{"id":"court_ctb_1269_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1269,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-12-28","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION EXHIBIT LIST FOR Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trus","summary_zh":"受托人证据清单及附件 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #1269（2022-12-28立案）。第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins 就民事藐视动议提交证据集，汇总了针对瑞银（UBS）的英国诉讼索赔书、债权人会议笔录及多份宣誓证词等证据。","summary_en":"Chapter 11 Trustee's Exhibit List and Exhibits — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073, ECF No. 1269 (filed 2022-12-28). Chapter 11 Trustee Luc Despins filed an evidentiary record for the civil contempt motion (ECF No. 913), submitting particulars of claim from UK litigation against UBS, section 341 meeting transcripts, and deposition records.","body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 1 of 452\n\n#### **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n#### **EXHIBIT LIST FOR Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee**\n\nIN RE:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, DEBTOR.\n\nCHAPTER 11\n\nCASE No.: 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n**ECF No. 913** Motion of Chapter 11 Trustee for Entry of Order Holding Debtor in Civil Contempt for Failure to Comply with Corporate Governance Rights Order filed by Douglas S. Skalka on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee\n\n**HEARING DATE(S):** November 16-18, 2022\n\n#### **EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY:** Chapter 11 Trustee, Luc Despins\n\n**ATTORNEY:** Nicolas Bassett and Patrick Linsey\n\n| EXHIBIT # | DESCRIPTION | ID/FULL | SUBMIT DATE |\n|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------------|\n| 6 | Particular of Claims, Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS, Cl-2020-
000345,
High Court of Justice of England and Wales Queen's Bench Division
Commercial Court, dated September 23, 2020 | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 7 | Transcript of Section 341 Meeting, dated April 6, 2022 | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 10 | Transcript of Section 341 Meeting, dated March 21, 2022 | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 13 | Page 3 of the Final Arbitration Award
in Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP v. Miles Kwok | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 2 of 452\n\n| EXHIBIT # | DESCRIPTION | ID/FULL | SUBMIT DATE |\n|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|-------------|\n| 15 | Kwok Affidavit of Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. USB AG | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 27 | *SEALED*
Deposition Transcript of Ho Wan Kwok dated Nov. 11, 2021
Pages 84-85, Lines 5-5;
Page
87, Lines 3-13;
Pages 88, Lines 3-14
Pages 88-89, Lines 20-2 | Full | 11/18/2022 |\n| 28 | *SEALED*
Email chain beginning on July 11, 2019 from M. Krasner
re: Chateau Ridge property | Full | 11/17/022 |\n| 29 | *SEALED*
Email chain beginning on November 10, 2016 from K. Sloane
re: Sherry Netherland | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n\n| EXHIBIT # | DESCRIPTION | ID/FULL | SUBMIT DATE |\n|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------|\n| 30 | *SEALED*
Email from K. Sloane to Y. Wang dated May 12, 2017 | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 32 | Affidavit of process server for Y. Wang | Full | 11/18/2022 |\n| 33 | Email chain beginning on November 3, 2022 from A. Luft
re: Subpoena | Full
Limited Purpose | 11/18/2022 |\n| 34 | *SEALED*
Email chain beginning on December 8, 2022 from Q. Gao
re: NY UBS action | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 36 | *SEALED*
Email chain beginning December 8, 2016 from Q. Gao
Re: NY UBS action | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 37 | *SEALED*
Email chain beginning December 8, 2016 from Q. Gao
Re: NY UBS action | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n| 39 | Deposition Transcript of Ho Wan Kwok in PAX v. Kwok,
dated October 3, 2018
Page 55, Lines 23-25 | Full | 11/17/2022 |\n\n#### **Exhibit**\n\n| | | 22-50073 | |\n|----------------|--------------------|----------------------------|--|\n| | | | |\n| | IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | | |\n| | | | |\n| 6
Trustee's | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | 1/17/2022 Admitted in Full | |\n| | | PE | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n\n\n- **(1) KWOK HO WAN**\n- **(2) ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED LDINGS LIMITED**\n- **(3) DAWN STATE LIMITED ITED**\n\n**Claimants**\n\n**- and -**\n\n**UBS AG**\n\n**Defendant**\n\n#### **PARTICULARS OF CLAIM**\n\n#### **PARTIES**\n\n- 1. The First Claimant (\"**Mr Kwok**\") is a high net worth individual resident since early 2015 in New York State, USA. Mr Kwok was formerly resident in the People's Republic of China (\"**PRC**\"), where he was known by his Mandarin language name, Guo Wengui. Mr Kwok is a political opponent of the PRC government, and by the time of the events giving rise to these claims he was already in a hostile relationship with the PRC authorities.\n- 2. The Second Claimant (\"**Ace Decade**\") is a private limited company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands with its registered address at P.O. Box 957, Offshore Incorporations Centre, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. Ace Decade was incorporated on 18 June 2014 and acquired by Mr Kwok on or around 10 November 2014 as part of the preparations for the (then) proposed acquisition of shares in the Chinese company, Haitong Securities Company Limited (\"**Haitong**\").\n- 3. The Third Claimant (\"**Dawn State**\") is also a private limited company incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands with its registered address at P.O. Box 957, Offshore Incorporations Centre, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 6 of 452\n\n- 4. Since 18 September 2015, Dawn State has been owned and controlled by Ace Decade. Prior to 18 September 2015, Dawn State was owned and controlled by the Chinese investment services provider, Haixia Capital Management Company Ltd (\"**Haixia**\"), through a vehicle called Haixia Capital Investment Fund (Fujian) Limited Partnership (\"**Haixia Fund**\") which was managed by Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co. Ltd (\"**Haixia Management**\"). Dawn State was the vehicle used for the acquisition of shares in Haitong in 2015 (as pleaded in more detail in the body of this Particulars of Claim (\"**PoC**\"), subject to a contractual right under which Ace Decade could acquire Dawn State after the Haitong share acquisition. and controlledby Ace led bythe services **aixia**through Haixia **Haixia** \") ent \"). hares in Haitong in **C**a contractual Haitong share acquisition\n- 5. The Defendant (\"**UBS**\"), is a company incorporated in Switzerland, with its registered office address at Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland. UBS conducts business globally, providing retail and investment banking, wealth management and other financial services. At all relevant times UBS conducted this business through both its Swiss headquarters and also branches located, inter alia, in Hong Kong (\"**UBS HK**\") and in London (\"**UBS London**\"), the latter being, by agreement of the parties, designated as the counterparty for all of the contracts relevant to the claims in this action, as pleaded further below. UBS London has at all times held permissions to provide regulated services from the Financial Conduct Authority (Reference Number 186958) and was authorised to act for and enter into contractual agreements as UBS.\n- 6. As pleaded at paragraphs 32 to 57 below, UBS entered into the contracts relevant to the subject matter of the Claimants' claims through UBS London. In the discussions and negotiations leading to those contracts, UBS was represented primarily by its employee Mr Stephen Wong (\"**Mr Wong**\"). Mr Wong was at that time a Managing Director in the Wealth Management Division of UBS, based at the offices of UBS HK. Mr Kwok was first introduced to Mr Wong in around 2006 or 2007.\n\n#### **THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIMS**\n\n#### **Background to the Haitong Investment**\n\n7. In or around Autumn 2013, Mr Kwok was approached by the CEO of Haitong, Mr Wang Kaiguo (\"**Mr Wang**\"), who was seeking to encourage Mr Kwok to make a substantial equity investment in Haitong. Haitong is a major Chinese securities firm, engaged in the provision of stocks and derivatives brokerage, as well as investment banking, asset management, private equity, alternative investments, and financial leasing services. Haitong is one of the largest and longest established financial services providers in the PRC. Haitong's shares are traded on the Shanghai and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges (\"**SSE**\" and \"**HKEX**\" respectively). Haitong's shares trading on the HKEX are known as \"**H-Shares**.\" Following the approach from Mr\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 7 of 452\n\nWang, Mr Kwok resolved to invest approximately US\\$3 billion in H-Shares in order to obtain a major stake in Haitong. This investment was to be made through the issue of new H-Shares by Haitong, and their allotment to companies controlled by Mr Kwok. 3 billion in H-Shares in to ade through the issue H-Shares d byMr Kwok.\n\n#### **Initial involvement of UBS**\n\n- 8. Following the discussions with Mr Wang, Mr Kwok communicated his intention to acquire a substantial stake in Haitong to Mr Hank Lo, a Hong Kong solicitor and partner in the firm Stevenson, Wong & Co (\"**Stevenson Wong**\"). Mr Kwok retained Stevenson Wong to advise him on the proposed acquisition. mmunicated a ok retained advise\n- 9. Mr Lo had an established relationship with Mr Wong and UBS, the details of which are not known to Mr Kwok, and it was Mr Lo who first introduced Mr Kwok to Mr Wong in or around 2006-7. By the end of 2013, Mr Wong had cultivated a close personal relationship with Mr Kwok and had successfully induced Mr Kwok to consider and treat him as a trusted adviser and personal friend.\n- 10. At some point in the fourth quarter of 2013, Mr Lo informed Mr Wong of Mr Kwok's intention to acquire a stake in Haitong. The Claimants do not know when Mr Lo communicated this to Mr Wong. Mr Kwok was not aware that Mr Lo intended to inform Mr Wong or UBS until after the event, although Mr Kwok did not (after the event) object to him doing so.\n- 11. In or around December 2013, Mr Wong visited Mr Kwok at his residence in Hong Kong. He informed Mr Kwok that UBS had become aware that Haitong would be issuing new H-Shares (the \"**Placement Shares**\") and that UBS wished to participate as a placing agent. Mr Wong used his mobile telephone to open a call with senior UBS executives, who Mr Kwok understood were based in Switzerland. Mr Kwok cannot now recall the names of the individuals. Those senior UBS executives and Mr Wong told Mr Kwok (the following sub-paragraphs pleading only the gist of what they said):\n\t- (1) UBS wished to become a broker in the sale of the Placement Shares, and wanted Mr Kwok to introduce and commend UBS to Haitong for that role;\n\t- (2) If Mr Kwok assisted UBS in that way, UBS would assist and advise him in acquiring the shares for which it was made broker or placement agent in a way which was advantageous for Mr Kwok;\n\t- (3) Although they knew that Mr Kwok's intention was to acquire the shares for himself, UBS itself or investors with whom UBS had a relations themselves would be interested in\n\n# purchasing the shares at a substantial uplift on the likely offer price if Mr Kwok was willing ikelyoffer price Mr was h and to some\n\nto on-sell them.\n\n- 12. Following this meeting, Mr Kwok resolved to work with UBS and to this end, at some time in early 2014, Mr Kwok told Mr Wang that he intended to invest in the new issue of H-Shares, and asked Mr Wang to include UBS as one of the placees of the Placement Shares. o in es Shares Kwok on a separate of Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 8 of 452\n\t- 13. In July or August 2014 Haitong resolved to issue the H-Shares via seven placees, one of which was UBS. Another company advising and assisting Mr Kwok on a separate acquisition of H-Shares, Macquarie Capital Securities Limited (\"**Macquarie**\"), was to be the placee in respect of three allocations of the Placement Shares. Together, UBS and Macquarie would place around 12% of Haitong's total issued shareholding.\n\n#### **Mr Wong's initial advisory work**\n\n- 14. Following this meeting, Mr Kwok entered into discussions with UBS (through Mr Wong) in relation to the structuring of his planned investment (the \"**Investment**\") in the Placement Shares for which UBS was the placing agent (the \"**UBS H-Shares**\"). In discussions in and around late March and April 2014, Mr Wong said that he would provide a plan for the \"*Haitong project*,\" including a proposed structure through which Mr Kwok could acquire the UBS H-Shares.\n- 15. As a securities company incorporated and operating in the PRC, Haitong was at all relevant times subject to regulation by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (the \"**CSRC**\"). The relevant PRC laws required the CSRC to give approval if any person acquired or actually controlled more than 5% shareholdings of the total issued capital of Haitong.\n- 16. It was discussed between Mr Kwok and Mr Wong that Mr Kwok intended to invest in excess of US\\$3 billion in total, which would considerably exceed this threshold and therefore require approval by the CSRC. The advice which Mr Kwok received from UBS included, in particular, devising a structure for the acquisition of the Placement Shares which would avoid the requirement for CSRC approval in a manner which complied with the relevant PRC laws.\n- 17. In the course of these conversations:\n\t- (1) Mr Wong repeatedly told Mr Kwok that he, under the direction of UBS senior executives, would work to advance Mr Kwok's best interests in relation to the acquisition of the Placement Shares, in line with the commitment made in December 2013. From this period until the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares, Mr Kwok frequently repeated and reaffirmed\n\nthe assertion that he and UBS were working in Mr Kwok's interests, and that Mr Kwok should repose trust in and rely upon Mr Wong and UBS; r Kwok's interests, d UBS; Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 9 of 452\n\n- (2) Mr Wong said that he and UBS would devise the structure for the acquisition in a way which was as advantageous as possible for Mr Kwok; and e structure the a way wok; and\n- (3) Mr Wong held himself and UBS out as having the experience and expertise to devise an advantageous structure for the acquisition for Mr Kwok and advising Mr Kwok (and, subsequently, Ace Decade) with respect to investments in placements such as that for the Placement Shares, the structuring of the investments, and the financing thereof. e devise an r Kwok Kwok ments in placements such as that for the\n- 18. In or around June 2014, UBS, through Mr Wong, gave initial advice regarding the structure for the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares. This advice was given orally at meetings in Mr Kwok's office (49/F, Bank of China Tower, No. 1, Garden Road, Hong Kong) and his personal residence in Hong Kong. In summary (the following sub-paragraphs pleading only the gist of UBS' advice), Mr Wong advised Mr Kwok: (1) Not to purchase the UBS H-Shares through a company beneficially owned or controlled by him, as this would require CSRC approval; (2) Instead, to set up a structure (which would be arranged by UBS) under which the UBS H-Shares would be acquired by a company controlled by a third-party intermediary, which acquisition would not require CSRC approval; and (3) To make the investment on a leveraged basis, with acquisition finance from UBS.\n- 19. Mr Kwok was initially reluctant to make a leveraged investment because he did not require bank finance in order to acquire the UBS H-Shares and had intended to make the acquisition using cash. However, Mr Wong advised him that:\n\t- (1) If UBS were to proceed with structuring the Investment it would have to be on the basis that the bank would provide margin finance for the purchase of the UBS H-Shares, as this would be how UBS would receive its profit from the transaction;\n\t- (2) It was anyway in Mr Kwok's best interests to make a leveraged investment, because it would enable him to obtain the desired number of shares without committing the full amount of his own capital;\n\t- (3) Any leveraged finance provided by UBS would in any event be upon the '*best possible terms*';\n\t- (4) The terms of any leveraged finance would be consistent with Mr Kwok's requirement that there should be no provisions requiring (i) the provision of additional collateral or (ii) the mandatory repayment of the loan (which were referred to compendiously by both Mr\n\nKwok and Mr Wong as \"**margin calls**\" without differentiation) as a result of short term price fluctuations of the Placement Shares; differentiation) as a Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 10 of 452\n\n- (5) UBS would give Mr Kwok adequate time to meet any other margin calls, so that if Mr Kwok had (as in fact, he did) the ability to fund the whole of the acquisition without loan financing, UBS would not enforce against the security before additional funds could be provided by Mr Kwok; t any other e acquisition urity e to requests for additional collateral or\n- (6) In illustrating the approach which UBS would take to requests for additional collateral or repayment of the loan in the event of fluctuation in the value of UBS H-Shares, Mr Wong repeatedly (during this period, and thereafter) referred to a previous high value leveraged transaction funded by UBS, under which it had provided funding for the acquisition of a much larger stake in the Chinese insurance company, Ping An (the \"**Ping An Deal**\"). The details of the information provided by Mr Wong in relation to the Ping An Deal between June 2014 and December 2014 are summarised at paragraph 42 below.\n- 20. To the best of Mr Kwok's recollection, this advice was first given in or around June 2014. However, these matters were the subject of repeated discussion between Mr Wong and Mr Kwok in the summer and autumn of 2014, and thereafter. Mr Kwok cannot be certain as to what representations were made to him by UBS on each specific occasion, but recalls the effect of the advice as a whole.\n\n#### **Further Structuring Advice**\n\n- 21. From in or around July 2014 onwards, UBS continued to advise Mr Kwok and (from 10 November 2014) Ace Decade regarding the proposed structure and financing for the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares. In particular, Mr Wong went on further to advise Mr Kwok (and, subsequently, Ace Decade) on the structuring of the acquisition, including further advising in relation to the requirement for approval by the CSRC of acquisitions of Haitong in excess of 5% of the company's share capital; and by advising that Mr Kwok and Ace Decade select Haixia as the intermediary for the Investment.\n- 22. In reliance on this advice, Mr Kwok and Ace Decade selected Haixia to act as intermediary for the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares, and ultimately appointed Haixia for that purpose under a Co-Investment Agreement dated 18 December 2014 (the \"**Co-Investment Agreement**\").\n- 23. Although Mr Wong had told Mr Kwok and Ace Decade that Haixia was independent of UBS, it is in fact controlled by State Development and Investment Corporation (\"**SDIC**\"), which is a joint venture partner of UBS, with both co-owning an investment fund called \"**UBS SDIC**\".\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 11 of\n\nTo facilitate the investment in the Placement Shares, on 23 October 2014 Haixia caused the incorporation of Dawn State through its subsidiary Haixia Fund. Dawn State was at all relevant times until its transfer to Ace Decade managed by Mr Lu Bo (\"**Mr Lu**\"), a senior employee of Haixia who was previously employed by UBS SDIC. n 23 October 2014Haixia ia Fund. Dawn State relevant 452\n\n24. Ace Decade was acquired on 10 November 2014 by Mr Kwok for the purpose of acting as the said investment vehicle. On the same day, on the advice of Mr Wong, an employee of Mr Kwok, Ms Yu Yong (\"**Ms Yu**\") became its nominee shareholder and director. u Bo **Mr** \"),a Kwok purpose of acting as the an er director.\n\n#### **Preparation of the December Contracts**\n\n- 25. In or around late October and early November 2014, UBS (primarily through Mr Wong), Haixia (primarily through Mr Lu) and Ace Decade (primarily through Mr Kwok and Ms Yu) began making preparations to subscribe for the UBS H-Shares.\n- 26. On or around 13 November 2014 there was an initial conference call between Stevenson Wong and Norton Rose Fulbright (\"**Norton Rose**\"), the lawyers engaged by Haixia to act on the transaction, at which they agreed that Norton Rose would draft a Co-Investment Agreement between Haixia, Dawn State and Ace Decade in relation to the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares.\n- 27. On or around 14 November 2014, Ace Decade and Dawn State entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, pursuant to which Dawn State was to provide services to Ace Decade in return for a non-refundable fee equal to 65 basis points of the total invested capital, subject to a minimum of US\\$5,000,000.\n- 28. During this period, leading up to the agreement by Dawn State to subscribe for the UBS H-Shares, there were ongoing discussions between Mr Wong and Mr Kwok in relation to the structuring and financing of the acquisition. During those discussions Mr Wong repeated and elaborated on the representations pleaded at paragraph 19 above. The Claimants plead further in relation to these representations at paragraphs 39 to 40, 47 and 78 below.\n- 29. These preparations led to Ace Decade, Dawn State and UBS entering into a series of arrangements designed to allow Ace Decade to participate in the acquisition of UBS H-Shares through Dawn State (together, the \"**December Contracts**\"). The December Contracts were:\n\t- (1) A custody agreement between Dawn State and UBS dated 12 December 2014 (the \"**Custody Agreement**\");\n\t- (2) A Co-Investment Agreement between Ace Decade, Dawn State and Haixia dated 18 December 2014;\n\n452\n\n- (3) A letter agreement between Haixia Management and Ace Decade dated 18 December 2014 (the \"**Letter Agreement**\"); andAceDecade ecember Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 12 of\n\t- (4) A financing letter entitled \"*Project Pipe Financing Letter*\" between Dawn State and UBS London dated 19 December 2014 (the \"**Financing Letter**\"). \" Dawn UBS **g** \").\n- 30. The Claimants plead further as to the entry into the December Contracts and their terms at paragraphs 32 to 37 below.\n- 31. These preparations also led to Dawn State entering into a subscription agreement with Haitong dated 19 December 2014 (the \"**Subscription Agreement**\"). The Claimants plead further in relation to the execution and terms of the Subscription Agreement at paragraph 44 below.\n\n#### **The December Contracts**\n\n- 32. On or around 12 December 2014, Dawn State and UBS London entered into the Custody Agreement in relation (among other things) to the custody of the UBS H-Shares. The Claimants will refer to the Custody Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Subject to that, under the terms of the Custody Agreement, Dawn State agreed that all of the UBS H-Shares (once acquired) would be held with UBS London. The purpose and effect of the Custody Agreement was to ensure that the UBS H-Shares would be available for enforcement by UBS London of its rights under the (then) proposed facility agreement and security agreement to be entered into by Dawn State and UBS London in relation to the provision of finance for the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares. The Custody Agreement was governed by the law of England and Wales, and provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts in respect of any disputes.\n- 33. On or around 18 December 2014, Ace Decade, Dawn State and Haixia entered into the Co-Investment Agreement. The Claimants will refer to the Co-Investment Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Subject to that, this agreement provided that:\n\t- (1) Pursuant to this agreement, Haixia agreed to extend to Ace Decade a right to participate in the share subscription in the Target Company (i.e. Haitong) (defined as \"*the Project*\"), upon receipt by Haixia of US\\$500 million (the \"**Monetary Contribution**\"). In addition, it was noted that it was contemplated that Dawn State would arrange for loan financing in an amount of US\\$750 million, which together with the Monetary Contribution constitutes the \"Co-Investment Amount\".\n\t- (2) At Clause 1.1, for Haixia Fund to receive a substantial fee for its role in the Project.\n\n- (3) At Clause 3, headed \"**Nature of the Right**\", that Ace Decade would have only a contractual right to participate in the Project, and no immediate proprietary interest in Dawn State or the UBS H-Shares which it acquired. that Ace only a dno d. *ct loan* Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 13 of 452\n\t- (4) At Clause 6.5:\n\n*\"In the event that the Project is not completed for any reasons, in consideration of Haixia Fund and the Company arranging for the Project and the loan financing(s) with commercial banks for the benefit of the Investor:*\n\n*(a) the Investor agrees that the Company and/ or Haixia Fund shall receive an arrangement fee of the higher amount of (i) 0.065% of the Co-investment Amount (i.e. US\\$1,250 million); and (ii) US\\$500,000 upon the Company entering into the share subscription agreement(s) in relation to the Project\"*\n\n- 34. Also, on or around 18 December 2014, Haixia Management and Ace Decade entered into the Letter Agreement. The Claimants will refer to the Letter Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Among other things, the Letter Agreement provided as follows:\n\t- (1) Under the heading \"*Loan Financing*\":\n\n*\"[Ace Decade] acknowledges that [Dawn State] is arranging for loan financing(s) with commercial bank(s) at the request of and for the benefit of [Ace Decade] (the \"Financing\") pursuant to the relevant financing agreement of the Financing for the Project (the \"Financing Letter\").\"*\n\n*\"[Ace Decade] acknowledges that it has reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Financing as set out in the Financing Letter (including the term sheet), and further covenants and agrees with [Dawn State], Haixia Fund and Haixia Management that it shall be primarily and solely responsible for all the fees, costs, expenses and payments in connection with the Financing […]\"*\n\n- (2) Under the heading \"*Arrangements for the Transfer*\", that at any time after a two-month period after the completion of the Project or the lock-up period under the relevant subscription agreement to be entered into by Dawn State, whichever was longer, on receiving a request from Ace Decade, Haixia Management would procure the transfer of the UBS H-Shares to Ace Decade, or another entity nominated by Ace Decade.\n- 35. Although the Letter Agreement provided that Ace Decade had reviewed and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Financing as set out in the Financing Letter, the Financing Letter was not in fact fully executed until 20 December 2014. The Claimants plead further at paragraphs 36 to 37 below.\n- 36. On or around 19 December 2014, Dawn State and UBS London entered into the Financing Letter. By the Financing Letter UBS London agreed to provide the full amount of the loan\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 14 of 452\n\nfinancing envisioned for the Investment (the \"**Facility**\"), subject to the subsequent completion of more comprehensive financing documentation, in an amount in HKD equal to the product of 60%, the number of shares, and the initial price, not exceeding US\\$750 million) as defined in the Term Sheet. The Claimants will refer to the Financing Letter at trial for its full terms and effect. Among other things, the Financing Letter provided as follows: ,subject to the amount in HKD equal product xceeding US\\$750 ing Letter attrial ed follows:\n\n(1) Under the heading \"**LTV Ratio**\"\n\n*\"(c) Pre-utilisation margin*\n\n*[Dawn State] shall deliver such additional H.K. dollar cash to the Secured Account so as to ensure that on the date (the Utilisation Request Date) of the Utilisation Request… the LTV Ratio (calculated with reference to the Aggregate Share Value on the Utilisation Request Date and on a pro forma basis as if the relevant additional HK dollar cash has been delivered to the Secured Account on such date) is equal to or lower than the Initial LTV.\"*\n\n(2) Under the heading \"**Exclusivity**\"\n\n> *\"(b) the Borrower will, and will procure that its respective subsidiaries and affiliates will, ensure that no other debt financing shall be incurred, borrowed, syndicated, issued or privately placed in relation to or for the purposes of funding or refinancing any of the funding for or relating to the Acquisition…*\"\n\n- (3) Under the heading \"**Governing Law**\", that the Financing Letter and all associated documents (defined as the \"*Financing Commitment Documents*\") would be subject to English law and that the English Courts would have jurisdiction in respect of any dispute\n- 37. The Financing Commitment Documents included an indicative termsheet for the Facility (the \"**Indicative Termsheet**\"). The Indicative Termsheet did not contain any legally binding commitment to borrow or lend on the terms indicated or any terms. The Indicative Termsheet provided that under the facility agreement to be agreed between the parties, UBS would be entitled in certain circumstances to demand mandatory prepayment or make margin calls in respect of the facility, as follows:\n\t- (1) Under the heading \"**Margining Terms**\":\n\n*\"LTV Call Trigger: 66.7%, subject to adjustment by the Lender in the event that the Initial LTV is adjusted as described under \"Initial LTV\" (above).*\n\n*Margin Call: If on any Scheduled Trading Day following the Utilisation Date the LTV is higher that the LTV Call Trigger, the Borrower shall deposit into the Secured Account an amount of HKD cash only so that the LTV is restored to the Initial LTV and shall comply with all obligations described under the \"Margin Payment Schedule\" below.*\n\n*…*\n\n*…*\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 15 of 452\n\n*Margin Payment Schedule: Payments in respect of Margin Calls and Margin Releases shall be made by 5:00pm Hong Kong time on the Business Day (the \"Margin Payment Date\") immediately following the date of the Margin Call request or Margin Call Release, as applicable, provided such request is issued prior to 11:59pm (Hong Kong time)…\" Margin Calls and MarginReleases usiness Day (the\"MarginPayment rginCall orMargin ued to 11:59pm*\n\n(2) Under the heading \"**Other Terms**\":\n\n> *\"Full Mandatory Prepayment Events: The Lender, at its option, may terminate this Transaction if any of the following events occur after Utilisation Date: r, this r Date:*\n\n- *(i) the Closing Price of the Reference Shares on any Scheduled Trading Day is less than 60% of the Initial Price;*\n- *(ii) the Closing Price of the Reference Shares on any Scheduled Trading Day is less than (a) 85% of the Closing Price on the previous Scheduled Trading Day; or (b) 75% of the Closing Price on any of the 5 immediately preceding Scheduled Trading Days;*\n\n*…*\n\n*…*\n\n*If the Lender gives notice that it is terminating the Transaction following the occurrence of a Full Mandatory Prepayment Event, the Borrower must repay the Facility Amount together with all other amounts due in connection with the Transaction (the \"Aggregate Prepayment Amount\") in accordance with the following payment schedule:*\n\n- *(i) 25% of the Aggregate Payment Amount on the Business Day immediately following such notice;*\n- *(ii) 25% of the Aggregate Payment Amount on the second Business Day following such notice; and*\n- *(iii) the remaining 50% of the Aggregate Prepayment Amount on the third Business Day following such notice.\"*\n\n*Makewhole: Upon (i) a Voluntary Prepayment on any date other than a Mutual Break Date or (ii) prepayment or termination in any other circumstances, including following a Full Mandatory Prepayment Event or an Event of Default, a Makewhole Amount is payable by the Borrower to the Lender.*\n\n*The Makewhole Amount is calculated as an amount equal to the Spread applied to the Facility Amount or the prepayment amount, as applicable, for the period from (and including) the date of prepayment or termination, as applicable, to the next occurring Mutual Break Date or, if none, the Maturity Date.\"*\n\n#### **UBS's representations prior to execution of the December Contracts**\n\n38. During the course of the preparation of the December Contracts, in or around December 2014 and before 18 December 2014, Mr Kwok became aware that the terms of the proposed financing for the Investment from UBS included provisions for margin calls and mandatory prepayment (which, again, he referred to compendiously using the term \"margin calls\"). Mr Kwok cannot now recall whether he saw the Financing Letter and/or Indicative Termsheet, but\n\n## 452\n\nhis knowledge must in any event have come from a description of the terms by someone else and not from review of the documents, because he did not read English. cription theterms someone not read English.\n\n- 39. Mr Kwok objected to the inclusion of these terms, and raised this with Mr Wong. There was a discussion between them, which took place either in Mr Kwok's residence or his office in Hong Kong. The gist of what Mr Kwok said to Mr Wong was that that he was unhappy about these terms, and he wanted them taken out of any agreements with UBS. Mr Kwok said that he did not want UBS to be able to demand payments or repayment of the loan as a result of shortterm fluctuations in the price of the Haitong H-Shares. In response, Mr Wong made further representations and gave advice to Mr Kwok and Ace Decade on behalf of UBS, the effect of which was as follows: raised this with a Kwok's residence that s UBS. yment loan Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 16 of\n\t- (1) It was UBS's internal policy that where the bank was providing margin finance, it would have terms allowing it to make margin calls (i.e. to demand payment of margin or mandatory prepayment), and these were standard terms for UBS financing agreements;\n\t- (2) Nonetheless, Mr Wong intended to go back to the bank and try to get the terms removed from the agreements or changed;\n\t- (3) Even if Mr Wong could not get the margin call provisions removed or changed, Mr Kwok (and therefore Ace Decade) should not be concerned about them as:\n\t\t- (a) Such terms would not be strictly relied upon or executed by UBS in this case, because UBS had a policy which would apply to Ace Decade and Mr Kwok (and therefore, impliedly, to Dawn State as their intermediary) as highly valued customers not to make margin calls (i.e. to demand payment of margin or mandatory prepayment) if prices moved in the short term.\n\t\t- (b) If it were necessary for UBS to make a margin call (i.e. to demand payment of margin or mandatory prepayment) due to longer term price movements, UBS would work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any demands and would allow a reasonable time for it to do so, including longer time periods for payment than those in the facility agreement if necessary, and would not sell any of the Shares as a result of any margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time to pay.\n\t- (4) Mr Wong again referred to the Ping An Deal as demonstrating the approach which UBS would take to requests for additional collateral or repayment of the loan in the event of fluctuation in the value of H-Shares. The details of the information provided by Mr Wong\n\n#### in relation to the Ping An Deal between June 2014 and December 2014 are summarised at paragraph 42 below. 4andDecember 2014 summarised Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 17 of 452\n\n- 40. During the course of conversations and communications during this period (including in the conversations in which he gave the advice and made the representations pleaded in paragraph 39 above), Mr Wong further repeated and reaffirmed the assertion that he and UBS were working to protect and advance Mr Kwok's interests, and that Mr Kwok and Ace Decade should repose trust in and rely upon UBS and in particular Mr Wong. From the context in which these assurances were given, it is to be inferred that they were intended to encourage Mr Kwok and Ace Decade to accept and rely upon the advice and representations pleaded in paragraph 39 above. ns during period the e paragraph assertion d Mr Kwok should these\n- 41. As a result of these conversations with Mr Wong, Mr Kwok reasonably believed: (1) that Mr Wong would get the margin call and mandatory prepayment terms removed from the Financing Commitment Documents, and in any event from the eventual facility agreement; and (2) that in any event he need not be concerned about such provisions which would not be relied upon in accordance with their strict terms, but only in accordance with the approach and policy described by Mr Wong. Mr Kwok did not thereafter read the Financing Letter or Indicative Termsheet prior to 19 December 2014 nor was he briefed on their terms. As a result, Mr Kwok was not aware that the margin call and mandatory prepayment provisions were included in these documents until around March 2015, as detailed at paragraph 46 below.\n\n#### **The Ping An Representations**\n\n- 42. As pleaded above, Mr Wong repeatedly referred to the Ping An Deal as an illustration of the approach which UBS would take to requests for additional collateral or repayment of the loan in the event of fluctuation in the value of H-Shares. Mr Wong also referred to the Ping An Deal as an illustration of UBS's expertise in structuring the acquisition of equities in companies incorporated in the PRC. Mr Kwok cannot recall every occasion on which the Ping An deal was discussed, but they included at least:\n\t- (1) The discussions between Mr Wong and Mr Kwok in the summer of 2014 pleaded at paragraphs 19 and 27 above. These discussions were primarily between Mr Wong and Mr Kwok, but two of Mr Kwok's employees (Yang Ying and Lyu Tao) were each present on at least one occasion when Mr Wong made representations regarding the Ping An Deal during this period.\n\t- (2) The discussions between Mr Wong and Mr Kwok in or around December 2014, before 18 December 2014.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 18 of 452\n\n- 43. In the course of those conversations as a whole, Mr Wong (on behalf of UBS) represented the following matters regarding the Ping An Deal: ng (on of UBS) the\n\t- (1) The Ping An Deal involved the acquisition of shares in a PRC company, namely the insurance company Ping An Insurance. hares in a PRC\n\t- (2) UBS had advised the buyers of the stake in Ping An (the \"**Ping An Stake**\") in relation to the structuring of the acquisition and the funding of that acquisition. \") to acquisition.\n\t- (3) UBS had provided loan funding for that acquisition. The value of the Ping An Stake and the loan financing provided by UBS were substantially larger than the value of the UBS H-Shares or the loan financing which UBS was proposing to provide for the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares.\n\t- (4) Although the direct purchaser of the Ping An Stake was the Thai conglomerate, CP Group, CP Group was in fact acting as an intermediary for a Chinese businessman, the billionaire Xiao Jianhua (\"**Mr Xiao**\"). Mr Xiao was at that time the chairman of the Chinese conglomerate, the Tomorrow Group. UBS had advised the CP Group and Mr Xiao as to how to set up the intermediary structure for the acquisition. Like Mr Kwok, Mr Xiao was a very highly valued customer of UBS.\n\t- (5) Although the lending arrangements for the acquisition of the Ping An Stake included terms allowing UBS to make margin calls (i.e. to demand payment of margin or mandatory prepayment) on the basis of price fluctuations, and there had been price fluctuations, UBS had not strictly enforced those terms. Instead, UBS had worked with the shareholder and given the shareholder ample time within which either the value of the shares might recover, or the shareholder could arrange the payment of margin. UBS had offered temporary additional financing to make up any shortfall.\n\t- (6) As a result, there had never been a prospect that UBS would enforce against the Ping An shareholder's security, or that it would lose any of the Ping An shares which it had acquired.\n\t- (7) This was in accordance with UBS's policy for highly valued customers, which would also apply to Mr Kwok and Ace Decade, and UBS intended to give Mr Kwok and Ace Decade the same treatment as the Ping An shareholder in the event that it became entitled to a make a margin call (i.e. to demand payment of margin or mandatory prepayment).\n\n452\n\n#### **The Subscription Agreement**\n\n- 44. On or around 19 December 2014, Dawn State entered into a subscription agreement with Haitong (the \"**Subscription Agreement**\"), under which it agreed to purchase the UBS H-Shares (the \"**Subscription**\"), being 569,427,620 H-Shares, at a price of HK\\$15.62 per share, totalling HK\\$8,894,459,424.40 (the \"**Subscription Price**\"). The Subscription Agreement provided, among other things, that: dinto with ch it to res, **rice**Agreement ncreased Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 19 of\n\t- (1) Under Clause 2, the Subscription Price could be increased or reduced by up to HK\\$1.56 per share on the occurrence of certain conditions regarding an increase or decrease in the trading price of Haitong H-Shares during the period between the Subscription Agreement and Closing\n\t- (2) Closing of the sale and purchase of the UBS H-Shares was subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions set out in Clause 3.1 of the Subscription Agreement (the \"**Conditions**\").\n\t- (3) Under Clause 8.1, the Subscription Agreement could be terminated by either party if the Conditions had not been fulfilled on or before 30 June 2015.\n\n#### **UBS's Representations prior to execution of the Lending Documents**\n\n- 45. In and around February and March 2015, the lending documents for UBS's financing of the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares by Dawn State (the \"**Lending Documents**\") were prepared. Although Ace Decade was not a party to any of the Lending Documents (the details of which are pleaded below), drafts of the Lending Documents were provided to Stevenson Wong, the lawyers acting for Ace Decade.\n- 46. In or around mid-March 2015, Mr Kwok was informed by Ms Yu that the draft agreements contained provisions allowing UBS to make margin calls and to require mandatory repayments in the event of short-term fluctuations in the value of the UBS H-Shares.\n- 47. In conversations with Mr Wong in around mid-to-late March 2015, Mr Kwok said that he objected to these terms, and repeated that he did not want UBS to be able to demand payments or repayment of the loan as a result of short-term fluctuations in the price of the Haitong H-Shares. Mr Wong, on behalf of UBS: (1) Further repeated and reaffirmed the assertion that he and UBS were working in Mr Kwok's interests, and that Mr Kwok and Ace Decade should repose trust in and rely upon Mr Wong and UBS; and (2) Restated the advice and representations particularised at paragraph 39 above, which are repeated here as particulars of the gist of the advice given and representations made by UBS through Mr Wong in March 2015.\n\n## 452\n\n48. Mr Kwok believed these assurances and relied on them, and therefore did not object to the negotiations between Dawn State and UBS on the Lending Documents continuing or make efforts to cause or procure Ace Decade's withdrawal from the Co-Investment Agreement or otherwise prevent the completion of the Investment. m, andthereforedidnot nding Documents rom the nding Documents Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 20 of\n\n### **The Lending Documents**\n\n- 49. On 1 April 2015, Dawn State and UBS executed the Lending Documents for UBS's financing of the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares by Dawn State.\n- 50. The \"**Facility Agreement**\" was made on behalf of Dawn State and UBS London. The Facility Agreement as agreed was a HK\\$5,336,675,654.64 term facility. The Claimants will refer to the Facility Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Subject to that, the terms of the Facility Agreement included the following provisions:\n\t- (1) Clause 1.1 (\"**Definitions**\"):\n\n*…*\n\n\"*\"***Initial LTV Ratio***\" means sixty per cent (60.00%) […]*\"\n\n\"*\"***LTV Ratio***\" means, on any Scheduled Trading Day, the loan to value ratio (expressed as a percentage) calculated by the following: A/B where: \"A\" means the aggregate amount in HK Dollars of the Loan outstanding less the Margin Call Balance; and \"B\" means the Market Value multiplies by the number of Shares subject to the Transaction Security.*\"\n\n\"*\"***Margin Call Trigger***\" means sixty-six point seven per cent (66.70%) […]*\"\n\n#### (2) Clause 7.7 (\"**Mandatory Prepayment**\"):\n\n- *\"(a) If the Lender determines that:*\n\t- *(i) the Market Value of a Share on any Scheduled Trading Day is less than sixty per cent (60%) of the Initial Price;*\n\t- *(ii) the Market Value of a Share on any Scheduled Trading Day is less than:*\n\t\t- *(A) eighty-five per cent (85%) of the Market Value of the Shares on the immediately preceding Scheduled Trading Day; or*\n\t\t- *(B) seventy-five per cent (75%) of the Market Value of the Shares on any of the five immediately preceding Scheduled Trading Days;*\n\n*Then (in each case) the Lender may, by notice to the Borrower, cancel the Facility and declare the outstanding Loan, together with accrued interest and all other amounts accrued under the Finance Documents, immediately due and payable, whereupon the Facility will be cancelled and all such outstanding amounts will become immediately due and payable in accordance with paragraph (b) below.*\n\n*(b) Any prepayment of the outstanding amounts referred to in paragraph (a) above shall be made in the following amounts and at the following times:*\n\n*(i) on the Business Day immediately following delivery of notice by the Lender of such prepayment, twenty-five per cent (25%) of such outstanding amounts; wing delivery ofnotice by theLender of outstandingamounts;*\n\n452\n\n- *(ii) on the second Business Day immediately following delivery of notice by the Lender of such prepayment, twenty-five per cent (25%) of such outstanding amounts; and ely delivery ofnotice cent of r* Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 21 of\n\t- *(iii) on the third Business Day immediately following delivery of notice by the Lender of such prepayment, fifty per cent (50%) of such outstanding amounts. ly*\n\t- (3) Clause 18.1 (\"**Margin Call**\"):\n\n*\"If, on any Scheduled Trading Day, the Lender determines that the LTV Ratio is greater than the applicable Margin Call Trigger, the Borrower shall as soon as practicable, and in any case no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Business Day after the date of a Margin Call Notice from the Lender requiring it to do so, deposit or procure to be deposited into the Secured Account such additional HK Dollar amounts in cash, to be charged in favour of the Lender under the Security Agreement, to ensure that the LTV Ratio, after being recalculated by taking into account the additional cash deposited, is equal to or less than the applicable Initial LTV Ratio.\"*\n\n- (4) Clause 20 sets out 16 events or circumstances which constitute an \"**Event of Default**\", including: (a) (at Clause 20.1) failure to pay on the due date any amount payable pursuant to a Finance Document; and (b) (at clause 20.2) failure to comply with Clause 18.1.\n- (5) Clause 20.17 (\"**Acceleration**\"):\n\n*\"On and at any time after the occurrence of an Event of Default which is continuing the Lender may, by notice to the Borrower:*\n\n- *(a) cancel the Commitment whereupon they shall immediately be cancelled;*\n- *(b) declare that all or part of the Loan, together with accrued interest, and all other amounts accrued or outstanding under the Finance Documents be immediately due and payable, whereupon they shall become immediately due and payable;*\n- *(c) declare that all or part of the Loan be payable on demand, whereupon they shall immediately become payable on demand by the Lender; and/or*\n- *(d) exercise any or all of its rights, remedies, powers or discretions under the Finance Documents.\"*\n- (6) At Clause 32: \"*This Agreement, and all non-contractual obligations arising from or in connection with this Agreement, are governed by English law*,\" and at Clause 33.1 (\"**Jurisdiction**\"), for the English Court to have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with any Finance Document.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 22 of 452\n\n- 51. The \"**Security Agreement**\" was also made on behalf of Dawn State and UBS London. Under the Security Agreement Dawn State (the \"*Chargor*\") assigned first ranking security over its rights in or to certain assets, including in particular the UBS H-Shares to UBS. The Security Agreement further provided for the UBS H-Shares to be held by UBS London Branch, acting as Custodian, with the UBS H-Shares to be deposited into a charged account held with UBS on the terms of the Custody Agreement. The Claimants will refer to the Security Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Subject to that, the Security Agreement included the following provisions: f Dawn State and UBS Under ned Shares UBS. The Security S LondonBranch, as ccount UBS the of full t provisions:\n\t- (1) Under Clause 3.1 (\"**Assignment by way of security**\"), that Dawn State assigned to UBS all its present and future right, title and interest (including those against the Custodian) in or to (*inter alia*) the Custody Agreement, the UBS H-Shares and the account in which they were held (the \"*Secured Account*\").\n\t- (2) Clause 3.2 (\"**Fixed Charge**\"), that Dawn State charged in favour of UBS its rights over (*inter alia*) the Secured Account and the UBS-H-Shares.\n\t- (3) Under Clause 8 (\"**ENFORCEMENT**\"):\n\t\t- (a) Clause 8.1 (\"**When enforceable**\"):\n\n*\"The Charges shall be immediately enforceable on the occurrence of an Enforcement Event which is continuing, and the powers conferred by the LPA on mortgagees including the power of sale and other powers conferred by Section 101 of the LPA as varied and extended by this Deed shall be immediately exercisable.\"*\n\n(b) Clause 8.2 (\"**Power of Sale**\"):\n\n> *\"The statutory power of sale, of appointing a receiver and the other statutory powers conferred on mortgagees by Section 101 of the LPA as varied and extended by this Deed shall arise (and the Secured Obligations shall be deemed due and payable for that purpose) on the date of this Deed.\"*\n\n#### (4) Clause 9.3 (\"**Financial Collateral Arrangement**\"):\n\n- *\"(a) The Chargor and the Lender intend that this Deed constitutes a \"financial collateral arrangement\" (as defined in the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (the \"Regulations\") and, as such, the Lender shall have the right:*\n\t- *(i) to use and dispose of any Charged Asset which constitutes \"financial collateral\" (as defined in the Regulations (\"Financial Collateral\")), in which case the Lender shall comply with the requirements of the Regulations as to obtaining \"equivalent financial collateral\" (as defined in the Regulations);*\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 23 of\n\n*(ii) to set-off the value of any equivalent financial collateral against, or apply it in discharge of, any Secured Obligations in accordance with the Regulations; and financialcollateral apply bligationsin accordancewith the*\n\n452\n\n- *(iii) (at any time after the Charges become enforceable) to appropriate any Charged Asset which constitutes Financial Collateral in or towards satisfaction of the Secured Obligations in accordance with the Regulations. me enforceable) any towards s Regulations.*\n- *(b) If the Lender is required to value any equivalent financial collateral for the purpose of paragraph (a)(ii) or (a)(iii) above, the value shall be: nt be:*\n\t- *(i) in the case of cash, its face value at the time of appropriation or set-off; and*\n\t- *(ii) in the case of financial instruments or other Financial Collateral, their market value at the time of appropriation, or set-off as determined (after appropriation) by the Lender by reference to a public index or other applicable generally recognised source or such other process as the Lender may select, including a valuation carried out by an independent investment bank, firm of accountants or other valuers appointed by the Lender.*\n\n*as converted, where necessary, into the currency in which the Secured Obligations are denominated at a market rate of exchange prevailing at the time of appropriation or set-off selected by the Lender.\"*\n\n(5) Clause 9.4 (\"**Sale of Charged Assets**\"):\n\n> *\"The Chargor acknowledges and agrees that the Share Collateral or other Charged Assets may decline speedily in value and are of a type customarily sold on a recognised market and therefore upon the enforcement of the Charges the Lender is not required to send any notice of its intention to sell or otherwise dispose of any Share Collateral or any other Charged Assets. Following the occurrence of an Enforcement Event which is continuing, the Lender or any Delegate or any Receiver may, in its sole and absolute discretion, sell Share Collateral or other Charged Assets in a private sale in such manner and under such circumstances as the Lender or Delegate or Receiver may deem necessary or advisable (with the Lender having the right to purchase any or all of the Share Collateral or other Charged Assets to be sold). The Chargor acknowledges that such sale shall be deemed to have been made in a commercially reasonable manner, notwithstanding that any such sale may be for a price less than that which might have been obtained had such Share Collateral or other Charged Assets been otherwise privately or publicly sold.\"*\n\n- 52. The \"**Facility Agreement Side Letter**\" was also made on behalf of Dawn State and UBS London. The Claimants will refer to the Security Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Subject to that, the terms of the Security Agreement included provision:\n\t- (1) For Dawn State to make a substantial additional payment in respect of any early repayment under the Facility Agreement, as follows:\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 24 of 452\n\n*\"On the date of any payment, repayment or prepayment of the Loan in whole or in part, the Borrower shall pay the applicable Make-Whole Amount… ment theLoan inwhole or part, Amount…*\n\n*\"***Make-Whole Amount***\" means, in respect of the Loan to be repaid or prepaid, the amount of the spread that would have been applicable on the amount of the principal of the Loan repaid or prepaid for the period from the relevant date of repayment or prepayment up to the next occurring Mutual Break Date or, if none, the Final Repayment Date, had that amount so repaid or prepaid remained outstanding up to such Mutual Break Date or the Final Repayment Date, as the case may be.\" he to be repaid orprepaid, ble amount ofthe of date reak repaid Date, be.\"*\n\n- (2) And that \"*This Facility Agreement Side Letter, and all non-contractual obligations arising from or in connection with this agreement, are governed by English law.*\" *non contractual obligations arising from or in*\n- 53. Also on 1 April 2015, Dawn State provided UBS London (both in its capacity as lender under the Facility Agreement and as Custodian under the Custody Agreement) with a \"**Settlement Authorisation**.\" The Claimants will refer to the Security Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Subject to that, under the Settlement Authorisation:\n\t- (1) Dawn State authorised UBS London (as lender) to instruct and/or authorise the Custodian (also UBS London) to apply the Monetary Contribution made by Dawn State and Facility Amount advanced by UBS London towards funding the Subscription in accordance with the Subscription Agreement, and to transfer the UBS H-Shares allocated pursuant to the Subscription Agreement to the secured account subject to the Custody Agreement.\n\t- (2) It was agreed that the \"*Settlement Authorisation, and all non-contractual obligations arising from or in connection with this agreement, are governed by English law.*\"\n- 54. The Settlement Authorisation was updated by a document entitled \"**Amended and Restated Settlement Authorisation**\" following the price uplift pleaded at paragraph 55 below.\n\n#### **The Price Uplift**\n\n55. On 8 May 2015, Haitong sent a letter to Dawn State and other investors in the new H-Shares announcing that each of the conditions precedent to completing the issuance and sale of the new H-Shares in Haitong had been met and that Closing was expected to take place on 15 May 2015, and that because the trading price of H-Shares over the preceding 30 days had surpassed the agreed threshold, pursuant to Clause 2.2 of the Subscription Agreement the subscription price for the H-Shares was to be increased by HKD 1.56 per share, giving a share price of HKD 17.18 per share.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 25 of 452\n\n- 56. Dawn State and UBS London therefore entered into an \"*Amendment Agreement relating to the Facility Agreement*\" on 13 May 2015 (the \"**Amendment Agreement**\").1 The Claimants will refer to the Amendment Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. Subject to that, under the Amendment Agreement: *AmendmentAgreement* \"). 1 and effect. Subject the\n\t- (1) At Clause 3.1, it was agreed to increase UBS's lending commitment to HK\\$6,011,236,393.92 and to increase in the initial LTV ratio to 61.45%, but the Margin Call Trigger remained 66.7%. e to l Margin\n\t- (2) At Clause 6.4, it was agreed that the \"*Amendment Agreement, and all non-contractual obligations arising from or in connection with this agreement, are governed by English law.*\"\n- 57. Also on 13 May 2015, Dawn State and UBS London entered into a further security agreement, entitled \"**Second Security Agreement**,\" updating the Security Agreement so as to reflect the amendments made to the Facility Agreement by the Amendment Agreement. The Claimants will refer to the Second Security Agreement at trial for its full terms and effect. The relevant terms of the Second Security Agreement are identical to those pleaded at paragraph 51 above, and those terms are repeated as particulars of the provisions of the Second Security Agreement.\n\n#### **Completion**\n\n- 58. On 13 May 2015, Mr Kwok and Ms Yu authorised the final payment to Dawn State for the cash portion of the subscription price under the Subscription Agreement pursuant to Clause 4.1 of the Co-Investment Agreement. Pursuant to its obligations under the Facility Agreement, this sum was subsequently paid by Dawn State to UBS London as the Subsequent Borrower Contribution.\n- 59. Also on 13 May 2015 Dawn State made a Utilisation Request to UBS London, in accordance with clause 5 of the Facility Agreement, for the sum of HKD 6,011,236,393.82.\n- 60. Completion under the Subscription Agreement took place on 15 May 2015, and the UBS H-Shares were transferred to Dawn State. Upon its registration as shareholder, Dawn State immediately deposited the shares in the Secured Account with UBS London pursuant to clause 6.2(a) of the Second Security Agreement. UBS London therefore took assignment of the \"**Acquired H-Shares**\" by way of security in accordance with the terms of the Second Security Agreement pleaded at paragraphs 51 and 57 above.\n\n1 Amendment Agreement dated 13 May 2015\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 26 of 452\n\n#### **Consequences of the Advice and Representations**\n\n- 61. The particulars of the advice and representations of UBS pleaded at paragraphs 14 to 20, 38 to 43 and 45 to 48 are repeated. Mr Kwok and Ace Decade entered into (and did not withdraw from) the Co-Investment Agreement with Dawn State and caused and permitted Dawn State to enter into the Lending Documents with UBS on the basis of and in reasonable reliance upon the adequacy of that advice and/or accuracy of those representations. S 14 to 38 to de entered into and permitted State upon presentations.\n- 62. In the absence of those representations:\n\t- (1) If UBS insisted on including the Margin Call and Mandatory Prepayment terms under the Facility Agreement, Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade would have acquired the UBS H-Shares without using loan financing from UBS;\n\t- (2) Alternatively, Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade would not have acquired the UBS H-Shares at all;\n\t- (3) Alternatively, if (contrary to the Claimants' case) Mr Kwok and Ace Decade would have acquired the UBS H-Shares through Dawn State using loan financing from UBS and on the same terms, Mr Kwok and Ace Decade would have ensured that Dawn State had sufficient funds available to meet any such margin calls and/or repayments immediately.\n- 63. The terms of the loan documents are very disadvantageous to Dawn State, and advantageous to UBS London. In particular:\n\t- (1) The Facility Agreement made provision for UBS to have both (a) the right to demand mandatory prepayment pursuant to Clause 7.7 and (b) to make margin calls pursuant to Clause 18.1.\n\t- (2) Under Clause 7.7, UBS was entitled to demand full repayment of the loan because of a 15% single day reduction or a 25% reduction over five days in the value of the UBS H-Shares, irrespective of the absolute value of the Haitong H-Shares, the LTV ratio, or the extent or absence of risk of loss to UBS London as Lender.\n\t- (3) Haitong H-Shares were, as UBS knew (through at least Mr Wong as a result of the discussions in 2014 and 2015, and in any event as a matter of general market knowledge), prone to short term fluctuations in value, and there was therefore a material risk that the entitlement to seek prepayment under Clause 7.7 would be triggered during the term of the Facility Agreement, including in circumstances in which there was not (or not materially) a risk of loss for UBS.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 27 of 452\n\n-\n- (4) As UBS knew (at least through Mr Wong) or ought to have known: ht tohave known:\n\t- (a) Dawn State was not the ultimate investor or the source of funds for the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares, and would not be the source of funds required to meet any margin call or demand for prepayment. This was a function of the structure for the investment which had been created on the advice of UBS, as pleaded at paragraphs 18 above. the funds e of funds any dvice as paragraphs\n\t- (b) The time periods allowed for mandatory prepayment pursuant to Clause 7.7 or payment of margin pursuant to Clause 18.1 of the Facility Agreement were not sufficient (or not reasonably likely to be sufficient) to allow the sums in question to be provided to Dawn State and by Dawn State to UBS. In particular, UBS had acknowledged on 19 December 2014, in a letter to Haixia, that it understood that Dawn State could not make payments within 24 hours of a demand being made. prepayment pursuant to Clause 7 7 or\n- (5) Accordingly, there was a substantial chance that there would be an Event of Default within Clause 20.1 and/or 20.2 of the Facility Agreement, and that UBS would become entitled to exercise remedies following on an Event of Default pursuant to Clause 20.17.\n- (6) Pursuant to the Facility Agreement Side Letter, in the event that UBS exercised its rights to demand prepayment of the loan, Dawn State had agreed to pay UBS the whole of the spread that would have been applicable on the amount of the principal of the Loan repaid or prepaid for the period from the relevant date of repayment or prepayment up to the next occurring Mutual Break Date or, if none, the Final Repayment Date. Such a clause, which is unusual in such arrangements compared to simple \"break costs\" provisions meant UBS would be financially advantaged by exercising its right to demand mandatory prepayment under Clause 7.7.\n\n#### **Enforcement by UBS London**\n\n64. Between around 1 and 6 July 2015, there was a substantial drop in the trading price of Haitong shares, including H-Shares. By letter sent on the evening of 6 July 2015, UBS London served a notice on Dawn State pursuant to which it purported to exercise an entitlement to demand prepayment of the Facility advanced under the Facility Agreement pursuant to Clause 7.7 thereof. In that notice, UBS purported to demand payment of: (1) 25% of the Loan, together with accrued interest and all other amounts accrued under the Finance Documents (the \"**Relevant Prepayment Amount**\"), being approximately US\\$200 million, by 5pm the following day; (2) 25% of the Relevant Prepayment Amount, being approximately US\\$200 million, by 5pm on the second day after the notice was served; and (3) 50% of the Relevant\n\n- Prepayment Amount, being approximately US\\$200 million, by 5pm on the second day after the notice was served. on, 5pm on the the 452\n- 65. During the morning of 7 July 2015, Ace Decade informed UBS that, while it would be able to meet the liability '*quickly*', it could not do so by 5pm that day. Mr Kwok also contacted Mr Wong by telephone to ask for additional time to secure sufficient funds in accordance with UBS's representations and advice particularised at paragraphs 14 to 20, 38 to 43 and 45 to 48 above. Mr Wong stated that no such time would be given, and that UBS London had resolved that the UBS H-Shares would be sold. ed UBS that, while it day. Kwok Mr cient with 14 to 38 to 43 and 45 to 48 above. hat UBS London Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 28 of\n- 66. Dawn State did not pay the sum demanded by 5 pm on 7 July 2015.\n- 67. During the evening of 7 July 2015, UBS London issued a \"*Notice of Acceleration Event*\" to Dawn State (the '**Notice**').\n\t- (1) By paragraph 3 of this Notice UBS stated that all of the Loan (including the prepayment amount due today), together with accrued interest, and all other amounts accrued or outstanding under the Finance Documents were immediately due and payable.\n\t- (2) Also in paragraph 3, UBS gave notice of its right to exercise the power of sale pursuant to Clause 9.4 of \"*each Security Document*\" (i.e. the Security Agreement and Second Security Agreement).\n- 68. By a further letter of 7 July 2015, UBS asserted that the sum payable totalled HKD 6,289,081,405.43 and comprised: (1) The loan principal (HKD 6,011,236,393.92); (2) Outstanding accrued interest (HKD 44,003,279.72); (3) 'Break costs' (HKD 1,873,883.54);and (4) The 'Make-Whole Amount' (HKD 231,967,848.24).\n\n#### **Sale of the UBS H-Shares**\n\n- 69. UBS London has provided limited information regarding how, if at all, it sold or purported to sell the UBS H-Shares. To the best of the Claimants' knowledge and belief:\n\t- (1) On or about 8 July 2015 UBS London formally transferred 200,000,000 of the UBS H-Shares (from a total of 569,427,620) to Segantii Capital Management Limited (\"**Segantii**\") in a block trade at an average price of HK\\$11.12 for a total of HK\\$2,224,000,000.\n\t- (2) On or about 10 July 2015, UBS itself purported to acquire absolutely 58,284,114 of the UBS H-Shares for a price which is not known to the Claimants. The Claimants also do not know whether, or if so when and at what price UBS sold those shares to a third party.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 29 of 452\n\n- (3) The Claimants do not know the details of any other sales made by UBS pursuant to the power of sale under Clause 9.4 of the Security Agreements. her sales made by UBS reements.\n- 70. A price of HK\\$11.12 represented an unusually deep discount to the trading price of Haitong H-Shares, which closed at HK\\$13.90 per share on 7 July 2015. scount to the y 2015.\n- 71. On the morning of 8 July 2015, Haitong announced a suspension of trading for its H-Shares, pending the release of announcements in respect of:\n\n*\"(1) a potential scheme of a repurchase of the shares of the Company which, if implemented, is subject to the shareholders' approval and (2) a potential purchase of the shares of the Company by the senior management and/or employees of the Company…\"*\n\n- 72. Accordingly, from the morning of 8 July it was generally known (including, it is to be inferred, by UBS) both that trading was suspended, and that there was at least likely to be a buy-back of Haitong's shares. On 9 July 2015, Haitong announced a buy-back of its own shares. On 10 July 2015, Haitong H-Shares recommenced trading. H-Shares opened at HK\\$14.24 and closed at HK\\$15.14.\n- 73. On 10 July 2015, UBS sent Haixia and its lawyers an email attaching \"*a sheet detailing the application of the proceeds of Enforcement*\", although the calculation was stated to be \"*in draft form and …subject to full settlement of the trade.*\" This provided that the payment to Dawn State would be calculated by reference to: (1) \"*HK closing price as of 7 July 2015: HKD 13.90*\"; (2) \"*Block discount (%) 20.0%*\"; (3) \"*Block placement price: 11.12*\"; (4) \"*Number of Shares sold (shares): 569,427,620*\" i.e. all of Dawn State's shareholding. UBS did not, then or subsequently, provide details of the actual buyers of any shares, how many shares were sold to each buyer, the price at which each sale was effected, when the sale was effected, or the terms of the sale.\n\n#### **Transfer of Dawn State's Shares**\n\n74. On 18 September 2015, the entire share capital of Dawn State was transferred by Haixia Fund to Ace Decade, in accordance with Ace Decade's rights under the Letter Agreement.\n\n#### **ACE DECADE'S AND MR KWOK'S CLAIMS**\n\n75. Ace Decade's and Mr Kwok's claims pleaded in the following paragraphs are pleaded on the basis and assumption that these claims are governed by the law of England and Wales. If it is asserted on behalf of UBS and/or found by the Court that the governing law of the claims is the law of Hong Kong, the same claims are pursued in the alternative under the law of Hong Kong, and the facts and matters pleaded below are relied on as particularising Mr Kwok and Ace Decades causes of action under Hong Kong law.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 30 of\n\n#### **UBS' Duty of Care**\n\n76. UBS owed duties of care in tort to Ace Decade and to Mr Kwok, comprising (each further or in the alternative): MrKwok, comprising or\n\n- (1) A duty to exercise reasonable care and skill to ensure that information provided to or statements of fact made to them or either of them were accurate. nsure to or were accurate.\n- (2) A duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and judgment in giving advice to them or either of them regarding (*inter alia*): (a) the structuring of the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares; (b) the financing of the acquisition of the UBS H-Shares; (c) the terms and effect of the Financing Documents; (d) the risks associated with those terms; (e) and/or UBS' intended and likely conduct in exercise of those rights. ment f h i i i f h UBS H Sh\n- 77. The facts and matters establishing the assumption of responsibility by UBS include at least the following:\n\t- (1) At all relevant times Mr Wong was an agent of UBS with authority to enter into make representations and give undertakings on behalf of UBS.\n\t- (2) As pleaded at paragraph 9 above, Mr Kwok (as UBS knew, at least through Mr Wong) at all material times treated Mr Wong as a trusted adviser and personal friend, and relied on him as such.\n\t- (3) Paragraphs 11 to 13 above are repeated. As pleaded there, the background to the relationship between UBS and Mr Kwok and Ace Decade was an arrangement whereby Mr Kwok (at the request of UBS) assisted UBS to become the placement agent for the UBS H-Shares, and UBS offered in return to assist and advise him in acquiring the shares for which it was made placement agent on advantageous terms.\n\t- (4) Mr Wong repeatedly held himself and UBS out as acting to protect and advance Mr Kwok and Ace Decade's best interests in relation to the acquisition of the Placement Shares and the funding thereof, including in respect of all of: (a) the devising of the structure and funding plan for the investment; (b) the provision of information in respect of the structure, funding and merits of the investment; and (c) advising as to the structure, funding and merits of the investment. Paragraphs 17, 40 and 47 above are repeated.\n\t- (5) Mr Wong repeatedly asserted that Mr Kwok and Ace Decade should repose trust in and rely upon Mr Wong and UBS. Paragraphs 17, 40 and 47 above are repeated.\n\n## 452\n\n- (6) UBS (through Mr Wong) in fact provided information and gave advice to Mr Kwok and Ace Decade, in circumstances in which it knew and intended that they would rely on that information and advice. Paragraphs 18 to 20, 21 to 23, 24, 28, 39 and 47 above are repeated. ation and gaveadvice toMr and d that would 1 to 23, 24, 28,39 and 47 are cade) Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 31 of\n\t- (7) As pleaded at paragraph 17, Mr Wong held himself and UBS out as having the experience and expertise to devise an advantageous structure for the acquisition for Mr Kwok and advising Mr Kwok (and, subsequently, Ace Decade) with respect to investments in placements such as that for the Placement Shares, the structuring of the investments, and the financing thereof. f experience e acquisition and\n\t- (8) In giving information and advice about the policies, intentions and/or likely conduct of UBS as the counterparty under the Lending Documents, Mr Wong and UBS addressed matters which were uniquely within UBS's knowledge, and which (as they knew) Mr Kwok and Ace Decade could not verify independently, and in respect of which Mr Kwok and Ace Decade would have to rely on the matters communicated to them by UBS.\n\n#### **Breach of duty**\n\n- 78. UBS, by Mr Wong acting within the course and scope of his authority as UBS's agent, made false and misleading representations to Ace Decade and/or Mr Kwok prior to the execution of the December Contracts and thereafter prior to the execution of the Lending Documents, as set out above. In particular:\n\t- (1) UBS stated that it had a policy which would apply to Ace Decade and Mr Kwok (and therefore to Dawn State as their intermediary) not to demand payment of margin or mandatory prepayment if prices moved in the short term. Paragraphs 39, 43 and 47 above are repeated. These statements were false and misleading in that (as can be inferred from UBS's actual conduct pleaded at paragraphs 64 to 68 above) UBS (through the decision makers acting for UBS London and/or, insofar as relevant, UBS HK in relation to the entry into and enforcement of rights under the Lending Documents (the \"**Decision Makers**\")) did not have such a policy and/or did not intend to apply it to Mr Kwok, Ace Decade and/or Dawn State.\n\t- (2) UBS stated that it had a policy which would apply to Ace Decade and Mr Kwok (and therefore to Dawn State as their intermediary) if it were necessary for UBS to make a demand payment of margin or mandatory prepayment, pursuant to which UBS would work with them to allow them to meet any demands and would allow a reasonable time for them to do so, including longer time periods for payment than those in the Facility\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 32 of 452\n\nAgreement if necessary, and would not sell any of the Shares as a result of any margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time to pay. Paragraphs 39, 43 and 47 above are repeated. These statements were false and misleading in that (as can be inferred from UBS's actual conduct pleaded at paragraphs 64 to 68 above) UBS through its Decision Makers did not have such a policy and/or did not intend to apply it to Mr Kwok, Ace Decade and/or Dawn State. the Shares as a call y. Paragraphs 39, 43 and 47 are ading that (as can inferred o 68 above) ot Ace\n\n- (3) UBS stated that it intended to treat Ace Decade and Mr Kwok (and therefore to Dawn State as their intermediary) in the manner in which it claimed to have treated the Ping An shareholder. Paragraphs 19, 39, 42 to 43 and 47 above are repeated. These statements were false and misleading in that (as can be inferred from UBS's actual conduct pleaded at paragraphs 64 to 68 above) UBS through its Decision Makers did not have such an intention, but instead intended to exercise all and any rights conferred on them under the Lending Documents in accordance with their terms and/or in the manner most advantageous to UBS. Mr to Dawn\n- (4) UBS stated that it had in fact treated the Ping An shareholder in a manner which was in accordance with the supposed policies pleaded at sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) above, and that this evidenced the approach which UBS intended to take and would (or could be expected to) take under the Lending Documents. Paragraphs 19, 39, 42 to 43 and 47 above are repeated. These statements were false and misleading in that:\n\t- (a) In conversations between Mr Wong and Mr Kwok in or around the middle of July 2015, Mr Wong indicated that (contrary to his earlier representations) the Ping An shareholder had in fact been the subject of margin calls (i.e. to demands for payment of margin or mandatory prepayment) and had met those demands in accordance with the terms of the relevant Lending Documents. If that is true, it follows that UBS's earlier representations were false and misleading.\n\t- (b) Alternatively, if UBS did treat the Ping An shareholder in the manner pleaded at paragraphs 42 to 43 above, UBS's statements were false and misleading in that the treatment of the Ping An shareholder did not evidence the approach which UBS through its Decision Makers intended to take and would (or could be expected to) take under the Lending Documents.\n- (5) UBS stated that it intended to act and was acting in Mr Kwok and Ace Decade's best interests in relation to the acquisition of the Placement Shares and the funding thereof. Paragraphs 17, 40 and 47 above are repeated. These statements were false and misleading\n\nin that (as can be inferred from UBS's actual conduct pleaded at paragraphs 63 to 68 above) UBS through its Decision Makers did not intend to act in Mr Kwok or Ace Decade's best interest but instead intended to act in its own interests as Dawn State's contractual counterparty regardless of the consequences for Mr Kwok and Ace Decade. nduct pleadedat paragraphs 63 to 68 otintend in Ace t in interests State's uences for MrKwok Decade. nd Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 33 of 452\n\n- (6) UBS stated that it was providing loan financing for Dawn State (and therefore, in practice, Ace Decade) on advantageous terms, or on \"*the best possible terms*.\" Paragraphs 11 and 19 above are repeated. These statements were false and misleading in that (as can be inferred from the matters pleaded at paragraph 63 above) UBS through its Decision Makers intended to offer them financing which was advantageous to UBS and very disadvantageous to Dawn State, Ace Decade and Mr Kwok. Dawn *est* Paragraphs 11 and 19\n- 79. UBS, by Mr Wong acting within the course and scope of his authority as UBS's agent, was negligent in making those false representations in that, at the time of or before he made the representations, Mr Wong had:\n\n#### PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE\n\n- (1) Failed to take reasonable care to ascertain whether UBS, and in particular UBS London, (through the relevant Decision Makers) intended to act and/or was acting in Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade's best interests.\n- (2) Failed to take reasonable care to ascertain whether UBS, and in particular UBS London, (through the relevant Decision Makers) would be offering Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade finance on advantageous terms and/or on the \"*best possible terms*\".\n- (3) Failed to take reasonable care to ascertain whether UBS had the policies pleaded at paragraph 78(1) and 78(2) above, and/or whether UBS London (through the relevant Decision Makers) in fact intended to apply those policies to Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade (and therefore to Dawn State as their intermediary) as pleaded at paragraph 78(3) to 78(6) above.\n- (4) Failed to take reasonable care to ascertain whether UBS, and in particular UBS London, (through the relevant Decision Makers) in fact intended to treat Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade in the same way in which it claimed to have treated the Ping An shareholder.\n- (5) Failed to take reasonable care to ascertain whether UBS had in fact treated the Ping An shareholder in the manner pleaded at paragraphs 42 to 43 above.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 34 of 452\n\n- (6) Failed to take additional or further reasonable steps to protect Mr Kwok and Ace Decade from suffering loss or damage as a result of the false or misleading representations made by UBS. s to protect Kwok lse made\n- 80. UBS, by Mr Wong acting within the course and scope of his authority as UBS's agent, gave negligent advice to Ace Decade and/or Mr Kwok, as set out above. As regards the content of the advice given by UBS: UBS's t\n\t- (1) As pleaded at paragraph 19, UBS advised Mr Kwok and Ace Decade that it was in their best interests to make a leveraged investment using loan funding from UBS London, and that any leveraged finance provided by UBS would in any event be on the best possible terms. ok and Ace Decade that it was in their\n\t- (2) As pleaded at paragraphs 39 and 47 UBS advised Mr Kwok and Ace Decade:\n\t\t- (a) that they should not be concerned about the presence of margin call and mandatory prepayment provisions on the terms which appeared in the Facility Agreement; and, therefore\n\t\t- (b) That the loan documents were nonetheless commercially advantageous for Ace Decade. That advice was supported by reference to UBS's representations pleaded at paragraph 78.\n- 81. UBS, by Mr Wong acting within the course and scope of his authority as UBS's agent, was negligent in giving that advice, in that:\n\n#### PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE\n\n- (1) It was not (as must or ought to have been apparent to Mr Wong and UBS) in the interests of Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade to use loan funding from UBS London to make the Investment, and in any event to do so on the terms of the Lending Documents, including because:\n\t- (a) As Mr Kwok had explained to Mr Wong, he and Ace Decade did not require loan funding to make the investment, but could have done so out of their own resources; and\n\t- (b) The loan funding from UBS London (in particular, on the terms of the Lending Documents and in circumstances in which the representations pleaded at paragraph 78 above were false) created a risk (and/or an excessive risk) that UBS would\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 35 of 452\n\nenforce against the UBS H-Shares in the event of a fluctuation in the value of those shares, causing loss to Mr Kwok and Ace Decade. nt of a fluctuation in ecade.\n\n- (2) UBS ought, taking reasonable care, to have advised Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade that there was a substantial chance that UBS London would (contrary to the representations pleaded at paragraph 78) enforce its strict rights under Clauses 7.7 and 18 of the Facility Agreement in accordance with their terms, and that it would not proceed in accordance with the policies which were the subject of the representations pleaded at paragraph 78 above. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, having made the representations pleaded at paragraph 98 above, UBS came under a duty to correct any misapprehension, misunderstanding or ill-informed basis on which Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade were operating. ed Mr and/or representations nder the hat proceed accordance presentations 78\n- (3) UBS ought, taking reasonable care, to have advised Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade that there was a substantial chance that in the event of any fluctuation in the value of the UBS H-Shares, UBS London would enforce against the UBS H-Shares in accordance with the strict terms of the Financing and Security Agreements.\n- (4) UBS ought therefore, taking reasonable care, to have advised that making the Investment subject to the terms of the Lending Documents was not in accordance with Mr Kwok's (and therefore Ace Decade's) express wish that any leveraged investment should only be made on the basis that the provision of additional collateral or repayment of the loan should not be triggered by short term price fluctuations of the Placement Shares.\n- (5) The loan funding provided by UBS to Mr Kwok and Ace Decade was (as UBS must or ought to have known) not on advantageous terms (or *a fortiori* on the best possible terms), but was on very disadvantageous terms. Paragraph 63 above is repeated.\n- (6) Given the actual policies and intentions of UBS London, Mr Kwok and Ace Decade should (as UBS must or ought to have known) have been concerned about the presence of the mandatory prepayment and margin call terms under Clauses 7.7 and 18.1 of the Facility Agreement, and UBS ought to have advised that these terms posed a substantial risk to the outcome of the Investment.\n- (7) UBS failed to reasonable steps to protect the best interests of Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade by:\n\t- (a) Informing Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade that the financing proposed UBS was not financing on advantageous terms or '*on the best possible terms*';\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 36 of 452\n\n- (b) Informing Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade of the risks associated with the terms of Clauses 7.7 and 18.1 of the Facility Agreement; f the risks ent;\n- (i) Informing Mr Kwok and Ace Decade as soon as it became aware or suspected that any representation or any advice given to him was false, defective, misleading or incomplete. on it aware was s to Decade\n- (ii) Taking additional or further reasonable steps to protect Mr Kwok and Ace Decade from suffering loss or damage or otherwise protecting their interest. protecting their interest\n\n#### **Ace Decade's claim**\n\n- 82. Ace Decade brings the primary claim arising from UBS's breaches of duty pleaded above.\n- 83. Ace Decade reasonably and foreseeably relied upon the representations and/or advice particularised above and the skill and judgment of UBS by (each further or in the alternative):\n\t- (1) Entering into the Co-Investment Agreement as particularised at paragraph 33;\n\t- (2) Not withdrawing from the Co-Investment Agreement or otherwise preventing the completion of the Investment before the completion of the Subscription;\n\t- (3) Causing or permitting Dawn State to enter into the Financing Letter as particularised at paragraph 36 above.\n\t- (4) Not preventing Dawn State from entering into the Lending Documents, and instead procuring that it acquired the UBS H-Shares without loan funding from UBS; and/or\n\t- (5) If (contrary to the Claimants' case) Dawn State would have acquired the UBS H-Shares using loan financing from UBS and on the same terms, not ensuring that Dawn State had immediate access to sufficient funds to meet any such margin calls and/or repayments.\n\t- (6) The Claimants repeat paragraphs 61 and 62 above.\n- 84. UBS's negligence has caused Ace Decade loss and damage. In particular (each further or in the alternative):\n\n#### ACE DECADE'S PARTICULARS OF LOSS\n\n(1) Ace Decade has lost the entirety of its Monetary Contribution, being US\\$500 million, less the sum of HK\\$36,621,693.83, being approximately US\\$4.7 million at the prevailing exchange rate accounted for by UBS to Ace Decade after the sale of the Acquired Shares: US\\$495,300,000;\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 37 of 452\n\n- (2) If Ace Decade would have withdrawn from the Investment altogether after the execution of the Co-Investment Agreement (rather than making the investment through Dawn State but funding it from either Mr Kwok and/or Ace Decade's own resources or alternative loan financing), Ace Decade has lost the entirety of its Monetary Contribution, being US\\$500 million, less the sum of HK\\$36,621,693.83, being approximately US\\$4.7 million at the prevailing exchange rate accounted for by UBS to Ace Decade after the sale of the Acquired Shares, and the fee of US\\$812,500 which would have been payable to Haixia Fund under Clause 6.5 of the Co-Investment Agreement: US\\$494,487,500; vestment execution ingthe investment State Decade's own alternative y its being 3, being Ace Decade the ch to eement US\\$494 487 500\n- (3) Losses representing returns which it would have achieved from investing in the UBS H-Shares, to be quantified on the basis of expert evidence.\n\n#### **Mr Kwok's Claim**\n\n- 85. Mr Kwok's claim is only pursued in the alternative to that of Ace Decade, on the premise that UBS denies and successfully disputes that any of its wrongdoing pleaded above is actionable at the suit of Ace Decade.\n- 86. Mr Kwok also reasonably and foreseeably relied upon the representations and/or advice particularised above and the skill and judgment of UBS by (each further or in the alternative):\n\t- (1) Causing or permitting Ace Decade to enter into the Co-Investment Agreement as particularised at paragraph 33;\n\t- (2) Not causing Ace Decade to withdraw from the Co-Investment Agreement or otherwise preventing the completion of the Investment before the completion of the Subscription;\n\t- (3) Causing or permitting Dawn State to enter into the Financing Letter as particularised at paragraph 36 above.\n\t- (4) Not preventing Dawn State from entering into the Lending Documents, and instead procuring that it acquired the UBS H-Shares without loan funding from UBS; and/or\n\t- (5) If (contrary to the Claimants' case) Dawn State would have acquired the UBS H-Shares using loan financing from UBS and on the same terms, not ensuring that Dawn State had immediate access to sufficient funds to meet any such margin calls and/or repayments.\n\t- (6) The Claimants repeat paragraphs 61 and 62 above.\n- 87. UBS's negligence has caused Mr Kwok loss and damage, in the same measure as Ace Decade. Paragraph 84 above is repeated *mutatis mutandis*.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 38 of\n\n#### **DAWN STATE'S CLAIM**\n\n#### **Sale of the Acquired H-Shares**\n\n88. On 7 July 2015, as a result of an Event of Default, UBS purported to give notice to Dawn State regarding its right to exercise a '*power of sale*' in relation to the Charged Assets (being the UBS H-Shares). Paragraph 67 above is repeated. UBS London's contractual entitlement to sell the UBS H-Shares was found under Clauses 9.3(a)(i) and 9.4 of the Security Agreement. to the (being UBS on's contractual the 4 Agreement.\n\n452\n\n- 89. To the best of the Claimants' knowledge and belief, UBS did thereafter purport to exercise its power of sale and sold all of the UBS H-Shares. Save as pleaded at paragraph 69 above, the Claimants do not know the details of the sales made pursuant to that purported entitlement. S did thereafter purport to exercise its\n- 90. Paragraph 51(3) above is repeated. In selling the UBS H-Shares, UBS was exercising a statutory '*power of sale*' under s.101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (the \"**LPA**\") as preserved and modified by clause 8 of the Security Agreements, and was (and is) therefore subject to the duties and obligations imposed upon a mortgagee or chargee exercising such powers at law and in equity.\n- 91. In the premises, any purported sale(s) of the UBS H-Shares which caused or was/were designed to enable the Acquired Shares to be acquired absolutely by UBS were therefore invalid and of no effect. Any UBS H-Shares purportedly sold to UBS itself will have remained subject to Dawn State's rights and UBS's obligations under the terms of the Lending Documents.\n- 92. Otherwise (and subject to any provable costs and liabilities of Dawn State were satisfied out of said proceeds or profits) UBS was and remains under an immediate duty to account to Dawn State: (1) for its dealings with the Acquired H-Shares mortgaged to it, charged in its favour or otherwise held by it as Custodian; and/or (2) for any proceeds of said Acquired H-Shares obtained by it as a result of the sales; and (3) for any profits made by it as a result of the sales particularised in paragraph 69 above or other dealings as aforesaid;\n- 93. Further or alternatively, the aforementioned proceeds and/or profits are held on statutory trusts pursuant to s.105 of the LPA, alternatively on constructive trust, for Dawn State.\n- 94. Further or alternatively, UBS also owed a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care to obtain a proper price for the Acquired H-Shares when exercising its power of sale. Insofar as any purported sales of the UBS H-Shares were valid, the Claimants believe that UBS failed to act with reasonable skill in making the sales, by reason of the fact that it:\n\n#### PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 39 of 452\n\n- (1) Failed or failed adequately to consider whether the discount applied to the H-Shares was an inappropriately large discount in the context of block sales on the HKEX; e discount applied was f HKEX;\n- (2) Failed or failed adequately to consider whether those shares could have been sold with a smaller discount; ose shares could\n- (3) Failed or failed adequately to consider the effects of the suspension (or likely suspension) of trading in Haitong shares; suspension suspension)\n- (4) Failed or failed adequately to consider the effects of the share buy-back by Haitong. Paragraphs 72 and 72 above are repeated;\n- (5) Failed to allow adequate time for the share buy-back to take effect; and\n- (6) Failed to take additional or further reasonable steps to ensure a proper price was obtained for the Acquired H-Shares.\n- 95. As a result of UBS's negligence, Dawn State suffered loss comprising the difference between the price for which the shares were sold and the price that could reasonably have been obtained for those shares. The Claimants reserve the right to plead further on provision by UBS of particulars of the sales of the UBS H-Shares which it effected.\n\n#### **Alternative claim in the event of appropriation by UBS**\n\n- 96. UBS did not, on 7 July 2015 or at any time subsequently, take any definitive steps to appropriate the Acquired H-Shares or alternatively to communicate such steps to UBS. As a result, UBS has at no time appropriated the Acquired H-Shares in accordance with clause 9.3(a)(ii) of the Security Agreement or Regulation 17 of the 2003 Regulations.\n- 97. If, contrary to the Claimants' case, UBS did purport to and did effectively appropriate the Acquired H-Shares pursuant to Regulation 17 of the 2003 Regulations, that appropriation could not have occurred prior to receipt of the notice from UBS to Dawn State of the exercise of the right of appropriation. No such notice was given prior to (if, contrary to the Claimants' case, such notice was ever given) 14 July 2015.\n- 98. In the event of exercise of a right of appropriation, UBS was at all times and remains under a duty to: (1) Value the UBS H-Shares in a commercially reasonable manner at the time of appropriation; and (2) Properly account for any amount by which that value exceeded Dawn State's liabilities to UBS under the Security Agreements.\n- 99. UBS's purported credit at a value of HK\\$11.12 per share (particularised at paragraph 73 above) could not reflect the commercially reasonable value of the Acquired H-Shares on any relevant\n\n## 452\n\ndate. In particular (but without limitation) that credit of HK\\$11.12 per share was purportedly calculated by applying a discount to the closing price on 7 July 2015, and not on any possible date of appropriation. fHK\\$11.12 per share purportedly n7 July and not\n\n100. UBS would therefore be under a duty to: (1) satisfy the court that the UBS H-Shares were valued in a commercially reasonable manner at the date of appropriation; and (2) insofar as it cannot do so, account to Dawn State for any amount by which the commercially reasonable value of the UBS H-Shares at the date of appropriation exceeded Dawn State's liabilities to UBS under the Security Agreements. ourt valued ropriation; and insofar h d Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 40 of\n\n#### **RELIEF SOUGHT**\n\n- 101. In the premises, Ace Decade is entitled to:\n\t- (1) Damages as pleaded at paragraph 84 above, in the amount of at least US\\$495,300,000. This sum is equivalent to approximately £402,032,000 as at the date of this Claim based upon the XE.com mid-market rate.\n\t- (2) Simple interest on that sum pursuant to s.35A Senior Courts Act 1981 (\"**SCA 1981**\") at a rate of 8% per annum.\n- 102. Alternatively to paragraph 101 above, Mr Kwok is entitled to:\n\t- (1) Damages as pleaded at paragraph 87 above in the amount of at least US\\$495,300,000. This sum is equivalent to approximately £402,032,000 as at the date of this Claim based upon the XE.com mid-market rate.\n\t- (2) Simple interest on that sum pursuant to SCA 1981 s.35A at a rate of 8% per annum.\n- 103. The amounts claimed at paragraphs 101 and 102 above are claimed in US Dollars (US\\$) as this is the currency in which the Claimant felt those losses.\n- 104. Further, or alternatively, in the premises Dawn State is entitled to:\n\t- (1) An order that UBS render an account in common form in relation to the Acquired H-Shares held by it as Custodian. Paragraph 92 above is repeated.\n\t- (2) An order that UBS render an account of profits arising from the circumstances particularised in paragraph 92(3) above.\n\t- (3) A declaration that any of identifiable profits or proceeds referred to in paragraphs 92 above are held on statutory, alternatively constructive, trusts for Dawn State. Paragraph 93 above is repeated;\n\n452\n\n- (4) Further or alternatively, damages or equitable compensation for the difference between the sum at which UBS sold the Acquired H-Shares and the value which could have been reasonably obtained for said shares. Paragraph 94 and 95 above are repeated. mpensationfor the difference s which 95 aboveare d.equitable jurisdiction and/or SCA Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 41 of\n\t- (5) Alternatively, the difference between the amount accounted for by UBS to Dawn State and the commercially reasonable value of assets at the time of appropriation, which is claimed as a debt. Paragraph 100 above is repeated.\n\t- (6) Further, Dawn State is entitled, under the court's equitable jurisdiction and/or SCA 1981 s.35A, to: (a) compound, alternatively simple, interest on the sums specified in subparagraphs (1) to (3) above; and (b) simple interest on the sums specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) above at a rate of 8%.\n\n#### **AND the Claimants claim:**\n\n- (1) Damages as specified above\n- (2) Orders as specified above\n- (3) A declaration as specified above\n- (4) The difference between the sum accounted for by UBS and the commercially reasonable value of the H-Shares as a debt\n- (5) Interest as specified above\n- (6) Further and other relief\n- (7) Costs\n\n#### **SA'AD HOSSAIN QC**\n\n#### **SEBASTIAN ISAAC**\n\n#### **MATTHEW HOYLE**\n\nI (the First Claimant) believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.\n\nSigned:\n\n\n\nThe Second Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. ticulars understand nst be\n\nSigned:\n\nName: :BOQJOH :WFUUF 8BOH\n\nDate: 4FQUFNCFS\n\nThe Third Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.\n\nSigned:\n\nName: :BOQJOH :WFUUF 8BOH\n\nDate: 4FQUFNCFS **Exhibit**\n\n| | 22-50073 | |\n|-----------|-----------------------------|--|\n| | IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| Trustee's | 7 | |\n| | | |\n| | 11/17/2022 Admitted in Full | |\n| | PE | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 44 of 452\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In Re \\* Chapter 11 \\* \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Case 22-50073(JAM) \\* Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF CONTINUED 341 MEETING OF CREDITORS APRIL 6, 2022 Electronically Recorded by the Office of the United States Trustee Transcript Prepared By: Christine Fiore, CERT Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, CT 06484 (203)929-9992\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n| APPEARANCES: | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| For the Debtor: | WILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ.
BEN SILVERBERG, ESQ.
Brown Rudnick, LLP
Seven Times Square
New York, NY
10036 |\n| For the U.S. Trustee: | HOLLEY E. CLAIBORN, ESQ.
STEVEN MACKEY, ESQ.
Office of the U.S. Trustee
150 State Street
New Haven, CT
06510 |\n| For Logan Cheng,
Creditor: | JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.
Randazza Legal Group
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 |\n| For Pacific Alliance
Asia Opportunity Fund,
LP, Creditors: | DAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ.
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
1625 I Street NW
Washington, DC
20006 |\n| | STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.
MAKENZIE RUSSO
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY
10036 |\n| | ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.
Robinson and Cole
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT
06103 |\n| For Bruno Wu, Weican
Meng and Rui Ma,
Creditors: | KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &
Carpenter
One State Street
Hartford, CT
06103 |\n| For the Official
Committee of Unsecured
Creditors: | STEVEN STAFSTROM, ESQ.
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT
06601 |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 46 of\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 3\n\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good morning.
Today is |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Wednesday, April 6th, 2022.
We are gathered for the |\n| 3 | continued meeting of creditors in the Chapter 11 |\n| 4 | case of Ho Wan Kwok, case no. 22-50073. |\n| 5 | My name is Holley Claiborn. I'm a trial |\n| 6 | attorney in the Office of the United States Trustee |\n| 7 | and I will be conducting today's meeting.
Today's |\n| 8 | meeting is being recorded on a digital recorder and |\n| 9 | is also available for parties to participate on the |\n| 10 | phone.
And there are parties, including the debtor |\n| 11 | and counsel and other professionals, gathered here |\n| 12 | in person. |\n| 13 | Today's meeting is being interpreted, as |\n| 14 | you can hear and our interpreter today is Jeff and |\n| 15 | I'm going to ask Jeff to respond to this oath. |\n| 16 | (The interpreter is sworn.) |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
On behalf of Mr. Kwok we have |\n| 18 | William Baldiga and Ben Silverberg. |\n| 19 | Also on behalf of the debtor we have |\n| 20 | financial professionals Craig Gelbert and Matthew |\n| 21 | Flynn. |\n| 22 | Present here today on behalf of the |\n| 23 | Committee of Unsecured Creditors is Steven Stafstrom |\n| 24 | from Pullman and Comley. |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 47 of |\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
4 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mr. Stafstrom is the lawyer for the |\n| 2 | Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. |\n| 3 | Also present today on behalf of PAACS |\n| 4 | Stuart Sarnoff, David Harbach and MacKenzie Russo. |\n| 5 | They represent PAACS. |\n| 6 | On behalf of certain creditors, including |\n| 7 | Rui Ma, we have Kristen Mayhew. |\n| 8 | On behalf of creditor, Logan Cheng, we |\n| 9 | have Jay Wolman. |\n| 10 | Also on behalf of PAACS we have Annecca |\n| 11 | Smith, from Robinson and Cole. |\n| 12 | And then also for the debtor today we have |\n| 13 | Josh Klein and Aaron Mitchell. |\n| 14 | Today's meeting will feature me asking |\n| 15 | questions first, followed by the opportunity for |\n| 16 | creditors to come up and ask questions. |\n| 17 | Is anyone on the telephone conference |\n| 18 | line? |\n| 19 | MR. MACKEY:
Steven Mackey from the U.S. |\n| 20 | Trustee's Office is on the conference line. |\n| 21 | Thank you, Mr. Mackey.
Anyone else |\n| 22 | besides Mr. Mackey. |\n| 23 | Hearing none, I'm going to proceed to |\n| 24 | swearing in Mr. Kwok. |\n| 25 | (The debtor is sworn.) |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 48 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n 5 1 MS. CLAIBORN: Mr. Kwok, as you know, 2 today's meeting is being recorded and Mr. Jeff here 3 is our official interpreter for today. 4 Jeff will be interpreting the questions 5 that I ask and your answers, and I ask that you wait 6 until Jeff has made a full translation before you 7 answer my questions. 8 EXAMINATION BY MS. CLAIBORN: 9 Q Mr. Kwok, we're going to pick up today in 10 an area that we left off in general from the last 11 meeting of creditors that was held back on March 12 21st, 2022. 13 Has anything changed in your employment 14 status since March 21st, 2022? 15 A No. 16 Q Has anything changed with respect to your 17 residence? 18 A No. 19 Q During the meeting held on March 21st, 20 2022 I asked you about the accuracy of your 21 bankruptcy schedules and your bankruptcy statement 22 of financial affairs. 23 A No change. 24 Q Thank you. 25 MS. CLAIBORN: Jeff, for purposes of my\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 49 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
6 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | questions I'm going to be following the documents |\n| 2 | that are in front of you. When I say schedules, it's |\n| 3 | this document.
And then this document is the |\n| 4 | statement of financial affairs.
Okay?
And when I |\n| 5 | refer to an ECF number, it's at the top of the page. |\n| 6 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
ECF number. |\n| 7 | Okay. |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay?
That should allow |\n| 9 | you to follow along and start on this page. |\n| 10 | EXAMINATION BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 11 | Q
Okay.
Mr. Kwok, I'm going to ask you to |\n| 12 | make sure you have in front of you, which you appear |\n| 13 | to do, Schedules A-B through J. |\n| 14 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
He has Mandarin |\n| 15 | translations in front of him. |\n| 16 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 17 | Q
I see that Mr. Baldiga, who is seated next |\n| 18 | to you, has English versions.
But in front of you, |\n| 19 | Mr. Kwok, appear to be translations.
Is that |\n| 20 | accurate? |\n| 21 | A
Just on Schedule A-B. |\n| 22 | Q
Okay.
So, Mr. Kwok, when you're answering |\n| 23 | my questions today, you're going to be taking a look |\n| 24 | at your own translated versions of the bankruptcy |\n| 25 | schedules. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 50 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
7 |\n| 1 | A | Okay. |\n| 2 | Q | Okay. |\n| 3 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Just a minute, |\n| 4 | Your Honor. | |\n| 5 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 6 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I'm having a |\n| 7 | | little difficulty hearing the interpreter when he |\n| 8 | | interprets the witness's answers. |\n| 9 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay.
So, Jack, if you |\n| 10 | could speak up. | I'm going to move the microphone. |\n| 11 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh, okay. |\n| 12 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
See if that works. |\n| 13 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 14 | Q | Okay.
Mr. Kwok, starting at Question No. |\n| 15 | | 1 on Schedule A-B.
With respect to Schedule A-B at |\n| 16 | | Question No. 1, that asks if you own any legal or |\n| 17 | | equitable interest in any real estate residence or |\n| 18 | | building or similar property.
Your answer to that |\n| 19 | | Question No. 1 was no, Mr. Kwok.
Is that an |\n| 20 | accurate answer? | |\n| 21 | A | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q | Mr. Kwok, have you owned any real estate |\n| 23 | | between the year 2018 and your bankruptcy filing in |\n| 24 | February of 2022? | |\n| 25 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 51 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
8 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that one? |\n| 2 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 3 | Q
Have you owned any real estate between the |\n| 4 | year 2018 and your bankruptcy filing in February |\n| 5 | 2022? |\n| 6 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 7 | that one?
He said he didn't hear that. |\n| 8 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 9 | Q
Mr. Kwok -- |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry.
I couldn't hear. |\n| 11 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
He said that he |\n| 12 | didn't understand the translation.
I just want to |\n| 13 | make sure I understand first. |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'll repeat the question. |\n| 15 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yes. |\n| 16 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 17 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you owned any real estate |\n| 18 | between 2018 and February of 2022? |\n| 19 | A
No. |\n| 20 | Q
Mr. Kwok, as of the bankruptcy filing in |\n| 21 | February 2022, did you have any equitable interest |\n| 22 | in any real estate anywhere in the world? |\n| 23 | A
No. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, as of the bankruptcy filing in |\n| 25 | February 2022, did you have any legal interest in |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 52 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
9 |\n| 1 | any real estate anywhere in the world? |\n| 2 | A
No. |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you ever owned any real |\n| 4 | estate in Hong Kong? |\n| 5 | A
No. |\n| 6 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
What was the |\n| 7 | answer? |\n| 8 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
No. |\n| 9 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 10 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you ever owned the property |\n| 11 | located at 16A South Bay Road, Hong Kong? |\n| 12 | A
No. |\n| 13 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you currently own an |\n| 14 | apartment at the Sherry Netherland in New York City? |\n| 15 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I didn't get |\n| 16 | it.
Can I ask him repeat the -- repeat the answer? |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
You have to say -- whatever |\n| 18 | you're going to say, you have to -- you're talking |\n| 19 | to everybody, not just Holley, so I need to hear |\n| 20 | what you're saying. |\n| 21 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay.
I just - |\n| 22 | - I just want to ask him to repeat -- repeat the |\n| 23 | answer. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 25 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 53 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
10 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
I don't own that real estate |\n| 2 | in New York, the Sharon -- the Sharons -- at that |\n| 3 | address I don't remember, and I own -- I own 50 |\n| 4 | percent the stock -- the stock and -- |\n| 5 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
No. |\n| 6 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
No? |\n| 7 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
No. |\n| 8 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
For the family. |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Can I ask you not to |\n| 11 | interrupt?
Can you just wait until the end and then |\n| 12 | -- |\n| 13 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- you can express whatever |\n| 15 | it is you want to say? |\n| 16 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Can you please just |\n| 18 | translate Mr. Kwok's answer again? |\n| 19 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah.
I just |\n| 20 | want to repeat, make sure -- and I said it right, |\n| 21 | you know, what he said. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
So, yeah, he -- he said, I |\n| 23 | owe -- I own 50 percent of the -- 50 percent, but I |\n| 24 | don't own the whole real estate, but I just |\n| 25 | represent the family. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 54 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
11 |\n| 1 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 2 | Q | Mr. Kwok, what do you own 50 percent of? |\n| 3 | A | Bravo Luck, 50 percent of the stock powder |\n| 4 | -- power. | I don't know.
I don't understand. |\n| 5 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
(Indiscernible.) |\n| 6 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
He owned -- he |\n| 7 | | said he owns the 50 percent of it. |\n| 8 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
-- we can hear |\n| 9 | you fine, Holley. | |\n| 10 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay.
I'm going to ask -- |\n| 11 | I'm going to -- | |\n| 12 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I don't know if |\n| 13 | | the microphone is connected to anything. |\n| 14 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
It is.
It is.
Jeff, if |\n| 15 | you can speak up? | |\n| 16 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Mr. Kwok said |\n| 17 | | he owe -- he owns 50 percent of -- of the stock.
Is |\n| 18 | | it like the stock of the real estate or something? |\n| 19 | I don't know. | I don't get it.
But you can help if |\n| 20 | she wants to help. | Do you want him to help a little |\n| 21 | bit? | |\n| 22 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'd rather not. |\n| 23 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 24 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
So, I'll just -- I'll ask |\n| 25 | | follow-up questions. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 55 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
12 |\n| 1 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
All right.
But I need to |\n| 3 | hear if it's a misinterpretation, so -- |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm going to ask a |\n| 5 | clarifying question, if I could. |\n| 6 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 7 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you own 50 percent of a |\n| 8 | company called Bravo Luck? |\n| 9 | A
I represent my family to hold 50 percent |\n| 10 | of the stock. |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when you use the term -- |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
Could I hear that back? |\n| 13 | Could you repeat that? |\n| 14 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah.
I |\n| 15 | represent my family to hold 50 percent of the stock |\n| 16 | of the -- of the company. |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 18 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 19 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when you say family, what do you |\n| 20 | mean? |\n| 21 | A
My family is a big family and that |\n| 22 | includes a lot of people.
My kids and my sister-in |\n| 23 | laws, and all people together.
A lot of people. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who owns an interest -- |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me.
We do have an |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 56 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
13 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | interpretation question. |\n| 2 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I just want to |\n| 3 | ask that, is there supposed to be summary of the |\n| 4 | (indiscernible) the interpretation? |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
To the best of Mr. Jeff's |\n| 6 | ability, it should be verbatim. |\n| 7 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Right.
So if |\n| 8 | Mr. Kwok said, my son, my daughter, my brother, my |\n| 9 | sister-in-law, my nephew, my niece, many people, |\n| 10 | then if the interpreter say, well, a lot of my |\n| 11 | families and my brother, many people, then should it |\n| 12 | be correct or not? |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I would prefer that Mr. |\n| 14 | Jeff translate as literally as possible.
So with |\n| 15 | that instruction, can we -- |\n| 16 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah. |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- do a specific job as |\n| 18 | best we can going forward?
Thank you. |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 21 | Q
So, Mr. Kwok, who owns the company called |\n| 22 | Bravo Luck? |\n| 23 | A
My son. |\n| 24 | Q
And what is your son's name? |\n| 25 | A
Cheng Wu. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
452 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 57 of |\n|---------------|------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | | 14 |\n| 1 | Q | | How long has your son owned Bravo Luck? | |\n| 2 | A | I don't remember. | | |\n| 3 | | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER: | Say again, |\n| 4 | please. | | | |\n| 5 | | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: | I don't |\n| 6 | remember. | | | |\n| 7 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | |\n| 8 | Q | | So, Mr. Kwok, what do you own 50 percent | |\n| 9 | | | of when you explained your ownership interest in the | |\n| 10 | | Southern Sherry Netherland? | | |\n| 11 | | MR. BALDIGA: | Objection. | You may |\n| 12 | interpret. | | | |\n| 13 | | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: | Can you repeat |\n| 14 | | that one again, Holley? | | |\n| 15 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | |\n| 16 | Q | | Mr. Kwok, you testified that you owned 50 | |\n| 17 | | | percent of some company, and that was in response to | |\n| 18 | | | my question if you owned the Sherry Netherland | |\n| 19 | apartment. | | Can you please explain what you meant? | |\n| 20 | A | Sherry is a co-op. | | It doesn't have the -- |\n| 21 | | | it doesn't have the -- it doesn't have the | |\n| 22 | ownership. | | | |\n| 23 | | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER: | May I, Ms. |\n| 24 | Holley? | | | |\n| 25 | | MR. BALDIGA: | Yes, of course. | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 58 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
15 |\n| 1 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
You've got to |\n| 2 | speak louder. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay.
I'm going to put |\n| 4 | ourselves on pause for a second here. |\n| 5 | (Off the record) |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
All right.
We're back on |\n| 7 | the record after a short break, and, Mr. Kwok, you |\n| 8 | remain under oath. |\n| 9 | Jeff, could you please retranslate? |\n| 10 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
The last question.
You |\n| 12 | want me to ask it again? |\n| 13 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah.
Would |\n| 14 | you ask it again? |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
All right.
I'll try it |\n| 16 | again. |\n| 17 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 18 | Q
Mr. Kwok, you testified today that you own |\n| 19 | 50 percent of an interest in some company, and that |\n| 20 | was the answer you gave me in response to my |\n| 21 | question if you own an apartment at the Sherry |\n| 22 | Netherland.
Can you please explain your answer? |\n| 23 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection. |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
I don't know how to explain |\n| 25 | it.
He said the Sherry Netherland is a co-op.
I |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 59 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
16 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | don't have a deed on that property and I just |\n| 2 | represent my family to own 50 percent of the right. |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me.
Go ahead. |\n| 4 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Because that -- |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok did mention the company name Bravo Luck, so |\n| 6 | Mr. Interpreter did not say the word Bravo Luck, the |\n| 7 | company that holds the interest of Sherry |\n| 8 | Netherland, and Mr. Kwok represents the family owns |\n| 9 | 50 percent of Bravo Luck, which is the holding |\n| 10 | company of owning the Sherry Netherland. The Sherry |\n| 11 | Netherland is a co-op. |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
So I'm going to make a |\n| 13 | continuing objection to the extent that the |\n| 14 | interpreter is not providing the exact words used by |\n| 15 | the witness.
I'm not ascribing any faults or |\n| 16 | anything, but obviously that's critical to the |\n| 17 | quality of the testimony and that's necessary. |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
We need -- |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
We have to use the words |\n| 20 | used by the witness. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm sure that Jeff is going |\n| 22 | to do his best job today to try to translate |\n| 23 | everything literally. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
But please understand that |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 60 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
17 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | there is a familiarity with terms in this room that |\n| 2 | Mr. Jeff does not have.
So to the extent that |\n| 3 | people are answering questions with shorthand |\n| 4 | versions of company names or just one words, the |\n| 5 | answer should be as specific as possible -- |\n| 6 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah, I -- |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- if you could translate |\n| 8 | that. |\n| 9 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
-- my best but |\n| 10 | probably that interpreter honestly, Holley, the |\n| 11 | interpreter probably know the case more, the |\n| 12 | details. |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I agree.
Can you just -- |\n| 14 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
But if he -- |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- can you translate what I |\n| 16 | just said to Mr. Kwok, because I want to make sure |\n| 17 | -- |\n| 18 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- he answers questions in |\n| 20 | a way that are easily translatable. |\n| 21 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I just tell him |\n| 22 | and the answer let -- you know short and clear, but |\n| 23 | I pretty much understand what he says and -- |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And can you please |\n| 25 | translate Mr. Kwok's answers or comments to your |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 61 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
18 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | comments? |\n| 2 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
He said he will |\n| 3 | try to make it a shorter and clear and -- but he |\n| 4 | needs to explain the details as much as he can |\n| 5 | because it's a -- it's related to his lifeline. |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Sarnoff? |\n| 7 | MR. SARNOFF:
Yeah.
I just wanted to make |\n| 8 | clear that to the extent there is a discrepancy |\n| 9 | between the interpreter -- the translator, the |\n| 10 | official translator and Mr. Kwok's interpreter, that |\n| 11 | the translator is the final arbiter and that unless |\n| 12 | the translator agrees with the translation |\n| 13 | difference that the interpreter is putting forth, |\n| 14 | they have to work that out before we can defer to |\n| 15 | the -- to Mr. Kwok's personal interpreter as what |\n| 16 | Mr. Kwok said. |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
I don't accept that. |\n| 18 | MR. SARNOFF:
That's fine. |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
That can be your position. |\n| 20 | MR. SARNOFF:
Okay.
The position has to |\n| 21 | be that the translator has to agree with the |\n| 22 | interpreter about what Mr. Kwok said for the record |\n| 23 | to be accurate. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
That -- I understand your |\n| 25 | position. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 62 of\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 19\n\n| 1 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
So, Holley, if |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | I miss anything that his personal interpreter wants |\n| 3 | to make up whatever I'm missing, some of the detail |\n| 4 | information, and is it okay for her to add on and if |\n| 5 | I agree what -- you know, what I'm missing or what |\n| 6 | he said, maybe I'm missing some detail information |\n| 7 | and some -- |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I think the better route |\n| 9 | for today -- |\n| 10 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- and for purposes of a |\n| 12 | clear translation and a clear record -- |\n| 13 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- is for you, Jeff, to |\n| 15 | interpret -- |\n| 16 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Uh-huh. |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- my questions and to |\n| 18 | interpret Mr. Kwok's answers. |\n| 19 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And if Mr. Kwok thinks, |\n| 21 | based on your interpretation, that you have not |\n| 22 | translated properly, then he can testify again and |\n| 23 | you can try again. |\n| 24 | But I would like to restrict the |\n| 25 | interaction that happens between translators and |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 63 of\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 20\n\n| 1 | between Mr. Kwok's personal translator so that we |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | have an official record where the person asking the |\n| 3 | question is me, it's being officially translated, |\n| 4 | and Mr. Kwok is giving the answers, and that also is |\n| 5 | being officially translated. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
But, Holley, the problem |\n| 7 | with that is the witness doesn't know whether Jeff's |\n| 8 | English report is in fact accurate.
You can't leave |\n| 9 | it up to the witness.
That's why we have a check |\n| 10 | interpreter.
If he spoke English, then we wouldn't |\n| 11 | need any interpreters.
He can't do that. |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I think as a practical |\n| 13 | matter, Mr. Kwok speaks enough English to know |\n| 14 | whether or not he's answered his question. |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
No, he doesn't.
I object. |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Well, I -- I think that |\n| 17 | that has been what I have seen from my own personal |\n| 18 | experience. |\n| 19 | That said, we're going to try and do the |\n| 20 | best we can -- |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
I agree. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- and we'll see where we |\n| 23 | go. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 64 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
21 |\n| 1 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 2 | Q
So back to questions and answers.
Mr. |\n| 3 | Kwok, do you own an interest in Genever Holdings |\n| 4 | Corporation? |\n| 5 | A
I just have -- in reality, I don't, but I |\n| 6 | just held -- I just represent my family to hold some |\n| 7 | interest. |\n| 8 | Q
Is anyone authorized to act on behalf of |\n| 9 | Genever Holdings Corporation aside from you? |\n| 10 | A
My son. |\n| 11 | Q
Is there a document that memorializes your |\n| 12 | ownership interest, whatever it is, in Genever |\n| 13 | Holdings Corporation? |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection.
You -- you may |\n| 15 | answer. |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
No. |\n| 17 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Ms. Holley, can |\n| 18 | I -- first of all, the last time that -- when he was |\n| 19 | saying -- instructing the witness about his |\n| 20 | testimony, what should it be, I don't think the |\n| 21 | interpreter -- the official interpreter interpreted |\n| 22 | your instruction.
He is telling the witness what he |\n| 23 | should be doing, but not what you were saying. |\n| 24 | And then, now that the witness is saying |\n| 25 | that he asked the interpreter twice that -- you were |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 65 of\n\n452\n\n| Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | | | 22 |\n|-----------------------------|--|--|----|\n| | | | |\n\n| | 22 |\n|--|----|\n| | |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | talking about ownership, you were talking about |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | ownership interest.
Now he used twice these words, |\n| 3 | and then at the end, Mr. Jeff said, yes.
And then, |\n| 4 | so he answered no, but then the interaction was not |\n| 5 | interpreted. |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Jeff, could you |\n| 7 | translate? |\n| 8 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I don't know |\n| 9 | what she just said.
I don't know.
I didn't |\n| 10 | understand what she's saying. |\n| 11 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I mean, every |\n| 12 | word should be interpreted.
The witness -- every |\n| 13 | word the witness says should be interpreted.
Ms. |\n| 14 | Holley's words should be interpreted, right? |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 16 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Right.
But he |\n| 17 | will -- not interpreted Ms. Holley's -- and you did |\n| 18 | not interpret everything Mr. Kwok said. |\n| 19 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay.
Maybe -- |\n| 20 | maybe we should have her to interpret.
I'm going to |\n| 21 | excuse myself.
I don't know -- |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm going to put the -- |\n| 23 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
-- I'm not |\n| 24 | familiar with -- |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- I'm going to put the |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 66 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
23 |\n| 1 | matter on pause for a moment. |\n| 2 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah, yeah, |\n| 3 | yeah. |\n| 4 | (Off the record) |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
All right.
We are back on |\n| 6 | the record after a short break. |\n| 7 | Mr. Kwok, you remain under oath. |\n| 8 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 9 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you have any United States |\n| 10 | currency with you today? |\n| 11 | A
No. |\n| 12 | Q
When you filed your bankruptcy case, did |\n| 13 | you have any United States currency? |\n| 14 | A
No. |\n| 15 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you own any foreign currency? |\n| 16 | A
No. |\n| 17 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you own any digital currency? |\n| 18 | A
No. |\n| 19 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you have any financial |\n| 20 | accounts of any kind in the United States? |\n| 21 | A
No. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you have any financial |\n| 23 | accounts of any kind outside of the United States? |\n| 24 | A
No. |\n| 25 | Q
On March 21st, you testified you have no |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 67 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n| 1 | job and no source of income.
Who pays for your | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | household expenses? | | | | | |\n| 3 | A
Sometimes my son, sometimes my wife, or | | | | | |\n| 4 | sometimes my other family member. | | | | | |\n| 5 | Q
Do you have access to any credit cards? | | | | | |\n| 6 | A
No. | | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
Do you have access to any debit cards | | | | | |\n| 8 | attached to a bank account? | | | | | |\n| 9 | A
No. | | | | | |\n| 10 | Q
How do you pay for groceries? | | | | | |\n| 11 | A
My son, my wife, my family members' | | | | | |\n| 12 | company pay for. | | | | | |\n| 13 | Q
Where does your son live? | | | | | |\n| 14 | A
London. | | | | | |\n| 15 | Q
How does your son send you money? | | | | | |\n| 16 | A
He has a family office in a company, New | | | | | |\n| 17 | York. | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
Does the family office give you money? | | | | | |\n| 19 | A
They pay the expenses above. | | | | | |\n| 20 | Q
What does the term family office mean? | | | | | |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection.
You may answer. | | | | | |\n| 22 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can I ask to -- | | | | | |\n| 23 | ask him to repeat? | | | | | |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay.
Can you | | | | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 68 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
25 | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | -- | | | | | | |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
Right.
He also have to | | | | | | |\n| 3 | interpret for the witness what I say. | | | | | | |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
You haven't said anything | | | | | | |\n| 5 | yet and he's going to ask him to repeat his answers | | | | | | |\n| 6 | so then he's going to translate, and then we can | | | | | | |\n| 7 | have whatever discussion you want to have. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
The counsel | | | | | | |\n| 9 | raised objection.
The interpreter did not interpret | | | | | | |\n| 10 | the objection. | | | | | | |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I can happily repeat the | | | | | | |\n| 12 | question, but we are not going to get anywhere today | | | | | | |\n| 13 | in a meaningful fashion if people are interrupting | | | | | | |\n| 14 | on basic questions. | | | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
No, I didn't interrupt, but | | | | | | |\n| 16 | -- | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
So let me try again. | | | | | | |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
But hold on.
If I | | | | | | |\n| 19 | object or if I say anything else, that has to be | | | | | | |\n| 20 | interpreted. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
You're not waiting for | | | | | | |\n| 22 | space to interpret.
So, Mr. Jeff, can you interpret | | | | | | |\n| 23 | that exchange that just happened? | | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay.
I don't | | | | | | |\n| 25 | know.
It's just too much interruption. | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 69 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
26 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Right. |\n| 2 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Holley, I can't |\n| 3 | do -- keep doing this.
I just too distracted and I |\n| 4 | don't know.
It just a simple -- ask the witness |\n| 5 | just a simple repeat and then -- |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Let me try -- |\n| 7 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
-- it gets all |\n| 8 | these people involved. |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct.
Let me -- |\n| 10 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
We're not going |\n| 11 | anywhere. |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Let me try the question |\n| 13 | again. |\n| 14 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 15 | Q
Mr. Kwok, what do you mean by the term, |\n| 16 | family office? |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection.
You may answer. |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Baldiga, that term is |\n| 19 | all over the papers.
Can you repeat -- translate? |\n| 20 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
No, I'm not |\n| 21 | going anywhere.
Holley, I just excuse myself.
I'm |\n| 22 | sorry.
It's -- it's not going -- |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm going to put it on |\n| 24 | pause, please. |\n| 25 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
-- this is too |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 70 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
27 | | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | much. | | | | | | |\n| 2 | (Off the record) | | | | | | |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
We're back on the record | | | | | | |\n| 4 | after a short break. | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok, you remain under oath.
During | | | | | | |\n| 6 | the break, I spoke with Attorney Baldiga and we have | | | | | | |\n| 7 | agreed that all objections as to form of the | | | | | | |\n| 8 | question are reserved. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | I'm going to go back to my questions. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Q
The question we left off after the break | | | | | | |\n| 12 | was what do you mean by the term family office? | | | | | | |\n| 13 | A
They are representing my big family.
It's | | | | | | |\n| 14 | a company my son, my daughter, my wife, and it's a | | | | | | |\n| 15 | company representing my family for investment. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
What is the name of the company? | | | | | | |\n| 17 | A
Golden Spring Europe. | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
Do you mean Golden Spring New York? | | | | | | |\n| 19 | A
Roughly the name. | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Q
Who pays for the meals that you eat? | | | | | | |\n| 21 | A
Sometimes my wife's company, sometimes my | | | | | | |\n| 22 | family office, my son's company. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when you use the term family | | | | | | |\n| 24 | office, are you referring to the company known as | | | | | | |\n| 25 | Golden Spring New York Limited? | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 71 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
28 |\n| 1 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
What's the name |\n| 2 | of the company?
Can I -- can you repeat it? |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
The name is Golden Spring |\n| 4 | New York Limited. |\n| 5 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 6 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 7 | Q
In your bankruptcy case, you filed a |\n| 8 | report covering your expenses for the month of |\n| 9 | February. |\n| 10 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
May I repeat |\n| 11 | again? |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Maybe I'll try it again. |\n| 13 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 15 | Q
Mr. Kwok, you filed a monthly operating |\n| 16 | report covering the month of February 2022, and that |\n| 17 | report shows you spent approximately \\$160,000. |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection.
I object. |\n| 19 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 20 | Q
Who funded the disbursements of \\$160,000? |\n| 21 | A
Some from the Golden Spring family office |\n| 22 | and the company, some were paid by my wife and my |\n| 23 | wife's company. |\n| 24 | Q
What is the name of your wife's company? |\n| 25 | A
Greenwich, in Connecticut. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
452 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 72 of |\n|---------------|------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | | 29 |\n| 1 | Q | Are you referring to the company? | | |\n| 2 | A | Yes, the company name. | | |\n| 3 | Q | What expenses does your wife company, | | |\n| 4 | | Greenwich, pay for? | | |\n| 5 | A | Mostly food, because I live in my wife's | | |\n| 6 | house. | We share the cleaning, the expenses because | | |\n| 7 | | -- and also the garden maintenance expenses. | | |\n| 8 | | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: | Okay. | Can we take |\n| 9 | | a quick time out so I can speak with my co-counsel? | | |\n| 10 | | Or with my partner. | | |\n| 11 | | MR. BALDIGA: | No, let's just wait. | |\n| 12 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | |\n| 13 | Q | Where does your wife's company, Greenwich, | | |\n| 14 | | get its money from? | | |\n| 15 | A | I don't know. | | |\n| 16 | Q | Did your wife's company, Greenwich, pay | | |\n| 17 | | for any professional expenses? | | |\n| 18 | A | I don't know. | | |\n| 19 | Q | Is your wife the person who actually makes | | |\n| 20 | the payments? | | | |\n| 21 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 22 | Q | Does your wife have a checking account? | | |\n| 23 | A | I don't know. | | |\n| 24 | Q | Does your wife have a debit card? | | |\n| 25 | A | I don't know. | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 73 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
30 |\n| 1 | Q | When you eat in a restaurant with your |\n| 2 | | wife, who pays the bill? |\n| 3 | A | I never went to a restaurant with my wife. |\n| 4 | Q | Ever? |\n| 5 | A | I think I was chased by these people and I |\n| 6 | never went. | Thinks I -- you know, I think I was |\n| 7 | | chased by these people. |\n| 8 | Q | Does your wife buy groceries? |\n| 9 | A | Sometimes. |\n| 10 | Q | How does she pay for them? |\n| 11 | A | I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q | Why does Golden Spring New York pay for |\n| 13 | | some of your personal expenses? |\n| 14 | A | Because I'm one of the family member, and |\n| 15 | | my son is very successful and he loves me very much. |\n| 16 | Q | Is there any other reason? |\n| 17 | A | I don't know. |\n| 18 | Q | What personal living expenses of yours |\n| 19 | | does Golden Spring pay for? |\n| 20 | A | The expense from security because I was |\n| 21 | | chased by the people in the back, and the |\n| 22 | | transportation, clothing, and some items for living. |\n| 23 | Q | Who is the person at Golden Spring New |\n| 24 | York -- | |\n| 25 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Wait a minute.
I'm going |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 74 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
31 |\n| 1 | to ask a full question. |\n| 2 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 3 | Q
So who is the person at Golden Spring New |\n| 4 | York who authorizes the payment of your personal |\n| 5 | living expenses? |\n| 6 | A
My son. |\n| 7 | Q
Please explain how your son authorizes |\n| 8 | those payments. |\n| 9 | A
I usually communicate with Golden Spring, |\n| 10 | the company's manager and CEO. |\n| 11 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
(Indiscernible) |\n| 12 | director, not manager. |\n| 13 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Could you -- |\n| 14 | okay.
Director, not a manager. |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 17 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who is the director or manager |\n| 18 | that you just referred to? |\n| 19 | A
Wang Yanping. |\n| 20 | Q
Is Ms. Ping a officer of Golden Spring New |\n| 21 | York? |\n| 22 | A
She is a Miss.
She's a lady. |\n| 23 | Q
Is Ms. Ping a corporate officer of Golden |\n| 24 | Spring New York? |\n| 25 | A
Yes. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 75 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
32 |\n| 1 | Q | What is her title? |\n| 2 | A | She is a officer or director. |\n| 3 | Q | Does she have a position title? |\n| 4 | A | I don't know. |\n| 5 | Q | Mr. Kwok, are you a corporate officer of |\n| 6 | | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 7 | A | Now? |\n| 8 | Q | Yes. |\n| 9 | A | No. |\n| 10 | Q | Mr. Kwok, have you ever been in the past, |\n| 11 | | a corporate officer of Golden Spring New York? |\n| 12 | A | I seem to hold a title when the company |\n| 13 | | was established in 2015.
I forgot what title was it |\n| 14 | then. | |\n| 15 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you own any interest in |\n| 16 | | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 17 | A | No. |\n| 18 | Q | In the past, have you ever had any kind of |\n| 19 | | ownership interest in Golden Spring New York? |\n| 20 | A | No. |\n| 21 | Q | Were you involved in the formation of |\n| 22 | | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 23 | A | Yes. |\n| 24 | Q | What was your role in the formation of |\n| 25 | | Golden Spring New York? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 76 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
33 |\n| 1 | A | Consultant and giving advice, suggestions. |\n| 2 | Q | Was your son involved in the formation of |\n| 3 | | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 4 | A | He is the main person.
He -- he was the |\n| 5 | main person. | |\n| 6 | Q | When Golden Spring New York was created, |\n| 7 | | who had the ownership interest in New York -- Golden |\n| 8 | | New -- Golden Spring New York? |\n| 9 | A | My son. |\n| 10 | Q | Did Golden Spring Hong Kong have any |\n| 11 | | ownership interest in Golden Spring New York? |\n| 12 | A | I don't know the detail of the interest |\n| 13 | | and because this -- these two combined, it's |\n| 14 | | considered one thing. |\n| 15 | Q | Is Golden Spring Hong Kong a separate |\n| 16 | | company from Golden Spring New York? |\n| 17 | A | I don't know. |\n| 18 | Q | Who owns Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 19 | A | My son. |\n| 20 | Q | In 2015, when Golden Spring New York was |\n| 21 | | formed, who owned Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 22 | A | I don't know. |\n| 23 | Q | Are you a corporate officer of Golden |\n| 24 | Spring Hong Kong? | |\n| 25 | A | I don't remember. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 77 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
34 |\n| 1 | Q | Have you ever been a cooperate officer of |\n| 2 | | Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 3 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 4 | Q | Do you have any ownership interest in |\n| 5 | | Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 6 | A | No. |\n| 7 | Q | Have you ever in the past, had an |\n| 8 | | ownership interest in Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 9 | A | No. |\n| 10 | Q | What type of business is Golden Spring New |\n| 11 | York engaged in? | |\n| 12 | A | I don't know. |\n| 13 | Q | How does Golden Spring New York generate |\n| 14 | revenue? | |\n| 15 | A | I don't know. |\n| 16 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Ms. Holley, I |\n| 17 | | don't know if this -- the (indiscernible) he said, |\n| 18 | | how does Golden Spring New York generate revenue, |\n| 19 | | not how does Golden Spring New York making money, |\n| 20 | right? | |\n| 21 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
That was basically my |\n| 22 | question. | |\n| 23 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Yeah, so the |\n| 24 | | interpreter should not say -- interpret it in such a |\n| 25 | | way that Golden Spring New York -- how does Golden |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 78 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
35 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Spring New York make money, to the -- to the -- to |\n| 2 | Mr. Kwok. |\n| 3 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Generate money, |\n| 4 | yeah.
Generate revenue, generate money. |\n| 5 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
No, but you said |\n| 6 | -- |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm happy to ask it |\n| 8 | specifically. |\n| 9 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 10 | Q
How does Golden Spring New York make |\n| 11 | money? |\n| 12 | A
I don't know. |\n| 13 | Q
In the year 2015, were you involved in |\n| 14 | Golden Spring New York's business? |\n| 15 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 16 | Q
Have you ever given a gift of money to |\n| 17 | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 18 | A
No. |\n| 19 | Q
Have you ever given any money to Golden |\n| 20 | Spring New York? |\n| 21 | A
No. |\n| 22 | Q
Have you ever transferred any property of |\n| 23 | any kind to Golden Spring New York? |\n| 24 | A
No. |\n| 25 | Q
Have you ever funded Golden Spring New |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 79 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
36 |\n| 1 | York in any way? | |\n| 2 | A | No. |\n| 3 | Q | Have you ever loaned money to Golden |\n| 4 | Spring New York? | |\n| 5 | A | No. |\n| 6 | Q | Have you ever invested any of your own |\n| 7 | | money in Golden Spring New York? |\n| 8 | A | No. |\n| 9 | Q | What corporate position does Yanping Wang |\n| 10 | Hold? | |\n| 11 | A | Officer and director. |\n| 12 | Q | Is Yanping Wang the president of Golden |\n| 13 | Spring New York? | |\n| 14 | A | Yes. |\n| 15 | Q | Does Golden Spring New York have any other |\n| 16 | | corporate officers? |\n| 17 | A | Yes. |\n| 18 | Q | Who are they? |\n| 19 | A | I don't remember clearly about their |\n| 20 | names. | |\n| 21 | Q | Please tell me what you remember. |\n| 22 | A | What -- I don't remember their names |\n| 23 | | clearly and -- because I don't even remember |\n| 24 | attorney's names. | I don't want to misleading you, |\n| 25 | Holley. | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 80 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
37 |\n| 1 | Q | How many officers does Golden Spring New |\n| 2 | York have? | |\n| 3 | A | I don't remember.
Oh, I don't know. |\n| 4 | Sorry. | I don't know. |\n| 5 | Q | Does Golden Spring New York have any |\n| 6 | directors? | |\n| 7 | A | Yanping Wang. |\n| 8 | Q | Is Ms. Wang the only director of Golden |\n| 9 | Spring New York? | |\n| 10 | A | I don't know. |\n| 11 | Q | Where does Golden Spring New York get the |\n| 12 | | money that it uses to pay your personal expenses? |\n| 13 | A | I don't know. |\n| 14 | Q | Does Golden Spring New York have any |\n| 15 | employees? | |\n| 16 | A | Yes. |\n| 17 | Q | How many? |\n| 18 | A | I don't know. |\n| 19 | Q | Are you currently involved in any way in |\n| 20 | | the business of Golden Spring New York? |\n| 21 | A | No. |\n| 22 | Q | What does Golden Spring New York own? |\n| 23 | A | I don't know. |\n| 24 | Q | Golden Spring New York is willing to loan |\n| 25 | | you the sum of \\$8 million.
Where is it getting that |\n\n| | 452
Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
38 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | \\$8 million from? |\n| 2 | A
I don't know. |\n| 3 | Q
Are you the person who asked Golden Spring |\n| 4 | New York to loan you \\$8 million? |\n| 5 | A
No. |\n| 6 | Q
Who asked Golden Spring New York to loan |\n| 7 | you \\$8 million? |\n| 8 | A
My attorney. |\n| 9 | Q
Which attorney? |\n| 10 | A
Aaron Mitchell here. |\n| 11 | Q
Are you referring to Aaron Mitchell? |\n| 12 | A
Now I remember his name now. |\n| 13 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Just for the |\n| 14 | record, I'm not sure Mr. Mitchell has registered an |\n| 15 | appearance yet.
It would be appropriate if he's |\n| 16 | going to be here representing the debtor, if he |\n| 17 | (indiscernible) his appearance. |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I believe I did read Mr. |\n| 19 | Mitchell's name earlier today. |\n| 20 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
He hasn't filed -- |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
He did sign -- |\n| 22 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
-- an appearance in |\n| 23 | this matter. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you.
Can you |\n| 25 | translate that? |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 81 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 82 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
39 |\n| 1 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I didn't hear |\n| 2 | totally clearly. | I know it's some distance.
I |\n| 3 | don't -- | |\n| 4 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 5 | Q | Does Golden Spring New York have any bank |\n| 6 | accounts? | |\n| 7 | A | I don't know. |\n| 8 | Q | Do you have access to Golden Spring New |\n| 9 | | York's financial accounts? |\n| 10 | A | No. |\n| 11 | Q | Do you have authority to enter into |\n| 12 | | financial transactions on behalf of Golden Spring |\n| 13 | New York? | |\n| 14 | A | No. |\n| 15 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
No.
No, that's |\n| 16 | not the question. | |\n| 17 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
What was it? |\n| 18 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm happy to repeat the |\n| 19 | question. | |\n| 20 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 21 | Q | Do you have authority to enter into |\n| 22 | | financial transactions on behalf of Golden Spring |\n| 23 | New York? | Mr. Kwok, if you don't answer -- if you |\n| 24 | | don't understand my question -- |\n| 25 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
He's asking if |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 83 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
40 |\n| 1 | he -- if I was asking if he has the right to use the |\n| 2 | -- the Golden Spring New York, the accounts for |\n| 3 | transactions.
You know. |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
That was not my question. |\n| 5 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 6 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are you authorized to enter into |\n| 7 | any kind of financial transactions on behalf of |\n| 8 | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 9 | A
No. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me, the interpreter |\n| 11 | might have a comment. |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Can you translate that, |\n| 13 | please? |\n| 14 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah.
She said |\n| 15 | that it's the trading -- trading of the financial |\n| 16 | trading -- |\n| 17 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Transaction. |\n| 18 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
-- transaction |\n| 19 | to -- |\n| 20 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Not trading. |\n| 21 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
He said that, |\n| 22 | no, he was not -- I was not authorized to do the |\n| 23 | transactions, financial transactions. |\n| 24 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 25 | Q
What, if anything, do you currently do for |\n\n| | 452
Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
41 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 2 | A
No. |\n| 3 | Q
Is Golden Spring New York funding your |\n| 4 | son's personal living expenses? |\n| 5 | A
I don't know. |\n| 6 | Q
Is Golden Spring New York funding your |\n| | |\n| 7 | daughter's personal living expenses? |\n| 8 | A
I don't know. |\n| 9 | Q
Do you owe any money to Golden Spring New |\n| 10 | York? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
How much? |\n| 13 | A
Like more than \\$21 million. |\n| 14 | Q
How do you owe more than \\$21 million to |\n| 15 | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 16 | A
Because in the past five years and I was |\n| 17 | sued by a lot of creditors. |\n| 18 | Q
Did Golden Spring New York -- |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I apologize. |\n| 20 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I just ask him |\n| 21 | to repeat. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
In the past five years, I |\n| 23 | was chased by Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 24 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I didn't get |\n| 25 | it.
Ask -- I'm asking him to repeat it one more |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 84 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 85 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
42 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | time. |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
Short -- short answer. |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
In the past five years I was |\n| 4 | trapped -- trapped by some of the cases from Chinese |\n| 5 | Communist Party, designed by the Chinese Communist |\n| 6 | Party, including the case past, that case.
I need |\n| 7 | to -- need to pay a large amount of legal fees so |\n| 8 | that's why I got the support from the Golden Spring |\n| 9 | New York.
This is the main reason I owe \\$21 |\n| 10 | million. |\n| 11 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter |\n| 12 | missed that, the legal -- legal fee. |\n| 13 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah, I said |\n| 14 | the legal fee.
I said that.
Did I say legal fee? |\n| 15 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I didn't think |\n| 16 | so, but as long as you say that. |\n| 17 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 18 | Q
How much of the \\$21 million is comprised |\n| 19 | of legal fees? |\n| 20 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 21 | that one again? |\n| 22 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 23 | Q
How much of the \\$21 million -- |\n| 24 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 25 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 86 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
43 |\n| 1 | Q | -- is comprised of legal fees? |\n| 2 | A | I think most of it is legal fee. |\n| 3 | Q | Why is Golden Spring New York paying your |\n| 4 | legal fees? | |\n| 5 | A | Because the Golden Spring New York is my |\n| 6 | | son and my family's company and they love me very |\n| 7 | much. | They hope -- they hoping me to live, not be |\n| 8 | | killed by the people behind me. |\n| 9 | Q | Do you have any written agreement with |\n| 10 | | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | What legal -- sorry.
What written |\n| 13 | | agreements do you have with Golden Spring New York? |\n| 14 | A | It's agreement for borrowing -- borrowing |\n| 15 | money. | |\n| 16 | Q | When did you enter into that agreement to |\n| 17 | borrow money? | |\n| 18 | A | A few years ago.
I know -- I don't know |\n| 19 | rough time. | |\n| 20 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I don't recall. |\n| 21 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
What -- |\n| 22 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
What -- yeah, I |\n| 23 | | don't remember the time. |\n| 24 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 25 | Q | What are the terms of the legal agreement |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 87 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
44 |\n| 1 | with Golden Spring New York?
Sorry.
Let me |\n| 2 | rephrase that.
What are the terms of the written |\n| 3 | agreement with Golden Spring New York? |\n| 4 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 5 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Sorry.
Could you |\n| 6 | repeat the English, please? |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Go ahead and say that -- |\n| 8 | repeat. |\n| 9 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I don't |\n| 10 | remember. |\n| 11 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 12 | Q
Are you obligated under that written |\n| 13 | agreement with Golden Spring New York to pay back |\n| 14 | all of the money? |\n| 15 | A
Yes. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
There's more to the |\n| 17 | question. |\n| 18 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 19 | Q
That Golden Spring paid to lawyers on your |\n| 20 | behalf. |\n| 21 | A
Yes. |\n| 22 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
It was only |\n| 23 | (indiscernible) of a difference in the interpreting. |\n| 24 | For example, the interpreter did not interpret under |\n| 25 | the agreement, are you obligated to make them all -- |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 88 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
45 |\n| 1 | to pay back all the money.
All the money that is, |\n| 2 | you know -- |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 4 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
-- spent on the |\n| 5 | lawyer. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
Maybe Holley can clarify |\n| 7 | that. |\n| 8 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Yeah. |\n| 9 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 10 | Q
I'm going to ask a long question.
I'm |\n| 11 | going to break it into parts. |\n| 12 | Mr. Kwok, are you obligated to pay back |\n| 13 | Golden Spring New York for all of the money that |\n| 14 | Golden Spring New York paid to lawyers on your |\n| 15 | behalf? |\n| 16 | A
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q
Is that agreement with Golden Spring New |\n| 18 | York in writing? |\n| 19 | A
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q
Is that the same written agreement you |\n| 21 | mentioned a few minutes ago? |\n| 22 | A
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q
Do you have more than one written |\n| 24 | agreement with Golden Spring New York? |\n| 25 | A
Yes. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 89 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
46 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q
What are your other written agreements |\n| 2 | with Golden Spring New York? |\n| 3 | A
In the past week, I had a case with Logan |\n| 4 | Cheng.
The settlement with Logan Cheng, the money |\n| 5 | from -- for the settlement is the money I borrow |\n| 6 | from Golden Spring New York. |\n| 7 | Q
Do you have any other written agreements |\n| 8 | with Golden Spring New York? |\n| 9 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 10 | Q
Does Golden Spring New York have a fee |\n| 11 | agreement with any of the attorneys who represent |\n| 12 | you in litigation? |\n| 13 | Can you -- can you answer, Mr. Kwok? |\n| 14 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Any agreement |\n| 15 | with -- can you repeat one more time? |\n| 16 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 17 | Q
Does Golden Spring New York have a -- any |\n| 18 | kind of a fee agreement with any of the lawyers who |\n| 19 | represent Mr. Kwok in litigation? |\n| 20 | A
I don't know. |\n| 21 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who represents you in the |\n| 22 | litigation you filed against UBS in London? |\n| 23 | A
Attorney -- attorney office in London. |\n| 24 | Q
What is the name? |\n| 25 | A
I don't remember completely about the |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 90 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
47 |\n| 1 | English name. | |\n| 2 | Q | Does Golden Spring New York have a fee |\n| 3 | | agreement with that attorney in London? |\n| 4 | A | There should be. |\n| 5 | | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry.
What was the |\n| 6 | answer? | |\n| 7 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Should have. |\n| 8 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 9 | Q | Do you know if it does have enough -- have |\n| 10 | a fee agreement? | |\n| 11 | A | I'm not sure. |\n| 12 | Q | Who is the person at Golden Spring New |\n| 13 | | York who authorized payment of your litigation |\n| 14 | expenses? | |\n| 15 | A | My son. |\n| 16 | Q | Does your son have to speak with anyone |\n| 17 | | else in order to use Golden Spring New York money |\n| 18 | for your benefit? | |\n| 19 | A | Yes. |\n| 20 | Q | Who does your son need to speak with? |\n| 21 | A | He needs to talk to my family member, |\n| 22 | | which includes more than 100 family members, and |\n| 23 | | that because they have a fund. |\n| 24 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
That -- the |\n| 25 | number is 181. | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
452 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 91 of |\n|---------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | | 48 |\n| 1 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | |\n| 2 | Q | | Mr. Kwok, if your son wanted to give you | |\n| 3 | | | \\$100, would he have to seek authority from someone | |\n| 4 | | at Golden Spring New York? | | |\n| 5 | A | I don't know. | | |\n| 6 | Q | | When you say your son has to speak with | |\n| 7 | | | someone at Golden Spring New York, how many people | |\n| 8 | | does he need to speak with? | | |\n| 9 | A | I don't know details. | | |\n| 10 | Q | | With respect to the \\$8 million that Golden | |\n| 11 | | | Spring New York is willing to loan you, did your son | |\n| 12 | | | have to obtain consent of other people at Golden | |\n| 13 | | Spring New York for that transaction? | | |\n| 14 | A | I don't know. | | |\n| 15 | Q | | Have you ever been to the office of Golden | |\n| 16 | | Spring New York in New York City? | | |\n| 17 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 18 | Q | | How often do you go to the Golden Spring | |\n| 19 | | New York office in New York City? | | |\n| 20 | A | Not -- not fixed. | Sometimes I go there a | |\n| 21 | few times a month. | | Sometimes I haven't -- I haven't | |\n| 22 | | gone there for a few months. | | |\n| 23 | Q | | When was the last time you went to the | |\n| 24 | | Golden Spring New York office? | | |\n| 25 | A | Yesterday. | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 92 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
49 |\n| 1 | Q | Why did you go? |\n| 2 | A | For preparing today's meeting. |\n| 3 | Q | Did your son speak with Yanping Wang about |\n| 4 | | the \\$8 million loan? |\n| 5 | A | I don't know. |\n| 6 | Q | Did you negotiate the terms of the \\$8 |\n| 7 | | million loan from Golden Spring New York? |\n| 8 | A | No. |\n| 9 | Q | Who was the person who negotiated the \\$8 |\n| 10 | | million loan on your behalf? |\n| 11 | A | My attorney. |\n| 12 | Q | Which attorney? |\n| 13 | A | Aaron Mitchell. |\n| 14 | Q | Who did Attorney Aaron Mitchell negotiate |\n| 15 | | with at Golden Spring New York? |\n| 16 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 17 | one? | |\n| 18 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 19 | Q | Who did Attorney Aaron Mitchell negotiate |\n| 20 | | with at Golden Spring New York? |\n| 21 | A | I don't know.
My son. |\n| 22 | Q | Did you borrow the sum of \\$1 million from |\n| 23 | | Lamp Capital, LLC in February 2022? |\n| 24 | A | Yes. |\n| 25 | Q | Is that loan from Lamp Capital, LLC in |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 93 of | | |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|--|--|\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 50 |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | writing? | | |\n| 2 | A | No. | |\n| 3 | Q | What are the loan terms of the loan from | |\n| 4 | Lamp Capital? | | |\n| 5 | A | I don't know detail. | |\n| 6 | Q | Who are the members of Lamp Capital, LLC? | |\n| 7 | A | My son. | |\n| 8 | Q | Are there any other members of Lamp | |\n| 9 | Capital, LLC? | | |\n| 10 | A | I don't know. | |\n| 11 | Q | Who is the managing member of Lamp | |\n| 12 | Capital, LLC? | | |\n| 13 | A | I don't know. | |\n| 14 | Q | Who was the person at Lamp Capital who | |\n| 15 | | authorized the loan? | |\n| 16 | A | My son. | |\n| 17 | Q | What are the assets of Lamp Capital, LLC? | |\n| 18 | A | I don't know. | |\n| 19 | Q | What does Lamp Capital own? | |\n| 20 | A | I don't know. | |\n| 21 | Q | Have you ever funded Lamp Capital in any | |\n| 22 | way? | | |\n| 23 | A | No. | |\n| 24 | Q | Have you ever invested any money in Lamp | |\n| 25 | Capital, LLC? | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 94 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
51 |\n| 1 | A | No. |\n| 2 | Q | Why did Lamp Capital loan you the \\$1 |\n| 3 | | million and not Golden Spring New York? |\n| 4 | A | I don't know. |\n| 5 | Q | What is the source of the \\$1 million that |\n| 6 | | Lamp Capital loaned to you? |\n| 7 | A | I don't know. |\n| 8 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Why don't we take a five |\n| 9 | | minute break for the restroom?
We'll reconvene |\n| 10 | | actually, at 12:10. |\n| 11 | (Recess) | |\n| 12 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
We are back on the record |\n| 13 | | after a short break. |\n| 14 | | Mr. Kwok, you remain under oath. |\n| 15 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 16 | Q | Mr. Kwok, were you involved in the |\n| 17 | | selection of the lawyers who represent you in your |\n| 18 | action in London? | |\n| 19 | A | Yes. |\n| 20 | Q | Did your counsel in London request a |\n| 21 | retainer? | |\n| 22 | A | Yes. |\n| 23 | Q | And did you pay your counsel in London a |\n| 24 | retainer? | |\n| 25 | A | Yes. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 95 of
452 |\n|---------------|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
52 |\n| 1 | Q | How much? |\n| 2 | A | 300,000 pound. |\n| 3 | Q | And when was that 300,000 pound retainer |\n| 4 | paid? | |\n| 5 | A | Roughly two years ago. |\n| 6 | Q | Who funded the retainer? |\n| 7 | A | My son helped to pay -- pay that. |\n| 8 | Q | Did your son pay all of the retainer? |\n| 9 | A | Yes. |\n| 10 | Q | Did your son pay the retainer out of his |\n| 11 | personal funds? | |\n| 12 | A | Should be from the company, England. |\n| 13 | Q | What was the name of the company who paid |\n| 14 | the retainer? | |\n| 15 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 16 | Q | Did Golden Spring New York pay the |\n| 17 | | retainer to your London counsel? |\n| 18 | A | I don't remember details because other |\n| 19 | | than the retainer and the other -- a few more |\n| 20 | | payments in -- you know, after. |\n| 21 | Q | Mr. Kwok, if you wanted to go buy a pair |\n| 22 | | of shoes, how would you pay for a pair of shoes? |\n| 23 | A | I will ask Golden Spring New York to pay |\n| 24 | for it. | |\n| 25 | Q | And how would that process work? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 96 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
53 |\n| 1 | A | And I will talk to the director and E Wa |\n| 2 | | Wang (ph) and ask her to contact -- talk to my son |\n| 3 | | and to pay for the shoes. |\n| 4 | Q | How does the shoe company get the money? |\n| 5 | The shoe store. | |\n| 6 | A | I don't know.
Usually, it's E Wa Wang and |\n| 7 | | communicate, because my English ability is not |\n| 8 | | capable to communicate. |\n| 9 | Q | If you went to a store, tried on shoes, |\n| 10 | | and wanted to take them home from the store, how |\n| 11 | | would you pay for the shoes? |\n| 12 | A | In the recent few years I basically never |\n| 13 | | bought a pair of shoes. |\n| 14 | Q | What was the last thing you paid for? |\n| 15 | A | Recently, I didn't go to buy anything. |\n| 16 | | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry.
Could you repeat |\n| 17 | that? | |\n| 18 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Recently, I |\n| 19 | | didn't go to buy anything. |\n| 20 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 21 | Q | My question wasn't recently.
My question |\n| 22 | | was, what was the last thing that you purchased? |\n| 23 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 24 | Q | Do you ever eat in a restaurant? |\n| 25 | A | Recent years, I didn't. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 97 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 54 1 Q Before COVID 19, did you eat in 2 restaurants? 3 A Very rare because I was afraid to be 4 killed by the people behind me, because I was always 5 in the process getting chased. 6 Q When you ate in a restaurant, were you the 7 person who paid the bill? 8 A I don't have money to pay, so that's why I 9 don't go there. 10 Q Mr. Kwok, if you wanted to go buy a cup of 11 coffee, how would you pay for it? 12 A I never bought a cup of coffee. I was -- 13 I'm afraid the people behind me might poison me in 14 the coffee. 15 Q Mr. Kwok, if you wanted to buy water, 16 you're out and about and you want to buy water, how 17 would you pay for it? 18 A Well, since 2107, I don't -- I didn't go 19 out to buy water outside. 20 THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER: There was a 21 (indiscernible) difference in the nuance. 22 THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: Can you -- can 23 you repeat it -- can you repeat -- 24 THE WITNESS: Since 2017, I never went 25 outside, walk around, and then buy water or coffee.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 98 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
55 |\n| 1 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 2 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you have any interest in any |\n| 3 | mutual funds? | |\n| 4 | A | No. |\n| 5 | Q | Do you own any bonds? |\n| 6 | A | No. |\n| 7 | Q | Do you own any publically traded stock in |\n| 8 | any company? | |\n| 9 | A | No. |\n| 10 | Q | Do you own any cars? |\n| 11 | A | No. |\n| 12 | Q | Do you have access to any cars? |\n| 13 | A | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q | And whose cars do you have access to? |\n| 15 | A | My son's and Golden Springs. |\n| 16 | Q | Does Golden Spring provide you with a car |\n| 17 | | that's yours to use? |\n| 18 | A | Yes. |\n| 19 | Q | What kind of car is that? |\n| 20 | A | Maybach |\n| 21 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Maybach. |\n| 22 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Huh? |\n| 23 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Maybach. |\n| 24 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Maybach?
Okay. |\n| 25 | | I don't know the name of it. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 99 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
56 |\n| 1 | | THE WITNESS:
Maybach. |\n| 2 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 3 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you have a driver's license? |\n| 4 | A | I have a Hong Kong's driver's license. |\n| 5 | Q | Do you drive in the United States? |\n| 6 | A | Almost no. |\n| 7 | Q | When you do drive, whose car do you drive? |\n| 8 | A | Golden Spring's. |\n| 9 | Q | Do you keep a car at your Greenwich |\n| 10 | residence? | |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | And what car is that? |\n| 13 | A | Maybach. |\n| 14 | Q | Do you own any aircraft? |\n| 15 | A | No. |\n| 16 | Q | Have you ever owned any aircraft? |\n| 17 | A | Before, yes. |\n| 18 | Q | When did you own aircraft? |\n| 19 | A | Probably 2010 to 2016. |\n| 20 | Q | How many air craft did you own? |\n| 21 | A | One. |\n| 22 | Q | And what was it? |\n| 23 | A | Airbus 319.
319. |\n| 24 | Q | And what happened to the Airbus 319? |\n| 25 | A | It was confiscated by UBS and the Chinese |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 100 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
57 |\n| 1 | Communist Party. | |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
Do you own any water craft? |\n| 3 | A | No. |\n| 4 | Q | Who owns the yacht known as the Lady May? |\n| 5 | A | My daughter. |\n| 6 | Q | Does your daughter own the Lady May in her |\n| 7 | personal name? | |\n| 8 | A | Should be from a company. |\n| 9 | Q | And what is the name of the company that |\n| 10 | owns the Lady May? | |\n| 11 | A | I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q | Where is the Lady May currently? |\n| 13 | A | I don't know. |\n| 14 | Q | Since the bankruptcy filing, have you |\n| 15 | | asked your daughter to return the Lady May to New |\n| 16 | York? | |\n| 17 | A | I did ask her and asked her to talk to her |\n| 18 | | attorney to return the boat back to New York. |\n| 19 | Q | When did you have that conversation? |\n| 20 | A | Last month, after the court date.
After |\n| 21 | met with you. | |\n| 22 | Q | And what did your daughter say? |\n| 23 | A | She said that she would talk to her |\n| 24 | | attorney and then talk to my attorney. |\n| 25 | Q | Did your daughter agree to have the Lady |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 101 of |\n|---------------|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 58 |\n| 1 | | May return to New York? | |\n| 2 | A | She was not willing to talk to me in any | |\n| 3 | detail. | She want -- she wanted to talk to her | |\n| 4 | attorney. | | |\n| 5 | Q | Did your daughter say no to your request | |\n| 6 | | that she return the Lady May to New York? | |\n| 7 | A | No, he didn't -- she didn't. | |\n| 8 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
The question was | |\n| 9 | | not completely interpreted. | |\n| 10 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I know, but she | |\n| 11 | | -- she already -- he already answered and -- | |\n| 12 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Wait until he finishes. | |\n| 13 | | THE WITNESS:
No, he -- no. | |\n| 14 | | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 15 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you own or have an interest | |\n| 16 | in any trust? | | |\n| 17 | A | No. | |\n| 18 | Q | Are you the beneficiary of any trusts? | |\n| 19 | A | No. | |\n| 20 | Q | This is a long question.
Mr. Kwok, where | |\n| 21 | | is the \\$12,000 check paid to you in connection with | |\n| 22 | | your lawsuit against Baosheng Guo? | |\n| 23 | A | It's in attorney's escrow account. | |\n| 24 | Q | What is the name of the attorney who is | |\n| 25 | holding the check? | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 102 of |\n|---------------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | 452
Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
59 |\n| 1 | A | I can't pronounce the attorney's name |\n| 2 | completely. | |\n| 3 | Q | What is the attorney's first name? |\n| 4 | A | I cannot -- I'm not able to read out the - |\n| 5 | | - the pronounce his name. |\n| 6 | Q | Is the attorney who's holding the check |\n| 7 | | the same attorney who represented you in that |\n| 8 | lawsuit? | |\n| 9 | A | It should be. |\n| 10 | Q | On your Schedule A-B, you did not disclose |\n| 11 | | that \\$12,000 check.
Why? |\n| 12 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Wait for a question.
No. |\n| 13 | | Could he interpret that? |\n| 14 | | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 15 | Q | Why did you not disclose that \\$12,000 |\n| 16 | check? | |\n| 17 | A | My attorney thinks because the money is |\n| 18 | | not in my account, so I'm not allowed to -- we're |\n| 19 | | not -- I'm not supposed to disclose that. |\n| 20 | Q | Okay.
Mr. Kwok, do you have any patents? |\n| 21 | A | No. |\n| 22 | Q | Do you have any copyrights? |\n| 23 | A | No. |\n\n24 Q Do you have any intellectual property of\n\n25 any kind?\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 103 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
60 |\n| 1 | A | No. |\n| 2 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me.
Holley, I'm not |\n| 3 | | sure if you're going to come back to it, but there |\n| 4 | | is a reference to the \\$12,000. |\n| 5 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
I did see that. |\n| 6 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Oh, you said he didn't |\n| 7 | disclose it. | |\n| 8 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
He did not.
It's not in |\n| 9 | | response to the questions on Schedule A-B. |\n| 10 | | MR. BALDIGA:
It's right there. |\n| 11 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
We can disagree about |\n| 12 | | whether or not it's disclosed, but it's my position |\n| 13 | | that it's not disclosed.
I understand you might |\n| 14 | | take a different position. |\n| 15 | | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 16 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you own any interest in a |\n| 17 | | company called Ace Decade Holdings Limited? |\n| 18 | A | Yes. |\n| 19 | Q | What is the nature of your ownership |\n| 20 | | interest in Ace Decade Holdings Limited? |\n| 21 | A | So I have the interest and ask for UBS to |\n| 22 | | pay back \\$500 million.
That kind of interest. |\n| 23 | Q | Are you the only legal owner of Ace Decade |\n| 24 | Holdings Limited? | |\n| 25 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Are you the |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 104 of |\n|---------------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 61 |\n| 1 | | only -- can you repeat that question? | |\n| 2 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | |\n| 3 | Q | Are you the only legal owner of Ace | |\n| 4 | Decades? | | |\n| 5 | A | I am a legal representing owner. | |\n| 6 | Q | Are there any other owners of Ace Decade? | |\n| 7 | A | No. | |\n| 8 | Q | When did you become an owner of Ace Decade | |\n| 9 | Holdings Limited? | | |\n| 10 | A | At the end of 2014. | |\n| 11 | Q | This is a long question.
In your | |\n| 12 | | litigation in London against UBS, you are an | |\n| 13 | | individual plaintiff.
What is the basis for your | |\n| 14 | | claim as an individual plaintiff? | |\n| 15 | A | Because I'm the 100 percent representative | |\n| 16 | for Ace Decade. | | |\n| 17 | Q | In the litigation against UBS in London, | |\n| 18 | | there is an allegation that Ace Decade gave \\$500 | |\n| 19 | | million to Dawn State Limited.
Where did Ace Decade | |\n| 20 | | get the \\$500 million? | |\n| 21 | A | I loan from my family. | |\n| 22 | Q | Did you borrow money from your family and | |\n| 23 | | give it to Ace Decade? | |\n| 24 | A | Yes. | |\n| 25 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
I don't think that was -- | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 105 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
62 |\n| 1 | let's start over, because I don't think that was -- |\n| 2 | that was -- |\n| 3 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Yeah, I thought |\n| 4 | that it was -- |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- that was the question, |\n| 6 | because it didn't involve Dawn State -- |\n| 7 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Yes. |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- so I'm going to start |\n| 9 | over. |\n| 10 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 11 | Q
Where did you get the money to give to Ace |\n| 12 | Decade, the 500 million? |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
I don't think he said he did |\n| 14 | that.
I think he said his family did that, but you |\n| 15 | can ask that, but I -- |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
From my family. |\n| 17 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 18 | Q
Who specifically in your family gave you |\n| 19 | money that you then gave to Ace Decade? |\n| 20 | A
John Way (ph). |\n| 21 | Q
Who is John Way? |\n| 22 | A
A member from my family. |\n| 23 | Q
Is he a relative of yours? |\n| 24 | A
It's my older brother's cousin or -- |\n| 25 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Son-in-law. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 106 of |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 63 |\n| 1 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Son-in-law? | |\n| 2 | Okay. | Sorry. | |\n| 3 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | |\n| 4 | Q | On your Schedule A-B, you list a possible | |\n| 5 | | malpractice claim against Boise Schiller. | Can you |\n| 6 | | please explain what that is? | |\n| 7 | A | He was the one -- he was the one | |\n| 8 | | represented me in New York to have a lawsuit against | |\n| 9 | UBS. | He gave a lot of forced documents to the Court | |\n| 10 | | and without my permission.
He also threatened my | |\n| 11 | family. | He also threaten myself after drinking. | He |\n| 12 | | brought a lot of loss to us, including providing any | |\n| 13 | | English/Chinese translated documents to me before | |\n| 14 | | present them to the -- to the lawyer, or to the | |\n| 15 | judge. | That's why I -- that's why we sue him. | |\n| 16 | Q | Have you hired an attorney to represent | |\n| 17 | | you in that malpractice action? | |\n| 18 | A | My son is in the process of dealing with | |\n| 19 | that. | | |\n| 20 | Q | Why is your son talking to lawyers about | |\n| 21 | | your malpractice claim? | |\n| 22 | A | Because I need to borrow money from him. | |\n| 23 | Q | Has a lawyer been selected? | |\n| 24 | A | Not yet. | |\n| 25 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you own an interest in any | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 107 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
64 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | company aside from Ace Decade? |\n| 2 | A
No, but the -- I own the Bravo Luck, the |\n| 3 | apartment, only for a few months, some of the |\n| 4 | interest.
And because the apartment is a co-op, so |\n| 5 | they used my name to buy the apartment after I -- |\n| 6 | after we bought apartment, and then we returned the |\n| 7 | stock interest back. |\n| 8 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
I'm sorry.
He must |\n| 9 | have spoken for 30, 40 seconds.
Clearly said more |\n| 10 | than that.
Is there a more fulsome translation? |\n| 11 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Did I miss |\n| 12 | anything? |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Let me see if I can follow |\n| 14 | up. |\n| 15 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 16 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you own, currently, an |\n| 17 | interest in Bravo Luck? |\n| 18 | A
No. |\n| 19 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you own an interest in any |\n| 20 | limited liability company? |\n| 21 | A
No. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you own an interest in any |\n| 23 | partnership? |\n| 24 | A
I used to own the plane company called the |\n| 25 | Orange or Shiny Time, but that was before and |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 108 of
452 |\n|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
65 |\n| 1 | | doesn't exist anymore. |\n| 2 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you currently own an interest |\n| 3 | | in any partnership? |\n| 4 | A | No. |\n| 5 | Q | Mr. Kwok, do you currently own an interest |\n| 6 | | in any joint venture? |\n| 7 | A | No. |\n| 8 | Q | Other than Ace Decade, do you own an |\n| 9 | | interest in any other company right now? |\n| 10 | A | No.
I only owned the Orange and Shiny |\n| 11 | | Time before, but not right now. |\n| 12 | Q | Does Golden Spring New York have a |\n| 13 | | security interest in any of your litigation? |\n| 14 | A | I owe them money. |\n| 15 | Q | Have you granted to Golden Spring New |\n| 16 | | York, any interest in any of your assets, anything |\n| 17 | that you own? | |\n| 18 | A | No. |\n| 19 | Q | So if you were to win a lawsuit against |\n| 20 | | Golden Spring -- sorry.
Wrong name.
So if you were |\n| 21 | | to win a lawsuit against UBS, would any of the money |\n| 22 | | that you win have to be paid to Golden Spring? |\n| 23 | A | Yes. |\n| 24 | Q | And how much would that be? |\n| 25 | A | Before it was 2,200 1 million, or -- |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 109 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
66 |\n| 1 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
21 million. |\n| 2 | | THE WITNESS:
21 million.
21 million and |\n| 3 | plus now. | Probably it's about 300 million.
30 |\n| 4 | million. | Or 30 million.
Yeah. |\n| 5 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | |\n| 6 | Q | Is there a document that says that any |\n| 7 | | litigation winnings you receive need to be paid to |\n| 8 | Golden Spring? | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. |\n| 10 | Q | What is the name of that document? |\n| 11 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I'm going to |\n| 12 | | ask him to repeat it. |\n| 13 | | I didn't get it.
I just ask him to break |\n| 14 | | it down, then I didn't hear what -- |\n| 15 | | THE WITNESS:
I have a case in DC.
There |\n| 16 | | is a attorney office representing me for political |\n| 17 | | asylum and it was attacked by the cyber attack from |\n| 18 | | the Chinese Communists, and so they -- the attorney |\n| 19 | | office was closed, and they gave my personal |\n| 20 | | information to the communist party, and then I sue |\n| 21 | them. | And that litigation fee, attorney fee, came |\n| 22 | | from Golden Spring New York. |\n| 23 | | I ask for the settlement for 50,000 -- \\$50 |\n| 24 | million. | If I won that money, I will give the money |\n| 25 | | back to Golden Springs for the money they supported |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 110 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
67 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | me for attorney fees. |\n| 2 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Mr. Kwok did not |\n| 3 | say settlement.
Mr. Kwok just say, for a claim, not |\n| 4 | a settlement. |\n| 5 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
You're asking |\n| 6 | for \\$50 million.
Yeah.
He ask for \\$50 million for |\n| 7 | that lawsuit, and if he win -- if he wins the money, |\n| 8 | then he will return the money back to the Golden |\n| 9 | Spring New York. |\n| 10 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 11 | Q
My question was, what was the name of the |\n| 12 | document under which you would be repaying Golden |\n| 13 | Spring for your litigation? |\n| 14 | A
The document is the document I -- |\n| 15 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 16 | that one? |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:
The agreement is -- it's the |\n| 18 | agreement, I borrowed the money from Golden Spring |\n| 19 | New York to sue the attorney office. |\n| 20 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 21 | Q
And what is the name of the agreement? |\n| 22 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 23 | Q
Is it a promissory note? |\n| 24 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 25 | Q
Is it a contract? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 111 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
68 |\n| 1 | A | I don't remember clearly. |\n| 2 | Q | Who prepared the document? |\n| 3 | A | Attorney. |\n| 4 | Q | What was the name of the attorney who |\n| 5 | | prepared the document? |\n| 6 | A | Melissa. |\n| 7 | Q | What is Melissa's last name? |\n| 8 | A | I don't know. |\n| 9 | Q | Did Melissa the attorney represent you in |\n| 10 | | drafting that document? |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | And who represented Golden Spring in |\n| 13 | | drafting that document? |\n| 14 | A | I don't know. |\n| 15 | Q | Did Golden Spring have any attorney? |\n| 16 | A | Yes. |\n| 17 | Q | You just don't remember who it was? |\n| 18 | A | They have a lot of attorneys. |\n| 19 | Q | Is there more than one written agreement |\n| 20 | | under which you owe money to Golden Spring New York? |\n| 21 | A | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q | How many agreements are there? |\n| 23 | A | Kind of two or three, or three or four.
I |\n| 24 | | don't remember clearly. |\n| 25 | Q | And does someone keep track of the money |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 112 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
69 |\n| 1 | that you borrow from Golden Spring New York? |\n| 2 | A
My attorney will write it down.
We record |\n| 3 | it. |\n| 4 | Q
What's the name of that attorney? |\n| 5 | A
Aaron Mitchell. |\n| 6 | Q
Did you say Aaron Mitchell? |\n| 7 | A
Oh, yes. |\n| 8 | Q
And how does Aaron Mitchell keep track of |\n| 9 | the monies that you borrow from Golden Spring New |\n| 10 | York? |\n| 11 | A
In detail, I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q
Does anyone who is employed by Golden |\n| 13 | Spring New York keep track of the money that you |\n| 14 | borrow from Golden Spring New York? |\n| 15 | A
I don't know. |\n| 16 | Q
Have you ever seen a document from |\n| 17 | Attorney Aaron Mitchell showing how much you owe to |\n| 18 | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 19 | A
This is the thing I -- it's something |\n| 20 | between me and my attorney I shouldn't answer. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Can I -- I mean -- |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I don't think the question |\n| 23 | involves -- |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
You can -- |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- a privileged answer. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
452 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | | Page 113 of |\n|---------------|--------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | | | 70 |\n| 1 | | MR. BALDIGA: | That's -- give me a second. | | |\n| 2 | | | You could answer that last question yes or no, so if | | |\n| 3 | | | you ask again, I think he will say yes or no, and | | |\n| 4 | | then we can take it step by step. | | | |\n| 5 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | | |\n| 6 | Q | | Have you ever seen a document prepared by | | |\n| 7 | | | Attorney Mitchell that shows you how much money you | | |\n| 8 | | | have borrowed from Golden Spring? | | |\n| 9 | | MR. BALDIGA: | Wait. | Wait, my instruction | |\n| 10 | | needs to be interpreted. | | | |\n| 11 | | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: | What? | |\n| 12 | | MS. CLAIBORN: | Can you -- | | |\n| 13 | | MR. BALDIGA: | You need to instruct -- | | |\n| 14 | | MS. CLAIBORN: | Just please state it and | | |\n| 15 | he'll reinterpret. | | | | |\n| 16 | | MR. BALDIGA: | Please, tell the witness | | |\n| 17 | | | what -- I am telling the witness he may answer yes | | |\n| 18 | or no only. | | | | |\n| 19 | | THE WITNESS: | Yes. | | |\n| 20 | | MS. CLAIBORN: | I have other questions, but | | |\n| 21 | | | given the hour of the day, I thought that we could | | |\n| 22 | | | take a short break and then reconvene with creditors | | |\n| 23 | | | being given the opportunity to ask questions. | | |\n| 24 | | | I suggest we reconvene at 1:15. | | |\n| 25 | | MR. BALDIGA: | Is that okay? | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 114 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
71 |\n| 1 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay.
Thank you.
We'll |\n| 2 | reconvene at 1:15. | |\n| 3 | | (Recess.) |\n| 4 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
The recording has been |\n| 5 | reconvened. | We are back in session after a short |\n| 6 | | break and Mr. Kwok, you remain under oath. |\n| 7 | | And that this point, Mr. Wolman has some |\n| 8 | | questions for you, Mr. Kwok. |\n| 9 | | EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLMAN: |\n| 10 | Q | Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. |\n| 11 | | On March 21st I was asking you some |\n| 12 | | questions about a prior deposition, specifically |\n| 13 | | about the times you had invoked your rights under |\n| 14 | | the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. |\n| 15 | | On April 1st, 2021, were you being |\n| 16 | | investigated for any crime? |\n| 17 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
April 21st? |\n| 18 | | MR. WOLMAN:
April 1st, 2021. |\n| 19 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 20 | | that question, sir? |\n| 21 | Q | Were you being investigated for any crime? |\n| 22 | A | From SET -- American SET and the |\n| 23 | | investigating GTV and they can communicate with our |\n| 24 | attorney. | |\n| 25 | Q | Are you referring to the Securities and |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 115 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
72 |\n| 1 | | Exchange Commission? |\n| 2 | A | Yes. |\n| 3 | Q | And what exactly were they investigating? |\n| 4 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection. |\n| 5 | | I need to ask whether this would reveal |\n| 6 | | privileged information. |\n| 7 | | Would your answer to the last question be |\n| 8 | | information from your attorneys? |\n| 9 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Can I just -- |\n| 10 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
She wants to |\n| 11 | help. | |\n| 12 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Because he's not |\n| 13 | -- | |\n| 14 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
I think you should just try |\n| 15 | | again. Mr. Baldiga, maybe you can just repeat |\n| 16 | | yourself and Mr. Jack, you can try again. |\n| 17 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 18 | | what you want to say? |\n| 19 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Mr. Wolman asked you what |\n| 20 | | you were being investigated for.
Is the information |\n| 21 | | that you know, was that provided to you by your |\n| 22 | attorneys? | |\n| 23 | | THE WITNESS: Yes. |\n| 24 | | MR. BALDIGA:
And to answer the question |\n| 25 | | would you have to divulge what you were told by your |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 116 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n452\n\n| 7 | 3 |\n|---|---|\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 73 1 attorneys? 2 THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: Have to be what? 3 Divulged? 4 MR. BALDIGA: Would you have to say what 5 you were told by your attorneys? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 MR. BALDIGA: Then I instruct the witness 8 not to answer on the basis of the attorney/client 9 privilege. 10 MR. WOLMAN: That is not attorney/client 11 information. 12 MR. BALDIGA: Hold on. Let it be 13 interpreted. 14 MR. WOLMAN: Information learned from an 15 attorney that is not specifically a communication 16 for the purpose of giving advice or receiving 17 information is not privileged information. If your 18 attorneys says the sky is blue, that is not a 19 privileged communication. 20 MR. BALDIGA: His is arguing with me. 21 There is not question to you. 22 MR. WOLMAN: Mr. Baldiga, will you 23 continue to instruct your client to improperly 24 invoke the attorney/client privilege? 25 MR. BALDIGA: I'll instruct on a question\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 117 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
74 |\n| 1 | | by question basis. |\n| 2 | | MR. WOLMAN:
And this question, will you |\n| 3 | | maintain the instruction? |\n| 4 | | Mr. Kwok, are you refusing to answer my |\n| 5 | question? | |\n| 6 | | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 7 | | MR. WOLMAN:
And on what basis are you |\n| 8 | | refusing to answer my question? |\n| 9 | | MR. BALDIGA:
On the basis of instruction |\n| 10 | | from counsel on account of attorney/client |\n| 11 | privilege. | |\n| 12 | | THE WITNESS:
Because I can't answer the |\n| 13 | | question because of the privilege between the |\n| 14 | attorney and me. | |\n| 15 | BY MR. WOLMAN: | |\n| 16 | Q | Have you been formally charged by the |\n| 17 | | Securities and Exchange Commission? |\n| 18 | A | No. |\n| 19 | Q | Has the Securities and Exchange Commission |\n| 20 | | closed its investigation of you? |\n| 21 | | MR. BALDIGA:
I have to ask again, you can |\n| 22 | | answer that yes or no, if you know. |\n| 23 | A | No. |\n| 24 | Q | Has the Securities and Exchange Commission |\n| 25 | | brought any charges against GTV? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 118 of
452 | |\n|---------------|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 75 |\n| 1 | A | I don't know. | |\n| 2 | Q | Have you been in the past five years | |\n| 3 | | subject to an audit by the U.S. Internal Revenue | |\n| 4 | Service? | | |\n| 5 | A | No. | |\n| 6 | Q | In the last five years have you been | |\n| 7 | | subject to an audit by the New York State taxing | |\n| 8 | authority? | | |\n| 9 | A | No. | |\n| 10 | Q | When did you become a resident of | |\n| 11 | Connecticut? | On what date? | |\n| 12 | A | The beginning of March, 2020, roughly. | |\n| 13 | Q | To be clear, you say you were a resident | |\n| 14 | | of Connecticut in March of 2020? | |\n| 15 | A | Yes. | |\n| 16 | Q | So how come in Mr. Cheng, my client's, | |\n| 17 | | lawsuit against you you signed a statement under | |\n| 18 | | oath indicating that you were a resident of the | |\n| 19 | | Sherry Netherlands Hotel? | |\n| 20 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat | |\n| 21 | that, counsel? | | |\n| 22 | Q | If you were a resident of Connecticut in | |\n| 23 | | March of 2020, you signed a statement under oath in | |\n| 24 | | Mr. Cheng's lawsuit against you that you resided at | |\n| 25 | | the Sherry Netherlands Hotel. | |\n\n| | | 452 |\n|----|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
76 |\n| 1 | A | I don't 100 percent live in Connecticut, |\n| 2 | | but sometimes I live in New York also. |\n| 3 | Q | When did you start living in Connecticut |\n| 4 | | more than 50 percent of the time? |\n| 5 | A | Since March, 2020. |\n| 6 | Q | You had some assets you claim seized by |\n| 7 | China, correct? | |\n| 8 | A | It's not mine. It's from my family.
It's |\n| 9 | my family's. | |\n| 10 | Q | Have you ever had assets seized by China? |\n| 11 | A | You're talking about under my name? |\n| 12 | Q | Yes. |\n| 13 | A | No. |\n| 14 | Q | All right.
In 2010, what was your |\n| 15 | | personal net worth? |\n| 16 | A | No. |\n| 17 | Q | That wasn't a yes or no question. |\n| 18 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can I repeat |\n| 19 | | your question again? |\n| 20 | | MR. WOLMAN:
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q | In 2010 what was your personal net worth? |\n| 22 | A | I didn't have any property. |\n| 23 | Q | Have you ever had property in your name |\n| 24 | | over \\$1 million and by that I include where you |\n| 25 | | owned an interest in a company that interest, |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 119 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 120 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
77 |\n| 1 | | therefore, contributes to your work? |\n| 2 | A | Before 2000, yes. |\n| 3 | Q | Okay.
What was your net worth in 1999? |\n| 4 | A | I never calculate in detail. |\n| 5 | Q | What would you estimate it as? |\n| 6 | A | Roughly around 100 million. |\n| 7 | Q | And what happened to that \\$100 million |\n| 8 | worth of assets? | |\n| 9 | A | Because in 2000 I got a Hong Kong passport |\n| 10 | | and in China and they don't allow me to have any |\n| 11 | property, asset. | |\n| 12 | Q | Have you abandoned all claims to whatever |\n| 13 | | assets you had in 1999? |\n| 14 | A | Yes. |\n| 15 | Q | Why have you abandoned your claims? |\n| 16 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Abandoned what? |\n| 17 | Q | Your claim to those assets? |\n| 18 | A | Because I was not allowed to have any |\n| 19 | assets in China. | |\n| 20 | Q | If China changed its policy, would you |\n| 21 | | have any right or ability to get those assets back? |\n| 22 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection.
If you know, you |\n| 23 | can answer. | |\n| 24 | A | I don't know. |\n| 25 | Q | What was your largest asset in 1999? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 121 of
452 |\n|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
78 |\n| 1 | A | There was the assets from a hotel, equity |\n| 2 | | interest of a hotel in China. |\n| 3 | Q | And who holds that interest now? |\n| 4 | A | Chinese Community Party. |\n| 5 | Q | Is it held in the name of the Party? |\n| 6 | A | China only has one autocrat government, |\n| 7 | | the party, and our family's assets were taken -- |\n| 8 | | were seized by them. |\n| 9 | Q | How did your son become wealthy enough to |\n| 10 | | fund Golden Spring and Lamp Capital? |\n| 11 | A | Because he started very early to do |\n| 12 | | investment and also bring brand names to China. |\n| 13 | Q | Where did he get the money for his |\n| 14 | investment? | |\n| 15 | A | I don't know. |\n| 16 | Q | Ms. Claiborn asked you about agreements |\n| 17 | | with Golden Spring and you could not identify who |\n| 18 | | the lawyer was for Golden Spring.
Do you remember |\n| 19 | that? | |\n| 20 | A | True. |\n| 21 | Q | I'd like to try to refresh -- to ask you |\n| 22 | | potentially to refresh your memory was it a lawyer |\n| 23 | named Daniel? | |\n| 24 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
He's asking |\n| 25 | Daniel? | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 122 of |\n|---------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 79 |\n| 1 | Q | Yes, Daniel Pedolsky. | |\n| 2 | A | Yes, probably and he used to be Golden | |\n| 3 | | Spring attorney and my personal attorney. | |\n| 4 | Q | Did you execute a waiver of conflict of | |\n| 5 | | interest with Mr. Pedolsky? | |\n| 6 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat | |\n| 7 | that? | | |\n| 8 | Q | Did you execute a waiver of conflict of | |\n| 9 | | interest with Attorney Daniel Pedolsky? | |\n| 10 | A | I don't remember. | |\n| 11 | Q | You mentioned two or three -- or three or | |\n| 12 | | four agreements with Golden Spring. Can you identify | |\n| 13 | | each of those agreements? | |\n| 14 | A | I'm not sure. | |\n| 15 | Q | Can you describe the purpose of each of | |\n| 16 | those agreements? | | |\n| 17 | A | That loan from Golden Spring is to have a | |\n| 18 | | settlement with Logan Cheng. | |\n| 19 | Q | And did you take out a loan to pay the | |\n| 20 | | lawyers to sue Logan Cheng? | |\n| 21 | A | I don't remember. | |\n| 22 | Q | And what were the other agreements, other | |\n| 23 | | than with Mr. Cheng? | |\n| 24 | A | From D.C. -- the attorney's office from | |\n| 25 | | D.C. collect (indiscernible)
I don't remember the | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 123 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
80 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | name. |\n| 2 | MR. WOLMAN:
All right.
Thank you and |\n| 3 | this time I have to go but thank you. I'll try to |\n| 4 | dial in. |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Can I ask whoever is on the line if they |\n| 7 | could mute themselves, because they can hear you |\n| 8 | typing. |\n| 9 | All right.
Who else would like to ask |\n| 10 | questions? |\n| 11 | Mr. Harbach.
Go ahead, Mr. Harbach. |\n| 12 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you.
For the record, |\n| 13 | I'm David Harbach with O'Melveny and Meyers and I |\n| 14 | represent PAACS. |\n| 15 | EXAMINATION BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 16 | Q
Mr. Kwok, I'd like to ask some clarifying |\n| 17 | questions based on questions that Ms. Claiborn asked |\n| 18 | you today. |\n| 19 | Earlier today she asked you if you owned |\n| 20 | any foreign currency and you said no.
She also |\n| 21 | asked you if you owned any digital currency and you |\n| 22 | said no. |\n| 23 | My question is have you ever ordered or |\n| 24 | directed the purchase of either foreign currency or |\n| 25 | digital currency on behalf of any entity? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 124 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
81 |\n| 1 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 2 | that? |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
Sure. |\n| 4 | Q
My question is whether you have ordered or |\n| 5 | directed the purchase of any foreign currency or any |\n| 6 | digital currency on behalf of any entity? |\n| 7 | A
What you mean direct? |\n| 8 | Q
Have you directed anyone to purchase |\n| 9 | foreign currency or digital currency? |\n| 10 | A
No. |\n| 11 | Q
Ms. Claiborn asked you a couple of |\n| 12 | questions about access to credit cards and debit |\n| 13 | cards. And I want to make sure that we have your |\n| 14 | answer clear, because she asked you not whether you |\n| 15 | had any credit cards but whether you had any access |\n| 16 | to credit cards. I want to make sure that you |\n| 17 | understand the difference. |\n| 18 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: He's just asking |\n| 19 | why you want to represent Ms. Holley's asked |\n| 20 | questions. |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
I'm just trying to remind |\n| 22 | you of a question she asked you earlier today, sir. |\n| 23 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I don't |\n| 24 | understand the question. |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Mr. Baldiga's right. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 125 of |\n|---------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 82 |\n| 1 | | There's not a question pending. | |\n| 2 | Q | The question is do you understand the | |\n| 3 | | difference between having a credit card and having | |\n| 4 | | access to a credit card? | |\n| 5 | A | I believe I don't have. | |\n| 6 | Q | You don't understand the difference? | |\n| 7 | A | I don't know much. | |\n| 8 | Q | Okay.
Well, let me give you an example. | |\n| 9 | | Let's talk about the Maybach. | |\n| 10 | | I believe that you represented to us today | |\n| 11 | | that you have access to the Maybach for | |\n| 12 | transportation. | Is that correct? | |\n| 13 | A | Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q | But I believe it's also your position that | |\n| 15 | | you do not own the Maybach.
Isn't that right? | |\n| 16 | A | Yes. | |\n| 17 | Q | In other words, your position is the | |\n| 18 | | Maybach is not yours, right? | |\n| 19 | A | Yes. | |\n| 20 | Q | Okay.
So I use that example to illustrate | |\n| 21 | | the example between owning something and having | |\n| 22 | | access to something.
Does that help you? | Do you |\n| 23 | | understand the difference? | |\n| 24 | A | Now I understand you. | |\n| 25 | Q | Okay.
Thank you.
So returning to the | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 126 of\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 83 1 question about credit cards and debit cards. Do you 2 have access to any credit cards or debit cards, 3 whether or not they are yours? 4 A I don't understand the difference what he 5 means, access like if I use it myself or if I have 6 somebody else use it. 7 Q Well, let's take those one at a time. 8 Let's begin with using it yourself. Has any member 9 of your family ever provided you a credit card or a 10 credit card number to use for yourself? 11 A I never used. 12 Q The other example you mentioned was 13 perhaps a member of your family using a credit card 14 on your behalf. Is that something that has 15 happened? 16 A What do you mean represent me to use? 17 Q I'm asking about whether to your knowledge 18 any member of your family has ever used a credit 19 card or a debit card to purchase things for you? 20 A My son, my daughter, my wife. They all 21 have credit card to buy things for me. 22 THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER: The witness did 23 not say that, use the credit card to buy things for 24 me. The witness said that my son, my wife bought 25 things for me.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 127 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
84 |\n| 1 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah, they used |\n| 2 | | their card and they both -- they all have it.
They |\n| 3 | | all have the cards.
That's what he said. |\n| 4 | | (Repeats interpretation) |\n| 5 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yes, I did it |\n| 6 | right. | |\n| 7 | | THE WITNESS:
And so my wife and my son |\n| 8 | | and my daughter have their own cards and also other |\n| 9 | | family members use their cards to buy things for me. |\n| 10 | Q | Is that ever at your direction? |\n| 11 | A | No. |\n| 12 | Q | Never. |\n| 13 | A | No. |\n| 14 | Q | Is it at your request? |\n| 15 | A | No. |\n| 16 | Q | Is Yan Ping Wang, the same as Yvette Wang? |\n| 17 | A | Yes. |\n| 18 | Q | Earlier Ms. Claiborn asked you about |\n| 19 | | Golden Spring Hong Kong. |\n| 20 | | You told her that your son owns it.
Do |\n| 21 | you recall that? | |\n| 22 | A | Yes. |\n| 23 | Q | My question for you is since when has your |\n| 24 | | son owned Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 25 | A | I don't know. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 128 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
85 |\n| 1 | Q
Has anyone else besides your son ever |\n| 2 | owned an interest in Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 3 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 4 | Q
You also said that you didn't remember |\n| 5 | whether you were ever a corporate officer of Golden |\n| 6 | Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 7 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 8 | that one? |\n| 9 | Q
You also said that you did not remember |\n| 10 | whether you were ever a corpora officer of Golden |\n| 11 | Spring Hong Kong?
Does that mean that it is |\n| 12 | possible that you were and you're just not certain? |\n| 13 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 14 | Q
Ms. Claiborn asked you in a few different |\n| 15 | ways about whether you know how Golden Spring New |\n| 16 | York is funded or makes money. |\n| 17 | Since when has Golden Spring been paying |\n| 18 | your personal living expenses? |\n| 19 | A
2015. |\n| 20 | Q
So six or seven years approximately? |\n| 21 | A
Since 2015 and that there was a person |\n| 22 | called Bruno Wu from Mainland China and called my |\n| 23 | family, my son, daughter and wife and so since then |\n| 24 | I start spending money coming from Golden Spring New |\n| 25 | York. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 129 of
452 |\n|---------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
86 |\n| 1 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I don't think |\n| 2 | | the witness says some. |\n| 3 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
What? |\n| 4 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
I don't think |\n| 5 | | the witness said some. |\n| 6 | | THE WITNESS:
Not including the son that |\n| 7 | | they caught, my wife and daughter and a lot of my |\n| 8 | | family members, but not my son. |\n| 9 | Q | So approximately six or seven years that |\n| 10 | | Golden Spring has been paying your personal |\n| 11 | expenses. | Is that right? |\n| 12 | A | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q | During those six or seven years did you |\n| 14 | | never discuss with any of your family members where |\n| 15 | | the money was coming from? |\n| 16 | A | Because a lot of my family members were |\n| 17 | | caught by -- were arrested by your client, Bruno Wu, |\n| 18 | | and so I have no communication. I cannot communicate |\n| 19 | with him. | |\n| 20 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Not exactly. The |\n| 21 | | partner of PAACS -- the partner who the counsel was |\n| 22 | | represented, PAACS -- partner of PAACS -- |\n| 23 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I don't know. |\n| 24 | | He didn't mention anything about PAACS. |\n| 25 | | THE WITNESS:
So it's the other attorney |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 130 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
87 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | representing the client, Bruno Wu, arrested a lot of |\n| 2 | your family members.
Your client's past partner, |\n| 3 | one of the partners, (indiscernible)
Bruno Wu and |\n| 4 | arrested a lot of your family members so you can't |\n| 5 | communicate with them. |\n| 6 | Q
At any time since 2015 have you been in |\n| 7 | communication with your daughter, or your wife, or |\n| 8 | your son? |\n| 9 | A
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q
At any time that you've been in |\n| 11 | communication with any of those three individuals |\n| 12 | did you ever ask them about where Golden Spring's |\n| 13 | money was coming from? |\n| 14 | A
Yes, I asked. |\n| 15 | Q
And who did you ask? |\n| 16 | A
I asked all three of them. |\n| 17 | Q
And what did they say? |\n| 18 | A
They told me because I was in the position |\n| 19 | of being chased so don't ask our own financial |\n| 20 | information.
Don't ask me for anything and we will |\n| 21 | help you to -- we will help you as much as we can. |\n| 22 | Q
When was that? |\n| 23 | A
After 2017. |\n| 24 | Q
How long after 2017? |\n| 25 | A
I don't remember. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 131 of |\n|---------------|------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 88 |\n| 1 | Q | And when you had this conversation with | |\n| 2 | | your family were the three of them together or where | |\n| 3 | | these separate conversations? | |\n| 4 | A | Separate. | |\n| 5 | Q | And each of the three of them said more or | |\n| 6 | | less the same thing? | |\n| 7 | A | Similar. | |\n| 8 | Q | So I want to make sure I have this | |\n| 9 | correct. | You asked each of them where Golden | |\n| 10 | | Springs money was coming from and each of them said | |\n| 11 | | to you don't ask me about that because -- finish the | |\n| 12 | sentence for me. | | |\n| 13 | A | So you are making a story I don't | |\n| 14 | understand. | | |\n| 15 | Q | I'm trying to ask you to help me | |\n| 16 | understand. | I'm trying to understand the reason why | |\n| 17 | | your family members told you not to ask why your | |\n| 18 | | family members told you not to ask about where | |\n| 19 | | Golden Spring got the money. | |\n| 20 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Let him ask you a question. | |\n| 21 | Q | Please tell me why each of your family | |\n| 22 | | members told you not to ask them about where Golden | |\n| 23 | | Spring money came from? | |\n| 24 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection.
If you know. | |\n| 25 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
You're asking | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 132 of |\n|---------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 89 |\n| 1 | | to object the question? | |\n| 2 | | MR. BALDIGA:
I objected. | |\n| 3 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh, you | |\n| 4 | objected. | | |\n| 5 | | MR. BALDIGA:
I permit him to answer if he | |\n| 6 | knows. | | |\n| 7 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. | |\n| 8 | | THE WITNESS:
My daughter and wife were | |\n| 9 | | arrested by his partner and got released 2017 and | |\n| 10 | | released to New York.
They were tortured | |\n| 11 | | tremendously by communist party.
The person | |\n| 12 | | tortured them is this attorney's partner. | They all |\n| 13 | | have their own attorneys.
They told me don't ask me | |\n| 14 | | or communicate with me about their own financial and | |\n| 15 | | personal information.
Anything you want to do it's | |\n| 16 | | better go through attorneys. | |\n| 17 | | This is the doctrine, the thing, my family | |\n| 18 | | members told them before they came to New York. | I |\n| 19 | | just want to tell you it's the meaning, very similar | |\n| 20 | | meanings, but I can't tell you word by word. | |\n| 21 | | So I don't want this counsel make any | |\n| 22 | | stories about my daughter -- about my daughter's | |\n| 23 | | forgery, giving false testimony.
That kind of | |\n| 24 | story. | | |\n| 25 | | The last time when we were here with Ms. | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 133 of\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 90\n\n| 9 | 0 |\n|---|---|\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | Holley and he was making false lies and saying I'm |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | using my Twitter account and saying that the judge |\n| 3 | in New York was communist party and I didn't even |\n| 4 | have a Twitter account. |\n| 5 | MR. HARBACH:
Just so the record's clear |\n| 6 | today is the first that I've uttered a word in |\n| 7 | connection with this litigation in court.
So I |\n| 8 | don't think you're talking about me, sir. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
I was saying last time was |\n| 10 | from attorney in your office.
The prior attorney |\n| 11 | before you called Andy Morse (ph) and was kicked out |\n| 12 | by the judge because he was making false claims for |\n| 13 | five years and was kicked out by the judge.
So the |\n| 14 | law office was always making false claims. |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
Just answer his question |\n| 16 | because I can't know whether to object unless you're |\n| 17 | just trying to answer his question. |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:
I didn't talk to my family, |\n| 19 | daughter and wife individually to say the same |\n| 20 | thing. If I say the same thing, same words, that |\n| 21 | will be making false story. |\n| 22 | MR. HARBACH:
I understand. |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:
You cannot use your |\n| 24 | imagination and put it into my head.
This is why |\n| 25 | the New York South District and the judge was |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 134 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n 91 1 (indiscernible) by them and they give me the wrong 2 sentencing. 3 UNIDENTIFIED: Can you say that last -- 4 THE WITNESS: Because of their false 5 claims, so that's why the judge from the south 6 district of New York, the judge, gave me the wrong 7 sentencing. 8 THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER: And also the 9 interpreter did not interpret fully counsel's 10 instruction to the witness previously about his 11 objection. 12 MS. CLAIBORN: If you want to repeat it, 13 go ahead. 14 MR. BALDIGA: I think you just have to 15 listen to these questions and answer just these 16 questions. 17 MR. HARBACH: Sorry. Counsel will move to 18 a different topic. 19 BY MR. HARBACH: 20 Q Mr. Kwok, Ms. Claiborn asked you today 21 about a \\$21 million debt that you owe to Golden 22 Spring. She asked you how much of that 21 million 23 was legal fees and your answer was I think most of 24 it. 25 I'd like to know what you meant by most of it.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 135 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
92 | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | Did you mean \\$11 million or do you mean close to \\$21 | | | | |\n| 2 | million. | | | | |\n| 3 | A
I don't remember. | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
Do you still believe that most of it was | | | | |\n| 5 | for legal fees? | | | | |\n| 6 | A
I don't remember. | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
You also mentioned the Logan Cheng | | | | |\n| 8 | settlement and that there was money borrowed from | | | | |\n| 9 | Golden Spring in connection with that. | | | | |\n| 10 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 11 | Q
How much money was that loan for? | | | | |\n| 12 | A
I don't remember exactly.
Probably like | | | | |\n| 13 | 200.
Two -- \\$300,000. | | | | |\n| 14 | Q
What were the terms of that loan from | | | | |\n| 15 | Golden Spring? | | | | |\n| 16 | A
I don't remember. | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
When Ms. Claiborn asked you if you had | | | | |\n| 18 | ever been to Golden Spring's offices in New York, | | | | |\n| 19 | you said yes. | | | | |\n| 20 | What's the address of those offices? | | | | |\n| 21 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 22 | Q
What is the address of those offices? | | | | |\n| 23 | A
64th Street, 162. | | | | |\n| 24 | Q
You also mentioned that the last time you | | | | |\n| 25 | were there was yesterday and that the reason you | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 136 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | | | |\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 93 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | went there was to prepare for today's meeting. | |\n| 2 | Who did you meet with there? | |\n| 3 | A
My attorney. | |\n| 4 | Q
Did you meet with anyone else besides your | |\n| 5 | attorney to prepare for today's meeting while you | |\n| 6 | were at the office? | |\n| 7 | A
I don't know what you mean, the other | |\n| 8 | people. | |\n| 9 | Q
Well, did you meet with anyone who works | |\n| 10 | for Golden Spring? | |\n| 11 | A
Yes, I met Yvonne Wang. | |\n| 12 | Q
And this was yesterday? | |\n| 13 | A
Yes, I met her yesterday. | |\n| 14 | Q
Did you ask some questions of her | |\n| 15 | yesterday? | |\n| 16 | A
No. | |\n| 17 | Q
And tell me about your conversation with | |\n| 18 | Ms. Wang? | |\n| 19 | A
What do you mean? | |\n| 20 | Q
Well, I'd like to know what you talked | |\n| 21 | about with her. | |\n| 22 | A
I ask her to arrange the food to eat and | |\n| 23 | the coffee. | |\n| 24 | Q
Is that all? | |\n| 25 | A
And also we talked about how to abolish | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 137 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
94 |\n| 1 | communist party. | |\n| 2 | Q | I want to make sure I get this right. I |\n| 3 | think you said -- | |\n| 4 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me. Can I hear the |\n| 5 | last thing again. | |\n| 6 | | THE WITNESS:
We talk about how to abolish |\n| 7 | communist party. | |\n| 8 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Q | Ms. Wang is an officer of Golden Spring, |\n| 10 | correct? | |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | And you directed her to bring coffee, |\n| 13 | right? | |\n| 14 | A | No, I didn't direct her. I'm just hoping |\n| 15 | | her to bring some coffee. |\n| 16 | Q | You were hoping or helping? |\n| 17 | A | Help. |\n| 18 | Q | You were helping.
Because my question to |\n| 19 | | you was what you talked about with Ms. Wang.
And I |\n| 20 | | thought you said you asked her to bring some coffee |\n| 21 | | or maybe even told her to bring some coffee. |\n| 22 | A | No, your attorney office -- you attorney |\n| 23 | | office making and imagining things again. |\n| 24 | Q | I'll ask the question again. |\n| 25 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Please ask a question. Don't |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 138 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
95 |\n| 1 | | put words in his mouth. |\n| 2 | Q | What did you discuss with Ms. Wang |\n| 3 | yesterday? | |\n| 4 | A | Do you want me to talk about in detail? I |\n| 5 | | can talk about this for hours. |\n| 6 | Q | Well, no, not if the detail concerns how |\n| 7 | | to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party. So I'll be |\n| 8 | more precise. | |\n| 9 | A | So you don't want us to abolish Chinese |\n| 10 | Community Party. | Our job is to abolish Chinese |\n| 11 | Communist Party. | |\n| 12 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Just answer the question. |\n| 13 | | THE WITNESS:
You don't have a question. |\n| 14 | | You're just directing something. |\n| 15 | Q | Sometimes I speak in segments to allow the |\n| 16 | | interpreter to translate. |\n| 17 | | MR. BALDIGA:
I think it would be helpful |\n| 18 | | if you just ask question and then the witness -- |\n| 19 | | I'll instruct him to answer your questions.
That |\n| 20 | would be helpful. | |\n| 21 | Q | Did you discuss with Yvette [sic] |\n| 22 | | yesterday anything related to preparing for the |\n| 23 | meeting today? | |\n| 24 | A | Yes. |\n| 25 | Q | What did you discuss? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 139 of
452 |\n|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
96 |\n| 1 | A | I ask her to bring those documents here. |\n| 2 | Q | Anything else? |\n| 3 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 4 | Q | When was Lamp Capital created? |\n| 5 | A | I don't know. |\n| 6 | Q | Why was Lamp Capital created? |\n| 7 | A | I don't know. |\n| 8 | Q | Who created Lamp Capital? |\n| 9 | A | My son. |\n| 10 | Q | How do you know that? |\n| 11 | A | Because I borrow money from my son to pay |\n| 12 | attorney fee. | |\n| 13 | Q | The question is how do you know that your |\n| 14 | | son created Lamp Capital? |\n| 15 | A | Because my son said it. |\n| 16 | Q | He told you himself. |\n| 17 | A | Yes. |\n| 18 | Q | Did he ask for any advice from you about |\n| 19 | | whether to create Lamp Capital? |\n| 20 | A | No. |\n| 21 | Q | Did he ask you your opinion on whether he |\n| 22 | | should create Lamp Capital? |\n| 23 | A | No. |\n| 24 | Q | Did he tell you why he was creating Lamp |\n| 25 | Capital? | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 140 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
97 |\n| 1 | A | No. |\n| 2 | Q | When you were talking about your |\n| 3 | | malpractice claim against Boise Schiller, you |\n| 4 | | mentioned someone you kept referring to as he. I'd |\n| 5 | | like to know who that person is? |\n| 6 | A | I don't know what you mean. |\n| 7 | Q | Yes, that was a bad question. I apologize. |\n| 8 | | You stated that there was someone who gave |\n| 9 | | false documents to the court without your |\n| 10 | permission. | That this person threatened your |\n| 11 | | family, that this person threatened you after |\n| 12 | | drinking and that this person brought lots of loss |\n| 13 | | to you and your family, including not providing |\n| 14 | | translated documents before presenting them to the |\n| 15 | judge. | |\n| 16 | | My question is who is that person? |\n| 17 | A | Schiller.
The Attorney Schiller. |\n| 18 | Q | So Mr. Schiller of the Boise Schiller law |\n| 19 | firm. | Have I got that right? |\n| 20 | A | Yes. |\n| 21 | Q | Thank you. Do you have an understanding of |\n| 22 | | what business Lamp Capital is engaged in, if any? |\n| 23 | A | No. |\n| 24 | Q | Different subject.
You said several times |\n| 25 | | today in connection with your answers that the |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 141 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
98 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | people behind me have done certain things. |\n| 2 | Who are you talking about? |\n| 3 | A
One person behind me, there is a boss |\n| 4 | called Bruno Wu.
He paid the case that -- the rape |\n| 5 | case from (indiscernible)
rape case.
Also there is |\n| 6 | a creditor here and that also was paid by Bruno Wu. |\n| 7 | That attorney fee was paid by Bruno Wu.
And Bruno |\n| 8 | Wu is also his partner and he invested \\$800 million. |\n| 9 | Bruno Wu's partner is also (indiscernible)
previous |\n| 10 | officer and they were investigating and they |\n| 11 | combined a partner with them to investigate my case. |\n| 12 | So April 18, 2017, so this (indiscernible) |\n| 13 | start suing me, bring the lawsuit.
Within this 24 |\n| 14 | hours Bruno Wu is sending me the red note and they |\n| 15 | start bringing the lawsuit. |\n| 16 | MR. HARBACH:
Can I stop -- |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS: The Chinese Communist Party |\n| 18 | stopped the interview, the VOA interview with me. |\n| 19 | They happened at the same time. |\n| 20 | MR. HARBACH:
Or I can let him go. |\n| 21 | THE WITNESS:
All the documents made by |\n| 22 | this attorney firm were all false.
They provide a |\n| 23 | false document to the South District of New York |\n| 24 | court.
They even false claim on my daughter's |\n| 25 | yacht.
The boat is mine.
They sought the judge |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 142 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
99 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | from the South District Court and I file the |\n| 2 | bankrupt -- personal bankruptcy case twice and the |\n| 3 | day -- they (indiscernible)
twice including Ms. |\n| 4 | Holley.
And Ms. Holley was present. |\n| 5 | The first time when Ms. Holley was present |\n| 6 | in the court and they false testified saying -- and |\n| 7 | they said my daughter was giving false testimony for |\n| 8 | the Sherry bankruptcy case because my daughter never |\n| 9 | participated in that case. |\n| 10 | And Ms. Holley was there, was present the |\n| 11 | second co date and Ms. Holley was there also.
The |\n| 12 | attorney from the firm was telling the judge and |\n| 13 | they said that I used the Twitter account to -- and |\n| 14 | they said on the Twitter and I was saying on the |\n| 15 | Twitter the south district judge was communist party |\n| 16 | member. |\n| 17 | You can see here all the people behind me |\n| 18 | and one is Bruno Wu and one person paid in many |\n| 19 | cases -- |\n| 20 | MR. HARBACH:
I'd like to ask another |\n| 21 | question. |\n| 22 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 23 | Q
Are you aware one way or the other whether |\n| 24 | your bankruptcy counsel, the Brown Rudnick law firm, |\n| 25 | has ever previously represented Bruno Wu? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 143 of
452 |\n|---------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
100 |\n| 1 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can I take a |\n| 2 | little break? | I just can't concentrate as much. |\n| 3 | Just too much. | Can I take a break? |\n| 4 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Can I ask you to ask that |\n| 5 | | question and then we'll take a break? |\n| 6 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yes.
Can you |\n| 7 | | repeat that question? |\n| 8 | | MR. HARBACH:
I'd be happy to. |\n| 9 | Q | Are you aware one way or the other of |\n| 10 | | whether your bankruptcy counsel, the Brown Rudnick |\n| 11 | | law firm, previously represented Bruno Wu? |\n| 12 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Represent |\n| 13 | | somebody else you said? |\n| 14 | | MR. HARBACH:
Yes.
Bruno Wu. |\n| 15 | A | No. |\n| 16 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm going to take a short |\n| 17 | | break. We're going to be back here at 2:45. |\n| 18 | (Break) | |\n| 19 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
All right.
We are back on |\n| 20 | | the record after a short break. |\n| 21 | | Mr. Harbach, the floor is yours. |\n| 22 | | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | BY MR. HARBACH: | |\n| 24 | Q | Ms. Kwok, among the documents in front of |\n| 25 | | you, document 78 filed in this case. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 144 of\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 101 1 THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: Which document? 2 This one? 3 MR. HARBACH: Yes. My apologies. Counsel 4 advises me that your copies are not stamped. 5 Q I'm talking about your official from 106. 6 So my question for you starts on page 9, which 7 contains a heading that says Schedule D, creditors 8 who have claimed (indiscernible) by the property. 9 Are you with me? 10 You checked the box yes. And were 11 directed to Schedule D, so that's where I would like 12 you to flip to, please. And it's at page 18. 13 MR. BALDIGA: What's the title? He can 14 maybe find it better with the title. 15 MR. HARBACH: Okay. It's the little chart 16 that is Schedule D, which is a list of creditors 17 with secured claims. 18 BY MR. HARBACH: 19 Q Mr. Kwok, you'll see that there are five 20 separate entries for Golden Spring New York Limited. 21 The data in each column is identical for all five 22 rows. 23 So my question is why are there five 24 identical entries on this schedule? 25 The question is why are there five\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 145 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
102 |\n| 1 | | identical entries on this schedule? |\n| 2 | A | I don't know what that means five -- |\n| 3 | Q | Well, each row is exactly the same.
And |\n| 4 | | I'm just asking why there are five rows with the |\n| 5 | same information? | |\n| 6 | A | I don't know. |\n| 7 | Q | Among that documents that you filed were |\n| 8 | | some specific notes and one of those notes discusses |\n| 9 | | the residence on Taconic Road. |\n| 10 | | MR. HARBACH:
And for counsel I'm at |\n| 11 | | document 77, page 4. |\n| 12 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Which page? |\n| 13 | | MR. HARBACH:
Page 4. |\n| 14 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
84? |\n| 15 | | MR. HARBACH:
No, Page 4. |\n| 16 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh, page 4. |\n| 17 | Okay. | |\n| 18 | BY MR. HARBACH: | |\n| 19 | Q | My question really isn't so much about the |\n| 20 | | exact test as it is the substance. |\n| 21 | | So first question, is it true that all expenses |\n| 22 | | related to the Taconic Road House are paid directly |\n| 23 | | by family and family controlled enterprises? |\n| 24 | A | Yes. |\n| 25 | Q | Okay.
Which family members? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 146 of
452 |\n|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
103 |\n| 1 | A | My wife, sometimes by my son. |\n| 2 | Q | Which family controlled enterprises? |\n| 3 | A | Which country -- my wife. |\n| 4 | Q | Your wife's not an enterprise.
I'm trying |\n| 5 | | to ask which family controlled enterprises pay the |\n| 6 | | expenses for the Taconic House? |\n| 7 | A | Greenwich LLC. |\n| 8 | Q | Okay.
Incidentally, how do you know that |\n| 9 | | your wife and sometimes you son pay these expenses? |\n| 10 | A | Because I live there. |\n| 11 | Q | Do you observe them pay the expenses? |\n| 12 | A | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q | Is that ever at your request? |\n| 14 | A | I don't remember I request anything. |\n| 15 | Q | Does Greenwich Land LLC -- yes Greenwich |\n| 16 | | Land LLC own any other real estate besides 373 |\n| 17 | Taconic Road? | |\n| 18 | A | I don't know. |\n| 19 | Q | Do you know anything about the property |\n| 20 | | located at 33 Ferncliff in Cos Cob, Connecticut? |\n| 21 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 22 | that? | |\n| 23 | | MR. HARBACH:
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q | 33 Ferncliff in Cos Cob, Connecticut. |\n| 25 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
31, right? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 147 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
104 |\n| 1 | | MR. HARBACH:
No, 33. |\n| 2 | A | Yes, now I remember it. It's also owned by |\n| 3 | my wife's company. | |\n| 4 | Q | That being Greenwich Land? |\n| 5 | A | Maybe. |\n| 6 | Q | Do you know? |\n| 7 | A | I'm not sure. |\n| 8 | Q | Have you ever been to 33 Ferncliff? |\n| 9 | A | Yes. |\n| 10 | Q | How recently? |\n| 11 | A | No.
Not recently. |\n| 12 | Q | Do you know when Greenwich Land purchased |\n| 13 | 33 Ferncliff? | |\n| 14 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 15 | Q | Do you know approximately how much money |\n| 16 | it cost? | |\n| 17 | A | Probably more that \\$1 million. |\n| 18 | Q | Does \\$1.37 million sound about right? |\n| 19 | A | I'm not sure. |\n| 20 | Q | And does the approximate purchase date of |\n| 21 | | September, 2019 sound about right to you? |\n| 22 | A | Not sure. |\n| 23 | Q | Turning back to 373 Taconic for a moment. |\n| 24 | | How much was that property purchased for? |\n| 25 | A | Probably 400 to 500,000. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 148 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
105 |\n| 1 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
No, no, no. |\n| 2 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
4 to 5 million. |\n| 3 | I'm sorry. | |\n| 4 | Q | Approximate time of purchase of 373 |\n| 5 | | Taconic, if you know? |\n| 6 | A | I don't know. |\n| 7 | Q | Have you ever resided at 33 Ferncliff? |\n| 8 | A | No. |\n| 9 | Q | Do you know whether anyone currently lives |\n| 10 | there? | |\n| 11 | A | Before there is another comrade maybe, you |\n| 12 | | know, for disjoined Chinese Communist Party and he |\n| 13 | was to live there. | |\n| 14 | Q | How long ago? |\n| 15 | A | Probably one to two years ago. |\n| 16 | Q | DO you remember that person's name? |\n| 17 | A | Yes. |\n| 18 | Q | What is it? |\n| 19 | A | Wong Din Gong (ph). |\n| 20 | Q | Does anyone currently live there, if you |\n| 21 | know? | |\n| 22 | A | I don't know. |\n| 23 | Q | Talking about 373 Taconic, where did the |\n| 24 | | money come from to purchase that property? |\n| 25 | A | I don't know. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 149 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
106 |\n| 1 | Q | Do you know whether the house was |\n| 2 | | purchased with cash or financing? |\n| 3 | A | I don't know. |\n| 4 | Q | Same questions for 33 Ferncliff.
Do you |\n| 5 | | know where the money came from to purchase that |\n| 6 | house? | |\n| 7 | A | I heard it was purchased by cash. |\n| 8 | Q | From whom -- sorry. From whom did you hear |\n| 9 | that? | |\n| 10 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 11 | Q | Do you know where that money came from? |\n| 12 | A | I don't know. |\n| 13 | Q | Do you know what Saraca Media Group is? |\n| 14 | A | Saraca? |\n| 15 | Q | Saraca. |\n| 16 | A | Saraca Media Group.
I do. |\n| 17 | Q | What is Sirraca Media Group? |\n| 18 | A | Just Saraca.
It's a company. |\n| 19 | Q | What kind of company? |\n| 20 | A | I'm not sure. |\n| 21 | Q | Have you ever had any relationship with |\n| 22 | Saraca personally? | |\n| 23 | A | No. |\n| 24 | Q | Do you know anything about the type of |\n| 25 | | business that Saraca conducts? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 150 of
452 |\n|---------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
107 |\n| 1 | A | I remember they are related to GTV Media |\n| 2 | | platform, or they invested on the GTV Media |\n| 3 | platform. | |\n| 4 | Q | How do you know that? |\n| 5 | A | Because I was their consultant, who owned |\n| 6 | the consultant. | And also I was the GTV host.
And |\n| 7 | | also this is one of the input and platform for |\n| 8 | | disjoined communist party. |\n| 9 | Q | When you said you were a consultant a |\n| 10 | | moment ago was that for Saraca or for GTV? |\n| 11 | A | GTV. |\n| 12 | Q | Has Saraca ever been -- ever had the 162 |\n| 13 | | East 64th Street address associated with it? |\n| 14 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Which address? |\n| 15 | | Can you repeat that one. |\n| 16 | Q | Yes.
162 East 64th Street.
The question |\n| 17 | | is whether Saraca has ever been associated with that |\n| 18 | address? | |\n| 19 | A | I don't know. |\n| 20 | Q | That is the family office address, |\n| 21 | correct? | |\n| 22 | A | It's one of them. |\n| 23 | Q | Where are the other ones? |\n| 24 | A | I don't know. |\n| 25 | Q | Are there any others in New York City? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 151 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
108 |\n| 1 | A | I just want to clarify.
Golden Spring is |\n| 2 | | one of the companies in this building, 162. |\n| 3 | Q | Understood and thank you. |\n| 4 | | We've referred to the family office during |\n| 5 | | your questioning and I just want to be clear.
When |\n| 6 | | we talk about the family office are we referring to |\n| 7 | | that address on East 64th Street? |\n| 8 | A | Yes. |\n| 9 | Q | Has GTV ever been associated with the |\n| 10 | | family office address? |\n| 11 | A | I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q | Who owns Saraca? |\n| 13 | A | My son. |\n| 14 | Q | Since when? |\n| 15 | A | I don't know. |\n| 16 | Q | Does Saraca currently exist? |\n| 17 | A | I don't know. |\n| 18 | Q | Do you have any idea how many -- do you |\n| 19 | | know anything about the value of Saraca's assets? |\n| 20 | A | I don't know. |\n| 21 | Q | Do you know anything about payments Saraca |\n| 22 | has made to GTV? | |\n| 23 | A | No, I don't know. |\n| 24 | Q | Has your wife ever told you about any |\n| 25 | | multi-million dollar payments from Saraca to |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 152 of
452 |\n|---------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
109 |\n| 1 | Greenwich Land? | |\n| 2 | A | I don't know. |\n| 3 | Q | You don't know whether he's ever told you |\n| 4 | | or you don't know about the payments? |\n| 5 | A | She never told me and I don't even know |\n| 6 | how much. | |\n| 7 | Q | Do you know a company called Ziba Limited, |\n| 8 | Z-I-B-A? | |\n| 9 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Ziba, Z-I-B-A? |\n| 10 | | MR. HARBACH:
Yes. |\n| 11 | A | I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q | I'm sorry if I've already asked this. |\n| 13 | | What is the relationship, if any, between Saraca and |\n| 14 | GTV? | |\n| 15 | A | Saraca is the investor for GTV. |\n| 16 | Q | Do you know how much money Saraca invested |\n| 17 | in GTV? | |\n| 18 | A | I don't know. |\n| 19 | Q | When was GTV founded? |\n| 20 | A | 2020.
Maybe 2019.
Not very sure. |\n| 21 | Q | Do you know the names of any of the |\n| 22 | | officers or directors of Saraca? |\n| 23 | A | I don't know. |\n| 24 | Q | Do you know whether Yvette Wang is an |\n| 25 | | officer or director of Saraca? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 153 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
110 |\n| 1 | A | I don't know. |\n| 2 | Q | Do you know someone called Hong Chung |\n| 3 | Wang? | |\n| 4 | A | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q | Who is that? |\n| 6 | A | He's my partner and also comrade for |\n| 7 | | disjoined Communist Party. |\n| 8 | Q | Is he a friend of yours? |\n| 9 | A | Friend, comrade and a partner. |\n| 10 | Q | What do you mean by partner? |\n| 11 | A | Because we had a business corporation. |\n| 12 | Q | Tell me about that. |\n| 13 | A | Well, I don't remember the name of that |\n| 14 | company. | It's a company for investigating Communist |\n| 15 | | Party in USA doing money laundering and committing |\n| 16 | crimes. | |\n| 17 | Q | Was it a for profit company? |\n| 18 | A | I don't know. |\n| 19 | Q | You don't know? |\n| 20 | A | I don't know. |\n| 21 | Q | What was the name of the company? |\n| 22 | A | I don't remember when getting to English. |\n| 23 | | I don't remember the name. |\n| 24 | Q | Approximately what time frame where you |\n| 25 | | partners with Hong Chung Wang in this company? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 154 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
111 |\n| 1 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 2 | Q | Within the last three years? |\n| 3 | A | It must be more than three years ago. |\n| 4 | Q | More than ten years? |\n| 5 | A | No. |\n| 6 | Q | Did Hong Chung Wang ever have any |\n| 7 | | connection to Saraca? |\n| 8 | A | I don't know. |\n| 9 | Q | Was he ever an officer or director of |\n| 10 | Saraca? | |\n| 11 | A | I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q | What does the G in GTV stand for? |\n| 13 | A | God.
The Goal, like in -- G-O-A-L. |\n| 14 | Q | The English word \"goal\"? |\n| 15 | A | Yea.
Goal or God. |\n| 16 | Q | Okay.
How long have you known Hong Chong |\n| 17 | Wang? | |\n| 18 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 19 | Q | More than ten years? |\n| 20 | A | Roughly. |\n| 21 | Q | And do you still consider him a friend |\n| 22 | today? | |\n| 23 | A | Yes. |\n| 24 | | MR. HARBACH:
Just a moment, please. |\n| 25 | Q | There's been many questions today about |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 155 of |\n|---------------|---------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 112 |\n| 1 | | Golden Spring funding your living expenses. | |\n| 2 | | Is it correct that as far as your living | |\n| 3 | | expenses are concerned that none of that is expected | |\n| 4 | to be repaid? | | |\n| 5 | A | Yes, true. | |\n| 6 | Q | And so those monies are not the subject of | |\n| 7 | | any formal agreement, correct? | |\n| 8 | A | No. | |\n| 9 | Q | And those monies essentially then are a | |\n| 10 | | gift to you, correct? | |\n| 11 | A | Yes. | |\n| 12 | Q | What's the Rule of Law Foundation? | |\n| 13 | A | What does that mean? | |\n| 14 | Q | The question is what is it? | |\n| 15 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: | The Rule of Law |\n| 16 | Foundation? | | |\n| 17 | | MR. HARBACH:
Yes, sir. | |\n| 18 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I didn't get | |\n| 19 | it. | Can you ask it another way? | |\n| 20 | Q | There's an entity called -- | |\n| 21 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh. | |\n| 22 | Q | -- the Rule of Law Foundation. | |\n| 23 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay. | |\n| 24 | | MR. HARBACH:
I'll hopefully save some | |\n| 25 | | time by just asking this question instead. | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 156 of
452 |\n|---------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
113 |\n| 1 | Q | Are you familiar with the Rule of Law |\n| 2 | Foundation? | |\n| 3 | A | Yes. |\n| 4 | Q | Were you involved in its establishment? |\n| 5 | A | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q | Did you contribute any money to it when it |\n| 7 | was formed? | |\n| 8 | A | Not myself. |\n| 9 | Q | Did you direct any entity to contribute to |\n| 10 | | the Rule of Law Foundation? |\n| 11 | A | Suggestion in a direct and suggesting any |\n| 12 | difference -- | |\n| 13 | Q | If there was a suggestion, please tell me |\n| 14 | | it was a suggestion. |\n| 15 | A | I didn't direct anybody or order anybody. |\n| 16 | | I just always suggest people to make donations for |\n| 17 | the Foundation. | |\n| 18 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
As an |\n| 19 | | interpreter, I think that if the witness is asking |\n| 20 | | the interpreter questions, the interpreter should |\n| 21 | | interpret the question asked by the witness instead |\n| 22 | | of answer that question. |\n| 23 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I can answer |\n| 24 | anything. | |\n| 25 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
The witness said |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 157 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
114 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | are you talking about the (indiscernible)
-- |\n| 2 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
That's why I |\n| 3 | relayed the questions to the attorney. |\n| 4 | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
You answer him |\n| 5 | yes, and then you say that. |\n| 6 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh, for God's |\n| 7 | sake.
I didn't say -- did I miss anything? |\n| 8 | (Interpretation.) |\n| 9 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Okay.
No |\n| 10 | question.
He said no question was not answered. |\n| 11 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 12 | Q
Did you ever suggested to any of your |\n| 13 | family members that they donate to the Rule of Law |\n| 14 | Foundation? |\n| 15 | A
Yes, I did suggest. |\n| 16 | Q
Did any of your family members or the |\n| 17 | family controlled enterprises contribute money to |\n| 18 | the Rule of Law Foundation? |\n| 19 | A
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q
How much money? |\n| 21 | A
For cash there is one -- over \\$1 million. |\n| 22 | From Hong Kong, Japan and Mainland -- in |\n| 23 | China and all combined it should be more than 30 |\n| 24 | million. |\n| 25 | Q
And just focusing for the moment on |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 158 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
115 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | contributions from your family at your suggestion. |\n| 2 | Approximately, how much money is that? |\n| 3 | A
I don't know the details.
Because of |\n| 4 | security reasons they don't want me to know. |\n| 5 | Q
Did you say a moment ago that your family |\n| 6 | contributed over a million dollars? |\n| 7 | A
One million cash is in New York here. |\n| 8 | Q
When was that? |\n| 9 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 10 | Q
Is the reason -- well, let me ask it this |\n| 11 | way.
Did you suggest an amount to your family |\n| 12 | members that they should contribute to the Rule of |\n| 13 | Law Foundation? |\n| 14 | A
I want them to donate the more the better. |\n| 15 | Q
Is that what you told them? |\n| 16 | A
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q
Do you know whether the Rule of Law |\n| 18 | Foundation is associated with the family office |\n| 19 | address on 64th Street? |\n| 20 | A
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q
Did you ever make a \\$100 million donation |\n| 22 | to the Rule of Law Foundation in November of 2018? |\n| 23 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 24 | that again? |\n| 25 | Q
Did you ever make a \\$100 million donation |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 159 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
116 |\n| 1 | | to the Rule of Law Foundation in November, 2018? |\n| 2 | A | No. In the live stream like I want -- |\n| 3 | | tried to collect the funds, in the live stream show. |\n| 4 | Q | Did you ever -- |\n| 5 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Wait.
Was that his whole |\n| 6 | answer? | |\n| 7 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah. Something |\n| 8 | wrong? | |\n| 9 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Not quite |\n| 10 | | exactly what the witness said. |\n| 11 | | (Indiscernible)
broadcasting is okay. |\n| 12 | | Live stream is okay.
But collect money -- |\n| 13 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Asking for |\n| 14 | donation, right? | |\n| 15 | | (Interpretation) |\n| 16 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Raise -- |\n| 17 | | THE WITNESS:
Raising money, raise |\n| 18 | donations. | Yeah, in the live stream broadcast |\n| 19 | | thing, or whatever, you know, asking for donations |\n| 20 | | to -- you know, to raise funds, to raise money. |\n| 21 | Q | Did you ever promise to donate \\$1 billion |\n| 22 | | to the Rule of Law Fund? |\n| 23 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
10 billion you |\n| 24 | said? | |\n| 25 | | MR. HARBACH:
No, sir.
1 billion. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 160 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
117 |\n| 1 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh, one |\n| 2 | billion. | |\n| 3 | A | I don't remember. I don't remember. |\n| 4 | Q | Do you mean that it's possible that you |\n| 5 | made that promise? | |\n| 6 | A | So we could reach that goal if we combine |\n| 7 | | the organizations all over the world. |\n| 8 | Q | Understand.
And it's a simple question. I |\n| 9 | | just don't know the answer. |\n| 10 | | Did you yourself ever promise to donate \\$1 |\n| 11 | | billion to the Rule of Law fund? |\n| 12 | A | In the past five years I did the live |\n| 13 | | stream over 5,000 times.
Some of the live stream |\n| 14 | | could have reached four or five hours.
It's hard |\n| 15 | | for me to remember every sentence I said. |\n| 16 | Q | Well, I understand that, but I'm only |\n| 17 | | asking about one issue.
And it is whether you ever |\n| 18 | | promised publicly, or privately or anyhow to donate |\n| 19 | | \\$1 billion to the Rule of Law Fund? |\n| 20 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
He did not say |\n| 21 | invest. | |\n| 22 | | MR. HARBACH:
Donate |\n| 23 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Yeah, donate. |\n| 24 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 25 | Q | I'll ask this one one more time. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 161 of\n\n452\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 118\n\n| 1 | Are you saying that it is possible that |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | you made such a promise.
You just can't be sure? |\n| 3 | A
In front of Ms. Holley I wouldn't say |\n| 4 | anything is possible but this is a very serious |\n| 5 | issue.
Now they start the scheme again. |\n| 6 | Q
Well, this isn't what did you have for |\n| 7 | breakfast three days ago.
This is did you promise |\n| 8 | to donate \\$1 billion and if the answer is you don't |\n| 9 | know, that's okay. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
I think that's what the |\n| 11 | answer has been. |\n| 12 | MR. HARBACH:
No, the answer has been I |\n| 13 | don't remember. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Don't remember. |\n| 15 | MR. HARBACH:
Yes, sir. That's a little |\n| 16 | different. |\n| 17 | Q
So the answer might be no, but you're not |\n| 18 | saying no.
You're saying you don't remember. |\n| 19 | A
I said it three times, I don't remember. |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
There's no question -- |\n| 21 | A
Because in the past five years |\n| 22 | (indiscernible)
always making these kind of answers |\n| 23 | for me so that's why the judge from the South |\n| 24 | District were fooled by you and you started again -- |\n| 25 | Q
I'll move on. |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 162 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 452\n\n 119 1 A In the South District court I only met 2 judge 20 seconds. I didn't say one sentence within 3 this five years and I was fined a total about \\$300 4 million because that's what they did. 5 MR. BALDIGA: All right. Let's stop it. 6 Let's wait for a question and we'll answer the 7 question. 8 MR. HARBACH: Bill, I appreciate your 9 patience. I'll move on. 10 MR. BALDIGA: Translate what I said, 11 please. 12 THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER: Can you repeat 13 that? Everybody's saying at the time. 14 MR. BALDIGA: Ask a question and he'll 15 answer a question. 16 Q Have you made any donations to the Rule of 17 Law Foundation in the last two years? 18 A Myself, right? 19 Q Yes, sir. 20 A No. 21 Q Have you suggested to any of your family 22 that they make donations to the Rule of Law 23 Foundation within the last two years? 24 A I don't remember. 25 Q Would you ever have made a promise to\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 163 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
120 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | donate \\$1 billion to the Rule of Law Foundation if |\n| 2 | you did not actually have that money? |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection to form. |\n| 4 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I didn't get |\n| 5 | it.
Can you repeat one more time. |\n| 6 | Q
Would you have ever made a promise to |\n| 7 | donate \\$1 billion to the Rule of Law Foundation if |\n| 8 | you did not actually have that money. |\n| 9 | MR. BALDIGA:
And I objected. |\n| 10 | MR. HARBACH:
And then Bill objected. |\n| 11 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
He said are you |\n| 12 | -- want to sentencing me to death sentence? |\n| 13 | Q
Approximately how much is the Lady May |\n| 14 | worth? |\n| 15 | A
I don't know. |\n| 16 | Q
Over the years that you have been aboard |\n| 17 | the Lady May, approximately how many times have you |\n| 18 | invited friends to join you? |\n| 19 | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Can you repeat |\n| 20 | that question one more time? |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q
Over the years that you had been aboard |\n| 23 | the Lady May, approximately how many times have you |\n| 24 | invited friends out to join you? |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Hold on. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 164 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
121 |\n| 1 | MR. HARBACH:
Sorry, Bill. |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
David, you have a deposition |\n| 3 | on the Lady May issues coming up.
You can choose |\n| 4 | today or then.
Either one is fine. |\n| 5 | MR. HARBACH:
That's a fair point.
I'll |\n| 6 | move on. |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
No question. |\n| 8 | MR. HARBACH:
If I could direct counsel's |\n| 9 | attention again to document 77.
And I want to focus |\n| 10 | on question 19. |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, let me know when you're read |\n| 12 | that question. It's no. 19. |\n| 13 | (Pause.) |\n| 14 | A
Finished. |\n| 15 | Q
Okay.
So for the benefit of the record, |\n| 16 | the question says within ten years before you filed |\n| 17 | for bankruptcy did you transfer any property to a |\n| 18 | self settled trust or similar device of which you |\n| 19 | are a beneficiary? |\n| 20 | A
No. |\n| 21 | Q
And that is indeed what you checked on the |\n| 22 | form.
My question for you is if you turn -- if |\n| 23 | changed the word you to a family member as the |\n| 24 | beneficiary, what would the answer be? |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 165 of
452 |\n|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
122 |\n| 1 | A | I cannot answer questions with if. |\n| 2 | Q | I'll ask it a different way. |\n| 3 | | MR. HARBACH:
And, Jack, I'll ask you to |\n| 4 | bear with me. | |\n| 5 | Q | Within ten years before you filed for |\n| 6 | | bankruptcy did you transfer any property to a self |\n| 7 | | settled trust or similar device of which a member of |\n| 8 | | your family is a beneficiary? |\n| 9 | A | No. |\n| 10 | Q | Sticking with that same document going |\n| 11 | | forward to question 27.
Just let me know when |\n| 12 | | you're read it, sir. |\n| 13 | (Pause.) | |\n| 14 | A | Okay. I'm finished. |\n| 15 | Q | So you see there you have checked the box |\n| 16 | | next to the word yes.
And then the instructions say |\n| 17 | | check all that apply above and fill in the details |\n| 18 | | below for each business. |\n| 19 | | MR. HARBACH:
Do you see where that is, |\n| 20 | Jack? | |\n| 21 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
I didn't see |\n| 22 | that. | |\n| 23 | | MR. HARBACH:
Next -- Holley can show you. |\n| 24 | (Pause.) | |\n| 25 | | MR. HARBACH:
So I was just pointing out |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 166 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | 452 | | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 123 1 to the witness -- for the benefit of the translator 2 I'll say it again. 3 Q Next to the box that is checked yes, the 4 instructions say check all that apply above and fill 5 in the details below for each business. None of the 6 boxes above is checked and that's my question. 7 Which box or boxes should be checked for 8 each of those three entities that you have listed? 9 A I cannot determine which one. 10 Q Is that something you would need more time 11 to figure out or you just don't know the answer? 12 A I could answer one by one. 13 Q Okay. Let's do that. Let's start with 14 Genever. 15 A Which Genever? 16 Q Well, the one that's listed is Genever 17 Holdings Corporation. 18 Which of those boxes would you check for 19 Genever Holdings Corporation, if any? 20 A It was one time -- it was a member of LLC. 21 The above don't apply and should transfer to no. 12 22 -- transfer to 12. 23 It used to be an LLC. 24 Q Are you saying that you would check the\n\n25 box for a member of an LLC but it should be in the\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 167 of |\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n452\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 124 |\n|----|--------------|------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| 1 | past tense? | | |\n| 2 | A | Yes.
Used to be. | |\n| 3 | Q | Do any of the other boxes apply to your | |\n| 4 | | relationship to Genever Holdings Corporation? | |\n| 5 | A | The last row seems like appropriate for | |\n| 6 | | me. I'm not very sure. | |\n| 7 | Q | The last row being an owner of at least | |\n| 8 | | five percent of the voting or equity securities of a | |\n| 9 | corporation? | | |\n| 10 | A | I owned 50 percent for a very short period | |\n| 11 | of time. | | |\n| 12 | Q | Okay.
What about for Shiny Time? | |\n| 13 | A | Shiny Time already went away. | |\n| 14 | Q | I understand.
When it was in existence, | |\n| 15 | | which of those boxes was accurate? | |\n| 16 | A | Number one. | |\n| 17 | Q | A sole proprietor? | |\n| 18 | A | Yes. | |\n| 19 | Q | Any of the others? | |\n| 20 | A | Not sure. | |\n| 21 | Q | Okay.
What about for Well Origin Limited? | |\n| 22 | A | It went away. | |\n| 23 | Q | Okay.
Same question though.
Which of | |\n| 24 | | those boxes applied when it was in existence? | |\n| 25 | A | Number one. | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 168 of
452 |\n|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
125 |\n| 1 | Q | Any of the others? |\n| 2 | A | Not sure. |\n| 3 | Q | One last point about this question. |\n| 4 | | For Genever Holdings Corporation the block |\n| 5 | | for the dates that the business existed is blank. |\n| 6 | | Do you know what those dates should be? |\n| 7 | A | 2015.
Probably March, April to June, |\n| 8 | July. | |\n| 9 | Q | Of which year? |\n| 10 | A | 2015. |\n| 11 | Q | So from approximately March or April until |\n| 12 | | approximately July all in 2015? |\n| 13 | A | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q | Okay.
And is that the entire duration |\n| 15 | | that that corporation existed? |\n| 16 | A | I was in the company for a few months, for |\n| 17 | | this period of time, a few months and with holding - |\n| 18 | | - in stock holding.
And the company still existed |\n| 19 | after I left. | |\n| 20 | Q | I understand.
And does it still exist |\n| 21 | today? | |\n| 22 | A | I believe it still exists. |\n| 23 | Q | Okay.
In what year did you get married? |\n| 24 | A | 1918 -- or 1985. |\n| 25 | Q | What year was your son born? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 169 of
452 |\n|---------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
126 |\n| 1 | A | 1986. |\n| 2 | Q | And how old are you, sir? |\n| 3 | A | 54. |\n| 4 | Q | How old was your son when your family |\n| 5 | | began working with Uda Property Company? |\n| 6 | A | 11.
Oh, five years -- five years old. |\n| 7 | Q | And so that would have been in |\n| 8 | | approximately 1991 that your family began working |\n| 9 | with Uda? | |\n| 10 | A | Yes. |\n| 11 | Q | When was the Henan Uda Hotel completed? |\n| 12 | A | In 1997. |\n| 13 | Q | And what about the Uda International Trade |\n| 14 | Center. | When was it completed? |\n| 15 | A | At pretty much the same time. |\n| 16 | Q | In your declaration in this case you |\n| 17 | | stated that both of those were successful ventures. |\n| 18 | A | Yes. |\n| 19 | Q | That allowed your family to start amassing |\n| 20 | | significant wealth. |\n| 21 | A | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q | So recognizing that this is in the early |\n| 23 | | '90's how much money approximately did those |\n| 24 | | ventures bring to your family? |\n| 25 | A | I don't remember. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 170 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
127 |\n| 1 | Q | More than \\$50 million? |\n| 2 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
50 or 15? |\n| 3 | | MR. HARBACH:
5-0. |\n| 4 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh, okay. |\n| 5 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 6 | Q | What about the Pengu Plaza?
When was it |\n| 7 | completed? | |\n| 8 | A | July 2008. |\n| 9 | Q | So between the early '90's and 2008 what |\n| 10 | | other projects of significant did the Guo family |\n| 11 | | invest in or participate in? |\n| 12 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Since 1990's to |\n| 13 | -- | |\n| 14 | A | Between the early 1990's and 2008. |\n| 15 | Q | Do you remember any of them?
Any of the |\n| 16 | | significant ventures? |\n| 17 | A | Beijing Golden Spring. |\n| 18 | Q | What was that? |\n| 19 | A | It's a property company.
Real estate. |\n| 20 | | It's a real estate company. |\n| 21 | Q | Was this a development company or a -- |\n| 22 | | like a buying and selling agency? |\n| 23 | A | Developing company. |\n| 24 | Q | When was the Pangu Plaza project started, |\n| 25 | approximately? | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 171 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
128 |\n| 1 | A | Roughly 1999. |\n| 2 | Q | Okay. So let's use that as a point in |\n| 3 | time. | |\n| 4 | | At the beginning of the Pangu Plaza |\n| 5 | | project approximately how much had the family |\n| 6 | amassed in wealth? | |\n| 7 | | THE PRIVATE INTERPRETER:
Ask that |\n| 8 | question again? | |\n| 9 | | MR. HARBACH:
Sure. |\n| 10 | Q | As of 1999, which was the beginning of the |\n| 11 | | Pangu Plaza project, approximately how much wealth |\n| 12 | | had the family earned or amassed by that time? |\n| 13 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
You're talking |\n| 14 | about after 1999? | |\n| 15 | | MR. HARBACH:
No, I'm talking about as of |\n| 16 | 1999? | |\n| 17 | | THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETER:
Oh, as of 1999. |\n| 18 | Q | How much money had the family made by |\n| 19 | 1999? | |\n| 20 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 21 | Q | More than \\$100 million? |\n| 22 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 23 | Q | More than \\$500 million? |\n| 24 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 25 | Q | More than a billion dollars? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 172 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
129 |\n| 1 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 2 | Q | Were you personally involved in the work |\n| 3 | | with Uda Property Company? |\n| 4 | A | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q | Were you personally involved in the |\n| 6 | | development of the Henan Uda Hotel? |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | Were you personally involved in the Uda |\n| 9 | | International Trade Center in Zhengzhou? |\n| 10 | A | Yes. |\n| 11 | Q | Were you personally involved in the |\n| 12 | | development of the Pengu Plaza? |\n| 13 | A | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q | Who was in charge of the Beijing Golden |\n| 15 | | Spring Real Estate Development firm? |\n| 16 | A | A professional group. |\n| 17 | Q | Were you a member of that group? |\n| 18 | A | At that time I was a consultant. |\n| 19 | Q | For Beijing Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | A | Yes. |\n| 21 | Q | During what time frame was that, |\n| 22 | | approximately that you were a consultant for them? |\n| 23 | A | After 2000. |\n| 24 | Q | After 2000.
Okay. |\n| 25 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Harbach, I just want to |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 173 of\n\n452\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022
130 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | note that it is 4:18 and I know we've had a long day |\n| 2 | -- and I wanted to give -- I apologize for |\n| 3 | interrupting you, first of all. |\n| 4 | MR. HARBACH:
That's all right. |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
But I wanted to give |\n| 6 | counsel for the committee a chance to ask a few |\n| 7 | questions today before we conclude. |\n| 8 | MR. HARBACH:
Of course.
Sure. |\n| 9 | MR. STAFSTROM:
I'll be very brief. |\n| 10 | EXAMINATION BY MR. STAFSTROM: |\n| 11 | Q
I noticed your hair is very short. I like |\n| 12 | it.
Have you gotten a haircut recently? |\n| 13 | A
Yes.
I had a haircut. |\n| 14 | Q
Where did you get it cut? |\n| 15 | A
My wife. |\n| 16 | Q
Oh, your wife.
Okay. |\n| 17 | Does she always cut your hair? |\n| 18 | A
After the virus until now. |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
All right. I have no further |\n| 20 | questions then. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm going to put the |\n| 22 | recording on pause while we work on selecting a new |\n| 23 | date. |\n| 24 | (Off the record.) |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
We're back on the record |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 174 of |\n|---------------|----------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | | 131 |\n| 1 | | after a short break. | | We have selected a continuance |\n| 2 | | date of April 29th, beginning at 10:00 a.m. | | We are |\n| 3 | | concluded for today. | Thank you. | |\n| 4 | | (Meeting adjourned.) | | |\n| 5 | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 132 1 I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved 2 transcriber and certified electronic reporter and 3 transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct 4 transcript from the official electronic sound 5 recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled 6 matter. 7 8 9 April 15, 2022 10 Christine Fiore, CERT 11 Transcriber 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 175 of 452\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 176 of |\n|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 | 133 |\n| 1 | INDEX | |\n| 2 | | |\n| 3 | | Page |\n| 4 | Examination by Ms. Claiborn | 6 |\n| 5 | Examination by Mr. Wolman | 71 |\n| 6 | Examination by Mr. Harbach | 80 |\n| 7 | Examination by Mr. Stafstrom | 130 |\n| 8 | | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n\n#### **Exhibit 10**\n\n| | | | 22-50073 | |\n|---------|------------|--------------------|----------|--|\n| | | IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | | |\n| | | | | |\n| Trustee | | | 10 | |\n| | | | | |\n| | 11/17/2022 | | | |\n| | | P.E. | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 178 of 452\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT In Re \\* Chapter 11 \\* \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Case 22-50073(JAM) \\* Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC 341 MEETING OF CREDITORS MARCH 21, 2022 Electronically Recorded by the Office of the United States Trustee Transcript Prepared By: Christine Fiore, CERT Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, CT 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n452\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| APPEARANCES: | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| For the Debtor: | WILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ.
BEN SILVERBERG, ESQ.
URI PINELO, ESQ.
Brown Rudnick, LLP
Seven Times Square
New York, NY
10036 |\n| For the U.S. Trustee: | HOLLEY E. CLAIBORN, ESQ.
Office of the U.S. Trustee
150 State Street
New Haven, CT
06510 |\n| For Logan Cheng,
Creditor: | JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.
Randazza Legal Group
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103 |\n| For Pacific Alliance
Asia Opportunity Fund,
LP, Creditors: | DAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ.
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
1625 I Street NW
Washington, DC
20006 |\n| | STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.
LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.
CRAIG McALLISTER, ESQ.
MAKENZIE RUSSO
STEVEN WARREN
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY
10036 |\n| For Bruno Wu, Weican
Meng and Rui Ma,
Creditors: | KAREN WARSHAUER
McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &
Carpenter
One State Street
Hartford, CT
06103 |\n| For Xiaodan Wang,
Rong Zhang and Chong
Shen Raphanella,
Creditors: | LILLIAN GRINNELL, ESQ.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY
10016 |\n\n2\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 180 of 452\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n3\n\n| APPEARANCES: (Cont'd) | |\n|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| For Samuel Nunberg,
Creditor: | AMY ZAMIR, ESQ.
Nesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP
363 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY
10001 |\n| For the Sherry
Netherland, Creditor: | EMILY KUZNICK, ESQ.
Stroock, Stroock and Lavan
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY
10038 |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 181 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm going to repeat myself |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | from the beginning here because I want to make sure |\n| 3 | it's all on the record and I apologize. |\n| 4 | I'm going to basically start this meeting |\n| 5 | over again and we're going to go very quickly and |\n| 6 | then we'll come back to where I was just about to |\n| 7 | go. |\n| 8 | Today is Monday, March 21st, 2022 and we |\n| 9 | are gathered for the Section 341 meeting in the |\n| 10 | Chapter 11 case of Ho Wan Kwok, also known as Wengui |\n| 11 | Gwo and Miles Kwok. |\n| 12 | My name is Holley Claiborn and I'm a trial |\n| 13 | attorney in the Office of the United States Trustee |\n| 14 | and I will be conducting today's meeting. |\n| 15 | I am recording this meeting and also we |\n| 16 | have the presence of an interpreter on the line |\n| 17 | whose name is Bin, B-I-N. |\n| 18 | And so that I have it on the record, I'm |\n| 19 | going to ask Bin a third time about her oath. |\n| 20 | (The interpreter is sworn.) |\n| 21 | For purposes of speeding this up on the |\n| 22 | record we have appearances today by Jay Wolman, on |\n| 23 | behalf of Logan Cheng.
We have the appearance of |\n| 24 | David Harbach, Stuart Sarnoff, Mia Gonzalez, Laura |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 182 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
5 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Aronsson, Craig McAllister and Mackenzie Russo, all |\n| 2 | on behalf of Pacific Alliance.
And for creditors |\n| 3 | Rui Ma, Bruno Wu and Weican Meng, we have Karen |\n| 4 | Warshauer, a paralegal at McElroy. |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, I cannot get all |\n| 6 | those names at once. |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, did you translate all |\n| 8 | of the names for the Pacific Alliance? |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
The names actually just |\n| 10 | a repeat of the pronunciation.
No translation. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you.
Whoever does |\n| 12 | not have their phone on mute, could you please put |\n| 13 | it on mute?
Thank you. |\n| 14 | Okay.
The other appearances, Karen |\n| 15 | Warshauer, from McElroy, and she represents Bruno |\n| 16 | Wu, Weican Meng and Rui Ma. |\n| 17 | Before I go back to the debtor, are there |\n| 18 | any other creditors on the line who have counsel |\n| 19 | who'd like to put their appearance on the record? |\n| 20 | MS. GRINNELL:
Hi -- |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Please wait for the |\n| 22 | translation. |\n| 23 | MS. GRINNELL:
(Indiscernible) I'm from |\n| 24 | the firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz and |\n| 25 | we represent -- |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 183 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
6 |\n| 1 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry.
The interpreter |\n| 2 | cannot hear you clearly. |\n| 3 | MS. GRINNELL:
I'm sorry. My connection |\n| 4 | has been kind of off.
Can you hear me now? |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER: Yes. |\n| 6 | MS. GRINNELL:
Okay.
I'll repeat what I |\n| 7 | said. |\n| 8 | My name is Lillian Grinnell.
I'm an |\n| 9 | attorney at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz |\n| 10 | and we represent the creditors, Rong Zhang, Xiaodan |\n| 11 | Wang, and Chong Sheen Raphanella. |\n| 12 | THE INTERPRETER:
The names you pronounced |\n| 13 | I could not get them. |\n| 14 | MS. GRINNELL:
I'll spell them. |\n| 15 | I'll start with the creditor's names.
The |\n| 16 | creditor's names are Rong Zhang, and that's -- the |\n| 17 | first name is Rong, R-O-N-G, Z-H-A-N-G. |\n| 18 | The second creditor's name is Xiaodan |\n| 19 | Wang.
And her first name is spelled X-I-A-O-D-A-N. |\n| 20 | And her last name is spelled W-A-N-G. |\n| 21 | And then the third creditor, Chong Shen |\n| 22 | Raphanella.
And her first name is C-H-O-N-G. And |\n| 23 | then the second name is S-H-E-N.
And the third name |\n| 24 | is R-A-P-H-A-N-E-L-L-A. |\n| 25 | THE INTERPRETER:
I only got Chong Shen |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 184 of
452 |\n|---------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
7 |\n| 1 | and R-A-P-H-A-L. | |\n| 2 | | MS. GRINNELL:
I'm sorry.
Are you asking |\n| 3 | | me to spell the third name again? |\n| 4 | | (No response.) |\n| 5 | | Sorry?
I apologize.
My connection is |\n| 6 | very bad. | Do you need me to spell any of the names |\n| 7 | again? | |\n| 8 | | THE INTERPRETER:
I think I'm okay.
I |\n| 9 | | repeat it to Mr. Kwok already. |\n| 10 | | MS. GRINNELL:
Okay. |\n| 11 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Are there any other |\n| 12 | | creditors on the line or parties on the line? |\n| 13 | | MS. ZAMIR:
This is Amy Zamir, from |\n| 14 | | Nessenoff & Miltenberg.
I'm spell that.
My last |\n| 15 | | name is Zamir, Z-A-M-I-R.
Nessenoff is N-E-S-S-E-N |\n| 16 | | O-F-F, and Miltenberg, M-I-L-T-E-N-B-E-R-G.
And we |\n| 17 | | represent creditor Sam Nunberg, N-U-N-B-E-R-G. |\n| 18 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Is there anyone else who |\n| 19 | | would like to put their appearance on the record. |\n| 20 | | MS. KUZNICK:
Yes.
This is Emily Kuznick, |\n| 21 | | E-M-I-L-Y, and then Kuznick, K-U-Z-N-I-C-K, of |\n| 22 | | Stroock, Stroock and Lavan, that's S-T-R-O-O-C-K, |\n| 23 | | and Stroock, and Lavan is L-A-V-A-N. And we |\n| 24 | | represent the Sherry Netherland.
And for Sherry |\n| 25 | | Netherland it's S-H-E-R-R-Y, and then Netherland, N- |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 185 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
8 |\n| 1 | E-T-H-E-R-L-A-N-D. |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm clarifying what he |\n| 3 | said. |\n| 4 | (Interpretation.) |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER:
Let me continue |\n| 6 | clarifying what was yelled out just now. |\n| 7 | (Interpretation.) |\n| 8 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry.
The |\n| 9 | interpreter cannot get that.
Nobody picked up my |\n| 10 | question so I don't know. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Bin. |\n| 12 | Any other creditors or parties in interest |\n| 13 | before I go back to the debtor? |\n| 14 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach, from |\n| 15 | O'Melveny and Myers, representing PACS.
I just |\n| 16 | wanted to clarify that is it correct that we have |\n| 17 | not gotten an answer from the debtor about what he |\n| 18 | just said? |\n| 19 | I have not heard any interpretation of it |\n| 20 | and I understand the interpreter was attempting to |\n| 21 | clarify what was said but the debtor did not |\n| 22 | respond, as far as I heard, and we'd like to know |\n| 23 | what he said. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga.
I'll |\n| 25 | accept your apologies.
That was not the debtor, but |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 186 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
9 |\n| 1 | I accept your apology for that inference. |\n| 2 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm going to come back to |\n| 3 | that a in minute. |\n| 4 | MR. HARBACH:
Okay.
(Indiscernible) |\n| 5 | whether I should apologize, but can we inquire then |\n| 6 | who made the outburst?
The interpreter was |\n| 7 | attempting to clarify and so are we.
Forgive the |\n| 8 | inference. |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
So I interpreted what |\n| 10 | you requested.
Just now someone burst out with a |\n| 11 | few words -- with sentences.
The interpreter did |\n| 12 | not get those sentences.
So the interpreter tried |\n| 13 | to clarify who talked and what those words are, but |\n| 14 | nobody picked up the interpreter's question. |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
This is Holley Claiborn. |\n| 16 | Could the person who spoke up please answer the |\n| 17 | interpreter's question and identify themselves? |\n| 18 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry about that.
Just |\n| 19 | now it was it was just a video tape. It was not |\n| 20 | someone talked. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga.
Mr. |\n| 22 | Kwok -- what Mr. Kwok heard during that outburst was |\n| 23 | someone playing back an audio of his voice and we do |\n| 24 | want to know everyone who is on the phone and we |\n| 25 | would like identified who played that audio clip. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 187 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
10 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Thank you. |\n| 2 | UNIDENTIFIED:
Sorry, it was me. I played |\n| 3 | Mr. Kwok's video just now. |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Could the person who just |\n| 5 | spoke identify themselves? |\n| 6 | THE INTERPRETER:
The interpreter needs to |\n| 7 | clarify. |\n| 8 | (Interpreter inquires) |\n| 9 | MR. YAN:
My name is Xingyu Yan. I'm one of |\n| 10 | Mr. Kwok's creditors. |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
Can we have the spelling, |\n| 12 | please?
Could we obtain the spelling of that name |\n| 13 | please? |\n| 14 | MR. YAN:
The spelling is X, for Xray, I, as |\n| 15 | India, N, as in Nancy, G as in George, Y as in Yes, |\n| 16 | U as in umbrella.
Last name Y, A as in apple, N as |\n| 17 | in Nancy. |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:
Ms. Claiborn, Bill Baldiga |\n| 19 | again.
Could you please exhaust the names of |\n| 20 | everyone else on the line, just so we know who is |\n| 21 | participating, whether or not they intend to ask |\n| 22 | questions? |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm trying to get there. |\n| 24 | That was my -- okay. |\n| 25 | Is anyone else on the line?
If you are on |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 188 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
11 |\n| 1 | the line, and you could please identify yourself? |\n| 2 | MR. GREIF:
Hello.
My name is Steven Greif, |\n| 3 | G-R-E-I-F. |\n| 4 | MR. WARREN:
Steven Warren of O'Melveny & |\n| 5 | Myers. |\n| 6 | MR. JALBERT:
Craig Jalbert of |\n| 7 | (indiscernible). |\n| 8 | INDISCERNIBLE:
(Indiscernible)
from |\n| 9 | Robinson and Cole. |\n| 10 | INDISCERNIBLE:
(Indiscernible)
from |\n| 11 | Stroock, Stroock and Lavan. |\n| 12 | MS. DEERING:
Alexandra Deering of Brown |\n| 13 | Rudnick. |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
This is Holley Claiborn |\n| 15 | again. Thank you all for putting your appearances on |\n| 16 | the record.
And if I could go back to debtor's |\n| 17 | camp, Mr. Baldiga, could you put your appearance on |\n| 18 | the record and note everybody who's with you at your |\n| 19 | location. |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes.
We're in our -- |\n| 21 | I'm sorry. I missed what was just said. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Baldiga, could you go |\n| 23 | ahead, please?
Mr. Baldiga, could you go ahead, |\n| 24 | please? |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes.
Thank you.
We are at |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 189 of\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 | | |\n|--|--|------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n\n| 1 | our offices at 7 Times Square in New York. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | And can you please state the name, Mr. |\n| 3 | Baldiga, of who is present with you? |\n| 4 | (No response.) |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Baldiga, could you please |\n| 6 | state the names of the people who are with you? |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
Ben Silverberg and Uri Pinelo. |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay.
Other names I believe |\n| 9 | I heard earlier are Una Menye (ph), who is an |\n| 10 | interpreter, and Attorney Aaron Mitchell. |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's right.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Ms. CLAIBORN:
Okay. I'm going to swear in |\n| 13 | Mr. Kwok and I would ask everyone to put their |\n| 14 | phones on mute. |\n| 15 | (The debtor is sworn.) |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN: Mr. Kwok, as you know, today's |\n| 17 | meeting is being recorded and there's an |\n| 18 | interpreter, Bin, who's interpreting my questions |\n| 19 | and the comments of others and will also be |\n| 20 | interpreting your answers. |\n| 21 | Please wait to answer any questions you are |\n| 22 | asked today until the official interpreter has made |\n| 23 | a full translation. |\n| 24 | I ask that you do not communicate with your |\n| 25 | own interpreter who is present with you before you |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 190 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n answer the questions, and should you do so, I will ask the official interpreter to translate that discussion. THE INTERPRETER: Sorry. Could you please\n\n repeat? MS. CLAIBORN: Mr. Kwok, I ask that you do not communicate with your own interpreter who is\n\n with you today before you answer my questions or the questions of others.\n\n THE INTERPRETER: He could not use his own interpreter.\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Bin, could you translate that instruction for Mr. Kwok.\n\nMR. BALDIGA: This is Bill Baldiga.\n\nTo the extent --\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Mr. Baldiga, could you just wait for Bin to interpret that instruction for me and then you can make your comment.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Two things. This is Bill Baldiga.\n\n Holley, you've become quite muffled again and second, to the extent that Mr. Kwok needs to talk to his interpreter to better understand what was said or the interpreter in the room with us believes that there was a misinterpretation, we will Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 191 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
14 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | tell you that so that you do know if there is a |\n| 2 | further conversation. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | HO WAN KWOK, Sworn |\n| 5 | EXAMINATION BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 6 | Q
Mr. Kwok, can you please explain the reason |\n| 7 | to file your Chapter 11 bankruptcy case? |\n| 8 | UNIDENTIFIED:
Sorry? |\n| 9 | Q
Mr. Kwok, please explain the reasons behind |\n| 10 | your decision to file your Chapter 11 bankruptcy |\n| 11 | case? |\n| 12 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach.
We're |\n| 13 | having trouble understanding you again. |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I apologize.
My phone system |\n| 15 | is new and I'm yelling into the phone, but unless I |\n| 16 | put it on speaker phone I won't be able to record |\n| 17 | it.
Does yelling improve your ability to hear me? |\n| 18 | MR. HARBACH:
It's very difficult to |\n| 19 | understand your questions because they're so |\n| 20 | muffled.
It's not volume, it's diction, if I may be |\n| 21 | blunt. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I will try to speak slowly. |\n| 23 | Is that any better? |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
It seems to be, yes.
Thank |\n| 25 | you. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 192 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
15 |\n| 1 | |\n| 2 | Q
Okay.
We're going to try this again. |\n| 3 | Mr. Kwok, can you please explain your |\n| 4 | reasons behind filing your Chapter 11 bankruptcy |\n| 5 | case? |\n| 6 | A
I cannot understand you.
I don't know what |\n| 7 | you mean by filing Chapter 11 of bank. |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Kwok, why did you file your bankruptcy |\n| 9 | case? |\n| 10 | THE INTERPRETER:
The interpreter would like |\n| 11 | to clarify the word he said. |\n| 12 | A
I'm not filing any bankruptcy certificate. |\n| 13 | Q
Let me try again. |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok, you are a Chapter 11 debtor in a |\n| 15 | bankruptcy proceeding here in the United States. |\n| 16 | Mr. Kwok, what were the reasons behind your |\n| 17 | decision to file your bankruptcy case? |\n| 18 | A
So you're asking me why I'm applying for |\n| 19 | bankruptcy, right? |\n| 20 | Q
Yes. |\n| 21 | A
I filed (indiscernible)
in mid-February in |\n| 22 | my second trial, or second appearance in Southern |\n| 23 | District. I was given a fine of \\$120 million and I |\n| 24 | was ordered to pay it off within five days.
So |\n| 25 | without any choices -- so I filed bankruptcy |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 193 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
16 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | application at Connecticut state and Chapter 11. |\n| 2 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when was the first time you spoke |\n| 3 | with a lawyer about filing a bankruptcy case? |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
Just the date, or the |\n| 5 | approximate date.
Not the substance of the advice. |\n| 6 | A
Approximately 12, 13. |\n| 7 | Q
Can you please provide the month and the |\n| 8 | year? |\n| 9 | A
It was February the 12th of 2002. |\n| 10 | Q
Did you say 2002 or 2021? |\n| 11 | A
2022.
February the 12th or 13. |\n| 12 | Q
Mr. Kwok, I'd ask you to take a look at your |\n| 13 | bankruptcy petition that was filed with the |\n| 14 | bankruptcy court at ECF 1. |\n| 15 | Mr. Kwok, a handwritten signature appears on |\n| 16 | that petition. Is that your handwritten signature? |\n| 17 | A
Hold on a second. I'll ask the lawyer to get |\n| 18 | it and I'll take a look. |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga.
We have |\n| 20 | with us the petition with the electronic signature |\n| 21 | as filed.
I don't have in the conference room me |\n| 22 | the handwritten signature.
If you'd like us to get |\n| 23 | it, we could get it at a break. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, can you take a look at the |\n| 25 | document that your counsel has, which is the |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 194 of |\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
17 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | bankruptcy petition with your printed name on it and |\n| 2 | confirm that you signed that document prior to it |\n| 3 | being filed with the court? |\n| 4 | A
Please hold on one second.
Let me take a |\n| 5 | look. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
Could I hear the translation, |\n| 7 | please.
I want to hear the translation of what you |\n| 8 | said. |\n| 9 | (No response.) |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Is the translator still with |\n| 11 | us? |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, are you on the line? |\n| 13 | (No response.) |\n| 14 | Bin, are you there? |\n| 15 | (No response.) |\n| 16 | It seems that Bin has left us so I'm going |\n| 17 | to put everybody on hold and I'm going to try to |\n| 18 | reconnect her. I apologize. |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's okay.
Could we take a |\n| 20 | short break? |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It's going to take me a few |\n| 22 | minutes to do that, so go ahead and we'll reconvene |\n| 23 | as soon as I can get her on the line. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you very much. |\n| 25 | (Off the record.) |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 195 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
18 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
We are back on the record |\n| 2 | after a short break due to some technical |\n| 3 | difficulties. |\n| 4 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 5 | Q
The pending question was asking Mr. Kwok to |\n| 6 | confirm that he signed the bankruptcy petition that |\n| 7 | was filed at ECF 1. |\n| 8 | A
I have finished looking at it, yes. |\n| 9 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you read and understand the |\n| 10 | bankruptcy petition and information it contains |\n| 11 | before you signed it? |\n| 12 | A
Yes, I understood. |\n| 13 | Q
Mr. Kwok, was the petition translated into |\n| 14 | another language for you before you signed it? |\n| 15 | A
Yes, it was translated into Chinese for me. |\n| 16 | Q
Who translated the bankruptcy petition? |\n| 17 | A
My lawyer did. |\n| 18 | Q
Mr. Kwok, I don't think that Mr. Baldiga |\n| 19 | speaks Chinese. |\n| 20 | So who was the company or the person that |\n| 21 | you used to translate the petition for you? |\n| 22 | A
I don't know. |\n| 23 | Q
Mr. Kwok, is the information in your |\n| 24 | bankruptcy petition true and accurate to the best of |\n| 25 | your knowledge? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 196 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n A Yes, it is accurate and true. Q Mr. Kwok, can you please take a look at the declaration and about individual debtor's schedules that was filed with the court docket at ECF No. 79. THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, could you please repeat? Q Mr. Kwok, can you please take a look at the declaration about an individual debtor's schedules that was filed with the bankruptcy court at ECF 79. Mr. Kwok, a handwritten signature appears on that declaration. Is that your handwritten signature? A The document in my hand. Yes, it was signed by me. Q And are you looking at ECF no. 79? A Yes. Q Mr. Kwok, was the declaration that was filed at ECF 79 translated into another language for you before you signed it? A Yes. Q What language was it translated into? A Chinese. Q Mr. Kwok, do you know who did the translation of ECF no. 79? A Yes.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 197 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
20 |\n| 1 | Q
And who was that person who translated ECF |\n| 2 | 79 into Chinese for you? |\n| 3 | A
The lawyer. |\n| 4 | Q
Can you tell me the name of the lawyer? |\n| 5 | A
Bill. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga.
The |\n| 7 | witness is not distinguishing between what I did |\n| 8 | personally and what we had commissioned, to help |\n| 9 | clarify.
I do not obviously do translations myself. |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Attorney Baldiga, can you |\n| 11 | tell me the name of the translation person who |\n| 12 | worked for you or the name of the company? |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'll have to get that. I don't |\n| 14 | have it here. |\n| 15 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you read and understand the |\n| 16 | declaration filed at ECF no. 79 before you signed |\n| 17 | it? |\n| 18 | A
Yes, understood. |\n| 19 | Q
Mr. Kwok, can you please take a look at your |\n| 20 | bankruptcy schedules that were filed with the |\n| 21 | bankruptcy court at ECF 78. |\n| 22 | And Mr. Kwok, for purposes of today, when I |\n| 23 | used the term schedules, either collectively or by a |\n| 24 | particular schedule, I'm referring to the documents |\n| 25 | that were filed at ECF 78. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 198 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
21 |\n| 1 | Mr. Kwok, were your bankruptcy schedules |\n| 2 | translated for you? |\n| 3 | A
Yes, it was translated. |\n| 4 | Q
Mr. Kwok, were you involved in preparing the |\n| 5 | responses and the answers to the questions in the |\n| 6 | schedules? |\n| 7 | A
Yes, I was. |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you read and understand all of |\n| 9 | the responses and the answers to the questions in |\n| 10 | the schedules before you signed the declaration that |\n| 11 | was filed at ECF 79. |\n| 12 | A
Yes. |\n| 13 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who assisted you in the |\n| 14 | preparation of your bankruptcy schedules? |\n| 15 | A
The lawyer. |\n| 16 | Q
Mr. Kwok, can you tell me which lawyers |\n| 17 | helped you? |\n| 18 | A
Bill. |\n| 19 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are you referring to Attorney |\n| 20 | Baldiga? |\n| 21 | A
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did any other lawyers help you in |\n| 23 | preparing your bankruptcy schedules? |\n| 24 | A
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q
Can you please tell me the names of the |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 199 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
22 |\n| 1 | other lawyers who assisted you? |\n| 2 | A
I don't know how to say their names. I |\n| 3 | cannot read English well. |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga. I'm |\n| 5 | happy to add that, of course, other of our |\n| 6 | colleagues here at Brown Rudnick assisted. But I'm |\n| 7 | not sure Mr. Kwok would have details as to who |\n| 8 | exactly assisted on what part of it, but you could |\n| 9 | ask, of course. |\n| 10 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did any lawyer help you prepare |\n| 11 | your schedules who is not a lawyer at Brown Rudnick? |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me. I need to talk with |\n| 13 | Mr. Kwok for one second. I'm just going to put you |\n| 14 | on mute for one second. |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'd prefer he answer the |\n| 16 | question before you have your conference, Mr. |\n| 17 | Baldiga. |\n| 18 | A
Because the whole bankruptcy application, |\n| 19 | the whole stuff was arranged by this lawyer.
But I |\n| 20 | don't know all the other details. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Do you want to confer with |\n| 22 | your client? |\n| 23 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'll clarify only that Mr. |\n| 24 | Kwok likely does not know of all of the |\n| 25 | conversations that we've had with others, but this |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 200 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
23 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | is the opportunity to exam him, so you can obviously |\n| 2 | ask that but we don't want to be misleading. |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Kwok, aside from Mr. Baldiga and lawyers |\n| 4 | at Brown Rudnick did you speak with any other |\n| 5 | lawyers about preparing your bankruptcy schedules? |\n| 6 | A
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q
Who did you speak with? |\n| 8 | A
Another law firm called Ari and my personal |\n| 9 | lawyer (indiscernible). |\n| 10 | Q
What is the name of your personal lawyer? |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
Could I confer and I might be |\n| 12 | able to answer that question? |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Could I have a second to |\n| 15 | confer, please? |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 17 | (Pause.) |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | Q
Mr. Kwok, what is the name of your personal |\n| 20 | lawyer? |\n| 21 | A
Guy Petrillo and
Ari (indiscernible). |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok do I understand correctly that you |\n| 23 | discussed your bankruptcy schedules with Guy |\n| 24 | Petrillo and Aaron Mitchell? |\n| 25 | A
Yes. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 201 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| 1 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you discuss your bankruptcy |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | schedules with any other lawyers that you haven't |\n| 3 | yet told me about today? |\n| 4 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 5 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are there any errors or omissions |\n| 6 | in your bankruptcy schedules? |\n| 7 | A
I don't see anything like that now. |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Kwok, is everything in your bankruptcy |\n| 9 | schedules true and accurate to the best of your |\n| 10 | knowledge? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
Mr. Kwok, could you please take a look at |\n| 13 | your bankruptcy statement of financial affairs that |\n| 14 | was filed with the court at ECF no. 77. |\n| 15 | Mr. Kwok, using the numbers at the top of |\n| 16 | the document can you please go to page 20 where you |\n| 17 | will find a handwritten signature. |\n| 18 | THE INTERPRETER: Sorry? |\n| 19 | Q
Where you will find a handwritten signature. |\n| 20 | Mr. Kwok, is the handwritten signature on |\n| 21 | page 20 of the statement of financial affairs your |\n| 22 | own? |\n| 23 | A
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, was the statement of financial |\n| 25 | affairs translated for you before you signed it? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 202 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
25 |\n| 1 | A
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q
Mr. Kwok, were you involved in the preparing |\n| 3 | of the responses and the answers to the questions in |\n| 4 | the statement of financial affairs? |\n| 5 | A
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you read and understand all |\n| 7 | the responses and answers to the questions in the |\n| 8 | statement of financial affairs before you signed it? |\n| 9 | A
I understood all. |\n| 10 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are there any errors or omissions |\n| 11 | in your statement of financial affairs? |\n| 12 | A
No. |\n| 13 | (No response.) |\n| 14 | Q
Mr. Kwok, would you please answer the |\n| 15 | question? |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry.
Could you repeat |\n| 17 | that?
We didn't get the interpretation here in the |\n| 18 | room for some reason. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'll ask the question again. |\n| 20 | Q
Are there any errors or omissions in your |\n| 21 | statement of financial affairs? |\n| 22 | A
Up to now I haven't found any errors or |\n| 23 | omissions. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, is everything in your statement of |\n| 25 | financial affairs true and accurate to the best of |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 203 of |\n|---------------|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 | 26 |\n| 1 | your knowledge? | | |\n| 2 | A | Yes. | |\n| 3 | Q | Mr. Kwok, who assisted you in the | |\n| 4 | | preparation of your statement of financial affairs? | |\n| 5 | A | My lawyer, Bill, and my financial advisor, | |\n| 6 | Matt. | | |\n| 7 | Q | Mr. Kwok, are you referring to Attorney | |\n| 8 | Baldiga? | | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. | |\n| 10 | Q | And what is the name -- the full name of the | |\n| 11 | | financial advisor? | |\n| 12 | A | I don't know how to spell it. | |\n| 13 | | MR. BALDIGA:
It's Matt Flynn and colleagues | |\n| 14 | | at Verdolino and Lowey.
But you could -- | |\n| 15 | Q | Mr. Kwok, is that correct? | |\n| 16 | A | I'm afraid I will say it wrong, but I will | |\n| 17 | | ask for Mr. -- my lawyer Baldiga to clarify for you. | |\n| 18 | Q | We can move on. | |\n| 19 | | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga. | |\n| 20 | | Mr. Kwok simply does not know the full name | |\n| 21 | | of Matt Flynn or Matt's colleagues at Verlino and | |\n| 22 | | Lowey, but I confirm that he is pointing at Matt | |\n| 23 | | Flynn next to him when he answers the question. | |\n| 24 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. | |\n| 25 | Q | Mr. Kwok, did anyone else help you with your | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 204 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
27 |\n| 1 | statement of financial affairs? |\n| 2 | A
No. |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Kwok, how long have you lived in the |\n| 4 | United States? |\n| 5 | A
Nearly seven years. |\n| 6 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach.
I |\n| 7 | didn't get the translation of the answer. |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, can you please repeat |\n| 9 | your translation. |\n| 10 | THE INTERPRETER:
Nearly 7 years. |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you still live at the Taconic |\n| 12 | Road property in Greenwich? |\n| 13 | A
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q
Who owns that property in Greenwich? |\n| 15 | A
My wife. |\n| 16 | Q
Your bankruptcy documents refer to a company |\n| 17 | called Greenwich Land, LLC.
Who owns that company? |\n| 18 | A
My wife. |\n| 19 | Q
What is your wife's name? |\n| 20 | A
(Indiscernible) |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, could you please |\n| 22 | translate that for me into a spelling? |\n| 23 | THE INTERPRETER:
Let me just clarify with |\n| 24 | him which Chinese characters are, then I can spell |\n| 25 | it for you. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 205 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
28 |\n| 1 | A
My wife's name is read at (indiscernible) |\n| 2 | but she's from -- she's from Hong Kong.
Their |\n| 3 | spelling is different from Mainland and I don't know |\n| 4 | how to spell her name. |\n| 5 | Q
Mr. Kwok, could you just please spell her |\n| 6 | last name? |\n| 7 | A
I don't know how to spell. |\n| 8 | Q
Does anyone else have a membership interest |\n| 9 | in Greenwich Land LLC aside from your wife? |\n| 10 | A
I don't know. |\n| 11 | Q
When was Greenwich Land LLC formed as a |\n| 12 | company? |\n| 13 | A
2020. |\n| 14 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you ever been a member of |\n| 15 | Greenwich Land, LLC? |\n| 16 | A
No. |\n| 17 | Q
How much did Greenwich Land, LLC pay for the |\n| 18 | purchase of the Greenwich property on Taconic Road? |\n| 19 | A
I don't know specifically but approximately |\n| 20 | 5 million. |\n| 21 | Q
And how was that purchase funded? |\n| 22 | A
I don't know. |\n| 23 | Q
Who would know the answer, Mr. Kwok? |\n| 24 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? |\n| 25 | Q
Who would know the answer to that, Mr. Kwok? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 206 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
29 |\n| 1 | A
My wife knows. |\n| 2 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach and I |\n| 3 | apologize for the interruption. |\n| 4 | We missed the translation by the number of |\n| 5 | that Mr. Kwok said approximately this kind of |\n| 6 | property would cost.
Could that please be repeated? |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, the interpreter |\n| 8 | cannot hear you clearly. |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Harbach, I will ask your |\n| 10 | question again. |\n| 11 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you. |\n| 12 | Q
How much was the Taconic Road property in |\n| 13 | Greenwich purchased for? |\n| 14 | A
I don't know clearly but approximately 4 |\n| 15 | million to 5 million. |\n| 16 | Q
When did Greenwich Land LLC purchase the |\n| 17 | property on Taconic Road in Greenwich? |\n| 18 | A
I don't know the specific time. |\n| 19 | Q
Do you know the year? |\n| 20 | A
2019 or 2020. I don't remember clearly. |\n| 21 | (Unintelligible background chatter.) |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Could whoever is speaking |\n| 23 | identify themselves? |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me just for one second. |\n| 25 | We may have a translation issue.
I'm just going to |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 207 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | put you on mute for one second. |\n| 2 | (Pause.) |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga.
We |\n| 4 | believe that the answer by Mr. Kwok to the date was |\n| 5 | 2019 or 2020, but the translator may have said 2020 |\n| 6 | without a mention of 2019. I obviously don't know. |\n| 7 | But that's -- if it matters, you could re-ask to be |\n| 8 | sure that there's clarity around that? |\n| 9 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when did Greenwich Land LLC |\n| 10 | purchase the Taconic Road property in Greenwich? |\n| 11 | A
Maybe it's 2020 or maybe it's 2019. I don't |\n| 12 | remember clearly.
I don't know. |\n| 13 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you sign any documents in |\n| 14 | connection with the purchase of the Taconic Road |\n| 15 | Property in Greenwich? |\n| 16 | A
No. |\n| 17 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who lives at the Taconic Road |\n| 18 | property in Greenwich? |\n| 19 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry?
Who -- |\n| 20 | Q
Who lives at the Taconic Road property in |\n| 21 | Greenwich? |\n| 22 | A
My wife and I.
Sometimes my daughter who |\n| 23 | lives in New York will come back. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are you currently employed by |\n| 25 | anyone? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 208 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
31 |\n| 1 | THE INTERPRETER:
Are you what? |\n| 2 | Q
Are you currently employed by anyone or any |\n| 3 | company? |\n| 4 | A
No. |\n| 5 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you had any employment or any |\n| 6 | job with an employer since you started living in the |\n| 7 | United States? |\n| 8 | A
I don't remember clearly.
I don't remember |\n| 9 | clearly but approximately in 2015 at Golden Spring I |\n| 10 | worked for some time.
After I got part of my wages |\n| 11 | of salary I left and nothing else. |\n| 12 | Q
What work did you do for Golden Spring in |\n| 13 | 2015? |\n| 14 | A
I don't remember quite clearly but it seems |\n| 15 | it (indiscernible)
I was put in charge of |\n| 16 | developing (indiscernible)
investors. But I don't |\n| 17 | remember clearly. |\n| 18 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when did you stop working for |\n| 19 | Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Excuse me just one second. I |\n| 21 | just want to make sure we -- excuse me for one |\n| 22 | second. I just want to make sure we don't |\n| 23 | (indiscernible) translation.
We may. |\n| 24 | (Pause.) |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Our interpreter believes that |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 209 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| 1 | the response was that if he had a role at Golden |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Springs, it was to develop investment opportunities |\n| 3 | not to develop investors. |\n| 4 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when did you stop working for |\n| 5 | Golden Spring? |\n| 6 | A
I don't remember clearly. |\n| 7 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when you say Golden Spring, are |\n| 8 | you referring to the company known as Golden Spring, |\n| 9 | New York, Limited? |\n| 10 | A
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you get paid for any of the |\n| 12 | work that you for Golden Spring? |\n| 13 | A
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q
How much were you paid? |\n| 15 | A
Approximately 200,000. I don't remember |\n| 16 | specifically. |\n| 17 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you receive a paycheck from |\n| 18 | your work at Golden Spring? |\n| 19 | A
I should have but I don't remember clearly |\n| 20 | specifically. |\n| 21 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you put the money that you |\n| 22 | were paid by Golden Spring into a bank account? |\n| 23 | A
I should have put it into a credit card |\n| 24 | account at Morgan Stanley. |\n| 25 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are you saying that you had a bank |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 210 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
33 |\n| 1 | account at Morgan Stanley? |\n| 2 | A
Yes, once I had. |\n| 3 | Q
Do you still have a bank account at Morgan |\n| 4 | Stanley? |\n| 5 | A
No. |\n| 6 | Q
When did you close your accounts at Morgan |\n| 7 | Stanley? |\n| 8 | A
Around April, 2017 when (indiscernible)
the |\n| 9 | Chinese Communist Party stated chasing me and |\n| 10 | (indiscernible)
me.
So all my bank accounts were |\n| 11 | closed. |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
Hold on.
There's a |\n| 13 | mistranslation there. |\n| 14 | (Pause.) |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
The prior misstatement or |\n| 16 | mistranslation was just the interpretation of the |\n| 17 | word. But here the entire crux of the answer was |\n| 18 | left out.
And I'm not sure what happened. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Maybe I can ask a different |\n| 20 | question. We can try again. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
No, I think -- no, I think -- |\n| 22 | the answer -- I'm concerned with the accuracy of the |\n| 23 | translation because there was specific mention of |\n| 24 | names that were simply not produced in the answer. |\n| 25 | And I'll guess, Bin, did you not hear the mention of |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 211 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
34 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | PACS and Bruno Wu, or was there a sound issue, or |\n| 2 | what happened? |\n| 3 | (Interpreter translates) |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Kwok, did you -- |\n| 5 | MR. KWOK:
So Bruno Wu, (indiscernible) |\n| 6 | Airlines and also Chinese Communist party, they all |\n| 7 | chased me and wanted to kill me.
So I |\n| 8 | (indiscernible)
-- all my bank accounts were |\n| 9 | closed. |\n| 10 | PAC, PACS.
(Indiscernible)
all the people |\n| 11 | are present today at today's meeting. |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
Could we have on the record |\n| 13 | the entirety of what Mr. Kwok said.
That's a very |\n| 14 | small part of what he said, obviously.
I don't know |\n| 15 | what he said but that's much shorter. |\n| 16 | (Interpreter translates) |\n| 17 | THE INTERPRETER:
The interpreter is asking |\n| 18 | him to (indiscernible)
every two names so that I |\n| 19 | can maintain the integrity of his meaning. |\n| 20 | MR. KWOK:
At today's meeting there are PAC, |\n| 21 | one of the major creditors.
And also |\n| 22 | (indiscernible).
And also (indiscernible)
member. |\n| 23 | All the money that had to be paid went into an |\n| 24 | account of the Communist Party under the name of |\n| 25 | Bruno Wu.
So since that day when all the -- all the |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 212 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
35 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | representatives of the Chinese Communist party -- so |\n| 2 | when the chasing and killing started I lost all my |\n| 3 | bank accounts. |\n| 4 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach.
Bin, |\n| 5 | could you please repeat that? |\n| 6 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? |\n| 7 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach.
You |\n| 8 | just translated an answer that began with since that |\n| 9 | day.
Can you please repeat the answer in English? |\n| 10 | THE INTERPRETER:
Since that day all those |\n| 11 | people who are representatives of Chinese Communist |\n| 12 | Party, since that day I lost all my bank accounts. |\n| 13 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 14 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you have any money in your |\n| 15 | Morgan Stanley account when you closed it? |\n| 16 | A
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q
And where did you move that money to? |\n| 18 | A
Nobody bothered looking at me again since |\n| 19 | the account was closed. |\n| 20 | Q
Mr. Kwok, my question is where did you move |\n| 21 | the money to? |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga -- I'm |\n| 23 | sorry.
This is Bill Baldiga. |\n| 24 | Could you ask if perhaps you're inferring or |\n| 25 | implying that he moved it as opposed to something |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 213 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
36 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | happened to it?
Could you ask it in a more neutral |\n| 2 | way and you may get a more full answer? |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you or someone acting on your |\n| 4 | behalf close the Morgan Stanley account? |\n| 5 | A
The Communist Party, Bruno Wu and also the |\n| 6 | (indiscernible).
It was closed by the Communist |\n| 7 | party. |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Kwok, was the Morgan Stanley account in |\n| 9 | the United States? |\n| 10 | A
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, how does somebody other than you, |\n| 12 | or someone acting on your behalf close a bank |\n| 13 | account in your name? |\n| 14 | THE INTERPRETER:
He wants me to repeat the |\n| 15 | question, the interpretation of the question. |\n| 16 | (Interpreter translates again.) |\n| 17 | A
It's the core control of the Communist |\n| 18 | Party, like what's happening today. The same thing. |\n| 19 | (Indiscernible)
happened on me. |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Ms. Claiborn, could I suggest |\n| 21 | that you ask whether Morgan Stanley closed the |\n| 22 | account, just so we could be more efficient here? |\n| 23 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you close the account at |\n| 24 | Morgan Stanley? |\n| 25 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 214 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
37 |\n| 1 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you close the account at |\n| 2 | Morgan Stanley? |\n| 3 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry. I still didn't |\n| 4 | quite get the question actually. |\n| 5 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you personally close the |\n| 6 | account at Morgan Stanley? |\n| 7 | A
No. |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Kwok, did you ask someone at Morgan |\n| 9 | Stanley to close your account? |\n| 10 | A
No. |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, how did you find out that your |\n| 12 | bank account at Morgan Stanley was closed? |\n| 13 | A
Morgan Stanley notified me that I was on the |\n| 14 | wanted list of the Chinese government.
So it was |\n| 15 | Bruno Wu who was representing (indiscernible)
name |\n| 16 | on the wanted list so the account was closed. |\n| 17 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when Morgan Stanley closed the |\n| 18 | account, what happened to the money in the account? |\n| 19 | MR. HARBACH:
Ms. Claiborn, this is David |\n| 20 | Harbach. I'm sorry. I missed the second half of that |\n| 21 | question.
When Morgan Stanley closed the account |\n| 22 | and then I lost you. |\n| 23 | Q
I'll repeat my question. |\n| 24 | Mr. Kwok, when Morgan Stanley closed the |\n| 25 | bank account, what happened to the money in the bank |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 215 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
38 |\n| 1 | account? |\n| 2 | A
The last thing I know was a Chinese speaking |\n| 3 | person called me telling me that my account was |\n| 4 | closed because I was under a wanted list of the |\n| 5 | Chinese government.
And what happened later on I |\n| 6 | don't know really. |\n| 7 | Q
Mr. Kwok, how much money was in the -- |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga -- |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes, Mr. Baldiga? |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga. I think |\n| 11 | it would be helpful -- I don't want to interrupt |\n| 12 | your flow of questions, if we took a break pretty |\n| 13 | soon.
But if you want to finish this line, certain |\n| 14 | do that. |\n| 15 | I also want -- there may be some confusion |\n| 16 | with the Morgan name and so you may want to ask the |\n| 17 | witness whether it's, in fact, Morgan Stanley or JP |\n| 18 | Morgan Chase. |\n| 19 | MR. KWOK:
Now I remember. I think it was JP |\n| 20 | Morgan Chase.
I just cannot differentiate. I get |\n| 21 | confused with Morgan Stanley or JP Morgan Chase. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, was there only one account at |\n| 23 | whatever it is you're calling it, be it JP Morgan |\n| 24 | Chase or Morgan Stanley? |\n| 25 | A
What I remember is I have this only one |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 216 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | account. |\n| 2 | Q
How much money was in that account |\n| 3 | approximately when it was closed? |\n| 4 | A
A few thousand U.S. dollars. |\n| 5 | MR. HARBACH:
I missed it. Can you repeat |\n| 6 | the English, please? |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, can you please repeat |\n| 8 | the answer? |\n| 9 | (No response.) |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, can you please repeat |\n| 11 | the answer? |\n| 12 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach. I |\n| 13 | missed the translation before the word thousand. I |\n| 14 | did not hear the number.
Could you please repeat |\n| 15 | it? |\n| 16 | THE INTERPRETER:
He said a few thousand |\n| 17 | U.S. dollars. |\n| 18 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when you say a few thousand |\n| 19 | dollars, can you give me an idea of what you mean? |\n| 20 | Was it under \\$10,000? |\n| 21 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, a few minutes ago you testified |\n| 23 | that you were working for Golden Spring developing |\n| 24 | investment opportunities.
Can you explain more? |\n| 25 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 217 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
40 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I wasn't finished with the |\n| 2 | question. I apologize. I'll try again. |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Kwok, a few minutes ago you testified |\n| 4 | that you were working for Golden Spring developing |\n| 5 | investment opportunities.
Can you please explain |\n| 6 | what you mean by that? |\n| 7 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 8 | Q
When you were working for Golden Spring, |\n| 9 | were you working in the United States? |\n| 10 | A
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q
When you were working with Golden Spring did |\n| 12 | you have a job title? |\n| 13 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 14 | Q
When you were working for Golden Spring, did |\n| 15 | you do any other work aside from developing |\n| 16 | investment opportunities? |\n| 17 | A
(indiscernible)
Communist Party of China. |\n| 18 | Q
Can you please explain that? |\n| 19 | A
Since 2015 up till now I have been spending |\n| 20 | all my time and my energy on collecting information |\n| 21 | about corruption and also human rights issues and |\n| 22 | assassinations of the Community Party.
That's my |\n| 23 | target and my work. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you currently have any source |\n| 25 | of income? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 218 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
41 |\n| 1 | THE INTERPRETER:
I didn't get you.
Could |\n| 2 | you please repeat? |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you currently have a source of |\n| 4 | income? |\n| 5 | A
No. |\n| 6 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you filed your tax returns |\n| 7 | for the year 2021 with the Internal Revenue Service |\n| 8 | in the United States? |\n| 9 | A
No. |\n| 10 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you filed any tax returns in |\n| 11 | states for the tax year 2021? |\n| 12 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? |\n| 13 | Q
Have you filed any tax returns for any |\n| 14 | states for the tax year 2021? |\n| 15 | A
No. |\n| 16 | Q
What tax returns will you need to file for |\n| 17 | what states for the year 2021? |\n| 18 | A
Individual tax file in Connecticut. |\n| 19 | Q
Will you be filing a tax return for the |\n| 20 | State of New York for the year 2021? |\n| 21 | A
No. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, you previously provided to my |\n| 23 | office tax returns for the years 2019 and 2020.
Are |\n| 24 | those tax returns the same as the tax returns you |\n| 25 | filed with the Internal Revenue Service in the State |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 219 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
42 |\n| 1 | of New York? |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, the date of what? |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
2019 and 2020. |\n| 4 | THE INTERPRETER:
Yes, I got that.
What's |\n| 5 | the later part? |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
The State of New York. |\n| 7 | A
No, I filed them in Connecticut, 2020. |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Kwok -- |\n| 9 | A
I in (indiscernible)
for 2019 and 2020. |\n| 10 | 2020 I filed in Connecticut. |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
Holley, can we take a break |\n| 12 | soon? |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Unfortunately, I'm going to |\n| 14 | suggest that we can't really take a break because we |\n| 15 | only have the interpreter until 2:00.
So if we do, |\n| 16 | it needs to be a very, very short one. |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. Five minutes? |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yeah, let me just ask one |\n| 19 | question before we do that. |\n| 20 | Q
Mr. Kwok, please confirm that the tax |\n| 21 | returns that you provided to the United States |\n| 22 | Trustee for the year 2020 and 2019 were the same as |\n| 23 | those filed with the taxing authorities? |\n| 24 | THE INTERPRETER:
The what?
Sorry, the last |\n| 25 | word. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 220 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
43 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Authorities. |\n| 2 | Q
Yes -- |\n| 3 | THE INTERPRETER:
Could you please repeat? |\n| 4 | Sorry. |\n| 5 | Q
Mr. Kwok, can you please confirm that the |\n| 6 | tax returns that you provided to the Office of the |\n| 7 | United States Trustee for the tax years 2019 and |\n| 8 | 2020 are the same as those that you provided to the |\n| 9 | Internal Revenue Service and to the State of |\n| 10 | Connecticut and to the State of New York? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
Mr. Kwok, in your 2020 tax return -- |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
I want to clarify.
As you |\n| 14 | know, there were very limited redactions as to |\n| 15 | Social Security number and maybe a couple of data |\n| 16 | points. I'm not sure if the witness knows what we |\n| 17 | did by way of that data protection, but you do. I |\n| 18 | just wanted to not leave the record ambiguous in |\n| 19 | that regard. |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | Q
Mr. Kwok, your 2020 tax return reports |\n| 22 | interest income only and no other source of income. |\n| 23 | Did you have any other source of income in 2020? |\n| 24 | A
No. |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay. I'm going to take a |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 221 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n very short break. It is now 12:30. I would like everyone to reconvene at 12:35. I'm not going to disconnect the call. I'm just going ask you to all put your phones on hold. We will reconvene at 12:35. Thank you. (Off the record.) MS. CLAIBORN: Okay. We are back on the record after a short break. Q Mr. Kwok, I would like to talk to you about Golden Spring, New York. Do you currently work for Golden Spring in any capacity? A No. Q When was Golden Spring New York Limited formed? THE INTERPRETER: Sorry? Q When was Golden Spring New York Limited formed? THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, I cannot get the later half. Golden New York what? MS. CLAIBORN: I'm going to actually just refer to it as Golden Spring. When I do that I'm referring to Golden Spring New York. Q When was Golden Spring formed as a company? A I don't know.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 222 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
45 |\n| 1 | Q
The address on the petition is 162 East 64th |\n| 2 | Street.
Who owns that property? |\n| 3 | I can ask the question again. |\n| 4 | The address for Golden Spring is listed as |\n| 5 | 162 East 64th Street in New York.
Who owns that |\n| 6 | property? |\n| 7 | A
I don't know. |\n| 8 | Q
What is the nature of that property at 162 |\n| 9 | East 64th Street? |\n| 10 | A
I don't know which property you're talking |\n| 11 | about. |\n| 12 | Q
The office of Golden Spring -- |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm not sure that was -- |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Let me just try again. |\n| 15 | The office of -- |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
There's a translation issue. |\n| 17 | Could we confer for one second because |\n| 18 | obviously there's a misunderstanding.
So could Mr. |\n| 19 | Kwok talk to his translator because that obviously |\n| 20 | didn't come through. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Let me just -- I would prefer |\n| 22 | if I try again.
Let me try again, please. |\n| 23 | Q
The address for Golden Spring on the |\n| 24 | bankruptcy petition is listed as 162 East 64th |\n| 25 | Street in New York. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 223 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
46 |\n| 1 | | THE INTERPRETER:
Is it 54 or 64?
5-4 or 6- |\n| 2 | 4? | |\n| 3 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
64. |\n| 4 | | THE INTERPRETER: So maybe because of the |\n| 5 | | phone I mistook the 6 as 5 so let me correct my |\n| 6 | | mistake and reinterpret again. |\n| 7 | A | Yes, that's the address of Golden Spring. |\n| 8 | Q | Does Golden Spring own that building that's |\n| 9 | | located at that address? |\n| 10 | A | I don't know. |\n| 11 | Q | Have you ever been to that address? |\n| 12 | A | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q | What type of building is it?
What's located |\n| 14 | there? | |\n| 15 | A | It was a building. |\n| 16 | Q | Is the building a residential building or a |\n| 17 | | commercial building? |\n| 18 | A | Business building. |\n| 19 | | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm sorry, Bin. I didn't hear |\n| 20 | | your translation. |\n| 21 | | THE INTERPRETER:
A commercial building or |\n| 22 | | business building. |\n| 23 | Q | Does anyone live at that address? |\n| 24 | A | I don't know. |\n| 25 | Q | What type of business does Golden Spring do? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 224 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
47 |\n| 1 | A | It's a big family business my son works, but |\n| 2 | | I don't know specifically what categories of |\n| 3 | | business it has. |\n| 4 | Q | Mr. Kwok, when you used the term -- |\n| 5 | A | It is a family office owned by my son.
He |\n| 6 | | has other businesses, but I don't know. |\n| 7 | Q | Mr. Kwok, when you use the term family |\n| 8 | | business or family office, what do you mean by those |\n| 9 | terms? | |\n| 10 | A | It's mainly for the whole family, all the |\n| 11 | | family members.
When there is something we |\n| 12 | | (indiscernible)
and help each other. |\n| 13 | Q | Mr. Kwok, can you explain it in more detail? |\n| 14 | A | I don't know how to explain. |\n| 15 | Q | Does Golden Spring have any employees? |\n| 16 | A | Yes. |\n| 17 | Q | How many? |\n| 18 | A | I don't know. |\n| 19 | Q | Does Golden Spring own any real estate? |\n| 20 | A | I don't know. |\n| 21 | Q | Does Golden Spring own any other business? |\n| 22 | A | I don't know. |\n| 23 | Q | Does Golden Spring have any bank accounts? |\n| 24 | A | I don't know. |\n| 25 | Q | Mr. Kwok, you have previously said in |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 225 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
48 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | documents filed with the bankruptcy court that |\n| 2 | Golden Spring pays for you personal living expenses. |\n| 3 | Can you please explain how they do that? |\n| 4 | A
I don't know what you mean by they pay me. |\n| 5 | In what regard? |\n| 6 | Q
Mr. Kwok, you have previously told the court |\n| 7 | in your bankruptcy documents that Golden Spring pays |\n| 8 | for your clothing, your food and your housing. |\n| 9 | My question is how do they do that?
Do they |\n| 10 | give you money?
Do they pay other people directly? |\n| 11 | How does it work? |\n| 12 | A
Whenever I need any expenses for my basic |\n| 13 | living I talk to my son and he will tell his office |\n| 14 | to give to me. |\n| 15 | Q
Who are the owners of Golden Spring? |\n| 16 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach. I |\n| 17 | missed the end of that question. I talk to my son |\n| 18 | and he -- that answer.
I heard I talk to my son and |\n| 19 | he and then I lost it.
Can I please have the |\n| 20 | English again? |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, I didn't hear the |\n| 22 | gentleman? |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Harbach is asking Bin if |\n| 24 | you could repeat the translation of Mr. Kwok's |\n| 25 | answer about how the money flows from Golden Spring. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 226 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
49 |\n| 1 | THE INTERPRETER: I'll repeat the |\n| 2 | interpretation. |\n| 3 | When I need expenses for my basic living I |\n| 4 | tell my son.
My son will tell the office to take -- |\n| 5 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who are the owners of Golden |\n| 6 | Spring? |\n| 7 | A
My son. |\n| 8 | Q
Are there any owners of Golden Spring other |\n| 9 | than your son? |\n| 10 | A
No. |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you ever owned an interest in |\n| 12 | Golden Spring? |\n| 13 | A
No. |\n| 14 | Q
Who are the officers and directors of Golden |\n| 15 | Spring? |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga. |\n| 17 | This is something for which there are very |\n| 18 | serious physical security concerns and it's not that |\n| 19 | the debtor would refuse to answer, if he knows.
But |\n| 20 | not on a line like this where it's open to the |\n| 21 | public and who else knows.
There are -- hold on. |\n| 22 | Can I just confer with the witness because |\n| 23 | we'd like to give you as much as possible, but we |\n| 24 | don't want to cause severe security issues. |\n| 25 | So could I just have one minute to confer |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 227 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
50 |\n| 1 | with the witness? |\n| 2 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 3 | (Pause.) |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga, again. |\n| 5 | The witness believes that he may know who |\n| 6 | the directors and officers are and is prepared to |\n| 7 | testify as to the best of his knowledge in that |\n| 8 | regard.
And if we could take it one question at a |\n| 9 | time we'll go from there. |\n| 10 | If you could interpret that, because I want |\n| 11 | to be sure that the witness understands what I just |\n| 12 | said as well, please. |\n| 13 | (Interpretation) |\n| 14 | BY
MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 15 | Q
Mr. Kwok, as of today, who are the officers |\n| 16 | of Golden Spring? |\n| 17 | A
(Indiscernible) |\n| 18 | Q
I'm going to repeat that name so everyone |\n| 19 | understands what I thought I heard.
What I heard |\n| 20 | was Yan Ping, also known as Yvonne Wang.
Is that |\n| 21 | accurate? |\n| 22 | A
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q
Is Yvonne Wang the only officer of Golden |\n| 24 | Spring? |\n| 25 | A
I don't know. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 228 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
51 |\n| 1 | Q
As of today, who are the directors of Golden |\n| 2 | Spring? |\n| 3 | A
I don't know. |\n| 4 | Q
Mr. Kwok, have you ever been an officer or a |\n| 5 | direct or Golden Spring? |\n| 6 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 7 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who is Max Krazner? |\n| 8 | A
I don't know. I don't know. |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
Could you please repeat |\n| 10 | the name again? |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, who is Max Krazner? |\n| 12 | (No response) |\n| 13 | Mr. Kwok, can you please answer? |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm conferring with the |\n| 15 | witness for one second.
Hold on please? |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Baldiga, I would rather |\n| 17 | he would answer the question before you make a |\n| 18 | confer. |\n| 19 | (Pause.) |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you for that |\n| 21 | opportunity.
The witness could answer. |\n| 22 | A
He has to double check with you because I |\n| 23 | cannot read and cannot remember English names well. |\n| 24 | So just the name, you said Max.
If it's the name |\n| 25 | Max only I know Max.
But if you add another name to |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 229 of
452 |\n|---------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
52 |\n| 1 | | it, I'm not sure. I don't know. |\n| 2 | Q | Do you know a Max with respect to Golden |\n| 3 | Spring? | |\n| 4 | A | Yes. I know. |\n| 5 | Q | And what is Max's role with Golden Spring? |\n| 6 | A | I don't know. |\n| 7 | Q | Well, how do you know Max? |\n| 8 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 9 | Q | Do you know more than one person by the name |\n| 10 | of Max? | |\n| 11 | A | For me English name is very complicated. |\n| 12 | | Like I can't remember the last name of my lawyer. If |\n| 13 | | you add something else to Max, I don't know. |\n| 14 | Q | Mr. Kwok, the name Max Krazner is listed as |\n| 15 | | the person to whom the mail for Golden Spring is |\n| 16 | directed to. | Do you know why that is? |\n| 17 | | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? |\n| 18 | Q | Do you know why that is? |\n| 19 | A | I only remember there is a Max at Golden |\n| 20 | | Spring. I only know this one thing. |\n| 21 | Q | And what is Max's job at Golden Spring? |\n| 22 | A | I'm not sure what role.
I (indiscernible) |\n| 23 | | know he is in charge of finance, but I'm not sure. |\n| 24 | Q | What does he do for Golden Spring with |\n| 25 | | respect to finances? |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 230 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
53 |\n| 1 | A
I was not involved in the management so I |\n| 2 | don't know. |\n| 3 | Q
If Golden Spring gives you money, does it |\n| 4 | come through Max Krazner's efforts?
Does he help |\n| 5 | make that happen? |\n| 6 | A
I don't know.
He didn't give me money in |\n| 7 | person. |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Kwok, when you get money from Golden |\n| 9 | Spring how do you get money?
Does it come in the |\n| 10 | form of cash or something else? |\n| 11 | A
From my son and (indiscernible). |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'm sorry, Bin.
I didn't |\n| 13 | understand your translation.
Can you try that |\n| 14 | again? |\n| 15 | THE INTERPRETER:
He said from my son and |\n| 16 | (indiscernible). |\n| 17 | Q
My question was how do you get money from |\n| 18 | your son?
Does it come in the form of cash or some |\n| 19 | other form? |\n| 20 | A
I don't understand what you mean by how, the |\n| 21 | word how.
I never get money directly from them. |\n| 22 | Q
If you don't get money directly from your |\n| 23 | son, how do you get the money from your son?
Where |\n| 24 | does it go? |\n| 25 | A
I don't use cash and I don't use credit |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 231 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| 1 | cards.
My son and (indiscernible)
Wan they just |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | pay my expenses for me.
It's impossible for me to |\n| 3 | get any cash from them. And also I don't have bank |\n| 4 | account.
Any bank accounts. |\n| 5 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you have access to a credit |\n| 6 | card that was taken out by Golden Spring? |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga. I'm |\n| 8 | sorry.
I think there was a translation issue with |\n| 9 | the prior question.
Could you give us a minute to |\n| 10 | be sure that the witness understood the question |\n| 11 | correctly?
Hold on for one second.
We're going to |\n| 12 | put it on mute. |\n| 13 | (Pause.) |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
The witness would like to |\n| 15 | clarify. I think it came through, but we're not |\n| 16 | sure, that Golden Spring does not give him cash, but |\n| 17 | simply pays certain bills for his living expenses. |\n| 18 | If that's what came through the translation, great. |\n| 19 | If not, we clarify accordingly. |\n| 20 | Q
Mr. Kwok, do you have access to a credit |\n| 21 | card or a debit card provided to you by or through |\n| 22 | Golden Spring? |\n| 23 | A
No. |\n| 24 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are you obligated to pay Golden |\n| 25 | Spring back for the monies that it pays on your |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 232 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
55 |\n| 1 | behalf for your living expenses? |\n| 2 | A
No.
No need. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
At this time I'd like to open |\n| 4 | the meeting to creditors, given that we have a |\n| 5 | limited amount of time for today. I am not done with |\n| 6 | all my questions. |\n| 7 | We will need to reconvene on another day, |\n| 8 | but for purposes of today's examination I'm now |\n| 9 | going to open it up to creditors who may wish to |\n| 10 | examine. |\n| 11 | I would ask that you identify yourself when |\n| 12 | you speak and to be mindful of the need for |\n| 13 | interpretation. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Just to clarify one thing for |\n| 15 | the record.
You asked previously -- you referred to |\n| 16 | the petition and asked whether anyone lived at 162 |\n| 17 | East 64th Street. |\n| 18 | And as we told you informally when we filed |\n| 19 | the petition there was great concern over the |\n| 20 | debtor's physical security and so he used that |\n| 21 | address, but has since, obviously, corrected the |\n| 22 | record that he lives in the Greenwich house that you |\n| 23 | asked about earlier today. |\n| 24 | And so I just didn't want the record to be |\n| 25 | confusing in that regard.
Thank you. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 233 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Are there any creditors who |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | wish to inquire or examine of the debtor? |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
Yes.
This is David Harbach |\n| 4 | for PACS.
We do have some questions. We do have |\n| 5 | some questions.
We can start asking the questions |\n| 6 | now or if there are others who would like to ask |\n| 7 | questions that's fine.
However you want to proceed. |\n| 8 | But we obviously will not finish before 2 o'clock |\n| 9 | either. |\n| 10 | THE INTERPRETER:
I cannot hear you clearly. |\n| 11 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach for PACS |\n| 12 | and I was just saying that we do have some questions |\n| 13 | and we are happy to proceed and ask them or if the |\n| 14 | trustee would like. we can proceed with others |\n| 15 | asking questions but we will certainly not finish |\n| 16 | before 2 o'clock either. |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
Could that be translated |\n| 18 | please? |\n| 19 | THE INTERPRETER:
I was saying I could not |\n| 20 | get him completely. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Harbach, do you have the |\n| 22 | ability to pick up a hand held and speak into a hand |\n| 23 | held device, as opposed to a speaker phone? |\n| 24 | MR. HARBACH:
Not at this moment, but let me |\n| 25 | move to see if this is any better.
Can you hear me |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 234 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
57 |\n| 1 | a little better now? |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
Not really.
No, sorry. |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
Not really.
Well, I'll tell |\n| 4 | you what.
If you give me -- take a moment, I can |\n| 5 | try dialing in with a phone.
Just give me a second, |\n| 6 | okay? |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
Bin, could you translate the |\n| 9 | dialogue for Mr. Kwok, please, so he knows that. |\n| 10 | (Interpreter translates) |\n| 11 | MR. HARBACH:
Hello? |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Hello.
This is Holley |\n| 13 | Claiborn. |\n| 14 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach and I |\n| 15 | just wanted to know if you could hear me better. |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Much better.
Bin, can you |\n| 17 | hear Mr. Harbach? |\n| 18 | THE INTERPRETER:
Yes, I can hear him now. |\n| 19 | Thank you. |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Go ahead, Mr. Harbach. |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
I'll repeat what I said once |\n| 22 | more so that the interpreter can interpret it. |\n| 23 | I'm David Harbach and I was just saying that |\n| 24 | PACS does have some questions we would like to ask, |\n| 25 | but we certainly will not finish by 2 o'clock and so |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 235 of\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 | | |\n|--|--|------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | | | |\n\n| 1 | if Ms. Claiborn would like to proceed with giving |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | other creditors an opportunity to ask questions |\n| 3 | today, it's entirely up to her or we can start now. |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
And this is Bill Baldiga. We |\n| 5 | extended our own translator until 2 o'clock so we |\n| 6 | certainly encourage whoever wants to ask questions |\n| 7 | to use the time. |\n| 8 | MR. WOLMAN:
This is Jay Wolman. I'm happy |\n| 9 | to ask some questions now. |\n| 10 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, I didn't get your |\n| 11 | name. |\n| 12 | MR. WOLMAN: Jay Wolman, and I represent |\n| 13 | Logan Chang. |\n| 14 | EXAMINATION BY MR. WOLMAN: |\n| 15 | Q
Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. |\n| 16 | Do you remember that I took your deposition |\n| 17 | about a year ago? |\n| 18 | A
I have too many -- |\n| 19 | THE INTERPRETER:
Someone's always talking |\n| 20 | in the background. |\n| 21 | A
I have too many depositions.
I don't |\n| 22 | remember specifically. |\n| 23 | Q
That's all right. I asked you a number of |\n| 24 | questions and you invoked your rights under the |\n| 25 | Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Do you |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 236 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
59 |\n| 1 | understand that? |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
You and your wife what? |\n| 3 | Sorry. |\n| 4 | Q
You invoked your right under the Fifth |\n| 5 | Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Do you remember |\n| 6 | that? |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
We have a translation issue. |\n| 8 | Hold on for one second, please. |\n| 9 | (Pause.) |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
I think -- our interpreter is |\n| 11 | hearing this translation.
The question as we |\n| 12 | understand is do you remember having invoked the |\n| 13 | Fifth Amendment privilege at a prior deposition. |\n| 14 | That's what we are hearing.
Could that be |\n| 15 | interpreter for Mr. Kwok in that way please? |\n| 16 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, I can I hear the |\n| 17 | question again. |\n| 18 | MR. WOLMAN:
Sure. |\n| 19 | Q
Do you remember at a prior deposition |\n| 20 | invoking the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. |\n| 21 | Constitution? |\n| 22 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry, I did not hear you |\n| 23 | clearly. |\n| 24 | Q
Do you remember at a prior deposition |\n| 25 | invoking the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 237 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
60 |\n| 1 | Constitution? |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
At a prior what?
Sorry. |\n| 3 | MR. WOLMAN:
Deposition.
D-E-P-O-S-I-T-I-O |\n| 4 | N. |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER:
Deposition.
Sorry, just |\n| 6 | one sec. |\n| 7 | (Pause.) |\n| 8 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay.
In the prior |\n| 9 | deposition what? |\n| 10 | Q
Do you remember invoking your Fifth |\n| 11 | Amendment rights? |\n| 12 | THE INTERPRETER:
Invoking what? |\n| 13 | MR. WOLMAN:
Can everybody else hear me or |\n| 14 | is it just the interpreter? |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
This is Holley. I can hear |\n| 16 | you. |\n| 17 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach.
We can |\n| 18 | hear you fine. |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
The debtor can hear you.
It's |\n| 20 | not a volume issue. |\n| 21 | MR. WOLMAN:
Is it a diction issue?
I can |\n| 22 | try to -- |\n| 23 | THE INTERPRETER:
The interpreter just |\n| 24 | didn't get the word.
(Indiscernible)
rewording. |\n| 25 | MR. WOLMAN:
I cannot reword that. I need |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 238 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
61 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | you to hear the words in English and translate them, |\n| 2 | ma'am. |\n| 3 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay.
Could you please |\n| 4 | speak slowly? |\n| 5 | Q
Do you remember at a prior deposition |\n| 6 | invoking your rights under the Fifth, number five |\n| 7 | that is -- Fifth Amendment, ordinal number -- of the |\n| 8 | U.S. Constitution? |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
Invoke or evoke? |\n| 10 | MR. WOLMAN:
Invoke, I-N-V-O-K-E. |\n| 11 | Okay, we still have an issue. |\n| 12 | UNIDENTIFIED:
Hold on. |\n| 13 | UNIDENTIFIED:
Did someone just drop out? |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, are you there?
This is |\n| 15 | Holley. |\n| 16 | MR. WOLMAN:
Bin? |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, are you there? |\n| 18 | THE INTERPRETER:
Hello. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, this is Holley Claiborn. |\n| 20 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay. I'm back. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay. |\n| 22 | THE INTERPRETER:
I don't know what |\n| 23 | happened. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Go ahead. |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Is the interpreter -- we're |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 239 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | 452 | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n not sure what's going on. Is the interpreter with us or not? THE INTERPRETER: Yes, the interpreter is here now. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. Thank you. My client just said something and I don't know what he said and I don't know whether you were on for what he said. If you were, I'd like to know -- I'd like you to interpret it. If not, could you let us confer for a second so we could try to figure that out, because there was a lot of confusion. MR. WOLMAN: Bill, can you just ask your client to repeat what he just said? MR. BALDIGA: No -- THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter would like him to repeat what he said because just now all of a sudden I'm not (indiscernible) all the voices sometimes. I'm asking the gentleman to repeat what he said just now. MR. KWOK: Just now in your question you mentioned that -- you asked me whether my wife used something under the law or under the Constitution. I don't remember that. MR. WOLMAN: I said nothing about his wife.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 240 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n MR. KWOK: So did you say just now my wife use any kind of law or what? MR. WOLMAN: No, that was nothing of the sort. MR. BALDIGA: Could I suggest, Mr. Wolman, maybe you could just go right to whatever you want to ask him instead of what happened a year ago because this is not getting anywhere. MR. WOLMAN: Well, I'm going to re-ask him every question relative to finances where he invoked the Fifth and I wanted to make sure he had that in his mind as he answers here today. MR. BALDIGA: Is there a question? MR. WOLMAN: I want to make sure you're aware of what I'm about to do. At this point, I have no idea, but I am representing to you that is exactly what I'm doing. So I want to make sure your client is appropriately advised. BY MR. WOLMAN: Q So a year ago -- this is a lengthy one, Bin, so please just write it down, or do what you need to do. Let me finish and then translate. Do not do that piecemeal. THE INTERPRETER: Okay.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 241 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
64 |\n| 1 | MR. BALDIGA:
I -- |\n| 2 | MR. WOLMAN:
Hold on. I want the translation |\n| 3 | of that and we'll take this in small pieces.
So |\n| 4 | Bin, please translate that for the witness because |\n| 5 | he has to hear everything. |\n| 6 | (Translation.) |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
Yes. |\n| 8 | MR. WOLMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | BY MR. WOLMAN: |\n| 10 | Q
A year ago I asked you are you employed. |\n| 11 | You answered I have always been -- |\n| 12 | THE INTERPRETER:
I asked you what? Sorry. |\n| 13 | Q
Are you employed? |\n| 14 | There's a lot of background noise.
Can we |\n| 15 | knock that off, please. |\n| 16 | A year ago I asked you are you employed? |\n| 17 | THE INTERPRETER:
You employed? |\n| 18 | Q
A year ago I asked you are you employed? |\n| 19 | Your answer was I have always been a consultant for |\n| 20 | -- |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry.
A year ago I asked |\n| 22 | you are you employed?
The answer is what? |\n| 23 | Q
I have always been the consultant for a lot |\n| 24 | of companies -- |\n| 25 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry -- |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 242 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| 1 | Q
And my current employment is the -- I am in |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the broadcasting and to take down the Chinese |\n| 3 | Communist Party.
It is a broadcasting revolution. I |\n| 4 | then asked you how much do you get paid for that. |\n| 5 | I'm re-asking that question now.
How much |\n| 6 | do you get paid for that? |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
So I have to do it from |\n| 8 | the beginning because I didn't get the words when |\n| 9 | you say a year ago I asked you whether -- are you |\n| 10 | employed?
Your answer is I didn't get the word |\n| 11 | after is. |\n| 12 | Q
Your answer was I always been the consultant |\n| 13 | for a lot of companies and my current employment is |\n| 14 | the -- he paused.
I am in the broadcasting -- |\n| 15 | THE INTERPRETER:
Is what?
Sorry? |\n| 16 | Q
-- and to take down -- |\n| 17 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry. |\n| 18 | Q
I am in the broadcasting and to take down |\n| 19 | the Chinese Communist Party.
It is a broadcasting |\n| 20 | revolution.
I then asked you how much do you get -- |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
Excuse me. I'm not able to |\n| 22 | -- |\n| 23 | MR. WOLMAN:
Excuse me. I'm not done.
Why |\n| 24 | not? |\n| 25 | THE INTERPRETER:
I tried to clarify -- |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 243 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
66 |\n| 1 | MR. WOLMAN:
Why not? |\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
-- the words that I didn't |\n| 3 | get.
Yes, I know it's simple but it's too long.
I |\n| 4 | (indiscernible)
such a long time to do the |\n| 5 | interpretation. I'm highly concentrating. I have a |\n| 6 | human brain. |\n| 7 | MR. WOLMAN:
I'm used to translators writing |\n| 8 | things down as they go. |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry about that. |\n| 10 | Let me interpret what I got and then I will |\n| 11 | ask you the rest.
Is that okay? |\n| 12 | MR. WOLMAN:
Yes. |\n| 13 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 14 | (Translation) |\n| 15 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay.
I -- |\n| 16 | Q
I then asked you how much do you get paid |\n| 17 | for that and I am asking you now again, because you |\n| 18 | invoked the Fifth, how much do you get paid for |\n| 19 | that? |\n| 20 | (Pause.) |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. The witness is |\n| 22 | struggling to -- well, is the question are you |\n| 23 | getting paid for that?
And you can answer that. |\n| 24 | MR. WOLMAN:
No.
I am literally asking him |\n| 25 | how much do you get paid for that. He took the |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 244 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
67 |\n| 1 | Fifth. I'm asking it now again. |\n| 2 | Q
How much do you get paid for that? |\n| 3 | A
No money at all. |\n| 4 | Q
A year ago I asked you what is Golden Spring |\n| 5 | New York.
You answered it's a company. I then asked |\n| 6 | you and what is your -- I then asked you and what is |\n| 7 | your relationship to that company and so I'm asking |\n| 8 | that question again.
What is your relationship to |\n| 9 | that company? |\n| 10 | A
I don't know what you mean by relationship. |\n| 11 | Q
If you didn't know what I meant by that |\n| 12 | question, why did you invoke the Fifth last year? |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection.
I'm not going to |\n| 14 | allow the witness to describe the legal advice a |\n| 15 | year ago as to the Fifth Amendment. |\n| 16 | He is prepared to answer whatever questions |\n| 17 | you may have. You are confusing the witness a bit by |\n| 18 | in each question having three things, some reference |\n| 19 | to the Fifth Amendment, some conversation from a |\n| 20 | year ago and a question as to now. |\n| 21 | But if you were to ask a more simple |\n| 22 | question, I think this would go much more |\n| 23 | productively.
That's your choice. |\n| 24 | MR. WOLMAN:
No.
Your client is an |\n| 25 | intelligent person who is a big businessman, who is |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 245 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
68 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | a sophisticated person. I trust he can handle these |\n| 2 | simple questions. |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Proceed as you'd like. |\n| 4 | (Translation interrupted) |\n| 5 | Q
Last year I asked you -- |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
Wait.
Hold on.
Mr. Wolman, |\n| 7 | there's a translation that needs to be done.
Please |\n| 8 | hold on.
The witness needs to understand what's |\n| 9 | being said. |\n| 10 | (Translation) |\n| 11 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 12 | Q
What is your relationship to Golden Spring? |\n| 13 | A
I don't understand what you mean by your |\n| 14 | question?
I don't know how to answer your question. |\n| 15 | Q
Do you know what the word relationship |\n| 16 | means? |\n| 17 | A
Relationship means love of things in China. |\n| 18 | It could be between husband and wife. It could be |\n| 19 | between a government relationship, a financial |\n| 20 | relationship, money and it could be a lot of things. |\n| 21 | So I don't know which one you mean?
Is it a |\n| 22 | man/woman relationship or a money relationship or |\n| 23 | what? |\n| 24 | Q
Any relationship?
What is it? What is your |\n| 25 | (indiscernible)
-- |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 246 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
69 |\n| 1 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry?
What was your last |\n| 2 | sentence again, because there was talking. |\n| 3 | Q
Any relationship, what is yours to Golden |\n| 4 | Spring? |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER:
Let me do the |\n| 6 | interpretation first. |\n| 7 | A
Now the relationship is between -- is he |\n| 8 | lends me money. I owe money to him.
He helps me. |\n| 9 | Q
And why does he do this? |\n| 10 | A
Because I was once a member of the Guo (ph) |\n| 11 | family. |\n| 12 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach.
Could |\n| 13 | you please repeat that English answer? |\n| 14 | THE INTERPRETER:
Because I was once a |\n| 15 | member of Guo family. |\n| 16 | Q
Does Golden Spring pay the expenses of any |\n| 17 | other member of the Guo family? |\n| 18 | A
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q
Which other members of the Guo family? |\n| 20 | A
I don't know. |\n| 21 | Q
A year ago I asked you why does Golden |\n| 22 | Spring pay Mr. Podhaskie, P-O-D-H-A-S-K-I-E, for |\n| 23 | services rendered to you in your individual |\n| 24 | capacity. I'm asking that again now.
Why does |\n| 25 | Golden Spring pay Mr. Podhaskie for services |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 247 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
70 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | rendered to you in your individual capacity? |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga. I |\n| 3 | understand that Mr. Podhaskie may be a lawyer. I |\n| 4 | just need to confer with the client to make sure he |\n| 5 | doesn't disclose the substance of legal advice. I'll |\n| 6 | take one second to do that. |\n| 7 | MR. WOLMAN:
The question didn't indicate |\n| 8 | any answer of that sort. |\n| 9 | (Pause.) |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry. The witness could |\n| 11 | answer the question. |\n| 12 | MR. KWOK:
I don't know. |\n| 13 | Q
Have you ever asked anyone why they pay for |\n| 14 | him to advise you? |\n| 15 | A
I don't remember. |\n| 16 | Q
I asked you last year why did Golden Spring |\n| 17 | New York pay that judgment on your behalf, and I was |\n| 18 | referring to the one my client, Mr. Cheng, held |\n| 19 | against you. |\n| 20 | I'm asking you again why did Golden Spring |\n| 21 | New York pay that judgment on your behalf? |\n| 22 | A
It was money lended. |\n| 23 | Q
Why did Golden Spring loan you that money? |\n| 24 | A
I don't have any thing so I borrowed from |\n| 25 | them. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 248 of
452 |\n|---------------|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
71 |\n| 1 | Q | Where did Golden Spring get the money from? |\n| 2 | A | I don't know. |\n| 3 | Q | Where does Golden Spring get any money from? |\n| 4 | A | I don't know. |\n| 5 | Q | Your son owns Golden Spring, correct? |\n| 6 | A | Yes. |\n| 7 | Q | Does your son owe you any money? |\n| 8 | A | No. |\n| 9 | Q | How did your son get the money that funds |\n| 10 | Golden Spring? | |\n| 11 | A | I don't know. |\n| 12 | Q | Did you ever provide your son with any seed |\n| 13 | capital? | |\n| 14 | A | No. |\n| 15 | Q | Have you ever invested in any of your son's |\n| 16 | businesses? | |\n| 17 | A | No. |\n| 18 | Q | When did Connecticut become your residence? |\n| 19 | A | End of February or early March of 2020. |\n| 20 | Q | Okay.
And you're sure about that here? |\n| 21 | A | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q | And was that your primary residence since |\n| 23 | | February, 2020 or March, 2020? |\n| 24 | A | Yes. |\n| 25 | Q | A year ago I asked you if you owned any |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 249 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
72 |\n| 1 | interest in Golden Spring New York. I am asking you |\n| 2 | that again.
Do you own any interest in Golden |\n| 3 | Spring New York? |\n| 4 | A
No. |\n| 5 | Q
A year ago I asked you are you an officer of |\n| 6 | Golden Spring New York Limited. I'm asking you |\n| 7 | again.
Are you an officer of Golden Spring New York |\n| 8 | Limited? |\n| 9 | A
No. |\n| 10 | Q
A year ago I asked you why would Golden |\n| 11 | Spring pay Attorney Aaron, meaning Aaron Mitchell, |\n| 12 | on your behalf. |\n| 13 | I'm asking you again, why would Golden |\n| 14 | Spring pay Attorney Aaron Mitchell on your behalf? |\n| 15 | THE INTERPRETER:
He wants me to repeat the |\n| 16 | interpretation.
I'll do that for him. |\n| 17 | A
A loan.
A loan or borrowed money. |\n| 18 | Q
Why did they make you that loan? |\n| 19 | A
I have been borrowing from them all the time |\n| 20 | because I was a member of the family. |\n| 21 | Q
Did you ever have any of your loans from |\n| 22 | Golden Spring put in writing? |\n| 23 | A
Some have, some no. |\n| 24 | Q
Okay.
Which ones have been put in writing? |\n| 25 | A
I don't remember. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 250 of |\n|---------------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 | 73 |\n| 1 | Q | How many loans have you had from Golden | |\n| 2 | Spring? | | |\n| 3 | A | I don't remember. | |\n| 4 | Q | Were any of the loans that were put in | |\n| 5 | | writing in English? | |\n| 6 | A | I don't remember. | |\n| 7 | Q | Were any of them in Chinese? | |\n| 8 | A | I don't remember. | |\n| 9 | Q | Did you ever pledge any security interest in | |\n| 10 | | exchange for any of these loans? | |\n| 11 | A | (Indiscernible)
but I don't remember | |\n| 12 | (indiscernible). | | |\n| 13 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Could you please repeat the | |\n| 14 | answer in English? | | |\n| 15 | | THE INTERPRETER:
He said (indiscernible) | |\n| 16 | | yes, but I don't remember. | |\n| 17 | Q | If you don't remember how much -- if you | |\n| 18 | | don't remember how many loans you took out, how are | |\n| 19 | | you able to identify how much they -- you owe them | |\n| 20 | | on your bankruptcy schedules? | |\n| 21 | A | I didn't quite get you. | |\n| 22 | Q | If you don't know how many times you took | |\n| 23 | | out loans from Golden Spring, not all of which were | |\n| 24 | | in writing, how do you know how much you owe them? | |\n| 25 | A | My lawyer and the lawyer of Golden Spring | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 251 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
74 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | they communicate with each other.
Tells me the |\n| 2 | amount they can define is 21 million. |\n| 3 | Q
So Golden Spring's lawyers helped prepare |\n| 4 | your bankruptcy petition?
Is that correct? |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry to interrupt. |\n| 6 | (Indiscernible)
two things. |\n| 7 | A
No. |\n| 8 | Q
So how did the information get from Golden |\n| 9 | Spring to your bankruptcy petition? |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection to the question. |\n| 11 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry? |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
I object to the question. |\n| 13 | MR. WOLMAN: I'm just trying to figure out |\n| 14 | how this information he doesn't know wound up in his |\n| 15 | bankruptcy petition? |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
I think you heard the answer |\n| 17 | that his lawyer and Golden Spring's lawyer discussed |\n| 18 | it.
Do you have another question? |\n| 19 | Q
Yes.
How did you know that number was |\n| 20 | right? |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
Let the interpreter go |\n| 22 | first and then ask another question, please. |\n| 23 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| 24 | Q
How did you know that number was right? |\n| 25 | THE INTERPRETER:
Sorry?
Number of what? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 252 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
75 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q
The number that was put into your bankruptcy |\n| 2 | petition for what you purportedly owe to Golden |\n| 3 | Spring, how did you know that was right? |\n| 4 | A
I believe the professionalism of my lawyers. |\n| 5 | They will review and check all the figures. |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
This is Holley -- |\n| 7 | Q
Do you know the documents that were |\n| 8 | reviewed? |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I apologize for interrupting. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
It's now 2 o'clock. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I apologize for interrupting. |\n| 12 | It's Holley Claiborn. |\n| 13 | MR. WOLMAN:
Yes, thank you for |\n| 14 | filibustering to use up the time.
Appreciate it. |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry. Who was that |\n| 16 | addressed to?
That's quite an inappropriate |\n| 17 | comment. |\n| 18 | MR. WOLMAN:
You. That was me addressing |\n| 19 | that to you. |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'd like to talk about -- |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay -- |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- the next date.
I was |\n| 23 | going to suggest that we reconvene April 4th at |\n| 24 | 10:00 a.m. in person at the U.S. Trustee's Office in |\n| 25 | New Haven. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 253 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
76 |\n| 1 | Mr. BALDIGA:
We'll look at schedules. I can |\n| 2 | start to do that if you give me a second. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Bin, could you please |\n| 4 | translate that? |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER:
I will double check with |\n| 6 | you whether you still need me on the line for a |\n| 7 | second or you want me to log off? |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
If you can continue on just |\n| 9 | for a second.
We need to pick a new date, so I need |\n| 10 | you to translate that so the debtor understands. |\n| 11 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry.
Was the request -- |\n| 13 | I'm sorry.
Was the request -- I'm just trying to |\n| 14 | make sure I heard it -- April 4 at 10 o'clock in |\n| 15 | Bridgeport? |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
April 4, 10 o'clock in New |\n| 17 | Haven at the U.S. Trustee's Office. |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
We'll be back to you |\n| 19 | very quick on that. |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I actually need an answer on |\n| 21 | that right now because we need to be able to notify |\n| 22 | creditors and I want everyone to know before we |\n| 23 | conclude today. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. I'll put you on hold. |\n| 25 | MR. HARBACH:
Ms. Claiborn, this is David |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 254 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
77 |\n| 1 | Harbach.
I'm afraid that that day will not work for |\n| 2 | us? |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Mr. Harbach, is that you? |\n| 4 | MR. HARBACH:
Yes, ma'am.
And I was just |\n| 5 | about to say that I can do Wednesday, the 6th, or |\n| 6 | any day after that.
But I cannot do the 4th or the |\n| 7 | 5th. |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
How about Friday, April 8th? |\n| 9 | MR. HARBACH:
I can do that.
This is David. |\n| 10 | I can do that. |\n| 11 | MR. WOLMAN:
This is Jay Wolman.
I can do |\n| 12 | that. |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Attorney Baldiga, can you |\n| 14 | check on April 8th, please? |\n| 15 | (Pause.) |\n| 16 | MR. HARBACH:
Holley, this is Dave Harbach |\n| 17 | again.
Just anticipating that they're coming back |\n| 18 | (indiscernible).
I could also do it (indiscernible) |\n| 19 | for whatever it's worth.
I could also do it on the |\n| 20 | 28th, 29 or 30 of March as well, if that's better. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
This is Bill Baldiga.
The 7th |\n| 22 | and 8th are Buddhist holidays so for religious |\n| 23 | reasons Mr. Kwok can't do it those days.
We'll |\n| 24 | clear the 4th. I'm sure there are some |\n| 25 | (indiscernible). I'm wondering who could make it. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 255 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 MS. CLAIBORN: How about March 28th, next Monday? MR. HARBACH: Holley, I didn't get the second part of what you said about the 28th. MS. CLAIBORN: I only offered the 28th as a new date. MR. BALDIGA: This is Bill Baldiga. 28, 29 and 30 Mr. Kwok has a medical issue that he (indiscernible) during those days. MS. CLAIBORN: How about Friday, April 15th? MR. HARBACH: This is David Harbach. That's good by us. MR. BALDIGA: It's Good Friday. Good Friday for me and Passover for many. Can I suggest (indiscernible)? MS. CLAIBORN: I didn't hear your suggestion. I'm sorry. MR. BALDIGA: I respectfully ask that we go back to April 4. One lawyer among a dozen and one creditor should not -- MR. WOLMAN: This is Jay Wolman. I already have something for that day as well. MR. BALDIGA: I know, but there are (indiscernible) -- MR. WOLMAN: Two lawyers, including myself,\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 256 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
79 |\n| 1 | who is in the middle of questioning. |\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
All right. We'll keep looking |\n| 3 | then. |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Does April 6th work? |\n| 5 | MR. WOLMAN:
What was that date? |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
April 6th? |\n| 7 | MR. HARBACH:
This is David Harbach. I can |\n| 8 | do April 6th. |\n| 9 | MR. BALDIGA:
The debtor can as well. |\n| 10 | UNIDENTIFIED:
As can I. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay. I'm going to mark April |\n| 12 | 6th 10:00 a.m.
It's in person.
The U.S. Trustee's |\n| 13 | Office in New Haven. |\n| 14 | Please allow for time to go through |\n| 15 | security. I'd like to start at 10:00. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
Could I ask how much time |\n| 17 | would you reserve on that day, including with the |\n| 18 | interpreter, just so we can plan? |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I think you should plan for |\n| 20 | the whole day but I will have to follow up and get |\n| 21 | an understanding about an interpreter and I don't |\n| 22 | have that at my fingertips right now. |\n| 23 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
Would that be 5 |\n| 24 | o'clock? |\n| 25 | I guess we can go off the record as we |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
Page 257 of
452 |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022
80 |\n| 1 | finish this.
It's up to you, obviously. |\n| 2 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Okay.
I think we're |\n| 3 | concluded for purposes of Bin's translation services |\n| 4 | for today. |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you very much, Bin. |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
Have a nice day. |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | I'm going to stop the recording, but we can |\n| 10 | stay on the line.
I'm going to stop the recording. |\n| 11 | Thank you. |\n| 12 | (Meeting adjourned.) |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 258 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022\n\n I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.\n\n8 April 5, 2022\n\n9 Christine Fiore, CERT\n\n10 Transcriber\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269
Filed 12/28/22
Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15
452 | Page 259 of |\n|---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - March 21, 2022 | 82 |\n| 1 | INDEX | |\n| 2 | | |\n| 3 | HO WAN KWOK | Page |\n| 4 | Examination by Ms. Claiborn | 14 |\n| 5 | Examination by Mr. Wolman | 58 |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | | |\n| 8 | | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n\n#### **Exhibit**\n\n| | 22-50073 | | |\n|--------------------|-----------------------------|--|--|\n| IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | | | |\n| | | | |\n| Trustee's | 13 | | |\n| | | | |\n| | 11/17/2022 Admitted in Full | | |\n| | PE | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 261 of 452\n\n#### JAMS ARBITRATION NO. 1425025643\n\nBOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP,\n\nClaimant,\n\n#### -against- FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD\n\nMILES KWOK, a/k/a GUO WENGUI,\n\nRespondent.\n\nThe Arbitrator, having conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 25 and 26, 2018, having heard post-hearing oral argument on August 9, 2018, having entered a Partial Arbitration Award on September 7, 2018, and having received a subsequent written submission concerning unpaid interest dated September 14, 2018, hereby enters this Final Arbitration Award:\n\nI. Introduction\n\nThis proceeding is brought to recover unpaid legal fees. Claimañt Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (\"Boies Schiller\") seeks to apply a \\$500.000 retainer and recover the additional sum of \\$563,133.83, plus interest. Respondent Miles Kwok, a/k/a \"Guo Wengui\" (\"Kwok\"), denies that he is liable for any unpaid fees. In a counterclaim, Kwok further seeks to recover the retainer, as well as the costs and fees that he has incurred in connection with this arbitration. For the reasons set forth below, the Arbitrator finds in favor of Boies Schiller and against Kwok in the amount of \\$626,686.44, plus interest on the unpaid bills from September 8, 2018, through the date of payment at the rate of one percent per month, compounded monthly. Additionally, Kwok's counterclaim and any other relief sought by either party are denied.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 262 of 452\n\nThe relationship between Boies Schiller and Kwok evidently began in or around 2015, when Kwok retained the firm to bring suit on his behalf in a state court matter captioned Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG (\"UBS\"). Boies Schiller billed Kwok approximately \\$1.5 million for that case and was paid in full.\n\nThereafter, Kwok retained Boies Schiller to defend him in connection with three additional matters: Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok (\"P\\_AX\"); Beijing Zhong Xian Wei Ye Stainless Decoration Center v. Gu\\_o (\"Beijing\"); and HNA Group Co. LtÅ v. Wengui (\"HNA\") (collectively, the \"Three Initial Matters\"). This engagement was memorialized in a letter from Joshua Schiller (\"Schiller\") to Kwok, dated June 23, 2017, that Kwok countersigned (\"Engagement Letter\").\n\nThe Engagement Letter contained several key terms. First, the Engagement Letter stated that Boies Schiller was being retained only for the Three Initial Matters \"and such other matters as [Kwok] and [Boies Schiller] may agree in the future in writing.\" Second, the Eñgagerñêñt Letter provided that its terms \"may only be amended pursuant to a further written document signed by both [Kwok] and [Boies Schiller].\" Third, pursuant to the Engagement Letter, Boies Schiller agreed to bill Kwok monthly, and Kwok agreed to \"review [Boies Schiller's] invoices carefully upon presentation and notify [Boies Schiller] in writing within twenty (20) business days if [Kwok] ha[d] any questions or concerns regarding an invoice.\" If Kwok failed to raise questions or concerns within that period, the invoice would be \"deemed conclusively binding, acceptable, fair and reasonable.\" If concerns were raised, the Engagement Letter assured Kwok that Boies Schiller would \"endeavor to respond promptly to those concerns.\" Fourth, the Engagement Letter provided that there would be a late payment \"fee of 1% per month, compounded monthly,\" \"charged on all sums that are not paid within thirty (30)\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 263 of 452\n\ndays after presentation of an invoice.\" Fifth, Kwok agreed to provide an initial retainer in the amount of \\$500,000, and that if he failed to pay an invoice within thirty days, Boies Schiller could \"in its sole discretion pay the invoice using [that] ... [a]mount.\"\n\nThe Engagement Letter also contained a provision regarding arbitration, which stated that (except in circumstances not relevant here) any disputes between Kwok and Boies Schiller \"arising from or relating to the Engagcmcnt\" \"shall be finally settled by binding confidential arbitration under the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures in force at the time such arbitration is commenced\" (\"JAMS Rules\").\n\nAfter the Engagement Letter was signed, Boies Schiller also provided legal services to Kwok in connection with two further state court matters: Fan Bingbing v. Kwok (\"Bingbing\") and Rui Ma v. Kwok (\"Rui Ma\") (together, the \"Two Additional Matters\"). The parties did not enter into a separate engagement letter with respect to the Two Additional Matters. Boies Schiller contends - and Kwok denies - that these matters nevertheless are governed by the terms of the original Engagement Letter.\n\nKwok twice protested Boies Schiller's invoices in writing over the course of the firm's representation of him. On August 27, 2017, Fiona Yu (\"Yu\"), an attorney in Hong Kong who serves as the director of compliance and legal for certain of Kwok's companies, sent Schiller an email objecting to the amounts the firm had billed during June and July in connection with the Three Initial Matters. Subsequently, on December 18, 2017, Yvette Wong, Kwok's chief of staff, sent Schiller an email alleging that numerous \"problems\" with the firm's billing were being audited,' but no such audit was ever produced.\n\nThose problems were identified as: \"Excessive time to complete one same task;\" \"Excessive staffing;\" \"Not enough delegation\" of ministerial tasks; \"Double-billing;\" and lack of commtmication, with Kwok simply receiving a bill after the work was done.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 264 of 452\n\nIn early September 2017, Kwok transferred the Beijing matter to another firm. He kept the other four cases with Boies Schiller until early December 2017, when he terminated his relationship with the firm. This arbitration ensued.\n\n#### II. Procedural History\n\nBoies Schiller filed its Demand for Arbitration and Statement of Claim on January 23, 2018. Thereafter, on or about February 28, 2018, Kwok filed his Response to the Demand and Statement of Counterclaim.\n\nOn April 10, 2018, the Arbitrator held a preliminary conference, the results of which were memorialized in a Report of Preliminary Conference and Scheduling Order No. I (\"Order No. 1\"). Order No. 1 provided for the hearing to be held at JAMS on June 6 and 7, 2018, but the hearing subsequently was adjourned to June 25 and 26, 2018.\n\nFive witnesses testified at the hearing: Kwok; David Boies (\"Boies\") the chairman of Boies Schiller; Kathleen Sloane (\"Sloane\"), a real estate broker who had prior dealings with both Boies and Kwok; Schiller, a partner at Boies Schiller; and Linda Jinks-Carlson (\"Carlson\"), Boies' administrative assistant. Boies Schiller called Kwok and Boies; Kwok called Sloane, Schiller, and Carlson.\n\nFollowing the hearing, both sides submitted post-hearing briefs on July 27, 2018, and reply briefs on August 6, 2018. Thereafter, the Arbitrator heard argument on August 9, 2018.\n\nOrder No. 1 provided that the Arbitrator would issue only a \"bottom line\" award. Kwok's counsel subsequently expressed a preference for a reasoned award. The parties ultimately agreed that the Arbitrator would issue a \"brief reasoned decision\" to explain the basis\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 265 of 452\n\nfor the award, with \"brevity in the discretion of the [Arbitrator].\"2 On September 7, 2018, the Arbitrator entered a Partial Arbitration Award that constituted that decision. The award was a partial award because the Arbitrator was uncertain about Boies Schiller's interest calculations. For that reason, the Partial Arbitration Award directed the parties to confer by September 14, 2018, in an effort to agree as to the amount of interest owed through September 7, 2018. The Partial Arbitration Award further directed the parties to submit letters by September 21, 2018, if they were unable to agree with respect to the interest owed.\n\nOn September 14, 2018, Boies Schiller submitted its interest calculations. In its cover letter, Boies Schiller's counsel noted that they had attempted to schedule a meet and confer with Kwok's counsel, who had infomted them that he did not have authority from his client to engage in those discussions. Since then, Kwok has made no further submission. Accordingly, the interest awarded through September 7, 2018, in this Final Arbitration Award is based on Boies Schiller's submission.\n\nWhile I may not have discussed every argument advanced by Kwok in this Final Arbitration Award, I have considered them all. Any argument not specifically addressed is rejected as baseless.\n\n#### III. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\n\n#### A. Arbitrability\n\nAs noted above, in addition to the Three Initial Matters, Boies Schiller seeks to recover legal fees for the Two Additional Matters. Kwok contends that the fees owed for these matters, if any, cannot be decided as part of this proceeding because there is no signed writing evidencing his intention to be bound by the Engagement Letter with respect to them. Kwok\n\n2 Under Rule 24(h) of the JAMS Rules, an award must \"consist of a written statement signed by the Arbitrator regarding the disposition of each claim and the relief, if any, as to each claim. Unless all [p]arties agree otherwise, the [a]ward shall also contain a concise written stâteiiiciit of the reasons for the [a]ward.\"\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 266 of 452\n\nfurther maintains that Boies Schiller cannot recover its fees for services rendered in connection with the Two Additional Matters in this arbitration on a quantum meruit basis because he never signed a writing agreeing to resolve any disputes regarding those matters through a JAMS arbitration.\n\nContrary to these assertions, the Engagement Letter defines the \"Engagement\" as the Three Additional Matters and \"such other matters\" as Boies Schiller and Kwok \"may agree in the future in writing.\" There is no requirement that such other matters become part of the Engagement only by means of a signed writing. Here, there is ample written evidence that both parties intended that the Two Additional Matters would become part of the Engagement. Among other things, on September 29, 2017, Schiller sent Kwok and others in Kwok's employ a supplemental legal hold memorandum, in which he noted that Kwok \"has retained the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP to defend him in connection with [four] lawsuits\": PAX, HNA, Bingbing, and Rui Ma. This memorandum alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that any addition of matters to the scope of the Engagement be evidenced by a writing.3\n\nMoreover, the portion of the Engagement Letter requiring that any modification of its terms be evidenced by a \"further written document signed by both [Kwok] and [Boies Schiller]\" plainly is inapplicable. Boies Schiller is not seeking to modify the terms of the Engagement Letter. Instead, Boies Schiller is merely seeking to apply the terms of the Engagement Letter to two additional matters. This does not constitute an amendment of the Engagement Letter requiring a signed writing.\n\nThere are also other writings. For example, on Scptcmber 16, 2017, Mei Kwok (\"Mei\"), Kwok's daughter, sent a Boies Schiller attorney an email, in which she reported that she had \"most of the things\" that were being requested in connection with the Rui Ma matter and urged the attorney to \"get our justice, my fat[he]r's justice.\" Additionally, on October 6, 2017, Mei sent Schiller the summons and complaint in the Bingbing matter.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 267 of 452\n\nThe Arbitrator therefore has jurisdiction over the parties' contractual fee dispute with respect to all five matters, rendering any claim of quantum meruit irrelevant.\n\n#### B. Other Defenses\n\nKwok asserts several other alleged defenses to Boies Schiller's claimed entitlement to recover fees, only one of which partially withstands scrutiny.\n\n#### 1. Fraudulent Inducement\n\nFirst, Kwok contends, in effect, that he was fraudulently induced to retain Boies Schiller and pay an initial \\$500,000 retainer because Boies falsely stated that he personally would serve as lead counsel. During his testimony, Boies flatly rejected the assertion that he had made such a commitment. He further testified that when he agrees to serve as lead counsel, Boies Schiller clients must pay a non-refundable amount, which generally ranges from \\$1 million to \\$15 million. Here, there is no provision in the Engagement Letter calling for the payment of such a non-refundable fee.\n\nMoreover, to the extent there is a dispute between Kwok and Boies, the evidence overwhelmingly supports Boies' testimony. Thus, the Engagement Letter was signed by Schiller, rather than Boies, and Schiller served as the lead attorney in connection with all five matters. Kwok obviously also knew (or should have known), based upon his review of the Boies Schiller invoices, that Boies was billing no time to his matters. Indeed, as Kwok himself notes, there are \"only three entries\" in which someone at Boies Schiller recorded time spent discussing Kwok's cases with Boies.\n\nTellingly, there is not a shred of written evidence that Kwok based his retainer of Boies Schiller with respect to any of the five matters on an express representation by Boies that he - rather than Schiller - would serve as lead counsel. Indeed, the written evidence suggests the\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 268 of 452\n\nopposite. As set forth in further detail below, over the course of Kwok's dealings with Boies Schiller, his staff sent only two emails objecting to Boies Schiller's bills. Neither email raised Boies' failure to bill any time to Kwok's matters as a concem.\n\nIn sum, while I have little doubt that Kwok hoped Boies would be heavily involved in his cases, there is no credible evidence that Boies ever made that commitment, or that Kwok's decision to retain the firm for the Three Initial Matters and the Two Additional Matters hinged on Boies' agreement that he would be the lead attorney representing Kwok.\n\n#### 2. Schiller's Continued Involvement\n\nAlthough Kwok testified that he did not want Schiller handling his matters, he never sent Boies Schiller a written objection to Schiller's time entries. Kwok nonetheless maintains that both he and Sloane verbally conveyed his concerns about Schiller's continued representation of him to Boies Schiller.\n\nThe credible evidence establishes that the first such complaint was communicated in the fall of 2017 by Sloane, who telephoned Carlson while Boies was traveling. This was near the end of the relationship between Boies Schiller and Kwok. Boies testified that he learned of Sloane's call in November. Thereafter, he and Kwok discussed Kwok's request that Schiller no longer serve as lead counsel on his matters. Boies Schiller previously had substituted Schiller for a Mandarin-speaking attorney at Kwok's request. Boies told Kwok that Schiller was an excellent lawyer, and that the firm could not continue to change the lawyers assigned to Kwok's matters. Boies also invited Kwok to transfer his remaining matters to another firm if he did not want to work with Schiller, and indicated that Boies Schiller would cooperate with that process. Kwok apparently decided to terminate his relationship with Boies Schiller shortly after this conversation.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 269 of 452\n\nKwok contends that he communicated his desire not to have Schiller represent him much earlier than October or November 2017. It is undisputed, however, that Kwok invited Schiller (and Boies) to a dinner at his apartment in October 2017 to celebrate a victory in connection with PAX. In addition, Kwok met with Schiller at his apartment twice over the Labor Day weekend in 2017 to discuss several of Kwok's cases. If Kwok truly was unhappy with Schiller by then, he presumably would not have arranged to meet with him on those occasions.\n\nBased upon this evidence, I find that Kwok did not affirmatively request that someone other than Schiller handle his matters until late October 2017 at the earliest. Shortly thereafter, in or around early December, Kwok terminated Boies Schiller. At no time, however, did Kwok object in writing to Schiller's billing of time on his matters. He therefore has waived his right to object to the Boies Schiller invoices based on Schiller's participation in his defense.\n\n#### 3. Block-Billing\n\nThird, during the hearing, Kwok testified that he had objected to Boies Schiller's practice of block-billing its time. Although the subject of block-billing was not raised in either Yu's August 17 or Wong's December 18 email, Kwok testified that he protested that practice in a discussion with Schiller, and that the invoices he received in connection with the five matters giving rise to Boies Schiller's claim differed markedly from those that he had earlier received in connection with the \\_U\\_BS matter. In fact, as even a cursory review shows, the invoices in both UBS and the subsequent matters reflect block-billing. Additionally, neither the Yu nor the Wong email contains so much as a syllable protesting Boies Schiller's practice of block-billing its time spent on Kwok's matters. I therefore find that Kwok's complaint about block-billing is an\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 270 of 452\n\nafterthought, which he has in any event waived by failing to interpose a timely written objection.4\n\n#### 4. Other Billine Obiections\n\nFinally, Kwok notes that he did interpose written objections to certain of Boies Schiller's invoices for services rendered.5 As noted above, the first such objection took the form of an email from Fiona Yu (\"Yu\") to Schiller dated August 17, 2017. In response, in an email later the same day, Schiller stated that he would reduce Boies Schiller's July invoice by \\$50,000 as a \"courtesy.\"6 In that email, Schiller also suggested that Kwok might want to use other lawyers for his cases \"in order to reduce the costs of ... litigation.\" He further indicated that it would be helpful to receive some instruction with respect to a budget and Kwok's expectations as to the level of work that the firm should perform. Although Kwok subsequently transferred the Beijing case to another firm, he voiced no further protest conceming the June/July 2017 bills in response to Schiller's email, and neither he nor Yu provided or requested a budget for the four remaining matters. Having failed to interpose any further timely objection concerning the invoices referenced in the August 17 email, Kwok has waived his right to challenge the time charges now.\n\nKwok notes that judges frequently criticize the practice of block-billing when presented with fee applications. Those cases, however, typically arise when a party seeks a fee award pursuant to a statute or rule. Kwok has not cited a single case in which the tender of block bills to a firm's client was found to be improper. In fact, as I noted in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2011, No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD) (FM), 2015 WL 6666703, at \\*1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2015), Report & Rec. adopted 2015 WL 9255560 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2015), \"the practice of block billing ... may make sense when the only intended reviewer [of the bills] is the firm's client.\" Boies testified that his firm does engage in task-based billing upon request, but that Kwok never made such a request. To the extent that there is a dispute between Kwok and Boies in this regard, I credit Boies' testimony.\n\nKwok contends that his failure to protest more of the bills is attributable to Chinese cultural values that stress the importance of enabling a business counterpart to save \"face.\" Such cultural values clearly cannot trump the Engagement Letter's reqüircrñcñt that any objection to a bill be set forth in a timely writing.\n\n6 That month, Boies Schiller billed Kwok approximately \\$190.000 for the PAX matter and \\$4,000 for the Beijing matter.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 271 of 452\n\nThe second set of objections was set forth in Wong's email dated December 18, 2017. In that email, Wong represented that \"numerous \"problems\" with the firm's billing were being audited, but it appears that no such audit ever was conducted. By virtue of the Engagement Letter's twenty-day protest period, Wong's December objections could only apply to Boies Schiller's October and November bills.7\n\n#### C. Reasonableness of the Boies Schiller Invoices\n\nBoies Schiller's invoices for the Three Initial and Two Additional Matters (including disbursements) total \\$1,063,133.83 Although Boies Schiller evidently has not applied its retainer against that amount, it is undisputed that \\$500,000 is available for that purpose. Accordingly, in Boies Schiller's view, the amount that remains outstanding after applying the retainer is \\$563,133.83, plus interest. Boies Schiller, however, gave Kwok a \\$50,000 credit in August 2017. Although Boies Schiller contends that Kwok is no longer entitled to that accommodation because he failed to pay the June and July invoices after Schiller granted it, there is no indication that the adjustment was contingent on prompt payment. Accordingly, the principal amount that in fact remains unpaid after applying the retainer is \\$513,133.83.\n\nKwok contends that Boies Schiller is not entitled to recover \\$513,133.83, much less \\$1,063,133.83, because the Boies Schiller invoices are unreasonable.8 According to Kwok, a twenty percent haircut is appropriate to account for numerous billing problems, including (but not limited to) excessive time billed for certain tasks, needless duplication of effort, the failure to have simpler work performed by timekeepers with lower billing rates, and hours that were billed under existing matter numbers before new matters were opened. What Kwok fails to accept is\n\nDuring those months, the time charges for the PAX, Bingbing, , and Rui Ma matters totaled \\$148,150.\n\nKwok does not challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rates of the Boies Schiller timekeepers.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 272 of 452\n\nthat the Engagement Letter required him to raise such concerns in writing within twenty days of his receipt of an invoice. He did not do so with respect to most of Boies Schiller's bills.\n\nAny concerns raised by Yu with respect to of the June and July 2017 invoices were more than adequately addressed by Schiller's \\$50,000 reduction of the July invoices. Additionally, although Wong raised certain concerns in general terms in her December 2017 email to Schiller, my review of the October and November invoices fails to confirm her allegations of billing irregularities. It also bears mention that, by December, Kwok was waging war on many fronts since he was involved in numerous suits beyond those that are the subject of this proceeding and (perhaps justifiably) considered himself the victim of a litigation onslaught by the People's Republic of China. As a result, Kwok himself chose to pursue a scorched earth policy with respect to at least one of the cases being handled by Boies Schiller and failed to settle another matter that could have been expeditiously resolved. In light of his strategy of defending each suit aggressively, Kwok can scarcely complain that the October and November bills were too high. Indeed, Kwok knew that Boies Schiller's services would be expensive, since the firm had previously billed him approximately \\$1.5 million in connection with the UBS matter.\n\nTo be sure, the Boies Schiller invoices show that the firm spared no expense in the course of defending Kwok in the lawsuits giving rise to this arbitration. Kwok, however, clearly was given a choice at a relatively early stage: he could continue with a firm of Boies Schiller's calibre or he could transfer his matters to less expensive counsel. Having chosen the first of these options, and having opted to litigate aggressively, Kwok cannot now credibly argue that the Boies Schiller bills were unreasonably large. Moreover, Kwok will receive the benefit of Schiller's \\$50,000 reduction, which represents a nearly five percent haircut from the original bills.\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/24/2019 04:20 PM** INDEX NO. 150001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/24/2019 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 273 of 452\n\nIn these circumstances, I find that the remaining amount that Boies Schiller seeks to recover is reasonable. 9\n\n#### D. Counterclaim\n\nIn his counterclaim, Kwok advances several reasons why Boies Schiller allegedly is not entitled to recover its fees, most of which have already been addressed. His counterclaim also advances two other theories why the Boies Schi lier claims allegedly should be denied —in whole or in part —and he should receive a refund of his \\$500,000 retainer.\n\nFirst, Kwok suggests in his counterclaim that any services rendered before he signed the Engagement Letter and delivered the retainer cannot be recovered in this forum because they preceded the effective date of his agreement to arbitrate. In his post-trial briefing, Kwok appears to have abandoned this argument. Kwok himself also testified that he would have been \"more than happy\" to pay for work occurring before he sent Boies Schiller the retainer, provided that the invoices were \"correct and accurate.\" Suffice it to say, even if Kwok had objected to the time entries predating the signing of the Engagement Letter, there is not a scintilla of evidence that the invoices tendered to him for that period inaccurately reflected the Boies Schiller's timekeepers' actual time or were unreasonable. His current protests concerning the time expended before he signed the Engagement Letter therefore are not a basis for a set off.\n\nSecond, Kwok contends that Schiller engaged in certain boorish behavior.\n\nPerhaps the most egregious example was an incident in late December 2017 when Schiller\n\nKwok also complains about Boies Schiller's time charges for transi1425025643 Case Type: Business/Commercial\n\nPanelist: Maas, Frank ,\n\n### Pamela Jarvis Joshua Irwin Schiller\n\nJoseph Hage Aaronson LLC Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\npjarvis@jha.com jischiller@bsfllp.com\n\nParty Represented: Assistant's Emails: BMargulis@BSFLLP.com Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\n### Greaory P. Josepjj\n\nJoseph Hage Aaronson LLC Courtney Solomon\n\nGregory P. Joseph Claimant Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC 485 Lexington Ave. Phone: 212-407-1200 30th Floor Fax: 212-407-1299 New York, NY 10017\n\nParty Represented: csolomon@jha.com Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\n## B\\_en-jamin Margu]js\n\nBoies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\nBenjamin Margulis Claimant 575 Lexington Ave. Phone: 212-446-2300 7th Floor Fax: 212-446-2350 New York, NY 10022-6102 BMargulis@BSFLLP.com\n\nParty Represented: Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\n### Aaron A. Mitchell\n\nCohen & Howard LLP\n\nParty Represented:\n\nAaron A. Mitchell Respondent 766 Shrewsbury Avenue Phone: 732-747-5202 Suite 301 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 amitchell@cohenandhoward.com\n\nKwok, Miles aka Guo Wengui\n\nPamela Jarvis Claimant Joshua Irwin Schiller Claimant 485 Lexington Ave. Phone: 212-407-1200 575 Lexiñÿtüñ Ave. Phone: 212-446-2300 30th Floor Fax: 212-407-1299 7th Floor Fax: 212-446-2350 New York, NY 10017 New York, NY 10022-6102\n\n> Party Represented: Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\nCourtney Solomon Claimant 485 Lexington Ave. Phone: 212-407-1200 30th Floor Fax: 212-407-1299 gjoseph@jha.com New York, NY 10017\n\nParty Represented: Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\n\n\n#### PROOF OF SERVICE BY EMAIL & U.S. MAIL\n\nRe: Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP vs. Kwok, Miles aka Guo Wengui Reference No. 1425025643\n\nI, Kristen Maccubbin, not a party to the within action, hereby declare that on November 9, 2018, I served the attached Final Award on the parties in the within action by Email and by depositing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, at New York, NEW YORK, addressed as follows:\n\nMr. Joshua Irwin Schiller Aaron A. Mitchell Esq. Benjamin Margulis Esq. Cohen & Howard LLP Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 766 Shrewsbury Avenue 575 Lexington Ave. Suite 301 7th Floor Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 New York, NY 10022-6102 Phone: 732-747-5202 Phone: 212-446-2300 amitchell@cohenandhoward.com jischiller@bsfllp.com Parties Represented: BMargulis@BSFLLP.com Kwok, Miles aka Guo Wengui Parties Represented: Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\nGregory P. Joseph Esq. Pamela Jarvis Esq. Courtney Solomon Esq. Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC 485 Lexington Ave. 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-407-1200 gjoseph@jha.com pjarvis@jha.com esolomon@jha.com Parties Represented: Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true and correct. Executed at New York, NEW\n\nYO ovem . 018\n\nifdiste Maccu kmaccubbin@jamsadr.com\n\n#### **Exhibit 15**\n\n| | 2022-50073 | |\n|------------|--------------------|--|\n| | IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | |\n| | | |\n| Trustee | 15 | |\n| | | |\n| 11/17/2022 | | |\n| | P.E. | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\n#### **FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2016 07:09 PM** INDEX NO. 653316/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 27 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/05/2016 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 280 of 452\n\n#### **SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK**\n\n| ----------------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|\n| ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED, | | : |\n| | | : |\n| | Plaintiff, | : Index No. 653316/2015 (Bransten, J.) |\n| | | : |\n| -v.- | | : Motion Sequence No. 001 |\n| | | : |\n| UBS AG, | | : |\n| | | : |\n| | Defendant. | : |\n| -------------------------------------------------------------x | | |\n\n#### **AFFIDAVIT OF KWOK HO WAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT**\n\nKWOK HO WAN being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says:\n\n1. I am the employer of Yong Yu, the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade\n\nHoldings Limited (\"Ace Decade\").\n\n2. I make this Affidavit based upon my personal knowledge.\n\n3. I first began having discussions with UBS AG (\"UBS\") about potential\n\ninvestments in 2010. I have been a client of UBS since July 2012.\n\n4. My main contact person at UBS has been Stephen Wong, who is a Managing\n\nDirector of the Wealth Management and Swiss Bank Department at UBS.\n\n5. I met Mr. Wong in May 2010. Since that time, Mr. Wong has advised me on\n\nnumerous matters relating to investments and financing on projects such as aircraft acquisitions.\n\nOver the years, I have depended and relied upon Mr. Wong's and UBS's knowledge and\n\nexpertise in making investment and financing decisions.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 281 of 452\n\n6. In addition, I have had an account at UBS since July 2012 for an investment vehicle that I control. Since then, I have opened other accounts at UBS for two other investment vehicles that I control and have obtained financing from UBS for two airplanes.\n\n7. In early to mid-2014, I began discussions with UBS regarding an investment opportunity (the \"Investment\") in an upcoming placement of H-shares (the \"Shares\") of Haitong Securities Co., Ltd. (\"Haitong\").\n\n8. From 2014, when I first began discussions with UBS, to May 13, 2015, when Ms. Yu and I authorized the final payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) to enter into this Investment, Mr. Wong and I communicated frequently through telephone calls, inperson meetings, and electronic messages. Throughout this period, including after January 9, 2015 when I moved to New York, Mr. Wong made numerous misrepresentations, which I relied upon in deciding to make this Investment.\n\n9. UBS was a joint global coordinator and placement agent for the Shares, and held itself out as knowledgeable and experienced in providing advice on this Investment.\n\n10. At the outset, Mr. Wong assured me that if UBS got my business, it would protect my interests and provide the best possible terms for a loan to finance part of the Investment. Mr. Wong told me that because of the size of the Investment that I was planning to make, senior executives from UBS globally would participate in structuring the deal. Mr. Wong told me that he would serve as my personal contact and as UBS's representative throughout the Investment but that he would be acting under the instructions of senior executives from UBS offices in the United States, Switzerland, England, and Hong Kong.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 282 of 452\n\n11. Based on these representations that senior executives at UBS globally would be involved in structuring and overseeing this Investment and that UBS would act in my best interests, I entrusted UBS to act as my advisor for the Investment.\n\n12. I have read Mr. Wong's affirmation submitted in support of UBS's motion to dismiss Ace Decade's complaint. In it, he affirmed under penalty of perjury that \"[t]he first time I heard of Ace Decade was when I learned of this lawsuit in October 2015.\" (Affirmation of Stephen Wong ¶ 3.) I was astonished when I read this statement because it is false. To the contrary, Mr. Wong and UBS not only had previously heard of Ace Decade, but also they were the ones who advised me on which of my employees to appoint as sole shareholder and Director of Ace Decade, to utilize Ace Decade to enter into a side agreement with an intermediary entity that would hold legal title to the Shares, and how best to transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account. In sum, Mr. Wong and UBS knew that the ultimate investor in the Investment was Ace Decade.\n\n13. UBS advised that because the planned Investment comprised greater than 5% of the outstanding H-shares of Haitong, if I invested through Ace Decade directly, applicable disclosure requirements would require certain filings.\n\n14. UBS advised that if I invested through an intermediary entity, with the intermediary entity holding legal title to the Shares, no such disclosure would be required.\n\n15. UBS recommended that I select Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd. (\"Haixia\") as the intermediary for the Investment. UBS said that it recommended Haixia because Haixia was best qualified to act for Ace Decade. UBS further stated that Haixia was independent of UBS and would protect my and Ace Decade's interests. Relying on these representations, I selected Haixia as the intermediary for the Investment.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 283 of 452\n\n16. At no time did UBS disclose that Haixia was controlled by its joint venture partner, State Development & Investment Corp. (\"SDIC\"). Nor did UBS disclose that Lu Bo, who served as the principal contact between UBS and Haixia, was previously the CFO of the joint venture between UBS and SDIC. I did not become aware of Haixia's close relationship with UBS until July 21, 2015 (after Ace Decade had made the Investment and after UBS had liquidated the Shares), when Mr. Wong disclosed that relationship during a telephone call, which I took from my office in New York.\n\n17. Mr. Wong initially said that if we chose Haixia as the intermediary to make the Investment, we would not need to undergo Haixia's Know Your Customer (\"KYC\") process. However, he later said that we needed to prepare some paperwork to undergo a background examination for Haixia, but he did not explain if this paperwork was for Haixia's KYC process. Mr. Wong asked to review the resumes of some of my employees to assess whose background would most likely satisfy Haixia's requirements so that such employee could be appointed as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. He reviewed these resumes and advised that Ms. Yu's resume and background was best suited to satisfy Haixia's requirements and thus, that I should appoint Ms. Yu as the Director and sole shareholder of Ace Decade. Mr. Wong said that he would provide comments on Ms. Yu's resume and asked her to send it to him. (*See* Ace Decade Exhibits 3 and 4.)\n\n18. Mr. Wong subsequently gave comments on Ms. Yu's resume to make it more likely to satisfy Haixia's requirements.\n\n19. Mr. Wong and I also discussed on multiple occasions potential financing for the Investment. Mr. Wong stated that Ace Decade should obtain financing for part of the Investment\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 284 of 452\n\nthrough UBS rather than another bank because UBS would handle the financing on the most favorable terms to Ace Decade.\n\n20. During discussions about the loan financing, I told Mr. Wong that Ace Decade would not make the Investment unless the loan documents did not include any provisions that would permit UBS to demand repayment of the loan (a \"margin call\") based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and unless UBS represented that it would provide Ace Decade with adequate time (for example, five business days to pay the first 25%, 10 business days to pay the second 25%, and 20 business days to pay the remaining 50%) to meet any margin calls.\n\n21. Mr. Wong stated on more than one occasion in 2014 that the loan financing documents would be consistent with my requirements, specifically that there was no repayment or margin call trigger based on short term price fluctuations.\n\n22. Mr. Wong also stated on several occasions in 2014 and 2015 that UBS would work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls and UBS would not sell any of the Shares as a result of any margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time.\n\n23. Mr. Wong also stated numerous times in 2014 and 2015 that UBS had made a loan to a large shareholder of Ping An Insurance Group (\"Ping An\"). Mr. Wong explained that the Ping An shareholder's loan was substantially larger than Ace Decade's, but that UBS had never sold off any of the shares owned by that shareholder following a margin call. Mr. Wong stated that when a margin call had been triggered, UBS had worked with the Ping An shareholder to resolve the situation without selling any of his shares. Mr. Wong said repeatedly that UBS would give Ace Decade the same treatment as it gave to the Ping An shareholder and would work cooperatively to allow Ace Decade to meet any margin calls but in any event would not sell the Shares following a margin call without giving Ace Decade adequate time.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 285 of 452\n\n24. Throughout our discussions about the Investment, Mr. Wong repeatedly stated that I could trust him and UBS, and that he and UBS were always working in my best interests.\n\n25. On December 14, 2014, while discussing the Investment, Mr. Wong told me in a message on WhatsApp (a mobile messaging application for smart phones): \"Once I've promised General Manager Guo, I'll definitely make utmost efforts; I'm only hoping General Manager Guo will trust me.\" Later that day, he told me in another message: \"I have no reason not to strive for the best for General Manager Guo!\" (General Manager Guo is what Mr. Wong called me.)\n\n26. Also on December 14, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message, stating that during the negotiations over the Investment \"General Manager Guo's interests must be guaranteed,\" and that he had involved top UBS management from offices around the world to assist.\n\n27. On December 15, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message stating that he was working on the terms of the Investment in order to \"protect [me].\"\n\n28. On December 19, 2014, Mr. Wong left me a voice message stating: \"General Manager Guo, you can rest absolutely assured, and I will completely protect your interests.\"\n\n29. As a result, I believed that Mr. Wong and UBS were acting in Ace Decade's best interests and I trusted that the representations Mr. Wong made about the loan financing documents were true and that UBS would not sell the Shares without working with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls.\n\n30. On January 9, 2015, while I was still negotiating the terms of the Investment with UBS, I moved to New York with Ms. Yu and other employees with the intention of expanding my business projects to New York and to find investors interested in investing in Ace Decade.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 286 of 452\n\n31. I first discussed this plan to move to New York to find investors for Ace Decade with Mr. Wong in December 2014. I subsequently had multiple discussions with Mr. Wong about finding investors for Ace Decade by telephone from New York in March, May, and June 2015.\n\n32. On February 9, 2015, Ace Decade signed a Memorandum of Understanding (the \"MOU\"), governed by U.S. law, with China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited (\"Golden Spring Hong Kong\"). The MOU provided that Ace Decade would acquire Haitong Shares and Golden Spring Hong Kong would establish a branch in New York to find investors for projects relating to the Haitong Shares.\n\n33. In furtherance of the MOU, Golden Spring Hong Kong formed a company called Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. (\"Golden Spring New York\"), which was incorporated in March 2015 in Delaware and registered to do business in New York. Golden Spring New York is wholly owned by Golden Spring Hong Kong.\n\n34. Shortly thereafter, Golden Spring New York signed a lease for part of the 46th Floor of the General Motors Building at 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153. Ms. Yu and I conduct business relating to Ace Decade from our offices at 767 Fifth Avenue.\n\n35. Not only had I discussed with UBS my plans to move to New York and to operate my business projects out of New York in December 2014, I also asked for UBS's help in setting up my operations in New York. In March 2015, Mr. Wong and others at UBS, including Agnes Fu and Liz Lam, arranged to transfer funds from one of my accounts at UBS to my personal JPMorgan Chase account in New York.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 287 of 452\n\n36. In April 2015, Mr. Wong, Ms. Fu, and Ms. Lam assisted me with setting up Golden Spring New York by transferring funds from one of my accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JPMorgan Chase bank account in New York.\n\n37. UBS also submitted reference letters on my behalf in connection with my purchase of an apartment in a New York cooperative building. In a letter dated February 18, 2015 from Mr. Wong to the building's board of directors, Mr. Wong wrote, \"I have known Miles for about five years since he first began working with UBS AG.\" (Miles is my English name.) Mr. Wong also stated, \"Over the years, Miles has earned his credibility in our bank. He is very reliable and always fulfills his repayment obligations. For this reason, our bank is happy to have him as our long-term client.\" (Ace Decade Exhibit 1.)\n\n38. Mr. Wong and Tommy Cheung, also a UBS Managing Director, submitted another reference letter on my behalf to the board of the apartment building on February 23, 2015, stating: \"Kwok Ho Wan has been a client of ours through a personal investment company since July 2012.\" (Ace Decade Exhibit 2.)\n\n39. On March 6, 2015, I purchased an apartment in this building. I, along with Ms. Yu and other employees and representatives of Ace Decade and Golden Spring New York, have lived in the apartment since the purchase.\n\n40. During this period of time after I had moved to New York, Mr. Wong and I communicated frequently through telephone calls and voice and instant messages. Mr. Wong spoke to me by telephone while I was in New York dozens of times and sent numerous electronic messages to me while I was in New York. Ms. Yu joined me on some of the calls with Mr. Wong. At a minimum, Mr. Wong spoke to me by telephone while I was in New York on the following dates:\n\n- January 26, 2015 (three calls)\n- January 28, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 2, 2015\n- March 4, 2015 (three calls)\n- March 5, 2015\n- March 13, 2015\n- March 15, 2015\n- March 16, 2015 (six calls)\n- March 17, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 18, 2015 (two calls)\n- March 24, 2015\n- March 31, 2015\n- April 28, 2015 (three calls)\n- April 30, 2015 (five calls)\n- May 6, 2015 (two calls)\n- May 11, 2015 (three calls)\n- June 23, 2015 (two calls)\n- July 21, 2015\n\n41. During these calls in 2015, which I participated in from New York, Mr. Wong and I discussed the Investment and the UBS loan on numerous occasions. On one or more of these calls, Mr. Wong and I also discussed my concerns about the loan, including a margin call trigger based upon the loan-to-value ratio (\"LTV ratio\"), the size of the loan, the interest rate on\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 289 of 452\n\nthe loan, and the issuance price of the Haitong shares. Mr. Wong and I also discussed the status of my efforts to seek investors in New York for Ace Decade.\n\n42. During this period of time in 2015, I did not raise with Mr. Wong again my concerns about repayment triggers conditioned on short term price fluctuations of the Shares because Mr. Wong had previously told me that there were no such triggers.\n\n43. However, during several of these calls in March, April, and May 2015, Mr. Wong and I discussed the topic of margin calls generally, and specifically the LTV ratio trigger. Mr. Wong said that I did not have to worry because UBS would act in my best interests, that UBS would give Ace Decade adequate time to meet any margin calls, and that UBS would make every effort to work with Ace Decade to allow it to meet any margin calls. He also reminded me several times during this period that UBS had never sold the shares of the Ping An shareholder following a margin call on its loan, and stated that Ace Decade would receive the same treatment as the Ping An shareholder.\n\n44. While I was in New York, Mr. Wong also sent me numerous WhatsApp messages about the Investment and the UBS loan. For example, on March 21 and 22, 2015, Mr. Wong and I exchanged a series of WhatsApp messages in which we discussed the UBS loan for the Investment. I told Mr. Wong that some of UBS's proposed conditions, such as the margin call trigger based upon the LTV ratio for the UBS loan, were \"definitely not okay\" and \"we would rather not do it than agree to your clauses.\" Had I not been relying upon Mr. Wong's prior representations that the loan financing documents did not contain repayment triggers based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares, I would have raised that issue again with Mr. Wong and not focused our discussions solely on the margin call trigger based on the LTV ratio.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 290 of 452\n\n45. Mr. Wong replied that he understood my concerns about potential margin calls, and told me: \"You rest assured!. . . I'm working for General Manager Guo! Don't worry.\" I relied upon Mr. Wong's representations that he and UBS were looking out for my interests. All of these discussions occurred while I was in New York.\n\n46. On May 8, 2015, Haitong announced that it had obtained the shareholder and regulatory approvals necessary (in February and May, respectively) to issue the Shares, which was expected to occur on May 15. Haitong also announced that because the trading price of Haitong's shares during the 30 trading days prior had surpassed a pre-agreed threshold, the subscription price would be increased.\n\n47. After this announcement, I had several discussions with Mr. Wong, by telephone and WhatsApp messages, in order to finalize the terms of the Investment. Among the topics we discussed were the fact that the loan would have to be increased to reflect the increase in the per share price of Haitong's shares, the amount of the payment required, the LTV ratio, the interest rate, and the method by which we should exchange U.S. dollars for the Hong Kong dollars required for the payment.\n\n48. During one of our discussions after May 8, Mr. Wong stated yet again that Ace Decade would receive the same treatment as the Ping An shareholder with respect to any margin calls.\n\n49. Relying on these representations, I decided to make the Investment. I discussed with Mr. Wong during telephone conversations on May 11 how best to transfer the funds necessary for the Investment from one of my UBS accounts to the Ace Decade account. Mr. Wong said that I first needed to exchange the funds from U.S. dollars to Hong Kong dollars in my UBS account. He also gave instructions not to transfer the funds from my UBS account\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 291 of 452\n\ndirectly to the Ace Decade account, but rather to transfer the funds from my UBS account to an account at another bank and then to transfer the funds from that account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n50. Relying upon Mr. Wong's advice, I decided to transfer the funds from my UBS account first to an account at China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. Hong Kong Branch (\"China Minsheng Account\") and then to transfer the funds from the China Minsheng Account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n51. On May 11, 2015, Ms. Fu sent an e-mail to Ms. Yu, copying Mr. Wong and Ms. Lam, and asked Ms. Yu to obtain my signature on a payment instruction document that UBS had prepared. The document contained a request to transfer HK \\$860 million (approximately US \\$111 million) from my UBS account to the China Minsheng Account that Mr. Wong had instructed me to use.\n\n52. In reliance upon Mr. Wong's representations about the Investment and the UBS loan, I signed the document authorizing the wire transfer.\n\n53. Later that day, Ms. Lam sent an e-mail to Ms. Yu, copying Mr. Wong and Ms. Fu, attaching a confirmation of the outgoing transfer from my UBS account.\n\n54. Following Mr. Wong's instructions, I then authorized the transfer of the funds from the China Minsheng Account to the Ace Decade account.\n\n55. After the funds reached the Ace Decade account, on May 13, 2015, Ms. Yu and I authorized a payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) from Ace Decade's account to an account held by Dawn State Limited (\"Dawn State\"), a special purpose vehicle and wholly-owned subsidiary of a Haixia fund, to fund the Investment of the Shares to be issued on May 15. Prior to this, I had authorized an initial down payment of approximately US \\$250\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 292 of 452\n\nmillion from Ace Decade's account, through Dawn State, to a UBS security account. That payment would have been returned to Ace Decade had the Investment not been completed.\n\n56. All of the steps I took to make the Investment, including requesting the wire transfers of approximately HK \\$860 million (approximately US \\$111 million) from one of my UBS accounts to the China Minsheng Account and ultimately to the Ace Decade account and authorizing the payment of HK \\$2 billion (approximately US \\$260 million) from the Ace Decade account to Dawn State's account on May 13, 2015, occurred from my office or my apartment in New York.\n\n57. I would not have made the Investment or authorized this payment in May 2015 had I known that UBS had lied that the loan financing documents did not contain repayment triggers based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and that UBS would refuse to work with Ace Decade to meet any margin calls and would sell off Ace Decade's Shares immediately if a margin call were made.\n\n58. Under the terms of an agreement between Ace Decade and Haixia, Haixia was required to transfer Dawn State (the entity that held legal title to the Shares) to Ace Decade after July 13, 2015 upon Ace Decade's request.\n\n59. However, on the morning of July 6, 2015 New York time—just a week before Haixia would have had to transfer Dawn State to Ace Decade—I learned that UBS was demanding that I repay approximately US \\$200 million in less than 24 hours due to short-term price fluctuation of the Shares.\n\n60. Had I known that it was possible for UBS to demand payment in such a short period of time and that UBS had lied about providing adequate time to meet any margin calls, I would have ensured that Ace Decade had sufficient funds available to make such payment.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 293 of 452\n\n61. Before UBS's deadline, Ace Decade informed UBS that we could obtain the necessary funds quickly, but not before UBS's deadline.\n\n62. However, on July 6, 2015, Mr. Wong stated that UBS would not give Ace Decade any additional time. Mr. Wong stated that UBS had already identified buyers for the Shares and would make a substantial profit by selling the Shares instead of allowing Ace Decade to make the payment.\n\n63. On July 7th, I sent Mr. Wong a WhatsApp message telling him that UBS's margin call was \"illegal.\" Mr. Wong did not disagree with me or deny that he had told me that there were no repayment triggers based upon short term price fluctuations of the Shares. Instead, he said that he had told senior management to cancel the sale of the Shares and said that he would ask UBS to return the Shares to me. Mr. Wong told me that the Shares were still under UBS's control and he promised to come up with a plan for their repurchase. Mr. Wong reassured me: \"I've always been standing by General Manager Guo.\"\n\n64. On July 9th, Mr. Wong stated that the decision to sell the shares was made by UBS executives outside of Hong Kong and China.\n\n65. On July 17th, I reminded Mr. Wong that he had said on numerous prior occasions that \"there would never be\" a margin call based on short term price fluctuations of the Shares and the many times he had stated that UBS had not sold off the shares of a large Ping An shareholder following a margin call.\n\n66. In another message on July 17, I said to Mr. Wong: \"I told you, it was since last year that I've come to the U.S. for better opportunities, didn't I? All the information I sent you from the U.S., my requirements, you know them all. . . . Under these circumstances, all were\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 294 of 452\n\nhanded over to you, [I] all listened to you. It was you who introduced Haixia . . . . It turned out to be messed up like this now.\"\n\n67. Mr. Wong did not deny that he had made these misrepresentations and in fact replied that he understood.\n\n68. In another message on July 17, I said to Mr. Wong: \"You told me several times that you UBS would not liquidate assets like that; otherwise how I would trust you.\" I also told him: \"If it weren't for you to tell me that margin call was like Ping An, it would not be like that. There would be reasonable time to get some assets to deal with it.\"\n\n69. On July 17, I also said to Mr. Wong: \"You said UBS signed the agreement with them [Haixia] to permit UBS to sell all the shares within 24 hours of the margin call. How was that signed? How did they implement that? It's not fair. You told me back then that was not the case.\"\n\n70. Mr. Wong replied \"I've always been firmly opposing them, but they ignored me and told me it was an order by the Swiss CEO.\" He did not deny my assertion that he had previously stated that the loan agreement would not permit UBS to sell the Shares within 24 hours of the margin call.\n\n71. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that UBS would treat Ace Decade the same as the Ping An shareholder.\n\n72. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that the loan documents would not contain repayment triggers based on short-term price fluctuations of the Shares.\n\n73. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that he had stated that UBS would work with Ace Decade and provide it adequate time to meet any margin call.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 295 of 452\n\n74. At no point during any of our discussions did Mr. Wong deny that UBS had engaged in misconduct.\n\n75. Mr. Wong told me that on July 7, 2015, UBS sold all of the Shares belonging to Ace Decade at HK \\$11.12, a 20% discount off the closing price of Haitong stock on July 7.\n\n76. As a result of losing the Haitong shares, Ace Decade lost New York investors, whom I had met with after I had relocated to New York in 2015 and who had been interested in investing in Ace Decade. For example, on four occasions in New York in April through June 2015, my representatives and/or I met with a co-founder of a private investment firm based in New York. The firm expressed significant interest in investing in Ace Decade. However, following UBS's sale of the Haitong Shares belonging to Ace Decade, Ace Decade lost this potential investor.\n\nI swear that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n[Signature of Kwok Ho Wan on Chinese version] Kwok Ho Wan\n\n[Notarization on Chinese version]\n\nCITY OF Meseryqy COUNTY OF Ceno Gordo ) ) )\n\nss.:\n\nI, Linmag lds- being duly swom, depose and say that I aur fluent in both the English and Chinese languages. I hereby certiS that the attached document is an accurate hanslation of the Chinese version of \"Affidavit of Kwok Ho Wan.\"\n\nSwomto before me this\n\nLou, ofl\\*qec|ts €ebr^-^-r1 gotb\n\nNotary Public\n\n#ou\\$\n\n#### **Exhibit 32**\n\n| | | | 2022-50073 | |\n|--------------------|------------|------|------------|--|\n| IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| Trustee | | | 32 | |\n| | 11/18/2022 | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | P.E. | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **Exhibit 33**\n\n| | 2022-50073 | | | |\n|--------------------|------------|----|--|--|\n| IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| Trustee | | 33 | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 11/18/2022 | | | | |\n| | P.E. | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| Alex Lipman |\n|--------------------------------------------|\n| Luft, Avi E. |\n| Kosciewicz, Jonathon P.; Bassett, Nicholas |\n| [EXT] Re: Yvette Wang |\n| Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:24:33 AM |\n| |\n\nHi Avi,\n\nI am not authorized to accept service.\n\nAlex Lipman\n\nLipman Law PLLC 147 West 25th Street 12th Floor New York, New York 10001\n\n+1 (212) 401-0070 (office) +1 (917) 757-9850 (mobile)\n\nalexlipman@lipmanpllc.com lipmanpllc.com\n\nOn Nov 6, 2022, at 21:48, Luft, Avi E. wrote:\n\nAlex,\n\nI am writing to follow up on my email below. Has Ms. Wang authorized you to accept the subpoena on her behalf? If not, can you please provide me with the best address and time to serve your client in person. The subpoena relates to an upcoming expedited hearing, so a prompt response from your client is needed. Please let me know by tomorrow morning how your client would like to proceed. Thanks.\n\nAvi\n\n[image001.png]\n\nAvi E. Luft | Of Counsel | Financial Restructuring Group Paul Hastings LLP | 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 | Direct: +1.212.318.6079 | Main: +1.212.318.6000 | Fax: +1.212.303.7079 | email | www.paulhastings.com\n\nOn Nov 3, 2022, at 12:49 PM, Luft, Avi E. wrote:\n\nAlex,\n\nPer your request, I am writing to follow up on our phone call. As I mentioned, I represent Luc Despins, the Chapter 11 Trustee for Miles Kwok's bankruptcy case before the Bankruptcy Court in the District of Connecticut. As I mentioned, we need to serve your client, Ms. Wang with a subpoena and ask if you will be willing to accept the subpoena on her behalf. I understand that you wish to ask her if she will be amenable to that, or if she would prefer if we serve her personally. Please let us know what she advises. Thank you.\n\nAvi\n\n \n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nAvi E. Luft | Of Counsel | Financial Restructuring Group Paul Hastings LLP | 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 | Direct: +1.212.318.6079 | Main: +1.212.318.6000 | Fax: +1.212.303.7079 | email | www.paulhastings.com\n\n\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\* \\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\\*\n\nThis message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received\n\nthis transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.\n\nIf you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name\n\nand other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings' information collection, privacy\n\nand security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.\n\n\n\n#### **Exhibit 39**\n\n| | 2022-50073 | | |\n|------------|--------------------|----|--|\n| | IN RE: Ho Wan Kwok | | |\n| | | | |\n| Trustee | | 39 | |\n| | | | |\n| 11/17/2022 | | | |\n| | P.E. | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n\n\n*MILES KWOK October 3, 2018*\n\n\n\n*Original File 247294.TXT Min-U-Script® with Word Index* Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 305 of 452\n\n| 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2
COUNTY OF NEW YORK |\n| ------------------------------------------------x
3
PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., |\n| 4
Plaintiff, |\n| 5
-against- |\n| 6
KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN |\n| GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WEN-GUI,
7
a/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK,
a/k/a HAOYUN GUY, |\n| Defendant. |\n| Index No.: 652077/2017 |\n| 10
------------------------------------------------x |\n| |\n| 12
7 Times Square |\n| New York, New York |\n| October 3, 2018
14
9:39 a.m. |\n| |\n| 16
Videotaped Examination Before Trial |\n| 17
of the MILES KWOK, before Kristi Cruz, a Notary |\n| 18
Public of the State of New York. |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| 23
ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC |\n| 126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor
24
New York, New York 10022 |\n| 212-750-6434
25
REF:
247294 |\n| |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 306 of 452\n\n```\n 1 A P P E A R A N C E S:\n 2\n 3 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff\n 5 Times Square Tower\n 6 7 Times Square\n 7 New York, New York 10036\n 8 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.\n 9 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.\n10 SARA N. PAHLAVAN, ESQ.\n11 212.326.2000\n12 emoss@omm.com\n13 ssarnoff@omm.com\n14 spahlavan@omm.com\n15\n16\n17 HODGSON RUSS LLP\n18 Attorneys for Defendant\n19 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300\n20 New York, New York 10158\n21 BY: MARK A. HARMON, ESQ.\n22 JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ.\n23 212.751.4300\n24 mharmon@hodgsonruss.com\n25 jsearles@hodgsonruss.com\n```\n\n```\n 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Cont'd)\n 2\n 3 ALSO PRESENT:\n 4 ELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG, Mandarin Interpreter\n 5 DAN MACOM, Videographer\n 6 KARIN MAISTRELLO, Golden Spring\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n```\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 308 of 452\n\n| 1 | ------------------- I N D E X ------------------- |\n|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| 2
WITNESS | EXAMINATION BY
PAGE |\n| 3
MILES KWOK | MR. MOSS
8 |\n| | |\n| | |\n| 6
DIRECTIONS: | PAGE
17, 18, 19, 58, 59, 61, |\n| 7 | 62, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, |\n| 8 | 78, 101, 102, 117, 118, |\n| 9 | 126, 128, 129 |\n| | |\n| | |\n| 12 | --------------- DOCUMENT REQUESTS --------------- |\n| 13
PAGE:
129 | Document evidencing agreement |\n| 14 | with Zhang Wei relating to the |\n| 15 | hotel |\n| | |\n| | |\n| 18 | ---------------- E X H I B I T S ---------------- |\n| 19
KWOK | DESCRIPTION
FOR I.D. |\n| 20
Exhibit 1 | Genever Holdings LLC
33 |\n| 21 | Corporate Documents |\n| 22
Exhibit 2 | Printout from YouTube
59 |\n| 23
Exhibit 3 | Federal Complaint
69 |\n| 24
Exhibit 4 | Letter with attached
73 |\n| 25 | financial information |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 309 of\n\n| 1 | | ------------ E X H I B I T S (Cont'd)------------ | |\n|----|-----------|---------------------------------------------------|----------|\n| 2 | KWOK | DESCRIPTION | FOR I.D. |\n| 3 | Exhibit 5 | UBS Hong Kong statement | 82 |\n| 4 | | for Bravo Luck Limited | |\n| 5 | | entitled Debit Advice | |\n| 6 | Exhibit 6 | Realtor.com printout | 88 |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | | | |\n| 10 | | (EXHIBITS TO BE PRODUCED) | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n#### 1 S T I P U L A T I O N S\n\n| 2 | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED |\n| 4 | by and between the attorneys for the |\n| 5 | respective parties herein, that filing and |\n| 6 | sealing be and the same are hereby waived. |\n| 7 | IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND |\n| 8 | AGREED that all objections, except as to |\n| 9 | the form of the question, shall be |\n| 10 | reserved to the time of the trial. |\n| 11 | IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND |\n| 12 | AGREED that the within deposition may be |\n| 13 | sworn to and signed before any officer |\n| 14 | authorized to administer an oath, with |\n| 15 | the same force and effect as if signed |\n| 16 | and sworn to before the Court. |\n| 17 | IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND |\n| 18 | AGREED that a copy of the within |\n| 19 | deposition shall be furnished to counsel |\n| 20 | for the Witness. |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | - oOo - |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 311 of 452\n\n| 1 | P R O C E E D I N G S |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
This is the |\n| 3 | videotaped deposition of Mr. Miles Kwok |\n| 4 | taken by the plaintiff in the matter of |\n| 5 | Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP |\n| 6 | versus Kwon, et al., in the Supreme Court |\n| 7 | of the State of New York, the County of |\n| 8 | New York.
The index number is |\n| 9 | 652077-2017. |\n| 10 | This deposition is being held at |\n| 11 | O'Melveny & Myers on today, October 3, |\n| 12 | 2018.
My name is Dan Macom from Ellen |\n| 13 | Grauer, a U.S. Legal Support Company, and |\n| 14 | I'm the video specialist.
The court |\n| 15 | reporter today is Ms. Kristi Cruz also |\n| 16 | with Ellen Grauer, a U.S. Legal Support |\n| 17 | Company.
We're now on the record, and the |\n| 18 | time is 9:39 a.m. |\n| 19 | Will counsel now state their |\n| 20 | appearances for the record and state whom |\n| 21 | they represent, after which may our court |\n| 22 | reporter please swear in the witness. |\n| 23 | MR. MOSS:
Edward Moss from |\n| 24 | O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of plaintiffs. |\n| 25 | MR. SARNOFF:
Stuart Sarnoff with |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 312 of 452\n\n```\n 1 O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of plaintiff.\n 2 MS. PAHLAVAN: Sara Pahlavan,\n 3 O'Melveny & Myers with plaintiffs.\n 4 MR. HARMON: Mark A. Harmon, Hodgson\n 5 Russ LLP, for defendant.\n 6 MS. SEARLES: Jillian Searles for\n 7 defendant.\n 8 MS. MAISTRELLO: Karin Maistrello,\n 9 Golden Spring, for Defendant.\n10 E L I Z A B E T H Y A O Y I N G J I A N G,\n11 the Mandarin Interpreter herein, was duly\n12 sworn to interpret the questions from\n13 English into Mandarinn and the answers\n14 from Mandarin into English to the best of\n15 her ability:\n16\n17 M I L E S K W O K,\n18 the Witness herein, having been duly sworn\n19 through the Interpreter, was examined and\n20 testified as follows:\n21\n22 EXAMINATION BY\n23 MR. MOSS:\n24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kwok. Thank you\n25 very much for being here today. My name is\n```\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 313 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | Edward Moss, we represent Pacific Alliance | | |\n| 3 | group in this litigation. | | |\n| 4 | Have you ever been deposed before? | | |\n| 5 | A.
One time, one time. | | |\n| 6 | Q.
You understand that you're | | |\n| 7 | testifying under oath? | | |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 9 | Q.
I will briefly go over the ground | | |\n| 10 | rules for the deposition. | | |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 12 | Q.
If you do not understand the | | |\n| 13 | question, please let me know and I will do my | | |\n| 14 | best to ask a better question.
If you answer | | |\n| 15 | a question, I will assume that you understood | | |\n| 16 | it and you answered it to the best of your | | |\n| 17 | ability.
I will wait for you to finish your | | |\n| 18 | answers, and please wait for me to finish my | | |\n| 19 | questions so we have a clean record. | | |\n| 20 | Your lawyers may object to my | | |\n| 21 | questions.
I expect they will object to my | | |\n| 22 | questions.
You are to please still answer the | | |\n| 23 | question unless your lawyer instructs you not | | |\n| 24 | to answer.
Do you understand? | | |\n| 25 | A.
Completely understand. | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 314 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | Is there any reason you cannot |\n| 4 | testify truthfully today? |\n| 5 | A.
No. |\n| 6 | Q.
You understand that you're |\n| 7 | testifying here both in your personal capacity |\n| 8 | and as a representative for certain of your -- |\n| 9 | for certain organizations? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And those organizations are Genever, |\n| 12 | or Genever -- is it Genever or Genever? |\n| 13 | MR. HARMON:
Genever, like the city. |\n| 14 | Q.
You understand you are here |\n| 15 | testifying on behalf of gin Eva holdings |\n| 16 | corporation, which is organized in the British |\n| 17 | Virgin Islands? |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
You understand you're also here |\n| 20 | testifying for Genever Holdings LLC, which is |\n| 21 | organized in the state of New York? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes. |\n| 23 | Q.
And finally, you're here on behalf |\n| 24 | of Shiny Times Holdings Limited, which is |\n| 25 | organized in the British Virgin Islands? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 315 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
Yes. |\n| 3 | Q.
And you understand that we are here |\n| 4 | to discuss issues relating to my client's |\n| 5 | request for an attachment of your residence at |\n| 6 | the Sherry-Netherland and issues relating to |\n| 7 | the structure of the Genever organizations? |\n| 8 | A.
I didn't quite understand that. |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
This is the |\n| 10 | interpreter.
If I could ask you to break |\n| 11 | it down. |\n| 12 | MR. MOSS:
Sure. |\n| 13 | Q.
One issue we will be covering today |\n| 14 | are issues relating to Pacific Alliance Group |\n| 15 | request for an attachment of the apartment at |\n| 16 | the Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 17 | A.
I don't understand. |\n| 18 | Q.
Do you understand that Pacific |\n| 19 | Alliance has sued for breach of contract? |\n| 20 | A.
I more do not understand. |\n| 21 | Q.
Do not or do? |\n| 22 | THE INTERPRETER:
Do not. |\n| 23 | A.
Absolutely completely more do not |\n| 24 | understand. |\n| 25 | Q.
You do not understand that Pacific |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 316 of 452\n\n12\n\n 1 KWOK 2 Alliance has filed a lawsuit for breach of 3 contract against you? 4 A. Is crazy. When did I break our 5 contract? When did I do that? 6 MR. HARMON: There's clearly a 7 syntax disconnect here on whether the suit 8 has merit or whether the sought was 9 brought. 10 Q. Mr. Kwok, I understand that you 11 dispute the lawsuit. 12 A. I'm not disputing it. I'm not 13 disputing it. I think it's completely crazy. 14 This is completely waste of my time. This 15 is -- 16 THE INTERPRETER: A curse, 17 profanity. 18 MR. SARNOFF: Is there a translation 19 of the curse? We'd like it on the record. 20 THE INTERPRETER: It's like -- it's 21 like a F affair kind of thing. 22 MR. MOSS: It's like? Sorry? 23 THE INTERPRETER: It's like F -- 24 there's not real equivalent, but it is a 25 profanity that he said this affair is a\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 317 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | complete F affair or something like that. |\n| 3 | Q.
Let me try it differently. |\n| 4 | Are you aware that PAX LP, or |\n| 5 | Pacific Alliance, is requesting an attachment |\n| 6 | of Mr. Kwok's residence at the |\n| 7 | Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 8 | A.
I absolutely do not know what |\n| 9 | they're doing.
It's completely F thing and |\n| 10 | what relation do I have with them?
What the |\n| 11 | hell are they doing? |\n| 12 | Q.
Maybe I will just put on the record |\n| 13 | that we are here on our attachment motion and |\n| 14 | issues relating to vail piercing and we are |\n| 15 | not here to explore merits issues. |\n| 16 | Mr. Harmon, I assume you agree with that? |\n| 17 | MR. HARMON:
Mr. Moss, you should |\n| 18 | ask your questions.
If you go beyond the |\n| 19 | scope of what I think is appropriate, I'll |\n| 20 | let you know.
So far so good. |\n| 21 | MR. MOSS:
I just want to put on the |\n| 22 | record, Mr. Harmon, and please tell me if |\n| 23 | you disagree with this, that we have |\n| 24 | agreed in advance of this deposition that |\n| 25 | we will not be covering issues relating to |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 318 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|---------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the merits of the underlying litigation. |\n| 3 | So I'm asking you whether or not you agree |\n| 4 | to that statement. |\n| 5 | MR. HARMON:
I'm not here to be |\n| 6 | deposed.
Mr. Kwok is here to be deposed. |\n| 7 | You should -- I think we all understand |\n| 8 | why we're here.
You should ask your |\n| 9 | questions, and if they go beyond the scope |\n| 10 | of that to which we have agreed, I'm going |\n| 11 | to object. |\n| 12 | MR. MOSS:
I'm trying to confirm why |\n| 13 | you're here.
You say you understand. |\n| 14 | Will you confirm that? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
We're here to take |\n| 16 | Mr. Kwok's deposition. |\n| 17 | MR. MOSS:
We are here to take |\n| 18 | Mr. Kwok's deposition on the attachment |\n| 19 | and the vail piercing issue.
We are not |\n| 20 | here on the merits.
If Mr. Harmon |\n| 21 | disagrees with that, I invite him to say |\n| 22 | something now.
If not, I will assume he |\n| 23 | agrees with me.
I will move on, hearing |\n| 24 | nothing from Mr. Harmon. |\n| 25 | MR. HARMON:
You should ask your |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 319 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | questions. |\n| 3 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 4 | Q.
Did you do anything to prepare for |\n| 5 | your deposition today? |\n| 6 | A.
I don't know what preparation is. |\n| 7 | What is your standard for preparation? |\n| 8 | Q.
Did you meet with your counsel to |\n| 9 | prepare for your deposition? |\n| 10 | A.
I see my counsel every day.
I have |\n| 11 | 29 cases.
I have to hide from the |\n| 12 | assassination of the communist.
I don't know |\n| 13 | what you mean by meeting by preparation. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did you meet with Mr. Harmon and/or |\n| 15 | Ms. Searles regarding this deposition today? |\n| 16 | A.
Yes, yes. |\n| 17 | Q.
When did you meet with them? |\n| 18 | A.
Yesterday or the day before.
I |\n| 19 | think it was the day before. |\n| 20 | Q.
You met with them in person? |\n| 21 | A.
Me in person. |\n| 22 | Q.
Who was present at the meeting? |\n| 23 | A.
Oh, in and out a lot of people.
You |\n| 24 | want me to give you everyone's names? |\n| 25 | Q.
Yes, please. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 320 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|---------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
Then I have to think about it.
I |\n| 3 | just can't temporarily think of them. |\n| 4 | Q.
Was Mr. Harmon there? |\n| 5 | A.
Of course. |\n| 6 | Q.
Was Ms. Searles there? |\n| 7 | A.
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q.
Were any other lawyers there? |\n| 9 | A.
Lawyers?
Yes, there were other |\n| 10 | lawyers present, but briefly. |\n| 11 | Q.
Who were the other lawyers who were |\n| 12 | present? |\n| 13 | A.
I don't quite remember the name.
I |\n| 14 | just remember Don.
I don't remember the |\n| 15 | complete name. |\n| 16 | Q.
So one other lawyer was present? |\n| 17 | A.
I think just one. |\n| 18 | Q.
Was that person from Mr. Harmon's |\n| 19 | law firm? |\n| 20 | A.
No. |\n| 21 | Q.
Was that person an employee of one |\n| 22 | of your companies? |\n| 23 | A.
My consulting company.
One of the |\n| 24 | companies I consult, one of the employees |\n| 25 | there of the. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 321 of 452\n\n17\n\n 1 KWOK 2 Q. Was that person there for the entire 3 meeting? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Was there any point during the 6 meeting where there was nobody there besides 7 you, Mr. Harmon, and Ms. Searles? 8 A. No. 9 Q. So at all times during that meeting, 10 there was somebody other than you, Mr. Harmon, 11 and Mrs. Searles? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Please tell me everything you can 14 remember that either Mr. Harmon or Ms. Searles 15 told you during that meeting? 16 DI MR. HARMON: Objection. I direct 17 the witness not to answer. Privileged. 18 MR. MOSS: You heard him just 19 testify that there was a third party in 20 the room during the entire time? 21 MR. HARMON: I'm asserting 22 attorney/client privilege. 23 Q. Who else was in the room during the 24 meeting yesterday or the day before with 25 Mr. Harmon and Ms. Searles?\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 322 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
This Ms. Chiling (phonetic). |\n| 3 | Q.
Who else? |\n| 4 | A.
I need an interpreter. |\n| 5 | Q.
Fair enough.
Who else was there? |\n| 6 | A.
Yvette Wang would sometimes come in, |\n| 7 | sometimes go out. |\n| 8 | Q.
Who else was there? |\n| 9 | A.
Oh, our colleague our colleagues |\n| 10 | come in and out and security guards come in |\n| 11 | and out. |\n| 12 | Q.
Can you please tell me what you |\n| 13 | discussed when Yvette Wang was in the room? |\n| 14 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Objection. |\n| 15 | Attorney/client privilege.
I direct the |\n| 16 | witness not to answer. |\n| 17 | Q.
Can you please tell me what was |\n| 18 | discussed when your other colleagues were in |\n| 19 | the room during that meeting? |\n| 20 | A.
This I can't tell you.
It's all |\n| 21 | about giving birth.
I don't think you want to |\n| 22 | hear about that.
Six hours previous to that |\n| 23 | my colleague just gave birth to a child. |\n| 24 | Q.
Can you tell me what you discussed |\n| 25 | with Ms. Searles and Mr. Harmon regarding this |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 323 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | case during your meeting when other colleagues |\n| 3 | were in the room? |\n| 4 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I direct the witness |\n| 5 | not to answer. |\n| 6 | A.
I do not want to answer such a |\n| 7 | question. |\n| 8 | Q.
Can you tell me what you discussed |\n| 9 | with Ms. Searles and Mr. Harmon regarding this |\n| 10 | case during your meeting when security guards |\n| 11 | were present in the room? |\n| 12 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I direct -- I'm |\n| 13 | directing the witness not to answer. |\n| 14 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, do you communicate using |\n| 15 | e-mail? |\n| 16 | A.
No, no. |\n| 17 | Q.
How do you communicate other than |\n| 18 | speaking?
I'm going to withdraw.
That's too |\n| 19 | broad.
That's a bad question. |\n| 20 | Do you communicate by text message? |\n| 21 | A.
Text message?
What is that?
I |\n| 22 | don't understand.
Text message includes so |\n| 23 | many things.
There's a thousand methods for |\n| 24 | text message.
Which kind are you speaking of? |\n| 25 | I do not understand. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 324 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Do you communicate using any type of |\n| 3 | text message? |\n| 4 | A.
Text message to communicate?
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q.
Do you communicate using the |\n| 6 | WhatsApp application? |\n| 7 | A.
I do. |\n| 8 | Q.
What other types of text message do |\n| 9 | you use? |\n| 10 | A.
So many.
In China there's over |\n| 11 | thousands.
If you have to ask me to think of |\n| 12 | them, I have to sit here for several hours. |\n| 13 | Q.
So you use several types of text |\n| 14 | messaging? |\n| 15 | A.
I don't understand when you say |\n| 16 | several methods of text messaging.
I don't |\n| 17 | understand what that means. |\n| 18 | Q.
Well, you just told me that there |\n| 19 | were thousands of types of text messaging, and |\n| 20 | I'm asking you, generally speaking, whether or |\n| 21 | not you use many different types of text |\n| 22 | messages. |\n| 23 | A.
I use three, four kinds. |\n| 24 | Q.
Were your text messages searched in |\n| 25 | connection with this litigation? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 325 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
I did not use any one for this.
I |\n| 3 | did not use any one or anything for this.
I |\n| 4 | don't understand what you mean by that.
I |\n| 5 | never discuss this litigation.
I think this |\n| 6 | is just a crazy case.
I think this is just |\n| 7 | scamming.
I think you guys are a bunch of |\n| 8 | thugs.
I think you are just mafia.
You're |\n| 9 | working for the communists.
You're doing |\n| 10 | threats and racketeering.
The whole world |\n| 11 | knows what you're doing.
You're helping the |\n| 12 | mafia.
You're destroying a good person.
I |\n| 13 | don't need to pay any attention to you at all. |\n| 14 | Q.
Let me try it again. |\n| 15 | Did you provide -- strike that. |\n| 16 | Do you know whether your lawyers |\n| 17 | searched any of your text messages to respond |\n| 18 | or to try to respond to my client's document |\n| 19 | requests in this case? |\n| 20 | A.
I don't understand.
I don't |\n| 21 | understand all the things you're saying.
The |\n| 22 | question you're asking is completely |\n| 23 | incomprehensible to me.
I think you're |\n| 24 | speaking to me separated by the galaxy.
You |\n| 25 | have created a completely nonexisting case and |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 326 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | then you're ask me questions.
I'm completely |\n| 3 | unable to answer you. |\n| 4 | Q.
You cannot answer whether or not |\n| 5 | your text messages were searched in connection |\n| 6 | with this case? |\n| 7 | A.
I really do not understand what your |\n| 8 | meaning is. |\n| 9 | Q.
You understand that it's possible to |\n| 10 | run a search in a person's text messages? |\n| 11 | A.
Of course I know that.
I know that |\n| 12 | text can be searched.
But as for other |\n| 13 | searching it or not, is this related? |\n| 14 | Q.
My question is whether or not your |\n| 15 | text messages were searched to try to find |\n| 16 | documents that we asked for in this case. |\n| 17 | A.
I really don't understand.
My text, |\n| 18 | because the communist party are trying to |\n| 19 | assassinate me, my text has many intelligences |\n| 20 | and security guards. |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
I missed the last |\n| 22 | part of his speech.
I'll just ask him to |\n| 23 | repeat. |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
Sorry.
It a security |\n| 25 | reason.
I don't want to die here should |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 327 of 452\n\n23\n\n 1 KWOK 2 you poison. 3 THE INTERPRETER: I had to ask him 4 to repeat that. I said, \"What happened to 5 your text? You were saying the communist 6 were trying to assassinate you?\" He said: 7 A. Well, my text have to be prepare for 8 many copies for a lot of people to see it 9 every day. 10 Q. So you don't know whether or not 11 your text messages were searched for this 12 case? 13 A. You know, my text, so many search, 14 so many cases. But specifically, I really 15 don't understand what you're saying. I'm 16 really sorry. 17 Q. That's okay. 18 MR. MOSS: Let's take a break. 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now off the 20 record. The time is 10:07 a.m. 21 (Recess was taken.) 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now back on 23 the record. The time is 10:19 a.m. 24 BY MR. MOSS: 25 Q. Mr. Kwok, I need to explain a few\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 328 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | things for the record.
We are here |\n| 3 | representing Pacific Alliance, nobody else. |\n| 4 | Pacific Alliance has filed a lawsuit against |\n| 5 | you, and under the law we are entitled to ask |\n| 6 | questions and to get answers from you to those |\n| 7 | questions unless you're instructed not to |\n| 8 | answer those questions.
We have not gotten |\n| 9 | answers to several questions so far and we are |\n| 10 | going to ask all of our questions, and at the |\n| 11 | rate we're going, it's going to take a very |\n| 12 | long time.
And I've tried very hard, I've |\n| 13 | prepared, to focus my questions so as not to |\n| 14 | waste your time and not to waste anybody's |\n| 15 | time.
And if you will answer my questions, |\n| 16 | this whole thing will be over faster for all |\n| 17 | of us. |\n| 18 | MR. HARMON:
I'm sure he's doing his |\n| 19 | best to answer the questions as he |\n| 20 | understands them. |\n| 21 | A.
A lot of your questions won't be so |\n| 22 | ridiculous.
My attorney has told me to |\n| 23 | truthfully answer all of your questions. |\n| 24 | Q.
You have no reason to be, do you, |\n| 25 | that these two attorneys sitting here, |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 329 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Mr. Harmon and Ms. Searles, searched your text |\n| 3 | messages in connection with this litigation |\n| 4 | against PAX, Pacific Alliance? |\n| 5 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 6 | the question. |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
This is |\n| 8 | interpreter.
You want me to interpret the |\n| 9 | question to him and the objection, as |\n| 10 | well? |\n| 11 | MR. MOSS:
Sure. |\n| 12 | MR. HARMON:
And tell him to answer |\n| 13 | if he understands the question, please. |\n| 14 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 15 | Q.
You have no information to suggest |\n| 16 | or no recollection that they did, in fact, |\n| 17 | search your text messages? |\n| 18 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 19 | the question. |\n| 20 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 21 | Q.
Did you provide your text messages |\n| 22 | to Mr. Harmon or Ms. Searles to be searched? |\n| 23 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 24 | Q.
You don't know whether or not you |\n| 25 | gave your phone to Mr. Harmon or Ms. Searles |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 330 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | to search your text messages? |\n| 3 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 4 | the question. |\n| 5 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 6 | Q.
Do you know whether or not you gave |\n| 7 | a laptop or another computer to Mr. Harmon or |\n| 8 | Ms. Searles to search your text messages or |\n| 9 | documents? |\n| 10 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 11 | Q.
Did you provide any paper documents |\n| 12 | to Mr. Harmon Ms. Searles to respond to |\n| 13 | Pacific Alliance's request? |\n| 14 | A.
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
Did anyone ever ask you to search |\n| 16 | your documents to respond to Pacific |\n| 17 | Alliance's requests? |\n| 18 | A.
No. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did anyone ever ask you to search |\n| 20 | your text messages to respond to Pacific |\n| 21 | Alliance's requests? |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did you ever discuss with anybody |\n| 24 | searching for documents or text messages to |\n| 25 | respond to Pacific Alliance's requests? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 331 of 452\n\n| 1 | | KWOK |\n|----|---------|---------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A. | No. |\n| 3 | Q. | Thank you. |\n| 4 | A. | Do you think my responses are fast |\n| 5 | enough? | |\n| 6 | Q. | Mr. Kwok, I get to ask the questions |\n| 7 | today. | But I will answer that one.
These |\n| 8 | | responses are fine.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | | Do you own a residence at the |\n| 10 | | Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 11 | A. | No. |\n| 12 | Q. | Do you live in a residence at the |\n| 13 | | Sherry-Netherland Hotel? |\n| 14 | A. | Sometimes. |\n| 15 | Q. | Who owns that residence? |\n| 16 | A. | Mr. Zhang Wei. |\n| 17 | | THE INTERPRETER:
Z-H-A-N-G, W-E-I, |\n| 18 | | phonetic spelling. |\n| 19 | Q. | Who is Zhang Wei? |\n| 20 | A. | Is a working partner, a fund, a |\n| 21 | | conglomerate fund, a member of that. |\n| 22 | Q. | Is Zhang Wei a person or an entity? |\n| 23 | A. | It's a person. |\n| 24 | Q. | Where does Zhang Wei live? |\n| 25 | A. | In prison. |\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 333 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
Mr. Zhang Wei was the initial person |\n| 3 | who put out the funds.
I and this whole |\n| 4 | Genever Corporation was the entrusted party, |\n| 5 | and also to represent his investment, |\n| 6 | investors. |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
He said is this |\n| 8 | okay, I said yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
Were you the one who applied to the |\n| 10 | Sherry-Netherland to live in the apartment? |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 12 | the question. |\n| 13 | A.
One of them. |\n| 14 | Q.
Who else applied to live in that |\n| 15 | apartment at the Sherry-Netherland? |\n| 16 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 17 | Q.
You don't know who else applied to |\n| 18 | live in the same apartment at the |\n| 19 | Sherry-Netherland -- |\n| 20 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 21 | the question. |\n| 22 | MR. MOSS:
How about if I finish the |\n| 23 | question and then you can object. |\n| 24 | MR. HARMON:
I thought you did. |\n| 25 | MR. MOSS:
Okay. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 334 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
You don't know who else applied to |\n| 3 | live in the same apartment at the |\n| 4 | Sherry-Netherland that you applied to live in? |\n| 5 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 6 | the question. |\n| 7 | A.
If he objects, I don't have to |\n| 8 | answer it, right? |\n| 9 | MR. HARMON:
This one you have to |\n| 10 | answer if you understand the question. |\n| 11 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 12 | Q.
How many other people applied to |\n| 13 | live in the apartment that you applied to live |\n| 14 | in at the Sherry-Netherland? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 16 | the question. |\n| 17 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 18 | Q.
Were any of those people that also |\n| 19 | applied to live at the apartment that you |\n| 20 | applied to live to at the Sherry-Netherland |\n| 21 | not members of your family? |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 23 | the question. |\n| 24 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 25 | Q.
Do you deal directly with the |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 337 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 338 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | relating to Genever Holdings LLC and Genever |\n| 3 | Holdings Corporation that were produced from |\n| 4 | the files of the Sherry-Netherland Hotel. |\n| 5 | MR. HARMON:
Did you mark the |\n| 6 | document? |\n| 7 | MR. MOSS:
Yeah.
It's Exhibit 1. |\n| 8 | MR. SARNOFF:
Kwok 1. |\n| 9 | MR. HARMON:
Kwok 1?
Thank you. |\n| 10 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, I'd like to direct your |\n| 11 | attention, there are members at the bottom, we |\n| 12 | call them Bates numbers.
I'd like to direct |\n| 13 | your attention to SN 0159, please.
Do you see |\n| 14 | this is the Certificate of Incorporation for |\n| 15 | Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 16 | A.
I do not understand it. |\n| 17 | Q.
You cannot read the document? |\n| 18 | A.
Absolutely not. |\n| 19 | Q.
Are you aware that Genever Holdings |\n| 20 | Corporation was formed on or around |\n| 21 | February 13, 2015? |\n| 22 | A.
I don't understand what you mean.
I |\n| 23 | don't really remember this.
I've never seen |\n| 24 | this document before. |\n| 25 | Q.
You don't understand what I mean |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 339 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | when I ask whether or not you're aware that |\n| 3 | Genever Holdings Corporation was formed on or |\n| 4 | around February 13, 2015? |\n| 5 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 6 | the question. |\n| 7 | A.
I don't really -- I don't really |\n| 8 | know about it.
I don't really remember it. |\n| 9 | This is all arranged by attorneys. |\n| 10 | Q.
Let's look at SN 0161.
Can you read |\n| 11 | anything on this document? |\n| 12 | A.
I'm unable to.
I can only look at |\n| 13 | the Arabic numerals, the one, the zeros.
The |\n| 14 | others I do not know. |\n| 15 | Q.
Maybe this will make things easier, |\n| 16 | Mr. Kwok.
Can you read any English at all? |\n| 17 | A.
No, I absolutely cannot. |\n| 18 | Q.
So if I put any document in front of |\n| 19 | you today, you would not be able to read it? |\n| 20 | A.
Yes.
I am currently learning |\n| 21 | English. |\n| 22 | Q.
Okay.
Well, there will be many |\n| 23 | fewer documents today than I thought there |\n| 24 | might be. |\n| 25 | A.
Oh, really.
I'm sorry about that. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 340 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
That's quite all right. |\n| 3 | A.
I've never seen this thing. |\n| 4 | Q.
Are you the sole shareholder of |\n| 5 | Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 6 | A.
You know, the way you're putting it, |\n| 7 | I don't know.
I'm just agent and they just |\n| 8 | asked me to sign and I don't even know what |\n| 9 | I'm signing.
For you to say that I owe you 30 |\n| 10 | million, what F that is, I never sign |\n| 11 | anything. |\n| 12 | Q.
Are you the sole director of Genever |\n| 13 | Holdings Corporation? |\n| 14 | THE INTERPRETER:
This is the |\n| 15 | interpreter.
Director meaning? |\n| 16 | MR. MOSS:
Like a board member. |\n| 17 | THE INTERPRETER:
Board member. |\n| 18 | Okay. |\n| 19 | A.
I really don't know. |\n| 20 | Q.
Do you control Genever Holdings |\n| 21 | Corporation? |\n| 22 | A.
Of course I don't control it. |\n| 23 | Q.
Zhang Wei controls it? |\n| 24 | A.
Of course. |\n| 25 | Q.
Does Genever Holdings corporation |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 341 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 342 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 343 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Nothing else. |\n| 3 | Q.
What does representative |\n| 4 | relationship mean? |\n| 5 | A.
I don't really know.
It's like when |\n| 6 | you purchase house, there will be some agent |\n| 7 | on behalf.
I don't know.
It's all arranged |\n| 8 | by the attorneys. |\n| 9 | Q.
So Genever Holdings Corporation may |\n| 10 | be some sort of agent of Shiny Times? |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 12 | the question. |\n| 13 | A.
I don't really feel that. |\n| 14 | Q.
Well, you testified that Genever |\n| 15 | Holdings Corporation had, you think, a |\n| 16 | representative relationship to Shiny Times, |\n| 17 | right? |\n| 18 | A.
I think during the purchase of this |\n| 19 | residence that there was some sort of |\n| 20 | relationship, but cannot remember clearly. |\n| 21 | MR. HARMON:
He wasn't finished with |\n| 22 | his answer when you started to interpret. |\n| 23 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry.
I |\n| 24 | wanted to -- |\n| 25 | MR. HARMON:
Okay.
So let's just |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 344 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | make sure he finishes his answer. |\n| 3 | A.
Clearly stated, the relationship |\n| 4 | between Shiny Times and Genever, I'm not |\n| 5 | really sure what that is. |\n| 6 | Q.
When you said you think during the |\n| 7 | purchase of the residence there was some sort |\n| 8 | of relationship between Shiny Times and |\n| 9 | Genever, can you explain what that means? |\n| 10 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 11 | the question. |\n| 12 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 13 | Q.
You're not sure of the nature of the |\n| 14 | relationship? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Hold on one second, |\n| 16 | please. |\n| 17 | Okay.
Please make sure that when I |\n| 18 | object, you let Mr. Kwok know that I've |\n| 19 | objected even though I'm not directing him |\n| 20 | not to answer. |\n| 21 | A.
I really don't know. |\n| 22 | Q.
Who would be the person to know the |\n| 23 | nature of the relationship between Shiny Times |\n| 24 | and Genever that existed around the purchase |\n| 25 | of the residence? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 345 of 452\n\n| 1 | | KWOK |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 3 | | the question. |\n| 4 | | THE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter, |\n| 5 | | before I said the objection, the -- |\n| 6 | | Mr. Kwok said: |\n| 7 | A. | Mr. Zhang Wei and his attorneys. |\n| 8 | Q. | Where is Zhang Wei in prison? |\n| 9 | A. | In prison. |\n| 10 | Q. | In what country? |\n| 11 | A. | In China. |\n| 12 | Q. | You have a son? |\n| 13 | A. | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q. | Am I pronouncing it correctly? |\n| 15 | Mileson? | |\n| 16 | A. | English name is Mileson, but the |\n| 17 | | actual Chinese name is core chow. |\n| 18 | | THE INTERPRETER:
G U O Q I A N G, |\n| 19 | | phonetic spelling. |\n| 20 | Q. | Is it okay with you if I use the |\n| 21 | English name? | |\n| 22 | A. | Yes. |\n| 23 | Q. | Does your son Mileson Kwok have any |\n| 24 | | ownership in Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 25 | A. | I do not know. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 346 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Does your son Mileson Kwok have any |\n| 3 | role with respect to Genever Holdings |\n| 4 | Corporation? |\n| 5 | A.
At that time I don't -- I'm not |\n| 6 | sure, but at that time was one of the |\n| 7 | representatives.
As for how it was a |\n| 8 | representative, I don't really know. |\n| 9 | Q.
When you say at that time, to what |\n| 10 | time period are you referring, Mr. Kwok? |\n| 11 | A.
During the purchase of the house. |\n| 12 | Q.
During sometime in 2015, Mileson |\n| 13 | Kwok was a representative for Genever Holdings |\n| 14 | Corporation? |\n| 15 | A.
I don't remember exact time. |\n| 16 | Q.
Do you know what type of |\n| 17 | representative he was for Genever Holdings |\n| 18 | Corporation? |\n| 19 | A.
I do not know.
This is something |\n| 20 | that is affair of Mr. Zhang Wei. |\n| 21 | Q.
Was Mileson Kwok a shareholder of |\n| 22 | Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 23 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 24 | Q.
Was he a director? |\n| 25 | A.
I'm not sure.
I don't know. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 347 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Do you know whether Genever Holdings |\n| 3 | Corporation maintains any corporate documents? |\n| 4 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 5 | Q.
Do you know whether it maintains a |\n| 6 | memorandum or articles of association? |\n| 7 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry.
I'll |\n| 8 | look up articles of association to make |\n| 9 | sure I completely say it right. |\n| 10 | Sorry.
I don't see the Chinese for |\n| 11 | it completely, but let me make sure. |\n| 12 | MR. HARMON:
Even if she finds |\n| 13 | words, I think it's going to be a |\n| 14 | problematic translation. |\n| 15 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry.
Is |\n| 16 | there a way you can explain it to me and I |\n| 17 | could -- because I don't see an equivalent |\n| 18 | here. |\n| 19 | MR. MOSS:
You know what?
I'm just |\n| 20 | going to move on.
That's fine. |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry. |\n| 22 | Q.
Do you know whether or not Genever |\n| 23 | Holdings Corporation maintains a list of its |\n| 24 | directors or its members? |\n| 25 | A.
I do not know. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 348 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 349 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 350 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | to clarify.
Before I when you were talking, |\n| 3 | you were calling it Shiny Times, the company? |\n| 4 | Because I understood it to be a different |\n| 5 | company, and I work with Mr. Zhang Wei in |\n| 6 | China.
The one that you're speaking of, the |\n| 7 | one that's like Shiny Times that's in Hong |\n| 8 | Kong, this has absolutely no representative |\n| 9 | relationship with Mr. Zhang Wei whatsoever. |\n| 10 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, as a yes/no question, did |\n| 11 | you discuss your testimony during that last |\n| 12 | break that we just had, did you discuss your |\n| 13 | testimony with your lawyers? |\n| 14 | A.
Discuss?
No. |\n| 15 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, the testimony was a little |\n| 16 | bit unclear, so I just want to ask the |\n| 17 | question again.
Were you the sole shareholder |\n| 18 | of Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 19 | A.
I really am not sure. |\n| 20 | Q.
When I was talking -- when you |\n| 21 | mentioned earlier the one company being a |\n| 22 | representative of Genever, I was referring to |\n| 23 | a company called Shiny Times.
What company |\n| 24 | did you think I was referring to? |\n| 25 | A.
I thought you were referring to Hong |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 351 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Kong, Hong Kong International. |\n| 3 | THE INTERPRETER:
This is a loose |\n| 4 | translation by interpreter. |\n| 5 | Q.
So when I said Shiny Times, you |\n| 6 | didn't think I was talking about Shiny Times, |\n| 7 | the entity that you're here as a corporate |\n| 8 | representative for, you thought I was talking |\n| 9 | about a company called Hong Kong International? |\n| 10 | A.
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q.
And you didn't discuss that issue |\n| 12 | with your counsel during the break? |\n| 13 | MR. HARMON:
Just yes or no.
Okay. |\n| 14 | Thank you. |\n| 15 | A.
No. |\n| 16 | Q.
Did you say earlier, this is another |\n| 17 | clarification, did Zhang Wei provide the funds |\n| 18 | to purchase the Sherry-Netherland apartment? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did Zhang Wei have any involvement |\n| 21 | in your Beijing Pangu Plaza apartment project? |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | Q.
We were talking about Genever |\n| 24 | Holdings LLC, which is the New York company. |\n| 25 | Do you remember that? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 352 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | A.
Hmmm. | |\n| 3 | Q.
Yes? | |\n| | | |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. | |\n| 5 | Q.
Thank you.
And the Genever Holdings | |\n| 6 | LLC owns shares of the Sherry-Netherland and | |\n| 7 | holds the proprietary lease agreement to the | |\n| 8 | apartment on the 18th floor, right? | |\n| 9 | A.
I don't really know. | |\n| 10 | Q.
But generally, do you think of | |\n| 11 | Genever Holdings LLC as the owner of the | |\n| 12 | apartment at the Sherry-Netherland? | |\n| 13 | A.
When you say an English name after | |\n| 14 | you say, I don't remember it.
I just know for | |\n| 15 | this house, the money for which it was | |\n| 16 | purchased was provided by Mr. Zhang Wei. | |\n| 17 | Q.
Does Genever Holdings LLC have any | |\n| 18 | assets? | |\n| 19 | A.
I don't really know.
The names of | |\n| 20 | the companies you're giving me, I'm getting so | |\n| 21 | confused.
I don't understand if it's A, B, or | |\n| 22 | C.
Completely confused. | |\n| 23 | Q.
Does Genever Holdings LLC have any | |\n| 24 | employees? | |\n| 25 | A.
I do not know. | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 353 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|---------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Does Genever Holdings LLC have any |\n| 3 | offices? |\n| 4 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 5 | Q.
Does Genever Holdings LLC have a |\n| 6 | phone number? |\n| 7 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 8 | Q.
Does Genever Holdings LLC have any |\n| 9 | management? |\n| 10 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 11 | Q.
Who would know the answers to these |\n| 12 | questions about Genever Holdings LLC? |\n| 13 | A.
Zhang Wei and his attorneys. |\n| 14 | Q.
Was Paul Weiss his attorney? |\n| 15 | THE INTERPRETER:
I need him to |\n| 16 | repeat the name again. |\n| 17 | A.
I worked for Sherry and have |\n| 18 | attorneys in China and in Hong Kong. |\n| 19 | Q.
You know the law firm Paul Weiss? |\n| 20 | Are you familiar with that firm? |\n| 21 | A.
I have gone there one time, and from |\n| 22 | there on I'm familiar with it. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did they represent Zhang Wei? |\n| 24 | A.
What was represented at that time as |\n| 25 | Sherry was to purchase the house and it was |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 354 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | with the approval of Mr. Zhang Wei. |\n| 3 | THE INTERPRETER:
This is the |\n| 4 | interpreter.
Let me absolutely make sure |\n| 5 | I heard it correctly.
I'll have to ask |\n| 6 | him to repeat that.
I'll repeat it back |\n| 7 | to him and ask him if that's correct. |\n| 8 | A.
Zhang Wei agreed to have Paul Weiss |\n| 9 | as representative to purchase this apartment |\n| 10 | to communicate with the Hong Kong. |\n| 11 | Q.
So Paul Weiss was representing Zhang |\n| 12 | Wei in connection with the purchase of the |\n| 13 | apartment? |\n| 14 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 15 | the question. |\n| 16 | A.
No, it's incorrect.
Zhang Wei never |\n| 17 | directly.
Zhang Wei had me become a |\n| 18 | representative, and then we found this William |\n| 19 | Connolly and Paul Weiss to represent us, to go |\n| 20 | to discuss to purchase this Sherry apartment. |\n| 21 | It was agreed by Mr. Zhang Wei. |\n| 22 | Q.
So Paul Weiss and Williams & |\n| 23 | Connolly were representing you? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
Were they also representing Zhang |\n\n| 1 | | KWOK |\n|----|------------------|------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Wei? | |\n| 3 | A. | The truth in the background -- well, |\n| 4 | | in the background it was Zhang Wei. |\n| 5 | Q. | Did Paul Weiss and Williams & |\n| 6 | | Connolly know that Zhang Wei was in the |\n| 7 | background? | |\n| 8 | A. | I do not remember. |\n| 9 | Q. | Who paid Paul Weiss and Williams & |\n| 10 | Connolly's fees? | |\n| 11 | A. | In the end, it was Mr. Zhang Wei who |\n| 12 | paid it. | |\n| 13 | Q. | Who signed the engagement letter |\n| 14 | | with Paul Weiss and Williams & Connolly? |\n| 15 | A. | I do not know. |\n| 16 | Q. | Does Genever Holdings LLC have any |\n| 17 | | relationship to Shiny Times? |\n| 18 | A. | No. |\n| 19 | Q. | Does Genever Holdings LLC have any |\n| 20 | | relationship to Golden Spring? |\n| 21 | A. | No. |\n| 22 | Q. | Does your son Mileson Kwok have any |\n| 23 | | ownership in Genever Holdings LLC? |\n| 24 | A. | Unsure. |\n| 25 | Q. | Do you know why the structure of |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 356 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | having a New York LLC owned by a British |\n| 3 | Virgin Islands corporation was used to |\n| 4 | purchase the Sherry-Netherland residence? |\n| 5 | A.
It was out of the investment needs |\n| 6 | of Mr. Zhang Wei. |\n| 7 | Q.
What do you mean by the investment |\n| 8 | needs? |\n| 9 | A.
This is how he always did his |\n| 10 | investments.
I don't know why. |\n| 11 | Q.
You mean he always structured them |\n| 12 | through holding companies? |\n| 13 | A.
I didn't say.
He requested to do it |\n| 14 | this way.
I don't know why he did. |\n| 15 | Q.
So my question is a little bit |\n| 16 | different.
You say, \"This is how he always |\n| 17 | did his investments, and I'm trying to |\n| 18 | understand what you mean by \"this.\" |\n| 19 | A.
Did the interpreter say always?
The |\n| 20 | meaning was it was how he requested in this |\n| 21 | way and we did it like that.
My gosh. |\n| 22 | Whatever his decision was, it was his |\n| 23 | decision.
He was investor, so I listened to |\n| 24 | him. |\n| 25 | Q.
Did you have any role in the |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 357 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | decision to structure the purchase this way? |\n| 3 | A.
I play the role of representative. |\n| 4 | Q.
So is the answer yes or no? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
Why did you structure the purchase |\n| 7 | in the way of having a New York LLC buy the |\n| 8 | residence and have a British Virgin Island LLC |\n| 9 | formed that would hold the New York LLC? |\n| 10 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 11 | the question. |\n| 12 | A.
This is at the request of Mr. Zhang |\n| 13 | Wei and his attorneys. |\n| 14 | Q.
Well, I just asked you if you had a |\n| 15 | role in the decision to structure the purchase |\n| 16 | this way and you said yes. |\n| 17 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 18 | the question. |\n| 19 | Q.
So I'm asking you why did you decide |\n| 20 | to structure the purchase this way? |\n| 21 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 22 | the question. |\n| 23 | A.
I don't understand what you're |\n| 24 | asking me.
Why? |\n| 25 | Q.
Yes, why? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 358 of 452\n\n54\n\n 1 KWOK 2 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 3 the question. 4 A. If the attorney is objecting, I'm 5 not going to answer it. 6 MR. HARMON: He can answer this 7 question, if he can. 8 A. Because I'm occasionally living 9 here, I could use it, and I'm a representative 10 and this is a good investment for the whole 11 family. 12 Q. My question was why you structured 13 the purchase through two companies, a New York 14 company and a British Virgin Islands company. 15 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 16 the question. 17 A. I don't really know. 18 Q. Was it to make sure it was difficult 19 to access by creditors? 20 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 21 the question. 22 Please make sure that you interpret 23 my objections. 24 THE INTERPRETER: I did. 25 MR. HARMON: Thank you.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 359 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
Completely ridiculous. |\n| 3 | Q.
In this lawsuit, are you aware that |\n| 4 | your lawyers have filed papers on your behalf |\n| 5 | with the court? |\n| 6 | A.
Of course I do. |\n| 7 | Q.
And those papers obviously are in |\n| 8 | English, not Chinese, right? |\n| 9 | A.
I think so. |\n| 10 | Q.
And so I take it you're not able to |\n| 11 | review those papers before they're filed? |\n| 12 | A.
Of course. |\n| 13 | Q.
Do you receive a Chinese translation |\n| 14 | of those papers that are filed with the court |\n| 15 | before they're filed? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Q.
Do you do anything to review the |\n| 18 | papers before they're filed to ensure that |\n| 19 | they're accurate? |\n| 20 | A.
I will ask, and the attorneys would |\n| 21 | talk to me about it orally.
My assistant |\n| 22 | would also speak to me orally about it. |\n| 23 | Q.
Who is your assistant? |\n| 24 | A.
We're together, Eva Wang, Wang Yan |\n| 25 | Ping. |\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 361 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | trying to refresh you on the timing. |\n| 3 | A.
My recollection of time is very |\n| 4 | inaccurate.
I do not remember. |\n| 5 | Q.
Was Zhang Wei in jail at the time he |\n| 6 | was applying to purchase the Sherry-Netherland |\n| 7 | Hotel apartment? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
Are you aware that my client has |\n| 10 | argued to the Court about a YouTube video? |\n| 11 | A.
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q.
And you're aware that whoever posted |\n| 13 | that video has represented that it was a tape |\n| 14 | of you having a conversation? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 16 | the question. |\n| 17 | A.
I don't understand the things you're |\n| 18 | saying. |\n| 19 | Q.
Have you ever heard that YouTube |\n| 20 | video? |\n| 21 | A.
Me, so many of them, thousands, |\n| 22 | hundreds of thousands of them.
I don't know |\n| 23 | which one you're referring to. |\n| 24 | Q.
I'm referring to the one -- do you |\n| 25 | understand that I'm referring to the one that |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 362 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | we talked about earlier, two minutes ago, that | |\n| 3 | Pacific Alliance argued about to the court in | |\n| 4 | this case? | |\n| 5 | A.
I don't know. | |\n| 6 | Di
MR. HARMON:
This is beyond the | |\n| 7 | scope of what we believe is appropriate | |\n| 8 | for attachment discovery, and I'm going to | |\n| 9 | direct the witness not to answer further | |\n| 10 | questions about it. | |\n| 11 | Q.
Are you aware, Mr. Kwok, that in a | |\n| 12 | brief in this case that was signed by | |\n| 13 | Mr. Harmon and Ms. Searles, they argued on | |\n| 14 | your behalf that Pacific Alliance's assertion | |\n| 15 | that the voices in this YouTube video were not | |\n| 16 | proven? | |\n| 17 | DI
MR. HARMON:
This is beyond the | |\n| 18 | scope of what we believe to be appropriate | |\n| 19 | discovery on attachment, and I'm going to | |\n| 20 | direct the witness not to answer further | |\n| 21 | questions on the subject. | |\n| 22 | THE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter, | |\n| 23 | before I interpreted, he said: | |\n| 24 | A.
Refuse to answer. | |\n| 25 | Q.
Was it your voice on the YouTube | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 363 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | video? | |\n| 3 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same | |\n| 4 | direction. | |\n| 5 | A.
Refuse to answer. | |\n| 6 | MR. MOSS:
I'm going to mark as -- | |\n| 7 | what exhibit are we? | |\n| 8 | Actually, could we just go off the | |\n| 9 | record for a second? | |\n| 10 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now off the | |\n| 11 | record, the time is 11:43 a.m. | |\n| 12 | (Discussion held off the record.) | |\n| 13 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now back on | |\n| 14 | the record.
The time is 11:44 a.m. | |\n| 15 | (Kwok Exhibit 2, Printout from | |\n| 16 | YouTube, marked for identification, as of | |\n| 17 | this date.) | |\n| 18 | BY MR. MOSS: | |\n| 19 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, you've been handed | |\n| 20 | Exhibit 2, which is a printout from YouTube | |\n| 21 | and it's entitled \"Guo Wengui (Kwok Miles) is | |\n| 22 | planning to sell his private jet and yacht.\" | |\n| 23 | I'd just like to put on the record that | |\n| 24 | Pacific Alliance cited to this YouTube video | |\n| 25 | in its attachment motion, and that in | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 364 of 452\n\n60\n\n 1 KWOK 2 opposition to its attachment motion Mr. Kwok 3 filed a brief dated May 16, 2018, and relating 4 to this issue on page 15, the brief reads as 5 follows: 6 \"Yet Frances,\" who is PAX's 7 investigator, \"offers no proof beyond his own 8 assertion that the voices are those of Kwok 9 and his associates or that Kwok or anyone 10 associated with him uploaded the audio 11 recording in question, and there is 12 substantial reason to question both the 13 authenticity of the audio and the motives 14 behind the individual or entity who uploaded 15 it and represented that it was, in fact, Kwok 16 making the statements in question.\" 17 Now I'm going play the audio. 18 (Whereupon, an audio/video is 19 played.) 20 THE WITNESS: I refuse to listen. 21 I'm not going to listen. 22 Q. Sorry, Mr. Kwok, were you covering 23 your ears? 24 A. This is all communist. Everything 25 here is all communist. Unless you prove this\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 365 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 2 | is not communist, then I will listen.
They | | | |\n| 3 | have recorded over a million of tax audios, | | | |\n| 4 | videos that are fake.
Unless you could prove | | | |\n| 5 | this is real, otherwise I will not listen to | | | |\n| 6 | it.
What relationship is this to me?
Unless | | | |\n| 7 | you could prove this is what I have said, that | | | |\n| 8 | this is my words, my audio, my video, then I | | | |\n| 9 | will listen to it. | | | |\n| 10 | Q.
You refuse to listen to the video? | | | |\n| 11 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I object on the same | | | |\n| 12 | basis and direct the witness not to answer | | | |\n| 13 | the
question. | | | |\n| 14 | A.
I have a sensation of committing | | | |\n| 15 | suicide if you're going play that.
This is | | | |\n| 16 | communist.
Very simple.
There is like a | | | |\n| 17 | number of place that the communist that have | | | |\n| 18 | been proven by the FBI to be fake.
So you | | | |\n| 19 | want me to commit suicide?
Are you here to | | | |\n| 20 | kill me?
I here seriously declare for all the | | | |\n| 21 | videos that you would show as outside the | | | |\n| 22 | parameters that's causing me mental distress, | | | |\n| 23 | I will reserve my right to sue.
I like my | | | |\n| 24 | attorney to note I reserve my right of the | | | |\n| 25 | personal attacks by the other party against | | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 366 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | me, and I like to ask for the authenticity of | | |\n| 3 | this documents with a person's authenticity. | | |\n| 4 | I like to request an investigation of it.
I'm | | |\n| 5 | done. | | |\n| 6 | Q.
So, Mr. Kwok, you will not answer | | |\n| 7 | any questions about the video? | | |\n| 8 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same | | |\n| 9 | direction.
Beyond the scope of what I | | |\n| 10 | believe appropriate to ask in discovery. | | |\n| 11 | A.
I believe this is humiliation, these | | |\n| 12 | are threats and will need to pay | | |\n| 13 | responsibility for these actions. | | |\n| 14 | MR. MOSS:
Please let the record | | |\n| 15 | reflect that when Mr. Kwok asked me to | | |\n| 16 | stop playing the video, I stopped playing | | |\n| 17 | the video.
I will not play it anymore. | | |\n| 18 | I note that Mr. Harmon has objected | | |\n| 19 | to this line of questioning and instructed | | |\n| 20 | Mr. Kwok not to answer any questions about | | |\n| 21 | this video. | | |\n| 22 | I have that right, right, | | |\n| 23 | Mr. Harmon? | | |\n| 24 | MR. HARMON:
I'm sorry? | | |\n| 25 | MR. MOSS:
I got it right?
You're | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 367 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|--|\n| 2 | instructing -- | |\n| 3 | MR. HARMON:
I thought you said you | |\n| 4 | I have that right, as opposed to it's my | |\n| 5 | right to something. | |\n| 6 | MR. MOSS:
Fair enough.
I'm | |\n| 7 | correct, you're instructing the witness -- | |\n| 8 | MR. HARMON:
I'm instructing the | |\n| 9 | witness not to answer the questions for | |\n| 10 | the reasons I've already stated on the | |\n| 11 | record. | |\n| 12 | Q.
What is Golden Spring New York Ltd.? | |\n| 13 | A.
It is Hong Kong Golden Spring, a | |\n| 14 | company that they have expanded in New York. | |\n| 15 | Q.
Who is \"they\"? | |\n| 16 | A.
Hong Kong Golden Spring. | |\n| 17 | Q.
Who owns Golden Spring New York? | |\n| 18 | A.
Hong Kong Golden Spring owns. | |\n| 19 | Q.
Who owns Hong Kong Golden Spring? | |\n| 20 | A.
Guo Qiang. | |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
G-U-O, Q-I-A-N-G, | |\n| 22 | phonetic spelling. | |\n| 23 | Q.
Is Guo Qiang a family member of | |\n| 24 | yours? | |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 368 of 452\n\n| 1 | | KWOK |\n|----|------------|--------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q. | What is the relation? |\n| 3 | A. | My son. |\n| 4 | Q. | Do you have any ownership interest |\n| 5 | | in Golden Spring Hong Kong? |\n| 6 | A. | No. |\n| 7 | Q. | Is Guo Qiang the same son as Mileson |\n| 8 | | or is it a different son? |\n| 9 | A. | It's the same person. |\n| 10 | Q. | Do you have any ownership interest |\n| 11 | | in Golden Spring New York? |\n| 12 | A. | No. |\n| 13 | Q. | So Golden Spring is owned by your |\n| 14 | son? | |\n| 15 | A. | My son also represents the family in |\n| 16 | owning it. | |\n| 17 | Q. | Does the son represent you in owning |\n| 18 | it? | |\n| 19 | A. | No. |\n| 20 | Q. | Your son represents other family |\n| 21 | | members in owning it? |\n| 22 | A. | Yes. |\n| 23 | Q. | Does your son represent Zhang Wei in |\n| 24 | | owning Golden Spring? |\n| 25 | A. | Yes. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 369 of 452\n\n65\n\n 1 KWOK 2 Q. Is your son the sole shareholder of 3 Golden Spring? 4 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 5 the question. 6 A. I'm not really sure. 7 Q. Do you know of any other 8 shareholders of Golden Spring? 9 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 10 the question. 11 A. I'm not sure. I don't know. 12 Q. Does Golden Spring have any 13 directors? 14 MR. HARMON: Object to the form of 15 the question. 16 A. I'm not sure. 17 MR. MOSS: Mark, what's wrong, you 18 don't like that I'm not using one of the 19 entities? 20 MR. HARMON: I don't know which 21 entity -- 22 MR. MOSS: Hong Kong or New York? 23 MR. HARMON: I don't know which one 24 you're talking about, or both. 25 Q. Do any of the Golden Spring entities\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 370 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | have employees? |\n| 3 | A.
Yes, there are employees. |\n| 4 | Q.
Are there employees in the New York |\n| 5 | Golden Spring? |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
What business is Golden Spring in? |\n| 8 | A.
Invest in real estate, media. |\n| 9 | Q.
What role, if any, do you have for |\n| 10 | Golden Spring New York? |\n| 11 | A.
I'm consultant. |\n| 12 | Q.
What do you do as consultant? |\n| 13 | A.
Their haven't, give advice. |\n| 14 | Q.
Does Golden Spring New York have any |\n| 15 | relationship with Genever Holdings |\n| 16 | Corporation? |\n| 17 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 18 | the question.
You can answer. |\n| 19 | A.
No. |\n| 20 | Q.
Does Golden Spring New York have any |\n| 21 | relationship with Genever Holdings LLC? |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 23 | the question. |\n| 24 | A.
No. |\n| 25 | Q.
Does Golden Spring Hong Kong have a |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 371 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | relationship with either of the Genever |\n| 3 | companies? |\n| 4 | A.
No. |\n| 5 | Q.
Does Shiny Times New York maintain |\n| 6 | its offices at 800 Fifth Avenue? |\n| 7 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 8 | Q.
Do you know whether or not Shiny |\n| 9 | Times has a lease for offices in New York City |\n| 10 | with a company called Urbana Properties? |\n| 11 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 12 | Q.
Do you know whether or not Golden |\n| 13 | Spring was ever late on any lease payments for |\n| 14 | its offices? |\n| 15 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 16 | Q.
Does Yvette have any role with |\n| 17 | Golden Spring? |\n| 18 | A.
CEO. |\n| 19 | Q.
Any other role? |\n| 20 | A.
I'm not really sure. |\n| 21 | Q.
Is she the president? |\n| 22 | A.
Yes, I think so. |\n| 23 | Q.
Have certain of your assets been |\n| 24 | seized by the Chinese government? |\n| 25 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Again, I think that |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 372 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | this is an area that's beyond the scope of |\n| 3 | discovery and direct the witness not to |\n| 4 | answer. |\n| 5 | MR. MOSS:
Have you seen the |\n| 6 | agreement that we have on the scope of |\n| 7 | discovery? |\n| 8 | MR. HARMON:
Yes.
But if you have a |\n| 9 | question about it, I'm happy to discuss it |\n| 10 | with you. |\n| 11 | MR. MOSS:
Sure.
So the agreement |\n| 12 | on the scope of discovery relates to |\n| 13 | discovery of Mr. Kwok's New York assets, |\n| 14 | and I'm asking him a general question |\n| 15 | about whether or not assets outside the |\n| 16 | U.S. have been seized by the Chinese |\n| 17 | government. |\n| 18 | MR. HARMON:
I understand that.
So |\n| 19 | there's an agreement regarding asking |\n| 20 | about New York assets? |\n| 21 | MR. MOSS:
Right, yes. |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
There's an agreement |\n| 23 | that was reached about asking about New |\n| 24 | York assets.
There was no agreement |\n| 25 | reached one way or the other, and I am |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 373 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | asserting that the scope of the discovery |\n| 3 | does not reach that far and I'm directing |\n| 4 | him not to answer. |\n| 5 | MR. MOSS:
Okay.
Perfect. |\n| 6 | Let's mark. |\n| 7 | (Kwok Exhibit 3, Federal Court |\n| 8 | Complaint, marked for identification, as |\n| 9 | of this date.) |\n| 10 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 11 | A.
What is this? |\n| 12 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, Exhibit 3 is a Complaint |\n| 13 | that was filed in Federal Court in New York |\n| 14 | City in May of 2018 by you and Pacific |\n| 15 | Alliance Investment Company and Beijing Zenith |\n| 16 | Holdings Company against Zheng, Z-H-E-N-G, |\n| 17 | W-U, a/k/a Bruno Wu. |\n| 18 | A.
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q.
Are you aware that you filed a |\n| 20 | lawsuit against Mr. Wu? |\n| 21 | A.
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q.
Did you review this Complaint to |\n| 23 | make sure that it was accurate? |\n| 24 | MR. HARMON:
I'm going to -- |\n| 25 | A.
I refuse to answer. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 374 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I'm going assert the |\n| 3 | same objection and the same direction. |\n| 4 | Q.
Do you have any doubt that the |\n| 5 | information in this complaint that you filed |\n| 6 | in federal court is accurate? |\n| 7 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same |\n| 8 | direction. |\n| 9 | Q.
I'd like to direct your attention to |\n| 10 | paragraph 56, page 11.
I'm just going to read |\n| 11 | into the record the allegation that \"On or |\n| 12 | around January 28, 2015, Chinese |\n| 13 | authorities -- |\n| 14 | MR. HARMON:
Sorry.
Where are you |\n| 15 | reading from? |\n| 16 | MR. SARNOFF:
Bottom of page 13. |\n| 17 | MR. MOSS:
Paragraph 56, page 13. |\n| 18 | MR. HARMON:
I thought you said 11. |\n| 19 | MR. MOSS:
I did.
I'm sorry. |\n| 20 | Q.
\"On or around January 28, 2015, |\n| 21 | Chinese authorities, acting at the direction |\n| 22 | of Defendant Wu'S co-conspirators, began |\n| 23 | seizing the plaintiff companies' assets.\" |\n| 24 | THE INTERPRETER:
Before I |\n| 25 | interpreted: |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 375 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
I refuse to listen.
This is not |\n| 3 | related to anything today.
I refuse to read |\n| 4 | it or listen to it. |\n| 5 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I want to make clear |\n| 6 | that it's at my direction, not his choice, |\n| 7 | not solely his choice, but also at my |\n| 8 | direction. |\n| 9 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, are you refusing to answer |\n| 10 | my questions about this document based on your |\n| 11 | own choice? |\n| 12 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I am directing him not |\n| 13 | to answer the questions -- |\n| 14 | MR. MOSS:
Can you let him get a |\n| 15 | translation? |\n| 16 | MR. HARMON:
I am making a statement |\n| 17 | for the record, please. |\n| 18 | MR. MOSS:
I know you're trying to |\n| 19 | testify. |\n| 20 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I'm not trying to |\n| 21 | testify.
I'm trying to make an objection |\n| 22 | for the record. |\n| 23 | I object for the same reasons we've |\n| 24 | already discussed and I direct the witness |\n| 25 | not to answer. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 376 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
So the question is:
Mr. Kwok, are |\n| 3 | you refusing to answer my questions about this |\n| 4 | document based on your own choice? |\n| 5 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same |\n| 6 | direction. |\n| 7 | A.
I refuse to answer. |\n| 8 | MR. MOSS:
And, Mr. Harmon, you're |\n| 9 | instructing him not to answer that |\n| 10 | question? |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
I am. |\n| 12 | Q.
Is it true that in or around late |\n| 13 | January and early February 2015 the Chinese |\n| 14 | government seized the assets of Beijing Zenith |\n| 15 | Holdings Company? |\n| 16 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same |\n| 17 | direction. |\n| 18 | A.
I refuse to answer. |\n| 19 | Q.
When did you learn about the asset |\n| 20 | seizures of Zenith? |\n| 21 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same |\n| 22 | direction. |\n| 23 | THE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter not |\n| 24 | having interpreted yet.
The response was: |\n| 25 | A.
I refuse to answer. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 377 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
When did you learn that the assets |\n| 3 | of Beijing Pangu were seized by the Chinese |\n| 4 | government as alleged in this complaint? |\n| 5 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same |\n| 6 | direction. |\n| 7 | A.
Refusal to answer. |\n| 8 | Q.
Did you provide financial |\n| 9 | information from Beijing Zenith Holdings |\n| 10 | Company Ltd. to the Sherry-Netherland in |\n| 11 | connection with the application to purchase |\n| 12 | the apartment in 2015? |\n| 13 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did you know -- |\n| 15 | (Kwok Exhibit 4, Letter with |\n| 16 | attached financial information, marked for |\n| 17 | identification, as of this date.) |\n| 18 | A.
What is this thing? |\n| 19 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, this is a document that's |\n| 20 | been marked Exhibit 4.
It's a February 27, |\n| 21 | 2015, letter to the board of directors of the |\n| 22 | Sherry-Netherland regarding the application of |\n| 23 | Mr. Kwok Ho Wan, Bates stamped SN 0058.
Then |\n| 24 | there's an attachment and there's also a |\n| 25 | letter from Williams & Connolly with its own |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 378 of 452\n\n74\n\n 1 KWOK 2 attachment. 3 Mr. Kwok, this letter states, from 4 Paul Weiss, \"We act as local real estate 5 counsel for Mr. Kwok Ho Wan, an applicant to 6 become a shareholder tenant at the 7 Sherry-Netherland.\" 8 Were you an applicant to become a 9 shared tenant at the Sherry-Netherland? 10 A. I -- I completely don't remember. I 11 don't even remember me seeing this document. 12 I have not seen it. 13 Q. So the question is whether or not 14 you were an applicant to become a shareholder 15 or tenant at the Sherry-Netherland in February 16 of 2015. 17 A. I did not apply. But this thing I 18 don't remember. I don't remember seeing this. 19 MR. MOSS: Sorry. He said, \"I did 20 not apply?\" 21 THE INTERPRETER: I believe so. I 22 can clarify with him. 23 A. I know that they have been applying, 24 but I did not see this document. 25 Q. But you believe you were the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 379 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | applicant? |\n| 3 | A.
I do not have any ideas about me |\n| 4 | believing or not.
I don't have these ideas. |\n| 5 | Q.
To your knowledge, did anyone at |\n| 6 | Paul Weiss or Williams & Connolly or anyone |\n| 7 | acting on your behalf or Zhang Wei's behalf |\n| 8 | tell the Sherry-Netherland that Zhang Wei was |\n| 9 | involved in this purchase? |\n| 10 | MR. HARMON:
Asked and answered.
At |\n| 11 | this time a third time that you've asked |\n| 12 | that question.
I'll let him answer it |\n| 13 | again. |\n| 14 | THE INTERPRETER:
To your knowledge, |\n| 15 | Paul Weiss, William Connolly, represent to |\n| 16 | Sherry-Netherland that Zhang Wei was an |\n| 17 | applicant?
Is that the question? |\n| 18 | Q.
To your knowledge, did anyone at |\n| 19 | Paul Weiss or Williams and Connolly or anyone |\n| 20 | acting on your behalf or Zhang Wei's behalf |\n| 21 | tell the Sherry-Netherland that Zhang Wei was |\n| 22 | involved in this purchase? |\n| 23 | MR. HARMON:
And please make sure |\n| 24 | you translate my objection to the witness, |\n| 25 | as well. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 380 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
I complete don't -- I don't |\n| 3 | remember. |\n| 4 | Q.
Did you authorize Paul Weiss and |\n| 5 | Williams & Connolly to communicate with the |\n| 6 | Sherry-Netherland on your behalf? |\n| 7 | A.
I don't remember. |\n| 8 | Q.
Do you have any reason to doubt that |\n| 9 | you authorized Paul Weiss and Williams and |\n| 10 | Connolly to communicate with the |\n| 11 | Sherry-Netherland on your behalf? |\n| 12 | A.
I don't quite understand what you |\n| 13 | mean. |\n| 14 | Q.
Why don't you take a look, please, |\n| 15 | at SN 0060.
And I will represent, Mr. Kwok, |\n| 16 | that this is a document that says Consolidated |\n| 17 | Balance Sheet for December 31, 2014, of |\n| 18 | Beijing Zenith Holdings Company and that this |\n| 19 | was provided by Paul Weiss to the |\n| 20 | Sherry-Netherland. |\n| 21 | A.
I do not know. |\n| 22 | Q.
You don't remember that Beijing |\n| 23 | Zenith Holdings financials was presented to |\n| 24 | the Sherry-Netherland board in connection with |\n| 25 | your application? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 381 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 382 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 383 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 3 | You know, I'm sorry, my leg and my |\n| | |\n| 4 | shoulder, because previously in prison I was |\n| 5 | beaten, I'm in great pain.
It was in '89. |\n| 6 | Q.
Do you want to take a break? |\n| 7 | A.
No, I'm just letting you know when |\n| 8 | I'm in pain, I have to move, so please |\n| 9 | don't -- you know, I like to just sit there |\n| 10 | and not move, but then, because the pain, I |\n| 11 | have to constantly move.
Usually when I'm in |\n| 12 | the office I'm always standing, I'm not |\n| 13 | sitting. |\n| 14 | Q.
As I said earlier, if at any time |\n| 15 | you need a break for as long as you need, just |\n| 16 | please tell me and I'm happy to -- |\n| 17 | A.
Thank you, sir.
But you know what? |\n| 18 | Right now I'd really like to sleep.
I haven't |\n| 19 | been sleeping for two days. |\n| 20 | Q.
Me too. |\n| 21 | A.
You are very successfully abusing me |\n| 22 | on behalf of CCP. |\n| 23 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, did you know, at the time |\n| 24 | this Beijing Zenith Holdings balance sheet was |\n| 25 | submitted to the Sherry-Netherland that |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 384 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Beijing Zenith Holdings' assets had been |\n| 3 | frozen by the Chinese government? |\n| 4 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 5 | the question. |\n| 6 | A.
I refuse to answer. |\n| 7 | MR. HARMON:
You can answer this one |\n| 8 | if you understand the question. |\n| 9 | A.
In that case, I know.
Yes. |\n| 10 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, I'm now -- I know you |\n| 11 | can't follow along with me, but I'm now |\n| 12 | turning to page SN 0063, which had is the |\n| 13 | Williams Connolly document, and Williams |\n| 14 | Connolly writes to the board of the |\n| 15 | Sherry-Netherland that \"Mr. Kwok is eager to |\n| 16 | become a resident at the Sherry, but also |\n| 17 | feels keenly the need for confidentiality |\n| 18 | regarding his business and financial affairs.\" |\n| 19 | Do you recall that Williams & |\n| 20 | Connolly made that representation to the |\n| 21 | Sherry-Netherland on your behalf? |\n| 22 | A.
I do not know with this letter. |\n| 23 | Q.
Did you communicate to anyone that |\n| 24 | there was a strong need to maintain |\n| 25 | confidentiality around your financials and |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 385 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | business affairs? |\n| 3 | A.
No. |\n| 4 | Q.
And are aware that the Williams & |\n| 5 | Connolly letter on page SN 0062 also |\n| 6 | represented that you, Mr. Kwok, were the one |\n| 7 | who was applying to become a shareholder |\n| 8 | tenant? |\n| 9 | A.
I don't remember. |\n| 10 | Q.
What is Bravo Luck? |\n| 11 | A.
I think Bravo Luck -- I think Bravo |\n| 12 | Luck is a company that is -- has some relation |\n| 13 | to Mr. Zhang Wei, but I'm not really sure. |\n| 14 | When you say English, I become confused. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you have any relation to Bravo |\n| 16 | Luck? |\n| 17 | A.
I really don't know. |\n| 18 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now off the |\n| 19 | record.
The time is 12:25 p.m. |\n| 20 | (Luncheon recess taken at 12:25 |\n| 21 | p.m.) |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
This marks the |\n| 24 | beginning of Tape Number 3 in the |\n| 25 | deposition of Mr. Miles Kwok.
We're now |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 386 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | back on the record.
The time is |\n| 3 | 12:57 p.m. |\n| 4 | (Kwok Exhibit 5, UBS Hong Kong |\n| 5 | statement for Bravo Luck Limited entitled |\n| 6 | Debit Advice, marked for identification, |\n| 7 | as of this date.) |\n| 8 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 9 | Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. |\n| 10 | A.
Good afternoon everybody. |\n| 11 | Q.
Thank you.
I have handed you -- the |\n| 12 | court reporter has handed you Exhibit 5, which |\n| 13 | is a statement entitled Debit Advice from UBS |\n| 14 | in Hong Kong for Bravo Luck Limited, and it's |\n| 15 | Bates stamped Kwok 510, and it was produced by |\n| 16 | your counsel to us in this case, Mr. Kwok. |\n| 17 | Bravo Luck Limited is a company |\n| 18 | owned by Zhang Wei? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
You have no ownership interest in |\n| 21 | Bravo Luck Limited? |\n| 22 | A.
I do not remember having any. |\n| 23 | Q.
You don't remember having any |\n| 24 | interest in Bravo Luck Limited at any time, |\n| 25 | right? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 387 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
I do not remember. |\n| 3 | Q.
Sitting here today, you believe you |\n| 4 | never had an interest in Bravo Luck Limited? |\n| 5 | A.
I really truly don't remember |\n| 6 | because I can't read this document and I don't |\n| 7 | remember this Bravo Luck Limited.
I'm sorry, |\n| 8 | I don't know. |\n| 9 | Q.
This document says that it's in |\n| 10 | favor of Ivey Barnum & O'Mara LLC.
Do you |\n| 11 | know who that is? |\n| 12 | A.
What is that?
Where is that? |\n| 13 | Q.
Well, it's in the middle of the |\n| 14 | document. |\n| 15 | A.
What is that called?
I don't know. |\n| 16 | Q.
I'll tell you, Mr. Kwok, based on my |\n| 17 | rudimentary Google searches it's a law firm in |\n| 18 | Connecticut.
Does that refresh your |\n| 19 | recollection? |\n| 20 | A.
I really don't know.
Where is |\n| 21 | Connecticut?
Is it in Hong Kong? |\n| 22 | Q.
It's very close to here.
It's close |\n| 23 | to New York. |\n| 24 | A.
Oh.
I don't know. |\n| 25 | Q.
Is Bravo Luck Limited the entity |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 388 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 389 of 452\n\n| 1 | | KWOK |\n|----|------------------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | | was your real estate broker? |\n| 3 | A. | Yes.
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q. | And was the apartment purchased from |\n| 5 | Gilbert Haroche? | |\n| 6 | A. | I don't know who that person is. |\n| 7 | Q. | Do you know who the owner of the |\n| 8 | | apartment was before Zhang Wei and you |\n| 9 | purchased it? | |\n| 10 | | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 11 | | the question. |\n| 12 | A. | I really can't remember.
I do not |\n| 13 | know. | |\n| 14 | Q. | Did you negotiate the price, you |\n| 15 | | personally negotiate the price with the |\n| 16 | seller? | |\n| 17 | A. | No. |\n| 18 | Q. | Did Zhang Wei negotiate with the |\n| 19 | seller? | |\n| 20 | A. | I do not know. |\n| 21 | Q. | Do you know who did negotiate on |\n| 22 | | behalf of the purchaser with the seller? |\n| 23 | A. | I was one among many.
There was |\n| 24 | | Zhang Wei's attorney and the employee or |\n| 25 | | employees of his office.
Many people.
I was |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 390 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the only one who did not speak English.
All |\n| 3 | the other ones spoke English. |\n| 4 | Q.
When the application was submitted |\n| 5 | to the Sherry-Netherland for you to live in |\n| 6 | the apartment, did you intend to live in New |\n| 7 | York permanently? |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
Can did you ever tell anyone at the |\n| 10 | Sherry-Netherland that you intended to make |\n| 11 | New York City your home and your family's |\n| 12 | home? |\n| 13 | A.
I don't remember. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did you ever tell anyone at the |\n| 15 | Sherry-Netherland that you planned to spend |\n| 16 | about six to nine months at the residence in |\n| 17 | New York? |\n| 18 | A.
I don't remember that. |\n| 19 | Q.
Did you ever tell anyone at the |\n| 20 | Sherry-Netherland that they needed to review |\n| 21 | your application very quickly or else you |\n| 22 | would pull your application and no longer be |\n| 23 | interested? |\n| 24 | A.
No. |\n| 25 | Q.
Did you ever mention anything to the |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 391 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Sherry-Netherland regarding Feng Shui? |\n| 3 | A.
I don't -- well, definitely I |\n| 4 | mention Feng Shui, but I don't remember who I |\n| 5 | said it to.
My English competency level is |\n| 6 | not enough for me to communicate with anybody. |\n| 7 | Q.
Did there come a time when the |\n| 8 | apartment was placed on the market to sell? |\n| 9 | A.
Oh, I think it was 2016 or 2013 |\n| 10 | because Mr. Zhang Wei, he had been arrested, |\n| 11 | in prison, was not able to get in touch with |\n| 12 | him, and so his attorney said that it should |\n| 13 | be placed onto the market to be sold.
Hold |\n| 14 | on, hold on.
Oh, because Mr. Zhang Wei, when |\n| 15 | he was imprisoned, he had come back one time |\n| 16 | and had said to his attorney to place it on to |\n| 17 | the market. |\n| 18 | Q.
Does October of 2015 sound right? |\n| 19 | A.
This I don't remember. |\n| 20 | Q.
Who was Zhang Wei's attorney to whom |\n| 21 | you communicated about this? |\n| 22 | A.
Hong Kong, Attorney Lao. |\n| 23 | THE INTERPRETER:
L-A-O. |\n| 24 | A.
Eric Zheng. |\n| 25 | THE INTERPRETER:
Z-H-E-N-G. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 392 of 452\n\n88\n\n 1 KWOK 2 A. I don't remember. And there were 3 two others I don't remember. I would never 4 have contact with them. It was just their 5 assistant or assistants. Their office had 6 contact. 7 Q. Do you know if Eric and the others 8 were members of a law firm? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Do you know what law firm? 11 A. I just remember Steven. Other than 12 that, I do not remember. 13 MR. MOSS: Can you mark Exhibit 6, 14 please. 15 (Kwok Exhibit 6, Realtor.com 16 printout, marked for identification, as of 17 this date.) 18 BY MR. MOSS: 19 A. What is this again? 20 Q. Mr. Kwok, before we get to that 21 document, does Stevenson, Wong & Company sound 22 like the right law firm? 23 A. I just think Steven is right. But 24 what company or law firm, I'm not sure. 25 Q. So now you have Exhibit 6, and on\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 393 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the first page it says, \"Fall in love with the |\n| 3 | most popular homes of September.\"
This is a |\n| 4 | document from Realtor.com, and it's dated |\n| 5 | October 7, 2015, on the first page. |\n| 6 | A.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q.
And it lists the Sherry-Netherland, |\n| 8 | 18th floor, for \\$85 million on the second |\n| 9 | page. |\n| 10 | A.
Okay. |\n| 11 | Q.
Does that refresh your recollection |\n| 12 | that it was around October 2015 when the |\n| 13 | apartment was first put up for sale? |\n| 14 | A.
Yes, around that time.
And I know |\n| 15 | about this selling price too, and I know why |\n| 16 | it's that price too. |\n| 17 | Q.
Why was it that price? |\n| 18 | A.
Because Mr. Zhang Wei has this |\n| 19 | mistaken notion -- |\n| 20 | THE INTERPRETER:
This is |\n| 21 | interpreter.
My mind is not working with |\n| 22 | numbers, so he's giving the numbers. |\n| 23 | A.
To purchase the house is 67.5 million, |\n| 24 | and then pay 6 million in taxes, and also pay |\n| 25 | 3 million in maintenance, the guarantee, and |\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 395 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 396 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 397 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 398 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 399 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | seriousness of the seller. |\n| 3 | A.
I don't understand.
I don't know. |\n| 4 | Q.
Do you know how Ms. Sloan got the |\n| 5 | impression that the seller was serious about |\n| 6 | selling the apartment? |\n| 7 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 8 | the question. |\n| 9 | A.
I don't understand. |\n| 10 | Q.
When Ms. Sloan refers to the seller, |\n| 11 | do you have an understanding of who she's |\n| 12 | referring to? |\n| 13 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 14 | the question. |\n| 15 | A.
I don't understand your question |\n| 16 | either. |\n| 17 | Q.
Do you think Ms. Sloan views you as |\n| 18 | the seller of the apartment? |\n| 19 | A.
Absolutely not. |\n| 20 | Q.
Who does Ms. Sloan believe is the |\n| 21 | owner of the apartment? |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 23 | the question. |\n| 24 | A.
Of course she knows it's not me. |\n| 25 | Q.
Who does she think it is?
If you |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 400 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 401 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 402 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
He is the fund with Zhang Wei. |\n| 3 | Q.
When you say financial advisor, to |\n| 4 | whom does he provide financial advisory |\n| 5 | services? |\n| 6 | A.
Zhang Wei and Zhang Wei family. |\n| 7 | Q.
Does William Je provide any services |\n| 8 | to you? |\n| 9 | A.
No. |\n| 10 | Q.
Where does he live? |\n| 11 | A.
Home is in Hong Kong. |\n| 12 | Q.
Does he ever come to New York? |\n| 13 | A.
I don't know.
You could ask him. |\n| 14 | Q.
In October -- excuse me.
In April |\n| 15 | of 2018, did you meet with Ms. Sloan and sign |\n| 16 | a document authorizing her to lower the price |\n| 17 | from 78 to 68 million? |\n| 18 | A.
I think there is such a thing. |\n| 19 | Q.
You remember? |\n| 20 | A.
I think there was such a thing, but |\n| 21 | I can't a hundred percent guarantee it. |\n| 22 | Because it's in English, I can't read it, but |\n| 23 | I think I recollect such a thing. |\n| 24 | Q.
You remember meeting with Ms. Sloan |\n| 25 | and signing a document around the time the |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 403 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|--------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | price was lowered from 78 to 68 million? |\n| 3 | THE INTERPRETER:
Before I |\n| 4 | interpreted, he said: |\n| 5 | A.
I have this impression, but I don't |\n| 6 | remember it. |\n| 7 | Q.
Do you remember anything that |\n| 8 | happened at that meeting with Ms. Sloan? |\n| 9 | A.
I do not. |\n| 10 | Q.
Whose decision was it to lower the |\n| 11 | price from 78 to 68 million? |\n| 12 | A.
Mr. Zhang Wei. |\n| 13 | Q.
And how was that communicated to |\n| 14 | you? |\n| 15 | A.
It was Xu Ang Yang who told me. |\n| 16 | Q.
Has the apartment been on the market |\n| 17 | continuously since October of 2015? |\n| 18 | A.
I think so. |\n| 19 | Q.
You don't remember ever taking it |\n| 20 | off the market? |\n| 21 | A.
I don't remember. |\n| 22 | Q.
Are there any active discussions now |\n| 23 | with any purchasers? |\n| 24 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 25 | Q.
Who would know that? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 404 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | A.
I think Cathy would know that. |\n| 3 | Q.
Have any purchasers ever -- |\n| 4 | potential purchasers ever made offers below |\n| 5 | what was then the asking price? |\n| 6 | A.
No. |\n| 7 | Q.
There have never been any |\n| 8 | negotiations where somebody has put in a bid |\n| 9 | and you've gone back and forth on price? |\n| 10 | A.
No. |\n| 11 | Q.
Has anyone ever made an offer for a |\n| 12 | certain dollar figure? |\n| 13 | A.
No. |\n| 14 | Q.
Did you ever get an offer for |\n| 15 | \\$60 million? |\n| 16 | A.
No. |\n| 17 | Q.
Did you ever get any offer that |\n| 18 | Ms. Sloan advised you to consider seriously? |\n| 19 | A.
I don't remember. |\n| 20 | Q.
Did you ever tell Ms. Sloan to |\n| 21 | pursue an aggressive marketing strategy for |\n| 22 | the apartment? |\n| 23 | A.
No. |\n| 24 | Q.
Do you know whether or not you have |\n| 25 | an obligation to inform the judge, the court |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 405 of 452\n\n101\n\n 1 KWOK 2 in our litigation, if there's a contract for 3 sale or assignment of the apartment? 4 A. I do. 5 Q. And I take it currently there's no 6 contract for sale or assignment? 7 A. Right, yes. 8 Q. Have you ever exchanged drafts of a 9 contract with any potential purchaser? 10 A. No. 11 Q. If there comes to be a contract for 12 sale or assignment of the apartment, would you 13 inform the court? 14 DI MR. HARMON: Don't answer that 15 question. 16 You've already elicited from him 17 that he knows of the court order. It's 18 unnecessary. Let's move on. 19 MR. MOSS: Your basis for the 20 instruction is that it's unnecessary? 21 MR. HARMON: He's already answered 22 that he's aware of the court order and I 23 think we should move on. 24 MR. MOSS: Well, I appreciate your 25 thoughts, but what is the basis for your\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 406 of 452\n\n102\n\n 1 KWOK 2 instruction? 3 MR. HARMON: I think it's an 4 inappropriate question in relation to 5 whether or not PAX is entitled to an 6 attachment. He's aware of the order. 7 MR. MOSS: So it's a relevance 8 objection? 9 MR. HARMON: It's beyond the scope. 10 You know it's something that we've been 11 discussing for quite some time. 12 Q. Mr. Kwok, if there comes to be a 13 contract for sale or assignment of the 14 apartment, will you inform the court? 15 DI MR. HARMON: Don't answer the 16 question, Mr. Kwok. 17 THE INTERPRETER: By interpreter, he 18 said: 19 A. Refuse to answer. 20 Q. You're refusing to answer because 21 your counsel instructed you not to answer? 22 A. Yes. 23 MR. MOSS: So whether or not 24 Mr. Kwok is going to comply with an order 25 that was issued in connection with the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 407 of 452\n\n103\n\n 1 KWOK 2 attachment motion is beyond the scope of 3 discovery on our attachment motion? 4 MR. HARMON: In discovery, that's 5 right. That's my position. 6 MR. MOSS: Okay. Great. 7 Q. Did there come a time, Mr. Kwok, 8 when you tried to transfer ownership of the 9 residence to your son, Mileson? 10 A. I don't remember that. 11 Q. You don't remember ever instructing 12 Ms. Sloan to have a conversation with the 13 Sherry-Netherland about transferring ownership 14 of the residence to your son Mileson? 15 A. I do not remember. 16 Q. Is there someone named Yong, 17 Y-O-N-G, who worked for you in 2016? 18 A. He not only worked with me, but he 19 worked with Zenith Pangu and Zhang Wei. 20 Q. And is that Yong Yue, Y-U-E, or Yue 21 Yong? 22 A. Yong Yue. 23 THE INTERPRETER: Yang would be 24 Y-A-N-G, Y-O-N-G. 25 A. It should be Yu.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 408 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE INTERPRETER:
Y-U. |\n| 3 | Q.
Thank you.
Do you know who Helen |\n| 4 | Manis is? |\n| 5 | A.
I don't remember. |\n| 6 | Q.
If I told you she was a lawyer in |\n| 7 | England, would that help you? |\n| 8 | A.
I don't remember. |\n| 9 | Q.
Have you ever had any discussions |\n| 10 | with Ms. Manis? |\n| 11 | A.
No. |\n| 12 | Q.
Have you ever had any discussions |\n| 13 | with Yong about trying to transfer the |\n| 14 | ownership of the apartment to Mileson's name? |\n| 15 | A.
No. |\n| 16 | Q.
Does Yong still work for you? |\n| 17 | A.
We lost him for a year.
Can't find |\n| 18 | him.
Maybe was also arrested by the Chinese |\n| 19 | communist. |\n| 20 | Q.
Was he living in New York at the |\n| 21 | time or China? |\n| 22 | A.
It's been over a year.
I don't know |\n| 23 | where he is. |\n| 24 | Q.
Do you recall that there was an |\n| 25 | attempt to restructure the ownership of the |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 409 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Genever Holdings so that it would be owned by |\n| 3 | a trust of which Mileson was a beneficiary? |\n| 4 | A.
I don't -- I don't remember. |\n| 5 | Q.
Did you ever have any discussions |\n| 6 | with anyone at the Sherry-Netherland about |\n| 7 | restructuring so that the apartment would be |\n| 8 | owned by a son or a trust beneficially owned |\n| 9 | by your son? |\n| 10 | A.
I never did. |\n| 11 | Q.
Do you know how Ms. Man is got the |\n| 12 | impression that the residence was owned by a |\n| 13 | company that was ultimately beneficially owned |\n| 14 | by you? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 16 | the question. |\n| 17 | A.
I don't really know. |\n| 18 | Q.
Well, you said, \"I don't really |\n| 19 | know.\"
Do you have any idea? |\n| 20 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 21 | the question. |\n| 22 | A.
No. |\n| 23 | Q.
Do you dispute that the residence is |\n| 24 | ultimately beneficially owned by you? |\n| 25 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 410 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the question. |\n| | |\n| 3 | A.
No. |\n| 4 | Q.
So you are the ultimate beneficial |\n| 5 | owner of the apartment? |\n| 6 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 7 | the question. |\n| 8 | A.
No. |\n| 9 | Q.
So you do dispute that the residence |\n| 10 | is ultimately beneficially owned by you? |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 12 | the question. |\n| 13 | A.
I am not. |\n| 14 | Q.
You are not the owner? |\n| 15 | A.
Of course. |\n| 16 | Q.
Because Zhang Wei is the owner? |\n| 17 | A.
Yes.
The money was provided by |\n| 18 | Zhang Wei.
It was not provided by me. |\n| 19 | Q.
And Zhang Wei -- do you know how |\n| 20 | Zhang Wei communicates with his lawyers about |\n| 21 | this issue if he's in prison? |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 23 | the question. |\n| 24 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 25 | Q.
Are you aware of whether or not |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 411 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | Genever Holdings Corporation, the British | | |\n| 3 | Virgin Islands entity, has ever pledged its | | |\n| 4 | assets? | | |\n| 5 | THE INTERPRETER:
Pledged its assets | | |\n| 6 | means put up its assets? | | |\n| 7 | MR. MOSS:
Put a lien on its assets, | | |\n| 8 | or pledge security. | | |\n| 9 | THE INTERPRETER:
Okay. | | |\n| 10 | A.
I do not know. | | |\n| 11 | Q.
You've never had any discussions | | |\n| 12 | about a pledge? | | |\n| 13 | A.
I do not know. | | |\n| 14 | Q.
Is this the first time that you're | | |\n| 15 | hearing about a pledge by Genever Holdings of | | |\n| 16 | its assets? | | |\n| 17 | A.
No. | | |\n| 18 | Q.
You've heard about that before? | | |\n| 19 | A.
After you sued us, from there on I | | |\n| 20 | heard about that. | | |\n| 21 | Q.
Where did you hear about it? | | |\n| 22 | A.
Yvette Wang told me. | | |\n| 23 | Q.
What did she tell you? | | |\n| 24 | A.
She told me about this collateral, | | |\n| 25 | this situation. | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 412 of 452\n\n| 1 | | KWOK |\n|----|------------------|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q. | What did she tell you? |\n| 3 | A. | That's it. |\n| 4 | Q. | Who made the decision to pledge |\n| 5 | | Genever Holdings Corporation? |\n| 6 | A. | Zhang Wei and his team think that. |\n| 7 | Q. | And do you know why it was pledged? |\n| 8 | A. | I think his money was borrowed. |\n| 9 | Q. | By whom? |\n| 10 | A. | That's why pledged it.
I don't |\n| 11 | quite were. | I think it's name with R |\n| 12 | | something something.
I can't quite remember. |\n| 13 | Q. | How about Roscalitar? |\n| 14 | A. | I don't know.
Too complicated. |\n| 15 | Q. | Roscalitar 2, does that ring a bell? |\n| 16 | A. | Maybe call R2, R2. |\n| 17 | Q. | Who is behind Roscalitar 2, or R2? |\n| 18 | A. | As far as I know, heard that it was |\n| 19 | | a Middle East fund, but I don't know anything |\n| 20 | else about that. | |\n| 21 | Q. | Did it have to do with Abu Dhabi? |\n| 22 | A. | I think it is theirs. |\n| 23 | Q. | Did you have any dealings with the |\n| 24 | | people at Abu Dhabi relating to Roscalitar 2? |\n| 25 | A. | Are you asking me personally, me? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 413 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Yes. |\n| 3 | A.
No. |\n| 4 | Q.
And you learned all of this through |\n| 5 | Yvette? |\n| 6 | A.
About the pledge, it was Yvette who |\n| 7 | told me, and then my attorney had asked one |\n| 8 | time know about this, I said -- |\n| 9 | Q.
Whoa, whoa -- |\n| 10 | MR. HARMON:
We're going to assert |\n| 11 | attorney/client privilege on the |\n| 12 | conversation. |\n| 13 | MR. MOSS:
I was trying to help you, |\n| 14 | counsel. |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | Q.
I don't want to know what you spoke |\n| 17 | about. |\n| 18 | MR. HARMON:
He does, but he's very |\n| 19 | polite and won't. |\n| 20 | MR. MOSS:
Fair point. |\n| 21 | Q.
So you never heard anything about a |\n| 22 | pledge before Yvette told you about the pledge |\n| 23 | in connection with our lawsuit? |\n| 24 | A.
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q.
But what Yvette told you was that |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 414 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | Genever Holdings Corporation had been pledged | | |\n| 3 | to Roscalitar 2? | | |\n| 4 | A.
Yes. | | |\n| 5 | Q.
And that included the ownership | | |\n| 6 | interest in the Sherry-Netherland apartment? | | |\n| 7 | A.
Oh, I don't know about that. | | |\n| 8 | Q.
Do you have an understanding that | | |\n| 9 | the ownership interest in the | | |\n| 10 | Sherry-Netherland was pledged to Roscalitar 2? | | |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of | | |\n| 12 | the question. | | |\n| 13 | A.
I don't really know about that. | | |\n| 14 | Q.
Well, do you know what was pledged | | |\n| 15 | by Genever Holdings Corporation? | | |\n| 16 | A.
I do not know. | | |\n| 17 | Q.
Can you identify any asset of the | | |\n| 18 | Genever Holdings Corporation other than the | | |\n| 19 | apartment that it owns through Genever | | |\n| 20 | Holdings LLC? | | |\n| 21 | A.
I do not know. | | |\n| 22 | Q.
Yvette never told you, when she | | |\n| 23 | explained to you about the pledge, that the | | |\n| 24 | pledge was for the assets of Genever BVI or | | |\n| 25 | Genever Holdings Corporation, which, by virtue | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 415 of 452\n\n| 1
KWOK
2
of its ownership of Genever New York LLC,
3
include the apartment?
4
MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of
5
the question.
6
THE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter, I
7
don't think I got everything with all the
8
names there.
So that was Genever BBC?
9
A.
Never discussed it in such detail.
10
I'm so confused by the question.
I can't
11
remember what company you're talking about
12
even.
13
Q.
I understand it's confusing.
Did | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| 14
she ever convey to you, in substance, that the | | | |\n| 15
apartment had been pledged? | | | |\n| 16
A.
When you said it's been pledged, I | | | |\n| 17
don't quite understand all that. | | | |\n| 18
Q.
Well, you had a conversation with | | | |\n| 19
Yvette where she told you about a pledge of | | | |\n| 20
Genever Holdings Corporation, right? | | | |\n| 21
A.
Yes. | | | |\n| 22
Q.
And that was the first time you ever | | | |\n| 23
heard about a pledge relating to Genever, | | | |\n| 24
right? | | | |\n| 25
A.
Yes. | | | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 416 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
And that was in connection with our |\n| 3 | lawsuit and our motion for the attachment on |\n| 4 | the residence, right? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
When you spoke to Yvette about the |\n| 7 | pledge, did she communicate to you, in |\n| 8 | substance, that the apartment had been |\n| 9 | pledged? |\n| 10 | A.
This?
No. |\n| 11 | Q.
Do you have any idea why the pledge |\n| 12 | came up for the first time in response to our |\n| 13 | motion to attachment apartment, then? |\n| 14 | A.
I don't understand what you mean. |\n| 15 | Q.
Do you understand that there were |\n| 16 | papers filed on your behalf that argue that |\n| 17 | Pacific Alliance couldn't get a lien or an |\n| 18 | attachment on the apartment because the |\n| 19 | apartment had been pledged? |\n| 20 | A.
Wang Yan Ping -- |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
W-A-N-G, Y-A-N, |\n| 22 | P-I-N-G. |\n| 23 | A.
-- had told me about it. |\n| 24 | Q.
And that's Yvette? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 417 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
She told you that your side filed |\n| 3 | papers arguing that the apartment had been |\n| 4 | pledged already? |\n| 5 | A.
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q.
And as far as you know, those papers |\n| 7 | were accurate? |\n| 8 | A.
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q.
And Yvette believed that the |\n| 10 | apartment had, in fact, been pledged? |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 12 | the question. |\n| 13 | A.
You can ask Wang Yan Ping those |\n| 14 | questions.
I cannot answer on behalf of her. |\n| 15 | Q.
That's completely fair.
Let me try |\n| 16 | to rephrase it. |\n| 17 | Did Yvette communicate to you that |\n| 18 | the apartment had been pledged? |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | MR. MOSS:
I'm happy to take a quick |\n| 21 | break now, if that's okay with everyone. |\n| 22 | MR. HARMON:
That's fine. |\n| 23 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now off the |\n| 24 | record.
The time is 2:02 p.m. |\n| 25 | (Recess was taken.) |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 418 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
This marks the |\n| 3 | beginning of Tape Number 4 in the |\n| 4 | deposition of Mr. Miles Kwok.
We're now |\n| 5 | back on the record.
The time is 2:28 p.m. |\n| 6 | I just want to note for the record |\n| 7 | that the witness is standing for his |\n| 8 | comfort. |\n| 9 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 10 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, how old is Zhang Wei? |\n| 11 | A.
I think around 38 years old. |\n| 12 | Q.
What did he do for a living before |\n| 13 | he was imprisoned? |\n| 14 | A.
Invested in real estate securities. |\n| 15 | Q.
What types of securities? |\n| 16 | A.
He just did a lot of these -- he did |\n| 17 | a lot of these securities related things, |\n| 18 | selling and purchasing. |\n| 19 | Q.
What city did he live in? |\n| 20 | A.
Henan Zhengzhou. |\n| 21 | THE INTERPRETER:
H-E-N-A-N, |\n| 22 | Z-H-E-N-G-Z-H-O-U. |\n| 23 | Q.
And when did he go to prison? |\n| 24 | A.
It should be around after May of |\n| 25 | 2015.
Around May, June, approximately.
I |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 419 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 420 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 421 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 422 of 452\n\n118\n\n 1 KWOK 2 DI MR. HARMON: I direct the witness 3 not to answer. 4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter 5 did not interpret, and Mr. Kwok says: 6 A. I refuse to answer. 7 Q. Was that company, Henan Yuda Real 8 Estate Company, accused of loan fraud? 9 DI MR. HARMON: I direct the witness 10 not to answer. 11 A. Refuse to answer. 12 Q. Okay. Are you aware that in two 13 rounds of attachment briefing relating to the 14 apartment, that in the lawsuit that you filed 15 against the Sherry-Netherland Hotel, that 16 there's never been a reference to Zhang Wei in 17 any document that's been filed on your behalf 18 in any litigation relating to the apartment? 19 Are you aware of that? 20 A. I don't really know. 21 Q. Can you point to any document that 22 evidences Zhang Wei's ownership of the 23 apartment? 24 A. The fund came from Zhang Wei's 25 company. This is the simplest evidence. And\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 423 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 424 of 452\n\n\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 425 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Is it your testimony that as a |\n| 3 | political prisoner in China, that he has |\n| 4 | access to speak to his lawyers? |\n| 5 | A.
No, impossible.
In China, no |\n| 6 | political prisoner can be able to speak to |\n| 7 | anyone.
Well, strictly speaking, he was |\n| 8 | kidnapped.
He was kidnapped by the |\n| 9 | communists. |\n| 10 | Q.
Have you ever heard of somebody |\n| 11 | called Guo Qiang, G-U-O, Q-I-A-N-G? |\n| 12 | A.
As I said to you before, that's my |\n| 13 | son. |\n| 14 | Q.
That's Mileson Kwok? |\n| 15 | A.
Yes.
I only have one son. |\n| 16 | Q.
Sorry.
Thank you for clarifying. |\n| 17 | Have you ever heard of a company |\n| 18 | called Blue Capital? |\n| 19 | A.
I don't remember that. |\n| 20 | Q.
You remember we discussed earlier |\n| 21 | your conversation with Yvette about the |\n| 22 | pledges, or the pledge of the apartment to |\n| 23 | Roscalitar 2, or R2?
Remember I asked you |\n| 24 | questions about that earlier? |\n| 25 | A.
Yes. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 426 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 2 | Q.
Are you aware that the pledge to |\n| 3 | Roscalitar was terminated in 2017? |\n| 4 | A.
I don't know. |\n| 5 | Q.
Who would know that?
Would that be |\n| 6 | Yvette? |\n| 7 | A.
It would be Zhang Wei's attorneys |\n| 8 | and then that something, the R company, I |\n| 9 | think they'd know. |\n| 10 | Q.
So you didn't know that when it was |\n| 11 | represented to this Court that the apartment |\n| 12 | was pledged to Roscalitar 2, that at the time |\n| 13 | of that representation the pledge had actually |\n| 14 | been terminated? |\n| 15 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 16 | the question. |\n| 17 | A.
I did not know. |\n| 18 | Q.
Remember earlier I asked you about |\n| 19 | the seizing of the Zenith assets and whether |\n| 20 | or not you knew that the assets were seized? |\n| 21 | A.
I refuse to answer. |\n| 22 | Q.
Well, you answered earlier that |\n| 23 | the -- that you knew that the Zenith assets |\n| 24 | were seized.
Do you remember that testimony? |\n| 25 | A.
I refuse to answer it now. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 427 of 452\n\n123\n\n 1 KWOK 2 Q. Did you also know that the Beijing 3 Pangu assets were seized? 4 A. I refuse to answer. 5 Q. Do you recall that you personally 6 signed an agreement agreeing to the 7 Sherry-Netherland proprietary lease? 8 A. I think I remember signing it. But 9 as for the content of that, I don't really 10 know, but I think I did sign that. But what, 11 in fact, that document was, I do not know. 12 Q. So you signed something, but you 13 hadn't reviewed it? 14 A. I do not have the ability to review 15 it. 16 Q. Did you ever gain an understanding 17 of what you were agreeing to when you signed 18 the agreement with the Sherry-Netherland 19 adopting the proprietary lease? 20 A. Even to this day I do not 21 understand. 22 Q. Your lawyers didn't review the 23 document with you before you signed it? 24 MR. HARMON: I think that would be 25 an attorney/client privileged\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 428 of 452\n\n124\n\n 1 KWOK 2 communication. I take it back, I take it 3 back -- 4 MR. MOSS: I think the fact of 5 reviewing -- 6 MR. HARMON: The fact -- 7 MR. MOSS: -- as a yes/no question 8 is fine. 9 MR. HARMON: You could answer the 10 question. 11 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. 12 MR. HARMON: You can answer the 13 question. 14 A. I refuse to answer. I don't know. 15 Q. You don't know or you refuse to 16 answer? 17 A. I -- I don't know. 18 Q. You don't remember reviewing the 19 document with your lawyers? 20 A. I don't remember. 21 Q. Mr. Kwok, you're aware that our 22 client is seeking an attachment of the 23 Sherry-Netherland apartment? 24 A. I think this is just robbery. I 25 don't think this is attachment. I think this\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 429 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | is just robbers.
I never signed the 30 |\n| 3 | million agreement, the money was never given |\n| 4 | to us, and the Sherry-Netherland is not ours |\n| 5 | either and they're just robbers. |\n| 6 | Q.
I just want to ask a simple |\n| 7 | question.
I know that you dispute everything |\n| 8 | in the lawsuit.
I understand that.
My |\n| 9 | question is just are you aware that our client |\n| 10 | has filed papers seeking what we say at least |\n| 11 | is a request to attach the apartment? |\n| 12 | A.
I know now. |\n| 13 | Q.
And my question is:
Is it your |\n| 14 | position that our client cannot attach the |\n| 15 | apartment because you don't own it, but rather |\n| 16 | Zhang Wei does? |\n| 17 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 18 | the question. |\n| 19 | A.
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q.
And I know you've testified a lot |\n| 21 | about how you think that this is an |\n| 22 | illegitimate lawsuit.
My question is:
If the |\n| 23 | court finds for our client and orders you to |\n| 24 | pay a judgment in this lawsuit, money to us, |\n| 25 | will you pay it? |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 430 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Don't answer the |\n| 3 | question.
It's beyond the scope of the |\n| 4 | attachment proceeding, discovery. |\n| 5 | A.
Refuse to answer. |\n| 6 | MR. MOSS:
And of course, |\n| 7 | Mr. Harmon, you added discovery after a |\n| 8 | second there to your instruction because |\n| 9 | it obviously goes to the very heart of the |\n| 10 | attachment motion. |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
I completed my |\n| 12 | sentence.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, you testified earlier that |\n| 14 | you signed the agreement adopting the |\n| 15 | proprietary lease without knowing what was in |\n| 16 | that document.
Do you recall that testimony? |\n| 17 | MR. HARMON:
Object to the form of |\n| 18 | the question. |\n| 19 | A.
Yes, I did say that. |\n| 20 | Q.
Is it your practice to sign |\n| 21 | agreements or documents that are in English |\n| 22 | without knowing what's in them? |\n| 23 | A.
Yes. |\n| 24 | MR. MOSS:
Why don't we go off the |\n| 25 | record. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 431 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now off the |\n| 3 | record.
The time is 2:55 p.m. |\n| 4 | (Recess was taken.) |\n| 5 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
We're now back on |\n| 6 | the record.
The time is 3:13 p.m. |\n| 7 | MS. MAISTRELLO:
He just said if you |\n| 8 | could take a photo of me later. |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
I want to remember you |\n| 10 | abuse me here. |\n| 11 | MR. MOSS:
Well, Mr. Kwok, it's all |\n| 12 | going to end soon.
Just a few more |\n| 13 | questions. |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | BY MR. MOSS: |\n| 16 | Q.
You remember, we've talked about |\n| 17 | this lawsuit today, and you understand that my |\n| 18 | client is suing because they claim that they |\n| 19 | made a loan to one of your companies and that |\n| 20 | that loan was never repaid.
You understand |\n| 21 | that at least that's what we're claiming? |\n| 22 | A.
I understand with absolute lies. |\n| 23 | This is defamation, this is -- |\n| 24 | THE INTERPRETER:
I'm blanking on |\n| 25 | the word.
To get you money from -- |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 432 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. SARNOFF:
Extortion? |\n| 3 | THE INTERPRETER:
Yes, thank you. |\n| 4 | A.
Extortion.
I'd like for you to |\n| 5 | provide me with the truth for the \\$30 million |\n| 6 | loan for the payment, for the loan, to give me |\n| 7 | truth on that. |\n| 8 | Q.
So that's what I want to try to |\n| 9 | understand.
Is it your testimony that my |\n| 10 | client never actually made the loan? |\n| 11 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Objection.
Direct the |\n| 12 | witness not to answer. |\n| 13 | A.
I refuse -- |\n| 14 | MR. HARMON:
Beyond the scope of |\n| 15 | attachment discovery at this time. |\n| 16 | MR. MOSS:
It's in the scope of his |\n| 17 | testimony.
I'm trying to clarify what |\n| 18 | he's already said. |\n| 19 | DI
MR. HARMON:
I understand that.
You |\n| 20 | asked him a question.
He could have |\n| 21 | answered yes or no.
He gave you an |\n| 22 | answer.
So I know you want to follow up |\n| 23 | on that answer, but the follow-up is |\n| 24 | beyond the scope of attachment discovery. |\n| 25 | I direct him not to answer. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 433 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Q.
Mr. Kwok, will you answer the |\n| 3 | question of whether or not it's your testimony |\n| 4 | that my client -- is it your testimony that my |\n| 5 | client never actually made the loan to you? |\n| 6 | DI
MR. HARMON:
Same objection.
Same |\n| 7 | direction. |\n| 8 | THE INTERPRETER:
Interpreter did |\n| 9 | not interpret yet.
The response was: |\n| 10 | A.
I refuse to answer. |\n| 11 | RQ
MR. MOSS:
So pending questions from |\n| 12 | your counsel, I don't have any further |\n| 13 | questions at this time. |\n| 14 | There is, however, one open item, |\n| 15 | and that is, you testified today about a |\n| 16 | document evidencing your agreement with |\n| 17 | Zhang Wei relating to the hotel.
We do |\n| 18 | not have a copy of that document.
I don't |\n| 19 | think there's any dispute with your lawyer |\n| 20 | that we're entitled to a copy of that |\n| 21 | document if it exists.
We've asked |\n| 22 | informally during a break for production |\n| 23 | of that document, but I will now formally |\n| 24 | put on the record that we're asking for |\n| 25 | production of that document.
And we will |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 434 of 452\n\n130\n\n 1 KWOK 2 keep the deposition open for the limited 3 purpose of asking questions about that 4 document if and when it is produced. 5 And I just want to also note for the 6 record that I offered your counsel at 7 about 3:00 today the option of producing 8 the document today and trying to finish 9 the deposition today so I didn't have to 10 bring you back here for a second day. I 11 understand from counsel that that's not 12 possible. So unfortunately we may have to 13 come back a second day, but hopefully that 14 can be avoided. 15 And I just want to end by thanking 16 you very much for your time and 17 apologizing that you had to sit for so 18 long. Thank you. 19 THE WITNESS: I'd like the 20 interpreter to interpret what some of the 21 things I'd like to say. Can I say some 22 things? 23 MR. MOSS: Be my guest. 24 THE WITNESS: I thank you very much 25 for today's planning and this very humane\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | seeing each other.
But I want to tell you |\n| 3 | what you're doing is helping the CCP in |\n| 4 | extorting me, in abusing me.
What I am |\n| 5 | seeking to do is to help the Chinese with |\n| 6 | their democracy and law, and here, even |\n| 7 | though, and I love the democracy in |\n| 8 | America, and even though I have here been |\n| 9 | treated well, lawfully, but what you're |\n| 10 | doing actually is helping the CCP. |\n| 11 | I understand that this is part of |\n| 12 | your job.
I thank you very much in the |\n| 13 | humane way you treated me today.
Much |\n| 14 | better than the CCP.
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you.
I'm sorry, I |\n| 16 | just must put one more thing on the |\n| 17 | record.
I just want to note -- |\n| 18 | I'm sorry, I forget your name. |\n| 19 | MR. MAISTRELLO:
Karin. |\n| 20 | MR. MOSS:
That Karin I think may |\n| 21 | have been taking some video of Mr. Kwok -- |\n| 22 | MS. MAISTRELLO:
Picture. |\n| 23 | MR. MOSS:
Picture, and I just |\n| 24 | wanted to note that on this side of the |\n| 25 | table, we understand that there's a |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 436 of 452\n\n| 1 | KWOK |\n|----|----------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | protective order, and we didn't take any |\n| 3 | pictures or any video other than the |\n| 4 | official record here.
So if anything ends |\n| 5 | up anywhere, we didn't do it. |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Can I show my wife? |\n| 7 | My wife, my son the picture? |\n| 8 | MR. SARNOFF:
That's your decision. |\n| 9 | MR. MOSS:
Why don't we go off the |\n| 10 | record now.
I think we're finished. |\n| 11 | MR. HARMON:
I have no questions. |\n| 12 | THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
This concludes |\n| 13 | today's deposition of Mr. Miles Kwok. |\n| 14 | We're now off the record.
The time is |\n| 15 | 3:22 p.m.
Thank you. |\n| 16 | (Time noted:
3:22 p.m.) |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n\n| 1 | A C K N O W L E D G M E N T | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 2 | | | | |\n| 3 | STATE OF NEW YORK
) | | | |\n| 4 | :SS | | | |\n| 5 | COUNTY OF
) | | | |\n| 6 | | | | |\n| 7 | I, MILES KWOK, hereby certify that I | | | |\n| 8 | have read the transcript of my testimony taken | | | |\n| 9 | under oath in my deposition of October 3, 2018; | | | |\n| 10 | that the transcript is a true, complete and | | | |\n| 11 | correct record of my testimony, and that the | | | |\n| 12 | answers on the record as given by me are true and | | | |\n| 13 | correct. | | | |\n| 14 | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | |\n| 16 | ______________________ | | | |\n| 17 | MILES KWOK | | | |\n| 18 | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | |\n| 20 | Signed and subscribed to before me, | | | |\n| 21 | this
day of
, 2018. | | | |\n| 22 | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | |\n| 24 | ________________________________ | | | |\n| 25 | Notary Public, State of _______________ | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 1269 | Filed 12/28/22 | Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 | Page 438 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | 452 | | |\n\n| 1 | C E R T I F I C A T E |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | |\n| 3 | STATE OF NEW YORK
) |\n| 4 | ) SS.: |\n| 5 | COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
) |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | I, KRISTI CRUZ, a Notary Public within AND |\n| 8 | for the State of New York, do hereby certify: |\n| 9 | That MILES KWOK, the witness whose |\n| 10 | deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was duly |\n| 11 | sworn by me and that such deposition is a true |\n| 12 | record of the testimony given by such witness. |\n| 13 | I further certify that I am not related to |\n| 14 | any of the parties to this action by blood or |\n| 15 | marriage; and that I am in no way interested in |\n| 16 | the outcome of this matter. |\n| 17 | IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my |\n| 18 | hand this 8th day of October 2018. |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | _______________________ |\n| 25 | KRISTI CRUZ |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 439 of 452\n\n| 1 | *** ERRATA SHEET *** | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--|--|\n| 2 | ELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC
126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor | | | | |\n| 3 | | New York, New York 10022 | | | |\n| 4 | | 212-750-6434 | | | |\n| 5 | NAME OF CASE:
PACIFIC ALLIANCE vs. KWOK | | | | |\n| 6 | DATE OF DEPOSITION:
OCTOBER 3, 2018
NAME OF WITNESS:
MILES KWOK | | | | |\n| 7 | PAGE
LINE
FROM | TO | REASON | | |\n| 8 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 9 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 10 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 11 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 12 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 13 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 14 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 15 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 16 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 17 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 18 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 19 | _____ _____ __________ __________ _____________ | | | | |\n| 20 | | | ________________________ | | |\n| 21 | Subscribed and Sworn before me | | | | |\n| 22 | this _____ day of __________________, 2018. | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | |\n| 24 | ___________________ | | ______________________ | | |\n| 25 | Notary Public | | My Commission Expires: | | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 440 of 452\n\n**MILES KWOK October 3, 2018**\n\n| | 131:10 | 7:5;9:2;11:14,19; | apply (2) | 67:23;68:13,15,20,24; |\n|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| | add (1) | 12:2;13:5;24:3,4; | 74:17,20 | 70:23;72:14;73:2; |\n| \\$ | 90:12 | 25:4;58:3;59:24; | applying (5) | 80:2;107:4,5,6,7,16; |\n| | added (2) | 69:15;112:17 | 56:15;57:6;74:23; | 110:24;122:19,20,23; |\n| \\$100 (1) | 90:4;126:7 | Alliance's (5) | 81:7;120:2 | 123:3 |\n| 84:18 | administer (1) | 26:13,17,21,25; | appreciate (1) | assignment (4) |\n| \\$30 (1) | 6:14 | 58:14 | 101:24 | 101:3,6,12;102:13 |\n| 128:5 | adopting (2) | along (1) | appropriate (4) | assistant (4) |\n| \\$60 (1) | 123:19;126:14 | 80:11 | 13:19;58:7,18; | 55:21,23;88:5; |\n| 100:15 | advance (1) | always (6) | 62:10 | 96:10 |\n| \\$67.5 (1)
84:6 | 13:24 | 52:9,11,16,19; | approval (1) | assistants (2) |\n| \\$68 (1) | advice (3) | 56:10;79:12 | 50:2 | 88:5;96:14 |\n| 93:11 | 66:13;82:6,13 | America (1) | approximate (2) | associated (1) |\n| \\$85 (1) | advised (2) | 131:8 | 56:24;77:22 | 60:10 |\n| 89:8 | 90:11;100:18 | Americans (1) | Approximately (3) | associates (1) |\n| | advisor (2) | 90:20 | 56:23;84:14;114:25 | 60:9 |\n| A | 97:18;98:3 | among (2) | April (2) | association (2) |\n| | advisory (1) | 31:4;85:23 | 93:10;98:14 | 43:6,8 |\n| a/k/a (1) | 98:4 | and/or (1) | Arabic (1) | assume (3) |\n| 69:17 | affair (4) | 15:14 | 35:13 | 9:15;13:16;14:22 |\n| ability (3) | 12:21,25;13:2; | Ang (8) | area (1) | assuming (2) |\n| 8:15;9:17;123:14 | 42:20 | 92:20,23;93:7,15, | 68:2 | 32:7,10 |\n| able (6) | affairs (2) | 18,19;97:14;99:15 | argue (1) | attach (2) |\n| 32:21;35:19;55:10; | 80:18;81:2 | A-N-G (1) | 112:16 | 125:11,14 |\n| 87:11;90:8;121:6 | afternoon (2) | 92:21 | argued (3) | attached (1) |\n| absolute (1) | 82:9,10 | answered (5) | 57:10;58:3,13 | 73:16 |\n| 127:22 | again (8)
21:14;46:17;49:16; | 9:16;75:10;101:21;
122:22;128:21 | arguing (1)
113:3 | attachment (26)
11:5,15;13:5,13; |\n| Absolutely (7) | 67:25;75:13;88:19; | anymore (1) | around (17) | 14:18;58:8,19;59:25; |\n| 11:23;13:8;34:18; | 91:4;93:11 | 62:17 | 34:20;35:4;40:24; | 60:2;73:24;74:2; |\n| 35:17;46:8;50:4; | against (7) | apartment (65) | 56:17,21;70:12,20; | 102:6;103:2,3;112:3, |\n| 95:19 | 12:3;24:4;25:4; | 11:15;29:10,15,18; | 72:12;80:25;89:12, | 13,18;116:25;117:4; |\n| Abu (2) | 61:25;69:16,20; | 30:3,13,19;31:3; | 14;92:8;98:25; | 118:13;124:22,25; |\n| 108:21,24
abuse (1) | 118:15 | 44:14;47:18,21;48:8, | 114:11,24,25;115:4 | 126:4,10;128:15,24 |\n| 127:10 | agent (3) | 12;50:9,13,20;56:21; | arranged (3) | attacks (1) |\n| abusing (2) | 36:7;39:6,10 | 57:7;73:12;84:3,15, | 33:17;35:9;39:7 | 61:25 |\n| 79:21;131:4 | aggressive (1) | 21;85:4,8;86:6;87:8; | arrangement (1) | attempt (1) |\n| accepted (1) | 100:21 | 89:13;91:9,24;93:22; | 119:14 | 104:25 |\n| 90:13 | ago (2) | 95:6,18,21;96:8; | arrest (2) | attempted (1) |\n| access (2) | 58:2;77:3 | 99:16;100:22;101:3, | 115:18;116:3 | 93:21 |\n| 54:19;121:4 | agree (2) | 12;102:14;104:14; | arrested (5) | attention (4) |\n| accuracy (1) | 13:16;14:3 | 105:7;106:5;110:6, | 45:12;87:10;91:17; | 21:13;34:11,13; |\n| 28:21 | AGREED (8) | 19;111:3,15;112:8,13, | 93:17;104:18 | 70:9 |\n| accurate (4) | 6:3,8,12,18;13:24; | 18,19;113:3,10,18; | article (3) | attorney (18) |\n| 55:19;69:23;70:6; | 14:10;50:8,21 | 117:14;118:14,18,23; | 116:6,6,8 | 24:22;31:9;49:14; |\n| 113:7 | agreeing (2)
123:6,17 | 119:8;120:3,14;
121:22;122:11; | articles (2)
43:6,8 | 54:4;61:24;85:24;
87:12,16,20,22;91:12, |\n| accused (2) | agreement (17) | 124:23;125:11,15 | Asia (1) | 13,14;92:14;96:12, |\n| 118:8;120:18 | 48:7;68:6,11,19,22, | apologizing (1) | 7:5 | 13;97:14;109:7 |\n| act (1) | 24;119:12,15,18; | 130:17 | assassinate (2) | attorney/client (5) |\n| 74:4 | 120:5,7,13;123:6,18; | apparently (1) | 22:19;23:6 | 17:22;18:15;78:17; |\n| acting (3)
70:21;75:7,20 | 125:3;126:14;129:16 | 117:14 | assassination (1) | 109:11;123:25 |\n| actions (1) | agreements (1) | appearances (1) | 15:12 | attorneys (21) |\n| 62:13 | 126:21 | 7:20 | assert (2) | 6:4;24:25;31:21,23; |\n| active (1) | agrees (1) | applicant (5) | 70:2;109:10 | 33:18;35:9;39:8;41:7; |\n| 99:22 | 14:23 | 74:5,8,14;75:2,17 | asserting (2) | 44:19,22;49:13,18; |\n| actual (1) | al (2) | application (8) | 17:21;69:2 | 53:13;55:20;91:5; |\n| 41:17 | 7:6;97:21 | 20:6;73:11,22; | assertion (2) | 96:9,11,12,13;119:22; |\n| actuality (1) | allegation (1) | 76:25;77:14;86:4,21, | 58:14;60:8 | 122:7 |\n| 32:7 | 70:11 | 22 | asset (2) | attorney's (1) |\n| Actually (7) | alleged (1) | applied (10) | 72:19;110:17 | 92:19 |\n| 59:8;91:9;120:13; | 73:4 | 29:9,14,17;30:2,4, | assets (22) | audio (4) |\n| 122:13;128:10;129:5; | Alliance (13) | 12,13,19,20;32:23 | 37:2,12;48:18; | 60:10,13,17;61:8 |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 441 of 452\n\n**MILES KWOK October 3, 2018**\n\n| audio/video (1) | behalf (21) | bottom (2) | 19:8;22:12;29:23; | claim (1) |\n|----------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------|\n| | | | | |\n| 60:18 | 7:24;8:1;10:15,23; | 34:11;70:16 | 35:10,12,16;40:9; | 127:18 |\n| audios (1) | 31:7;33:6;39:7;55:4; | Bravo (12) | 43:16;54:6,7;66:18; | claiming (1) |\n| 61:3 | 58:14;75:7,7,20,20; | 81:10,11,11,15; | 71:14;74:22;80:7; | 127:21 |\n| authenticity (3) | 76:6,11;79:22;80:21; | 82:5,14,17,21,24; | 86:9;88:13;110:17; | clarification (2) |\n| 60:13;62:2,3 | 85:22;112:16;113:14; | 83:4,7,25 | 113:13;116:17; | 47:17;119:11 |\n| | | | | |\n| authorities (2) | 118:17 | breach (2) | 118:21;119:6;121:6; | clarify (4) |\n| 70:13,21 | behind (2) | 11:19;12:2 | 124:12;130:14,21; | 46:2;74:22;119:19; |\n| authorize (1) | 60:14;108:17 | break (9) | 132:6 | 128:17 |\n| 76:4 | Beijing (26) | 11:10;12:4;23:18; | capacity (1) | clarifying (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| authorized (2) | 31:18;47:21;69:15; | 46:12;47:12;79:6,15; | 10:7 | 121:16 |\n| 6:14;76:9 | 72:14;73:3,9;76:18, | 113:21;129:22 | Capital (1) | clean (1) |\n| authorizing (1) | 22;77:5,8,11,16,24; | brief (3) | 121:18 | 9:19 |\n| 98:16 | 78:6;79:24;80:2; | 58:12;60:3,4 | case (13) | clear (1) |\n| Avenue (1) | 91:12,13,14,18;93:9; | briefing (1) | 19:2,10;21:6,19,25; | 71:5 |\n| | | | | |\n| 67:6 | 94:12,15,17,22;123:2 | 118:13 | 22:6,16;23:12;58:4, | clearly (4) |\n| avoided (1) | believing (1) | briefly (2) | 12;80:9;82:16;119:23 | 12:6;39:20;40:3; |\n| 130:14 | 75:4 | 9:9;16:10 | cases (2) | 92:3 |\n| awaiting (1) | bell (1) | bring (1) | 15:11;23:14 | client (9) |\n| | | | | |\n| 90:19 | 108:15 | 130:10 | Cathy (8) | 57:9;124:22;125:9, |\n| aware (18) | below (1) | British (7) | 84:22,22,25,25; | 14,23;127:18;128:10; |\n| 13:4;34:19;35:2; | 100:4 | 10:16,25;33:13; | 93:20;94:13;97:15; | 129:4,5 |\n| 55:3;57:9,12;58:11; | beneficial (1) | 52:2;53:8;54:14; | 100:2 | client's (2) |\n| | | | | |\n| 69:19;81:4;101:22; | 106:4 | 107:2 | causing (1) | 11:4;21:18 |\n| 102:6;106:25;116:15; | beneficially (4) | broad (1) | 61:22 | close (2) |\n| 118:12,19;122:2; | 105:8,13,24;106:10 | 19:19 | CCP (4) | 83:22,22 |\n| 124:21;125:9 | beneficiary (1) | broker (2) | 79:22;131:3,10,14 | co-conspirators (1) |\n| away (1) | 105:3 | 85:2;93:20 | CEO (1) | 70:22 |\n| | | | | |\n| 90:10 | besides (2) | brother (2) | 67:18 | collateral (1) |\n| | 17:6;119:4 | 45:6,8 | certain (4) | 107:24 |\n| B | best (4) | brought (2) | 10:8,9;67:23; | colleague (2) |\n| | 8:14;9:14,16;24:19 | 12:9;94:10 | 100:12 | 18:9,23 |\n| | | | | |\n| back (15) | better (2) | Bruno (1) | Certificate (1) | colleagues (3) |\n| 23:22;45:21;50:6; | 9:14;131:14 | 69:17 | 34:14 | 18:9,18;19:2 |\n| 59:13;82:2;87:15; | beyond (13) | budget (1) | certify (1) | comfort (1) |\n| 90:7,8;100:9;114:5; | 13:18;14:9;58:6,17; | 84:18 | 133:7 | 114:8 |\n| 124:2,3;127:5; | 60:7;62:9;68:2;102:9; | bunch (1) | challenger (1) | commit (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 130:10,13 | 103:2;117:3;126:3; | 21:7 | 91:2 | 61:19 |\n| background (3) | 128:14,24 | business (3) | child (1) | committing (1) |\n| 51:3,4,7 | bid (1) | 66:7;80:18;81:2 | 18:23 | 61:14 |\n| bad (1) | 100:8 | buy (1) | Chiling (1) | communicate (14) |\n| | | | | |\n| 19:19 | billion (1) | 53:7 | 18:2 | 19:14,17,20;20:2,4, |\n| Balance (2) | 84:11 | buying (1) | China (14) | 5;33:4;50:10;76:5,10; |\n| 76:17;79:24 | birth (2) | 90:2 | 20:10;41:11;46:6; | 80:23;87:6;112:7; |\n| Barnum (1) | 18:21,23 | BVI (1) | 49:18;56:7;78:10,24; | 113:17 |\n| 83:10 | bit (2) | 110:24 | 90:19;93:8;96:13; | communicated (4) |\n| | | | | |\n| based (3) | 46:16;52:15 | | 104:21;120:24;121:3, | 87:21;92:12,14; |\n| 71:10;72:4;83:16 | blanking (1) | C | 5 | 99:13 |\n| basis (3) | 127:24 | | Chinese (18) | communicates (2) |\n| 61:12;101:19,25 | Blue (1) | call (2) | 32:21;41:17;43:10; | 96:16;106:20 |\n| Bates (3) | 121:18 | 34:12;108:16 | 55:8,13;67:24;68:16; | communication (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 34:12;73:23;82:15 | board (7) | called (10) | 70:12,21;72:13;73:3; | 124:2 |\n| BBC (1) | 36:16,17;38:18,20; | 28:9;37:4;46:23; | 80:3;93:5;104:18; | communist (10) |\n| 111:8 | 73:21;76:24;80:14 | 47:9;67:10;83:15; | 115:5,17;116:4;131:5 | 15:12;22:18;23:5; |\n| beaten (1) | bond (1) | 90:19;116:15;121:11, | choice (4) | 60:24,25;61:2,16,17; |\n| | | | | |\n| 79:5 | 90:20 | 18 | 71:6,7,11;72:4 | 104:19;120:19 |\n| become (7) | borrow (1) | calling (1) | chow (1) | communists (2) |\n| 50:17;74:6,8,14; | 119:2 | 46:3 | 41:17 | 21:9;121:9 |\n| 80:16;81:7,14 | borrowed (1) | came (4) | cited (1) | companies (8) |\n| began (1) | 108:8 | 84:2;112:12; | 59:24 | 16:22,24;48:20; |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 70:22 | both (5) | 118:24;119:5 | city (5) | 52:12;54:13;67:3; |\n| beginning (2) | 10:7;45:12;60:12;
65:24;117:23 | can (30) | 10:13;67:9;69:14;
86:11;114:19 | 116:12;127:19
companies' (1) |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC (2) audio/video - companies'**\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 442 of 452\n\n**MILES KWOK October 3, 2018**\n\n| 70:23 | 76:5,10;80:13,14,20; | 15,18,25;111:20 | 108:23 | 12;34:10,12;58:9,20; |\n|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|\n| Company (43) | 81:5 | correction (1) | deals (1) | 61:12;68:3;70:9; |\n| 7:13,17;16:23;28:8; | Connolly's (1) | 84:11 | 31:6 | 71:24;117:4,19; |\n| 37:4,6;46:3,5,21,23, | 51:10 | correctly (2) | Debit (2) | 118:2,9;128:11,25 |\n| 23;47:9,24;54:14,14; | consequently (1) | 41:14;50:5 | 82:6,13 | directing (4) |\n| 63:14;67:10;69:15, | 91:17 | counsel (12) | December (1) | 19:13;40:19;69:3; |\n| 16;72:15;73:10; | consider (1) | 6:19;7:19;15:8,10; | 76:17 | 71:12 |\n| 76:18;77:5,8,17; | 100:18 | 47:12;74:5;82:16; | decide (1) | direction (12) |\n| 78:11;81:12;82:17; | Consolidated (1) | 102:21;109:14; | 53:19 | 59:4;62:9;70:3,8, |\n| 88:21,24;105:13; | 76:16 | 129:12;130:6,11 | decision (13) | 21;71:6,8;72:6,17,22; |\n| 111:11;116:10,11,15, | constantly (1) | country (2) | 52:22,23;53:2,15; | 73:6;129:7 |\n| 21;117:16,25;118:7,8, | 79:11 | 41:10;91:2 | 92:6,10,12,18;93:14; | directly (2) |\n| 25;121:17;122:8 | consult (1) | County (2) | 96:15;99:10;108:4; | 30:25;50:17 |\n| Company's (1) | 16:24 | 7:7;133:5 | 132:8 | director (3) |\n| 77:12 | consultant (2) | course (11) | declare (1) | 36:12,15;42:24 |\n| competency (1) | 66:11,12 | 16:5;22:11;36:22, | 61:20 | directors (4) |\n| 87:5
compilation (1) | consulting (1)
16:23 | 24;55:6,12;95:24;
106:15;120:22,25; | defamation (1)
127:23 | 38:18;43:24;65:13;
73:21 |\n| 33:25 | contact (4) | 126:6 | defendant (4) | disagree (1) |\n| Complaint (5) | 88:4,6;90:22;91:3 | Court (20) | 8:5,7,9;70:22 | 13:23 |\n| 69:8,12,22;70:5; | Cont'd (1) | 6:16;7:6,14,21; | definite (2) | disagrees (1) |\n| 73:4 | 3:1 | 55:5,14;57:10;58:3; | 44:16;45:14 | 14:21 |\n| complete (4) | content (1) | 69:7,13;70:6;82:12; | definitely (2) | disappearance (2) |\n| 13:2;16:15;76:2; | 123:9 | 100:25;101:13,17,22; | 87:3;116:13 | 56:11,12 |\n| 133:10 | continuously (1) | 102:14;115:25; | democracy (2) | disconnect (1) |\n| completed (1) | 99:17 | 122:11;125:23 | 131:6,7 | 12:7 |\n| 126:11 | contract (8) | cover (1) | deposed (3) | discovery (15) |\n| Completely (15) | 11:19;12:3,5;101:2, | 78:9 | 9:4;14:6,6 | 58:8,19;62:10;68:3, |\n| 9:25;11:23;12:13, | 6,9,11;102:13 | covering (3) | deposit (1) | 7,12,13;69:2;103:3,4; |\n| 14;13:9;21:22,25; | control (4) | 11:13;13:25;60:22 | 90:8 | 117:4;126:4,7; |\n| 22:2;31:20;43:9,11; | 36:20,22;77:19; | crazy (3) | deposition (18) | 128:15,24 |\n| 48:22;55:2;74:10; | 78:5 | 12:4,13;21:6 | 6:12,19;7:3,10; | discuss (14) |\n| 113:15 | controlled (1) | created (1) | 9:10;13:24;14:16,18; | 11:4;21:5;26:23; |\n| complicated (1) | 77:20 | 21:25 | 15:5,9,15;45:20; | 32:12,15,18,20;44:18; |\n| 108:14 | controlling (2) | creditors (1) | 81:25;114:4;130:2,9; | 46:11,12,14;47:11; |\n| comply (1) | 78:10,23 | 54:19 | 132:13;133:9 | 50:20;68:9 |\n| 102:24
computer (1) | controls (1)
36:23 | Cruz (1)
7:15 | destroying (1)
21:12 | discussed (7)
18:13,18,24;19:8; |\n| 26:7 | conversation (7) | currently (2) | detail (1) | 71:24;111:9;121:20 |\n| concludes (1) | 57:14;93:4,8; | 35:20;101:5 | 111:9 | discussing (1) |\n| 132:12 | 103:12;109:12; | curse (2) | Dhabi (2) | 102:11 |\n| confidentiality (2) | 111:18;121:21 | 12:16,19 | 108:21,24 | Discussion (1) |\n| 80:17,25 | convey (1) | | DI (29) | 59:12 |\n| confirm (2) | 111:14 | D | 17:16;18:14;19:4, | discussions (5) |\n| 14:12,14 | copies (1) | | 12;58:6,17;59:3; | 99:22;104:9,12; |\n| confused (4) | 23:8 | DAN (2) | 61:11;62:8;67:25; | 105:5;107:11 |\n| 48:21,22;81:14; | copy (4) | 3:5;7:12 | 70:2,7;71:5,12,20; | dispute (5) |\n| 111:10 | 6:18;119:18; | date (6) | 72:5,16,21;73:5; | 12:11;105:23; |\n| confusing (1) | 129:18,20 | 33:22;59:17;69:9; | 78:15;101:14;102:15; | 106:9;125:7;129:19 |\n| 111:13 | core (1) | 73:17;82:7;88:17 | 117:19;118:2,9; | disputing (2) |\n| conglomerate (1) | 41:17 | dated (2) | 126:2;128:11,19; | 12:12,13 |\n| 27:21 | Corporate (4) | 60:3;89:4 | 129:6 | distress (1) |\n| Connecticut (2) | 33:21,25;43:3;47:7 | daughter (2) | die (1) | 61:22 |\n| 83:18,21 | corporation (46) | 45:6,7 | 22:25 | document (41) |\n| connection (14)
20:25;22:5;25:3; | 10:16;28:10,12,17;
29:4;33:11,12,16; | day (10) | different (6)
20:21;32:22;46:4; | 21:18;32:6;33:24;
34:6,17,24;35:11,18; |\n| 50:12;73:11;76:24; | 34:3,15,20;35:3;36:5, | 15:10,18,19;17:24;
23:9;96:5;123:20; | 52:16;56:11;64:8 | 71:10;72:4;73:19; |\n| 77:13;93:21;102:25; | | 130:10,13;133:21 | differently (1) | 74:11,24;76:16; |\n| | | | | |\n| | 13,21,25;37:8,11,19, | | | |\n| 109:23;112:2;117:6; | 22;38:3,8,11,14,17, | days (1) | 13:3 | 80:13;83:6,9,14; |\n| 119:22;120:2 | 21,23;39:9,15;41:24; | 79:19 | difficult (1) | 88:21;89:4;98:16,25; |\n| Connolly (14)
50:19,23;51:6,14; | 42:4,14,18,22;43:3,
23;46:18;52:3;66:16; | deal (2)
30:25;31:4 | 54:18
direct (18) | 116:9;118:17,21;
119:5,6,21,23;120:10; |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC (3) Company - document**\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 443 of 452\n\n| 126:16;129:16,18,21, | 3:4 | 131:6,8 | Fall (1) | 97:18;98:3,4;119:14 |\n|------------------------|-------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| 23,25;130:4,8 | Ellen (2) | everybody (1) | 89:2 | financials (3) |\n| documents (12) | 7:12,16 | 82:10 | falsely (1) | 76:23;77:12;80:25 |\n| 22:16;26:9,11,16, | else (14) | everyone (1) | 120:18 | find (2) |\n| 24;33:21,25;35:23; | 17:23;18:3,5,8; | 113:21 | familiar (2) | 22:15;104:17 |\n| 43:3;44:19;62:3; | 24:3;29:14,17;30:2; | everyone's (1) | 49:20,22 | finds (2) |\n| 126:21 | 31:6;32:8;39:2;86:21; | 15:24 | family (15) | 43:12;125:23 |\n| dollar (1) | 94:10;108:20 | evidence (2) | 30:21;44:23;45:4; | fine (5) |\n| 100:12 | e-mail (1) | 118:25;119:4 | 54:11;63:23;64:15, | 27:8;43:20;78:20; |\n| dominating (1) | 19:15 | evidences (1) | 20;77:18,23;94:8,9, | 113:22;124:8 |\n| 77:19 | employee (2) | 118:22 | 13,16,18;98:6 | finish (4) |\n| Don (1) | 16:21;85:24 | evidencing (1) | family's (1) | 9:17,18;29:22; |\n| 16:14 | employees (7) | 129:16 | 86:11 | 130:8 |\n| done (2) | 16:24;38:9;48:24; | exact (2) | far (6) | finished (2) |\n| 44:19;62:5 | 66:2,3,4;85:25 | 42:15;56:24 | 13:20;24:9;69:3; | 39:21;132:10 |\n| doubt (2) | end (3) | EXAMINATION (1) | 94:4;108:18;113:6 | finishes (1) |\n| 70:4;76:8 | 51:11;127:12; | 8:22 | fast (1) | 40:2 |\n| down (3) | 130:15 | examined (1) | 27:4 | firm (8) |\n| 11:11;90:15;92:5 | ends (1) | 8:19 | faster (1) | 16:19;49:19,20; |\n| drafts (1) | 132:4 | example (1) | 24:16 | 83:17;88:8,10,22,24 |\n| 101:8 | engagement (1) | 96:15 | favor (1) | first (9) |\n| drop (2) | 51:13 | except (1) | 83:10 | 89:2,5,13;92:6; |\n| 97:8,10
dropped (1) | England (1)
104:7 | 6:8
exchanged (1) | FBI (1)
61:18 | 96:5;107:14;111:22;
112:12;117:12 |\n| 91:25 | English (18) | 101:8 | February (8) | floor (2) |\n| duly (2) | 8:13,14;32:20,21; | excuse (1) | 34:21;35:4;44:3; | 48:8;89:8 |\n| 8:11,18 | 35:16,21;41:16,21; | 98:14 | 56:21;72:13;73:20; | focus (1) |\n| during (17) | 48:13;55:8;81:14; | Exhibit (15) | 74:15;77:17 | 24:13 |\n| 17:5,9,15,20,23; | 86:2,3;87:5;98:22; | 33:19,20;34:7;59:7, | February/March (1) | follow (2) |\n| 18:19;19:2,10;33:3; | 116:4,7;126:21 | 15,20;69:7,12;73:15, | 56:17 | 80:11;128:22 |\n| 39:18;40:6;42:11,12; | enough (4) | 20;82:4,12;88:13,15, | Federal (3) | follows (2) |\n| 46:11;47:12;93:7; | 18:5;27:5;63:6; | 25 | 69:7,13;70:6 | 8:20;60:5 |\n| 129:22 | 87:6 | existed (1) | feel (1) | follow-up (1) |\n| | ensure (1) | 40:24 | 39:13 | 128:23 |\n| E | 55:18 | exists (1) | feels (1) | force (1) |\n| | entire (2) | 129:21 | 80:17 | 6:15 |\n| eager (1) | 17:2,20 | expanded (1) | fees (1) | forget (1) |\n| 80:15 | entities (3) | 63:14 | 51:10 | 131:18 |\n| earlier (11) | 65:19,25;119:9 | expect (1) | Feng (2) | form (49) |\n| 28:9;46:21;47:16; | entitled (6) | 9:21 | 87:2,4 | 6:9;25:5,18;26:3; |\n| 56:6;58:2;79:14; | 24:5;59:21;82:5,13; | explain (5) | few (4) | 29:11,20;30:5,15,22; |\n| 121:20,24;122:18,22; | 102:5;129:20 | 23:25;40:9;43:16; | 23:25;90:2;96:20; | 33:8;35:5;37:23;38:5; |\n| 126:13 | entity (7) | 116:23;117:6 | 127:12 | 39:11;40:10;41:2; |\n| early (1) | 27:22;47:7;60:14; | explained (1) | fewer (1) | 50:14;53:10,17,21; |\n| 72:13 | 65:21;83:25;107:3; | 110:23 | 35:23 | 54:2,15,20;57:15; |\n| ears (1) | 116:25 | explore (1) | Fifth (1) | 65:4,9,14;66:17,22; |\n| 60:23 | entrusted (3) | 13:15 | 67:6 | 78:15;80:4;85:10; |\n| easier (1) | 28:18;29:4;92:25 | extorting (1) | figure (1) | 95:7,13,22;96:3; |\n| 35:15
East (1) | equivalent (2)
12:24;43:17 | 131:4
Extortion (2) | 100:12
filed (17) | 97:12;105:15,20,25;
106:6,11,22;110:11; |\n| 108:19 | Eric (2) | 128:2,4 | 12:2;24:4;55:4,11, | 111:4;113:11;122:15; |\n| Edward (2) | 87:24;88:7 | | 14,15,18;60:3;69:13, | 125:17;126:17 |\n| 7:23;9:2 | estate (10) | F | 19;70:5;112:16; | formally (1) |\n| effect (1) | 45:5;66:8;74:4; | | 113:2;115:24;118:14, | 129:23 |\n| 6:15 | 85:2;114:14;116:16, | fact (6) | 17;125:10 | formation (1) |\n| either (6) | 21;117:16,24;118:8 | 25:16;60:15; | files (1) | 33:15 |\n| 17:14;67:2;95:16; | et (2) | 113:10;123:11;124:4, | 34:4 | formed (5) |\n| 119:7,8;125:5 | 7:6;97:21 | 6 | filing (1) | 34:20;35:3;44:3,6; |\n| elder (2) | Eva (3) | Fair (4) | 6:5 | 53:9 |\n| 45:6,8 | 10:15;55:24;56:4 | 18:5;63:6;109:20; | finally (1) | forth (1) |\n| elicited (1) | even (8) | 113:15 | 10:23 | 100:9 |\n| 101:16 | 36:8;40:19;43:12; | fake (2) | financial (7) | found (2) |\n| ELIZABETH (1) | 74:11;111:12;123:20; | 61:4,18 | 73:8,16;80:18; | 50:18;91:11 |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 444 of 452\n\n| four (1) | given (2) | 24:12 | 21:11;131:3,10 | 13:7;27:10,13; |\n|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|\n| 20:23 | 125:3;133:12 | HARMON (155) | Henan (7) | 28:14;32:13,14,17,25; |\n| | | | | |\n| Frances (1) | gives (1) | 8:4,4;10:13;12:6; | 114:20;116:16,21; | 33:5;34:4;37:16;38:4; |\n| 60:6 | 28:23 | 13:16,17,22;14:5,15, | 117:9,15,24;118:7 | 44:10,15;57:7; |\n| fraud (1) | giving (3) | 20,24,25;15:14;16:4; | H-E-N-A-N (1) | 118:15;129:17 |\n| 118:8 | 18:21;48:20;89:22 | 17:7,10,14,16,21,25; | 114:21 | hours (2) |\n| front (1) | goes (1) | 18:14,25;19:4,9,12; | HEREBY (3) | 18:22;20:12 |\n| 35:18 | 126:9 | 24:18;25:2,5,12,18, | 6:3,6;133:7 | house (5) |\n| frozen (1) | Golden (26) | 22,25;26:3,7,12; | herein (3) | 39:6;42:11;48:15; |\n| 80:3 | 3:6;8:9;51:20; | 29:11,20,24;30:5,9, | 6:5;8:11,18 | 49:25;89:23 |\n| Fund (11) | 63:12,13,16,17,18,19; | 15,22;33:8;34:5,9; | hide (1) | humane (2) |\n| 7:5;27:20,21;97:17, | 64:5,11,13,24;65:3,8, | 35:5;37:23;38:5; | 15:11 | 130:25;131:13 |\n| 17,19,24,25;98:2; | 12,25;66:5,7,10,14, | 39:11,21,25;40:10,15; | Hmmm (1) | humiliation (1) |\n| 108:19;118:24 | 20,25;67:12,17; | 41:2;43:12;44:13; | 48:2 | 62:11 |\n| funds (4) | 116:14 | 47:13;50:14;53:10, | Ho (2) | hundred (1) |\n| 29:3;47:17;84:2; | Good (6) | 17,21;54:2,6,15,20, | 73:23;74:5 | 98:21 |\n| | | | | |\n| 119:5 | 8:24;13:20;21:12; | 25;57:15;58:6,13,17; | Hodgson (1) | hundreds (1) |\n| furnished (1) | 54:10;82:9,10 | 59:3;61:11;62:8,18, | 8:4 | 57:22 |\n| 6:19 | Google (1) | 23,24;63:3,8;65:4,9, | Hold (6) | |\n| furniture (3) | 83:17 | 14,20,23;66:17,22; | 40:15;45:25;53:9; | I |\n| 90:2,9;93:3 | gosh (1) | 67:25;68:8,18,22; | 78:16;87:13,14 | |\n| FURTHER (6) | 52:21 | 69:24;70:2,7,14,18; | holding (2) | idea (3) |\n| 6:7,11,17;58:9,20; | government (6) | 71:5,12,16,20;72:5,8, | 52:12;77:12 | 78:22;105:19; |\n| 129:12 | 67:24;68:17;72:14; | 11,16,21;73:5;75:10, | holdings (83) | 112:11 |\n| | 73:4;80:3;90:21 | 23;78:15,25;80:4,7; | 10:15,20,24;28:10, | ideas (2) |\n| G | Grauer (2) | 85:10;95:7,13,22; | 12,17;33:11,16,20; | 75:3,4 |\n| | 7:13,16 | 96:3;97:12;101:14, | 34:2,3,15,19;35:3; | identification (6) |\n| gain (1) | great (2) | 21;102:3,9,15;103:4; | 36:5,13,20,25;37:5,8, | 33:22;59:16;69:8; |\n| 123:16 | 79:5;103:6 | 105:15,20,25;106:6, | 9,11,12,15,19,20,20, | 73:17;82:6;88:16 |\n| galaxy (1) | ground (1) | 11,22;109:10,15,18; | 21;38:2,8,11,14,17, | identify (2) |\n| 21:24 | 9:9 | 110:11;111:4;113:11, | 21,23;39:9,15;41:24; | 110:17;119:6 |\n| gave (4) | group (2) | 22;115:8;116:22; | 42:3,13,17,22;43:2, | illegitimate (1) |\n| 18:23;25:25;26:6; | 9:3;11:14 | 117:19;118:2,9; | 23;44:2,5;46:18; | 125:22 |\n| 128:21 | guarantee (2) | 122:15;123:24;124:6, | 47:24;48:5,11,17,23; | impossible (1) |\n| general (1) | 89:25;98:21 | 9,12;125:17;126:2,7, | 49:2,5,8,12;51:16,19, | 121:5 |\n| 68:14 | guards (3) | 11,17;128:11,14,19; | 23;66:15,21;69:16; | impression (3) |\n| generally (2) | 18:10;19:10;22:20 | 129:6;132:11 | 72:15;73:9;76:18,23; | 95:5;99:5;105:12 |\n| 20:20;48:10 | guest (1) | Harmon's (1) | 77:5,8,16,24;78:11, | imprisoned (3) |\n| | | | | |\n| Genever (90) | 130:23 | 16:18 | 24;79:24;105:2; | 87:15;114:13; |\n| 10:11,12,12,12,13, | Gui (1) | Haroche (1) | 107:2,15;108:5; | 120:17 |\n| 20;11:7;28:10,12,17, | 90:23 | 85:5 | 110:2,15,18,20,25; | inaccurate (1) |\n| 18;29:4;31:21;32:2,5; | G-U-I (1) | hear (2) | 111:20 | 57:4 |\n| 33:11,16,20;34:2,2, | 90:25 | 18:22;107:21 | Holdings' (1) | inappropriate (1) |\n| 15,19;35:3;36:5,12, | Guo (6) | heard (14) | 80:2 | 102:4 |\n| 20,25;37:5,8,9,11,12, | 59:21;63:20,23; | 17:18;28:8,11;37:4, | holds (1) | include (2) |\n| 15,19,20,20,21;38:2, | 64:7;90:22;121:11 | 7;50:5;57:19;107:18, | 48:7 | 93:2;111:3 |\n| 8,11,14,17,21,23; | G-U-O (3) | 20;108:18;109:21; | home (3) | included (1) |\n| 39:9,14;40:4,9,24; | 63:21;90:24;121:11 | 111:23;121:10,17 | 86:11,12;98:11 | 110:5 |\n| 41:24;42:3,13,17,22; | guys (1) | hearing (3) | homes (1) | includes (3) |\n| 43:2,22;44:2,5;46:18, | 21:7 | 14:23;107:15; | 89:3 | 19:22;115:18; |\n| 22;47:23;48:5,11,17, | | 117:13 | Hong (25) | 116:13 |\n| 23;49:2,5,8,12;51:16, | H | heart (1) | 31:17;46:7,25;47:2, | Including (3) |\n| 19,23;66:15,21;67:2; | | 126:9 | 9;49:18;50:10;63:13, | 115:7,10,12 |\n| 105:2;107:2,15; | hand (1) | held (2) | 16,18,19;64:5;65:22; | incomprehensible (1) |\n| 108:5;110:2,15,18,19, | 116:19 | 7:10;59:12 | 66:25;82:4,14;83:21; | 21:23 |\n| 24,25;111:2,8,20,23; | handed (4) | Helen (1) | 87:22;96:12;98:11; | Incorporation (1) |\n| 119:8 | 33:24;59:19;82:11, | 104:3 | 115:16;116:9,11,13, | 34:14 |\n| Genever's (1) | 12 | hell (1) | 14 | incorrect (2) |\n| 31:23 | happened (2) | 13:11 | hopefully (1) | 50:16;92:3 |\n| Gilbert (1) | 23:4;99:8 | help (4) | 130:13 | index (1) |\n| 85:5 | happy (3) | 56:14;104:7; | hospital (1) | 7:8 |\n| gin (1) | 68:9;79:16;113:20 | 109:13;131:5 | 90:19 | individual (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 10:15 | hard (1) | helping (3) | Hotel (17) | 60:14 |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 445 of 452\n\n| inform (3) | 90:24;92:21;99:3; | 59:22 | 38:1;39:1;40:1,18; | lawfully (1) |\n|-----------------------|----------------------|----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|\n| 100:25;101:13; | 102:17,17;103:23; | JIANG (1) | 41:1,6,23;42:1,2,10, | 131:9 |\n| 102:14 | 104:2;107:5,9;111:6, | 3:4 | 13,21;43:1;44:1;45:1, | laws (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| informally (1) | 6;112:21;114:21; | Jillian (1) | 20,24;46:1,10,15; | 33:12 |\n| 129:22 | 115:9,12;118:4,4; | 8:6 | 47:1;48:1;49:1;50:1; | lawsuit (13) |\n| information (8) | 119:10,11;124:11; | job (1) | 51:1,22;52:1;53:1; | 12:2,11;24:4;55:3; |\n| 25:15;28:23,24; | 127:24;128:3;129:8, | 131:12 | 54:1;55:1;56:1;57:1; | 69:20;109:23;112:3; |\n| 70:5;73:9,16;115:15, | 8;130:20 | judge (1) | 58:1,11;59:1,15,19, | 115:24;118:14;125:8, |\n| 20 | into (3) | 100:25 | 21;60:1,2,8,9,15,22; | 22,24;127:17 |\n| initial (1) | 8:13,14;70:11 | judgment (1) | 61:1;62:1,6,15,20; | lawyer (4) |\n| 29:2 | Invest (1) | 125:24 | 63:1;64:1;65:1;66:1; | 9:23;16:16;104:6; |\n| instruct (3) | 66:8 | June (4) | 67:1;68:1;69:1,7,12; | 129:19 |\n| 28:19;96:21,25 | invested (2) | 91:23;92:8;94:23; | 70:1;71:1,9;72:1,2; | lawyers (15) |\n| instructed (6) | 45:4;114:14 | 114:25 | 73:1,15,19,23;74:1,3, | 9:20;16:8,9,10,11; |\n| 24:7;62:19;91:8; | investigation (1) | | 5;75:1;76:1,15;77:1; | 21:16;31:8,13;46:13; |\n| 97:7,10;102:21 | 62:4 | K | 78:1,9,23;79:1,23; | 55:4;91:10;106:20; |\n| instructing (5) | investigator (1) | | 80:1,10,15;81:1,6,25; | 121:4;123:22;124:19 |\n| 63:2,7,8;72:9; | 60:7 | KARIN (4) | 82:1,4,9,15,16;83:1, | learn (2) |\n| 103:11 | investment (8) | 3:6;8:8;131:19,20 | 16;84:1;85:1;86:1; | 72:19;73:2 |\n| instruction (4) | 29:5;52:5,7;54:10; | | 87:1;88:1,15,20;89:1; | learned (1) |\n| | | Kau (1) | | |\n| 97:4;101:20;102:2; | 69:15;119:14;120:6,9 | 31:14 | 90:1;91:1;92:1;93:1; | 109:4 |\n| 126:8 | investments (2) | keenly (1) | 94:1;95:1;96:1;97:1; | learning (1) |\n| instructs (2) | 52:10,17 | 80:17 | 98:1;99:1;100:1; | 35:20 |\n| 9:23;96:7 | investor (1) | keep (1) | 101:1;102:1,12,16,24; | lease (6) |\n| intelligences (1) | 52:23 | 130:2 | 103:1,7;104:1;105:1; | 48:7;67:9,13;123:7, |\n| 22:19 | investors (1) | kidnapped (2) | 106:1;107:1;108:1; | 19;126:15 |\n| intend (1) | 29:6 | 121:8,8 | 109:1;110:1;111:1; | least (3) |\n| 86:6 | invite (1) | kill (1) | 112:1;113:1;114:1,4, | 96:20;125:10; |\n| intended (1) | 14:21 | 61:20 | 10;115:1;116:1; | 127:21 |\n| 86:10 | involved (4) | kind (2) | 117:1,7,18;118:1,5; | leaving (1) |\n| interest (13) | 33:15;56:15;75:9, | 12:21;19:24 | 119:1;120:1;121:1, | 28:24 |\n| 28:5;38:3;64:4,10; | 22 | kinds (1) | 14;122:1;123:1; | leg (1) |\n| 77:4,8;78:3;82:20,24; | involvement (1) | 20:23 | 124:1,21;125:1; | 79:3 |\n| 83:4;110:6,9;116:20 | 47:20 | knew (2) | 126:1,13;127:1,11; | Legal (2) |\n| interested (1) | Island (1) | 122:20,23 | 128:1;129:1,2;130:1; | 7:13,16 |\n| 86:23 | 53:8 | knowing (2) | 131:1,21;132:1,13; | letter (9) |\n| | | | | |\n| interests (1) | Islands (6) | 126:15,22 | 133:7,17 | 51:13;73:15,21,25; |\n| 117:24 | 10:17,25;33:13; | knowledge (3) | Kwok-controlled (1) | 74:3;78:9,11;80:22; |\n| International (2) | 52:3;54:14;107:3 | 75:5,14,18 | 117:15 | 81:5 |\n| 47:2,9 | issue (5) | knows (5) | Kwok's (4) | letting (1) |\n| interpret (8) | 11:13;14:19;47:11; | 21:11;94:8,9;95:24; | 13:6;14:16,18; | 79:7 |\n| 8:12;25:8;28:22; | 60:4;106:21 | 101:17 | 68:13 | level (1) |\n| 39:22;54:22;118:5; | issued (1) | Kong (25) | Kwon (1) | 87:5 |\n| 129:9;130:20 | 102:25 | 31:17;46:8;47:2,2, | 7:6 | Liability (1) |\n| interpretation (1) | issues (6) | 9;49:18;50:10;63:13, | | 37:6 |\n| 84:10 | 11:4,6,14;13:14,15, | 16,18,19;64:5;65:22; | L | lien (2) |\n| interpreted (4) | 25 | 66:25;82:4,14;83:21; | | 107:7;112:17 |\n| 58:23;70:25;72:24; | item (1) | 87:22;96:12;98:11; | Lao (1) | lies (1) |\n| 99:4 | 129:14 | 115:16;116:10,11,13, | 87:22 | 127:22 |\n| Interpreter (79) | Ivey (1) | 14 | L-A-O (1) | Limited (12) |\n| 3:4;8:11,19;11:9, | 83:10 | Kristi (1) | 87:23 | 10:24;37:5;82:5,14, |\n| 10,22;12:16,20,23; | | 7:15 | laptop (1) | 17,21,24;83:4,7,25; |\n| 18:4;22:21;23:3;25:7, | J | Kwok (203) | 26:7 | 96:18;130:2 |\n| | | | | |\n| 8;27:17;28:19;29:7; | | 7:3;8:24;9:1;10:1; | last (2) | line (1) |\n| 31:10,11,19;36:14,15, | jail (3) | 11:1;12:1,10;13:1; | 22:21;46:11 | 62:19 |\n| 17;39:23;41:4,4,18; | 56:7,9;57:5 | 14:1,6;15:1;16:1; | late (2) | list (2) |\n| 43:7,15,21;44:11; | January (3) | 17:1;18:1;19:1,14; | 67:13;72:12 | 43:23;115:18 |\n| 47:3,4;49:15;50:3,4; | 70:12,20;72:13 | 20:1;21:1;22:1;23:1, | later (2) | listen (8) |\n| 52:19;54:24;56:2; | Je (2) | 25;24:1;25:1;26:1; | 45:5;127:8 | 60:20,21;61:2,5,9, |\n| 58:22,22;63:21; | 97:16;98:7 | 27:1,6;28:1;29:1; | law (9) | 10;71:2,4 |\n| 70:24;72:23,23; | J-E (1) | 30:1;31:1;32:1;33:1, | 16:19;24:5;49:19; | listened (1) |\n| 74:21;75:14;84:7,8,9; | 97:16 | 20,24;34:1,8,9,10; | 83:17;88:8,10,22,24; | 52:23 |\n| 87:23,25;89:20,21; | jet (1) | 35:1,16;36:1;37:1; | 131:6 | lists (1) |\n| | | | | |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 446 of 452\n\n| 89:7 | 83:4,7,25 | 6:12;7:21;9:20; | 133:7,17 | 103:2,3;112:3,13; |\n|-----------------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|\n| litigation (7)
9:3;14:2;20:25; | Luncheon (1)
81:20 | 39:9;60:3;69:14;
114:24,25;130:12; | Mileson (12)
41:15,16,23;42:2, | 126:10
motives (1) |\n| 21:5;25:3;101:2; | | 131:20 | 12,21;51:22;64:7; | 60:13 |\n| 118:18 | M | Maybe (5) | 103:9,14;105:3; | move (7) |\n| little (2) | | 13:12;35:15;56:14; | 121:14 | 14:23;43:20;79:8, |\n| 46:15;52:15 | MACOM (2) | 104:18;108:16 | Mileson's (1) | 10,11;101:18,23 |\n| live (15) | 3:5;7:12 | mean (11) | 104:14 | Mrs (1) |\n| 27:12,24;29:10,14, | mafia (2) | 15:13;21:4;34:22, | million (24) | 17:11 |\n| 18;30:3,4,13,13,19, | 21:8,12 | 25;39:4;52:7,11,18; | 36:10;61:3;84:6,8, | much (8) |\n| 20;86:5,6;98:10; | maintain (2) | 76:13;97:19;112:14 | 12,18;89:8,23,24,25; | 8:25;28:23;84:15, |\n| 114:19 | 67:5;80:24 | meaning (3) | 90:2,7,13;91:25;92:2; | 18;130:16,24;131:12, |\n| lived (1) | maintains (3) | 22:8;36:15;52:20 | 93:11;94:24;98:17; | 13 |\n| 117:8 | 43:3,5,23 | means (3) | 99:2,11;100:15; | must (1) |\n| living (3) | maintenance (1) | 20:17;40:9;107:6 | 120:9;125:3;128:5 | 131:16 |\n| 54:8;104:20;114:12 | 89:25 | media (1) | mind (1) | Myers (4) |\n| LLC (31) | MAISTRELLO (6) | 66:8 | 89:21 | 7:11,24;8:1,3 |\n| 10:20;33:21;34:2; | 3:6;8:8,8;127:7; | meet (6) | minutes (1) | |\n| 37:5,9,13,15,20,21; | 131:19,22 | 15:8,14,17;94:16, | 58:2 | N |\n| 44:3,5;47:24;48:6,11, | making (2) | 17;98:15 | missed (1) | |\n| 17,23;49:2,5,8,12; | 60:16;71:16 | meeting (13) | 22:21 | name (17) |\n| 51:16,19,23;52:2; | Man (1) | 15:13,22;17:3,6,9, | mistake (3) | 7:12;8:25;16:13,15; |\n| 53:7,8,9;66:21;83:10; | 105:11 | 15,24;18:19;19:2,10; | 31:11;84:9,10 | 31:15;41:16,17,21; |\n| 110:20;111:2 | management (1) | 38:21;98:24;99:8 | mistaken (2) | 44:12;48:13;49:16; |\n| LLP (1) | 49:9 | member (5) | 89:19;90:6 | 92:19;104:14;108:11; |\n| 8:5 | manager (2) | 27:21;36:16,17; | mode (2) | 115:18;116:5;131:18 |\n| loan (7) | 97:18,24 | 63:23;77:18 | 56:11,13 | named (3) |\n| 118:8;127:19,20; | managing (1) | members (7) | money (6) | 33:6;103:16;117:13 |\n| 128:6,6,10;129:5 | 97:25 | 30:21;34:11;43:24; | 48:15;106:17; | names (3) |\n| local (1) | Mandarin (3) | 64:21;77:19,23;88:8 | 108:8;125:3,24; | 15:24;48:19;111:8 |\n| 74:4 | 3:4;8:11,14 | memorandum (1) | 127:25 | nature (2) |\n| long (4) | Mandarinn (1) | 43:6 | months (1) | 40:13,23 |\n| 24:12;77:3;79:15;
130:18 | 8:13
Manis (2) | mental (1)
61:22 | 86:16
more (5) | need (11)
18:4;21:13;23:25; |\n| longer (1) | 104:4,10 | mention (3) | 11:20,23;90:14; | 49:15;62:12;79:15, |\n| 86:22 | many (17) | 86:25;87:4;120:13 | 127:12;131:16 | 15;80:17,24;90:12; |\n| look (5) | 19:23;20:10,21; | mentioned (1) | morning (1) | 116:23 |\n| 33:19;35:10,12; | 22:19;23:8,13,14; | 46:21 | 8:24 | needed (2) |\n| 43:8;76:14 | 30:12;35:22;57:21; | merit (1) | MOSS (71) | 45:25;86:20 |\n| loose (1) | 85:23,25;94:11,19,20; | 12:8 | 7:23,23;8:23;9:2; | needs (2) |\n| 47:3 | 115:6;116:12 | merits (3) | 11:12;12:22;13:17, | 52:5,8 |\n| lost (1) | March (2) | 13:15;14:2,20 | 21;14:12,17;15:3; | negotiate (5) |\n| 104:17 | 56:22;84:5 | message (7) | 17:18;23:18,24; | 84:24;85:14,15,18, |\n| lot (8) | Mark (6) | 19:20,21,22,24; | 25:11;29:22,25; | 21 |\n| 15:23;23:8;24:21; | 8:4;34:5;59:6; | 20:3,4,8 | 33:19,23;34:7;36:16; | negotiations (1) |\n| 96:10;114:16,17; | 65:17;69:6;88:13 | messages (14) | 43:19;45:15,23;59:6, | 100:8 |\n| 115:5;125:20 | marked (7) | 20:22,24;21:17; | 18;62:14,25;63:6; | New (34) |\n| love (2) | 33:21;59:16;69:8; | 22:5,10,15;23:11; | 65:17,22;68:5,11,21; | 7:7,8;10:21;37:5; |\n| 89:2;131:7 | 73:16,20;82:6;88:16 | 25:3,17,21;26:2,8,20, | 69:5,10;70:17,19; | 47:24;52:2;53:7,9; |\n| lower (6) | market (5) | 24 | 71:14,18;72:8;74:19; | 54:13;63:12,14,17; |\n| 92:25;96:16,21,25; | 87:8,13,17;99:16, | messaging (3) | 82:8;88:13,18; | 64:11;65:22;66:4,10, |\n| 98:16;99:10 | 20 | 20:14,16,19 | 101:19,24;102:7,23; | 14,20;67:5,9;68:13, |\n| lowered (5) | marketing (1) | met (2) | 103:6;107:7;109:13, | 20,23;69:13;83:23; |\n| 91:25;92:7;93:11; | 100:21 | 15:20;94:13 | 20;113:20;114:9; | 86:6,11,17;90:2; |\n| 94:24;99:2 | marks (2) | methods (2) | 115:14;117:7,12; | 94:25;98:12;104:20; |\n| LP (2)
7:5;13:4 | 81:23;114:2 | 19:23;20:16
middle (2) | 124:4,7;126:6,24;
127:11,15;128:16; | 111:2;133:3 |\n| Ltd (5) | married (3)
45:5,10,13 | 83:13;108:19 | 129:11;130:23; | nine (1)
86:16 |\n| 63:12;73:10;77:5,9, | marry (1) | might (1) | 131:15,20,23;132:9 | nobody (2) |\n| 17 | 45:7 | 35:24 | most (1) | 17:6;24:3 |\n| Luck (12) | matter (1) | Miles (8) | 89:3 | nonexisting (1) |\n| 81:10,11,12,16; | | | | |\n| | 7:4 | 7:3;45:20;59:21; | motion (8) | 21:25 |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 447 of 452\n\n| 133:25 | 126:24;127:2;132:9, | orders (1) | 51:9,12 | 69:5 |\n|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|\n| note (6) | 14 | 125:23 | pain (3) | period (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 61:24;62:18;114:6; | offer (3) | organizations (3) | 79:5,8,10 | 42:10 |\n| 130:5;131:17,24 | 100:11,14,17 | 10:9,11;11:7 | paintings (3) | permanently (1) |\n| noted (1) | offered (1) | organized (4) | 90:3,9;93:3 | 86:7 |\n| 132:16 | 130:6 | 10:16,21,25;33:12 | Pangu (4) | person (14) |\n| notion (1) | offers (2) | original (3) | 47:21;73:3;103:19; | 15:20,21;16:18,21; |\n| 89:19 | 60:7;100:4 | 90:7;119:20,20 | 123:3 | 17:2;21:12;27:22,23; |\n| number (6) | office (3) | others (3) | paper (1) | 29:2;40:22;64:9;85:6; |\n| 7:8;38:15;49:6; | 79:12;85:25;88:5 | 35:14;88:3,7 | 26:11 | 96:23;119:2 |\n| 61:17;81:24;114:3 | officer (1) | otherwise (3) | papers (9) | personal (2) |\n| numbers (3) | 6:13 | 61:5;91:3;117:2 | 55:4,7,11,14,18; | 10:7;61:25 |\n| 34:12;89:22,22 | offices (5) | ours (1) | 112:16;113:3,6; | personally (6) |\n| numerals (1) | 38:12;49:3;67:6,9, | 125:4 | 125:10 | 28:6;32:23;78:2; |\n| 35:13 | 14 | out (8) | paragraph (2) | 85:15;108:25;123:5 |\n| | official (1) | 15:23;18:7,10,11; | 70:10,17 | person's (2) |\n| O | 132:4 | 28:24;29:3;52:5;91:4 | parameters (1) | 22:10;62:3 |\n| | old (2) | outside (2) | 61:22 | phone (4) |\n| oath (3) | 114:10,11 | 61:21;68:15 | part (3) | 25:25;38:15;49:6; |\n| 6:14;9:7;133:9 | older (1) | over (6) | 22:22;116:5;131:11 | 93:4 |\n| object (56) | 77:20 | 9:9;20:10;24:16; | parties (1) | phonetic (4) |\n| 9:20,21;14:11;25:5, | O'Mara (1) | 61:3;78:5;104:22 | 6:5 | 18:2;27:18;41:19; |\n| 18;26:3;29:11,20,23; | 83:10 | owe (1) | partly (1) | 63:22 |\n| 30:5,15,22;33:8;35:5; | O'Melveny (4) | 36:9 | 116:4 | photo (1) |\n| 37:23;38:5;39:11; | 7:11,24;8:1,3 | own (10) | partner (6) | 127:8 |\n| 40:10,18;41:2;50:14; | One (41) | 27:9;28:13;31:21; | 27:20;45:4,4;97:17, | Picture (3) |\n| | | | | |\n| 53:10,17,21;54:2,15, | 9:5,5;11:13;16:16, | 37:9,15;60:7;71:11; | 19,22 | 131:22,23;132:7 |\n| 20;57:15;61:11;65:4, | 17,21,23,24;21:2,3; | 72:4;73:25;125:15 | parts (1) | pictures (1) |\n| 9,14;66:17,22;71:23; | 27:7;29:9,13;30:9; | owned (12) | 28:20 | 132:3 |\n| 78:15,17;80:4;85:10; | 31:4;35:13;40:15; | 52:2;64:13;77:16, | party (6) | piercing (2) |\n| 95:7,13,22;96:3; | 42:6;46:6,7,21;49:21; | 23;82:18;105:2,8,8, | 17:19;22:18;29:4; | 13:14;14:19 |\n| 97:12;105:15,20,25; | 57:23,24,25;65:18,23; | 12,13,24;106:10 | 61:25;78:10,24 | Ping (4) |\n| 106:6,11,22;110:11; | 68:25;80:7;81:6; | owner (8) | passed (2) | 55:25;112:20; |\n| 111:4;113:11;122:15; | 85:23;86:2;87:15; | 48:11;78:10,23; | 91:12;93:16 | 113:13;115:22 |\n| 125:17;126:17 | 94:21;109:7;119:13; | 85:7;95:21;106:5,14, | past (1) | P-I-N-G (2) |\n| objected (2) | 120:10;121:15; | 16 | 45:3 | 56:3;112:22 |\n| 40:19;62:18 | 127:19;129:14; | ownership (19) | Paul (22) | place (2) |\n| objecting (1) | 131:16 | 28:5;38:3;41:24; | 31:14,16,17;49:14, | 61:17;87:16 |\n| 54:4 | ones (1) | 51:23;64:4,10;77:4,7; | 19;50:8,11,19,22; | placed (2) |\n| Objection (18) | 86:3 | 78:2;82:20;103:8,13; | 51:5,9,14;74:4;75:6, | 87:8,13 |\n| 17:16;18:14;25:9; | only (8) | 104:14,25;110:5,9; | 15,19;76:4,9,19;78:8, | plaintiff (3) |\n| 41:5;59:3;62:8;70:3, | 35:12;86:2;91:10; | 111:2;118:22;119:7 | 14,22 | 7:4;8:1;70:23 |\n| 7;71:21;72:5,16,21; | 96:6,19,23;103:18; | owning (4) | PAX (3) | plaintiffs (2) |\n| 73:5;75:24;102:8; | 121:15 | 64:16,17,21,24 | 13:4;25:4;102:5 | 7:24;8:3 |\n| 117:21;128:11;129:6 | onto (1) | owns (10) | PAX's (1) | planned (1) |\n| objections (2) | 87:13 | 27:15;37:20,21,22; | 60:6 | 86:15 |\n| 6:8;54:23 | oOo (1) | 48:6;63:17,18,19; | pay (6) | planning (4) |\n| objects (1) | 6:23 | 110:19;117:14 | 21:13;62:12;89:24, | 59:22;119:14; |\n| 30:7 | open (3) | | 24;125:24,25 | 120:6;130:25 |\n| | | P | | |\n| obligation (1) | 117:5;129:14;130:2 | | payment (1) | play (4) |\n| 100:25 | Opportunity (1) | | 128:6 | 53:3;60:17;61:15; |\n| obviously (2) | 7:5 | Pacific (18) | payments (1) | 62:17 |\n| 55:7;126:9 | opposed (1) | 7:5;9:2;11:14,18, | 67:13 | played (1) |\n| occasionally (1) | 63:4 | 25;13:5;24:3,4;25:4; | pending (1) | 60:19 |\n| 54:8 | opposition (1) | 26:13,16,20,25;58:3, | 129:11 | playing (2) |\n| October (8) | 60:2 | 14;59:24;69:14; | people (12) | 62:16,16 |\n| 7:11;87:18;89:5,12; | option (1) | 112:17 | 15:23;23:8;30:12, | Plaza (1) |\n| 91:20;98:14;99:17; | 130:7 | page (9) | 18;31:4;56:12;85:25; | 47:21 |\n| 133:9 | orally (2) | 60:4;70:10,16,17; | 94:19,20;96:10,20; | please (21) |\n| off (14) | 55:21,22 | 80:12;81:5;89:2,5,9 | 108:24 | 7:22;9:13,18,22; |\n| 23:19;45:15,16; | order (5) | PAHLAVAN (2) | percent (3) | 13:22;15:25;17:13; |\n| 59:8,10,12;81:18; | 101:17,22;102:6, | 8:2,2 | 28:22;77:21;98:21 | 18:12,17;25:13; |\n| 99:20;113:23;115:17; | 24;132:2 | paid (2) | Perfect (1) | 34:13;40:16,17; |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 448 of 452\n\n**MILES KWOK October 3, 2018**\n\n| 54:22;62:14;71:17; | 115:3,5,10;117:15 | provided (7) | racketeering (1) | 126:25;127:3,6; |\n|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|\n| 75:23;76:14;79:8,16; | previous (1) | 48:16;76:19; | 21:10 | 129:24;130:6;131:17; |\n| 88:14 | 18:22 | 106:17,18;115:16,20; | rate (1) | 132:4,10,14;133:11, |\n| pledge (16) | previously (1) | 116:9 | 24:11 | 12 |\n| 107:8,12,15;108:4; | 79:4 | Province (1) | rather (1) | recorded (1) |\n| | | | | |\n| 109:6,22,22;110:23, | price (26) | 117:9 | 125:15 | 61:3 |\n| 24;111:19,23;112:7, | 84:5,24;85:14,15; | Public (1) | reach (1) | recording (1) |\n| 11;121:22;122:2,13 | 89:15,16,17;91:7,23, | 133:25 | 69:3 | 60:11 |\n| pledged (15) | 24;92:5,7;93:2,11; | publicity (1) | reached (2) | reference (1) |\n| 107:3,5;108:7,10; | 94:23,25;96:16,22; | 115:3 | 68:23,25 | 118:16 |\n| 110:2,10,14;111:15, | 97:2,8,11;98:16;99:2, | publicly (1) | read (9) | referring (8) |\n| 16;112:9,19;113:4,10, | 11;100:5,9 | 94:25 | 34:17;35:10,16,19; | 42:10;46:22,24,25; |\n| 18;122:12 | Printout (3) | pull (1) | 70:10;71:3;83:6; | 57:23,24,25;95:12 |\n| pledges (1) | 59:15,20;88:16 | 86:22 | 98:22;133:8 | refers (1) |\n| 121:22 | prison (14) | purchase (32) | reading (1) | 95:10 |\n| pm (9) | 27:25;41:8,9;79:4; | 28:2;32:24;39:6,18; | 70:15 | reflect (1) |\n| 81:19,21;82:3; | 87:11;90:16,18;91:4, | 40:7,24;42:11;44:8,9, | reads (1) | 62:15 |\n| 113:24;114:5;127:3, | 15;106:21;114:23; | 14;47:18;49:25;50:9, | 60:4 | reflects (1) |\n| 6;132:15,16 | 115:4,11,13 | 12,20;52:4;53:2,6,15, | real (12) | 94:25 |\n| point (4) | prisoner (3) | 20;54:13;56:16;57:6; | 12:24;45:5;61:5; | refresh (3) |\n| | | | | |\n| 17:5;32:4;109:20; | 120:23;121:3,6 | 73:11;75:9,22;77:14; | 66:8;74:4;85:2; | 57:2;83:18;89:11 |\n| 118:21 | private (1) | 84:2,5,24;89:23;91:7 | 114:14;116:16,21; | Refusal (1) |\n| poison (1) | 59:22 | purchased (4) | 117:16,24;118:7 | 73:7 |\n| 23:2 | privilege (4) | 48:16;84:15;85:4,9 | really (38) | Refuse (25) |\n| police (5) | 17:22;18:15;78:18; | purchaser (2) | 22:7,17;23:14,16; | 58:24;59:5;60:20; |\n| 115:16,17;116:2,3, | 109:11 | 85:22;101:9 | 31:20;32:19;33:14; | 61:10;69:25;71:2,3; |\n| 9 | Privileged (2) | purchasers (3) | 34:23;35:7,7,8,25; | 72:7,18,25;78:19; |\n| polite (1) | 17:17;123:25 | 99:23;100:3,4 | 36:19;37:17;39:5,13; | 80:6;102:19;116:18; |\n| 109:19 | problematic (1) | purchasing (3) | 40:5,21;42:8;45:11; | 117:22;118:6,11; |\n| political (3) | 43:14 | 33:6;56:21;114:18 | 46:19;48:9,19;54:17; | 122:21,25;123:4; |\n| 120:23;121:3,6 | proceeding (2) | purpose (1) | 65:6;67:20;79:18; | 124:14,15;126:5; |\n| popular (1) | 117:2;126:4 | 130:3 | 81:13,17;83:5,20; | 128:13;129:10 |\n| 89:3 | process (1) | pursue (1) | 84:16;85:12;105:17, | refusing (3) |\n| position (3) | 33:3 | 100:21 | 18;110:13;118:20; | 71:9;72:3;102:20 |\n| 103:5;117:3;125:14 | produced (3) | put (11) | 123:9 | regarding (7) |\n| possession (1) | 34:3;82:15;130:4 | 13:12,21;29:3; | Realtorcom (2) | 15:15;18:25;19:9; |\n| 119:19 | producing (1) | 35:18;59:23;89:13; | 88:15;89:4 | 68:19;73:22;80:18; |\n| possible (3) | 130:7 | 100:8;107:6,7; | reason (5) | 87:2 |\n| 22:9;44:18;130:12 | production (2) | 129:24;131:16 | 10:3;22:25;24:24; | related (3) |\n| post (2) | 129:22,25 | putting (1) | 60:12;76:8 | 22:13;71:3;114:17 |\n| | | | | |\n| 32:7,10 | profanity (2) | 36:6 | reasons (2) | relates (1) |\n| posted (1) | 12:17,25 | | 63:10;71:23 | 68:12 |\n| 57:12 | project (2) | Q | recall (4) | relating (12) |\n| potential (2) | 47:21;93:24 | | 80:19;104:24; | 11:4,6,14;13:14,25; |\n| 100:4;101:9 | pronouncing (1) | Qiang (4) | 123:5;126:16 | 34:2;60:3;108:24; |\n| practice (1) | 41:14 | 63:20,23;64:7; | receive (1) | 111:23;118:13,18; |\n| 126:20 | proof (1) | 121:11 | 55:13 | 129:17 |\n| precisely (1) | 60:7 | Q-I-A-N-G (2) | Recess (5) | relation (5) |\n| 115:2 | Properties (1) | 63:21;121:11 | 23:21;45:18;81:20; | 13:10;64:2;81:12, |\n| preparation (3) | 67:10 | quick (1) | 113:25;127:4 | 15;102:4 |\n| 15:6,7,13 | proprietary (4) | 113:20 | recollect (1) | relationship (22) |\n| prepare (3) | 48:7;123:7,19; | quickly (1) | 98:23 | 28:16;38:24,25; |\n| 15:4,9;23:7 | 126:15 | 86:21 | recollection (4) | 39:4,16,20;40:3,8,14, |\n| prepared (1) | protective (1) | quite (9) | 25:16;57:3;83:19; | 23;44:23;45:2;46:9; |\n| 24:13 | 132:2 | 11:8;16:13;36:2; | 89:11 | 51:17,20;61:6;66:15, |\n| PRESENT (6) | prove (3) | 76:12;92:17;102:11; | record (37) | 21;67:2;116:24; |\n| 3:3;15:22;16:10,12, | 60:25;61:4,7 | 108:11,12;111:17 | 7:17,20;9:19;12:19; | 117:17;120:11 |\n| 16;19:11 | proven (2) | | 13:12,22;23:20,23; | relevance (1) |\n| presented (1) | 58:16;61:18 | R | 24:2;45:17,21;59:9, | 102:7 |\n| 76:23 | provide (10) | | 11,12,14,23;62:14; | remember (72) |\n| president (1) | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | 21:15;25:21;26:11; | R2 (4) | 63:11;70:11;71:17, | 16:13,14,14;17:14; |\n| 67:21
press (4) | 47:17;73:8;98:4,7;
119:21,25;128:5 | 108:16,16,17;
121:23 | 22;81:19;82:2;
113:24;114:5,6; | 34:23;35:8;39:20;
42:15;47:25;48:14; |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC (9) pledge - remember**\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 449 of 452\n\n**MILES KWOK October 3, 2018**\n\n| 51:8;56:23;57:4; | reserve (2) | 19:3,11 | 17:7,11,14,25;18:25; | 74:6,14;81:7 |\n|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------|\n| 74:10,11,18,18;76:3, | 61:23,24 | Roscalitar (9) | 19:9;25:2,22,25;26:8, | shareholders (1) |\n| 7,22;77:2;81:9;82:22, | reserved (1) | 108:13,15,17,24; | 12;58:13 | 65:8 |\n| | | | | |\n| 23;83:2,5,7;84:13,14, | 6:10 | 110:3,10;121:23; | second (7) | shares (1) |\n| 16,17,19;85:12;86:13, | residence (27) | 122:3,12 | 40:15;59:9;78:16; | 48:6 |\n| 18;87:4,19;88:2,3,11, | 11:5;13:6;27:9,12, | rounds (1) | 89:8;126:8;130:10,13 | Sheet (2) |\n| 12;92:17;94:14,17; | 15;28:3,4,6,13;32:24; | 118:13 | secretary (1) | 76:17;79:24 |\n| 96:19;98:19,24;99:6, | 37:16,21,22;38:4; | RQ (1) | 31:12 | Sherry (7) |\n| | | | | |\n| 7,19,21;100:19; | 39:19;40:7,25;52:4; | 129:11 | securities (3) | 32:14;44:8,13; |\n| 103:10,11,15;104:5,8; | 53:8;56:16;86:16; | rudimentary (1) | 114:14,15,17 | 49:17,25;50:20;80:16 |\n| 105:4;108:12;111:11; | 103:9,14;105:12,23; | 83:17 | security (5) | Sherry-Netherland (66) |\n| 115:2;116:13;121:19, | 106:9;112:4 | rules (1) | 18:10;19:10;22:20, | 11:6,16;13:7;27:10, |\n| 20,23;122:18,24; | resident (1) | 9:10 | 24;107:8 | 13;28:13;29:10,15, |\n| | | | | |\n| 123:8;124:18,20; | 80:16 | run (1) | seeing (3) | 19;30:4,14,20;31:2,7; |\n| 127:9,16 | respect (2) | 22:10 | 74:11,18;131:2 | 32:9,13,16,19,24; |\n| remembers (1) | 42:3;96:7 | Russ (1) | seeking (3) | 33:5;34:4;37:16;38:4; |\n| 94:12 | respective (1) | 8:5 | 124:22;125:10; | 44:10,15;47:18;48:6, |\n| repaid (1) | 6:5 | | 131:5 | 12;52:4;56:16;57:6; |\n| 127:20 | respond (6) | S | segments (1) | 73:10,22;74:7,9,15; |\n| | | | | |\n| repeat (5) | 21:17,18;26:12,16, | | 28:25 | 75:8,16,21;76:6,11, |\n| 22:23;23:4;49:16; | 20,25 | sale (6) | seized (7) | 20,24;77:13;79:25; |\n| 50:6,6 | responding (1) | 89:13;93:21;101:3, | 67:24;68:16;72:14; | 80:15,21;84:3,21; |\n| rephrase (1) | 119:22 | 6,12;102:13 | 73:3;122:20,24;123:3 | 86:5,10,15,20;87:2; |\n| 113:16 | response (3) | same (28) | seizing (2) | 89:7;103:13;105:6; |\n| | | | | |\n| reporter (3) | 72:24;112:12;129:9 | 6:6,15;29:18;30:3; | 70:23;122:19 | 110:6,10;118:15; |\n| 7:15,22;82:12 | responses (2) | 59:3,3;61:11;62:8,8; | seizures (1) | 120:2,14;123:7,18; |\n| reporting (1) | 27:4,8 | 64:7,9;70:3,3,7,7; | 72:20 | 124:23;125:4 |\n| 115:5 | responsibility (1) | 71:23;72:5,5,16,16, | sell (3) | Shiny (15) |\n| represent (10) | 62:13 | 21,21;73:5,5;93:15; | 59:22;87:8;91:8 | 10:24;38:24;39:10, |\n| 7:21;9:2;29:5; | restructure (1) | 120:8;129:6,6 | seller (8) | 16;40:4,8,23;46:3,7, |\n| | | | | |\n| 49:23;50:19;64:17, | 104:25 | Sara (1) | 85:16,19,22;93:25; | 23;47:5,6;51:17;67:5, |\n| 23;75:15;76:15; | restructuring (1) | 8:2 | 95:2,5,10,18 | 8 |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n| 119:13 | 105:7 | SARNOFF (7) | selling (3) | shoulder (1) |\n| representation (2) | review (6) | 7:25,25;12:18;34:8; | 89:15;95:6;114:18 | 79:4 |\n| 80:20;122:13 | 55:11,17;69:22; | 70:16;128:2;132:8 | sensation (1) | show (2) |\n| representative (18) | 86:20;123:14,22 | Saw (3) | 61:14 | 61:21;132:6 |\n| 10:8;31:8;32:6; | reviewed (1) | 94:21,22;116:4 | sentence (1) | showed (1) |\n| 38:25;39:3,16;42:8, | 123:13 | saying (4) | 126:12 | 115:22 |\n| | | | | |\n| 13,17;46:8,22;47:8; | reviewing (2) | 21:21;23:5,15; | separate (1) | showing (2) |\n| 50:9,18;53:3;54:9; | 124:5,18 | 57:18 | 120:6 | 119:5;120:11 |\n| 93:23;96:6 | ridiculous (2) | scamming (1) | separated (1) | shown (1) |\n| representatives (4) | 24:22;55:2 | 21:7 | 21:24 | 115:21 |\n| 31:2;32:16;33:4; | right (29) | scholarship (1) | September (1) | shows (1) |\n| 42:7 | 30:8;32:25;33:13; | 84:25 | 89:3 | 119:7 |\n| | | | | |\n| represented (8) | 36:2;39:17;43:9;48:8; | scope (16) | serious (1) | Shui (2) |\n| 31:3;49:24;57:13; | 55:8;56:17;61:23,24; | 13:19;14:9;58:7,18; | 95:5 | 87:2,4 |\n| 60:15;78:9;81:6; | 62:22,22,25;63:4,5; | 62:9;68:2,6,12;69:2; | seriously (2) | side (2) |\n| 93:16;122:11 | 68:21;78:7;79:18; | 102:9;103:2;117:3; | 61:20;100:18 | 113:2;131:24 |\n| representing (7) | 82:25;87:18;88:22, | 126:3;128:14,16,24 | seriousness (1) | sign (5) |\n| 24:3;50:11,23,25; | 23;93:12;101:7; | sealing (2) | 95:2 | 36:8,10;98:15; |\n| 56:19,20;93:25 | 103:5;111:20,24; | 6:6;115:17 | services (2) | 123:10;126:20 |\n| | | | | |\n| represents (2) | 112:4 | search (7) | 98:5,7 | signed (11) |\n| 64:15,20 | ring (1) | 22:10;23:13;25:17; | several (4) | 6:13,15;51:13; |\n| request (7) | 108:15 | 26:2,8,15,19 | 20:12,13,16;24:9 | 58:12;123:6,12,17,23; |\n| 11:5,15;26:13; | robbers (2) | searched (8) | shall (2) | 125:2;126:14;133:20 |\n| 53:12;62:4;119:23; | 125:2,5 | 20:24;21:17;22:5, | 6:9,19 | signing (3) |\n| 125:11 | robbery (1) | 12,15;23:11;25:2,22 | share (1) | 36:9;98:25;123:8 |\n| | | | | |\n| requested (2) | 124:24 | searches (1) | 44:9 | simple (2) |\n| 52:13,20 | role (7) | 83:17 | shared (1) | 61:16;125:6 |\n| requesting (1) | 42:3;52:25;53:3,15; | searching (2) | 74:9 | simplest (1) |\n| 13:5 | 66:9;67:16,19 | 22:13;26:24 | shareholder (9) | 118:25 |\n| requests (4)
21:19;26:17,21,25 | room (6)
17:20,23;18:13,19; | SEARLES (16)
8:6,6;15:15;16:6; | 31:25;32:5;36:4;
42:21;46:17;65:2; | sister (1)
77:20 |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC (10) remembers - sister**\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 450 of 452\n\n| sit (3) | speak (5) | 62:16 | | 20:23 |\n|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|\n| 20:12;79:9;130:17 | 32:19;55:22;86:2; | stopped (1) | T | thugs (1) |\n| sitting (3) | 121:4,6 | 62:16 | | 21:8 |\n| 24:25;79:13;83:3 | speaking (6) | strategy (1) | table (1) | Times (17) |\n| situation (1)
107:25 | 19:18,24;20:20;
21:24;46:6;121:7 | 100:21
strictly (1) | 131:25 | 10:24;17:9;38:24;
39:10,16;40:4,8,23; |\n| Six (2) | specialist (1) | 121:7 | talk (2) | 46:3,7,23;47:5,6; |\n| 18:22;86:16 | 7:14 | strike (2) | 55:21;91:9 | 51:17;67:5,9;94:11 |\n| sleep (1) | specifically (2) | 21:15;91:7 | talked (3) | timing (1) |\n| 79:18 | 23:14;44:17 | strong (1) | 28:9;58:2;127:16 | 57:2 |\n| sleeping (1) | specifics (1) | 80:24 | talking (7) | today (19) |\n| 79:19 | 37:18 | structure (6) | 46:2,20;47:6,8,23;
65:24;111:11 | 7:11,15;8:25;10:4; |\n| Sloan (26) | speech (1) | 11:7;51:25;53:2,6, | Tape (4) | 11:13;15:5,15;27:7; |\n| 84:22,23,25,25; | 22:22 | 15,20 | 45:19;57:13;81:24; | 35:19,23;71:3;83:3; |\n| 93:20;94:3,6,15,24; | spelling (3) | structured (2) | 114:3 | 116:19;127:17; |\n| 95:4,10,17,20;96:7, | 27:18;41:19;63:22 | 52:11;54:12 | tax (1) | 129:15;130:7,8,9; |\n| 17;97:5,7,9,10,15; | spend (2) | Stuart (1) | 61:3 | 131:13 |\n| 98:15,24;99:8; | 86:15;90:2 | 7:25 | taxes (1) | today's (2) |\n| 100:18,20;103:12 | spoke (5) | subject (1) | 89:24 | 130:25;132:13 |\n| SN (6) | 84:23;86:3;91:6; | 58:21 | team (1) | together (3) |\n| 34:13;35:10;73:23; | 109:16;112:6 | submitted (3) | 108:6 | 55:24;90:4;120:9 |\n| 76:15;80:12;81:5 | spoken (3) | 77:12;79:25;86:4 | telephone (1) | told (19) |\n| software (1) | 91:16,20;94:3 | subscribed (1) | 91:16 | 17:15;20:18;24:22; |\n| 93:6 | Spring (26) | 133:20 | temporarily (1) | 78:14;90:22;96:5; |\n| sold (5) | 3:6;8:9;51:20; | substance (2) | 16:3 | 97:9,15;99:15;104:6; |\n| 32:4;84:20;87:13; | 63:12,13,16,17,18,19; | 111:14;112:8 | tenant (4) | 107:22,24;109:7,22, |\n| 90:3,6 | 64:5,11,13,24;65:3,8, | substantial (1) | 74:6,9,15;81:8 | 25;110:22;111:19; |\n| sole (5)
31:25;36:4,12; | 12,25;66:5,7,10,14,
20,25;67:13,17; | 60:12
successfully (1) | terminated (2) | 112:23;113:2
topic (1) |\n| 46:17;65:2 | 116:14 | 79:21 | 122:3,14 | 116:19 |\n| solely (1) | SS (1) | sue (1) | testified (6) | touch (1) |\n| 71:7 | 133:4 | 61:23 | 8:20;39:14;117:8; | 87:11 |\n| somebody (6) | stamped (2) | sued (2) | 125:20;126:13; | transcript (2) |\n| 17:10;32:8;91:11; | 73:23;82:15 | 11:19;107:19 | 129:15 | 133:8,10 |\n| 100:8;117:13;121:10 | stand (1) | suggest (2) | testify (4)
10:4;17:19;71:19, | transfer (2) |\n| someone (2) | 117:20 | 25:15;91:17 | 21 | 103:8;104:13 |\n| 33:6;103:16 | standard (1) | suicide (2) | testifying (4) | transferring (1) |\n| sometime (1) | 15:7 | 61:15,19 | 9:7;10:7,15,20 | 103:13 |\n| 42:12 | standing (2) | suing (1) | testimony (12) | translate (1) |\n| sometimes (4) | 79:12;114:7 | 127:18 | 46:11,13,15;121:2; | 75:24 |\n| 18:6,7;27:14;90:18 | started (1) | suit (1) | 122:24;126:16;128:9, | translation (5) |\n| son (20) | 39:22 | 12:7 | 17;129:3,4;133:8,11 | 12:18;43:14;47:4; |\n| 41:12,23;42:2; | State (6) | Support (2) | thanking (1) | 55:13;71:15 |\n| 51:22;64:3,7,8,14,15, | 7:7,19,20;10:21; | 7:13,16 | 130:15 | treated (2) |\n| 17,20,23;65:2;103:9, | 133:3,25 | Supreme (1) | theirs (1) | 131:9,13 |\n| 14;105:8,9;121:13,
15;132:7 | stated (3)
40:3;63:10;94:24 | 7:6
Sure (29) | 108:22 | trial (2)
6:10;90:19 |\n| soon (1) | statement (4) | 11:12;24:18;25:11; | third (2) | tried (2) |\n| 127:12 | 14:4;71:16;82:5,13 | 40:2,5,13,17;42:6,25; | 17:19;75:11 | 24:12;103:8 |\n| Sorry (24) | statements (1) | 43:9,11;44:4,7,16; | though (3) | true (3) |\n| 12:22;22:24;23:16; | 60:16 | 46:19;50:4;54:18,22; | 40:19;131:7,8
thought (6) | 72:12;133:10,12 |\n| 31:10;35:25;39:23; | states (1) | 65:6,11,16;67:20; | 29:24;35:23;46:25; | truly (1) |\n| 43:7,10,15,21;60:22; | 74:3 | 68:11;69:23;75:23; | 47:8;63:3;70:18 | 83:5 |\n| 62:24;70:14,19; | Steven (2) | 77:21;81:13;88:24; | thoughts (1) | trust (3) |\n| 74:19;79:3;83:7;84:7; | 88:11,23 | 117:7 | 101:25 | 94:9;105:3,8 |\n| 115:8,9;121:16; | Stevenson (1) | swear (1) | thousand (1) | truth (3) |\n| 124:11;131:15,18 | 88:21 | 7:22 | 19:23 | 51:3;128:5,7 |\n| sort (3) | still (4) | sworn (4) | thousands (5) | truthfully (2) |\n| 39:10,19;40:7 | 9:22;45:10;90:14; | 6:13,16;8:12,18 | 20:11,19;56:12; | 10:4;24:23 |\n| sought (1) | 104:16 | syntax (1) | 57:21,22 | try (9) |\n| 12:8 | STIPULATED (4) | 12:7 | threats (2) | 13:3;21:14,18; |\n| sound (2) | 6:3,7,11,17 | | 21:10;62:12 | 22:15;32:22;56:14; |\n| 87:18;88:21 | stop (1) | | three (1) | 78:20;113:15;128:8 |\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 451 of 452\n\n**MILES KWOK October 3, 2018**\n\n| trying (14) | 20:9,13,21,23;21:2, | WeChat (1) | 132:6,7 | 92:20,23;93:7,15, |\n|-------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|\n| 14:12;22:18;23:6; | 3;41:20;54:9 | 93:5 | wife's (1) | 18,19;97:14;99:15 |\n| 52:17;56:25;57:2; | used (1) | week (1) | 77:20 | X-U (1) |\n| 71:18,20,21;104:13; | 52:3 | 92:18 | William (5) | 92:21 |\n| 109:13;117:16; | using (4) | Wei (98) | 31:14;50:18;75:15; | |\n| 128:17;130:8 | 19:14;20:2,5;65:18 | 27:16,19,22,24; | 97:16;98:7 | Y |\n| turning (1) | Usually (1) | 28:2,18;29:2;31:9; | Williams (13) | |\n| 80:12 | 79:11 | 32:10,12,15;33:7,18; | 50:22;51:5,9,14; | yacht (1) |\n| twice (1) | | 36:23;41:7,8;42:20; | 73:25;75:6,19;76:5,9; | 59:22 |\n| 91:16 | V | 44:22,24;46:5,9; | 80:13,13,19;81:4 | Yan (4) |\n| two (6) | | 47:17,20;48:16; | withdraw (1) | 55:24;112:20; |\n| 24:25;54:13;58:2; | vail (2) | 49:13,23;50:2,8,12, | 19:18 | 113:13;115:21 |\n| 79:19;88:3;118:12 | 13:14;14:19 | 16,17,21;51:2,4,6,11; | within (3) | Y-A-N (2) |\n| type (2) | versus (1) | 52:6;53:13;56:6,15, | 6:12,18;92:18 | 56:2;112:21 |\n| 20:2;42:16 | 7:6 | 18,19,20;57:5;64:23; | without (2) | Yang (9) |\n| types (5) | video (15) | 75:8,16,21;77:7,18, | 126:15,22 | 92:20,23;93:7,15, |\n| 20:8,13,19,21; | 7:14;57:10,13,20; | 19;81:13;82:18; | Witness (29) | 18,19;97:15;99:15; |\n| 114:15 | 58:15;59:2,24;61:8, | 84:17;85:8,18;87:10, | 6:20;7:22;8:18; | 103:23 |\n| | 10;62:7,16,17,21; | 14;89:18;90:16;91:6, | 17:17;18:16;19:4,13; | Y-A-N-G (2) |\n| U | 131:21;132:3 | 9,21;92:11,24;93:16; | 22:24;58:9,20;60:20; | 92:22;103:24 |\n| | Videographer (15) | 94:4,6,11;97:6,6,7,20; | 61:12;63:7,9;68:3; | YAOYING (1) |\n| UBS (2) | 3:5;7:2;23:19,22; | 98:2,6,6;99:12;
103:19;106:16,18,19, | 71:24;75:24;114:7;
117:5,11,19;118:2,9; | 3:4 |\n| 82:4,13
ultimate (1) | 45:16,19;59:10,13;
81:18,23;113:23; | 20;108:6;114:10; | 127:9,14;128:12; | year (4)
93:10;97:8;104:17, |\n| 106:4 | 114:2;127:2,5;132:12 | 115:13,19;116:20; | 130:19,24;132:6 | 22 |\n| ultimately (4) | videos (2) | 117:8,13,18,23; | Wong (1) | years (1) |\n| 37:22;105:13,24; | 61:4,21 | 118:16;119:2;120:7, | 88:21 | 114:11 |\n| 106:10 | videotaped (1) | 11,16;125:16;129:17 | word (3) | yes/no (3) |\n| unable (2) | 7:3 | W-E-I (1) | 91:12;93:16;127:25 | 46:10;78:21;124:7 |\n| 22:3;35:12 | views (1) | 27:17 | words (2) | Yesterday (2) |\n| unclear (1) | 95:17 | Wei's (15) | 43:13;61:8 | 15:18;17:24 |\n| 46:16 | Virgin (7) | 28:16;31:9,12;75:7, | work (2) | Yong (6) |\n| under (4) | 10:17,25;33:13; | 20;77:23;85:24; | 46:5;104:16 | 103:16,20,21,22; |\n| 9:7;24:5;33:12; | 52:3;53:8;54:14; | 87:20;96:10;97:14; | worked (5) | 104:13,16 |\n| 133:9 | 107:3 | 116:5;118:22,24; | 49:17;97:20; | Y-O-N-G (2) |\n| underlying (1) | virtue (1) | 119:7;122:7 | 103:17,18,19 | 103:17,24 |\n| 14:2 | 110:25 | Weiss (21) | working (5) | York (32) |\n| understands (2) | voice (1) | 31:16,17;49:14,19; | 21:9;27:20;45:3,4; | 7:7,8;10:21;37:5; |\n| 24:20;25:13 | 58:25 | 50:8,11,19,22;51:5,9, | 89:21 | 47:24;52:2;53:7,9; |\n| understood (2) | voices (2) | 14;74:4;75:6,15,19; | world (1) | 54:13;63:12,14,17; |\n| 9:15;46:4 | 58:15;60:8 | 76:4,9,19;78:8,14,22 | 21:10 | 64:11;65:22;66:4,10, |\n| unfortunately (1) | | Wen (1) | write (1) | 14,20;67:5,9;68:13, |\n| 130:12 | W | 90:22 | 78:12 | 20,24;69:13;83:23; |\n| unless (5) | | W-E-N (1) | writes (1) | 86:7,11,17;98:12; |\n| 9:23;24:7;60:25; | wait (2) | 90:24 | 80:14 | 104:20;111:2;133:3 |\n| 61:4,6 | 9:17,18 | Wengui (1) | written (3) | YouTube (7) |\n| unnecessary (2) | waived (1) | 59:21 | 119:15;120:7,10 | 57:10,19;58:15,25; |\n| 101:18,20 | 6:6 | what's (2) | wrong (2) | 59:16,20,24 |\n| unrelated (1) | Wan (2) | 65:17;126:22 | 65:17;94:13 | Yu (1) |\n| 116:19 | 73:23;74:5 | WhatsApp (1) | wrongful (1) | 103:25 |\n| unsafe (1) | Wang (8) | 20:6 | 120:20 | Y-U (1) |\n| 91:19 | 18:6,13;55:24,24; | whatsoever (1) | wrongfully (1) | 104:2 |\n| Unsure (1) | 107:22;112:20; | 46:9 | 120:19 | Yuda (5) |\n| 51:24 | 113:13;115:21 | Whereupon (1) | Wu (2) | 116:16,21;117:15, |\n| up (7) | W-A-N-G (2) | 60:18 | 69:17,20 | 24;118:7 |\n| 43:8;89:13;94:10; | 56:2;112:21 | Whoa (2) | W-U (1) | Yue (3) |\n| 107:6;112:12;128:22; | waste (3) | 109:9,9 | 69:17 | 103:20,20,22 |\n| 132:5 | 12:14;24:14,14 | whole (4) | Wu'S (1) | Y-U-E (1) |\n| uploaded (2) | way (12) | 21:10;24:16;29:3; | 70:22 | 103:20 |\n| 60:10,14 | 32:22;36:6;43:16; | 54:10 | | Yvette (18) |\n| Urbana (1) | 52:14,21;53:2,7,16, | Whose (1) | X | 18:6,13;56:4;67:16; |\n| 67:10 | 20;68:25;78:21; | 99:10 | | 107:22;109:5,6,22,25; |\n| use (8) | 131:13 | wife (2) | Xu (8) | 110:22;111:19;112:6, |\n\n**Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC (12) trying - Yvette**\n\n#### **PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. vs. KWOK HO WAN** Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 452 of 452\n\n| 121:21;122:6
35:10
2016 (5)
7
05 (1)
87:9;91:23;92:8;
Z
90:12
94:23;103:17
2017 (1)
7 (1)
1
Zenith (23)
122:3
89:5
69:15;72:14,20;
2018 (7)
78 (12)
7:12;60:3;69:14;
91:25;92:4,8;93:2;
73:9;76:18,23;77:5,8,
1 (5)
11,16,24;78:6,11,24;
93:10;98:15;133:9,21
33:19,20;34:7,8,9
94:24;96:22;97:2,8,
27 (1)
79:24;80:2;91:13,14;
10:07 (1)
11;98:17;99:2,11
73:20
92:14;103:19;116:14;
23:20
8
122:19,23
10:19 (1)
28 (2)
zeros (1)
23:23
70:12,20
35:13
10:59 (1)
29 (1)
800 (1)
Zhang (113)
45:17
15:11
67:6
27:16,19,22,24;
100 (2)
85 (5)
3
28:2,16,18;29:2;31:9,
28:22;120:8
90:5;91:25;92:4,8;
9,12;32:10,12,15;
11 (2)
96:22
33:6,18;36:23;41:7,8;
70:10,18
3 (7)
89 (1)
42:20;44:22,24;46:5,
11:18 (1)
7:11;69:7,12;81:24;
79:5
9;47:17,20;48:16;
45:22
89:25;90:7;133:9
9
49:13,23;50:2,8,11,
11:43 (1)
3:00 (1)
16,17,21,25;51:4,6,
59:11
130:7
11;52:6;53:12;56:6,
11:44 (1)
3:13 (1)
9:39 (1)
15,18,19,20;57:5;
59:14
127:6
7:18
64:23;75:7,8,16,20,
12:25 (2)
3:22 (2)
90 (1)
21;77:7,18,19,23;
81:19,20
132:15,16
77:21
81:13;82:18;84:17;
12:57 (1)
30 (2)
85:8,18,24;87:10,14,
36:9;125:2
82:3
20;89:18;90:16;91:6,
13 (4)
31 (1)
9,21;92:11,24;93:16;
34:21;35:4;70:16,
76:17
94:3,6,10;96:9;97:6,6,
17
38 (1)
7,14,20;98:2,6,6;
15 (1)
114:11
99:12;103:19;106:16,
60:4
4
18,19,20;108:6;
16 (1)
114:10;115:13,19;
60:3
116:5,20;117:8,13,18,
18th (2)
4 (3)
23;118:16,22,24;
48:8;89:8
73:15,20;114:3
119:2,7;120:7,11,16;
2
5
122:7;125:16;129:17
Z-H-A-N-G (1)
27:17
2 (10)
5 (2)
Zheng (2)
45:19;59:15,20;
82:4,12
69:16;87:24
108:15,17,24;110:3,
510 (1)
Z-H-E-N-G (2)
10;121:23;122:12
82:15
69:16;87:25
2:02 (1)
56 (2)
Zhengzhou (2)
113:24
70:10,17
31:18;114:20
2:28 (1)
6
114:5
Z-H-E-N-G-Z-H-O-U (2)
31:19;114:22
2:55 (1)
127:3
6 (5)
0
2013 (1)
84:11;88:13,15,25;
87:9
89:24
0058 (1)
2014 (1)
652077-2017 (1)
73:23
76:17
7:9
0060 (1)
2015 (25)
66.2 (1)
76:15
28:4;32:23;34:21;
84:8
0062 (1)
35:4;42:12;44:3;
67 (1)
81:5
45:13;56:17,22;
84:12
0063 (1)
70:12,20;72:13;
67.5 (2)
80:12
73:12,21;74:16;77:4,
89:23;90:12
0159 (1)
17;84:6;87:18;89:5,
68 (7) | 24;113:9,17;115:22; | 0161 (1) | 99:17;114:25 | 98:17;99:2,11 | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|-----------------|------------------|---------------|--|\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | 34:13 | 12;90:21;91:20; | 90:12;97:2,8,11; | | |","body_zh":"案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 1 页，共 452 页\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 布里奇波特分院\n第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）的证物清单\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），债务人。\n\n第 11 章\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nECF 编号 913：第 11 章受托人请求作出命令，因债务人未遵守公司治理权利命令而认定其构成民事藐视法庭的动议，由 Douglas S. Skalka（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）代表第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins（吕克·A·德斯潘）提交\n\n听证日期：November 16-18, 2022\n提交证物者：第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）\n\n律师：Nicolas Bassett（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）和 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）\n\n证物编号 说明 身份证明/全文 提交日期\n\n6 Kwok Ho Wan & Ors. v. UBS（郭文贵等诉瑞银）案的诉讼请求书，Cl-2020-000345，\n英格兰和威尔士高等法院王座法庭商务法院，日期为 September 23, 2020 全文 11/17/2022\n7 Section 341 会议记录，日期为 April 6, 2022 全文 11/17/2022\n10 Section 341 会议记录，日期为 March 21, 2022 全文 11/17/2022\n13 Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP（博伊斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳律师事务所）诉 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）案最终仲裁裁决书第 3 页 全文 11/17/2022\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 2 页，共 452 页\n\n证物编号 说明 身份证明/全文 提交日期\n\n15 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）诉 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）案中 Kwok 的宣誓书 全文 11/17/2022\n27 密封\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）于 Nov. 11, 2021 作出的证言记录\n第 84-85 页，第 5-5 行；\n第 87 页，第 3-13 行；\n第 88 页，第 3-14 行；\n第 88-89 页，第 20-2 行 全文 11/18/2022\n28 密封\nM. Krasner（M. 克拉斯纳）自 July 11, 2019 起始的电子邮件链\n事由：Chateau Ridge 房产 全文 11/17/022\n29 密封\nK. Sloane（K. 斯隆）自 November 10, 2016 起始的电子邮件链\n事由：Sherry Netherland 全文 11/17/2022\n\n证物编号 说明 身份证明/全文 提交日期\n\n30 密封\nK. Sloane（K. 斯隆）于 May 12, 2017 致 Y. Wang（Y. 王）的电子邮件 全文 11/17/2022\n32 Y. Wang（Y. 王）的送达执行人宣誓书 全文 11/18/2022\n33 A. Luft（A. 卢夫特）自 November 3, 2022 起始的电子邮件链\n事由：传票 全文\n有限用途 11/18/2022\n34 密封\nQ. Gao（Q. 高）自 December 8, 2022 起始的电子邮件链\n事由：纽约 UBS 诉讼 全文 11/17/2022\n36 密封\nQ. Gao（Q. 高）自 December 8, 2016 起始的电子邮件链\n事由：纽约 UBS 诉讼 全文 11/17/2022\n37 密封\nQ. Gao（Q. 高）自 December 8, 2016 起始的电子邮件链\n事由：纽约 UBS 诉讼 全文 11/17/2022\n39 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）在 PAX v. Kwok（PAX 诉郭文贵）案中的证言记录，\n日期为 October 3, 2018\n第 55 页，第 23-25 行 全文 11/17/2022\n\n证物\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人之\n\n1/17/2022 全部准入\n\nPE\n\n（1）KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）\n（2）ACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED（艾斯十年控股有限公司）\n（3）DAWN STATE LIMITED（道恩州有限公司）\n\n原告\n\n— 及 —\n\nUBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）\n\n被告\n\n诉讼请求书\n\n当事人\n\n1. 第一原告（“Kwok 先生”）是一名高净值人士，自 2015 年初起居住于美国纽约州。Kwok 先生此前居住于中华人民共和国（“PRC”），并在当地以其普通话姓名郭文贵为人所知。Kwok 先生是中华人民共和国政府的政治反对者，并且在引起本案请求的事件发生时，他已与中华人民共和国当局处于敌对关系。\n\n2. 第二原告（“Ace Decade”）是一家根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立的私人有限公司，注册地址为 P.O. Box 957, Offshore Incorporations Centre, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands。Ace Decade 于 18 June 2014 设立，并由 Kwok 先生于 10 November 2014 前后收购，作为当时拟议收购中国公司 Haitong Securities Company Limited（海通证券股份有限公司，“Haitong”）股份的筹备工作的一部分。\n\n3. 第三原告（“Dawn State”）亦是一家根据英属维尔京群岛法律设立的私人有限公司，注册地址为 P.O. Box 957, Offshore Incorporations Centre, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 6 页，共 452 页\n\n4. 自 18 September 2015 起，Dawn State 由 Ace Decade 所有并控制。在 18 September 2015 之前，Dawn State 由中国投资服务提供商 Haixia Capital Management Company Ltd（海峡资本管理有限公司，“Haixia”）通过一家名为 Haixia Capital Investment Fund (Fujian) Limited Partnership（海峡资本投资基金〈福建〉有限合伙企业，“Haixia Fund”）的实体所有并控制，该实体由 Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co. Ltd（海峡汇富资产投资及基金管理有限公司，“Haixia Management”）管理。Dawn State 是于 2015 年用于收购 Haitong 股份的实体（如本诉讼请求书（“PoC”）正文中进一步详细陈述），但须受一项合同权利约束，据此 Ace Decade 可在收购 Haitong 股份后收购 Dawn State。\n\n5. 被告（“UBS”）是一家在瑞士设立的公司，注册地址为 Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland。UBS 在全球开展业务，提供零售及投资银行、财富管理及其他金融服务。在所有相关期间，UBS 均通过其瑞士总部以及位于包括香港（“UBS HK”）和伦敦（“UBS London”）在内的分支机构开展该等业务；经双方当事人约定，后者被指定为本案请求所涉全部合同的相对方，如下文进一步陈述。UBS London 始终持有金融行为监管局授予的提供受监管服务的许可（参考编号 186958），并获授权以 UBS 名义行事及订立合同协议。\n\n6. 如下文第 32 至 57 段所陈述，UBS 通过 UBS London 订立了与原告请求标的有关的合同。在促成该等合同的讨论和谈判中，UBS 的主要代表为其雇员 Stephen Wong 先生（“Wong 先生”）。Wong 先生当时为 UBS 财富管理部董事总经理，任职于 UBS HK 的办公室。Kwok 先生于 2006 或 2007 年前后首次被介绍给 Wong 先生。\n\n引起该等请求的事实\n\nHaitong 投资的背景\n\n7. 于 2013 年秋季前后，Kwok 先生受到 Haitong 首席执行官 Wang Kaiguo 先生（“Wang 先生”）接洽，Wang 先生试图鼓励 Kwok 先生对 Haitong 作出大额股权投资。Haitong 是一家中国大型证券公司，从事股票及衍生品经纪业务，以及投资银行、资产管理、私募股权、另类投资和融资租赁服务。Haitong 是中华人民共和国规模最大且历史最悠久的金融服务提供商之一。Haitong 的股份于上海证券交易所及香港证券交易所交易（分别为“SSE”和“HKEX”）。Haitong 在 HKEX 交易的股份被称为“H 股”。在 Wang 先生接洽后，Kwok 先生决定投资约 US$3 billion 于 H 股，以取得 Haitong 的重大持股。该投资将通过 Haitong 发行新 H 股，并将其配发给 Kwok 先生控制的公司而作出。\n\nUBS 的初步参与\n\n8. 在与 Wang 先生讨论后，Kwok 先生向香港律师及 Stevenson, Wong & Co（史蒂文森黄律师事务所，“Stevenson Wong”）合伙人 Hank Lo 先生（“Lo 先生”）表示其拟收购 Haitong 的重大持股。Kwok 先生聘请 Stevenson Wong 就拟议收购向其提供意见。\n\n9. Lo 先生与 Wong 先生及 UBS 存在既有关系，其具体情况 Kwok 先生并不知悉；Lo 先生于 2006-7 年前后首次将 Kwok 先生介绍给 Wong 先生。至 2013 年年底，Wong 先生已与 Kwok 先生建立密切的个人关系，并成功诱使 Kwok 先生考虑并将其视为值得信赖的顾问及私人朋友。\n\n10. 于 2013 年第四季度的某一时点，Lo 先生将 Kwok 先生拟收购 Haitong 持股的意图告知 Wong 先生。原告并不知悉 Lo 先生何时向 Wong 先生传达该信息。Kwok 先生直至事后才知悉 Lo 先生拟将该信息告知 Wong 先生或 UBS，尽管 Kwok 先生在事后并未反对其这样做。\n\n11. 于 2013 年 12 月前后，Wong 先生在 Kwok 先生位于香港的住所拜访 Kwok 先生。他告知 Kwok 先生，UBS 已知悉 Haitong 将发行新 H 股（“配售股份”），且 UBS 希望作为配售代理参与其中。Wong 先生使用其手机接通与 UBS 高级管理人员的电话，Kwok 先生理解该等人员位于瑞士。Kwok 先生现已无法记起该等人士的姓名。该等 UBS 高级管理人员和 Wong 先生向 Kwok 先生表示（下列各子段仅陈述其所述内容的要旨）：\n\n（1）UBS 希望成为出售配售股份的经纪商，并希望 Kwok 先生为该角色向 Haitong 引介及推荐 UBS；\n\n（2）如 Kwok 先生以该方式协助 UBS，UBS 将以对 Kwok 先生有利的方式，协助并就其作为经纪商或配售代理的股份的收购向其提供建议；\n\n（3）尽管他们知道 Kwok 先生意图为自己收购该等股份，但 UBS 本身或与 UBS 有关系的投资者，如 Kwok 先生愿意转售该等股份，将有意以较可能发行价大幅溢价的价格购买该等股份。\n\n12. 在该次会面后，Kwok 先生决定与 UBS 合作；为此，于 2014 年初某时，Kwok 先生告知 Wang 先生其拟投资新发行的 H 股，并要求 Wang 先生将 UBS 列为配售股份的配售对象之一。\n\n13. 于 2014 年 7 月或 8 月前后，Haitong 决定通过七名配售对象发行 H 股，其中一名为 UBS。另一家就 Kwok 先生另行收购 H 股向其提供意见和协助的公司 Macquarie Capital Securities Limited（麦格理资本证券有限公司，“Macquarie”），将就三项配售股份分配担任配售对象。UBS 与 Macquarie 合计将配售 Haitong 已发行股份总数约 12%。\n\nWong 先生最初的顾问工作\n\n- 14. 在此次会议之后，Kwok先生（郭文贵）就其拟议对配售股份进行的投资（以下简称“该投资”）的架构安排，与UBS（瑞银）（通过Wong先生）进行了讨论；UBS为该等配售股份的配售代理人（以下简称“UBS H股”）。在2014年3月底及4月前后进行的讨论中，Wong先生表示，他将就“海通项目”提供一项方案，包括一项拟议架构，使Kwok先生能够据此取得UBS H股。\n\n- 15. 作为一家在中国注册成立并经营的证券公司，Haitong（海通）在所有相关期间均受中国证券监督管理委员会（以下简称“中国证监会”）监管。相关中国法律要求，任何人士如取得或实际控制海通已发行股本总额超过5%的股份，均须获得中国证监会批准。\n\n- 16. Kwok先生与Wong先生曾讨论，Kwok先生拟投资的总额将超过US\\$3 billion，这将大幅超过该门槛，因而须获得中国证监会批准。Kwok先生从瑞银获得的建议尤其包括，为取得配售股份设计一项架构，以在遵守相关中国法律的方式下规避须获中国证监会批准的要求。\n\n- 17. 在这些谈话过程中：\n\t- (1) Wong先生一再向Kwok先生表示，根据瑞银高级管理人员的指示，他将按照2013年12月作出的承诺，为推进Kwok先生在取得配售股份方面的最佳利益而工作。在此期间直至取得UBS H股期间，Wong先生经常重申并确认：他和瑞银正为Kwok先生的利益而工作，且Kwok先生应信任并依赖Wong先生和瑞银；\n\t- (2) Wong先生表示，他和瑞银将以对Kwok先生尽可能有利的方式设计取得该等股份的架构；以及\n\t- (3) Wong先生将他本人及瑞银表述为具有经验和专业知识，能够为Kwok先生设计有利的取得架构，并就配售股份等配售投资、该等投资的架构安排及其融资事宜向Kwok先生（以及其后向Ace Decade）提供建议。\n\n- 18. 于2014年6月前后，瑞银通过Wong先生就取得UBS H股的架构提供了初步建议。该建议是在Kwok先生的办公室（香港花园道1号中银大厦49楼）及其在香港的私人住所举行的会议上以口头方式作出的。概而言之（以下分项仅主张瑞银建议的要旨），Wong先生建议Kwok先生：(1) 不要通过由其实益拥有或控制的公司购买UBS H股，因为这将须获得中国证监会批准；(2) 改为设立一项由瑞银安排的架构，据此由一家受第三方中介人控制的公司取得UBS H股，而该项取得无需获得中国证监会批准；以及(3) 以杠杆方式进行该投资，并由瑞银提供取得融资。\n\n- 19. Kwok先生起初不愿进行杠杆投资，因为其取得UBS H股无需银行融资，且原拟以现金完成该项取得。然而，Wong先生向其建议：\n\t- (1) 如瑞银继续安排该投资的架构，则必须以该银行为购买UBS H股提供保证金融资为基础，因为这将是瑞银从该交易中获得利润的方式；\n\t- (2) 无论如何，以杠杆方式进行投资符合Kwok先生的最佳利益，因为这将使其无需投入全部自有资本即可取得所需数量的股份；\n\t- (3) 瑞银提供的任何杠杆融资在任何情况下均将按“尽可能最佳的条款”提供；\n\t- (4) 任何杠杆融资的条款将符合Kwok先生的要求，即不应存在任何规定，要求因配售股份的短期价格波动而：(i) 提供额外担保物，或(ii) 强制偿还贷款（Kwok先生和Wong先生均不作区分地将该两项情形统称为“追加保证金通知”）；\n\t- (5) 瑞银将给予Kwok先生充足时间以满足任何其他追加保证金通知，因此，如Kwok先生具备（事实上其确实具备）无需贷款融资即可为全部取得提供资金的能力，瑞银不会在Kwok先生能够提供额外资金之前对担保物采取执行措施；\n\t- (6) 为说明瑞银在UBS H股价值波动时对要求提供额外担保物或偿还贷款所采取的做法，Wong先生在此期间及其后多次提及一宗由瑞银提供资金的先前高价值杠杆交易；在该交易中，瑞银为取得中国保险公司Ping An（平安）的更大股权提供了资金（以下简称“平安交易”）。Wong先生于2014年6月至2014年12月期间就平安交易提供的信息详情概述于下文第42段。\n\n- 20. 据Kwok先生所能回忆，该建议最初是在2014年6月前后作出的。然而，在2014年夏季和秋季及其后，这些事项一直是Wong先生与Kwok先生反复讨论的主题。Kwok先生无法确定瑞银于每一具体场合向其作出了何种陈述，但记得该等建议整体上的效果。\n\n进一步架构建议\n\n- 21. 自2014年7月前后起，瑞银继续就取得UBS H股的拟议架构和融资向Kwok先生及（自2014年11月10日起）Ace Decade提供建议。尤其是，Wong先生继续就该项取得的架构向Kwok先生（及其后向Ace Decade）提供建议，包括进一步就取得超过海通公司股本5%的股份须获中国证监会批准的要求提供建议；并建议Kwok先生和Ace Decade选择Haixia（海峡）作为该投资的中介人。\n\n- 22. 依赖该建议，Kwok先生和Ace Decade选择Haixia作为取得UBS H股的中介人，并最终根据日期为2014年12月18日的共同投资协议（以下简称“共同投资协议”）为该目的委任Haixia。\n\n- 23. 尽管Wong先生曾向Kwok先生和Ace Decade表示Haixia独立于瑞银，但事实上，Haixia受State Development and Investment Corporation（国家开发投资公司，以下简称“SDIC”）控制；SDIC是瑞银的合资伙伴，双方共同拥有一只名为“UBS SDIC”的投资基金。\n\n为便利对配售股份的投资，Haixia于2014年10月23日通过其子公司Haixia Fund促成Dawn State（曙光国）注册成立。在所有相关期间直至其转让给Ace Decade之前，Dawn State均由Lu Bo先生（以下简称“Lu先生”）管理；Lu先生是Haixia的高级雇员，此前受雇于UBS SDIC。\n\n24. Ace Decade于2014年11月10日由Kwok先生取得，以作为上述投资工具。同日，经Wong先生建议，Kwok先生的一名雇员Yu Yong女士（以下简称“Yu女士”）成为其代名股东及董事。\n\n2014年12月合同的准备工作\n\n- 25. 于2014年10月底及11月初前后，瑞银（主要通过Wong先生）、Haixia（主要通过Lu先生）和Ace Decade（主要通过Kwok先生和Yu女士）开始为认购UBS H股作准备。\n\n- 26. 于2014年11月13日前后，Stevenson Wong与Norton Rose Fulbright（诺顿罗氏富布赖特，以下简称“Norton Rose”）之间举行了初步电话会议；Norton Rose为Haixia就该交易聘请的律师。会议上各方同意，由Norton Rose起草Haixia、Dawn State和Ace Decade之间有关取得UBS H股的共同投资协议。\n\n- 27. 于2014年11月14日前后，Ace Decade与Dawn State订立了一份谅解备忘录，据此，Dawn State将向Ace Decade提供服务，以换取相当于投资资本总额65个基点且不可退还的费用，但最低为US\\$5,000,000。\n\n- 28. 在此期间，即Dawn State同意认购UBS H股之前，Wong先生与Kwok先生一直就该项取得的架构和融资进行讨论。在该等讨论中，Wong先生重申并阐述了上文第19段所主张的陈述。原告就该等陈述进一步主张的内容载于下文第39至40段、第47段及第78段。\n\n- 29. 该等准备工作促使Ace Decade、Dawn State及瑞银订立一系列安排，旨在使Ace Decade能够通过Dawn State参与取得UBS H股（以下合称“2014年12月合同”）。2014年12月合同包括：\n\t- (1) Dawn State与瑞银于2014年12月12日订立的托管协议（以下简称“托管协议”）；\n\t- (2) Ace Decade、Dawn State与Haixia于2014年12月18日订立的共同投资协议；\n\t- (3) Haixia Management与Ace Decade于2014年12月18日订立的函件协议（以下简称“函件协议”）；以及\n\t- (4) Dawn State与UBS London于2014年12月19日订立的、题为“Project Pipe Financing Letter”的融资函（以下简称“融资函”）。\n\n- 30. 原告就订立2014年12月合同及其条款的进一步主张载于下文第32至37段。\n\n- 31. 该等准备工作还促使Dawn State与Haitong订立日期为2014年12月19日的认购协议（以下简称“认购协议”）。原告就认购协议的签署及条款的进一步主张载于下文第44段。\n\n2014年12月合同\n\n32. 在或约于2014年12月12日，Dawn State（道恩州）与UBS London（瑞银伦敦）就（除其他事项外）保管UBS H-Shares（瑞银H股）订立了《保管协议》。原告将在审理中援引《保管协议》的完整条款及效力。在此前提下，根据《保管协议》的条款，Dawn State同意所有UBS H-Shares（一经取得）均由UBS London保管。《保管协议》的目的及效力在于确保UBS H-Shares可供UBS London执行其在Dawn State与UBS London就为收购UBS H-Shares提供融资而将订立的（当时拟议的）融资协议及担保协议项下的权利。《保管协议》受英格兰和威尔士法律管辖，并规定英格兰法院对任何争议享有专属管辖权。\n\n33. 在或约于2014年12月18日，Ace Decade（艾斯十年）、Dawn State与Haixia（海峡）订立了《共同投资协议》。原告将在审理中援引《共同投资协议》的完整条款及效力。在此前提下，该协议规定：\n\n(1) 根据该协议，Haixia同意，在收到US$500 million（“货币出资”）后，授予Ace Decade参与认购目标公司（即Haitong（海通））股份的权利（定义为“该项目”）。此外，协议指出，预期Dawn State将安排金额为US$750 million的贷款融资，该贷款融资与货币出资共同构成“共同投资金额”。\n\n(2) 根据第1.1条，Haixia Fund（海峡基金）将因其在该项目中的角色收取一笔可观的费用。\n\n(3) 根据题为“该权利的性质”的第3条，Ace Decade仅拥有参与该项目的合同权利，对Dawn State或其取得的UBS H-Shares不享有即时的所有权权益。\n\n(4) 根据第6.5条：\n\n“如因任何原因该项目未能完成，作为Haixia Fund及公司为投资者的利益安排该项目以及与商业银行安排贷款融资的对价：\n\n(a) 投资者同意，公司及/或Haixia Fund应在公司就该项目订立股份认购协议时，收取以下两项中金额较高者作为安排费：(i) 共同投资金额的0.065%（即US$1,250 million）；及(ii) US$500,000。”\n\n34. 此外，在或约于2014年12月18日，Haixia Management（海峡管理）与Ace Decade订立了《函件协议》。原告将在审理中援引《函件协议》的完整条款及效力。除其他事项外，《函件协议》规定如下：\n\n(1) 在题为“贷款融资”的部分：\n\n“[Ace Decade]确认，[Dawn State]正应[Ace Decade]的要求并为其利益，就该项目依据融资的相关融资协议（“融资函”）与商业银行安排贷款融资（“该融资”）。”\n\n“[Ace Decade]确认其已审阅并同意融资函（包括条款清单）所载该融资的条款及条件，并进一步向[Dawn State]、Haixia Fund及Haixia Management承诺并同意，其应主要且独自负责与该融资有关的全部费用、成本、开支及付款[…]”\n\n(2) 在题为“转让安排”的部分，在该项目完成后满两个月或Dawn State将订立的相关认购协议项下锁定期届满后（以较长者为准）的任何时间，在收到Ace Decade的请求后，Haixia Management将促成将UBS H-Shares转让给Ace Decade或Ace Decade指定的另一实体。\n\n35. 尽管《函件协议》规定Ace Decade已审阅并同意融资函所载该融资的条款及条件，但融资函实际上直至2014年12月20日才正式完整签署。原告进一步主张，见下文第36至37段。\n\n36. 在或约于2014年12月19日，Dawn State与UBS London订立了融资函。根据融资函，UBS London同意提供拟用于该投资的全额贷款融资（“该融资额度”），但须随后完成更全面的融资文件；该融资额度按《条款清单》所定义的金额计算，即以60%、股份数量及初始价格的乘积计得的港元金额，且不超过US$750 million。原告将在审理中援引融资函的完整条款及效力。除其他事项外，融资函规定如下：\n\n(1) 在题为“贷款价值比率”的部分：\n\n“(c) 使用前保证金\n\n[Dawn State]应向担保账户交付额外港元现金，以确保在使用请求之日（“使用请求日期”），贷款价值比率（参照使用请求日期的合计股份价值计算，并按形式上假定相关额外港元现金已于该日交付至担保账户）等于或低于初始贷款价值比率。”\n\n(2) 在题为“排他性”的部分：\n\n“(b) 借款人将并将促使其各自的子公司及关联方确保，不会就或为任何与收购有关的融资或为其提供资金或再融资，而产生、借入、银团化、发行或私募其他债务融资……”\n\n(3) 在题为“管辖法律”的部分，融资函及所有相关文件（定义为“融资承诺文件”）受英格兰法律管辖，且英格兰法院对任何争议享有管辖权。\n\n37. 融资承诺文件包括一份关于该融资额度的指示性条款清单（“指示性条款清单”）。指示性条款清单不包含任何按所示条款或任何条款借款或放款的具有法律约束力的承诺。指示性条款清单规定，根据双方将达成一致的融资协议，UBS在特定情形下将有权要求强制提前还款或就该融资额度发出追加保证金通知，具体如下：\n\n(1) 在题为“保证金条款”的部分：\n\n“贷款价值比率追缴触发点：66.7%，但如上文‘初始贷款价值比率’所述初始贷款价值比率被调整，贷款人可作出调整。\n\n追加保证金通知：如在使用日期后的任何预定交易日，贷款价值比率高于贷款价值比率追缴触发点，借款人应仅向担保账户存入港元现金，使贷款价值比率恢复至初始贷款价值比率，并应履行下文‘保证金付款时间表’所述的全部义务。\n\n……\n\n……\n\n保证金付款时间表：追加保证金通知及保证金返还的付款，应分别在追加保证金通知请求或保证金返还发出之日紧随其后的营业日（“保证金付款日”）香港时间下午5:00前作出，前提是该请求于香港时间晚上11:59前发出……”\n\n(2) 在题为“其他条款”的部分：\n\n“全额强制提前还款事件：如在使用日期后发生下列任何事件，贷款人可自行选择终止本交易：\n\n(i) 在任何预定交易日，参考股份的收盘价低于初始价格的60%；\n\n(ii) 在任何预定交易日，参考股份的收盘价低于：(a) 前一预定交易日收盘价的85%；或(b) 紧接此前5个预定交易日中任何一个预定交易日收盘价的75%；\n\n……\n\n……\n\n如贷款人在全额强制提前还款事件发生后通知其终止本交易，借款人必须按照以下付款时间表偿还融资额度金额及与本交易有关的所有其他到期金额（“合计提前还款金额”）：\n\n(i) 在该通知后紧随的营业日支付合计付款金额的25%；\n\n(ii) 在该通知后的第二个营业日支付合计付款金额的25%；及\n\n(iii) 在该通知后的第三个营业日支付余下50%的合计提前还款金额。”\n\n“补足金额：在(i)并非共同终止日期的任何日期自愿提前还款，或(ii)在任何其他情形下提前还款或终止（包括在全额强制提前还款事件或违约事件发生后）时，借款人应向贷款人支付补足金额。\n\n补足金额按以下金额计算：就融资额度金额或提前还款金额（视情况而定），自提前还款或终止之日（视情况而定，含当日）起至下一个共同终止日期止的期间所适用的利差；如不存在共同终止日期，则至到期日止。”\n\nUBS在签署12月合同前所作的陈述\n\n38. 在筹备12月合同期间，即在或约于2014年12月且在2014年12月18日之前，Kwok先生（郭文贵）知悉，UBS就该投资拟提供融资的条款包括关于追加保证金通知及强制提前还款的规定（其再次以“追加保证金通知”一词概括指称）。Kwok先生现已无法回忆其是否曾看过融资函及/或指示性条款清单，但无论如何，其知悉该等事项必定来自他人对条款的描述，而非审阅文件，因为他不懂英语。\n\n39. Kwok 先生（郭文贵）反对纳入这些条款，并向 Wong 先生（黄先生）提出此事。二人曾进行讨论，讨论地点是在 Kwok 先生位于香港的住所或其办公室。Kwok 先生向 Wong 先生所表达的要旨是，他对这些条款感到不满，并希望将其从与 UBS（瑞银）订立的任何协议中删除。Kwok 先生表示，他不希望 UBS 能够因 Haitong H-Shares（海通H股）价格的短期波动而要求付款或偿还贷款。作为回应，Wong 先生代表 UBS 向 Kwok 先生及 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）作出进一步陈述并提供建议，其效果如下：\n\n(1) UBS 的内部政策是，在该行提供保证金融资的情况下，其条款将允许其发出追加保证金通知（即要求支付保证金或强制提前还款），而这些是 UBS 融资协议中的标准条款；\n\n(2) 尽管如此，Wong 先生拟返回银行，尝试促使从协议中删除该等条款或对其作出修改；\n\n(3) 即使 Wong 先生无法促使删除或修改追加保证金通知条款，Kwok 先生（因此 Ace Decade）亦不应对此感到担忧，因为：\n\n(a) 在本案中，UBS 不会严格援引或执行该等条款，因为 UBS 有一项适用于 Ace Decade 和 Kwok 先生（因此，默示地也适用于作为其居间人的 Dawn State（曙光州））的政策：对于高度重视的客户，如价格发生短期波动，不发出追加保证金通知（即不要求支付保证金或强制提前还款）。\n\n(b) 如 UBS 因较长期的价格变动而有必要发出追加保证金通知（即要求支付保证金或强制提前还款），UBS 将与 Ace Decade 合作，使其能够满足任何要求，并给予其合理时间完成该等事项；必要时，包括给予比融资协议规定更长的付款期限。UBS 不会因任何追加保证金通知而出售任何股份，除非已给予 Ace Decade 充足的付款时间。\n\n(4) Wong 先生再次提及 Ping An Deal（平安交易），以表明 UBS 对因 H 股价值波动而提出追加担保或偿还贷款请求时将采取的做法。Wong 先生于 June 2014 至 December 2014 期间就 Ping An Deal 提供的信息详情，概述于下文第42段。\n\n40. 在此期间的谈话和通信过程中（包括其提供上文第39段所主张的建议和作出陈述的谈话中），Wong 先生进一步重复并重申，他与 UBS 正致力于保护和促进 Kwok 先生的利益，并且 Kwok 先生及 Ace Decade 应对 UBS，尤其是 Wong 先生，寄予信赖并加以依赖。从作出这些保证的语境可推断，其意图是鼓励 Kwok 先生及 Ace Decade 接受并依赖上文第39段所主张的建议和陈述。\n\n41. 由于与 Wong 先生的这些谈话，Kwok 先生合理地相信：(1) Wong 先生将促使从《融资承诺文件》中，且无论如何从最终的融资协议中，删除追加保证金通知和强制提前还款条款；以及 (2) 无论如何，他无需担心此类条款，因为该等条款不会依照其严格文义被援引，而只会依照 Wong 先生所描述的做法和政策被援引。此后，在 19 December 2014 之前，Kwok 先生并未阅读《融资函》或《指示性条款清单》，亦未获告知其条款。因此，Kwok 先生并不知道这些文件中包含追加保证金通知和强制提前还款条款，直至大约 March 2015，详见下文第46段。\n\n关于平安的陈述\n\n42. 如上所主张，Wong 先生多次提及 Ping An Deal，作为 UBS 在 H 股价值波动时对追加担保或偿还贷款请求所采取做法的说明。Wong 先生还提及 Ping An Deal，作为 UBS 在构建对在中华人民共和国（PRC）注册成立的公司股权进行收购方面专业能力的说明。Kwok 先生无法回忆每一次讨论 Ping An Deal 的场合，但至少包括：\n\n(1) 上文第19段和第27段所主张的 Wong 先生与 Kwok 先生于 2014 年夏季进行的讨论。这些讨论主要在 Wong 先生与 Kwok 先生之间进行，但在此期间 Wong 先生就 Ping An Deal 作出陈述时，Kwok 先生的两名雇员 Yang Ying（杨英）和 Lyu Tao（吕涛）各自至少一次在场。\n\n(2) Wong 先生与 Kwok 先生于 December 2014 前后、在 18 December 2014 之前进行的讨论。\n\n43. 在整体上述谈话过程中，Wong 先生（代表 UBS）就 Ping An Deal 陈述了以下事项：\n\n(1) Ping An Deal 涉及收购一家中国公司的股份，即保险公司 Ping An Insurance（平安保险）。\n\n(2) UBS 曾就收购结构的安排以及为该收购提供资金事宜，向 Ping An 股权（“Ping An Stake”）的买方提供建议。\n\n(3) UBS 曾为该收购提供贷款融资。Ping An Stake 的价值以及 UBS 提供的贷款融资，均显著高于 UBS H-Shares 的价值或 UBS 拟为收购 UBS H-Shares 提供的贷款融资。\n\n(4) 尽管 Ping An Stake 的直接买方为泰国企业集团 CP Group（正大集团），但 CP Group 实际上是代表一名中国商人、亿万富翁 Xiao Jianhua（肖建华）（“Mr Xiao”）担任居间人。Mr Xiao 当时担任中国企业集团 Tomorrow Group（明天集团）的董事长。UBS 曾就如何建立该收购的居间结构向 CP Group 和 Mr Xiao 提供建议。与 Kwok 先生一样，Mr Xiao 是 UBS 极为重视的客户。\n\n(5) 尽管收购 Ping An Stake 的借贷安排中包括允许 UBS 根据价格波动作出追加保证金通知（即要求支付保证金或强制提前还款）的条款，且确已发生价格波动，UBS 并未严格执行该等条款。相反，UBS 与该股东合作，并给予该股东充足时间，在该时间内股份价值可能回升，或者该股东可以安排支付保证金。UBS 曾提供临时额外融资以弥补任何差额。\n\n(6) 因此，从未出现 UBS 将对平安股东的担保执行权利，或者该股东将失去其已收购的任何平安股份的可能性。\n\n(7) 此符合 UBS 对高度重视客户的政策，该政策亦将适用于 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade；如 UBS 有权发出追加保证金通知（即要求支付保证金或强制提前还款），UBS 拟给予 Kwok 先生和 Ace Decade 与平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n认购协议\n\n44. 于 19 December 2014 前后，Dawn State 与 Haitong（海通）订立了一份认购协议（“Subscription Agreement”），据此，其同意以每股 HK\\$15.62 的价格购买 569,427,620 股 UBS H-Shares（“Subscription”），总计 HK\\$8,894,459,424.40（“Subscription Price”）。《认购协议》尤其规定：\n\n(1) 根据第2条，如在《认购协议》订立至交割期间发生有关 Haitong H-Shares 交易价格上升或下降的某些情形，认购价格可每股增加或减少最多 HK\\$1.56；\n\n(2) UBS H-Shares 买卖的交割须以满足《认购协议》第3.1条规定的某些条件（“Conditions”）为前提；\n\n(3) 根据第8.1条，如条件未于 30 June 2015 当日或之前得到满足，任何一方均可终止《认购协议》。\n\nUBS 在签署借贷文件前作出的陈述\n\n45. 于 February 和 March 2015 前后，编制了 UBS 为 Dawn State 收购 UBS H-Shares 提供融资的借贷文件（“Lending Documents”）。尽管 Ace Decade 并非任何借贷文件的一方（其详情载于下文），借贷文件草案仍被提供给代表 Ace Decade 行事的律师 Stevenson Wong（史蒂文森·黄）。\n\n46. 于 March 2015 中旬前后，Yu 女士（余女士）告知 Kwok 先生，协议草案包含允许 UBS 在 UBS H-Shares 价值发生短期波动时发出追加保证金通知并要求强制还款的条款。\n\n47. 在 2015 年 March 中旬至下旬前后与 Wong 先生的谈话中，Kwok 先生表示他反对这些条款，并重申他不希望 UBS 能够因 Haitong H-Shares 价格的短期波动而要求付款或偿还贷款。Wong 先生代表 UBS：(1) 进一步重复并重申，他与 UBS 正为 Kwok 先生的利益而工作，且 Kwok 先生及 Ace Decade 应对 Wong 先生和 UBS 寄予信赖并加以依赖；以及 (2) 重述上文第39段具体列明的建议和陈述，该等建议和陈述在此重复列明，作为 UBS 于 March 2015 通过 Wong 先生所提供建议及作出陈述要旨的详情。\n\n48. Kwok 先生相信并依赖这些保证，因此并未反对 Dawn State 与 UBS 就借贷文件继续进行谈判，亦未努力促使或促成 Ace Decade 退出《共同投资协议》，或以其他方式阻止该投资的完成。\n\n借贷文件\n\n49. 于 1 April 2015，Dawn State 与 UBS 签署了由 UBS 为 Dawn State 收购 UBS H-Shares 提供融资的借贷文件。\n\n50. 《融资协议》（“Facility Agreement”）由 Dawn State 和 UBS London（瑞银伦敦）代表订立。经约定的《融资协议》是一项 HK\\$5,336,675,654.64 的定期融资。原告将在审判中援引《融资协议》的完整条款及效力。在此前提下，《融资协议》的条款包括以下规定：\n\n(1) 第1.1条（“定义”）：\n\n“Initial LTV Ratio”是指百分之六十（60.00%）[…]\n\n“LTV Ratio”是指，在任何预定交易日，按以下方式计算的贷款价值比率（以百分比表示）：A/B，其中：“A”是指以港元计的未偿还贷款总额减去追加保证金通知余额；“B”是指市场价值乘以受交易担保约束的股份数量。\n\n“Margin Call Trigger”是指百分之六十六点七（66.70%）[…]\n\n(2) 第7.7条（“强制提前还款”）：\n\n(a) 如贷款人认定：\n\n(i) 在任何预定交易日，一股股份的市值低于初始价格的百分之六十（60%）；\n\n(ii) 在任何预定交易日，一股股份的市值低于：\n\n(A) 紧接前一预定交易日股份市值的百分之八十五（85%）；或\n\n(B) 前五个预定交易日中任何一个预定交易日股份市值的百分之七十五（75%）；\n\n则（在每一种情况下）贷款人可通过向借款人发出通知，取消该融资额度，并宣布未偿贷款连同应计利息及根据融资文件应计的所有其他款项立即到期并应支付；届时，该融资额度将被取消，且所有该等未偿款项将根据下文第(b)段立即到期并应支付。\n\n(b) 对上文第(a)段所述未偿款项的任何提前偿还，应按以下金额并于以下时间作出：\n\n(i) 于贷款人发出该等提前偿还通知后紧接的营业日，支付该等未偿款项的百分之二十五（25%）；\n\n(ii) 于贷款人发出该等提前偿还通知后紧接的第二个营业日，支付该等未偿款项的百分之二十五（25%）；及\n\n(iii) 于贷款人发出该等提前偿还通知后紧接的第三个营业日，支付该等未偿款项的百分之五十（50%）。\n\n(3) 第18.1条（“追加保证金通知”）：\n\n“如在任何预定交易日，贷款人认定贷款价值比率高于适用的追加保证金触发比率，借款人应在切实可行的情况下尽快，且无论如何不得迟于贷款人向其发出要求其如此办理的追加保证金通知之日后的营业日下午5:00，将额外的港元现金金额存入或促使存入担保账户，并根据担保协议以贷款人为受益人就该等款项设定担保权益，以确保在计入所存入的额外现金后重新计算的贷款价值比率等于或低于适用的初始贷款价值比率。”\n\n(4) 第20条列明构成“违约事件”的16项事件或情形，其中包括：(a)（见第20.1条）未于到期日支付根据融资文件应付的任何金额；以及(b)（见第20.2条）未遵守第18.1条。\n\n(5) 第20.17条（“加速到期”）：\n\n“在持续发生违约事件时及其后的任何时候，贷款人可通过向借款人发出通知：\n\n(a) 取消承诺额，届时承诺额应立即被取消；\n\n(b) 宣布全部或部分贷款连同应计利息，以及根据融资文件应计或未偿的所有其他款项立即到期并应支付，届时其应立即到期并应支付；\n\n(c) 宣布全部或部分贷款应要求支付，届时其应在贷款人要求时立即应支付；及／或\n\n(d) 行使其根据融资文件享有的任何或全部权利、救济、权力或酌处权。”\n\n(6) 第32条规定：“本协议以及因本协议产生或与本协议有关的所有非合同义务，均受英格兰法管辖”，而第33.1条（“管辖权”）规定，由 English Court（英格兰法院）对因任何融资文件产生或与之有关的任何争议享有专属管辖权。\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 录入，14:09:15，第21页，共452页\n\n51. “担保协议”亦代表 Dawn State（曙光州）及 UBS London（瑞银伦敦）订立。根据担保协议，Dawn State（“设定担保人”）就其对或与若干资产有关的权利设定第一顺位担保权益予 UBS，尤其包括 UBS H-Shares（瑞银H股）。担保协议进一步规定，UBS H-Shares应由作为托管人的 UBS London Branch（瑞银伦敦分行）持有，并应根据托管协议的条款存入在 UBS 开立的已设定担保权益账户。原告将在审判中援引担保协议的完整条款及效力。在此前提下，担保协议包括以下规定：\n\n(1) 根据第3.1条（“以担保方式转让”），Dawn State向 UBS 转让其对或与以下各项有关的所有现有及未来权利、所有权及权益（包括对托管人的权利、所有权及权益）：其中包括托管协议、UBS H-Shares以及持有该等股份的账户（“担保账户”）。\n\n(2) 第3.2条（“固定担保”）规定，Dawn State就其对以下各项享有的权利，以 UBS 为受益人设定担保权益：其中包括担保账户及 UBS-H-Shares。\n\n(3) 根据第8条（“执行”）：\n\n(a) 第8.1条（“何时可执行”）：\n\n“在持续发生执行事件时，该等担保权益应立即可执行；经本契据变更及扩展的 LPA 赋予抵押权人的权力，包括出售权，以及 LPA 第101条赋予的其他权力，均应立即可行使。”\n\n(b) 第8.2条（“出售权”）：\n\n“经本契据变更及扩展的 LPA 第101条赋予抵押权人的法定出售权、指定接管人的权力及其他法定权力，应于本契据日期产生（且为此目的，担保债务应被视为已到期并应支付）。”\n\n(4) 第9.3条（“金融担保安排”）：\n\n“(a) 设定担保人和贷款人拟使本契据构成《2003年金融担保安排（第2号）条例》（“条例”）所界定的“金融担保安排”；因此，贷款人有权：\n\n(i) 使用及处分构成“金融担保物”（定义见条例）（“金融担保物”）的任何已设定担保权益资产；在该情况下，贷款人应遵守条例有关取得“等值金融担保物”（定义见条例）的规定；\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 录入，14:09:15，第23页，共452页\n\n(ii) 根据条例，将任何等值金融担保物的价值与任何担保债务抵销，或将其用于清偿任何担保债务；及\n\n(iii) （在担保权益可执行后的任何时候）根据条例，将构成金融担保物的任何已设定担保权益资产用于或抵偿担保债务。\n\n(b) 如贷款人须为上文第(a)(ii)或(a)(iii)段之目的对任何等值金融担保物进行估值，其价值应为：\n\n(i) 就现金而言，于收取抵偿或抵销时的面值；及\n\n(ii) 就金融工具或其他金融担保物而言，于收取抵偿或抵销时的市值；该市值由贷款人在收取抵偿后参照公开指数或其他适用的公认来源，或由贷款人选择的其他程序确定，包括由贷款人指定的独立投资银行、会计师事务所或其他估值师进行的估值。\n\n在必要时，按贷款人选定的、于收取抵偿或抵销时有效的市场汇率，换算为担保债务计价的货币。”\n\n(5) 第9.4条（“出售已设定担保权益资产”）：\n\n“设定担保人确认并同意，股份担保物或其他已设定担保权益资产可能迅速贬值，且属于通常在认可市场出售的类型，因此，在执行担保权益时，贷款人无须就其拟出售或以其他方式处分任何股份担保物或任何其他已设定担保权益资产发出任何通知。在持续发生执行事件后，贷款人、任何受托人或任何接管人可自行全权酌处，以贷款人、受托人或接管人认为必要或适宜的方式和在其认为必要或适宜的情形下，以非公开出售方式出售股份担保物或其他已设定担保权益资产（贷款人有权购买拟出售的任何或全部股份担保物或其他已设定担保权益资产）。设定担保人确认，该等出售应被视为以商业上合理的方式作出，即使任何该等出售的价格低于该等股份担保物或其他已设定担保权益资产以其他非公开或公开方式出售时本可能取得的价格。”\n\n52. “融资协议附函”亦代表 Dawn State 及 UBS London 订立。原告将在审判中援引担保协议的完整条款及效力。在此前提下，担保协议的条款包括以下规定：\n\n(1) Dawn State须就根据融资协议作出的任何提前还款支付一笔大额额外款项，具体如下：\n\n“于全部或部分支付、偿还或提前偿还贷款的任何日期，借款人应支付适用的补足金额……”\n\n“补足金额”就将被偿还或提前偿还的贷款而言，系指如下利差金额：如该等已偿还或提前偿还的贷款本金金额持续未偿至相关共同终止日或最终还款日（视情况而定），则自相关偿还或提前偿还日期起至下一共同终止日，或如无共同终止日，则至最终还款日的期间内，本应适用于该等已偿还或提前偿还贷款本金金额的利差金额。”\n\n(2) 并且，“本融资协议附函以及因本协议产生或与本协议有关的所有非合同义务，均受英格兰法管辖。”\n\n53. 同于 1 April 2015，Dawn State向 UBS London（其既以融资协议项下贷款人的身份，亦以托管协议项下托管人的身份）提供了一份“结算授权书”。原告将在审判中援引担保协议的完整条款及效力。在此前提下，根据该结算授权书：\n\n(1) Dawn State授权 UBS London（作为贷款人）指示及／或授权托管人（亦为 UBS London），根据认购协议将 Dawn State作出的货币出资及 UBS London提供的融资金额用于为认购提供资金，并将根据认购协议配发的 UBS H-Shares转入受托管协议约束的担保账户。\n\n(2) 双方同意：“结算授权书以及因本协议产生或与本协议有关的所有非合同义务，均受英格兰法管辖。”\n\n54. 在下文第55段所述价格上调后，结算授权书经一份题为“经修订及重述的结算授权书”的文件更新。\n\n价格上调\n\n55. 2015年5月8日，Haitong（海通）向Dawn State（道恩州）及其他新H股投资者发出函件，宣布完成Haitong新H股发行及出售的各项先决条件均已满足，且预计交割将于2015年5月15日进行；并宣布，由于此前30日H股的交易价格已超过约定门槛，根据《认购协议》第2.2条，H股认购价格将每股上调HKD 1.56，使每股价格达到HKD 17.18。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第 25 页，共 452 页\n\n56. 因此，Dawn State与UBS London（瑞银伦敦）于2015年5月13日签订了一份“有关《融资协议》的修订协议”（下称“《修订协议》”）。1 原告将在审判中援引《修订协议》的完整条款及效力。在此前提下，根据《修订协议》：\n\n(1) 根据第3.1条，双方同意将UBS的贷款承诺增加至HK$6,011,236,393.92，并将初始LTV比率提高至61.45%，但追加保证金触发点仍为66.7%。\n\n(2) 根据第6.4条，双方同意：“本《修订协议》以及因本协议产生或与本协议有关的所有非合同义务，均受英国法律管辖。”\n\n57. 同于2015年5月13日，Dawn State与UBS London签订了另一份担保协议，名为“第二担保协议”，以更新《担保协议》，从而反映《修订协议》对《融资协议》作出的修订。原告将在审判中援引《第二担保协议》的完整条款及效力。《第二担保协议》的相关条款与上文第51段所主张的条款相同，该等条款作为《第二担保协议》条文的细节再次列明。\n\n交割\n\n58. 2015年5月13日，Kwok先生（郭文贵）和Yu女士（俞女士）根据《共同投资协议》第4.1条，授权向Dawn State支付《认购协议》项下认购价格的现金部分的最终款项。根据其在《融资协议》项下的义务，该款项随后由Dawn State作为后续借款人出资支付给UBS London。\n\n59. 同于2015年5月13日，Dawn State根据《融资协议》第5条，向UBS London提出一项提款请求，金额为HKD 6,011,236,393.82。\n\n60. 《认购协议》项下的交割于2015年5月15日完成，UBS H股被转让给Dawn State。在登记为股东后，Dawn State立即根据《第二担保协议》第6.2(a)条，将该等股份存入UBS London的担保账户。因此，UBS London根据上文第51段及第57段所主张的《第二担保协议》条款，以担保方式受让“已收购H股”。\n\n1 2015年5月13日的《修订协议》\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第 26 页，共 452 页\n\n建议及陈述的后果\n\n61. 上文第14至20段、第38至43段及第45至48段所主张的UBS建议及陈述的细节在此重述。Kwok先生和Ace Decade（艾斯十年）基于该等建议的充分性和／或该等陈述的准确性，并在对其作出合理信赖的基础上，与Dawn State订立了（且未退出）《共同投资协议》，并促成及允许Dawn State与UBS订立借贷文件。\n\n62. 如无该等陈述：\n\n(1) 如UBS坚持在《融资协议》中纳入追加保证金及强制提前还款条款，Kwok先生和／或Ace Decade本会在不使用UBS贷款融资的情况下收购UBS H股；\n\n(2) 或者，Kwok先生和／或Ace Decade根本不会收购UBS H股；\n\n(3) 或者，如（与原告的主张相反）Kwok先生和Ace Decade本会通过Dawn State使用UBS贷款融资并按相同条款收购UBS H股，则Kwok先生和Ace Decade本会确保Dawn State有足够可用资金，以立即满足任何该等追加保证金要求和／或还款要求。\n\n63. 借贷文件的条款对Dawn State极为不利，而对UBS London有利。尤其是：\n\n(1) 《融资协议》规定UBS同时享有：(a) 根据第7.7条要求强制提前还款的权利；及(b) 根据第18.1条提出追加保证金要求的权利。\n\n(2) 根据第7.7条，因UBS H股价值单日下跌15%或五日内下跌25%，UBS有权要求全额偿还贷款，而不论Haitong H股的绝对价值、LTV比率，或UBS London作为贷款人面临损失风险的程度或是否不存在该等风险。\n\n(3) 正如UBS所知（至少Wong先生（黄先生）因2014年及2015年的讨论而知悉，且无论如何，此亦属一般市场常识），Haitong H股易于出现短期价值波动，因此，在《融资协议》期限内，根据第7.7条寻求提前还款的权利存在被触发的重大风险，包括在UBS不存在（或不存在重大）损失风险的情况下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第 27 页，共 452 页\n\n(4) 如UBS所知（至少通过Wong先生）或理应知悉：\n\n(a) Dawn State并非UBS H股收购的最终投资者或资金来源，亦不会是满足任何追加保证金要求或提前还款要求所需资金的来源。这是根据上文第18段所主张、在UBS建议下形成的投资架构所致。\n\n(b) 根据第7.7条进行强制提前还款或根据《融资协议》第18.1条支付保证金所允许的期限，不足以（或合理地不大可能足以）让有关款项提供给Dawn State，再由Dawn State提供给UBS。尤其是，UBS曾于2014年12月19日在致Haixia（海峡）的函件中确认，其理解Dawn State无法在提出要求后24小时内付款。\n\n(5) 因此，极有可能发生《融资协议》第20.1条和／或第20.2条所指的违约事件，且UBS将有权根据第20.17条在违约事件发生后行使救济权。\n\n(6) 根据《融资协议附函》，如UBS行使其要求贷款提前还款的权利，Dawn State同意就已偿还或提前偿还的贷款本金金额，向UBS支付自相关还款或提前还款日期起至下一次发生的共同终止日，或如无该日期，则至最终还款日止期间本应适用的全部利差。与单纯的“终止成本”条款相比，此种条款在该类安排中并不常见，意味着UBS将因行使其根据第7.7条要求强制提前还款的权利而在财务上获益。\n\nUBS London的执行\n\n64. 约于2015年7月1日至6日期间，Haitong股份（包括H股）的交易价格大幅下跌。UBS London于2015年7月6日晚间向Dawn State发出函件送达通知，据此其声称根据《融资协议》第7.7条行使要求提前偿还根据该《融资协议》提供的融资款项的权利。在该通知中，UBS声称要求支付：(1) 贷款的25%，连同应计利息及融资文件项下应计的所有其他款项（“相关提前还款金额”），约为US$200 million，须于次日下午5时前支付；(2) 相关提前还款金额的25%，约为US$200 million，须于送达通知后第二日下午5时前支付；以及(3) 相关提前还款金额的50%，约为US$200 million，须于送达通知后第二日下午5时前支付。\n\n65. 2015年7月7日上午，Ace Decade告知UBS，尽管其能够“迅速”履行该项债务，但无法在当日下午5时前履行。Kwok先生亦通过电话联系Wong先生，要求根据上文第14至20段、第38至43段及第45至48段所列UBS的陈述及建议，给予额外时间以筹集足够资金。Wong先生表示不会给予该等时间，且UBS London已决定出售UBS H股。\n\n66. Dawn State未于2015年7月7日下午5时前支付所要求的款项。\n\n67. 2015年7月7日晚间，UBS London向Dawn State发出一份“加速到期事件通知”（下称“该通知”）。\n\n(1) UBS在该通知第3段中表示，全部贷款（包括今日到期的提前还款金额）、连同应计利息及融资文件项下应计或未偿的所有其他款项，均立即到期应付。\n\n(2) UBS亦在第3段中通知其有权根据“各项担保文件”（即《担保协议》和《第二担保协议》）第9.4条行使出售权。\n\n68. UBS于2015年7月7日发出的另一函件中主张，应付款项总额为HKD 6,289,081,405.43，包括：(1) 贷款本金（HKD 6,011,236,393.92）；(2) 未偿应计利息（HKD 44,003,279.72）；(3) “终止成本”（HKD 1,873,883.54）；及(4) “补足金额”（HKD 231,967,848.24）。\n\n出售UBS H股\n\n69. UBS London就其如何出售或声称出售UBS H股（如有）提供的信息有限。据原告所知及所信：\n\n(1) 于2015年7月8日或前后，UBS London通过大宗交易，以每股平均价格HK$11.12、总价HK$2,224,000,000，正式向Segantii Capital Management Limited（Segantii资本管理有限公司）（“Segantii”）转让200,000,000股UBS H股（总数为569,427,620股）。\n\n(2) 于2015年7月10日或前后，UBS自身声称以原告未知的价格绝对取得58,284,114股UBS H股。原告亦不知道UBS是否曾将该等股份出售给第三方；如曾出售，亦不知道出售时间和价格。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第 29 页，共 452 页\n\n(3) 原告不知道UBS根据《担保协议》第9.4条出售权所作任何其他出售的细节。\n\n70. HK$11.12的价格较Haitong H股的交易价格构成异常深幅折让；该股票于2015年7月7日收市时为每股HK$13.90。\n\n71. 2015年7月8日上午，Haitong宣布暂停其H股交易，等待发布有关下列事项的公告：\n\n“(1) 一项潜在的本公司股份回购计划，如实施，须经股东批准；及(2) 本公司高级管理人员和／或雇员潜在购买本公司股份……”\n\n72. 因此，自7月8日上午起，普遍已知（包括可推断UBS（瑞银）亦已知）交易已暂停，并且海通（Haitong）股份至少很可能将进行回购。2015年7月9日，海通宣布回购其自身股份。2015年7月10日，海通H股恢复交易。H股开盘价为HK$14.24，收盘价为HK$15.14。\n\n73. 2015年7月10日，瑞银向Haixia（海峡）及其律师发送电子邮件，随附“一份详列执行所得款项用途的表格”，但该计算被说明为“草案形式，并且……须待该交易完全结算”。该表格规定，向Dawn State（道恩州）支付的款项将参照以下各项计算：(1)“截至2015年7月7日的香港收市价：HKD 13.90”；(2)“大宗交易折让（%）20.0%”；(3)“大宗配售价格：11.12”；(4)“已售股份数量（股）：569,427,620”，即Dawn State所持有的全部股份。瑞银当时或其后均未提供任何股份实际买方的详情、向每名买方出售的股份数量、每宗出售所成交的价格、出售成交的时间，或出售条款。\n\nDawn State股份的转让\n\n74. 2015年9月18日，Haixia Fund（海峡基金）依照Ace Decade（艾斯十年）根据《函件协议》享有的权利，将Dawn State的全部股本转让给Ace Decade。\n\nACE DECADE与KWOK先生的请求\n\n75. 以下段落所主张的Ace Decade及Kwok先生（郭先生）的请求，是基于并假定该等请求受英格兰和威尔士法律管辖而提出的。如瑞银一方主张及/或法院认定该等请求的准据法为香港法律，则同一请求作为备选依据香港法律提出，并依赖下文所主张的事实和事项，作为具体说明Kwok先生及Ace Decade根据香港法律提出诉因的依据。\n\n案号22-50073 文书1269 于12/28/22提交 于12/28/22 14:09:15录入 第30页，共\n\n瑞银的注意义务\n\n76. 瑞银对Ace Decade及Kwok先生负有侵权法上的注意义务，包括（各项进一步或作为备选）：\n\n(1) 以合理谨慎和技能确保向其二人或其中任何一人提供的信息或作出的事实陈述准确无误的义务。\n\n(2) 在就下列事项向其二人或其中任何一人提供建议时，行使合理谨慎、技能及判断的义务，包括但不限于：(a) 收购瑞银H股的架构安排；(b) 收购瑞银H股的融资；(c) 《融资文件》的条款及效力；(d) 与该等条款相关的风险；及/或(e) 瑞银拟在行使该等权利时采取及很可能采取的行为。\n\n77. 证明瑞银承担责任的事实和事项至少包括以下各项：\n\n(1) 在所有相关期间，Wong先生（黄先生）均为瑞银的代理人，有权代表瑞银作出陈述及提供承诺。\n\n(2) 如上文第9段所主张，Kwok先生（如瑞银所知，至少通过Wong先生所知）在所有重要期间均将Wong先生视为可信赖的顾问和私人朋友，并据此信赖他。\n\n(3) 重复上文第11至13段。如其中所主张，瑞银与Kwok先生及Ace Decade之间关系的背景是一项安排，据此Kwok先生（应瑞银要求）协助瑞银成为瑞银H股的配售代理人，而瑞银作为回报，提出协助并建议其以有利条款收购瑞银获委任为配售代理人的股份。\n\n(4) Wong先生一再表示，其本人及瑞银正为保护和促进Kwok先生及Ace Decade在收购配售股份及为其提供资金方面的最佳利益而行事，包括就以下所有事项：(a) 制定该投资的架构和资金计划；(b) 提供有关该投资的架构、资金和价值的信息；及(c) 就该投资的架构、资金和价值提供建议。重复上文第17、40及47段。\n\n(5) Wong先生一再声称，Kwok先生及Ace Decade应当信任并依赖Wong先生及瑞银。重复上文第17、40及47段。\n\n(6) 瑞银（通过Wong先生）事实上向Kwok先生及Ace Decade提供信息并给出建议，其明知并意图使其依赖该等信息和建议。重复上文第18至20、21至23、24、28、39及47段。\n\n案号22-50073 文书1269 于12/28/22提交 于12/28/22 14:09:15录入 第31页，共\n\n(7) 如第17段所主张，Wong先生表示，其本人及瑞银具备为Kwok先生设计有利收购架构的经验和专业知识，并具备就在诸如配售股份配售中的投资、投资的架构安排及其融资方面向Kwok先生（及其后向Ace Decade）提供建议的经验和专业知识。\n\n(8) 在就瑞银作为《贷款文件》项下交易对手方的政策、意图及/或可能行为提供信息和建议时，Wong先生及瑞银所涉及的事项属于瑞银独有的知情范围，且Kwok先生及Ace Decade不能独立核实，并且Wong先生及瑞银明知Kwok先生及Ace Decade必须依赖瑞银向其传达的事项。\n\n违反义务\n\n78. 瑞银通过Wong先生在其作为瑞银代理人的授权过程及范围内行事，于签署《12月合同》之前及其后于签署《贷款文件》之前，向Ace Decade及/或Kwok先生作出如上所述的虚假及误导性陈述。尤其是：\n\n(1) 瑞银称，其有一项将适用于Ace Decade及Kwok先生（从而适用于作为其居间人的Dawn State）的政策，即如价格短期波动，不会要求支付保证金或强制提前还款。重复上文第39、43及47段。该等陈述属虚假及误导性陈述，因为（可从上文第64至68段所主张的瑞银实际行为推断）瑞银（通过代表伦敦瑞银及/或在与订立和执行《贷款文件》项下权利有关的范围内代表香港瑞银作出决定的决策者（“决策者”））并无该等政策及/或无意将该等政策适用于Kwok先生、Ace Decade及/或Dawn State。\n\n(2) 瑞银称，其有一项将适用于Ace Decade及Kwok先生（从而适用于作为其居间人的Dawn State）的政策，即如瑞银有必要要求支付保证金或强制提前还款，瑞银将与其合作，使其能够满足任何要求，并将允许其有合理时间如此行事，包括在必要时允许比《融资协议》所规定更长的付款期限，且不会因任何追加保证金通知而出售任何股份，除非给予Ace Decade足够时间付款。重复上文第39、43及47段。该等陈述属虚假及误导性陈述，因为（可从上文第64至68段所主张的瑞银实际行为推断）瑞银通过其决策者并无该等政策及/或无意将该等政策适用于Kwok先生、Ace Decade及/或Dawn State。\n\n案号22-50073 文书1269 于12/28/22提交 于12/28/22 14:09:15录入 第32页，共452页\n\n(3) 瑞银称，其意图以其声称曾对待平安（Ping An）股东的方式对待Ace Decade及Kwok先生（从而对待作为其居间人的Dawn State）。重复上文第19、39、42至43及47段。该等陈述属虚假及误导性陈述，因为（可从上文第64至68段所主张的瑞银实际行为推断）瑞银通过其决策者并无该等意图，而是意图按照《贷款文件》条款及/或以对瑞银最有利的方式，行使《贷款文件》赋予其的所有任何权利。\n\n(4) 瑞银称，其事实上曾以符合上文第(3)及(4)分项所主张的所谓政策的方式对待平安股东，且这证明了瑞银意图并将会（或可合理预期会）在《贷款文件》项下采取的方法。重复上文第19、39、42至43及47段。该等陈述属虚假及误导性陈述，因为：\n\n(a) 在2015年7月中旬或前后Wong先生与Kwok先生的谈话中，Wong先生表示，（与其先前陈述相反）平安股东事实上曾被提出追加保证金要求（即要求支付保证金或强制提前还款），并已按照相关《贷款文件》的条款满足该等要求。如属实，则瑞银先前的陈述必属虚假及误导性陈述。\n\n(b) 作为备选，如瑞银确实以上文第42至43段所主张的方式对待平安股东，则瑞银的陈述属虚假及误导性陈述，因为对平安股东的对待并不能证明瑞银通过其决策者意图并将会（或可合理预期会）在《贷款文件》项下采取的方法。\n\n(5) 瑞银称，其意图并正在就收购配售股份及为其提供资金一事，以符合Kwok先生及Ace Decade最佳利益的方式行事。重复上文第17、40及47段。该等陈述属虚假及误导性陈述，因为（可从上文第63至68段所主张的瑞银实际行为推断）瑞银通过其决策者无意以符合Kwok先生或Ace Decade最佳利益的方式行事，而是意图作为Dawn State的合同交易对手方，为自身利益行事，而不顾对Kwok先生及Ace Decade造成的后果。\n\n案号22-50073 文书1269 于12/28/22提交 于12/28/22 14:09:15录入 第33页，共452页\n\n(6) 瑞银称，其正以有利条款或“最佳可能条款”为Dawn State（从而在实践中为Ace Decade）提供贷款融资。重复上文第11及19段。该等陈述属虚假及误导性陈述，因为（可从第63段所主张的事项推断）瑞银通过其决策者意图向其提供对瑞银有利而对Dawn State、Ace Decade及Kwok先生极为不利的融资。\n\n79. 瑞银通过Wong先生在其作为瑞银代理人的授权过程及范围内行事，在作出该等虚假陈述时存在过失，因为在作出陈述时或之前，Wong先生已：\n\n过失详情\n\n(1) 未尽合理注意义务查明，UBS（瑞银集团），尤其是 UBS London（瑞银伦敦）（通过相关决策人员），是否意图及/或正在为 Mr Kwok（郭文贵先生）及/或 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的最大利益行事。\n\n(2) 未尽合理注意义务查明，UBS，尤其是 UBS London（通过相关决策人员），是否会以优惠条件及/或以“最优可能条件”向 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade 提供融资。\n\n(3) 未尽合理注意义务查明，UBS 是否具有上文第78(1)及78(2)段所主张的政策，及/或 UBS London（通过相关决策人员）是否实际上意图将该等政策适用于 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade（并因此适用于作为其居间方的 Dawn State（道恩州）），如上文第78(3)至78(6)段所主张。\n\n(4) 未尽合理注意义务查明，UBS，尤其是 UBS London（通过相关决策人员），是否实际上意图以其声称对待 Ping An（平安）股东的同样方式对待 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade。\n\n(5) 未尽合理注意义务查明，UBS 是否实际上以上文第42至43段所主张的方式对待了平安股东。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 34 of 452\n\n(6) 未采取额外或进一步的合理措施，以保护 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 免受因 UBS 作出的虚假或误导性陈述而导致的损失或损害。\n\n80. UBS 通过其代理人 Mr Wong（黄先生）在其授权的职务及范围内行事，向 Ace Decade 及/或 Mr Kwok 提供了疏忽的建议，如上文所述。关于 UBS 所提供建议的内容：\n\n(1) 如第19段所主张，UBS 向 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 建议，使用 UBS London 提供的贷款资金作出杠杆投资符合其最大利益，并且 UBS 提供的任何杠杆融资无论如何均将按最优可能条件提供。\n\n(2) 如第39及47段所主张，UBS 向 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 建议：\n\n(a) 其不应对《融资协议》中所载条款包含追加保证金通知及强制提前还款规定感到担忧；因此，\n\n(b) 尽管如此，贷款文件对 Ace Decade 仍具有商业上的有利性。该建议援引 UBS 于第78段所主张的陈述作为支持。\n\n81. UBS 通过其代理人 Mr Wong 在其授权的职务及范围内行事，提供该建议时存在疏忽，具体如下：\n\n疏忽事由\n\n(1) 使用 UBS London 的贷款资金进行该项投资不符合 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade 的利益（这对 Mr Wong 及 UBS 而言必定或应当显而易见），无论如何，按贷款文件的条款进行该项投资亦不符合其利益，包括因为：\n\n(a) 如 Mr Kwok 已向 Mr Wong 说明，其本人及 Ace Decade 并不需要贷款资金进行该项投资，而可使用其自有资源进行投资；以及\n\n(b) UBS London 提供的贷款资金（特别是依贷款文件的条款，并在上文第78段所主张的陈述为虚假的情况下）造成了 UBS 会在该等股份价值波动时对 UBS H-Shares（瑞银H股）行使权利的风险（及/或过高风险），从而使 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 遭受损失。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 35 of 452\n\n(2) UBS 在尽到合理注意义务的情况下，本应建议 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade，UBS London 很可能会（有违第78段所主张的陈述）依照《融资协议》第7.7及18条的严格条款行使其严格权利，并且不会按照上文第78段所主张陈述所涉的政策行事。在不限制前述一般性的前提下，UBS 作出上文第98段所主张的陈述后，即负有义务纠正 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade 所依据的任何误解、误会或信息不足的基础。\n\n(3) UBS 在尽到合理注意义务的情况下，本应建议 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade，如 UBS H-Shares 的价值发生任何波动，UBS London 很可能会依照《融资及担保协议》的严格条款对 UBS H-Shares 行使权利。\n\n(4) 因此，UBS 在尽到合理注意义务的情况下，本应建议，依贷款文件条款作出该项投资，不符合 Mr Kwok（并因此 Ace Decade）的明确意愿，即任何杠杆投资仅应在以下基础上作出：不应因配售股份的短期价格波动而触发提供额外担保物或偿还贷款。\n\n(5) UBS 向 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 提供的贷款资金（UBS 必定或应当知道）并非按优惠条件提供（更遑论按最优可能条件提供），而是按极为不利的条件提供。重述上文第63段。\n\n(6) 鉴于 UBS London 的实际政策及意图，Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 本应（UBS 必定或应当知道）对《融资协议》第7.7及18.1条下的强制提前还款及追加保证金通知条款感到担忧，而 UBS 本应建议该等条款对该项投资的结果构成重大风险。\n\n(7) UBS 未采取合理措施以保护 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade 的最大利益，具体为：\n\n(a) 告知 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade，UBS 拟议的融资并非按优惠条件或“最优可能条件”提供的融资；\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 36 of 452\n\n(b) 告知 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade 与《融资协议》第7.7及18.1条条款相关的风险；\n\n(i) 在其知悉或怀疑向 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 作出的任何陈述或提供的任何建议为虚假、有瑕疵、误导性或不完整时，尽快告知 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade。\n\n(ii) 采取额外或进一步的合理措施，以保护 Mr Kwok 及 Ace Decade 免受损失或损害，或以其他方式保护其利益。\n\nAce Decade 的请求\n\n82. Ace Decade 提出因 UBS 上文所主张的违反义务行为而产生的主要请求。\n\n83. Ace Decade 合理且可预见地依赖上文详述的陈述及/或建议，以及 UBS 的技能和判断，具体通过以下各项（每项为进一步或备选主张）：\n\n(1) 如第33段所详述，订立《共同投资协议》；\n\n(2) 未在认购完成前退出《共同投资协议》或以其他方式阻止该项投资完成；\n\n(3) 如上文第36段所详述，促使或允许 Dawn State 订立《融资函》。\n\n(4) 未阻止 Dawn State 订立贷款文件，反而促使其在未使用 UBS 贷款资金的情况下取得 UBS H-Shares；及/或\n\n(5) 如 Dawn State（有违原告方的主张）本会使用 UBS 的贷款融资并按相同条款取得 UBS H-Shares，未确保 Dawn State 可即时获得足以应付任何该等追加保证金通知及/或还款的资金。\n\n(6) 原告方重述上文第61及62段。\n\n84. UBS 的疏忽已致 Ace Decade 遭受损失及损害。具体而言（每项为进一步或备选主张）：\n\nAce Decade 的损失明细\n\n(1) Ace Decade 已损失其全部货币出资额，即 US\\$500 million，减去 UBS 在出售已取得股份后向 Ace Decade 结算的 HK\\$36,621,693.83，按当时汇率约为 US\\$4.7 million：US\\$495,300,000；\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 37 of 452\n\n(2) 如 Ace Decade 在签署《共同投资协议》后本会完全退出该项投资（而非通过 Dawn State 作出该项投资，但由 Mr Kwok 及/或 Ace Decade 的自有资源或替代贷款融资提供资金），Ace Decade 已损失其全部货币出资额，即 US\\$500 million，减去 UBS 在出售已取得股份后向 Ace Decade 结算的 HK\\$36,621,693.83，按当时汇率约为 US\\$4.7 million，以及根据《共同投资协议》第6.5条本应向 Haixia Fund（海峡基金）支付的 US\\$812,500 费用：US\\$494,487,500；\n\n(3) 相当于其投资 UBS H-Shares 本可取得的回报的损失，数额将以专家证据为基础确定。\n\nMr Kwok 的请求\n\n85. Mr Kwok 的请求仅作为 Ace Decade 请求的备选而提出，其前提为 UBS 否认并成功抗辩其上文所主张的任何不当行为可由 Ace Decade 提起诉讼。\n\n86. Mr Kwok 亦合理且可预见地依赖上文详述的陈述及/或建议，以及 UBS 的技能和判断，具体通过以下各项（每项为进一步或备选主张）：\n\n(1) 如第33段所详述，促使或允许 Ace Decade 订立《共同投资协议》；\n\n(2) 未促使 Ace Decade 退出《共同投资协议》或以其他方式阻止该项投资在认购完成前完成；\n\n(3) 如上文第36段所详述，促使或允许 Dawn State 订立《融资函》。\n\n(4) 未阻止 Dawn State 订立贷款文件，反而促使其在未使用 UBS 贷款资金的情况下取得 UBS H-Shares；及/或\n\n(5) 如 Dawn State（有违原告方的主张）本会使用 UBS 的贷款融资并按相同条款取得 UBS H-Shares，未确保 Dawn State 可即时获得足以应付任何该等追加保证金通知及/或还款的资金。\n\n(6) 原告方重述上文第61及62段。\n\n87. UBS 的疏忽已使 Mr Kwok 遭受与 Ace Decade 相同数额的损失及损害。经必要变更后重述上文第84段。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 38 of\n\nDawn State 的请求\n\n出售已取得的H股\n\n88. 2015年7月7日，因发生违约事件，UBS 声称向 Dawn State 发出有关其就已抵押资产（即 UBS H-Shares）行使“出售权”的通知。重述上文第67段。UBS London 出售 UBS H-Shares 的合同权利载于《担保协议》第9.3(a)(i)及9.4条。\n\n89. 据原告方所知并确信，UBS（瑞银集团）此后声称行使其出售权，并出售了全部 UBS H股。除上述第69段所述外，原告方并不知悉根据该声称享有的权利所作出售的详情。UBS 此后亦声称行使其\n\n90. 重述上述第51(3)段。UBS 出售 UBS H股时，是依据《1925年财产法》（Law of Property Act 1925，以下简称“LPA”）第101条规定的“出售权”，并经《担保协议》第8条保留及修改后行使该项法定出售权；因此，UBS 当时及目前均受法律和衡平法中对行使该等权力的抵押权人或设定担保权人施加的职责和义务约束。\n\n91. 因此，任何导致或旨在使 UBS 绝对取得已取得股份的、声称出售 UBS H股的行为均属无效且不产生任何效力。任何声称出售给 UBS 自身的 UBS H股，仍应受 Dawn State（曙光国）根据《借贷文件》享有的权利及 UBS 所负义务的约束。\n\n92. 否则（且以 Dawn State 的任何可证明成本及负债已从所述收益或利润中得到清偿为限），UBS 当时及目前均负有立即向 Dawn State 交代的义务：(1) 就其处置已抵押给其、以其为受担保人的已取得 H股，或其以托管人身份持有的该等股份；及/或 (2) 就其因出售而取得的所述已取得 H股的任何收益；及 (3) 就其因上述第69段详述的出售或上述其他处置所获得的任何利润；\n\n93. 此外或作为替代，上述收益及/或利润依 LPA 第105条为 Dawn State 以法定信托方式持有；作为替代，则以推定信托方式持有。\n\n94. 此外或作为替代，UBS 亦负有义务，在行使出售权时以合理的技能和谨慎为已取得 H股取得适当价格。凡任何声称出售 UBS H股的行为属有效，原告方相信，UBS 作出出售时未以合理技能行事，原因在于其：\n\n过失详情\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 39 页，共 452 页\n\n(1) 未能或未能充分考虑，在香港交易所（HKEX）大宗交易的背景下，适用于 H股的折价是否过高；\n\n(2) 未能或未能充分考虑，该等股份是否可以较小折价出售；\n\n(3) 未能或未能充分考虑海通（Haitong）股份暂停交易（或可能暂停交易）的影响；\n\n(4) 未能或未能充分考虑海通回购股份的影响。重述第72段和第72段；\n\n(5) 未给予股份回购生效足够时间；以及\n\n(6) 未采取额外或进一步合理措施，以确保为已取得 H股取得适当价格。\n\n95. 由于 UBS 的过失，Dawn State 遭受的损失包括该等股份的出售价格与本可合理取得的价格之间的差额。原告方保留在 UBS 提供其所实施的 UBS H股出售详情后进一步主张的权利。\n\nUBS 挪用时的替代请求\n\n96. UBS 于 7 July 2015 或其后任何时间，均未采取任何决定性步骤以挪用已取得 H股，或作为替代将该等步骤通知 UBS。因此，UBS 在任何时候均未按照《担保协议》第9.3(a)(ii)条或《2003年条例》（2003 Regulations）第17条挪用已取得 H股。\n\n97. 如与原告方的主张相反，UBS 确曾声称并有效地依据《2003年条例》第17条挪用已取得 H股，则该项挪用不可能发生于 UBS 向 Dawn State 发出行使挪用权通知之前。于 14 July 2015 之前，未发出任何该等通知（如与原告方主张相反，该等通知曾经发出）。\n\n98. 如行使挪用权，UBS 在所有时候均负有且目前仍负有以下义务：(1) 于挪用时以商业上合理的方式对 UBS H股进行估值；及 (2) 就该价值超过 Dawn State 根据《担保协议》对 UBS 所负负债的任何金额，作出适当交代。\n\n99. UBS 声称按每股 HK\\$11.12 计入的价值（详见上述第73段），在任何相关日期均不可能反映已取得 H股的商业上合理价值。特别是（但不限于），该每股 HK\\$11.12 的计入价值据称是通过对 7 July 2015 的收市价适用折价计算得出，而非在任何可能的挪用日期计算得出。\n\n100. 因此，UBS 负有以下义务：(1) 使法院确信，UBS H股于挪用日期是以商业上合理的方式估值；及 (2) 在其无法做到的范围内，就 UBS H股于挪用日期的商业上合理价值超过 Dawn State 根据《担保协议》对 UBS 所负负债的任何金额，向 Dawn State 作出交代。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 40 页，共\n\n请求救济\n\n101. 因此，Ace Decade（十年集团）有权获得：\n\n(1) 如上述第84段所主张的损害赔偿，金额至少为 US\\$495,300,000。按照 XE.com 中间市场汇率，该款项于本诉讼日期约等于 £402,032,000。\n\n(2) 依《1981年高级法院法》（Senior Courts Act 1981，以下简称“SCA 1981”）第35A条，对该款项按年利率 8% 计付单利。\n\n102. 作为上述第101段的替代，Kwok 先生（郭文贵）有权获得：\n\n(1) 如上述第87段所主张的损害赔偿，金额至少为 US\\$495,300,000。按照 XE.com 中间市场汇率，该款项于本诉讼日期约等于 £402,032,000。\n\n(2) 依 SCA 1981 第35A条，对该款项按年利率 8% 计付单利。\n\n103. 上述第101段和第102段所请求的金额以美元（US\\$）提出，因为这是原告方遭受该等损失的货币。\n\n104. 此外，或作为替代，因此 Dawn State 有权获得：\n\n(1) 命令 UBS 就其作为托管人持有的已取得 H股作出通常形式的交代。重述上述第92段。\n\n(2) 命令 UBS 就上述第92(3)段详述情形所产生的利润作出交代。\n\n(3) 宣告上述第92段所述任何可识别利润或收益，均为 Dawn State 以法定信托方式持有；作为替代，则以推定信托方式持有。重述上述第93段；\n\n(4) 此外或作为替代，就 UBS 出售已取得 H股的金额与本可为所述股份合理取得的价值之间的差额，获得损害赔偿或衡平法补偿。重述上述第94段和第95段。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 41 页，共\n\n(5) 作为替代，以债务形式请求 UBS 向 Dawn State 所交代的金额与挪用时资产的商业上合理价值之间的差额。重述上述第100段。\n\n(6) 此外，Dawn State 依据法院的衡平法管辖权及/或 SCA 1981 第35A条，有权获得：(a) 对上述第(1)至(3)项所列款项计付复利，或作为替代计付单利；以及 (b) 对上述第(4)项和第(5)项所列款项按 8% 利率计付单利。\n\n并且原告方请求：\n\n(1) 如上所述的损害赔偿\n\n(2) 如上所述的命令\n\n(3) 如上所述的宣告\n\n(4) UBS 所交代的款项与 H股商业上合理价值之间的差额，作为债务\n\n(5) 如上所述的利息\n\n(6) 进一步及其他救济\n\n(7) 诉讼费用\n\nSA'AD HOSSAIN QC（萨阿德·侯赛因，御用大律师）\n\nSEBASTIAN ISAAC（塞巴斯蒂安·艾萨克）\n\nMATTHEW HOYLE（马修·霍伊尔）\n\n本人（第一原告）相信本《诉状》所陈述的事实属实。本人明白，任何人在没有真诚信念认为其真实的情况下，就经真实陈述核实的文件作出或促使作出虚假陈述，均可能被提起藐视法庭程序。\n\n签署：\n\n第二原告相信本《诉状》所陈述的事实属实。本人明白，任何人在没有真诚信念认为其真实的情况下，就经真实陈述核实的文件作出或促使作出虚假陈述，均可能被提起藐视法庭程序。\n\n签署：\n\n姓名：Yanping Yvette Wang（王燕平）\n\n日期：SEPTEMBER\n\n第三原告相信本《诉状》所陈述的事实属实。本人明白，任何人在没有真诚信念认为其真实的情况下，就经真实陈述核实的文件作出或促使作出虚假陈述，均可能被提起藐视法庭程序。\n\n签署：\n\n姓名：Yanping Yvette Wang（王燕平）\n\n日期：SEPTEMBER\n\n证物\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人 7\n\n11/17/2022 全部准入\n\nPE\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 44 页，共 452 页\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n\n关于 * 第11章 *\n\n* *\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， * 案件 22-50073(JAM) *\n\n债务人。 *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n* *\n\n持续举行的第341次债权人会议记录\n\nAPRIL 6, 2022\n\n由美国受托人办公室电子录音\n\n记录整理人：Christine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），CERT\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n\nShelton, CT 06484\n\n(203)929-9992\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\n\nWILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·R·鲍尔迪加，律师）\n\nBEN SILVERBERG, ESQ.（本·西尔弗伯格，律师）\n\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\n\nSeven Times Square\n\nNew York, NY\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY E. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·E·克莱伯恩，律师）\n\nSTEVEN MACKEY, ESQ.（史蒂文·麦基，律师）\n\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n\n150 State Street\n\nNew Haven, CT\n\n代表 Logan Cheng（郑洛根）债权人：\n\nJAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼，律师）\n\nRandazza Legal Group（兰达扎法律集团）\n\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\n\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）债权人：\n\nDAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ.（大卫·V·哈巴赫二世，律师）\n\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP（奥迈·迈尔斯律师事务所）\n\n1625 I Street NW\n\nWashington, DC\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，律师）\n\nMAKENZIE RUSSO（麦肯齐·鲁索）\n\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP（奥迈·迈尔斯律师事务所）\n\nTimes Square Tower\n\n7 Times Square\n\nNew York, NY\n\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯，律师）\n\nRobinson and Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n\n280 Trumbull Street\n\nHartford, CT\n\n代表 Bruno Wu（吴波）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）和 Rui Ma（马蕊）债权人：\n\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·梅休，律师）\n\nMcElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊、多伊奇、马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）\n\nOne State Street\n\nHartford, CT\n\n代表无担保债权人官方委员会：\n\nSTEVEN STAFSTROM, ESQ.（史蒂文·斯塔夫斯特罗姆，律师）\n\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n\n850 Main Street\n\nBridgeport, CT\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 46 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022 3\n\n1 CLAIBORN 女士：\n\n早上好。\n\n今天是\n\n2 2022年4月6日，星期三。\n\n我们现为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）的 Chapter 11 案件中继续举行债权人会议，案号 22-50073。\n\n我的名字是 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我是 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）的出庭律师，今天的会议将由我主持。本次会议正在通过数字录音设备录音，当事人亦可通过电话参加。\n\n包括债务人、律师及其他专业人士在内的当事人现已亲自到场。\n\n如各位所听到的，今天的会议正在进行口译；今天的口译员是 Jeff（杰夫），我将请 Jeff 对该宣誓作出回应。\n\n（口译员宣誓。）\n\n法庭：代表 Kwok 先生出席的有 William Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加）和 Ben Silverberg（本·西尔弗伯格）。\n\n另有代表债务人出席的财务专业人士 Craig Gelbert（克雷格·盖尔伯特）和 Matthew Flynn（马修·弗林）。\n\n今天代表 Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人委员会）到场的是 Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）的 Steven Stafstrom（史蒂文·斯塔夫斯特罗姆）。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 1269\n提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 47 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\nStafstrom 先生是 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（官方无担保债权人委员会）的律师。\n\n今天另有代表 PAACS（PAACS）出席的 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）、David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）和 MacKenzie Russo（麦肯齐·鲁索）。\n\n他们代表 PAACS。\n\n代表包括 Rui Ma（马锐）在内的某些债权人出席的是 Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休）。\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（郑洛根）出席的是 Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼）。\n\n另有代表 PAACS 出席的 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），来自 Robinson and Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）。\n\n今天另有代表债务人出席的 Josh Klein（乔什·克莱因）和 Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）。\n\n今天的会议将先由我提问，随后债权人将有机会到前面提问。\n\n电话会议线路上有人吗？\n\nMACKEY 先生：美国受托人办公室的 Steven Mackey（史蒂文·麦基）在线上。\n\n谢谢你，Mackey 先生。除 Mackey 先生之外，还有其他人吗？\n\n无人回应，我将继续对 Kwok 先生进行宣誓。\n\n（债务人宣誓。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 48 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：Kwok 先生，如你所知，今天的会议正在录音，Jeff 先生是我们今天的官方口译员。\n\nJeff 将口译我提出的问题和你的回答；我请你在 Jeff 完整翻译后再回答我的问题。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，今天我们将总体上继续进行在 2022年3月21日举行的上次债权人会议中未完成的部分。\n\n自 2022年3月21日以来，你的就业状况是否有任何变化？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你的住所是否有任何变化？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：在 2022年3月21日举行的会议中，我曾询问你破产财产清单及破产财务状况说明书的准确性。\n\n答：没有变化。\n\n问：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：Jeff，就我的提问而言，我将依照你面前的文件进行。当我说“清单”时，指的是这份文件。这份文件则是财务状况说明书。明白吗？当我提到 ECF 编号时，它位于页面顶部。\n\n官方口译员：ECF 编号。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：明白吗？这样你就可以跟上，并从这一页开始。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：好的。Kwok 先生，我要请你确认你面前有 Schedules A-B through J（附表 A-B 至 J）；看来你确实有。\n\n私人口译员：他面前有中文译本。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：我看到坐在你旁边的 Baldiga 先生持有英文版本。但你面前的，Kwok 先生，看起来是译本。这准确吗？\n\n答：只有附表 A-B。\n\n问：好的。那么，Kwok 先生，今天在回答我的问题时，你将查看你自己译成中文的破产财产清单版本。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n登记 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：好的。\n\n私人口译员：请稍等，法官阁下。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：好的。\n\n私人口译员：在他口译证人的回答时，我听口译员的声音有一点困难。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：好的。Jack，如果你能说大声一点。我来移动麦克风。\n\n官方口译员：哦，好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：看看这样是否有效。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：好的。Kwok 先生，从附表 A-B 的第 1 题开始。附表 A-B 的第 1 题询问你是否拥有任何不动产、住所、建筑物或类似财产的任何法定权益或衡平权益。你对第 1 题的回答是否定的，Kwok 先生。这一回答准确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，在 2018 年至你于 2022年2月提交破产申请期间，你是否拥有过任何不动产？\n\n官方口译员：你能重复一下吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 51 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：在 2018 年至你于 2022年2月提交破产申请期间，你是否拥有过任何不动产？\n\n官方口译员：你能重复一下吗？他说他没有听到。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生——\n\nBALDIGA 先生：抱歉，我没有听到。\n\n官方口译员：他说他不理解该翻译。我只是想先确认我理解了。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我将重复这个问题。\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，在 2018 年至 2022年2月期间，你是否拥有过任何不动产？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，截至 2022年2月提交破产申请时，你在世界任何地方的任何不动产中是否拥有任何衡平权益？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，截至 2022年2月提交破产申请时，你在世界任何地方的任何不动产中是否拥有任何法定权益？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n登记 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，你是否曾在 Hong Kong（香港）拥有过任何不动产？\n\n答：没有。\n\n私人口译员：回答是什么？\n\n官方口译员：没有。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，你是否曾拥有位于 Hong Kong（香港）South Bay Road 16A 的房产？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，你目前是否拥有位于 New York City（纽约市）Sherry Netherland（雪莉荷兰酒店）的公寓？\n\n官方口译员：我没有听清。我可以请他重复——重复回答吗？\n\nBALDIGA 先生：你必须说——无论你要说什么，你必须——你是在和所有人说话，不只是和 Holley 说话，所以我需要听到你在说什么。\n\n官方口译员：好的。我只是——我只是想请他重复——重复回答。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：好的。\n\n官方口译员：好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 53 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\n证人：我不拥有纽约的那处不动产，Sharon——Sharons——那个地址我不记得了，而且我拥有——我拥有 50 percent 的股票——股票和——\n\n私人口译员：没有。\n\n官方口译员：没有？\n\n私人口译员：没有。\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\n证人：为家庭持有。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我可以请你不要打断吗？你能否等到最后，然后——\n\n私人口译员：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：——你可以表达任何你想说的话，好吗？\n\n私人口译员：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：请你再次翻译 Kwok 先生的回答好吗？\n\n官方口译员：好的。我只是想重复一遍，确认——并且我说得对，你知道，他说的内容。\n\n证人：所以，是的，他——他说，我欠——我拥有 50 percent 的——50 percent，但我并不拥有整个不动产，我只是代表家庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n登记 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，你拥有其中 50 percent 的什么？\n\n答：Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克），50 percent 的股票权力——我不知道。我不理解。\n\n私人口译员：（听不清。）\n\n官方口译员：他拥有——他说他拥有其中的 50 percent。\n\n私人口译员：——我们可以清楚听到你，Holley。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：好的。我要问——我要——\n\n私人口译员：我不知道麦克风是否连接到了什么设备。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：它连接了。它连接了。Jeff，如果你能说大声一点？\n\n官方口译员：Kwok 先生说他欠——他拥有 50 percent 的——股票。这像是不动产的股票之类的吗？我不知道。我不明白。但如果她想帮忙，你可以帮忙。你想让他稍微帮一点忙吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我宁愿不要。\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：那么，我就——我将提出后续问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n登记 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：好的。但如果是误译，我需要听到，所以——\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：如果可以，我要提出一个澄清问题。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，你是否拥有一家名为 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）的公司 50 percent 的权益？\n\n答：我代表我的家庭持有 50 percent 的股票。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，当你使用“家庭”这一用语时——\n\nBALDIGA 先生：我能再听一遍吗？你能重复一下吗？\n\n官方口译员：好的。我代表我的家庭持有该——该公司的 50 percent 股票。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，当你说“家庭”时，你指什么？\n\n答：我的家庭是一个大家庭，其中包括很多人。我的孩子和我的嫂子，以及所有人在一起。很多人。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，谁拥有该权益——\n\nBALDIGA 先生：请原谅。我们确实有一个口译问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 登记 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 56 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年4月6日\n\n私人口译员：我只是想问，口译是否应当对（听不清）的内容作概述？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：在 Jeff 先生能力所及范围内，应当逐字翻译。\n\n私人口译员：对。因此，如果 Kwok 先生说，我的儿子、我的女儿、我的兄弟、我的嫂子、我的侄子、我的侄女，很多人，那么如果口译员说，嗯，我的很多家人和我的兄弟，很多人，那么这是否正确？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我希望 Jeff 先生尽可能逐字翻译。因此，在这一指示下，我们能否——\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：——从现在起尽我们所能做好具体的工作？谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问：那么，Kwok 先生，谁拥有名为 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）的公司？\n\n答：我的儿子。\n\n问：你儿子的名字是什么？\n\n答：Cheng Wu（吴成）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n452 登记 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 57 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 14\n\n问：您的儿子拥有 Bravo Luck（好运公司）多久了？\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n私人口译员：请再说一遍。\n\n官方口译员：我不记得了。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：那么，Kwok 先生，当您说明自己在 Southern Sherry Netherland（南部雪莉·内瑟兰德）的所有权权益时，您拥有其中何物的 50 percent？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：异议。你可以翻译。\n\n官方口译员：Holley（霍利），您能再重复一遍那个问题吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：Kwok 先生，您作证称，您拥有某公司的 50 percent，而这是对我询问您是否拥有 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内瑟兰德）公寓时所作的回答。请您解释一下您的意思好吗？\n\n答：Sherry 是合作公寓。它没有——它没有——它没有所有权。\n\n私人口译员：Holley 女士，我可以说一下吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：可以，当然。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n私人口译员：您得说得大声一点。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：好的。我们暂时暂停一下。\n\n（休庭记录外）\n\n克莱伯恩女士：好的。短暂休息后，我们恢复记录。Kwok 先生，您仍在宣誓之下。\n\nJeff（杰夫），请您重新翻译好吗？\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：上一个问题。您希望我再问一遍吗？\n\n官方口译员：好的。您能再问一遍吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：好的。我再试一次。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：Kwok 先生，您今天作证称，您拥有某家公司某项权益的 50 percent，而这是您对我询问您是否拥有 Sherry Netherland 公寓时所作的回答。请您解释一下您的回答好吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：异议。\n\n证人：我不知道该如何解释。他说 Sherry Netherland 是合作公寓。我没有该房产的产权契据，我只是代表我的家人拥有该项权利的 50 percent。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 452\n\n私人口译员：因为——Kwok 先生确实提到了公司名称 Bravo Luck，但口译员先生没有说出 Bravo Luck 这个词。该公司持有 Sherry Netherland 的权益，而 Kwok 先生代表其家人拥有 Bravo Luck 的 50 percent；Bravo Luck 是拥有 Sherry Netherland 的控股公司。Sherry Netherland 是合作公寓。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：那么，就口译员未提供证人所用确切措辞的范围内，我提出持续异议。我并未归咎于任何人或任何事，但显然，这对于证言的质量至关重要，也是必要的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我们需要——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我们必须使用证人所用的措辞。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我相信 Jeff 今天会尽其所能，尽量逐字翻译所有内容。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：谢谢。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：但请理解，在这个房间里，人们熟悉一些 Jeff 先生并不熟悉的术语。因此，如果有人用公司名称的简称或仅用一个词来回答问题，回答应当尽可能具体——\n\n官方口译员：是的，我——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——如果您能翻译这一点。\n\n官方口译员：——我会尽力，但说实话，那位口译员，Holley，那位口译员可能更了解本案及其细节。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我同意。您能不能——\n\n官方口译员：但是如果他——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——您能否把我刚才说的话翻译给 Kwok 先生，因为我想确保——\n\n官方口译员：哦。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——他以便于翻译的方式回答问题。\n\n官方口译员：我只是告诉他，回答要简短清楚，但他需要尽可能说明细节，因为这——这与他的生计有关。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：您能否把 Kwok 先生的回答或评论翻译成您的评论？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 61 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 452\n\n官方口译员：他说他会尽量说得更简短、更清楚，但是他需要尽可能解释细节，因为这——这与他的生计有关。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：Sarnoff（萨诺夫）先生？\n\n萨诺夫先生：是的。我只是想明确一点，在口译员——译员，即官方译员与 Kwok 先生的口译员之间存在差异的情况下，译员拥有最终裁决权；除非译员同意该口译员所提出的翻译差异，否则他们必须先解决该问题，我们才能以 Kwok 先生的私人口译员所称的 Kwok 先生的话为准。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我不接受这一点。\n\n萨诺夫先生：没关系。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：那可以是您的立场。\n\n萨诺夫先生：好的。为了使记录准确，立场必须是，译员必须与口译员就 Kwok 先生所说的话达成一致。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：那个——我理解您的立场。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 19\n\n官方口译员：那么，Holley，如果我遗漏了任何内容，他的私人口译员想补充我遗漏的内容，即一些细节信息，她是否可以补充；如果我同意——您知道——我遗漏的内容或他说的内容，也许我遗漏了一些细节信息和一些——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我认为今天更好的做法——\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——为获得清楚的翻译和清楚的记录——\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——是由您，Jeff，翻译——\n\n官方口译员：嗯哼。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——我的问题，并翻译 Kwok 先生的回答。\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：如果 Kwok 先生根据您的翻译认为您没有正确翻译，那么他可以再次作证，您可以再试一次。但是，我希望限制译员之间以及 Kwok 先生的私人译员之间的互动，以便我们有一份正式记录：由我提问，问题被正式翻译，Kwok 先生作答，回答也被正式翻译。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：但是，Holley，问题在于，证人不知道 Jeff 的英文陈述是否实际上准确。您不能把这留给证人决定。这就是我们设有核对口译员的原因。如果他会说英语，我们就不需要任何口译员。他做不到这一点。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我认为，作为实际问题，Kwok 先生会足够的英语，能够知道自己是否已经回答了问题。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：不，他不会。我提出异议。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：嗯，我——我认为，根据我个人的经验，这正是我所看到的情况。话虽如此，我们会尽力而为——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我同意。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——我们看看进展如何。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：好的？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n克莱伯恩女士：那么，回到问答环节。Kwok 先生，您是否拥有 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）的权益？\n\n答：我只是有——实际上，我没有，但我只是持有——我只是代表我的家人持有一些权益。\n\n问：除您之外，是否有人获授权代表 Genever Holdings Corporation 行事？\n\n答：我儿子。\n\n问：是否有文件载明您在 Genever Holdings Corporation 中的所有权权益，无论该权益为何？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：异议。您——您可以回答。\n\n证人：没有。\n\n私人口译员：Holley 女士，我能否——首先，上次——当他对证人就其证言应当如何作出指示时，我认为口译员——官方口译员没有翻译您的指示。他是在告诉证人他应当做什么，而不是翻译您所说的话。\n\n而且，现在证人说，他两次询问口译员——您是在谈论所有权，您是在谈论所有权权益。现在他两次使用了这些词，最后 Jeff 先生说，是的。于是他回答没有，但该互动没有被翻译。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 65 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 22\n\n克莱伯恩女士：Jeff 先生，您能翻译吗？\n\n官方口译员：我不知道她刚才说了什么。我不知道。我不理解她在说什么。\n\n私人口译员：我的意思是，每一个词都应当被翻译。证人——证人说的每一个词都应当被翻译。Holley 女士的话也应当被翻译，对吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是的。\n\n私人口译员：对。但是他没有——没有翻译 Holley 女士的话——而且您没有翻译 Kwok 先生所说的一切。\n\n官方口译员：好的。也许——也许我们应该让她来翻译。我准备离开。我不知道——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我准备——\n\n官方口译员：——我不熟悉——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——我准备暂时暂停此事。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n官方口译员：好的，好的，好的。\n\n（休庭记录外）\n\n克莱伯恩女士：好的。短暂休息后，我们恢复记录。Kwok 先生，您仍在宣誓之下。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：Kwok 先生，您今天随身携带任何 United States currency（美国货币）吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您提交破产案件时，您是否持有任何美国货币？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您是否拥有任何外币？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您是否拥有任何数字货币？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您在美国是否拥有任何种类的金融账户？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您在美国境外是否拥有任何种类的金融账户？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：3月21日，您作证称您没有工作，也没有收入来源。谁支付您的家庭开支？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 67 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 452\n\n答：有时是我儿子，有时是我妻子，或者有时是我的其他家庭成员。\n\n问：您是否可以使用任何信用卡？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否可以使用与银行账户关联的任何借记卡？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您如何支付食品杂货费用？\n\n答：我儿子、我妻子、我家人的公司支付。\n\n问：您的儿子住在哪里？\n\n答：伦敦。\n\n问：您的儿子如何向您汇钱？\n\n答：他在纽约的一家公司有一个 family office（家族办公室）。\n\n问：该家族办公室会给您钱吗？\n\n答：他们支付上述开支。\n\n问：family office 一词是什么意思？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：异议。您可以回答。\n\n官方口译员：我可以请——请他重复一遍吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：可以。\n\n官方口译员：好的。您能——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 --\n\n2 BALDIGA 先生（巴尔迪加）：\n对。\n\n他还必须\n\n3 为证人翻译我所说的话。\n\n4 CLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩）：\n您还没有说任何话，\n\n5 而他将要求证人重复其回答，\n\n6 然后他会翻译，之后我们可以\n\n7 进行您想进行的任何讨论。\n\n8 私人译员：\n律师提出了\n\n9 异议。译员没有翻译\n\n10 该异议。\n\n11 CLAIBORN 女士：\n我可以很乐意地重复\n\n12 这个问题，但如果有人在基本问题上\n\n13 不断打断，我们今天就无法以有意义的方式\n\n14 取得任何进展。\n\n15 BALDIGA 先生：\n不，我没有打断，但是\n\n16 --\n\n17 CLAIBORN 女士：\n那么让我再试一次。\n\n18 BALDIGA 先生：\n好的。但请等一下。如果我\n\n19 提出异议或说任何其他话，那必须被\n\n20 翻译。\n\n21 CLAIBORN 女士：\n您没有留出\n\n22 翻译的空间。那么，Jeff 先生（杰夫），您能翻译\n\n23 刚才发生的那段交流吗？\n\n24 正式译员：\n好的。我\n\n25 不知道。打断实在太多了。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 CLAIBORN 女士：\n对。\n\n2 正式译员：\nHolley（霍利），我不能\n\n3 这样一直做下去。我太分心了，而且我\n\n4 不知道。这只是一个简单的——请证人\n\n5 简单地重复一下，然后——\n\n6 CLAIBORN 女士：\n让我试——\n\n7 正式译员：\n——却让所有\n\n8 这些人都牵涉进来。\n\n9 CLAIBORN 女士：\n没错。让我——\n\n10 正式译员：\n我们不会有\n\n11 任何进展。\n\n12 CLAIBORN 女士：\n让我再问一次\n\n13 这个问题。\n\n14 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n15 问 Kwok 先生，您所说的“家族办公室”一词\n\n16 是什么意思？\n\n17 BALDIGA 先生：\n异议。您可以回答。\n\n18 CLAIBORN 女士：\nBaldiga 先生，这个词\n\n19 在文件中到处都有。您能重复——翻译吗？\n\n20 正式译员：\n不，我\n\n21 无法继续下去。Holley，我请辞。我\n\n22 很抱歉。这——这无法继续——\n\n23 CLAIBORN 女士：\n请暂停\n\n24 一下。\n\n25 正式译员：\n——这实在太\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 70 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 过分了。\n\n2 （休庭记录外）\n\n3 CLAIBORN 女士：\n短暂休息后，我们重新进入记录。\n\n4 \n\n5 Kwok 先生，您仍在宣誓状态。休息期间，\n\n6 我与 Baldiga 律师交谈，我们已经\n\n7 同意，对问题形式的所有异议\n\n8 均予保留。\n\n9 我将回到我的问题。\n\n10 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n11 问 休息前我们停下来的问题\n\n12 是，您所说的“家族办公室”一词是什么意思？\n\n13 答 它们代表我的大家庭。这是我儿子、我女儿、我妻子的\n\n14 一家公司，并且这是一家代表我家人进行投资的\n\n15 公司。\n\n16 问 该公司的名称是什么？\n\n17 答 Golden Spring Europe（欧洲金泉）。\n\n18 问 您的意思是 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）吗？\n\n19 答 名称大致如此。\n\n20 问 您所吃餐食的费用由谁支付？\n\n21 答 有时由我妻子的公司支付，有时由我的\n\n22 家族办公室、我儿子的公司支付。\n\n23 问 Kwok 先生，当您使用“家族办公室”一词时，\n\n24 您是否指称名为\n\n25 Golden Spring New York Limited（纽约金泉有限公司）的公司？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 正式译员：\n公司的名称\n\n2 是什么？我可以——您能重复一下吗？\n\n3 CLAIBORN 女士：\n名称是 Golden Spring\n\n4 New York Limited（纽约金泉有限公司）。\n\n5 证人：\n是。\n\n6 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n7 问 在您的破产案件中，您提交了一份\n\n8 涵盖您二月份支出的\n\n9 报告。\n\n10 正式译员：\n我可以再重复\n\n11 一次吗？\n\n12 CLAIBORN 女士：\n也许我再试一次。\n\n13 正式译员：\n谢谢。\n\n14 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n15 问 Kwok 先生，您提交了一份涵盖 February 2022 的\n\n16 月度经营报告，并且该\n\n17 报告显示您支出了约 \\$160,000。\n\n18 BALDIGA 先生：\n异议。我提出异议。\n\n19 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n20 问 谁为 \\$160,000 的支出提供资金？\n\n21 答 一部分来自 Golden Spring 家族办公室\n\n22 和该公司，一部分由我妻子和我\n\n23 妻子的公司支付。\n\n24 问 您妻子的公司名称是什么？\n\n25 答 Greenwich（格林尼治），在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\n452 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 72 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022 29\n\n1 问 您指的是该公司的名称吗？\n\n2 答 是，公司名称。\n\n3 问 您妻子的公司 Greenwich 为哪些\n\n4 费用付款？\n\n5 答 主要是食物，因为我住在我妻子的\n\n6 房子里。我们分担清洁费用、开支，因为\n\n7 ——还有花园维护费用。\n\n8 身份不明的发言人：好的。我们能否\n\n9 短暂暂停一下，以便我与我的共同律师\n\n10 或者我的合伙人谈谈？\n\n11 BALDIGA 先生：不，我们就等一下。\n\n12 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n13 问 您妻子的公司 Greenwich 从何处\n\n14 取得资金？\n\n15 答 我不知道。\n\n16 问 您妻子的公司 Greenwich 是否支付过\n\n17 任何专业费用？\n\n18 答 我不知道。\n\n19 问 实际付款的人是否是您的妻子？\n\n20 \n\n21 答 是。\n\n22 问 您的妻子是否有支票账户？\n\n23 答 我不知道。\n\n24 问 您的妻子是否有借记卡？\n\n25 答 我不知道。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 问 当您与妻子在餐厅用餐时，\n\n2 谁支付账单？\n\n3 答 我从未与我妻子去过餐厅。\n\n4 问 从来没有？\n\n5 答 我认为我被这些人追赶，所以我\n\n6 从未去过。我想我——您知道，我认为我被\n\n7 这些人追赶。\n\n8 问 您的妻子购买杂货吗？\n\n9 答 有时。\n\n10 问 她如何支付？\n\n11 答 我不知道。\n\n12 问 为什么 Golden Spring New York 为您的\n\n13 部分个人开支付款？\n\n14 答 因为我是家庭成员之一，而且\n\n15 我儿子非常成功，他非常爱我。\n\n16 问 还有其他原因吗？\n\n17 答 我不知道。\n\n18 问 Golden Spring 为您的哪些个人生活\n\n19 开支付款？\n\n20 答 安保费用，因为我被后面的那些人\n\n21 追赶，还有\n\n22 交通、衣物和一些生活用品。\n\n23 问 Golden Spring New\n\n24 York 的哪位人士——\n\n25 CLAIBORN 女士：\n等一下。我将要\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 问一个完整的问题。\n\n2 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n3 问 那么，Golden Spring New\n\n4 York 中授权支付您个人\n\n5 生活开支的是谁？\n\n6 答 我儿子。\n\n7 问 请说明您儿子如何授权\n\n8 这些付款。\n\n9 答 我通常与 Golden Spring、\n\n10 该公司的董事和首席执行官沟通。\n\n11 私人译员：\n（听不清）\n\n12 是董事，不是经理。\n\n13 正式译员：\n您能——\n\n14 好的。是董事，不是经理。\n\n15 BALDIGA 先生：\n谢谢。\n\n16 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n17 问 Kwok 先生，您刚才提到的董事或经理\n\n18 是谁？\n\n19 答 Wang Yanping（王艳萍）。\n\n20 问 Ping 女士是否是 Golden Spring New\n\n21 York 的高级职员？\n\n22 答 她是一位小姐。她是一位女士。\n\n23 问 Ping 女士是否是 Golden\n\n24 Spring New York 的公司高级职员？\n\n25 答 是。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 问 她的职务是什么？\n\n2 答 她是高级职员或董事。\n\n3 问 她有职务头衔吗？\n\n4 答 我不知道。\n\n5 问 Kwok 先生，您是否为 Golden Spring New\n\n6 York 的公司高级职员？\n\n7 答 现在吗？\n\n8 问 是。\n\n9 答 不是。\n\n10 问 Kwok 先生，您过去是否曾是\n\n11 Golden Spring New York 的公司高级职员？\n\n12 答 该公司于 2015 成立时，我似乎拥有一个\n\n13 职务头衔。我忘记当时是什么头衔\n\n14 了。\n\n15 问 Kwok 先生，您是否拥有 Golden Spring New\n\n16 York 的任何权益？\n\n17 答 没有。\n\n18 问 过去，您是否曾拥有 Golden Spring New York 的\n\n19 任何种类的所有权权益？\n\n20 答 没有。\n\n21 问 您是否参与了 Golden Spring New York 的\n\n22 设立？\n\n23 答 是。\n\n24 问 您在设立 Golden Spring New York 过程中\n\n25 担任什么角色？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 答 顾问，并提供意见、建议。\n\n2 问 您的儿子是否参与了 Golden Spring New York 的\n\n3 设立？\n\n4 答 他是主要人物。他——他是\n\n5 主要人物。\n\n6 问 Golden Spring New York 成立时，\n\n7 谁拥有 New York——Golden\n\n8 New——Golden Spring New York 的所有权权益？\n\n9 答 我儿子。\n\n10 问 Golden Spring Hong Kong（香港金泉）是否拥有 Golden Spring New York 的\n\n11 任何所有权权益？\n\n12 答 我不知道有关该权益的细节，\n\n13 因为这——这两个合并在一起，被\n\n14 视为一件事。\n\n15 问 Golden Spring Hong Kong 是否与 Golden Spring New York\n\n16 为不同的公司？\n\n17 答 我不知道。\n\n18 问 谁拥有 Golden Spring Hong Kong？\n\n19 答 我儿子。\n\n20 问 在 2015 年 Golden Spring New York\n\n21 成立时，谁拥有 Golden Spring Hong Kong？\n\n22 答 我不知道。\n\n23 问 您是否是 Golden\n\n24 Spring Hong Kong 的公司高级职员？\n\n25 答 我不记得。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 问 您是否曾是 Golden Spring Hong Kong 的\n\n2 公司高级职员？\n\n3 答 我不记得。\n\n4 问 您是否拥有 Golden Spring Hong Kong 的\n\n5 任何所有权权益？\n\n6 答 没有。\n\n7 问 过去，您是否曾拥有 Golden Spring Hong Kong 的\n\n8 所有权权益？\n\n9 答 没有。\n\n10 问 Golden Spring New York 从事何种\n\n11 业务？\n\n12 答 我不知道。\n\n13 问 Golden Spring New York 如何产生\n\n14 收入？\n\n15 答 我不知道。\n\n16 私人译员：\nHolley 女士，我\n\n17 不知道这——他说的（听不清）是，\n\n18 “Golden Spring New York 如何产生收入”，\n\n19 而不是“Golden Spring New York 如何赚钱”，\n\n20 对吗？\n\n21 CLAIBORN 女士：\n那基本上就是我的\n\n22 问题。\n\n23 私人译员：\n是的，所以\n\n24 译员不应当——以这样一种方式翻译，即 Golden Spring New York——如何\n\n25 让 Golden\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 Spring New York 赚钱，向——向——向\n\n2 Kwok 先生。\n\n3 正式译员：\n产生资金，\n\n4 是。产生收入，产生资金。\n\n5 私人译员：\n不，但您说\n\n6 ——\n\n7 CLAIBORN 女士：\n我很乐意\n\n8 具体地问。\n\n9 由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n10 问 Golden Spring New York 如何\n\n11 赚钱？\n\n12 答 我不知道。\n\n13 问 在 2015 年，您是否参与了\n\n14 Golden Spring New York 的业务？\n\n15 答 我不记得。\n\n16 问 您是否曾向 Golden Spring New York\n\n17 赠与金钱？\n\n18 答 没有。\n\n19 问 您是否曾向 Golden Spring New York\n\n20 提供任何金钱？\n\n21 答 没有。\n\n22 问 您是否曾向 Golden Spring New York 转让过\n\n23 任何种类的财产？\n\n24 答 没有。\n\n25 问 您是否曾以任何方式为 Golden Spring New\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 York 提供资金？\n\n2 答 没有。\n\n3 问 您是否曾借钱给 Golden\n\n4 Spring New York？\n\n5 答 没有。\n\n6 问 您是否曾将您自己的任何金钱\n\n7 投资于 Golden Spring New York？\n\n8 答 没有。\n\n9 问 Yanping Wang 担任什么\n\n10 公司职务？\n\n11 答 高级职员和董事。\n\n12 问 Yanping Wang 是否是 Golden\n\n13 Spring New York 的总裁？\n\n14 答 是。\n\n15 问 Golden Spring New York 是否有其他\n\n16 公司高级职员？\n\n17 答 是。\n\n18 问 他们是谁？\n\n19 答 我不清楚地记得他们的\n\n20 姓名。\n\n21 问 请告诉我您记得的内容。\n\n22 答 什么——我不清楚地记得他们的姓名，\n\n23 而且——因为我连律师的姓名都不记得。\n\n24 我不想误导您，\n\n25 Holley。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）有多少名高级管理人员？\n\n答：我不记得了。哦，我不知道。对不起，我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York有董事吗？\n\n答：Yanping Wang（王艳萍）。\n\n问：Wang女士是Golden Spring New York唯一的董事吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York从哪里取得用于支付您个人开支的资金？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York有雇员吗？\n\n答：有。\n\n问：多少名？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您目前是否以任何方式参与Golden Spring New York的业务？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York拥有什么？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York愿意向您出借$8 million。它从哪里取得那$8 million？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：是否是您要求Golden Spring New York向您出借$8 million？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：是谁要求Golden Spring New York向您出借$8 million？\n\n答：我的律师。\n\n问：哪位律师？\n\n答：在这里的Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）。\n\n问：您指的是Aaron Mitchell吗？\n\n答：现在我想起他的名字了。\n\n身份不明的发言人：为作记录，我不确定Mitchell先生是否已登记出庭。如果他将在此代表债务人，适当的做法是他登记出庭。\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：我相信我今天早些时候确实读过Mitchell先生的名字。\n\n身份不明的发言人：他尚未提交——\n\nCLAIBORN女士：他确实签署了——\n\n身份不明的发言人：——本案的出庭登记。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：谢谢。您能翻译一下吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第81页\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n官方口译员：我没有完全听清楚。我知道有些距离。我没有——\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：Golden Spring New York有银行账户吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您可以使用Golden Spring New York的财务账户吗？\n\n答：不可以。\n\n问：您有权代表Golden Spring New York进行财务交易吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n私人口译员：不，不是这个问题。\n\n官方口译员：是什么？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我很乐意重复这个问题。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：您有权代表Golden Spring New York进行财务交易吗？Kwok先生，如果您不回答——如果您不理解我的问题——\n\n官方口译员：他在问，如果我是在问他是否有权使用——Golden Spring New York的账户进行交易。您知道。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：那不是我的问题。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：Kwok先生，您是否获授权代表Golden Spring New York进行任何种类的财务交易？\n\n答：没有。\n\nBALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加）：不好意思，口译员可能有意见。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：请您翻译一下，可以吗？\n\n官方口译员：是的。她说那是交易——金融交易的交易——\n\n私人口译员：交易。\n\n官方口译员：——交易——\n\n私人口译员：不是买卖交易。\n\n官方口译员：他说，没有，他没有——我没有获授权进行交易、财务交易。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：您目前为Golden Spring New York做什么，如有的话？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York是否资助您儿子的个人生活开支？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York是否资助您女儿的个人生活开支？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您欠Golden Spring New York任何钱吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：多少？\n\n答：大约超过$21 million。\n\n问：您如何欠Golden Spring New York超过$21 million？\n\n答：因为在过去五年中，我被很多债权人起诉。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York——\n\nCLAIBORN女士：抱歉。\n\n官方口译员：我刚刚让他重复一遍。\n\n证人：在过去五年中，我受到中国共产党的追捕。\n\n官方口译员：我没有听清。请——我正在要求他再重复一遍。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第84页\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第85页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022 452\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\nBALDIGA先生：简短——简短回答。\n\n证人：在过去五年中，我被一些由中国共产党设计的、来自中国共产党的案件困住——困住，其中包括过去那个案件、那个案件。我需要——需要支付巨额律师费，因此我得到了Golden Spring New York的支持。这是我欠$21 million的主要原因。\n\n私人口译员：口译员漏掉了律师——律师费。\n\n官方口译员：是的，我说了律师费。我说了。难道我没有说律师费吗？\n\n私人口译员：我不这么认为，但只要您说了就行。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：$21 million中有多少构成律师费？\n\n官方口译员：您能再重复一遍吗？\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：$21 million中有多少——\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n问：——构成律师费？\n\n答：我认为其中大部分是律师费。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York为什么支付您的律师费？\n\n答：因为Golden Spring New York是我儿子和我家人的公司，他们非常爱我。他们希望——他们希望我活着，而不是被我身后的人杀害。\n\n问：您与Golden Spring New York之间有任何书面协议吗？\n\n答：有。\n\n问：什么法律——抱歉。您与Golden Spring New York之间有什么书面协议？\n\n答：是借款——借钱的协议。\n\n问：您何时订立该借款协议？\n\n答：几年前。我知道——我不知道大致时间。\n\n私人口译员：我不记得。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：什么——\n\n官方口译员：什么——是的，我不记得时间。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：您与Golden Spring New York之间的法律协议的条款是什么？抱歉。让我重新表述。您与Golden Spring New York之间的书面协议的条款是什么？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n身份不明的发言人：抱歉。您能重复一下英文吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：请继续说——重复一下。\n\n官方口译员：我不记得。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：根据您与Golden Spring New York之间的该书面协议，您是否有义务偿还全部款项？\n\n答：是。\n\nBALDIGA先生：问题还有后半部分。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：Golden Spring代表您支付给律师的款项。\n\n答：是。\n\n私人口译员：只是口译上的差异。例如，口译员没有翻译“根据该协议，您是否有义务向他们偿还全部——”\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n——偿还全部款项。全部款项，即，您知道——\n\nBALDIGA先生：好的。\n\n私人口译员：——花在律师身上的。\n\nBALDIGA先生：也许Holley可以澄清这一点。\n\n私人口译员：是。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：我要问一个较长的问题。我会将其分成几个部分。\n\nKwok先生，您是否有义务向Golden Spring New York偿还Golden Spring New York代表您支付给律师的全部款项？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：与Golden Spring New York之间的该协议是否为书面形式？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是否就是您几分钟前提到的同一份书面协议？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您与Golden Spring New York之间是否有不止一份书面协议？\n\n答：有。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第89页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n问：您与Golden Spring New York之间的其他书面协议是什么？\n\n答：在过去一周，我与Logan Cheng（罗根·程）有一个案件。与Logan Cheng的和解中，用于——和解的款项，是我从Golden Spring New York借来的钱。\n\n问：您与Golden Spring New York之间还有任何其他书面协议吗？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York是否与任何在诉讼中代表您的律师订有费用协议？\n\n您能回答吗，Kwok先生？\n\n官方口译员：任何协议——您能再重复一遍吗？\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：Golden Spring New York是否与任何在诉讼中代表Kwok先生的律师订有——任何种类的费用协议？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Kwok先生，在您于伦敦对UBS（瑞银）提起的诉讼中，谁代表您？\n\n答：伦敦的一家律师——律师事务所。\n\n问：名称是什么？\n\n答：我不完全记得英文名称。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n问：Golden Spring New York是否与伦敦的那名律师订有费用协议？\n\n答：应该有。\n\nBALDIGA先生：抱歉。答案是什么？\n\n官方口译员：应该有。\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：您是否知道它是否确实订有——订有费用协议？\n\n答：我不确定。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York中授权支付您诉讼费用的人是谁？\n\n答：我儿子。\n\n问：为了将Golden Spring New York的资金用于您的利益，您儿子是否必须与其他任何人交谈？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您儿子需要与谁交谈？\n\n答：他需要与我的家庭成员交谈，其中包括100多名家庭成员，因为他们有一个基金。\n\n私人口译员：那个——数字是181。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n452 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第91页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022 48\n\n由CLAIBORN女士提问：\n\n问：Kwok先生，如果您儿子想给您$100，他是否必须向Golden Spring New York的某人寻求授权？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：当您说您儿子必须与Golden Spring New York的某人交谈时，他需要与多少人交谈？\n\n答：我不知道细节。\n\n问：关于Golden Spring New York愿意向您出借的$8 million，您儿子是否必须取得Golden Spring New York其他人员对该交易的同意？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您是否曾去过Golden Spring New York在纽约市的办公室？\n\n答：去过。\n\n问：您多久去一次Golden Spring New York在纽约市的办公室？\n\n答：不——没有固定。有时我一个月去那里几次。有时我——我几个月没有去过那里。\n\n问：您最后一次去Golden Spring New York办公室是什么时候？\n\n答：昨天。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n1 问 您为什么去那里？\n\n2 答 为了准备今天的会议。\n\n3 问 您儿子是否就该 $8 million 贷款与 Yanping Wang（王燕平）交谈过？\n\n5 答 我不知道。\n\n6 问 您是否就 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）的 $8 million 贷款协商过条款？\n\n8 答 没有。\n\n9 问 代表您协商该 $8 million 贷款的人是谁？\n\n11 答 我的律师。\n\n12 问 哪位律师？\n\n13 答 Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）。\n\n14 问 律师 Aaron Mitchell 与 Golden Spring New York 的谁协商过？\n\n16 官方口译员：您能重复一下吗？\n\n18 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n19 问 律师 Aaron Mitchell 与 Golden Spring New York 的谁协商过？\n\n21 答 我不知道。我的儿子。\n\n22 问 您是否于 February 2022 向 Lamp Capital, LLC（Lamp Capital有限责任公司）借了 $1 million？\n\n24 答 是。\n\n25 问 来自 Lamp Capital, LLC 的该笔贷款是否有书面文件？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 93 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022 50\n\n1 答 没有。\n\n3 问 来自 Lamp Capital 的贷款条款是什么？\n\n5 答 我不知道细节。\n\n6 问 Lamp Capital, LLC 的成员是谁？\n\n7 答 我的儿子。\n\n8 问 Lamp Capital, LLC 是否还有其他成员？\n\n10 答 我不知道。\n\n11 问 Lamp Capital, LLC 的管理成员是谁？\n\n13 答 我不知道。\n\n14 问 Lamp Capital 中授权该笔贷款的人是谁？\n\n16 答 我的儿子。\n\n17 问 Lamp Capital, LLC 的资产是什么？\n\n18 答 我不知道。\n\n19 问 Lamp Capital 拥有什么？\n\n20 答 我不知道。\n\n21 问 您是否曾以任何方式向 Lamp Capital 提供资金？\n\n23 答 没有。\n\n24 问 您是否曾向 Lamp Capital, LLC 投资任何资金？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 答 没有。\n\n2 问 为什么是 Lamp Capital 向您出借该 $1 million，而不是 Golden Spring New York？\n\n4 答 我不知道。\n\n5 问 Lamp Capital 向您出借的该 $1 million 的来源是什么？\n\n7 答 我不知道。\n\n8 克莱伯恩女士：我们为什么不休息五分钟去洗手间？实际上，我们将在 12:10 重新开始。\n\n11 （休庭）\n\n12 克莱伯恩女士：短暂休息后，我们重新开始记录。Kwok 先生，您仍在宣誓之下。\n\n15 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n16 问 Kwok 先生，您是否参与挑选在您伦敦诉讼中代理您的律师？\n\n19 答 是。\n\n20 问 您在伦敦的律师是否要求支付预付律师费？\n\n22 答 是。\n\n23 问 您是否向您在伦敦的律师支付了预付律师费？\n\n25 答 是。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 问 多少？\n\n2 答 300,000 pound。\n\n3 问 该 300,000 pound 预付律师费是在何时支付的？\n\n5 答 大约两年前。\n\n6 问 谁提供了该预付律师费的资金？\n\n7 答 我的儿子帮助支付了——支付了那笔钱。\n\n8 问 您儿子支付了全部预付律师费吗？\n\n9 答 是。\n\n10 问 您儿子是否用其个人资金支付该预付律师费？\n\n12 答 应该是来自英国的一家公司。\n\n13 问 支付该预付律师费的公司的名称是什么？\n\n15 答 我不记得了。\n\n16 问 Golden Spring New York 是否向您在伦敦的律师支付了该预付律师费？\n\n18 答 我不记得细节，因为除该预付律师费外，还有其他——之后又有几笔付款。\n\n21 问 Kwok 先生，如果您想买一双鞋，您会如何支付一双鞋的费用？\n\n23 答 我会要求 Golden Spring New York 支付。\n\n25 问 该过程会如何进行？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 答 我会与董事和 E Wa Wang（王伊娃，音）交谈，请她联系——与我儿子交谈，并支付鞋子的费用。\n\n4 问 鞋类公司如何收到钱？鞋店。\n\n6 答 我不知道。通常是 E Wa Wang 进行沟通，因为我的英语能力不足以沟通。\n\n9 问 如果您去一家商店，试穿了鞋子，并且想从商店把鞋带回家，您会如何支付鞋子的费用？\n\n12 答 近几年，我基本上从未买过一双鞋。\n\n14 问 您最后一次支付费用的物品是什么？\n\n15 答 最近，我没有去买任何东西。\n\n16 巴尔迪加先生：对不起。您能重复一下吗？\n\n18 官方口译员：最近，我没有去买任何东西。\n\n20 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n21 问 我的问题不是问最近。我的问题是，您最后购买的物品是什么？\n\n23 答 我不记得了。\n\n24 问 您是否曾在餐馆用餐？\n\n25 答 近几年没有。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 97 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 54\n\n1 问 在 COVID 19 之前，您是否在餐馆用餐？\n\n3 答 非常少，因为我害怕被我身后的人杀害，因为我一直处于被追赶的过程中。\n\n6 问 当您在餐馆用餐时，您是否是支付账单的人？\n\n8 答 我没有钱支付，所以这就是我不去那里的原因。\n\n10 问 Kwok 先生，如果您想买一杯咖啡，您会如何支付？\n\n12 答 我从未买过一杯咖啡。我曾——我害怕我身后的人可能会在咖啡中给我下毒。\n\n15 问 Kwok 先生，如果您想买水，您在外面并想买水，您会如何支付？\n\n18 答 嗯，自 2107 起，我不——我没有出去买过水。\n\n20 私人口译员：语义细微差别存在一处无法辨识的差异。\n\n22 官方口译员：您能——您能重复一下——您能重复——\n\n24 证人：自 2017 起，我从未到外面走动，然后购买水或咖啡。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n2 问 Kwok 先生，您在任何共同基金中是否拥有任何权益？\n\n4 答 没有。\n\n5 问 您是否拥有任何债券？\n\n6 答 没有。\n\n7 问 您是否拥有任何公司的公开交易股票？\n\n9 答 没有。\n\n10 问 您是否拥有任何汽车？\n\n11 答 没有。\n\n12 问 您是否可以使用任何汽车？\n\n13 答 可以。\n\n14 问 您可以使用谁的汽车？\n\n15 答 我儿子的和 Golden Springs 的。\n\n16 问 Golden Spring 是否向您提供一辆供您使用的汽车？\n\n18 答 是。\n\n19 问 那是什么类型的车？\n\n20 答 Maybach（迈巴赫）。\n\n21 私人口译员：Maybach。\n\n22 官方口译员：什么？\n\n23 私人口译员：Maybach。\n\n24 官方口译员：Maybach？好的。我不知道它的名称。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 证人：Maybach。\n\n2 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n3 问 Kwok 先生，您有驾驶执照吗？\n\n4 答 我有香港驾驶执照。\n\n5 问 您在美国开车吗？\n\n6 答 几乎不开。\n\n7 问 您开车时，您开谁的车？\n\n8 答 Golden Spring 的。\n\n9 问 您在 Greenwich（格林尼治）的住所是否存放了一辆车？\n\n11 答 是。\n\n12 问 那是什么车？\n\n13 答 Maybach。\n\n14 问 您是否拥有任何航空器？\n\n15 答 没有。\n\n16 问 您是否曾拥有任何航空器？\n\n17 答 以前有。\n\n18 问 您何时拥有航空器？\n\n19 答 大概是 2010 至 2016 年。\n\n20 问 您拥有过多少架航空器？\n\n21 答 一架。\n\n22 问 那是什么？\n\n23 答 Airbus 319（空中客车319）。319。\n\n24 问 该 Airbus 319 后来怎么样了？\n\n25 答 它被 UBS（瑞银集团）和 Chinese Communist Party（中国共产党）没收了。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 中国共产党。\n\n2 问 好的。您是否拥有任何水上交通工具？\n\n3 答 没有。\n\n4 问 谁拥有名为 Lady May（Lady May号）的游艇？\n\n5 答 我的女儿。\n\n6 问 您女儿是否以其个人名义拥有 Lady May？\n\n8 答 应该是由一家公司拥有。\n\n9 问 拥有 Lady May 的公司名称是什么？\n\n11 答 我不知道。\n\n12 问 Lady May 目前在哪里？\n\n13 答 我不知道。\n\n14 问 自破产申请以来，您是否要求您女儿将 Lady May 归还纽约？\n\n17 答 我确实要求过她，并要求她与其律师谈，将该船归还纽约。\n\n19 问 您何时进行过该次谈话？\n\n20 答 上个月，在开庭日期之后。在与您见面之后。\n\n22 问 您女儿说了什么？\n\n23 答 她说她会与其律师交谈，然后与我的律师交谈。\n\n25 问 您女儿是否同意将 Lady May 归还纽约？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 第 101 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 58\n\n1 May 归还纽约？\n\n2 答 她不愿就任何细节与我交谈。她想——她想与其律师交谈。\n\n5 问 您女儿是否对您要求她将 Lady May 归还纽约的请求表示拒绝？\n\n7 答 没有，他没有——她没有。\n\n8 私人口译员：该问题没有被完整口译。\n\n10 官方口译员：我知道，但她——她已经——他已经回答了，并且——\n\n12 巴尔迪加先生：等他讲完。\n\n13 证人：没有，他——没有。\n\n14 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n15 问 Kwok 先生，您是否拥有或在任何信托中享有权益？\n\n17 答 没有。\n\n18 问 您是否为任何信托的受益人？\n\n19 答 没有。\n\n20 问 这是一个较长的问题。Kwok 先生，您就针对 Baosheng Guo（郭宝胜）的诉讼所收取的 $12,000 支票在哪里？\n\n23 答 在律师的托管账户中。\n\n24 问 持有该支票的律师叫什么名字？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 答 我无法完整地念出该律师的名字。\n\n3 问 该律师的名字是什么？\n\n4 答 我不能——我无法读出——读出他的名字发音。\n\n6 问 持有该支票的律师是否就是在该诉讼中代理您的律师？\n\n9 答 应该是。\n\n10 问 在您的附表 A-B 中，您没有披露该 $12,000 支票。为什么？\n\n12 巴尔迪加先生：等一个问题。不。能给他口译吗？\n\n14 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n15 问 您为什么没有披露该 $12,000 支票？\n\n17 答 我的律师认为，因为该笔钱不在我的账户中，所以我不被允许——我们不——我不应当披露该笔钱。\n\n20 问 好的。Kwok 先生，您有任何专利吗？\n\n21 答 没有。\n\n22 问 您有任何著作权吗？\n\n23 答 没有。\n\n24 问 您拥有任何种类的知识产权吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022\n\n1 答 没有。\n\n2 巴尔迪加先生：打扰一下。Holley（霍莉），我不确定您是否会回到这个问题，但其中提到了 $12,000。\n\n5 克莱伯恩女士：我看到了。\n\n6 巴尔迪加先生：哦，您说他没有披露。\n\n8 克莱伯恩女士：他没有。这并非对附表 A-B 中问题的答复。\n\n10 巴尔迪加先生：就在那儿。\n\n11 克莱伯恩女士：我们可以对其是否已被披露存在分歧，但我的立场是它没有被披露。我理解您可能持不同立场。\n\n15 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n16 问 Kwok 先生，您是否拥有一家名为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade Holdings有限公司）的公司的任何权益？\n\n18 答 是。\n\n19 问 您在 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 中所有权权益的性质是什么？\n\n21 答 因此，我拥有要求 UBS 偿还 $500 million 的权益。就是那种权益。\n\n23 问 您是否为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 的唯一合法所有人？\n\n25 官方口译员：您是否是唯一——您能重复该问题吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 第 104 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - April 6, 2022 61\n\n1 唯一——您能重复该问题吗？\n\n2 克莱伯恩女士：\n\n3 问 您是否为 Ace Decades 的唯一合法所有人？\n\n5 答 我是合法的代表性所有人。\n\n6 问 Ace Decade 是否有其他所有人？\n\n7 答 没有。\n\n8 问 您何时成为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited 的所有人？\n\n10 答 2014 年末。\n\n11 问 这是一个较长的问题。在您于伦敦针对 UBS 的诉讼中，您是个人原告。您作为个人原告提出请求的依据是什么？\n\n15 答 因为我是 Ace Decade 的百分之百代表人。\n\n17 问 在伦敦针对 UBS 的诉讼中，有一项主张称 Ace Decade 向 Dawn State Limited（Dawn State有限公司）提供了 $500 million。Ace Decade 从哪里获得该 $500 million？\n\n21 答 我向我的家人借款。\n\n22 问 您是否向您的家人借钱并将其交给 Ace Decade？\n\n24 答 是。\n\n25 克莱伯恩女士：我认为那不是——\n\n1 我们重新开始吧，因为我不认为那是——\n2 那是——\n3 私人口译员：\n是的，我以为\n4 那是——\n5 克莱伯恩女士：\n——那是问题所在，\n6 因为它不涉及 Dawn State——\n7 私人口译员：\n是。\n8 克莱伯恩女士：\n——所以我要重新\n9 开始。\n10 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n11 问 你从哪里取得给 Ace Decade（Ace Decade）的钱，即 500 million？\n13 巴尔迪加先生（Baldiga）：\n我不认为他说过他\n14 做了那件事。我认为他说的是他的家人做了那件事，但你\n15 可以问那个问题，不过我——\n16 证人：\n来自我的家人。\n17 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n18 问 你家中具体是谁给了你\n19 钱，而后你又将该笔钱给了 Ace Decade？\n20 答 John Way（音）。\n21 问 John Way 是谁？\n22 答 我的一名家庭成员。\n23 问 他是你的亲属吗？\n24 答 他是我哥哥的表兄弟，或者——\n25 私人口译员：\n女婿。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 第 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022 63\n1 官方口译员：\n女婿？\n2 好的。抱歉。\n3 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n4 问 在你的 Schedule A-B 中，你列有一项针对 Boise Schiller（Boise Schiller）的\n5 可能的律师失职索赔。你能\n6 解释一下那是什么吗？\n7 答 他是那个——他是那个\n8 在纽约代理我对 UBS（瑞银）提起诉讼的人。他向\n9 法院提交了许多强迫性文件，\n10 而且没有得到我的许可。他还威胁了我的\n11 家人。他还在饮酒后威胁我本人。他\n12 给我们造成了许多损失，包括在向\n13 律师或\n14 法官提交任何英中翻译文件之前，没有向我提供该等文件。因此我——因此我们起诉他。\n16 问 你是否聘请了一名律师在该律师失职诉讼中\n17 代理你？\n18 答 我儿子正在处理\n19 那件事。\n20 问 为什么你的儿子正在与律师商谈\n21 你的律师失职索赔？\n22 答 因为我需要向他借钱。\n23 问 是否已选定律师？\n24 答 尚未。\n25 问 郭先生，你是否拥有任何——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 107 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n1 除 Ace Decade 之外的公司权益？\n2 答 没有，但是——我拥有 Bravo Luck（Bravo Luck）、\n3 该公寓，仅几个月，拥有部分\n4 权益。由于该公寓是合作公寓，所以\n5 他们在我——\n6 在我们买下公寓后，用我的名字购买该公寓，随后我们又\n7 将股份权益返还。\n8 身份不明的发言人：\n抱歉。他肯定\n9 说了 30、40 秒。显然说的内容\n10 不止这些。是否有更完整的翻译？\n11 官方口译员：\n我是否遗漏了\n12 任何内容？\n13 克莱伯恩女士：\n让我看看能否\n14 继续追问。\n15 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n16 问 郭先生，你目前是否拥有\n17 Bravo Luck 的权益？\n18 答 没有。\n19 问 郭先生，你是否拥有任何\n20 有限责任公司的权益？\n21 答 没有。\n22 问 郭先生，你是否拥有任何\n23 合伙企业的权益？\n24 答 我过去拥有一家名为 Orange（Orange）或 Shiny Time（Shiny Time）的飞机公司，\n25 但那是在以前，而且——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n\n1 已不复存在。\n2 问 郭先生，你目前是否拥有任何合伙企业的\n3 权益？\n4 答 没有。\n5 问 郭先生，你目前是否拥有任何合资企业的\n6 权益？\n7 答 没有。\n8 问 除 Ace Decade 之外，你目前是否拥有\n9 任何其他公司的权益？\n10 答 没有。我以前只拥有 Orange 和 Shiny\n11 Time，但目前没有。\n12 问 Golden Spring New York（Golden Spring New York）是否对你的任何诉讼\n13 拥有担保权益？\n14 答 我欠他们钱。\n15 问 你是否向 Golden Spring New\n16 York 授予了对你的任何资产、任何你所拥有之物的\n17 任何权益？\n18 答 没有。\n19 问 那么，如果你在对 Golden Spring——抱歉，\n20 名字错了。那么，如果你在对 UBS 的诉讼中\n21 胜诉，你所获得的任何款项\n22 是否必须支付给 Golden Spring？\n23 答 是。\n24 问 数额是多少？\n25 答 之前是 2,200 1 million，或者——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n\n1 私人口译员：\n21 million。\n2 证人：\n21 million。21 million，\n3 再加上现在。大概是 300 million。\n4 million。或者 30 million。是的。\n5 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n6 问 是否有一份文件规定，你收到的任何\n7 诉讼胜诉所得须支付给\n8 Golden Spring？\n9 答 是。\n10 问 该文件的名称是什么？\n11 官方口译员：\n我要\n12 请他重复一遍。\n13 我没听清。我刚才请他分开\n14 说，然后我没有听到什么——\n15 证人：\n我在 DC 有一个案件。有\n16 一家律师事务所代理我申请政治\n17 庇护，其遭受了中国共产党的网络攻击，\n18 所以他们——该律师事务所关闭了，并且将我的个人\n19 信息交给了共产党，然后我起诉了\n20 他们。那笔诉讼费用、律师费，\n21 来自 Golden Spring New York。\n23 我索赔 50,000——$50 million。\n24 如果我赢得该笔钱，我会将钱\n25 返还给 Golden Springs，以偿还他们为支持我支付的——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n1 律师费。\n2 私人口译员：\n郭先生没有\n3 说 settlement。郭先生只是说，就一项索赔而言，而不是\n4 和解。\n5 官方口译员：\n你要求\n6 $50 million。是的。他就\n7 该诉讼要求 $50 million，如果他赢得——如果他赢得该笔钱，\n8 那么他将把钱返还给 Golden\n9 Spring New York。\n10 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n11 问 我的问题是，根据哪一份文件，你将就你的诉讼\n12 向 Golden Spring 偿还款项？\n13 答 该文件就是我——\n15 官方口译员：\n你能重复\n16 那一点吗？\n17 证人：\n该协议是——就是该\n18 协议，我从 Golden Spring\n19 New York 借钱起诉该律师事务所。\n20 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n21 问 该协议的名称是什么？\n22 答 我不记得。\n23 问 它是一张本票吗？\n24 答 我不记得。\n25 问 它是一份合同吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n\n1 答 我记不清楚。\n2 问 谁起草了该文件？\n3 答 律师。\n4 问 起草该文件的律师\n5 叫什么名字？\n6 答 Melissa（Melissa）。\n7 问 Melissa 的姓氏是什么？\n8 答 我不知道。\n9 问 律师 Melissa 是否在起草该文件时\n10 代理你？\n11 答 是。\n12 问 在起草该文件时，谁代理\n13 Golden Spring？\n14 答 我不知道。\n15 问 Golden Spring 是否有律师？\n16 答 是。\n17 问 你只是不记得是谁？\n18 答 他们有很多律师。\n19 问 你根据一份以上书面协议\n20 欠 Golden Spring New York 钱吗？\n21 答 是。\n22 问 有多少份协议？\n23 答 大概两三份，或三四份。我\n24 记不清楚。\n25 问 是否有人记录你——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n\n1 从 Golden Spring New York 借的钱？\n2 答 我的律师会写下来。我们会记录。\n4 问 那名律师叫什么名字？\n5 答 Aaron Mitchell（Aaron Mitchell）。\n6 问 你说的是 Aaron Mitchell 吗？\n7 答 哦，是的。\n8 问 Aaron Mitchell 如何记录你从 Golden Spring New\n9 York 借取的\n10 款项？\n11 答 具体如何，我不知道。\n12 问 Golden Spring New York 雇用的任何人\n13 是否记录你从 Golden Spring New York\n14 借取的款项？\n15 答 我不知道。\n16 问 你是否曾看过律师 Aaron Mitchell 出具的\n17 文件，其中显示你欠 Golden Spring New York\n18 多少款项？\n19 答 这件事我——这是我和我的律师之间的事情，\n20 我不应回答。\n21 巴尔迪加先生：\n我可以——我的意思是——\n22 克莱伯恩女士：\n我不认为该问题\n23 涉及——\n24 巴尔迪加先生：\n你可以——\n25 克莱伯恩女士：\n——特权性答复。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n452 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 113 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022 70\n1 巴尔迪加先生：\n那——给我一秒钟。\n2 你可以对上一个问题回答是或否，所以如果\n3 你再次提问，我认为他会回答是或否，\n4 然后我们可以逐步进行。\n5 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n6 问 你是否曾看过律师 Mitchell 起草的\n7 文件，该文件显示你从 Golden Spring\n8 借了多少款项？\n9 巴尔迪加先生：\n等等。等等，我的指示\n10 需要被翻译。\n11 官方口译员：\n什么？\n12 克莱伯恩女士：\n你能——\n13 巴尔迪加先生：\n你需要指示——\n14 克莱伯恩女士：\n请直接说出来，\n15 他会重新翻译。\n16 巴尔迪加先生：\n请告诉证人\n17 什么——我告诉证人，他只能回答是\n18 或否。\n19 证人：\n是。\n20 克莱伯恩女士：\n我还有其他问题，但是\n21 鉴于现在的时间，我认为我们可以\n22 短暂休庭，然后重新开庭，并给予债权人\n23 提问的机会。\n24 我建议我们在 1:15 重新开庭。\n25 巴尔迪加先生：\n可以吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n\n1 克莱伯恩女士：\n好的。谢谢。我们将在\n2 1:15 重新开庭。\n3 （休庭。）\n4 克莱伯恩女士：\n记录已\n5 恢复。短暂休庭后，我们现恢复开庭，\n6 郭先生，你仍在宣誓之下。\n7 此时，Wolman 先生（Wolman）有一些\n8 问题要问你，郭先生。\n9 WOLMAN 先生进行询问：\n10 问 下午好，郭先生。\n11 3 月 21 日，我曾问你一些关于先前证词录取的\n12 问题，具体是关于\n13 你援引《美国宪法》第五修正案权利的次数。\n15 2021 年 4 月 1 日，你是否因任何犯罪行为\n16 而受到调查？\n17 官方口译员：\n4 月 21 日？\n18 WOLMAN 先生：\n2021 年 4 月 1 日。\n19 官方口译员：\n先生，你能重复\n20 该问题吗？\n21 问 你是否因任何犯罪行为而受到调查？\n22 答 来自 SET——American SET（American SET），以及他们正在\n23 调查 GTV（GTV），他们可以与我们的\n24 律师沟通。\n25 问 你指的是证券——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— April 6, 2022\n\n1 交易委员会吗？\n2 答 是。\n3 问 他们具体在调查什么？\n4 巴尔迪加先生：\n反对。\n5 我需要询问这是否会披露\n6 受特权保护的信息。\n7 你对上一个问题的回答是否属于\n8 来自你律师的信息？\n9 私人口译员：\n我能不能——\n10 官方口译员：\n她想要\n11 帮忙。\n12 私人口译员：\n因为他没有\n13 ——\n14 克莱伯恩女士：\n我认为你应该再试一次。巴尔迪加先生，也许你可以再重复\n15 一遍，Jack 先生（Jack），你可以再试一次。\n17 官方口译员：\n你能重复\n18 你想说的话吗？\n19 巴尔迪加先生：\nWolman 先生问你\n20 你因何事受到调查。你所知道的信息\n21 是否是由你的\n22 律师提供给你的？\n23 证人：是。\n24 巴尔迪加先生：\n那么，回答该问题\n25 是否会要求你披露律师告诉你的内容——\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日 73\n1 律师？\n2 官方口译员：必须是什么？\n3 披露？\n4 BALDIGA先生：您是否必须说出\n5 您的律师告诉您的内容？\n6 证人：是。\n7 BALDIGA先生：那么，我指示证人\n8 基于律师—委托人\n9 特权不予回答。\n10 WOLMAN先生：那不是律师—委托人\n11 信息。\n12 BALDIGA先生：等一下。让其\n13 被口译。\n14 WOLMAN先生：从律师处获知的\n15 信息，如非专门为提供建议或接收\n16 信息之目的而进行的沟通，\n17 并非受特权保护的信息。如果您的\n18 律师说天空是蓝色的，那并非\n19 受特权保护的沟通。\n20 BALDIGA先生：他在和我争论。\n21 没有向您提出问题。\n22 WOLMAN先生：Baldiga先生，您是否\n23 将继续指示您的当事人不当援引\n24 律师—委托人特权？\n25 BALDIGA先生：我会就每个问题作出指示。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 WOLMAN先生：对于这个问题，您是否\n2 维持该指示？\n3 郭先生，您是否拒绝回答我的\n4 问题？\n5 证人：是。\n6 WOLMAN先生：您基于何种理由\n7 拒绝回答我的问题？\n8 BALDIGA先生：基于律师的指示，\n9 理由是律师—委托人\n10 特权。\n11 证人：由于我与律师之间的\n12 特权，我不能回答该\n13 问题。\n14 由WOLMAN先生询问：\n15 问 您是否曾被证券交易委员会（Securities and Exchange Commission）正式指控？\n16 答 否。\n17 问 证券交易委员会是否已结束对您的调查？\n18 BALDIGA先生：我必须再次说明，如果您知道，\n19 您可以回答是或否。\n20 答 否。\n21 问 证券交易委员会是否已对GTV提出任何指控？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日 75\n1 答 我不知道。\n2 问 在过去五年中，您是否曾接受美国国内收入署（U.S. Internal Revenue Service）的审计？\n3 \n4 答 否。\n5 问 在过去五年中，您是否曾接受纽约州税务机关的审计？\n6 \n7 答 否。\n8 问 您何时成为康涅狄格州（Connecticut）居民？日期为何？\n9 \n10 答 大约在2020年3月初。\n11 问 为明确起见，您称您于2020年3月是康涅狄格州居民？\n12 \n13 答 是。\n14 问 那么，为何在Cheng先生，即我的当事人，对您提起的诉讼中，您签署了一份宣誓陈述，表明您是\n15 \n16 Sherry Netherlands Hotel（谢里荷兰酒店）的居民？\n17 官方口译员：律师，您能否重复\n18 一下？\n19 问 如果您于2020年3月是康涅狄格州居民，您在Cheng先生对您提起的诉讼中签署了一份宣誓陈述，称您居住于\n20 \n21 谢里荷兰酒店。\n22 \n23 答 我并非百分之百居住在康涅狄格州，\n24 但有时也居住在纽约。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 问 您从何时起在康涅狄格州居住的时间超过50%？\n2 \n3 答 自2020年3月起。\n4 问 您称有一些资产被中国扣押，对吗？\n5 \n6 答 那不是我的。那是我家人的。\n7 是我家人的。\n8 问 中国是否曾扣押过以您名义持有的资产？\n9 \n10 答 您是指以我名义持有的？\n11 问 是。\n12 答 否。\n13 问 好的。2010年，您的个人净资产是多少？\n14 \n15 答 否。\n16 问 那不是一个是或否的问题。\n17 官方口译员：我可以再重复一遍\n18 您的问题吗？\n19 WOLMAN先生：可以。\n20 问 2010年，您的个人净资产是多少？\n21 答 我没有任何财产。\n22 问 您是否曾以自己名义拥有超过$1 million的财产？这里包括您拥有某公司权益，而该权益因此对您的资产净值作出贡献的情形，\n23 \n24 \n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 119 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 从而对您的资产净值作出贡献？\n2 答 2000年以前，是。\n3 问 好的。您在1999年的净资产是多少？\n4 答 我从未详细计算过。\n5 问 您估计是多少？\n6 答 大约为100 million。\n7 问 那价值$100 million的资产后来发生了什么？\n8 \n9 答 因为在2000年我取得了香港护照，而在中国，他们不允许我拥有任何\n10 财产、资产。\n11 问 您是否已放弃对您于1999年拥有的任何资产提出的所有权利主张？\n12 \n13 答 是。\n14 问 您为何放弃您的权利主张？\n15 官方口译员：放弃什么？\n16 问 您对那些资产的权利主张？\n17 答 因为我不被允许在中国拥有任何\n18 资产。\n19 问 如果中国改变其政策，您是否有任何权利或能力取回那些资产？\n20 \n21 BALDIGA先生：反对。如果您知道，您可以回答。\n22 \n23 答 我不知道。\n24 问 您在1999年最大的资产是什么？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 是一家酒店的资产，即在中国一家酒店的股权。\n2 \n3 问 现在由谁持有该权益？\n4 答 中国共产党（Chinese Communist Party）。\n5 问 该权益是以党的名义持有的吗？\n6 答 中国只有一个专制政府，\n7 即该党，我们家族的资产被其拿走——\n8 被其扣押。\n9 问 您的儿子如何变得足够富有，以资助Golden Spring（黄金之泉）和Lamp Capital（兰普资本）？\n10 \n11 答 因为他很早就开始投资，也将品牌引入中国。\n12 \n13 问 他的投资资金从何而来？\n14 答 我不知道。\n15 问 Claiborn女士曾询问您与黄金之泉的协议，而您无法确认谁是黄金之泉的律师。您记得吗？\n16 \n17 \n18 \n19 答 是。\n20 问 我想尝试帮助您恢复记忆——请您可能恢复记忆，那位律师是否名叫Daniel？\n21 \n22 \n23 官方口译员：他是在问Daniel？\n24 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 Page 122 of\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日 79\n1 问 是，Daniel Pedolsky（丹尼尔·佩多尔斯基）。\n2 答 是，大概是，他曾是黄金之泉的律师，也是我的个人律师。\n3 \n4 问 您是否与Pedolsky先生签署了利益冲突豁免书？\n5 \n6 官方口译员：您能否重复一下？\n7 \n8 问 您是否与律师Daniel Pedolsky签署了利益冲突豁免书？\n9 \n10 答 我不记得。\n11 问 您提到与黄金之泉有两三份——或三四份协议。您能否确认其中每一份协议？\n12 \n13 答 我不确定。\n14 问 您能否说明其中每一份协议的目的？\n15 \n16 答 来自黄金之泉的那笔贷款，是为了与Logan Cheng（程乐平）达成和解。\n17 \n18 问 您是否借款支付律师费用，以起诉Logan Cheng？\n19 \n20 答 我不记得。\n21 问 除与Cheng先生有关的协议外，其他协议是什么？\n22 \n23 答 来自华盛顿哥伦比亚特区（D.C.）——律师事务所从华盛顿哥伦比亚特区收取（听不清）。我不记得\n24 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 123 of\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 名称。\n2 WOLMAN先生：好的。谢谢，我现在必须离开了，但谢谢。我会尝试拨入。\n3 \n4 \n5 CLAIBORN女士：谢谢。\n6 我可以请在线上的任何人静音吗，因为可以听到你们打字。\n7 \n8 \n9 好的。还有谁想提问？\n10 Harbach先生。请开始，Harbach先生。\n11 HARBACH先生：谢谢。为记录在案，\n12 我是David Harbach（戴维·哈巴赫），来自O'Melveny and Meyers（奥美律师事务所），我代表PAACS。\n13 \n14 \n15 由HARBACH先生询问：\n16 问 郭先生，我想根据Claiborn女士今天向您提出的问题，询问一些澄清性问题。\n17 \n18 \n19 今天早些时候，她问您是否拥有任何外币，您回答否。她还问您是否拥有任何数字货币，您回答否。\n20 \n21 \n22 我的问题是，您是否曾代表任何实体订购或指示购买外币或数字货币？\n23 \n24 \n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 官方口译员：您能否重复一下？\n2 \n3 HARBACH先生：当然。\n4 问 我的问题是，您是否曾代表任何实体订购或指示购买任何外币或任何数字货币？\n5 \n6 \n7 答 您所说的指示是什么意思？\n8 问 您是否曾指示任何人购买外币或数字货币？\n9 \n10 答 否。\n11 问 Claiborn女士曾问您几个有关使用信用卡和借记卡的问题。我想确保我们清楚地了解您的回答，因为她问的并非您是否有任何信用卡，而是您是否可以使用信用卡。我想确保您理解两者的区别。\n12 \n13 \n14 \n15 \n16 \n17 \n18 官方口译员：他只是问您为什么要代表Holley女士提出的问题。\n19 \n20 \n21 HARBACH先生：先生，我只是想提醒您她今天早些时候向您提出的一个问题。\n22 \n23 私人口译员：我不理解这个问题。\n24 BALDIGA先生：Baldiga先生是对的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 Page 125 of\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日 82\n1 目前没有待回答的问题。\n2 问 问题是，您是否理解拥有一张信用卡与可以使用一张信用卡之间的区别？\n3 \n4 \n5 答 我相信我没有。\n6 问 您不理解二者之间的区别？\n7 答 我不太了解。\n8 问 好的。那么，让我举个例子。我们谈谈那辆Maybach（迈巴赫）。\n9 \n10 我相信您今天向我们表示，您可以使用该辆迈巴赫作为交通工具。对吗？\n11 \n12 \n13 答 是。\n14 问 但我相信您的立场也是，您并不拥有该辆迈巴赫。对吗？\n15 \n16 答 是。\n17 问 换言之，您的立场是，那辆迈巴赫不是您的，对吗？\n18 \n19 答 是。\n20 问 好的。因此，我用这个例子说明拥有某物与可以使用某物之间的区别。这是否有助于您？您是否理解其中区别？\n21 \n22 \n23 \n24 答 现在我理解您了。\n25 问 好的。谢谢。那么回到\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 126 of\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日 83\n1 有关信用卡和借记卡的问题。您是否可以使用任何信用卡或借记卡，无论其是否属于您？\n2 \n3 \n4 答 我不理解他说的“可以使用”是什么意思，是指我自己使用，还是由其他人使用。\n5 \n6 \n7 问 那么，我们逐一讨论。先从您自己使用开始。您的任何家庭成员是否曾向您提供一张信用卡或一个信用卡号码，供您自己使用？\n8 \n9 \n10 \n11 答 我从未使用。\n12 问 您提到的另一个例子是，可能由您的家庭成员代表您使用信用卡。这种情况是否发生过？\n13 \n14 \n15 答 您所说的代表我使用是什么意思？\n16 问 我问的是，据您所知，您的任何家庭成员是否曾使用信用卡或借记卡为您购买物品？\n17 \n18 \n19 \n20 答 我的儿子、我的女儿、我的妻子。他们都有信用卡为我购买物品。\n21 \n22 私人口译员：证人没有那样说，即“使用信用卡为我购买物品”。证人说的是，我的儿子、我的妻子为我购买物品。\n23 \n24 \n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 官方口译员：是的，他们使用自己的卡，他们都——他们全都有卡。\n2 他们都有卡。这是他说的。\n3 \n4 （重复口译）\n5 官方口译员：是的，我的口译是正确的。\n6 \n7 证人：因此，我的妻子、儿子和女儿都有自己的卡，其他家庭成员也使用他们的卡为我购买物品。\n8 \n9 \n10 问 这是否曾是在您的指示下进行的？\n11 答 否。\n12 问 从未？\n13 答 否。\n14 问 这是应您的请求吗？\n15 答 否。\n16 问 Yan Ping Wang（王燕平）是否与Yvette Wang（王伊文）是同一人？\n17 答 是。\n18 问 早些时候，Claiborn女士询问您有关Golden Spring Hong Kong（黄金之泉香港）的情况。\n19 \n20 您告诉她，该公司由您的儿子拥有。您记得吗？\n21 \n22 答 是。\n23 问 我的问题是，您的儿子从何时起拥有黄金之泉香港？\n24 \n25 答 我不知道。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年4月6日\n\n问：除您儿子外，是否还有其他人曾拥有 Golden Spring Hong Kong（金泉香港）的权益？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：您还说，您不记得自己是否曾担任 Golden Spring Hong Kong 的公司高级职员？\n\n官方口译员：您能重复一遍吗？\n\n问：您还说，您不记得自己是否曾担任 Golden Spring Hong Kong 的公司高级职员？这是否意味着您有可能曾担任过，只是您不确定？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：Claiborn 女士以几种不同的方式问过您，您是否知道 Golden Spring New York（金泉纽约）如何获得资金或赚钱。Golden Spring 从何时开始支付您的个人生活费用？\n\n答：2015。\n\n问：所以大约是六、七年？\n\n答：自2015年起，有一个名叫 Bruno Wu（布鲁诺·吴）的人来自中国大陆，给我的家人、我的儿子、女儿和妻子打电话，所以从那时起，我开始花来自 Golden Spring New York 的钱。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 6, 2022\n\n私人口译员：我认为证人没有说“some”。\n\n官方口译员：什么？\n\n私人口译员：我认为证人没有说“some”。\n\n证人：不包括他们抓到的那个儿子，我的妻子、女儿和许多家人，但不包括我的儿子。\n\n问：所以，Golden Spring 大约已经支付您的个人费用六、七年了。对吗？\n\n答：对。\n\n问：在那六、七年中，您从未与任何家人讨论过这笔钱来自哪里吗？\n\n答：因为我的许多家人被——被您的客户 Bruno Wu 逮捕了，所以我没有联系。我无法与他们联系。\n\n私人口译员：不完全是。PAACS 的合伙人——该律师所代理的合伙人，PAACS——PAACS 的合伙人——\n\n官方口译员：我不知道。他没有提到任何关于 PAACS 的事情。\n\n证人：所以，是代理客户 Bruno Wu 的另一名律师逮捕了您的许多家人。您客户过去的合伙人，其中一名合伙人，（听不清）Bruno Wu，逮捕了您的许多家人，所以您不能与他们联系。\n\n问：自2015年以来，您是否曾与您的女儿、妻子或儿子联系？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在您与这三人中的任何一人联系期间，您是否曾问过他们 Golden Spring 的钱来自哪里？\n\n答：是，我问过。\n\n问：您问了谁？\n\n答：我问了他们三个人。\n\n问：他们说了什么？\n\n答：他们告诉我，因为我处于被追捕的境地，所以不要问我们自己的财务信息。不要向我问任何事情，我们会帮助您——会尽可能帮助您。\n\n问：那是什么时候？\n\n答：2017年之后。\n\n问：2017年后多久？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 第131页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 6, 2022 88\n\n问：当您与家人进行这次谈话时，他们三人在一起，还是分别进行的谈话？\n\n答：分别进行的。\n\n问：而且他们三人都说了大致相同的话？\n\n答：相似。\n\n问：所以我想确认我理解正确。您分别问了他们 Golden Spring 的钱来自哪里，而他们每个人都对您说，不要问我这个，因为——请您替我完成这句话。\n\n答：所以您是在编造我不理解的故事。\n\n问：我是在请您帮助我理解。我试图理解，为什么您的家人告诉您不要问，为什么您的家人告诉您不要问 Golden Spring 从哪里得到这笔钱。\n\nBaldiga 先生：让他问您一个问题。\n\n问：请告诉我，为什么您的每位家人都告诉您不要问他们 Golden Spring 的钱来自哪里？\n\nBaldiga 先生：反对。如果您知道的话。\n\n官方口译员：您是在要求对该问题提出反对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 第132页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 6, 2022 89\n\nBaldiga 先生：我已经反对了。\n\n官方口译员：哦，您提出了反对。\n\nBaldiga 先生：如果他知道，我允许他回答。\n\n官方口译员：好的。\n\n证人：我的女儿和妻子被他的合伙人逮捕，并于2017年获释，获释到纽约。她们遭到共产党极其严重的折磨。折磨她们的人是这名律师的合伙人。她们都有自己的律师。她们告诉我，不要询问或与她们沟通她们自身的财务和个人信息。您想做的任何事情，最好通过律师进行。\n\n这是在我的家人来到纽约之前，他们告诉她们的原则、事情。我只是想告诉您其含义，含义非常相似，但我不能逐字告诉您。\n\n所以，我不希望这名律师就我的女儿——就我女儿的伪造、作伪证编造任何故事。那种故事。\n\n上一次我们与 Holley 女士在这里时，他在编造虚假谎言，说我在使用我的 Twitter 账户，说纽约的法官是共产党，而我甚至没有 Twitter 账户。\n\nHarbach 先生：为使记录清楚，今天是我首次在法庭上就本诉讼说出任何一句话。所以，我认为您说的不是我，先生。\n\n证人：我说的是上一次，是您办公室的律师。您之前的律师叫 Andy Morse（音），因五年来提出虚假主张而被法官逐出，并被法官逐出。所以，该律师事务所一直在提出虚假主张。\n\nBaldiga 先生：只回答他的问题，因为除非您只是试图回答他的问题，否则我无法知道是否应当提出反对。\n\n证人：我没有分别与我的家人、女儿和妻子谈话，说同样的话。如果我说同样的事情、同样的话，那就是在编造虚假故事。\n\nHarbach 先生：我明白。\n\n证人：您不能运用您的想象并把它放进我的脑子里。这就是为什么纽约南区和法官被他们（听不清），并给了我错误的量刑。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第134页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 6, 2022 452\n\n91 1 （听不清）被他们，并给了我错误的\n2 量刑。\n3 身份不明者：您能说一下最后那——\n4 证人：因为他们的虚假\n5 主张，所以这就是为什么纽约南区的法官，\n6 该法官，给了我错误的\n7 量刑。\n8 私人口译员：此外，\n9 口译员此前没有完整翻译律师\n10 就其反对向证人作出的指示。\n11 Claiborn 女士：如果您想重复，请继续。\n12 Baldiga 先生：我认为您只须\n13 听这些问题，并且只回答这些\n14 问题。\n15 Harbach 先生：抱歉。律师将转向\n16 另一个话题。\n17 Harbach 先生询问：\n18 问：Kwok 先生，Claiborn 女士今天问了您\n19 关于您欠 Golden Spring 的一笔 $21 million\n20 债务。她问您该 21 million 中有多少\n21 是律师费，而您的回答是，我认为大部分\n22 是。我想知道您所说的大部分是什么意思。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第135页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 6, 2022\n\n问：您的意思是 $11 million，还是接近 $21 million。\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：您现在仍认为其中大部分是律师费吗？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：您还提到了 Logan Cheng（洛根·郑）和解，并称与该事项有关地从 Golden Spring 借了钱。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那笔贷款金额是多少？\n\n答：我不完全记得。可能像是200。二——$300,000。\n\n问：该笔来自 Golden Spring 的贷款条件是什么？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：当 Claiborn 女士问您是否曾去过 Golden Spring 在纽约的办公室时，您说是。该办公室的地址是什么？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：该办公室的地址是什么？\n\n答：64th Street, 162。\n\n问：您还提到，您上次在那里是昨天，您去那里的原因是为今天的会议作准备。您在那里会见了谁？\n\n答：我的律师。\n\n问：您在办公室时，除您的律师外，是否还与任何其他人为准备今天的会议会面？\n\n答：我不知道您说的其他人是什么意思。\n\n问：那么，您是否会见了为 Golden Spring 工作的任何人？\n\n答：是，我会见了 Yvonne Wang（王伊冯）。\n\n问：这是昨天吗？\n\n答：是，我昨天会见了她。\n\n问：您昨天问了她一些问题吗？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：请告诉我您与 Wang 女士的谈话情况？\n\n答：您是什么意思？\n\n问：那么，我想知道您与她谈了什么。\n\n答：我让她安排吃的食物和咖啡。\n\n问：就这些吗？\n\n答：此外，我们还谈了如何废除共产党。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 6, 2022\n\n问：我想确认我记得正确。我想您说的是——\n\nBaldiga 先生：打扰一下。我能再听一遍最后那句话吗？\n\n证人：我们谈了如何废除共产党。\n\nBaldiga 先生：谢谢。\n\n问：Wang 女士是 Golden Spring 的高级职员，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：而且您指示她拿咖啡，对吗？\n\n答：不，我没有指示她。我只是希望她拿一些咖啡。\n\n问：您是希望还是帮助？\n\n答：帮助。\n\n问：您是在帮助。因为我问您的问题是，您与 Wang 女士谈了什么。而且我以为您说，您让她拿一些咖啡，或者甚至告诉她拿一些咖啡。\n\n答：不，您的律师办公室——您的律师办公室又在编造和想象事情。\n\n问：我再问一遍这个问题。\n\nBaldiga 先生：请问一个问题。不要把话塞进他嘴里。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - April 6, 2022\n\n问：您昨天与 Wang 女士讨论了什么？\n\n答：您想让我详细谈吗？我可以就此谈上几个小时。\n\n问：嗯，不，如果细节涉及如何推翻中国共产党。所以我会说得更精确一些。\n\n答：所以您不希望我们废除中国共产党。我们的工作是废除中国共产党。\n\nBaldiga 先生：只回答问题。\n\n证人：您没有问题。您只是在指示某件事。\n\n问：有时我会分段说话，以便口译员翻译。\n\nBaldiga 先生：我认为，如果您只问问题，然后让证人——我会指示他回答您的问题。这会有所帮助。\n\n问：您昨天是否与 Yvette［原文如此］讨论过任何与为今天会议作准备有关的事情？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您讨论了什么？\n\n1 答 我要求她把那些文件带到这里来。\n\n2 问 还有别的吗？\n\n3 答 我不记得了。\n\n4 问 Lamp Capital 是何时成立的？\n\n5 答 我不知道。\n\n6 问 为什么成立 Lamp Capital？\n\n7 答 我不知道。\n\n8 问 谁成立了 Lamp Capital？\n\n9 答 我儿子。\n\n10 问 你怎么知道？\n\n11 答 因为我向我儿子借钱支付\n\n12 律师费。\n\n13 问 问题是，你怎么知道你儿子\n\n14 成立了 Lamp Capital？\n\n15 答 因为我儿子说的。\n\n16 问 他亲自告诉你的。\n\n17 答 是。\n\n18 问 他是否向你征求过关于\n\n19 是否成立 Lamp Capital 的任何意见？\n\n20 答 没有。\n\n21 问 他是否问过你对于他\n\n22 是否应当成立 Lamp Capital 的看法？\n\n23 答 没有。\n\n24 问 他是否告诉你，他为什么要成立 Lamp\n\n25 Capital？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 没有。\n\n2 问 你在谈到你针对 Boise Schiller（博伊斯·席勒）\n\n3 提出的律师失职索赔时，\n\n4 你提到了某个人，你一直称其为“他”。我想\n\n5 知道那个人是谁？\n\n6 答 我不知道你是什么意思。\n\n7 问 是的，那个问题问得不好。我道歉。\n\n8 你陈述说，有人未经你的\n\n9 许可向法院提交虚假文件；这个人威胁了你的\n\n10 家人；此人在饮酒后威胁你；\n\n11 并且此人给你和你的家人造成许多损失，\n\n12 包括在向法官提交文件之前未提供\n\n13 译文文件。\n\n16 我的问题是，那个人是谁？\n\n17 答 Schiller（席勒）。\n\nSchiller 律师。\n\n18 问 那么，是 Boise Schiller 律师事务所的 Schiller 先生。\n\n19 我说得对吗？\n\n20 答 对。\n\n21 问 谢谢。你是否了解 Lamp Capital 从事何种业务，\n\n22 如果其从事任何业务的话？\n\n23 答 不了解。\n\n24 问 换个话题。你今天\n\n25 在回答问题时数次说到，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第141页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 在我背后的人做了某些事情。\n\n2 你说的是谁？\n\n3 答\n\n我背后有一个人，有一个叫 Bruno Wu（吴征）的老板。\n\n4 他支付了那宗案件——那宗强奸\n\n5 案件，来自（听不清）的强奸案。另外，\n\n6 这里还有一个债权人，也是由 Bruno Wu 支付的。\n\n7 那笔律师费由 Bruno Wu 支付。Bruno\n\n8 Wu 也是他的合伙人，并且他投资了 $800 million。\n\n9 Bruno Wu 的合伙人也是（听不清）的前任\n\n10 高管，他们正在调查，并且\n\n11 他们联合了一个合伙人来调查我的案件。\n\n12 所以，2022年4月18日，这个（听不清）\n\n13 开始起诉我，提起诉讼。在这 24\n\n14 小时内，Bruno Wu 给我发红色通知，他们\n\n15 开始提起诉讼。\n\n16 HARBACH 先生：\n\n我可以打断——\n\n17 证人： 中国共产党\n\n18 阻止了对我的采访，即美国之音采访。\n\n19 它们发生在同一时间。\n\n20 HARBACH 先生：\n\n或者我可以让他继续说。\n\n21 证人：\n\n这家律师事务所制作的所有文件\n\n22 都是虚假的。他们向 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）\n\n23 法院提交了一份虚假文件。\n\n24 他们甚至对我女儿的\n\n25 游艇提出虚假主张。那条船是我的。他们向\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第142页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 纽约南区法院的法官提出申请，而我两次申请\n\n2 破产——个人破产，并且那天——他们（听不清）\n\n3 两次，包括 Holley 女士。\n\n4 Holley 女士在场。\n\n5 第一次 Holley 女士在法庭\n\n6 在场时，他们作了虚假证言，说——并且\n\n7 他们说我女儿就 Sherry 破产案作了虚假证言，\n\n8 因为我女儿从未参与该案。\n\n9 \n\n10 Holley 女士在那里，第二个庭期 Holley 女士\n\n11 也在那里。该事务所的\n\n12 律师对法官说，\n\n13 他们说我使用 Twitter 账户——并且\n\n14 他们说我在 Twitter 上说\n\n15 纽约南区法官是共产党\n\n16 党员。\n\n17 你可以看到，我背后所有的人，\n\n18 其中一个是 Bruno Wu，有一个人在许多案件中付款——\n\n20 HARBACH 先生：\n\n我想问另一个\n\n21 问题。\n\n22 HARBACH 先生问：\n\n23 问\n\n你是否知道，无论以何种方式，你的\n\n24 破产代理律师 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）律师事务所，\n\n25 此前是否曾代理过 Bruno Wu？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 官方口译员：\n\n我可以稍微\n\n2 休息一下吗？我实在无法集中那么多注意力。\n\n3 实在太多了。我可以休息一下吗？\n\n4 CLAIBORN 女士：\n\n我可以请你先问那个\n\n5 问题，然后我们休息吗？\n\n6 官方口译员：\n\n可以。你能否\n\n7 重复那个问题？\n\n8 HARBACH 先生：\n\n当然可以。\n\n9 问 你是否知道，无论以何种方式，\n\n10 你的破产代理律师 Brown Rudnick\n\n11 律师事务所此前是否代理过 Bruno Wu？\n\n12 官方口译员：\n\n你说的是代理\n\n13 其他某个人？\n\n14 HARBACH 先生：\n\n是。Bruno Wu。\n\n15 答 不知道。\n\n16 CLAIBORN 女士：\n\n我们将短暂\n\n17 休息。我们将在 2:45 回到这里。\n\n18 （休庭）\n\n19 CLAIBORN 女士：\n\n好的。短暂休息后，\n\n20 我们恢复记录。\n\n21 Harbach 先生，交给你。\n\n22 HARBACH 先生：\n\n谢谢。\n\n23 HARBACH 先生问：\n\n24 问 Kwok 女士，在你面前的文件中，\n\n25 有本案提交的文件 78。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第144页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日 101\n\n1 官方口译员： 哪份文件？\n\n2 是这一份吗？\n\n3 HARBACH 先生： 是的。抱歉。律师\n\n4 告知我，你们的副本没有盖章。\n\n5 问 我说的是你们的 Official Form 106（正式表格106）。\n\n6 所以我要问你的问题从第9页开始，该页\n\n7 有一个标题为“附表 D，拥有以财产担保的债权的\n\n8 债权人”的栏目。\n\n9 你找到那里了吗？\n\n10 你勾选了“是”框。并且被\n\n11 指示转至附表 D，所以请你翻到那里。\n\n12 它在第18页。\n\n13 BALDIGA 先生： 标题是什么？他\n\n14 或许通过标题会更容易找到。\n\n15 HARBACH 先生： 好的。那是附表 D 的小表格，\n\n16 即列有\n\n17 有担保债权的债权人的清单。\n\n18 HARBACH 先生问：\n\n19 问 Kwok 先生，你会看到 Golden Spring New York Limited（纽约金泉有限公司）\n\n20 有五个单独的条目。\n\n21 每一栏的数据在所有五行中完全相同。\n\n22 \n\n23 所以我的问题是，为什么这张附表上有五个\n\n24 完全相同的条目？\n\n25 问题是，为什么有五个\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 这张附表上完全相同的条目？\n\n2 答 我不知道五个是什么意思——\n\n3 问 嗯，每一行都完全相同。而且\n\n4 我只是问，为什么有五行载有\n\n5 相同的信息？\n\n6 答 我不知道。\n\n7 问 在你提交的那些文件中，\n\n8 有一些具体注释，其中一项注释涉及\n\n9 Taconic Road 的住宅。\n\n10 HARBACH 先生：\n\n各位律师，我说的是\n\n11 文件 77，第4页。\n\n12 官方口译员：\n\n哪一页？\n\n13 HARBACH 先生：\n\n第4页。\n\n14 官方口译员：\n\n84页？\n\n15 HARBACH 先生：\n\n不，第4页。\n\n16 官方口译员：\n\n哦，第4页。\n\n17 好的。\n\n18 HARBACH 先生问：\n\n19 问 我的问题实际上并不那么关乎\n\n20 准确的文字，而是关乎内容。\n\n21 所以第一个问题，与 Taconic Road 房屋有关的所有费用\n\n22 是否均由家人和家族控制的企业\n\n23 直接支付？\n\n24 答 是。\n\n25 问 好的。\n\n哪些家庭成员？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 我妻子，有时由我儿子支付。\n\n2 问 哪些家族控制的企业？\n\n3 答 哪个国家——我妻子。\n\n4 问 你妻子不是企业。我试图\n\n5 问的是，哪些家族控制的企业支付\n\n6 Taconic 房屋的费用？\n\n7 答 Greenwich LLC（格林尼治有限责任公司）。\n\n8 问 好的。顺便问一下，你怎么知道\n\n9 你妻子和有时你儿子支付这些费用？\n\n10 答 因为我住在那里。\n\n11 问 你亲眼看到他们支付这些费用吗？\n\n12 答 是。\n\n13 问 这是否曾经是应你的要求？\n\n14 答 我不记得我要求过任何事情。\n\n15 问 Greenwich Land LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）——是，Greenwich\n\n16 Land LLC 除 373\n\n17 Taconic Road 外还拥有任何其他房地产吗？\n\n18 答 我不知道。\n\n19 问 你是否知道位于康涅狄格州 Cos Cob 的 33 Ferncliff\n\n20 的房产情况？\n\n21 官方口译员：\n\n你能重复一下\n\n22 吗？\n\n23 HARBACH 先生：\n\n可以。\n\n24 问 康涅狄格州 Cos Cob 的 33 Ferncliff。\n\n25 官方口译员：\n\n31，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 HARBACH 先生：\n\n不，是33。\n\n2 答 是的，现在我想起来了。它也由\n\n3 我妻子的公司拥有。\n\n4 问 即 Greenwich Land？\n\n5 答 可能是。\n\n6 问 你知道吗？\n\n7 答 我不确定。\n\n8 问 你曾去过 33 Ferncliff 吗？\n\n9 答 去过。\n\n10 问 最近一次是什么时候？\n\n11 答 没有。\n\n不久前。\n\n12 问 你知道 Greenwich Land 何时购买\n\n13 33 Ferncliff 吗？\n\n14 答 我不记得了。\n\n15 问 你知道大约花了多少钱\n\n16 吗？\n\n17 答 可能超过 $1 million。\n\n18 问 $1.37 million 听起来大致正确吗？\n\n19 答 我不确定。\n\n20 问 大约在 September, 2019 的购买日期，\n\n21 对你来说听起来大致正确吗？\n\n22 答 不确定。\n\n23 问 暂时回到 373 Taconic。\n\n24 该房产的购买价格是多少？\n\n25 答 可能是 400 至 500,000。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 私人口译员：\n\n不，不，不。\n\n2 官方口译员：\n\n4 至 5 million。\n\n3 抱歉。\n\n4 问 如果你知道，373\n\n5 Taconic 大约是什么时候购买的？\n\n6 答 我不知道。\n\n7 问 你曾居住在 33 Ferncliff 吗？\n\n8 答 没有。\n\n9 问 你是否知道目前是否有人住在\n\n10 那里？\n\n11 答 此前有另一个同志，可能是\n\n12 脱离中国共产党的，他住在那里。\n\n13 \n\n14 问 多久以前？\n\n15 答 可能是一至两年前。\n\n16 问 你记得那个人的名字吗？\n\n17 答 记得。\n\n18 问 叫什么名字？\n\n19 答 Wong Din Gong（音）。\n\n20 问 如果你知道，目前是否有人住在那里？\n\n21 \n\n22 答 我不知道。\n\n23 问 说到 373 Taconic，购买该房产的\n\n24 资金来自何处？\n\n25 答 我不知道。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 问 你是否知道该房屋是以\n\n2 现金还是融资购买的？\n\n3 答 我不知道。\n\n4 问 对 33 Ferncliff 也是同样的问题。你\n\n5 知道购买那栋房屋的资金\n\n6 来自何处吗？\n\n7 答 我听说是用现金购买的。\n\n8 问 从谁那里——抱歉。你是从谁那里听说\n\n9 的？\n\n10 答 我不记得了。\n\n11 问 你知道那笔钱来自何处吗？\n\n12 答 我不知道。\n\n13 问 你知道 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）是什么吗？\n\n14 答 Saraca？\n\n15 问 Saraca。\n\n16 答 Saraca Media Group。\n\n我知道。\n\n17 问 Sirraca Media Group 是什么？\n\n18 答 就是 Saraca。\n\n它是一家公司。\n\n19 问 什么类型的公司？\n\n20 答 我不确定。\n\n21 问 你个人是否曾与\n\n22 Saraca 有任何关系？\n\n23 答 没有。\n\n24 问 你是否知道 Saraca 所从事业务的\n\n25 类型？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 我记得他们与 GTV Media（GTV媒体）\n\n2 平台有关，或者他们投资了 GTV Media\n\n3 平台。\n\n4 问 你怎么知道？\n\n5 答 因为我是他们的顾问，拥有该顾问的。并且我也是 GTV 的主持人。\n\n6 \n\n7 而且这也是脱离共产党人士的一个投入和平台。\n\n8 \n\n9 问 你刚才说你是顾问时，\n\n10 是为 Saraca 还是为 GTV？\n\n11 答 GTV。\n\n12 问 Saraca 是否曾经——是否曾与 162\n\n13 East 64th Street 地址有关联？\n\n14 官方口译员：\n\n哪个地址？\n\n15 你能重复一下吗？\n\n16 问 可以。162 East 64th Street。问题是，\n\n17 Saraca 是否曾与该\n\n18 地址有关联？\n\n19 答 我不知道。\n\n20 问 那是家族办公室的地址，\n\n21 对吗？\n\n22 答 那是其中一个。\n\n23 问 其他的在哪里？\n\n24 答 我不知道。\n\n25 问 纽约市还有其他的吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 我只是想澄清一下。Golden Spring（金泉）是这栋楼内的公司之一，162号。\n\n3 问 明白了，谢谢。我们在对您的询问中提到过家族办公室，我只是想明确一下。当我们谈到家族办公室时，我们指的是东64街的那个地址吗？\n\n8 答 是。\n\n9 问 GTV是否曾与家族办公室的地址有关联？\n\n11 答 我不知道。\n\n12 问 谁拥有Saraca（Saraca）？\n\n13 答 我儿子。\n\n14 问 从何时开始？\n\n15 答 我不知道。\n\n16 问 Saraca目前是否仍然存在？\n\n17 答 我不知道。\n\n18 问 您是否知道——您是否了解Saraca资产的价值？\n\n20 答 我不知道。\n\n21 问 您是否了解Saraca向GTV支付的款项？\n\n23 答 不，我不知道。\n\n24 问 您的妻子是否曾告诉您，Saraca向Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）支付过任何数百万美元的款项？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 我不知道。\n\n3 问 您不知道她是否曾告诉过您，还是您不知道这些付款？\n\n5 答 她从未告诉过我，而且我甚至不知道金额是多少。\n\n7 问 您知道一家名为Ziba Limited（Ziba Limited）、Z-I-B-A的公司吗？\n\n9 官方口译员：\nZiba，Z-I-B-A？\n\n10 HARBACH先生：\n是。\n\n11 答 我不知道。\n\n12 问 如果我已经问过这个问题，我很抱歉。Saraca与GTV之间，如有的话，是什么关系？\n\n15 答 Saraca是GTV的投资者。\n\n16 问 您知道Saraca向GTV投资了多少钱吗？\n\n18 答 我不知道。\n\n19 问 GTV何时成立？\n\n20 答 2020年。也许是2019年。不太确定。\n\n21 问 您知道Saraca的任何高级管理人员或董事的姓名吗？\n\n23 答 我不知道。\n\n24 问 您知道Yvette Wang（Yvette Wang）是否是Saraca的高级管理人员或董事吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 我不知道。\n\n2 问 您认识一个叫Hong Chung Wang（Hong Chung Wang）的人吗？\n\n4 答 认识。\n\n5 问 他是谁？\n\n6 答 他是我的合伙人，也是脱离共产党的同志。\n\n8 问 他是您的朋友吗？\n\n9 答 朋友、同志和合伙人。\n\n10 问 您所说的合伙人是什么意思？\n\n11 答 因为我们有一家商业公司。\n\n12 问 请您说说那家公司。\n\n13 答 嗯，我不记得那家公司的名称。那是一家调查共产党在美国洗钱和实施犯罪的公司。\n\n17 问 那是一家营利性公司吗？\n\n18 答 我不知道。\n\n19 问 您不知道？\n\n20 答 我不知道。\n\n21 问 那家公司的名称是什么？\n\n22 答 我用英语说不出来时就不记得了。我不记得名称。\n\n24 问 您与Hong Chung Wang在这家公司作为合伙人的大致时间段是什么时候？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 答 我不记得。\n\n2 问 在过去三年内吗？\n\n3 答 一定是三年多以前。\n\n4 问 十多年以前吗？\n\n5 答 不是。\n\n6 问 Hong Chung Wang是否曾与Saraca有任何关联？\n\n8 答 我不知道。\n\n9 问 他是否曾担任Saraca的高级管理人员或董事？\n\n11 答 我不知道。\n\n12 问 GTV中的G代表什么？\n\n13 答 God。或者是Goal，就像——G-O-A-L。\n\n14 问 英文单词“goal”？\n\n15 答 是。Goal或God。\n\n16 问 好的。您认识Hong Chong Wang多久了？\n\n18 答 我不记得。\n\n19 问 十多年？\n\n20 答 大致如此。\n\n21 问 您现在仍认为他是朋友吗？\n\n23 答 是。\n\n24 HARBACH先生：\n请稍等。\n\n25 问 今天已经有很多问题涉及Golden Spring为您支付生活费用。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第155页，共452页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 112\n\n1 为您支付生活费用。\n\n2 问 就您的生活费用而言，是否正确地说，其中没有任何款项预计需要偿还？\n\n5 答 是，正确。\n\n6 问 那么，这些款项并非任何正式协议的标的，对吗？\n\n8 答 不。\n\n9 问 那么这些款项实质上是赠与您的礼物，对吗？\n\n11 答 是。\n\n12 问 什么是Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）？\n\n13 答 那是什么意思？\n\n14 问 问题是，它是什么？\n\n15 官方口译员：\nRule of Law Foundation？\n\n17 HARBACH先生：\n是，先生。\n\n18 官方口译员：\n我没有听清。您能换一种方式问吗？\n\n20 问 有一个实体叫作——\n\n21 官方口译员：\n哦。\n\n22 问 ——Rule of Law Foundation。\n\n23 官方口译员：\n好的。\n\n24 HARBACH先生：\n我希望通过改问这个问题来节省一些时间。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 问 您熟悉Rule of Law Foundation吗？\n\n3 答 是。\n\n4 问 您是否参与了其设立？\n\n5 答 是。\n\n6 问 在其成立时，您是否向其出资？\n\n8 答 不是我本人。\n\n9 问 您是否指示任何实体向Rule of Law Foundation出资？\n\n11 答 指示和建议之间有什么区别——\n\n13 问 如果是建议，请告诉我那是建议。\n\n15 答 我没有指示或命令任何人。我只是一直建议人们向该基金会捐款。\n\n18 私人口译员：\n作为一名口译员，我认为，如果证人在向口译员提问，口译员应当翻译证人所提出的问题，而不是回答该问题。\n\n23 官方口译员：\n我可以回答任何问题。\n\n25 私人口译员：\n证人说——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第157页，共452页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 您是在说（听不清）吗？\n\n2 官方口译员：\n这就是为什么我把问题转述给律师。\n\n4 私人口译员：\n您回答他“是”，然后您再说那些话。\n\n6 官方口译员：\n哦，看在上帝的份上。我没有说——我漏掉什么了吗？\n\n8 （口译。）\n\n9 官方口译员：\n好的。没有问题。他说没有任何问题未得到回答。\n\n11 HARBACH先生询问：\n\n12 问 您是否曾建议您的任何家庭成员向Rule of Law Foundation捐款？\n\n15 答 是，我确实建议过。\n\n16 问 您的任何家庭成员或由家族控制的企业是否向Rule of Law Foundation出资？\n\n19 答 是。\n\n20 问 多少钱？\n\n21 答 现金有一笔——超过 $1 million。\n\n22 来自Hong Kong（香港）、Japan（日本）和Mainland（中国大陆）——在China（中国）的款项，合计应当超过30 million。\n\n25 问 现在仅聚焦于您的家人在您建议下作出的捐款。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第158页，共452页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 来自您家人的捐款，且是在您的建议下作出的。\n\n2 问 大约是多少钱？\n\n3 答 我不知道细节。出于安全原因，他们不希望我知道。\n\n5 问 您刚才是否说过，您的家人捐赠了超过一百万美元？\n\n7 答 一百万现金在纽约这里。\n\n8 问 那是什么时候？\n\n9 答 我不记得。\n\n10 问 原因是——嗯，让我这样问。您是否向您的家庭成员建议过他们应向Rule of Law Foundation捐赠的金额？\n\n14 答 我希望他们捐得越多越好。\n\n15 问 这就是您告诉他们的吗？\n\n16 答 是。\n\n17 问 您是否知道Rule of Law Foundation与64街的家族办公室地址有关联？\n\n20 答 是。\n\n21 问 您是否曾在2018年11月向Rule of Law Foundation捐赠 $100 million？\n\n23 官方口译员：\n您能再重复一遍吗？\n\n25 问 您是否曾捐赠 $100 million——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 ——给Rule of Law Foundation，在2018年11月？\n\n2 答 没有。在直播中，就像我想要——试图筹集资金，在直播节目中。\n\n4 问 您是否曾——\n\n5 BALDIGA先生：\n等一下。那是他完整的回答吗？\n\n7 官方口译员：\n是。有问题吗？\n\n9 私人口译员：\n不完全是证人所说的。\n\n11 （听不清）广播是可以的。直播也可以。但是“collect money”——\n\n13 官方口译员：\n是请求捐款，对吗？\n\n15 （口译。）\n\n16 私人口译员：\n筹集——\n\n17 证人：\n筹集资金，筹集捐款。是的，在直播广播中，或者不管怎样，您知道，要求捐款来——您知道，筹集资金，筹集钱款。\n\n21 问 您是否曾承诺向Rule of Law Fund（法治基金）捐赠 $1 billion？\n\n23 官方口译员：\n您说的是10 billion？\n\n25 HARBACH先生：\n不，先生。1 billion。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n1 官方口译员：\n哦，one billion。\n\n3 答 我不记得。我不记得。\n\n4 问 您的意思是，您有可能作出过该承诺吗？\n\n6 答 如果我们联合全世界的组织，我们就可以达到那个目标。\n\n8 问 明白。这是一个简单的问题。我只是不知道答案。您本人是否曾承诺向Rule of Law Fund捐赠 $1 billion？\n\n12 答 在过去五年中，我做了超过5,000次直播。有些直播可能长达四五个小时。对我来说，很难记住我说过的每一句话。\n\n16 问 嗯，我理解这一点，但我只是在问一件事。那就是，您是否曾公开、私下或以任何方式承诺向Rule of Law Fund捐赠 $1 billion？\n\n20 私人口译员：\n他说的不是“投资”。\n\n22 HARBACH先生：\n捐赠。\n\n23 官方口译员：\n是，捐赠。\n\n24 答 我不记得。\n\n25 问 我再问一次这个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第161页，共452页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 118\n\n1 您是说，您有可能作出过这样的承诺。您只是不能确定？\n\n3 答 在Holley女士面前，我不会说任何事情都有可能，但这是一个非常严肃的问题。现在他们又开始这个阴谋了。\n\n6 问 嗯，这不是问您三天前早餐吃了什么。这是问您是否承诺捐赠 $1 billion；如果答案是您不知道，也没关系。\n\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n我认为一直以来的回答就是这个。\n\n12 HARBACH先生：\n不，回答一直是“我不记得”。\n\n14 BALDIGA先生：\n不记得。\n\n15 HARBACH先生：\n是，先生。那有一点不同。\n\n17 问 所以答案可能是否定的，但您并没有说否定。您说您不记得。\n\n19 答 我已经说了三次，我不记得。\n\n20 BALDIGA先生：\n没有问题——\n\n21 答 因为在过去五年中，（听不清）总是替我作出这类回答，所以南区法院的法官被你们蒙骗了，而你们又开始了——\n\n25 问 我继续问下一个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第162页，共452页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日 119\n\n1 答 在南区法院，我只见过法官20秒。在这五年内，我一句话也没说，因为他们所做的那些事，我总共被罚款约 $300 million。\n\n5 BALDIGA先生：\n好的。停一下。让我们等一个问题，然后我们回答这个问题。\n\n8 HARBACH先生：\nBill，我感谢你的耐心。我继续问下一个问题。\n\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n请翻译我说的话。\n\n12 官方口译员：\n您能重复一下吗？大家同时都在说话。\n\n14 BALDIGA先生：\n问一个问题，他会回答一个问题。\n\n16 问 在过去两年中，您是否向Rule of Law Foundation作过任何捐赠？\n\n18 答 我本人，对吗？\n\n19 问 是，先生。\n\n20 答 没有。\n\n21 问 在过去两年中，您是否曾建议您的任何家人向Rule of Law Foundation捐款？\n\n24 答 我不记得。\n\n25 问 您是否曾作出过承诺——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第163页，共452页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年4月6日\n\n如果您实际上并没有那笔钱，您还会承诺向法治基金会（Rule of Law Foundation）捐赠 $1 billion 吗？\n\nBALDIGA先生：对提问形式提出异议。\n\n官方口译员：我没有听清。您能再重复一遍吗？\n\n问：如果您实际上并没有那笔钱，您还会承诺向法治基金会捐赠 $1 billion 吗？\n\nBALDIGA先生：而且我提出了异议。\n\nHARBACH先生：随后 Bill 也提出了异议。\n\n官方口译员：他说的是，您是要判我死刑吗？\n\n问：Lady May（Lady May号）大约值多少钱？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：这些年来，您在 Lady May 号上期间，大约有多少次邀请朋友加入您？\n\n官方口译员：您能再重复一遍那个问题吗？\n\nHARBACH先生：可以。\n\n问：这些年来，您在 Lady May 号上期间，大约有多少次邀请朋友出来加入您？\n\nBALDIGA先生：等一下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\nHARBACH先生：抱歉，Bill。\n\nBALDIGA先生：David，您即将就 Lady May 号相关问题进行一次证词录取。您可以选择今天或到时再问。两者都可以。\n\nHARBACH先生：这是个合理的观点。我继续往下问。\n\nBALDIGA先生：好的。没有问题。\n\nHARBACH先生：如果我可以再次请各位律师注意文件 77。我想重点关注问题 19。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您读完该问题后请告诉我。这是第 19 题。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n答：读完了。\n\n问：好的。为便于记录，该问题写道：在您申请破产前十年内，您是否将任何财产转移给一项自益信托或类似安排，而您是该信托或安排的受益人？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：而且这确实是您在表格上勾选的内容。我的问题是，如果将“您”一词改为作为受益人的家庭成员，答案会是什么？\n\nBALDIGA先生：异议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n答：我无法回答带有“如果”的问题。\n\n问：我会换一种方式问。\n\nHARBACH先生：Jack，我请您配合一下。\n\n问：在您申请破产前十年内，您是否将任何财产转移给一项自益信托或类似安排，而您的某位家庭成员是该信托或安排的受益人？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：继续看同一文件，转到问题 27。先生，您读完后请告诉我。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n答：好的。我读完了。\n\n问：那么您看到您在那里勾选了“是”旁边的方框。随后说明写道：勾选上述所有适用项，并在下方填写每项业务的详细信息。\n\nHARBACH先生：Jack，您看到那里了吗？\n\n官方口译员：我没有看到。\n\nHARBACH先生：下一项——Holley 可以给您看。\n\n（暂停。）\n\nHARBACH先生：所以我刚才只是向证人指出——为便于译员理解，我再说一遍。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 166 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022 123\n\n问：在被勾选为“是”的方框旁边，说明写道：勾选上述所有适用项，并在下方填写每项业务的详细信息。上述方框中没有一个被勾选，这就是我的问题。\n\n问：对于您列出的那三个实体中的每一个，应当勾选哪一个或哪些方框？\n\n答：我无法确定是哪一个。\n\n问：这是您需要更多时间才能弄清的问题，还是您就是不知道答案？\n\n答：我可以逐一回答。\n\n问：好的。那我们就这样做。先从 Genever 开始。\n\n答：哪个 Genever？\n\n问：嗯，所列的是 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）。\n\n问：对于 Genever Holdings Corporation，您会勾选其中哪个方框，如有的话？\n\n答：它曾经——它曾经是 LLC 的成员。上述选项不适用，应转到第 12 项——转到第 12 项。它过去是 LLC。\n\n问：您是说，您会勾选 LLC 成员的方框，但该项应使用过去时吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 1269\n提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 167 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022 124\n\n答：是的。过去是。\n\n问：其他任何方框是否适用于您与 Genever Holdings Corporation 的关系？\n\n答：最后一行对我似乎适用。我不太确定。\n\n问：最后一行是指持有公司至少百分之五有表决权证券或股权证券的所有人吗？\n\n答：我在很短的一段时间内持有百分之五十。\n\n问：好的。那么 Shiny Time（Shiny Time）呢？\n\n答：Shiny Time 已经不存在了。\n\n问：我明白。在其存续期间，其中哪个方框是准确的？\n\n答：第一项。\n\n问：独资经营者？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：其他任何项呢？\n\n答：不确定。\n\n问：好的。那么 Well Origin Limited（Well Origin Limited）呢？\n\n答：它已不存在了。\n\n问：好的。不过还是同一个问题。在其存续期间，哪个方框适用？\n\n答：第一项。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n问：其他任何项呢？\n\n答：不确定。\n\n问：关于这个问题最后一点。对于 Genever Holdings Corporation，填写该业务存续日期的栏位为空白。您知道那些日期应当是什么吗？\n\n答：2015。大概是 3 月、4 月到 6 月、7 月。\n\n问：哪一年？\n\n答：2015。\n\n问：所以是大约从 2015 年的 3 月或 4 月，到大约 7 月？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。那是否是该公司的全部存续期间？\n\n答：我在那家公司待了几个月，在这段期间待了几个月，并持有——持有股份。该公司在我离开后仍然存在。\n\n问：我明白。它现在还存在吗？\n\n答：我相信它仍然存在。\n\n问：好的。您在哪一年结婚？\n\n答：1918——或者 1985。\n\n问：您的儿子在哪一年出生？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n答：1986。\n\n问：先生，您多大年龄？\n\n答：54。\n\n问：当您的家庭开始与 Uda Property Company（Uda地产公司）合作时，您的儿子多大？\n\n答：11。哦，五岁——五岁。\n\n问：那么，您的家庭大约是在 1991 年开始与 Uda 合作的？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Henan Uda Hotel（河南裕达酒店）何时建成？\n\n答：1997 年。\n\n问：那么 Uda International Trade Center（裕达国际贸易中心）呢？何时建成？\n\n答：大致在同一时间。\n\n问：您在本案的声明中称，这两个项目均为成功的项目。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这使您的家庭开始积累大量财富。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因此，考虑到这发生在 90 年代初，这些项目大约为您的家庭带来了多少钱？\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n问：超过 $50 million 吗？\n\n官方口译员：50 还是 15？\n\nHARBACH先生：5-0。\n\n官方口译员：哦，好的。\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n问：那么 Pangu Plaza（盘古广场）呢？何时建成？\n\n答：2008 年 7 月。\n\n问：因此，在 90 年代初至 2008 年期间，郭氏家族还投资或参与了哪些重大项目？\n\n官方口译员：从 1990 年代到——\n\n答：在 90 年代初至 2008 年之间。\n\n问：您记得其中任何项目吗？任何重大项目？\n\n答：Beijing Golden Spring（北京金泉）。\n\n问：那是什么？\n\n答：它是一家地产公司。房地产。它是一家房地产公司。\n\n问：这是一家开发公司，还是——例如一家买卖代理机构？\n\n答：开发公司。\n\n问：盘古广场项目大约何时启动？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n答：大约 1999 年。\n\n问：好的。那么我们以此作为一个时间点。\n\n问：在盘古广场项目开始时，该家庭大约已积累了多少财富？\n\n私人译员：再问一遍那个问题？\n\nHARBACH先生：当然。\n\n问：截至 1999 年，也就是盘古广场项目开始时，该家庭到那时大约赚取或积累了多少财富？\n\n官方口译员：您说的是 1999 年之后？\n\nHARBACH先生：不，我说的是截至 1999 年？\n\n官方口译员：哦，截至 1999 年。\n\n问：截至 1999 年，该家庭赚了多少钱？\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n问：超过 $100 million 吗？\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n问：超过 $500 million 吗？\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n问：超过十亿美元吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n问：您个人参与了与 Uda Property Company 的合作吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您个人参与了 Henan Uda Hotel 的开发吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您个人参与了郑州 Uda International Trade Center 的开发吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您个人参与了 Pengu Plaza（鹏谷广场）的开发吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：谁负责 Beijing Golden Spring Real Estate Development firm（北京金泉房地产开发公司）？\n\n答：一个专业团队。\n\n问：您是该团队的成员吗？\n\n答：当时我是顾问。\n\n问：担任 Beijing Golden Spring 的顾问？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您大约在什么时间段担任他们的顾问？\n\n答：2000 年之后。\n\n问：2000 年之后。好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：Harbach 先生，我只是想指出，现在是 4:18，我知道今天已经很漫长了——首先，我想为打断您表示抱歉。\n\nHARBACH先生：没关系。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：但我想在我们结束之前，给委员会的律师一个机会，让他们今天问几个问题。\n\nHARBACH先生：当然。可以。\n\nSTAFSTROM先生：我会非常简短。\n\nSTAFSTROM先生进行询问：\n\n问：我注意到您的头发很短。我喜欢。您最近理发了吗？\n\n答：是。我理发了。\n\n问：您在哪里理的？\n\n答：我妻子。\n\n问：哦，您妻子。好的。\n\n问：她一直给您理发吗？\n\n答：从病毒发生后直到现在。\n\n问：好的。好吧。那么我没有进一步问题。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：在我们商定一个新日期期间，我将暂停录音。\n\n（休庭记录外。）\n\nCLAIBORN女士：经过短暂休息后，我们恢复记录。我们已确定延期日期为 April 29th，上午 10:00 开始。我们今天结束。谢谢。\n\n（会议休会。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的速记员及经认证电子记录员和速记员，证明上述内容是对上述案件程序的官方电子录音所作的准确文字记录。\n\nApril 15, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT\n\n速记员\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 175 页，共 452 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第 176 页，共 452 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- April 6, 2022 133\n\n索引\n\n页码\n\nClaiborn 女士进行询问 6\n\nWolman 先生进行询问 71\n\nHarbach 先生进行询问 80\n\nStafstrom 先生进行询问 130\n\n证物 10\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人 10\n\n11/17/2022\n\nP.E.\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 178 页，共 452 页\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n关于\n第 11 章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n案号 22-50073(JAM)\n债务人。\n\n2022 年 3 月 21 日电话债权人会议（341 会议）笔录\n由美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）电子录音\n笔录编制人：Christine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），CERT\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与笔录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, CT 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：WILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·R·巴尔迪加，律师）\nBEN SILVERBERG, ESQ.（本·西尔弗伯格，律师）\nURI PINELO, ESQ.（乌里·皮内洛，律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY\n\n代表美国受托人：HOLLEY E. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·E·克莱伯恩，律师）\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n150 State Street\nNew Haven, CT\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）：JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼，律师）\nRandazza Legal Group（兰达扎法律集团）\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金，有限合伙企业）：DAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ.（大卫·V·哈尔巴赫二世，律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP（欧迈律师事务所）\n1625 I Street NW\nWashington, DC\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，律师）\nLAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿隆松，律师）\nCRAIG McALLISTER, ESQ.（克雷格·麦卡利斯特，律师）\nMAKENZIE RUSSO（麦肯齐·鲁索）\nSTEVEN WARREN（史蒂文·沃伦）\nO'Melveny & Myers, LLP（欧迈律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY\n\n代表债权人 Bruno Wu（吴波）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）及 Rui Ma（马睿）：KAREN WARSHAUER（凯伦·沃肖尔）\nMcElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊、多伊奇、马尔瓦尼及卡彭特律师事务所）\nOne State Street\nHartford, CT\n\n代表债权人 Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）、Rong Zhang（张荣）及 Chong Shen Raphanella（钟沈·拉法内拉）：LILLIAN GRINNELL, ESQ.（莉莲·格林内尔，律师）\nWolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz（沃尔夫·哈尔登斯坦·阿德勒·弗里曼及赫茨律师事务所）\n270 Madison Avenue\nNew York, NY\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 180 页，共 452 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人 Samuel Nunberg（塞缪尔·农伯格）：AMY ZAMIR, ESQ.（艾米·扎米尔，律师）\nNesenoff & Miltenberg, LLP（内塞诺夫与米尔滕伯格律师事务所）\n363 Seventh Avenue\nNew York, NY\n\n代表债权人 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内瑟兰）：EMILY KUZNICK, ESQ.（艾米莉·库兹尼克，律师）\nStroock, Stroock and Lavan（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克及拉万律师事务所）\n180 Maiden Lane\nNew York, NY\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 181 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 克莱伯恩女士：\n我将从头再说一遍，因为我想确保所有内容均已记录在案，对此我表示歉意。我基本上要重新开始本次会议，我们会很快进行，然后再回到我刚才正要谈到的地方。今天是 2022 年 3 月 21 日，星期一；我们现就 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），亦称 Wengui Gwo（郭文贵）和 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的第 11 章案件举行第 341 条会议。我的姓名是 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），我是美国受托人办公室的一名诉讼律师，我将主持今天的会议。我正在录音本次会议，同时电话线上有一名口译员，其姓名为 Bin（宾），B-I-N。为使其记录在案，我将第三次询问宾有关其宣誓的情况。\n\n20 （口译员宣誓。）\n\n21 为加快记录过程，今天到场的有代表 Logan Cheng（程龙）的 Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼）。代表 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的有 David Harbach（大卫·哈尔巴赫）、Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）、Mia Gonzalez（米娅·冈萨雷斯）、Laura Aronsson（劳拉·阿隆松）、Craig McAllister（克雷格·麦卡利斯特）及 Mackenzie Russo（麦肯齐·鲁索）。代表债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）、Bruno Wu（吴波）及 Weican Meng（孟伟灿）的有 Karen Warshauer（凯伦·沃肖尔），她是 McElroy（麦克尔罗伊律师事务所）的一名律师助理。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 182 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 Aronsson（阿隆松）、McAllister（麦卡利斯特）及 Russo（鲁索），均代表 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）。代表债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）、Bruno Wu（吴波）及 Weican Meng（孟伟灿）的有 Karen Warshauer（凯伦·沃肖尔），她是 McElroy（麦克尔罗伊律师事务所）的一名律师助理。\n\n5 口译员：\n抱歉，我无法一次记下所有这些姓名。\n\n7 克莱伯恩女士：\n宾，你是否翻译了 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的所有姓名？\n\n9 口译员：\n这些姓名实际上只是发音的重复。没有翻译。\n\n11 克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢。请问哪位没有将电话设为静音？请将其设为静音。谢谢。好的。其他出庭人员是来自 McElroy（麦克尔罗伊律师事务所）的 Karen Warshauer（凯伦·沃肖尔），她代表 Bruno Wu（吴波）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）及 Rui Ma（马睿）。在我回到债务人之前，电话线上是否有其他由律师代理并希望将其出庭情况记入记录的债权人？\n\n20 格林内尔女士：\n您好——\n\n21 克莱伯恩女士：\n请等待翻译。\n\n23 格林内尔女士：\n（听不清）我来自 Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz（沃尔夫·哈尔登斯坦·阿德勒·弗里曼及赫茨律师事务所），我们代表——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 口译员：\n抱歉。口译员无法清楚听到您。\n\n3 格林内尔女士：\n抱歉。我的连接一直有些不稳定。现在您能听到我吗？\n\n5 口译员：\n能。\n\n6 格林内尔女士：\n好的。我重复一下我刚才所说的话。我的姓名是 Lillian Grinnell（莉莲·格林内尔）。我是 Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz（沃尔夫·哈尔登斯坦·阿德勒·弗里曼及赫茨律师事务所）的一名律师，我们代表债权人 Rong Zhang（张荣）、Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）及 Chong Sheen Raphanella（钟沈·拉法内拉）。\n\n12 口译员：\n您所读出的姓名我没有听清。\n\n14 格林内尔女士：\n我来拼写。我先从债权人的姓名开始。债权人的姓名是 Rong Zhang（张荣），即——名字是 Rong，R-O-N-G，姓氏是 Z-H-A-N-G。第二名债权人的姓名是 Xiaodan Wang（王晓丹）。她的名字拼写为 X-I-A-O-D-A-N。她的姓氏拼写为 W-A-N-G。然后第三名债权人为 Chong Shen Raphanella（钟沈·拉法内拉）。她的名字是 C-H-O-N-G。第二个名字是 S-H-E-N。第三个名字是 R-A-P-H-A-N-E-L-L-A。\n\n25 口译员：\n我只听到了 Chong Shen（钟沈）和 R-A-P-H-A-L。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 以及 R-A-P-H-A-L。\n\n2 格林内尔女士：\n抱歉。您是要求我再次拼写第三个名字吗？\n\n4 （无人回应。）\n\n5 抱歉？我表示歉意。我的连接很差。您是否需要我再次拼写任何姓名？\n\n8 口译员：\n我想我可以了。我已经向 Kwok 先生重复过了。\n\n10 格林内尔女士：\n好的。\n\n11 克莱伯恩女士：\n电话线上是否还有其他债权人或当事人？\n\n13 扎米尔女士：\n我是来自 Nessenoff & Miltenberg（内塞诺夫与米尔滕伯格律师事务所）的 Amy Zamir（艾米·扎米尔）。我来拼写。我姓 Zamir，Z-A-M-I-R。Nessenoff 的拼写为 N-E-S-S-E-N-O-F-F，Miltenberg 的拼写为 M-I-L-T-E-N-B-E-R-G。我们代表债权人 Sam Nunberg（萨姆·农伯格），N-U-N-B-E-R-G。\n\n18 克莱伯恩女士：\n是否还有其他人希望将其出庭情况记入记录？\n\n20 库兹尼克女士：\n是。我是 Emily Kuznick（艾米莉·库兹尼克），E-M-I-L-Y，然后是 Kuznick，K-U-Z-N-I-C-K，来自 Stroock, Stroock and Lavan（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克及拉万律师事务所），即 S-T-R-O-O-C-K、Stroock 和 Lavan，L-A-V-A-N。我们代表 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·内瑟兰）。Sherry Netherland 的拼写为 S-H-E-R-R-Y，然后是 Netherland，N-\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 E-T-H-E-R-L-A-N-D。\n\n2 口译员：\n我正在澄清他说的话。\n\n4 （口译。）\n\n5 口译员：\n让我继续澄清刚才喊出的内容。\n\n7 （口译。）\n\n8 口译员：\n很抱歉。口译员无法听清。没有人回应我的问题，所以我不知道。\n\n11 克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢你，宾。在我回到债务人之前，是否还有其他债权人或利害关系方？\n\n14 哈尔巴赫先生：\n我是来自 O'Melveny and Myers（欧迈律师事务所）、代表 PACS 的 David Harbach（大卫·哈尔巴赫）。我只是想澄清，是否正确理解为：我们尚未从债务人处得到关于他刚才所说内容的答复？我没有听到对此的任何口译，我理解口译员正尝试澄清所说内容，但据我所听到的，债务人并未回应，我们想知道他所说的内容。\n\n24 巴尔迪加先生：\n我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。我接受你们的歉意。那不是债务人，但我接受你们就该推断所作的道歉。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269\n提交日期 12/28/22\n录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 我接受你就该推断所作的道歉。\n\n2 克莱伯恩女士：\n我稍后一分钟再回到这个问题。\n\n4 哈尔巴赫先生：\n好的。（听不清）我是否应当道歉，但我们能否询问究竟是谁发出了那一声？口译员正在尝试澄清，我们也是如此。请原谅这一推断。\n\n9 口译员：\n因此，我翻译了你所要求的内容。刚才有人突然说了几句话——几个句子。口译员没有听清那些句子。因此，口译员试图澄清是谁说话以及说了什么，但没有人回应口译员的问题。\n\n15 克莱伯恩女士：\n我是 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。刚才发言的人能否请回答口译员的问题并表明身份？\n\n18 口译员：\n抱歉。刚才只是一个录像带。并不是有人说话。\n\n21 巴尔迪加先生：\n我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。Kwok 先生——Kwok 先生在那次突然声响中听到的是有人播放其声音的音频，我们确实希望知道电话线上所有人的身份，并希望确认是谁播放了该音频片段。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 187 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 谢谢。\n\n2 身份不明者：\n抱歉，是我。我刚才播放了 Kwok 先生的视频。\n\n4 克莱伯恩女士：\n刚才发言的人能否表明身份？\n\n6 口译员：\n口译员需要澄清。\n\n8 （口译员询问。）\n\n9 严先生：\n我的姓名是 Xingyu Yan（严兴宇）。我是 Kwok 先生的一名债权人。\n\n11 巴尔迪加先生：\n请问能否提供拼写？请问能否得到该姓名的拼写？\n\n14 严先生：\n拼写是 X，Xray 的 X；I，India 的 I；N，Nancy 的 N；G，George 的 G；Y，Yes 的 Y；U，umbrella 的 U。姓氏为 Y，apple 的 A，Nancy 的 N。\n\n18 巴尔迪加先生：\nClaiborn 女士，我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加），再次发言。能否请您逐一确认电话线上其他所有人的姓名，以便我们知道谁在参加，不论他们是否打算提问？\n\n23 克莱伯恩女士：\n我正试图做到这一点。那是我的——好的。电话线上还有其他人吗？如果您在线上，能否请您表明身份？\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 189 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 电话线上还有其他人吗？如果您在线上，能否请您表明身份？\n\n2 格雷夫先生：\n您好。我的姓名是 Steven Greif（史蒂文·格雷夫），G-R-E-I-F。\n\n4 沃伦先生：\n我是 O'Melveny & Myers（欧迈律师事务所）的 Steven Warren（史蒂文·沃伦）。\n\n6 贾尔伯特先生：\n我是 Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特），来自（听不清）。\n\n8 听不清者：\n（听不清），来自 Robinson and Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）。\n\n10 听不清者：\n（听不清），来自 Stroock, Stroock and Lavan（斯特鲁克、斯特鲁克及拉万律师事务所）。\n\n12 迪林女士：\n我是 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的 Alexandra Deering（亚历山德拉·迪林）。\n\n14 克莱伯恩女士：\n我是 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），再次发言。感谢各位将你们的出庭情况记入记录。如果我可以回到债务人一方，Baldiga 先生，您能否将您的出庭情况记入记录，并说明在您所在地点与您在一起的所有人员？\n\n20 巴尔迪加先生：\n是。我们在我们的——抱歉。我没有听到刚才所说的话。\n\n22 克莱伯恩女士：\nBaldiga 先生，您能否继续？Baldiga 先生，您能否继续？\n\n25 巴尔迪加先生：\n是。谢谢。我们位于纽约 7 Times Square 的办公室。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 189 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022 年 3 月 21 日\n\n1 我们位于纽约 7 Times Square 的办公室。\n\n2 请问您能否说明，Baldiga 先生，与您在场的人员姓名？\n\n4 （无人回应。）\n\n5 克莱伯恩女士：\nBaldiga 先生，您能否说明与您在一起的人员姓名？\n\n7 巴尔迪加先生：\nBen Silverberg（本·西尔弗伯格）和 Uri Pinelo（乌里·皮内洛）。\n\n8 克莱伯恩女士：\n好的。我相信我先前听到的其他姓名包括 Una Menye（乌娜·门耶）（音），她是一名口译员，以及律师 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）。\n\n11 巴尔迪加先生：\n对。是的。\n\n12 克莱伯恩女士：\n好的。我将让 Kwok 先生宣誓，并请各位将电话设为静音。\n\n15 （债务人宣誓。）\n\n16 克莱伯恩女士：\nKwok 先生，如您所知，今天的会议正在录音，并且有一名口译员 Bin（宾），她正在口译我的问题和其他人的发言，也将口译您的答复。请您在今天回答任何向您提出的问题之前，等待官方口译员完成完整翻译。我要求您在您身边的私人口译员在场期间，不要与其沟通，直至您——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，提交日期 12/28/22，录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 190 页，共\n\n回答问题；如您这样做，我将请官方口译员翻译该讨论。口译员：抱歉。您能否请\n\n再说一遍？克莱伯恩女士：郭先生，我要求您在回答我的问题或他人的问题之前，不要与今天陪同您的您自己的口译员交流。\n\n口译员：他不能使用他自己的口译员。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：Bin（彬），您能否为我向郭先生翻译该指示。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。\n\n在……范围内——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：巴尔迪加先生，您能否先等 Bin 为我翻译完该指示，然后您再发表意见。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：两件事。我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。\n\nHolley（霍利），您的声音又变得相当含混；第二，如果郭先生需要与其口译员交谈，以更好理解所说内容，或者与我们同处一室的口译员认为存在误译，我们将 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 191 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n1 告知您，以便您知道是否存在进一步的交谈。\n2 \n3 克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢。\n4 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），经宣誓\n5 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n6 问 郭先生，您能否说明\n7 提出 Chapter 11 破产案件的原因？\n8 身份不明者：\n抱歉？\n9 问 郭先生，请说明您作出提出 Chapter 11 破产\n10 案件决定背后的原因？\n11 \n12 哈巴赫先生：我是 David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）。我们\n13 又难以听清您说的话。\n14 克莱伯恩女士：我很抱歉。我的电话系统\n15 是新的，我正对着电话喊话，但除非我\n16 把它打开免提，否则我无法录音\n17 。喊话能否改善您听清我的能力？\n18 哈巴赫先生：您的问题非常难以\n19 听清，因为声音太\n20 含混。问题不是音量，而是发音，恕我\n21 直言。\n22 克莱伯恩女士：我会尽量说慢一些。\n23 这样有没有好一些？\n24 巴尔迪加先生：似乎好一些，是的。谢谢\n25 您。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n2 问 好的。我们再试一次。\n3 郭先生，您能否说明您\n4 提出 Chapter 11 破产\n5 案件决定背后的原因？\n6 答 我听不懂您。我不知道\n7 您所说提出 Chapter 11 破产是什么意思。\n8 问 郭先生，您为什么提出破产\n9 案件？\n10 口译员：口译员想要\n11 澄清他所说的词。\n12 答 我没有提出任何破产证明。\n13 问 让我再试一次。\n14 郭先生，您是在美国这里的破产程序中的一名 Chapter 11 债务人。\n15 \n16 郭先生，您作出\n17 提出破产案件决定背后的原因是什么？\n18 答 所以您是在问我为什么申请\n19 破产，对吗？\n20 问 是。\n21 答 我在二月中旬的第二次审理中提出了（听不清），或者在\n22 南区的第二次出庭时。\n23 我被处以 \\$120 million 的罚款，并且\n24 被命令在五天内付清。因此，\n25 别无选择——所以我提出了破产\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 193 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n1 申请，在 Connecticut state（康涅狄格州）和 Chapter 11。\n2 问 郭先生，您第一次\n3 就提出破产案件与律师交谈是在何时？\n4 巴尔迪加先生：只问日期，或者\n5 大致日期。不问法律意见的实质内容。\n6 答 大约 12 日、13 日。\n7 问 您能否提供月份和\n8 年份？\n9 答 是 2002 年 2 月 12 日。\n10 问 您说的是 2002 年还是 2021 年？\n11 答 2022 年。2 月 12 日或 13 日。\n12 问 郭先生，我请您查看您向\n13 破产法院提交的破产申请书，载于\n14 ECF 1。\n15 郭先生，该申请书上有一处手写签名。\n16 那是您的手写签名吗？\n17 答 请稍等一下。我会请律师拿来，\n18 我看一看。\n19 巴尔迪加先生：我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。我们\n20 持有已提交的带电子签名的申请书。\n21 我在会议室里没有\n22 该手写签名。如果您希望我们拿来，\n23 我们可以在休息时拿来。\n24 问 郭先生，您能否查看\n25 您的律师持有的文件，即\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 194 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n1 上面印有您姓名的破产申请书，并\n2 确认您在该文件\n3 向法院提交之前已签署该文件？\n4 答 请稍等一下。让我看一看。\n5 \n6 巴尔迪加先生：请让我听到翻译。\n7 我想听您所说内容的翻译。\n8 \n9 （无人回应。）\n10 巴尔迪加先生：译员仍然与我们\n11 在一起吗？\n12 克莱伯恩女士：Bin，您在线吗？\n13 （无人回应。）\n14 Bin，您在吗？\n15 （无人回应。）\n16 看来 Bin 已离开我们，所以我将\n17 让所有人暂候，并尝试\n18 重新接通她。很抱歉。\n19 巴尔迪加先生：没关系。我们能否\n20 短暂休息？\n21 克莱伯恩女士：我需要几分钟\n22 来做这件事，所以请开始休息；我一接通她，\n23 我们就恢复进行。\n24 巴尔迪加先生：非常感谢。\n25 （不作记录。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 克莱伯恩女士：因一些技术\n2 问题短暂休息后，我们现在恢复记录。\n3 \n4 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n5 问 待答的问题是要求郭先生\n6 确认他签署了\n7 载于 ECF 1 的破产申请书。\n8 答 我已经看完了，是的。\n9 问 郭先生，您在签署破产申请书之前，是否阅读并理解\n10 该破产申请书及其中所载\n11 信息？\n12 答 是，我理解。\n13 问 郭先生，在您签署申请书之前，是否有人为您\n14 将申请书翻译成另一种语言？\n15 答 是，为我翻译成了中文。\n16 问 是谁翻译了该破产申请书？\n17 答 我的律师翻译的。\n18 问 郭先生，我认为巴尔迪加先生\n19 不会说中文。\n20 那么，您请哪家公司或哪位人士\n21 为您翻译申请书？\n22 答 我不知道。\n23 问 郭先生，据您所知，\n24 您的破产申请书中的信息是否真实、\n25 准确？\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 196 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n答 是，准确且真实。问 郭先生，您能否查看向法院案卷提交的、载于 ECF No. 79 的关于个人债务人清单的声明。口译员：抱歉，您能否再说一遍？问 郭先生，您能否查看向破产法院提交的、载于 ECF 79 的关于个人债务人清单的声明。郭先生，该声明上有一处手写签名。那是您的手写签名吗？答 我手中的文件。是的，是我签署的。问 您正在查看 ECF no. 79 吗？答 是。问 郭先生，在您签署之前，载于 ECF 79 的声明是否为您翻译成另一种语言？答 是。问 翻译成了哪种语言？答 中文。问 郭先生，您知道是谁翻译了 ECF no. 79 吗？答 是。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 问 那位为您将 ECF\n2 79 翻译成中文的人是谁？\n3 答 律师。\n4 问 您能告诉我该律师的姓名吗？\n5 答 Bill。\n6 巴尔迪加先生：我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。该\n7 证人并未区分\n8 我亲自所做的工作和我们委托所做的工作，\n9 为便于澄清。我显然不亲自做翻译。\n10 克莱伯恩女士：巴尔迪加律师，您能否\n11 告诉我为您工作的翻译人员的姓名，\n12 或者公司的名称？\n13 巴尔迪加先生：我得去查。我这里\n14 没有。\n15 问 郭先生，您在签署\n16 载于 ECF no. 79 的声明之前，是否阅读并理解\n17 该声明？\n18 答 是，理解。\n19 问 郭先生，您能否查看\n20 向破产法院提交的、载于 ECF 78 的\n21 您的破产清单？\n22 并且郭先生，就今天而言，当我\n23 使用“清单”一词时，无论是统称\n24 还是特定清单，我指的都是\n25 载于 ECF 78 的文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 郭先生，是否有人为您翻译了您的破产清单\n2 ？\n3 答 是，翻译了。\n4 问 郭先生，您是否参与准备\n5 对清单中问题的回应和\n6 答案？\n7 答 是，我参与了。\n8 问 郭先生，您在签署\n9 载于 ECF 79 的声明之前，是否阅读并理解清单中\n10 对全部问题的回应和\n11 答案？\n12 答 是。\n13 问 郭先生，谁协助您\n14 准备您的破产清单？\n15 答 律师。\n16 问 郭先生，您能告诉我哪些律师\n17 帮助过您吗？\n18 答 Bill。\n19 问 郭先生，您指的是\n20 巴尔迪加律师吗？\n21 答 是。\n22 问 郭先生，是否有其他律师协助您\n23 准备您的破产清单？\n24 答 是。\n25 问 您能否告诉我这些\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 协助您的其他律师的姓名？\n2 答 我不知道怎么说他们的名字。我\n3 英文读得不好。\n4 巴尔迪加先生：我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。我很\n5 乐意补充，当然，我们 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）\n6 律师事务所的其他同事也提供了协助。但是我\n7 不确定郭先生是否会知道\n8 究竟是谁协助了其中哪一部分的细节，\n9 但您当然可以询问。\n10 问 郭先生，是否有并非 Brown Rudnick 律师事务所律师的任何律师\n11 协助您准备清单？\n12 巴尔迪加先生：不好意思。我需要和\n13 郭先生谈一秒钟。我将让您\n14 静音一秒钟。\n15 克莱伯恩女士：我希望他在您\n16 与其讨论之前先回答问题，巴尔迪加先生。\n17 \n18 答 因为整个破产申请，\n19 整个事情都是由这位律师安排的。但我\n20 不知道其他所有细节。\n21 克莱伯恩女士：您想与\n22 您的当事人商议吗？\n23 巴尔迪加先生：我仅澄清，郭\n24 先生可能不知道我们与其他人进行的所有\n25 交谈，但这\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 200 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n1 是询问他的机会，所以您显然\n2 可以这样问，但我们不希望造成误导。\n3 问 郭先生，除巴尔迪加先生及 Brown Rudnick 律师事务所的\n4 律师之外，您是否就准备您的破产清单\n5 与任何其他律师交谈？\n6 答 是。\n7 问 您与谁交谈？\n8 答 另一家叫 Ari 的律师事务所和我的个人\n9 律师（听不清）。\n10 问 您的个人律师叫什么名字？\n11 巴尔迪加先生：我能否与他商议，并且我也许\n12 能够回答该问题？\n13 克莱伯恩女士：请进行。\n14 巴尔迪加先生：我能否请几秒钟\n15 商议？\n16 克莱伯恩女士：可以。\n17 （暂停。）\n18 巴尔迪加先生：谢谢。\n19 问 郭先生，您的个人\n20 律师叫什么名字？\n21 答 Guy Petrillo（盖伊·彼得里洛）和\nAri（听不清）。\n22 问 郭先生，我的理解是否正确：您\n23 曾与 Guy Petrillo 和 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）讨论\n24 您的破产清单？\n25 答 是。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 201 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 问 郭先生，您是否讨论过您的破产\n\n2 问 是否还有任何与其他律师一起编制的清单，而您今天尚未告诉我？\n\n3 \n\n4 答 我不记得了。\n\n5 问 郭先生，您的破产清单中是否有任何错误或遗漏？\n\n6 \n\n7 答 我现在没有看到任何此类情况。\n\n8 问 郭先生，据您所知，您的破产清单中的一切是否真实、准确？\n\n9 \n\n10 \n\n11 答 是。\n\n12 问 郭先生，请您看一下提交给法院、ECF no. 77 的您的破产财务状况说明书。\n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 郭先生，请根据文件顶部的页码，翻到第 20 页，您将在那里看到一份手写签名。\n\n16 \n\n17 \n\n18 口译员：抱歉？\n\n19 问 您将在那里看到一份手写签名。\n\n20 郭先生，财务状况说明书第 20 页上的手写签名是否是您本人的签名？\n\n21 \n\n22 \n\n23 答 是。\n\n24 问 郭先生，您在签署该财务状况说明书之前，是否有人为您翻译过该说明书？\n\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2022年3月21日\n\n1 答 是。\n\n2 问 郭先生，您是否参与准备该财务状况说明书中问题的回应和答案？\n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 答 是。\n\n6 问 郭先生，您在签署该财务状况说明书之前，是否阅读并理解了其中对所有问题的回应和答案？\n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 答 我都理解。\n\n10 问 郭先生，您的财务状况说明书中是否有任何错误或遗漏？\n\n11 \n\n12 答 没有。\n\n13 （未作答。）\n\n14 问 郭先生，请您回答这个问题好吗？\n\n15 \n\n16 BALDIGA先生（比尔·巴尔迪加）：抱歉。您能重复一下吗？\n\n17 由于某种原因，我们在房间里没有听到口译。\n\n18 \n\n19 CLAIBORN女士：我再问一遍。\n\n20 问 您的财务状况说明书中是否有任何错误或遗漏？\n\n21 \n\n22 答 截至目前，我还没有发现任何错误或遗漏。\n\n23 \n\n24 问 郭先生，据您所知，您的财务状况说明书中的一切是否真实、准确？\n\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269 提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n第 203 页，共 452 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日 26\n\n1 答 是。\n\n2 问 郭先生，谁协助您准备财务状况说明书？\n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 答 我的律师 Bill 和我的财务顾问 Matt。\n\n6 \n\n7 问 郭先生，您指的是 Baldiga律师吗？\n\n8 \n\n9 答 是。\n\n10 问 财务顾问的姓名——全名——是什么？\n\n11 \n\n12 答 我不知道怎么拼写。\n\n13 BALDIGA先生：是 Matt Flynn（马特·弗林）及 Verdolino and Lowey（Verdolino 和 Lowey）的同事。不过您可以——\n\n14 \n\n15 问 郭先生，这正确吗？\n\n16 答 我怕自己说错，但我会请我的律师 Baldiga先生为您澄清。\n\n17 \n\n18 问 我们可以继续。\n\n19 BALDIGA先生：我是 Bill Baldiga。\n\n20 郭先生只是不了解 Matt Flynn 或 Matt 在 Verdolino and Lowey 的同事的全名；但我确认，他在回答问题时指向坐在他身旁的 Matt Flynn。\n\n21 \n\n22 \n\n23 \n\n24 CLAIBORN女士：谢谢。\n\n25 问 郭先生，还有其他人协助您准备财务状况说明书吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 \n\n2 答 没有。\n\n3 问 郭先生，您在美国居住多久了？\n\n4 \n\n5 答 将近七年。\n\n6 HARBACH先生（David Harbach）：我是 David Harbach。我没有听到该回答的翻译。\n\n7 \n\n8 CLAIBORN女士：Bin，您能重复一下您的翻译吗？\n\n9 \n\n10 口译员：将近 7 年。\n\n11 问 郭先生，您现在仍住在格林尼治的 Taconic Road 房产吗？\n\n12 \n\n13 答 是。\n\n14 问 谁拥有格林尼治的该房产？\n\n15 答 我的妻子。\n\n16 问 您的破产文件提到一家名为 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）的公司。谁拥有该公司？\n\n17 \n\n18 答 我的妻子。\n\n19 问 您妻子的姓名是什么？\n\n20 答 （听不清。）\n\n21 CLAIBORN女士：Bin，您能否为我将其翻译成拼写？\n\n22 \n\n23 口译员：让我先向他确认是哪些汉字，然后我可以为您拼写出来。\n\n24 \n\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 答 我妻子的名字读作（听不清），但她来自——她来自香港。她的拼写与中国大陆不同，我不知道如何拼写她的名字。\n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 问 郭先生，您能否只拼写她的姓氏？\n\n6 \n\n7 答 我不知道如何拼写。\n\n8 问 除您妻子外，还有其他人持有 Greenwich Land LLC 的成员权益吗？\n\n9 \n\n10 答 我不知道。\n\n11 问 Greenwich Land LLC 是何时作为一家公司成立的？\n\n12 \n\n13 答 2020。\n\n14 问 郭先生，您是否曾是 Greenwich Land, LLC 的成员？\n\n15 \n\n16 答 没有。\n\n17 问 Greenwich Land, LLC 为购买格林尼治 Taconic Road 的房产支付了多少钱？\n\n18 \n\n19 答 我不清楚具体数额，但大约是 5 million。\n\n20 \n\n21 问 该项购买是如何获得资金的？\n\n22 答 我不知道。\n\n23 问 郭先生，谁会知道答案？\n\n24 口译员：抱歉？\n\n25 问 郭先生，谁会知道该问题的答案？\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 答 我的妻子知道。\n\n2 HARBACH先生：我是 David Harbach，对打断表示抱歉。\n\n3 \n\n4 我们没有听到郭先生所说的该类房产大约会花多少钱这一数额的翻译。能否重复一下？\n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 口译员：抱歉，口译员无法清楚听到您说话。\n\n8 \n\n9 CLAIBORN女士：Harbach先生，我会再问一遍您的问题。\n\n10 \n\n11 HARBACH先生：谢谢。\n\n12 问 格林尼治 Taconic Road 房产的购买价格是多少？\n\n13 \n\n14 答 我不太清楚，但大约是 4 million 到 5 million。\n\n15 \n\n16 问 Greenwich Land LLC 何时购买格林尼治 Taconic Road 的该房产？\n\n17 \n\n18 答 我不知道具体时间。\n\n19 问 您知道是哪一年吗？\n\n20 答 2019 或 2020。我记不清了。\n\n21 （听不清的背景交谈声。）\n\n22 CLAIBORN女士：正在说话的人能否表明身份？\n\n23 \n\n24 BALDIGA先生：请稍等一下。\n\n25 我们可能存在翻译问题。我将暂时把您静音一下。\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 207 页，共 452 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 \n\n2 （暂停。）\n\n3 BALDIGA先生：我是 Bill Baldiga。我们认为郭先生对日期的回答是 2019 或 2020，但译员可能只说了 2020，未提及 2019。我显然不知道。不过，如果这很重要，您可以重新提问，以确保对此有明确答案？\n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 问 郭先生，Greenwich Land LLC 何时购买格林尼治 Taconic Road 房产？\n\n10 \n\n11 答 可能是 2020，也可能是 2019。我记不清了。\n\n12 我不知道。\n\n13 问 郭先生，您是否签署过任何与购买格林尼治 Taconic Road 房产有关的文件？\n\n14 \n\n15 \n\n16 答 没有。\n\n17 问 郭先生，谁住在格林尼治 Taconic Road 房产？\n\n18 \n\n19 口译员：抱歉？谁——\n\n20 问 谁住在格林尼治 Taconic Road 房产？\n\n21 \n\n22 答 我和我的妻子。有时住在纽约的女儿会回来。\n\n23 \n\n24 问 郭先生，您目前受雇于任何人吗？\n\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 口译员：您是什么？\n\n2 问 您目前受雇于任何人或任何公司吗？\n\n3 \n\n4 答 没有。\n\n5 问 郭先生，自您开始在美国居住以来，您是否曾受雇或为某一雇主工作？\n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 答 我记不太清楚。我记不太清楚，但大约在 2015 年，我曾在 Golden Spring（金泉）工作过一段时间。领取部分工资或薪酬后，我就离开了，之后没有其他工作。\n\n9 \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n12 问 您在 2015 年为 Golden Spring 做什么工作？\n\n13 \n\n14 答 我不太记得清楚，但好像是（听不清）。我负责开发（听不清）的投资者。但我记不清楚。\n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n17 \n\n18 问 郭先生，您何时停止为 Golden Spring 工作？\n\n19 \n\n20 BALDIGA先生：抱歉，请稍等一下。我只是想确保我们——抱歉，请稍等一下。我只是想确保我们没有（听不清）翻译。我们可能——\n\n21 \n\n22 \n\n23 \n\n24 （暂停。）\n\n25 BALDIGA先生：我们的口译员认为，\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 209 页，共 452 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 该回答是，如果他在 Golden Spring 任职，其职责是开发投资机会，而不是开发投资者。\n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 问 郭先生，您何时停止为 Golden Spring 工作？\n\n5 \n\n6 答 我记不太清楚。\n\n7 问 郭先生，您所说的 Golden Spring，是指名为 Golden Spring, New York, Limited（纽约金泉有限公司）的公司吗？\n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n10 答 是。\n\n11 问 郭先生，您是否因您为 Golden Spring 所做的任何工作获得报酬？\n\n12 \n\n13 答 是。\n\n14 问 您获得了多少报酬？\n\n15 答 大约 200,000。我不记得具体数额。\n\n16 \n\n17 问 郭先生，您是否因在 Golden Spring 的工作而收到薪水支票？\n\n18 \n\n19 答 我应该收到过，但我不太记得具体情况。\n\n20 \n\n21 问 郭先生，您是否将 Golden Spring 支付给您的钱存入银行账户？\n\n22 \n\n23 答 我应该将其存入 Morgan Stanley（摩根士丹利）的信用卡账户。\n\n24 \n\n25 问 郭先生，您的意思是您在 Morgan Stanley 有一个银行账户吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交 12/28/22\n录入 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 答 是，我曾经有过。\n\n2 \n\n3 问 您现在仍在 Morgan Stanley 有银行账户吗？\n\n4 \n\n5 答 没有。\n\n6 问 您何时关闭您在 Morgan Stanley 的账户？\n\n7 \n\n8 答 大约在 April, 2017，当时（听不清）中国共产党开始追捕我，并且（听不清）我。因此，我所有的银行账户都被关闭了。\n\n9 \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n12 BALDIGA先生：等等。那里存在误译。\n\n13 \n\n14 （暂停。）\n\n15 BALDIGA先生：先前的错误陈述或误译只是对一个词的翻译。但这里，该回答的全部核心内容被遗漏了。我不确定发生了什么。\n\n16 \n\n17 \n\n18 \n\n19 CLAIBORN女士：也许我可以换一个问题。我们可以再试一次。\n\n20 \n\n21 BALDIGA先生：不，我认为——不，我认为——这个回答——我担心翻译的准确性，因为回答中特别提到了一些名字，而这些名字根本没有在译文中出现。\n\n22 \n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 我猜，Bin，您是否没有听到对 PACS 和 Bruno Wu（吴布鲁诺）的提及，还是存在声音问题，或者发生了什么？\n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 211 页，共 452 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok——2022年3月21日\n\n1 \n\n2 \n\n3 （口译员翻译。）\n\n4 CLAIBORN女士：郭先生，您是否——\n\n5 郭先生：所以 Bruno Wu、（听不清）航空公司以及中国共产党，他们都在追捕我，并想杀死我。所以我（听不清）——我所有的银行账户都被关闭了。\n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n10 PAC，PACS。（听不清）所有人都出席了今天的会议。\n\n11 \n\n12 BALDIGA先生：我们能否将郭先生所说的全部内容记入记录。这显然只是他所说内容的一小部分。我不知道他说了什么，但这短得多。\n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n\n16 （口译员翻译。）\n\n17 口译员：口译员正在请他（听不清）这两个名字，以便我能保持其意思的完整性。\n\n18 \n\n19 \n\n20 郭先生：在今天的会议上，有 PAC，即主要债权人之一。还有（听不清）。还有（听不清）成员。\n\n21 \n\n22 \n\n23 所有必须支付的款项都进入了以 Bruno Wu 名义开立的共产党账户。因此，自从那一天起，当所有的——所有的\n\n24 \n\n25 \n\nCase 22-50073 文件 1269 提交 12/28/22 录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 212 页，共 452 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 中国共产党的代表——所以，当追捕和杀戮开始时，我失去了所有银行账户。\n4 HARBACH先生（大卫·哈巴赫）：\n我是 David Harbach。\nBin（斌），\n5 你能否重复一遍？\n6 口译员：\n抱歉？\n7 HARBACH先生：\n我是 David Harbach。你\n8 刚才翻译的回答是以“自那天起”开头的。\n9 你能否用英语重复该回答？\n10 口译员：\n自那天起，所有那些\n11 中国共产党的代表，自那天起，我失去了所有银行账户。\n13 CLAIBORN女士（霍莉·克莱伯恩）询问：\n14 问 Kwok先生，您关闭 Morgan Stanley（摩根士丹利）账户时，\n15 该账户中有钱吗？\n16 答 有。\n17 问 您把那笔钱转到哪里去了？\n18 答 自从账户关闭后，就再也没有人理会我了。\n20 问 Kwok先生，我的问题是，您把\n21 钱转到哪里去了？\n22 BALDIGA先生（比尔·鲍尔迪加）：\n我是 Bill Baldiga——我\n23 很抱歉。我是 Bill Baldiga。\n24 您能否问问，您是否可能是在推断或\n25 暗示是他转走了钱，而不是发生了其他什么事？\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 213 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 您能否以更中性的\n2 方式提问？那样您或许能得到更完整的回答。\n3 问 Kwok先生，是您或代表您行事的人\n4 关闭了 Morgan Stanley 账户吗？\n5 答 共产党、Bruno Wu（吴征），还有\n6 （听不清）。该账户是由共产党\n7 关闭的。\n8 问 Kwok先生，Morgan Stanley 账户是否在\n9 美国？\n10 答 是。\n11 问 Kwok先生，除您本人\n12 或代表您行事的人之外，其他人如何能够关闭\n13 以您名义开立的银行账户？\n14 口译员：\n他要我重复\n15 问题，即对该问题的口译。\n16 （口译员再次翻译。）\n17 答 这是共产党的核心控制，就像今天正在发生的事情一样。同一回事。\n19 （听不清）发生在我身上。\n20 BALDIGA先生：\nClaiborn女士，我能否建议\n21 您问一下是否是 Morgan Stanley 关闭了\n22 该账户，这样我们在这里能更有效率？\n23 问 Kwok先生，是您关闭了\n24 Morgan Stanley 的账户吗？\n25 口译员：\n抱歉？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 问 Kwok先生，是您关闭了\n2 Morgan Stanley 的账户吗？\n3 口译员：\n很抱歉，我实际上仍然没有\n4 完全听清这个问题。\n5 问 Kwok先生，是您本人关闭了\n6 Morgan Stanley 的账户吗？\n7 答 不是。\n8 问 Kwok先生，您是否要求 Morgan\n9 Stanley 的某人关闭您的账户？\n10 答 没有。\n11 问 Kwok先生，您是如何得知您在 Morgan Stanley 的\n12 银行账户已被关闭的？\n13 答 Morgan Stanley 通知我，我在\n14 中国政府的通缉名单上。因此，\n15 Bruno Wu 代表（听不清）在\n16 通缉名单上的姓名，所以账户被关闭了。\n17 问 Kwok先生，Morgan Stanley 关闭该\n18 账户时，账户里的钱怎么样了？\n19 HARBACH先生：\nClaiborn女士，我是 David\n20 Harbach。很抱歉，我错过了该\n21 问题的后半部分。Morgan Stanley 关闭账户时，\n22 然后我就听不到您了。\n23 问 我重复一下我的问题。\n24 Kwok先生，Morgan Stanley 关闭该\n25 银行账户时，银行里的钱怎么样了\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 ？\n2 答 我最后所知的是，一名说中文的\n3 人士打电话给我，告诉我我的账户\n4 被关闭，是因为我在\n5 中国政府的通缉名单上。至于后来发生了什么，\n6 我确实不知道。\n7 问 Kwok先生，账户里有多少钱——\n8 BALDIGA先生：\n我是 Bill Baldiga——\n9 CLAIBORN女士：\n是，Baldiga先生？\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n我是 Bill Baldiga。我认为\n11 如果我们很快休息一下会有帮助——我不想打断\n12 您的提问节奏，\n13 但如果您想完成这一部分，当然\n14 可以。\n15 我还想说——Morgan 这个名称\n16 可能存在一些混淆，因此您可能想问证人，\n17 究竟是 Morgan Stanley，还是 JP\n18 Morgan Chase（摩根大通）。\n19 KWOK先生：\n现在我想起来了。我认为是 JP\n20 Morgan Chase。我只是无法区分。我会\n21 混淆 Morgan Stanley 和 JP Morgan Chase。\n22 问 Kwok先生，无论您如何称呼它，\n23 无论是 JP Morgan\n24 Chase 还是 Morgan Stanley，那里是否只有一个账户？\n25 答 我记得我只有这一个\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 216 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 账户。\n2 问 该账户关闭时，大约有\n3 多少钱？\n4 答 几千美元。\n5 HARBACH先生：\n我没听到。请重复\n6 英语内容，可以吗？\n7 CLAIBORN女士：\nBin，您能否重复\n8 该回答？\n9 （无回应。）\n10 CLAIBORN女士：\nBin，您能否重复\n11 该回答？\n12 HARBACH先生：\n我是 David Harbach。我\n13 错过了“千”这个词之前的翻译。我\n14 没有听到数字。您能否重复\n15 一下？\n16 口译员：\n他说是几千\n17 美元。\n18 问 Kwok先生，您说几千\n19 美元时，能否让我了解您是什么意思？\n20 是否低于 $10,000？\n21 答 我不记得。\n22 问 Kwok先生，几分钟前您作证称，\n23 您为 Golden Spring（金泉）开发\n24 投资机会。您能否进一步说明？\n25 口译员：\n抱歉？\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 217 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 CLAIBORN女士：\n我没有问完\n2 问题。我道歉。我再试一次。\n3 问 Kwok先生，几分钟前您作证称，\n4 您为 Golden Spring 开发\n5 投资机会。您能否说明\n6 这是什么意思？\n7 答 我不记得。\n8 问 您为 Golden Spring 工作时，\n9 您是在美国工作吗？\n10 答 是。\n11 问 您与 Golden Spring 合作时，\n12 您有职务头衔吗？\n13 答 我不记得。\n14 问 您为 Golden Spring 工作时，除开发\n15 投资机会外，您还从事过任何其他\n16 工作吗？\n17 答 （听不清）中国共产党。\n18 问 您能否说明一下？\n19 答 自 2015 年至今，我一直将\n20 全部时间和精力花在收集有关\n21 腐败、人权问题以及共产党的\n22 暗杀的信息上。这是我的\n23 目标和工作。\n24 问 Kwok先生，您目前有任何收入\n25 来源吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 口译员：\n我没有听清。您能否\n2 重复？\n3 问 Kwok先生，您目前有收入\n4 来源吗？\n5 答 没有。\n6 问 Kwok先生，您是否已向美国的 Internal Revenue Service（美国国税局）\n7 提交 2021 年度\n8 纳税申报表？\n9 答 没有。\n10 问 Kwok先生，您是否已在任何州提交\n11 2021 纳税年度的纳税申报表？\n12 口译员：\n抱歉？\n13 问 您是否已为任何州提交\n14 2021 纳税年度的任何纳税申报表？\n15 答 没有。\n16 问 就 2021 年而言，您需要向\n17 哪些州提交何种纳税申报表？\n18 答 在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）提交个人纳税申报表。\n19 问 您是否将就 2021 年向\n20 State of New York（纽约州）提交纳税申报表？\n21 答 不会。\n22 问 Kwok先生，您此前向我的\n23 办公室提供了 2019 年和 2020 年的纳税申报表。这些\n24 纳税申报表是否与您向纽约州的 Internal Revenue Service 提交的\n25 纳税申报表相同\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 ？\n2 口译员：\n抱歉，什么日期？\n3 CLAIBORN女士：\n2019 年和 2020 年。\n4 口译员：\n是，我听到了。后半部分\n5 是什么？\n6 CLAIBORN女士：\n纽约州。\n7 答 不是，我在 Connecticut 提交了，2020 年。\n8 问 Kwok先生——\n9 答 我在（听不清）提交了 2019 年和 2020 年的申报表。\n10 2020 年我在 Connecticut 提交。\n11 BALDIGA先生：\nHolley，我们能很快休息\n12 一下吗？\n13 CLAIBORN女士：\n不幸的是，我建议\n14 我们实际上不能休息，因为我们只有口译员到 2:00。因此如果休息，\n15 必须非常非常短。\n16 BALDIGA先生：\n好的。五分钟？\n18 CLAIBORN女士：\n可以，休息前让我先问\n19 一个问题。\n20 问 Kwok先生，请确认，您向 United States\n21 Trustee（美国受托人）提供的 2020 年和 2019 年\n22 纳税申报表，与向税务机关提交的\n23 申报表相同。\n24 口译员：\n什么？\n抱歉，最后\n25 一个词。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 CLAIBORN女士：\n机关。\n2 问 是——\n3 口译员：\n您能否重复？\n4 抱歉。\n5 问 Kwok先生，您能否确认，您向\n6 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n7 提供的 2019 年和\n8 2020 纳税年度的纳税申报表，与您向\n9 Internal Revenue Service、Connecticut 州以及\n10 纽约州提供的申报表相同？\n11 答 是。\n12 问 Kwok先生，在您的 2020 年纳税申报表中——\n13 BALDIGA先生：\n我想澄清一下。正如您\n14 知道的，关于\n15 社会保障号码以及可能几个数据\n16 点，作出了非常有限的删节。我不确定证人是否知道我们为保护该等数据所作的处理，但您知道。我\n17 只是希望在这方面不使记录存在歧义。\n20 CLAIBORN女士：\n谢谢。\n21 问 Kwok先生，您的 2020 年纳税申报表仅申报\n22 利息收入，没有其他收入来源。\n23 您在 2020 年是否有任何其他收入来源？\n24 答 没有。\n25 CLAIBORN女士：\n好的。我将进行一次\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 221 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n非常短暂的休息。现在是 12:30。我希望所有人于 12:35 重新开会。我不会断开通话。我只是要求你们所有人将电话置于保持状态。我们将于 12:35 重新开会。谢谢。（休庭记录外。）CLAIBORN女士：好的。短暂休息后，我们现在恢复庭审记录。问 Kwok先生，我想和您谈谈 Golden Spring, New York。您目前是否以任何身份为 Golden Spring 工作？答 没有。问 Golden Spring New York Limited（纽约金泉有限公司）何时成立？口译员：抱歉？问 Golden Spring New York Limited 何时成立？口译员：抱歉，我没有听清后半部分。Golden New York 什么？CLAIBORN女士：实际上我将只称其为 Golden Spring。当我这样说时，我指的是 Golden Spring New York。问 Golden Spring 何时作为一家公司成立？答 我不知道。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年3月21日\n\n1 问 破产申请书上的地址是 162 East 64th\n2 Street。谁拥有该房产？\n3 我可以再问一次。\n4 Golden Spring 的地址列为\n5 纽约 162 East 64th Street。谁拥有该\n6 房产？\n7 答 我不知道。\n8 问 位于 162 East 64th Street 的该房产的性质\n9 是什么？\n10 答 我不知道您说的是哪一处房产。\n12 问 Golden Spring 的办公室——\n13 BALDIGA先生：\n我不确定那是——\n14 CLAIBORN女士：\n让我再试一次。\n15 办公室——\n16 BALDIGA先生：\n存在翻译问题。\n17 我们能否商议一秒钟，因为\n18 显然存在误解。因此，Kwok先生能否\n19 与其译员交谈，因为这显然没有传达到。\n21 CLAIBORN女士：\n让我——我更希望\n22 我再试一次。请让我再试一次。\n23 问 破产申请书上 Golden Spring 的\n24 地址列为纽约 162 East 64th\n25 Street。\n\n口译员：\n是 54 还是 64？\n5-4 还是 6-\n4？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n64。\n\n口译员：那么也许是因为电话，我把 6 听成了 5，所以让我更正我的错误并重新口译一遍。\n\n答：是的，那是 Golden Spring（黄金泉公司）的地址。\n\n问：Golden Spring 是否拥有位于该地址的那栋建筑？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你去过那个地址吗？\n\n答：去过。\n\n问：那是什么类型的建筑？那里有什么？\n\n答：那是一栋建筑。\n\n问：该建筑是住宅建筑还是商业建筑？\n\n答：商业建筑。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n对不起，Bin，我没有听到你的翻译。\n\n口译员：\n商业建筑或营业用建筑。\n\n问：有人住在该地址吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring 从事何种业务？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n答：那是一家我儿子经营的大型家族企业，但我不具体知道它有哪些业务类别。\n\n问：郭先生，当你使用该术语时——\n\n答：那是一家由我儿子拥有的家族办公室。他还有其他业务，但我不知道。\n\n问：郭先生，当你使用“家族企业”或“家族办公室”这两个术语时，你指的是什么？\n\n答：主要是为了整个家庭，所有家庭成员。当我们有什么事情时，我们（听不清）并相互帮助。\n\n问：郭先生，你能解释得更详细一些吗？\n\n答：我不知道该如何解释。\n\n问：Golden Spring 有雇员吗？\n\n答：有。\n\n问：有多少人？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring 拥有任何不动产吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring 拥有任何其他企业吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring 有任何银行账户吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：郭先生，你此前曾在向破产法院提交的文件中表示，Golden Spring 支付你的个人生活开支。请你解释一下他们是如何支付的？\n\n答：我不知道你所说的他们支付给我是什么意思。就哪一方面而言？\n\n问：郭先生，你此前曾在你的破产文件中向法院表示，Golden Spring 支付你的服装、食物和住房费用。我的问题是，他们如何这样做？他们给你钱吗？他们直接向其他人付款吗？这是如何运作的？\n\n答：每当我需要基本生活开支时，我就告诉我儿子，他会让他的办公室给我。\n\n问：Golden Spring 的所有人是谁？\n\n哈巴赫先生：\n我是 David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）。我没有听到该问题的结尾。我听到的是“我告诉我儿子，然后他——”这个回答。我听到“我告诉我儿子，然后他”，之后就听不到了。请再给我说一遍英文吗？\n\n口译员：\n对不起，我没有听到这位先生说的话？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\nHarbach 先生正在请求 Bin 重复翻译郭先生关于钱款如何从 Golden Spring 流出的回答。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n口译员：我将重复口译。\n\n当我需要基本生活开支时，我告诉我儿子。我儿子会告诉办公室去——\n\n问：郭先生，Golden Spring 的所有人是谁？\n\n答：我儿子。\n\n问：除你儿子外，Golden Spring 是否还有其他所有人？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：郭先生，你是否曾拥有 Golden Spring 的权益？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Golden Spring 的高级管理人员和董事是谁？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n我是 Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。\n\n这涉及非常严重的人身安全问题；如果债务人知道答案，并不是他会拒绝回答。但是，不能在像这样的公开线路上回答，因为公众可以接入，且不知道还有谁知情。这里有——请稍等。\n\n我能否与证人商议一下，因为我们希望尽可能向你提供信息，但不希望造成严重的安全问题。\n\n所以，我能否花一分钟与证人商议一下？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n可以。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n再次说明，我是 Bill Baldiga。\n\n证人认为他可能知道董事和高级管理人员是谁，并准备就此根据其所知尽力作证。如果我们一次问一个问题，我们将据此继续。\n\n请翻译一下，因为我也想确保证人理解我刚才所说的话。\n\n（口译）\n\n由克莱伯恩女士提问：\n\n问：郭先生，截至今天，Golden Spring 的高级管理人员是谁？\n\n答：（听不清）\n\n问：我将重复该姓名，以便所有人理解我认为我听到了什么。我听到的是 Yan Ping（严平），也称为 Yvonne Wang（王伊冯）。这准确吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Yvonne Wang 是否是 Golden Spring 唯一的高级管理人员？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n问：截至今天，Golden Spring 的董事是谁？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：郭先生，你是否曾担任 Golden Spring 的高级管理人员或董事？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：郭先生，Max Krazner（马克斯·克拉兹纳）是谁？\n\n答：我不知道。我不知道。\n\n口译员：\n请你再重复一遍这个姓名好吗？\n\n问：郭先生，Max Krazner 是谁？\n\n（无回答）\n\n郭先生，请你回答好吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n我正与证人商议一秒钟。请稍等好吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n巴尔迪加先生，我希望他在你与其商议之前先回答该问题。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n感谢给予这个机会。证人可以回答。\n\n答：他必须向你再核实一下，因为我不会读，也记不住英文姓名。你只说了 Max 这个名字。如果只是 Max 这个名字，我知道 Max。但如果你再加上另一个名字，我就不确定了。我不知道。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n问：就 Golden Spring 而言，你认识一个叫 Max 的人吗？\n\n答：是的，我认识。\n\n问：Max 在 Golden Spring 担任什么职务？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：那么，你是如何认识 Max 的？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：你认识不止一名叫 Max 的人吗？\n\n答：对我而言，英文姓名很复杂。比如，我记不住我律师的姓。如果你在 Max 后面加上其他内容，我就不知道。\n\n问：Max Krazner 这一姓名被列为 Golden Spring 邮件的收件人。你知道为什么吗？\n\n口译员：\n对不起？\n\n问：你知道为什么吗？\n\n答：我只记得 Golden Spring 有一个 Max。我只知道这一件事。\n\n问：Max 在 Golden Spring 做什么工作？\n\n答：我不确定是什么职务。我（听不清）知道他负责财务，但我不确定。\n\n问：就财务而言，他为 Golden Spring 做什么？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n答：我没有参与管理，所以我不知道。\n\n问：如果 Golden Spring 给你钱，是否是通过 Max Krazner 的努力取得的？他是否帮助促成此事？\n\n答：我不知道。他没有亲自给我钱。\n\n问：郭先生，当你从 Golden Spring 获得钱款时，你如何获得钱款？是以现金形式还是其他形式？\n\n答：从我儿子和（听不清）。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n对不起，Bin。我没有理解你的翻译。你能再试一次吗？\n\n口译员：\n他说，从我儿子和（听不清）。\n\n问：我的问题是，你如何从你儿子那里获得钱款？是以现金形式还是其他形式？\n\n答：我不理解你所说“如何”这个词是什么意思。我从未直接从他们那里获得钱。\n\n问：如果你并非直接从你儿子那里获得钱款，你如何从你儿子那里获得钱款？钱到哪里去了？\n\n答：我不用现金，也不用信用卡。我儿子和（听不清）Wan 只是为我支付我的开支。我不可能从他们那里获得任何现金。而且我没有银行账户。没有任何银行账户。\n\n问：郭先生，你是否可以使用由 Golden Spring 办理的信用卡？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n我是 Bill Baldiga。对不起。我认为前一个问题的翻译存在问题。你能给我们一分钟，以确保该证人正确理解了问题吗？请稍等一秒钟。我们将静音。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n证人希望澄清。我认为翻译中已经表达出来了，但我们不确定，Golden Spring 不给他现金，而只是支付他的一些生活开支账单。如果翻译中已经表达了这一点，那很好。如没有，我们相应澄清。\n\n问：郭先生，你是否可以使用 Golden Spring 向你提供或通过 Golden Spring 向你提供的信用卡或借记卡？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：郭先生，对于 Golden Spring 代表你支付的生活开支款项，你是否有义务偿还 Golden Spring？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269\nFiled 12/28/22\nEntered 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n答：没有。没有必要。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n鉴于我们今天的时间有限，此时我希望允许债权人提问。我尚未问完所有问题。\n\n我们将需要在另一天重新召开会议，但就今天的询问而言，我现在将允许希望询问的债权人提问。\n\n我要求各位发言时表明身份，并注意口译的需要。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n为记录澄清一点。你先前——你提到了申请书，并询问是否有人居住在 162 East 64th Street。\n\n正如我们在提交申请书时非正式地告诉你的，对债务人的人身安全存在极大担忧，因此他使用了该地址，但此后显然已经更正记录，表明他居住在你今天早些时候询问的 Greenwich（格林尼治）房屋。\n\n因此，我只是不希望记录在这方面造成混淆。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 233 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- March 21, 2022\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n是否有任何债权人希望向债务人询问或对其进行询问？\n\n哈巴赫先生：\n是的。我是代表 PACS（PACS）的 David Harbach。我们有一些问题。我们确实有一些问题。我们现在可以开始提问，或者如果还有其他人希望提问，也可以。可按你希望的方式进行。不过，显然我们也不会在 2 点之前结束。\n\n口译员：\n我听不清你说的话。\n\n哈巴赫先生：\n我是代表 PACS 的 David Harbach，我刚才只是说，我们确实有一些问题，我们很乐意继续并提出这些问题；或者，如果受托人愿意，我们可以让其他人继续提问，但无论如何我们肯定也无法在 2 点之前结束。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n请翻译一下好吗？\n\n口译员：\n我刚才说，我没有完全听清他说的话。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\nHarbach 先生，你是否能够拿起手持设备并对着手持设备讲话，而不是使用免提电话？\n\n哈巴赫先生：\n此刻不能，但让我移动一下，看看这样是否更好。你能听到我吗？\n\n1 现在好一点了吗？\n\n2 口译员：\n不太好。\n不，抱歉。\n\n3 Harbach先生：\n不太好。\n那么，我告诉\n\n4 你怎么办。你给我——稍等片刻，我可以\n\n5 试着用电话接入。给我几秒钟，\n\n6 好吗？\n\n7 Claiborn女士：\n好的。\n\n8 Baldiga先生：\nBin，你能否为\n\n9 Kwok先生翻译一下这段对话，让他知道情况。\n\n10 （口译员翻译）\n\n11 Harbach先生：\n你好？\n\n12 Claiborn女士：\n你好。这是Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。\n\n13 \n\n14 Harbach先生：\n这是David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫），我\n\n15 只是想知道你是否能更清楚地听到我说话。\n\n16 Claiborn女士：\n好多了。Bin，你能\n\n17 听到Harbach先生吗？\n\n18 口译员：\n是的，我现在能听到他。\n\n19 谢谢。\n\n20 Claiborn女士：\n请继续，Harbach先生。\n\n21 Harbach先生：\n我会把我刚才所说的话再重复\n\n22 一遍，以便口译员可以翻译。\n\n23 我是David Harbach，我刚才只是说，\n\n24 PACS确实有一些问题想问，\n\n25 但我们肯定无法在2点前结束，因此\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 235 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 如果Claiborn女士希望继续，让\n\n2 其他债权人有机会在今天提问，\n\n3 完全由她决定；或者我们现在可以开始。\n\n4 Baldiga先生：\n我是Bill Baldiga（比尔·巴尔迪加）。我们\n\n5 已将我们自己的翻译员延长至2点，因此我们\n\n6 当然鼓励任何想提问的人\n\n7 利用这段时间。\n\n8 Wolman先生：\n我是Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼）。我很乐意\n\n9 现在提一些问题。\n\n10 口译员：\n抱歉，我没有听清你的\n\n11 名字。\n\n12 Wolman先生：Jay Wolman，我代理\n\n13 Logan Chang（张洛根）。\n\n14 沃尔曼先生询问：\n\n15 问 下午好，Kwok先生。\n\n16 你是否记得，大约一年前我曾对你进行\n\n17 证言录取？\n\n18 答 我的证言录取太多了——\n\n19 口译员：\n总是有人在\n\n20 背景中说话。\n\n21 答 我的证言录取太多了。我不\n\n22 记得具体情况。\n\n23 问 没关系。我问过你许多\n\n24 问题，而你援引了美国宪法\n\n25 第五修正案项下的权利。你是否\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 理解这一点？\n\n2 口译员：\n你和你妻子什么？\n\n3 抱歉。\n\n4 问 你援引了美国宪法\n\n5 第五修正案项下的权利。你是否记得\n\n6 那件事？\n\n7 Baldiga先生：\n我们有翻译问题。\n\n8 请稍等一下。\n\n9 （暂停。）\n\n10 Baldiga先生：\n我认为——我们的口译员正在\n\n11 听这段翻译。据我们理解，问题是\n\n12 你是否记得曾在先前的证言录取中援引\n\n13 第五修正案特权。\n\n14 这是我们所听到的。能否请\n\n15 以那种方式为Kwok先生口译？\n\n16 口译员：\n抱歉，我可以再听一遍\n\n17 问题吗？\n\n18 Wolman先生：\n当然。\n\n19 问 你是否记得在先前的证言录取中\n\n20 援引美国宪法\n\n21 第五修正案？\n\n22 口译员：\n抱歉，我没有清楚听到你\n\n23 说话。\n\n24 问 你是否记得在先前的证言录取中\n\n25 援引美国\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 宪法第五修正案？\n\n2 口译员：\n在先前的什么？抱歉。\n\n3 Wolman先生：\n证言录取。D-E-P-O-S-I-T-I-O\n\n4 N。\n\n5 口译员：\n证言录取。抱歉，稍等\n\n6 一下。\n\n7 （暂停。）\n\n8 口译员：\n好的。在先前的\n\n9 证言录取中什么？\n\n10 问 你是否记得援引你的第五\n\n11 修正案权利？\n\n12 口译员：\n援引什么？\n\n13 Wolman先生：\n其他所有人都能听到我吗，还是\n\n14 只有口译员听不到？\n\n15 Claiborn女士：\n我是Holley。我能听到\n\n16 你。\n\n17 Harbach先生：\n我是David Harbach。我们\n\n18 能很好地听到你。\n\n19 Baldiga先生：\n债务人能听到你。这\n\n20 不是音量问题。\n\n21 Wolman先生：\n是发音问题吗？我可以\n\n22 尝试——\n\n23 口译员：\n口译员只是\n\n24 没有听清那个词。（听不清）改述。\n\n25 Wolman先生：\n我不能改述。我需要\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 238 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 你听到英文词语并将其翻译，\n\n2 女士。\n\n3 口译员：\n好的。你能否\n\n4 说慢一点？\n\n5 问 你是否记得在先前的证言录取中\n\n6 援引你在第五，即第五号——\n\n7 第五修正案，序数第五号——项下的权利，\n\n8 即美国宪法项下的权利？\n\n9 口译员：\n是invoke还是evoke？\n\n10 Wolman先生：\n是invoke，I-N-V-O-K-E。\n\n11 好的，我们仍然有问题。\n\n12 身份不明者：\n稍等。\n\n13 身份不明者：\n刚才有人掉线了吗？\n\n14 Claiborn女士：\nBin，你在吗？我是\n\n15 Holley。\n\n16 Wolman先生：\nBin？\n\n17 Claiborn女士：\nBin，你在吗？\n\n18 口译员：\n你好。\n\n19 Claiborn女士：\nBin，我是Holley Claiborn。\n\n20 口译员：\n好的。我回来了。\n\n21 Claiborn女士：\n好的。\n\n22 口译员：\n我不知道\n\n23 发生了什么。\n\n24 Claiborn女士：\n请继续。\n\n25 Baldiga先生：\n口译员——我们\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 239 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n不确定发生了什么。口译员是否和我们连着，还是没有？口译员：是的，口译员现在在。Baldiga先生：好的。谢谢。我的当事人刚才说了些什么，我不知道他说了什么，也不知道你是否在线听到了他所说的话。如果你听到了，我希望你——我希望你翻译出来。如果没有，你能否让我们商议一下，以便我们能试着弄清楚，因为刚才有很多混乱。Wolman先生：Bill，你能否让你的当事人重复一下他刚才说的话？Baldiga先生：不——口译员：口译员希望他重复他所说的话，因为刚才突然间我无法（听不清）有时所有的声音。我请这位先生重复他刚才所说的话。Kwok先生：刚才在你的问题中，你提到——你问我，我妻子是否依据法律或宪法使用了什么。我不记得那件事。Wolman先生：我完全没有提到他的妻子。\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 240 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\nKwok先生：那么，你刚才是否说，我妻子使用了任何一种法律还是什么？Wolman先生：没有，完全不是那么回事。Baldiga先生：Wolman先生，我能否建议，你或许直接问你想问他的任何问题，而不是问一年前发生了什么，因为这样毫无进展。Wolman先生：嗯，我将就所有与财务有关、他曾援引第五修正案的问题重新问他，我想确保他在今天作答时心中清楚这一点。Baldiga先生：有问题吗？Wolman先生：我想确保你知道我将要做什么。现阶段，我毫无头绪，但我向你说明，这正是我在做的。因此，我想确保你的当事人得到适当告知。沃尔曼先生询问：问 那么，一年前——这段比较长，Bin，请你把它记下来，或者做你需要做的事。让我说完，然后再翻译。不要零零碎碎地翻译。口译员：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 Baldiga先生：\n我——\n\n2 Wolman先生：\n稍等。我希望翻译\n\n3 那段话，我们会把这分成小段进行。那么，\n\n4 Bin，请为证人翻译那段话，因为\n\n5 他必须听到全部内容。\n\n6 （翻译。）\n\n7 口译员：\n是的。\n\n8 Wolman先生：\n谢谢。\n\n9 沃尔曼先生询问：\n\n10 问 一年前我问你，你是否受雇。\n\n11 你回答说，我一直都是——\n\n12 口译员：\n我问了你什么？抱歉。\n\n13 问 你是否受雇？\n\n14 背景噪音很大。我们能否\n\n15 请停止那个声音。\n\n16 一年前我问你，你是否受雇？\n\n17 口译员：\n你受雇？\n\n18 问 一年前我问你，你是否受雇？\n\n19 你的回答是，我一直是许多公司的顾问，\n\n20 ——\n\n21 口译员：\n抱歉。一年前我问\n\n22 你是否受雇？回答是什么？\n\n23 问 我一直是许多公司的顾问\n\n24 ——\n\n25 口译员：\n抱歉——\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 242 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 问 而我目前的工作是——我从事\n\n2 广播，并且要推翻中国\n\n3 共产党。这是一场广播革命。我\n\n4 随后问你，你因此获得多少报酬。\n\n5 我现在再次问这个问题。你\n\n6 因此获得多少报酬？\n\n7 口译员：\n那么我必须从\n\n8 头开始，因为当你说一年前我问你是否——\n\n9 你是否受雇时，我没有听清这些话。\n\n10 你的回答是，我没有听清is后面的词。\n\n11 \n\n12 问 你的回答是，我一直是许多公司的\n\n13 顾问，而我目前的工作是\n\n14 ——他停顿了。我从事广播——\n\n15 口译员：\n是什么？抱歉？\n\n16 问 ——并且要推翻——\n\n17 口译员：\n抱歉。\n\n18 问 我从事广播，并且要推翻\n\n19 中国共产党。这是一场广播\n\n20 革命。我随后问你，你获得多少——\n\n21 口译员：\n对不起。我无法——\n\n22 \n\n23 Wolman先生：\n对不起。我还没说完。为什么\n\n24 不行？\n\n25 口译员：\n我试图澄清——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 Wolman先生：\n为什么不行？\n\n2 口译员：\n——我没有听清\n\n3 的词。是的，我知道这很简单，但太长了。我\n\n4 （听不清）这么长的时间来进行\n\n5 口译。我非常专注。我有一个\n\n6 人脑。\n\n7 Wolman先生：\n我习惯于让翻译员边说\n\n8 边记下来。\n\n9 口译员：\n对此抱歉。\n\n10 让我翻译我听到的部分，然后我会\n\n11 问你其余部分。可以吗？\n\n12 Wolman先生：\n可以。\n\n13 口译员：\n好的。\n\n14 （翻译）\n\n15 口译员：\n好的。我——\n\n16 问 我随后问你，你因此获得多少报酬，\n\n17 我现在再次问你，因为你援引了\n\n18 第五修正案，你因此获得多少\n\n19 报酬？\n\n20 （暂停。）\n\n21 Baldiga先生：\n好的。证人正在\n\n22 努力——嗯，问题是你是否\n\n23 因那件事获得报酬吗？你可以回答那个问题。\n\n24 Wolman先生：\n不。我实际上是在问他\n\n25 你因此获得多少报酬。他援引了\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - March 21, 2022\n\n1 第五修正案。我现在再次问这个问题。\n\n2 问 你因此获得多少报酬？\n\n3 答 完全没有钱。\n\n4 问 一年前我问你，Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）是什么。你回答说这是一家公司。我随后问\n\n5 你，那么你的——我随后问你，那么你与\n\n6 该公司之间的关系是什么，因此我现在再次\n\n7 问这个问题。你与\n\n8 该公司之间的关系是什么？\n\n9 答 我不知道你所说的关系是什么意思。\n\n10 问 如果你不知道我那个问题的意思，\n\n11 你为什么去年援引了第五修正案？\n\n12 Baldiga先生：\n异议。我不会允许\n\n13 证人说明一年前关于第五修正案的\n\n14 法律意见。\n\n15 \n\n16 他准备回答你可能提出的任何问题。你在\n\n17 每个问题中包含三件事，这使证人有些困惑：\n\n18 一些对第五修正案的提及，\n\n19 一些一年前的谈话，以及一个关于现在的问题。\n\n20 \n\n21 但如果你提出一个更简单的\n\n22 问题，我认为这会进行得更\n\n23 有效率。这是你的选择。\n\n24 Wolman先生：\n不。你的当事人是一个\n\n25 聪明的人，是一名大商人，他是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 是一名精明人士。我相信他能够应对这些\n2 简单的问题。\n3 BALDIGA先生：\n请按您希望的方式继续。\n4 （翻译中断）\n5 问 去年我问过您——\n6 BALDIGA先生：\n等等。\n请稍候。\nWolman先生，\n7 有一段翻译需要完成。请\n8 稍候。证人需要理解正在\n9 说的内容。\n10 （翻译）\n11 口译员：\n好的。请继续。\n12 问 您与Golden Spring（Golden Spring）是什么关系？\n13 答 我不明白您的问题\n14 是什么意思？我不知道如何回答您的问题。\n15 问 您知道“关系”一词\n16 是什么意思吗？\n17 答 在中国，“关系”是指事物之间的联系。\n18 它可以是夫妻之间的关系。也可以是\n19 政府关系、财务\n20 关系、金钱关系，也可以是很多其他事情。\n21 所以我不知道您指的是哪一种？是\n22 男女关系，还是金钱关系，还是\n23 什么？\n24 问 任何关系？是什么？您与\n25 （听不清）\n\n案号22-50073 文件1269\n提交日期12/28/22\n录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 口译员：\n抱歉？您刚才最后一句\n2 是什么？因为刚才有人在说话。\n3 问 任何关系，您与Golden\n4 Spring是什么关系？\n5 口译员：\n让我先进行\n6 翻译。\n7 答 现在的关系是——他\n8 借钱给我。我欠他钱。他帮助我。\n9 问 他为什么这么做？\n10 答 因为我曾经是Guo（发音不清）\n11 家族的一员。\n12 HARBACH先生：\n我是David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）。您能否\n13 请重复一下该英文回答？\n14 口译员：\n因为我曾经是\n15 Guo家族的一员。\n16 问 Golden Spring是否支付Guo家族任何\n17 其他成员的费用？\n18 答 是。\n19 问 Guo家族的哪些其他成员？\n20 答 我不知道。\n21 问 一年前，我问过您为什么Golden\n22 Spring向Podhaskie先生，P-O-D-H-A-S-K-I-E，支付\n23 其以个人\n24 身份向您提供服务的费用。我现在再次问这个问题。为什么\n25 Golden Spring向Podhaskie先生支付其提供服务的费用\n案号22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第247页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 以个人身份向您提供服务的费用？\n2 BALDIGA先生：\n我是Bill Baldiga（比尔·鲍尔迪加）。我\n3 理解Podhaskie先生可能是一名律师。我\n4 只需要与当事人商议，以确保他\n5 不会披露法律意见的实质内容。我\n6 只需一秒钟来做这件事。\n7 WOLMAN先生：\n这个问题并未表明\n8 任何那种性质的回答。\n9 （暂停。）\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n抱歉。证人可以\n11 回答这个问题。\n12 KWOK先生：\n我不知道。\n13 问 您是否曾问过任何人，为什么他们支付费用让他\n14 向您提供意见？\n15 答 我不记得。\n16 问 一年前，我问过您为什么Golden Spring\n17 New York（Golden Spring纽约）代表您支付那份判决书，我当时\n18 指的是我的当事人Cheng先生（郑先生）持有的\n19 对您不利的那份判决书。\n20 我现在再次问您，为什么Golden Spring\n21 New York代表您支付那份判决书？\n22 答 那是借来的钱。\n23 问 Golden Spring为什么借给您那笔钱？\n24 答 我什么都没有，所以我向\n25 他们借钱。\n\n案号22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22\n录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 问 Golden Spring的钱来自哪里？\n2 答 我不知道。\n3 问 Golden Spring的任何资金来自哪里？\n4 答 我不知道。\n5 问 您的儿子拥有Golden Spring，对吗？\n6 答 是。\n7 问 您的儿子欠您钱吗？\n8 答 不欠。\n9 问 您的儿子如何取得为Golden Spring\n10 提供资金的钱？\n11 答 我不知道。\n12 问 您是否曾向您的儿子提供任何种子\n13 资本？\n14 答 没有。\n15 问 您是否曾投资于您儿子的任何\n16 企业？\n17 答 没有。\n18 问 康涅狄格州何时成为您的住所？\n19 答 2020年2月底或3月初。\n20 问 好的。您在此对此确定吗？\n21 答 是。\n22 问 自2020年2月或2020年3月以来，\n23 那一直是您的主要住所吗？\n24 答 是。\n25 问 一年前，我问过您是否拥有任何\n\n案号22-50073 文件1269\n提交日期12/28/22\n录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 Golden Spring New York的权益。我现在再次\n2 问您。您是否拥有Golden\n3 Spring New York的任何权益？\n4 答 没有。\n5 问 一年前，我问过您是否是\n6 Golden Spring New York Limited（Golden Spring纽约有限公司）的高级管理人员。我现在再次\n7 问您。您是否是Golden Spring New York\n8 Limited的高级管理人员？\n9 答 不是。\n10 问 一年前，我问过您为什么Golden\n11 Spring会代表您向Aaron律师，即Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔），\n12 支付费用。\n13 我现在再次问您，为什么Golden\n14 Spring会代表您向Aaron Mitchell律师支付费用？\n15 口译员：\n他希望我重复\n16 翻译。我会为他重复。\n17 答 一笔贷款。一笔贷款或借款。\n18 问 他们为什么向您提供那笔贷款？\n19 答 我一直向他们借钱，\n20 因为我是该家族的一员。\n21 问 您从Golden Spring获得的任何贷款\n22 是否曾以书面形式记载？\n23 答 有些有，有些没有。\n24 问 好的。哪些贷款以书面形式记载？\n25 答 我不记得。\n\n案号22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22\n录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 第250页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日 73\n\n1 问 您从Golden\n2 Spring获得过多少笔贷款？\n3 答 我不记得。\n4 问 以书面形式记载的贷款中，\n5 是否有任何一笔是英文的？\n6 答 我不记得。\n7 问 其中是否有任何一笔是中文的？\n8 答 我不记得。\n9 问 您是否曾以任何担保权益\n10 交换这些贷款中的任何一笔？\n11 答 （听不清），但我不记得\n12 （听不清）。\n13 BALDIGA先生：\n您能否请用英文重复\n14 该回答？\n15 口译员：\n他说（听不清），\n16 是的，但我不记得。\n17 问 如果您不记得多少——如果您不记得自己借了\n18 多少笔贷款，您如何能够确定您\n19 在破产财产清单中欠他们\n20 多少钱？\n21 答 我没有完全听懂您的意思。\n22 问 如果您不知道自己从Golden Spring借过\n23 多少次钱，并非所有贷款都以书面形式\n24 记载，您如何知道您欠他们多少钱？\n25 答 我的律师和Golden Spring的律师\n案号22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第251页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 相互沟通。他们告诉我，\n2 他们能够确定的金额是21 million。\n3 问 所以Golden Spring的律师协助准备了\n4 您的破产申请书？对吗？\n5 BALDIGA先生：\n抱歉打断一下。\n6 （听不清）两件事。\n7 答 没有。\n8 问 那么，该信息如何从Golden\n9 Spring进入您的破产申请书？\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n对该问题提出异议。\n11 口译员：\n抱歉？\n12 BALDIGA先生：\n我对该问题提出异议。\n13 WOLMAN先生：我只是试图弄清楚，\n14 他不知道的这项信息如何会出现在他的\n15 破产申请书中？\n16 BALDIGA先生：\n我认为您听到了回答，\n17 即他的律师和Golden Spring的律师讨论了\n18 此事。您还有其他问题吗？\n19 问 有。您如何知道那个数字\n20 是正确的？\n21 BALDIGA先生：\n好的。请先让口译员\n22 翻译，然后再问另一个问题。\n23 口译员：\n好的。请继续。\n24 问 您如何知道那个数字是正确的？\n25 口译员：\n抱歉？哪个数字？\n案号22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第252页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 问 填入您的破产申请书中、关于您据称欠\n2 Golden Spring的金额，您如何知道\n3 那是正确的？\n4 答 我相信我的律师的专业性。\n5 他们会审查并核对所有数字。\n6 CLAIBORN女士：\n我是Holley——\n7 问 您知道所审查的是哪些文件吗？\n8 \n9 CLAIBORN女士：\n抱歉打断一下。\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n现在是2点钟。\n11 CLAIBORN女士：\n抱歉打断一下。\n12 我是Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）。\n13 WOLMAN先生：\n是的，感谢您\n14 进行冗长发言以耗尽时间。谢谢。\n15 BALDIGA先生：\n抱歉。这话是\n16 对谁说的？这实在是非常不恰当的\n17 评论。\n18 WOLMAN先生：\n对您说的。是我对\n19 您说的。\n20 CLAIBORN女士：\n我想谈谈——\n21 BALDIGA先生：\n好的——\n22 CLAIBORN女士：\n——下一次日期。我\n23 打算建议我们于4月4日上午\n24 10:00在New Haven（纽黑文）的美国受托人办公室\n25 现场恢复进行。\n\n案号22-50073 文件1269\n提交日期12/28/22\n录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 BALDIGA先生：\n我们将查看日程安排。如果您给我一秒钟，\n2 我可以开始这样做。\n3 CLAIBORN女士：\nBin，您能否\n4 翻译一下？\n5 口译员：\n我会向您再次确认，\n6 您是否还需要我在线一会儿，\n7 还是希望我退出？\n8 CLAIBORN女士：\n如果您能再继续\n9 一会儿。我们需要确定一个新日期，因此我需要\n10 您翻译，以便债务人理解。\n11 口译员：\n好的。\n12 BALDIGA先生：\n抱歉。请求是——\n13 抱歉。请求是——我只是想\n14 确认我听清了——4月4日10点在\n15 Bridgeport（布里奇波特）？\n16 CLAIBORN女士：\n4月4日10点，在New\n17 Haven的美国受托人办公室。\n18 BALDIGA先生：\n好的。我们会很快\n19 回复您。\n20 CLAIBORN女士：\n实际上，我现在就需要一个答复，\n21 因为我们需要能够通知\n22 债权人，而且我希望在我们今天\n23 结束之前让所有人都知道。\n24 BALDIGA先生：\n好的。我会让您稍候。\n25 HARBACH先生：\nClaiborn女士，我是David\n案号22-50073 文件1269\n提交日期12/28/22\n录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\n1 Harbach。恐怕那一天对我们\n2 不合适？\n3 CLAIBORN女士：\nHarbach先生，是您吗？\n4 HARBACH先生：\n是的，女士。我正要\n5 说我可以安排星期三，即6日，或者\n6 此后的任何一天。但我不能安排4日或\n7 5日。\n8 CLAIBORN女士：\n4月8日星期五怎么样？\n9 HARBACH先生：\n我可以。我是David。\n10 我可以。\n11 WOLMAN先生：\n我是Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼）。我可以\n12 安排。\n13 CLAIBORN女士：\nBaldiga律师，您能否\n14 请核实4月8日？\n15 （暂停。）\n16 HARBACH先生：\nHolley，我又是Dave Harbach。\n17 只是预先考虑到他们会回复\n18 （听不清）。不论价值如何，我也可以在\n19 （听不清）安排。我也可以在\n20 3月28日、29日或30日安排，如果那样更好。\n21 BALDIGA先生：\n我是Bill Baldiga。7日\n22 和8日是佛教节日，因此出于宗教\n23 原因，Kwok先生这两天无法安排。我们会\n24 确认4日。我相信有一些\n25 （听不清）。我想知道谁能够安排。\n案号22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第255页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年3月21日\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下周一3月28日怎么样？\n\nHARBACH先生：Holley，我没有听到您关于28日所说内容的后半部分。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我只是提出28日作为一个新日期。\n\nBALDIGA先生：我是Bill Baldiga。28日、29日和30日，Kwok先生有一个医疗问题，他在那些日子（听不清）。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：4月15日星期五怎么样？\n\nHARBACH先生：我是David Harbach。我们可以。\n\nBALDIGA先生：那天是受难日。对我而言是受难日，对许多人而言是逾越节。我能否建议（听不清）？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我没有听到您的建议。抱歉。\n\nBALDIGA先生：我谨请求我们回到4月4日。一名律师和十二人中的一名债权人不应当——\n\nWOLMAN先生：我是Jay Wolman。我那天也已经有安排。\n\nBALDIGA先生：我知道，但有（听不清）——\n\nWOLMAN先生：两名律师，包括我自己，\n\n正在接受询问的人。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n好的。那我们继续寻找。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n4 月 6 日可以吗？\n\nWOLMAN 先生：\n那是哪一天？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n4 月 6 日？\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n我是 David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）。我 4 月 6 日可以。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n债务人也可以。\n\n身份不明者：\n我也可以。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n好的。我暂定 4 月 6 日上午 10:00。为现场进行。地点在 New Haven（纽黑文）的 U.S. Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）。\n\n请预留通过安检的时间。我希望 10:00 开始。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n请问您当天会预留多少时间，包括口译员在内，以便我们安排？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n我认为你们应当预留一整天，但我还需要跟进并了解口译员的情况，目前我手头没有这方面的信息。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：\n好的。会到 5 点吗？我想我们可以在结束时停止记录。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 21, 2022\n\n这由您决定，显然。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n好的。我认为，今天就 Bin（彬）的翻译服务而言，我们已经结束了。\n\n口译员：\n谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n非常感谢你，Bin（彬）。\n\n口译员：\n祝您今天愉快。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n谢谢。\n\n我将停止录音，但我们可以继续在线上。我将停止录音。\n\n谢谢。\n\n（会议结束。）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 258 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 21, 2022\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的笔录员及认证电子记录员和笔录员，特此证明：上述内容是对上述案件程序官方电子录音的正确笔录。\n\n8 April 5, 2022\n\n9 Christine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），CERT\n\n10 笔录员\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269\n提交于 12/28/22\n登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15\n452 第 259 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— March 21, 2022 82\n\n索引\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 页码\n由 Claiborn 女士询问 14\n由 Wolman 先生询问 58\n\n证物\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人之 13\n\n11/17/2022 全部准予接纳\nPE\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件号 6 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 261 页，共 452\n\nJAMS 仲裁案号 1425025643\n\nBOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP（博伊斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳律师事务所），\n\n申请人，\n—诉— 最终仲裁裁决\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵），又名 GUO WENGUI（郭文贵），\n\n被申请人。\n\n仲裁员已于 May 25 and 26, 2018 举行证据听证，已于 August 9, 2018 听取听证后口头辩论，已于 September 7, 2018 作出部分仲裁裁决，并已收到一份日期为 September 14, 2018、有关未付利息的后续书面陈述，现作出本最终仲裁裁决：\n\n一、引言\n\n本程序旨在追讨未付律师费。申请人 Boies Schiller Flexner LLP（“Boies Schiller”）请求抵扣 $500.000 预付金，并追讨额外 $563,133.83，另加利息。被申请人 Miles Kwok，又名“Guo Wengui”（“Kwok”），否认其对任何未付费用负有责任。在反请求中，Kwok 还请求返还预付金，以及其因本仲裁而支出的成本和费用。基于下述理由，仲裁员裁定 Boies Schiller 胜诉、Kwok 败诉，金额为 $626,686.44，另加自 September 8, 2018 起至付款日止按每月百分之一、按月复利计算的未付账单利息。此外，驳回 Kwok 的反请求以及任何一方请求的其他救济。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件号 6 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 262 页，共 452\n\nBoies Schiller 与 Kwok 的关系显然始于 2015 年前后，当时 Kwok 聘请该所代表其在一宗州法院案件 Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG（“UBS”）中提起诉讼。Boies Schiller 就该案向 Kwok 收取约 $1.5 million 的费用，并已获全额支付。\n\n此后，Kwok 聘请 Boies Schiller 就另外三宗事项为其辩护：Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P. v. Kwok（“P_AX”）；Beijing Zhong Xian Wei Ye Stainless Decoration Center v. Gu_o（“Beijing”）；以及 HNA Group Co. LtÅ v. Wengui（“HNA”）（合称“三宗初始事项”）。该委托关系载于 Joshua Schiller（“Schiller”）于 June 23, 2017 致 Kwok 的一封信中，该信由 Kwok 会签（“委托函”）。\n\n委托函载有若干关键条款。第一，委托函规定，Boies Schiller 仅受聘处理三宗初始事项，“以及 [Kwok] 与 [Boies Schiller] 日后可能以书面同意的其他事项”。第二，委托函规定，其条款“仅可依据由 [Kwok] 和 [Boies Schiller] 双方签署的进一步书面文件予以修改”。第三，根据委托函，Boies Schiller 同意按月向 Kwok 开具账单，Kwok 同意“在收到 [Boies Schiller] 的发票后仔细审阅，并在二十（20）个营业日内，如 [Kwok] 对某一发票有任何问题或疑虑，则以书面形式通知 [Boies Schiller]。”如 Kwok 未在该期限内提出问题或疑虑，该发票将“被视为具有终局约束力、可接受、公平且合理。”如提出疑虑，委托函向 Kwok 保证，Boies Schiller 将“努力及时回应该等疑虑。”第四，委托函规定，对于“在提交发票后三十（30）日内未支付的所有款项”，将收取“每月 1%、按月复利”的逾期付款“费用”。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件号 6 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 263 页，共 452\n\n第五，Kwok 同意提供金额为 $500,000 的初始预付金；如果他未在三十日内支付发票，Boies Schiller 可“自行决定使用[该]……[金]额支付该发票”。\n\n委托函还包含一项关于仲裁的条款，规定（除与本案无关的情形外），Kwok 与 Boies Schiller 之间任何“因委托关系引起或与之有关”的争议，“均应根据仲裁开始时有效的 JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures（JAMS 综合仲裁规则与程序）（“JAMS 规则”），通过具有约束力的保密仲裁作出最终解决”。\n\n委托函签署后，Boies Schiller 还就另外两宗州法院事项向 Kwok 提供法律服务：Fan Bingbing v. Kwok（“Bingbing”）和 Rui Ma v. Kwok（“Rui Ma”）（合称“两宗附加事项”）。双方未就两宗附加事项另行订立委托函。Boies Schiller 主张——而 Kwok 否认——这些事项仍受原委托函条款的约束。\n\n在该所代理 Kwok 期间，Kwok 曾两次以书面形式抗议 Boies Schiller 的发票。August 27, 2017，Fiona Yu（“Yu”）——一名在香港执业的律师，并担任 Kwok 某些公司的合规与法务总监——向 Schiller 发送电子邮件，反对该所就三宗初始事项在 June 和 July 期间开具的账单金额。随后，December 18, 2017，Kwok 的幕僚长 Yvette Wong（黄伊维特）向 Schiller 发送电子邮件，称该所账单中的众多“问题”正在接受审计，但从未出示任何该等审计。\n\n该等问题被确定为：“完成同一项任务耗时过长”；“人员配置过多”；事务性任务“授权不足”；“重复计费”；以及缺乏沟通，Kwok 只是在工作完成后收到一张账单。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件号 6 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 264 页，共 452\n\n2017 年 9 月初，Kwok 将 Beijing 事项转交给另一家律师事务所。他将其余四宗案件继续委托给 Boies Schiller，直至 2017 年 12 月初其终止与该所的关系。随后发生本仲裁。\n\n二、程序经过\n\nBoies Schiller 于 January 23, 2018 提交仲裁请求书和请求陈述。此后，于 February 28, 2018 前后，Kwok 提交对该请求书的答复及反请求陈述。\n\nApril 10, 2018，仲裁员举行初步会议，其结果载于《初步会议报告及排期命令第 I 号》（“第 1 号命令”）。第 1 号命令规定，听证应于 June 6 and 7, 2018 在 JAMS 举行，但该听证随后延期至 June 25 and 26, 2018。\n\n五名证人在听证中作证：Kwok；Boies Schiller 的主席 David Boies（“Boies”）；一名曾与 Boies 和 Kwok 均有往来的房地产经纪人 Kathleen Sloane（“Sloane”）；Boies Schiller 的合伙人 Schiller；以及 Boies 的行政助理 Linda Jinks-Carlson（“Carlson”）。Boies Schiller 传唤 Kwok 和 Boies 作证；Kwok 传唤 Sloane、Schiller 和 Carlson 作证。\n\n听证后，双方均于 July 27, 2018 提交听证后书面意见，并于 August 6, 2018 提交答复书面意见。此后，仲裁员于 August 9, 2018 听取辩论。\n\n第 1 号命令规定，仲裁员仅作出“结论性”裁决。Kwok 的律师随后表示偏好附理由的裁决。双方最终同意，仲裁员将作出一份“简要附理由决定”，以说明裁决的依据，其“简略程度由[仲裁员]酌情决定”。2 September 7, 2018，仲裁员作出构成该决定的部分仲裁裁决。该裁决为部分裁决，因为仲裁员不确定 Boies Schiller 的利息计算。基于该原因，部分仲裁裁决命令双方在 September 14, 2018 前协商，以努力就截至 September 7, 2018 所欠利息金额达成一致。部分仲裁裁决还命令，如双方无法就所欠利息达成一致，应在 September 21, 2018 前提交书信。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件号 6 NYSCEF 收件日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 265 页，共 452\n\nSeptember 14, 2018，Boies Schiller 提交其利息计算。在其附函中，Boies Schiller 的律师指出，他们曾尝试安排与 Kwok 律师会面协商，而后者告知他们，他未获其当事人的授权参与该等讨论。自那时起，Kwok 未再提交任何材料。因此，本最终仲裁裁决中裁定的截至 September 7, 2018 的利息，以 Boies Schiller 的提交材料为依据。\n\n尽管我可能未在本最终仲裁裁决中讨论 Kwok 提出的每一项论点，但我已审议所有论点。任何未被具体处理的论点，均因缺乏依据而被驳回。\n\n三、事实认定和法律结论\n\nA. 可仲裁性\n\n如上所述，除三宗初始事项外，Boies Schiller 还请求追讨两宗附加事项的律师费。Kwok 主张，如有，该等事项所欠费用不能作为本程序的一部分作出裁决，因为不存在经签署的书面文件证明他有意就该等事项受委托函约束。Kwok\n\n2 根据 JAMS Rules 第 24(h) 条，裁决必须“由仲裁员签署的书面陈述组成，说明对每一项请求的处理以及就每一项请求给予的救济（如有）。除非全体当事人另有约定，裁决还应包含对作出该裁决理由的简明书面陈述。”\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件编号 6 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 已提交 12/28/22 已录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 266 页，共 452 页\n\n还主张，Boies Schiller（博伊斯·席勒）不能以按劳酬偿原则，就其在本仲裁中就两项追加事项提供的服务收取费用，因为他从未签署书面文件，同意通过 JAMS 仲裁解决有关该等事项的任何争议。\n\n与这些主张相反，委托函将“委托事项”界定为三项追加事项，以及 Boies Schiller 和 Kwok（郭文贵）“日后可能以书面形式同意”的“其他事项”。并未要求该等其他事项只能通过经签署的书面文件成为委托事项的一部分。此处，有充分的书面证据表明双方均意图将两项追加事项纳入委托事项。其中，2017 年 9 月 29 日，Schiller（席勒）向 Kwok 及其他受其雇佣的人员发送了一份补充法律保全备忘录，其中指出 Kwok“已聘请 Boies Schiller Flexner LLP（博伊斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳有限责任律师事务所）为其就[四]宗诉讼进行抗辩”：PAX、HNA、Bingbing 和 Rui Ma。仅此备忘录即足以满足以下要求：任何将事项加入委托事项范围的行为均须有书面证据证明。3\n\n此外，委托函中要求对其条款作出的任何修改均须由“[Kwok]和[Boies Schiller]双方签署的进一步书面文件”予以证明的部分，显然不适用。Boies Schiller 并非寻求修改委托函的条款。相反，Boies Schiller 仅寻求将委托函的条款适用于两项追加事项。这并不构成需要经签署书面文件的委托函修订。\n\n还存在其他书面文件。例如，2017 年 9 月 16 日，Kwok 的女儿 Mei Kwok（郭美，以下简称“Mei”）向一名 Boies Schiller 律师发送电子邮件，其中称其已拥有就 Rui Ma 事项所要求的“绝大多数材料”，并敦促该律师“为我们争取正义，为我父亲争取正义”。此外，2017 年 10 月 6 日，Mei 向 Schiller 发送了 Bingbing 事项中的传票和起诉书。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件编号 6 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 已提交 12/28/22 已录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 267 页，共 452 页\n\n因此，仲裁员对双方就全部五项事项产生的合同费用争议具有管辖权，使任何按劳酬偿请求均无关紧要。\n\nB. 其他抗辩\n\nKwok 对 Boies Schiller 所主张的收取费用权利提出数项其他所谓抗辩，其中仅有一项经得起部分审查。\n\n1. 欺诈诱导\n\n首先，Kwok 实质上主张，其受欺诈诱导而聘请 Boies Schiller 并支付首期 $500,000 预付费用，因为 Boies（博伊斯）虚假表示其将亲自担任主办律师。在作证时，Boies 断然否认其曾作出该等承诺。他还作证称，当其同意担任主办律师时，Boies Schiller 的客户必须支付一笔不可退还的款项，通常介于 $1 million 至 $15 million 之间。此处，委托函中不存在要求支付该等不可退还费用的条款。\n\n此外，即使 Kwok 与 Boies 之间存在争议，证据也压倒性地支持 Boies 的证言。因此，委托函由 Schiller 而非 Boies 签署，并且 Schiller 就全部五项事项担任主办律师。根据其审阅 Boies Schiller 发票的情况，Kwok 显然也知道（或应当知道）Boies 未就其事项计入任何工作时间。事实上，正如 Kwok 本人指出，只有“三项记录”显示 Boies Schiller 中有人记录了与 Boies 讨论 Kwok 案件所花费的时间。\n\n值得注意的是，没有任何书面证据表明，Kwok 就五项事项中的任何一项聘请 Boies Schiller，是基于 Boies 明确表示由其本人——而非 Schiller——担任主办律师。事实上，书面证据表明恰恰相反。如以下进一步详述，在 Kwok 与 Boies Schiller 往来期间，其工作人员仅发送了两封对 Boies Schiller 账单提出异议的电子邮件。两封电子邮件均未将 Boies 未就 Kwok 的事项计入任何工作时间作为关切事项提出。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件编号 6 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 已提交 12/28/22 已录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 268 页，共 452 页\n\n总之，尽管我毫不怀疑 Kwok 希望 Boies 大量参与其案件，但没有可信证据表明 Boies 曾作出该等承诺，或表明 Kwok 决定就三项初始事项和两项追加事项聘请该律师事务所，取决于 Boies 同意其将担任代表 Kwok 的主办律师。\n\n2. Schiller 的持续参与\n\n尽管 Kwok 作证称其不希望由 Schiller 处理其事项，但其从未就 Schiller 的工时记录向 Boies Schiller 提出书面异议。尽管如此，Kwok 主张，其本人和 Sloane（斯隆）均曾口头向 Boies Schiller 表达其对 Schiller 持续代理其的担忧。\n\n可信证据表明，首次此类投诉是在 2017 年秋季由 Sloane 提出；当时 Boies 正在旅行，Sloane 致电 Carlson（卡尔森）。当时已接近 Boies Schiller 与 Kwok 关系终止之时。Boies 作证称，其于 11 月得知 Sloane 的来电。此后，其与 Kwok 讨论了 Kwok 要求 Schiller 不再担任其事项主办律师的问题。此前，应 Kwok 要求，Boies Schiller 已以 Schiller 替换一名会说普通话的律师。Boies 告诉 Kwok，Schiller 是一名优秀律师，且该律师事务所无法继续更换被指派处理 Kwok 事项的律师。Boies 还邀请 Kwok，如其不愿与 Schiller 合作，可将其余事项转交另一家律师事务所，并表示 Boies Schiller 将配合该程序。Kwok 显然在此次谈话后不久决定终止与 Boies Schiller 的关系。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件编号 6 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 已提交 12/28/22 已录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 269 页，共 452 页\n\nKwok 主张，其早于 2017 年 10 月或 11 月即已表达其不希望由 Schiller 代理的意愿。然而，无争议的是，Kwok 于 2017 年 10 月邀请 Schiller（以及 Boies）到其公寓共进晚餐，以庆祝其在 PAX 事项中获胜。此外，Kwok 于 2017 年劳动节周末期间两次在其公寓与 Schiller 会面，以讨论 Kwok 的数起案件。如果 Kwok 当时确实对 Schiller 不满，其推定不会安排在该等场合与其会面。\n\n基于该等证据，我认定 Kwok 最早直至 2017 年 10 月下旬，才明确要求由 Schiller 以外的人员处理其事项。不久后，于 12 月初前后，Kwok 终止聘用 Boies Schiller。然而，Kwok 从未就 Schiller 对其事项计费时间提出书面异议。因此，其已放弃基于 Schiller 参与其抗辩而对 Boies Schiller 发票提出异议的权利。\n\n3. 合并计费\n\n第三，在听证期间，Kwok 作证称，其曾对 Boies Schiller 将工作时间合并计费的做法提出异议。尽管 Yu（俞）于 8 月 17 日或 Wong（王）于 12 月 18 日发送的电子邮件均未提及合并计费问题，Kwok 作证称，其在与 Schiller 的讨论中曾抗议该做法，并且其就引起 Boies Schiller 主张的五项事项收到的发票，与其此前就 UBS 事项收到的发票存在显著差异。事实上，即使是粗略审阅也会显示，UBS 事项和后续事项中的发票均反映了合并计费。此外，Yu 和 Wong 的电子邮件中均未有一字一句抗议 Boies Schiller 对其就 Kwok 事项所花费时间进行合并计费的做法。因此，我认定 Kwok 对合并计费的投诉是事后想法，并且其无论如何已因未及时提出书面异议而放弃该项主张。4\n\n4. 其他计费异议\n\n最后，Kwok 指出，其确曾就 Boies Schiller 为提供服务而出具的某些发票提出书面异议。5 如上所述，首次该等异议为 Fiona Yu（菲奥娜·俞，以下简称“Yu”）于 2017 年 8 月 17 日向 Schiller 发送的一封电子邮件。作为回应，Schiller 在当天稍后的电子邮件中称，其将把 Boies Schiller 的 7 月发票减少 $50,000，作为“礼遇”。6 在该电子邮件中，Schiller 还建议 Kwok 为其案件使用其他律师，“以降低……诉讼成本”。其还表示，如能就预算以及 Kwok 对该律师事务所应开展工作程度的预期获得一些指示，将有所帮助。尽管 Kwok 随后将 Beijing 案件转交另一家律师事务所，但其未就 Schiller 的电子邮件进一步对 2017 年 6 月/7 月账单表示抗议，且其本人和 Yu 均未就其余四项事项提供或要求提供预算。由于未就 8 月 17 日电子邮件中提及的发票及时提出任何进一步异议，Kwok 已放弃现时对工时费用提出质疑的权利。\n\nKwok 指出，法官在审理费用申请时经常批评合并计费的做法。然而，该等案件通常发生于一方当事人依据法规或规则寻求费用裁定之时。Kwok 未援引任何一宗案件认定向律师事务所客户提交合并计费账单属不当。事实上，正如我在 In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2011, No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD) (FM), 2015 WL 6666703, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2015), Report & Rec. adopted 2015 WL 9255560 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2015) 中指出的那样，“当账单的唯一预期审阅者是该律师事务所的客户时，合并计费……的做法可能是合理的。”Boies 作证称，其律师事务所确实会应要求进行按任务计费，但 Kwok 从未提出该等要求。即使 Kwok 与 Boies 在此方面存在争议，我采信 Boies 的证言。\n\nKwok 主张，其未对更多账单提出抗议，是由于中国文化价值观强调让商业交易对手保留“面子”的重要性。该等文化价值观显然不能凌驾于委托函关于任何账单异议均须及时以书面形式提出的要求之上。\n\n6 当月，Boies Schiller 就 PAX 事项向 Kwok 计费约 $190,000，就 Beijing 事项计费 $4,000。\n\n已提交：纽约郡书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 索引号 150001/2019 NYSCEF 文件编号 6 NYSCEF 接收日期：04/24/2019 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 已提交 12/28/22 已录入 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 271 页，共 452 页\n\n第二组异议载于Wong（黄）日期为December 18, 2017的电子邮件中。在该电子邮件中，Wong称正在审计该律师事务所计费中的诸多“问题”，但看来从未进行过任何此类审计。根据委托函的二十日期间，Wong于December提出的异议只能适用于Boies Schiller（博伊斯·席勒律师事务所）October和November的账单。7\n\nC. Boies Schiller发票的合理性\n\nBoies Schiller就三项初始事项和两项追加事项开具的发票（包括垫付款）合计为\\$1,063,133.83。尽管Boies Schiller显然尚未将其预付款抵扣该金额，但无争议的是，\\$500,000可用于该目的。因此，Boies Schiller认为，在抵扣预付款后尚未支付的金额为\\$563,133.83，另加利息。然而，Boies Schiller于August 2017向Kwok（郭文贵）给予了\\$50,000的抵扣。尽管Boies Schiller主张，由于Kwok在Schiller（席勒）给予该抵扣后未支付June和July的发票，他已无权获得该优惠，但没有迹象表明该调整以及时付款为条件。因此，在抵扣预付款后实际仍未支付的本金金额为\\$513,133.83。\n\nKwok主张，Boies Schiller无权追偿\\$513,133.83，更不用说\\$1,063,133.83，因为Boies Schiller的发票不合理。8 根据Kwok所述，为反映诸多计费问题，应作百分之二十的减免，其中包括（但不限于）就某些任务计费的时间过多、不必要的重复工作、未由收费标准较低的计时人员完成较简单的工作，以及在开立新事项之前已按现有事项编号计费的工时。Kwok未能接受的是，委托函要求他在收到发票后二十日内以书面形式提出此类关切。他未就Boies Schiller的大多数账单这样做。\n\n在这些月份中，PAX、Bingbing、以及Rui Ma（马蕊）事项的计时费用合计为\\$148,150。\n\nKwok并未质疑Boies Schiller计时人员小时费率的合理性。\n\n已提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK（纽约县书记官）04/24/2019 04:20 PM 案号：150001/2019 NYSCEF文件编号：6 NYSCEF收到：04/24/2019 案件22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第272页，共452页\n\nYu（余）就June和July 2017发票提出的任何关切，均已由Schiller对July发票作出的\\$50,000减免充分处理。此外，尽管Wong在其December 2017致Schiller的电子邮件中笼统地提出了某些关切，我对October和November发票的审阅未能证实其关于计费异常的指控。还应提及的是，截至December，Kwok在多个战线上展开斗争，因为除本程序所涉诉讼外，他还卷入了众多诉讼，并且（或许有正当理由地）认为自己是中华人民共和国发起的一波诉讼攻势的受害者。因此，Kwok本人选择至少就Boies Schiller所处理的其中一宗案件采取焦土政策，并且未能和解另一宗本可迅速解决的事项。鉴于其积极抗辩每一宗诉讼的策略，Kwok几乎不能抱怨October和November账单过高。事实上，Kwok知道Boies Schiller的服务费用将会高昂，因为该律师事务所此前就UBS事项已向其计费约\\$1.5 million。\n\n诚然，Boies Schiller的发票显示，该律师事务所在为Kwok就引发本次仲裁的诉讼进行抗辩过程中不惜成本。然而，Kwok显然在相对早期即获得了选择：他可以继续聘用具有Boies Schiller水准的律师事务所，也可以将其事项转交给费用较低的律师。既然选择了前一选项，并选择积极进行诉讼，Kwok现在便不能可信地辩称Boies Schiller的账单不合理地高。此外，Kwok将受益于Schiller作出的\\$50,000减免，该减免相当于原始账单近百分之五的减免。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 案号：150001/2019 NYSCEF文件编号：6 NYSCEF收到：04/24/2019 案件22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第273页，共452页\n\n在此情形下，我认定Boies Schiller寻求追偿的剩余金额是合理的。9\n\nD. 反诉\n\nKwok在其反诉中提出了数项据称Boies Schiller无权追偿其费用的理由，其中大多数已被处理。他的反诉还提出另外两种理论，认为Boies Schiller的请求据称应全部或部分驳回，且他应获得其\\$500,000预付款的返还。\n\n首先，Kwok在其反诉中提出，在其签署委托函并交付预付款之前提供的任何服务，均不得在本仲裁程序中追偿，因为该等服务发生在其仲裁协议生效日期之前。Kwok在庭审后书面陈述中似乎已放弃该论点。Kwok本人还作证称，只要发票“正确且准确”，他将“非常乐意”支付在其向Boies Schiller汇付预付款之前所完成工作的费用。不言而喻，即使Kwok曾对早于签署委托函的计时记录提出异议，也没有丝毫证据表明就该期间向其提交的发票未准确反映Boies Schiller计时人员的实际工时或属不合理。因此，他目前就签署委托函前所耗费工时提出的异议，不构成抵销的依据。\n\n其次，Kwok主张Schiller有某些粗鲁行为。\n\n或许最严重的例子是December 2017末发生的一起事件，当时Schiller通过电话参加了一场由Boies（博伊斯）、Kwok及其他人出席的会议。在该会议期间，Schiller因未意识到自己正通过免提电话发言而作出了一些不恰当的言论。他还被指控通过反复向Sloane（斯隆）拨打一系列电话而有不专业行为。这些并非Kwok关于Schiller据称不专业行为的唯一指控。尽管免提电话事件的不当性基本上已获承认，但Schiller在其证词中对Kwok有关其他所称不当行为的指控提出异议。无需认定其他事件是否发生，因为即使确有发生，Kwok也未援引任何权威依据，我亦不知道有任何权威依据表明，该等事件可成为Kwok免于支付相关服务费用的依据，而这些服务大体上均在所称不当行为发生之前提供。\n\nKwok还抱怨Boies Schiller就December 2018过渡性服务收取的计时费用。即使他按照委托函的要求及时将该投诉书面提出，相关发票也清楚表明，在得知其余四项事项将转交他处后，该律师事务所并未为其所耗费的时间虚增计费。\n\n此外，Kwok质疑Boies Schiller的垫付款，因为该律师事务所未就所请求的金额提供收据。该等垫付款数额相对较小，且看来是在该律师事务所代理Kwok的正常过程中产生。此外，没有迹象表明Kwok曾要求任何佐证文件。基于这些理由，请求不准许Boies Schiller费用的主张缺乏依据。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 案号：150001/2019 NYSCEF文件编号：6 NYSCEF收到：04/24/2019 案件22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第274页，共452页\n\nE. 利息\n\n在其听证后书面陈述中，Boies Schiller提供了一项基于其追偿全部账单金额的利息计算。Kwok主张，任何未付账单的利息均应减少，因为Boies Schiller本可以将\\$500,000预付款抵扣逾期账单。然而，根据委托函，Boies Schiller拥有“全权酌处权”决定是否使用Kwok的预付款支付发票。在本案中，尤其因为Kwok主张其不欠Boies Schiller任何服务费用，该律师事务所在Kwok的反诉获得解决前不将预付款抵扣账单，显然并非滥用酌处权。\n\n委托函授权Boies Schiller就发票提交后三十日内未支付的所有费用按月利率百分之一、按月复利追偿利息。在其最初的听证后提交文件中，Boies Schiller推定是按该基础计算每张未付发票应付的利息。然而，该等计算未涉及在给予Kwok就July发票作出的\\$50,000抵扣后，其应支付的利息金额。因此，我指示双方于September 14, 2018前协商，以努力就任何必要调整达成一致；如未能达成一致，则应于September 21, 2018前提交信函说明其计算依据。如上所述，Boies Schiller作出了该进一步提交，但Kwok拒绝与Boies Schiller的律师就欠付利息的计算进行协商，且未说明其关于该计算的立场。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 案号：150001/2019 NYSCEF文件编号：6 NYSCEF收到：04/24/2019 案件22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第275页，共452页\n\n在审阅Boies Schiller日期为September 14, 2018的信函及其所附电子表格后，我认定Boies Schiller有权追偿截至September 7, 2018金额为\\$113,552.61的利息，以及自该日期起按月利率百分之一、按月复利计算的额外利息。\n\nF. 仲裁费用\n\n在各自的文件中，双方均请求裁定由对方承担本次仲裁的费用。JAMS（司法仲裁与调解服务机构）规则31(a)规定：“除非双方就费用和支出的不同分配达成协议，否则各方应支付其按比例应承担的JAMS费用和支出。”然而，规则24(c)允许仲裁员随后分配仲裁费用以及仲裁员报酬和支出，“除非双方协议明确禁止此类分配”。本案中，委托函并无此类禁止规定。尽管如此，仲裁员依酌处权决定，不以Boies Schiller与Kwok平均分担以外的任何方式分配本次仲裁的费用。\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 案号：150001/2019 NYSCEF文件编号：6 NYSCEF收到：04/24/2019 案件22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第276页，共452页\n\nIV. 裁决\n\n基于上述理由：（A）Boies Schiller可将Kwok的\\$500,000预付款抵扣其未付法律账单；（B）Boies Schiller有权获得额外裁决金额\\$626,686.44，其中包括\\$513,133.83未付法律费用，以及截至September 7, 2018就Kwok每张未付账单产生的额外\\$113,552.61利息；（C）Boies Schiller进一步有权就Kwok每张未付账单自September 8, 2018起至付款日止按月利率百分之一、按月复利追偿利息；以及（D）驳回Kwok的反诉及任何一方请求的进一步救济。\n\n特此命令。\n\n日期：New York, New York October 6, 2018\n\nFrank Maas（弗兰克·马斯） 仲裁员\n\n已提交：纽约县书记官 04/24/2019 04:20 PM 案号：150001/2019 NYSCEF文件编号：6 NYSCEF收到：04/24/2019 案件22-50073 文件1269 提交日期12/28/22 录入日期12/28/22 14:09:15 第277页，共452页\n\n送达清单\n\n案件名称：Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP（博伊斯·席勒·弗莱克斯纳律师事务所）诉 Kwok, Miles aka Guo Wengui（郭文贵，又名郭文贵） 听证类型：仲裁\n\n参考编号：1425025643 案件类型：商业/商事\n\n仲裁员：Maas, Frank（弗兰克·马斯）、\nPamela Jarvis（帕梅拉·贾维斯）Joshua Irwin Schiller（乔舒亚·欧文·席勒）\n\nJoseph Hage Aaronson LLC（约瑟夫·海格·阿伦森有限责任公司）Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP（博伊斯·席勒与弗莱克斯纳律师事务所）\n\npjarvis@jha.com jischiller@bsfllp.com\n\n代理当事人：助理电子邮件：BMargulis@BSFLLP.com Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\nGreaory P. Josepjj\n\nJoseph Hage Aaronson LLC Courtney Solomon（考特尼·所罗门）\n\nGregory P. Joseph（格雷戈里·P·约瑟夫） 申请人 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC 485 Lexington Ave. 电话：212-407-1200 30th Floor 传真：212-407-1299 New York, NY 10017\n\n代理当事人：csolomon@jha.com Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\nB\\_en-jamin Margu]js\n\nBoies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\nBenjamin Margulis（本杰明·马古利斯） 申请人 575 Lexington Ave. 电话：212-446-2300 7th Floor 传真：212-446-2350 New York, NY 10022-6102 BMargulis@BSFLLP.com\n\n代理当事人：Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\nAaron A. Mitchell（亚伦·A·米切尔）\n\nCohen & Howard LLP（科恩与霍华德律师事务所）\n\n代理当事人：\n\nAaron A. Mitchell 被申请人 766 Shrewsbury Avenue 电话：732-747-5202 Suite 301 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 amitchell@cohenandhoward.com\n\nKwok, Miles aka Guo Wengui\n\nPamela Jarvis 申请人 Joshua Irwin Schiller 申请人 485 Lexington Ave. 电话：212-407-1200 575 Lexington Ave. 电话：212-446-2300 30th Floor 传真：212-407-1299 7th Floor 传真：212-446-2350 New York, NY 10017 New York, NY 10022-6102\n\n代理当事人：Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\nCourtney Solomon 申请人 485 Lexington Ave. 电话：212-407-1200 30th Floor 传真：212-407-1299 gjoseph@jha.com New York, NY 10017\n\n代理当事人：Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n通过电子邮件及美国邮政送达证明\n\n事由：Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP 诉 Kwok, Miles aka Guo Wengui，参考编号 1425025643\n\n本人 Kristen Maccubbin（克里斯滕·麦卡宾）并非本案当事人，特此声明：于 2018年11月9日，本人通过电子邮件，并将其真实副本装入已密封且邮资已全额预付的信封，交由位于 New York, NEW YORK 的美国邮政寄送，按以下地址向本案当事人送达所附最终裁决：\n\nMr. Joshua Irwin Schiller Aaron A. Mitchell Esq. Benjamin Margulis Esq. Cohen & Howard LLP Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 766 Shrewsbury Avenue 575 Lexington Ave. Suite 301 7th Floor Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 New York, NY 10022-6102 电话：732-747-5202 电话：212-446-2300 amitchell@cohenandhoward.com jischiller@bsfllp.com 代理当事人：BMargulis@BSFLLP.com Kwok, Miles aka Guo Wengui 代理当事人：Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\nGregory P. Joseph Esq. Pamela Jarvis Esq. Courtney Solomon Esq. Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC 485 Lexington Ave. 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 电话：212-407-1200 gjoseph@jha.com pjarvis@jha.com esolomon@jha.com 代理当事人：Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP\n\n本人在伪证罪处罚的约束下声明，上述内容真实、正确。签署于 New York, NEW\n\nYORK，2018年11月9日\n\nKristen Maccubbin\nkmaccubbin@jamsadr.com\n附件 15\n\n2022-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人 15\n\n11/17/2022\nP.E.\n\n提交：NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/05/2016 07:09 PM 案号 653316/2015 NYSCEF 文件编号 27 NYSCEF 收讫：02/05/2016 案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 280 页，共 452 页\n纽约州最高法院纽约县\n\nACE DECADE HOLDINGS LIMITED（艾斯十年控股有限公司）：\n\n原告，：案号 653316/2015（Bransten, J.（布兰斯滕法官））\n\n诉 ：动议序号 001\n\nUBS AG（瑞银集团）：\n\n被告。：\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵）支持原告反对被告驳回起诉书动议的宣誓书\n\nKWOK HO WAN 经依法宣誓，特此陈述如下：\n\n1. 本人是 Yong Yu（俞勇）的雇主，俞勇为 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（以下简称“Ace Decade”）的董事及唯一股东。\n\n2. 本人根据本人亲身知悉的事实作出本宣誓书。\n\n3. 本人于 2010 年首次开始与 UBS AG（以下简称“UBS”）就潜在投资进行讨论。本人自 2012 年 7 月起一直是 UBS 的客户。\n\n4. 本人在 UBS 的主要联系人一直是 Stephen Wong（黄先生），其为 UBS 财富管理及瑞士银行部的董事总经理。\n\n5. 本人于 2010 年 5 月与黄先生相识。自此以后，黄先生就与飞机收购等项目有关的投资和融资诸多事项向本人提供建议。多年来，本人在作出投资和融资决定时，一直依赖黄先生及 UBS 的知识和专业能力。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 281 页，共 452 页\n\n6. 此外，自 2012 年 7 月起，本人就在 UBS 为本人控制的一个投资工具开设账户。此后，本人又为本人控制的另外两个投资工具在 UBS 开设账户，并从 UBS 获得两架飞机的融资。\n\n7. 于 2014 年初至年中，本人开始与 UBS 就海通证券股份有限公司（Haitong Securities Co., Ltd.，以下简称“Haitong”）即将进行的 H 股（以下简称“股份”）配售中的一项投资机会（以下简称“投资”）进行讨论。\n\n8. 自 2014 年本人首次开始与 UBS 讨论起，至 2015年5月13日本人与俞女士授权支付最后一笔 HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million）以进行该项投资时止，本人与黄先生通过电话、当面会谈和电子信息频繁沟通。在此期间，包括本人于 2015年1月9日迁居纽约之后，黄先生作出了多项不实陈述，本人依赖该等陈述而决定进行该项投资。\n\n9. UBS 是该等股份的联合全球协调人和配售代理人，并自称在就该项投资提供建议方面具备知识和经验。\n\n10. 起初，黄先生向本人保证，如果 UBS 获得本人的业务，其将保护本人的利益，并为贷款以融资该项投资的一部分提供尽可能最优的条款。黄先生告诉本人，由于本人计划进行的投资规模，UBS 的全球高级管理人员将参与构建该交易。黄先生告诉本人，他将在整个投资期间担任本人的个人联系人及 UBS 的代表，但其将按照 UBS 位于美国、瑞士、英国和香港的办事处高级管理人员的指示行事。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 282 页，共 452 页\n\n11. 基于 UBS 全球高级管理人员将参与构建和监督该项投资，以及 UBS 将以本人的最佳利益行事的该等陈述，本人委托 UBS 担任该项投资的顾问。\n\n12. 本人已阅读黄先生为支持 UBS 驳回 Ace Decade 起诉书的动议而提交的确认书。其中，他在伪证罪处罚的约束下确认：“[t]he first time I heard of Ace Decade was when I learned of this lawsuit in October 2015.”（Stephen Wong 确认书第 3 段。）本人读到该陈述时感到震惊，因为该陈述不实。恰恰相反，黄先生和 UBS 不仅此前已知悉 Ace Decade，而且正是他们建议本人从本人的雇员中指定何人担任 Ace Decade 的唯一股东和董事，利用 Ace Decade 与将持有该等股份法定所有权的中介实体订立附带协议，以及如何将该项投资所需资金从本人的一个 UBS 账户转至 Ace Decade 账户。总之，黄先生和 UBS 知道该项投资的最终投资者是 Ace Decade。\n\n13. UBS 建议，由于拟议投资占 Haitong 已发行 H 股的 5% 以上，如本人直接通过 Ace Decade 投资，适用的信息披露要求将要求提交某些申报文件。\n\n14. UBS 建议，如本人通过中介实体投资，由该中介实体持有股份的法定所有权，则无需进行该等披露。\n\n15. UBS 建议本人选择 Haixia Huifu Asset Investment and Fund Management Co., Ltd.（海峡汇富资产投资及基金管理有限公司，以下简称“Haixia”）作为该项投资的中介机构。UBS 表示，其建议 Haixia 是因为 Haixia 最有资格代表 Ace Decade 行事。UBS 进一步表示，Haixia 独立于 UBS，并将保护本人和 Ace Decade 的利益。本人依赖该等陈述，选择 Haixia 作为该项投资的中介机构。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 283 页，共 452 页\n\n16. UBS 从未披露 Haixia 受其合资伙伴 State Development & Investment Corp.（国家开发投资公司，以下简称“SDIC”）控制。UBS 亦未披露，担任 UBS 与 Haixia 之间主要联系人的 Lu Bo（卢波）此前曾任 UBS 与 SDIC 合资企业的首席财务官。直至 2015年7月21日，即 Ace Decade 进行该项投资之后且 UBS 清算该等股份之后，黄先生在一次电话中披露该关系，本人在纽约办公室接听该电话时，才知悉 Haixia 与 UBS 的密切关系。\n\n17. 黄先生起初称，如我们选择 Haixia 作为进行该项投资的中介机构，则无需接受 Haixia 的了解你的客户（“KYC”）程序。然而，他后来称我们需要准备一些文件，以接受 Haixia 的背景审查，但他并未解释该等文件是否用于 Haixia 的 KYC 程序。黄先生要求审阅本人一些雇员的简历，以评估谁的背景最有可能符合 Haixia 的要求，从而可以将该雇员指定为 Ace Decade 的董事和唯一股东。他审阅了这些简历，并建议俞女士的简历和背景最适合符合 Haixia 的要求，因此本人应指定俞女士担任 Ace Decade 的董事和唯一股东。黄先生称他将对俞女士的简历提出意见，并要求她将简历发送给他。（见 Ace Decade 附件 3 和 4。）\n\n18. 黄先生随后对俞女士的简历提出意见，以使其更有可能符合 Haixia 的要求。\n\n19. 黄先生和本人还多次讨论该项投资的潜在融资。黄先生称，Ace Decade 应通过 UBS 而非另一家银行为该项投资的一部分获得融资，因为 UBS 将以对 Ace Decade 最有利的条款处理该融资。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 284 页，共 452 页\n\n20. 在讨论贷款融资期间，本人告诉黄先生，除非贷款文件不包括任何允许 UBS 基于股份短期价格波动要求偿还贷款（“追加保证金通知”）的条款，且 UBS 表示将给予 Ace Decade 足够时间（例如，支付首个 25% 为五个营业日，支付第二个 25% 为十个营业日，支付剩余 50% 为二十个营业日）以满足任何追加保证金通知，否则 Ace Decade 不会进行该项投资。\n\n21. 黄先生于 2014 年不止一次称，贷款融资文件将符合本人的要求，具体而言，不会基于短期价格波动触发偿还或追加保证金通知。\n\n22. 黄先生还于 2014 年和 2015 年数次称，UBS 将与 Ace Decade 合作，使其能够满足任何追加保证金通知；未经给予 Ace Decade 足够时间，UBS 不会因任何追加保证金通知而出售任何股份。\n\n23. Wong先生（黄先生）还在2014年和2015年多次表示，UBS（瑞银）曾向Ping An Insurance Group（平安保险集团，以下简称“Ping An”）的一名大股东发放贷款。Wong先生解释称，该平安股东的贷款金额远大于Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的贷款金额，但UBS在发出追加保证金通知后从未出售该股东持有的任何股份。Wong先生表示，在触发追加保证金通知时，UBS曾与该平安股东合作解决该情况，而未出售其任何股份。Wong先生一再表示，UBS将给予Ace Decade与给予该平安股东相同的待遇，并将与Ace Decade 合作，使其能够满足任何追加保证金通知的要求；但无论如何，UBS不会在发出追加保证金通知后出售该等股份，除非给予Ace Decade充足的时间。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 285 of 452\n\n24. 在我们就该投资事项进行讨论的整个期间，Wong先生一再表示，我可以信任他和UBS，且他和UBS始终在为我的最大利益而工作。\n\n25. 在 December 14, 2014，就该投资事项进行讨论时，Wong先生通过WhatsApp（智能手机移动通讯应用程序）向我发送消息称：“一旦我向郭总承诺，我一定会尽最大努力；我只希望郭总能信任我。”当日稍后，他在另一条消息中告诉我：“我没有理由不为郭总争取最好结果！”（“郭总”是Wong先生对我的称呼。）\n\n26. 同样在 December 14, 2014，Wong先生给我留下语音消息，表示在就该投资事项进行谈判期间，“郭总的利益必须得到保障”，并且他已让来自世界各地办公室的UBS最高管理层参与协助。\n\n27. 在 December 15, 2014，Wong先生给我留下语音消息，表示他正在处理该投资事项的条款，以“保护[我]”。\n\n28. 在 December 19, 2014，Wong先生给我留下语音消息称：“郭总，你完全可以放心，我将完全保护你的利益。”\n\n29. 因此，我相信Wong先生和UBS是在为Ace Decade的最大利益行事，并信赖Wong先生就贷款融资文件所作的陈述真实无误，且UBS不会在未与Ace Decade合作、使其能够满足任何追加保证金通知要求的情况下出售该等股份。\n\n30. 在 January 9, 2015，当我仍在与UBS就该投资事项的条款进行谈判时，我与Yu女士（于女士）及其他员工搬至New York（纽约），意图将我的商业项目扩展至纽约，并寻找有意投资Ace Decade的投资者。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 286 of 452\n\n31. 我于 December 2014首次与Wong先生讨论该搬至纽约以为Ace Decade寻找投资者的计划。此后，我于 March、May和June 2015期间在纽约通过电话多次与Wong先生讨论为Ace Decade寻找投资者。\n\n32. 在 February 9, 2015，Ace Decade与China Golden Spring Group (Hong Kong) Limited（中国金泉集团（香港）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring Hong Kong”）签署了一份受美国法律管辖的Memorandum of Understanding（谅解备忘录，以下简称“MOU”）。该MOU规定，Ace Decade将收购Haitong Shares（海通股份），而Golden Spring Hong Kong将在纽约设立分支机构，为与海通股份有关的项目寻找投资者。\n\n33. 为推进该MOU，Golden Spring Hong Kong成立了一家名为Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.（金泉（纽约）有限公司，以下简称“Golden Spring New York”）的公司，该公司于 March 2015在Delaware（特拉华州）注册成立，并登记在纽约开展业务。Golden Spring New York由Golden Spring Hong Kong全资拥有。\n\n34. 此后不久，Golden Spring New York签署了一份租约，承租位于767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153的General Motors Building（通用汽车大厦）46层的部分区域。Yu女士和我在位于767 Fifth Avenue的办公室开展与Ace Decade有关的业务。\n\n35. 我不仅在 December 2014与UBS讨论了我搬至纽约并从纽约运营我的商业项目的计划，我还请求UBS协助在纽约建立我的业务运营。在 March 2015，Wong先生及UBS的其他人员，包括Agnes Fu（傅女士）和Liz Lam（林女士），安排将资金从我在UBS的一个账户转入我在纽约的个人JPMorgan Chase（摩根大通）账户。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 287 of 452\n\n36. 在 April 2015，Wong先生、Fu女士和Lam女士通过将资金从我在UBS的一个账户转入Golden Spring New York在纽约的JPMorgan Chase银行账户，协助我设立Golden Spring New York。\n\n37. UBS还就我购买纽约一栋合作公寓楼中的一套公寓代我提交了推荐信。在一封日期为 February 18, 2015、由Wong先生致该楼董事会的信中，Wong先生写道：“自Miles（迈尔斯）首次开始与UBS AG合作以来，我认识他约五年了。”（Miles是我的英文姓名。）Wong先生还表示：“多年来，Miles在我行赢得了信誉。他非常可靠，并始终履行其还款义务。因此，我行很高兴拥有他作为我们的长期客户。”（Ace Decade Exhibit 1。）\n\n38. Wong先生和同为UBS Managing Director（董事总经理）的Tommy Cheung（张先生）于 February 23, 2015向该公寓楼董事会代我提交了另一封推荐信，信中称：“Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）自 July 2012起通过一家个人投资公司成为我们的客户。”（Ace Decade Exhibit 2。）\n\n39. 在 March 6, 2015，我购买了该楼中的一套公寓。自购买以来，我以及Yu女士和Ace Decade及Golden Spring New York的其他员工和代表一直居住在该公寓内。\n\n40. 在我搬至纽约后的该期间内，Wong先生和我通过电话、语音消息和即时消息频繁沟通。在我身处纽约期间，Wong先生曾数十次通过电话与我交谈，并向我发送大量电子消息。Yu女士参加了我与Wong先生的部分通话。至少在下列日期，Wong先生曾在我身处纽约期间通过电话与我交谈：\n\nJanuary 26, 2015（三次通话）\nJanuary 28, 2015（两次通话）\nMarch 2, 2015\nMarch 4, 2015（三次通话）\nMarch 5, 2015\nMarch 13, 2015\nMarch 15, 2015\nMarch 16, 2015（六次通话）\nMarch 17, 2015（两次通话）\nMarch 18, 2015（两次通话）\nMarch 24, 2015\nMarch 31, 2015\nApril 28, 2015（三次通话）\nApril 30, 2015（五次通话）\nMay 6, 2015（两次通话）\nMay 11, 2015（三次通话）\nJune 23, 2015（两次通话）\nJuly 21, 2015\n\n41. 在我于纽约参与的这些2015年通话中，Wong先生和我多次讨论该投资事项及UBS贷款。在其中一次或多次通话中，Wong先生和我还讨论了我对该贷款的担忧，包括基于贷款价值比率（“LTV ratio”）的追加保证金通知触发条件、贷款金额、贷款利率以及海通股份的发行价格。Wong先生和我还讨论了我为Ace Decade在纽约寻找投资者所作努力的进展情况。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 289 of 452\n\n42. 在2015年的该期间内，我没有再次向Wong先生提出我对于以该等股份短期价格波动为条件的还款触发条件的担忧，因为Wong先生此前已告诉我不存在此类触发条件。\n\n43. 然而，在 March、April和May 2015期间的数次通话中，Wong先生和我讨论了追加保证金通知这一话题，尤其是LTV ratio触发条件。Wong先生表示，我无需担心，因为UBS将为我的最大利益行事，UBS将给予Ace Decade充足的时间以满足任何追加保证金通知要求，并且UBS将尽一切努力与Ace Decade合作，使其能够满足任何追加保证金通知要求。在该期间内，他还数次提醒我，UBS在针对该平安股东贷款发出追加保证金通知后，从未出售该股东的股份，并表示Ace Decade将获得与该平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n44. 在我身处纽约期间，Wong先生还就该投资事项和UBS贷款向我发送大量WhatsApp消息。例如，在 March 21 and 22, 2015，Wong先生和我交换了一系列WhatsApp消息，其中我们讨论了用于该投资事项的UBS贷款。我告诉Wong先生，UBS提出的某些条件，例如基于UBS贷款LTV ratio的追加保证金通知触发条件，“绝对不可以”，并且“我们宁愿不做，也不会同意你们的条款”。如果我并非依赖Wong先生此前所作的、贷款融资文件不包含基于该等股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件这一陈述，我本会再次向Wong先生提出该问题，而不会仅将我们的讨论集中于基于LTV ratio的追加保证金通知触发条件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 290 of 452\n\n45. Wong先生答复称，他理解我对潜在追加保证金通知的担忧，并告诉我：“你放心！……我是在为郭总做事！别担心。”我依赖Wong先生所作的、他和UBS正在维护我利益的陈述。所有这些讨论均发生在我身处纽约期间。\n\n46. 在 May 8, 2015，Haitong（海通）宣布，其已获得发行该等股份所必需的股东批准和监管批准（分别于 February和May获得），预计将在 May 15发行。Haitong还宣布，由于此前30个交易日期间海通股份的交易价格超过了预先约定的门槛，认购价格将提高。\n\n47. 在该公告之后，我通过电话和WhatsApp消息与Wong先生进行了数次讨论，以最终确定该投资事项的条款。我们讨论的议题包括：贷款必须增加以反映海通股份每股价格的上涨、所需付款金额、LTV ratio、利率，以及我们应如何将美元兑换为付款所需港元的方法。\n\n48. 在 May 8之后我们的一次讨论中，Wong先生再次表示，就任何追加保证金通知而言，Ace Decade将获得与该平安股东相同的待遇。\n\n49. 依赖这些陈述，我决定进行该投资事项。我在 May 11的电话交谈中与Wong先生讨论，如何最好地将该投资事项所需资金从我在UBS的一个账户转入Ace Decade账户。Wong先生表示，我首先需要在我的UBS账户中将资金从美元兑换为港元。他还指示不要将资金从我的UBS账户直接转入Ace Decade账户，而应将资金从我的UBS账户转入另一家银行的账户，再将资金从该账户转入Ace Decade账户。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 291 of 452\n\n50. 依赖Wong先生的建议，我决定先将资金从我的UBS账户转入China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. Hong Kong Branch（中国民生银行股份有限公司香港分行，以下简称“China Minsheng Account”）的一个账户，再将资金从China Minsheng Account转入Ace Decade账户。\n\n51. 在 May 11, 2015，Fu女士向Yu女士发送电子邮件，并抄送Wong先生和Lam女士，要求Yu女士取得我对UBS准备的一份付款指示文件的签署。该文件载有一项请求，即将HK $860 million (approximately US $111 million)从我的UBS账户转入Wong先生指示我使用的China Minsheng Account。\n\n52. 基于对Wong先生就该投资事项和UBS贷款所作陈述的信赖，我签署了授权电汇转账的文件。\n\n53. 当天晚些时候，Lam 女士（林女士）向 Yu 女士（俞女士）发送了一封电子邮件，并抄送 Wong 先生（王先生）和 Fu 女士（傅女士），随附从我的 UBS（瑞银）账户汇出的转账确认书。\n\n54. 随后，按照 Wong 先生的指示，我授权将资金从 China Minsheng Account（中国民生账户）转入 Ace Decade（艾斯迪凯德）账户。\n\n55. 资金到达 Ace Decade 账户后，于 May 13, 2015，Yu 女士和我授权从 Ace Decade 的账户向 Dawn State Limited（晨州有限公司，以下简称“Dawn State”）持有的账户支付 HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million）。Dawn State 是 Haixia（海峡）基金的特殊目的载体及全资子公司，该款项用于为将于 May 15 发行的股份投资提供资金。在此之前，我已授权从 Ace Decade 的账户经由 Dawn State 向一个 UBS 证券账户支付约 US $250\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 292 of 452\n\nmillion 的初始首付款。如果该项投资未完成，该笔付款本应返还给 Ace Decade。\n\n56. 我为进行该项投资所采取的全部步骤，包括请求将约 HK $860 million（approximately US $111 million）从我的一个 UBS 账户电汇至 China Minsheng Account，最终转入 Ace Decade 账户，以及授权于 May 13, 2015 从 Ace Decade 账户向 Dawn State 账户支付 HK $2 billion（approximately US $260 million），均是在我位于 New York（纽约）的办公室或公寓内进行的。\n\n57. 如果我知道 UBS 谎称贷款融资文件并未载有基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件，并且 UBS 会拒绝与 Ace Decade 合作以满足任何追加保证金要求，且一旦提出追加保证金要求便会立即出售 Ace Decade 的股份，我就不会于 May 2015 进行该项投资或授权该笔付款。\n\n58. 根据 Ace Decade 与 Haixia 之间协议的条款，Haixia 须在 July 13, 2015 之后，应 Ace Decade 的要求，将 Dawn State（持有股份法定所有权的实体）转让给 Ace Decade。\n\n59. 然而，在 July 6, 2015 纽约时间上午——距离 Haixia 本应将 Dawn State 转让给 Ace Decade 仅一周之前——我得知，由于股份的短期价格波动，UBS 要求我在不足 24 小时内偿还约 US $200 million。\n\n60. 如果我知道 UBS 可能要求在如此短的期限内付款，并且 UBS 谎称会提供充足时间以满足任何追加保证金要求，我就会确保 Ace Decade 有足够可用资金作出该等付款。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 293 of 452\n\n61. 在 UBS 的截止期限之前，Ace Decade 告知 UBS，我们可以迅速取得必要资金，但无法在 UBS 的截止期限之前取得。\n\n62. 然而，于 July 6, 2015，Wong 先生表示 UBS 不会给予 Ace Decade 任何额外时间。Wong 先生表示，UBS 已经为该等股份找到买方，并且通过出售股份而非允许 Ace Decade 付款，UBS 将获得巨额利润。\n\n63. 于 July 7th，我向 Wong 先生发送了一条 WhatsApp 消息，称 UBS 的追加保证金要求是“非法的”。Wong 先生没有反对我，也没有否认他曾告诉我不存在基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件。相反，他说他已告知高级管理层取消出售股份，并称他会要求 UBS 将股份返还给我。Wong 先生告诉我，该等股份仍处于 UBS 的控制之下，并承诺制定回购该等股份的方案。Wong 先生向我保证：“我一直站在郭总一边。”\n\n64. 于 July 9th，Wong 先生表示，出售股份的决定是由 Hong Kong（香港）和 China（中国）以外的 UBS 高管作出的。\n\n65. 于 July 17th，我提醒 Wong 先生，他此前曾多次表示，绝“不会有”基于股份短期价格波动的追加保证金要求，并且他多次表示，在一次追加保证金要求之后，UBS 并未出售一名大型 Ping An（平安）股东的股份。\n\n66. 在 July 17 的另一条消息中，我对 Wong 先生说：“我告诉过你，我是从去年开始来到美国寻找更好机会的，不是吗？我从美国发给你的所有信息、我的要求，你全都知道。……在这些情况下，一切都\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 294 of 452\n\n交给了你，[我]全都听你的。是你介绍了 Haixia……结果现在却搞得一团糟。”\n\n67. Wong 先生没有否认他作出过这些虚假陈述，事实上回复称他理解。\n\n68. 在 July 17 的另一条消息中，我对 Wong 先生说：“你多次告诉我，你们 UBS 不会那样清算资产；不然我怎么会信任你。”我还对他说：“如果不是你告诉我追加保证金要求会像平安那样，事情就不会变成这样。应当会有合理的时间去调集一些资产来处理。”\n\n69. 于 July 17，我还对 Wong 先生说：“你说 UBS 与他们[Haixia]签订了协议，允许 UBS 在追加保证金要求后 24 小时内出售全部股份。那是怎么签的？他们是怎么执行的？这不公平。你当时告诉我不是这样的。”\n\n70. Wong 先生回复：“我一直坚决反对他们，但他们不理会我，并告诉我这是瑞士 CEO（首席执行官）的命令。”他没有否认我关于他先前曾表示贷款协议不会允许 UBS 在追加保证金要求后 24 小时内出售股份的主张。\n\n71. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong 先生从未否认他曾表示 UBS 会以与平安股东相同的方式对待 Ace Decade。\n\n72. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong 先生从未否认他曾表示贷款文件不会载有基于股份短期价格波动的还款触发条件。\n\n73. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong 先生从未否认他曾表示 UBS 会与 Ace Decade 合作，并给予其充足时间以满足任何追加保证金要求。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 295 of 452\n\n74. 在我们的任何讨论中，Wong 先生从未否认 UBS 曾有不当行为。\n\n75. Wong 先生告诉我，于 July 7, 2015，UBS 以 HK $11.12 出售了属于 Ace Decade 的全部股份，该价格较 July 7 海通股票的收盘价低 20%。\n\n76. 由于失去海通股份，Ace Decade 失去了纽约投资者；我于 2015 年搬迁至纽约后曾与这些投资者会面，他们曾有意投资 Ace Decade。例如，在 April 至 June 2015 期间，我的代表和／或我曾四次在纽约会见一家总部位于纽约的私人投资公司的联合创始人。该公司对投资 Ace Decade 表示出浓厚兴趣。然而，在 UBS 出售属于 Ace Decade 的海通股份后，Ace Decade 失去了这名潜在投资者。\n\n我宣誓上述内容真实、正确。\n\n[中文版本中的 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）签名] Kwok Ho Wan\n\n[中文版本中的公证认证]\n\nMeseryqy 市，Ceno Gordo 县） ） ）\n\n兹证明：\n\n本人 Linmag lds-，经依法宣誓后陈述并称，本人精通英语和中文。本人特此证明，所附文件是《Kwok Ho Wan 宣誓书》中文版本的准确译文。\n\n于本\n\nLou, ofl\\*qec|ts €ebr^-^-r1 gotb\n\n日在本人面前宣誓\n\n公证人\n\n#ou\\$\n证物 32\n\n2022-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人 32\n11/18/2022\n\nP.E.\n\n证物 33\n\n2022-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人 33\n\n11/18/2022\nP.E.\n\nAlex Lipman（亚历克斯·利普曼）\n\nLuft, Avi E.（阿维·E·卢夫特）\nKosciewicz, Jonathon P.（乔纳森·P·科谢维奇）；Bassett, Nicholas（尼古拉斯·巴塞特）\n[外部] 回复：Yvette Wang（王悦）\nThursday, November 10, 2022 9:24:33 AM\n\nAvi：\n\n我未获授权接受送达。\n\nAlex Lipman\n\nLipman Law PLLC（利普曼律师事务所） 147 West 25th Street 12th Floor New York, New York 10001\n\n+1 (212) 401-0070（办公室）+1 (917) 757-9850（手机）\n\nalexlipman@lipmanpllc.com lipmanpllc.com\n\nOn Nov 6, 2022, at 21:48, Luft, Avi E. 写道：\n\nAlex：\n\n我写信跟进以下电子邮件。Wang 女士是否授权你代表她接受传票？如未授权，你能否向我提供亲自向你的客户送达的最佳地址和时间。该传票涉及即将举行的加速听证会，因此需要你的客户迅速作出回应。请于明天上午之前告知我你的客户希望如何进行。谢谢。\n\nAvi\n\n[image001.png]\n\nAvi E. Luft 法律顾问 Financial Restructuring Group（金融重组组） Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 直线电话：+1.212.318.6079 总机：+1.212.318.6000 传真：+1.212.303.7079 email www.paulhastings.com\n\nOn Nov 3, 2022, at 12:49 PM, Luft, Avi E. 写道：\n\nAlex：\n\n应你的要求，我写信跟进我们的电话交谈。如我所述，我代表 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平），其为 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）破产法院的破产案件之 Chapter 11（第 11 章）受托人。如我所述，我们需要向你的客户 Wang 女士送达传票，并询问你是否愿意代表她接受该传票。我理解你希望询问她是否愿意如此，或者她是否希望我们向她本人送达。请告知我们她的意见。谢谢。\n\nAvi\n\n\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nAvi E. Luft 法律顾问 Financial Restructuring Group（金融重组组） Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 直线电话：+1.212.318.6079 总机：+1.212.318.6000 传真：+1.212.303.7079 email www.paulhastings.com\n\n\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\n\n本信息由一家律师事务所发送，可能含有享有特权或保密的信息。如您错误收到本传输信息，请通过回复电子邮件通知发件人，并删除本信息及任何附件。\n\n如您回复本信息，Paul Hastings 可能收集个人信息，包括您的姓名、企业名称及其他联系信息，以及 IP 地址。有关 Paul Hastings 信息收集、隐私和安全原则的更多信息，请点击此处。如有任何问题，请联系 Privacy@paulhastings.com。\n\n\n证物 39\n\n2022-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n受托人 39\n\n11/17/2022\nP.E.\n\nMILES KWOK October 3, 2018\n\n原始文件 247294.TXT Min-U-Script®，附词语索引 Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 305 of 452\n\n纽约州最高法院\n\n纽约县\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业），\n\n原告，\n\n—诉—\n\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN\nGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WEN-GUI，\n\n又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUY，\n\n被告。\n案号：652077/2017\n\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York\nOctober 3, 2018\n\n9:39 a.m.\n\n对 MILES KWOK 的录像审前询问\n\n于纽约州公证人 Kristi Cruz（克里斯蒂·克鲁兹）之前进行。\n\nELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC（艾伦·格劳尔法庭记录有限责任公司）\n126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor\n\nNew York, New York 10022\n212-750-6434\n\n事由：\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 306 of 452\n\n1 出庭人员：\n3 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\n4 原告代理律师\n5 Times Square Tower\n6 7 Times Square\n7 New York, New York 10036\n8 代理人：EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.（爱德华·莫斯，律师）\n9 STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，律师）\n10 SARA N. PAHLAVAN, ESQ.（萨拉·N·帕拉万，律师）\n11 212.326.2000\n12 emoss@omm.com\n13 ssarnoff@omm.com\n14 spahlavan@omm.com\n\n17 HODGSON RUSS LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）\n18 被告代理律师\n19 605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300\n20 New York, New York 10158\n21 代理人：MARK A. HARMON, ESQ.（马克·A·哈蒙，律师）\n22 JILLIAN MARIE SEARLES, ESQ.（吉莉安·玛丽·希尔斯，律师）\n23 212.751.4300\n24 mharmon@hodgsonruss.com\n25 jsearles@hodgsonruss.com\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n另行到场：\nELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG（姜瑶英），普通话口译员\nDAN MACOM（丹·麦康），摄像师\nKARIN MAISTRELLO（卡琳·迈斯特雷洛），Golden Spring（黄金泉）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 308 页，共 452 页\n\n------------------- 目录 -------------------\n\n证人 询问人\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵） MOSS 律师\n\n指示： 页码\n17、18、19、58、59、61、\n62、67、70、71、72、73、\n78、101、102、117、118、\n126、128、129\n\n--------------- 文件请求 ---------------\n\n页码：\n129 证明与 Zhang Wei（张伟）就该\n酒店达成协议的文件\n\n---------------- 证物 ----------------\n\nKWOK 说明\n供识别之用\n\n证物 1 Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）\n\n公司文件\n\n证物 2 YouTube 打印件\n\n证物 3 联邦起诉状\n\n证物 4 附有以下内容的函件\n\n财务资料\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 309 页，共\n\n------------ 证物（续）------------\n\nKWOK 说明 供识别之用\n证物 5 Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）的 UBS Hong Kong（瑞银香港）对账单 82\n标题为“借记通知”\n证物 6 Realtor.com 打印件 88\n\n（待出示的证物）\n\n约定\n\n兹由本案各方律师约定并同意，免除提交及密封手续。\n\n进一步约定并同意，除对问题形式提出的异议外，所有异议均保留至审判时提出。\n\n进一步约定并同意，本次证言记录可在任何获授权主持宣誓的官员面前宣誓并签署，其效力与在法院面前签署并宣誓相同。\n\n进一步约定并同意，应向证人律师提供本次证言记录的一份副本。\n\n- oOo -\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 311 页，共 452 页\n\n程序\n\n摄像师：\n这是原告在 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund LP（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 Kwon（昆）等人一案中，对 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）先生进行的录像证言记录；该案在 New York Supreme Court, New York County（纽约州纽约县最高法院）审理。\n\n案号为 652077-2017。\n\n本次证言记录于今日，即 2018 年 10 月 3 日，在 O'Melveny & Myers（奥麦律师事务所）举行。我的姓名是 Dan Macom（丹·麦康），来自 Ellen Grauer, a U.S. Legal Support Company（艾伦·格劳尔美国法律支持公司），我是录像技术员。今日的法庭记录员是 Kristi Cruz（克里斯蒂·克鲁兹）女士，她也来自 Ellen Grauer, a U.S. Legal Support Company（艾伦·格劳尔美国法律支持公司）。现已开始正式记录，时间为上午 9:39。\n\n请各位律师现在为记录说明其出庭情况及其所代表的当事人，之后请法庭记录员为证人主持宣誓。\n\nMOSS 律师：\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯），来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥麦律师事务所），代表原告。\n\nSARNOFF 律师：\nStuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），来自\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 312 页，共 452 页\n\nO'Melveny & Myers（奥麦律师事务所），代表原告。\n\nPAHLAVAN 女士：Sara Pahlavan（萨拉·帕拉万），O'Melveny & Myers（奥麦律师事务所），与原告共同出庭。\n\nHARMON 律师：Mark A. Harmon（马克·A·哈蒙），Hodgson Russ LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所），代表被告。\n\nSEARLES 女士：Jillian Searles（吉莉安·瑟尔斯），代表被告。\n\nMAISTRELLO 女士：Karin Maistrello（卡琳·迈斯特雷洛），Golden Spring（黄金泉），代表被告。\n\n本案普通话口译员 ELIZABETH YAOYING JIANG（姜瑶英）已依法宣誓，将尽其所能把问题从英语译为普通话，并将回答从普通话译为英语：\n\n本案证人 MILES KWOK（郭文贵）经由口译员依法宣誓后，接受询问并作证如下：\n\nMOSS 律师询问：\n\n问：早上好，Kwok 先生。非常感谢您今天到场。我的名字是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 313 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\nEdward Moss（爱德华·莫斯），我们在本诉讼中代表 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）集团。\n\n您以前是否曾接受过证言记录？\n\n答：一次，一次。\n\n问：您明白您是在宣誓后作证吗？\n\n答：明白。\n\n问：我将简要说明证言记录的基本规则。\n\n答：明白。\n\n问：如果您不理解问题，请告诉我，我会尽力换一种更清楚的方式提问。如果您回答了问题，我将认为您理解了该问题，并已尽您所能作出回答。我会等您答完，也请您等我问完，以便形成清晰的记录。\n\n您的律师可能会对我的问题提出异议。我预计他们会对我的问题提出异议。除非您的律师指示您不要回答，否则请您仍然回答问题。您明白吗？\n\n答：完全明白。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 314 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：谢谢。是否有任何原因使您今天不能如实作证？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您明白，您在此既以个人身份作证，也作为某些——某些组织的代表作证？\n\n答：明白。\n\n问：而那些组织是 Genever，或者 Genever——是 Genever 还是 Genever？\n\nHARMON 律师：\nGenever，和那座城市一样。\n\n问：您明白，您在此代表在英属维尔京群岛设立的 Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）作证？\n\n答：明白。\n\n问：您明白，您也在此代表在纽约州设立的 Genever Holdings LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）作证？\n\n答：明白。\n\n问：最后，您在此代表在英属维尔京群岛设立的 Shiny Times Holdings Limited（光辉时代控股有限公司）？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 315 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n答：明白。\n\n问：您明白，我们在此讨论与我的当事人申请扣押您位于 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）的住所，以及与 Genever 各组织的结构有关的问题？\n\n答：我不太明白。\n\n口译员：\n我是口译员。请您把问题拆开说。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n当然。\n\n问：我们今天将涉及的一个问题，是与 Pacific Alliance Group（太平洋联盟集团）申请扣押位于 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）的公寓有关的问题。\n\n答：我不明白。\n\n问：您明白 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）已就违约提起诉讼吗？\n\n答：我更不明白。\n\n问：是不明白还是明白？\n\n口译员：\n不明白。\n\n答：绝对、完全更不明白。\n\n问：您不明白 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）已对您提起违约诉讼？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 316 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n答：太荒唐了。我何时违反了我们的合同？我何时做过那种事？\n\nHARMON 律师：\n这里显然存在句法上的脱节，即所问的是该诉讼是否有依据，还是该诉讼是否已提起。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，我明白您对该诉讼持异议。\n\n答：我不是在否认它。我不是在否认它。我认为这完全荒唐。这完全是在浪费我的时间。这是——\n\n口译员：\n一句脏话，粗俗用语。\n\nSARNOFF 律师：\n这句脏话有译文吗？我们希望将其记入记录。\n\n口译员：\n大概是——大概是一件他妈的事之类的说法。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n像什么？抱歉？\n\n口译员：\n像“他妈的”——没有完全对应的说法，但这是粗俗用语；他说这件事是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 317 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n一件彻头彻尾的他妈的事，或者类似的话。\n\n问：让我换一种方式问。\n\n您是否知道 PAX LP 或 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）正在申请扣押 Kwok 先生位于 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）的住所？\n\n答：我完全不知道他们在做什么。这完全是一件他妈的事，我和他们有什么关系？他们到底在干什么？\n\n问：或许我只是在记录中说明，我们在此是就我们的扣押动议及揭开公司面纱有关的问题，而不是讨论案件实体问题。\n\nHarmon 律师，我假定您同意这一点？\n\nHARMON 律师：\nMoss 律师，您应当提您的问题。如果您超出我认为适当的范围，我会告诉您。到目前为止没有问题。\n\nMOSS 律师：\nHarmon 律师，我只是想在记录中说明，如果您不同意，请告诉我，我们在本次证言记录之前已同意，我们不会涉及与\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 318 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n基础诉讼实体有关的问题。因此，我正在问您是否同意该陈述。\n\nHARMON 律师：\n我不是来接受证言记录的。Kwok 先生才是来接受证言记录的。您应当——我认为我们都明白我们为什么在这里。您应当提您的问题；如果这些问题超出我们已达成一致的范围，我会提出异议。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n我试图确认您为什么在这里。您说您明白。您会确认这一点吗？\n\nHARMON 律师：\n我们在此对 Kwok 先生进行证言记录。\n\nMOSS 律师：\n我们在此就扣押和揭开公司面纱问题对 Kwok 先生进行证言记录。我们不是在讨论实体问题。如果 Harmon 律师不同意，我请他现在说明。如果不是，我将认为他同意我。我将继续；没有听到 Harmon 律师的任何回应。\n\nHARMON 律师：\n您应当提您的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 319 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问题。\n\nMOSS 律师继续询问：\n\n问：您为今天的证言记录做过任何准备吗？\n\n答：我不知道什么是准备。您对准备的标准是什么？\n\n问：您是否与您的律师会面，为证言记录做准备？\n\n答：我每天都见我的律师。我有 29 起案件。我必须躲避共产党的暗杀。我不知道您说的为准备而会面是什么意思。\n\n问：您是否就今天的证言记录与 Harmon 先生和／或 Searles 女士会面？\n\n答：是，是。\n\n问：您何时与他们会面？\n\n答：昨天或前天。我想是前天。\n\n问：您是亲自与他们会面？\n\n答：我亲自。\n\n问：谁出席了该会面？\n\n答：哦，来来去去有很多人。您想让我说出每个人的名字吗？\n\n问：是的，请说。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 320 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n答：那么我得想一想。我暂时实在想不起他们是谁。\n\n问：Harmon 先生（哈蒙）在场吗？\n\n答：当然。\n\n问：Searles 女士（瑟尔斯）在场吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：还有其他律师在场吗？\n\n答：律师？是的，还有其他律师在场，但时间很短。\n\n问：在场的其他律师是谁？\n\n答：我不太记得名字。我只记得 Don（唐）。我不记得全名。\n\n问：所以有一名其他律师在场？\n\n答：我想只有一名。\n\n问：那个人来自 Harmon 先生的律师事务所吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：那个人是你某家公司的一名雇员吗？\n\n答：是我的咨询公司。我提供咨询的一家公司，是那里的一名雇员。\n\nKWOK\n\n问：那个人在整个会面期间都在场吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：在会面期间，是否有任何时候除你、Harmon 先生和 Searles 女士之外没有其他人在场？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：所以，在那次会面的任何时候，除你、Harmon 先生和 Searles 女士之外，始终还有其他人在场？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：请告诉我，你所能记得的 Harmon 先生或 Searles 女士在那次会面期间对你说过的一切？\n\nHARMON 先生：反对。我指示证人不要回答。受律师—当事人保密特权保护。\n\nMOSS 先生（莫斯）：你刚才听到他作证称，整个期间房间里都有第三方在场吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：我主张律师—当事人保密特权。\n\n问：昨天或前天与 Harmon 先生和 Searles 女士会面期间，房间里还有谁？\n\nKWOK\n\n答：这位 Chiling 女士（音）。\n\n问：还有谁？\n\n答：我需要一名口译员。\n\n问：可以理解。还有谁在场？\n\n答：Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）有时进来，有时出去。\n\n问：还有谁在场？\n\n答：哦，我们的同事，我们的同事进进出出，保安也进进出出。\n\n问：请你告诉我，Yvette Wang 在房间里时你们讨论了什么？\n\nHARMON 先生：反对。受律师—当事人保密特权保护。我指示证人不要回答。\n\n问：请你告诉我，在那次会面期间你的其他同事在房间里时讨论了什么？\n\n答：这个我不能告诉你。都是关于生孩子的事。我想你不会想听这个。在那之前六小时，我的一位同事刚生了一个孩子。\n\n问：请你告诉我，在其他同事在房间里期间，你与 Searles 女士和 Harmon 先生就本案讨论了什么？\n\nKWOK\n\nHARMON 先生：我指示证人不要回答。\n\n答：我不想回答这样的问题。\n\n问：请你告诉我，在保安人员在房间里期间，你与 Searles 女士和 Harmon 先生就本案讨论了什么？\n\nHARMON 先生：我指示——我指示证人不要回答。\n\n问：Kwok 先生（郭文贵），你使用电子邮件沟通吗？\n\n答：不，不。\n\n问：除口头交谈外，你如何沟通？我撤回。这太宽泛了。这是个糟糕的问题。你通过短信沟通吗？\n\n答：短信？那是什么？我不明白。短信包括很多东西。有上千种短信方式。你说的是哪一种？我不明白。\n\nKWOK\n\n问：你是否使用任何类型的短信沟通？\n\n答：用短信沟通？是。\n\n问：你使用 WhatsApp 应用程序沟通吗？\n\n答：我使用。\n\n问：你还使用哪些类型的短信？\n\n答：太多了。在中国有数千种。如果你要我想出它们，我得在这里坐上几小时。\n\n问：所以你使用若干种短信方式？\n\n答：我不明白你说的若干种短信方式是什么意思。我不明白那是什么意思。\n\n问：嗯，你刚才告诉我有数千种短信方式，而我是在总体上问你，你是否使用许多不同类型的短信。\n\n答：我使用三、四种。\n\n问：在与本诉讼有关的情况下，你的短信是否被检索过？\n\nKWOK\n\n答：我没有为此使用任何一种。我没有为此使用任何一种或任何东西。我不明白你这话是什么意思。我从不讨论本诉讼。我认为这只是一个荒谬的案件。我认为这只是诈骗。我认为你们是一帮暴徒。我认为你们就是黑手党。你们在为共产党工作。你们在进行威胁和敲诈勒索。全世界都知道你们在做什么。你们在帮助黑手党。你们在毁掉一个好人。我根本不需要理会你们。\n\n问：让我再试一次。你是否提供——删去。你是否知道，你的律师是否检索过你的任何短信，以回应或试图回应我方当事人在本案中的文件请求？\n\n答：我不明白。我不明白你所说的一切。你问的问题对我来说完全无法理解。我认为你仿佛隔着银河系在和我说话。你们编造了一个完全不存在的案件，然后你们问我问题。我完全无法回答你。\n\nKWOK\n\n问：你无法回答你的短信是否因本案而被检索过吗？\n\n答：我确实不明白你的意思。\n\n问：你明白可以在一个人的短信中进行检索吗？\n\n答：我当然知道。我知道可以检索短信。但至于其他人是否检索过，这有关吗？\n\n问：我的问题是，你的短信是否被检索过，以试图找到我们在本案中要求提供的文件。\n\n答：我确实不明白。我的短信，因为共产党正试图暗杀我，我的短信有很多情报人员和保安人员。\n\n口译员：我漏掉了他发言的最后一部分。我会请他重复。\n\n证人：抱歉。这是出于安全原因。我不想死在这里，以防你们下毒。\n\nKWOK\n\n口译员：我不得不请他重复。我说：“你的短信怎么了？你说共产党正试图暗杀你？”他说：\n\n答：嗯，我的短信必须准备许多副本，供很多人每天查看。\n\n问：所以你不知道你的短信是否为本案而被检索过？\n\n答：你知道，我的短信，有这么多检索，这么多案件。但具体而言，我确实不明白你在说什么。我真的很抱歉。\n\n问：没关系。\n\nMOSS 先生：我们休息一下。\n\n录像员：现在停止记录。时间是上午 10:07。\n\n（休庭。）\n\n录像员：现在恢复记录。时间是上午 10:19。\n\nMOSS 先生询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，我需要为记录说明几件事。我们在此代表 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟），不代表其他任何人。Pacific Alliance 已对你提起诉讼，根据法律，我们有权向你提出问题并从你那里获得对这些问题的回答，除非你被指示不得回答这些问题。到目前为止，我们没有得到若干问题的回答，并且我们将提出所有问题。按照目前的进度，这将花费很长时间。我已非常努力地准备，集中提出我的问题，以免浪费你的时间，也不浪费任何人的时间。如果你回答我的问题，这件事对我们所有人都会更快结束。\n\nHARMON 先生：我相信他正在尽力按照他理解的问题作答。\n\n答：你们很多问题不会这么荒谬。我的律师告诉我，要如实回答你们所有的问题。\n\n问：你没有理由认为，对吗，坐在这里的这两名律师，Harmon 先生和 Searles 女士，曾在针对 PAX，即 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的本诉讼中检索过你的短信？\n\nKWOK\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题形式提出反对。\n\n口译员：我是口译员。你希望我把问题和反对意见也向他翻译吗？\n\nMOSS 先生：当然。\n\nHARMON 先生：并请告诉他，如果他理解该问题，就回答。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你没有任何信息表明，或者没有任何记忆表明，他们确实检索过你的短信？\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题形式提出反对。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你是否将你的短信提供给 Harmon 先生或 Searles 女士供其检索？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你不知道你是否把手机交给 Harmon 先生或 Searles 女士，让他们检索你的短信吗？\n\nKWOK\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题形式提出反对。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你知道你是否把一台笔记本电脑或其他计算机交给 Harmon 先生或 Searles 女士，让他们检索你的短信或文件吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你是否向 Harmon 先生或 Searles 女士提供过任何纸质文件，以回应 Pacific Alliance 的请求？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：是否有人曾要求你检索你的文件，以回应 Pacific Alliance 的请求？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：是否有人曾要求你检索你的短信，以回应 Pacific Alliance 的请求？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你是否曾与任何人讨论过检索文件或短信，以回应 Pacific Alliance 的请求？\n\nKWOK\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：谢谢。\n\n答：你认为我的回答够快吗？\n\n问：Kwok 先生，今天由我提问。但我会回答这个问题。这些回答没问题。谢谢。你是否拥有 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）的一处住所？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：你是否居住在 Sherry-Netherland Hotel 的一处住所？\n\n答：有时。\n\n问：谁拥有该住所？\n\n答：Zhang Wei（张伟）先生。\n\n口译员：Z-H-A-N-G，W-E-I，拼音拼写。\n\n问：Zhang Wei 是谁？\n\n答：是一名工作合伙人，一个基金，一个综合基金中的成员。\n\n问：Zhang Wei 是个人还是实体？\n\n答：是个人。\n\n问：Zhang Wei 居住在哪里？\n\n答：在监狱里。\n\nKWOK\n\n答：Zhang Wei 先生是最初出资的人。我和整个 Genever Corporation（吉尼弗公司）是受托方，也代表他的投资和投资者。\n\n口译员：他说“这样可以吗”，我说“可以”。\n\n问：是你向 Sherry-Netherland 申请居住在该公寓吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题形式提出反对。\n\n答：我是其中之一。\n\n问：还有谁申请居住在 Sherry-Netherland 的那套公寓？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：你不知道还有谁申请居住在 Sherry-Netherland 的同一套公寓——\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题形式提出反对。\n\nMOSS 先生：我把问题说完后你再反对，怎么样。\n\nHARMON 先生：我以为你已经说完了。\n\nMOSS 先生：好。\n\nKWOK\n\n2 问：\n你不知道还有谁申请居住在你申请居住的 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰）同一套公寓里吗？\n5 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n7 答：\n如果他提出异议，我就不必回答，对吗？\n9 HARMON 先生：\n如果你理解这个问题，这个问题你必须回答。\n11 答：\n我不知道。\n12 问：\n还有多少人申请居住在你申请居住的 Sherry-Netherland 的那套公寓里？\n15 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n17 答：\n我不知道。\n18 问：\n那些也申请居住在你申请居住的 Sherry-Netherland 那套公寓里的人中，有没有不是你家庭成员的人？\n22 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n24 答：\n我不知道。\n25 问：\n你是否直接处理——\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 337 页，共 452 页\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 338 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 与从 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（谢里-内德兰酒店）档案中调取的、涉及 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings 有限责任公司）和 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）的文件有关的事项。\n5 HARMON 先生：\n你给该文件作标记了吗？\n7 MOSS 先生：\n作了。这是证物 1。\n8 SARNOFF 先生：\nKwok 1。\n9 HARMON 先生：\nKwok 1？谢谢。\n10 问：\nKwok 先生，我想请你注意文件底部的编号，我们称之为 Bates 编号。我想请你注意 SN 0159。你看到这是 Genever Holdings Corporation 的公司注册证书吗？\n16 答：\n我看不懂。\n17 问：\n你无法阅读该文件吗？\n18 答：\n绝对无法。\n19 问：\n你是否知道 Genever Holdings Corporation 大约于 February 13, 2015 成立？\n22 答：\n我不明白你的意思。我确实不记得这件事。我以前从未见过这份文件。\n25 问：\n当我问你是否知道 Genever Holdings Corporation 大约于 February 13, 2015 成立时——\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 339 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 ——你不明白我的意思吗？\n5 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n7 答：\n我确实——我确实不知道这件事。我确实不记得。这些都是律师安排的。\n10 问：\n我们看一下 SN 0161。你能读懂这份文件上的任何内容吗？\n12 答：\n我无法阅读。我只能看阿拉伯数字，比如一、零。其他的我不知道。\n15 问：\n也许这样会更容易一些，Kwok 先生。你完全能读任何英语吗？\n17 答：\n不，我绝对不能。\n18 问：\n那么，如果我今天把任何文件放在你面前，你都无法阅读？\n20 答：\n是。我目前正在学习英语。\n22 问：\n好的。那么今天的文件会比我原以为可能会有的少得多。\n25 答：\n哦，真的吗。对此我很抱歉。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 340 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 问：\n完全没关系。\n3 答：\n我从未见过这个东西。\n4 问：\n你是 Genever Holdings Corporation 的唯一股东吗？\n6 答：\n你知道，按照你的说法，我不知道。我只是代理人，他们只是让我签字，我甚至不知道我签的是什么。至于你说我欠你 30 million，那 F 是什么，我从未签署过任何东西。\n12 问：\n你是 Genever Holdings Corporation 的唯一董事吗？\n14 口译员：\n这是口译员。董事是什么意思？\n16 MOSS 先生：\n像董事会成员。\n17 口译员：\n董事会成员。好的。\n19 答：\n我确实不知道。\n20 问：\n你控制 Genever Holdings Corporation 吗？\n22 答：\n我当然不控制它。\n23 问：\nZhang Wei（张伟）控制它？\n24 答：\n当然。\n25 问：\nGenever Holdings Corporation——\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 341 页，共 452 页\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 342 页，共 452 页\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 343 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 没有别的。\n3 问：\n“代表关系”是什么意思？\n5 答：\n我确实不知道。这就像你购买房屋时，会有某个代理人代表你。我不知道。这都是律师安排的。\n9 问：\n那么，Genever Holdings Corporation 可能是 Shiny Times（Shiny Times）某种形式的代理人？\n11 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n13 答：\n我并不这么认为。\n14 问：\n那么，你证称，你认为 Genever Holdings Corporation 与 Shiny Times 存在代表关系，对吗？\n18 答：\n我认为，在购买该住宅期间存在某种关系，但记不清楚。\n21 HARMON 先生：\n你开始口译时，他还没有回答完。\n23 口译员：\n抱歉。我想要——\n25 HARMON 先生：\n好的。那么我们就——\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 344 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 确保他完成回答。\n3 答：\n明确来说，Shiny Times 与 Genever 之间的关系，我确实不清楚是什么。\n6 问：\n当你说你认为在购买该住宅期间 Shiny Times 与 Genever 之间存在某种关系时，你能解释这是什么意思吗？\n10 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n12 答：\n我不知道。\n13 问：\n你不确定该关系的性质？\n15 HARMON 先生：\n请等一下。\n17 好的。请确保，当我提出异议时，你让 Kwok 先生知道我已提出异议，即使我并没有指示他不要回答。\n21 答：\n我确实不知道。\n22 问：\n在购买该住宅前后，谁会知道 Shiny Times 与 Genever 之间关系的性质？\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 345 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 HARMON 先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n4 口译员：\n口译员，在我说出异议之前——\n6 Kwok 先生说：\n7 答：Zhang Wei 先生和他的律师。\n8 问：Zhang Wei 在哪里服刑？\n9 答：在监狱里。\n10 问：在哪个国家？\n11 答：在中国。\n12 问：你有一个儿子？\n13 答：是。\n14 问：我的发音正确吗？Mileson？\n16 答：英文名字是 Mileson，但实际中文名字是 Guo Qiang。\n18 口译员：\nG U O Q I A N G，拼音拼写。\n20 问：我使用英文名字可以吗？\n22 答：可以。\n23 问：你的儿子 Mileson Kwok（郭强）在 Genever Holdings Corporation 中拥有任何所有权吗？\n25 答：我不知道。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 346 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 问：\n你的儿子 Mileson Kwok 在 Genever Holdings Corporation 方面担任任何职务吗？\n5 答：\n当时我不——我不确定，但他当时是代表之一。至于他是如何担任代表的，我确实不知道。\n9 问：\nKwok 先生，当你说“当时”时，你指的是哪个期间？\n11 答：\n在购买房屋期间。\n12 问：\n在 2015 的某个时候，Mileson Kwok 是 Genever Holdings Corporation 的代表？\n15 答：\n我不记得确切时间。\n16 问：\n你知道他担任 Genever Holdings Corporation 的哪一种代表吗？\n19 答：\n我不知道。这是 Zhang Wei 先生的事务。\n21 问：\nMileson Kwok 是 Genever Holdings Corporation 的股东吗？\n23 答：\n我不知道。\n24 问：\n他是董事吗？\n25 答：\n我不确定。我不知道。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 347 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 问：\n你知道 Genever Holdings Corporation 是否保存任何公司文件吗？\n4 答：\n我不知道。\n5 问：\n你知道它是否保存组织备忘录或公司章程吗？\n7 口译员：\n抱歉。我会查一下“公司章程”，以确保我完全正确地表达出来。\n10 抱歉。我完全看不到它的中文，但请让我确认一下。\n12 HARMON 先生：\n即使她找到词语，我认为这也会是一个有问题的翻译。\n15 口译员：\n抱歉。你能否向我解释一下，我可以——因为我在这里看不到对应词。\n19 MOSS 先生：\n你知道吗？我就继续往下问了。没关系。\n21 口译员：\n抱歉。\n22 问：\n你知道 Genever Holdings Corporation 是否保存其董事或成员名单吗？\n25 答：\n我不知道。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 348 页，共 452 页\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 349 页，共 452 页\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 350 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 澄清一下。之前，在你说话时，你把它称为 Shiny Times，那家公司？因为我理解那是另一家公司，而且我在中国与 Zhang Wei 先生共事。你所说的那个，也就是位于香港、类似 Shiny Times 的那个，与 Zhang Wei 先生完全不存在任何代表关系。\n10 问：\nKwok 先生，一个是或否的问题：在我们刚刚进行的上一次休庭期间，你是否与你的律师讨论过你的证言？\n14 答：\n讨论？没有。\n15 问：\nKwok 先生，刚才的证言有些不清楚，所以我想再问一次。你是 Genever Holdings Corporation 的唯一股东吗？\n19 答：\n我确实不确定。\n20 问：\n当我说——当你先前提到有一家公司是 Genever 的代表时，我指的是一家名为 Shiny Times 的公司。你认为我指的是哪家公司？\n25 答：\n我以为你指的是 Hong——\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 351 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 Kong，Hong Kong International（香港国际）。\n3 口译员：\n这是口译员的宽泛翻译。\n5 问：\n所以，当我说 Shiny Times 时，你并不认为我说的是你作为公司代表在此作证的实体 Shiny Times；你认为我说的是一家名为 Hong Kong International 的公司？\n10 答：\n是。\n11 问：\n而且你在休庭期间没有与你的律师讨论这个问题？\n13 HARMON 先生：\n只回答是或否。好的。谢谢。\n15 答：\n没有。\n16 问：\n你先前是否说过——这是另一个澄清问题——Zhang Wei 提供了购买 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的资金？\n19 答：\n是。\n20 问：\nZhang Wei 是否参与了你在北京盘古广场的公寓项目？\n22 答：\n没有。\n23 问：\n我们刚才谈的是 Genever Holdings LLC，也就是那家纽约公司。你记得吗？\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 352 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 答：\n嗯。\n3 问：\n是？\n4 答：\n是。\n5 问：\n谢谢。Genever Holdings LLC 持有 Sherry-Netherland 的股份，并持有第 18 层公寓的专有租赁协议，对吗？\n9 答：\n我确实不知道。\n10 问：\n但总体而言，你是否认为 Genever Holdings LLC 是 Sherry-Netherland 公寓的所有人？\n13 答：\n当你说出一个英文名称后，我就不记得了。我只知道，这所房屋的购买资金是 Zhang Wei 先生提供的。\n17 问：\nGenever Holdings LLC 有任何资产吗？\n19 答：\n我确实不知道。你给我的这些公司名称让我非常困惑。我不明白是 A、B 还是 C。完全糊涂了。\n23 问：\nGenever Holdings LLC 有任何雇员吗？\n25 答：\n我不知道。\n案件 22-50073 文件 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 353 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n问：Genever Holdings LLC（Genever Holdings有限责任公司）是否设有任何办公室？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever Holdings LLC是否有电话号码？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever Holdings LLC是否有任何管理层？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：谁会知道关于Genever Holdings LLC的这些问题的答案？\n\n答：Zhang Wei（张伟）及其律师。\n\n问：Paul Weiss（保罗·韦斯律师事务所）是他的律师吗？\n\n口译员：我需要他再重复一遍该名称。\n\n答：我为Sherry工作，并且在中国和香港都有律师。\n\n问：您知道Paul Weiss律师事务所吗？您熟悉该律所吗？\n\n答：我去过那里一次，自那以后我就熟悉它了。\n\n问：他们是否代理Zhang Wei？\n\n答：当时所称的是，Sherry将购买该房屋，并且此事经Zhang Wei先生批准。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第354页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n并经Zhang Wei先生批准。\n\n口译员：我是口译员。让我绝对确认我听得是否正确。我必须请他重复一遍。我会向他复述，并问他是否正确。\n\n答：Zhang Wei同意由Paul Weiss作为代表购买该公寓，并与香港方面沟通。\n\n问：那么，Paul Weiss是否就购买该公寓事宜代理Zhang Wei？\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：不，这不正确。Zhang Wei从未直接参与。Zhang Wei让我成为代表，然后我们找到了Williams & Connolly（威廉姆斯与康诺利律师事务所）和Paul Weiss来代理我们，去商谈购买这套Sherry公寓。此事经Zhang Wei先生同意。\n\n问：那么，Paul Weiss和Williams & Connolly是在代理您？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：他们是否也代理Zhang Wei？\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n答：实情在幕后——嗯，幕后是Zhang Wei。\n\n问：Paul Weiss和Williams & Connolly是否知道Zhang Wei在幕后？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：谁支付了Paul Weiss和Williams & Connolly的律师费？\n\n答：最后是Zhang Wei先生支付的。\n\n问：谁与Paul Weiss和Williams & Connolly签署了委托书？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Genever Holdings LLC与Shiny Times（闪耀时代）是否有任何关系？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Genever Holdings LLC与Golden Spring（金泉）是否有任何关系？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您的儿子Mileson Kwok（郭迈尔森）在Genever Holdings LLC中是否拥有任何所有权权益？\n\n答：不确定。\n\n问：您是否知道为何采用由一家纽约有限责任公司为一家英属维尔京群岛公司所拥有的结构，来购买Sherry-Netherland（雪梨-内瑟兰）住所？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第356页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n答：这是出于Zhang Wei先生的投资需求。\n\n问：您所说的投资需求是什么意思？\n\n答：这就是他一贯进行投资的方式。我不知道为什么。\n\n问：您的意思是，他一贯通过控股公司来安排投资结构吗？\n\n答：我没有这样说。他要求以这种方式进行。我不知道他为什么这么做。\n\n问：那么，我的问题略有不同。您说，“这就是他一贯进行投资的方式”，而我想了解您所说的“这”是什么意思。\n\n答：口译员说了“一贯”吗？意思是，他要求以这种方式进行，我们就这样做了。我的天。无论他的决定是什么，那都是他的决定。他是投资者，所以我听从他。\n\n问：您在以这种方式安排购买结构的决定中是否发挥了任何作用？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第357页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n答：我担任代表的角色。\n\n问：那么，答案是“是”还是否？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您为何采用让一家纽约有限责任公司购买该住所，并设立一家持有该纽约有限责任公司的英属维尔京群岛有限责任公司的方式来安排购买结构？\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：这是应Zhang Wei先生及其律师的要求。\n\n问：嗯，我刚刚问过您，您在以这种方式安排购买结构的决定中是否发挥了作用，而您回答“是”。\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n问：所以，我问您为何决定以这种方式安排购买结构？\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不明白您在问我什么。为什么？\n\n问：是，为什么？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第358页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：如果律师提出异议，我就不会回答。\n\nHARMON先生：如果他能够回答，他可以回答这个问题。\n\n答：因为我偶尔住在这里，我可以使用它，而且我是代表，这对整个家庭而言是一项良好的投资。\n\n问：我的问题是，您为什么通过两家公司——一家纽约公司和一家英属维尔京群岛公司——来安排购买结构。\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我确实不知道。\n\n问：是否为了确保债权人难以取得该财产？\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。请确保您翻译我的异议。\n\n口译员：我已经翻译了。\n\nHARMON先生：谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第359页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n答：完全荒谬。\n\n问：在本诉讼中，您是否知道您的律师已代表您向法院提交文件？\n\n答：当然知道。\n\n问：而且那些文件显然是英文，而不是中文，对吗？\n\n答：我认为是。\n\n问：那么，我理解您在提交前无法审阅那些文件？\n\n答：当然可以。\n\n问：在向法院提交之前，您是否会收到那些已提交文件的中文译本？\n\n答：不会。\n\n问：在文件提交前，您是否采取任何措施审阅文件，以确保其准确？\n\n答：我会询问，律师会口头向我说明此事。我的助理也会口头向我说明此事。\n\n问：您的助理是谁？\n\n答：我们在一起，Eva Wang（王燕平），Wang Yan Ping（王燕平）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第361页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n试图唤起您对时间的记忆。\n\n答：我对时间的记忆非常不准确。我不记得。\n\n问：在Zhang Wei申请购买Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪梨-内瑟兰酒店）公寓时，他是否在监狱里？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否知道我的当事人曾就一段YouTube视频向法院提出论述？\n\n答：知道。\n\n问：并且您是否知道，发布该视频的人声称那是一段您进行谈话的录音？\n\nHARMON先生：对该问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不明白您所说的事情。\n\n问：您是否听过那段YouTube视频？\n\n答：我的吗，有很多，数千个、数十万个。我不知道您指的是哪一个。\n\n问：我指的是那一个——您是否明白，我指的是两分钟前我们较早谈到的、Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）在本案中向法院提出论述的那一个？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第362页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n答：我不知道。\n\nHARMON先生：这超出了我们认为适合于扣押取证的范围，我将指示证人不再回答有关此事的问题。\n\n问：Kwok先生，您是否知道，在本案的一份由Harmon先生和Searles女士签署的书面陈述中，他们代表您主张，Pacific Alliance关于这段YouTube视频中的声音未经证明的说法？\n\nHARMON先生：这超出了我们认为适合于扣押取证的范围，我将指示证人不再回答有关该主题的问题。\n\n口译员：口译员，在我翻译之前，他说：\n\n答：拒绝回答。\n\n问：YouTube视频中的声音是您的声音吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第363页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\nHARMON先生：同样的异议。同样的指示。\n\n答：拒绝回答。\n\nMOSS先生：我将把它标记为——我们现在是第几号证物？实际上，我们能否暂时停止记录？\n\n录像员：现停止记录。时间为上午11:43。\n\n（在非记录状态下进行讨论。）\n\n录像员：现恢复记录。时间为上午11:44。\n\n（Kwok证物2，YouTube打印件，截至本日标记供识别。）\n\nMOSS先生讯问：\n\n问：Kwok先生，您已收到证物2，该证物是一份YouTube打印件，标题为“Guo Wengui (Kwok Miles) is planning to sell his private jet and yacht.” 我只想在记录中说明，Pacific Alliance在其扣押动议中引用了这段YouTube视频，并且在反对其扣押动议时，Kwok先生提交了一份日期为May 16, 2018的书面陈述；该书面陈述第15页就此问题载明如下：\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第364页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n“然而，Frances，”即PAX（PAX）的调查员，“除其自身的断言外，并未提出任何证据证明该等声音属于Kwok及其关联人士，或证明Kwok或任何与其有关联的人上传了涉案录音；且有充分理由质疑该音频的真实性，以及上传该音频并声称其实际上是Kwok作出所涉陈述的个人或实体之动机。”\n\n现在我要播放该音频。\n\n（随后播放音频/视频。）\n\n证人：我拒绝听。我不会听。\n\n问：抱歉，Kwok先生，您刚才是在捂住耳朵吗？\n\n答：这全都是共产党的。这里的一切全都是共产党的。除非您证明这不是共产党的，否则我会听。他们录制了超过一百万份虚假的税务音频、视频。除非您能够证明这是真的，否则我不会听。此事与我有什么关系？除非您能够证明这是我说的，是我的话、我的音频、我的视频，否则我会听。\n\n问：您拒绝听该视频？\n\nHARMON先生：我基于同样理由提出异议，并指示证人不要回答该问题。\n\n答：如果您播放那个，我会产生自杀的感觉。这是共产党的。很简单。有很多地方的共产党内容已被FBI（美国联邦调查局）证明是假的。所以您想让我自杀吗？您在这里是要杀我吗？我在此郑重声明，对于您将展示的、超出范围并导致我精神痛苦的所有视频，我保留提起诉讼的权利。我希望我的律师注意到，我保留针对对方对我进行人身攻击的权利。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交 于 12/28/22 14:09:15 登记 第366页，共452页\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）\n\n我本人，并且我希望就这些文件的真实性以及某人的真实性提出询问。我希望请求对其进行调查。我说完了。\n\n问：那么，Kwok 先生，您不会回答任何关于该视频的问题吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：同一异议。同一指示。超出了我认为在证据开示中适宜询问的范围。\n\n答：我认为这是羞辱，是威胁，并且必须为这些行为承担责任。\n\nMOSS 先生：请记录在案：当 Kwok 先生要求我停止播放该视频时，我停止了播放该视频。我不会再播放该视频。我注意到 Harmon 先生已对这一询问方向提出异议，并指示 Kwok 先生不要回答任何有关该视频的问题。我有这个权利，对吗，Harmon 先生？\n\nHARMON 先生：抱歉？\n\nMOSS 先生：我说得对吗？您正在指示——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 367 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n——\n\nHARMON 先生：我以为您说的是“我有这个权利”，而不是说“这是我对某事的权利”。\n\nMOSS 先生：可以。我说得没错，您正在指示证人——\n\nHARMON 先生：我正在指示证人，基于我已在记录中陈述的理由，不要回答这些问题。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York Ltd.（纽约金泉有限公司）是什么？\n\n答：它是 Hong Kong Golden Spring（香港金泉），一家他们在纽约拓展的公司。\n\n问：“他们”是谁？\n\n答：香港金泉。\n\n问：谁拥有 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）？\n\n答：香港金泉拥有。\n\n问：谁拥有 Hong Kong Golden Spring（香港金泉）？\n\n答：Guo Qiang（郭强）。\n\n口译员：G-U-O，Q-I-A-N-G，按发音拼写。\n\n问：Guo Qiang（郭强）是您的家庭成员吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 368 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：是什么关系？\n\n答：我的儿子。\n\n问：您在 Golden Spring Hong Kong（香港金泉）中是否拥有任何所有权权益？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Guo Qiang（郭强）是否与 Mileson（迈尔森）是同一个儿子，还是另一个儿子？\n\n答：是同一个人。\n\n问：您在 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）中是否拥有任何所有权权益？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：所以 Golden Spring（金泉）由您的儿子拥有？\n\n答：我的儿子也代表家庭拥有它。\n\n问：您的儿子是否代表您拥有它？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您的儿子代表其他家庭成员拥有它？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您的儿子是否代表 Zhang Wei（张伟）拥有 Golden Spring（金泉）？\n\n答：是。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 369 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：您的儿子是否是 Golden Spring（金泉）的唯一股东？\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不太确定。\n\n问：您是否知道 Golden Spring（金泉）的任何其他股东？\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不确定。我不知道。\n\n问：Golden Spring（金泉）是否有任何董事？\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我不确定。\n\nMOSS 先生：Mark，怎么了，您不喜欢我没有使用其中一个实体名称吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：我不知道是哪一个实体——\n\nMOSS 先生：香港的还是纽约的？\n\nHARMON 先生：我不知道您说的是哪一个，还是两个都是。\n\n问：任何 Golden Spring（金泉）实体是否\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 370 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n有雇员？\n\n答：是，有雇员。\n\n问：纽约的 Golden Spring（金泉）有雇员吗？\n\n答：有。\n\n问：Golden Spring（金泉）从事什么业务？\n\n答：投资房地产、媒体。\n\n问：您在 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）中担任何种职务，如有的话？\n\n答：我是顾问。\n\n问：您作为顾问做什么？\n\n答：他们没有，我提供建议。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）与 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever 控股公司）是否有任何关系？\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题的形式提出异议。您可以回答。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）与 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司）是否有任何关系？\n\nHARMON 先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Golden Spring Hong Kong（香港金泉）是否与任一 Genever 公司有\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 371 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n关系？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Shiny Times New York（纽约闪耀时代）是否在 800 Fifth Avenue（第五大道800号）设有办公室？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您是否知道 Shiny Times（闪耀时代）是否与一家名为 Urbana Properties（乌尔巴纳地产）的公司就纽约市办公室订有租约？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您是否知道 Golden Spring（金泉）是否曾就其办公室的任何租金付款逾期？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Yvette（伊薇特）在 Golden Spring（金泉）中是否担任任何职务？\n\n答：首席执行官。\n\n问：还有其他职务吗？\n\n答：我不太确定。\n\n问：她是总裁吗？\n\n答：是，我想是的。\n\n问：您的某些资产是否已被中国政府查封？\n\nHARMON 先生：再次，我认为\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 372 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n这是超出证据开示范围的领域，并指示证人不要回答。\n\nMOSS 先生：您是否看过我们关于证据开示范围的协议？\n\nHARMON 先生：看过。但如果您对此有问题，我很乐意与您讨论。\n\nMOSS 先生：当然。因此，关于证据开示范围的协议涉及对 Kwok 先生纽约资产的证据开示，而我是在向他提出一个一般性问题，即美国境外的资产是否已被中国政府查封。\n\nHARMON 先生：我明白。那么有一项关于询问纽约资产的协议？\n\nMOSS 先生：对，是的。\n\nHARMON 先生：确实达成了一项关于询问纽约资产的协议。对于其他问题，未以任何方式达成协议，而我主张证据开示的范围并未延及那么远，并指示他不要回答。\n\nMOSS 先生：好的。很好。我们来标记。\n\n（Kwok 证物 3，联邦法院起诉状，截至本日标记供识别。）\n\nMOSS 先生询问：\n\n答：这是什么？\n\n问：Kwok 先生，证物 3 是您以及 Pacific Alliance Investment Company（泛亚投资公司）和 Beijing Zenith Holdings Company（北京政泉控股公司）于 2018 年 5 月在纽约市联邦法院对 Zheng Wu（郑武），即 Bruno Wu（布鲁诺·吴），提起的一份起诉状。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否知道您对 Wu 先生提起了诉讼？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否审阅过这份起诉状，以确保其准确无误？\n\nHARMON 先生：我要——\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 374 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\nHARMON 先生：我将提出同一异议并作出同一指示。\n\n问：对于您在联邦法院提交的这份起诉状中的信息准确无误，您是否有任何怀疑？\n\nHARMON 先生：同一异议。同一指示。\n\n问：我想请您注意第 11 页第 56 段。我将把如下指控读入记录：“2015 年 1 月 28 日前后，中国有关部门——”\n\nHARMON 先生：抱歉。您是在从哪里读？\n\nSARNOFF 先生：第 13 页底部。\n\nMOSS 先生：第 13 页第 56 段。\n\nHARMON 先生：我以为您说的是第 11 页。\n\nMOSS 先生：我是这么说的。抱歉。\n\n问：“2015 年 1 月 28 日前后，中国有关部门根据被告 Wu 的共谋者的指示，开始查封原告公司的资产。”\n\n口译员：在我进行口译之前：\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 375 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n答：我拒绝听。这与今天的任何事情无关。我拒绝阅读或听取它。\n\nHARMON 先生：我想明确，这是按照我的指示，而不是他的选择，不仅不是他的选择，也是按照我的指示。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您拒绝回答我关于该文件的问题，是基于您自己的选择吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：我正在指示他不要回答这些问题——\n\nMOSS 先生：您能让他得到翻译吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：请允许我为记录作出陈述。\n\nMOSS 先生：我知道您在试图作证。\n\nHARMON 先生：我不是在试图作证。我是在试图为记录提出异议。\n\n我基于我们已经讨论过的相同理由提出异议，并指示证人不要回答。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 376 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：所以问题是：Kwok 先生，您拒绝回答我关于该文件的问题，是基于您自己的选择吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：同一异议。同一指示。\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\nMOSS 先生：而且，Harmon 先生，您正在指示他不要回答该问题？\n\nHARMON 先生：是。\n\n问：是否属实，在 2015 年 1 月末和 2 月初前后，中国政府查封了 Beijing Zenith Holdings Company（北京政泉控股公司）的资产？\n\nHARMON 先生：同一异议。同一指示。\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\n问：您何时得知 Zenith（政泉）的资产被查封？\n\nHARMON 先生：同一异议。同一指示。\n\n口译员：口译员尚未进行口译。回答是：\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 377 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：如本起诉状所指称，您何时得知 Beijing Pangu（北京盘古）的资产被中国政府查封？\n\nHARMON 先生：同一异议。同一指示。\n\n答：拒绝回答。\n\n问：您是否在 2015 年就购买该公寓的申请，向 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）提供了 Beijing Zenith Holdings Company Ltd.（北京政泉控股有限公司）的财务信息？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您是否知道——\n\n（Kwok 证物 4，附有财务信息的信函，截至本日标记供识别。）\n\n答：这是什么东西？\n\n问：Kwok 先生，这是一份已标记为证物 4 的文件。这是一封日期为 February 27, 2015 的致 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）董事会的信函，涉及 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）先生的申请，Bates 编号为 SN 0058。随后有一份附件，并且还有一封来自 Williams & Connolly（威廉斯与康诺利律师事务所）的信函，附有其自身的\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 378 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n附件。\n\nKwok 先生，该信函称，来自 Paul Weiss（保罗·韦斯律师事务所）：“我们担任 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）先生的当地房地产法律顾问；其申请成为 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）的股东租户。”\n\n您是否申请成为 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）的股东租户？\n\n答：我——我完全不记得。我甚至不记得我看过这份文件。我没有看过它。\n\n问：因此，问题是您是否于 2015 年 2 月申请成为 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）的股东或租户。\n\n答：我没有申请。但我不记得这件事。我不记得看过这个。\n\nMOSS 先生：抱歉。他说的是“我没有申请”？\n\n口译员：我相信是这样。我可以向他澄清。\n\n答：我知道他们一直在申请，但我没有看过这份文件。\n\n问：但您相信您是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 379 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n申请人吗？\n\n答：我对于我是否相信与否，没有任何想法。我没有这些想法。\n\n问：据您所知，Paul Weiss（保尔·魏斯律师事务所）或 Williams & Connolly（威廉斯及康诺利律师事务所）的任何人，或任何代表您或 Zhang Wei（张伟）行事的人，是否曾告知 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）张伟参与了此次购买？\n\n哈蒙先生：已经问过并回答过了。到目前为止，这是您第三次提出该问题。我会让他再次回答。\n\n口译员：据您所知，Paul Weiss、Williams & Connolly 是否向 Sherry-Netherland 陈述张伟是一名申请人？这是问题吗？\n\n问：据您所知，Paul Weiss 或 Williams & Connolly 的任何人，或任何代表您或张伟行事的人，是否曾告知 Sherry-Netherland 张伟参与了此次购买？\n\n哈蒙先生：并且请确保您也将我的异议翻译给证人。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 380 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n答：我完全不——我不记得。\n\n问：您是否授权 Paul Weiss 和 Williams & Connolly 代表您与 Sherry-Netherland 沟通？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：您是否有任何理由怀疑，您曾授权 Paul Weiss 和 Williams & Connolly 代表您与 Sherry-Netherland 沟通？\n\n答：我不太明白您的意思。\n\n问：请您看一下 SN 0060。郭先生，我在此陈述，这是一份题为 Beijing Zenith Holdings Company（北京正道控股公司）截至 December 31, 2014 的合并资产负债表的文件，并且该文件由 Paul Weiss 提供给 Sherry-Netherland。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您不记得，北京正道控股公司的财务报表曾与您的申请有关而提交给 Sherry-Netherland 董事会吗？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 381 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 382 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 383 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n答：我不知道。您知道，我很抱歉，我的腿和肩膀，因为我此前在监狱里被殴打过，我疼得很厉害。那是在 '89。\n\n问：您想休息一下吗？\n\n答：不，我只是让您知道，当我感到疼痛时，我必须活动，所以请不要——您知道，我喜欢只是坐在那里不动，但因为疼痛，我必须不断活动。通常我在办公室时总是站着，不坐着。\n\n问：如我先前所说，如果您在任何时候需要休息，无论需要多久，请告诉我，我很乐意——\n\n答：谢谢您，先生。但您知道吗？现在我真的很想睡觉。我已经两天没有睡觉了。\n\n问：我也是。\n\n答：您正在代表中国共产党（CCP）非常成功地虐待我。\n\n问：郭先生，在这份北京正道控股公司资产负债表提交给 Sherry-Netherland 时，您是否知道北京正道控股公司的资产已被中国政府冻结？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 384 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n哈蒙先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\n哈蒙先生：如果您理解这个问题，您可以回答这个问题。\n\n答：那样的话，我知道。是的。\n\n问：郭先生，我现在——我知道您无法跟上我，但我现在翻到 SN 0063 页，这是一份 Williams & Connolly 的文件，其中 Williams & Connolly 致函 Sherry-Netherland 董事会称：“郭先生渴望成为 Sherry 的住户，但也强烈感到有必要对其商业和财务事务予以保密。”您是否记得 Williams & Connolly 曾代表您向 Sherry-Netherland 作出该陈述？\n\n答：我不知道这封信。\n\n问：您是否曾向任何人表示，有强烈必要对您的财务状况和商业事务予以保密？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 385 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否知道，Williams & Connolly 在 SN 0062 页的信中还陈述，您，郭先生，是申请成为股东租户的人？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：Bravo Luck（好运）是什么？\n\n答：我认为 Bravo Luck——我认为 Bravo Luck 是一家与张伟有某种关系的公司，但我并不十分确定。您说英语时，我会感到困惑。\n\n问：您与 Bravo Luck 有任何关系吗？\n\n答：我确实不知道。\n\n摄像员：我们现在停止记录。时间为 12:25 p.m.\n\n（于 12:25 p.m. 午餐休庭。）\n\n摄像员：这标志着郭文贵先生证言录取的第 3 卷录像开始。我们现在恢复记录。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 386 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n时间为 12:57 p.m.\n\n（郭文贵证物 5，UBS Hong Kong（瑞银香港）就 Bravo Luck Limited（好运有限公司）出具的题为 Debit Advice（借记通知）的对账单，于本日标记供识别。）\n\n莫斯先生询问：\n\n问：下午好，郭先生。\n\n答：各位下午好。\n\n问：谢谢。书记员已向您递交了证物 5，该文件是 UBS Hong Kong 为 Bravo Luck Limited 出具的一份题为 Debit Advice 的对账单，标有贝茨编号 Kwok 510，并且由您的律师在本案中向我们提交，郭先生。Bravo Luck Limited 是张伟拥有的一家公司吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您在 Bravo Luck Limited 中没有任何所有权权益吗？\n\n答：我不记得有任何权益。\n\n问：您不记得自己在任何时候曾在 Bravo Luck Limited 中拥有任何权益，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 387 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：坐在这里今天，您相信自己从未在 Bravo Luck Limited 中拥有任何权益吗？\n\n答：我确实完全不记得，因为我无法阅读这份文件，而且我不记得这家 Bravo Luck Limited。对不起，我不知道。\n\n问：这份文件写明，受益人为 Ivey Barnum & O'Mara LLC（艾维·巴纳姆及奥马拉有限责任公司）。您知道那是谁吗？\n\n答：那是什么？在哪里？\n\n问：嗯，它在文件中间。\n\n答：那叫什么？我不知道。\n\n问：郭先生，我告诉您，根据我初步的 Google 搜索，那是一家位于 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）的律师事务所。这能唤起您的记忆吗？\n\n答：我确实不知道。康涅狄格州在哪里？是在香港吗？\n\n问：离这里很近。离纽约很近。\n\n答：哦。我不知道。\n\n问：Bravo Luck Limited 是担任您房地产经纪人的实体吗？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 388 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 389 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n答：是。是。\n\n问：该公寓是从 Gilbert Haroche（吉尔伯特·哈罗什）处购买的吗？\n\n答：我不知道那个人是谁。\n\n问：您知道在张伟和您购买该公寓之前，该公寓的所有人是谁吗？\n\n哈蒙先生：对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n答：我确实想不起来。我不知道。\n\n问：您是否亲自与卖方协商价格？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：张伟是否与卖方协商？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您知道谁代表买方与卖方进行了协商吗？\n\n答：我是许多人中的一个。有张伟的律师以及他办公室的一名或多名雇员。很多人。我是唯一不会说英语的人。其他所有人都会说英语。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 390 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n问：当向 Sherry-Netherland 提交申请以便您居住在该公寓时，您是否打算永久居住在纽约？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否曾告知 Sherry-Netherland 的任何人，您打算将 New York City（纽约市）作为您和您家人的家？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：您是否曾告知 Sherry-Netherland 的任何人，您计划每年约有六至九个月居住在纽约的该住所？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：您是否曾告知 Sherry-Netherland 的任何人，他们需要非常迅速地审查您的申请，否则您将撤回申请并不再感兴趣？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否曾向 Sherry-Netherland 提及任何关于 Feng Shui（风水）的事情？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 391 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n答：我不——嗯，我肯定提到过风水，但我不记得对谁说过。我的英语能力不足以让我与任何人沟通。\n\n问：该公寓后来是否曾被挂牌出售？\n\n答：哦，我想是 2016 或 2013，因为张伟先生被逮捕、入狱，无法与他联系，所以他的律师说应当将其挂牌出售。等一下，等一下。哦，因为张伟先生在被监禁期间，曾回来过一次，并告诉他的律师将其挂牌出售。\n\n问：October of 2015 听起来对吗？\n\n答：这个我不记得。\n\n问：您就此与之沟通的张伟律师是谁？\n\n答：香港的 Lao（劳）律师。\n\n口译员：L-A-O。\n\n答：Eric Zheng（郑艾瑞克）。\n\n口译员：Z-H-E-N-G。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 392 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n答：我不记得。还有另外两个人我也不记得。我从不会与他们联系。只是他们的一名或多名助理。他们的办公室与人联系。\n\n问：您知道 Eric 和其他人是否是某家律师事务所的成员吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您知道是哪家律师事务所吗？\n\n答：我只记得 Steven（史蒂文）。除此之外，我不记得。\n\n莫斯先生：请标记证物 6。\n\n（郭文贵证物 6，Realtor.com（房地产网站）打印件，于本日标记供识别。）\n\n莫斯先生询问：\n\n答：这又是什么？\n\n问：郭先生，在我们讨论那份文件之前，Stevenson, Wong & Company（史蒂文森、黄及公司）听起来像是正确的律师事务所吗？\n\n答：我只认为 Steven 是正确的。但是什么公司或律师事务所，我不确定。\n\n问：那么您现在有证物 6，而在——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 393 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n第一页上写着：“爱上 September 最受欢迎的住宅。”这是一份来自 Realtor.com 的文件，第一页日期为 October 7, 2015。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：第二页列有 Sherry-Netherland 的 18th floor，价格为 \\$85 million。\n\n答：好的。\n\n问：这是否唤起您的记忆，即该公寓最初挂牌出售是在大约 October 2015？\n\n答：是，大约在那个时候。而且我也知道这个售价，我也知道为何是这个价格。\n\n问：为何是这个价格？\n\n答：因为张伟先生有这种错误观念——\n\n口译员：我是口译员。我的脑子不擅长处理数字，所以他在说数字。\n\n答：购买房屋是 67.5 million，然后支付 6 million 的税款，还支付 3 million 的维护费、担保费，以及——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 395 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 396 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 397 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 398 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 1269，提交于 12/28/22，登记于 12/28/22 14:09:15，第 399 页，共 452 页\n\n郭文贵\n\n2 卖方的认真程度。\n3 答。\n我不明白。\n我不知道。\n4 问。\n你知道Sloan女士（斯隆）如何获得这样的印象，即卖方是认真要出售该公寓的吗？\n7 Harmon先生（哈蒙）：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n9 答。\n我不明白。\n10 问。\n当Sloan女士提到卖方时，你是否理解她指的是谁？\n13 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n15 答。\n我也不明白你的问题。\n17 问。\n你认为Sloan女士是否把你视为该公寓的卖方？\n19 答。\n绝对不是。\n20 问。\nSloan女士认为谁是该公寓的所有人？\n22 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n24 答。\n她当然知道不是我。\n25 问。\n她认为是谁？如果你\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 400 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 401 页，共 452 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 402 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n2 答。\n他是与Zhang Wei（张伟）一起的基金。\n3 问。\n当你说财务顾问时，他向谁提供财务咨询服务？\n6 答。\n张伟和张伟家族。\n7 问。\nWilliam Je（威廉·杰）是否向你提供任何服务？\n9 答。\n没有。\n10 问。\n他住在哪里？\n11 答。\n家在香港。\n12 问。\n他是否曾来纽约？\n13 答。\n我不知道。你可以问他。\n14 问。\n在10月——抱歉。在2018年4月，你是否与Sloan女士会面，并签署了一份文件，授权她将价格从78 million降至68 million？\n18 答。\n我认为有这么一回事。\n19 问。\n你记得吗？\n20 答。\n我认为有这么一回事，但我不能百分之百保证。因为是英文，我看不懂，但我想我记得有这么一回事。\n24 问。\n你记得在价格从78 million降至68 million前后与Sloan女士会面并签署一份文件吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 403 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 价格从78 million降至68 million？\n3 口译员：\n在我口译之前，他说：\n5 答。\n我有这个印象，但我不记得了。\n7 问。\n你记得在与Sloan女士那次会面中发生过什么吗？\n9 答。\n不记得。\n10 问。\n将价格从78 million降至68 million是谁作出的决定？\n12 答。\n张伟。\n13 问。\n这件事是如何传达给你的？\n15 答。\n是Xu Ang Yang（许昂扬）告诉我的。\n16 问。\n自2015年10月以来，该公寓是否一直在市场上挂牌出售？\n18 答。\n我想是。\n19 问。\n你不记得曾将其撤出市场吗？\n21 答。\n我不记得。\n22 问。\n目前是否正在与任何买方进行积极洽谈？\n24 答。\n我不知道。\n25 问。\n谁会知道？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 404 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 答。\n我想Cathy（凯茜）会知道。\n3 问。\n是否有任何买方——潜在买方曾提出低于当时要价的报价？\n6 答。\n没有。\n7 问。\n从未有过任何谈判，即有人提出报价，而你们就价格来回磋商？\n10 答。\n没有。\n11 问。\n是否有人曾针对某一具体金额提出报价？\n13 答。\n没有。\n14 问。\n你是否曾收到过$60 million的报价？\n16 答。\n没有。\n17 问。\n你是否曾收到过Sloan女士建议你认真考虑的任何报价？\n19 答。\n我不记得。\n20 问。\n你是否曾告诉Sloan女士对该公寓采取积极的营销策略？\n23 答。\n没有。\n24 问。\n你是否知道，若存在出售或转让该公寓的合同，你有义务通知我们诉讼中的法官、法院吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 405 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 如果存在出售或转让该公寓的合同？\n4 答。\n我知道。\n5 问。\n我理解目前没有出售或转让合同？\n7 答。\n对，是。\n8 问。\n你是否曾与任何潜在买方交换过合同草案？\n10 答。\n没有。\n11 问。\n如果出现出售或转让该公寓的合同，你会通知法院吗？\n14 Harmon先生：\n不要回答那个问题。\n16 你已经从他那里获知他知道法院命令。这没有必要。我们继续吧。\n19 Moss先生（莫斯）：\n你作出该指示的依据是没有必要吗？\n21 Harmon先生：\n他已经回答说他知悉法院命令，我认为我们应当继续。\n24 Moss先生：\n嗯，我感谢你的意见，但你作出该指示的依据是什么？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 406 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 指示？\n3 Harmon先生：\n我认为，就PAX是否有权获得扣押而言，这是一个不恰当的问题。他知悉该命令。\n7 Moss先生：\n所以这是关联性异议？\n9 Harmon先生：\n这超出了范围。你知道，这是我们已经讨论了相当长时间的事情。\n12 问。\nKwok先生，如果出现出售或转让该公寓的合同，你会通知法院吗？\n15 Harmon先生：\n不要回答该问题，Kwok先生。\n17 口译员：\n经口译，他说：\n19 答。\n拒绝回答。\n20 问。\n你拒绝回答是因为你的律师指示你不要回答吗？\n22 答。\n是。\n23 Moss先生：\n那么，Kwok先生是否会遵守就该扣押动议所作出的命令，超出了我们扣押动议的证据开示范围吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 407 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 扣押动议的证据开示范围吗？\n4 Harmon先生：\n在证据开示中，是的。这是我的立场。\n6 Moss先生：\n好的。很好。\n7 问。\nKwok先生，是否曾有一段时间，你试图将该住所的所有权转让给你的儿子Mileson（迈尔森）？\n10 答。\n我不记得。\n11 问。\n你不记得曾指示Sloan女士与Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）就将该住所的所有权转让给你儿子Mileson一事进行交谈吗？\n15 答。\n我不记得。\n16 问。\n2016年是否有一名叫Yong，拼作Y-O-N-G的人为你工作？\n18 答。\n他不仅与我共事，也与Zenith Pangu（盘古）和张伟共事。\n20 问。\n那是Yong Yue，拼作Y-U-E，还是Yue Yong？\n22 答。\nYong Yue。\n23 口译员：\nYang应拼作Y-A-N-G，Y-O-N-G。\n25 答。\n应当是Yu。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 408 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 口译员：\nY-U。\n3 问。\n谢谢。你知道Helen Manis（海伦·马尼斯）是谁吗？\n5 答。\n我不记得。\n6 问。\n如果我告诉你她是英国的一名律师，这会有帮助吗？\n8 答。\n我不记得。\n9 问。\n你是否曾与Manis女士进行过任何讨论？\n11 答。\n没有。\n12 问。\n你是否曾与Yong讨论过试图将该公寓的所有权转移至Mileson名下？\n15 答。\n没有。\n16 问。\nYong现在仍为你工作吗？\n17 答。\n我们失去他的消息已有一年了。找不到他。可能也被中国共产党逮捕了。\n20 问。\n当时他住在纽约还是中国？\n22 答。\n已经一年多了。我不知道他在哪里。\n24 问。\n你是否记得曾试图重组Genever Holdings（吉尼弗控股）的所有权，使其由一项以Mileson为受益人的信托拥有？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 409 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 Genever Holdings，使其由一项以Mileson为受益人的信托拥有？\n4 答。\n我不——我不记得。\n5 问。\n你是否曾与Sherry-Netherland的任何人讨论重组，以使该公寓由一名儿子所有，或由你儿子享有受益权的信托拥有？\n10 答。\n我从未这样做过。\n11 问。\n你知道Manis女士如何获得这样的印象，即该住所由一家最终受益所有人为你的公司拥有吗？\n15 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n17 答。\n我并不真正知道。\n18 问。\n嗯，你说“我并不真正知道”。你有任何想法吗？\n20 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n22 答。\n没有。\n23 问。\n你是否否认该住所的最终受益所有人为你？\n25 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 410 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 该问题。\n3 答。\n没有。\n4 问。\n所以你是该公寓的最终受益所有人？\n6 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n8 答。\n不是。\n9 问。\n所以你确实否认该住所的最终受益所有人为你？\n11 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n13 答。\n我不是。\n14 问。\n你不是所有人？\n15 答。\n当然不是。\n16 问。\n因为张伟是所有人？\n17 答。\n是。资金由张伟提供。不是由我提供。\n19 问。\n那么张伟——如果他在监狱里，你知道张伟如何就此问题与他的律师沟通吗？\n22 Harmon先生：\n对问题的形式提出异议。\n24 答。\n我不知道。\n25 问。\n你是否知道英属维尔京群岛实体Genever Holdings Corporation（吉尼弗控股公司）是否曾将其资产设定质押？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 411 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 Genever Holdings Corporation，这一英属维尔京群岛实体，是否曾将其资产设定质押？\n5 口译员：\n将其资产设定质押是指拿出其资产吗？\n7 Moss先生：\n在其资产上设定留置权，或者提供担保。\n9 口译员：\n好的。\n10 答。\n我不知道。\n11 问。\n你从未就质押进行过任何讨论？\n13 答。\n我不知道。\n14 问。\n这是你第一次听说Genever Holdings将其资产设定质押吗？\n17 答。\n不是。\n18 问。\n你以前听说过？\n19 答。\n在你们起诉我们之后，从那时起我听说过。\n21 问。\n你是在哪里听说的？\n22 答。\nYvette Wang（王伊维特）告诉我的。\n23 问。\n她告诉你什么？\n24 答。\n她告诉我有关这一担保物、这一情况的事。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 412 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 问。她告诉你什么？\n3 答。就是这些。\n4 问。是谁作出将Genever Holdings Corporation设定质押的决定？\n6 答。张伟和他的团队认为应当这样做。\n7 问。你知道为什么会被质押吗？\n8 答。我想他的资金是借来的。\n9 问。由谁借的？\n10 答。所以才质押。我不太清楚是谁。我想名字是以R开头的什么。我不太记得。\n13 问。Roscalitar（罗斯卡利塔）怎么样？\n14 答。我不知道。太复杂了。\n15 问。Roscalitar 2，这个名字有印象吗？\n16 答。可能叫R2，R2。\n17 问。谁是Roscalitar 2或R2背后的人？\n18 答。据我所知，听说是一个中东基金，但除此之外我什么都不知道。\n21 问。这是否与Abu Dhabi（阿布扎比）有关？\n22 答。我想是他们的。\n23 问。你是否曾就Roscalitar 2与Abu Dhabi的人有过任何往来？\n25 答。你是问我本人吗，我？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 413 页，共 452 页\n\n1 KWOK\n\n2 问。是。\n3 答。没有。\n4 问。你是通过Yvette得知所有这些事情的？\n6 答。关于质押，是Yvette告诉我的，随后我的律师曾有一次问我是否知道此事，我说——\n9 问。等等，等等——\n10 Harmon先生：\n我们将对该谈话主张律师—当事人特权。\n13 Moss先生：\n我是在试图帮助你，律师。\n15 Harmon先生：\n谢谢。\n16 问。\n我不想知道你们谈了什么。\n18 Harmon先生：\n他想知道，但他很有礼貌，不会问。\n20 Moss先生：\n说得有道理。\n21 问。\n所以，在Yvette就与我们诉讼有关的质押告诉你之前，你从未听说过任何质押？\n24 答。\n是。\n25 问。\n但Yvette告诉你的是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 录入于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 414 页，共 452 页\n\nGenever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）已被质押给 Roscalitar 2（Roscalitar 2）？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：其中包括对 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）公寓的所有权权益吗？\n\n答：哦，我不知道这一点。\n\n问：您是否理解，Sherry-Netherland 的所有权权益已被质押给 Roscalitar 2？\n\nHARMON 先生：对该问题的提问方式提出异议。\n\n答：我对此确实不了解。\n\n问：那么，您知道 Genever Holdings Corporation 质押了什么吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：除其通过 Genever Holdings LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）拥有的该公寓外，您能否指出 Genever Holdings Corporation 的任何其他资产？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：Yvette（伊薇特）在向您解释该质押时，是否从未告诉您，该质押针对的是 Genever BVI（Genever英属维尔京群岛公司）或 Genever Holdings Corporation 的资产，而后者因其拥有 Genever New York LLC（Genever纽约有限责任公司），其资产包括该公寓？\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 415 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\nHARMON 先生：对该问题的提问方式提出异议。\n\n口译员：口译员，我觉得其中有这么多名称，我没有听清全部内容。所以那是 Genever BBC 吗？\n\n答：从未如此详细地讨论过。我被这个问题弄得很困惑。我甚至记不起您说的是哪家公司。\n\n问：我理解这很令人困惑。她是否曾实质上向您传达，该公寓已被质押？\n\n答：当您说它已被质押时，我不太明白那一切是什么意思。\n\n问：那么，您曾与 Yvette 谈过一次，她当时告诉您有关 Genever Holdings Corporation 的一项质押，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：那是您第一次听说与 Genever 有关的质押，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 416 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：那是与我们的诉讼以及我们提出的就该住所实施扣押的动议有关，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：当您与 Yvette 谈论该质押时，她是否实质上向您传达，该公寓已被质押？\n\n答：这个？没有。\n\n问：那么，您是否知道为什么该质押是在首次回应我们扣押该公寓的动议时才被提出？\n\n答：我不明白您的意思。\n\n问：您是否理解，曾代表您提交文件，主张 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）无法对该公寓取得留置权或实施扣押，因为该公寓已被质押？\n\n答：Wang Yan Ping（王雁平）——\n\n口译员：W-A-N-G，Y-A-N，P-I-N-G。\n\n答：——曾告诉我这件事。\n\n问：那就是 Yvette 吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 417 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：她告诉您，贵方已提交文件，主张该公寓已被质押，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：据您所知，那些文件是准确的？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Yvette 是否认为该公寓实际上已被质押？\n\nHARMON 先生：对该问题的提问方式提出异议。\n\n答：您可以向 Wang Yan Ping 问这些问题。我不能代表她作答。\n\n问：这完全公平。让我换一种说法。Yvette 是否向您传达，该公寓已被质押？\n\n答：是。\n\nMOSS 先生：如果大家都同意，我现在很乐意稍作休息。\n\nHARMON 先生：可以。\n\n录像员：我们现在停止记录。时间为下午 2:02。\n\n（休庭。）\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 418 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n录像员：现开始记录对 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）先生证言录取的第 4 盘录像带。我们现在恢复记录。时间为下午 2:28。\n\n我只想为记录说明，证人为了舒适而站立。\n\nMOSS 先生询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，Zhang Wei（张伟）多大年龄？\n\n答：我想大约 38 岁。\n\n问：他在被监禁前以什么为生？\n\n答：投资房地产证券。\n\n问：什么类型的证券？\n\n答：他就是做了很多这些——他做了许多与证券有关的事情，买卖证券。\n\n问：他住在哪个城市？\n\n答：河南郑州。\n\n口译员：H-E-N-A-N，Z-H-E-N-G-Z-H-O-U。\n\n问：他何时入狱？\n\n答：应当是在 2015 年 5 月之后左右。大约在 5 月、6 月，差不多。我——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 419 页，共 452 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 420 页，共 452 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 421 页，共 452 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 422 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\nDI\n\nHARMON 先生：我指示证人不要回答。\n\n口译员：口译员未作翻译，而 Kwok 先生表示：\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\n问：Henan Yuda Real Estate Company（河南裕达房地产公司）是否被指控贷款诈骗？\n\nDI\n\nHARMON 先生：我指示证人不要回答。\n\n答：拒绝回答。\n\n问：好的。您是否知悉，在与该公寓有关的两轮扣押书面陈述中，在您对 Sherry-Netherland Hotel（雪莉-内瑟兰酒店）提起的诉讼中，在代表您于任何与该公寓有关的诉讼中提交的任何文件内，从未提及 Zhang Wei？您是否知悉此事？\n\n答：我确实不知道。\n\n问：您能否指出任何证明 Zhang Wei 对该公寓拥有所有权的文件？\n\n答：资金来自 Zhang Wei 的公司。这是最简单的证据。而且——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 423 页，共 452 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 424 页，共 452 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 425 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：您的证言是，作为一名在中国的政治犯，他能够与其律师交谈吗？\n\n答：不，不可能。在中国，没有任何政治犯能够与任何人交谈。严格说来，他是被绑架的。他被共产党人绑架了。\n\n问：您是否听说过一个名叫 Guo Qiang（郭强）的人，G-U-O，Q-I-A-N-G？\n\n答：如我先前告诉您的，那是我儿子。\n\n问：那是 Mileson Kwok（郭米莱森）？\n\n答：是。我只有一个儿子。\n\n问：抱歉。感谢您澄清。您是否听说过一家名为 Blue Capital（蓝色资本）的公司？\n\n答：我不记得了。\n\n问：您记得我们先前讨论过您与 Yvette 关于多项质押的谈话，或者将该公寓质押给 Roscalitar 2 或 R2 的事情吗？记得我先前就此向您提问吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 426 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：您是否知悉，对 Roscalitar 的质押已于 2017 年终止？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：谁会知道这件事？会是 Yvette 吗？\n\n答：应当是 Zhang Wei 的律师，还有那个什么，R 公司，我想他们会知道。\n\n问：因此，在向本法院陈述该公寓已质押给 Roscalitar 2 时，您并不知道在作出该陈述之时该质押实际上已终止？\n\nHARMON 先生：对该问题的提问方式提出异议。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：记得我先前问过您有关查封 Zenith（真力时）资产，以及您是否知道该等资产已被查封的事情吗？\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\n问：那么，您先前回答称，您知道 Zenith 资产已被查封。您记得该证言吗？\n\n答：我现在拒绝回答。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 427 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：您是否也知道 Beijing Pangu（北京盘古）资产已被查封？\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\n问：您是否记得，您亲自签署了一份同意 Sherry-Netherland 专有租约的协议？\n\n答：我想我记得签过。但至于其内容，我确实不知道，不过我想我的确签署了该文件。但那份文件实际上是什么，我不知道。\n\n问：所以您签署了某份文件，但您没有审阅它？\n\n答：我没有能力审阅它。\n\n问：当您与 Sherry-Netherland 签署接受该专有租约的协议时，您是否曾理解您同意的内容是什么？\n\n答：即使到今天，我也不明白。\n\n问：您签署该文件前，您的律师没有与您审阅该文件？\n\nHARMON 先生：我认为那将属于律师与委托人之间享有特权的沟通。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 428 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\nHARMON 先生：我收回，我收回——\n\nMOSS 先生：我认为审阅这一事实——\n\nHARMON 先生：该事实——\n\nMOSS 先生：——作为一个是或否的问题是可以的。\n\nHARMON 先生：您可以回答该问题。\n\n口译员：抱歉。\n\nHARMON 先生：您可以回答该问题。\n\n答：我拒绝回答。我不知道。\n\n问：您是不知道，还是拒绝回答？\n\n答：我——我不知道。\n\n问：您不记得与您的律师一起审阅该文件？\n\n答：我不记得。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您知道我们的客户正寻求对 Sherry-Netherland 公寓实施扣押？\n\n答：我认为这就是抢劫。我不认为这是扣押。我认为这——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 429 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n就是强盗。我从未签署 30 million 的协议，那笔钱从未给过我们，Sherry-Netherland 也不是我们的，他们就是强盗。\n\n问：我只想问一个简单的问题。我知道您对诉讼中的一切均有异议。我理解这一点。我的问题仅仅是，您是否知道我们的客户已提交文件，请求取得我们所称的至少是对该公寓实施扣押的命令？\n\n答：我现在知道了。\n\n问：我的问题是：贵方的立场是否为，我们的客户不能扣押该公寓，因为您并不拥有它，而是 Zhang Wei 拥有它？\n\nHARMON 先生：对该问题的提问方式提出异议。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：我知道您已就您认为这是一宗不合法的诉讼作了很多证言。我的问题是：如果法院支持我们的客户，并命令您在本案中向我们支付判决书所确定的款项，您会支付吗？\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 1269，于 12/28/22 提交，于 12/28/22 14:09:15 录入，第 430 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\nDI\n\nHARMON 先生：不要回答该问题。这超出了扣押程序中证据开示的范围。\n\n答：拒绝回答。\n\nMOSS 先生：当然，Harmon 先生，您在第二次说话时将“证据开示”加入了您的指示，因为这显然涉及扣押动议的核心。\n\nHARMON 先生：我已说完我的句子。谢谢。\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您先前证言称，您在不知道该文件内容的情况下签署了接受该专有租约的协议。您记得该证言吗？\n\nHARMON 先生：对该问题的提问方式提出异议。\n\n答：是，我确实这样说过。\n\n问：签署英文协议或文件而不知道其中内容，是您的惯例吗？\n\n答：是。\n\nMOSS 先生：我们何不停止记录。\n\n录像员：\n现休庭记录。\n时间为 2:55 p.m.\n\n（休庭。）\n\n录像员：\n现恢复庭审记录。\n时间为 3:13 p.m.\n\nMaistrello 女士（迈斯特雷洛）：\n他刚才说，如果你们能稍后给我拍张照片。\n\n证人：\n我想记住你们在这里虐待我。\n\nMoss 先生（莫斯）：\n嗯，Kwok 先生（郭文贵），这一切很快就会结束。再问几个问题。\n\n证人：\n谢谢。\n\nMoss 先生问：\n\n问：你记得，我们今天谈过这起诉讼，而你明白，我的当事人提起诉讼，是因为他们主张他们向你的一家公司发放了一笔贷款，而该笔贷款从未偿还。你明白至少这就是我们的主张吗？\n\n答：我明白，这是彻头彻尾的谎言。这是诽谤，这是——\n\n口译员：\n我一时想不起那个词了。为了从你那里弄到钱——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 432 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\nSarnoff 先生（萨诺夫）：\n敲诈勒索？\n\n口译员：\n对，谢谢。\n\n答：敲诈勒索。我希望你们就这笔 $30 million 的贷款、就付款、就贷款，向我说明真相。\n\n问：所以，这正是我想弄清楚的。你的证词是否是，我的当事人实际上从未发放该笔贷款？\n\nHarmon 先生（哈蒙）：\n反对。指示证人不要回答。\n\n答：我拒绝——\n\nHarmon 先生：\n目前超出了扣押程序中的证据开示范围。\n\nMoss 先生：\n这属于其证词的范围。我是在试图澄清他已经说过的话。\n\nHarmon 先生：\n我明白。你问了他一个问题。他本可以回答“是”或“否”。他已经给了你一个回答。因此，我知道你想就该回答追问，但该追问超出了扣押程序中的证据开示范围。我指示他不要回答。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 433 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n问：Kwok 先生，你是否会回答这个问题：你的证词是否是，我的当事人——你的证词是否是，我的当事人实际上从未向你发放该笔贷款？\n\nHarmon 先生：\n同样反对。同样指示。\n\n口译员：\n口译员尚未翻译。回答是：\n\n答：我拒绝回答。\n\nMoss 先生：\n因此，待你律师的问题提出后，我目前没有其他问题。\n\n不过，尚有一项未决事项，即你今天就一份证明你与 Zhang Wei（张伟）就该酒店达成协议的文件作了证词。我们没有该文件的副本。我认为你律师对此不存在争议，即如果该文件存在，我们有权获得其副本。我们已在休庭期间非正式地要求提供该文件，但我现在正式记录在案，我们要求提供该文件。并且，如果及当该文件被提供时，我们将为仅就该文件提问之目的保持本次证言记录程序开放。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 434 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n我还想记录在案，今天约 3:00 时，我向你的律师提出了选择，即今天提供该文件，并尽量于今天完成本次证言记录，这样我就不必在第二天再把你带回来。我从律师处了解到，这不可能。因此，遗憾的是，我们可能必须在第二天再回来，但希望可以避免。\n\n最后，我还想非常感谢你抽出时间，并为你不得不坐在这里这么久表示歉意。谢谢。\n\n证人：\n我想请口译员翻译一些我想说的话。我可以说几句话吗？\n\nMoss 先生：\n请便。\n\n证人：\n我非常感谢你们今天的安排，以及这种非常人道的会面。但我想告诉你们，你们正在帮助中国共产党（CCP）对我进行敲诈勒索、虐待我。我所寻求做的是帮助中国人实现民主和法治；而在这里，尽管我热爱美国的民主，而且尽管我在这里得到了良好、合法的对待，但你们所做的事情实际上是在帮助中国共产党。\n\n我明白这是你们工作的一部分。我非常感谢你们今天以人道的方式对待我。比中国共产党好得多。谢谢。\n\nMoss 先生：\n谢谢。抱歉，我必须再记录一件事。我只是想说明——抱歉，我忘了你的名字。\n\nMaistrello 先生：\nKarin（卡琳）。\n\nMoss 先生：\n我认为 Karin 可能给 Kwok 先生拍了一些视频——\n\nMaistrello 女士：\n照片。\n\nMoss 先生：\n照片。我只是想说明，在桌子这一侧，我们知道有一项保护令，而且除这里的正式记录外，我们没有拍摄任何照片或视频。因此，如果任何内容最终出现在任何地方，不是我们所为。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 436 页，共 452 页\n\nKWOK\n\n证人：\n我可以给我妻子看吗？给我妻子、我儿子看这张照片？\n\nSarnoff 先生：\n那是你的决定。\n\nMoss 先生：\n我们现在停止记录吧。我认为我们结束了。\n\nHarmon 先生：\n我没有问题。\n\n录像员：\nKwok 先生今日的证言记录至此结束。现停止记录。时间为 3:22 p.m.。谢谢。\n\n（记录时间：3:22 p.m.）\n\n确认书\n\n纽约州\n：SS\n县\n\n本人，MILES KWOK（郭文贵），特此证明：本人已阅读于 October 3, 2018 在本人证言记录中宣誓作出的证词笔录；该笔录是本人证词真实、完整且正确的记录，并且本人在记录中作出的回答真实且正确。\n\n______________________\nMILES KWOK\n\n于 2018 年\n月\n日，在本人面前签署并宣誓。\n\n________________________________\n纽约州公证人，_____________\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 438 页，共\n\n证明书\n\n纽约州\n）SS.：\nSUFFOLK COUNTY（萨福克县）\n）\n\n本人，KRISTI CRUZ（克里斯蒂·克鲁兹），纽约州境内的公证人，特此证明：\n\n上述证言记录中的证人 MILES KWOK，已由本人依法宣誓，且该证言记录是该证人所作证词的真实记录。\n\n本人进一步证明：本人未因血缘或婚姻关系与本案任何一方当事人有关联；且本人对本事项的结果不具有任何利害关系。\n\n特此为证，本人于 October 8, 2018 签名于此。\n\n_______________________\nKRISTI CRUZ\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 439 页，共 452 页\n\n更正表\n\nELLEN GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO. LLC（Ellen Grauer 法庭记录公司有限责任公司）\n126 East 56th Street, Fifth Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n212-750-6434\n案件名称：\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE（太平洋联盟）诉 KWOK\n证言记录日期：\nOCTOBER 3, 2018\n证人姓名：\nMILES KWOK\n页码 行号 原文 改为 理由\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n_____ _____ __________ __________ _____________\n于 2018 年 __________________ 月 _____ 日，\n在本人面前签署并宣誓。\n\n___________________ ______________________\n公证人 本人任期届满日期：\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 KWOK HO WAN 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 440 页，共 452 页\n\nMILES KWOK OCTOBER 3, 2018\n\n131:10 7:5;9:2;11:14,19; 适用（2） 67:23;68:13,15,20,24;\n\n添加 (1) 12:2;13:5;24:3,4; 74:17,20 70:23;72:14;73:2;\n\\$ 90:12 25:4;58:3;59:24; 适用 (5) 80:2;107:4,5,6,7,16;\n已添加 (2) 69:15;112:17 56:15;57:6;74:23; 110:24;122:19,20,23;\n\\$100 (1) 90:4;126:7 Alliance's（联盟的） (5) 81:7;120:2 123:3\n84:18 管理 (1) 26:13,17,21,25; 感激 (1) 指派 (4)\n\\$30 (1) 6:14 58:14 101:24 101:3,6,12;102:13\n128:5 采纳 (2) 随同 (1) 适当 (4) 助理 (4)\n\\$60 (1) 123:19;126:14 80:11 13:19;58:7,18; 55:21,23;88:5;\n100:15 预先 (1) 始终 (6) 62:10 96:10\n\\$67.5 (1)\n84:6 13:24 52:9,11,16,19; 批准 (1) 助理人员 (2)\n\\$68 (1) 意见 (3) 56:10;79:12 50:2 88:5;96:14\n93:11 66:13;82:6,13 America（美国） (1) 大约 (2) 关联的 (1)\n\\$85 (1) 获告知 (2) 131:8 56:24;77:22 60:10\n89:8 90:11;100:18 Americans（美国人） (1) Approximately（大约） (3) 同事 (1)\n顾问 (2) 90:20 56:23;84:14;114:25 60:9\nA 97:18;98:3 在……之中 (2) April（四月） (2) 协会 (2)\n咨询性的 (1) 31:4;85:23 93:10;98:14 43:6,8\na/k/a（又名） (1) 98:4 和/或 (1) Arabic（阿拉伯语） (1) 假定 (3)\n69:17 事务 (4) 15:14 35:13 9:15;13:16;14:22\n能力 (3) 12:21,25;13:2; Ang（Ang） (8) 区域 (1) 假设 (2)\n8:15;9:17;123:14 42:20 92:20,23;93:7,15, 68:2 32:7,10\n能够 (6) 事务 (2) 18,19;97:14;99:15 主张 (1) 附上 (2)\n32:21;35:19;55:10; 80:18;81:2 A-N-G（A-N-G） (1) 112:16 125:11,14\n87:11;90:8;121:6 下午 (2) 92:21 已主张 (3) 所附 (1)\n绝对的 (1) 82:9,10 答复 (5) 57:10;58:3,13 73:16\n127:22 再次 (8)\n21:14;46:17;49:16; 9:16;75:10;101:21;\n122:22;128:21 正在主张 (1)\n113:3 附件 (26)\n11:5,15;13:5,13;\n绝对地 (7) 67:25;75:13;88:19; 再也 (1) 周围 (17) 14:18;58:8,19;59:25;\n11:23;13:8;34:18; 91:4;93:11 62:17 34:20;35:4;40:24; 60:2;73:24;74:2;\n35:17;46:8;50:4; 针对 (7) 公寓 (65) 56:17,21;70:12,20; 102:6;103:2,3;112:3,\n95:19 12:3;24:4;25:4; 11:15;29:10,15,18; 72:12;80:25;89:12, 13,18;116:25;117:4;\nAbu（阿布） (2) 61:25;69:16,20; 30:3,13,19;31:3; 14;92:8;98:25; 118:13;124:22,25;\n108:21,24\n滥用 (1) 118:15 44:14;47:18,21;48:8, 114:11,24,25;115:4 126:4,10;128:15,24\n127:10 代理人 (3) 12;50:9,13,20;56:21; 安排 (3) 攻击 (1)\n滥用 (2) 36:7;39:6,10 57:7;73:12;84:3,15, 33:17;35:9;39:7 61:25\n79:21;131:4 侵略性的 (1) 21;85:4,8;86:6;87:8; 安排 (1) 企图 (1)\n接受 (1) 100:21 89:13;91:9,24;93:22; 119:14 104:25\n90:13 以前 (2) 95:6,18,21;96:8; 逮捕 (2) 企图实施 (1)\n访问 (2) 58:2;77:3 99:16;100:22;101:3, 115:18;116:3 93:21\n54:19;121:4 同意 (2) 12;102:14;104:14; 被逮捕 (5) 注意 (4)\n准确性 (1) 13:16;14:3 105:7;106:5;110:6, 45:12;87:10;91:17; 21:13;34:11,13;\n28:21 AGREED（同意） (8) 19;111:3,15;112:8,13, 93:17;104:18 70:9\n准确的 (4) 6:3,8,12,18;13:24; 18,19;113:3,10,18; 文章 (3) 律师 (18)\n55:19;69:23;70:6; 14:10;50:8,21 117:14;118:14,18,23; 116:6,6,8 24:22;31:9;49:14;\n113:7 同意 (2)\n123:6,17 119:8;120:3,14;\n121:22;122:11; 文章 (2)\n43:6,8 54:4;61:24;85:24;\n87:12,16,20,22;91:12,\n被指控者 (2) 协议 (17) 124:23;125:11,15 Asia（亚洲） (1) 13,14;92:14;96:12,\n118:8;120:18 48:7;68:6,11,19,22, 道歉 (1) 7:5 13;97:14;109:7\n行为 (1) 24;119:12,15,18; 130:17 刺杀 (2) attorney/client（律师/委托人） (5)\n74:4 120:5,7,13;123:6,18; 显然 (1) 22:19;23:6 17:22;18:15;78:17;\n行为 (3)\n70:21;75:7,20 125:3;126:14;129:16 117:14 刺杀 (1) 109:11;123:25\n行动 (1) 协议 (1) 出庭 (1) 15:12 律师 (21)\n62:13 126:21 7:20 主张 (2) 6:4;24:25;31:21,23;\n积极的 (1) 同意 (1) 申请人 (5) 70:2;109:10 33:18;35:9;39:8;41:7;\n99:22 14:23 74:5,8,14;75:2,17 主张 (2) 44:19,22;49:13,18;\n实际的 (1) al（al） (2) 申请 (8) 17:21;69:2 53:13;55:20;91:5;\n41:17 7:6;97:21 20:6;73:11,22; 主张 (2) 96:9,11,12,13;119:22;\n实际情况 (1) 指称 (1) 76:25;77:14;86:4,21, 58:14;60:8 122:7\n32:7 70:11 22 资产 (2) 律师的 (1)\nActually（实际上） (7) 被指称的 (1) 适用 (10) 72:19;110:17 92:19\n59:8;91:9;120:13; 73:4 29:9,14,17;30:2,4, 资产 (22) 音频 (4)\n122:13;128:10;129:5; Alliance（联盟） (13) 12,13,19,20;32:23 37:2,12;48:18; 60:10,13,17;61:8\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 441 of 452\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵） October 3, 2018\n\naudio/video（音频/视频） (1) 代表 (21) 底部 (2) 19:8;22:12;29:23; 主张 (1)\n\n60:18 7:24;8:1;10:15,23; 34:11;70:16 35:10,12,16;40:9; 127:18\n音频 (1) 31:7;33:6;39:7;55:4; Bravo（Bravo） (12) 43:16;54:6,7;66:18; 声称 (1)\n61:3 58:14;75:7,7,20,20; 81:10,11,11,15; 71:14;74:22;80:7; 127:21\n真实性 (3) 76:6,11;79:22;80:21; 82:5,14,17,21,24; 86:9;88:13;110:17; 澄清 (2)\n60:13;62:2,3 85:22;112:16;113:14; 83:4,7,25 113:13;116:17; 47:17;119:11\n\n当局 (2) 118:17 违约 (2) 118:21;119:6;121:6; 澄清 (4)\n70:13,21 在……之后 (2) 11:19;12:2 124:12;130:14,21; 46:2;74:22;119:19;\n授权 (1) 60:14;108:17 中断 (9) 132:6 128:17\n76:4 Beijing（北京） (26) 11:10;12:4;23:18; 能力 (1) 澄清 (1)\n\n获授权 (2) 31:18;47:21;69:15; 46:12;47:12;79:6,15; 10:7 121:16\n6:14;76:9 72:14;73:3,9;76:18, 113:21;129:22 Capital（资本） (1) 干净的 (1)\n授权 (1) 22;77:5,8,11,16,24; 简要陈述 (3) 121:18 9:19\n98:16 78:6;79:24;80:2; 58:12;60:3,4 案件 (13) 明确的 (1)\nAvenue（大道） (1) 91:12,13,14,18;93:9; 书面陈述 (1) 19:2,10;21:6,19,25; 71:5\n\n67:6 94:12,15,17,22;123:2 118:13 22:6,16;23:12;58:4, 清楚地 (4)\n避免 (1) 相信 (1) 简要地 (2) 12;80:9;82:16;119:23 12:6;39:20;40:3;\n130:14 75:4 9:9;16:10 案件 (2) 92:3\n等待 (1) bell（铃） (1) 带来 (1) 15:11;23:14 委托人 (9)\n\n90:19 108:15 130:10 Cathy（Cathy） (8) 57:9;124:22;125:9,\n知悉 (18) 以下 (1) British（英国的） (7) 84:22,22,25,25; 14,23;127:18;128:10;\n13:4;34:19;35:2; 100:4 10:16,25;33:13; 93:20;94:13;97:15; 129:4,5\n55:3;57:9,12;58:11; 受益的 (1) 52:2;53:8;54:14; 100:2 委托人的 (2)\n\n69:19;81:4;101:22; 106:4 107:2 造成 (1) 11:4;21:18\n102:6;106:25;116:15; 受益地 (4) 广泛的 (1) 61:22 结束 (2)\n118:12,19;122:2; 105:8,13,24;106:10 19:19 CCP（中国共产党） (4) 83:22,22\n124:21;125:9 受益人 (1) 经纪人 (2) 79:22;131:3,10,14 共同共谋者 (1)\n离开 (1) 105:3 85:2;93:20 CEO（首席执行官） (1) 70:22\n\n90:10 此外 (2) 兄弟 (2) 67:18 担保物 (1)\n17:6;119:4 45:6,8 某些 (4) 107:24\nB 最佳 (4) 提出 (2) 10:8,9;67:23; 同事 (2)\n8:14;9:14,16;24:19 12:9;94:10 100:12 18:9,23\n\n返回 (15) 更好 (2) Bruno（Bruno） (1) Certificate（证明书） (1) 同事们 (3)\n23:22;45:21;50:6; 9:14;131:14 69:17 34:14 18:9,18;19:2\n59:13;82:2;87:15; 超出 (13) 预算 (1) 证明 (1) 安慰 (1)\n90:7,8;100:9;114:5; 13:18;14:9;58:6,17; 84:18 133:7 114:8\n124:2,3;127:5; 60:7;62:9;68:2;102:9; 一帮 (1) 挑战者 (1) 实施 (1)\n\n130:10,13 103:2;117:3;126:3; 21:7 91:2 61:19\n背景 (3) 128:14,24 业务 (3) 子女 (1) 实施 (1)\n51:3,4,7 投标 (1) 66:7;80:18;81:2 18:23 61:14\n坏的 (1) 100:8 购买 (1) Chiling（Chiling） (1) 沟通 (14)\n\n19:19 十亿 (1) 53:7 18:2 19:14,17,20;20:2,4,\nBalance（余额） (2) 84:11 购买 (1) China（中国） (14) 5;33:4;50:10;76:5,10;\n76:17;79:24 出生 (2) 90:2 20:10;41:11;46:6; 80:23;87:6;112:7;\nBarnum（Barnum） (1) 18:21,23 BVI（英属维尔京群岛） (1) 49:18;56:7;78:10,24; 113:17\n83:10 一点 (2) 110:24 90:19;93:8;96:13; 已沟通 (4)\n\n基于 (3) 46:16;52:15 104:21;120:24;121:3, 87:21;92:12,14;\n71:10;72:4;83:16 空白处理 (1) C 5 99:13\n依据 (3) 127:24 Chinese（中国人） (18) 沟通 (2)\n61:12;101:19,25 Blue（蓝色） (1) 呼叫 (2) 32:21;41:17;43:10; 96:16;106:20\nBates（Bates） (3) 121:18 34:12;108:16 55:8,13;67:24;68:16; 通信 (1)\n\n34:12;73:23;82:15 董事会 (7) 称为 (10) 70:12,21;72:13;73:3; 124:2\nBBC（英国广播公司） (1) 36:16,17;38:18,20; 28:9;37:4;46:23; 80:3;93:5;104:18; 共产主义者 (10)\n111:8 73:21;76:24;80:14 47:9;67:10;83:15; 115:5,17;116:4;131:5 15:12;22:18;23:5;\n被殴打 (1) 债券 (1) 90:19;116:15;121:11, 选择 (4) 60:24,25;61:2,16,17;\n\n79:5 90:20 18 71:6,7,11;72:4 104:19;120:19\n成为 (7) 借入 (1) 打电话 (1) chow（chow） (1) 共产主义者 (2)\n50:17;74:6,8,14; 119:2 46:3 41:17 21:9;121:9\n80:16;81:7,14 借入 (1) 来到 (4) 引用 (1) 公司 (8)\n开始 (1) 108:8 84:2;112:12; 59:24 16:22,24;48:20;\n\n70:22 两者 (5) 118:24;119:5 城市 (5) 52:12;54:13;67:3;\n开始 (2) 10:7;45:12;60:12;\n65:24;117:23 可以 (30) 10:13;67:9;69:14;\n86:11;114:19 116:12;127:19\n公司的 (1)\n\nMin-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC（Ellen Grauer 法庭记录公司有限责任公司） (2) 音频/视频 - 公司的\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 442 of 452\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵） October 3, 2018\n\n70:23 76:5,10;80:13,14,20; 15,18,25;111:20 108:23 12;34:10,12;58:9,20;\n\n公司 (43) 81:5 更正 (1) 交易 (1) 61:12;68:3;70:9;\n7:13,17;16:23;28:8; Connolly's（Connolly 的） (1) 84:11 31:6 71:24;117:4,19;\n37:4,6;46:3,5,21,23, 51:10 正确地 (2) Debit（借记） (2) 118:2,9;128:11,25\n23;47:9,24;54:14,14; 因此 (1) 41:14;50:5 82:6,13 指示 (4)\n63:14;67:10;69:15, 91:17 律师 (12) December（十二月） (1) 19:13;40:19;69:3;\n16;72:15;73:10; 考虑 (1) 6:19;7:19;15:8,10; 76:17 71:12\n76:18;77:5,8,17; 100:18 47:12;74:5;82:16; 决定 (1) 方向 (12)\n78:11;81:12;82:17; Consolidated（合并的） (1) 102:21;109:14; 53:19 59:4;62:9;70:3,8,\n88:21,24;105:13; 76:16 129:12;130:6,11 决定 (13) 21;71:6,8;72:6,17,22;\n111:11;116:10,11,15, 持续不断地 (1) 国家 (2) 52:22,23;53:2,15; 73:6;129:7\n21;117:16,25;118:7,8, 79:11 41:10;91:2 92:6,10,12,18;93:14; 直接地 (2)\n25;121:17;122:8 咨询 (1) County（县） (2) 96:15;99:10;108:4; 30:25;50:17\n公司的 (1) 16:24 7:7;133:5 132:8 董事 (3)\n77:12 顾问 (2) 课程 (11) 声明 (1) 36:12,15;42:24\n能力 (1) 66:11,12 16:5;22:11;36:22, 61:20 董事 (4)\n87:5\n汇编 (1) 咨询 (1)\n16:23 24;55:6,12;95:24;\n106:15;120:22,25; 诽谤 (1)\n127:23 38:18;43:24;65:13;\n73:21\n33:25 联系 (4) 126:6 被告 (4) 不同意 (1)\nComplaint（诉状） (5) 88:4,6;90:22;91:3 Court（法院） (20) 8:5,7,9;70:22 13:23\n69:8,12,22;70:5; Cont'd（续） (1) 6:16;7:6,14,21; 明确的 (2) 不同意 (1)\n73:4 3:1 55:5,14;57:10;58:3; 44:16;45:14 14:21\n完整的 (4) content（内容） (1) 69:7,13;70:6;82:12; 肯定地 (2) 失踪 (2)\n13:2;16:15;76:2; 123:9 100:25;101:13,17,22; 87:3;116:13 56:11,12\n133:10 持续地 (1) 102:14;115:25; 民主 (2) 断开 (1)\n已完成 (1) 99:17 122:11;125:23 131:6,7 12:7\n126:11 合同 (8) 涵盖 (1) 已宣誓作证 (3) 证据开示 (15)\nCompletely（完全地） (15) 11:19;12:3,5;101:2, 78:9 9:4;14:6,6 58:8,19;62:10;68:3,\n9:25;11:23;12:13, 6,9,11;102:13 涵盖 (3) 存款 (1) 7,12,13;69:2;103:3,4;\n14;13:9;21:22,25; 控制 (4) 11:13;13:25;60:22 90:8 117:4;126:4,7;\n22:2;31:20;43:9,11; 36:20,22;77:19; 疯狂的 (3) 证言记录 (18) 128:15,24\n48:22;55:2;74:10; 78:5 12:4,13;21:6 6:12,19;7:3,10; 讨论 (14)\n113:15 受控制的 (1) 创建 (1) 9:10;13:24;14:16,18; 11:4;21:5;26:23;\n复杂的 (1) 77:20 21:25 15:5,9,15;45:20; 32:12,15,18,20;44:18;\n108:14 控制 (2) 债权人 (1) 81:25;114:4;130:2,9; 46:11,12,14;47:11;\n遵守 (1) 78:10,23 54:19 132:13;133:9 50:20;68:9\n102:24\n计算机 (1) 控制 (1)\n36:23 Cruz（Cruz） (1)\n7:15 毁坏 (1)\n21:12 已讨论 (7)\n18:13,18,24;19:8;\n26:7 谈话 (7) 目前 (2) 细节 (1) 71:24;111:9;121:20\n得出结论 (1) 57:14;93:4,8; 35:20;101:5 111:9 正在讨论 (1)\n132:12 103:12;109:12; 诅咒 (2) Dhabi（达比） (2) 102:11\n保密性 (2) 111:18;121:21 12:16,19 108:21,24 Discussion（讨论） (1)\n80:17,25 传达 (1) DI（DI） (29) 59:12\n确认 (2) 111:14 D 17:16;18:14;19:4, 讨论 (5)\n14:12,14 副本 (1) 12;58:6,17;59:3; 99:22;104:9,12;\n困惑的 (4) 23:8 DAN（DAN） (2) 61:11;62:8;67:25; 105:5;107:11\n48:21,22;81:14; 副本 (4) 3:5;7:12 70:2,7;71:5,12,20; 争议 (5)\n111:10 6:18;119:18; 日期 (6) 72:5,16,21;73:5; 12:11;105:23;\n令人困惑的 (1) 129:18,20 33:22;59:17;69:9; 78:15;101:14;102:15; 106:9;125:7;129:19\n111:13 核心 (1) 73:17;82:7;88:17 117:19;118:2,9; 争议 (2)\n企业集团 (1) 41:17 注明日期 (2) 126:2;128:11,19; 12:12,13\n27:21 Corporate（公司） (4) 60:3;89:4 129:6 困境 (1)\nConnecticut（康涅狄格州） (2) 33:21,25;43:3;47:7 女儿 (2) 死亡 (1) 61:22\n83:18,21 公司 (46) 45:6,7 22:25 文件 (41)\n联系 (14)\n20:25;22:5;25:3; 10:16;28:10,12,17;\n29:4;33:11,12,16; 日期 (10) 不同的 (6)\n20:21;32:22;46:4; 21:18;32:6;33:24;\n34:6,17,24;35:11,18;\n50:12;73:11;76:24; 34:3,15,20;35:3;36:5, 15:10,18,19;17:24;\n23:9;96:5;123:20; 52:16;56:11;64:8 71:10;72:4;73:19;\n77:13;93:21;102:25; 130:10,13;133:21 以不同方式 (1) 74:11,24;76:16;\n\n13,21,25;37:8,11,19,\n109:23;112:2;117:6; 22;38:3,8,11,14,17, 天（1） 13:3 80:13;83:6,9,14;\n119:22;120:2 21,23;39:9,15;41:24; 79:19 困难（1） 88:21;89:4;98:16,25;\nConnolly（康诺利）（14）\n50:19,23;51:6,14; 42:4,14,18,22;43:3,\n23;46:18;52:3;66:16; 交易（2）\n30:25;31:4 54:18\n直接（18） 116:9;118:17,21;\n119:5,6,21,23;120:10;\n\nMin-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC（艾伦·格劳尔法庭记录有限责任公司）（3）公司－文书\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登录于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 443 页，共 452 页\n\n126:16;129:16,18,21, 3:4 131:6,8 秋季（1） 97:18;98:3,4;119:14\n\n23,25;130:4,8 Ellen（艾伦）（2） 每个人（1） 89:2 财务资料（3）\n文件（12） 7:12,16 82:10 虚假地（1） 76:23;77:12;80:25\n22:16;26:9,11,16, 其他（14） 每个人（1） 120:18 查找（2）\n24;33:21,25;35:23; 17:23;18:3,5,8; 113:21 熟悉的（2） 22:15;104:17\n43:3;44:19;62:3; 24:3;29:14,17;30:2; 每个人的（1） 49:20,22 认定（2）\n126:21 31:6;32:8;39:2;86:21; 15:24 家庭（15） 43:12;125:23\n美元（1） 94:10;108:20 证据（2） 30:21;44:23;45:4; 罚金（5）\n100:12 电子邮件（1） 118:25;119:4 54:11;63:23;64:15, 27:8;43:20;78:20;\n支配性的（1） 19:15 证据材料（1） 20;77:18,23;94:8,9, 113:22;124:8\n77:19 雇员（2） 118:22 13,16,18;98:6 完成（4）\nDon（唐）（1） 16:21;85:24 证明（1） 家庭的（1） 9:17,18;29:22;\n16:14 雇员（7） 129:16 86:11 130:8\n已完成（2） 16:24;38:9;48:24; 准确的（2） 远（6） 已完成（2）\n44:19;62:5 66:2,3,4;85:25 42:15;56:24 13:20;24:9;69:3; 39:21;132:10\n疑问（2） 结束（3） 询问（1） 94:4;108:18;113:6 完成（1）\n70:4;76:8 51:11;127:12; 8:22 快速（1） 40:2\n向下（3） 130:15 受询问（1） 27:4 公司（8）\n11:11;90:15;92:5 结束（1） 8:19 更快（1） 16:19;49:19,20;\n草稿（1） 132:4 示例（1） 24:16 83:17;88:8,10,22,24\n101:8 委托（1） 96:15 赞成（1） 首先（9）\n删除（2） 51:13 除外（1） 83:10 89:2,5,13;92:6;\n97:8,10\n已删除（1） 英格兰（1）\n104:7 6:8\n交换（1） FBI（联邦调查局）（1）\n61:18 96:5;107:14;111:22;\n112:12;117:12\n91:25 英语（18） 101:8 2月（8） 楼层（2）\n正式地（2） 8:13,14;32:20,21; 借口（1） 34:21;35:4;44:3; 48:8;89:8\n8:11,18 35:16,21;41:16,21; 98:14 56:21;72:13;73:20; 聚焦（1）\n期间（17） 48:13;55:8;81:14; 证物（15） 74:15;77:17 24:13\n17:5,9,15,20,23; 86:2,3;87:5;98:22; 33:19,20;34:7;59:7, 2月/3月（1） 遵循（2）\n18:19;19:2,10;33:3; 116:4,7;126:21 15,20;69:7,12;73:15, 56:17 80:11;128:22\n39:18;40:6;42:11,12; 足够（4） 20;82:4,12;88:13,15, 联邦（3） 如下（2）\n46:11;47:12;93:7; 18:5;27:5;63:6; 25 69:7,13;70:6 8:20;60:5\n129:22 87:6 存在（1） 感觉（1） 后续（1）\n确保（1） 40:24 39:13 128:23\nE 55:18 存在（1） 感到（1） 强迫（1）\n全部（2） 129:21 80:17 6:15\n急切的（1） 17:2,20 扩大的（1） 费用（1） 忘记（1）\n80:15 实体（3） 63:14 51:10 131:18\n较早（11） 65:19,25;119:9 预计（1） Feng（冯）（2） 形式（49）\n28:9;46:21;47:16; 有权享有（6） 9:21 87:2,4 6:9;25:5,18;26:3;\n56:6;58:2;79:14; 24:5;59:21;82:5,13; 解释（5） 少数（4） 29:11,20;30:5,15,22;\n121:20,24;122:18,22; 102:5;129:20 23:25;40:9;43:16; 23:25;90:2;96:20; 33:8;35:5;37:23;38:5;\n126:13 实体（7） 116:23;117:6 127:12 39:11;40:10;41:2;\n早期（1） 27:22;47:7;60:14; 已解释（1） 更少（1） 50:14;53:10,17,21;\n72:13 65:21;83:25;107:3; 110:23 35:23 54:2,15,20;57:15;\n耳朵（1） 116:25 探究（1） 第五（1） 65:4,9,14;66:17,22;\n60:23 受托（3） 13:15 67:6 78:15;80:4;85:10;\n更容易（1） 28:18;29:4;92:25 敲诈（1） 数字（1） 95:7,13,22;96:3;\n35:15\n东部（1） 等同（2）\n12:24;43:17 131:4\n敲诈勒索（2） 100:12\n已提交（17） 97:12;105:15,20,25;\n106:6,11,22;110:11;\n108:19 Eric（埃里克）（2） 128:2,4 12:2;24:4;55:4,11, 111:4;113:11;122:15;\nEdward（爱德华）（2） 87:24;88:7 F 19;70:5;112:16; 正式地（1）\n7:23;9:2 遗产（10） 事实（6） 17;125:10 成立（1）\n效力（1） 45:5;66:8;74:4; 25:16;60:15; 文件（1） 33:15\n6:15 85:2;114:14;116:16, 113:10;123:11;124:4, 34:4 成立（5）\n任一（6） 21;117:16,24;118:8 6 提交（1） 34:20;35:3;44:3,6;\n17:14;67:2;95:16; 等等（2） 公平（4） 6:5 53:9\n119:7,8;125:5 7:6;97:21 18:5;63:6;109:20; 最终（1） 向前（1）\n年长者（2） Eva（伊娃）（3） 113:15 10:23 100:9\n45:6,8 10:15;55:24;56:4 甚至（8） 伪造的（2） 财务（7） 发现（2）\n引出（1） 36:8;40:19;43:12; 61:4,18 73:8,16;80:18; 50:18;91:11\n101:16 74:11;111:12;123:20; 虚假（2） PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登录于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 444 页，共 452 页\n\n四（1） 给定（2） 24:12 21:11;131:3,10 13:7;27:10,13;\n\n20:23 125:3;133:12 HARMON（哈蒙）（155） Henan（河南）（7） 28:14;32:13,14,17,25;\n\nFrances（弗朗西斯）（1） 给予（1） 8:4,4;10:13;12:6; 114:20;116:16,21; 33:5;34:4;37:16;38:4;\n60:6 28:23 13:16,17,22;14:5,15, 117:9,15,24;118:7 44:10,15;57:7;\n欺诈（1） 给予（3） 20,24,25;15:14;16:4; H-E-N-A-N（河南）（1） 118:15;129:17\n118:8 18:21;48:20;89:22 17:7,10,14,16,21,25; 114:21 小时（2）\n前面（1） 前往（1） 18:14,25;19:4,9,12; 兹此（3） 18:22;20:12\n35:18 126:9 24:18;25:2,5,12,18, 6:3,6;133:7 房屋（5）\n冻结（1） Golden（戈尔登）（26） 22,25;26:3,7,12; 本文中（3） 39:6;42:11;48:15;\n80:3 3:6;8:9;51:20; 29:11,20,24;30:5,9, 6:5;8:11,18 49:25;89:23\n基金（11） 63:12,13,16,17,18,19; 15,22;33:8;34:5,9; 隐藏（1） 人道的（2）\n7:5;27:20,21;97:17, 64:5,11,13,24;65:3,8, 35:5;37:23;38:5; 15:11 130:25;131:13\n17,19,24,25;98:2; 12,25;66:5,7,10,14, 39:11,21,25;40:10,15; 嗯（1） 羞辱（1）\n108:19;118:24 20,25;67:12,17; 41:2;43:12;44:13; 48:2 62:11\n资金（4） 116:14 47:13;50:14;53:10, Ho（何）（2） 百（1）\n29:3;47:17;84:2; Good（古德）（6） 17,21;54:2,6,15,20, 73:23;74:5 98:21\n\n119:5 8:24;13:20;21:12; 25;57:15;58:6,13,17; Hodgson（霍奇森）（1） 数百（1）\n提供（1） 54:10;82:9,10 59:3;61:11;62:8,18, 8:4 57:22\n6:19 Google（谷歌）（1） 23,24;63:3,8;65:4,9, 持有（6）\n家具（3） 83:17 14,20,23;66:17,22; 40:15;45:25;53:9; I\n90:2,9;93:3 天哪（1） 67:25;68:8,18,22; 78:16;87:13,14\n进一步（6） 52:21 69:24;70:2,7,14,18; 持有（2） 想法（3）\n6:7,11,17;58:9,20; 政府（6） 71:5,12,16,20;72:5,8, 52:12;77:12 78:22;105:19;\n129:12 67:24;68:17;72:14; 11,16,21;73:5;75:10, 控股（83） 112:11\nG Grauer（格劳尔）（2） 23;78:15,25;80:4,7; 10:15,20,24;28:10, 想法（2）\n7:13,16 96:3;97:12;101:14, 12,17;33:11,16,20; 75:3,4\n获益（1） 重大（2） 21;102:3,9,15;103:4; 34:2,3,15,19;35:3; 身份识别（6）\n123:16 79:5;103:6 105:15,20,25;106:6, 36:5,13,20,25;37:5,8, 33:22;59:16;69:8;\n银河（1） 地面（1） 11,22;109:10,15,18; 9,11,12,15,19,20,20, 73:17;82:6;88:16\n21:24 9:9 110:11;111:4;113:11, 21;38:2,8,11,14,17, 识别（2）\n给予（4） 团体（2） 22;115:8;116:22; 21,23;39:9,15;41:24; 110:17;119:6\n18:23;25:25;26:6; 9:3;11:14 117:19;118:2,9; 42:3,13,17,22;43:2, 非法的（1）\n128:21 保证（2） 122:15;123:24;124:6, 23;44:2,5;46:18; 125:22\n一般（1） 89:25;98:21 9,12;125:17;126:2,7, 47:24;48:5,11,17,23; 不可能（1）\n68:14 警卫（3） 11,17;128:11,14,19; 49:2,5,8,12;51:16,19, 121:5\n通常（2） 18:10;19:10;22:20 129:6;132:11 23;66:15,21;69:16; 印象（3）\n20:20;48:10 宾客（1） Harmon（哈蒙）的（1） 72:15;73:9;76:18,23; 95:5;99:5;105:12\nGenever（热内维耶）（90） 130:23 16:18 77:5,8,16,24;78:11, 被监禁（3）\n\n10:11,12,12,12,13, Gui（桂）（1） Haroche（阿罗什）（1） 24;79:24;105:2; 87:15;114:13;\n20;11:7;28:10,12,17, 90:23 85:5 107:2,15;108:5; 120:17\n18;29:4;31:21;32:2,5; G-U-I（桂）（1） 听见（2） 110:2,15,18,20,25; 不准确的（1）\n33:11,16,20;34:2,2, 90:25 18:22;107:21 Holdings'（控股公司的）（1） 57:4\n15,19;35:3;36:5,12, Guo（郭）（6） 听闻（14） 持有（1） 不适当的（1）\n20,25;37:5,8,9,11,12, 59:21;63:20,23; 17:18;28:8,11;37:4, 48:7 102:4\n15,19,20,20,21;38:2, 64:7;90:22;121:11 7;50:5;57:19;107:18, 家（3） 包括（2）\n8,11,14,17,21,23; G-U-O（郭）（3） 20;108:18;109:21; 86:11,12;98:11 93:2;111:3\n39:9,14;40:4,9,24; 63:21;90:24;121:11 111:23;121:10,17 住宅（1） 已包括（1）\n41:24;42:3,13,17,22; 伙计们（1） 听证（3） 89:3 110:5\n43:2,22;44:2,5;46:18, 21:7 14:23;107:15; Hong（香港）（25） 包括（3）\n22;47:23;48:5,11,17, H 117:13 31:17;46:7,25;47:2, 19:22;115:18;\n23;49:2,5,8,12;51:16, 心（1） 9;49:18;50:10;63:13, 116:13\n19,23;66:15,21;67:2; 手（1） 126:9 16,18,19;64:5;65:22; 包括（3）\n105:2;107:2,15; 116:19 持有（2） 66:25;82:4,14;83:21; 115:7,10,12\n108:5;110:2,15,18,19, 交给（4） 7:10;59:12 87:22;96:12;98:11; 不可理解的（1）\n24,25;111:2,8,20,23; 33:24;59:19;82:11, Helen（海伦）（1） 115:16;116:9,11,13, 21:23\n119:8 12 地狱（1） 14 Incorporation（公司注册）（1）\nGenever's（热内维耶的）（1） 发生（2） 13:11 希望（1） 34:14\n31:23 happened（2） 帮助（4） 130:13 不正确的（2）\nGilbert（吉尔伯特）（1） 23:4;99:8 56:14;104:7; 医院（1） 50:16;92:3\ngin（杜松子酒）（1） 高兴（3） 109:13;131:5 90:19 索引（1）\n\n10:15 困难的（1） 协助（3） Hotel（酒店）（17） 个人（1）\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案件 22-50073 文书 1269 提交于 12/28/22 登录于 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 445 页，共 452 页\n\n通知（3） 90:24;92:21;99:3; 59:22 38:1;39:1;40:1,18; 合法地（1）\n\n100:25;101:13; 102:17,17;103:23; JIANG（江）（1） 41:1,6,23;42:1,2,10, 131:9\n102:14 104:2;107:5,9;111:6, 3:4 13,21;43:1;44:1;45:1, 法律（1）\n\n非正式地（1） 6;112:21;114:21; Jillian（吉莉安）（1） 20,24;46:1,10,15; 33:12\n129:22 115:9,12;118:4,4; 8:6 47:1;48:1;49:1;50:1; 诉讼（13）\n信息（8） 119:10,11;124:11; 工作（1） 51:1,22;52:1;53:1; 12:2,11;24:4;55:3;\n25:15;28:23,24; 127:24;128:3;129:8, 131:12 54:1;55:1;56:1;57:1; 69:20;109:23;112:3;\n70:5;73:9,16;115:15, 8;130:20 法官（1） 58:1,11;59:1,15,19, 115:24;118:14;125:8,\n20 进入（3） 100:25 判决书（1） 21;60:1,2,8,9,15,22; 22,24;127:17\n初始（1） 8:13,14;70:11 125:24 61:1;62:1,6,15,20; 律师（4）\n29:2 Invest（投资）（1） 6月（4） 63:1;64:1;65:1;66:1; 9:23;16:16;104:6;\n指示（3） 66:8 91:23;92:8;94:23; 67:1;68:1;69:1,7,12; 129:19\n28:19;96:21,25 已投资（2） 114:25 70:1;71:1,9;72:1,2; 律师（15）\n已指示（6） 45:4;114:14 调查（1） 73:1,15,19,23;74:1,3, 9:20;16:8,9,10,11;\n24:7;62:19;91:8; 62:4 K 5;75:1;76:1,15;77:1; 21:16;31:8,13;46:13;\n97:7,10;102:21 调查员（1） KARIN（卡琳）（4） 78:1,9,23;79:1,23; 55:4;91:10;106:20;\n指示（5） 60:7 3:6;8:8;131:19,20 80:1,10,15;81:1,6,25; 121:4;123:22;124:19\n63:2,7,8;72:9; 投资（8） Kau（高）（1） 82:1,4,9,15,16;83:1, 学习（2）\n103:11 29:5;52:5,7;54:10; 31:14 16;84:1;85:1;86:1; 72:19;73:2\n指令（4） 69:15;119:14;120:6,9 热切地（1） 87:1;88:1,15,20;89:1; 得知（1）\n97:4;101:20;102:2; 投资（2） 80:17 90:1;91:1;92:1;93:1; 109:4\n126:8 52:10,17 保留（1） 94:1;95:1;96:1;97:1; 学习（1）\n指示（2） 投资者（1） 130:2 98:1;99:1;100:1; 35:20\n9:23;96:7 52:23 被绑架（2） 101:1;102:1,12,16,24; 租赁（6）\n情报（1） 投资者（1） 121:8,8 103:1,7;104:1;105:1; 48:7;67:9,13;123:7,\n22:19 29:6 杀害（1） 106:1;107:1;108:1; 19;126:15\n意图（1） 邀请（1） 61:20 109:1;110:1;111:1; 至少（3）\n86:6 14:21 种类（2） 112:1;113:1;114:1,4, 96:20;125:10;\n意图中的（1） 涉及（4） 12:21;19:24 10;115:1;116:1; 127:21\n86:10 33:15;56:15;75:9, 种类（1） 117:1,7,18;118:1,5; 离开（1）\n利益（13） 22 20:23 119:1;120:1;121:1, 28:24\n28:5;38:3;64:4,10; 参与（1） 知道（2） 14;122:1;123:1; 腿（1）\n77:4,8;78:3;82:20,24; 47:20 122:20,23 124:1,21;125:1; 79:3\n83:4;110:6,9;116:20 Island（岛）（1） 知情的（2） 126:1,13;127:1,11; 法律（2）\n感兴趣的（1） 53:8 126:15,22 128:1;129:1,2;130:1; 7:13,16\n86:23 Islands（群岛）（6） 知识（3） 131:1,21;132:1,13; 信函（9）\n\n利益（1） 10:17,25;33:13; 52:3;54:14;107:3 133:7,17 51:13;73:15,21,25;\n117:24 国际（2） 问题（5） Kwok-controlled（郭文贵控制的）（1） 74:3;78:9,11;80:22;\n47:2,9 解释（8） 11:13;14:19;47:11; 117:15 81:5\n8:12;25:8;28:22; 60:4;106:21 Kwok's（郭文贵的）（4） 允许（1）\n39:22;54:22;118:5; 已签发（1） 13:6;14:16,18; 79:7\n129:9;130:20 102:25 Kong（港）（25） 级别（1）\n解释（1） 问题（6） 31:17;46:8;47:2,2, 87:5\n84:10 11:4,6,14;13:14,15, 9;49:18;50:10;63:13, Liability（责任）（1）\n已解释（4） 25 16,18,19;64:5;65:22; 37:6\n58:23;70:25;72:24; 项目（1） 66:25;82:4,14;83:21; 留置权（2）\n99:4 129:14 87:22;96:12;98:11; 107:7;112:17\nInterpreter（口译员）（79） Ivey（艾维）（1） 115:16;116:10,11,13, Lao（老）（1） 位于（1）\n3:4;8:11,19;11:9, 83:10 14 87:22 127:22\n10,22;12:16,20,23; J Kristi（克里斯蒂）（1） L-A-O（老）（1） Limited（有限）（12）\n18:4;22:21;23:3;25:7, 7:15 87:23 10:24;37:5;82:5,14,\n26:7 Kwok（郭文贵）（203） 笔记本电脑（1） 17,21,24;83:4,7,25;\nENGLISH\n\n8;27:17;28:19;29:7; 7:3;8:24;9:1;10:1; 最后（2） 行（1）\n31:10,11,19;36:14,15; 监狱（3） 11:1;12:1,10;13:1; 22:21;46:11 62:19\n17;39:23;41:4,4,18; 56:7,9;57:5 14:1,6;15:1;16:1; 迟（2） 清单（2）\n43:7,15,21;44:11; 1月（3） 17:1;18:1;19:1,14; 67:13;72:12 43:23;115:18\n47:3,4;49:15;50:3,4; 70:12,20;72:13 20:1;21:1;22:1;23:1, 以后（2） 听（8）\n52:19;54:24;56:2; Je（2） 25;24:1;25:1;26:1; 45:5;127:8 60:20,21;61:2,5,9,\n58:22,22;63:21; 97:16;98:7 27:1,6;28:1;29:1; 法律（9） 10;71:2,4\n70:24;72:23,23; J-E（1） 30:1;31:1;32:1;33:1, 16:19;24:5;49:19; 听了（1）\n74:21;75:14;84:7,8,9; 97:16 20,24;34:1,8,9,10; 83:17;88:8,10,22,24; 52:23\n87:23,25;89:20,21; 喷气机（1） 35:1,16;36:1;37:1; 131:6 清单（1）\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 446 页，共 452 页\n\n89:7 83:4,7,25 6:12;7:21;9:20; 133:7,17 103:2,3;112:3,13;\n\n诉讼（7）\n9:3;14:2;20:25; 午餐（1）\n81:20 39:9;60:3;69:14;\n114:24,25;130:12; Mileson（迈尔森）（12）\n41:15,16,23;42:2, 126:10\n动机（1）\n21:5;25:3;101:2; 131:20 12,21;51:22;64:7; 60:13\n118:18 M 也许（5） 103:9,14;105:3; 移动（7）\n少（2） 13:12;35:15;56:14; 121:14 14:23;43:20;79:8,\n46:15;52:15 MACOM（2） 104:18;108:16 Mileson's（迈尔森的）（1） 10,11;101:18,23\n居住（15） 3:5;7:12 意思（11） 104:14 夫人（1）\n27:12,24;29:10,14, 黑手党（2） 15:13;21:4;34:22, 百万（24） 17:11\n18;30:3,4,13,13,19, 21:8,12 25;39:4;52:7,11,18; 36:10;61:3;84:6,8, 很多（8）\n20;86:5,6;98:10; 维持（2） 76:13;97:19;112:14 12,18;89:8,23,24,25; 8:25;28:23;84:15,\n114:19 67:5;80:24 含义（3） 90:2,7,13;91:25;92:2; 18;130:16,24;131:12,\n居住过（1） 维持（3） 22:8;36:15;52:20 93:11;94:24;98:17; 13\n117:8 43:3,5,23 方式（3） 99:2,11;100:15; 必须（1）\n生活（3） 维护（1） 20:17;40:9;107:6 120:9;125:3;128:5 131:16\n54:8;104:20;114:12 89:25 媒体（1） 心思（1） Myers（迈尔斯）（4）\nLLC（31） MAISTRELLO（迈斯特雷洛）（6） 66:8 89:21 7:11,24;8:1,3\n10:20;33:21;34:2; 3:6;8:8,8;127:7; 会面（6） 分钟（1）\n37:5,9,13,15,20,21; 131:19,22 15:8,14,17;94:16, 58:2 N\n44:3,5;47:24;48:6,11, 制作（2） 17;98:15 错过（1）\n17,23;49:2,5,8,12; 60:16;71:16 会议（13） 22:21 姓名（17）\n51:16,19,23;52:2; 男子（1） 15:13,22;17:3,6,9, 错误（3） 7:12;8:25;16:13,15;\n53:7,8,9;66:21;83:10; 105:11 15,24;18:19;19:2,10; 31:11;84:9,10 31:15;41:16,17,21;\n110:20;111:2 管理（1） 38:21;98:24;99:8 弄错（2） 44:12;48:13;49:16;\nLLP（1） 49:9 成员（5） 89:19;90:6 92:19;104:14;108:11;\n8:5 经理（2） 27:21;36:16,17; 模式（2） 115:18;116:5;131:18\n贷款（7） 97:18,24 63:23;77:18 56:11,13 名为（3）\n118:8;127:19,20; 管理（1） 成员（7） 金钱（6） 33:6;103:16;117:13\n128:6,6,10;129:5 97:25 30:21;34:11;43:24; 48:15;106:17; 名称（3）\n当地（1） 普通话（3） 64:21;77:19,23;88:8 108:8;125:3,24; 15:24;48:19;111:8\n74:4 3:4;8:11,14 备忘录（1） 127:25 性质（2）\n长（4） Mandarinn（1） 43:6 月（1） 40:13,23\n24:12;77:3;79:15;\n130:18 8:13\nManis（马尼斯）（2） 精神（1）\n61:22 86:16\n更多（5） 需要（11）\n18:4;21:13;23:25;\n更长（1） 104:4,10 提及（3） 11:20,23;90:14; 49:15;62:12;79:15,\n86:22 许多（17） 86:25;87:4;120:13 127:12;131:16 15;80:17,24;90:12;\n看（5） 19:23;20:10,21; 提到（1） 早晨（1） 116:23\n33:19;35:10,12; 22:19;23:8,13,14; 46:21 8:24 需要（2）\n43:8;76:14 30:12;35:22;57:21; 价值（1） MOSS（莫斯）（71） 45:25;86:20\n松散（1） 85:23,25;94:11,19,20; 12:8 7:23,23;8:23;9:2; 需要（2）\n47:3 115:6;116:12 价值（3） 11:12;12:22;13:17, 52:5,8\n丢失（1） 3月（2） 13:15;14:2,20 21;14:12,17;15:3; 谈判（5）\n104:17 56:22;84:5 信息（7） 17:18;23:18,24; 84:24;85:14,15,18,\n很多（8） Mark（马克）（6） 19:20,21,22,24; 25:11;29:22,25; 21\n15:23;23:8;24:21; 8:4;34:5;59:6; 20:3,4,8 33:19,23;34:7;36:16; 谈判（1）\n96:10;114:16,17; 65:17;69:6;88:13 信息（14） 43:19;45:15,23;59:6, 100:8\n115:5;125:20 标记（7） 20:22,24;21:17; 18;62:14,25;63:6; 纽约（34）\n爱（2） 33:21;59:16;69:8; 22:5,10,15;23:11; 65:17,22;68:5,11,21; 7:7,8;10:21;37:5;\n89:2;131:7 73:16,20;82:6;88:16 25:3,17,21;26:2,8,20, 69:5,10;70:17,19; 47:24;52:2;53:7,9;\n较低（6） 市场（5） 24 信息发送（3） 82:8;88:13,18; 54:13;63:12,14,17;\n92:25;96:16,21,25; 87:8,13,17;99:16, 20 20:14,16,19 101:19,24;102:7,23; 64:11;65:22;66:4,10,\n98:16;99:10 20 会见（2） 103:6;107:7;109:13, 14,20;67:5,9;68:13,\n降低（5） 营销（1） 15:20;94:13 20;113:20;114:9; 20,23;69:13;83:23;\n91:25;92:7;93:11; 100:21 方法（2） 115:14;117:7,12; 86:6,11,17;90:2;\n94:24;99:2 标记（2） 19:23;20:16 94:25;98:12;104:20;\nLP（2）\n7:5;13:4 81:23;114:2 中间（2） 124:4,7;126:6,24;\n127:11,15;128:16; 111:2;133:3\nLtd（5） 已婚（3）\n45:5,10,13 83:13;108:19 129:11;130:23; 九（1）\n86:16\n63:12;73:10;77:5,9, 结婚（1） 可能（1） 131:15,20,23;132:9 无人（2）\n17 45:7 35:24 大多数（1） 17:6;24:3\nLuck（拉克）（12） 事项（1） Miles（迈尔斯）（8） 89:3 不存在的（1）\n81:10,11,12,16;\n7:4 7:3;45:20;59:21; 动议（8） 21:25\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 447 页，共 452 页\n\n133:25 126:24;127:2;132:9, 命令（1） 51:9,12 69:5\n\n备注（6） 14 125:23 痛苦（3） 期间（1）\n\n61:24;62:18;114:6; 要约（3） 组织（3） 79:5,8,10 42:10\n130:5;131:17,24 100:11,14,17 10:9,11;11:7 绘画（3） 永久地（1）\n注意到（1） 提出（1） 组织（4） 90:3,9;93:3 86:7\n132:16 130:6 10:16,21,25;33:12 Pangu（盘古）（4） 人员（14）\n概念（1） 要约（2） 原始（3） 47:21;73:3;103:19; 15:20,21;16:18,21;\n89:19 60:7;100:4 90:7;119:20,20 123:3 17:2;21:12;27:22,23;\n号码（6） 办公室（3） 其他人（3） 文件（1） 29:2;40:22;64:9;85:6;\n7:8;38:15;49:6; 79:12;85:25;88:5 35:14;88:3,7 26:11 96:23;119:2\n61:17;81:24;114:3 官员（1） 否则（3） 文件（9） 个人的（2）\n数字（3） 6:13 61:5;91:3;117:2 55:4,7,11,14,18; 10:7;61:25\n数词（1） 办公室（5） 我们的（1） 112:16;113:3,6; 亲自（6）\n35:13 38:12;49:3;67:6,9, 125:4 125:10 28:6;32:23;78:2;\n官方（1） 14 外出（8） 段落（2） 85:15;108:25;123:5\nO 132:4 15:23;18:7,10,11; 70:10,17 人的（2）\n旧（2） 外部（2） 28:24;29:3;52:5;91:4 参数（1） 22:10;62:3\n宣誓（3） 114:10,11 61:21;68:15 电话（4）\n6:14;9:7;133:9 年长的（1） 结束（6） 部分（3） 25:25;38:15;49:6;\n异议（56） 77:20 9:9;20:10;24:16; 22:22;116:5;131:11 93:4\n9:20,21;14:11;25:5, O'Mara（奥马拉）（1） 61:3;78:5;104:22 当事人（1） 拼音的（4）\n18;26:3;29:11,20,23; 83:10 欠（1） 6:5 18:2;27:18;41:19;\n30:5,15,22;33:8;35:5; O'Melveny（奥美律师事务所）（4） 36:9 部分地（1） 63:22\n37:23;38:5;39:11; 7:11,24;8:1,3 自己（10） 116:4 照片（1）\n40:10,18;41:2;50:14; 一（41） 27:9;28:13;31:21; 合伙人（6） 127:8\n53:10,17,21;54:2,15, 9:5,5;11:13;16:16, 37:9,15;60:7;71:11; 27:20;45:4,4;97:17, 图片（3）\n20;57:15;61:11;65:4, 17,21,23,24;21:2,3; 72:4;73:25;125:15 19,22 131:22,23;132:7\n9,14;66:17,22;71:23; 27:7;29:9,13;30:9; 拥有（12） 部分（1） 图片（1）\n78:15,17;80:4;85:10; 31:4;35:13;40:15; 52:2;64:13;77:16, 28:20 132:3\n95:7,13,22;96:3; 42:6;46:6,7,21;49:21; 23;82:18;105:2,8,8, 当事人（6） 刺破（2）\n97:12;105:15,20,25; 57:23,24,25;65:18,23; 12,13,24;106:10 17:19;22:18;29:4; 13:14;14:19\n106:6,11,22;110:11; 68:25;80:7;81:6; 所有者（8） 61:25;78:10,24 Ping（平）（4）\n111:4;113:11;122:15; 85:23;86:2;87:15; 48:11;78:10,23; 通过（2） 55:25;112:20;\n125:17;126:17 94:21;109:7;119:13; 85:7;95:21;106:5,14, 91:12;93:16 113:13;115:22\n提出异议（2） 120:10;121:15; 16 过去（1） P-I-N-G（2）\n40:19;62:18 127:19;129:14; 所有权（19） 45:3 56:3;112:22\n提出异议（1） 131:16 28:5;38:3;41:24; Paul（保罗）（22） 地点（2）\n54:4 一类（1） 51:23;64:4,10;77:4,7; 31:14,16,17;49:14, 61:17;87:16\n异议（18） 86:3 78:2;82:20;103:8,13; 19;50:8,11,19,22; 放置（2）\n17:16;18:14;25:9; 仅（8） 104:14,25;110:5,9; 51:5,9,14;74:4;75:6, 87:8,13\n41:5;59:3;62:8;70:3, 35:12;86:2;91:10; 111:2;118:22;119:7 15,19;76:4,9,19;78:8, 原告（3）\n7;71:21;72:5,16,21; 96:6,19,23;103:18; 拥有（4） 14,22 7:4;8:1;70:23\n73:5;75:24;102:8; 121:15 64:16,17,21,24 PAX（3） 原告（2）\n117:21;128:11;129:6 至（1） 拥有（10） 13:4;25:4;102:5 7:24;8:3\n异议（2） 87:13 27:15;37:20,21,22; PAX's（PAX 的）（1） 计划的（1）\n6:8;54:23 oOo（1） 48:6;63:17,18,19; 60:6 86:15\n异议（1） 6:23 110:19;117:14 支付（6） 规划（4）\n30:7 开放（3） 24;125:24,25 21:13;62:12;89:24, 59:22;119:14;\nP\n义务（1） 117:5;129:14;130:2 付款（1） 播放（4）\n100:25 Opportunity（机会）（1） 128:6 53:3;60:17;61:15;\n显然（2） 7:5 Pacific（太平洋）（18） 付款（1） 62:17\n55:7;126:9 反对（1） 7:5;9:2;11:14,18, 67:13 播放了（1）\n偶尔（1） 63:4 25;13:5;24:3,4;25:4; 待决（1） 60:19\n54:8 反对意见（1） 26:13,16,20,25;58:3, 129:11 播放（2）\n10月（8） 60:2 14;59:24;69:14; 人员（12） 62:16,16\n7:11;87:18;89:5,12; 选择权（1） 112:17 15:23;23:8;30:12, Plaza（广场）（1）\n91:20;98:14;99:17; 130:7 页（9） 18;31:4;56:12;85:25; 47:21\n133:9 口头地（2） 60:4;70:10,16,17; 94:19,20;96:10,20; 请（21）\n关闭（14） 55:21,22 80:12;81:5;89:2,5,9 108:24 7:22;9:13,18,22;\n23:19;45:15,16; 命令（5） PAHLAVAN（帕拉万）（2） 百分比（3） 13:22;15:25;17:13;\n59:8,10,12;81:18; 101:17,22;102:6, 8:2,2 28:22;77:21;98:21 18:12,17;25:13;\n99:20;113:23;115:17; 24;132:2 已支付（2） Perfect（完美）（1） 34:13;40:16,17;\n\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 录入日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 448 页，共 452 页\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵） October 3, 2018（2018年10月3日）\n\n54:22;62:14;71:17; 115:3,5,10;117:15 提供（7） 敲诈勒索（1） 126:25;127:3,6;\n\n75:23;76:14;79:8,16; 先前（1） 48:16;76:19; 21:10 129:24;130:6;131:17;\n88:14 18:22 106:17,18;115:16,20; 比率（1） 132:4,10,14;133:11,\n质押（16） 此前（1） 116:9 24:11 12\n107:8,12,15;108:4; 79:4 Province（省）（1） 宁可（1） 记录的（1）\n\n109:6,22,22;110:23, 价格（26） 117:9 125:15 61:3\n24;111:19,23;112:7, 84:5,24;85:14,15; Public（公众）（1） 达到（1） 录音（1）\n11;121:22;122:2,13 89:15,16,17;91:7,23, 133:25 69:3 60:11\n已质押（15） 24;92:5,7;93:2,11; 宣传（1） 达成（2） 引用（1）\n107:3,5;108:7,10; 94:23,25;96:16,22; 115:3 68:23,25 118:16\n110:2,10,14;111:15, 97:2,8,11;98:16;99:2, 公开地（1） 阅读（9） 提及（8）\n16;112:9,19;113:4,10, 11;100:5,9 94:25 34:17;35:10,16,19; 42:10;46:22,24,25;\n18;122:12 Printout（打印件）（3） 拉（1） 70:10;71:3;83:6; 57:23,24,25;95:12\n质押（1） 59:15,20;88:16 86:22 98:22;133:8 指称（1）\n121:22 监狱（14） 购买（32） 阅读（1） 95:10\n下午（9） 27:25;41:8,9;79:4; 28:2;32:24;39:6,18; 70:15 反映（1）\n81:19,21;82:3; 87:11;90:16,18;91:4, 40:7,24;42:11;44:8,9, 读作（1） 62:15\n113:24;114:5;127:3, 15;106:21;114:23; 14;47:18;49:25;50:9, 60:4 反映（1）\n6;132:15,16 115:4,11,13 12,20;52:4;53:2,6,15, 真实（12） 94:25\n要点（4） 囚犯（3） 20;54:13;56:16;57:6; 12:24;45:5;61:5; 刷新（3）\n\n17:5;32:4;109:20; 120:23;121:3,6 73:11;75:9,22;77:14; 66:8;74:4;85:2; 57:2;83:18;89:11\n118:21 私人的（1） 84:2,5,24;89:23;91:7 114:14;116:16,21; 拒绝（1）\n毒药（1） 59:22 已购买（4） 117:16,24;118:7 73:7\n23:2 特权（4） 48:16;84:15;85:4,9 确实（38） 拒绝（25）\n警察（5） 17:22;18:15;78:18; 购买者（2） 22:7,17;23:14,16; 58:24;59:5;60:20;\n115:16,17;116:2,3, 109:11 85:22;101:9 31:20;32:19;33:14; 61:10;69:25;71:2,3;\n9 享有特权的（2） 购买者（3） 34:23;35:7,7,8,25; 72:7,18,25;78:19;\n礼貌的（1） 17:17;123:25 99:23;100:3,4 36:19;37:17;39:5,13; 80:6;102:19;116:18;\n政治的（3） 有问题的（1） 购买（3） 40:5,21;42:8;45:11; 117:22;118:6,11;\n120:23;121:3,6 43:14 33:6;56:21;114:18 46:19;48:9,19;54:17; 122:21,25;123:4;\n受欢迎的（1） 程序（2） 目的（1） 65:6;67:20;79:18; 124:14,15;126:5;\n89:3 117:2;126:4 130:3 81:13,17;83:5,20; 128:13;129:10\n立场（3） 过程（1） 追求（1） 84:16;85:12;105:17, 拒绝（3）\n103:5;117:3;125:14 33:3 100:21 18;110:13;118:20; 71:9;72:3;102:20\n占有（1） 制作（3） 放置（11） 123:9 关于（7）\n119:19 34:3;82:15;130:4 13:12,21;29:3; Realtorcom（房地产网站）（2） 15:15;18:25;19:9;\n可能（3） 制作（1） 35:18;59:23;89:13; 88:15;89:4 68:19;73:22;80:18;\n22:9;44:18;130:12 130:7 100:8;107:6,7; 理由（5） 87:2\n发布（2） 制作（2） 129:24;131:16 10:3;22:25;24:24; 相关（3）\n\n32:7,10 粗俗语言（2） 36:6 理由（2） 有关（1）\n已发布（1） 12:17,25 63:10;71:23 68:12\n57:12 项目（2） 问 回忆起（4） 与……有关（12）\n潜在的（2） 47:21;93:24 80:19;104:24; 11:4,6,14;13:14,25;\n100:4;101:9 发音（1） Qiang（强）（4） 123:5;126:16 34:2;60:3;108:24;\n惯例（1） 41:14 63:20,23;64:7; 收到（1） 111:23;118:13,18;\n126:20 证据（1） 121:11 55:13 129:17\n精确地（1） 60:7 Q-I-A-N-G（2） 休庭（5） 关系（5）\n115:2 Properties（物业）（1） 63:21;121:11 23:21;45:18;81:20; 13:10;64:2;81:12,\n准备工作（3） 67:10 迅速的（1） 113:25;127:4 15;102:4\n15:6,7,13 专有的（4） 113:20 回想起（1） 关系（22）\n准备（3） 48:7;123:7,19; 迅速地（1） 98:23 28:16;38:24,25;\n15:4,9;23:7 126:15 86:21 回忆（4） 39:4,16,20;40:3,8,14,\n已准备（1） 保护性（1） 相当（9） 25:16;57:3;83:19; 23;44:23;45:2;46:9;\n24:13 132:2 11:8;16:13;36:2; 89:11 51:17,20;61:6;66:15,\n出席（6） 证明（3） 76:12;92:17;102:11; 记录（37） 21;67:2;116:24;\n3:3;15:22;16:10,12, 60:25;61:4,7 108:11,12;111:17 7:17,20;9:19;12:19; 117:17;120:11\n16;19:11 已证明（2） 13:12,22;23:20,23; 相关性（1）\n提出（1） 58:16;61:18 R 24:2;45:17,21;59:9, 102:7\n76:23 提供（10） 11,12,14,23;62:14; 记得（72）\n主席（1）\n\n21:15;25:21;26:11; R2（4） 63:11;70:11;71:17, 16:13,14,14;17:14;\n67:21\n媒体（4） 47:17;73:8;98:4,7;\n119:21,25;128:5 108:16,16,17;\n121:23 22;81:19;82:2;\n113:24;114:5,6; 34:23;35:8;39:20;\n42:15;47:25;48:14;\n\nMin-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC（Ellen Grauer法庭记录公司，有限责任公司）（9） 承诺－记得\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 449 of 452\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵） October 3, 2018\n\n51:8;56:23;57:4; 保留（2） 19:3,11 17:7,11,14,25;18:25; 74:6,14;81:7\n\n74:10,11,18,18;76:3, 61:23,24 Roscalitar（9） 19:9;25:2,22,25;26:8, 股东（1）\n7,22;77:2;81:9;82:22, 已保留（1） 108:13,15,17,24; 12;58:13 65:8\n\n23;83:2,5,7;84:13,14, 6:10 110:3,10;121:23; 第二（7） 股份（1）\n16,17,19;85:12;86:13, 住所（27） 122:3,12 40:15;59:9;78:16; 48:6\n18;87:4,19;88:2,3,11, 11:5;13:6;27:9,12, 轮次（1） 89:8;126:8;130:10,13 记录页（2）\n12;92:17;94:14,17; 15;28:3,4,6,13;32:24; 118:13 秘书（1） 76:17;79:24\n96:19;98:19,24;99:6, 37:16,21,22;38:4; RQ（1） 31:12 Sherry（雪莉）（7）\n\n7,19,21;100:19; 39:19;40:7,25;52:4; 129:11 证券（3） 32:14;44:8,13;\n103:10,11,15;104:5,8; 53:8;56:16;86:16; 初步的（1） 114:14,15,17 49:17,25;50:20;80:16\n105:4;108:12;111:11; 103:9,14;105:12,23; 83:17 安保（5） Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）（66）\n115:2;116:13;121:19, 106:9;112:4 规则（1） 18:10;19:10;22:20, 11:6,16;13:7;27:10,\n20,23;122:18,24; 居民（1） 9:10 24;107:8 13;28:13;29:10,15,\n\n123:8;124:18,20; 80:16 经营（1） 看到（3） 19;30:4,14,20;31:2,7;\n127:9,16 尊重（2） 22:10 74:11,18;131:2 寻求（3） 32:9,13,16,19,24;\n记得（1） 42:3;96:7 Russ（拉斯）（1） 124:22;125:10; 33:5;34:4;37:16;38:4;\n94:12 各自的（1） 8:5 131:5 12;52:4;56:16;57:6;\n偿还（1） 6:5 S 片段（1） 73:10,22;74:7,9,15;\n\n127:20 回应（6） 21:17,18;26:12,16, 28:25 出售（6） 扣押（7） 20,24;77:13;79:25;\n重复（5） 21:17,18;26:12,16, 20,25 89:13;93:21;101:3, 67:24;68:16;72:14; 80:15,21;84:3,21;\n22:23;23:4;49:16; 回应（1） 6,12;102:13 73:3;122:20,24;123:3 86:5,10,15,20;87:2;\n50:6,6 119:22 相同（28） 实施扣押（2） 89:7;103:13;105:6;\n\n改述（1） 答复（3） 6:6,15;29:18;30:3; 70:23;122:19 110:6,10;118:15;\n113:16 72:24;112:12;129:9 59:3,3;61:11;62:8,8; 扣押行为（1） 120:2,14;123:7,18;\n记录员（3） 答复（2） 64:7,9;70:3,3,7,7; 72:20 124:23;125:4\n7:15,22;82:12 27:4,8 71:23;72:5,5,16,16, 出售（3） Shiny（闪耀）（15）\n记录工作（1） 责任（1） 21,21;73:5,5;93:15; 59:22;87:8;91:8 10:24;38:24;39:10,\n115:5 62:13 120:8;129:6,6 卖方（8） 16;40:4,8,23;46:3,7,\n代表（10） 重组（1） Sara（萨拉）（1） 85:16,19,22;93:25; 23;47:5,6;51:17;67:5,\n7:21;9:2;29:5; 104:25 8:2 95:2,5,10,18 8\n\n49:23;50:19;64:17, 重组（1） SARNOFF（萨尔诺夫）（7） 出售（3） 肩膀（1）\n23;75:15;76:15; 105:7 7:25,25;12:18;34:8; 89:15;95:6;114:18 79:4\n119:13 审查（6） 70:16;128:2;132:8 感觉（1） 显示（2）\n陈述（2） 55:11,17;69:22; Saw（看见）（3） 61:14 61:21;132:6\n80:20;122:13 86:20;123:14,22 94:21,22;116:4 判刑（1） 显示了（1）\n代表（18） 已审查（1） 说（4） 126:12 115:22\n\n10:8;31:8;32:6; 123:13 21:21;23:5,15; 单独的（1） 显示（2）\n38:25;39:3,16;42:8, 审查中（2） 57:18 120:6 119:5;120:11\n13,17;46:8,22;47:8; 124:5,18 诈骗（1） 分开的（1） 已显示（1）\n50:9,18;53:3;54:9; 荒谬的（2） 21:7 21:24 115:21\n93:23;96:6 24:22;55:2 奖学金（1） September（九月）（1） 显示（1）\n代表们（4） 权利（29） 84:25 89:3 119:7\n31:2;32:16;33:4; 30:8;32:25;33:13; 范围（16） 严重的（1） Shui（水）（2）\n42:7 36:2;39:17;43:9;48:8; 13:19;14:9;58:7,18; 95:5 87:2,4\n被代表（8） 55:8;56:17;61:23,24; 62:9;68:2,6,12;69:2; 严重地（2） 一方（2）\n31:3;49:24;57:13; 62:22,22,25;63:4,5; 102:9;103:2;117:3; 61:20;100:18 113:2;131:24\n60:15;78:9;81:6; 68:21;78:7;79:18; 126:3;128:14,16,24 严重性（1） 签署（5）\n93:16;122:11 82:25;87:18;88:22, 密封（2） 95:2 36:8,10;98:15;\n代表（7） 23;93:12;101:7; 6:6;115:17 服务（2） 123:10;126:20\n\n24:3;50:11,23,25; 103:5;111:20,24; 搜查（7） 98:5,7 已签署（11）\n56:19,20;93:25 112:4 22:10;23:13;25:17; 数个（4） 6:13,15;51:13;\n代表（2） ring（戒指）（1） 26:2,8,15,19 20:12,13,16;24:9 58:12;123:6,12,17,23;\n64:15,20 108:15 抢劫犯（2） 应当（2） 125:2;126:14;133:20\n请求（7） robbery（抢劫）（1） 已搜查（8） 6:9,19 签署（3）\n11:5,15;26:13; 125:2,5 20:24;21:17;22:5, 份额（1） 36:9;98:25;123:8\n53:12;62:4;119:23; 角色（7） 12,15;23:11;25:2,22 44:9 简单的（2）\n125:11 42:3;52:25;53:3,15; 搜查（1） 已分享（1） 61:16;125:6\n已请求（2） 66:9;67:16,19 83:17 74:9 最简单的（1）\n52:13,20 房间（6） 搜寻（2） 股东（9） 118:25\n请求（1） 17:20,23;18:13,19; 22:13;26:24\n13:5 42:21;46:17;65:2; SEARLES（瑟尔斯）（16）\n请求（4） 77:20 8:6,6;15:15;16:6; 姐妹（1）\n21:19;26:17,21,25 31:25;32:5;36:4;\n62:16 20:23\n\nMin-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC（Ellen Grauer法庭记录公司，有限责任公司）（10） 记得－姐妹\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 450 of 452\n\n坐（3） 说话（5） 62:16 20:23\n20:12;79:9;130:17 32:19;55:22;86:2; 停止（1） T 暴徒（1）\n坐着（3） 121:4,6 62:16 21:8\n24:25;79:13;83:3 说话（6） 策略（1） 桌子（1） Times（时报）（17）\n情况（1）\n107:25 19:18,24;20:20;\n21:24;46:6;121:7 100:21\n严格地（1） 131:25 10:24;17:9;38:24;\n39:10,16;40:4,8,23;\nSix（六）（2） 专家（1） 121:7 谈话（2） 46:3,7,23;47:5,6;\n18:22;86:16 7:14 罢工（2） 55:21;91:9 51:17;67:5,9;94:11\n睡眠（1） 具体地（2） 21:15;91:7 谈过（3） 时机（1）\n79:18 23:14;44:17 强有力的（1） 28:9;58:2;127:16 57:2\n睡着（1） 细节（1） 80:24 谈论（7） 今天（19）\n79:19 37:18 结构（6） 46:2,20;47:6,8,23;\n65:24;111:11 7:11,15;8:25;10:4;\nSloan（斯隆）（26） 讲话（1） 11:7;51:25;53:2,6, Tape（录音带）（4） 11:13;15:5,15;27:7;\n84:22,23,25,25; 22:22 15,20 45:19;57:13;81:24; 35:19,23;71:3;83:3;\n93:20;94:3,6,15,24; 拼写（3） 结构化的（2） 114:3 116:19;127:17;\n95:4,10,17,20;96:7, 27:18;41:19;63:22 52:11;54:12 税（1） 129:15;130:7,8,9;\n17;97:5,7,9,10,15; 花费（2） Stuart（斯图尔特）（1） 61:3 131:13\n98:15,24;99:8; 86:15;90:2 7:25 税款（1） 今日的（2）\n100:18,20;103:12 说过（5） 主题（1） 89:24 130:25;132:13\nSN（6） 84:23;86:3;91:6; 58:21 团队（1） 一起（3）\n34:13;35:10;73:23; 109:16;112:6 提交（3） 108:6 55:24;90:4;120:9\n76:15;80:12;81:5 已说过（3） 77:12;79:25;86:4 电话（1） 告诉（19）\n软件（1） 91:16,20;94:3 已认购（1） 91:16 17:15;20:18;24:22;\n93:6 Spring（春季）（26） 133:20 暂时地（1） 78:14;90:22;96:5;\n已售（5） 3:6;8:9;51:20; 实质（2） 16:3 97:9,15;99:15;104:6;\n32:4;84:20;87:13; 63:12,13,16,17,18,19; 实质性的（1） 111:14;112:8 租户（4） 107:22,24;109:7,22,\n90:3,6 64:5,11,13,24;65:3,8, 60:12 74:6,9,15;81:8 25;110:22;111:19;\n唯一的（5）\n31:25;36:4,12; 12,25;66:5,7,10,14,\n20,25;67:13,17; 成功地（1） 终止（2） 112:23;113:2\n主题（1）\n46:17;65:2 116:14 79:21 122:3,14 116:19\n仅仅（1） SS（1） 起诉（1） 作证（6） 触及（1）\n71:7 133:4 61:23 8:20;39:14;117:8; 87:11\n某人（6） 盖章（2） 被起诉（2） 125:20;126:13; 笔录（2）\n17:10;32:8;91:11; 73:23;82:15 11:19;107:19 129:15 133:8,10\n100:8;117:13;121:10 站立（1） 建议（2） 作证（4）\n10:4;17:19;71:19, 转让（2）\n某人（2） 117:20 25:15;91:17 21 103:8;104:13\n33:6;103:16 标准（1） 自杀（2） 正在作证（4） 转让（1）\n某个时候（1） 15:7 61:15,19 9:7;10:7,15,20 103:13\n有时（4） 站立（2） 起诉（1） 证词（12） 翻译（1）\n18:6,7;27:14;90:18 79:12;114:7 127:18 46:11,13,15;121:2; 75:24\n儿子（20） 开始（1） 诉讼（1） 122:24;126:16;128:9, 翻译（5）\n41:12,23;42:2; 39:22 12:7 17;129:3,4;133:8,11 12:18;43:14;47:4;\n51:22;64:3,7,8,14,15, State（州）（6） 支持（2） 感谢（1） 55:13;71:15\n17,20,23;65:2;103:9, 7:7,19,20;10:21; 7:13,16 130:15 对待（2）\n14;105:8,9;121:13, 133:3,25 Supreme（最高）（1） 他们的（1） 131:9,13\n15;132:7 陈述（3）\n40:3;63:10;94:24 7:6\n当然（29） 108:22 审判（2）\n6:10;90:19\n很快（1） 陈述（4） 11:12;24:18;25:11; 第三（2） 尝试（2）\n127:12 14:4;71:16;82:5,13 40:2,5,13,17;42:6,25; 17:19;75:11 24:12;103:8\n抱歉（24） 陈述（1） 43:9,11;44:4,7,16; 虽然（3） 真实的（3）\n12:22;22:24;23:16; 60:16 46:19;50:4;54:18,22; 40:19;131:7,8\n认为（6） 72:12;133:10,12\n31:10;35:25;39:23; 州（1） 65:6,11,16;67:20; 29:24;35:23;46:25; 真正地（1）\n43:7,10,15,21;60:22; 74:3 68:11;69:23;75:23; 47:8;63:3;70:18 83:5\n62:24;70:14,19; Steven（史蒂文）（2） 77:21;81:13;88:24; 想法（1） 信托（3）\n74:19;79:3;83:7;84:7; 88:11,23 117:7 101:25 94:9;105:3,8\n115:8,9;121:16; Stevenson（史蒂文森）（1） 宣誓（1） 千（1） 真相（3）\n124:11;131:15,18 88:21 7:22 19:23 51:3;128:5,7\n种类（3） 仍然（4） 已宣誓（4） 数千（5） 如实地（2）\n39:10,19;40:7 9:22;45:10;90:14; 6:13,16;8:12,18 20:11,19;56:12; 10:4;24:23\n寻求（1） 104:16 语法（1） 57:21,22 尝试（9）\n12:8 STIPULATED（约定）（4） 12:7 威胁（2） 13:3;21:14,18;\n声音（2） 6:3,7,11,17 21:10;62:12 22:15;32:22;56:14;\n87:18;88:21 停止（1） 三（1） 78:20;113:15;128:8\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） Case 22-50073 Doc 1269 Filed 12/28/22 Entered 12/28/22 14:09:15 Page 451 of 452\n\nMILES KWOK（郭文贵） October 3, 2018\n\n尝试（14） 20:9,13,21,23;21:2, WeChat（微信）（1） 132:6,7 92:20,23;93:7,15,\n\n14:12;22:18;23:6; 3;41:20;54:9 93:5 妻子的 (1) 18,19;97:14;99:15\n52:17;56:25;57:2; 使用 (1) 周 (1) 77:20 X-U (1)\n71:18,20,21;104:13; 52:3 92:18 William（威廉）(5) 92:21\n109:13;117:16; 使用 (4) Wei（魏）(98) 31:14;50:18;75:15;\n128:17;130:8 19:14;20:2,5;65:18 27:16,19,22,24; 97:16;98:7 Y\n转向 (1) 通常 (1) 28:2,18;29:2;31:9; Williams（威廉斯）(13)\n80:12 79:11 32:10,12,15;33:7,18; 50:22;51:5,9,14; 游艇 (1)\n两次 (1) 36:23;41:7,8;42:20; 73:25;75:6,19;76:5,9; 59:22\n91:16 V 44:22,24;46:5,9; 80:13,13,19;81:4 Yan（严）(4)\n两个 (6) 47:17,20;48:16; 撤回 (1) 55:24;112:20;\n24:25;54:13;58:2; 韦尔 (2) 49:13,23;50:2,8,12, 19:18 113:13;115:21\n79:19;88:3;118:12 13:14;14:19 16,17,21;51:2,4,6,11; 在……之内 (3) Y-A-N (2)\n类型 (2) 诉 (1) 52:6;53:13;56:6,15, 6:12,18;92:18 56:2;112:21\n20:2;42:16 7:6 18,19,20;57:5;64:23; 没有 (2) Yang（杨）(9)\n类型 (5) 视频 (15) 75:8,16,21;77:7,18, 126:15,22 92:20,23;93:7,15,\n20:8,13,19,21; 7:14;57:10,13,20; 19;81:13;82:18; 证人 (29) 18,19;97:15;99:15;\n114:15 58:15;59:2,24;61:8, 84:17;85:8,18;87:10, 6:20;7:22;8:18; 103:23\n10;62:7,16,17,21; 14;89:18;90:16;91:6, 17:17;18:16;19:4,13; Y-A-N-G (2)\nU 131:21;132:3 9,21;92:11,24;93:16; 22:24;58:9,20;60:20; 92:22;103:24\n摄像师 (15) 94:4,6,11;97:6,6,7,20; 61:12;63:7,9;68:3; YAOYING（姚英）(1)\n瑞银集团（UBS）(2) 3:5;7:2;23:19,22; 98:2,6,6;99:12;\n103:19;106:16,18,19, 71:24;75:24;114:7;\n117:5,11,19;118:2,9; 3:4\n82:4,13\n最终 (1) 45:16,19;59:10,13;\n81:18,23;113:23; 20;108:6;114:10; 127:9,14;128:12; 年 (4)\n93:10;97:8;104:17,\n106:4 114:2;127:2,5;132:12 115:13,19;116:20; 130:19,24;132:6 22\n最终 (4) 视频 (2) 117:8,13,18,23; Wong（黄）(1) 年 (1)\n37:22;105:13,24; 61:4,21 118:16;119:2;120:7, 88:21 114:11\n106:10 录像记录的 (1) 11,16;125:16;129:17 词语 (3) 是/否 (3)\n不能 (2) 7:3 W-E-I (1) 91:12;93:16;127:25 46:10;78:21;124:7\n22:3;35:12 观点 (1) 27:17 词语 (2) 昨天 (2)\n不清楚 (1) 95:17 Wei 的 (15) 43:13;61:8 15:18;17:24\n46:16 维珍 (7) 28:16;31:9,12;75:7, 工作 (2) Yong（勇）(6)\n在……之下 (4) 10:17,25;33:13; 20;77:23;85:24; 46:5;104:16 103:16,20,21,22;\n9:7;24:5;33:12; 52:3;53:8;54:14; 87:20;96:10;97:14; 工作过 (5) 104:13,16\n133:9 107:3 116:5;118:22,24; 49:17;97:20; Y-O-N-G (2)\n基础的 (1) 凭借 (1) 119:7;122:7 103:17,18,19 纽约 (32)\n14:2 110:25 Weiss（魏斯）(21) 工作 (5) 7:7,8;10:21;37:5;\n理解 (2) 声音 (1) 31:16,17;49:14,19; 21:9;27:20;45:3,4; 47:24;52:2;53:7,9;\n24:20;25:13 58:25 50:8,11,19,22;51:5,9, 89:21 54:13;63:12,14,17;\n理解了 (2) 声音 (2) 14;74:4;75:6,15,19; 世界 (1) 64:11;65:22;66:4,10,\n9:15;46:4 58:15;60:8 76:4,9,19;78:8,14,22 21:10 14,20;67:5,9;68:13,\n不幸的是 (1) Wen（温）(1) 写 (1) 20,24;69:13;83:23;\n130:12 W 90:22 78:12 86:7,11,17;98:12;\n除非 (5) W-E-N (1) 写 (1) 80:14 104:20;111:2;133:3\n9:23;24:7;60:25; 等待 (2) 90:24 书面的 (3) YouTube（优兔）(7)\n61:4,6 9:17,18 Wengui（文贵）(1) 119:15;120:7,10 57:10,19;58:15,25;\n不必要的 (2) 放弃的 (1) 59:21 错误的 (2) 59:16,20,24\n101:18,20 6:6 什么的 (2) 65:17;94:13 Yu（于）(1)\n无关的 (1) Wan（万）(2) WhatsApp（WhatsApp）(1) 不当的 (1) 103:25\n116:19 73:23;74:5 20:6 120:20 Y-U (1)\n不安全的 (1) Wang（王）(8) 无论何种 (1) 不当地 (1) 104:2\n91:19 18:6,13;55:24,24; 46:9 120:19 Yuda（宇达）(5)\n不确定 (1) 107:22;112:20; 休庭时 (1) Wu（吴）(2) 116:16,21;117:15,\n51:24 113:13;115:21 60:18 69:17,20 24;118:7\n向上 (7) W-A-N-G (2) 哇 (2) W-U (1) Yue（岳）(3)\n43:8;89:13;94:10; 56:2;112:21 109:9,9 69:17 103:20,20,22\n107:6;112:12;128:22; 浪费 (3) 整个 (4) Wu 的 (1) Y-U-E (1)\n132:5 12:14;24:14,14 21:10;24:16;29:3; 70:22 103:20\n上传 (2) 方式 (12) 54:10 Yvette（伊薇特）(18)\n60:10,14 32:22;36:6;43:16; 谁的 (1) X 18:6,13;56:4;67:16;\n厄巴纳 (1) 52:14,21;53:2,7,16, 99:10 Xu（徐）(8) 107:22;109:5,6,22,25;\n67:10 20;68:25;78:21; 妻子 (2) 110:22;111:19;112:6,\n使用 (8) 131:13\n\nMin-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC（Min-U-Script® Ellen Grauer Court Reporting Co., LLC）(12) 尝试 - 伊薇特\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）诉 KWOK HO WAN（郭文贵） 案号 22-50073 文件 1269 提交日期 12/28/22 登记日期 12/28/22 14:09:15 第 452 页，共 452 页\n\n121:21;122:6\n35:10\n2016 (5)\n\n05 (1)\n87:9;91:23;92:8;\nZ\n90:12\n94:23;103:17\n2017 (1)\n7 (1)\n\nZenith（Zenith）(23)\n122:3\n89:5\n69:15;72:14,20;\n2018 (7)\n78 (12)\n7:12;60:3;69:14;\n91:25;92:4,8;93:2;\n73:9;76:18,23;77:5,8,\n1 (5)\n11,16,24;78:6,11,24;\n93:10;98:15;133:9,21\n33:19,20;34:7,8,9\n94:24;96:22;97:2,8,\n27 (1)\n79:24;80:2;91:13,14;\n10:07 (1)\n11;98:17;99:2,11\n73:20\n92:14;103:19;116:14;\n23:20\n\n122:19,23\n10:19 (1)\n28 (2)\n零 (1)\n23:23\n70:12,20\n35:13\n10:59 (1)\n29 (1)\n800 (1)\nZhang（张）(113)\n45:17\n15:11\n67:6\n27:16,19,22,24;\n100 (2)\n85 (5)\n\n28:2,16,18;29:2;31:9,\n28:22;120:8\n90:5;91:25;92:4,8;\n9,12;32:10,12,15;\n11 (2)\n96:22\n33:6,18;36:23;41:7,8;\n70:10,18\n3 (7)\n89 (1)\n42:20;44:22,24;46:5,\n11:18 (1)\n7:11;69:7,12;81:24;\n79:5\n9;47:17,20;48:16;\n45:22\n89:25;90:7;133:9\n\n49:13,23;50:2,8,11,\n11:43 (1)\n3:00 (1)\n16,17,21,25;51:4,6,\n59:11\n130:7\n11;52:6;53:12;56:6,\n11:44 (1)\n3:13 (1)\n9:39 (1)\n15,18,19,20;57:5;\n59:14\n127:6\n7:18\n64:23;75:7,8,16,20,\n12:25 (2)\n3:22 (2)\n90 (1)\n21;77:7,18,19,23;\n81:19,20\n132:15,16\n77:21\n81:13;82:18;84:17;\n12:57 (1)\n30 (2)\n85:8,18,24;87:10,14,\n36:9;125:2\n82:3\n20;89:18;90:16;91:6,\n13 (4)\n31 (1)\n9,21;92:11,24;93:16;\n34:21;35:4;70:16,\n76:17\n94:3,6,10;96:9;97:6,6,\n\n38 (1)\n7,14,20;98:2,6,6;\n15 (1)\n114:11\n99:12;103:19;106:16,\n60:4\n\n18,19,20;108:6;\n16 (1)\n114:10;115:13,19;\n60:3\n116:5,20;117:8,13,18,\n18th (2)\n4 (3)\n23;118:16,22,24;\n48:8;89:8\n73:15,20;114:3\n119:2,7;120:7,11,16;\n\n122:7;125:16;129:17\nZ-H-A-N-G (1)\n27:17\n2 (10)\n5 (2)\nZheng（郑）(2)\n45:19;59:15,20;\n82:4,12\n69:16;87:24\n108:15,17,24;110:3,\n510 (1)\nZ-H-E-N-G (2)\n10;121:23;122:12\n82:15\n69:16;87:25\n2:02 (1)\n56 (2)\nZhengzhou（郑州）(2)\n113:24\n70:10,17\n31:18;114:20\n2:28 (1)\n\n114:5\nZ-H-E-N-G-Z-H-O-U (2)\n31:19;114:22\n2:55 (1)\n127:3\n6 (5)\n\n2013 (1)\n84:11;88:13,15,25;\n87:9\n89:24\n0058 (1)\n2014 (1)\n652077-2017 (1)\n73:23\n76:17\n7:9\n0060 (1)\n2015 (25)\n66.2 (1)\n76:15\n28:4;32:23;34:21;\n84:8\n0062 (1)\n35:4;42:12;44:3;\n67 (1)\n81:5\n45:13;56:17,22;\n84:12\n0063 (1)\n70:12,20;72:13;\n67.5 (2)\n80:12\n73:12,21;74:16;77:4,\n89:23;90:12\n0159 (1)\n17;84:6;87:18;89:5,\n68 (7) 24;113:9,17;115:22; 0161 (1) 99:17;114:25 98:17;99:2,11\n\n34:13 12;90:21;91:20; 90:12;97:2,8,11;","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Guo","Saraca","CIPA","GTV","Chinese Communist Party","CCP","Despins","Yanping Wang","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","Wang Yanping","William Je"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":77,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":78,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":79,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":913,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":124535,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-12-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-12-28","updated_at":"2026-08-24 00:50:43"}