{"id":"court_sdny_2923_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":2923,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2024-02-15","title":"SDNY ECF 2923","summary_zh":"破产信托人 RICO 法综合诉状 —— 破产信托人向多个被告（Hing Chi Ngok、Mei Guo、Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang 及多个关联实体）提起诉讼，指控被告通过非法隐瞒和伪装财产的方式骗取债权人。根据《RICO 法》第 1962(d) 和 1964(c) 条，信托人寻求资产追回、三倍赔偿、禁止令及律师费。康州破产法院案 22-50073，ECF # 2923（2024 年 2 月 15 日）。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy trustee RICO Act complaint — The Chapter 11 trustee filed a comprehensive complaint under the RICO Act against multiple defendants (including Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, and various entities) alleging that they unlawfully concealed and disguised assets to defraud creditors of Ho Wan Kwok's estate. The trustee seeks asset recovery, treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1964(c). Connecticut Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 22-50073, ECF No. 2923 (filed February 15, 2024).","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------- | x |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| In re: | :
:
Chapter 11 |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,
1 | :
:
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtor.
------------------------------------------------------- | :
:
(Jointly Administered)
x |\n| LUC A. DESPINS, Chapter 11 Trustee, | :
:
Adv. Proceeding 24-_________ |\n| Plaintiff, | :
:
February 15,
2024 |\n| v. | :
:
: |\n| HING CHI NGOK, MEI GUO, QIANG
GUO, WILLIAM JE, YVETTE WANG,
XUEBING WANG, MAX KRASNER,
CHUNGUANG HAN, YONGBING
ZHANG, AARON MITCHELL, RULE OF
LAW FOUNDATION III, INC., GTV
MEDIA GROUP, INC., SARACA MEDIA
GROUP, INC., HUDSON DIAMOND NY
LLC, G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC,
BRAVO LUCK LIMITED, GREENWICH
LAND LLC, CRANE ADVISORY GROUP
L.L.C., G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC, GS
SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC., GYPSY
MEI FOOD SERVICES LLC, HCHK
TECHNOLOGIES INC., LEXINGTON
PROPERTY AND STAFFING,
HAMILTON OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC,
HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC, TAURUS | :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: |\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 and the Genever Debtor 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\nFUND LLC, TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC, LEADING SHINE NY LTD., ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED, RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III, INC., RULE OF LAW SOCIETY IV, INC., HAMILTON PE FUND SP, HAMILTON DIGITAL ASSETS FUND SP, HIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING PTY. LTD, HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED, HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD., VICTOR CERDA, ANA C. IZQUIERDO-HENN, HAITHAM KHALED, JESSICA MASTROGIOVANNI, ALEX HADJICHARALAMBOUS, BEILE LI, ANTHONY DIBATTISTA, GLADYS CHOW, SCOTT BARNETT, HAORAN HE, HSIN SHIH YU, LIMARIE REYES MOLINARIS, NICHOLAS SAVIO, QIDONG XIA, YAN CHUN LIU, XUEBING WANG, ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED, GETTR USA, INC., G CLUB INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, GNEWS MEDIA GROUP INC. HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL CLEARING LTD., HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDINGS LLC, LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC, O.S.C. ORBIT SERVICE COMPANY LLC, and SAVIO LAW LLC Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x\n\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\n**COMPLAINT OF CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE RACKETEERING INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT AND CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE RACKETEERING INFLUENCED CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed in the chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\") of Ho Wan Kwok (the \"Debtor\" or \"Kwok\"), files this adversary complaint (the \"Complaint\") against the defendants identified below as parties to this action (collectively, the \"Defendants\") and states as follows:\n\n### **NATURE OF ACTION**\n\n1. The Trustee brings this Complaint to recover damages suffered by the Debtor's creditors as a result of an extensive, years' long racketeering conspiracy involving multiple fraudulent schemes facilitated by the Defendants in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act of 1970 (\"RICO\").\n\n2. As the Court well knows, the Debtor is a self-proclaimed Chinese dissident, who, prior to his bankruptcy filing on February 15, 2022 (the \"Petition Date\"), long claimed on social media and elsewhere to be a billionaire with access to nearly unlimited resources. This action relates to how the Debtor and his co-conspirators were able to amass vast amounts of money and then, through widespread criminal conduct, use it to enrich themselves while hiding it from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n3. As alleged herein, since at least 2015, the Debtor and the Defendants have operated a racketeering enterprise (the \"Kwok Enterprise\") through an extensive worldwide network of shell companies with the goal of enriching the Debtor, his family members, and his close associates, while concealing the true nature and extent of the Debtor's wealth from his creditors and preventing them from being repaid. As a result, the Debtor and those close to him have enjoyed all the trappings and luxury of a billionaire's lifestyle—from private jets, to luxury super yachts, to \\$10,000 suits, to multiple palatial residences, and much, much more—while the Debtor's\n\ncreditors, who over the years have amassed hundreds of millions of dollars in claims against him, have been left with nothing.\n\n4. Chief among the Debtor's creditors is Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. (\"PAX\"), which, as of 2015, held a claim of approximately \\$50 million against the Debtor under a personal guarantee (the \"2011 Personal Guarantee\") of a loan to one of the Debtor's companies. In or around April 2017, PAX filed suit against the Debtor in New York state court to recover on the 2011 Personal Guarantee and, in September 2020, obtained summary judgment on the debt, which by then had increased to approximately \\$115 million, due to the accrual of interest. Meanwhile, other creditors have asserted serious and material claims against the Debtor related to, among other things, defamation and sexual assault. In or around September 2017, one such creditor, Rui Ma, filed suit against the Debtor in New York seeking approximately \\$20 million in damages on various tort claims. Other creditors based in China also commenced litigation against the Debtor in the United States as early as 2017, alleging that the Debtor had left them holding the proverbial \"bag\" in China.\n\n5. In addition to the Debtor's huge debts owed to creditors, another key part of the backdrop for the Kwok Enterprise (but not part of the enterprise itself) is a series of fraudulent money-raising schemes beginning in approximately 2020, which the Debtor and others used to further enrich the Debtor and fund his extravagant lifestyle. To support these schemes, the Debtor and his supporters first developed and distributed, primarily through social media, a compelling (and false) narrative in which the Debtor both flaunted his enviable lifestyle and pledged to lead a sociopolitical movement to \"take down\" the Chinese Communist Party (the \"CCP\"). The Debtor and others then used this narrative to attract investments or donations from their victims, who often consisted of members of the Chinese diaspora aligned with the Debtor's purported anti-CCP cause and/or persons who were impressed (and fooled) by the Debtor's boasts of immeasurable wealth.\n\n6. These money-raising schemes, which collectively defrauded victims of hundreds of millions of dollars, included soliciting sham investments in a purported cash-for-stock loan program (the Farm Loan Program),2 encouraging the purchase of \"memberships\" in a lifestyle club based on the false promise of member benefits (G-Club), and creating a fake cryptocurrency and related exchange platform (the Himalaya Exchange). While the victims were promised returns on their investments—whether in the form of interest payments, membership benefits, support for political causes, or otherwise—the Debtor and the other participants in the schemes fraudulently diverted the proceeds for their own personal gain.\n\n7. Against the backdrop of both his creditors' claims and the Debtor's fraudulent money-raising initiatives, the Debtor and his co-conspirator Defendants established the Kwok Enterprise for the purpose of concealing and shielding the Debtor's vast wealth—including both the proceeds of the investment schemes and assets the Debtor acquired independent of those schemes—from his creditors. The Debtor and his co-conspirator Defendants have accomplished this goal by creating a complex, worldwide network of interconnected shell companies and bank accounts that they use to both launder money (to conceal its fraudulent origin) and hold title to assets—such as the Debtor's luxury yacht, the \"Lady May\" (pictured below), his private Bombardier jet, and his many homes, including his nearly 50,000 square foot mansion in Mahwah, New Jersey (pictured below, the \"Mahwah Mansion\")—under the veil of corporate separateness. In reality, these shell companies, which are typically nominally owned by one of the Debtor's\n\n2 Capitalized terms not defined in this Preliminary Statement have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the remainder of the Complaint.\n\nfamily members or close associates, are shams that exist solely to hide valuable assets and perpetuate the fraud.\n\n\n\n8. The Kwok Enterprise's efforts to conceal the Debtor's assets were successful for a number of years. In 2021, however, the Kwok Enterprise's fraud started to unravel, at least in part, when PAX sought to collect on its judgment in the New York litigation by attempting to seize the \"Lady May\" yacht on the basis that it belonged to the Debtor and not to the shell company nominally owned by his daughter (a Defendant in this action) that held title to it. After a trial in early February 2022, the New York court agreed with PAX that the Lady May belonged to the Debtor and found that the Debtor and those close to him had engaged in a \"shell game\" to hide the yacht and other assets from creditors. Because the Debtor had, despite ample opportunity to do so, failed to return the Lady May to Connecticut, the New York court imposed a daily contempt fine on the Debtor, which, by the time of trial, had ballooned to \\$134 million.\n\n9. Unable to pay the New York judgment or the contempt fine without revealing the true location and extent of the Debtor's assets, the Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators had no choice but to deploy the next phase of their fraudulent scheme: filing a bankruptcy case in this Court on February 15, 2022, in which the Debtor falsely claimed to have only approximately \\$3,800 in assets to his name. The goal of the bankruptcy filing was for the Debtor to obtain the protection of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay to prevent PAX from continuing its judgmentenforcement efforts in New York litigation, while giving the Debtor an opportunity to consensually restructure his debts under a chapter 11 plan that could keep hidden the true nature and extent of his vast wealth and its fraudulent origins. This strategy eventually backfired, however, when the Trustee was appointed in July 2022 to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the Debtor's affairs and pursue litigation to bring assets into the estate.\n\n10. In response to the Trustee's appointment, the Defendant-members of the Kwok Enterprise have undertaken (and continue to undertake) numerous actions to obstruct the administration of the chapter 11 case and impede the Trustee's investigation and litigation efforts. These actions include, without limitation, lying under oath, refusing to produce documents and information to the Trustee in response to validly issued subpoenas and Court orders, filing frivolous lawsuits in other courts, and organizing an unprecedented worldwide harassment and intimidation campaign specifically designed to interfere with the Trustee's investigation and force him to resign. The objective of the Debtor and his co-conspirator Defendants who have engaged in these activities remains the same as it was at the outset of their fraudulent schemes: to conceal their fraud and prevent the Debtor's creditors from reaching his assets.\n\n11. Although the Debtor is and has been the mastermind behind the Kwok Enterprise, the co-conspirator Defendants have knowingly played a key role, collectively and cohesively, in directing, facilitating, and directly participating in the enterprise's various schemes for the Debtor's and their benefit. The Defendants and other non-party participants, who conspired and acted in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise, broadly consist of (i) the Debtor, (ii) sham entities secretly owned and controlled by the Debtor, including entities funding the fraudulent scheme and entities holding assets or operating as front entities, (iii) individuals, including Kwok's family members, acting as nominees for these sham entities and engaging in additional misconduct, (iv) professionals facilitating the design and operation of the scheme, including lawyers and financial advisors, and (v) individuals otherwise participating in the scheme in various capacities, including employees of the sham entities and Kwok's followers, among others.\n\n12. As described in detail below, the Defendants have committed a host of predicate criminal acts in carrying out the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent schemes. These criminal acts include, among others, bank fraud, wire fraud, and violations of anti-money laundering laws. They also include bankruptcy fraud and obstruction of justice, including in particular numerous instances of obstruction of justice designed to interfere with the chapter 11 process.\n\n13. These and other actions of the Defendants in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise have substantially harmed the Debtor's creditors by depriving them of access to substantial assets of the Debtor that should be available to satisfy their claims. The Debtor's creditors have further been harmed as a result of the substantial legal fees and other costs the Trustee has been forced to incur as a result of the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent concealment of the Debtor's assets and their obstruction of the chapter 11 case. The Trustee is entitled to treble damages from the Defendants based on this harm caused to the creditors of the estate.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n14. The Trustee brings this Complaint under 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 544, 550 and other applicable law.\n\n15. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1334(b) because this adversary proceeding arises under title 11 of the United States Code and arises in and is related to these chapter 11 cases, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because this adversary proceeding arises under the laws of the United States, including 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and seeks recovery for injuries by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.\n\n16. This adversary proceeding has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(a).\n\n17. To the extent that this Court does not have authority to enter final judgment on the claims asserted in this adversary proceeding, the Trustee consents to the issuance and entry of a final judgment or order by this Court.\n\n18. Venue of this adversary proceeding is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1409.\n\n#### **PARTIES AND OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS**\n\n19. The Trustee is the duly appointed chapter 11 trustee of the Debtor's estate pursuant to the Court's order entered on July 8, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 523].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 10 of 139\n\n20. Ho Wan Kwok, the Debtor (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases), is an individual debtor who alleges to live at 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831. The Debtor is currently incarcerated in Brooklyn, New York while awaiting trial on criminal racketeering and fraud charges the United States filed against him and his co-conspirators Defendants Yvette Wang and William Je.\n\n21. Defendant Hing Chi Ngok (a/k/a Hing Chi Ng, a/k/a Yue Qingzhi) is the Debtor's purported spouse who resides in Greenwich, Connecticut. Ngok has nominally owned and held titles in a variety of entities that were part of the Kwok Enterprise and instrumentalities of the fraud described herein.\n\n22. Defendant Mei Guo (a/k/a Mei Gui) is the Debtor's daughter and lives in New York City. Mei Guo has nominally owned and held titles in a variety of entities that were part of the Kwok Enterprise and instrumentalities of the fraud described herein.\n\n23. Defendant Qiang Guo (a/k/a/ Mileson Kwok) is the Debtor's son and lives in London, England. Qiang Guo has nominally owned and held titles in a variety of entities that were part of the Kwok Enterprise and instrumentalities of the fraud described herein. Upon information and belief, Defendant Qiang Guo traveled to the United States during times relevant to the allegations in this action. He also purposefully directed his actions toward the United States in a manner that caused harm to the Debtor's creditors in the United States.\n\n24. Defendant Yanping Wang (a/k/a Yvette Wang, a/k/a Y. Wang) (\"Yvette Wang\") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was a citizen of China principally residing in New York City. Yvette Wang has worked for the Debtor and his family for several years, since at least in or about 2018, and has essentially operated as the \"chief of staff\" for the Debtor and the Kwok Enterprise. Defendant Yvette Wang is currently incarcerated in Brooklyn while awaiting trial\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 11 of 139\n\nregarding criminal racketeering and fraud charges the United States filed against her and her coconspirators the Debtor and Defendant William Je.\n\n25. Defendant Kin Ming Je (a/k/a William Je, a/k/a Yu Jianming a/k/a W. Je) (\"William Je\") is an individual who, at all relevant times, was a dual citizen of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom who principally resided in the United Kingdom, while often traveling to the United States and elsewhere. Defendant William Je has been charged by the United States with criminal racketeering and fraud alongside the Debtor and Defendant Yvette Wang. Defendant Je remains at large and is believed to be currently located in the United Arab Emirates. Defendant Je purposefully directed his actions toward the United States in a manner that caused harm to the Debtor's creditors in the United States.\n\n26. Defendant Aaron Mitchell is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and is the Debtor's personal attorney and has represented (individually and through his law firm, Lawall & Mitchell LLC) numerous of the Debtor's shell companies, essentially acting as the in-house general counsel for the Kwok Enterprise. Mr. Mitchell has served the Debtor as a member of the board of directors of GTV Media Group, Inc., prior to his resignation in April 2023. Mr. Mitchell has been intimately involved in numerous of the Debtor's major activities and transactions, including the GTV Private Placement (as defined herein), the collection of funds from the Debtor's followers through the sale of G Club memberships,\n\n Mr. Mitchell has also, upon information and belief, assisted the Debtor in coordinating the opening of foreign bank accounts for the Debtor's shell companies. In addition, Mr. Mitchell has used the address of the Debtor and numerous of his shell companies at 162 E. 64th Street in New York as his law firm address. He resides in New Jersey.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 12 of 139\n\n27. Defendant Alex Hadjicharalambous is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served the Debtor as, among other things, Financial Controller of G Club Operations, as well as holding positions at certain of the HCHK Entities and Golden Spring. Mr. Hadjicharalambous was also, among other things, a bank account signatory for G Fashion LLC, G Music LLC, and G Club Operations LLC. Mr. Hadjicharalambous resides in New York.\n\n28. Defendant Beile Li has been found by the Court to be an associate of the Debtor and certain of the Defendants. The Court also found that Beile Li actively participated in the harassment campaign against the Trustee both outside of the Trustee's residence and at entrance of Paul Hastings office at Grand Central Terminal in New York, which were enjoined by this Court pursuant to the Court's PAX PI Order. Li is also among the plaintiffs in the frivolous, now-dismissed lawsuits filed in November 2022 against the Trustee by a group of the Debtor's supporters, which falsely accused the Trustee as being an agent of the Chinese government.\n\n29. Defendant Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn (\"Defendant Izquierdo\") is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and served as general counsel to G-Club Operations LLC throughout the course of the G-Club Scheme. She resides in Puerto Rico.\n\n30. Defendant Anthony DiBattista is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and has served in a variety of roles at different Debtor-controlled entities. Mr. DiBattista has served the Debtor as an employee of Golden Spring, minority owner and corporate officer of the HCHK Entities, and corporate officer, authorized signatory, and high level employee of GTV, among other shell entities. Mr. DiBattista resides in New York.\n\n31. Defendant Chunguang Han (a/k/a \"Hank\" Chunguang) is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and is the Debtor's household employee and chef, as confirmed by recent testimony of the Debtor's wife. The Debtor has placed Han Chunguang in\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 13 of 139\n\nnumerous positions within the Debtor's network of shell companies, including as the former nominal owner of Eastern Profit Corporation, Anton Development, and Rosy Acme Ventures Limited.3 Among other roles, Han Chunguang has also served the Debtor as corporate officer and account signatory of Saraca and numerous BVI-registered entities that are the subjects of the Bombardier Adversary Proceeding. He resides in New York.\n\n32. Defendant David Fallon is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant.\n\n33. Defendant Gladys Chow is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served as a purported project manager at Defendant HCHK Technologies, an entity functionally owned by the Debtor. She resides in New York.\n\n34. Defendant Scott Barnett is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and has served as the Debtor's bodyguard and chauffer. Upon information and belief, he resides in New York or New Jersey.\n\n35. Defendant Haoran He is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and is believed to be a purported real estate developer residing in the United Kingdom who serves the Debtor as nominal (indirect) owner of the G-Club Entities, as discussed herein. Upon information and belief, Haoran He is a strawman of the Debtor who was selected by the Debtor to be the nominal owner of these entities precisely so as to avoid the regulatory and other scrutiny that would arise if the entities were placed in the name of the Debtor or one of his family members. He resides in the United Kingdom.\n\n3 Rosy Acme Ventures Limited is one of the BVI entities that is the subject of the Bombardier Adversary Proceeding.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 14 of 139\n\n36. Defendant Haitham Khaled is an individual and is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served as a financial advisor to the Debtor and the Kwok Enterprise, directing the establishment of banking relationships within the United States and abroad. Defendant Khaled also was the owner of Crane Advisory Group LLC, a one-time licensed New York money-transmitter entity. He resides in New York.\n\n37. Defendant Hsin Shih Yu is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant. Hsin Shih Yu is has played a prominent role in Protests (as defined below) and litigation against the Trustee. He resides in Taiwan.\n\n38. Defendant Jessica Mastrogiovanni is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served the Debtor in multiple roles including as general counsel of GTV and as corporate officer and authorized signatory of GTV and Saraca. She also served in an inhouse legal role at G Club Operations and G Club International.\n\n39. Defendant Limarie Reyes Molinaris (\"Defendant Reyes\") is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and served as the putative CEO of G-Club Operations LLC. She resides in Puerto Rico.\n\n40. Defendant Max Krasner is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Nominee Participant and was employed by the Debtor in roles at Golden Spring and the HCHK Entities, as well as numerous other positions. Defendant Krasner served as an officer and authorized signatory of Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), and Rule of Law Foundation. Mr. Krasner has assisted the Debtor, at the Debtor's behalf and at the Debtor's direction, with, among other things, the purchase of real property in Greenwich, Connecticut titled to Greenwich Land LLC, arrangements for the movement and maintenance of the yacht the Lady May,\n\nresides in New York.\n\n41. Defendant Nicholas Savio is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and served as a legal advisor to various Debtor-owned shell entities. He resides in New Jersey.\n\n42. Defendant Qidong Xia is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant. Qidong Xia played a prominent role in harassment and intimidation campaign against the Trustee. He resides in New York.\n\n43. Defendant Victor Cerda is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and served as a legal advisor to various Debtor-owned shell entities. He resides in New York.\n\n44. Defendant Yongbing Zhang is an individual who is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and was employed by the Debtor as his personal counsel and also served the Debtor, as, among other things, a Director of Rule of Law Foundation\n\nAmong other things, Mr. Zhang took a\n\nleading role in the harassment and intimidation campaign against the Trustee that resulted in the Court issuing a preliminary injunction against the Debtor, including by personally participating in the campaign in front of the Trustee's home. Mr. Zhang also was involved in filing complaints against the Trustee, PAX, and PAX's counsel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Those complaints falsely accused the Trustee, PAX, and PAX's counsel of being agents of the Chinese Communist Party (the \"FARA Litigation\"), in connection with which Mr. Zhang was sanctioned under Rule 11 multiple times. The Court has become particularly\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 16 of 139\n\nfamiliar with Mr. Zhang based on his role in the HCHK Adversary Proceeding, in which context the Court found, among other things, that Mr. Zhang was the leader of the purported HCHK Creditors' Committee and that Mr. Zhang is involved in filing frivolous lawsuits to hinder the Trustee's work in this case for the perceived benefit of the Individual Debtor. In addition, upon information and belief, the Debtor arranged for Mr. Zhang to \"win\" a Lamborghini vehicle as part of a sweepstakes event designed to promote the G-Club Scheme. He resides in Illinois.\n\n45. Defendant Yan Chun Liu is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant. Yan Chun Liu played a prominent role in the harassment and intimation campaign against the Trustee. She resides in Canada.\n\n46. Defendant Xuebing Wang is an individual who is alleged herein to be an Additional Participant and has been at various times among the most prominent lieutenants of the Debtor in his New Federal State of China and Himalaya Global Alliance organizations. Defendant Xuebing Wang has also played a prominent role in the harassment and intimidation campaign against the Trustee. He resides in New Zealand.\n\n47. Defendant ACA Capital Group Limited (\"ACA Capital\") is a Hong Kong company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity. The Debtor used ACA Capital to, among other things, transfer funds to his other shell entities, including Greenwich Land, Lamp Capital, Golden Spring, Saraca, Hudson Diamond NY, and Leading Shine NY, among others, as well as to fund legal and other expenses, including \\$9 million provided to Golden Spring in connection with the DIP financing proposed by the Debtor in March 2022 in his individual chapter 11 case.\n\n48. Defendant Bravo Luck Limited (\"Bravo Luck\") is a British Virgin Islands company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity. The Debtor used Bravo Luck to, among other things, transfer funds for the Debtor to purchase his yacht, the Lady May, and his apartment at the Sherry\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 17 of 139\n\nNetherland Hotel, and through which the Debtor provided the funds used to establish his alter ego Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. The nominal owner of Bravo Luck is the Debtor's son, Defendant Qiang Guo.\n\n49. Defendant Crane Advisory Group LLC (\"Crane\") is a New York limited liability company and was a licensed money transmitter in New York.\n\n50. Defendant Greenwich Land LLC (\"Greenwich Land\") is a Delaware limited liability company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity (as defined herein). Although nominally-owned by the Debtor's wife, Defendant Hing Chi Ngok, Greenwich Land is functionally owned by the Debtor.\n\n51. Defendant GS Security Solutions Inc. (\"GS Security\") is a New York corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity (as defined herein). Defendant Scott Barnett is the nominal owner of GS Security.\n\n52. Defendant GETTR USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and is the entity that operates the alternative social media platform, GETTR.\n\n53. Defendant G Club International Limited (\"G-Club BVI\" or \"G-Club International\") is a British Virgin Islands company that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity (as defined herein) and is the parent company G Club Operations LLC.\n\n54. Defendant G Club Operations LLC (\"G-Club PR\" or \"G-Club\") is a Puerto Rico limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and was the principal operating entity that purported to offer membership services to the victims of the G-Club Scheme but in reality fraudulently accepted the member-victims' funds and transferred those funds on to other Debtor-controlled entities to further the purposes of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 18 of 139\n\n55. Defendant GNews Media Group Inc. (\"GNews\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity.\n\n56. Defendant GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and was the wholly-owned subsidiary of Saraca (as defined below), a purported media company.\n\n57. Defendant Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC (\"Gypsy Mei Food\") is a Delaware limited liability company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity, nominally owned by the Debtor's daughter, Defendant Mei Guo.\n\n58. Defendant Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC (including its segregated portfolios) is a Cayman Islands segregated portfolio company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Debtor used to, among other things, fund the purchase of the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n59. Defendant HCHK Property Management, Inc. (\"HCHK Property\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal and disguise the fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program from the Debtor's creditors and member-victims.\n\n60. Defendant HCHK Technologies, Inc. (\"HCHK Technologies\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal and disguise the fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program from the Debtor's creditors and member-victims, among other unlawful conduct.\n\n61. Defendant Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI) (d/b/a Himalaya Exchange) (the \"Himalaya Exchange\") is a British Virgin Islands company that is alleged herein to be a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 19 of 139\n\nBusiness-Front Entity that the Debtor used to operate his purported cryptocurrency business, the \"Himalaya Exchange,\" which the Debtor used to, among other things, fund the \\$37 million placed into escrow in connection with the return of the Lady May to the United States.\n\n62. Defendant Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty. Ltd is an Australian entity.\n\n63. Defendant Himalaya International Financial Group Limited is a BVI entity.\n\n64. Defendant Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd. (\"Holy City\") is a British Virgin Islands corporation that is nominally owned by Defendant Yvette Wang.\n\n65. Defendant Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity that members of the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal the Debtor's assets from his creditors.\n\n66. Defendant Hudson Diamond NY LLC is a New York limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity and is a nominal subsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC.\n\n67. Defendant Lawall & Mitchell, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and is the law firm of Defendant Aaron Mitchell.\n\n68. Defendant Leading Shine NY Limited (\"Leading Shine NY\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Funding Entity and is nominally owned by the Debtor's daughter, Defendant Mei Guo.\n\n69. Defendant Lexington Property and Staffing Inc. (\"Lexington Property\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity that the Kwok Enterprise used to conceal and disguise the fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program from the Debtor's creditors and member-victims, among other unlawful conduct.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 20 of 139\n\n70. Defendant O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC (\"Orbit Service\") is a Connecticut limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity.\n\n71. Defendant Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. (\"Rule of Law Foundation\") is a Delaware nonprofit corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity. Rule of Law Foundation is nominally owned (indirectly) by Defendant Yvette Wang, the Debtor's chief of staff, and criminal fraud and racketeering co-defendant, through a holding company she nominally owns, Seven Mission Group LLC.\n\n72. Defendant Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. (\"Rule of Law Society\" and, together with Rule of Law Foundation, the \"Rule of Law Entities\") is a Delaware nonprofit corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity. Rule of Law Society is also nominally owned (indirectly) by Defendant Yvette Wang, through Seven Mission Group LLC. The Rule of Law Entities were used by the Kwok Enterprise to fraudulently obtain purported charitable and/or political funding for anti-CCP causes from the Debtor's followers, only to use such ill-gotten funds to further the Kwok Enterprise's purposes, including enriching the Debtor, his family, and associates, and, among other things, bankrolling harassment and intimidation activities against the Trustee on behalf of the Debtor.\n\n73. Defendant Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca\") is a Delaware corporation that is alleged herein to be a Business-Front Entity and purported media company that is the parent of GTV.\n\n74. Defendant Taurus Fund, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company that is alleged herein to be an Asset-Holding Entity and is purportedly managed by Defendant Scott Barnett, and was used by the Kwok Enterprise to hold title to the Mahwah Mansion.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 21 of 139\n\n75. Defendant Savio Law LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company that is alleged herein to be a Professional Participant and the law firm of Defendant Nicholas Savio.\n\n76. Defendant Taurus Management LLC is a New Mexico limited liability company and a manager of Taurus Fund LLC, the nominal title-holder of the Mahwah Mansion, along with Defendant Scott Barnett.\n\n### **BACKGROUND**\n\n### **I. Investment Schemes Forming Backdrop for Kwok Enterprise**\n\n77. The Debtor is an \"exiled Chinese businessman who fled to the United States in or about 2015.\" 4 Prior to his arrival in the United States, the Debtor had accumulated or obtained access to considerable wealth by a variety of known and unknown means. Upon information and belief, the Debtor had acquired hundreds of millions of dollars in assets that he beneficially owned or controlled. At the same time, he had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities to creditors, including without limitation a debt of approximately \\$50 million (at the time) owed to PAX under a loan guaranteed by the Debtor, which was not repaid by the underlying obligor.\n\n78. In or around late 2014, the Debtor fled China after, upon information and belief, having been warned by well-connected associates in the CCP that security authorities in China and Hong Kong would soon seek his arrest. Shortly thereafter, in or around early 2015, the Government of the People's Republic of China (the \"PRC\") reportedly charged the Debtor with multiple crimes, including corruption, and seized or attempted to seize his PRC assets (the \"PRC Seizures\"), including real property, securities, and funds in bank accounts. In or around 2015, the Debtor arrived in the United States.\n\n4 *See* Superseding Criminal Indictment of Ho Wan Kwok and Kin Ming Je, *United States v. Kwok et al.*, 23 Cr. 118, filed Mar. 6, 2023 [ECF No. 215] (the \"Superseding Indictment\"), ¶ 9(a).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 22 of 139\n\n79. Upon information and belief, by the time of his arrival in the United States, the Debtor had lost access to some, but not all, of his assets as a result of, among other things, the PRC Seizures. Accordingly, beginning in or around 2018, to obtain new capital to continue funding his and his family members' and associates' lavish lifestyles, and to protect against the possibility his existing assets might be discovered by creditors, the Debtor and others devised a series of fraudulent schemes to raise money from unwitting investors.\n\n80. Specifically, the Debtor and certain of his close family members, advisors, and business associates defrauded thousands of victims of more than approximately \\$1 billion, including victims in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Germany, the PRC, and other nations throughout the world. These schemes, which form part of the Superseding Indictment against the Debtor, are discussed herein because they provide relevant background for the formation of the Kwok Enterprise, but they do not themselves form part of the Kwok Enterprise as alleged herein, and the Trustee does not allege that the schemes themselves were predicate acts.\n\n81. According to the Superseding Indictment, the Debtor's and his co-conspirators' investment schemes involved several interrelated parts, including fundraising activities involving the GTV Private Placement (as defined below), the Farm Loan Program (as defined below), the G Club membership program, and the Himalaya Exchange (as defined below).\n\nA. GTV Private Placement\n\n82. GTV, a Delaware corporation, was a purported news-focused social media platform based in New York City. GTV was functionally owned and controlled by the Debtor despite the fact the Debtor held no formal position or title at GTV.\n\n83. Between in or about April 2020 and in or about July 2020, the Debtor, with the assistance of various co-conspirators, fraudulently obtained more than \\$485 million in victim funds\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 23 of 139\n\nthrough an illegal private stock offering related to GTV (the \"GTV Private Placement\") and a related offering of a purported digital asset security that was referred to as either G-Coins or G-Dollars (the \"GTV Coin Offering\").\n\n84. As a result of the GTV Private Placement and GTV Coin Offering, whose proceeds were commingled, the Debtor and others are alleged to have defrauded more than 5,000 investors, including individuals in the United States, through approximately July 2020. 5\n\nB. Farm Loan Program\n\n85. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, beginning in or about June 2020—the Debtor and his co-conspirators fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$150 million in victim funds through the \"Himalaya Farm Alliance.\"6\n\n86. The Himalaya Farm Alliance, which the Debtor, among others, organized and promoted, was a collective of informal groups (each known as a \"Farm\") located in various cities throughout the world. The Debtor and others working on his behalf and at his direction obtained these funds by making further misrepresentations to the investor-victims in the GTV Private Placement and fraudulently soliciting further investments, this time in the form of purported \"loans\" to a Farm, and promising that such loans would be convertible into GTV common stock at a conversion rate of one share per dollar loaned (the \"Farm Loan Program\").7\n\n87. As a result of the Debtor's alleged promotion of the Farm Loan Program through misrepresentations, thousands of victims \"loaned\" money to the Farms by sending money to bank\n\n5 *See In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc.,* Administrative Proceeding No. 3-20537 (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) (Order Instituting Cease and Desist Proceedings).\n\n6 *See* Superseding Indictment ¶ 17.\n\n7 *Id.*\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 24 of 139\n\naccounts controlled by the Farms (and not GTV).8 According to the \"Loan Agreements,\" which the Farms rarely countersigned, these funds were to be used for a Farm's \"general working capital purposes.\" In reality, the Debtor and his co-conspirators allegedly misappropriated funds that were raised through the Farm Loan Program for their own benefit.\n\nC. G Club Operations, LLC\n\n88. G-Club was a purported membership organization based in Puerto Rico and in New York City that claimed to provide its \"members\" with luxury experiences, access to the Debtor, and ancillary benefits regarding the Debtor's other business opportunities. G-Club was launched in or about October 2020. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, in truth and in reality, G-Club was a world-wide fraudulent scheme designed to enrich the Debtor that provided no discernable benefits to its \"members.\" Rather, \"members\" paid various membership fees to G-Club to obtain certain \"tiers\" or status's within the purported organization, with each alleged \"tier\" providing greater benefits (there were none) to the member, but costing more money as well. The \"members'\" contributions were ultimately transferred from G-Club to G-Club BVI or other locations where they could be used to enrich the Debtor, his family, and his associates.\n\n89. G-Club was functionally and beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor, although the Debtor held no formal executive position at G-Club. The Debtor \"officially\" provided consulting services for G-Club and held titles as spokesperson, key host and promotional contact.\n\n90. The Debtor and his co-conspirators allegedly obtained more than approximately \\$250 million9 through the G-Club membership scheme from would-be members. Contrary to the representations being made to such members, G-Club provided nothing remotely resembling \"a\n\n8 *See* Superseding Indictment ¶ 17(e).\n\n9 *See id.* ¶ 18.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 25 of 139\n\nfull spectrum of services\" and \"experiences\" to its unwitting member-victims. 10 Nor did members receive additional benefits they were promised. Instead, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the G-Club membership scheme was used to enrich the Debtor and his associates.\n\n### D. Himalaya Exchange\n\n91. The \"Himalaya Exchange\" is another vehicle the Debtor and his coconspirators allegedly used to defraud investor-victims. As alleged in the Superseding Indictment, the Himalaya Exchange was a purported cryptocurrency \"ecosystem\" (and not itself a legal entity) that William Je founded and operated through various entities located abroad which he nominally owned, but which the Debtor controlled and beneficially owned.11 Additional entities beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor had purported business relationships with the Himalaya Exchange.12 The Superseding Indictment alleges that, from at least in or about April 2021 through at least in or about March 2023, the Debtor and William Je fraudulently obtained more than approximately \\$262 million in investor-victim funds through the Himalaya Exchange, which they used for their own benefit.13\n\n# **II. General Scope and Purpose of Kwok Enterprise**\n\n92. At the same time the Debtor amassed his considerable wealth, through the abovedescribed schemes and otherwise, he had also incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities to creditors, including without limitation a debt of approximately \\$50 million (as of 2015) owed\n\n12 *Id.*\n\n13 *Id.* ¶ 19.\n\n10 *See* Superseding Indictment ¶ 18(e).\n\n11 *See id.* ¶ 15.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 26 of 139\n\nto PAX under a loan guaranteed by the Debtor. As time went on, the Debtor's creditors became increasingly aggressive in seeking payment on their claims, including by pursuing litigation.\n\n93. For example, on or about April 18, 2017, PAX filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the \"New York Court\"), for breach of contract against the Debtor regarding the 2011 Personal Guarantee and amounts owing thereunder (the \"PAX Litigation\"). On September 15, 2020, the New York Court granted partial summary judgment in PAX's favor on its claim, and PAX thereafter undertook efforts to enforce that judgment by, among other things, seeking discovery of the Debtor's assets and financial affairs.\n\n94. Similarly, on or about September 11, 2017, creditor Rui Ma filed a verified complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, seeking damages of not less than \\$20 million for battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims against the Debtor and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., the Debtor's \"family office\" and slush fund, arising from allegations that the Debtor mentally abused and sexually assaulted Rui Ma on multiple occasions during her employment with the Debtor, including in the state of New York (the \"Ma Litigation\"). *See generally* Claim 2-1, [Main Case No. 22-50073].\n\n95. PAX and Rui Ma were just two of many of the Debtor's creditors who had either commenced litigation against him or were otherwise taking action to enforce their claims. With the walls closing in around him, the Debtor and those close to him had to ensure that he kept his assets hidden from his creditors at all costs.\n\n96. The mechanism used to hide the Debtor's assets from his creditors was the Kwok Enterprise. The Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators had previously formed the Kwok Enterprise as early as 2015, when, as described below, certain of the Defendants, including shell\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 27 of 139\n\ncompanies and the Debtor's family members, began concealing the Debtor's assets to avoid paying his debts, which by that time were already in excess of \\$50 million, at a minimum.\n\n97. The Kwok Enterprise's activities evolved over time, but its purpose remained the same. In addition to hiding assets from creditors, such as PAX, Rui Ma, and others, the Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators utilized the Kwok Enterprise's shell companies and other participants to fraudulently conceal the origins of the above-described fraudulent investment schemes, through money laundering and otherwise. Further, once this bankruptcy case began, the Kwok Enterprise added obstruction of justice and bankruptcy fraud to its repertoire, with the goal of interfering with this chapter 11 case and impeding the Trustee's investigation.\n\n98. The Kwok Enterprise's participants have consisted of the following general categories of entities and individuals, among others:\n\n- a. \"Funding Entities\" that were used by the Kwok Enterprise, including the Debtor, other Defendants, and co-conspirators, as cash management or \"slush fund\" entities, and which transferred substantial sums to various entities and individuals to enrich the Debtor and his family, including by funding the Debtor's luxurious, billionairelifestyle, paying expenses and funding opulent purchases, providing money to maintain the Debtor's appearance as a successful entrepreneur who victims should invest with, and otherwise hiding and concealing the Debtor's assets from his creditors. The Funding Entities included, among others:\n\t- i. Defendant Bravo Luck,\n\t- ii. Golden Spring,\n\t- iii. Defendant Leading Shine,\n\t- iv. Defendants Hudson Diamond Holding LLC and Hudson Diamond NY LLC (together, the \"Hudson Entities\"), and\n\t- v. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. and Lamp Capital.\n- b. \"Asset-Holding Entities\" that were used by the Kwok Enterprise, including the Debtor, other Defendants, and co-conspirators, to hold specific assets for the benefit of the Debtor and his family, such that not only would the Debtor's assets be concealed and possibly beyond the reach of his creditors, but such assets would also\n\nbe available to the Debtor to demonstrate his purported wealth and business acumen, and maintain the Debtor's billionaire-image, allowing the Kwok Enterprise to promote the Debtor's purported investments and business lines to investor-victims; such entities included, among others:\n\n- i. Defendants Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, a Cayman Islands segregated portfolio company; and its thirteen segregated portfolios, including Hamilton SA Fund SP; Fortress Digital Assets Fund SP; Taurus Fund SP; Hamilton Delphi Fund SP; Hamilton Mars Fund SP; Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class A; Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class B; Hamilton PE Fund SP; Hamilton FX Fund SP; Hamilton Diversified Trading Fund SP; Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP; Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class A; Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class B (together, the \"Hamilton Entities\");\n- ii. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC;\n- iii. Defendants HCHK Technologies, HCHK Property, Lexington Property (collectively, the \"HCHK Entities\"), and Holy City;\n- iv. Defendant Greenwich Land; and\n- v. Defendant Gypsy Mei Food.\n- c. \"Business-Front Entities\" that were used by the Kwok Enterprise, including the Debtor, other Defendants, and co-conspirators, to conceal the Debtor's assets from creditors and pass-through fraudulently obtained funds for the benefit of the Debtor, his family, and associates, while nominally being operating media, real estate, technology, and social media enterprises, but functionally being owned and controlled by the Debtor to further the Kwok Enterprise, including, among others:\n\t- i. Defendant GETTR USA, Inc., G Fashion International Limited, GFNY Inc., GF Italy LLC, and Defendant GNews Media Group, Inc.;\n\t- ii. Defendant GS Security Solutions Inc.;\n\t- iii. Defendant O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC;\n\niv.Defendants GTV Media Group, Inc., and Saraca Media Group, Inc.;\n\nv. Defendants G Club Operations LLC and G Club International Limited (BVI) (together, the \"G-Club Entities\"); Defendant Crane Advisory Group LLC.; G Club HoldCo I LLC; Jovial Century International Limited; G Fashion Hold Co. B Limited; Stichting Duurzame (Netherlands);\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 29 of 139\n\n- vi. Defendants Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI) (d/b/a Himalaya Exchange); Defendant Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (BVI); Himalaya International Payments Ltd (BVI); Himalaya International Reserves Limited (BVI); Defendant Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd (Australia); Major Lead International Limited (BVI); Perfect Company Ltd. (BVI); Stichting Gewelf (Netherlands);\n- vii. Defendants the Rule of Law Entities; and\n- viii. The Himalaya Farm Alliance and the Himalaya Farm Loan Program\n- d. \"Nominee Participants\" consisting of individual members of the Debtor's family and inner circle, including his children and closest business associates, who acted as purported nominal owners, executives, directors, employees and/or appointees of entities the Debtor functionally and beneficially controlled and which knowingly participated in the Kwok Enterprise, including:\n\t- i. Defendants Hing Chi Ngok, the Debtor's wife; Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, and Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son; and\n\t- ii. Defendants William Je, Yvette Wang, Haoran He, Max Krasner, Scott Barnett, Anthony DiBattista, Chunguang Han, and Defeng Cao.\n- e. \"Professional Participants\" consisting of legal advisors that did more than provide ordinary legal services to the Debtor, Defendants, and co-conspirators. Rather, such legal professionals and other Defendants and co-conspirators, as alleged herein, had knowledge of and directly participated in the conduct at the heart of the Kwok Enterprise's various fraudulent schemes and unlawful activities. Such individuals include Defendants Aaron Mitchell, Lawall & Mitchell LLC, Victor Cerda, Savio Law LLC, Nicholas Savio, and Yongbing Zhang.\n\nf. \"Additional Participants\" consisting of financial advisors, agents, employees, and other individuals acting on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor's family, other Defendants, or on behalf of other co-conspirators, such that those individuals did more than provide ordinary business services to the Debtor, Defendants, and coconspirators. Rather, oftentimes in the course of their employment by Defendants and/or the Debtor or co-conspirators, such individuals, as alleged herein, had knowledge of and directly participated in the conduct at the heart of the Kwok Enterprise's various fraudulent schemes and unlawful activities. Such individuals include Defendants Alex Hadjicharalambous, Limarie Reyes Molinaris, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, David Fallon, Ehsan Masud, Gladys Chow, Hsin Shih Yu, Xuebing Wang, Yan Chun Liu, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, and Qidong Xia.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 30 of 139\n\n99. The specific activities and transactions these individuals and entities engaged in for the purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and enriching the Debtor and his family are described in detail throughout this Complaint.\n\n### **III. Diverting, Transferring and Concealing Assets and Fraud Proceeds**\n\n100. The Debtor and his Defendant co-conspirators used the Kwok Enterprise and its web of shell companies to both (i) disguise the origins of certain of the Debtor's assets, including in particular the proceeds of the fraudulent investment schemes described above, and (ii) conceal all of the Debtor's material assets and keep them beyond the reach of the Debtor's creditors.\n\nA. Concealment and Diversion of G-Club Fraud Proceeds\n\n101. The Debtor and many of the Defendants went to great lengths to conceal the G-Club fraud and to divert its proceeds to individuals and entities within the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n### *G-Club and Rest of Kwok Enterprise Face Banking Problems*\n\n102. From the outset, G-Club's fraudulent nature gave rise to significant difficulties maintaining banking relationships with FDIC-insured domestic financial institutions. This led to uncomfortable questions and caused the Kwok Enterprise, including many of the Defendants, to go to great lengths to conceal the fraudulent source of the G-Club funds.\n\n\n\n| | 139 | | |\n|--|-----|--|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 31 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 32 of 139\n\n| the | | | |\n|-----|--|--|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 33 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 34 of 139\n\n *G-Clubs Member-Victims' Funds Used to Enrich Debtor, His Family, and Associates* 117. The Defendants also used G-Club funds to purchase valuable assets for the Debtor and hide them in shell companies where they could not be found by creditors. 139\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2923 | Filed 02/15/24 | Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 | Page 36 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| | | 139 | | |\n\n| 139 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| Defendant Je and |\n| others made sure G-Club funds were laundered in other ways to benefit the Debtor and the Kwok
Enterprise. |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 37 of\n\n Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 38 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 39 of 139\n\n| facilitate
their fraud occurred either by email or phone using interstate wires.
Himalaya Exchange Helped Divert and Disguise Fraudulently Obtained
Funds | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n132. In addition, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment, Defendant Je sought to transfer large sums of the Himalaya Exchange's money to an account he controlled abroad for the purpose of avoiding its imminent seizure by the United States government. Specifically, in September 2022, Defendant Je attempted to transfer approximately \\$46 million from domestic bank accounts associated with the Himalaya Exchange—accounts that had not yet been seized to a bank account in the UAE that he controlled.14\n\n133. Within approximately two days of the first judicially authorized seizures of Himalaya Exchange-related funds, on or about September 22, 2022, Defendant Je asked the management of a domestic bank that held Himalaya Exchange bank accounts to execute a wire transfer, which he and a Himalaya Exchange executive misrepresented to the domestic bank was needed for the benefit of a \"VIP\" client of the Himalaya Exchange.15 In later communications with the domestic bank, Defendant Je revealed that the VIP was, in fact, Je himself. Je provided the domestic bank with documents purporting to show two HCN sales by Je on or about September 22, 2022—totaling 46 million HDO—which Je was hoping to \"convert\" into \\$46 million in fiat currency. Je twice emphasized to the domestic bank's employees that the \\$46 million transfer needed to happen \"today or it is meaningless.\"16\n\n16 *Id.*\n\n14 Superseding Indictment ¶ 21.\n\n15 *Id.* ¶ 21 (a).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 41 of 139\n\n### B. Role of Rule of Law Entities in Fraudulent Schemes\n\n134. In order to keep the Debtor's and his co-conspirator's fraudulent schemes hidden, it was important for the Debtor and the other members of the Kwok Enterprise to take efforts to legitimize their outward appearances to the general public. To that end, in or about 2018, the Debtor founded two purported nonprofit organizations, Defendants the Rule of Law Entities, which trumpeted the Debtor's supposed mission to put an end to the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n135. The Debtor used these nonprofit organizations to accumulate followers who were aligned with his alleged policy objectives in China and were attracted to his supposed success as a business person, and, therefore, would be interested in potential business opportunities with the Debtor or donating money to support his political views (the \"Rule of Law Scheme\").\n\n136. The Debtor used the Rule of Law Entities to obtain donations from supporters in the United States and throughout the world. The Rule of Law Entities later fraudulently diverted millions of dollars of these donations to shell companies and other Defendants in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's ultimate objectives.\n\n\n\n\n\n### C. Further Use of Shell Companies to Launder Funds and Conceal Assets\n\n139. The Debtor and Defendants William Je, Yvette Wang, Krasner, DiBattista, and Mitchell, among others, regularly transferred funds within the Kwok Enterprise, typically using the Defendant Funding Entities, Asset-Holding Entities, and Business-Front Entities, for the purpose of laundering those funds and to benefit of the Debtor, his family, and his associates, by disguising the money movements as \"loans,\" \"dividends,\" or \"investments.\"\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 42 of 139\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 43 of 139\n\n140. To create the infrastructure necessary for these activities, the Debtor installed, or directed others in the Kwok Enterprise to install for his benefit, titular executives and/or nominal owners at entities within the Kwok Enterprise, including many of the Defendants, while such entities were, in reality, beneficially owned and/or controlled by the Debtor. The use of nominal owners to conceal the Debtor's vast wealth and defraud creditors has long been a practice of the Kwok Enterprise, including before he arrived in the United States in or around 2015.\n\n141. One such individual who has served as a nominal owner of Debtor entities and is familiar with the Debtor's practices in this regard is nonparty Qu Guo Jiao (a/k/a Natasha Qu) (\"Ms. Qu\"), a trusted business associate of the Debtor. Ms. Qu had worked as an accounting manager and executive assistant for the Debtor and/or entities he controlled from between in or around 2002 to September 2017. Ms. Qu was responsible for, among other things, managing accounting and financial matters for various entities controlled by the Debtor and providing assistance to the Debtor in his personal and business affairs. Ms. Qu's duties, and actions she took at the Debtor's direction, included managing inter-company wire transfers and similar transactions.\n\n142. During the time Ms. Qu worked for the Debtor between in or around 2002 to September 2017, the Debtor frequently used agreements to functionally and beneficially retain control of various companies that were nominally owned in the name of the Debtor's family members and/or associates. Other employees and/or associates of the Debtor who purportedly (and nominally) owned companies controlled by the Debtor included, among others, Defendants Yvette Wang, Han Chunguang (the Debtor's bodyguard and family chef), Anthony DiBattista, and Max Krasner. These individuals, like Ms. Qu, had no financial or beneficial interest in the entities they nominally owned.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 44 of 139\n\n143. Just as the Debtor had used Ms. Qu from in or around 2002 to 2017, he continued to work with co-conspirator Defendants from the time of his arrival in the U.S. in 2015 to the present to expand his shell game and harm creditors by hiding his assets. Through the use of these shell entities and the dummy figureheads at such corporate entities, the Kwok Enterprise sought to protect the Debtor's wealth.\n\n144. The shell entities (and dummy figureheads at such entities, *i.e.,* the Nominee Participants and Professional Participants) that the Kwok Enterprise, with the assistance of numerous individual Defendants, used to protect the Debtor's wealth were more or less organized in three categories, with some entities potentially fitting into multiple categories: (a) slush-fund and cash management entities (*i.e.,* the Funding Entities); (b) entities used to acquire and hold assets (*i.e.,* the Asset-Holding Entities); and (c) entities that claimed to be operating businesses but in reality simply protected the Debtor's wealth (*i.e.,* the Business-Front Entities). Examples of entities in each such category are discussed in turn.\n\n#### *1. Slush-Fund and Cash Management Entities*\n\n#### *Golden Spring New York Ltd.*\n\n145. Golden Spring was incorporated in Delaware and registered to do business in New York in March of 2015, coinciding with the Debtor's relocation to New York in January 2015. Golden Spring's nominal corporate parent was Defendant China Golden Spring, which was, in turn, nominally owned by Defendant Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son. Despite such nominal\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 45 of 139\n\nownership, Golden Spring was nothing more than an alter ego for the Debtor, and this Court has already issued a judgment to that effect.17\n\n146. The Debtor created Golden Spring because he needed a domestic company to acquire cars and engage in other activities—including leasing office space, acquiring furnishings for that office space and for his home, and engaging staff—in the United States. In this way, Golden Spring served as the Debtor's domestic \"family office.\"\n\n147. While the Debtor directed the formation of Golden Spring for his own benefit, he made the decision to shield himself by having someone else sign corporate organizational documents for Golden Spring so he could avoid having his name appear on corporate documents that would have been part of the public record. This allowed the Debtor to attempt to hide his assets at Golden Spring from creditors, including PAX and others.\n\n148. At all relevant times, Golden Spring had no independent source of funding; it was funded by the Debtor through entities he controlled, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding. Indeed, the Debtor provided the initial funding for Golden Spring by\n\n\n\n17 Because Golden Spring has been found to be the Debtor's alter ego, such that all assets of Golden Spring belong to the chapter 11 estate, the Trustee has not named Golden Spring as a Defendant herein. Golden Spring was, however, an integral member of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n150. No one familiar with the Debtor and Golden Spring doubted that the Debtor was the person who exercised control over Golden Spring (despite Defendant Qiang Guo's nominal ownership of Golden Spring's ostensible parent company, Defendant China Golden Spring). Indeed,\n\n151. As the Debtor's \"family office,\" Golden Spring's functions were to hold his assets, pay his expenses, and conceal such assets from his creditors. Golden Spring was thus a critical part of the Kwok Enterprise that allowed the Debtor to live a life of luxury while at the same time asserting that he was effectively judgment proof, as exemplified by the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities filed in this Chapter 11 Case, where the Debtor claimed to hold assets of \\$3,850.00.19 The examples of Golden Spring functioning in this way are legion. Among others:\n\n- a. Golden Spring has been paying the Debtor's personal living expenses since 2015. These expenses include security/bodyguards, transportation, clothing, and other items. For example, the Debtor testified that if he desired to buy a pair of shoes, he would arrange for Golden Spring to pay for it.\n- b. The Debtor travelled in a Maybach automobile purportedly owned by Golden Spring. Indeed, insurance documents in the possession of the Trustee indicate that Golden Spring has purportedly owned multiple luxury vehicles for use by the Debtor.\n- c. Golden Spring paid numerous of the Debtor's legal fees, including through litigation funding agreements\n\nThis litigation\n\nfunding scheme is another mechanism by which the Debtor and conspiring Defendants sought to harm the Debtor's creditors, ensuring that even if his estate recovered on a cause of action, the Kwok Enterprise would be enriched but any recovery might be beyond the reach of creditors.\n\n19 *See* Official Form 106, at 5 (Mar. 9, 2022) [Main Case Docket No. 78].\n\n- d. Golden Spring paid the expenses associated with the Debtor's yacht, the Lady May, as well as the maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment.\n- e. The Debtor intended to use Golden Spring as lender in connection with an \\$8 million DIP loan proposed in the Debtor's motion filed on March 22, 2022 [Main Case Docket No. 117]. A large portion of this loan was slated to be used for paying the Debtor's then-bankruptcy counsel at Brown Rudnick and numerous of the Debtor's proposed \"ordinary course\" professionals.\n\n152. Notably, although Golden Spring as proposed DIP lender was represented in this Chapter 11 Case by counsel, Golden Spring essentially disappeared after the appointment of the Trustee, failing to respond to the Trustee's Bankruptcy Rule 2004 subpoena and eventually being held in contempt by this Court.\n\n153. Golden Spring's employees and managers were well-known members of the Kwok Enterprise, including some of the Defendants. Golden Spring's initial directors when the company was established in March 2015 were Ms. Qu and Yan Feng Sun, who also served as the initial president/treasurer and secretary of the company, respectively. Defendant Qiang Guo was initially Executive Vice President. In more recent years, Golden Spring's president, including at the time the Debtor filed his chapter 11 petition, was Defendant Yvette Wang, who also served as one of the company's directors (along with Defendant Qiang Guo).\n\n154. 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 properties such as the Sherry-Netherland apartment.\" 20 Defendant Wang has served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as an officer and/or authorized signatory of Defendants Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Saraca, GTV, Greenwich Land, and\n\n20 Corp. Governance Contempt Order ¶ 4.\n\nGenever Holdings LLC. Defendant Wang was widely known to be the Debtor's personal assistant and, along with Defendant Aaron Mitchell, acted as critical advisors to the Kwok Enterprise on all operational decisions. Defendant Wang has testified on multiple instances that in her capacity as president of Golden Spring she served as an administrator for the interests of the Debtor and his family.\n\n- 155. In addition, employees of Golden Spring have included, among others:\n\t- a. Defendant Max Krasner, who, in addition to his work as a Golden Spring employee, has also served the Debtor in numerous other roles, including as employee, officer and/or authorized signatory of Defendants Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Infinity Treasury Management Inc. (parent company of Lamp Capital LLC), Rule of Law Foundation, and the HCHK Entities.\n\t- b. Defendant Anthony DiBattista, who, in addition to his work as a Golden Spring employee, also served the Debtor as a corporate officer of Defendants GTV, GFashion, G-Club, and the HCHK Entities.\n- 156. Upon information and belief, other individuals employed officially or unofficially\n\nat Golden Spring have included, among others, Defendants Han (\"Hank\") Chunguang21 and Alex\n\nHadjicharalambous,22 each of which have had roles at different entities controlled by the Debtor.\n\n157. Golden Spring, like the Debtor, his defendant children, and many other entities\n\ncontrolled by the Debtor such as GTV and Saraca, used Defendant Aaron Mitchell as its outside\n\nlegal counsel. 23 Golden Spring's general counsel during the early stages of the Chapter 11 Case\n\nwas Melissa Francis, who also represented the Debtor individually.\n\n 21 Defendant Han is a long-standing bodyguard and/or chauffeur of the Debtor who has served the Debtor as, among numerous other roles, as nominal owner of Debtor-controlled entities including Eastern Profit, Anton Development, and Rosy Acme Ventures Limited, and director and officer of Saraca.\n\n22 Defendant Hadjicharalambous has also worked at the HCHK Entities, G-Club, and Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.\n\n23 Despite being represented by Aaron Mitchell as counsel, Golden Spring was held in contempt by this Court (along with Lamp Capital LLC), based on its failure to comply with Rule 2004 subpoenas. *See Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court* (Apr. 26, 2023) [Main Case Docket No. 1709].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 49 of 139\n\n158. China Golden Spring, the Hong Kong entity ostensibly owned by the Debtor's son that is Golden Spring's corporate parent, is yet another company controlled at all relevant times by the Debtor. Upon information and belief, at the time Golden Spring was established, the Debtor ran China Golden Spring through his employee, Ms. Qu.\n\n159. Accordingly, throughout its existence, including after the Debtor filed his bankruptcy case, Golden Spring was an integral part of the Kwok Enterprise used to fund the Debtor's luxurious lifestyle while concealing the Debtor's ownership of Golden Spring and its assets. All of the Defendants described above who held positions with or took action on behalf of Golden Spring furthered the purposes of the Kwok Enterprise's first and overarching scheme defrauding the Debtor's creditors by concealing the Debtor's assets in shell companies like Golden Spring. Each such defendant agreed and was aware that it would take acts on behalf of Golden Spring notwithstanding such defendant's knowledge that Golden Spring, and its assets, was functionally and beneficially owned by the Debtor.\n\n### *Leading Shine NY Ltd.*\n\n160. Defendant Leading Shine NY was formed in Delaware on January 3, 2019, and registered to do business in New York in January 2019. Leading Shine NY is another shell entity that was beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor at all relevant times and that knowingly agreed to serve an important role in the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n161. Leading Shine NY has been funded entirely by the Debtor through entities he controls, and would have had no capitalization absent such funding. In particular, Leading Shine NY has received funding from Debtor-controlled entities, including, among others, Defendants\n\nUpon information and belief,\n\nLeading Shine NY received no funding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities that lack\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 50 of 139\n\noperations and themselves are only funded by the Debtor's assets, including the proceeds of the GTV scheme, the G-Club scheme, the Farm Loan Program, and the Himalaya Exchange. Leading Shine NY and Defendants agreed and knowingly directed the Kwok Enterprise to transfer fraudulently obtained monies between and among each other to pay the Debtor's expenses, enrich him, his family, and his associates, and conceal the nature and control of such funds from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n162. Leading Shine NY was actively involved in the movement of money to other shell companies controlled by the Debtor,\n\n\n\n\n\n166. 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 such that the Debtor could maintain an image as a successful billionaire and convince unwitting investor-victims or member-victims to contribute their money to the various Kwok Enterprise fraud schemes discussed herein.\n\n# *Lamp Capital LLC*24\n\n167. Lamp Capital was formed in Delaware on September 4, 2020, and registered to do business in New York on September 14, 2020. Lamp Capital's sole member is Infinity Treasury Management, of which Defendant Qiang Guo, the Debtor's son, is the purported sole shareholder.\n\n24 Lamp Capital LLC has been found to be the Debtor's alter ego and is a non-party to this action.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 52 of 139\n\n168. Prior to June 10, 2021, Daniel Podhaskie served as sole director, president, and treasurer of Infinity Treasury Management, the sole member of Lamp Capital. Mr. Podhaskie was also an authorized signatory for Lamp Capital.\n\n169. On June 10, 2021, Defendant Max Krasner replaced Daniel Podhaskie as sole director and president of Infinity Treasury Management. Krasner was an agent of the Debtor. Krasner acted on the Debtor's behalf and worked for the Debtor as a subordinate to Defendant Yvette Wang. 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 Defendants Greenwich Land, Hudson Diamond Holding, Hudson Diamond NY, Rule of Law Foundation, and one or more of the HCHK Entities.\n\n170. Lamp Capital has been funded by the Debtor through entities he controls.\n\n\n\n25 Lamp Capital used 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York, as its address. 162 East 64th Street has been used as an address by the Debtor himself, defendant Aaron Mitchell, and a number of the Debtor's shell companies, including Golden Spring, HK USA, GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, and Rule of Law Foundation\n\n171. The Debtor used Lamp Capital to pay his expenses and keep assets concealed from\n\nhis creditors, which rendered Lamp Capital a critical part of the Kwok Enterprise. The examples\n\nof Lamp Capital helping to conceal the Debtor's finances and fuel his and his family members'\n\nluxurious lifestyles are numerous. Among others:\n\n- a. Lamp Capital paid the \\$1 million retainer of the Debtor's initial bankruptcy counsel, Brown Rudnick.\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. Lamp Capital has also 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.\n- c. Lamp Capital paid expenses associated with the Debtor's yacht, the Lady May, as well as the maintenance fees associated with the Sherry Netherland Apartment.\n\n\n\nd. Lamp Capital has also made numerous payments to ACASS Canada Ltd. (\"ACASS\"), Wings Insurance Agency Inc., and SAAM Verspieren Group, 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\ne. Lamp Capital made multiple transfers to the Bento for Business accounts of Debtorcontrolled companies, from which pre-paid Bento debit cards were issued to the\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 54 of 139\n\nDebtor's family members and associates and used on spending to support the Debtor's luxurious lifestyle.\n\nf. Lamp Capital has paid the Mar-a-Lago Club on behalf of the Debtor in connection with the membership there held in his name.\n\n172. As discussed further herein, defendant Lamp Capital's only documented activities consisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Lamp Capital did nothing other than receive funding from other Debtor-controlled companies, hold cash in bank accounts, and pay for the Debtor's expenses.\n\n### *Individual Defendants' Involvement in Movement of Funds*\n\n173. As discussed herein, numerous of the individual Defendants assisted the foregoing shell companies and other entities in the Kwok Enterprise in moving and concealing the Debtor's funds, including those he raised from fraudulent investment activities. In addition, many of the individual Defendants themselves made or received numerous transfers using their own bank accounts, often in transactions involving other Defendants or shell companies. Examples of such transfers are listed in Schedule 1 hereto. Upon information and belief, some or all of these transfers involve monies belonging to the Debtor and/or that constitute proceeds of his fraudulent schemes.\n\n### *2. Shell Entities for Acquiring and Holding Assets*\n\n### *Bravo Luck, Eastern Profit, and HK International*\n\n174. Bravo Luck is a shell company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. In January and February 2015, the Debtor and his son each owned 50% of Bravo Luck on paper.\n\n175. At that time, Bravo Luck held an account (the \"Bravo Luck Account\") with UBS AG (\"UBS\"). On January 23, 2015, two Debtor shell companies, HK International Funds Investments Limited (\"HK International\") and Defendant Eastern Profit Corporation (\"Eastern Profit\"), transferred \\$150 million and \\$370 million, respectively, to the Bravo Luck Account to,\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 55 of 139\n\namong other things, fund and conceal the Debtor's purchase of a luxury apartment and yacht, as described further below. Prior to those transfers, that account held approximately \\$20,000.\n\n176. The \\$520 million transferred into the Bravo Luck Account was nothing more than the Debtor transferring money from one \"pocket\" to another, as he controlled both HK International and Eastern Profit.\n\n177. HK International was incorporated by the Debtor on October 2, 2006. HK International was effectively controlled by the Debtor, used by the Debtor to funnel money to a number of other Debtor-controlled entities in investment projects related to the Hong Kong stock exchange, and received all its funds from other Debtor-controlled companies\n\n178. The Debtor remained HK International's sole shareholder and director through October 14, 2014, when he transferred his interest to Ms. Qu for no consideration. On October 14, 2014, Ms. Qu also signed a Declaration of Trust providing that she held the shares of HK International as trustee, with the Debtor as the beneficiary, and that Ms. Qu would exercise rights in connection with the shares at the Debtor's direction. The Debtor, therefore, continued to beneficially own and control HK International despite Ms. Qu's nominal ownership.\n\n179. Defendant Eastern Profit is another shell company of the Debtor incorporated in Hong Kong. Eastern Profit was the subject of findings by Judge Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, including that Eastern is \"in essence, a shell corporation\" for the Debtor.\n\n180. Among other things, in 2015, when it transferred \\$370 million to Bravo Luck, Eastern Profit was nominally owned by Han Chunguang, the Debtor's driver, bodyguard and cook, whom the Debtor referred to as \"Little Han\" and introduced as his cook. Mr. Han would later transfer his purported ownership of Eastern Profit to the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, in exchange\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 56 of 139\n\nfor HK\\$1.00. This transfer was made on June 27, 2017, which is the same day that Ms. Qu (acting as trustee for the Debtor) \"sold\" HK International to the Debtor's daughter, also for HK\\$1.00.\n\n181. On February 21, 2015, another shell company of the Debtor, Genever Holdings LLC (\"Genever US\"), executed a contract of sale with respect to a penthouse apartment overlooking Manhattan (the \"Sherry Netherland Apartment\").26 Genever US has one member, Genever Holdings Corporation (\"Genever BVI\"). At the time of the purchase of the Sherry Netherland Apartment, the Debtor was the sole shareholder of Genever US. Bravo Luck served as the funding source for the purchase.\n\n182. Even after the contract of sale was executed, the sale of the Sherry Netherland Apartment still had to be approved by the Board of Directors of the Sherry Netherland Hotel. On March 3, 2015, the Board of Directors met to consider the purchase application submitted in connection with the property, and determined that it did not have sufficient financial information and \"additional due diligence is required by the Board, including but not limited to obtaining financial information regarding [the Debtor].\"\n\n\n\n26 The Sherry Netherland Apartment technically consists of multiple units located on the 18th floor of the Sherry Netherland Hotel that, for ease of reference, will be referred to collectively as the Sherry Netherland Apartment.\n\n\n\n\n\n184. Approximately two months later, on May 26, 2015, the Debtor purportedly sold his 50% ownership interest in Bravo Luck to his son for \\$1.00. Nonetheless, the Debtor (and not his son) used the Sherry Netherland Apartment as a residence from 2015 until in or around March 2023 when he was apprehended by federal law enforcement while at his Sherry Netherland Apartment. The Debtor, Defendant Qiang Guo, and Defendant Bravo Luck all intentionally took these actions to conceal the Debtor's ultimate beneficial ownership of the Sherry Netherland Apartment and keep it from creditors.\n\n185. The Debtor also used Bravo Luck to hide his purchase the Lady May, a 150-foot luxury yacht.\n\n186. Between October 10, 2014 and June 27, 2017, Ms. Qu, the Debtor's then-executive assistant and accounting manager, was the nominal sole shareholder and director of HK International, having received \"ownership\" from the Debtor in a \"shielding\" transfer that involved no consideration. During this time period, all material actions that Ms. Qu took in her capacity as sole shareholder and director of HK International were taken upon the request and instruction of the Debtor. For example, if the Debtor asked or instructed Ms. Qu to sign a document in her capacity as sole shareholder and director of HK International, she did so without discussion, including with respect to the purchase of the Lady May in February 2015.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 58 of 139\n\n187. On February 23, 2015—or approximately two weeks before the purchase (with funds wired from Bravo Luck) of the Sherry Netherland Apartment—HK International purchased the Lady May for €28,000,000 (or approximately \\$32,000,00027) from Apsley Yachts Limited.\n\n188. Also on February 23, 2015, Bravo Luck transferred no less than €25,000,000 to a representative of Apsley Yachts Limited. This transfer was made pursuant to a wire transfer form signed by the Debtor for the purpose of enabling HK International to buy the Lady May.\n\n189. As noted above, HK International was always controlled by the Debtor. Even after 2014, when he transferred his shares to Ms. Qu, the Debtor remained the beneficial owner and Ms. Qu could exercise rights in connection with the shares only at the Debtor's direction.\n\n190. This structure remained in place until June 27, 2017, when Ms. Qu purportedly transferred ownership of HK International to the Debtor's daughter, Defendant Mei Guo for HK\\$1.00.\n\n191. Approximately two years later, on April 1, 2019, the Defendant Mei Guo formed HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"), of which she was the sole member. That same month, HK International transferred the Lady May to HL USA for no consideration.\n\n192. The Debtor, the Debtor's daughter, Mei Guo, HK USA, HK International, and Bravo Luck all took these actions to conceal the Debtor's ultimate beneficial ownership of the Lady May and keep it from his creditors.\n\n193. This Court has since determined that HK USA was the alter ego of the Debtor and, thus, the Lady May belonged to the chapter 11 estate.\n\n### *Greenwich Land*\n\n194. Defendant Greenwich Land is a Delaware limited liability company formed on July 3, 2019. Greenwich Land operated out of 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York. Only three individuals other than Defendant Ngok have served as officers of Greenwich Land—Defendants Yvette Wang and Max Krasner, and Daniel Podhaskie. Each of these individuals has occupied numerous positions at Debtor-controlled entities.\n\n195. Agents of Greenwich Land committed numerous unlawful acts, including opening bank accounts under false pretenses and knowingly using interstate wires, in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's purposes of concealing the Debtor's wealth and defrauding his creditors, and furthering the various frauds advanced by the Kwok Enterprise. Greenwich Land and its nominal owner, Defendant Hing Chi Ngok, generate no income or revenue from any operations of Greenwich Land, and it was otherwise funded only from fraudulently obtained monies collected by the Kwok Enterprise as a result of the fraudulent schemes detailed herein.\n\n196. Although certain Defendants have claimed that Greenwich Land's business consisted merely of owning real property,\n\n in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and disguise the nature and ownership of fraudulently obtained monies obtained through the GTV fraud scheme, the G-Club fraud scheme, the Farm Loan Program, and the Himalaya Exchange fraud scheme.\n\n| | 139 | |\n|--|-----|---|\n| | | |\n| | | ) |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 60 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 61 of 139\n\nin violation of the March 28, 2023 temporary restraining order28 and May 26, 2023 preliminary injunction29 prohibiting such dissipation of Greenwich Land's assets.\n\n202. Moreover, each of Defendants\n\nat all relevant times between October 26, 2020 and July 31, 2023 that Greenwich Land had no operations, income, or ability to generate monies absent receipt of funds from other co-conspirators and members of the Kwok Enterprise. Each of Defendants\n\n at all relevant times between October 26, 2020 and July 31, 2023 that the funds transferred by Greenwich Land to the Bento debit card accounts of each Defendant was in fact the product of unlawful activity and each knowingly furthered the Kwok Enterprise's purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors by obtaining such Bento debit card accounts under false pretenses given such accounts would knowingly be funded with the proceeds of the Debtor's fraudulent schemes.\n\n203.\n\n28 Adv. No. 23-05005, Docket No. 14.\n\n29 Adv. No. 23-05005*,* Docket No. 53.\n\n\n\n\n\n Greenwich Land knowingly made and received such transfers in fraudulently obtained property—the monies of investor-victims of the GTV fraud—and such transfers made by Greenwich Land and received by it were designed to conceal and disguise the nature, source, and control of the proceeds of the GTV fraud, which funds were ultimately controlled by the Debtor. This is an example of the shell game that the Debtor directs and uses to defraud creditors and conceal his assets, causing considerable harm to the Trustee and the Debtor's creditors.\n\n204.\n\nsum, upon information and belief, Savio Law LLC is a\n\nrepresentative of the Debtor.\n\n30 The principal of Savio Law LLC is or was Nicholas F. Savio. Mr. Savio currently practices with Lawall & Mitchell, the law firm of the Debtor's general counsel, Aaron Mitchell. Previously, Mr. Savio and Mr. Mitchell were colleagues at the law firm of Cohen & Howard, L.L.P., where they represented the Debtor in litigation before the federal district court in New Jersey. S\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 63 of 139\n\n205. One of the real properties that Greenwich Land purchased and later sold is the residential property located at 33 Ferncliff Road (the \"Ferncliff Property\"). The Debtor controlled the purchase, use, and sale of the Ferncliff Property, and another Debtor-controlled defendant entity, Hudson Diamond NY LLC was used for the Debtor's purchase and sale of the Ferncliff Property.\n\n206. Hudson Diamond NY is a Debtor shell company purportedly owned by defendant Mei Guo through Hudson Diamond Holding.\n\n\n\n\n\n31 A schedule of such transactions is attached hereto as \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_.\n\n| 211. | |\n|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| 213. | Thus, these payments were clearly made
for the Debtor's personal benefit. |\n| | Specifically: |\n| a. | Hudson
Diamond NY executed such transfer in interstate commerce using U.S. wires and,
having no operations or ability to fund itself, with knowledge that such funds were
unlawfully obtained and transferred in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's
scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors; |\n| b. | . Greenwich |\n| | Land executed such transfer in interstate commerce using U.S. wires and, having
no operations or ability to fund itself, with knowledge that such funds were
unlawfully obtained and transferred in furtherance of the
Kwok Enterprise's
scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors; |\n| c. | at a U.S. bank. Saraca executed such transfer in interstate commerce using U.S.
wires and, having no operations or ability to fund itself, with knowledge that such
funds were unlawfully obtained and transferred in furtherance of the Kwok
Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors; |\n\n\n\n216. Hudson Diamond NY was another entity created on behalf of the Debtor for the purported purpose of acquiring real property.\n\n\n\n218. Hudson Diamond NY has been funded by the Debtor through entities he controls. Like so many other entities he owned and controlled, the Kwok Enterprise used Hudson Diamond NY to keep assets of the Debtor from creditors while using such assets to maintain the Debtor's lavish billionaire image, such that he could market himself and the Kwok Enterprise to investorvictims as an individual and organization worth trusting and investing with.\n\n219. Defendant Hudson Diamond NY has received funding from numerous Debtorcontrolled entities, including, among others, Upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY receives no funding other than from other Debtor-controlled entities. ACA\n\nCapital executed all such transfers in furtherance of the foregoing frauds and in furtherance of the\n\nKwok Enterprise's purpose of concealing and disguising the nature and control of such fraudulent proceeds.\n\n220. Defendant Hudson Diamond NY was created by the Debtor primarily to acquire real property. Specifically, 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, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\nHaving no funding mechanism of its own, Hudson Diamond NY had knowledge that such transfer was in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme and purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and concealing the nature and control of proceeds such as the funds it transferred to Greenwich Land. b. no ability to generate monies of its own, and having received such funds from Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land had knowledge that such transfer was in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme and purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and concealing the nature and control of proceeds such as the funds it transferred to Whitman Breed. . Having no ability to generate monies of its own, and having received such funds from Hudson Diamond NY, Greenwich Land had knowledge that such transfer was in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme and purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and concealing the nature and control of proceeds such as the funds it transferred to Whitman Breed. 221. 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\nAmendment when asked whether her father, the Debtor,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 69 of 139\n\n222. 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 when asked whether her father, the Debtor,\n\n\n\n224. Bank records show that, apart from funding real estate transactions, the Debtor also used Hudson Diamond NY to transfer millions of dollars to other shell companies, including, for example, as well as to transfer funds to his daughter, Mei Guo, and his wife, Hing Chi Ngok.\n\n225. In addition, upon information and belief, Hudson Diamond NY owned one of the Debtor's Rolls Royce luxury automobiles.\n\n226. As discussed further herein, defendant Hudson Diamond NY's only documented activities consisted of holding the Debtor's assets and paying his expenses. Hudson Diamond NY did nothing other than participate in the Kwok Enterprise by receiving funding from other Debtorcontrolled companies, holding cash in bank accounts (in addition to holding the Debtor's Rolls Royce and potentially other assets), and paying for the Debtor's expenses.\n\n228. 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 property and whether the Debtor at all times has controlled Hudson Diamond NY and its assets.\n\n### *The Hamilton Entities*\n\n229. Integral to monetizing the G-Clubs fraud for the benefit of the Debtor and his family and associates were the \"Hamilton Entities\" an umbrella of investment vehicles that were funded with investor-victims' contributions to G-Clubs such that the Kwok Enterprise could (a) preserve G-Clubs' purported and preferential \"membership organization\" tax status in Puerto Rico (as opposed to G-Clubs being an investment entity for tax purposes) while (b) enriching the Debtor, his family, and his associates through the transfer of member-victims' monies to Debtor-controlled entities that could purchase assets (and conceal them from the Debtor's creditors).\n\n230. Defendant David Fallon, at the direction of the Debtor, Defendant Qiang Guo, and Defendant William Je, was the primary operating employee of the Hamilton Entities, misleading the Hamilton Entities' fund administrators, NAV Fund Administration Group, and papering \"subscriptions\" and other faux investments in the Hamilton Entities for the benefit of the Kwok Enterprise and the Debtor.\n\n\n\n232.\n\n. Defendant David Fallon made all such\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 72 of 139\n\ncommunications foreign wires, either by phone or e-mail, and willfully engaged with the bank under fraudulent pretenses.\n\n#### *The Taurus Entities and the Mahwah Mansion*\n\n233. In furtherance of the G-Club fraud and by using the Hamilton Entities to conceal the fraud and benefit the Debtor, his family, and associates, on December 16, 2021 (the \"Purchase Date\"), Defendant Taurus Fund SP, a segregated portfolio company of Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, either directly or indirectly through Taurus Fund LLC (\"Taurus Fund\"), purchased an approximately 50,000 square foot New Jersey estate, the Mahwah Mansion, from Crocker Mansion Estate LLC for approximately \\$26.5 million. The deed was recorded on the same date at Bergen County, New Jersey. As discussed below, the purchase of the Mahwah Mansion was in fact an extension of the G-Club fraud executed by the Debtor and his co-conspirators.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 73 of 139\n\n\n\n234. Taurus Fund was formed in Nevada on December 16, 2021, the same date as the Purchase Date.\n\n235. Besides the Mahwah Mansion, Taurus Fund also holds title to a Bösendorfer grand piano designed by F.A. Porsche (the \"Porsche Piano\"), which is believed to be valued at over \\$250,000. The Porsche Piano was previously located at the Debtor's GSeries offices at 3 Columbus Circle in New York City.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 74 of 139\n\n\n\n236. Taurus Fund is managed by (i) the Debtor's chauffeur and/or bodyguard Defendant Scott Barnett and (ii) Defendant Taurus Management LLC. Defendant Taurus Fund, however, is owned by Taurus Fund SP, a purported segregated portfolio of Defendant Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC.\n\n237. Defendant Scott Barnett is the Debtor's chauffeur and/or bodyguard, and Barnett continues to be employed by and actively work for the Debtor. In fact, on June 20, 2023, in an email to the Trustee, Aaron A. Romney, the Debtor's counsel, notified the Trustee that \"*Scott Barnett, who worked security for Mr. Kwok at the Sherry [Netherland], will be picking up [certain] boxes*\" from the Sherry Netherland containing the Debtor's and his family members' clothes and personal effects. Barnett is also listed as a covered driver under an insurance policy issued by AIG to Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., one of the Debtor's many shell companies. Barnett has also been paid by at least two other shell companies, Greenwich Land, LLC, and Lexington Property.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 75 of 139\n\n238. Taurus Fund's other listed manager, Taurus Management LLC, was formed on December 15, 2021, one day before the Purchase Date, as a limited liability company in the State of New Mexico. Despite being a New Mexico entity, Taurus Management shares the same address as Taurus Fund in Nevada at 6628 Sky Pointe Drive, Suite 129-1071, Las Vegas, NV 89131.\n\n239. Although Taurus Fund held nominal title to the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor had full beneficial ownership and control over the property until his arrest on March 15, 2023.\n\n240. The Debtor's residence at, and his equitable ownership of, the Mahwah Mansion was revealed in the initial indictment against him containing multiple charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. 32 The initial indictment identified the Mahwah Mansion as one of the Debtor's luxury residences in the United States, along with his apartment at the Sherry-Netherland and his residence in Greenwich, Connecticut.\n\n241. Constructed in 1907, the castle-styled Mahwah Mansion, located within 25 miles of New York City, is described as one of the world's most magnificent and rare estates. The mansion has 21 bedrooms, more than 19 bathrooms, a great hall, library, tea room, formal dining room, restaurant-style kitchen, movie theater, billiard room, indoor lap pool with spa, massage room, wine room, game room, gym, outdoor pool with cabana, majestic gardens with two fountains, tennis court, 8-car garage, and rare wood, stone work and craftsmanship throughout the castle. Additionally, the Mahwah Mansion has its own Wikipedia page and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997.\n\n242. The grandeur and lavishness of the Mahwah Mansion is consistent with the Debtor's preference for extravagant residences, just like the \\$70 million Sherry Netherland apartment and the Debtor's multi-million dollar residence in Connecticut.\n\n32 *Cf.* Superseding Indictment.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 76 of 139\n\n243. In sum, the Debtor decided to purchase the Mahwah Mansion on December 16, 2021, two months prior to the Debtor's voluntary filing of chapter 11 petition on February 15, 2022, and while he owed huge debts to creditors, including a judgment of approximately \\$115 million to PAX. He also decided to hide his purchase and equitable ownership of the Mahwah Mansion (which, unsurprisingly, is not listed on the Debtor's schedules of assets and liabilities), which would have remained hidden if not for the criminal indictment by the U.S. government on March 15, 2023.\n\n244. Despite Taurus Fund's nominal title to the Mahwah Mansion, the Debtor directed and was personally involved in the purchase of and renovations to the mansion, using money that was under his control—the ill-gotten monies sent by member-victims to G-Club.\n\n\n\n| 139 | |\n|-----|--|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 77 of\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 78 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 79 of 139\n\n\n\ndecorative items, such as Chinese and Persian rugs worth approximately \\$978,000, a \\$62,000\n\ntelevision, a \\$53,000 fireplace log cradle holder, a \\$59,000 watch storage box, and a \\$35,000 mattress.\n\n### *3. Purported Operating Entities Concealing Debtor's Wealth and Assets.*\n\n258. The Debtor also utilized faux business organizations to transfer fraudulently obtained proceeds throughout the Kwok Enterprise and among his family and associates to prevent creditors from obtaining recoveries against him.\n\n# *The HCHK Entities*\n\n259. Defendants HCHK Technologies, HCHK Property, and Lexington Property are all entities owned by Holy City. Notably, Defendant Yvette Wang is the (nominal) 99.9999% owner of Holy City, Defendant Anthony DiBattista is the nominal 0.0001% owner of Holy City, but the Debtor is the functional and beneficial owner of Holy City and all of its subsidiaries.\n\n260. Along with Defendant Yvette Wang, Defendant DiBattista is also a long-standing employee of the Debtor, serving in various roles at different Debtor-controlled companies. Defendant DiBattista was employed at Golden Spring, and has served the Debtor as a corporate officer of GTV, GFashion, and G-Clubs.\n\n261. In addition to Defendant DiBattista, key personnel of the HCHK Entities are former employees or officers of the Debtor's \"family office,\" Golden Spring. These other Golden Spring personnel who moved to the HCHK Entities include Defendant Max Krasner, Joe Wang, Bernardo Enriquez, and Defendant Alex Hadjicharalambous. Upon information and belief, the HCHK Entities are merely a continuation of Golden Spring with new corporate letterhead. Other HCHK personnel include Elliott Dordick, an individual this Court found to be an employee of Gettr,33 an entity that is part of the umbrella of \"G-Series\" entities which this Court found \"serve the purposes\n\n33 PI Decision ¶ 13.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 82 of 139\n\nof the Debtor\" and \"serve as business vehicles for the Debtor.\"34 As the Court may recall, Mr. Dordick was involved in the Debtor's harassment campaign against the Trustee and PAX.\n\n262. The HCHK Entities are not independent businesses that simply happen to have done business with entities linked to the Debtor. They are Business-Front Entities—affiliates of the Debtor's G-Series entities that, together with such entities, comprised a one cog in the Kwok Enterprise controlled by the Debtor and dedicated to promoting the Debtor's interests, enriching the Debtor, his family, and associates, concealing the Debtor's assets and wealth from creditors, and maintaining the Debtor's billionaire lifestyle and image as a successful entrepreneur and investor.\n\n263. The HCHK Entities' business was located at 3 Columbus Circle, in New York City, where HCHK Property and Lexington Property sublet office space. This is the location where associates of the Debtor, acting at the Debtor's behest, filmed videos in support of the Debtor, including videos in late 2022 calling for harassment against the Trustee, PAX, and their counsel. These activities led to the Court's issuance of its preliminary injunction decision [Docket No. 133 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032] where the Court found, among other things, that the Debtor controlled the G-Series entities. Upon information and belief, these videos attacking the Trustee and PAX were produced using the video and electronic equipment disclosed as purported assets of HCHK Technologies in connection with certain attempted New York state court assignment proceedings.\n\n264. Documents produced by the HCHK Entities' accounting firm, Marcum LLP, (\"Marcum\") show the degree to which the HCHK Entities and the G-Series Entities operated as an element of the Kwok Enterprise on behalf of the Debtor. Among other things, the documents show that Marcum had no doubt who controlled the HCHK Entities and G-Series Entities.\n\n34 PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n265. The role of the HCHK Entities was, among other things, to serve as a \"piggy bank\" for the Debtor's businesses. It was for this reason that Marcum's engagement letter provided that Marcum would provide services to Lexington Property \"and Affiliates,\" and Marcum was explicitly tasked with preparing not only the tax returns of the HCHK Entities, but also those of other Debtor-controlled entities as well, including GFashion and GTV. Similarly, Marcum classified HCHK Technologies' assets to include bank accounts corresponding to Gettr, GFashion, and \"FMV\" (an acronym that, upon information and belief, refers to another Debtor-controlled company, Freedom Media Ventures). This \"piggy bank\" role is consistent with the schedule of assets filed with respect to HCHK Technologies, which discloses accounts receivable of \\$12,559,423.06. Upon information and belief, these accounts receivable include obligations purportedly owed to HCHK Technologies by G-Series entities or other companies controlled by the Debtor and that are co-conspirators and members of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n266. For example, Defendant HCHK Technologies on multiple occasions willfully and knowingly transmitted material wire communications, including wire transfers of monies fraudulently obtained from investor-victims and/or member-victims of the Kwok Enterprise's various frauds, to conceal the Debtor's assets and wealth from his creditors and to pay the expenses of the Debtor and his family and associates, in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors:\n\n\n\nhis family and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of HCHK Technologies.\n\n is the management company for the Lady May, which Justice Ostrager and this Court ruled was the Debtor's yacht. Upon information and belief at all relevant times HCHK Technologies knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and his family and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of HCHK Technologies.\n\nc.\n\nb.\n\n. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this payment was to purchase a new private plane for the Debtor, the Cirrus SF50 jet that has been cited in filings in connection with the Debtor's criminal case. Upon information and belief at all relevant times HCHK Technologies knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and his family and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of HCHK Technologies.\n\n267. Moreover, Lexington Property, though ostensibly only in the business of subleasing\n\noffice space, on multiple occasions willfully and knowingly transmitted material wire communications, including wire transfers of monies fraudulently obtained from investor-victims and/or member-victims of the Kwok Enterprise's various frauds, to conceal the Debtor's assets and wealth from his creditors and to pay the expenses of the Debtor and his family and associates, in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors. For example:\n\n- a. Notwithstanding that Defendant Mitchell testified under penalty of perjury that he at no time has provided legal services to Lexington Property:\n\t- i.\n\n Upon information and belief at all relevant times Lexington Property knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and Defendant Mitchell, a known associate of the Debtor and member of the Kwok Enterprise, and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of Lexington Property.\n\nii.\n\n Upon information and belief at all relevant times Lexington Property knew that such payment was for the benefit of the Debtor and Defendants Mitchell and Lawall & Mitchell LLC, co-conspirators of the Debtor and members of the Kwok Enterprise, and was not a legitimate expense or obligation of Lexington Property.\n\niii. Upon information and belief at all relevant times Lexington Property knew that such payment was in furtherance of the Himalaya Exchange fraudulent scheme and was made for the benefit of the Debtor and the Kwok Enterprise and was not a legitimate expense, obligation, or investment of Lexington Property.\n\n268. Lexington Property also knowingly received proceeds of the Kwok Enterprise's Farm Loan Program fraudulent scheme, and dissipated those proceeds, which were criminally derived property, through further financial transactions, including using U.S. wires in interstate commerce to transfer fraudulently obtained funds, with the intent to promote the Farm Loan Program fraudulent scheme and the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and conceal the nature and ownership of the Debtor's assets. For example:\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 86 of 139\n\n\n\n269. HCHK Property was also a critical cog in the Kwok Enterprise's Farm Loan Program fraud scheme. , it both knowingly received fraudulently obtained funds from the Farm Loan Program scheme, and further transferred such funds to further that scheme and the Kwok Enterprise's efforts to conceal the nature and ownership of such funds from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n Upon receiving such funds, HCHK Property, like so many other defendants and co-conspirators, further transferred the funds to other defendants and co-conspirators controlled by the Debtor, knowingly furthering the Farm Loan Program fraud, enriching the Debtor, and defrauding the Debtor's creditors by concealing the nature and ownership of the fraudulently obtained funds. For example:\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 87 of 139\n\n\n\n270. The funds transferred by HCHK Property in the above three financial transactions, and in similar financial transactions conducted by HCHK Property, were fraudulently obtained proceeds of the Farm Loan Program. HCHK Property knowingly transferred such ill-gotten proceeds of the Farm Loan Program to Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton M&A Fund SP to enrich the Debtor, his family, and his associates, further the Farm Loan Program scheme, and defraud the Debtor's creditors by disguising and concealing the nature and ownership of the transferred funds.\n\n271. Further, the Defendants and co-conspirators who received such fraudulently obtained proceeds from HCHK Property did so knowing that HCHK Property was a shell entity owned by the Debtor; it had no means of earning or raising such vast sums of money other than through Kwok Enterprise fraudulent schemes such as the Farm Loan Program; and in fact the monies such Defendants and co-conspirators received from HCHK Property had been unlawfully taken from victims of the Farm Loan Program. For example,\n\n\n\n\n\n273. In pleadings filed in connection with its criminal prosecution against the Debtor and Defendants Yvette Wang and William Je, the U.S. Government has alleged, among other things:\n\n- a. HCHK Technologies is a \"Kwok controlled company that . . . sent employees to the [United Arab Emirates] earlier this year to establish bank accounts that, as Kwok claimed, would be beyond the 'long-arm jurisdiction' of the United States.\" These employees \"spent more than approximately six weeks in the UAE, apparently to assist in moving Kwok's and [William] Je's operations abroad.\"\n- b. Gettr and HCHK Technologies are \"Kwok- and [William] Je-controlled companies that are funded, in part, using fraud proceeds.\" Gettr \"is a social media company that Kwok controls through a series of shell companies,\" and \"Gettr and the HCHK entities . . . operate out of the same office location.\"\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 89 of 139\n\n- c. \"Photographs of annotated documents located inside a folder in [Defendant Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appear to reflect, in substance and in part, certain transactions and balances for six bank accounts held in the names of HCHK Technologies and HCHK Property Management . . . GFNY, Inc. (i.e., GFashion), and GF Italy (i.e., GFashion Italy).\"\n- d. \"A photograph of another document located inside the folder in [Defendant Yvette Wang's] purse at her apartment appears to reflect, in sum and in substance, that [Defendant Yvette Wang] signed payroll expenses associated with various Kwok-controlled entities . . . . The document further indicates how certain payroll expenses were to be allocated among affiliated entities, including HCHK.\"\n\n#### **IV. Obstructing and Interfering with the Bankruptcy Process**\n\n274. The Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors came to a head in February 2021, when PAX obtained a judgment of \\$116 million against the Debtor for breach of contract in the NY Action and sought to enforce that judgment against the Debtor's assets.\n\n275. In connection with such enforcement efforts, the NY Court found that the Debtor engaged \"in efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members\" and had \"secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members.\"35 The NY Court determined specifically that the Lady May yacht was an asset of the Debtor and imposed a \\$134 million contempt fine on the Debtor for removing the yacht from U.S. waters and failing to return it.\n\n276. The Debtor had no way to satisfy the PAX judgment or pay the contempt fine without accessing his hidden assets and revealing the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent shell game. Accordingly, the Debtor was desperate to stop the NY Action to prevent PAX from making further headway in its efforts to enforce the judgment and fine.\n\n35 *See* Decision + Order on Motion, *Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Ho Wan Kwok*, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 9, 2022), at 1.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 90 of 139\n\n277. Faced with this predicament, the Debtor and various of his Defendant coconspirators decided they had no choice but to execute on the final phase of the Kwok Enterprise's scheme to defraud creditors: the filing of a chapter 11 petition in this Court to both (i) immediately stay the NY Action and (ii) give the Debtor an opportunity to try to resolve the claims of PAX and other creditors through a consensual deal that would keep the fraud hidden.\n\n#### A. Initial Failure to Disclose Assets to Bankruptcy Court\n\n278. The Debtor filed his chapter 11 petition on February 15, 2022. As required by the Bankruptcy Code, his schedules and statement of financial affairs (collectively, the \"Schedules\") were filed a few weeks later.\n\n279. Despite the voluminous public evidence demonstrating the Debtor's vast wealth, the Debtor's Schedules reported that the total value of the Debtor's property was \\$3,850.00, as compared to unsecured claims of \\$373,803,498.09, over \\$250 million of which consisted of the claims of PAX, with the remainder including numerous claims related to, among other things, alleged securities fraud, defamation, and sexual assault.\n\n280. The Schedules failed to reveal the hundreds of millions of dollars (at a minimum) of assets the Debtor held in the nominal names of the Defendants and the other individuals and shell companies who formed the Kwok Enterprise, as discussed in detail above. One particularly glaring omission from the Schedules was any mention of the Lady May being an asset of the Debtor despite the NY Court having recently reached that conclusion in the NY Action.\n\n281. The Debtor did not create the Schedules or otherwise prepare for his bankruptcy filing by himself, but rather he had the assistance and cooperation of his counsel, including Defendant Aaron Mitchell. As discussed elsewhere herein, Mitchell served as the Debtor's longtime personal counsel and close advisor in numerous affairs relevant to the Kwok Enterprise. He\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 91 of 139\n\ncoordinated closely with the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel in trying to \"sell\" the Debtor's story to the Court,\n\n Mitchell thus played an important role in helping the Debtor and his bankruptcy counsel prepare the fraudulent Schedules. Mitchell allowed the Schedules to be filed with the Court, despite knowing they were false, for the purpose of defrauding the Court and the Debtor's creditors.\n\n282. The Debtor's efforts to fraudulently conceal his true finances from the Court continued as the chapter 11 case progressed. For example, approximately two months after the Petition Date, the Debtor, with, upon information and belief, the assistance of Defendant Aaron Mitchell, orchestrated the filing of the HK USA Proceeding on April 11, 2022, in which Defendant Mei Guo, the Debtor's daughter, caused HK USA to falsely claim that the Lady May belonged to HK USA and was not property of the estate.\n\n283. The HK USA Proceeding was designed to uphold the fiction portrayed by the Schedules that the Lady May was not already owned by the Debtor and to create a scenario in which Defendant Mei Guo could \"contribute\" the Lady May to the estate as consideration for creditors under a proposed chapter 11 plan. The Debtor, his advisors (including Defendant Mitchell), and Defendant Mei Guo knew the allegations in the HK USA Proceeding were false, but they allowed it to be filed anyway to perpetuate the fraud and further the Debtor's exit strategy. The Court would later agree with the Trustee that the Lady May is and always has been estate property, but not until after substantial resources were expended litigating the issue.36\n\n36 *See Order Granting Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Estate of Ho Wan Kwok for Partial Summary Judgment* [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 172] (as amended) and *Memorandum of Decision and Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Second Counterclaim* [Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 221].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 92 of 139\n\n284. Further fraudulent concealment also occurred on or about April 28, 2022, in response to PAX's motion for relief from the automatic stay to continue the enforcement of its judgment in the NY Action as against the Lady May and other assets of the Debtor. In a last-ditch effort to avoid stay relief, the Debtor agreed to post a bond in the amount of \\$37 million, which Defendants Mei Guo, William Je, and Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. conspired with the Debtor to fund to further the scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and keep his assets hidden. These Defendants disguised the \\$37 million that provided to HK USA at Defendant Mei Guo's request as a purported \"loan,\" even though it was in reality no such thing, and even though the funds were, in fact, property beneficially owned and controlled by the Debtor. Again, these actions were taken to obstruct and delay the case and the Trustee's investigation and to hide assets from creditors.\n\n#### B. Obstruction By Impeding Trustee's Work and Violating Court Orders\n\n285. Eventually, the Debtor's representation of his financial affairs was questioned by the office of the United States Trustee (the \"UST\"), who moved for the appointment of an examiner or in the alternative, a chapter 11 trustee. The UST noted the Debtor's pre-petition history of avoiding creditors and asserting the Fifth Amendment in response to questions about his financial dealing. The UST was deeply concerned with the Debtor's \"artificial self-created 'poverty'\" and inability and/or unwillingness to recognize and accept his obligations to provide accurate financial information to meet his obligations as a debtor in possession.37 Ultimately, the Court granted the relief sought by the UST and the Trustee was appointed to investigate the financial affairs of the Debtor.38\n\n37 United States Trustee's Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner or, In the Alternative, Motion for Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 102].\n\n38 Order Granting Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee [Docket No. 523].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 93 of 139\n\n286. After his appointment, the Trustee immediately began his investigation into the Debtor's financial affairs while the Debtor and his co-conspirators continued to misrepresent those affairs and to obstruct and interfere with the Trustee's investigation in nearly every way possible, with the objective of insulating the Debtor's assets from his creditors.\n\n### *1. Failure to Comply With Corporate Governance Rights Order*\n\n287. Shortly after the Trustee's appointment, on August 10, 2022, the Court entered an order (the \"Corporate Governance Rights Order\") confirming that the Debtor, as required by the Bankruptcy Code, must \"cooperate with the Trustee to enable the Trustee to perform his duties\" and \"surrender to the Trustee all property of the estate and any recorded information, including, without limitation, books, documents, records and papers relating to property of the estate.\"39\n\n288. One of the Debtor's shell companies subject to the Corporate Governance Rights Order was Ace Decade, which the Debtor had used to make an investment with UBS and later commence litigation against UBS with respect to such investment. Despite requirements of the Corporate Governance Rights Order, the Debtor refused to transfer his shares in Ace Decade to the Trustee or provide the Trustee with any corporate documents regarding Ace Decade or its wholly owned subsidiary Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\"), even though the Debtor attested on multiple occasions that he owned Ace Decade and that Ace Decade wholly owned Dawn State.\n\n39 Order, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 363, 521, 541, 1108, and 105, (A) Confirming that Chapter 11 Trustee Holds All of Debtor's Economic and Corporate Governance Rights in Debtor-Controlled Entities, (B) Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to Act in Any Foreign Country on Behalf of Estate, and (C) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 761].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 94 of 139\n\n289. On October 4, 2022, the Trustee filed a motion (the \"Corporate Governance Contempt Motion\") for an order holding the Debtor in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order.40\n\n290. On November 17, 2022, the Court entered an order (the \"Partial Resolution Order\") partially resolving the Corporate Governance Contempt Motion, holding, among other things, that (i) the Debtor exclusively beneficially owned and controlled Ace Decade on the Petition Date and prior to the date of the Trustee's appointment, (ii) Defendant Yvette Wang is not and has never been a beneficial owner of the shares in Ace Decade, and (iii) but for the Trustee's appointment and his rights under the Bankruptcy Code and the Corporate Governance Rights Order, the Debtor would still exclusively beneficially own and control Ace Decade.41\n\n291. Prior to the entry of Partial Resolution Order, counsel to the Trustee emailed a copy of the proposed form of Partial Resolution order to Mr. Alex Lipman, who the Trustee understands acted as counsel for Defendant Yvette Wang at the time, and on Ace Decade c/o Trident Trust Company (B.V.I.) Limited (\"Trident\") in the BVI, which was the registered agent for Ace Decade in the BVI.\n\n292. On January 24, 2023, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 1372] (the \"Contempt Order\") holding the Debtor in contempt of the Corporate Governance Rights Order. The Court held, among other things, that the Debtor was obligated to comply with the Corporate Governance Rights Order and surrender to the Trustee Ace Decade, his ownership in Ace Decade and related documents, and the Debtor had the ability to do so, but did not.42\n\n40 Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order [Docket No. 913].\n\n41 Order Regarding Partial Resolution of Trustee's Contempt Motion [Docket No. 1110]\n\n42 Order Granting Motion to Hold Debtor in Contempt of Corporate Governance Order, at 6-7, 14-15 [Docket No. 1372].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 95 of 139\n\n293. In addition, the Contempt Order found that (i) Defendant Yvette Wang is the nominee owner of Ace Decade for the benefit of the Debtor, (ii) the Debtor has control over Defendant Wang, including because the Debtor 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 properties, and (iii) notwithstanding such control, the Debtor failed to cause Defendant Wang to turn over the shares in Ace Decade to the Trustee.43\n\n294. After the Contempt Order, the Trustee learned that on or around January 3, 2023, Defendant Wang transferred her nominal ownership in the sole share in Ace Decade to Rui Hao (the \"Ace Decade Transfer\") based, in particular, on the disclosures provided from Trident of the most recent corporate documents for Ace Decade upon Trustee's application with the BVI court, which was approved. The Ace Decade Transfer was made without notice to or consent of the Trustee and was in violation of the Corporate Governance Rights Order.\n\n295. Given, among other things, her close relationship to the Debtor and integral role in the Kwok Enterprise, Defendant Wang was fully aware at the time of the Ace Decade Transfer that it was property of the estate pursuant to Court order. By initiating the transfer anyway, she knowingly and intentionally (i) acted corruptly to obstruct and impede the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation for the purpose of concealing the Debtor's assets from the estate, (ii) transferred the share, which was worth more than \\$5000, in foreign commerce knowing it had been converted from the estate in violation of the Corporate Governance Rights Order and the Contempt Order, and (iii) upon information and belief, facilitated the transfer using U.S. wires for the purpose of defrauding the Debtor's estate.\n\n43 *Id.* at 4, 15.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 96 of 139\n\n296. The Trustee filed an adversary complaint against Ace Decade, Yvette Wang and Rui Hao44 to, among other things, avoid the Ace Decade Transfer as it was made in violation of the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code and was an unauthorized postpetition transfer of estate property. The adversary proceeding remains pending.\n\n#### *2. Violations of Rule 2004 Orders*\n\n297. The Trustee has filed fifteen separate Rule 2004 motions seeking discovery from numerous individuals and entities, including several Defendants and co-conspirators. The Court entered orders granting each of the Rule 2004 motions (the \"Rule 2004 Orders\") allowing the Trustee to receive discovery from numerous entities and individuals including, among others, the Debtor and many of the Defendants.\n\n298. Despite the Court's Rule 2004 Orders, many of the Defendants failed to comply with the Rule 2004 subpoenas to avoid providing information that could potentially further uncover the fraudulent scheme. The Debtor was held in contempt of court45 for failing to comply with the Rule 2004 subpoenas, as were the following Defendants and non-parties: Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. and Lamp Capital LLC46; GTV and Saraca47; Hudson Diamond NY LLC 48; Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC49; G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., G-\n\n44 Adv. Proc. No. 23-05028.\n\n45 *See* Memorandum of Decision and Order Holding Individual Debtor in Contempt of Court and Denying Motion for Stay of Order Compelling Production [Docket No. 2035]\n\n46 *See* Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court [Docket No. 1709].\n\n47 *See* Order Granting Motion to Hold GTV Media Group, Inc. and Saraca Media, Inc. in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas [Docket No. 2093].\n\n48 *See* Order Granting in Part Motion for Entry of Order Holding Hudson Diamond NY LLC in Civil Contempt of Court [Docket No. 2009].\n\n49 *See* Order Holding Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in Contempt [Docket No. 2545].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 97 of 139\n\nFashion LLC, GNews LLC, New York MOS Himalaya LLC, Crane Advisory Group LLC, and Maywind Trading LLC.50\n\n299. By failing to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas and related Court orders, the foregoing Defendants knowingly and intentionally acted to obstruct and impede the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation for the purpose of concealing the Debtor's assets.\n\n# *3. Violation of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Greenwich Land Adversary Proceeding*\n\n300. On March 23, 2023, the Trustee commenced an adversary proceeding51 against Defendants Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok, the Debtor's wife, seeking a declaratory judgment that Greenwich Land, which is purportedly owned by Hing Chi Ngok, is the alter ego of the Debtor or, in the alterative, is equitably owned by the Debtor.\n\n301. On March 27, 2023, the Trustee filed an *ex parte* motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (the \"Greenwich PI Motion\") freezing certain assets of Defendants Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok.\n\n302. On March 28, 2023, the Court granted the Greenwich PI Motion, in part, temporarily restraining and enjoining Defendants Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok, and their respective agents, from encumbering, transferring, alienating, dissipating or assigning any of their property or assets, among other things. On May 26, 2023, the Court entered a preliminary injunction extending such relief (the \"Greenwich PI\").\n\n303. Notwithstanding the Greenwich PI, between March 28, 2023 and July 31, 2023, approximately \\$34,000 was spent from Defendant Greenwich Land's account in violation of the\n\n50 *See* Order Granting in Part Motion for Entry of Order Holding Non-Responding Parties in Civil Contempt of Court [Docket No. 1892].\n\n51 Adv. Proc. No. 23-5005.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 98 of 139\n\nGreenwich PI. This spending was carried out by, among others, Defendants Ngok, Chunguang Han, and Krasner for goods and services for their own personal benefit. Such Defendants knowingly and intentionally spent such funds using U.S. wires for the purpose of concealing the Debtor's assets from the estate's creditors and to disguise the true source of the funds.\n\n304. Defendant Ngok, who purported to own and control Greenwich Land, allowed such spending to occur. Each of Defendants Ngok, Chunguang Han, and Krasner was aware of the Greenwich PI and knowingly and intentionally violated it for the purpose of obstructing and impeding the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation and fraudulently concealing assets from the estate.\n\n## C. Additional Fraudulent Omissions and Misrepresentations Made in Connection with Debtor's Bankruptcy Case\n\n305. The Debtor and several Defendants continuously submitted false documents and information to the Trustee and Court in an attempt to keep the fraudulent scheme under wraps and to obstruct and impede the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation.\n\n306. Defendants Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo. Defendants Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck each filed proofs of claim in these jointly administered cases, asserting ownership of, or a financial claim with respect to, the Debtor's apartment at the Sherry Netherland Hotel. Among other things, the proofs of claim rely on a purported trust agreement dated February 17, 2015. As the Trustee has explained in detail in numerous pleadings, that \"trust agreement\" is a forged and backdated agreement that was fabricated to hide the true ownership of the apartment—a scheme the Debtor, Qiang Guo, and Bravo Luck attempted to continue even after the Genever entities and the Debtor himself filed their chapter 11 cases. The estate ultimately incurred more than \\$1 million in fees to defend these spurious claims asserted by Defendants Bravo Luck and Qiang Guo.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 99 of 139\n\n307. Defendant Hing Chi Ngok. Defendant Ngok, the Debtor's wife, has asserted that she owns and controls Greenwich Land. She also claimed that she \"picked out\" the Ferncliff Property purchased by Greenwich Land in February of 2020 and testified (at her January 5, 2023 Rule 2004 examination) that the Debtor had no involvement with Greenwich Land's purchase of the Taconic Road Property. Yet, Defendant Ngok has also testified, among other things, that she did not know if she requested that Hudson Diamond NY transfer \\$1.5 million to Greenwich Land (which was used to purchase the Ferncliff Property) and, tellingly, was unable to recognize a photo of the Ferncliff Property. Moreover, her testimony that the Debtor had no involvement with the purchase of the Taconic Road Property was directly contradicted by the detailed testimony of Mr. de Neree, the buyer-side real estate broker for the sale.\n\n308. Defendant Mei Guo. Almost immediately after the filing of her father's chapter 11 case, Defendant Mei Guo caused HK USA (of which she was the sole shareholder) to file the above-described an adversary proceeding asserting ownership of the Lady May yacht. In the complaint, HK USA asserts that \"Ms. Guo, directly and through her representatives, is solely responsible for directing the Lady May's operations and movements.\" As discussed above and at length in the Trustee's counterclaims, this statement had already been found to be false by Judge Ostrager of the New York Supreme Court, who found that Mei Guo's testimony \"that she owns and controls the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect.\" Mei Guo also repeatedly asserted, including under penalty of perjury, that HK USA's only asset was the Lady May—but, when confronted with facts discovered by the Trustee, ultimately conceded that HK USA also owned another boat, the Lady May II.\n\n309. Additionally, in the HK USA Proceeding she commenced, Mei Guo submitted certain pictures and screenshots of her personal cell phone. Yet, in her opposition to the Trustee's\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 100 of 139\n\nmotion to enforce a Rule 2004 request, Mei Guo's counsel submitted a declaration stating that Mei Guo had not used a \"smart phone\" since 2017. When confronted with this contradiction, Mei Guo asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment.\n\n310. Mei Guo also committed perjury with regards to the proceeds of the sale of a Bombardier private jet. In an adversary proceeding brought by the Trustee, Mei Guo testified that she had sold the Bombardier for more than \\$10 million to buyer whose name she did not recall and that, while she was the \"owner\" of the proceeds, she did not recall where the proceeds were located and could not access them.52 This was a falsehood.\n\n311. The Trustee would later receive documents proving Mei Guo had extensive correspondence with an entity named JNFX regarding the proceeds, making clear that Mei Guo, at the time of her deposition on the subject, did know who was holding the proceeds and that she was able to control the disposition of the funds.53 Mei Guo had previously intentionally failed to disclose the location of the sale proceeds for the purpose of obstructing and impeding the chapter 11 case and the Trustee's investigation and to conceal the Debtor's assets from the estate.\n\n312. More recently, this court has found that \"Ms. Guo has made contradictory statements under oath.\"54\n\n313. Defendant Aaron Mitchell. Defendant Mitchell testified under oath in Court on July 18, 2023 that he does not \"believe [the Debtor] has any business dealings,\" and that he had never seen the Debtor \"do any of that [i.e., investing or owning a business] at any of the companies we've mentioned.\" This testimony under oath was false in light of Defendant Mitchell's\n\n52 *See* Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, ¶ 16 [Adv. Proc. 23-05008, Docket No. 91].\n\n53 *Id.* ¶ 17.\n\n54 *See* Order Holding Hudson Diamond Holding LLC in Contempt at 9 [Docket No. 2545].\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 101 of 139\n\ninvolvement in the Kwok Enterprise and his intimate knowledge of the Debtor's finances and affairs. For example, as detailed above, Mitchell was intimately involved in detailed conversations relating to the Debtor's business dealings with G-Club, the opening of bank accounts at domestic financial institutions and abroad in furtherance of the G-Club scheme and others, and his efforts to have G-Club funds transferred to other shell entities for fraudulent purposes. Thus, Mitchell could not have truthfully stated to the Court in his testimony that the Debtor had no business dealings.\n\n314. Moreover, Defendant Mitchell directly participated in furthering the Kwok Enterprise's purposes within the Debtor's chapter 11 case through his efforts to conceal the Debtor's significant assets.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nlatter—an individual directing extensive and elaborate frauds, schemes, and financial transactions to defraud his creditors. Yet, Defendant Mitchell continued to actively and directly participate in furthering the Kwok Enterprise, including throughout these chapter 11 cases.\n\n#### D. Intimidation and Harassment Campaign Directed at Trustee and Others\n\n318. The Debtor and his supporters, including the Defendants, opposed the Trustee's appointment and sought to have it overturned by the Court on multiple occasions. When those\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 103 of 139\n\nefforts failed, the Debtor and a number of the Defendants resorted to harassment to intimidate, influence, and interfere with the Trustee's work and the bankruptcy's progression. The harassment was consistent with the Debtor's past pattern and practice of attempting to intimidate through similar tactics anyone who challenged the Debtor and sought to expose his wrongful conduct.\n\n319. Almost immediately after the Trustee's appointment, the Debtor began posting on social media to hinder the Trustee's investigation and obstruct the bankruptcy process. The Debtor has over 1 million followers on his social media platforms, such as YouTube, GTV, X (formerly known as Twitter), and Gettr. For example, in a July 10, 2022 post on Gettr, the Debtor called the Trustee a \"scumbag\" and a \"garbage lawyer,\" and falsely proclaimed that the Trustee's firm receives 50% of its revenue from Communist China. Later, on July 19, 2022, the @Miles Gettr account posted a statement about the Trustee stating the following: \"Please spread the words about the revelations of the CCP military intelligence and the truths about the trustee of my bankruptcy case. All the U.S. DOJ officials and lawyers from various law firms who want to deport me and harm me will be sent to prison. I have the most unique voice in the world because almost every part of my body that can voice has been tortured by the CCP.\"\n\n320. These posts were just the beginning. As the Trustee's investigation developed, the Debtor, his Defendant co-conspirators and other followers engaged in an increasingly aggressive and outright dangerous online attack consisting of false and harassing statements aimed at the Trustee and creditors of the Debtor, namely PAX, and their respective law firms and lawyers, as well as the Trustee's family members. The Debtor and his followers engaged in this attack as a method of intimidation to deter the Trustee from acting in accordance with his statutory duties and PAX from pursuing its claims. The online posts ended up revealing the home and office addresses of the Trustee, the Trustee's relatives' home addresses, the New York office address of Paul\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 104 of 139\n\nHastings LLP, the home addresses of the PAG Chairman's family members; the New York office address of PAX's counsel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.\n\n321. In addition to the online harassment campaign, the Debtor and his followers, including many of the Defendants, carried out worldwide protests outside the homes and places of business of the Trustee and his relatives and of PAX's owners and their relatives. The protests also occurred outside the offices of the Trustee's and PAX's counsel. At these protests, which were often broadcasted online, protesters displayed posters and shouted the same types of harassing statements being made online.\n\n322. The numerous vile, disgusting, and defamatory statements and images made and displayed as part of the online and physical protest and harassment campaign have already been the subject of orders of this Court and will not be fully recounted herein. For purposes of this Complaint, however, it is important to note that several Defendants took part in the campaign in an attempt to influence, intimidate, and impede the Trustee's investigation. For example:\n\n- Defendant Shih Hsin Yu's X account is @jackson66368924 and between at least November 22, 2022 and December 29, 2022, the X account @jackson66368924 made numerous posts about protests against the Trustee and the Trustee's counsel occurring at Grand Central Station in New York City and outside the Trustee's home in Greenwich, Connecticut. The posts include various edited images of the Trustee and others, e.g., with a hammer and sickle emblazoned on their foreheads or wearing Nazi uniforms. The posts discuss, among other things, proceedings in this Court, preferred outcomes on appeal, and desires regarding the Trustee.\n- Defendant Yan Chun Liu has posted repeatedly and numerously on social media, including on Gettr and X, defamatory pictures of the Trustee, support of the protests, and pictures of the protests against the Trustee, his counsel, and Paul Hastings LLP.\n- On or about November 21, 2022, Defendant Qidong Xia posted on his Gettr account (@changdaobrother) threatening the Trustee stating \"the rest of your life will be spent in fear.\" Later, on or about November 24, 2022, Qidong Xia posted on Gettr encouraging Kwok's followers to join the Protest.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 105 of 139\n\n Between November 28, 2022 and December 6, 2022, Defendant Xuebing Wang was posting online multiple times a day to support the Protest against the Trustee and Paul Hastings LLP. Additionally, in a video posted on January 1, 2023 by the @20minfocus Gettr account, Xuebing Wang is recorded speaking to protestors picketing outside the Trustee's home in Greenwich, Connecticut. According to his remarks, he was speaking on January 1, 2023. He discusses meetings in \"New York\" at \"the 3C office\" with other members of \"the alliance\" and the \"ironblooded group\" and his desire to \"visit these comrades on the front line.\" He tells the picketers that the Trustee will be imprisoned and will \"feel our strength.\"\n\n323. Upon information and belief, the harassment campaign was funded by the Defendant Rule of Law Entities.55 Indeed, on November 26, 2022, the Debtor appeared in a YouTube video and acknowledged that protest-related expenses are being funded by ROLF. In the video, the Debtor explains that, through ROLF, \"[w]e have been helping fellow fighters with legal issues, printing anti-communism materials, and materials about CCP's military intelligence, all types of materials.\" The Trustee is also in possession of bank records showing that the Rule of Law Entities routinely funded past similar protests ostensibly directed at purported supporters of the Chinese Communist Party, which the Trustee and PAX were falsely alleged to be.\n\n324. On or about December 8, 2023, Defendant ROLF transferred \\$200,000.00 to protester Beile Li, which was, upon information and belief, for his lead role in the harassment campaign in which he intentionally sought to impede the Trustee's investigation.\n\n325. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Rule of Law Entities funded the protests and harassment campaign for the purpose of intimidating, impeding, and influencing the Trustee and the chapter 11 case.\n\n55 *Eastern Profit Corp., Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC*, Case No. 18-cv-2185 (S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2021). Trial Tr. at 782:3–7 (testimony that Defendant Guo paid dozens of protestors to demonstrate outside of Fu's house for weeks, forcing Fu to eventually move out of the house); *see also* Dan Friedman, A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued, Mother Jones (March/April 2022, issue) http (Kwok \"promised to pay protesters generally \\$200 per day\" for previous protests).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 106 of 139\n\n326. In response to the protests and threats, PAX filed a complaint against the Debtor for injunctive relief along with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent the Debtor and his associates from engaging in the harassment. The Trustee joined in support of PAX. The Court granted PAX's motion and entered the temporary restraining order (the \"TRO\")56 restraining the intimidation campaign.\n\n327. The Court held that without the TRO, \"imminent irreparable harm to both the Estate and to the integrity of the bankruptcy process is likely.\"57 Specifically, the Court found that because the conduct was threatening and defamatory, it was not protected speech and that if the TRO did not issue, the \"safety of the Trustee and PAG's chairman and that of their current or former spouses, children, and counsel, will interfere with the Trustee's investigation into potential assets of the Estate\" and \"continuing harassment may deter witnesses from assisting with the Trustee's investigation or deter creditors from filing claims.\"58 The Court also found that the TRO was required to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy process because \"intimidation of the Trustee, a court officer . . . and interested parties 'embarrass[es], burden[s], delay[s] or otherwise impede[s] the reorganization proceedings.'\"59\n\n328. Despite the Court's TRO, which the Debtor had notice of, the Debtor and his followers continued with their harassment campaign in violation of the TRO.\n\n329. On January 13, 2023, the Court entered a memorandum of decision granting the preliminary injunction (the \"PI Decision\").60 In the PI Decision, made several findings of fact\n\n56 Order Granting Application Temporary Restraining Order, [Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 26].\n\n57 TRO at 4.\n\n58 *Id*. at 4-5.\n\n59 *Id*. at 5.\n\n60 Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 133.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 107 of 139\n\nincluding that, among others, \"ROLF, and Himalaya are involved in the protests\"61 and \"serve the purposes of the Debtor, serve as business vehicles for the Debtor, and their members are personally loyal to the Debtor.\"62\n\n330. In addition to violating the Court's orders, the harassment campaign engaged in by many of the Defendants, including those identified above, constituted criminal obstruction of justice designed to intimidate, influence, and impede the Trustee, who is an officer of the Court. The participants in the harassment also violated 18 U.S.C. § 1507, which prohibits picketing outside the building or residence occupied by a court officer for the purpose of obstructing justice and influencing the court officer's performance of his duties.\n\n# E. Frivolous and Meritless Filing of Proofs of Claims as Tactic to Interfere with Bankruptcy Case and Trustee's Investigation\n\n331. The Debtor and certain Defendant co-conspirators also attempted to influence the bankruptcy claims process by intimidating creditors into not filing claims and encouraging followers to file non-meritorious claims for the purpose of increasing the costs of the chapter 11 case and interfering with its administration.\n\n332. On January 6, 2023, Qiu Yu (\"Ms. Yu\") filed two proofs of claim in the Debtor's chapter 11 case. Shortly thereafter, the Debtor began making malicious and/or harassing statements on social media directed at Ms. Yu, including the following:\n\n On January 10, 2023, the Debtor, on a Gettr live broadcast (the \"January 10 Broadcast\"), publicly threatened investors who filed claims in these chapter 11 cases, including, specifically, Ms. Yu. Among other things, during the January 10 Broadcast, the Debtor made the following statement: \"Every person who reports their case must show up in court. Everything you said will be published, including everything about you. Let's see.\"\n\n61 PI Decision ¶ 6.\n\n62 PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 108 of 139\n\n- On January 10, 2023, Gettr account @OXVDESIGN posted that Ms. Yu listed herself as a creditor in the case, and posted a picture of Ms. Yu with text reading \"Yu Qiu (nickname is Gong Zu) went to the bankruptcy court in Connecticut, USA and joined the list of creditors using a \\$5000 claim (and) help Luc vilify the Whistleblower Revolution.\"\n- On January 10, 2023, Gettr account @piaochanghai posted an image of Ms. Yu's German Identity Card stating \"expose another little bastard discord called Gong Zu, real name Yu Qiu, fellow fighters dig it up, heard that (she) is very close to Dai Jian Feng. Any fellow fighter know (her)?\"\n- 333. On January 10, 2023, an article was posted to the website of Defendant GNews, an\n\nentity founded and controlled by the Debtor, suggesting the Debtor's followers file non-\n\nmeritorious claims. It stated the following:\n\nMr. Guo suggested that all the comrades could register because they had invested in GTV, but GTV was pseudo-classed as a fraudulent case and the SEC investigated it, so the money invested by the comrades had been withheld from the SEC, and the comrades were looking for money from the SEC, but in the bankruptcy case, the comrades could register as creditors of Mr. Guo. accept the registration of other comrades. *If all the comrades go to register, they will make up the majority of the creditors, then the money Mr. Guo earned will be distributed to the comrades, which Mr. Guo is very willing to do. In addition war buddies as the majority can initiate the ownership of lady may ship and the 18th floor, is also the majority will be given to the hands of war buddies, such a way of handling, all happy***. 63** In addition, after the registration of creditors, is to testify in court, some can not get a visa to come to the United States of war, can have a reasonable reason to come to the United States, if you do not want to leave, you can apply for political asylum on the spot. We can legally use the law to solve the problem.\n\n334. As a result, the Debtor's supporters filed numerous claims, many without support\n\nor documentation.\n\n335. On January 13, 2023, the Debtor posted on the @MilesGuo GETTR account that\n\nPaul Hastings was launching a \"creditor registration operation\" suggesting that his followers\n\n63 *See* Mr. Guo's wisdom: war veterans can all go to register creditors in bankruptcy cases, GNews (January 25, 2023, 17:38 p.m.), http (last accessed January 25, 2023) (emphasis added).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 109 of 139\n\nshould file bogus claims with the Court and that doing so could result in them becoming billionaires.64\n\nF. Frivolous Lawsuits in Southern District of New York to Intimidate Trustee\n\n336. On November 28, 2022, certain of the Debtor's followers, including Defendants Beile Li and Linwan Feng, commenced a proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Caproni, J.), (the \"SDNY Court\") styled *An v. Despins*, No. 22- CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023). In *An v. Despins*, Defendants Li and Feng falsely alleged the Trustee and Paul Hastings LLP are agents of the CCP or PRC.\n\n337. Defendant Yongbing Zhang, who has served as the Debtor's personal counsel in the past and who, upon information and belief, has been visiting the Debtor in prison while he awaits trial in his criminal case, represented Defendants Li and Feng in *An v. Despins*.\n\n338. Judge Caproni dismissed the complaint in *An v. Despins* for lack of standing and pursuant to Rule 11 sanctioned Defendants Li, Feng, and Zhang because it concluded that their \"papers reveal that their true preoccupation is with Mr. Kwok and trying to 'defend' him by harassing those perceived to be his adversaries\" and that the lawsuit was \"just another part of a campaign of misbehavior designed to vex Defendants, most likely by frustrating [the Trustee's] ability to perform his duties as trustee.\"65\n\n339. With respect to Defendant Zhang, Judge Caproni found:\n\nYongbing Zhang . . . appears in numerous photos of NFSC-led protests circulating on social media, including a post on NFSC's Gettr account from November 20, 2022 showing Zhang picketing at the house of [a family member of the Trustee] . . . and holding a sign calling the trustee an \"A-List Scumbag.\" […] Zhang also appeared in photos with Kwok from June 4, 2022 at the NFSC Second Anniversary party. 66[. . .]\n\n64 *See* @MilesGuo, GETTR (Jan. 13, 2023, 10:45 AM), http (last accessed January 15, 2023).\n\n65 *An v. Despins*, No. 22-CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832, at \\*12-\\*13.\n\n66 *Id.* at 13-14.\n\nPlaintiff and his counsel Zhang are affiliated with Kwok and sympathetic to him and his interests. [. . .]\n\nPlaintiff's counsel has engaged in repeated frivolous litigation in this Court and the District of Maryland. […] These cases are unmistakably directed at parties and lawyers, who are either involved in Kwok's bankruptcy or in the PAX litigation. They contain similar allegations and similarly frivolous claims. The inescapable conclusion is that Zhang and Freeth are targeting those with interests opposed to Kwok's with the aim of chilling what they perceive as advocacy against him.\n\n[Additional evidence] adds force to the Court's finding that sanctions are necessary and should be applied against Plaintiff's counsel. […]\n\nThe Court finds that Zhang, alongside Freeth, is responsible for the violations of Rule 11 detailed in this Opinion and Order.67\n\n340. A similar lawsuit was filed on January 13, 2023, by Junwu Gong against Stuart M.\n\nSarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, and others, in the United States District Court for the Southern\n\nDistrict of New York (Liman, J.) in the civil action styled *Gong v. Sarnoff,* No. 23-cv-343 (LJL),\n\n2023 WL 5372473 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023). Defendant Yongbing Zhang also represented Junwu\n\nGong in that case. Judge Liman found the action was initiated not to redress injury \"but to harass Moving Defendants because of their representation of a client in litigation against Kwok and to deter others from doing the same. Plaintiff and his counsel Zhang are affiliated with Kwok and sympathetic to him and his interests.\" Further, Judge Liman said \"if there is any doubt of the harassing purpose of this lawsuit, the history of lawsuits Zhang . . .have filed in this Court and elsewhere against PAX, persons associated with PAX, PAX's counsel, and those assisting the Bankruptcy Court settles that doubt.\"68\n\n67 *Id.* at 30-33, 35 n. 11\n\n68 *Gong v. Sarnoff*. No. 23-cv-343 (LJL), 2023 WL 5372473, at \\*30-\\*32 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023).\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 111 of 139\n\n341. The foregoing frivolous lawsuits were filed by their plaintiffs, including Defendant Beile Li, and Defendant Zhang for the purpose of intimidating, impeding, and influencing the Trustee and his investigation and obstructing the chapter 11 case more generally.\n\n342. In addition, Defendant Zhang separately sought to impede the Trustee's investigation and obstruct the chapter 11 case by directing the actions of certain purported creditors of the Defendant HCHK Entities who sought to intervene in the Trustee's adversary proceeding against the HCHK Entities. The Court eventually found, following an evidentiary hearing, that the purported creditors' claims were meritless and denied their intervention request, finding in the process that the creditors had either falsified documents supporting their alleged claims or that their testimony was otherwise not credible.69\n\n### **V. Injury Resulting from Fraudulent Scheme**\n\n343. The creditors of the Debtor's estate have been substantially harmed by the predicate acts constituting the Kwok Enterprise's years-long fraud and money-laundering scheme. As discussed above, the goal of the Kwok Enterprise was to hide the Debtor's wealth and ensure that it is not made available for distribution to his creditors.\n\n344. To date, except to the extent the Trustee has succeeded in his litigation efforts, the Kwok Enterprise's scheme has worked, as it has led to the Debtor's estate being deeply insolvent on paper, meaning that the creditors of the estate who have asserted hundreds of millions of dollars in claims against the estate stand to receive only minimal recoveries. Thus, the estate has suffered substantial direct damages from the Defendants' wrongful conduct.\n\n69 Memorandum of Decision and Order Denying Motion to Intervene and Motion to Clarify Temporary Restraining Order [Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 239].\n\n345. In addition to depriving creditors of recoveries, the Defendants' conduct described herein has caused the estate to incur tens of millions of dollars in professional fees and other costs and expenses to unravel the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent scheme and recover assets that should have been listed on the Schedules from the beginning of the case. These legal fees, costs, and expense thus represent additional damages for which Defendants are liable.\n\n### **CLAIMS FOR RELIEF**\n\n### **COUNT 1**\n\n# **Violation of Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Against All Defendants)**\n\n346. The Trustee restates and re-alleges paragraphs 1-345 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.\n\n347. Each Defendant is a person capable of holding a beneficial or legal interest in property and, accordingly, each is a \"person\" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).\n\n348. As alleged below, each Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by agreeing to and conducting and participating in the conduct of the Kwok Enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and for the unlawful purpose of defrauding the Debtor's creditors and enriching the Debtor, his family, and his associates, at the expense of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n### **Kwok RICO Enterprise**\n\n349. The Defendants, together with their known and unknown co-conspirators, form an association-in-fact for a common and continuing purpose of formulating and implementing a common scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors for the enrichment of the Debtor, his family,\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 113 of 139\n\nand other co-conspirators, through a pattern of fraud, misrepresentations, deceit, and corruption (*i.e*., the Kwok Enterprise).\n\n350. The Kwok Enterprise constitutes an \"enterprise\" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), and it was or is engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce.\n\n351. The common purpose of the Kwok Enterprise came into existence as early as approximately 2015, when the Debtor and other co-conspirators implemented a scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors by exploiting a web of sham entities and concealing the Debtor's assets for the benefit of the Debtor and his co-conspirators.\n\n352. Each of the Defendants were employed by or associated with the Kwok Enterprise, and each conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the Kwok Enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering.\n\n353. The Kwok Enterprise has an ascertainable structure independent from the pattern of racketeering activity in which the Defendants engage.\n\n354. The repeated and continuous violations of federal criminal law alleged in this Complaint constitute a \"pattern of racketeering activity\" in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq.\n\n355. The Defendants are central and controlling figures in the RICO Enterprise, and have directed others to take actions necessary to accomplish the overall aims of the Kwok Enterprise.\n\n#### **Pattern of Racketeering**\n\n356. The Defendants conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the RICO Enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and (5), consisting of multiple acts of racketeering that are interrelated, not isolated, and\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 114 of 139\n\nperpetrated for the same or similar purposes by the same persons (the \"RICO Pattern\"), described in the prior paragraphs and as further described below.\n\n357. The racketeering activity in which the Defendants engaged in violation of 18\n\nU.S.C. § 1962(c) consisted, *inter alia*, of:\n\n- a. Multiple acts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.SC § 1343;\n- b. Multiple acts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344;\n- c. Multiple acts violating of National Stolen Property Act of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315;\n- d. Multiple acts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957;\n- e. Multiple acts of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1507 and 1512; and\n- f. Multiple acts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152.\n\n358. Each Defendant had the specific intent to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and to commit each underlying predicate act alleged.\n\n359. Each of the Defendants committed at least two predicate acts of racketeering. The acts of racketeering were not isolated; rather, they were related in that they had the same or similar purpose and result, participants, victims, and/or method of commission. Further, the acts of racketeering were continuous, and remain ongoing, spanning the period from at least in or around 2015 to the present (the \"Relevant Period\").\n\n360. Specifically, the Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of at least the following predicate acts:\n\n### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 –Wire Fraud**\n\n**(Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Alex Hadjicharalambous, David Fallon, Haitham Khaled, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, Bravo Luck, Greenwich Land LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, David Fallon, Saraca Media Group, Inc., ACA Capital Group Ltd., Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC,**\n\n# **Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Leading Shine NY Limited, Lexington Property and Staffing, Lawall & Mitchell, LLC)**\n\n361. The RICO Pattern included several acts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.\n\n362. The Defendants voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to execute transfers of the Debtor's assets and property, including unlawfully obtained property, to conceal such assets from the Debtor's creditors during and after the Relevant Period, including without limitation, the transfers described below and in Appendix A.\n\n363. In furtherance of the fraudulent schemes, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Alex Hadjicharalambous, David Fallon, Haitham Khaled, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, Greenwich Land LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, David Fallon, Saraca Media Group, Inc., ACA Capital Group Ltd., Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Leading Shine NY Limited, and Lexington Property and Staffing willfully and knowingly transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and/or sounds by means of wire communications in interstate or foreign commerce.\n\n364. The wire activity supporting such fraudulent scheme included monetary wire transfers, shipments of assets, telephone and electronic communications, and other documents and communications.\n\n365. The use of interstate and international wires to perpetrate the activity and to connect the racketeering conspiracy was foreseeable.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 116 of 139\n\n366. Qiang Guo voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 112, 114-116.\n\n367. William Je voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraph 124.\n\n368. Yvette Wang voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 107-113.\n\n369. Aaron Mitchell voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 107-113, 244-249.\n\n370. Max Krasner voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 118.\n\n371. Alex Hadjicharalambous voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 103, 104, 112, 120, 122 and 123.\n\n372. David Fallon voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 229-231.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 117 of 139\n\n373. Haitham Khaled voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 103, 104, 107-110, 112-116 and 244.\n\n374. Jessica Mastrogiovanni voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 103-105.\n\n375. Greenwich Land LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 194-211, 218.\n\n376. Hudson Diamond NY LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 170, 212 and 218.\n\n377. Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 110, 111, 113, 122 and 123.\n\n378. Saraca Media Group, Inc. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 149, 213, and 219.\n\n379. G-Club Operations LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 127.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 118 of 139\n\n380. GS Security Solutions voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 270 and 271.\n\n381. ACA Capital Group Ltd. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 105, 201, 217, and 266.\n\n382. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, including its segregated portfolios such as Hamilton PE Fund SP and Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 108- 110, 229-232, 246-257, and 269-270.\n\n383. HCHK Technologies, Inc. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 265 and 272.\n\n384. HCHK Property Management, Inc. voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 268, 269 and 271.\n\n385. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraph 266.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 119 of 139\n\n386. Leading Shine NY Limited voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 162, 163 and 165.\n\n387. Lexington Property and Staffing voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in one or more criminal schemes to defraud the Debtor's creditors during the relevant period, including without limitation, the activity described in paragraphs 266 and 267.\n\n388. Accordingly, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Alex Hadjicharalambous, David Fallon, Haitham Khaled, Jessica Mastrogiovanni, GS Security Systems, Greenwich Land LLC, G-Club Operations LLC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn, Saraca Media Group, Inc. ACA Capital Group Ltd., Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, LLC, Leading Shine NY Limited, Lexington Property and Staffing, and Lawall & Mitchell, LLC committed numerous violations of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.\n\n389. The violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 directly and proximately caused injury to the creditors of the Debtor by unjustifiably and irrevocably depleting the assets of the estate in the amount of such transfers and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees substantially greater than would otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for their benefit.\n\n#### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. § 1344 – Bank Fraud**\n\n### **(Mei Guo, Yvette Wang, David Fallon)**\n\n390. The RICO Pattern included numerous acts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 120 of 139\n\n391. Mei Guo, Yvette Wang, and David Fallon knowingly executed or attempted to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution and/or to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.\n\n392. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 214, *inter alia*, Mei Guo and Yvette Wang knowingly executed a scheme and/or artifice by opening bank accounts under false pretenses.\n\n393. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 228-230, *inter alia*, David Fallon knowingly executed a scheme and/or artifice by opening a bank account under false pretenses.\n\n394. Accordingly, there were numerous violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which directly and proximately caused injury to the creditors of the Debtor's estate and property by aiding in the facilitation of the fraudulent scheme and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees substantially greater than would otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n**Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315 – Violations of National Stolen Property Act**\n\n# **(Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Xuebing Wang, Greenwich Land LLC, GS Security Solutions, Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Lexington Property and Staffing, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., Saraca Media Group)**\n\n395. The RICO Pattern included several violations of the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315.\n\n396. Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Xuebing Wang, Greenwich Land LLC, GS Security Solutions, Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 121 of 139\n\nProperty Management, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Lexington Property and Staffing, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., and Saraca Media Group willfully and knowingly transported, transmitted, or transferred in interstate or foreign commerce—or received, possessed, concealed, stored, bartered, sold, disposed of, or pledged as security for a loan—goods, wares, merchandise, securities, or money that crossed an interstate or international boundary after being stolen, converted, or taken by fraud.\n\n397. In many cases, these Defendants transferred goods or money across interstate or international boundaries.\n\n398. In many cases, these Defendants received, possessed, concealed, stores, sold, and/or disposed of assets that crossed an interstate or international boundary.\n\n399. For each transfer, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Xuebing Wang, Greenwich Land LLC, GS Security Solutions, Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton PE Fund SP, Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, HCHK Technologies, Inc., HCHK Property Management, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., Lexington Property and Staffing, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc., and Saraca Media Group knew that the funds involved had been stolen, converted, or taken by fraud.\n\n400. Each transfer involved money or property having a value of \\$5,000 or more.\n\n401. Accordingly, there were numerous violations of the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315, which directly and proximately caused injury to the creditors of the Debtor's estate and property by impairing the Trustee's ability to recover the value of the transfers and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees substantially greater than\n\nwould otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for the benefit of the Debtor's creditors.\n\n# **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 – Money Laundering**\n\n# **((Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Bravo Luck Limited, Saraca Media Group, Greenwich Land LLC, G-Club Operations LLC, GS Security Solutions Inc., Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC, HCHK Technologies Inc., HCHK Property Management, Lexington Property and Staffing, Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Taurus Fund LLC, Leading Shine NY Ltd., ACA Capital Group Limited, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.)**\n\n402. The RICO Pattern included numerous acts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957.\n\n403. Each fraudulent transaction referenced below supported and furthered the fraudulent scheme, at a minimum to conceal the source and destination of the unlawfully obtained funds by layering and cleansing money to make it difficult to trace and/or converting illegal funds into seemingly legitimate assets for the benefit of the Debtor and his co-conspirators and to defraud creditors.\n\n404. Each fraudulent transaction described herein was conducted knowing that the property involved represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, namely violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1343, 1344, 1503, 1512, 1519, 2314 and/or 2315 which transactions in fact involved the proceeds of such unlawful activity as alleged throughout this Complaint with the intent to promote the carrying on of said specified unlawful activity in furtherance of the Kwok Enterprise and, knowing and having reason to know that the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, all as alleged elsewhere in this Complaint.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 123 of 139\n\n405. Accordingly, each transfer constituted, involved, or was the result of specified unlawful activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7).\n\n406. Each transfer involved a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than \\$10,000 and derived from specified unlawful activity.\n\n407. Each Defendant knew that the monies involved in the fraudulent transactions were criminally derived from the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity.\n\n408. Each Defendant knew that each fraudulent transfer was designed, in whole or in part, to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds from the acts of wire fraud.\n\n409. Hing Chi Ngok conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-201, 206, 208, 211.\n\n410. Mei Guo conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-201, 205.\n\n411. Qiang Guo conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 112, 114-116, 181-183.\n\n412. William Je conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 124, 137, and 139.\n\n413. Yvette Wang conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 139,154.\n\n414. Aaron Mitchell conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 244-249.\n\n415. Chunguang Han conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 192, 195, 198, 201 and 208.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 124 of 139\n\n416. Max Krasner conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-201, 208.\n\n417. ACA Capital Group Limited conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 201, 217, and 266.\n\n418. Greenwich Land LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 193-212.\n\n419. Crane Advisory Group L.L.C. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraph 243.\n\n420. Bravo Luck Limited conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 173-191.\n\n421. Saraca Media Group conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 149, 213, and 219.\n\n422. G-Club Operations LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 103-128, 130-131, 231- 232, and 245-257.\n\n423. GS Security Solutions Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 270 and 271.\n\n424. Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraph 210.\n\n425. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, including its segregated portfolios such as Hamilton PE Fund SP and Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP, conducted the series of financial\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 125 of 139\n\ntransactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 108-110, 229-232, 246-257, and 269-270.\n\n426. HCHK Technologies Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 258-272.\n\n427. HCHK Property Management conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 258-272.\n\n428. Lexington Property and Staffing conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 266 and 267.\n\n429. Hudson Diamond NY LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 170, 204, 205, 212-227.\n\n430. Taurus Fund LLC conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 233-243.\n\n431. Leading Shine NY Ltd. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 149, 160-166.\n\n432. Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 136, 137.\n\n433. Rule of Law Society IV, Inc. conducted the series of financial transactions described herein including, but not limited to allegations contained in paragraphs 136, 138.\n\n434. The violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957 directly and proximately caused injury to the Debtor's estate by impairing the Trustee's ability to recover the value of the transfers for creditors and ultimately caused the Debtor's estate to incur professional fees\n\nsubstantially greater than would otherwise have been necessary to recover estate property for their benefit.\n\n### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519 – Obstruction of Justice**\n\n# **(Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Qiang Guo, Yvette Wang, Max Krasner, Chunguang Han, Yongbing Zhang, Aaron Mitchell, Beile Li, Yan Chun Liu, Qidong Xia, Xuebing Wang, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, G-Club US Operations LLC, Bravo Luck)**\n\n435. The RICO Pattern included more than one act of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1507, 1512, and 1519.\n\n436. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 289-295, among others, Yvette Wang endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice by violating the Corporate Governance Rights Order in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n437. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 296-298, among others, GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, and G-Club US Operations LLC corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice by withholding information, including documents, thereby failing to comply with the Rule 2004 Subpoenas and violating the Court's Rule 2004 Orders in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n438. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 299-303, among others, Hing Chi Ngok, Max Krasner, and Chunguang Han corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice by violating the Greenwich TRO and Greenwich PI in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme\n\n439. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 322 and 324, among others the Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, as alleged in more detail above, by engaging, supporting and/or funding false and harassing online materials as a method of intimidation to\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 127 of 139\n\ndeter the Trustee from acting in accordance with his statutory duties. Moreover, based on the same allegations, the Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.\n\n440. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 335-341, among others, Yongbing Zhang, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, filing frivolous lawsuits. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Yongbing Zhang corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice.\n\n441. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Beile Li, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a harassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Beile Li corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n442. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Yan Chun Liu, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a harassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Yan Chun Liu corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n443. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Qidong Xia, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 128 of 139\n\nharassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Qidong Xia corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n444. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraphs 317-329, Xuebing Wang, corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate, or impede an officer of this Court, including the Trustee, in the discharge of his duty by, as alleged in more detail above, engaging in a picketing and a harassment campaign outside the Trustee's residence and place of business. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Xuebing Wang corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice and the Trustee's performance of his official duties.\n\n445. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 281-283, 307-311, among others, Mei Guo corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding, including the Chapter 11 Case, by, as alleged in more detail above, knowingly and intentionally making material misstatements, misrepresentations, and omissions under penalty of perjury in connection with the Chapter 11 Case concerning the Debtors' financial affairs, the Debtor's and their own relationship with the Asset-Holding Entities and Funding Entities. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Mei Guo endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n446. Based on the allegation set forth in paragraph 280-282, 312-315, among others, Aaron Mitchell corruptly obstructed, influenced, or impeded an official proceeding, including the Chapter 11 Case, by, as alleged in more detail above, knowingly and intentionally making material misstatements, misrepresentations, and omissions under penalty of perjury in connection with the Chapter 11 Case concerning the Debtors' financial affairs, and/or endeavored to\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 129 of 139\n\ninfluence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n447. Based on the allegations set forth in paragraph 305, among others, Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck knowingly falsified a record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of the Chapter 11 Case. Moreover, based on the same allegations, Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of justice in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n\n448. Accordingly, Hing Chi Ngok, Mei Guo, Yvette Wang, Qiang Guo, Yongbing Zhang, Chunguang Han, Aaron Mitchell, Max Krasner, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc., GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, G-Club US Operations LLC and Bravo Luck committed acts of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519, which directly and proximately caused injury to the estate by, among other things, impairing the Trustee's ability to investigate the assets of Kwok and causing Kwok's estate to incur substantial professional fees and expenses related to the obstruction, which directly impacts all creditors.\n\n#### **Predicate Acts: 18 U.S.C. § 152 – Bankruptcy Fraud**\n\n## **(Mei Guo, Hing Chi Ngok, Qiang Guo, William Je, Yvette Wang, Aaron Mitchell, Bravo Luck and Greenwich Land LLC)**\n\n449. The RICO Pattern included more than one act of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152.\n\n450. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 307-311 of this Complaint, Mei Guo knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false oaths or accounts in or relation to the Chapter 11 Case, as demonstrated by the following actions, which are alleged in more detail above, among others:\n\n- a. Mei Guo made false statements under penalty of perjury regarding the ownership of the Lady May yacht.\n- b. Mei Guo made false statements in a declaration regarding her use and ownership of a smart phone.\n- c. Mei Guo committed perjury with regards to the proceeds of the sale of a Bombardier private jet.\n\n451. Based on those same allegations, Mei Guo knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n452. Moreover, based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 281-283, and 308 of this Complaint, Mei Guo fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States Trustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including, among others, the following assets and/or related proceeds, as alleged in more detail above: the Lady May and the Bombardier jet\n\n453. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 306 of this Complaint, Hing Chi Ngok knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false oaths or accounts in or relation to the Chapter 11 Case , including by (i) her assertion that she took certain actions in relation to the Ferncliff Property purchased by Greenwich Land, which was contradicted by the fact she was unable to recognize what the Ferncliff Property looked like; and (ii) her statement the Debtor had no involvement with Greenwich Land's purchase of the Taconic Road Property, which was contradicted by the detailed testimony of Mr. de Neree, the buyer-side real estate broker for the sale of the Taconic Road Property.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 131 of 139\n\n454. Based on those same allegations, Hing Chi Ngok knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n455. Moreover, based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 204-208 of this Complaint, Hing Chi Ngok and Greenwich Land LLC knowingly and fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States Trustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including, among others, the assets and/or related proceeds from the sale of the Ferncliff Property.\n\n456. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 305 of this Complaint, Qiang Guo and Bravo Luck, each knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false oaths or accounts in or relation to the Chapter 11 Case, including by submitting proofs of claim that rely on a purported trust agreement that is a forged and backdated agreement.\n\n457. Based on those same allegations, Qiang Guo knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n458. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 139 of this Complaint, William Je knowingly and fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States Trustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including, among others, the assets held in Defendant and/or co-conspirator entities and transfers of fraudulently obtained property.\n\n459. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 286-295 of this Complaint, Yvette Wang knowingly and fraudulently concealed from creditors, the United States\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 132 of 139\n\nTrustee, the Trustee, and this Court property belonging to the Debtor's estate, including through, among others, the Ace Decade Transfer.\n\n460. Based on the allegations set forth in, inter alia, paragraphs 312 of this Complaint, Aaron Mitchell, knowingly and fraudulently made one or more false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements under penalty of perjury in or in relation to the Chapter 11 Case related to the Debtor's affairs.\n\n461. Accordingly, these Defendants committed acts of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, which directly and proximately caused injury to the estate by, among other things, impairing the Trustee's ability to investigate and recover the assets belonging to the Debtor's estate and causing the estate to incur substantial professional fees and expenses related to the investigation of information these Defendants failed to disclose and actively endeavored to conceal, destroy, or otherwise render unavailable for use in connection with the Chapter 11 Case.\n\n### **Continuity of the RICO Pattern**\n\n462. The Defendants' violations of law as set forth herein, each of which directly and proximately injured the Debtor's creditors, constituted a continuous course of conduct in the United States beginning no later than 2015 and continuing through the filing of this Complaint, which has been intended to defraud creditors through false representations, fraud, deceit, and other improper and unlawful means, for the benefit of the Debtor and his co-conspirators.\n\n463. Additionally, the Defendants' violations of law as set forth herein poses a threat of continuing criminal activity.\n\n464. Accordingly, the violations were a part of pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) and (5).\n\n#### **COUNT 2**\n\n# **Conspiracy to Violate the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Against All Defendants)**\n\n465. The Trustee restates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through [ ] of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.\n\n466. Each Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by agreeing to join, participate in, or support a conspiracy under which one or more persons would conduct or participate in the conduct of the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (the \"RICO Conspiracy\").\n\n467. In particular, each Defendant was a knowing, willing, and active participant in the Kwok Enterprise and its affairs, and each of the Defendants shared a common purpose, namely, the orchestration, planning, preparation, and execution of the fraudulent scheme of transferring and dispersing the Debtor's property, including fraudulently obtained funds, through a web of sham entities for the benefit of the Debtor and other co-conspirators and to conceal such property and funds from the Debtor's creditors.\n\n468. The participation and agreement of each of Defendant was necessary to allow the commission of this scheme.\n\n469. Each Defendant knew about and agreed to facilitate the Kwok Enterprise by way of the acts in which he or she engaged as alleged herein and/or through explicit agreement amongst some or all of the Defendants. Evidence of an agreement among the Defendants is particularly within the knowledge and control of each Defendant.\n\n470. Each Nominee Participant Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. Each Nominee Participant Defendant acted as purported nominal owners, executives, directors, employees and/or appointees of entities the Debtor functionally and beneficially controlled, including certain of the Asset-Holding Entities, Funding Entities, and Business-Front Entities that were used to facilitate the fraudulent scheme.\n- b. Each Nominee Participant Defendant had knowledge of and facilitated and authorized the unlawful endeavors with respect to the Asset-Holding Entities, Funding Entities, and Business-Front Entities they were purported nominal owners, executives, directors, employees and/or appointees of by engaging in the unlawful conduct described above.\n- 471. Each Asset-Holding Entity's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy\n\nis demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. The Debtor enjoys complete control over each Asset-Holding Entity directly or through his dominance and control over the Nominee Participants.\n- b. The Nominee Participants associated with the Asset-Holding Entity's directly participated in the Kwok Enterprise's fraudulent scheme.\n- c. Each Asset-Holding Entity had knowledge of and directly engaged in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise by engaging in millions of dollars in fraudulent import and export transactions with the Funding Entities and Business-Front Entities during to further the fraudulent scheme to enrich the Debtor, his family and other co-conspirators and defraud creditors.\n- d. Each Asset-Holding Entity was established and operated for the sole purpose of furthering the fraudulent scheme to enrich the Debtor, his family and other coconspirators and defraud creditors.\n- 472. Each Business-Front Entity's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy\n\nis demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. Each Business-Front Entity had knowledge of and facilitated and directly engaged in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise by concealing the Debtor's assets from creditors and passing-through unlawfully obtained funds for the benefit of the Debtor, his family, and associates, while nominally being operating media, real estate, technology, and social media enterprises, but functionally being owned and controlled by the Debtor to further the Kwok Enterprise.\n- 473. Each Professional Participant Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO\n\nConspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the Professional\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 135 of 139\n\nParticipant Defendants' knowledge of and direct engagement in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise as detailed herein, including, *inter alia*, transferring or receiving fraudulentlyobtained assets and/or orchestrating such transactions.\n\n474. Each Additional Participant Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, Additional Participant Defendants' had knowledge of and direct engagement in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise as detailed herein, including, *inter alia*, their fraudulent activity and/or other acts taken in support of, and to further, the fraudulent scheme.\n\n475. Each Funding Entity Defendant's agreement to join and support the RICO Conspiracy is demonstrated by or can be inferred from, among other things, the following:\n\n- a. The Debtor enjoys complete control over each Funding Entity Defendants directly or through his dominance and control over the Nominee Participants.\n- b. Each Funding Entity Defendant had knowledge of and facilitated and directly engaged in the unlawful endeavors of the Kwok Enterprise by transferring substantial sums to various entities and individuals to enrich the Debtor, his family and other co-conspirators.\n- c. Each Funding Entity Defendant was established for the sole purpose of furthering the fraudulent scheme to enrich the Debtor, his family and other co-conspirators and defraud creditors.\n\n476. By and through each of the Defendants' business and/or personal relationships with one another, their close coordination with one another in the affairs of the Kwok Enterprise, and involvement in the Debtor's fraudulent scheme, each Defendant knew the nature of the Kwok Enterprise and each Defendant knew that the Kwok Enterprise extended beyond each Defendant's individual role.\n\n477. Each Defendant engaged in the acts as alleged herein, knowing of at least the general contours of the conspiracy, with the intent to further or facilitate the Kwok Enterprise. The\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 136 of 139\n\nparticipation and agreement of each Defendant was necessary to allow the commission of this pattern of racketeering activity. All Defendants played key roles and directly participated in the racketeering activity because they all had knowledge of the unlawful scheme and given their authority and discretion over the conduct and affairs of various Defendant entities and themselves, the scheme would not have been allowed to continue without their consent and active encouragement and participation.\n\n478. To the extent any one or more of the entity Defendants (*i.e.* the Funding Entities, Asset-Holding Entities, Business-Front Entities, and certain Professional Participants) are not directly liable for conspiring to violate RICO's substantive provisions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), they are vicariously liable for the Section 1962(d) violations of other individual Defendants to the extent an individual Defendant committed a predicate act within the scope of those individuals' employment, officership, or directorship position at or agency relationship with an entity Defendant. The predicate acts alleged to have been committed herein were each committed in furtherance of a scheme intended to and which did in fact benefit the Debtor, his family, and his associates by concealing and disguising the nature and ownership of assets of the Debtor through shell entities and a scheme to defraud creditors. Accordingly, such entity Defendant(s) are vicariously liable for the RICO violations of certain individual Defendants as alleged herein.\n\n479. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' RICO Conspiracy, the pattern of racketeering activity through which they agreed the affairs of the RICO Enterprise would be conducted, and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the Debtor's creditors have been harmed.\n\n480. The Debtor's estate continues to be deprived of monies that should contribute to recoveries for the Debtor's creditors, as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing violations\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 137 of 139\n\nof 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), as it continues to be deprived of monies that belong to the estate. As alleged herein, absent Defendants' willfully criminal conduct, the recoveries the Debtor's creditors may receive as a result of the Trustee's efforts, if any, would be materially greater. The damages to the Debtor's creditors include, but are not limited to, the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, the Trustee was forced to expend from the estate as a direct and proximate result of the foregoing violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and in order to recover the property and assets unlawfully concealed and disguised by the Defendants, including as a result of Defendants' preand post-bankruptcy unlawful conduct.\n\n481. It was a foreseeable, natural, direct, and intended consequence of Defendants' scheme to defraud the Debtor's creditors and conceal the ownership and nature of the Debtor's assets that the Trustee would have to incur more professional fees to recover the Debtor's assets, if identifiable and recoverable notwithstanding Defendants' unlawful conduct, and, thus, recoveries for the Debtor's creditors, if any, would be materially reduced. There are no independent factors that account for the injuries to the Debtor's creditors caused by the Defendants' unlawful conduct, nor are those injuries in any way derivative of any injury to any other entity or individual. No immediate victim is better situated than the Trustee to sue—and indeed the Defendants' misconduct has been brought to light by the Trustee's efforts, as well as those of the U.S. Department of Justice—nor is there any risk of duplicative recoveries by plaintiffs removed at different levels of injury from the violations.\n\n482. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the Trustee is entitled to recover treble damages, together with the costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.\n\n### **PRAYER FOR RELIEF**\n\n**WHEREFORE,** the Trustee prays for relief and judgment as follows:\n\n- (a) General and compensatory damages according to proof at trial;\n- (b) Treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);\n- (c) Necessary and appropriate injunctive relief, including an injunction requiring the Defendants to cease and desist from all of the foregoing unlawful conduct;\n- (d) Disgorgement of all moneys received by Defendants as a result of their unlawful activities;\n- (d) An award of the Trustee's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);\n- (e) Prejudgment interest; and\n- (f) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n\nDated: February 15, 2024 New York, New York\n\nLUC A. DESPINS CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: /*s*/ *Douglass Barron*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 [aviluft@paulhastings.com](mailto:aviluft@paulhastings.com) douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nDouglas S. Skalka (ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.70 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n70 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. serves as the Trustee's exclusive counsel for all allegations regarding and counts asserted against GTV in this complaint.","body_zh":"United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut Bridgeport Division（美国康涅狄格州破产法院布里奇波特分院）\nx\n关于： :\n:\n第 11 章\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等，\n:\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。\n（合并审理）\nx\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人， :\n:\n对抗性程序 24-_________\n原告， :\n:\n2024年2月15日\nv. :\nHING CHI NGOK（岳庆芝）、MEI GUO（郭美）、QIANG GUO（郭强）、WILLIAM JE（余建明）、YVETTE WANG（王雁平）、XUEBING WANG（王雪冰）、MAX KRASNER、CHUNGUANG HAN（韩春光）、YONGBING ZHANG（张永兵）、AARON MITCHELL、RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III, INC.（法治基金三号公司）、GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC.（GTV传媒集团公司）、SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC.（萨拉卡传媒集团公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、G-CLUB US OPERATIONS LLC（G-Club美国运营有限责任公司）、BRAVO LUCK LIMITED（荣幸有限公司）、GREENWICH LAND LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）、CRANE ADVISORY GROUP L.L.C.（鹤类咨询集团有限责任公司）、G-CLUB OPERATIONS LLC（G-Club运营有限责任公司）、GS SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC.（GS安保解决方案公司）、GYPSY MEI FOOD SERVICES LLC（吉普赛梅餐饮服务有限责任公司）、HCHK TECHNOLOGIES INC.（HCHK科技公司）、LEXINGTON PROPERTY AND STAFFING（莱克星顿物业与人员配置公司）、HAMILTON OPPORTUNITY FUND SPC（汉密尔顿机遇独立投资组合公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND NY LLC、TAURUS FUND LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）、TAURUS MANAGEMENT LLC（金牛管理有限责任公司）、LEADING SHINE NY LTD.（领辉纽约有限公司）、ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED（阿卡资本集团有限公司）、RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III, INC.、RULE OF LAW SOCIETY IV, INC.（法治社会四号公司）、HAMILTON PE FUND SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金独立投资组合）、HAMILTON DIGITAL ASSETS FUND SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金独立投资组合）、HIMALAYA CURRENCY CLEARING PTY. LTD（喜马拉雅货币清算私人有限公司）、HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL GROUP LIMITED（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）、HOLY CITY HONG KONG VENTURES, LTD.（圣城香港创投有限公司）、VICTOR CERDA、ANA C. IZQUIERDO-HENN、HAITHAM KHALED、JESSICA MASTROGIOVANNI、ALEX HADJICHARALAMBOUS、BEILE LI（李北乐）、ANTHONY DIBATTISTA、GLADYS CHOW（周美芬）、SCOTT BARNETT、HAORAN HE（何浩然）、HSIN SHIH YU（余信实）、LIMARIE REYES MOLINARIS、NICHOLAS SAVIO、QIDONG XIA（夏启东）、YAN CHUN LIU（刘艳春）、XUEBING WANG、ACA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED、GETTR USA, INC.（盖特美国公司）、G CLUB INTERNATIONAL LIMITED（G俱樂部國際有限公司）、GNEWS MEDIA GROUP INC.（Gnews传媒集团公司）、HIMALAYA INTERNATIONAL CLEARING LTD.（喜马拉雅国际清算有限公司）、HUDSON DIAMOND HOLDINGS LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）、LAWALL & MITCHELL, LLC、O.S.C. ORBIT SERVICE COMPANY LLC 以及 SAVIO LAW LLC\n被告。 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : x\n\n脚注1：在这些第 11 章案件中的债务人包括 Ho Wan Kwok（又名郭文贵、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及其他众多化名）（税务识别号后四位：9595）、Genever Holdings LLC（税务识别号后四位：8202）和 Genever Holdings Corporation。受托人及 Genever 债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 转交 Luc A. Despins（作为 Ho Wan Kwok 破产财产的受托人）（仅用于通知和通信目的）。\n\n第 11 章受托人就违反《受敲诈勒索者影响和腐败组织法》及合谋违反《受敲诈勒索者影响和腐败组织法》索赔的起诉书\n\nLuc A. Despins 以在 Ho Wan Kwok（“债务人”或“郭”）的第 11 章案件（“第 11 章案件”）中被任命的第 11 章受托人（“受托人”）身份，对下文指明作为本诉当事人的各被告（统称“各被告”）提起本对抗性起诉书（“起诉书”），并陈述如下：\n\n诉讼性质\n\n1. 受托人提起本起诉书，旨在追回债务人的债权人因被告协助实施的涉及多起欺诈计划的广泛、长达数年的敲诈勒索合谋而遭受的损害赔偿，该合谋违反了1970年《Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act》（《受敲诈勒索者影响和腐败组织法》，简称“RICO”）。\n\n2. 正如法院所深知，债务人自称是一名中国异见人士，在其于 2022年2月15日 申请破产（“申请日”）之前，长期在社交媒体及其他场合声称自己是一位拥有几乎无限资源的亿万富翁。本诉讼涉及债务人及其合谋者如何能够聚敛巨额资金，随后通过广泛的犯罪行为利用这些资金自肥，同时向债务人的债权人隐匿这些资产。\n\n3. 如本起诉书所指控，至少自 2015年 以来，债务人与各被告通过庞大的全球空壳公司网络运营着一个敲诈勒索企业（“郭氏企业”），其目的是使债务人、其家族成员及其亲信自肥，同时向债务人的债权人隐瞒债务人财富的真实性质与规模，并阻止债权人获得偿还。结果，债务人及与其关系密切的人享受了亿万富翁生活方式的所有奢华与表征——从私人飞机、豪华超级游艇，到价值 10,000 美元的西装，再到多处宫殿般的住所，以及更多更多——而多年来对债务人积聚了数亿美元债权的债权人们却一无所获。\n\n4. 债务人债权人中的首要者为 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙，简称“PAX”），截至 2015年，该公司依据对债务人一家公司贷款的个人担保（“2011年个人担保”），对债务人持有约 5000 万美元的债权。2017年4月 前后，PAX 在纽约州法院对债务人提起诉讼，以执行 2011年个人担保 追回欠款，并于 2020年9月 就该笔债务获得了简易判决，由于利息累积，该笔债务届时已增至约 1.15 亿美元。与此同时，其他债权人也就涉及诽谤、性侵等事由对债务人提出了严重而实质性的索赔。2017年9月 前后，其中一位债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）在纽约对债务人提起诉讼，基于各项侵权索赔请求获得约 2000 万美元的赔偿。其他常驻中国的债权人也早在 2017年 就开始在美国对债务人提起诉讼，指控债务人让他们在中国落得收拾烂摊子的下场。\n\n5. 除了债务人欠债权人的巨额债务外，郭氏企业背后的另一关键背景（但不属于该企业本身的一部分）是自 2020年 前后开始的一系列欺诈性募资计划，债务人及其他人利用这些计划进一步聚敛财富并资助其奢侈的生活方式。为了支持这些计划，债务人及其支持者首先主要通过社交媒体编造并传播了一套引人注目（且虚假）的话术，在其中债务人既炫耀其令人艳羡的生活方式，又承诺领导一场“推翻”中国共产党的社会政治运动。随后，债务人及其他人利用这一叙事吸引受害者的投资或捐款，这些受害者通常由认同债务人所谓反共事业的海外华人圈成员组成，以及/或者由对债务人吹嘘的不可估量的财富印象深刻（并受骗）的人士组成。\n\n6. 这些募资计划总共诈骗了受害者数亿美元，其中包括兜售所谓的以现金换取股票的贷款计划中的虚假投资（“农场贷款计划”）；以提供会员福利的虚假承诺为基础鼓动购买生活方式俱乐部的“会员资格”（“G-Club”）；以及创建一种伪造的加密货币及相关交易平台（“喜马拉雅交易所”）。虽然受害者被承诺将获得投资回报——无论是利息支付、会员福利、对政治事业的支持还是其他形式——但债务人及这些计划的其他参与者却欺诈性地将资金挪作个人私用。\n\n7. 在面对其债权人的索赔以及债务人的欺诈性募资计划的双重背景下，债务人与其作为合谋者的各被告建立了郭氏企业，目的是向债务人的债权人隐瞒和屏蔽债务人的巨额财富——既包括投资计划的收益，也包括债务人独立于这些计划所取得的资产。债务人及其合谋者各被告通过建立一个由相互关联的空壳公司和银行账户组成的复杂全球网络来实现这一目标，他们利用该网络既进行洗钱（以掩饰其欺诈来源），又在公司独立性的掩盖下持有资产的所有权——例如债务人的豪华游艇“Lady May”（梅号）（如下图所示）、他的庞巴迪私人飞机，以及他的多处住宅，包括他在新泽西州马赫瓦近 50,000 平方英尺的豪宅（如下图所示，“马赫瓦豪宅”）。实际上，这些通常名义上由债务人的家族成员或亲信之一所拥有的空壳公司，全部是纯粹为了隐匿高价值资产并延续欺诈而存在的伪装。\n\n脚注2：本初步声明中未定义的具有首字母大写的术语，具有本起诉书其余部分赋予此类术语的含义。\n\n[图片：_page_5_Picture_2.jpeg]\n\n8. 郭氏企业隐匿债务人资产的企图在多年间取得了成功。然而在 2021年，郭氏企业的欺诈行为开始败露，至少部分败露，当时 PAX 试图在纽约诉讼中执行其判决，试图扣押“Lady May”游艇，理由是该游艇属于债务人，而不属于名义上由其女儿（本诉讼中的一名被告）拥有并持有该游艇所有权的空壳公司。在 2022年2月 初进行审理后，纽约法院赞同 PAX 的主张，认定 Lady May 属于债务人，并认定债务人及其身边亲信参与了一场“障眼法骗局”，以向债权人隐瞒该游艇及其他资产。由于债务人在获得充分机会的情况下仍未能将 Lady May 带回康涅狄格州，纽约法院对债务人处以按日计算的藐视法庭罚款，至审理之时，该罚款已膨胀至 1.34 亿美元。\n\n9. 由于在不披露债务人资产的真实位置和规模的情况下无法支付纽约判决款项或藐视法庭罚款，债务人及其作为合谋者的各被告别无选择，只得启动其欺诈计划的下一阶段：于 2022年2月15日 向本法院申请破产，在破产申请中债务人虚假声称其名下仅有约 3,800 美元的资产。该破产申请的目的是让债务人获得《Bankruptcy Code》（《破产法典》）自动中止规定的保护，以阻止 PAX 在纽约诉讼中继续开展判决执行工作，同时为债务人提供机会，以便在第 11 章计划下协商重组其债务，从而能够继续隐瞒其巨额财富的真实性质、规模及其欺诈来源。然而，这一策略最终产生了适得其反的后果，受托人于 2022年7月 被任命，对债务人的事务展开全面调查并提起诉讼以将资产追回至破产财产中。\n\n10. 为应对受托人的任命，作为郭氏企业成员的各被告已经（并继续）采取了大量行动来阻碍第 11 章案件的清理管理，并阻挠受托人的调查和诉讼工作。这些行动包括但不限于：作伪证、在收到有效发出的传票和法院命令后拒绝向受托人提供文件和信息、在其他法院提起无理诉讼，以及组织一场史无前例的全球骚扰和恐吓活动，专门用于干扰受托人的调查并迫使其辞职。从事这些活动的债务人及其合谋者各被告的目的，仍然与其欺诈计划之初完全相同：掩盖其欺诈行为，并阻止债务人的债权人触及其实际资产。\n\n11. 尽管债务人（Debtor）是且一直是郭氏企业（Kwok Enterprise）背后的主谋，但作为同谋的各被告人明知故犯地以集体且紧密配合的方式发挥了关键作用，为债务人及自身的利益指导、协助并直接参与该企业的各项计划。串谋并采取行动推动郭氏企业的各被告人及其他非当事人参与者广泛包括：(i) 债务人，(ii) 由债务人秘密拥有并控制的虚假实体，包括为欺诈计划提供资金的实体以及持有资产或充当幌子实体的实体，(iii) 作为这些虚假实体的代持人并从事额外不当行为的个人（包括郭的家族成员），(iv) 协助设计和运作该计划的专业人士（包括律师和财务顾问），以及 (v) 以各种身份参与该计划的其他个人（包括虚假实体的员工及郭的追随者等）。\n\n12. 如下文详述，各被告人在实施郭氏企业的欺诈计划过程中犯下了一系列作为前提的犯罪行为（predicate criminal acts）。这些犯罪行为包括但不限于银行欺诈、电汇欺诈以及违反反洗钱法的行为。它们还包括破产欺诈和妨碍司法公正，特别是多起旨在干扰第11章（chapter 11）破产程序的妨碍司法公正行为。\n\n13. 各被告人推动郭氏企业的这些及其他行为严重损害了债务人的债权人利益，剥夺了他们获取本应用于清偿其债权的债务人大额资产的权利。由于郭氏企业对债务人资产的欺诈性隐匿及其对第11章案件的阻碍，受托人（Trustee）被迫承担了巨额律师费及其他费用，债务人的债权人因此受到了进一步损害。基于对破产财团（estate）债权人造成的上述损害，受托人有权要求各被告人承担三倍赔偿（treble damages）。\n\n管辖权与审判地（JURISDICTION AND VENUE）\n\n14. 受托人依据 11 U.S.C. §§ 105、544、550 及其他适用法律提起本诉状（Complaint）。\n\n15. 本法院依据 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) 对本案具有管辖权，因为本对抗性程序（adversary proceeding）系根据《美国法典》第11篇（title 11 of the United States Code）产生，且产生于这些第11章案件并与之相关；本法院亦依据 28 U.S.C. § 1331 和 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 享有管辖权，因为本对抗性程序系根据美国法律（包括 18 U.S.C. § 1962）产生，并针对因违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962 而造成的损害寻求救济。\n\n16. 本对抗性程序已依据 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) 移送（referred）至本法院。\n\n17. 在本法院无权对本对抗性程序中主张的权利请求作出最终判决的范围内，受托人同意由本法院作出并签署最终判决书或裁定/命令。\n\n18. 根据 28 U.S.C. § 1409，本对抗性程序的审判地在本司法管辖区是适当的。\n\n当事人及其他相关实体和个人（PARTIES AND OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS）\n\n19. 根据本法院于 2022年7月8日 作出的裁定/命令 [主案卷宗号 523]（[Main Case Docket No. 523]），受托人是债务人破产财团正式获任的第11章受托人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 10 of 139\n\n20. 债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵，亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo、Miles Kwok 以及诸多其他化名）是一名声称居住于 373 Taconic Road, Greenwich, CT 06831 的个人债务人。债务人目前被羁押在纽约布鲁克林（Brooklyn, New York），等待就美国对其及其同谋被告人 Yvette Wang 和 William Je 提起的刑事敲诈勒索及欺诈罪名指控受审。\n\n21. 被告人 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝，又名 Hing Chi Ng）是债务人据称的配偶，居住在康涅狄格州格林威治（Greenwich, Connecticut）。Ngok 在名义上拥有并持有属于郭氏企业且作为本文所述欺诈工具的多个实体的所有权和头衔。\n\n22. 被告人 Mei Guo（郭美，又名 Mei Gui）是债务人的女儿，居住在纽约市。Mei Guo 在名义上拥有并持有属于郭氏企业且作为本文所述欺诈工具的多个实体的所有权和头衔。\n\n23. 被告人 Qiang Guo（郭强，又名 Mileson Kwok）是债务人的儿子，居住在英国伦敦。Qiang Guo 在名义上拥有并持有属于郭氏企业且作为本文所述欺诈工具的多个实体的所有权和头衔。据信息与信面所知（Upon information and belief），被告人 Qiang Guo 在本诉讼所指控相关时期内曾前往美国。他还故意将其行为针对美国，从而对美国的债务人债权人造成了损害。\n\n24. 被告人 Yanping Wang（王雁平，又名 Yvette Wang、Y. Wang）（「Yvette Wang」）是一名在所有相关时期均为主要居住在纽约市的中国公民。Yvette Wang 已为债务人及其家族工作数年（至少自约 2018年 起），并实质上担任债务人及郭氏企业的「幕僚长（chief of staff）」。被告人 Yvette Wang 目前被羁押在布鲁克林，等待\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 11 of 139\n\n就美国对其及其同谋债务人与被告人 William Je 提起的刑事敲诈勒索及欺诈罪名指控受审。\n\n25. 被告人 Kin Ming Je（余建明，又名 William Je、Yu Jianming、W. Je）（「William Je」）是一名在所有相关时期均拥有中国香港和英国双重国籍并主要居住在英国，同时经常前往美国及其他地方的个人。被告人 William Je 与债务人及被告人 Yvette Wang 一同被美国指控犯有刑事敲诈勒索及欺诈罪。被告人 Je 目前仍在逃，据信现身处阿拉伯联合酋长国。被告人 Je 故意将其行为针对美国，从而对美国的债务人债权人造成了损害。\n\n26. 被告人 Aaron Mitchell 是一名在此被指控为「专业参与者（Professional Participant）」的个人，是债务人的私人律师，并已（以个人名义并通过其律师事务所 Lawall & Mitchell LLC）代表债务人的众多空壳公司，实质上担任郭氏企业的内部总法律顾问。在 2023年4月 辞职之前，Mitchell 先生曾担任债务人旗下 GTV Media Group, Inc. 的董事会成员。Mitchell 先生密切参与了债务人的众多重大活动和交易，包括 GTV 私募（GTV Private Placement，定义见下文）、通过销售 G Club 会员资格从债务人的追随者处募集资金。\n\n据信息与信面所知，Mitchell 先生还协助债务人为其空壳公司协调开设离岸银行账户。此外，Mitchell 先生还将债务人及其众多空壳公司位于纽约 162 E. 64th Street 的地址用作其律师事务所地址。他居住在新泽西州。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 12 of 139\n\n27. 被告人 Alex Hadjicharalambous 是一名在此被指控为「额外参与者（Additional Participant）」的个人，曾为债务人服务，担任 G Club Operations 的财务总监（Financial Controller）等职务，并在某些 HCHK 实体（HCHK Entities）以及 Golden Spring 任职。Hadjicharalambous 先生还是 G Fashion LLC、G Music LLC 和 G Club Operations LLC 等公司的银行账户签字人。Hadjicharalambous 先生居住在纽约。\n\n28. 被告人 Beile Li（李蓓勒）已被本法院认定为债务人及某些被告人的关联人员。法院还认定，Beile Li 积极参与了针对受托人的骚扰活动，骚扰地点既在受托人住所外，也在纽约大中央车站（Grand Central Terminal）保宏律师事务所（Paul Hastings）办公室入口处，这些骚扰活动已依据本法院的 PAX 初步禁令裁定（PAX PI Order）被本法院下令禁止。Li 还是债务人的一群支持者于 2022年11月 对受托人提起的无理取闹且现已被驳回的诉讼的原告之一，该诉讼诬告受托人是中国政府的代理人。\n\n29. 被告人 Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn（「被告人 Izquierdo」）是一名在此被指控为「专业参与者」的个人，在整个 G-Club 计划（G-Club Scheme）期间担任 G-Club Operations LLC 的总法律顾问。她居住在波多黎各。\n\n30. 被告人 Anthony DiBattista 是一名在此被指控为「代持参与者（Nominee Participant）」的个人，曾受聘于债务人控制的不同实体并担任多种职务。DiBattista 先生曾为债务人服务，担任 Golden Spring 的员工、HCHK 实体的少数股东和公司管理人员，以及 GTV 和其他空壳实体的公司管理人员、授权签字人和高级雇员等。DiBattista 先生居住在纽约。\n\n31. 被告人 Chunguang Han（韩春光，又名「Hank」Chunguang）是一名在此被指控为「代持参与者」的个人，是债务人的家政雇员和厨师，这已由债务人妻子的近期证词证实。债务人已将韩春光安插在\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 13 of 139\n\n债务人空壳公司网络内的众多职位上，包括担任 Eastern Profit Corporation、Anton Development 和 Rosy Acme Ventures Limited 3 的前名义所有者。除其他职务外，韩春光还为债务人担任 Saraca 以及作为庞巴迪对抗性程序（Bombardier Adversary Proceeding）标的的众多英属维尔京群岛注册实体的公司管理人员和账户签字人。他居住在纽约。\n\n32. 被告人 David Fallon 是一名在此被指控为「额外参与者」的个人。\n\n33. 被告人 Gladys Chow 是一名在此被指控为「额外参与者」的个人，曾在一处实质上由债务人拥有的实体——被告人 HCHK Technologies 担任据称的项目经理。她居住在纽约。\n\n34. 被告人 Scott Barnett 是一名在此被指控为「专业参与者」的个人，曾担任债务人的保镖兼司机。据信息与信面所知，他居住在纽约或新泽西。\n\n35. 被告人 Haoran He（何浩然）是一名在此被指控为「代持参与者」的个人，据信是一名居住在英国的据称房地产开发商，如本文所述，他为债务人担任 G-Club 实体（G-Club Entities）的名义（间接）所有者。据信息与信面所知，Haoran He 是债务人的傀儡（strawman），债务人挑选他作为这些实体的名义所有者，正是为了规避若将实体置于债务人或其家族成员名下将引发的监管及其他审查。他居住在英国。\n\n3 Rosy Acme Ventures Limited 是作为庞巴迪对抗性程序标的的英属维尔京群岛实体之一。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 14 of 139\n\n36. 被告人 Haitham Khaled 是一名个人，在此被指控为「额外参与者」，曾担任债务人及郭氏企业的财务顾问，指导在美国本土及海外建立银行合作关系。被告人 Khaled 还曾是 Crane Advisory Group LLC 的所有者，该实体曾是持牌的纽约资金转账实体（money-transmitter entity）。他居住在纽约。\n\n37. 被告 Hsin Shih Yu（余信世）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为额外参与者（Additional Participant）。余信世在针对受托人的抗议活动（“Protests”，如下文所定义）及诉讼中发挥了突出作用。他居住在台湾。\n\n38. 被告 Jessica Mastrogiovanni（杰西卡·马斯特罗乔瓦尼）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为额外参与者，并以多种身份为债务人（Debtor）服务，包括担任 GTV 的总法律顾问，以及 GTV 和 Saraca 的公司高级管理人员及授权签字人。她还在 G Club Operations 和 G Club International 担任内部法律职务。\n\n39. 被告 Limarie Reyes Molinaris（“被告 Reyes”）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为额外参与者，并担任 G-Club Operations LLC 的推定首席执行官。她居住在波多黎各。\n\n40. 被告 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为挂名参与者（Nominee Participant），受雇于债务人，在 Golden Spring 以及 HCHK 实体（HCHK Entities）任职，并担任许多其他职位。被告 Krasner 曾担任 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC 的母公司）以及 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）的高级管理人员和授权签字人。Krasner 先生代表债务人并在债务人的指示下协助债务人处理包括购买登记在 Greenwich Land LLC 名下的位于康涅狄格州格林威治的房地产，以及安排游艇 Lady May（梅号）的移泊和维护等事宜。他居住在纽约州。\n\n41. 被告 Nicholas Savio（尼古拉斯·萨维奥）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为专业参与者（Professional Participant），并担任债务人拥有的各个空壳实体的法律顾问。他居住在新泽西州。\n\n42. 被告 Qidong Xia（夏启栋）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为额外参与者。夏启栋在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中发挥了突出作用。他居住在纽约州。\n\n43. 被告 Victor Cerda（维克多·塞尔达）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为专业参与者，并担任债务人拥有的各个空壳实体的法律顾问。他居住在纽约州。\n\n44. 被告 Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为专业参与者，受雇于债务人担任其个人律师，并为债务人服务，担任法治基金的董事等职务。除其他事项外，张先生在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中发挥了主导作用，导致法院对债务人发出了初步禁令，包括其亲自参与在受托人家门口的活动。张先生还参与在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）对受托人、PAX 以及 PAX 的律师提起诉讼。这些起诉书虚假指控受托人、PAX 和 PAX 的律师为中国共产党的代理人（“FARA 诉讼”，FARA Litigation），张先生因此多次受到依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第11条（Rule 11）的制裁。法院基于张先生在 HCHK 破产衍生诉讼程序（HCHK Adversary Proceeding）中的角色对其尤为熟悉，在该案背景下，法院认定（其中包括）张先生是所谓的 HCHK 债权人委员会的领导人，并且张先生参与提起无理缠诉，以图为个人债务人牟利而阻碍受托人在本案中的工作。此外，据信，作为旨在推广 G-Club 骗局（G-Club Scheme）的抽奖活动的一部分，债务人安排张先生“赢得”了一辆兰博基尼汽车。他居住在伊利诺伊州。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 16 of 139\n\n45. 被告 Yan Chun Liu（刘艳春）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为额外参与者。刘艳春在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中发挥了突出作用。她居住在加拿大。\n\n46. 被告 Xuebing Wang（王雪冰）为一名个人，在本文中被指控为额外参与者，并在不同时期成为债务人在其 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）和 Himalaya Global Alliance（全球喜马拉雅联盟）组织中最显赫的亲信之一。被告王雪冰在针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动中也发挥了突出作用。他居住在新西兰。\n\n47. 被告 ACA Capital Group Limited（“ACA Capital”，ACA资本集团有限公司）是一家香港公司，在本文中被指控为资金实体（Funding Entity）。债务人利用 ACA Capital 向其其他空壳实体转移资金（其中包括 Greenwich Land、Lamp Capital、Golden Spring、Saraca、Hudson Diamond NY 以及 Leading Shine NY 等），并用于支付法律费用及其他开支，包括在2022年3月债务人个人第11章破产案中，就债务人提议的破产保护期融资（DIP 融资）向 Golden Spring 提供的 $900万。\n\n48. 被告 Bravo Luck Limited（“Bravo Luck”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，在本文中被指控为资金实体。债务人利用 Bravo Luck 转移资金，用于债务人购买其游艇 Lady May 及其在 Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪利-尼德兰酒店）的公寓等，债务人还通过该公司提供了用于设立其交替人格（alter ego）Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 的资金。Bravo Luck 的名义所有人为债务人的儿子，即被告 Qiang Guo（郭强）。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 17 of 139\n\n49. 被告 Crane Advisory Group LLC（“Crane”）是一家纽约州有限责任公司，曾是纽约州的持牌资金转账机构。\n\n50. 被告 Greenwich Land LLC（“Greenwich Land”）是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，在本文中被指控为资产持有实体（Asset-Holding Entity，如本文所定义）。尽管名义上由债务人的妻子即被告 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）拥有，但 Greenwich Land 在实质功能上归债务人所有。\n\n51. 被告 GS Security Solutions Inc.（“GS Security”）是一家纽约州公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体（Business-Front Entity，如本文所定义）。被告 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴尼特）是 GS Security 的名义所有人。\n\n52. 被告 GETTR USA, Inc. 是一家特拉华州公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体，是运营替代性社交媒体平台 GETTR（盖特）的实体。\n\n53. 被告 G Club International Limited（“G-Club BVI”或“G-Club International”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体（如本文所定义），是 G Club Operations LLC 的母公司。\n\n54. 被告 G Club Operations LLC（“G-Club PR”或“G-Club”）是一家波多黎各有限责任公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体，是声称向 G-Club 骗局的受害者提供会员服务的主要运营实体，但实际上以欺诈手段接收会员受害者的资金，并将这些资金转移至债务人控制的其他实体，以进一步推进 Kwok 企业（Kwok Enterprise）的目的。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 18 of 139\n\n55. 被告 GNews Media Group Inc.（“GNews”）是一家特拉华州公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体。\n\n56. 被告 GTV Media Group, Inc.（“GTV”）是一家特拉华州公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体，是所谓的媒体公司 Saraca（如下文所定义）的全资子公司。\n\n57. 被告 Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC（“Gypsy Mei Food”）是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，在本文中被指控为资产持有实体，名义上由债务人的女儿即被告 Mei Guo（郭美）拥有。\n\n58. 被告 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（包括其独立投资组合）是一家开曼群岛独立投资组合公司，在本文中被指控为资产持有实体，债务人曾使用该公司资助购买马赫瓦庄园（Mahwah Mansion）等。\n\n59. 被告 HCHK Property Management, Inc.（“HCHK Property”）是一家特拉华州公司，在本文中被指控为资产持有实体，Kwok 企业利用该实体向债务人的债权人和会员受害者隐瞒和掩饰通过农场贷款项目（Farm Loan Program）非法获取的收益。\n\n60. 被告 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（“HCHK Technologies”）是一家特拉华州公司，在本文中被指控为资产持有实体，Kwok 企业利用该实体向债务人的债权人和会员受害者隐瞒和掩饰通过农场贷款项目非法获取的收益，并从事其他非法行为。\n\n61. 被告 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI)（对外营业名称为 Himalaya Exchange）（“Himalaya Exchange”，喜马拉雅交易所）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体，债务人利用该实体运营其所谓的加密货币业务“喜马拉雅交易所”，债务人曾使用该业务为与将 Lady May 归还美国相关的 $3700万 托管资金提供资金等。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 19 of 139\n\n62. 被告 Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty. Ltd 是一家澳大利亚实体。\n\n63. 被告 Himalaya International Financial Group Limited 是一家英属维尔京群岛实体。\n\n64. 被告 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Ltd.（“Holy City”）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，名义上由被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）拥有。\n\n65. 被告 Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC 是一家特拉华州有限责任公司，在本文中被指控为资金实体，Kwok 企业的成员利用该实体向债务人的债权人隐瞒债务人的资产。\n\n66. 被告 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 是一家纽约州有限责任公司，在本文中被指控为资金实体，是 Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC 的名义子公司。\n\n67. 被告 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 是一家新泽西州有限责任公司，在本文中被指控为专业参与者，是被告 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）的律师事务所。\n\n68. 被告 Leading Shine NY Limited（“Leading Shine NY”）是一家特拉华州公司，在本文中被指控为资金实体，名义上由债务人的女儿即被告 Mei Guo 拥有。\n\n69. 被告 Lexington Property and Staffing Inc.（“Lexington Property”）是一家特拉华州公司，在本文中被指控为资产持有实体，Kwok 企业利用该实体向债务人的债权人和会员受害者隐瞒和掩饰通过农场贷款项目非法获取的收益，并从事其他非法行为。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 20 of 139\n\n70. 被告 O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC（“Orbit Service”）是一家康涅狄格州有限责任公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体。\n\n71. 被告 Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（“Rule of Law Foundation”，法治基金）是一家特拉华州非营利公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体。法治基金名义上由债务人的幕僚长兼刑事欺诈和敲诈勒索同案被告 Yvette Wang 通过其名下拥有的控股公司 Seven Mission Group LLC（间接）拥有。\n\n72. 被告 Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（“Rule of Law Society”，法治社会，与法治基金合称“法治实体”，Rule of Law Entities）是一家特拉华州非营利公司，在本文中被指控为业务前台实体。法治社会同样由被告 Yvette Wang 通过 Seven Mission Group LLC 名义上（间接）拥有。Kwok 企业利用法治实体以反共事业为由向债务人的追随者骗取所谓的慈善和/或政治资金，却将这些不义之财用于进一步推进 Kwok 企业的目的，包括使债务人、其家族和同伙中饱私囊，并代表债务人资助针对受托人的骚扰和恐吓活动等。\n\n73. 被告 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（「Saraca」）是一家特拉华州公司，在此被指控为「业务掩护实体」（Business-Front Entity）以及据称是 GTV 母公司的所谓媒体公司。\n\n74. 被告 Taurus Fund, LLC 是一家内华达州有限责任公司，在此被指控为「资产持有实体」（Asset-Holding Entity），据称由被告 Scott Barnett 管理，并被 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）用于持有 Mahwah Mansion（马鞍豪宅）的产权。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 21 of 139\n\n75. 被告 Savio Law LLC 是一家新泽西州有限责任公司，在此被指控为「专业参与方」（Professional Participant），也是被告 Nicholas Savio 的律师事务所。\n\n76. 被告 Taurus Management LLC 是一家新墨西哥州有限责任公司，与被告 Scott Barnett 共同担任 Mahwah Mansion 名义产权持有方 Taurus Fund LLC 的管理人。\n背景\nI. 构成郭氏企业背景的投资骗局\n\n77. 债务人（Debtor）是一名「于 2015 年前后逃往美国的流亡中国商人。」4 在抵达美国之前，债务人已通过各种已知和未知的手段积累或获取了巨额财富。据信，债务人已获得了其享有实益所有权或控制权的数亿美元资产。与此同时，他也对债权人背负了数亿美元的债务，包括但不限于因债务人担保的一笔贷款而欠 PAX 的约 $50 million（当时金额）债务，该笔贷款未由基础债务人偿还。\n\n78. 2014 年底前后，据信在获得 CCP（中国共产党）内部关系深厚的同伙通风报信称中国和香港的安全部门很快将试图逮捕他之后，债务人逃离中国。此后不久，在 2015 年初前后，据报道 People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国，简称「PRC」）政府指控债务人犯有多项罪行，包括腐败，并查封或企图查封其在 PRC 的资产（「PRC 查封」），包括不动产、证券和银行账户中的资金。2015 年前后，债务人抵达美国。\n\n4 见 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Kin Ming Je（余建明）的《追加刑事起诉书》（Superseding Criminal Indictment），United States v. Kwok et al.，23 Cr. 118，于 2023 年 3 月 6 日提交 [ECF No. 215]（《追加起诉书》），¶ 9(a)。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 22 of 139\n\n79. 据信，截至抵达美国时，由于 PRC 查封等原因，债务人已无法使用其部分（但非全部）资产。因此，自 2018 年前后开始，为了获取新资金以继续供其本人、其家庭成员和同伙过着挥霍的生活，并防范其现有资产被债权人发现的可能性，债务人与其他人策划了一系列欺诈骗局，向不知情的投资者筹集资金。\n\n80. 具体而言，债务人及其某些近亲属、顾问和商业同伙从数千名受害者处骗取了超过约 $1 billion，受害者遍及美国、英国、日本、澳大利亚、德国、PRC 以及全球其他国家。这些骗局构成了针对债务人的《追加起诉书》的一部分，在此讨论是因为它们为 Kwok Enterprise 的形成提供了相关背景，但它们本身并不构成在此指控的 Kwok Enterprise 的组成部分，且受托人（Trustee）并未指控这些骗局本身属于前置违法行为（predicate acts）。\n\n81. 根据《追加起诉书》，债务人及其共谋者的投资骗局包含若干相互关联的部分，包括涉及 GTV 私募（定义见下文）、农场贷款项目（Farm Loan Program，定义见下文）、G 俱乐部（G Club）会员计划以及喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange，定义见下文）的募资活动。\n\nA. GTV 私募\n\n82. GTV 是一家特拉华州公司，据称是一家总部位于纽约市的以新闻为主的社交媒体平台。尽管债务人在 GTV 未担任任何正式职位或头衔，但 GTV 在实际运作中由债务人所有并控制。\n\n83. 在 2020 年 4 月前后至 2020 年 7 月前后期间，债务人在多名共谋者的协助下，通过与 GTV 相关的非法私募股票发售（「GTV 私募」）以及相关的所谓数字资产证券发售（被称为 G 币 [G-Coins] 或 G 额度 [G-Dollars]，即「GTV 代币发售」），\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 23 of 139\n\n欺诈性获取了超过 $485 million 的受害者资金。\n\n84. 据指控，由于 GTV 私募和 GTV 代币发售的收益发生混同，截至 2020 年 7 月前后，债务人及其他人欺诈了超过 5,000 名投资者，其中包括美国的个人。5\n\nB. 农场贷款项目\n\n85. 如《追加起诉书》所指控，自 2020 年 6 月前后开始——债务人及其共谋者通过「喜马拉雅农场联盟」（Himalaya Farm Alliance）欺诈性获取了超过约 $150 million 的受害者资金。6\n\n86. 由债务人及其他人组织和推广的喜马拉雅农场联盟是一个分布在世界各地不同城市的非正式团体（每个团体被称为一个「农场」[Farm]）的集合体。债务人以及代表其并受其指示行事的其他人通过向 GTV 私募中的投资者受害者作出进一步的虚假陈述，欺诈性招揽进一步投资，这一次是以向农场提供所谓「贷款」的形式，并承诺此类贷款将按每贷款一美元兑换一股普通股的转换率转换为 GTV 普通股（「农场贷款项目」），从而获取了这些资金。7\n\n87. 由于债务人被指控通过虚假陈述推广农场贷款项目，数千名受害者通过将资金转入农场（而非 GTV）控制的银行账户向农场「出借」了资金。8 根据农场极少会签的《贷款协议》（Loan Agreements），这些资金将用于农场的「一般营运资金用途」。事实上，债务人及其共谋者据指控挪用了通过农场贷款项目筹集的资金，用于自身利益。\n\n5 见 In the Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and Voice of Guo Media, Inc., 行政程序编号 3-20537（U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [美国证券交易委员会]）（提起停止令程序命令）。\n\n6 见《追加起诉书》¶ 17。\n\n7 同上。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 24 of 139\n\nC. G Club Operations, LLC\n\n88. G-Club 据称是一个总部设在波多黎各和纽约市的会员制组织，该组织声称向其「会员」提供奢华体验、接触债务人的途径以及有关债务人其他商业机会的附带福利。G-Club 于 2020 年 10 月前后成立。如《追加起诉书》所指控，在实质和事实上，G-Club 是一个旨在使债务人敛财的全球性欺诈骗局，并未向其「会员」提供任何可辨识的利益。相反，「会员」向 G-Club 支付各种会员费以在该所谓组织内获得特定的「层级」或身份，每个据称的「层级」向会员提供更多的福利（实际上毫无福利），但也花费更多资金。「会员」缴纳的款项最终从 G-Club 转移到 G-Club BVI（英属维尔京群岛）或其他地点，在那里这些款项可用于让债务人、其家人及其同伙敛财。\n\n89. G-Club 在实际运作和实益层面由债务人所有并控制，尽管债务人在 G-Club 未担任任何正式高管职位。债务人「官方」向 G-Club 提供咨询服务，并拥有发言人、核心主持人及宣传联络人的头衔。\n\n90. 债务人及其共谋者据指控通过 G-Club 会员骗局从意向会员处获取了超过约 $250 million。9 与向此类会员作出的陈述相反，G-Club 从未向其不知情的会员受害者提供任何哪怕稍有类似「全方位服务」和「体验」的内容。10 会员也未获得向其承诺的额外福利。相反，如《追加起诉书》所指控，G-Club 会员骗局被用于让债务人及其同伙敛财。\nD. 喜马拉雅交易所\n\n91. 「喜马拉雅交易所」是债务人及其共谋者据指控用于欺诈投资者受害者的另一个工具。如《追加起诉书》所指控，喜马拉雅交易所是一个所谓的加密货币「生态系统」（其本身并非法律实体），由 William Je（余建明）通过其名义上拥有但由债务人控制并享有实益所有权的位于境外的各类实体设立并运营。11 由债务人享有实益所有权并控制的其他实体与喜马拉雅交易所存在所谓的业务关系。12《追加起诉书》指控，自至少 2021 年 4 月前后至至少 2023 年 3 月前后，债务人和 William Je 通过喜马拉雅交易所欺诈性获取了超过约 $262 million 的投资者受害者资金，并将其用于自身利益。13\nII. 郭氏企业的总体范围和宗旨\n\n92. 在债务人通过上述骗局及其他方式积累其巨额财富的同时，他也对债权人背负了数亿美元的债务，包括但不限于因债务人担保的一笔贷款而\n\n12 同上。\n\n13 同上，¶ 19。\n\n10 见《追加起诉书》¶ 18(e)。\n\n11 见同上，¶ 15。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 26 of 139\n\n欠 PAX 的约 $50 million（截至 2015 年）债务。随着时间的推移，债务人的债权人在寻求受偿其债权方面变得越来越激进，包括通过提起诉讼。\n\n93. 例如，2017 年 4 月 18 日前后，PAX 在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York（纽约州最高法院纽约县分院，简称「纽约法院」）对债务人就 2011 年个人担保及该担保项下所欠款项提起违约起诉（「PAX 诉讼」）。2020 年 9 月 15 日，纽约法院就 PAX 的主张作出了支持 PAX 的部分即决判决（partial summary judgment），此后 PAX 通过诸如寻求对债务人的资产和财务状况进行事实调查（discovery）等方式采取措施执行该判决。\n\n94. 同样，2017 年 9 月 11 日前后，债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）在 Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York 提起经核实的起诉书，就殴打（battery）、攻击（assault）和蓄意造成精神痛苦（intentional infliction of emotional distress）等诉求向债务人以及债务人的「家族办公室」兼账外资金池 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 索赔不低于 $20 million 的损害赔偿，该诉求源于其指控债务人在其受雇于债务人期间多次对其进行精神虐待和性侵犯，包括在纽约州境内（「Ma 诉讼」）。总体参见 Claim 2-1，[主案号 22-50073]。\n\n95. PAX 和 Rui Ma 只是对债务人提起诉讼或采取其他行动强制执行其债权的众多债权人中的两位。随着四面楚歌的困境日益逼近，债务人及其身边的人必须不惜一切代价确保将其资产对债权人隐匿起来。\n\n96. 用于向债权人隐匿债务人财产的机制即为 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）。债务人及其被告同谋早在此前于 2015 年便组建了 Kwok Enterprise，彼时（如下所述），包括空壳公司及债务人家族成员在内的若干被告，便开始隐匿债务人的财产以逃避偿还其债务，而当时其债务至少已超过 $50 million。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 27 of 139\n\n97. Kwok Enterprise 的活动随着时间推移不断演变，但其宗旨始终如一。除向 PAX、Rui Ma（马芮）等人等债权人隐匿财产外，债务人及其被告同谋还利用 Kwok Enterprise 的空壳公司及其他参与方，通过洗钱及其他方式欺诈性地掩盖上述欺诈性投资计划的资金来源。此外，一旦本破产案启动，Kwok Enterprise 便在其手段中加入了妨害司法和破产欺诈，其目的在于干扰本 chapter 11 案件并阻碍 Trustee（受托人）的调查。\n\n98. Kwok Enterprise 的参与方包括以下几大类实体与个人等：\n\n- a. 由 Kwok Enterprise（包括债务人、其他被告及同谋）用作现金管理或“账外资金（slush fund）”实体的“出资实体（Funding Entities）”，该等实体向各类实体和个人转移巨额资金以使债务人及其家族致富，包括资助债务人的亿万富翁式奢华生活方式、支付开销及资助挥霍性采购、提供资金以维持债务人作为受害人应当与其共同投资的成功企业家的外在形象，以及通过其他方式向其债权人隐瞒和隐匿债务人的财产。出资实体包括但不限于：\n\t- i. 被告 Bravo Luck，\n\t- ii. Golden Spring，\n\t- iii. 被告 Leading Shine，\n\t- iv. 被告 Hudson Diamond Holding LLC 与 Hudson Diamond NY LLC（统称“Hudson 实体”），以及\n\t- v. Infinity Treasury Management Inc. 与 Lamp Capital。\n- b. 由 Kwok Enterprise（包括债务人、其他被告及同谋）用于为债务人及其家族的利益持有特定财产的“资产持有实体（Asset-Holding Entities）”，从而不仅使债务人的财产得以隐匿并可能置于其债权人追索范围之外，而且使此类财产可供债务人用于展示其所谓的财富与商业头脑，并维持债务人的亿万富翁形象，使 Kwok Enterprise 得以向受害投资者推销债务人所谓的投资及业务板块；该等实体包括但不限于：\n\n- i. 被告 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（一家 Cayman Islands（开曼群岛）独立投资组合公司）及其 13 个独立投资组合，包括 Hamilton SA Fund SP、Fortress Digital Assets Fund SP、Taurus Fund SP、Hamilton Delphi Fund SP、Hamilton Mars Fund SP、Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class A、Hamilton M&A Fund SP Class B、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton FX Fund SP、Hamilton Diversified Trading Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class A、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP Class B（统称“Hamilton 实体”）；\n- ii. HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC；\n- iii. 被告 HCHK Technologies、HCHK Property、Lexington Property（合称“HCHK 实体”）以及 Holy City；\n- iv. 被告 Greenwich Land；以及\n- v. 被告 Gypsy Mei Food。\n- c. 由 Kwok Enterprise（包括债务人、其他被告及同谋）用于向债权人隐匿债务人财产、并为债务人、其家族及关联人士的利益通道式转移通过欺诈手段获取的资金的“商业掩护实体（Business-Front Entities）”，该等实体名义上为开展运营的媒体、房地产、科技及社交媒体企业，但实质上由债务人所有并控制以推进 Kwok Enterprise，包括但不限于：\n\t- i. 被告 GETTR USA, Inc.、G Fashion International Limited、GFNY Inc.、GF Italy LLC 以及被告 GNews Media Group, Inc.；\n\t- ii. 被告 GS Security Solutions Inc.；\n\t- iii. 被告 O.S.C. Orbit Service Company LLC；\n\niv. 被告 GTV Media Group, Inc. 与 Saraca Media Group, Inc.；\n\nv. 被告 G Club Operations LLC 与 G Club International Limited (BVI)（统称“G-Club 实体”）；被告 Crane Advisory Group LLC.；G Club HoldCo I LLC；Jovial Century International Limited；G Fashion Hold Co. B Limited；Stichting Duurzame (Netherlands)；\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 29 of 139\n\n- vi. 被告 Himalaya International Clearing Ltd (BVI)（以 Himalaya Exchange 之名开展业务）；被告 Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd. (BVI)；Himalaya International Payments Ltd (BVI)；Himalaya International Reserves Limited (BVI)；被告 Himalaya Currency Clearing Pty Ltd (Australia)；Major Lead International Limited (BVI)；Perfect Company Ltd. (BVI)；Stichting Gewelf (Netherlands)；\n- vii. 被告 Rule of Law（法治）实体；以及\n- viii. Himalaya Farm Alliance（喜马拉雅农场联盟）与 Himalaya Farm Loan Program（喜马拉雅农场贷款计划）\n- d. 由债务人的家族及核心圈子个人成员（包括其子女及其最亲密的商业伙伴）组成的“人头参与方（Nominee Participants）”，该等人员在债务人实际且享有实益控制并明知参与 Kwok Enterprise 的实体中担任所谓的名义所有人、高管、董事、雇员和/或被任命人员，包括：\n\t- i. 被告 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝，债务人之妻）、Mei Guo（郭美，债务人之女）以及 Qiang Guo（郭强，债务人之子）；以及\n\t- ii. 被告 William Je（余建明）、Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Haoran He（何昊然）、Max Krasner、Scott Barnett、Anthony DiBattista、Chunguang Han（韩春光）以及 Defeng Cao（曹德峰）。\n- e. 由向债务人、被告及同谋提供的服务超出普通法律服务范围的法律顾问组成的“专业参与方（Professional Participants）”。相反，如本起诉书所指控，该等法律专业人士以及其他被告和同谋对 Kwok Enterprise 的各项欺诈计划及非法活动的核心行为具有知情并直接参与其中。此类个人包括被告 Aaron Mitchell、Lawall & Mitchell LLC、Victor Cerda、Savio Law LLC、Nicholas Savio 以及 Yongbing Zhang。\n\nf. 由代表债务人、债务人家族、其他被告或代表其他同谋行事的财务顾问、代理人、雇员及其他个人组成的“额外参与方（Additional Participants）”，该等人员向债务人、被告及同谋提供的服务超出普通商业服务范围。相反，如本起诉书所指控，在受雇于被告和/或债务人或同谋期间，此类个人往往对 Kwok Enterprise 的各项欺诈计划及非法活动的核心行为具有知情并直接参与其中。此类个人包括被告 Alex Hadjicharalambous、Limarie Reyes Molinaris、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn、David Fallon、Ehsan Masud、Gladys Chow、Hsin Shih Yu、Xuebing Wang（王雪冰）、Yan Chun Liu、Jessica Mastrogiovanni 以及 Qidong Xia。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 30 of 139\n\n99. 该等个人和实体为欺诈债务人的债权人并使债务人及其家族致富而从事的具体活动和交易，在本 Complaint（起诉状）通篇均有详细描述。\n\nIII. 转移、转让及隐匿财产与欺诈收益\n\n100. 债务人及其被告同谋利用 Kwok Enterprise 及其空壳公司网络以实现：(i) 掩盖债务人特定财产的来源，特别是上述欺诈性投资计划的收益，以及 (ii) 隐匿债务人的全部实质性财产并将其置于债务人债权人的追索范围之外。\n\nA. 对 G-Club 欺诈收益的隐匿与转移\n\n101. 债务人及多名被告竭力隐匿 G-Club 欺诈，并将其收益转移给 Kwok Enterprise 内部的个人与实体。\n\nG-Club 及 Kwok Enterprise 其余部分面临银行开户/业务问题\n\n102. 从一开始，G-Club 的欺诈性质便导致其在维持与 FDIC（联邦存款保险公司）受保国内金融机构的银行业务关系方面出现重大困难。这引发了令人难堪的质询，并导致包括多名被告在内的 Kwok Enterprise 竭力掩盖 G-Club 资金的欺诈来源。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 31 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 32 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 33 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 34 of 139\n\nG-Clubs 会员受害人的资金被用于使债务人、其家族及关联人士致富 117. 各被告还利用 G-Club 资金为债务人购买贵重资产，并将其藏匿于空壳公司中，使债权人无法寻获。139\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 36 of\n\n被告 Je 及其他人确保 G-Club 资金通过其他途径被洗钱，以使债务人及 Kwok Enterprise 获益。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 37 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 38 of 139\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 39 of 139\n促进其欺诈的行为均通过电子邮件或电话利用州际电汇发生。\nHimalaya Exchange 协助转移并掩饰通过欺诈手段获取的资金\n\n132. 此外，正如 Superseding Indictment（附带起诉书/替代起诉书）中所指控，被告 Je 试图将 Himalaya Exchange 的大笔资金转移至其在境外控制的账户，以避免该等资金立即被美国政府查封。具体而言，在 2022 年 9 月，被告 Je 企图将约 $46 million 从与 Himalaya Exchange 相关的国内银行账户（尚未被查封的账户）转移至其在 UAE（阿联酋）控制的银行账户。14\n\n133. 在司法授权对 Himalaya Exchange 相关资金进行首次查封的大约两天内，即 2022 年 9 月 22 日或前后，被告 Je 要求一家持有 Himalaya Exchange 银行账户的国内银行的管理层执行一笔电汇，Je 与一名 Himalaya Exchange 高管向该国内银行虚假陈述称该电汇是为 Himalaya Exchange 的一名“VIP”客户所需。15 在随后与该国内银行的沟通中，被告 Je 透露该 VIP 事实上正是 Je 本人。Je 向该国内银行提供了据称显示 Je 于 2022 年 9 月 22 日或前后进行的两笔 HCN 出售的证明文件——总额为 4600 万 HDO——Je 希望将其“转换”为 $46 million 的法定货币。Je 向该国内银行的员工两次强调，这笔 $46 million 的转账必须在“今天进行，否则就毫无意义了”。16\n\n16 同上。\n\n14 Superseding Indictment 第 21 段。\n\n15 同上，第 21(a) 段。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 41 of 139\nB. Rule of Law 实体在欺诈计划中的角色\n\n134. 为了隐匿债务人及其同谋的欺诈计划，债务人及 Kwok Enterprise 的其他成员必须采取措施向公众将其外在形象合法化。为此，在 2018 年前后，债务人创立了两个据称为非营利组织的机构，即被告 Rule of Law 实体，该等实体大肆宣扬债务人所谓消灭中国共产党的使命。\n\n135. 债务人（Debtor）利用这些非营利组织聚集追随者，这些追随者认同其在中国声称的政策目标，并被其所谓成功商人的形象所吸引，因此会对与债务人的潜在商业机会感兴趣，或捐款支持其政治观点（即“法治骗局”[Rule of Law Scheme]）。\n\n136. 债务人利用法治实体（Rule of Law Entities）从美国及世界各地的支持者处获取捐款。法治实体随后以欺诈手段将数百万美元的此类捐款转入空壳公司及其他被告，以进一步实现郭氏企业（Kwok Enterprise）的终极目标。\n\n\n\n\nC. 进一步利用空壳公司洗钱及隐匿资产\n\n139. 债务人及被告William Je、Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Krasner、DiBattista和Mitchell等人经常在郭氏企业内部转移资金，通常利用被告出资实体（Defendant Funding Entities）、资产持有实体（Asset-Holding Entities）和业务幌子实体（Business-Front Entities），通过将资金流动伪装成“贷款”、“股息”或“投资”，以达到清洗该等资金并使债务人、其家族及其关联人员获益之目的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 42 of 139\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 43 of 139\n\n140. 为构建此类活动所需的基础设施，债务人在郭氏企业内的各实体中安排了挂名高管和/或名义所有人，或指示郭氏企业中的其他人为其利益进行此类安排，包括多名被告，而此类实体在事实上均由债务人实际拥有收益权和/或实际控制。利用名义所有人隐匿债务人的巨额财富并欺诈债权人，长期以来一直是郭氏企业的惯常做法，包括在他于2015年左右抵达美国之前。\n\n141. 曾担任债务人实体名义所有人并熟悉债务人在此方面做法的个人之一是非当事人Qu Guo Jiao（又名Natasha Qu）（“Qu女士”[Ms. Qu]），她是债务人信任的业务关联人员。Qu女士在大约2002年至2017年9月期间曾担任债务人和/或其控制实体的会计主管及执行助理。Qu女士负责的事项包括管理债务人控制的各实体的会计与财务事务，并就债务人的个人及商业事务提供协助。Qu女士的职责以及其在债务人指示下采取的行动，包括管理公司间电汇及类似交易。\n\n142. 在Qu女士于大约2002年至2017年9月期间为债务人工作期间，债务人频繁使用协议在功能上及实质收益上保留对名义上以债务人家族成员和/或关联人员名义持有的多家公司的控制权。据称（且名义上）拥有由债务人控制之公司的债务人其他雇员和/或关联人员包括被告Yvette Wang、Han Chunguang（韩春光，债务人的保镖兼家庭厨师）、Anthony DiBattista和Max Krasner等人。与Qu女士一样，上述个人在其名义拥有的实体中均无财务利益或收益利益。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 44 of 139\n\n143. 正如债务人在大约2002年至2017年期间利用Qu女士一样，从2015年抵达美国至今，他继续与同谋被告合作，以扩大其空壳把戏并通过隐匿资产来侵害债权人。通过利用这些空壳实体及该等法人实体中的傀儡挂名负责人，郭氏企业企图保护债务人的财富。\n\n144. 郭氏企业在众多个人被告的协助下用于保护债务人财富的空壳实体（以及该等实体中的傀儡挂名负责人，即名义参与人[Nominee Participants]与专业参与人[Professional Participants]）大致分为三类，其中部分实体可能同时符合多个类别：(a) 账外资金与现金管理实体（即出资实体[Funding Entities]）；(b) 用于收购和持有资产的实体（即资产持有实体[Asset-Holding Entities]）；以及 (c) 声称从事经营业务但实际上仅用于保护债务人财富的实体（即业务幌子实体[Business-Front Entities]）。以下依次论述各类实体的示例。\n1. 账外资金与现金管理实体\nGolden Spring New York Ltd.\n\n145. Golden Spring（源泉纽约有限公司）于2015年3月在特拉华州注册成立并在纽约州登记开展业务，这恰逢债务人于2015年1月迁至纽约。Golden Spring的名义母公司为被告China Golden Spring（中国源泉），而后者又由债务人之子、被告Qiang Guo（郭强）名义拥有。尽管存在此类名义\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 45 of 139\n\n所有权，Golden Spring完全就是债务人的人格混同替身（alter ego），且本法院此前已就此作出了具有该认定效力的判决书。17\n\n146. 债务人设立Golden Spring是因为他需要一家美国国内公司来购置车辆并从事其他活动——包括在美国租赁办公场所、为该办公场所及其住所购置家具以及聘用员工。通过这种方式，Golden Spring充当了债务人的国内“家族办公室”。\n\n147. 尽管债务人为了自身利益指示设立了Golden Spring，但他决定通过让其他人签署Golden Spring的公司组织文件来掩护自己，以避免其姓名出现在构成公开记录一部分的公司文件中。这使得债务人企图向包括PAX及其他人在内的债权人隐匿其在Golden Spring的资产。\n\n148. 在所有相关时间内，Golden Spring均无独立资金来源；其资金由债务人通过其控制的实体提供，若无此类资金支持，该公司根本不具备资本金。事实上，债务人向Golden Spring提供初始资金的方式为\n\n\n\n17 由于Golden Spring已被认定为债务人的人格混同替身，因此Golden Spring的所有资产均属于第11章破产财产，受托人（Trustee）未将Golden Spring列为本案被告。然而，Golden Spring曾是郭氏企业不可分割的成员。\n\n150. 熟悉债务人和Golden Spring的人士均毫不怀疑债务人就是对Golden Spring行使控制权的人（尽管被告Qiang Guo名义上拥有Golden Spring表面上的母公司、被告China Golden Spring）。事实上，\n\n151. 作为债务人的“家族办公室”，Golden Spring的职能是持有其资产、支付其开销并向其债权人隐匿该等资产。因此，Golden Spring是郭氏企业的关键组成部分，它使债务人得以过着奢华的生活，同时坚称自己实际上无可执行财产，正如在本次第11章案件中提交的《资产与负债明细表》（Schedules of Assets and Liabilities）所示，债务人在其中声称仅持有$3,850.00的资产。19 Golden Spring以此种方式运作的事例不胜枚举。其中包括：\n\n- a. 自2015年以来，Golden Spring一直在支付债务人的个人生活开销。这些开销包括安保/保镖、交通、服装及其他物品。例如，债务人曾作证称，如果他想买一双鞋，他会安排由Golden Spring付款。\n- b. 债务人乘坐据称归Golden Spring所有的迈巴赫（Maybach）轿车出行。事实上，受托人持有的保险文件表明，Golden Spring据称拥有多辆供债务人使用的豪华车辆。\n- c. Golden Spring支付了债务人的多项法律费用，包括通过诉讼资助协议进行支付\n\n此项诉讼\n\n资助方案是债务人及共谋被告企图侵害债务人债权人的另一机制，以确保即便其破产财产在一项诉由中获得受偿，郭氏企业也将从中牟利，而任何受偿额都可能处于债权人触及范围之外。\n\n19 见《官方表格106》（Official Form 106），第5页（2022年3月9日）[主案卷宗第78号]。\n\n- d. Golden Spring支付了与债务人的游艇Lady May号相关的费用，以及与雪梨荷兰公寓（Sherry Netherland Apartment）相关的物业管理费。\n- e. 债务人曾意图在债务人于2022年3月22日提交的动议中拟提议的一笔$800万破产保护期借款（DIP loan）中，使用Golden Spring作为贷款人[主案卷宗第117号]。该笔贷款的很大一部分计划用于支付债务人当时在Brown Rudnick律师事务所的破产律师费用以及债务人拟聘用的众多“日常业务”专业人员的费用。\n\n152. 值得注意的是，尽管Golden Spring作为拟议的DIP贷款人在本次第11章案件中有律师代表，但在受托人获任命后，Golden Spring基本销声匿迹，未能对受托人依据《破产程序规则》（Bankruptcy Rule）第2004条发出的传票作出回应，并最终被本法院判定构成藐视法庭。\n\n153. Golden Spring的雇员和管理人员均为郭氏企业的知名成员，包括部分被告。Golden Spring于2015年3月成立时的初始董事为Qu女士和Yan Feng Sun（孙艳峰），两人还分别担任该公司的初始总裁/财务主管以及秘书。被告Qiang Guo最初担任执行副总裁。近年来，包括在债务人提交其第11章破产申请时，Golden Spring的总裁是被告Yvette Wang，她还担任该公司的董事之一（与被告Qiang Guo一同担任）。\n\n154. 本法院已作出裁定：“债务人对Wang女士拥有控制权”，且其“已雇佣Yvette Wang多年，并指示其代表他采取行动，包括指示她代表他购买诸如雪梨荷兰公寓等房产。” 20 被告Wang还为债务人担任过众多其他职务，包括担任被告Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Limited、Saraca、GTV、Greenwich Land及\n\n20 《公司治理藐视法庭裁定》（Corp. Governance Contempt Order）第4段。\n\nGenever Holdings LLC的高管和/或授权签署人。被告Wang众所周知是债务人的个人助理，并与被告Aaron Mitchell一同作为郭氏企业所有运营决策的关键顾问。被告Wang曾在多个场合证实，以其作为Golden Spring总裁的身份，她是债务人及其家族利益的管理人。\n\n- 155. 此外，Golden Spring的雇员还包括以下人员等：\n\t- a. 被告Max Krasner，除担任Golden Spring雇员的工作外，他还曾为债务人担任过众多其他职务，包括担任被告Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Infinity Treasury Management Inc.（Lamp Capital LLC的母公司）、法治基金（Rule of Law Foundation）以及HCHK实体（HCHK Entities）的雇员、高管和/或授权签署人。\n\t- b. 被告Anthony DiBattista，除担任Golden Spring雇员的工作外，他还曾作为被告GTV、GFashion、G-Club以及HCHK实体的公司高管为债务人提供服务。\n- 156. 依所知所信，在Golden Spring正式或非正式受聘的其他个人包括\n\n被告Han (\"Hank\") Chunguang21 以及 Alex\n\nHadjicharalambous22 等人，上述每位个人均曾在债务人控制的不同实体中担任职务。\n\n157. Golden Spring与债务人、其身为被告的子女以及许多其他实体一样\n\n由Debtor（债务人）控制的实体（如GTV和Saraca）聘用Defendant Aaron Mitchell（被告亚伦·米切尔）作为其外部法律顾问。23 Golden Spring在Chapter 11 Case（第11章破产案）初期的总法律顾问是Melissa Francis，她也同时代表债务人个人。\n\n21 被告Han（韩）是债务人的长期保镖和/或司机，曾为债务人担任包括Eastern Profit（东利）、Anton Development（安东发展）和Rosy Acme Ventures Limited（玫瑰顶峰创投有限公司）等债务人控制实体的名义所有人，以及Saraca的董事和高级职员等众多角色。\n\n22 被告Hadjicharalambous也曾在HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）、G-Club和Freedom Media Ventures Ltd.（自由媒体创投有限公司）工作。\n\n23 尽管由Aaron Mitchell担任其律师，Golden Spring因未能遵守Rule 2004（第2004条）传票而被本法院认定构成藐视法庭（与Lamp Capital LLC一同）。见《认定Golden Spring和Lamp Capital藐视法庭的命令》（Order Holding Golden Spring and Lamp Capital in Contempt of Court）（2023年4月26日）[主案卷宗第1709号]。\n案号 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 49 页 共 139 页\n\n158. China Golden Spring（中国金泉）是一家表面上由债务人之子所有的香港实体，也是Golden Spring的母公司，在所有相关时间内同样由债务人控制。根据现有信息和合理确信，在Golden Spring成立时，债务人通过其员工Ms. Qu（屈女士）运营中国金泉。\n\n159. 因此，在其存在的整个过程中，包括在债务人提交破产案之后，Golden Spring一直是Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）不可或缺的组成部分，用于资助债务人的奢华生活方式，同时隐瞒债务人对Golden Spring及其资产的所有权。上述所有在Golden Spring任职或代表Golden Spring采取行动的被告，都推进了郭氏企业的首要且居于主导地位的计划——通过在诸如Golden Spring等空壳公司中隐匿债务人的资产来欺诈债务人的债权人。各该被告均明知Golden Spring及其资产在功能上和实际上由债务人实益所有，却仍同意并知晓代表Golden Spring采取行动。\nLeading Shine NY Ltd.\n\n160. 被告Leading Shine NY于2019年1月3日在Delaware（特拉华州）成立，并于2019年1月注册在New York（纽约州）开展业务。Leading Shine NY是另一个在所有相关时间内由债务人实益所有和控制的空壳实体，其明知并同意在郭氏企业中扮演重要角色。\n\n161. Leading Shine NY完全由债务人通过其控制的实体注资，若无此类注资则不具备任何资本金。特别是，Leading Shine NY已从债务人控制的实体获得资金，其中包括被告等人。\n\n根据现有信息和合理确信，\n\nLeading Shine NY除了从其他缺乏实际运营且本身仅由债务人资产（包括GTV方案、G-Club方案、Farm Loan Program（农场贷款计划）和Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）的收益）注资的债务人控制实体处获得资金外，未从任何其他方获得资金。Leading Shine NY和各被告同意并知情指使郭氏企业在彼此之间转移欺诈所得资金，以支付债务人的开支、使其本人、其家人及其同伙致富，并向债务人的债权人隐瞒此类资金的性质和控制权。\n案号 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 50 页 共 139 页\n\n162. Leading Shine NY积极参与将资金转移至债务人控制的其他空壳公司，\n\n\n\n\n\n166. 如本文件下文所进一步论述，Leading Shine NY唯一有记录的活动仅包括持有债务人的资产和支付其开支。Leading Shine NY除了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以及为债务人支付开支（以使债务人能够维持成功亿万富翁的形象，并说服不知情的投资人受害者或会员受害者将资金投入本文所讨论的各项郭氏企业欺诈计划）之外，未开展任何其他业务。\nLamp Capital LLC 24\n\n167. Lamp Capital于2020年9月4日在特拉华州成立，并于2020年9月14日注册在纽约州开展业务。Lamp Capital的唯一成员是Infinity Treasury Management，据称债务人之子被告Qiang Guo（郭强）为其唯一股东。\n\n24 Lamp Capital LLC已被认定为债务人的alter ego（另一自我/替身），且并非本案当事人。\n案号 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 52 页 共 139 页\n\n168. 在2021年6月10日之前，Daniel Podhaskie担任Lamp Capital唯一成员Infinity Treasury Management的唯一董事、总裁兼财务主管。Podhaskie先生同时也是Lamp Capital的授权签署人。\n\n169. 2021年6月10日，被告Max Krasner取代Daniel Podhaskie成为Infinity Treasury Management的唯一董事兼总裁。Krasner是债务人的代理人。Krasner代表债务人行事，作为被告Yvette Wang（王雁平）的下属为债务人工作。Krasner曾是Golden Spring的员工，同时在债务人的多家其他空壳公司任职，包括担任被告Greenwich Land、Hudson Diamond Holding、Hudson Diamond NY、Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金）以及一个或多个HCHK实体的员工、高管和/或授权签署人。\n\n170. Lamp Capital一直由债务人通过其控制的实体进行注资。\n\n\n\n25 Lamp Capital使用的地址为162 East 64th Street, New York, New York。162 East 64th Street曾被债务人本人、被告Aaron Mitchell以及债务人的多家空壳公司使用作为地址，包括Golden Spring、HK USA、GTV Media Group, Inc.、Saraca、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC和Rule of Law Foundation。\n\n171. 债务人利用Lamp Capital支付其开支并向其债权人隐瞒资产，这使得Lamp Capital成为郭氏企业的关键组成部分。Lamp Capital协助隐匿债务人的财务状况并助长其及其家庭成员奢华生活方式的例证不胜枚举。其中包括：\n\n- a. Lamp Capital支付了债务人最初破产律师Brown Rudnick的100万美元聘用金。\n- b. Lamp Capital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，包括支付给债务人的律师事务所，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。Lamp Capital还向其他法律或专家证人服务提供商（如Veritext、US Legal Support Inc.、Roy D. Simon和William Bradley Wendel）多次支付了债务人所欠的费用。\n- c. Lamp Capital支付了与债务人的游艇Lady May号相关的费用，以及与Sherry Netherland Apartment（雪梨荷兰公寓）相关的物业管理维护费。\n\n\n\nd. Lamp Capital还就债务人私人飞机Bombardier Global XRS（庞巴迪环球XRS）的运营和维护，向ACASS Canada Ltd.（简称“ACASS”）、Wings Insurance Agency Inc.和SAAM Verspieren Group进行了多次付款（该飞机为Trustee（受托人）针对Mei Guo（郭美）提起的另一项adversary proceeding（对抗性程序）的标的）。\n\ne. Lamp Capital向债务人控制的公司的Bento for Business账户进行了多次转账，从该账户向债务人的家庭成员和同伙发放了预付Bento借记卡，并用于支持债务人奢华生活方式的开销。\n案号 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 54 页 共 139 页\n\nf. Lamp Capital代表债务人向Mar-a-Lago Club（海湖庄园俱乐部）支付了以其名义持有的会员资格相关费用。\n\n172. 如本文件下文所进一步论述，被告Lamp Capital唯一有记录的活动仅包括持有债务人的资产和支付其开支。Lamp Capital除了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以及为债务人支付开支之外，未开展任何其他业务。\n个人被告参与资金转移\n\n173. 如本文件所述，众多个人被告协助上述空壳公司及郭氏企业中的其他实体转移和隐匿债务人的资金，包括其通过欺诈性投资活动募集的资金。此外，许多个人被告本人使用自己的银行账户进行或接收了多次转账，这些转账通常涉及其他被告或空壳公司的交易。此类转账的示例列于本文件附表1中。根据现有信息和合理确信，这些转账的部分或全部涉及属于债务人的款项和/或构成其欺诈计划的收益。\n2. 用于收购和持有资产的空壳实体\nBravo Luck、Eastern Profit与HK International\n\n174. Bravo Luck是一家在British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）注册成立的空壳公司。在2015年1月和2月，债务人及其儿子在账面上各持有Bravo Luck 50%的股份。\n\n175. 当时，Bravo Luck在UBS AG（瑞银集团，简称“UBS”）开立有账户（简称“Bravo Luck账户”）。2015年1月23日，债务人的两家空壳公司HK International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司，简称“HK International”）和被告Eastern Profit Corporation（东利公司，简称“Eastern Profit”）分别向Bravo Luck账户转账1.5亿美元和3.7亿美元，用于（其中包括）资助并隐瞒债务人购买奢华公寓和游艇的行为，详见下文所述。在这些转账之前，该账户内仅有约20,000美元。\n案号 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 55 页 共 139 页\n\n176. 转入Bravo Luck账户的5.2亿美元不过是债务人将钱从一个“口袋”转移到另一个“口袋”，因为HK International和Eastern Profit均由其控制。\n\n177. HK International由债务人于2006年10月2日注册成立。HK International实际上由债务人控制，由债务人用于向与香港证券交易所相关的投资项目中的许多其他债务人控制的实体输送资金，且其全部资金均来自其他债务人控制的公司。\n\n178. 债务人一直是HK International的唯一股东和董事，直至2014年10月14日无偿将其权益转让给屈女士。2014年10月14日，屈女士还签署了一份《信托声明》（Declaration of Trust），规定其作为受托人持有HK International的股份，债务人为受益人，且屈女士将按照债务人的指示行使与该等股份相关的权利。因此，尽管屈女士为名义所有人，债务人仍继续实益拥有并控制HK International。\n\n179. 被告Eastern Profit是债务人在香港注册成立的另一家空壳公司。Eastern Profit是U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）Liman法官所作认定的标的，包括认定Eastern“本质上是债务人的空壳公司”。\n\n180. 除其他事项外，在2015年向Bravo Luck转账3.7亿美元时，Eastern Profit由债务人的司机、保镖兼厨师Han Chunguang（韩春光）名义所有，债务人称其为“小韩”并将其作为厨师介绍。韩先生后来将其声称拥有的Eastern Profit所有权以1.00港元对价转让给债务人的女儿Mei Guo（郭美）。该转让发生于2017年6月27日，同日，屈女士（作为债务人的受托人）亦以1.00港元将HK International“出售”给债务人的女儿。\n案号 22-50073 文件 2923 提交于 02/15/24 录入于 02/15/24 20:00:33 第 56 页 共 139 页\n\n181. 2015年2月21日，债务人的另一家空壳公司 Genever Holdings LLC（「Genever US」）就一套俯瞰曼哈顿的顶层公寓（「Sherry Netherland Apartment」）签署了买卖合同。26 Genever US 仅有一名成员，即 Genever Holdings Corporation（「Genever BVI」）。在购买雪莉荷兰公寓（Sherry Netherland Apartment）时，债务人是 Genever US 的唯一股东。Bravo Luck 为该项购买提供了资金来源。\n\n182. 即使在买卖合同签署之后，雪莉荷兰公寓的出售仍须获得雪莉荷兰酒店（Sherry Netherland Hotel）董事会的批准。2015年3月3日，董事会开会审议了就该房产提交的购买申请，并认定其未掌握充分的财务信息，且「董事会需要进行额外的尽职调查，包括但不限于获取有关[债务人]的财务信息」。\n\n\n\n26 雪莉荷兰公寓在严格技术意义上由位于雪莉荷兰酒店18层的多个单元组成，为便于提及，统称为雪莉荷兰公寓。\n\n\n\n\n\n184. 大约两个月后，即2015年5月26日，债务人据称以1.00美元将其在 Bravo Luck 中50%的所有权权益出售给其儿子。尽管如此，自2015年起直至2023年3月前后在雪莉荷兰公寓被联邦执法部门抓获时，是债务人（而非其儿子）将雪莉荷兰公寓作为住所使用。债务人、被告 Qiang Guo（郭强）以及被告 Bravo Luck 均故意采取上述行动，以隐瞒债务人对雪莉荷兰公寓的最终实益所有权并使其脱离债权人。\n\n185. 债务人还利用 Bravo Luck 来隐瞒其购买长达150英尺的豪华游艇 Lady May 的行为。\n\n186. 在2014年10月10日至2017年6月27日期间，债务人当时的执行助理兼会计经理 Qu 女士（屈国姣）是 HK International 的名义唯一股东兼董事，她是在一项未涉及任何对价的「屏蔽」转让中从债务人处获得了「所有权」。在此期间，Qu 女士以 HK International 唯一股东兼董事身份采取的所有实质性行动，均是应债务人的要求并按照其指示进行的。例如，如果债务人要求或指示 Qu 女士以 HK International 唯一股东兼董事的身份签署文件，她都会照办且不予异议，包括涉及2015年2月购买 Lady May 的相关文件。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 58 of 139\n\n187. 2015年2月23日——即在（使用自 Bravo Luck 电汇的资金）购买雪莉荷兰公寓的大约两周前——HK International 以 28,000,000 欧元（或约 32,000,000 美元27）从 Apsley Yachts Limited 处购买了 Lady May。\n\n188. 同样在2015年2月23日，Bravo Luck 向 Apsley Yachts Limited 的一名代表转账了不少于 25,000,000 欧元。该笔转账是根据债务人签署的电汇单进行的，目的是使 HK International 能够购买 Lady May。\n\n189. 如上所述，HK International 始终由债务人控制。即使在2014年其将股份转让给 Qu 女士之后，债务人仍是实益所有人，且 Qu 女士仅能在债务人的指示下行使与该等股份相关的权利。\n\n190. 这种架构一直维持到2017年6月27日，当时 Qu 女士据称以 1.00 港元将 HK International 的所有权转让给债务人的女儿——被告 Mei Guo（郭美）。\n\n191. 大约两年后，即2019年4月1日，被告 Mei Guo 设立了 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（「HK USA」），其为该公司的唯一成员。同月，HK International 无偿将 Lady May 转让给 HL USA。\n\n192. 债务人、债务人的女儿 Mei Guo、HK USA、HK International 和 Bravo Luck 均采取了上述行动，以隐瞒债务人对 Lady May 的最终实益所有权，并使其脱离其债权人。\n\n193. 本法院此后认定 HK USA 是债务人的另一个人格（alter ego），因此 Lady May 属于第11章破产财产（chapter 11 estate）。\nGreenwich Land\n\n194. 被告 Greenwich Land 是于2019年7月3日设立的特拉华州有限责任公司。Greenwich Land 的营业地点位于纽约州纽约市东64街162号（162 East 64th Street, New York, New York）。除被告 Ngok 外，仅有三名个人担任过 Greenwich Land 的管理人员——被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Max Krasner 以及 Daniel Podhaskie。上述每个人均在债务人控制的实体中担任过多个职位。\n\n195. Greenwich Land 的代理人实施了多项非法行为，包括以虚假托辞开立银行账户以及明知故犯地使用州际电汇，以推进郭氏企业（Kwok Enterprise）隐瞒债务人财富并欺诈其债权人的目的，并推进郭氏企业所推行的各项欺诈活动。Greenwich Land 及其名义所有人——被告 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝），未从 Greenwich Land 的任何运营中产生任何收入或收益，且其资金完全来源于郭氏企业通过本文详述的欺诈方案所收取的欺诈所得款项。\n\n196. 尽管某些被告声称 Greenwich Land 的业务仅包括持有不动产，\n\n以推进郭氏企业欺诈债务人债权人的方案，并掩饰通过 GTV 欺诈方案、G-Club 欺诈方案、农场贷款计划（Farm Loan Program）以及喜马拉雅交易所（Himalaya Exchange）欺诈方案所获取的欺诈所得款项的性质及所有权。\n\n)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 60 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 61 of 139\n\n违反了2023年3月28日的临时限制令28以及2023年5月26日的初步禁令29，该等命令禁止对此类 Greenwich Land 的资产进行消减处置。\n\n202. 此外，各被告\n\n在2020年10月26日至2023年7月31日之间的所有相关时间内均[明知]，在未收到来自郭氏企业其他共谋者及成员的资金的情况下，Greenwich Land 没有任何运营、收入或产生资金的能力。各被告\n\n在2020年10月26日至2023年7月31日之间的所有相关时间内均[明知]，Greenwich Land 转账至各被告 Bento 借记卡账户的资金实际上是非法活动的产物，并且每个人均明知故犯地通过以虚假托辞获取此类 Bento 借记卡账户来推进郭氏企业欺诈债务人债权人的目的，因为此类账户明知将由债务人欺诈方案的收益提供资金。\n\n203.\n\n28 诉讼案号 Adv. No. 23-05005，第 14 号案卷项。\n\n29 诉讼案号 Adv. No. 23-05005，第 53 号案卷项。\n\n\n\n\n\nGreenwich Land 明知故犯地就欺诈所得财产——即 GTV 欺诈案投资者受害人的资金——进行并接收了此类转账，且由 Greenwich Land 进行并由其接收的此类转账旨在隐瞒和掩饰 GTV 欺诈收益的性质、来源和控制权，而该等资金最终由债务人控制。这是债务人用于欺诈债权人并隐瞒其资产所指挥和使用的障眼法（shell game）的一个例证，对受托人（Trustee）和债务人的债权人造成了相当大的损害。\n\n204.\n\n总而言之，据信，Savio Law LLC 是债务人的\n\n代表。\n\n30 Savio Law LLC 的负责人现在或曾经是 Nicholas F. Savio。Savio 先生目前在债务人的总法律顾问 Aaron Mitchell 的律师事务所 Lawall & Mitchell 执业。此前，Savio 先生和 Mitchell 先生曾在 Cohen & Howard, L.L.P. 律师事务所共事，并在那里代表债务人参加了在新泽西州联邦地区法院的诉讼。S\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 63 of 139\n\n205. Greenwich Land 购买并随后出售的不动产之一是位于 Ferncliff 路 33 号的住宅物业（「Ferncliff 物业」）。债务人控制了 Ferncliff 物业的购买、使用和出售，并且另一家由债务人控制的被告实体 Hudson Diamond NY LLC 被用于债务人对 Ferncliff 物业的购买和出售。\n\n206. Hudson Diamond NY 是一家债务人的空壳公司，据称由被告 Mei Guo 通过 Hudson Diamond Holding 持有。\n\n\n\n\n\n31 此类交易的明细表作为附件 ________ 附于本文件。\n211.\n213. 因此，这些付款显然是\n为了债务人的个人利益而进行的。\n具体而言：\na. Hudson Diamond NY 利用美国电汇在州际贸易中执行了此类转账，并且由于其自身没有运营或自筹资金的能力，其明知该等资金系非法获得，且转账是为了推进郭氏企业欺诈债务人债权人的方案；\nb. Greenwich Land 利用美国电汇在州际贸易中执行了此类转账，并且由于其自身没有运营或自筹资金的能力，其明知该等资金系非法获得，且转账是为了推进郭氏企业欺诈债务人债权人的方案；\nc. 在一家美国银行。Saraca 利用美国电汇在州际贸易中执行了此类转账，并且由于其自身没有运营或自筹资金的能力，其明知该等资金系非法获得，且转账是为了推进郭氏企业欺诈债务人债权人的方案；\n\n\n\n216. Hudson Diamond NY 是代表债务人设立的另一个实体，据称目的是收购不动产。\n\n\n\n218. Hudson Diamond NY 一直由债务人通过其控制的实体提供资金。正如其拥有和控制的众多其他实体一样，郭氏企业利用 Hudson Diamond NY 使债务人的资产脱离债权人，同时利用此类资产维持债务人奢华的亿万富翁形象，以便其向投资者受害人推销自己和郭氏企业，将其塑造成值得信任和投资的个人和组织。\n\n219. 被告 Hudson Diamond NY 已收到来自众多债务人控制实体的资金，除其他外包括：据信，Hudson Diamond NY 除了从其他债务人控制的实体获得资金外，不接收任何其他资金。ACA Capital 执行了所有此类转账，以推进上述欺诈，并推进郭氏企业隐瞒和掩饰此类欺诈收益的性质及控制权的目的。\n\n220. 被告 Hudson Diamond NY 主要由债务人设立用于收购不动产。具体而言，债务人已利用 Hudson Diamond NY 以其空壳公司 Greenwich Land 的名义出资购买房地产，而该空壳公司据称由债务人的妻子 Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）名义持有。\n\n由于自身缺乏资金机制，Hudson Diamond NY（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）明知该等转账是为了推进Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）欺诈债务人债权人并隐瞒收益性质与控制权的计划和目的，例如其转账给Greenwich Land（格林威治地产公司）的资金。b. 自身无力产生资金，且在收到来自Hudson Diamond NY的该等资金后，Greenwich Land明知该等转账是为了推进郭氏企业欺诈债务人债权人并隐瞒收益性质与控制权的计划和目的，例如其转账给Whitman Breed（惠特曼·布里德）的资金。. 自身无力产生资金，且在收到来自Hudson Diamond NY的该等资金后，Greenwich Land明知该等转账是为了推进郭氏企业欺诈债务人债权人并隐瞒收益性质与控制权的计划和目的，例如其转账给Whitman Breed的资金。221. 在接受宣誓作证时，Hudson Diamond NY声称的唯一成员Hudson Diamond\n\nHolding（哈德逊钻石控股公司）的声称唯一成员Mei Guo（郭美），在被问及她的父亲，即债务人，是否\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 69 of 139\n\n222. 在接受宣誓作证时，Hudson Diamond NY声称的唯一成员Hudson Diamond Holding声称的唯一成员郭美，在被问及她的父亲，即债务人，是否\n\n\n\n224. 银行记录显示，除了资助房地产交易外，债务人还利用Hudson Diamond NY向其他空壳公司转账数百万美元，包括例如，以及向其女儿郭美和其妻子Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）转账资金。\n\n225. 此外，据信，Hudson Diamond NY拥有债务人的一辆Rolls Royce（劳斯莱斯）豪华轿车。\n\n226. 如本文进一步讨论的那样，被告Hudson Diamond NY唯一有记录的活动包括持有债务人的资产和支付其开支。Hudson Diamond NY除了通过接收来自其他受债务人控制公司的资金、在银行账户中持有现金（除持有债务人的劳斯莱斯以及可能持有的其他资产外）以及支付债务人的开支来参与郭氏企业之外，没有从事任何其他业务。\n\n228. 此外，郭美在本法院出庭作证时援引了Fifth Amendment（第五修正案），当时她被问及（其中包括）Hudson Diamond NY是否是按照债务人的指示设立以购买不动产，以及债务人是否始终控制着Hudson Diamond NY及其资产。\nThe Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）\n\n229. 将G-Clubs欺诈变现以使债务人及其家人和同伙获利的关键是“Hamilton Entities（汉密尔顿实体）”，这是一个投资工具伞形网络，由投资者受害者对G-Clubs的注资提供资金，使郭氏企业能够：(a) 维持G-Clubs在Puerto Rico（波多黎各）所谓的和优惠的“会员组织”税务地位（相对于G-Clubs在税务目的上作为投资实体）；同时 (b) 通过将受害者成员的资金转移至受债务人控制且能够购买资产（并向债务人的债权人隐瞒资产）的实体，从而使债务人、其家人及其同伙致富。\n\n230. 被告David Fallon（戴维·法伦）在债务人、被告Qiang Guo（郭强）和被告William Je（余建明）的指示下，担任汉密尔顿实体的首要运营员工，误导汉密尔顿实体的基金管理人NAV Fund Administration Group（NAV基金管理集团），并为郭氏企业和债务人的利益制作虚假的“认购”文件及汉密尔顿实体的其他虚假投资文件。\n\n\n\n232.\n\n. 被告David Fallon进行了所有此类\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 72 of 139\n\n境外电汇通讯（无论是通过电话还是电子邮件），并在欺诈借口下故意与银行进行接触。\nThe Taurus Entities and the Mahwah Mansion（金牛座实体与马赫瓦豪宅）\n\n233. 为推进G-Club欺诈并通过使用汉密尔顿实体隐瞒欺诈行为并使债务人、其家人及其同伙受益，于2021年12月16日（“购买日”），Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机会基金独立投资组合公司）的隔离投资组合公司被告Taurus Fund SP，直接或通过Taurus Fund LLC（“Taurus Fund”，金牛座基金）间接以约2650万美元从Crocker Mansion Estate LLC购买了位于New Jersey（新泽西州）面积约50,000平方英尺的庄园Mahwah Mansion（马赫瓦豪宅）。房产契约于同日记录在New Jersey州Bergen County（卑尔根县）。如下所述，购买马赫瓦豪宅实际上是债务人及其同谋实施的G-Club欺诈的延伸。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 73 of 139\n\n\n\n234. Taurus Fund于2021年12月16日（即购买日当天）在Nevada（内华达州）成立。\n\n235. 除马赫瓦豪宅外，Taurus Fund还持有由F.A. Porsche设计的Bösendorfer（贝森朵夫）三角钢琴（“保时捷钢琴”）的所有权，该钢琴据信价值超过25万美元。保时捷钢琴此前位于债务人在纽约市Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环）3号的GSeries办公室。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 74 of 139\n\n\n\n236. Taurus Fund由以下人员/机构管理：(i) 债务人的司机和/或保镖即被告Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特），以及 (ii) 被告Taurus Management LLC（金牛座管理有限责任公司）。然而，被告Taurus Fund由被告Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC声称的独立投资组合Taurus Fund SP所有。\n\n237. 被告Scott Barnett是债务人的司机和/或保镖，且巴内特继续受雇于债务人并积极为其工作。事实上，在2023年6月20日发给Trustee（破产受托人）的一封电子邮件中，债务人的律师Aaron A. Romney（亚伦·A·罗姆尼）通知受托人，“在Sherry [Netherland]为郭先生从事安保工作的Scott Barnett将去领取”Sherry Netherland（舍利荷兰酒店）内装有债务人及其家属衣物和个人物品的“若干箱子”。巴内特还被列为AIG（美国国际集团）向Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，债务人的众多空壳公司之一）签发的保险单下的承保驾驶员。巴内特还获得了至少另外两家空壳公司Greenwich Land, LLC和Lexington Property（莱克星顿物业）的报酬。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 75 of 139\n\n238. Taurus Fund列出的另一名管理人Taurus Management LLC于2021年12月15日（即购买日前一天）作为有限责任公司在State of New Mexico（新墨西哥州）成立。尽管是一家新墨西哥州实体，Taurus Management与Taurus Fund共用位于Nevada州6628 Sky Pointe Drive, Suite 129-1071, Las Vegas, NV 89131的同一地址。\n\n239. 尽管Taurus Fund持有马赫瓦豪宅的名义所有权，但债务人在2023年3月15日被捕前对该房产拥有完全的受益所有权和控制权。\n\n240. 债务人在马赫瓦豪宅的居住情况及其对该豪宅的衡平法所有权，在针对他包含证券欺诈、电汇欺诈和洗钱等多项指控的初始起诉书中被披露。32 初始起诉书将马赫瓦豪宅确定为债务人在美国的多处豪华住所之一，另外还包括其在Sherry-Netherland的公寓以及在Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林威治）的住所。\n\n241. 建于1907年的城堡风格马赫瓦豪宅位于距纽约市25英里以内，被描述为世界上最宏伟、最稀有的庄园之一。该豪宅拥有21间卧室、超过19间浴室、一个大厅、图书馆、茶室、正式餐厅、餐厅式厨房、电影院、台球室、带水疗设施的室内小型健身泳池、按摩室、酒窖、游戏室、健身房、带更衣小屋的室外泳池、带两个喷泉的壮丽花园、网球场、8车位车库，整座城堡通体采用稀有木材、石材工艺和精湛手工制作。此外，马赫瓦豪宅拥有专属的维基百科页面，并于1997年被列入National Register of Historic Places（国家史迹名录）。\n\n242. 马赫瓦豪宅的宏伟与奢华符合债务人对奢靡住所的偏好，就像其价值7000万美元的Sherry Netherland公寓以及债务人在Connecticut价值数百万美元的住所一样。\n\n32 参见超级起诉书（Superseding Indictment）。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 76 of 139\n\n243. 总之，债务人决定于2021年12月16日购买马赫瓦豪宅，即债务人于2022年2月15日自愿提出chapter 11（第11章）破产申请前两个月，且当时他对债权人负有巨额债务，包括对PAX（太盟）约1.15亿美元的判决书债务。他还决定隐瞒其对马赫瓦豪宅的购买和衡平法所有权（不出意料，该豪宅未列入债务人的资产和负债明细表中），如果不是美国政府于2023年3月15日提起刑事起诉书，该房产本仍会被隐瞒。\n\n244. 尽管Taurus Fund持有马赫瓦豪宅的名义所有权，但债务人指示并亲自参与了该豪宅的购买和翻修，所使用的是由其控制的资金——即成员受害者汇给G-Club的非法所得资金。\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 77 of\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 78 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 79 of 139\n\n\n\n装饰品，例如价值约97.8万美元的中国和波斯地毯、一台6.2万美元的\n\n电视机、一个5.3万美元的壁炉木柴架、一个5.9万美元的手表收纳盒以及一张3.5万美元的床垫。\n3. Purported Operating Entities Concealing Debtor's Wealth and Assets.（隐瞒债务人财富和资产的声称运营实体。）\n\n258. 债务人还利用虚假商业组织在整个郭氏企业以及其家庭成员和同伙之间转移通过欺诈手段获得的收益，以防止债权人对其实现追偿。\nThe HCHK Entities（HCHK实体）\n\n259. 被告HCHK Technologies、HCHK Property和Lexington Property均为Holy City（圣城公司）拥有的实体。值得注意的是，被告Yvette Wang（王雁平）是Holy City（名义上的）99.9999%所有者，被告Anthony DiBattista（安东尼·迪巴蒂斯塔）是Holy City名义上的0.0001%所有者，但债务人是Holy City及其所有子公司的实际和受益所有者。\n\n260. 与被告王雁平一样，被告DiBattista也是债务人的长期雇员，在受债务人控制的不同公司担任各种职务。被告DiBattista曾受雇于Golden Spring，并曾作为GTV、GFashion和G-Clubs的公司高级管理人员为债务人服务。\n\n261. 除被告DiBattista外，HCHK实体的核心人员均为债务人“家族办公室”Golden Spring的前雇员或高级管理人员。转入HCHK实体的其他这些Golden Spring人员包括被告Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Joe Wang、Bernardo Enriquez（贝尔纳多·恩里克斯）以及被告Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）。据信，HCHK实体仅仅是冠以新公司信头抬头的Golden Spring的延续。其他HCHK人员包括Elliott Dordick（埃利奥特·多迪克），此人被本法院认定为Gettr（盖特）的雇员，33 该实体属于“G-Series（G系列）”实体伞形网络的一部分，本法院认定该等实体“为债务人的目的服务”并“充当债务人的商业工具”。34 法院或许还记得，Dordick先生参与了债务人针对受托人和PAX的骚扰活动。\n\n33 见初步禁令裁定（PI Decision）第13段。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 82 of 139\n\n服务”并“充当债务人的商业工具”。34 法院或许还记得，Dordick先生参与了债务人针对受托人和PAX的骚扰活动。\n\n262. HCHK Entities（HCHK 系列实体）并非碰巧与债务人关联实体开展业务的独立企业。它们属于 Business-Front Entities（商业掩护实体）——即 Debtor（债务人）旗下 G-Series entities（G 系列实体）的关联机构，与此类实体一同构成受债务人控制的 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）中的一个齿轮，专门用于促进债务人的利益、让债务人及其家族与关联人员牟利、向债权人隐匿债务人的资产与财富，并维持债务人的亿万富翁生活方式以及成功企业家和投资人的形象。\n\n263. HCHK 实体的营业地点位于纽约市 3 Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环 3 号），HCHK Property（HCHK 房地产）与 Lexington Property（列克星敦房地产）在此转租办公场所。正是在该地点，债务人的关联人员在债务人的授意下拍摄了支持债务人的视频，包括 2022 年底呼吁对 Trustee（受托人）、PAX 以及两者的法律顾问进行骚扰的视频。这些活动导致法院作出了初步禁令裁定 [Docket No. 133 in Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032]，法院在其中认定（除其他事项外）债务人控制了 G 系列实体。据信息和信，上述攻击受托人和 PAX 的视频，是利用在某些企图进行的纽约州法院转让程序中所披露的、据称为 HCHK Technologies（HCHK 科技）资产的视频及电子设备制作的。\n\n264. HCHK 实体的会计师事务所 Marcum LLP（以下简称「Marcum」）提交的文件显示了 HCHK 实体与 G 系列实体代表债务人作为郭氏企业组成部分的运作程度。除其他事项外，这些文件表明 Marcum 对于谁控制了 HCHK 实体及 G 系列实体毫无疑问。\n\n34 PI Decision ¶ 7.\n\n265. HCHK 实体的作用除其他事项外，是充当债务人企业的「存钱罐」。正因如此，Marcum 的聘用函中规定，Marcum 将向列克星敦房地产「及其关联机构」提供服务，且 Marcum 被明确指派不仅要编制 HCHK 实体的纳税申报表，还要编制债务人控制的其他实体的纳税申报表，包括 GFashion 和 GTV。同样，Marcum 将 HCHK 科技的资产归类为包含对应于 Gettr、GFashion 和「FMV」（据信息和信，该首字母缩写指代债务人控制的另一家公司 Freedom Media Ventures）的银行账户。这一「存钱罐」角色与就 HCHK 科技提交的资产明细表相吻合，该明细表披露了 \\$12,559,423.06 的应收账款。据信息和信，这些应收账款包括 G 系列实体或由债务人控制且作为郭氏企业共谋者及成员的其他公司据称欠 HCHK 科技的债务。\n\n266. 例如，被告 HCHK 科技多次故意且明知地传输重要电汇通信，包括电汇通过郭氏企业各项欺诈行为从投资者受害者和/或成员受害者处欺诈获取的资金，以向其债权人隐匿债务人的资产与财富，并支付债务人及其家族与关联人员的开支，从而推进郭氏企业诈骗债务人债权人的计划：\n\n\n\n其家族，并非 HCHK 科技的正当开支或义务。\n\n 是 Lady May（梅号）的管家公司，Ostrager 法官及本法院已裁定梅号为债务人的游艇。据信息和信，在所有相关时间内，HCHK 科技均知晓该笔付款是为了债务人及其家族的利益，并非 HCHK 科技的正当开支或义务。\n\nc.\n\nb.\n\n。据信息和信，该笔付款的目的是为债务人购买一架新的私人飞机，即在与债务人刑事案件相关的诉状中所提及的 Cirrus SF50（西锐 SF50）喷气式飞机。据信息和信，在所有相关时间内，HCHK 科技均知晓该笔付款是为了债务人及其家族的利益，并非 HCHK 科技的正当开支或义务。\n\n267. 此外，列克星敦房地产表面上虽仅从事转租\n\n办公空间的业务，却多次故意且明知地传输重要电汇通信，包括电汇通过郭氏企业各项欺诈行为从投资者受害者和/或成员受害者处欺诈获取的资金，以向其债权人隐匿债务人的资产与财富，并支付债务人及其家族与关联人员的开支，从而推进郭氏企业诈骗债务人债权人的计划。例如：\n\n- a. 尽管被告 Mitchell 在接受伪证处罚的前提下作证称其从未向列克星敦房地产提供过法律服务：\n\t- i.\n\n 据信息和信，在所有相关时间内，列克星敦房地产均知晓该笔付款是为了债务人以及被告 Mitchell（债务人的知名关联人员及郭氏企业成员）的利益，并非列克星敦房地产的正当开支或义务。\n\nii.\n\n 据信息和信，在所有相关时间内，列克星敦房地产均知晓该笔付款是为了债务人以及被告 Mitchell 与 Lawall & Mitchell LLC（债务人的共谋者及郭氏企业成员）的利益，并非列克星敦房地产的正当开支或义务。\n\niii. 据信息和信，在所有相关时间内，列克星敦房地产均知晓该笔付款是为了推进 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）欺诈计划，且是为债务人及郭氏企业的利益而进行，并非列克星敦房地产的正当开支、义务或投资。\n\n268. 列克星敦房地产还明知地接收了郭氏企业 Farm Loan Program（农场贷款项目）欺诈计划的收益，并通过进一步的金融交易挥霍了这些属于犯罪所得财产的收益，包括在州际贸易中使用美国电汇转移欺诈所得资金，意图推进农场贷款项目欺诈计划以及郭氏企业诈骗债务人债权人并隐匿债务人资产性质和所有权的欺诈计划。例如：\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 86 of 139\n\n\n\n269. HCHK 房地产也是郭氏企业农场贷款项目欺诈计划中的一个关键齿轮。 ，其不仅明知地接收从农场贷款项目计划中欺诈获取的资金，还进一步转移该等资金以推进该计划以及郭氏企业向债务人债权人隐匿该等资金性质和所有权的企图。\n\n 在收到该等资金后，HCHK 房地产与众多其他被告及共谋者一样，进一步将资金转移给受债务人控制的其他被告及共谋者，明知地推进农场贷款项目欺诈，使债务人牟利，并通过隐匿欺诈获取资金的性质和所有权来诈骗债务人的债权人。例如：\n\n\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 87 of 139\n\n\n\n270. HCHK 房地产在上述三项金融交易中以及在 HCHK 房地产开展的类似金融交易中所转移的资金，均为农场贷款项目欺诈获取的收益。HCHK 房地产明知地将农场贷款项目的此类非法所得收益转移至 Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC, Hamilton M&A Fund SP，以使债务人、其家族及其关联人员牟利，推进农场贷款项目计划，并通过掩饰和隐匿所转移资金的性质和所有权来诈骗债务人的债权人。\n\n271. 此外，从 HCHK 房地产处接收该等欺诈获取收益的被告和共谋者在接收时明知：HCHK 房地产是债务人所有的壳实体；除通过郭氏企业的欺诈计划（如农场贷款项目）外，其没有任何赚取或筹集如此巨额资金的途径；且事实上，该等被告和共谋者从 HCHK 房地产处收到的款项是非法夺自农场贷款项目受害者的。例如，\n\n\n\n\n\n273. 在就针对债务人以及被告 Yvette Wang（王雁平）和 William Je（余建明）提起的刑事起诉所提交的诉状中，U.S. Government（美国政府）指控（除其他事项外）：\n\n- a. HCHK 科技是一家「受郭控制的公司，其……在今年早些时候派员工前往 [United Arab Emirates]（阿拉伯联合酋长国）开设银行账户，正如郭所声称的，该等账户将超出美国的『长臂管辖权』」。这些员工「在阿联酋呆了六个多星期，显然是为了协助将郭和 [William] Je 的业务转移至海外」。\n- b. Gettr 和 HCHK 科技是「受郭和 [William] Je 控制的公司，其部分资金来自欺诈收益」。Gettr「是一家郭通过一系列壳公司控制的社交媒体公司」，且「Gettr 与 HCHK 实体……在同一个办公地点运作」。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 89 of 139\n\n- c. 「在[被告 Yvette Wang]公寓其手提包内的一个文件夹中发现的带批注文件的照片，在实质上及部分上似乎反映了以 HCHK Technologies 和 HCHK Property Management……GFNY, Inc.（即 GFashion）以及 GF Italy（即 GFashion Italy）名义持有的六个银行账户的某些交易和余额。」\n- d. 「在[被告 Yvette Wang]公寓其手提包内文件夹中发现的另一份文件的照片，总的及实质上似乎反映出[被告 Yvette Wang]签署了与各受郭控制实体相关的薪资支出……该文件进一步表明了某些薪资支出应如何在各关联实体（包括 HCHK）之间进行分摊。」\nIV. 妨碍与干扰破产程序\n\n274. 郭氏企业诈骗债务人债权人的计划于 2021 年 2 月达到白热化，当时 PAX 在 NY Action（纽约州诉讼）中就违约事项获得了针对债务人的 \\$116 million 判决，并试图针对债务人的资产执行该判决。\n\n275. 在与此类执行工作相关的程序中，NY Court（纽约州法院）认定债务人参与了「通过将巨额个人资产置于一系列公司、受信任的心腹和家族成员名下来规避并欺骗其债权人的行为」，并且「将资产隐匿于复杂的公司实体网络及家族成员之中」。35 纽约州法院明确认定 Lady May（梅号）游艇属于债务人的资产，并因债务人将该游艇移出美国水域且未能返还而对债务人处以 \\$134 million 的藐视法庭罚款。\n\n276. 债务人在不动用其隐匿资产且不暴露郭氏企业欺诈性空壳把戏的情况下，根本无法履行 PAX 的判决或支付藐视法庭罚款。因此，债务人急于叫停纽约州诉讼，以阻止 PAX 在执行判决和罚款的努力中取得进一步进展。\n\n35 见 Decision + Order on Motion, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Ho Wan Kwok, Index No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 9, 2022), at 1。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 90 of 139\n\n277. 面对这一困境，债务人及其数名被告共谋者认为他们别无选择，只能执行Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）欺诈债权人计划的最后阶段：向本法院提交第11章破产申请，以期达到两个目的：(i) 立即中止NY Action（纽约诉讼），以及 (ii) 给债务人一个机会，试图通过一项能够隐瞒欺诈行为的和解协议来解决PAX及其它债权人的主张。\n\nA. 最初未向破产法院披露资产\n\n278. 债务人于2022年2月15日提交了第11章破产申请。根据《破产法典》（Bankruptcy Code）的要求，其财产附表和财务状况说明书（统称“Schedules”）于数周后提交。\n\n279. 尽管有大量公开证据证明债务人拥有巨额财富，但债务人的Schedules报告称，债务人财产的总价值为$3,850.00，而无担保债权高达$373,803,498.09，其中超过2.5亿美元由PAX的主张构成，其余则包括与涉嫌证券欺诈、诽谤和性侵犯等相关的众多主张。\n\n280. 如上文详述，Schedules未能披露债务人以被告以及组成郭氏企业的其他个人和空壳公司的名义持有的（至少）数亿美元资产。Schedules中一个尤为引人注目的遗漏是，完全未提及Lady May（Lady May号游艇）为债务人的资产，尽管纽约法院此前不久已在纽约诉讼中得出了这一结论。\n\n281. 债务人并非独自编制Schedules或为其破产申请做准备，而是得到了其律师的协助与配合，其中包括被告Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。正如本文件其他部分所述，Mitchell曾长期担任债务人的私人法律顾问，并在与郭氏企业相关的众多事务中担任亲密顾问。他与债务人的破产律师密切配合，试图向法院“推销”债务人的说法，Mitchell因此在协助债务人及其破产律师准备欺诈性Schedules方面发挥了重要作用。Mitchell明知Schedules内容虚假，仍允许将其提交给法院，其目的是欺诈法院和债务人的债权人。\n\n282. 随着第11章破产案件的推进，债务人继续采取手段向法院欺诈性隐瞒其真实财务状况。例如，在申请日（Petition Date）后约两个月，债务人据信在被告Aaron Mitchell的协助下，策划于2022年4月11日提起了HK USA Proceeding（HK USA程序），在其中，债务人的女儿、被告Mei Guo（郭美）促使HK USA虚假声称Lady May归HK USA所有，不属于破产财产。\n\n283. 提起HK USA程序旨在维持Schedules所描绘的Lady May尚未由债务人所有的虚假表象，并营造一种情境，使被告郭美能够根据拟议的第11章计划将Lady May作为给债权人的对价“贡献”给破产财产。债务人、其顾问（包括被告Mitchell）和被告郭美明知HK USA程序中的主张是虚假的，但他们仍然允许其被提交，以延续欺诈行为并推进债务人的退出策略。法院后来同意受托人（Trustee）的主张，即Lady May现在是且一直以来都是破产财产，但这发生在为就该问题进行诉讼而耗费了大量资源之后。36\n\n36 参见《准予Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产第11章受托人部分简易判决动议的命令》[Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 172]（修订版）及《准予就第二项反诉作出部分简易判决动议的裁决与命令备忘录》[Adv. Proc. 22-05003, Docket No. 221]。\n\n284. 进一步的欺诈性隐瞒还发生在2022年4月28日左右，当时是针对PAX请求解除自动中止以继续在纽约诉讼中针对Lady May和债务人其他资产执行其判决的动议作出的回应。为了避免中止被解除，债务人在孤注一掷下同意缴纳3700万美元的保证金，被告郭美、William Je（余建明）和Himalaya International Financial Group Ltd.（喜马拉雅国际金融集团有限公司）与债务人共谋提供这笔资金，以推进欺诈债务人债权人并隐匿其资产的计划。这些被告将在郭美要求下提供给HK USA的3700万美元伪装成所谓的“贷款”，尽管事实上根本不存在此类贷款，且这些资金实际上是由债务人实际拥有并控制的财产。同样，采取这些行动是为了阻碍和拖延案件进程及受托人的调查，并向债权人隐匿资产。\n\nB. 通过阻碍受托人工作和违反法院命令进行妨碍\n\n285. 最终，债务人对其财务状况的陈述受到了United States Trustee（美国受托人，简称“UST”）办公室的质疑，后者提出动议，请求任命一名审查员，或者任命一名第11章受托人。UST指出了债务人在申请破产前规避债权人并在回答有关其财务交易的问题时主张《第五修正案》权利的历史。UST对债务人“人为自行制造的‘贫困’”以及无法和/或不愿认识并接受其作为留权债务人（debtor in possession）提供准确财务信息以履行其义务的情况深表关切。37 最终，法院支持了UST所请求的救济，并任命了受托人对债务人的财务事务进行调查。38\n\n37 《美国受托人关于责令任命审查员的动议，或关于责令任命第11章受托人的动议》[Docket No. 102]。\n\n38 《准予任命第11章受托人的命令》[Docket No. 523]。\n\n286. 获得任命后，受托人立即开始对债务人的财务事务展开调查，而债务人及其共谋者则继续歪曲这些事务，并几乎在一切可能的方面阻碍和干扰受托人的调查，其目的是为了使债务人的资产免受其债权人的追索。\n\n1. 未遵守公司治理权令\n\n287. 在受托人获得任命后不久，法院于2022年8月10日作出一项命令（“Corporate Governance Rights Order”，即《公司治理权令》），确认债务人必须按照《破产法典》的要求“与受托人合作以使受托人能够履行其职责”，并“向受托人移交破产财产的所有财产以及任何记录信息，包括但不限于与破产财产有关的账簿、文件、记录和文件”。39\n\n288. 受《公司治理权令》管辖的债务人空壳公司之一是Ace Decade，债务人曾利用该公司在UBS（瑞银）进行投资，并在随后就该投资对UBS提起诉讼。尽管《公司治理权令》有相关要求，但债务人拒绝将其在Ace Decade的股份转让给受托人，也拒绝向受托人提供有关Ace Decade或其全资子公司Dawn State Limited（“Dawn State”）的任何公司文件，即便债务人曾多次证实其拥有Ace Decade且Ace Decade全资拥有Dawn State。\n\n39 《依据〈破产法典〉第363、521、541、1108和105条作出的(A)确认第11章受托人享有债务人在债务人控制实体中的所有经济和公司治理权利、(B)授权第11章受托人代表破产财产在任何外国采取行动、以及(C)给予相关救济的命令》[Docket No. 761]。\n\n289. 2022年10月4日，受托人提交了一项动议（“Corporate Governance Contempt Motion”，即《公司治理藐视法庭动议》），请求作出裁定，以债务人未遵守《公司治理权令》为由判定其构成民事藐视法庭。40\n\n290. 2022年11月17日，法院作出一项命令（“Partial Resolution Order”，即《部分解决命令》），对《公司治理藐视法庭动议》作出了部分解决，裁定（其中包括）：(i) 债务人在申请日及受托人任命之日之前独家实际拥有并控制Ace Decade；(ii) 被告Yvette Wang（王雁平）现在不是且从来不是Ace Decade股份的实际拥有人；以及 (iii) 若非受托人的任命及其在《破产法典》和《公司治理权令》下的权利，债务人仍将独家实际拥有并控制Ace Decade。41\n\n291. 在《部分解决命令》作出之前，受托人的律师已通过电子邮件将拟议形式的《部分解决命令》副本发送给了Alex Lipman先生（受托人获悉其当时担任被告王雁平的律师），并送达给了位于BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的Ace Decade（转交Trident Trust Company (B.V.I.) Limited，即“Trident”，该公司为Ace Decade在BVI的注册代理人）。\n\n292. 2023年1月24日，法院作出一项命令[Docket No. 1372]（“Contempt Order”，即《藐视法庭命令》），裁定债务人违反《公司治理权令》构成藐视法庭。法院裁定（其中包括），债务人有义务遵守《公司治理权令》并向受托人交出Ace Decade、其在Ace Decade的所有权以及相关文件，且债务人有能力做到这一点，但并未执行。42\n\n40 《第11章受托人关于因未遵守公司治理权令而判定债务人构成民事藐视法庭的命令的动议》[Docket No. 913]。\n\n41 《关于部分解决受托人藐视法庭动议的命令》[Docket No. 1110]。\n\n42 《准予判定债务人违反公司治理命令构成藐视法庭的动议的命令》，第6-7页、第14-15页 [Docket No. 1372]。\n\n293. 此外，《藐视法庭命令》认定：(i) 被告王雁平是为债务人的利益而持有Ace Decade的名义所有人；(ii) 债务人对被告王雁平具有控制权，原因包括债务人已雇佣王雁平数年，并指示她代表其采取行动，包括指示她代表其购买房产；以及 (iii) 尽管拥有此类控制权，债务人仍未促使被告王雁平将Ace Decade的股份移交给受托人。43\n\n294. 在《藐视法庭命令》作出后，受托人得知，被告王雁平于2023年1月3日左右将其在Ace Decade唯一股份中的名义所有权转让给了Rui Hao（郝瑞）（即“Ace Decade Transfer”/Ace Decade转让），这主要是根据受托人向BVI法院提出申请并获批准后、由Trident披露的Ace Decade最新公司文件所获悉的。Ace Decade转让是在未通知受托人亦未获得受托人同意的情况下进行的，且违反了《公司治理权令》。\n\n295. 鉴于被告Wang（王雁平）与债务人的密切关系及其在Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）中的核心角色等因素，被告王雁平在进行Ace Decade Transfer（Ace Decade转让）时完全知晓，依据法院裁定该财产属于破产财产。通过无论如何仍发起该转让，她明知并故意：(i) 采取腐败手段阻碍和妨碍第11章破产案及受托人的调查，以达到向破产财产隐匿债务人资产的目的；(ii) 在对外贸易中转让该价值超过$5000的股份，且明知该股份系违反《公司治理权利裁定》和《藐视法庭裁定》而从破产财产中侵占非法挪用；以及 (iii) 据信，为了欺诈债务人破产财产的目的，利用美国有线电通信协助了该转让。\n\n43 同上，第4、15页。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 96 of 139\n\n296. 受托人对Ace Decade、Yvette Wang（王雁平）和Rui Hao（郝锐）44提起对抗性申诉，除其他事项外，旨在撤销Ace Decade转让，因为该转让违反了《破产法典》项下的自动中止规定，且属于未经授权的破产申请后破产财产转让。该对抗性诉讼程序仍在审理中。\n2. 违反第2004条规则裁定\n\n297. 受托人已提交十五份独立的第2004条规则动议，向包括数名被告及同谋在内的众多个人和实体寻求证据开示。法院作出裁定批准了每一份第2004条规则动议（下称「第2004条规则裁定」），准许受托人从众多实体和个人处获取证据开示，包括但不限于债务人和多名被告。\n\n298. 尽管法院作出了第2004条规则裁定，但许多被告未能遵守第2004条规则传票，以逃避提供可能进一步揭露该欺诈计划的信息。债务人因未能遵守第2004条规则传票而被裁定藐视法庭45，以下被告和非当事人亦是如此：Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.和Lamp Capital LLC46；GTV和Saraca47；Hudson Diamond NY LLC48；Hudson Diamond Holdings LLC49；G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Club US Operations, Inc.、G-\n\n44 对抗性诉讼案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-05028。\n\n45 参见《关于裁定个人债务人藐视法庭并驳回中止强制提供材料裁定动议的决定备忘录及裁定》[Docket No. 2035]。\n\n46 参见《裁定Golden Spring和Lamp Capital藐视法庭的裁定》[Docket No. 1709]。\n\n47 参见《批准关于裁定GTV Media Group, Inc.和Saraca Media, Inc.因未遵守第2004条规则传票而构成民事藐视法庭动议的裁定》[Docket No. 2093]。\n\n48 参见《部分批准关于作出裁定Hudson Diamond NY LLC构成民事藐视法庭裁定的动议的裁定》[Docket No. 2009]。\n\n49 参见《裁定Hudson Diamond Holding LLC藐视法庭的裁定》[Docket No. 2545]。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 97 of 139\n\nFashion LLC、GNews LLC、New York MOS Himalaya LLC、Crane Advisory Group LLC以及Maywind Trading LLC。50\n\n299. 由于未能遵守第2004条规则传票及相关法院裁定，上述被告明知并故意阻碍和妨碍第11章破产案及受托人的调查，以达到隐匿债务人资产的目的。\n3. 违反Greenwich Land对抗性诉讼中的初步禁令和临时限制令\n\n300. 2023年3月23日，受托人对被告Greenwich Land以及债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）提起对抗性诉讼51，请求作出确认判决，认定据称由岳庆芝拥有的Greenwich Land是债务人的另我（alter ego），或者在备位上，由债务人享有衡平法上的所有权。\n\n301. 2023年3月27日，受托人提交了一份单方申请临时限制令及初步禁令的动议（下称「Greenwich禁令动议」），请求冻结被告Greenwich Land和岳庆芝的特定资产。\n\n302. 2023年3月28日，法院部分批准了Greenwich禁令动议，除其他事项外，暂时限制并禁止被告Greenwich Land和岳庆芝及其各自的代理人对其任何财产或资产进行设定负担、转让、让与、挥霍或让渡。2023年5月26日，法院作出初步禁令，延长了该等救济（下称「Greenwich初步禁令」）。\n\n303. 尽管有Greenwich初步禁令，但在2023年3月28日至2023年7月31日期间，违反Greenwich初步禁令从被告Greenwich Land的账户中支出了约$34,000。\n\n50 参见《部分批准关于作出裁定未回应方构成民事藐视法庭裁定的动议的裁定》[Docket No. 1892]。\n\n51 对抗性诉讼案号：Adv. Proc. No. 23-5005。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 98 of 139\n\n该等支出系由被告岳庆芝、Chunguang Han（韩春光）和Krasner等人为个人利益购买商品和服务而进行的。该等被告明知并故意通过美国有线电通信支出该等资金，以达到向破产财产的债权人隐匿债务人资产并掩饰资金真实来源的目的。\n\n304. 据称拥有并控制Greenwich Land的被告岳庆芝允许了该等支出的发生。被告岳庆芝、韩春光和Krasner均知晓Greenwich初步禁令，并明知且故意违反该禁令，以达到阻碍和妨碍第11章破产案及受托人的调查、并欺诈性地向破产财产隐匿资产的目的。\nC. 与债务人破产案相关的其他欺诈性隐瞒与虚假陈述\n\n305. 债务人和数名被告持续向受托人和法院提交虚假文件和信息，企图掩盖欺诈计划，并阻碍和妨碍第11章破产案及受托人的调查。\n\n306. 被告Bravo Luck和Qiang Guo（郭强）。被告郭强和Bravo Luck在这些合并审理的案件中各自提交了债权证明，主张对债务人位于Sherry Netherland Hotel（雪梨荷兰酒店）的公寓拥有所有权或相关财务索赔权。除其他事项外，这些债权证明依据的是一份日期为2015年2月17日的据称信托协议。正如受托人在多份诉状中详细阐述的那样，该「信托协议」是一份伪造且倒签日期的协议，其炮制目的是为了掩盖该公寓的真实所有权——在Genever实体及债务人本人提起第11章破产案之后，债务人、郭强和Bravo Luck仍企图继续推行这一计划。破产财产最终耗费了超过$100万的费用来对抗被告Bravo Luck和郭强主张的这些虚假索赔。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 99 of 139\n\n307. 被告Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）。被告岳庆芝系债务人之妻，她声称自己拥有并控制Greenwich Land。她还声称自己「挑选」了Greenwich Land于2020年2月购买的Ferncliff Property（Ferncliff物业），并在作证时（在其2023年1月5日的第2004条规则质询中）表示债务人未参与Greenwich Land购买Taconic Road Property（Taconic Road物业）。然而，被告岳庆芝在作证时亦表示，除其他事项外，她不知道自己是否曾要求Hudson Diamond NY向Greenwich Land转账$150万（该款项用于购买Ferncliff物业），而且显而易见的是，她无法认出Ferncliff物业的照片。此外，她关于债务人未参与购买Taconic Road物业的证词，与该交易的买方房地产经纪人de Neree先生的详细证词直接相悖。\n\n308. 被告Mei Guo（郭美）。在其父亲的第11章破产案申请提出后几乎立即，被告郭美便促使其担任唯一股东的HK USA提起了上述对抗性诉讼，主张对Lady May（梅雪号）游艇的所有权。在申诉书中，HK USA主张「郭女士直接及通过其代表，全权负责指导Lady May的运营和活动。」如上文所述并在受托人的反诉中详述的那样，纽约州最高法院的Ostrager法官此前已被认定该陈述属虚假，他认定郭美关于「其拥有并控制Lady May」的证言「在任何方面均不予采信」。郭美还多次声称（包括在接受作伪证处罚的前提下），HK USA唯一的资产是Lady May——然而，在面对受托人发现的事实时，她最终承认HK USA还拥有另一艘船，即Lady May II号。\n\n309. 此外，在由其发起的HK USA诉讼程序中，郭美提交了其个人手机的某些照片和屏幕截图。然而，在反对受托人\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 100 of 139\n\n强制执行第2004条规则请求的动议时，郭美的律师提交了一份声明，称郭美自2017年以来就没有使用过「智能手机」。当面对这一矛盾时，郭美主张了其《第五修正案》项下的权利。\n\n310. 郭美在关于出售一架Bombardier（庞巴迪）私人飞机的收益方面亦犯有伪证罪。在受托人提起的对抗性诉讼中，郭美作证称，她以超过$1000万的价格将该庞巴迪飞机出售给了一名她记不起名字的买家，并且尽管她是该笔收益的「所有人」，但她记不起该笔收益存放在何处且无法动用该笔款项。52这是虚假陈述。\n\n311. 受托人随后收到的文件证明，郭美就该笔收益与一家名为JNFX的实体进行了广泛的通信往来，这明确表明郭美在就该事项接受取证时，确实知道是谁持有该笔收益，并且她能够控制该笔资金的处置。53郭美此前故意未披露出售收益的所在地，其目的是为了阻碍和妨碍第11章破产案及受托人的调查，并向破产财产隐匿债务人的资产。\n\n312. 最近，本法院认定「郭女士在宣誓后作出了自相矛盾的陈述。」54\n\n313. 被告Aaron Mitchell。被告Mitchell于2023年7月18日在法庭宣誓作证称，他不「相信[债务人]有任何商业往来」，并且他从未见过债务人在「我们提到的任何公司进行任何此类活动[即投资或拥有企业]」。鉴于被告Mitchell卷入Kwok Enterprise以及对债务人财务和事务的深悉了解，该宣誓证词并不属实。例如，如上文详述，Mitchell深入参与了与债务人同G-Club的商业往来、为推进G-Club计划等在境内外金融机构开立银行账户、以及其将G-Club资金转移至其他壳实体以用于欺诈目的的努力相关的详细对话。因此，Mitchell在法庭作证时不可能如实陈述债务人没有任何商业往来。\n\n52 参见《原告支持即决判决动议的法律备忘录》第16段 [对抗性诉讼Adv. Proc. 23-05008，Docket No. 91]。\n\n53 同上，第17段。\n\n54 参见《裁定Hudson Diamond Holding LLC藐视法庭的裁定》第9页 [Docket No. 2545]。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 101 of 139\n\n314. 此外，被告Mitchell通过其隐匿债务人重大资产的行径，直接参与了在债务人第11章破产案中推进Kwok Enterprise的目标。\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n后者——一个指挥广泛而复杂的欺诈、骗局和金融交易以欺诈其债权人的个人。然而，Defendant Mitchell（被告米切尔）继续积极且直接地参与推进 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业），包括在这些 chapter 11 cases（第 11 章案件）的全过程中。\n\nD. 针对受托人及其他人的恐吓与骚扰行动\n\n318. Debtor（债务人）及其支持者，包括各位 Defendants（被告），反对 Trustee（受托人）的任命，并多次试图让 Court（法院）推翻该任命。当这些\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 103 of 139\n\n努力失败后，债务人和若干被告诉诸骚扰手段，以恐吓、影响并干预受托人的工作及破产程序的推进。该骚扰行为与债务人过去的模式和惯常做法相一致，即通过类似策略企图恐吓任何挑战债务人并试图揭露其不当行为的人。\n\n319. 几乎在受托人获任命后立即，债务人便开始在社交媒体上发帖，以阻碍受托人的调查并妨碍破产程序。债务人在其社交媒体平台（例如 YouTube、GTV、X，即前称 Twitter，以及 Gettr）上拥有超过 100 万名关注者。例如，在 2022年7月10日 发布于 Gettr 的一则帖子中，债务人称受托人为“浮渣（scumbag）”和“垃圾律师（garbage lawyer）”，并虚假宣称受托人的律师事务所有 50% 的收入来自中共。随后，在 2022年7月19日，@Miles 这一 Gettr 账号发布了一份关于受托人的声明，声明称：“请广传关于中共军事情报的爆料以及关于我破产案受托人的真相。所有想遣返我和伤害我的美国司法部官员和来自各律所的律师都将被送进监狱。我拥有世界上最独特的声音，因为我身上几乎每一个能发声的部位都曾遭受中共的酷刑。”\n\n320. 这些帖子仅仅是一个开始。随着受托人调查的展开，债务人、其被告共谋者以及其他追随者发起了日益具有攻击性且极其危险的网络攻击，其中包括针对受托人以及债务人的债权人（即 PAX）、他们各自的律师事务所和律师，以及受托人家属的虚假和骚扰性陈述。债务人及其追随者开展该攻击，作为一种恐吓手段，旨在阻吓受托人依其法定职责行事，并阻吓 PAX 追索其债权。网络帖子最终披露了受托人的住址和办公地址、受托人亲属的住址、Paul\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 104 of 139\n\nHastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）的纽约办公室地址、PAG 主席家属的住址；PAX 的法律顾问 O'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）的纽约办公室地址。\n\n321. 除网络骚扰行动外，债务人及其追随者（包括许多被告）在受托人及其亲属以及 PAX 的所有者及其亲属的住宅和营业场所外举行了全球范围的抗议活动。抗议活动还发生在受托人和 PAX 的法律顾问办公室外。在这些经常在网上直播的抗议活动中，抗议者展示海报，并高喊与网上所作言论同类的骚扰性陈述。\n\n322. 作为网络与实地抗议及骚扰行动的一部分而发表和展示的大量卑鄙、令人恶心和诽谤性的陈述与图像，此前已成为本法院多项 orders（裁定/命令）的标的，在此不再作全面赘述。然而，就本 Complaint（起诉状）而言，必须指出的是，若干被告参与了该行动，企图影响、恐吓并阻碍受托人的调查。例如：\n\n- Defendant Shih Hsin Yu（被告余世新）的 X 账号为 @jackson66368924，且至少在 2022年11月22日 至 2022年12月29日 期间，X 账号 @jackson66368924 发布了大量关于在纽约市 Grand Central Station（大中央车站）以及受托人位于康涅狄格州 Greenwich（格林威治）的住所外针对受托人和受托人法律顾问进行抗议的帖子。这些帖子包括对受托人及其他人的各种修改过的图像，例如在其前额印上锤子与镰刀标志，或穿着纳粹制服。这些帖子除其他事项外，还讨论了本法院的诉讼程序、上诉中期望的结果，以及针对受托人的意图愿望。\n- Defendant Yan Chun Liu（被告刘艳春）在社交媒体上（包括在 Gettr 和 X 上）多次并大量发布受托人的诽谤性图片、对抗议的支持，以及针对受托人、其法律顾问和普衡律师事务所的抗议图片。\n- 约于 2022年11月21日，Defendant Qidong Xia（被告夏启东）在其 Gettr 账号（@changdaobrother）上发帖威胁受托人称“你余生都将在恐惧中度过”。随后，约于 2022年11月24日，夏启东在 Gettr 上发帖鼓励郭的追随者加入抗议。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 105 of 139\n\n- 在 2022年11月28日 至 2022年12月6日 期间，Defendant Xuebing Wang（被告王雪冰）每天多次在网上发帖以支持针对受托人和普衡律师事务所的抗议。此外，在 @20minfocus 这一 Gettr 账号于 2023年1月1日 发布的视频中，记录了王雪冰向在受托人位于康涅狄格州格林威治的住所外设立纠察线的抗议者讲话。根据其讲话内容，他发言的时间为 2023年1月1日。他讨论了在“纽约”的“3C办公室”与其他“联盟”和“铁血组”成员的会面，以及他希望“看望这些前线战友”的心愿。他告诉纠察抗议者，受托人将被送进监狱，并会“感受我们的力量”。\n\n323. 据信，骚扰行动由被告 Rule of Law Entities（法治实体）资助。55 事实上，在 2022年11月26日，债务人出现在一段 YouTube 视频中，并承认抗议相关费用正由 ROLF（法治基金）资助。在视频中，债务人解释说，通过 ROLF，“我们一直在法律问题上帮助战友，印制反共材料，以及关于中共军事情报的材料，各种材料。”受托人还持有银行记录，显示法治实体常规性地资助了过去类似的抗议活动，表面上针对被声称的中国共产党支持者，而受托人和 PAX 被虚假地指控为该等支持者。\n\n324. 约于 2023年12月8日，被告 ROLF 向抗议者 Beile Li（李倍乐）转账 $200,000.00，据信，这是因其在骚扰行动中发挥主导作用，他在该行动中故意试图阻碍受托人的调查。\n\n325. 据信，被告法治实体资助抗议和骚扰行动的目的在于恐吓、阻碍并影响受托人和 chapter 11 case（第 11 章案件）。\n\n55 Eastern Profit Corp., Ltd. v. Strategic Vision US LLC, 案号 18-cv-2185 (S.D.N.Y. [Southern District of New York（纽约南区）] 2021年4月22日). 庭审笔录第 782:3–7 页（证词表明被告郭支付数十名抗议者在傅的住宅外示威数周，迫使傅最终搬离该住宅）；另见 Dan Friedman 所著《A Fugitive Chinese Tycoon Met Steve Bannon. Misinformation Mayhem Ensued》（一名中国逃亡大亨遇见了史蒂夫·班农，虚假信息的混乱随之而来），刊载于《Mother Jones》（2022年3/4月刊）http（郭针对先前的抗议“通常承诺向抗议者每天支付 $200”）。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 106 of 139\n\n326. 为应对抗议和威胁，PAX 对债务人提起了要求禁令救济的 complaint（起诉状），并附带了一项要求发出 temporary restraining order（临时限制令）的 motion（动议），旨在阻止债务人及其关联人员从事骚扰行为。受托人参加并支持 PAX。法院准予了 PAX 的动议，并作出了临时限制令（“TRO”）56 以限制该恐吓行动。\n\n327. 法院认定，若无 TRO，“对破产财产和破产程序完整性造成迫在眉睫的不可挽回的损害是极有可能的。”57 具体而言，法院认定，由于该行为具有威胁性和诽谤性，其不属于受保护的言论，且若不发出 TRO，“受托人和 PAG 主席以及他们现任或前任配偶、子女及法律顾问的安全问题，将干扰受托人对破产财产潜在资产的调查”，并且“持续的骚扰可能会阻吓证人协助受托人的调查，或阻吓债权人提出债权主张。”58 法院还认定，为保护破产程序的完整性需要 TRO，因为“对受托人（一名法院官员）……以及利害关系方的恐吓‘妨碍、加重负担、拖延或以其他方式阻碍重组程序’。”59\n\n328. 尽管存在法院的 TRO，且债务人已收到该令的通知，但债务人及其追随者仍继续进行其骚扰行动，违反了 TRO。\n\n329. 2023年1月13日，法院作出了准予 preliminary injunction（初步禁令）的 decision（决定备忘录）（“PI Decision”）。60 在 PI Decision 中，作出了若干事实认定，\n\n56 准予临时限制令申请之裁定/命令，[Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 26]。\n\n57 TRO 第 4 页。\n\n58 同上，第 4-5 页。\n\n59 同上，第 5 页。\n\n60 Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032, Docket No. 133。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 107 of 139\n\n包括（除其他外）“ROLF 和 Himalaya 卷入了抗议”61 并且“服务于债务人的目的，作为债务人的商业工具，且其成员对债务人个人效忠。”62\n\n330. 除了违反法院的裁定/命令外，许多被告（包括上述指认的人员）所参与的骚扰行动构成了旨在恐吓、影响并阻碍身为法院官员的受托人的刑事妨碍司法公正罪。骚扰的参与者还违反了 18 U.S.C. § 1507，该条禁止为了妨碍司法公正和影响法院官员履行其职责而在法院官员占用的建筑物或住所外进行纠察。\n\nE. 无理且无事实依据地提交债权证明作为干扰破产案件和受托人调查的策略\n\n331. 债务人和某些被告共谋者还试图通过恐吓债权人使其不提交债权主张，以及鼓励追随者提交无实质依据的债权，以期增加 chapter 11 case 的成本并干扰其管理，从而影响破产债权程序。\n\n332. 2023年1月6日，Qiu Yu（余秋，“Ms. Yu [余女士]”）在债务人的 chapter 11 case 中提交了两份 proofs of claim（债权证明）。此后不久，债务人开始在社交媒体上针对余女士发表恶意和/或骚扰性言论，包括以下内容：\n\n 2023年1月10日，债务人在 Gettr 直播（“January 10 Broadcast [1月10日直播]”）中，公开威胁在这些 chapter 11 cases 中提交了债权主张的投资者，特别是余女士。在 1月10日直播 中，债务人发表了如下言论（除其他外）：“每个报案的人都必须出庭。你说的每一句话都会被公布，包括关于你的一切。我们走着瞧。”\n\n61 PI Decision 第 6 段。\n\n62 PI Decision 第 7 段。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 108 of 139\n\n- 2023年1月10日，Gettr（盖特）账号 @OXVDESIGN 发帖称 Yu（于）女士在本案中将自己列为债权人，并发布了一张于女士的照片，配文称：“于秋（网名公租）跑到美国康涅狄格州破产法院，以5000美元的索赔加入了债权人名单，（并且）协助Luc诋毁爆料革命。”\n\n- 2023年1月10日，Gettr 账号 @piaochanghai 发布了一张于女士的德国身份证图片，并称：“曝光另一个叫公租的小杂种discord，真名于秋，战友们挖一下，听说（她）跟戴建峰走得很近。有战友认识（她）吗？”\n\n- 333. 2023年1月10日，被告 GNews（一家由债务人创立并控制的实体）网站上发布了一篇文章，暗示债务人的追随者提出缺乏依据的索赔主张。其内容如下：\n\n郭先生建议所有战友都可以去登记，因为他们投资了GTV，但GTV被伪定为欺诈案且SEC（美国证券交易委员会）对其进行了调查，因此战友们投资的钱被SEC扣留，战友们正向SEC要钱，但在破产案中，战友们可以登记为郭先生的债权人。接受其他战友的登记。*如果所有战友都去登记，他们将占债权人的大多数，那么郭先生赚的钱就会分给战友们，这也是郭先生非常愿意做的。此外，战友们占多数就可以发起对Lady May游艇和18楼的所有权，也是大多数将归于战友们手中，这样一种处理方式，皆大欢喜***。63** 此外，债权人登记后，就是出庭作证，一些办不到签证来美国的战友，就可以有合理的理由来美国，如果不想离开，可以当场申请政治庇护。我们可以合法地利用法律来解决问题。\n\n334. 结果，债务人的支持者提交了大量索赔主张，其中许多没有任何支持依据或文件。\n\n335. 2023年1月13日，债务人在 @MilesGuo GETTR 账号上发帖称，Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）正在发起一项“债权人登记行动”，暗示其追随者\n\n63 见《郭先生的智慧：战友们都可以去破产案登记债权人》，GNews（2023年1月25日，下午17:38），http（最后访问于2023年1月25日）（强调为后加）。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 109 of 139\n\n应当向法院提交虚假索赔，并称这样做可以使他们成为亿万富翁。64\n\nF. 在纽约南区提起无理诉讼以恐吓受托人\n\n336. 2022年11月28日，债务人的某些追随者（包括被告 Beile Li（李北乐）和 Linwan Feng（冯林晚））在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）（Caproni 法官）（“SDNY 法院”）提起了一项诉讼程序，案名为 An v. Despins，案号 No. 22-CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023)。在 An v. Despins 案中，被告李和冯虚假指控受托人及 Paul Hastings LLP 为 CCP（中共）或 PRC（中华人民共和国）的代理人。\n\n337. 被告 Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵）曾担任债务人的私人律师，且据信在债务人等待其刑事案件审判期间一直前往狱中探视债务人，他在 An v. Despins 案中代表被告李和冯。\n\n338. Caproni 法官驳回了 An v. Despins 案中的起诉书，理由是原告缺乏诉讼资格，并依据第11条对被告李、冯及张施加了制裁，因为法院认定他们的“诉状表明其真正关注的是 Kwok（郭）先生，并企图通过骚扰那些被视为其对手的人来‘保护’他”，且该诉讼“只是旨在骚扰被告的不当行为行动的又一部分，极有可能是为了阻挠［受托人］履行其作为受托人的职责的能力。”65\n\n339. 关于被告张，Caproni 法官认定：\n\nYongbing Zhang……出现在社交媒体上流传的许多由 NFSC（新中国联邦）主导的抗议活动照片中，包括 NFSC 的 Gettr 账号于2022年11月20日发布的一篇帖子，显示张在［受托人的一名家庭成员］的住所前纠察抗议……并举着称受托人为“一线人渣”的标牌。［……］张还出现在2022年6月4日 NFSC 两周年庆典上与郭的合影中。66［……］\n\n64 见 @MilesGuo，GETTR（2023年1月13日，上午10:45），http（最后访问于2023年1月15日）。\n\n65 An v. Despins, No. 22-CV-10062 (VEC), 2023 WL 4931832, at *12-*13。\n\n66 同上，第13-14页。\n\n原告及其律师张与郭有关联，并同情郭及其利益。［……］\n\n原告律师在本法院及马里兰地区法院反复提起无理诉讼。［……］这些案件无一例外地针对参与郭的破产案或 PAX 诉讼的当事人和律师。它们包含相似的指控和同样缺乏依据的主张。不可避免的结论是，张和 Freeth 将目标对准与郭利益对立的人，目的是打压他们所认为的针对郭的辩护与诉求。\n\n［补充证据］进一步支持了法院的认定，即制裁是必要的，且应当对原告律师予以适用。［……］\n\n法院认定，张与 Freeth 共同对本意见书及裁定中详述的违反第11条的行为承担责任。67\n\n340. 2023年1月13日，Junwu Gong（龚军武）在 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York（美国纽约南区联邦地区法院）（Liman 法官）针对 Stuart M. Sarnoff、O'Melveny & Myers LLP（美迈斯律师事务所）等人提起了类似的民事诉讼，案名为 Gong v. Sarnoff，案号 No. 23-cv-343 (LJL), 2023 WL 5372473 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023)。被告 Yongbing Zhang 在该案中亦代表龚军武。Liman 法官认定，提起该诉讼并非为了救济损害，“而是为了骚扰提出动议的被告，原因是其在针对郭的诉讼中代理客户，并以此阻止他人采取相同行动。原告及其律师张与郭有关联，并同情郭及其利益。”此外，Liman 法官表示，“如果对本诉讼的骚扰目的有任何疑问，张……在本法院及其他地方针对 PAX、与 PAX 相关的人员、PAX 的律师以及协助破产法院的人员提起的诉讼历史，便消除了这种疑问。”68\n\n67 同上，第30-33页，第35页附注11。\n\n68 Gong v. Sarnoff, No. 23-cv-343 (LJL), 2023 WL 5372473, at *30-*32 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023)。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 111 of 139\n\n341. 上述无理诉讼是由其原告（包括被告 Beile Li）及被告张提起的，目的是恐吓、阻碍和影响受托人及其调查，并在更广泛的层面上妨碍第11章破产案件。\n\n342. 此外，被告张还单独试图通过指挥被告 HCHK 实体（HCHK Entities）的某些声称的债权人的行动来阻碍受托人的调查并妨碍第11章破产案件，这些声称的债权人试图参加受托人针对 HCHK 实体的附随诉讼程序。在进行证据听证后，法院最终认定这些声称的债权人的主张毫无根据，并驳回了其参加诉讼的请求，在这一过程中认定这些债权人要么伪造了支持其声称主张的文件，要么其证词在其他方面不可信。69\n\nV. 欺诈方案导致的损害\n\n343. 构成郭氏企业（Kwok Enterprise）长达数年的欺诈和洗钱方案的前提行为，已对债务人破产财产的债权人造成了实质性损害。如上所述，郭氏企业的目标是隐匿债务人的财富，并确保这些财富不被用于向其债权人进行分配。\n\n344. 迄今为止，除受托人在其诉讼努力中取得成功的范围外，郭氏企业的方案均已奏效，因为该方案导致债务人的破产财产在账面上陷入严重资不抵债，这意味着对破产财产主张数亿美元债权的破产财产债权人将只能获得极少的受偿。因此，破产财产因被告的不法行为遭受了巨大的直接损害。\n\n69 驳回参加诉讼动议及澄清暂缓令动议的判决备忘录及裁定 [Adv. Proc. No. 23-5013, Docket No. 239]。\n\n345. 除了剥夺债权人的受偿之外，本文所述的被告行为还导致破产财产支出了数千万美元的专业人员费用以及其他成本和费用，用于揭开郭氏企业的欺诈方案并追回自本案开始时就应当列入财产清册的资产。因此，这些律师费、成本和支出构成了被告应当承担责任的额外损害赔偿。\n\n救济请求\n\n第 1 项罪名/索赔项\n\n违反《受勒索及腐败组织法》18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)（针对所有被告）\n\n346. 受托人重申并再次主张本起诉书第1至345段的内容，如同在此完整陈述一样。\n\n347. 每名被告均为有能力持有财产收益权益或法定权益的人，因此，每名被告均属于 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) 及 1964(c) 所指的“人”。\n\n348. 如后文所述，每名被告均违反了 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)，其方式为：通过从事一系列敲诈勒索活动，并出于欺诈债务人债权人以及以牺牲债务人债权人为代价使债务人、其家族及其关联方牟利的非法目的，同意开展、进行以及参与开展郭氏企业的事务。\n\n郭氏 RICO 企业\n\n349. 各被告与其已知和未知的共谋者，为了制定并实施一项共同方案的共同且持续的目的，组成了事实上的联合体，即通过一系列欺诈、虚假陈述、欺骗和腐败行为（即郭氏企业），欺诈债务人的债权人以使债务人、其家族\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 113 of 139\n\n及其他共谋者牟利。\n\n350. 郭氏企业构成 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) 所指的“企业”，且其曾从事或正在从事州际和对外贸易，其活动亦影响了州际和对外贸易。\n\n351. 郭氏企业的共同目的早在约2015年即已存在，当时债务人与其他共谋者通过利用虚假实体网络并隐匿债务人的资产，实施了一项欺诈债务人债权人的方案，以使债务人及其共谋者获益。\n\n352. 每名被告均受雇于郭氏企业或与郭氏企业相关联，且每名被告均通过一系列敲诈勒索活动，直接或间接地进行或参与进行了郭氏企业事务的开展。\n\n353. 郭氏企业拥有独立于被告所从事的一系列敲诈勒索活动的可识别结构。\n\n354. 本起诉书中所指控的对联邦刑法的反复且持续的违反行为，构成了违反 RICO（18 U.S.C. § 1961 等）的“一系列敲诈勒索活动”。\n\n355. 各被告是 RICO 企业中的核心和控制人物，并指挥他人采取为实现郭氏企业的总体目标所必需的行动。\n\n敲诈勒索活动模式\n\n356. 各被告通过 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) 和 (5) 所定义的一系列勒索敲诈活动模式，直接或间接地进行或参与了 RICO 犯罪组织事务的运营；该模式由多起相互关联、非孤立且由相同人员出于相同或相似目的实施的勒索敲诈行为（以下称“RICO 模式”）构成，正如前述各段及下文进一步所述。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 114 of 139\n\n357. 各被告违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 所从事的勒索敲诈活动包括（除其他外）：\n- a. 违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的多起电汇诈骗行为；\n- b. 违反 18 U.S.C. § 1344 的多起银行诈骗行为；\n- c. 违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315《全国被盗财产法》（National Stolen Property Act）的多起违法行为；\n- d. 违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 的多起洗钱行为；\n- e. 违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1507 和 1512 的多起妨碍司法行为；以及\n- f. 违反 18 U.S.C. § 152 的多起破产诈骗行为。\n\n358. 各被告均具有违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 以及实施所指控的各项作为基础的前提违法行为的特定意图。\n\n359. 各被告均实施了至少两起勒索敲诈前提违法行为。这些勒索敲诈行为并非孤立事件；相反，它们因具有相同或相似的目的与结果、参与者、受害者和/或实施手段而相互关联。此外，这些勒索敲诈行为具有连续性，且至今仍在持续进行，时间跨度从至少大约 2015 年至今（以下称“相关期间”）。\n\n360. 具体而言，各被告从事了一系列勒索敲诈活动模式，至少包括以下前提违法行为：\n前提违法行为：18 U.S.C. § 1343 – 电汇诈骗\n（Qiang Guo（郭强）、William Je（余建明）、Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Aaron Mitchell（阿隆·米切尔）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Alex Hadjicharalambous（亚历克斯·哈吉查拉兰布斯）、David Fallon（戴维·法伦）、Haitham Khaled（海瑟姆·哈立德）、Jessica Mastrogiovanni（杰西卡·马斯特罗乔瓦尼）、Bravo Luck（Bravo Luck）、Greenwich Land LLC（格林威治土地有限责任公司）、Hudson Diamond NY LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn（安娜·C·伊斯基耶多-亨）、David Fallon、Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团股份有限公司）、ACA Capital Group Ltd.（ACA资本集团有限公司）、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（汉密尔顿机遇基金独立投资组合公司）、Hamilton PE Fund SP（汉密尔顿私募股权基金独立投资组合）、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP（汉密尔顿数字资产基金独立投资组合）、HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技股份有限公司）、HCHK Property Management, Inc.（HCHK物业管理股份有限公司）、Leading Shine NY Limited（领辉纽约有限公司）、Lexington Property and Staffing（莱克星顿物业与人事公司）、Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（Lawall & Mitchell有限责任公司））\n\n361. 该 RICO 模式包括多起违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的电汇诈骗行为。\n\n362. 各被告自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项犯罪计划，以转移债务人的资产和财产（包括非法获取的财产），从而在相关期间内及之后向债务人的债权人隐匿此类资产，包括但不限于下文及附录 A 中所述的转账。\n\n363. 为推进上述欺诈计划，Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang、Aaron Mitchell、Max Krasner、Alex Hadjicharalambous、David Fallon、Haitham Khaled、Jessica Mastrogiovanni、Greenwich Land LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn、David Fallon、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、ACA Capital Group Ltd.、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、Leading Shine NY Limited 以及 Lexington Property and Staffing 蓄意且知情地通过州际或对外贸易中的电汇通信方式传输或促成传输了书面文件、符号、信号、图片和/或声音。\n\n364. 支持该欺诈计划的电汇活动包括资金电汇、资产运输、电话及电子通信，以及其他文件和通信往来。\n\n365. 利用州际和国际电汇来实施该活动并联络勒索敲诈共谋是可以合理预见的。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 116 of 139\n\n366. Qiang Guo 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 112、114-116 段所述的活动。\n\n367. William Je 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 124 段所述的活动。\n\n368. Yvette Wang 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 107-113 段所述的活动。\n\n369. Aaron Mitchell 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 107-113、244-249 段所述的活动。\n\n370. Max Krasner 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 118 段所述的活动。\n\n371. Alex Hadjicharalambous 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 103、104、112、120、122 和 123 段所述的活动。\n\n372. David Fallon 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 229-231 段所述的活动。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 117 of 139\n\n373. Haitham Khaled 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 103、104、107-110、112-116 和 244 段所述的活动。\n\n374. Jessica Mastrogiovanni 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 103-105 段所述的活动。\n\n375. Greenwich Land LLC 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 194-211、218 段所述的活动。\n\n376. Hudson Diamond NY LLC 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 170、212 和 218 段所述的活动。\n\n377. Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 110、111、113、122 和 123 段所述的活动。\n\n378. Saraca Media Group, Inc. 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 149、213 和 219 段所述的活动。\n\n379. G-Club Operations LLC（G-Club运营有限责任公司）在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 127 段所述的活动。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 118 of 139\n\n380. GS Security Solutions（GS安保解决方案公司）在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 270 和 271 段所述的活动。\n\n381. ACA Capital Group Ltd. 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 105、201、217 和 266 段所述的活动。\n\n382. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（包括其下设的隔离投资组合，如 Hamilton PE Fund SP 和 Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP）在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 108-110、229-232、246-257 和 269-270 段所述的活动。\n\n383. HCHK Technologies, Inc. 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 265 和 272 段所述的活动。\n\n384. HCHK Property Management, Inc. 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 268、269 和 271 段所述的活动。\n\n385. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 266 段所述的活动。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 119 of 139\n\n386. Leading Shine NY Limited 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 162、163 和 165 段所述的活动。\n\n387. Lexington Property and Staffing 在相关期间自愿且故意设计并参与了一项或多项旨在欺诈债务人债权人的犯罪计划，包括但不限于第 266 和 267 段所述的活动。\n\n388. 因此，Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang、Aaron Mitchell、Max Krasner、Alex Hadjicharalambous、David Fallon、Haitham Khaled、Jessica Mastrogiovanni、GS Security Systems（GS安保系统公司）、Greenwich Land LLC、G-Club Operations LLC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Ana C. Izquierdo-Henn、Saraca Media Group, Inc.、ACA Capital Group Ltd.、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, LLC、Leading Shine NY Limited、Lexington Property and Staffing 以及 Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 实施了多起违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的电汇诈骗违法行为。\n\n389. 上述违反 18 U.S.C. § 1343 的行为直接且近因造成了对债务人债权人的损害，其方式为不正当且不可挽回地消耗了破产财团相当于该等转账金额的资产，并最终导致债务人的破产财团承担了为了债权人的利益追回财团财产而本无需发生的巨额专业费用。\n前提违法行为：18 U.S.C. § 1344 – 银行诈骗\n（Mei Guo（郭美）、Yvette Wang、David Fallon）\n\n390. 该 RICO 模式包括多起违反 18 U.S.C. § 1344 的银行诈骗行为。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 120 of 139\n\n391. Mei Guo、Yvette Wang 和 David Fallon 明知地实施或企图实施一项计划或花招，以通过虚假或欺诈性的托辞、陈述或承诺，欺诈金融机构和/或获取由金融机构所有或在其保管或控制下的任何资金、款项、信贷、资产、证券或其他财产。\n\n392. 依据（除其他外）第 214 段所阐明的指控，Mei Guo 和 Yvette Wang 通过以虚假托辞开立银行账户，明知地实施了一项计划和/或花招。\n\n393. 基于第 228 至 230 段等段落中陈述的指控，David Fallon（戴维·法伦）明知故犯，通过以虚假托辞开立银行账户实施了欺诈计划和/或伎俩。\n\n394. 因此，存在多起违反 18 U.S.C. § 1344 的行为，这些行为通过协助推进该欺诈计划，直接且近因造成了对债务人财产及财产权益债权人的损害，并最终导致债务人破产财团为债权人的利益追回财团财产而承担了远高于原本必要水平的专业服务费用。\n\n前提行为：18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315 – 违反《国家被盗财产法》（National Stolen Property Act）\n(Qiang Guo（郭强）、William Je（余建明）、Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Xuebing Wang（王雪冰）、Greenwich Land LLC、GS Security Solutions, Inc.、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、Lexington Property and Staffing、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金 III）、Rule of Law Society IV, Inc.（法治社会 IV）、Saraca Media Group)\n\n395. 该 RICO（《反犯罪勒索与腐败组织法》）模式包含了数起违反《国家被盗财产法》（National Stolen Property Act，18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315）的行为。\n\n396. 郭强、余建明、王雁平、王雪冰、Greenwich Land LLC、GS Security Solutions, Inc.、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、Lexington Property and Staffing、法治基金 III、法治社会 IV 以及 Saraca Media Group，蓄意且明知地在州际或对外贸易中运输、传送或转移——或接收、持有、隐匿、储存、物物交换、出售、处置或质押作为贷款担保——在被盗窃、侵占或通过欺诈手段获取后跨越了州界或国界的物品、器具、商品、证券或金钱。\n\n397. 在许多情况下，这些被告跨越州界或国界转移了货物或资金。\n\n398. 在许多情况下，这些被告接收、持有、隐匿、储存、出售和/或处置了跨越州界或国界的资产。\n\n399. 针对每一笔转移，郭强、余建明、王雁平、王雪冰、Greenwich Land LLC、GS Security Solutions, Inc.、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hamilton PE Fund SP、Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP、HCHK Technologies, Inc.、HCHK Property Management, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、Lexington Property and Staffing、法治基金 III、法治社会 IV 以及 Saraca Media Group 均明知所涉资金系被盗窃、侵占或通过欺诈手段获取。\n\n400. 每一笔转移所涉及的金钱或财产价值均达到或超过 $5,000。\n\n401. 因此，存在多起违反《国家被盗财产法》（18 U.S.C. §§ 2314, 2315）的行为，这些行为通过损害受托人追回转移款项价值的能力，直接且近因造成了对债务人财产及财产权益债权人的损害，并最终导致债务人破产财团为债权人的利益追回财团财产而承担了远高于原本必要水平的专业服务费用。\n\n前提行为：18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 – 洗钱\n(Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）、Mei Guo（郭美）、郭强、余建明、王雁平、Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）、Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）、Bravo Luck Limited、Saraca Media Group、Greenwich Land LLC、G-Club Operations LLC、GS Security Solutions Inc.、Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC、HCHK Technologies Inc.、HCHK Property Management、Lexington Property and Staffing、Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Taurus Fund LLC、Leading Shine NY Ltd.、ACA Capital Group Limited、法治基金 III、法治社会 IV)\n\n402. 该 RICO 模式包含了多起违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 的洗钱行为。\n\n403. 下文提及的每一笔欺诈性交易均支持并推进了该欺诈计划，至少通过对资金进行分层清洗以使之难以追踪，从而隐匿非法获取资金的来源与去向，和/或为了债务人及其共谋者的利益并将非法资金转化为表面合法的资产，以欺诈债权人。\n\n404. 本文所述的每一笔欺诈性交易在进行时均明知相关财产代表着某种形式的非法活动收益，即违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 1343, 1344, 1503, 1512, 1519, 2314 和/或 2315 的行为，正如本起诉状通篇所指控，该等交易事实上涉及此类非法活动收益，其意图在于推动进行上述指定的非法活动以促进 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业），并且明知且有理由知悉这些交易在整体或部分上旨在隐匿或掩饰指定非法活动收益的性质、所在地、来源、所有权或控制权，均如本起诉状其他部分所指控。\n\n405. 因此，在 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7) 的含义范围内，每一笔转移均构成、涉及或源于指定的非法活动。\n\n406. 每一笔转移均涉及价值超过 $10,000 且源自指定非法活动的犯罪衍生财产的货币交易。\n\n407. 每名被告均明知欺诈性交易中涉及的款项是从某种形式的非法活动收益中犯罪衍生而来的。\n\n408. 每名被告均明知每一笔欺诈性转移在整体或部分上旨在隐匿或掩饰电信欺诈行为所得收益的性质、所在地、来源、所有权或控制权。\n\n409. Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 193 至 201 段、第 206 段、第 208 段、第 211 段中所包含的指控。\n\n410. Mei Guo（郭美）进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 193 至 201 段、第 205 段中所包含的指控。\n\n411. 郭强进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 112 段、第 114 至 116 段、第 181 至 183 段中所包含的指控。\n\n412. 余建明进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 124 段、第 137 段和第 139 段中所包含的指控。\n\n413. 王雁平进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 139 段、第 154 段中所包含的指控。\n\n414. Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 244 至 249 段中所包含的指控。\n\n415. Chunguang Han（韩春光）进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 192 段、第 195 段、第 198 段、第 201 段和第 208 段中所包含的指控。\n\n416. Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 193 至 201 段、第 208 段中所包含的指控。\n\n417. ACA Capital Group Limited 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 201 段、第 217 段和第 266 段中所包含的指控。\n\n418. Greenwich Land LLC 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 193 至 212 段中所包含的指控。\n\n419. Crane Advisory Group L.L.C. 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 243 段中所包含的指控。\n\n420. Bravo Luck Limited 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 173 至 191 段中所包含的指控。\n\n421. Saraca Media Group 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 149 段、第 213 段和第 219 段中所包含的指控。\n\n422. G-Club Operations LLC 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 103 至 128 段、第 130 至 131 段、第 231 至 232 段以及第 245 至 257 段中所包含的指控。\n\n423. GS Security Solutions Inc. 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 270 段和第 271 段中所包含的指控。\n\n424. Gypsy Mei Food Services LLC 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 210 段中所包含的指控。\n\n425. Hamilton Opportunity Fund SPC（包括其隔离投资组合，如 Hamilton PE Fund SP 和 Hamilton Digital Assets Fund SP）进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 108 至 110 段、第 229 至 232 段、第 246 至 257 段以及第 269 至 270 段中所包含的指控。\n\n426. HCHK Technologies Inc. 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 258 至 272 段中所包含的指控。\n\n427. HCHK Property Management 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 258 至 272 段中所包含的指控。\n\n428. Lexington Property and Staffing 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 266 段和第 267 段中所包含的指控。\n\n429. Hudson Diamond NY LLC 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 170 段、第 204 段、第 205 段、第 212 至 227 段中所包含的指控。\n\n430. Taurus Fund LLC 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 233 至 243 段中所包含的指控。\n\n431. Leading Shine NY Ltd. 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 149 段、第 160 至 166 段中所包含的指控。\n\n432. 法治基金 III 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 136 段、第 137 段中所包含的指控。\n\n433. 法治社会 IV 进行了本文所述的一系列金融交易，包括但不限于第 136 段、第 138 段中所包含的指控。\n\n434. 违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 和 1957 的行为通过损害受托人为债权人追回转移款项价值的能力，直接且近因造成了对债务人破产财团的损害，并最终导致债务人破产财团为债权人的利益追回财团财产而承担了远高于原本必要水平的专业服务费用。\n\n前提行为：18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519 – 妨碍司法公正\n(岳庆芝、郭美、郭强、王雁平、马克斯·克拉斯纳、韩春光、Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵）、亚伦·米切尔、Beile Li（李蓓蕾）、Yan Chun Liu（刘彦春）、Qidong Xia（夏启东）、王雪冰、法治基金 III、GTV Media Group, Inc.、Saraca Media, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、G-Club US Operations LLC、Bravo Luck)\n\n435. 该 RICO 模式包含了多起违反 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1507, 1512 和 1519 的妨碍司法公正行为。\n\n436. 基于第 289 至 295 段等段落中陈述的指控，王雁平通过违反《公司治理权利命令》（Corporate Governance Rights Order）以推进该欺诈计划，企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正当执行。\n\n437. 依据第 296-298 段等处所阐述的指控，GTV Media Group, Inc.、Saraca Media, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC 和 G-Club US Operations LLC 蓄意企图通过隐瞒包括文件在内的信息来腐败性地影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行，从而未能遵守《第 2004 条规则传票》（Rule 2004 Subpoenas），并违反了法院为推进该欺诈计划而作出的《第 2004 条规则裁定》（Rule 2004 Orders）。\n\n438. 依据第 299-303 段等处所阐述的指控，Hing Chi Ngok（岳庆芝）、Max Krasner 和 Chunguang Han（韩春光）通过违反格林威治临时限制令（Greenwich TRO）和格林威治初步禁令（Greenwich PI）以推进该欺诈计划，腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n439. 依据第 322 段和第 324 段等处所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金三期有限公司）腐败性地企图通过参与、支持和/或资助虚假且骚扰性的网络材料作为恐吓手段，以此阻止受托人（Trustee）依据其法定职责行事，来腐败性地企图影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的官员，包括受托人。此外，依据相同的指控，Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. 腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n440. 依据第 335-341 段等处所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵）在履行职务过程中，通过提起琐碎无理的诉讼，腐败性地企图影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的官员，包括受托人。此外，依据相同的指控，Yongbing Zhang 腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行。\n\n441. 依据第 317-329 段所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Beile Li（李蓓蕾）在受托人履行职务过程中，通过在受托人的住所和营业场所外进行纠察和骚扰活动，腐败性地企图影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的官员，包括受托人。此外，依据相同的指控，Beile Li 腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以及受托人对其官方职责的履行。\n\n442. 依据第 317-329 段所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Yan Chun Liu（刘彦春）在受托人履行职务过程中，通过在受托人的住所和营业场所外进行纠察和骚扰活动，腐败性地企图影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的官员，包括受托人。此外，依据相同的指控，Yan Chun Liu 腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以及受托人对其官方职责的履行。\n\n443. 依据第 317-329 段所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Qidong Xia（夏启东）在受托人履行职务过程中，通过在受托人的住所和营业场所外进行纠察和骚扰活动，腐败性地企图影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的官员，包括受托人。此外，依据相同的指控，Qidong Xia 腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以及受托人对其官方职责的履行。\n\n444. 依据第 317-329 段所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Xuebing Wang（王雪冰）在受托人履行职务过程中，通过在受托人的住所和营业场所外进行纠察和骚扰活动，腐败性地企图影响、恐吓或阻碍本法院的官员，包括受托人。此外，依据相同的指控，Xuebing Wang 腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以及受托人对其官方职责的履行。\n\n445. 依据第 281-283 段、第 307-311 段等处所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Mei Guo（郭美）在明知且故意的情况下，就债务人的财务状况、债务人及其自身与资产持有实体（Asset-Holding Entities）和资金提供实体（Funding Entities）之间的关系，在第 11 章案件（Chapter 11 Case）中在接受伪证处罚的前提下作出重大虚假陈述、失实表述和隐瞒，从而腐败性地妨碍、影响或阻碍了包括第 11 章案件在内的官方程序。此外，依据相同的指控，Mei Guo 企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以推进该欺诈计划。\n\n446. 依据第 280-282 段、第 312-315 段等处所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Aaron Mitchell 在明知且故意的情况下，就债务人的财务状况在第 11 章案件中在接受伪证处罚的前提下作出重大虚假陈述、失实表述和隐瞒，从而腐败性地妨碍、影响或阻碍了包括第 11 章案件在内的官方程序，和/或企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以推进该欺诈计划。\n\n447. 依据第 305 段等处所阐述的指控，Qiang Guo（郭强）和 Bravo Luck 在明知的情况下伪造记录、文件或有形物品，意图阻碍、妨碍或影响第 11 章案件的调查或正当管理。此外，依据相同的指控，Qiang Guo 和 Bravo Luck 腐败性地企图影响、阻碍或妨碍司法的正常执行以推进该欺诈计划。\n\n448. 因此，Hing Chi Ngok、Mei Guo、Yvette Wang（王雁平）、Qiang Guo、Yongbing Zhang、Chunguang Han、Aaron Mitchell、Max Krasner、Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.、GTV Media Group, Inc.、Saraca Media, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、G-Club US Operations LLC 以及 Bravo Luck 实施了妨碍司法的行为，违反了 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519，直接且近因造成了破产财产的损害，其中包括削弱了受托人调查 Kwok（郭文贵）资产的能力，并导致 Kwok 的破产财产承担了与该妨碍行为相关的巨额专业人员费用和开支，这直接影响了所有债权人。\n\n前提违法行为：18 U.S.C. § 152 —— 破产欺诈\n（Mei Guo、Hing Chi Ngok、Qiang Guo、William Je、Yvette Wang、Aaron Mitchell、Bravo Luck 和 Greenwich Land LLC）\n\n449. 该 RICO 模式（RICO Pattern）包含多起违反 18 U.S.C. § 152 的破产欺诈行为。\n\n450. 依据本起诉书第 307-311 段等处所阐述的指控，Mei Guo 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，在第 11 章案件中或就该案件作出一项或多项虚假宣誓或账目，如上文更详细指控的以下行为等所证实：\n\n- a. Mei Guo 在接受伪证处罚的前提下就 Lady May 号游艇的所有权作出了虚假陈述。\n- b. Mei Guo 在一份声明中就其对一部智能手机的使用和所有权作出了虚假陈述。\n- c. Mei Guo 就出售一架庞巴迪（Bombardier）私人飞机的收益作了伪证。\n\n451. 依据相同的指控，Mei Guo 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，在第 11 章案件中或就该案件在接受伪证处罚的前提下作出了一项或多项虚假的声明、证明书、核实书或陈述。\n\n452. 此外，依据本起诉书第 281-283 段以及第 308 段等处所阐述的指控，如上文更详细指控所述，Mei Guo 欺诈性地向债权人、美国受托人（United States Trustee）、受托人和本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括但不限于以下资产和/或相关收益：Lady May 号以及庞巴迪飞机。\n\n453. 依据本起诉书第 306 段等处所阐述的指控，Hing Chi Ngok 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，在第 11 章案件中或就该案件作出一项或多项虚假宣誓或账目，包括：(i) 她声称就 Greenwich Land 购买的 Ferncliff 物业采取了某些行动，但这与她无法认出 Ferncliff 物业的外观这一事实相矛盾；以及 (ii) 她陈述债务人未参与 Greenwich Land 购买 Taconic Road 物业的事宜，但这与 Taconic Road 物业出售中买方房地产经纪人 de Neree 先生的详细证词相矛盾。\n\n454. 依据相同的指控，Hing Chi Ngok 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，在第 11 章案件中或就该案件在接受伪证处罚的前提下作出了一项或多项虚假的声明、证明书、核实书或陈述。\n\n455. 此外，依据本起诉书第 204-208 段等处所阐述的指控，Hing Chi Ngok 和 Greenwich Land LLC 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，向债权人、美国受托人、受托人和本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括但不限于出售 Ferncliff 物业所得的资产和/或相关收益。\n\n456. 依据本起诉书第 305 段等处所阐述的指控，Qiang Guo 和 Bravo Luck 各自均在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，在第 11 章案件中或就该案件作出一项或多项虚假宣誓或账目，包括提交依赖于一份据称的信托协议的债权证明，而该协议系伪造且倒签日期的协议。\n\n457. 依据相同的指控，Qiang Guo 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，在第 11 章案件中或就该案件在接受伪证处罚的前提下作出了一项或多项虚假的声明、证明书、核实书或陈述。\n\n458. 依据本起诉书第 139 段等处所阐述的指控，William Je（余建明）在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，向债权人、美国受托人、受托人和本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括但不限于由被告和/或共谋者实体持有的资产以及通过欺诈手段获取的财产的转让。\n\n459. 依据本起诉书第 286-295 段等处所阐述的指控，Yvette Wang 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，向债权人、美国受托人、受托人和本法院隐瞒属于债务人破产财产的财产，包括但不限于通过 Ace Decade 转让（Ace Decade Transfer）进行的隐瞒。\n\n460. 依据本起诉书第 312 段等处所阐述的指控，Aaron Mitchell 在明知且具有欺诈意图的情况下，在第 11 章案件中或就该案件在接受伪证处罚的前提下，作出了一项或多项与债务人事务相关的虚假声明、证明书、核实书或陈述。\n\n461. 因此，这些被告实施了违反 18 U.S.C. § 152 的破产欺诈行为，直接且近因造成了破产财产的损害，其中包括削弱了受托人调查和追回属于债务人破产财产的资产的能力，并导致破产财产因调查这些被告未予披露并主动企图隐瞒、销毁或以其他方式使其无法用于第 11 章案件的信息而承担了巨额专业人员费用和开支。\n\nRICO 模式的连续性\n\n462. 本文所述被告对法律的违反行为直接且近因性地损害了债务人的债权人，构成了在美国境内不迟于2015年开始并持续至本诉状提交之日的连续行为过程，其目的在于通过虚假陈述、欺诈、欺骗以及其他不当和非法手段欺诈债权人，以使债务人及其共谋者获益。\n\n463. 此外，本文所述被告对法律的违反行为构成了持续犯罪活动的威胁。\n\n464. 因此，上述违法行为属于 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) 及 (5) 规定的勒索敲诈活动模式（pattern of racketeering activity）的一部分。\n\n罪名项 2\n共谋违反《受敲诈勒索影响和腐败组织法》（Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act，简称 RICO） 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)（针对全体被告）\n\n465. 受托人在此重申并再次指控本诉状第1段至第[ ]段的内容，如同在此处作了完整阐述一样。\n\n466. 各被告违反了 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)，其方式为同意加入、参与或支持一项共谋，在根据该共谋下，一人或多人将通过勒索敲诈活动模式从事或参与企业事务的经营，从而违反了 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)（即「RICO 共谋」）。\n\n467. 具体而言，各被告均是 Kwok Enterprise（郭氏企业）及其事务的知情、自愿且积极的参与者，且各被告拥有共同目的，即策划、规划、准备和实施通过虚假实体网络转移和分散债务人财产（包括通过欺诈手段获取的资金）的欺诈方案，以使债务人及其他共谋者获益，并向债务人的债权人隐瞒此类财产和资金。\n\n468. 各被告的参与和同意对于实施该方案是必不可少的。\n\n469. 各被告通过如本文所指控的其自身从事的行为及/或通过部分或全体被告之间的明确协议，知晓并同意协助郭氏企业。被告之间存在协议的证据尤其处于各被告的知悉与控制范围内。\n\n470. 各被指名人参与者被告（Nominee Participant Defendant）加入和支持 RICO 共谋的同意，通过（其中包括）以下事实得以证明或可从中推定：\n\n- a. 各被指名人参与者被告充当了债务人在功能上和实益上所控制实体的所谓名义所有者、执行人员、董事、雇员及/或被任命人员，包括用于协助该欺诈方案的某些资产持有实体（Asset-Holding Entities）、资金提供实体（Funding Entities）和商业幌子实体（Business-Front Entities）。\n- b. 各被指名人参与者被告通过从事上述非法行为，知晓并协助和授权了与其作为所谓名义所有者、执行人员、董事、雇员及/或被任命人员的资产持有实体、资金提供实体和商业幌子实体有关的非法勾当。\n\n471. 各资产持有实体加入和支持 RICO 共谋的同意，通过（其中包括）以下事实得以证明或可从中推定：\n\n- a. 债务人直接或通过其对被指名人参与者的支配和控制，享有对各资产持有实体的完全控制权。\n- b. 与资产持有实体相关的被指名人参与者直接参与了郭氏企业的欺诈方案。\n- c. 各资产持有实体知晓并直接从事了郭氏企业的非法勾当，其方式为在期间与资金提供实体和商业幌子实体进行数百万美元的欺诈性进出口交易，以推进该欺诈方案，使债务人、其家族成员和其他共谋者发财并欺诈债权人。\n- d. 各资产持有实体的设立和运营完全是为了推进该欺诈方案，以使债务人、其家族成员和其他共谋者发财并欺诈债权人。\n\n472. 各商业幌子实体加入和支持 RICO 共谋的同意，通过（其中包括）以下事实得以证明或可从中推定：\n\n- a. 各商业幌子实体知晓、协助并直接从事了郭氏企业的非法勾当，其方式为向债权人隐瞒债务人的资产，并为了债务人、其家族成员及关联人士的利益转付非法获取的资金；其名义上是运营中的媒体、房地产、科技和社交媒体企业，但在功能上由债务人所有并控制以推进郭氏企业。\n\n473. 各专业人士参与者被告（Professional Participant Defendant）加入和支持 RICO 共谋的同意，通过（其中包括）专业人士参与者被告对如本文详述的郭氏企业非法勾当的知情和直接从事得以证明或可从中推定，包括（其中包括）转移或接收通过欺诈手段获取的资产及/或策划此类交易。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 135 of 139\n\n474. 各额外参与者被告（Additional Participant Defendant）加入和支持 RICO 共谋的同意，通过（其中包括）额外参与者被告对如本文详述的郭氏企业非法勾当的知情和直接从事得以证明或可从中推定，包括（其中包括）其欺诈活动及/或为支持和推进该欺诈方案而采取的其他行为。\n\n475. 各资金提供实体被告加入和支持 RICO 共谋的同意，通过（其中包括）以下事实得以证明或可从中推定：\n\n- a. 债务人直接或通过其对被指名人参与者的支配和控制，享有对各资金提供实体被告的完全控制权。\n- b. 各资金提供实体被告知晓、协助并直接从事了郭氏企业的非法勾当，其方式为向各类实体和个人转移巨额资金，以使债务人、其家族成员和其他共谋者发财。\n- c. 各资金提供实体被告的设立完全是为了推进该欺诈方案，以使债务人、其家族成员和其他共谋者发财并欺诈债权人。\n\n476. 通过各被告之间彼此的商业及/或个人关系、他们在郭氏企业事务中的紧密协调，以及对债务人欺诈方案的参与，各被告均知悉郭氏企业的性质，且各被告均知悉郭氏企业的范围超出了各被告的个人角色。\n\n477. 各被告从事了如本文所指控的行为，至少知晓该共谋的总体轮廓，并怀有推进或协助郭氏企业的意图。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 136 of 139\n\n各被告的参与和同意对于实施这种勒索敲诈活动模式是必不可少的。全体被告均发挥了关键作用并直接参与了勒索敲诈活动，因为他们均知晓该非法方案，且鉴于他们对各被告实体及自身的行为和事务拥有职权和裁量权，如果没有他们的同意、积极鼓励和参与，该方案将无法继续进行。\n\n478. 在任何一个或多个实体被告（即资金提供实体、资产持有实体、商业幌子实体以及某些专业人士参与者）未因共谋违反 RICO 实质性条款而根据 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 承担直接责任的限度内，只要某一个人被告在担任某实体被告的雇佣人员、管理人员、董事职位或与其存在代理关系的范围内实施了前置行为（predicate act），该实体被告即就其他个人被告违反第 1962(d) 条的行为承担替代责任（vicariously liable）。本文指控实施的各项前置行为，均是为了推进一项旨在并且事实上确实通过空壳实体隐瞒和伪装债务人资产的性质与所有权以及通过欺诈债权人方案使债务人、其家族成员及其关联人士获益的方案而实施的。因此，该等实体被告如本文所指控就某些个人被告违反 RICO 的行为承担替代责任。\n\n479. 作为被告的 RICO 共谋、他们同意借以开展 RICO 企业事务的勒索敲诈活动模式以及对 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 的违反行为的直接且近因性后果，债务人的债权人遭受了损害。\n\n480. 债务人的破产财产（estate）继续被剥夺本应有助于债务人债权人获得清偿追偿的款项，这是上述违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 行为的直接且近因性后果，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2923 Filed 02/15/24 Entered 02/15/24 20:00:33 Page 137 of 139\n\n因为其继续被剥夺属于破产财产的款项。如本文所指控，若非被告故意犯罪的行为，债务人的债权人因受托人的努力而可能获得的追偿（如有）本应大幅增加。对债务人债权人的损害包括但不限于受托人因上述违反 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 行为且为了追回被被告非法隐瞒和伪装的财产与资产（包括因被告在破产前和破产后的非法行为所致）而被迫从破产财产中支出的费用和开支，包括律师费。\n\n481. 被告欺诈债务人的债权人并隐瞒债务人资产的所有权和性质的方案的一个可预见的、自然的、直接的且预期的后果是，受托人将不得不产生更多的专业人士费用以追回债务人的资产（即使在被告的非法行为之下仍可识别和追回），从而使债务人债权人的追偿额（如有）大幅减少。不存在造成被告非法行为对债务人债权人所致损害的独立因素，该等损害也绝非派生自对任何其他实体或个人的任何损害。没有任何直接受害者比受托人更适合提起诉讼——事实上被告的不当行为正是通过受托人的努力以及美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）的努力才得以揭露——也不存在因在违法行为中受到不同程度损害的各级原告而导致重复追偿的风险。\n\n482. 根据 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)，受托人有权获得三倍赔偿，连同本案诉讼费用以及合理的律师费和成本。\n\n诉讼请求（PRAYER FOR RELIEF）\n\n为此，受托人请求法院作出如下救济和判决：\n\n- (a) 根据审理时的证明判给一般损害赔偿及补偿性赔偿；\n- (b) 根据 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 判给三倍赔偿；\n- (c) 判给必要且适当的禁令救济，包括要求被告停止并终止所有上述非法行为的禁令；\n- (d) 追缴（Disgorgement）被告因其非法活动而收取的所有款项；\n- (d) 根据 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 判给受托人合理的律师费、成本和开支；\n- (e) 判给判决前利息；以及\n- (f) 判给法院认为公正适当的该等其他及进一步救济。\n\n日期：2024年2月15日 纽约州纽约市（New York, New York）\n\nLUC A. DESPINS\n第11章受托人（CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE）\n\n签署人：/s/ Douglass Barron\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（admitted pro hac vice（特别出庭准许）） Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（admitted pro hac vice（特别出庭准许）） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6000 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（admitted pro hac vice（特别出庭准许）） PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所） 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nDouglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）(ct00616) Patrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林西）(ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.70 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 dskalka@npmlaw.com plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人代理律师\n\n70 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 在本起诉书中针对 GTV 的所有指控及主张的罪名项/诉讼请求，担任受托人的唯一个人代理律师事务所。","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":33356,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-02-15 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-02-15","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:37:33"}