Hudson Diamond NY and/or its purported sole member,\n\nHudson Diamond Holding, as applicable. 155 *See, e.g.*, *Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar*, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021) (\"[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.\").\n\n277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), *aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber,* 720 F. App'x 639 (2d\n\nCir. 2017) (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.,* 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296\n\n(E.D.N.Y.2014)). The domination referenced in the first prong is determined based on\n\nconsidering ten equitable factors.\n\n(1) the absence of formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of the corporate existence, i.e., issuance of stock, election of directors, keeping of corporate records and the like, (2) inadequate capitalization, (3) whether funds are put in and taken out of the corporation for personal rather than corporate purposes, (4) overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel, (5) common office space, address and telephone numbers of corporate entities, (6) the amount of business discretion displayed by the allegedly dominated corporation, (7) whether the related corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arm['s] length, (8) whether the corporations are treated as independent profit centers, (9) the payment or guarantee of debts of the dominated corporation by other corporations in the group, and (10) whether the corporation in question had property that was used by other of the corporations as if it were its own.\n\n83. *Id.* (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.,* 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296\n\n(E.D.N.Y.2014)). Assuming domination can be established, to recover, a plaintiff must then show \"(1) 'the existence of a wrongful or unjust act toward that party,' and (2) that 'the act caused the party's harm.'\" *Id.* (quoting *Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd.,* 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 297 (E.D.N.Y.2014)).\n\n84. Here, the facts demonstrate that Hudson Diamond NY was the Debtor's alter ego under New York law, among other things:\n\n- a. Hudson Diamond NY was formed by the Debtor through his counsel.\n- b. Hudson Diamond NY was managed by the Debtor through his agents.\n- c. Hudson Diamond NY was funded by the Debtor.\n- d. Hudson Diamond NY used same address as other Debtor shell companies.\n- e. The Debtor used Hudson Diamond NY to transfer money to other Debtor shell companies and family members.\n- f. Hudson Diamond NY had no business other than to hold the Debtor's property and/or pay his expenses.\n- g. The Debtor and Mei Guo asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding control over Hudson Diamond NY.\n\n85. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n86. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Hudson Diamond NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Hudson Diamond NY at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Hudson Diamond NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Hudson Diamond NY to the Trustee.\n\n### **FOURTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Hudson Diamond NY and/or Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Hudson Diamond NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee)**¹⁵⁶\n\n87. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n¹⁵⁶ This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Hudson Diamond NY and/or its purported sole member, Hudson Diamond Holding, as applicable.\n\n88. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Hudson Diamond NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Hudson Diamond NY and/or its assets.157\n\n89. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n90. Because Hudson Diamond NY was equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over Hudson Diamond NY, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, were, following the Petition Date, property of the Estate.\n\n91. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Hudson Diamond NY purportedly held by Hudson Diamond Holding, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Hudson Diamond NY, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **FIFTH CLAIM**\n\n### **(Declaratory Judgment that Leading Shine NY is the Debtor's Alter Ego and Ordering Turnover of Leading Shine NY's Assets to Trustee)**¹⁵⁸\n\n92. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n¹⁵⁷ *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added). 158 This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Leading Shine NY and/or its purported sole member,\n\nMei Guo or Yvette Wang, as applicable.\n\n93. Delaware law applies to this alter ego claim because Leading Shine NY is a Delaware entity.159\n\n94. Under Delaware's two-pronged test for piercing the corporate veil, a court applying Delaware's alter ego analysis to the Debtor's relationship with Leading Shine NY will focus on (1) whether the Debtor and Leading Shine NY operated as a single economic unit and (2) whether there was an overall element of injustice or unfairness. In determining whether the Debtor and Leading Shine NY operated as a single economic unit, a court applying Delaware law would consider a number of factors, including, among others, whether Leading Shine NY was adequately capitalized, observed corporate formalities, and was a facade for the Debtor.160 This \"list of factors is not exhaustive and no single factor is dispositive.\"161\n\n95. The Debtor exercised control and dominion over Leading Shine NY such that Leading Shine NY had no independent existence from the Debtor and the Debtor used the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud and injustice. Leading Shine NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, because, among other reasons:\n\n- a. Leading Shine NY was managed by the Debtor through his agents.\n- b. Leading Shine NY was funded by the Debtor.\n- c. Leading Shine NY used same address as other Debtor shell companies.\n- d. Debtor used Leading Shine NY to transfer money to other Debtor shell companies.\n- e. The Debtor used Leading Shine NY to pay his expenses.\n\n¹⁵⁹ *See, e.g.*, *Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar*, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at \\*7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021) (\"[B]ecause [defendant] is incorporated in Delaware, I must apply Delaware law to decide if it may be subject to an alter ego claim for reverse veil piercing liability.\"). 160 *Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG*, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010) (Noting the factors that the Third\n\nCircuit considers in determining whether a corporation operated as a single economic entity, which notably would not include whether the relevant individual is a shareholder of the entity, but would include \"gross undercapitalization; failure to observe corporate formalities . . . [and] whether the corporation is merely a facade.\"). 161 *Id.* at 471.\n\n- f. Leading Shine NY had no business other than to hold the Debtor's property and/or pay his expenses.\n- g. The Debtor asserted the Fifth Amendment regarding his control over Leading Shine NY.\n\n96. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n97. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Leading Shine NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Leading Shine NY at any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Leading Shine NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Leading Shine NY to the Trustee.\n\n#### **SIXTH CLAIM**\n\n## **(Declaratory Judgment that Debtor Is Equitable Owner of Leading Shine NY and/or Its Assets and Ordering Turnover of Ownership of Leading Shine NY and/or Its Assets to Trustee)**¹⁶²\n\n98. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-68.\n\n¹⁶² This claim seeks relief only with respect to defendants Leading Shine NY and/or its purported sole member, Mei Guo or Yvette Wang, as applicable.\n\n99. The same facts, discussed above, establishing that Leading Shine NY is an alter ego of the Debtor, also support the conclusion that the Debtor is the equitable owner of Leading Shine NY and/or its assets.163\n\n100. At all relevant times, the Debtor was indebted to one or more creditors. Such creditors could have pursued the relief sought herein by the Trustee in exercise of such creditors' rights.\n\n101. Because Leading Shine NY was equitably owned by the Debtor, the ownership and corporate control rights over Leading Shine NY, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, were, following the Petition Date, property of the estate.\n\n102. Accordingly, the Trustee seeks a ruling, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Leading Shine NY purportedly held by Mei Guo or Yvette Wang, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Leading Shine NY, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, to the Trustee.\n\n#### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that judgment be entered as follows:\n\n1. On the First Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Lamp Capital was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Lamp Capital any time prior to the Debtor's\n\n¹⁶³ *Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc*., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997) (defendant that \"exercised considerable authority over [the corporation] . . . to the point of completely disregarding the corporate form and *acting as though [its] assets were his alone to manage.\"*) (emphasis added).\n\npetition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Lamp Capital at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Lamp Capital to the Trustee;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Lamp Capital purportedly held by Infinity Treasury Management and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Lamp Capital, and/or the assets of Lamp Capital, to the Trustee;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Hudson Diamond NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Hudson Diamond NY any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Hudson Diamond NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Hudson Diamond NY to the Trustee;\n\n4. On the Fourth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Hudson Diamond NY purportedly held by Hudson Diamond Holding, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of\n\nownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Hudson Diamond NY, and/or the assets of Hudson Diamond NY, to the Trustee;\n\n5. On the Fifth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that: (a) at all times Leading Shine NY was an alter ego of the Debtor; (b) any and all of the assets held by Leading Shine NY any time prior to the Debtor's petition date of February 15, 2022 constituted property of the Debtor; and (c) any and all assets held by Leading Shine NY at any time from the date of the Debtor's February 15, 2022 chapter 11 petition to the present, constituted and constitute, as applicable, property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the turnover of any and all of the assets of Leading Shine NY to the Trustee;\n\n6. On the Sixth Claim, an order, pursuant to sections 541, 542, and 544 of the Bankruptcy Code, (1) declaring that the ownership interests in Leading Shine NY purportedly held by Mei Guo or Yvette Wang, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, are property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate; and (2) ordering the surrender of ownership interests and related rights of corporate control in Leading Shine NY, and/or the assets of Leading Shine NY, to the Trustee;\n\n7. Reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action; and\n\n8. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, or equitable under the circumstances.\n\n[*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\nDated: October 26, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS, New Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Douglass Barron*\n\nAvram E. Luft *(pro hac vice* pending) Douglass Barron (*pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett *(pro hac vice* pending) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n *and*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*","body_zh":"B1040 (表格 1040) (12/15)\n对抗制诉讼案件登记表\n(背面附说明)\n对抗制诉讼案号\n(仅供法院使用)\n\n原告\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章破产受托人\n被告\nLAMP CAPITAL LLC、INFINITY TREASURY MANAGEMENT INC.、HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC、HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDING LLC、LEADING SHINE NY LTD.、MEI GUO（郭美）以及 YANPING WANG，又名“YVETTE”（王雁平）\n\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166\n电话：318-6000，经办人：Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）\n律师（如已知）\n参见附表 1\n\n当事人身份（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产案管理人\n□ 债权人\nx 受托人\n□ 其他\n\n当事人身份（仅勾选一项）\n□ 债务人\n□ 债权人\n□ 受托人\n□ 美国受托人/破产案管理人\nx 其他\n\n诉由\n（简要陈述诉由，包括涉及的所有美国成文法条款）\n确认之诉及将 Lamp Capital 的资产移交给受托人。确认之诉及将 Lamp Capital 的所有权和/或其资产移交给受托人。确认之诉及将 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产移交给受托人。确认之诉及将 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有权和/或其资产移交给受托人。确认之诉及将 Leading Shine NY 的资产移交给受托人。确认之诉及将 Leading Shine NY 的所有权和/或其资产移交给受托人。\n\n诉讼性质\n（最多勾选并按序编号五 (5) 个方框，主诉因记为 1，第一备位诉因记为 2，第二备位诉因记为 3，依此类推。）\n\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产\n[x] 11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产交出\n[ ] 12-追回金钱/财产 - §547 偏颇清偿\n[ ] 13-追回金钱/财产 - §548 欺诈性转让\n[ ] 14-追回金钱/财产 - 其他\n\nFRBP 7001(2) – 留置权的有效性、优先顺位或范围\n[ ] 21-留置权或财产其他权益的有效性、优先顺位或范围\n\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准财产出售\n[ ] 31-批准出售破产财产及共同所有人的财产 - §363(h)\n\nFRBP 7001(4) – 异议/撤销免责\n[ ] 41-异议/撤销免责 - §727(c),(d),(e)\n\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n[ ] 51-撤销确认\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n[ ] 66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收债权\n[ ] 62-可免责性 - §523(a)(2)，虚假借口、虚假陈述、实际欺诈\n[ ] 67-可免责性 - §523(a)(4)，作为受托人的欺诈、侵占、盗窃\n（接下栏）\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（续）\n[ ] 61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭抚养费\n[ ] 68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，故意且恶意的伤害\n[ ] 63-可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，助学贷款\n[ ] 64-可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居产生的义务（家庭抚养费除外）\n[ ] 65-可免责性 - 其他\n\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令性救济\n[ ] 71-禁令性救济 – 施加中止令\n[ ] 72-禁令性救济 – 其他\n\nFRBP 7001(8) 债权或权益劣后\n[ ] 81-债权或权益劣后\n\nFRBP 7001(9) 确认之诉判决\n[x] 91-确认之诉判决\n\nFRBP 7001(10) 被移送诉讼之裁定\n[ ] 01-被移送主张或诉因之裁定\n[ ] SS-SIPA 案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa 等\n[ ] 02-其他（例如若与破产案无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n\n[x] 如本案涉及州法的实质性法律问题，请勾选\n[ ] 如依据 FRCP 23 主张为集体诉讼，请勾选\n[ ] 如在起诉状中请求陪审团审判，请勾选　请求金额 $\n其他请求的救济\n\nB1040 (表格 1040) (12/15)\n\n提起本对抗性程序的破产案件\n债务人姓名：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n破产案号：22-50073\n分部办事处：Connecticut（康涅狄格）\n法官姓名：Julie A. Manning\n\n关联合抗性程序（如有）\n对抗性程序案号：\n对抗性程序审理法院所在区：\n分部办事处：Bridgeport（布里奇波特）\n法官姓名：\n被告：\n律政代理人（或原告）正楷签名：/s/ Douglass Barron\nDouglass Barron\n\n说明\n\n破产案件的提起会在破产法院管辖下创设一个“破产财产”（estate），其由债务人的所有财产构成，无论该财产位于何处。由于破产财产范围极广且法院管辖权极其宽泛，可能会产生针对破产财产的财产或财产权的诉讼。也可能会产生有关债务人免责的诉讼。如果此类诉讼在破产法院提起，则被称为对抗性诉讼（adversary proceeding）。\n\n提起对抗性诉讼的当事人还必须填写并提交 Form 1040，即《对抗性诉讼首页登记表》（Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet），除非该当事人通过法院的案件管理/电子案卷提交系统（Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system，简称 CM/ECF）以电子方式提起对抗性诉讼。（CM/ECF 在提交过程中会采集 Form 1040 上的信息。）填写完毕后，该首页登记表汇总了对抗性诉讼的基本信息。法院书记官需要这些信息来处理对抗性诉讼并编制所需的法院活动统计报告。\n\n该首页登记表及其所载信息并不取代或补充法律、《破产规则》（Bankruptcy Rules）或法院本地规则所要求的诉答文书或其他文件的提交与送达。该首页登记表内容大体上一目了然，必须由原告律师填写（如果原告未委托律师代理，则由原告本人填写）。每提交一份起诉状，都必须向书记官提交一份单独的首页登记表。\n\n原告与被告。准确提供起诉状上所显示的原告和被告姓名/名称。\n\n律师。提供律师的姓名和地址（如知悉）。\n\n当事人。在第一栏中为原告勾选最合适的方框，在第二栏中为被告勾选最合适的方框。\n\n诉求金额。输入起诉状中所索赔的美元金额。\n\n签名。本首页登记表必须由记录在案的律师在该表格第二页的方框内签名。如果原告由律师事务所代理，则必须由该律所的成员签名。如果原告是自行诉讼（pro se），即未委托律师代理，则必须由原告本人签名。\n\n附表 1（SCHEDULE 1）\n\nHudson Diamond Entities（哈德逊钻石各实体）及 Mei Guo（郭美）之律师：转交 Aaron A. Romney，Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.，10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, CT 06604，电话：203-368-4234\n\nYvette Wang（王雁平）之律师：转交 Alex Lipman，Lipman Law PLLC，147 W. 25th St. 12th Fl, New York, New York 10001，电话：212-401-0070\n\n转交 Emil Bove，Blanche Law PLLC，99 Wall Street Suite 4460, New York, NY 10005，电话：212-716-1250\n\n美利坚合众国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT）\n康涅狄格区（DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n布里奇波特分院（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于：\n第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，1\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n（合并审理）\n\nLuc A. Despins，第 11 章破产受托人，\n原告，\n诉\nLamp Capital LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、Mei Guo 以及 Yanping, 又名“Yvette”, Wang（王雁平），\n被告。\n\n对抗性诉讼编号：[\n]\n\n郭文贵破产财产之第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 541、542 及 544 条提起的起诉状，请求：(I) 作出宣告性判决，确认 Lamp Capital LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC 以及 Leading Shine NY Ltd. 各自为债务人之替身（ALTER EGO），以及 (II) 相关救济\n\nLuc A. Despins 以其在 Ho Wan Kwok（债务人或“Kwok”）的第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）中被指定的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）的身份，对以下被告提起本对抗性诉状（“起诉状”）：(a) Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp Capital”）、(b) Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（“Infinity Treasury Management”）、(c) Hudson Diamond NY LLC（“Hudson Diamond NY”）、(d) Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（“Hudson Diamond Holding”）、(e) Leading Shine NY Ltd.（“Leading Shine NY”）、(f) Mei Guo 以及 (g) Yvette Wang（与 Lamp Capital、Infinity Treasury Management、Hudson Diamond NY、Hudson Diamond Holding、Leading Shine NY 和 Mei Guo 合称为“被告”）。为支持本起诉状，受托人陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（又名郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他诸多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Luc A. Despins（作为郭文贵破产财产受托人，仅用于接收通知和联络之目的）。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 债务人普遍利用空壳公司隐瞒其商业交易并向债权人隐匿其高价值资产的行为，在这些第 11 章案件中已有详尽记录。本起诉状涉及债务人利用三家实体——Lamp Capital、Hudson Diamond NY 以及 Leading Shine NY（统称为“替身被告”）——作为其个人秘密资金池，在各空壳公司之间转移数百万美元并支付其个人开支（包括其律师费）。受托人请求作出裁定，确认替身被告为债务人的替身，且债务人对替身被告及其资产享有衡平法所有权。\n\n2. 尽管债务人试图在书面上与替身被告撇清关系，但在所有相关时间内，债务人都主导并控制着替身被告及其资产。除其他事项外，替身被告由债务人通过其代理人（包括 Yvette Wang、Max Krasner 和/或 Daniel Podhaskie）进行管理，由债务人控制的其他实体提供资金，并被用于向债务人的其他空壳公司及家族成员输送资金，以及支付债务人的各项个人开支。此外，替身被告之一 Hudson Diamond NY 曾协助出资购买债务人通过 Greenwich Land LLC 持有的不动产。据信，该实体还拥有债务人的至少一辆豪车。\n\n3. 债务人并未否认这些指控。相反，当被问及对替身被告的所有权和控制权时，债务人援引了《第五修正案》（Fifth Amendment），拒绝回答受托人的提问。法院可以且应当根据该证言对被告作出不利推断。\n\n4. 基于上述及下文阐述的其他事实，受托人依据《破产法典》第 541、542 及 544 条请求作出裁定，宣告：(i) Lamp Capital、Hudson Diamond NY 和 Leading Shine NY 各自为债务人的替身，以及 (ii) Lamp Capital、Hudson Diamond NY 和 Leading Shine NY 各自及/或其资产由债务人享有衡平法所有权。\n\n管辖权与审理地\n\n5. 本法院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本对抗性诉讼享有标的管辖权。\n\n6. 本对抗性诉讼已依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移送至本法院。依据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 和 1409，本法院为适当审理地。\n\n当事人\n\n7. 依据本法院于 2022 年 7 月 8 日作出的命令 [主案卷宗号 523]，受托人为本第 11 章案件中的第 11 章破产受托人。\n\n8. Lamp Capital 为一家特拉华州有限责任公司。\n\n9. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. 为一家特拉华州公司，据称为 Lamp Capital 的唯一成员。\n\n10. Hudson Diamond NY 为一家纽约州有限责任公司。\n\n11. Hudson Diamond Holding 为一家特拉华州有限责任公司，据称为 Hudson Diamond NY 的唯一成员。2\n\n12. Leading Shine NY 为一家特拉华州公司。\n\n13. Mei Guo 为债务人的女儿。她曾声称自己是 Leading Shine NY 的实际受益所有人。她亦是据称的 Hudson Diamond Holding 唯一成员。\n\n14. Yvette Wang 为债务人的亲密同伙，也是在纽约联邦法院对债务人及 Wang 女士提起的待决刑事诉讼中涉嫌的共谋人。Wang 女士曾声称自己是 Leading Shine NY 的实际受益所有人。\n\n事实\n\nI. 背景：债务人频繁使用空壳公司\n\n15. 诚如法院目前所深知，债务人频繁使用据称由家族成员或业务下属持有的空壳公司，以向债权人隐匿其资产和活动。债务人的“空壳把戏”使其能够继续否认对资产的所有权、拒绝清偿债务，并且——直至其近期被联邦调查局（FBI）逮捕——过着奢华的生活。事实上，除替身被告外，法院对这些实体中的诸多实体已十分熟悉，其中包括：\n\n2 2023 年 6 月，Hudson Diamond NY 的律师 Zeisler & Zeisler P.C. 的 Aaron Romney 提交了退出担任 Hudson Diamond NY 代理律师的动议，声称不确定该公司的最终实际受益所有人是谁，尽管公司文件显示 Hudson Diamond NY 据称的唯一成员为 Hudson Diamond Holding，而 Hudson Diamond Holding 据称的唯一成员为 Mei Guo；该动议已被驳回 [主案卷宗号 2220]。在法院驳回退出申请的决定中，法院指出（除其他事项外），受托人提交的证据“似乎证实了 Guo 女士有权聘请 [Romney 律师] 和 Vartan 律师，因为 HD Holding 是 HD NY 的唯一成员”。同上，第 5 页。\n\na. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（“HK USA”），据称由债务人的女儿 Mei Guo 所有，并被债务人用于持有 Lady May 号游艇的产权，本法院及 Ostrager 法官均裁定该游艇由债务人实际受益所有。3 法院亦裁定 HK USA 为债务人的替身。4\n\nb. Greenwich Land, LLC（“Greenwich Land”），据称由债务人的妻子所有，并被债务人用于持有债务人位于康涅狄格州格林威治（Greenwich, Connecticut）的豪宅的产权。5\n\nc. Whitecroft Shore Limited 及 Anton Development Limited，据称由 Mei Guo 所有的实体，并被债务人用于持有债务人的庞巴迪环球 XRS（Bombardier Global XRS）私人飞机的产权。6\n\nd. HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc. 及 Lexington Property, Inc.（统称为“HCHK 各实体”），其中每一家实体据称均由以下各方持有：(a) 99.9999% 由一家英属维尔京群岛（British Virgin Islands，简称“BVI”）公司持有，而该公司据称由债务人的私人助理 Yvette Wang 所有；及 (b) 0.0001% 由债务人的长期雇员 Anthony DiBattista 所有。7 HCHK 各实体被债务人用于（除其他事项外）运营其媒体业务并持有包括逾 3800 万美元现金在内的巨额资产。\n\ne. Taurus Fund, LLC，据称由债务人的保镖兼司机 Scott Barnett 管理，并被债务人用于持有其位于新泽西州马瓦（Mahwah, New Jersey）的豪宅的产权。8\n\n3 《支持准予部分简易判决动议之口头裁定的补充决定备忘录》（Supplemental Memorandum of Decision in Support of Oral Ruling Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment），第 31 页（Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003, 2023 年 3 月 30 日）[卷宗号 177]（“个人债务人对 Lady May 号的实际受益所有权及控制权问题对第一项反诉具有决定性意义，且该相同问题已由 Ostrager 法官在《最终蔑视法庭决定》中作出必然判定，其中认定...\n\n明确且有说服力的证据表明个人债务人实际拥有并控制了Lady May（梅号游艇）」）。4 《关于准予就第二项反请求作出部分简易判决动议的决定备忘录及命令》，第 35 页（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003，2023年5月18日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 221]（「HK USA 是个人债务人的另我实体。」）。5\n\n受托人已在对抗性程序 23-05005 中针对该实体申请另我判决，在此关联下，法院对 Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）及债务人的妻子作出了审前救济和临时限制令。参见《关于部分准予单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令》（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005，2023年3月28日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 14]；《关于准予第 11 章受托人经修改的单方审前救济申请的命令》（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005，2023年3月28日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 15]。6\n\n这两家公司，连同据称由 Mei Guo（郭美）拥有的其他公司，均是对抗性程序 23-05008 的标的。参见《Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产之第 11 章受托人根据〈破产法典〉第 541、542 和 544 条及〈破产程序规则〉第 7001 条请求作出（I）确认郭美持有的财产属于破产财产的宣告性判决及（II）相关救济的起诉书》（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008，2023年5月16日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 1]。7\n\n受托人已在对抗性程序 23-05013 中针对这些实体申请另我判决，在此关联下，法院于 2023年6月12日作出了临时限制令。参见《关于部分准予紧急单方临时限制令及初步禁令动议的命令》（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013，2023年6月12日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 18]。8\n\n受托人已在对抗性程序 23-05017 中针对 Taurus Fund LLC 申请另我判决，在此关联下，法院于 2023年8月24日作出了初步禁令命令。参见《关于部分准予初步禁令动议的决定备忘录及命令》（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017，2023年8月24日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 47]。\n\n- f. Ace Decade Limited（「Ace Decade」），本法院认定其由债务人实际拥有。9 法院亦认定债务人控制并雇佣了 Ace Decade 的代持所有人 Yvette Wang（王雁平）。10 受托人事后获悉，在 Ace Decade 程序进行期间（但在法院于 2022年11月17日认定债务人自 2022年2月15日提出破产申请之日起便排他性地实际拥有并控制 Ace Decade 之后11），王雁平将其名义持有的 Ace Decade 股份转让给了位于瑞士的一名个人（据信该人是债务人的另一名同伙）。\n- g. Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（「Golden Spring」），即债务人的家族办公室，据称由债务人的儿子拥有。除其他事项外，Golden Spring 由债务人出资，被债务人用于持有其资产并支付其开支，且由债务人的雇员管理和配备人员。12\n- h. Gettr、GFashion、GMusic、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu（「G 系列实体」）、New Federal State of China（新中国联邦，「NFSC」）以及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金，「ROLF」），以及其他据称独立的实体和组织，本法院认定其受债务人控制，13 由债务人领导，14 并且/或者用于实现债务人的「……目的并充当其业务工具」。15 法院亦认定这些实体和组织的成员对「债务人个人效忠」。16\n- 16. 这些实体只是冰山一角。根据美国政府的说法，债务人及其共同被告 William Je（余建明）和王雁平「利用了以至少 80 个不同实体或个人名义开设的\n\n约 500 多个账户来清洗超过 10 亿美元的欺诈收益」。17\n\n9 《关于准予判定债务人违反公司治理命令构成藐视法庭动议的命令》第 1 段（2023年1月24日）[主案卷宗编号：Main Case Docket No. 1372]（「公司治理藐视法庭命令」）。 10 《公司治理藐视法庭命令》第 4 段。\n\n11 参见《关于部分解决受托人藐视法庭动议的命令》第 1 段（2022年11月17日）[主案卷宗编号：Main Case Docket No. 1110]。 12 受托人已在对抗性程序 23-05018 中针对 Golden Spring 申请另我判决，在此关联下，法庭书记官已对 Golden Spring 作出缺席认定，参见《缺席认定登记》（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018，2023年9月20日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 17]，并对其据称的母公司 China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited 作出缺席认定。参见《缺席认定登记》（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018，2023年10月17日）[案件卷宗编号：Docket No. 20]。 13 《关于部分准予初步禁令动议的经更正决定备忘录》第 3 段（对抗性程序案号：Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032，2023年1月13日（「债务人还控制着 Saraca Media Group 及其关联实体『GTV』」）。 14 同上，第 7 段（「债务人是爆料革命、NFSC、ROLF 和喜马拉雅的领导者。」）。 15 同上（「爆料革命、NFSC、ROLF、G 系列和喜马拉雅服务于债务人的目的，充当债务人的业务工具，且其成员对债务人个人效忠。」）。 16 同上。\n\n17. 综上所述，虽然本起诉书重点针对 Lamp Capital、Hudson Diamond NY 以及 Leading Shine NY，但有关债务人利用空壳公司向债权人隐匿资产的广泛策略背景具有高度相关性。受托人保留在适当时候针对其他实体提起进一步诉讼的权利。\nII. Lamp Capital 是债务人的另我实体并由债务人享有衡平法所有权\nA. Lamp Capital 由债务人通过其法律顾问设立\n\n18. Lamp Capital 于 2020年9月4日在特拉华州设立，18 并于 2020年9月14日在纽约州登记开展业务。19 Lamp Capital 的唯一成员为 Infinity Treasury Management，债务人的儿子 Qiang Guo（郭强）据称为其唯一股东。20\n\n19. 协助债务人设立 Lamp Capital 的债务人法律顾问为 Hodgson Russ LLP（「Hodgson Russ」）。Hodgson Russ 的合伙人 Valerie Stevens 作为「设立人」签署了 Lamp Capital 的成立证书。21 Hodgson Russ 还处理了与 Lamp Capital 在纽约州开展业务授权相关的公司登记备案事务。22\n\n 17 参见《美利坚合众国反对被告 Yanping Wang 审前释放动议的法律备忘录》（「联邦检察官办公室备忘录」），第 29 页，作为附件 B 附于《第 11 章受托人对 G Club Operations LLC 就受托人强迫动议提出的补充异议及相关救济请求的答复》（「G-Club 答复」）（2023年6月23日）[主案卷宗编号：Main Case Docket No. 1934]。 18 证据 1，Lamp Capital LLC 成立证书，作为附件 B 附于 Bernardo Enriquez 支持非当事人 Lamp Capital 撤销或修改动议的宣誓书，Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. 诉 Kwok 等人，索引号：Index No. 652077/2017，NYSCEF 文件编号：NYSCEF Doc. No. 936，2021年11月5日（「Enriquez 宣誓书」）。 19 证据 2，日期为 2020年9月11日向纽约州提交的 Lamp Capital LLC 授权申请，作为附件 C 附于 Enriquez 宣誓书。 20 证据 3，Lamp Capital LLC 有限责任公司协议，作为附件 D 附于 Enriquez 宣誓书。 21 证据 1，Lamp Capital LLC 成立证书。\n\n22 证据 2，Lamp Capital LLC 授权申请。\n\n20. 除了涉及 Lamp Capital 的工作外，Hodgson Russ 还在众多事项中担任债务人、其家庭成员、其密友及其空壳公司的法律顾问，除其他事项外，包括：23\n\n[图片]\nB. Lamp Capital 由债务人通过债务人的代理人进行管理\n\n21. 在 2021年6月10日之前，Daniel Podhaskie 担任 Infinity Treasury Management（Lamp Capital 的唯一成员）的唯一董事、总裁兼财务主管。24 Podhaskie 先生亦是 Lamp Capital 的授权签字人，除其他事项外，曾代表 Lamp Capital 开设银行账户。25\n\n22. Podhaskie 先生在所有相关时间内均为债务人的代理人。Podhaskie 先生代表债务人行事。他曾担任债务人的个人律师以及 Golden Spring（债务人的另一家空壳公司）的总法律顾问。他还曾担任 Genever Holdings LLC 及 Genever Holdings Corporation（债务人拥有的实体）的公司代表。\n\n23 证据 4。\n\n24 证据 5，Infinity Treasury Management, Inc. 唯一股东代替特别会议的一致书面同意书，作为附件 F 附于 Enriquez 宣誓书。\n\n25 证据 6，日期为 2020年9月10日的 Lamp Capital LLC 与 The Bank of Princeton 就尾号为 0389 账户签订的账户协议；证据 7，日期为 2020年9月15日的 Lamp Capital LLC 与 The Bank of Princeton 就尾号为 0306、0322 和 0314 账户签订的账户协议。\n\nPodhaskie 先生还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holding 和 Hudson Diamond NY 的管理人员和/或授权签字人。26 当债务人在宣誓作证中被问及 Podhaskie 先生是否为其雇员及代理人时，债务人主张了其宪法第五修正案权利。27\n\n23. 2021年6月10日，Max Krasner 接替 Podhaskie 先生担任 Infinity Treasury Management 的唯一董事兼总裁。与 Podhaskie 先生一样，Krasner 先生亦是债务人的代理人。Krasner 先生代表债务人行事，并作为王雁平的下属为债务人工作。Krasner 先生是 Golden Spring 的雇员，亦在债务人的众多其他空壳公司任职，包括担任 Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holding、Hudson Diamond NY、法治基金以及一个或多个 HCHK 实体的雇员、管理人员和/或授权签字人。28 当在宣誓作证中被问及 Krasner 先生是否为其雇员及代理人时，债务人主张了其宪法第五修正案权利。29\n\n24. 关于王雁平，本法院已裁定「债务人对王女士拥有控制权」，并且他「已雇佣王雁平数年，并指示她代表其采取行动，包括指示她代表其购买 Sherry-Netherland 公寓等财产」。30 除在 Hudson Diamond NY 任职外，王女士还以众多其他身份为债务人服务，包括担任 Golden Spring、Greenwich Land、Leading Shine NY、Saraca、GTV Media Group, Inc.、Ace Decade Limited 以及 Genever Holdings LLC 的管理人员和/或授权签字人。31 王女士众所周知是债务人的私人助理。当在宣誓作证中被问及王女士是否为其雇员时，债务人主张了其宪法第五修正案权利。32\n\n26 参见例如：\n\n证据 9，日期为 2020年12月4日的 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 唯一成员不召集会议的同意书；证据 10，日期为 2021年1月4日的 Daniel Podhaskie 辞去 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 总裁职务信函；证据 11，Hudson Diamond NY LLC 唯一成员不召集会议的同意书；证据 12，日期为 2021年1月4日的 Daniel Podhaskie 辞去 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 总裁职务信函。\n\n27 证据 13，日期为 2023年3月2日的 Ho Wan Kwok 宣誓作证笔录，第 86:14-18 行。\n\n28 证据 14，证据 15。日期为 2019年7月17日的 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 唯一成员不召集会议的同意书（反映 Krasner 先生为副总裁）；证据 16。日期为 2019年7月17日的 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 唯一成员不召集会议的同意书；证据 18，日期为 2020年9月8日的 Lamp Capital, LLC 有限责任公司协议；证据 19，法治基金的 CHAR 500 表格（Form 990，第 7 页，将 Max Krasner 列为「总裁、财务主管、董事」）；证据 20，Max Krasner、Anthony DiBattista 与 Marcum 的律师于 2023年1月就 HCHK 2022年银行对账单往来的电子邮件。\n\n29 证据 13，Kwok 宣誓作证笔录，第 34:6-20 行。\n\n30 《公司治理藐视法庭命令》第 4 段。 31 证据 21，日期为 2019年7月17日的 Leading Shine NY LLC 唯一成员不召集会议的同意书（反映王女士为副总裁）；证据 22，日期为 2020年9月8日的 Lamp Capital LLC 有限责任公司协议（王女士代表唯一成员 Infinity Treasury Management, Inc. 签字）；证据 23，日期为 2022年4月11日的 GTV Media Group, Inc. 董事会一致书面同意书（反映王女士为董事）；证据 24，日期为 2020年11月5日的 Saraca Media Group, Inc. 董事会特别会议纪要（反映王女士为董事）。 32 证据 13，Kwok 宣誓作证笔录，第 34:6-20 行。\n\n25. 2023年3月15日，Wang（王女士）被捕，罪名包括她涉嫌在Debtor（债务人）涉嫌的刑事欺诈和洗钱活动中与债务人共谋。据U.S. Government（美国政府）称，王女士在债务人的欺诈计划中扮演了“关键角色”，是其“深受信赖的幕僚长，负责管理甚至包括其并无正式任职实体在内的多处实体的运营”。33\n\nC. Lamp Capital 由债务人资助\n\n26. 据信息与知悉，在所有相关时间内，Lamp Capital（灯塔资本）一直完全由债务人通过其控制的实体提供资金，若无此类资助则根本没有资本金。\n\n30 公司治理藐视法庭命令第 4 段。\n\n31 证物 21，Yan Ping Wang（王雁平）宣誓书第 1 段，PAX v. Kwok，索引号 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.（纽约州最高法院）2018年5月15日）[诉讼记录卷号 182]（“我是 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司）的总裁，并以该身份担任[债务人]及其家族利益的管理人”）；证物 15，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），未经会议的唯一成员同意书，日期为2019年7月17日（使王女士成为签署人）；证物 22、证物 23，喜马拉雅币（Himalaya Coin）假定名称证书，日期为2020年3月14日；证物 24，喜马拉雅美元（Himalaya Dollar）假定名称证书，日期为2020年3月14日；证物 25，诉状第 9a 段，United States v. Wang，案号 1:23-mj-02007-UA（S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院）2023年3月10日）[诉讼记录卷号 1]（“王曾是 GTV 的执行董事”）；证物 84，索赔细节，Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS，CI-2020-000345，第 38 页，High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court（英格兰及威尔士高等法院王座法庭商事法庭），日期为2020年9月23日（“英国诉状”）（由 Yvette Wang（王雁平）代表 Ace Decade 签署）；债务人根据地方破产规则 1007-2 的声明第 1 段，（案号 22-50592，2020年10月12日）[诉讼记录卷号 1]；证物 14，Greenwich Land, LLC（格林威治置业有限责任公司），未经会议的唯一成员同意书，日期为\n\n2021年1月19日。32 证物 13，郭氏取证记录，第 33:11-13 行。\n\n33 证物 26，美国反对王雁平保释动议的信函，第 18 页，U.S. v. Yanping Wang, a/k/a \"Yvette\"，（2023年3月29日）[案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT，诉讼记录卷号 10]。\n\n27. 灯塔资本已从众多其他债务人控制的实体获得资金。除其他外，灯塔资本收到了至少\n\n34 从格林威治置业转账的至少900万美元，35 从\n\nACA Capital（ACA资本）转账的至少900万美元，36 以及从 Savio Law LLC（萨维奥律师事务所）转账的至少500万美元。37 据信息与知悉，\n\n灯塔资本除来自其他债务人控制的实体外，未收到任何其他资金。\n\nD. 灯塔资本使用与其他债务人空壳公司相同的地址\n\n28. 灯塔资本使用 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York（纽约州纽约市东64街162号）作为其地址。38\n\n东64街162号曾被债务人本人、39 其律师 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、40 以及许多债务人的空壳公司用作地址，包括金泉、41 HK\n\n34 证物 59。\n证物 60。\n证物 61\n及证物\n62，灯塔资本2021年12月戴姆银行对账单（显示2021年12月21日从 Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约）另有一笔约50万美元的转账）。\n\n35 证物 63，灯塔资本2020年11月普林斯顿银行账户对账单（显示从尾号0199的账户向灯塔资本尾号0389的账户转账900万美元）。另见证物 64，格林威治置业有限责任公司2020年11月普林斯顿银行账户对账单（显示从其尾号0199的账户向尾号0389的账户转账900万美元）。\n\n36 证物 65，灯塔资本2021年11月戴姆银行对账单（显示2021年11月17日从 ACA 资本转账约200万美元）；证物 62（显示2021年12月6日从 ACA 资本转账约200万美元）；证物 6，灯塔资本2022年1月戴姆银行对账单（显示2022年1月26日从 ACA 资本转账约200万美元）；以及证物 67，灯塔资本2022年2月戴姆银行对账单（显示2022年2月16日从 ACA 资本转账300万美元）。正如本法院可能回忆起的受托人在其与 HK USA（香港美国）诉讼中提出的反诉，ACA 资本是一家与债务人有众多关联的香港实体，据称由债务人的刑事同案被告 William Je（余建明）所有。见第11章受托人答辩状及反诉，对抗程序编号 22-05003，诉讼记录卷号 36 第 86(d) 段。在2023年3月2日的宣誓取证中被问及是否拥有 ACA 资本的实益所有权或排他控制权时，债务人援引了第五修正案。见证物 13，郭氏取证记录，第 73:23-74:11 行。另见证物 33，债务人宣誓声明，第 62 段（就对 ACA 资本的控制权援引第五修正案）。\n\n37 证物 68，灯塔资本2020年10月普林斯顿银行账户对账单（显示2020年10月15日从萨维奥律师事务所转账500万美元）。萨维奥律师事务所为律师 Nicholas Savio（尼古拉斯·萨维奥）的律所（现受雇于债务人律师亚伦·米切尔的律所）。见尼古拉斯·萨维奥的领英个人资料，网址为 http，以及 Lawall & Mitchell 律所特聘顾问尼克·萨维奥的个人资料，网址为 http。\n\n38 参见例如，证物 69，灯塔资本在戴姆银行的实益所有人证明（确认灯塔资本的实际营业地址位于纽约东64街162号）。\n\n39 见债务人破产申请书[主案诉讼记录卷号 1]。\n\n40 证物 27，变更律师同意书，PAX v. Kwok，索引号 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 文件编号 338。\n\n41 债务人破产申请书[主案诉讼记录卷号 1]。\n\nUSA、42 GTV Media Group, Inc.（GTV传媒集团有限公司）、43 Saraca（萨拉卡）、44 Hudson Diamond Holding（哈德逊钻石控股）、45 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）46 以及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）。47\n\nE. 债务人使用灯塔资本支付其费用\n\n29. 债务人使用灯塔资本支付其费用。事实上，灯塔资本是债务人过着奢华生活的同时声称自己实际无执行财产的安排中的关键部分，正如在本第11章案件中提交的资产和负债清单所体现的那样，其中债务人声称持有的资产仅为3,850.00美元。48\n\n灯塔资本以此种方式运作的例子不胜枚举。除其他外包括：\n\na. 灯塔资本支付了债务人最初的破产代理律师事务所 Brown Rudnick LLP（布朗鲁德尼克有限责任合伙）（“Brown Rudnick”）的100万美元聘约金。49\n\nb. 灯塔资本支付了与涉及债务人的诉讼相关的众多债务人法律费用和支出，包括向债务人的各家律师事务所付款，例如 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC、The Casper Firm、The Francis Firm PLLC、Baker Hostetler LLP、Hodgson Russ、Schulman Bhattacharya LLC、Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP 以及 Clayman & Rosenberg LLP。50 灯塔资本还\n\n42 证物 28，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 有限责任公司协议，\n\n日期为2019年4月1日。43 证物 29，OpenGovNY 纽约州企业注册处针对 GTV\n\nMedia Group Inc. 的搜索结果登记搜索结果。44 证物 30，Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY 纽约州企业注册处搜索结果。45 证物 31，Hodgson Russ 出具的哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司概况表（显示东64街162号为有限责任公司地址）。46 同上（显示东64街162号为哈德逊钻石控股的地址）。47 证物 32，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治社会第四公司）的 CHAR 500 表格。\n\n48 参见官方表格 106，第 5 页（2022年3月9日）[主案诉讼记录卷号 78]。49 该笔付款系使用灯塔资本向债务人提供的据称100万美元贷款的收益支付，该款项由灯塔资本直接汇至 Brown Rudnick。见债务人关于批准聘用并留任 Brown Rudnick LLP 作为债务人律师的命令申请第 17 段，[主案诉讼记录卷号 86]；证物 46，2022年4月6日第 341 条债权人电话会议记录，第 49:22-24 行。在其2022年4月6日的第 341 条会议上，债务人作证称该贷款并非书面形式，且他不知道该贷款的条款、为何借出该款项或该款项的来源是什么。同上，第 49-51 页。50 参见例如，证物 56，2022年1月12日灯塔资本开给 U.S. Legal Support, Inc. 的支票；证物 94，2022年1月11日灯塔资本开给 The Francis Firm PLLC 的支票；证物 95，2021年11月17日灯塔资本开给 Schuman Bhattacharya, LLC 的支票；证物 96，2022年1月26日灯塔资本开给 The Casper Firm 的支票；证物 97，2021年10月13日灯塔资本开给 Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP 的支票；证物 98，2021年10月28日灯塔资本开给 Roy D. Simmon 的支票；证物 99，2021年10月13日灯塔资本开给 Veritext 的支票；证物 100，2021年12月27日灯塔资本开给 Baker Hostetler LLP 的支票；证物 101，2021年11月17日灯塔资本开给 Lawall & Mitchell 的支票；证物 102，2022年1月11日灯塔资本开给 Clayman & Rosenberg LLP 的支票；证物 103，2021年11月12日灯塔资本开给 Hodgson Russ 的支票；证物 104，2021年11月10日灯塔资本开给 William Bradley Wendel 的支票。\n\n多次支付了债务人应付给其他法律或专家证人服务提供商的费用，例如 Veritext、US Legal Support Inc.、Roy D. Simon 以及 William Bradley Wendel。51\n\nc. 灯塔资本支付了与债务人的游艇 Lady May（梅女士号）相关的费用，52 以及与雪莉荷兰公寓（Sherry Netherland Apartment）相关的维护费。53 灯塔资本还向 ACASS Canada Ltd.、Wings Insurance Agency Inc. 和 SAAM Verspieren Group 进行了多笔付款，54 用于债务人私人飞机庞巴迪环球 XRS（Bombardier Global XRS，该飞机属于受托人针对 Mei Guo（郭美）提起的另一项对抗程序标的）的运营和维护。\n\nd. 灯塔资本向债务人控制的公司的 Bento for Business 账户进行了多次转账，55 并从中向债务人的家族成员及关联人士发放预付费 Bento 借记卡，用于支持债务人奢华生活方式的开支。56\n\ne. 灯塔资本代表债务人向海湖庄园俱乐部（Mar-a-Lago Club）支付了与其名下持有的会员资格相关的费用。57\n\nF. 灯塔资本除持有债务人财产和/或支付其费用外别无其他业务\n\n30. 正如本文进一步论述的那样，灯塔资本唯一有据可查的活动仅包括持有债务人的资产和支付其费用。灯塔资本除了\n\n51 同上。据信息与知悉，灯塔资本系根据据称的诉讼资助协议支付了其中某些法律费用，根据该协议，债务人胜诉所得的任何收益均不会成为债务人的财产，而是将直接支付给金泉。52 证物 65（显示2021年11月18日向 Yachtzoo Yacht Management LLC 转账约290,000美元）；证物 66（显示2022年1月26日向 Yachtzoo 转账约245,000美元）；证物 70，灯塔资本戴姆银行2022年2月账户对账单（显示2022年2月23日向 Yachtzoo 转账约460,000美元）；以及证物 68（显示2020年10月29日向 Moran Yacht Management Inc. 转账272,525美元）。53 参见例如，证物 75，2022年3月3日灯塔资本在戴姆银行的账户开给 The Sherry-Netherland Inc. 的支票，金额为2,020.71美元。54 参见例如，证物 71，灯塔资本戴姆银行2022年3月对账单（显示2022年3月3日向 Wings Insurance Agency 转账约18,000美元，2020年3月10日向 SAAM Verspieren Group 转账46,880美元）。证物 72，灯塔资本戴姆银行尾号6250账户2022年1月账户对账单（显示向 ACASS Canada Ltd. 转账117,428.82美元）；证物 73，灯塔资本戴姆银行尾号6250账户2021年11月账户对账单（显示向 ACASS Canada Ltd. 进行两笔约615,000美元的转账）。55 参见例如，证物 72（显示向 Bento 进行三笔转账，总计150,000美元）；证物 73（显示进行两笔转账，共计\n\n向 Bento 转账总计 $10,000）56 参见《第 11 章受托人就 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财团针对 Greenwich Land 及 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）的诉讼主张人格混同与衡平法所有权请求即决判决动议之支持法律备忘录》[对抗性程序案号 Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005，文件编号 Doc No. 78] ¶¶ 7-12。57 参见例如证物 Ex. 74，Lamp Capital 位于 Dime Bank 账户于 2021 年 12 月 6 日代表债务人向 Mar-a-lago Club（海湖庄园俱乐部）开具的 $300 支票（支票附言通过会员 ID 标明了债务人身份）。\n\n从其他债务人控制的公司接收资金，在银行账户中持有现金，并支付债务人的各项开支。58\n\nG. 债务人就其对 Lamp Capital 的控制权援引第五修正案特权\n\n31. 当被问及对 Lamp Capital 的控制权时，债务人已在多个场合援引第五修正案特权。在 2023 年 3 月 2 日的宣誓质询中，当被问及以下问题时，债务人援引了第五修正案特权：\n\n- a. 其是否为 Lamp Capital 的衡平法所有权人；\n- b. 其是否为 Lamp Capital 的实益所有权人；\n- c. 其是否对 Lamp Capital 拥有排他性控制权；以及\n- d. 其是否对 Lamp Capital 的资产拥有排他性控制权。59\n\n32. 在债务人日期为 2023 年 5 月 11 日的宣誓声明中，当被问及其是否控制 Lamp Capital 时，债务人再次援引了第五修正案特权。60\n\n33. 同样，关于其对 Lamp Capital 的母公司 Infinity Treasury Management 的控制权，债务人亦援引了第五修正案特权。61\n\nIII. Hudson Diamond NY 为债务人的化身并由债务人享有衡平法所有权\n\nA. Hudson Diamond NY 系债务人通过其法律顾问设立\n\n34. 62\n\n62 参见 Ex. 34，\n\n58 Lamp Capital 未能就第 2004 条规则下的证据开示提交任何文件，且于 2023 年 4 月 26 日，本法院裁定 Lamp Capital 因未能遵守或回应受托人的第 2004 条规则证据开示传票而构成民事藐视法庭 [主案卷宗编号 Main Case Docket No. 1709]。鉴于 Lamp Capital 未履行其证据开示义务，受托人目前无法精确确定 Lamp Capital 的资产价值，且受托人的调查仍在持续进行中。59 参见 Ex. 13，郭氏质询记录，第 27:22-28:3、28:10-29:20 页。60 参见 Ex. 33，《债务人关于对特定问题答复的宣誓声明》，¶ 154。61 Ex. 13，郭氏质询记录，第 54:4-13 页，\n\n。63 在其宣誓质询中，关于债务人是否将其设立为 Hudson Diamond Holding 的名义唯一成员一事，Mei Guo（郭美）援引了其在第五修正案项下的权利。64\n\n35. 65\n\n36. Hudson Diamond NY 是代表债务人为购置不动产目的而设立的另一实体。在与 Hudson Diamond 相关且由债务人的法律顾问 Hodgson Russ 向受托人提交的通信中，提及的“委托人/主事人（principal）”均指债务人。\n\nB. Hudson Diamond 由债务人通过其代理人进行管理\n\n37. 作为 Hudson Diamond NY 及其声称的唯一成员 Hudson Diamond Holding 的获授权签字人。69\n\n70 38.\n\nYvette Wang（王雁平）还代表\n\n63 Ex. 35，\n\n64 Ex. 36，Mei Guo 质询记录，2023 年 9 月 13 日，第 26:4-7 页。\n\n65 Ex. 34，\n\n66 Ex. 37，Hudson Diamond Holding LLC，未经会议的唯一成员同意书，日期为 2020 年 8 月 31 日；Ex. 9，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，未经会议的唯一成员同意书，日期为 2020 年 12 月 4 日；\n\n67 同上；并见 Ex. 16，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，未经会议的唯一成员同意书，日期为 2019 年 7 月 17 日。\n\n68 参见 Ex. 16，Hudson Diamond NY LLC，未经会议的唯一成员同意书，日期为 2019 年 7 月 17 日。\n\n69 参见例如，同上。70 参见例如，Ex. 91, 92。Ex. 93，\n\nHudson Diamond 与协助债务人购买 Taconic 物业的房地产经纪人 Emile de Neree 签署了一份《买方独家代理协议》。71\n\n39. 如上文所述，Yvette Wang、Max Krasner 及 Daniel Podhaskie 在所有相关时间内均为债务人的代理人。\n\nC. Hudson Diamond NY 由债务人提供资金\n\n40. 据知悉与确信，在所有相关时间内，Hudson Diamond NY 完全由债务人通过其控制的实体提供资金，若无此类资金支持，该实体本不具有任何资本。\n\n41. Hudson Diamond NY 已从债务人控制的众多其他实体接收资金，其中包括 72 及\n\n。73 据知悉与确信，Hudson Diamond NY 除从债务人控制的其他实体处获取资金外，未接收任何其他资金。\n\nH. Hudson Diamond NY 与债务人的其他空壳公司使用相同地址\n\n42.\n\n。74 东 64 街 162 号（162 East 64th Street）一直被债务人本人、75 其法律顾问\n\nAaron Mitchell、76 以及债务人的诸多空壳公司用作地址，包括：Golden Spring、77 HK\n\n71 Ex. 38，《买方独家代理协议》（在该文件每页右下角买方签署缩写栏附近均包含债务人的姓名“Miles Guo”）。并见 Ex. 39，Emile de Neree 2023 年 8 月 24 日质询记录。\n\n72 Ex. 40。73 Ex. 76，74 Ex. 41。\n\n75 《债务人破产申请书》[卷宗编号 Docket No. 1]。\n\n76 Ex. 27，变更代理律师同意书，PAX 诉 Kwok 案，索引号 Index No. 652077/2017（纽约州最高法院），NYSCEF 文件编号 Doc. No. 338。\n\n77 《债务人破产申请书》[卷宗编号 Docket No. 1]。\n\nUSA、78 GTV Media Group, Inc.、79 Saraca、80 Hudson Diamond Holding、81 Lamp Capital 82 以及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）。83\n\nD. 债务人使用 Hudson Diamond NY 进行其房地产交易\n\n43. Hudson Diamond NY 系由债务人设立用于购置不动产。为此，Hodgson Russ 聘请了 Whitman, Breed, Abbott & Morgan LLC 律师事务所（“Whitman Breed”）代表 Hudson Diamond NY 以及 Greenwich Land LLC，处理与债务人购买或意图购买康涅狄格州房地产相关的事宜。84\n\n44. Whitman Breed 合伙人 Margaret Conboy 已作证指出（其中包括），作为其代表 Hudson Diamond NY 和 Greenwich Land 工作的一部分，她将债务人称为其客户，85 接收来自 Max Krasner 的指示，86 并在多次场合获悉系债务人作出决策，87 包括关于是否接受要约、88 家具的挑选、89 以及是否推进任何潜在的物业购买。90\n\n45. 债务人曾使用 Hudson Diamond NY 为以其空壳公司 Greenwich Land 名义进行的房地产购买提供资金，而该空壳公司声称登记在债务人妻子名下，\n\n-\n-\n\n78 Ex. 28，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 有限责任公司协议，日期为 2019 年 4 月 1 日。79 Ex. 29，OpenGovNY 纽约州公司登记处关于 GTV Media Group Inc. 的登记搜索结果。80 Ex. 30，Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY 纽约州公司登记处搜索结果。81 Ex. 42，\n\n82 参见例如，Ex. 69，Lamp Capital 位于 Dime Bank 的《实益所有权人证明》（确认 Lamp Capital 的实际营业地址位于纽约东 64 街 162 号）。83 Ex. 32，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. 之 CHAR 500 表格。\n\n84 Ex. 43，85 Ex. 45，Margaret Conboy 2023 年 9 月 12 日质询记录，第 33:12-23、33:25-34:4 及 37:13-38:1 页。并见 Ex. 46 及 Ex. 77，Margaret Conboy 与 Kevin Walsh 于 2019 年 10 月 3 日之间的电子邮件。86 同上，第 51:16-25、66:22-25 页。87 同上，第 51:16-25、52:19-53:22 页。88 参见例如，Ex. 46，Margaret Conboy 与 Robert Mowbray 于 2019 年 1 月 22 日之间的电子邮件。89 参见例如，Ex. 47，Louise Camuto 与 Yvette Wang 于 2019 年 7 月 12 日之间的电子邮件，抄送 Max Krasner、Karin Maistrello。90 参见例如，Ex. 45，Margaret Conboy 2023 年 9 月 12 日质询记录，第 52:2-10 页（“问：他具体对你说的是：我刚与 Miles 通完话，他通知团队不会推进该处物业的购买。你看到了吗？答：看到了。问：你理解其中的 Miles 是指 Miles Kwok？答：是的。”）。\n\n46. 在其宣誓质询中，声称作为 Hudson Diamond Holding（Hudson Diamond NY 声称的唯一成员）唯一成员的 Mei Guo，在被问及其父亲即债务人是否\n\n援引了其在第五修正案项下的权利。\n\n参见 Ex. 50。\n\n91 该笔付款系使用据称来自 Lamp Capital 向债务人提供的 $1,000,000 贷款收益支付，该款项由 Lamp Capital 直接汇付给 Brown Rudnick。参见《债务人申请作出授权聘用及留任 Brown Rudnick LLP 作为债务人法律顾问的命令的申请书》，卷宗编号 Docket No. 86，¶ 17；Ex. 48，2022 年 4 月 6 日债权人第 341 条电话会议记录，第 49:22-24 页。在其 2022 年 4 月 6 日的第 341 条会议上，债务人作证称该笔贷款并无书面形式，且其不知道该贷款的条款、借款原因或资金来源。同上，第 49-51 页。\n\n92 Ex. 49。\n\n93 参见 Ex. 50，编号 GREE000195。\n\n94 Ex. 49。\n\n96 Ex. 36，Mei Guo 质询记录，第 65:12-21、67:6-25 及 69:24-70:5 页。\n\n49. 债务人已将 Taconic 物业用作其住所，103\n\n97 Ex. 51；Ex. 85。\n98 Ex. 51。\n\n100 参见 Ex. 52，编号 GREE000330。\n101 Ex. 51。\nEx. 51。\n102 Ex. 36，Mei Guo 质询记录，第 65:12-21、67:6-25 及 69:24-70:5 页。\n103 《Ho Wan Kwok 先生支持第 11 章案件及若干动议之声明》¶ 6 [卷宗编号 Docket No. 107]。\n104 Ex. 53，第 80:23-81:13 页；并见同上，第 75:21-24、76:5-15 页。\n\nE. 债务人使用 Hudson Diamond NY 向债务人控制的其他空壳公司及家庭成员转移资金\n\n50. 银行记录显示，除为房地产交易提供资金外，债务人还使用 Hudson Diamond NY 向其他空壳公司转移了数百万美元，包括例如 105、106 及 107，并向其女儿 Mei Guo 及其妻子 Hing Chi Ngok 转移资金。\n\n51. 此外，据知悉与确信，Hudson Diamond NY 拥有债务人的一辆劳斯莱斯豪华轿车。108\n\nI. Hudson Diamond NY 除持有债务人财产及/或支付其开支外无其他业务\n\n52. 如本文进一步所述，Hudson Diamond NY 唯一有据可查的活动包括持有债务人的资产并支付其开支。Hudson Diamond NY 除从其他债务人控制的公司接收资金、在银行账户中持有现金（除持有债务人的劳斯莱斯及可能持有的其他资产外）以及支付债务人的各项开支外，未从事任何其他活动。109\n\nF. 债务人与 Mei Guo 就对 Hudson Diamond NY 及其唯一成员 Hudson Diamond Holding 的控制权援引第五修正案特权\n\n53. 当被问及其对 Hudson Diamond NY 及其唯一成员 Hudson Diamond Holding 的控制权时，债务人已援引第五修正案特权。在其 2023 年 3 月 2 日的宣誓质询中，当被问及其是否拥有并控制 Hudson Diamond Holding 和 Hudson Diamond NY 的全部资产时，债务人援引了第五修正案权利。110\n\n54. 同样，在其宣誓质询中，声称作为 Hudson Diamond Holding（Hudson Diamond NY 声称的唯一成员）唯一成员的 Mei Guo，在被问及债务人是否拥有并控制 Hudson Diamond NY 以及是否指示其资金转移时，援引了其在第五修正案项下的权利。111\n\n55. 此外，Mei Guo（郭美）在本法院作证时援引了《第五修正案》（Fifth Amendment），当时被问及（其中包括）Hudson Diamond NY 是否是按债务人的指示设立以收购不动产112，以及债务人是否始终控制 Hudson Diamond NY 及其资产113。\n\nIV. Leading Shine NY 是债务人的另我且由债务人享有衡平法所有权\n\nA. Leading Shine NY 由债务人通过债务人的代理人进行管理\n\n56. Leading Shine NY 于2019年1月3日在Delaware（特拉华州）成立114，并于2019年1月在New York（纽约州）注册开展业务115。\n\n![](_page_23_Figure_7.jpeg)\n\n116 见证物 56\n\n117 比较证物 56，\n\n与证物 82，\n\n110 见证物 13，Kwok 证词记录，第 49:15-50:22 页。\n\n111 证物 36，Mei Guo 证词记录，第 40:17-44:17、68:13-21、74:15-75:20 页。\n\n112 证物 55，2023年8月22日 In re Ho Wan Kwok 听证会记录，第 65:18-23 页。\n\n113 同上，第 25:10-24 页。\n\n114 证物 80，Leading Shine NY 公司注册证书。\n\n115 证物 81，Leading Shine NY 授权申请书。\n\n58.\n\n118 见证物 56。\n\nHan（韩）先生曾担任（其中包括）债务人壳公司 Eastern Profit Corporation Limited 和 Anton Development Limited 的据称股权持有人119。\n\nB. Leading Shine NY 由债务人注资\n\n59. 在所有相关时间内，Leading Shine NY 完全由债务人通过其控制的实体注资，若无此类注资，该实体将没有任何资本金。\n\n60. Leading Shine NY 从债务人控制的众多其他实体（包括等）以及郭控制的其他实体处获得了资金121 122。\n\nC. Leading Shine NY 与其他债务人壳公司使用相同地址\n\n61. Leading Shine NY 使用纽约州纽约市东64街162号（162 East 64th Street, New York, New York）作为其地址124。东64街162号已被债务人本人125、其法律顾问 Aaron Mitchell126 以及多家债务人的壳公司用作地址，包括：Lamp Capital127、Golden Spring128、HK USA129、GTV Media Group, Inc.130、Saraca131、Hudson Diamond Holding132、Hudson Diamond NY133 以及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）134。\n\n见 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人诉状，请求依据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条及《破产规则》第 7001 条作出（I）宣告性判决，确认 Mei Guo 持有的财产属于破产财产，以及（II）相关救济，¶ 21-25 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008, Doc No. 1]。\n\n120 证物 89。\n\n证物 90。\n\n121 参见例如证物 79，\n\n124 参见例如证物 69，Lamp Capital 在 Dime Bank 的实益拥有人证明（确认 Lamp Capital 的实际营业地址位于纽约东64街162号）。\n\n125 债务人破产申请书 [Docket No. 1]。\n\nD. 债务人利用 Leading Shine NY 向其他由债务人控制的壳公司转移资金\n\n62. Leading Shine NY 积极参与了向债务人控制的其他壳公司转移资金的活动。例如，Leading Shine NY 已将资金转移至 137、136 以及 Golden Spring135，该实体据称由 Mei Guo 拥有，并从申请破产后出售 Ferncliff Property（弗恩克利夫物业）中获得了 875,000 美元138。\n\nE. 债务人利用 Leading Shine NY 支付其个人开支\n\nUJI | |\n\n126 证物 27，变更律师同意书，PAX v. Kwok，案号 Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)，NY SCEF 诉讼文书编号 Doc. No. 338。\n\n127 参见例如证物 69，Lamp Capital 在 Dime Bank 的实益拥有人证明（确认 Lamp Capital 的实际营业地址位于纽约东64街162号）。\n\n128 债务人破产申请书 [Docket No. 1]。\n\n129 证物 28，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC 有限责任公司协议，日期为2019年4月1日。\n\n130 证物 29，OpenGovNY 纽约州公司登记处关于 GTV Media Group Inc. 的注册搜索结果。\n\n131 证物 30，Saraca Media Group Inc. OpenGovNY 纽约州公司登记处搜索结果。\n\n132 证物 31，Hodgson Russ 出具的 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 情况说明书（显示东64街162号为该有限责任公司地址）。\n\n133 同上（显示东64街162号为 Hudson Diamond Holding 地址）。\n\n134 证物 32，Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. 的 CHAR 500 表格。\n\n135 证物 105，Golden Spring 在 Santander（桑坦德银行）的2020年7月至9月账户对账单（显示从 Leading Shine 转移了超过 200 万美元）。\n\n136 证物 85，证物 44。\n\n137 参见例如证物 87，\n\n138 见支持受托人简易判决动议的依据《本地规则》第 56(a) 条作出的无争议重大事实陈述 ¶ 18 [Adv. Proc. 23-05005, Doc No. 79]。\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_1.jpeg)\n\n正如法院所忆及，在2023年3月15日就 HK USA 展开的对抗性程序听证会上，一名 Berkeley Rowe 的律师甚至试图作证支持 HK USA，但法院驳回了该请求141。Berkeley Rowe 似乎还在债务人之子 Qiang Guo（郭强）就 Genever Holdings LLC 第11章案件提交债权证明时为其提供了协助，因为 Qiang Guo 在其债权证明表格上使用了 Berkeley Rowe 作为其个人地址142。\n\n![](_page_26_Figure_3.jpeg)\n\n140 同上（转账 39,527.55 美元）。\n\n141 见部分准予并部分驳回就补充 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited 及 Mei Guo 证人及证物清单申请许可的动议的裁定（Adv. Proc. 22-05003）[Docket No. 136]。\n\n142 见债权证明 3-1，In re Genever Holdings LLC，案件编号 Case No. 22-50592。\n\n143 见证物 87，\n\n144 见证物 88，请求救济驳回审前释放裁定的动议，第 20 页，United States v. Kwok，案号 No. 23-6421 (2d Cir. May 5, 2023) [Docket No. 6.1]。\n\nJ. Leading Shine NY 除持有债务人财产和/或支付其开支外无任何业务\n\n66. 如文中所进一步详述，Leading Shine NY 唯有记录在案的活动仅包括持有债务人的资产和支付其开支。Leading Shine NY 除接收来自其他债务人控制公司的资金、在银行账户中持有现金以及为债务人支付开支外，未进行任何业务活动145。\n\nF. 债务人就对 Leading Shine NY 的控制权主张《第五修正案》\n\n67. 债务人在被问及对 Leading Shine NY 的控制权时，多次主张《第五修正案》。在2023年3月2日的取证中，当被问及是否控制并拥有 Leading Shine NY 时，债务人援引了《第五修正案》146。\n\n68. 在债务人日期为2023年5月11日的宣誓声明中，当被问及是否控制 Leading Shine NY 时，债务人再次援引了《第五修正案》147。\n\n第一项诉求\n\n（确认判决宣告 Lamp Capital 为债务人的另我并命令向受托人移交 Lamp Capital 的资产）148\n\n69. 受托人重复并重新主张第 1 至 68 段中所包含的各项指控。\n\n145 Leading Shine NY 未能就受托人的《破产规则》第 2004 条证据开示传票作出答复或出示任何文件。鉴于 Leading Shine NY 未履行其证据开示义务，受托人目前无法准确确定 Leading Shine NY 的资产价值，且受托人的调查仍在进行中。146 见证物 13，Kwok 证词记录，第 49:15-50:22 页。147 证物 33，债务人关于对特定问题答复的宣誓声明，¶ 158。148 本诉求仅针对被告 Lamp Capital 和/或其据称的唯一成员 Infinity Treasury Management（视情况而定）寻求救济。\n\n70. Delaware（特拉华州）法律适用于本项另我诉求，因为 Lamp Capital 是一家特拉华州实体149。\n\n71. 根据特拉华州揭开公司面纱的两步测试法，适用特拉华州另我分析审查债务人与 Lamp Capital 之间关系的法院将重点审查：(1) 债务人与 Lamp Capital 是否作为单一经济实体运营；以及 (2) 是否存在整体上的不公或不公平因素。在确定债务人与 Lamp Capital 是否作为单一经济实体运营时，适用特拉华州法律的法院将考虑诸多因素，包括（其中包括）Lamp Capital 是否拥有充足资本、是否遵守公司形式要件，以及是否为债务人的幌子150。这一“考量因素清单并非穷尽性的，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性”151。\n\n72. 债务人对 Lamp Capital 行使控制和支配，以至于 Lamp Capital 没有脱离债务人的独立存在，且债务人利用该公司形式实施了欺诈和不公。Lamp Capital 是债务人的另我，原因包括（其中包括）：\n\n- a. Lamp Capital 由债务人通过其法律顾问设立。\n\n- b. Lamp Capital 由债务人通过其代理人管理。\n\n- c. Lamp Capital 由债务人注资。\n\n- d. Lamp Capital 与其他债务人壳公司使用相同地址。\n\n- e. 债务人利用 Lamp Capital 支付其个人开支。\n\n149 参见例如 Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar，案号 No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM)，2021 WL 965794，第 *7 页（D. Conn. 2021年3月15日）（“由于[被告]在特拉华州注册成立，我必须适用特拉华州法律来判定其是否可因反向揭开公司面纱责任而承受另我诉求。”）。150 Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG，720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出第三巡回法院在判定一家公司是否作为单一经济实体运营时所考虑的因素，其中值得注意的是并不包括相关个人是否为该实体的股东，但包括“严重资本不足；未能遵守公司形式要件……[以及]该公司是否仅是一个幌子”）。151 同上，第 471 页。\n\n- f. Lamp Capital 除持有债务人的财产和/或支付其开支外，没有任何业务。\n\n- g. 债务人就其对 Lamp Capital 的控制权主张了《第五修正案》。\n\n73. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可在行使其权利时寻求本案中受托人所寻求的救济。\n\n74. 因此，受托人依据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条寻求裁定：(1) 宣告：(a) Lamp Capital 始终是债务人的另我；(b) Lamp Capital 在债务人2022年2月15日的申请日之前任何时间持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Lamp Capital 自债务人2022年2月15日提交第11章破产申请之日起至今任何时间持有的任何及全部资产，曾构成且（视情况而定）现构成债务人第11章破产财产的财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Lamp Capital 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人。\n\n第二项诉求\n\n（确认判决宣告债务人为 Lamp Capital 和/或其资产的衡平法所有权人并命令将 Lamp Capital 和/或其资产的所有权移交给受托人）152\n\n75. 受托人重复并重新主张第 1 至 68 段中所包含的各项指控。\n\n76. 上述确定 Lamp Capital 是债务人另我的相同事实，亦支持债务人是 Lamp Capital 和/或其资产的衡平法所有权人这一结论153。\n\n152 本诉求仅针对被告 Lamp Capital 和/或其据称的唯一成员 Infinity Treasury Management（视情况而定）寻求救济。153 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc.，119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该法团]行使了相当大的控制权……以至于完全无视公司形式并表现得仿佛[其]资产完全由他一人管理一样”）（强调后加）。\n\n77. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可在行使其权利时寻求本案中受托人所寻求的救济。\n\n78. 由于 Lamp Capital 由债务人享有衡平法所有权，因此在破产申请日之后，对 Lamp Capital 的所有权和公司控制权和/或 Lamp Capital 的资产均属于破产财产。\n\n79. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 541、542 和 544 条寻求一项裁定：(1) 宣告由 Infinity Treasury Management 声称持有的 Lamp Capital 的所有者权益，及/或 Lamp Capital 的资产，属于债务人第 11 章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Lamp Capital 的所有者权益及相关公司控制权，及/或 Lamp Capital 的资产，移交受托人。\n\n第三项诉求\n（请求作出确认 Hudson Diamond NY 为债务人的另我并命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产移交受托人的确认之诉判决）154\n\n80. 受托人重申并重新主张第 1 至 68 段所载的主张。\n\n81. 纽约州法律适用于本另我诉求，因为 Hudson Diamond NY 是一家纽约州实体。155\n\n82. 根据纽约州法律，寻求另我裁定的一方必须证明：“(1) 被指控的另我‘就涉案交易对公司施加了完全支配；且 (2) 该等支配被用于实施欺诈或不法行为，从而损害了寻求揭开公司面纱的一方。’”Sentry Ins. v. Brand Mgmt. Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d\n\n154 本项诉求仅针对被告 Hudson Diamond NY 及/或其据称的唯一成员 Hudson Diamond Holding（视适用情况而定）寻求救济。\n155 参见，例如，Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at *7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021)（“［由于被告］在特拉华州设立，我必须适用特拉华州法律来判定其是否应就反向揭开公司面纱责任承担另我诉求。”）。\n\n277, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), aff'd sub nom. Sentry Ins. a Mut. Co. v. Weber, 720 F. App'x 639 (2d Cir. 2017)（引自 Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)）。第一项要件所指的支配是基于对十项衡平因素的考量而确定的：\n\n(1) 缺乏作为公司存续固有部分的程序和手续，即发行股票、选举董事、保存公司记录等；(2) 资本不足；(3) 资金是否为了个人而非公司目的投入和抽离公司；(4) 所有权、高级职员、董事和人员的重叠；(5) 公司实体共用办公场所、地址和电话号码；(6) 被指控受支配的公司所表现出的业务自主裁量权程度；(7) 关联公司与受支配公司之间的交易是否为正常公平交易；(8) 各公司是否被视为独立的利润中心；(9) 集团内其他公司对受支配公司债务的偿付或担保；以及 (10) 涉案公司是否拥有被其他公司当作自身财产使用的财产。\n\n83. 同上（引自 Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 296 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)）。在假定能够证明支配的情况下，原告为了获得救济，随后还必须证明：“(1) ‘存在针对该当事人的不法或不公正行为’，以及 (2) ‘该行为造成了该当事人的损害。’”同上（引自 Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 50 F.Supp.3d 267, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)）。\n\n84. 在本案中，事实证明 Hudson Diamond NY 在纽约州法律下属于债务人的另我，其中包括：\n\n- a. Hudson Diamond NY 由债务人通过其法律顾问设立。\n- b. Hudson Diamond NY 由债务人通过其代理人管理。\n- c. Hudson Diamond NY 由债务人注资。\n- d. Hudson Diamond NY 与债务人的其他壳公司使用相同地址。\n- e. 债务人利用 Hudson Diamond NY 向债务人的其他壳公司和家庭成员转移资金。\n- f. Hudson Diamond NY 除了持有债务人的财产及/或支付其开支外，没有任何业务。\n- g. 债务人和 Mei Guo（郭美）就对 Hudson Diamond NY 的控制权主张了宪法第五修正案权利。\n\n85. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可以在行使其债权人权利时寻求受托人在此寻求的救济。\n\n86. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条寻求一项裁定：(1) 宣告：(a) 在任何时候 Hudson Diamond NY 均为债务人的另我；(b) 在债务人于 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出破产申请日之前的任何时候由 Hudson Diamond NY 持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) 从债务人于 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出第 11 章破产申请之日至现在的任何时候由 Hudson Diamond NY 持有的任何及全部资产，曾构成且构成（视适用情况而定）债务人第 11 章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的任何及全部资产移交受托人。\n\n第四项诉求\n（请求作出确认债务人为 Hudson Diamond NY 及/或其资产的衡平法所有权人并命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有权及/或其资产移交受托人的确认之诉判决）156\n\n87. 受托人重申并重新主张第 1 至 68 段所载的主张。\n\n156 本项诉求仅针对被告 Hudson Diamond NY 及/或其据称的唯一成员 Hudson Diamond Holding（视适用情况而定）寻求救济。\n\n88. 上述阐明的证明 Hudson Diamond NY 为债务人另我的相同事实，亦支持债务人为 Hudson Diamond NY 及/或其资产的衡平法所有权人这一结论。157\n\n89. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可以在行使其债权人权利时寻求受托人在此寻求的救济。\n\n90. 由于 Hudson Diamond NY 为债务人衡平法所有，因此在破产申请日之后，对 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有权和公司控制权，及/或 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产，均属于破产财产。\n\n91. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条寻求一项裁定：(1) 宣告由 Hudson Diamond Holding 声称持有的 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有者权益，及/或 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产，属于债务人第 11 章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有者权益及相关公司控制权，及/或 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产，移交受托人。\n\n第五项诉求\n（请求作出确认 Leading Shine NY 为债务人的另我并命令将 Leading Shine NY 的资产移交受托人的确认之诉判决）158\n\n92. 受托人重申并重新主张第 1 至 68 段所载的主张。\n\n157 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对［该公司］行使了相当大的控制权……以至于完全无视公司形式并表现得仿佛［其］资产全凭他一人处置。”）（强调为后加）。\n158 本项诉求仅针对被告 Leading Shine NY 及/或其据称的唯一成员 Mei Guo（郭美）或 Yvette Wang（王雁平）（视适用情况而定）寻求救济。\n\n93. 特拉华州法律适用于本另我诉求，因为 Leading Shine NY 是一家特拉华州实体。159\n\n94. 根据特拉华州关于揭开公司面纱的两步检验法，法院在将特拉华州的另我分析适用于债务人与 Leading Shine NY 的关系时，将侧重于：(1) 债务人与 Leading Shine NY 是否作为一个单一经济实体运作；以及 (2) 是否存在不公正或不公平的整体要素。在确定债务人与 Leading Shine NY 是否作为一个单一经济实体运作时，适用特拉华州法律的法院将考虑多项因素，其中包括 Leading Shine NY 是否拥有充足资本、是否遵守了公司形式以及是否为债务人的幌子。160 这一“因素清单并非穷尽性的，且没有任何单一因素具有决定性。”161\n\n95. 债务人对 Leading Shine NY 行使了控制和支配，以至于 Leading Shine NY 并不独立于债务人而存在，且债务人利用公司形式实施了欺诈和不公正行为。Leading Shine NY 是债务人的另我，原因包括但不限于：\n\n- a. Leading Shine NY 由债务人通过其代理人管理。\n- b. Leading Shine NY 由债务人注资。\n- c. Leading Shine NY 与债务人的其他壳公司使用相同地址。\n- d. 债务人利用 Leading Shine NY 向债务人的其他壳公司转移资金。\n- e. 债务人利用 Leading Shine NY 支付其开支。\n\n159 参见，例如，Universitas Education, LLC v. Benistar, No. 3:20-cv-00738 (JAM), 2021 WL 965794, at *7 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2021)（“［由于被告］在特拉华州设立，我必须适用特拉华州法律来判定其是否应就反向揭开公司面纱责任承担另我诉求。”）。\n160 Blair v. Infineon Tech., AG, 720 F. Supp.2d 462, 470-71 (D. Del. 2010)（指出第三巡回法院在确定一家公司是否作为单一经济实体运作时所考虑的因素，值得注意的是，这些因素不包括相关个人是否为该实体的股东，但包括“严重资本不足；未能遵守公司形式……［以及］公司是否仅为一个幌子。”）。\n161 同上，第 471 页。\n\n- f. Leading Shine NY 除了持有债务人的财产及/或支付其开支外，没有任何业务。\n- g. 债务人就其对 Leading Shine NY 的控制权主张了宪法第五修正案权利。\n\n96. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可以在行使其债权人权利时寻求受托人在此寻求的救济。\n\n97. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条寻求一项裁定：(1) 宣告：(a) 在任何时候 Leading Shine NY 均为债务人的另我；(b) 在债务人于 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出破产申请日之前的任何时候由 Leading Shine NY 持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) 从债务人于 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出第 11 章破产申请之日至现在的任何时候由 Leading Shine NY 持有的任何及全部资产，曾构成且构成（视适用情况而定）债务人第 11 章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Leading Shine NY 的任何及全部资产移交受托人。\n\n第六项诉求\n（请求作出确认债务人为 Leading Shine NY 及/或其资产的衡平法所有权人并命令将 Leading Shine NY 的所有权及/或其资产移交受托人的确认之诉判决）162\n\n98. 受托人重申并重新主张第 1 至 68 段所载的主张。\n\n162 本项诉求仅针对被告 Leading Shine NY 及/或其据称的唯一成员 Mei Guo（郭美）或 Yvette Wang（王雁平）（视适用情况而定）寻求救济。\n\n99. 上述阐明的证明 Leading Shine NY 为债务人另我的相同事实，亦支持债务人为 Leading Shine NY 及/或其资产的衡平法所有权人这一结论。163\n\n100. 在所有相关时间内，债务人对一名或多名债权人负有债务。该等债权人本可以在行使其债权人权利时寻求受托人在此寻求的救济。\n\n101. 由于 Leading Shine NY 为债务人衡平法所有，因此在破产申请日之后，对 Leading Shine NY 的所有权和公司控制权，及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，均属于破产财产。\n\n102. 因此，受托人根据《破产法典》第 541、542 和 544 条寻求一项裁定：(1) 宣告由 Mei Guo（郭美）或 Yvette Wang（王雁平）声称持有的 Leading Shine NY 的所有者权益，及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，属于债务人第 11 章破产财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Leading Shine NY 的所有者权益及相关公司控制权，及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，移交受托人。\n\n诉求救济事项\n\n综上所述，基于前述理由，受托人（Trustee）谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项权利主张，依据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）第 541、542 及 544 条作出命令，(1) 宣告：(a) Lamp Capital 在任何时候均系债务人（Debtor）的另我（alter ego）；(b) Lamp Capital 在债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出破产申请日之前的任何时候所持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Lamp Capital 自债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出第 11 章破产申请之日起至今任何时候所持有的任何及全部资产，在适用的情况下，均曾构成且现构成债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Lamp Capital 的任何及全部资产移交（turnover）给受托人；\n\n163 Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1997)（被告“对[该法团]行使了相当大的控制权……以至于完全无视法团形式，且表现得仿佛[其]资产全由其一人独自管理一样。”）（强调为后加）。\n\n2. 就第二项权利主张，依据《破产法典》第 541、542 及 544 条作出命令，(1) 宣告由 Infinity Treasury Management 声称持有的 Lamp Capital 的所有者权益及/或 Lamp Capital 的资产，属于债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Lamp Capital 的所有者权益及相关的法团控制权，及/或 Lamp Capital 的资产，交出（surrender）给受托人；\n\n3. 就第三项权利主张，依据《破产法典》第 541、542 及 544 条作出命令，(1) 宣告：(a) Hudson Diamond NY 在任何时候均系债务人的另我；(b) Hudson Diamond NY 在债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出破产申请日之前的任何时候所持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Hudson Diamond NY 自债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出第 11 章破产申请之日起至今任何时候所持有的任何及全部资产，在适用的情况下，均曾构成且现构成债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；\n\n4. 就第四项权利主张，依据《破产法典》第 541、542 及 544 条作出命令，(1) 宣告由 Hudson Diamond Holding 声称持有的 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有者权益，及/或 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产，属于债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Hudson Diamond NY 的所有者权益及相关的法团控制权，及/或 Hudson Diamond NY 的资产，交出给受托人；\n\n5. 就第五项权利主张，依据《破产法典》第 541、542 及 544 条作出命令，(1) 宣告：(a) Leading Shine NY 在任何时候均系债务人的另我；(b) Leading Shine NY 在债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出破产申请日之前的任何时候所持有的任何及全部资产均构成债务人的财产；以及 (c) Leading Shine NY 自债务人 2022 年 2 月 15 日提出第 11 章破产申请之日起至今任何时候所持有的任何及全部资产，在适用的情况下，均曾构成且现构成债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Leading Shine NY 的任何及全部资产移交给受托人；\n\n6. 就第六项权利主张，依据《破产法典》第 541、542 及 544 条作出命令，(1) 宣告由 Mei Guo（郭美）或 Yvette Wang（王雁平）声称持有的 Leading Shine NY 的所有者权益，及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，属于债务人第 11 章破产财团的财产；以及 (2) 命令将 Leading Shine NY 的所有者权益及相关的法团控制权，及/或 Leading Shine NY 的资产，交出给受托人；\n\n7. 本案中所产生的合理律师费、费用及开支；以及\n\n8. 法院在有关情况下认为公正、适当或公平的其他及进一步救济。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白]\n\n日期：2023 年 10 月 26 日，康涅狄格州纽黑文（New Haven, Connecticut）\nLUC A. DESPINS，第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron\n\nAvram E. Luft（特许出庭代理申请待决，pro hac vice pending）\nDouglass Barron（特许出庭代理申请待决，pro hac vice pending）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（特许出庭代理申请待决，pro hac vice pending）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第 11 章受托人律师","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":13282,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:23:15"}