{"id":"court_ctb_102_5","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":102,"sub_number":5,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-03-19","title":"FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/202","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 1 of 28\n\n### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.\n\nKWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN GUI, a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC,\n\nDefendants.\n\nIndex No: 652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager\n\nPart 61\n\nMot. Seq. No. 19\n\n## **PRE-HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.'S MOTION FOR A FINAL ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT KWOK**\n\n## **TABLE OF CONTENTS**\n\n## **Page**\n\n| INTRODUCTION | | 1 | |\n|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 | |\n| | | ARGUMENT7 | |\n| I. | PAX Meets the Standard of Judiciary Law § 753 Because PAX Has
Demonstrated That Kwok Has a Beneficial Interest in the Lady May,
Making It a Leviable Asset7 | | |\n| II. | PAX is Entitled to an Adverse Inference That Kwok Holds a Beneficial
Interest in the Lady May
9 | | |\n| III. | Kwok's Evidentiary Objections Have No Merit
11 | | |\n| | A. | PAX's Pre-March 15, 2021 Evidence Is Relevant11 | |\n| | B. | Kwok's Social Media Posts Are Authentic and Admissible
12 | |\n| | C. | The Videos Depicting Kwok Are Authentic and Admissible15 | |\n| | D. | The Court Should Draw an Adverse Inference With Respect to
Authenticity18 | |\n| IV. | Kwok's Latest Challenge to the Amount of the Fine Has No Merit
19 | | |\n| | A. | The Contempt Penalty Does Not Amount to an \"Improper
Windfall\"
19 | |\n| | B. | The Penalty Properly Began to Accrue on May 15, 2021
20 | |\n| | C. | The Fine Is Not an Unconstitutional Penalty20 | |\n| | | CONCLUSION21 | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 3 of 28\n\n# **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES** NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022\n\n**Cases**\n\n| Baxter v. Palmigiano,
425 U.S. 308 (1976)19 | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|\n| Colfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.,
112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)8 | |\n| Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Int'l Fin. Servs. (N.Y.), Inc.,
323 F. Supp. 2d 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)10 | |\n| Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.,
11 A.D.3d 360 (1st Dep't 2004)
10 | |\n| DeBonis v. Corbisiero,
547 N.Y.S.2d 274 (1st Dep't 1989) | 9 |\n| Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.,
609 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010)
8 | |\n| Farrell v. Labarbera,
181 A.D.2d 715 (2d Dep't 1992)10 | |\n| Fleetwood Fin. v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.,
No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)7 | |\n| Gliklad v. Chernoi,
129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)
8 | |\n| Guo v. Liang,
Index No. 151428/2018 (N.Y. Sup Ct. 2018)13 | |\n| Guo v. Shuiyuan Cheng,
Case No. A-18-779172-C (D.C. NV. 2019)13 | |\n| Guo v. Yuan,
Case No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018)13 | |\n| International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell,
512 U.S. 821 (1994)21 | |\n| Johnson v. Hatzidakis,
30 Misc. 3d 1229(A) (Co. Ct. 2011)10 | |\n| Lebewohl v. Heart Attack Grill LLC,
890 F. Supp. 2d 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)14 | |\n\n### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 4 of 28\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n(continued)\n\n| Page |\n|------|\n|------|\n\n| LiButti v. United States,
107 F.3d 110, (2d Cir. 1997)
9 |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| McCormick v. Axelrod,
59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)7 |\n| Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.,
111 A.D.2d 28
(1st Dep't 1985)
7 |\n| Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan,
199 A.D.3d 423 (2021)19, 20 |\n| People v. Caballero,
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 06509, 2021 WL 5410135 (4th Dep't Nov. 19, 2021)11, 16 |\n| People v. Dyson,
169 A.D.3d 917 (2d Dep't 2019)11, 18 |\n| People v. Ely,
68 N.Y.2d 520 (2020)
15 |\n| People v. Goldman,
35 N.Y.3d 582 (N.Y. 2020)15 |\n| People v. Legrand,
194 A.D.3d 1073 (2d Dep't 2021)12, 14 |\n| People v. Lostumbo,
182 A.D.3d 1007, 123 N.Y.S.3d 319 (4th Dep't 2020)
11, 17 |\n| People v. Mateo,
2 N.Y.3d 383 (2004)
11 |\n| People v. Moreno,
70 N.Y.2d 403 (1987)
15 |\n| People v. Price,
80 N.E.3d 1005 (2017)
12, 13, 14 |\n| People v. Primo,
96 N.Y.2d 351 (2001)
18, 19 |\n| People v. Scarola,
71 N.Y.2d 769 (1988)
11 |\n| People v. Tong Khuu,
293 A.D.2d 424 (1st Dep't 2002)
11 |\n\n#### NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 5 of 28\n\n## **TABLE OF AUTHORITIES**\n\n(continued)\n\n## **Page**\n\n| Peterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran,
2013 WL 1155576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)8 |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ruesch v. Ruesch,
106 A.D.3d 976 (2d Dep't 2013)20 |\n| S.E.C. v. Durante,
No. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd,
641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016)
9 |\n| United States v. Pettway,
No. 1:12-CR-103, 2018 WL 4958962 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2018), aff'd sub nom.
United States v. Washington, 814 F. App'x 664 (2d Cir. 2020)15 |\n| Statutes |\n| CPLR §
5225
1, 8 |\n| N.Y. Judiciary Law § 7531, 7 |\n| Other Authorities |\n| Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)
8 |\n| Treatises |\n| Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.098 |\n\n![](_page_5_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**1\n\nOnce again, Mr. Kwok asks this Court to suspend disbelief in favor of a story woven of layers of shell companies designed to obscure his beneficial interest in and control over his yacht, the Lady May. But despite his attempts to obfuscate the truth, all roads lead back to Kwok. This Court already determined that PAX made \"more than a prima facie showing that each of these entities that allegedly control the yacht, the Lady May, are controlled by Mr. Kwok.\"2 As the Court predicted, 3 the affidavit \"evidence\" Kwok's witnesses have proffered for the February 2 hearing \"to resolve a dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht\"4 does not move the needle. Kwok's witnesses do not offer credible, probative evidence. And Kwok himself says nothing, relying instead on empty technical arguments aimed at precluding some of PAX's evidence that demonstrates that at all relevant times, Kwok held a *beneficial interest* in the Lady May—the relevant standard to levy on the yacht under [CPLR §](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) 5225, and thus to satisfy the \"prejudice\" standard for civil contempt under New [York Judiciary Law § 753.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)\n\nAnd because Kwok—*the* material witness—has invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to PAX's discovery requests and will not testify at the February 2 hearing, the Court should draw an adverse inference against Kwok in further support of a finding that Kwok holds a beneficial interest in the Lady May.\n\nFinally, Kwok's complaints about the nature of the contempt fine this Court imposed were already considered and rejected by the First Department on November 4, 2021, when it\n\n1 Unless otherwise specified, defined terms have the meaning given to them in the Memorandum of Law in Support of PAX's Motion for Order of Contempt Against Defendant Kwok [\\(Dkt. 689\\)](http). 2 July 21, 2021, Hr'g Tr., [Dkt. 898 at 13:20–23;](http) *see also id.* [at 17:21–25 \\(](http)\"Mr. Kwok is in contempt, and his entities are in contempt of prior orders of the Court.\").\n\n3 Jan. 14, 2022, Hr'g Tr., [Dkt. 1120 at 29:1–3](http) (\" . . . I'll be very surprised if substantial evidence is produced that Mr. Kwok has no involvement with this boat.\").\n\n4 Decision & Order, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, [Dkt. 953](http) (citations omitted).\n\naffirmed this Court's conditional contempt order. Accordingly, the Court should enter a final civil contempt order against Kwok for his continued disregard of the Court's Order. 5\n\n## **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\nThe ownership and whereabouts of the Lady May have been the subject of extensive\n\nbriefing and argument before the Court.6 Therefore, PAX summarizes below only the evidence\n\nmost relevant to the February 2 hearing.\n\n# *Kwok Forms HK International, Transfers His Entire Interest for No Consideration, and HK International Buys the Lady May*\n\nOn October 3, 2006, Kwok formed Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited\n\n(\"HK International\").7 Kwok was HK International's sole shareholder and director through late\n\n2014.8 Shortly before Kwok fled China,9 on October 10, 2014, he transferred his HK\n\nInternational ownership to Qu Guo Jiao10 for no apparent consideration. HK International\n\npurchased the Lady May for €28 million on February 23, 2015. 11\n\n5 Mar. 16, 2021, Order, [Dkt. 728 at 2.](http)\n\n6 *See* [Dkt. 689,](http) [709,](http) [1060.](http)\n\n7 PX-006 at PX-006-0001–0006. In prior briefing, PAX referred to this entity as \"HKI HK.\" The January 28, 2022 Affidavit of Mei Guo (\"Guo Aff.\") refers to this entity as \"HK International.\" Guo Aff. ¶ 11. For the sake of clarity, PAX will use \"HK International\" here. 8 PX-007 at PX-007-0006; PX-008 at PX-008-0006; PX-009 at PX-009-0006; PX-010 at PX-010-0006; PX-011 at PX-011-0006; PX-012 at PX-012-0006; PX-013 at PX-013-0006; PX-015 at PX-015-00016.\n\n9 *See* Guo Aff. ¶ 3 (\"My father fled mainland China, and ultimately Hong Kong to the United States in early 2015 . . . .\").\n\n10 PX-015 at PX-015-0016. According to Ms. Guo, Ms. Qu was a family business associate. Guo Aff. ¶ 8.\n\n11 PX-016 at PX-016-0001. Around the same time, Kwok incorporated the Genever defendants and applied to buy the Sherry-Netherland apartment, also with HK International funds. [Dkt. 252](http) [at SN 0159](http) (Genever Holdings Corporation), SN 0198 (Genever Holdings LLC); [Dkt. 256 at SN](http) [0046-47.](http)\n\n### *Ms. Qu Transfers HK International to Ms. Guo for \\$1 in Mid-2017; Kwok Makes Public Statements Demonstrating his Continued Interest in and Control Over the Lady May*\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 8 of 28\n\nFor more than two years, the Lady May's legal title was parked under Ms. Qu's name. On June 27, 2017, Ms. Qu transferred ownership of HK International to Mei Guo *for \\$1*. 12 Nevertheless, throughout 2017, Kwok made public statements evincing that he remained the beneficial interest holder in control of the yacht, irrespective of who held the Lady May's legal title. For example, in May 2017, one month before Ms. Qu transferred HK International to Ms. Guo, Kwok posted on his Twitter handle @KwokMiles that he \"gave\" the yacht to his daughter.13 But two months later Kwok continued to refer to the Lady May as \"*my ship*\" on Twitter.14 Then in a YouTube video posted on October 14, 2017, Kwok stated that \"*I bought this boat* in 2014\" and that he had considered selling it and \"*got an offer close to [my] asking price, but did not take it*.\"15 And in a November 2017 Vice News interview, Kwok again\n\nreferred to the Lady May as \"*my yacht*.\" 16\n\n### *The Lady May Is Transferred to a New Entity* – *HK USA*\n\nOn April 1, 2019, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC (\"HK\n\nUSA\")17 was formed with Mei Guo as \"the sole member of the company\"18 and with the same address as *Kwok's 162 East 64th Street office*. 19 In April 2020, Ms. Guo transferred the yacht from HK International to HK USA. 20\n\n- 18 JX-003 at JX-003-0001.\n- 19 *Id.*\n\n12 PX-016 at PX-016-0004.\n\n13 PX-001-0001, PX-001A at PX-001A-0002 (Certified Translation).\n\n14 *Id.*\n\n15 PX-002 at 2:50–4:15.\n\n16 PX-019 at 4:28.\n\n17 In prior briefing, PAX referred to this entity as \"HKI Delaware.\" The January 28, 2022 Affidavit of Mei Guo refers to this entity as \"HK USA.\" Guo Aff. ¶ 11. For the sake of clarity, PAX will use \"HK USA\" here.\n\n20 Guo Aff. ¶ 11.\n\n## *Kwok Continues to Represent Publicly that he has an Interest in and Control Over the Yacht and Did Not Disavow this Fact*\n\nIn September 2020, Kwok filed a complaint alleging that on August 30, 2020, \"pawns of the Chinese Communist Party . . . attempted *to cause Guo [a/k/a Kwok] injury while on his yacht*.\"21 The complaint referred to the Lady May as \"*his*\" yacht three times, and included a hyperlink to an article reporting in its headline and text that Mr. Kwok was the yacht's owner. 22 This Court correctly noted that Kwok's complaint constitutes a judicial admission. 23\n\nOn October 15, 2020, the Court restrained \"Mr. Kwok and/or the registered owners of the yacht, 'the Lady May.'\" 24 Kwok's counsel did not argue at the time that the Lady May was improperly restrained because Kwok did not own it; nor did Kwok appeal that order. Neither Ms. Guo nor HK USA intervened to argue that the Lady May was unfairly restrained. Instead, in November 2020, Kwok's counsel asked the Court whether the yacht could be moved to the BVI \"for licensing purposes.\"25 Kwok's counsel again did not suggest that Kwok was not in control of the yacht.\n\n21 JX-001 at JX-001-0004. That sentence ends with a footnote linking to an article entitled *\"Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht Owned by Chinese Billionaire*,\" which states \"*Guo Wengui, who uses the English name Miles Kwok, said several incidents involving his 152-foot motor yacht, Lady May*, appear to be part of a Chinese government effort to threaten and intimidate him.\"\n\n22 JX-001 at JX-001-0004 ( ¶¶ 7, 8), JX-001-0006 (Prayer for Relief (d)). Aaron Mitchell, who filed Kwok's complaint, now belatedly contends—just as he tried to at the December 18, 2020 hearing [\\(Dkt. 695 at 26:23–27:12\\)](http)—that each of the three times he referred to the Lady May as Kwok's yacht, he did not in fact intend to convey anything about the yacht's ownership. 23 [Dkt. 1120 at 19:16–17.](http)\n\n24 [Oct. 15, 2020, Order, Dkt. 630.](http)\n\n25 Nov. 12, 2020 Hr'g Tr., [Dkt. 691 at 13:9–18.](http)\n\n## *Kwok Invokes his Fifth Amendment Right, Blocking PAX's Discovery of his Assets, Including the Lady May*\n\nIn late 2020, in connection with PAX's asset-discovery efforts, PAX sent Kwok discovery requests,26 including several related to the Lady May. On March 11, 2021, Kwok's lawyers informed PAX that \"Kwok is asserting his Fifth Amendment right in response to all discovery addressed to him individually and *declines to provide any additional and/or further information and/or documents.*\" 27\n\n## *Asset Discovery and Evidence Proffered for the February 2 Hearing Confirm That Kwok's Shell Companies Fund the Yacht's Operational and Legal Expenses*\n\nThe evidence Kwok has proffered for the February 2 hearing reveals that Kwok's two personal-funding sources – Golden Spring (New York) (\"GSNY\")28 and Lamp Capital LLC (\"Lamp\") – pay all of the yacht's expenses and are involved in its operations.\n\nFor example, the Lady May's captain from September 2017 through May 2021, Craig Heaslop, stated that although he had \"interacted\" with Ms. Guo and communicated with her \"sporadically via phone and text,\" 29 he took \"direction about the movement of the Yacht exclusively from representatives of [HK International], [HK USA], or [GSNY].\"30 Momchil Ivanov, the new captain since October 2021, similarly does not receive direction from Ms. Guo. 31 Instead, Ivanov claims to receive instruction from a yacht management company\n\n26 PX-027, PX-028.\n\n27 PX-029.\n\n28 Kwok has conceded that he \"set[] up [GSNY] by transferring funds from one of [his] accounts at UBS to [GSNY]'s JPMorgan Chase bank account.\" [Dkt. 764 ¶](http) 36. And this Court has already determined that GSNY \"has funded seven-figure payments to facilitate Mr. Kwok's . . . rather extravagant lifestyle, [and] purports to have zero assets whatsoever.\" May 27, 2021, Hr'g Tr., [Dkt. 833 at 9:25–10:3.](http)\n\n29 January 28 Aff. of C. Heaslop, [Dkt. 1158,](http) (\"Heaslop Aff.\") ¶ 24\n\n30 *Id.* ¶ 25\n\n31 January 28 Aff. of M. Ivanov, [Dkt. 1157,](http) (\"Ivanov Aff.\") ¶ 6.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 11 of 28\n\n(Yachtzoo SARL), which in turn, he believes, comes from HK USA representatives.32 Russell Stockil, whose Yacht Management company Yachtzoo SARL purports to have a yacht management contract with HK USA dated May 2021, admits only to having \"spoken and communicated\" about the Lady May with \"representatives from [HK USA], [GSNY], or Lamp Capital LLC,\" and *not Ms. Guo herself*. 33\n\nFurther, HK International and HK USA have no \"source of income…[a]ll expenses for the Lady May, including fuel, maintenance, and costs for the captain and crew, were paid for by [Kwok's] family office, Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. ('[GSNY]'), and now by Lamp Capital LLC.\"34 This was also confirmed by HK USA counsel, Lee Vartan, who represented to PAX that \"all expenses for the Lady May yacht, including staff, crew, and maintenance, are paid by Golden Spring New York.\" 35 Moreover, HK USA has \"no directors, officers, or employees; [it] has no dedicated e-mail server or e-mail suffix; does not file tax returns; and has no bank account and is not otherwise 'capitalized.'\"36\n\nHK USA also produced precious few documents regarding ownership of its \\$30 million asset. To date, aside from a few formal corporate formation and title documents, 37 Ms. Guo and her father have tried to place in evidence just *a single additional document*. 38 That one document is a yacht management contract apparently signed on November 11, 2021 – a week *after* the First Department's affirmance of this Court's conditional contempt ruling. That\n\n32 *Id.* ¶ 7.\n\n33 January 28 Aff. of R. Stockil, [Dkt. 1156,](http) (\"Stockil Aff.\") ¶¶ 5, 8–9.\n\n34 M. Guo Aff. ¶ 12.\n\n35 PX-017.\n\n36 *Id.* HKI USA's lawyer in this action is also paid by GSNY and Lamp Capital. PX-033.\n\n37 *E.g.*, JX-002; DX-005.\n\n38 DX-005.\n\ndocument reflects that Ms. Guo signed it *on behalf of the counter-party, Phoenix Crew IC*\n\n*Limited,* not HK USA, and *the agreement is not countersigned by Phoenix*. 39\n\n## *The Lady May Remains Outside the Court's Jurisdiction*\n\nSince at least October 2020, the Lady May has been outside of the Court's jurisdiction.40\n\n## **ARGUMENT**\n\n## **I. PAX Meets the Standard of Judiciary Law § 753 Because PAX Has Demonstrated That Kwok Has a Beneficial Interest in the Lady May, Making It a Leviable Asset**\n\nThe Court has the authority to hold Kwok in contempt under [Judiciary Law § 753,](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) and\n\n\"to punish [him], by fine and imprisonment,\" where it \"expressly find[s] that [Kwok's] actions\n\nwere calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice the rights or remedies of a\n\nparty to a civil proceeding.\" *[Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_28)*, 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep't\n\n[1985\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_28) (citing [N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0). [Section 753](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) 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\n*Fleetwood Fin. v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.*[, No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at \\\\*2 \\(N.Y. Sup.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2)\n\n[Ct. Sept. 14, 2016\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_2) (Ostrager, J.) (citing *[McCormick v. Axelrod](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_605_583)*, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, *amended*,\n\n[60 N.Y.2d 652 \\(1983\\)\\)](http). The First Department already held on appeal of this motion that PAX\n\nmet this standard.41\n\n39 *Id.* at DX-005-0007.\n\n40 [Dkt. 689,](http) [690,](http) [691,](http) [692,](http) [693;](http) Heaslop Aff. ¶ 16.\n\n41 Order, *[Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.](http)*, No. 2021-01010\n\n[at 1 \\(1st Dep't Nov. 4, 2021\\) \\(](http)citations omitted) (\"[PAX has] established by clear and convincing evidence that [Kwok] violated a lawful, clear mandate of the court, of which he had knowledge, and that such violation resulted in prejudice to plaintiff's rights.\").\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 13 of 28\n\nThe extent of PAX's ongoing \"prejudice\" turns on PAX showing whether it could ultimately levy on the Lady May to satisfy its more-than-\\$116 million judgment against Kwok.42 Under [CPLR §](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) 5225, an interest in \"money or other personal property,\" like the Lady May, 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.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) \"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\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_30) (citing Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)). *The key factor is whether \"the property benefitted [the beneficial owner] as if he had received the property directly.\" [Id.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)* (quoting *Exp.-Imp. [Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_120)*, 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. [2010\\)\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_120); *see also Gliklad v. Chernoi*[, 129 A.D.3d 604 \\(1st Dep't 2015\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) (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.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, 112 N.Y.S.3d [868 \\(Table\\),](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) 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 the transfer occurred, the evidence showed that the judgment debtor \"retained control and/or an interest\" in the property).\n\nAs PAX previously has detailed, Kwok holds a beneficial interest in the Lady May sufficient for turnover pursuant to [CPLR §](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) 5225. Nothing Kwok now argues, or has just placed\n\n42 *See* [Nov. 12, 2020, Hr'g Tr., Dkt. 691at 14:4-8](http) (explaining that the Lady May \"has been restrained in the United States\" and that \"[w]hat I am not going to have happen is Mr. Kwok move the yacht to the British Virgin Islands and then it becomes potentially unavailable for [PAX] to levy upon\").\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 14 of 28\n\nin evidence, changes the analysis. As an initial matter, Kwok argues that he never held legal title to HK International or HK USA. PAX does not dispute this, but that is not the relevant fact. Kwok (i) set up and solely owned HK International, (ii) shielded the yacht in his shell companies, (iii) repeatedly called the yacht his own, (iv) has the authority to decide when, whether, and at what price to sell it, and (v) funds the yacht's operations through his \"family office\" shell companies. As such, Kwok has a beneficial interest in and control over his yacht.\n\nKwok has not and cannot proffer any probative evidence supporting his claim that his daughter actually owned and controlled the Lady May during the three-and-a-half years from taking title in 2017 until the yacht left New York Harbor in late 2020. Rather, Kwok offers only Ms. Guo's self-serving say-so, which is undermined by the yacht crew, who stated that they do not take direction from Ms. Guo, but from unnamed representatives of various Kwok shell entities.\n\n## **II. PAX is Entitled to an Adverse Inference That Kwok Holds a Beneficial Interest in the Lady May**\n\nPAX is entitled to an adverse inference on the beneficial interest issue because Kwok (i) has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to PAX's discovery requests, and (ii) will not testify at the February 2 hearing, triggering the \"missing witness rule.\"\n\nA party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding \"may form the basis of an adverse factual inference.\" *DeBonis v. Corbisiero*[, 547 N.Y.S.2d 274, 276 \\(1st Dep't](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_602_276) [1989\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_602_276) 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](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_10) [\\(DAB\\) \\(AJP\\), 2013 WL 6800226, at \\\\*10 \\(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013\\),](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_10) *aff'd*, [641 F. App'x 73 \\(2d](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) [Cir. 2016\\),](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) *LiButti v. United States*[, 107 F.3d 110, 120-25 \\(2d Cir. 1997\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_506_120) Courts have drawn\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 15 of 28\n\nadverse inferences where a defendant asserts blanket Fifth Amendment invocations in discovery. *See, e.g.*, *S.E.C. v. Durante*[, No. 01 CIV. 9056 DAB AJP, 2013 WL 6800226, at \\\\*11 \\(S.D.N.Y.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_11) [Dec. 19, 2013\\),](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_11) *aff'd*, [641 F. App'x 73 \\(2d Cir. 2016\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) (drawing adverse inference \"on all unanswered questions\" at defendant's wife's deposition); *[Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_507) Int'l Fin. Servs. (N.Y.), Inc.*[, 323 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 \\(S.D.N.Y. 2004\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_507) (drawing adverse inference from defendant's assertion of the Fifth Amendment at his deposition and in response to requests for admissions).\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.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_361) Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.*[, 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 \\(1st Dep't 2004\\);](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_361) *see also*, *[Farrell v. Labarbera](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_716)*, [181 A.D.2d 715, 716 \\(2d Dep't 1992\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_716) (holding that missing witness charge should have been given where defendant failed to testify concerning his duty as a landowner to keep his land in a reasonably safe condition). Such an inference is equally applicable in a bench trial, *[Johnson v.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Hatzidakis*[, 30 Misc. 3d 1229\\(A\\) \\(Co. Ct. 2011\\),](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) and against a party to a civil action who fails to testify for *any* reason, *Crowder*, [11 A.D.3d at 361](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_361) (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 either avenue. Kwok has invoked his Fifth Amendment right in response to PAX's post-judgment discovery requests, including about the Lady May. For similar reasons, the missing witness rule also applies here, where Kwok, who undoubtedly holds material information concerning the extent of his interest in the Lady May, refuses to speak. Kwok has stonewalled PAX at every turn, and his silence speaks volumes.\n\n### **III. Kwok's Evidentiary Objections Have No Merit**\n\nKwok challenges two categories of PAX's evidence: (1) Kwok's social media (PX-001, PX-025) and (2) videos of Kwok available online (PX-002, PX-019, PX-020).43 Under New York law, \"[a]ll relevant evidence is\" \"admissible at trial unless barred by some exclusionary rule.\" *People v. Mateo*[, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 424–25 \\(2004\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7048_424) Relevant evidence \"may still be excluded\" \"if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice.\" *[Id.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)* (citing *People v. Scarola*[, 71 N.Y.2d 769, 777 \\(1988\\)\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_605_777). But \"[a]t a bench trial, the 'court is presumed capable of disregarding the prejudicial aspect of the evidence' admitted therein.\" *People v. Lostumbo*[, 182 A.D.3d 1007, 123 N.Y.S.3d 319, 323 \\(4th Dep't 2020\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7980_323) (*quotin[g People](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_425) v. Tong Khuu*[, 293 A.D.2d 424, 425 \\(1st Dep't 2002\\)\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_425). Courts in bench trials are \"presumed to have considered only competent evidence in reaching [their] verdict.\" *[People v. Dyson](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_918)*, 169 [A.D.3d 917, 918 \\(2d Dep't 2019\\);](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_918) *accord People v. Caballero*[, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 06509, 2021](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_3) [WL 5410135, at \\\\*3 \\(4th Dep't Nov. 19, 2021\\);](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_3) *see, e.g.*, *Tong Khuu*[, 293 A.D.2d at 425](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_155_425) (improperly admitted evidence of prior conviction \"could not have caused [] any prejudice\"\n\n\"where the court is presumed capable of disregarding the prejudicial aspect of the evidence\").\n\nAl of PAX's proffered exhibits are authentic and admissible, and their probative value outweighs any alleged prejudice. Moreover, because Kwok has invoked the Fifth Amendment, the Court may draw an adverse inference that each of these party admissions is authentic.\n\n### **a. PAX's Pre-March 15, 2021 Evidence Is Relevant**\n\nKwok attempts to exclude PAX's evidence dated before the Court's March 15, 2021 order as irrelevant. Kwok's argument is baseless and undercut by his own submissions. The\n\n43 Kwok also challenges photographs of Kwok onboard the Lady May contained in selfauthenticating publications (PX-021, PX-022, and PX-033). Without conceding anything about their admissibility, PAX withdraws these exhibits as unnecessary for this hearing.\n\n![](_page_16_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\nrelevant inquiry at this hearing is *whether Kwok has a beneficial interest in the Lady May*. *See supra* at 7–8. Pre-2021 evidence bearing on this issue obviously is relevant to the question before the Court. Moreover, Kwok himself has offered plenty of pre-2021 evidence, but of course only that he believes is favorable to him (*e.g.*, documents reflecting the HK International transfers, statements from Kwok's witnesses).44 Kwok's argument should be rejected.\n\n### **b. Kwok's Social Media Posts Are Authentic and Admissible**\n\nNot only are they relevant and probative, but Kwok's social media posts are authentic and admissible. Under *People v. Price*[, 80 N.E.3d 1005 \\(2017\\),](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) social media evidence may be authenticated by sufficient proof that the evidence is attributable to a certain party or witness, including whether:\n\n- 1. the defendant was known to use an account on the website in question;\n- 2. the defendant had ever communicated with anyone through the account;\n- 3. the account could be traced to electronic devices owned by the defendant;\n- 4. the account was password protected or accessible by others;\n- 5. non-account holders could post pictures to the account; and\n- 6. the website permitted defendant to remove pictures from his account if he objected to what was depicted therein.\n\n*Price*, [80 N.E.3d at 479.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Courts have also found that social media account postings and photographs may be admitted into evidence where the offering party \"present[s] sufficient evidence that the subject social media accounts belonged to and were controlled by the defendant.\" *People v. Legrand*[, 194 A.D.3d 1073, 1073 \\(2d Dep't 2021\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1073)\n\nPAX has sufficient proof that the social media account posts, PX-001 and PX-025, satisfy\n\n*Price* elements (1) and (2) because Kwok was known to use and communicate with both social\n\n44 *See, e,g.*, Jan. 14, 2022 Hr'g Tr. at 18:7–11 (Kwok's counsel contending that the evidence shows that Kwok \"*never* owned the Lady May\"); M. Guo Aff. at ¶ 9 (stating that \"*from the time of its purchase*, the Lady May was always intended to be my boat\"); Heaslop Aff. ¶ 3 (stating that \"[f]rom in or about *September 2017 through in or about May 2021*, I served as ship's captain of the motor yacht 'Lady May'\").\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 18 of 28\n\nmedia accounts in question. *Price*, [80 N.E.3d at 479.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Kwok admits \"he maintained a verified Twitter account in th[e] name\" @KwokMiles.45 Indeed, Kwok has made *several* admissions in other cases that @KwokMiles, from which the Tweets in PX-001 were posted, belonged to him.46 For example, Kwok admitted that he \"*maintains* the *active*, verified Twitter account '@KwokMiles'\" 47 and during his deposition in this case, Kwok made statements suggesting that the @KwokMiles Twitter account was his before it was \"shut down,\" 48 which is corroborated by current account captures confirming it was suspended. 49 And the Instagram account reflected in PX-025, @guowengui, includes in the profile bio: \"Guo Wengui Twitter: @KwokMiles.\"50 Moreover, Kwok has admitted to having an Instagram account with \"22,500 Instagram followers\" in a pleading, which is consistent with the followers for the account @guowengui. 51\n\n*Price* factors (4), (5), and (6) are also satisfied. On both Twitter and Instagram: (i)\n\naccounts are password-protected; (ii) non-account holders cannot post original content or\n\n45 Def. Mr. Kwok Ho Wan's Pre-Hearing Mem. in Opp'n to a Final Order of Contempt, [Dkt. No.](http) [1166](http) (\"Def.'s Br.\") at 14.\n\n46 *See, e.g.*, PX-036 at PX-036-002 (verified complaint filed by Kwok stating: \"Guo's Twitter account, @KwokMiles, presently has approximately 491,000 followers.\"); *[Guo v. Liang](http)*, Index [No. 151428/2018 \\(N.Y. Sup Ct. 2018\\)](http) (Feb. 14, 2018) at ¶ 4 (complaint filed by Kwok stating: \"Guo's Twitter account, @KwokMiles, has approximately 491,000 followers at present.\"); *Guo v. Shuiyuan Cheng*, Case No. A-18-779172-C (D.C. NV. 2019) (August 9, 2018) ¶ 7 (complaint filed by Kwok stating: \"Guo's Twitter account, @KwokMiles, has approximately 475,000 followers at present.\"); *Guo v. Yuan*, Case No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018) (July 26, 2018) ¶ 10 (demand for jury trial complaint filed by Kwok stating: \"[Kwok] [d]enies the allegations set forth in Paragraph '21' of the Counterclaim, except to admit that Counter-Defendant currently has a Twitter account under @KwokMiles.\"); *Guo v. Yuan*, Case No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018) (March 20, 2018) ¶ 5 (complaint filed by Kwok stating: \"Guo's Twitter account, @KwokMiles, has approximately 495,000 followers at present.\").\n\n47 PX-034 at PX-034-004; PX-035 at PX-035-002.\n\n48 *See* Kwok Dep. Tr. (Dec. 11, 2019) at 310–12.\n\n49 PX-032.\n\n50 PX-031.\n\n51 PX-014 at PX-014-0005.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 19 of 28\n\npictures to the account; and (iii) only allow the account-holder to remove content posted to the account. 52 *Price*, [80 N.E.3d at 479.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)\n\nCourts have also found that social media postings and photographs may be admitted into evidence where the offering party demonstrates \"that the photographs . . . [are] accurate representations of what was posted on the social media accounts.\" *Legrand*[, 194 A.D.3d at](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1073) [1073;](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_1073) *see also Price*[, 80 N.E.3d at 1009](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7902_1009) (citations omitted) (\"[A]ny person having the requisite knowledge of the facts may verify, or an expert may testify that the photograph has not been altered.\"); *Lebewohl v. Heart Attack Grill LLC*[, 890 F. Supp. 2d 278, 298 \\(S.D.N.Y. 2012\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_4637_298) (same).\n\nIn short, PAX has met its burden of proof demonstrating that these are all accurate representations of what was posted to both the social media accounts. First, Nathaniel Francis, Senior Investigator and Certified Fraud Examiner, affirmed that both PX-001 and PX-025 are accurate representations, which he independently accessed and captured. 53 *Price*[, 80 N.E.3d at](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7902_1009) [1009.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7902_1009) Moreover, Page Vault, a software services company that captures web content for use in court, captured key metadata to further authenticate PX-025 (PX-001 is no longer available, as the @KwokMiles Twitter account has been suspended). 54 Page Vault's captures confirm that PX-025 is unaltered and identical to the original Instagram post.\n\nKwok's suggestion that these posts are prejudicial should also be rejected. PX-025 is a post of Kwok onboard the Lady May, stating in the caption, \"just got the US! Came to my ship from Europe!\" That Kwok is on the Lady May and describes it as *his* ship tends to establish\n\n52 Francis Aff., [Dkt. 1124, ¶¶ 4–5.](http)\n\n53 *See* Francis Aff., [Dkt. 1121 \\(](http)Instagram); Francis Aff., [Dkt. 1124 \\(](http)Twitter). PAX expects that if asked, Mr. Francis will clarify that he believes he obtained the screenshot of the Tweet dated August 27, 2017 from another website that reproduces or catalogs Tweets.\n\n54 *See* Page Vault Aff., [Dkt. 1138 ¶ 10;](http) PX-025B.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 20 of 28\n\nKwok's beneficial interest in the yacht. Although Kwok may not like this evidence, it does not bear any \"prejudice\" the evidentiary rules were designed to prevent, and Kwok's showing of is no more than labeling it as such. *See, e.g.*, *People v. Moreno*[, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 406 \\(1987\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_605_406)\n\n### **c. The Videos Depicting Kwok Are Authentic and Admissible**\n\nIn New York, \"moving picture evidence,\" like a YouTube video, may be authenticated where the video contains \"distinctive identifying characteristics.\" *[People v. Goldman](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7048_594%2c+595)*, 35 [N.Y.3d 582, 594, 595 \\(N.Y. 2020\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7048_594%2c+595) The party seeking to introduce social media evidence need not authenticate the defendant's voice on the video nor demonstrate that the defendant uploaded the video. *United States v. Pettway*[, No. 1:12-CR-103, 2018 WL 4958962 \\(W.D.N.Y. Oct. 15,](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) [2018\\),](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) *aff'd sub nom. United States v. Washington*[, 814 F. App'x 664 \\(2d Cir. 2020\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Indeed, in *[Pettway](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, a case the Court relied on extensively in *[Goldman](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, the defendant argued that the government had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the authenticity of the video because no one had authenticated his voice on the video or testified that the defendant had been the one to upload the video to YouTube. *Id.* [at \\\\*5.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_5) The court denied the motion, finding that \"the question on authentication is whether sufficient evidence existed to create a *reasonable likelihood* that the video was what the government claimed it to be: a video downloaded from YouTube that depicted the Defendant performing rap music.\" *[Id.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)* (emphasis added).55\n\n55 Defendants' reliance on *People v. Ely*[, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527 \\(2020\\)](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_605_527) as the guiding legal principle for authentication of the video evidence here is inapposite. In *[Ely](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, the court had before it a tape-recorded telephone conversation. Here, Mr. Kwok is visible and speaking directly into a camera. Further, PAX submits three separate sworn affidavits by Mr. Francis, concerning his process for collecting and preserving the three videos PAX submits here. Dkt. [1132,](http) [1133,](http) [1134.](http) Because, as explained below, each of PAX's offered video exhibits contains \"distinctive identifying characteristics,\" the appropriate standard is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the video is what PAX claims it to be. PAX has established this and more.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 21 of 28\n\nPAX has established (at the very least) a reasonable likelihood that each piece of video evidence is what PAX says it is. Kwok's unsupported and contrary claims that these videos only \"purport to show Mr. Kwok\" without more, is insufficient to overcome PAX's showing.56\n\n**PX-002**. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 is a YouTube video entitled \"Lady May, Miles Kwok's super yacht.\" PAX has made clear to Kwok that its interest in this video is the stretch from the 2:50 timer mark to the 4:15 mark, during which Mr. Kwok appears on the screen and engages in a monologue about his yacht. In this excerpt there is no sign of editing, splicing, or dubbing. Despite PAX's representations about the key portion of this exhibit, Kwok focuses on the remainder of the video to substantiate his claim that it has been spliced together. Although that is true, it glosses over that there is no splicing during the 2:50 to 4:15 mark. Additionally, PAX has offered a sworn affidavit from Page Vault, which confirms that the video capture is identical to the original video posted on the YouTube site.57 PAX has thus established more than a reasonable likelihood that the video—or if nothing else the portion for which PAX is offering it—is what PAX claims it to be: a YouTube video of Mr. Kwok discussing *his* yacht.\n\nFurther, PX-002 is undeniably relevant to the issues here. In the video, posted on October 14, 2017, Kwok stated \"I bought this boat in 2014,\" and explained that he had considered selling the Lady May and \"got an offer close to [his] asking price, but did not take it.\" Kwok's statement that he bought the Lady May, that he considered selling it, and that he ultimately did not accept the offer all bolster that he was and is in control of the Lady May and that he therefore has – at minimum – a beneficial interest in the yacht. *See Caballero*[, 2021 WL](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_3) [5410135, at \\\\*3.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_999_3) And not only is Kwok's suggestion that the video is prejudicial because it\n\n56 Def.'s Br. at 13.\n\n57 PX-26A.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 22 of 28\n\n\"highlight[s] the luxury of the Lady May\"58 inaccurate as to the key portion of the video, but even if it were accurate, \"highlighting the luxury\" of the Lady May does not come close to even matching the probative value of the video, much less outweigh it. Not to mention, the Court is \"presumed capable of disregarding [any] prejudicial aspect of the evidence admitted therein.\"\n\n*Lostumbo*[, 123 N.Y.S.3d at 323.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7980_323)\n\n**PX-019.** Plaintiff's Exhibit 19 is a Vice News segment titled \"This exiled Chinese billionaire uses YouTube to wage a war on corruption.\" In each designated segment, there is an unobstructed view of Mr. Kwok speaking uninterrupted in front of the camera. There is, again, no sign of splicing, dubbing, or other manipulation to the video during the minute markers that PAX has designated. And in addition to the fact that the video captures Mr. Kwok speaking directly in front of the camera, the video is distinctive because it is filmed in Mr. Kwok's unique and recognizable Sherry Netherland apartment, which has been featured in countless news articles and broker listings.59 PAX has also offered a sworn affidavit from Page Vault that confirms the video capture is completely unaltered and remains as it appears on the Vice News website.60\n\nThe video reflects relevant admissions. Throughout the designated portions of PX-019, Kwok refers to the Lady May as \"my yacht,\" (4:25-4:40) and states that he owns \"the most advanced yachts\" (6:42-7:06). Such statements make it more probable that Kwok has a beneficial interest in the yacht because he describes the yacht as his own. Kwok argues that the video is intended to prejudice the Court because of its descriptions of Kwok's lavish lifestyle,61\n\n58 Def.'s Br. at 13.\n\n59 *See, e.g.*, [Dkt. 68.](http)\n\n60 PX-19A.\n\n61 Def.'s Br. at 14.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 23 of 28\n\nbut PAX specifically has designated only the portions of the video pertaining to the central question before the Court, and in any event, the court will consider \"only competent evidence in reaching its verdict.\" *Dyson*[, 169 A.D.3d at 918.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_918)\n\n**PX-020.** Plaintiff's Exhibit 20 is a YouTube video titled \"2019.07.27 Mr. Miles Kwok spending time with friends on boat (bed).\" Kwok's characterization of the video as \"video footage spliced together\"62 is false and misleading. To the contrary, it is one continuous live stream of Mr. Kwok being served a meal aboard the Lady May before he converses with the crew and disembarks onto a smaller boat. And aside from the fact that the video captures Mr. Kwok speaking directly in front of the camera, the video is distinctive in that it is filmed aboard the Lady May itself. This is clear based on photographs of the yacht that PAX has submitted into evidence,63 as well as the fact that the ship's name is partially visible in the video.64 PAX again has offered a sworn affidavit from Page Vault, which confirms that the video capture is unaltered and remains as it appears on YouTube.65\n\nFurther, PX-020 is relevant because Kwok's enjoyment of the yacht and interactions with the crew tend to show that Kwok has a beneficial interest in the yacht, precisely because he is exercising authority over the boat and its crew. *People v. Primo*[, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 355 \\(2001\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_605_355) Moreover, Kwok offers no explanation for how the video is prejudicial in any way, and it is not \"duplicative\" because a staff member audibly calls Kwok \"boss.\"\n\n### **d. The Court Should Draw an Adverse Inference With Respect to Authenticity**\n\nFinally, the Court's authenticity analysis should also be informed by Kwok's Fifth Amendment-based refusal to testify. Indeed, Kwok's absence from the February 2 hearing and\n\n62 *Id.* at 10.\n\n63 *See* PX-38.\n\n64 *See* PX-20 at 44:01.\n\n65 PX-20A.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 24 of 28\n\nhis refusal to engage in any meaningful post-judgment discovery triggers an adverse inference on the merits of this motion, *see supra* at 9–10, as well as on issues related to admissibility. The Fifth Amendment allows courts to draw \"adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.\" *[Baxter v.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_318) Palmigiano*[, 425 U.S. 308, 318 \\(1976\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_318) In *[Baxter](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, the Court upheld an adverse inference where an inmate chose to remain silent at a disciplinary hearing \"in the face of evidence that incriminated him.\" *[Id.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)* The Court observed that \"[s]ilence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.\" *Id.* [at 319.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_319)\n\nKwok tries to skirt an adverse inference by claiming that PAX has failed to proffer any \"probative\" evidence.66 Not only is Kwok wrong, but the relevant analysis for whether evidence is probative is if it \"tends to prove the existence or non-existence of a material fact, *i.e.*, a fact directly at issue in the case.\" *Primo*[, 96 N.Y.2d at](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_605_355) 355. PAX's evidence does just that, and Kwok's refusal to testify about it warrants an adverse inference as to authenticity.\n\n### **IV. Kwok's Latest Challenge to the Amount of the Fine Has No Merit**\n\nKwok raises three challenges to the amount of the civil contempt fine. 67 Each of these contentions lacks merit.\n\n### **a. The Contempt Penalty Does Not Amount to an \"Improper Windfall\"**\n\nKwok recycles his argument – already considered and rejected by the First Department in its affirmance of this Court's conditional contempt order – that the fine represents an impermissible \"windfall\" because it exceeds the value of the Lady May*. See [Pac. All. Asia](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_423) [Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_423)*, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (2021)*.* 68 The First Department squarely\n\n66 Def.'s Br. at 7–8.\n\n67 *Id.* at 16–19.\n\n68 [Dkt. 921.](http)\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 25 of 28\n\nrejected this contention, upholding \"the daily fine of \\$500,000\" because it properly \"was intended to strongly encourage defendant to purge himself of the contempt, which, despite being permitted two months to accomplish, he has shown no interest in doing.\" *Id.* Kwok's argument ignores that civil contempt fines are permissible *either* to compensate the injured party *or* to \"coerce[] the recalcitrant party into compliance with a court order,\" and that the First Department already upheld the fine on the basis of this second purpose. *Ruesch v. Ruesch*[, 106 A.D.3d 976,](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_977) [977 \\(2d Dep't 2013\\).](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_7049_977)\n\n### **b. The Penalty Properly Began to Accrue on May 15, 2021**\n\nThe First Department's decision likewise disposes of Kwok's second argument, which asserts, without basis, that the fine could not properly begin to accrue on the date specified in the conditional contempt order.69 Kwok cites no authority for this; indeed, such a rule would be nonsensical, since it is beyond dispute that this Court is authorized to impose a fine of the appropriate amount on the date of the final adjudication, and the conditional contempt order simply provided notice to Kwok regarding the amount of the fine he faced in the event of his noncompliance. In any event, as explained above, the First Department has already upheld the \"fine of \\$500,000 for every day after May 15, 2021 in which [the Lady May] remains outside the court's jurisdiction.\" *See [Pac. All.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, [199 A.D.3d at 423.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) Kwok cannot overcome this square ruling by the First Department rejecting his contention.\n\n### **c. The Fine Is Not an Unconstitutional Penalty**\n\nFinally, Kwok complains that the \"accrued fine at issue is so large\" that it is unconstitutional.70 This argument – which Kwok could have but did not raise on appeal – is\n\n69 Def.'s Br. at 17.\n\n70 *[Id.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 26 of 28\n\nunavailing. Kwok's position hinges entirely on recharacterizing the civil contempt fine as a criminal sanction; yet it has none of the characteristics that caused the Supreme Court in *[International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, 512 U.S. 821 (1994), to\n\nconclude that certain challenged fines were criminal rather than civil in nature. In *[International](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0) [Union](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0)*, the Court relied on the fact that the \"sanctionable conduct did not . . . implicate the court's ability to maintain order and adjudicate the proceedings before it,\" and that the sanctioned party's \"contumacy [did not] involve simple, affirmative acts\" but rather \"widespread, ongoing . . . violations of a complex injunction,\" such that the court \"effectively policed . . . compliance with an entire code of conduct that the court itself had imposed.\" [512](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_837) [U.S. at 837.](http)&VR=3.0&RS=da3.0&fragmentIdentifier=co_pp_sp_780_837) Here, by contrast, Kwok's noncompliance both thwarted this Court's ability to maintain order and adjudicate this case, and involved the violation of a simple, unmistakable directive. Because the contempt fine at issue here is civil, not criminal, in nature, Kwok's constitutional argument fails.\n\nIn any event, it is beyond dispute that the amount of the fine could have been zero had the Lady May been returned to this Court's jurisdiction by May 15, 2021. If the Court determines Kwok does not control the yacht and so did not have the ability to comply with the Court's directive, then no fine will follow. But if, instead, the Court concludes that Kwok has a beneficial interest in the yacht such that he *was* able to comply, the amount of the fine will be entirely proper, given that it has reached its current magnitude solely due to the breathtaking extent of Kwok's willful noncompliance.\n\n### **CONCLUSION**\n\nKwok has flagrantly violated this Court's October 15, 2020 restraining order, and willfully failed and refused to return the Yacht to New York by May 15, 2021. Enough is enough. The Court should enter a final order of civil contempt against Kwok.\n\n21\n\n**FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM** INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 27 of 28\n\n> DATED: February 1, 2022 New York, New York\n\nRespectfully submitted, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*\n\n![](_page_27_Picture_0.jpeg)\n\n### **CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT**\n\nI hereby certify that this document complies with the word count provisions of\n\nCommercial Division Rule 17. This memorandum of law was prepared using Microsoft Word,\n\nand the total number of words in this memorandum of law, exclusive of the caption, title, and\n\nsignature block is less than 7,000 words.\n\nDATED: February 1, 2022 New York, New York\n\nBy: */s/ Stuart Sarnoff* O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Stuart Sarnoff (ssarnoff@omm.com) 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 (212) 326-2000\n\n*Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.*","body_zh":"已提交：纽约县书记官 02/01/2022 04:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：1172　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/01/2022　案件 22-50073　文件 102-5　提交日期 03/19/22　录入日期 03/19/22 13:56:36　第 1 页，共 28 页\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK（纽约州最高法院） COUNTY OF NEW YORK（纽约县）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙），\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN GUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n\n被告。\n\n案号：652077/2017\n\nHon. Barry R. Ostrager（Barry R. Ostrager 法官）\n\n第 61 部\n\n动议序号：19\n\n支持 PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. 就被告 KWOK 作出最终民事藐视法庭命令之动议的听证前书面陈述\n\n目录\n\n页码\n\n引言　1\n\n事实背景　2\n\n论证　7\n\nI.　PAX 符合《司法法》第 753 条的标准，因为 PAX 已证明 Kwok 对 Lady May 享有受益权益，使其成为可执行资产　7\n\nII.　PAX 有权获得一项不利推定，即 Kwok 对 Lady May 持有受益权益\n\nIII.　Kwok 的证据异议毫无根据\n\nA.　PAX 在 2021 年 3 月 15 日之前的证据具有关联性　11\n\nB.　Kwok 的社交媒体帖子真实且可采\n\nC.　描绘 Kwok 的视频真实且可采　15\n\nD.　法院应就真实性作出不利推定　18\n\nIV.　Kwok 对罚金金额提出的最新质疑毫无根据\n\nA.　藐视法庭处罚不构成“不当暴利”\n\nB.　该处罚自 2021 年 5 月 15 日起适当开始累积\n\nC.　该罚金并非违宪处罚　20\n\n结论　21\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/01/2022 04:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　案件 22-50073　文件 102-5　提交日期 03/19/22　录入日期 03/19/22 13:56:36　第 3 页，共 28 页\n\n权威依据目录　NYSCEF 文件编号：1172　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/01/2022\n\n判例\n\nBaxter v. Palmigiano,\n425 U.S. 308 (1976)　19\n\nColfin Bulls Funding B, LLC v. Ampton Invs., Inc.,\n112 N.Y.S.3d 868 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)　8\n\nCommodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Int'l Fin. Servs. (N.Y.), Inc.,\n323 F. Supp. 2d 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)　10\n\nCrowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc.,\n11 A.D.3d 360 (1st Dep't 2004)\n\nDeBonis v. Corbisiero,\n547 N.Y.S.2d 274 (1st Dep't 1989)　9\n\nExp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.,\n609 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010)\n\nFarrell v. Labarbera,\n181 A.D.2d 715 (2d Dep't 1992)　10\n\nFleetwood Fin. v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc.,\nNo. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)　7\n\nGliklad v. Chernoi,\n129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep't 2015)\n\nGuo v. Liang,\nIndex No. 151428/2018 (N.Y. Sup Ct. 2018)　13\n\nGuo v. Shuiyuan Cheng,\nCase No. A-18-779172-C (D.C. NV. 2019)　13\n\nGuo v. Yuan,\nCase No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018)　13\n\nInternational Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell,\n512 U.S. 821 (1994)　21\n\nJohnson v. Hatzidakis,\n30 Misc. 3d 1229(A) (Co. Ct. 2011)　10\n\nLebewohl v. Heart Attack Grill LLC,\n890 F. Supp. 2d 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)　14\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：1172　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/01/2022　案件 22-50073　文件 102-5　提交日期 03/19/22　录入日期 03/19/22 13:56:36　第 4 页，共 28 页\n\n权威依据目录\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nLiButti v. United States,\n107 F.3d 110, (2d Cir. 1997)\n\nMcCormick v. Axelrod,\n59 N.Y.2d 574, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)　7\n\nOppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc.,\n111 A.D.2d 28\n(1st Dep't 1985)\n\nPac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan,\n199 A.D.3d 423 (2021)　19, 20\n\nPeople v. Caballero,\n2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 06509, 2021 WL 5410135 (4th Dep't Nov. 19, 2021)　11, 16\n\nPeople v. Dyson,\n169 A.D.3d 917 (2d Dep't 2019)　11, 18\n\nPeople v. Ely,\n68 N.Y.2d 520 (2020)\n\nPeople v. Goldman,\n35 N.Y.3d 582 (N.Y. 2020)　15\n\nPeople v. Legrand,\n194 A.D.3d 1073 (2d Dep't 2021)　12, 14\n\nPeople v. Lostumbo,\n182 A.D.3d 1007, 123 N.Y.S.3d 319 (4th Dep't 2020)\n11, 17\n\nPeople v. Mateo,\n2 N.Y.3d 383 (2004)\n\nPeople v. Moreno,\n70 N.Y.2d 403 (1987)\n\nPeople v. Price,\n80 N.E.3d 1005 (2017)\n12, 13, 14\n\nPeople v. Primo,\n96 N.Y.2d 351 (2001)\n18, 19\n\nPeople v. Scarola,\n71 N.Y.2d 769 (1988)\n\nPeople v. Tong Khuu,\n293 A.D.2d 424 (1st Dep't 2002)\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号：1172　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/01/2022　案件 22-50073　文件 102-5　提交日期 03/19/22　录入日期 03/19/22 13:56:36　第 5 页，共 28 页\n\n权威依据目录\n\n（续）\n\n页码\n\nPeterson v. Islamic Rep. of Iran,\n2013 WL 1155576 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2013)　8\n\nRuesch v. Ruesch,\n106 A.D.3d 976 (2d Dep't 2013)　20\n\nS.E.C. v. Durante,\nNo. 01 Civ. 9056 (DAB) (AJP), 2013 WL 6800226 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd,\n641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016)\n\nUnited States v. Pettway,\nNo. 1:12-CR-103, 2018 WL 4958962 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2018), aff'd sub nom.\nUnited States v. Washington, 814 F. App'x 664 (2d Cir. 2020)　15\n\n法规\n\nCPLR §　1, 8\n\nN.Y. Judiciary Law § 753　1, 7\n\n其他权威资料\n\nBlack's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)\n\n专著\n\nWeinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR ¶ 5225.09　8\n\n引言　1\n\nKwok 先生再次要求本院相信一个由多层空壳公司编织而成的故事，这些公司旨在掩盖其对其游艇 Lady May 的受益权益及控制权。然而，尽管他试图混淆真相，所有线索均指向 Kwok。本院已经认定，PAX“已作出超出表面证据标准的证明，即据称控制游艇 Lady May 的每一个实体均受 Kwok 先生控制。”2 正如本院所预料，Kwok 的证人为 2 月 2 日听证会提交的、旨在“解决有关游艇所有权及控制权争议”的宣誓书“证据”4，并未改变局面。Kwok 的证人没有提供可信且具有证明力的证据。Kwok 本人亦未作任何陈述，而是依赖空洞的技术性论点，企图排除 PAX 的部分证据；该等证据表明，在所有相关期间，Kwok 均对 Lady May 持有受益权益——这是根据 CPLR § 5225 对该游艇实施执行的相关标准，因而亦满足《纽约司法法》第 753 条规定的民事藐视法庭“损害”标准。\n\n并且，由于重要证人 Kwok 已就 PAX 的证据开示请求援引《美国宪法第五修正案》，且不会在 2 月 2 日听证会上作证，本院应对 Kwok 作出不利推定，以进一步支持认定 Kwok 对 Lady May 持有受益权益。\n\n最后，Kwok 对本院所施加藐视法庭罚金性质的申诉，已于 2021 年 11 月 4 日被第一部门审议并驳回；该部门当时维持了本院附条件的藐视法庭命令。因此，本院应就 Kwok 持续无视本院命令的行为，对其作出最终民事藐视法庭命令。5\n\n1 除非另有说明，已定义术语具有《支持 PAX 就被告 Kwok 提出藐视法庭命令动议的法律备忘录》[Dkt. 689]中赋予其的含义。\n\n2 2021 年 7 月 21 日听证会笔录，[Dkt. 898 at 13:20–23]；另见同上[at 17:21–25]（“Kwok 先生藐视法庭，其实体亦藐视本院先前命令。”）。\n\n3 2022 年 1 月 14 日听证会笔录，[Dkt. 1120 at 29:1–3]（“……如果提出实质性证据证明 Kwok 先生与这艘船毫无关联，我将非常惊讶。”）。\n\n4 决定及命令，纽约州最高法院上诉部第一部门，[Dkt. 953]（引文略）。\n\n5 2021 年 3 月 16 日命令，[Dkt. 728 at 2]。\n\n事实背景\n\nLady May 的所有权及所在地一直是本院审理中广泛书面陈述及辩论的主题。6 因此，PAX 以下仅概述与 2 月 2 日听证会最相关的证据。\n\nKwok 设立 HK International，将其全部权益无偿转让，随后 HK International 购买 Lady May\n\n2006 年 10 月 3 日，Kwok 设立 Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司，以下简称“HK International”）。7 截至 2014 年末，Kwok 是 HK International 的唯一股东及董事。8 在 Kwok 逃离中国9前不久，即 2014 年 10 月 10 日，他在无明显对价的情况下，将其对 HK International 的所有权转让给 Qu Guo Jiao（曲国娇）。10 2015 年 2 月 23 日，HK International 以 €28 million 购买 Lady May。11\n\n6 见 [Dkt. 689,] [709,] [1060.]。\n\n7 PX-006 at PX-006-0001–0006。在先前的书面陈述中，PAX 将该实体称为“HKI HK”。Mei Guo（郭美）于 2022 年 1 月 28 日出具的宣誓书（“Guo Aff.”）将该实体称为“HK International”。Guo Aff. ¶ 11。为清晰起见，PAX 在此使用“HK International”。\n\n8 PX-007 at PX-007-0006; PX-008 at PX-008-0006; PX-009 at PX-009-0006; PX-010 at PX-010-0006; PX-011 at PX-011-0006; PX-012 at PX-012-0006; PX-013 at PX-013-0006; PX-015 at PX-015-00016.\n\n9 见 Guo Aff. ¶ 3（“我的父亲于 2015 年初逃离中国大陆，并最终从香港前往美国……。”）。\n\n10 PX-015 at PX-015-0016。据 Guo 女士称，Qu 女士为家族商业伙伴。Guo Aff. ¶ 8。\n\n11 PX-016 at PX-016-0001。大约在同一时期，Kwok 设立了 Genever 被告实体，并申请购买 Sherry-Netherland 公寓，同样使用 HK International 的资金。[Dkt. 252] [at SN 0159]（Genever Holdings Corporation），SN 0198（Genever Holdings LLC）；[Dkt. 256 at SN] [0046-47.]。\n\nQu 女士于 2017 年年中以 $1 将 HK International 转让给 Guo 女士；Kwok 发表公开声明，表明其持续持有并控制 Lady May\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/01/2022 04:11 PM　案号：652077/2017　NYSCEF 文件编号：1172　NYSCEF 收件日期：02/01/2022\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 102-5　提交日期 03/19/22　录入日期 03/19/22 13:56:36　第 8 页，共 28 页\n\n两年多来，Lady May 的法定所有权一直登记在 Qu 女士名下。2017 年 6 月 27 日，Qu 女士以 $1 将 HK International 的所有权转让给 Mei Guo。12 尽管如此，Kwok 在 2017 年全年发表公开声明，显示无论谁持有 Lady May 的法定所有权，他仍是控制该游艇的受益权益持有人。例如，2017 年 5 月，即 Qu 女士将 HK International 转让给 Guo 女士前一个月，Kwok 在其 Twitter 账号 @KwokMiles 上发帖称，他将该游艇“送给”了其女儿。13 但两个月后，Kwok 仍在 Twitter 上将 Lady May 称为“我的船”。14 随后，在 2017 年 10 月 14 日发布的一段 YouTube 视频中，Kwok 表示“我在 2014 年买了这艘船”，并称他曾考虑出售该船且“获得了接近[我的]要价的报价，但没有接受。”15 在 2017 年 11 月接受 Vice News 采访时，Kwok 再次将 Lady May 称为“我的游艇”。16\n\nLady May 被转让给新实体——HK USA\n\n2019 年 4 月 1 日，Hong Kong International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司，以下简称“HK USA”）17成立，Mei Guo 为“公司的唯一成员”18，其地址与 Kwok 位于 162 East 64th Street 的办公室相同。19 2020 年 4 月，Guo 女士将游艇从 HK International 转让给 HK USA。20\n\n12 PX-016 at PX-016-0004。\n\n13 PX-001-0001, PX-001A at PX-001A-0002（经认证的译文）。\n\n14 同上。\n\n15 PX-002 at 2:50–4:15。\n\n16 PX-019 at 4:28。\n\n17 在先前的书面陈述中，PAX 将该实体称为“HKI Delaware”。Mei Guo 于 2022 年 1 月 28 日出具的宣誓书将该实体称为“HK USA”。Guo Aff. ¶ 11。为清晰起见，PAX 在此使用“HK USA”。\n\n18 JX-003 at JX-003-0001。\n\n19 同上。\n\n20 Guo Aff. ¶ 11。\n\nKwok 继续公开表示其对游艇享有权益及控制权，且未否认该事实\n\n2020 年 9 月，Kwok 提交了一份起诉状，主张于 2020 年 8 月 30 日，“中国共产党的爪牙……试图在 Guo [又名 Kwok] 位于其游艇上时使其受伤。”21 该起诉状三次将 Lady May 称为“其”游艇，并载有一个指向文章的超链接，该文章在标题和正文中均报道称 Kwok 先生是该游艇的所有人。22 本院正确指出，Kwok 的起诉状构成司法承认。23\n\n2020年10月15日，法院对“Kwok（郭文贵）先生和/或游艇‘the Lady May’的登记所有人”实施了限制。24 当时，Kwok的律师并未主张对the Lady May实施限制不当，理由是Kwok并不拥有该游艇；Kwok亦未对该命令提出上诉。Guo（郭）女士和HK USA均未介入并主张对the Lady May实施了不公平的限制。相反，2020年11月，Kwok的律师询问法院是否可以为“许可目的”将该游艇移往英属维尔京群岛（BVI）。25 Kwok的律师再次未提出Kwok并不控制该游艇。\n\n21 JX-001 at JX-001-0004。该句以一个脚注结尾，该脚注链接至一篇题为“Beijing Suspected in Hacking Yacht Owned by Chinese Billionaire”的文章，其中称：“使用英文名Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的Guo Wengui（郭文贵）表示，涉及其152英尺机动游艇Lady May的数起事件，似乎是中国政府为威胁和恐吓他所作努力的一部分。”\n\n22 JX-001 at JX-001-0004 ( ¶¶ 7, 8), JX-001-0006 (Prayer for Relief (d))。现已迟延提出主张的Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）——其提交了Kwok的起诉状——现在辩称，正如他曾试图在2020年12月18日的听证会上所作的那样 [\\(Dkt. 695 at 26:23–27:12\\)]，他三次将the Lady May称为Kwok的游艇时，实际上并无意就该游艇的所有权传达任何信息。23 [Dkt. 1120 at 19:16–17.]\n\n24 [Oct. 15, 2020, Order, Dkt. 630.]\n\n25 Nov. 12, 2020 Hr'g Tr., [Dkt. 691 at 13:9–18.]\n\nKwok援引其第五修正案权利，阻碍PAX对其资产（包括the Lady May）的证据开示\n\n2020年末，就PAX的资产调查工作而言，PAX向Kwok送达了证据开示请求，26 其中包括数项与the Lady May有关的请求。2021年3月11日，Kwok的律师通知PAX：“Kwok就所有向其个人提出的证据开示主张其第五修正案权利，并拒绝提供任何额外和/或进一步的信息和/或文件。”27\n\n为2月2日听证会提交的资产调查和证据确认，Kwok的空壳公司支付游艇的运营及法律费用\n\nKwok为2月2日听证会提交的证据显示，Kwok的两个个人资金来源——Golden Spring (New York)（“GSNY”）28 和Lamp Capital LLC（“Lamp”）——支付该游艇的全部费用，并参与其运营。\n\n例如，2017年9月至2021年5月期间the Lady May的船长Craig Heaslop（克雷格·希斯洛普）表示，尽管他曾与Guo女士“互动”，并“偶尔通过电话和短信”与其沟通，29 但他“仅从[HK International]、[HK USA]或[GSNY]的代表处获得有关游艇移动的指示”。30 自2021年10月起担任新船长的Momchil Ivanov（莫姆奇尔·伊万诺夫）同样不从Guo女士处获得指示。31 相反，Ivanov称其从一家游艇管理公司获得指示\n\n26 PX-027, PX-028.\n\n27 PX-029.\n\n28 Kwok已承认，其“通过将[其]UBS账户之一中的资金转入[GSNY]的JPMorgan Chase银行账户，设立了[GSNY]。”[Dkt. 764 ¶] 36。而本法院已认定，GSNY“曾为便利Kwok先生……相当奢华的生活方式而提供数额达七位数的付款，[并且]声称其完全没有任何资产。”May 27, 2021, Hr'g Tr., [Dkt. 833 at 9:25–10:3.]\n\n29 January 28 Aff. of C. Heaslop, [Dkt. 1158,] (“Heaslop Aff.”) ¶ 24\n\n30 同上 ¶ 25\n\n31 January 28 Aff. of M. Ivanov, [Dkt. 1157,] (“Ivanov Aff.”) ¶ 6。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 11 of 28\n\n（Yachtzoo SARL），而其认为该等指示又来自HK USA的代表。32 Russell Stockil（罗素·斯托基尔）的游艇管理公司Yachtzoo SARL声称与HK USA订有一份日期为2021年5月的游艇管理合同；他承认，就the Lady May而言，其仅曾与“[HK USA]、[GSNY]或Lamp Capital LLC的代表”进行“交谈和沟通”，而非与Guo女士本人。33\n\n此外，HK International和HK USA没有“收入来源……[the Lady May]的所有费用，包括燃油、维护以及船长和船员的费用，均由[Kwok]的家族办公室Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（‘[GSNY]’）支付，现在则由Lamp Capital LLC支付。”34 HK USA的律师Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦）亦证实了这一点；其向PAX陈述称，“the Lady May游艇的所有费用，包括工作人员、船员和维护费用，均由Golden Spring New York支付。”35 此外，HK USA“没有董事、高级职员或雇员；[其]没有专用电子邮件服务器或电子邮件后缀；不提交纳税申报表；并且没有银行账户，亦未以其他方式获得‘资本化’。”36\n\nHK USA亦仅就其价值\\$30 million资产的所有权提交了极少文件。迄今为止，除少数正式的公司设立及产权文件外，37 Guo女士及其父亲仅试图提交一份额外文件作为证据。38 该唯一文件是一份显然于2021年11月11日签署的游艇管理合同——即第一上诉部门维持本法院附条件藐视法庭裁定后一周。该\n\n32 同上 ¶ 7。\n\n33 January 28 Aff. of R. Stockil, [Dkt. 1156,] (“Stockil Aff.”) ¶¶ 5, 8–9。\n\n34 M. Guo Aff. ¶ 12。\n\n35 PX-017。\n\n36 同上。本案中HKI USA的律师亦由GSNY和Lamp Capital支付。PX-033。\n\n37 例如，JX-002；DX-005。\n\n38 DX-005。\n\n文件显示，Guo女士代表相对方Phoenix Crew IC Limited签署该文件，而非代表HK USA，且该协议未经Phoenix副签。39\n\nthe Lady May仍处于法院管辖范围之外\n\n至少自2020年10月起，the Lady May一直处于法院管辖范围之外。40\n\n论证\n\nI. PAX符合Judiciary Law § 753规定的标准，因为PAX已证明Kwok对the Lady May享有受益权益，使其成为可执行资产\n\n法院有权根据[Judiciary Law § 753]判定Kwok藐视法庭，并在法院“明确认定[Kwok]的行为意图在于或实际上确已挫败、损害、阻碍或不利影响民事诉讼一方当事人的权利或救济”时，“以罚款和监禁”对其予以惩处。Oppenheimer v. Oscar Shoes, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 28, 28 (1st Dep’t 1985)（援引N.Y. Judiciary Law § 753）。[Section 753]规定了四项要求：\n\n“[为]认定某一案件中已发生藐视法庭，必须确定：[1] 一项明确表达无歧义命令的合法法院命令有效存在。[2] 必须能够以合理确定性表明，该命令未被遵守……[3] 此外，被认定藐视法庭的一方必须知悉法院命令，但该命令无需实际送达该方……[4] 最后，必须证明对诉讼一方权利造成了不利影响。”\n\nFleetwood Fin. v. Walter J. Dowd, Inc., No. 113484/2011, 2016 WL 11546917, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 14, 2016)（Ostrager, J.）（援引McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 N.Y.2d 574, 583, amended, 60 N.Y.2d 652 (1983)）。第一上诉部门已在对此动议的上诉中认定，PAX符合该标准。41\n\n39 同上，DX-005-0007。\n\n40 [Dkt. 689,] [690,] [691,] [692,] [693;] Heaslop Aff. ¶ 16。\n\n41 Order, [Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok Ho Wan, et al.], No. 2021-01010 [at 1 \\(1st Dep’t Nov. 4, 2021\\) \\(]citations omitted)（“[PAX已]以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，[Kwok]违反了其知悉的一项合法、明确的法院命令，且该等违反对原告的权利造成了不利影响。”）。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 13 of 28\n\nPAX持续遭受的“不利影响”的程度，取决于PAX证明其最终是否能够执行the Lady May，以满足其对Kwok作出的逾\\$116 million判决。42 根据[CPLR §] 5225，对于“金钱或其他动产”（如the Lady May）的权益，如债务人持有必要的“权益”，即可执行。为满足该要求，“判决债务人无须拥有该财产的法定所有权；受益权益已属足够。”Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York Civil Practice: [CPLR ¶ 5225.09.]。“受益权益是‘对某物的一项权利或期待……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. Mar. 13, 2013)（援引Black's Law Dictionary, Interest (9th ed. 2009)）。关键因素在于，“该财产是否使[受益所有人]受益，如同其直接取得该财产一样。”[Id.]（引述Exp.-Imp. Bank of U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., 609 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010)）；另见Gliklad v. Chernoi, 129 A.D.3d 604 (1st Dep’t 2015)（维持驳回判决债务人的主张，即其因将其权益转让给女儿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)（尽管判决债务人主张其已将财产转让给一家公司，仍准许判决债权人的交付动议，因为即使该转让确已发生，证据表明判决债务人“保留了对该财产的控制和/或权益”）。\n\n如PAX此前已详述，Kwok对the Lady May享有足以依[CPLR §] 5225要求交付的受益权益。Kwok现所主张的任何内容，或其刚刚提交\n\n42 See [Nov. 12, 2020, Hr'g Tr., Dkt. 691at 14:4-8]（解释the Lady May“已在美国受到限制”，且“我不会允许Kwok先生将游艇移至英属维尔京群岛，继而使其可能无法由[PAX]执行”）。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 14 of 28\n\n作为证据的内容，均不改变该分析。首先，Kwok主张其从未持有HK International或HK USA的法定所有权。PAX不对此提出异议，但这并非相关事实。Kwok：(i) 设立并单独拥有HK International；(ii) 将该游艇隐匿于其空壳公司之中；(iii) 多次称该游艇为其所有；(iv) 有权决定何时、是否以及以何种价格出售该游艇；以及(v) 通过其“家族办公室”空壳公司为该游艇的运营提供资金。因此，Kwok对其游艇享有受益权益及控制权。\n\nKwok未曾且不可能提交任何具有证明力的证据，以支持其主张，即自2017年取得所有权起至该游艇于2020年末离开纽约港止的三年半期间，其女儿实际拥有并控制the Lady May。相反，Kwok仅提出Guo女士的自利陈述；游艇船员的陈述削弱了该陈述，船员表示其并不接受Guo女士的指示，而是接受Kwok各空壳实体未具名代表的指示。\n\nII. PAX有权获得不利推定，即Kwok对the Lady May享有受益权益\n\nPAX有权就受益权益问题获得不利推定，因为郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）（i）在回应PAX的证据开示请求时援引了其根据第五修正案享有的免于自证其罪权利，以及（ii）将不会在2月2日的听证会上作证，从而触发“未出庭证人规则”。\n\n一方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, 547 N.Y.S.2d 274, 276 (1st Dep't 1989)。凡有必要或允许作出事实认定时，均可适用不利推定，包括在藐视法庭动议的情形中，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)。在被告在证据开示中一概援引第五修正案的情况下，法院已作出不利推定。参见，例如，S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 CIV. 9056 DAB AJP, 2013 WL 6800226, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016)（在被告妻子的证言记录中，就“所有未获答复的问题”作出不利推定）；Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Int'l Fin. Servs. (N.Y.), Inc., 323 F. Supp. 2d 482, 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)（根据被告在其证言记录中及对承认请求的答复中援引第五修正案而作出不利推定）。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/01/2022 04:11 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号1172 NYSCEF接收日期：02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 文件102-5 提交日期03/19/22 录入日期03/19/22 13:56:36 第15页，共28页\n\n同样，根据“未出庭证人规则”，“事实裁判者可对未作证的证人作出对方证据所允许的最强不利推定”。Crowder v. Wells & Wells Equip., Inc., 11 A.D.3d 360, 361 (1st Dep't 2004)；另见 Farrell v. Labarbera, 181 A.D.2d 715, 716 (2d Dep't 1992)（认定，在被告未就其作为土地所有人将其土地维持在合理安全状态的义务作证时，应当给予未出庭证人指示）。此类推定同样适用于法官审理，Johnson v. Hatzidakis, 30 Misc. 3d 1229(A) (Co. Ct. 2011)，也适用于因任何原因未作证的民事诉讼当事人，Crowder, 11 A.D.3d at 361（在未出庭的被告“会知悉证据所提出的重大争点”时适用不利推定）。\n\nPAX依任一途径均有权获得不利推定。郭文贵在回应PAX的判决后证据开示请求时援引了其第五修正案权利，包括有关Lady May（“Lady May”号）的请求。基于类似理由，未出庭证人规则在此同样适用：毫无疑问，郭文贵掌握关于其在“Lady May”号中权益范围的重要信息，却拒绝发言。郭文贵在每一个环节均阻挠PAX，他的沉默意味深长。\n\nIII. 郭文贵的证据异议毫无根据\n\n郭文贵对PAX的两类证据提出异议：（1）郭文贵的社交媒体内容（PX-001、PX-025）；以及（2）可在线获取的郭文贵视频（PX-002、PX-019、PX-020）。43 根据纽约州法律，“所有相关证据”均“可在审判中采纳，除非受到某项排除规则的禁止”。People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 424–25 (2004)。相关证据“仍可被排除”，若“其证明价值被造成偏见的可能性显著超过”。Id.（引自 People v. Scarola, 71 N.Y.2d 769, 777 (1988)）。但在法官审理中，“推定‘法院有能力不理会其中所采纳证据的偏见性方面’”。People v. Lostumbo, 182 A.D.3d 1007, 123 N.Y.S.3d 319, 323 (4th Dep't 2020)（引自 People v. Tong Khuu, 293 A.D.2d 424, 425 (1st Dep't 2002)）。在法官审理中，法院“被推定在作出裁决时仅考虑合格证据”。People v. Dyson, 169 A.D.3d 917, 918 (2d Dep't 2019)；同意 People v. Caballero, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 06509, 2021 WL 5410135, at *3 (4th Dep't Nov. 19, 2021)；参见，例如，Tong Khuu, 293 A.D.2d at 425（被不当采纳的先前定罪证据“不可能造成任何偏见”），因为“推定法院有能力不理会该证据的偏见性方面”。\n\nPAX提出的所有证物均真实且可采纳，其证明价值超过任何被主张的偏见。此外，由于郭文贵援引了第五修正案，法院可作出不利推定，即每一项当事人自认均为真实。\n\na. PAX在2021年3月15日之前的证据具有相关性\n\n郭文贵试图以无关为由排除日期早于法院2021年3月15日命令的PAX证据。郭文贵的论点毫无根据，且被其本人提交的材料所削弱。\n\n43 郭文贵还对载于具有自证真实性的出版物中的、郭文贵在“Lady May”号上的照片提出异议（PX-021、PX-022和PX-033）。PAX并未就其可采纳性作出任何让步，但撤回这些证物，因为本次听证并不需要这些证物。\n\n本次听证的相关审查事项是郭文贵是否在“Lady May”号中享有受益权益。见上文第7–8页。涉及该问题的2021年前证据显然与法院面前的问题相关。此外，郭文贵本人也提出了大量2021年前的证据，但当然仅限于其认为对自己有利的证据（例如，反映HK International转账的文件、郭文贵证人的陈述）。44 郭文贵的论点应予驳回。\n\nb. 郭文贵的社交媒体帖子真实且可采纳\n\n郭文贵的社交媒体帖子不仅相关且具有证明价值，而且真实并可采纳。根据People v. Price, 80 N.E.3d 1005 (2017)，社交媒体证据可通过充分证明该证据可归属于某一当事人或证人而得到认证，包括以下事项：\n\n（1）已知被告是否使用涉案网站上的账户；\n\n（2）被告是否曾通过该账户与任何人通信；\n\n（3）该账户是否可追溯至被告拥有的电子设备；\n\n（4）该账户是否受密码保护，或是否可由他人访问；\n\n（5）非账户持有人是否可以向该账户发布图片；以及\n\n（6）如被告对其中所展示的内容提出异议，该网站是否允许被告从其账户中删除图片。\n\nPrice, 80 N.E.3d at 479。法院还认定，在提出证据的一方“提出充分证据证明涉案社交媒体账户属于被告且由被告控制”的情况下，社交媒体账户的帖子和照片可以作为证据采纳。People v. Legrand, 194 A.D.3d 1073, 1073 (2d Dep't 2021)。\n\nPAX有充分证据证明社交媒体账户帖子PX-001和PX-025符合Price要素（1）和（2），因为已知郭文贵使用并通过两个涉案社交媒体账户进行通信。Price, 80 N.E.3d at 479。郭文贵承认“其以”@KwokMiles“这一名称维护了一个经验证的Twitter账户”。45 事实上，郭文贵已在其他案件中多次承认，发布PX-001所载推文的@KwokMiles属于他。46 例如，郭文贵承认其“维护着活跃、经验证的Twitter账户‘@KwokMiles’”，47 且在本案的证言记录中，郭文贵作出的陈述表明，在该账户被“关闭”之前，@KwokMiles Twitter账户属于他，48 这得到表明该账户已被暂停的当前账户截屏的佐证。49 PX-025所反映的Instagram账户@guowengui在个人简介中载有：“Guo Wengui Twitter: @KwokMiles。”50 此外，郭文贵曾在一份诉状中承认其拥有一个有“22,500名Instagram关注者”的Instagram账户，这与@guowengui账户的关注者人数一致。51\n\nPrice要素（4）、（5）和（6）亦得到满足。在Twitter和Instagram上：（i）账户均受密码保护；（ii）非账户持有人不得向账户发布原创内容或图片；以及（iii）仅允许账户持有人删除发布至账户的内容。52 Price, 80 N.E.3d at 479。\n\n45 被告Ho Wan Kwok先生反对作出最终藐视法庭命令的听证前备忘录，Dkt. No. 1166（“被告简报”）第14页。\n\n46 参见，例如，PX-036，第PX-036-002页（郭文贵提交的经核实起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有491,000名关注者。”）；Guo v. Liang, Index No. 151428/2018 (N.Y. Sup Ct. 2018)（Feb. 14, 2018）第4段（郭文贵提交的起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有491,000名关注者。”）；Guo v. Shuiyuan Cheng, Case No. A-18-779172-C (D.C. NV. 2019)（August 9, 2018）第7段（郭文贵提交的起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有475,000名关注者。”）；Guo v. Yuan, Case No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018)（July 26, 2018）第10段（郭文贵提交的陪审团审判请求起诉状，载明：“[郭文贵]否认反诉第‘21’段所载指控，但承认反诉被告目前拥有一个名称为@KwokMiles的Twitter账户。”）；Guo v. Yuan, Case No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018)（March 20, 2018）第5段（郭文贵提交的起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有495,000名关注者。”）。\n\n47 PX-034，第PX-034-004页；PX-035，第PX-035-002页。\n\n48 见Kwok Dep. Tr. (Dec. 11, 2019) at 310–12。\n\n49 PX-032。\n\n50 PX-031。\n\n51 PX-014，第PX-014-0005页。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/01/2022 04:11 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号1172 NYSCEF接收日期：02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 文件102-5 提交日期03/19/22 录入日期03/19/22 13:56:36 第18页，共28页\n\n45 被告Ho Wan Kwok先生反对作出最终藐视法庭命令的听证前备忘录，Dkt. No. 1166（“被告简报”）第14页。\n\n46 参见，例如，PX-036，第PX-036-002页（郭文贵提交的经核实起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有491,000名关注者。”）；Guo v. Liang, Index No. 151428/2018 (N.Y. Sup Ct. 2018)（Feb. 14, 2018）第4段（郭文贵提交的起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有491,000名关注者。”）；Guo v. Shuiyuan Cheng, Case No. A-18-779172-C (D.C. NV. 2019)（August 9, 2018）第7段（郭文贵提交的起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有475,000名关注者。”）；Guo v. Yuan, Case No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018)（July 26, 2018）第10段（郭文贵提交的陪审团审判请求起诉状，载明：“[郭文贵]否认反诉第‘21’段所载指控，但承认反诉被告目前拥有一个名称为@KwokMiles的Twitter账户。”）；Guo v. Yuan, Case No. 2:18-cv-2276 (D.C. Ca. 2018)（March 20, 2018）第5段（郭文贵提交的起诉状，载明：“Guo的Twitter账户@KwokMiles目前约有495,000名关注者。”）。\n\n47 PX-034，第PX-034-004页；PX-035，第PX-035-002页。\n\n48 见Kwok Dep. Tr. (Dec. 11, 2019) at 310–12。\n\n49 PX-032。\n\n50 PX-031。\n\n51 PX-014，第PX-014-0005页。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 02/01/2022 04:11 PM 索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF文件编号1172 NYSCEF接收日期：02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 文件102-5 提交日期03/19/22 录入日期03/19/22 13:56:36 第19页，共28页\n\n法院还认定，在提出证据的一方证明“该等照片……是社交媒体账户上所发布内容的准确再现”时，社交媒体帖子和照片可以作为证据被采纳。Legrand, 194 A.D.3d at 1073; see also Price, 80 N.E.3d at 1009（引文略）(“任何具有所需事实知识的人均可予以验证，或由专家证明该照片未经篡改。”); Lebewohl v. Heart Attack Grill LLC, 890 F. Supp. 2d 278, 298 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)（同）。\n\n简言之，PAX已完成其举证责任，证明这些材料均为两个社交媒体账户所发布内容的准确再现。首先，高级调查员兼注册舞弊审查师Nathaniel Francis（内森尼尔·弗朗西斯）确认，PX-001和PX-025均为其独立访问并截取的准确再现。53 Price, 80 N.E.3d at 1009。此外，为供法庭使用而抓取网页内容的软件服务公司Page Vault，对PX-025抓取了关键元数据，以进一步验证其真实性（PX-001现已无法取得，因为@KwokMiles Twitter账户已被暂停）。54 Page Vault的抓取结果确认，PX-025未经篡改，且与原始Instagram帖子完全相同。\n\n郭文贵（Kwok）关于这些帖文具有不当偏见性的主张亦应予以驳回。PX-025是一则郭文贵在Lady May船上的帖子，其说明文字称：“刚到美国！从欧洲来到我的船上！”郭文贵身在Lady May上并将其称为自己的船，倾向于证明\n\n52 Francis Aff., [Dkt. 1124, ¶¶ 4–5.]\n\n53 See Francis Aff., [Dkt. 1121] (Instagram); Francis Aff., [Dkt. 1124] (Twitter). PAX预计，如被问及，Francis先生将澄清，他认为自己是从另一家转载或编目Tweets的网站获取了日期为August 27, 2017的该Tweet截图。\n\n54 See Page Vault Aff., [Dkt. 1138 ¶ 10;] PX-025B.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 20 of 28\n\n郭文贵对该游艇享有受益权益。尽管郭文贵可能不喜欢该证据，但该证据并不具有证据规则旨在防止的任何“不当偏见”，而郭文贵的证明不过是如此给其贴标签而已。See, e.g., People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 406 (1987).\n\nc. 描绘郭文贵的视频真实且可采纳\n\n在纽约，如YouTube视频等“活动影像证据”，在该视频具有“显著识别特征”时，可以得到真实性验证。People v. Goldman, 35 N.Y.3d 582, 594, 595 (N.Y. 2020). 寻求提交社交媒体证据的一方，无须验证视频中被告的声音，亦无须证明由被告上传该视频。United States v. Pettway, No. 1:12-CR-103, 2018 WL 4958962 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2018), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Washington, 814 F. App'x 664 (2d Cir. 2020). 事实上，在Pettway一案中——该案为法院在Goldman案中广泛援引的案件——被告主张，政府未能提供足以证明视频真实性的证据，因为无人验证其在视频中的声音，也无人作证证明是被告将该视频上传至YouTube。Id. at *5. 法院驳回该动议，认定“关于真实性验证的问题在于，是否存在足够证据，使人有合理可能性相信该视频如政府所称：即一段从YouTube下载、描绘被告表演说唱音乐的视频。”Id.（着重号为原文所加）。55\n\n55 被告援引People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 527 (2020)作为对本案视频证据进行真实性验证的指导性法律原则，并不恰当。在Ely案中，法院审理的是一段电话录音。本案中，郭文贵先生可见，并直接对着摄像机讲话。此外，PAX提交了Francis先生的三份独立宣誓书，涉及其收集和保存PAX在此提交的三段视频的过程。Dkt. [1132,] [1133,] [1134.] 如下文所述，由于PAX所提交的每一项视频证物均具有“显著识别特征”，适用标准应为：是否存在合理可能性相信该视频如PAX所称。PAX已证明此点，且不止于此。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 21 of 28\n\nPAX已证明（至少）每项视频证据均有合理可能性如PAX所称。郭文贵毫无依据且与此相反地声称，这些视频仅“声称展示郭文贵先生”，但未提供更多内容，不足以推翻PAX的证明。56\n\nPX-002。原告证物2是一段题为“Lady May, Miles Kwok's super yacht”的YouTube视频。PAX已向郭文贵明确表示，其对该视频感兴趣的部分为计时器2:50至4:15之间的片段，在此期间，郭文贵先生出现在画面中，并就其游艇进行独白。该摘录中没有剪辑、拼接或配音的迹象。尽管PAX已就该证物的关键部分作出陈述，郭文贵仍聚焦于视频的其余部分，以证实其关于视频经拼接的主张。尽管该主张属实，但其忽略了在2:50至4:15期间并无拼接。此外，PAX还提交了Page Vault的宣誓书，确认所抓取的视频与发布于YouTube网站的原始视频完全相同。57 因此，PAX已证明，不仅存在合理可能性相信该视频——或者至少PAX为之提交的部分——如PAX所称：即一段郭文贵先生谈论其游艇的YouTube视频。\n\n此外，PX-002与本案争点显然相关。在该视频中，郭文贵于October 14, 2017称：“我在2014年购买了这艘船”，并解释说其曾考虑出售Lady May，并且“收到了一份接近[其]要价的报价，但没有接受。”郭文贵关于其购买Lady May、曾考虑出售该船以及最终未接受报价的陈述，均进一步证明其曾经并且目前控制Lady May，因而至少对该游艇享有受益权益。See Caballero, 2021 WL 5410135, at *3. 而且，郭文贵关于该视频因其\n\n56 Def.'s Br. at 13.\n\n57 PX-26A.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 22 of 28\n\n“突出Lady May的奢华”58而具有不当偏见性的主张，就视频关键部分而言并不准确；即便该主张准确，“突出奢华”也远不足以与该视频的证明价值相匹配，更遑论超过该价值。更不用说，法院“被推定有能力不予考虑其中获采纳证据的[任何]不当偏见性方面。”\n\nLostumbo, 123 N.Y.S.3d at 323.\n\nPX-019。原告证物19是一则Vice News专题报道，题为“This exiled Chinese billionaire uses YouTube to wage a war on corruption.”在每一指定片段中，均可无阻碍地看到郭文贵先生在摄像机前不间断讲话。PAX所指定的时间标记期间，同样没有视频拼接、配音或其他操纵的迹象。除视频拍摄到郭文贵先生直接在摄像机前讲话这一事实外，该视频还具有显著特征，因为其拍摄于郭文贵先生独特且易于识别的Sherry Netherland公寓，该公寓曾出现在无数新闻报道和经纪人房源信息中。59 PAX还提交了Page Vault的宣誓书，确认所抓取的视频完全未经篡改，并保持其在Vice News网站上的原貌。60\n\n该视频反映了相关自认。在PX-019的指定部分中，郭文贵将Lady May称为“我的游艇”（4:25-4:40），并称其拥有“最先进的游艇”（6:42-7:06）。此类陈述使得郭文贵对该游艇享有受益权益的可能性更大，因为其将该游艇描述为自己的。郭文贵主张，该视频意图因其对郭文贵奢华生活方式的描述而使法院产生不当偏见，61\n\n58 Def.'s Br. at 13.\n\n59 See, e.g., [Dkt. 68.]\n\n60 PX-19A.\n\n61 Def.'s Br. at 14.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 23 of 28\n\n但PAX明确仅指定了与法院面临的核心问题有关的视频部分，而且无论如何，法院在作出裁决时将仅考虑“适格证据”。Dyson, 169 A.D.3d at 918.\n\nPX-020。原告证物20是一段题为“2019.07.27 Mr. Miles Kwok spending time with friends on boat (bed)”的YouTube视频。郭文贵将该视频描述为“拼接而成的视频片段”62，既不实又具误导性。恰恰相反，这是一段连续的直播视频，内容为郭文贵先生在Lady May船上被送餐，随后与船员交谈，并下船登上一艘较小的船。除视频拍摄到郭文贵先生直接在摄像机前讲话这一事实外，该视频的显著之处还在于其是在Lady May船上拍摄。这一点可由PAX已提交为证据的游艇照片63，以及视频中可部分看见船名这一事实明确证明。64 PAX再次提交了Page Vault的宣誓书，确认所抓取的视频未经篡改，并保持其在YouTube上的原貌。65\n\n此外，PX-020具有相关性，因为郭文贵对该游艇的享用及其与船员的互动，倾向于证明郭文贵对该游艇享有受益权益，正是因为其对该船及其船员行使权力。People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 355 (2001). 此外，郭文贵未就该视频如何在任何方面具有不当偏见性作出解释，而且该视频并非“重复”，因为一名工作人员在音频中称郭文贵为“老板”。\n\nd. 法院应就真实性作出不利推定\n\n最后，法院对真实性的分析亦应受郭文贵基于第五修正案拒绝作证的影响。事实上，郭文贵未出席February 2听证会以及\n\n62 Id. at 10.\n\n63 See PX-38.\n\n64 See PX-20 at 44:01.\n\n65 PX-20A.\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 24 of 28\n\n其拒绝参与任何有意义的判决后证据开示，既会就本动议的是非触发不利推定，见上文第9–10页，也会就与可采性有关的问题触发不利推定。第五修正案允许法院在当事人拒绝就针对其提出的具有证明力的证据作证时，“对民事诉讼当事人作出不利推定”。Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)。在Baxter案中，最高法院维持了一项不利推定，其中一名在押人员在“面对使其受到罪责指控的证据”时选择保持沉默。Id.。最高法院指出：“沉默往往是最具说服力性质的证据。”Id. at 319。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）试图通过主张PAX未能提出任何“具有证明力”的证据来规避不利推定。66 Kwok不仅错误，而且判断证据是否具有证明力的相关标准在于其是否“倾向于证明某一重要事实存在或不存在，即案件中直接争议的事实”。Primo, 96 N.Y.2d at 355。PAX的证据正是如此，而Kwok拒绝就该等证据作证，足以支持就真实性作出不利推定。\n\nIV. Kwok对罚款金额的最新异议毫无根据\n\nKwok对民事藐视法庭罚款的金额提出三项异议。67 这些主张均无根据。\n\na. 藐视法庭处罚并不构成“不当得利”\n\nKwok重提其论点——该论点已由First Department（第一上诉分庭）在维持本院附条件藐视法庭命令时审议并驳回——即罚款因超过Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的价值而构成不被允许的“不当得利”。See Pac. All. Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Wan, 199 A.D.3d 423, 423 (2021)。68 第一上诉分庭明确驳回了该主张，维持“每日$500,000的罚款”，因为其适当地“旨在强力促使被告消除其藐视法庭状态；尽管获准有两个月时间完成此事，但其未表现出任何完成此事的意愿”。Id.。Kwok的论点忽视了，民事藐视法庭罚款可以为补偿受损害一方而适用，也可以为“强制不服从的一方遵守法院命令”而适用，并且第一上诉分庭已经基于后一目的维持了该罚款。Ruesch v. Ruesch, 106 A.D.3d 976, 977 (2d Dep't 2013)。\n\n66 被告书状第7–8页。\n\n67 Id. at 16–19。\n\n68 [Dkt. 921。]\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 25 of 28\n\nb. 罚款自2021年5月15日起开始累积，实属适当\n\n第一上诉分庭的裁决同样处理了Kwok的第二项论点；该论点毫无依据地声称，罚款不得于附条件藐视法庭命令中规定的日期适当开始累积。69 Kwok未援引任何权威依据；事实上，该规则将毫无意义，因为毫无争议的是，本院有权在最终裁决之日处以适当金额的罚款，而附条件藐视法庭命令仅向Kwok告知了其不遵守命令时将面临的罚款金额。无论如何，如上所述，第一上诉分庭已经维持了“自2021年5月15日之后，[Lady May]仍处于本院管辖范围之外的每一天$500,000的罚款”。See Pac. All., 199 A.D.3d at 423。Kwok无法克服第一上诉分庭驳回其主张的这一明确裁决。\n\nc. 该罚款并非违宪处罚\n\n最后，Kwok抱怨称，“所涉已累积的罚款数额如此之大”，以致其违宪。70 该论点——Kwok本可但未在上诉中提出——毫无说服力。Kwok的立场完全取决于将民事藐视法庭罚款重新定性为刑事制裁；然而，该罚款并不具有最高法院在International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994)中认定某些受到质疑的罚款在性质上属于刑事而非民事的特征。\n\n69 被告书状第17页。\n\n70 Id.。\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 26 of 28\n\n在International Union案中，最高法院依据以下事实：该“可受制裁的行为并未……涉及法院维持秩序及裁决其面前程序的能力”，并且受制裁一方的“藐视行为[并未]涉及简单的积极行为”，而是“广泛、持续地……违反一项复杂禁令”，以致法院“实际上监管着……对法院自行施加的整套行为准则的遵守情况”。512 U.S. at 837。相反，在本案中，Kwok的不遵守行为既妨碍了本院维持秩序及裁决本案的能力，也涉及违反一项简单、明确无误的指令。由于本案所涉藐视法庭罚款在性质上属于民事而非刑事，Kwok的宪法论点不能成立。\n\n无论如何，毫无争议的是，如果Lady May已于2021年5月15日前被送回本院管辖范围内，罚款金额本可以是零。如果法院认定Kwok不控制该游艇，因而不具备遵守本院指令的能力，则不会产生任何罚款。但如果法院反而认定Kwok对该游艇享有受益权益，从而能够遵守命令，则鉴于罚款达到目前数额完全是由于Kwok故意不遵守行为的惊人程度，罚款金额将完全适当。\n\n结论\n\nKwok公然违反本院2020年10月15日的限制令，并故意未能且拒绝于2021年5月15日前将该游艇送回纽约。够了。法院应对Kwok作出民事藐视法庭的最终命令。\n\nFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2022 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1172 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 102-5 Filed 03/19/22 Entered 03/19/22 13:56:36 Page 27 of 28\n\n日期：February 1, 2022\nNew York, New York\n\n谨此提交，O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff\nStuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.的代理律师\n\n字数证明\n\n本人特此证明，本文件符合Commercial Division Rule 17的字数规定。本法律备忘录使用Microsoft Word编制，且本法律备忘录的总字数，不包括案由、标题及签名栏，少于7,000字。\n\n日期：February 1, 2022\nNew York, New York\n\n签署人：/s/ Stuart Sarnoff\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\nStuart Sarnoff（ssarnoff@omm.com）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n(212) 326-2000\n\n原告Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.的代理律师","key_entities":["Kwok","Guo","Je","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":68,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":252,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":256,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":630,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":689,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":691,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":695,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":728,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":764,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":833,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":898,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":921,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":953,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1120,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1121,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1124,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1138,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1156,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1157,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1158,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":8564,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-03-19 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-03-19","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:05:31"}