{"id":"court_ctb_102_3","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":102,"sub_number":3,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY | PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                          | PA","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY\n\n| PRESENT: | HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER                          | PART                       | IAS MOTION 61EFM |  |  |\n|----------|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|------------------|--|--|\n|          | Justice                                         |                            |                  |  |  |\n|          |                                                 |                            |                  |  |  |\n|          | PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND          |                            |                  |  |  |\n| L.P.,    |                                                 | INDEX NO.                  | 652077/201       |  |  |\n|          | Plaintiff.                                      |                            |                  |  |  |\n|          | - V -                                           | MOTION DATE                |                  |  |  |\n|          | KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN       | MOTION SEQ. NO.            | 019              |  |  |\n|          | GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI, a/k/a |                            |                  |  |  |\n|          | WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a         |                            |                  |  |  |\n|          | HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER: HOLDINGS LLC, and          | DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION |                  |  |  |\n|          | GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION,                   |                            |                  |  |  |\n|          |                                                 |                            |                  |  |  |\n\nDefendants. ---- X\n\n### HON. BARRY R. OSTRAGER\n\nIn this 2017 case with 1,180 docket entries - almost all of which involve defendant Kwok Ho Wan's (\"Kwok\") efforts to avoid and deceive his creditors by parking his substantial personal assets with a series of corporations, trusted confidants, and family members -- this Court is called upon to determine whether the plaintiff, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. (\"PAX\"), has met the burden of establishing that the Court should enter a final Order of Civil Contempt against Kwok. For the reasons that follow, this Court is simultaneously issuing a final Order of Civil Contempt.\n\nPAX secured a judgment against Kwok in the sum of \\$116,402,019.57 on February 3, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 716). Thereafter, PAX undertook a year's long effort to enforce its judgment by first identifying and then attempting to levy upon Kwok's assets in the United States. PAX encountered difficulty identifying assets over which Kwok exercised control because Kwok, who is a self-declared multi-billionaire, had secreted his assets in a maze of corporate entities and with family members. This scheme has enabled Kwok to assert that he has no assets despite his lavish lifestyle, which plaintiff has catalogued with material from social\n\n#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0:2017/2013 FTTEED :\n\nmedia clippings, photographs and videotapes showing Kwok living large and boasting of his wealth, expensive homes, private plane, and yacht. As noted in the transcript of proceedings of February 2, 2022, this evidence is of little probative value, as the witnesses sponsoring this evidence have no first-hand knowledge of the authenticity of this \"evidence\" other than that it is accessible on various websites.\n\nOn February 2, 2022, this Court held an evidentiary hearing at which seven witnesses submitted direct testimony by affidavit and were made available for cross-examination. The hearing followed protracted proceedings by PAX to locate and levy upon assets owned by defendant Kwok. Those proceedings established, among other things, that Kwok exercised dominion and control over a yacht called the Lady May and resulted in a series of orders restraining Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht called Lady May from removing the Lady May from the Court's jurisdiction. The first such Order was issued on September 30, 2020, as described in detail infra, and was followed by an October 15, 2020 Order that restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of . . . the yacht, the 'Lady May'\" from leaving the jurisdiction. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 630). As detailed infra, Kwok spent much of July, August and September of 2020 on the Lady May. Contemporaneously with the proceedings resulting in the September 30 and October 15, 2020 restraining Orders, Kwok and his cohorts made arrangement for the Lady May to sail to Florida in early October 2020 and, thereafter, to the Bahamas. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a conditional order of civil contempt which directed that if Kwok failed to return the Lady May to the jurisdiction of this Court by May 31, 2021, he would be subject to a \\$500,000.00 fine for each day that the Lady May remained outside the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nThe Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this Court's order holding Kwok in conditional civil contempt, finding that \"the daily fine of \\$500,000.00 was intended to strongly\n\n !\"# \\$\"%&\"\n\n'&(&#)\\*\\$\n+\n, \\*\n\n+\n\n - + +\n\n+\n\n .\n\n+ /0123456/73891:;/08/<<=>2/?@8>ABCCDEFGCHIJKLDEFGCHIJK&M\"# & N&(#!OP Q -R ST!\")U\\*\n\n +\n - +\n\n-\n\n V\n\n\\$\n+WX\n\n -&&(&& +\n - +\n\nY. - -\nY.\n\n-\n\n -&&(&& + +-+.\n\\$ +-Z\n R - [ \\]^=>\n+-\nV\\_&T&`& \"(#\\*+\n\n\\$\n\n Y.\n+\n+\n\nY.\n\nabcdCKebfJghgJifECBjkchL lcKemCKe#!T(&!n&(&( `&(#T/0o@/7@po9q79r1:;/0>;s958t>3u32;:/\n++ HfB#!&v\n\n w;6xy;xzzzA{9r1:;/08|`((#)At8@3}30?{9r1:;/08~\\* {9r1:;/0863>72/s3>po9q;>;0t958>19q3072/8/79<8@3{{\\o@9@;>?90389?23;8t\n\nV 8@3{@/03>3?9u320r308z\\* dJBHfKecKcB\n\n  +\nV\n\\*\n+ &(&(\nR -[ - [\n\n -\n\nt\\^23<32>89\\:;/08/<<=>2/;:\n\n### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 ETLED : NEW XQRK COUNTY CLEERK CS31992222222007 i337992213.56236 viri988.00 ... BREAD : 102.0002\n\nassociate of Kwok, \"a vocal online critic of the Chinese government who was once close with that country's intelligence service but is now wanted by authorities in Beijing on charges of fraud, blackmail and bribery.\" Other news outlets have reported that Mr. Bannon utilized Kwok's private jet on more than one occasion to travel to political rallies.\n\nThe testimony adduced at the hearing out of the mouths of defendants' witnesses clearly and convincingly demonstrated that Kwok beneficially owns and controls the Lady May and has utter contempt for this Court and the judicial process.\n\nKwok once was the sole shareholder of Hong Kong Investments Limited (\"HK International\"). The testimony adduced at the hearing established that in 2014 Kwok transferred a 100% interest in HK International to one Qu Guo Jiao for no consideration. Ms. Qu was a trusted business associate of the Kwok family. Thereafter, Kwok fled China and on February 23, 2015, HK International purchased the Lady May for £ 28 million GBP. No testimony adduced at the hearing established the source of funds to purchase the Lady May, but the uncontradicted testimony of Kwok's daughter Mei Guo established that Ms. Qu did not provide the funds to purchase the yacht. Tr. 44.2 Consequently, a reasonable inference is that Kwok provided the funds to HK International which were used to purchase the yacht. It is undisputed that Ms. Qu transferred the ownership of the Lady May to Kwok's daughter, Mei Guo, on or around June 17, 2017, for \\$1 or no consideration. Tr. 47. According to Ms. Guo's affidavit (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1162), Ms. Guo ultimately transferred ownership of the Lady May to the current title holder HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK USA\"). Ms. Guo further avers that she is the sole owner of HK USA, although all of the multi-million dollar annual expenses for the\n\n<sup>2 &</sup>quot;Tr.\" refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, efiled at NYSCEF Doc. No. 1179.\n\n#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0 : NEW XQRK COUNTY CLERK 02/1922 - Entered 03/19/22 13:56:28 IvoBaRes 2017/2017 FTLED :\n\nLady May, including fuel, maintenance, and the captain and crew are paid by Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring.\"), which is allegedly the Kwok family office.\n\nAt the hearing Ms. Guo testified that her brother had bought the Lady May for her. Tr. 46. The Court cannot credit this testimony as there is no evidence that Ms. Guo's brother was involved with the corporate transactions leading to Ms. Guo's acquisition of the title yacht. And, indeed, in response to a question from the Court, Ms. Guo acknowledged that her brother was not involved in any of the transfers that occurred before she acquired the yacht. Tr. 47.\n\nOther testimony adduced at the hearing established that Kwok was repeatedly on the yacht every summer and that Ms. Guo was infrequently on the yacht. Trial Tr. 88:8-20. The Lady May's captain testified that Kwok was aboard the yacht for a significant portion of the months of July, August and September in 2020 and that this was consistent with his usual practice in the summer. Trial Tr. 87:24-88:7. Subsequent to this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order, in October 2020 the Lady May was sent to Florida and then the Bahamas for repairs and was subsequently dispatched to Italy in October 2021, purportedly at the direction of Golden Spring. Ms. Guo acknowledged that she was aware of both this Court's September 30, 2020 restraining Order and this Court's subsequent March 16, 2021 Order directing that the Lady May be returned to the Court's jurisdiction Tr. 55; 57-60; 62.\n\nMs. Guo testified that on the one hand, she directed the Lady May's itinerary but, on the other hand, testified that security for Kwok was such a concern that there would be no memorialization of any itinerary. Tr. 52. She further testified that when her father was on the yacht unaccompanied by her he had the freedom to choose wherever he wanted to go. Tr. 50. The fundamental issue, however, is who directed the yacht to be removed from this Court's jurisdiction in October 2020. Ms. Guo claims that in early October 2020 she no longer wished to\n\n## ETLED : NEW XQRK COUNTY CLEEKS : 23199222222200 : 33739 : vIRARS. 62077/2017 INDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nuse the yacht and relayed that instruction to Golden Spring which, in turn, relayed her directive to the then captain of the ship, Captain Heaslop. Tr. 53.\n\nUpon further questioning, Ms. Guo admitted that it was Golden Spring that advised her that the yacht needed to be moved to a warmer place. Tr. 55. Ms. Guo then repeated her retracted testimony that her brother had given her the yacht, and she stated that her brother is the sole owner of Golden Spring. Tr. 56. This testimony is not credible given that on September 30, 2020 the Court entered a temporary restraining order restraining Kwok\n\n. . . from making or causing any sale, assignment, transfer, or interference with any property in which he has an interest, or from paying over or otherwise disposing of any debt now due or thereafter coming due to him, subject to the exceptions set forth in CPLR 5222 and in the ordinary course.\n\nNYSCEF Doc. No. 591. Significantly, Captain Heaslop, the then Captain of the Lady May, testified that Mr. Kwok told Captain Heaslop that Kwok would no longer be a guest on the Lady May \"a few days\" before the Lady May departed for Florida in early October 2020 (and apparently after the issuance of this Court's September 30, 2020 Order). Tr. 89. Captain Heaslop also contradicted Ms. Guo's testimony that Ms. Guo gave Captain Heaslop instructions about the yacht's movement. Tr. 94.\n\nMs. Guo also acknowledged having subsequently read the Court's March 16, 2021 Order requiring the Lady May to be returned to the Court's jurisdiction by May 31, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 728). She further acknowledged that she had discussed the Order with her lawyer (whose services were paid for by Golden Spring) and that she had ignored the Order.\n\nRussell Stockil, the Yacht Management Director for Yachtzoo SARL, testified that his company had a management contract with HK USA dated May 2021 and that he communicated with HK USA and Golden Spring, but never with Ms. Guo. Tr. 78. This was also the testimony of successor Captain Momchil Ivanov. Tr. 82. In short, Ms. Guo's testimony that she owns and\n\n### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 ETLED : NEW XQRK COUNTY CLEERK CS3199222222200 0332922223.56236 vir69882291.98202\n\ncontrols the Lady May cannot be credited in any respect. Ms. Guo appears to be a woman in her twenties, has introduced no evidence that she exercised dominion and control of the Lady May, and provided no confirmation that she came into possession of the Lady May, other than as a ruse to shield the Lady May from being levied upon by her father's creditors.\n\nThe machinations associated with the shell game Kwok has orchestrated with respect to the Lady May are of a piece with every other evasive and contemptuous act Kwok has taken during the five years this litigation has been pending, which is why there are 1,180 docket entries in this case\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in civil contempt under Judiciary Law\n\n§ 753-and \"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment\"-where, as here, the Court \"expressly find|s] that [Kwok's] actions were calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a party to a civil proceeding.\" Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985) (citing N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753). Section 753 sets forth four requirements:\n\n[T]o find that contempt has occurred in a given case, it must be determined that [1] a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect. [2] It must appear, with reasonable certainty, that the order has been disobeyed . . . [3] Moreover, the party to be held in contempt must have had knowledge of the court's order, although it is not necessary that the order actually have been served upon the party . . . [4] Finally, prejudice to the right of a party to the litigation must be demonstrated.\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at \\*2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016) (citing McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)). The testimony adduced in this case satisfies each element of this standard. Indeed, the Appellate Division intimated as such. See Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P., 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated\n\n### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0:2017/2013 FTLED :\n\na lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights. . . \").\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on whether PAX has demonstrated that it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its now centi-million dollar judgment against Kwok. Under CPLR § 5225, \"money or other personal property\" is leviable where the debtor holds the requisite \"interest.\" To satisfy this requirement, \"[i]t is not necessary that the judgment debtor have legal title to the property; a beneficial interest is sufficient.\" Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09. \"A beneficial interest is '[a] right or expectancy in something . . . as opposed to legal title to that thing.\"\" Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at \\*30 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). Kwok has much more than a beneficial interest in the Lady May. Not only does Kwok control the yacht, it appears he provided the funds to purchase it and he is the person who principally enjoys the use of the yacht.\n\nThe key factor is whether \"the property beneficial owner\" as if he had received the property directly.\" Id. (quoting Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015) (upholding rejection of the judgment debtor's contention that he no longer held an interest in property because he transferred his interest to his daughters); Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at \\*2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018) (granting judgment creditor's turnover motion notwithstanding judgment debtor's assertion that he transferred property to a corporation, because even if true, the evidence showed that he \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\n#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0:2017/2013 FILED :\n\nThe evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in and controls the Lady May. In the latter connection, the Court takes notice of the filing of the Zeng case and draws an inference from all the record facts that Kwok has taken extraordinary steps to shield the yacht from his creditors. Moreover, Kwok's \"family office\" funds the yacht's day-to-day operations and maintenance.\n\nThe Court finds that Ms. Guo's testimony was not only internally inconsistent and dissembling, but also significantly undermined by the testimony of Captains Heaslop and Ivanov and Mr. Stockil, who stated that they have never taken yacht-related direction from Ms. Guo in the four and-a-half years that she directly or indirectly held title to the yacht.\n\nIn addition, it is established New York law that a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989). An adverse inference may be applied whenever a factual determination is necessary or permitted, including in the context of contempt motions. S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\* 10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120-25 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\nSimilarly, under the missing witness rule, \"[a] trier of fact may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a witness who fails to testify.\" Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip, Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004) (applying adverse inference where defendant who failed to appear \"would be knowledgeable about a material issue raised by the evidence\").\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference under both of these avenues. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery, including in response to requests specifically about the Lady May. While Kwok\n\n#### INDEX NO. 652077/2017 0 : NEW XQRK COUNTY CLEERK 023/29/22 04:333 ED 12017 12 13:56:30 PM ISS 12017/2017 12/2022 FTTEED : 10\n\nargues that an adverse inference is not appropriate here because \"[o]n]y after a threshold showing that a piece of evidence is authentic is a party obligated to respond to it,\" this contention fails of its own weight. PAX has proffered substantial admissible evidence that Kwok has the requisite beneficial interest in and control of the Lady May. See People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001) (explaining that evidence is probative if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, i.e., a fact directly at issue in the case\").\n\nAs of February 7, 2022, the Lady May has remained outside the jurisdiction of the Court for 268 days. Based on the daily fine of \\$500,000 imposed by this Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division, the resultant fine would amount to \\$134,000,000.00, which is more than PAX's outstanding judgment of nearly \\$120 million and a multiple of the GBP £ 28 million purchase price of the Lady May. Nevertheless, if billionaire litigants can simultaneously seek to use Court process in New York and elsewhere in the United States while knowingly and intentionally violating Court orders, there is no rule of law. Kwok must remit \\$134,000,000.00 to PAX within five business days of the service of this Court's Order with Notice of Entry. The Court is prepared to exercise its full authority under Judiciary Law § 753 in the event the fine is not timely paid.\n\nDated: February 9, 2022\n\nR. OSTRAGER\n\n| CHECK ONE:            | CASE DISPOSED               |  |        | NON-FINAL DISPOSITION |                       |           |\n|-----------------------|-----------------------------|--|--------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------|\n|                       | GRANTED                     |  | DENIED |                       | GRANTED IN PART       | OTHER     |\n| APPLICATION:          | SETTLE ORDER                |  |        |                       | SUBMIT ORDER          |           |\n| CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: | IINCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN |  |        |                       | FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT | REFERENCE |","body_zh":"Supreme Court of the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）New York County（纽约县）\n\n出庭法官：Barry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官，IAS MOTION 61EFM庭\n\n法官\n\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金合伙企业），\n案号：652077/2017\n原告，\n- 对 -\n动议日期\nKwok Ho Wan（郭浩云），又名 Kwok Ho（郭浩），又名 Gwo Wen Gui（郭文贵），又名 Guo Wengui（郭文贵），又名 Guo Wen-Gui（郭文贵），又名 Wan Gue Haoyun（万国浩云），又名 Miles Kwok（迈尔斯·郭），又名 Haoyun Guo（浩云郭），Genever Holdings LLC（热内弗控股有限责任公司），以及 Genever Holdings Corporation（热内弗控股公司），\n动议序号：019\n动议判决 + 命令\n被告。 ---- X\n\nBarry R. Ostrager（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官\n\n在这起包含 1,180 条诉讼记录的 2017 年案件中——其中几乎所有记录都涉及被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭浩云，下称“Kwok”）试图通过将巨额个人资产放置在一系列公司、亲信和家庭成员名下来逃避并欺骗其债权人的行为——本法院须裁定原告 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金合伙企业，下称“PAX”）是否已完成证明责任，确立本法院应当对 Kwok 作出最终民事蔑视法庭命令。基于下列理由，本法院正同时签发一份最终民事蔑视法庭命令。\n\nPAX 于 2021 年 2 月 3 日获得了针对 Kwok 的金额为 $116,402,019.57 的判决书（NYSCEF 编号 716）。此后，PAX 历经数年努力执行该判决，首先查明随后试图扣押 Kwok 在美国的资产。PAX 在查明 Kwok 实际控制的资产方面遇到了困难，因为自称百亿富豪的 Kwok 已将其资产隐匿于错综复杂的公司实体和家庭成员网络中。该方案使 Kwok 尽管过着奢华生活却能坚称自己没有资产；原告整理了来自社交媒体剪辑、照片和录像带等材料，显示 Kwok 生活穷奢极欲，并炫耀其财富、豪宅、私人飞机和游艇。正如 2022 年 2 月 2 日的庭审笔录所指出的，该证据证明力有限，因为提供该证据的证人除知悉其可在各网站获取外，对该“证据”的真实性并无一手了解。\n\n2022 年 2 月 2 日，本法院举行了一次证据听证会，七名证人通过宣誓书提交了直接证词并接受了交叉询问。该听证会是在 PAX 耗费旷日持久的程序以查找和扣押被告 Kwok 所拥有的资产之后举行的。这些程序查明（除其他事项外）Kwok 对一艘名为 Lady May（梅女士号）的游艇行使了实际支配和控制权，并促成了一系列禁止令，禁止 Kwok 和/或名为 Lady May 的游艇的登记所有人将 Lady May 移出本法院的司法管辖区。首份此类命令于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发，具体细节如下文详述，随后签发的是 2020 年 10 月 15 日的命令，该命令禁止“Kwok 先生和/或……‘Lady May’号游艇的登记所有人”离开司法管辖区（NYSCEF 编号 630）。如下文详述，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的大部分时间都在 Lady May 上度过。在促成 2020 年 9 月 30 日和 10 月 15 日禁止令的诉讼程序进行的同时，Kwok 及其同伙安排 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初驶往佛罗里达州，并在此后驶往巴哈马群岛。2021 年 3 月 16 日，本法院签发了一项附条件的民事蔑视法庭命令，规定若 Kwok 未能在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将 Lady May 送回本法院的管辖区，Lady May 在本法院管辖区外停留的每一天，他都将被处以 $500,000.00 的罚款。\n\nAppellate Division, First Department（纽约州最高法院上诉部门第一部）维持了本法院认定 Kwok 构成附条件民事蔑视法庭的裁定，认定“每日 $500,000.00 的罚款旨在强力\n\nKwok 的准合伙人，“一名直言不讳在网上批评中国政府的人士，他曾与该国情报部门关系密切，但目前因涉嫌诈骗、勒索和行贿而受到北京当局的通缉”。其他新闻媒体也曾报道，Bannon（班农）先生不止一次乘坐 Kwok 的私人飞机前往参加政治集会。\n\n在听证会上被告证人口中得出的证词清楚且令人信服地证明，Kwok 是 Lady May 的实益所有人并对其拥有控制权，且对本法院和司法程序怀有彻底的蔑视。\n\nKwok 曾是 Hong Kong Investments Limited（香港投资有限公司，下称“HK International”）的唯一股东。听证会上引出的证词证实，2014 年 Kwok 在无对价的情况下将 HK International 的 100% 股权转让给了一位名为 Qu Guo Jiao（屈国娇）的人士。Qu 女士曾是 Kwok 家族值得信赖的商业伙伴。此后，Kwok 逃离中国，2015 年 2 月 23 日，HK International 以 £ 28 million GBP（2800万英镑）购买了 Lady May。听证会上没有任何证词能证明购买 Lady May 的资金来源，但 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo（郭美）无可反驳的证词证实，Qu 女士并未提供购买该游艇的资金。见笔录第 44 页。因此，一个合理的推论是 Kwok 向 HK International 提供了用于购买游艇的资金。无可争议的是，Qu 女士于 2017 年 6 月 17 日左右以 $1 或无对价的方式将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了 Kwok 的女儿 Mei Guo。见笔录第 47 页。根据 Guo 女士的宣誓书（NYSCEF 编号 1162），Guo 女士最终将 Lady May 的所有权转让给了当前产权持有者 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，下称“HK USA”）。Guo 女士进一步坚称她是 HK USA 的唯一所有者，尽管 Lady May 每年数百万美元的所有费用（包括燃油、维护、船长及船员费用）均由据称是 Kwok 家族办公室的 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（源泉（纽约）有限公司，下称“Golden Spring”）支付。\n\n在听证会上，Guo 女士作证称是她哥哥为她买下了 Lady May。见笔录第 46 页。本法院无法采信该证词，因为没有证据表明 Guo 女士的哥哥参与了促成 Guo 女士获得游艇产权的公司交易。而且，事实上，在回答本法院提问时，Guo 女士承认在她获得游艇之前发生的所有转让中，其哥哥均未参与。见笔录第 47 页。\n\n听证会上引出的其他证词证实，Kwok 每年夏天都频繁登上游艇，而 Guo 女士很少在游艇上。见庭审笔录第 88:8-20 行。Lady May 的船长作证称，Kwok 在 2020 年 7 月、8 月和 9 月的很大一部分时间都在游艇上，这与他夏季的惯常做法一致。见庭审笔录第 87:24-88:7 行。在本法院于 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发禁止令之后，Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月被送往佛罗里达州随后前往巴哈马进行维修，并随后于 2021 年 10 月据称在 Golden Spring 的指示下被派往意大利。Guo 女士承认，她知悉本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日的禁止令以及本法院随后于 2021 年 3 月 16 日签发的勒令将 Lady May 送回本法院管辖区的命令。见笔录第 55、57-60、62 页。\n\nGuo 女士作证称，一方面她掌控 Lady May 的航行路线，但另一方面又作证称 Kwok 的安全问题备受关注，因此不会有任何行程的书面记录。见笔录第 52 页。她进一步作证称，当她父亲在没有她陪同的情况下在游艇上时，他可以自由选择去任何他想去的地方。见笔录第 50 页。然而，核心问题是谁在 2020 年 10 月指示将游艇移出本法院的司法管辖区。Guo 女士声称在 2020 年 10 月初她不再希望使用该游艇，并将该指示传达给了 Golden Spring，后者又将她的指示传达给了当时的船长 Heaslop（希斯洛普）船长。见笔录第 53 页。\n\n在进一步追问下，Guo 女士承认是 Golden Spring 建议她需要将游艇移至更温暖的地方。见笔录第 55 页。Guo 女士随后重复了她此前撤回的证词，即她哥哥把游艇送给了她，并声明她哥哥是 Golden Spring 的唯一所有者。见笔录第 56 页。鉴于本法院于 2020 年 9 月 30 日发出了一项临时禁止令，该证词不可信；该禁止令禁止 Kwok\n\n……进行或促成对其享有权益的任何财产进行任何出售、让与、转让或干涉，或禁止偿付或以其他方式处置目前应付或此后应付给他的任何债务，但 CPLR 5222 规定的例外情况以及在正常业务过程中的情况除外。\n\n见 NYSCEF 编号 591。值得注意的是，Lady May 当时的船长 Heaslop 船长作证称，在 Lady May 于 2020 年 10 月初启程前往佛罗里达州“几天前”（显然是在本法院 2020 年 9 月 30 日签发命令之后），Kwok 先生告诉 Heaslop 船长，Kwok 将不再作为 Lady May 上的客人。见笔录第 89 页。Heaslop 船长还反驳了 Guo 女士关于 Guo 女士向 Heaslop 船长发出游艇调动指示的证词。见笔录第 94 页。\n\nGuo 女士还承认随后阅读了法院 2021 年 3 月 16 日要求在 2021 年 5 月 31 日之前将 Lady May 送回法院管辖区的命令（NYSCEF 编号 728）。她进一步承认，她曾与她的律师（其服务费用由 Golden Spring 支付）讨论过该命令，并且她忽略了该命令。\n\nYachtzoo SARL（游艇动物园有限责任公司）的游艇管理总监 Russell Stockil（拉塞尔·斯托基尔）作证称，其公司与 HK USA 签订了一份日期为 2021 年 5 月的管理合同，他与 HK USA 和 Golden Spring 进行沟通，但从未与 Guo 女士沟通过。见笔录第 78 页。继任船长 Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）也给出了同样的证词。见笔录第 82 页。简而言之，Guo 女士关于其拥有并控制 Lady May 的证词在任何方面都不可采信。Guo 女士看似是一名二十多岁的女性，没有提出任何证据证明其对 Lady May 行使过支配和控制权，也未提供任何证实其取得 Lady May 占有权的证据，这不过是一种用来保护 Lady May 免遭其父亲债权人扣押的把戏。\n\nKwok 围绕 Lady May 所精心策划的障眼法骗局相关的各种诡计，与 Kwok 在本案长达五年的诉讼期间所采取的每一次规避和蔑视法庭行为如出一辙，这也正是本案诉讼记录多达 1,180 条的原因所在。\n\n本法院有权根据 Judiciary Law（《司法法》）认定 Kwok 构成民事蔑视法庭\n\n§ 753——以及“通过罚款和监禁对其进行惩处”——在此类情况下适用，正如本案一样，法院“明确认定[郭文贵的]行为蓄意或实际破坏、损害、阻碍或侵害了民事诉讼当事人的权利或救济途径。”Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't 1985)（援引《纽约州司法法》（N.Y. Judiciary Law）§ 753）。第 753 条规定了四项要件：\n\n要在特定案件中认定发生藐视法庭行为，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达不容置疑指令的合法法院命令有效存在。[2] 必须具有合理确定性地表明该命令未获遵守……[3] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的当事人必须知晓法院的命令，尽管该命令不一定必须实际送达给该当事人……[4] 最后，必须证明诉讼当事人的权利受到了侵害。\n\nFleetwood Fin. v Walter J. Dowd, Inc., 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（援引 McCormick v Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。本案中提出的证言符合该标准的每一项要素。事实上，Appellate Division（上诉法庭）亦作出了此种暗示。参见 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太盟亚洲机会基金有限公司，简称 PAX）, 199 A.D.3d 423 (1st Dep't 2021)（“[PAX 已经]通过清晰且有说服力的证据证明[郭文贵]违反了\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 0:2017/2013 FILED :\n\n法院合法、明确的指令，且其知晓该指令，并且该违规行为对原告的权利造成了侵害……”）。\n\nPAX 所遭受的持续“侵害”程度，取决于 PAX 是否已证明其最终可以通过扣押 Lady May（梅号游艇）来清偿针对郭文贵现已达上亿美元的判决款项。根据《民事诉讼法律与规则》（CPLR）§ 5225，在债务人持有必要“权益”的情况下，“金钱或其他动产”可供扣押。为满足这一要求，“判决债务人并不必须对财产拥有法定所有权；享有实益权益即已足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller，《纽约民事诉讼实务：CPLR》（New York Civil Practice: CPLR）¶ 5225.09。“实益权益是指‘对某物拥有的某种权利或期待……而非对该物的法定所有权。’”Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 2013 WL 1155576, at *30 (S.D.N.Y.（纽约南区联邦地区法院）Mar. 13, 2013)（援引《布莱克法律词典》（Black's Law Dictionary），权益（第 9 版，2009 年））。郭文贵在 Lady May 上拥有的远不止实益权益。郭文贵不仅控制着该游艇，而且看起来是他提供了购买游艇的资金，并且他是主要享受使用该游艇的人。\n\n关键因素在于“财产的实益所有人”是否如同“他直接收到了该财产一样。”同前引（援引 Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)；亦见 Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)（维持对判决债务人主张的驳回，该债务人辩称其已将权益转让给其女儿因而不再对财产享有权益）；Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc., 112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (Table), at *2, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)（支持判决债权人的财产移交动议，尽管判决债务人声称其已将财产转让给一家公司，因为即使属实，证据亦表明其对财产“保留了控制权和/或权益”））。\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 0:2017/2013 FILED :\n\n证据清晰且有说服力地表明，郭文贵在 Lady May 上持有实益权益并对其享有控制权。在后一方面的关联上，本院注意到 Zeng（曾）案的立案提起，并从全案记录事实中推定郭文贵采取了异乎寻常的手段来对债权人隐匿该游艇。此外，郭文贵的“家族办公室”资助了该游艇的日常运营和维护。\n\n本院认定，郭女士的证言不仅自相矛盾且掩盖真相，而且其可信度受到 Heaslop（希斯洛普）船长、Ivanov（伊万诺夫）船长以及 Stockil（斯托克尔）先生证言的严重削弱，后者均陈述在她直接或间接持有游艇所有权的四年半时间里，他们从未接受过郭女士关于游艇方面的任何指示。\n\n此外，纽约州法律确立的原则是，当事人在民事诉讼中援引第五修正案“可构成作出不利事实推定的依据。”DeBonis v. Corbisiero, 155 AD2d 299, 300 (1st Dep't 1989)。凡在需要或允许进行事实认定的情况下，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情境中。S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226, at * 10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 120-25 (2d Cir. 1997)。\n\n同样，根据缺席证人规则，“事实审理者可以根据相反证据所允许的范围，对未出庭作证的证人作出最强烈的推定。”Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip, Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)（在未出庭的被告“对证据引发的实质性问题理应知情”的情况下适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX 有权依据这两种途径获得不利推定。郭文贵在针对 PAX 判决后证据开示的答复中援引了其反对自证其罪的第五修正案权利，包括在针对专门关于 Lady May 的开示请求的答复中。虽然郭文贵\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 0 : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/2022 04:33 PM ED 12017 12 13:56:30 PM ISS 12017/2017 12/2022 FILED : 10\n\n辩称此处不宜适用不利推定，因为“只有在初步证明某项证据具有真实性之后，当事人始有义务对其作出回应”，但该抗辩本身便站不住脚。PAX 已经提供了大量可采凭证，证明郭文贵在 Lady May 上具有必要的实益权益并对其享有控制权。参见 People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 753 N.E.2d 164 (2001)（阐释若证据“倾向于证明实质性事实的存在或不存在，即直接属于本案争议焦点的实质事实”，则该证据具有证明力）。\n\n截至 2022 年 2 月 7 日，Lady May 已停留在本院司法管辖范围之外达 268 天。根据本院课处并经上诉法庭确认的每日 500,000 美元罚款计算，由此产生的罚款总额将达 134,000,000.00 美元，这已经超过了 PAX 尚未受偿的近 1.2 亿美元判决款项，也是 Lady May 当初 2800 万英镑购买价格的数倍。然而，如果身家亿万的诉讼当事人一方面可以在纽约及美国其他地方寻求利用法院诉讼程序，另一方面却明知且故意违反法院命令，法治将荡然无存。郭文贵必须在本院带有登载通知（Notice of Entry）的裁定送达后五个工作日内，向 PAX 汇付 134,000,000.00 美元。若未按时足额缴纳罚款，本院随时准备行使《司法法》§ 753 项下的全部职权。\n\n日期：2022 年 2 月 9 日\n\nR. OSTRAGER（R·奥斯特拉格）\n\n勾选一项： 案件结案 非终局处置\n\n准予 驳回 部分准予 其他\n申请： 确定裁定 提交裁定\n适用时勾选： 包含移送/重新分派 选任信托人 移交裁判官员","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":3239,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 13:36:36"}