This is the official website of the NFSC


PAX Case

It has been five years since the PAX v. Guo Wengui case began in 2017. The case recently came into focus when the U.S. Department of Justice changed trustees for no apparent reason. The timeline of the case is now sorted out. The case shows the depth of the Chinese Communist Party’s infiltration of the U.S. Department of Justice.

I. Brief description of the case

Plaintiff: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund Limited (hereinafter referred to as PAX). PAX is a subsidiary of Pacific Alliance Group (hereinafter referred to as PAG), a Chinese Communist espionage company whose principal, Shan Weijian, is a Chinese Communist agent, and which invests substantially in China and is an investor in HNA.

Defendant: Mr. Guo Wengui. He is the first person to exterminate the Chinese Communist Party, the initiator of the Whistleblower Movement, and the founder of the New Federal State of China.

The PAX v. Guo Wengui case originated in 2008. At the time, one of Mr. Guo’s business entities, Spirit Investment Limited (“Spirit”), borrowed 30 million in usurious loans from PAX. In late 2008, the three parties signed an agreement to repay the 30 million, with interest, to PAX for a total of $100 million, and released Mr. Guo from his personal guarantee.

On April 18, 2017, PAX filed a complaint with the New York Superior Court, claiming that the $30 million loan that had been repaid in 2008 was still outstanding. Mr. Guo was requested to be jointly and severally liable for the payment.

On June 29, 2017, Mr. Guo filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit with the court.

On July 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to adjudicate Mr. Guo’s 18th floor residence in New York, which is not owned by the defendant, as an ancillary asset of PAX.

On September 20, 2017, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff’s motion with respect to Mr. Guo’s residence. Because the judge found that the New York court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

The plaintiff again appealed.

On April 5, 2018, the appeal was actually granted. The case returned to court and was heard again.

On April 24, 2018, the plaintiff again filed a motion to adjudicate Mr. Kwok’s 18th floor residence in New York as an ancillary asset of PAX.

On April 26, 2019, the court denied this motion by the plaintiff. However, it ordered that Mr. Guo must give prior notice to the plaintiffs of any change, sale or transfer of this residence.

On March 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for costs and penalties against Mr. Guo for violating the court’s rules.

During this time, Mr. Guo’s attorney repeatedly pointed out that Mr. Guo’s signature on the documents submitted by the plaintiff was forged. Plaintiff’s evidence was falsified.

On July 7, 2020, the court issued a significant ruling prohibiting the defense from challenging the authenticity of all of the plaintiff’s submissions.

On July 24, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was established.

On September 16, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion.

The defendants then appealed.

On September 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order freezing Mr. Guo Wengui’s assets.

On September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking compensation from Mr. Guo Wengui for the plaintiffs’ economic losses and payment of all of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, and other costs.

On September 30, 2020, the Court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Guo Wengui from selling, transferring, conveying or interfering with any property in which he has an interest.

On October 15, 2020, the Court entered a judgment granting, in part, Plaintiff’s motion. That is, Mr. Guo was required to pay related costs and accept penalties.

On October 16, 2020, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s motion was granted, i.e., Plaintiff’s economic damages were sustained. Mr. Guo Wengui was required to pay Plaintiff’s costs, except for Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, which were suspended.

The defendant then appealed.

On December 18, 2020, the Court entered judgment on Plaintiff’s motion, recognizing Plaintiff’s economic damages in the amount of $46.43 million. The defendant was also required to pay an additional 15% interest per year on this economic loss from December 31, 2010.

The defendant then appealed.

On December 24, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to hold the defendant in “contempt” for taking the Lady May yacht (not owned by the defendant) out of the United States.

On February 3, 2021, the court entered a further judgment on the plaintiff’s motion, requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff nearly $120 million.

The defendant then appealed.

On March 17, 2021, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion and found Mr. Guo Wengui in “contempt of court.

Defendants then appealed.

During the five-month period from April 21, 2021 to September 22, 2021, the plaintiff continued to serve court subpoenas on Mr. Guo Wengui’s family, colleagues, companies, and sixty-four other individuals, requesting financial documents, among other things.

In October 2021, Plaintiff’s attorney Edward Moss left O’ Melveny & Meyers LLP, the law firm where he had represented the case for more than four years, and joined Cahill Gordon & Reindell LLP. However, he continued to act as counsel for the plaintiff.

On November 5, 2021, the defense filed a motion to immediately cease Edward Moss from continuing as plaintiff’s counsel due to a conflict of interest.

On January 14, 2022, the court entered a judgment granting the defendants’ motion to disqualify Edward Moss from representing the plaintiff as counsel.

On February 9, 2022, the court entered a judgment of contempt against the defendants and fined them a total of 134 million. The defendant was given five days to pay the plaintiff or be held in contempt under New York State Law §753. The fine of 500,000 per day continues to accrue after ten days until the return of the yacht Lady May.

On February 15, 2022, the defendant filed a personal bankruptcy motion with the court.

During that time, the plaintiff did not consent to the defendant’s filing for personal bankruptcy and did not allow the defendant to pay the costs of the case by way of financing.

On May 11, 2022, the defendant filed a motion with the court to withdraw the personal bankruptcy motion.

On June 15, 2022, the Court ruled that Mr. Guo Wengui’s motion to withdraw the bankruptcy case was denied and directed the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the U.S. Trustee to appoint a trustee to hold all of Mr. Guo’s assets in trust.

On June 30, 2022, the Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed Joe D. Whitey as trustee.

On July 5, 2022, the U.S. Trustee’s Office withdrew the appointment of Joe D. Whitey as trustee.

On July 7, 2022, the U.S. Trustee’s Office reappointed Luc. A. Despins as trustee.

II. Several points of doubt in the case

1. Timing of the appeal

The earliest appeal in the case was on April 18, 2017, not too early, not too late, just the day after the defendant, i.e., April 19, 2017, the day before preparing to be interviewed by the Voice of America to expose the truth about Wang Qishan and HNA’s theft of the country. The Voice of America interview was forcibly cut off at the most critical moment, resulting in the “4-19 VOA Cutoff Gate” incident that shocked the world. PAG was the main investor of HNA, which the defendant wanted to expose. Is it a coincidence that the plaintiff PAX chose this day to appeal the defendant?

2. The jurisdiction of the case

The case sued the things that happened and the companies involved are not in the United States. According to the law, the U.S. court should not accept the case. The U.S. Supreme Court in New York also did not file the case in September 2017 on the grounds that it was not within its jurisdiction. Why was the case approved by the court just 6 months later, without any change in all conditions?

3. Falsification of evidence

In the course of the case, the defendant’s lawyer proposed that a professional department had been asked to identify and prove that the defendant’s signature on the contract submitted by the plaintiff to the court was forged. In other words, the plaintiff made a false contract to falsely accuse the defendant, and the money owed did not exist. The court ignored such important evidence and did not allow the defendant to challenge the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. Is such a sentence fair?

4. Deprive the defendant of the right to a jury

As we all know, the defendant has the right to choose a jury in the courtroom. This case is full of doubts, the defendant will definitely choose the jury to advocate for justice. But the judge in this case did not let the defendant choose, and the judge made the decision directly. Why is it?

5. The determination of the defendant’s assets

The defendant used the 18th floor property of the Sydney Hotel in New York and Lady May yacht are not the defendant’s own assets, they are under the names of his son Guo Qiang and daughter Guo Mei respectively. Instead, the court directly found these two assets, which were not in the defendant’s name, to be the defendant’s assets and used them as the basis for the sentence. It also imposed a fine of up to $500,000 per day, the highest single-day fine in the United States. Is this in accordance with the law?

6. Plaintiff’s true intent

The purpose of the plaintiff’s lawsuit is to have the defendant repay the alleged 30 million owed to it. Then, the defendant’s domestic assets of Pangu Grandview are there, and the assets are in good condition, and the value far exceeds the total amount owed. Why didn’t the plaintiff apply for assets against the debt, but had to sue Mr. Guo himself? The plaintiff has submitted upwards of 70,000 pages of evidence to the court through judicial stalking and has paid upwards of 80 million in attorneys’ fees. More will be paid over time, far exceeding the amount of their claims. Plaintiffs would rather spend nearly 100 million in litigation costs to fight a 30 million lawsuit. The plaintiff is leaving hundreds of billions of dollars worth of good assets to stretch out against the debt, preferring to make the defendant personally liable for the payment. Does the plaintiff want the money or the defendant’s life?

7. Plaintiff’s attorney clearly violated professional ethics

Edward Moss has been serving as Plaintiffs’ lead counsel. He joined the law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindell LLP in October 2021. As counsel for the defendant, Bondi asked plaintiff’s attorney Edward Moss to join his firm and attack the defendant, in total disregard for the ethical boundaries of the profession. Later, the defendant brought in three of the nation’s most authoritative ethics evaluation organizations, which found that they had “strongly” violated ethics. Only then did the judge reluctantly kick Edward Moss out of the case. According to the defendant himself, Edward Moss himself went to the bathroom during the trial and threatened the defendant. According to the law, the plaintiff’s attorney is not allowed to have any private communication with the defendant during the trial. Who gave Edward Moss the courage to violate the law in such a blatant manner and violate professional ethics?

8. The Department of Justice replaced the trustee without authorization

The U.S. Trustee’s Office appointed Joe D. Whitley as trustee of Defendants’ assets on June 30, 2022, and Joe signed a consent form and swore that he had no conflict of interest with his client in this case. Ms. Manning, the judge in the bankruptcy case, expressed her displeasure that the U.S. Trustee’s Office had changed the trustee to Luc A. Despins in less than a week, questioning whether the entire process made any sense, as the U.S. Trustee’s Office had removed the trustee without explanation or motion.

Joe D. Whitley, a Republican, was the first General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America and was named a “2019 Lawyer of the Year.

Luc A. Despins is a partner in the law firm of Paul Hastings. According to its own official website, P&H has a long history of close business relationships with PAG, HNA, Ping An Group, Jinshang Bank, and others, which is a clear conflict of interest in this case. However, Mr. Luc signed a written undertaking swearing that he had no conflict of interest with the case, which is suspected of false swearing.

The U.S. Office of the Trustee is a division of the U.S. Department of Justice. What motivated the U.S. Department of Justice to appoint Luc, who had such an obvious conflict of interest, as a trustee, and to remove Joe, who had no conflict of interest, without following the procedures at all?

III The shadow of Chinese Communist infiltration

Based on the above-mentioned doubts, we can see that from the filing of the case to the final judgment, the judge obviously favored the plaintiff. It is not fair to ignore the interests of the defendant. The plaintiff, Pacific Alliance PAG, is behind the Chinese Communist Party. The defendant, Mr. Guo Wengui, is the number one enemy of the Communist Party of China.

Since 2017, Mr. Guo Wengui has been continuously exposing the nature of the CCP’s thievery on social media. He has exposed the plundering of the Chinese people’s wealth by the CCP’s family of thieves, and the maps of the CCP’s wealth stashed overseas and the maps of its illegitimate children. Explains how the CCP uses the “Blue, Gold, and Yellow” program to buy and manipulate the Western world. Exposes the CCP’s “13579 plan” and the “3F plan” to “mess up, weaken, and kill” the United States, and so on. All of these actions hit the key points of the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party has tried every possible way to put Mr. Guo Wengui to death. This judicial overreach is one of the countless tactics used by the CCP.

The verdict of the case shows that Mr. Guo Wengui was right in his revelations. The CCP’s “blue, gold, and yellow” plan has worked very well. From American lawyers, to judges, to the Department of Justice, all of them have been taken over by the Chinese Communist Party and are completely at its disposal. America’s pride and joy in justice is gone.

Mr. Guo Wengui is fighting against a nation with his own strength to deal with the more than 70 cases that the Chinese Communist Party has opened against him in the United States. If the U.S. Department of Justice does not do justice to such a whistle blower who has awakened the world and uncovered and punished those who are in cahoots with the evil Chinese Communist Party, the U.S. Department of Justice will be rendered ineffective. American justice will be shaken, and the world will never have peace.