In Gilmore Bank v. AsiaTrust New Zealand Ltd. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1558, a judgment creditor sought to recover fraudulently transferred funds from the defendant New Zealand bank, where the judgment debtor had set up a trust. The bank received compensation for shielding the judgment debtor's assets from the judgment creditor. The bank sought to quash service of the summons on the basis that it did not do business in California and none of its representatives traveled to California, although the bank received wire transfers from another defendant's bank account in California and the parties communicated by email. (Id. at pp. 1564--1565.) Gilmore Bank, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th 1558 found specific jurisdiction based upon the bank's purposeful availment of the California forum, noting that "'in this age of telecommunications, fax machines, and rapid mail services it is possible to solicit and negotiate investments without face-to-face meetings in any jurisdiction.' . It 'is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviating the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted.' . 'While any single telephone call or piece of correspondence might not be enough to satisfy the "minimum contacts" requirement, there is much more in this case. Here there was a veritable "latticework" of contacts linking AsiaTrust and the State of California: not one but many calls and other communications to California during the negotiations. The execution in California of the legal documents which formed the arrangement . . . . A continuing stream of payments from AsiaTrust to California.'" (Id. at pp. 1572--1573.)