{"id":"court_sdny_2595_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":2595,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":null,"title":"SDNY ECF 2595","summary_zh":"破产受托人对抗诉讼起诉状(Adversary Proceeding Complaint)——美国破产法院(康涅狄格州地区)受理的 Ho Wan Kwok(郭文贵/Guo Wengui/Miles Guo)Chapter 11 破产清算案,档案编号 #2595。破产受托人 Luc A. Despins(经 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 律所代理)对一名被告提起诉讼,主张其收到的破产申请前转付款项(不低于 $3,135,813.16)构成可撤销的欺诈性转让(依据破产法第548(a)(1)(A)条及纽约州债权人法),另主张申请后转付款项(不低于 $485,455.63)应依破产法第549条予以撤销并追回;载明转让明细的附表A、B已封存,被告身份在本节选中未披露。","summary_en":"Adversary proceeding complaint — filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (District of Connecticut) Chapter 11 case of debtor Ho Wan Kwok (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo), docket item #2595. Chapter 11 Trustee Luc A. Despins, through counsel Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, sues an unnamed defendant, alleging that prepetition transfers of not less than $3,135,813.16 are avoidable fraudulent transfers under Bankruptcy Code section 548(a)(1)(A) and New York's Debtor and Creditor Law, and that postpetition transfers of not less than $485,455.63 are avoidable and recoverable under section 549; Schedules A and B detailing the transfers are filed under seal and the defendant's identity is not disclosed in this excerpt.","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 | DEFENDANTS | | | |\n| ATTORNEYS (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone No.) | ATTORNEYS
(If Known) | | | |\n| PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S.
Trustee/Bankruptcy Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | PARTY (Check One Box Only)
□ Debtor
□ U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy
Admin
□ Creditor
□ Other
□ Trustee | | | |\n| CAUSE OF ACTION
(WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE OF ACTION, INCLUDING ALL U.S. STATUTES INVOLVED)
NATURE OF SUIT | | | | |\n| (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
□
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
□
21-Validity, priority or extent of lien or other interest in property | 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| 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 | 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) | FRBP 7001(10) Determination of Removed Action
□
01-Determination of removed claim or cause
Other
□
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 | □ 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 | | BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. | | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH CASE IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| RELATED ADVERSARY PROCEEDING (IF ANY) | | | | |\n| PLAINTIFF | DEFENDANT | | ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING NO. | |\n| DISTRICT IN WHICH ADVERSARY IS PENDING | | DIVISION OFFICE | NAME OF JUDGE | |\n| SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | | | |\n| DATE | | PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY (OR PLAINTIFF) | | |\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# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | | x |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------|\n| In re: | :
: | Chapter 11 |\n| 1
HO WAN KWOK,
et al., | :
: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| | :
Debtors.
:
: | (Jointly Administered) |\n| -----------------------------------------------------------
:
LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11
:
TRUSTEE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
: | | x
Adv. Proceeding No. [ ] |\n| AGORA LAB, INC, | :
: | February 9, 2024 |\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | :
Defendant.
:
: | x |\n\n# **COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE SEEKING AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND POSTPETITION TRANSFERS AND RELATED RELIEF PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 544, 548, 549, AND 550 AND NEW YORK DEBTOR & CREDITOR LAW SECTIONS 273, 274, AND 276**\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 defendant Agora Lab, Inc. (the \"Defendant\"), stating as follows:\n\n#### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee commences this adversary proceeding to avoid and recover: (a) transfers of the Debtor's property prior to the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case; and (b) transfers of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate after the commencement of this Chapter 11 Case and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or under Title 11 of the United States Code (the \"Bankruptcy Code\").\n\n2. The Debtor, through his alter ego shell companies, Golden Spring (New York) Limited (\"Golden Spring\"), HCHK Technologies Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\"), and Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. (\"Lexington\"), transferred funds in the amount of \\$3,135,813.16 prior to the Petition Date (as defined herein) to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n3. These transfers were actually fraudulent, because the Debtor effectuated them as part of his \"shell game,\" and they were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n4. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his alter ego shell companies, HCHK Technologies, transferred funds in the aggregate amount of \\$485,455.63 to the Defendant as initial transferee.\n\n5. Because these postpetition transfers of estate property were not authorized by the Court or under the Bankruptcy Code, they are subject to avoidance and recovery under sections 549 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).\n\n7. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a).\n\n8. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein include sections 544, 548, 549, and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and New York Debtor & Creditor Law sections 273, 274, and 276 2 or any other applicable state law equivalents.\n\n## **THE PARTIES**\n\n9. The Trustee is the chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Case No. 22-50073 (the \"Main Case\") Docket No. 523].\n\n10. The Defendant is a California corporation with an address and place of business at 2804 Mission College Blvd., Suite 110, Santa Clara, California 95054.\n\n2 All statutory references to New York Debtor and Creditor Law will hereinafter be referred to as \"N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law\". The New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (\"NYUVT\") replaced the New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (\"NYUFC\") and became effective on April 4, 2020 and applies to transfers made or obligations incurred on or after April 4, 2020. With respect to transfers prior to April 4, 2020, the Trustee seeks relief in this action under the NYUFC and N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 273a, 275, 276 and 278.\n\n### **FACTS**\n\n### **A. Chapter 11 Case**\n\n11. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut (the \"Bankruptcy Court\"), thus commencing the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n12. On March 21, 2022, the Office of the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in this Chapter 11 Case. No examiner has been appointed.\n\n13. The Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, filed in March 2022 with the Bankruptcy Court, claimed that he owned \\$3,850 in assets and had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of liabilities.3 While the Debtor was, indeed, deeply indebted, his schedules failed to disclose the Debtor's property as held and/or transferred through his many alter-ego shell companies, including HCHK Technologies, Lexington, and Golden Spring.\n\n14. On June 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum of decision and order [Main Case Docket No. 465] directing the United States Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee in the Chapter 11 Case. Pursuant to this order, the United States Trustee selected Luc A. Despins as the Trustee. On July 8, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the appointment of Luc A. Despins as the Trustee in the Chapter 11 Case [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n### **B. Debtor's Use of Shell Companies and Trustee's Adversary Proceedings**\n\n15. HCHK Technologies, Lexington, and Golden Spring are among the numerous alter ego shell companies used by the Debtor to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors.4 For years,\n\n3 Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, at 1 [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n4 The Court has entered judgment to the effect that Golden Spring was the Debtor's alter ego. *See Despins v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018 (the \"Golden Spring A.P.\"), Docket No. 35). The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the Golden Spring A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5018, Docket No. 1).\n\nthe Debtor has orchestrated a \"shell game,\" employing a convoluted web of shell companies, nominally owned by family members, lieutenants, and/or subordinates, but in reality, controlled by the Debtor. This shell game enabled the Debtor to use and spend and/or transfer millions of dollars of cash and other assets—while concealing his property from creditors.\n\n16. Since his appointment, the Trustee has commenced a number of adversary proceedings in the Chapter 11 Case to, among other things, establish that the Debtor's shell companies were his alter-egos and/or that such companies and their assets were equitably owned by the Debtor and in several the Bankruptcy Court has already granted such relief.5\n\n17. The fact patterns in these litigations consistently involve: (i) Debtor-controlled shell companies held by close family members and/or subordinates, (ii) assets purchased with cash from other Debtor-controlled entities and/or transferred to and among shell entities for no consideration, and (iii) the Debtor benefiting from and having control and dominion over such assets.\n\n### **C. Debtor's Conduct to Hinder, Delay, and/or Defraud Creditors**\n\n18. In addition to the matters addressed in the Trustee's adversary proceedings, the Bankruptcy Court has found that the Debtor was the beneficial owner of Ace Decade Limited (and\n\nDefault has entered against Lexington and HCHK Technologies in the adversary proceeding *Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al.* (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013 (the \"HCHK Entities A.P.\"), Docket No. 139), which adversary proceeding seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that HCHK Technologies and Lexington are the alter egos of the Debtor. The Trustee incorporates by reference herein, the Trustee's Complaint filed in the HCHK Entities A.P. (Adv. Proc. No. 23-5023, Docket No. 1).\n\n5 These include the following adversary proceedings: (i) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05003]; (ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005]; (iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008]; (iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013]; (v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017]; (vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [Adv. Proc. 23- 05018]; and (vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [Adv. Proc. 23-05023].\n\nthrough it, Dawn State Limited) and that the Debtor controlled and employed Ace Decade Limited's nominee shareholder, Yvette Wang.6\n\n19. The Bankruptcy Court has also found that the \"G Entities\" (Gettr, G Fashion, G Music, GClubs, GNews and GEdu), the New Federal State of China and the Rule of Law Foundation, as well as other purportedly independent entities and organizations, were controlled by the Debtor7 , led by the Debtor8 and/or served \"the purposes of… and as business vehicles of\" the Debtor.9\n\n20. Prior to the Petition Date, Judge Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Eastern Profit Corporation Limited, an entity originally owned by one of the Debtor's chefs before its transfer to Debtor's daughter, was \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.10\n\n21. The Debtor has gone to great lengths to hinder and delay the collection efforts of one of his largest creditors, *i.e.*, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"). In 2017, PAX sued the Debtor in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the \"New York Court\"), Index No. 652077/2017 (the \"PAX Case\"), seeking judgment for monies owed. On February 3, 2021, PAX obtained a judgment from the New York Court against the Debtor in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 (the \"PAX Judgment\"). PAX sought to enforce the PAX Judgment by levying\n\n6 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, ¶¶ 1, 4 (Jan. 24, 2023, Docket No. 1372 (\"Corp. Governance Contempt Order\").\n\n7 *Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part Motion for Preliminary Injunction*, ¶ 3 (Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, January 13, 2023 (\"The Debtor also controls Saraca Media Group and a related entity 'GTV'\").\n\n8 *Id*. at ¶ 7 (\"The Debtor is the leader of The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF and Himalaya.\").\n\n9 *Id*. (\"The Whistleblower Movement, NFSC, ROLF, GSeries, and Himalaya serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\").\n\n10 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\nthe Debtor's assets—including the Lady May, which the Debtor falsely claimed was owned by his daughter, and the Debtor's luxury apartment in Manhattan, which the Debtor falsely claimed was held in trust for the Debtor's son. The Debtor's defiance of New York Court orders in postjudgment proceedings eventually resulted in the Debtor incurring contempt penalties of \\$134 million.\n\n22. The Debtor also used his alter egos, including HCHK Technologies, Lexington, and Golden Spring as personal piggy-banks, funding the lavish lifestyle to which he and his family had become accustomed, while concealing assets in these alter egos from his creditors and hindering and delaying creditors from recoveries on their claims. The transfers that the Debtor effectuated through these alter egos perpetuated the Debtor's fraudulent scheme.\n\n23. The Debtor has testified before the Bankruptcy Court that he has insufficient assets to pay his liabilities and that his luxurious lifestyle is funded by his family through businesses nominally held by family members.11 The Debtor scheduled only \\$3,850 in assets.12\n\n24. In March 2023, the Debtor was arrested and remains confined pending his trial on federal criminal charges of, among other things, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.\n\n25. In its criminal indictment of the Debtor, the United States Government asserts that the Debtor and his co-defendants \"utilized more than approximately 500 accounts held in the\n\n11 Hearing on Debtor's Motion for Entry of Interim and Final DIP Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Obtain Unsecured, Subordinated Postpetition Financing and (II) Scheduling Interim and Final Hearings, and (III) Granting Related Relief (Main Case, April 27, 2022)\n\nnames of *at least 80 different entities or individuals* to launder more than \\$1 billion in fraud proceeds.\"13\n\n26. The property of the Debtor's alter egos, including HCHK Technologies, Lexington and Golden Spring, was at all times prior to the Petition Date property of the Debtor.\n\n27. At all times relevant herein, the Debtor conducted business in New York, New York, including direction of the prepetition transfers at issue in this Complaint.\n\n### **D. Debtor's Shell Game and Fraud Continues Postpetition**\n\n28. As of the Petition Date, all of the Debtor's property held through his alter egos, including, Lexington, HCHK Technologies, Golden Spring, became property of the chapter 11 estate. *See* 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).\n\n29. Following the Petition Date, the Debtor, with blatant disregard for the Bankruptcy Court and his obligations under the Bankruptcy Code, continued to effectuate transfers through numerous alter ego shell companies, including, without limitation, HCHK Technologies.\n\n30. None of these postpetition transfers were authorized by the Bankruptcy Court nor were such transfers authorized under the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **E. Transfers Made with Intent to Hinder, Delay, or Defraud Creditors**\n\n31. The Transfers at issue in this Complaint were made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors inasmuch as they were all made through the Debtor's alterego shell companies operated as a part of the Debtor's shell game.\n\n13 *See* Memorandum of Law of the United States of America in Opposition to Defendant Yanping Wang's Motion for Pretrial Release 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 Related Relief (June 23, 2023, Main Case Docket No. 1934).\n\n32. The Debtor intentionally orchestrated his financial affairs in this manner in order to conceal and dissipate millions of dollars in assets while falsely pleading poverty to his many creditors. The Debtor claimed to be destitute while simultaneously spending heavily to maintain a billionaire lifestyle for himself and for his family members and close associates.\n\n33. The assets concealed and dissipated by the Debtor included funds that he obtained from the victims of his cryptocurrency, securities, and other fraud schemes. As a result of this conduct, the Debtor faces multiple felony fraud, money laundering, and racketeering charges in a criminal case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. *See United States v. Ho Wan Kwok*, case no. 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.).\n\n34. The Debtor knew and intended that by concealing and dissipating his assets in this manner there would not be sufficient assets remaining to repay his creditors—including the many victims of his frauds. These transfers were thus necessarily made with the intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud the Debtor's creditors.\n\n#### **F. Transfers to the Defendant**\n\n35. Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor, using his alter-ego shell companies, Golden Spring, and Lexington, or otherwise, transferred the Debtor's property to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Prepetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE A** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n36. Subsequent to the Petition Date, the Debtor, through his shell companies, HCHK Technologies, or otherwise, transferred property of the estate to the Defendant (collectively, the \"Postpetition Transfers\"), including, without limitation, as follows:\n\nSee **SCHEDULE B** attached hereto and made a part hereof.\n\n37. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers and the Postpetition Transfers (collectively,\n\nthe \"Transfers\"), the Debtor had outstanding obligations to creditors of the Debtor's estate.\n\n38. The Defendant was the initial transferee of the Transfers.\n\n### **FIRST CLAIM**\n\n## **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 548(a)(1)(A) and 550(a))**\n\n39. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n40. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor through his alter egos, Golden Spring, HCHK Technologies, and/or Lexington, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n41. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n42. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to section 548(a)(i)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **SECOND CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Actual Fraudulent Transfers pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273, 274, and 276, and Bankruptcy Code sections 544(b) and 550(a))**\n\n43. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n44. The Prepetition Transfers were made by the Debtor, through his alter egos, Golden Spring, HCHK Technologies and/or Lexington, with the actual intent to hinder, delay and/or defraud his creditors.\n\n45. The Debtor's intent to hinder, delay, and/or defraud his creditors in effectuating the Prepetition Transfers is shown by, among other things:\n\na. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated using an alter-ego shell company;\n\nb. The Prepetition Transfers were concealed from the Debtor's creditors;\n\nc. The Prepetition Transfers were effectuated as part of the Debtor's \"shell game\" with the aid of the Debtor's family members and other lieutenants and subordinates that he controlled in an effort to conceal and shield assets;\n\nd. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to benefit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\ne. The Prepetition Transfers furthered the Debtor's fraudulent conduct by enabling the Debtor to profit from his fraud without subjecting his property to the reach of his creditors;\n\nf. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was being sued, including by PAX in the PAX Case; and\n\ng. At the time of the Prepetition Transfers, the Debtor was insolvent or undercapitalized.\n\n46. The Prepetition Transfers are avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276, and section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and recoverable pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n### **THIRD CLAIM**\n\n# **(Claim to Avoid and Recover Unauthorized Postpetition Transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 549 and 550(a))**\n\n47. The Trustee repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.\n\n48. The Postpetition Transfers were made to the Defendant by the Debtor, including through his alter ego shell company, HCHK Technologies.\n\n49. The Postpetition Transfers occurred after the Petition Date.\n\n50. The Postpetition Transfers were not authorized by the Bankruptcy Court or by the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n51. The Postpetition Transfers constituted the unauthorized transfer of property of the Debtor's chapter 11 estate.\n\n52. The Postpetition Transfers are avoidable pursuant to section 549(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.\n\n53. Pursuant to section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee is entitled to recover the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof, from the Defendant plus interest thereon to the date of payment and the costs of this action.\n\n*[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.]*\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, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$3,135,813.16 are avoided pursuant to section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n2. On the Second Claim, (a) an order declaring that the Prepetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$3,135,813.16 are avoided pursuant to Section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and N.Y. Debt & Cred. Law sections 273(a)(1), 274, and 276; (b) an order directing that the Prepetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Prepetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law section 276 and section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n3. On the Third Claim, an order (a) declaring that the Postpetition Transfers in an amount not less than \\$485,455.63 are avoided pursuant to section 549 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (b) an order directing that the Postpetition Transfers be set aside; and (c) recovery of the Postpetition Transfers, or the value thereof at the Trustee's option, from the Defendant for the benefit of the Debtor's estate pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;\n\n4. Awarding the Trustee pre-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate from the date of the filing of this Complaint to the date of judgment herein; and\n\n5. 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: February 9, 2024 New Haven, CT LUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /s/ *Patrick R. Linsey* Douglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com *Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **SCHEDULE A**\n\n## **FILED UNDER SEAL**\n\n### **SCHEDULE B**\n\n## **FILED UNDER SEAL**","body_zh":"B1040（表格 1040）(12/15)\n对抗性程序封面表\n（背面有说明）\n对抗性程序编号（仅供法院使用）\n\n原告\n被告\n\n律师（律所名称、地址及电话号码）\n律师（如知悉）\n\n当事人（仅勾选一框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n\n当事人（仅勾选一框）\n□ 债务人\n□ 美国受托人/破产管理人\n□ 债权人\n□ 其他\n□ 受托人\n\n诉由\n（简要陈述诉由，包括涉及的所有美国法律法规）\n\n诉讼性质\n（从主要诉由标为 1、第一备选诉由标为 2、第二备选诉由标为 3 等开始，最多为五 (5) 个框编号）\n\nFRBP 7001(1) – 追回金钱/财产\n□ 11-追回金钱/财产 - §542 财产交付\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、优先权或范围\n□ 21-留置权或财产其他权益的有效性、优先权或范围\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性（接上栏）\n□ 61-可免责性 - §523(a)(5)，家庭抚养\n□ 68-可免责性 - §523(a)(6)，蓄意与恶意伤害\n□ 63-可免责性 - §523(a)(8)，学生贷款\n□ 64-可免责性 - §523(a)(15)，离婚或分居义务（家庭抚养除外）\n□ 65-可免责性 - 其他\n\nFRBP 7001(3) – 批准财产出售\n□ 31-批准破产财产及共同所有人的财产出售 - §363(h)\n\nFRBP 7001(7) – 禁令救济\n□ 71-禁令救济 – 实施中止\n□ 72-禁令救济 – 其他\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(8) 主张或权益的次序顺延\n□ 81-主张或权益的次序顺延\n\nFRBP 7001(5) – 撤销确认\n□ 51-撤销确认\n\nFRBP 7001(9) 宣告性判决\n□ 91-宣告性判决\n\nFRBP 7001(6) – 可免责性\n□ 66-可免责性 - §523(a)(1),(14),(14A) 优先税收主张\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)，信义欺诈、挪用公款、盗窃\n（接下一栏）\n\nFRBP 7001(10) 移送诉讼之裁定\n□ 01-移送主张或诉由之裁定\n其他\n□ SS-SIPA 案件 – 15 U.S.C. §§78aaa et.seq.\n□ 02-其他（例如，若与破产案件无关本应在州法院提起的其他诉讼）\n\n□ 若本案涉及州法的实体法问题，请勾选\n□ 若此案被主张为根据 FRCP 23 提起的集体诉讼，请勾选\n□ 若起诉书中要求陪审团审判，请勾选\n索赔金额 $\n寻求的其他救济\n\nB1040（表格 1040）(12/15)\n引起本对抗性程序的破产案件\n债务人姓名\n破产案号\n案件审理中所在地区\n分部办公室\n法官姓名\n\n相关对抗性程序（如有）\n原告\n被告\n对抗性程序编号\n对抗性程序审理中所在地区\n分部办公室\n法官姓名\n\n律师（或原告）签名\n日期\n正楷填写律师（或原告）姓名\n\n说明\n\n破产案件的申请在破产法院的管辖下设立了一个包含债务人所有财产（无论该财产位于何处）的“破产财产”（estate）。由于破产财产范围极为广泛且法院管辖权极其宽泛，可能会产生关于破产财产或破产财产权利的诉讼。也可能会产生关于债务人免责的诉讼。如果此类诉讼在破产法院提起，则称为对抗性程序。\n\n提起对抗性程序的当事人还必须填写并提交表格 1040，即对抗性程序封面表，除非该当事人通过法院的案件管理/电子案件档案系统（CM/ECF）以电子方式提起对抗性程序。（CM/ECF 在立案过程中会采集表格 1040 上的信息。）填写完成后，封面表总结了关于对抗性程序的基本信息。法院书记官需要这些信息来处理对抗性程序并准备有关法院活动的必需统计报告。\n\n封面表及其包含的信息不能替代或补充法律、《破产程序规则》（Bankruptcy Rules）或法院本地规则所要求的诉状或其他文书的提交与送达。该封面表基本一目了然，必须由原告律师填写（若原告未聘请律师代表，则由原告填写）。每提起一份起诉书，必须向书记官提交一份单独的封面表。\n\n原告与被告。准确提供起诉书上所载的原告和被告姓名。\n\n律师。如知悉，提供律师的姓名和地址。\n\n当事人。在第一栏中为原告勾选最合适的一个框，在第二栏中为被告勾选最合适的一个框。\n\n索赔金额。输入起诉书中索赔的美元金额。\n\n签名。本封面表必须由记录在案的律师在表格第二页的框内签名。若原告由律师事务所代表，必须由该律所的成员签名。若原告为亲自诉讼（pro se），即没有律师代表，则必须由原告本人签名。\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- x\n关于： :\n: 第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等， :\n: 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。 :\n: （合并审理）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人， :\n:\n:\n原告， :\n:\nv. : x\n: 对抗性程序编号 [ ]\nAGORA LAB, INC（Agora 实验室公司）， :\n: 2024年2月9日\n被告。 :\n: x\n\n第 11 章受托人依据《破产法典》第 544、548、549 和 550 条以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273、274 和 276 条请求撤销并追回欺诈性转让及申请后转让并寻求相关救济的起诉书\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以在 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（“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”）身份，针对被告 Agora Lab, Inc.（Agora 实验室公司）（“被告”）提起本对抗性起诉书（“起诉书”），陈述如下：\n\n1 这些第 11 章案件中的债务人是 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（纳税人识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（纳税人识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人、Genever Holdings LLC 和 Genever Holdings Corporation 的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产受托人的 Luc A. Despins（仅用于接收通知和通讯目的）。\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本对抗性程序以撤销并追回：(a) 在本第 11 章案件开始前对债务人财产的转让；以及 (b) 在本第 11 章案件开始后对债务人第 11 章破产财产进行的且未获破产法院批准或未根据《美国法典》第 11 编（“《破产法典》”）授权的财产转让。\n\n2. 债务人（Debtor）通过其另我空壳公司（alter ego shell companies）Golden Spring (New York) Limited（「Golden Spring」）、HCHK Technologies Inc.（「HCHK Technologies」）以及 Lexington Property and Staffing Inc.（「Lexington」），在申请日（Petition Date，定义见本诉状）之前向作为初始受让人的被告转移了金额为 3,135,813.16 美元的资金。\n\n3. 这些转让属于实际欺诈性转让，因为债务人实施这些转让是其「空壳把戏」（shell game）的一部分，且其做出这些转让时抱有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人之债权人的意图。\n\n4. 申请日之后，债务人通过其另我空壳公司 HCHK Technologies，向作为初始受让人的被告转移了总额为 485,455.63 美元的资金。\n\n5. 由于破产财产的这些申请后转让未经法院或《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）授权，因此依据《破产法典》第 549 条和第 550 条，该等转让应当予以撤销和追回。\n\n管辖权与审理法院\n\n6. 依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b)，本法院对本对抗程序（adversary proceeding）享有事项管辖权（subject matter jurisdiction）。\n\n7. 依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)，本对抗程序已被移送至本法院。\n\n8. 本诉状所请求救济的法定依据包括《破产法典》第 544、548、549 和 550 条，以及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》（New York Debtor & Creditor Law）第 273、274 和 276 条 2，或任何其他适用的具有同等效力的州法律。\n\n当事人\n\n9. 依据破产法院于 2022 年 7 月 8 日作出的命令 [案件编号 22-50073（「主案」）案卷号 523]，受托人（Trustee）为该第 11 章案件（Chapter 11 Case）中的第 11 章受托人（chapter 11 trustee）。\n\n10. 被告是一家加利福尼亚州公司，其地址和营业场所位于 2804 Mission College Blvd., Suite 110, Santa Clara, California 95054。\n\n2 下文对《纽约州债务人与债权人法》的所有法条引用均简称为「N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law」。《纽约州统一可撤销交易法》（New York Uniform Voidable Transactions Act，「NYUVT」）取代了《纽约州统一欺诈性转让法》（New York Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act，「NYUFC」），于 2020 年 4 月 4 日生效，并适用于在 2020 年 4 月 4 日或之后做出的转让或承担的债务。关于 2020 年 4 月 4 日之前的转让，受托人在本诉讼中根据 NYUFC 以及 N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law 第 273、273a、275、276 和 278 条寻求救济。\n\n事实\n\nA. 第 11 章案件\n\n11. 债务人于 2022 年 2 月 15 日（「申请日」）向美国康涅狄格区破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut，「破产法院」）提交了依据《破产法典》第 11 章寻求救济的自愿破产申请书，从而启动了该第 11 章案件。\n\n12. 2022 年 3 月 21 日，美国破产受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）在该第 11 章案件中指定了无担保债权人官方委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors）。未指定调查员（examiner）。\n\n13. 债务人于 2022 年 3 月向破产法院提交的破产财产明细表声称其拥有 3,850 美元的资产，并承担了数亿美元的负债。3 尽管债务人确实深陷债务泥潭，但其明细表未能披露通过其众多另我空壳公司（包括 HCHK Technologies、Lexington 和 Golden Spring）持有和/或转移的债务人财产。\n\n14. 2022 年 6 月 15 日，法院作出一份裁定及命令备忘录 [主案案卷号 465]，责令美国破产受托人在该第 11 章案件中指定一名第 11 章受托人。依据该命令，美国破产受托人选定 Luc A. Despins 担任受托人。2022 年 7 月 8 日，法院作出一项命令，批准指定 Luc A. Despins 为该第 11 章案件中的受托人 [主案案卷号 523]。\n\nB. 债务人对空壳公司的使用及受托人的对抗程序\n\n15. HCHK Technologies、Lexington 和 Golden Spring 属于债务人用来阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的众多另我空壳公司之列。4 多年来，\n\n3 资产和负债明细表，第 1 页 [主案案卷号 78]。\n\n4 法院已作出判决认定 Golden Spring 为债务人的另我。参见 *Despins v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited*（对抗程序编号 23-5018（「Golden Spring 对抗程序」），案卷号 35）。受托人在此通过援引并入受托人在 Golden Spring 对抗程序中提交的起诉状（对抗程序编号 23-5018，案卷号 1）。\n\n债务人精心策划了一场「空壳把戏」，利用了一个错综复杂的空壳公司网络，这些公司名义上由家庭成员、亲信和/或下属拥有，但实际上由债务人控制。这一空壳把戏使债务人能够使用、花费和/或转移数以百万计的美元现金及其他资产——同时向债权人隐匿其财产。\n\n16. 自被指定以来，受托人已在该第 11 章案件中启动了若干对抗程序，旨在（其中包括）确认债务人的空壳公司是其另我，和/或该等公司及其资产由债务人享有衡平法上的所有权（equitably owned），且在其中若干诉讼中，破产法院已给予此类救济。5\n\n17. 这些诉讼中的事实模式始终包括：(i) 由近亲属和/或下属持有的债务人控制的空壳公司，(ii) 用来自其他债务人控制实体的现金购买的资产和/或无对价向空壳实体及在空壳实体之间转移的资产，以及 (iii) 债务人从中获益并对该等资产拥有控制权和支配权。\n\nC. 债务人阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债权人的行为\n\n18. 除受托人对抗程序中涉及的事项外，破产法院还认定债务人是 Ace Decade Limited（并通过其成为 Dawn State Limited）的实益所有人（beneficial owner），且债务人控制并雇用了 Ace Decade Limited 的名义股东 Yvette Wang（王雁平）。6\n\n对抗程序 *Despins v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et. al.*（对抗程序编号 23-5013（「HCHK 实体对抗程序」），案卷号 139）中已对 Lexington 和 HCHK Technologies 作出缺席认定，该对抗程序（其中包括）寻求一项确认判决（declaratory judgment），确认 HCHK Technologies 和 Lexington 是债务人的另我。受托人在此通过援引并入受托人在 HCHK 实体对抗程序中提交的起诉状（对抗程序编号 23-5023，案卷号 1）。\n\n5 其中包括以下对抗程序：(i) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC, et al. [对抗程序编号 22-05003]；(ii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Greenwich Land LLC, et al. [对抗程序编号 23-05005]；(iii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Mei Guo [对抗程序编号 23-05008]；(iv) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. [对抗程序编号 23-05013]；(v) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Taurus Fund LLC, et al. [对抗程序编号 23-05017]；(vi) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Golden Spring (New York) Limited [对抗程序编号 23-05018]；以及 (vii) Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Lamp Capital LLC, et al. [对抗程序编号 23-05023]。\n\n19. 破产法院还认定，「G 系列实体」（Gettr、G Fashion、G Music、GClubs、GNews 和 GEdu）、新中国联邦（New Federal State of China）以及法治基金（Rule of Law Foundation），以及其他据称独立的实体和组织，均由债务人控制 7、由债务人领导 8，和/或用作债务人的「目的……以及作为业务工具」。9\n\n20. 在申请日之前，美国纽约南区联邦地区法院（United States District Court for the Southern District of New York）的 Liman 法官认定，Eastern Profit Corporation Limited（一家最初由债务人的一名厨师拥有、后转让给债务人女儿的实体）对债务人而言「实质上是一家空壳公司」。10\n\n21. 债务人竭尽全力阻碍和拖延其最大债权人之一，即 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（「PAX」，太盟亚洲机会基金）的追偿努力。2017 年，PAX 在纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court of the State of New York，「纽约州法院」）起诉债务人，索引号为 652077/2017（「PAX 案」），请求就所欠款项作出判决。2021 年 2 月 3 日，PAX 从纽约州法院获得了针对债务人的判决，金额为 116,402,019.57 美元（「PAX 判决」）。PAX 试图通过扣押\n\n6 批准认定债务人违反公司治理命令构成藐视法庭动议的裁定，第 1、4 段（2023 年 1 月 24 日，案卷号 1372（「公司治理藐视命令」）。\n\n7 *修正后的部分批准初步禁令动议的裁定备忘录*，第 3 段（对抗程序编号 22-05032，2023 年 1 月 13 日（「债务人亦控制 Saraca Media Group 及其关联实体『GTV』」）。\n\n8 同上，第 7 段（「债务人是爆料革命（The Whistleblower Movement）、NFSC、ROLF 和喜马拉雅（Himalaya）的领导人。」）。\n\n9 同上（「爆料革命、NFSC、ROLF、G系列（GSeries）和喜马拉雅服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的业务工具，且其成员在个人层面效忠于债务人。」）。\n\n10 *Eastern Profit Corp. Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, No. 18-CV-2185 (LJL) 2021 WL 2554631, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2021).\n\n债务人的资产来执行 PAX 判决——包括债务人谎称归其女儿所有的 Lady May 号游艇，以及债务人谎称是为其儿子设立信托持有的位于曼哈顿的豪华公寓。债务人在判决后程序中对纽约州法院命令的公然蔑视，最终导致债务人被处以 1.34 亿美元的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n22. 债务人还利用其另我实体（包括 HCHK Technologies、Lexington 和 Golden Spring）作为个人存钱罐，资助其本人和家人已习以为常的奢靡生活方式，同时在这些另我实体中向其债权人隐匿资产，并阻碍和拖延债权人追回其债权。债务人通过这些另我实体实施的转让延续了债务人的欺诈计划。\n\n23. 债务人曾在破产法院作证称，其资产不足以偿付其债务，其奢华生活是由其家人通过名义上由家庭成员持有的企业资助的。11 债务人在财产明细表中仅列出了 3,850 美元的资产。12\n\n24. 2023 年 3 月，债务人被捕，目前仍被羁押，等待就包括电汇欺诈、证券欺诈和洗钱等指控在内的联邦刑事罪名受审。\n\n25. 在对债务人的刑事起诉书中，美国政府指控债务人及其同案被告「利用以*至少 80 个不同实体或个人*名义持有的约 500 多个账户，洗白了超过 10 亿美元的欺诈收益。」13\n\n11 关于债务人关于作出批准债务人获得无担保、次级申请后融资（DIP）以及确定期中和最终听证会日期以及给予相关救济的期中和最终命令之动议的听证会（主案，2022 年 4 月 27 日）\n\n26. 债务人另我实体（包括 HCHK Technologies、Lexington 和 Golden Spring）的财产在申请日之前的所有时间内始终属于债务人的财产。\n\n27. 在本诉状涉及的所有相关时间内，债务人在纽约州纽约市开展业务，包括指挥本起诉状所涉及的申请前转让。\n\nD. 债务人的空壳把戏与欺诈在申请后仍在继续\n\n28. 截至申请日，债务人通过其另我实体（包括 Lexington、HCHK Technologies、Golden Spring）持有的所有财产，均已成为第 11 章破产财产（chapter 11 estate）。参见 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)。\n\n29. 申请日之后，债务人公然无视破产法院及其在《破产法典》下的法定义务，继续通过包括但不限于 HCHK Technologies 在内的众多另我空壳公司实施转让。\n\n30. 这些申请后转让均未获得破产法院的授权，亦未根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）获得授权。\n\nE. 意图阻碍、拖延或欺诈债权人而进行的转让\n\n31. 本起诉状所涉转让的作出，带有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图，因为这些转让全部是通过作为债务人“空壳骗局”（shell game）组成部分运营的债务人另我（alter-ego）空壳公司进行的。\n\n13 参见《美利坚合众国反对被告 Yanping Wang（王雁平）审前释放动议的法律备忘录》第 29 页，作为附件 B 附于《第 11 章受托人对 G Club Operations LLC 就受托人强制作出答复及请求相关救济动议之补充异议的回复》（2023年6月23日，主案待决案件目录编号 1934）。\n\n32. 债务人故意以这种方式安排其财务事务，以便隐匿和挥霍数百万美元的资产，同时向其众多债权人虚假哭穷。债务人声称自己身无分文，同时却大肆挥霍，为自己及其家庭成员和亲信维持亿万富翁般的生活方式。\n\n33. 债务人隐匿和挥霍的资产包括他从其加密货币、证券及其他欺诈计划的受害者处获得的资金。由于此等行为，债务人在 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）审理的一起刑事案件中面临多项重罪欺诈、洗钱和诈骗指控。参见 United States v. Ho Wan Kwok（美国诉郭文贵案），案号 1:23-cr-00118-AT [ECF No. 215] (Jan. 3, 2024 S.D.N.Y.)。\n\n34. 债务人明知并意图通过以此种方式隐匿和挥霍其资产，将没有足够的剩余资产来偿还其债权人——包括其欺诈行为的众多受害者。因此，这些转让必然是出于阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈债务人债权人的意图而作出的。\n\nF. 向被告作出的转让\n\n35. 在申请日之前，债务人使用其另我空壳公司 Golden Spring 和 Lexington，或通过其他方式，将债务人的财产转让给被告（统称“申请前转让”），包括但不限于如下内容：\n\n参见附于本起诉状并构成本起诉状一部分的附表 A。\n\n36. 在申请日之后，债务人通过其空壳公司 HCHK Technologies 或其他方式，将破产财产转让给被告（统称“申请后转让”），包括但不限于如下内容：\n\n参见附于本起诉状并构成本起诉状一部分的附表 B。\n\n37. 在作出申请前转让和申请后转让（统称“转让”）时，债务人对债务人破产财产的债权人负有未清偿的债务。\n\n38. 被告是该等转让的初始受让人。\n\n第一项诉求\n（根据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条和第 550(a) 条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的诉求）\n\n39. 受托人重复并重新主张第 1 至 38 段中所载的指控，如同在此完整陈述一样。\n\n40. 申请前转让是由债务人通过其另我 Golden Spring、HCHK Technologies 和/或 Lexington 作出的，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n41. 债务人在实施申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，由以下各项表明：\n\na. 申请前转让是使用另我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请前转让对债务人的债权人进行了隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让是在债务人的家庭成员及其控制的其他骨干和下属的协助下，作为债务人“空壳骗局”的一部分实施的，旨在隐匿和屏蔽资产；\n\nd. 申请前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利而无需使其财产受到债权人的追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈中获取收益而无需使其财产受到债权人的追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括被 PAX 在 PAX 案中起诉；以及\n\ng. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n42. 根据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条，受托人可撤销申请前转让，且根据《破产法典》第 550(a) 条，该等转让是可以追回的。\n\n第二项诉求\n（根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》（N.Y. Debt. & Cred. Law）第 273、274 和 276 条以及《破产法典》第 544(b) 和 550(a) 条请求撤销并追回实际欺诈性转让的诉求）\n\n43. 受托人重复并重新主张第 1 至 38 段中所载的指控，如同在此完整陈述一样。\n\n44. 申请前转让是由债务人通过其另我 Golden Spring、HCHK Technologies 和/或 Lexington 作出的，具有阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的实际意图。\n\n45. 债务人在实施申请前转让时阻碍、拖延和/或欺诈其债权人的意图，除其他事项外，由以下各项表明：\n\na. 申请前转让是使用另我空壳公司实施的；\n\nb. 申请前转让对债务人的债权人进行了隐瞒；\n\nc. 申请前转让是在债务人的家庭成员及其控制的其他骨干和下属的协助下，作为债务人“空壳骗局”的一部分实施的，旨在隐匿和屏蔽资产；\n\nd. 申请前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈中获利而无需使其财产受到债权人的追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\ne. 申请前转让使债务人能够从其欺诈中获取收益而无需使其财产受到债权人的追索，从而推进了债务人的欺诈行为；\n\nf. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人正被起诉，包括被 PAX 在 PAX 案中起诉；以及\n\ng. 在申请前转让发生时，债务人已无力偿债或资本不足。\n\n46. 根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273(a)(1)、274 和 276 条以及《破产法典》第 544(b) 条，受托人可撤销申请前转让，且根据《破产法典》第 550(a) 条，该等转让是可以追回的。\n\n第三项诉求\n（根据《破产法典》第 549 条和第 550(a) 条请求撤销并追回未经授权的申请后转让的诉求）\n\n47. 受托人重复并重新主张第 1 至 38 段中所载的指控，如同在此完整陈述一样。\n\n48. 申请后转让是由债务人向被告作出的，包括通过其另我空壳公司 HCHK Technologies 进行。\n\n49. 申请后转让发生在申请日之后。\n\n50. 申请后转让未获得破产法院或《破产法典》的授权。\n\n51. 申请后转让构成了对债务人第 11 章破产财产之财产的未经授权转让。\n\n52. 根据《破产法典》第 549(a) 条，申请后转让是可以撤销的。\n\n53. 根据《破产法典》第 550(a) 条，受托人有权向被告追回申请后转让或其价值，外加截至付款之日止的利息以及本诉讼的费用。\n\n[本页其余部分有意留白。]\n\n诉讼请求\n\n鉴于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出如下判决：\n\n1. 就第一项诉求而言，(a) 作出一项命令，宣布根据《破产法典》第 548(a)(1)(A) 条撤销金额不少于 $3,135,813.16 的申请前转让；(b) 作出一项命令，指示废止该等申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法典》第 550(a)(1) 条，由受托人选择向被告追回申请前转让或其价值，以使债务人破产财产受益；\n\n2. 就第二项诉求而言，(a) 作出一项命令，宣布根据《破产法典》第 544(b) 条及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 273(a)(1)、274 和 276 条撤销金额不少于 $3,135,813.16 的申请前转让；(b) 作出一项命令，指示废止该等申请前转让；以及 (c) 根据《纽约州债务人与债权人法》第 276 条及《破产法典》第 550(a)(1) 条，由受托人选择向被告追回申请前转让或其价值，以使债务人破产财产受益；\n\n3. 就第三项诉求而言，作出一项命令：(a) 宣布根据《破产法典》第 549 条撤销金额不少于 $485,455.63 的申请后转让；以及 (b) 指示废止该等申请后转让；以及 (c) 根据《破产法典》第 550(a)(1) 条，由受托人选择向被告追回申请后转让或其价值，以使债务人破产财产受益；\n\n4. 判给受托人自提交本起诉状之日起至本案作出判决之日止按法定最高利率计算的判决前利息；以及\n\n5. 法院认为在此情况下属于公正、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：2024年2月9日 康涅狄格州纽黑文 LUC A. DESPINS 第 11 章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Patrick R. Linsey\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616)\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437)\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\ndskalka@npmlaw.com\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n第 11 章受托人之法律顾问\n\n附表 A\n封存归档\n\n附表 B\n封存归档","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4635,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:05:01"}